Message from WordPress About LivingLies

I received this message as part of my annual statistical report from WordPress, who hosts this blog.

About 55,000 tourists visit Liechtenstein every year. This blog was viewed about 1,700,000 times in 2012. If it were Liechtenstein, it would take about 31 years for that many people to see it. Your blog had more visits than a small country in Europe!

About these ads

220 Responses

  1. Hello! This is my 1st comment here so I just wanted to give a quick shout out and
    tell you I genuinely enjoy reading your posts. Can you suggest any other blogs/websites/forums that go over the same subjects?
    Thanks for your time!

  2. Ray Shelton, on December 19, 2013 at 12:20 am said:

    US Bank and SN Servicing has submitted Forged documents in our federal bankruptcy case too and we will never stop perusing them in court for damages. We are also asking our Federal judge to prosecute their current attorney out of Jacksonville Florida who continued to defend this case knowing that forged document are before a federal court. All the offending parties at SN Servicing and their attorneys are committing a serious crime against our country. We have filed a formal complaint with the FBI and the US attorney general and many great Judges all across this nation are finally stopping them from this kind of fraud on American families. US Bank and SN servicing and their attorneys are also violating a serious consent order that was to protect the people from these crimes but they could care less. Please feel free to have your clients join a class action suit so that we can end their behavior with a multi billion dollar punitive damage suit. Join us, call Ray Shelton in Florida at 352 274 8467

  3. - I am kasha i lives in uk and i was in a serious relationship with my ex guy for three good years.. One day we were in a dinner party, we had a little misunderstanding which lead to a Quarrel and he stood up and left me at the dinner party. i try to call him but he was not picking my calls so after than i contacted my brother and told him about it,my brother so much love me that he had to see him on my behalf,he told my brother that it is over between us.. Then i contacted a friend of mine that had this similar experience and she directed me to one of the spiritual diviner (maduraitemple@yahoo.com).at first i thought it was not going to be possible and i contacted him i was ask to come up with a little requirement,so i did what i was ask to do, after 3 days i was in my office when my ex guy called me and was asking me to forgive him and come back to him. i was very surprise it was like a dream to me,so ever since we have been happily married with one kid my lovely baby(Ceslav)…i wish you the best of luck…

  4. ……..and everyone knows it.

  5. The politicians are both.

  6. Psyhopathic or Terrorist?

  7. Obama and his entourage are slowly throwing EVERYONE INTO POVERTY…..and giving a few crumbs to his loyal followers….AKA….THE OBAMANATION…….but he is going to steal everything from everyone if he has his way. The U.S. is on it’s way to be coming a giant welfare nation paid for by all of us….. OBAMA IS NO MORE THAN A TOTALITARIAN SLUMLORD…..IN SHEEPS CLOTHES…OBAMA & THE BANK OVERLORDS ARE SLOWLY & STRATEGICALLY TURNING AMERICA INTO A GIANT SECTION 8 HOUSING PROJECT…

  8. The Military channel right now airing..THE FALL OF HITLER……IT ALL BEGAN WHEN HE TURNED THE JEWS INTO SECOND CLASS CITIZENS….HMMMM……SOUNDS FAMILIAR…..?

  9. ……IN EVERY CASE…….AND FREEDOM & LIBERTY IS RESTORED TO WE THE PEOPLE…..& EVERY COMMIE GETS THROWN OUT ON THEIR HEAD.

  10. THE TRUTH IS..I won’t be leaving until I SEE the U.S. CONSTITUTION….THE SUPREME LAW OF THIS LAND IS BEING UPHELD….

  11. LOL…..DON’T YOU WISH….? THE TRUTH IS I AM HAVING FUN WATCHING YOU COMMIES DROWNED…..YOU WON’T BE GETTING A LIFEBOAT FROM US…..BUT WE WILL GLADLY ASSIST YOU & HOLD YOUR HEADS UNDER…OR MAYBE WE WILL USE YOUR CRIMINAL FRAUD AS A LEAD WEIGHT & TIE IT TO YOUR ANKLES….

  12. Super….Then Please .. pleasure us by leaving this blog! We do not want to watch you drown. Its not a pretty site.

  13. I am well aware of commie abuses of everything the U.S. TAXPAYERS PAY FOR…and I told you, MYOB.. I have my business handled.

  14. I am very much aware of the abuse of the public assistance programs and the efforts to combat it. What does that have to do with saving your home?

  15. You want to hear how crooks game and rob the system……? My neighbor told me she saw how…..they pay for food with the link card and it is in the middle of a bank roll of cash..Or….the link card holders who drive away in brand new cars…that’s right…My husband & I worked our asses off our whole lives and never owned a new car, a boat or a summer home…..and never took a vacation……NEVER…So don’t tell me about OBAMAS ENTITLEMENT DOLE….I AM NOT ON IT…AND NEVER WAS…

  16. I HAVE NEVER RECEIVED SO CALLED PUBLIC ASSISTANCE IN MY LIFE….BUT IF I DID …I PAID FOR IT…!

  17. We already paid for EVERYTHING scumbag……28 YEARS OF PAYING PROPERTY TAXES THAT HAVE ALWAYS BEEN DOUBLE WHAT THEY SHOULD BE…..and then some. What about ALL THE TAXPAYERS WHO PAY TAXES AND THEIR KIDS GO TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS….? OR THE SENIORS WHO PAY TAXES WHO HAVE NO KIDS GOING TO SCHOOL…? OR THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO KIDS AT ALL AND ARE PAYING TAXES……? SCUMBAG LYING CROOKS THAT IS WHO ALL OF THESE POLITICIANS ARE…

  18. News Flash… your kids go to public schools, walk on public sidewalks, you drive on public roads,use public fire & police services, use public libraries and courts, You get Public Assistance…!!! Who do you think pays for this? The Taxpayer~The Public~ !! You are an Idiot!

  19. NEWS FLASH……I’m not paying for the PUBLIC SECTORS ROBBERY WITH MY PROPERTY & I’M NOT PAYING FOR THEIR healthcare either with OBAMA(NATION)CARE…

  20. Though they are greedy & selfish too…I am not blaming the MAINSTREET entitlement people….the people who believe that it is A o.k. if the FED steals everything the private sector worked their entire lives for, to pay the PUBLIC SECTORS ENTITLEMENTS … as long as they don’t steal theirs.

    I am talking about the GREEDY BANK OWNERS, SHAREHOLDERS & DIRECTORS WHO ROBBED EVERYONE……Like Kudlow said, who does Obama think he’s fooling using the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO PROTECT ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS…..?

    ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

    WE THE PEOPLE ALL WERE ROBBED BY THE FED OWNERS….NOT JUST THE PUBLIC SECTOR.

    OBAMA IS A LIAR & A DECEIVER….A TYRANT..PLAIN & SIMPLE

  21. Absolutely. You keep harping on it, though. Let it go. i won’t change for you or anyone else.

  22. I’m not the Sue Happy Type Christine … but to each their own.

  23. Someone has to do it. And i enjoy it. Sue me!

  24. What I meant by Hopper is .. someone who could care less about a homestead and moves around. I never blamed this on the homeowners, the investers or the taxpayers. We all know who blew this up … and they need Jailed! But I get sick of homeowners blaming the Main Street Investers and Pensions. Bull Hocky! You are Just Kicking an Emty Can …… for self gain!!! Its not going to work with me or the courts!

  25. A third party debt collector not before the court does not have a valid legal claim because they were not a party to the original “transaction” even if it is the same party … THE FED ……pretending to buy up its own soured debt.

  26. That may very well be but systematically blaming the borrowers for this country’s woes is disingenuous and divisive and it is exactly what has served to perpetrate this economic ordeal. And my position has nothing to do with “hopping” (whatever that means…) E. ToLLe and UKG are not hoppers. They have the same position. So please don’t try to drown the fish with non-issues and don’t make yourself out as the victim.

    There are as many victims as there are citizens in this country, from Grandma and her reverse mortgage to the kids next door who had to stop after school activities because schools can’t offer them anymore, with the whole gamut in between. And in the meantime, whether or not you are in litigation is your choice. We made a different one.

  27. What is it exactly you are implying, regarding the ‘rentals’

  28. First off Christine. I had no choice where the Trustee invested with my Pension. I made clear choices of our 401k and stayed 75% invested in secure triple A .. paid 2-3%. Yeah I dabbled a few with higher risk investments. As for my husbands pension, its a Company Plan and he has no say where the Trustee invests. Get It Straight!

  29. “And unless you have a pension or retirement savings… dont pretend to know what risks the invester [sic] took!”

    You know, every time I catch American Greed, I am always amazed that people were doing very, very well with having a 6 to 8% return on their pension plan for years. All of a sudden, someone they never investigated came along and offered 20 to 30% and all the “victims” state the same damn thing: “It seemed impossible at the time and I hesitated for months. Common sense was telling me that there was something fishy. But then, my neighbo0r (friend, cousin, you name it) talked me into it.” Just for the hell of it, Guest, how high did your interest rate go on your pension plan when it started to tank?

    I agree wholeheartedly with E. ToLLe. Investors were speculators. The knew what they were doing and they had that gut feeling that something wasn’t quite right. They still went ahead. I’m sorry guest but I don’t buy it. Speculation implies risk. They damn well took it. Borrowers, on the other hand, never knew and never were told that their house would be used as a cash cow for loan originators, lenders, title insurers, investors, etc. And, to top it off, they were never told that originators would lie on the paperwork, lift their signatures after the fact, issue false documents and compound insult to injury, including rob trillions and stick this country and our kids with debts they can never repay.

  30. I do not make the Laws, I am not an Attorney. I Follow the Rules and I listen to my husbands attorney. I Live ..I Love.. I Laugh.. and I Learn. And unless you have a pension or retirement savings… dont pretend to know what risks the invester took! I know the risk diff in ratings and I know what I got! Screwed by the Bank bought Rating Agencies! PFFFT!!

  31. Nice to see some actual REAL commentary and interesting to read….whooh…:-)

  32. These crooks have to prove an injury in fact that is both concrete and particularized…..a copy of note & mortgage proves nothing.

  33. E-Tolle, on a lot of stated income loans .. the income was falsifed by only two parties. The homeowner and/or the mortgage origionater. If the homeowner can not prove they have the income … how are they going to make the payments? It comes down to what is owed …if you dont have the income to maintain the property and pay taxes/ins and pay a payment on what is really owed … Reality sets in.. you are living above your means. Get an attorney …. only they can advise you. Stripes did not like what her reality was.

  34. Even when property escheats to the State .. The State can not sell the property. The former owner/legal owner, still has a claim to come forward and caim the property back from the State under SOL. Hence .. Rentals

  35. Guest, I’m guessing that my horse is 100% dead at this point, legs straight up to the sky, as I’ve been kicking him all afternoon with you. We just look at this thing differently, I suppose.

    You said, “E-Tolle, FC rates will remain High. Most reasonable people realize they can not afford the home.”

    And why would that be? No, not the part about FC rates remaining high, or about being reasonable….why is it that they can’t afford the home? That’s my question for you.

    My answer, which is obviously different from yours, is because we were all swindled by an amazing Ponzi scheme that demanded appraisers tote bankster bales, at the increasingly higher prices demanded, that the underwriters used their erasers more than their pencils when reviewing underlying files, and then had zero skin in the game when the whole thing went south, as they’d pre-sold all the underlying goo.

    From what I can tell, you see it from the perspective of the borrower getting too much house and is now in a position of paying dearly for that mistake. Add to that little borrower error the fact that the entire economy imploded, not due to anything the borrower did, but because the banksters bet against us all in their house of cards.

    I’m from Venus, you’re from Mars. I like my view better.

    Ps. Your last statement says it all…. “Its not about what is owed to you … its always been about what you owe. Simple”

    I call bullshit. When multiples of trillions are removed from the economy, and everything lurches to a halt, it IS about what is owed from the assholes who blew up the entire deal. You can take that to the…uh….well, take it somewhere, I don’t care.

  36. To all who lost their homes because they fixed their books .. I Think the Settlement Sucks!! My daughter bought a REO in Jan 2007. The Attorney says the homeowner can come back after the home under state law. I understand it is unlikely and an uphill battle for the former homeower but never the less the SOL in Long, she is stuck with the unsecured debt. She can not refinance or sell the home. How do you like those Apples? Buyers Beware! Why do you think they are going to use them for rentals for 20years?

  37. What Buttwipe claims you owe and what you think you owe …. does not mesh with what you Legally Owe. Thats All Folks!

  38. Its not about what is owed to you … its always been about what you owe. Simple

  39. Insolvent: I want a slice of the American Pie, price: $2.00 a slice. I want mine served with Ice Cream, price: $3.50. But I only have .10 cents in my pocket. Butt I will tell you a secret if you give me a piece of pie with ice cream. They reply, well that depends what your secret is and how much it is worth, they want to know my secret. I ramble on and on and on about my secret and what is owed to me. When I finish …. everybody laughs and I am told..Thats no Secret. No Deal!

  40. E-tolle…2007? How long is your State SOL for failure to make a claim before the asset/debt escheats to the State? Just Curious…

  41. E-Tolle, FC rates will remain High. Most reasonable people realize they can not afford the home. Others who can and have alot invested have became victims of the scam without ever knowing it until years later. Alot of folks remain in litigation limbo awaiting state by state rulings. When going before a Judge… ask yourself are you a Creditable Witness? Do you have Judgements against You? Are you a Taxpayer? Do you pay your taxes? What is your DTI? I am sooo glad I am not a Judge!!

  42. The debt collectors know what the actual losses are to the investers and they are trying to EXTORT you into paying a ficticous/fraudulent amount in unearned intrest and fees (and taxes/insurance). Screw Them! Are you a Responsible and Reasonable Person? Get an Attorney… pay what is really owed and move on with Life! If you are still in the ring of limbo after all these years … its of your own creation.

  43. Guest, that’s exactly what’s happening as we speak. 10 million homes lost so far to foreclosure since 2007, and another 9 or 10 million to go before we’re done. Homeowners have lost $8 trillion in home equity (in the last 4 years) and 11 million people are currently underwater on their mortgages. All of this is unprecedented. All of this is the result of fraud. And yet you want to have the borrowers simply eat that $8 trillion bucks, and be overjoyed to sign up for a new mortgage with the investors as if nothing nasty went down. I truly don’t get it.

    Why don’t we all just go stand in the Get Your Ass Kicked Again line? It sounds like that’s what you’re suggesting. You seem to have a very high moral trait tilted towards the investors, not so much towards the REAL losers here, the borrowers. Remember, we never signed up to be securitized and gambled upon. Investors did. And it didn’t go well for them or us. But that’s life. Investments don’t always pay off. But borrowers shouldn’t lose due to rampant fraud from gambling we were never made aware of going on with our homes. I’d agree to what you’re suggesting, if in fact we had been made partners in the original scheme of things and took risks against the possible gains. We didn’t.

    And believe me, I can sleep with my attitude on all this just fine.

  44. Oooosps … I meant to type that is why I did NOT file a lawsuit. Sorry.

  45. E-Tolle, If you sue the Feds .. you are sueing the taxpayers now for Buttwipe Clean Up. Its a Losing Battle! I would rather save the taxpayer the harm, save the RPII the losses and keep my home. That is why I did file a lawsuit.

  46. I could not sleep at night in my home knowing that someone who worked, paid taxes and saved their whole life was standing in bread lines and living in shelters or under bridges. Could You?

  47. Guest, I’ve always had an issue with Neil’s version of bringing the investors and the borrowers together. That’s like trying to recreate something whole, simply because those thieving criminals in between caused complete mayhem, and therefore we should all have to try and superglue this fat-assed Humpty Dumpty back together again. That reeks of everyone just pretending that a huge crime scene should be completely ignored, which, come to think about it, is exactly what’s going on thanks to our captured government’s unwillingness to fess up to the realities all around us.

    I guess I’m just hard-assed about all this stuff. The only thing I’d ever be comfortable with is tens or even better hundreds of thousands of 38 longs doing the frog march into prisons across the land, and the vast amount….trillions upon trillions, of dollars being TARPED out to the borrowers for their troubles. I read a comment on another blog yesterday where the guy put forth the proposition that $3 Trillion that banks simply shifted off book and was Caymanized, if that were taken, yes, by force, and redistributed to each American, we’d all get a check for $10K, which I agree would go a long way towards righting this whole left by the implosion due to these jerk’s greed. I do believe we should all get nice parting gifts for all we’ve put up with.

    I agree with Neil 100% that the only way the economy, and therefore society, will ever recover will be by prying loose these kinds of amounts of monies to the borrowers who have been wronged. I hope I’m not the only one who thinks Tim Geithner has earned his place in the top spot in the hall of shame for government employees by hanging every borrower out on limbs while saving his beloved banks. I can only hope that in his next position at Sachs or Citi, the cable securing his ivory tower’s elevator makes a loud SSHWENG sound and snaps really hard while he and Paulson and a few others ride it down to Wall Street at breakneck speed, and that’s not meant to be a metaphor that I just used.

  48. I play by the rules to Christine …. that does not make me a Coward because I didnt file a Lawsuit.

  49. I am not an Attorney… GET ONE! I guarentee you that most will ADVISE NOT TO DO what Stripper or Christine are doing.

  50. The Buttwipes made money off invester money … investers cut off funds to buttwipes. Investers use their own money to buy the debt /or recieve back by escheat those assets they held title to (via MERS), but didnt get the note. Investers cut new deal with homeowners (for actual Losses) ..QT is filed against Buttwipes who are not Morgagee of Title. You get to keep your home and move on with your Life. Fair? Nothing in Life is Free and the Greedy Should Not Be Rewarded! But they should be prosecuted and/or given the Boot!

  51. If the asset goes unclaimed it escheats to the State (Public). State Public & Federal Pensions sound Familer? The RPII .. !!! Who do you think the investers in blackrock and others are? The RPII trying to recoup their losses? The Investers?

  52. E Tolle,
    As always, I admire your passion and your wit. Mandelman is useful to a degree, but he may have gazed a wee bit too long into the abyss, which is what that article of his sounded like to me.

  53. Christine, we are not all Hoppers. Some of us have our Deep Routes in our communites for generations and our children and grandchildren are growing up here. We have worked , saved and paid for everything we own. No Discounts! I have a Hard Time Swallowing that Just because someone else was Greedy that those pensions and retirement investmers should get ZERO …so some Greedy Buttwipe or Greedy Homeowner can get Something for Nothing! Give Me a Break!

  54. E. ToLLe,

    I posted a couple of articles on the next page. One of them is from Forbes and it simply demands that banks admit to having screwed up big time. Interestingly, this year Edelman Survey (picked up by both Bloomberg and Huffington) confirms that people have had it up to… and even higher with banks and governments, worldwide and that the elites are in the hot seat.

    Hey, listen, I’ve kept my fingers crossed for so long that they’ve got that nasty and permanent bent…

    Yeah, I read that Bill Black thing. I think I might have read everything Bill Black has written for the past 4 years. The way i look at it, if he, a former regulator, can’t seem to make himself heard any more than Barofsky, who are we, individual homeowners, to hope we’ll do better? You’ve been right all along: it will have to come down to the streets. Tar and pitchforks. And I am very aware that, for each loan modified, there is a homeowner lost to the cause… That’s the plan. Give a little to keep the peace and present it over and over like the most humanitarian measure possible under the circumstances. All other homeowners intent on fighting are just ungrateful, greedy bastards trying to f*$# it up for the rest.

  55. E-Tolle, I agree with Bill Black. A Good Down to Earth Honest Man! He does not Hold Back! The Buttwipes screwed all of us and some of us in multiple ways. That is why I agree with Neil.. Bring the Investers and the Homeowners together and hash out a new deal between themselves without the Marshmellow in the Middle.

  56. Christine, Neil hasn’t lost any credibility in my eyes due to this nitwit napalming his site. He obviously has different views of what is allowed on his site, or he’s simply too busy denying and discovering? I do want to see how that D&D gig’s going. Seems to me that one doesn’t necessarily lead to the other, meaning….judges are so loathe to force their bankster buddies into discovery….it’s just so much work for them, you know, having to produce (fabricate) all those legal (fraudulent) documents, proving their complete (lack of) a chain of title.

    As to Mandleman, I’m aware of his direct lines to bank president’s offices, and I’m sure he feels like he’s doing good work with what he does. But for what it’s worth, and I more than any realize my opinion isn’t worth the digital ones and zeros that I’m typing, I can’t justify, under any set of facts or reasonings, modifying anything whatsoever with the banksters. As I said a minute ago to guest, nothing can derive from fraud, and in my mind, signing anything with these criminals is selling out in the worst way. Prostitution.

    I understand that there are plenty of people out there who would sign away their first born if it would cement their mortgage into something affordable….lots of folks are totally wrapped up in their houses. I’d honestly rather live in a cave than acknowledge these criminals in any other documents, or enter into another agreement with these assholes.

    As Bill Black said just today:

    “ The banksters deliberately targeted less sophisticated borrowers, particularly in Detroit, to take out liar’s loans at premium yields. The banksters often mocked the borrowers they defrauded as savages in a tone that Moore mimics with her “filthy mud swamp” gibe. The banksters did this during the height of the bubble – and then grossly inflated the borrower’s income and the home’s appraised value. The banksters then fraudulently sold those fraudulently originated mortgages to Wall Street (and eventually Fannie and Freddie). Wall Street banksters then created fraudulent collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and, with the eager aid of the rating agencies, Wall Street law firms, and auditors, they then fraudulently sold the fraudulent CDOs or the banksters fraudulently held them for the firm’s own account (which maximized the banksters’ bonuses but caused the failure of entities like Merrill Lynch – we call it “looting” for a reason). The banksters then used their political power to cripple and pervert programs that Congress intended to be for homeowner relief into programs that in the immortal admission of Treasury Secretary Geithner, were actually designed to “foam the runways” to bail out the SDIs. The banksters then committed over one million felonies in order to fraudulently foreclose on homeowners. Finally (one prays), the banksters used their political power and economic extortion to coerce immunity not only from criminal prosecution, but even meaningful criminal investigation and disclosure of their literally millions of crimes.”

    The only relationship I want to have towards these clowns in the future is serving on a jury that puts them away for life.

    Read more of Bill Black’s comments at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/bill-black-the-handmaiden-of-capitalism-v-the-swamp-denizen-of-detroit-william-k-black.html#wP32Z1jWelAWW2Yi.99

  57. Christine,
    I did not appeal. I figured it would just be a waste of money and time. Plus I didn’t want to give the bastards a chance to establish a precedent that they’d be sure to follow.

    If anyone has Michele Sjolander endorsement on your note, rest assured that BoA cannot produce an witness who was in charge of putting Sjolander’s stamp on a note. Sjolander admitted she doesn’t stamp the notes and doesn’t know who does. She admits that it impossible to know when notes are endorsed and the only evidence of when endorsement is done is a computer-generated record that purports to show that notes were wanded “without deficiency,” meaning they were endorsed at the time they were wanded. However, the wanding is insufficient as evidence that the note was endorsed–the computer-generated record only proves that something was wanded, NOT that what was wanded had an endorsement. The only person that could testify from personal knowledge whether or not there was an endorsement at the time of wanding is the person who did the wanding. And to my knowledge, they don’t keep up with those people and therefore can’t produce them for testimony. Sjolander’s testimony re: any endorsement using her name is worthless.

    I’m not a lawyer. I lost my case. This is not legal advice.

  58. E-Tolle…. the simplist way I know to prove contract fraud is to Demand Enforcement of the Contract. You have to be Mortgagee of Title to meet those obligations.

  59. @Z….. I would like to see the endorsements on my husbands Note …. and compare them to the chain of title. That is were the Rubber meets the road.

  60. Guest, you’re conveniently shifting the narrative to suit your stance. I never said you’re a bad person. I never said it’s about getting what one wants. Yes money changed hands, but how many times, and from whom to whom?

    Listen, we all know the securitization machine’s not just badly bent, it’s broken completely. They’ve manipulated the entire scheme and been paid off multiple times, from your favorite hideout, the entities known as taxpayers. Oh, and also the investors. Oh, and don’t forget, the insurance swaps.

    The most important issue that you’re avoiding like dodgeball is that 99% of us were lied to at origination. And that’s contract fraud. Are you going to continue to say that because there was money lent initially, even if under fraudulent terms or conditions, that the money is still owed to and from the two parties represented on the documents? What about the fact that the real party who loaned the money, otherwise known as the THIRD PARTY, who was absent any mention on the docs, is the actual injured party, not the shyster who sat across from us all pretending to be the originator?

    I’ve mentioned this many times….”the law is very clear on the matter: Clear Title May Not Derive From A Fraud (including a bona fide purchaser for value). Just ask Mr. Bevilacqua, who purchased a home (Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez, Mass) from foreclosure and lost it due to the bank never having had title to begin with. Although not directly a “title may not derive from fraud” scenario, it’s close enough to make the point…one can not grant what one does not have.

    So yes, the money came from somewhere or someone, but was that correctly noticed in the transaction and the documentation, or was the money shifted from another outside source and the property titled to an interloper? I say yes.

  61. Zurr,

    Have you appealed? Would that make a dent if you did? What state are you in? (That’s the biggie…)

  62. I want to point out again that the judge in my case said, in writing, that I would have won my case if Bank of America had not come up with an endorsed note. Of course, the endorsement was completely fake and the judge well knew that, but ruled for the bank anyway.

  63. Zurr,

    “One more thing–we cannot and should not depend on Garfield, Mandelman, Barnes, or anyone to define our strategy. We have to take what all of them say and use what works best for us.”

    This is the most common sense statement I have read here in a very, very long time. Thank you for confirming that it isn’t dead.

  64. Neil Garfield is his own man. He is amazing. He is not Mandelman, but Mandelman is no Garfield. Had it not been for Neil, I would not have known to sue for quiet title. I lost, but not b/c of Neil. I lost b/c the courts are corrupt. I agree with Mandeman and others that the fake money thing won’t fly in court, but then again, nothing will. The courts are nit following the law and are doing what they want, and what they want is to serve the banks.

    One more thing–we cannot and should not depend on Garfield, Mandelman, Barnes, or anyone to define our strategy. We have to take what all of them say and use what works best for us.

  65. THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK /STOCK EXCHANGE ARE CREDIT EXCHANGES……THEY DON’T OWN ANYTHING….THEY ARE PART OF THE ELECTRONIC SHADOW GOVERNMENT THAT ONLY EXISTS IN YOUR MIND AND IN CYBERSPACE…..THINK MERSCORP & CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP INSURANCE…..IT’S ALL AN ILLUSION…..AND A GIANT FRAUD……THESE BANK OWNERS DO NOT OWN ANYTHING……THAT IS WHY INVESTMENT/INDORSEMENT DOES NOT GUARANTEE SECURITY ENTITLEMENTS……

  66. E-Tolle, Its not about getting what you want, its about doing the right thing. If you think that makes me a bad person .. that is your opinion, It is my opinion of myself that matters. As a Pensioner, Investor and Stockholder …… I know money exchanged hands. This home was a one owner paid off in the eighties by the Origional Owner. The Owners Trust was paid CASH for this puchase. That money came from somewhere ….. if it was not the Buttwipes, then who?

  67. There is a big difference between a constant stream of information and a constant stream of communist fabrications, lies and deceptions.

    Neil obviously believes in our Constitutional rights to free speech however, our enemies use our own legal rights against us.

    Obama and the politicians, the FED and the current Supreme Court and much of law enforcement and the judiciary are undeniable proof of that abuse, manipulation and misrepresentation.

    There is a lot of important info here now that educated patriots who know the real plan of our enemies is totalitarianism however, everyone has to do their own research. These are perilous times and there are very decisive battles being waged by our enemies both foreign and domestic who make no mistake, will stop at nothing to steal your freedom and your liberty from you.

    These are extremely perilous and treachorous times and we must educate ourselves about who our enemy is, its methodology ..&.BIG IDEOLOGY that flies in the face of our founding principals and the laws of this land and its ultimate goal….to make you a mind slave for life….

    Make no mistake our enemies are the ultimate evil, the bank owners, shareholders, directors and investors want your mind, body and ultimately your soul.

  68. Mandelman is yet another deceptive traitor. He has been helping homeowners get rung up and making sure they sign a new unsustainable debt for the criminal bank owners. The “doers” are going to bats alright, and helping him get the job done of ringing people up with all new fraudulently induced contracts…….A lifetime of slavery to unsustainable bankster and Wall Street debt fraud for the EVIL BANK OWNERS…

    You maniac commie trolls like christine are lucky Neil let’s you maniacs post your Globalist communist poison here. However I know Neil is a patriot who believes in the Constitution and the First Amendment is afforded to everyone even criminals, traitors and our foreign enemies as well.

    All I can say is……our enemies, both foreign & domestic WILL & DO USE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST US. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH and BEWARE THE DECEIVERS because OUR FREEDOM & LIBERTY are under heavy attack by our enemies both foreign and domestic. These deceivers are terrorists and what they want more than anything is for you to believe their evil lies. These are perilous and treachorus times.

  69. E. ToLLe and Zurr,

    I too posted that Mandelman a couple of weeks because i don’t see it as a bad thing but rather as something we all must be very, very aware of. Here is a guy, Mandelman, who has been helping homeowners. He gets results and he has a legion of “doers” willing to go to bats for other people (Garfield doesn’t. If anything, his attack each others all the time).

    He systematically posts address, phone number and e-mail of every banker he has contacted in connection with poor peons being foreclosed on and requiring help. He gets all heavy lifters to come to his site and to give him interviews. Garfield doesn’t do any of it and Garfield is peddling his products (forensic analysis) as being the holy grail.

    Mandelman has a hell of a lot more to show for his efforts than Garfield. Garfield could be right until the cows come home: the fact is that his theories are still very fringe and, when advanced in court, do not help homeowners at all. As Brian keeps asking: where are the wins? Mandelman has saved houses. Garfield hasn’t. Mandelman appears reasonable. Garfield doesn’t and is perceived as having pushed the “free house” as a normal and just compensation, regardless of circumstances.

    With the new development on Garfield site, i.e., the constant rants of a mental case going on for over 6 months, Garfield has lost a lot of credibility. And as I keep insisting on, the big guys never mention him except to chuckle. When did we see LL mentioned by Mark Stopa, Jeff Barns, Max Gardner, Cox, Hewitt or any of them? Garfield hasn’t even been able to get a straight answer from his own AG on one year while Mandelman scored a Neil Barofsky and a Cathy Austin Fitts interview. Even my own attorney stopped reading LL when he realized that most of his theories will NOT fly in court.

    Garfield does have his role to but play right now, they don’t belong in the same league. For one thing, anyone can post on Mandelman. But he is smart enough not to allow it to appear under his articles. So, a mental case like we have here would never cause the damages she does. Come to think of it, not one of those sites posts comments as Garfield does. This site has become the real TV of websites.

  70. Of course you’re right zurenarrh. Guest has conveniently left out that all of his/her post is simply more “pay what you owe, deadbeat” jargon. In reality and due to the never tested in real time securitizing greed machine, there are no “real” mortgages, all money is created out of thin air, and exactly where did any of us agree to having our sovereign debt issuance taken over by the banking cartel?

    But, and it’s a big but, what in the hell does any of this have to do with foreclosure defense? IMO, it’s about as relevant as this idiot assvent’s wild-eyed rants about Satan and his legion of fallen angels v. the Vatican, or whatever in the hell she’s spewing about today ….none of it serves any purpose on Neil’s website save for confusing the true underlying issues and making it difficult to carry on conversations about helpful procedures in law. And if it serves no real purpose here, just wait until someone takes these arguments in front of the bench. You talk about enraged….that will be the attitude of the judge, not a moniker of a former LL poster.

    All of this nonsense is obviously a deliberate attack on a website that before too long ago provided a constant stream of helpful insight and welcomed camaraderie in a field that way too often ends up being a David v. Goliath scenario or worse. Trillion Dollar Bank v. Lone Broke Borrower. Let’s see, who has the upper hand there?

    Bottom line, what this site really needs more than ever is a moderator. Failing that, there’s no sense in trying to follow threads any longer. Bankster troll assvent wins. It’s Neil’s call.

  71. I agree z…..all of their reserves, our wealth, goes in the banksters pockets ….and it is far from a fractional amount of our wealth. The fractional part is just the usury they collect and pocket by lying to us. The rest of their so called reserves is the money they print and create out of thin air from lending their bogus credit. Banking is a giant scam they use to rob and control us. That along with taxation and social safety nets and we are left with nothing but their lousy credit/debit microchipped mark of the beast system. These so called political leaders and giants of the industry are in fact giant frauds. They are in fact, very deceptive robberbarons for the rich. Mandelman is a sneaky suck up brown noser to the rich.

  72. Guest posted, without attribution a Mandelman article about the nature of money, in which Mandelman attempts to debunk the very real argument that banks create money out of nothing. Mandelman actually defends fractional reserve banking and claims not to understand why it’s a bad thing.

    He even tries to use the ol’ “haul in a psychologist who did a study and generalize the findings of the study to everyone” trope. Well, Mandelman, we ain’t buying it (pun intended) with our money, the fiat Federal Reserve Note, or a monetized promissory note. The fact is, the banks are insolvent and don’t have any money to lend–never have. The fact that operating in insolvency is legal doesn’t change the fact that banks in a fractional reserve system are, by definition, insolvent. That is to say, they don’t have “reserves” that Mandelman refers to in his boilerplate example of how fractional reserve banking works. They’re technically supposed to, but they don’t, as explained in this article:

    http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/03/us-banks-operate-without-reserve.html

    Furthermore, the Fed itself explains in its publications like “Modern Money Mechanics” that “banks create money when they lend it.” Why Mandelman thinks this is a good thing–or a benign thing–is beyond me. That one phrase–”banks create money when they lend it”–explains the entirety of the fraudulent nature of our financial system. That single phrase is an open admission that promissory notes are monetized–that is, a promissory note is a worthless piece of paper until one’s signature is placed on it and then given to a bank, at which time that plain piece of copy paper becomes worth the amount of the “loan” written on the face of that paper. And it’s worth that amount immediately, not in the future. If that isn’t fraud, I don’t know what is.

    And people may say, “well, we all agreed to this system, etc.” Actually, none of us agreed to such a system, not knowingly and not explicitly. It was foisted upon us. The Federal Reserve notes we are all required to use are just now turning 100 years old. Federal Reserve notes were just willed into being in 1913, with the first series being produced in 1914. For Mandelman and others of his ilk to act as though these Federal Reserve notes are in any sense “real money” is laughable.

    Just sayin’…don’t listen to Mandelman on this point.

  73. EXTRA EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT…..PAPAL BLOODLINES….THE REAL POWER STRUCTURE OF THE BEAST…..

    http://zavernik.blogspot.com/2011/12/papal-bloodlines.html?m=1

    If the link is “broken” GOOGLE THAT LINK BECAUSE KNOWLEDGE IS POWER…..

  74. BE WISE AS THESE SERPENTS…

  75. BE WISE….By all means have your i’s dotted and your t’s crossed before you go see an attorney. They can’t invoke your Constitutional Rights which are Superior to both the State and Federal Governments …

  76. A word of advice…..ignore the communist trolls….

  77. Have you been told or have you read about any of these things lately?

    Banks don’t lend money?

    Bank’s monetize a borrower’s credit?

    You don’t have to pay your mortgage payments and banks can’t foreclose?

    There is really never ever any money involved in you getting a mortgage and buying a home?

    If you don’t repay the loan, no one is actually harmed?

    How about any of these?

    The bank lent you your own money?

    The bank basically hijacked your credit to cash a check at the fed using your signature and credit file?

    The fed lent money to your underwriter on your signature and your promise, not theirs?

    What about these statements?

    This was money added to the money supply and given to your originator by the fed?

    You’re not the borrower… you are the creditor and have given them or they have stolen your credit?

    There CANNOT be any foreclosures because there never was any REAL money lent to the borrower?

    Yes? Well, if you have then you’re not alone…

    I spoke with a homeowner facing foreclosure a couple weeks ago. That’s not an unusual event, by any means, I speak with homeowners at risk of foreclosure every single day. But this conversation was different. I’d never heard anyone say the things he was saying as he described how banking and mortgages work in this country.

    Basically, he was trying to tell me that all mortgages were fraudulent and something about the banks never lending any real money to anyone. And then something about how his loan had been paid off by different kinds of insurance more than once. The whole thing was adding up to his realization that he didn’t have to repay his loan and it wouldn’t matter at all.

    I tried to ask a few questions in an attempt to get him to clarify what he was saying, but he got more and more frustrated with my apparent unwillingness to agree with his argument… whatever it was.

    Another homeowner told me something similar recently, she said that no loans were ever originated. I asked how that could possibly be the case, and she said the banks “collateralized the down payments ten times.” I asked what she meant by collateralized, and just like the previous homeowner, she got frustrated with my question. She then said it had something to do with the “Fed window,” which was obviously a reference to the discount window at the Federal Reserve.

    She was sure that I already knew what “collateralized” meant and also that I knew all about the Federal Reserve, and therefore I was only asking my questions to give her a hard time. I explained that I did think that I knew the definition of “collateralized” and did know about the discount window at the Fed, but I didn’t understand how those things related to her statement about no mortgages being originated.

    In simple terms, I didn’t understand what “collateralized” and the discount window had to do with me applying for a mortgage and buying a home, and she was incredulous at my saying that I didn’t know.

    I felt badly for the homeowners after the calls. “Banks don’t lend money? Well, that’s just silly. “The bank lent you your own money?” Well, that’s even sillier. And your loan being paid off multiple times by insurance policies? How can anyone believe that? If that were true then investors would have no losses and we know that’s not the case, right?

    For a while after the calls, I tried to put the conversations out of my mind. I had seen increasing amounts of misinformation proliferate since the foreclosure crisis began, but I couldn’t help but wonder from where was this coming. Who would be telling people that no loans were originated, or making any of the other statements listed at the top of this article?

    Coincidentally, a few weeks later a blogger I’m friends with called to ask if I’d heard of a company… Legal Forensic Auditors, or LFA. He described them as a company that sells forensic audits, securitization audits, and other related “reports,” all provided to “help homeowners,” according to the company’s Website.

    Help homeowners how, I couldn’t help but wonder.

    I told him that I had never heard of them, but while we were talking I went online to find their Website to see what I could find out. I saw a tab labeled “Articles,” and clicked on it to see what was there. Scrolling down I saw a headline, “Mortgages are Fraudulent,” and I don’t know why but I clicked on it.

    In just a few seconds of reading, something was ringing bells…

    “Here is an interesting article making the argument that your bank or mortgage company never was a lender to you. They basically hijacked your credit to cash a check at the fed using your signature and credit file. They lent you your own money. The fed lent money to your underwriter on your signature and your promise, not theirs. This was money added to the money supply and given to your originator by the fed. Sound crazy??

    Where the heck had I heard this stuff before? I couldn’t place it right away, but I knew I had heard something similar recently. Then it hit me and I told my friend on the phone… Oh my God, I had just heard this same stuff from two different homeowners… what in the world was going on here? The set-up to the article continued…

    “This is very interesting reading and you should take a close look at Montgomery vs. Daly – Google this case and we have put a text copy of the case underneath this article. We have a deposition of a banker based on this very argument that will blow you away. The banker admitted that no bank assets were lent to borrower, but rather a bookkeeping entry was used to create the money to lend and that bookkeeping entry was allowed because of the signature on the promissory note obtained fraudulently.”

    I went on to read the article and I pulled some of the more outlandish quotes for the beginning of this article, but let me be very clear about something before I say anything else… it’s not true… none of it. Not even a little bit… in fact, it’s utter nonsense. And in normal times, no one would believe it for a moment.

    But alas, these are not normal times.

    First of all, let’s look at the case this whole line of thinking is based on… Montgomery v. Daly, a civil case in Credit River Township, Scott County, Minnesota, heard by the courts on December 9, 1968. It’s often referred to as “The Credit River Case.” Here’s the case in a nutshell version…

    The Credit River Case…

    First National Bank of Montgomery foreclosed on Jerome Daly’s property for nonpayment of the mortgage, and was seeking to evict him from the property.

    Jerome Daly was an attorney who based his defense on the argument that the bank had not actually loaned him any money but rather had created credit on its books and therefore had not given him anything of value and was not entitled to the property that secured the loan.

    The jury and the justice of the peace, Martin V. Mahoney, agreed. The Justice of the Peace declared the mortgage “null and void” and said the bank was not entitled to possession of the property.

    Now, it should come as no surprise that the bank appealed the very next day, and the decision was ultimately nullified on the grounds that a Justice of the Peace did not have the power to make such a ruling, but that’s really not the whole story.

    You see… Jerome Daly was a kook. He was also a long-time tax protester who was convicted of failing to file tax returns for 1967 and 1968, his argument being that the only ‘Legal Tender Dollars’ are those which contain a mixture of gold and silver and that only those dollars may be constitutionally taxed.

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected his appeal and referring to Daly’s contention that the only dollars had to contain gold and silver, noted: “Defendant’s fourth contention involves his seemingly incessant attack against the federal reserve and monetary system of the United States. This contention is clearly frivolous.”

    The Minnesota Supreme Court later disbarred Jerome Daly in a decision in a case very similar to the Credit River case, which involved the SAME justice of the peace. In fact, the pair tried it several times until the Minnesota Supreme Court just had enough. See In re Jerome Daly, 291 Minn. 488, 189 N.W.2d 176 (1971). In the disbarment proceeding the Court noted that:

    “Respondent’s persistent and continuing attacks on our national monetary system can hardly be regarded as zealous advocacy or a good-faith effort to test the validity of repeated decisions of courts of record. For, as found by the referee, up to the time of his findings and recommendations respondent had avoided payment of any Federal income tax for 1965 and subsequent years on the asserted ground that he has not received gold and silver coin and, therefore, had no earnings that were taxable.

    Also, he has taken personal advantage of the system he attacks by borrowing money from a bank to purchase lakeside property, only to subsequently defeat the bank’s repossession after mortgage foreclosure by taking the position that the bank’s extension of credit was unlawful, obligating him neither to pay the debt nor to surrender possession following expiration of the time to redeem.

    As detailed in the referee’s finding, we regard the tactics employed by respondent in the unlawful detainer proceedings before the justice of the peace as not only unprofessional but reprehensible.

    The misconduct found by the referee, and demonstrated by respondent’s oral declarations before this court in violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics, reflects professional irresponsibility to such a degree as to render respondent totally unfit to continue to discharge the duties of an attorney.”

    Now, even though an interested fifth grader could find out what happened in the Credit River case, Montgomery v. Daly, the nullified case and its arguments have been cited on numerous occasions by various conspiracy theorists and groups opposing the Federal Reserve System, who are particularly upset about the practice known as “fractional reserve banking,” and argue that the case demonstrates that all foreclosures are illegal and that the Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional…

    … which in turn shows why we’ve had five million foreclosures over the last few years and why the Federal Reserve System is still with us and going nowhere anytime soon.
    As a matter of fact, as recently as in 2008, a U.S. District Court decision in Utah noted that similar arguments have “repeatedly been dismissed by the courts as baseless” and that “courts around the country have repeatedly dismissed efforts to void loans based on similar assertions.”

    Now, I’m not a lawyer, so by all means, consult with an attorney, but I think I’ll go out on a limb here and say that I wouldn’t be in any sort of hurry to make an argument based on this case in an effort to save your home from foreclosure. If you decide to ignore my advice in this area, however, please do invite me to the proceedings so I can sit in the courtroom. I would not want to miss it for anything in the world.

    The file for this case has been scanned and the documents are available at:

    http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/CreditRiver/CreditRiver.html.

    And should you want to find out more about the kooky movements that have shown up in our courts, here’s a link to “Law on the Edge.” Pathfinder to Law on the Edge: Sovereign Citizens, Common Law Courts, Patriot Groups, Tax Protesters, et al.

  78. Read all about the methods of these freedom stealing commie control freaks here…..THEIR BIG TOTALITARIAN CONTROL FREAK IDEA….

    http://www.fourwinds10.net/

  79. THE TRUTH IS..These swindling commie bankster crooks committed enough FELONIES at the onset of their fraudulent, phony fraudclosure complaints to put them in jail for life. Just because the truth is CONCEALED from most Americans does not change the FÁCT THE BANKSTERS COMMITTED NUMEROUS FELONY FRAUDS IN OUR NAMES, WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT….

    FRAUD IN THE FACTUM…WITH INTENT TO DECEIVE.. CONCEALMENT TO DO PERMANENT HARM TO GAIN UNJUST ENRICHMENT FROM YOU……A VERY DECEPTIVE ROBBERY BY A VERY CRIMINALLY DECEPTIVE BUNCH OF ROBBERBARON CROOKS…

    Only upon YOUR DISCOVER of their FELONY FRAUD are you FREE…

  80. When in Rome….do as the Romans do….

  81. UKG… In June 2010, we recieved a bill from BAC for the 1st installment of the property tax bill. In July 2010 we recieve bill from BAC for the 2nd installment. Then we recieve NOD from BAC for the amount of the property tax and ins bill. Our payments were current and we paid into escrow. Do you suppose the SOL was about to expire for the old 08 CW LP? Sure it was! That is why BAC comminted fraud to! CW x1 count, BAC x2 counts … Dag gone is BOA wants to risk x3 felony.

  82. I have more courage in my pinky finger than you have in your whole body COMMIE TROLL……you don’t know what courage even is. YOU CHRISTINE/GUEST ARE A COWARDLY LIAR AND CRIMINAL MIND MANIPULATOR….THE TRUTH IS I GET THE NATURE OF YOUR GAME..

    I DON’T BELIEVE IN TOTALITARIANISM……..AKA REPAYING UNSUSTAINABLE DEBT FRAUD CREATED BY CRONY CAPITALIST COMMUNISTS….IT MAKES YOU A SLAVE….& YOU AND YOUR COMMIE CONTROL FREAK CRONIES CAN TAKE YOUR REPAYMENT PLAN, AKA MANUFACTURED SLAVEDOM & SHOVE IT….

    I AM A NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN….THEREFORE…. I DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH CRIMINALS & TERRORISTS…ESPECIALLY NOT COMMUNISTS…TOTALITARIAN CONTROL FREAKS…

  83. DON’T GO TO REPAY.GOV…..THE LYING SCUMBAG BANKSTER GOVERNMENT…OTHERWISE KNOWN AS….THE HOUSES OF THE UNHOLY…THEY ARE COMPLETE COMMUNIST CROOKS CONTROL FREAK SWINDLERS….SUE THESE CROOKS FOR ALL THE PAYMENTS THEY SWINDLED OUT OF YOU & POCKETED AS USURY…..COMPENSATORY DAMAGES & OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF….BE A GO GETTER…NOT A FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED MIND CONTROLLED SLAVE….SO YOU CAN ROCK & ROLL ALL NIGHT & PARTY EVERYDAY…LIKE THE CRIMINALS DO….

  84. Expose,

    There are a few people I have been able to help just by posting the right article at the right time. It doesn’t cost me much to post something I find crucial for someone’s defense or who will give the little push for that person to start moving his feet and take action. And I’m still in contact with some people fighting their own battle. Doesn’t hurt to exchange info here, where others might use it as well.

  85. Christine, Because of our experience with Foreclosure and BK court and eviction this website has helped us emensly and still does. Sometimes things happen to people in life that they must deal with… such as life…”you are not your house”. It is what is inside and not outside of us which makes us a “winner”. Choosing to help people is good but wiser when there is no expectation involved. If this blog site is not working for you why do you continue to post comments here?

  86. And, service imbecile, those were people who actually gave me their e-mail address, l so that i could give them pointers, which I did. Until it became patently obvious that all they were only looking for was sympathy and attention but they never had any intention of fighting their battle in the first place. Just like you. Lots of fluff. Not one ounce of courage.

    Funny though… they don’t come here anymore. They did nothing and they got exactly the expected result: nothing. No time for that.

  87. exposethoserotteneggs….ABSOLUTELY NOT….NO ONE should tell anyone how to go fight their war…..THIS IS HOW I DO IT……I AM AN AMERICAN AND I AM AN INDIVIDUAL…MY OWN PERSON….I BELIEVE ANY AND ALL INFORMATION IS RELEVANT AND PERTINENT TO THIS WAR…

    FOR EXAMPLE….

    THE REASON WHY WE NEVER GET AHEAD OF THEIR GAME IS QUITE SIMPLE …IT IS TRULY EVIL, DIABOLICAL & MANIACAL IN IT’S SIMPLICITY…..

    THE MONEYCHANGERS & THEIR OWNERS KNOW HOW TO “GO GET” OUR WEALTH…….WE ON THE OTHERHAND…..GO OUT TO “MAKE MONEY.”…….. EARN OUR WEALTH……HENCE THE “GO GETTER” VS THE “SLAVE” MENTALLITY THEY HAVE BRAINWASHED US WITH…

    THESE CROOKS KNOW HOW TO MANIPULATE US TO ROB US…..IT’S CALLED TRUST & MIND CONTROL………THEY ARE MASTER MIND MANIPULATORS …

    THEY KNOW HOW TO NOT WORK TO STEAL OUR WEALTH……AND HOW TO MAKE US SLAVE FOR THEM BY MAKING US BELIEVE HARD WORK MAKES YOU WEALTHY….

    NO….IT MAKES THEM WEALTHY AND GIVES THEM MIND CONTROL….

    BELIEVING THEIR LIES HAS ALLOWED THEM TO DESTROY OUR WEALTH AND WEALTH CREATING SENSE & SENSIBILITIES ….

    WE NEED TO CHANGE OUR WAY OF THINKING FROM “SLAVE” MENTALITY TO THE RICH TO. “GO GETTER”…..& GO GET WHAT THESE CROOKS HAVE STOLEN….

  88. Don’t have a QT action either.

  89. Why would we file a QT and open up the title for any Tom Dick or Harry to come along and make a claim? Seems simpler to let the SOL expire and then File QT. I like to keep things simple.

  90. Guest,

    Whatever. I don’t have to prove anything to you. Think what you want. i know what i know..

    Done for today. Time for my Chinese lesson.

  91. Expose,

    What for? People come here to bitch, moan, whine and complain. I can think of a half a dozen bloggers I tried to help by giving them solid info. I spent hours and hours doing research and sharing it with them. They turned on me as they turned on tnharry, Breidenbach, Anonymous and many others. They don’t want help. They want someone to fight their battles for them.

    And those who don’t look for help try to enrich themselves by peddling their services already discounted by the major players as costly and useless.

    I already have a job.

  92. What would I file Christine and against Who? Why? The Best War is a War Prevented. We are not in FC or BK either. The Best Part .. There is No Lawsuits! That makes us a step ahead of You.

  93. Stripes/ivent
    You know you have a lot of great information but when it is presented as it has been on this website it is not taken as seriously as it could be. I know Free Speech and all but the information that you do share is not being received as it could be. Vent in a journal and write pertinent information that we need here on this site.

  94. Not in foreclosure. Never was. Never will be. And not in BK. In court? Yes. I create my own reality. That of a winner. I give people info on how not to be in either situation. Apparently, few people have the guts to go on the attack. Can’t do it for them. Their game.

  95. Christine, you think quite well of yourself. Why don’t you start your own website where you can also help distressed homeowners?

  96. PROOF OF THE DECEPTION…….Christine just almost outed herself….SHE IS NOT A SOCIALIST…..
    IN REALITY……..CHRISTINE IS A VERY CLEVER
    COMMUNIST RE-SOCIALIST OF UNSUSTAINABLE DEBT…..A COMMIE CON ARTIST…A WOLF IN SHEEPS CLOTHES JUST LIKE OBAMA AND HIS COURT JESTERS…..AND MAKE NO MISTAKE…WHAT THEY REALLY WANT IS TOTALITARIANISM ……THEY WANT YOU TO BELIEVE THEIR BIG LIES…THEY OWN EVERYTHING & EVERYONE….AND THEY DON’T ….THEY ARE THE BEST CON ARTISTS ON THE PLANET….THEY ARE THE MONEY CHANGERS WHO WORK FOR THE SUPREMACISTS AT THE TOP OF THE PYRAMID SCHEME….THE GREEDY PSYCHOPATHIC BANK OWNERS…….DON’T BELIEVE THE ROBBERBARONS FOR THE FILTHY RICH ROBBERBARONS AT THE TOP….

    NO ONE WANTS THEIR BRAND OF HOPE & CHANGE BECAUSE IT IS TOTALITARIANISM …..COMPLETE FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED MIND CONTROL…..A VERY DECEPTIVE AND CRIMINAL WAY TO CREATE A TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIP…

    DON’T TRUST THESE CROOKS….ACCEPT NO FIXES FOR A QUADRILLION DOLLARS IN FRAUD BY THESE CROOKS BECAUSE WHAT IT REALLY IS ….. A LIFETIME OF SLAVERY & INDENTURED SERVITUDE TO TYRANTS.

  97. I help save homeowners without a fc and you help save homeowners with a fc outside this blog. Is there a Differance?

  98. Intresting … what else can your dog do? My change is in the number of homeowners I sent to seek legal advice when they were getting shafted AGAIN by another Buttwipe.aka Kicking the Can Down the Road to Another Abuser and Suckering Another Invester. Pffft!

  99. “Change is Good” yes, I agree. The change
    happening re: Blackstone Group is not. I don’t believe or condone profit from human suffering.
    Not all change is for the betterment of human well being. Google Blackstone Group and find
    out the true reality of this “Change is good”. Check out 4closureFraud: Blackstone to buy
    1 Bil worth (15,000 homes) of Tampa bays foreclosure for rentals. There is also a caption
    saying “It’s a land grab unlike anything we’ve
    ever seen, you’re going to drive through parts
    of town and all of it is going to be institutionally owned.” and this “change is good?”

  100. And yes, imbecile. I am a socialist at heart. i also believe that dictatorship is necessary to curtails imbeciles like you and set them straight. There already is a Fema cell with your name on it. And you know what else i know that you don’t? There is no hell, no heaven and no death. So, keep on spewing that venom onto people willing and ready to catch your insane fear. I’m immune and you’re an imbecile. Those are objective facts. And every time you spew that venom in the name of your elusive, man made Gawd, you only hurt yourself. One day, you’ll piss off the wrong person. You don’t have that power on me.

    Have at it and knock yourself out.

  101. If you come here just to make good memories for yourself, all you’ve done is take up space and breed like a rabbit. My dog can do that. When you care for and about others and leave them with good memories and an improved life, whatever happens, you’ll always have a place to go to and your wold will be richer and expand. I can’t change the world but i can change for the best the perspective some people have. If, just by having met me, they end up doing something they may never have thought possible, my life was well spent. Worrying about what is going in Davos isn’t doing me one bit of good. Faith is knowing that the system was unsustainable and seeing it unravel.

    LL was giving people hope and sprang some of them into action. It’s obviously run its course and has reached its limits. Nowadays, it’s become trash for those who don’t act and try to make sure no one else will, by instilling abject fear into them instead of giving them the knowledge they need. Everything is born, lives and dies. LL is croaking. Proof is: none of the heavy lifters getting results in court for homeowners come here. Tells me everything i need to know.

  102. OOPS….IT IS COMMUNISM….DISGUISED AS SECRET SOCIALISM…..SOCIAL SAFETY NETS…….PROGRESSIVE TAXATION….DEMOCRACY…….LIBERALISM…RE-SOCIALISM OF UNSUSTAINABLE DEBT CREATES TOTALITARIANISM ….

  103. Debt creation is the devil’s work. These are the same moneychangers Jesus threw out of the temple. They are the KNIGHTS TEMPLAR gang…..Their owners who they work for are the SUPREMACISTS who hide behind the scenes of all their terror and weapons of mass destruction…….their knights change credit lending into usury …..a money flow for themselves and their SUPREMACIST OWNERS….on fictitious amounts of money they never lend and create unsustainable debt without your knowledge or consent and destroy economies…..What they are is INCOME STEALERS and WEALTH DESTROYERS……WE PAY FOR IT AND BUILD IT…THEY BURN IT DOWN….AND ALL THEIR FAKE CONTROL COMES IN THE REBUILDING ….THEY ARE CONTROL FREAKS WHO DON’T OWN ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY DON’T PAY FOR ANYTHING….IT IS A MONLITHIC CONSPIRACY THAT HAS BEEN HIDDEN ALL THROUGH HISTORY TO CONTROL THE WORLD BY THE ISSUANCE OF CREDIT…..PROGRESSIVE TAXATION and SOCIAL SAFETY NETS…..IT IS COMMUNISM…..DISGUISED AS COMMUNISM THAT CREATES TOTALITARIANISM ….. THE PROBLEM FOR THEM IS….IN AMERICA, YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT BEFORE YOU DESTROY IT OR YOU DON’T OWN IT. WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE ONLY TITLEHOLDERS OF RECORD….WE ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS……THE ONLY PARTY WITH ANY SKIN IN THE GAME……THAT IS WHY INVESTMENT OR INDORSEMENT DOES NOT GUARANTEE A SECURITY ENTITLEMENTS ……WHY? THE ISSUER OF THE INVESTMENT HAS TO SECURITIZE (PAY FOR IT) FIRST……AS A RESULT…CLEAR TITLE GOES TO THE ONLY STAKEHOLDERS….WE THE PEOPLE.

  104. Life is to Short, You come into life with nothing and you leave it with Memories. Make Them Good Ones.

  105. Embrace Change, Embrace MERS, awe heck Give Everybody a Hug! Life is Good!

  106. Embrace Diversity! :)

  107. And E. ToLLe,

    Everything is a question of perspective. “When you ain’t got nothing, you ain’t got nothing to lose.” True. I had nothing. That gave me the ability to simply pack and move across the world many times. It was positive and those experiences allowed me to understand people and the world much better than I would, had I been born in Columbus Oh and spent my entire life there. Everything can play out either way.

    Palestinians have nothing to lose. That’s why they use their own bodies as live bombs to kill as many people as possible. Different perspective. Use it to create or use it to destroy. I believe humanity has finally crossed on the other side, after being greatly destructive. Look for the evidence of it and you will see it. A hell of a better way to live than looking for the evidence of armagedon…

  108. “Dalio said, economic growth can’t come from debt, as it did during the last few decades or so.” Hence this daily unraveling. Countries have been rethinking growth, what it means and how to stop it from dividing people between have and have not. The entire world is feeling the uneasiness out of which change comes.

    I trust humans. No one ever got up in the morning (unless very, very sick to start with. And the question then becomes: “What on earth was done to that person for him/her to be so unnaturally destructive…?”) deciding on harming parents, neighbors or the world at large. We’re looking at the unraveling of a human experiment gone terribly wrong for centuries and culminating in what we see today. It is much more in the open than it ever was. More people have access to the disclosure of it than ever before. Therefore more people have now the ability to think, devise and offer solutions, from every existing angle and standpoint. That’s what this site was meant to be: offer solutions and possibilities one cannot think of for himself out of ignorance. Can’t ask a plumber or a car mechanic to understand hedge funds or foreclosure committed through fraud unless it is explained and pointed out, right? What was meant to arm people is turning into something that harms people (thanks to the service imbeciles turning it into a social crap worthy of reality TV).

    What we’re looking at today is a hell of a lot better than what happened to Africans or the American Indians 300 or 400 years ago. We might hate the appearance of it today but I can predict that in 10 or 20 years, we’ll see why it had to happen. For one thing, things could not remain as were. Not if we want to keep living on planet earth.

    E. ToLLe, I don’t agree with your take. Orwell wrote about the worst possible case scenario and so did Huxley, Barjave4l and many others. Because they warned us though their writings, humanity has now the ability to watch out and not manifest it. It’s called awareness. We’re in the midst of growing pains. Feels bad right now but it will all be for the better. My take on it.

  109. Exposetherotteneggs, what we’re seeing here is similar to the ending of any game of Monopoly that any of us have ever played. Inevitably, someone gains an advantage, and in the case of the real world events unfolding before our eyes, that would be the global inherited rich who have managed to game the system for the last several decades. While we slept, they paid for new legislation across the board, creating laws that sanctified new systems of easy theft – i.e. MERS, and abolished old consumer protection laws universally from state to state, making it near impossible for a borrower to challenge their machine without those supporting statutes, and obviously with no funds. Non-judicial foreclosure statutes comes to mind. End result? Red hotels on every property on every corner. Monopoly complete!

    IT IS THE PERFECT THEFT MACHINE….AND IT’S WHIRLING AT FULL SPEED NIGHT AND DAY.

    And CONgress is looking the other way, lusting after more campaign financing, insuring their spot at the trough. It’s a never ending cycle.

    Where do we go from here? The word this week from Davos as the wealthy elite chart our course, via Reuters:

    “Ray Dalio, who runs Bridgewater, the world’s biggest hedge fund, had probably the clearest take on this low-growth world. In a post-crisis, high-debt global economy, Dalio said, economic growth can’t come from debt, as it did during the last few decades or so. Economies are still deleveraging, debt won’t rise faster than income and the primary way large economies can grow is by increasing productivity. (CNBC has a bit more on his philosophy here).

    What does Dalio actually mean by this? Dalio expanded a bit: the big conversation in politics and economics, he said, will be about how to get more out of workers – growth won’t come from the next Internet, the next real estate boom or any new asset, in other words. This means, he said, hard choices about questions like “How long is a vacation?” or “What is a good life?”

    So the elite are slowly realizing that their parasitic ways have, in fact, maimed the victim that they feed off of, that would be you and I. But in their gluttony, they can’t stop themselves from finding new ways of taking more and more, as their appetite for everything we do has no limits, even if it brings the entire deal down.

    So going forward, we will have ever expanding rents owed to the filthy rich, and the well planned austerity packages that have been alive and well in Europe, are about to be visited upon the west with a vengeance. What we manage to have left after paying Blackstone and their ilk their high-priced rents, we’ll find going to ever rising food prices since they’ve been buying all the farm land across the planet.

    When we all awaken to a world which appears exactly as Orwell wrote about….a world of grays and blacks, with no pleasure, with restricted travel due to rising fuel costs (which they drive thru speculation and profits), with our time better spent fueling their securitization machine than raising families or having vacations….then their circle will meet ends. Filthy lucre wins again. Hail the elite. Well played! Checkmate assholes!

  110. “Blackstone was founded in 1985 as a mergers and acquisitions boutique by Peter G. Peterson and Stephen A. Schwarzman, who had previously worked together at Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb Inc. Over the course of two decades, Blackstone has evolved into one of the world’s largest private equity investment firms. In 2007, Blackstone completed a $4 billion initial public offering to become one of the first major private equity firms to list shares in its management company on a public exchange.[4][5] Blackstone is headquartered at 345 Park Avenue in New York City, with eight additional offices in the United States and offices in London, Paris, Düsseldorf, Sydney, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai, Mumbai and Dubai.”

    Still moving in the same direction: globalizing land laws and allowing investors from every corner of the world to purchase everywhere their money will allow. Nothing to do with America. Everything to do with a new world of one race, one land, one language, one system and food and shelter for everyone. And resistance in between, out of fear of the unknown, with the mental illness constant resistance causes in those who believe that they have more to lose than to gain from it. The mental illness displayed here day in, day out. Born out of fear.

    “The devil you know is better than the one you don’t”… The perfect excuse to hold on to an old, obsolete order that can no longer be sustained and to refuse change. Change is happening, no matter how much resistance we put against it. Change is man’s lot in life. Change is what allowed man to go from the dark ages to what we have today. It’s called evolution. The key is for each of us to decide how to make the best of it. To decide whether to embrace it and thrive or reject it and be miserable. The change I see coming has nothing to do with enslaving world population. Not today, not anymore. That was the old paradigm. We’ve transcended it. We’ve evolved.

    And the service imbecile will now have the opportunity to plaster this blog with 15 posts calling me every name in the book that reflect absolutely nothing other than her very, very sad and limited state of mind and her very, very bleak future in a mental institution. I pity the poor thing and all her descendants.

    So be it…

  111. E.ToLLe
    Thanks for the Blackstone video..very informative and definitely needs to be shared. According to a Huffington Post Comment re: ” Recent foreclosure settlement was a win for big banks”. Evie writes, “Since the announcement of the settlement our small office has had six requests to set down hearings on motions for summary judgement by wells fargo & chase. They are not doing anything to stop the process to modify the mortgages. They are lying again. The old, retired judge who has been called back to the bench refuses to deny the banks’ motion for summary judgement, allows charges and costs which should not be allowed, regardless of the testimony evidencing material issues with the facts. Most people do not have the money to appeal to the district court. The homes are quickly acutioned and are then being sold to a subsidiary of Blackstone Group of NY., who has spent, I believe, 7 BILLION DOLLARS purchasing bank owned real estate in the past 12 months.

  112. Re: … Wild Deeds, A) no one can attest to the mortgage debt 2) no one wants to attest to the mortgage debt because of Liability Issues. or 3) Their Window of Time has expired.

  113. The state of the state…..

  114. Thank you MS, for the book dump. Now between you and assvent’s mental breakdown in print, LL’s entire bandwidth allotment for February is used up. Good show.

  115. Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay — Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness

    The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:

    (1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.

    (2) Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.

    (3) Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s will.

    (4) Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. A statement that:

    (A) is made for — and is reasonably pertinent to — medical diagnosis or treatment; and

    (B) describes medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause.

    (5) Recorded Recollection. A record that:

    (A) is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately;

    (B) was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory; and

    (C) accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge.

    If admitted, the record may be read into evidence but may be received as an exhibit only if offered by an adverse party.

    (6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:

    (A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;

    (B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;

    (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;

    (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and

    (E) neither the source of information nor the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

    (7) Absence of a Record of a Regularly Conducted Activity. Evidence that a matter is not included in a record described in paragraph (6) if:

    (A) the evidence is admitted to prove that the matter did not occur or exist;

    (B) a record was regularly kept for a matter of that kind; and

    (C) neither the possible source of the information nor other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

    (8) Public Records. A record or statement of a public office if:

    (A) it sets out:

    (i) the office’s activities;

    (ii) a matter observed while under a legal duty to report, but not including, in a criminal case, a matter observed by law-enforcement personnel; or

    (iii) in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings from a legally authorized investigation; and

    (B) neither the source of information nor other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

    (9) Public Records of Vital Statistics. A record of a birth, death, or marriage, if reported to a public office in accordance with a legal duty.

    (10) Absence of a Public Record. Testimony — or a certification under Rule 902 — that a diligent search failed to disclose a public record or statement if the testimony or certification is admitted to prove that:

    (A) the record or statement does not exist; or

    (B) a matter did not occur or exist, if a public office regularly kept a record or statement for a matter of that kind.

    (11) Records of Religious Organizations Concerning Personal or Family History. A statement of birth, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history, contained in a regularly kept record of a religious organization.

    (12) Certificates of Marriage, Baptism, and Similar Ceremonies. A statement of fact contained in a certificate:

    (A) made by a person who is authorized by a religious organization or by law to perform the act certified;

    (B) attesting that the person performed a marriage or similar ceremony or administered a sacrament; and

    (C) purporting to have been issued at the time of the act or within a reasonable time after it.

    (13) Family Records. A statement of fact about personal or family history contained in a family record, such as a Bible, genealogy, chart, engraving on a ring, inscription on a portrait, or engraving on an urn or burial marker.

    (14) Records of Documents That Affect an Interest in Property. The record of a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if:

    (A) the record is admitted to prove the content of the original recorded document, along with its signing and its delivery by each person who purports to have signed it;

    (B) the record is kept in a public office; and

    (C) a statute authorizes recording documents of that kind in that office.

    (15) Statements in Documents That Affect an Interest in Property. A statement contained in a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if the matter stated was relevant to the document’s purpose — unless later dealings with the property are inconsistent with the truth of the statement or the purport of the document.

    (16) Statements in Ancient Documents. A statement in a document that is at least 20 years old and whose authenticity is established.

    (17) Market Reports and Similar Commercial Publications. Market quotations, lists, directories, or other compilations that are generally relied on by the public or by persons in particular occupations.

    (18) Statements in Learned Treatises, Periodicals, or Pamphlets. A statement contained in a treatise, periodical, or pamphlet if:

    (A) the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness on cross-examination or relied on by the expert on direct examination; and

    (B) the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert’s admission or testimony, by another expert’s testimony, or by judicial notice.

    If admitted, the statement may be read into evidence but not received as an exhibit.

    (19) Reputation Concerning Personal or Family History. A reputation among a person’s family by blood, adoption, or marriage — or among a person’s associates or in the community — concerning the person’s birth, adoption, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history.

    (20) Reputation Concerning Boundaries or General History. A reputation in a community — arising before the controversy — concerning boundaries of land in the community or customs that affect the land, or concerning general historical events important to that community, state, or nation.

    (21) Reputation Concerning Character. A reputation among a person’s associates or in the community concerning the person’s character.

    (22) Judgment of a Previous Conviction. Evidence of a final judgment of conviction if:

    (A) the judgment was entered after a trial or guilty plea, but not a nolo contendere plea;

    (B) the conviction was for a crime punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than a year;

    (C) the evidence is admitted to prove any fact essential to the judgment; and

    (D) when offered by the prosecutor in a criminal case for a purpose other than impeachment, the judgment was against the defendant.

    The pendency of an appeal may be shown but does not affect admissibility.

    (23) Judgments Involving Personal, Family, or General History, or a Boundary. A judgment that is admitted to prove a matter of personal, family, or general history, or boundaries, if the matter:

    (A) was essential to the judgment; and

    (B) could be proved by evidence of reputation.

    (24) [Other Exceptions .] [Transferred to Rule 807.]
    Notes

    (Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1939; Pub. L. 94–149, §1(11), Dec. 12, 1975, 89 Stat. 805; Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Oct. 1, 1987; Apr. 11, 1997, eff. Dec. 1, 1997; Apr. 17, 2000, eff. Dec. 1, 2000; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)

    Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules

    The exceptions are phrased in terms of nonapplication of the hearsay rule, rather than in positive terms of admissibility, in order to repel any implication that other possible grounds for exclusion are eliminated from consideration.

    The present rule proceeds upon the theory that under appropriate circumstances a hearsay statement may possess circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness sufficient to justify nonproduction of the declarant in person at the trial even though he may be available. The theory finds vast support in the many exceptions to the hearsay rule developed by the common law in which unavailability of the declarant is not a relevant factor. The present rule is a synthesis of them, with revision where modern developments and conditions are believed to make that course appropriate.

    In a hearsay situation, the declarant is, of course, a witness, and neither this rule nor Rule 804 dispenses with the requirement of firsthand knowledge. It may appear from his statement or be inferable from circumstances.

    See Rule 602.

    Exceptions (1) and (2). In considerable measure these two examples overlap, though based on somewhat different theories. The most significant practical difference will lie in the time lapse allowable between event and statement.

    The underlying theory of Exception [paragraph] (1) is that substantial contemporaneity of event and statement negative the likelihood of deliberate of conscious misrepresentation. Moreover, if the witness is the declarant, he may be examined on the statement. If the witness is not the declarant, he may be examined as to the circumstances as an aid in evaluating the statement. Morgan, Basic Problems of Evidence 340–341 (1962).

    The theory of Exception [paragraph] (2) is simply that circumstances may produce a condition of excitement which temporarily stills the capacity of reflection and produces utterances free of conscious fabrication. 6 Wigmore §1747, p. 135. Spontaneity is the key factor in each instance, though arrived at by somewhat different routes. Both are needed in order to avoid needless niggling.

    While the theory of Exception [paragraph] (2) has been criticized on the ground that excitement impairs accuracy of observation as well as eliminating conscious fabrication, Hutchins and Slesinger, Some Observations on the Law of Evidence: Spontaneous Exclamations, 28 Colum.L.Rev. 432 (1928), it finds support in cases without number. See cases in 6 Wigmore §1750; Annot., 53 A.L.R.2d 1245 (statements as to cause of or responsibility for motor vehicle accident); Annot., 4 A.L.R.3d 149 (accusatory statements by homicide victims). Since unexciting events are less likely to evoke comment, decisions involving Exception [paragraph] (1) are far less numerous. Illustrative are Tampa Elec. Co. v. Getrost, 151 Fla. 558, 10 So.2d 83 (1942); Houston Oxygen Co. v. Davis, 139 Tex. 1, 161 S.W.2d 474 (1942); and cases cited in McCormick §273, p. 585, n. 4.

    With respect to the time element, Exception [paragraph] (1) recognizes that in many, if not most, instances precise contemporaneity is not possible, and hence a slight lapse is allowable. Under Exception [paragraph] (2) the standard of measurement is the duration of the state of excitement. “How long can excitement prevail? Obviously there are no pat answers and the character of the transaction or event will largely determine the significance of the time factor.” Slough, Spontaneous Statements and State of Mind, 46 Iowa L.Rev. 224, 243 (1961); McCormick §272, p. 580.

    Participation by the declarant is not required: a nonparticipant may be moved to describe what he perceives, and one may be startled by an event in which he is not an actor. Slough, supra; McCormick, supra; 6 Wigmore §1755; Annot., 78 A.L.R.2d 300.

    Whether proof of the startling event may be made by the statement itself is largely an academic question, since in most cases there is present at least circumstantial evidence that something of a startling nature must have occurred. For cases in which the evidence consists of the condition of the declarant (injuries, state of shock), see Insurance Co. v. Mosely, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.), 397, 19 L.Ed. 437 (1869); Wheeler v. United States, 93 U.S.A.App. D.C. 159, 211 F.2d 19 (1953); cert. denied 347 U.S. 1019, 74 S.Ct. 876, 98 L.Ed. 1140; Wetherbee v. Safety Casualty Co., 219 F.2d 274 (5th Cir. 1955); Lampe v. United States, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 160, 229 F.2d 43 (1956). Nevertheless, on occasion the only evidence may be the content of the statement itself, and rulings that it may be sufficient are described as “increasing,” Slough, supra at 246, and as the “prevailing practice,” McCormick §272, p. 579. Illustrative are Armour & Co. v. Industrial Commission, 78 Colo. 569, 243 P. 546 (1926); Young v. Stewart, 191 N.C. 297, 131 S.E. 735 (1926). Moreover, under Rule 104(a) the judge is not limited by the hearsay rule in passing upon preliminary questions of fact.

    Proof of declarant’s perception by his statement presents similar considerations when declarant is identified. People v. Poland, 22 Ill.2d 175, 174 N.E.2d 804 (1961). However, when declarant is an unidentified bystander, the cases indicate hesitancy in upholding the statement alone as sufficient, Garrett v. Howden, 73 N.M. 307, 387 P.2d 874 (1963); Beck v. Dye, 200 Wash. 1, 92 P.2d 1113 (1939), a result which would under appropriate circumstances be consistent with the rule.

    Permissible subject matter of the statement is limited under Exception [paragraph] (1) to description or explanation of the event or condition, the assumption being that spontaneity, in the absence of a startling event, may extend no farther. In Exception [paragraph] (2), however, the statement need only “relate” to the startling event or condition, thus affording a broader scope of subject matter coverage. 6 Wigmore §§1750, 1754. See Sanitary Grocery Co. v. Snead, 67 App.D.C. 129, 90 F.2d 374 (1937), slip-and-fall case sustaining admissibility of clerk’s statement, “That has been on the floor for a couple of hours,” and Murphy Auto Parts Co., Inc. v. Ball, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 416, 249 F.2d 508 (1957), upholding admission, on issue of driver’s agency, of his statement that he had to call on a customer and was in a hurry to get home. Quick, Hearsay, Excitement, Necessity and the Uniform Rules: A Reappraisal of Rule 63(4), 6 Wayne L.Rev. 204, 206–209 (1960).

    Similar provisions are found in Uniform Rule 63(4)(a) and (b); California Evidence Code §1240 (as to Exception (2) only); Kansas Code of Civil Procedure §60–460(d)(1) and (2); New Jersey Evidence Rule 63(4).

    Exception (3) is essentially a specialized application of Exception [paragraph] (1), presented separately to enhance its usefulness and accessibility. See McCormick §§265, 268.

    The exclusion of “statements of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed” is necessary to avoid the virtual destruction of the hearsay rule which would otherwise result from allowing state of mind, provable by a hearsay statement, to serve as the basis for an inference of the happening of the event which produced the state of mind). Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96, 54 S.Ct. 22, 78 L.Ed. 196 (1933); Maguire, The Hillmon Case—Thirty-three Years After, 38 Harv.L.Rev. 709, 719–731 (1925); Hinton, States of Mind and the Hearsay Rule, 1 U.Chi.L.Rev. 394, 421–423 (1934). The rule of Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hillman, 145 U.S. 285, 12 S.Ct. 909, 36 L.Ed. 706 (1892), allowing evidence of intention as tending to prove the doing of the act intended, is of course, left undisturbed.

    The carving out, from the exclusion mentioned in the preceding paragraph, of declarations relating to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of declarant’s will represents an ad hoc judgment which finds ample reinforcement in the decisions, resting on practical grounds of necessity and expediency rather than logic. McCormick §271, pp. 577–578; Annot., 34 A.L.R.2d 588, 62 A.L.R.2d 855. A similar recognition of the need for and practical value of this kind of evidence is found in California Evidence Code §1260.

    Exception (4). Even those few jurisdictions which have shied away from generally admitting statements of present condition have allowed them if made to a physician for purposes of diagnosis and treatment in view of the patient’s strong motivation to be truthful. McCormick §266, p. 563. The same guarantee of trustworthiness extends to statements of past conditions and medical history, made for purposes of diagnosis or treatment. It also extends to statements as to causation, reasonably pertinent to the same purposes, in accord with the current trend, Shell Oil Co. v. Industrial Commission, 2 Ill.2d 590, 119 N.E.2d 224 (1954); McCormick §266, p. 564; New Jersey Evidence Rule 63(12)(c). Statements as to fault would not ordinarily qualify under this latter language. Thus a patient’s statement that he was struck by an automobile would qualify but not his statement that the car was driven through a red light. Under the exception the statement need not have been made to a physician. Statements to hospital attendants, ambulance drivers, or even members of the family might be included.

    Conventional doctrine has excluded from the hearsay exception, as not within its guarantee of truthfulness, statements to a physician consulted only for the purpose of enabling him to testify. While these statements were not admissible as substantive evidence, the expert was allowed to state the basis of his opinion, including statements of this kind. The distinction thus called for was one most unlikely to be made by juries. The rule accordingly rejects the limitation. This position is consistent with the provision of Rule 703 that the facts on which expert testimony is based need not be admissible in evidence if of a kind ordinarily relied upon by experts in the field.

    Exception (5). A hearsay exception for recorded recollection is generally recognized and has been described as having “long been favored by the federal and practically all the state courts that have had occasion to decide the question.” United States v. Kelly, 349 F.2d 720, 770 (2d Cir. 1965), citing numerous cases and sustaining the exception against a claimed denial of the right of confrontation. Many additional cases are cited in Annot., 82 A.L.R.2d 473, 520. The guarantee of trustworthiness is found in the reliability inherent in a record made while events were still fresh in mind and accurately reflecting them. Owens v. State, 67 Md. 307, 316, 10 A. 210, 212 (1887).

    The principal controversy attending the exception has centered, not upon the propriety of the exception itself, but upon the question whether a preliminary requirement of impaired memory on the part of the witness should be imposed. The authorities are divided. If regard be had only to the accuracy of the evidence, admittedly impairment of the memory of the witness adds nothing to it and should not be required. McCormick §277, p. 593; 3 Wigmore §738, p. 76; Jordan v. People, 151 Colo. 133, 376 P.2d 699 (1962), cert. denied 373 U.S. 944, 83 S.Ct. 1553, 10 L.Ed.2d 699; Hall v. State, 223 Md. 158, 162 A.2d 751 (1960); State v. Bindhammer, 44 N.J. 372, 209 A.2d 124 (1965). Nevertheless, the absence of the requirement, it is believed, would encourage the use of statements carefully prepared for purposes of litigation under the supervision of attorneys, investigators, or claim adjusters. Hence the example includes a requirement that the witness not have “sufficient recollection to enable him to testify fully and accurately.” To the same effect are California Evidence Code §1237 and New Jersey Rule 63(1)(b), and this has been the position of the federal courts. Vicksburg & Meridian R.R. v. O’Brien, 119 U.S. 99, 7 S.Ct. 118, 30 L.Ed. 299 (1886); Ahern v. Webb, 268 F.2d 45 (10th Cir. 1959); and see N.L.R.B. v. Hudson Pulp and Paper Corp., 273 F.2d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 1960); N.L.R.B. v. Federal Dairy Co., 297 F.2d 487 (1st Cir. 1962). But cf. United States v. Adams, 385 F.2d 548 (2d Cir. 1967).

    No attempt is made in the exception to spell out the method of establishing the initial knowledge or the contemporaneity and accuracy of the record, leaving them to be dealt with as the circumstances of the particular case might indicate. Multiple person involvement in the process of observing and recording, as in Rathbun v. Brancatella, 93 N.J.L. 222, 107 A. 279 (1919), is entirely consistent with the exception.

    Locating the exception at this place in the scheme of the rules is a matter of choice. There were two other possibilities. The first was to regard the statement as one of the group of prior statements of a testifying witness which are excluded entirely from the category of hearsay by Rule 801(d)(1). That category, however, requires that declarant be “subject to cross-examination,” as to which the impaired memory aspect of the exception raises doubts. The other possibility was to include the exception among those covered by Rule 804. Since unavailability is required by that rule and lack of memory is listed as a species of unavailability by the definition of the term in Rule 804(a)(3), that treatment at first impression would seem appropriate. The fact is, however, that the unavailability requirement of the exception is of a limited and peculiar nature. Accordingly, the exception is located at this point rather than in the context of a rule where unavailability is conceived of more broadly.

    Exception (6) represents an area which has received much attention from those seeking to improve the law of evidence. The Commonwealth Fund Act was the result of a study completed in 1927 by a distinguished committee under the chairmanship of Professor Morgan. Morgan et al., The Law of Evidence: Some Proposals for its Reform 63 (1927). With changes too minor to mention, it was adopted by Congress in 1936 as the rule for federal courts. 28 U.S.C. §1732. A number of states took similar action. The Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1936 promulgated the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, 9A U.L.A. 506, which has acquired a substantial following in the states. Model Code Rule 514 and Uniform Rule 63(13) also deal with the subject. Difference of varying degrees of importance exist among these various treatments.

    These reform efforts were largely within the context of business and commercial records, as the kind usually encountered, and concentrated considerable attention upon relaxing the requirement of producing as witnesses, or accounting for the nonproduction of, all participants in the process of gathering, transmitting, and recording information which the common law had evolved as a burdensome and crippling aspect of using records of this type. In their areas of primary emphasis on witnesses to be called and the general admissibility of ordinary business and commercial records, the Commonwealth Fund Act and the Uniform Act appear to have worked well. The exception seeks to preserve their advantages.

    On the subject of what witnesses must be called, the Commonwealth Fund Act eliminated the common law requirement of calling or accounting for all participants by failing to mention it. United States v. Mortimer, 118 F.2d 266 (2d Cir. 1941); La Porte v. United States, 300 F.2d 878 (9th Cir. 1962); McCormick §290, p. 608. Model Code Rule 514 and Uniform Rule 63(13) did likewise. The Uniform Act, however, abolished the common law requirement in express terms, providing that the requisite foundation testimony might be furnished by “the custodian or other qualified witness.” Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, §2; 9A U.L.A. 506. The exception follows the Uniform Act in this respect.

    The element of unusual reliability of business records is said variously to be supplied by systematic checking, by regularity and continuity which produce habits of precision, by actual experience of business in relying upon them, or by a duty to make an accurate record as part of a continuing job or occupation. McCormick §§281, 286, 287; Laughlin, Business Entries and the Like, 46 Iowa L.Rev. 276 (1961). The model statutes and rules have sought to capture these factors and to extend their impact by employing the phrase “regular course of business,” in conjunction with a definition of “business” far broader than its ordinarily accepted meaning. The result is a tendency unduly to emphasize a requirement of routineness and repetitiveness and an insistence that other types of records be squeezed into the fact patterns which give rise to traditional business records. The rule therefore adopts the phrase “the course of a regularly conducted activity” as capturing the essential basis of the hearsay exception as it has evolved and the essential element which can be abstracted from the various specifications of what is a “business.”

    Amplification of the kinds of activities producing admissible records has given rise to problems which conventional business records by their nature avoid. They are problems of the source of the recorded information, of entries in opinion form, of motivation, and of involvement as participant in the matters recorded.

    Sources of information presented no substantial problem with ordinary business records. All participants, including the observer or participant furnishing the information to be recorded, were acting routinely, under a duty of accuracy, with employer reliance on the result, or in short “in the regular course of business.” If, however, the supplier of the information does not act in the regular course, an essential link is broken; the assurance of accuracy does not extend to the information itself, and the fact that it may be recorded with scrupulous accuracy is of no avail. An illustration is the police report incorporating information obtained from a bystander: the officer qualifies as acting in the regular course but the informant does not. The leading case, Johnson v. Lutz, 253 N.Y. 124, 170 N.E. 517 (1930), held that a report thus prepared was inadmissible. Most of the authorities have agreed with the decision. Gencarella v. Fyfe, 171 F.2d 419 (1st Cir. 1948); Gordon v. Robinson, 210 F.2d 192 (3d Cir. 1954); Standard Oil Co. of California v. Moore, 251 F.2d 188, 214 (9th Cir. 1957), cert. denied 356 U.S. 975, 78 S.Ct. 1139, 2 L.Ed.2d 1148; Yates v. Bair Transport, Inc., 249 F.Supp. 681 (S.D.N.Y. 1965); Annot., 69 A.L.R.2d 1148. Cf. Hawkins v. Gorea Motor Express, Inc., 360 F.2d 933 (2d Cir 1966). Contra, 5 Wigmore §1530a, n. 1, pp. 391–392. The point is not dealt with specifically in the Commonwealth Fund Act, the Uniform Act, or Uniform Rule 63(13). However, Model Code Rule 514 contains the requirement “that it was the regular course of that business for one with personal knowledge * * * to make such a memorandum or record or to transmit information thereof to be included in such a memorandum or record * * *.” The rule follows this lead in requiring an informant with knowledge acting in the course of the regularly conducted activity.

    Entries in the form of opinions were not encountered in traditional business records in view of the purely factual nature of the items recorded, but they are now commonly encountered with respect to medical diagnoses, prognoses, and test results, as well as occasionally in other areas. The Commonwealth Fund Act provided only for records of an “act, transaction, occurrence, or event,” while the Uniform Act, Model Code Rule 514, and Uniform Rule 63(13) merely added the ambiguous term “condition.” The limited phrasing of the Commonwealth Fund Act, 28 U.S.C. §1732, may account for the reluctance of some federal decisions to admit diagnostic entries. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 66, 147 F.2d 297 (1945); Lyles v. United States, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 22, 254 F.2d 725 (1957), cert. denied 356 U.S. 961, 78 S.Ct. 997, 2 L.Ed.2d 1067; England v. United States, 174 F.2d 466 (5th Cir. 1949); Skogen v. Dow Chemical Co., 375 F.2d 692 (8th Cir. 1967). Other federal decisions, however, experienced no difficulty in freely admitting diagnostic entries. Reed v. Order of United Commercial Travelers, 123 F.2d 252 (2d Cir. 1941); Buckminster’s Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 147 F.2d 331 (2d Cir. 1944); Medina v. Erickson, 226 F.2d 475 (9th Cir. 1955); Thomas v. Hogan, 308 F.2d 355 (4th Cir. 1962); Glawe v. Rulon, 284 F.2d 495 (8th Cir. 1960). In the state courts, the trend favors admissibility. Borucki v. MacKenzie Bros. Co., 125 Conn. 92, 3 A.2d 224 (1938); Allen v. St. Louis Public Service Co., 365 Mo. 677, 285 S.W.2d 663, 55 A.L.R.2d 1022 (1956); People v. Kohlmeyer, 284 N.Y. 366, 31 N.E.2d 490 (1940); Weis v. Weis, 147 Ohio St. 416, 72 N.E.2d 245 (1947). In order to make clear its adherence to the latter position, the rule specifically includes both diagnoses and opinions, in addition to acts, events, and conditions, as proper subjects of admissible entries.

    Problems of the motivation of the informant have been a source of difficulty and disagreement. In Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 63 S.Ct. 477, 87 L.Ed. 645 (1943), exclusion of an accident report made by the since deceased engineer, offered by defendant railroad trustees in a grade crossing collision case, was upheld. The report was not “in the regular course of business,” not a record of the systematic conduct of the business as a business, said the Court. The report was prepared for use in litigating, not railroading. While the opinion mentions the motivation of the engineer only obliquely, the emphasis on records of routine operations is significant only by virtue of impact on motivation to be accurate. Absence of routineness raises lack of motivation to be accurate. The opinion of the Court of Appeals had gone beyond mere lack of motive to be accurate: the engineer’s statement was “dripping with motivations to misrepresent.” Hoffman v. Palmer, 129 F.2d 976, 991 (2d Cir. 1942). The direct introduction of motivation is a disturbing factor, since absence of motivation to misrepresent has not traditionally been a requirement of the rule; that records might be self-serving has not been a ground for exclusion. Laughlin, Business Records and the Like, 46 Iowa L.Rev. 276, 285 (1961). As Judge Clark said in his dissent, “I submit that there is hardly a grocer’s account book which could not be excluded on that basis.” 129 F.2d at 1002. A physician’s evaluation report of a personal injury litigant would appear to be in the routine of his business. If the report is offered by the party at whose instance it was made, however, it has been held inadmissible, Yates v. Bair Transport, Inc., 249 F.Supp. 681 (S.D.N.Y. 1965), otherwise if offered by the opposite party, Korte v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 191 F.2d 86 (2d Cir. 1951), cert. denied 342 U.S. 868, 72 S.Ct. 108, 96 L.Ed. 652.

    The decisions hinge on motivation and which party is entitled to be concerned about it. Professor McCormick believed that the doctor’s report or the accident report were sufficiently routine to justify admissibility. McCormick §287, p. 604. Yet hesitation must be experienced in admitting everything which is observed and recorded in the course of a regularly conducted activity. Efforts to set a limit are illustrated by Hartzog v. United States, 217 F.2d 706 (4th Cir. 1954), error to admit worksheets made by since deceased deputy collector in preparation for the instant income tax evasion prosecution, and United States v. Ware, 247 F.2d 698 (7th Cir. 1957), error to admit narcotics agents’ records of purchases. See also Exception [paragraph] (8), infra, as to the public record aspects of records of this nature. Some decisions have been satisfied as to motivation of an accident report if made pursuant to statutory duty, United States v. New York Foreign Trade Zone Operators, 304 F.2d 792 (2d Cir. 1962); Taylor v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 344 F.2d 281 (2d Cir. 1965), since the report was oriented in a direction other than the litigation which ensued. Cf. Matthews v. United States, 217 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1954). The formulation of specific terms which would assure satisfactory results in all cases is not possible. Consequently the rule proceeds from the base that records made in the course of a regularly conducted activity will be taken as admissible but subject to authority to exclude if “the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.”

    Occasional decisions have reached for enhanced accuracy by requiring involvement as a participant in matters reported. Clainos v. United States, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 278, 163 F.2d 593 (1947), error to admit police records of convictions; Standard Oil Co. of California v. Moore, 251 F.2d 188 (9th Cir. 1957), cert. denied 356 U.S. 975, 78 S.Ct. 1139, 2 L.Ed.2d 1148, error to admit employees’ records of observed business practices of others. The rule includes no requirement of this nature. Wholly acceptable records may involve matters merely observed, e.g. the weather.

    The form which the “record” may assume under the rule is described broadly as a “memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form.” The expression “data compilation” is used as broadly descriptive of any means of storing information other than the conventional words and figures in written or documentary form. It includes, but is by no means limited to, electronic computer storage. The term is borrowed from revised Rule 34(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

    Exception (7). Failure of a record to mention a matter which would ordinarily be mentioned is satisfactory evidence of its nonexistence. Uniform Rule 63(14), Comment. While probably not hearsay as defined in Rule 801, supra, decisions may be found which class the evidence not only as hearsay but also as not within any exception. In order to set the question at rest in favor of admissibility, it is specifically treated here. McCormick §289, p. 609; Morgan, Basic Problems of Evidence 314 (1962); 5 Wigmore §1531; Uniform Rule 63(14); California Evidence Code §1272; Kansas Code of Civil Procedure §60–460(n); New Jersey Evidence Rule 63(14).

    Exception (8). Public records are a recognized hearsay exception at common law and have been the subject of statutes without number. McCormick §291. See, for example, 28 U.S.C. §1733, the relative narrowness of which is illustrated by its nonapplicability to nonfederal public agencies, thus necessitating report to the less appropriate business record exception to the hearsay rule. Kay v. United States, 255 F.2d 476 (4th Cir. 1958). The rule makes no distinction between federal and nonfederal offices and agencies.

    Justification for the exception is the assumption that a public official will perform his duty properly and the unlikelihood that he will remember details independently of the record. Wong Wing Foo v. McGrath, 196 F.2d 120 (9th Cir. 1952), and see Chesapeake & Delaware Canal Co. v. United States, 250 U.S. 123, 39 S.Ct. 407, 63 L.Ed. 889 (1919). As to items (a) and (b), further support is found in the reliability factors underlying records of regularly conducted activities generally. See Exception [paragraph] (6), supra.

    (a) Cases illustrating the admissibility of records of the office’s or agency’s own activities are numerous. Chesapeake & Delaware Canal Co. v. United States, 250 U.S. 123, 39 S.Ct. 407, 63 L.Ed. 889 (1919), Treasury records of miscellaneous receipts and disbursements; Howard v. Perrin, 200 U.S. 71, 26 S.Ct. 195, 50 I.Ed. 374 (1906), General Land Office records; Ballew v. United States, 160 U.S. 187, 16 S.Ct. 263, 40 L.Ed. 388 (1895), Pension Office records.

    (b) Cases sustaining admissibility of records of matters observed are also numerous. United States v. Van Hook, 284 F.2d 489 (7th Cir. 1960), remanded for resentencing 365 U.S. 609, 81 S.Ct. 823, 5 L.Ed.2d 821, letter from induction officer to District Attorney, pursuant to army regulations, stating fact and circumstances of refusal to be inducted; T’Kach v. United States, 242 F.2d 937 (5th Cir. 1957), affidavit of White House personnel officer that search of records showed no employment of accused, charged with fraudulently representing himself as an envoy of the President; Minnehaha County v. Kelley, 150 F.2d 356 (8th Cir. 1945); Weather Bureau records of rainfall; United States v. Meyer, 113 F.2d 387 (7th Cir. 1940), cert. denied 311 U.S. 706, 61 S.Ct. 174, 85 L.Ed. 459, map prepared by government engineer from information furnished by men working under his supervision.

    (c) The more controversial area of public records is that of the so-called “evaluative” report. The disagreement among the decisions has been due in part, no doubt, to the variety of situations encountered, as well as to differences in principle. Sustaining admissibility are such cases as United States v. Dumas, 149 U.S. 278, 13 S.Ct. 872, 37 L.Ed. 734 (1893), statement of account certified by Postmaster General in action against postmaster; McCarty v. United States, 185 F.2d 520 (5th Cir. 1950), reh. denied 187 F.2d 234, Certificate of Settlement of General Accounting Office showing indebtedness and letter from Army official stating Government had performed, in action on contract to purchase and remove waste food from Army camp; Moran v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., 183 F.2d 467 (3d Cir. 1950), report of Bureau of Mines as to cause of gas tank explosion; Petition of W—, 164 F.Supp. 659 (E.D.Pa.1958), report by Immigration and Naturalization Service investigator that petitioner was known in community as wife of man to whom she was not married. To the opposite effect and denying admissibility are Franklin v. Skelly Oil Co., 141 F.2d 568 (10th Cir. 1944), State Fire Marshal’s report of cause of gas explosion; Lomax Transp. Co. v. United States, 183 F.2d 331 (9th Cir. 1950), Certificate of Settlement from General Accounting Office in action for naval supplies lost in warehouse fire; Yung Jin Teung v. Dulles, 229 F.2d 244 (2d Cir. 1956), “Status Reports” offered to justify delay in processing passport applications. Police reports have generally been excluded except to the extent to which they incorporate firsthand observations of the officer. Annot., 69 A.L.R.2d 1148. Various kinds of evaluative reports are admissible under federal statutes: 7 U.S.C. §78, findings of Secretary of Agriculture prima facie evidence of true grade of grain; 7 U.S.C. §210(f), findings of Secretary of Agriculture prima facie evidence in action for damages against stockyard owner; 7 U.S.C. §292, order by Secretary of Agriculture prima facie evidence in judicial enforcement proceedings against producers association monopoly; 7 U.S.C. §1622(h), Department of Agriculture inspection certificates of products shipped in interstate commerce prima facie evidence; 8 U.S.C. §1440(c), separation of alien from military service on conditions other than honorable provable by certificate from department in proceedings to revoke citizenship; 18 U.S.C. §4245, certificate of Director of Prisons that convicted person has been examined and found probably incompetent at time of trial prima facie evidence in court hearing on competency; 42 U.S.C. §269(b), bill of health by appropriate official prima facie evidence of vessel’s sanitary history and condition and compliance with regulations; 46 U.S.C. §679, certificate of consul presumptive evidence of refusal of master to transport destitute seamen to United States. While these statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule are left undisturbed, Rule 802, the willingness of Congress to recognize a substantial measure of admissibility for evaluative reports is a helpful guide.

    Factors which may be of assistance in passing upon the admissibility of evaluative reports include; (1) the timeliness of the investigation, McCormack, Can the Courts Make Wider Use of Reports of Official Investigations? 42 Iowa L.Rev. 363 (1957); (2) the special skill or experience of the official, id., (3) whether a hearing was held and the level at which conducted, Franklin v. Skelly Oil Co., 141 F.2d 568 (10th Cir. 1944); (4) possible motivation problems suggested by Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 63 S.Ct. 477, 87 L.Ed. 645 (1943). Others no doubt could be added.

    The formulation of an approach which would give appropriate weight to all possible factors in every situation is an obvious impossibility. Hence the rule, as in Exception [paragraph] (6), assumes admissibility in the first instance but with ample provision for escape if sufficient negative factors are present. In one respect, however, the rule with respect to evaluate reports under item (c) is very specific; they are admissible only in civil cases and against the government in criminal cases in view of the almost certain collision with confrontation rights which would result from their use against the accused in a criminal case.

    Exception (9). Records of vital statistics are commonly the subject of particular statutes making them admissible in evidence. Uniform Vital Statistics Act, 9C U.L.A. 350 (1957). The rule is in principle narrower than Uniform Rule 63(16) which includes reports required of persons performing functions authorized by statute, yet in practical effect the two are substantially the same. Comment Uniform Rule 63(16). The exception as drafted is in the pattern of California Evidence Code §1281.

    Exception (10). The principle of proving nonoccurrence of an event by evidence of the absence of a record which would regularly be made of its occurrence, developed in Exception [paragraph] (7) with respect to regularly conducted activities, is here extended to public records of the kind mentioned in Exceptions [paragraphs] (8) and (9). 5 Wigmore §1633(6), p. 519. Some harmless duplication no doubt exists with Exception [paragraph] (7). For instances of federal statutes recognizing this method of proof, see 8 U.S.C. §1284(b), proof of absence of alien crewman’s name from outgoing manifest prima facie evidence of failure to detain or deport, and 42 U.S.C. §405(c)(3), (4)(B), (4)(C), absence of HEW [Department of Health, Education, and Welfare] record prima facie evidence of no wages or self-employment income.

    The rule includes situations in which absence of a record may itself be the ultimate focal point of inquiry, e.g. People v. Love, 310 Ill. 558, 142 N.E. 204 (1923), certificate of Secretary of State admitted to show failure to file documents required by Securities Law, as well as cases where the absence of a record is offered as proof of the nonoccurrence of an event ordinarily recorded.

    The refusal of the common law to allow proof by certificate of the lack of a record or entry has no apparent justification, 5 Wigmore §1678(7), p. 752. The rule takes the opposite position, as do Uniform Rule 63(17); California Evidence Code §1284; Kansas Code of Civil Procedure §60–460(c); New Jersey Evidence Rule 63(17). Congress has recognized certification as evidence of the lack of a record. 8 U.S.C. §1360(d), certificate of Attorney General or other designated officer that no record of Immigration and Naturalization Service of specified nature or entry therein is found, admissible in alien cases.

    Exception (11). Records of activities of religious organizations are currently recognized as admissible at least to the extent of the business records exception to the hearsay rule, 5 Wigmore §1523, p. 371, and Exception [paragraph] (6) would be applicable. However, both the business record doctrine and Exception [paragraph] (6) require that the person furnishing the information be one in the business or activity. The result is such decisions as Daily v. Grand Lodge, 311 Ill. 184, 142 N.E. 478 (1924), holding a church record admissible to prove fact, date, and place of baptism, but not age of child except that he had at least been born at the time. In view of the unlikelihood that false information would be furnished on occasions of this kind, the rule contains no requirement that the informant be in the course of the activity. See California Evidence Code §1315 and Comment.

    Exception (12). The principle of proof by certification is recognized as to public officials in Exceptions [paragraphs] (8) and (10), and with respect to authentication in Rule 902. The present exception is a duplication to the extent that it deals with a certificate by a public official, as in the case of a judge who performs a marriage ceremony. The area covered by the rule is, however, substantially larger and extends the certification procedure to clergymen and the like who perform marriages and other ceremonies or administer sacraments. Thus certificates of such matters as baptism or confirmation, as well as marriage, are included. In principle they are as acceptable evidence as certificates of public officers. See 5 Wigmore §1645, as to marriage certificates. When the person executing the certificate is not a public official, the self-authenticating character of documents purporting to emanate from public officials, see Rule 902, is lacking and proof is required that the person was authorized and did make the certificate. The time element, however, may safely be taken as supplied by the certificate, once authority and authenticity are established, particularly in view of the presumption that a document was executed on the date it bears.

    For similar rules, some limited to certificates of marriage, with variations in foundation requirements, see Uniform Rule 63(18); California Evidence Code §1316; Kansas Code of Civil Procedure §60–460(p); New Jersey Evidence Rule 63(18).

    Exception (13). Records of family history kept in family Bibles have by long tradition been received in evidence. 5 Wigmore §§1495, 1496, citing numerous statutes and decisions. See also Regulations, Social Security Administration, 20 C.F.R. §404.703(c), recognizing family Bible entries as proof of age in the absence of public or church records. Opinions in the area also include inscriptions on tombstones, publicly displayed pedigrees, and engravings on rings. Wigmore, supra. The rule is substantially identical in coverage with California Evidence Code §1312.

    Exception (14). The recording of title documents is a purely statutory development. Under any theory of the admissibility of public records, the records would be receivable as evidence of the contents of the recorded document, else the recording process would be reduced to a nullity. When, however, the record is offered for the further purpose of proving execution and delivery, a problem of lack of first-hand knowledge by the recorder, not present as to contents, is presented. This problem is solved, seemingly in all jurisdictions, by qualifying for recording only those documents shown by a specified procedure, either acknowledgement or a form of probate, to have been executed and delivered. 5 Wigmore §§1647–1651. Thus what may appear in the rule, at first glance, as endowing the record with an effect independently of local law and inviting difficulties of an Erie nature under Cities Service Oil Co. v. Dunlap, 308 U.S. 208, 60 S.Ct. 201, 84 L.Ed. 196 (1939), is not present, since the local law in fact governs under the example.

    Exception (15). Dispositive documents often contain recitals of fact. Thus a deed purporting to have been executed by an attorney in fact may recite the existence of the power of attorney, or a deed may recite that the grantors are all the heirs of the last record owner. Under the rule, these recitals are exempted from the hearsay rule. The circumstances under which dispositive documents are executed and the requirement that the recital be germane to the purpose of the document are believed to be adequate guarantees of trustworthiness, particularly in view of the nonapplicability of the rule if dealings with the property have been inconsistent with the document. The age of the document is of no significance, though in practical application the document will most often be an ancient one. See Uniform Rule 63(29), Comment.

    Similar provisions are contained in Uniform Rule 63(29); California Evidence Code §1330; Kansas Code of Civil Procedure §60–460(aa); New Jersey Evidence Rule 63(29).

    Exception (16). Authenticating a document as ancient, essentially in the pattern of the common law, as provided in Rule 901(b)(8), leaves open as a separate question the admissibility of assertive statements contained therein as against a hearsay objection. 7 Wigmore §2145a. Wigmore further states that the ancient document technique of authentication is universally conceded to apply to all sorts of documents, including letters, records, contracts, maps, and certificates, in addition to title documents, citing numerous decisions. Id. §2145. Since most of these items are significant evidentially only insofar as they are assertive, their admission in evidence must be as a hearsay exception. But see 5 id. §1573, p. 429, referring to recitals in ancient deeds as a “limited” hearsay exception. The former position is believed to be the correct one in reason and authority. As pointed out in McCormick §298, danger of mistake is minimized by authentication requirements, and age affords assurance that the writing antedates the present controversy. See Dallas County v. Commercial Union Assurance Co., 286 F.2d 388 (5th Cir. 1961), upholding admissibility of 58-year-old newspaper story. Cf. Morgan, Basic Problems of Evidence 364 (1962), but see id. 254.

    For a similar provision, but with the added requirement that “the statement has since generally been acted upon as true by persons having an interest in the matter,” see California Evidence Code §1331.

    Exception (17). Ample authority at common law supported the admission in evidence of items falling in this category. While Wigmore’s text is narrowly oriented to lists, etc., prepared for the use of a trade or profession, 6 Wigmore §1702, authorities are cited which include other kinds of publications, for example, newspaper market reports, telephone directories, and city directories. Id. §§1702–1706. The basis of trustworthiness is general reliance by the public or by a particular segment of it, and the motivation of the compiler to foster reliance by being accurate.

    For similar provisions, see Uniform Rule 63(30); California Evidence Code §1340; Kansas Code of Civil Procedure §60–460(bb); New Jersey Evidence Rule 63(30). Uniform Commercial Code §2–724 provides for admissibility in evidence of “reports in official publications or trade journals or in newspapers or periodicals of general circulation published as the reports of such [established commodity] market.”

    Exception (18). The writers have generally favored the admissibility of learned treatises, McCormick §296, p. 621; Morgan, Basic Problems of Evidence 366 (1962); 6 Wigmore §1692, with the support of occasional decisions and rules, City of Dothan v. Hardy, 237 Ala. 603, 188 So. 264 (1939); Lewandowski v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., 33 Wis.2d 69, 146 N.W.2d 505 (1966), 66 Mich.L.Rev. 183 (1967); Uniform Rule 63(31); Kansas Code of Civil Procedure §60–460(ce), but the great weight of authority has been that learned treatises are not admissible as substantive evidence though usable in the cross-examination of experts. The foundation of the minority view is that the hearsay objection must be regarded as unimpressive when directed against treatises since a high standard of accuracy is engendered by various factors: the treatise is written primarily and impartially for professionals, subject to scrutiny and exposure for inaccuracy, with the reputation of the writer at stake. 6 Wigmore §1692. Sound as this position may be with respect to trustworthiness, there is, nevertheless, an additional difficulty in the likelihood that the treatise will be misunderstood and misapplied without expert assistance and supervision. This difficulty is recognized in the cases demonstrating unwillingness to sustain findings relative to disability on the basis of judicially noticed medical texts. Ross v. Gardner, 365 F.2d 554 (6th Cir. 1966); Sayers v. Gardner, 380 F.2d 940 (6th Cir. 1967); Colwell v. Gardner, 386 F.2d 56 (6th Cir. 1967); Glendenning v. Ribicoff, 213 F.Supp. 301 (W.D.Mo. 1962); Cook v. Celebrezze, 217 F.Supp. 366 (W.D.Mo. 1963); Sosna v. Celebrezze, 234 F.Supp. 289 (E.D.Pa. 1964); and see McDaniel v. Celebrezze, 331 F.2d 426 (4th Cir. 1964). The rule avoids the danger of misunderstanding and misapplication by limiting the use of treatises as substantive evidence to situations in which an expert is on the stand and available to explain and assist in the application of the treatise if declared. The limitation upon receiving the publication itself physically in evidence, contained in the last sentence, is designed to further this policy.

    The relevance of the use of treatises on cross-examination is evident. This use of treatises has been the subject of varied views. The most restrictive position is that the witness must have stated expressly on direct his reliance upon the treatise. A slightly more liberal approach still insists upon reliance but allows it to be developed on cross-examination. Further relaxation dispenses with reliance but requires recognition as an authority by the witness, developable on cross-examination. The greatest liberality is found in decisions allowing use of the treatise on cross-examination when its status as an authority is established by any means. Annot., 60 A.L.R.2d 77. The exception is hinged upon this last position, which is that of the Supreme Court, Reilly v. Pinkus, 338 U.S. 269, 70 S.Ct. 110, 94 L.Ed. 63 (1949), and of recent well considered state court decisions, City of St. Petersburg v. Ferguson, 193 So.2d 648 (Fla.App. 1967), cert. denied Fla., 201 So.2d 556; Darling v. Charleston Memorial Community Hospital, 33 Ill.2d 326, 211 N.E.2d 253 (1965); Dabroe v. Rhodes Co., 64 Wash.2d 431, 392 P.2d 317 (1964).

    In Reilly v. Pinkus, supra, the Court pointed out that testing of professional knowledge was incomplete without exploration of the witness’ knowledge of and attitude toward established treatises in the field. The process works equally well in reverse and furnishes the basis of the rule.

    The rule does not require that the witness rely upon or recognize the treatise as authoritative, thus avoiding the possibility that the expert may at the outset block cross-examination by refusing to concede reliance or authoritativeness. Dabroe v. Rhodes Co., supra. Moreover, the rule avoids the unreality of admitting evidence for the purpose of impeachment only, with an instruction to the jury not to consider it otherwise. The parallel to the treatment of prior inconsistent statements will be apparent. See Rules 6130(b) and 801(d)(1).

    Exceptions (19), (20), and (21). Trustworthiness in reputation evidence is found “when the topic is such that the facts are likely to have been inquired about and that persons having personal knowledge have disclosed facts which have thus been discussed in the community; and thus the community’s conclusion, if any has been formed, is likely to be a trustworthy one.” 5 Wigmore §1580, p. 444, and see also §1583. On this common foundation, reputation as to land boundaries, customs, general history, character, and marriage have come to be regarded as admissible. The breadth of the underlying principle suggests the formulation of an equally broad exception, but tradition has in fact been much narrower and more particularized, and this is the pattern of these exceptions in the rule.

    Exception [paragraph] (19) is concerned with matters of personal and family history. Marriage is universally conceded to be a proper subject of proof by evidence of reputation in the community. 5 Wigmore §1602. As to such items as legitimacy, relationship, adoption, birth, and death, the decisions are divided. Id. §1605. All seem to be susceptible to being the subject of well founded repute. The “world” in which the reputation may exist may be family, associates, or community. This world has proved capable of expanding with changing times from the single uncomplicated neighborhood, in which all activities take place, to the multiple and unrelated worlds of work, religious affiliation, and social activity, in each of which a reputation may be generated. People v. Reeves, 360 Ill. 55, 195 N.E. 443 (1935); State v. Axilrod, 248 Minn. 204, 79 N.W.2d 677 (1956); Mass.Stat. 1947, c. 410, M.G.L.A. c. 233 §21A; 5 Wigmore §1616. The family has often served as the point of beginning for allowing community reputation. 5 Wigmore §1488. For comparable provisions see Uniform Rule 63(26), (27)(c); California Evidence Code §§1313, 1314; Kansas Code of Civil Procedure §60–460(x), (y)(3); New Jersey Evidence Rule 63(26), (27)(c).

    The first portion of Exception [paragraph] (20) is based upon the general admissibility of evidence of reputation as to land boundaries and land customs, expanded in this country to include private as well as public boundaries. McCormick §299, p. 625. The reputation is required to antedate the controversy, though not to be ancient. The second portion is likewise supported by authority, id., and is designed to facilitate proof of events when judicial notice is not available The historical character of the subject matter dispenses with any need that the reputation antedate the controversy with respect to which it is offered. For similar provisions see Uniform Rule 63(27)(a), (b); California Evidence Code §§1320–1322; Kansas Code of Civil Procedure §60–460(y), (1), (2); New Jersey Evidence Rule 63(27)(a), (b).

    Exception [paragraph] (21) recognizes the traditional acceptance of reputation evidence as a means of proving human character. McCormick §§44, 158. The exception deals only with the hearsay aspect of this kind of evidence. Limitations upon admissibility based on other grounds will be found in Rules 404, relevancy of character evidence generally, and 608, character of witness. The exception is in effect a reiteration, in the context of hearsay, of Rule 405(a). Similar provisions are contained in Uniform Rule 63(28); California Evidence Code §1324; Kansas Code of Civil Procedure §60–460(z); New Jersey Evidence Rule 63(28).

    Exception (22). When the status of a former judgment is under consideration in subsequent litigation, three possibilities must be noted: (1) the former judgment is conclusive under the doctrine of res judicata, either as a bar or a collateral estoppel; or (2) it is admissible in evidence for what it is worth; or (3) it may be of no effect at all. The first situation does not involve any problem of evidence except in the way that principles of substantive law generally bear upon the relevancy and materiality of evidence. The rule does not deal with the substantive effect of the judgment as a bar or collateral estoppel. When, however, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to make the judgment either a bar or a collateral estoppel, a choice is presented between the second and third alternatives. The rule adopts the second for judgments of criminal conviction of felony grade. This is the direction of the decisions, Annot., 18 A.L.R.2d 1287, 1299, which manifest an increasing reluctance to reject in toto the validity of the law’s factfinding processes outside the confines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. While this may leave a jury with the evidence of conviction but without means to evaluate it, as suggested by Judge Hinton, Note 27 Ill.L.Rev. 195 (1932), it seems safe to assume that the jury will give it substantial effect unless defendant offers a satisfactory explanation, a possibility not foreclosed by the provision. But see North River Ins. Co. v. Militello, 104 Colo. 28, 88 P.2d 567 (1939), in which the jury found for plaintiff on a fire policy despite the introduction of his conviction for arson. For supporting federal decisions see Clark, J., in New York & Cuba Mail S.S. Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 117 F.2d 404, 411 (2d Cir. 1941); Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. Farrara, 277 F.2d 388 (8th Cir. 1960).

    Practical considerations require exclusion of convictions of minor offenses, not became the administration of justice in its lower echelons must be inferior, but because motivation to defend at this level is often minimal or nonexistent. Cope v. Goble, 39 Cal.App.2d 448, 103 P.2d 598 (1940); Jones v. Talbot, 87 Idaho 498, 394 P.2d 316 (1964); Warren v. Marsh, 215 Minn. 615, 11 N.W.2d 528 (1943); Annot., 18 A.L.R.2d 1287, 1295–1297; 16 Brooklyn L.Rev. 286 (1950); 50 Colum.L.Rev. 529 (1950); 35 Cornell L.Q. 872 (1950). Hence the rule includes only convictions of felony grade, measured by federal standards.

    Judgments of conviction based upon pleas of nolo contendere are not included. This position is consistent with the treatment of nolo pleas in Rule 410 and the authorities cited in the Advisory Committee’s Note in support thereof.

    While these rules do not in general purport to resolve constitutional issues, they have in general been drafted with a view to avoiding collision with constitutional principles. Consequently the exception does not include evidence of the conviction of a third person, offered against the accused in a criminal prosecution to prove any fact essential to sustain the judgment of conviction. A contrary position would seem clearly to violate the right of confrontation. Kirby v. United States, 174 U.S. 47, 19 S.Ct. 574, 43 L.Ed. 890 (1899), error to convict of possessing stolen postage stamps with the only evidence of theft being the record of conviction of the thieves The situation is to be distinguished from cases in which conviction of another person is an element of the crime, e.g. 15 U.S.C. §902(d), interstate shipment of firearms to a known convicted felon, and, as specifically provided, from impeachment.

    For comparable provisions see Uniform Rule 63(20); California Evidence Code §1300; Kansas Code of Civil Procedure §60–460(r); New Jersey Evidence Rule 63(20).

    Exception (23). A hearsay exception in this area was originally justified on the ground that verdicts were evidence of reputation. As trial by jury graduated from the category of neighborhood inquests, this theory lost its validity. It was never valid as to chancery decrees. Nevertheless the rule persisted, though the judges and writers shifted ground and began saying that the judgment or decree was as good evidence as reputation. See City of London v. Clerke, Carth. 181, 90 Eng.Rep. 710 (K.B. 1691); Neill v. Duke of Devonshire, 8 App.Cas. 135 (1882). The shift appears to be correct, since the process of inquiry, sifting, and scrutiny which is relied upon to render reputation reliable is present in perhaps greater measure in the process of litigation. While this might suggest a broader area of application, the affinity to reputation is strong, and paragraph [paragraph] (23) goes no further, not even including character.

    The leading case in the United States, Patterson v. Gaines, 47 U.S. (6 How.) 550, 599, 12 L.Ed. 553 (1847), follows in the pattern of the English decisions, mentioning as illustrative matters thus provable: manorial rights, public rights of way, immemorial custom, disputed boundary, and pedigree. More recent recognition of the principle is found in Grant Bros. Construction Co. v. United States, 232 U.S. 647, 34 S.Ct. 452, 58 L.Ed. 776 (1914), in action for penalties under Alien Contract Labor Law, decision of board of inquiry of Immigration Service admissible to prove alienage of laborers, as a matter of pedigree; United States v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 67 F.2d 37 (10th Cir. 1933), records of commission enrolling Indians admissible on pedigree; Jung Yen Loy v. Cahill, 81 F.2d 809 (9th Cir. 1936), board decisions as to citizenship of plaintiff’s father admissible in proceeding for declaration of citizenship. Contra, In re Estate of Cunha, 49 Haw. 273, 414 P.2d 925 (1966).

    Notes of Committee on the Judiciary, House Report No. 93–650

    Rule 803(3) was approved in the form submitted by the Court to Congress. However, the Committee intends that the Rule be construed to limit the doctrine of Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285, 295 –300 (1892), so as to render statements of intent by a declarant admissible only to prove his future conduct, not the future conduct of another person.

    After giving particular attention to the question of physical e

  116. Guest….you can pay these crooks every last dime you have…it doesn’t matter to me because they screwed me and they are going to screw you too…..and they are going to screw everybody before these crooks are done …… the difference between you and me is I don’t believe their manufactured bullshit..and whoever does is going to lose it all…and they are never getting it back but by divine intervention…I deal in facts..not lies…

  117. You are the only buttwipe here guest….and I don’t feel sorry for you at all.

  118. Wrong Again … I am a homeowner who has sustained real damages in legal fees because of a Buttwipe who left my husband with a bad credit rating and a corrupted title. There is no default and we pay our taxes. Simple!

  119. GUEST…MAYBE YOU SHOULD HEED YOUR OWN HORSESHIT ADVICE……NO ONE IS GOING TO TELL ME HOW TO LIVE MY LIFE……AND NO ONE IS GOING TO BLUFF ME AND MAKE ME BELIEVE THE LYING BULLSHIT….I DEAL IN FACTS….YOU DEAL IN SECRETS, LIES & DECEPTION TO DEFRAUD…YOU ARE A CRIMINAL….I’M NOT.

  120. Maybe your standard of living is to high Stripes. You should try living within your means and quit trying to bluff and bully your way thru life.

  121. CONGRESS HAS A RIGHT TO LAY & COLLECT TAXES….SO WHY IS THERE A RECESSION…..WHY ARE THERE DEFECITS WHEN EVERYTHING IS A FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED TAX…..? WE ARE BEING ROBBED….WE CAN’T EVEN AFFORD TO BUY OUR OWN HEALTHCARE BECAUSE OF YOU CROOKS….AND THAT IS INTENTIONAL TO FORCE US TO ACCEPT TOTALITARIANISM…..SCREW YOU CROOKS…..!

  122. WE HAD OUR BUSINESS STOLEN FROM US BY YOU CROOKS….WE HAVE NOT TURNED A PROFIT SINCE & THAT WAS INTENTIONAL …..WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU CAN’T TAX PEOPLES INCOME THEY DON’T HAVE……? BECAUSE EVERYTHING WE ARE PAYING IS A FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED TAX AND WE HAVE NO TAXABLE INCOME BECAUSE OF IT….WE HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE AND WE FEAR NO ONE BECAUSE WE DID NOTHING ILLEGAL OR CRIMINAL……WE WERE ROBBED….

  123. THAT IS WHY OBAMACARE WILL NEVER WORK….YOU CAN’T MAKE PEOPLE PAY WHAT THEY DON’T HAVE…..PEOPLE CAN’T AFFORD EXTRA ANYTHING BECAUSE OF WHAT THESE BANK OWNER CROOKS STOLE FROM US…..A QUADRILLION DOLLARS….THAT’S WHAT THE BANK OWNERS STOLE…. AUDIT THE FED…..AND THE TREASURY….WE THE PEOPLE WERE ROBBED BY THESE CROOKS TOO…

  124. GUEST….YOU ARE A LYING CROOK…WE HAVE NEVER EVADED TAXES IN OUR LIVES……..WHO HAS THE HIDDEN OVERSEAS BANKSTER ACCOUNTS…? CERTAINLY NOT US…..!

  125. Guest…..WE PAY OUR TAXES CROOK….BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS A FRAUDULENTLY TAX HOWEVER….YOU DON’T BECAUSE YOU ARE A CROOK……AS FAR AS TAXABLE INCOME WE HAVE NOT TURNED A PROFIT IN 5 YEARS BECAUSE YOU CROOKS ROBBED US OF EVERYTHING……THEY CAN’T TAX WHAT WE DON’T HAVE BECAUSE WE WERE ROBBED AND THE ROBBERY CONTINUES UNABATED….

  126. Take you Issues to a Site that can Help You. We dont do tax evasion on this site. We Save Homes!

  127. What about the pension funds and retirement investment monies used to fund the mortgages, they got snuffed like the homeowner and the taxpayer by the buttwipes too, do you think they should lose all their retirement savings so Scum Bag Brokers, Buttwipes and Deadbeats can live “Happily Ever After” in their pursuit of happiness? Oh did I mention to you that my daughters neighbor is in prison for 3years for income tax evasion? He was self-employed to, just like you. ….

  128. THESE CROOKS WILL NEVER TELL YOU HOW THEY ROB YOU AND CRIMINALLY OPPRESS YOU AMERICA…..NEARLY EVERY DIME YOU PAY IS A FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED TAX…THIS IS PART OF THE METHOD THESE CROOKS ARE USING TO ROB THE AMERICAN PEOPLE INTO FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED POVERTY…….

    SEE THE MOVIE OBAMA 2012….THESE CROOKS FULLY PLAN ON TAXING 100% ALL OF OUR INCOME BY THE END OF OBAMAS SECOND TERM…..

    THAT IS HOW THEY INTEND TO FRAUDULENTLY INDUCE TOTALITARIANISM ..

    WHEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE BEING OPPRESSED BY TYRANTS…THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST REVOLT……STOP PARTICIPATING & PAYING THESE CROOKS TO ROB YOU OF ALL OF YOUR FREEDOM & LIBERTY AMERICA….!

  129. EVERYTHING WE THE PEOPLE PAY IS A FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED TAX AMERICA……!

  130. GUEST IS A CRIMINAL & A LIAR….

  131. We the people who paid and continue to pay taxes are the ones who paid for everything. You are so Funny … you didnt and still dont pay taxes! You dont own anything.

  132. THE BANK OWNERS..THE POLITICIANS….AND THE JUDICIARY ARE THE ONLY STRIPPERS IN AMERICA…..AND THEY ARE CRIMINALS…!

  133. THERE ARE NO FREE HOUSES BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ALREADY PAID FOR EVERYTHING…..A FREE HALF A MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE ……ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME….? MY PROPERTY IS NOW WORTH ZERO BECAUSE THESE CRIMINAL BANKS…POLITICIANS & WALL STREET DESTROYED THE VALUE OF EVERYTHING WE THE PEOPLE ALREADY PAID FOR BY COMMITTING A QUADRILLION DOLLARS IN CREDIT AND INVESTMENT FRAUD IN OUR NAMES…BY COUNTERFEITING NOTES/CHECKS…AND MORTGAGES …LEGAL DOCUMENTS IN OUR NAMES AND FORGING OUR SIGNATURES….CEASE AND DESIST YOU CROOKS…….!

  134. RE…GUESTS COMMENT….THE STATE OF ILLINOIS IS BROKE….THAT IS BECAUSE THE POLITICIANS ROBBED THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS…….

  135. CEASE AND DESIST YOU CROOKS….

  136. Sorry Stripper … You Lose a Gazillion to Zero. I counted the hands. :)

  137. Ok.. I understand you dont want the nut in your house. So I am going to make this easy for you. If you answer is NO.. raise your hand. If the answer is YES and you think the Stripper should get a free house and support by the taxpayers and pensioners… post Yes.

  138. I’m only running up the posts today to make Neil feel Good about his self! He likes High Numbers. heeheehee …. Just Kidding Neil!

  139. In case you have not heard Stripes, your home state… The State of Illinois is Broke! Anyone want to take any Guesses Why?

  140. Lets take a Vote… Yes or No answer only. Should the taxpayers give the Stripper a Free Half Million dollar Home and support her Lifestyle? Simple Question … Easy Answer

  141. anyone who criticizes the stripper is the enemy. go figure.

  142. Its all their fault for believing her lies. Whaaa …. Now she wants the taxpayers to support her luxury style she obtained by her criminal activities. She sounds like just another Buttwipe to me. I’m getting used to this freedom of speach thing … funny stuff comes out.

  143. Stripes is the perfect example of a no-doc loan with stated self-employed income and lied to the lenders and the IRS.

  144. My receipts say Paid CASH. Do your receipts say cash or credit? And if CASH, give us the date. Before or After you cashed out that $80,000+ in cash and paid off a line of credit with your equity before getting caught for tax evasion.

  145. BTW GUEST….I WILL ENJOY MY POOL & MY HOT TUB FOR AS LONG AS I CHOOSE….WHY? BECAUSE I PAID FOR IT…..WHERE ARE YOUR RECEIPTS THAT SAY YOU PAID FOR ANYTHING…..?…..AKA THE LEGAL ASSIGNMENTS……AKA THE LEGAL TRUST AGGREEMENTS…..? OH THAT’S RIGHT….YOU DON’T HAVE ANY BECAUSE YOU ARE ALL CRIMINAL FELONS…..WHAT DID YOU DO WITH ALL MY PAYMENTS YOU STOLE FROM ME AFTER YOU COMMITTED FELONY FRAUD IN MY NAME WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE AND ROBBED AND LOOTED THE U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT IN MY NAME WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE……AKA..THE ORIGINATION FRAUD….? THAT’S RIGHT THE FEDERAL RESERVE/WORLD BANK ….THEIR OWNERS ROBBED ME AND MILLIONS OF AMERICANS OF QUADRILLIONS IN OUR WEALTH AND PROPERRTY……..YOU ARE ALL CRIMINAL FELONS…..TERRORIST…DEADBEAT CROOKS….!

  146. GUEST IS A WANTONED TREPIDATOR ….A TERRORIST WHO BY CONCEALMENT OF HIS/HER TRUE IDENTITY IS USING DECEPTION… LIES …. CRIMINAL FRAUD TO DECEIVE OTHERS…..INTO ACCEPTING CRIMINAL FRAUD BY BASELESS ATTEMPTS TO DEFAME THE CHARACTER OF MILLIONS OF INNOCENT VICTIMS OF THIS WAR AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE…….GUEST IS CONCEALING HER TRUE IDENTITY AND THE IDENTITY OF OTHERS ….GUEST IS A WOLF IN SHEEPS CLOTHES WHO IS REALLY BLAMING THE VICTIMS OF THIS COMMUNIST CRIME SPREE AGAINST WE THE PEOPLE…..GUEST IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, ITS OWNERS, SOME MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY, AND THE POLITICIANS WHO ARE IN FACT… WANTON CRIMINAL FELONS AND ARE IN FACT ….DEADBEAT DEBTORS TO THE U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT IN THE NAMES OF…WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA….ARREST THESE CROOKS AMERICA….!

  147. GUEST IS ALL ABOUT LIES DECEIT AND CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION….GUEST IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF THE MANY WANTON FELONS WHO ARE RUNNING LOOSE AROUND THE COUNTRY THESE WANTON CRIMINAL FELONS WHO ARE WANTED BY MANY AMERICANS FOR THEIR MANY CRIMES AGAINST WE THE PEOPLE….SUCH AS……BANK FRAUD…WIRE FRAUD…FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT….SUBJORNING PERJURY……CONCEALMENT….SECURITIES FRAUD….TAX EVASION….ROBBERY AND LOOTING OF THE U.S. TREASURY….HOSTAGE TAKING….CONCEALING FACTS TO GAIN UNJUST ENRICHMENT…..FRAUD IN THE FACTUM…..RACKETEERING…….EXTORTION….INTENT TO DECEIVE…INTENT TO HARM….WARANTLESS EAVESDROPPING…..SPYING……ARSON….HUMAN RIGHTS VILATIONS….TERRORIST ATTACKS…ETC……

  148. Enjoy that Pool and Hottub while you can … Meds for you are cheaper for the taxpayers who themselves can not afford that Luxery. Oh yeah .. Enjoy one last Prime Rib on the taxpayers before your Link is shut off. The last I heard you had to have an address to qualify. Just trying to help .. Just my Opinion and My Constitutional Right to Free Speech Here .. just like you have.

  149. They already know about you Stripes, your reputation preceeds you. Its posted every where …Traffic.. Criminal … Tax Evasion … Deadbeat Homeowner … Welfare Reciepient …Blogger. They are coming prepared with something special for Crazies like you. After the initial shock… you will enjoy the meds. You will get your “Happily Ever After” you so desperatly seek at the expense of the taxpayers. .. And Neil will get his site back.

  150. WE WILL SEE ABOUT THAT GUEST BUT, IN THE MEANTIME YOU CROOKS BETTER WATCH YOUR BACKS…

  151. THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK IS IN DEFAULT TO THE U.S. TREASURY…THE TRUST FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLES WEALTH AND PROPERTY FOR QUADRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN GOLD AND SILVER…..TAKE THAT YOU COMMIE TROLL..

  152. Oh you mean your 300,000 personalities. One for each visit to this Site. AKA just you. hahahahaha Good Luck! I cant wait to read the book!

  153. No Army and No Home. The End!

  154. @GUEST……300,000 PISSED OFF AND ARMED AMERICANS…..THAT’S WHO…..

  155. OBAMAS MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS DO NOT USURP THE POWER OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE….NOR DOES CONGRESS…THE SENATE…THE FED…..THE COPS OR THE JUDICIARY ……9/11 REALLY MEANT THESE CRIMINALS DECLARED WAR ON WE THE PEOPLE…..OBAMA AND HIS COMMUNIST MINIONS AND COHORTS ARE USING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FRAUDULENTLY ….AS A SUPER POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND HAS FRAUDULENTLY TURNED THE JUDICIARY….THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT INTO A WAR AGAINST WE THE PEOPLE THE NINTH AMEMDMENT ….THIS IS WAR BY OUR ENEMIES BOTH FOREIGN & DOMESTIC….NO POWER USURPS THE POWER OF WE THE PEOPLE….

  156. You and What Army. Be specific, ….

  157. MAKE NO MISTAKE GUEST ….THIS IS NOT A WHINE…THIS IS A BATTLE CRY OF U.S. PATRIOTS …..IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NO POWER USURPS THE POWER OF WE THE PEOPLE….NOT A CORPORATION….NOT CONGRESS…NOT THE SENATE….NOT THE COPS…NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT……NOT THE JUDICIARY ……NOT EVEN THE SUPREME COURT IF THEY ARE NOT UPHOLDING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION…….THIS IS WAR ON OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC BY TYRANTS BOTH FOREIGN & DOMESTIC…..

  158. THIS IS A CALL TO ARMS TO ALL U.S. PATRIOTS…. THIS IS WAR…..WE MUST USE ALL OF OUR LEGAL RIGHTS AFFORDED TO US UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION TO DEFEND OUR LEGAL RIGHTS TO LIFE…LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS….DO NOT TRUST THE CORRUPT LEGAL SYSTEM TO DEFEND YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS THAT ARE AFFORDED TO EVERY NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN…..

  159. ~~Shiver me timbers~~ Cheese with your Whine?

  160. I am a NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN…..THEREFORE I HAVE MANY LEGAL RIGHTS AFFORDED TO ME INCLUDING I MAY USE ALL MEANS NECESSARY WITHIN THOSE LEGAL RIGHTS AFFORDED TO ME UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTUON to DEFEND ALL OF MY LEGAL RIGHTS TO LIFE….LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS….WHICH INCLUDE THE FIRST TEN AMENDMENTS AND OTHERS…..BECAUSE WE THE PEOPLE FOUGHT, DIED AND PAID FOR THOSE LEGAL RIGHTS TO BE FREE AND INDEPENDENT FROM TYRANTS LIKE YOU…..

  161. I AM WARNING YOU GUEST TO CEASE AND DESIST YOUR WANTON ABUSIVE TERRORIST TACTICS …OR ALL BETS ARE OFF…..I DON’T WANT ANY HELP FROM YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE A CRIMINAL AND A TERRORIST…

  162. These criminals are using CONCEALMENT to wantonly trespass on our legal rights and using trepidation….which is terrorism ……to tresspass against US IN ORDER TO intimidate all of US in which to destroy and overthrow our Constitutional Republic and it is criminal by its deception….

    FRAUDCLOSURE IS CRIMINAL BY WANTON TREPIDATION…….IT IS TERRORISM BY CONCEALMENT BY OUR ENEMIES BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC…..

    THESE HIDDEN AND REAL ENEMIES ARE USING SECRETS, LIES AND DECEPTION TO DEFRAUD US OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY INTIMIDATION….FAKE THREATS…..FALSE FLAGS SUCH AS DEBT ….DEFECITS…. MISSING (STOLEN) MONEY…NO FREE MARKETS FRAUDCLOSURE…OBAMACARE……FLU EPEDEMICS…..9/11….THE PATRIOT ACT….NDAA…..ALL GUN LAWS…..THESE ARE ALL ILLEGAL ALIEN INVASIONS OF OUR LEGAL RIGHTS TO LIFE…LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS…….THEY HAVE HIJACKED OUR LIBERTY…AND OUR FREEDOM….BY TERRORIZING WE THE PEOPLE WITH FAKE TERRORISM THREATS THAT NEVER STOP…

  163. And I’m not talking about getting a free handout, I am talking about Saving your Home! Anybody?

  164. Is there anyone here today that wants to talk about saving your home?

  165. ~..OO..~ See room… See room with Living Deadbeat Living in Denial. ~ ..QQ..~

  166. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA…ONE NATION UNDER GOD….A NATION THAT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC GOVERNED FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE….THAT SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE TRAMPLED UNDERFOOT BY WARANTLESS CONCEALMENT BY WANTON TREPIDATION OR OTHER DEVIOUS MEANS BY CRIMINALS AND TYRANTS…..

  167. All of these crimes against US are apparent on the face of all documents therefore ALL OF YOU CROOKS HAVE A RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND ANYTHING YOU SAY OR DO CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU IN ANY WAY WE THE PEOPLE SEE FIT BECAUSE WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE GOVERNMENT …… NO POWER IS SUPERIOR TO THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA…A FREE AND CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC….

  168. WANTON TREPIDATION IS TERRORISM BY TYRANTS WHO WISH TO OVERTHROW OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC….BY SECRETS, LIES, FRAUD & DECEIT AND IT IS CRIMINAL…

  169. WHICH INCLUDE MY SECOND AMENDMENT LEGAL RIGHT TO ENFORCE AND UPHOLD ALL OF MY LEGAL RIGHTS…..

    THE SECOND AMENDMENT STATES CLEARLY WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTIONS..

    AMENDMENT II – A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    BECAUSE OF WANTON TREPIDATION BY HIDDEN CROOKS ALL OF OUR LEGAL RIGHTS ARE BEING TRAMPLED UNDERFOOT BY TYRANTS AND CRIMINALS……..

  170. I am completely anti violence however, that does not mean I will not AT ANY TIME EXERT AND INVOKE any and all of my legal rights afforded to me to defend MY LEGAL RIGHTS TO LIFE…LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS….

  171. MY WEAPON IS THE RULE OF LAW….THE U.S. CONSTITUTION WHICH ALL RIGHTS ARE AFFORDED TO ME UNDER AS I AM A NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN…..TYRANTS AND CRIMINALS ARE THE ONLY ENTITIES WHO FEAR MY LEGAL RIGHT TO DEFEND MY LEGAL RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS AND MY LEGAL RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF IS ALSO MY LEGAL RIGHT TO DEFEND THOSE LIBERTIES….

  172. CHRISTINE/GUEST IS A DANGEROUS AND DECEPTIVE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATOR ….. A WOLF IN SHEEPS CLOTHES……

  173. “Scratccchhh”! Wrong Again! Three Strikes and Your Out! You Lose! I dont publish my idenity because of Dangerous Peole Like You who Jump to Conclusions and Run Out the Door with Guns in Hand. That is what Mass Murders do to victims they precive to be their problem.. as you do me. But I am not your problem, I am your lifeline and you are cutting your own rope. Now Thats Crazy!

  174. CHRISTINE/GUEST IS AN IMPOSTER….A FICTITIOUS PAYEE…A CRIMINAL WOLF IN SHEEPS CLOTHES LYING AND DECEIVING BY CONCEALING HIS/HER TRUE IDENTITY…..

  175. IF YOU DECLARE WAR ON ME IN MY OWN COUNTRY I AM WELL WITHIN MY LEGAL RIGHTS TO DECLARE WAR ON YOU….THEREFORE…GAME ON YOU MANIPULTIVE LYING SCUMBAG CROOKS…..

  176. NO YOU ARE A DANGEROUS CROOK CHRISTINE/GUEST BECAUSE YOU ARE A LIAR AND A DECEIVER…AS A NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN I AM WELL WITHIN MY LEGAL RIGHTS TO MAKE THESE DECLARATIONS..

  177. Do you have enough now Neil? She is a Dangerous Deadbeat! She is dangerous to herself and your site and those who visit. Time to pull the Plug.

  178. CHRISTINE & GUEST ARE OBVIOUSLY THE SAME CROOK….DUAL IDENTITY FRAUDSTERS….WE THE PEOPLE SAY…OFF WITH THEIR HEADS….!

  179. GUEST….EVERYTHING WE THE PEOPLE PAY IS A FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED TAX YOU CROOK…..THAT IS WHY WE THE PEOPLE ARE NEARLY BANKRUPT…SCREW YOU……..THIS IS WAR…

  180. Including executions for that secret war crime on 9/11…..IT IS NOW APPARENT 9/11 was a secret declaration of war on WE THE PEOPLE…THAT RESULTED IN OUR ROBBERY IN 2008…..

  181. @ Bloggers …. Need I say Anymore? She is happy to live off the taxpayers but she is against paying taxes. ??? TIP OF THE DAY …. Insovency can be cured by a CH7 but not by 11 or 13, that is what her rampage is really all about, a last desperate attempt to catch a FREE RIDE on the backs of the very taxpayers she is trying to abolish. Its like reasoning with a Brick Wall.

  182. EVER SINGLE ONE OF YOU CRIMINALS SHOULD BE EXECUTED for your SECRET WAR CRIMES against WE THE PEOPLE …..LIKE TAXATION…AND OUR ROBBERY BY THE FED…..BECAUSE WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE GOVERNMENT…. THAT INCLUDES ALL THE LIARS IN THE MEDIA….

  183. CHRISTINE….I AM THE TAXPAYERS…..EVERYTHING I PAY IS A FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED TAX YOU CROOK..YOU ARE THE BURDEN ON WE THE PEOPLE…….WE THE PEOPLE ARE PAYING TO GIVE YOU A RIGHT TO TERRORIZE AND OPPRESS US….FOR 25 YEARS WE PAID THROUGH THE NOSE FOR EVERYTHING AND WE WERE ROBBED BECAUSE OF THAT COMPLIANCE…COOPERATION….AND CONFORMITY NOW THAT I KNOW YOU COMMIE CROOKS ROBBED ME IT IS MY LEGAL RIGHT AS A NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN TO SAY SCREW YOU CROOKS….I REFUSE TO DO BUSINESS WITH COMMUNIST CROOKS LIKE YOU….AND YOU SHOULD ALL BE EXECUTED…

  184. TAXATION IS TYRANNY BY OUR ENEMIES BOTH FOREIGN & DOMESTIC…….CONGRESS CAN LAY & COLLECT TAXES BUT NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY NOT PAYING TAXES IS A CRIME….

    TIME FOR A REAL TEA PARTY BECAUSE OUR ENEMIES ARE USING TAXATION AS A SECRET CONTROL MECHANISM TO ROB AND OPPRESS WE THE PEOPLE…….TAXATION IS BEING USED AS A WEAPON TO BOTH SECRETLY & OPENLY TERRORIZE WE THE PEOPLE..

    BY SECRETLY TERRORIZING WE THE PEOPLE I MEAN EVERYTHING HAS BEEN SECRETLY TURNED INTO A TAX FROM THE MORTGAGE TO OUR FOOD AND OUR NATURAL RESOURCES….OUR UTILITY BILLS…..

    IT IS FRAUD & IT IS CRIMINAL OF THESE POLITICIANS TO DARE TO TAKE AWAY OUR BASIC LEGAL RIGHT AS NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZENS TO LIFE…..FOOD, WATER SHELTER….& ALL THE THINGS THAT SUSTAIN LIFE……FREE MARKETS….SELF EMPLOYMENT ………THAT IS TYRANNY AND OPPRESSION ….THEREFORE WE THE PEOPLE MUST REVOLT…

  185. re: ” MAKE THE BANK OWNERS PAY FOR ALL OF THEIR OWN CRIMINAL FRAUD… ” says Stripes. ME…. Lets see .. who owns Citi , Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie etc …..? Last I heard it was the Taxpayers. Sorry Stripes …. You are a big enough burdon on the Taxpayers. Is that why you want to abolish them because they dont support you they way you believe they should?

  186. CHRISTINE…..YOU CANNOT INTIMIDATE BECAUSE I AM A NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN ……THAT MEANS I AM AFFORDED ALL OF THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION…..WHY?….BECAUSE WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOUGHT, DIED AND PAID FOR EVERYTHING……THAT MEANS WE THE PEOPLE HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO LIFE……OUR BASIC NEEDS…..FOOD …..WATER …..SHELTER…..AND A LEGAL RIGHT TO LIBERTY…..THE LEGAL RIGHT TO GOVERN OURSELVES AND MAKE CERTAIN OUR LEGAL RIGHTS ARE BEING UPHELD…AND A LEGAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS TO DEFEND THOSE RIGHTS….

    WE THE PEOPLE ARE NOW AT WAR WITH CRONY CAPITALIST COMMUNISTS WHO HAVE DECLARED A SECRET WAR ON OUR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY…..I AM AWARE OF THIS WAR ON US…BY DICTATORS AND TYRANTS BOTH FOREIGN & DOMESTIC…

    THEREFORE, WE THE PEOPLE MUST REVOLT……THAT IS OUR JOB….TO RESTORE OUR FREEDOM & LIBERTY…HOWEVER WE THE PEOPLE SEE FIT.

  187. Good Morning Stripes,
    Did you make that call and find yourself a job this week? I sure hope so, you have debts to pay, like the IRS, Property Taxes and lets not forget that Mortgage debt you owe. I would sure hate to see your kids de-rooted from their home and schools. And dont call me Evil or a Troll because I pay mine. If I didnt pay mine, you wouldnt have that State Medical Ins and Linki Card. Just Sayin …

  188. Good Morning Stripes,
    Did you make that call and find yourself a job this week? I sure hope so, you have debts to pay, like the IRS, Property Taxes and lets not forget that Mortgage debt you owe. I would sure hate to see your kids de-rooted from their home and schools. And dont call me Evil or a Troll because I pay mine. If I didnt pay mine, you wouldnt have that State Medical Ins and Linki Card. Just Sayin …

  189. You trolls are the only crazies posting on the blogs….ACCEPTING THE MASSIVE UNSUSTAINABLE DEBT OF THESE CROOKS WILL CREATE TOTALITARIANISM ….MANDELMAN IS A SHEISTER… AGREEING TO ANOTHER FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED “LOAN” FROM THESE COMMIE RE-SOCIALISTS IS ANOTHER SET UP TO FAIL BY THE SAME CROOKS WHO PUT US HERE. $700 TRILLION DOLLARS IN MORTGAGE FRAUD BY THE BANK OWNERS & WALL STREET IS NOT OWED BY US ….. MAKE THE BANK OWNERS PAY FOR ALL OF THEIR OWN CRIMINAL FRAUD…

  190. These are perilous times indeed. Anonymous calling for civil war against the Government……well that’s just what these commies want is Anarchy and I wouldn’t give it to them…I believe Anonymous works for these crooks in the Government. Don’t buy it America….beware the deceivers.

  191. MANDELMAN IS WORKING FOR THE BANK OWNERS JUST LIKE CHRISTINE AND THE OTHER TROLLS…

  192. Don’t pay attention to this liar Christine…. Go to this link for the truth America….BANKING SCAM IS OUTED…..IT’S ALL TRUE….THE BANKS DON’T LEND YOU A DIME….THEY LEND YOU CREDIT & THEY DESTROY THAT CREDIT…THE FED IS A STRAWMAN PROXY FOR THE RICH….READ ABOUT IT HERE… http://nrgnair.com/MPT/zdi_tech/ucc/WITHOUT.RECOURSE-2.htm

  193. MORE TREASON BY TRAITORS…

  194. Garfield debunked…

    The entire blurb by clicking the link below. Makes more sense to me (and most foreclosure defense attorneys…) than what i read here.

    One thing is sure: Mandelman has helped people keep their houses by contacting the banks directly and posting about it. Real people, real stories, real successes. Garfield? Not so much… still waiting to hear from the winners. So far, I only have an extensive list of losers… Makes me wonder about all the crazies posting on this blog…

    http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2013/01/are-mortgages-fraudulent-the-case-from-credit-river/

    Have you been told or have you read about any of these things lately?

    Banks don’t lend money?

    Bank’s monetize a borrower’s credit?

    You don’t have to pay your mortgage payments and banks can’t foreclose?

    There is really never ever any money involved in you getting a mortgage and buying a home?

    If you don’t repay the loan, no one is actually harmed?

    How about any of these?

    The bank lent you your own money?

    The bank basically hijacked your credit to cash a check at the fed using your signature and credit file?

    The fed lent money to your underwriter on your signature and your promise, not theirs?

    What about these statements?

    This was money added to the money supply and given to your originator by the fed?

    You’re not the borrower… you are the creditor and have given them or they have stolen your credit?

    There CANNOT be any foreclosures because there never was any REAL money lent to the borrower?

    Yes? Well, if you have then you’re not alone…

    I spoke with a homeowner facing foreclosure a couple weeks ago. That’s not an unusual event, by any means, I speak with homeowners at risk of foreclosure every single day. But this conversation was different. I’d never heard anyone say the things he was saying as he described how banking and mortgages work in this country.

    Basically, he was trying to tell me that all mortgages were fraudulent and something about the banks never lending any real money to anyone. And then something about how his loan had been paid off by different kinds of insurance more than once. The whole thing was adding up to his realization that he didn’t have to repay his loan and it wouldn’t matter at all.

    I tried to ask a few questions in an attempt to get him to clarify what he was saying, but he got more and more frustrated with my apparent unwillingness to agree with his argument… whatever it was.

    Another homeowner told me something similar recently, she said that no loans were ever originated. I asked how that could possibly be the case, and she said the banks “collateralized the down payments ten times.” I asked what she meant by collateralized, and just like the previous homeowner, she got frustrated with my question. She then said it had something to do with the “Fed window,” which was obviously a reference to the discount window at the Federal Reserve.

    She was sure that I already knew what “collateralized” meant and also that I knew all about the Federal Reserve, and therefore I was only asking my questions to give her a hard time. I explained that I did think that I knew the definition of “collateralized” and did know about the discount window at the Fed, but I didn’t understand how those things related to her statement about no mortgages being originated.

    In simple terms, I didn’t understand what “collateralized” and the discount window had to do with me applying for a mortgage and buying a home, and she was incredulous at my saying that I didn’t know.

    I felt badly for the homeowners after the calls. “Banks don’t lend money? Well, that’s just silly. “The bank lent you your own money?” Well, that’s even sillier. And your loan being paid off multiple times by insurance policies? How can anyone believe that? If that were true then investors would have no losses and we know that’s not the case, right?

    For a while after the calls, I tried to put the conversations out of my mind. I had seen increasing amounts of misinformation proliferate since the foreclosure crisis began, but I couldn’t help but wonder from where was this coming. Who would be telling people that no loans were originated, or making any of the other statements listed at the top of this article?

    Coincidentally, a few weeks later a blogger I’m friends with called to ask if I’d heard of a company… Legal Forensic Auditors, or LFA. He described them as a company that sells forensic audits, securitization audits, and other related “reports,” all provided to “help homeowners,” according to the company’s Website.

    Help homeowners how, I couldn’t help but wonder.

    I told him that I had never heard of them, but while we were talking I went online to find their Website to see what I could find out. I saw a tab labeled “Articles,” and clicked on it to see what was there. Scrolling down I saw a headline, “Mortgages are Fraudulent,” and I don’t know why but I clicked on it.

    In just a few seconds of reading, something was ringing bells…

    “Here is an interesting article making the argument that your bank or mortgage company never was a lender to you. They basically hijacked your credit to cash a check at the fed using your signature and credit file. They lent you your own money. The fed lent money to your underwriter on your signature and your promise, not theirs. This was money added to the money supply and given to your originator by the fed. Sound crazy??

    Where the heck had I heard this stuff before? I couldn’t place it right away, but I knew I had heard something similar recently. Then it hit me and I told my friend on the phone… Oh my God, I had just heard this same stuff from two different homeowners… what in the world was going on here? The set-up to the article continued…

    “This is very interesting reading and you should take a close look at Montgomery vs. Daly – Google this case and we have put a text copy of the case underneath this article. We have a deposition of a banker based on this very argument that will blow you away. The banker admitted that no bank assets were lent to borrower, but rather a bookkeeping entry was used to create the money to lend and that bookkeeping entry was allowed because of the signature on the promissory note obtained fraudulently.”

    I went on to read the article and I pulled some of the more outlandish quotes for the beginning of this article, but let me be very clear about something before I say anything else… it’s not true… none of it. Not even a little bit… in fact, it’s utter nonsense. And in normal times, no one would believe it for a moment.

    But alas, these are not normal times.

    [Go to the link to read the rest]

  195. It doesn’t sound like a “nasty setback” Christine….This sounds like another STAGED EVENT TO FRIGHTEN PEOPLE…..AN INSIDE JOB…A FALSE FLAG OPERATION….THIS IS A WANTONED CRIMINAL ACT BY THE TRAITORS FROM WITHIN AND THIS IS FREAKING DISGUSTING.

  196. Well that’s a lie that Plaintiffs do not need to prove status at the onset if the note is unindorsed it can only be considered an unauthorized check if the Plaintiff is not the party the check was written to. The truth is the sheisters already cashed them at the Origination Fraud and that is what they are really concealing as well as the fact they lost ownership ….LOST POSSESSION and destroyed the value of the note by separating the instruments which is ILLEGAL and overissuing investments to property they never had LEGAL POSSESSION of on Wall Street.

    This decision was obviously based on legal theory that is not based in law or fact. This is theft by tyrants. If there was an attorney handling this he is a traitor and a criminal too. If this was pro se, the court just committed a serious crime against those people in many ways.

    Appellants assignment of error was FELONY FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT..they presented Counterfeits and Forgeries upon the court and by that DECEPTION they were SUBJORNING PERJURY to GAIN UNJUST ENRICHMENT….AND DO PERMANENT HARM TO DEFENDANTS….

    This sounds like it was staged to deter the American people from seeking justice. I would bring this all the way up to the Supreme Court level. If they rule against these people, that would be a direct declaration of war……I would make a you tube video about it and it would go viral in no time…..

  197. Christine, for those of us who are not attornies, can you give this in laymans terms? What was the Coffe case? Thanks for clarifying……:-)

  198. Nasty set back. Schwartzwald was probably not in when HBSC’s bried was filed. Or… the Warners failed to answer. Don’t know. Don’t like it.

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
    SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    ERIE COUNTY
    HSBC Bank, USA Court of Appeals No. E-12-010
    Appellant Trial Court No. 2009 CV 0305
    v.
    Robert L. Warner, et al. DECISION AND JUDGMENT
    Appellees Decided: January 25, 2013
    * * * * *
    Scott A. King and Terry W. Posey, Jr., for appellant.
    Daniel L. McGookey, Kathryn M. Eyster and Lauren McGookey,
    for appellees.
    * * * * *
    HANDWORK, J.
    {¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment issued by the Erie County Court of Common Pleas dismissing a home foreclosure action. Because we conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint, we reverse and remand.

    … {¶ 2} Appellant, HSBC Bank USA, National Association as Trustee for Home
    Equity Loan Trust Series ACE 2006-HE1 (“HSBC”) filed a complaint to enforce a note
    and foreclose on a mortgage executed by appellees, Robert and Johna Warner
    (“Warners”). The Warners moved to dismiss the complaint because HSBC had failed to
    allege that it was both “owner” and “holder” of the note and mortgage. The trial court
    granted the motion.
    {¶ 3} Appellant now appeals from that judgment, arguing the following sole
    assignment of error:
    The Court of Common Pleas erred in dismissing the Complaint.
    {¶ 4} This court has previously held that a plaintiff need not allege or establish
    that it is both the holder and owner of a promissory note to be considered the real party in
    interest entitled to enforce the note. See U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Coffey, 6th Dist. No.
    E-11-026, 2012-Ohio-721, ¶ 14. Therefore, pursuant to our ruling in Coffey, we conclude
    that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, appellant’s
    assignment of error is well-taken.
    {¶ 5} The judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas is reversed and
    remanded for proceedings consistent with this decision. Appellees are ordered to pay the
    costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
    Judgment reversed.

  199. Having read yesterdays story of ‘mortgage debt’ ruled as all other ‘debt’ , I today received a notice from BOA forgiving my complete 2nd mortgage debt on my old home, listed on the letter it plainly says, “debt forgiven”. Looks to me like THEY see it as debt too, as was ruled by the 6th circuit court. The secondmortgage on my current home was forgiven also, also BOA, but that was marked ‘paid’. See the difference?

  200. These crooks are collecting not just usury but, excessive usury and are engaging in feudalism with the America people over our land. That flies in the face of Catholic Church Doctrine and, the Creators plan for all of us to be free and independent. They are stifling our Liberty by counterfeiting the word of God.

  201. ??????????????

    Surreal…

  202. The truth is these crooks have done the same thing to Catholic Church doctrine as they are trying to do with our Constitution….usurp it….they are secret anarchists who counterfeit the truth and turn it on its head by making us believe lies like it has always been this way…THEY ARE LIARS & THEIVES. Their scribes are our legislators who do their dirty, evil work. It is all a giant counterfeiting fraud.

  203. The crooks within the Vatican mock a lot of things. However, that does not mean everything we were taught was lie. Like the truth that real evil exists, even inside of the Catholic Church. The truth is, this evil has infiltrated everything, even the Churches and every aspect of our lives. That doesn’t mean I have to conform, comply, cooperate with or participate in criminal fraud or with evil. Trust is hard to have when there is this much deceit.

    Don’t accept totalitarianism in exchange for your Freedom and Liberty.

    Use all resources available to educate yourself so you can fight your own battles. Talk to the townspeople and get organized.

    Do not trust, verify, if you can’t verify, do not comply, cooperate, conform or participate …. these crooks don’t always quack like ducks…they are in fact, quite deceptive.

  204. This website has been so helpful and informative for so many people. Thank you so much. I have forwarded the information here to our previous lawyer so she can best help her clients and to many others who are not getting the truth from the media. I have learned so much not just from Living Lies posts but also from some Intelligent informative posts in the comments section. Thanks again Neil Garfield for your expertise and commitment in helping people like me who want to understand the inner workings of the Fraudulent business practices the banks use and continue to use in the foreclosure process.

  205. BRIICS… Forgot the S for South Africa.

  206. “Name calling, swearing and hurling accusatory statements with no facts backing them up is childish.”

    Vatican mocking charity. Beautiful!

  207. E. ToLLe wrote:

    “American’s have not suffered enough to become a responsible adult on the planet. They feel it is their right to take what they want when they want it. Oil, bananas, seed stock, you name it.”

    Americans have not yet realized that they only represent 4.57% of the global population. When the 95.3% wake up, watch out! Come to think of it… isn’t that why Europe created the Euro (a sorry trial run but someone had to start somewhere…) and why BRIC became BRICS and is now BRIICS (yep! Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia and China… close to 4 billions, right there) and is now transacting out of the mighty US dollar? US-born citizens (whatever that means) better tone it down a bit…

  208. Has anyone read E Tolles tirade against the American people …? Blame the victims is all these commies do. His rage is against the same machine he works for, not the American people who pay for everything upfront…those crooks he works for steal from us and destroy what we build…and then offer to “repurchase” and “rebuild” what they steal and destroy by committing more heinous fraud. I for one refuse to re-do anything because I did nothing wrong. These crooks however, committed massive criminal fraud by counterfeiting and forging my signature hundreds of times without my knowledge. As a result of that, not only do I not owe them a dime but they owe me and every Natural Born American Citizen a ton of money…..

  209. Exposing all of the fraud is the only way to attack this enemy. Those who “get it” know these personal attacks aimed at me are meant to coverup the fraud I am exposing. Knowing the truth about what these crooks really want ….totalitarianism …..and all of their evil machinations they are using to accomplish that is precisely what they don’t want anyone to know.

  210. Name calling, swearing and hurling accusatory statements with no facts backing them up is childish. Just because you don’t agree with someone does not mean that person is wrong and deserves an onslaught of crude remarks meant to defame that persons character.

    Those are simply Saul Alinsky communist radical type intimidation tactics that make me more determined to defeat your scam by not conforming, complying or cooperating with your scam by stooping to your low level. Brainwashing tactics for dummies don’t work when you know the truth….and the enemies ultimate goal is to get us to accept totalitarianism in exchange for our freedom and liberty. Not a chance in hell that’s going to happen with me.

  211. Right on Louise!!

  212. Congrats, Neil. Way to go. I do hope that my posts are informative and helpful to others. The way to beat the mess is to stick together, not attack each other. I think that this year 2013 will be the year the truth comes out.

  213. Could it be anymore apparent by the tacky comments by these trolls that THIS IS WAR against the Freedom and Liberty of the American people by our enemies both foreign and domestic….?

  214. We are forgetting one major fact in all of this….”The Law of the Universe Rules!!! It’s just a matter of time!!

  215. That is right E. TOLLE…..WE THE PEOPLE ARE PRIVELEGED BECAUSE WE PAY FOR EVERYTHING….

    @Anonymous Atlanta….you are not anonymous…you are obvious…those of us war fighting this war know this war is about a lot more than fraudclosure. THE TRUTH IS….The only nasty comments are coming from trolls like you…..

  216. For the record;
    For the people who vent and post negative comments and grievances between each other are wasting the resource for which this site was created. Stop, grow up and do not post your BS on this blog.
    Your posts are full of anger, rage, and are not helpful to anyone…….

  217. Strips/assvent said, “You want to put limits on peoples rights to free speech……? That is not only quite evil and deceptive but, that is extremely communist.”

    This is a perfect example of what I’ll call “Privileged American Syndrome”, a globally brattish child who is incapable of realizing that she’s shit in her own sandbox, actually in this case, someone else’s sandbox, that of our benefactor Neil Garfield. Ivent is one who feels she has the “God given right” to post endlessly on someone else’s website, free of charge, even after that someone booted her ass of for posting pure garbage. Like a wealthy child throwing a tantrum – because she can. Spoiled brat to say the least.

    Strips/assvent’s nonsensical rant is a perfect microcosm of exactly what’s gone wrong with America. She truly believes that America is still the greatest country in the world, the leader of the pack, the shining example that all other nations should follow, especially those devilish communist and socialist regimes! Thanks to her endowed (i.e. inherited somewhat unspoiled from ancestors) natural resources (since squandered) and to armed national theft abroad, American’s have not suffered enough to become a responsible adult on the planet. They feel it is their right to take what they want when they want it. Oil, bananas, seed stock, you name it.

    The disastrous course that America is on cannot and should not be followed by any other nation. To do so is to follow the worst imaginable example of exactly how NOT to do things. Go ahead and wave your flag asshat. Just know that when the inevitable collapse comes, your tattered flag won’t protect you in the least from the harsh realities that will follow America’s rape and plunder of the globe.

    Assvent/stripes has chosen to ignore the person who actually pays for the bandwidth, and continues to posts incessantly, because she feels she has the constitutionally guaranteed right to. But then again, this is the Internet, and any dick brain with a keyboard may do so. Plunder on fool.

  218. 300,000 of those visits were from Stripes/Ivent. Your proof is in the blog posting data. Sorry Neil, I dont buy it! But I know at Heart, you are still a Good Apple. :)

  219. There is power in these numbers. Let’s get the Banks.

  220. That’s PEOPLE POWER..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,518 other followers

%d bloggers like this: