New post on Livinglies’s Weblog |
 |
|
Category: Judicial Rulings
Another Great Article From Living Lies, Telling It Like It Is!
LAST CHANCE FOR JUSTICE
Posted on August 19, 2013 by Neil Garfield
“We are still in the death grip of the banks as they attempt to portray themselves as the bulwarks of society even as they continue to rob us of homes, lives, jobs and vitally needed capital which is being channeled into natural resources so that when we commence the gargantuan task of repairing our infrastructure we can no longer afford it and must borrow the money from the thieves who created the gaping hole in our economy threatening the soul of our democracy.” Neil Garfield, livinglies.me
We all know that dozens of people rose to power in Europe and Asia in the 1930′s and 1940′s who turned the world on its head and were responsible for the extermination of tens of millions of people. World War II still haunts us as it projected us into an arms race in which we were the first and only country to kill all the people who lived in two cities in Japan. The losses on both sides of the war were horrendous.
Some of us remember the revelations in 1982 that the United States actively recruited unrepentant Nazi officers and scientists for intelligence and technological advantages in the coming showdown with what was known as the Soviet Union. Amongst the things done for the worst war criminals was safe passage (no prosecution for war crimes) and even new identities created by the United States Department of Justice. Policy was created that diverted richly deserved consequences into rich rewards for knowledge. With WWII in the rear view mirror policy-makers decided to look ahead and prepare for new challenges.
Some of us remember the savings and loans scandals where banks nearly destroyed everything in the U.S. marketplace in the 1970′s and 1980′s. Law enforcement went into high gear, investigated, and pieced together the methods and complex transactions meant to hide the guilt of the main perpetrators in and out of government and the business world. More than 800 people went to jail. Of course, none of the banks had achieved the size that now exists in our financial marketplace.
Increasing the mass of individual financial institutions produced a corresponding capacity for destruction that eclipsed anything imagined by anyone outside of Wall Street. The exponentially increasing threat was ignored as the knowledge of Einstein’s famous equation faded into obscurity. The possibilities for mass destruction of our societies was increasing exponentially as the mass of giant financial service companies grew and the accountability dropped off when they were allowed to incorporate and even sell their shares publicly, replacing a system, hundreds of years old in which partners were ultimately liable for losses they created.
The next generation of world dominators would be able to bring the world to its knees without firing a shot or gassing anyone. Institutions grew as malignancies on steroids and created the illusion of contributing half our gross domestic product while real work, real production and real inventions were constrained to function in a marketplace that had been reduced by 1/3 of its capacity — leaving the banks in control of $7 trillion per year in what was counted as gross domestic product. Our primary output by far was trading paper based upon dubious and fictitious underlying transactions; if those transactions had existed, the share of GDP attributed to financial services would have remained at a constant 16%. Instead it grew to half of GDP. The “paradox” of financial services becoming increasingly powerful and generating more revenues than any other sector while the rest of the economy was stagnating was noted by many, but nothing was done. The truth of this “paradox” is that it was a lie — a grand illusion created by the greatest salesmen on Wall Street.
So even minimum wage lost 1/3 of its value adjusted for inflation while salaries, profits and bonuses were conferred upon people deemed as financial geniuses as a natural consequence of believing the myths promulgated by Wall Street with its control over all forms of information, including information from the government.
But calling out Wall Street would mean admitting that the United States had made a wrong turn with horrendous results. No longer the supreme leader in education, medical care, crime, safety, happiness and most of all prospects for social and economic mobility, the United States had become supreme only through its military strength and the appearance of strength in the world of high finance, its currency being the world’s reserve despite the reality of the ailing economy and widening inequality of wealth and opportunity — the attributes of a banana republic.
All of us remember the great crash of 2008-2009. It was as close as could be imagined to a world wide nuclear attack, resulting in the apparent collapse of economies, tens of millions of people being reduced to poverty, tossed out of their homes, sleeping in cars, divorces, murder, riots, suicide and the loss of millions of jobs on a rising scale (over 700,000 per month when Obama took office) that did not stop rising until 2010 and which has yet to be corrected to figures that economists say would mean that our economy is functioning at proper levels. Month after month more than 700,000 people lost their jobs instead of a net gain of 300,000 jobs. It was a reversal of 1 million jobs per month that could clean out the country and every myth about us in less than a year.
The cause lay with misbehavior of the banks — again. This time the destruction was so wide and so deep that all conditions necessary for the collapse of our society and our government were present. Policy makers, law enforcement and regulators decided that it was better to maintain the illusion of business as usual in a last ditch effort to maintain the fabric of our society even if it meant that guilty people would go free and even be rewarded. It was a decision that was probably correct at the time given the available information, but it was a policy based upon an inaccurate description of the disaster written and produced by the banks themselves. Once the true information was discovered the government made another wrong turn — staying the course when the threat of collapse was over. In a sense it was worse than giving Nazi war criminals asylum because at the time they were protected by the Department of Justice their crimes were complete and there existed little opportunity for them to repeat those crimes. It could be fairly stated that they posed no existing threat to safety of the country. Not so for the banks.
Now as all the theft, deceit and arrogance are revealed, the original premise of the DOJ in granting the immunity from prosecution was based upon fraudulent information from the very people to whom they were granting safe passage. We have lost 5 million homes in foreclosure from their past crimes, but we remain in the midst of the commission of crimes — another 5 million illegal, wrongful foreclosures is continuing to wind its way through the courts.
Not one person has been prosecuted, not one statement has been made acknowledging the crimes, the continuing deceit in sworn filings with regulators, and the continuing drain on the economy and our ability to finance and capitalize on innovation to replace the lost productivity in real goods and services.
We are still in the death grip of the banks as they attempt to portray themselves as the bulwarks of society even as they continue to rob us of homes, lives, jobs and vitally needed capital which is being channeled into natural resources so that when we commence the gargantuan task of repairing our infrastructure we can no longer afford it and must borrow the money from the thieves who created the gaping hole in our economy threatening the soul of our democracy. If the crimes were in the rear view mirror one could argue that the policy makers could make decisions to protect our future. But the crimes are not just in the rear view mirror. More crimes lie ahead with the theft of an equal number of millions of homes based on false and wrongful foreclosures deriving their legitimacy from an illusion of debt — an illusion so artfully created that most people still believe the debts exist. Without a very sophisticated knowledge of exotic finance it seems inconceivable that a homeowner could receive the benefits of a loan and at the same time or shortly thereafter have the debt extinguished by third parties who were paid richly for doing so.
Job creation would be unleashed if we had the courage to stop the continuing fraud. It is time for the government to step forward and call them out, stop the virtual genocide and let the chips fall where they might when the paper giants collapse. It’s complicated, but that is your job. Few people lack the understanding that the bankers behind this mess belong in jail. This includes regulators, law enforcement and even judges. but the “secret” tacit message is not to mess with the status quo until we are sure it won’t topple our whole society and economy.
The time is now. If we leave the bankers alone they are highly likely to cause another crash in both financial instruments and economically by hoarding natural resources until the prices are intolerably high and we all end up pleading for payment terms on basic raw materials for the rebuilding of infrastructure. If we leave them alone another 20 million people will be displaced as more than 5 million foreclosures get processed in the next 3-4 years. If we leave them alone, we are allowing a clear and present danger to the future of our society and the prospects for safety and world peace. Don’t blame Wall Street — they are just doing what they were sent to do — make money. You don’t hold the soldier responsible for firing a bullet when he was ordered to do so. But you do blame the policy makers that him or her there. And you stop them when the policy is threatening another crash.
Stop them now, jail the ones who can be prosecuted, and take apart the large banks. IMF economists and central bankers around the world are looking on in horror at the new order of things hoping that when the United States has exhausted all other options, they will finally do the right thing. (see Winston Churchill quote to that effect).
But forget not that the ultimate power of government is in the hands of the people at large and that the regulators and law enforcement and judges are working for us, on our nickle. Action like Occupy Wall Street is required and you can see the growing nature of that movement in a sweep that is entirely missed by those who arrogantly pull the levers of power now. OWS despite criticism is proving the point — it isn’t new leaders that will get us out of this — it is the withdrawal of consent of the governed one by one without political affiliation or worshiping sound sound biting, hate mongering politicians.
People have asked me why I have not until now endorsed the OWS movement. The reason was that I wanted to give them time to see if they could actually accomplish the counter-intuitive result of exercising power without direct involvement in a corrupt political process. They have proven the point and they are likely to be a major force undermining the demagogues and greedy bankers and businesses who care more about their bottom line than their society that gives them the opportunity to earn that bottom line.
New Fraud Evidence Shows Trillions Of Dollars In Mortgages Have No Owner
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/13/2460891/new-fraud-evidence-shows-trillions-of-dollars-in-mortgages-have-no-owner/
Jess Holland’s Post on US Supreme Court Makes It Harder to Sue Businesses
Jesse J Holland’s
U.S. Supreme Court makes it harder to sue businesses
Posted: June 24, 2013 in USA
By JESSE J. HOLLAND Associated Press
WASHINGTON – A sharply-divided Supreme Court on Monday made it more difficult for Americans to sue businesses for discrimination and retaliation, leading a justice to call for Congress to overturn the court’s actions.
The court’s conservatives, in two 5-4 decisions, ruled that a person must be able to hire and fire someone to be considered a supervisor in discrimination lawsuits, making it harder to blame a business for a coworker’s racism or sexism. The court then decided to limit how juries can decide retaliation lawsuits, saying victims must prove employers would not have taken action against them but for their intention to retaliate.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote both dissents for the court’s liberal wing and in a rare move read one aloud in the 
courtroom, said the high court had “corralled Title VII,” a law designed to stop discrimination in the nation’s workplaces.
“Both decisions dilute the strength of Title VII in ways Congress could not have intended,” said Ginsburg, who called on Congress to change the law to overturn the court.
In the first case, Maetta Vance, who was a catering specialist at Ball State University, accused a co-worker, Shaundra Davis, of racial harassment and retaliation in 2005. Vance sued the school under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying the university was liable since Davis was her supervisor. But a federal judge threw out her lawsuit, saying that since Davis could not fire Vance, she was only a co-worker, and since the university had taken corrective action, it was not liable for Davis’ actions. The 7th Circuit upheld that decision, and Vance appealed to the Supreme Court.
But Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, said for the university to be liable, Davis must have had the authority to “hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline” Vance.
“We hold that an employee is a ‘supervisor’ for purposed of vicarious liability under Title VII if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim,” Alito said. “Because there is no evidence that BSU empowered Davis to take any tangible employment actions against Vance, the judgment of the Seventh Circuit is affirmed.”
Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron said the court made the wrong decision. “Deferring to the powerful at the expense of the powerless, the Supreme Court majority has imposed heavier burden for victims of workplace harassment and discrimination seeking justice in our courts,” she said. “This decision makes it far easier for employers to evade responsibility for discrimination and harassment in the workplace.”
In the second case, the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center wanted a discrimination lawsuit won by Dr. Naiel Nassar thrown out. Nassar left in 2006 after complaining of harassment, but Parkland Hospital withdrew its job offer after one of his former supervisors opposed it. Nassar sued, saying the medical center retaliated against him for his discrimination complaints by encouraging Parkland to take away his job offer. A jury awarded him more than $3 million in damages.
The medical center appealed, saying the judge told the jury it only had to find that retaliation was a motivating factor in the supervisor’s actions, called mixed-motive. Instead, it said, the judge should have told the jury it had to find that discriminatory action wouldn’t have happened “but-for” the supervisor’s desire to retaliate for liability to attach.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the opinion, agreed with the lower court and the university, saying people “must establish that his or her protected activity was a but-for cause of the alleged adverse action by the employer.” But he didn’t rule completely for the medical center, sending the case back to the lower courts after saying a decision on the resolution of the case “is better suited by courts closer to the facts of this case.”
Karen Harned, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business’ Small Business Legal Center, cheered the decision.
“If courts were allowed to label employees with little managerial authority as ‘supervisors,’ that would have substantially increased the number of frivolous lawsuits brought against small businesses and would have done little, if anything, to reduce harassment,” she said. “For small businesses, the increased possibility of liability and ensuing costs would have been devastating. We are very pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision.”
Kennedy, Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomasvoted together in those cases.
Ginsburg, and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented together both times.
Ginsburg said she hopes Congress intervenes in both cases, just as it did in past Title VII cases. “Today, the ball again lies in Congress’ court to correct this court’s wayward interpretations of Title VII,” she said.
In other actions, the court:
– Sent a Texas case on race-based college admissions back to a lower court for another look. The court’s 7-1 decision leaves unsettled many of the basic questions about the continued use of race as a factor in college admissions.
– Announced that it would issue additional opinions on Tuesday as it begins to wrap up its work for the summer. Justices still have not decided major cases involving gay marriage and the Voting Rights Act.
– Decided to reconsider the constitutionality of a 2007 Massachusetts law that bars protests in 35-foot “buffer zones” around abortion clinic entrances, exits and driveways.
– Agreed to review a federal appeals court decision that found President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate last year to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board.
– Rejected challenges to Environmental Protection Agency decisions allowing an increase in ethanol content in gasoline.
– Ruled generic drug manufacturers can’t be sued in state court for a drug’s design defects if federal officials approved the brand-name version the generic drug copied.
– Ruled that a convicted military sex offender who completed his sentence can be prosecuted for not updating his whereabouts in a federal sex offender database, even though that law was passed after he finished serving his sentence and was discharged from the military.
—
The cases are Vance v. Ball State University, 11-556 and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 12-484.
Follow Jesse J. Holland at http://www.twitter.com/jessejholland
Bank of America whistle-blowers By David Dayen Great Story!
(Credit: Sashkin via Shutterstock/Salon)
Bank of America’s mortgage servicing unit systematically lied to homeowners, fraudulently denied loan modifications, and paid their staff bonuses for deliberately pushing people into foreclosure: Yes, these allegations were suspected by any homeowner who ever had to deal with the bank to try to get a loan modification – but now they come from six former employees and one contractor, whose sworn statements were added last week to a civil lawsuit filed in federal court in Massachusetts.
“Bank of America’s practice is to string homeowners along with no apparent intention of providing the permanent loan modifications it promises,” said Erika Brown, one of the former employees. The damning evidence would spur a series of criminal investigations of BofA executives, if we still had a rule of law in this country for Wall Street banks.
The government’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which gave banks cash incentives to modify loans under certain standards, was supposed to streamline the process and help up to 4 million struggling homeowners (to date, active permanent modifications numberabout 870,000). In reality, Bank of America used it as a tool, say these former employees, to squeeze as much money as possible out of struggling borrowers before eventually foreclosing on them. Borrowers were supposed to make three trial payments before the loan modification became permanent; in actuality, many borrowers would make payments for a year or more, only to find themselves rejected for a permanent modification, and then owing the difference between the trial modification and their original payment. Former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner famously described HAMP as a means to “foam the runway” for the banks, spreading out foreclosures so banks could more readily absorb them.
These Bank of America employees offer the first glimpse into how they pulled it off. Employees, many of whom allege they were given no basic training on how to even use HAMP, were instructed to tell borrowers that documents were incomplete or missing when they were not, or that the file was “under review” when it hadn’t been accessed in months. Former loan-level representative Simone Gordon says flat-out in her affidavit that “we were told to lie to customers” about the receipt of documents and trial payments. She added that the bank would hold financial documents borrowers submitted for review for at least 30 days. “Once thirty days passed, Bank of America would consider many of these documents to be ‘stale’ and the homeowner would have to re-apply for a modification,” Gordon writes. Theresa Terrelonge, another ex-employee, said that the company would consistently tell homeowners to resubmit information, restarting the clock on the HAMP process.
Worse than this, Bank of America would simply throw out documents on a consistent basis. Former case management supervisor William Wilson alleged that, during bimonthly sessions called the “blitz,” case managers and underwriters would simply deny any file with financial documents that were more than 60 days old. “During a blitz, a single team would decline between 600 and 1,500 modification files at a time,” Wilson wrote. “I personally reviewed hundreds of files in which the computer systems showed that the homeowner had fulfilled a Trial Period Plan and was entitled to a permanent loan modification, but was nevertheless declined for a permanent modification during a blitz.” Employees were then instructed to make up a reason for the denial to submit to the Treasury Department, which monitored the program. Others say that bank employees falsified records in the computer system and removed documents from homeowner files to make it look like the borrower did not qualify for a permanent modification.
Senior managers provided carrots and sticks for employees to lie to customers and push them into foreclosure. Simone Gordon described meetings where managers created quotas for lower-level employees, and a bonus system for reaching those quotas. Employees “who placed ten or more accounts into foreclosure in a given month received a $500 bonus,” Gordon wrote. “Bank of America also gave employees gift cards to retail stores like Target or Bed Bath and Beyond as rewards for placing accounts into foreclosure.” Employees were closely monitored, and those who didn’t meet quotas, or who dared to give borrowers accurate information, were fired, as was anyone who “questioned the ethics … of declining loan modifications for false and fraudulent reasons,” according to William Wilson.
Bank of America characterized the affidavits as “rife with factual inaccuracies.” But they match complaints from borrowers having to resubmit documents multiple times, and getting denied for permanent modifications despite making all trial payments. And these statements come from all over the country from ex-employees without a relationship to one another. It did not result from one “rogue” bank branch.
Simply put, Bank of America didn’t want to hire enough staff to handle the crush of loan modification requests, and used these delaying tactics as a shortcut. They also pushed people into foreclosure to collect additional fees from them. And after rejecting borrowers for HAMP modifications, they would offer an in-house modification with a higher interest rate. This was all about profit maximization. “We were regularly drilled that it was our job to maximize fees for the Bank by fostering and extending delay of the HAMP modification process by any means we could,” wrote Simone Gordon in her affidavit.
It is a testament to the corruption of the federal regulatory and law enforcement apparatus that we’re only hearing evidence from inside Bank of America now, in a civil class-action lawsuit from wronged homeowners, when the behavior was so rampant for years. For example, the Treasury Department, charged with specific oversight for HAMP, didn’t sanction a single bank for failing to follow program guidelines for three years, and certainly did not uncover any of this criminal conduct. Steven Cupples, a former underwriter at Bank of America, explained in his statement how the bank falsified records to Treasury to make it look like they granted more modifications. But Treasury never investigated. Meanwhile, the Justice Department joined with state Attorneys General and other federal regulators to essentially bless this conduct in a series of weak settlements that incorporated other bank crimes as well, like “robo-signing” and submitting false documents to courts.
These affidavits, however, should return law enforcement to the case. William Wilson, the case management supervisor, alleges in his statement that this “ridiculous and immoral” conduct continued through August of 2012, when he was eventually fired for speaking up. That means Bank of America persisted with these activities for at least six months AFTER the main, $25 billion settlement to which they were a party. So state and federal regulators could sue Bank of America over this new criminal conduct, which post-dates the actions for which they released liability under the main settlement. Attorneys general in New York and Florida have accused Bank of America of violating the terms of the settlement, but they could simply open new cases about these new deceptive practices.
They would have no shortage of evidence, in addition to the sworn affidavits. According to Theresa Terrelonge, most loan-level representatives conducted their business through email; in fact, various email communications have already been submitted under seal in the Massachusetts civil case. State Attorneys General or US Attorneys would have subpoena power to gather many more emails.
And they would have very specific targets: the ex-employees listed specific executives by name who authorized and directed the fraudulent process. “The delay and rejection programs were methodically carried out under the overall direction of Patrick Kerry, a Vice President who oversaw the entire eastern region’s loan modification process,” wrote William Wilson. Other executives mentioned by name include John Berens, Patricia Feltch and Rebecca Mairone (now at JPMorgan Chase, and already named in a separate financial fraud case). These are senior executives who, if this alleged conduct is true, should face criminal liability.
Bank accountability activists have already seized on the revelations. “This is not surprising, but absolutely sickening,” said Peggy Mears, organizer for the Home Defenders League. “Maybe finally our courts and elected officials will stand with communities over Wall Street and prosecute, and then lock up, these criminals.”
Sadly, it’s hard to raise hopes of that happening. Past experience shows that our top regulatory and law enforcement officials are primarily interested in covering for Wall Street’s crimes. These well-sourced allegations amount to an accusation of Bank of America stealing thousands of homes, and lying to the government about it. Homeowners who did everything asked of them were nevertheless pushed into foreclosure, all to fortify profits on Wall Street. There’s a clear path to punish Bank of America for this conduct. If it doesn’t result in prosecutions, it will once again confirm the sorry excuse for justice we have in America.
Update: Read the full affidavits from the active court case here.
David Dayen is a freelance writer based in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on Twitter at @ddayen.MORE DAVID DAYEN.
CURTIS HERTEL JR: INGHAM COURTS OVERTURN FANNIE MAE EVICTIONS OF COUNTY HOMEOWNERS Posted by 4closureFraud on April 19, 2013 ·
INGHAM COURTS OVERTURN FANNIE MAE EVICTIONS OF COUNTY HOMEOWNERS
Ingham County Register of Deeds Curtis Hertel Jr. praised two recent court decisions against mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in Ingham County that will overturn the eviction of local residents from their homes, while offering similar hope for citizens across Michigan.
“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been shamelessly manipulating our state’s property laws for years at the expense of innocent citizens,” Hertel Jr. said. “They continue to try and exempt themselves from important local and state taxes by claiming a government exemption, but have continued to foreclose on individuals and families using procedures that are only available to private corporations. I’m thrilled that we now the opportunity to protect our residents from future deceitful foreclosure practices.”
Hertel Jr. has been pleading for the courts to clarify Fannie Mae’s status, as it has positioned itself as a government agency to avoid taxes, but also as a private organization in order to avoid foreclosure regulation. The cases were won against mortgage giant Fannie Mae – one in Ingham County Circuit Court, the other in its District Court.
One of the cases is now being sent to the Michigan Court of Appeals and has the potential to change the way that thousands of foreclosures are handled throughout Michigan. The court case specifically addressesforeclosures that are executed by Fannie Mae, the federally-controlled mortgage corporation that has foreclosed on thousands of Michigan residents since the housing crisis began in 2007.
Both of the overturned evictions were residents who called in to Hertel’s Foreclosure Fraud Hotline, a service he arranged with help from the Ingham County Commissioners. The purpose of the hotline is to obtain legal assistance for citizens who are facing
Foreclosure Processor Prommis Holdings Files Chapter 11
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-18/prommis-holdings-files-for-bankruptcy-protection-in-delaware.html
By Michael Bathon – Mar 18, 2013 3:29 PM E
Prommis Holdings LLC, which provides processing services for defaults and foreclosures in the residential mortgage industry, sought bankruptcy protection from creditors without citing a reason.
The company, based in Atlanta, listed debt of more than $50 million and assets of as much as $50 million in Chapter 11 documents filed today in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Delaware. Ten affiliates also filed for bankruptcy.
Prommis officials determined that it’s “in the best interests of the company, its creditors, and other parties in interest,” to seek court protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, according to court documents.
The company said in the filing that it plans to sell virtually all its assets in a court-supervised auction. No terms were disclosed.
Prommis is also seeking to implement retention and incentive plans for key employees, singling out those “who are essential to both the company’s ongoing business operations and their sale and wind-down efforts.”
The company helps mortgage servicers and law firms with foreclosure proceedings in 19 states and provides bankruptcy and loss-mitigation services throughout the U.S., according to its website.
Ares Capital
Ares Capital Corp. (ARCC), a New York-based investment firm, owns 17.3 percent of the Prommis’ common stock and 43.2 percent of its Class B units, according to court papers.
Steven K. Kortanek, a lawyer representing Prommis, didn’t immediately return a phone call seeking comment on the bankruptcy filing.
The 30 largest unsecured creditors of the company and its affiliates are owed about $3.3 million, according to court filings.
The case is In re Prommis Holdings LLC, 13-10551, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).
To contact the reporter on this story: Michael Bathon in Wilmington, Delaware, at mbathon@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story:John Pickering at jpickering@bloomberg.net
Living Lies/Neil Garfield on Georgia
Wake Up Georgia: Courts Are Opening the Door on Wrongful Foreclosure
Posted on March 15, 2013 by Neil Garfield
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE IN GEORGIA
If you are seeking legal representation or other services call our Florida customer service number at 954-495-9867 (East Coast, including Georgia – the Atlanta Area) and for the West coast the number remains 520-405-1688. Customer service for the livinglies store with workbooks, services and analysis remains the same at 520-405-1688. The people who answer the phone are NOT attorneys and NOT permitted to provide any legal advice, but they can guide you toward some of our products and services.
The selection of an attorney is an important decision and should only be made after you have interviewed licensed attorneys familiar with investment banking, securities, property law, consumer law, mortgages, foreclosures, and collection procedures. This site is dedicated to providing those services directly or indirectly through attorneys seeking guidance or assistance in representing consumers and homeowners. We are available to any lawyer seeking assistance anywhere in the country, U.S. possessions and territories. Neil Garfield is a licensed member of the Florida Bar and is qualified to appear as an expert witness or litigator in in several states including the district of Columbia. The information on this blog is general information and should NEVER be considered to be advice on one specific case. Consultation with a licensed attorney is required in this highly complex field.
Editor’s Note: For years Georgia has been considered by most attorneys to be a “red” state that, along with states like Tennessee showed no mercy on borrowers because of the prejudgment that the foreclosure mess was the fault of borrowers. For years they have ignored the now obvious truth that the defective mortgages and wrongful foreclosures do make a difference.
Now, reflecting inquiries from Courts below who are studying the the issue instead of issuing orders based upon a knee-jerk response, the State has taken a decided turn toward the application of law over presumption and bias. There is even reason to believe that the door is open a crack for past wrongful foreclosures, as the Courts grapple with the fact that thousands of foreclosures were forced through the system by strangers to the transaction and thousands of wrongful foreclosure suits have been dismissed because of the assumption by judges that no bank would lie directly to the court. It was a big lie and apparently the banks were right in thinking there was little risk to them.
Look at Pratt’s Journal of Bankruptcy Law February/ March Issue for an article on “Foreclosure Law in the Wake of Recent Decisions on Residential Mortgage Loans: The Situation in Georgia” by Ashby Kent Fox, Shea Sullivan and Amanda Wilson. Our own lawyers have out in front on these issues for a couple of years but encountering a lot of resistance — although lately they are reporting that the Courts are listening more closely.
The Georgia Supreme Court has now weighed in (Reese v Provident) and decided quite obviously that something is rotten in Georgia. Focusing on Georgia’s foreclosure notice statute but actually speaking to the substantive defects in the mortgages and foreclosures, the majority held, as a matter of law, that
o.c.G.a. § 44-14- 162.2(a), requires the person or entity conducting a non-judicial foreclosure of a residential mortgage loan to provide the borrower/debtor with a written notice of the foreclosure sale that discloses not only “the name, address, and telephone number of the individual or entity who shall have full authority to negotiate, amend, and modify all terms of the mortgage with the debtor” (the language that appears in the statute), but also the identity of the “secured creditor” (not required by the statutory language, but which the majority inferred based on legislative intent). the majority further found that the failure to identify the “secured creditor” in the foreclosure notice renders the notice, and any subsequent foreclosure sale, invalid as a matter of law.
Once again I caution litigators that this will not dispose of your case permanently and that such rulings be used strategically so that you are not another hallway lawyer explaining how you were right but the judge ruled against you anyway. Notice provisions can be cured, non-existent transactions cannot be cured. Leading with the numbers (the money trail” and THEN using decisions like this to corroborate your argument will get you a lot more traction than leading with defective paperwork.
As I have said repeatedly, no judge, no matter how sympathetic to borrowers is going to give much relief when the borrower has admitted the debt, note, mortgage and default. These must be denied and lawyers should study up on the subject as to why they can and should be denied, and to persevere through discovery to show that the note, mortgage, default and even the debt have all been faked by strangers to the transaction.
Forcing the opposing side to show that they are a bona fide holder FOR VALUE will flush out the truth — that originator in nearly all cases was never the lender, creditor or even broker. They were simply paid naked nominees just like MERS, leaving no real party in interest on the note or mortgage, no consideration between the parties stated on the note and mortgage or notice of default, and no meeting of minds between the real lender (who is NOT in privity with the nominee lender) who, as an investor received a prospectus and Pooling and Servicing Agreement and advanced money under the mistaken belief they were buying bonds of an entity that either did not exist or was simply ignored by the investment banker and the other participants in the false securitization scheme that was used to cover-up a PONZI scheme.
Practice tips: DENY and DISCOVER. Ask for proof of payment and proof of loss. The assignments, the note and the mortgage are not proof of the debt, they are potentially evidence of the debt and the security agreement ONLY if the foundation is there (testimony by witness with personal knowledge, with exhibits of wire transfer receipts and wire transfer instructions, cancelled checks etc.) to show that the originator shown as payee and “Secured party” or “beneficiary” was lender of money.
Make them show that they booked the loan as a receivable with a reserve for default. Discover that they actually booked the transaction as a fee for service (shown on the income statement) and never entered it on their balance sheet.
And PLEASE study up on voir dire, objections and cross examination. If you are not quick and ready objections to leading questions and other issues might well be waived unless you interrupt the questioning as fast as you can stand up. If you study up on hearsay and the business records exception to hearsay you will discover that in practically no case were the business records qualified as exceptions to the hearsay rule. But if you don’t raise it, if you don’t have statutory and case law and even a memo on the subject the judge is going to rule against you. We are talking about good lawyering here and not bias amongst judges.
Lenders, Banksters, Courts, and all you other liars and thieves…
¤
COMES NOW… proceeding in Propria Persona, and respectfully files Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association’s Motion to Dismiss, and shows this Honorable Court the following pertinent facts:
Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) has filed their Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to O.C.G.A.§ 9-11-12(b), and on the claims that Plaintiff is a borrower who defaulted in repayment of his mortgage loan, resulting in the foreclosing on the real property which served as collateral for the loan. Plaintiff contends that had the banking and mortgage industry not been so greedy, they would not have over inflated the values through falsified appraisals on properties; they would not have been telling Borrowers not to worry, they can work out an affordable loan that will get you into that house you always dreamed of, while knowing in the back of their minds, that when the Borrower claims that they believed and relied upon their lenders, and what they had been told; the response would then be that the relationship had been nothing more than creditor – debtor and that you should not have relied upon the lies you had been told, because you are at different ends of the spectrum, with totally different interests. My Grandmother would say that America has gone to hell in a handbag.
We have headed into an era where the foreclosing entities are allowed to forge and falsify documents, because the borrower defaulted on their payments, and they need those documents that they are forging and falsifying in order to foreclose upon that Borrower, and the original documents no longer exist. Plaintiff was of the belief, that if you signed a contract, that the Original contract had to be kept in order for it to be collected upon, simple contract law. As it is in these foreclosure/wrongful foreclosure cases, the only time the documents are referred to contracts, is when the documents are referred to as in the Borrower failed to honor the contract by timely making their payments every month. Any other time, the words contract, does not exist. Should a Borrower mention the word, or words Note or Promissory Note, it is sacrilege and the Borrower is “claiming the show me the note theory”, or “vapor money theory”, which is a cue to the Court to dismiss because Georgia does not have a law that the foreclosing entity has to show you the Note. And then, there are the entities that think that they can talk to, and treat the pro se litigants any way they please.
No one would be in this mess, if Fannie Mae, US Bank,Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Aurora, Litton, Taylor Bean and Whitaker, Cenlar, GMAC, Wachovia, Popular, Countrywide, MERS, and a whole slew of other entities had not gotten greedy, eased the underwriting, slacked off on checking tax forms and employment, and had not lied that the borrowers could afford it, this loan will allow you to buy the home you always wanted.
Wrongful Foreclosure Complaints
It is truly amazing, the number of wrongful foreclosure complaints that are on the internet. People search around for a complaint to copy and file in the Court, and wallah! That one looks like a winner!
Ever do a google search on "wrongful foreclosure"? Amazingly… there are millions of returns on that phrase.
The other thing that no one considers, is who really puts all those sample complaints on the web? Is every site on the up and up, or do the banks contribute their share with mis-information. It would have to be that way.
I have noticed some of the complaints that have ended up in the Courts, filed by pro se litigants. Obviously, someone put that complaint out there, just so that these people would file it and fail. Like… Well, there is another we won’t have to worry about fighting us in the courts. So who? Who would do such a thing?
Clearly another pro se litigant would not take an unproven complaint and suggest to others that it is a winner.
And God knows, the plethora of bad case law already created from the rulings of federal courts, ESPECIALLY rulings from US District Court or the Northern District of Georgia, with the exception of course of Amy Totenberg’s rulings. Those are actually the only ones worth readings.
If you have a case in front of any other judge in NDGa., why even wait till its over to read the ruling, you know what it will say.
Assignment must exist in writing, even if the court says it doesn’t need recording « Livinglies’s Weblog
Editor’s Note:
With Banks and servicers playing fast and loose with the rules of procedure, the rules of evidence and black letter law it well to remember BASIC BLACK LETTER LAW. An assignment without delivery is probably a nullity. An assignment that isn’t even in writing is (a) not proper under most existing laws and (b) requires the allegation of an oral “assignment” to be explained as to why it wasn’t in writing before, just like a lost or destroyed note.
The assignment can only be valid and used if the assignee is capable of accepting it, paying for it and either acceptance is for the assignee or as an authorized agent. The Notice Default does not give the Trustee or even the original mortgagee where there has been an assignment, the right to declare default. Then it becomes the representation of the trustee, who is supposed to be objective and disinterested in the result.
For the Trustee to issue a notice of sale and notice of default on behalf of the supposed beneficiary, means that the trustee is no longer accepting the responsibilities of the trustee to act with due diligence and good faith toward both the trustor and the beneficiary.
Hence the substitution of trustee is an offer which has not and cannot be accepted. Any actions taken by the trustee in a notice of default or any other notice or collection letter is out of bounds. The only reason the banks do this is to hide behind yet another layer of people and entities so when the arrest warrants are issued, they can claim plausible deniability that the wrong procedure was being followed. This is poppycock. The beneficiary supposedly knows whether or not he is the creditor entitled to submit a credit bid at auction based upon the the existence of a properly kept loan receivable account reflected on the CREDITOR’s books.
This is just another example where the banks and servicers have borrowed the identity of the creditor, claimed that said identity is private and privileged, and then used it for their own advantage to the detriment of both the lender-investor and the borrower.
The Old Crows and the Gatekeeper
A conversation with a friend…
I know what you mean about the clerks in your county throwing things out for a small sum…we have, (well one old bird that is left-the other one died), she is no joke, in her 80’s. She will do "favors" for certain people, but they have to be people that are from certain firms, or that have the approval from either the court or the court clerk and master.
Everyone (that is not in the court system) refers to these old ladies as the "old crows", and funny enough the way that the building is designed- the chancery court clerks set off to themselves and it kind of looks like a birds nest, this is referred to as "the crows’ nest". My mother refers to this old hateful old thing as the gate keeper.
Anyway, my mother worked for the city for over 23 years before she took early retirement, and would walk on her lunch breaks. Well, this old crow (the one that is still alive) was also walking and came in behind my mother (I think that she thought that my mom was someone else), but she stated that the chemical that she has to use to "take signatures off of documents" has eaten the skin off of her fingers, and her fingers were so sore that she couldn’t even hold a pen (which explains to me why the chancery courts require the original document and only the original document). Mom stated after she said that, that the old crow looked up and realized that it was my mom and not who she thought. My mom said that the old crow then darted off and that woman never spoke to my mom again. This happened after mom had been there either 12 or 13 years. This old crow avoided my mom like the plague for the next 10-11 years!
New rule allowing Ga. homeowners to halt foreclosures | www.wsbtv.com
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/new-rule-allowing-ga-homeowners-halt-foreclosures/nP4wb/
FORSYTH COUNTY, Ga. —
A metro Atlanta consumer attorney said he has already been able to halt a dozen foreclosures using a new ruling from the Georgia Court of Appeals.
The latest case involves a Forsyth County home and lending giant Wells Fargo.
"Having to move out of the dream home that my son and I built is the worst thing I could think of," said homeowner David Stripland.
The recession hit his car dealership around the same time the housing crisis, cutting his home’s value more than 60 percent.
"You can’t sell it, you can’t re-fi, you have to get a modification," said his wife, Paulette.
The Striplands said the process went on for more than a year. They then received a string of foreclosure notices from Wells Fargo.
"Foreclosure. It’s a shame," said Paulette through a stream of tears.
The foreclosure has now been halted, after a recent ruling by the state appellate court.
Wells Fargo does not hold the note. It only services the loan. The note holder is not clearly stated.
The Striplands paid forensic auditors who found the loan has been divided up into dozens of securities sold to investors.
"Once these notes are chopped up and turned into bonds, securities, whatever; who really owns it?" asked their attorney, Bob Thompson.
But the Georgia Court of Appeals ruling in a case involving a Cobb County family and servicers Provident Funding, LLC, ruled homeowners have "a right to know" to whom they actually owe the money, lest they be "misled or confused."
"Even a dog in Georgia has the right to know who’s kicking him," Emory law professor Frank Alexander told Channel 2’s reporting partners at the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
"These big banks and Wall Street have to follow the law of the land, just like I do," said Paulette Stripland.
Channel 2’s Jim Strickland learned just before 5 p.m. Thursday, Wells Fargo had halted the foreclosure.
Thompson said most homeowners in peril should take action on their own.
Call and get it stopped and get yourself some time, because with time most people can work things out," he said.
It is likely Provident will appeal to the state supreme court.
TARP Funds for Housing Relief 90 Percent Unspent, Auditor Says – Bloomberg
Distressed homeowners have received only 10 percent of nearly $46 billion in federal aid since the money was allocated in 2009 under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, a U.S. auditor’s report said today.
Spending on one of President Obama’s main efforts to avert foreclosures, the Home Affordable Modification Program, totaled $3 billion — about 10 percent of the $22.7 billion originally obligated at the end of June, the Special Inspector General for the TARP program said in a quarterly report to Congress. HAMP pays lenders to restructure loans so borrowers can afford them.
The report criticized the Treasury Department’s reaction to an audit of a $7.6 billion aid program for families in states with the largest home-price declines. Of that amount, only $351 million had been spent to assist 43,580 homeowners by the end of June, the report said.
“Taxpayers that fund this program have an absolute right to know what the government’s expectations and goals are for using $7.6 billion in TARP funds,” the report said. “By refusing to set any goals for the programs, Treasury is subject to criticism that it is attempting to avoid accountability.”
One program, which allocates $2.7 billion in TARP funds to encourage lenders to write down or eliminate second liens when refinancing properties insured by the Federal Housing Administration, has not resulted in any removals of second liens, the report said.
The Treasury Department has allocated $8.1 billion for a program to allow borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth to refinance into loans insured by the FHA. Of that, $6.6 million has gone for administrative expenses, and 1,437 borrowers have benefited, the report said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Clea Benson in Washington at:
To contact the editor responsible for this story:Maura Reynolds at
TARP Funds for Housing Relief 90 Percent Unspent, Auditor Says – Bloomberg
Chase is defending 10,000 lawsuits. Find out more and join the party.
May God Help Us All
by Mark Stopa, Florida attorney
Wanna Buy a Government-Foreclosed Home? OK. Just Bring $10,000,000.00
Posted on June 29th, 2012 by Mark Stopa
I’ve often expressed my disgust at how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac frequently pay banks 100% of their judgment amounts in foreclosure cases. It’s an appalling dynamic in foreclosure-world, one where banks often have no incentive to modify mortgages because "our" government will pay the banks in full once the foreclosure is over (and all the banks have to do is convey title to Fannie and Freddie). Incredibly, just when I thought I couldn’t be any more appalled, somehow, my disgust with "our" government reached a new level today.
I have it on good information (directly from someone personally involved) that Fannie and Freddie are selling foreclosed homes in bulk to third-party investors. Not one at a time, not several – dozens – at heavily discounted rates. In other words, many of the homes in Florida and elsewhere that have been foreclosed, with lower and middle-class homeowners thrown onto the streets and title transferred to Fannie or Freddie, are being sold to third-party investors in bulk.
If you think that sounds like an interesting investment opportunity, a chance to purchase a new home after you were foreclosed, let me stop you. Fannie and Freddie aren’t making these investments available to just anyone. To qualify, to even get inside the door to the auction room, you must have at least $10,000,000.00 in assets, and you must be able to prove the existence of those assets via bank statements and the like.
Ten million bucks, just to get in the door.
Is this what America has become? Throwing Americans onto the streets so "our" government pays the banks to foreclose and "our" government sells those houses in bulk at discounted rates to third-party investors with an eight-figure net worth?
Apparently so.
Sigh.
You know what’s arguably even worse? Nobody is even talking about this. No news stories. No media coverage. Nothing. Would you have known about this if Mark Stopa – basically a nobody in the scope of national news and politics – hadn’t blogged about it?
Why such secrecy? Where is the media coverage? Where’s the outrage? Who is running our government, exactly? This is as big an issue as Obamacare – thousands of homeowners getting foreclosed and their homes being sold in bulk to the mega-wealthy. Why is nobody even talking about it? Is America really a land where our government takes houses from the poor and middle class and sells them in bulk at discounted rates to the mega-wealthy – and it does so completely in secret? Does anyone care?
This is why I consider this the biggest post I’ve ever written. This is what is driving the whole foreclosure crisis, and nobody knows about it. Nobody’s even talking about it. Change is not possible without awareness, and right now, all Americans are totally in the dark about this dynamic. Well, all Americans except those who have $10,000,000.00.
May God help us all.
Mark Stopa
Chase is defending 10,000 lawsuits. Find out more and join the party.
U.S. Audit Cites OCC Lapses in Oversight of Foreclosure Process – Bloomberg
U.S. Audit Cites OCC Lapses in Oversight of Foreclosure Process
By Carter Dougherty – Jun 1, 2012 1:50 PM ET
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency underestimated the risks in bank foreclosure practices from 2008 to 2010 and gave examiners a 13-year-old handbook that didn’t address how securitization affects loan documentation, a Treasury Department audit found.
Treasury’s inspector general’s office reviewed the OCC’s work in the years following the onset of the credit crisis. The period was later found to be rife with abusive foreclosure practices including use of fraudulent documentation by servicers. Five major banks, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM),Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), settled claims from 49 states and the federal government for $25 billion on Feb. 9.
“During this time OCC did not consider foreclosure documentation and processing to be an area of significant risk and, as a result, did not focus examination resources on this function,” Jeffrey Dye, the inspector general’s director of banking audits, wrote in the May 31 report.
In missing what “turned out to be serious foreclosure issues,” the OCC relied too heavily on the banks’ own internal quality-control procedures, he said. The bank programs, in turn, focused on loss mitigation and compliance with investor guidelines, not foreclosure documentation, the report found.
The inspector general also faulted the OCC, the primary federal supervisor for national banks, for failing to update its handbook on mortgage banking examinations for 13 years. The guide didn’t address the effects of securitization or new mortgage products that were at the heart of the housing bust, the report concludes.
Comptroller Thomas Curry told the inspector general in a May 15 letter that the OCC manual will be updated, but stressed that the agency issued supplemental guidance to examiners in 2006 and 2007.
OCC spokesman Robert Garsson declined to comment on the Treasury report.
To contact the reporter on this story: Carter Dougherty in Washington at cdougherty6@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Maura Reynolds at mreynolds34@bloomberg.net
U.S. Audit Cites OCC Lapses in Oversight of Foreclosure Process – Bloomberg
DeBord Report : California is going through another ‘wave’ in foreclosures | 89.3 KPCC
California is going through another ‘wave’ in foreclosures
Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images
A for sale sign is posted in front of house in Glendale. California saw foreclosure starts pick up in June, suggesting that a new wave of defaults is underway.
For the first six months of 2012, foreclosures in California declined from the same period a year earlier. But RealtyTrac, an Irvine-based company that specializes in tracking foreclosures, reports that the state still has the fourth highest foreclosure rate in the nation. In fact, in June, default notices sent to homeowners increased from May. And year-over-year, California’s rate of foreclosure starts increased 18 percent, making it the top state for the month, the first time that California has held that slot since 2005.
I talked to RealtyTrac vice-president Daren Blomquist. He said that states with the worst foreclosure rates have remained consistent during the housing crisis. The top five haven’t moved around a lot: it’s Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, California, and Florida. He noted that the only surprise was that Georgia has moved into the top four and that Florida has slipped.
Foreclosure filings in California fell by about 11 percent in the second quarter of 2012. But in June foreclosure moved up a bit more than 12 percent over May.
Blomquist said we’ve seen this pattern before in California. He calls it a “foreclosure wave” and expects the pattern to continue, as banks cope with the national mortgage settlement that was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown yesterday and avoid flooding the market with foreclosures. Blomquist’s interpretation is that banks will work through their foreclosures gradually, so we’ll see activity ebb and flow.
"Lenders are looking at their loan portfolios and figuring out how many mortgages to set aside for modification," he said. The banks are determining which ones likely won’t qualify and sending out notices of default, the first stage of the foreclosure process, to homeowners.
Regardless of how these waves are paced, the foreclosure crisis isn’t going away any time soon. At the current rate, Blomquist expects it to take until late 2013 or early 2014 before the country’s million-and-half foreclosures are in the rearview mirror.
Follow Matthew DeBord and the DeBord Report on Twitter. And ask Matt questions at Quora.
Tagged: realtytrac, notice of default, foreclosures, california, California
DeBord Report : California is going through another ‘wave’ in foreclosures | 89.3 KPCC
Court of Appeals – ATLaw
http://www.atlawblog.com/2012/06/anybody-else-want-to-be-an-appeals-court-judge/
Archive for the ‘Court of Appeals’ Category
Anybody else want to be an appeals court judge?
3:48 pm, June 26th, 2012
Gov. Nathan Deal’s Judicial Nominating Commission has officially jump-started the process of filling the vacancy on the state Court of Appeals, created by yesterday’s promotion of Judge Keith Blackwell to the state Supreme Court.
The JNC’s notice says, beginning today through Friday, July 6, it will accept applications for the Court of Appeals opening from “any qualified applicant” who did not apply for the Supreme Court vacancy. The six remaining members of the short list for the Supreme Court opening automatically will be on the short list for the Court of Appeals, unless the applicant notifies the JNC he or she doesn’t wish to be considered, the notice says.
Deal spokeswoman Stephanie Mayfield told the Daily Report yesterday that those who applied for the Supreme Court but didn’t make the short list will not be considered for the Court of Appeals opening.
The notice contains the details on what those interested need to do to apply. It says the JNC will schedule interviews of new applicants “to the extent necessary.”
The members of the shortlist passed over in favor of Blackwell are DeKalb County Superior Court Judge Cynthia “C.J.” Becker; Elizabeth “Lisa” Branch, a litigator at Smith, Gambrell & Russell; Michael Brown, co-leader of Alston & Bird’s Government and Internal Investigations Group; Gwinnett County Superior Court Judge William “Billy” Ray Jr.; Macon Superior Court Judge Tilman “Tripp” Self III; and Henry County State Court Chief Judge Ben Studdard III.
Writing last night about the Blackwell appointment and Deal’s new opportunity, conservative lawyer and commentator Carrie Severino wrote for the National Review Online that she hears “great things” about Branch, noting Branch previously worked in the administration of George W. Bush.
Learn more about the Supreme Court finalists here.
Contributor: Alyson M. Palmer in Court of Appeals, Georgia Supreme Court, Judges, Judicial Nominating Commission |
add comment |
share
Hell, all we have to say about the matter, other than the obvious, is thank God Becker didn’t make it. There is no bigger crook at DeKalb County Superior Court, than Judge Cynthia J. Becker. See McDonald and Stegeman v. Georgia Power in DeKalb County Superior Court and see McDonald/Stegeman v. Superior Court, GA Power, et., al., in US District Court.
Encounters with Pro Se Litigants
http://www.atlantatrial.com/encounters-pro-se-litigants/
Encounters with pro se litigants
by Daniel DeWoskin
June 1st, 2011
We have all heard that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. Many of us have had occasion to walk into a courtroom, be it in magistrate, state, or even superior court, only to find that the courtroom is packed with pro se parties waiting to have their matters adjudicated. Watching inexperienced people handle their legal matters can at times be entertaining and at other times extremely frustrating. We observe these parties fumbling with rules regarding cross-examination or the admission of evidence. It is almost always apparent that these people are uncomfortable, intimidated, and unaware of how much they do not know about prosecuting or defending a legal action. Out of necessity, desperation, or perhaps stubbornness, many people still choose to represent themselves in court.
Is it hubris that causes these people, these “fools,” to represent themselves? The fact is that many parties are representing themselves because they could neither find, nor afford, counsel in a particular matter. These situations can be simply tragic. Many times, these persons are out-maneuvered by an attorney because they fail to acknowledge procedure or to understand the application of law to a particular issue. These people may lose their cases solely because their temperament or demeanor has overshadowed the presentation of evidence in their cases. There is not much of a fix to this problem, as the courts cannot take it upon themselves to advise pro se parties lest they cease to be impartial to some extent.
As attorneys, it can be like watching a train wreck. And yet, even watching the least capable pro se parties, I have to give them credit for having the nerve to walk into court, to stand before a group of strangers, and to engage in public speaking for which the outcome may have dire consequences. It is refreshing and impressive when some of these individuals have taken the time to conduct research into their legal issues and patiently wait for certain cues from the court as they advocate for their position. We have all seen these cues ignored at times by the most experienced and knowledgeable attorneys.
I myself have dealt with pro se parties and can say that I have always found it to be troublesome. When dealing with a pro se party, I am always cautious to avoid ever giving legal advice to the other party. I have a duty to my client and my responsibility to zealously represent his or her interests cannot be compromised. I also have a duty to deal fairly and honestly with my opponent. In these situations, it can be challenging to set the right tone so that I do not inadvertently escalate any hostility that may already be present in the litigation. Even by making very deliberate choices as to how I speak with my opponent can backfire, causing more work and headache for everyone involved, including the court.
Any lawyer who has dealt with pro se parties is likely to say that there is some measure of comfort when dealing with represented parties. Pro se parties are always personally involved in the matter at hand and can often have difficulty taking a step back so that they might see their opponents’ arguments for what they are. If these people were not personally involved, they would not deem the matter worth their time or attention in the first place. When both parties are represented by experienced and professional counsel, knowledge of law and courtesy generally help govern the course of litigation. This is quite the contrast between the emotion and intimidation that can be in play in pro se litigation.
There are also times where we as attorneys sit down in a crowded court and have the person seated beside us turn and ask, “Are you an attorney?” This usually means that we are about to be asked if we can answer a quick question that is never quick and never isolated. When I find myself in this position, I usually resort to recommending that the person ask for a continuance and seek counsel, but I am always professional and polite so that I do not seem to be turning my back on them. As opposed to explaining that I need to be paid for my services, which is true, I have found that people respond better when I explain that without a thorough review of the particular facts of both parties and their assertions, I am not able to provide them with a reliable answer.
It is extremely important in our justice system for people to have access to the courts, even when they cannot afford counsel. Our judges do a good job demonstrating patience and appreciation for the rights of pro se parties, and yet I am continually perplexed by how many people will try to handle a complex litigation matter without doing any homework. While I doubt these same people would handle their own dental work, sometimes I just have to wonder.
I am disappointed when I see pro se parties get intimidated by attorneys in court. There are those rare moments when one of these parties, outgunned and out of their element, has done the legwork and prevails in court. If you have never seen this in action, it is something to behold. Recently, I spoke to a young woman who succeeded in defending herself in a civil action. It was rather remarkable. I was impressed by the quality of her research and preparation, and she was impressed by how ignorant and unprepared her attorney counterpart was.
I suppose the takeaway from this encounter was that we should never take our opponents for granted. So, while a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client, there is no substitute for preparation, knowledge of the law and facts, and humility in a court of law. As lawyers, we should try to find the balance between stressing the value of qualified counsel and understanding why people may still choose to represent themselves. Instead of dismissing all these people as foolhardy, perhaps we should first caution them, then suggest where they might find the resources to empower them in their decision. In the end, if they do follow through with the research, it should demonstrate that what we do is unique, precise, and specialized.
As lawyers, we are aware of the dangers of pro se litigation. We know the troubles that lurk in handling matters without knowing the facts, the law, and the applicable procedure. For those who do not know these dangers, we must act as stewards. We may benefit these people and the system in general without giving out free legal advice, but also without treating what we do as beyond the reach of a dedicated individual with something to prove. Once again, many of these individuals do not have a choice, and nobody in our community benefits from a system that breeds intimidation and contempt.
Article appears in the DeKalb Bar Association Newsletter
See Original Article>>
—
Daily Report: Public shut out of Georgia courts
http://www.dailyreportonline.com/PubArticleFriendlyDRO.jsp?id=1202561653020
Public shut out of Georgia courts
R. Robin McDonald
Daily Report
07-03-2012
Judges across Georgia are closing courtrooms to the general public, citing as reasons a lack of space and security concerns.
They are doing so even though the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2010 vacated a Georgia Supreme Court ruling that had upheld the closure of a DeKalb County courtroom and the removal of members of the public during jury voir dire. The U.S. justices said at the time that courtrooms should remain open to the public except in rare circumstances.
Since then, courtroom closures have been challenged in DeKalb, Fulton, Cobb and Towns counties in Georgia’s appellate courts. Two weeks ago, the Southern Center for Human Rights sued the Cordele Judicial Circuit, claiming that its superior court judges are continuing to bar public access to court hearings despite a consent agreement in 2004 that they would stop the practice.
The appellate challenges to closed courtrooms across the state have garnered mixed success, but Judicial Qualifications Commission officials are concerned.
Closing courtrooms, said JQC Chairman John Allen, “could be a violation” of state judicial canons “depending on the set of facts surrounding the closing.”JQC director Jeffrey Davis told the Daily Report that in his work observing judges in action around the state, he is often met at the courtroom doors by local deputies who ask for his credentials and question why he is there.
“I’ve personally experienced the chill that members of the public would feel,” he said. “I’m a lawyer. It’s not that I’m under-dressed for court.”
Once a member of the public has passed through courthouse metal detectors or security at a courthouse entrance, Davis said, “No citizens should be questioned about the reason they are in a public courtroom.”But, he continued, “It seems to be the modus operandi around the state for courts to have deputies who question those who are simply in the court without business before the court. People ought to be able to watch their government in action. And justice which is done in secret—or a feeling by those who are coming to the courthouse that somehow they don’t have a right to be there—chills the public’s ability not only to access the courts but also to have confidence in the judicial system.”
DeKalb County
Last year, DeKalb State Court Judge Barbara Mobley resigned her post to end a JQC ethics investigation that included allegations she had interfered with the public’s access to a public courtroom. Mobley posted signs that restricted access to court hearings and directed court personnel to ask court observers to identify themselves and state their business, “thereby chilling the public’s right to observe matters before the court,” according to the JQC’s report to the Georgia Supreme Court.The Daily Report reported last year that Mobley was one of a number of DeKalb judges who had posted signs on their courtroom doors limiting courtroom access to criminal defendants, their lawyers and alleged victims. The sign on Mobley’s door said, “We do not have space for extra people.”
Allen told the Daily Report last week that after Mobley resigned, he asked the DeKalb judges “to please meet and reconsider their policy of automatically closing their courtrooms as opposed to making a case-by-case decision.”
“Openness of course is such a basic principle of the law in Georgia jurisprudence and U.S. constitutional jurisprudence,” Allen continued. “You erode the confidence in the integrity and fairness of the courts by closing the courts as a matter of course.”
“Ours was just a courtesy call,” he said, “so that the conduct of the court didn’t rise to the level of being egregious.”
Allen said he also reminded the DeKalb bench of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Presley v. Georgia, 130 S. Ct. 721, which slapped the Georgia Supreme Court for upholding a decision by DeKalb County Superior Court Judge Linda Hunter to close her courtroom during jury selection in a criminal case.
In its ruling vacating the Georgia decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial extends to the voir dire of prospective jurors and that, “Trial courts are obligated to take every reasonable measure to accommodate public attendance at criminal trials.”
The decision did allow for exceptions, holding that, “The right to an open trial may give way in certain cases to other rights or interests, such as the accused’s right to a fair trial or the government’s interest in inhibiting disclosure of sensitive information.”
But, it stated, “Such circumstances are rare, however, and the balance of interests must be struck with special care. The party seeking to close a hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest, the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding, and it must make findings adequate to support the closure.”
Last year, DeKalb Chief State Court Chief Judge Wayne Purdom told the Daily Report that he posted signs limiting access to his courtroom on days when he heard jail pleas, when numerous prisoners were in court or on arraignment days when as many as 100 people might need seats. On those days, he said, members of the public were only admitted “by request.”
While acknowledging that courtroom access “is a public right,” Purdom told the Daily Report that “regulation of entrance to the courtroom is a case-by-case situation.”
Purdom also agreed that signs barring entry might have “a little bit of a chilling effect.” But, he continued, “I think there are limited situations where control of access is appropriate, although keeping the public out is not.”Fulton challenges
Last month Atlanta attorney Brian Steel argued before the Georgia Court of Appeals that a judge’s decision to close a Fulton County courtroom had violated a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights.Steel appealed the decision of then-Fulton County Superior Court Judge Marvin Arrington, who in the 2009 rape trial of Corsen Stewart apparently barred the public, including the defendant’s mother, from the courtroom during jury voir dire in a situation nearly identical to the DeKalb closure that led to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
Steel, who was not Stewart’s lawyer during the trial, said he took the case on appeal after Stewart’s mother came to see him, told him she had been locked out of the courtroom when attorneys were questioning potential jurors for her son’s case and burst into tears in his office.
In 2010, Steel asked the Georgia Supreme Court to overturn the 2006 Fulton County murder conviction of Travion Reed, basing one argument on Judge Craig Schwall Sr.’s decision to close the courtroom during the testimony of two witnesses. Prosecutors countered that the courtroom’s closure was warranted because the two witnesses in question feared for their safety. A third witness in the case had been shot a short time after the murder, and a fourth witness had been threatened with a screwdriver in an attack that prosecutors claimed was likely linked to the defendant.
At the time, neither Reid nor his attorney objected. That omission proved critical to the Georgia Supreme Court which—three weeks after its decision in Presley was vacated—affirmed Schwall’s decision to bar public access to his courtroom during the testimony.
Steel did not represent Reed at his trial.
In an opinion written by Justice George Carley, the high court held 6-1 that in order to prevail, Reid “must show that he was prejudiced by counsel’s decision not to object to the brief closing of the courtroom. … Indeed, to hold otherwise would encourage defense counsel to manipulate the justice system by intentionally failing to object in order to ensure an automatic reversal on appeal.”
But Chief Justice Carol Hunstein, the lone dissenting vote, countered that, “No reason was articulated to support closing the courtroom” for the two witnesses when “closure was not sought for others who not only might have been, but actually were, placed in peril because of their testimony.”
“The trial court’s findings were clearly inadequate to support closure of the courtroom,” her dissent stated. “Moreover, the trial court failed to consider any alternatives to closure,” she said.
“Although the majority concludes that Reid has not shown prejudice,” Hunstein concluded, “Reid is not required to do so in order to obtain relief for a structural error which was a violation of the public-trial right.”
Steel said last week that “Prejudice is pretty hard to show when you’re closing a courtroom. It’s an almost unobtainable bar that the Supreme Court set.”
Steel said that in the Stewart appeal he argued before the state appellate court on June 13, “I’m challenging the Reid decision. … It’s primed to have a new discussion about it.”Fulton County is not the only place where Steel has challenged closed courtrooms. In 2010, Steel also asked the Court of Appeals to overturn a Towns County defendant’s conviction because the judge moved jury selection to a nearby church and barred the public, including the defendant’s wife and daughter, from attending. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction last March on other grounds without addressing the courtroom closure.
Cordele claims
Last month the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta filed suit against the Cordele Judicial Circuit’s three superior court judges and the sheriffs of Ben Hill and Crisp counties in U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Georgia in Albany, claiming that county court officials are systemically barring the public from criminal court hearings that they say should be open to the public.Stephen Bright, the center’s president and senior counsel, noted that in 2003, as part of a larger civil rights suit on behalf of the county’s indigent defendants, the Southern Center accused circuit officials of restricting public access to the courts. But Bright said the 2003 suit was dismissed in 2004 after circuit officials promised that courtrooms would remain open.
John Pridgen, chief superior court judge of the Cordele Circuit and a defendant in both suits, has called the 2003 allegations “complete fabrications” claiming, “There was never anything inappropriate about what we did then and what we do now.”
Another Cordele Circuit judge noted in a letter filed with the Southern Center’s complaint that the courtroom in the Crisp County Law Enforcement Center is particularly small, with limited seating.
Southern Center attorney Gerry Weber told the Daily Report last month that the center also has received anecdotal evidence that other courtrooms are being closed “in a lot of different places” across the state and is launching an investigation to determine the extent of the problem.
‘Keeps us free’
Courtroom public access issue came to the fore in Cobb County last year, when former Governor Roy Barnes secured the dismissal of an indictment against the CEO of the Cobb EMC because the grand jury presentments were made inside the new courthouse while its doors were locked and deputies barred access via a separate catwalk entrance.The Georgia Court of Appeals upheld the indictment’s dismissal in March, ruling that, “The Georgia Supreme Court has held that any failure to return the indictment in open court is per se injurious to the defendant.”
Former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, who dissented in the state Supreme Court’s Presley decision, said in an interview with the Daily Report that the U.S. Supreme Court opinion vacating Georgia’s Presley decision “made it pretty clear … that you cannot, as a matter of policy, close courtrooms.”
In her dissent in Presley, Sears specifically addressed arguments based on lack of space.“A room that is so small that it cannot accommodate the public,” she wrote, “is a room that is too small to accommodate a constitutional criminal trial.”
But the former chief justice, now a partner at Schiff Hardin, told the Daily Report that judges still may close a courtroom “in very narrow circumstances.” But their reasons for doing so, “have to be well articulated,” she said. “It has to be on a case-by-case basis … It also has to be a last resort.”Sears said she doesn’t belittle judges who struggle with issues of space and security.
“That’s what created the majority in the Presley case,” she said. “It wasn’t that the judges felt you should keep people out. They saw what a problem it was in these tiny courtrooms trying to manage things. You get very sympathetic when a trial judge is trying to … keep things secure.”
The issue, she explained, is one of competing values. But to trump the value of open courtrooms, she said, “would take some effort. … Public access is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. It’s what keeps us free.”
<a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/alm.dailyreportonline/;pos=300a;ptype=;tile=2;sz=300×250" target="_blank"> <img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/alm.dailyreportonline/;pos=300a;ptype=;tile=2;sz=300×250?"></a>
Copyright 2012. ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.
Daily Report: Robin Hood lawyer fights foreclosures with a passion
http://www.dailyreportonline.com/PubArticleFriendlyDRO.jsp?id=1202559725985
‘Robin Hood’ lawyer fights foreclosures with a passion
Katheryn Hayes Tucker
Daily Report
06-18-2012
For 34 years, Robert Thompson Jr. had been a business and labor lawyer — as was his father before him — defending corporations and financial institutions and even serving on several banks’ boards of directors.
But something happened to him two and half years ago that changed his entire practice. Now, he challenges banks and financial institutions in court, accusing them of wrongful foreclosure and outright fraud on behalf of individuals who are a step away from losing their homes.
The turning point for Thompson came at Christmas time, 2009. His mortgage servicer — with whom he had been embroiled in disputes over what he said were misapplied or lost checks, late fees for payments that had been made on time, unnecessary insurance costs and double billings for taxes — moved to foreclose on his home.
"I was a single father with three young children living with me in that house," the silver-haired Thompson said during an interview in his Buckhead Thompson Law Group office filled with books about the financial industry and the economic crisis. "It was very upsetting."
But, he added, "I was the wrong person to pick on about injunctions and bank law."
On Dec. 28, 2009, he went before Fulton County Superior Court Judge John Goger, asking for an order enjoining the mortgage company from proceeding with the foreclosure. The judge’s first question was, "How much do you owe?" Thompson recalled.
"I told him I didn’t owe anything, that my payments had all been made on time, and that in fact they owed me more than $50,000 in overpayments and mystery fees," Thompson recalled.
"Can you prove it?" the judge asked.
Thompson recalled he pointed the judge to canceled checks and FedEx receipts, and the judge granted Thompson’s injunction. Thompson filed a lawsuit against his loan servicer for mortgage fraud and abuse, wrongful foreclosure, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, conversion, misrepresentation, defamation, libel and deceit.
"People started talking about it," Thompson said. "I thought it was just me, but then people started calling saying they had the same problem and wanting to know if I could help them."
Now, Thompson is a man obsessed. And he said he’s had success halting foreclosures — but acknowledged securing such an injunction for a client is only the first step.
Thompson said he still has new clients coming to his office daily. Most don’t have the exact situation as his, where the payments were current but not applied to the account. The biggest percentage, he said, are struggling because of a loss of income and are seeking loan modifications to make payments more manageable, but were told by their mortgage holder they weren’t eligible either because they weren’t behind or far enough behind.
Thompson said being behind on mortgage payments isn’t a requirement of federally funded modification programs. But, on the assumption that it was, he said, his clients missed payments in hopes of qualifying for modifications, then found themselves in foreclosure with their lender refusing to accept more payments. Thompson calls that being "lured into default."
Out of hundreds of cases he’s reviewed in the past two and a half years, he said, there wasn’t a single one where he didn’t find fraud or at least errors in the records. So far, he said, he has not yet been able to say to a homeowner, "I can’t help you because the bank did everything right."
Bank representatives say it’s absurd to suggest banks want to foreclose if there are other options. They admit some paperwork mistakes happen but suggest it’s not right to make those a basis for loan forgiveness.
Meanwhile, Thompson is ordering up forensic audits — at a minimum of $1,000 each — to ferret out problems so that he can go to court to block foreclosures. A forensic auditing company analyzes the loan activity and tracks the transfers of deed and title as the loan has been sold by one financial company to another — and sometimes to several others.
Sometimes, Thompson said, he finds the foreclosing lender has already sold the note and collected the balance, and thus doesn’t have the legal right to foreclose. Often Thompson finds what he calls a "break in the chain of title" because the deed and the note have not been kept together in the transactions, which he said is illegal.
He can’t charge the homeowners the hourly rates he used to bill his corporate clients. Some can hardly pay anything. Occasionally, he said, he just offers free advice on how to fight a foreclosure pro se. Most of the time he negotiates a flat fee varying in amounts according to the work that needs to be done and the client’s ability to pay. "I have to make it affordable or they can’t do it," he said. "But I can’t do it for free."
He is especially busy the week before the first Tuesday of every month, when crowds gather on the courthouse steps for the auctioning of foreclosed homes. This month alone, he went to court for 25 injunctions to stop foreclosures.
Asked how many he won, he said, "All of them. But the injunction is only the first step."
The next step varies, but often includes lawsuits against the lenders or servicers who initiated the foreclosure.
Lender representatives said Thompson’s charges about banks’ motivations don’t make sense.
"Do you really think the lender wants that house back?" asked Mo Thrash, a lobbyist for the Mortgage Bankers Association of Georgia and McCalla Raymer, a law firm with offices in Georgia that represents lenders. "It is absolutely ridiculous to think the lender would want the home back."
Thrash said the conventional wisdom — that the best outcome for the lender is for the homeowner to make all their payments until the loan is paid in full — is still true, maybe more so now because of falling real estate prices and difficulty in selling homes. "I admit mistakes do happen, but I’d be willing to bet that the majority of these cases are a two-way street," he said. "It takes two to tango."
The majority of mortgage banks — 99 percent — are ethical and honest, Thrash added. To suggest otherwise, he said, is "absolutely crazy."
If the personal foreclosure experiences of Thompson and some of his clients are as they described them, "It was a mistake," said J.D. Crowe, senior vice president of Southeast Mortgage of Georgia Inc. and a member of the Mortgage Bankers Association of Georgia Board of Governors.
"If that’s the case, that’s why he won an injunction and will probably win his lawsuit. With the number of foreclosures in the last few years, there’s a lot of paper going back and forth," Crowe said.
But like Thrash, Crowe said it’s "ridiculous" to suggest that a lender would want to foreclose if there were an alternative. "Lenders want to work with borrowers. They don’t want to foreclose," he said.
Crowe also suggested that when homeowners win their foreclosure fights, they usually win on a technicality — a mistake in the paperwork or the separation of the deed and note in the selling of the loan by one financial institution to another. In such cases, if homeowners win damages or loan forgiveness, allowing them to walk away from their mortgage payments, said Crowe, "I think it is unconscionable."
Disbelief, said Thompson, is the biggest challenge he faces in fighting foreclosure fraud. "People who have never suffered through it cannot believe it. It challenges the fundamentals of everything you want to believe about the banks being honest and the government protecting you."
He cited the case of client LaVonda DeWitt, a patent lawyer whose income was reduced because her firm’s revenue dropped. In an interview, she said she contacted her mortgage company to discuss a loan modification so she could lower her payments.
"They said I wasn’t eligible because I still had a job," she said.
Then she was laid off. She called her lender again about the modification and was told she wasn’t eligible because didn’t have a job. She said she was also told she wasn’t eligible unless she was three months behind. She stopped making payments in December 2010. She also filed a complaint with the U.S. Treasury Department over being denied a loan modification. The lender responded with a document she had never seen saying she had been offered a modification and rejected it, but later admitted that claim was a mistake, according to DeWitt. She still wasn’t offered a modification. She received a foreclosure notice in March of this year.
She met with Thompson, who went to court with her to block the sale on the first Tuesday in April. She won the injunction but still wasn’t able to negotiate a loan modification. So, on Thompson’s advice, she filed a lawsuit in federal court.
DeWitt said Thompson reminds her of the fictional Atticus Finch, taking on jobs that other lawyers don’t want.
Another client of Thompson’s, Patricia Sibley, won an injunction a year ago, then filed a lawsuit against the lender for wrongful foreclosure. The suit is pending in the Northern District of Georgia. Sibley and her husband are still in their home — "because of Bob Thompson," she said.
As with DeWitt, Sibley’s suit is based on what Thompson calls "luring into default." When the recession hit and slashed revenue for her advertising company, Sibley said she had to close her business. She and her husband had paid down by half their $950,000 15-year mortgage on their north Atlanta home near the Chattahoochee River, and their payments were current, she said in an interview.
She contacted the lender to ask about changing the terms to lower the payments. Since they still had some income, they felt they could afford the loan if they could spread it back to 30 years. They were told they weren’t eligible for a modification because they weren’t behind. They skipped one payment and called again, but were told they were not far enough behind to be eligible, according to Sibley and the lawsuit. After the third missed payment, they received a foreclosure notice. They tried to talk to the lender’s customer service department many times and offered to pay the loan current and cover fees in return for restructuring, she said, but heard no response.
The house was advertised for foreclosure. The weekend before the first Tuesday in June 2011, cars were driving by the house and stopping to take pictures, Sibley said. It was an experience she said she wouldn’t wish on anyone.
A friend called and said she had a friend who knew someone who might be able to help — Thompson. The friend said, "I have somebody who’s like Robin Hood. He takes from the banks and gives to the poor."
"Not that we’re the poor," Sibley added. But, she said, "I never would have dreamed I’d be in this position."
Sibley’s case is unresolved, but Thompson was able to get an injunction to prevent foreclosure while it’s pending.
McCurdy & Candler, which has offices in Decatur and Atlanta, handled Sibley’s foreclosure for PNC Mortgage, as well as DeWitt’s foreclosure for Chase. Managing partner Sidney Gelernter said the firm couldn’t comment on any pending case or even discuss foreclosures generally. Sibley’s suit is being defended by Ballard Spahr. One of the lawyers working on the case in Atlanta, Christopher Willis, said the firm couldn’t comment on any matter involving any of its clients.
Sibley’s lawsuit is against National City Mortgage Company, National City Bank, PNC Mortgage, Bank of America and unidentified investors. Sibley said she tried repeatedly to find out the identity of the investors who now own the loan — in order to work out payment terms — but PNC, the servicer, wouldn’t tell her.
A spokeswoman for PNC said the company couldn’t comment on any lawsuit. "We do work with customers," said Amy Vargo, noting modification programs described on the PNC website.
In his own personal case, Thompson sued BAC Home Loans Servicing, which is a subsidiary of Bank of America, and Bank of New York Mellon, formerly known as Bank of New York, successor in interest to JP Morgan Chase Bank. Bank of America acquired Countrywide Mortgage Company, which was Thompson’s loan servicer. Thompson’s lawsuit names four companies that owned his note successively. Thompson’s case — which he has withdrawn for now — was defended by Monica Gilroy of Alpharetta’s Dickenson Gilroy, who said she couldn’t discuss it.
The foreclosing firm in Thompson’s case was Shuping, Morse & Ross, based in Riverdale. Neither the managing partner, Sheltan Andrew Shuping Jr., nor the lawyer who handled the foreclosure, Kevin Duda, could be reached for comment.
Thompson’s lawsuit — moved from Fulton Superior Court to federal district court in Atlanta — seeks damages for overpayments and unauthorized fees, harassment and injury to his credit and reputation, naming a figure of $5 million.
Thompson said he has stopped making mortgage payments, and BAC has stopped trying to foreclose. He moved to withdraw his complaint, while keeping the door open to refiling it later, and the judge agreed. He said he believes the courts are evolving in their understanding of foreclosure fraud, and he plans to reinitiate the suit at a time that will be advantageous. For now, he said, "It’s an armed truce."
Thompson’s case in federal court is Thompson v. BAC Home Loans, No. 1:10-CV-3205-TCB.
Sibley’s case in federal court is Sibley v. National City Mortgage Co., No. 1:12-cv-00305-SCJ-JFK.
Daily Report: Robin Hood lawyer fights foreclosures with a passion
Certified Forensic Loan Auditors, LLC | AG Biden Says $25B Settlement Not the End, Securitization Next
AG Biden Says $25B Settlement Not the End, Securitization Next
mortgagenewsdaily.com | May 16, 2012
Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden said recently that the states’ attorneys general need to make it clear that the recent $25 billion settlement with five major banks is the beginning not the end of their enforcement actions. Biden, speaking on MSNBC’s Morning Joe said the savings and loan crisis cost the economy $168 billion and 1,000 people went to jail. "This crisis, which was man made," he said, "cost the economy trillions and I can’t really find anyone who has been held accountable."
Show co-host Willie Geist asked Biden who he was focusing on, who did he think should be in jail? Biden said one area he, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman and others are looking at is the securitization aspect, "whether or not there were false securities, mortgage-backed securities, sold to investors. That affects borrowers as well."
He noted that Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster recently indicted DOCX and its CEO Lorraine Brown. This is relevant, Biden said, because this woman has become famous, on 60 Minutes and so forth, because she signed thousands upon thousands of foreclosure affidavits. "Chris Costner indicted her for forgery. That’s the kinds of thing we need to begin to do." He said that investigations need to go beyond robo-signing and that people must be held accountable. "People are angry," he said. "Republicans, Democrats, Tea Partiers and 99 Percenters are all angry that no one has been held accountable for something they know is obviously fraught. And that’s my job as AG."
About Us | Foreclosure Defense Nationwide – Mortgage Foreclosure Help – Free Advice
WILLIAM JEFF BARNES, ESQ.
Jeff is the founder of the Foreclosure Defense Nationwide (FDN) website and blog. His law practice is primarily oriented towards defense of foreclosure actions throughout the United States, with his Firm having represented victims of foreclosure and predatory lending practices with local counsel where required in the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Jeff has been a member of the Florida Bar since 1988 and is also a member of the Colorado Bar, first admitted in 1990. Before concentrating full-time on foreclosure defense, he had been previously admitted to practice in several state courts, including the Superior Court for the State of New Jersey (Atlantic City); the Hennepin County Circuit Court (Minnesota); the Norfolk Superior Court (Commonwealth of Massachusetts); the Circuit Civil Court of Walker County, Alabama; and the Superior Court for the State of California (Orange County).
He is also admitted to several Federal Courts, including the United States District Court for the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits. Jeff has been previously admitted to practice pro hac vice in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (Duluth); the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark); the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming; and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose Division), and is currently admitted pro hac vice to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Eastern Division); the United States District Court for the District of Oregon (Portland Division); the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington; and the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville Division).
Jeff has been admitted pro hac vice to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division (numerous counties, including Atlantic, Ocean, Monmouth, Morris, Glouster, Burlington, and Passaic); the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Plymouth); the Superior Court for Flathead County (Montana); the Superior Court of Coweta County (Georgia); the Superior Court of Washington (Ferry County); the District Court for Kootenai and Bonner Counties (Idaho); Hancock County Superior Court (Indiana); Iowa District Court (Greene County); Kern County Superior Court (California); San Bernadino County Superior Court (California); Washetenaw County (Michigan); Mahoning County (Ohio); Maricopa County Superior Court (Arizona); Pima County Superior Court (Arizona); the Hawaii First District Court (Honolulu); the Hawaii Second District Court (Maui); the Kenosha County Court (Wisconsin); The Superior Court for Washington County, Vermont; the Circuit Courts of Oregon (Clackamas, Multnomah, and Crook Counties); and the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit (Winnebago County, Illinois); all such admissions and applications being in connection with foreclosure defense litigation representing borrowers. Mr. Barnes does not represent any banks, “lenders”, servicers, trustees of securitized mortgage loan trusts, trustee sale companies, or any others who seek to foreclose.
Jeff has spent over twenty-two years litigating throughout the United States in the areas of business tort litigation, contract litigation, insurance litigation (coverage, claims, premium fraud defense, and Unfair and Deceptive Insurance Practices), fraud litigation, real estate litigation, and Administrative proceedings involving defense of chiropractors in disciplinary proceedings, and appeals in deportation proceedings following the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act. His practice includes both trials (jury and non-jury) and appeals at both the state and Federal level, and opposing Proofs of Claim and Stay relief Motions in Bankruptcy proceedings involving foreclosure issues. Jeff has also been a Certified Mediator and Arbitrator certified by the Supreme Court of Florida, and also previously obtained status as a Qualified Neutral in the State of Minnesota.
After graduating from Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania with a degree in Experimental Psychology, Jeff obtained a Master of Science degree in Education and his Juris Doctor (law) degrees from the University of Miami (Florida). Between graduation from college and prior to law school, Jeff was a public and private school teacher in Miami, Florida, having taught elementary, junior, and senior high students, as well as serving as an assistant adjunct professor at Florida International University in the areas of Behavioral Science Statistics and Preventive Law to Master’s and Doctoral candidates. While in law school, Jeff served as a prosecutor in the Office of the State Attorney in Miami, Florida during law school.
FDN handles foreclosure defense matters in both judicial and non-judicial (trustee) jurisdictions and is affiliated with securitized trust auditors and investigators; mortgage loan auditors, certified fraud examiners, and paralegals who conduct a wide-ranging review of mortgage documents to ascertain any violations of Federal lending laws, loan tracking rhrough securitizations, applicable insurances, and other issues. Amortgage loan examination or audit is strongly recommended for anyone seeking to defend a foreclosure action. FDN will provide contact information for an auditor or loan examiner upon request made through our “Contact Us” link.
FDN’s local counsel network currently embraces thirty-nine (39) separate law Firms throughout the United States and continues to grow.
About Us | Foreclosure Defense Nationwide – Mortgage Foreclosure Help – Free Advice
The Securitization Curtain is Lifting in Hawaii! | Deadly Clear
Derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction… potentially lethal. -Warren Buffet
The Securitization Curtain is Lifting in Hawaii!
Posted on March 29, 2012 by Deadly Clear
“One of the most important decisions for Borrowers Rights in the history of Hawaii has been made with this decision,” remarked Honolulu attorney Gary Dubin. Honorable Judge J. Michael Seabright of the Hawaii United States District Court, today GRANTED the homeowners’ Motion to Dismiss the case filed against them in federal district court by Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2007-NC1 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-NC1.
The Williamses (Leigafoalii Tafue Williams and Papu Christopher Williams), who were
represented by Honolulu attorney, James J. Bickerton (Jim), of Bickerton Lee Dang & Sullivan, filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), in which they argue, among other things, that Plaintiff has no standing to foreclose because it has not established that it was validly assigned the Mortgage and Note.
The Court noted that: “Because the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish its standing to bring this action, the court need not reach the Williamses’ other arguments for dismissal.”
Honorable Judge J. Michael Seabright gets it! And his ORDER was detailed. In the Discussion, Judge Seabright notes an argument that homeowners have being trying to persuade the courts (especially at the lower state levels) to grasp: STANDING and JURISDICTION.
“Standing is a requirement grounded in Article III of the United States Constitution, and a defect in standing cannot be waived by the parties. Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (US.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939,954 (9th Cir. 2011). A litigant must have both constitutional standing and prudential standing for a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over the case. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 11 (2004). Constitutional standing requires the plaintiff to “show that the conduct of which he complains has caused him to suffer an ‘injury in fact’ that a favorable judgment will redress.” Id. at 12. In comparison, “prudential standing encompasses the general prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights.” Id. (citation and quotation signals omitted); see also Oregon v. Legal Servs. Corp., 552 F.3d 965, 971 (9th Cir. 2009).”
Let’s continue – but we’ll get back to that injury issue later in the post.
The WILLIAMSES’ ORDER continues: “The Williamses factually attack Plaintiff’s 
prudential standing to foreclose, arguing that there is no evidence establishing that Plaintiff was validly assigned the Mortgage and Note on the subject property. The issue of whether Plaintiff was validly assigned the Mortgage and Note is inextricably intertwined with the merits of the Plaintiffs claims seeking to foreclose…”
Of course, this was a New Century Mortgage (Home123) and the Plaintiffs were taking part in a fabricated assignment in 2009 to a 2007 Trust… (that boat had sailed 2 years before because theTrust had long since closed) – but even more compelling in the Motion to Dismiss-Memorandum was the Williamses assertion that New Century aka Home123 was in a liquidating bankruptcy as of August 1, 2008 and they had nothing to assign in January 2009.
Deutsche argued that the Williamses were not parties or beneficiaries to the assignment such that they cannot challenge it… [we’ve heard that before, yeah?]. However, the Judge Seabright clarifies a valid point:
“Plaintiffs argument confuses a borrower’s, as opposed to a lender’s, standing to raise affirmative claims. In Williams v. Rickard, 2011 WL 2116995, at *5 (D. Haw. May 25, 2011), — which involved the same parties in this action and in which Lei Williams asserted affirmative claims against Deutsche Bank – Chief Judge Susan Oki Mollway explained the difference between the two:
“…Standing” is a plaintiff’s requirement, and … Defendants must establish 
“standing” to defend themselves.”“
Judge Seabright continues: ”Deutsche Bank asserts affirmative claims against the Williamses seeking to enforce the Mortgage and Note, and therefore must establish its legal right (i.e., standing) to do so. See, e.g., IndyMac Bank v. Miguel, 117 Haw. 506, 513, 184 P.3d 821, 828 (Haw. App. 2008) (explaining that for standing, a mortgagee must have “a sufficient interest in the Mortgage to have suffered an injury from [the mortgagor’s] default”).”
Attorney Bickerton faced off in court and explained to the Judge in oral argument that the banks didn’t just miss the date to file their assignments or needed to tidy up paperwork, this was a ‘Business model using the loans for overnight lending.’ Bickerton told the Court that if this wasn’t dismissed, his first line of discovery would be geared to uncover the outside financial advantages being derived from the use of the Williamses’ loan.
Understanding the premeditated intentions of these banks, how they pledge, collaterize, swap, sell, lease,and trade these loans that are SUPPOSED to have been in a static trust will open the eyes of lawmakers to the real moral hazard – the fraud upon the homeowners, the courts and the state.
Jim Bickerton profoundly says that, “every foreclosure in the state is a victim of this shadow banking scam.”
James J. Bickerton
Bickerton Lee Dang & Sullivan
Fort St Tower
745 Fort St Ste 801
Honolulu, HI 96813
808-599-3811
Email: bickerton@bsds.com
“Security trusts will no longer be able to hide behind the hocus pocus of the pooling and servicing agreements. The ramifications of this decision are extraordinary,” praises Gary Dubin.
INJURY – Remember that issue from above?
Let’s discuss the trusts. We can see by the assignments that they were not made timely and NY trust laws call them VOID. The REMIC has failed. But maybe the investors ARE getting paid with the behind the scenes shadow banking scheme.
And let’s suppose we can see the trading in the trust is active, numerous investors have already been paid off – where is the “injury”….hmmm?
We’re connecting the dots, people with above average intelligence are realizing, just like Judge Seabright, that there are huge schemes behind the scenes of an everyday mortgage that the borrower never intended to participate in… and eventually we’ll know whether the application for a mortgage started the securitization process before the borrower signed the note making them securities with no disclosure, how many insurance policies were attached to the loans and when (we never agreed to be over insured which would give someone the incentive to “off” us)… it’s coming soon – to a court room near you…
…and the Securitization curtain will be lifting for the big show.
___________________________________________________________________
Details by DeadlyClear
Honorable Judge J. Michael Seabright – Thank you. Mahalo!
This is why he gets the “Gets It” award:
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2005/04/28/news/story5.html
An assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted several high-profile white-collar criminal cases here is on his way to becoming Hawaii’s fourth full-time federal judge. Michael Seabright: As an assistant U.S. attorney, he put three isle politicians behind bars.
The U.S. Senate voted 98-0 yesterday to confirm J. Michael Seabright as a U.S. district judge for the District of Hawaii. ”I’m very honored to have received that vote,” said Seabright, 46, an assistant U.S. attorney since 1990 and head of the white-collar crime section since 2002.
Image of the Honorable John Michael Seabright from http://www.grainnet.com/articles/usda_cited_by_federal_judge_for_permitting_violations_in_hawaii-36404.html
Bank’s Competition
USDOJ: Alabama Real Estate Investor Agrees to Plead Guilty to Conspiracies to Rig Bids and Commit Mail Fraud for the Purchase of Real Estate at Public Foreclosure Auctions
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, April 20, 2012
Alabama Real Estate Investor Agrees to Plead Guilty to Conspiracies to Rig Bids and Commit Mail Fraud for the Purchase of Real Estate at Public Foreclosure Auctions
WASHINGTON – An Alabama real estate investor has agreed to plead guilty and to serve prison time for his role in conspiracies to rig bids and commit mail fraud at public real estate foreclosure auctions in southern Alabama, the Department of Justice announced today. To date, as a result of the ongoing investigation, three individuals and one company have pleaded guilty.
Charges were filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in Mobile, Ala., against Lawrence B. Stacy of Mobile. Stacy was charged with one count of bid rigging and one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. According to the plea agreement, which is subject to court approval, Stacy has agreed to serve six months in prison. Additionally, Stacy has agreed to pay a $10,000 criminal fine and to cooperate with the department’s ongoing investigation.
According to court documents, Stacy conspired with others not to bid against one another at public real estate foreclosure auctions in southern Alabama. After a designated bidder bought a property at the public auctions, which typically take place at the county courthouse, the conspirators would generally hold a secret, second auction, at which each participant would bid the amount above the public auction price he or she was willing to pay. The highest bidder at the secret, second auction won the property.
Stacy was also charged with conspiring to use the U.S. mail to carry out a scheme to acquire title to rigged foreclosure properties sold at public auctions at artificially suppressed prices, to make and receive payoffs to co-conspirators and to cause financial institutions, homeowners and others with a legal interest in rigged foreclosure properties to receive less than the competitive price for the properties. Stacy participated in the bid-rigging and mail fraud conspiracies from at least as early as May 2002 until at least January 2007.
"The Antitrust Division will continue to pursue vigorously the perpetrators involved in these real estate foreclosure auction schemes,” said Sharis A. Pozen, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “Those who eliminate competition from the marketplace and prey on the misfortune of others will be held accountable for their actions.”
FBI Special Agent in Charge of the Mobile FBI office, Lewis M. Chapman recognized the perseverance of agents and prosecutors in this complex investigation. Chapman stated, “This investigation sends the message that real estate fraud including antitrust violations will continue to be pursued in these tough economic times, no matter how intricate the scheme.”
Each violation of the Sherman Act carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine for individuals. The maximum fine for a Sherman Act charge may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victim if either amount is greater than the statutory maximum fine. Each count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine in an amount equal to the greatest of $250,000, twice the gross gain the conspirators derived from the crime or twice the gross loss caused to the victims of the crime by the conspirators.
The investigation into fraud and bid rigging at certain real estate foreclosure auctions in southern Alabama is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s Atlanta Field Office and the FBI’s Mobile Office, with the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Alabama. Anyone with information concerning bid rigging or fraud related to public real estate foreclosure auctions should contact the Antitrust Division’s Atlanta Field Office at 404-331-7100 or visit www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm.
Today’s charges are part of efforts underway by President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency task force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes. For more information on the task force, visit www.StopFraud.gov.
Federal Judge Magner: Wells Fargo’s Behavior “Highly Reprehensible” – Mandelman Matters
Federal Judge Magner: Wells Fargo’s Behavior “Highly Reprehensible”
Does anyone know what’s happened at Wells Fargo Bank? If so, please let the rest of us know, because in a line up of TBTF bank CEOs, to stand out as being particularly awful is no easy task… and yet Wells Fargo’s CEO, John Stumpf has risen to the challenge and then some.
At the beginning of April of this year, Judge Elizabeth Magner, a federal bankruptcy judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana, characterized Wells Fargo’s behavior as being “highly reprehensible.” Think about that for a moment. That means that the judge decided that to describe Wells Fargo as merely “reprehensible,” wasn’t enough.
Wow, that is something. Can you imagine someone saying that about you… a federal judge, no less? I’m thinking that if a federal judge ever has the occasion to describe my behavior as being worse than “reprehensible,” I’m going to jail for a long time.
Of course, no danger of anything like that happening here… bankers don’t go to jail in this country, every one knows that. But, in this instance, after more than five years in litigation with a single homeowner, Judge Magner ordered Wells Fargo to pay the New Orleans man $3.1 million in punitive damages.
Now, if that sounds like a paltry sum for the likes of Wells Fargo, that’s only because it is. And that it represents one of the largest fines ever levied related to mortgage servicing misconduct hardly makes it feel any better.
It’s kind of like being forced to eat dog turd ice cream, but finding out that it’s okay if you pour motor oil on top. Does that improve your circumstances? I guess so, but…
Judge Magner, in her opinion, wrote…
“Wells Fargo has taken advantage of borrowers who rely on it to accurately apply payments and calculate the amounts owed, but perhaps more disturbing is Wells Fargo’s refusal to voluntarily correct its errors. It prefers to rely on the ignorance of borrowers or their inability to fund a challenge to its demands, rather than voluntarily relinquish gains obtained through improper accounting methods.”
So, what was Wells Fargo doing exactly? Well, they were systematically over-charging the people least able to do anything about it… those filing bankruptcy. In this case, Wells Fargo improperly charged the borrower $24,000 in fees, but it wasn’t done by hand, it was the bank’s automated systems doing precisely what they were programmed to do. Like, anything but an isolated incident.
After the borrower fell into default on his mortgage, Wells Fargo’s automated system began applying his mortgage payments to interest and fees that had accrued instead of to principal, as required by his servicing contract, which in turn led to him being charged with a virtual waterfall of additional fees and interest. And even after the borrower filed bankruptcy, Wells Fargo continued to misapply his payments, according to Judge Magner’s written opinion.
And why wouldn’t they? I know, it sounds weird to say it, but I think I would have been disappointed had Wells stopped there.
There’s even a terme de l’art for this scenario used by consumer lawyers… they call it a “rolling default.” I suppose the name refers to the idea that once the scheme gets rolling, it’s all downhill from there. I think it should be called a “boiling default,” because once it’s boiling, you’re goose is most assuredly cooked.
Or, wait a minute… hang on… how about we call it: “Getting Stumpfed.”
(Come on, admit it… I’m good.)
Judge Magner went on to describe Wells Fargo’s litigation tactics as involving the filing of dozens of briefs, motions and other filings clearly designed to slow down legal proceedings to such a point that anyone thinking of mounting a legal challenge against a bank quickly finds it essentially impossible.
And since it’s only through costly litigation that the insidious crimes of Wells Fargo become apparent, all the bank has to do is prevent those with limited resources from doing what they can’t do with limited resources. Now there’s a winning business model for you. Like making billions by stopping blind people from seeing.
What sort of a company engineers this sort of strategic core competency anyway? Remember Ford’s infamous Pinto strategy… rather than fix the problem, just settle them as they exploded? Well, this Wells Fargo stuff makes that look as benevolent as Girl Scouts selling cookies after church.
Wells Fargo actually engineered a strategy and built a system to rampantly abuse the individuals in our society least able to defend their interests. This is a bank that deserves to have a statue erected in its likeliness and even its own Lazarus-styled sonnet. I’m just thinking out loud here, but how about…
“The Statue of Larceny”
And inside the base, engraved on a bronze plaque, could be these words…
Give us your jobless, injured, bankrupt filers, whose lawyers won’t work free.
The wretched refuse against whom in court we’ll always score.
Send them one by one, homes all sold by substitute trustee,
We’ll rape them, rob them, force them out Wells Fargo’s golden door.
Not bad, right? No? Sheesh… tough crowd.
Judge Magner, in an interview with Ben Hallman of Huffington Post, said that she personally analyzed the loan files of twenty borrowers in her court and found supposed “errors” in every single instance. So, at least we know the systems are working properly, and somehow I find that oddly reassuring.
I don’t know why but there’s something even more terrifying about the idea that we might be getting ripped off by banks in an entirely random way. Like one day you get hit for a hundred… and the next day not only is your entire IRA gone, but two weeks later you learn that the bank bounced one of your checks to the IRS for the penalty on the early withdrawal.
I know, right? Now, that would be rude.
I guess I only have a couple of questions I’d like to ask, and the most obvious is: Why would anyone whose read about this decision continue to bank at Wells Fargo?
I mean, if they do this sort of thing systematically… AND THEY UNQUESTIONABLY DO, how do you know where the other spots are that are picking your pocket for twenty here and twenty there. Because you’re not going to tell me you think this case has uncovered the only place at Wells Fargo where this sort of thing goes on, are you? Come on… what are you, six?
And, my second question is: What do our elected representatives do these days… I mean specifically? State or federal, I don’t care which… you pick. Because it kind of seems like we’ve quietly been transformed into a lawless society in many ways, don’t you think?
Like in this bankruptcy case… the judge has uncovered the systematic stealing from the defenseless, but it’s not like it’s a major news story, or anything. To the contrary, it’s nowhere. Doesn’t anyone but me find that amazing? How do they do that? Where have all the journalists gone?
I can tell you that I receive more complaints about Wells Fargo refusing to approve loan modifications than any three other mortgage servicers combined. But then, Wells did modify one of the homeowners I wrote about a few months back. I don’t know why, maybe it was an accident.
Here’s one more thing Judge Marner said about Wells Fargo in her written opinion…
“These are loans of working-class people who bought homes they could afford and whose loans were not administered correctly from an accounting perspective,” Judge Magner said. “I think that these types of problems occur in almost every [defaulted] loan in the country.”
Good Lord.
So, Mr. John Stumpf… Wells Fargo’s CEO… you just go ahead committing those criminal acts with impunity. Don’t change now… go down with your ship. Besides, I’m sure there are deceptions your people haven’t thought of yet.
Do you have a program that targets autistic children yet? Or what about something abusive for unmarried pregnant chicks that never finished high school? Or, what about the elderly, are you doing enough to take advantage of the elderly?
I’m sure you’ll think of something, which is why I’ve told my wife and daughter to stay out of banks for the foreseeable future. We only make deposits at the ATM at night, which may sound crazy, but I’m betting will one day soon prove considerably safer than being inside during the day.
Lo siento. Que se mejore pronto.
Mandelman out.
Federal Judge Magner: Wells Fargo’s Behavior “Highly Reprehensible” – Mandelman Matters
Lawyers Take Note: Wells Fargo Slammed with $3.1 Million Punitive Damages on One Wrongful Foreclosure | DTC Systems
Lawyers Take Note: Wells Fargo Slammed with $3.1 Million Punitive Damages on One Wrongful Foreclosure
On April 12, 2012, in Information, News, Securitization, by Dan Edstrom
Lawyers Take Note: Wells Fargo Slammed with $3.1 Million Punitive Damages on One Wrongful Foreclosure
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.Posted by Neil F. Garfield on livinglies.wordpress.com (http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/lawyers-take-note-wells-fargo-slammed-with-3-1-million-punitive-damages-on-one-wrongful-foreclosure/).
GARFIELD PROPOSES NATIONAL LAW FIRM FOR COUNTER-ATTACK
Editor’s Comment:The most perplexing part of this mortgage mess has been the unwillingness of the legal community to take on the Banks. Besides the intimidation factor the primary source of resistance has been the lack of confidence that any money could be made, ESPECIALLY on contingency. If you were the lawyer in the case reported below, you would be getting a check for fees alone of over $1.2 million on a single case. And as this article and hundreds of others have reported, based upon objective surveys, most of the 5 million homes lost since 2007 were wrongful foreclosures.
So the inventory for lawyers is 5 million homes plus the next 5 million everyone is expecting. Let’s due some simple arithmetic: if 4 million homes were wrongfully foreclosed and the punitive damages were $1 million per house the total take would be $4 Billion with contingency fees at $1.6 Billion. If each house carried $200,000 in compensatory damages, then the total would be increased by $800 Million with Lawyers taking home $320 Million. These figures exceed personal injury and malpractice awards. Why is the legal profession ignoring this opportunity to do something right and make a fortune at the same time?
Right now I’m a little under the weather (open heart surgery) but that hasn’t stopped my associates from rolling out a plan for a national anti-foreclosure firm. I’m only doing this because nobody else will. If you have had a home wrongfully foreclosed or suspect that your current foreclosure is wrongful, write to NeilFGarfield@hotmail.com (remember the “F”) and ask for help. Lawyers and victims of wrongful foreclosures should be able to pool their resources to attack the massive foreclosure attack with a massive anti-foreclosure attack.
DTC Systems readers can write to info@dtc-systems.com and ask for help. We will see that your request is sent to the lawyers working on this new program.
Here is the Conclusion from the Order (download below):
Wells Fargo’s actions were not only highly reprehensible, but its subsequent reaction on their exposure has been less than satisfactory. There is a strong societal interest in preventing such future conduct through a punitive award. The total monetary judgment to date is $24,441.65, plus legal interest,$166,873.00 in legal fees and $3,951.96 in costs. Other fees and costs incurred by Jones through the first remand were also incurred and are not included in the foregoing amounts. Because the Court cannot reveal the sealed amount stipulated to by the parties when they settled Jones’ Application for Award of Fees and Costs Related to Remand (“Application”),70 the Court will use Jones’ Application itself as evidence of fees and costs actually incurred up to the date of the Application. The Application and supporting documentation establish that an additional $118,251.93 in attorneys’ fees and $3,596.95 in costs was also incurred by Jones.71 The amounts previously awarded plus the additional amounts incurred establish that the cost to litigate the compensatory portion of this award was $292,673.84. After considering the compensatory damages of $24,441.65 awarded in this case, along with the litigation costs of $292,673.84; awards against Wells Fargo in other cases for the same behavior which did not deter its conduct; and the previous judgments in this case none of which deterred its actions; the Court finds that a punitive damage award of $3,171,154.00 is warranted to deter Wells Fargo from similar conduct in the future. This Court hopes that the relief granted will finally motivate Wells Fargo to rectify its practices and comply with the terms of court orders, plans and the automatic stay.
Download the bankruptcy ruling here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Jones_vs_Wells_Fargo.pdf
Tagged with: automatic stay • compensatory damages • Conclusion • contingency • counter-attack • Daniel Edstrom • DTC-Systems • intimidation factor • livinglies.wordpress.com • national anti-foreclosure firm • National law firm • Neil F. Garfield • personal injury and malpractice awards • Punitive Damages • Wells Fargo • Wrongful Foreclosure
New York State Appeals Court Affirms Denial Of BofA’s Motion to Sever and Consolidate Successor Liability Claims
Published 04/16/2012
http://www.linkedin.com/osview/canvas?_ch_page_id=1&_ch_panel_id=1&_ch_app_id=49029150&_applicationId=103900&appParams=%7B%22document%22%3A%227f7c72d2-c6c5-4387-a339-9aef6cd4d216%22%2C%22method%22%3A%22document.view%22%2C%22layout%22%3A%22layout_blank%22%2C%22target%22%3A%22blank_content%22%2C%22surface%22%3A%22canvas%22%7D&_ownerId=57736655&completeUrlHash=diwZ
On April 5, 2012, a five-judge panel for the New York’s First Department intermediate appellate court affirmed a lower court’s ruling that denied Bank of America’s motion to sever successor liability claims brought against it from the primary claims in four separate actions brought by four monoline insurers. Bank of America had requested that, once severed from the underlying lawsuits, the successor liability claims should be consolidated into a separate proceeding for discovery purposes. The four insurers, Ambac Assurance Corp, Financial Guaranty Insurance Co, MBIA Inc, and Syncora Guarantee Inc., claim in their respective lawsuits that Countrywide ignored underwriting guidelines, resulting in loans that were riskier than had been represented to the insurers and thus subjecting the insurers to billions of dollars in insurance claims when the loans defaulted. They seek to hold Bank of America liable under theories of successor liability related to Bank of America’s acquisition of Countrywide. In affirming the denial of Bank of America’s motion, the appeals court reasoned that the four actions were at different stages of discovery and that consolidation would result in undue delay. Order.
R.I.P. Bill of Rights 1789 – 2011
http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_NDAA_Bill_of_Rights_Obama.html
R.I.P. Bill of Rights 1789 – 2011
Sunday, January 01, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles…)(NaturalNews) One of the most extraordinary documents in human history — the Bill of Rights — has come to an end under President Barack Obama. Derived from sacred principles of natural law, the Bill of Rights has come to a sudden and catastrophic end with the President’s signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a law that grants the U.S. military the "legal" right to conduct secret kidnappings of U.S. citizens, followed by indefinite detention, interrogation, torture and even murder. This is all conducted completely outside the protection of law, with no jury, no trial, no legal representation and not even any requirement that the government produce evidence against the accused. It is a system of outright government tyranny against the American people, and it effectively nullifies the Bill of Rights.
In what will be remembered as the most traitorous executive signing ever committed against the American people, President Obama signed the bill on New Year’s Eve, a time when most Americans were engaged in the consumption of alcohol. It seems appropriate, of course, since no intelligent American could accept the tyranny of this bill if they were sober.
This is the law that will cement Obama’s legacy in the history books as the traitor who nullified the Bill of Rights and paved America’s pathway down a road of tyranny that will make Nazi Germany’s war crimes look like child’s play. If Bush had signed a law like this, liberals would have been screaming "impeachment!"
Why the Bill of Rights matters
While the U.S. Constitution already limits the power of federal government, the Bill of Rights is the document that enumerates even more limits of federal government power. In its inception, many argued that a Bill of Rights was completely unnecessary because, they explained, the federal government only has the powers specifically enumerated to it under the U.S. Constitution. There was no need to have a "First Amendment" to protect Free Speech, for example, because there was no power granted to government to diminish Free Speech.
This seems silly today, of course, given the natural tendency of all governments to concentrate power in the hands of the few while destroying the rights and freedoms of their own people. But in the 1780’s, whether government could ever become a threat to future freedoms was hotly debated. By 1789, enough revolutionary leaders had agreed on the fundamental principles of a Bill of Rights to sign it into law. Its purpose was to provide additional clarifications on the limitation of government power so that there could be absolutely no question that government could NEVER, under any circumstances, violate these key principles of freedom: Freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, freedom from illegal searches, the right to remain silent, the right to due process under law, and so on.Of course, today’s runaway federal government utterly ignores the limitations placed on it by the founding fathers. It aggressively and criminally seeks to expand its power at all costs, completely ignoring the Bill of Rights and openly violating the limitations of power placed upon it by the United States Constitution. The TSA’s illegal searching of air travelers, for example, is a blatant violation of Fourth Amendment rights. The government’s hijacking of websites it claims are linking to "copyright infringement" hubs is a blatant violation of First Amendment rights. The government’s demand that all Americans be forced to buy private health insurance is a blatant violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution — the "commerce clause."
Now, with the passage of the NDAA, the federal government has torpedoed the entire Bill of Rights, dismissing it completely and effectively promising to violate those rights at will. As of January 1, 2012, we have all been designated enemies of the state. America is the new battleground, and your "right" to due process is null and void.Remember, this was all done by the very President who promised to close Guantanamo Bay and end secret military prisons. Not only did Obama break that campaign promise (as he has done with nearly ALL his campaign promises), he did exactly the opposite and has now subjected all Americans to the possibility of government-sponsored kidnapping, detainment and torture, all under the very system of secret military prisons he claimed he would close!
"President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Obama’s signing statement means nothing
Even while committing an act of pure treason in signing the bill, the unindicted criminal President Obama issued a signing statement that reads, in part, "Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded…"
Anyone who reads between the lines here realizes the "the flexibility on which our safety depends" means they can interpret the law in any way they want if there is a sufficient amount of fear being created through false flag terror attacks. Astute readers will also notice that Obama’s signing statement has no legal binding whatsoever and only refers to Obama’s momentary intentions on how he "wishes" to interpret the law. It does not place any limits whatsoever on how a future President might use the law as written.
"The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield," says the ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/president-obama-signs-inde…).
What this means is that the next President could use this law to engage in the most horrific holocaust-scale mass round-up of people the world has ever seen. The NDAA legalizes the crimes of Nazi Germany in America, setting the stage for the mass murder of citizens by a rogue government.
United States of America becomes a rogue nation, operating in violation of international law
Furthermore, the NDAA law as written and signed, is a violation of international law as it does not even adhere to the fundamental agreements of how nations treat prisoners of war: "…the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war" says the ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/president-obama-signs-inde…).
In 1789, today’s NDAA law would have been called "treasonous," and those who voted for it would have been shot dead as traitors. This is not a call for violence, but rather an attempt to provide historical context of just how destructive this law really is. Men and women fought and died for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. People sacrificed their lives, their safety and risked everything to achieve the freedoms that made America such a great nation. For one President to so callously throw away 222 years of liberty, betraying those great Americans who painstakingly created an extraordinary document limiting the power of government, is equivalent to driving a stake through the heart of the Republic.
In signing this, Obama has proven himself to be the most criminal of all U.S. Presidents, far worse than George W. Bush and a total traitor to the nation and its People. Remember, Obama swore upon a Bible that he would "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and yet he himself has become the enemy of the Constitution by signing a law that overtly and callously nullifies the Bill of Rights.
This is nothing less than an act of war declared on the American people by the executive and legislative branches of government. It remains to be seen whether the judicial branch will go along with it (US Supreme Court).
Origins of the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights, signed in 1789 by many of the founding fathers of our nation, was based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, drafted in 1776 and authored largely by George Mason, one of the least-recognized revolutionaries who gave rise to a nation of freedom and liberty.
Mason was a strong advocate of not just states’ rights, but of individual rights, and without his influence in 1789, we might not even have a Bill of Rights today (and our nation would have slipped into total government tyranny all the sooner). In fact, he openly opposed ratification of the U.S. Constitution unless it contained a series of amendments now known as the Bill of Rights
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mason)
SECTION ONE of this Virginia declaration of rights states: "That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."(http://www.constitution.org/bcp/virg_dor.htm)
Section Three of the declaration speaks to the duty of the Citizens to abolish abusive government:"That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."
By any honest measure, today’s U.S. government, of course, has overstepped the bounds of its original intent. As Mason wrote over 200 years ago, the People of America now have not merely a right but a duty to "reform, alter or abolish it," to bring government back into alignment with its original purpose — to protect the rights of the People.
Obama violates his Presidential Oath, sworn before God
Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution spells out the oath of office that every President must take during their swearing in: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
In signing the NDAA law into office, Obama has blatantly and unambiguously violated this sacred oath, meaning that his betrayal is not merely against the American people, but also against the Divine Creator.Given that the Bill of Rights is an extension of Natural Law which establishes a direct heritage of sovereign power from the Creator to the People, a blatant attack upon the Bill of Rights is, by any account, an attack against the Creator and a violation of universal spiritual principles. Those who attempt to undermine the Bill of Rights are attempting to invalidate the relationship between God and Man, and in doing so, they are identifying themselves as enemies of God and agents of Evil.
Today, as 2012 begins, we are now a nation led by evil, and threatened with total destruction by those who would seek to rule as tyrants. This is America’s final hour. We either defend the Republic starting right now, or we lose it forever.
City of Roswell, Georgia bullies Andrew Wordes to death over his backyard chickens
City of Roswell, Georgia bullies Andrew Wordes to death over his backyard chickens
City of Roswell, Georgia bullies Andrew Wordes to death over his backyard chickens
- Tuesday, 10 April 2012 11:54
- William M. Windsor
Andrew Wordes, an innocent man who had legally been raising a few dozen chickens and other small birds in the backyard of his suburban Atlanta home, is now dead, following a crusade of terror perpetrated against him by the City of Roswell Georgia.
Andrew Wordes, who died during a recent raid on his property in which county marshals tried to illegally evict him, was the obvious victim of a rogue state gone mad — and his blood is now on the hands of the Roswell City Administrator, the Roswell City Council, and the Roswell Police Department, all of which robbed from Wordes his property, his livelihood, and ultimately his life.
See the NaturalNews infographic timeline of events that documents the escalation that ultimately led to Mr. Andrew Wordes’ death: http://www.naturalnews.com
Andrew Wordes had long raised his small poultry friends in the backyard of his one-acre property at 335 Alpine Drive in Roswell, Georgia, sharing eggs, chicks, and friendly words of wisdom and encouragement with his neighbors and with local schoolchildren all along the way. Andrew Wordes was very active in his local community, having organized a North Georgia Pet Chicken “Meetup” group, and founded a chicken breeding club. His friends and neighbors described him as a generous, kind, and loving man who was always willing to lend a hand, and who would have given you the shirt off his back if you needed it.
But Andrew Wordes met his unjust fate on March 26, 2012, after roughly four years of enduring illicit and seemingly-endless abuse, bullying, threats, and unsubstantiated legal action taken against him by Roswell city officials with an apparent axe to grind. And after losing his birds, his freedom, his entire life savings, his property, and his livelihood as a result of the City of Roswell’s sadistic war against him, Andrew Wordes ended up losing his life as a result of an explosion that occurred during the final eviction raid carried out by Fulton County marshals.
City of Roswell targets Wordes for standing up for his rights, identifies his property on planning map as future ‘green space’
The saga allegedly began in 2008 when a disgruntled neighbor of Andrew Wordes reportedly complained to the city about Wordes raising chickens, button quail, and other small creatures in his backyard. The City of Roswell responded by issuing Andrew Wordes a citation for his chickens, even though the city’s Code of Ordinances specifically provisioned at the time that property owners on less than two acres of land could legally raise chickens and swine.
With the help of Roswell’s Mayor Jere Wood, a lawyer friend of Andrew Wordes who also raises chickens himself, Wordes was able to get the citation issued against him dismissed in court. But the firestorm of childish retaliation and rage that quickly ensued as a result of Andrew Wordes standing up for himself and his rights, rather than capitulating to the city’s tyrannical and mindless demands that he get rid of his chickens, will likely go down as one of the most tragically absurd abuses of power in the history of local government.
After it became clear that Andrew Wordes was not about to let the City of Roswell trample all over him and his rights, several city officials allegedly kicked their vendetta against him into high gear, not only to forcibly have Wordes’ chickens removed, but also to seize his property right out from under him. After failing twice to get Andrew Wordes nabbed for their made-up code violations, the City of Roswell actually rewrote the law to prohibit residents from raising more than six chickens in an effort to seal the deal.
But even this failed, as a judge later ruled that Andrew Wordes, who had been in his home for more than a decade raising chickens, would be “grandfathered in” under the old provisions which allowed for residents to raise backyard chickens. So the City of Roswell switched gears again and began to play even dirtier by getting Andrew Wordes arrested for petty violations, and proceeding to reclassify his property on their long-term planning map as future green space.
You can view the City of Roswell’s2030 Comprehensive Plan, which demarcates Wordes’ property as future “Conservation Area or Greenspace” here:
http://www.roswellgov.com/index.aspx?NID=893
So it appears as though the City of Roswell used the supposed neighbor complaint as an excuse to pursue Andrew Wordes’ property for the purpose of eventually turning it into parks and green space. This would explain why the city failed to properly maintain storm water infrastructure near Wordes’ property, which resulted in his property becoming severely flooded at least a dozen times, and eventually uninhabitable.
City of Roswell refuses to submit Andrew Wordes’ request for FEMA assistance following severe flooding, issues citation when he attempts to protect his home
Not only did the City of Roswell fail to abide by legal guidelines that required it to maintain storm water infrastructure around Wordes’ property, but the city added insult to injury by refusing to file paperwork to the U.S.Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) following a flood that caused severe damage to Andrew Wordes’ home, which is also located on a floodplain. As a result, he had no means by which to fix the damage.
And when Andrew Wordes attempted to protect his property from future flood damage by grading his land with a Bobcat, which he borrowed from his friend Mayor Wood, the City of Roswell actually had the audacity to issue Wordes a citation for grading his land without a permit, and for having too many cars on his property at the time.
City of Roswell Code Enforcement Supervisor violates law by contacting Andrew Wordes’ mortgage holder, coercing her into selling mortgage note
From this point on, City of Roswell officials began harassing Andrew Wordes, and the local police department began to surveil his house on a regular basis, watching closely for anything that might be considered a violation. In the process, he was pulled over and even thrown in jail on numerous occasions.
In violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and several other laws, Roswell Code Enforcement Supervisor Vicki Barclay (http://www.roswellgov.com/index.aspx?NID=94) allegedly called Wordes’ mortgage holder, an 80-year-old woman, and coerced her into selling Wordes’ mortgage note for 40 cents on the dollar to another mortgage holder by threatening to issue liens, citations, and grievances on the property if she failed to comply. Barclay is the same city official who had illegally tried to issue Wordes a citation for his chickens from the very beginning.
Having failed at all other attempts to seize his property, the City of Roswell then filed a zoning violation against Wordes claiming that his property was a “nuisance.” The city also filed a 55-page civil lawsuit against Andrew Wordes, which conveniently denied him the right to a city-funded public defender who was supposed to represent him in legal dealings involving the city.
Even with former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes on his side, Andrew Wordes was rapidly losing the ability to fend off these ravenous wolves in the City of Roswell government that were hellbent on forcing him off his property for their own devious purposes. And Roswell City Administrator Kay G. Love (http://www.roswellgov.com/Directory.aspx?EID=3), Roswell City councilmember Becky Wynn (http://www.roswellgov.com/directory.aspx?EID=6), Roswell City councilmember Rich Dippolito (http://richforroswell.com/about-rich.php), and Roswell Code Enforcement Supervisor Vicki Barclay (http://www.roswellgov.com/index.aspx?NID=94) all played a key role in making this happen, according to accounts.
Andrew Wordes’ home vandalized, chickens poisoned while he attends political rally
The madness did not stop at Andrew Wordes’ property, however, as even his animals eventually got caught in the fray of the City of Roswell’s campaign of terror. According to reports, Andrew Wordes’ home was vandalized in 2011 while he was attending a local political rally, and when he returned, he found that his animals had also been poisoned. Roughly one-third of his animals, which included turkeys, chicks, and adult chickens, ended up dying as a result of this poisoning.
Andrew Wordes filed a police report in response to these crimes, but the Roswell police department never pursued the case, and it was never determined who committed them. Consequently, Wordes lost a significant portion of his income and livelihood as a result of the mysterious deaths, which made his already-burgeoning financial problems even worse.
City of Roswell jails Wordes for 99 days, proceeds to evict him from property using phony foreclosure notice
After attacking him from practically all angles and nabbing him for every single petty violation they could think of, the City of Roswell finally ended up jailing Wordes for a whopping 99 days. And immediately after Wordes was jailed, the City of Roswell issued a public press release letting the public know that Wordes’ house was now “vacant,” a purely vindictive move that had terrifying consequences.
Within just a few hours of the announcement, Wordes’ house was vandalized and looted. Even though the City of Roswell promised to keep an eye on the property after issuing the press release, criminals were somehow able to steal Wordes’ firearms and weapons, ammunition, and other valuables, which put the entire community at risk.
During this time, Wordes was refused the ability to proceed with the bankruptcy filings that would have halted the illegal foreclosure on his property which, conveniently for the City of Roswell, was moving forward during his time in jail. As pointed out by Maggie West Bean writing forExaminer.com, the foreclosure paperwork was not even legal to begin with, as it lacked necessary information proving its validity (http://www.examiner.com).
After finally being released, Wordes was left with an uninhabitable house and property, no more animals, no more money, and a pending eviction notice illegally issued by the ruthless criminals at the City of Roswell. Throughout the process, Wordes was denied all his rights to defend himself, denied his right to defend his property against illegal foreclosure, and denied his right to pursue any sort of justice in the matter.
During a February interview with Rusty Humphries, a radio talk show host on WGST 640 in Atlanta, a desperate Wordes explained his dire situation at that point, and issued one of his final pleas for help. You can listen to that interview at either of the following two links:
http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=D0Md7aIudZE
You can also read a post written by Andrew Wordes himself back in 2009 here:
http://www.backyardchickens.com
After being denied the ability to fight back against illegal foreclosure, county marshals swoop in on Andrew Wordes’ property to evict him, culminating in his death
At the end of his rope and facing insurmountable and unrelenting oppression, Wordes’ final hours were spent in his unlivable home, where Fulton County marshals staged an elaborate demonstration of police state force by illegally raiding Wordes’ property.
According to reports, the standoff concluded when Wordes finally told television reporter Mike Petchenik, who he had called to the scene by phone, to have the marshals leave the property. Moments later, an explosion was heard, and Wordes’ house became engulfed in flames.
When it was safe to go inside, responders found a body inside the home, which was later identified as being that of Wordes. And though the incident appears to have been a desperate suicide, which is how some reports categorized it right off the bat, others are worded as to leave room for the potential possibility of foul play.
City of Roswell must be held responsible for its crimes
While it has not yet been determined whether Wordes’ death was a suicide or a murder, it is clear that the City of Roswell has a whole lot of explaining to do concerning its role in the escalation of this situation over the past four years.
As usual, mainstream media reports about the saga fail to mention how the City of Roswell committed numerous criminal acts in its illegal pursuit of Wordes, or how the city is now officially lying, on record, by claiming that it played no part in working behind the scenes to transfer Wordes’ mortgage and foreclose on his property.
Nevertheless, the truth must come out about this case, and those involved in perpetrating it brought to justice. And this, of course, will start with a full investigation into the dealings of Roswell City Administrator Kay G. Love (http://www.roswellgov.com/Directory.aspx?EID=3), Roswell City councilmember Becky Wynn (http://www.roswellgov.com/directory.aspx?EID=6), Roswell City councilmember Rich Dippolito (http://richforroswell.com/about-rich.php), and Roswell Code Enforcement Supervisor Vicki Barclay (http://www.roswellgov.com/index.aspx?NID=94), as well as Roswell city attorneys and the Roswell Police Department, in the case.
It is unfortunate that NaturalNews only just now learned about the Wordes saga after the man’s death, as it may have been possible to help him earlier on by raising awareness about the injustices being perpetrated against him. But at the very least, we can all fight for justice now by banding together to make sure the facts come to light, and the criminals involved punished for their crimes.
The case also serves as a reminder to others who might be enduring similar harassment to speak up now about what they are going through. The reason why news sites like NaturalNews, InfoWars and others exist is to draw attention to issues like this, and to bring what goes on in the darkness to light — so if you or somebody you know is facing similar harassment by city officials, tell us about it!
Also, be sure to read the following memoriam written by Glenn Horowitz at American Daily Herald about the Wordes case. Horowitz was personally involved in trying to help Wordes in years past, and has put together an excellent summary of the events that took place over the last four years: http://www.americandailyherald.com
See the NaturalNews infographic timeline of events that documents the escalation that ultimately led to Mr. Wordes’ death:
Sources for this article include:
http://www.americandailyherald.com
http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com
http://www.backyardchickens.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=D0Md7aIudZE
http://theperspicaciousconservative
The BlackRobed Mafia 