WASHINGTON STATE: ATTENTION IF YOUR MORTGAGE IS SERVICED BY OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC!! (STATEWIDE)
On 12/10/2013, the Washington Attorney General entered into a Consent
Judgment with OCWEN FINANCIAL who owns one of the largest, most abusive
Loan Servicers in the nation, OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC. William Erbey
is the CEO of OCWEN. The Consent Agreement was intended to stop mortgage
foreclosure and loan servicing abuses by OCWEN, and OCWEN agreed to
help homeowners with cash payments, modifications, and/or offer
principal reductions. Here are some of the allegations in the
settlement:
Failed to promptly and accurately apply payments made by borrowers or to maintain accurate account statements.
Charged unauthorized fees for default-related services.
Gave false or misleading information to borrowers on loans that had been transferred from other servicers.
On transferred loans with in-process trial and permanent modifications,
deceptively sought to collect payments from consumer under the
mortgage's original unmodified terms.
Failed to provide correct and timely information to borrowers seeking
information about loss mitigation services, including loan
modifications.
Improperly denied loan modification relief to eligible borrowers.
Gave false or misleading reasons for loan modification denials.
Robo-signed affidavits in foreclosure proceedings.
Imposed force-placed insurance when the servicers knew or should have known borrowers had adequate coverage.
Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Do not hand over your keys to these scumbag OCWEN Loan Servicers and the
Seattle Attorneys who represent them, Routh Crabtree Olsen, P.S. (RCO,
P.S.) and/or Houser & Allison. OCWEN is a 3rd party debt collector
who simply services your mortgage for the true Note Holder. The
attorneys representing OCWEN and the Bank Trustee are also 3rd party
debt collectors. Your mortgage contract was not with OCWEN or the Bank
Trustee, and likely had a completely different originating Lender. Your
Note cannot be "Assigned" by "MERS" (See your Deed of Trust for MERS
language) or OCWEN LOAN SERVICING as they do not hold or own your
mortgage documents. OCWEN has no rights in your property. In this
mortgage era where your Note has been bought and sold on the open market
an average of 4 - 12 times, no one really knows who owns or holds your
NOTE! Lots of copies of Notes are being floated around but ask for proof
of the ORIGINAL signed Note! Unless someone pops up with the ORIGINAL
wet ink NOTE and says "I hold it", no entity or individual is entitled
by law to foreclose on your home and property! For more information
about this please read the blog articles in the Nationwide Defense
Network website and attorney Jeff Barnes's efforts on behalf of
homeowners. You will learn all there is to know to educate yourself
about mortgage origination, securitization and foreclosure scam by big
banks and loan servicers since about the mid-2000s. You will learn about
all of the important foreclosure legal decisions in the country.
http://www.wzzm13.com/story/news/investigations/13-on-your-side/watchdog/2014/05/05/ocwen-mortgages-foreclosure/8560033/
Also, see the OCWEN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT signed around by the 50-state attorney generals and OCWEN at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/235647764/OCWEN-LOAN-SERVICING-CONSENT-ORDER-TO-STOP-MORTGAGE-SERVICING-AND-FORECLOSURE-ABUSES.
If you are experiencing no relief from OCWEN LOAN SERVICING in your
problems with its abusive loan servicing tactics or OCWEN's preposterous
loan modification efforts (!), contact Attorney General Robert Ferguson
or David Huey at the Consumer Complaint portal for the Washington
Attorney General's Office website. FILL OUT A COMPLAINT FORM AND TELL
THEM YOU WANT THE RELIEF THEY BARGAINED FOR ON YOUR BEHALF IN DECEMBER
2013 WITH OCWEN LOAN SERVICING! YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR HOME AND BE FREE
FROM HARASSMENT BY THESE UNPRINCIPLED FIRMS.
Friday, August 15, 2014
Friday, March 28, 2014
Judge Rules Foreclosure Unconstitutional
Judge George N. Bowden of the Superior Court in Washington State ruled against Bank of America (BoA) in a foreclosure battle that ended with the nonjudicial foreclosure sale under the Deed of Trust Act (DTA). The sale was deemed void, and the court is setting the foreclosure aside.
In this case defended by StafneTrumbull law firm in Washington State, the homeowner won his ability to sue BoA for damages for a wrongful freclosure which is another major victory against the unethical and illegal foreclosures industry that has left millions of Americans homeless.
Bowden acknowledged that this case was like most; “convoluted in the minefield” that is the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) system.
Bradburn, the homeowner, was told by BoA “that he should stop making his mortgage payments so that he could qualify for refinancing.”
BoA ensured that this homeowner was in default of the mortgage by promising to refinance; then initiated litigation against the homeowner to retrieve the property for failure by Bradburn to remain current on his payments.
Bowden pointed out that the DTA “seems to contemplate a borrower and a lender with an independent trustee having the power to foreclose on the deed of trust in the event of default by the borrower. The lender would normally hold the underlying note and be the beneficiary of it. Here matters have been complicated by the sale of the underlying note from HomeStar Lending to Countrywide, which was later acquired by [BoA].”
Interestingly, Bowden stated that “Fidelity Title was identified as the trustee but then MERS was characterized as the beneficiary ‘as the nominee’ of the lender and their assigns. At summary judgment it was claimed that the note was ‘owned’ by Fannie Mae although it was ‘held’ by [BoA], which was then described as the ‘servicer’ of the note at the behest of Fannie Mae.”
The evidence presented by the homeowner showed that “MERS was never the owner or holder of the note.”
In 2013, Bain v. MERS held that this system “is not and cannot be a legal beneficiary under Washington State law. Only the legal holder of the note, the real creditor, has the power to appoint the substitute trustee in order to transact such legal actions as a foreclosure.”
Neil Garfield, property right attorney commented that MERS “is the electronic smokescreen that allowed banks to build their securitization Ponzi scheme without worrying about details like ownership and chain of title.”
Garfield said: “Properties were sold to multiple investors or conveyed to empty trusts, subprime securities were endorsed as triple A, and banks earned up to 40 times what they could earn on a paying loan, using credit default swaps in which they bet the loan would go into default. As the dust settles from collapse of the scheme, homeowners are left with underwater mortgages with no legitimate owners to negotiate with. The solution now being considered is for municipalities to simply take ownership of the mortgages through eminent domain. This would allow them to clear title and start fresh, along with some other lucrative dividends.”
Bowden cited that there were “contradictory statements that were filed. [BoA] filed a declaration with ReconTrust which identified Fannie Mae as the owner and beneficiary of the deed of trust, yet ReconTrust later identified [BoA] as the beneficiary.”
This shows the scheme enacted by BoA to sanction this illegal and unconstitutional foreclosure which was proven because the DTA was not adhered to; as well as “failure to materially comply with that statute renders a foreclosure sale pursuant to it invalid.”
Therefore the foreclosure implemented against the homeowner was illegal because there was a failure to appoint “a trustee that was independent.”
Bowden clearly stated “I could not find that Fannie Mae as the claimed owner of the underlying note was a bona fide purchaser for value, even if it was not complicit in the violations of the DTA.”
It was concluded that BoA and MERS action were “unfair [and] deceptive” in nature and the homeowner was “injured” because of this foreclosure.
In this case defended by StafneTrumbull law firm in Washington State, the homeowner won his ability to sue BoA for damages for a wrongful freclosure which is another major victory against the unethical and illegal foreclosures industry that has left millions of Americans homeless.
Bowden acknowledged that this case was like most; “convoluted in the minefield” that is the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) system.
Bradburn, the homeowner, was told by BoA “that he should stop making his mortgage payments so that he could qualify for refinancing.”
BoA ensured that this homeowner was in default of the mortgage by promising to refinance; then initiated litigation against the homeowner to retrieve the property for failure by Bradburn to remain current on his payments.
Bowden pointed out that the DTA “seems to contemplate a borrower and a lender with an independent trustee having the power to foreclose on the deed of trust in the event of default by the borrower. The lender would normally hold the underlying note and be the beneficiary of it. Here matters have been complicated by the sale of the underlying note from HomeStar Lending to Countrywide, which was later acquired by [BoA].”
Interestingly, Bowden stated that “Fidelity Title was identified as the trustee but then MERS was characterized as the beneficiary ‘as the nominee’ of the lender and their assigns. At summary judgment it was claimed that the note was ‘owned’ by Fannie Mae although it was ‘held’ by [BoA], which was then described as the ‘servicer’ of the note at the behest of Fannie Mae.”
The evidence presented by the homeowner showed that “MERS was never the owner or holder of the note.”
In 2013, Bain v. MERS held that this system “is not and cannot be a legal beneficiary under Washington State law. Only the legal holder of the note, the real creditor, has the power to appoint the substitute trustee in order to transact such legal actions as a foreclosure.”
Neil Garfield, property right attorney commented that MERS “is the electronic smokescreen that allowed banks to build their securitization Ponzi scheme without worrying about details like ownership and chain of title.”
Garfield said: “Properties were sold to multiple investors or conveyed to empty trusts, subprime securities were endorsed as triple A, and banks earned up to 40 times what they could earn on a paying loan, using credit default swaps in which they bet the loan would go into default. As the dust settles from collapse of the scheme, homeowners are left with underwater mortgages with no legitimate owners to negotiate with. The solution now being considered is for municipalities to simply take ownership of the mortgages through eminent domain. This would allow them to clear title and start fresh, along with some other lucrative dividends.”
Bowden cited that there were “contradictory statements that were filed. [BoA] filed a declaration with ReconTrust which identified Fannie Mae as the owner and beneficiary of the deed of trust, yet ReconTrust later identified [BoA] as the beneficiary.”
This shows the scheme enacted by BoA to sanction this illegal and unconstitutional foreclosure which was proven because the DTA was not adhered to; as well as “failure to materially comply with that statute renders a foreclosure sale pursuant to it invalid.”
Therefore the foreclosure implemented against the homeowner was illegal because there was a failure to appoint “a trustee that was independent.”
Bowden clearly stated “I could not find that Fannie Mae as the claimed owner of the underlying note was a bona fide purchaser for value, even if it was not complicit in the violations of the DTA.”
It was concluded that BoA and MERS action were “unfair [and] deceptive” in nature and the homeowner was “injured” because of this foreclosure.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
NORTH DAKOTA'S MIRACLE
NORTH DAKOTA’S ECONOMIC “MIRACLE”
—IT’S NOT OIL
North Dakota has had the nation's lowest unemployment ever since the economy tanked. What's its secret?
In an article in The New York Times on August 19th titled “The North Dakota Miracle,” Catherine Rampell writes:
Forget the Texas Miracle. Let’s instead take a look at
North Dakota, which has the lowest unemployment rate and the fastest job growth
rate in the country.
According to new data released by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics today, North Dakota had an unemployment rate of just 3.3 percent in
July—that’s just over a third of the national rate (9.1 percent), and about a
quarter of the rate of the state with the highest joblessness (Nevada, at 12.9
percent).
North Dakota has had the lowest unemployment in the
country (or was tied for the lowest unemployment rate in the country) every
single month since July 2008.
Its healthy job market is also reflected in its payroll
growth numbers. . . . [Y]ear over year, its payrolls grew by 5.2 percent. Texas
came in second, with an increase of 2.6 percent.
Why is North Dakota doing so well? For one of the same
reasons that Texas has been doing well: oil.
Oil is certainly a factor, but it is not what has put
North Dakota over the top. Alaska has roughly the same
population as North Dakota and produces nearly twice
as much oil, yet unemployment in Alaska is running at 7.7 percent. Montana,
South Dakota, and Wyoming have all benefited from a boom in energy prices, with
Montana and Wyoming extracting much more gas than North Dakota has. The Bakken
oil field stretches across Montana as well as North Dakota, with the greatest Bakken oil
production coming from Elm Coulee Oil Field in Montana. Yet Montana’s
unemployment rate, like Alaska’s, is 7.7% percent.
A number of other mineral-rich states were initially not
affected by the economic downturn, but they lost revenues with the later
decline in oil prices. North Dakota is the only state to be in continuous
budget surplus since the banking crisis of 2008. Its balance sheet is so
strong that it recently reduced
individual income taxes and property taxes by a combined $400 million, and is debating
further cuts. It also has the lowest
foreclosure rate and lowest
credit card default rate in the country, and it has had NO bank failures in
at least the
last decade.
If its secret isn’t oil, what is so unique about the state?
North Dakota has one thing that no other state has: its own state-owned bank.
Access to credit is the enabling factor that has fostered both
a boom in oil and record profits from agriculture in North Dakota. The Bank of
North Dakota (BND) does not compete with local banks but partners with them, helping
with capital and liquidity requirements. It participates in loans, provides
guarantees, and acts as a sort of mini-Fed for the state. In 2010, according to
the BND’s annual report:
The Bank provided Secured and Unsecured Federal Fund
Lines to 95 financial institutions with combined lines of over $318 million for
2010. Federal Fund sales averaged over $13 million per day, peaking at $36
million in June.
The BND also has a loan program called Flex PACE, which
allows a local community to provide assistance to borrowers in areas of jobs
retention, technology creation, retail, small business, and essential community
services. In 2010, according to the BND
annual report:
The need for Flex PACE funding was substantial, growing
by 62 percent to help finance essential community services as energy
development spiked in western North Dakota. Commercial bank participation loans
grew to 64 percent of the entire $1.022 billion portfolio.
The BND’s revenues have also been a major boost to the
state budget. It has contributed over $300 million in revenues over the last
decade to state coffers, a substantial sum for a state with a population less
than one-tenth the size of Los Angeles County. According to a study
by the Center for State Innovation, from 2007 to 2009 the BND added nearly
as much money to the state’s general fund as oil and gas tax revenues did (oil
and gas revenues added $71 million while the Bank of North Dakota returned $60
million). Over a 15-year period, according to other data, the BND has
contributed more to the state budget than oil taxes have.
North Dakota’s money and banking reserves are being kept within
the state and invested there. The BND’s loan portfolio shows a steady
uninterrupted increase in North Dakota lending programs since 2006.
According to the annual BND report:
Financially, 2010 was our strongest year ever. Profits
increased by nearly $4 million to $61.9 million during our seventh consecutive
year of record profits. Earnings were fueled by a strong and growing deposit
base, brought about by a surging energy and agricultural economy. We ended the
year with the highest capital level in our history at just over $325 million.
The Bank returned a healthy 19 percent ROE, which represents the state’s return
on its investment.
A 19 percent return on equity! How many states are getting
that sort of return on their Wall Street investments?
Timothy Canova is Professor of International Economic Law
at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, California. In
a June 2011 paper called “The Public Option: The Case for Parallel Public
Banking Institutions,” he compares North Dakota’s financial situation to
California’s. He writes of North Dakota and its state-owned bank:
The state deposits its tax revenues in the Bank, which in
turn ensures that a high portion of state funds are invested in the state economy.
In addition, the Bank is able to remit a portion of its earnings back to the
state treasury . . . . Thanks in part to these institutional arrangements,
North Dakota is the only state that has been in continuous budget surplus since
before the financial crisis and it has the lowest unemployment rate in the
country.
He then compares the dire situation in California:
In contrast, California is the largest state economy in
the nation, yet without a state-owned bank, is unable to steer hundreds of
billions of dollars in state revenues into productive investment within the
state. Instead, California deposits its many billions in tax revenues in large
private banks which often lend the funds out-of-state, invest them in
speculative trading strategies (including derivative bets against the state’s
own bonds), and do not remit any of their earnings back to the state treasury. Meanwhile,
California suffers from constrained private credit conditions, high
unemployment levels well above the national average, and the stagnation of
state and local tax receipts. The state’s only response has been to stumble
from one budget crisis to another for the past three years, with each round of
spending cuts further weakening its economy, tax base, and credit rating.
Not all states have oil, of course (and it’s hardly a
sustainable economic basis), but all could learn from the state-owned bank that
allows North Dakota to capitalize on its resources to full advantage. States
that deposit their revenues and invest their capital in large Wall Street banks
are giving this economic opportunity away.
This article was written for YES! Magazine. Ellen Brown is an attorney, president of the Public
Banking Institute, and the author of eleven books, including Web of Debt:
The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free. Her
websites are http://WebofDebt.com and
http://PublicBankingInstitute.org.
SOURCE: Ellen Brown - August 31st, 2011
www.webofdebt.com/articles/north_dakota.php
www.webofdebt.com/articles/north_dakota.php
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
ANTI-MERS DECISION
Finally an ANTI-MERS DECISION
(Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos)
The judge’s denial of MERS/BoA’s Motion to Dismiss in the case of Nueces County v. MERS et al. is AMAZING! Not because it’s novel, but because it actually follows the law! It’s like Neil Garfield or Matt Weidner or David Rogers wrote it. Or like I wrote it! In fact, in my losing case of Kirby v. Bank of America (Southern District of Mississippi, 2012), I did use many of these same arguments–any sane, reasonable person would have! You have got to read this decision!
Normally I might be tempted to highlight a sentence or two from the judge’s order and then mumble through my understanding of it, but with this brilliant order, all that needs to be done is to provide the blockbuster, bombshell quotes from it (for those who may not have the time or inclination to read it). The quotes themselves are commentary enough, so here goes:
1. “MERS does not, however, hold any beneficial interest in the deeds of trust, and it is not a beneficiary of the deeds of trust. It is merely an agent or nominee of the beneficiary.” (p. 14)
2. “By having itself designated as the “beneficiary under the security instrument” in the deeds of trust presented to the County Clerk for recordation in the County’s property records, knowing that it would be listed as the grantee of the security interest in the property, it appears that MERS asserted a legal right in the properties. The Court concludes that, viewing the FAC’s allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, one could plausibly infer that the recorded deeds of trust [naming MERS as "beneficiary"] constituted fraudulent liens or claims against real property or an interest in real property. ” (p. 14)
3. “While Defendants may not have acted with the actual purpose or motive to cause harm to the County, the FAC alleges that through their creation of MERS, Defendants intended to establish their own recording system in order to avoid having to record transfers or assignments with the County and paying the associated filing fees. (FAC ¶¶ 2, 3, 17.) Accordingly, one can reasonably infer from the allegations set forth in the FAC that Defendants were aware of the harmful effects the fraudulent liens would have on the County. That is sufficient to establish intent.” (p. 16)
4. “Accordingly, the Court concludes that the FAC sets forth sufficient facts to give rise to a plausible inference that Defendants made false statements to the County regarding their rights under the deeds of trust and their relationships to the borrowers in the mortgages issued by MERS members.” (p. 22)
5. “County records as having a security interest in the properties. Accordingly, viewing the allegations of the FAC in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court concludes that one could plausibly infer that Defendants made material misrepresentations of fact to Plaintiff in the deeds of trust presented to the County for filing.” (p. 23)
I’m so excited I can hardly contain myself! This judge gets it EXACTLY right! She even defers to Carpenter v. Longan! There is obviously a major schism in the Texas federal judiciary, and this judge–Nelva Gonzales Ramos (an Obama appointee)–comes down on exactly the right side!
Source: http://libertyroadmedia.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/omg-this-anti-mers-decision-is-amazing/
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Even if You Pay On Time
(This article for research. Please visit the CBS links within the article for more facts.)
Foreclosure Fraud: How You Can Be Driven to Default Even if You Pay On Time
The new nation-wide investigation into foreclosure frauds
comes as no surprise to people who follow the mortgage service
business. Shoddy, deceptive paperwork has plagued homeowners for years.
In the industry's slimy underside, firms push borrowers into default and
foreclosure, even when they've been making payments on time.
SPECIAL REPORT:
Foreclosure Mess: What it Means for You
Their business model makes defaults profitable, says Marie McDonnell who has been auditing mortgages for accuracy since 1986. The ugly chain of deception starts with the way a servicer might handle your escrow account.
A mortgage service company collects your monthly payments, deducts a fee, and passes the remainder to the investors who own the loan. The majority of the servicing is done by big banks, such as JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America. Your payments usually include a sum for property taxes and homeowners insurance premiums, which goes into an escrow account. The servicer uses that account to pay the taxes and premiums as they come due.
However, every homeowner should check his or her mortgage escrow account -- right now -- for one of two wrongs.
First, the servicer might be putting more into escrow than you actually owe, hoping you won't notice. That gives the bank extra money to earn some interest on. Or second, you might owe more than you realize. That leads to underpayments, default, fat late fees owed and, eventually, foreclosure.
As an example of the first case, take Nathalie Martin, who teaches bankruptcy law at the University of New Mexico. She recently noticed an unusual change in her escrow account. Her property taxes had risen by about $60 a month, yet her servicer -- without notice, she says -- had started withdrawing an extra $120 from her account. The same thing was happening to some of the clients of the university's law clinic, who were seeking help with loan modifications or foreclosure notices.
When Martin called her servicer (and actually got a live body instead of a machine), she was told that the extra $60 was a "voluntary" payment on her part. Voluntary? Not likely. The servicer had simply helped itself to her money. You're supposed to get a notice 30 days before an increase, but servicers don't always send it out, McDonnell says. Or the borrower overlooks it.
Martin complained and the extra charge was stopped. Her advice to homeowners: Every time your taxes or insurance premiums rise, calculate how much you'll have to pay over the next year and divide by 12. That's the amount that servicers should be charging for your escrow each month. They're allowed a little extra only if there's a shortage of money in the account they have to prove it.
Also, be sure check your monthly mortgage statements, if you get them (some servicers send statements only once a year). Homeowners with fixed-rate mortgages might not open the envelopes, because they don't expect their payments to go up. But the servicer might raise your escrow payment -- and overcharge you -- in advance of a tax change. You have to watch them every minute.
If you accidentally underpay, you fall into a cruel trap.
This happens when you don't realize that your escrow payments are going to rise. When you make your next payment -- at the old rate -- it won't be enough to cover the escrow plus the mortgage payment due.
You might expect the servicer to use the money to cover your mortgage and notify you that the escrow amount was short. But that's not the way it works. Instead, the bank puts your payment into a "suspense" account.
None of the money is applied to the mortgage due. You're recorded as being in default. A late fee is charged and your false, bank-manufactured delinquency is reported to the credit bureau. "That's a theft of mortgage payments," McDonnell says.
If you don't realize what's happening because the servicer doesn't send monthly statements (or you don't check your statements), you'll send the same payment the second month. There's now enough money to cover the first month you "missed" but not enough for the second month. You've officially defaulted again.
At this point, the servicer will probably send you a pre-foreclosure notice, demanding all the past payments due, plus interest and fees. If you can't come up with a lump sum to settle the demand immediately, you might be foreclosed before you can even begin to straighten out the mess. "It's a train out of control," McDonnell says.
There's another way that a sloppy (or calculating) servicer can force a default. If you pay for homeowners insurance directly, without going through the escrow account, the bank might conclude you're uninsured. It will buy the insurance for you, without telling you -- and again, your regular monthly payment might fall short. The same thing could happen if you let your insurance lapse.
Even worse, the banks buy the insurance from an entity that they have a relationship with, paying two or three times the premium that a homeowner would pay directly, mortgage expert Jack Guttentag says.
McDonnell has audited many mortgages that predatory servicers have pushed into default, even though the homeowners always paid on time. The banks' incentive? High fees for late payments and for managing the foreclosure process. She believes that defaults became a profit center around 1995. Ever since 2005, servicers have been putting up "absolute resistance" to working thing out with the consumer, "even when I can prove servicer wrongdoing," she says.
You might be tempted to blame the errors and fraud that led to the current foreclosure freeze on the sheer volume of defaults. In fact, in this poorly regulated industry, the servicers have been getting away with abuse for a very long time. They need to be added to new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's lengthening list.
More on MoneyWatch:
Who Pays for a Foreclosure Freeze? We the Taxpayers Do
The Foreclosure Mills: How This Could Really Hurt the Housing Market
The Foreclosure Mess: It's Worse Than You Think
Foreclosure Mess: What it Means for You
- How The Foreclosure Mess Could Hurt The Housing Market
- Don't Be Driven to Foreclosure by Mortgage Fraud
- Is Your Lender Taking Advantage of You?
- Why We Need a National Freeze on Foreclosures
- Will a Foreclosure Freeze Fix the Housing Market?
- 50 States Launch Joint Probe into Foreclosures
Their business model makes defaults profitable, says Marie McDonnell who has been auditing mortgages for accuracy since 1986. The ugly chain of deception starts with the way a servicer might handle your escrow account.
A mortgage service company collects your monthly payments, deducts a fee, and passes the remainder to the investors who own the loan. The majority of the servicing is done by big banks, such as JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America. Your payments usually include a sum for property taxes and homeowners insurance premiums, which goes into an escrow account. The servicer uses that account to pay the taxes and premiums as they come due.
However, every homeowner should check his or her mortgage escrow account -- right now -- for one of two wrongs.
First, the servicer might be putting more into escrow than you actually owe, hoping you won't notice. That gives the bank extra money to earn some interest on. Or second, you might owe more than you realize. That leads to underpayments, default, fat late fees owed and, eventually, foreclosure.
As an example of the first case, take Nathalie Martin, who teaches bankruptcy law at the University of New Mexico. She recently noticed an unusual change in her escrow account. Her property taxes had risen by about $60 a month, yet her servicer -- without notice, she says -- had started withdrawing an extra $120 from her account. The same thing was happening to some of the clients of the university's law clinic, who were seeking help with loan modifications or foreclosure notices.
When Martin called her servicer (and actually got a live body instead of a machine), she was told that the extra $60 was a "voluntary" payment on her part. Voluntary? Not likely. The servicer had simply helped itself to her money. You're supposed to get a notice 30 days before an increase, but servicers don't always send it out, McDonnell says. Or the borrower overlooks it.
Martin complained and the extra charge was stopped. Her advice to homeowners: Every time your taxes or insurance premiums rise, calculate how much you'll have to pay over the next year and divide by 12. That's the amount that servicers should be charging for your escrow each month. They're allowed a little extra only if there's a shortage of money in the account they have to prove it.
Also, be sure check your monthly mortgage statements, if you get them (some servicers send statements only once a year). Homeowners with fixed-rate mortgages might not open the envelopes, because they don't expect their payments to go up. But the servicer might raise your escrow payment -- and overcharge you -- in advance of a tax change. You have to watch them every minute.
If you accidentally underpay, you fall into a cruel trap.
This happens when you don't realize that your escrow payments are going to rise. When you make your next payment -- at the old rate -- it won't be enough to cover the escrow plus the mortgage payment due.
You might expect the servicer to use the money to cover your mortgage and notify you that the escrow amount was short. But that's not the way it works. Instead, the bank puts your payment into a "suspense" account.
None of the money is applied to the mortgage due. You're recorded as being in default. A late fee is charged and your false, bank-manufactured delinquency is reported to the credit bureau. "That's a theft of mortgage payments," McDonnell says.
If you don't realize what's happening because the servicer doesn't send monthly statements (or you don't check your statements), you'll send the same payment the second month. There's now enough money to cover the first month you "missed" but not enough for the second month. You've officially defaulted again.
At this point, the servicer will probably send you a pre-foreclosure notice, demanding all the past payments due, plus interest and fees. If you can't come up with a lump sum to settle the demand immediately, you might be foreclosed before you can even begin to straighten out the mess. "It's a train out of control," McDonnell says.
There's another way that a sloppy (or calculating) servicer can force a default. If you pay for homeowners insurance directly, without going through the escrow account, the bank might conclude you're uninsured. It will buy the insurance for you, without telling you -- and again, your regular monthly payment might fall short. The same thing could happen if you let your insurance lapse.
Even worse, the banks buy the insurance from an entity that they have a relationship with, paying two or three times the premium that a homeowner would pay directly, mortgage expert Jack Guttentag says.
McDonnell has audited many mortgages that predatory servicers have pushed into default, even though the homeowners always paid on time. The banks' incentive? High fees for late payments and for managing the foreclosure process. She believes that defaults became a profit center around 1995. Ever since 2005, servicers have been putting up "absolute resistance" to working thing out with the consumer, "even when I can prove servicer wrongdoing," she says.
You might be tempted to blame the errors and fraud that led to the current foreclosure freeze on the sheer volume of defaults. In fact, in this poorly regulated industry, the servicers have been getting away with abuse for a very long time. They need to be added to new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's lengthening list.
More on MoneyWatch:
Who Pays for a Foreclosure Freeze? We the Taxpayers Do
The Foreclosure Mills: How This Could Really Hurt the Housing Market
The Foreclosure Mess: It's Worse Than You Think
Monday, April 29, 2013
BANKING IS RIGGED
Conspiracy theorists of the world, believers in the hidden hands of the Rothschilds and the Masons and the Illuminati, we skeptics owe you an apology. You were right. The players may be a little different, but your basic premise is correct: The world is a rigged game. We found this out in recent months, when a series of related corruption stories spilled out of the financial sector, suggesting the world's largest banks may be fixing the prices of, well, just about everything.
You may have heard of the Libor scandal, in which at least three – and perhaps as many as 16 – of the name-brand too-big-to-fail banks have been manipulating global interest rates, in the process messing around with the prices of upward of $500 trillion (that's trillion, with a "t") worth of financial instruments. When that sprawling con burst into public view last year, it was easily the biggest financial scandal in history – MIT professor Andrew Lo even said it "dwarfs by orders of magnitude any financial scam in the history of markets."
That was bad enough, but now Libor may have a twin brother. Word has leaked out that the London-based firm ICAP, the world's largest broker of interest-rate swaps, is being investigated by American authorities for behavior that sounds eerily reminiscent of the Libor mess. Regulators are looking into whether or not a small group of brokers at ICAP may have worked with up to 15 of the world's largest banks to manipulate ISDAfix, a benchmark number used around the world to calculate the prices of interest-rate swaps.
Interest-rate swaps are a tool used by big cities, major corporations and sovereign governments to manage their debt, and the scale of their use is almost unimaginably massive. It's about a $379 trillion market, meaning that any manipulation would affect a pile of assets about 100 times the size of the United States federal budget.
It should surprise no one that among the players implicated in this scheme to fix the prices of interest-rate swaps are the same megabanks – including Barclays, UBS, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and the Royal Bank of Scotland – that serve on the Libor panel that sets global interest rates. In fact, in recent years many of these banks have already paid multimillion-dollar settlements for anti-competitive manipulation of one form or another (in addition to Libor, some were caught up in an anti-competitive scheme, detailed in Rolling Stone last year, to rig municipal-debt service auctions). Though the jumble of financial acronyms sounds like gibberish to the layperson, the fact that there may now be price-fixing scandals involving both Libor and ISDAfix suggests a single, giant mushrooming conspiracy of collusion and price-fixing hovering under the ostensibly competitive veneer of Wall Street culture.
The Scam Wall Street Learned From the Mafia
Why? Because Libor already affects the prices of interest-rate swaps, making this a manipulation-on-manipulation situation. If the allegations prove to be right, that will mean that swap customers have been paying for two different layers of price-fixing corruption. If you can imagine paying 20 bucks for a crappy PB&J because some evil cabal of agribusiness companies colluded to fix the prices of both peanuts and peanut butter, you come close to grasping the lunacy of financial markets where both interest rates and interest-rate swaps are being manipulated at the same time, often by the same banks.
"It's a double conspiracy," says an amazed Michael Greenberger, a former director of the trading and markets division at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and now a professor at the University of Maryland. "It's the height of criminality."
The bad news didn't stop with swaps and interest rates. In March, it also came out that two regulators – the CFTC here in the U.S. and the Madrid-based International Organization of Securities Commissions – were spurred by the Libor revelations to investigate the possibility of collusive manipulation of gold and silver prices. "Given the clubby manipulation efforts we saw in Libor benchmarks, I assume other benchmarks – many other benchmarks – are legit areas of inquiry," CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton said.
But the biggest shock came out of a federal courtroom at the end of March – though if you follow these matters closely, it may not have been so shocking at all – when a landmark class-action civil lawsuit against the banks for Libor-related offenses was dismissed. In that case, a federal judge accepted the banker-defendants' incredible argument: If cities and towns and other investors lost money because of Libor manipulation, that was their own fault for ever thinking the banks were competing in the first place.
"A farce," was one antitrust lawyer's response to the eyebrow-raising dismissal.
"Incredible," says Sylvia Sokol, an attorney for Constantine Cannon, a firm that specializes in antitrust cases.
All of these stories collectively pointed to the same thing: These banks, which already possess enormous power just by virtue of their financial holdings – in the United States, the top six banks, many of them the same names you see on the Libor and ISDAfix panels, own assets equivalent to 60 percent of the nation's GDP – are beginning to realize the awesome possibilities for increased profit and political might that would come with colluding instead of competing. Moreover, it's increasingly clear that both the criminal justice system and the civil courts may be impotent to stop them, even when they do get caught working together to game the system.
If true, that would leave us living in an era of undisguised, real-world conspiracy, in which the prices of currencies, commodities like gold and silver, even interest rates and the value of money itself, can be and may already have been dictated from above. And those who are doing it can get away with it. Forget the Illuminati – this is the real thing, and it's no secret. You can stare right at it, anytime you want.
Source: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/everything-is-rigged-the-biggest-financial-scandal-yet-20130425#ixzz2RrwU99OH
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
NEWS - Billiou
This was taken from an obituary. It shows that Joseph Michael Billiou III is related to Judge Peter Billiou Twede. Other documentation may now be found through the Glenn County records. The Judge assured that the illegally foreclosed property in Glenn County was given to a fraudulent claimant: Deutsche Bank, then sold to Joseph Michael Billiou III. Exensive damage to a natural waterway, Stoney Creek is continuing to be excavated by aka: Mike Billiou
Joseph Michael Billiou, Jr., of Hamilton City, Calif., passed away on Thursday, Oct. 18, 2012, at the age of 89. Joe was born in Chico, Calif. on Dec. 16, 1922 to Joseph Sr. and Frances W. Billiou, and was raised on the family ranch in Glenn County, along with his sisters, Mary Elizabeth "Betty" (Miles d. 2012), Georgia (Twede d. 1991) and Theresa (McGowan). Joe attended Notre Dame parochial school in Chico and Hamilton City High School, where he ran track. He briefly attended Santa Clara before enlisting in the US Air Force.
During wartime, Joe proudly served his country as a B-17 pilot in the 379th Bomb Group based in England. After the war, Joe completed his business degree at UC Berkeley and then returned home to Hamilton City to begin his farming career. On June 30, 1951, Joe married Anne Rose Spencer, who entered into rest on September 20, 2012. During their married life they resided in the family ranch house and raised three children. During his career as a well-respected and progressive farmer, Joe was among the first to bring orchard crops to the area. Joe was an avid fly fisherman and loved traveling around the continent in pioneer fashion with Anne and many friends. In addition, Joe maintained life long relationships with his fraternity brothers and enjoyed their get-togethers each year.
Joe was a devout Catholic, who served on the church council, was a school board member for the Hamilton Union School District for many years, and served as a member of the Sunsweet Board of Directors.
Joe is survived by three children: Joseph Michael III (Kerry), Sally Marie (Billiou) Fleischmann (Robert), and Jane Anne (Billiou) Armour (Gerald); two grandchildren, Jordan Billiou Fleischmann and Victoria Rose Fleischmann; four stepgrandsons, Henry Fleischmann, Morgan Fleischmann, Joshua Fleischmann and Garrison Armour, and numerous nieces and nephews.
A Catholic Rosary will be held on Wednesday evening, Oct. 24, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at Brusie Funeral Home. A Mass of Christian Burial will be held at St. John's Catholic Church on Thursday, Oct. 25, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. followed by a Committal Service at Chico Cemetery.
Condolences may be sent to the family online at www.brusiefh.com.
Joseph Michael Billiou, Jr., of Hamilton City, Calif., passed away on Thursday, Oct. 18, 2012, at the age of 89. Joe was born in Chico, Calif. on Dec. 16, 1922 to Joseph Sr. and Frances W. Billiou, and was raised on the family ranch in Glenn County, along with his sisters, Mary Elizabeth "Betty" (Miles d. 2012), Georgia (Twede d. 1991) and Theresa (McGowan). Joe attended Notre Dame parochial school in Chico and Hamilton City High School, where he ran track. He briefly attended Santa Clara before enlisting in the US Air Force.
During wartime, Joe proudly served his country as a B-17 pilot in the 379th Bomb Group based in England. After the war, Joe completed his business degree at UC Berkeley and then returned home to Hamilton City to begin his farming career. On June 30, 1951, Joe married Anne Rose Spencer, who entered into rest on September 20, 2012. During their married life they resided in the family ranch house and raised three children. During his career as a well-respected and progressive farmer, Joe was among the first to bring orchard crops to the area. Joe was an avid fly fisherman and loved traveling around the continent in pioneer fashion with Anne and many friends. In addition, Joe maintained life long relationships with his fraternity brothers and enjoyed their get-togethers each year.
Joe was a devout Catholic, who served on the church council, was a school board member for the Hamilton Union School District for many years, and served as a member of the Sunsweet Board of Directors.
Joe is survived by three children: Joseph Michael III (Kerry), Sally Marie (Billiou) Fleischmann (Robert), and Jane Anne (Billiou) Armour (Gerald); two grandchildren, Jordan Billiou Fleischmann and Victoria Rose Fleischmann; four stepgrandsons, Henry Fleischmann, Morgan Fleischmann, Joshua Fleischmann and Garrison Armour, and numerous nieces and nephews.
A Catholic Rosary will be held on Wednesday evening, Oct. 24, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at Brusie Funeral Home. A Mass of Christian Burial will be held at St. John's Catholic Church on Thursday, Oct. 25, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. followed by a Committal Service at Chico Cemetery.
Condolences may be sent to the family online at www.brusiefh.com.
Published in Willows Journal from October 24 to October 30, 2012
Source: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/corning-observer/obituary.aspx?pid=160616970#fbLoggedOut
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
ALL WARS Are Bankers Wars
What Really Happened? All Wars Are Bankers Wars
Written and spoken by Michael Rivero.
The written version is here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTI...
Video by Zane Henry.
You are welcome to make copies and to distribute this video freely. A free downloader is available here: http://www.dvdvideosoft.com/products/...
If you would rather have someone do it for you go here: DollarDVDProjectLiberty.com
Mike Rivero: All Wars Are Bankers Wars
In depth explain of how the bankers are robbing the American Republic blind
What Really Happened?
Written and spoken by Michael Rivero.
The written version is here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTI...
Video by Zane Henry.
You are welcome to make copies and to distribute this video freely. A free downloader is available here: http://www.dvdvideosoft.com/products/...
If you would rather have someone do it for you go here: DollarDVDProjectLiberty.com
Mike Rivero: All Wars Are Bankers Wars
In depth explain of how the bankers are robbing the American Republic blind
What Really Happened?
Saturday, February 23, 2013
STOP COURT FRAUD
Now is the time to stop these
Fraudulent Courts and their minions. I do hope you watch and LISTEN
CAREFULLY to what is being said on this video. There is NO JURISDICTION
by the courts and their attorneys over you. They are a corporation and
as such must follow the international laws of commerce. The UCC
(Uniform Commercial Code). Find out more. This is from
redressright.org and this is his youtube channel. Very knowledgeable
fellow.
Source: We Have Been Duped!
Source: We Have Been Duped!
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
FORGERIES in FORECLOSURES
FROM ODIN WILD HUNT: This was posted on Neil Garfield's site - I believe reposted from elsewhere. But the information is good.
Editor’s Analysis: First of all hats off to April Charney, http://www.nakedcapitalism.com and Yves Smith for the article on Forgery (see link below) James M. Kelley as a forensic document examiner — outstanding work!
This is one of the places where the rubber meets the road, but before you start celebrating take a deep breath: proof of forgery will NOT necessarily stop delay or alter the foreclosure. That is why I start with questioning the monetary transactions before I introduce the document deficiencies, fabrications and forgeries.
You have to put yourself in the Judge’s seat (or more properly, bench). A simple example will suffice to make my point. Suppose I loaned you $100 and you didn’t pay it back the way we agreed. Later I sue you and produce a promissory note you know you never signed but it looks like your signature, but you’ve admitted you owe the $100 and you admit you defaulted. Under those circumstances your evidence of forgery might be excluded from evidence -– because it is already established you owe the money and defaulted. In fact it should be excluded because it is no longer relevant to the proceedings. The debt is not the note — and vica versa.
The note is only evidence of the debt and taking that out of the equation still leaves the admissions, presumptions and witnesses by which the authenticity of the debt and default have already been taken as agreed and irrefutable. Some people look askance as Judges who apply the rules of evidence and accuse them of stupidity or dishonesty. But the truth is the forged fabricated note is at most corroborative evidence of something that is no longer a material issue of fact in dispute. The Judge has little choice but to rule in favor of the forecloser at that point. Hence, we keep pounding on DENY AND DISCOVER.
If you are filing the lawsuit you should, along with the initial summons and and complaint, file whatever discovery requests you have at the same time which all amount to “who are you, what are you doing here, why are you seeking collection of this debt, and by what authority.
Admitting the debt, note, mortgage etc can be either direct (“I admit that”) or indirect/tacit (“I understand what you are saying Judge but there is ample evidence of skullduggery here”). In most cases, either one is enough, especially with a Judge who is already assuming that the bank wouldn’t be there if there was no debt, note and mortgage and the presence of a default.
The borrower, who knows they did get money on loan, knows they did sign papers and knows they didn’t pay, naturally assumes that it is pointless to deny the basic elements of the foreclosure — the debt between the borrower and the forecloser, the note, which is evidence of the debt, and the mortgage, assignments and other instruments used by the banks to get you pointed in the wrong direction. AND THAT is where the defense goes off the deep end every time there is a “bad” decision.
The Judge is going to be looking for admissions by the borrower (not the forecloser) because of a very natural presumption that at one time was a perfectly reasonable assumption — that the bank would not waste time and money enforcing a debt that didn’t exist and a note that was never valid, nor a mortgage that was never perfected.
And the Judge is going to see any avoidance of enforcement on the basis of paperwork as a tacit admission that the debt is real, the default is real, and the note and mortgage were properly executed under proper circumstances —- because that is what banks do! Maybe it isn’t “fair” but it is perfectly understandable why we encountered a mindset that treated borrowers as lunatics when they first came up with the notion that the paperwork was missing, lost, fabricated, forged, robo-signed etc.
The study by Katherine Ann Porter, the San Francisco study and the studies in Massachusetts and Maryland and Massachusetts all point to a credit bid being submitted at foreclosure auction by a party who wasn’t a creditor at all. The San Francisco study said 65% of the credit bidders were strangers to the transaction and strange is the word to use in court. Did it change anything? No!
So where does that leave you? In order to be able to show the relevance of the forgery or fabrication you must attack the debt itself. Where would I be if I sued you on the $100 loan, produced a fabricated, forged note and you DIDN’T admit the debt or the default. The burden falls back on me to prove I gave you the $100.
What if I didn’t give you the $100 but I know someone else did. That doesn’t give me standing to sue you because I am not injured party. Can any of you state with certainty that the loan money you received came from the originator disclosed on the TILA, settlement and closing documents? Probably not because the ONLY way you would know that is if you had seen the actual wire transfer receipt and the wire transfer instructions.
Thus if you don’t know that to be true — that the originator in your mortgage loan was funded by the originator and was not a table-funded loan (which accounts for about 95%-96% of all loans during the mortgage meltdown), why would you admit it, tacitly, directly or any other way?
As a defense posture the first rule is to deny that which you know is untrue and to deny based upon lack of information or deny based upon facts and theory that are contrary to the assertions of the forecloser.Deny the debt. THAT automatically means the note can’t be evidence of anything real, because the note refers to a loan between the originator and the borrower where the borrower unknowingly received the money from a third or fourth party (table funded loan, branded “predatory” by TILA and reg Z).
Your defense is simply “we don’t know these people and we don’t know the debt they are claiming. We were induced to sign papers that withheld vital information about the party with whom I was doing business and left me with corrupt title. The transaction referred to in the note, mortgage, assignments, allonges etc. was never completed. The fact that we received a loan from someone else does not empower this forecloser to enforce the debt of a third party with whom they have had no contact or privity.”
THEN HAMMER THEM WITH THE FORGERY BUT USE SOMEONE AS GOOD AS KELLEY TO DO IT. WATCH OUT FOR CHARLATANS WHO CAN CONVINCE YOU BUT NOT THE COURT. THUS THE DEFICIENT DOCUMENTS CORROBORATE YOUR MAIN DEFENSE RATHER THAN SERVE AS THE CORE OF IT.
Practice Pointer: At this point either opposing counsel or the Judge will ask some questions like who DID give the loan or what proof do you have. If you are at the stage of a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment, your answer should be, if you set up case correctly and you have outstanding discovery, that those are evidential questions that require production of witnesses, testimony, documents and cross examination. Since the present hearing is not a trial or evidential hearing and was not noticed as such you are unprepared to present the entire case.
The issues on a motion to dismiss are solely that of the pleadings. At a Motion for Summary Judgment, it is the pleadings plus an affidavit. Submit several affidavits and the Judge will have little choice but to deny the forecloser’s motion for summary judgment.
Attack their affidavit as not being on personal knowledge (voir dire) and if you are successful all that is left is YOUR motion for summary judgment and affidavits which leaves the Judge with little choice but to enter Summary Final Judgment in favor of the homeowner as to this forecloser.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/02/expert-witnesses-starting-to-take-on-forgeries-in-foreclosures.html
Editor’s Analysis: First of all hats off to April Charney, http://www.nakedcapitalism.com and Yves Smith for the article on Forgery (see link below) James M. Kelley as a forensic document examiner — outstanding work!
This is one of the places where the rubber meets the road, but before you start celebrating take a deep breath: proof of forgery will NOT necessarily stop delay or alter the foreclosure. That is why I start with questioning the monetary transactions before I introduce the document deficiencies, fabrications and forgeries.
You have to put yourself in the Judge’s seat (or more properly, bench). A simple example will suffice to make my point. Suppose I loaned you $100 and you didn’t pay it back the way we agreed. Later I sue you and produce a promissory note you know you never signed but it looks like your signature, but you’ve admitted you owe the $100 and you admit you defaulted. Under those circumstances your evidence of forgery might be excluded from evidence -– because it is already established you owe the money and defaulted. In fact it should be excluded because it is no longer relevant to the proceedings. The debt is not the note — and vica versa.
The note is only evidence of the debt and taking that out of the equation still leaves the admissions, presumptions and witnesses by which the authenticity of the debt and default have already been taken as agreed and irrefutable. Some people look askance as Judges who apply the rules of evidence and accuse them of stupidity or dishonesty. But the truth is the forged fabricated note is at most corroborative evidence of something that is no longer a material issue of fact in dispute. The Judge has little choice but to rule in favor of the forecloser at that point. Hence, we keep pounding on DENY AND DISCOVER.
If you are filing the lawsuit you should, along with the initial summons and and complaint, file whatever discovery requests you have at the same time which all amount to “who are you, what are you doing here, why are you seeking collection of this debt, and by what authority.
Admitting the debt, note, mortgage etc can be either direct (“I admit that”) or indirect/tacit (“I understand what you are saying Judge but there is ample evidence of skullduggery here”). In most cases, either one is enough, especially with a Judge who is already assuming that the bank wouldn’t be there if there was no debt, note and mortgage and the presence of a default.
The borrower, who knows they did get money on loan, knows they did sign papers and knows they didn’t pay, naturally assumes that it is pointless to deny the basic elements of the foreclosure — the debt between the borrower and the forecloser, the note, which is evidence of the debt, and the mortgage, assignments and other instruments used by the banks to get you pointed in the wrong direction. AND THAT is where the defense goes off the deep end every time there is a “bad” decision.
The Judge is going to be looking for admissions by the borrower (not the forecloser) because of a very natural presumption that at one time was a perfectly reasonable assumption — that the bank would not waste time and money enforcing a debt that didn’t exist and a note that was never valid, nor a mortgage that was never perfected.
And the Judge is going to see any avoidance of enforcement on the basis of paperwork as a tacit admission that the debt is real, the default is real, and the note and mortgage were properly executed under proper circumstances —- because that is what banks do! Maybe it isn’t “fair” but it is perfectly understandable why we encountered a mindset that treated borrowers as lunatics when they first came up with the notion that the paperwork was missing, lost, fabricated, forged, robo-signed etc.
The study by Katherine Ann Porter, the San Francisco study and the studies in Massachusetts and Maryland and Massachusetts all point to a credit bid being submitted at foreclosure auction by a party who wasn’t a creditor at all. The San Francisco study said 65% of the credit bidders were strangers to the transaction and strange is the word to use in court. Did it change anything? No!
So where does that leave you? In order to be able to show the relevance of the forgery or fabrication you must attack the debt itself. Where would I be if I sued you on the $100 loan, produced a fabricated, forged note and you DIDN’T admit the debt or the default. The burden falls back on me to prove I gave you the $100.
What if I didn’t give you the $100 but I know someone else did. That doesn’t give me standing to sue you because I am not injured party. Can any of you state with certainty that the loan money you received came from the originator disclosed on the TILA, settlement and closing documents? Probably not because the ONLY way you would know that is if you had seen the actual wire transfer receipt and the wire transfer instructions.
Thus if you don’t know that to be true — that the originator in your mortgage loan was funded by the originator and was not a table-funded loan (which accounts for about 95%-96% of all loans during the mortgage meltdown), why would you admit it, tacitly, directly or any other way?
As a defense posture the first rule is to deny that which you know is untrue and to deny based upon lack of information or deny based upon facts and theory that are contrary to the assertions of the forecloser.Deny the debt. THAT automatically means the note can’t be evidence of anything real, because the note refers to a loan between the originator and the borrower where the borrower unknowingly received the money from a third or fourth party (table funded loan, branded “predatory” by TILA and reg Z).
Your defense is simply “we don’t know these people and we don’t know the debt they are claiming. We were induced to sign papers that withheld vital information about the party with whom I was doing business and left me with corrupt title. The transaction referred to in the note, mortgage, assignments, allonges etc. was never completed. The fact that we received a loan from someone else does not empower this forecloser to enforce the debt of a third party with whom they have had no contact or privity.”
THEN HAMMER THEM WITH THE FORGERY BUT USE SOMEONE AS GOOD AS KELLEY TO DO IT. WATCH OUT FOR CHARLATANS WHO CAN CONVINCE YOU BUT NOT THE COURT. THUS THE DEFICIENT DOCUMENTS CORROBORATE YOUR MAIN DEFENSE RATHER THAN SERVE AS THE CORE OF IT.
Practice Pointer: At this point either opposing counsel or the Judge will ask some questions like who DID give the loan or what proof do you have. If you are at the stage of a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment, your answer should be, if you set up case correctly and you have outstanding discovery, that those are evidential questions that require production of witnesses, testimony, documents and cross examination. Since the present hearing is not a trial or evidential hearing and was not noticed as such you are unprepared to present the entire case.
The issues on a motion to dismiss are solely that of the pleadings. At a Motion for Summary Judgment, it is the pleadings plus an affidavit. Submit several affidavits and the Judge will have little choice but to deny the forecloser’s motion for summary judgment.
Attack their affidavit as not being on personal knowledge (voir dire) and if you are successful all that is left is YOUR motion for summary judgment and affidavits which leaves the Judge with little choice but to enter Summary Final Judgment in favor of the homeowner as to this forecloser.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/02/expert-witnesses-starting-to-take-on-forgeries-in-foreclosures.html
Friday, December 28, 2012
PROPERTY GRAB
The Federal Reserve is a Private Company
owned mostly by foreign interests and has no accountability to the US
Congress. However, due to the outrage of the American people due to the
published bailouts, Congress was able to perform a very limited audit in
2011 (first time ever) where we learned that the Fed made trillions of
dollars in secret bailout loans to the big Wall Street banks during the
last financial crisis. They even secretly loaned out hundreds of
billions of dollars to foreign banks.
According to the results of the limited Fed audit mentioned above, a total of $16.1 trillion in secret loans were made by the Federal Reserve between December 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010. What’s worse is that these loans were at low interest and the banks turned around and used the money to buy more US securities. Effectively, the Fed gave away $16.1 Trillion of U.S. taxpayers $ so that their “Foreign Owners” could loan it back to them at a higher interest rate. The QE Infinity initiative is more of the same. The Fed is printing $40 billion per month and “buying” from banks below mortgage backed securities. What they would like the American people to believe is that the billions are being pumped back into the economy , ie. bolster the stock market, investments for small business, increased consumer credit, etc. In reality, these banks are using the money to buy T-Bills from the Fed. Basically the Fed is using this initiative in the biggest property grab in the history of the world with $ that are worth just the paper on which they are printed.
Here is a link to the list of illegal loans from page 131 of the audit report.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
Citigroup - $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley - $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion
Bank of America - $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC - $868 billion
Bear Sterns - $853 billion
Goldman Sachs - $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion
Deutsche Bank - $354 billion
UBS - $287 billion
Credit Suisse - $262 billion
Lehman Brothers - $183 billion
Bank of Scotland - $181 billion
BNP Paribas - $175 billion
Wells Fargo - $159 billion
Dexia - $159 billion
Wachovia - $142 billion
Dresdner Bank - $135 billion
Societe Generale - $124 billion
"All Other Borrowers" - $2.639 trillion
Nice business model if you can get away with it. Of course, you would have been hung if you tried it before 1913.
The Federal Reserve Bank is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on Americans. AND our local court systems have allowed this to happen. (many times to and for their own personal gain)
According to the results of the limited Fed audit mentioned above, a total of $16.1 trillion in secret loans were made by the Federal Reserve between December 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010. What’s worse is that these loans were at low interest and the banks turned around and used the money to buy more US securities. Effectively, the Fed gave away $16.1 Trillion of U.S. taxpayers $ so that their “Foreign Owners” could loan it back to them at a higher interest rate. The QE Infinity initiative is more of the same. The Fed is printing $40 billion per month and “buying” from banks below mortgage backed securities. What they would like the American people to believe is that the billions are being pumped back into the economy , ie. bolster the stock market, investments for small business, increased consumer credit, etc. In reality, these banks are using the money to buy T-Bills from the Fed. Basically the Fed is using this initiative in the biggest property grab in the history of the world with $ that are worth just the paper on which they are printed.
Here is a link to the list of illegal loans from page 131 of the audit report.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
Citigroup - $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley - $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion
Bank of America - $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC - $868 billion
Bear Sterns - $853 billion
Goldman Sachs - $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion
Deutsche Bank - $354 billion
UBS - $287 billion
Credit Suisse - $262 billion
Lehman Brothers - $183 billion
Bank of Scotland - $181 billion
BNP Paribas - $175 billion
Wells Fargo - $159 billion
Dexia - $159 billion
Wachovia - $142 billion
Dresdner Bank - $135 billion
Societe Generale - $124 billion
"All Other Borrowers" - $2.639 trillion
Nice business model if you can get away with it. Of course, you would have been hung if you tried it before 1913.
The Federal Reserve Bank is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on Americans. AND our local court systems have allowed this to happen. (many times to and for their own personal gain)
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Deutsche Bank offices raided in carbon tax fraud probe
"Finally a little accountability, at least coming in other countries for this corrupt banking institution. There is so much the American people do not know about this Deutsche Bank that absconded with billions of American dollars" and a whole lot more than that.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Judge Rules Against Bank
Judge Rules Against Bank In Mortgage Modification Suit
A recent ruling by a California appeals court clears the way for fraud charges against a lender that promised a loan modification but then foreclosed on the borrower.
The ruling throws into question the legality of hundreds of thousands of foreclosures.
Not only was the ruling a frontal assault on the empty promises made by servicers and banks, the case highlighted some despicable tactics often employed to force foreclosures.
Claudia Aceves, who originally sued U.S. Bank, NA in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, had taken out an $845,000 mortgage with Option One Mortgage Corporation. Option One later assigned the loan over to U.S. Bank.
The interest on Aceves’ adjustable rate note ratcheted up two years after it was entered into. By January 2008 she was falling behind on her payments. Shortly after March 26, 2008 when the loan’s servicer recorded a “Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust,” Aceves filed for bankruptcy protection under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code.
The bankruptcy filing imposed an automatic stay on the foreclosure proceedings.
After being offered financial help from her husband, Aceves converted her bankruptcy case from a chapter 7 to a chapter 13 case. Chapter 7, entitled “Liquidation,” would allow Aceves to discharge her debt on the home but not allow her to keep it. Chapter 13, entitled “Adjustment of Debts of an Individual with Regular Income,” has protections for homeowners that allows them to reinstate loan payments, pay arrearages, avoid foreclosure and keep their home.
U.S. Bank, upon learning of the original bankruptcy filing, filed a motion to lift the stay in order to execute a nonjudicial foreclosure and take the house back.
What happens next is indicative of the underhandedness of many servicers and banks.
Aceves’ bankruptcy attorney gets a letter from counsel to the loan’s servicer (American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.) that asks for permission to talk directly to Aceves to “explore Loss Mitigation possibilities.” Aceves calls the servicer’s attorney because she wants a loan modification, which they are promising. But they tell her they can’t do anything or talk to her until their motion to lift the bankruptcy stay is granted.
So, Aceves doesn’t oppose the motion to lift the stay and further decides not to file the chapter 13 bankruptcy. All in the hopes that a modification would be negotiated.
On December 4, 2008 the stay is lifted. And, unbeknownst to Aceves, on December 9, 2008 U.S. Bank schedules the home for public auction one month later on January 9, 2009.
On December 10, 2008 Aceves sends in documents to American Home aiming to modify and reinstate the loan. Then on December 23, 2008 the servicer tells Aceves a “negotiator” will contact her on or before January 13, 2009.
Too bad for Aceves January 13, 2009 is going to be four days after her home is sold at auction. Which it is, with none other than U.S. Bank as the buyer.
But just to cover its promise to modify the loan, one day before the home is to be sold at auction the negotiator for American Home presents a unilateral offer to raise the loan balance from the original $845,000 to $965,926.22 and make the new monthly payments $7,200 as opposed to the original monthly payment amount of $4,857.09.
Aceves told them where to go.
She lost her home and sued. She lost when the Superior Court found that the defendants had met their obligations. The three-judge panel Appeals Court disagreed in its January 27, 2010 ruling.
The crux of the ruling, which in part relied on a decision in a previous case (Garcia v. World Savings, FSB) determined that “To be enforceable, a promise need only be ”’definite enough that a court can determine the scope of the duty.”’
Further illuminating its stance the Court said the point is, “simply whether U.S. Bank made and kept a promise to negotiate with Aceves, not whether the bank promised to make a loan, or more precisely, to modify a loan” is what matters.
As far as the servicer’s offer of a modification, the Appeals Court found that the promise to negotiate is “not based on a promise to make a unilateral offer but on a promise to negotiate in an attempt to reach a mutually agreeable loan modification.”
With all the unkept promises by banks and servicers to negotiate loan modifications that were never entertained, new litigation on top of all the foreclosure cases already being pursued is bound to cloud the future of real estate for the foreseeable future.
Source: Timothy McCandless
A recent ruling by a California appeals court clears the way for fraud charges against a lender that promised a loan modification but then foreclosed on the borrower.
The ruling throws into question the legality of hundreds of thousands of foreclosures.
Not only was the ruling a frontal assault on the empty promises made by servicers and banks, the case highlighted some despicable tactics often employed to force foreclosures.
Claudia Aceves, who originally sued U.S. Bank, NA in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, had taken out an $845,000 mortgage with Option One Mortgage Corporation. Option One later assigned the loan over to U.S. Bank.
The interest on Aceves’ adjustable rate note ratcheted up two years after it was entered into. By January 2008 she was falling behind on her payments. Shortly after March 26, 2008 when the loan’s servicer recorded a “Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust,” Aceves filed for bankruptcy protection under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code.
The bankruptcy filing imposed an automatic stay on the foreclosure proceedings.
After being offered financial help from her husband, Aceves converted her bankruptcy case from a chapter 7 to a chapter 13 case. Chapter 7, entitled “Liquidation,” would allow Aceves to discharge her debt on the home but not allow her to keep it. Chapter 13, entitled “Adjustment of Debts of an Individual with Regular Income,” has protections for homeowners that allows them to reinstate loan payments, pay arrearages, avoid foreclosure and keep their home.
U.S. Bank, upon learning of the original bankruptcy filing, filed a motion to lift the stay in order to execute a nonjudicial foreclosure and take the house back.
What happens next is indicative of the underhandedness of many servicers and banks.
Aceves’ bankruptcy attorney gets a letter from counsel to the loan’s servicer (American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.) that asks for permission to talk directly to Aceves to “explore Loss Mitigation possibilities.” Aceves calls the servicer’s attorney because she wants a loan modification, which they are promising. But they tell her they can’t do anything or talk to her until their motion to lift the bankruptcy stay is granted.
So, Aceves doesn’t oppose the motion to lift the stay and further decides not to file the chapter 13 bankruptcy. All in the hopes that a modification would be negotiated.
On December 4, 2008 the stay is lifted. And, unbeknownst to Aceves, on December 9, 2008 U.S. Bank schedules the home for public auction one month later on January 9, 2009.
On December 10, 2008 Aceves sends in documents to American Home aiming to modify and reinstate the loan. Then on December 23, 2008 the servicer tells Aceves a “negotiator” will contact her on or before January 13, 2009.
Too bad for Aceves January 13, 2009 is going to be four days after her home is sold at auction. Which it is, with none other than U.S. Bank as the buyer.
But just to cover its promise to modify the loan, one day before the home is to be sold at auction the negotiator for American Home presents a unilateral offer to raise the loan balance from the original $845,000 to $965,926.22 and make the new monthly payments $7,200 as opposed to the original monthly payment amount of $4,857.09.
Aceves told them where to go.
She lost her home and sued. She lost when the Superior Court found that the defendants had met their obligations. The three-judge panel Appeals Court disagreed in its January 27, 2010 ruling.
The crux of the ruling, which in part relied on a decision in a previous case (Garcia v. World Savings, FSB) determined that “To be enforceable, a promise need only be ”’definite enough that a court can determine the scope of the duty.”’
Further illuminating its stance the Court said the point is, “simply whether U.S. Bank made and kept a promise to negotiate with Aceves, not whether the bank promised to make a loan, or more precisely, to modify a loan” is what matters.
As far as the servicer’s offer of a modification, the Appeals Court found that the promise to negotiate is “not based on a promise to make a unilateral offer but on a promise to negotiate in an attempt to reach a mutually agreeable loan modification.”
With all the unkept promises by banks and servicers to negotiate loan modifications that were never entertained, new litigation on top of all the foreclosure cases already being pursued is bound to cloud the future of real estate for the foreseeable future.
Source: Timothy McCandless
Friday, November 30, 2012
CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY
Congressional Testimony: Vickie Barker to Bill Windsor of Lawless America.Interview introduces a foreclosure case heard by Judge Peter Billiou Twede in the Superior Court, County of Glenn, in the State of California. The said property was basically given to Deutsche Bank and later sold to the highest bidder at an "alleged" legal foreclosure sale. The property was purchased by Judge Peter Twede's family member, Michael Joseph Billiou III. The property borders on Stoney Creek, a tributary of the Sacramento River just 2 miles from the native family's original village.
Congressional Testimony: Vickie Barker to Bill Windsor of Lawless America.
Lawless America...The Movie is all about exposing the fact that we now live in Lawless America. We no longer have laws that are enforced because judges do whatever they want to do. America has also become lawless because government officials are dishonest and/or corrupt.
The movie will expose corruption in every state. The Movie will focus on victims. Corrupt judges and corrupt government officials will be exposed, and we will confront a number of the crooks.
If anyone has ever questioned the story of a person who has expressed the view that they were a victim of the government or of judges, this movie will prove that the odds are that the corruption report was true. In fact, there are probably tens of millions of victims in the United States who never realized what happened to them.
One feature length documentary movie is being produced. It will be shown in theaters, on Netflix, Blockbuster, and other such video places, and the movie will be presented at the Sundance Film Festival and other film festivals.
In addition, videos will be produced for each state and for each type of corruption. Everyone interviewed for the film recorded a three-minute segment that will be done as testimony before Congress as well as a 30-60 minute on-camera interview with Bill Windsor, founder of LawlessAmerica.com and the revolutionary Party. The legislators in each state are receiving the testimony from those in their state, and the members of the U.S. House and Senate will receive all of the testimony nationwide.
Over 750 people were scheduled to be interviewed for the movie.
For more information, see www.LawlessAmerica.com -- www.YouTube.com/lawlessamerica -- www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2337260/
Source: Congressional Testimony
Congressional Testimony: Vickie Barker to Bill Windsor of Lawless America.
Lawless America...The Movie is all about exposing the fact that we now live in Lawless America. We no longer have laws that are enforced because judges do whatever they want to do. America has also become lawless because government officials are dishonest and/or corrupt.
The movie will expose corruption in every state. The Movie will focus on victims. Corrupt judges and corrupt government officials will be exposed, and we will confront a number of the crooks.
If anyone has ever questioned the story of a person who has expressed the view that they were a victim of the government or of judges, this movie will prove that the odds are that the corruption report was true. In fact, there are probably tens of millions of victims in the United States who never realized what happened to them.
One feature length documentary movie is being produced. It will be shown in theaters, on Netflix, Blockbuster, and other such video places, and the movie will be presented at the Sundance Film Festival and other film festivals.
In addition, videos will be produced for each state and for each type of corruption. Everyone interviewed for the film recorded a three-minute segment that will be done as testimony before Congress as well as a 30-60 minute on-camera interview with Bill Windsor, founder of LawlessAmerica.com and the revolutionary Party. The legislators in each state are receiving the testimony from those in their state, and the members of the U.S. House and Senate will receive all of the testimony nationwide.
Over 750 people were scheduled to be interviewed for the movie.
For more information, see www.LawlessAmerica.com -- www.YouTube.com/lawlessamerica -- www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2337260/
Source: Congressional Testimony
Saturday, November 17, 2012
LAWYERS & JUDGES IN COLLUSION
“The
once-honorable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-line
business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and wealth, even
shaping the laws of the United States outside the elected Congress and
state legislatures.”
The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion
JUSTICE JOHN F. MOLLOY
When I began practicing law in 1946,
justice was much simpler. I joined a small Tucson practice at a salary
of $250 a month, excellent compensation for a beginning lawyer. There
was no paralegal staff or expensive artwork on the walls.
In those days, the judicial system was straightforward and efficient. Decisions were handed down by judges who applied the law as outlined by the Constitution and state legislatures. Cases went to trial in a month or two, not years. In the courtroom, the focus was on uncovering and determining truth and fact.
I charged clients by what I was able to accomplish for them. The clock did not start ticking the minute they walked through the door.
The law changed dramatically during my years in the profession. For example, when I accepted my first appointment as a Pima County judge in 1957, I saw that lawyers expected me to act more as a referee than a judge. The county court I presided over resembled a gladiator arena, with dueling lawyers jockeying for points and one-upping each other with calculated and ingenuous briefs
That was just the beginning.
By the time I ended my 50-year career as a trial attorney, judge and president of southern Arizona's largest law firm, I no longer had confidence in the legal fraternity I had participated in and, yes, profited from.
I was the ultimate insider, but as I looked back, I felt I had to write a book about serious issues in the legal profession and the implications for clients and society as a whole. The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion was 10 years in the making and has become my call to action for legal reform.
Yet judges create their own law in the judicial system based on their own opinions and rulings. It's called case law, and it is churned out daily through the rulings of judges. When a judge hands down a ruling and that ruling survives appeal with the next tier of judges, it then becomes case law, or legal precedent. This now happens so consistently that we've become more subject to the case rulings of judges rather than to laws made by the lawmaking bodies outlined in our Constitution.
This case-law system is a constitutional nightmare because it continuously modifies constitutional intent. For lawyers, however, it creates endless business opportunities. That's because case law is technically complicated and requires a lawyer's expertise to guide and move you through the system. The judicial system may begin with enacted laws, but the variations that result from a judge's application of case law all too often change the ultimate meaning.
When a lawyer takes an oath as a judge, it merely enhances the ruling class of lawyers and judges. First of all, in Maricopa and Pima counties, judges are not elected but nominated by committees of lawyers, along with concerned citizens. How can they be expected not to be beholden to those who elevated them to the bench?
When they leave the bench, many return to large and successful law firms that leverage their names and relationships.
The once-honorable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and wealth, even shaping the laws of the United States outside the elected Congress and state legislatures.
The net effect has been to increase our need for lawyers, create more work for them, clog the courts and ensure that most cases never go to trial and are, instead, plea-bargained and compromised. All the while the clock is ticking, and the monster is being fed.
The sullying of American law has resulted in a fountain of money for law professionals while the common people, who are increasingly affected by lawyer-driven changes and an expensive, self-serving bureaucracy, are left confused and ill-served.
Today, it is estimated that 70 percent of low-to-middle-income citizens can no longer afford the cost of justice in America. What would our Founding Fathers think?
This devolution of lawmaking by the judiciary has been subtle, taking place incrementally over decades. But today, it's engrained in our legal system, and few even question it. But the result is clear. Individuals can no longer participate in the legal system.
It has become too complex and too expensive, all the while feeding our dependency on lawyers.
By complicating the law, lawyers have achieved the ultimate job security. Gone are the days when American courts functioned to serve justice simply and swiftly.
It is estimated that 95 million legal actions now pass through the courts annually, and the time and expense for a plaintiff or defendant in our legal system can be absolutely overwhelming.
Surely it's time to question what has happened to our justice system and to wonder if it is possible to return to a system that truly does protect us from wrongs.
From an Internet released preview of the book by John Fitzgerald Molloy, The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, Paragon House, St. Paul, Minnesota, 2004. Reprinted in accordance with the "fair use" provision of Title 17 U.S.C.§ 107 for a non-profit educational purpose.
Source: Tulane Link
-- Justice John F. Molloy
The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion
When I began practicing law in 1946,
justice was much simpler. I joined a small Tucson practice at a salary
of $250 a month, excellent compensation for a beginning lawyer. There
was no paralegal staff or expensive artwork on the walls.In those days, the judicial system was straightforward and efficient. Decisions were handed down by judges who applied the law as outlined by the Constitution and state legislatures. Cases went to trial in a month or two, not years. In the courtroom, the focus was on uncovering and determining truth and fact.
I charged clients by what I was able to accomplish for them. The clock did not start ticking the minute they walked through the door.
Looking back
The legal profession has evolved dramatically during my 87 years. I
am a second-generation lawyer from an Irish immigrant family that
settled in Yuma. My father, who passed the Bar with a fifth-grade
education, ended up arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court during
his career.The law changed dramatically during my years in the profession. For example, when I accepted my first appointment as a Pima County judge in 1957, I saw that lawyers expected me to act more as a referee than a judge. The county court I presided over resembled a gladiator arena, with dueling lawyers jockeying for points and one-upping each other with calculated and ingenuous briefs
That was just the beginning.
By the time I ended my 50-year career as a trial attorney, judge and president of southern Arizona's largest law firm, I no longer had confidence in the legal fraternity I had participated in and, yes, profited from.
I was the ultimate insider, but as I looked back, I felt I had to write a book about serious issues in the legal profession and the implications for clients and society as a whole. The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion was 10 years in the making and has become my call to action for legal reform.
Disturbing evolution
Our Constitution intended that only elected lawmakers be permitted to create law.Yet judges create their own law in the judicial system based on their own opinions and rulings. It's called case law, and it is churned out daily through the rulings of judges. When a judge hands down a ruling and that ruling survives appeal with the next tier of judges, it then becomes case law, or legal precedent. This now happens so consistently that we've become more subject to the case rulings of judges rather than to laws made by the lawmaking bodies outlined in our Constitution.
This case-law system is a constitutional nightmare because it continuously modifies constitutional intent. For lawyers, however, it creates endless business opportunities. That's because case law is technically complicated and requires a lawyer's expertise to guide and move you through the system. The judicial system may begin with enacted laws, but the variations that result from a judge's application of case law all too often change the ultimate meaning.
Lawyer domination
When a lawyer puts on a robe and takes the bench, he or she is called
a judge. But in reality, when judges look down from the bench they are
lawyers looking upon fellow members of their fraternity. In any other
area of the free-enterprise system, this would be seen as a conflict of
interest.When a lawyer takes an oath as a judge, it merely enhances the ruling class of lawyers and judges. First of all, in Maricopa and Pima counties, judges are not elected but nominated by committees of lawyers, along with concerned citizens. How can they be expected not to be beholden to those who elevated them to the bench?
When they leave the bench, many return to large and successful law firms that leverage their names and relationships.
Business of law
The concept of "time" has been converted into enormous revenue for
lawyers. The profession has adopted elaborate systems where clients are
billed for a lawyer's time in six-minute increments. The paralegal
profession is another brainchild of the fraternity, created as an
additional tracking and revenue center. High powered firms have
departmentalized their services into separate profit centers for probate
and trusts, trial, commercial, and so forth.The once-honorable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and wealth, even shaping the laws of the United States outside the elected Congress and state legislatures.
Bureaucratic design
Today the skill and gamesmanship of lawyers, not the truth, often
determine the outcome of a case. And we lawyers love it. All the tools
are there to obscure and confound. The system's process of discovery and
the exclusionary rule often work to keep vital information off-limits
to jurors and make cases so convoluted and complex that only lawyers and
judges understand them.The net effect has been to increase our need for lawyers, create more work for them, clog the courts and ensure that most cases never go to trial and are, instead, plea-bargained and compromised. All the while the clock is ticking, and the monster is being fed.
The sullying of American law has resulted in a fountain of money for law professionals while the common people, who are increasingly affected by lawyer-driven changes and an expensive, self-serving bureaucracy, are left confused and ill-served.
Today, it is estimated that 70 percent of low-to-middle-income citizens can no longer afford the cost of justice in America. What would our Founding Fathers think?
This devolution of lawmaking by the judiciary has been subtle, taking place incrementally over decades. But today, it's engrained in our legal system, and few even question it. But the result is clear. Individuals can no longer participate in the legal system.
It has become too complex and too expensive, all the while feeding our dependency on lawyers.
By complicating the law, lawyers have achieved the ultimate job security. Gone are the days when American courts functioned to serve justice simply and swiftly.
It is estimated that 95 million legal actions now pass through the courts annually, and the time and expense for a plaintiff or defendant in our legal system can be absolutely overwhelming.
Surely it's time to question what has happened to our justice system and to wonder if it is possible to return to a system that truly does protect us from wrongs.
A lawyer from Tuscon, Arizona, John Fitzgerald Molloy (b. 1917) was
elected to the Superior Court bench where he served for seven years as
both a juvenile court and trial bench judge. He subsequently was
elected to the Court of Appeals where he authored over 300 appellate
opinions, including the final Miranda decision for the Arizona Supreme
Court. During that period, he also served as president of the Arizona
Judge's Association. After 12 years, Molloy returned to private
practice to become president of the largest law firm in southern
Arizona. His book has received widespread praise for its candor and
disquieting truths. (Photo courtesy of Paragon House)
|
Copyright 2004, Paragon House
From an Internet released preview of the book by John Fitzgerald Molloy, The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, Paragon House, St. Paul, Minnesota, 2004. Reprinted in accordance with the "fair use" provision of Title 17 U.S.C.
Source: Tulane Link
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
What is JURY NULLIFICATION
Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine
by Clay S. Conrad
| What Everyone Should Know About the Powers of the Jury Central to the history of trial by jury is the right of jurors to vote "not guilty" if the law is unjust or unjustly applied. When jurors acquit a factually guilty defendant, we say that the jury "nullified" the law. The Founding Fathers believed that juries in criminal trials had a role to play as the "conscience of the community," and relied on juries' "nullifying" to hold the government to the principles of the Constitution. Yet over the last century and a half, this power of jurors has been derided and ignored by American courts, to the point that today few jurors are aware that an important part of their role is, in the words of the Supreme Court, to "prevent oppression by the government." Chapter One Introduction "Trust in the jury is, after all, one of the cornerstones of our entire criminal jurisprudence, and if that trust is without foundation we must re-examine a great deal more than just the nullification doctrine." Judge David L. Bazelon There may be no feature more distinctive of American legal culture than the criminal trial jury. Americans have a deep and stubborn devotion to the belief that the guilt or innocence of a person accused of crime can only be judged fairly by a "jury of his peers." This notion is a particularly American one, although it was inherited from English common law during the Colonial era. What Jury Independence Is All About Jury independence is a simple doctrine, although in individual applications it has occasionally had dramatic and wide-ranging implications. The doctrine states that jurors in criminal trials have the right to refuse to convict if they believe that a conviction would be in some way unjust. If jurors believe enforcing the law in a specific case would cause an injustice, it is their prerogative to acquit. If they believe a law is unjust, or misapplied, or that it never was, or never should have been, intended to cover a case such as the one they are facing, it is their duty to see justice done. Published by Carolina Academic Press. Clay S. Conrad is an attorney in private practice in Houston, Texas. Source: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/jurynul3.htm |
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)