How to Win the Case

There many ways to win a case, so what I am saying in this article should be taken in the context of a larger reality where lawyers are winning hearings and winning the entire case using their own style, strategies and tactics. And it is equally true that any case management plan, regardless of the brilliance behind it, can still result in a loss. So this article should not be taken as my way or the highway, but rather just my way.

The first thing to keep in mind is that the argument that many lawyers are using at the beginning of the case should really be reserved until the end if the case — closing argument at trial, or argument at motions in limine, motions for summary judgment etc.

The narrative at the end of the case must be based upon evidence that you have built, brick by brick, and which has been admitted in evidence or at least is presumed correct by the time you make your arguments. The error of pro se litigants and many lawyers is that in the absence of knowledge and experience in trial law, they attempt to insert the final narrative at the beginning of the case, when it is neither credible on its face nor supported by anything in the record. Evidence, for the most part, consists of facts that are admitted into evidence or presumed true. In early motion practice and discovery requests and motions there is no evidence except that the Plaintiff’s complaint is usually presumed or deemed to be true for purposes of the motion and argument.

If you wish to challenge the foreclosure complaint or the notice of sale in non-judicial states it is necessary for you to know the facts and know the defects of the case presented by your opposition. Announcing your narrative at the beginning merely telegraphs your case plan and locks you into an argument about why you are saying what you are saying.

For that reason I question the wisdom of filing counterclaims against the foreclosing party since your claim probably does not arise until it is determined that the foreclosure action was wrongful. This is a matter some considerable debate amongst lawyers who believe that the borrower’s claims are compulsory counterclaims that are waived unless filed in the first action that litigates the validity of the foreclosure. So it is a tricky call and only a licensed practicing attorney can give you an opinion upon which you could rely in your strategy. My belief is that most of the issues presented by the planned counterclaim should fit nicely into affirmative defenses and set up the claim for wrongful foreclosure, Slander of title etc.

So knowing your theory of the case is important as a guidepost for your early discovery and motion practice. But what you need to do is attack the basic facts and presumptions alleged by your opposition. Where do you start? In judicial states there are frequently rules requiring the verification of the complaint. Taking the deposition of the person who verified the complaint is a good idea.

Making them bring the documents and media upon which they relied might require the place of deposition to be their place of work and for lawyers to arrange for video deposition. The interesting reaction of your opposition is likely to be a motion for protective order. At this hearing you can probably get an order requiring that the person show up, perhaps permitting access to the workplace for your forensic ediscovery expert, and to bring documents “upon which she or he relied.”

My experience is that the presumptions in favor of the banks start cracking during the fight about deposing the verifier and the designated representative (the next deposition duces Tecum). The Bank will want to block access to the person who signed the verification. They will want to limit the inquiry to the designated corporate representative. Keep in mind that you also want to depose the witness who will testify at trial find out why that witness is different from the one they produced as the corporate representative with the “most” knowledge at deposition and why both if them are different than the person who verified the complaint.

By demonstrating the stonewalling and delays imposed by the bank who supposedly has an interest in getting to foreclosure sale, judges recognize that there is something odd about the case. Asking for and offering an expedited discovery schedule in a motion for status conference will also help set the stage for your accusation that the delaying party is the plaintiff or the foreclosing party. Being the aggressor can convey the impression that the borrower is not the perpetrator, but rather the victim of wrongful behavior.

Early subpoenas and motions will remove the impression that are just buying time. Strategies for buying time even if allowed by the court, basically show that you are admitting the debt, note, mortgage, foreclosure sale and credit bid but want your client to get a few months of free rent. You are digging the wrong hole if your case strategy encourages the judge to believe that the debt, note and mortgage, and the assignments are all valid and that the borrower is looking for a break.

Early proactive litigation can highlight the fact that the bank is backing up and only wants to fight uncontested cases. It is a way to take control of the narrative gradually, so that when it comes to the motions for summary judgment (including your own cross motion), you have an opening for victory as Mark Stopa has done in Florida at least make it clear that there are material issues of fact in dispute.

The absence of early proactive discovery and motions speaks loudly that the homeowner really has no defense because otherwise they would have pursued the proof.

Getting experienced trial attorneys who understand this article is not easy. Most cases settle, and most people are at least initially happy to remove the stressor imminent foreclosure and eviction. But without presenting a credible threat to the opposition, the settlement, if it happens at all is not going to offer much in terms of relief. And the cost of just getting free rent is not retaining your house and not having offset and complaints for damages for wrongful foreclosure. When you sit and do nothing you are conforming to the playbook of the bank. In the end they get the foreclosure, they evict the homeowner and the homeowner gets nothing except a black mark on their credit history.

We offer a forms library that will help reduce the work and cost of an attorney if he or she uses them as templates. Write to neilfgarfield@hotmail.com to inquire. But there are also dozens of free forms and templates you can get from foreclosure defense forms n the left side of this blog. THEY SHOULD NOT BE USED WITHOUT CONSULTING AN ATTORNEY LICENSED TO PRACTICE IN THE JURISDICTION IN WHICH THEN PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

About these ads

201 Responses

  1. […] “There many ways to win a case, so what I am saying in this article should be taken in the context of a larger reality where lawyers are winning hearings and winning the entire case using their own style, strategies and tactics. And it is equally true that any case management plan, regardless of the brilliance behind it, can still result in a loss. So this article should not be taken as my way or the highway, but rather just my way.” — Source article […]

  2. TnHarry, yes. I am right there with you. I hope today will be the day we get rid of Stripes and move on. Too many people here really do have good things to say and produce.

  3. @tnharry
    Your answer doesn’t make sense to me.

    Long before any of foreclosure victims had any idea how far up this fraud went Stripes was ranting and supplying us with her spiritual messages from the bible and TURNS OUT SHE IS RIGHT.

    Don’t try to shoot the messenger, instead go to your buddies and tell them what they did to this Country

  4. yes ML – because that makes sense, doesn’t it…

  5. @tnharry
    Since you are with the banks and you really thought Stripes was a bank troll, would you be outing one of your own?

  6. what a joke this has become. Neil, police your site and its comments section or give it up. I suspect it’s too late. when the wackos monopolize 80+% of the comments there is no possibility of coherent discussion.

    stripes – I would suggest that you are the banker troll you accuse others of. you successfully derail intelligent conversation at every opportunity.

  7. Thank you to all. I am listening, absorbing.
    All in all,flat line, I MYSELF do not know what to do with most information about the about the Note, the mortgage, the servicer, the investors,MERS, MBS, Korporate Amerika, bonds and transfers, who did what or is stealing what. It is without a doubt horrid and beyond any conditions anyone should have to bear.
    We all care, or we would not be here. Period.

    Neil,
    I want to hear what the JUDGES WANT.

    Government, investors,bankers, MLO’s, it all narrows down to = $$$$

    It is ALWAYS good to know the facts, AND the bazillion theories thrown round here, true or not, or unknown- it leads and whirls around what we all hope, one day, will be put to an end.

    When will that happen guys, Neil? It won’t. And you know it. There will be victories here, there, but they will never overcome the vast amount of -all this-. It always has, and always will be an ever going battle, ALWAYS. Maybe not this, but as some of you claim, owning the LAND. Mineral interests were developed for a reason, no? They worked that one above or below! One way or another this kind of thing will always go on. It is just easier to sit here and type then really be proactive. We all know the little we can achieve it will certainly not impact this worsening situation, Neil’s posts recently went from ” there is light” to “scratch that…” There is not light. There is only the tunnel from one frog hole to the next.
    This is not a shit mood post, this is an inspiring post. Why?
    Because we all know this is truth, (yeeshh I may be wrong) BUT- the last HUGE thing was what – Martin Luther King Jr, I had a dream.
    One hell of a man. REALLY standing up for what you believe in takes a toll.*Besides these whistle blowers,bless them, kudos!* Not one an investor, dah dah dah wnts to risk anything, we are overpowered – always will be and are at the mercy of all this shit.
    So, take a break. Really – right now, lean back, take one of those big ol` breaths and think what you can do. For some- you will go refill your drink, have a smoke, and continue as you were, for others, read on and forget, not care, for some, take any action, whether it last an hour or 4 with good intent – you did something…whatever it may be, you tried…case in point-
    you cannot really do much without in essence, doing nothing, not mking a difference – even if to ONE person it DID make a difference) getting your ass wholloped, put in jail, or just ridiculed bkah bkah bah.
    ……..it’s the way it works. I dont know when it started , why is obvious.It is also very, very apparent ‘we the people’ can overthrow the rulers of us – if united- in days if not mere hours- we the people out number “them” by the millions of hundreds of thousands. But Unless we have a “V” and if even so…eh. Wont happen.
    So friends –
    Just live. Help someone. Do some good deeds. Go get back in the garden, work on that hot rod, bring your spouse a surprise, play tea party with your grand kids, write that book,. TINKER!. I cannot honestly believe one person on here so often is a happy person. They lost something. And if these bastards took it away, or if you just lost it – it may be hard- but get it back. Serious. This is a DARE.
    YEAH- REMEMBER THAT- TRUTH OR DARE?
    ~ in all honesty we know who skims & scans, who reads and pays attention to whom, who responds to whom and what triggers a response from whom~ ( so i expect diddley squat)
    But really, go live. If you are paid to be here, if you have made this your daily habit, ..I DO challenge you to a that DARE. To get off your computer for one day. Pack a lunch, go fishing, go weed your perennials, feed some ducks. Stare at a river. Have great sex, visit family and take them bowling- why won’t you – well I say this; ***MOST*** of the time is is because of this- THE INTERNET. Think about it. Electronic this, data that, was it EVER this bad before the internet? It can do good things, and very, very, very bad things to a person, even if ruin their lack of motivation. If you did not read this all, I could care less. if you did and don’t care, I could care less, if you did and take that dare, even if a week from now- rock on, most can’t.
    Beside the late night rant- Neil, this is all about money, right? And it has come down to where we are because of sneaky deviant little minds, and cunning bastards that pulled it off, or at least pulled the sheets over our eyes and they did a A+ job Neil!
    ….We are trying to fight this fraud, this Malice with FACTS! WITH TRUTH AND REALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Ah, no
    we will never cure this sickness – purely speaking ‘this’ stuff – unless :
    WE CAN DO WHAT THEY DO;
    it is not immoral, it is not what I think decent, it is not how I want to raise my children nor teach.
    But I sure as hell will use their tactic’s against them to throw them in to the pits.
    What do the judges want to hear that you can give them?
    – and this s not just for me i am rather pist off at the moment-
    they never play fair but we fight them with truth and we wonder, I am built on honesty and morals but this shit, there is a line. Yall not playing ball, your playing war and loosing around every corner because WE seek ‘justice’…is the judges are little poptarts why is the focus on what really happened! It should be on how to take them down and this ain’t cutting it guys! This was an awful post but a well needed thought train that is reality, be it or not, let me have it.

  8. Rob Harrington:

  9. @johngault…where is rod h’s link? I have a couple of cases against Chase and could use some more ammo.

  10. rod h – just got around to reading the material at your link, the answer to a Chase foreclosure action. Looks very interesting and I think anyone else involved with Chase (wamu) might benefit by reading it.

  11. “….. subrogate. That pre-existng
    liability arises from the security interests of the trusts.”

    i said that wrong. The pre-existing liability arises from the certificates
    owned by the investors.

  12. UKG, it is also fabricated B%^*s%^&. They are making money out of thin air that we have to pay back as debt.

  13. ML, you answered your own question: Citing a law makes no difference if the powers that be (banksters, servicers, judges) do not acknowledge the law and apply whatever scams they want.

  14. Those entitlements (pensions, social security etc..) were paid for out of the working persons paycheck and put back for their retirement. These are hard working people who pay taxes just like you do

    (Oh wait .. you don’t pay taxes.. State & Federal after you, and now that you have to pay up.. you don’t want to work and they taking the business and the house ).

    You should have paid your taxes and saved for rainy days instead of living high by the poolside with your leg of lamb..

  15. @Danielle
    It is a big task to put in front of you but I believe any attorney, bank, investor and even a Judge that doesn’t regard our Constitution as the Supreme Law of this Land is not fighting for the American people but against them.

  16. Danielle
    A site that doesn’t look to the Law of the Constitution as a basis cannot help a citizen of this country protect ones property rights.

  17. UKG…I hope u sent your post directly to danielle, as well as posting it here.

  18. Danielle Garfield: your father’s site has been hijacked. Get rid of these people before there is no blog left to visit.
    And Bob G. is an attorney who is fighting foreclosures in New York.
    As an attorney, his presence is NEEDED here, not like stripes and others. This STRIPES character is polluting the site with keywords that will obscure the site from others searching for information on this subject. Any new visitor who lays eyes on all the crap from stripes with immediately exit and probably never return. This is very sad since your father has started something EXTRAORDINARY that gave rise to a movement: a tidal wave of homeowners fighting for their homes.
    You owe it to the folks that have helped build the site to protect it from the anarchists who try to pollute it.

  19. That’s what I am trying to say here: the paperwork has created a revenue stream, nothing more. It is all forged, counterfeit, whatever you want to call it. Being used to collect payments from the original note, which is un-collectible under the terms of the original contract, as the “promissory note” is no longer a bearer note. The conversion has changed the link to the DOT, that is why ALL of the paperwork is forged to give the “appearance” of legitimacy and the ability to claim losses and foreclose!

    I am 100% certain none of these bastards have rights of collection, under the Deed of Trust any longer. This where the big fraud is…

  20. gault, I don’t know what they are buying. This QE is more PUMP and DUMP of the same bad paper that caused this mess.

  21. Poppy
    I posted a message about that is what happened in my case possession of my two condos were stolen with counterfeit paper and it is not appearing here Odd

  22. Danielle Garfield,
    I personally believe Bob G is an attorney that represents the foreclosure fighters’ enemys

    I have asked him and others several times to cite the law that allows a Bank not to have to conform with the Prohibition of Article 1 Paragraph 10 Clause 1 of the US Constitution that goes to the origination fraud . He didn’t and can’t answer that

    This origination fraud made possible this massive Ponzi scheme
    and we all have our battles to fight against what was stolen or will be stolen from so many of us and plants on this site don’t want us fighting back.

  23. Deb, I agree with you, and according to several others, she posts on more than one website. She does not know what she is talking about when it comes to particulars. She only knows whatever grand conspiracy theory is around. I like my own conspiracy theories, because I know that some of them are true. We do not need her. Get rid of her. She is a shill for some bankster.

  24. TO ALL… re stripes, marilyn lane and carrie complaints.

    I spoke with Danielle Garfield about these characters. She was very dismayed to hear about this, and promised to look into it.

    I strongly urge any of you that have complaints against these folks and would like to see them booted off the site, to contact Danielle directly at NeilFGarfield@hotmail.com. Alternatively, you may want to call her at 954-495-9867.

    The more complaints, the faster we can get rid of these people.

  25. Because the state/municipality will take the property and auction it for the taxes. In most places the “real owner, on the deed owner” can redeem it, within a year!

  26. But why do they keep paying the property taxes and who is actually paying the hard cash.

    51 months on August 1 !!!!!!……… who said 50 months was the number to be concerned with ????

  27. Its not that hard to get ip and find where the computer is that stripes works on. Stripes / see a doctor- thats
    If your not getting paid for bloggin all day then again you still need to see someone that can help you
    . People lost interest in this site because of you. Its not a freindly place since you. So

  28. I guess, I did just say it right: the houses are being “illegally”, unlawfully” seized, by non-parties in the “original” transaction.

    If they are using the sheriffs, magistrates, courts, etc…with “counterfeit” papers…that is what we have here.

  29. And the MBS that are being bought have zero value. The only way to make them appear to have a value on the market is for the talking head, Bernake/government, the FED to sure them up and make all appear good, monopoly money. When in fact Fannie and Freddie are losers in the market place…when you buy something with no value, as the payouts have been stolen, you need to sell the collateral to recoup.

    Now, you couldn’t pull this off with a car, it would be considered stolen and seized, but houses, it appears to be okay!

  30. What I am saying is this ms; bond holders are not foreclosing, they/the bansters have collected on the bearer note, using the same paperwork they have created the illusion of a debt in our name outside the “promissory note” converted it to a “non-collectible debt” by converting the note, for a payment stream only. This does not carry rights of the DOT, because it is a bond/security as they call it. These are being held as REIT trusts, not REMIC trusts by private holding companies and they ARE committing fraud in the court claiming to be the “owner” “holder” “assignee”, etc…when in fact they are not anything to the original note-signed. They are so far removed from that, they cannot, nor do not have rights to anything. That includes payments, given the way the paperwork has been used.

    We have looked into many holding companies and verified some of this with the SEC filings. And have the paperwork from Fannie and Freddie for the resales of these properties, which has 13 pages of waivers, for everything to include the metes and bounds of the land(new properties). and no general warranty deed will be given at closing.The point here: the note is “extinguished” and it no longer can establish your agreement to pay and hold the DOT for security, hence no foreclosure is legal. They cannot establish true ownership and lien status, hence they cannot transfer the property, with a free and clear title. Whether you have a debt created in our names by bonds, REIT or any fancy-ass security it still means the same thing. Their hold over you is gone with the swipe of a pen…and foreclosures are being done “illegally” with the assistance of the justices.

    The servicers are not true servicers is also what I am saying. IMHO, but well researched.

  31. “JURISDICTIONJG….I do understand they need the receipts to bring their suits. That invokes the court’s particular subject matter jurisdiction.’
    stripes, what are we to do with you? you routinely shout repetitIve, moribund crapinski and yet by this comment, I see you’re capable of rational thought and conveying it. Are there two of you?!

    Why the hey do you refuse to tell me what receipts you’re talking about? Are you just referring to evidence of payment? You want attention, you’re getting it, but it’s going to be short-lived if you don’t, well, you know if you don’t what. NG’s site doesn’t seem to be able to block comments (just links?), so my guess is he’s making a record. Can YOU guess why? Before what may happen happens, answer my question please. What receipts? Dang, is that the next round? The presentation of “receipts”? You best not be sowing seeds.

  32. Think a mob-inspired statute is unconstitutional and are able to
    make a good argument?

    “A court does not — in the nature of things it can not — give a “remedy” for an unconstitutional statute…..
    In fact, what a court does with regard to an unconstitutional law is simply to ignore it. It decides the case “disregarding the [unconstitutional] law,” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 178 (1803) (emphasis added), because a law repugnant to the Constitution “is void, and is as no law,” Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 376 (1880). ”

    I haven’t shepardized this case. Wonder if anyone ever did with C v L.

  33. ms “Nope a Grant deed conveys while a mortgage deed grants transfers and records the legal title in favor of the lender.

    Nope , back at you. Yes, a grant deed conveys (of course). A grant deed is what’s use to convey title, generally a warranty deed. (well unless you’re a criminal or use a qc deed legitimately).
    I admit I know more about dots than mtgs. If the banksters have changed the form of a mortgage such that it conveys title instead of merely creating a lien,they have done so wrongfully. I do acknowledge that about a year ago or so, I happened upon a NJ ‘mortgage’ wherein, now that you mention it (I forgot), I learned for the first time that the title to real property was allegedly granted to MERS. I can’t even tell you how messed that is, not just because of the grant to MERS, but because of the grant at all.
    A grant (other than granting a lien) does not belong in a mortgage, a lien. Well, while we were sleeping………
    A dot is a conveyance and does convey one of the two forms of title to the dot trustee and thus, requires a reconveyance, not a release, such as a mortgage is (NH%$!!&* supposed to but for the conveyance they have sneaked in while we were sleeping. My studies of these
    docs goes back to l977, think it was. Only mentioning this to explain why I think i know what a mortgage should recite and what they have interjected wrongly. Outrage is not good enough. You are probably newer to these instruments (like I am ‘new’ to the stuff you’re about), so you might’nt know what shananians have been pulled in regard to a
    “mortgage”. The mortgage in C v L imo would not have had any
    conveying language; it would be a lien. But for S’s and Giggles, I’ll look into it when i can.

  34. LOL!

  35. “Your granting the nominee the power of attorney as beneficiary…but for other than an assignment —its a fictitious assignment”

    ms did this say. You’re saying, ms, that the borrower granted the nominee, mers, ‘power of attorney’ as beneficiary, but not to execute an assignment and thus the assignment is fictitious?

    I can’t as a borrower make anybody anything relevant to the rights of the beneficiary. I could make you or anyone MY power of attorney to do stuff for me, but not for anyone else in the act. Are you saying the borrower is giving MERS HIS power of attorney, that is to act for him, the borrower, by calling or agreeing that MERS is the nominee?!

    If you’re not suggesting that, and I hope you;re not, how could a borrower make a third party the attorney in fact (POA) for another party to the contract? I can’t make you louise’s att in fact. think louise would have something to say about that. Not to mention that this particular third party is not capable of being a “party” as that word is normally defined, being no more than a utility.

  36. Soliman,

    Get off the booze. You make no sense. And judging from your 9:43 post, you’ve been part of the problem since day one.

  37. There has to be a contract before it cand be voidable…

    Stripes – take care of KC will you !

    (LOL)

  38. A deed of trust is a conveyance. A mortgage is released.

    Nope a Grant deed conveys while a mortgage deed grants transfers and records the legal title in favor of the lender.

    Now listen – this is so very important . I know what your trying to say here . If the deed is used to transfer and convey – then why are you all fighting the Mers Corp assignments ? In a conveyance their is no assignment.

    See Georgia deed of trust for how they are getting around this “security deed”.

  39. Void is the impossibility with regards to execution …

    As in required pre and final disclosures prior to execution

    As in wet ink sqibbles needed to acknowledge presentment and acceptance …..

    There has to be a contract before it cand be voidable…

  40. Read her posts M.S…..her arrogance speaks for itself.

    If your out spoken her you get attacked. Ignorance is not so bliss in these extreme and trying times. The fact is the securitization model is legal – perfectly straightforward.

    Its the engress and exit that violate every law imaginable.

  41. I had an especially favorite business relationship with a major industry heavy hitter . Big name in the industry and .someone who was instrumental in making sub prime popular – albeit he got out.

    But on his way out he told me something I cannot forget .

    I explained that I was buying impaired mortgages aged over 3 to 6 months, mostly castoffs from other originators warehouse-lines. I said my purchases were averaging a wtd. 88% and upon curing the problems I would re-market at 92 – 93 max.

    The response was that he could buy sell the loan without benefit of a file in hand at a premium (par plus a point to two)

    I just recently just got what he was referring too.

    registerclaims@live.com

  42. take 5000- a mortgage (C v L) is a lien. A deed of trust is a conveyance. A mortgage is released. The interest conveyed in a deed of trust is reconveyed (not released) – see deed of reconveyance v release of mortgage. A note and a mortgage may be inseparable. Not so for a note and a dot, altho the dot’s survival is wholly dependent on the existance of the note. The dot dies with extinguishment of the debt obligation, whether or not a reconveyance is recorded. That may also be true of a mortgage, but I don’t know. Never looked.

  43. “Voidable is a defense”. A huge leap from voidable to void. Takes… a court decision!

    Show us how it’s done, Soliman.

  44. Soliman,

    Leave me out of your insecurities. You still haven’t come up with one winner thanking you for your intervention.

  45. Void is the impossibility with regards to execution – drugged, drunk, blind, retarded , under age ….

    Voidable is a defense

  46. “the FED hasn’t stopped racketeering with our autographs yet and pocketing our wealth. $60.4 trillion since 2008 reported CNBC and the FED is also collecting trillions of dollars per month in mortgage payments (juice money) with no receipts reported ”

    stripes, take a breath, slow down a minute, all right? “with no receipts”? what do you mean by this? I really do want to understand some of the things you purport. Maybe if you must, you could pretend I mean that and take it from the top. How is the fed collecting trillions per month and what receipts? You tend to think everyone here reads all the same stuff you do. I don’t. I read case law primarily.
    Stripes, just once, once I say, out of all your carrying on, puhlease leave out the diatribes and conclusions and name-calling and answer the question if you can. . i dont’ want to hear what names you have for the people you’re calling this and that. I’d like to understand what you’re saying they are doing. Got it?
    This is an ugly jigsaw puzzle. Some of us work on one area, and others on another. You’re of a mind, I think, that you’re on the end pieces, and maybe you are and maybe someone must be (that’s Christine’s take – that all the stuff inside the puzzle is a result or sympton of what the outside pieces are doing. okay.. But it isn’t me to date. I look for ways to get at the truth of that movement, whatever the movement is. So in calm English, what are you saying by no receipts and trillions of loan payments per month?
    Stop making personal assaults on me or I’ll have to run ye thru and take away your birthday.

  47. UKG,

    “The lawsuit would be the first legal-enforcement claim under the settlement deal by a state AG, and it may serve as a template for other states.

    “Time and time again, banks violate the rules of the road, putting homeowners at greater risk of foreclosure,” said Schneiderman, who declined to comment on upcoming lawsuits.

    The suit will follow last month’s bombshell allegations by six former Bank of America employees and one ex-contractor in affidavits in Massachusetts federal court supporting a homeowner lawsuit against the bank. ”

    That infamous settlement was going to blow in their faces anyway. My problem is… where is all that money from all those lawsuits and fines and settlements going?

    It’s still going to the top. Which top though?

  48. What is this all about –

    Your lying bs is more than most can fathoms Christine.

  49. Purchase Money Loans

    Common Law Claims Effective.

    VOID is something that never existed and is removed from credit as though it never happened and you get your monies returned (economical harm) plus legal fees. Claim(s) with the same effect as
    rescinding the loan.

    Congrats Kids! Time to find a new home!

  50. BEFORE FILING A CLAIM we ask counsel to consider the comparison between a bond for deed and that we raise as a substantive issue called “Deed for Bond.”

    John G , A bond is a promise and what most civil codes and legislatures mean in the context of a bond for deed. A promise given in good faith with the security.

    On the financial markets end of this understanding is the literal meaning of a bond for deed . Louise, That is to say the funds registration used to float debt or bonds with the specific underwriting for which the investor is assured of the quality of assets.

    The financial instrument or bond used to raise capital that will be used to acquire the mortgages.

    So Trespasser- The value of the mortgage and its performance are a function of market risk. In the event of a default the bond holders look to the issuer for recourse.

    In no way will a bond holder become involved in a foreclosure Poppy. This is assuming the natural ebb and flow of mortgages and markets constitute the performance of the bond.

    The mortgage is not the bond in other words .

  51. that was some good info, usedkarguy. Nice of you to post it for justme
    and anyone’s benefit.

  52. e.tolle / usedkarguy – since you’re in the hood can you answer my question at 6:24 (pm of course) so I don’t have to spend unnecessary time on it?

    stripes – where is it written that bifurcation of a note and deed of trust is not permissible (per se)? It has consequences, to be sure, but illegal? nah – only thing illegal is trying to enforce someone else’s rights by claiming they’re yours or that non-existant rights exist.
    There is disagreement in various camps as to whether or not a bifurcated note and dot may be joined. Oddly, they all rely on the same material, Restatement 3rd

    oh, yeah, what I’m doing here right now:

    “It is well settled that the United States is not bound by state statutes of limitation or subject to the defense of laches in enforcing its rights”); Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.”

    well then, they can still go after banksters and other bad actors for their crimes. E.tolle and many of us aren’t holding our breath. Just pointing out that they could.

  53. Okay all you modified-into-re-foreclosure hell folks, this should be interesting……

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/dirty_paperwork_CoX2ixLvnCkyOSMHApP15O

  54. KC,

    You’re getting close. Bigger than we can fathom. Foreclosures were meant as a distraction and, so far, it’s worked. By the way, i saw that you called me. I’ll have to get back to you tomorrow.

  55. Justme,

    And read very carefully what Usedkarguy wrote. It is about facts and laws strictly relevant to your matter. Stay away from constitutional rights, civil rights, 1, 2nd, 3rd and whatever else amendments and all that crap nobody so far has prevailed on and no serious attorney would plead in a foreclosure action.

    Stick with the facts of your case. Only the facts. The contract, the parties to it, the actual parties of interest, the duties owed, the duties breached and… case law. What has been ruled thus far, based on which cases, in what jurisdiction, etc.

    UKG is a very good guy. It’s a wonder he still sticks around.

    Lots of BS here. Not one winner. Protect yourself: use your brain. Do your own research.

  56. Kept me Silver!

  57. Reuters U.S. seeks new tactic in financial crisis prosecutions

    says securities fraud statute expires in 5 years but bank fraud statute is 10 years.

    At least someone is digging into how to reel in the few who think they are our God and decide if we have the right to life, liberty, or property by their fraudulent use of paper.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Life, People, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  58. KC, I’m always slow on the uptake on these conspiracy deals…..my tin foil hat is always in my trunk….but silver is obviously dealing with this story as of 11:20 PM EST:

    http://www.kitco.com/charts/livesilver.html

  59. @just me: there is no template. your case, as with all others, is unique.
    “If I file an opposition to the msj and the judge waives it off can I still turn around and file BK ??”
    Yes, you can file the BK, but you are now a “state court loser”. You would have to appeal that circuit court ruling and fight it that way. I thing I mentioned BK court may allow more traction for those document/forgery claims re: the modification. The modification and the bad servicing under the modification are pertinent. The fact that the documents were never returned to you nullifies the transaction, but the did send you a LETTER notifying you of your approval. The different signature pages for the same agreement are definitely a good start.

    a defense to payment (on a note) is also
    that the endorsement is a forgery and the claims for recoupment are set forth in Wis. Stats. sec.
    403.305 which provides, in relevant part:
    403.305 Defenses and claims in recoupment. (1) Except as stated in sub. (2), the right to enforce the obligation of a party to pay an instrument is subject to the following: (a) A defense of the obligor based on any of the following: 1. Infancy of the obligor to the extent that it is a defense to a simple contract. 2. Duress, lack of legal capacity or illegality of the transaction which, under other law, nullifies the obligation of the obligor.1 3. Fraud that induced the obligor to sign the instrument with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to learn of its character or its essential terms
    4. Discharge of the obligor in insolvency proceedings. (b) A defense of the obligor stated in another section of this chapter or a defense of the obligor that would be available if the person entitled to enforce the instrument were enforcing a right to payment under a simple contract. (c) A claim in recoupment of the obligor against the original payee of the instrument if the claim arose from the transaction that gave rise to the instrument; but the claim of the 3 obligor may be asserted against a transferee of the instrument only to reduce the amount owing on the instrument at the time that the action is brought. (2) The right of a holder in due course to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument is subject to defenses of the obligor stated in sub. (1) (a), but is not subject to defenses of the obligor stated in sub. (1) (b) or claims in recoupment stated in sub. (1) (c) against a person other than the holder. (3) Except as stated in sub. (4), in an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument, the obligor may not assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument a defense, a claim in recoupment or a claim to the instrument under s. 403.306 of another person, but the other person’s claim to the instrument may be asserted by the obligor if the other person is joined in the action and personally asserts the claim against the person entitled to enforce the instrument. An obligor is not obliged to pay the instrument if the person seeking enforcement of the instrument does not have rights of a holder in due course and the obligor proves that the instrument is a lost or stolen instrument. (4) In an action to enforce the obligation of an accommodation party to pay an instrument, the accommodation party may assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument any defense or claim in recoupment under sub. (1) that the accommodated party could assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument, except the defenses of discharge in insolvency proceedings, infancy and lack of legal capacity. (Emphasis added.)

    Wis. Stats. sec. 403.306 provides for recision of a negotiation.
    403.306 Claims to an instrument. A person taking an instrument, other than a person having rights of a holder in due course, is subject to a claim of a property or possessory right in the instrument or its proceeds, including a claim to rescind a negotiation and to recover the instrument or its proceeds. A person having rights of a holder in due course takes free of the claim to the instrument. (Emphasis added.)
    403.406 Negligence contributing to forged signature or alteration of instrument. (1) A person whose failure to exercise ordinary care substantially contributes to an alteration of an instrument or to the making of a forged signature on an instrument is precluded from asserting the alteration or the forgery against a person who, in good faith, pays the instrument or takes it for value or for collection. (2) Under sub. (1), if the person asserting the preclusion fails to exercise ordinary care in paying or taking the instrument and that failure substantially contributes to loss, the loss is allocated between the person precluded and the person asserting the preclusion according to the extent to which the failure of each to exercise ordinary care contributed to the loss. (3) Under sub. (1), the burden of proving failure to exercise ordinary care is on the person asserting the preclusion. Under sub. (2), the burden of proving failure to exercise ordinary care is on the person precluded. (Emphasis added.)

    Wis. Stats. sec. 403.407 provides:
    403.407 Alteration. (1) “Alteration” means an unauthorized change in an instrument that purports to modify in any respect the obligation of a party or an unauthorized addition of words or numbers or other change to an incomplete instrument relating to the obligation of a party. (2) Except as provided in sub. (3), an alteration fraudulently made discharges a party whose obligation is affected by the alteration unless that party assents or is precluded from asserting the alteration. No other alteration discharges a party, and the instrument may be enforced according to its original terms. (3) A payer bank or drawee paying a fraudulently altered instrument or a person taking it for value, in good faith and without notice of the alteration, may enforce rights with respect to the instrument according to its original terms, or, in the case of an incomplete instrument altered by unauthorized completion, according to its terms as completed. (Emphasis added.)

    And if you end up getting ruled against when the court acts upon forged documents, you would be claiming the order is void…..

    A judgment or order which is void may be expunged by a court at any time. Such right to expunge a void order or judgment is not limited by statutory requirements for reopening, appealing from, or modifying orders or judgments. [Cases cited.] State ex rel. Wall v. Sovinski, 234 Wis. 336, 342, 291 N.W. 344 (1940). See also, Home Bank v. Becker, 48 Wis. 2d 1, 7, 179 N.W.2d 855 (1970). The fact that the award came many years after the void order is of no consequence. In Halbach v. Halbach, 259 Wis. 329, 331, 48 N.W.2d 617 (1951), the void judgment was challenged ten years after entry. The court stated that laches did not apply even if the plaintiff had been dilatory or lackadaisical in his efforts to overturn the judgment. “It is the duty of the court to annual an invalid judgment.” A void judgment cannot be validated by consent, ratification, waiver, or estoppel. Furthermore, void judgments may be attacked collaterally. The 1960 application was still valid. (Footnote omitted.)

  60. Episode 223 not 224

  61. I heard someone on an audio say anyone foreclosing don’t have the note. He said the Fannie or Freddie’s site will indicate they are holding the note if you put in your address. It was the most recent My Private Audio – call id 39904 episode 224, almost 4 hours long.
    A collaboration of people discussing their life journey and trying to help each other solve problems or see the things that are shown to you but not obvious if you don’t know what you are looking at.

    CFPB has a blog that shows some debt validation letters.
    A lot of rukus in the legal arena for them giving the ‘consumer’ the wherewithall to dispute any debt claimed by a ‘so called’ creditor including mortgage servicers and student loan debt collectors
    I put in the link three posts ago, three different ways, in many posts and it was hidden each time…the post did not appear.

    Seek and ye shall find.
    Listen my children and you shall hear.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, Independent, State, People, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
    (One’s status is the only thing standing between One and the experience of justice or injustice)

  62. FYI, most of the state and local governments are also ripping you off, even the water, gas and power company. It really is a kleptocracy and so sez Taibbi, “everything is rigged.”

  63. Notice of appeal msut be filed within 30 days of the FINAL ORDER. The notice is no big deal. The complete record on appeal is a big deal and so are the pleadings. Yes. Big things are happening world wide. check out DivineCosmos.com. Just sayin…..

  64. Justme,

    I know next to nothing about WI. Listen to usedkarguy. Follow his advice. And if he refers you to someone, trust him and give it a go. it might be way beyond your means (I caught my attorney fresh out of law school when he had 5 clients. He now has over 35. I suspect he doesn’t give them the same deal) but there are more and more of them out there who’ve tasted what it’s like to lose everything.

    You have a limited time to appeal. Don’t blow that deadline. Even if you have to do it alone, get something filed timely. You never know and huge things are happening worldwide right now.

    Sorry I can’t help you more for Right now.

  65. No problem with that stripes, I am the same, the presentation is very important, no? I am not from a long list of fans and they know me on a first name basis at the court….do I care. NOT. Eff them, I know shit when I see it, but I like to try and win and the game is played a certain way, even if they are creeps, crooks, demons, you play well, you gain traction, strategy… stripes. I tussle with the best of them and am no wallflower, even if it comes to physical altercations I can hold my own, but that stripes is a last resort, confrontation shows your HAND! And don’t kid yourself, this is a game to them…complete control!

  66. Mortgage backed Securities, john, junk bonds, from the banksters, essentially another bailout and moving the properties foreclosed on into the system slowly, to hide the volume. Fannie and Freddie stuff. IMHO

  67. “Or has it come down to us having only the rights that they allow us to have?”

    Yes, E and select choices are being made for us; with food, cars, housing, clothes, education, health care, jobs, TV, language(things we can say), etc…the selections are getting more limited every day. And Monsanto is going to poison all of us, if we don’t look for alternatives for our food.

    This is no longer the United States of America, Corporate States of America…they own everything, particularly the public servants.

    I suspect there will be a lot of us dying before it all settles. It is truly us against them…no paranoia, just the reality of the situation.

  68. My research has shown that the bearer note was cashed and the parties attempting to fclose are holding companies that have copies of the notes using servicing entities to move a revenue flow, with REIT trusts. And there are also bonds created in our names, hence another way to move payments/revenue stream…I have found no servicer working for a REMIC trust foreclosing under the PSA agreements.

    I cannot say this in every single case, but the research on my end is in the thousands of hours, states and court docs.

    Food for fodder! Not one legitimate foreclosure or assignment to legal parties…all a scam. IMHO

    It is just my opinion again, that the judges are very hung up on payments, when they should be focused on how the loans were moved, DOT designations, which consist of originators-not lenders, and assignments of copies of something that is worthless, other than created debt, which has lost the tie to the DOT, under the original contract. That’s my thoughts and the information in my possession backs up most of this!

    And thanks KC, louise for your support. I am a big defender of free speech, particularly with stripes, but she is getting exhausting and nasty. And stripes, just for the record, we hear you, you do not need to keep defending your position, but for cripes sake, we all know they are crooks, demons…whatever, can’t you be helpful here?

  69. How To Win the Case

    I hope Neil Garfield will be transparent (like our fearless leader Obama – SNARK) in his actions against the banks. It’s one thing to write a daily column explaining the background intricacies of the criminality (which we all know Neil excels at)….it’s quite another thing to parade it in front of a judge with the whole world watching, or at least all of us on LL in the virtual wings.

    Good luck NG. I wish you well. You have a better chance with your depth of knowledge than anyone I know. It will be very telling to see if your spaghetti sticks to the courtroom wall. Or will your legal theories simply run down that multi-stained courtroom wall and out into the alley behind the courthouse like millions before you, shot down by a judge who will not read the complaint or allow for discussion?

    Let’s hope you prevail. Perhaps your smartest move was waiting to enter the battle after so many have fallen on their swords. Others in your field….Ice, Weidner, Stopa, along with countless pro se-ers litter the battlefield, almost akin to Gettysburg. I wish you, and therefore all of us, well.

    But I have my doubts. The setup is dire. It truly is them against us. This isn’t a simple snafu that the courts can’t get over. It is a concerted effort to slam due process out of the park. There’s no other explanation. It’s a land grab, a fuel loot, a minerals theft, a precious metals steal, and water burglary at the same time. The perfect crime. And damn the climate and our children.

    For those of you who still hold out hope that we can rein in these totally out-of-control politicos who have been totally usurped, pity on you. When Sachs is busted for ripping us all off, they pay the fines to the federal government. Don’t kid yourselves, they ARE the Federal government. The Federal government is them. It’s global. We have met the enemy, and they are us.

    Monsanto is now in bed with Blackwater, the largest armed presence next to the US military….do you for one moment think that’s in our (or anyone’s) best interest? WTF? Why would a food company need the second largest military/intelligence force on the planet? Think it over. It won’t end well. It’s all nefarious as hell.

    Sharpen up. It’s never too late to learn to grow food. Have a water supply. Arm yourself. Get ready. The clamp-down on Occupy wasn’t happenstance, it was a training exercise. They’ve spent the last few decades preparing for insurrection. Insurrection? From folks like you and I who have had everything taken from them? Does history repeat itself so perfectly that we don’t see ancient Jerusalem, the French peasantry, or the Warsaw ghettos akin to our plight?

    Why was I slammed onto the pavement by a paramilitary police jackboot for peacefully assembling against US Bank for rampant wrongful foreclosures? I didn’t throw a Molotov cocktail, or a tear gas canister, or threaten an officer. I was simply exercising my right as a citizen to assemble and protest against what we all know is illegal activity. Isn’t that guaranteed under our Constitution? Is our Constitution still in force? Do we still have rights? Or has it come down to us having only the rights that they allow us to have? Do you see the farce? Insurrection to TPTB means silencing the citizenry who reject the oligarchy and their iron fist rule. The time is now. There is no other way.

    REV 2.0

  70. Why is the U.S. buying junk at the rate of 40 billion a month? what exactly is it alleged the U.S. is buying? Anyone?

  71. If the banksters are forcing (post cut-off and post -default) subrogation on the trusts by way of bs assignments, they are not being honest (no!) and they are certainly not disclosing their own primary liability to the investors. It’s really not an assignment at all (I think just now). They are hiding behind the assignments to make the trusts act on subrogation rights against the party who has secondary liability to the trusts, the note maker ( whose liability to a secured party is right behind the primarily-liable first-party-bankster).
    They can’t do this imo and importantly, the acceptance of the prima facie assignment of both the note and dot to the trust must be
    declared by the assignee, the trust, by the secn trustee. He’s not going to do it, though he too may attempt to call the prima facie recorded instrument.”superfluous” because the trust already has ownership and this is merely to make a public record. Bah! He is outed by the fact that notes and their transfers aren’t recorded, to which he’ll respond what’s the harm in including notice of the note’s (“old”) transfer in an assignment of the dot?
    Well, the assignment is being touted as a current event* with currently
    tendered consideration, for one (notwithstanding that the assgt
    says the consideration is being paid to MERS or MERS as nominee.If the dot had called MERS an agent, the assignment could appropriately read that consideration is paid to MERS as agent for an identified party. For that matter, even though agency wasn’t alleged in the dot,
    MERS, or anyone, could accept consideration for an identified party for whom it is currently the demonstrated agent.

    *If it weren’t being touted as a current event, the effective date of the transfer would be recited as a date years ago..

  72. I said that wrong about the exception to an assignment of a claim against the U.S. Subrogation is not seen as an assignment of a claim. It’s seen more as a right, which is why while an assgt of a claim is a nope as against the U.S. (claims may not be assigned), but one who is a subrogee may be found to be the rpii (there was no assignment – the subrogee’s rights arise as a matter of fact, guess you’d call it).

  73. kc, I don’t know what you mean. You’ll have to tell me.

    Breach of contract is a tort. By my reading, a subrogee of a tort claim may be the real party in interest, even against the U.S., which as against the U.S., an assignment of a claim is not allowed. The exception is for a party who has been subrogated to the rights of
    the injured party.
    In breach of contract claims, a subrogee may be found to be the real party in interest. But, there is a wholly dispositive difference and distinction between 1) assigning a claim and 2) a claim arising out of law or equity (maybe on the equity) by way of subrogation rights. AIG, for instance, would have had subrogation rights for payments it made had AIG not disavowed those subrogation rights, which I’m not convinced as a regulated insuror AIG could do without violating insurance laws. If AIG had shareholders, which it did I’d say, waiving subrogation also violated the rights and interests of those shareholders.
    So what happened when it was discovered that AIG had waived subrogation, something it shouldn’t do because it violated their regulatory scheme and violated the interests of shareholders? That to me is a multi-trillion dollar question, one for which I don’t have the answer, but someone sure as hey does and both the question and its answer have been kept from us.

    What may well be going on here is that the banksters are attempting to use the subrogation rights of the trusts for the trusts to enforce loans against their makers, i.e., the trusts MAY enforce by way of their
    subrogation rights. Normally, as far as I can tell, that would be or at least might be allowable. As secured parties, the trusts may have rights of subrogation to any monies paid out by the banksters, but it’s TO the bond holders, i.e. the very parties to whom the banksters had to make those payments! This is hard to formulate…… Here, the banksters replace an AIG as the party who paid out with themselves and by payments to the investors!
    I don’t’ know how one could be subrogated to claims paid to oneself (the bond holders). The banksters want the investors to be subrogated
    in for the claim on monies the banksters paid the investors and any monies yet due the banksters (if any). Say what?

    (But also as secured parties, the trusts would have rights against any funds received from any source by the banksters. In fact, as a matter of law, they likely have liens on those funds, if any, and the payments received by the indentured party, the bankster, may well have retired the maker’s debt), leaving no claim of subrogation, which would actually be true for AIG: AIG shouldn’t have waived subrogation, but even had it not, since the banksters owned the thing, the loan, of necessity to have an insurable interest, (and thus the investors had only security interests), other third party payments (CDS’s?) to the banksters would have impacted to what amt AIG could be subrogated. But, AIG would have a lien on those ‘other party’ payments to the extent of AIG’s own payout.
    More but: AIG and the investors can’t lawfully both have security interests or rights of subrogation to the same dollars (which is why
    AIG waived subrogation imo, though it shouldn’t have).

    The banksters may be trying to either endow the trusts with rights of subrogation against notemakers and or to assert that rights of subrogation exist and that’s why they are now assigning the indentured assets to the trusts, the structure/entity which has the security interests. And notwithstanding any third party payments and the rather large fact that the banksters are liable to the trusts and not liable to third parties aka anyone but the investors, those subrogation rights may well exist, which if these weren’t REMIC’s and specifically defined trusts might pass muster. You and I could do this, for instance, but not THESE trusts. If you were the indentured party and I were the secured party, I might be
    subrogated to your position, but not so these trusts.

    Even if normally, like with you and I, subrogations right elections and
    agreements exist or are available, however, these trusts are without structure or ability to accept or enforce subrogation rights. In fact,as to these trusts, such subrogation is surely prohibited as a matter of law. Whether or not a trust may accept an asset or right post-cut off is one thing. What it may do with it is another imo (but they are connected).
    I’m not able to wholly formulate this deal, but it’s possible if not probable the banksters justify their new assignments and the claims of the trusts against note makers by way of the principles of subrogation. I don’t believe they can if for no other reasons than the cut-off date and the fact that while the bankster may have a claim against the note maker, the bankster has a pre-existing
    liability to the party it seeks to subrogate. That pre-existng
    liability arises from the security interests of the trusts.

    Like I said, if I didn’t actually formulate this correctly, than I can’t.
    But someone(s) can and I hope they will put their little gray cells to work on it. IF the banksters are trying to, can the banksters subrogate the investors for claims which the investors have against the party with primary liability* to the investors by assigning the object of the indenture to the secured party? Is that assignment or is it (forced) subrogation to discharge all or a portion of the indentured party’s obligation to the secured party? How does NY trust law look at this?
    *The homeowner’s liability to the secured is secondary to the
    indentured party’s primary liability.

    A warehouse lender has a security interest and at least as a contractual issue (if not pursuant to the UCC), it has rights of subrogation against the note maker and also against the indentured party, but a warehouse lender has no trust law to contend with nor is it owed monies for any other reason such as bonds.

    A reminder fwiw: I think it’s a good idea to ask if the claimant is relying on the MERS’ assignment whatsoever for his claim. I think there”s more double-talk going on here than we know. The bankster comes to court with reliance on poss of a bearer note without ref to the fact that there is a recorded instrument which purports to assign the note (and for consideration to boot). I believe the real purpose of the assignment of the note in that instrument is now or later used by the banksters to evidence that the note has been transferred to the trust for a reason having
    little or nothing to do with the borrower, a reason more akin to
    what I’ve tried to articulate, about ending primary liability, and foisting loss on someone else, i.e. the investors.

  74. I was apologizing to Poppy for offending her… not you. You are the victim of your own actions and lack there of … you are not my victim. I have never, snookered, conned or stolen from another in my life!! Wait … there was that one time… I was about 6 and forgot to pay for my toothbrush. I went back the next day with my mom and paid thou… Does that count?

  75. Poppy, I am also suing the master servicer in my case. They are the ultimate repository (allegedly) of all accounting records and where the money went and where it is going.

  76. KC carries a shovel not a gun …
    La’ Shovel … KC’s Super Duper Pooper Scooper.
    What did you think I did with a shovel?
    Dig Dirt? Ok.. I use it for that to.
    Bury Bodies? Naaaahhh… to Messy!

  77. Oh .. I see the fire in Johns Eyes ~ but he hasn’t finished plucking the chicken yet…

    .. Fried Chicken.. Nice and Crispy! Crums everywhere. What a Mess!

  78. Crummy Cookies and No Milk?

  79. Moving past MERS and moving past Jurisdiction…. and onto what parties were injured and how they were injured…..

    what do you say JG?

  80. and “without prejudice” to arguments which one might want to make later that MERS may not assign a note, one may aver that the assignment in the dot of an assgt of the note is prima facie evidence the note is just now being assigned to the trust. (one might ask first in a req for more definitive statement if the claimant is relying in ANY way on the assgnment of the note in the dot assgt (as opposed to mere reliance on alleged poss of a bearer or specially endorsed note) to lock them into a position. always, always gotta watch out for wiggle room with this cast of sorry, pathetic, lying, low-down, chicken-choking-rest of poor ol’ lovin’ man JT’s SR Blues concert adjectives, curmudgeon, lying, almost killed the globe, influence buying, creators and charter members of the Stay Out of Jail club rat-b’s.

  81. Sorry Poppy. She has accused..attacked and makes demands of me because she in her state of confusion … has convinced herself that I am somebody I am not and/or am involved in her case. I am not! And those who know my identity know she is digging up the wrong moon.. ut umm… barking up the wrong tree? What I repeat here (not disclose) is all posted by her across many websites. I am just repeating what she has told… I admit, the dog pound article I posted

    …. that was me jumping to conclusions, but it sure looked like a NUT (buutty drop) that fell from her trunk. My Bad! Sorry!

  82. This stuff here is way out of control…next to impossible to have reasonable dialogue.

    You kids have fun…moving on. Folks like me aren’t needed here!

  83. stripes, not in fed juris it doesn’t. Well, it does to some extent of course, but the UCC loses to rule 17 in fed court. Rule 17 is a threshold issue. Even if the UCC says a bearer may enforce, he may not yet invoke jursidiction if he can’t meet the injury requirement of rule 17. You do understand jurisdiction, right? Now when you say stuff like you just did, I do have to wonder about your agenda here.
    how about if you support that contention you just shouted out?

  84. AKA… I was referring to you digging in my moon… Moron!

  85. KC says….lkdjh eo;iyglzdfgj ‘ruga : GJPra9uga ‘dg jarwi ga

    Phooey!! What was filed is incomplete. KC does NOT have to comply and agree to a set of documents that were never presented to her for her at closing for her squiggly approval. She would not have approved than and will not approve now! NO! What does not exist can not be void or voidable. It does NOT exist! They tried to snooker KC!

  86. What can I say … they were digging for something that wasn’t there.

    roflmbo

    My friend JG… is a Hotty! I mean he is a Hot Sun today. What is his injury? Oh … he got burned.

  87. No buttwipes stuck on KCs Moon. No! No! No! Clean as a Whistle!
    But a lot of brown noses have been reported exiting the scene ….. :)

  88. A transferee of a note or an assignee of a dot must agree to the transfer or assignment. As to a secn trust, the one who could evidence or assert acceptance by the trust would be the secn trust
    trustee. IF the banksters can evidence that MERS is the agent for the trust (keeping in mind and arguing the true bar for agency – imo if you can’t do that, stay home) as to the dot, banksters will assert that evidence of the trust’s acceptance of a recent (post cut-off date) assignment of the dot to the trust is superfluous because the dot has simply been held theretofore by its agent, MERS. If there is a distinction between an agent and a nominee, as I believe*, MERS is no one’s agent, including the trust’s. But, at any rate, MERS is nobody as to the note, the thing, so its late transfer, as is being alleged in all “MERS” assignments, is another matter altogether, no matter how they slice or try to package it. In accepting a late ‘assignment’ of the note to the trust, the trustee would cause the trust, would it not, to lose the very purpose of the trust – the preferential tax treatment. Find law** and or case law which says a note transferee must accept the transfer and then ask where is this evidence that it has done so. ALLEGED representation by a law firm of the trust to enforce the note against its maker is not evidence the secn trust trustee has accepted the transfer UNless evidence is submitted which shows it’s in fact the secn trust trustee who has retained the law firm (and not the servicer or master servicer claiming under some agreement which does not contemplate nor recite authority of one of those (svcr or master svcr) to enforce a post-cutoff assignment of interest to the trust and that he himself has such authority. That won’t be found since no trust agreement of any kind would dare say nor did those agreements say that the trust would accept a late transfer of an asset to authorize a scvr or master svcr to enforce a post-cut off interest of the trust.

    No secn trust trustee would (or could) tender evidence and no secn trustee in his right mind would make a declaration that the trust has accepted a preferential tax-treatment-shattering (and who knows what else) tardy transfer of the note.

    * courts have said things like that a nominee is a limited form of agency. I don’t believe that’s accurate at all. Most agencies, with the exception of a no-holds-barred power of attorney are themselves limited in their authority-granting. (If I make you my agent to sign closing docs to sell my home, I haven’t given you agency to the extent that you may sell my 57 Chevy, for instance = your agency is limited).
    To the extent courts say a nomination is a limited form of agency, those courts are really drawing no distinction between a nominee and an agent at all.

    **. One such basis for the demonstration that both parties must
    agree to a transfer was noted here at LL a couple days or so ago.

    Between our failures to assert Rule 17’s injury requirement (v the UCC’s holder provisions, which in fed juris are trumped by the threshold injury requirement for jurisdiction) not demanding evidence the secn trust, the alleged transferee, has accepted the assignment of the note, and not availing ourselves of the monstrous distinction between a mere (alleged) holder and a holder in due course, we are getting and imo will continue to get nowhere. Imo,
    it’s rule 17’s real party in interest tenet requiring injury, one’s own, that will lead to discovery to determine if the claimant is factually the party who actually has suffered or will suffer injury by the borrower’s failure to make payments (as I’ve said fifty times, possession of a bearer note is not evidence of injury, which again is where the UCC and rule 17 butt heads with the UCC being the loser).

    Further, the law holds that an assignment of debt for the purpose of
    allowing another to litigate the claim, (assignment as way to get the assignee able to invoke jurisdiction) is a ruse courts don’t actually tolerate for lack of injury and as a false pretense of jurisdiction. I have a case which clarifies this and I’ll try to find it because that’s what’s going on here, with part, but only part, of the goal being to use the credit bid of the alleged assignee (the rest is to cover
    myriad sins and other bull such as foisting losses off to investors who didn’t benefit from the GSE’s guarantees, including on loans they should have)
    lay opinions as always

  89. I said See .. Not Touch!

  90. <——- Can still bend over far enough for you to see the Moon!

  91. By this time next month … your booty drops will sound a lot like a croaking frog in the distance. A faint echo… going…. going.. going… Almost Gone.

  92. KC has issues with lies, deceit and deception … this could get ugly.

    QQ

    Behave KC… Anyone?

  93. Oh.. man…

    I sued the aliens, the foreign imposters, the devil and gawd.

    Stripper!!!!!! You lied to Me!!!!!!!!!

  94. What? Our Government? Can’t Be! .. you said is was satian , and you are always right. If you were wrong … My pleadings are all wrong to.

    Thanks Moron!

  95. Quiet Zone ….

    Grandbabies napping…. Grandma doing homework…

    Put a Zipper on it Stripper…!

    ~~~Waves to all our Friends~~~

  96. Way to go, Poppy. If it did not make it into the trust, it is not securitized. Because they are trying to get paid multiple times, they just make believe it is securitized. Once securitized, you cannot sell the note again, but they do anyway.

  97. “THERE IS DIRECT PROOF OF SECURITIZATION LOUISE”

    Where would that be stripes? I have never found anything indicating a “proper” “legal” securitizarion.

  98. And can you name some defenses in the opposition you did not have in your answer/cross claim ?

  99. ok- I have a month. If I file an opposition to the msj and the judge waives it off can I still turn around and file BK ??
    and…..any one know of a really good example template for an opposition? Make it clear I have legal dispute – but not give away my smoking gun?

  100. or i should say the mod was recorded before it was even created.yes. wonderful affidavit. If that s all you have backing your personal knowledge – you created something after it was already taken in to the deeds & recorded. what am I missing

  101. A – servicer is intentionally is using, – and has transferred my ‘movable intangibles’ with the intent to deprive us of it permanently.
    B- Servicer (claims) they have possession of security instrument , without consent, and are have – already are- will- intentionally fraudulently using it to their advantage!

    you’d think that is clear as day…
    more so when you have 3 different copies of notarized bullroni – vp of servicer & MERS, different dates – like I said – the date on the RECORDED MOD IS BEFORE THE DATE OF THE MOD- HTF DOES that not raise enough for me go go somewhere!? I want to march into the court house and just start asking people, just people. what they think.blows my mind

  102. MISAPPROPRIATION
    943.20  Theft.
    (1)  Acts. Whoever does any of the following may be penalized as provided in sub. (3):
    (a) Intentionally takes and carries away, uses, transfers, conceals, or retains possession of movable property of another without the other’s consent and with intent to deprive the owner permanently of possession of such property.
    (b) By virtue of his or her office, business or employment, or as trustee or bailee, having possession or custody of money or of a negotiable security, instrument, paper or other negotiable writing of another, intentionally uses, transfers, conceals, or retains possession of such money, security, instrument, paper or writing without the owner’s consent, contrary to his or her authority, and with intent to convert to his or her own use or to the use of any other person except the owner. A refusal to deliver any money or a negotiable security, instrument, paper or other negotiable writing, which is in his or her possession or custody by virtue of his or her office, business or employment, or as trustee or bailee, upon demand of the person entitled to receive it, or as required by law, is prima facie evidence of an intent to convert to his or her own use within the meaning of this paragraph.
    (c) Having a legal interest in movable property, intentionally and without consent, takes such property out of the possession of a pledgee or other person having a superior right of possession, with intent thereby to deprive the pledgee or other person permanently of the possession of such property.
    (d) Obtains title to property of another person by intentionally deceiving the person with a false representation which is known to be false, made with intent to defraud, and which does defraud the person to whom it is made. “False representation” includes a promise made with intent not to perform it if it is a part of a false and fraudulent scheme.
    (e) Intentionally fails to return any personal property which is in his or her possession or under his or her control by virtue of a written lease or written rental agreement after the lease or rental agreement has expired. This paragraph does not apply to a person who returns personal property, except a motor vehicle, which is in his or her possession or under his or her control by virtue of a written lease or written rental agreement, within 10 days after the lease or rental agreement expires.

  103. Stripes, more unfounded accusations and name calling. Not productive and a waste of everyone’s time and energy. I did not say that securitization did not take place. It allegedly did, and it should be illegal because it breaks up the Note/Loan into little pieces that cannot be put back together and, which, makes proper chain of debt impossible. In addition, most of the notes/loans did NOT MAKE IT TO THE TRUST. Securitization is putting the note/loan in a trust. The Note is then retired PERMANENTLY and cannot be sold again, although that is what is going on.

  104. Christine,
    I did not see one of your posts;
    Wi, state, foreclosure of mortgage in early 2013, a few days ago msj & dismissal for my counter claims. I have bout a month.I filed a motion for discovery a few months ago and was hammering QWR’s to servicer and I dont think they liked what I was asking
    – they DID reply to my motion – not recorded or filed anything, but sent me a STACK of shit Im guessing to intimidate me.
    …isn’t that kind of like discovery? They sent me some stuff that hurt them big time.

    And to all…..
    check this out -http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/943/III/20

    read “a-e”and tell me that is not theft – a – is using and HAS transferred to MERS – …to deprive me of my property….

    and this…http://law.marquette.edu/assets/community/pdf/mvlc-Foreclosure_Defenses_Oct_14_2010.pdf

    ….page 4 ….’SERVICER HAS NO BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN MORTGAGE”….

    I cannot find junk on my judge besides what he has judged foreclosure on and they were no show auto default jdmts. …I am not looking in the right spot perhaps.
    I want to grab the bull by the horns!! I have cross claims that if I loose I really don’t want them gone I claimed have what I have proof of (mainly) -I think I have enough without discoery unless I want to go down the oober securitization road which I have admitted in writing they placed the loan in a pool, I have the numbers etc. They claim they are the holder of note & MORTGAGE in summons but get this – everything else I have they confirm they are the holder of ;
    the note AND DOT.
    They never once address claiming an interest or the holding of the MORTGAGE. (besides the summons) they say placed it in a ool and it is now collateral for an MBS. They claim they are issuer and service the loan for the benefit of the security holders – I am so at a brain fart. Is it actually safer to bile BK and try to shove all this in there during that time?? Or instead file an opposition? In all practicality that’s keeping the house, right? vs flat out LOOSING and being tossed. What is the time frame to file bk? I thought it could be the day before the court sale after the redemption period?
    Can you ctrl+F or something to ‘search’ names of posts? I have tried on the home page and nadda. I have written this many times and it’s hard to keep up with conversations on every post. This place needs a general forum you can to after reading Neils blogs!

  105. Poppy, ask for something in writing first before you meet. Make sure you record phone calls and meetings.

  106. poppy
    maybe he just wants to show you his geiger counter
    everybody has different names for things

  107. Please see below:

    “Admission without law school[edit]
    In California, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, an applicant who has not attended law school may take the bar exam after study under a judge or practicing attorney for an extended period of time.[12][13] This method is known as “reading law” or “reading the law”.
    New York requires that applicants who are reading the law have at least one year of law school study (Rule 520.4 for the Admission of Attorneys).[14]
    Maine allows students with two years of law school to serve an apprenticeship in lieu of completing their third year.”

  108. JG, Back at the closing of your home, did the attorney or title officer or whomever tell you what MERS was, how it worked and what it was for? No. They did not, because they knew it would bring up a whole lot of questions. My closing left two satisfactions of mortgage out of the line of title and when I went to refi my loan, I could not because the two satisfactions had not been filed with the county recorder. That means the title company did not do its job properly. Why? To get the fees out of you for the transaction and devil take the hind leg, because they knew it would be someone else’s problem when they “sold” the loan into the invisible trust. Securitization should not be allowed for secured loans period.

  109. JG, MERS was created because with MBS and securitization there is NO DIRECT PROVABLE STATUS OF THE COMPLETE LINE OF TITLE without MERS. The proper documents have not been filed at the county level. Over 90% of states in the U.S. require filing of every transfer of property at the county level. As we already know, what is in MERS is not what is in the mandatory county records. That is why we all have to keep any eye on the new disgraceful law called PATH. PATH is another version of MERS to steal the land right out from under you. Look up your state laws as to the proper recordation of property and your real property rights.

  110. I’d like some feedback here: Same situation I just wrote about.

    A note left on my door from a supposed North Carolina mortgage counselor, about the pending sale.

    He, Eric Stimson, is from a real estate company 100 miles away and we found he is affiliated with an SEC filing for Grant Hartford a mining perils organization. Now, funny or coincidence here; I have a mining perils policy for my land( per ledger), they/servicer purchased it. I did not and they want to come by the house, Hmmmmm. Has anyone ever heard of a mortgage counselor wanting to come by the house to chat?

    All responses will be appreciated

  111. Poppy and Stripes
    My comments are starting to await modification I wonder why?

  112. poppy

    arrested is one thing Dead is Dead you don’t have much fight in you when your dead, although Sonny Shuu’s family did get his property back

  113. “It is better to communicate publicly about a corrupt Judge than confront the Judge in person. Look what happened to Sonny Shuu?”

    As I respect your opinion here; I have to wonder, if getting arrested for contempt is so bad? Enough is enough.

  114. ms said:
    “A certificate is a fictionalized interest that at time of pledge is the note. Dual consideration !”

    Or a fractional interest sold, through REIT’s, with holding companies?

    And debt creation in our names through bonds?

    We are no longer talking about REMIC trusts here, where the servicer as they are claiming is working for and is a party to the PSA…we are talking about the REIT trust, big lies here.

    Converting the promissory note to these products makes the note void and un-collectible. It doesn’t matter how many original notes or verified copies you have, if the note has been “destroyed” in its value and deemed a stream of revenue by the very nature of the alteration of the contract. No longer is the DOT legally tied to the note and default language, herein. The notes are a fallacy in this condition and do not guarantee the banksters a deed claim against the property. Every time they bring in a substitute trustee, servicer or beneficiary they are not doing it in the name of registered, REMIC trusts and that is pay dirt. They are lying about the standing, investor entities and so-called servicers.

    I am no lawyer and I don’t need to be to find information…The lawyers are playing a game of semantics in court, but none-the-less covering up the conversion/theft. The write downs may matter, but the big picture is what they did with your note and your collateral and where the money is going. The revenue stream is NOT tied to your notes any longer. IMHO, this is the battle.

    Most of you here know, about the holding companies, the conversion of bearer notes, which they did get paid for and hence, altered them i.e. ice to water….and are now selling the stolen property in the current market place. Much of this I can prove…simply ask here: how can I have a ledger from 1986 (ombudsman, Countrywide), originate a note in 2005 on the same property, both parties died with 18 months of one another and no transfer or estate issues were performed, the VP of the lending corp was the trustee, I am insured by them for mining perils (holding company), where I live in a place with no reason to have them (no one else here does), suits have been filed with closed corporations and defended, my name has been forged at a hearing-which I was never made aware of, mailing stamps have been manually removed from the envelopes, and have a sale date with an amended sale of foreclosure from 2009 by the same closed corporations and BOA N.A. stands up and says I own the joint! And N.A.’s do not loan money, cannot under the law…everything about it stinks to high-heavens’.

    And BTW: I did find my note in an excel sheet at the SEC…only 3 columns were completed. The trust opened on August 01, 2008 and closed on August 31, 2008. Any thoughts here? This stuff is pervasive and it leads me to what I have just stated. REMIC trusts are specific and do have value, but that’s not what we have here or in most cases.

    Just info…and let me pose this last question: For those who refinanced; since when do we not get a satisfaction of the previous obligation from a refinance and why would that be?

  115. johnGault
    Mers could not facilitate their fraud with out a LPSDOCX or a company whose business it is to produce counterfeit documents.

    E mail your thoughts to the FTC Th article in Bloombergs appeared to relay information to their investors not to us who fight this fraud. Go do it all.

  116. JohnGault
    It is better to communicate publicly about a corrupt Judge than confront the Judge in person. Look what happened to Sonny Shuu?

  117. JohnGault

    why do you want a MOD on a fraudulent origination.

  118. Stripes
    ignore Bob G = he is looking to get others against you. ignore him he is up to no good.

  119. @stripes

    You’re right.

    So guess who IS running the Mafia outfit that has taken over the dairy cow industry in the U.S.?

    Go ahead and take a guess.

  120. @JohnGault
    Just press in FTC and a page will come for complaints One should give their opinion why a company that produces counterfeit documents should be banned in the United States
    I found the below on Bloombergs

    Fidelity National Says FTC Seeks Data on Deal Extending Wait
    By Noah Buhayar – Jul 12, 2013 5:37 PM ET

    Fidelity National Financial Inc. (FNF), the largest U.S. title insurer, said the U.S. Federal Trade Commission sought additional information about the company’s planned purchase of Lender Processing Services Inc. (LPS)
    A waiting period tied to the deal’s review under federal antitrust law will be extended until 30 days after the companies have “substantially complied” with the request, the Jacksonville, Florida-based insurer said today in a regulatory filing. The period could be ended sooner by the FTC.
    “FNF has been working, and will continue to work, cooperatively with the FTC and continues to expect the acquisition to close in the fourth quarter of 2013,” the insurer said.
    Fidelity National agreed in May to buy LPS, a provider of mortgage data to lenders including Wells Fargo & Co. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., in a cash-and-stock deal that valued the target at about $2.9 billion at the time. The transaction stands to reunite the businesses, which share an address in Jacksonville.
    In a 2006 reorganization, Fidelity National split off a business called Fidelity National Information Services Inc. That entity gave investors half a share of LPS common stock for each Fidelity National Information share they owned in 2008.
    Peter Kaplan, a spokesman for the FTC, declined to comment.
    Title insurers like Fidelity National and First American Financial Corp. use their records and public documents to verify a seller is a property’s true owner and that it is free from liens.
    (it wasn’t meant for us to see.)

  121. Stripes and all

    see if you can google or pull this up

    RECOGNIZING AND DEALING WITH MODERN JUDICIAL TERRORISM (Conservative Crusader)

  122. I’m of a mind lately that MERS was created and put in the dot to
    willfully bifurcate the note and dot so that ABS’s were created and not
    MBS’s. No, I can’t fully explain why that was beneficial, at least not tonight, but I will. Or MS can take over; I think he can.

  123. http://nationalmortgageprofessional.com/news29810/new-developments-mortgage-foreclosure-crisis

    Didn’t qualify for your loan in CA and your house has been foreclosed? See this article and then look up the case ref’d therein starting at about para 5, Lona v Citibank. Well, if you didn’t qualify and got a loan with payments of 5k a month when you forked over your tax returns or otherwise told the crooked originator your monthly was 3k, no matter where you are, you might look at Lona. Lona’s loan is being called unconscionable. Bout time.

  124. Agency is a legal relationship created by an express or implied
    agreement or by operation of law whereby the agent is authorized to act for the principal, subject to the principal’s control. As in the formation of any **Karl Rove & Co. v. Thornburgh, 39 F.3d 1273, 1296 (5th Cir. 1994). See also Hamm v.ArrowcreekH omeowners’Ass’n1, 24N ev. 28, 183P .3d8 95,9 02
    “The party asserting the agency relationship has the burden of proving the relationship by a preponderance of the evidence.” ); Trump v. Eighth Judicial
    Dist. Ct, 109 Nev. 687,857 P.2d 740,745.

    The burden of establishing an agency relationship rests on the party asserting that such a relationship exists.”); Gallinger v. Vaaler Ins., Inc.,12 F.3d 127, 129 (8th Cir. 1993) (“The burden of proof is upon the one asserting the existence of the agency.”)(applying North Dakota law); Bayless v . Christie, Manson & Woods Intern., Inc., 2F.3d 347,352 (10th Cir. 1993)
    (“As indicated, a party asserting agency has the burden of proof to show the “existence, nature and extent of the agency relationship.””)
    (applying Oklahoma law).

    MERS can’t prove its agency for any unidentified tranferees or assignees by perception of its authority, that is, because people think it is an agent. See Itel Containers International Corp. v. Atlanttrafik Express Service Ltd., 909 F .2d 698 (2nd Cir.1990), in which the Second Circuit held that whether an agency relationship exists “depends on the actual interaction between the putative principal and agent, not on any perception a third party may have of the relationship;’ Id. at 702

    MERS can’t, by its own testimony, prove its agency for an unidentified current owner of the note, nor, more significantly, for the LAST owner of the note (and all others for that matter). The last, not current note owner is the only party who may authorize the transfer of the collateral instrument to the current note owner, the party to whom it transferred the note.

    In re CMGT,Inc., 402 B.R.262, 276 (Bankr.N.D.Il 2009:
    (“The “words and conduct” of the principal establish the agency
    relationship; the alleged agent’s words and conduct are not sufficient.
    Sphere Drake Ins. Ltd. v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 376 F .3d 664,6 72 (7th Cir.2004).”); Integrated Consulting Services Inc. v. LDDS
    Communications, Inc., 996 F.Supp. 470 (D.Md. 1998) ( “To prove an agency relationship by (***) implication, there must be factual evidence in the record supporting the implication that the putative agent acted as such.

    A mere proclamation of agency is insufficient’); In re Englewood Community Hosp. Corp., 117 B.R. 352, 360 (Bankr. N.D. IL l990) )(“The authority of an agent must find its ultimate source in some act or word of the principal, indicative of his intention either express or implied.”); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v Glickman, 450 F .2d 416, 418 (9th Cir. l97l) (‘Numerous California cases hold that a declaration of an alleged agent is NOT admissible (duh – sic) to establish the agency unless made in the presence of or
    authorized in some way by the would-be principal.”).

    ***again, “by implication” is not applicable here as to agency and real property. Real property changes everything. I can be found to be your agent in regard to the sale of apples or sailboats by implication or act, but I can’t be found to be your agent as to real property in any manner except one expressed, which also rules out
    agency by radification.
    If an agent is acting within the demonstrated scope of his agency,
    an agent could convey the interests of its principal, but – caveat – by execution of an assignment “as agent for”, and NOT IN ITS OWN RIGHT AS IS BEING DONE JUST NOW BY “MERS”. Where MERS is or has claimed agency (and not claiming it’s thee ben), it must convey through that agency. To do this, MERS must identify the party for whom it’s currently alleging to be an agent. In fact, in any case where agency has been alleged, if the principal for whom MERS purports to be an agent is unidentified, there is no agency to be found and the dot has assigned nothing. There simply is no apparent or other authority for an unnamed principal.

    MERS chose not to define its very tweaked relationship with members as that of “agent”, and no misperception to the contrary is going to change that. (I believe this wasn’t careless or cavilier. It was part of a plan to intentionally bifurcate the note and dot and then claim otherwise as necessary, which did in fact become necessary post-consent order) Even had MERS called itself an agent in the dot, it would yet have to identify the principal for whom it currently purports to act. “Successors and or assigns” doesn’t get it..

    As in the formation of any contract, the consent of BOTH parties is necessary to establish an agency relationship. Agency is never to be presumed;it must be shown affirmatively. The party who asserts the existence of agency relationship has the burden of proving it.
    Where is evidence that MERS accepted the original agency relationship in a deed of trust?

    lay opinions – ask a lawyer, especially one who was the in-house counsel for a title company (but not a title co. who owns part of MERS or MERSCorp)

  125. IN re CLAWSON BK N.D.Cal. 10-2-2009

    “The doctrine of judicial estoppel, sometimes referred to as the doctrine of preclusion of inconsistent positions, is invoked to prevent a party from changing its position over the course of judicial proceedings when such positional changes have an adverse impact on the judicial process.
    …..The policies underlying preclusion of inconsistent
    positions are “general consideration(s) of the orderly administration
    of justice and regard for the dignity of judicial proceedings.”

    ….Judicial estoppel is intended to protect against a litigant playing
    “fast and loose with the courts.” Because it is intended to protect the
    integrity of the judicial process, it is an equitable doctrine
    invoked by a court at its discretion.”

    jg: estoppel may be invoked by the other party imo…

    Don’t miss reading this sanctions decision if you’re able. An attorney, Kristen Schuler-Hintz with west coast favorite McCarthy & Holthus, apparently made some rather inconsistant statements to the court and was called to the carpet for same. It’s not the first time someone at / or McCarthy & Holthus has seen this sort of trouble. One of its principals was sanctioned 25k for not telling the court his client didn’t own the note, think it was.
    Some .people really do believe they’re immune, even after getting nailed! Anyone seeing sanctions should report here, imo, so that we can keep a list with “prior bad acts” in mind.

    The reason I’m taking the time to comment on this case is that the homeowners thru their counsel believed they had a settlement agreement. One of the reasons KSH used to disavow the agreement was that the sub trustee hadn’t agreed to it! As if. What’s a dot trustee got to do with a loan mod? Nada. Its just so much mallarkey and so demonstrative of the crapinski those guys come up with, it’s sometimes hard to believe. That they argue this stuff with a straight face has got to be the result of acting classes.

  126. I remember asking him and others like him to cite the Law that allows a Bank to create money prohibited by Article 1 Paragraph 10 Clause 1 of the United States Constitution

    See Tier I and Tier II 2 percent 5 percent and 15 percent using a deposit of $100,000 =

    100,000.00
    0.02
    5,000,000.00
    0.05
    100,000,000.00
    0.15
    666,666,666.67
    That’s $666 million by days end ….

  127. The deed bifurcates – just the deed into a Senior Sub registration . The junior piece is “senior under a Zero coupon “banker Note” and used to debt service the mezzanine …the senior piece is junior if that – off balance sheet – its the substance for all these claims

    registerclaims@live.com

  128. okay, ml, if all of us are candidates for mod, why not reach out to that judge (and others?) with your reasoning? He has mouth, will talk.
    You don’t need a case to communicate with judges. In fact, you need to NOT have a case with any particular judge to communicate with him, at least about your own case.

  129. judge ordered to compel discovery. but just year ago another judge court ordered discovery.

    You have to plead with a view towards discovery.
    Produce the note or verified copy of the note ….

    A) they cannot produce a note under the formation of an annuity trust
    B) The note , if produced causes the claims by holders to fail
    C) The note , if not produced merits dismiss for substitution and breech by material alteration of the agreement, arguing a subsequent event
    D) The note will evidence the two note theory people often talk about. A certificate is a fictionalized interest that at time of pledge is the note. Dual consideration !

    But you have to plead this in advance. Show me the note for example wont cut it . Can you amend and not appear to stray way out there arguing the above ?

    Not a legal or professional opinion and not for use as legal advice. Call you bar for attorney in your state

    registerclaims@live.com

  130. I’ve never believed a MERS assgt transfer anything, except maybe MERS nominal status. I’m of a mind lately that the note and dot were
    willfully (not negligently or what not) bifurcated for the banksters’ untoward reasons and that saving a few bucks on recording fees was no more than a sales pitch, not for the benefit of members, but for everyone else, i.e. us.

  131. Many, perhaps most, of these debtors are not good candidates for a loan modification.

    Everyone is a candidate – more than anyone knows.

  132. Thanks Livinglies …keep up the fight

  133. Not all judges don’t give a darn:

    “At each weekly calendar of relief from stay motions, debtors plead with the court for assistance in obtaining a loan modification. Sometimes they have been unable to penetrate the lenders’ impenetrable phone tree to talk to a live person; or having reached someone at the other end of the line, they are unable to obtain answers to their inquiries after weeks or months of trying; or they have submitted paperwork to the lender, only to be told that more papers are required, or that the papers they’ve already submitted have been lost. Many, perhaps most, of these debtors are not good candidates for a loan modification. But that does not excuse the indifferent and sometimes deplorable treatment they too often receive at the hands of their lenders; nor does it obviate the desperate and helpless condition in which they find themselves. Indeed, never in my 27 years on the bankruptcy bench have I witnessed such financially and emotionally distressed families as I have seen pass through this court over the past two years.”

    This is from Judge Randall Newsome, BK N.D. CA

  134. Community property and foreclosure claims enforceable by lender against the surviving spouse in a death so ….of course both are held to the obligation

    But there is a reason only one went on title – this is emerging the latest in a very subtle deceptive practice used to pull mortgages in and out of trust. (Nearly every case I see has one or other spouse as sole and separate ) registerclaims@live.com

  135. Quite a few people became lawyers in CA who were from, e.g., Israel and became lawyers here. Of course, they took additional courses, but they did not have to go to law school.

    Work for a law firm (X) Years, have attorney vouch for you and pass the baby Bar -every November I believe . CA is toughest but only state to allow no law school – I believe

  136. MERS to plead ignorance of the robo-signing,

    Robo signing what ?

    YOU granted Mers Corp the nominee for the beneficiary so Mers is joinder in a case if assigning interest in title to another .

    But with God as my witness Mers does not assign any interest in title as you claim. Your granting the nominee the power of attorney as beneficiary…but for other than an assignment —its a fictitious assignment

  137. Why should a “successor” bank benefit financially from the mortgage fraud (unclean hands/felony) committed by another bank

    Its called the FDIC Loss Risk Share Program ….If they were not awarded the right to assets through foreclosure they would have bid them at 5 cents on dollar. In that case they would have tried to refinance these vulture purchases at 60% LTV so you all could stay in your homes.

    registerclaims@live.com

  138. yes Indeed Christine, good man he is! Just may of saved my arse from beginners mistakes :]

  139. Justme,

    Usedkarguy is from WI and is currently in suit. He probably can give you some pretty good info.

  140. _______________
    |★★▔▔▔▔▔▔⎮
    |★★▔▔▔▔▔▔⎮
    |▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔⎮
    |▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    l
    I
    Much easier to read in not all caps and to the point THANK YOU

  141. With apologies for not directly addressing people, (LONG day)I sincerely appreciate any input. …I have been all over pacer. ‘servicer’ is a fortune 500 company and has SQUAT for dirt on pacer and about 70 ‘affiliate names’ I believe they carry out their dirty work, maybe.Public records I can see the orders but not pleadings and as mentioned, maybe 1/300 fight, or have reason to besides just lack of income. The Lois Law I have never heard of, nor the pilot thing, will look into. Quite a few ‘non admitted’ violations on NMLA.
    Questions – I am in WI, marital property law – community property. Married BEFORE loan, not one single paper, period, has my signature on it. Got the loan a year after highschool – I had NO credit so I was never on the loan, or the mtg. or the Mod, ZIP. NADDA. But in the summons they granted me interest and I admitted. ….legally – here My husband can own a home etc. in his name and his name ONLY and It is still legally half mine.Period. Can they not foreclose on my half? I never signed one paper from them nor anyone else in this ordeal but to accept the summons, what was filed, etc.
    Is that not an argument? I sent a QWR- they did indeed state nothing was ever sent nor meant to intend “the misses” to owe obligation to his debt. ..I figured they allowed for me to admit my interest so they could come after me too. Under 20 acre parcel- cannot divide anything….with some good *starbucks* it was perhaps decided I may have indeed threw together my everything on the fly and it may be more reasonable to file bk and just try to get all my goodies in during that time. …if you file bk 13, are you admitting you owe the debt and WILL pay it back, or more or less agreeing to a negotiation…If you have read my umpteen posts I have a fair amount of, well, a lot,..the affidavit in mt motion for SJ that ‘has knowledge’..they admitted they made my modification AFTER if was recorded. Even with all my ingredients, put together the wrong way I just make shit soup. I have put too much into depending on a “good judge” …..all over I hear judge in the banks pocket…My gut tells me I can do this. I do not need to have everything worded to perfection….it is what I can PROVE -And I seriously am in a really REALLY good place. Neighbors look out for each other, even the police are pretty damn awesome, Being in the court for city minutes and alderman speakings, town ordinance meetings etc we have some pretty fricken good people here and it is such a – I don’t even know the word- huge disappointment if any, to see this so close to home. @Stripes you sing in the most pain staking way but you have a good note.We all know if anything,we are slowly being ruined. jg, among many of you others is right. Simplify. More people end up here than you know for the first time looking for HELP and your messages are so tangled, repetitive and ill worded this place can look like a cult sight sometimes@ …As much as I want, in this day – it is foolish to rely on decency. ..It really is just shit to know I can walk in there and smack down documented $$$$+ of dollars that go to ‘fees’ and not my account, I can do SO much, and it means chicken feathers. GOOD night

  142. that is, MERS mysterious 7 year contract with the Cayman Island- based Genpact.

  143. marilyn, hook us up with a link if you can, and at least I’ll get on why
    LPS should be outta here (it can go with MERS off to say, India, where MERS 7 year contract is being administered and carried out, acc to Dave K.

  144. @Christine
    Good old Cheeseland . Wi

  145. They’re calling it the Mafia Milk matters …

  146. @stripes

    well you may actually be onto something with all this talk about systemic corruption.

    I just heard on the radio that organized crime is now running the dairy cow industry in the U.S.

  147. JohnGault and all

    I hope you filed a complaint form on line at the Federal Trade Commission in their call for input of why William P Foley of Fidelity should not be allowed to buyback Lender Processing Service Docx

  148. I’d like to say this for the benefit of any attorneys who might be reading here and who might be willing to do something about this, since I probably won’t try to advance my / our interests further and no one else seems to be doing so.

    Hulltman at the alleged request of members “officerized” employees of LPS. He admits he did because, he says, members asked him to. (Well, alrighty then) . LPS, after the robo-signing came to light, was ostrecized briefly by all the banksters. Now that the publicity has died and LPS escaped fairly unscathed, it’s back in business and has been bought by someone we care about = no longer ostrecized, LPS has value. forget who that was who bought them.
    MERS imo is liable for the act of every single MERS/Hultman-officerized LPS’ employees’ robo-signing acts. Yet, as far as I can tell, MERS was and remains entirely unscathed as a result of its officerization of those LPS employees who engaged in robo-signing, the not-at-all-harmless acts in fact, crimes.
    Even were MERS to plead ignorance of the robo-signing, just doing so would expose MERS’ unconscionable lack of diligence and further, it was probably foreseeable. MERS et al need to be nailed for their liability in that whole deal and why they haven’t been is a mystery and a disheartening disgrace to me. They’ve got it coming. Who will see they get it?

  149. P, Thanks. I appreciate that. I want people to have some reason for continuing. Never give up!

  150. Queer your title while you still can. record a Notice (not a deed of any kind – a Notice) relevant to your foreclosure docs. What’s her name in CA – riverside – got charged with all kinds of bs because she waited til she had lost the interest under which she would have had the right to make Notice and I think she filed her notice as a deed. I’ve already conveyed what I think may be her only salvation against any legitimate charge against her.
    Well, this isn’t advice, so when I say queer your title, it’s just what I would do. I would do it because imo it would cause the bankster to have to foreclose judicially to overcome the disclosures made in the Notice I recorded.Plus if I have any irregularities to cite, they shouldn’t have been done. But I wouldnt’ make up anything, of course, or give conclusions of any kind. I would just state the facts, and again, that’s just what I would do. “The NOD failed to give notice of X, Y,Z. The party who substituted the trustee has no apparent authority to make that substitution, the party who executed the NOD for the alleged sub’d trustee had no apparent authority to do so …the dot was already assigned by Criminal 1 to criminal 2 by instrument no.xx xx on xx date, so Criminal 1 apppears to have filed a false instrument, slandering title, by recording a subsequent assgt of that same interest to Criminal No. 3 on xxxx date as instrument yyyyyy and for lack of interest by Criminal 1, the assignment to Criminal 3 vested no rights or interest in Criminal 3 which are alleged to exist by Criminal 3 and its alleged sub’d trustee…..whatever I could say.
    This isn’t advice – legal or otherwise. Just saying what I would do if it were available to me. I am aware of nothing in the world which precludes a party still in title from recording a notice of matters concerning real property he owns. The county recorder in my lay opinion must record it. They won’t can’t wouldn’t even sqwuak because they imo know this. If I were doing it, I’d make sure to put my parcel number at the top of the first page and watch my margins so I didn’t get zinged with ‘i’m out of the margins’ add’l recording fees.
    Not advice of any kind. Ask a lawyer who practices real estate law.

  151. “XXXXXX …… pleaded not guilty of charges of money laundering, wire fraud, filing false tax returns and failing to report foreign bank accounts at the arraignment Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.”

    Yahoo! a bankster got nailed appropriately! Oh, darn. It’s just an art dealer accused of selling art forgeries. Are you kidding me? The D.A. thought those charges would stick for pawing forgeries of paintings off on others, but we can’t get anyone to make them against those who………………….

  152. Yes, I’m a she

  153. Poppy said she (?) had a pacer account and appeared to be offering to look into something for others. I’m just repeating it so it doesn’t go unnoticed by those who might take her up on it (which was a nice offer imo).

  154. Would like to give head’s up here to anyone who still has their homes…I just received a sticker on my door, saying it was from a mortgage counseling service…did a little background check and found out they were a real estate company working for the substitute trustee. IMHO, trying to gain access to the property before they foreclose. Be very careful…liars all of them and cunning. Needless to say, they will not get in, without a sheriff and guns drawn.

    I’ll let them buy it and hope they pay a fair price for what they get! A footnote: the property has an acre of land and the town has valued it at $5,000.00 LOL…big mistake, but very, very funny…. The other thing, I am letting them foreclose, dropped the appeal, because, the ledger (from the Ombudsman) is from 1986, when the house was built and I didn’t build it, got involved in 2005. There is zero possibility they have a legitimate lien/loan/mortgage…so, checkbooks please! Another Countrywide scam…just goes to show you, they do not do their homework and think they are slick. We’ll see what it costs them in the end..of course we could lose, but it costs me nothing, but a filing fee to be a pain in the ass…either way, it’s all good.

  155. stripes, come on. Settle down, will you already? Your constant rants and
    diatribes are not only annoying and self-defeating, they convey nothing. If you want your audience to listen, put your stuff in order. Make a cognitive list.
    1) The banksters have been creating money out of thin air since ______.

    This was allowed by the passing of ______________________ on ________.

    The reasons this is crapinski are:

    **************

    You seem incapable of being cognitive and just like to scream like a baby when he wants his bottle, for Pete’s sake. It isn’t your message, stripes, it’s your stinking delivery. It does stink and you haven’t shown yourself able to be capable of anything cohesive – just yelling and saying “look at me” moment after nauseating moment, day in and day out. Say something, will you? I’m interested in what you have to say, but you can’t make yourself rein it in long enough to say anything other than unintelligible dribble. No one can endorse or rail against your arguments because you’ve set yourself up to be the thing seen as opposed to your message, if any, and your stuff
    is so all over the place, it defies conveyance or attention.
    People here attack you for these reasons. I may have to join them myself if you don’t find a way to impart what ever the heck cognitively. Well, actually I won’t do that, but I will continue to by and large skip over your
    screaming. I do think you have something to say; you’re just not capable of the self-constraint required to convey it and if you can’t change that, change your m.o. and leave us out of it. I’m not saying you have no original ideas, tho it does appear that way more often than not, but as to what you read elsewhere, you’re painfully short of being able to reconvey it here.
    Before your usual knee-jerk reaction, could you chill for a minute and give some thought to the validity of what I’m saying? Any chance at all?
    Any chance you will chill and try to say something coherently?

  156. Have a Pacer account…is someone needing something?

  157. In no way could I or anyone else confuse christine, with anyone else…my real name is christine and I used to go by that name here going back, ironic!

  158. If anyone bothers getting a Pacer account, when you’re looking at a dkt of a particular case, start at the bottom – not reading pleadings, just to see if the bankster got the case thrown out (mtd, mjg granted) if the h.o. were the plaintiff or if the court granted a mtn for sj or on the pleadings for the plaintiff-bankster If the docket is short, it likely means the bankster made short shrift of the homeowner’s allegations, so prob best to move on to a more litigated case. What to pay to read- that’s an individual call anyone can make for himself with a little experience. You can also, both at Pacer and LL, search cases by attorney, which might be useful when looking for one.

  159. Poppy, please do not mix me up with Christine. Her negativity is very disturbing. As to Stripes, perhaps it is Tourette’s Syndrome? Maybe she is still here, because she is good cover.

  160. Prefer Lexis-Nexis…all of my cases the lawyers have used that, Most of it is gar-barge IMO…

    Guess every state is different, as VA does not require law school either. You can work under an attorney and take the bar…or at least you used to be able too. So, the states decide individually, didn’t know that, Hmm

    Gotta say it…christine is such a good bullshitter…

  161. now, stripes, as to your comment about westlaw. If you mean to imply it’s been scrubbed, I wouldn’t doubt it – in fact, have been concerned about it.

  162. okay, stripes, I give: what statement that i made is quite deceptive?

  163. Some courts, again I forget, think Christine knows, also post recent decisions and have links to archived decisions and those are free. That won’t get you the pleadings, just the decisions, but after reading a decision, you’ll’ be able to decide if you want to spend the dough at Pacer to read the pleadings. Suggestion: if you read something at Pacer, make sure to d/l it because if you don’t, you’ll have to pay again should you want to revisit it.
    Sometimes a case stands for more than one proposition, in which case
    you could file it under “BofA claims it’s agent for joeblow” and save again as “aka court tosses BoAcomplaint for lack of certification”. Don’t overload any one file folder – max 40 files per folder imo. And date each file folder – the name of the folder should be something like “from 07 20 2013″. The next folder will be “from 07 29 2013″ when the first one is up to around 40. ( If someone has a better system, lay it on us please.) Also keep any notes in a spiral notebook with the date of the entry at the top of the page or wherever you’ll easily find it. Forgetting to date a note entry is a pain in the tail. Or create your own system for keeping corresponding notes on your computer instead of in a spiral notebook. I prefer the notebook.

    If you want to share something, you can upload whatever it is to scribd and then link it, say here. It’s pretty helpful if one makes a commentary and not just put the link here. Just putting the link may lose half your intended audience. This site doesn’t like multiple links. Try one at a time.

  164. Poppy, my state allows us to use Westlaw through the library system. check and see if you have Westlaw.

  165. Poppy, I am not talking about another country. I worked in SF for many years in law firms. Quite a few people became lawyers in CA who were from, e.g., Israel and became lawyers here. Of course, they took additional courses, but they did not have to go to law school.

  166. LoisLaw is also available for 1 day or one week, but of course it’s more
    costly per day that way. If you only want to take a gander, I suggest you set aside one whole day (stay away from here that one day so you get your money’s worth and just make note of anything if anything you want to share and share later) to do nothing else and get the one day deal, around 47.00. I think.
    It might be possible for people to share a LL account, as long as they’re not on at the same time (?). Not sure. Unlike Pacer, LL doesn’t charge per search or document or page numbers of documents. If you look at a pleading on Pacer and it’s 14 pages, it’s going to cost you 1.40 (because they raised it from .08 to .10 per page).

  167. Actually, if you have a library card and have a law school near by, you should be able to access, West Law and Lexis-Nexis!

  168. Lexis-Nexis too john…expensive. A few of us wanted to get it…eek!

  169. The banksters all have WestLaw, etc., for which LL may be no match. I really don’t know, but Westlaw is bank, as my son would say.
    Banksters also have paralegals to use Westlaw for them. Banksters also have endless pockets, altho attorneys for banksters are generally on a retainer agreement and are supposed to complete taking your home for
    a pre-determined amt of moolah. Still, everyone who can should avail herself of whatever arsenal she can. Check here, of course, and or other websites to stay abreast of this and that and to contribute, but more valuable time imo is spent with real research, and LL and Pacer are available in that effort. And who knows? You could be the one who finds the silver bullet for the rest of us.
    A LL techie will help you learn how to best use LL.

  170. Well, I guess christine is talking about another country, hmm. Don’t know what they do over there, but I have a good friend who couldn’t take the bar here, from India, smart as a whip, because she was not certified and classed in the USA.

    And they do not teach Constitutional Law either, it is an elective. Just so happens I have a paralegal background and 1 1/2 years of law…sometimes hurts me, know enough to be a pain in the ass, but the law is very specific for different areas and most of the the classes, in fact, are the same that one would take for a paralegal degree in the first year and 1/2, Contract Law, Real Estate Law, Criminal Law, Administrative Law, Estate Planning, Civil Procedure, Litigation all bland, no actual practice…Yada-Yada, etc…same in law school, as you said!

    When in court I can tell the underlings….apprentices/interns, whatever you want to classify them as. LOL

  171. Another thing homeowners can do is get a loislaw account. You can search your bankster’s cases to both identify the cases (and then see actually pleadings at pacer) and see how courts are ruling. LL is around
    184.00 a month non-contract. A rep will tell you you can get it for less monthly if you get an annual subscription which they will not hold you to. I make it a point to avoid those kinds of promises, i.e., if I wanted LL, I would pay the 184 per month for peace of mind: no contract. That’s not a diss on LL; it’s just my own m.o.

  172. justme, a number of courts (14?) are participating in a program whereby their hearings are available at their websites. Sorry – I don’t recall which nor even how to find them. You might start googling “courts participate in pilot program to air hearings”. Just mess around with combos, but include “pilot
    program”. If you’re near a court which hears these cases, you can also
    check that court’s docket to see what’s going to be heard and you can go
    to the hearing. You may also order a cd rom of hearings for a cost of about
    25 – 30 per. But you have to identify the hearing. The courts have the form for ordering the cd rom at their websites under forms. If you have a Pacer account, you can find cases involving your bankster, look at the docket
    for notices of hearings, and order the cd rom. Suggestion: keep a log
    of your Pacer inquiries to avoid the surprise of a large bill, i.e., keep track of your usage so you don’t get a zinger you didn’t plan on.
    If you are making certain arguments, it’s possible or even likely other homeowners have made those arguments, also. Be helpful to know ahead of time how your bankster responded.

  173. Poppy, One of the things many people are ill informed about is what do they teach in law school. Basically, you can take civil procedure which will certainly help, but you really learn how to be a trial attorney through an old-fashioned apprenticeship in a law firm where they work you to death for 7 years before you are up for partnership. However, you can take FOUR YEAR SCHOOL in Europe and get a degree in law and come here and take the exams and bar without 3 years of law school. Very interesting.

  174. N, Banks won’t find anyone “any good” to answer anything, but they will do it anyway. They did in my case. Good question to ask of any representative of a bankster is: Did you see the defendant/plaintiff sign the note?” Good luck with that one, bankster.

  175. A JD takes 3 years, with an internship…Just saying. No specialty until after …and an underling to learn; litigation techniques, procedure, which is different for different courts, appellate briefs and rules of the game>>>>>> so much to learn! That’s why we are having a difficult time, learning to be lawyers, by Google, reading and blogs…exhausting.

  176. Oh, Boy! KC is unsupervised again today. :)

  177. RE: The good Lord always delivers.

    I beg to differ for two reasons,…

    1. You have to get off your ass and make things happen.

    2. He has not delivered you the psych drugs you are in need of.

    Behave KC?

  178. @ JavaGold Louise ,

    My “verifier” is a known robosigner and surrogate signer name … the banksters are struggling to find someone “most knowledgable” to answer a deposition.. This is starting to become fun.

  179. so i had my hearing the other day. judge ordered to compel discovery. but just year ago another judge court ordered discovery. what is with these banks not producing discovery and not getting any sactions for it.

  180. ???????

    Unreal. I hope Bob’s right…

  181. @justme

    contact me via PM at Livlies2013. It’s a gmail acct. I might be able to help you.

    Bob G.

  182. Justme,

    What state are you in?

  183. No,I always have two little mini me’s that would be Hell to try to take to something like that :O
    I’ve tried to find them online,Anything here is smudge. No body ever fights back, in the slightest. I will have to go there and dig bit I do spose.

  184. “If I could be sitting in the back watching cases I would be” I take it you’re far away from a city with a courthouse. The next best thing would be to read actual decisions by your judge. Do you have access to the court’s records? Anyway you can pull a few ruling from your judge, just to familiarize yourself with the style? It would even be better if you could review the motions filed by the parties first and then the ruling.

    The whole thing is real work. But don’t let anything deter you: miracles do happen.

  185. Justme,

    It depends on so many things. What state are you in? What court (state or fed)? What kind of case? FC, BK, are you a defendant?

    What do you know about the judge? It’s never a bad idea to read on them and usually, either at the state level, you can read their bio. Since you don’t pick the judge, if you read that the guy worked for 15 year in a law firm doing exclusively corporate mergers or bank defense work, you’ll know you’re pretty much toast. That way, even if you don’t win, you know the deck was stacked against you and it is easier to move on.

    Lastly, every judge has his/her style. Know what it is. Some are really, really nice… but will never rule for the homeowner as a matter of principle. Some are pretty rude, cutting, short tempered but you realize that it’s their nature. Their rulings are liberal. Know what yours is.

    Did you file a motion in opposition to the other party’s MSJ? Usually, each motion delays the hearing by a few weeks. Do you have a hearing date?

  186. If I could be sitting in the back watching cases I would be, I have been trying to find some on youtube or something to observe, not much luck with that, and thank you. Definitely time to get my ducks in a row now…and keep them there….
    May I ask how the first time usually goes, that’s your ‘state your case’ time?…
    in a nut shell…walk in, judge reviews attny’s motion for summary judgement & my cc’s, …..and I state what my ducks are?? Does the attny have to state what their claim is and present anything, like the note, etc. what they have filed…. I take what I know I have to put holes in what they are using to prove their claim…and then generally summarize why they should not be able to proceed with a fraudulent foreclosure…..something like that yeah? I know they must be a bit different in different states..

  187. Justme,

    That’s what lawyers go to school for 4 years for: learn how to develop a case, strategize, plead and argue. Can’t learn it on the fly and I’m starting to wonder if people’s time wouldn’t be better spent sitting in court every day to get the feel for it.

    One thing is sure though: once you’ve decided a strategy, stick with it. Tergiversing back and forth and second guessing what you do keeps you unstable. If you’re going to ram into that court with solid arguments and convince the judge, you need to be really, really, really convinced first. And organized in your thoughts.

  188. Do you have any good advice for a real estate broker that gets it in Michigan or any attorneys in your network from michigan. I do short sales primarily and I get copies of wrongful foreclosures daily from the foreclosure mill attorneys lists of houses, copies of the actual notices (some from even banks no longer in business or even practicing in Michigan… I would LOVE to get these cases and others like them with these bogus foreclosures with trusts foreclosing when they never even legally were entitled to receive these notes years after the trust cut off dates…. They continue to prey on the weak, the uneducated, and go largely unopposed. I’ve had it and want to help. I know I an half a nation away…but I WOULD LOVE SOME ADVICE to do my part in as big a way as possible to help homeowners in Michigan fight back intelligently, and win their fight against this horrible crime that is crippling this nations housing market. Help Me?!! Warmest Personal Regards, Steven Menzel Broker/Owner ION Real Estate

    13305 Reeck Rd. Southgate, MI 48195 Office: 734-282-8888 Cell: 734-341-3333 E-Fax: 866-903-0059 Fax 734-282-8880

  189. ML, the stripes-cloned moron…

    Right. Everybody is out to get you, everybody has evil designs and, but for your incredible might, power, character and moral strength, humanity would be in deep doodoo. You go girl! Get your sword out and go for it. ML, the Ninja turtle. Slay them all! Draw blood! Go for it!

    You do realize that in the end, you’ll croak the same, right? So… the question is: are you having fun in the meantime? Is all that hatred, bitterness and resentment you display day in, day out really what it’s cracked up to be?

    I think not.

  190. Christine,

    I can see that working. This is my first time in front of the judge. It is true is you spill all your beans you leave yourself open to a longer time for the opp to break what you have etc. ……
    …..but, it is true as well if you save something for the end – wht if it was that one thing the judge would of wanted to hear….and you held back….and were dismissed because you didn’t get his full attention?

  191. Every foreclosure in the country, should have full Discovery….That would put an end, to the theft

  192. YOUR SPEAKING TO ME NEIL! YEAAAHHH BOY!

    Good write. And good strategy.After hearing you several times state one only has so long to get the judges attention I was thinking about the the other way around. And your totally right! Start with what they are accusing, break that, make them prove it and all in all you have the biggest kick in the ass to wrap up. I like it. Im on my toes now! I just got a notice of motion and motion for summary judgement and dismissal of counter claims…….anyone who has been reading my stuff I’d appreciate some pointers as to, anything. In particular what would be your solid you would use at closing? What should I file back that is most likely to be granted? Vacate?
    I need to shoot questions here any takers?
    such as; …Can’t really ask the ones I would rather not have any answers to in any event I have a reader that knows/is involved in this case. very Unlikey, but better safe than sorry. PM? takers? ..no, not looking for legal advise….options

  193. “Announcing your narrative at the beginning merely telegraphs your case plan and locks you into an argument about why you are saying what you are saying.”

    Can’t have it both ways… Either you do everything you can to grab the judge’s attention within the first 30 seconds and you are forced to “telegraph” your arguments (such typically legalese jargon) or you keep your cards really close to the vest, build your case “brick by brick” and it feels so drawn out to the judge that the guy blanked out right off the bat and stopped listening after a couple of minutes.

    Maybe that Garfield strategy could work in front of a jury but… he, himself, stated (in that John Wright interview) that those cases never, ever, ever make it before a jury.

    I wonder if Garfield is slipping or if he was f.o.s. from the get go.

  194. We really need full discovery obtained from the bank/servicer. That is why this litigation is not moving faster to resolve the whole mess.

  195. Why should a “successor” bank benefit financially from the mortgage fraud (unclean hands/felony) committed by another bank? http://www.scribd.com/doc/154939392/Harrington-Response-to-Motion-to-Strike-Affirmative-Defenses

  196. All
    I’ve come to the conclusion that Bob G is one of those bad attorneys around that fraudclosure victims should never trust.
    I remember asking him and others like him to cite the Law that allows a Bank to create money prohibited by Article 1 Paragraph 10 Clause 1 of the United States Constitution , that goes to the Origination fraud of a mortgage. He didn’t and couldn’t answer that .

    He also doesn’t believe in a Judge having to obey the oath they took to defend our Constitution . I wonder if he believes an attorney has to defend the Laws of the land. I doubt it His postings speak for themselves. A word of caution I think he would sell any of us under the table for Wall Street, the title companys and their network of attorneys and the banks.

  197. Kind of like this? http://www.scribd.com/doc/122327421/A-F

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 3,524 other followers

%d bloggers like this: