Wednesday, September 11, 2019

CFPB Sues CFLA for Scamming Mortgagors, and...

CFPB v CFLA Complaint 20190906

As the above-linked complaint shows, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) sued Certified Forensic Loan Auditors (CFLA) and its owner Andrew Lehman, and its so-called securitization auditor Michael Carrigan in federal court for violating the Consumer Financial Protection Act and its supporting regulation, Regulation O, by charging advance fees for foreclosure rescue services, and for selling worthless services like securitization audits.

It seems to the Maven of Mortgage Attack that the CFPB read the CFLA Scam Report of March 2019 and decided to act on it by trying to put CFLA out of the business of scamming troubled mortgagors.  THANK YOU, CFPB!

--
Bob Hurt Signature
Bob Hurt

Bob Hurt
👓 Blog 1 2   f   t  
Email     📞 (727) 669-5511
2460 Persian Drive #70
✈ Clearwater, FL 33763 USA
Donate  to Law Scholarship
✔  Subscribe to Lawmen E-Letter
🔨 Learn How to Win in Court
Mortgage Attack to Beat the Bank

QR Code

Study civil litigation essentials on-line under Jurisdictionary developer Dr. F. Graves, Esq., and learn

(click button)
"It's actual, tested training, what Jurisdictionary always wanted to be, and beyond. Thanks, Dr. Graves. I kicked ass today in court, and the judge loved me!" Ganurem Smirgle

Saturday, June 08, 2019

Another Freedom of Speech misunderstanding

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/verdict-jury-awards-gibsons-bakery-11-million-against-oberlin-college/

Here's a story showing a gross misunderstanding of the freedom of speech and a horrible college student body tort that the college administrators wrongfully endorsed.  Employees of family-owned bakery local to Oberlin college caught three Negro Oberlin students trying to steal goods from the bakery store, and called the police.  Antagonistic, race-baiting Oberlin and student activists engaged in public protests and boycott efforts that defamed the bakery as racists and dramatically reduced bakery income.   College officials claim they only allowed students to exercise their right to freedom of speech, and had nothing to do with damaging the bakery's business.

The bakers sued Oberlin college and won a ruling that Oberlin College committed libel and disrupted the bakery's business, AND an award of $11 million in compensatory damages. A punitive damages trial might yield more money for the bakery's owners.

While it remains possible that an appellate panel will overturn all or part of the trial court's ruling and award, the college administrators could and should have put a stop to the damaging student protests.  The US Constitution does not protect otherwise protected speech when the speakers intend to use it as an instrument of libel and business disruption.  The right to free speech comes with commensurate responsibility, a fact that delusional, contemptible, vociferous demonstrators typically fail to consider.

--
Bob Hurt Signature
Bob Hurt

Bob Hurt
👓 Blog 1 2   f   t  
Email     📞 (727) 669-5511
2460 Persian Drive #70
✈ Clearwater, FL 33763 USA
Donate  to Law Scholarship
✔  Subscribe to Lawmen E-Letter
🔨 Learn How to Win in Court
Mortgage Attack to Beat the Bank

QR Code

 

Monday, May 06, 2019

Time for a terminology change - "INVADER," not "[illegal or undocumented alien or...] immigrant"

I write to encourage all of you to change your terminology when you refer to "undocumented alien," or "illegal immigrant".  From now on, use the term "INVADER" to refer to any non-US-Citizen without a visa or residence permit inside the United States or its territories. 

INVADERS include the trickles or floods of Ibero-Americans, Caribbean Islanders, Africans, Mid-Easterners, and others entering the USA and its territories, particularly across land borders, afoot, or by a vehicle like car, truck, boat, or aircraft.

They are not mere undocumented aliens or illegal immigrants.  They are INVADERS who INVADE or INVADED the USA and its territories by the process of INVASION.

You will see from the definitions below that to invade means to encroach, possibly under arms. An invasion is an unwanted or unlawful entry into your personal space, your home, your community, your land, your state, or your nation.

The US Constitution provides the following references to invasion:

Article I Section 8, Clause 15 - Powers of Congress

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article I Section 9, Clause 2 - Powers prohibited to Congress (and therefore to the Judicial and Executive branches)

2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Article I Section 10, Clause 3 - Powers prohibited to States

3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article IV Section 4 - US guarantees to States

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Many people, particularly Democrats, seem to think that people the world over have the natural, God-given right to settle wherever they wish, including inside the USA without permission of Government.  AND, US law, pursuant to treaty, protects so-called refugees by allowing them to enter the USA to escape persecution in their homeland. Wikipedia provides this data:

The United States Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212) amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 by defining a refugee as any person who is outside his or her country of residence or nationality, or without nationality, and is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

The annual admission of refugees is set to a 50,000 cap per fiscal year, but in an emergency situation, the President may change the number for a period of twelve months. The Attorney General is also granted power to admit additional refugees and grant asylum to current aliens, but all admissions must be reported to Congress and be limited to 5,000 people.

That means the government of the alien refugee's home country persecutes the alien refugee or refuses to punish those who would persecute the alien refugee.  It does NOT mean an alien has the right to become a refugee in order to better his economic or social or political status.  Such putative refugees are in fact INVADERS.

The American mantra for INVADERS should be this:  if you want to enter the USA to improve your economic or social condition, to get a well-paying job, to avoid hardship, etc., GO BACK TO YOUR HOMELAND and USE YOUR POLITICAL POWER TO IMPROVE IT. 

The USA cannot absorb more than a trickle of refugees or lawful immigrants without subjecting the nation to forceful change of American culture into a distinctly alien culture.  Americans should NEVER invite more immigrants than US culture can absorb without change.  NEVER FAIL to understand this principle: REFUGEES ARE INVADERS.  They are jumping to the head of the line of lawful immigrants, sidestepping normal statistical controls over immigration.  They are tricking the system, and therefore bringing about unwanted changes to our American culture, for refugees almost never intend to become true Americans, learning literacy in English, and folding into American culture.  In fact, they almost universally intend to warp American language and culture, not to mention government corruption, to match that of their homelands.  We see clear examples of this in the Muslims who have become members of Congress and insist on wearing Muslim garb to press others with their cultural convictions.  In due course, Muslims, particularly Muslim refugees will, given the opportunity, change governments of their communities, states, and the United States from limited constitutional republics into Islamic caliphates ruled by Shari'a law.

History shows that INVADERS, whether or not by force of arms and military conquest, do in fact accomplish the same result by gradual invasion as by sudden invasion, IF they invade in large enough numbers.  Either way, American society cannot absorb the invaders without a change in culture and government. Invaders always bring the practices of graft, corruption, and lawlessness from their homelands into the USA, and they ALWAYS seek to make the USA like their homeland to gratify their feelings of nostalgia.

Universally, we must tell them:  "STAY in your homeland and reform your government, your religion, and your culture so that they become more advanced and civilized.  DO NOT bring your homeland backwardness, your homeland language, your homeland culture to the United States of America.  We do not need or want the changes with which you intend to infect us, our culture, our language, and our governments."

YES, I include Islam in the array of cultures Americans do not need or want.  Why?  Because Islam as both a religion and political force is brutal and corrupt - AND, its adherents seek to impose medieval social regulations upon people of the community through primitive and irrational "Shari'a law."  Shari'a is absolutely incompatible with the principals of a limited constitutional republic and with American culture.  Wikipedia provides this:

Traditional theory of Islamic jurisprudence recognizes four sources of sharia: the Quran, sunnah (authentic hadith), qiyas (analogical reasoning), and ijma (juridical consensus). Different legal schools—of which the most prominent are Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali and Jafari—developed methodologies for deriving sharia rulings from scriptural sources using a process known as ijtihad. Traditional jurisprudence (fiqh) distinguishes two principal branches of law, ʿibādāt (rituals) and muʿāmalāt (social relations), which together comprise a wide range of topics. Its rulings are concerned with ethical standards as much as with legal norms, assigning actions to one of five categories: mandatory, recommended, neutral, abhorred, and prohibited. Thus, some areas of sharia overlap with the Western notion of law while others correspond more broadly to living life in accordance with God's will.

In the modern era, traditional laws in the Muslim world have been widely replaced by statutes inspired by European models. Judicial procedures and legal education were likewise brought in line with European practice. While the constitutions of most Muslim-majority states contain references to sharia, its classical rules were largely retained only in personal status (family) laws. Legislators who codified these laws sought to modernize them without abandoning their foundations in traditional jurisprudence. The Islamic revival of the late 20th century brought along calls by Islamist movements for full implementation of sharia, including hudud corporal punishments, such as stoning. In some cases, this resulted in traditionalist legal reform, while other countries witnessed juridical reinterpretation of sharia advocated by progressive reformers. Some Muslim-minority countries recognize the use of sharia-based family laws for their Muslim populations. Sharia also continues to influence other aspects of private and public life.

The role of sharia has become a contested topic around the world. Introduction of sharia-based laws sparked intercommunal violence in Nigeria and may have contributed to the breakup of Sudan. Some jurisdictions in North America have passed bans on use of sharia, framed as restrictions on religious or foreign laws. There are ongoing debates as to whether sharia is compatible with democracy, human rights, freedom of thought, women's rights, LGBT rights, and banking.

In spite of the Constitution's putative protections of the states against alien invasions, Democrats seem to LOVE having millions of alien invaders flooding into the country.  Why?  Because they know that all the children born to those alien invaders will presume US Citizen status and register to vote, AND virtually all of those invaders will vote for Democrat candidates.  In other words, Democrats want the alien invasion in order to win elections and turn the US Government into a socialist/communist enterprise that robs from the responsible, productive people of the land in order to give subsistence to the relatively irresponsible and non-productive invaders.

Looking back at the provisions in the US Constitution regarding alien invasion, AND at the nature of the mostly non-militant invasion by border jumpers and so-called refugees, it becomes crystal clear that the governments of neither the Several States NOR the United States have fulfilled their constitutional duty to protect the territory of the US, the States, and American communities from culture-destroying, government-wrecking INVASION by ALIEN INVADERS from wretched third-world countries.

Part of the reason for this failure lies in the apparent heart-breaking plight of the invaders who just want a better life for themselves and their children than they had in their homelands.

WE should recognize the reality that the low intelligence and the citizen-incompetence of those invaders constitute the central reason that the invaders had miserable lives back in their home countries.  If they had the ability to create an advanced civilization back home, they would have.  Instead of ousting the criminals from government in a violent rebellion, they want to bring their mentality of civil incompetence and corruption here to the USA and foster here the same kind of criminal governments under which they suffered at home.  For that reason, if no other, we must slam the door in their faces and deny them entry into the USA now and forever.

The United States, average IQ 98 with the UK as the 100 IQ standard, contains about 80 million people with IQ below 85, the minimum level required to graduate from High School.  Their numbers increase daily with the influx of refugees from low-IQ lands.  The average IQ of Mexico is only 88, of Haiti, Honduras, and Nicaragua is only 81, and of Guatemala is only 77.  The brightest people of Ibero-America and the Caribbean islands stay there to run businesses and government.  The dregs of society try to escape to the USA.  We do not get their best and brightest as refugees.

Stupidity is a life-long genetic disease.  Stupid children inherit their stupidity from their stupid parents. The USA does not need more stupid people. Stupid people gravitate to crime and welfare abuse to get by because they cannot compete for the better jobs and mates.  Stupid people have very low value of productivity. They become a net drain on the infrastructures and productivity of the more intelligent, productive people of the land.  Our near-socialist governments hand out billions of dollars annually in various forms of welfare, and spends a fortune on health care, criminal justice, prisons, and wasted education on the stupid.  Instead of imposing a ban on the procreation of stupid children by stupid parents and a ban on the immigration of stupid people from corrupt 3rd world lands, the leftist liberal "bleeding hearts" of the US and state governments seem to invite burgeoning of the lowest possible class - the abjectly irresponsible and unproductive, all through legalized plunder of the responsible and productive people of the land.  Such support for the stupid could come through charitable donations, but Democrats who foster welfare know that intelligent people will not hand out charitable gifts to those who waste it or do not really need it or act arrogantly like they have a God-given right to it.

You might not know it, but the US President has the power right now to slam the borders shut, and deny entry to all immigrants, including invaders like refugees.  Congress delegated that authority to the President in 8 USC 1182(f) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182):

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Also read this analysis of the federal power over invading aliens:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-4/aliens

I know of only two ways to stimulate government into taking action to stop the present invasion dead in its tracks:  CHANGE the way we talk about it and DEMAND that our President and Congress and Judiciary STOP it.

  1. To begin with, we must call the invaders what they are: INVADERS.  We must STOP calling them by other terms.  They are INVADERS, not immigrants, not illegal immigrants, not undocumented aliens, and not undocumented workers.  They are INVADERS.  We must use this terminology, INVADERS, in all emails we write, in all discussions with friends, family, associates, adversaries, and in all articles we write.  We must take extreme offense at the use of any other terms in reference to the invaders and their invasion other than INVADE, INVADER, INVADERS, and INVASION, just as Negroes typically take offense at a white person for referring to them as niggers. We must insist that all participants in public dialogue referring to illegal/undocumented aliens/immigrants MUST refer to them "INVADERS."  We insist on the term INVADER as a term of alarm and shock, because invade, invader, and invasion are the ONLY acceptable terms for the aliens who enter or remain in US territory unlawfully, or for their unlawful entry or residence in US territory.  By changing our terminology, we turn all public discourse on the topic into a politically persuasive tool to encourage action by government to stop the invasion for it makes them perceive the invaders as dangerous enemies to the US and State interests.  Make no mistake in thinking about this.  The invaders are a dire danger to the citizens of the USA.

  2. Second, we must demand of our governors, legislators, and the President a total halt to the invasion and an accelerated ejection of all invaders from the US and its territories forthwith.

  3. Third, we must deny US citizenship to anchor babies.  We must demand a constitutional amendment to declare that no child born to invaders and other non-US-Citizens in the USA becomes a US Citizen by birth.  The Constitution should mandate that all ALL such children become US Citizens ONLY through the naturalization process.

  4. Forth, we must aggressively inform the President of his power to terminate the invasion under 8 USC 1182(f), and demand that he use it, for it seems apparent from his public comments that he thinks he can block and eject invaders only through a declaration of national emergency. For reference, also see Trump v. Hawaii, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Hawaii.

Definitions of invade:

From Babylon English
invade

in·vade || ɪn'veɪd
enter for conquest or plunder, occupy; penetrate; intrude; infringe, encroach

From Oxford (En)
invade

v.tr. (often absol.)
1 enter (a country etc.) under arms to control or subdue it.
2 swarm into.
3 (of a disease) attack (a body etc.).
4 encroach upon (a person's rights, esp. privacy).
Derivatives:
invader n.
Etymology: L invadere invas- (as IN-(2), vadere go)

From WordNet
invade

invade
     v 1: march aggressively into another's territory by military
          force for the purposes of conquest and occupation;
          "Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939" [syn: {occupy}]
     2: to intrude upon, infringe, encroach on, violate; "This new
        colleague invades my territory"; "The neighbors intrude on
        your privacy" [syn: {intrude on}, {obtrude upon}, {encroach
        upon}]
     3: occupy in large numbers or live on a host; "the Kudzu plant
        infests much of the South and is spreading to the North"
        [syn: {overrun}, {infest}]
     4: penetrate or assault, in a harmful or injurious way; "The
        cancer had invaded her lungs"

From Merrian Webster 10th dictionary
invade

transitive verb
1 : to enter for conquest or plunder
2 : to encroach upon : INFRINGE
3 a : to spread over or into as if invading : PERMEATE <doubts invade his mind> b : to affect injuriously and progressively <gangrene invades healthy tissue>

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Invade

Invade \In*vade"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Invaded}; p. pr. & vb.
   n. {Invading}.] [L. invadere, invasum; pref. in- in + vadere
   to go, akin to E. wade: cf. OF. invader, F. envahir. See
   {Wade}.]
   1. To go into or upon; to pass within the confines of; to
      enter; -- used of forcible or rude ingress. [Obs.]
            Which becomes a body, and doth then invade The state
            of life, out of the grisly shade. --Spenser.
   2. To enter with hostile intentions; to enter with a view to
      conquest or plunder; to make an irruption into; to attack;
      as, the Romans invaded Great Britain.
            Such an enemy Is risen to invade us. --Milton.
   3. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate; as,
      the king invaded the rights of the people.
   4. To grow or spread over; to affect injuriously and
      progressively; as, gangrene invades healthy tissue.
   Syn: To attack; assail; encroach upon. See {Attack}.
Invade \In*vade"\, v. i.
   To make an invasion. --Brougham.


--
Bob Hurt Signature
Bob Hurt

Bob Hurt
👓 Blog 1 2   f   t  
Email     📞 (727) 669-5511
2460 Persian Drive #70
✈ Clearwater, FL 33763 USA
Donate  to Law Scholarship
✔  Subscribe to Lawmen E-Letter
🔨 Learn How to Win in Court
Mortgage Attack to Beat the Bank

QR Code