RESCISSION: It’s time for another slap on the wrist for state and federal judges.

50 years ago Congress decided to slap punitive measures on lenders who ignore or attempt to go around (table-funded loans) existing laws on required disclosures — instead of creating a super agency that would review every loan closing before it could be consummated. So it made the punishment so severe that only the stupidest lenders would attempt to violate Federal law. That worked for a while — until the era of securitization fail. (Adam Levitin’s term for illusion under the cloak of false securitization).

Draconian consequences happen when the “lender” violates these laws. They lose the loan, the debt (or part of it), their paper is worthless and the disgorgement of all money ever paid by borrower or received by anyone arising out of the origination of the loan.

But Judges have resisted following the law, leaving the “lenders” with the bounty of ill-gotten gains and no punishment because judges refuse to do it —even after they received a slap on their wrists by the unanimous SCOTUS decision in Jesinoski. Now they will be getting another slap — and it might not be just on the wrists, considering the sarcasm with which Scalia penned the Jesinoski opinion.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
 
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

TILA rescission is mainly a procedural statute under 15 USC §1635. Like Scalia said in the Jesinoski case it specifically states WHEN things happen. It also makes clear, just as the unanimous court in Jesinoski made clear that no further action was required — especially the incorrect decisions in thousands of cases where the judge said that the rescission under TILA is NOT effective until the borrower files a lawsuit. What is clear from the statute and the regulations and the SCOTUS decision is that rescission is effective on the date of notice, which is the date of mailing if the borrower uses US Mail.

There are several defenses that might seem likely to succeed but those defenses (1) must be filed by a creditor (the note and mortgage are void instruments the moment that rescission notice is sent) (2) hence the grounds for objection are not “defenses” but rather potential grounds to vacate a lawful instrument that has already taken effect. Whether the right to have sent the notice had expired, or whether the right to rescind the putative loan is not well-grounded because of other restrictions (e.g. purchase money mortgage) are all POTENTIAL grounds to vacate the rescission — as long as the suit to vacate the rescission is brought by a party with legal standing.

A party does not have legal standing if their only claim to standing is that they once held a note and mortgage that are now void. {NOTE: No party has ever filed an action to vacate the rescission because (1) they have chosen to ignore the rescission for more than 20 days and thus subject to the defense of statute of limitations to their petition to vacate and (2) they would be required to state the rescission was effective in order to get relief and (3) there is a very high probability that there is no formal creditor that was secured by the mortgage encumbrance of record. The latter point about no formal creditor would also mean that the apparent challenge to the rescission based upon the “purchase money mortgage” “exception” would fail.}

The premise to this discussion is that the so-called originator was not the source of funds. This in my opinion means that there never was consummation — despite all appearances to the contrary.

The borrower was induced to sign a note and mortgage settlement statements and acknowledgement of disclosures and right to rescind under the false premise that the originator was the lender, as stated on the note and mortgage.

The resulting execution of documents thus produced the following results: (1) the putative borrower has signed the “closing documents” and (2) the originator neither signs those documents nor lends any money. This results in an executory contract without consideration which means an unenforceable partially completed documentary trail that creates the illusion of a normal residential loan closing.

TILA Rescission is effective at the time that the borrowers notify any one of the players who represent themselves as being servicer, lender, assignee or holder. The effect of rescission is to cancel the loan contract and that in turn makes the note and mortgage void, not voidable. That the note and mortgage become void is expressly set forth in the authorized regulations (Reg Z) promulgated by the Federal Reserve and now the Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB). There is no lawsuit that is required or even possible for the putative borrower to file — i.e., there is no present controversy because the loan “contract” to the extent it exists has already been canceled and the note and mortgage have already been rendered void.

9th Circuit: Trustee is Not Debt Collector But Reverses Trial Court on Rescission

This decision could be a lot worse for the banks and servicers than it might appear. The Trustee for a valid REMIC trust that owns the debt (and doesn’t just control the paper) is clearly NOT a debt collector. But considering that no Trustee has EVER claimed to be a holder in due course and that the Trust is in fact a holographic image of an empty paper bag, they most certainly are debt collectors. The catch is you have to plead correctly and undermine the assumption that they own the debt.

But the 9th Circuit reversed the trial court on the issue of TILA rescission. As to TILA Rescission, the 9th Circuit was merely restating the obvious after the unanimous Jesinoski decision render by SCOTUS. “The Court noted that it recently held in Merritt v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 759 F.3d 1023, 1032-33 (9th Cir. 2014), that a mortgagor need not allege the ability to repay the loan in order to state a rescission claim under TILA. However, this was the basis of the trial court’s dismissal of the TILA claim.”

Apparently restating the obvious is what is necessary to get trial courts to fall in line with the fact that rescission is effective when mailed and is legally a perfect defense to foreclosure. But trial courts keeping adding caveats that are not in the statute even after the Supreme Court made it crystal clear that trial courts had no such option. The statute is clear on its face. Trial courts have no right to re-write the statute as they think it should have been written.

The failure of the banks to contest the rescission within the 20 day window is not the fault of the homeowner. And the inability of the banks to file such an action to vacate the rescission is a problem for the banks who have nothing to lose anyway in most of the foreclosures.

As for the three year “expiration” or “statute of limitations” there is still a simple answer. Once you mail the rescission it is effective. Once you record it in the public records, the whole world knows that the mortgage or deed of trust is void. Once you mail it using US Postal Service the parties claiming through the note and mortgage or deed of trust have no further claim unless and until they either perform the three duties specified by statute or they file an action to vacate the rescission.THAT they won’t do because they are not really the owners of the debt.

So THEY have a choice — either go along with the rescission or file something in court contesting the rescission. And the fact that they can’t file anything is testimony that they are not the owners of the debt and do not have any authority to pursue the claim on behalf of the owner(s) of the debt. If that were not true they would gleefully produce the proof to establish the identity of the creditor and their authority to pursue claims on behalf of that creditor. And so far I have seen no lawsuit or even a motion that seeks to vacate the TILA rescission. Foreclosures that proceeded despite the rescission and without the ruling by the court that the rescission was void ab initio are themselves void as of the date of mailing the rescission notice.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
 
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

see http://www.insidearm.com/news/00042303-9th-cir-holds-foreclosure-trustee-not-fdc/

The Money Trail: Does anyone meet the definition of a creditor?

WE HAVE REVAMPED OUR SERVICE OFFERINGS TO MEET THE REQUESTS OF LAWYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. This is not an offer for legal representation. In order to make it easier to serve you and get better results please take a moment to fill out our FREE registration form https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1453992450583 
Our services consist mainly of the following:
  1. 30 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  2. 60 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  3. Case review and analysis
  4. Rescission review and drafting of documents for notice and recording
  5. COMBO Title and Securitization Review
  6. Expert witness declarations and testimony
  7. Consultant to attorneys representing homeowners
  8. Books and Manuals authored by Neil Garfield are also available, plus video seminars on DVD.
For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. You also may fill out our Registration form which, upon submission, will automatically be sent to us. That form can be found at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1452614114632. By filling out this form you will be allowing us to see your current status. If you call or email us at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com your question or request for service can then be answered more easily.
================================

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

—————-
I speak to people across the country. As I discuss the issues that get increasingly complex, we reach areas in which there are differences of opinion which is why you need to consult with someone who is licensed in your state and who has done the heavy research (no skimming allowed). The issue is what payments should be credited to whom. And the answer really is you should be asking an accountant and a lawyer. This is why my team is reaching out to accountants and auditors to round out what is needed in cases.

The problem is that this is a grey area. Payments made to the beneficiaries of the trust were never intended to discharge the debt from the “borrower.” That’s obvious. But payments were made on account of this debt. So we go back to the law of presumptions. If the creditor receives a payment and the payment is on account of a particular debt due from a particular debtor, then it is discharged to the extent of the payment — regardless of the stated “intent” of the payor after the fact. So servicer advances definitely fall into that category. But in addition, if the entire debt has been discharged by the replacement of the obligation with another obligation from another party, then you have similar issues.

So first of all, the beneficiaries agreed to take payments from the REMIC Trust — not the “borrowers”. There is no relationship between the beneficiaries of a trust and any single “borrower” or group of “borrowers.” The REMIC Trust doesn’t pay the beneficiaries despite the paperwork to the contrary. The REMIC Trust is inactive with no assets, bank accounts, business activity etc.

It is the Master Servicer that pays the beneficiaries. And the Master Servicer makes those payments regardless of whether it has received payments from the beneficiaries. (servicer advances). The note and mortgage name a specific payee that is neither the Trust (or Trustee) nor the Master Servicer. So the first real legal question that I raised back in 2007 was the issue of who was the owner of the debt or the holder in due course?

The debt arose when the “borrower” accepted the benefits of funding that came from an unidentified source. It is presumed not to be a gift. The “borrower” has signed a note and mortgage in favor of a party that never loaned him any money — hence there is no loan contract and the signed note and mortgage should have been destroyed or released back to the “borrower.” Such a loan is table-funded and is almost certainly “predatory per se” as described in REG Z.

Since there is no privity between the “originator” and the Trust or Master Servicer the loan documents cannot be said to be useful, much less enforceable. Those documents should be considered void, not voidable, when the payee and mortgagee failed to fund the loan. The repeated transfers of the loan documents without anyone ever paying for them clearly means that the consideration at the base “closing” was absent. Hence there is no consideration at either the origination or acquisition of the loan documents. Acquisition of the loan documents does not mean acquisition of the loan. If there was no valid loan contract or there is no valid loan contract (rescission) executing endorsements, assignments and powers of attorney are meaningless.

So there is a serious question about whether there is a legal creditor involved in any of these loans. There are parties with equitable and legal claims, but not with respect to the loan documents that should have been shredded at the very beginning. All those claims are unsecured. And the foreclosures, in truth, are for the benefit of parties who have no relationship with the actual money that was used to the benefit of the alleged “borrower” who is looking more and more like a party who is not a borrower but who could be debtor if there is anyone answering to the description of “creditor.” No party in this scenario seems to answer to that description.

And THAT would explain why NO PARTY steps forward to challenge rescissions as a creditor and instead they attempt to retain their status of having apparent “Standing” and attack the rescission through arguments that require the court to interpret the TILA Rescission Statute, 15 USC §1635. But the US Supreme Court has already declared that it is the law of the land that this statute is not subject to interpretation by the courts because it is clear on its face. So such parties are seeking relief they didn’t ask for (vacating the rescission) using the void note and void mortgage as their basis for standing.

Thus without someone filing an equitable claim showing that their money is tied up in the money given to the “borrower” there does not seem to be a creditor at law.

Add that to the fact that most of the “Trusts” were resecuritized by more empty trusts and you have the original beneficiaries completely out of the picture as to any particular loan and the so-called REMIC Trust being completely out of the picture with respect to the loan or loan documents that were originated, even if they were not consummated.

Federal and State Judges Think they Can Overrule the US Supreme Court

Jeff Barnes has put into words what I have been thinking about for several weeks. Barnes is a lawyer who has concentrated on foreclosure defense and has won many cases across the country. He is a good lawyer, which means that he understands how to get traction. So when he complains about Judges, people ought to sit up and take notice.

I think he has hit the nail on the head:

DISTURBING NEWS: CERTAIN JUDGES CLAIM THAT SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ARE NOT BINDING ON THEM
Posted on October 22, 2015

October 22, 2015

In recent months, we have been advised by homeowners in different states that certain Judges in those states have taken the position that decisions by either the Supreme Court of that state or decisions of the United States Supreme Court are not binding on them. Taking such a position violates the Judge’s duties as an officer of the Court, erodes confidence in the judiciary, and renders the public more suspicious of the court system than it already is.

A Judge is duty-bound to follow the “law of the land” whether they agree with it or not. A Judge cannot impose his or her own personal views as to whether the state or US Supreme Court made the correct decision on an issue: when a state Supreme Court or the US Supreme Court decides a specific legal issue, the law is established and Judges must follow it. State supreme courts (other than as so denominated in New York, as the “Supreme Court” is a lower level court in NY) and the US Supreme Court are the highest appellate courts, and their decisions establish “the law of the land”: a state Supreme Court decision establishes the law for that State, while the US Supreme Court establishes the law for the country.

