(OP-ED) — This overview of cases involving civil rights abuses are the author’s opinions based on his legal research and are for educational purposes only and should not constitute any rendering of legal advice or seek to draw any conclusions of law. The first five points are discussed below:
The time at which a § 1983 claim accrues “is a question of federal law,” “conforming in general to common-law tort principles,” and is presumptively–but not always–“when the plaintiff has ‘a complete and present cause of action.'” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007); Manuel v. Joliet, U.S. Sup. Ct. No. 14-9496 (2017).
— As cited in McDonough v. Smith, U.S. Sup. Ct. No. 18-485 (2019)
This post is circumspect as to the discussion of the items postulated within the land record audit and forensics investigation conducted by the author and his team of researchers in Williamson County, Texas (2012-2013) and Osceola County, Florida (2013-2014), respectively. Anyone who has read through these 179-page and 758-page reports will realize that they are just that … the means to call out an injustice that should have come to light, but never did, during the period following the 2008 financial collapse. Over 10-million homes were taken through both judicial and non-judicial means … and this case, coupled with several others discussed in this post, culminate into what the author has determined is a potentially valid 42 USC § 1983 civil rights claim, which must be filed in federal court in a timely manner.
FALSE AND MISREPRESENTATIVE STATEMENTS
As both of the foregoing reports concluded, documents numbering into the tens of thousands poured into the land records of all 3,041 counties and boroughs across America, each containing false and misrepresentative statements that predicated the actions taken by the banks’ servicers. These documents were generally created under the orders of the servicers themselves and were generally executed by the servicers’ employees, posing as Assistant Secretaries, Vice Presidents or other “loan documentation” employees of the servicer, posing as representatives of the alleged Lenders “in an official capacity”, when in fact, many of these signers were $10/hour paid flunkies who sat around in cubicles and signing rooms, affixing their signatures and notarial seals by the hundreds … per hour, without reading or knowing of the contents contained within the documents as to their validity!
Better than 99% of these documents continue to litter these same land records to this very day and only about .001% of Americans are the wiser.
POINT #1: When the alleged civil rights infraction has occurred
In the McDonough v. Smith case, which was based on a New York State criminal action, the action came to rest in the hands of the United States Supreme Court, which decided on June 20, 2019, in a very narrow opinion, that the action taken by elected official McDonough against prosecutor Smith was untimely. The allegations were based on the alleged manufacture of evidence against McDonough by Smith, not once, but twice. Due to this prosecution (by Smith), McDonough was deprived of his liberty (put in jail) due to this allegedly manufactured evidence. From the foregoing statement that is highlighted in bold-faced type, you can clearly ascertain WHEN you get to file a civil rights-based lawsuit … AFTER your foreclosure has been completed against you and you’ve lost your property at sale.
POINT #2: It is assumed that you are taking notice of the offenders
In order to make this case in point, the author is relying on the assumption that anyone reading the audit and forensic examination will come to realize that not all is copacetic in assignment-land. It is the assignment of the mortgage or deed of trust that is posited here as “manufactured evidence”, to be relied upon for a “conviction”, even though the intended venue is the civil realm and not the criminal. However, the alleged criminal activity involving the manufacture of the documents, which generally appear years after the alleged transfer of notes into REMIC trusts or some other junk debt pool, which says it’s a trust but in reality is nothing more than a third-party debt buyer deceiving both the land recorders and the civil judges alike, is at stake here due to the reliance of its validity.
It is further assumed that every party involved with or “touching” that assignment from its inception to its recorded form and relying upon it thereafter in the taking of your home, knowing the statements contained within said assignment were false and misrepresentative, is McDonough in the civil realm. The documents predated a civil prosecution (foreclosure) and were manufactured as part of a suspected criminal act.
To make it more plain and simple, YOU, the homeowner, did not deceive the land record, the servicers’ employees did. Maybe the law firm acting on behalf of the servicer did by furthering the lie. Maybe the judge knew or should have known that the documents in the case in chief contained questionable statements; however, chose to ignore them for the sake of convenience in clearing off a packed court docket without giving the homeowner (or his attorney) a chance to prove that the prosecution’s case was based on false evidence.
POINT #3: The aspects of perjury and the subornation thereof
18 USC § 1621 (in pertinent part): “Whoever–having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contract to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true … is guilty of perjury and shall … be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
18 USC § 1622 (in pertinent part): “a person convicted of subornation of perjury may be fined $2,000 and sentenced to up to five years in prison.”
Under the latter, there are five elements which must be proven: (1) that the defendant make an agreement with the person to testify falsely; (2) that the perjury was in fact committed by the offender; (3) the false statements of the perjurer were material to the outcome of the case; (4) that the statements were made knowing of their falsity; and (5) there must be proof that the procurer had knowledge that the perjurer’s statements were false.
This is one of the key issues presenting itself as to the “further than arm’s length transactions” involved in foreclosure so as to create plausible deniability on the part of the perpetrators. Much of this can be ferreted out in depositions, which California attorney Al West has seen first hand.
POINT #4: The recorded alleged false statements in the land record
From the fact patterns discussed in the two foregoing reports, which are shown here for your review (if you so choose) …
… it became obvious to the author (in compiling the data shown in each of the reports) that a fact pattern involving timely suspect behavior occurred at about the time of the prosecution of the foreclosure, despite the fact the alleged information contained within the assignments that showed up in the land records just prior to (or in some cases AFTER the foreclosure action was started) the foreclosure case had indeed occurred.
It should also be noted here that these reports were not indictments, but merely “call outs” to alleged misbehavior on the part of third-party document mills or deceitful acts authorized or carried out by the mortgage loan servicers themselves. In March of 2012, the servicers collectively told the states and the federal government they wouldn’t create suspect documents and record them in the land records anymore, but as history shows (as demonstrated by the audit and forensic examination), no sooner was the ink dry on that agreement, it was back to business as usual.
Thus, the chains of title have been presumedly corrupted by this behavior, which of late, has gotten more sinister in nature, covered up by recorded powers of attorney that appear to grant some sort of authority to misbehave in the drafting of such documents, with no one the wiser.
POINT #5: The statements made within the foreclosure process itself
The next set of documents that appear suspect in the prosecution of the actual foreclosure itself are shown to be that of the “affidavits” or “declarations” made by the servicer’s employee, attached in similar form to both judicial and non-judicial actions. The difference here is that the non-judicial action contains a recorded statement known similarly as “Notice of Default and Election to Sell” and “Notice of Trustee’s Sale”. In both instances, these recorded notices contain the alleged suspect statements, predicated by the suspect assignment, then followed by the alleged “Appointment of Substitute Trustee”, which is not “neutral” by any means.
The judicial aspect involves the filing of a foreclosure complaint and the sworn declaration that accompanies the complaint filing, assumedly from the lender’s representative, when in fact, it’s the servicer’s employee making the statements. These statements then find their way into the initial court case filing.
The second “whammy” is when the servicer’s employee, who has been assumedly “coached” as to how to testify, many times in mock trials at the servicer’s headquarters so that their testimony is groomed to become so believable that the homeowner’s attorney swears the employee is telling the truth, that this is where the suspect “open court subornation of perjury” indeed occurs because: (1) the person testifying has been educated by the servicer to become a professional liar; and (2) the person testifying is relying on the suspect manufactured documents created by others and recorded in the land records of the county the subject property is located in.
HOMEOWNERS CAUGHT UNAWARES
As history has shown us, when the foreclosure debacle first started to litter the courts with cases, 97% of the noticed homeowners “cut and ran” without even entertaining the options. Their “Come to Jesus” meetings were based on fear of a bad result, predicated by a string of unfortunate events, which forced them to simply pack up and flee. The banks and their servicers were counting on this … and they succeeded admirably.
The other 3% of homeowners attempted to retain unlearned attorneys, who were naive as to the trickery committed not only in the land records, but through the MERS® System of things and the illicit behavior of the foreclosure mills … and bad case law affecting homeowners. It took awhile for these defense attorneys to come to grips with what was actually going on … and by then, even the judges were led to believe that what they were doing was above board, when in fact, it was based on manufactured evidence that should have been brought to light beforehand.
And this is why the author and California Attorney Al West created:
… because these declaratory relief actions should predicate the foreclosure action, not only creating delays, but to serve as a warning to those who would involve themselves in the chain of deceit involving the taking of a person’s property.
Sadly, 99.9% of all homeowners fail to understand this strategy, which could force a court to quiet title to any given piece of affected property and potentially cause a criminal action to be pursued against those committing perjury and suborning perjury in their sworn statements of record.
What most foreclosure victims also don’t understand is that the application of a civil rights action is also predicated on the denial of declaratory relief, which is the basis for the Cancellation & Expungement (C & E) Action.
Everything that the author has discussed in PART I is the “set-up” to what liability could be ascertained throughout the foreclosure case itself, which a person with some skill and knowledge could do the research on to identify the most likely culpable targets therein.
IN PART II … the author will discuss the pertinent parts of various cases in which the courts have identified these misrepresentations and what part of “all is not lost” applies to you, even if you lose on appeal. Yes, there are administrative remedies which have to be exhausted if one is going to go after an attorney, a judge and/or the county that pays them … and how the counties insure themselves against liability … out of a self-insured risk pool.
IN PART III … the author will discuss the attack strategy in the realm of 42 USC § 1983 and 42 USC § 1985, focusing not just on the perpetrators of the phony documents, but also at the attorneys involved in the prosecution of the foreclosures and the judges and the counties that employ them when the judges make bad decisions (like Al West says the judges say to him when approached about the documents, “What else ya got?”), which could make them accomplices to perjury and the subornation thereof.