Matt Weidner Shows Lawyers How to Do Good Lawyering

The difference between Weidner and many other attorneys is that he goes into a case believing he can win it — and he’s right. Other attorneys believe their position is hopeless and seek only delays or modification — and they are wrong. Weidner has resisted the knee jerk reaction to these cases to believe that if the borrower ceases payment that all elements of a foreclosure are presumed met. He understands that the Banks are playing a shell game to conceal the fact that neither the named plaintiff nor the alleged creditor are in fact the real servicer and real creditor.

Matt Weidner has published his summary of essential issues raised in a hearing in which he was the attorney of record for the homeowner. He shows that knowledge of securitization, good preparation and articulate objections that are logically consistent with the proffer of evidence results in a good record and a good result. This transcript — shown on the link below — should be studied, not merely read. Then read it again. Weidner skills are formidable but they can be learned.

Editor’s Note: The background issue here is the conflict between the law permitting the servicer to commence the action and reality. The Servicer might be able to start a foreclosure but they cannot finish it. They can claim they have authority or power of attorney but the fact is they are not a creditor. And only a creditor can submit a credit bid.

So why is this case being brought this way? Is the creditor aware that their right to the title of the house and their right to sue for collection is being stripped from them. Does the creditor have notice? How do we know? Even if the pleading is not required, the proof demands the evidence that the Trustee of the REMIC testify that they have notice, they own the mortgage, they have not resold it, they have received no augments, directly or indirectly to reduce the balance of the account receivable, and that the investor approves of the Servicer/bookkeeper taking title with a credit bid and getting a judgment in its own name despite the obvious fact that the creditor is entitled to judgment. What authority does the Trustee have to let anyone take away property and assets? What reasonable purpose would be served? Doesn’t this show or at least suggest that the Trust does not own the loan? Maybe it never did, but the investors in the “Trust” know it was their money that funded mortgages — they just don’t actually know which loans they funded.

And as this case suggests, the intervention of the investment banks caused a fatal defect in the chain of title. If they wanted to stay out of trouble all they had to do was name the Trust on the note and mortgage or the assignment and record it as such. But they didn’t because they were playing with OPM (Other people’s money) and they still are playing the same game.

Residential funding gets into trouble. This is a very worthwhile read.

Foreclosure Defense Trial SECRETS EXPOSED! A WEIDNER Transcript of a Foreclosure Trial That Shows How A Homeowner Wins Foreclosure!
http://mattweidnerlaw.com/foreclosure-defense-trial-secrets-exposed-a-transcript-of-a-foreclosure-trial-that-shows-how-a-homeowner-wins-foreclosure/

“Materially Less”: The Foreclosure Deficiency Standard in Tennessee
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/materially-less-the-foreclosure-defic-21465/

How the Bank Lobby Loosened U.S. Reins on Derivatives
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-04/how-the-bank-lobby-loosened-u-s-reins-on-derivatives.html

Lending Giant Offers Short Sale Webinar
http://realtormag.realtor.org/daily-news/2013/09/03/lending-giant-offers-short-sale-webinar

About these ads

31 Responses

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

  2. ukg said:
    “The banks have changed UCC 9 to cover the “securitization fail” aspect of the standing to foreclose.”

    i’ve opined that the MERS assignment of the note is an attempt to assign / transfer the note by way of 9 sale and assignment agreement. I’ve also opined that when a note is transferred by either 3 or 9, but not delivered, the transferee or assignee has security interests in the note as well as its collateral.

    How do you think the banksters have changed 9 to cover the sec
    fail specifically? .I’d really like to look at that, because for one thing, as you may know, I’ve also opined that the “MERS” assignment is prima facie evidence (if taken as factual – gag) the loan was not heretofore assigned to the trust. But for any number of reasons really, I’d be interested in knowing how you think they’ve changed 9 to do what you said.

  3. “Alex Beam of the Boston Globe reminds readers on Thursday about John Kerry of days gone by compared with today:

    “In 1971, with the Vietnam war in full swing, the former Navy lieutenant John Kerry asked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: ‘How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?’ [Actually, no one was ever "asked". They were ordered. Drafted too. Except those like Billy boy who dodged it. So, Charlie Rangel, do you think it will stop the inequalities of career military? And who will you send first? Students? Convicts? Congress firstborns, just for example?]

    “Now an older, less wise Kerry is back again, posing the question in a slightly different way: Who wants to be the first man to die for what will later prove to be a mistake?

    “Any takers?”

    I dunno… Papa John?

  4. “iffy” doesn’t even start to describe it… I’m not “iffy”. I’m frickin’ pissed!
    People bought the Iraq crap, hook, line and sinker. And then, they wised up after leaving behind thousands of babies born with the most horrendous birth defects anyone could imagine. Depleted uranium will do that and the US used it. In its weapons. A lot. Slways has since Hiroshima.

    PT Barnum was wrong: you CAN fool all of the people all of the time. All of the American people. All you need to do is give’ em fluorinated water, Monsanto crap food, a daily dose of the Kardashians and Anderson Vanderbilt Cooper and there! You have an entire society of brainless morons ready to kill and die for… they don’t even a clue what the hell what!!!

  5. Christine, you mean you’re iffy about whether or not we should go bomb more distant brown people because we can? Remember, there’s a red line somewhere, and Obama’s got us covered.

    As a matter of fact, he’s being briefed on our conversation as we speak.

  6. javagold – better yet, take a camcorder or at least your phone and quietly tape away…

  7. UKG,

    Will UCC make any difference if Charlie Rangel, who’s back at it with more virulence than ever, gets his way and obtains from Congress the reinstatement of military draft? Just a question…

    And why aren’t people rioting about anything? Anything at all? Not their house. Not the inequalities. Not the lack of prosecution of bankers. Not any of the past wars. Nothing at all.

    Is this country really as tired and degenerate as Rome had become…? Is it the water? Monsanto? TV? The chemtrails? What is it that turned pioneers and adventurers into fearful and grossly overweight shadows of free-willed human beings?

  8. good night on this quote :
    : first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
    Mahatma Gandhi.

  9. I hope they do it in time Christine, btw Gandhi ( oscar winner Ben Kingsley) movie is on sale at frys for 10 dollar.

  10. The banks and their attorneys now have the legal academics trying to slide in UCC9 and bullshit their way through the proof of claim. As my attorney states, the Uniform Commercial Code was written in relation to PERSONAL property, not REAL property. The banks have changed UCC 9 to cover the “securitization fail” aspect of the standing to foreclose. Once you’ve done away with the Statute of Frauds, anything goes. Hence the recording laws and subsequent violations of those laws should lead to jail time for the would-be securitizers.

  11. Well, well, well… People finally getting off their butt? Make no mistakes: until people do take a stand against that ONE thing and demand to be heard, they won’t be heard on anything else, foreclosures included. 200 to 1 against the war, huh? There haven’t been that many since 2006 calling against the banks and against foreclosures. Let’s see how much power there is in numbers… and then, let’s move on with cleaning up this country.

    Calls to Congress 499 to 1 Against Syria War – The People Revolt: Americans Tell 22 Lawmakers ‘No’ to Military Action
    Wednesday, September 4, 2013 20:18

    By Garth Kant and Chelsea Schilling / WND

    Congress may or may not approve a military strike on Syria, but it looks like the American public overwhelmingly disapproves – by a margin of more than 200 to 1.

    A national debate is raging on Twitter. Tweets and statements from members of Congress – both Democrat and Republican – show tremendously strong opposition to President Obama’s call for an air strike on Syria:

    Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., tweeted, “Calls and emails from my constituents is 100 to 1 AGAINST getting involved in Syria. The American people are speaking.”

    Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said 99 percent of the calls his office oppose an attack.

    Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., said, “Constituents who have contacted my office by phone or mail oppose action in Syria 523-4 so far.”

    Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., tweeted, “My phones are blowing up, and an overwhelming amount of constituents oppose U.S. military intervention in Syria.”

    Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., tweeted, “Syria constituent calls 489-2 against.”

    Rep. Shelley Capito, R-W.V., said of “about 1,000 calls to my office, maybe 5 are for.”

    Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., said calls and emails to his offices are 600 to 9 against striking Syria.

    Contact Congress and let your lawmakers know how you feel about authorizing President Obama to strike Syria.

    Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark., tweeted, “FYI: Received 75 calls/emails from constituents today so far on Syria. All 75 opposed to military action.”

    Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, said he is getting swamped with phone calls and on-the-street comments from constituents telling him to oppose a strike on Syria.

    Rep. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said, “I’m told the phone calls are 9 out of 10 against a strike in Syria, from my constituents in Kentucky.”

    Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas: “I have received hundreds of calls and letters from constituents expressing strong opposition.”

    Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., tweeted, “My office has been inundated with constituent phone calls and emails about Syria. Virtually unanimous opposition to military intervention.”

    Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, tweeted, “So far about 500 emails regarding Syria. 499 say NO and 1 say YES go to war” and “Hundreds of calls to our Provo and Washington, D.C., office. So far not a single call in favor of bombing Syria.”

    Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., tweeted, “The phones in my office are ringing off the hook and mail is flowing in. Almost all of the people are opposed to intervention in Syria.”

    Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, tells WND his office is hearing the same overwhelming opposition to intervention.

    continue article at WND:

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/calls-to-congress-244-to-1-against-syria-war/

  12. How Can the Bankrupt U.S. Government Finance Yet Another Military Adventure?

    You’ll pay for it the same way you paid for the two last ones. Taxes. Houses. Retirement accounts. Savings accounts. Checking accounts. Infrastructures. Social services. Education. Except that for the two last ones, there were numbers your (elected) bankers/leaders had (tentatively) come up with. They kinda figured some budget, originally. Black budget off the books but budget nevertheless. They grossly overspent and came after your house to fill the void, since the US haven’t had any gold since… 1972!

    This new war? Allegedly aimed at Syria but really targeting Iran? It all depends if Russia, China, India and Pakistan end up taking part in it…

    Learn a new language and get a second passport. Oh… And MERS isn’t going anywhere. The same way that GB, France, Italy, Portugal and a few other countries split the cake at the end of WWi, the winners will split this cake and MERS will come pretty handy… what, with a centralized land record already in place and all! If all I had in this country was a house and my citizenship, I’d be pretty worried. I wouldn’t give a hoot about first lender, second lender, who owns title to what and such trivialities… I’d be moving my butt to either violently protest or find another place to grow. Just like…

    The Great American Migration
    The IRS reported that in 2011 a record 1,788 Americans officially renounced their citizenship, more than in the years 2007-2009 combined. While the number may seem like a drop in the bucket in a nation of 311 million people, immigration officials projected the number to jump more than fourfold to 8,000 in 2012.

    And if you dig a little deeper, you’ll find that it’s not just 1%’ers leaving for tax reasons, it’s regular Joes and Janes as well.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/05/the-great-american-migration/#ixzz2dzEBWYYf

    But that’s my take on it. And that of Dr. Paul Craig Roberts. And Ron Paul. And myriads who don’t post here and are nationally known…

  13. my appeal is under rule 60b, and all it encompasses with an
    abuse of discretion by the judge. maybe this is why I cant get an attorney. you have to call it out, all of it.

  14. like to add a point I raised in my appeal- section 33-804 (A), (b) and (C) of title33
    only the beneficiary can appoint or change the successor trustee- my big point being that the table funder I mentioned earlier was never the beneficiary so how could it be possible to appoint the trustee (foreclosure mill) to conduct a foreclosure sale and subsequently sell my home and issue trustees deed upon sale.
    don’t forget my 1099A naming Onewest/IndyMac as lender, on trustees deed they took the time to underline WAS the beneficiary.

  15. vague sorry,, we have a sophisticated huge developer outfit (also DBA table funder also Escrow) with what appears to be special REO agents they use to resell very nice homes ASAP after credit bid done and the recording of the so called expunged lis pendens- which should be VOID. .the community is a new development around , you guessed it 2007 and the prices must be kept up as high as possible the illusion maintained for as long as possible, remember sol. and its AZ.
    didn’t mean to be rude getting off topic. THANK you for the links.

  16. Java
    I think the fate of some homes are known from the first signing, I see it in my case, might not be able to prove the whole thing , but fat lady no sing yet, REO knocking on my door before I knew. before SALE. ORGANIZED CRIME. they watched me labor they watched every upgrade on my dollar.

  17. left field point here but I was sat in the credit union having a little chitty chat about the big banks- what about some aggressive competition, communities should spread the word , shift every dollar (FWIW) to your local credit unions, get the movement going get the word out, we don’t need the big banks they can not be trusteed ever again, its well understood every 20 yrs or so they do some big rip off act,
    its prob more complicated than I see it but I wish they could outdone, the GREED, is there somebank LESS greedy, that would be a good start, shoot we pay to get our money 2 bucks to 4 bucks wells being the biggest stinger, and god forbid we overdraw,

  18. Best I can tell it was nothing more than a “representative”……..of the servicer…….always bid $100

    Going once, twice, SOLD.

    Next week I’m going to question the process and see if they will be as cordial as they were today, when someone questions this charade …

  19. By the way, courts may think that if it weren’t for complications of securitization and those one mutts, succinctly, homeowners would have NO arguments to make. That’s not true imo. Everything encompassed by the making of predatory loans is appropriate argument, albeit one homeowners are without the tools to properly make and would have been known not to be able to make by those who counted on that fact. .

  20. Javagold – was the party making the credit bid identified by name? Never heard one name in the trustee’s sales I’ve attended, just “lender’, think it was. This is wrong.

  21. e.tolle – good observations, of course. Crime getting a name of mis-direction and passed off as a faux pas mol and the general inducement to believe 1) no actual crimes were committed and 2) there were no victims. We really do need to not tolerate it as you said. A financial sanction for organized crime…..what a life.

    For anyone interested, I appreciate neidermeyer’s comments in his first paragraph, but I’m with you if you didn’t actually get it (so don’t think you’re alone if you didn’t get it or you’ve been left). I struggled just to hold on.

    I said courts can and should do more than they’re doing. Someone said he was told A owned his loan, no it was G, no, it was R, and now it’s a trust (don’t get comfortable – that could change with their strategy, too). A homeowner does not, simply does not, have the wherewithall to combat this nonsense. Now Add to that:
    In the last year, one court has said

    MERS doesnt bifurcate the note and dot..
    The dot follows the note.
    The note follows the dot.
    MERS bifurcates the note and dot, but they may be “re-unified”.
    A lender must have this and that and that’s final.
    A lender may submit an affidavit in lieu of this or that.

    I’m like “why get out of bed?” Oh, I know. It’s to send off those messages e.tolle has in mind.

  22. Oh I did ask one question..where is everyone ??? Was told no one ever shows up to bid on any of these houses for all of 2013 !!!!!
    These sales were done in less than 3 minutes.

  23. I sat and watch sheriff sales this week. Bothing but credit bids. I was just observing this week….next week I plan on asking serious questions of legality of all the credit bids and the sheriff who swore to uphold the constitution.

  24. @johngault 03:32pm ,

    I agree with you , we know for a fact that many 2nd tier lenders had credit lines with the 1st tier “TBTF” institutions ,,, no question about it … seems logical that the loans were funded via the table funding/credit lines and the lines were refilled in a revolving fashion by the 2nd tier lenders when the creators of the MBS’s paid them. It seems to me that the 1st tier and 2nd tier created approximately equal sized piles of loans… the 1st tier companies would logically have been self funded.

    ***********************
    MONEY IS FUNGIBLE , and that will obscure that point forever.
    ***********************

    I too don’t see how the trust could have been named on the note although the trusts were formed prior to the loans being written… you can’t get a loan from a trust , it has to come from another party and then be transferred according to the PSA rules which usually means another real sale to a “depositor” before the sale to the MBS trust. The actual “bank” creating the MBS should have been named as lender with the straw man properly identified as an agent of the real bank.. OptionOne is said to have included an allonge in blank to be stamped with the buying banks name at a later date with all of their closing packets (but undisclosed to the borrower and not included in the buyers packet). Needless to say (if you believe the master servicers rendition) such an allonge is totally invalid because it was created at the same time as the note ,, it wasn’t a seperate action at a later date , and could have been included in the note itself and not attached (and in my case it came 5 years late and was not physically attached).

    As to your comment ******************* This is an unprecedented time in our history when one class or group is pitted nationally against another, and economically and educationally, it’s no where near a level playing field. We are grossly mismatched with also unprecedented consequences.*****************

    I can only think of the American Civil War (Washington D.C. and the NE states taxing the south into poverty using their greater numbers in the house to create grossly lopsided tariffs… the true cause of the Civil War … Slavery was a side issue that was already being resolved … slowly but surely) AND the various bank raids on the wealth of the country , mainly the land grabs that were the basis for the various “panics” in the late 1800′s (mostly due to bank manipulation of available currency) and of course the creation of the FED (and the BIS) which put the entire world on a glide slope toward what we have today…

  25. I’ve made some comments about deficiencies and the one-action rule.
    Last night I was doing some research and discovered that even where a deficiency is allowed, there are more rules (getting to be a ‘duh’). One of them is about the party who may seek a deficiency. Apparently it depends (may vary by state) on if it’s a “financial institution” or not who wants one. Who knew that getting a loan from A or B or C would make a difference? Thing is, if one knew that law, and relied on it in choosing “A”, say, and now the ‘lender’ is B, are we then subject to the deficiency we thought we’d avoided by choosing “A”? And so it goes…….

    When laws governing contractual obligations defy understanding by
    the majority after an honest attempt to understand them and may be understood by anyone other than a genius with 5 doctorates, it’s past time to rethink 1) those laws or 2) the m.o.
    (We believed we were entering simple contracts.)
    But what’s happened instead to those laws and contracts is that they have been buttressed to further support the already existing disparity and the m.o. surrounding the contracts defies understanding, even if it were legitimate.

    Courts have the authority (not unlimited) to make and impose local rules for litigation. (Like don’t show up without a, b, c and include a list of anyone with an interest in this contract or who is subject to an obligation / liability for loss)

  26. What’s needed now are prosecutions….before the SOL on these crimes runs out. Write your representatives yet again. Only this time lean on them. Hard. Tell them that not only will you not support them in the next election, but that you will work in earnest to form grass roots efforts at dislodging them from their seats of power for good. Followed by community shunning. Let’s see how they fare with no work and their own fraudulent foreclosure. It couldn’t happen to slimier people. Oh sweet schadenfreude.

    We all know that the so-called “deceptive foreclosure practices” are in fact simply old-fashioned criminal acts, each and every one, and they need to be treated as such. All this criminal behavior begs for prosecutions, as everyone knows that they’re not cost or time-savings measures, they’re all felonies. Note: all of the following are quotes from AG press releases, and they are each and every one new slang-terms being foisted upon us all, to be used in place of what used to be universally accepted acts of criminality:

    - Robo-signers

    - False documents

    - Cutting corners

    - Rushing to foreclose on homeowners without following the rule of law

    - accused of taking shortcuts

    - dual tracking

    - being sloppy in their paperwork

    This would be funny if the repercussions weren’t so serious. One national columnist wrote, “ People have lost their homes, yet the banks have saved money by cutting corners….” How could anyone calling themselves a journalist wrote such tripe? Not a single home has been lost. They’re still there, they’ve just been stolen, and these acts aren’t carried out as a result of cost-saving measures or increased efficiencies….they’re accomplished through multiple felonious acts on a never before seen scale. It’s like a Manhattan Project, only it detonated from coast to coast.

    Another writer from a leading publication said, [the banks] “produced a troubled paper trail….” Troubled paper? What exactly does that mean in the context of legal documents? Troubled is not getting the car home before curfew, or having a different color than expected on your pregnancy test. Troubled isn’t a term that can be used in conjunction with perjury, forgery, or broken title chains, unless you’re the perp who’s suddenly very troubled about hearing the judge announce your 20 year sentence. Troubled is a gross misnomer.

    The following query should be easily answered, without anyone having to bring up the obvious… as there are many thousands of documented cases where borrowers, when found to be the perpetrators of “errors and misrepresentations” in legal documents and contracts, end up spending large swaths of their lives making smaller and smaller rocks out of big ones.Why the double standard? Point-blank ask that question of your so-called representatives. And don’t stop until it’s answered, or until they’re worried. THERE IS NO CRIME IN ASKING WHY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AREN’T PERFORMING THEIR DUTIES. BUT IT IS A CRIME WHEN THEY DON’T DO THEM.

    How could any of these state AGs settle knowing full well that the banks were, as MA’s AG Coakley said, “foreclosing on properties without holding the actual mortgage….” OMG….I can’t even read that without flinging a finger high into the air. Families stacked to the curbs like cordwood, and the highest law enforcement officers in the state hope that fines will suffice, or that they could somehow be sufficient to remedy such gross illegality. It goes so far beyond believable as to move directly into misprision territory. AND THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED TO THREATEN THESE OFFICIALS WITH. Consider this your duty as a citizen of the United States. High profile public officials brought up on charges of misfeasance in public office would set the stage for Nuremburg type tribunals to unravel this entire crime wave.

    Mis•fea•sance … “in law, the abuse of lawful authority in order to achieve a desired result.” That about sums it up nationwide, state by state. All the guilty must be punished in order for these crimes to cease. There’s no other way. We don’t, as the bad guys would have us all believe, need to get through a few million more foreclosures before the economy will improve. We need to get busy dismantling these corrupt banks and their management, along with every single government official who aided and abetted them. Then, we can get on with living without their corruption.

    The stooges at the OCC had this to say about their national (gift to the banks) settlement, “Our enforcement actions require wrongful financial injuries to be remediated.” How nice. $300 will get you a Motel 6 for a week or two. Then it’s off to tent city. Ample compensation when viewed from 30,000 feet. I call it treason. Misprision.

    Above, Neil writes, “Weidner has resisted the knee jerk reaction to these cases to believe that if the borrower ceases payment that all elements of a foreclosure are presumed met.” This is precisely where the wheels went off the rails early on, and they’ve stayed off the tracks ever since. The meme espoused in another main-stream publication stated matter-of-factly, “The vast majority of homeowners in foreclosure are in fact delinquent on their mortgage payments. Many bankers and judges view the issue as a technicality. Regardless of legal niceties, they say, people should pay up or lose the collateral on the loans – their houses and condos.” How can one even begin to parse out the bullshit in that paragraph? Since when are legalities considered niceties? Only when they err on the side of Too Big To Fail institutions? Niceties are making sure the salad fork is to the left of the dinner fork. These people would have us believe that property laws are mere “technicalities”, you know….the very settled laws that go back centuries? It appears obvious that the Very Serious People in government and their owners, believe tramping on these laws is no big deal, especially when seen from the bigger picture of needing more foam for more runways.

    Last, but definitely not least, is this unbelievable statement from the head un-regulator:

    “The OCC confirmed it has received complaints that questionable practices continue. But spokesman Bryan Hubbard said the settlements “are intended to address many of the root causes of improper foreclosure actions,” thus preventing future harm.” Does any part of that make any sense to anyone? Now I call bullshit. How in the world can they expect us to believe their take on square pegs and round holes? If the illegalities that were bought and paid for are continuing, how can any future harm possibly be prevented?

    They live in Bizarro world, where everything is skewed and backwards. It has got to be undone Nuremburg style. Before they undo us all. Oh for a drone of my own.

  27. Neil – they couldn’t possibly name the trust on the note and dot (lending laws come readily to mind, for instance) and they had no authority to call a group of investors anything else. What would they have put on the note – “group of investors” or “group of individuals?” That imo is the status of the payee on loans where there was truly no corporate or other business structure and that in turn means there is no authority to endorse notes any way other than
    by that status / in this manner (here I’m thinking of any business which had had its corporate charter revoked or never had one to begin with or failed to register a trade name affidavit.
    If John and Harry and Sam and Martha do business with no corporate structure, even as they hold themselves out otherwise, they surely may not endorse a note as if a corporate structure exists.
    I’m still in the dark about why you think the investors money was used to fund the loans. And if you give me money to buy loans I or others made, and I use your money to fund the loans instead of using my own funds, does that make you the lender or have I misappropriated your funds? (to me this is a biggie) If I used your funds, what does the UCC have to say about who is the lender? Anything? And how does that jive with the expression in the note itself about who may enforce the note (which imo does not mirror the UCC)? And what might the UCC say, if anything, or any other relevant law say about me later purporting to sell you a note you actually funded and then throw in I never delivered it to you? Whether it comes from the UCC (disregarding my impression there’s a distinction between art III and the language in the note about who may enforce) or a court’s potential authority (emphasis) to impose equity, would it be found the investors (as distinct from the trusts) have security interests in these notes and their collateral instruments? If that were the ultimate finding, the investors could be prescribed no hits, having invested at or near the note’s face value and are entitled to that value in return and it has to be paid by
    the party who caused the loss.

    If courts think they are rightfully, by some alleged moral imperative, upholding a borrower’s contractual obligation without consideration of what else needs considering, imo they’re sorrily mistaken and misconstrue their real moral imperative..And a judge would have to live under a mushroom not to know of considerations other than poss of a bearer note as to these notes. As some words from Elizabeth Warren remind us, no one owns anything or achieved anything by himself, including pensioners. WS created a false economy for EVERYone. When it fell, we lost zilliions of jobs and businesses. We were all left holding an empty bag and those mutts had made off with a disproportionate amount of the bootie and because they had, our government felt it had to prop up the top, seeing the top as the bottom. Not being an economist, I don’t know what else is at stake here, but I don’t need to be to know that what’s at stake is who we are. Who we are should be made clear in the courtroom by those who have taken an oath to uphold the laws flowing from our constitution. We are not to be separated from our homes without due process. As e.tolle poignantly points out, “Next” is not keeping with that constitutional right. or a court’s duty. If courts don’t act in a manner which acknowledges “this is not your father’s car”, They imo are willfully avoiding their true duty to uphold our law. Now, they could argue the UCC says this and that’s the existing law we have to in fact uphold (and I again say the UCC is not the bomb on these notes as to enforcement and I also note the injury bar for jurisdiction). This is an unprecedented time in our history when one class or group is pitted nationally against another, and economically and educationally, it’s no where near a level playing field. We are grossly mismatched with also unprecedented consequences. Courts have “sua sponte’ powers mol and imo should be implementing them to get at the truth of these particular cases. It may well be a lot of work on their part and they may well resent it, but they, unlike us, signed up for it.

    Elizabeth Warren:

    “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.
    You built a factory out there? Good for you,” she says. “But I want
    to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you
    were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces
    that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding
    bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire
    someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us
    did.
    Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific,
    or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the
    underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

  28. I am glad to have Mr. Weidner on my Side .

  29. I have yet come across any attorney in Florida who has prevailed in a foreclosure matter to its FINALITY, that is won the case without any settlement or compromise.

  30. I always remember Matt Weidner’s words that time will never change a void ab initio judgment , it is a brutum Fulmen.

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 3,130 other followers

%d bloggers like this: