WELCOME TO LIVINGLIES

FREE Information, Resources and Help with Your Mortgage Loans – Over 13,000,000 Visitors

ABOUT LIVINGLIES AND LENDINGLIES

CONTACT US: Free and private

REGISTRATION FORM

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

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

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

About Neil F Garfield

Schedule Private Consultation

Purchase Services

Submit Case Interview Form – Receive Customized Recommended Services

Q & A – What can you do for me?

Contact Information:

GTC Honors, Inc.

Phone: 954-451-1230

Email: info@lendinglies.com

Services include: Expert Consultation Services, Strategy, Qualified Written Requests, Case Review and Reports, Forensic Analysis Referrals, Discovery , Motions, Pleadings, Complaints to AF and CFPB, Title and Encumbrance Analysis, and Case Analysis. We coach lawyers and pro se litigants. ALL 50 STATES.

MISSION STATEMENT: I believe that the mortgage crisis has produced manifest evil and injustice in our society. Pretenders with more money and more lawyers than any consumer or borrower are stealing homes from homeowners while they undermine the investments by Pension Funds.

LivingLies is the vehicle for a collaborative movement to provide homeowners with sufficient forensic and legal resources to combat banks who are using fictitious names and entities to cover up their malfeasance.

We provide thousands of pages of free forms, articles and discussion of statutes, case precedent and policy on this site. On www.lendinglies.com I provide paid crucial analytic and presentation services that enable lawyers and homeowners to confront the lies in attempted foreclosures.

Ask about our CONSULTATION SERVICES and LITIGATION SUPPORT.

Educate Yourself and Your Lawyer: Read this Blog and Purchase Books & Services from www.lendinglies.com

Tonight! Lawyer or Pro Se? The Neil Garfield Show with Charles Marshall

Is it better to lawyer up or is it better to go it alone?

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Charles Marshall, Esq. 

Call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

We all know the theoretical answer. If you go into an operating room at a hospital you want a doctor doing whatever needs to be done. If you’re on an airplane you want a pilot. There is no guarantee that everything will turn out right but we can all agree that the chances for a favorable outcome are better with the doctor in the operating rom and a pilot at the controls.

So the same holds true for going to court. The lawyer is going to know the courthouse, the people, the rules and the applicable law better than you do. A lot of “bad law” has been created because of poor presentations in court that didn’t attack the central issues.

BUT, homeowners are afraid of getting ripped off again. And lawyers cost money. So lots of people, back in the mid 2000’s were representing themselves and some of them did pretty well. Lawyers, from the start, were back-peddling from foreclosure defense for two reasons: they were afraid of not getting paid enough and they didn’t want to lose a bunch of cases.

The key point here is that complete success is possible and does happen. The statistics are piled against that result because the statistics include uncontested cases where the ghosts get the foreclosure simply because nobody opposed it.

And there is the perpetual problem arising from bias (invalid assumptions): (1) homeowners do owe the money (not necessarily true) (2) once they stop paying homeowners should lose the house no matter who brings the claim. So instead of presenting a passionate and aggressive and successful defense many lawyers argue only half-heartedly present the defense and get steam-rolled by lawyers who may not even  have a client.

After everything is untangled, it is unclear whether there is an actual legal or even equitable liability of a homeowner, whose name is used to sell dozens of derivatives that amount to multiple sales of the initial homeowner liability.  Some might ask why should homeowners get a windfall and the answer is simple: most of them were cheated by predatory loan products that intentionally overvalued homes and intentionally drove prices far higher than standard valuations. They got screwed by ghost lenders who made millions on even low amounts of mortgage debt.

My take is if the real lenders made more than the amount they lended, then there is no debt. If that undermines the rationale behind the sales of bogus MBS and derivatives, that risk should fall on the investment banks who were most probably the only parties that qualify as lenders, even if they were using other people’s money to make the loans.

What Happens on A Motion to Dismiss?

Legal procedure is difficult to master in one sweep. But in all events you should know that everything before trial is strictly procedure and that your notions about right and wrong are almost besides the point. The purpose of procedural rules is to enable the parties to narrow the issues that must be decided and that usually means testing the sufficiency of what was said. And that simply means a test to see whether what was said actually means something legally.

==============================
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
Case example:
The Court must accept all well-pled allegations of fact for purposes of a motion to dismiss. That doesn’t mean that they actually accept it as true, but for purposes of testing the sufficiency of a complaint, the allegations are taken as true and relevant IF the allegations state a cause of action. That means that the facts pled in the complaint support the lawsuit you filed. If they filed the lawsuit then you have filed a motion to dismiss and then they reply to it.
*
In all events, you might want to file a reply, usually it is advisable, when the opposition files a motion to dismiss. The contents of such motions are fairly predictable. You should check  with local counsel before doing anything.
*
In your reply, you should first point out that they continue to advance a notion that they somehow are a real party in interest. Here they have styled the case as US Bank as “Trustee for GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-3F, Mortgage Pass through Certificates, series 2006-3F.” This is your opportunity to drill home the fact that they did not, in their complaint, identify the Plaintiff. While US Bank is a legal entity, it is not appearing on its own behalf. This leaves the question of “on whose behalf” do the attorneys attempt to state that US Bank is appearing?”
*
The Defendant and the Court are left guessing whether US Bank is appearing “for” certificates or a trust. If it is for certificates, they have not identified or described what that means. If it is for a trust they have not identified the trust, whether it was ever organized in any jurisdiction or whether a trust is currently operating under that name — “GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-3F, Mortgage Pass through Certificates, series 2006-3F.” It is not the province of the court to fill in blanks left out by the pleader.
*
Without such facts being alleged, the Defendant has no way of knowing the identity of the Plaintiff or who would answer to an order granting sanctions, costs or other relief against “the Plaintiff.” Further, the Defendant cannot know who would actually receive the proceeds of a forced liquidation of Defendant’s property. To be clear, Defendant’s challenge is based on the facts, as known by Defendant, that out of the group of possible Plaintiffs, neither US Bank nor any “certificates” nor any “certificate holder” nor any trust will receive any proceeds of liquidation from the forced sale of the subject property.
*
Your reply to their motion should state the following: Defendant does not allege improper securitization, as stated by the attorneys for the alleged “Plaintiff.” Rather, Defendant is challenging whether any “securitization” occurred and more specifically whether the allegations of the complaint are sufficient to state facts that would support the notion that the subject loan was “securitized.” Further Defendant is challenging the authority of the court to “fill in gaps” left out by the lawyers for this alleged “Plaintiff” by making assumptions or presumptions of fact not supported by either the allegations nor the evidence in the record.
*
This is no idle challenge. Experts retained by the Defendant are prepared to testify and show the court that neither the holders of the “certificates” nor any trust have ever entered into any transaction in which the subject loan was purchased. Further, those experts are prepared to testify and will show the court that while the same name has been given as Plaintiff in other foreclosure cases, neither US Bank nor the certificate holders received one cent from the proceeds of liquidation of the property — thus indicating that a third party is using the court system for their own purposes without presenting themselves to the court.
*
While this court has ruled, over objection of the Defendant, that this Defendant lacks standing to challenge the validity of assignments of mortgage because she is not a party to the agreements that resulted in the fabrication and execution of the assignments, this court has not ruled that such assignments were the actual result of a real transaction in the real world. There are no agreements yet produced or alleged by the attorneys for the “Plaintiff” in which a real world transaction took place  where either US Bank or the “certificates” or the certificate holders, or any trust acquired the subject debt. Any assignment of mortgage that does not transfer the debt is a nullity.
*
The reasons for the gaps in pleading and gaps in evidence are irrelevant. The fact is that neither allegations nor the evidence are present in which a real party in interest can be identified as Plaintiff. The attorneys for the “Plaintiff” merely insist that the court take their word for it.
*
Hence the argument is not simply legal standing as the Attorneys for “Plaintiff” are arguing. The issue is whether there is any legal entity clearly named as Plaintiff, let alone whether they have  standing. The court’s prior ruling was based upon the premise that there must have been some transaction in which the subject debt was purchased and thence to the conclusion that in the chaos of what opposing lawyers describe as “Securitization” this Defendant does not have standing to raise objections to how the spoils are divided. Defendant respectfully disagrees with such sweeping assumptions that somehow, without foundation, rose to either legal presumptions or treatment as though there were legal presumptions of fact to be applied.
*
In the absence of a real plaintiff at bar or lack of standing of such Plaintiff, the court’s authority is limited to a dismissal of the action.
*
Or, as pointed out in this Defendant’s Motion, the court can conclude that there are no issues of material fact because there is no legal entity named as Plaintiff and because no allegation of an actual real world transaction has occurred in which the subject debt was purchased this transferred to an “assignee” and because lawyers for the Plaintiff continue to refuse to produce any assertion or document or evidence of any kind that that a legal entity exists and owns the subject debt and is named “US Bank as Trustee for GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-3F, Mortgage Pass through Certificates, series 2006-3F.”
*
Conclusion: In the absence of a legal entity as Plaintiff, there can be no relief, even if the complaint was otherwise sufficient to grant relief. The fact that there might be some third party who might benefit from the outcome of this litigation should not be a basis for assuming that said third party has a right to that relief, especially without identification of the third party. For this court to piggyback on such an assumption is to condemn this Defendant to fighting with a ghost in order to preserve her interest in homestead property.
*
The converse is simple: if the attorneys for the “Plaintiff” can show that the named Plaintiff is a bona fide legal entity that owns the subject debt through payment of value, then the outcome should be in favor of the said “Plaintiff” and this Defendant’s objections become moot. If they can’t show that then why would or should this court assume that they can?

Does the REMIC Trust Exist or Not?

One common thread in the emails I receive is the complaint that the borrower’s lawyer failed to agree or find that the the debt, note  or mortgage was owned by a trust. The reason for that is that in order for “the trust” to be the owner of the debt, it must exist.

In most cases, if you look carefully you will see that even in nonjudicial foreclosures and always in judicial foreclosures there actually is no assertion that a trust exists, or that the certificate holders have an interest in the subject debt, or that the “trustee” owns the debt on its own behalf or on behalf of anyone else. Instead, everyone seems to assume that the assertion was made. But I have found no instance in which the assertions were actually made. The result is that homeowners are fighting a ghost.

==============================
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
==========================

So I answered a recent inquiry as follows:

I don’t think the trust does exist. A ream of paper was scanned and then the digital file was uploaded. The SEC is not a registry where legal entities are created. The SEC does not review or approve or even disapprove of documents that are uploaded. Uploading documents does not require an oath that the documents mean anything or are true.

I think what the judge is telling you is that if you want to do something, in his opinion, you should file necessary papers to remove the DOT from your chain of title. You check with  local counsel but this probably means filing and recording an affidavit that disclaims the DOT and filing a lis pendens with a lawsuit that seeks to cancel the DOT of record.
*
In order to cancel an instrument you need to show more than that some party can’t enforce it. You have to show that nobody can enforce it. Check with local counsel on this but I am pretty sure I am right. There are only two possibilities:
*
(a) the instrument shouldn’t have been recorded in the first place which means it should never have been executed or delivered. This can be shown if the document lacks signatures or if it fails to name the parties. It is my position that any document that fails to name a party who in fact fulfills the statutory requirements to be a beneficiary under a deed of trust is a document that was never completed or which contains a fatal error. However, the naming of a party as a beneficiary on a recorded instruments raises certain presumptions. That means you need to challenge the presumption even if the beneficiary is named “Donald Duck.” So your affidavit and your action should state a factual basis for disclaiming the named beneficiary as qualifying to be a beneficiary (i.e., the owner of the debt). I think the factual basis would be that the named beneficiary never loaned any money to you and was not acting as the authorized representative of anyone who did loan money to you. My analysis indicates that both Donald Duck and the REMIC Trust are fictional characters.
*
(b) the instrument is now void  by operation of law. For example if a notice of rescission was sent. Beware that courts are twisting themselves into pretzels to avoid treating the rescission under TILA as an event and rather treating it as a claim. This judicial pattern of conduct is against the wording of the statute 15 USC §1635 and the wording of SCOTUS opinion in Jesinoski.
*
With Ocwen, New Century, and Deutsch involved there is little doubt in my mind that at a minimum the DOT is not enforceable by them. That might call for a lawsuit seeking declaratory, injunctive and supplemental relief.
*
If you need help in drafting we can help with that.

Removing Liens Rendered Void by TILA Rescission 15 USC §1635

Client goes into the office of an attorney and tells him/her that a notice of rescission was sent. The attorney without studying the issue says the rescission never happened. And so it goes.

In my opinion once the time limits have expired on claims arising from TILA (which includes the debt) the county recorder should remove the encumbrance from the chain of title or be ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction.

==============================
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
==========================
The attorney might be on the right track but for the wrong reason. There literally is no question about the meaning of the TILA Rescission statute 15 USC §1635 because the highest court in the land said there is no question. And without any question there is no room for interpretation. See Jesinoski. 
*
The plain wording of the statute says that once the notice is sent the OLD loan agreement is replaced with a NEW statutory mandatory loan agreement. This is the factor that is missed by most lawyers and judges on trial and appellate courts. The wording of the statute is clear and it is effective by operation of law the moment the notice is dropped in US postal Service mail.
*
It’s not a declaration that the deal is completely gone. It is a change in terms required by statute. Banks have ignored it at their peril but so far successfully.
*
The courts have strained themselves in their rebellion against this statute because they don’t think so much power should have been vested in each borrower by the legislature. So the judges answer to the problem is to pretend that the legislative branch did not say what it said. SCOTUS thought it was putting an end to that nonsense in Jesinoski but most judges continue to ignore the mandate of both Congress and the Supreme Court.
*
 So there we are. In simple terms the average person who has sent a notice of rescission has title to property that by operation of law has no encumbrance thereon.  But the OLD encumbrance from the OLD loan agreement is still in the County records. I think the recording of the notice of rescission is sufficient to bring an action in mandamus against the county recorder’s office to remove the encumbrance from the chain of title, but I can offer no guarantee that a court will order that, even though it is legally and morally correct.
*
In order to do that properly I think it would be prudent to first send a demand letter to the county recorder asking that the encumbrance be removed and asking for whatever instructions they would give in accomplishing the removal. 

Can MERS Assign the Debt?

The answer is complicated.

On its face and on its own the answer is obvious: since MERS never has any ownership of the debt or the note, it cannot transfer either one. It specifically disclaims such interests on its website and all agreements in which it is a party. Since it has nothing to convey it conveys nothing even in a written instrument that says otherwise.

==============================
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
==========================

But the real issue is whether (a) the debt has been transferred in some other way or (b) whether MERS could somehow execute a document that transferred the debt from another party to yet another party. Some courts have used a backwards of analysis stating that if an assignment were executed the debt must have been transferred. But that is clearly not what the law requires.

Keep in mind that all states basically hold that an assignment of mortgage without the debt means nothing.

Transfer of the note, with delivery, is often used as the basis for saying the debt has been transferred.  BUT that is true only if the transferor was in fact the owner of the debt. Confusion abounds here because a holder might well be able to successfully sue on the note without ever being able to enforce the mortgage. The rules are different. See  Article 3 vs Article 9 UCC. You don’t need to be the owner of the debt to collect on a note. But you do need to be the owner of the debt to enforce the mortgage.

So the answer is that there is no case I have ever seen where the MERS assignment was in fact a transfer of the debt. Accordingly the assignment, without extrinsic evidence, transferred nothing. The extrinsic evidence must be proof that the transferee paid value for the subject debt.

Receipt of the note may raise the presumption that the debt was transferred but that presumption, if it is applied, is rebuttable. If you demand to see the proof of valid paid for the debt and they can’t give it to you then the presumption is rebutted. Hence the case fails because the prerequisite to bringing the foreclosure proceeding was that the party named as bringing the claim actually had a claim.

Some people think this is all technical. It isn’t. It is doing exactly what the law is intended to prevent — using the courthouse as in instrument of fraud. Somebody should win this fight and I can’t think of a single legal or moral reason why it shouldn’t be the homeowner.

When you look at the encumbrance itself (mortgage or deed of trust) this gets even more interesting. If the document says it secures the debt, then it is in compliance with Article 3 UCC adopted as state law. If it says it secures the debt and the note then the reasonable interpretation is that ti secures the debt in accordance with the terms expressed in the note.

But where it often states that it secures the note only then the document does not facially comply with Article 3. It must be implied from extrinsic (parole) evidence that the debt was included. But that turns out to be a problem. Because the debt was often changed immediately from both an legal and equitable obligation owed to one person to an equitable obligation potentially to investors and a legal one potentially to the investment banker but in all events not the party who is NAMED as bringing the foreclosure action.

Hence neither the legal nor equitable owner of the obligation of the borrower is set to receive the remedy being applied in the courts in favor of conduits controlled by third party strangers.  As far as I can tell the way the courts handle this problem is by pretending it doesn’t exist. Back when judges looked over foreclosure documentation carefully, such split personalities would not have been tolerated without a lot of clear and certain explanation.

 

A Movement to Hold Judges Accountable for Their Illegal Actions

Recent articles are beginning to take seriously what homeowners have been saying for more than a decade — that a separate set of rules applies to foreclosures that are biased against consumers, borrowers and homeowners. Those “new” rules are a departure to the rules of due process, evidence and burden of proof in every other civil action.

Now movements are gaining strength to confront situations where judges are in rebellion against the laws they are supposed to enforce. TILA Rescission is only one example. The statute says one thing and the courts “interpret” away provisions they don’t like. The US SUpreme Court tells them there is no room for interpretation and still the courts ignore even their boss of bosses. There are hundreds of other examples in foreclosure litigation where presumptions arise from fabricated documents, facially invalid documents, void documents, and other documents prepared by people who have a stake in the outcome of the litigation.

I don’t agree with all the proposals stated below, especially the ones where judges could be sued for ruling unfavorably to a litigant, but the point is that judges are inventing law rather than following it and for that they should be held accountable in some real meaningful manner. Invention of law is the exclusive province of the legislative branch of government.

When foreclosures were simple, judges made very sure on their own that the paperwork was in order before ordering the sale of property. After all, losing one’s homestead is the most drastic loss a homeowner can endure, roughly the equivalent of capital punishment in criminal law.

Now that banks clouded the scene with apparent complexity, judges are blindly following the herd and are not scrutinizing the paperwork to see if it makes sense. In most cases it doesn’t make sense and extrinsic evidence, rather than clarifying, presents more obscurity and calls for legal presumptions rather than actual facts.

The result is that foreclosures are granted to parties who will never see the proceeds of forced sale of the property. Homeowners’ defenses are not technical. In addition to defending their home they are the only warriors who are battling against the current practices of fabrication, fraud and misrepresentation of investment banks operating under the cover of “securitization” that never occurred.

These mega banks are still pursuing of strategy of protecting ill-gotten gains and collecting more ill-gotten gains. The only two real parties in interest — investors who put up the money and borrowers who took the money are left out in the cold with virtually no remedies to protect themselves.

It’s a combination of laziness and willful ignorance that keeps allowing illegal foreclosures to proceed. Add a dash of politics and you have decisions based upon one thing: if the borrower doesn’t pay or stops paying it makes no difference whether the party demanding payment had any right to it.

Instead of being careful to provide a remedy to a party with a real economic stake in the outcome, the courts have nearly uniformly sought only punishment of borrowers who don’t pay, even if there is nobody identified who is entitled to receive payment.

Here is one example that I don’t know much about but in principle I support it:

Prospect on the financial requirements and business venture opportunities of joining forces and dividing the labor
to bring about change by forming a national civic movement for
judicial abuse exposure, redress, and reform

By

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq. 
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris

 

You may share and post this article
in its entirety, without any addition, deletion, or modification,
with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
and the link to his website:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

 

A. The need for individual parties to join forces to expose the all-powerful class of judges

1. No doubt ‘we [litigants, advocates of honest judiciaries, and those who have experienced or witnessed judges’ abuse of power] are all supporting our own fight’, as one put it. This means that we are fighting separately against a solidly united and all-powerful class of judges. As a result, we stand no chance against them. We fight alone only for our collective assured defeat.

 

2. Judges wield power over We the People’s property, liberty, and the rights and duties that frame our lives. One federal judge can suspend nationwide a president’s executive order. Federal judges are the only officers, whether public or private, to hold a lifetime appointment; they are unimpeachable and irremovable in practice: Only 8 federal judges have been impeached and removed in the last 230 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789(*>jur21§a). Judges close ranks to protect the benefits(*>OL:173¶93) that they grab by abusing their power and maintain their status as a privileged class:

 

3. After President Trump disparagingly referred to the judge presiding over the fraud case brought against Trump University as “the so-called judge”, Then-Judge Gorsuch commented on that reference thus:

 

“An attack on one of our brothers or sisters in the robe is an attack on all of us”(>OL2:527).

 

4. Through that comment, J. Gorsuch revealed judges’ gang mentality. People with that mentality have no respect for rules. They do not ask themselves whether the “attack” was legally or ethically justified or had the “appearance of impropriety”(*>jur:68fn123a) and was to be avoided. Their only concern is to protect their power through intimidation, abuse, and retaliation. Judges’ gang has all the power in their turf, the courts(*>OL:267§4), where they can disregard the law and the rules and conjure up their own or simply suit themselves.

 

5. Indeed, Then-Judge Kavanaugh and his peers and colleagues in the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed 100% of the 478 complaints lodged against them and denied 100% of the petitions for review of those dismissals in the 2006-2011 11-year period(>OL2:748). This holds true for the other circuits(OL2:548; *>jur:10-14). Federal judges ensure their unaccountability by in effect abrogating instead of applying the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act(jur:24§b) that allows anybody to file a complaint against them. This statement is based on the judges’ official statistics(>OL2:795§C) submitted to Congress and the public annually(jur:28fn34b) as required under 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2)(jur:2623a).

6. Judges abuse their power because they can do so risklessly by complicitly practicing reciprocal exoneration from complaints (OL2:792) as well as coordination, knowing indifference, and willful ignorance and blindness of their abuse(jur:88§§a-b).

 

7. By contrast, you, I, and millions of parties have only one personal, local case that each of us prosecutes alone before a judge. Why would that judge do what is right in that one case and thereby antagonize for the rest of her professional life her peers and colleagues, the very ones willing to protect her from 100% of complaints(>OL2:792but who can also deem her unreliable and a traitor and ostracize her(jur:56§e)It is safer and more beneficial for the judge simply to do what is harmonious(OL2:464) with her and the other judges’ interests and be done with it.

 

8. The other two branches of government are too afraid(>OL2:644¶2, 610¶16, 505¶2; *>jur:23fn17) of the judges’ power to subject the judiciary to the constitutional checks and balances which those branches could exert on the judiciary.

 

9. That being so, what chance does each of us stand alone against a judge, never mind on appeal to a panel or a council of his or her colleagues and peers? None. If we all continue supporting only our own fight separately, we attract the application to us of Einstein’s aphorism: “Doing the same thing while expecting a different result is the hallmark of irrationality”, for it betrays the belief that the wishful thinking in our head is also outside as part of the real world.

 

10… Therefore, we have no choice: We either join forces to have a fighting chance against the power abusive class of judges or we all exhaust our capacity for work, time, and emotional and financial resources in a futile gasp for justice.

 

B. Joining forces while applying the fundamental principle of any organization: division of labor

 

11… If we join forces, we can form a national civic movement for judicial abuse of power exposure, redress, and reform(*>jur:164§9). To that end, each of us has to concentrate her or his effort, time, and resources on what each can do best.

 

12… I can conduct professional law research and writing, and engage in strategic thinking(OL2:445§B, 475§D). For proof, I have produced a 2-volume study of judges and their judiciaries, titled and downloadable for free thus:

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability 
and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: 

Pioneering the news and publishing field of 
judicial unaccountability reporting

* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

Download the volume files using MS Edge, Firefox, or Chrome; it may happen that Internet Explorer only downloads a blank page. Open the downloaded files in Adobe Reader, https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pdf-reader.html so that you can open the Menu bar >View >>Navigation Panels >Bookmarks panel and use the bookmarks that make navigating to the numerous(* †>parenthetical references) very easy.

 

13… You have proved your superior skills as business people. For proof, there are your companies, law firms, and business contacts.

 

14… You can put them to good use to help form the national civic movement described in the Introduction to the Programmatic Presentation and its Outline hereunder. How you can do that is also described therein. Succinctly stated, you can:

 

a. share and post to websites and social media as widely as possible the email version of the Programmatic Presentation or hand out at your meetings its 1-sheet of paper version at >OL2:818-819 and include in your printed materials its 2-sheet of paper version at821-824;

 

b. gather a group of your friends, colleagues, and investors to whom I can make the Presentation in person upon an all-expenses paid invitation; otherwise, via video conference;

 

c. donate to the work of Judicial Discipline Reform using the button and link below, and participate in fund-raising as discussed next.

 

C. The fundraising labor: No meaningful endeavor can be advanced without money; and money can be made while doing right

 

15… Moral support is necessary to fortify the spirit and keep going. But it is not sufficient… Politicians and judges ask and receive donations or grab money to remain in office or spend it on themselves and their cronies(*>jur:32§2, 81fn169). They do so with disregard for the law and the rules and to the detriment of parties to cases. To assert one’s rights before them money is also necessary, for asserting them requires more than simply prosecuting one’s case.

16… Every party to a case, even a pro se and all the more so a party paying attorney’s fees, knows how expensive it is to pursue one’s quest for justice in one’s personal, local case.

 

17… However, we are doing much more: We are trying to expose a judiciary that has institutionalized abuse of power as its modus operandi(*>jur:49§4). Our ‘case’ is so much greater and so are the expenses. Such exposure cannot be done for free or even on the cheap. It is an expensive endeavor. Hence, we need to raise funds.

 

18… But if the people who have money do not donate precisely because they were asked for money, and the people who do not have money do not donate precisely because they do not have money, who helps finance our Labor for Justice? That Labor is bigger than each of us since it is in behalf of We the People.

 

1. A business plan lays out the purpose of raising funds

 

19. To learn about the purpose for which money is necessary, review the Table of Contents(>OL2:563) of my for-profit business plan. In brief:

20. First of all, the plan envisages the enhancement of the website at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. Currently, the site provides free access to my articles. Visitors to it have found them so informative and appealing to their needs that as of this writing 25,105 have subscribed to the site. Let this call to mind the Wright Brothers flying their airplane if only for a few seconds in the presence of investors to show them that they had a viable product worth investing in its development…

 

21. The enhancement of the site will turn it into both a clearinghouse for the public to upload their complaints against judges and a research center(*>OL:274-280) for them to search complaints for the most convincing types of evidence: patterns and trends(*>OL:304-307) of judges’ abuse (as opposed to the anecdotic story of one complainant’s personal, local case), and schemes resulting from judges’ coordinated, structured, and on-going abuse(>OL2:614).

 

22. Similarly, an investment in an investigation by Information Technology experts can reveal how judges’ intercept their critics’ communications(>OL2:781) in violation of our First Amendment “freedom of speech, of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance”(>OL2:792¶1). Bankrolling(OL2:720¶m) that investigation can earn investors money and name recognition.

 

23. Money is both needed for, and can be made by, calling parties to join the movement to participate in the nationwide demand for:

a. the refund of court filing fees because of judges’ intentional failure to read the vast majority of briefs(>OL2:608§A), which they require parties to produce and file; and

 

b. the reimbursement for $1,000s and even $10,000s that a brief costs to research, investigate through discovery, support with a record, write, print, bind, serve, file, argue, etc. Judges make the money, effort, and time spent on the brief go to waste when they do not even read it, and cannot base their disposition of the case on it.

 

24. Judges should be held liable for the damages that they cause -as they do malpracticing doctors and lawyers, abusive police officers, pedophilic priests, etc.- and the fraud that they commit by having clerks dispose of cases by rubberstamping dumping forms: unresearched, unreasoned, arbitrary, fiat-like summary orders.(OL2:760)

 

2. The Dissatisfied with The Judicial and Legal System will be a source of funds as they rally to the enhanced website and the national civic movement

 

25. People need food as a matter of life or death. Yet, farmers make money by selling their crops and animals; and storekeepers by selling food to their customers; and restaurateurs by preparing and serving it to diners. Also, people must pay their doctors and hospitals to recover their health and stay healthy; and they pay their attorneys to defend everything that is vital to them, including their home, their liberty, and their life(OL2:455§B).

26. Likewise, we can draw to the website and the national civic movement the The Dissatisfied with The Judicial and Legal System: They are parties to the more than 50 million new cases filed in the state and federal courts every year(*>jur:8fn4,5), to whom must be added the hundreds of millions of cases pending and deemed to have been wrongly or wrongfully decided. The Dissatisfied constitute a huge(OL2:719¶¶6-8) untapped voting bloc. We canrequest them to:

 

a. donate, as do the people who support the Women’s March, political candidates and parties, and charities;

 

b. pay membership dues, as required by websites to have access to their premium contents;

 

c. pay fees for services that they make use of, such as the website’s research center, legal education, training in litigation, consulting and strategizing, advocacy, and representation(*>jur:153§§c-g), etc. Their offering can lead to the creation of the Institute of Judicial Unaccountability Reporting and Reform Advocacy(*>jur:130§5);

 

d. pay to buy, or have their complaints verified and edited for inclusion in, publications, e.g., how-to manuals on detecting and exposing abuse(*>OL:274-280, 304-307), and demanding redress; and The Annual Report on Judicial Unaccountability and Wrongdoing in America(*>jur:122§§2-3);

 

e. buy tickets to attend, or pay to advertise at, the first-ever and national, multidisciplinary, multimedia, and interactive conference on judges’ abuse of power(*>jur:97§1; *>dcc:11; OL:42);

 

f. pay to buy or use products, e.g., the software to be based on artificial intelligence for innovative statistical, linguistic, and literary auditing of judges’ writings(*>OL:42; jur:131§b); etc.

 

3. Funds are needed to support the current effort

 

27… Conducting professional law research and writing causes an opportunity loss: The effort, time, and resources employed therein cannot be employed in a gainful activity. Neither can those employed to email and mail the articles produced; and to deal with replies received by email, mail, and phone, which itself consumes substantial resources.

 

28… The loss of money that does not come in is only aggravated by the money that must go out to:

 

a. pay the website hosting company and the Internet Service Provider;

 

b. buy computer equipment and office supplies;

 

c. run the office, which entails rent and utilities; etc.

 

29… Money is also needed to:

 

a. travel and stay at hotels to deliver at various venues(*>OL:197§G) the Programmatic Presentation(OL2:823) on forming the national civic movement,

 

b. promote the proposed unprecedented citizen hearings(>OL2:812§E) at universities and media outlets for journalism professors and news reporters to take testimony from victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse;

 

c. interview prospective members of the team of professionals needed to form the movement;

 

d. hire a team and open and run an office for them, as described in the business plan(see also §F infra); etc.

 

30… This effort and expense intended to benefit the many should not be borne by only one.

 

D. The most favorable public mood for fundraising and national civic movement formation

 

31. The funds raised can reasonably be expected to effectively and profitably form a national civic movement for judicial abuse exposure, redress, and reform because nationwide social events have generated the most favorable public mood therefor:

32. On November 8, 2016, candidate Trump was elected president. Yet, in less than 2½ months, on January 21, 2017, a barely known organization, the Women’s March, was able to stage in Washington, D.C., and other cities the largest demonstration in American history to date, with several million participants. The call of the Women’s March to protest bigotry, hate, salary inequality, boardroom discrimination, etc., was heard by a public largely attuned to it.

33. The New York Times and The New Yorker, published their exposés of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse on October 5 and 10, 2017, respectively.  Literally, in only a few days the MeToo!movement began to emerge everywhere. Since then it has widely given voice to, and stirred up, a public mood of intolerance of any form of abuse.

 

34. Today that mood is expressed in a rallying cry that the public will shout at judges once it is informed of the nature, extent, and gravity of their abuse, and becomes outraged at them:

 

Enough is enough!
We won’t take any abuse by anybody,
not even judges,
anymore.

 

E. The most opportune political season for politicians to expose judges

 

35. The 2020 election campaign has started. Nine of the possibly more than 25 presidential candidates have declared. Each of them needs a national issue that elevates him or her above the pack and brings in indispensable donations, campaign volunteers, and positive word of mouth. The sooner they recognize the huge untapped voting bloc of The Dissatisfied with The Judicial and Legal System, the sooner they and others will try to win them over.

36. We need funds to rally The Dissatisfied to our movement so that it is there where principled and opportunistic(OL2:610§3) politicians find them informed about, and outraged at, judges’ abuse, and making precise demands for exposing the judges, seeking redress for the abused, and reforming the judiciary to empower the People to hold judges accountable and liable.

 

F. The symbiotic relation between the media and the movement

 

37. As the Dissatisfied rally to us, the commercial and social media will find it in their interest to cover the formation of the movement. A reciprocally reinforcing process will develop between the media and the movement in formation:

a. The movement will provide the media an issue that sells copy and the media will provide the movement coverage that will attract ever more people informed about, and outraged at, judges’ abuse. Fundraising is necessary to launch and accelerate this process.

38. That model of symbiotic relationship between investigative journalism outlets, such as International Consortium of Investigative Journalists(*>OL:1) and ProPublica(jur:86¶193), and the national media can be used by us:

a. The national media, even local stations, can pursue available investigative leads to two unique national stories(OL:194§E) or sponsor and/or buy the findings of the investigation and research(OL:60, 115, 255) conducted by the team of professionals guiding the formation of the movement.

39. First, we must show that we have something worth buying or sponsoring. To produce it, we must attract a team of competent and committed professionals(*>jur:128§4), who will command a commensurate salary, even as they participate in an academic and business venture(jur:119§1).

 

40. If we divide the labor and each of us works on his or her share of it, we can form the movement, hold judges accountable and liable, and even make money. We can also earn something of much greater and longer-lasting value: The national recognition by a gratefulPeople as their Champions of Justice.

Put your money
where your outrage at abuse and
passion for justice are.

To advance our common interest in
exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power and
support the professional research and writing of
Judicial Discipline Reform:

DONATE

here

or
at the GoFundMe campaign at
https://www.gofundme.com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

Facially Valid for Those Inclined to Latin

Bill Paatalo in his unrelenting search for doctrine that covers the widespread fraud confronting borrowers of all types including especially homeowners, has found some old English common law concepts that do have some application in today’s chaos in the courtroom.

His question related to the Latin doctrine Nul Tiel Record.

==============================
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
==========================
OK this is really technical and potentially out-dated. But still relevant.
 
This is from old English common law. It generally is used in the context of Scire Facias. That in turn means “written on its face.” But contextually it also means something of record and by that is meant something of public record. 
 
Nul Tiel Record, also Latin, literally means there is no such record. It is used in the context of a defense (criminal case) or claim (civil) which relies on the allegation of a written record, presumably a public record. 
 
Nailing a poster to a telephone poll would not ordinarily be regarded as a public record despite being a “record” and displayed in “public.” Some authorized agency would need to review and approve it as being in conformity with statutory requirements for entering it into the public record.
 
Versions of these concepts are found in appellate law where the appellate court is limited to looking at the record in appeal and not on allegations contained in the brief that are unsupported by the record on appeal. Some doctrines allow a very limited amount of time to correct the record or to show how the matter is literally a matter of record and hopefully, public record. 
 
These particular doctrines related to allegations that claim something is in the record but in fact is absent from the record, as displayed.
 
Theoretically these concepts could be used in the context of foreclosure actions where, for example, banks or their lawyers upload some version of the PSA and then point to that record as being facially valid because it was “recorded.” But uploading it to a site that can be seen is not the same as formal registration of the document; and formal registration of the document does not mean it is complete unless it is reviewed and formally accepted by the government agency with whom the document is “registered.”
 
So for example a county clerk would reject a deed that does not have a signature, notarization or the proper number of witnesses. At SEC.gov there is no such review and thus no rejection or formal acceptance of improper documentation. While the document is scire facias (i.e., it has writing on its face)  it isn’t “of record.” This is why the PSA should never be used for judicial notice. Sec.gov is basically used by foreclosure mill lawyers as a an ftp site on which documents are stored rather than registered or reviewed for facial validity. But they use it to mislead the court into believing that the document is a public record document, when it clearly is not.
*
Such documents are definitely in the public domain when they are written and displayed publicly. But they are not appropriate for judicial notice because they have neither been reviewed or accepted by any authorized governmental entity or agency. 
Perhaps an extension of these doctrines could apply to assignments of mortgages and endorsements of notes that contain amorphous or implied reference to public records that do not exist. For example, Ocwen signing as Attorney in Fact asserts or implies that Ocwen is the attorney in fact. 
 
Being attorney in fact necessarily implies a power of attorney executed by a party who possessed powers to convey. Such powers generally need to be in writing. Such an assertion then would be reference to a document that is neither attached to the original document nor specifically described as part of public record. Thus the document would be claiming Scire Facias (it is written on the face) without describing the document upon which it is written. 
 
It also might imply that the power of attorney is public record. If a homeowner challenges the document as not being in the public record at all and not being attached to the instrument, the court should refuse to accept facial validity of the instrument. But the validity of the document can still be proven with extrinsic (parole) evidence showing that the power of attorney actually existed even though it wasn’t in the public record and wasn’t attached the assignment. 
And without timely objection the instrument could be accepted into evidence even with obvious defects.
%d bloggers like this: