Daily Archives: October 7, 2020


(OP-ED) — Round two of not being straight with the American people.

This author has never been so frustrated watching a debate before as this one. I thought the last debate was a joke. This one was a polite joke.

FIRST PERSON: “I felt like I was trying to break out of a thorazine drip!”

Neither Vice Presidential candidate truly answered the questions posed by Susan Page directly and to the point before they started in on each other’s alleged track records and that of their presidential components. Some questions Page posited went completely unanswered. What kind of answers do the American people deserve? The ones from talking heads?

Have you ever felt like you wanted to get out of your chair, reach into the TV set and bitch-slap a candidate to get to the truth of what is going on?


The first thing I would do is answer the moderator’s question point blank. That way, I wouldn’t come off sounding like a politician. If you want to play loose and fast with the facts, even if their “your own facts” (sic), then don’t answer the f**king question. After you give the direct answer to the question, then you can elaborate and go off on any tangent you want. But to take off on the previous point and play the antagonist, trying to throw off your opponent, I’m dumbfounded. If I could just get a straight answer …

I think the whole charade before the American public was dumbfounding. All the politicos can pat themselves on the back, thinking their side won … and all the glib libs came right on after the debate, extolling the virtues of whatever mattered, when in fact, nothing about this debate mattered. It was a 3-ring circus! Geez. At least they could have put Deborah Norville on there and cobbled together something representing Entertainment Tonight. This was worse than the effing Oscars!

I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Trump is disrespected because he is a businessman and whether he pays $750 a year in taxes? Seriously? I wish we could all have the same business acumen he has … we’d all be millionaires!

With that, I quote the Honorable Supreme Court Justice Learned Hand in the case of Gregory v. Helvering, 293 US 465 (1935):

“Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.”

Now if Americans understood that, they would all be trying to figure out how to not pay taxes. It’s not tax evasion. It’s tax avoidance. And Harris made it out as if President Trump did something illegal when in fact, he’s a businessman and that’s why the Democratic hierarchy and Deep State despise him. If people knew that they could form their own LLC and be self-employed and get over 75 write-offs a year on their taxes, they’d be doing it.

The problem is … they don’t recognize opportunity unless they have a mindset for business. That’s way out of their comfort zone. They’d rather (as Kevin Spacey put it in American Beauty) have “a job with the least amount of responsibility.”

There was so much contradictory information tossed about by Miss Nasal and Mr. Perfect Hair that I found it nauseating as I tried to get to the truth of the subject matter on a split screen that featured talking heads shaking at each other in disbelief, ignoring the subject matter of the questions and using their precious time to attack the other side’s alleged positions.

We still haven’t gotten to the truth about Hillary Clinton’s 30,000 emails and who hired who to surveil the Trump Campaign. We don’t know if it was a smoke screen, but I couldn’t get past the “fracking” attacks to reach any known conclusion as the events of this are still unfolding.

The only thing I surmised from all this was the entire debate was a polite extension of the first one. And I think most Americans have done enough research on Kamala Harris to know she’s not black. Even the media is fumbling with the facts. I don’t know if I could take four years of President Harris’ nasality. Is that Barbra Streisand wearing a wig? Can I get a cup of coffee? What a whiner! OMG! Did I say President Harris? I think you all know why I might have misspoke. If Joe Biden is elected, he will be the oldest serving President … and he could make history by passing away while in office (or hiding behind a mask in his basement). Hell, who knows? Is President Harris what you want?

Throughout history, there is a marked difference in politics:

Republican: Pro Business, Lower Taxes, More Deductions, Lower Government Regulations and Interference, Promotion of a Free Market Enterprise System, Pro-Corporatism, Less Control over the Individual, Pro-Bank, Less Environmental Controls

Democrat: Pro Consumer, Higher Taxes, Less Deductions, More Government Regulations and Interference with Free Market Enterprise, Anti-Corporatism, More Control over the Individual, Pro-Bank, More Environmental Controls

And AOC wants her Green New Deal to stop cows farting? Seriously? Anyone for cow tipping? All of DC needs an enema folks!

I would hate to see mandatory vaccines like they’re doing in Western Australia. If you don’t comply, they’ll take you somewhere, strip you and force a needle in your butt! Don’t think that couldn’t happen here? Think again. This vaccine might have a biochip in it! One that tracks every move you make, your cellular makeup and your ongoing health statistics! That’s on the table right now and it’s pretty scary shit!

I guess I can only close by saying … Vote your conscience. What do you want to see in DC for the next 4 years? (as if I expect anything different out of this 1-party system) Hand me the hairspray! My coif is coming undone.

After this farce, I need a drink.


Filed under OP-ED

Letting the banks “get away with it” …

(BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED) — Part of what we’ll be discussing in the upcoming Foreclosure Defense 101 Workshop on Saturday, October 24th between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. (EDT) is affidavits … in general … and specifically regarding lost notes and assignments.

To further this discussion, I did some heavy research after seeing a Law.com post about a Pennsylvania “lost note affidavit” case and upon review, found what I was looking for … and the results were shocking!

On Page 2 of this 12-page opinion, the borrower (Rao) mortgaged the property and gave MERS nominee status on behalf of SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. That was in early 2006. Notice the following sentence … “On or around April 22, 2013, SunTrust discovered the note was missing from their vault and David Aken, Vice President, executed a Lost Note Affidavit.” Two years later MERS, assigned the mortgage to MB Financial.

Without looking at the assignment, I’ll bet you the servicer’s employees drafted and executed that assignment and it all followed Rao’s alleged “default” on his mortgage (March 1, 2011). That means it took SunTrust two years (April 22, 2013) to discover it didn’t have a “note” in its vault. Could it be that the note was shredded after it was uploaded into the MERS® System? At the bottom of page 2, MB Financial claimed it was in possession, either “directly or through an agent” of a “Lost Note Affidavit”, maintaining it had the right to foreclose on the mortgage.

Now we go to court … MB Financial’s attorney brought in a witness from SunTrust’s “default” department, attesting to the fact that a “Lost Note Affidavit” existed with a “copy” of the note, which contained no endorsement page. Gee, the author wonders how they got a “copy” of the Note if it was lost … Hmmm. Did anyone bother to ask why that was so? How can you negotiate a “note” if only a “copy” exists?

The bank also submitted a certified copy of the Assignment of Mortgage, assumedly drafted and executed by SunTrust to MB Financial. The trial court sustained Mr. Rao’s objection to the Lost Note Affidavit based on hearsay and refused to allow it into evidence, in addition to the admission of the Limited Power of Attorney.

The confusion begins where Mr. Rao (assumedly through his attorney) first made an oral motion for a Nonsuit and discussing with the judge the difference between a Nonsuit and a Directed Verdict, which the Court then entered on behalf of the homeowner. The Directed Verdict was later changed to a Nonsuit in favor of the homeowner after the bank filed a Post-Trial Motion. The next paragraphs … read them carefully because they contain the “nuggets”, in which the objections were sustained in favor of the homeowner.

Understand that was this entire matter was over was the differences between a nonsuit and a directed verdict and what the evidence could otherwise prove or show. Because the Trial Court precluded the Lost Note Affidavit from evidence, MB Financial couldn’t prove “possession” of the Note. But could it “prove” its case anyway if it only had a “copy”?

This is where it helps to know local court rules (or at best, state rules).

What you’re seeing in this case is the roundabout, typical argument that banks always use in getting their lost notes “re-established” to make them “stick” as evidence at trial. Why then, did it take SunTrust so long to discover it had no note? Was it because it wasn’t until after 2011 that Rao didn’t pay his mortgage loan and someone went looking for the documentation? Why did it take so long to discover the original note wasn’t part of the collateral loan file? The Superior Court ruled that as long as the witness can “provide sufficient information relating to the preparation and maintenance of the records” to justify their trustworthiness, they should be allowed into evidence as business records.

However, there is no mention of proof of the default. Since MERS was involved, the note had to have been securitized into a REMIC trust, which was commonplace during that time. The author sees no evidence of any default argument here, but rather, a business records exception argument.

Also notice that the Court declined to analyze whether the contents of the Lost Note Affidavit complied with the statutory “sufficiency requirements” and reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. That means MB Financial “gets another bite at the apple”.

And this is why we’re going to cover the affidavits per se in our upcoming workshop. The basis for creating an affidavit is personal knowledge and how and when “things” got lost, stolen, misplaced … or even created in the first place!

You can sign up for the workshop on the Clouded Titles website!

The author of this post is not an attorney and offers this constructive analysis for educational purposes only.

Leave a comment