Now It’s Your Turn to Help Me!!! Getting lawyers to sign up on common registry.

Every day dozens of people call me asking for referrals to attorneys. I have tried everything I think of to get attorneys to sign up, give resumes, etc. All I want to do is set up something like an Angie’s list for foreclosure defense lawyers. If any of you have an idea about how to do this, even if it is your own venture, that will be fine. I’m not looking to make money on this. I just want to provide the service to people.

Please send email to with some sort of business plan to set up a system where homeowners can get the help they need.

31 Responses

  1. Statutory Trust Entity Act Summary
    The Uniform Statutory Trust Entity Act (USTEA) was drafted in response to the increasing popularity of statutory trust entities, chiefly in the mutual fund and structured finance industries. Increasing use of the statutory trust as a mode of business organization has led to a recognition that in many states the status of such trusts is unclear and that the existing legislation is largely out-of-date or unclear. Practitioners, entrepreneurs, and scholars struggle to understand the law governing statutory trusts, and case law on the topic is sparse. The USTEA brings clarity and uniformity to the law pertaining to statutory trusts.

    Relationship to Common-Law Trusts and the Uniform Trust Code. A statutory trust differs from a common-law trust in several important respects. A common-law trust arises from a private action without the involvement of a public official. Because a common-law trust is not a juridical entity, it must sue, be sued, and transact in the name of the trustee and in the trustee’s capacity as such. By contrast, a statutory trust is a juridical entity, separate from its trustees and beneficial owners. It has the capacity to sue, be sued and transact on its own. The USTEA validates the statutory trust as a permissible form of business organization, resolving the uncertainty surrounding such trusts in states with inadequate or no statutory rules, and it brings the disparate state laws into uniformity.

    Common law trusts, including those that have a business or commercial purpose, are subject to the common law of trusts and the Uniform Trust Code to the extent that neither the trust instrument nor other legislation displaces the common law or UTC. There is no separate body of general business law that applies to a common law trust that has a business purpose. The USTEA is not a codification of general business law principles applicable to common-law business trusts. Therefore, nothing in this Act displaces the common law of trusts, or the UTC, with respect to such trusts. Instead the USTEA recognizes the statutory trust as a separate and permissible form of organization.

    The USTEA will be used primarily as a mode of business organization, but could also be used, in limited circumstances (see Section 603(a)), as a substitute for the common-law trust in noncommercial contexts. To ensure that a statutory trust is not used to evade mandatory rules under the common-law or the UTC applicable to common-law trusts, the USTEA provides that a statutory trust may not have a predominantly donative purpose.

    Innovative Provisions. The USTEA contains several innovations including:

    1. Specified rules that cannot be overridden in the statutory trust’s governing instrument;
    2. Clearer guidance on the applicability of ordinary trust law to a statutory trust;
    3. Prohibition against a statutory trust having a predominantly donative purpose;
    4. An entire article on series trusts;
    5. A charging order provision;
    6. Systematic treatment of conversion and merger, as well as dissolution; and
    7. Clearer guidance on the relationship between the common-law trust and statutory trust entities.

    Default and Mandatory Rules. Most of the USTEA consists of default rules that apply only if the governing instrument does not address a particular issue.

    Uniformity of Application and Construction. Consideration must be given to the need to promote uniformity in this area of law, which USTEA satisfies.

    beneficial owner or trustee may not obtain possession of, or otherwise exercise legal or equitable
    remedies with respect to, the property of a statutory trust or any series thereof.
    Principal Sources – Delaware Statutory Trust Act § 3805 (2009); Uniform Limited
    Partnership Act § 701 (2001); Uniform Trust Code § 507 (2000); Uniform Limited Liability
    Company Act § 501 (1996); Revised Uniform Partnership Act § 203 (1997).
    By confirming that a creditor of a beneficial owner or a trustee has no recourse against
    the property of the statutory trust, this section implements the concept that a statutory trust is an
    entity separate from its trustees and beneficial owners.
    With respect to a trustee, the rule of this section is familiar from the operation of
    common-law trusts. See Uniform Trust Code § 507 (2000); Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 42,
    cmt. c (2003); Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 308 (1959). The rule of this section is also
    consistent with federal bankruptcy law. Property in which a trustee holds legal title as trustee is
    not part of the trustee’s bankruptcy estate. See 11 U.S.C. § 541(d) (2009).
    With respect to a beneficial owner, the parallel provision in the Delaware Statutory Trust
    Act is discussed in Wendell Fenton & Eric A. Mazie, Delaware Statutory Trusts § 19.4, in 2 R.
    Franklin Balotti & Jesse A. Finkelstein, The Delaware Law of Corporations and Business
    Organizations (3d ed. 2009 Supp.).

