Tag Archives: C&E

BOTH QUIET TITLE ACTIONS AND C&E ACTIONS ARE DECLARATORY RULINGS! UPDATE!

(OP-ED) — The author of this post is not an attorney and thus cannot give legal advice.  However, based on the research contained herein, one can share without retribution; thus, let this be for your educational value only! 

UPDATE … NEW IDEA!  (Please move to the bottom of the article to read my thoughts on this!)

One judgment appears to be a “cheap date”, while the other judgment isn’t.

Which one is cheaper to prove?  Why … the C&E of course!

The “C&E” should become part of everyone’s vocabulary these days.  I can give you over 500-million reasons WHY a C&E is important to every American property owner.  The main one is adverse condition of title to over one-third of every parcel of land in America!  That’s the biggest reason.

How can you consciously sell a piece of property to another human being when there is clear evidence of chain of title issues present, especially when “MERS” is involved?

The C&E has been in the forefront the entire time, albeit not exclusively.  Everyone knows that quiet title actions have been around for centuries. But … and I use this caveat succinctly: Quiet title actions are more than just a simple step in clearing title to a piece of land.  Like the C&E, both matters involve an evidentiary proceeding.  Both are rooted in declaratory relief.  Both require a certain amount of discovery.  However, the C&E requires less discovery because you’re only targeting one suspect document in the real property records, while the Quiet Title Action focuses on the entire chain of title, leading back to the document (usually the mortgage or deed of trust) that plagued the chain of title in the first place!

Back in the days preceding the first financial collapse in 2008, mortgage brokers and their title companies were so quick to file stuff in the land records that: (a.) they submitted the documents incorrectly for recording; (b.) they submitted MERS-originated documents to the county recorder knowing full well that the borrowers encumbering their property had no knowledge their loans were being securitized; and (c.) they did this knowing that a majority of the documents being recorded contained information on loans that were designed to default years later, causing a huge rash of foreclosure actions that plagued the United States from coast to coast.

I can tell you with a certainty (after having lectured to hundred of various county clerks) that a lot of clerks (recorders, registers of deeds, etc.) these days still don’t understand what MERS is and what kind of issues became predominant after MERS-related assignments are recorded.  I have been asked from time to time whether we should sue county clerks and recorders and my answer is “NO” (not just NO but HELL NO)!  These folks are generally elected officials that have a bond.  These folks unknowingly became victimized by the “MERS process” as much as the collective body politic affected by borrowing that was intended to be obtained from the secondary mortgage markets.

In The C&E on Steroids! Attorney Al West and I bring forward the reality of challenging documents through declaratory relief, especially the documents created from 2004 through today.

Yes!  These entities are still “manufacturing” bogus documents and causing them to be recorded in the land records all over the country!

And what’s even more astounding … MERS and its parent have absolutely NO IDEA that the MERS name was being used in these assignments!

The culprits … 

Mortgage loan servicers, third-party document mills and title processing services are the guilty parties!

Secondary to these groups of land record predators are the foreclosure mill law firms prosecuting the foreclosures themselves!

The potential targets … 

All of the above … depending where they’re located.

Again, The C&E on Steroids! describes WHO these targets are … WHAT prompted them to become targets  … WHEN they became targets … WHERE they got involved as targets and WHY they are targets  … and more importantly, HOW the “system” played us in letting them become targets!

Wouldn’t it be nice to know WHO your enemy is BEFORE engaging them in a legal battle? 

This is why is becomes important to understand the principal of declaratory relief.  It allows us to obtain discovery to get at the “root” of the problem.

Most homeowners don’t get that.  They think, “Okay, I’m going to get pissed off and sue everybody!”  They let their emotions get out of whack, failing to recognize the tools available to isolate and attack individual targets to further corrupt a chain of title to the point where a county court HAS TO quiet title title in order to comply with marketability statutes!

California attorney Tim McCandless was recently quoted as saying:

” … the more recent strategy of attacking the assignment of mortgage and seeking nullification of that instrument has met with some success and it should succeed, because you are attacking the facial and substantive validity of that specific instrument and not the entire mortgage or deed of trust. That strategy merely attacks the technical requirements for creation and recording of an an instrument affecting title to real property and attacking the substantive validity of the assignment by revealing that the debt was not transferred to the assignee by a party who owned the debt.”

The success in doing a C&E would seemingly “cut the legs out from under” the perpetrator of any future alleged foreclosure, right?  It would stand to reason that without an assignment being present in the chain of title, the mortgage loan servicer and its counterparts that were probably the culprits behind the very assignment they’re relying on as a tool in their foreclosure arsenal would be affected directly by the “lack of gunpowder” in their magic bullet.  The only thing they’re attorney will say is, “These people just want a free house, your Honor!” because they don’t have anything else they can say that will evoke the emotion of the Court to screw the homeowner one more time!

The beauty of this process is that it can be used at any time prior to foreclosure without bringing the mortgage loan servicer itself into the fray.  And it can be used in both deed of trust and mortgage states!  All 50 states have statutory mechanisms for declaratory relief.  All 50 states have rights to attack phony documents!

Further, there is case law out there that has taught us much in the way of educational value!  That case law is described in The C&E on Steroids! 

In fact, the case law Al West and I discuss in this book and the related course materials SHOW YOU validity past what attorney McCandless previously described!

And it all revolves around a simple and concise declaratory relief action. Yet, homeowners will continue to go out and make a “mountain out of a molehill” (go overboard in citing every cause of action under the sun, thinking they’re entitled to damages), when a simple action designed to knock these bogus assignments out of the land record create a precedent of bad behavior on the part of those who would undertake the illegalities of trying to steal your homes!  This is not a pipe dream process.  This process has been used countless times and has been successful because of the patience and effort put into drafting the proper complaint against the proper parties, isolating them in such a way as to keep the matter in county court!

Federal courts will generally NOT hear these types of cases.  Suing the wrong party in a C&E will get your case removed to federal court, where the judge is likely to dismiss it, because federal law has already declared declaratory rulings to be discretionary.  In state court, judges do not have that option.  They HAVE TO hear that complaint.  This is why Al West and I decided to get to the bottom of the root causes for doing a cancellation and expungement action and extrapolate the material into something useful for the average American consumer and put it into an 8-DVD/book weekend training kit. America has to know there is a remedy out there that can be used to attack phony documents!

If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any!

UPDATE!:  While I was having a conversation with an aggrieved party, the thought crossed my mind as to the type of attorney that would be GREAT to utilize for the C&E when the opposing law firm is your target … 

Who can you think of that isn’t intimidated by prosecuting attorney misconduct and malpractice? 

Legal Malpractice Attorneys (they prosecute malpractice for a living!) … add that to your arsenal (just Google them … they’re out there)! 

I found at least a dozen in the Dallas-Fort Worth area alone! 

If your own attorney screws you in the process, it may be that your defense attorney is “working for the bank/servicer” under a silent agreement to feed you to the wolves.  Why not prosecute BOTH ends of malpractice if you’re going to attack one for failing to defend your case adequately.  

Just a thought.

 

2 Comments

Filed under OP-ED, Securitization Issues

NOTE TO INVESTORS: WHAT THE GREEN EMERALD CASE HAS TAUGHT US

(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

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

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

BRUCE JACOBS CATCHES FLAK FROM FLORIDA’S THIRD DCA!

(BREAKING NEWS – OP-ED) —

The statistics are unlike anything I personally have ever seen as a consultant to attorneys on matters of foreclosure, chain of title and the system of things … BUT Miami-Dade foreclosure defense attorney Bruce Jacobs has put himself in the firing line by causing the Third DCA into an apparent retaliation by issuing Jacobs a Show Cause Order as to why he should not be sanctioned for violating not only Florida Appellate Rules of Procedure but Florida Bar Rules as well.  I’ve personally met and talked with Bruce Jacobs, a former Miami-Dade State’s Attorney, a devout follower of Judaism.  There are those in the foreclosure world who think little of him for various reasons, while others think he’s too busy to handle their cases, while yet others believe he is a true fighter for “the little guy”.

Miami’s Daily Business Review (via law.com) just broke a story yesterday (October 4, 2018) of the potential sanction news against Jacobs. After doing a little digging, I found the subject per curium ruling that put Jacobs in the crosshairs of some very pissed off judges.  It all stems from their reversal of the famous HSBC v. Buset case, where Jacobs represented the Busets.  After the 3rd DCA’s reversal, I asked Bruce about their opinion in Buset and he told me succinctly that “This is war! This ain’t over yet!”

In a State where homeowners have had more opportunity to figure out “the system of things” as to how foreclosure courts behave, the statistics you’re about to read, which were contained in a filing with the Florida Supreme Court in the cited case, includes statistical evidence of how Florida’s Third DCA is apparently biased and prejudiced against delinquent homeowners:

Alexander v Bayview Loan Svcg LLC, 3D16-2228 (filed April 20, 2018)

Knowing what I know about phony assignments, I proffer an idea here that squarely puts “the system of things” into motion.  By reading this “Opinion” issued by the Third District Court of Appeals in Florida, see if you can make out the frustration not only felt by Bruce Jacobs but by virtually ALL homeowners who’ve ever been in front of any judge in the Third DCA:

Aquasol Condominium Assn Inc v HSBC Bank USA NA et al, 3D17-0352 (Sep 26, 2018)

Again, Jacobs has locked horns with a nemesis that has a propensity to lie in the manufacture of assignments.  In a case in Hillsborough County, Florida, HSBC’s “document manufacturing” came under serious scrutiny and the recorded document was ordered cancelled and expunged from the Clerk of the Circuit Court’s official records in that county.  The case involving that apparent suspect document is still ongoing and if “the system of things” is allowed to play itself out, one particular foreclosure mill law firm and five of its attorneys could be facing the same consequences as Jacobs is now.  It is problematic that most homeowners let their frustrations get in the way of common sense, but the latest “Opinion” seriously appears to put Jacobs in a very tenuous position, since he’s called out the Third DCA for what he believes they apparently are … biased and prejudiced against homeowners … enough to ignore obvious frauds on their own court systems!

However, it should also be made clear here (IMHO) that “the system of things” as I have described in the 10-part series, “Gutting the Underbelly of the Beast” was not implemented in Buset … was clearly not implemented in Alexander … and was definitely NOT implemented in Aquasol, predicated on what didn’t happen in Buset.  That may be tough for some to get their head around; however, when you see the quotes that Bruce Jacobs included in his brief to the Third DCA, which made them recoil, it’s clear the Opinion they issued was really a Show Cause Order that the media is now going to make a 3-ring circus out of, especially in light of what happened to Pinellas County foreclosure defense attorney Mark Stopa.  It’s obvious that Florida does not like aggressive foreclosure defense attorneys, whose first duty is to “the Court”.   With the advent of a Florida judge testifying (at Stopa’s hearing) that Florida foreclosure court judges are incentivized to clear their dockets and receiving bonus cash rewards for doing so, it is very clear that our courts have allowed their own political agendas to taint “Lady Justice”.

I’ve always said it’s about the assignments.  It’s always about the assignments.  This is why C&E actions are so vitally important:

(1)  They dissect the false and misrepresentative information contained within the assignments that are being relied upon by bank’s counsel in foreclosure proceedings.  This involves deposing robosigners.  HSBC has robosigners.  They defaulted when challenged in a C&E as to what authority they had to execute the document.

(2) They bring to light certain statutory violations. Florida has a civil component to its criminal component in F.C.C. § 817.535, which some attorneys rarely use and if they use it, apparently don’t go far enough in using it. They “drop the ball” by NOT doing a C&E on the document called into question.  This is no different than a pro se homeowner going into court and waving a document around and calling it a fraudulent document.  Same results. The Court says, “Prove it!” … and you have no proof!  So piss off!

(3) They bring to light certain ethical violations. Imagine you’re a foreclosure mill lawyer who’s relying on the false and misrepresentative information contained within an Assignment of Mortgage (or even an Assignment of Deed of Trust, for those of you in non-judicial states that have sought to litigate a matter to stop a foreclosure), and you (a.) failed to exercise due diligence in vetting your evidence; (b.) were purposefully involved in the creation of the fraudulent document; and (c.) new or should have known that the information you proffered to the Court would result in a statutory violation.  There are individual Bar Rules in every State that call out this type of behavior.  These Rules fall under the section labeled “Misconduct”.  On occasion, State Bar Associations and Courts across America have to deal with such matters; however, foreclosure cases are particularly egregious in nature because the ethical violations appear to arise out of statutory violations being promulgated on the Court.

(4) They require a determination as to their validity of the document in question.  In the Hillsborough County matter, HSBC had every opportunity to respond, yet didn’t.  When you look at the C&E’s allegations there, HSBC employees could have been facing felony UPL charges.  Duh!  It’s no wonder they didn’t show up.  The good ‘ol boy network on occasion does “circle the wagons” to protect its own practitioners.  I gotta give ’em credit for their somewhat misplaced allegiance.  They pick and choose who they want to prosecute.  Obviously, the several HSBC employees aren’t in jail, so they’ll keep manufacturing phony documents (like every other mortgage loan servicer has done since they were told not to in 2012).

(5) They require a definitive action by the Court.  When presented with the facts, the judge in the Hillsborough County matter cancelled the document and ordered it expunged from the real property records.  That expungement was not detected by the foreclosure mill law firm.  That expungement created further triable issues of fact.  That expungement, in of itself, created a statutory violation.  That expungement further convoluted the chain of title, impairing that property’s vendibility.

(6) They are the “backbone” of any quiet title action.  Once eliminated, assignments and other documents set the basis for the complaint or counterclaim sounding in quiet title because the “obstacle” that the bank has to contend with is an illicit document, shown to be fraudulent, or in the alternative, proven to be fraudulent, with expert witness trial testimony from an attorney to back it up in subsequent cases.  This posits a very serious scenario for the foreclosure mill law firm.  It posits an even more of an issue for any judge hearing the subsequent quiet title action, because the same unclean hands that created and/or relied on the phony document that was cancelled and expunged through the C&E have now come home to roost.

As long as the homeowners are in a position to control the outcome of their cases, the C&E may become a vital tool to measurably determine the success or failure of their destinies.  Sadly, as vigorous of a defense that any foreclosure defense attorney could throw at the other side, especially in this matter, the C&E wasn’t part of it.  Without a basis in finality, how then can “the system of things” work to impose sanctions on the real violators and unseat judges for agreeing with them?

6 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED