Category Archives: OP-ED

FDCPA CAN STILL APPLY TO NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURES!

(OP-ED) — The author of this post is the author of The FDCPA, Debt Collection and Foreclosures … and posits the following for educational purposes and for your consideration in the paradigm shift that has now become the focus of thousands of consumers.

I’ve noticed an uptick in the number of pro-bank/pro-debt collector law firm postings regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest narrow ruling in the Obduskey case (out of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals).  I love how these folks like to “pat themselves on the back” for their observations that non-judicial foreclosure proceedings can still be business as usual, despite the caveats their posts now contain.  Why on earth would they post “caveats” to the debt collection industry (which includes law firms like the one Dennis Obduskey filed an FDCPA action against) if they were so sure of themselves in being able to just walk all over borrowers they claim are in default?

Despite the fact the nation’s highest court resolved the federal circuit split on whether non-judicial foreclosures can continue as “business as usual”, the ruling was “narrow in scope” regarding the enforcement of security interests as defined under 15 USC § 1692f(6), which is what the Court focused on in its decision: Obduskey v McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 586 U.S. ___ (2019)

What Congress intended … 

Creditors used to love the idea that they could open up a can of “whoop ass” on debtors any time they felt like it, even late-night, repetitive or threatening phone calls (“I know where you live” and “your mommy’s going to jail” and “we’re going to sue you if you don’t pay” or “we’re going to bomb your office building if you don’t come down here and pay this bill” or “you !@)#(%^!”.)  The caveats I’m seeing in these law blog posts still make reference to the fact that the latest FDCPA-related ruling DOESN’T mean “business as usual”.  It simply means that debt collectors trying to enforce deeds of trusts have to be extra careful NOT to step over that well-defined line of intended “abuses” that do in fact, fall under the FDCPA!

Enforcing a recorded security interest (deed of trust, security deed, HELOC, etc.) in a non-judicial state means just that.  If a third party (the trustee, NOT MERS) intends on using the terms of the security instrument to act as the third party in taking back collateral, the collection activity has to specifically and purely involve that process.  The narrow ruling still prohibits abusive debt collection practices, whether or not a non-judicial foreclosure is still the intended outcome.  The abusive debt collection practices fall under 15 USC 1692d and 15 USC 1692e, as well as portions of 15 USC 1692f (1) through (5) and (6)(B)(C) and (7) and (8).  See here for clarification: FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 09-1996

If you have a case … you have a case … 

Every time the debt collection industry scores a narrow victory, they pontificate their accomplishments as soon as humanly possible, almost to the point of bragging rights (see, I told you so … lemme rub your nose in it) kind of stuff.  This is typical of the legal profession, especially the kind that can operate unchecked when it comes to carrying out enforcement actions.

One of the more remarkable things I find is that all non-judicial foreclosures are assumed to be legal unless otherwise challenged.  One of the things I put forward in the book (mentioned above) is that careful analysis of the debt collection laws needs to be strictly adhered to (the letter of the law), which you are attempting to assert was violated.

How the “chain of title” points to potential suspect violations of 15 USC 1692e(5) … 

Here’s where the latest ammo we’ve been sharing on the C&E comes into play.  Cancellation and expungement (C&E) actions are used to disable and destroy the authority these debt collectors rely on to even enforce a security instrument.  Under “False or misleading representations” (§ 807 of the FDCPA), section 5 prohibits false, deceptive or misleading representation in threatening “to take any action that cannot legally be taken” … which would mean to me that if you could strip away the lies contained within the assignments that generally precede the initiation of a non-judicial foreclosure action through a C&E, the authority of the debt collector would be void and the debt collector’s representations would then be false and misleading, which IS a violation of the FDCPA!

Champagne budget … Beer Belly Pocketbook! 

A C&E action is definitely a cheaper way to wage war on an unsuspecting servicer (who is really behind the scenes of the debt collection/non-judicial enforcement proceeding), stripping away whatever rights it thinks it has to steal your house on behalf of party or parties unknown (which could be Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, lest we hold the GSEs unaccountable in the end) than waging an all-out FDCPA battle in federal court, which costs substantially more money.  Try to keep the emotions in check for the moment while I finish.

The document the servicers are creating is the assignment of deed of trust (much like the assignment of mortgage), which they claim gives them the authority (on behalf of the alleged “lender”) to appoint a substitute trustee to initiate a non-judicial foreclosure.  Do you have a contract with the mortgage loan servicer?   (Didn’t think so.)  However, servicers have Limited Powers of Attorney, which they claim give them the authority to do whatever they want, including wading into the shark-infested waters of violations created under the FDCPA.  Strip away their authority under the assignment as void … they’re like “chum in the water”.

This is why I’m releasing a two-day training video DVD set with the latest book by attorney Al West and myself, The C&E on Steroids! in very short order.  What better a way to deal with America’s tainted real property records than to fight the good fight head-on in state court, rather than wage a flimsy, unsupported war in federal court without first demonstrating the ultra vires behavior of the trustee thanks to a phony assignment, which you’ve knocked out FIRST in a C&E action!

2 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

MIAMI-DADE JUDGE BITCH SLAPS US BANK!

(BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED) — 

It’s not every day a judge gets vile with a plaintiff REMIC trying to foreclose on some unsuspecting homeowner … however; in this case, Judge Beatrice Butchko (of the infamous Buset case, you know, the one she said where HSBC came into court with unclean hands?) did a smack down on U.S. Bank’s attorneys with a show cause order:

Signed-Order-to-Show-Cause

If the infamous Buset case wasn’t enough for you, this case has some serious robosigning underpinnings, thanks to your wonderful friends at Bank of America, N.A.:

ZAYAS ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE

And for those of you C&E fans out there … you’ll be glad to see what’s in the assignment of mortgage that Bank of America contract workers in Simi Valley, California (B of A’s document mill) cranked out, all those famous names, the names you know … Dominique Johnson, Mary Ann Hierman and Srbui Muradyan … and lest we forget L.A. Llanos, who signed the document under penalty of perjury under California law!  Sadly, a Miami-Dade law firm was involved in the manufacture of the assignment.  Can you see the name of the attorney in the upper, left-hand corner of the recorded Instrument?

They even backdated the assignment to March 6, 2010.  But no matter … the REMIC trust was closed on March 30, 2006, so backdating the assignment to March 6, 2010 means nothing. The REMIC’s cut-off date was March 1, 2006.  And let’s talk about the ADVANCES section, shall we?

Anyone researching into MortgageIt knows this entity was fully acquired by Deutsche Bank Structured Products on January 3, 2007, nearly 3 years after MortgageIt went public.  The two would later settle fraud charges under the federal False Claims Act for repeated false certifications to HUD.  In January of 2018, MortgageIT ceased its wholesale lending practices.

Under the ADVANCES section, do you notice that this section is all about the Servicer and NOT the REMIC?  From the looks of these two paragraphs, this REMIC was subprime shit!

And for those of you who think CoreLogic is your friend, think again.  And exactly what happened to the Simi Valley, California document mill, in which a majority of the assignments involved or named CoreLogic within the document?   All of a sudden, it ceased to exist, after reportedly retaining over 40 contract robosigners to affix their signatures to assignments like the one shown in this post, supervised by at least 3 Bank of America employees.  The majority of the Simi Valley garbage was produced between 2012 and 2015.  Anything you see involving the law firm handling the processing of the foreclosure, CoreLogic and Bank of America should be considered suspect and flagged for investigation.

Where’s the Note?

Good question.  There’s no mention of it in the assignment of mortgage.  There are (to date) 181 docket listings for this case, leading up to the judge’s Show Cause Order.

The Note was never assigned.  And we all know that notes are “negotiated” right?   So … we went looking for the October 21, 2005 note in the Court file and voila:

Notice the indorsement-in-blank is undated?  There is no effective date of transfer, nor does it evidence 3 true sales as stated within the REMIC’s own sales pitch (below), needed to occur.  And exactly HOW MANY payments of principal and interest did the servicer make to the certificate holders before it demanded to be reimbursed.  How many credit default swaps were executed as part of the deal that paid out?   How much default insurance was cashed in on?   Certainly the title was screwed up?   How much did the sponsor-seller make off of claiming that the securities were equitable instruments when they were, in fact, nothing but evidence of debt.  This is the problem with Wall Street … fooling investors and the government into believing that this subprime shit actually had value when the trusts were probably empty promises to begin with!

SEC Info – Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Inc – ‘424B5’ on 3:29:06 re: Specialty Underwriting & Re

A lot of “proof” has to go into the pudding, so let’s take a look at the recent Certo case and see if we can glean any juicy details as far as the note is concerned:

Certo v BONY Mellon, 1D17-4421 (Apr 3, 2019)

I know.  It’s information overload.  But it’s current … and in the Certo case, the 1st DCA reversed the circuit court’s ruling of foreclosure.

And how is it that MERS alone was being relied on by people who had little to no idea was MERS was (in the assignment)?  At least one contract worker who said he worked at the BofA document mill said he signed over 225 documents a day as a Vice President of MERS and had no idea who MERS was!  If that’s not f**ked up, I don’t know what is!  But hey, when you put your faith in the American Banking System, you get F**KED!

The author of this post is the authored of Clouded Titles, available at CloudedTitles.com!  The commentary expressed herein is the opinion of the authors and does not constitute legal advice.  If you want legal advice, get an attorney that knows how to properly draft and file a cancellation and expungement action on a recorded assignment,  In Florida, we like F.C.C. § 817.535, which has a civil component to it.

To all of the C&E students who recently attended the Las Vegas workshop … see if you can spot the targets in the Assignment of Mortgage in this article!  How many in-state and out-0f-state defendants and/or deponents can you identify?   Put that show cause order date on your calendar.  I’ll be interested to see what Judge Butchko does to these morons.

It’s funny that they can come into court and assert stuff.  Then, when asked to prove it up through discovery, they refuse to give us the goods that we can use to eviscerate them.  Lest we also forget … what about this piece?: U_S_BANK_Brochure_Borrower-is-a-party_9-13

All of this stuff leaves us with a lot of questions, right?    But it appears Judge Butchko isn’t leaving a lot to chance.  She appears to have closed a lot of loopholes versus the outcome in the Buset case, where she determined HSBC came to court with unclean hands.  It won’t be the first time.

If Deutsche Bank subsumed MortgageIT in 2007, how did this REMIC, with US Bank as its Trustee, end up with the Note and Mortgage in 2010, long after the REMIC closed?

See IRC § 860(g) and New York Estates Powers & Trusts § 7-2.4.

Bruce Jacobs certainly has his hands full again, right?

To be continued.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

STARING AT DOUBLE D’S ???

(OP-ED) — The author of this post issues the following warning:  Make sure that you vet whoever it is you’re going to associate with in life, especially in the pursuit of fighting corrupt banks and those who may claim they have a “silver bullet”.   There are lots of naysayers and gainsayers occupying the Internet these days.  Thus, surfing the Internet looking for answers to foreclosure dilemmas and jumping at the first thing that sounds plausible to you is risky!

The Internet is a dangerous place … full of information and disinformation!

It has come to my attention that certain entities out there have taken somewhat of a liking to the cancellation and expungement actions discussed in the recent Las Vegas workshop, covered by this author and Al West, Esq.  The reason Al West teaches this stuff is because he’s done it before.  He has eliminated both deeds of trust and assignments from land records in California.  Since then, there has been an evolution of the cancellation and expungement action, one that has certainly been overlooked by attorneys elsewhere, because they can’t make a big return off of doing “sniper approach” tactics.  Nope.  They want to file 20-count lawsuits because that racks up tens of thousands of dollars in fees for them.  This is part of the reason why the justice system has failed America … use of the “shotgun approach”.

So they take to the Internet, take an approach to the C&E and “embellish” it to their own tastes, whether it comports with what we taught (or not).  There’s nothing worse than filing a C&E and not sticking to the point and letting the other side’s servicer or lender come in and ruin things by changing the judge’s mind, even though the law says otherwise.

Damn every judge that won’t follow the law!   I hope they all rot in hell! 

As Al West explained in the C&E Workshop, judges are all worried about their pensions which are invested in these REMIC trusts.  Thus, any time something that looks “legitimately suspect” comes before them, they look into the end result and what it might mean for them before they issue a ruling against the party filing the C&E. If you bring up the note, you deserve to lose, because the note has nothing to do with the false statements made on the assignments and other title documents, including releases of lien and even notices of lis pendens!

Discussing the implications of foul play in an assignment is one thing.  Telling a judge the note has something to do with the false statements in an assignment is quite another.

Anyone who wants to make securitization the focal point of their argument in a C&E is putting their cases at risk as well.  This document does not talk about who has what endorsement on what note.  The documents filed in the land records serve as constructive notice, no matter how long they’ve been there!  Notes are only used as SUPPORTING EVIDENCE!

Thank you Patriots! 

And I’m not talking about the football team either ….  I’m talking about those well-meaning individuals out there that want to pro se, pro per, sui juris, su-eeee, su-eeee (how you call a pig) whatever that screwed up the land records filing false liens against judges, county officials and people with whom they have an axe to grind.  THOSE are the folks that caused the “two-edged sword” legislation to come into fruition because they filed documents into the land records that were clearly criminal, causing every state legislature to pass laws prohibiting the recording of such documents (that contain false information).  What’s good for the goose, then, is good for the gander. Those who got in trouble for it went to jail, unless they were a mortgage loan servicer or its employees.  Then, they just flat out used falsely-stated information in an assignment to simply “steal the house”!  They’re proud of it too!

THE COTA

Unless you understand how your title documents come into play in the land record (which I why I started out doing Chain Of Title Assessments), you won’t have a clue WHY your chain of title is screwed up.  The interrelation of the land records has everything to do with the outcome of the C&E and a judge has to be educated well enough in the process to understand that there are issues with a document that cannot be ignored, which is why we have expert witness attorneys who will testify on behalf of the claimant, in an effort to sustain the integrity of the court, to save the judge from being tossed into prison under state statute, for aiding and abetting felony perjury!

Do you feel as if you’re in the middle of a freaking carnival?

There’s a dog and pony show jumping on our bandwagon at every turn … and we don’t even have a bandwagon!  So why do lawyers say that homeowners love the simplicity of a C&E?  Because lawyers can’t make any money doing them.  Or so they think.  Had they come to the workshop, like some lawyers did, they would have learned that in certain instances, there are methods for securing additional funds to bolster the war chest that are out there and available to attorneys (ripe for the picking).  In the alternative, case law has taught us a few ways to take an individual’s confession and turn it into gold.

Yet, the carnies are out there!   You know, those carnival barkers!  Yelling at everyone to come and see the greatest show on earth???  It’s like going to the circus and you’re the main attraction.   And you look up at the trapeze artist … all in glitter … and wonder … will she fall?   Do you ever feel like you’re swinging in the wind like her?

The C&E workshop video set is almost complete!  We’ll have it available on the Clouded Titles website soon!  Get educated, then get ugly!

Oh …

And those Double D’s you were staring at?

They stand for DUE DILIGENCE!

 

11 Comments

Filed under OP-ED, Securitization Issues, workshop

DEFEATING DIVERSITY IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS

(BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED) — The author of this post is the author of Clouded Titles, The Quiet Title War Manual, The C & E on Steroids!, The FDCPA, Debt Collection & Foreclosures, The Credit Restoration Primer, End Game Strategies, Beyond End Game Strategies and host of The Krieger Files.  The opinions expressed herein are that of the author and should not be construed as legal advice.  For legal advice, seek competent counsel that clearly understands what constitutes diversity jurisdiction.

Even in its most liberal stature, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has again, redefined and re-explained that REMIC trusts can end up costing you lots of money in litigation, fighting a losing battle in federal court by re-constituting an opinion of what constitutes diversity jurisdiction.  See the link below to the 17-page ruling:

Demarest v HSBC Bank USA NA, 9th App Cir No 17-56432 (Apr 8, 2019)

You’ll readily notice in the caption on Page 1 that HSBC and MERS were “incorrectly sued”, which would indicate to me they were sued in the wrong name, as indicated in the caption.

Part of the problem here is that the trustee was also sued (Western Progressive, LLC) and the trustee was also out-of-state as to its “headquarters”, which put all of the Defendants, coupled with the $75,000 required for complete diversity jurisdiction, squarely in federal court.

Again, Hawaii Attorney Gary Victor Dubin, who is again in the crosshairs of the Hawaii Bar (thanks to the banks and their attorneys who don’t like lawyers who beat them in court), likens being in federal court to suicide, which he has succinctly stated that it (suicide) is better than being in federal court.  Yet, a lot of people end up becoming victims within the federal system because of improper and incomplete pleadings.   Couple that with WHO you sue and the numbers of removed cases rise exponentially.

Why sue MERS?

This entity is the “bastard child” of MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., which is now owned by Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (which also owns the New York Stock Exchange).  This newly-acquired entity has the backing of Wall Street.  The ownership of MERS may have changed, but the stupidity of the courts in relying on every tenet of MERS’s flawed business model incorporated within the “MERS® System”, has caused nothing but utter conflict among the state courts and federal circuit courts.

Like MERS says or intimates in its pleadings (among some of the third-person, schizophrenic quotations from its collective counsel and others), “We didn’t do anything wrong!”  “We want to be all things to all people!”  “We are the God of Securitization!”  (sic)  “We are everyone’s beneficiary that names us in their mortgages and deeds of trust!”  “We can be a nominee (agent) and beneficiary at the same time!”  “We can do anything we want, because we’re MERS!”  “We can remove you to federal court because we know your pleadings lack sufficiency and we can get them dismissed!”  “We can be in multiple states at any given moment and the federal judges will do what we say because we own them!” (that’s what they think, seriously).

Knowing you’re dealing with such a filthy, stinking rich entity that kowtows to Wall Street, why in bloody hell would you name them in anything?  Do you seriously have deep pockets?

You’re dealing with a multi-billion-dollar-a-year company here.   Here are some facts you should face:

  1. You signed the mortgage (or deed of trust).  No one held a gun to your head.  You could have walked away from the closing, but you didn’t.
  2. You could have read the entire agreement, asked questions; and when you didn’t get sufficient answers, you could have put off the closing until you got clarification, but you didn’t.
  3. You had no idea that the closing agent and the entity that agent represented knew (or should have known) WHERE the funds were coming from; how the funds were getting to the escrow account that was wiring your funds to the closing agent; and all of the details regarding the validity of the “lender” and “mortgagee of record”.
  4. You had no idea what the acronym “MIN” meant … nor had you any idea of the 18-digit number following that acronym.
  5. You had no idea your loan was being securitized through a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC) on Wall Street.
  6. You had no idea that your home loan was being funded by investors unknown to you.

Yet, you got hoodwinked into signing your life away to a life of potential PTFD (Post-Traumatic Foreclosure Disorder), should you fail to make your monthly mortgage payments!

What constitutes diversity jurisdiction?

In order to be able to remove a lawsuit to federal court (which is a court of limited jurisdiction), two things have to occur:

  1. The Plaintiff is a resident of State “A”, while the Defendant(s) are known to be residents of State “B”.
  2. The amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.

Gee … I wonder what would happen if the homeowner showed the caption as:

Joan Demarest and the Registered Holders of Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-HE2 … as joint petitioners … with NO defendants listed … and asked for a declaratory judgment ruling on the merits of WHO got screwed in this deal?  Where’s the controversy then?  (you attorneys can chime in here)

In order to have justiciable controversy (the makings of a proper lawsuit that a court can claim jurisdiction to rule on), you have to have a Plaintiff and a Defendant(s).  If you have “joint petitioners” and NO defendants, how can there be a “controversy” if both joint petitioners agree on the same thing?  Despite the fact that the certificate holders are from all over the world, some of them (To Be Determined) may be in the state you’re residing in (State “A”).   If there’s no State “B”, then why list DOES 1-10, inclusive, like this case did?    I actually litigated a case (while out of state) through the mail, with a co-party, as joint petitioners, and got my ruling from a court in Missouri!  Does that surprise you?

Diversity FAILS if … 

  1. There is no amount in controversy (which is what you have in a declaratory relief case, like a cancellation and expungement action (C&E) over a bogus document in the land records; and
  2. You aren’t naming out-of-state defendants until the in-state defendants respond and lock the case up in state court.

Does this make any legal sense to you?

This is part of what we taught in the C&E Workshop in Las Vegas April 6th and 7th. 

America’s land records are a “crime scene”!

MERS’s flawed business model helped make it that way.  Over 80-million homeowners who unknowingly borrowed investor money through securitized mortgages did the rest of the damage.  It was “intentional” on MERS’s part.   It was ‘unintentional” on the homeowners’ part.

Despite the fact you can beat diversity, certain entities will remove the case to federal court anyway, just to F**K with you and your pocketbook!  MERS is one of those entities.

There is a right way and a wrong way to approach this scenario.  What Joan Demarest did in her case was the wrong way.

The “trustee” is a necessary party in Deed of Trust states!

You should know that if you name the trustee in your lawsuit, it’s likely that the trustee is “headquartered” out-of-state.   The trustee (in this case) was declared by the 9th Circuit panel to be a “real party to the controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction when he possess certain customary powers to hold, manage, and dispose of assets for the benefit of others”.

This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on May 27, 2016.  You would think that by then, anyone involved in this case could have figured out what the “end result” could be … but NO!  We have attorneys out there that like to use the “shotgun approach” instead of the “sniper approach”.  This is why California Attorney Al West and I put together “The C & E on Steroids!”   It’s a sniper approach to cleaning up the “crime scene”.   If you clean up the “crime scene”, then what evidence is there that a crime occurred?  What evidence is there that a party has standing to foreclose when the intended “consequence” of an assignment is declared void, cancelled and expunged from the land records?

This is why we found instructional appellate case law to support our research and methodology for doing these types of “sniper approach” end game strategies.  Everyone wants an “end game”.  Getting to that point is why people run into trouble having their dirty laundry removed to federal court where it’s likely to get dismissed on a 12(b)(6) motion.  And the foreclosure happens anyway, because “we’re too pissed to think straight!”

Watch the movie “American Sniper”.  Then, liken that mindset to your approach.  Knowing WHEN, WHERE, HOW and WHY you need to “take out” a target makes all the difference in the world.

Look for The C & E on Steroids!, along with the DVD training video kit, available in early May, only on CloudedTitles.com!

Sniper training at your fingertips!

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED, Securitization Issues, workshop

AN EXAMPLE OF HOW A C & E FITS INTO THE SYSTEM OF THINGS!

(NOT-SO-BREAKING-NEWS — OP-ED) — The poster of this blog is NOT an attorney; however, he works with attorneys to achieve positive results in creating potential legal scenarios that could stop foreclosures dead in their tracks! 

There are times when the legal system “pats itself on the back” and times when it pauses to reflect on past issues.  The party discussed in this case happens to be one Jorge Porter, a gentleman I was introduced to long ago by the late Coral Gables, Florida foreclosure defense attorney John Herrera, who sadly passed away long before his time.   It never ceases to amaze me that “the system of things” that runs the legal profession and the manner in which case law is established and made available to the public comes at a time when it’s convenient for the banking industry and not for consumers.

Such is the case here, where it’s taken several months for a Third DCA Florida case to reveal itself:

CitiMortgage, Inc v Jorge Porter et al, 3D17-2469 (Dec 19, 2018)

Bogus documents?  You bet!  Suspect criminal behavior?  You bet.  The Appellate Court even used the term “criminal” in its ruling!   There are some great Florida cases cited in this ruling, which reflect on past cases where fraudulent documents were introduced into the case, relied upon, to the detriment of the parties bringing these suspect documents into court!

Then surprisingly, months later, the legal profession decided to approach this subject matter, with a blog posting:

Lexology Article on Porter Case (Mar 21, 2019)

When one reads the court’s order … and then reads the Lexology post, it pins the misbehavior directly on the borrower, Jorge Porter!  This also goes to show you that “two wrongs don’t make a right”!  Filing administrative crap in the land records like Deeds of Reconveyance, Substitutions of Trustee, Satisfactions of Mortgage, Land Patents, U.C.C.-1 Financing Statements and the like is NOT the way to solve your problems if you’re facing foreclosure or even default.  Because the Florida Third DCA pointed it out, the appellates did it for a reason.  You cannot file bogus crap in the land records to defeat a lien interest yourself!  We have a process to legally deal with the system of things when bogus documents are suspect.

It’s called a cancellation and expungement action (C & E)!

We wrote a book about it (see below).  No one else has done this because no one has really come up with any viable solution to challenge these documents even though state statutes allow for it.  Not only that, we’ve figured out a way to “make it personal”, which means we’ve figured out a way to by-pass the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and go after the lawyers, document mills, notaries and title companies who caused this bogus crap to be recorded in the land records in the first place!  All one has to do is go searching in the land records for assignments and I will prove my point 9 times out of 10!   You see, the recent Obduskey decision by the United States Supreme Court doesn’t address ethical violations committed by attorneys for the banks when they rely on bogus, criminally-conspired-and-drafted, fraudulently-recorded documents!  The Obduskey case also does NOT protect the robosigners and notaries whose names appear on these fraudulent documents!

Thus, California attorney Al West and I put together an intensive, two-day class to educate you as to HOW a C & E action is created, researched, analyzed, drafted, filed and executed on!

I’ve blogged about it before, but this case just got under my craw (Jorge Porter should have known better) and I had to share it because when “something is rotten in Denmark” and there are 500-million-plus suspect bogus documents in the land records THAT ARE STILL THERE and STILL CONTINUE TO BE THERE, even AFTER the foreclosure has taken place (some are actually recorded AFTER the foreclosure has taken place … by the very banks doing the foreclosing) … don’t you think you owe it to yourself to research what the “mongoose is to the snake”?

DETAILS ON THE WORKSHOP:

The host hotel has extended the registration deadline until

Friday, March 29th

for those of you wishing to reserve a sleeping room for the event.

The downloadable forms you need to attend are right here:

 LAS VEGAS FORECLOSURE DEFENSE WORKSHOP INFORMATION

Simply book your sleeping room for this event by clicking on this link:

 http://group.doubletree.com/ForeclosureDefense

We got a really great room rate and FREE breakfast buffet!

FREE airport shuttle service to and from Las Vegas McCarran Airport (LAS)!

Seating is limited! (and we mean “limited”)

We have millionaire investors … attorneys … homeowners in litigation …

trusts and LLCs in litigation … real estate agents and brokers … paralegals …

ALL REGISTERED TO ATTEND!

The best part is … DIRTY DOCUMENTS apply to all their cases!

You can pay for your attendance fees by visiting THIS LINK!

Once you’ve paid your attendance fee, click here:

FDW REGISTRATION FORM_LAS VEGAS_2019

to download your Registration Form!

Fill it out, scan it and email it HERE!

Make sure you pay attention to all pull-down menus and

related cart processing information!

We have a secure website and we do not store cardholder information!

Everyone attending gets handouts and a copy of the brand new book:

You don’t have much time though.  

The date of this workshop is fast approaching! 

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED, workshop