Homeowner Class Action Filed Against Bank of America, Challenging Ownership of Homes Obtained Through Improper Mortgage Foreclosures

This case is different from other similar lawsuits because it focuses on Bank of America’s current ownership of the foreclosed property. The Plaintiff group includes only borrowers who were improperly foreclosed out of homes which are now, after foreclosure sales, owned by Bank of America. The complaint seeks to restore the borrowers’ rights in their homes, and seeks to establish that Bank of America’s claim of ownership can be invalidated. The number of Florida homes which Bank of America now owns after improper foreclosures is unknown, but the Plaintiffs estimate the number in the thousands.

Teresa O’Neal and Marco Delgado, have filed a statewide class action against Bank of America alleging improper action during mortgage foreclosures.

This case is different from other similar lawsuits because it focuses on Bank of America’s current ownership of the foreclosed property. The Plaintiff group includes only borrowers who were improperly foreclosed out of homes which are now, after foreclosure sales, owned by Bank of America. The complaint seeks to restore the borrowers’ rights in their homes, and seeks to establish that Bank of America’s claim of ownership can be invalidated. The number of Florida homes which Bank of America now owns after improper foreclosures is unknown, but the Plaintiffs estimate the number in the thousands.

The Plaintiffs allege the improper foreclosure practices by which Bank of America obtained ownership of the properties includes false and forged affidavits, certificates of service, and other documents. They also allege that the documents systematically contained inaccurate facts, or were signed by persons who lacked required knowledge, or were forged. The Plaintiffs propose that all prior foreclosure sales which were based upon such documents are subject to being invalidated by the borrowers.

In addition to seeking a declaration regarding the invalidity of prior foreclosure sales through which Bank of America took ownership of their homes, Ms. O’Neal and Mr. Delgado allege that Bank of America violated Florida’s racketeering laws, and that Bank of America’s use of the court system to deprive them of their homes was in violation of their civil rights, and that Bank of America’s conduct violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs’ damages are alleged to exceed $5 million.

The class action has been filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, in Tampa, Florida

Advertisements

THE MERS SYSTEM

  MERS Corporation, claims to hold title to roughly half of all the home mortgages in the nation — an astonishing 60 million loans.  This private corporation, with a full-time staff of fewer than 50 employees, has turned out to be a very public problem for the mortgage industry.
Judges, lawmakers, lawyers and housing experts are raising piercing questions about MERS, which stands for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, whose private mortgage registry has all but replaced the nation’s public land ownership records. Most questions boil down to this:
25.              How can MERS claim title to those mortgages, and foreclose on homeowners, when it has not invested a dollar in a single loan and, more fundamentally: Given the evidence that many banks have cut corners and made colossal foreclosure mistakes, does anyone know who owns what or owes what to whom anymore?
The answers have implications for all American homeowners, but particularly the millions struggling to save their homes from foreclosure.
The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled last year that MERS could no longer file foreclosure proceedings there, because it does not actually make or service any loans. Last month in Utah, a local judge made the no-less-striking decision to let a homeowner rip up his mortgage and walk away debt-free. MERS had claimed ownership of the mortgage, but the judge did not recognize its legal standing.
“The state court is attracted like a moth to the flame to the legal owner, and that isn’t MERS,” says Walter T. Keane, the Salt Lake City lawyer who represented the homeowner in that case.
   And, on Long Island, a federal bankruptcy judge ruled in February that MERS could no longer act as an “agent” for the owners of mortgage notes. He acknowledged that his decision could erode the foundation of the mortgage business.
With MERS under scrutiny, its chief executive, R. K. Arnold, who had been with the company since its founding in 1995, resigned earlier this year.
For generations of Americans, public mortgage documents, often logged in longhand down at the county records office, provided a clear indication of homeownership.
28.              By the 1990s, the centuries-old system of land records was showing its age. Many county clerk’s offices looked like something out of Dickens, with mortgage papers stacked high. Some clerks had fallen two years behind in recording mortgages. For a mortgage banking industry in a hurry, this represented money lost. Most banks no longer hold onto mortgages until loans are paid off. Instead, they sell the loans to Wall Street, which bundles them into investments through a process known as securitization.
  MERS, industry executives hoped, would pull record-keeping into the Internet age, even as it privatized it. Streamlining record-keeping, the banks argued, would make mortgages more affordable.
  MERS was mostly about speed — and profits. MERS, founded 16 years ago by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and big banks like Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, cut out the county clerks and became the owner of record, no matter how many times loans were transferred. MERS appears to sell loans to MERS ad infinitum.  This high-speed system made securitization easier and cheaper. But critics say the MERS system made it far more difficult for homeowners to contest foreclosures, as ownership was harder to ascertain.
MERS was flawed at conception. The bankers who midwifed its birth hired Covington & Burling, a prominent Washington law firm, to research their proposal. Covington produced a memo that offered assurances that MERS could operate legally nationwide. No one, however, conducted a state-by-state study of real estate laws.
  County officials appealed to Congress, arguing that MERS was of dubious legality. But this was the 1990s, an era of deregulation, and the mortgage industry won.
“We lost our revenue stream, and Americans lost the ability to immediately know who owned a piece of property,” said Mark Monacelli, the St. Louis County recorder in Duluth, Minn.
MERS took off. Its board gave its senior vice president, William Hultman, the rather extraordinary power to deputize an unlimited number of “vice presidents” and “assistant secretaries” drawn from the ranks of the mortgage industry.
The “nomination” process was near instantaneous. A bank entered a name into MERS’s Web site, and, in a blink, MERS produced a “certifying resolution,” signed by Mr. Hultman. The corporate seal was available to those deputies for $25.
As personnel policies go, this was a touch loose. Precisely how loose became clear when a lawyer questioned Mr. Hultman in April 2010 in a lawsuit related to its foreclosure against an Atlantic City cab driver.
How many vice presidents and assistant secretaries have you appointed?   the lawyer asked.
“I don’t know that number,” Mr. Hultman replied.
Approximately?
“I wouldn’t even be able to tell you, right now.”
In the thousands?
“Yes.”
Each of those deputies could file loan transfers and foreclosures in MERS’s name. The goal, as with almost everything about the mortgage business at that time, was speed. Speed meant money.
ALAN GRAYSON has seen MERS’s record-keeping up close. From 2009 until this year, he served as the United States representative for Florida’s Eighth Congressional District — in the Orlando area, which was ravaged by foreclosures. Thousands of constituents poured through his office, hoping to fend off foreclosures. Almost all had papers bearing the MERS name.
“In many foreclosures, the MERS paperwork was squirrelly,” Mr. Grayson said. With no real legal authority, he says, Fannie and the banks eliminated the old system and replaced it with a privatized one that was unreliable.
MERS’s legal troubles, however, aren’t going away. In August, the Ohio secretary of state referred to federal prosecutors in Cleveland accusations that notaries deputized by MERS were signing hundreds of documents without any personal knowledge of them. The attorney general of Massachusetts is examining a complaint by a county registrar that MERS owes the state tens of millions of dollars in unpaid fees.
Judith S. Kaye, the state’s chief judge at the time, filed a partial dissent. She worried that MERS, by speeding up property transfers, was pouring oil on the subprime fires. The MERS system, she wrote, ill serves “innocent purchasers.”
“I was trying to say something didn’t smell right, feel right or look right,” Ms. Kaye said in a recent interview.
Little about MERS was transparent. Asked as part of a lawsuit against MERS in September 2009 to produce minutes about the formation of the corporation, Mr. Arnold, the former C.E.O., testified that “writing was not one of the characteristics of our meetings.”
MERS officials say they conduct audits, but in testimony could not say how often or what these measured. In 2006, Mr. Arnold stated that original mortgage notes were held in a secure “custodial facility” with “stainless steel vaults.” MERS, he testified, could quickly produce every one of those files.
As for homeowners, Mr. Arnold said they could log on to the MERS system to identify their loan servicer, who, in turn, could identify the true owner of their mortgage note. “The servicer is really the best source for all that information,” Mr. Arnold said.
The reality turns out to be a lot messier. Federal bankruptcy courts and state courts have found that MERS and its member banks often confused and misrepresented who owned mortgage notes. In thousands of cases, they apparently lost or mistakenly destroyed loan documents.
The problems, at MERS and elsewhere, became so severe last fall that many banks temporarily suspended foreclosures.
Some experts in corporate governance say the legal furor over MERS is overstated. Others describe it as a useful corporation nearly drowning in a flood tide of mortgage foreclosures. But not even the mortgage giant Fannie Mae, an investor in MERS, depends on it these days.
We would never rely on it to find ownership,” says Janis Smith, a Fannie Mae spokeswoman, noting it has its own records.
Apparently with good reason. Alan M. White, a law professor at the Valparaiso University School of Law in Indiana, last year matched MERS’s ownership records against those in the public domain.   The results were not encouraging. “Fewer than 30 percent of the mortgages had an accurate record in MERS,” Mr. White says. “I kind of assumed that MERS at least kept an accurate list of current ownership. They don’t. MERS is going to make solving the foreclosure problem vastly more expensive.”
Officials at MERS appear to recognize that they are swimming in dangerous waters. Several federal agencies are investigating MERS, and, in response, the company recently sent a note laying out a raft of reforms. It advised members not to foreclose in MERS’s name. It also told them to record mortgage transfers in county records, even if state law does not require it.  MERS will no longer accept unverified new officers. If members ignore these rules, MERS says, it will revoke memberships. That hasn’t stopped judges from asking questions of MERS. And few are doing so with more puckish vigor than Arthur M. Schack, a State Supreme Court judge in Brooklyn.
Judge Schack has twice rejected a foreclosure case brought by Countrywide Home Loans, now part of Bank of America. He had particular sport with Keri Selman, who in Countrywide’s court filings claimed to hold three jobs: as a foreclosure specialist for Countrywide Home Loans, as a servicing agent for Bank of New York and as an assistant vice president of MERS. Ms. Selman, the judge said, is a “milliner’s delight by virtue of the number of hats that she wears.”
At heart, Judge Schack is scratching at the notion that MERS is a legal fiction. If MERS owned nothing, how could it bounce mortgages around for more than a decade? And how could it file millions of foreclosure motions?   These cases, Judge Schack wrote in February 2009, “force the court to determine if MERS, as nominee, acted with the utmost good faith and loyalty in the performance of its duties.”     The answer, he strongly suggested, was no.

And you thought you were getting a mortgage loan from a bank?

You all thought you were getting a mortgage loan from a bank. That was no true. You didn’t get a loan from anyone. Banks can not lend there own money. Its that law!. They pooled several loans together , totaled the principal, made an offer to sell the entire pool to investors (Wall Street) those investors pooled their money together and purchase the pool of loans (approx 1000-2000) …or more loans. This is called an offering which gives the buyer information on how much they would profit from holding the loans for 30 years and collecting the interest for the 30 years. Example: Total Loans Pooled 1000, total principal $1 trillion, total profits for 30 years $5 trillion. The investors were lead to believe the 1000 loans had qualifying buyers with A credit, therefore causing the investors to believe they would profit from purchasing those loans. Once the loans were sold off the bank promised to manage those loans and to collect monthly mortgage payments and in the event of default they promised to repurchase the loans back from the pool of loans and replace the defaulted loan with a good performing loan. This was fraud against the investors because they was not informed those buyers had bad credit and high risk of default. The banks also inflated the value of the loans by obtaining fraudulent appraisals.
Investors are now suing banks for securities fraud. The Securtities Exchange commission has sued banks for sec fraud. Home owners were not aware the loans were to be sold off to investors of Wall Street. That means the banks failed to disclose this to the borrowers. This is where the bubble burst. They gave home owners adjustable rate loans, interest only loans, etc., when the rates increased the mortgages became unaffordable. Foreclosures increased, values decreased, unemployment increased and the bubble went bust. The laws says once a loan is securitized the note and the mortgage became separated which makes these loans unsecured. Federal law says only the true owner of the loan who is in possession of the Note and the Deed can foreclose on real property which would be the “Real Party in Interest”. If they can’t  prove they are a “Real Party in Interest”, federal  laws says no foreclosure because you can’t take something that which you do not own. It is a well known fact banks do not own loans because they can’t fund money according to federal banking laws.
You can’t evict someone from property for which you do not own. You can’t have that person who lives in foreclosed property arrested. 
Only person who can request an arrest for trespass is the Real Party in Interest and that would be Wall Street and the Home owner. In order to foreclose you must get consent from ALL Investors in writing and that is IMPOSSIBLE to do. These pools of loans could be owned by thousands of investors and of course they would be in the USA and other Countries. Which means all of them would have to sign one authorization form giving the bank consent to foreclose or to evict.

The middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America.

The middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America.
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a staggering rate. Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world, but now that is changing at a blinding pace.
So why are we witnessing such fundamental changes? Well, the globalism and “free trade” that our politicians and business leaders insisted would be so good for us have had some rather nasty side effects. It turns out that they didn’t tell us that the “global economy” would mean that middle class American workers would eventually have to directly compete for jobs with people on the other side of the world where there is no minimum wage and very few regulations. The big global corporations have greatly benefited by exploiting third world labor pools over the last several decades, but middle class American workers have increasingly found things to be very tough.


Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.

Giant Sucking Sound
The reality is that no matter how smart, how strong, how educated or how hard working American workers are, they just cannot compete with people who are desperate to put in 10 to 12 hour days at less than a dollar an hour on the other side of the world. After all, what corporation in their right mind is going to pay an American worker 10 times more (plus benefits) to do the same job? The world is fundamentally changing. Wealth and power are rapidly becoming concentrated at the top and the big global corporations are making massive amounts of money. Meanwhile, the American middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence as U.S. workers are slowly being merged into the new “global” labor pool.

What do most Americans have to offer in the marketplace other than their labor? Not much. The truth is that most Americans are absolutely dependent on someone else giving them a job. But today, U.S. workers are “less attractive” than ever. Compared to the rest of the world, American workers are extremely expensive, and the government keeps passing more rules and regulations seemingly on a monthly basis that makes it even more difficult to conduct business in the United States.
So corporations are moving operations out of the U.S. at breathtaking speed. Since the U.S. government does not penalize them for doing so, there really is no incentive for them to stay.
What has developed is a situation where the people at the top are doing quite well, while most Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to make it. There are now about six unemployed Americans for every new job opening in the United States, and the number of “chronically unemployed” is absolutely soaring. There simply are not nearly enough jobs for everyone.
Many of those who are able to get jobs are finding that they are making less money than they used to. In fact, an increasingly large percentage of Americans are working at low wage retail and service jobs.
But you can’t raise a family on what you make flipping burgers at McDonald’s or on what you bring in from greeting customers down at the local Wal-Mart.

The truth is that the middle class in America is dying — and once it is gone it will be incredibly difficult to rebuild.

Abour Us- Fraud Investigations

SRI, is a recognized mortgage investigation firm that specializes in investigating every aspect of your mortgage from the initial application to your current status.  We investigate any laws that may have been broken.  We investigate predatory loans to verify if securitization and foreclosure fraud.  In most cases SRI can prove that the lender or mortgage servicer lacks the legal standing to negotiate a modification or threaten you with foreclosure.  SRI has the ability to show fraud committed by the lender’s attorney and the parties to the foreclosure process.

We conduct legal research into securities laws, foreclosure process investigation, bankruptcy and taxation laws. We use our finding to present a wrongful foreclosure action against the perpitrators.  

FRAUD INVESTIGATIONS

We are a diverse and unaffiliated group of legal researchers, analyst, investigators and attorneys.

We use subpoenas, lawsuits, discovery and many more strategies to get the bank’s attention and let them know that you mean business.
http://www.bklawsuit.com

We are not lawyers and are legal researchers and foreclosure fraud research the laws, investigate the parties of the loan and foreclosure process, and drafting of  complaints in federal district courts or bankruptcy courts. 

What brings us together is our common devotion to you, the consumer. We recognize that living well in America has become increasingly more difficult for the average consumer-a group which is commonly known as the “middle class”.

Typically the roadblocks to financial freedom and stability have proliferated and include rising interest rates, predatory loans, ARM mortgages, inaccurate credit reports, obnoxious and unethical debt collectors and “easy credit: We are here to help educate and guide you through the roadblocks.

Explaining Wall Street Fraud

This article does a fine job of explaining how Wall Street committed fraud in the housing market – not inadvertent oversights or negligent misconduct … fraud.
Here’s the article …
A central question in the financial crisis is whether Wall Street simply made errors of judgment that led to a housing bubble or whether it knowingly broke the law. Did the gun go off accidentally, in other words, or did the shooter aim at the victim’s head? That’s critical to find out because it informs our approach both to fixing the banking industry and to deterring such conduct in future.
New evidence increasingly points to murder, rather than manslaughter. D. Keith Johnson, former president of Clayton Holdings, a company that assessed the quality of mortgages for banks and credit rating agencies, recently told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that he warned these firms that nearly half the loans were duds. Investment banks used them anyway:

Mr. Johnson said he took this data to officials at Standard & Poor’s, Fitch Ratings and to the executive team at Moody’s Investors Service (MCO).
“We went to the ratings agencies and said, ‘Wouldn’t this information be great for you to have as you assign tranche levels of risk?’ ” Mr. Johnson testified last week. But none of the agencies took him up on his offer, he said, indicating that it was against their business interests to be too critical of Wall Street.

Among investment firms, some of the biggest offenders in deliberately using dodgy loans were Deutsche Bank (DB), Morgan Stanley (MS) and Freddie Mac (FMCC). Clayton found that roughly 37 percent of the mortgages Morgan wanted to buy in 2006-07 failed to meet their own underwriting standards. Nevertheless, the New York bank used more than half of those loans in building mortgage-backed securities, apparently without disclosing that to investors. Freddie, which is unlikely ever to repay the billions of dollars it was forced to borrow from taxpayers, used 60 percent of the defective loans.
Wall Street firms didn’t merely ignore such information; they also used it as intel to negotiate better prices on the loans they bought from originators for packaging into CDOs and other mortgage-backed securities, said another Clayton employee.
Such disclosures go beyond undermining financial executives’ claims that they didn’t see the crash coming. They illustrate a pattern of intent by big banks to sell financial products they knew were defective. That’s not a misjudgment — it’s fraud. As a former white-collar prosecutor recently told me:

If you lie to somebody to get them to give you money, you have stolen money from them.

Johnson’s testimony supports other evidence suggesting Wall Street defrauded investors. Banks like Citigroup (C), Goldman Sachs (GS) and Merrill Lynch faked demand for CDOs, or mortgage pools, by creating yet other CDOs to buy up the securities. They also colluded with ratings agencies to misrepresent the creditworthiness of these investments. On the back end of this chain of deception, JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and other industry players appear to be rushing to seize people’s homes by illegally rubber-stamping foreclosure documents.

If it’s hard to accept that fraud was central to the crisis, it’s largely because the monumental scale of the deception is hard to process. See those trees over there? That’s a forest, and it’s burning like cordwood. It’s also because, during the boom, some of the key operating principles underlying the financial system itself were inverted.
Ordinarily, growing demand for mortgages is what creates demand for mortgage-backed securities. During the housing boom, however, that dynamic got reversed — surging demand for securities by Wall Street and investors led to an orgy of bad lending. The cart took the horse on a merry old gallop.
That pattern became hardwired into a financial system, encouraging bad behavior. Laws are broken, ethics (if they exist) smashed to bits. Here’s how the anonymous financial exec who writes over at The Fourteenth Banker put it:

The profits that were generated by this activity dwarf the potential cost. Executives’ incentives are to produce gains today and they do not pay for the risks that are left for tomorrow. The decision to have individual employees sit and sign affidavits that are false was made consciously. Someone decided to save the expense of doing it right. Or someone figured out that the chain of title had already been broken and it is better to whistle past the graveyard and defraud a court, a debtor, an investor, or a shareholder, than it is to do the right thing.
[T]he truth is that decisions to cut corners, commit fraud, abuse clients or mislead investors are generally cognitively rational given the position in which the individual employee is put.

In short, guilty.

Follow the Money

First National Bank of Montgomery,
Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly,
Defendant

JUDGMENT AND DECREE

The above entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury of 12 on December 7, 1968 at 10:00 am. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel, R. Mellby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.

A Jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn to try the issues in the Case. Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for Plaintiff and Defendant testified as the only witness in his own behalf.

Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of Lot 19 Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minn. Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8, 1964 which Plaintiff claimed was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started.

Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry as the consideration for the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964 and alleged failure of the consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff’s sale passed no title to plaintiff.

The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the Note for almost 3 years.

Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about the Consideration and that the Defendant was estopped from doing so.

At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant.

Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of United States and the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota not inconsistent therewith ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1.That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota according to the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.
2.That because of failure of a lawful consideration the Note and Mortgage dated May 8, 1964 are null and void.
3.That the Sheriff’s sale of the above described premises held on June 26, 1967 is null and void, of no effect.
4.That the Plaintiff has no right title or interest in said premises or lien thereon as is above described.
5.That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution and any Minnesota Statute binding the jurisdiction of this Court is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and to the Bill of Rights of the Minnesota Constitution and is null and void and that this Court has jurisdiction to render complete Justice in this Cause.
The following memorandum and any supplementary memorandum made and filed by this Court in support of this Judgment is hereby made a part hereof by reference.

BY THE COURT

Dated December 9, 1968
Justice MARTIN V. MAHONEY
Credit River Township
Scott County, Minnesota

MEMORANDUM

The issues in this case were simple. There was no material dispute of the facts for the Jury to resolve.

Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Ansheuser-Busch Brewing Company v. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318, 46 N.W. 558. The Jury found that there was no consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing.

Even if Defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel as a matter of Law this is no defense to the Plaintiff. The Law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. See sections 50, 51 and 52 of Am Jur 2nd “Actions” on page 584 – “no action will lie to recover on a claim based upon, or in any manner depending upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction or contract to which Plaintiff was a party.”

Plaintiff’s act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not a lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support any thing or upon which any lawful right can be built.

Nothing in the Constitution of the United States limits the jurisdiction of this Court, which is one of original Jurisdiction with right of trial by Jury guaranteed. This is a Common Law action. Minnesota cannot limit or impair the power of this Court to render Complete Justice between the parties. Any provisions in the Constitution and laws of Minnesota which attempt to do so is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and void. No question as to the Jurisdiction of this Court was raised by either party at the trial. Both parties were given complete liberty to submit any and all facts to the Jury, at least in so far as they saw fit.

No complaint was made by Plaintiff that Plaintiff did not receive a fair trial. From the admissions made by Mr. Morgan the path of duty was direct and clear for the Jury. Their Verdict could not reasonably have been otherwise. Justice was rendered completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, freely and without purchase, conformable to the laws in this Court of December 7, 1968.

BY THE COURT

December 9, 1968
Justice Martin V. Mahoney
Credit River Township
Scott County, Minnesota.

Note: It has never been doubted that a Note given on a Consideration which is prohibited by law is void. It has been determined, independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under the license of an enemy is illegal. The emission of Bills of Credit upon the books of these private Corporations for the purpose of private gain is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States and is unlawful. See Craig v. Mo. 4 Peters Reports 912. This Court can tread only that path which is marked out by duty. M.V.M.

JEROME DALY had his own information to reveal about this case, which establishes that between his own revealed information and the fact that Justice Martin V. Mahoney was murdered 6 months after he entered the Credit River Decision on the books of the Court, why the case was never legally overturned, nor can it be.

JEROME DALY’S OWN ENTRY
REGARDING JUSTICE MAHONEY’S MEMORANDUM

FORWARD: The above Judgment was entered by the Court on December 9, 1968. The issue there was simple – Nothing in the law gave the Banks the right to create money on their books. The Bank filed a Notice of Appeal within 10 days. The Appeals statutes must be strictly followed, otherwise the District Court does not acquire Jurisdiction upon Appeal. To effect the Appeal the Bank had to deposit $2.00 with the Clerk within 10 days for payment to the Justice when he made his return to the District Court. The Bank deposited two $1.00 Federal Reserve Notes. The Justice refused the Notes and refused to allow the Appeal upon the grounds that the Notes were unlawful and void for any purpose. The Decision is addressed to the legality of these Notes and the Federal Reserve System. The Cases of Edwards v. Kearnzey and Craig vs Missouri set out in the decision should be studied very carefully as they bear on the inviolability of Contracts. This is the Crux of the whole issue. Jerome Daly.

SPECIAL NOTATION. Justice Mahoney denied the use of Federal Reserve Notes, since they represent debt instruments, not true money, from being used to pay for the appeal process itself. In order to get this overturned, since the bank’s appeal without the payment being recognized was out of time, it would have required that the Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota bring a Title 42, Section 1983 action against the judicial act of Justice Mahoney for a violation of the Constitution of the United States under color of law or authority, and if successful, have the case remanded back to him to either retry the case or allow the appeal to go through. But the corrupt individuals behind the bank(s) were unable to ever elicit such a decision from any federal court due to the fact that because of their vile hatred for him and what he had done to them and their little Queen’s Scheme, had him murdered (same as them murdering him) just about 6 months later. And so, the case stands, just as it was. Amazingly, if they hadn’t been so arrogant about the value of the dollar.

The New Sheriff on Wall Street

Wall Street’s New Nightmare: The Next Wave Of Mortgage-Backed Securities Claims
Buyer Can’t Sue After Bad Foreclosure Sale

A Massachusetts man who bought property in a faulty foreclosure sale isn’t the true owner and so doesn’t have the right to sue over it, the state’s high court ruled.
The Supreme Judicial Court, which in January found that banks can’t foreclose on a house if they don’t own the mortgage, went one step further in a closely watched case and said a sale after that foreclosure doesn’t transfer the property. Therefore, the buyer couldn’t bring his court action against a previous owner, the court ruled.

The high court upheld a lower-court decision that, the buyer of residential property in Haverhill, Massachusetts, never owned it because U.S. Bancorp foreclosed before it got the mortgage. Today’s ruling could have implications in the foreclosure crisis, in which banks are accused of clouding home titles through sloppy transferring of mortgages.

“By alleging that U.S. Bank was not the assignee of the mortgage at the time of the purported foreclosure, Bevilacqua is necessarily asserting that the power of sale was not complied with, that the purported sale was invalid, and that his grantor’s title was defective,” the court wrote. “In light of its defective title, the intention of U.S. Bank to transfer the property to Bevilacqua is irrelevant and he cannot have become the owner of the property pursuant to the quitclaim deed.”

This reaffirms the concept that a defective foreclosure deed operates as an assignment of the mortgage and if you can trace the ownership of the mortgage, that person would have the right to re-foreclose.

The state high court’s January ruling in the earlier case, U.S. Bank v. Ibanez, didn’t address the status of third-party buyers who purchase property from someone who conducted an invalid foreclosure.
The Mortgage Bankers Association and the American Land Title Association wrote friend-of-the-court briefs against the lower-court Bevilacqua decision. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley wrote one arguing the decision should be upheld. The court heard oral arguments May 2.

‘Domino Effect’
“In the rush to foreclose, the banks’ reckless origination and foreclosure practices have created a domino effect that has harmed Massachusetts homeowners as well as third-party purchasers,” Coakley said in a statement today. “This is yet another clear demonstration that the only way we are going to restore a healthy economy is to address the foreclosure crisis and hold the banks accountable for their actions.”
Bevilacqua bought the property in 2006 from U.S. Bancorp, which oversees the mortgage-backed trust containing the loan. The bank isn’t a party to the case.

The court ruled that not only doesn’t he own it, but he has no standing under that procedural mechanism to have the court decree him as the owner. It’s another Ibanez case, where an innocent person bought at foreclosure and he’s left high and dry.

One option is to track down the previous owner and get a deed from that person. Bevilacqua never located the previous owner. The situation is especially difficult for owners without title insurance.

The Ibanez and Bevilacqua cases both originated before Massachusetts Land Court Judge Keith C. Long in Boston.
Bevilacqua went to Long’s court to force the original owner to say whether he had a claim on the property. A city assessment website lists four condominiums at the location with four separate owners and a total value of $600,300.

In August 2010, Long ruled that Bevilacqua wasn’t the property’s owner and didn’t have standing to inquire about claims. U.S. Bancorp conducted an invalid foreclosure because it didn’t properly own the mortgage when it sold the property to Bevilacqua. The mortgage was assigned to it after the foreclosure sale by Merscorp Inc.’s Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, a national database of mortgages.

‘Invalid Foreclosure’
All Bevilacqua had was a deed from an invalid foreclosure sale, the judge said.
The servicer of the mortgage-backed trust the loan was in would have handled the foreclosure and sale, not U.S. Bancorp, Teri Charest, a spokeswoman for the Minneapolis-based bank, said in January.
In his appeal, Bevilacqua argued that Long confused requirements for the law used to prove one’s title to a property with those for the law he sued under. Through that law, the so- called try-title statute, one party seeks to force another to assert or waive a potential claim on the property.

Bevilacqua argued that he had the right to bring the try- title case because he had “record title” to the property through the deed he got from U.S. Bancorp.

Justice Francis X. Spina, who wrote the opinion, said it had been more than a century since the court had addressed the question of standing in try-title cases.

The case is Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez, 10880, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (Boston).

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

After months of wrangling with the obvious due process issues involved in allowing a Trustee on the Deed of Trust to send a Notice of Default, Notice of Default and to file an eviction (unlawful detainer), it has occurred to me that the reasoning behind “non-judicial” process can be turned on its head in favor of the homeowner.

The reason why non-judicial foreclosure is NOT a denial of due process is two-fold:

(1) public policy and judicial economy favors it because until the mortgage meltdown era, nearly all judicial foreclosures had the same pattern, to wit: Suit in Foreclosure with Summons, No Answer by the the borrower, clerk’s default entered, Motion for Entry of Default Final Judgment, Judgment entered, Sale date is set, Auction on the courthouse steps and that’s it. It was a rare case in which the borrower had any legitimate defenses and virtually impossible for the foreclosing party to be the wrong party bring the suit.

The title record was clear, the bank held the note and mortgage, and but for some relatively minor TILA or RESPA issues it was highly unusual for predatory lending to be a factor in the case, and even if it was, the borrower simply didn’t raise it. Today, none of those assumption are true. Virtually all mortgages between 2001-2008 were between an undisclosed investor or group of investors and the borrower who was funded from proceeds of sales of unregulated securities. Everyone in between was merely an undisclosed conduit or middleman collecting an undisclosed fee as the money from the investor was parsed out for fees, profits, insurance premiums, rebates, kickbacks and of course funding of the alleged loan transaction. None of these middlemen have any loss, claim, or right to foreclose property and all of them have been superceded by the authority of the holders of mortgage backed securities.

Even the Trustee on the Deed of Trust has been superceded by at least two other Trustees. They don’t have the note, they don’t have the full record of all the parties who collected fees or paid the principal or interest on the note and mortgage, and they don’t really have any stake in the outcome of the foreclosure — because they didn’t fund the loan or lose any money.

(2) Under the legal theories that purport to support non-judicial foreclosure, it is said that non judicial foreclosure is a matter of private contract and not state action. Thus, the theory goes, parties are free to contract amongst themselves for authority to sell the property when the loan is reported by some party (alleging to be the beneficiary under the Deed of Trust). So anything the Trustee does that is wrong is really a matter of breach of contract, not violation of due process. If the Trustee on the deed of trust lacks authority, if the beneficiary is out of business and some other party is alleging it is now the new beneficiary, if anyone with or without knowledge alleges that the loan is in default and they are wrong or acting wrongfully, it is a matter of private contract, not subject to the rules of civil procedure governing the conduct of lawsuits in state or Federal Court.

It is a contract authorizing “self-help”. Thus I conclude that the homeowner is equally entitles to utilize self-help to preserve his interest in his real property. Of course filing a notice of intent to preserve interest in real property, a notice of non-compliance with statute, or some other instrument that clouds title could force the conversion to a judicial foreclosure where the Trustee and beneficiary would be required to step forward and reveal the true holder in due course, account for the flow of the funds paid thus far, etc. But adding the force of Federal Law (TILA, RESPA and HOEPA), and applicable state laws on deceptive lending practices, and applicable common law to the permission to use self-help gives the homeowner greater power than the entities that seek to use self-help to foreclose.

By filing a Qualified Written Request, Federal Law requires an answer and resolution. Barring that resolution, and using the common law doctrine of tacit procuration as a tool of enforcement at the end of the QWR, the homeowner has a legal right under color of state and federal law to file an instrument or reconveyance as attorney in fact for the “beneficiary” of record — forcing the “pretender lender” to either back off or prove their case.

REMEMBER, YOUR GOAL IS NOT TO ALLEGE THAT YOU DON’T OWE THE MONEY AT ALL. YOUR GOAL IS TO ALLEGE THAT IF YOU DO OWE MONEY IT IS NOT TO THE TRUSTEE OR THE PARTY PRETENDING TO BE THE BENEFICIARY. BASED UPON THE SEC FILINGS THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT YOUR LOAN WAS HANDLED AND TRANSFERRED, SOLD, SLICED AND DICED MANY TIMES. DESPITE THE CURRENT TREND OF COUNTRYWIDE AND OTHERS TO SAY THIS INFORMATION IS CONFIDENTIAL, THERE ARE VERY FEW JUDGES THAT WOULD AFFIRM THAT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KNOW THE IDENTITY OF YOUR REAL LENDER. YOUR POINT IN GOING TO COURT IS NOT TO SAY THAT YOU AUTOMATICALLY WIN AND THEY LOSE. YOUR POINT IS TO SAY THAT YOU WISH TO BE HEARD ON THE MERITS OF THE DEFENSES, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS YOU HAVE AND THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE THE RIGHT OF DISCOVERY ALL UNDER THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE