Tag Archives: New Jersey

Nightmare on Bourbon Street—Saturday 30 May 2015—Western Civilization is Dead

I went on a rare walk down Bourbon Street last (Saturday) night. The behavior and demeanor of the people I saw made me want to vomit…. It’s time to reinstitute mass deportations of degenerates…. or perhaps even mass executions….there’s no point in trying to “reform” this many drunken, sex-obsessed, aimless people—send them all to whorehouses in Thailand… or give them a relatively painless death. They are of no use to themselves OR the rest of humanity….. but this is only part of my greatest gripe:

The remnants of the Great South are vanishing every day. The great moral and patriotic spirit of the Anglo-Saxon, German, Spanish and French Colonial people has been mostly, perhaps totally, extinguished. What’s especially sad is the view from here in New Orleans of the present day, once the greatest city and shining light of Southern and Western Civilization.

In 1860, Bourbon Street was something like the sum total of what Madison Avenue plus Fifth Avenue between 75th and 85th plus Central Park West are today—in the midst of the elite residences and commercial financial district was founded the greatest Opera House in the Western Hemisphere (aka “The French Opera”) at the corner of Toulouse and Bourbon.

Now, given the modern reality, I normally avoid Bourbon Street like the bubonic plague it so closely resembles, but when visitors come into town they ALWAYS want to see Bourbon Street. Last night was a typical Saturday night—mobbed with people, black and white, in the lowest stages of self-destructive, voluntary degeneracy.

The people, both black and white and “other” I saw out on Bourbon Street were mostly residents of the Southern USA, to the degree I could hear their accents in the hopeless cacophony and din… William Faulkner and Tennessee Williams wrote of what they perceived as the degeneracy of the ruined post-War, post-Reconstruction South—but they never saw ANYTHING as bad as the scene on Bourbon Street—on a normal Saturday night…

So today, all we can see today is the exact OPPOSITE of the spirit of patriotism and freedom that led to Revolution in 1776, Secession in 1860-61, and brave resistance 1954-1974. And now indeed, in the crowds of wretched humanity evidenced on Bourbon Street, what should have been the symbolic center of Southern and Western American Civilization, we see ONLY the offal (the waste and bi-products) of the world—they are to be pitied, up to a point, but I wish I didn’t have to look at them in MY favorite city.

And of all the great monuments to the Southern people, some commie-pinko bastard has been passing out fliers all over town “There are several hundred examples of white supremacist monuments in New Orleans, Here are about 2 dozen examples….” Starting of course with the Robert E. Lee obelisk and monument “@Lee Circle” but (somewhat ironically) even including “Judah Touro Hospital” because Judah Touro was a “Jewish slaveholder” and Tulane University because “Paul Tulane” (a northerner who graduated from Princeton University in New Jersey) “gave the most money to the Confederacy.”

The people are all anesthetized (temporarily?) or permanently brain dead…..Cry for our Beloved Country!

EVERYONE can create (“originate”) their own money (“banknotes”), if licensed by the Federal Government? Even a Rutgers Basketball Coach?

This is a part of the Federal statute that regulates “individual” promissory note originators:

12 U.S. Code § 5103 – License or registration required (a) In general

Subject to the existence of a licensing or registration regime, as the case may be, an individual may not engage in the business of a loan originator without first—
(1) obtaining, and maintaining annually—

(A) a registration as a registered loan originator; or
(B) a license and registration as a State-licensed loan originator; and
(2) obtaining a unique identifier.
(b) Loan processors and underwriters

(1) Supervised loan processors and underwriters

A loan processor or underwriter who does not represent to the public, through advertising or other means of communicating or providing information (including the use of business cards, stationery, brochures, signs, rate lists, or other promotional items), that such individual can or will perform any of the activities of a loan originator shall not be required to be a State-licensed loan originator.
(2) Independent contractors

An independent contractor may not engage in residential mortgage loan origination activities as a loan processor or underwriter unless such independent contractor is a State-licensed loan originator.

SECURITIZED CREDIT ORIGINATION?11-05-2014 Kennedy v Stringer Original Complaint USDC DNJ

(4)          Plaintiff Melvene Lynn Kennedy is the owner of a restaurant facility (currently closed, non-operational) called “Uncle Seas”, located at 879 Springfield in Irvington, New Jersey, executed a promissory note payable to C. Vivian Stringer, as described in a complaint filed on behalf of C. Vivian Stringer by Peter J. Hendricks on or about June 7, 2013.
(5)           Plaintiff has sought proof, which has been repeatedly denied and refused, in the state Court proceedings, that the C. Vivian Stringer had or has any rights of ownership and/or enforceability of the promissory note, which appears to have been processed through the First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens, in Somerset, New Jersey, Senior Pastor “Buster” Soaries, and a coordinate and related pair of institutions CDC Properties and Central Jersey Development Corporation (http://cjcdc.org/affiliates.php), both operating in fact under Federal Banking and Community Development Law, but masquerading as a personal act of monetary assistance based on friendship rather than commerce.
(6)           Plaintiff Melvene Lynn Kennedy agreed to the interest rate of 18%, in whole or in part because of the special trust and confidence which she reposed in her long-time sports coach and mentor, Defendant C. Vivian Stringer; Kennedy
alleges that this interest rate was unlawful for a federally guaranteed and secured
loan, that further that it was unfair, inequitable, and unconscionable in any legal or equitable sense, as was the entire transaction, being based on fraud, “false identities” and deceit.
(7)      Plaintiff executed a mortgage in favor of C. Vivian Stringer, at Stringer’s request and direction, but in coordination with the First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens. Plaintiff sought in State Court has never been allowed to see any evidence of whether the money came from C. Vivian Stringer, but the check appears to have issued either by the First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens or else CDC Properties or else Central Jersey Community Development Corporation.  Plaintiff asks, how does this make C. Vivian Stringer a creditor entitled to foreclose? What is her injury standing? Plaintiff alleges that C. Vivian Stringer has no standing but merely a status, a de facto, or even de jure, title of nobility namely, as an “individual originator of credit.”
(8)               Plaintiff ’s promissory note was never filed with the Court, in violation of New Jersey Law, at the time of the initiation of the foreclosure. Plaintiff believes that C. Vivian Stringer never owned or managed the underlying note or mortgage at any time after closing on May 7, 2010, and that her June 7, 2013 suit for foreclosure was fraudulently filed, and constitutes a conspiracy, with the other defendants, to effect a theft by false pretenses, under color of New Jersey Court Procedures and Federal Banking and Credit Law.
The New Jersey Foreclosure Process
(9)       Foreclosure Litigation in New Jersey, under the New Jersey Fair Foreclosure Act (FFA) and related statutes, begins with a Notice of Intent to Foreclose which precedes the filing of a formal judicial complaint for foreclosure. The Statutory Notice of Intent to Foreclose requires essentially the same standards of disclosure and provision of information than State Rules of Court, but in practice, the New Jersey Superior Courts waive most of the formal “proof of ownership” requirements, as they have in this case.  12-19-2014 Kennedy v Stringer Docket Report Showing Stringer MTD filed 12-17-2014

HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND (Originally published on this blog May 27, 2009, 23:27:29 PM)

        Paper “banknote” money is, of course, NOT expressly authorized by the United States Constitution, in fact, arguably, it is specifically forbidden by Article I, Section 10 that ” No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts….”  The purpose of paper money (“emitting Bills of Credit”) is and has always been to create easy and quick credit for the FEDERAL government.  This Country was created in large part by the issuance of Fiat Money—the Continental Dollar, which gave rise to one of the earliest sarcastic currency jokes still “in circulation” as part of the English language, “That’s Not Worth a Continental.”

Banks can do the same thing by “originating promissory notes”, “emitting credit” or “approving credit”—and all promissory notes accepted by National Banking Institutions under the definitions of 12 U.S.C. §1813(l) MUST treat approved promissory notes as “the equivalent of cash.”  In effect, any person who can approve credit formally can create money from thin air.

National Banking Associations do that, but a former associate of mine, the well-known Orange County Dentist Dr. Orly Taitz, was able to approve credit through her Dental Office, and upon accepting notes, was able to issue herself money.  She actually DID this in the case of my friend the late (died tragically and very prematurely last December) Major Stefan Frederick Cook….. who never came anywhere near Orly’s dental office….but sought Orly’s “legal” services…. and she had him apply for credit through her dental office.  She never, however, got him into a dental chair so far as I am aware….although he may have felt his teeth had all been extracted by the time his little whirlwind tour with her was over….  I have the greatest respect and regard for Major Stefan Frederick Cook, and I am sorry that Orly’s impetuosity (and my assistance  to her in acting impetuously) may have injured his amazing military career unnecessarily, but that is a different story for a different day: the point is that issuing credit under the national system, whether you are a Bank or a retailer or a retail provider of dental services or anything else: IS the creation of money from thin air.  Creating money from thin air facilitates instant gratification of the kinds and types of which both Henry Ford and Sigmund Freud definitely and enthusiastically approved, albeit for radically different reasons.  Aldous Huxley made the connexion between Ford and Freud’s attitude towards instant gratification in his masterpiece “Sci Fi Horror” book: Brave New World.

       “The Money Multiplier” effect is something that ever student of Freshman economics learns about and then forgets in later life as s/he goes through a normal American life-style creating money by signing credit card notes, mortgages, car loans, EACH of which is multiplied several times within a month or two at the maximum, thereby creating the oversupply of money which that same student of Freshman economics will doubtless hear of on the news, possibly during his middle age, as “inflation” measured by the “consumer price index.”  Gold and silver are not immune from inflation: during historical gold and silver rushes the value of these commodities has shrunk to unbelievably low levels in mining communities and areas where they are super-abundant.  Spain of the “Golden Age” (16th-17th centuries) is often said to have been crippled in comparison with Holland, Germany, and Great Britain by the inflationary effect of vast surplus gold derived from the post-Columbian conquests of Mexico, Peru, Colombia, and Bolivia.  Why develop?  Why produce anything at all when you can stay drunk on easy gold and never have to work?

Why develop just and fair economic and political systems when you can decorate your churches with oceans of gold and then leave them in charge of regulating society and culture through well-funded courts of inquisition who are responsible to no one?  Money = power, power corrupts, and abundant money = absolute power which can corrupt absolutely.  These truisms are too well known to bear much discussion.

         “Formal” market economies have always depended upon an exchange rate based on some form of central commodities.  Before gold and silver the Ancient Romans and Germans used horses and cattle as currency (the word “pecuniary”, meaning, “of or relating to money” is derived from Latin “pecus”—preserved in Spanish words and phrases such as “Agropecuario”—which means “relating to commercial farms and ranches and similar products and services”).

         Among the ancient Aztec and Maya of Mexico, Cacao beans and cotton cloth were used as currency, (this was the sweetest economy in history, where money literally did “grow on trees” and could be made into chocolate at any time).  And in fact the Southern Americans of the Confederate States of America effectively tried (but failed) to use cotton as currency again in the 1860s, but were rebuffed by and ultimately lost their bid for independence as a result of the scorn heaped on them by gold-loving British and French bankers of the middle part of the 19th century.  Thus “Dixie” fell in large part because of its dependence on paper money such as the “Dix Dollars” (Ten Dollar–French language) bill issued by the antebellum Banque de Nouvelle Orleans which had given the region its nickname in the time leading up to secession in 1860-61.  Cowerie shells were famously used by certain pre-modern tribes in the Western Pacific.  The honest advantage of commodity based currencies—and their fatal flaw, from the standpoint of modern social-welfare economics—is that they are inevitably finite.

            No matter how easy it is to pan for gold, grow cotton, raise cattle, or cacao beans, or collect cowerie shells, it cannot be done instantaneously.  And for governments (like the U.S.) which want to build sophisticated nuclear missiles, launch satellites, sponsor vast educational programs which seem to lower the overall national levels of literacy and awareness, try through redistribution of the wealth to make “every man a king”, and generally realize Rumpelstiltskin’s dream of spinning straw into gold without actually doing the work of spinning even, paper money is the only “commodity” sufficiently malleable and manipulable to work.

First Friday of Fall (FFF) & Final Friday of September (FFS)—Equinox, Tuesday, September 23-Friday September 26

Q:   How is the Reverend Barry Taylor just like Jonah’s shady bush outside of Ninevah?  (Jonah is one of the most embarrassing books in the Bible, from the standpoint of those, like me, who “want to believe”.  The Book of Jonah’s four short chapters are filled with oversized man-housing whales which act like jails and tree-eating worms who do Gods bidding and expressions that God cares for wicked Ninevites and their animals…and whose sole moral point is that we must accept the will and acts of God, no matter how arbitrary and capricious, inequitable, and unfair they may seem….)

A:   Apparently because God gave his teaching to us for our temporary comfort only, and what God gives easily, God can take away with equal ease.  We did not create Barry Taylor, so we cannot complain that he is now gone.

Comment: but I have drunk from many wells I did not dig, have been warmed by fires I did not build, and drunk wine from grapes I neither picked nor crushed….and yet I was right to do so, was I not?

“Final Fridays and First Fridays” remind me of the wonderful parties that the late Molly Ivins used to put on in Austin, Texas….at which I was privileged to attend regularly, a long, long time ago, in a gallaxy far away, when Texas was a land of free speech, liberty, and ruled by the WD 40 crowd (“White Democrats over Forty”).  That really WAS a long time ago, wasn’t it?   Molly, born in beautiful Monterrey, in 1944 while some of my cousins were stationed in the Navy there, was a native Californian who tragically died of Cancer at the age of 63 on January 31, 2007—she had so much more to say and write about her adopted state.  Molly’s death, and the loss of her community, was definitely one of the major (contributing) factors prompting me to give up and leave my native state.  And now I’m in California half the time and Louisiana half the time.  I cannot tell in which state I enjoy living more: the food and girls are way better in New Orleans, the shopping and museums are better in Los Angeles…. New Orleans has lots of history and beauty.  Los Angeles has lots of money and power.  I feel at peace in New Orleans.  I feel I am a piece of Los Angeles.  

On this Final Friday of September, First Friday of Fall, I think it is time to go back to New Orleans.  The Reverend Barry Taylor is gone from Los Angeles—it’s now cool enough in New Orleans to enjoy the food and chase the girls…  Summer is HELL in New Orleans…. No time of year is really hellish in Los Angeles.  There was a time (around 1992-1994) when they described the four seasons of Los Angeles as “Earthquakes, Brushfires, Riots, and Floods”—rather like the Four Creations of the Maya Popol Vuh or the Five Creations of the Aztec Calendar Stone….Pierre du Soleil ou Calendrier Azteque.

Well, for me at least it was a very intense summer.  Fall will be quieter, I think, wherever I am.  Summer was so intense I cannot quite remember where my summer began.   For me summer began either in New Jersey or Florida, but without studying my travel records or receipts carefully, I’m pretty sure I greeted the Summer Solstice 93 days ago in either Ocala or Orlando, Florida.  I discovered a really good German restaurant in Orlando (the Bauern-Stube, http://www.bauern-stube.com/).  

That schnitzel & dumpling place was the only good thing I really can say about my excursion to Florida, except that I wrote and prepared a really good appellate brief for a really unworthy client (WTO 12 June EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL; 2014 6 12 final Appendix to emergency motion) who ultimately (well, actually, almost immediately) stabbed me in the back… and so I left Florida.

I ended the summer and began the Fall in Beverly Hills, California, in the midst of great turmoil.  On the one hand, I am tortured by the departure of the Reverend Barry Taylor from All Saints in Beverly Hills, especially on such complete absence of notice or warning, amid such dark but unspecified charges “not that anyone plans on pressing charges…”  On the other hand, I brought Croatian ex-Diplomat and New Right Political Philosopher to the Beverly Hills JEM Center where he preached New Right Philosophy to Beverly Hills’ Jewish Community…. I expected some negative reaction here, but instead the negative reaction was all from my fellow conservatives who felt I had done something desperately wrong…. and some even shunned Dr. Sunic as a consequence.   We shall see how all that plays out…. 

There will be NO Private Property in America until we Stamp out Bank/Servicer Mortgage Fraud

I only VERY rarely recommend a website, but without hesitation or reservation I recommend “Mortgage Servicing Fraud” 


and “Deadly Clear”: http://deadlyclear.wordpress.com

IF the United States Congress were in truly in the service of the people, instead of the service of the Banks, Congress would be holding non-stop “Committee of the Whole” hearings about why Americans are losing their homes.  But Congress does not in fact represent the people, but only the vested special interests which Congress helped to create.  

The American people should stand up and elect members of Congress who swear their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, on the Bible, to the people that they will investigate and punish the continuous, massive Mortgage Servicing Fraud which has been ongoing to greater or lesser degree since at least 1989 (Bush I).  We forget that Bush I was the President who earnestly pushed for Nuclear War and the rule of the United Nations in a “New World Order.”  In other words, Bush I (and Bush II) lived and worked in the service of World Communism while disguised as “Conservative Capitalist Republicans” endorsing central banking practices that trace their origins to Karl Marx, Frederich Engels, and Mayer Amstel Rothschild.  

Congress created the national banking associations monster (working closely with the banks and the Federal Executive, of course, since at least 1912).  Now to redeem American Democracy, Congress should force disgorgement of each National Banking Association’s wealth and compel divestiture and reconveyance to the Bank’s primary victims of all wrongfully foreclosed property.  I calculated, as did April Carrie Charney, in 2004-2006, that 80-90% of all Florida and Texas mortgages were held and serviced illegally.   In California, the figure cannot be less than 99.999%, allowing only for the tiniest fraction of “hard money” loans and mortgages with notes lawfully held by REAL private lenders.   I lack sufficient familiarity with practices in any other states to be certain of an exact figure.  Impressionistically, Louisiana and New Mexico seem to have a much greater number of hard money loans than any other states, from what I have seen and experienced.  New Jersey probably comes  close to California’s numbers.  Massachusetts and Arizona more likely approximate Florida’s.  

But the bottom line is obvious: nationwide, probably 90% of all mortgage foreclosures conducted since the late 1990s were and are illegal.  Undoing these is beyond the capacity of any state or federal court system at the present time.  Congress may need to create and appoint a special set of courts to unravel the mortgage mess created and growing exponentially ever since 1989-1994.

I would certainly push for the creation of such a special Court system carefully and properly to investigate the mortgage servicing and securitization fraud of the past quarter century, and to begin to restore the Fourth and Fifth Amendment guarantees of private property to reality.  

We are actively soliciting contributions to make such political reform possible.  Please send to Lincoln-for-Congress or the VINDICATIO TRUST ℅ Michael Lenaburg at 3579 East Foothill Boulevard, #544, in Pasadena, California 91107 or ℅ Charles Lincoln at 287 South Robertson Boulevard, #476, Beverly Hills, California 90211 (Fax 310-492-5342). 

FORGED PROMISSORY NOTES: We Need Other Examples of Expert-Verified Forged Promissory Notes Wachovia to Wells Fargo Transition—Please Help if you have information.

Please Help: I would like to assemble a list of forensically verified (expert witness confirmed) FORGED PROMISSORY NOTES, especially by Wells Fargo claiming status as successor to Wachovia.  We have obtained an expert witness report in New Jersey who has verified and distinguished a probable forgery in a Wachovia note now claimed as proof by Wells Fargo.  I am looking for any comparable forgeries verified by expert witness analyses in other cases.  

I will share all our information with anyone who will share with us any of the following (1) experts reports, (2) images of the forgery, and (3) expert curriculum vitae concerning other Wachovia/Wells Fargo Forgeries.  It would especially be useful to have evidence from any bank or mortgage finance company/originator at all (any brand name) in the Middle Atlantic States: Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, or Pennsylvania, but really from Wells Fargo and Wachovia anywhere.  Please contact me here on this blog or at charles.e.lincoln@gmail.com and provide me contact information.  I will pay costs of duplicating, certification, and express delivery of the documentation.

There may be a pattern of forgery which document or evidence the sloppy securitization practiced at Wachovia and Wells Fargo’s lack of concern for accuracy or honesty in proof of its status as actual holder of notes allegedly “inherited” from Wachovia.  


The Wachovia “note” in question (produced May 15, 2013) also had inconsistent footers and inconsistent patterns of pagination from page-to-page.  I would be very interested in seeing as many samples of Wachovia Notes and Mortgages from 2004-2009 (showing footers) as I can get my hands on.  

Aside from the facts concerning the forged signature, the problems are as follows:

One does not need to be a forensic document examiner or expert auditor of mortgages, commercial papers generally or promissory notes in particular to see and understand the significance of the word “REDACTED” stamped on the upper right hand corner of Page 1 of the Wachovia Bank document submitted by Foreclosure Mill-Law Firm REED-SMITH, nor of the “Lender’s Use Only” stamp on the bottom right of that same page.  These stamps both indicate even to the most casual observer that the copy tendered is both NON-ORIGINAL and ALTERED from the original.

22.     “REDACTED” means nothing in the English language besides “edited” or “altered.” Yet this is “a true and correct copy of the Note from the loan file that was provided to” Foreclosure Mill-Law Firm REED-SMITH “by representatives of Wells Fargo Bank.”  REED-SMITH might as well have certified this “Note” as found on-line in Wikipedia or delivered to her by certain unidentified and unknown “Men in Black”.

23.     Any indication of forgery or alteration of a note or other document renders it impossible for the claimant to such note or other document to qualify as a “holder-in-due course” under the relevant provisions of New Jersey Law:

12A:3-302. Holder in due course

a. Subject to subsection c. of this section and subsection d. of 12A:3-106, “holder in due course” means the holder of an instrument if:

(1) the instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity; and  [bold and Italic emphasis added]

(2) the holder took the instrument for value, in good faith, without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series, without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered, without notice of any claim to the instrument described in 12A:3-306, and without notice that any party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in subsection a. of 12A:3-305.

Last modified: February 13, 2012

http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/12a-commercial-transactions/3-302.html, consulted and copied on-line on Sunday June 2, 2013.

24.     Of course, Wells Fargo Bank has not yet offered even a scintilla of evidence that it “took the instrument for value, in good faith,….” Or “without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered.”


25.     A visual comparison of the footers show that the pages of Foreclosure Mill-Law Firm REED-SMITH’s  alleged “Note” do not belong to a single continuous series.

26.     The footers on pages 1-5 of the alleged Note bear the alphanumeric designations SD253A through SD253E, in each case followed by the parenthetical (2006-09-6) while page 6, bearing what purports to be MNM’s signature, bears only the alphanumeric designation SD253 without the expected sixth letter F, followed by the parenthetical (2004-03-1). 

27.     The page designation on alleged note page 6 is also different, printed as “Page 6 of 6” where none of the previous pages in the Note bear this “of 6” inscription or notation.

28.     Following the first parenthetical, pages 1 and 2 only bear the further bracketed parenthetical [A 02 (2006-09-6)] and then “Adjustable Pick-A-Payment” Note followed by “NJ”. 

29.     On page 1 this inscription is condensed, as if electronically, moved right to accommodate the inserted rectangular box “Lender’s Use Only” which does not appear on any other page but bears a bar code and the numbers “0 0 1.”

30.     The footers on Alleged Note Pages 3, 4, and 5 all lack this second bracketed parenthetical entirely, and the “ADJUSTABLE PICK-A-PAYMENT NOTE” is properly centered and isolated over the “Page 3” inscription.

31.     The signature page, perhaps significantly, does NOT bear the centered “ADJUSTABLE PICK-A-PAYMENT NOTE” designation above “Page 6 of 6” but it DOES contain a second bracketed parenthetical, which matches the different date identified above of (2004-03-1) by stating [W14 (2004-03-01)].

32.     Finally, in regard to the footers, the First Page is also unique because, beneath the left margin-justified SE253A (2006-09-6) notation, it bears the further left margin-justified text: “A MODIFICATION TO NOTE AND RIDER TO SECURITY,” which is inconsistent with the title “Adjustable Rate mortgage Note Fixed Advantage Pick-a-Payment (sm) LOAN (MONTHLY INTEREST RATE CHANGES) at the top of the same page.

33.     This “visual” analysis of the footers indicate that while pages 3, 4, and 5 come from a single pre-printed series, pages 1, 2, and 6 have either been altered or come from other pre-printed series, with page 6, the signature page, showing the most radical divergence in form and relationship to the other pages.

Secret Securitization is the New “Mode of Production”—the Key to the Modern Economy—the vehicle for the change in “mode of production” which the Communists have been waiting for, planning, for 165 years since 1848

Writing today from Mantoloking, Ocean County, New Jersey

My thanks to Savvy-Gal Michelle for alerting me to the latest monstrosity to be handed down by a California District Court of Appeal.  The California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three (based 601 West Santa Ana Boulevard in Santa Ana, Orange County, California 92701) has “certified” its May 17, 2013, opinion in Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., (G046121)(Super.Ct.30-2011-00438159) “for publication” and hence for precedential value and citation as “the law of the land” of the People’s Republic of California (available on-line at http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions-slip.htm?Courts=G and attached here: Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA).

To say I am surprised would be a lie.  To say that I am angry and deeply troubled by this country’s seemingly inexorable March Towards Pure (Marxist) Communism would also be a lie.  The Jenkins opinion does nothing new except to build upon outrageous judicial statements of the “lack of rights” of the people of California to know or even ask with whom they are dealing with, over the past two years.  Among the most pernicious of these decisions are Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1153 (2011) and Herrera v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 205 Cal.App.4th 1495 (2012).   (Gomes v. Countrywide, 121 CalRptr3d 819 OPINION Gomes v Countrywide Home Loans Inc Feb_18_2011).

The repeated and practical crux of it all is articulated in these two paragraphs from Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase:

“Importantly, the provisions setting forth California‘s nonjudicial foreclosure scheme (§§ 2924-2924k) ― ̳cover every aspect of [the] exercise of [a] power of sale contained in a deed of trust.‘ ̳The purposes of this comprehensive scheme are threefold: (1) to provide the [beneficiary-creditor] with a quick, inexpensive and efficient remedy against a defaulting [trustor-debtor]; (2) to protect the [trustor- debtor] from wrongful loss of the property; and (3) to ensure that a properly conducted sale is final between the parties and conclusive as to a bona fide purchaser.‘‖ (Gomes, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 1154.) ―Significantly, ̳[n]onjudicial foreclosure is less expensive and more quickly concluded than judicial foreclosure, since there is no oversight by a court, ―[n]either appraisal nor judicial determination of fair value is required,‖ and the debtor has no postsale right of redemption.‘‖ (Id. at p. 1155.)

Although a defaulting debtor is free to pursue a judicial action for ―misconduct arising out of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale when [such a claim is] not inconsistent with the policies behind the statutes‖ (California Golf, L.L.C. v. Cooper (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1053, 1070, italics added), due to the ― ̳exhaustive nature‘‖ of this scheme, California appellate courts have refused to read any additional requirements into the nonjudicial foreclosure statute.‖ (Gomes, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 1154, fn. omitted.) As one appellate court stated: ―It would be inconsistent with the comprehensive and exhaustive statutory scheme regulating nonjudicial foreclosures to incorporate another unrelated cure provision into statutory nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings.‖ (Moeller, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 834.)”

The secrecy (and non-accountability) afforded by this approach to non-judicial foreclosure in California is appropriate to the essentially clandestine nature of securitization, which I think we can now safely call “Securitization” the new post-capitalist mode of production to be used for transforming ownership of all private property into government-sponsored corporate-collective ownership “in common.”   Under securitization with rapid foreclosure, no one ever really owns property, but everyone owes a debt to everyone else in society.  I think this really is the communist formula: “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.”  

Although Marx is popularly thought of as the originator of the phrase, the Critique of the Gotha program was published 27 years after the Communist Manifesto of 1848 and a mere 8 years before Marx’ death in 1883 (Marx died on 14 March of same year as Richard Wagner, who died one month earlier on 13 February).  The slogan “from each according to his ability to each according to his need” was common to the socialist movement and was first used by Louis Blanc in 1839, in “The organization of work”.  At that time, in May of 1875, it was probably unforeseeable how perfectly the concept of securitization of private property would lead to and fit with communism, but it seems clear that Marx would have applauded the “genius” of securitization as a tool to abolish private property.

However, the complete paragraph included as part of Karl Marx’ May 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program is particularly relevant to the path down which 20th Century and now 21st Century Corporate Communism have led us.  Offering perhaps Marx’s most detailed pronouncement on programmatic matters of revolutionary strategy, the document discusses the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” (whose name we now know to be “Barack Hussein Obama” the period of transition from capitalism to communism (almost over as of 2013), proletarian internationalism (*which we have come to call “Corporate Globalism”), and the party of the working class (which we have learned to accept as divided, in the USA between Democratic and Republican “factions” or “flavors” or “Labor” and “Conservative” in Great Britain).

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

(“Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!”) As Karl Marx here prophesized, Corporate Communism (in Western Europe and North America, at any rate) aims to bring down the “division of labor” in society and “therewith” abolish “the antithesis between mental and physical labor.”  

Of course, this is one boundary that can never really be crossed—someone or something (robots?) will always have to do physical labor—and once robots are capable of doing all our physical labor, they may well see fit to do away with us and become non-consuming communists themselves (as so many science fiction scenarios have already envisioned).  

In the meantime, it is counties like China, Vietnam, Korea, Bangladesh and India where the consequences of the Corporate abolition of the “division of labor” in society have taken root.  SLAVE LABOR of the masses of billions of Asians to serve the tiny elite of the Communist Party and its allies is the modern reality of East, Southeast, and Southern Asia generally.    

Communism fulfills the dreams of (for the rich and developed nations) abolishing the antithesis between manual and physical labor. But for the rest of the world, the lavish and leisurely life of the beneficiaries of communism in the first world visits all the most nightmarish scenarios of inequality—inequality of wealth, inequality of physical labor, inequality of leisure time, inequality of environmental quality and comfort—it goes on, on the original populations who were slaughtered into conformity with “Communism Triumphant” before Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger first sold America’s soul to the PRC.  

But in spite of this disconformity of reality, the west is constantly emulating the “eusocial” life of the East.  Even in that bastion of “Capitalism” known as “Corporate TV advertising and Corporate Culture) icons of modern American life from the red -T-shirts of Bank of America Employees to the round (quasi-Asiatic) expression and look of the Progressive Insurance Girl, who announces triumph after triumph of the workers’ progress and program….consciously emulate, import, and trans-substantiate the spirit of Maoism into America.

What is the answer? the antidote? Only full understanding of where we are in history and cultural evolution will permit us to make a choice.  We are not lost in a yellow wood finding a place where two roads diverge.  We are on a superhighway towards world-wide slavery and self-destruction, and we will have to drive over the grassy median (i.e. violate the traffic laws) to get off.

One way to cross this divide is to challenge securitization directly, as one litigant has chosen to Carrie It Forward in the Middle District of Florida.  Carrie Lynn Luft’s May 13 2013 FINAL Draft Second Amended Complaint with CLASS ACTION for Predatory Lending & Securitization

Deutsche Bank National Trust v. Russo, 57 A.3d 18, 429 N.J. Super 91 (November 14, 2012)

DEUTSCHE BANK NAT. TRUST v. RUSSO, 57 A.3d 18 (2012)

429 N.J. Super. 91

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee on behalf of HSI Asset Securitization Corporation Trust 2006-HEI, Plaintiff-Respondent,




Conrad D. RUSSO and Irene Russo, Defendants-Appellants.

Docket No. A-2437-11T1Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

 Argued October 10, 2012.

Decided November 14, 2012.

 Jessica T. Zolotorofe argued the cause for appellants (Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC, attorneys; Lawrence H. Shapiro and Ms. Zolotorofe, Ocean, on the brief).
Edward A. Vincent argued the cause for respondent (Frenkel Lambert Weiss Weisman & Gordon, LLP, attorneys; Mr. Vincent, on the brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Defendants Conrad and Irene Russo appeal from a December 7, 2011 order denying their application to further restrain a sheriff’s sale, and denying as untimely their motion to vacate a final judgment of foreclosure entered on March 17, 2009 in favor of plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. We affirm.
On July 13, 2006, defendants refinanced the existing mortgage on their home by executing a note and mortgage in the amount of $458,700 in favor of Mortgage Electric Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as nominee for Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Countrywide). The note disclosed, in large capital letters, that it was an “interest only” loan. Its terms produced a lower monthly mortgage payment for five years, followed by a significantly higher monthly payment beginning

[ 57 A.3d 21 ]

after the fifth year. According to defendants, as part of the loan package, $31,000 in points and fees were added to the principal balance of the loan.2 They contend that they did not realize the mortgage would increase their principal indebtedness and would eventually result in higher monthly payments. However, defendants defaulted on the loan long before they were required to begin repaying the principal or making the higher monthly payments. On June 1, 2007, less than a year into the mortgage term, defendants stopped making payments.

Plaintiff sent defendants a Notice of Intention to Foreclose by certified mail on September 24, 2007. Irene Russo signed the certified mail receipt. Plaintiff filed the foreclosure complaint on November 27, 2007. There is no dispute that the complaint was properly served on defendants on January 24, 2008. They failed to file an answer, and default was entered on June 3, 2008. After serving defendants with the required notice of intent to enter a final judgment, plaintiff obtained a final foreclosure judgment on March 17, 2009. There is no dispute that defendants were aware that the final judgment had been entered.
A sheriff’s sale was first scheduled to take place on May 24, 2010, but was adjourned because Conrad Russo filed for bankruptcy on May 19, 2010. The Bankruptcy Court granted him a discharge on September 17, 2010. For various reasons, the sheriff’s sale was adjourned a total of seventeen times. Finally, on July 5, 2011, defendants filed their first pleading in the foreclosure action, an order to show cause seeking to stay the sheriff’s sale and seeking to vacate the 2009 final judgment of foreclosure pursuant to Rule 4:50-1(d) and (f).3
In their motion, defendants argued that plaintiff lacked standing to file the foreclosure complaint, because it did not take an assignment of the mortgage until after the complaint was filed. The motion record filed with the trial court disclosed the following information. Countrywide, now doing business as Bank of America, has continued to service the loan since it originated on July 13, 2006. However, on August 15, 2006, the relevant collateral file was allegedly transferred to Wells Fargo Bank M.N., and was then transferred to Wells Fargo Bank N.A., the servicer and custodian for the current plaintiff Deutsche Bank, on October 31, 2006. However, an assignment acknowledging Deutsche Bank as the legal possessor of the note and mortgage was not signed and recorded until June 17, 2008, seven months after the complaint was filed.
In a lengthy oral opinion placed on the record on December 6 and 7, 2011, Judge Thomas W. Cavanagh, Jr. held that defendants had not filed their Rule 4:50 motion within a reasonable time after entry of the foreclosure judgment. He further found that they produced no proof of excusable neglect for their failure to file a timely answer to the complaint or for the years of delay in filing their motion. He also rejected their standing argument, accepting

[ 57 A.3d 22 ]

plaintiff’s proof that it had possession of the note at the time the foreclosure complaint was filed. In fact, the trial judge stated that he had required plaintiff to produce a certified copy of the note itself:

Now, the track of title here, according to the person rendering the certification, who says that she did so on personal knowledge, and the information compiled in her cert was done [from] the business records, which were recorded by people with personal knowledge of the information, or from persons transmitting personal knowledge, goes as follows. The original loan was given to the defendants in 2006, and Mr. Russo executed a note to Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. The mortgage was parked at MERS as nominee for Countrywide, which is something that occurs frequently. Countrywide ultimately was absorbed into Bank of America, N.A., and Countrywide continued to service the loan since the date of origination. On August 15, 2006, the collateral file was transferred to Wells Fargo. The collateral was then transferred to Wells Fargo Bank, the servicer and custodian for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as trustee on behalf of HSI. That is, of course, the plaintiff in this case. That occurred on October 31, 2006. Wells Fargo is the servicer and custodian for the owner of the note, which is the Deutsche Bank Securitized Trust. The plaintiff purchased the note in 2006, and is the owner of the note pursuant to the consideration which was paid for the note in 2006. Under U.C.C. Section 3-301, a person entitled to enforce the obligation is either a holder, or a non-holder in possession who has the rights of a holder.
… [A] certified copy of the note was forwarded to the court in September of 2011, and a copy is by now, I’m sure, in the possession of the defendants. The note contains a bearer allonge endorsed in blank by Countrywide and obviously was in the possession of the plaintiff through its servicer in accordance with PSA since 2006. That occurred prior to the default, so there is no holder in due course issue to be raised.
The judge further reasoned that defendants had not denied the validity of the note, denied their default, or raised any other meritorious defense to the enforcement of the mortgage:
[T]here was no question that … the defendants … acknowledge the validity of the note and mortgage in the sense that there is no claim that the money was not received, nor that they have defaulted and there is no underlying defense as to the basic components of the mortgage. Throughout the years of correspondence and orders, at no time have the defendants ever said you have the wrong parties, or we didn’t borrow the money, or we didn’t default. Basically, they’ve accepted the underlying aspect of the action over many, many months and years.
We review the trial court’s decision for abuse of discretion. US Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 467, 38 A.3d 570 (2012). “The trial court’s determination under [Rule 4:50-1] warrants substantial deference,” and the abuse of discretion must be clear to warrant reversal. Ibid. (citing DEG, LLC v. Twp. of Fairfield, 198 N.J. 242, 261, 966 A.2d 1036 (2009)). On this record, we find no abuse of discretion in Judge Cavanagh’s decision.
Under Rule 4:50-1(a), “[a] defendant seeking to set aside a default judgment must establish that his failure to answer was due to excusable neglect and that he has a meritorious defense.” Goldhaber

[ 57 A.3d 23 ]

v. Kohlenberg, 395 N.J.Super. 380, 391, 928 A.2d 948 (App.Div.2007). “`Excusable neglect’ may be found when the default was `attributable to an honest mistake that is compatible with due diligence or reasonable prudence.'” Guillaume, supra, 209 N.J. at 468, 38 A.3d 570(quoting Mancini v. EDS ex rel. N.J. Auto. Full Ins. Underwriting Ass’n, 132 N.J. 330, 335,625 A.2d 484 (1993)). Rule 4:50-1(d) motion, based on a claim that the judgment is void, does not require a showing of excusable neglect but must be filed within a reasonable time after entry of the judgment. See R. 4:50-2; M & D Assocs. v. Mandara, 366 N.J.Super. 341, 351-52, 841 A.2d 441 (App.Div.2004), certif. denied, 180 N.J. 151, 849 A.2d 184 (2004).

Defendants first claim that they presented a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing their motion. They contend that “based on representations from the loan servicer,” they believed that “no foreclosure action would proceed while they were actively working toward a loan modification.” While defendants make that representation in their appellate brief, they produced no legally competent evidence to support that contention. Irene Russo’s motion certification described defendants’ efforts to save their home by working with a variety of private financial consultants and attorneys, none of whom were employed by plaintiff, and later, by applying for a loan modification. But nowhere in her certification is there any statement that plaintiff told defendants that they did not need to file an answer to the complaint or that the foreclosure would be held in abeyance.
Our Supreme Court recently held in Guillaume that this fact pattern does not constitute excusable neglect. As here, the Guillaume defendants made bald assertions that they believed they did not need to file an answer or otherwise defend the foreclosure action. The Court held:
The trial court properly rejected this contention, holding that the Guillaumes were fully informed of the existence of a `court process’ requiring a legal response for over a year, and that U.S. Bank’s communications with them regarding loan modification did not alter the analysis…. There is no evidence that U.S. Bank suggested to the Guillaumes that it was unnecessary to respond to the foreclosure action…. Notwithstanding the repeated notices, the Guillaumes took no action to respond to the foreclosure complaint, and the record reflects no excuse for their inaction.
[Guillaume, supra, 209 N.J. at 468-69, 38 A.3d 570.]
Further, as we recently held in Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Angeles, 428 N.J.Super. 31553 A.3d 673 (App.Div.2012), “[m]otions made under any Rule 4:50-1 subsection `must be filed within a reasonable time.'” Id. at 319, 53 A.3d 673 (quoting Orner v. Liu, 419 N.J.Super. 431, 437, 17 A.3d 266 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 208 N.J. 369, 29 A.3d 741 (2011)). We also noted that, pursuant to Rule 4:50-2, “motions based on Rule4:50-1(a), (b) and (c)” must be filed within a year of the judgment. Ibid. Therefore, a Rule4:50 motion based on excusable neglect is barred if it is filed more than one year after the foreclosure judgment was entered. Ibid. Additionally, as we held in Deutsche Bank,equitable considerations may justify a court in rejecting a foreclosure defendant’s belated attempt to raise as a defense the plaintiff’s lack of standing:
In foreclosure matters, equity must be applied to plaintiffs as well as defendants. Defendant did not raise the issue of standing until he had the advantage of many years of delay. Some delay stemmed from the New Jersey foreclosure

[ 57 A.3d 24 ]

system, other delay was afforded him through the equitable powers of the court, and additional delay resulted from plaintiff’s attempt to amicably resolve the matter. Defendant at no time denied his responsibility for the debt incurred…. Rather, when all hope of further delay expired … he made a last-ditch effort to relitigate the case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendant was not equitably entitled to vacate the judgment.

[Id. at 320, 53 A.3d 673]
A similar result was suggested in Bank of New York v. Raftogianis, 418 N.J.Super. 323,13 A.3d 435 (Ch.Div.2010). Addressing a situation in which a plaintiff filed the complaint before it had possession of the note or a valid assignment of the mortgage, the court observed that dismissal of the complaint without prejudice might not always be the appropriate remedy:
Whether any particular action should in fact be dismissed should be addressed on a case-to-case basis, dependent on all the circumstances. As a general matter, dismissal will probably be appropriate, if only to provide a clear incentive to plaintiffs to see that the issue of standing is properly addressed before any complaint is filed. There may be cases, however, where dismissal would not be appropriate. That may be the case if the defendant fails to raise the issue promptly, or when substantial time and effort may have been devoted to addressing other matters that would then have to be revisited in any new litigation.
[Id. at 356, 13 A.3d 435.]
In Guillaume, the Court confirmed that dismissal of the complaint is not necessarily the appropriate remedy for a filing defect in a foreclosure complaint. In that case, the notice of intention to foreclose did not list the name and address of the lender, which the Court held was legally required. However, the Court held that
dismissal without prejudice is not the exclusive remedy for the service of a notice of intention that does not satisfy N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(c)(11). A trial court adjudicating a foreclosure complaint in which the notice of intention does not comply with N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(c)(11) may dismiss the action without prejudice, order the service of a corrected notice, or impose another remedy appropriate to the circumstances of the case…. Given the Guillaumes’ thorough familiarity with the status of their mortgage — reflected in their consultations with a professional adviser and active loan modification negotiations with ASC — the trial court’s remedy of a cure constituted a proper exercise of its discretion.
[Guillaume, supra, 209 N.J. at 475-76, 38 A.3d 570.]
Because the Fair Foreclosure Act violation that the defendants asserted would not require dismissal of the complaint, the Court held that “the FFA does not provide a `meritorious defense’ to this action within the meaning of Rule 4:50-1(a).” Id. at 480, 38 A.3d 570.
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. 361,704 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).4
Finally, based on our review of the record, we find no evidence that defendants have any other meritorious defense. They claim that they were defrauded into taking an interest-only loan that would eventually result in higher mortgage payments. But they produced no proof that the alleged fraud caused them to default on the mortgage. See Jewish Center of Sussex County v. Whale, 86 N.J. 619, 624, 432 A.2d 521 (1981) (fraud requires proof that the victim relied “to his detriment” on a material misrepresentation). They stopped making payments in the first year of the mortgage, long before the monthly payments were scheduled to increase.5


1. Judge Yannotti did not participate in oral argument, but joins in the opinion with the consent of counsel. See R. 2:13-2(b).
2. Defendants did not produce any documentation to support this claim.
3. In pertinent part, Rule 4:50-1 permits a court to vacate a final judgment on these grounds: “(a) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; … (c) fraud … (d) the judgment or order is void; … or (f) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment or order.” A motion pursuant to (a) or (c) must be filed within a year after entry of the judgment, while motions pursuant to (d) and (f) must be filed “within a reasonable time.” R. 4:50-2. On appeal, defendants claim for the first time that the judgment was obtained by fraud. See Rule 4:50-1(c). That claim is untimely. R. 4:50-2.
4. There is no dispute that plaintiff obtained a valid assignment of the mortgage, albeit some months after the complaint was filed. Hence, standing issues aside, it had a legal right to enforce the note, pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code, N.J.S.A. 12A:3-301, at the time it obtained the judgment. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ford, 418 N.J.Super. 592, 597, 15 A.3d 327 (App.Div.2011). Contrary to defendants’ argument on this appeal, the judgment was not obtained by fraud. R. 4:50-1(c).
5. Nor have defendants produced any evidence that the alleged increase in the principal balance, or in the post-fifth-year interest rate, precluded them from redeeming the property or from selling the house at a price that would yield them some equity.