The Neil Garfield Show LIVE at 6 PM Eastern with CA Attorney Charles Marshall: Window into the Life-Cycle of a Lawsuit

The JPMorgan Paper Chase Live at 6 pm

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

This episode discusses strategic planning of a lawsuit campaign, which is somewhat similar whether on the Plaintiff or Defendant side with strategic litigation planning, to encompass following elements:

– pre-foreclosure negotiation and settlement demands;

– filing of lawsuit;

– demurrers/mtd;

– discovery;

– motions for summary judgment;

– pre-trial prep and motions;

– trial;

– appeals;

– post appeal judgment options


California-licensed attorney Charles T. Marshall (CA Bar # 176091) earned his Juris Doctorate in 1992 from the University of San Diego School of Law. His practice includes Foreclosure Relief, Civil Litigation, Bankruptcy, Immigration, Estate Planning and all facets of Personal Financial Management.

Charles Marshall can be contacted at:

Charles Marshall, Esq.
Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall
415 Laurel St., #405
San Diego, CA 92101

Livinglies Review and Report

People keep asking about what is in the Review and Report I do. I don’t promote it very much because of the amount of work it entails. The goal is to provide the attorney or client with a good starting point for developing the internal and external narrative of the case. Without having such a narrative it is impossible to have a coherent plan for discovery, motions and trial. It is hard to say what will be in any individual report because they are not templates and they all start from scratch. I review every single document that is submitted and I frequently ask for more. I don’t farm out the work because when I notice something that could be useful I go down that path in my research.

But for the sake of example, you will find below the table of contents from my latest R&R. I think it is a good start on the trial notebook. The length of the report, as you can see is around 20 pages, more or less. The price varies from $2500-$7500 depending upon complexity. Most pro se litigants will only have a vague idea of how to use this “book” on their case. Most trial attorneys will instantly see its value for them.

If you want such a review and report, you can call our main number at 202-838-6345. It is a good idea to book a consult before you order the R&R. 30 minutes should suffice. This R&R frequently serves as the basis for my expert testimony on securitization of debt, banking practices and real property transactions. In order to quote you a price for your case, it is like a moving company — I must do an inventory of all your document submissions and calculate the amount of time it will take to review, analyze, make notes and render a report.  To do that you must upload all your documents to our FTP site. The better you are at labeling each document before uploading it the easier it will be to assess the work required.

Forgive the formatting errors when I pasted the TOC from an actual report:


PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW……………………………..4 – 5

Discovery and Litigation Guidance……………………4



SUMMARIES – CASE SPECIFIC……………………………………………………5 – 8


Credit Bid…………………………………………………..5

Discussion And Conclusions…………………………….5 – 9


Default………………………………………………………9 – 10

III. DOCUMENTS – ANALYTICAL SUMMARIES……………………………………………….10 – 21

Substitution Of Trustee………………………………………………………10

Neutrality Of Trustee……………………………………..10

Servicer Advances………………………………………….10 – 11

Default, Collection And Enforcement…………………………………………………11

Substitute Trustee…………………………………………..11

Fannie Mae…………………………………………………..12

The Second Notice Of Hearing……………………………………………………….12

True Beneficiary Under Deed of Trust…………………………………………………………..12

Invalid Power Of Attorney…………………………………12 – 13

False Affidavit Of Default                                                                              dated xxxxxxxxx…………………………………………..13 – 14

Promissory Note                                                                                               Dated xxxxxxxxx ……………………………………..15 – 16

The Allonge…………………………………………………..16 – 17

Deed Of Trust                                                                                                       Filed xxxxxxxxxxxxx………………………………………17

Notice Of Sale                                                                                                     dated xxxxxxxxxxxxx………………………………………17 – 18

Seterus Letter And Attachment                                                              dated xxxxxxxxxxx Unsigned…………………………………………………….18

Corporate Assignment From Indymac To Fannie Mae…………………………………………………………..18 – 19

Corporate Assignment From Onewest(?) To Fannie Mae……………………………………………………………19

Assignment From Onewest To Ocwen Servicing…………………………………………………….19 – 20

Assignment From Ocwen To Fannie Mae……………………………………………………………20

Motion To Dismiss Filed By Ocwen………………………………………………………..20

Deposition Transcript……………………………………………………21

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Accused of Control Fraud through Stumpf and Other Corporate Insiders

see also

Republished by permission. Dan Edstrom is the senior forensic analyst of Livinglies.
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

October 19, 2016

The purpose of Sarbanes-Oxley legislation is to put in place financial controls in order to not only reduce fraud, but to identify risks so that the controls can be expanded or new controls put in place. Large companies such as Wells Fargo Bank have compliance departments and ethics lines where questionable conduct (unlawful or not) can be reported “safely” in order for the company to take action to stop and/or remediate the questionable conduct. This is done so that a business operates safely and soundly, and is the perfect source for implementing new controls, enhancing existing controls, testing the effectiveness of the controls, or at least disclosing material deficiencies that can be identified and corrected at a later date.

Risk Management would entail identifying the risk, and then prioritizing, such that the highest priority risks can be mitigated first.  Assuming that early on this conduct was identified, the risk could have been low, leaving it to be addressed at a future date. Its fair to say now that it appears this conduct was effectively suppressed from any risk management.

Based on current reporting, it would appear that the compliance and ethics lines were used against those who reported questionable conduct. This is the exact opposite of the purpose for which Sarbanes-Oxley legislation was imposed, and if true, represents the creation of non-reported internal controls that do the exact opposite of what the legislation imposes. The exact opposite because the controls are put in place to reduce fraud, and require that senior officers such as the CEO and CFO, provide an oath that they have established appropriate internal controls, and then certify that they “have evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s internal controls”. Presumably they would need to disclose information related to material deficiencies.

It is fairly obvious (now) that they had no controls to inhibit, detect or report these issues even though they presumably had actual knowledge of the conduct (or reports of the actual knowledge, which if investigated appropriately would have led to actual knowledge of the conduct).  This, if true, would seemingly mean that when these officers gave their oath, they were knowingly concealing material information that should have been disclosed (no internal controls to detect this activity, fraud, false accounting, and no controls put in place to make sure if this conduct was reported, that it would be appropriately investigated, etc.). They seemingly also knew that their controls were defective, insufficient, and that there were material exceptions that they were knowingly withholding from disclosure. And even worse, it appears they may have implemented “secret” controls, policies and procedures to specifically target and retaliate against those who actually did make an effort to report this “questionable” conduct (i.e. opening accounts for their customers without the customers request in order to receive bonuses, and then, presumably, closing these accounts). But these “secret” controls were not disclosed at all, nor mentioned as a material exception.

But who was the target of the fraud? The customer? No, although they were a victim. This was all targeted at the stockholders in order to falsely inflate their stock value through false and fabricated financial transactions that simulated the “flow” of money in order to give the appearance that money was moving and that fees were being generated.

According to Wikipedia from this URL:

According to the United States Treasury Department:

Money laundering is the process of making illegally-gained proceeds (i.e. “dirty money”) appear legal (i.e. “clean”). Typically, it involves three steps: placement, layering and integration. First, the illegitimate funds are furtively introduced into the legitimate financial system. Then, the money is moved around to create confusion, sometimes by wiring or transferring through numerous accounts. Finally, it is integrated into the financial system through additional transactions until the “dirty money” appears “clean.”[10]

This could have started out as bad acts by one or more employees opening these accounts to get paid extra money. Or it could have started out designed from the top as a complete scheme and artifice to defraud. But either way is now irrelevant. Once it was happening and once known at the highest levels, it became a standard and practice. If it wasn’t a control fraud early on, it became one when ethics and compliance officers, managers or employees failed to act (or worse, retaliated or allowed others to retaliate). The final nail in the coffin came when senior officers decided retaliation was appropriate instead of enhancing their internal controls, disclosure controls and reporting. Once they knew or should have known of the conduct, it became their business processes, whether they controlled it directly or not. Closing your eyes so as not to learn the truth is an affirmative act.

