We Need Help Helping People in Georgia

I have several Georgia cases ready to go and no lawyer to do them. One in the Northern District in Federal Court and others ready to be filed. SOMEBODY help me give these people a lawyer NOW. Georgia lawyer who is willing to take these, charge whatever fees he or she wants, we take nothing. If the Lawyer wants litigation support we can give that too at the client’s expense.

Come on folks. Show me some love!



10 Responses

  1. RE: Show me the love. There is no love in the state of Georgia. We were denied a modification (what’s new?). I did tons of research and defended myself via letter after letter to Wells Fargo, the servicer (pretender lender would not recognize us as borrowers so … no one and nothing to talk about with them). I hired David Ates to represent me – he is on the attorney list on this site – but he didn’t give me much hope to win anything – just delay, delay. I kept up the fight, but left the house anyway; too stressful to stay with a child in the house and the threat of the Sheriff pulling down the drive any day with eviction papers. Mr. Ates has lost every avenue he has tried to pursue – using the laws here – to help the homeowner. Four years later, nothing has changed with regard to help for us here.
    Little hope for us here in GA.

  2. Sir What about Wisconsin?

  3. unfortunately GA is a commie state
    good luck to all in Georgia

  4. A fine gentleman asked me to post this, as follows:


    BEFORE ME the undersigned authority, duly authorized to administer

    oaths, personally appeared NAME, to me well known, or who

    identified self to me with Georgia Driver’s License #______________, who,

    after being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:

    1. That I am a legal adult over the age of eighteen (18) years, and that I

    make this affidavit for the purposes expressed herein.

    2. That I am the fee simple owner of certain real property, located in

    _______ County, Georgia and legally described as Lot 9, Block 62 of

    City____, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 18

    of the Public Records of ______ County, Georgia, also known as 1413 North

    Andrews Avenue, City_____, Georgia 33311.

    3. That I own the property by virtue of a Warranty Deed issued to me at the

    time I purchased the property.

    4. That on June 1, 2015 I rescinded the mortgage on the subject property

    pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act, a Federal law, and that the Note and Security

    Deed has been rescinded and is null and void.

    5. By recording this Affidavit of Rescission in the Public Records of

    _____ County, Georgia, I hereby put all parties and the public on notice that the

    Security Deed recorded on said property has been rescinded and is null and void.

    6. Pursuant to Federal law, all parties notified of said rescission who were

    sent and received said notice, had twenty (20) days from their receipt of the

    rescission letter notice to dispute said rescission. By operation of law, said

    rescission becomes final if not disputed within the time period set forth above.

    7. That I make this affidavit of my own personal knowledge of the facts

    as set forth in this affidavit.

    8. That I make this affidavit under oath and under penalty of perjury.


    SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me, the undersigned authority,

    this ______day of June, 2015.

    ________________________________ _________________________
    Witness Witness

    ________________________________ _________________________
    Printed name of witness Printed name of witness

    ________________________________ _________________________
    Notary Public, State of Florida At Large Name _______________, Affiant

    My commission expires:

    Notary Seal

  5. — TONIGHT —
    A gentle reminder – please make an appointment for yourself to join us for Episode [8] on our 1 Hour follow-up Q&A call TONIGHT – Thursday evening at 6:45 PM Eastern – This is right after Neil’s weekly Thursday Night 30 Min call at 6 PM Eastern.
    [Calls and Chat Board are recorded for review and sharing…]
    Details follow:

    1) Neil’s Living Lies Call at 6:00PM Eastern (347) 850-1260… on Blogtalk Radio

    2) Our interactive Q&A call, “Garfield’s Goose & Friends” on TalkShoe with your host, greg – begins every Thursday night at 6:45PM Eastern, 15 minutes after the conclusion of Neil’s show

    Call in at (724) 444-7444 (then use Call ID: 139335) then “0” for guest
    and/or use your computer to blog/type at http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/139335
    6:45 PM Eastern Thursdays (for 60 min)

    Please use the phone line TO SPEAK; ASK QUESTIONS AND CONTRIBUTE…
    computer access will ONLY allow you to hear and type into the blog (Not Speak)…

    all are welcome!

    if you would like to receive a weekly email reminder of the call…
    please email the host at: [lawman@gmx.us]
    with the subject line: “please add me to the goose!”

  6. I need help in Colorado

  7. I’m sorry I just used up one of your comments boxes with nothing. I think I have it down now. Hi Neil. I have been following you for five years. I learned a lot of my early stuff from you. I have personally talked to 112 attorneys and right now I would rather have me. I am not an attorney, I am a real estate broker and mortgage broker. Our mortgage brokerage brokered the loan in 2004. We had never heard of MERS. That is too long a story for now. You are doing a good thing trying to bring attorneys in. But, they each see almost no cases and have no idea that they can make money and do something good. Anyway keep trying. I don’t know if you will comment on this, but I thought I had seen every bizzare thing on this planet.

    On my own investment property we had been in Circuit Court in Jackson County Mo for a year and now two years in Federal Court. I finally began to get traction when I gave up finding an attorney and just learned how to go on offense. I ended up putting the properties in Chapter 13 bankruptcy and there had been a stay in place for about 3 weeks. Then the following began to unfold. This is my own true story. I’m still just astonished. First Magnus was the originating bag man. BoA for years. Fannie Mae showed up through magic and MersCorp under the long fake name assigned the four deeds of trust with no mention of First Magnus. But, all of that is ordinary in this mess. What came next and for all I know may give me an advantage is the following:


    “Justice is indiscriminately due to all, without regard to numbers, wealth, or rank.”

    John Jay, in Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794

    Press Release: Media Web Corporation

    Foreclosure Solution News 11/11/2015

    by Danny Hammond

    All that has ever ensured that the United States of America would remain the admired world leader in democratic protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of justice has been the US Constitution and the state laws cloned from it. The danger ever present is that our society as a whole would slowly erode the power of this Constitution.

    Each time someone takes the law into their own hands without the retribution directed by our laws, we grow closer to the Orwellian world of the novel “1984”. It seems that after 15 years of complete Federal and State Government inaction in response to the illegal and wrongful foreclosure of homes without any right to do so, and the displacement of millions of families without the intervention these authorities which are charged with upholding the enforcement of the laws relevant to these crimes we are beginning to see the breakdown of the very recognition of actual law which is replaced with individual perception of what should be the law. This defines broken jurisprudence.

    If justice is not applied according to law, then the insidious encroachment of Self-enacted laws followed by self-enforcement of those laws by those without authority are sure to cross the line of law as it becomes obscured.

    On September 10th, 2015 the Belton, MO police department which is headed by police chief James Persons and city attorney Megan McGwire looked the other way as two rogue police officers acting on their own (officer S. Bechtel and officer Doe,) while proudly admitting that they had no authorization from anyone but themselves, evicted local resident Danny Hammond and his family without due process as required by ancient and unchanged laws. This is made more curious by the fact that this police department has its hands full with current charges of workplace sexual harassment plaguing the department

    With Mr. Hammond at the time was only his 19 month old grandson. The two Jack-booted officers in full regalia with flack jackets and guns told Mr. Hammond that he was “going to jail, and you better get someone over here fast to get that baby or we are going to turn him in to family services. You are going to come with us right now and we are taking you to jail and you are not to come back here, personal property or not, we will throw you in jail again”.

    “It has been said, that for evil men to accomplish their purpose, it is only necessary that good men should do nothing. That is all that the criminal wants of the law…to be let alone.”
    Multiple Attributions

    Continue: Belton Police Department and Fannie Mae illegally evict:

    Inside the illegally raided home was all of the personal property owned by the Hammond family , including all of Mr. Hammond and his family’s: clothes; furniture; toys; appliances; office computers and printers; business files; including 7 file boxes detailing Mr. Hammond’s current Federal Court lawsuit against FNMA marked “Fannie Mae Lawsuit”; family photos, and medication that needed to be taken daily by his wife and himself. This self-eviction is against the law and almost unheard of, except by Imposter foreclosing parties such as Fannie Mae, the largest of the unlawful foreclosure entities.

    The Belton Police officers who did not have a plan to bring the situation to a lawful conclusion, since there is no law allowing municipality police officers to pursue such an irresponsible and unlawful remedy, then left the real property and the personal property in the possession of Ryan Rader a lowly real estate salesperson who is supervised only by Real Estate Broker Doug Morris of Keller Williams Real Estate Lees Summit, MO and had no rights of ownership of the home.

    The emotional and physical suffering of the family came about because two gullible and uninformed cops with no jurisdiction or discretion saw fit to usurp the authority of the Missouri Circuit courts and the Cass County Missouri Sheriff’s Department and form a vigilante community militia in conflict with the statutes of Missouri and US law.

    “They enacted a law and enforced it with guns and bulletproof vests in front of the baby.” Mr. Hammond reported. He added, “There has been no Unlawful Detainer filed on this property in Cass County Circuit Courts, much less a judgment. The removal of any occupants was not an option that was available to them. The grievous confiscation of personal property also was not available to these rogue police officers. The violation of local and constitutional law is of very grave concern. If this example is allowed to stand uncontested, then what are our fellow citizens to think about law enforcement? It is a short distance from these acts to a general disregard of citizens for the U.S. Constitution. I promise I will be filing a lawsuit this month against all of the cooperating parties.”

    The Belton Missouri City Attorney Megan McGwire has not answered calls for a meeting stated Hammond.

    Explaining on the phone, Ms McGwire claimed to Hammond that she had done an investigation and that Fannie Mae was the true owner of the property. She did not seem to realize that her attorney’s license gave this determination of hers no effect whatsoever to rule on an equity court matter. Which is relevant material for additional damage and suffering claims because only those equity courts can determine alloidial title facts.

    Mr. Hammond reports that Ms. McGwire has ignored emails detailing Missouri law that do not condone any of these racketeering enterprise actions and has refused to discuss the situation further.

    Missouri law is well settled on the taking of property by force by an evicting party.

    The Missouri statutes on Unlawful Detainer and Eviction read in part:

    * No Self-Eviction allowed

    *No landlord may evict a tenant without a court order. Self-eviction includes such acts as turning off utilities, padlocking the doors or changing the locks, removing the tenant’s personal belongings, threatening the occupant with violence or any other action designed to force the tenant to vacate the premises.

    * A landlord may be liable for to up to twice the damages incurred by a prevailing tenant who proves the landlord committed such acts.

    Missouri law is well settled on the matter of “self eviction” and for the need for the courts to “hear” the party(s) before any act of possession can take place. This truth is exhibited in Article III of the United States Constitution with nearly the same words in the statutes of every state.

    That the following case law forms the base of Missouri law on self-help evictions:

    From: Steinke v Leicht 235 S.W.2d 115 (MO. App. 1950) and Sackett v Hall 478 S.W.2d 381 (MO 1972),

    “There is plenty of precedent determining that self-help eviction is not an available remedy under Missouri law. It also well settled that no person involved in any eviction may separate an occupant from his PERSONAL BELONGINGS for any reason.”

    Actual Missouri state statute is very clear:

    Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 534 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
    ←534.010Section 534.020.1 534.030→
    August 28, 2014

    Forcible entry and detainer defined.

    534.020. If any person shall enter upon or into any lands, tenements or other possessions, with force or strong hand, or with weapons, or by breaking open the doors or windows or other parts of a house, whether any person be in it or not, or by threatening to kill, maim or beat the party in possession, or by such words or actions as have a natural tendency to excite fear or apprehension of danger, or by putting out of doors or carrying away the goods of the party in possession, or by entering peaceably and then turning out by force, or frightening, by threats or other circumstances of terror, the party out of possession, and detain and hold the same in every such case, the person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a “forcible entry and detainer” within the meaning of this chapter.

    (RSMo 1939 § 2832)

    Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 441 Landlord and Tenant

    ←441.230Section 441.233.1 441.234→ August 28, 2014
    Landlord’s unlawful removal or exclusion of tenant, liability–interruption of services,

    landlord’s liability:


    1. Except as provided in section 441.065, a landlord or its agent who removes or excludes a tenant or the tenant’s personal property from the premises without judicial process and court order, or causes such removal or exclusion, or causes the removal of the doors or locks to such premises, shall be deemed guilty of forcible entry and detainer as described in chapter 534.

    2. Any landlord or its agent who willfully diminishes services to a tenant by interrupting or causing the interruption of essential services, including but not limited to electric, gas, water, or sewer service, to the tenant or to the premises shall be deemed guilty of forcible entry and detainer as described in chapter 534; provided however, this section shall not be applicable if a landlord or its agent takes such action for health or safety reasons.

    (L. 1997 H.B. 361 § 441.223)

    “Self help” evictions are not allowed. §535.010 provides that a landlord may dispossess a tenant for non-payment only “in the manner herein provided.” Phillips v. Ockel, 609 S.W.2d 228 (Mo. App. 1980).

    A landlord is himself guilty of a forcible entry and detainer (§534.020) if he “removes or excludes a tenant or the tenant’s personal property from the premises without judicial process and court order, or causes such removal or exclusion, or causes the removal of the doors or locks to such premises,” or if he “willfully diminishes services to a tenant by interrupting or causing the interruption of essential services, including but not limited to electric, gas, water, or sewer service ..” §441.233.

    Judgment and Writ of Execution

    “After the judgement is issued , the tenant (owner) has 10-days to file an appeal. The court will issue a Writ of Execution if requested by the landlord after the 10-day period. The writ is given to the sheriff’s office, which schedules an eviction date. The writ does have an expiration date and the landlord must contact the sheriff’s office at least 7 days before the expiration of the date.

    Side Bar:
    (However, there has never even been an Unlawful Detainer case filed in the 17th Circuit Missouri State Court of Cass County against Overton Plaza Court, LC or Danny Hammond the “owners of record” on the subject property 305 Canal, there is no possibility of a Judges Writ of Execution existing)

    The question of rights and ownership does not arise in this action of forcible entry and detainer and the defendants cannot set up their supposed right as a defense for their forcible entry. In the action of forcible entry and detainer the question to be determined, is merely whether there has been a forcible entry upon plaintiffs’ possession by one who detains the possession from him. The rule has been clearly declared by our courts as follows:

    “It is immaterial in what capacity or relation a plaintiff is in possession, whether as owner, tenant, agent, or otherwise. If he is in fact in peaceful possession, then, no matter what may be the defendant’s right to possession, the law does not permit the latter to indicate his right or redress his grievance by force; and, if he does so, the law will restore the original status and compel the defendant to assert his right by legal proceedings”.

    The purpose of the forcible entry and detainer statute is to preserve peace and prevent the use of force and violence in asserting one’s supposed right to the possession of real property.
    See Craig v. Donnelly, 28 Mo.App. 342; Sitton v. Sapp, 62 Mo.App. 197; Purcell v. Merrick, 172 Mo.App. 412, 158 S.W. 478.” (Emphasis ours.) Fink v. Schmidt, Mo. App., 245 S.W. 566, 567.”

    From Kingfisher v Ben Behamani No. SD30446 MO App. SD Division ONE 1-27, 2011:

    “Nevertheless, Appellant argues that regardless of the terms and rights granted by the Contract to Respondent, that Missouri Law is clear that “self-help repossession is not an available option in this circumstance”. In support of this assertion, the Appellant cites toSteinke v Leicht 235 S.W.2d 115 (MO. App. 1950) and Sackett v Hall 478 S.W.2d 381 (MO 1972).

    In Steinke citing several reasons for finding the defendants liable for “forcible entry and detainer as charged in the complaint, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to restitution of the premises described”. In affirming the decisions of the trial court, the reviewing court set out the following discussion in relation to the forcible entry and detainer issue:
    “there is another reason which compels us to hold against the defendants on this point. The procedure of the defendants in forcibly entering the premises in August 1946, and removing therefrom the property belonging to the plaintiffs was clearly erroneous and wrongful.

    As was held in Beeler v. Cardwell, [33 Mo. 84 86 (Mo. 1862)], the plaintiffs, in actual, peaceable possession, could not be legally ejected by force. If the defendants had superior right to possession, the law provides ample means for enforcing it, and the defendants were clearly wrong in taking the law into their own hands.

    However, the question of right does not arise in this action of forcible entry and detainer and the defendants cannot set up their supposed right as a defense for their forcible entry. In the action of forcible entry and detainer the question tp be determined is merely whether there has been a forcible entry upon the plaintiffs’ possession by one who detains the possession from him.

    Accordingly the reviewing court held in favor of the plaintiffs.

    However I Danny Hammond have Belton Municipal Court tomorrow night at 6 pm. The charge is trespassing. (???) I’m speechless. How about you Neil?

    i] Litzinger v. Estate of Litzinger (In re Litzinger), 340 B.R 897 (RAP. 8th Gir. 2006)

    [ii] Garver v. Quality Inspection & Testing, 946 P.2d 450 (Alaska 1997)

    [iii] Stevenson v . Economy Bank of Ambridge, 413 Pa. 442 (Pa. 1964)

    [iv] Kasdan, Simonds, Mcintyre, Epstein &; Martin v. World Say. &; Loan Ass’n (In re Emery), 317 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. Gal. 2003)

    [v] Baram V. Farugia, 606 F.2d 42 (3d Gir. Pa. 1979)

    [vi] Litzinger v. Estate of Litzinger (In re Litzinger), 340 B.R 897 (RAP. 8th Cir. 2006)

    [vii] Vaughn v. Vaughn, 146 Md. App. 264 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2002) [viii] Id

    fix] Chem-Age Indus. v. Glover, 2002 SO 122 (S.D. 2002)

    Taylor V. Forte Hotels Inri, 235 Cal. App. 3d 1119 (Gal. App. 4th Dist. 1991)

    [xi] Yaeger v. Magna Corp. (In re Magna Corp.), 2005 Bankr. LEXIS 1114 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Mar. 14, 2005)

    xii] Chemical Sales CO. V. Diamond Chemical Co., 766 F.2d 364 (8th Cir. Mo. 1985)

    [xiii] DeChristofaro v. Machala, 685 A.2d 258 (R.!. 1996)[xiv] Id

    [xv] Baram v. Farugia, 606 F.2d 42 (3d Cir. Pa. 1979)

    [xvi] Vaughn v. Vaughn, 146 Md. App. 264 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2002)

    [xvii] Wallander V. Barnes, 341 Md. 553 (Md. 1996)

    [xviii] Spates v. Dameron Hospital Assn., 114 Cal. App. 4th 208 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2003)

  8. Please I need help also. I live in Tennessee. I can’t get any help. Please some one help us too. Thank you .

  9. We need Lawyers in Wi.

Contribute to the discussion!