Rescission Precision Goes to U.S. Supreme Court Petition for Mandamus

10 years ago, seeing where the foreclosure wave was going and watching court cases, I said on these pages that the only solution to these foreclosures is Mandamus. First to stop judges from applying legal PRESUMPTIONS and second to stop judges from ignoring TILA rescission. Now someone has done it and others might follow suit, if you pardon the pun. Lawyers were not well versed in mandamus and pro se litigants had never heard of it. So for the most part everyone has been screaming and yelling about injustice, fabrication, forgery and perjury.

Ironically it is Dan Junk, pro se, who has done the best legal writing on the issue of TILA Rescission and has chosen, in my opinion, the best route to getting the Supreme Court to issue an order prohibiting judges from disregarding TILA Rescission and requiring judges to follow the law in 15 U.S.C. §1635. The irony is doubled because of Dan’s last name (Junk) and the fact that the securitization scheme arose partly out of the junk bond craze 30 years ago. Except of course that back then Wall Street pirates WERE sent to prison.

SCOTUS has the option of taking any case they want to review. They did take the Jesinoski v Countrywide case from which this Petition for Mandamus arises. And once they take it for review, they can still deny the writ leaving decisions on rescissions in limbo and creating case precedent where Judges have the option of disregarding the law as written in a statute in virtually any kind of case.

This one was filed, as I understand it, last Friday. It may or may not be considered timely. The reason I am publishing the Petition for the Writ of Mandamus is  that it attacks exactly on point what is happening in the courts — namely, “denying” the existence and effect of TILA rescission even after it has taken effect as a nonjudicial remedy.

NEED HELP PREPARING FOR FORECLOSURE DEFENSE? We can help you and your attorney with drafting Motions, Discovery and Compelling Responses to Discovery Requests with Our Paralegal Team that works directly with Neil Garfield! We provide services directly to attorneys and to pro se litigants.

Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or info@lendinglies.com.

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT,

OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!

https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1502204714426

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

—————-

see

Junk SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Mandamus on TILA RESCISSION

Hiding in Plain Sight_ Jesinoski and the Consumer_s Right of Resc

Jesinoski decision

Dan Junk attended one of my first seminars back in the days when I was co-presenting with Brad Keiser. In litigation for around 9 years, he has followed this blog (and many others) and fought off the “inevitable” foreclosure as long as he could in Ohio. Besides clear evidence of substantive defenses Dan had sent a notice of rescission within the 3 years stated in the TILA Rescission statute.

Like thousands of judges across the country in State and Federal courts, the timely and effective rescission was ignored simply because the judges didn’t like the result. The ultimate decision was against him because the courts continue to allow legal presumptions to apply even though they create “alternate facts” in conflict with reality.

Blind justice supposedly requires courts to apply the law, as written by the Federal and State legislatures. The answer for Dan was not in some attempted appeal but rather to seek a sweeping ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States that specifically requires all judges, whoever situated, to follow the TILA Rescission law. There is adequate evidence to show that this is of great public importance inasmuch as virtually all judges are committing the same “error” to wit: not taking TILA rescission literally or seriously.

We’ll see what happens. But in the meanwhile do give a careful read of the Brief Dan filed. This could be a moment where everything changes.

11 Responses

  1. FYI – Keiran’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari at SCOTUS has been denied. The various documents filed at SCOTUS can be viewed at this link by searching the case number: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx

    Keiran’s case number is 17-672.

    Also, Junk’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus has been denied. Junk’s case number is 17-929.

    Like

  2. When are we expecting a decision by the Supreme Court in the Daniel Junk Case? 2 months? 6 months? Anytime?

    Like

  3. Keiran vs HomeCapital has a much better chance of prevailing on Mandamus. It is up to the court whether or not they want to send cases back with Instructions,and this case was in the pipeline long before junk. Interesting approach I will concede.

    Like

  4. I scanned the brief. It seems well-written and is done in the type of font and presentation required by the SCOTUS.

    I don’t believe for a minute that it was done by a layperson (perhaps the Junks have legal training or a ghost-writing attorney).

    I’d be interested in seeing the Respondent’s brief.

    Like

  5. Praying that justice will prevail for the Junks and so many others that have been also victimized by “the machine!”

    Happy New Year Neil and everybody else!!!

    Keep Fighting!!!

    Like

  6. Most Excellent…I am hoping you are successful. These State judges are destroying the rule of law.

    Like

  7. Hope it works.

    Like

  8. Our house was foreclosed illegally with affidavits and not producing original note. Could we get our house back?

    Like

  9. This was very helpful. I was unaware of mandamus and it fits my case perfectly. I have been unable and very frustrated to get a court, any court to rule on whether or not the loan modification docs are valid contracts and hence if foreclosures, using those docs, are valid. The courts have just squirreled around the questions and refused to answer. This is very clear in the Informal Brief filed in the 4th circuit 17-1524.

    I have a 90 day deadline in early Jan that I simply cannot meet. Many efforts to get support to take the case to the US Supreme Court have gone unfulfilled.
    And II just cannot do it at this time
    Mandamus has a 6 year statute of limitations. So it might allow me to file later in 2018….

    I don’t know…..but it’s a thought

    Like

  10. […] via Rescission Precision Goes to U.S. Supreme Court Petition for Mandamus — Livinglies’s Weblog […]

    Like

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: