Monthly Archives: June 2019

ALABAMA SUPREME COURT SCREWS STATE PROBATE JUDGES … DEUTSCHE BANK AND MERS WIN, AGAIN

(BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED) — The following post contains a graphic description of the placement of “commas” versus “intent of the legislation requiring assignors to record their assignments in the land records.  The commentary is the opinion of the authors and the case (see the content link below) speaks for itself!

In this instance, Alabama Probate Judges were the parties fighting back against the banks and MERS, insisting that the Alabama Statutes required the recording of “conveyances” and went after the MERS® System (like so many other county entities) … the outcome did not bode well for them either. Read the opinion here:

Deutsche Bank Natl Trust Co et al v Walker County et al, Sup Ct Ala No 1160926 (June 28, 2019)

What the merits of the case DIDN’T COVER … is the validity of the assignments that WERE actually recorded.

Why aren’t these judges really paying attention to content rather than screwing with MERS in the courts?   It’s because “We the People” haven’t brought the “right ammo” into court!

Like the other 49 States and the District of Columbia, Alabama has statutes that allow homeowners to challenge the validity of their assignments based on the accuracy and truthfulness of their information.  Alabama also has case law establishing the right to cancel and expunge instruments that contain false and misrepresentative information! Alabama also has civil fraud statutes that make it a crime to publish false information in recorded assignments!

This is what is offered in THE C & E ON STEROIDS! 

Because we are approaching “The Freedom Holiday” (July 4th) … I’m extending the June offer through July 4th!

Purchase the 8-DVD Training Kit (with the book, The C & E on Steroids!)  … and you also get:

My FDCPA book … AND …

Bob Janes “Save the Homeowners” Edition of compiled materials used by him in fighting the foreclosure machine!

We need to educate judges on the new paradigm by attacking the documents themselves, when the servicers’ employees

and third-party document mills and foreclosure mill law firms create these bogus documents!

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

U.S. SUPREME COURT NARROWLY OPENS ANOTHER DOOR TO PUNISH FALSE EVIDENCE!

(BREAKING NEWS – OP-ED) — The author of this post is a paralegal and consultant to trial attorneys on foreclosure matters; deals in cancellation and expungement actions and chain of title issues and thus, the material discussed here, while appearing to be a “breath of fresh air” for homeowners fighting foreclosures, is still an opinion NOT to be considered legal, nor should it be construed to guarantee any type of legal outcome or advice.

On June 20, 2019, the United States Supreme Court opined (through Justice Sotomayor) in McDonough v. Smith (see the ruling here: McDonough v. Smith) that the 3-year statute of limitations for bringing a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not begin to run until the case against McDonough was terminated.  All of the legal pundits have thus jumped into the argument, declaring that this ruling could also apply to foreclosure cases, while others say the ruling only applies to law enforcement officials acting under color of law.

The case surrounds an attack by McDonough (a New York county elections commissioner) against prosecutor Youel Smith for allegedly fabricating evidence (testimony) used to indict him before a grand jury.  The trial ended in a mistrial. Smith then allegedly elicited fabricated testimony again in a second trial, which ended in December of 2012, with McDonough being acquitted of all charges (of forging absentee ballots in a Troy, NY election).

Again, the Supreme Court (as it did in Obduskey) narrowly ruled on the matter.  In this case, it was the statute of limitations for bring a civil rights claim for deprivation of rights, ONCE THE CASE HAS CONCLUDED.  In short, this post’s author deems it necessary to posit that the intention of the Supremes was to indicate that one cannot bring an action (involving a foreclosure matter) until the case has reached Final Judgment.  Then, and only then, can the matter go “federal”.

In this case, McDonough was deprived of his liberty, because he was falsely arrested and detained; thus, depriving him of his liberty (because he was charged using false testimony, which he later discovered).  Thus, when acquitted, he brought the civil rights claim against the prosecutor.   This is where some in the legal community say that a deprivation of rights brought under “color of law” only applies to “law enforcement”.

However, was the prosecutor also an “officer of the court”?  For that matter, aren’t all attorneys licensed by their respective state bar associations “officers of the court”?   Courts address matters at law and in equity.  “In equity” clearly points a finger at foreclosures and that slippery slope we call, “phony assignments”, fabricated for use in getting a positive outcome for the bank’s servicer bringing the foreclosure action.

It’s bad enough that this case exposed wrongdoing by the prosecutor, but to say this doesn’t apply to fraudulent documents placed within the land records of all 3,141 boroughs, counties and political subdivisions across America is at best, only slightly diminished based on the violation of criminal statutes.   In this instance, the validity of the claims against McDonough, even though he was acquitted, are still claims.  There is no doubt that the false testimony was later discovered and applied to the case, resulting in a mistrial.  On the second go-round, these same factors resulted in an acquittal.

In this case, McDonough alleged Smith falsified affidavits, coached witnesses to lie and orchestrated a suspect DNA analysis to link him (McDonough) to relevant ballot envelopes.  Now … apply that to foreclosure mill lawyers, who are also “officers of the court” in relying on suspect assignments that could be shown to contain false and misrepresentative information, in order to wrongfully obtain a final judgment of foreclosure (in a mortgage state); or in deed of trust states, to claim their Trustee’s Deed was valid and forthright … obtained without blemish.

The question in this case is WHEN the statute of limitations began to run.

The case mentions nothing about applying civil rights claims to foreclosure actions.

You can be sure that the bank’s attorneys will bring this up if you attempt a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (or § 1985) claim against the attorney, an officer of the court, for allegedly bringing forward (relying on) evidence later shown to be false and misrepresentative.  Further, the attorney for the bank/servicer brings forward (through his/her own mouth) continued disparaging remarks about the “deadbeat homeowner”, to elicit an emotional response from the judge, who then pronounces judgment in the bank’s favor, because, well, we can’t let phony documents stop “the system of things” from screwing homeowners out of their properties now, can we?

Prosecution of a foreclosure is an in rem action that sounds in equity, while the introduction of fabricated evidence (the phony assignments and affidavits produced in tandem with the foreclosure complaints) smack of “common-law malicious prosecution”, defined in this case, as deprivations of a “Constitutional right”, caused by the prosecutor’s malfeasance (of office) in fabricating evidence.   When applying this to foreclosures, is an “officer of the court”, appearing on behalf of any entity, political or otherwise, still an “officer of the court”, bound by the same code of ethics as criminal prosecutors?

This case was a criminal proceeding, not a civil matter … but …

Another argument for the legal pundits to say this case only applies to “law enforcement”; however, on the back end of the ruling, the following statement appears:

“The better course would be to dismiss this case as improvidently granted and await a case in which the threshold question of the basis of a “fabrication-of- evidence” claim is cleanly presented. Moreover, even if the Second Circuit were correct that McDonough asserts a violation of the Due Process Clause, it would be preferable for the Court to determine the claim’s elements before deciding its statute of limitations.”

The foregoing statement came from the dissenting opinion of Justices Thomas, Kagan and Grouch.  If we were to apply that standard, and deep-dive into the elements of the cause of action itself, then we would have to squarely apply the law (42. U.S.C. § 1983) as it was written:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

The foregoing federal law specifically says, any “person”.  Does that single out “law enforcement”?  Or does it mean, a foreclosure mill attorney too?
Notice how the word “citizen” in line 2 of this statute is in lower case.  Now, now … you Sovereigns that think that everything that starts with a Capital “C” means you and anything that doesn’t, does not apply to you … this statute applies to everyone.  That’s what our Founding Fathers and Congress intended for it to mean … ANYONE living within the jurisdiction where the crime was committed that was used to deprive (steal) their property.  If you’re going to maintain that Sovereign crap, you’re going to lose anyway.  Federal judges can apply state law too.  And they do.
Now … let’s examine the C&E as it applies here (and to those pesky assignments). 
If you do your homework in applying the foregoing statute, it clearly says you have “redress”, except when the action is brought against a “judicial officer” acting in their “judicial capacity”.  That could mean a foreclosure mill lawyer or a judge presiding over a foreclosure court.  BUT … and I mean to be clear here … it only applies if you brought an action for declaratory relief and the judge, knowing full well there was an issue with the document you allege is phony, and told you to piss off!   Then, it would appear that a “declaratory decree” (as described in the foregoing statute) “was violated”, NOT that it wasn’t available.  The C&E is rooted in (inter alia) a declaratory relief action.
This is why folks who recognize the viability of the C&E are buying up our DVD training kit and learning what’s involved in a C&E!  Understand that bringing this action, whether in an original petition or as a compulsory counterclaim (which in certain instances involving a foreclosure in the judicial realm becomes radically necessary), involves the issuance by a judge of a “declaratory decree”.  The right to bring a declaratory judgment action is available in state court.  If a judge is so inclined as to tell you that you can’t bring this action, when in fact it was available, does not appear to discount the applicability of this statute, to sue the judge for telling you to piss off.
The federal court would have to determine that: (a.) you are a citizen as described in the statute; (b.) this is a suit in equity and at law (if a tort was in play); (c.) a final judgment was issued against you that (d.) relied on a false document; and (e.) you brought a claim for declaratory relief and were told to piss off or that that kind of relief wasn’t available when in fact, it really was … THEN … AFTER THE FACT (that’s when the “damage” was done) … you have a right to bring the action in federal court.
The U.S. Supremes may have opened a narrow door for you (3-year statute of limitations) to reverse what happened; however, can you imagine the costs involved?   Given the heightened pleading standards invoked by the rulings in Iqbal and Twombly, you can’t just amble into court with lame-ass pleadings and expect to get anywhere.  You have to bring your action with “all your ammo” on the table.  You need hard proof.  Declaratory rulings can be utilized in federal court as well.  Even though federal law makes it “discretionary”, if you were to couple that cause of action with a claim for tortious “slander of title” (under state statute) and 42 USC § 1983, then you might have something plausible to go on.
A 42 USC § 1985 claim only applies to conspiracies involving multiple actors and would be harder to prove, unless you were suing the law firm, the robosigner and the notary who acknowledged the document.  The effort would be more expensive because you have more parties to serve and more pleadings and answers that have to be drafted and served.
The matter of “injunctive relief” may be hard to fathom in unwinding a foreclosure where the title to the property was transferred and sold to a third-party buyer.  Hence, you may only end up with “damages” as the result of the improper taking based on fraudulent documents.  Again, just walking into court and telling the judge the assignment is fraudulent doesn’t prove anything.  You have to do your due diligence and build a case.  You have to target the right individuals in order to procedurally succeed in the matter.

The C&E (cancellation and expungement) action is a game-changer (like this case), if properly utilized.  This is why attorney Al West and I put the training kit together.   You can view that kit on the Clouded Titles website shop and get one for your very own.  Heck … go ahead and share it with your attorney.  Everyone needs to know what we know.   We actually give you proof that it works!

And no … my response to this ruling is not an opportunity to push my training kit … however, 42 USC 1983 does in fact talk about declaratory relief issues, which is what C&E’s are couched in.  Something has to matter.  Otherwise, why fight at all?

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED, Securitization Issues

BANKS GET SCREWED TOO BY NOT FOLLOWING PROCEDURE!

(BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED) —  The poster of this blog is a consultant to attorneys on chain of title matters and thus does not render legal advice. The matters opined in this short post are those of the author of this post and only reflect what educational value is offered.

Was it really clerical error or weren’t the attorneys for the bank paying attention to detail?

The rules of civil procedure affect not just homeowners (many of who choose to represent themselves pro se) but they also affect financial institutions whose attorneys “drop the ball”.  In this case, the homeowners (even though it’s asserted they were in default) took their civil procedure matter all the way to the Maine Supreme Court … and won an affirmation on their judgment on the pleadings!  Don’t you love it when that happens?   See the ruling below (it’s only 9 pages … read it!):

First Financial Inc v Morrison et al, 2019 ME 96 (Jun 13, 2019)

You gotta love it when stuff like this happens; however, it happens more so to homeowners who (along with their “delay” lawyers) aren’t paying attention to the “rules”.  It’s nice to have an attorney who pays attention.  It’s not so nice when homeowners have to sue their attorney for malpractice for either (a.) dropping the ball for not paying attention; or (b.) blatantly promising to do something and then failing to do it.

From the looks of this case, the bank’s lawyers are the ones who got egg on their face.  Makes you wonder if they’ll ever figure out a way to refile.   Aaahhhh … thoughts for another day!

4 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

UPDATE: DITECH BANKRUPTCY INFORMATION

(BREAKING NEWS) — Here’s the latest posting on Ditech’s bankruptcy action (for those who are affected):

Section 363(o) Implications: Bankruptcy Court Denies Debtor’s Request to Disband Consumer Creditors’

See … not ALL courts give in to these bastards!

Also … understand that this viewpoint is being given credence from the “other side” and the way IT thinks!

Know thine adversary whilst thou art in the way with him!

1 Comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS

THE C&E, ASSIGNMENTS … AND YOUR RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THEM (PART 2) …

(OP-ED) — The author of this post challenges you to seriously think about this process, because it is virtually available to everyone in the United States who has ever had their mortgage loan securitized … even if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “aunt” and “uncle” the U.S. Government doesn’t like to talk about) are involved … 

Scenario … “The Punch Line”

In part 1 of this blog post, we talked about how homeowners were duped by table-funded mortgage brokers and DBA’s (fictitious entities) who claimed they were New York corporations when in fact, they were “storefronts” for the major lenders who made the “storefronts” the actual borrowers in your loan transactions, potentially rehypothecating those loans over and over again using your personal identifying information to sell pieces of your loans into bundles of pools of loans on Wall Street.

Party A runs “the smoke screen”.

Party B fronts the “investor funds” using non-compliant prospectuses that were signed under Sarbanes-Oxley that don’t matter to them anyway.

Party C plays completely outside of the MERS® System and really has nothing to do but sit back and collect residual income being a go-between prior to your loan allegedly going into a REMIC that’s been empty all along.

Party D plays the Trustee for the REMIC … and just sits back and collects his fees from what the servicer gets and turns a blind eye to your loan default.

Party E (empty promises) is the servicer who is robbing Peter to pay Paul’s debts and this is why entities like Ocwen have to go out and securitize $600-million in new paper just to fund Advances to keep paying the certificate holders of these REMICs so we don’t have another crash (like 2008).

Party F (meaning the ones who actually get f**ked) are the investors that actually bought into this crap.  They have so much money they don’t know what to do with it.  I sometimes don’t feel bad about them getting raped.  They deserve it.

So why is it that when we’re in court the judge ignores your comeback when you attack an assignment of mortgage or deed of trust for containing false and misrepresentative information?   The judge is waiting for the bank’s attorney to allege that you’re not a third-party beneficiary and that you can’t attack the assignment.  Aaahhhh …. but that’s the bigger lie!

You see … the title documents in the land records represent your chain of title.  If your chain of title is jacked up, you couldn’t sell your property if you wanted to in order to mitigate the lender’s losses, even if the lender could prove they’re entitled to the proceeds of the sale of your home.  This has been the bigger problem with challenging foreclosures, because the banks (via a vis their servicers) use the chain of title (through the MERS® System) to lie their way through the courts and the judges play along with it because … well … “we can’t hurt the banks”.

If a chain of title is unmarketable, what reasonable buyer would want to purchase it?

If a chain of title is unmarketable, it violates every state’s law that guarantees marketability of title!

If a chain of title is unmarketable, it’s because it’s vendibility is impaired (you can’t sell it).  No one wants to buy someone else’s problems … especially if the title is slandered (Hello?  …  Can you say “damages’?)

If the chain of title is unmarketable because it’s title is screwed up … title companies won’t insure it.

If it’s uninsurable, no one is going to sell it.  How could they?   If title companies do insure these properties, they’ll exclude coverage for the applicable errors!  You won’t get a dime on a title claim, while the title companies make off with your premium payment at closing!

If you’re in states where only the lien interest is sold (like in California), the banks get to kick the can down the road, and investors are stuck with nothing but screwed-up chains of title and they can’t do anything but rent the properties out because there’s no way to quiet the title without exposing the truth … and no one can afford to expose the truth because American Jurisprudence is tainted.

The reason I bring it up?

The Assignment has your name and your property’s references within it. 

Every state has a set of statutes that allow consumers to challenge the assignments, releases, and any other document in their chain of title that is “suspect” for false and misrepresentative information.   If you let the bank’s attorney get away with stating that you’re not a third-party beneficiary, then you have to ask yourself …

WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE BOGUS INFORMATION IN THE LAND RECORDS?

This is why statutes were formulated to combat erroneous (many times deliberate) behavior in the creation of these phony assignments and releases.  The problem is … 99% of the attorneys don’t like doing declaratory judgment actions … half the time because they don’t know how!   This is why Al West and I did a deep dive into the assignments and Al West came up with the notion that cancelling and expunging the phony document would force the court to have to quiet the title. If you’re attacking the property’s title because it violates statute, how then could the lender foreclose?

You can’t break one law to enforce another law! 

This is why Appendix 11 of The C&E on Steroids! has all of those statutes in it!  If the document affects your chain of title, you have an “in” to attack it through declaratory relief.  All American homeowners are entitled to have a property that has marketable title and this is why these remedies were created.  American property owners need to wake up and realize what they’re up against here, because it’s not really that expensive a proposition to attack these assignments.  There’s always quiet title too … which is why we included that in the latest book, which includes an 8-DVD training video kit!

You want your attorney to know the truth?  Share this information with him (or her).  If attorneys knew the simplicity of doing a declaratory relief action, they’d have a whole new way to make a living without stressing themselves out over it. Did you hear that lawyers?   That’s why Al West (who is an attorney that uses the C&E  a lot in his practice) has graciously supplied a ton of exhibits for you to look at and glean from … it’s the best educational tool of the decade.

If there are over 500-million phony assignments and other bogus documents in the land records, why aren’t we doing something about it?

Frankly, if you can understand that when the crash hit and everyone found themselves upside down in their mortgage loans, 95% of them cut and ran … that’s why.  Someone has to carry the ball and pay it forward.  This may be your calling.

I assisted a Florida attorney in doing a C&E in a Release of Mortgage, which convoluted the title even further, designed to create a statutory violation while challenging the lender (3 cans down the road) to prove how the first lender paid off the original loan with refi money.  That too is in the book (pleadings and all)!

 

The training kit is here in limited supply.  I have 33 kits left in stock.  I do not know when we’ll reorder.  If you want to fight the good fight, then force the courts to make your property marketable again.  Until the courts deal with these title issues, you the homeowner are just helping the banks “kick the can down the road” … soon, we’ll end up as a nation of renters for sure, because only investors will own all the homes (at least that’s what they think).  They get stuck with the crappy titles and you get stuck being a renter!

Is that really what you want?

… AND HERE’S AN ADDED BONUS!

The folks who order this DVD training kit will get the new Robert Janes compilation of SHELLGAME MERS, the 2009 RULES and his latest white paper on defeating California foreclosures!  Included absolutely FREE!   

PLUS … I’ll throw in a copy of THE FDCPA, DEBT COLLECTION AND FORECLOSURES work as well … for use in fighting unscrupulous debt collectors.

That’s an extra $80 worth of useful tools to add to your arsenal

This offer will expire June 30, 2019 … so get your C&E training kit NOW!  

CLICK HERE TO ORDER!

Leave a comment

Filed under OP-ED