How does Sarbanes-Oxley work?  Here is a small sampling on Section 302: Disclosure Controls from Wikipedia, available at this URL:

Sarbanes–Oxley Section 302: Disclosure controls[edit]

Under Sarbanes–Oxley, two separate sections came into effect—one civil and the other criminal. 15 U.S.C. § 7241 (Section 302) (civil provision); 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (Section 906) (criminal provision).

Section 302 of the Act mandates a set of internal procedures designed to ensure accurate financial disclosure. The signing officers must certify that they are “responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls” and “have designed such internal controls to ensure that material information relating to the companyand its consolidated subsidiaries is made known to such officers by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which the periodic reports are being prepared.” 15 U.S.C. § 7241(a)(4). The officers must “have evaluated the effectiveness of the company‘s internal controls as of a date within 90 days prior to the report” and “have presented in the report their conclusions about the effectiveness of their internal controls based on their evaluation as of that date.” Id..

The SEC interpreted the intention of Sec. 302 in Final Rule 33–8124. In it, the SEC defines the new term “disclosure controls and procedures,” which are distinct from “internal controls overfinancial reporting.”[30] Under both Section 302 and Section 404, Congress directed the SEC to promulgate regulations enforcing these provisions.[31]

External auditors are required to issue an opinion on whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects by management. This is in addition to the financial statement opinion regarding the accuracy of the financial statements. The requirement to issue a third opinion regarding management’s assessment was removed in 2007.

A Lord & Benoit Report: Bridging the Sarbanes-Oxley Disclosure Control Gap was filed with the SEC Subcommittee n internal controls which reported that those companies with ineffective internal controls, the expected rate of full and accurate disclosure under Section 302 will range between 8 and 15 percent. A full 9 out of every 10 companies with ineffective Section 404 controls self reported effective 302 controls in the same period end that an adverse Section 404 was reported, 90% in accurate without a Section 404 audit.

Peaking Inside the Mind of a Trial Lawyer

Knowing that there was fraud, robo-signing, fabrication, forgery is not enough. The trial lawyer must know how to prevent admission of false facts into evidence and how the robo-witness testimony will be discredited.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345 to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
People often ask us to do a title and securitization report, as though that is going to be the golden keys to the kingdom. We tell them that a flat title report and a flat securitization report is not only incomplete it is misleading. For example, when documents are uploaded by an unidentified person to, many people respond by “Found it!!”
In truth all that has been found is the CLAIM that the loan was securitized and the CLAIM that a Trust exists and the CLAIM that the Trust actually acquired the loan. There is no restriction on what can be posted to Many a fraudulent foreclosure has been the result of a legal sleight of hand — uploading what appears to be trust documents even if they are unsigned and lacking the exhibits referred to in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. THEN they ask the court to take judicial notice or at least to presume that a copy of the document produced in the courtroom is an authentic, valid document giving the Trust the right to appoint servicers, agents etc.
Like everything else in 95% of all foreclosure proceedings, they are based upon self serving documents fabricated by undisclosed third parties who have nothing to do with the creation of the trust, the activities of the trust, the acquisition of loans or the foreclosure of mortgages that were never owned by the trust.

Title and securitization reports should neither be (a) a straight up report on title history (going back 2-3 owners) and securitization search and/or (b) analysis of the real story PLUS ways to undermine the foreclosure case and win the day. I have a track record of winning those cases and the method I used is the basis for all our work.


What lay people do not understand because they have no education and training to understand it, is that trial work is like brain surgery. The brain surgeon knows that genetics and bad life choices are what caused the patient to be in need of his services. He might even believe that companies should not be allowed to push the foods and medications on people that undermine health. But when he/she steps into the operating room, he/she has a much narrower scope — drilling and cutting into the scull to get to the part of the brain where he can perform effective repairs. All the rest doesn’t matter at that moment.


A trial lawyer prepares for trial from the moment he receives a case. A good trial lawyer develops two narratives — one is the internal narrative that he/she knows and will serve as the basis for making decisions and assumptions in discovery and at trial and the other is the external narrative which is the limited story and is directly related to the (a) the things he/she wants to block from evidence and (b) the things he/she wants in evidence. When he/she steps into the court room the internal narrative is good to know but is mostly irrelevant to the issues that will be heard at trial.


So for example, people say securitization is bad or illegal. Actually it is not and there is no reason why it should be. Diluting risk among many investors is the cornerstone of capitalism.


The internal narrative is that the way securitization was practiced in real life was wrong, illegal and probably criminal. The internal narrative is that the Trust was never funded and therefore could never have purchased any loans. These facts are known in the mind of the trial lawyer but he/she will make no attempt to prove them because the Court in all likelihood would not allow it. But KNOWING the internal narrative leads to conclusions about weaknesses in the case of the opposing attorney. If the Trust never acquired the loan, the Trust had no right to be appointing servicers, agents, etc. and the Trustee had no power or relationship to the loan in litigation. The internal narrative is also that the loan contract never existed.

The external narrative (the one used in court) is that there is insufficient evidence that the Trust owned the subject loan, and insufficient evidence that the so-called servicer had any right to service the loan.


Using the external narrative the trial lawyer attacks the inconsistencies between the testimony, the trust documents (paying special attention to the exhibits to the PSA which are frequently blank), and the attempt to hop over those defects by suddenly coming up with a Power of Attorney that STILL comes from the Trust (or a third party who was never in the alleged chain of documents proffered by the attorney for the foreclosing party).


The trial attorney attacks by using objections and cross examination to reveal the defects in the position of the party alleging it has the right to foreclose and in the position of the servicer who sends a representative of the servicer to court as a robo-witness who in truth knows nothing.


We help by preparing the best possible route for discovery strategy and preparation for trial.


For a long time we provided a flat report that was put into the hands of pro se litigants and lawyers who really were not trial lawyers and therefore did not have an adequate strategy for using the reports.  There are many vendors who produce a 2 dimensional report promoted as 3 dimensional. It is a flat report that tells the customer nothing about how to use the report and gives unfiltered opinions about potential defects in the foreclosure case.


We provide guidance as to what services should be ordered but we cannot provide legal advice unless it is (a) me on the phone and (b) a case pending in Florida. That is why we strongly recommend that when booking a consult, you have on the line an attorney who is licensed to practice in the jurisdiction in which the property is located.


After attempting to drive down the price of services by commoditizing the reports, it is now apparent that such reports are at best helpful only in the hands of a good trial attorney and at worst, misleading in that inexperienced pro se litigants and lawyers take the report into court as though it is evidence and attempt to get the court to rule upon what is obviously a document, which is hearsay.


So we are now concentrating on providing highly interactive paralegal services to support lawyers and their clients when litigating a foreclosure case. Yes we still provide reports, but our focus is now on actually drafting the operable pleadings, motions and memoranda needed to properly litigate a case and to provide actual scripts that can be used as guides for what actually happens in court.


Watch these pages for further assistance. We are re-starting our seminar series — “Garfield Continuum” with a short inexpensive seminar called “OBJECTION!” for lawyers and their clients.

The Third DCA Got it Wrong Again

The Florida 3rd District Court of Appeals is writing law instead of applying it. Its convoluted legal contortions reveal a bias that should result in recusal. Its most current ruling turns legal analysis into a game of Russian roulette in which if the gun is pointed at the head of the homeowner, all chambers are loaded while if it is pointed at the head of a bank, all chambers are empty.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345 to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.


There are a number of statutes of limitations that arise out of an alleged mortgage, an alleged default and an alleged right to force the sale of somebody’s homestead. Many courts are still stuck in the myth that the mortgage crisis is solved by forcing homeowners to bear the brunt of all the illegal acts, fabrications, misrepresentations and fraud caused by banks, servicers and trustees. The 3rd DCA is one of those courts.

While the members of such courts might verily believe that they are protecting our country from chaos and collapse, they are in actuality perpetuating the great recession and the theft of wealth from households whose income drives 70% of the entire economy.

According to the 3rd DCA, the application of the 5 year statute of limitations would somehow render the other statutes a nullity. This conclusion is completely erroneous and unsupportable, in my opinion. Based upon their most recent ruling (reported in the link above) a 2006 default on a 2001 30 year mortgage loan would start the statute the running of the statute of limitations by all accounts and I agree — especially where the lender took the extra step of accelerating all payments due throughout the loan period (2001-2031).

But their ruling would also bar the homeowner from raising the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense even after the five year statute had run. The court intentionally ignores the action taken by the lender and essentially re-writes the contract and the law to give the lender the option of suing any time up until 2038 for that default based upon the ridiculuous notion of “subsequent defaults.” Since the alleged lender would that was completely ignored by the lender would not be barred by any statute of limitations until the year 2038.

Identification of Actual Creditor is essential for Deciding Many Issues

CREDITORS ARE NECESSARY AND INDISPENSABLE PARTIES: I think this piece identifies the correct issues in the identification of actual creditors — i.e., parties entitled to receive payment from a homeowner. Inferentially it raises the very issues that foreclosure defense lawyers have been raising for years — without knowing the identity of the real creditor, how can you connect the real creditor to the snowstorm of documents created by the banks, trustees and servicers?

Get a consult! 202-838-6345 to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
Hat tip to Dan Edstrom
The financial industry has successfully re-defined law, procedure and rules as they progress through the avalanche of foreclosures which is continuing despite well-placed reports to the contrary. Perhaps the most important “re-write” has been the notion that the actual creditor need not be disclosed, despite the fact that all authority and actions must flow from the actual creditor.
Those who have pursued foreclosure have used legal presumptions in a twisted way — arriving at the conclusion that a debtor need not know the identity of the actual creditor in order for the obligation to be enforced.
The enforcement consists of three separate and distinct issues — enforcement of the debt, enforcement of the note and use of the mortgage (or deed of trust) to force the sale of property.
The debt arises by operation of law upon the homeowner’s receipt of money from a third party as long as the money was not a gift. In THAT transaction the debtor is the person who received the money and the creditor is the one who gave the money. It is simple. The debtor owes the money to the creditor. Interposing a servicer changes nothing. The debt is still owed to the creditor no matter how many agents are appointed to deal with the debtor. So knowing the identity of the creditor is a prerequisite to determining the authority of multiple third parties who claim to be holders, servicers, or agents of the creditor.
The note is an instrument which defines the debtor, defines the creditor and defines the terms of repayment from the debtor to the creditor. The note cannot change the debt. If the debt was for $100,000, the execution of a note for an amount different than the debt would be improper. The note is not the debt — it is merely evidence of the debt, which means that the parties to the note must be the same parties to the debt. Inserting a Payee on the note who is different than the creditor creates two liabilities when there was only one transaction.
The debtor owes the creditor as a result of the transaction in which the creditor’s money was used to fund the transaction and the maker of the note, while the same as the debtor in the original transaction, has now signed a document to a separate party in which there is a separate liability to the Payee PLUS the original liability to the actual creditor.
Under the merger rule the debt is supposed to be merged into the note to prevent multiple liabilities. Substitution of a new party on the note prevents the merger rule from operating. The merger rule is a principle of law that says that the execution of the note should result in merger of the debt with the note because the note is accurately asserting the identity of the parties to the debt and the terms of repayment, thus avoiding multiple liability for one transaction.
The mortgage instrument is a statement that real property is collateral for the faithful performance under the note. If the maker of the note fails to perform then the collateral can be sold to satisfy the balance due on the note. But without a valid note that memorializes the terms of the debt, the mortgage is collateral for an obligation that does not exist — unless the note is improperly sold to an innocent third party who pays value, in good faith without knowledge of the maker’s defenses. That bona fide third party is protected under the law.
If the maker executes an instrument that is defective in some way by reference to parole evidence (outside the assertions made on the note) then the third party can enforce the note against the maker despite the existence of otherwise valid defenses of the maker of the note. For anyone other than an innocent holder in due course, the burden is on them to prove that the note was merged with the debt.
Thus in the case of a holder in due course the issue of whether the note was merged with the debt becomes irrelevant. The maker is limited to bringing claims against the parties who tricked the maker into signing an instrument that did not merge the debt into the note.
See the following from

In re Vargas, 396 BR 511 – Bankr. Court, CD California 2008

explains further why the above issues are so important:

The identification of the secured creditor for a claim (or a movant, objector, etc.) serves several important functions. First, it will (presumably) link the creditor, movant or objector to the Schedule A list of real property owned by the debtor. Second, this identification (presumably) links the creditor, movant or objector to the Schedule D list of creditors holding secured claims. Third, this identification permits the judge to determine whether he must recuse himself based on the Code of Conduct for United States Judges (requiring recusal in a variety of circumstances based on the judge’s relationship, if any, to a party seeking relief – i.e. moving party, objecting party, creditor/claimant, etc.)[1]  See In re Vargas, 396 BR 511 – Bankr. Court, CD California 2008.
U.S. Bank, National Association has alleged to have been appointed as a trustee (without evidence of any kind whatsoever), but none of the beneficiaries have been included or disclosed in Proof fo Claim 2-1 or disclosed in this case at all, despite Debtors repeated objections. The beneficiaries for complex Wall Street financial engineering transactions are typically hedge funds and other large scale investors, including those managing retirements funds, such as those that Federal employees (and Federal judges) may be invested in.
The trustee is only an agent for the beneficiaries, and holds only bare legal title to the (alleged) mortgages belonging to the trust. The beneficiaries are the beneficial owners of the trust assets, and are an indispensable party. See Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Interpretive Letter #1016 located on a government website here: The note attached to Proof of Claim 2-1 provides the following definition: Lender or anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under this Note is called the “Note Holder.” The only parties entitled to payments for this type of “trust” are the beneficiaries.

Pursuant to FRCP Rule 19(a) PERSONS REQUIRED TO BE JOINED IF FEASIBLE, Debtor states that the beneficiaries are required parties, are subject to service of process, and their joinder will not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction (to the extent the purported creditor has a valid, legally binding and enforceable claim against Debtor or the estate).  With the beneficiaries absent, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties. The beneficiaries (allegedly) claim an interest relating to the subject action (claim against Debtor or the estate) and are so situated that disposing of the action in the beneficiary’s absence will: (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the beneficiary’s ability to protect their interest; (ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.

            Pursuant to FRCP Rule 19(b) WHEN JOINDER IS NOT FEASIBLE, Debtor states that to the extent the beneficiaries cannot be joined, the claim should be dismissed or stricken from the record. In equity and good conscience: (i) allowing the claim or denying the claim without determining the beneficiary’s actual pecuniary interest in the claim would prejudice that beneficiary or the existing parties (especially Debtor); (ii) rendering a judgment in the beneficiary’s absence would not be adequate; and/or (iii) the “creditor” does have another remedy if the action were dismissed (i.e. the claim stricken or disallowed) for nonjoinder, as that party could file a judicial action requiring it to prove their case by presenting affirmative claims and asking for affirmative relief (this due process requirement is sorely missing from Proof of Claim 2-1).
Finally, the “creditor” has not provided the names of all the indispensable parties (beneficiaries), nor provided evidence of their existence, nor complied with FRCP Rule 19(c) which imposes on the “creditor”: “When asserting a claim for relief, a party must state: (1) the name, if known, of any person who is required to be joined if feasible but is not joined; and (2) the reasons for not joining that person.”
CA. Civ. Code 1550 provides the elements of a contract in California, which includes parties capable of contracting. An alleged trustee is only a trustee if there are beneficiaries to act as an agent of. CA. Civ. Code 1558 provides that parties to a contract must not only exist, but must be identifiable. Debtor has consistently, timely, and repeatedly objected to the refusal and failure to disclose the existence of any and all beneficiaries for which U.S. Bank, National Association as a purported trustee is acting on behalf of.
The Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits apply an abuse of discretion standard to the district court’s determination for both necessary and indispensable parties. See Washington v. Daley, 173 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 1999); NATIONAL UNION FIRE v. RITE AND OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 210 F.3d 246 (4th Cir. 2000); Davis v. US, 192 F.3d 951 (10th Cir. 1999).

Looming Title Problems from Fabricated, Fraudulent Forged Documents

The one thing that is perfectly clear is that at some point the state legislatures who govern title to property already have a huge problem brewing under their feet. There is no doubt in my mind, that the solution will follow the example of the Murphy Act in Florida when title became unintelligible some 80 years ago.

The new acts will essentially reset title as of a certain date. All the previous illegal and potentially criminal actions will be ignored. All the people who were swindled out of their life savings will also be ignored, because in the end it is the banks who control legislation, not the people.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345 to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.


You have two problems looming here.

The first and largest problem is that most, nearly all, of the foreclosures were void and fraudulent. The credit bid was accepted from a party who was not the creditor. THAT probably means that any deed on foreclosure was and is void. In some states there is a “statute of limitations” on the void title which is waived if you don’t try to make it right before the one-year statute runs out. In Florida, after one year, you can get damages (i.e., money) but you can’t reclaim your title even from a void, fraudulent foreclosure. Hence the Florida legislature institutionalized fraud in exchange for campaign donations.

The second problem is even worse and might not be correctable by legislation or even a court order. For those who sent a notice of rescission and the “lender” did nothing, there is no doubt that if the rescission was sent within 3 years of the fabricated “closing” that the nonexistent “loan contract” was canceled and the note and mortgage were rendered void as of the date of mailing of the notice of rescission.

Under Federal Law that notice of rescission rendered the mortgage or deed of trust void along with the note. Therefore any action on the loan contract, the note or the mortgage or deed of trust after rescission is void because those “instruments” are void. Void=Nothing. As far as I have been able to determine, there is no statute of limitations on “nothing.”

It gets worse. If the homeowner recorded the rescission, then according to State law, there is notice to the world that title derived from the mortgage is void. And there is no statute of limitations on that either, as far as I can tell.

Anyone who has taken title arising from either of the above scenarios has no title. If and when the day comes that they are forced to defend the illusion of their “title” they will quickly find out that the title insurer will be of no help and will deny coverage. And the same holds true for lenders — but the lenders don’t care because their goal is merely to perpetuate the illusion of securitization.

Nearly all the foreclosures in the past 10 years fall under the first category, the second category or both. Any legislation that deprives the owner of property without due process (i.e., judicial action) violates the 14th Amendment to the constitution.

Judicial action is void if it is based upon nonexistent facts. The facts are nonexistent if they were never proffered in court or found, based upon competent evidence to be true, by the trier of fact. That is missing from virtually all foreclosures.

Accordingly, it is my opinion that this another situation where the constitution be damned. The courts and legislatures are continuing to advance nonsense: the pretense of valid loan contracts, valid notes, valid mortgages and valid foreclosure sales to valid creditors submitting a valid credit bid.

Ask these lawmakers and law interpreters four questions:

  • did you hear or see any evidence that identified the party to whom the payments from the borrower were forwarded?
  • If not, why did you assume that such a party existed and had authorized the parties in court to act on collateral for the benefit of the real creditor?
  • did you hear or see any evidence that connects the real creditors with the parties who appeared in court?
  • If not, why did you assume that such a connection existed with an unidentified entity?


%d bloggers like this: