Tag Archives: Bob Hurt

Update on Bob Hurt & Storm Bradford—flembok@gmail.com is Bob Hurt in a Masquerade

Many of us involved in Mortgage Foreclosure defense activism have been staggering in amazement for several years that our one-time fellow-traveler Bob Hurt of Clearwater has so totally aligned himself as an advocate of Banker’s Rights and Easy Foreclosure and Eviction.  

Specifically, Bob Hurt promotes the ultimate bank “Plant”—Storm Bradford “Mortgage Fraud Examiner” of Virginia.

An interesting e-mail from an “anonymous” source “Flem Bok” was forwarded to me today.  Upon Google Search, we find that “Flembok” is a name used for lots of pornographic advertisements of hookers and the like.  Upon checking the address through SPOKEO, we came across a photograph of BOB HURT—he’s hard to miss or mistake, a very unique-looking individual…. and I use that word quite loosely and casually.  

So Bob is out fronting ANONYMOUSLY for Storm Bradford because (a) nobody else will and (b) Bob has gotten a bad reputation for himself and Storm pushing pro-Bank propaganda and cutting down all the good work that’s being done.

SO, WATCH OUT FOR FLEMBOK!  (and report any and all instances of Bob Masquerading under this name while selling internet pornography, also..)

From: Flem Bok <flembok@gmail.com>
Date: July 20, 2016 at 11:42:54 PM CDT
Subject: Curing your mortgage mess

Call this number and ask for an explanation of the right strategy.

703 — —-

Do it. The man who answers has helped MANY and he can help you.

Pick any other option and you’ll waste your money.

Show some wisdom and keep this email confidential.

********************************************************

Bob Hurt has launched so many deceitful and fraudulent attacks on me, when I was formerly one of his best friends and admirers, boggles my mind.  I am currently working on a major in New Orleans with a very sweet Louisiana girl (environmentalist, public safety and medical rights activist) named Clairese Claudet, whom Bob Hurt convinced or coerced, on December 24, 2014, to try to kill me.   Clairese and I have become close friends in the aftermath of this bizarre incident and I now trust her completely.  But Bob Hurt instructed her carefully on what to do and how to do it, and Clairese now says that she was utterly helpless because of her dependence on his advice and authority.  Bob Hurt is a dangerous man. 

Bob Hurt, aka Robert Hurt, wife Maria Hurt of Clearwater, Florida—Blackmailer, Extortionist, Pedophile, Pornographer and Libelist, Snake Oil Salesman and Harassment Artist

REQUEST FOR PERSONAL ASSISTANCE WITH A PERSONAL PROBLEM:

Who can help me bring Bob Hurt of Clearwater, Florida, to Justice?  Bob Hurt is the biggest blackmailer, extortionist, hypocrite, pornographer, pedophile, slanderer, and general ne’er-do-well and malcontent in the history of the State of Florida, which is filled with Hypocrites, slanderers, and general ne’er do wells and malcontents.  

For over a year now, Bob has been writing defamatory attacks against me and I have been attempting to maintain a calm demeanor and not let loose against him the way I want to.  But on Saturday, January 25, 2016, Bob crossed several lines with a mass mailing attacking me again and I have decided I have to answer publicly and say what I know to be true about this man, facts I have known for years and chosen to remain quiet.  But you can only kick a dog (or a raccoon) so many times before the dog starts to fight back and bite—and Bob has kicked this coon-dog about two dozen times too often.

UPDATE: My lawyer, has asked me to state the factual basis for my charges leveled in this article:  I was first alerted to Bob Hurt’s status as a pedophile and pederast by Kathleen Waller, a long-time resident of Clearwater and Tarpon Springs who used to run the most delightful place called “Celtic Coffee.”  She refused to associate with me in part because I continued to associate with Bob Hurt after she told me his background.

Kathleen Waller revealed to me that Bob had been expelled from the Church of Scientology because of his activities and I was later able to confirm this with Church authorities in Clearwater.  All other activities alleged against Bob Hurt (including his constantly sending me pornography when I have told him I find it very distasteful) are alleged based on personal knowledge and experience: Bob has done all these things to me, and I have seen him do them to others.

I have much better things to do than go around complaining about a former friend turned liar and Judas-kisser, but Bob Hurt has gone WAY too far….he goes around lying and slandering me and insulting me and me family because he gave me a computer and says I stole it.   Bob Hurt is trying above all to prevent me from applying for re-admission to the Florida Bar because he knows I would be BAD NEWS for crooks and shysters like him.  I would not want to be a part of any group that Bob Hurt could stop me from belonging to, that’s for sure.

Bob Hurt has interposed himself and tortiously interfered with my contractual relations with many people.  Not in the least way, he has sought vigorously to alienate me from my attorney Inger Michelle Garcia.  Bob threaten Inger with reporting her to the bar if she continued to work with me.  Bob threatened Inger with all kinds of things.  Bob is an extortionist and a blackmailer of the first order.

Bob Hurt has written his attacks on me this year help out another treacherous friend who turned on me, specifically to ally himself with an illegal alien, Amalia Liana Thanou to assist her and her family of Greek fraudsters squatting in my house on the “Jersey Shore” in Mantoloking, New Jersey, costing me tens of thousands of dollars each month in lost   rental income and legal fees.  

Illegal Alien Amalia is squatting in my Jersey Shore home because I was stupid enough to listen to her pleas, her begging and entreaties, in February and March 2015 to stay at the house and improve it for rental after being evicted from a dozen homes and apartments in Los Angeles 8 years’ time.  

Amalia claims a right to live in my 5 bedroom house for free with her (lethal, killer pit-bulls, whom I have witnessed killing other smaller dogs) because she claims to have done tens of thousands of dollars of “repair work” on my house, for which she cannot produce a single receipt—even for windex or a single can of paint or for a broom or can of oil.   

Amalia is also infamous for stiffing every lawyer in the city stupid enough to help her, including but not limited to my good friend (and a great American Patriot) WDJ, founder of the AFP, John W. Levine 9025 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Beverly Hills, California 90211, Elena I. Popp of the Eviction Defense Network at 1930 Wilshire in Los Angeles.   Most recently, see the attached letter: 

This is entirely morally consistent with Bob’s stance on the Mortgage foreclosure crisis: Bob unquestionably supports the right of Banks who completely lack legal standing or proof of ownership of debt to collect debts and foreclose on homes.   Bob Hurt has never met a liar or an extortionist or a corrupt banker he doesn’t love, and that’s why he hates me—I have dedicated my life to fighting the kind of corruption he WORSHIPS—ever since they kicked him out of the Church of Scientology for pederasty and pedophilia…

To return his many published defamations against me, I want to ask your help in gathering information necessary to silence this creep once and for all.  Bob Hurt, and his allies at the Fogbow, are trying to defame me and stop me from restoring my license to practice law—they may all succeed if I can’t show that this guy is a creep and a criminal with a history of emotional problems.

Please report any information you have on Mr. Hurt, including what he’s doing or saying about me, to me right here on this blog:

Please take note that my Florida attorney, Inger Michelle Garcia, Garcia Legal Group, at 4839 Volunteer Road, Suite #514, Davie, Florida 33330, has decided to resign as my attorney because she is deathly afraid of Bob Hurt, and she believes Bob Hurt will succeed in causing a lot of trouble.  That remains to be seen but Inger is expressing fear of a troll and a bully, and I’m very sad that she’s decided to resign, although she really hadn’t done anything but spend my money for nothing….and basically without much justification or return to me…. and in her resignation e-mail she said she was going to bill me $15,000.00—and I’d love to see for what services, exactly she intends to do that….

State vs. National Citizenship—the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 must be Repealed—Time to Bite the Bullet, Folks!

Donald Trump has won a lot of national support for his position that “anchor babies” are not U.S. Citizens.  https://www.yahoo.com/politics/birthright-citizenship-where-the-2016-127093585661.html

Despite their appetite for socialism and socialist engineering of U.S. Demography, I think it is fair to say that few if any the Radical Republican Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment ever dreamt of or envisioned a situation where millions of “huddled masses” and “wretched refuse ” types of people would come to America just to have babies to enroll in schools and obtain other welfare entitlements. 

No, the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to create a national standard for citizenship and civil rights, and to abolish the notion that the States of the United States were equivalent to the “States” who obtain membership in the United Nations.  

State citizenship was the weakest point of Cousin Abraham’s Northern policy during the War:  while many Radical Republicans wanted to call Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, and every other Confederate Officer and Politician, a “traitor”, these charges simply would not stick for one single reason.  From 1776-1868, the individual states were the ones which established and determined citizenship, and so Lee was right to think of himself as a Virginian (about a 10th or 12th generation Virginian, in fact) by both the doctrines of ius solis and ius sanguinis.  Jefferson Davis might have been born in Kentucky, but he was a “naturalized” Mississippian.  Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard was a 6th or 7th generation Louisianian, like Lee, either by ius solis or ius sanguinis

So Lee and Beauregard were unquestionably citizens of their own home states, and NOT of the United States.  They might have been employed in the armies of the United States, or, like Davis, also officers of the United States Government in its legislative (Senate) and Executive Branches (where Davis was Secretary of War).

But by every pre-War understanding, the Confederate leaders were not CAPABLE of betraying a Country WHICH NEVER EXISTED.  Like the States they belonged to, the Confederate Leaders could resign from the service of the Union, but in no legal or moral sense could they be called “traitors” to it, because (at least before 1868) the UNION WAS NOT A SINGLE SOVEREIGNTY.  Yes, indeed, quite simply, there WAS no such thing as “United States citizenship” prior to the Fourteenth Amendment—just a very generalized “American” citizenship which dependent on the collaboration and contribution of the ratifying states.  And that is why “Birth of a Nation” (by D.W. Griffith) was so correctly named: a collection of closely cooperating and allied free nation-states (small Jeffersonian Democracies) went to war with each other in 1861, and they were, afterwards, at gunpoint, forced into one single new country.

This was the debate that framed Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidency—so long as he could convince (fool?) a majority of the people into believing he was born in Hawaii, he was eligible, under the ius solis doctrine of the 14th Amendment, to be President.  But if a ius sanguinis standard should be applied, Obama’s rather famous Kenyan father stood as an absolute obstacle to his eligibility.  So as Dinesh D’Souza had shown in his brilliant movie Obama 2016, Obama’s goal as President was absolutely to abolish both the identity and nature of American society and culture.  Now the 44th President effects this transformation largely through emotionally manipulative lies and psychological manipulation, rather than democratic process or law.

But, indeed, the language of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “citizenship” clause is clear enough in making “soil” more important than “blood,” and has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court for over a hundred years to mean that literally anyone born in the United States, for any reason, automatically is an American Citizen.  This is obviously a disaster for the Country and many have written about it, including the mad Texan elf of Clearwater, Florida, Robert M. Hurt, Jr.:

Trump Is Right: Anchor Babies Do Not Rightfully Become US Citizens

http://bobhurt.blogspot.com/2015/08/trump-is-right-anchor-babies-do-not.html

What Hurt proposes is essentially changing the law by reinterpreting the law, and this often does not work so well—and could in fact be described as the source of much of modern America’s woes—allowing the Supreme Court to say that night is day and day is night is getting old, 62 years after Earl Warren became Chief Justice, 113 after Oliver Wendell Holmes brought Massachusetts “progressivism” to the Court, paving the way for the New Deal for whose eventual triumph (through popularity over constitutional rigor) Holmes might be considered a kind of Prophet….

Among Holmes’ most famous pronouncements is that, “an experiment, as all life is an experiment” (Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919)).  Allowing, or even encouraging, population replacement—the “Browning of America”—is among the left’s favorite long-term social goals and experiments, and (admittedly) all of us who oppose the Browning of America are classified by Salon.com, the Huffington Post, and the New York Times, among others, as vile racist reactionaries. 

But I can live with that.  As far as the way out, though, as far as how White America can preserve itself, I don’t think that verbal games such as Robert M. Hurt, Jr., Donald John Trump, and many others will work.  

No, I always prefer dealing with issues directly and in taking a “full-frontal” approach.  The Fourteenth Amendment resulted from a massive war of Centralization of Power.  The only politician in MY LIFETIME who ever addressed the problem directly was San Diego Mayor and later California Governor and Senator Pete Wilson: who directly advocated repeal of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment during the 1980s.  He is almost totally forgotten now, but when I was in Law School, I remember thinking his approach was sound.  Repeal of the Citizenship Clause would be clear statement that unlimited immigration and population replacement via “anchor babies” is and ought to be intolerable.

People don’t realize it, but prior to the War of 1861-65 between the North and the South, MANY NORTHERN STATES if not most of them, DENIED CITIZENSHIP of any kind to blacks.  (the last state to have such a law was Oregon, which literally made it simply illegal to “be a negro” in the State of Oregon— to enter the state at all, under any pretext, was cause for imprisonment, fine, and immediate removal to the state lines upon release.

While “the Underground Railroad” was very famous, you might ask yourself, “if Abolitionist sentiment was so strong in the North, (a) why was the underground railroad “underground” and (b) why did it end up in Canada?  The answer is that since Northern States had enacted “no black citizenship” laws, being “free” in most places meant nothing. 

The way history is taught and discussed in modern America, it’s not always quite clear, but Chief Justice Roger Taney, in Scott v. Sanford was actually adopting a MERGER of both the Northern and Southern positions in his (plurality against Freedom for Slaves by Crossing State Lines) decision in 1857 (every Justice on the Court rendered a Separate opinion in that case). 

Justice Taney said that no negro could ever be a citizen of the United States.  So he was ALREADY (by usurpation) establishing a Federal rather than a state standard of citizenship—THAT IS WHY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS ENACTED—the whole War Between the States and 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution can be considered an effort to Overrule the “Dred Scott” ruling— but what many people forget is that Taney had already taken the critical first step by attempting to impose NORTHERN standards of Citizenship NATIONWIDE— ironically, this ruling (if it had been allowed to stand) might well, would almost certainly, have had the bizarre effect of “outlawing” or depriving tens of thousands of free (and many slaveholding) blacks in Louisiana of their citizenship, professional licenses, and right to vote. 

So the real problem was Taney’s (1857, pre-War) judicial “stealth” transition from allowing STATES to determine Citizenship to his rather clumsy attempt to impose a NATIONWIDE standard for citizenship.  The Fourteenth Amendment was the “Radical Republican” answer to this. 

Ironic, isn’t it?, that when properly understood, the Fourteenth Amendment was just as oppressive to the Northern States as to the Southern States.  Northern States could no longer ban black people. (Although the remarkable State of Oregon did not repeal it’s African-exclusionary laws until 1926, and only ratified the Fifteenth Amendment until the centennial of that State’s admission to the Union in 1959)(Oregon’s 1844, pre-state, pre-war position on slavery was that all blacks, free or slave, should be whipped and lashed twice a year until they left the territory).

Former California Governor Pete Wilson, by contrast with both Roger Taney and Donald Trump, understood that and would have returned to the individual states the power to determine citizenship by repeal of the “birth clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment.  One can easily imagine, almost too easily, how permitting the states to determine citizenship would be nearly equivalent to allowing secession—because Hawaii, for example, could pass a law decreeing that no “Howlees” (i.e. Anglo-Saxon or other European Whites) could ever be citizens of Hawaii—and so effectively dissolve the ties between that improperly annexed Island State and the rest of “the Union.”  (Hawaii currently has the most radical and politically “real” and active secessionist movement in the USA).

Even if the States COULD determine citizenship, the balance of the 14th Amendment still protected everyone “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States with regard to Civil Rights…. so even if there were no “national standard for citizenship” there could still be a “national standard for civil rights.”
 

Do McDonald’s and Walmart Epitomize Communism or Capitalism? (A debate ongoing with Robert Stark of Santa Barbara and Robert Hurt of Clearwater)

Dear Bob & Robert:

You have read my response to Robert Stark’s incoherent and erroneous complaint regarding Capitalism as inimical to social hierarchy and the maintenance of elite classes and tastes, and now you ask me to risk wasting my time since I can never convince you of anything, but I’ll give it my best whirl here:
Communism arose (and still arises) from the desire to break down all social and cultural (i.e behavioral and material) class barriers between people.

This egalitarian tendency is what leads some to assert that communism and Christianity are compatible, or that Thomas Jefferson foresaw and advocated communism in the Declaration of Independence. Communism, most simply and purely defined, is radical egalitarianism—making every person like every other person.
I should note as an aside that while I understand both the 1776 Jeffersonian and the primitive Christian antecedents of communism, as a moral precept regarding the commonality of human needs and wants, both Jefferson and the primitive (i.e. Roman and Mediaeval) Christian Churches were inimically opposed to credit lending and banking of any kind. “Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven” said Jesus, and then he drove the money changers out of the Temple, saying “You have made my Father’s house into a den of thieves.”

The next day, Jesus then washed his apostles feet before the last Supper and instructed them to serve one another and the people, as he served them, although he was their leader, the first to die and the first to be reborn—his Father’s great gift to all mankind.

Jesus and St. Paul both emphasized a certain leveling effect of the Christian concept of the salvation of the soul—but they asked that this be done as a matter of charity and giving, and voluntary service. Jefferson, for his part, fought Federalists Hamilton and Adams bitterly over the question of the banks, which he correctly regarded as the arbiters of slavery—as debt, throughout history, has always been the fundamental basis for slavery (since Ancient 3rd Milleniums Sumerian, Second Millennium Early Babylonian times and probably long before—as acknowledged in the Hebrew Bible’s celebration of the 7 year “Jubilee”—marking the period relief from debt established in and derived from Mesopotamia).

Marx & Engels’ Communist Manifesto published in London in February 1848 sought to establish an eternal system of debt to centralized institutions from which there would never be another Jubilee until the end of time. Their Manifesto systematically focuses in turn on every aspect of this leveling process: urban and rural life should be the same. Agriculture and Industry should be the same. Men and women should, as nearly as biologically possible, be the same.

In short: all barriers between, all distinguishing characteristics differentiating people should simply be erased. No one should own or consume more than s/he needs to survive, so there is some acknowledgment of differential need, but no one should own real estate, which is the fundamental basis of all social existence. Karl Marx and his followers directed that education should be restructured so as to mould all individuals into good servants of the communist plan.

As I have pointed out and written and rewritten so many times, the sinister hidden fact behind the Communist Manifesto and Marx’ entire career was the practical reality envisioned by Marx (great grandson and grand-nephew of the Rothschilds, especially Mayer Amstel Rothschild): leveling of all classes and destruction of all boundaries between people could only be achieved through central banking and leveraged buyouts through inflationary credit, and the abolition of gold and silver as monetary bases.

Although Marx & Engels focus on the leveraged buyout of land in the Manifesto, it is fairly clear that the only way that all systems of production and distribution of all industrial and agricultural goods could only be ultimately centralized through the same system of central bank financing of large “industrial armies…..especially in agriculture”, just as the only way to create a centralized apparatus of roads, highways, canals, and vehicular transport for the centrally produced products could only happen through government credit—making predatory pricing possible to wipe out all the small merchants, shop-keepers who were the very heart of capitalism which Marx & Engels so thoroughly despised.

And exactly what has Walmart done? Throughout the world, Walmart has driven small vendors out of business, even out of existence. Walmart has destroyed all vestiges of private business in countless towns and neighborhoods throughout America, Canada, and the world.

And What has McDonald’s done? Together in lock step with its mirror image brand names Burger King, Jack-in-the Box, and Wendy’s and stylistic variants like Sonic, and ethnic cuisine variants such as KFC, Popeye’s, and Taco Bell, McDonald’s has led the way in revolutionizing how and what people eat—down to the lowest common denominator—exactly what Robert Stark was complaining that capitalism did.
The construction and opening of a Walmart just next door to Teotihuacan, the largest and most extensive ruined city remaining from all of ancient, pre-Hispanic, Mexico, symbolizes to me the triumph of American-style Fabian Communism over all other forms of living and modes of production.
Yet this IDEAL of the LCD among people was NOT a Capitalistic idea, but a communistic idea.

Walmart & McDonald’s fulfill, more than any system invented in the Soviet Union, the class-leveling purpose of communism. EVERYTHING is available under one roof, of modest-to-good quality at the lowest possible price, prices made possible only by government credit extension to fund the unitary GLOBAL, WORLDWIDE centralized production and distribution of agricultural and industrial goods.

I wrote my earlier piece in response to Robert Stark’s commentary that he disliked Capitalism because Capitalism created Walmart and McDonald’s. Robert Stark could not be more wrong. Not only do Walmart and McDonald’s manifest the ideological and more importantly PRACTICAL apogee of communist aspirations for material and class leveling and merging of all classes through centralized global systems of production, distribution, and planned consumption, but Walmart and McDonald’s were NOT CREATED BY CAPITAL—i.e., by hard money investing.

Rather, in the aftermath of World War II, supermarkets and retail chains expanded and expanded ever further with governmental sponsorship though systems of direct Federal Reserve Lending and tax credits. A&P and Sears had their origins in the Railroad monopolies of the late 19th century which in turn arose from Abraham Lincoln’s first great experiments in central economic planning, the vast “credit” extended to these companies by enlisting the US Frontier Cavalry and Infantry, organized after the Civil War for the First Time as a permanent, large standing army, to preserve, protect and defend NOT the Constitution of the United States but the three great Transcontinental Railroad corporations and their land holdings—larger units of regional planning than the Tennessee Valley Authority or any other project of FDR’s New Deal, and to support the central planning of the economy of the West implied by these brainchildren of the 16th President and his Whiggish and Hamiltonian antecedents.

But the A & P, Safeway, Sears Roebuck, and other similar predecessors and antecedents were but Fabian gradualist stepping stones on the way to the perfected communism of Walmart & McDonald’s, in which all discrimination, really and truly, is ended, except for the discrimination of the integrated corporate-financial government against the people….

So compare Jeffersonian and Christian notions of equality with Marxism: only Marxist Communism, born of the Rothschild’s family lineage, advocated the use of central banking and leveraged buyouts through inflationary credit as the means of abolishing private property and centralizing all production, distribution, and standardizing all consumption in the world. In other words, only Marxist Communism had designed and prepared a road map for how to coerce the entire world into uniformity and submission.

And uniformity and submission are exactly what Walmart & McDonald’s have achieved to a degree unparalleled in the history of the world. Now they could not have done so without the Federal Reserve, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Citibank, and those entities could not have existed without the blessings and tolerance of the United States President, Congress, and Supreme Court in utter subversion of the Constitution, as well as the teachings of (at least) the  Christian Bible.

In final response to your (Bob Hurt’s) and Robert Stark’s questions, I would say that the only relic of capitalism to be found at Walmart or McDonald’s is the cashier’s (whether automated or human) acceptance of cash payments in the legal tender known as Federal Reserve Notes which, by “evolutionary” heritage, trace their ancestry to notions of actual capital. The relationship between Federal Reserve Note Dollars and Capital, however, is exacty the same as the relationship of a heathen (Roman or Greek) Ghost to the human body—that relationship was called a “Shade” (Umbra) or shadow— and so, in conclusion, I would say that the cashier’s receipts of FRNs at Walmart and McDonald are merely the ghostly shades of capitalism, the mere transactional formalities of paying—against which Marx and Engels never protested.
In fact, Karl Marx always presumed a “cash” economy and wrote of the State Collecting rents from all real property, of a progressive income tax, and of minimum wages. The mere existence of cash, however, in the form of inflationary credit units, has no more relationship to capitalism than wind does to the spirit which animates a living body.

Happy Birthday, Robert Rivernider, of Wellington, Florida! Lessons about Never Giving Up, and Fighting no Matter how much they lie about you…..

My friends and former allies Bob Rivernider and Robert J. Ponte are now in Federal Penitentiaries, sentenced (respectively) to 12 and 7+ years plus five years supervised release.  For men near my age, this is a virtual death sentence.  LOTS of people die in American prisons….that’s a reality not everyone knows.  I did not always agree with these two gentlemen, did not always (well, actually, never) understand their business plans, but one thing I am pretty sure: they are not and never were dangerous criminals.  The real question is whether they were criminals AT ALL, in any sense.  It seems to me that they are part of a growing universe of white men in white collar positions who are being punished for making bad business decisions.  In essence, business failure, like poverty itself, is now a crime in America.  In terms of their personalities, Bob Rivernider was gruff and cantankerous—perhaps why he got a 144 month sentence.  Robert J. Ponte was much smoother and sweeter—perhaps that why he “only” got 7 1/2 years….  

The names “Rivernider” and “Lincoln” have for a long time been hyper-linked in Google Searches, especially if paired with two other search terms: “Palm Beach” and “Orly Taitz.”  Ok, we all know that anything that Orly touched in my life was a fricking disaster…. But Orly was not responsible for Bob Rivernider’s troubles—although the real power behind her, namely the lying and deceitful, treacherous American Executive Branch, certainly was.

The Orly phenomenon originated and found extravagant sponsorship in the local Washington, D.C., branch of the Globalist government by financial-military-industrial cartel.  This Cartel, official leaders Larry Summers, John Shepard Reed***, Jacob Joseph (“Jack”) Lew, and their crowd of corrupt financiers, designated Orly as their “Clown Princess” and Jester extraordinaire to the Courts in defense of Obama’s qualifications to serve as Chief Executive after having been elected by the Bilderbergers.  Orly, as a movement and phenomenon, was created in the brilliant “reverse logic” (Kafkaesque, or more to the point, positively Saul Alinskyesque) defense of Barrack Obama’s citizenship by absurdist attack.  Only Orly Taitz’ ludicrous behavior could have made the world safe for Obama, the most Constitutionally unqualified and inappropriate president imaginable.  Only Orly could have turned strict construction of the Article II Presidential eligibility clause into the laughing stock of the entire nation, and the world which once again had to endure the shakes of the 6 billion heads who live outside of the boundaries of “E Pluribus Unum” to wonder how Americans could possibly be so stupid and gullible.

This same cartel, for less obvious reasons, apparently found in Robert Rivernider an extreme threat and made him a “high value target” even before I first met Bob in 2008-9 at one or more of Bob Hurt’s seminar/conferences in and around the Tampa Bay Area, Florida.   Bob Rivernider now wears an ankle bracelet and has a 7:00 curfew as he awaits final sentencing pursuant to a plea bargain he probably never should have entered.  I know a thing or two or three about the U.S. Government’s ability to coerce plea agreements out of innocent people:  “you agree to this or you’re going away for life while we impoverish your family” is extremely persuasive, no matter what the truth may be.  But in Bob Rivernider’s case—they talked him into going away for life, or something pretty close to it, AS his plea bargain, after he had already started a trial.  Since Bob was certainly never going to be subject to the death penalty, it was hard to see how he had struck a good deal here…..so I was anxious to hear his story.  I had known and celebrated his birthday with him in 2009, but had forgotten all about it in the intervening years—but right now I can say I am only hopeful that (if there’s anything at all to Astrology, though frankly I doubt there is) my son will turn out to be a man of half the fighting character and spirit of resistance I see in Bob Rivernider.  I would like to see Bob Rivernider on his birthday again, maybe before another four years have passed.  It would be a bad thing, and a great loss to society, for him to be locked up for the next 25 or 30 of his birthdays.  It would be a major miscarriage of justice….

Partly in Honor of my son’s 21st birthday, which I could not share with him because of choices apparently made either by him or his mother, and otherwise partly because of a frivolous motion filed against me in a case in the 15th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, I came back to my old haunts in beautiful Palm Beach 33480 for the first time since just after Easter 2010.

Nobody would say that this is the best, or even a pleasant, time to come to South Florida.  Late August is the heart of hurricane season.  But even without any hurricanes, South Florida is hotter and more humid than New Orleans, and nowhere near as pleasant as Yucatán, México, in this season.  This is true only because it rains so much more in South-pointing Florida’s North-pointing Southern opposite Peninsula just across the Gulf.  The greater daily rainfall and cloudcover in México means that the full tropics of Southeastern México are actually cooler than the Florida subtropics just to the north in the USA.  

It has turned out to be one of the best and most exciting weekends I’ve had in a very long time, primarily because I met my new lawyer, my new partner and representative, Dara Leigh Bloom, for the very first time when I arrived here Saturday evening, and other my new partner and expert witness in securitization and pooling analysis—Mario Kenny, on Sunday afternoon.  It occurred to me while here that although I have worked hard, been worried, and been angry from time-to-time in Palm Beach County, this is one part of the world where I can truly say I have never been really unhappy or deeply depressed. 

Sunday morning I got up early and went to 8:00 Holy Communion and Eucharist at Bethesda-by-the-Sea—a Parish Church significantly grander than Christ Church Cathedral in New Orleans, though not even half as old and lacking the same amazing direct connexions to Southern American history.  Located just south of the Breakers at 141 South County Road, Bethesda-by-the-Sea is the Church where my son Charlie was Baptized on the Feast of the Epiphany in 1993.  It was an honor and privilege to return here, and to sit a while in Bethesda’s beautiful gardens after the 8:00 service was over, contemplating the Rector’s sermon on Sabbath being a time for thinking, reflecting, and doing nothing.

Doing nothing, of course, was not a significant part of the plan for coming to Palm Beach.  Just after 10:00 a.m., Bob Rivernider arrived at the Bradley Park Hotel at 280 Sunset, across from Publix and just five very short blocks from our old home here on the Island, where my son Charlie spent just over the full first year of his life, after being born on the eve of Hurricane Andrew while I completed my term as Judicial Law Clerk to Kenneth L. Ryskamp of the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida.

Bob Hurt of Clearwater, old friend, frequent recent critic, whom I had not so long ago written that I disowned writing, “I know thee not old man”….came down with his charming wife Maria to visit for the weekend and argue some more.  I had walked to Bethesda before the morning service but by the time it was over, it was too bloody hot to walk back and Bob Hurt did me the courtesy of picking me up.

We arrived back at the Bradley just as Bob Rivernider was pulling up.  And then Bob began to tell us his story…. to a small audience consisting of me, Dara Leigh Bloom, and Bob Hurt.

For two and a half hours, Rivernider expostulated to us regarding the devious, manipulative stratagems and trickery that the U.S. Attorneys’ Office (and his own CJA Attorneys) in Connecticut, used to get him, his former partner Robert Ponte, and his sister Lorraine Seneca, to plead guilty almost a month into a jury trial in Hartford, Connecticut.  

I can’t say that I really understood Bob’s business before or now.  It may have been a good business plan, it may not have been, but what it fairly clearly was, was an honest business plan, even if “high risk” was written all over it.  Robert Rivernider and Robert Ponte somehow planned to generate high returns on investments in real estate and foreign exchange swaps to their clients, who invested hundreds of thousands, in some cases millions of dollars.

So far as I can tell, the great sin that Ponte & Rivernider committed in all this was to try to piggy-back on the real estate speculation in which the major banks of the world were so famously engaged in the middle of the first decade of the new Millennium.  Because they were doing this, they were apparently “high value” targets to be designated “fall guys” for the fallout and collapse of this speculative roller-coaster.  Everyone over the age of 14 knew that ONLY real estate speculation of the wildest and most absurd nature could have driven the market as it climbed up to its peak in 2007, triggering the collapse of 2008-9.  

In 2008 the banks of the United States, along with other major industries (e.g. the automobile industry, especially the “Big Three” GM, Ford, & Chrysler) were effectively nationalized—although nobody important or “in control” used that term or word publicly, or if they did, not very much or very often, at least on prime time TV.   Yet it was precisely at the end of the W. Bush’s term and the beginning of Obama’s that full scale Socialism was instituted in the USA.

Among the significant but lower profile announcements of the new Obama administration was that the Department of Justice would be going after “White Collar Crime” involved in and relating to the banking collapse.  And it was then that Robert Rivernider, Robert Ponte, Lorraine Seneca, and so many others suddenly crossed over from being “the managers of distressed businesses” to “high value targets of criminal investigation.”

As a practical matter, targeting failed business enterprises like the Ponte-Rivernider-Seneca group was a way of declaring war on the White Middle Class which Obama so clearly despises.  Ponte-Rivernider-and-Seneca were accused, among other things, of a “scheme to defraud” under 18 U.S.C. §1343 (“Wire Fraud”) of a scheme to manipulate real estate appraisals unrealistically high to obtain greater extended credit leverage from banks.   Again, as every person who was at least 14 after 2000 must have known—well over half the population was playing Real Estate Roulette at this time (2000-2007)—not merely with the full cooperation and collusion but egged on by the banks and, for that matter, State and Federal lawmakers and regulators.  

Scapegoats are always necessary in such situations—you can’t very well sacrifice the real criminals like Lawrence Summers, John Shepard Reed, and Jacob Joseph  Lew, so you look for “little people” like Ponte and Rivernider.

After listening to Rivernider’s story, all I can say is this: (1) the U.S. Attorneys in Connecticut were prosecuting to cover up Bank misconduct and justify bank losses, (2) the C.J.A. (government-paid-defense) attorneys appointed to defend Rivernider at least (he told mostly his own story), were not accidentally incompetent, but active members of the prosecutorial team.  Listening to Rivernider, it seemed that his defense team chronically and repeatedly failed to make proper and warranted objections, failed to offer well-founded affirmative defenses, and above all, pushed Rivernider, Ponte, and Seneca to plead guilty BEFORE the U.S. had even rested its case.  The defense team did this after announcing that they would put on no defense whatsoever (and hence waiving what could have been a very strong defense on the part of the three defendants).

The U.S. District Court seemed to have cared much more about the jurors’ time and length of trial than whether the Defendants had full and fair opportunity to challenge the facts alleged against them.  It seemed that the Prosecution’s consistent strategy was one of deception, disguise, and dissimulation ranging from willfully misrepresenting the obvious meaning of words and phrases in e-mails up to making outbursts in Court which we were taught in law school and bar review courses, and saw as practitioners, would have been grounds for immediate motions for mistrial (e.g. the prosecutor calling out “He’s Lying” during a witnesses’ testimony in front of the jury and later apologizing to the Court).  It seemed that the Defense strategy was to meekly accept all prosecutorial misconduct and not to object.

Among the most disturbing direct quotes that Bob gave us were that his attorney told him, “I was hired to get you the best sentence possible” and the prosecutor admitting to the Court that certain behaviors alleged in the indictments forming the basis for a lengthy sentence recommendation were “not per se illegal.”

Bob Hurt chimed in at this point, “what does “not per se illegal” mean?”  I opined that “not per se illegal” could be reasonably translated out of prosecutorial lingo into English as “not illegal at all”, i.e. “legal” meaning “the Defendants conduct was in fact lawful and therefore unimpeachable.”

Bob Rivernider says that his PSI “number” is 41, and that the prosecution is seeking a 25-30 year sentence, quite plausible given what I know of the Federal Sentencing guidelines (I think my PSI number was 5-6 when I agreed to give up my law license in Texas in August 2000 but I can’t remember exactly anymore).  Bob said that Monday, August 26, 2013, was his 48th birthday.  He looks a lot older than that, closer to 58 to me—and he’s significantly grayer than when I last saw him in the Spring of 2010.  

Listening to Bob talk on Sunday and then again on Monday, seeing the obvious rage in his face and heart, I tend to think that his cause was just and that he should probably try to withdraw his guilty plea (even though that’s very difficult to do) or do an appeal, conditional or otherwise, on the constitutionality of the proceedings.  I think that 18 U.S.C. §1343 has been stretched beyond its reasonable limits.   Any law or statute becomes “void for vagueness” if stretched too thin, and “fraud” means very little if it is said that every business deal that turns out bad was “fraudulent”—although this is an argument consistent with Obama’s communistic hatred of free enterprise, which always implies reasonable assumption of risk, even in the simplest and most honest businesses.

To hear Rivernider talk, the government’s case against him sounds flimsy and borderline insane, justifiable only by deep-seated hatred and anxiousness to make him (and Ponte and Seneca) suffer for the government-sponsored, bank sponsored rampage of speculation that led to the financial collapse of 2008-2009 AND (not coincidentally) the election of Barack Hussein Obama.  

Bob asked me to try to help him promote “the truth” and all I can say is, that’s the best present I know how to give him, and this little write-up is about the best I can do based on the state of my knowledge at this point.   I have not defended Bob’s business plan, but I do not think it was inherently or even tangentially fraudulent,  because “fraud” implies (and requires) “intent to deceive as to material facts.”

My only truly analytical thought is this: I wonder whether Bob (& Ponte & Lorraine) would have been prosecuted if he (they) had taken out “business liability insurance” which would have covered all losses, like the Government’s FDIC and similar programs, TARP, for instance, to bail out the banks.  Does purchasing insurance against likely losses make one more honest or more obviously aware of the likelihood of loss?  Would anyone be willing to ensure real estate practices such as those in which the Banks engaged OTHER than the U.S. Government?    

Are we so afraid of the “failures of freedom” and free enterprise that we would or should require every business to carry “loss insurance”, or stay out of business?  Is that a productive and constructive way to advance science and industry, or to create new wealth?   Or should we point our fingers at the banks, as Rivernider, Ponte, and Seneca, were given some sort of authority to do in February 2013, shortly before the pled guilty.  

Rivernider says that his defense attorneys hired a psychiatrist to convince him that he did not understand the wrongfulness of his own conduct, due to a psychological “executive function deficit” of some sort, and that he could receive lenity at sentencing by acknowledging his condition.   This, again, is a rather extraordinary element of Rivernider’s story.  I had never heard of “executive function deficit” before (although it sounds fairly applicable to about half a dozen recent Presidents I can think of, and several dozen current and recent bank Presidents and high officers).

I strongly doubt, however, on listening to him, Bob Rivernider’s “Executive Function” operates at a lower level than, say Orly Taitz’ or Barack Obama’s—unless surviving and doing what you were assigned to do (e.g. Keep Obama immune from Constitutional attack, in Orly’s case, dismantled the U.S. Constitution as a whole, then institute communism, in Obama’s case) is the SOLE test.  

Rivernider’s prosecutors seem to have twisted facts and misrepresented circumstances and presented an altered, fractured, reality consistently enough to the Court as to constitute actual “witness tampering” and obstruction of justice (and only coincidentally, I guess, thereby effecting a denial of due process of law).  Orly also has twisted facts, misrepresented circumstances, and presented an altered, fractured, reality to MANY courts.  Orly has done so quite incompetently, although as noted above, her monotonously consistent incompetence appears to have been her intentional modus operandi and raison d’etre, and Rivernider’s defense attorneys seem to have done something quite similar, or aided and abetted the prosecution to do so.

My friends, as I have written on these pages many times before, do not judge harshly anyone you know or hear of who is prosecuted these days.  “Everybody knows that the system’s rotten.”  Good people go down every day, and the American jails are filled with innocent people, whom you might be proud to know and happy to have to your home as guests.    The American Criminal Justice system is BROKEN, CORRUPT, and needs to be torn down to the ground and rebuilt from the bottom up—if at all.  

Perhaps the power to identify, prosecute, and punish criminals should be returned to the people, as it was throughout history, essentially until the 20th century, everywhere.

***”There’s no clearer example of the collusion between government and corporate finance than the Citicorp-Travelers merger, which — thanks to the removal of Glass-Steagall — enabled the formation of the financial behemoth known as Citigroup. But even behemoths are vulnerable; when the meltdown hit, the bank cut more than 50,000 jobs, and the taxpayers shelled out more than $45 billion to save it.”  http://billmoyers.com/segment/john-reed-on-big-banks-power-and-influence/

Collectivization of Debt is Communism in Action: Republicans are Moral Lepers (the Republican House Majority in Florida has just passed HB 87, approving expedited foreclosures and insulating false securitization from effective challenge or review)

CONTINUING THE DEBATE BETWEEN BOB HURT, MYSELF (CEL) MALCOLM DONEY, & MELINDA PILLSBURY-FOSTER

Bob:
Without attempting to address everything you write, or even everything you wrote in your reply to Malcolm Doney below, regarding Florida HB 87 (04-30-2013 Florida House Bill 87 Just Passed—Communist Dream of Abolishing Private Property Marches Forward).  Florida HB 87 degrades due process of law in the taking of property below “rational basis” review to no effective review at all…. any deprivation of private property should be treated, quite literally, with the same seriousness as a death penalty.  Furthermore, by its expedited provisions, HB 87 will prevent all but the most prepared homeowners from mounting any sort of defense to a foreclosure suit at all.
HB 87 permits (encourages) banks to hit weak people at their weakest when they are down and hits them hard.  At a time when the system should be extending every possible allowance to the “little guy”, the small time investor or single-family homeowner in economic distress, HB 87 makes sure that the fight (actually the sacrificial execution) of the homeowner will be swift but brutal.  Summary foreclosure, summary evictions, the all permit the claimants to hide behind judicial procedures of expedience to avoid close scrutiny of their deceits and prevarications in pretense of compliance with the law—THAT is why the requirements of HB 87 are themselves dissembling and dissimulating of the true purpose: the goal is artificially to stimulate the economy by pretending to put more houses on the market.  HB 87 is revolting!  Republicans (at least in Florida) are really and truly MORAL LEPERS.
         For family, home and freedom in America, the foreclosure crisis, and securitization of mortgages, is effectively a slow death penalty.  I am appalled and shocked that the Republican Controlled State House in Florida has passed HB 87:
             I think you basically have sold yourself out to the collectivist mentality, in that you see no injury resulting from securitization. As I wrote earlier: despite your citations to Black’s Law Dictionary and your occasional assertion of the notion of sovereign citizenship, you no longer adhere to the Anglo-American common law (and indeed the Ancient Roman civil law) notions of private property, originating in private contract, and I think this is a terrible “shame on you” and your contributions.  You have championed the “sovereign citizen” movement, but in betraying the doctrines of holder-in-due-course and privity of contract, you betray one of the most basic precepts of sovereign citizenship: the right to choose with whom you deal and associate.  Socialization of debt by securitization deprives the individual of his freedom of choice of business associates.  
Such things are always justified as “cost saving measures”, but they infringe to violently and directly on our individual autonomy.  Surely you would agree that we have the right to choose our friends, especially our mates in marriage with whom we may spend upwards of 20-30 years, am I correct?  If you agree with this proposition then you should agree that each man and woman has a right to choose his business partners in the same way, OR ANY OTHER PERSON WITH WHOM HE OR SHE WOULD CHOSE TO DO BUSINESS.  
This freedom of choice surely includes the more important obligations we assume: marriage is a great example of an open ended series of interactions and obligations, but so is entering into any business partnership, including a partnership based on investment, in which one party lends another the funds to start a business or purchase a house with repayment planned over 30 years. The famous Christmas movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” illustrates the ideal of lending as partnership. When Frank Capra’s movie was made, in 1946, even just after World War II, the Federal Reserve system had already extended its tentacles everywhere, into even the banks of small town America, so the story was already anachronous to the reality of modern life—UP TO A POINT.
But even as a child, growing up age 6-12 in Dallas, I knew my grandfather’s bankers as family friends and neighbors.  They went to the same churches, they walked and swam and boated in the same parks as we did. Those bankers had extended my parents personal letters of credit to live in London starting when I was six months old….The Astons who own and ran the Republic Bank of Texas in Dallas and the Dullworths and McKnights who ran First National Bank were real people.  Everybody in Dallas knew everybody else on a first name basis….no one wanted national banks that crossed state lines—everybody knew what the consequences would be: destruction of freedom.
Their kids went to the same school I did.  The adults entered into real contracts which were carefully negotiated with lawyers who were also our neighbors.  When my grandfather wanted to start a new line of products or buy a new building, he visited them and discussed his plans in detail.  Where is that kind of banking today?  Republic Bank of Texas and First National Bank are long gone, absorbed by Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase, respectively.  No one has any idea who is really in charge of these banks and in fact, no one is, because they are merely bureaucratic appendages of the government.
Because of the effective nationalization and government takeover of the national banks, loans are allocated by government policy discussed behind closed doors at the Federal Reserve Board these days—they try to encourage certain actions and discourage others by liberal lending and greater or lesser taxation.  The impose nationwide CONTRACTS OF ADHESION that even small industrialists like my grandfather would have no power to negotiate anymore at all—this is the ultimate fruit of securitization—we have no freedom of choice anymore.  We have been deprived of our local control and autonomy in the interests of streamlining the economy—of maximizing leverage and debt in the hands of the central bankers—this is not injury?  This is the destruction and death of freedom….
You have always been very good to me and I hate to be critical, but you are as profoundly wrong as you can possibly be when you write:

1.  The Ponzi scheme to which you refer (securitization) does not concern or injure the borrower, and that’s why courts across America have consistently ruled against securitization arguments in foreclosure defenses. 

Collectivization of debt can only be permitted or exist in a world where private contract and private property have both ceased to exist. Florida HB 87 facilitates the abrogation of private autonomy without due process of law by demeaning private property acquired by contract to a level of an epiphenomenal set of rights, hardly worthy of the true status which ownership of private property enjoys as one of the Carolene Products, Footnote 4, specifically enumerated rights, deprivation of which is subject to the highest, strict level of scrutiny.. So the securitization of mortgages is the abolition of private property.  The Individual is either the sole owner of her/his life or s/he is not.  There are no shades of gray here.  “Limited Sovereignty” is an oxymoron here. 
In short, Bob, what you fail to realize is that Securitization constitutes a license arbitrarily and capriciously (1) to impair and in impairment of the rights and obligations of contract, in violation of Article I, Section 10 (see this old 1922 Law Review Article: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4859&context=mulr), (2) to take private property interests without due process of law when those property interests are secured and guaranteed by contract, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, (3) to infringe if not violate the freedom of assembly and association guaranteed by the First Amendment, (4) Securitization and in particular the amendments proposed by Florida HB 87 violate the Fourth Amendment “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” and (5) the Ninth Amendment reservation of the right of the people to the enjoyment of the privileges, liberties, and immunities afforded to them in the Anglo-American common law tradition.
In short, I can think of nothing more pernicious than the effect that Florida HB 87 will have on the property rights of Floridians.
You need to wake up, Mr. Bob Hurt, to the fact that securitization (i.e. collectivization) of debt is just the Bush-Obama Communist Oligarchy’s most effective tool for eviscerating all the property and contract related provisions of the American Constitution, of the Common Law, and of the traditional rights and freedoms of the English people, passed on to us, their American Heirs.
Make no mistake—in condemning our resistance to securitization, you are aligning yourself with the goals of the Communist Manifesto of February 1848, and of all subsequent efforts to obliterate the sovereignty of the individual which you pretend so vigorously to support as a matter of highest principle.  Without the freedom to contract, in a world of contracts of adhesion with anonymous and unknowable, unreachable “supervisors”, we as individuals will cease to exist and our individuality will be obliterated in the collectivity of the Marxist anthill.

Charles Edward Lincoln, III

“Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint! Und das mit Recht.”

Deo Vindice/Tierra Limpia

In case of emergency call Inger Michelle Garcia, Esq.,

1-954-7461 or 1-954-894-9962, attorney@ingergarcia.com

Inger Michelle Garcia, Esq.                                                                                    4839 Volunteer Road; #514 Davie, Florida 33330

Cellular: (954) 394-7461; Tel.: (954) 894-9962; Fax: (954) 446-1635

Service E-Mail:attorney@ingergarcia.com

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. . . . And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. . . .  

Matthew 10:34-39


De : Bob Hurt <bob@bobhurt.com>
À : malcolmdoney@comcast.net
Cc : Charles Lincoln <charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com>
Envoyé le : Mardi 30 avril 2013 21h34
Objet : Re: HB 87

Malcolm:apparently you read what I wrote to Charles about HB87.  It’s pretty simple really.  We are lucky in Florida that we don’t have a non-judicial foreclosure process, MAYBE.I have learned a lot since we met at the May 2008 Foreclosure Defense Seminar.  I’ll share a few points for your edification.1.  The Ponzi scheme to which you refer (securitization) does not concern or injure the borrower, and that’s why courts across America have consistently ruled against securitization arguments in foreclosure defenses.2.  The real problem of collusion between Clinton/Bush/Obama and Lenders which resulted in predatory lending and collapse of homeowner equities has not faced any day in court, and until it does, and the court rules against the lenders, no foreclosure court or trustee will consider the merit of the argument that “the lender caused the collapse of the value of my house and that’s why it’s underwater, and caused me to lose my job, and that’s why I couldn’t pay the mortgage.”  You can present the FCIC report and TRY the argument, but it will fail because no borrower can prove proximate causation.  I make the balance of my comments in light of this reality.3.  Foreclosures, as equity proceedings, deal with FAIRNESS.  It is hardly fair for a mortgagor to sign the note and mortgage, borrow and USE money, fail to pay accordingly, and then keep the collateral which the borrower agreed to forfeit in the event of default.  Every single judge knows this, especially the senior judges you love to hate for their rocket docket summary judgments.  So they have a natural predisposition to order the foreclosure unless the borrower can dispute the essential facts alleged the complaint.4.  Except when temporarily derailed by standing issues, or the borrower cross claims with valid causes of action (which virtually never happens), statistically ALL Foreclosure complaints EVENTUALLY succeed because in fact the borrower did default and must forfeit the collateral.   And they SHOULD succeed, for that reason.

5.  The ONLY defense against foreclosure lies in an offensive action against the original lender or lender’s agents for tortious conduct, contract breaches, or legal errors underlying the mortgage.  I have written about this till I’m blue in the face and NOBODY ever refutes it because it’s true.  If the borrower cannot show how the lender injured him, the borrower who defaults WILL LOSE THE HOUSE TO FORECLOSURE, as the borrower should.  Underlying causes of action give just reason to dispute the essential factual allegations in the foreclosure complaint.  For example “Yes I breached the contract, but the original lender breached it first, AND fraudulently induced me to take a loan for far more than the actual value of the property (etc).”

6.  Given the above realities, FORECLOSURE DEFENDERS engage in legal malpractice by fighting the foreclosure itself and failing to examine the mortgage for underlying causes of action.  Their victims should sue them.

7.  I gave cogent reasons for having no opposition to HB87 as I understand it.  Foreclosure plaintiffs should stop screwing around and start speeding up their process, and competent judges should hear and dispatch the foreclosure cases, particularly those with no dispute of the essential facts.

8.  If you had loaned someone $300,000 to buy a house, would you want the borrower to tie you up in court for years just to delay giving up the collateral?

Instead of getting angry with me, SHOW me where I’m wrong.

I have attached a totally bogus QWR from Neil Garfield, FYI.  Why bogus?  Because RESPA requires the servicer to answer ONLY questions related to the loan servicing, i.e. identifying what funds it disbursed to what entities.  It can ignore all other questions, and a lawyer like Neil Garfield should have known that instead of concocting such onerous nonsense as his qwr.

I also attached my recent blast against Garfield for his bogus securitization arguments, and included plenty of case law to show how bogus they are.  Also, here’s some more case law you might find useful.  Where am I going with this?  Virtually all foreclosure defense arguments other than standing issues or attacks against the causes underlying the mortgage WILL FAIL.  So why bother with them just to delay the inevitable?

QUIET TITLE CASES
“Plaintiff’s basis for claiming ‘better title’ is that securitization somehow altered her obligation to pay her mortgage. This argument is unrecognized in the law.” Herold V. One West Bank (D. Nev. 9-29-2011);
“A plaintiff cannot quiet title without discharging the mortgage debt. Aguilar V. Boci, 39 Cal.App.3d 475, 477 (1974) (“the cloud upon his title persists until the debt is paid”); Kelley V. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., 642 F.Supp.2d 1048, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2009).
Trusty V. Ray, 249 P.2d 814, 817 (Idaho 1952) (“[a] mortgagor cannot without paying his debt quiet title as against the mortgagee”); “Plaintiff’s quiet title claim is based on the argument that, as a result of securitization, the trust deed has been split from the note and, therefore, the deed of trust should be declared a nullity. This Court has repeatedly rejected this argument. Recently, both the Utah Court of Appeals and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals have similarly rejected this claim. For the same reasons stated by all of these courts, this claim must be rejected.
Winn V. Bank Of America (D.Utah 1-4-2012); “A quiet title claim seeks to extinguish interests in the property in favor of the interest of the plaintiff. Here, Plaintiff is seeking to extinguish the Trust Deed. ‘To succeed in an action to quiet title to real estate, a plaintiff must prevail on the strength of his own claim to title and not the weakness of a defendant’s title or even its total lack of title.’ Plaintiff fails to assert her own claim to title. She does not allege that the Deed of Trust was not validly executed or that she is not in default under the note. Accordingly, the court rejects Plaintiff’s argument and dismisses this claim.
Domingo V. Direct Mortgage Corporation (D.Utah 9-21-2011); “quiet title is not a remedy available to the trustor until the debt is paid or tendered. Plaintiff has not paid the loan amount, nor has Plaintiff alleged that he is ready, willing and able to tender the full amount owed. See Farrell v. West, 114 P.2d 910, 911 (Ariz. 1941) (refusing to quiet title until and unless the plaintiff tenders the amount owed, as required in equity). Instead, Plaintiff asks this Court to invalidate the claims of the beneficiary under the deed of trust. The Court will not indulge this inappropriate use of an action to quiet title; “Plaintiff’s argument that the assignment to U.S. Bank was void, and that U.S. Bank and MERS are not beneficiaries fails to support Plaintiff’s claim for quiet title. As discussed above, an assignment of a deed of trust does not need to be recorded in order to be valid, and under the terms of the Deed of Trust, Plaintiff was not entitled to notice of any such assignment.”
Frame V. Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation (D.Ariz. 9-2-2011); “This appeal requires us to interpret the statute governing judgments in quiet title actions. The statutory language is about as straightforward as such language ever gets: “The court shall not enter judgment by default. . . .” Entry of a default judgment against appellant HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., and in favor of respondent Harbour Vista, LLC, in a quiet title action was error.”
Harbour Vista V. Hsbc Mortgage Serv. Inc., G044357 (Cal.App. 12-19-2011); Mier v. Lordsman Inc., Civ. No. 10-00584, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8484, at * 15-17 (D. Haw. Jan. 26, 2011) (“[T]o assert a claim for quiet title against a mortgagee, a borrower must allege they have paid, or are able to tender, the amount of the indebtedness.”).
 
Fidelity Land Trust Case – put property in trust and use quiet title action to defeat foreclosure – a scam. Florida Attorney General complaint:
Fidelity sued AG in Florida Middle USDC for its adverse ruling:
“… this Court concludes that Plaintiff initiated and pursued this litigation in bad faith.  The evidence of this is legion: a state judge has told Plaintiff that its legal theory is meritless; a federal judge has told Plaintiff its legal theory is frivolous; and the Florida Attorney General has obtained injunctive relief against Plaintiff to prevent it from asserting claims based on the legal theory advanced in this lawsuit. Yet even in its objection, Plaintiff clings to the notion that its claims have merit. They do not… Plaintiff appears to be in the business of delaying lawful foreclosures. The courts are not to be used to delay, deny, or frustrate just claims, and they are not to be used as a cog in a litigant’s business model. Litigants who pursue meritless claims should be sanctioned, if only to ensure that the burden of their contemptuous behavior is borne by themselves alone.”
On 4/30/2013 7:29 PM, malcolmdoney@comcast.net wrote:

Bob & Charles,

It is a long time since I contacted you Bob.  I have believed for some time that somehow you have lost your way since the days when I believed that you stood for justice and doing what is right.  
 
I have lived through and been the victim of Hitler’s fascism and I have lived in the UK during both conservative and socialist extremes.  I well remember when the leaders of the UK Trade Union Congress made their annual Christmas pilgrimage to Moscow to get their instructions on how to disrupt the British economy over the next year and beyond.   
 
I have also witnessed during my long life the extremes of communist, fascist dictatorships and religious fanatics and frankly while it may be very intellectual to debate whether or not communism or fascism is at work I could never see much to chose between Hitler and Stalin, or Idi Amin.    
 
The evidence is overwhelming that the present mortgage foreclosure crisis was premeditated by the most evil organization in modern times, the Federal Reserve.  That all these mortgages were set up to fail and comprise the biggest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world.Yet all I hear from those who seek to classify those of us who were the deliberate targeted victims of these Banksters and their government backers is that we borrowed the money and we should not get a free house.  
 
Anyone, who cannot see anything wrong with HB 87 and its almost appropriately named SB 1666 is either totally blind or so brainwashed by a corrupted society that they are incapable of any constructive thought whatsoever.  I think it is a tragedy that you have allowed yourself to be persuaded to your present apparent view.  Anyone who believes in government of the people, by the people, for the people can see through this criminal land grab for exactly what it is.  
 
Shame on you Bob – you have done such good work I am truly saddened to see your latest comments.  When Henry Trawick – the Dean of Rules tells every member of Florida’s legislature that these bills are unconstitutional and bankster inspired there must be something wrong with this bunch of garbage.  What is clear is that it is not in the interest of the people. 
Sadly
Malcolm
******************************************************************
They are all fascists (there is that word again) 
Melinda Pillsbury-Foster
MacPherson Investment Group

Executive Vice-President for Rebuild America

Point out to me any single document in the writings of Benito Mussolini, Admiral Horthy, Francisco Franco, Sir Oswald Moseley, Paul Joseph Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, or any economically oriented member of Hitler’s government that predicts the step-by-step takeover and abolition of private property the way the communist manifesto does.  Oddly enough, the nearest to a “Socialist” among the Fascists would be British Sir Oswald Moseley.  He was very aristocratic and really an admirable “failure” among all the Fascists of Europe, but his writings go the closest towards credit-based socialism of any genuine “Fascist” from the 1920s or 30s I know—and Moseley was the only one outside of Spain to continue active through the 1950s and 60s—during which time, oddly enough, he joined with former Marshall Petain supporter Robert Schuman and other “Labor Left Socialists” in pushing for the European Union after the war…. but I do not see how you can connect the movement of Fascism to Credit Leveraged Confiscation of private property for the purpose of abolishing private property….

De : Melinda Pillsbury-Foster <themelinda@gmail.com>
À : Charles Lincoln <charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com>
Envoyé le : Mardi 30 avril 2013 17h38
Objet : Re: Property Confiscation House Bill 87 Just Passed Republican Controlled House in Florida

They are all fascists (there is that word again)
Melinda Pillsbury-Foster
MacPherson Investment Group

Executive Vice-President for Rebuild America

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Charles Lincoln <charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com> wrote:
HB 87 eviscerates the adversarial aspects of litigation in favor of the foreclosing party.  
Are you ever going to work on developing those Vindicatio websites or not?  If you’re not going to develop them I need to give them to Melinda Pillsbury-Foster but you DO have a better e-mail list to promote them on….. I thought we had a deal…But I’ll suggest to Melinda that she call you to check up on what your real intentions are….I certainly didn’t spend $100 on those domains just to let them sit around undeveloped and unpromoted….. If neither you nor Melinda want to work on them I’ll have to find someone else, but heck I BOUGHT them and I want to see some new business come in as a result…. but nothing will happen if a competent Web developer doesn’t do something—-Melinda’s working on a single case website for me in regard to a personal injury suit of mine in New Orleans….
Your problem, Bob, I have figured it out, with Neil Garfield and the Anti-Note Securitization Camp (you probably don’t like Mickey Paoletta either and basically you seem doubtful about me because I’m with THEM) is that you really do believe in Social Ownership of Credit—that is why you have jumped ship on the “holder-in-due course” doctrine…. Social Ownership of Credit leads to Social Ownership of all land and real property, perhaps all real and personal property…  You have abandoned Capitalism….. you really do believe that proof of ownership is not essential to collect debt or foreclose a property…. if that’s raving like a lunatic then I plan on doing so continually until I die….

De : Bob Hurt <bob@bobhurt.com>
À : Charles Lincoln <charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com>
Envoyé le : Mardi 30 avril 2013 17h45
Objet : Re: Property Confiscation House Bill 87 Just Passed Republican Controlled House in Florida

I fail to see a problem with hb87.  It forces lenders to take speedier action and come to court better prepared for the lawsuit.

Instead of raving like a lunatic below, why don’t you explain SPECIFICALLY what you don’t like about the bill and why?

On 4/30/2013 5:29 PM, Charles Lincoln wrote:
Republicans are Moral Lepers—and COMMUNISTS!:
It is beyond appalling to me that any Republicans would vote for Florida House Bill 87 to speed up foreclosures….. Aren’t the Republicans supposed to be the party of traditional American Values? Aren’t Republicans supposed to be the defenders of common law against social engineering through legislation?  Florida House Bill 87 is just speeding up the process by which the Soulless and Heartless machine of American Corporate Socialism sweeps up property into the collective “pool” of government ownership….  Everyone in Florida: WRITE TO YOUR SENATORS to stop the companion bill 1666 (how apt?) from passing.  Every step we take towards socialized ownership of debt is a major triumph for Marx & Engels’ original “manifestation” of their dream to abolish private property in land, first published in February 1848 under the name of the Communist Manifesto.
All steps to abolish “holder-in-due course” doctrine assert that mortgage debts are not private but public, and this is the key ingredient of communist confiscation of all real estate in America…

Charles Edward Lincoln, III

“Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint! Und das mit Recht.”

Deo Vindice/Tierra Limpia

In case of emergency call Attorney Inger Garcia at 954-394-7461

Matthew 10:34-39

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. . . . And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. . . .  

Bob Hurt on Neil Garfield: amateurs should not try to make broad pronouncements reading cases they do not even try to understand…..sorry Bob!

Dear Bob Hurt:
Honest people can and often do disagree honestly about issues.  You do yourself A GREAT discredit and indignity when you call Neil Garfield (and me, by the way) “a scammer” for disagreeing with you when, so far as I can tell, you and Storm Bradford are the ONLY people who take your view of things.  You have now misrepresented TWO cases, the Salazar case and the DeCastro case (from three weeks ago) and I have to take a stand and take exception to what you’re writing.  You are my friend and I am yours, but HONEST PEOPLE MUST DISAGREE and point out each other’s mistakes, and your mistakes here are HUGE.  You are really misleading people and wrongfully defaming Neil Garfield (and me, by the way).
You are simply WRONG that “NOTHING in a foreclosure defense foils the foreclosure EXCEPT dispute of [what you consider to be] the essential facts.”  In Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, just to name a few states, the “Holder in Due Course” defense DOES work.
My problem with what you wrote earlier about the Salazar opinion is that you BLATANTLY and TOTALLY misrepresented what the Judge in that case said about Neil Garfield.  Even when I challenged you AND quoted the entirety of Footnote 4 from Salazar in my response to your first post, you persisted in misrepresenting the words, the import, and the meaning of what the Judge said.  It was simply NOT an attack on Neil Garfield at all but an attack on incompetently offered evidence.  And I still want to know where you got a copy of a Judicial Opinion written in “word.doc” with so many typos and no evidence that it came from any of the major sources of judicial opinions.  I know the Salazars did NOT in fact retain Neil Garfield.  They did NOT have a case specific affidavit from him.  THAT is the subject of the Judge’s critique.  YOU are guilty of misrepresenting facts rather than accurately informing the people you serve.
I want you to acknowledge this misrepresentation to the readership of both Lawmen and Lawsters.  Only your best friend, Bob, will tell you to your face when you’re making a fool of yourself and right now (as, regretably, with your occasional articles on Eugenics and the need to sterilize low IQ people) you really are….  Making a fool of yourself is understating the issue, you’re really kind of making an ass of yourself.  I love you but I am too closely associated with you in too many ways not to disagree with you and correct you openly when you write things that are just plain wrong.
And so far as misrepresenting court cases go, I DID let one pass a couple of weeks ago when you totally misrepresented the holding of a New Jersey case on April 5, 2013, when you wrote that it supported your notion that holder-in-due course doctrine was dead (this was the case of Indymac v. DeCastro.  What the opinion in that case said was the DeCastro’s motion was UNTIMELY under Rule 4:50 of the New Jersey Rules of Civil Procedure, and that he raised the issue too late, and that the Judge was justified in denying his motion for that reason.  Indymac HAD THE NOTE at the time of filing the complaint in this case (and I quote from the opinion at length):
We now turn to the primary contention that the final judgment is void for lack of standing. In support of this claim, DeCastro relies on Deutsche Bank Nat’l. Trust Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214 (App. Div. 2011), to assert that IndyMac lacked standing and should be precluded from filing a foreclosure claim because it had not been assigned the mortgage prior to filing the foreclosure complaint. This claim lacks merit.
           In Mitchell, Deutsche Bank had not been assigned the mortgage prior to filing the foreclosure complaint.  Relying on Article III of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), N.J.S.A. 12A:3-101 to -605, which addresses who may enforce negotiable instrument, we held that either possession of the note or an assignment of tthe mortgage that predated the original complaint conferred standing.  Id. at 216, 225.  We remanded for the trial court to determine whether before filing the original complaint, Deutsche Bank  was in possession of the note or had another basis to achieve    standing to foreclose, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 12A:3- 301.  Id. at 225.
     DeCastro's reliance on Mitchell is inapposite, as that case
is plainly distinguishable from the instant case.  The record is
clear that, unlike Deutsche Bank in Mitchell,  IndyMac was the
holder of the note on DeCastro's property at the time it filed
the foreclosure complaint.  DeCastro has not disputed that fact
in the complaint nor presented any proof that IndyMac did not
possess the note at the time of the filing of the complaint.
See Angeles, supra, 428 N.J. Super. at 319.  In accordance with
the UCC provision, N.J.S.A. 12A:3-301, the plaintiff bank, as
the holder of the negotiable instrument, has a legal right to enforce the note at the time it obtained the judgment.  As such,IndyMac had standing to bring the foreclosure action.
The DEUTSCHE BANK NAT. TRUST v. RUSSO 57 A.3d 18 (2012), opinion cited here, is ANOTHER New Jersey Civil Rule 4:50 case and it all has to do with the TIMELINESS OF THE MOTION:
Based on our reading of Guillaume and Deutsche Bank, we conclude that, even if plaintiff did not have the note or a valid assignment when it filed the complaint, but obtained either or both before entry of judgment, dismissal of the complaint would not have been an appropriate remedy here because of defendants’ unexcused, years-long delay in asserting that defense. Therefore, in this post-judgment context, lack of standing would not constitute a meritorious defense to the foreclosure complaint.
In reaching that conclusion, we note that, contrary to defendants’ contention, standing is not a jurisdictional issue in our State court system and, therefore, a foreclosure judgment obtained by a party that lacked standing is not “void” within

[ 57 A.3d 25 ]


the meaning of Rule 4:50-1(d). In the federal courts, standing is a jurisdictional concept, because Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases and controversies. See Raftogianis, supra, 418 N.J.Super. at 353, 13 A.3d 435 (citing In re Foreclosure Cases, 521 F.Supp.2d 650, 653-54 (S.D.Ohio 2007)).

By contrast, the Superior Court of New Jersey is a court of general jurisdiction, Swede v. Clifton, 22 N.J. 303, 314, 125 A.2d 865 (1956), and in our courts, the requirement that a party have standing is a matter of judicial policy not constitutional command. See DeVesa v. Dorsey, 134 N.J. 420, 428,634 A.2d 493 (1993) (“Unlike the Federal Constitution, the New Jersey Constitution does not confine the exercise of the judicial power to actual cases and controversies. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; N.J. Const. art. VI, § 1, para. 1.”) (Pollock, J., concurring); Salorio v. Glaser, 82 N.J. 482, 490-91, 414 A.2d 943cert. denied, 449 U.S. 804, 101 S.Ct. 49, 66 L.Ed.2d 7 (1980). “Because standing affects whether a matter is appropriate for judicial review rather than whether the court has the power to review the matter, and standing is a judicially constructed and self-imposed limitation, it is an element of justiciability rather than an element of jurisdiction.” N.J. Citizen Action v. Riviera Motel Corp., 296 N.J.Super. 402, 411, 686 A.2d 1265 (App.Div.1997),appeal dismissed, 152 N.J. 361704 A.2d 1297 (1998); see also Gilbert v. Gladden, 87 N.J. 275, 280-81, 432 A.2d 1351 (1981) (distinguishing the concept of justiciability from that of subject matter jurisdiction).

De : Bob Hurt <bob@bobhurt.com>
À : Charles Lincoln <charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com>
Cc : JOHN WOLFGRAM <johnwolfgram@hotmail.com>; Bradley S. Austin <brad@healthyhighway.com>; Senator Jerry O’Neil <oneil@centurytel.net>; Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson <kgarcialawson@yahoo.com>; Dan Mack <mackassoci@aol.com>; Renada March <renada.march@gmail.com>; Brad Henschel <crusaderjd@yahoo.com>
Envoyé le : Vendredi 26 avril 2013 19h52
Objet : Re: LAWMEN & LAWSTERS: The Correct Reading of Court Orders (re: Neil Garfield)

Charles, you ignore the fundamental point.  NOTHING in a foreclosure defense foils the foreclosure EXCEPT dispute of the essential facts.  And ultimately the plaintiff will cure all defects and get the foreclosure UNLESS the borrower proves to the court that the lender injured the borrower at the inception of the mortgage.  Otherwise, the borrower agreed to the note and mortgage and defaulted, and now the court will enforce the note as the constitution requires.

THAT’s why all foreclosure defenders commit malpractice in failing to examine the mortgage for causes of action.

And that’s why Garfield essentially SCAMS people into thinking they can drum up some kind of valid defense.  Did you READ the case law citations?

Bob

On 4/26/2013 5:03 PM, Charles Lincoln wrote:
Don’t be serious as a heart attack when you are wrong: you are in fragile health and might give yourself a heart attack.
In My E-mail I quoted Footnote 4 correctly, you did not!  They did NOT have an original affidavit from Garfield regarding their case—read it again!  I do not feel that you understand at all the fundamental correctness of Garfield’s stance.  Does he cover everything? No, it’s difficult to cover every aspect of the kind of financial fraud that is going on these days, but you have COMPLETELY misrepresented the Holding of the Court in Salazar.  There was NO original or case-specific affiidavit from Garfield—I’m sorry Bob, but you’re way off the mark here.  You know I love you but I cannot let you go around messing things up, misrepresenting improperly copied court orders and things like that…

De : Bob Hurt <bob@bobhurt.com>
À : Charles Lincoln <charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com>
Envoyé le : Vendredi 26 avril 2013 16h47
Objet : Re: LAWMEN & LAWSTERS: The Correct Reading of Court Orders (re: Neil Garfield)

If you read the cases, you know one of them presented an affidavit from Garfield, presumably with permission of Garfield.  And that’s my point.  He performs services, sells items to people and he knows they are bullshit.

I am serious as a heart attack in my partisanship against foreclosure defense thugs who use ruses to mug desperate foreclosure victims and virtually never actually save the house from foreclosure.

In the article I wrote and formatted (attached) I confess the inartful presentation of the arguments, but the courts have made it crystal clear that they will fail anyway, even if presented by JC himself.  Didn’t you see all those citations in Salazar footnote 4?  Those are just SOME of the losing cases based on Garfield’s templates (I couldn’t find the one cited at Mario Kenny’s blog, so I guess he hosed it to get out of the limelight).

Right, I am not perfect, but I’m not the one making a fortune in referral and seminar fees from predatory foreclosure defenders who “get it,” and even more fortunes from feckless, desperate foreclosure victims who waste precious money on useless securitization audits.  He has been misleading and preying on feckless foreclosure victims FOR AT LEAST 5 years.

Fastcase supplies all kinds of court docs.

Garfield is a scammer, a very successful scammer.  How can you have the cheek, the audacity to pipe in on his behalf?

You have insulted me and I demand satisfaction in a game of Barefoot Chocolate Bayou Icepick Mumbly Peg.

You do know the location of Chocolate Bayou, right?
http://goo.gl/maps/N2FKf
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hnc54

I grew up mostly in Foster Place at 6821 England Street, Houston.  Chocolate Bayou Road bordered the neighborhood on the east.  The city later renamed it to Cullen Blvd (probably because of the presence of SunnySide just south of Foster Place, on the other side of the railroad tracks, now about where I610 runs, a gigantic Negro community.  Cullen Boulevard seemed less offensive, I imagine, than did Chocolate Bayou road.  Old Chocolate Bayou Road still exists, just north of the beltway.

I had no clue where the actual bayou lay, but just assumed it had something to do with Negroes swimming in or drinking from it.  When it rained heavily we kids always swam in the ditch in front of the house.

Anyway, Foster Place started turning black when I joined the Navy in 1962, and had become completely black by the time I got out of the Navy in 1971. Almost.  My mother Ruby still lived there.  Negroes stole her TV 3 times and tried to rape her twice, but she talked them out of the rape ( what black teen boy wants an old wrinkled white woman?).  She eventually moved together with my brother Norman and his beautiful daughter Ashley.

I guess my own Chocolate Bayou was the ditch of muddy water with crawdads in front of my house as a kid.  And out there beside that ditch we played mumbly peg with an icepick, barefooted.  Every once in a while one of us would get an icepick in the foot, and it hurt.  But it didn’t bleed much, and alcohol scrubbing would keep infection away.  It was dangerous and fun.

You game?

On 4/26/2013 3:33 PM, Charles Lincoln wrote:
Dear Bob:
You have become a partisan among mortgage experts, and I think the result is most unbecoming, especially this recent attack on Neil Garfield, who has in fact educated a large portion of the public regarding the mortgage fraud ongoing.  Neil Garfield was NOT retained as an expert in the cases you are circulating and your commentary regarding the judge’s treatment of Garfield is misleading in the extreme.  If anyone is a “bozo” under these orders it is the parties who do not understand how to present expert witness evidence.  The Federal Courts have very clear rules that you don’t just walk in randomly or non-randomly selected expert testimony without an expert to “qualify” or “sponsor” the opinion and these people utterly failed to do that.  You’re acting a bit like a “bozo” yourself right now, I’m afraid… Please retract your unwarranted attack on Garfield!!!! It just isn’t good manners or at all well-taken.
Without understanding the nature of the argument, you are interposing yourself on one side against another.  The Court order does not criticize Garfield or his opinion IN THE LEAST.  What the Court is saying here is that randomly chosen commentary taken off the internet IS NOT EVIDENCE of anything.  Even if it were written by Milton Friedman or F.A. von Hayek or Jesus Christ himself, NO HEARSAY IS ALLOWED IN COURT and this particular evidentiary hearsay does not even refer directly to the case at hand.  Your assertion that this is a criticism of Neil Garfield is TOTALLY UNWARRANTED and I want you to apologize to everyone in Lawmen or Lawsters for blatantly misrepresenting the Court’s opinion.  I am also curious to know how you got a non-Westlaw non-Lexis Word.doc version of a Court order—is this even possible?  I notice lots of typos in the order also….what’s going on here?  GRRRR…. this sort of thing makes me mad…. You are being an unfair partisan and you clearly do not understand the basic meaning of what you’re distributing here…
What the Court actually says, according to your copy of the Memorandum order, is:
        As noted, the Plaintiffs have copied verbatim many of the allegations in the Arizona complaint cited above and from an Ohio form complaint found at livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/federalcomplaint-ohio.pdf.. “Living lies” is a website and blog created and published by attorney Neil Garfield4 .
4. For other examples of cases in which these general complaints contain information supplied by Mr. Garfield, see Maixner v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Civ. No. 10-3037-CL, 2011 WL 7153929, 3 (D.Or. Oct. 26, 2011) (“Maixner also offers as fact extended excerpts from a Securitization Research Commentary’ (‘SRC’) obtained through LuminaQ and authored by Neil Garfield, an attorney licensed to practice in Florida who Maixner asserts is a ‘nationally recognized expert in mortgage securitization.’ (Id., ¶¶ 14-22 & Ex. I). A review of the SRC reveals that this document consists primarily of a general commentary regarding the practice of mortgage securitization accompanied by Garfield’s opinion ‘as an expert in securitization’ regarding the significance of these practices with respect to the Maixners’ mortgage loan, not of which are properly offered as fact” and dismissing with prejudice the plaintiffs claims seeking an “order holding the mortgage on their property to be void and unenforceable, the pending non-judicial foreclosure proceeding unlawful, and seeking damages for violations of, among others, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., and the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.)”); Sainte v. Suntrust Mortg., Inc., No. 1:10-CV-1637-TWT-WEJ, 2010 WL 4639242, ……(noting that “[a] significant portion of the body of Plaintiff’s Complaint can be found in Nature of the Action by Neil Garfield. Accordingly, there are only a handful of statements included in Plaintiff’s Complaint that are personal to her claim and not pulled directly from the above-posted source” and dismissing claims “alleging violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2605; the Home Ownership Equity Protection Act (“HOEPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1639; the Truth-in-Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601; and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681. (Comp., Dkt.1.) . . . and claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, civil RICO, quiet title, and usury” as improperly pleaded against all Defendants).
In all fairness, Bob, the opinion does not criticize Garfield himself but these particular parties’ USE of Garfield’s published material without connecting them to any particular case.

De : Bob Hurt <bob@bobhurt.com>
À : lawmen@googlegroups.comhurtfamily@yahoogroups.comtorresfamily@yahoogroups.com; Melissa Gillespie <costcogypsy@gmail.com>; Jonathan Gould <jrg606@att.net>; James Emerson <jim.emer@gmail.com>; Cheryl Kissell <marketwiz@earthlink.net>
Envoyé le : Vendredi 26 avril 2013 13h17
Objet : Do US Courts See Neil Garfield As Expert or BOZO?

Neil Garfield – Expert or Bozo?


I know many people love Neil Garfield because on his LivingLies blog, he acts like the champion of foreclosure victims.  But check out just two of the cases where the court denounces Garfield’s pleadings and “expertise,” and those relying on Garfiels LOSE BIG.  The courts RIP Garfield’s tactics to SHREDS. See attached opinions:

  • Connelly v USBNA, US Bankruptcy Ct, AZ;
  • Salazar v Indybank, USDC New Mexico, attached.
Neil Garfield might have the intention of helping foreclosure victims, but he actually hurts them.  He sells them useless securitization audits and “expert” affidavits and provides an utterly bogus foreclosure defense template here:

http://livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/template-complaint1.pdf

He totally ignores the indisputable, undeniable facts of virtually every foreclosure:

  1. The borrower signed the note and mortgage
  2. The borrower defaulted on the loan by not making timely payments, thereby injuring the note holder.
  3. The mortgagee/holder files a foreclosure action in order to force a sale of the mortgaged property to recover the loss
  4. The public trustee or the courts MUST give redress to the injured party and MUST NOT impair the obligations of the contracts.


Excerpt of note:

“Plaintiff solely relies on his expert’s assertion that he possesses “knowledge of the actual intents, purposes, meanings and effect of the 1999 amendments [to the] Uniform Commercial Code…. Article 9 applies to the sale of promissory notes.” Garfield Aff. 9:9-12.

        Even if this opinion testimony by a witness who has not been qualified as an expert could be considered by the Court, it would be rejected because it directly contradicts Veal. This Court follows the decisions of the Ninth Circuit BAP, and accordingly, Plaintiff’s argument that only Article 9 applies to the transfer of the Note fails.

Look at this footnote from the Salazar case, showing an array of victims of Garfield’s nonsensical “expertise”:
All of this brings me to ask:

Is Neil Garfield an expert or a bozo?

Let me make this point by asking another question:

If you were a lawyer and a client came to you for help dealing with a notice of foreclosure or a foreclosure complaint for breach of contract, which of these would you do:

  1. Allege that the bank didn’t lend real money or that the securitization trust receipts paid off the loan or the holder of the note has no standing?
  2. Examine the mortgage for evidence of prior torts, breaches, or error by the lender or lender’s agents?
Now, ponder these additional questions:
  1. Doesn’t it go without saying that the foreclosure becomes INEVITABLE if the foreclosure victim cannot deny the essential facts outlined in 1-4 above?
  2. Doesn’t a foreclosure defender attorney commit legal malpractice by doing #1 immediately above and ignoring #2?
  3. Doesn’t it seem obvious that one can defeat foreclosure ONLY by proving a prior breach, tort, or error underlying the mortgage so as to give the court justification for declaring the mortgage void, invalid, or defective?
My central point…  If you took out a mortgage in the past 10 or 12 years, you have a 90% chance that the lender or lender’s agents cheated you.  If you don’t believe this, read the summary at the front of theFinancial Crisis Inquiry Commission Report.  It essentially ignores Wall Street fraud, but it shows that government and the finance industry colluded in the predatory lending that caused massive job loss and collapsed homeowner equities nationwide.
What does “predatory lending” mean?  It means lender knew the borrower could not afford payments or the appraiser overvalued the house, or the mortgage broker or lender charged excessive fees, or the lender or lender’s agents made false representations to the borrower, or  somehow cheated the borrower, and DID SO KNOWINGLY.  They did this to obtain unjust enrichment and set up the borrower for foreclosure.
In order to prove an injury, the borrower must hire a professional to perform a comprehensive mortgage examination to find all the causes of action (reasons to sue) underlying the mortgage.  If the examination report reveals causes of action, the borrower can obtain legal counsel to demand and negotiate a settlement offer or sue the  original lender in a new action or as a cross claim for those causes of action.
Neil Garfield STUDIOUSLY refuses to tell his readers this reality, but the comprehensive mortgage examination provides the ONLY WAY a mortgage victim or foreclosure victim can get the house free and clear or obtain financial compensation for suffering the injuries from the lender or lender’s agents.
There is NO other way, as the attached court cases point out here in Connelly:How could the judge have stated it with greater clarity and simplicity?  What does Neil Garfield FAIL TO UNDERSTAND about this?  Everything, apparently.
You see the two possible scenarios?
Scenario 1.  By attacking the lender for mortgage torts, breaches, or errors, the borrower can win the house free and clear or financial compensation AND legal fees because the lender or agents injured the borrower.
Scenario 2.  But by attacking the foreclosure, the borrower can at best win temporary dismissal without prejudice on some standing issue, and the lender will refile and the borrower will lose the house and all the fees paid to the attorney, because the borrower injured the lender by defaulting on the mortgage.
Neil Garfield thrives on  and promotes Scenario 1.  Instead of performing comprehensive professional mortgage examinations, Garfield contents himself with hawking securitization and loan audits that do absolutely no good because they aim mostly at arguing over the foreclosure rather than attacking the original lender for causes of action underlying the mortgage.  And the statute of limitations has expired on most of the TILA/HOEPA/RESPA violations he might find, so they provide no basis for a lawsuit.
Let me clarify:  ONLY a comprehensive professional mortgage examination, combing through ALL of the documents related to the mortgage and foreclosure in the context of the borrower’s observations and experiences can provide a basis for settling with or suing the lender.  And such a settlement/suit will stop a foreclosure dead in its tracks.  It can result in the borrower getting the house free and clear, all legal fees and costs paid, and punitive damages.  Want Proof?  Read these stories and see what a SENSIBLE, COMPETENT attorney can do with a proper professional mortgage examination:
[Note that these stellar examples exist only because the lender or lender’s counsel was an idiot for not settling early – all settlements include non disclosure agreements to hush up the mortgage victim]

  1. House free and clear, legal fees/costs paid, $2.1 million in punitive damages –
    http://wvrecord.com/news/233771-quicken-loans-on-losing-end-of-3-million-predatory-lending-verdict 
  2. Wells Fargo lied on the loan application – $250K compensation, $1 million punitive –
    http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2008/08/11/story8.html?b=1218427200^1681713
  3. Ocwen lied to borrower who missed loan payment – $10 million actual damages, $1.5 million mental anguish and economic damage –
    http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2005/11/28/daily20.html?page=all
  4. 8th USCCA W. Mo. reinstated $6 million punitive damage arbitration award against servicer (Stark v. Sandperg, Phoenix & von Gontard, et al.)
    http://mortgage-home-loan-bank-fraud.com/legal/Stark%20vs%20EMC.pdf
If you have a mortgage, particularly if you have an under-water loan (you owe more than the value of the house), you NEED a professional mortgage examination to prove any causes of action underlying that mortgage.  If  you want such a mortgage examination, call me right now for help.  I’ll explain the solution strategy and connect you to a professional mortgage examiner who can provide you with a full examination report within 7 business days.
Bob Hurt
727 669 5511  – Call Now.  I charge no fee
(Yes, you may distribute this article far and wide, if you really want to help people)

Based on our reading of Guillaume and Deutsche Bank, we conclude that, even if plaintiff did not have the note or a valid assignment when it filed the complaint, but obtained either or both before entry of judgment, dismissal of the complaint would not have been an appropriate remedy here because of defendants’ unexcused, years-long delay in asserting that defense. Therefore, in this post-judgment context, lack of standing would not constitute a meritorious defense to the foreclosure complaint.

In reaching that conclusion, we note that, contrary to defendants’ contention, standing is not a jurisdictional issue in our State court system and, therefore, a foreclosure judgment obtained by a party that lacked standing is not “void” within

[ 57 A.3d 25 ]


the meaning of Rule 4:50-1(d). In the federal courts, standing is a jurisdictional concept, because Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases and controversies. See Raftogianis, supra, 418 N.J.Super. at 353, 13 A.3d 435 (citing In re Foreclosure Cases, 521 F.Supp.2d 650, 653-54 (S.D.Ohio 2007)).

By contrast, the Superior Court of New Jersey is a court of general jurisdiction, Swede v. Clifton, 22 N.J. 303, 314, 125 A.2d 865 (1956), and in our courts, the requirement that a party have standing is a matter of judicial policy not constitutional command. See DeVesa v. Dorsey, 134 N.J. 420, 428,634 A.2d 493 (1993) (“Unlike the Federal Constitution, the New Jersey Constitution does not confine the exercise of the judicial power to actual cases and controversies. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; N.J. Const. art. VI, § 1, para. 1.”) (Pollock, J., concurring); Salorio v. Glaser, 82 N.J. 482, 490-91, 414 A.2d 943cert. denied, 449 U.S. 804, 101 S.Ct. 49, 66 L.Ed.2d 7 (1980). “Because standing affects whether a matter is appropriate for judicial review rather than whether the court has the power to review the matter, and standing is a judicially constructed and self-imposed limitation, it is an element of justiciability rather than an element of jurisdiction.” N.J. Citizen Action v. Riviera Motel Corp., 296 N.J.Super. 402, 411, 686 A.2d 1265 (App.Div.1997),appeal dismissed, 152 N.J. 361704 A.2d 1297 (1998); see also Gilbert v. Gladden, 87 N.J. 275, 280-81, 432 A.2d 1351 (1981) (distinguishing the concept of justiciability from that of subject matter jurisdiction).