866-216-4126

TONIGHT'S SHOW CANCELED DUE TO KIDNEY STONE – TUNE IN NEXT WEEK!

TONIGHT'S SHOW CANCELED DUE TO KIDNEY STONE – TUNE IN NEXT WEEK!

Contribute to the discussion!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Our Blog


Subscribe to our Blog

* indicates required

Categories

15 thoughts on “TONIGHT'S SHOW CANCELED DUE TO KIDNEY STONE – TUNE IN NEXT WEEK!”

  5. greg

    posted on The Lou Bridges Show this evening….

    “a man” (american) can ‘state a claim’ (not complaint) on his own behalf (sui juris, not PRO SE) in court and can only BE THERE (as in English ‘first person’) and cannot “appear” – because he is real – (even though the judge ignores him)

    However, an ENTITY CORPUS must whine (complain) through an attorney and cannot BE or appear in court without one

    every american should learn how to separate the presumed joinder between themselves and their government appointed ENTITY CORPUS, so that they might proceed at law OR equity with firm footing on the land and not be treated like a CORPORATION…

    this causes all actions against “man” by ENTITIES CORPUS, to fail, because there is then no level playing field between the parties, which justice requires…

    lawman@gmx.us

    Reply
  8. greg

    and this!

    they’re goin’ down… Dominoes ain’t for Pizza anymore

    From Neva

    A L E R T | Paatalo v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank et al | TILA RESCISSION | ~OPINION AND ORDER 11-12-2015~ | M-T-D….DENIED | The Supreme Court implicitly rejected defendant’s argument when it declared “rescission is effected” at the time of notice . . . . . The question here is what happens when the unwinding process is not completed and **neither party files suit** within the TILA statute of limitations.

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

    WILLIAM J. PAATALO,
    Plaintiff,
    vs.
    JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
    Defendant.
    Case No. 6:15-cv-01420-AA
    _________________________
    OPINION AND ORDER
    Case 6:15-cv-01420-AA Document 12 Filed 11/12/15 Page 11 of 18

    Defendant argues this reading of Jesinoski cannot be correct
    because it means “a borrower’s mere notice of rescission . . .
    automatically converts a secured lender into an unsecured lender,
    leaving the lender with no other remedy{?!} but to file suit to
    challenge the validity of a borrower’s rescission.”
    …..The Supreme Court implicitly rejected defendant’s
    argument when it declared “rescission is effected” at the time of
    notice, without regard to whether a borrower files a lawsuit within
    the three-year period.

    PAGE 11 – OPINION AND ORDER
    Case 6:15-cv-01420-AA Document 12 Filed 11/12/15 Page 18 of 18

    The timing of Jesinoski is also significant. Although
    foreclosing trustees and purchasers at trustee’s sales have a
    significant interest in finality, consumers have a countervailing
    interest in avoiding wrongful foreclosure. Jesinoski revealed the
    majority of federal courts had “misinterpreted the will of the
    enacting Congress,” Rivers, 511 U.S. at 313 n.12, in allocating to
    borrowers the burden to go to court to enforce their statutory
    rescission rights under TILA. Further factual development is
    necessary to determine what effect that revelation should have on
    the property rights of subsequent buyers of the property.

    Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied with leave for defendant to
    renew its arguments about the effect of the trustee’s sale.

    CONCLUSION
    Defendant’s motion to dismiss (doc. 6) is DENIED. Defendant’s
    request for oral argument is DENIED as unnecessary.

    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Dated this 12th Day November 2015.

    Reply
  9. greg

    credit to Eric Main for catching this quickly!

    Neil – this must be you next post as soon as you feel better!

    EPIC – Courage for “Cowardly Lions” [lawyers] waiting for proof that you can stop dragging your clients into loan modifications and really fight for them!
    ———————————————-

    WOLF vs WELLS FARGO | Wells Fargo Must Pay $5.4M In Robosigning Foreclosure Row
    Marie McDonnell
    Below, I have attached the jury award from the Wolf v. Wells Fargo trial. The jury concluded its deliberations on Tuesday afternoon, November 10th.

    It is my belief that this is the first jury verdict of its kind where the jury was asked to determine whether a robo-signed Transfer of Lien (assignment of mortgage) was fraudulent, and on that basis, award damages.

    The jury awarded the Wolfs $190,000 in actual and emotional distress damages; $190,000 in attorneys’ fees — which is sufficient to take them through an appeal all the way up to the Texas Supreme Court; and $5 million in punitive damages to be paid equally by Wells Fargo and Carrington.

    Plaintiffs David and Mary Ellen Wolf testified on their own behalf, and I testified as their expert.

    I explained to the jury the sequence of “true sales” that were necessary to properly securitize the Wolfs’ mortgage loan using my “Securitization Flow Chart” which I have attached below.

    Once the jury understood the requirements of the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, they were able to see why the Transfer of Lien executed by Tom Croft was fraudulent on the face of the document.
    The Defendants called robo-signer Tom Croft and Clayton Gordon as witnesses, both of whom are employed by Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC.

    The jury also found that even though Wells Fargo Bank was in physical possession of the original note, it did not own the mortgage loan because it was never securitized into the Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2006-NC3 over which Wells Fargo serves as Trustee.

    The jury verdict, and especially their finding that the Transfer of Lien was fraudulent, supports my findings in all of the registry of deeds audits I have conducted for:

    John L. O’Brien, Register of Deeds, Essex Southern District, MA
    Nancy J. Becker, Recorder of Deeds, Montgomery County, PA
    Seattle City Council, Seattle, WA
    In re: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Litigation, Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties, AZ

    The jury verdict in the Wolf v. Wells Fargo trial is epic. Among other things, it demonstrates that when given all the facts, average people can distinguish the difference between “deadbeat borrowers” and a family who fell upon hard times and always tried to do the right thing.

    This case should send a message of hope for others; it also provides a road map for cutting through the complexities of modern finance to arrive at a just result.

    – See more at: http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2015/11/13/wolf-vs-wells-fargo-wells-fargo-must-pay-5-4m-in-robosigning-foreclosure-row/#sthash.Ao636kLJ.dpuf

    Reply
  11. Trespass Unwanted

    Be Well Neil.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

    Reply
  12. michael keane

    A fine gentleman asked me to post this, as follows:

    AFFIDAVIT OF RESCISSION
    STATE OF GEORGIA )
    :ss
    COUNTY OF )

    BEFORE ME the undersigned authority, duly authorized to administer

    oaths, personally appeared NAME, to me well known, or who

    identified self to me with Georgia Driver’s License #______________, who,

    after being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:

    1. That I am a legal adult over the age of eighteen (18) years, and that I

    make this affidavit for the purposes expressed herein.

    2. That I am the fee simple owner of certain real property, located in

    _______ County, Georgia and legally described as Lot 9, Block 62 of

    City____, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 18

    of the Public Records of ______ County, Georgia, also known as 1413 North

    Andrews Avenue, City_____, Georgia 33311.

    3. That I own the property by virtue of a Warranty Deed issued to me at the

    time I purchased the property.

    4. That on June 1, 2015 I rescinded the mortgage on the subject property

    pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act, a Federal law, and that the Note and Security

    Deed has been rescinded and is null and void.

    5. By recording this Affidavit of Rescission in the Public Records of

    _____ County, Georgia, I hereby put all parties and the public on notice that the

    Security Deed recorded on said property has been rescinded and is null and void.

    6. Pursuant to Federal law, all parties notified of said rescission who were

    sent and received said notice, had twenty (20) days from their receipt of the

    rescission letter notice to dispute said rescission. By operation of law, said

    rescission becomes final if not disputed within the time period set forth above.

    7. That I make this affidavit of my own personal knowledge of the facts

    as set forth in this affidavit.

    8. That I make this affidavit under oath and under penalty of perjury.

    FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

    SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me, the undersigned authority,

    this ______day of June, 2015.

    ________________________________ _________________________
    Witness Witness

    ________________________________ _________________________
    Printed name of witness Printed name of witness

    ________________________________ _________________________
    Notary Public, State of Florida At Large Name _______________, Affiant

    My commission expires:

    Notary Seal

    Reply

Contribute to the discussion!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Want help ?

Our services are completely confidential and use time proven methods for uncovering how best to fight illegal Foreclosures. Don’t lose your home!
Contact Us >

follow livinglies.me blog

Join 5,807 other subscribers

Scroll to Top