In our experience, the overwhelming majority of Judges are fair, honest, considerate of the position of both sides, and take the law into account when rendering their decisions. The examples below are isolated, but the fact that two such examples have been recently brought to our attention is disturbing.

One of the cases which we were advised of concerned the use of Mr. Barnes’ successful appeal of the MERS issues in the Supreme Court of Montana, which by its decision established that MERS was not the “beneficiary” of a Deed of Trust despite claiming to be so. Although this decision was issued two years ago, the homeowner advised that when that decision was presented to a local Montana county Judge, the Judge took the position that he was not bound by the Supreme Court of Montana’s decision.

Another homeowner advised us that in a prior foreclosure-related hearing before a state court Judge that the Judge told the homeowner that he was not bound by decisions of the United States Supreme Court.

This contempt and disrespect for state Supreme Courts and the US Supreme Court is beyond disconcerting.  There is no reason why homeowners facing foreclosure should be treated adversely when a decision of a state or the US Supreme Court is in favor of them and presented to the Judge. “And Justice for All” means just that: it does not mean “except no justice for homeowners in foreclosure.”

Jeff Barnes, Esq.

see http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=612

We see it in many cases involving rescission. It is isn’t that the Judge doesn’t understand. As pointed out by Justice Scalia in the Jesinoski decision the wording of the Federal statute on TILA Rescission could not be more clear and could not be less susceptible to judicial construction. In that unanimous decision of the US Supreme Court in January, 2015, the Court said that like it or not, notice of rescission is effective by operation of law when mailed and nothing else is required to make it effective. The court specifically said that common law rescission is different than the statutory rescission in the Truth in Lending Act.

In fact, the court was perplexed as to how or why any judge would have found otherwise. Thousands of Judges in hundreds of thousands of cases had refused to apply the plain wording of the TILA statute 15 USC 1635. Then came Jesinoski in which the Supreme court said there is no distinction between disputed and undisputed rescissions — they are both effective upon mailing by operation of law. That became the law of the land.

And yet, trial judges and even appellate court are again leaning toward NOT upholding the law and NOT forcing the banks to comply with statute. Many more are “reserving ruling” denying the homeowner remedies that are readily available through TILA Rescission. These courts don’t like TILA rescission. They don’t want to punish the banks for bad behavior. But that is what Congress wanted when they passed TILA 50 years ago.

As many Judges have said in their own written findings and opinions — if you don’t like the law then change it; don’t come to a court of law and expect a judge to change the law. Whether this will lead to some sort of discipline for Judges or simply make them vulnerable to being removed from the bench is unknown. What I do know is that when ordinary people come to realize that the foreclosure crisis could end now, thus stimulating our limping economy, they will likely vote accordingly.

Any Judge who refuses to follow the law as it is written and passed by a legislative body and signed into law by the executive branch (the {President or the Governor) has no right to be on the bench and should resign if his “moral compass” makes following the law so onerous that he or she cannot uphold the laws. In the absence of resignation, then momentum will likely rise and push the agenda of those people who want such judges removed involuntarily. Those Judges are acting against the most basic thrust of our society — that we are a nation of laws and not of men. We have a very well defined process of passing laws and that does not include any one person (on or off the bench) deciding on their own the way the law should read.

Clerks Illegally Bowing to Bank Pressure: Recording the Notice of Interest in Real Property with the Notice of Rescission attached.

For more information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688.

This is for general information only and contains my general opinions on the subject NOBODY should use this article as a substitute from advance from an attorney licensed in the jurisdiction in which the subject property is located.

=========================

The Banks are at it again — using their political power to influence officers of State and County government into refusing to perform ministerial duties required by State statutes.
The Clerks are rejecting any filing of the notice of rescission but some are getting through. It is a good idea to send it in by mail rather than show up in person. It should be a Notice of Interest in Real Property. The letter should appear to be from either a lawyer or title agent. If it looks like a homeowner they will inspect it. If it looks like business as usual then they will ordinarily process it without any scrutiny.

A number of people are gearing up to sue the Clerk for a Writ of Mandamus in order to force the Clerk to accept the recording of the Notice of Interest in Real Property with the Notice of Rescission attached. Before suing, the matter should, in my opinion, be escalated briefly, at least, to the County attorney and give him/her a chance to correct the situation. Any document that is properly filled out with formalities that are required by statute MUST be recorded by the Clerk. The Clerk does not have discretion as to what documents they record and no discretion as to what documents that can’t record.

There is also the possibility of escalating to the Florida Attorney General and the US Attorney General

In the event that the attorneys general or County attorneys ignore or delay it, then the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is probably a viable option. Forms for Writ of Mandamus are online but nobody should do this unless they have an attorney licensed in the correct jurisdiction. The complaint should (my opinion) [comments invited]

  1.  Establish jurisdiction in the State or Federal Court (I would say Federal at first glance), to wit: that TILA Rescission is a Federal Law and that the Clerk is refusing to allow implementation of the rights of the borrower under Federal Law.
  2. The complaint should NOT ask the Court to enter an order that says that the rescission was effective — that is not the proper subject for an issue between the property owner and the clerk.
  3. Establish jurisdiction and description of the parties — the Clerk and the party seeking to record, their residence etc.
  4. The State Law requiring the Clerk to record documents should be quoted verbatim
  5. The allegation should be made that any party with an interest in the real property has the right to record such interest and that the Clerk has not been delegated or authorized to exercise discretion as to whether to accept a properly drafted and executed Notice of Interest in Real Property.
  6. The allegation should be made that the Petitioner is a person, sui juris, with an interest in the real property, to wit: the Petitioner owns the property described on Exhibit “A” legal description and street address).
  7. The allegation should be made that the Petitioner rescinded the mortgage (and note) at page ____ of OR Book _____, as per the notice of rescission attached as Exhibit “B”.
  8. The allegation should be made that the rescission is effective by operation of law, and does not require any judicial determination of whether the rescission was effective or not. 15 USC § 1635 et seq. [Maybe cite Jesinoski]
  9. The allegation should be made that the effect of the rescission is to void the mortgage (and note), by operation of law.
  10. The allegation should be made that under the TILA Rescission statutes, the creditor is required to file a release of the encumbrance, but has failed or refused to do so and has not attempted to vacate the rescission within the time window provided by law (20 days from receipt of the rescission).
  11. The allegation should be made that the said mortgage continues to create the illusion of an encumbrance in the chain of title, thus affecting (preventing) the ability of the Petitioner to sell or refinance the property.
  12. The allegation should be made that in the absence of recording the Notice of Interest in Real Property, with the Notice of rescission attached, the mortgage would remain on record with no document releasing the encumbrance as required by Federal law.
  13. The allegation should be made that the Petitioner properly executed, witnessed and notarized a Notice of Interest in Real Property dated the __ day of ___, 201_ and presented same on the ___ day of ____, 201_ to the Respondent for recording by the Respondent. (see attached Exhibit “C”)
  14. The allegation should be made that the Respondent unlawfully refused to accept the aforestated Notice of Interest in Real Property for recording without any right, justification or excuse.
  15. The allegation should be made that Petitioner was neither granted nor delegated any authority to exercise discretion in the recording of a properly executed, witnessed and notarized Interest in real property.
  16. The demand clause should be something like “Wherefore, Petitioner prays this Honorable Court will enter an order commanding the Clerk of _______ County to accept the Notice of Interest in Real Property with its exhibits and, upon payment of the required fees, record same in the Public Records of ____ County.”
  17. Make sure it is served correctly. Expect the banks to mount some challenge to the suit. But there is nothing that they can say that is legally controlling. All they can do is not like it. If they wanted to seek a court order vacating the rescission they should have done so within the 20 days.

 

But more importantly it is none of their business — if the Clerk is mandated to record ANY document that fulfills statutory requirements, then the document gets recorded — just like the lis pendens in a foreclosure action — the issue of whether the lis pendens or the lawsuit were wrongfully filed is up to the parties and the courts to fight it out — it is NEVER up to the Clerk. Any argument to the contrary would require an administrative hearing apparatus that does not exist.

Lawyers for Banks: Ignore Rescission at Your Peril

I have received a copy of the comments made at a very recent seminar for lawyers who represent the servicers, trustees and the alleged trusts. While they fail to commit to writing the issues regarding standing to challenge a rescission, the rest of it is pretty much spot on. Their message is that ignoring or even rejecting the rescission by a letter is not a good idea and that anyone who does so, is acting at their own peril.

They also point out, as have others who have been writing on the subject for the last couple of weeks, that the rescission law, as it now stands, makes it perilous to trade in consumer loans, especially mortgage loans.

In short, the other side has come to the same conclusion that I came to in 2007. They don’t like it, but they understand what the TILA rescission statutes say about procedure, and that a unanimous Supreme Court in Jesinoski v Countrywide, essentially puts every mortgage loan “at risk” — an admission with enormous implications. They are not out of strategies to change things but they recognize they have an uphill battle.

The point about standing is, in my opinion, the most important by far. The TILA rescission is effective upon mailing by operation of law. It is a specific statutory remedy with its own procedures, although there is a cryptic provision in there that allows a judge to change the procedures. But in order to do anything about the rescission once it is effective, which means that the note and mortgage are void, the servicers et al must come up with a real creditor — without which they have nobody who has standing. This puts them on the grill. They have been fighting successfully to keep this information from the borrowers under claims of privacy and confidentiality.

Most lawyers are contesting these claims in a timid way. I ask the fundamental question: why not give the name of the real creditor who could show proof of payment and vault the claim to that of a holder in due course, instead of a holder or attorney in fact? I have represented banks in foreclosure actions. If these defenses were thrown at me I would be proactive — I’d show the creditor, show the proof of payment, and shut the borrower down on all of his defenses. Case over. But the truth is that there is no one party or even one single group that can be identified as the creditor, with or without the empty trusts whose names are used to create the illusion of negotiation of instruments under the UCC.

My sources and my understanding of what they did prevents them from even KNOWING the name of the creditor, which of course opens the door for the servicers to keep the money instead of passing it on to a defined creditor. How can this be? We know the homeowner got the benefit of money being put on the table. How hard can it be to determine whose money was put on the table?

The answer is simple even if it is incredible: they cannot identify the name of the creditor becasue (a) they don’t know and (b) because they have no way of figuring it out. At any one time the huge slush funds controlled by the Investment Banker acting as Master servicer for a nonexistent trust (no res), had money going in and out of it in thousands of ways per minute. At whatever the time was that funding traveled to the closing agent through a sham conduit, the banks simply don’t know which investors had money in that fund and what interest any of the investors had in a particular loan. It is like putting different fruits in a blender and setting it on puree. If someone now asks to have the banana that went into the blender, it is impossible to do.

THAT is the problem with standing in foreclosure actions and the same problem exists for challenging rescissions. But in rescission the issue is laid bare — they can’t rely on the void note and void mortgage for standing. They have to show the real transaction.

BIAS IN THE COURTS: UCC and TILA REVIEW

Our legal history has many examples of enormous errors committed by the Courts that were obvious to some but justified by many. The result is usually mayhem. The cause is a bias toward some underlying fact that was untrue at the time. Some examples include
  1.  the infamous Dred Scott decision where the Supreme Court ruled that a black man is not a person within the meaning of the constitution and therefore could not sue to protect his rights because he was not a citizen by virtue of the FACT that his ancestors had been brought to America as slaves. The underlying bias was considered axiomatically true: that “negroes” were fundamentally subhuman. It took a civil war that took 500,000 casualties and a constitutional amendment to change the results of that decision. We are still dealing with lingering thoughts about whether the color of one’s skin is in any way related to our status as humans, persons and citizens.
  2. the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. The Supreme Court upheld that decision on the basis of national security. The underlying bias was considered axiomatically true: that people of Japanese descent would have loyalty to the Empire of Japan and not the United States. People of German descent were not interred, probably because they looked more like other Americans. As the war progressed and the military realized that people of Japanese descent were resources rather than enemies, the government came to realize that acknowledging these people as citizens with civil rights was more important than the perception of a nonexistent threat to national security. Americans of Japanese descent proved invaluable in the war effort against Japan.
  3. the Citizens United decision in which the Supreme Court gave the management of corporations a “Second vote” in the court of public opinion. The underlying bias was considered axiomatically true: that entities created on paper were no less important than the rights of real people as citizens. The additional underlying bias was that corporations are better than people.
  4. the hundreds of thousands of decisions from thousands of courts that relied on the fictitious power of the court to rewrite legislation that Judge(s) didn’t like. A current perfect example was reading common law (inferior, legally speaking) precedent to override express statutory procedures for the exercise and effect of statutory rescission under the Federal Truth in Lending Act. Over many years and many courts at the trial and appellate level the Judges didn’t like TILA rescission so they changed the wording of the statute to mean that common law procedures and principles apply — thus requiring the homeowner to file suit in order to make rescission effective, and requiring the tender of money or property to even have standing to rescind. This was contrary to the express provisions of the TILA rescission statute. Approximately 8 million+ people were displaced from their homes because of those decisions and the property records of thousands of counties have been forever debauched, likely requiring some legislative action to clear title on some 80+ million transactions involving tens of trillions of dollars. The underlying bias was considered axiomatically true: that the legislature could not have meant that individuals have as much power as big corporation and they should not have such power. Then the short Supreme Court decision from a unanimous court in Jesinoski v Countrywide made the correction, effectively overturning hundreds of thousands of incorrect decisions. A court may not interpret a statute that is clear on its face. A court may not MAKE the law.
  5. the millions of foreclosures that have been allowed on the premise that the “holder” of a note should get the same treatment as a “holder in due course.” More than 16 million people have been displaced from their homes as a result of an underlying bias that was and often remains axiomatically true: decisions in favor of homeowners would give them a free house and decisions that allow foreclosure protect legitimate creditors. Both “axioms” are as completely wrong as the decisions about TILA Rescission.
It is the last item that I address in this article. A holder in due course is allowed to both plead and prove only the elements of Article 3 of the UCC. Article 3 of the UCC states that a party who purchases negotiable paper in good faith without knowledge of the maker’s defenses and before the terms are breached is presumed to be entitled to relief upon making their prima facie case — which are the elements already listed here. Even if there were irregularities or even fraud at the time of the origination of the loan or at a later time but before the HDC purchased the paper, the HDC will get judgment for the relief demanded. A “holder” (on the other hand) comes in many flavors under Article 3 but they all have one thing in common: they are not holders in due course.
The fundamental error of the courts has been to treat the “holder” as a “holder in due course” at the time of trial. It is true that the holder may survive a motion to dismiss merely by alleging that it is a holder — but fundamental error is being committed at trial where the holder must prove its underlying prima facie case. It should be noted that the requirement of consideration is repeated in Article 9 where it states that a security instrument must be purchased by a successor not merely transferred. So regardless of whether one is proceeding under Article 3 or Article 9, no foreclosure can be allowed without paying real money to a party who actually owned the mortgage. The Courts universally have ignored these provisions under the bias that it is axiomatically true that the party seeking to enforce the paper is so sophisticated and trustworthy that their mere request for relief should result in the relief demanded. This bias is “supported” by an additional bias: that failure to enforce such documents would undermine the entire economy of the country — a policy decision that is not within the province of the courts. And deeper still the bias is that it is axiomatically true that the paper would not exist without the actual existence of monetary transactions for origination and transfer of the paper. These “axioms” are not true.
As a result, courts have regularly rubber-stamped the extreme equitable remedy of foreclosure in favor of a party who has no financial interest in the alleged paper, nor any risk of loss or actual loss. The foreclosures are part of a scheme to make money at the expense of the actual people who are losing money. If this was not true, there would have been thousands of instances in which the “holder” presented the money trail that supposedly was the foundation for the paper that was executed and delivered, destroyed or lost. They never do. If they did, the volume of litigated foreclosure cases would drop to a drizzle. And these parties fight successfully to avoid not only the burden of proof but even the ability of the homeowner to inquire (discovery) about the “transactions” about which the paper is referring — either at origination or in purported transfers. Backdating assignments and endorsements would be unnecessary. “Robo-signing” would also be unnecessary. And the constant flux of new servicer and new trustees would also be unnecessary. Many of these events consist of illegal acts that are routinely ignored by the courts for reasons of bias rather than judicial interpretation.
A holder in due course proves their prima facie case by
a) proffering a witness with personal knowledge
b) proffering testimony that allows the commercial paper to be admitted as evidence (the note). This evidence need only be to the effect that the witness, or his company, physically has possession of the original note and presents it in court.
c) proffering testimony and records showing that the paper (the note) was purchased for good and valuable consideration by the party seeking to enforce it. This means showing proof of payment for the paper like a wire transfer receipt or a cancelled check.
d) proffering testimony and records showing that the mortgage, which is not a negotiable instrument, was purchased withe the note.
e) proffering testimony and records that the transactions were real and in good faith
f) proffering testimony that the purchaser of the paper had no knowledge of the maker’s defenses
g) proffering testimony that no default existed at the time of purchase of the paper.
Because of bias, the Courts, just as they did with TILA rescission, have mostly committed fundamental error by allowing to alleged “holders” a lesser standard of proof than the party who is legitimately in a superior position of being a holder in due course. It starts with a correct decision denying the homeowner’s motion to dismiss but ends up in fundamental error when the court “forgets” that the enforcing party has a factual case to prove beyond mere possession of an instrument they say is the original note.
The holder, in contrast to the holder in due course, is not entitled to any such presumptions at trial, except that they hold with rights to enforce. They don’t hold with automatic rights to win the case however.
A holder proves its prima facie case by
a) proffering a witness with personal knowledge
b) proffering testimony and records that allow the commercial paper to be admitted as evidence (the note). This evidence need only be to the effect that the witness, or his company, physically has possession of the original note and presents it in court.
c) proffering testimony and evidence as to the chain of custody of the paper the party seeks to enforce.
d) proffering testimony and records together with proof of payment of the original transaction (a requirement generally ignored by the courts). This means proof that the original party in the “chain” relied upon by the party seeking to enforce actually funded the alleged “loan” with funds of its own or for which it is responsible (e.g., a real warehouse credit arrangements where the originator bears the risk of loss).
e) proffering testimony and records showing that the paper (note) was purchased for good and valuable consideration by the creditor on whose behalf the party is seeking to enforce it. This means showing proof of payment for the paper like a wire transfer receipt or a cancelled check.
f) proffering testimony and records showing that the mortgage was also purchased by the creditor for good and valuable consideration. This means showing proof of payment for the paper like a wire transfer receipt or a cancelled check.
g) proffering testimony and records that the transactions was real and in good faith
h) proffering testimony that no default existed at the time of purchase of the paper. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be commercial paper and the party seeking to enforce would need to allege and prove  its standing and its prima facie case without benefit of the note or mortgage.
It should be added here that the non-judicial foreclosure states essentially make it even easier for an unrelated party to force the sale of property. Those statutory procedures are wrongly applied leaving the burden of proof as to UCC rights to enforce squarely on the homeowner who in most cases is not even a “borrower” in the technical sense. Such states are allowing parties to obtain a forced sale of property in cases where they would not or should not prevail in a judicial foreclosure. The reason is simple: the procedure for realignment of the parties has been ignored. When a homeowner files an action against the “new trustee” (substituted by virtue of the self proclaimed and unverified status of a third party beneficiary under the note and mortgage), the homeowner is somehow seen as the party who must prove that the prima facie case is untrue (giving the holder the rights of a holder in due course); the homeowner is being required to defend a case that was never filed or alleged. Instead of immediately shifting the burden of proof to the only party that says it has the rights and paperwork to justify the forced sale. This is an unconstitutional aberration of the rights of due process. The analogy would be that a defendant accused of murder must prove he did not commit the crime before the State had any burden to accuse the defendant or put on evidence. Realignment of the parties would comply with the constitution without changing the non-judicial statutes. It would require the challenged party to prove it should be allowed to enforce the forced sale of the property. Any other interpretation requires the the homeowner to disprove a case not yet alleged, much less proven in a prima facie case.
%d bloggers like this: