Monday, October 25, 2010

The Mandate, 10/25/10

Kurt F. Johnson and Dale S. Heineman (hereinafter "Johnson," "Heineman"), Johnson filing as next friend for Heineman, hereby moves to recall the mandate and in support thereof:

Extraordinary Circumstances Exist

Extraordinary circumstances are defined as "an unusual set of facts that are not commonly associated with a particular thing or event." Black's law Dictionary, abridged 7th Ed. "The Court of appeals are recognized to have inherent power to recall their mandate..., however, the power can be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances." Calderon v. Thompson, 523 u.s. 538, 549-50(1998); 16 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedures $ 3938, p. 712(2d Ed. 1996). Johnson recognizes that "neither innocence nor just punishment can be vindicated until the final judgement is known." McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 491 (1991). However, finality cannot rest on a miscarriage of justice, and that is precisely the case here.

Statement of the Case

Pertinent to this action : The case in chief involved a single count under section 1349, of Title 18, United States Code; 36- counts under 1341 of Title 18, United States Code; and two - counts of contempt of court violative of section 401 (3) of title 18, United States Code. Initially there were 26 counts of bank fraud, but the government realizing there was no bases in which to convict --- as they should have with the remaining counts --- dismissed those counts.

A jury trial spanning nearly a month left Johnson and Heineman guilty of all undismissed counts. Notice of appeal was filed, and attorney Maitreya A. Badami was appointed who concentrated primarily on the district court permitting Johnson and Heineman to proceed without counsel at trial, and the trial judge's failure to recuse himself. Johnson continuously pestered appellant counsel to challenge the fraud statute's vagueness but to no avail.

Despite repeated attempts counsel refused to press the claim of vagueness and finally Johnson submitted a Pro Se brief. However, by the time Johnson was done fencing with counsel he missed the opportunity to have his claim heard. Undoubtedly Johnson will pursue this matter under section 2255. This in itself does not come without obstacles. Johnson filed a Habeas under the earliest constitutional provisions, and the trial court construed the motion as a section 2255 without the consent of Johnson, and completely disregarding Supreme Court precedent. The same occurred for Heineman.

Reasons for Recalling the Mandate

Recently, the Supreme Court decided Skilling v. United States, 130 s. Ct. 2896 (2010). Johnson does not suggest that section 1346, affects his case. Instead, it is the principle path the Court takes in reaching their conclusion that interests Johnson and Heineman. For example, the Court determined that Congress intended section 1346 to reach at least bribes and kickbacks, and immediately recognized that "[R]eading the statute to proscribe a wider range of offensive conduct, we acknowledge, would raise the due process concerns underlying the vagueness doctrine." Id. at 2931, n. 42.

Against this backdrop, Johnson points to section 1341, and any scheme or artifice to defraud involving money or property, and a question begs answer. If a scheme or artifice to defraud involving honest services has to be narrowed to bribes and kickbacks to save it from vagueness, then why doesn't a "wider range of offensive conduct" in section 1341, which has no specific conduct listed, "raise the Due Process concerns underlying the Vagueness Doctrine." Ibid. Johnson and Heineman foster it does, absent a narrower interpretation.

The mail fraud statute defines absolutely no scheme[s] or artifice to defraud involving money or property. In fact, outside section 1346 "Scheme" or "Artifice" remains undefined altogether. See United States v. Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327, 1335 (D.D.C.1983) ("Congress did not define 'Scheme or Artifice to Defraud' when it first coined that phrase, nor has it since"). Accord, United States v. Reid, 533 F.2d 1255 (D.C.Cir. 1976); United States v. Von Barta, 635 F.2d 999, 1005 (2d Cir. 1980).

The Supreme Court has specifically noted, "To punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort." See Bordenkirker v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363(1978); North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 738(1969). This is precisely what the mail fraud statute does in this case. There is simply no statute in the federal code with undefined terms that provides the government with more unguided reach. The mail and wire fraud statutes leave to the government to determine what is offensive based on nothing more than their own predilections.

These statutes, as currently written, allow the prosecution a standard less sweep of discretion , so to, constructively amend the indictment nearly undetected. To literally invent any scheme or artifice, and call it fraud with no oversight. Johnson or Heineman were never on notice of any offensive conduct because it wasn't offensive behavior until the government waived their all telling legal wand over it. Nowhere, in any statute in this section the conduct that Johnson and Heineman supposedly committed listed.

The danger of the vagueness in these statutes is like no other, with the stroke of the government's imagination a defendant is taken from his family for 20-years and put in prison. "A penal code is void for vagueness if it fails to 'define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited' or fails to establish guidelines to prevent 'arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement' of law." City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 64-65 (1998)(quoting Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352(1983)). Of these, "The more important aspect of the vagueness doctrine 'Is...The requirement that the legislature establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement." Kolender, 461 U.S. at 358(quoting Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 574 (1974)).

As a matter of first impression, the government's authority to cast such a large net without any guidance fails to avoid attributing to "The legislature...An unjust or an absurd conclusion." See United States v. Ganderson, 511 U.S. 39, 56(1994). It is Johnson and Heineman's position that the vagueness in these statutes incorporate the absurdity doctrine because they facilitate opportunistic and arbitrary prosecutions, that produce absurd results. The government's use of the fraud statutes ignores' a sensible construction." Id.; See Also United States v. Kirby, 74 U.S. (7 wall) 482, 486 (1868) (all laws should receive a sensible construction. General terms [Such as scheme or artifice to defraud] should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence."). This principle applies with equal force to a statute written with clear language. K-mart Corp. v. Cartier, 486 U.S. 281, 325 n.z(1988)(Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

In other words, "[W]here the plain language of the statute would lead to 'patently absurd consequences,' that 'Congress could not possibly have intended,' we need to apply the language in such a fashion..." A statute is absurd "where it is quite impossible that congress could have intended the result, and where the alleged absurdity is so clear as to be obvious to most anyone." Public Citizen v. United States Dept. of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 470-71)1989)(internal citations omitted)(Kennedy, J., Concurring). Regardless of how the court has articulated the principle, it is a long-standing one, and ultimately concerns the results of a statute that can objectively be seen as absurd and unjust. See Green v. Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 490 U.S. 504, 509-10(1989). The fraud statutes involved in this case are hopelessly unclear and fatally defective because they are too broad, unlimited and produce an unjust or an absurd result.

The government consistently shows it is unable to act with self-discipline by limiting the use of these statutes to actual offensive behavior. The vagueness in these statutes allow an unhealthy process of amending them by executive interpretation and intruding upon the lawmaking powers of congress. Such "Accretion of Dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of restrictions that fence the most disinterested assertion of authority." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 594(1952)(Concurring opinion). It is the government themselves that create the extraordinary circumstance that warrant recalling the mandate, taking advantage of a vague set of statutes that produce and unjust results. The mandate must be recalled and full briefing ordered.

1,195 comments:

1 – 200 of 1195   Newer›   Newest»
judge allslop said...

Aside from perjury,forgery and assorted felonies all the rest are pristine? Simple book keeping errors? We haven't even got to security's origination YET.


Bank of America Corp. acknowledged SOME?(lol) mistakes in foreclosure files as it begins to resubmit documents in 102,000 cases, the Wall Street Journal said.

judge allslop said...

William K. Black is a lawyer, academic, former S & L regulator, and author of the book titled, "The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One: How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S & L Industry." He and Economics Professor L. Randall Wray also co-wrote an article titled, "Foreclose on the Foreclosure Fraudsters, Part I: Put Bank of America in Receivership," saying: Overwhelming evidence shows "the entire foreclosure process is riddled with fraud, (yet) President Obama refuses to support a national moratorium," making him conspiratorially complicit in a huge scandal, ravaging millions of homeowners lawlessly. Protecting bankers, not victims, is policy, so coverup and denial of systemic fraud persists. Moreover, "despite our pleas the FBI has continued its 'partnership' with the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA)....the trade association of the 'perps.' It created a ridiculous....definition of 'mortgage fraud,' (saying) lenders - who (created them) - are the victims. The FBI" plays ball. It's why no one's been prosecuted nor likely will be, except perhaps some lower level officials taking the rap for their bosses, top executives continuing to profiting hugely by scamming innocent victims hung out to dry.
In fact, criminal CEOs "looted with impunity, were left in power, and were granted their fondest wish when Congress....extorted the professional Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) to turn the accounting rules in a farce." It let banks "refuse to recognize hundreds of billions of losses, (produce fake) 'income' and 'capital,' " so fraudsters got richer than ever.
Black and Wray want it stopped by "prompt corrective action," halting foreclosures until corrective steps are taken and "financial institutions that committed widespread fraud (are put) in receivership," replacing their bosses with honest, competent, officials, if any can be found at a time of unbridled, anything goes greed.

sopsback said...

NEWS:


THE WHOLE WORLD IS EXPECTING A BIG DECISION OF SOME TYPE FROM THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD ON NOV. 3.

NO ONE SEEMS TO HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT IT MIGHT BE.

A DOLLAR DEVAL MAYBE?


ALSO, PRES OBAMA IS SCHEDULED TO BE OUT OF THE COUNTRY FOR TWO WEEKS BDGINNING ON NOV. 6.

VERY UNUSUAL TO BE ABSENT ONLY A FEW DAYS AFTER THE NOV. ELECTIONS.

AGAIN, NO ONE SEEMS TO KNOW HIS DESTINATION; AT LEAST NO ONE PUBLICLY. INTERESTING.

sopsback said...

maybe the pres reads the webbots report that something 'big' is goin' down b/t nov. 8-11 and he doesnt want to be here when it does??


first time that i heard of the big fed res announcement tho for nov. 3.

that one was news to me???

near the end said...

sop why do you care if Dr. Fred is broke like you?

sopsback said...

why?

is not dr. ferd all in one peace??


when did he get broke??

you mean like humpy dumpy???

sopsback said...

who said that i was broke like dr. fred??

i am all in one peace.


is not dr. fred also in one peace or is he in fact broke like humfry dumfry??


in that case, maybe all the presidents men can put him back toghter again, no?

sopsback said...

i just rembered?


dr. fred is himslef a docto, right?


then if he got broke, than he should be able to fix himslef, no?

a bit of string, some wires, glue...all back in one peace in no times.

near the end said...

Sop u misunderstood . What I mean is why do you care if Dr. Fred has no MONEY like you have no money.

near the end said...

Sop u misunderstood . What I mean is why do you care if Dr. Fred has no MONEY like you have no money.

near the end said...

Sop u misunderstood . What I mean is why do you care if Dr. Fred has no MONEY like you have no money.

sopsback said...

Sop u misunderstood . What I mean is why do you care if like you have no money.








gee, i thought that docko made a lot of money.

how can dr. ferd have no money?

he must have some pretty high espenses.


maybe a ferrari and yatch.


i herd that yatch's are relly espensive booths.


oh, well, may as well joy your money before you go broke like dr. fred

sopsback said...

the govt. stold all dr. freds money, he said so himslef a while back, maby thats why he said that he's brokeback mountain.

sopsback said...

Sop u misunderstood . What I mean is why do you care if like you have no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

dr. fred has no money.

sopsback said...

i hate it when ppl erase my posts, so i may have to go back to the guns and put up 3000 posts in 15 again??

comprendo muchacho??

sopsback said...

i will keep barrage posting until they cry like roberto duran did:



"NO MAS"


(i quit)

sopsback said...

btw- i like dr. ferd

like they say,


"its not personal, its business"


i dont like any mofo removing my posts,so if they do, then i will make my point(s) another way(s).....like a few 1000 times in 15 mins

sopsback said...

Sop u misunderstood . What I mean is why do you care if *Dr. Fred has no MONEY* like you have no money.



*Dr. Fred has no MONEY*



and besides, YOU said in your post (above) that dr. fred has no money.

i didnt say it.


i feel bad for dr. fred if hes blown all his money on loosed women.

you should have listened to the audio that he made. he said that he cant re tire his car yet because he has no money.
he has to drive on old tires.
what a sham e

sopsback said...

if dr. fred needs to make sum money, maybe he should contract bruly baal???


invest in sum of his HYIPs and make some reel money and you wont have to waif until 2025 like the dg to get paid.

Yetter said...

Cute SOP, cute.

sopsback said...

besides, i like dr. ferd.


i wanna be broke just like him when i grow up.

maybe i can even start my own dg program?

it will start affer this one ends in 2025 and pay out in 2075.

sopsback said...

it will start affer this one ends in 2025 and pay out in 2075.



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!

near the end said...

Sop why do you care if dr fred has no money

sopsback said...

near the bucket, when you see dr. ferd, do you call him uncle or dr. seeing as you his near few??

sopsback said...

dr. fred has money, he just dont have any cents.

Yetter said...

who is without cents, agent smith er.. or sop

near the end said...

Sop,why due care that dr fred has no cents.

sopsback said...

hose dr. fred????

i did sum checking and found out that hes not the same dr. fred hose the chef surge in at the UCLA med ctr.


ho ever is this dr. fred, he's an impaster.

he pastes here that he's dr fred.


more like dr. frawd.


sum nun, or paster shud invetigate this fake dr. ferd.

he has no medical incense to run a hopitall. he cant even cure a cold leet along operate on sum nun or even sum paster.

sopsback said...

i'm calling the board of health and incensing on the "dr. ferd" right now!!

before he mams some nun (or paster)


hes trying to schedule front all robot or me's and hes not incensed to preform them.

some nun or paster is gong to get hurt bad.

near the end said...

Sop why do u care about dr. freds money so much.

near the end said...

Sop why do u care about dr. freds money so much.

near the end said...

Sop why do u care about dr. freds money so much.

sopsback said...

near the end said...

Sop why do u care about dr. freds money so much.




non sequitur-

as it is not the reel dr. fred. the reel dr. fred plays a fake dr. on tv

will the reel dr. fred, please revel hiself.

sopsback said...

btw- nte why are you concerned that dr. fred is broke??


a lot of ppl are broke nowdays. so ddr. ferd would just be one more of em'

corse, dr. ferd is no his reel name, hes a impaster anwyays

he must of stold the real dr. fred ID and did an ID theft pretending that hes dr. fred

near the end said...

sop why do care if he is not the real dr. fred?

near the end said...

sop why do care if he is not the real dr. fred?

Yetter said...

I’m confused- I do not recall my lender ever disclosing to me that they were going to “securitize” my promissory note by bundling it with other notes. I also do not recall them telling me that my signature is what monetized that “negotiable instrument” -as a matter of fact they never told me that it was a negotiable instrument and would be sold several times to domestic and foreign investors. btw-did they loan me money or credit? Is it possible that my signature created it and they loaned me my own credit with interest? Isn’t “true consideration” and “full disclosure” 2 major factors in a legal contract? I thought banks by federal law could not loan credit and are also not allowed to loan theirs or their depositors money(?) Also- I am still having a hard time finding the banks/lenders signature on any of my paperwork- the only signature I see is allegedly mine which looks like a unilateral contract to me(?) Plus- I am still waiting to see the “Original Note” with my wet ink signature and I am told that all they have is a certified true copy of it. So who is the real party in interest or holder in due course?
Can someone tell me if any of that is considered fraud, collusion, studied concealment, misrepresentation and counterfeit?
anyway- just asking.

near the end said...

IT'S MY MONEY AND I WANT IT NOW!!!

near the end said...

IT'S MY MONEY AND I WANT IT NOW!!!

near the end said...

IT'S MY MONEY AND I WANT IT NOW!!!

near the end said...

IT'S MY MONEY AND I WANT IT NOW!!!

near the end said...

IT'S MY MONEY AND I WANT IT NOW!!!

near the end said...

IT'S MY MONEY AND I WANT IT NOW!!!

near the end said...

IT'S MY MONEY AND I WANT IT NOW!!!

near the end said...

sop why do care if dr. fred is not the real dr. fred.

sopsback said...

sop why do care if dr. fred is not the real dr. fred.



waht is this?

pete an reparte??

even if its the reel dr. fred...


im tellin you for that last time:


I DONT GIVE A SH*T THAT DR. FRED IS BROKE!


let him go get a job.


there now. you have your answer.

sopsback said...

or let him invest in bruly baals HYIPs.

near the end said...

sop why don't you care if Dr. Fred is broke?

near the end said...

sop why don't you care if Dr. Fred is broke?

sopsback said...

sop why don't you care if Dr. Fred is broke?



i dont care about dr. fred....

Yetter said...

On September 2, 2010 Bank of America was warned about their liability in shady securitizations, mortgages and foreclosures. The letter states directly that some 50% of all loans including HELOCS “qualify for repurchase by BOA in the securitizations insured by them.” It estimates liability of at least $10-$20 Billion just for members of AFGI (Association of Financial Guaranty Insurers). “While BOA has publicly announced its intention to contest its representation and warranty obligations on a “loan by loan” basis, AFGI submits that this defensive posture will soon prove ineffective in shielding BOA from the financial, accounting, legal and other implications of its massive obligations to our industry members.” The implications of that statement are enormous. The insurers are saying that BOA has liabilities far in excess of what BOA has publicly disclosed and that the AFGI members intend to collect. The implications regarding “ownership of the loan” are even more dire for pretender lenders like BOA. This letter clearly provides corroboration of the fact that the receivables were securitized and not the actual notes or mortgages.
AFGI goes further. It claims that BOA knows these facts and has not been honest in its disclosures to anyone. They want to know why the disclosures have not been made. “A number of our industry members have pursued laborious loan by loan representation and warranty put back process. The thousands of loans already repurchased by BOA in this process provide a statistically significant indication of the magnitude of the BOA liability to our industry members.”

sopsback said...

whose dr. fred????

sopsback said...

is he a reel dr. ??

can he do opertions???

sopsback said...

when you see dr. fred, do you call him dr. fred or uncle fred??

judge allslop said...

A Dr named Fred performed an emergency lobotomy on you several years ago and, well it went poorly and you've been like this ever scince. We let you do this as it is good therapy even though you only have the mental capacity of a federal agent. Fred asked that you forgive him.

sopsback said...

yes, were pulling dubble shifts in the office starting tonite due to the increased chatter were getting on the activity vectors


also due to the webbots accurate predictions of chaos to begin any day now in the u.s.

gee, and i wanted to spend the holdays with the family.

oh, well....job comes first as they say. put food on the talbe.

sopsback said...

man this intel/surveillance shit is as boring as hell.

rather watch the poop take a shit is more exiting than this stuff.

sopsback said...

the person you know as "sop" has no control over his user id.

he does post here, but we can overrule/override his posts if we like.

so he is prevented from posting anything to tell you that some of the posts are not his.

we have been watching this blog and this sop charactre for quite some time now.

he may have figured it out but can do nthing to stop us. if he says anythign we dont like, it gets deleted before it evn hits the board.

we let some of his stuff thru thoguh

sopsback said...

dont feel bad thought, we monitor 0000s of boards and user id's

all in a days/nights work

sopsback said...

we even control the "apparent IP" if someone tries to track where we monitor from.

i can tell you this because there isnt a damn thing that you or anyone can do about it.

our equiprment is way too advanced and sophisticated for you to play with.

sopsback said...

but like they say, it makes the hours pass

brb, its coffee time...

sopsback said...

what dose it means??

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/ecf2.jpg



LOLOLOLOL

near the end said...

SOP, why don't you no if Dr. Fred is real or not?

near the end said...

SOP, why don't you no if Dr. Fred is real or not?

mogel007 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mogel007 said...

There is no argument for what you are about to read if it is in your Deed of Trust.

While you're at it, think about sending the old dog a bone. I am not spending my money on naughty women and strong drink, I have to waste it all on food and fuel.

www.showmetheloan.net

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Plaintiff hereby informs this Court of newly discovered material facts relevant to this matter.

A. Deceptive Business Act, Invalid Substitution Of Trustee –

A class action lawsuit is being initiated in California and possibly Arizona and other states against Mortgage Electronic Systems Inc.’s (“MERS”) unlawful appointment of Successor of Trustee in violation of the Deed of Trust. This violation invalidates any appointment by MERS and therefore causes the foreclosure process to be VOID, not just voidable, but VOID, ab initio, if a Successor Trustee was appointed by MERS, which in this instant case did occur.

Defendants have no argument against this concept as Defendants are the ones that wrote the Deed of Trust, yet Defendants defense is inclusive of claiming MERS can appoint a Successor Trustee.

Defendants claim in this case contradicts Defendants requirement in the Deed Of Trust, therefore Defendants’ claim is now moot.

Since it is a material fact that the foreclosure was initiated by an incorrect party that did not have the lawful right to initiate the foreclosure, all of Defendants claims, statements, attestations, and the like in this matter are also void ab initio.

See: From forensic examiner Charles J. Horner concerning the Forensic examination completed on 9/20/10; Deed of Trust: Page 13 paragraph 24:

Deed Of Trust under “Substitute Trustee”, the language clearly states that the Lender may, for any reason or cause, from time to time, remove Trustee and appoint a successor Trustee to any Trustee appoint hereunder. The Lender as defined on page 1 of the Deed of Trust is Homecomings Financial Network Incorporated. This paragraph does not state that successors, assigns, or nominees may appoint a Successor Trustee. Therefore, The Substitution Of Trustee is invalid as it was executed by an officer of Recontrust and not the Lender.

B. Defendants are withholding relevant evidence –

Defendants state in the Deed Of Trust, on page 2 paragraph H:

“a debt evidenced by a note.” Therefore, the “Note” is relevant and material evidence in this matter. Since Defendants claim the debt is evidenced by a note, and this Court is not in possession of said evidence, this Court may only conclude that the debt does not exist since the evidence does not exist in this Court.

There is nothing in American jurisprudence that would allow this Court to conclude facts not in evidence are still facts and use evidence that does not exist to this Court as evidence in Defendants favor.

Until such a time as this Court has the evidence that Defendants claim establishes the debt does exist, the debt does not exist to this Court.

Absent a debt, the loan does not exist, absent the loan, the Deed OF Trust does not exist, absent a valid Deed Of Trust; therefore the foreclosure documents are nothing more than prima facie evidence of Defendants felonious act of attempting to steal Plaintiff’s real property by filing false and/or forged documents into a public office in Arizona; a felony under A.R.S. § 39-161.

judge allslop said...

A non-judicial foreclosure process begins with a Notice of Foreclosure on a form prescribed by the Recorder of Deeds. The form requires identification of a “Holder of the Note” and a “Security Instrument recorded in the land records.” According to today’s enforcement statement, “The homeowner who receives such a notice is entitled to presume that the recordation of the security interest complies with the law, and that each intermediate transfer of the security interest between the original maker of the note and the current holder of the note is documented in the public record.” The reason these notes and documents were not transferred was not simple laziness or even “economic efficiency” (that is, simply keeping the money that was supposed to be paid to recorder’s offices) – rather, the purpose for this was obfuscation of the original paperwork because such prevents audits that would have disclosed very early on that the Representations and Warranties made to investors were being wantonly violated. You can’t audit what you don’t have!
Of course the problem with this obfuscation is that when the Pooling and Servicing agreements also represents that the paperwork was transferred you wind up with a separate and distinct fraud problem – intentionally not complying with that PSA while selling securities to investors is a rather big problem all on its own – and one that, now several years down the road, cannot be retroactively cured.

judge allslop said...

Sad SOP? The truly good things of USA are going the way of Pontiac, or are you to young to remember?


DETROIT – Pontiac, whose muscle cars drag-raced down boulevards, parked at drive-ins and roared across movie screens, is going out of business on Sunday. The 84-year-old brand, moribund since General Motors decided to kill it last year as it collapsed into bankruptcy, had been in decline for years. It was undone by a combination of poor corporate strategy and changing driver tastes. On Oct. 31, GM's agreements with Pontiac dealers expire. Even before GM's bankruptcy, Pontiac's sales had fallen from their peak of nearly one million in 1968, when the brand's speedier models were prized for their powerful engines and scowling grills.

near the end said...

Sop, why don't you know if Dr. Fred is the real Dr. Fred?

near the end said...

Sop, why don't you know if Dr. Fred is the real Dr. Fred?

near the end said...

Sop, why don't you know if Dr. Fred is the real Dr. Fred?

judge allslop said...

The United States is gradually being recognized as the world's most powerful and corrupt regulatory democracy. Laws are written to exempt the powerful and thwart those who seek justice. A shot came from a most unlikely source. A retiring judge handed over ammunition to the sound money advocates and those fighting the corrupt gold & silver markets. The CFTC administrative law Judge George H Painter went out in style. He issued a Notice & Order announcing he would step down from his position on the bench. In the notice Judge Painter made direct reference to a conspiracy at the highest levels of the CFTC, within the Enforcement Division. For 20 years, the ruling bench has been colluding with the CFTC chairman to block enforcement of the law by not finding anyone guilty of market manipulation. They stall opposing efforts and motions. In his own words, Judge Painter wrote, "There are two administrative law judges at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission: myself and the Honorable Bruce Levine. On Judge Levine's first week on the job, nearly twenty years ago, he came into my office and stated that he had promised Wendy Gramm, then Chairwoman of the Commission, that we would never rule in a complainant's favor. A review of his rulings will confirm that he has fulfilled his vow. Judge Levine, in the cynical guise of enforcing the rules, forces pro se complaints to run a hostile procedural gauntlet until they lose hope, and either withdraw their complaint or settle for a pittance, regardless of the merits of the case." Wendy Gramm has a speckled past, with a scummy resume. She is listed as a distinguished senior scholar at the George Mason University Mercatus Center, but a spokeswoman for the center claimed Gramm is not active there. Her husband is former Senator Phil Gramm from Texas. Wendy Gramm was head of the CFTC just before president Bill Clinton took office, whose finance henchmen ransacked the USTreasury gold. She has been criticized for opening the door to firms such as Goldman Sachs and Enron as they gain influenced over the commodity markets. After leaving the CFTC, she joined the Enron's Board. One must wonder if she is active on the British Petroleum Board currently.

judge allslop said...

The image of the US financial system is near rock bottom, after a quantum decline, if that is possible. The Europeans have their damaged sovereign debt, but the Americans can boast twin beasts in the USTreasury Bond bubble and the USAgency Mortgage Bond scam. The scam involves mortgage bond fraud from improper perfection of property title that ensures revenue stream. The scam involves securities violations from usage of a title database (MERS), duplicate properties in multiple bonds, and forged documents The scam involves faulty finance vehicles (REMIC) with deep intractible flaws in the structure of funding the loans, whose remedy would come with a $1 trillion tax bill due. The fallout comes as shattered legitimacy of the USDollar after broken credibility of the USFed and ruined prestige of Wall StreetThe legal process of so-called Put-Backs has begun, where fraudulent and reckless underwriting of home loans are being challenged, with the objective to send them back to the banks that approved them. Recall that banks originated loans, only to securitize them, earn profits from both processes, and walk away from their toxic elements. The legal process is attempting to right the wrongs. Over $47 billion in residential mortgage backed securities (MBS) issued by Countrywide are in the process of being declared in default. BOA owns Countrywide and their suitcase of putrefaction. Next comes the legal challenge for remedy and recovery of losses. The declarations have come from the pooled interests, which emphasized their intention to invoke all contractual remedies available to them to recover their losses and to protect their rights. The group of pooled holders has expanded since the original August 20th instruction letter. A lawyer clarified by saying, "Ours is a large, determined, and cohesive group of bondholders. We have a clearly defined strategy. We plan to vigorously pursue this initiative to enforce Holders rights." It is going to be trench warfare with years of lawyering. The banks cannot afford to lose.

sopsback said...

i hope that the dg's case is not in any way dependent on any actions from the jeffs killing case.

msmbc has just reported that skilling will be resentenced and that they will soon decide if they are gong to retry his case and also a few other relevant things related to his case.

yes, at the rate its procedding, this skilling case will all be resloved around 2025 or so...maybe even out to 2030.

dont hole your breathe waiting for this case to end.

sopsback said...

it all wont matter a shit anyway cum starting next week.


the shit is about to hit the fan with some major announcements and collapse of the USD

near the end said...

Sop why don't u no if dr fred is the real dr fred.

near the end said...

Sop why don't u no if dr fred is the real dr fred.

judge allslop said...

Kurt has mentioned in his writings the error's of the skilling ruling. He is very aware he may suffer the same fate, caught up in years of fighting revolving doors of litigation. Thats what they do. Thats all they do.Just as the Banks,Federal Govt(same)and the Federal Justice syndicates are loathe to speak the truth,admit errors and to correct them. After all who will stop them? The law? Perhaps.
Bankruptcy law is state law. Only a massive takeover of state rights would allow Washington to declare what is criminal (backdated false documents, false testimony in writing, etc.) as legal.If financial entities get away with this clear and unquestioned CRIME, this society HAS ended. Expect state "bailouts" (QE2)used as a bribe to do just that.




by Karl Denninger
(COLUMBUS, Ohio) — In response to Wells Fargo’s statement acknowledging that it "made mistakes" and that affidavits in 55,000 foreclosures filed by the bank did not "adhere" to the law, Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray offers the following statement:
"The big mortgage servicers and financial firms continue to demonstrate their belief that they do not need to play by the same rules as everyone else who uses our court system. The suggestion by Wells Fargo and its colleagues at several other national firms that they can cure fraudulent testimony by simply refiling new affidavits and continuing to proceed toward foreclosures shows they do not recognize the seriousness of the problem they have created. There is no simple ‘do-over’ for false testimony that will be likely to avoid sanctions and penalties imposed by the courts. Their brazen efforts to minimize their financial exposure by sweeping these problems under the rug are an insult to the justice system in this country. These disclosures by Wells Fargo will now become the focus for a new prong of our on-going investigation."

sopsback said...

Thats what they do. Thats all they do.Just as the Banks,Federal Govt(same)and the Federal Justice syndicates are loathe to speak the truth,admit errors and to correct them. After all who will stop them?


After all who will stop them?


2011 will stop them.


wehn the sytem collapses,theyre done.




they are funded by the fed.

the fed is history

its job is taken over by the treasury.


also, as the 'energy' of the planet changges. those who do not open thier hearts will not survive past that year.

yes, the age of aquarius is real.


stay tuned and watch what happens shortly.

near the end said...

SOP, why don't you know if Dr. Fred is the real Dr. Fred?

near the end said...

SOP, why don't you know if Dr. Fred is the real Dr. Fred?

sopsback said...

can you think like the ptb??


if you were the ptb, woulld you pull any 'stunts' on nov. 8-11??


NO!!

why?

because you would want 'maximum impact' and by doing something major b/t nov. 8-11, you would not get 'maximum impact' because everyone IS looking for it on those days.

so what would you do?

you would try to make 'those days' go by uneventful.


then, everyone would say 'see, those webbots things are all scams.

so now the ptb have put everyone to sleep and they disregard all the webbot warnings.


now, just when everyone feels 'safe to go outside again'.....



BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!


somehting big happens.

everyone is taken by surprise like an ambush.


maximus impact to demoralize the 'enemy'

the 'enemy' being the public

E said...

Check out John Stuart on showmetheloan.net. He is going about this from a different angle. Perhaps this could help people here and even Kurt and Scott.

sopsback said...

for those too chap to buy a copy of clips report online, then go here and listen to him talk about nov. 8-11 next month and whats cumming according to the webbtos report:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZsGqqEwFDI&feature=player_embedded

sopsback said...

the above is part 6

then goback and listne to all 9 parts

near the end said...

Sop why do you care that Dr. Fred is broke like you?

near the end said...

Sop why do you care that Dr. Fred is broke like you?

near the end said...

Sop why do you care that Dr. Fred is broke like you?

near the end said...

Sop why do you care that Dr. Fred is broke like you?

near the end said...

Sop why do you care that Dr. Fred is broke like you?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 1195   Newer› Newest»