Tag Archives: Dave Krieger

Coming Soon to the Clouded Titles Website …

BREAKING NEWS — 

In keeping with the tradition of educational information, the Clouded Titles website will soon feature a monthly newsletter called, “THE RICH REPORT”, a monthly in-depth analysis designed and delivered by retired attorney Richard L. DiMaggio, J.D., who will cover pertinent, on-going cases involving FDCPA, debt collection issues, FCRA, credit report issues, TILA, RESPA, identity theft, mortgage fraud and other important financial news affecting homeowners, borrowers and debtors alike.

The monthly service will be subscription-based and will bring you the hottest news, information and legal analysis of consumer-oriented issues by one of the top FDCPA attorneys in the country.  Richard L. DiMaggio, J.D. wrote the book, “Collection Agency Harassment: What the Debt Collector Doesn’t Want You to Know”.  THE RICH REPORT will be delivered right to your email inbox every month in pdf format for easy reading.  THE RICH REPORT is a great supplement for anyone reading FORECLOSURE, DEBT COLLECTION AND FORECLOSURES, by Dave Krieger, available on the Clouded Titles Website NOW (and also through The Power Mall on The Power Hour!)

Mr. DiMaggio will be joining me on The Power Hour, with Joyce Riley, at 9:00 a.m. Central Standard Time on Monday, February 27, 2017 to discuss FDCPA and debt collection issues.  Needless to say, this will be a powerful broadcast!  Put it on your calendar and plan on tuning in live.  Joyce Riley will also be taking telephone calls related to the subject matter, so if you’ve got anything to add, please feel free to chime in.  She’ll give the number out on the show!

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under Breaking News, Debt Collection and Foreclosures, FCRA Education, FDCPA, FDCPA Education, Financial Education

THE NEW FDCPA BOOK IS HOT OFF THE PRESS!

BREAKING NEWS — UPDATE

The author of this post has just gotten word that his new book, FDCPA, Debt Collection and Foreclosures has just come off the presses and is ready for shipment!

UPDATE: THERE IS NO LONGER A “BACKORDERED” NOTICE APPEARING ON THE WEBSITE! THE WEB ADMINISTRATOR HAS CORRECTED THAT ERROR.  WE STILL HAVE PLENTY OF COPIES OF THE FIRST RUN AVAILABLE!  

If you’ve been waiting to see whether I was seriously going to release this book before ordering a copy, you can still get yours now and it will be shipped to you, USPS Priority Mail in a bubble envelope within 24 hours of your order on the Clouded Titles website (we use encrypted secure servers and we do not store credit card information).

 

1 Comment

Filed under Breaking News, Debt Collection and Foreclosures, FDCPA Education

TIPS ON SPOTTING FDCPA – TCPA VIOLATIONS

Consumers generally ignore a lot of debt collection activity because it invades and disrupts their comfort zones.  Since the new FDCPA book is coming out shortly, I’d thought I’d share several of the most commonly-ignored FDCPA and TCPA violations that would give rise to litigation (a smattering of what’s in the new book).

Problems with initial communication … 

You receive an initial communication (letter in the mail) from a debt collector.  There is specific language in the debt collection letter that says: (a.) that the communication is from a debt collector; (b.) you have 30 days to dispute the validity or any portion thereof; and (c.) if you dispute the letter, within a certain timeframe, the debt collector must provide you with proof (judgment or other paperwork) identifying the validity of a debt (or the portion you are disputing).  Before the 30 days are up, your phone starts ringing and the debt collectors begin hounding you for payment.

Problems with threats of litigation … 

You have an overdue bill of $74.00.  A debt collection agency sends you a letter stating that if you don’t pay it, they’ll take you to court.  Debt collectors can’t threaten to take legal action that they don’t intend on taking in the first place.  The bill is too small to waste time paying attorney’s fees and costs of suit (which would exceed the amount of the bill itself).

Problems with misrepresentation of the character and status of a debt …

The most commonly complained about violations occur when a debt collector informs you that: (a.) it is not a debt collector, when in fact, it is; (b.) it is attempting to collect a legally unenforceable debt without disclosing that the statute of limitations has expired on the collection of it;  (c.) you receive various letters from the same debt collection outfit indicating amounts that are grossly exaggerated in each letter; or (d.) there is an indication that attorney’s fees have been added to the debt when in fact, no attorney was retained to collect the debt.

Problems with follow-up communication … 

You get repeated phone calls or texts, many times a day, from the same debt collector about the same debt, hounding you for payment.

The debt collector leaves a blatant debt collection message on your answering machine, which unauthorized third parties can hear if they happen to be around when you play your messages back.

The texts the debt collector leaves on your phone incur a fee every time they text you.

The debt collector manages to reach you and calls you names or uses other defamatory language.

The debt collector calls you at work, talks to one of your co-workers and tells them you’re a deadbeat, asking if they can relay a message to have you call the debt collector back.

Third-party junk debt buyers are more likely to commit these infractions than most debt collectors; however, ALL debt collectors have one thing in common: Their activities are all covered under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act!  Many homeowners are even using these laws to stop foreclosures!  Find out how they’re doing it in this book! 

There are many more of these types of violations specifically listed in the new book by Dave Krieger entitled,  FDCPA, Debt Collection and Foreclosures … which is at the press and will be released before the end of January!   Order your 256-page copy now!   This new book contains:

  • The latest version of the FDCPA!
  • The latest version of the TCPA!
  • Detailed explanations of how to spot debt collection violations!
  • A compendium of federal district, appellate and Supreme Court case citations, FDCPA-related references and research tools for case development!
  • PLUS … detailed FDCPA-related pleadings used by attorneys in both individual and class action lawsuits to formulate federal complaints!

… all in large, 14-point print for easy reading!

Visit the Clouded Titles website and order your copy today before the first run is all gone!  It will be shipped to you (USPS Priority Mail) as soon as it comes off the press!

 

3 Comments

Filed under FDCPA Education

POINT – COUNTERPOINT: SECURITIZATION FAILURE EXPLAINED

“JANE … YOU IGNORANT SLUT!”

(As exclaimed by Dan Akroyd to Jane Curtin on Saturday Night Live …)

Sorry … I had to do that because you can’t say that to opposing counsel in foreclosure court … as much as you’d like to!  Still, I’m not an attorney, I can’t render legal advice, but I have been listed on at least one attorney’s “expert witness list” for upcoming trials! 

My blood boils when I’m consulting at a foreclosure trial and I hear the bank’s attorney claim that the borrower has nothing to do with the PSA because I know damned well that the borrower (nor his counsel) has a comeback that they can waylay on the bank’s attorney in point-counterpoint fashion, which is why I went with the opener that I did.

The bank’s attorney doesn’t want the borrower opening up the subject of securitization failure, because in so doing, the REMIC finds itself without standing to foreclose.  End of story … because the last attempt is always (when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac aren’t involved) the use of MERS (through servicer fraud) “assigning” a note a mortgage years later into a REMIC trust. Securitization failure may look obvious on paper (what’s recorded in the land records) but it cannot account for the path the note didn’t travel.

The last trial I attended, I saw the bank’s attorney “step in it”.  You could hear her tiny little heels squish in the pile of dung she just sunk into asking the expert witness (who understands securitization) about the “closing date”, then suddenly realizing that she opened Pandora’s Box.  Sadly, the foreclosure defense attorneys need to climb on board with this thought process, as elaborate as it might be.  I’m going demonstrably put it into as easy a graphic as I can, using various scenarios (“submitted for your approval”, as the Twilight Zone‘s Rod Serling would say from the grave). You have to educate the judge!  You have to!  I don’t care if the other side jumps up and down with objections, you have to keep on keeping on.

FEW ATTORNEYS REALLY “GET IT”

First, let me share a pdf with you, written by (in my book) one of the most brilliant attorneys on record:

charlies-wallshein_securitization-fail-part-one-001

The foregoing even has “affirmative defenses” included in this paper, if you know what you’re looking for.  Thanks to Charlie, I used a chunk of his explanation and diatribe in a Texas Rule 736 motion I drafted for use by counsel, which, when coupled with a Rule 12 motion by the attorney (a motion demanding to know who the law firm was representing in its Application to foreclose), the law firm “non-suited” the foreclosure case (made it go away)!

I shall further elaborate, as I do in chain of title assessments where the last party to allegedly have the note and mortgage transferred to them is the REMIC … years after the fact.  The borrowers and their attorneys focus on the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and miss the whole enchilada completely.  It’s not just the PSA we’re talking about here folks!  It’s the entire “sales pitch” … I’m talking about the 424(b)(5) prospectus (and none other than).

The PSA does NOT contain your loan number!  The prospectus contains your loan number!

The prospectus contains well more of the governing regulations than the PSA, all neatly signed under penalty of perjury under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act!   When the bank’s attorney says the Borrower has nothing to do with the Assignment, why then are you stumped?  Why can’t your attorney object?  It can’t be because of ignorance, right?

However, just because your loan number is listed within the prospectus doesn’t mean that your loan is actually in the pool (or made the pool before the cut-off date).  Look at it in the simplest of terms:

  1. Why do lenders use the MERS® System?  

The lenders use the MERS® System as a means to register and securitize mortgage notes within the secondary markets.  However, before the note (and its accompanying electronic paperwork) can be traded (transferred, sold, resold, multiple times over), it has to be digitally uploaded into the MERS® System, which was created for the purposes of electronically transferring the note!  

This is why (when you look at your loan on the MERS® Servicer ID page, the loan reads “ACTIVE”.   That means, it’s “actively” being transferred (potentially multiple times over) from one entity to another while the Servicer’s name remains constant.  When you see the word “INACTIVE”, it means the loan is no longer being traded, most likely because it is NON-PERFORMING!  Who could get away with selling non-performing loans?  Only in the securities market can you get away with that!  This goes back to the late Judge Arthur Schack in the HSBC v. Taher case, which was reversed and assigned to another judge, because the powers that be (the Appellate Department) said Schack went too far (in vetting the truth about robosigning using parties claiming to be officers of MERS). So, as long as the note doesn’t end up in its “final resting place” (as claimed by REMICs in millions of foreclosures), we have an “ACTIVE” note trading within the MERS® System.

2. The servicers who subscribe to the MERS® System purposefully abuse it!

The MERS® System, as I have previously noted in other posts, as well as in the OSCEOLA COUNTY FORENSIC EXAMINATION, allows servicers and their minions and subordinates within their default divisions or their contracted third-party document mills, to “manufacture” standing by creating assignments out of thin air, utilizing the name Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., accompanied by what is proclaimed an “official title”, with only flimsy, non-notarized proclamations by William Hultman or his “successors” within MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. potentially attached to the pleadings as a means of “verification” of the use of the title by the “nominee” (who also thinks it’s a beneficiary, which it’s not).

Regardless of their “signing authority” or other Limited Power of Attorney proof of anything (as Limited Powers of Attorney can be falsely created to reinforce a claim by the REMIC that certain servicers are covered to do exercise certain powers under the power of attorney), there is nothing in the MERS Rules of Membership that forces the users of the MERS® System to “play by the rules”.  In fact, all of the users of the MERS® System have to “indemnify” MERS and its parent of any liability in connection with the creation of these documents, which means it’s “open season” in the fraud department in the creation of these documents.

   3. Parties outside of the MERS® System are allowed to participate with the servicers in creating the documents employing the use of the MERS® System! 

During the Osceola County Forensic Examination, my team discovered (in hundreds of assignments) the use a law firm in the creation of the assignments.  Many times, the assignment itself contained the words, “Prepared by:”, with either the name of the law firm, a law firm attorney or a non-lawyer working for the law firm.  My take here is that this is where you have RICO issues because the servicer, a law firm, a notary and multiple employees of both, are tasked with the creation of the document.  We are not just talking civil RICO issues here, but also criminal RICO, because the document is generally created under the direction of the law firm handling the foreclosure (in mortgage states), or in the alternative, a document processing company (e.g. LPS, CoreLogic, etc.) being involved in engineering the “proper parties” onto a piece of paper that is going to be relied upon in court to foreclose on the property.  The law firm handling the foreclosure will then rely on an assignment that it was involved in creating to steal the home, knowing full well that the assignment contains multiple misrepresentations which are not provable because the assignments clearly show the note and mortgage were transferred into the REMIC years after the Cut-off Date!

This is why I intend to write a follow-up paperback aptly titled, “How To Screw MERS!” (or something like that), to explain how to circumvent the MERS®System in your dealings in real estate (part of your due diligence before you buy a piece of property using a “MERS Member”, which is false, because the alleged “MERS Members” aren’t really “members”; they’re user-subscribers of the MERS® System, through the use of an executory contract with MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. (which is nowhere to be found on your note, your security instrument or the assignment).

4. The “Electronic Tracking Agreement – Warehouse Lender” clearly shows who the “players” are … and MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. is one of them!

If you look at the attached: eta_warehouse_template_v6-mers-and-borrower4, you will see what I am describing here, as to who the “electronic agent” really is. Is this disclosed to you at closing?  Hi there boys and girls, can you say “Truth-in-Lending Act violations right out of the gate?” … sure you can!  (playing on Mr. Rogers’ voice).

Do you see where your “name” is inserted as to “Borrower”?   Didn’t think so.  That’s because you’re not the Borrower, the originating lender or mortgage broker (like that pesky “Rocket Mortgage” and other digital online services that make it so easy to “get approved in minutes” for a mortgage loan).

Notice in the third paragraph where it says, “the Borrower is obligated to pledge the Mortgage Loans to the Lender”?  Notice the term used “Loans” is in the plural?  That’s because the “Borrower” in this agreement is the originating mortgage broker/lender and the “Lender” in this agreement is the “Interim Funding Lender” (like Countrywide, WaMu, IndyMac, etc.).  Look who the “Electronic Agent” is:  MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.!   What is an agent?  (hint: a nominee)

Then why isn’t MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. (the parent of MERS, the entity with all the money) plainly stated on your loan paperwork, including your Note? Where is the Truth-in-Lending Act when you need it regarding non-disclosure of the real “truth”.  It was hidden from you at closing?  That might even bring about suspicion for a RESPA violation as well.

Notice within Paragraph 4 of this agreement where it says that the “Lender and the Borrower desire to have certain Mortgage Loans registered on the MERS® System (defined below) such that the mortgagee of record under each Mortgage (defined below) shall be identified as MERS;”   Did you ever sign a paper like this at closing?   I’ll save you the time looking for it.  You didn’t.  That’s because the “Borrower” in this agreement, involving the placement of your loan into the MERS® System IS NOT YOU!  Did you agree to that?   Didn’t think so.  But it sure the hell explains how your loan got “registered” on the MERS® System, doesn’t it?

This was all created to be part of the securitization process.  This is why the entire process is flawed … and why it needs to be eliminated … and why the parties who created it need to be in prison!  The MERS®System is the platform through which the RICO acts were committed.  Indemnification or not, the platform is there … and it’s knowingly being abused.

YOUR NAME AND ORIGINAL LOAN NUMBER IS ON THE ASSIGNMENT!

This begs the question: How can you NOT be involved?  The assignment is talking about your very loan and mortgage (or deed of trust) being conveyed by the employees of the mortgage loan servicer (who can’t get the originating lender to do it because it’s more than likely defunct), whose employees create the document out of thin air, under the instruction from: (a.) one of the major title companies; (b.) the foreclosure mill attorneys involved in the litigation; and (c.) a third-party document mill tasked by the servicer to keep the transaction at arms length to avoid suspicion.  In any case, the document is a fraud.  They know it. And you know it.  But the judges don’t know it because no one knows how to tell the judge a thing or two about the real aspects of securitization because they know that 99% of these assignments are fraudulent and by ruling against the bank on securitization failure, they would open up a “three-ring circus” in their courtroom while jeopardizing their political futures.

The servicer uses its own “loan number” which generally does not match yours.  But when the bogus assignment is drafted (and many times backdated for a purpose) by the servicer’s employees or that of the law firm or third-party document mill, your original loan number and name is on the assignment.  Why not simply ask the judge to take your name off that document (since you’re not involved in it) and we’ll call it a day?   You know how that will end up, right?

You first have to object to the attorney’s comment that you’re not involved in the PSA, because technically, the PSA talks in general about operations within the REMIC itself.  If you’re going to enter the PSA as evidence, you’re shortchanging yourself and your case.  What you should be entering is the entire 424(b)(5) prospectus.  It still costs $4.00 a copy from sec.gov on their forms page.  They have a contract with United Parcel Service to ship it to you at no charge.  You pay $4.00.  Get the whole prospectus.  The front end of the prospectus is what contains the cut-off and closing date, not the PSA.  Have you ever noticed that, or did you just take someone’s word for it?

exhibit-9_occ-asset-securitization-comptrollers-handbook

Notice the foregoing “Page 8” and where it came from … the 1997 Comptroller’s Handbook issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.  This handbook was issued before MERS Version 3 came into being.  Notice how the first paragraph below the diagram talks about the Borrower being a party to the securitzation chain?   Do you understand why?  Because in simple fashion, in order to make the chain work (the whole system), the Borrower’s payments facilitate the income stream to the investors, who received non-recourse bonds on the Closing Date (or Start-up Date, according to IRS terminology) of the REMIC.

That is, unless securitization failure occurred at the Start-up Date.  This begs the use of an expert witness at trial to can testify as to the facts, followed by the use of depositions of the parties creating the document (the assignment) to reinforce the fraud being plied on the court.

Actually, securitization failure occurred BEFORE that!  It occurred at the Cut-off Date!

It couldn’t have happened because after the note and mortgage was uploaded into the MERS® System database (owned by now-MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.), I believe the original paperwork was no longer needed and was shredded.  My forensic examiners and I have heard this on more than one occasion, right out of the mouths of the bankers!  Thus, when the Borrower went into default: (a.) the servicer handling the loan dummied up an assignment, knowing already that it didn’t have the original loan; (b.) the servicer went into the MERS® System and downloaded the “uploaded electronic copy” and printed it out and took it into court (after adding a bunch of other “allonges”, “indorsements” to the note to try to tie the chain of title together with the chain of custody of the note.

Let me be clear here!  I do not believe that the allonges and the indorsements were completely added until AFTER the original note was retrieved from MERS. The latest article by Neil Garfield, which contains a statement: “I have obtained confirmation from a large bank vendor (Visionet Systems, Inc.) that it rectifies “lost notes” by reapplying the “signature images” upon stored copies. –Bill Paatalo, December 10, 2016.” goes to the core of the following scenario:

My wife and I attended a trial in Fort Myers, Florida where Bill Paatalo was admitted as an “expert witness”.  I went for two reasons.  First, I wanted to see what kind of questions the bank’s attorney and the judge were going to ask Bill about his expertise and the facts of the case; and second, we had dinner with Bill after that to further discuss the case, which ended up without a Final Judgment being issued that day (in court) because the judge wanted more education, in the form of trial briefs by the attorneys, which were due yesterday (I have not seen the brief).

This clearly also shows that the Notes were, at one time (as I suspected) electronic copies.  And riddle me this (as the Riddler said to Batman) … where do you think Visionet Systems, Inc. got the copy of the note?  Visionet is NOT a user of the MERS® System (check for yourself like I did) and therefore, they had to get the note from somewhere (more than likely the servicer, who IS a user of the MERS® System).  This now begs the deposition of someone at Visionet Systems, Inc. to verify this chicanery.

There are at least two cases supporting this conclusion! 

If you’ll simply Google a pdf of “In re Saldivar” (Texas) and “Glaski v. Bank of America” (California), you can see from these two cases that the court finally recognized that if the note and mortgage (or deed of trust) weren’t assigned until years after the Cut-off Date”, there is no verifiable evidence of WHEN or IF the note and security instrument actually “made it into the pool of loans” within the REMIC trust! This is what Bill Paatalo testified to at trial in Fort Myers.  When attacked by the bank’s attorney on the possibility that the note and mortgage made the cut-off date and that the assignment was strictly a memorialization of that fact, Paatalo responded to the “fact” that the assignment itself shows the date of the assignment being two years after the REMIC closed; thus, there is no possibility that the governing rules of the REMIC were complied with.  I am referring to the entire 424(b)(5) prospectus here, NOT just the PSA!

The OCC clearly contemplated that the Borrowers were the parties signing the notes and security instruments, which contained the provision (in paragraph 19 or 20, depending on which long form security instrument was employed at that time) that “the note, or a partial interest in the note” may be sold or transferred. It says nothing about the parties involved in that transaction, the “boss of the note” at foreclosure proceedings, or securitization of the loan.

Not only is the chain of title screwed up (because the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing), certain parties came in contact with each other to “dummy up” paperwork to steal the house.  It’s that plain and simple.

That my friends, is a short-form explanation of the formula for securitization failure in roughly 3200 words, despite the fact I’m not an attorney nor do I render legal advice.  Share this with everyone because the life you save may be that of someone you don’t know that desperately needs to view this educational post!

BTW: For those of you wanting a progress report on the new FDCPA book I’m working on … I’ve about 40 pages to go!  I’m trying to get it done by the end of the year!  It contains some real damning information every “consumer” should know about, from foreclosures, to credit cards and car loans to student loans … all of which have been securitized … including relevant case law to back up the education I provide in this book! 

Dave Krieger, Clouded Titles

 

5 Comments

Filed under Chain of Title Education, Op-Ed Piece

THE LAST QUIET TITLE WORKSHOP OF 2016!

BREAKING NEWS (from the poster)! 

For those of you who are planning to attend the Honolulu, Hawaii Quiet Title Workshop, please be advised of the following:

  1. This will be the last workshop of 2016 that Al West and I are doing together.  Either be there or miss out.
  2. This will be the last quiet title workshop that Al West and I are offering to the general public, due to lack of interest.  So, this is your last opportunity to have a powerful think tank at your disposal.  You can get the information on the workshop by clicking on the following links:
  3. QT WORKSHOP_HONOLULU_REGISTRATION FORM  (Please follow the instructions on the form!)
  4. QUIET TITLE WORKSHOP FLYER_HONOLULU  (I would recommend using discount hotel services to book your room and airfare, as our group discounts have expired!)
  5. I have decided to go a different direction involving my consulting work, which means I will be handling more attorney-based cases involving investors and homeowners who have retained counsel that is willing to accept consulting services; otherwise, I will only take cases on that basis.
  6. I am not a lawyer referral service; however, I can assist you in vetting attorneys, once you find them.  This will be done on a conference call basis for a flat fee of $75.00, payable by credit card in advance of the conference call.
  7. You can still purchase The Quiet Title War Manual, Clouded Titles and The Credit Restoration Primer from the Clouded Titles website.
  8. The online COTA Workshop is still in development and probably will not be ready until 2017.  If I become aware of any COTA Workshops being hosted by other entities in the future, I will inquire as to whether the folks who monitor this blog will be allowed to attend, at which point I will post the information accordingly.
  9. Any referrals to other consulting services outside of my immediate concern are the responsibility of those parties wishing to contact and contract with those services.  I no longer am working with outside parties who may or may not have further useful information to help you with your case.
  10. The rates on my COTAs now start at $1295.00 and go up from there.  I have a “full plate” and anticipate having a full plate for the next 3 years.  Despite what the banks, MERS and law enforcement have attempted to do in smearing me all over the media, with the help of a few self-proclaimed “investigators” who run  websites that state I ripped off the U. S. Government, I am still economically intact and am not going anywhere.  The Orlando Sentinel’s Henry Curtis got his story all wrong and was probably paid off by someone to write the article against the Osceola County Clerk in the first place, which makes his brand of journalism shoddy and unreliable at best, about as unreliable as you can get.  Any news outlet that would hire him would be a huge mistake and a disservice to the public at large. The current Osceola County Sheriff STILL isn’t running for re-election and the 9th Circuit State’s Attorney who refused to investigate the Forensic Examination commissioned by the Clerk was defeated in the Democratic primary last August.  The voters have awakened!

That being said … 

  1. I will still continue to post updated information on this site.  Once the online workshops are up, please note they are general in nature and are only there to help you formulate your research in conducting chain of title issues and will not offer legal advice, attorney referrals or any other subject matter information that is not relevant to chain of title.
  2. I will still continue to be the “foe” of MERS, MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. and the banks.  I am sick and tired of them and wish they were all in prison.  Unfortunately, the United States Government is in bed with the banks; yet the average, uninformed consumer still chooses to participate in impulse buying of homes they are NOT entitled to and cannot afford; thus, the same nonsense that plagued us in the 90’s and the millennia will continue to plague us for at least the next decade as the banks continue to water down the Dodd-Frank Act through their lobbyists.
  3. If you wish for Al West and I to come to your city to conduct a Quiet Title Workshop, there are firm parameters you will have to follow. You will have to guarantee 30 paid attendance for the event and the rate will be higher than what we normally charge to do a workshop and you will have to pay our travel to and from the event, plus meeting room and hotel rooms. No exceptions.
  4. I am still working on the FDCPA book.  This book is going to be a powerful think piece, in addition to all of the case citations, strategies and legal attack plans placed within this work, based on previous history of those who have been successful in such actions.  This has become the most formidable attack plan against the servicers and their law firms who lie in court about who they truly represent.  Yes folks, we are knee deep in servicer fraud.  In my estimation, the named plaintiff in a foreclosure suit does not know they’re the named plaintiff!
  5. The federal court systems (as well as the state court systems) are corrupt as hell!   Sure, there are a few judges out there that get it academically, but until you do your research and bring an adequate “game plan” to the table, all of the bad case law will continue to screw things up in the legal system because people may be mad, but they’re still unprepared financially and in all aspects of their education involving legal matters.
  6. Most attorneys have figured out how to scam homeowners for monthly payments and give them nothing in return.  I am still getting email from homeowners who are concerned that they may have picked the wrong attorney to represent them.  I am not an attorney referral service, but I have a few that I work with that I have found to be reliable.  If you have started your litigation pro se however, they may choose not to work with you.
  7. Please do not contact me about TILA and RESPA issues. That is not my focus.  There is narrow case law in these areas and you still aren’t going to get and free house, despite what anyone tells you.  I have been contacted by United States Treasury Agents regarding certain claims made by firms who tell consumers that all they have to do is file a rescission and they get a free house.  Unlike what happened to me 20 years ago, it is not me that is the target here.
  8. I will continue to do county land record audits.  If you know of someone who needs (or has indicated) they want one done, please let me know. If you’re in California, Al West will show the County Recorder how they can get a county land record audit done without the charges coming out of their budgets.
  9. Al West and I are still working on projects together.  Al West and I will be at the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hearings on MERSCORP v. Robinson.  Yes, I authored quite a bit of the reply brief and I am very well aware (as MERS is) of the fact that MERS sent a mole in to bug our Las Vegas Quiet Title Workshop. I found out about that from information supplied to me that originated through a federal judge in Maryland. It would appear to indicate to me that the folks at MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. (and the U.S. government) understand that I am “not going away any time soon” … and if I do, it will be by their hand and their doing and not mine!  We are still coordinating efforts regarding certain AWL and ABC mortgage loans. We are also handling IRS Whistleblower cases!
  10. In certain matters, I may also be testifying in court. This still does NOT make me an expert witness. Please do not contact me to testify at your hearing or at trial.  If subpoenaed without my knowledge or consent, consider me a hostile witness ab initio.  I still want my day in front of the grand jury, be it state or federal.  I have a lot to tell them and show them.

Beware of whack jobs that continue to dwell on what happened to me 20 years ago.  As attorney Lynn Szymoniak eloquently put it … “it doesn’t matter what he did 20 years ago, what matters is what he’s doing now!”  If Ms. Szymoniak didn’t believe in what I was doing, she would NOT have shown up to my COTA Workshop to lecture to the class.  Please support The Housing Justice Foundation.

Finally, when I’m done with the FDCPA book, I am going to pick up where I left off and finish the “other book” I have been working on … a book which explains in detail what happened to me 20 years ago, the American legal system, American politics in general, and why Americans are becoming polarized in certain aspects of society.  The U. S. Government will definitely NOT like what is in this “other book” (although it’s not as dicey as “Snowden”).  If you get a chance to see that movie … this man should be exonerated and not indicted.  He just sent a warning shot to all of you out there that think you’re “secure” when you’re anything but.

No, I’m not a doom-and-gloomer.  Like many of you out there who are evaluating your future plans and strategies, that is a wise move in my book. Remember, the U. S. government is paranoid as a whole and government employees believe everything Uncle Sam tells them.  I have found trusts to be quite handy these days.

 

5 Comments

Filed under Breaking News, Chain of Title Education, Financial Education, Quiet Title Education