Tag Archives: lis pendens

THE ARROGANCE OF BANKS!?

(OP-ED) — The author of this post is not an attorney and none of this should be construed as legal advice but is put forward for educational purposes only. 

No matter what defensive (or offensive) strategy is seemingly employed by homeowners (as borrowers), not only do we still get the same ‘ol, same ‘ol from bank attorneys (who actually represent the mortgage loan servicer and not the owner of the note themselves) as to their defamatory conjecture from “Your Honor, they (meaning the borrower) just want a free house!” … we still get the continued misrepresentation of the facts in a foreclosure action, whether it be judicial or non-judicial in nature.

In a judicial scenario, the arrogance is blatant. The attorney files the foreclosure action (generally employed by a foreclosure mill that gets paid a low winning bid dollar amount) and puts all of the same, standard “trash talk” about the homeowner (as the borrower), claiming the borrower is in default and that it (the client) is entitled to enforce the security instrument.  This isn’t personal really.  It’s a numbers game and if you’re a borrower who hasn’t made his payments in ages, it does not necessary mean that the burden of proof shifts to you, just because it’s your home and you’ve been served with papers which, nine times out of ten, contain pleadings that have notably false and misrepresentative statements contained within them.  In a judicial state, it’s still up to the alleged claimant-Plaintiff to prove its case or go home. This is why the banks want everything changed to non-judicial in nature, so they don’t have to work so hard to steal people’s homes.

Instead, the borrower opts to defend his position by putting forward an answer and affirmative defenses to the Plaintiff’s assertions.  The very act of this filing and anticipated response immediately gives the court jurisdiction to hear the matter before it (with an assigned case number and recorded lis pendens).  At the point of the recording of the lis pendens, the borrower’s title is slandered (not the filing of the case with the applicable court).  It is the notice of lis pendens that gives the world constructive notice of the proceedings against the property because it is the security instrument that the Plaintiff seeks to enforce.  However, in a judicial state, the Plaintiff must possess the Note, or in the alternative, sufficiently demonstrate that it had the note, but lost it, and made every effort to find it, but couldn’t.  Instead of looking for the note (or dummying one up out of nowhere like we know they do) and presenting a complete case, the arrogant bank and its lawyer press forward anyway and prey on the emotion of the court, backed by the reasoning that since they filed a complaint to foreclose, they must be the lender, right?

Generally, when the Plaintiff can’t produce the note, it produces an assignment of mortgage, which is generally “manufactured” by the mortgage loan servicer’s employees in favor of the servicer.  Half the time, the assignment includes the language “together with the note”, which, if MERS is involved, is a physical impossibility because MERS cannot transfer something it does not own.  This makes the assignment false and misrepresentative.  Instead of questioning the tactics of the servicer, on many an occasion, the banks’ own attorneys just take it and run with it, or even worse, are complicit in its manufacture!  This makes it even worse because the bank’s attorney (and law firm) would be suborning perjury, which, the last time I checked, was a felony.  It’s even worse when they try to rely on the assignment to steal the house.  It is the INTENT that is made known when the misrepresentations within the assignment are orally pontificated upon the court by the bank’s attorney in his arguments … thus, the arrogance of the bank is transferred to its lawyer, who can then claim reliance on the document because the attorney (or the “cover lawyer”, different from the attorney who filed the original pleadings) is now at greater than “arm’s length”position from the transaction and thus will claim plausible deniability (as in “I had no idea, Your Honor.”)

In a non-judicial setting, the scenario is much more deceitful.  If the borrower doesn’t stop the proceeding with something factual that can be proven in court, followed by a temporary restraining order, it is assumed that whoever commences a foreclosure action against the property is going to get their wish because going to court is not required in deed of trust states, except in certain cases, which is why the arrogant banks keep trying to lobby legislatures to change their method of enforcing security instruments to non-judicial, because all non-judicial actions do not require a court’s approval and thus all foreclosure actions are deemed legal unless proven otherwise.  This too is a numbers game of greater proportions because most homeowners in deed of trust states do not have access to competent foreclosure defense attorneys because “the system of things” does not warrant a board specialized attorney (in real property law or foreclosure defense) to come forward and shut the door on the foreclosure.  Most attorneys in deed of trust states really don’t know how to defend against foreclosures but they sure know how to structure a business model to take a retainer, followed by monthly payments, making their newly-found client their newly-created annuity payment.  This is great for business because it boosts cash flow.  But, it doesn’t nothing for the homeowner (as the borrower) unless the homeowner has something in the chain of title worth arguing.

Such is the case in South Carolina, where a MERSCORP attorney has allegedly testified under oath (in a deposition) that MERS cannot act for a “non-functional entity” (which means an entity that has gone out of business and years later, all of a sudden uses MERS (through the actions of the servicer’s own employees or another third party) to cover up the chain of title and bring the note and mortgage or deed of trust from the originating, out-of-business lender, to the present tense, in an attempt to allow whatever party comes in with a claim against the property, to foreclose on it.  Apparently, this same testimony allegedly worked on  a case in New Mexico as well, allegedly.  I use the word “allegedly” here because there’s no attached “oral transcript” or “order” from either court to validate the claims made by attorney Jeff Barnes, who goes into court pro hac vice (a guest of the court, using the resident attorney’s bar license) to help the homeowner (who is paying major dollars to both Barnes and the resident lawyer) get out of their foreclosure jam.

I find it odd that a post, dated October 29, 2018, on Barnes’s website, would make such statements without completing the grandstanding against MERS by actually including “hard evidence” in the form of a transcript or order, don’t you think?  In the New Mexico case, it wasn’t a slam dunk, however, it appears, without verification, that most of the borrower’s affirmative defenses would be sustained based on this new admission of MERSCORP’s own lawyer.  If one wanted to really make themselves appear “credible” with their “victory lap”, don’t you think one should brandish the sword they used as the weapon of choice?  (I put this in here for you Game Of Thrones fans!)  But, seriously, wouldn’t that make logical sense?   So we could read HOW the defeat occurred?

But wait, that would make the grandstanding (to get more business obviously) more plausible and less arrogant, right?  We can’t have THAT now, can we?  We need to further our business model and leave borrowers in the dark, only to surmise that somewhere out there, a MERSCORP attorney was indeed deposed and testified that his client has no right to transfer the note (something I’ve been saying for years) because MERS has no interest in it.  Factually, even if such an order or transcript WERE included, do you really think most borrowers would know HOW to take what they’ve learned from it and apply it to their own scenario?  Not hardly.  Not in today’s court systems.

It should be noted that the claim was made (in Barnes’s website post) that a deposition was taken, which means the only way you’re going to get damning information to shut down the banks’ arrogance, it to get damning information by conducting a deposition.  This is where the rubber meets the road with foreclosure defense attorneys because great discovery wins cases and if your attorney is “lacking” when it comes to getting the right set of facts out of a deposition, you’ve lost not only your home but all those financial resources you could have used to move onto PLAN B. Pro se litigants rarely, if ever, conduct a deposition, let alone a proper and complete one.

In sum, you’re either going to fight the bank’s arrogance with provable facts or you’re not.  The system of things supports more than just an affirmative defense against the bank’s lawyer because of the misrepresentations in his pleadings.  It supports a bar complaint.  I don’t see too many foreclosure defense lawyers putting forward bar complaints based on false and misrepresentative pleadings from foreclosure mill attorneys, do you?  (This is why we focus more these days on “the system of things” and how that plays out!) 

And somehow, the good ‘ol boy network seemingly continues to survive.

NOTE: If you want to hear multiple scenarios explained about why our voting system may be all f**ked up (especially in Florida with the recent negative spotlight put on it), listen to Dave Krieger tonight (6 p.m. EST) on WKDW-FM’s City Spotlight – Special Edition, just by clicking on this link and then clicking on LISTEN NOW!  Joining Dave and co-host R.J. Malloy as their guests are North Port, Florida City Commissioner Jill Luke and outgoing City Commissioner Linda Yates.

4 Comments

Filed under OP-ED

GUTTING THE UNDERBELLY OF THE BEAST – PART 3

(OP-ED, first posted: September 1, 2018) —

The writer of this post is a paralegal and consultant to attorneys on matters involving chain of title, foreclosures and document manufacturing.  The opinions expressed herein are that of the writer’s only and do not constitute legal or financial advice.  The author apologizes in advance for the graphic depiction of anything necessary (in the extreme) to shock your conscience into understanding that this is not recommended for you to try on your own. 

At some point in the equation, you are going to have to put your trust in someone that has (at least) studied “the system of things” and understands (basically) where it leads and how to approach it.

AGAIN … DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!  YOU’VE BEEN WARNED!  I am sharing talking points about a system here, not a boilerplate method where you get to exact revenge.  The following could be your end result if you attempt to do this yourself:

I just recently received a copy of the autopsy of Martin Wirth, a Park County, Colorado resident that was shot to death during an eviction process by the Sheriff’s Department. Another Sheriff’s deputy was shot to death, but after what I read in the autopsy findings, I find it hard to believe that Wirth had anything to do with the deputy’s death. After Waco and Tillman, we know that friendly fire deaths are indeed probable and cannot be ruled out.  In fact, the coroner’s findings were (from the Summary):

The autopsy reveals eleven entrance gunshot wounds involving the full spectrum of the back with a predominance of the mid-back. The autopsy further reveals five exit wounds involving the lower right neck and the mid and upper chest. A sixth exit wound is located in the upper abdomen, in the midline. At the autopsy, three bullets were retrieved outside the body. One bullet is found in the clothing related to the chest; a second bullet is found under the head while removing the clothing; a third bullet is retrieved from the body bag. Two large caliber bullets are recovered from the right and left anterior chest wall. One large caliber bullet remains deeply embedded in the left pelvis. The extensive internal injuries in this case associated with six anterior exit wounds preclude a precise definition of wound tracts.

For those of you who need an explanation, “anterior exit wounds” are sustained as the result of being shot in the back while running away from the gunfire!  How is one able to kill a Sheriff’s deputy while under siege, running out the back door of his home?  We have not heard the whole story. Was there a cover-up?  The news media reported that Wirth shot the deputies as they entered his residence.  They returned fire.  “Wirth died at the scene.”  (media reports)  What scene?  The autopsy said Wirth was found outside of his home on the ground.  How did he get outside (where the coroner’s report said his body was found) if he “died inside” upon return fire of the deputies?  There are a lot of unexplained scenarios here, ones the media can’t hold a candle to.

Based on what history has taught us, Wirth ended up being demonized in the media, just like Randy Weaver and David Koresh.  And let’s not forget Nevada notary Tracy N. Lawrence, who suddenly died of a 3-drug cocktail overdose on the day of her sentencing for one count of notary fraud (she offered to testify against two title officers of LSI Title Agency, Inc.).  Her death was ruled a suicide; however, I know dozens of Texas county clerks that would disagree with that finding because they were presented with those facts at the lecture series I presented to them in 2012. You could see their jaws drop. They were all shaking their head “no”.

You’re probably asking yourself why I intended to post this information.  I bring this up now because of the serious nature of attacking (on your own, because you think you can do better than someone with legal skill, knowledge and a law license) entities outside the scope of your foreclosure case.  I can think of a half dozen people that will ignore my warning here and risk ending up dead or in jail because they won’t listen to reason.  Sometimes I wonder why I even share stuff like this because it’s like giving a baby a stick of dynamite with a short fuse.  What you don’t know could kill you!  Did I scare the shit out of you yet?  You need to understand how serious this stuff is! I don’t know of any other way to emphasize what can happen to you if you self-implement, unless you’d care to Google David Koresh’s autopsy photos to see what an “end result” looks like!

Lest we forget, authorities came in and bulldozed over the “crime scene” at the Mount Carmel “compound”, obliterating any evidence.  A “compound” is defined as a 10′ x 10′ plywood shack (re: Weaver) or the average foreclosure victim’s home (re: Wirth) or the openly multiple-building, communal-style home (re: Branch Davidians).  Take your pick.  What’s behind Door #3?   None of them had fences and razor wire around them, so I have a hard time believing these fit the definition of a “compound”.  Oops!! I forgot.  That’s the term the government uses when it wants to demonize you in the media, so it can get the support of decent, hard-working, taxpaying voters who will support everything they’ve done under suspicious circumstances.

Now let’s get to the sum and substance of “the system of things” …

BONDS AND BONDING

Bonds can come in the form of cash or surety.  I want you to focus on these two and stop thinking about how the counties monetize bail bonds or bonds on their subjects they have detained or arrested.  This has nothing to do with the subject matter, but rather has evolved from Patriot-style behaviors, which I abhor, as this will get you put in jail or worse.

County judges and notaries commissioned by the state (or commonwealth) generally have to have a bond.  Some states do not require a notary bond; thus, the state itself may be held responsible for removing that requirement because a nexus was created when the Secretary of State issued a notary commission to the individual committing the crime (notarizing documents that contain false and misrepresentative information).  If the state doesn’t require a bond, then the notary is acting under the authority of the Secretary of State issuing the commission and thus, we would look to the state to cough up damage money as the result of felony behavior before the court.  What I’m talking about (in brief) here is the idea that bonds can be attacked; however, THIS TOO has to be done properly.  Every “punch line” HAS TO HAVE A “set-up”!

When a cop shoots somebody, what happens?  The cop is generally put on administrative leave while an investigation takes place.  Then a decision is made as to liability (whether the cop should be charged with murder or whether the shooting was justifiable).

What happens when a judge is required to have a bond and tolerates felony behavior in his court?   If someone challenges his bond, he may be placed on administrative leave while an investigation takes place and liability is determined.  There is a right way and a wrong way to even get close to challenging a judge’s bond.  Don’t think that attacking a judge’s bond won’t create statewide attention BECAUSE IT WILL!  Within 24 hours, every court official in the state will know it happened.

PATRIOT-STYLE CRAP

Some people think that filing liens against a judge is cute and that the judge will get his comeuppance.  THIS will get you a jail term, or worse.  I had a COTA workshop attendee do a year and a day for filing a lien against a state judge.  So if you like prison, try doing stupid shit like this!  All filing the lien does is screws up the judge’s credit until necessary measures (which involve spending money) are implemented to delete the lien from the public record.  Filing false liens is a felony in most states.  Please do not call me collect from your jail cell if you act the fool and file one of these liens against a judge because I will not bail you out!  You would be surprised how folks you know well distance themselves from you once you’ve been arrested and jailed!  Let me jog your memory because the State of Missouri just passed a new law (worth the read):

Missouri-2018-HB1769-Enrolled

I don’t know if you picked up on this or not, but Paragraphs 8 & 9 of this new bill appear to provide the framework in Missouri to do a C&E (I have taught this method in previous foreclosure defense workshops).    We do not file any type of liens as part of the process I am talking about here.  We do file a lis pendens.  The suit involves real property.  We have a methodology that requires precision in the creation of a paper trail.  THIS is what gets judges removed from the bench, not your pro se filing of judicial misconduct complaints.  Filing these is also a mistake, because most pro se litigants file them because they didn’t like the judge’s ruling.  Sorry, but that is what the appellate process is for.  I have heard that Patriot-type radio talk show hosts advocate doing this repeatedly to upset the system of things.  Taking that advice will lead you to a 6 x 8 cell with three hots and a cot.  The nature of judicial misconduct is reporting egregious behavior, like condoning felony perjury on behalf of the bank’s counsel.  THAT is what you file judicial misconduct complaints for.  This is why counties, most of whom are self-insured, get nervous when their Risk Managers are approached about this type of subject matter.  DO NOT CONTACT THEM YOURSELF!  We have a method for “getting their attention”!

THE BIGGEST, BADDEST PAPER TRAIL YOU CAN IMAGINE

I cannot stress to you enough that discovery and obtaining documented evidence and employing expert witness affidavits and testimony in the creation of a well-documented paper trail is ESSENTIAL to any success using this plan; otherwise, what do you have worth investigating.  I’ve yet to see a pro se litigant conduct proper discovery, let alone understand rules of civil procedure and rules of evidence to finality in their favor.  A majority of those reading this article won’t even know (if asked outright) what a declaratory judgment action is, let alone a state tort claims action.  The system of things may be overwhelming to many of you, but according to attorneys I’ve spoken with, it’s an eventual Achille’s heel in the system.  One attorney stated, “It’s a game changer!”  When counties don’t have money, they can’t function properly.   Government officials have to answer to voters and the media about the problem created by you, which is why they’ll try to settle before it becomes a 3-ring media circus.

As one attorney put it … you can change things with your vote … or you can change things employing specific tactics against “the system of things”.   I discuss this for educational purposes, because I get so many calls from frustrated foreclosure victims, who don’t know where to turn.  The problem is, the homeowners don’t know how to create the right paper trail.  Hell, I know attorneys that have stopped short of doing the right thing.  Malpractice is also a concern and with the tactics inside “the system of things”, these foreclosure defense attorneys should be worried as well, because “what applies to the goose can be applied to the gander”!

Without “the system of things” in place, we would succumb to financial ruin as a body politic and that could lead to the Civil War that the Rasmussen poll recently talked about.  I am not advocating the use of violence here, just common sense.

More to come about “the system of things” … so you can understand its layout and consequences!

 

6 Comments

Filed under OP-ED