Congrats to Florida Bulldog on running a story that the media giants are not only failing to continue their investigative reporting, but refusing to print stories produced from other credible sources on the huge subject of fraudulent foreclosures.
Not since 2008 have we seen lawyers with the guts and judges with the integrity to challenge the banks and their lawyers on grounds of perjury. Here, Judge Butchko is employing the key motto of blind justice. If Bank of America was lying when they said they were the servicer and it turns out that the foreclosure was a scam, they they should be held accountable. The court hearing on contempt is scheduled and the panicked lawyers are filing with the 3rd DCA to get the Judge off the bench. They are terrified of being found in contempt of court and worse. The 3rd DCA is known for being relentlessly in favor of the banks no matter what they have done.
If Judges start peeking under the hood, they will continue the movement that started back in 2008 when judges were retired or removed from benches for refusing to allow foreclosures based upon obvious flaws in documentation leading to the inevitable inclusion that the foreclosures were being done for profit and not for payback on an existing debt. See Judge Shack (New York) opinions and Judge Boyco (Ohio). Similar decisions filtered through California bankruptcy courts and even Arizona Courts.
Even the California Supreme Court (Yvanova decision) was scratchign tis head in wonderment over the claim that the allegation of the debt is sufficient to enforce it. No, they said, the obligation, if it exists is owed to somebody, not just anybody.
As previously reported Bruce Jacobs is an attorney who is not afraid of getting in the face of those who lie. And like I have said before, he is under heavy fire for supposedly impugning the impartiality of the courts, having sought to recuse judges from foreclosure cases. With only sparse support, lawyers like Jacobs are the sole source of restoring restore faith in the judicial system in both foreclosure cases and the system for resolving civil disputes in general.
It is not an exagggeration to say that everyone who has been involved in foreclosure litigation has considerable doubt about the forms, rules and procedures — and the way the judges are applying laws accepting documents and testimony into evidence as presumptively true despite the clearest indications in the public domain that the sources of information have already been found to be guilty of a pattenr of fabrication and lying, using various machine-based methods, in addition to pure lying by real people who know nothing more than the script they were given.
Like all successful foreclosure defense attorneys Jacobs has come under heavy fire — as though advocating for a client is a bad thing.
Folks this is where the rubber meets the road. Start writing to newspapers, editors, your state legislators, the courts, and anyone else you can think of to express your support for Attorney Jacobs and his client in this case. He is willing to risk everything to advance the cause of justice for foreclosure victims.
Lawyers across the country shoudl give credit to Jacobs for standing up against lies and injustice.
Remember that the banks can do nothing without attorneys who provide them cover under “litigation immunity.” Once we succeed in making the risk not worth the consequences for pretenders like lawyers, and companies pretending to be servicers, trustees or creditors, the foreclosures will stop.
Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Beatrice Butchko is warning national banking giants and their counsel they’ll pay a hefty price if they commit fraud or violate due process or ethics rules to drive mortgage debtors out of their homes.
On June 2 Butchko took the extraordinary step of accusing Bank of America and Bank of New York Mellon of criminal contempt for allegedly offering perjured testimony in a foreclosure. She scheduled both for arraignment at a Zoom hearing on June 25.
The banks and their lawyer allegedly lied about whether Bank of America is still involved in servicing a mortgage loan. If it is, defendant Julie Nicolas can introduce Bank of America documents that may prove the foreclosure was fraudulent.
A contempt finding could result in “jail, adjudication, probation, a finding of unclean hands, monetary fines, injunctions, attorney’s fees, and/or other sanctions,”
NOTE: THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME JACOBS PREVAILED: see HSBC Bank USA v. Buset, 216 So. 3d 701 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017).
Same Judge Butchko involved in that one. No wonder the foreclosure mill wants her drawn and quartered. This Judge is now under the same heavy artillery fire as prior judges and attorneys who dared to challenge illegal foreclosures.
If you think about it, any attempt to enforce a debt that no longer exists on the books of any company and where nobody is claiming a financial loss they can prove is not really a foreclosure at all. It is attempted theft. The foreclosure have had their success by depending upon the myth that a big bank like Bank of America would not lie about being the servicer for a transaction. And of course the answer is that yes they would lie and they do lie because they receive payment to lie.
Next question, why would BOA accept an arrangement where it allows its name to be used as a servicer? The answer is because someone else is doing the same thing for them.
And the final question, what happens to all the documents preferred as evidence once it is found that the company presented as a servicer is not the servicer? The answer is that there is no foundation for those documents and they may be struck from the court file and not used as evidence or proof of the debt or the claim to enforce the debt.
But here is the kicker: even if it is established that the company was not servicer and therefore that its documents were not a proper business records exception to the hearsay rule, it is possible for the documents to remain in the court record and be used as evidence that is is more likely than not that the debt exists and the plaintiff has a right to enforce it. Some judges will sua sponte ignore such evidence, but without an objection that is sustained and a motion to strike the evidence being granted, the testimony and exhibits remain in the court record and the appellate court can affirm the judgment in favor of the alleged claimant in the foreclosure case.
Filed under: foreclosure |
I will send this Article to Illinois Supreme, Appeal and Crook County Circus Court Judges – they are loyal enablers for Wall Street Stockbrokers crimes.
Neil: Just read this on Credit Slips – can you clarify – explain how this helps or hurts our cases. Thanks!
Fake Lender Rule Repeal
Posted: 21 Jun 2021 08:27 AM PDT
The House is schedule to take up a vote on repealing the OCC’s “Fake Lender Rule,” that would deem a loan to be made by a bank for usury purposes as long as the bank is a lender of record on the loan. Under the rule, issued in the waning days of the Trump administration, the bank is deemed to be the lender if its name is on the loan documentation, irrespective any other facts. Thus, under the rule, it does not matter if the bank was precommitted to selling the loan to a nonbank, which undertook the design, marketing, and underwriting of the loan. The bank’s involvement can be a complete sham, and yet under the OCC’s rule, it loan would be exempt from state usury laws because of the bank’s notional involvement. The Fake Lender Rule green lights rent-a-bank schemes, which have proliferated as the transactional structure of choice for predatory consumer and small business lenders.
Fortunately, the Fake Lender Rule can still be overturned under the Congressional Review Act, which allows certain recently made rules to be overturned through a filibuster-free joint resolution of Congress. Such a joint resolution passed the Senate 52-47 last month. Now the House is poised for its own vote. While the Senate vote was largely on partisan lines, some Republicans did join with Democrats to vote for the repeal. The dynamics in the House are somewhat different, as certain Democratic members have been opposed to the bill, but the fact that a vote is scheduled suggests that there should be the votes for repeal.
The repeal of the Fake Lender has been endorsed by a group of nearly 140 scholars from across the country, including yours truly and many Slipsters. You can read our letter urging the repeal here.
Bruce Jacobs absolutely gets our support . . . !