Category Archives: OP-ED


(OP-ED) — The commentary provided within this post is not legal advice.  The author of this post leaves it up to the reader of the material contained herein to determine its educational value and to always conduct due diligence prior to assuming you have rights that may not have been afforded to you, either in the chain of title … or in litigation. 

For some reason, this case was seared into my conscience.  I’ve seen a lot of investor cases, but this one … this one really spells it out for investors and third parties who attempt to acquire properties AFTER a foreclosure case has commenced, instead of BEFORE (as were the facts supported by this case):

Green Emerald Homes LLC v 21st Mtg Corp, 2D17-2192 (Jun 7, 2019)

Yes, I know it’s a Florida appellate case; however, it can be said that the facts contained within the case provide a complete measure of justice for investors throughout the entire State of Florida, the third most populated state in the U.S.

Notice that Florida Bar-suspended attorney Mark Stopa first litigated this case?  He was later replaced by the listed attorneys and their respective firms.  Notice Greenspoon Marder is representing the Defendant Bank (as Appellee)?  Put them on your radar as a definite “foreclosure mill law firm”.

This case also represents that Florida Circuit Court Judges are notorious for quickly granting judgments of foreclosure. Of course, in Stopa’s disciplinary hearing before the Florida Bar, a judge who testified in Stopa’s favor admitted that judges were getting pay raises based on their ability to clear their dockets of foreclosure cases, courtesy of the Florida legislature. So not only is is apparent that Florida judges have a conflict of interest, their pension funds are vested in the very securities they grant foreclosure judgments for. This makes every Florida judge (and virtually all other state judges throughout the country) susceptible for recusal based on a conflict of interest.  Most states allow recusal for cause.  Some states allow recusal of a judge without cause.  You have to do your homework.

My point on this case is found in the citations listed throughout the ruling. There are oodles of case citations from every appellate district in Florida that support the arguments being propounded by the 2nd DCA!  These cases feed directly into the reasoning this appellate court took in noting that Green Emerald (the investor) took title BEFORE the filing of the Lis Pendens notice, not AFTER!

Further, notice the caveats (to investors) within the concurring-dissenting opinion filed by one of the judges.  ALL of the sticking points for safe investing are found there!  This case was full of “nuggets”, which is why I suggested reading it in the first place, especially BEFORE you drop a dime on any investment.  Believe me, if I were in Green Emerald’s shoes, I would have researched the chain of title to check for “hiccups” in the chain that could be attacked.  It’s always the dirty assignments, which is why C&E’s are so useful in attacking their false and misrepresentative statements.  Defeating assignments (whether you recognize it or not), knocks the “standing” legs out from under the Plaintiff bank (through its mortgage servicer), while placing unwanted scrutiny on the bastards that created the document and under whose direction!  You’ll find the foreclosure mills in many instances are directly tied to the creation of the phony documents they intend to rely on at trial (or in deed of trust state by advertisement and sale) for the prosecution of foreclosures.

Taking property “subject to” could mean one of two things … (1) you either want to continue to pay on the note and keep the mortgage “in play” until it’s paid off; or (2) you ignore the note and mortgage and prepare to spend thousands of dollars defending your position in court when the foreclosure suit is commenced.  In either case, it pays to have your name on title BEFORE the SHTF!  The other aspect NOT PURSUED here, noticeably, is that Green Emerald didn’t present any evidence that it had an assignment of the borrower’s litigation rights bestowed upon them (another key ingredient to having standing to litigate a foreclosure complaint.

And that’s all I have to say about that.

1 Comment

Filed under OP-ED


(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



(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


(OP-ED) — PLAN B … it is what it is.  

What it is … is what you make of it!

If you were to take a poll of America’s political climate today, most of our citizenry would say that, at best, it’s “heated”.

In fact, most people are so focused on the arguendo about what to do with our ever-changing society, they fail to recognize their own government’s moral compass.  It’s not a pretty picture folks.

Our government behaves like a drunken sailor … writing checks its body can’t cash.  I’m talking about Congress here.  I’m talking about BOTH SIDES of the aisle, not just one political party.

When you campaign for office and people financially support you (including political action groups), you owe someone. If I have to be quirky to remind you of this, watch the clip from Robin Williams’ blockbuster, Man of the Year.