  3. david b – you’ve been posting a lot of interesting stuff. It’s entirely irksome to me that a lot of it’s over my own head. But this one seems to be definitive easily enough as something the trust won’t take:

    “b) all Mortgage Loans, including first and second lien mortgage loans, Whole Loans, pipeline loans and HELOCs owned or held by Sellers that are not specifically identified as Purchased Assets;”

    I take this to mean that the trust won’t accept any of the above which are not identified as purchased assets on the SELLER’S books. I see a distinction being made here between, say, an assignment to the seller or a contract to purchase involving the seller and assets actually purchased (with appropriate consideration paid) and sitting on the seller’s books as purchased assets, and thus rules out any assets defined and described in any executory contract between the seller to the trust and the seller to the seller.

    Executory contract:

    “An executory contract is a contract under which one or more parties has not yet performed. A non-executory contract is one which has been performed already.”

    So if the seller has a contract to ‘purchase and assume’ X loans (as demonstrated in one of the “missing” documents in this fiasco imo), this won’t cut it for sale to the trust. The deal must have been consummated between the seller and his own seller (such that the seller to the trust’s interest has become a purchased asset on his books : The seller to the trust can’t take the trust’s funds, then, to complete the purchase with the guy he’s buying from.

    NG says banksters took the investors’ money to fund loans at the closing table, essentially. And maybe they did. Or maybe they didn’t, but no one ever actually purchased the closed loans (that is, changed the executory contract to a completed contract by mutual performance) until they got the trust’s money, which by this agreement appears to be prohibited. So someone funded the loan, probably or maybe using a warehouse line of credit = no harm no foul yet if one doesn’t for now consider whether or not the named payee is in fact the party with the right to payment under the note and or the dynamics of (non-trust) source of funds not coming from the identified note-payee) Call the guy who got the warehouse loan to fund the loan ‘B’ (B is or isn’t the payee named on the note). B and C and then C and D enter into purchase and assumption agreements which remain executory until they get the investors’ funds. Then D pays C who pays B who pays off the warehouse line if he’s the guy who got it to fund the loan. If not, he pays A. Even this, however, assumes there’s a B to D or an A to D.
    This psa says no dice: the trust will only purchase loans which the seller has already paid for himself (v has the right to complete a transaction) and the loans sit on his books as the result of a completed purchase.
    But so what? If I can find some ‘dirt’ here, imagine what those who know this stuff (like “DIP agreements” – me: no time to research) can come up with. But who cares? Courts will just say it’s of no consequence to one party to a different agreement, the mortgage loan one, if the trust claims to have purchased loans not actually owned by the seller. (Course, then one could get into the assgts being executed today as current events, but still, courts not likely to care with their sole reliance being on poss of a bearer note and the coll instrument being assigned by “mers”), ignoring the fact that these assignments are merely the (alleged) culmination of critical but missing agreements (here I’d recommend thinking about when one sells his own home – the deed is the culmination of the agreement to buy and sell. There’s no deed without a DEAL to execute it. But when alleged reliance is simply on article III of the UCC, it appears one may act as if that deal didn’t exist and has no relevance even if it did since the negotiation (v transfer) of the note is the bomb, and apparently, as to commerce, this was the intent of article III, but imo it’s not the manner of movement of these notes purposefully prescribed in the note itself tp restrict enforcement to those who had taken by transfer and had the right to payment).
    I suspect that the reason for this provision in the psa, long and very short, is that the trust is prohibited as a matter of law from doing otherwise. But courts have – widely at least – already shown us they care not for enforcing the law relevant to these deals in favor of no free homes to borrowers, as if that will keep the economy churning (a mere presumption as it’s a ‘fact’ not at all in evidence).

