New Strategies: Request for Comments from Attorneys and Interested Parties

May 15, 2019

Please address comments suggestions, case law and statutes to the following email address:

I am currently looking at a few new strategies. I will briefly outline them here not as recommendations but as possibilities that I think deserve exploration. As part of the collaborative effort of the LivingLies blog started in 2007 I am again asking for feedback as I analyze these strategies for legal foundation and likelihood of traction in Federal or State Court.

RECENT QUOTE: “The document which I signed as a Mortgage was in fact an Initial Intent to Issue Mortgage-Backed Securities using my name, my home, my signature and my reputation as a collateral to sell and resell myriads of times by all possible companies, without any disclosures to me and without my consent to be sold like a cow.

“Of course nobody disclosed me profits received from selling my home and my private information several times a day; and make millions by trading on my name and reputation.”
1. QUESTIONS: ARE HOMEOWNERS IN SIMILAR POSITIONS ENTITLED TO RECOVER A ROYALTY FOR UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THEIR NAME UNDER THEORIES OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT?
2. CAN THIS BE PLED IN RECOUPMENT IN JUDICIAL FORECLOSURES?
3. WOULD SUCH PLEADING OPEN DISCOVERY TO FACTS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE NOT BE ALLOWED?
4. DOES THE TRUE NATURE OF THE MORTGAGE TRANSACTION NEGATE THE FORMAL MORTGAGE STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENTS IN A COURT OF EQUITY OR LAW?
5. ARE THERE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY ARISING FROM CONTINUED TRADING OF SECURITIES THAT USE THE HOMEOWNER’S NAME AND FINANCIAL DATA AS FOUNDATION FOR THE VALUE OF THE TRADE?
6. DO HOMEOWNERS HAVE ANY STANDING TO BRING CLAIMS FOR SECURITIES VIOLATIONS?
7. IS THERE A CREDIBLE BASIS FOR ASSERTING MISAPPROPRIATION OF THE NAME OF THE BORROWER UNDER FALSE PRETENSES?
8. WHAT RIGHTS OF ACTION MIGHT CREDIBLY ACCRUE TO THE HOMEOWNERS/BORROWERS UNDER PRIVACY STATUTES?
It has been obvious for at least 10 years that fabricated notes, allonges and assignments have been routinely fabricated, forged, robo-signed, created and utilized for the purpose of depriving homeowners of title to their property. QUESTIONS:
1. WHAT TRACTION COULD A HOMEOWNER ACHIEVE BY ALLEGING UTTERANCE AND RECORDING OF A FALSE INSTRUMENT?
2. UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD THE USE OF SUCH DOCUMENTS CONSTITUTE PERJURY?
3. IF THE FABRICATION OCCURRED WITHIN A LAW OFFICE OR AT THEIR INSTRUCTION OR WITH THEIR CONSENT UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES HAS THE LAW OFFICE UTTERED A FALSE INSTRUMENT?
4. HAS THE LAW OFFICE COMMITTED OR SUBORNED PERJURY?
5. IF THE NOTE WAS DESTROYED AND THE “ORIGINAL” PRODUCED IN COURT WAS THEREFORE A REPRODUCTION TO APPEAR AS AN ORIGINAL WHAT ARE THE ETHICAL DUTIES AND LEGAL LIABILITIES OF THE LAWYER PROFFERING SUCH EVIDENCE?
6. IF THE ALLONGE WAS PREPARED WITHIN THE LAW OFFICE OR AT THE DIRECTION OF THE LAW OFFICE AND NOT IN CONNECTION WITH ANY TRANSACTION IN THE REAL WORLD IN WHICH THE NOTE WAS PURCHASED, WHAT ARE THE ETHICAL DUTIES AND LEGAL LIABILITIES OF THE LAWYER PROFFERING SUCH EVIDENCE?
One of my jobs as a legal consultant to homeowners and lawyers across the country is to perform what I call “legal proctology” — attempting to undo the errors in the file committed by omission or inclusion of facts important to the defense of property against which foreclosure has been initiated. Clients are forever telling me about the mistakes their lawyers made, many of which were not mistakes. QUESTIONS:
1. UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES CAN CLAIMS OF “INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL” CREDIBLY BE USED TO GAIN TRACTION IN REVERSING THE PATH TO FORECLOSURE, SALE OR EVICTION?
2. THE COROLLARY QUESTION IS WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL HAS A DUTY TO REPORT WHAT HE EARNESTLY BELIEVES TO BE CONDUCT BY THE FORECLOSURE MILL THAT VIOLATES ETHICAL STANDARDS AND DISCIPLINARY RULES?
3. AND THE LAST QUESTION IS IN CASES FOR MONEY DAMAGES BROUGHT BY HOMEOWNERS WHETHER LITIGATION IMMUNITY SHOULD BE ATTACKED IN FAILED FORECLOSURES WHERE SOME OR ALL OF THE ABOVE ELEMENTS ARE PRESENT — AS TO THE FORECLOSURE MILL, THEIR STATED CLIENT, THEIR ACTUAL CLIENT, THE STATED TRUSTEE, OR THE STATED SERVICER IF THOSE ASSERTIONS WERE COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED?