Attorney Bruce Jacobs in Miami Fl is Reaching Out — I think you support him if you are concerned about fraudulent foreclosures

Any attorney who has represented homeowners attempting to challenge illegal foreclosures will tell you that there is something inherently wrong with the foreclosure process as it is being applied. Bruce Jacobs, a 25 year veteran of judicial battle, is presenting a direct challenge to the sub silentio doctrines and assumptions that are forcing the sale of homestead property for the fun and profit of players who regularly fabricate documents and then lie about them.

Now Jacobs is starting a YouTube channel in support of this effort. As a leading successful advocate for Foreclosure defense, and as a practical litigator, Jacobs is concentrating on the constitutionality of taking property without due process.

I think he should be supported and recognized for his contribution not only to homeowners but to society at large which pays the price for illegal foreclosures.

 

SEE

https://www.facebook.com/groups/aafhelpus/posts/4802488059768010/

Please watch my new show on Community Newspapers: This is Constitutional with Bruce Jacobs. Ana Lazara Rodriguez was our very first guest. She talked about her fight against Castro’s corrupt regime 60 years ago and her fight for her home today. https://youtu.be/CPE3mc2qXVY
Please come support Ana’s fraud on the court trial this Wednesday and Thursday at 10:30AM. It’s going to be a David v. Goliath battle. Here is the Zoom information:
Zoom Meeting ID: 99768308659 Zoom Dial In Number: +1 786-635-1003 Zoom Link: https://zoom.us/j/99768308659

6 Responses

  1. I trust Jacobs. I do not trust Judges who cover for this fraud.

    Legisman is zealously advocating for Big Banks’ crimes, with total ignorance to all facts, the main is – NOBODY can find MONEY loaned to homeowners. All Courts and Recorders Offices are full of forged documents which describe non-existing transactions. But no one can present proof of lending MONEY.Information about money is not money.

    Mortgage itself is a form of Prospectus. Each Mortgage has securitization clause – “Note or a part of the Note can be sold”. This is an initial offering of security. Thus, the Contract was initially void for many reasons. First, the party who pretended to be a “Lender” was merely impersonator who collected information without lending intent.

    Second, be “originators” of securitized mortgages (because they do not provide the funds for the transactions) are undisclosed (concealed), unlicensed and unregulated securities dealers operating for purposes of acquiring notes and mortgages for unidentified (undisclosed and concealed) third parties in the securitization chain.

    The “originators” merely appear in the transactions as for an undisclosed commission or fee which may be in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

    The homeowners notes, acquired for re-sale, are specifically defined as securities under 15 USC sec. 77b(a).

    Most foreclosure cases involving securitized mortgages are securities fraud cases at their core. I think that is why the SEC has stood mute and failed to take action in cases alleged to involve foreclosure fraud.

    Regardless of what many courts have said, in error, homeowners have standing to challenge foreclosures and the identity of the party seeking the remedy of foreclosure.

    It is unnecessary to construe the note and mortgage as securities. The note is specifically defined as a security under 15 U.S.C. sec. 77b(a)(1). As to the mortgage, the mortgage is a security interest recognized in Chapter IX of the the Uniform Commercial Code. See, e.g. 9-203.

    See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77b(a)(1), which provides:
    (a) Definitions
    When used in this subchapter, unless the context otherwise requires—
    (1) The term “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a “security”, or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing. (Emphasis added.)

    The only issue is whether or not the notes thus acquired are in any way exempt from the Securities Act of 1933. I have been unable to locate an applicable exemption.

  2. Well – Can I say Hi? trying.

  3. I am unable to respond. Blocked.

  4. Legi – with respect — none of your cases address the issue on point. No case has addressed the real issue. There was no money issued to pay the PROPER party. This is not a “bookkeeping error.” There was no bookkeeping. This is the FINANCIAL CRISIS — what it did, and what really happened. To date — no one has addressed. I expect smart people to address. I think you can. Settlements came quick to conceal. If you do the research — you will find what I say. Mortgages are not supposed to be credit cards. And, people pay for them — with fees. You don’t get a real mortgage — you have breach. You can’t owe TWO parties. OR two “trusts.” Impossible — but that is what we have. And, only your non-friendly debt collector, and non-existent “trustee” – can provide this information to you. But you have to go back. Big mistake to limit to last transaction. .

  5. There is no mortgage contract if the prior trust is not recorded as paid by YOU. Instead, the prior trust liquidates the loan – ZERO VALUE – prior to refi or purchase, and the purchase or refinance is just a reinstatement of the alleged debt (likely with additional debt added). This does not mean a “debt” does not exist. It means that you did not get a mortgage to pay off the prior loan – which is what a mortgage is intended to do. Unsecured. This is why there is no accounting. This is why you start off – right at the top – with non-friendly debt collector. This problem is extensive in the crisis loans. It is when you have immediate debt collector “servicer” and you can’t figure out why. There is no LENDER. Nothing was lent — debt is just reinstated. So it is they that “breached” the “mortgage” contract – not YOU. Money trail. Does this Jacobs guy address this?

  6. I might be wrong. But I definitely don’t trust this Jacobs guy.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: