Edstrom, Macklin and Marshall Tonight on the Neil Garfield Show 6pm EDT.

Click in to tune in at The Neil Garfield Show

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

More than 24,000 people listen to the Neil Garfield Show. Maybe you should too.
===============================
Senior forensic analyst for LivingLies, Dan Edstrom together with Jim Macklin and California Attorney Charles Marshall join me as guests tonight on the Neil Garfield show. They have been aggressively investigating the farce behind the force of the banks. They will preview their upcoming workshop which I strongly endorse. Listen live or later. To listen later, click on the link above.
Despite media articles to the contrary the number of foreclosures is still sky rocketing in many parts of the country. And nobody wants to talk about the truth behind this deadly virus. It is all based upon a cover-up. The money deals were made in one room while the paper deals were fabricated in another room. Edstrom, Macklin and Marshall have been pursuing the real facts against enormous resistance by the banks. If they really had legitimate deals with legitimate creditors, why wouldn’t they just show it? That is why we need people to keep doing workshops and why the public should support it. Eventually, thanks to people like Dan, Jim and Charles everyone will know everything.

27 Responses

  1. New Jersey “Free House” gets REVERSED by District Judge

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

    SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, and THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, as Trustee for the Certificate-holders of the CWABS, Inc., Asset-backed Certificates, Series 2007-5,
    Appellants,
    v.
    GORDON ALLEN WASHINGTON,
    Appellee.

    Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-8063-SDW

    OPINION
    August 11, 2015

    WIGENTON, District Judge.
    T
    his matter comes before this Court on appeal by Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, (“SLS”) and the Bank of New York Mellon (collectively, “Appellants” or “Creditors” or “Defendants”) from a Summary Judgment Motion decided in favor of Gordon A. Washington (“Appellee” or “Debtor”) before the Bankruptcy Court.
    This Court has jurisdiction over the appeal of the Bankruptcy Court decision under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).1 On June 23, 2015, this Court heard oral argument in this matter.
    For the reasons herein, the decision of the Bankruptcy Court is REVERSED.

    Judge says in her Decision > “Deeming the mortgage collection claim as time-barred would be inequitable. It would be contrary to public policy by depriving Lenders of any remedy for Homeowners default.

    http://www.njlawblog.com/files/2015/08/District-Opnion.pdf

  2. Corrupt NJ District Court Judge Susan D. Wigenton, U.S.D.J., showed her disdain and biased feelings towards foreclosure homeowners who .attempt to apply equal protection of the laws while defending against the banks. She REVERSED the Federal Bankruptcy Judge who had ruled that the bank ran the 6 year statute of limitations out, and that the homeowner successfully argued the debt was unsecured and under the protection of Bankruptcy laws.

    Wells Fargo appealed the decision and this is why it ended up in the District Court of NJ .. who has jurisdiction over federal Bankruptcy cases pertaining to New Jersey.

    Normal State Superior Court cases of foreclosure end up going to the State Appellate Division. The Appellate Division has shown some small signs of being in favor of homeowners in foreclosure relating to the banks faulty documents, etc. in a few cases.

    This District Court Judge is the wife of a dirty attorney who faced charges pertaining to his unethical behavior in the real estate area, where he acted as realtor and attorney for his victims, and spent monies that were not his , floating it and using it unbeknownst to his homeowner victims. Yes, this is the corrupt husband of the corrupt District Court Judge who REVERSED in favor of Wells Fargo, giving the house back to the criminal bank while she slammed homeowners in her decision as “those looking for ways to escape paying and hiding behind a statute of limitation argument” ..

    About this District Court Judges husband below, (who was allowed to prevail and walk away without even a slap on the wrist, because the NJ State Supreme Court looks out for their own, and they would not agree to dis-bar him or even sanction him for his conduct, because he was married to a District Court Judge).

    In the Matter of Kevin P. Wigenton, an Attorney at Law (D-131-10) (068659)

    Argued November 30, 2011 — Decided April 3, 2012

    This attorney disciplinary matter concerns Kevin P. Wigenton of Red Bank, who was admitted to the practice of law in New Jersey in 1992. The Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) charged Wigenton with multiple instances of knowing misappropriation of client trust funds and escrow funds, and with acting with a conflict of interest by representing the seller while serving as a real estate broker in the same real estate transaction. The charges against respondent were brought after the OAE conducted an initial random compliance audit and then a second audit in the latter part of 2002. They were not the result of grievances by clients or other parties to transactions handled by Wigenton. Wigenton had practiced as a sole practitioner beginning in 1996. Prior to that time, he had worked for the corporation that had employed him full time while he attended law school. He had never worked in a law practice under the supervision of other attorneys.

    The ethics charges against Wigenton were presented by the OAE to a Special Ethics Master, who developed an extensive record. The Special Master found that respondent did not knowingly misappropriate either trust or escrow funds, but rather, that he had negligently misappropriated the funds through concededly “terrible” recordkeeping practices that led respondent to the reasonable, but mistaken, belief that he was entitled to the funds at issue. The Special Master found that Wigenton’s negligent misappropriation was not a matter of willful ignorance designed to camouflage a more serious intent to take funds to which he was not entitled. The Special Master found that in addition to negligently misappropriating funds, respondent had committed recordkeeping violations and had acted with a conflict of interest in the real estate matter. The Special Master recommended to the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) that Wigenton be suspended from practice for a period of four months for his unethical conduct.

    After an exhaustive review of the record, the DRB agreed with the Special Master that Wigenton had negligently misappropriated client trust and escrow funds and had failed to safeguard funds, in violation of RPC 1.15(a); had failed to comply with attorney recordkeeping requirements; and had committed a conflict of interest contrary to the direction in Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion 514, 11 N.J.L.J. 392 (Apr. 14, 1983) and in violation of RPC 1.7(b). The DRB concluded that because of mitigating factors present in the record, Wigenton should be censured rather than suspended from practice.

    The OAE filed a petition for review of the decision of the DRB, urging that Wigenton be disbarred. The Court granted the petition for review and issued an Order directing Wigenton to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined.

    HELD: Kevin P. Wigenton failed to safeguard and negligently misappropriated escrow and client trust funds, violated attorney recordkeeping rules, and acted with a conflict of interest. For his unethical conduct, he is censured.

    1. The Court agrees completely with the conclusion of the DRB that the proofs in the record demonstrate negligent, but not knowing, misappropriation of funds by respondent. In their thorough and detailed reviews of the evidence, both the Special Master and the DRB concluded that respondent reasonably believed he was entitled to the funds. Respondent displayed at worst a woeful lack of knowledge of the actual status of his accounts when he disbursed legal fees and costs to himself. The DRB found his recordkeeping grossly deficient, but this was not a situation in which respondent was intentionally ignorant and had a nefarious intent. Moreover, no client or other person was harmed. (pp.4-5).

    2. The Court also agrees with the DRB that a censure is the appropriate quantum of discipline for respondent s unethical conduct, considering both the mitigating and aggravating factors present in the record. Among the aggravating are respondent s failure to understand his ethical obligations and his total lack of knowledge or use of basic attorney recordkeeping procedures despite his accounting background. The more numerous mitigating factors include the facts that respondent was contrite and cooperative, immediately retained appropriate business professionals to assist him in his practice, discontinued improper business procedures, instituted all required recordkeeping measures, and took an ethics course in trust accounting. Also, despite respondent s recordkeeping deficiencies, during the period covered by the audit, his trust account never was overdrawn, no clients or third parties were harmed, and all other aspects of his transactions took place properly. Finally, the significant amount of time that passed during the proceedings since irregularities were discovered in the first audit in 2002 is one of the most persuasive mitigating factors. (pp. 6-9).

    3. In addition to supporting the reasoning of the DRB for imposition of a censure, the Court emphasizes the purpose of attorney discipline: protection of the public and preservation of public confidence in the bar. Those interests are served by a censure of respondent, who was forthright about his errant recordkeeping practices, cooperated in the ethics proceedings, took educational courses, and who has had no further problems in the past ten years. (pp. 9-11).

    The ethical violations found by the DRB are AFFIRMED and Kevin P. Wigenton is CENSURED.

    JUDGE WEFING (temporarily assigned) filed a separate, DISSENTING opinion. Judge Wefing is of the view that a short period of suspension is called for to preserve public confidence in the bar. Judge Wefing does not see respondent s corrective measures, the fortuity that no client was harmed, or the protracted nature of the disciplinary proceedings, singly or in combination, as mitigating the quantum of discipline required.

    CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, HOENS and PATTERSON join in the Court s Opinion. JUDGE WEFING, temporarily assigned, filed a separate, dissenting Opinion.

    SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

    *** This one Judge below DISSENTED and disagreed that he should be let off the hook so easily … read her opinion below ..

    Judge Wefing (temporarily assigned), dissenting.

    I write separately because I am unable to join my colleagues conclusion that a censure is the appropriate measure of discipline for respondent. In support of their conclusion, my colleagues cite, among other reasons, the corrective measures respondent has taken, the fact that no client suffered harm, and the length of time it has taken to resolve these proceedings. I do not find these factors persuasive, either singly or in combination.

    As to the corrective measures taken by respondent, many are elemental steps that respondent should have assured himself were in place from the first day he opened his practice. It is inexplicable that one with the accounting and business background of respondent would fail to institute such measures.

    That no client suffered a loss as a result of respondent s failure to follow elemental principles of recordkeeping is a matter of great fortune, both for respondent s clients and for respondent. In my judgment, such sheer fortuity does not mitigate the quantum of discipline for respondent s recordkeeping infractions.

    Nor can I consider the passage of time a sufficient mitigating factor. My colleagues cite two cases for that principle: In re Alum, 162 N.J. 313 (2000), and In re Pena, 162 N.J. 15 (1999). In my judgment, the manner in which this Court referred to the passage of time in those cases is significantly distinguishable from the present matter. In those cases, the Court dealt with disciplinary charges that had been filed many years after the unethical attorney conduct occurred; the passages of time were not attributable to protracted disciplinary proceedings. In Pena, supra, the conduct at issue took place seven years before a grievance was filed, 162 N.J. at 20, and in Alum, supra, the conduct occurred eleven years earlier. 162 N.J. at 316. In neither case did we find that the length of time needed to conclude the disciplinary matter could serve as mitigation. In Alum, moreover, although we accounted for that eleven-year time span, it did not serve to step down entirely the quantum of discipline. Rather, the Court ordered that the respondent be suspended for one year but then suspended that suspension and placed respondent on probation for that period of time, conditioned on the requirement that respondent perform legal services of a community nature consisting of the equivalent of one day per week. Id. at 316.

    In my judgment, the nature of the recordkeeping infractions at issue in this matter mandates a short period of suspension for respondent in order to preserve public confidence in the bar. Thus, I must dissent.

  3. We, as a class of people, need to invoke “Equal Protection”. The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws.”

    The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, and inspired the well-known phrase “Equal Justice Under Law”. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that helped to dismantle racial segregation, and also the basis for many other decisions rejecting discrimination against people belonging to various groups.

    The Equal Protection Clause itself applies only to state governments. However, the Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) that equal protection requirements apply to the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

    The Equal Protection Clause is located at the end of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment: ……….. stating >>>>
    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.

    By its terms, the clause restrains only state governments. However, the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee, beginning with Bolling v. Sharpe (1954), has been interpreted as imposing some of the same restrictions on the federal government: “Though the Fifth Amendment does not contain an equal protection clause, as does the Fourteenth Amendment which applies only to the States, the concepts of equal protection and due process are not mutually exclusive.”[41] In Lawrence v. Texas the Supreme Court added: “Equality of treatment and the due process right to demand respect for conduct protected by the substantive guarantee of liberty are linked in important respects, and a decision on the latter point advances both interests” [42] Some scholars have argued that the Court’s decision in Bolling should have been reached on other grounds. For example, Michael W. McConnell has written that Congress never “required that the schools of the District of Columbia be segregated.”[43] According to that rationale, the segregation of schools in Washington D.C. was unauthorized and therefore illegal.

    Despite the undoubted importance of Brown, much of modern equal protection jurisprudence originated in other cases, though not everyone agrees about which other cases. Some scholars assert that the opinion of Justice Harlan Stone in United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938)[44] contained a footnote that was a critical turning point for equal protection jurisprudence,[45] but that assertion is disputed.[46]

    Whatever its precise origins, the basic idea of the modern approach is that more judicial scrutiny is triggered by purported discrimination that involves “fundamental rights” (such as the right to procreation or in our case the right to our property), and similarly more judicial scrutiny is also triggered if the purported victim of discrimination has been targeted because he or she belongs to a “suspect classification” (such as a single racial group, or in our case, we are a targeted group that is falsely labeled Deadbeats and therefore denied Due Process). This modern doctrine was pioneered in Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942), which involved depriving certain criminals of the fundamental right to procreate. The underlying purpose is that the law and justice system cannot deny certain groups or classes of people equal protection. In the case of foreclosure victims, it is painfully clear that we are being denied due process and equal protection due to our “class” of being known and promoted as “deadbeats who missed their payments”. This is besides the point, missing payments, if the due process and equal protection of the law was applied to our “class” of scorned families.

    If the laws were enforced equally and properly ..then we would not have ended up with a meaningless national settlement which allows for the criminal conduct to continue onward against our “class” of scorned families. Criminal conduct of the banks would be addressed in a fair and equal application, so that foreclosure victims would be afforded their due process. The justice department would have completed their criminal investigation and courts should have been made to accept and acknowledge that the criminal conduct involved makes certain loans and mortgages illegal and/or unsecured.

    The end-game promoted by this current administration was to take the billions of dollars in settlement money , and to turn a blind eye to the crime being carried thru to its illegal foreclosure ending. The courts are playing along and perpetuating the completion of the crime.

    This argument needs to be brought before the Supreme Court, ASAP

  4. I’m not up on my Constitutional Rights Laws …but if anyone is, maybe they can tell us how the “Equal Protection” plays into how we as a class of people, who are scorned by society and berated by judges as falsely being deadbeats ..that we somehow deserve to be denied the Equal protection of the law. Now it is widely acknowledged and accepted that the mortgage meltdown Ponzi scheme was a criminal enterprise that most individuals have a hard time understanding, even when given the facts of the layers of concealment involved. Ted Cruz was interviewed and asked about gay marriage, his response was “states rights” to let the people decide by voting and democracy … Well the CNN host Chris Cuomo didn’t agree and argued that gay people are a group that is protected by the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution … Well then my question is ..how can we foreclosure victims promote that we are a class of victims who society and law enforcement has failed ..they have failed to protect us from an on-going criminal enterprise because it is considered “inconvienant” to the rest of society …you see, the rest of society that is not in foreclosure has no sympathy for our plight, so we are denied equal protection …our Constitutional Rights are being denied. This is the same argument made for all of the liberal agenda issues …yet when it comes to bank crimes, then society and the justice system has decided that in that case the criminals should prevail?

    We need Neil Garfield to invite a Constitutional lawyer on his show and discuss the filing of a lawsuit on behalf of all those foreclosure victims who are being treated unfairly by the justice system ..we are a class of people who are being persecuted and denied equal protection.

  5. Just recently the District court of NJ heard the appeal from the Wells Fargo bank lawyers who had lost a 650,000 house in a bankruptcy case. The NJ borrower had won the “Free House” by arguing that the 6 year statute of limitation had run out and time-barred the bank, the Federal Bankruptcy judge agreed and awarded the house to the borrower.. So now Wells Fargo appealed and it went in front of a very biased, anti homeowner judge who REVERSED the Federal Bankruptcy judge and gave the house back to Wells Fargo. This female judge is married to an attorney who was caught acting as a real estate realtor while acting as the attorney in the same transactions ..money diverted ..misapplied..floated from special accounts , etc.. The NJ office of attorney ethics fought to have him dis-barred ..the system wanted him sanctioned …the state supreme court and chief justice allowed him to walk without a slap on the wrist because his wife is the District Court of NJ judge ..and she just wrote in her decision how these homeowners should not be allowed to escape paying their mortgages just because of a loophole in the 6 year statute of limitations .. Nasty mean corrupt judges taking our homes away …corrupt as the day is long.

  6. Many a homeowners have lost everything due to incompetent lawyers. Never blindly sell your soul to a lawyer ..smart people try to educate themselves on the law and the issues in their case, and if they do hire a lawyer they need to keep a close eye on them as Greg says. SC needs to stop misleading people on this message board ..the sad truth is that there are very few lawyers with the ability or desire to fight this fight.

  7. SC
    A Smart person recognizes the lack of skills OF THEIR attorney… and reins them in when they try to do a crap settlement for you in order to escape their duty and just take the money and run…

  8. A Smart person recognizes the lack of skills and calls their attorney.

    Can you imagine an attorney in a kindergarten classroom?

    What’s for dinner?

  9. Shadowcat …like so many of the judges …misinterprets the meaning of the words … It’s easy to see why SC is incapble of acting as a Pro se

  10. Greg… You should be getting a call soon.

  11. Click on homepage to see article.

  12. SC

    you are a local Chicago girl so you remember Frazier Thomas & the Goose…

    yes – a play on that i couldn’t resist

    however, the call is real and set up to launch next Thursday
    hopefully useful…
    g

  13. Dwight…you missed his point.

    But I enjoyed the Laugh…

    Without Recourse
    Void where prohibited by law.

  14. (re-post of Greg’s post from other thread …)

    greg, on September 18, 2015 at 6:46 pm said:

    please pass this along quickly in case it gets deleted….

    Description: Follow up Q&A call to our friend Neil Garfield’s Thursday night call… where fans and those in need of clarification might find friends and sympathetic souls…

    (every Thursday night after Neil)
    EPISODE1 – Garfield’s Goose & Friends
    09/24/2015 06:45 PM EDT 60 min

    First 5 questions posted ON CHAT BOARD get heard – 10 min each – IN ORDER – Call In’s limited to answers or similar situations – The Call Run like a Roman Centurion – at least to start with – lol

    Hosted by: Greg
    Phone Number: (724) 444-7444
    Call ID: 139335

    http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/139335
    “http://www.talkshoe.com/custom/images/icons/TC-139335-MainIcon.jpg”

  15. I believe it was Greg who posted the article about deeds being recorded outside the local offices where the property is located and referred to state recording laws..

    Do you recall me demanding them to produce those “missing” deeds?

  16. The 2nd lawfirm withdrew..
    The 3rd lawfirm appeared for a party….a trust.
    Then filed a want of knowledge affidavit.

    NO TRUST?

    Line your ducks up in a row and nail their lil peckers down before they change positions. 😂

  17. What they did to me was the same crap they pulled on the spouses of those in RMs.

  18. Deb. . I will not go there with you. I have confirmed he knows people that know people I know who actually seek to prosecute them.
    My then Attorney is now a Federal Prosecutor .
    Not every case is handled the same ….
    Does not make it any less winnable.

    And yes … Its in the stipulations.

  19. And while im on SC Bob does suk yep definitely.

  20. Hope you objected SC

  21. And as such…the Judge allows plaintiff attorney to withdrawal with stipulations.

  22. Accountability for ones actions and inactions.

  23. The PEARL i just listened
    Neil citing Eric Holder exit speech
    ” sue the individuals that work for the banks”

  24. dog-gonnit Neil

    i call in 15 minutes early every week and press 1 to be first in the que to perhaps get a question in… and you just roll to the end without a care…

    please consider extending your call to 45 minutes and actually give us a chance to ask the experts! what would it cost you? dinner can be kept warm in the oven…

    thanks
    greg-chicago

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: