Some Florida Statutes That May Have Been Violated by the Banks

Editor’s Note: These are not all the statutes that apply, but Rob Harrington has gone to the trouble of compiling the statutes that probably do apply to most mortgages in cases where they are subject to claims of transfer of ownership and securitization into an asset pool. This is worth keeping on hand:

Rob Harrington
8:33am Jul 20
Have any of these Florida laws been violated? PROVE IT!! There may also possibly exist other crimes as alleged to be
committed by the banks and their support service personnel against
the citizens and property owners throughout Florida:

817.02Obtaining property by false personation.

817.025Home or private business invasion by false personation; penalties.

817.03Making false statement to obtain property or credit.

817.031Making false statements; venue of prosecution.

817.06Misleading advertisements prohibited; penalty.

817.061Misleading solicitation of payments prohibited.

817.11Obtaining property by fraudulent promise to furnish inside information.

817.15Making false entries, etc., on books of corporation.

817.155Matters within jurisdiction of Department of State; false, fictitious, or fraudulent acts, statements, and representations prohibited; penalty; statute of limitations.

817.16False reports, etc., by officers of banks, trust companies, etc., with intent to defraud.

817.19Fraudulent issue of certificate of stock of corporation.

817.21Books to be evidence in such cases.

817.22Making false invoice to defraud insurer.

817.23Making false affidavit to defraud insurer.

817.2341False or misleading statements or supporting documents; penalty.

817.29Cheating.

817.34False entries and statements by investment companies offering stock or security for sale.

817.39Simulated forms of court or legal process, or official seal or stationery; publication, sale or circulation unlawful; penalty.

817.40False, misleading and deceptive advertising and sales; definitions.

817.41Misleading advertising prohibited.

817.411False information; advertising.

817.44Intentional false advertising prohibited.

817.45Penalty.

817.54Obtaining of mortgage, mortgage note, promissory note, etc., by false representation.

817.545Mortgage fraud.

817.562Fraud involving a security interest.

817.568Criminal use of personal identification information.

817.5681Breach of security concerning confidential personal information in third-party possession; administrative penalties.

817.569Criminal use of a public record or public records information; penalties.

12 Responses

  1. I know I,m a victim.We need to do what Iceland did period.

  2. Thats not news!.      Come on. Nobody is going to prosecute The political and legal system is shot in this country.

  3. 817.570 Taking over a blog to rant incessant, poisonous diatribes.

    815.571 Believing that anyone gives a shit what stripes has to say.

    815.572 Ad nauseam, ad nauseam, ad nauseam.

  4. And that is why no meaningful rulings in the lower courts. You get smacked down over and over. I say this- keep getting up folks.

  5. ALL OF THE ABOVE NEIL…give me a break.

    AND…

    They won’t give you the opportunity to get to the discovery to SHOW the “proof”—how can you prove something if they won’t let you open the books??? It’s impossible.

    By not allowing discovery of accounting records and saying they don’t care if the real creditor is named or not (which they don’t), the judges are allowing the debt collectors of UNSECURED DEBT to continue with the fraudulent foreclosures, and simply not ALLOWING anyone to show WHY it is all unsecured debt…and complete FRAUD from start to finish.
    The judges know it and don’t care, because of their pensions. Period.

    “…Fannie and Freddie—-G­SEs—-could not just sell the Note—on performing loans—- this would be securities fraud to the GSE security investors. The Note (and it’s receivable stream) HAD to be falsely placed in default—and charged-of­f (after de-regulation, 1999-2000) in order to sell the “Note”—- but, when this happens the Note NO LONGER EXISTS—thu­s, all that is sold is collection rights to a once existing note.

    Security investors fund the BANK—not the borrowers—­there is no direct relationsh­ip between security investors and borrowers. If banks are able to sell their income stream, that is an accounting transactio­n—it is not a “loan” to borrowers. This is why security investors are NEVER the creditor.

    Collection rights transfers are not funded by borrower transactio­ns (ie fabricated refinance)­. “Collection rights” are transferre­d by “assignment­”—not NOTES (which is why the “NOTES” are FAKE, and all the paperwork is fraudulent and fabricated). When some people here talk about Non-Deposi­t “trust” non-member­s—they are referring to derivative transactio­ns—that “SWAP” out collection rights—alt­hough the credit enhancers pay cash for collection rights—the­y use insurance for the purchase of the rights.

    This is why the subprime was so profitable­—the bank debt buyers put up no cash for the transactio­n—but, were then able to profit by the “sale” of the receivable pass-throu­ghs to security investors.­. This is also why MBIA (insurance co.) legal action against BOA and others is hugely important…­”

  6. Eighth Circuit holds borrowers must file suit within TILA three-year rescission period

    BuckleySandler LLP
    USA
    July 15 2013

    On July 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a borrower seeking rescission under TILA must file suit within three years, and that merely providing the lender notice is insufficient to preserve the borrower’s right of rescission. Keiran v. Home Capital, Inc., No. 11-3878 (8th Cir. Jul. 12, 2013). As the Tenth Circuit did last year, the Eighth Circuit reasoned that the text of the statute, as explicated by the Supreme Court in Beach v. Ocwen Federal Bank, 523 U.S. 410 (1998), establishes that filing suit is required. Also like the Tenth Circuit, the court expressly rejected the CFPB’s argument that the lender, rather than the obligor, should be required to file suit to prevent rescission. To adopt the CFPB’s position, the court explained, “would create a situation wherein rescission is complete, in effect, simply upon notice from the borrower, whether or not the borrower had a valid basis for such a remedy. Under this scenario, the bank’s security interest would be unilaterally impaired, casting a cloud on the property’s title, an approach envisioned and rejected by Beach.” The holding is the latest in a series of circuit court decisions on this issue, with the majority of circuits now holding in favor of the lender and rejecting the position that notice extends the three-year TILA rescission right. BuckleySandler LLP filed an amicus brief in Keiran on behalf of the American Bankers Association, Consumer Bankers Association, and Consumer Mortgage Coalition.

  7. since the uniformity is gone, I thought I would post this RE: ToLLe and our discussion of Mr. Bill Butler. The status quo will not go quietly. Too much invested….

    Coalition Seeks to Protect Judicial Elections in Minnesota
    Fearful that Minnesota judicial elections may descend into the politicized battles that plague many of its neighbors, a coalition seeks to enact significant election reforms in the state, according to a MinnPost article. Currently, more than 90 percent of Minnesota judges reach the bench through merit selection, which Sherri Knuth, public policy manager at the League of Women Voters of Minnesota, claims probably has protected usfrom some of the abuses of other states. The Coalition for Impartial Justice, a group of more than 30 organizations across the state, is pushing for judicial reforms that will protect Minnesotas races from special interests. The coalition has proposed the Impartial Justice Act, which would require all new judges to be chosen through merit selection, and then maintain their seats through retention elections. Representative Debra Hilstrom, DFL-Brooklyn Center, chairwoman of the House Judiciary Committee, has already expressed apprehension regarding the bill, stating, I am not a fan of retention elections in its current formI think that there are things we can do in our state to make certain that we dont have big money influencing our judicial system. The coalition hopes to bring the act to a vote in the 2014 election.
    Sources: James Nord, Recent legal, political changes could endanger Minnesotas highly regarded judicial selection system, MinnPost, July 18, 2013; Coalition for Impartial Justice, Impartial Justice Act, 2013.

  8. All of the states have similar laws which have all been breached and broken. Do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure it out.

  9. Why keep following rules and laws ???

  10. Breach of fiduciary trust.

  11. Some, come on Neil all of them!

  12. these laws are not enforced and are therefore JOKES on the lower classes who obey them

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

%d bloggers like this: