Foreclosure Hamlet

Supporting, Informing & Connecting People in Foreclosure

SUE YOUR MILL ... (w/case law and def.)

                                            LOANS DESIGNED TO FAIL

It is now more than evident that subprime loans, or any mortgage loans, were designed, or had no option but, to fail so that money could be made throughout the process by all involved then finally on insurance covering the REMIC, based on original loan amount, as well as CDS's (credit default swaps) the property retained and sold once more into the scam. "Gee Mom .. all the kids were doing it" is hardly an excuse and I urge everyone whether still in your home and fighting or wrongfully/illegally foreclosed to read what is here and take action against those who have caused you harm.



                                 /////// FREE LEGAL ADVICE SITES ///////






                                             LEGAL RESEARCH SITES


                                                       Foreclosure in Michigan

                                     Residential Landlord‐ Tenant Law Benchbook

The Residential Landlord‐Tenant Law Benchbook is a comprehensive publication intended to provide judges with a readily accessible source of both substantive and procedural law relevant to landlord‐tenant proceedings. The benchbook primarily addresses residential landlord‐ tenant law, but it also offers a broad discussion of land contracts and mortgages—issues district courts may be faced with in the course of adjudicating landlord‐tenant matters.


                                    (should link not work please enter manually)



Then see here, UNCONSCIONABILITY :  





Mortgage Fraud - Part 1 of 6 - Dateline NBC:

Full coverage 60 Minutes on the financial crisis:

For a broader understanding of what transpired and continues to this day see here:

Foreclosure Mill Fraud Busted.  How MILLs are making money:

Homeowners, advocates want bank reps jailed for foreclosure fraud:

Survey of State Foreclosure Laws:

Crime Pays :

Many Informative Videos found here: ;


THEN ... take a look at these government reports:

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) reported its findings in January 2011. In briefly summarizing its main conclusions the Commission stated: "While the vulnerabilities that created the potential for crisis were years in the making, it was the collapse of the housing bubble—fueled by low interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages— that was the spark that ignited a string of events, which led to a full-blown crisis in the fall of 2008.

Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse is a report issued on April 13, 2011 by the United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. The 639 page report was issued under the chairmanship of Senators Carl Levin and Tom Coburn, and is colloquially known as the Levin-Coburn Report. After conducting “over 150 interviews and depositions, consulting with dozens of government, academic, and private sector experts” found that “the crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products, undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street.” [1] In an interview, Senator Levin noted that “The overwhelming evidence is that those institutions deceived their clients and deceived the public, and they were aided and abetted by deferential regulators and credit ratings agencies who had conflicts of interest.”


The government knew and knows all yet HO's are still being wrongfully/illegally/fraudulently foreclosed and nobody, or very few indeed, are being brought to task and put in jail. IT IS THE FORECLOSURE MILLS AND ATTORNEYS WHO ARE EMPLOYED BY THEM WHO ARE AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD IN COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY WITH THE BANKS THAT MAKE THIS THEFT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE POSSIBLE !!!  

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act:

Truth in Lending Act:

Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act:


The following article gives explanation of securitization and how predatory lending played a pivotal role in the ongoing housing dilemma.  Further here, I have provided both law and case law that may help you understand how you may have been harmed, save your home and/or bring suit under various causes of action to those who have caused you harm. This blog is intended to be informative and helpful to those seeking legal counsel or presenting pro se/in pro per in state or federal court. Should you find anything mentioned here pertinent to your situation please google the subject for more information and case law decision. I continually add to this blog and repost when I do.




"STANDING is an Article III jurisdictional issue. It deals with injury in fact first of all. And I can't imagine anybody better than the party that says they are entitled to lawful possession of the house because something was wrong with the foreclosure process. And even one better than that, to actually establish injury in fact. In fact, they are probably the only people in a case like this who could do it."

"So they are late, and they are later than in most other cases where I've applied this. But from an Article III perspective, from a pure constitutional standing perspective, I don't think that matters."

"but there might still be a damages remedy against the parties who wrongfully foreclosed."

The Supreme Court has made it clear that the burden of establishing standing rests on the plaintiff./5/ At each stage of the litigation—from the initial pleading stage, through summary judgment, and trial—the plaintiff must carry that burden./6/ Standing must exist on the date the complaint is filed and throughout the litigation./7/ Moreover, standing cannot be conferred by agreement and can be challenged at any time in the litigation, including on appeal, by the defendants or, in some circumstances, by the court sua sponte./8/ Finally, plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each claim and each request for relief./9/ There is no “supplemental” standing: standing to assert one claim does not create standing to assert claims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts./10/

DISMISSALS DUE TO LACK OF STANDING ...  see here for your state:;


equitable estoppel and equitable tolling

  • In regard to equitable estoppel, four elements must ordinarily be proven: (1) the party to be estopped must know the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act that the party asserting the estoppel had the right to believe that it was so intended;

  • (3) the party asserting the estoppel must be ignorant of the true state of facts; and (4) he must rely upon the conduct to his injury.   It has been held that equitable tolling applies principally if the plaintiff is actively misled by the defendant about the cause of action or is prevented in some extraordinary way from asserting his or her rights. 10 year SOL


AND ... Federal Law TRUMPS state law almost always

The federal court MUST honor state common law when deciding state law issues:

Challenge to Jurisdiction

RICO/SLORP Section 1964 (c).



(5) An indictment for false pretenses involving real property, forgery or uttering and publishing of an instrument affecting an interest in real property, or mortgage fraud may be found and filed within 10 years after the offense was committed or within 10 years after the instrument affecting real property was recorded, whichever occurs later.


(8) The extension or tolling, as applicable, of the limitations period provided in this section applies to any of those violations for which the limitations period has not expired at the time the extension or tolling takes effect. ;

The foreclosing entity must hold the mortgage
at the time of the notice and sale because an attempt to
foreclose prior to a valid assignment of the mortgage is a
“structural defect that goes to the very heart of defendant's
ability to foreclose by advertisement.” Id. at 647 (quoting
Davenport v. HSBC Bank USA, 739 N.W.2d 383, 384–85



In addition to common law theories, most states have Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices statutes modeled off the Federal Trade Commission Act which may govern predatory mortgage lending practices and terms. Sometimes called “little FTC Acts” these statutes give consumers a private cause of action allowing them to assert claims or defenses against lenders that violate recognized trade standards. Most importantly, these statutes typically treat federal trade commission regulations and opinions as presumptive evidence of a deceptive or unfair trade practice. Thus, the rules and standards used by the FTC in its high profile cases against the largest predatory lenders are available through private state causes of action in some jurisdictions against some types of lenders.

The primary federal statute governing abusive practices in debt collection is the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The statute also includes disclosure provisions, such as a requirement that debt collectors give consumers written validation and verification of the debt in order to prevent collection of debts not actually owed. The statute is enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, banking regulators, and a private right of action allowing consumers to sue for statutory punitive damages, costs, and attorney’s fees.




These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts, except as stated in Rule 81. They should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.



Federal mail and fraud laws are used in a variety of cases, such as bank, healthcare, mortgage, pension, and securities fraud. Although more specific laws may also apply in some cases, prosecutors use mail and wire fraud laws in part because the courts are very familiar with them.  These laws can be used to charge fraud if (1) a federal service was used, and (2) there was a plan to defraud.  According to these requirements, anyone who uses a letter, text message, email, or phone call to further a plan that may involve fraud can be charged witih mail or wire fraud. ;


CALIFORNIA FEDERAL DISTRICT TRIAL COURT UPHOLDS CLAIMS FOR IMPROPER ASSIGNMENT, ACCOUNTING, UNFAIR PRACTICES:   In an extremely well-written and well reasoned decision Federal District Court Judge M. James Lorenz denied the Motion to dismiss of US Bank on an alleged WAMU securitization that for the FIRST TIME recognizes that the securitization scheme could be a sham, with no basis in fact.



The new working group will pursue both criminal and civil wrongdoing, including false statements, mail and wire fraud, and failure to comply with the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, passed in the wake of the savings and loan crisis. (c)  VIOLATIONS TO WHICH PENALTY IS APPLICABLE: This section applies to a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate-- (1) section 215, 656, 657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, or 1344 of Title 18; or (2) section 287, 1001, 1032, 1341 or 1343 of Title 18 affecting a federally insured financial institutions.  or


(2) An action shall not be brought against a financial institution to enforce any of the following promises or commitments of the financial institution unless the promise or commitment is in writing and signed with an authorized signature by the financial institution:  


FRAUD IN THE FACTUM/INDUCEMENT used in predatory lending:






The second preliminary issue is whether defendant may be considered a debt collector under the Rosenthal Act and FDCPA.  Plaintiff’s complaint alleges defendant is debt collector because they “regularly attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.”  According to the Rosenthal Act, “the term ‘debt collector’ means any person who, in the ordinary course of business, regularly, on behalf of himself or herself or others, engages in debt collection.”  Civ. Code § 1788.2.  The FDCPA similarly states, “[t]he term ‘debt collector’ means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.”  15 U.S.C. § 1692A(6).  Defendant only cites cases relating to foreclosures as authority to show they are not debt collectors.  Whether a foreclosure is debt collection is irrelevant.  This Court finds that defendant is sufficiently pleaded as a debt collector.



Two more things. The first has to do with the duty of care that attorneys owe certain non clients. In the present context this would be the foreclosure mill and the HO's. Then that an attorneys breach of ethics resulting in harm will find him/his firm liable for damages.  As in all lawsuits a number of specific factors must be present and provable before this strategy might be employed. One main factor here is if the HO has retained counsel or is in pro per/pro se.

See here Section 1.1:410 in brief ... a non-client may be able to show that an attorney owed him or her an independent fiduciary duty. To claim breach of fiduciary duty, there must be a situation in which the non- client reasonably reposed faith, confidence and trust in the attorney�s advice. 1.1:410 Duty of Care to Certain Non-Clients

Then there is ... The annotation on "Attorney's Liability to One Other Than Immediate Client, For Negligence in Connection With Legal Duties" 61 ALR 4th 615 lists four different bases for liability to others than the person retaining the lawyer: More can be found here ...

and More on Attorneys Duty To Non Client and




SUE EM FOR AIDING AND ABETTING THE BANKS FRAUD !! See here recent federal case law showing mills as DEBT COLLECTORS   case=14725595886762813517... case=5190914345956790666&...

6th Circuit Win Against Predatory Mill  Illegal foreclosure by advertisement

Multiple cases here : michigan site:  



In most fraud cases, there is active misrepresentation by the defendant. In some, the misrepresentation occurs through the defendant's silence on a key issue.

Extrinsic fraud is fraud that "induces one not to present a case in court or deprives one of the opportunity to be heard [or] is not involved in the actual issue

Intrinsic fraud is an intentionally false representation that goes to the heart of what a given lawsuit is about, in other words, whether fraud was used to procure the transaction



District Court losers allowed to appeal in Federal court in the presence of fraud, deception, accident, mistake, or "other gross procedural error" a federal court may declare the judgments of a state court "void ab initio."78


By contrast, in giving meaning to the phrase “operation of law,” we have carefully considered decades-old precedent from this Court, as well as consulted a legal dictionary. We defer to these established authorities for the proposition that a transfer that takes place by operation of law is one that occurs unintentionally, involuntarily, or through no affirmative act of the transferee.


The dissent opines that nothing exists that could be recorded in the chain of title
evidencing the assignment of interest. This is untrue. For example, defendant could file
a copy of the P&A agreement with the register of deeds.

565.41 Discharge of mortgage; payment of filing fee by mortgagee; date of discharge. ; ;



In this fraud and abuse of process case, plaintiff Cynthia Howard appeals the trial court’s

grant of defendant Trott & Trott, PC and Donald L. King’s motion for summary disposition

under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (statute of limitations), and MCR 2.116(C)(8) (failure to state a claim

on which relief may be granted). We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand.

Flynn v Korneffel ... case law regarding FRAUD (note case citations)

"Specifically, we must decide whether the land contract vendees in default were prohibited by fraud from redeeming the property in question". Marble v Butler ... "Before the expiration of the redemption period, the vendor refused to reveal the amount remaining due on the land contract and failed to furnish an abstract of the property in accordance with the contract. Further, the vendee attempted to tender the entire balance due under the contract, and the vendor refused to accept the payment and execute a deed.27  


The Classic example of TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE incurs when one party induces another party to breach a contract with a third party, in circumstances where the first party had no privledge to act as it does and acts with knowledge of the existence of the contract.  Such knowledge is termed tortious inducement of breach of contract.  So ... if your servicer or mill told you to stop paying to qualify for HAMP, etc. such could very well qualify.  Or, as in my case, where the mill refused my legally tendered offer to pay in full.



"A cause of action exists on behalf of a damaged mortgagor when, in conformity with the terms of his note, he offers to the mortgagee full payment of the balance of the principal and interest, and the mortgagee refuses to present the note and mortgage for payment and cancellation."
The court, on page 165, cites 59 Corpus Juris Secundum, 746, Section 474, where it is provided:
"A right of action exists when the debt secured has been paid in full or tendered or all other legal conditions have been fulfilled and plaintiff is entitled to the release or satisfaction demanded or refused."
The court holds that in some states the obligation to satisfy a mortgage when all the obligations of the mortgagor are met is provided for by statute. The court also said that in Ohio no such statute has yet been enacted. On the authority of Dunitz v. Satovaky, 243 Mich. 423, 220 N. W., 717, and Rosedofsky v. Corosa,93 N.H. 394. 42 A.2d 740, mortgagees are required under the common law to reconvey title transferred by mortgage or release the lien of the mortgage when the obligations secured have been discharged, and to refuse to do so constitutes an actionable tort permitting the mortgagor to recover all damages proximately resulting from such wrongful act.
THEN : case law involving other situations requiring tender of payment holds that valid tender is unnecessary where plaintiff is ready, willing and able to tender, but defendant, by his acts or words, shows that tender would not be accepted. Hanesworth v Hendrickson, 320 Mich. 577; 31 N.W.2d 726 (1948), Ranck v Springer,333 Mich. 671; 53 N.W.2d 678 (1952), Frakes v Eghigian,358 Mich. 327; 100 N.W.2d 297(1960). Consequently, in the instant case, if plaintiffs' factual allegations indicate that tender was not made because defendants prevented it or indicated they would not accept it, plaintiffs' complaint states a cause of action. Because plaintiffs' complaint includes allegations that defendants did not accept payment and that such conduct was wrongful, we find that plaintiffs' pleadings do state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The law of tender is replete with cases which depart from the generalization that tender is the payment in hand of legal currency to explore the fact-laden paths of the litigants' course of dealing. It is well established in contractual relationships that actual delivery of legal tender is not required where there is a course of dealing which justifies the debtor into believing that some other means (e.g., mailing) and form of tender (e.g., personal check) will suffice.
MCL 600.5744(6); MSA 27A.5744(6) establishes that a writ of restitution shall not issue if the amount of the judgment for possession "is paid to the plaintiff" within the time provided. We note the absence of any qualifying language in this section as to who is to pay the plaintiff or how the plaintiff is to be paid.
Michigan Law and Case Law regarding redemption inclusive of remedial status.
We reach this conclusion because the summary proceedings statute is remedial in nature and should be construed liberally. See Birznieks v Cooper,405 Mich. 319, 330-332; 275 N.W.2d 221 (1979).1
Plaintiff's contention that the statute should be read to necessitate payment by the defendants only, by means of an instrument made out only in favor of the plaintiff and placed only in the hands of the plaintiff, amounts to an unacceptably narrow construction of the statute. Such a construction is inconsistent with the purpose of the redemption provisions and is antithetical to the liberal construction by which remedial statutes are to be applied.
Statute of Limitations  Damages for breaches of contract; specific performance; fiduciary bonds; deeds; mortgages; surety bonds; appeal bonds; public obligations. (4) The period of limitations is 10 years for actions founded upon covenants in deeds and mortgages of real estate.
MORTGAGES; REDEMPTION; EXTENSION: Foreclosed Michigan mortgagor can validly agree with foreclosure sale purchaser to extend term of statutory redemption period, even after the period had terminated  
EXCUSABLE NEGLECT : Excusable neglect refers to a legitimate excuse for the failure to take some proper step at the proper time.
There are many cases showing partial and misleading statements as fraud: “The doctrine is settled in this State that if there was in fact a misrepresentation, though made innocently, and its deceptive influence was effective, the consequences to the plaintiff being as serious as though it had proceeded from a vicious purpose, he would have a right of action for the damages caused thereby; citing Holcomb v. Noble, 69 Mich 396 (headnote 3).” Busch v. Wilcox (syllabus), 82 Mich 315.
“Designed partial statements which deceive, and concealment of facts such as to make those declared partial and misleading, are fraudulent in law.” Kenyon v. Woodruff (syllabus), 33 Mich 310.
"When action is brought to recover for false and fraudulent representations made by one party to another in a transaction between them, any representations which are false in fact and actually deceive the other and are relied on by him to his damage are actionable, irrespective of whether the person making them knew them to be false or acted in good faith in making them, when the loss of the party deceived inured to the benefit of the other. Holcomb v. Noble, 69 Mich. 396; Busch v. Wilcox, 82 Mich. 315; Aldrich v. Scribner, 154 Mich. 23 (18 LRA NS 379); Hubbard v. Oliver, 173 Mich. 337; Bartholomew v. Walsh, 191 Mich. 252; Mulheron v. Henry S. Koppin Co., 221 Mich. 187; Bucannan v. Raymond, 224 Mich. 462; 26 CJ, pp 1108, 1109; 12 RCL, pp 335, 336
Mortgage Loans And UCC: When Article 3 Applies and When Article 9 Applies:

The Uniform Commercial Code forbids foreclosure of the mortgage unless the creditor possesses the properly-negotiated original promissory note.



It is a long standing common law principle that a business or individual can be held liable for AIDING and ABETTING the wrongful acts of another. The Restatement of Torts, Second suggests that, “[f]or harm resulting to a third person from the tortious conduct of another, a person is liable if he . . . (b) knows that the other’s conduct constitutes a breach of a duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other so to conduct himself.” The alleged aider-abetter itself need not owe a duty of care to the victim. And most courts agree that the alleged aider-abetter need not reap a personal financial benefit from the wrongful conduct to be liable. But many courts consider financial gain by the alleged aider-abetter as evidence of knowledge of and/or assistance to the tortious behavior. Moreover, the alleged aider and abetter need not even posses a wrongful intent, provided that she knows the conduct in question is tortious. Courts are also amenable to use of the common law doctrine of aider abetter liability to enforce statutes which do not by their own terms define or contemplate liability for aiding and abetting. While most aider-abetter liability cases involve allegations of fraud, some courts have been receptive to applying aider-abetter liability to unfair and deceptive trade practice claims as well.


In the instant suit, the Morganroths sued only DeLorean's lawyers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. n1 Count I of the complaint alleges that defendants conspired to commit fraud. It alleges that defendants agreed to make misrepresentations and omissions to defraud the plaintiffs; they took tortious steps in furtherance of those agreements, causing actual and consequential damages including attorneys' fees and expenses involved in recovering on the Michigan judgment. In Count II, the Morganroths claim that defendants knowingly aided and abetted DeLorean's acts of fraud and concealment  [*10]  for the purpose of hindering plaintiffs' efforts to enforce the judgment, causing actual and consequential damages. In Count III, plaintiffs assert that defendants themselves committed fraud through their knowing material misrepresentations, fraudulent concealment, and wrongful withholding of information, and that these acts and omissions proximately caused plaintiffs actual and consequential damages.


A deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party of his right Cowell

Law Dictionary:



A second possible avenue of asserting liability for concerted wrongdoing in predatory lending securitization is civil coconspirator liability. Generally a civil conspiracy is defined as “a malicious combination of two or more persons to injure another in person or property, in a way not competent for one alone, resulting in actual damages. You see ... the bank NEEDED the mill to bring the fraud to the court as it was "not competant" to do so itself.

Other decisions have denied dismissal of civil coconspirator liability claims for range of mortgage lending industry participants including brokers, home sellers, lenders, appraiser, and attorneys.

This above is contained in the Abstract by Chris Peterson at the start of this blog.  Page 62.

The banks may have perpetrated the fraud ... BUT ... it was the banks attorney/FORECLOSURE MILL that presented it to the court and as attorneys were/are bound to perform due diligence and knew or should have known the banks fraud before presentation to the court. As such all should be disbarred, disgorged of all illegally gained funds and PUT IN JAIL while made to rectify and find restitution for those that they have harmed !!!( after being found guilty in a court of law ... which, goes without saying)

Claims against attorneys for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty or conspiring to breach a fiduciary duty present different and more difficult challenges for defense counsel than a more traditional legal malpractice case.

The four elements of a conspiracy, namely: (1) a corrupt agreement between two or more parties; (2) an overt act in furtherance of the agreement; (3) the parties’ intentional participation in the furtherance of a plan or purpose; and (4) resulting damage or injury.”



(1) If a breach of contract is both material and opportunistic, the injured promisee has

a claim in restitution to the profit realized by the defaulting promisor as a result of the

breach. Liability in restitution with disgorgement of profit is an alternative to liability for

contract damages measured by injury to the promisee. 



Section 5

Appendix: Statement on Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices by State-Chartered Banks where it ‘‘causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.’’ 8 A representation, omission, or practice is deceptive if it is likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances and is likely to affect a consumer’s conduct or decision regarding a product or service. Moreover, banks that either affirmatively or through lack of oversight permit a third-party debt collector acting on their behalf to engage in deception, harassment, or threats in the collection of monies due may be exposed to liability for approving or assisting in an unfair or deceptive act or practice. 

The IRS ... 

The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act and Debt Cancellation



Views: 19245


You need to be a member of Foreclosure Hamlet to add comments!

Join Foreclosure Hamlet

Comment by Darrell Kanka on February 1, 2016 at 5:58pm

Sorry Dave I am not your guy.  Perhaps Hut might accommodate but if not readily at hand you have to do your own search.  Sorry.  Hard work and determination make our nation great. 

Comment by David Fee on January 31, 2016 at 3:38pm
Hi , I am looking for a lost note Affidavif signed by WaMu VP Christie Hill please forward to thank you
Comment by boriquita monclova on May 3, 2015 at 4:41pm

Thank you!

Comment by John Reed on April 22, 2015 at 4:19pm

and oh yea.... BTW... Never Give Up!

Comment by John Reed on April 22, 2015 at 4:17pm

Hello Boriquita Monclova. This post just passed my desk and as I am a member of a group that discusses New Jersey cases a whole lot I thought I'd point you in that direction. This site is a pay site... and I don't usually recommend any pay sites whatsoever.... BUT... this group is made up of really dedicated pro se foreclosure fighters and it costs $20 for either 3 or 4 months (I forget). Every thursday the have a conference call that you can participate in and have your questions answered. Everything! From laws broken to precedents to forms and anything else you can think of. They have a website that you have to go to to sign up and its at www.  where there's also a ton of information. The Thurssday night calls are the best part though. If you have a case going to trial, by submitting a request to the moderators they will set up a mock trial where you get to state your case as if you were in trial and there's opposing counsel speaking against you and a judge... then afterwards they tear apart your defenses and your performance! But it's done strictly so that you can "get it right the first time"... and of course you also get to hear others trying to do the same. The calls start at 8 pm EST and usually end about 5 hours later. This is the only site I have ever recommended but this one I do. At $20 for all 3 or 4 months you know they aren't doing it for the money and you can do it through telephone or Skype (no video). We also pass documents in real time through Skype or they'll send you links or doc's through email. No extra charges for anything. I make nothing for recommending this site and I have personally been an anti illegal foreclosure advocate for 7 years and by posting my own FaceBook page on the subject since FaceBook was invented. My page address is...   hope to see ya there. It would be well worth the money.

Comment by boriquita monclova on April 22, 2015 at 3:16pm

Hi! How are you? 

I have been wrongfully foreclosed upon. 

I am "post" sherrif's sale. 

I have been "post" sherrif sale for almost 3 months. 

I have been offered cash for keys twice! LOL

There is something wrong, I can't pin point my finger on the whole process. 

I want to talk to people in New Jersey. 

Comment by Darrell Kanka on March 12, 2015 at 8:04pm
"When action is brought to recover for false and fraudulent representations made by one party to another in a transaction between them, any representations which are false in fact and actually deceive the other and are relied on by him to his damage are actionable, irrespective of whether the person making them knew them to be false or acted in good faith in making them, when the loss of the party deceived inured to the benefit of the other. Holcomb v. Noble,69 Mich. 396; Busch v. Wilcox, 82 Mich. 315; Aldrich v. Scribner, 154 Mich. 23 (18 LRA NS 379); Hubbard v. Oliver, 173 Mich. 337; Bartholomew v. Walsh, 191 Mich. 252; Mulheron v.Henry S. Koppin Co., 221 Mich. 187; Bucannan v. Raymond, 224 Mich. 462; 26 CJ, pp 1108, 1109; 12 RCL, pp 335, 336
Comment by John Reed on February 23, 2015 at 1:37pm

I didn't see "Scienter" from Black's 9th...  scienter (sI-en-tJr or see-), n. [Latin "knowingly"] (1824) 1. A degree of knowledge that makes a person legally responsible for the consequences of his or her act or omission; the fact of an act's having been done knowingly, esp. as a ground for civil damages or criminal punishment. See KNOWLEDGE; MENS REA. [Cases: Criminal Law C=>20; Negligence (::::J212, 302.] 2. A mental state consisting in an intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud. - In this sense, the term is used most often in the context of securities fraud. The Supreme Court has held that to establish a claim for damages under Rule lOb-5. a plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with scienter.  Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder,425 U.S. 185,96 S.Ct. 1375 (1976). [Cases: Securities Regulation G:::c60,45, 60.51(2).]

scienter action. A lawsuit in which the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted knowingly or knew of the danger - e.g., at common law an action for damage caused by a domestic animaL See SCIENTER.

Comment by Diane on May 23, 2013 at 11:30am

Numerous North Carolina Judges are as corrupt as the Banks.   But of course, the Banks own the State of North Carolina to begin with.

Judges are now barring pro se victims from fighting illegal foreclosure by means of Gate-Keeper Orders.    The very Judges who took an oath to defend the citizens of the State, are now denying citizens access to the court.    I know of one lady that complained about the lack of due process and the Judge had her locked up for contempt of court.

The Judges know the Banks are forging documents and commiting fraud upon the court.   And with all the news reports, the Judges know the general public is aware of what is going on.    So N.C. Judges' main purpose is to shut everyone up and keep foreclosure fraud cases out of their court room.

Comment by Ronald Litton on May 23, 2013 at 10:04am
Does anyone know of attorneys in Kansas that are capable and willing to sue one of the local foreclosure mills. We have been fighting Deutsche and Chase for 3 years and now the MILL has hired another attorney to handle the case. It seems that they are now fearful as we have gotten discovery that they screwed up. My attorney admits that they did and should not even filed a foreclosure. We have all of the normal forged docs from the infamous robo signer folks, backed dated docs, no docs etc.

However my attorney is squeamish about suing one of his bretheren aka another attorney. There certainly seems to be adequate reason to sue under FDCPA and Kansas credit laws as well fraud on the court etc.

But here in Kansas lawyers are birds of a feather. So I need someone not of the clan. Headlines

Loading… Loading feed


  • Add Videos
  • View All

Hamlet Stats

since 12/21/2009



© 2016   Created by Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service