  4. under the ocwen psa ,

    Section 2.3 Excluded Assets. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary,
    Sellers will not sell, assign, convey, transfer or deliver to Purchaser, and Purchaser will not
    purchase, acquire or assume or take assignment or delivery of, any and all assets, Contracts or
    rights that are not expressly Purchased Assets or Assumed Contracts, whether tangible, real,
    personal or mixed (collectively, the “Excluded Assets”). For the avoidance of doubt, Excluded
    Assets include the following:
    12-12020-mg Doc 2246-1 Filed 11/21/12 Entered 11/21/12 08:38:01 Exhibit 1
    Pg 40 of 104
    703759658.4 02935186
    NY2-711063 v1
    (a) all cash and cash equivalents, including (i) all restricted cash, amounts
    held in Servicing Escrow Accounts and Servicing Custodial Accounts pursuant to
    Applicable Requirements or Servicing Agreements (which, for the avoidance of doubt,
    will be transferred pursuant to the Servicing Transfer Agreement and are not assets of
    Sellers except to the extent such cash represents investment income related to such
    accounts, which investment income constitutes Ancillary Income), (ii) the Cash Deposit,
    (iii) cash and cash equivalents on deposit in bank accounts maintained in accordance with
    the DIP Financing Agreements and cash received by Sellers that is or was required to be
    deposited into accounts maintained pursuant to the DIP Order (the “DIP Cash Proceeds”),
    but excluding in all cases cash flows under any Servicing Agreement or any net cash flow
    generated by operation of the Business on or after the Closing Date;
    (b) all Mortgage Loans, including first and second lien mortgage loans, Whole
    Loans, pipeline loans and HELOCs owned or held by Sellers that are not specifically
    identified as Purchased Assets;
    (c) all trading securities and available for sale securities;
    (d) all REO Property owned by a Seller in its corporate capacity;
    (e) all Contracts or other instruments that are considered derivatives;
    (f) any asset or class of assets excluded from the defined terms set forth in
    Sections 2.l and 2.2 by virtue of the limitations expressed or implied therein;
    (g) all causes of action, lawsuits, judgments, claims, refunds, choses in action,
    rights of recovery, rights of set-off, rights of recoupment, demands and any other rights
    or Claims of any nature other than the Transferred Rights and Claims, including any
    Claims relating to early payment default claims and any and all defenses and
    counterclaims relating to acts or omissions under the Assumed Contracts that occurred
    before the Closing;
    (h) any of the rights of Sellers under this Agreement or any agreements
    between any Seller and Purchaser or any of its Affiliates entered into on or after the date
    of this Agreement;
    (i) the Consent Order, the DOJ/AG Settlement and the Contracts, including
    rights and licenses thereunder; and other assets Related to the Business set forth on
    Schedule Q;
    (j) all shares or equity interests in any Subsidiaries or Affiliates of the Sellers;
    (k) any and all other assets, whether tangible or intangible, real, personal or
    mixed, including Intellectual Property, rights or other items that are not Related to the
    (l) the Purchase Price;
    12-12020-mg Doc 2246-1 Filed 11/21/12 Entered 11/21/12 08:38:01 Exhibit 1
    Pg 41 of 104
    703759658.4 02935186
    NY2-711063 v1
    (m) all rights, claims and causes of action relating to any Excluded Asset or
    any Retained Liability;
    (n) Tax refunds, Tax credits and other Tax benefits relating to Taxes imposed
    on any Seller or Affiliate Seller or Taxes for which any of them is liable;
    (o) all Tax Returns (including working papers), all Books and Records
    relating to outstanding litigation and ongoing discovery and e-discovery obligations of
    any Seller and Affiliate Seller and all Books and Records that Sellers are required by Law
    to retain, other than copies of such Tax Returns, Books and Records, and obligations as
    may relate to Tax Returns filed by a Seller as REMIC Administrator by or on behalf of
    any REMIC, and the duties of which in that capacity the Purchaser will assume;
    (p) REMIC Regular Interests and REMIC Residual Interests, other than any
    REMIC Residual Interest representing a De Minimis Interest in the residual interests of
    the related REMIC and required to be held by Purchaser as the REMIC Administrator of
    such REMIC;
    (q) all rights, demands, Claims, actions and causes of action constituting
    avoidance actions of Sellers’ estates under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code, and any
    other applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, including any and all proceeds of the
    (r) other than as set forth in Section 2.1(m), all rights, demands, Claims,
    causes of action, objections and defenses of Sellers and its Affiliates under sections 502
    and 503 of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 3007 with respect to the assertion
    or defense of any claims that may be filed against Seller and any of its Affiliates that will
    file a petition for relief under the Bankruptcy Code;
    (s) except as provided in Section 6.7, any Plan;
    (t) other than as set forth in Section 2.1, all insurance proceeds that Sellers
    have a right to receive as of the Closing or that relate to events, circumstances or
    occurrences prior to the Closing (which, for the avoidance of doubt, includes the
    proceeds of insurance policies providing coverage for errors and omissions or for
    directors, officers and employees, whether such policies are held by AFI or by one or
    more of the Sellers);
    (u) all Privileged Documents;
    (v) any Contracts excluded from Assumed Contracts pursuant to Section 2.15;
    (w) the assets specifically identified on Schedule Q;

  5. ” Defendants must introduce evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it to be (Fed. R.Evid. 901) or the establishment of facts sufficient to constitute self-authentication
    under Fed. R.Evid. 902. (See United States v. Thomas (2nd Cir. 1995) 54 F3d 73, 82 – authentication through testimony of knowledgable witness. Burden of proof is upon the proponent: Fed. R.Evid. 901(a) United States v. Gagliardi (2nd Cir. 2007) 506 F3d 140,
    151. Clearly Defendants’ counsels’ secretary does not have personal knowledge under 901(b)(1) of what she has listed as a description.

    The Court may refuse to take judicial notice if the requesting party has failed to authenticate the documents. Madeja v. Olympic Packers, LLC (9th Cir 2002) 310 F3d 628, 639.

    It is NOT proper for a court to take judicial notice of disputed facts contained in hearsay document. See United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 672 (10th Cir.1999).

    Unauthenticated photocopies are the purest form of hearsay.

    The law is clear, judicial notice should be used “sparingly” in the early stages of litigation. “Only in the clearest of case should a district court reach outside the pleadings for facts necessary to resolve a case at that point.” Victaulic Co. V. Tieman (3rd Cir. 2007) 499 F3d 227, 236

    The federal standards, described above, determine whether evidence is sufficient to raise a question for the trier-of-fact, even in diversity cases based upon state law claims, such as the instant case. Gasaway v. NorthWestern Mutual Life Ins. Co. (9th Cir 1994) 26 F.3d
    957, 960.

    XXXX’s (sic) counsel’s simply throws out some photocopies in a
    motion and tells this Court these non-authenticated papers prove this Court should throw out a well founded complaint – so that XXXX is excused from having to provide the quantum of proof necessary to prevail at trial. For example, it is a triable issue of fact as to whom, or what, is the real beneficiary, whether or not the “information” contained in the assignment, for one, reflects actual facts, and whether or not some measure of admissible evidence shows that the offered entity:

    1. Actually exists;

    2. has a legally cognizable interest, will suffer the loss as a result of the asserted breach, and thus has both prudential and constitutional standing to oppose this complaint.

    Summary judgment is proper only after adequate opportunity
    for discovery, lest it be found that the losing party was “railroaded” by a premature motion for summary judgment (paraphrased since I biffed and too tired to re-find ver batim) Celotex Corp. V. Catrett, 477 US 317, at 326 (1986).

    Defendant IMMEDIATELY filed its cookie cutter motion as
    soon as it removed to avoid the discovery necessary to resolve and remove factual disputes. Summary judgment is not appropriate where triable issues of material facts exist, as in the instant case. “

  6. re: judicial notice:
    “The Rule was intended to obviate the need for formal fact-finding as to certain facts that are undisputed and easily verified. Fed. R.Evid. 201; Melong v. Micronesian Claims Comm., 643 F.2d 10, 12 n. 5
    (D.C.Cir.1980) (judicial notice under Rule 201 is designed for judicial
    recognition of scientific or historical fact without resort to cumbersome
    methods of proof).

    The Rule permits a court to take judicial notice of two kinds of facts:

    (1) those that are generally known within the court’s territorial jurisdiction; and

    (2) those that are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
    questioned, for example, almanac, dictionary, calendar or similar source.
    In other words, “the fact must be one that only an UNnreasonable person would insist on disputing.” United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549, 1553 (11th Cir.1994).

    Documents that are part of the public record* may be judicially noticed to show, for example, that a judicial proceeding occurred or that a document was filed in another court case, but a court
    may NOT take judicial notice of findings of facts from another case. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1114 & n. 5 (9th Cir.2033); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir.2001); Jones, 29 F.3d at 1553.

    Nor may the court take judicial notice of any matter that is in dispute. Lee, 250 F.3d at 689-90; Lozano v. Ashcroft, 258 F.3d 1160, 1165 (10th Cir.2001).”

    *jg: Docs of public record, while perhaps judicially noticeable, don’t authenticate or legitimize themselves. For instance, just because Joe Blow signs as agent for ABC doesn’t mean he really is the agent of ABC (or that even if he is an agent, his agency extends to the act he’s purporting to do on behalf of his principal. Maybe, if he’s an agent at all, his duty is limited to mowing the grass. And just because jJN is taken of DoeReMe’s alleged assgt, doesn’t mean DoeReMe had anything to assign. And even if a court takes JN of the fact that an assgt purports that so and so paid valuable consideration to DoeReMe doesn’t prove that so and so did.

    Now that it’s been demonstrated, imo, millions of lost homes later, that agents can’t assign the interests of their principals, banksters (servicers) are coming up with alleged powers of attorney from secn trust trustees. (I wonder just for the hell of it under what authority a secn trustee appoints an att in fact to act on behalf of the trust?)

  7. “To challenge the propriety of taking judicial notice a party must file a motion requesting an opportunity to be heard. Chen v. Metropolitian Ins. & Annuity Co. (5th Cir. 1990) 907 F2d 566, 569.
    The court must provide an opportunity to be heard. Cooperative de Ahorro y Credito Aguada v. Kidder, Peabody & Co. (1st Cir. 1993) 993 F2d 269, 273).”

  8. Mers has to go, as it stands. Land records are unbelievably ruined IMHO.

  9. Estates are Corporations….
    If thats how they want to play.
    Just saying………… We done have 20-30 years left.
    I am sure they took that factor into consideration.
    Their Bad is My Good!

    Many Blessings to All
    Everybody is going to court.

  10. Dandiener 1… Good Idea!

    I am still stumped at 20 -30 years to clean up the LAND records.
    I really thought they would enact legislation because there were so many. I thought wrong.
    Sooner or later everybody is going to get drug thru the mud…Uthum. .I mean go to court.

  11. Are sitting judges required to take CLE classes or their equivalent?

  12. ….”Corporations are NOT people and I am NOT your friend!”

    Please send me the first bumper sticker you produce.

  13. Garfield,

    The best thing to do is to create a “Certified Foreclosure Defense Specialist ” (CFDS) professional designation. Certified Graduates of required annual CLE classes offering this training would be the “vetting process” for the “CFDS Registry”.

    To assist these focused professional attorneys, working alongside other foreclosure professional like yourself, you may want to create a similar certification class for paralegals who must be taught the intricacies of this developing legal discipline.

    The “fallout” from this Mortgage Securitization Ponzi scam is sure to create a demand for “Certified Land Records Forensic Auditors” and “Quiet Title” specialists who represent individual homeowners, rather than Bank clients.

    (It’s going to take 20-30 years to clean out the title clouds the Banksters have created.)

  14. Right MK
    And i say this to all –
    “Nil carborundum illegitimi” ( dont let the bastards gind you down)

  15. @ E ToLLe,

    Thank You. I suddenly feel so much better.

    My wife doesn’t let me rant like that around the house anymore. She thinks I have become unhinged. LOL.

    I was reading the Daily Kos today and there is an article that Halliburton is counter-suing American Soldiers after exposing them to toxic chemicals and then lying about it.

    The soldiers sued Halliburton, Cheney’s outfit, and won… but, because they won in the wrong venue (wrong state court), Halliburton’s lawyers had the decision overturned and are, in fact, crowing about it.

    Now, Halliburton is suing the 18 soldiers they harmed to recover 860 K in court costs.

    I was delighted to read some responses from a number of special forces operators. I only hope they follow through.

    Corporations are NOT people and I am NOT your friend.

  16. “Plastic daffodils” lol

  17. Hats off to everyone trying to alert the masses to the crime spree. That’s a noble effort, one which, if ever successful, should receive a Nobel prize. In the mean time, I’ll stay snoozing over here in the plastic daffodils in the corner by Neil’s blinking neon Attorney For Hire sign. Not meant as disparagement to anyone trying their best, no mocking here, just a straight-forward view from one who’s witnessed where we’ve been, and who doesn’t trust that where we’re going is any different.

    Just in the last few commenter’s posts (me included), we have two people who have taken rock-solid evidence to their AGs. Now hear this….it’s not that they’re too busy to deal with our evidence or accusations… has nothing to do with a lack of man/woman power….in no way is it budget related. It has to do with the fact that TPTB are not going to interfere with the tilting of the tables towards the bad guys. Because, as we all know, THE BAD GUYS OWN THE PLACE. In the minds of AGs, who are simply Governors-In-Training, we’re threatening their meal tickets. Don’t stand in the way of career government assholes and their graft and the eventual UP elevator door, you’ll pull back a bloody nub.

    On the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission’s website, they state…. all vexed, constricted – conflicted and frustrated, as if they’ve thrown up their hands in disgust:

    “How did it come to pass that in 2008 our nation was forced to choose between two stark and painful alternatives — either risk the collapse of our financial system and economy, or commit trillions of taxpayer dollars to rescue major corporations and our financial markets, as millions of Americans still lost their jobs, their savings, and their homes?”

    Oh hey, I’ll admit to being just a slight bit overwhelmed with things over the last decade….I know I haven’t been quite up to snuff what with pro se battling bankster lawyers who have unlimited funds and printing presses that could forge a new Constitution if the need arose. My bad. But….as to that statement from the FCIC, I simply can’t remember being asked, as a tax-paying citizen of this country whether or not I was willing to sign off on the path that was chosen for the nation. They act all sanctified, as if their decision was the only and obvious correct one, and that they had no choice in the matter. IT WAS A GIVEN!


    Let’s see….

    Risk collapse of the financial system, a criminal organization with tentacles firmly implanted in everything from stealing what’s ours from birth till death….which seeks nothing more than to destroy anything and everything to make another undeserved commission and offshore transfer of our wealth….

    Or alternatively, to spend trillions of dollars rescuing the very same illegitimate entities….

    Oh Gheez! I can’t quite make up my mind! Let’s see…should I choose to stick myself in the eye with a salad fork or a steak knife? A willow branch or a rusty awl? I can’t quite decide!

    Oh wait! How’s about a third path, one not mentioned by the commission? How’s about we amass a small army outside of Wall Street one afternoon and kettle (think NYPD and Occupy) a few tens-o-thousands of bankster minions into police vans and bitch-slap them real hard until they offer up their higher-ups….the ones who wrote the instructions on how to steal Tri$$ions of our hard-earned dollars? Was that ever discussed as an alternative to giving in to Wall Street and our deceitful, so-called representatives in D.C.? Did the Inquiry ever inquire into something along those lines?

    And….if our fearful leaders aren’t up to the task of exploring an alternative approach to handling these problems, how’s about we back similar vans up to the hallowed halls of congress with the exact same intentions? Haul them out by the semi-load.

    Treasury Secretary Geithner was ordered, by CONgress, to use $75 billion of TARP’s play money to fund borrower dilemmas. He personally decided not to. Can we, at the very least, throw him in a van? I’ll drive. REV 2.0! If not now, when?

  18. Not knocking the idea. I would like to see some big class actions, it would hopefully lift the corp veil.

  19. An ignorant attorney can learn new tricks. A stupid one, just like stupid people in general, can’t and won’t. They’re steeped in smugness at acumen which doesn’t exist except in their own little minds, which isn’t to say they also don’t hear some bs out of us.

  20. Cough cough – prOcedures.

  21. All you gotta do is get your discovery and a judge thats not biased who will follow the rules and pricedures,
    How hard can that be.

  22. I’m with deadlyclear – no point in sending people to attorneys who couldn’t fight their way out of wet paper bags.

  23. Reblogged this on Deadly Clear and commented:
    Same here. We get contacted from homeowners all over the country needing help. However, with that said, there have been some crummy attorneys out there just trying to make a buck off of homeowners. The list needs to be like Max Gardeners Grad List – where they’ve actually won a few cases because they understand the issues and they’ve taken some courses in foreclosure defense.

  24. I have re-vamped my petition and look forward to any criticism of it from readers of this site.

    I can be reached at : The petition is as follows:

    I personally destroyed thousands of mortgage documents using a desk-top scanner.

    Naked short selling (betting on things you don’t own; football teams as an example) of American mortgages and the counterfeiting that resulted are responsible for the present threat to homeowner rights. Dematerialization (computer scanning of mortgage notes) and shredding of documents have stripped the banks of their security interest in the loans.

    The Mortgage Electronic Registration System, the “MERS”, has allowed title to people’s homes to become digitized to facilitate ease of trading. The process is called “dematerialization”.

    The banks have destroyed their ownership interest in all the mortgages pre-dating the financial “melt-down” and beyond; the “pink slip” no longer exists.

    The banks are involved in a systemic, criminal, theft-by-deception; they don’t own the loans they are attempting to mine through foreclosure, refinance, modification, short-sale, deed-in-lieu and reverse mortgage. In each of these processes they are tricking the borrowers into returning the signatures they destroyed, in some instances, decades ago.

    Carpenter v. Longan (SC 1872), established that collection on a debt for real property may only be collected by the person that owns the contract. As the saying goes: “The lien follows the Note (the contract)”.

    The banks are robbing people of their homes using counterfeit notes, forgeries and outright fraud…

    To make matters worse, in the wake of “sub-prime lending”, conducted in the absence of “Glass-Steagall”, the banks have elected to burden the international financial system with over 682 Trillion Dollars owed to “derivatives speculation”. (Google “Quadrillion”).

    In other words, collectively, the central bankers, worldwide, will be in debt beyond 682 Trillion Dollars, If and only If, the foreclosures do not go forward.

    “Derivatives” are “Bets” that any given borrower will default on their loan. As such, and because the banks conduct their business in the shadows, this means the foreclosures have become a “self-fulfilling prophecy”.

    In fact, any number of people facing foreclosure have been placed into default despite never having missed a payment.

    There is no doubt the banks have already rendered themselves beyond salvage, as hopelessly insolvent, and they have done so through their own criminality and devotion to GREED ABOVE ALL ELSE.

    Law enforcement, the lawyers, judges and bankers are turning a blind eye because they fear a return to the rule of law will threaten the preeminence of the American Dollar as it presently exists as the World’s “Sovereign Currency”.

    Instead, We The People MUST insist the criminal behavior of the banks must come into the light of day. Any other course will enable what is nothing less than an attack on the sovereignty of the American People to stand, without challenge.

    In fact, and as an example, HSBC- Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation and Wells Fargo are using American Mortgages to launder terrorist and drug cartel money… And they are not alone… It is beyond obscene and altogether unacceptable, this be allowed to stand.

    When a “loan” leaves the closing table, in an effort to protect the investors on that loan (the people that gave money to provide the loan), it is sold into the “secondary market” as a “Securitization”.

    As a “Securitization” it is now part of a “Trust”…

    Well, the banks never entered any of the loans into any of the “Trusts” (Google “Securitization Fail”, Adam Levitin)… The “Trusts” are empty.

    Instead, the bankers took money from the investors and used those funds to speculate on “derivatives” (Google “Bucketeering”).

    This behavior is illegal and it is a deliberate attack on the Sovereignty of the American People due to the ruinous consequences it will cause for the American Dollar as the “International Sovereign Currency” (Google “Bretton Woods”).

    Because most investors on mortgages are investors that represent pension plans in the US and other countries as well, this illegal behavior is a direct attack on the middle class here in the US and throughout the world.

    The banks don’t own the “loans”; they never did.

    The “Trusts” don’t own the “loans”; they never did.

    The pension plans don’t own the “loans”; they never did.

    International Criminals do own the “loans”and law enforcement refuses to perform their function in order to disclose who these criminals truly are.

    This is the reason RICO was created in the first place: So that law-abiding Americans could gain a working knowledge of who it is that owns their debts.

    Current efforts, actually better-described, as overwhelmingly insufficient performance, on the part of law enforcement to prosecute this illegal behavior, is a national disgrace…

    To suggest the rest of the world is content to allow criminal bankers to subvert the Law, flies in the face of reason and thereby justly labels US Law Enforcement as an International Disgrace.

  25. William,
    What a nice comment you wrote. I believe as well as most that post here what you are saying. I am in Wisconsin and it is nearly impossible to find lawyers to fight for a homeowner, let alone understand. I was working with The Wisconsin Attorney Generals Office and when it got down to the dirt they wouldn’t help or talk to me anymore. I have all the proof, but no help, it sucks!

  26. Good morning Neil: You have been great.  The help you have given to home owners as well as to lawyers has been tremendous. I am the former US Government agent for the Criminal Investigation Division, (CID) who has written you before. I get very frustrated because of the slow actions that  the law enforcement agencies of our government takes against the criminal bankers, servicing agencies and the co-conspirators, employees and lawyers who are being paid big bucks to provide the fictitious, fraudulent, forged and misrepresentations to home owners and to the courts. The Supreme Court I believe has been siding with home owners, butthe state ad federal courts have been too slow in making moves against these criminals. As a former agent  for our government, I am somewhat  embarrassedthat our countries courts and the judges we pay for the protection of our citizens and for fair, legal and proper rulings, only to see the greedy bankers and their evil lawyers pulling the wool over the eyes of the courts, allowing these bandits to make a complete mockery of ourfinancial and legal system. I believe you are on the right path and a Angie’s  list of  HONEST, FAITHFUL   defense lawyers who have the knowledge and expertise regarding real estate foreclosure law, who will work for the property owners to assist in eradicating this epidemic of the bank Ponzi scheme that is ruining our countries financial and legal systems, and it  must be accomplished. Of course you cannot do it alone, and it takes more of the local, state and federal judges, who are also lawyers, to jump on this and assist inplacing a stop to the violations and crimes committed, to force the bankers and their associate lawyers and employees to adhere to the laws of the land. The Livinglies’s Weblog has been great and has allowed property owners as well as lawyers all across our country to be aware of the actions by bankers as well as courts in exposing the violations of lawsand in some cases (but not enough), favorable and honest rulings by judges against the dishonest and criminal methods used by the banks to separate home owners from their life-long properties. It is necessary to expect to pay lawyers for their legal assistance, but if more  lawyers would allow clients to pay a minimum fee with acontingency percentage, we would see more property  owners in the position to save their properties and an end to this Ponzi scheme would be in site. In the investigations I have completed, it is unbelievable the number of violations and outright crimes I have exposed and reported incomplaints to law enforcement agencies.  The fraudulent and fictitious documents presented by bank lawyers to the courts, including forgeries, would normally bring criminal charges against the presenters and those who were involved in the preparation of the documents and misrepresentations, and hopefully, with the exposure of these crimes, with the new regulations to hold lawyers responsible and liable for criminal violations,  we will see some heads roll of both bankers, employees who are considered co-conspirators and lawyers who present any such documents to the courts. I believe there are enough honest law firms in our country to faithfullyprovide legal services to our citizens without causing them to give-up their eating money and to represent them so as to save their properties, possibly presenting their cases to the courts that willjustify damages to be paid by the banks for the illegal and unjustfinancial  loses sustained by home owners, therefore then allowing them to pay handsome, reasonable  fees to their lawyers. This epidemic of bank foreclosure fraud can be stopped and with more of our citizens along with the legitimate, honest lawyers in our great country, we can take back our justice and financial system in time to again be the “LAND OF THE FREE”  and regain the so loved dreamof “HOME OWNERSHIP”. God Bless America and thanks to your hard, every-day endeavor to assist home owners, we will one day again  be able to trust and rely on those who uphold the Constitution of The United States. William BennettLos Angeles, CA 

  27. We had a case rife with forgeries, fake documents, robo-signed stuff out the ying-yang, The first attorney was mysteriously forced to withdraw from our case (I think she was pissing off too many people) the second one threw us under the bus and didn’t present any of our evidence – or file an adversarial like he said he was going to. He evened conferred with the foreclosure mill attorney – Bill Savage – out of our earshot and then signed away our rights. The third attorney refused to go after second one for agreeing to a consent order that he did not discuss with us (apparently there is some fraternal order of lawyers) and did not defend our case property like he said he would!. Three attorneys and our entire 401k drained all the way up to Maryland’s Special Court of Appeals – we still lost our house and ancestral property in Maryland- five years after it all started. Oh and did I mention that at the age of 60 we’ve had to start all over from scratch. We will be working way past retirement age.

  28. I’ve been trying to sign up attorneys for years. Please send me a list of questions to ask them and a speil to give them. IAMNEWSONG @HOTMAIL.COM

    Sent from my MetroPCS 4G Android device


    Is that deal worth a shit?

    Make it a Great Day.


  30. Neil,
    You are correct in all of your writings. The problem is there is no legal help for us.
    Recession is now the front line and just like in 2008, there is no lawyers getting it. I am in Chapter 13 and the lawyer will not address the recession, talk about needing help.

  31. There are NO lawyers that REALLY know how to defend the Borrowers. There are NO judges that REALLY know the law pertaining to FORECLOSURES. Its pathetic and true

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: