Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts

Sunday, August 14, 2011

FEW JUDGES WANT TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE


FRAUD: ONCE UPON A TIME YOU COULD NOT KEEP THE BENEFITS AND YOU WENT TO JAIL

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

NOW WE BLAME THE VICTIM
TO THE VICTOR GO THE SPOILS
Submitted BY JOAN on 2011/08/11 at 12:43 am
As I read this blog, I was reminded of the centuries old legal principal, Fraus omnia vitiate, or “Fraud vitiates everything it touches.”
Here is more food for thought:
• Boyce’s Executors v. Grundy, 3 Pet. (28 US) 210 (1830), “Fraud vitiates everything”
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0824002.doc
• United States v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61, 70 (1878) “Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments.”
• Ellett v Ellett Virginia 0824-00-2 (March 13, 2001) — a property settlement overturned and specifically cites Throckmorton.
• In Re Jose Alejandro Penafiel, Relator, No. 05-021316 Texas Supreme Court (2001) “Texas law holds that fraud vitiates every transaction tainted by the fraud”
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/05/05021303.pdf (Page 24)
• Nudd v. Burrows, 91 US 426 (1875), “Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters”
• Dakota Partners v. Glopak, Inc, 2001 ND 168 North Dakota Supreme Court.
http://www.court.state.nd.us/court/opinions/20010092.htm
And one more a bit far removed; nevertheless relevant:
• Lazarus Estates Ltd -v- Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702 from the UK.
“No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgement of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved, it vitiates judgements, contracts and all transactions whatsoever; see as to deeds……. So, here, I am of opinion that if this declaration is proved to have been false and fraudulent, it is a nullity and void……”
(case excerpt from John Washburn, VoteTrustUSA, Voting Technology Task Force August 09, 2006)

3 Responses

  1. To lies
    The problem is that it isn’t as simple as that. Case in point: when I refinanced my house, I provided a signed tax form authorizing the lender to obtain my taxes for the previous 3 years. I also gave him specific amounts as to my monthly average incomes and I was completely honest, since I know taht the information was readily available.
    When I signed the ton of papers on my kitchen table, I initialed without realizing it at the time (after a while, you can’t see straight any longer) a document showing that I earned $96,000/year (which I never did). Because that refinancing was a variable interest, ARM with balloon disaster I hadn’t understood, I was able to rescind it when if became patently obvious that I had been conned, after weeks of a nasty fight against the lender, and refinance for fix interest rate, no balloon, no ARM, putting me almost back where I would have been, had I never refinanced at all. However, the second ton of papers I signed, undoing the first refinancing, contained (once again) that tax authorization and… a doc I initialed unbeknownst to me, showing my earnings at $120,000/year!!! Needless to say, my actual taxes were never requiested by the lender from the IRS but it doesn’t matter: I signed a doc with fraudulent declarations, unbeknownst to me and the argument will be made until the cows come home. Luckily for me, the same lender completed both stacks of documents within a few weeks of each other and a solid argument can be made that the lender intentionally fudged the numbers to get commissions and what not.
    Banks have told the judges: “Your honor, that borrower lied about his/her income in order to obtain a mortgage he/she wasn’t entitled to and couldn’t afford”. And because those docs held by the lender do contain your initials or signature, regardless what the bank subsequently did, a judge can feel taht he has a legal obligation to find that fraud was committed… by you, in the first place! No one in the transaction has clean hands and the judge may rule for the party he believes to have cleaner hands than the other or dismiss the case with or without prejudice. For right now, judges still believe that 2 rational sides were negotiating a mortage, both with the same level of sophistication, good faith, expertise, etc. They haven’t caught up yet on the extent of the deceipt and the fact that homeowners were completely unprepared to deal with that monumental, evil machine. And it appears more and more that some of those were… themselves judges. Now they have something and someone to relate to…
    Judges’ hands are tied by the heap of existing laws, many of them contradicting each other, and each attorney’s job is nothing more than pulling out the of the books those laws which will better demonstrate the validity of arguments and position. So, when it appears that a judge ruled in favor of the wrong party, do not automatically assume that he/she was bought by banks, biased against honeowners, crooked, etc. Judges are as flabbergasted by the gall banks display and cannot, in their wildest imagination, believe that anyone would have the nerve to flaunt so blatantly its bad faith, dishonesty and lack of consideration for the law. I would vouch to predict that, in the next 6 to 12 months, we’ll see a radical shift in judges decisions and it will no longer be at the advantage of banks to seek cover of the courts, anywhere in the country, in state or federal courts. The rulings of the past 2 years tend to prove that judges have slowly wised up. Give them the time to get over the shock of having been so completely irrelevant and completely played by the banks! And if, indeed, many of them are crooked and were on banks bankroll, give them the opportunity the lose it all and they will find religion in no time.
    Judges are as human as homeowners. The only non-human thing in that whole mess is banks. They can’t prevail. Impossible. Question of time. So, rather than antagonizing judges by lending them motives thay probably don’t have, we need to see that they were as duped by the system than we were. As I said, question of time. And to speed up the process, I keep advocating that everyone stop paying anything he/she owns to any big bank and turn to credit unions. Even if your credit get ruins, big deal! A common ill no longer carries any stigma. The way I see it, a good credit rating is only good to the extent that you want to get something on credit.

  2. so why are judges not following their own law??? that they all endocrined?? dont hey daily use case law to validate their ruling??? where are these rules when a bank shows up with fraud. FRAUD INVALIDATES THE TRANSACTION.. ok so the courts ar not following their own law? how do we recall our entire justice system in every state?????\

  3. But wait, You forgot about a company like Fidelity and its subsidarie Lender Processing Service that can fabricate False Representations with the greatest of skill making the true facts disappear .
    There is no such word like Fraud in Fidelity’s vocabulary as they keep reinventing ways to profit from false and forged documents.
    Fraud is good for Fidelity it keeps making them money.



Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, August 6, 2011

Friday, August 5, 2011

STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD KEEPS YOU UP WITH ALL THE IMPORTANT FORECLOSURE NEWS

                         _____________________________________________________________________________________
 
Stop Foreclosure Fraud presents the following...
 
  1. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA GEORGE M. FOUST AND BECKY H. FOUST, AS HUSBAND AND WIFE, Appellants, vs. WELLS FARGO, N.A., STATE OF INCORPORATION PRESENTLY UNKNOWN; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; AND AMERICAN HOME SERVICING MORTGAGES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, Respondents. ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND This is an appeal from a district court order dismissing a complaint as to respondents, certified as final under [...]
  1. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: MICHELLE DeMARCO 850.487.5833 AUGUST 4, 2011 SENATOR ELEANOR SOBEL, REP. DARREN SOTO PROBE DEEPER INTO FIRINGS OF ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL Seek details under Florida’s public records laws of relationships between Tallahassee/mortgage service company under investigation TALLAHASSEE – State Senator Eleanor Sobel (D-Hollywood) and Representative Darren Soto (D-Orlando) on Thursday launched a probe of their own into [...]
  1. NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Web site are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. This preliminary material will be removed from the Web site once the advance sheets of the Official Reports are published. If you find a typographical [...]
  1. WSJ- Mortgage insurer PMI Group Inc. warned Thursday that it could be forced to stop selling new coverage, sending shares plunging. The company, which has reported about $3 billion in losses since the fourth quarter of 2007 and the start of the housing crisis, said a backup plan intended to allow the company to stay [...]
  1. LA Times- California Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris has subpoenaed Citigroup Inc. and its banking subsidiary, Citibank, ordering the two entities to answer questions regarding the selling and marketing of mortgage-backed securities in the Golden State, a person familiar with the investigation said. The person, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the [...]
  1. First broke on this site last year, a Bank of America executive, Linda DeMartini, testified that Countrywide routinely did not convey crucial documents for loans sold to investors in KEMP v. Countrywide. HuffPO- WASHINGTON — New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman asked a state judge to reject a proposed $8.5 billion settlement agreement over [...]
  1. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK In the matter of the application of THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (as Trustee under various Pooling and Servicing Agreements and Indenture Trustee under various Indentures), Petitioner Counter-Defendant, -and- BlackRock Financial Management Inc. (intervenor), Kore Advisors, L.P. (intervenor), Maiden Lane, LLC (intervenor), Maiden Lane II, LLC (intervenor), Maiden Lane III, LLC [...]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Legal information is NOT legal advice.
The information herein should NOT be taken as legal advice and is NOT a substitute for the assistance of a licensed advisor.
I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY.
*posts are scheduled in advance and may not be in real time*
© 2010-11 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved. 
 

SSD, LLC, PO BOX 11394, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33339, USA 

To unsubscribe or change subscriber options visit:
http://www.aweber.com/z/r/?jKyMTEyMbLQs7GysbMxsrLRGtIyMjIwsDBzM


Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, August 1, 2011

LEGAL.COM EXCELLENT BLOG FOR CASE LAW





McLEOD v. BANKIER
ROBERT S. McLEOD, Appellant,

v.


MARVIN ADAM BANKIER, an individual,


 SCOTT ALLEN ELK, an individual,


 ERIC CHRISTU, an individual,


 and ELK BANKIER CHRISTU, P.A.,1 Appellees.



No. 4D10-37.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.


June 8, 2011.

Diane H. Tutt of Diane H. Tutt, P.A., Davie, and G. Ware Cornell, Jr., of Cornell & Associates, P.A., Weston, for appellant.

Robert M. KleinHouston S. Park and Jeanette A. Bellon of Stephens Lynn Klein, P.L., West Palm Beach, for appellees, Marvin Adam BankierEric Christu and Elk Bankier Christu, P.A.

Robert McLeod timely appeals the final summary judgment in favor of Marvin Adam Bankier, Eric Christu, and Elk Bankier Christu, P.A. (collectively "Elk Bankier"). We affirm because, as a matter of law, the trial court correctly determined that the applicable statute of limitations had expired before McLeod brought suit for legal malpractice against his former attorneys.

The following recitation constitutes the undisputed material facts upon which the trial court relied in reaching its conclusion. In 1998, McLeod hired attorney Thomas Tew to represent him in a claim against Fidelity Investments ("Fidelity") for executing a wrongful margin call on his securities account, which resulted in the liquidation of his account. That case was ultimately settled, and thesettlement agreement contained a general release in favor of Fidelity. Although not set forth in the settlement agreement, it was McLeod's understanding that his account balance would be restored to the status quo ante. When that did not occur, he began to express concerns to Tew that Fidelity had not returned the funds to his account. The funds were never returned, and, in March of 2000, Tew severed his representation of McLeod.

In December 2002, McLeod hired Elk Bankier to file a claim against Fidelity through the National Association of Securities Dealers ("NASD"). McLeod did not retain Elk Bankier to pursue a legal malpractice claim against Tew. Elk Bankier filed McLeod's claim through the NASD's arbitration process. In November 2003, the arbitration panel ruled in favor of Fidelity and against McLeod, dismissing McLeod's claim. Thereafter, Elk Bankier raised the possibility of McLeod suing Tew on a theory of professional negligence based on Tew's recommendation that McLeod sign the settlement agreement with Fidelity. The firm referred McLeod to another attorney who specialized in legal malpractice. That attorney advised McLeod that he had no valid claim against his former legal counsel. In February 2004, Elk Bankier ceased to represent McLeod.

In 2004, McLeod sought the legal services of attorney William Isenberg to continue pursuing his claim against Fidelity. Attorney Isenberg recommended pursuing a legal malpractice claim against Tew rather than pursuing an appeal of the NASD arbitration panel's ruling. McLeod ignored attorney Isenberg's advice and took no action against any of his former attorneys until his filing of the malpractice action against Elk Bankier in January of 2008.

In his complaint, McLeod alleged that Elk Bankier negligently allowed the two-year statute of limitations to expire on his legal malpractice claim against Tew. In its motion for summary judgment, Elk Bankier argued, among other things, that the two-year statute of limitations on McLeod's claim against Tew began to run on the date Tew terminated his relationship with McLeod (2000), but certainly no later than the date of the adverse NASD arbitration decision (2003). Accordingly, even under the most liberal application of the facts, McLeod had until November of 2005 to file an action against Tew.

Our standard of review on orders granting summary judgment is de novo. Furtado v. Yun Chung Law, 51 So.3d 1269, 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Summary judgment should be granted `"only where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" Id. at 1274 (quoting Cohen v. Arvin, 878 So.2d 403, 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)).
























Enhanced by Zemanta