When these politicians get into office, especially the “two-year types”, they spend the next two years trying to get re-elected. They kiss their constituents asses rather than doing what’s good for the people who pay taxes and support this screwed-up system of bureaucracy that BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE have created.  There is no middle ground here.

What’s even more troublesome is the fact that you have less money at the end of the month and/or you continue to struggle to pay bills, even in light of the “promotional programming” by our government … everything is “just fine”. In reality, you know that it’s not. Truthfully, this nation is in a serious financial crisis … and that crisis is at home.

Working through the “bumps in the road” … 

If a serious crisis were to hit your household, would you be prepared to deal with it?

Most Americans, like their government, are in debt.  I’ve heard the old saying, “There’s good debt and there’s bad debt.”

If you believe that line of crap, then your situation is worse than the average American thinks, because most Americans have a real problem handling debt and the debt service leaves little room to make contingency plans in case the inevitable happens.

The “inevitable” could be (for many) a loss of employment, loss of benefits (like retirement plans) due to job restructuring or downsizing or Chapter 11 reorganization of the company you work for … or even medical issues or foreclosure of a home you’ve been paying on faithfully for years.  Because so many of us struggle just to maintain, contingency planning always gets put on the back shelf.  In fact, most Americans don’t like to deal with contingency planning because it forces them to think about “what if” scenarios.

Believe me when I tell you this … your government has lots of “Plan B’s” … it has a lot of contingencies to preserve its infrastructure in the event the “inevitable” happens.  To our government, violation of its social contract with its people is the greatest fear it has … or at least the perception by its people (you know, “We the People”) that the government we entrusted to provide for our “general welfare” is failing miserably to the point of taking steps to place us all under authoritarian control.  You see, when a national crisis hits, the federal government could care less what happens in your home.  It only cares about maintaining control of its infrastructure and enforcing the whims of a potential “shadow government” that could be put into place should a national calamity arise.  The “shadow government” operates under the name FEMA; however, it is controlled by another phase of shadow government, Deep State.

Nothing is sacred these days when it comes to government-sponsored or government-regulated programs.  Congress keeps changing the laws and milking the taxpayer of its wealth to keep funding its political “system of things”.  Let’s face it, our government is not prepared for a war on American soil.  And that war could come in many shapes and sizes … from foreign invasion to a civil war or an all-out revolution.

Foreign invasion could be something as simple as an EMP attack 400 miles up in the atmosphere.  With a single detonation, the greater part of America could be turned into the Stone Age again … and Americans are ill prepared for that.  You’re fooling yourself if you don’t have your emergency operating systems contained in a Faraday cage.

A civil war is what I’m more worried about because of the political climate created by our Congress in failing to work with the Chief Executive.  Just because he’s not a politician (he’s more like a CEO of a major corporation) doesn’t mean we should treat our situation any less than honest as to the results that this Congress has brought about (or the lack thereof).  You saw what happened in Charlottesville.  You see how the media handled that.  You see the influx of illegal immigrants crossing our borders and the fight that has erupted over “the wall” that a lot of Americans think is necessary.  Yet, our government seemingly doesn’t listen.  Ever ask yourself why that is so?

Our government does not care what the general population (the “sheeeple”) thinks.  Our government is filled with politicians and bureaucrats who get hefty paychecks that could care less what you think.  99% of government workers believe everything their government tells them.  If their government tells them that everything is okay, then they believe it.  They are more entitled than the average American because they get to have the opportunity to “double dip” and draw government-sponsored pensions.  At least, many government workers USED TO believe that … until the most recent government shutdown … and the government workers couldn’t pay their bills.

And what did the government do?

Political infighting took over and caused repeated stalemate after stalemate until the government’s own employment base began to suffer what the folks affected by the 2008 financial crisis faced.  The government eventually stepped in and created contingency plans to help those workers out.  What the government didn’t do in 2008, was prop up the foreclosure crisis.  Frankly, that’s because the government was “in on it”.  In fact, the state governments were so blatant about their dealings in it that they took settlement money that was destined to repay taxpayers for their losses and misappropriated it to their general funds.  Why?  To protect their own political infrastructures! Even the state governments are recognizing that the federal government is failing in that regard (protecting the general welfare).

I know … that’s a harsh criticism.  But it’s the truth.  If you think I’m full of shit, then ask yourself WHO the government bailed out when the financial crisis hit.  Hmmm???   Did you get a check in the mail to bring your mortgage current?  Didn’t think so.  The government workers however, did get some relief, just so the government could preserve its own infrastructure.  And then … Americans just went quietly about their business with no concern over their own “general welfare” because at least the government was “back to normal”.  Seriously?   By that time, I had already taken action.  I set about my “Plan B” after I walked away from my own home in 2003, you can read about it here.

History repeats itself. Those who are ignorant of it are doomed to repeat it. 

Have we not learned anything from this?   Did we not learn anything from Hurricane Katrina?

Have we not learned from any natural disaster?  Have we not learned from the 2008 financial crisis?

This is why most Americans can’t fathom a “Plan B” scenario … they are all still in denial that anything of that magnitude could happen again.  Well, it’s going to happen again, because the same set of scenarios that created the first financial collapse (2008) are happening again (securitization of mortgage loans, no money down NINJA loans, etc.) and we are starting to see an economic bubble forming again.

Student loan debt has surpassed the $1.5-trillion mark.  Those facing that debt reality are facing the fact they won’t be able to get a mortgage loan, which means they’re forced to rent.  Nonpayment of these student loans causes a reduction in credit capacity.  When consumers can’t borrow, the economy stagnates.  This is why “Plan B’s” are more important than ever, especially now!  Wiping out all student debt isn’t going to help matters either, because in the end, someone else has to pay for it.  This solution is just another classic political episode of “kicking the can down the road”, while making politicians rich.  Why do we want to continue doing that either?   If you make everything FREE (i.e. college education, welfare, food stamps), even those who are “entitled” will think they should have that too and you set a bad example for other countries’ illegal immigrants who cross our borders because they are “taxing” services you pay for with your property tax and income tax dollars.

Sadly, there are people purposefully committing crimes across America just so they can get arrested and put in jail.  In many instances, these folks are so distraught they even kill themselves while doing harm to to others!  In jail, you get a place to live and three meals a day.  How long do you think our system can survive with our current jail overcrowding?  Now we have concentration camps in America full of illegal immigrants.  We have to feed them too.  Someone has to pay for that.  Both sides of the aisle would rather fight and point fingers at each other rather than do something productive to solve this nation’s crises.  So … now I bring my message home.

If you are living beyond your means, you need to restructure, by any means.

In Florida alone, over 15,000 people are slated to lose their homes through foreclosure caused by reverse mortgages.

That’s a bad sign for the economy in Florida.  California ranks second in that same debacle.

If you’re even close to being at risk of losing your home, you need to wake up and realize you have to have a Plan B.

That includes dumping your current home for something cheaper or finding the means to support it (taking on a renter). Stop eating out every night and get exercise planting your own garden (remember the Victory Gardens?) for fresh vegetables.  You can even do container gardening on the balcony of an apartment (even though it won’t yield much).

On the other hand, people still throw money away on rent, which supports corporate investment.  Restructuring can include selling your home to someone who can afford it, while scaling down to a home that you can afford.  That’s what I’ve discovered works.  And it works very well.  That’s why I became a:

You see, I’ve found a way to help people out of their dilemmas if they really want that help.  I can restructure deals between a willing and able buyer and a willing and able seller within 48 hours!   I can design plans that can help displaced and disabled veterans and special needs people.  I may even be able to help people saddled with mega student loan debt. What I’ve elected to do now helps humanity.  So … consider what I’ve just stated as my “official announcement” and conduct yourselves accordingly.  I will continue to put out information on this blog (stayed tuned for two BIG announcements), especially on my next post, which will help the foreclosure fighters who are planning their PLAN B while fighting the foreclosure.

P.S.: You folks out there that are reading this (that HAVE $$$) can do more good with what you have and reap greater rewards by participating in my game plan!  Yes … that’s an invitation for those of you who also want to help humanity and reap financial rewards for doing so.


1 Comment

Filed under OP-ED


(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!