Failing Foreclosure Defenses (Quiet Title, CDS) - Are you the Dog or the Dog Meat?

Failing Foreclosure Defenses (Quiet Title, CDS) -  

Are you the Big Dog or the Dog-Meat?

by Bob Hurt, 31 May 2012 - Distribute immediately far and wide to all mail lists.

Many foreclosure defense "theorists" in non-judicial foreclosure states argue that winning a quiet title lawsuit will eradicate the mortgage debt, or that CDS (Credit Default Swap) or other insurance payoffs will eradicate the mortgage debt because payment by the borrower of the mortgage debt would constitute wrongful double payment.

Case law dictates otherwise, as it should:

1. "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");
   
   
2. "Plaintiffs argue, ‘any alleged obligation of Plaintiffs was satisfied once the default was declared, because the various credit enhancement policies paid out making any injured party whole.’ According to Plaintiffs, foreclosure on the Property to collect on payment owed under the First Note will result in a double recovery prohibited by Virginia statute and case law...Even assuming that Plaintiffs had a factual basis for their "double recovery" claim, no provision in the U.S. or Virginia Codes supports Plaintiffs' argument that credit enhancements or credit default swaps ("CDS") are unlawful. No decision from any court in any jurisdiction supports such a claim.”
   
   "Plaintiffs' double recovery theory ignores the fact that a CDS contract is a separate contract, distinct from Plaintiffs' debt obligations under the reference credit (i.e. the Note). The CDS contract is a "bilateral financial contract" in which the protection buyer makes periodic payments to the protection seller. See Eternity Global Master Fund Ltd. V. Morgan Guar.Trust Co., 375 F.3d 168, 172 (2d Cir. 2004). If the credit event occurs, the CDS buyer recovers according to the terms of the CDS contract, not the reference credit. Any CDS "payout" is bargained for and paid for by the CDS buyer under a separate contract. See In Re Worldcom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 346 F. Supp. 2d 628, 651 n. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (explaining that a premium is paid on a swap contract to the seller for credit default protection, and if the default event does not occur, payer has only lost the premium). CDS do not, as Plaintiffs suggest, indemnify the buyer of protection against loss, but merely allow parties to balance risk through separate third party contracts. Therefore, Plaintiffs' "double recovery" argument fails as a matter of law." LAROTA-FLOREZ v. GOLDMAN SACHS MORTGAGE CO., 719 F. Supp.2d 636 (E.D.Va. 4-8-2010).

All foreclosure defenders should try to remember the US Constitution Article I Section 10 Clause 1 , which provides, among other things, "No State shall... pass any... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts..." 

Stop and think what this means, and ask yourself come questions, whether you are a foreclosure victim, or victim of an upsidedown mortgage loan: 

1. If the state cannot pass law impairing obligation of contracts, does that mean the state courts' judges therefore have no authority to interpret any law as impairing the obligation of contracts?  
   
2. Can a judge rule that your mortgage and note are invalid or void, and if so, why?
   
3. May judges willy-nilly impair the obligation of contracts, such as with a spurious quieting of a title on which the equitable owner owes a whopping mortgage debt to the legal owner? 
   
4. Does a judge have the authority to determine whether a contract contains unconscionable provisions or otherwise has a void or unenforceable nature?
5. What about fraud or tortious conduct or other violations underlying a contract?
6. May a judge determine that some fraud vitiated the contract, making it of no effect?
7. May a judge find a breach of contract and use that as the basis for ordering some penalty against the breaching party?
8. May a judge order a rescission of a contract or some financial penalty for a violation of a law like the Truth in Lending Act or Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act or Home Owner'e Equity Protection Act by a lender?
   
9. What kind of fraud, torts, legal errors, or other violations would constitute justification for a judgment against a lender in favor of a mortgagee?
10. What kind of damages may n injured party demand for fraud or other intentional injury in a contractual relationship?
11. What remedies would lie for an innocent borrower whom a lender/broker/appraiser/realtor fraudulently induced to buy and mortgage real estate?
    

I guess the real question I want to ask of foreclosure and mortgage victims boils down to this:

1. Would you rather serve as the Dog-Meat Victim of foreclosure, with the lender operating as the big dog?  Or...
2. Would you prefer to operate as the Big Dog Suing the dog-meat lender for torts, breaches of contract, fraud, and other violations?
3. What if you become the Dog, but discover you have a big leash on you that keeps you from going after the dog-meat?

So, go ahead and answer: 

1. If you had a choice, which would you prefer to be the  Big Dog, or the Dog-Meat?
2. Do you have a choice?

Call me if at the below number if you want to find out. 

You have my permission and encouragement to distribute this message far and wide to all mail lists and mortgage victims.

--

Bob Hurt 2460 Persian Drive #70 Clearwater, FL 33763-1925 (727) 669-5511 Visit My Home Page  ·  Email Me  ·  Visit My Blog Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary (Buy Now) Stay informed with Lawmen E-letter (Subscribe Free Now)

Phone App reads tag

Do our laws follow our religions? Excise a Gerp Today

Excise a Gerp Today

Do our laws follow our religions? 

This morning I received a call from a man in a different corner of our nation regarding the issue of police abuse.  He insisted that I tell him the answer to "what's your jurisdiction," according to the primary and secondary definitions in Black's Law Dictionary.  Black's 8th starts definint the term on page 2490 and goes on for pages, providing this first:

1. A government's general power to exercise authority over all persons and things within its territory; esp., a state's power to create interests that will be recognized under common-law principles as valid in other states <New Jersey's jurisdiction>. [Cases: States 1. C.J.S. States §§ 2, 16.] 2. A court's power to decide a case or issue a decree < the constitutional grant of federal-question jurisdiction>. — Also termed (in sense 2) competent jurisdiction; (in both senses) coram judice.

Pretty soon, I found out that the caller wanted to hammer me into submission with the assertion that the bible is the source of the law and jurisdiction comes from God. 

I told him that law comes from man's observation of relationships which culminated in the Golden Rule, and has nothing in particular to do with God or the bible.  I said the authors of the Bible lived under laws on that basis long before anyone wrote a bible.    I did not get to venture further because the line suddenly disconnected.

Anyway, he seemed to want to know MY authority for demanding that Police treat me with love and respect under my normal condition of abiding by the law.  I did not get to tell him that jurisdiction applies only to Government, and cops have only the authority to interfere with people under provisions of the law. I wanted to point him to the state constitution's guarantee of our right to privacy and to be let alone from intrusion of government into our lives except as specified in that constitution... and that explains why certain police behavior constitutes "abuse."

I wanted to explain that the people need to read the criminal laws regarding stop-and-frisk, and probable cause to arrest law breakers, and police powers to prevent crimes. And while abiding by the criminal laws, people should always demand identification and recitation of authority from cops, and sue and file internal affairs and criminal complaints against cops who violate their rights by exceeding that authority.

I suppose John Wolfgram could give him some lectures on that point, having suffered government thuggery and won in court against them.

How to Prevent and Eliminate Abuse by Government perpetrators of Crime ("Gerps")

But eventually, regardless of the source of abuse, whether from cops or criminals, people need to embrace a gradient scale of actions calculated to prevent and terminate abuse by government thugs.  Unless of course, they like to feel and deal with bruises, cuts, broken limbs, bashed heads, black eyes, life-long disabilities, and death at the hands of government thugs.

1.  Avoidance - keep out of harm's way.

• Don't smart off to or antagonize law enforcers
• Stay away from organized arrays of law enforcers
• ALWAYS have one or more "wing men" (and least one surreptitiously) nearby observing and recording
• Try to have several supporters in your company as witnesses, intimidating by mere peaceful presence
  

2.  Physical force  on-scene

• get a concealed carry or other gun permit and bear arms for defense of self and others.

3.  Personal process - polite interaction with the abuser

• talk to the abuser in calmer circumstances
  
• coax, suggest retirement, offer a different job, explain the upshot of accelerating the issue, etc,
  

4.  Administrative process

• write demand letters to legislators, mayors, police chiefs, news papers,and the abuser's family/friends/employers
• hire investigators and PR agencies to dig up and expose dirt on the perp to the news media
  

5.  Legal process

• file internal affairs / administrative,  criminal, and tort complaints, and prosecuting herding to resolution

6.  Political process

• campaign for and elect politicians who will eliminate the abuse from within government

7.  Public process

• rally, demonstrate, and march in parks, streets, public malls, etc., with signs, banners, flyers, etc.

8.  Retribution through removal, not punishment

• Excise the perp and any enablers/supporters from government or (if necessary) from the planet by any means deemed expedient.
• Use stealth to make detection and counter-retribution least likely.
  
• Exercise caution to avoid mistakes, for the process constitutes grave personal danger.
  

Cops - Only Human

We should realize that police work endangers the cop, and the cop's family.  Dealing with sneaky, violent criminals imposes stress on cops that creates a fight or flight reaction tendency (PTSD), partly because the law constrains them not to kill the criminal on the spot except in certain circumstances.  That makes it dangerous for ordinary non-criminals to come into the cop's immediate presence. 

Add to that danger the fact that many cops use drugs and have become criminals themselves by accepting bribes, stealing the contraband and loot of both criminals and the innocent, and committing rape, mayhem, robbery, murder, and a host of other crimes.  They generally operate under an omerta-style code of silence in a good old boys network that protects the cops from exposure, arrest, and prosecution.  Even "good" cops have fallen into that network and turn a blind eye to their fellow officers' bad behavior, so they have become part of the problem and citizens simply cannot trust them to do the right thing to rein in the abuses by bad cops.  And, criminal cops have little compunction about hurting innocent people.  They tend to see everyone as just another kind of criminal.

Our Duty and Its Source

All of us have the duty to eliminate evil, criminal, abusive people from government.  I call them Gerps, Governemt pERPetratorS of crime.  Sometimes we find it too onerous and burdensome to make the effort because so many Gerps exist and hurt others.  We ought to feel compunction against such lethargy and dereliction of duty, but more than that, we ought to work together at home and in communities to excise crimes and Gerps from government, even if our favorite cops and politicians commit those crimes.

At the same time, we should patiently exercise some restraint, realizing that people in and out of government might err in good conscience.

We should never feel disdain for those seeking to expose and excise crimes and Gerps from government.  We should lend such justice seekers and their efforts our support, help fund their efforts, and join in to do the work as needed, as we prosecute our other ambitions in life.

You can ask whether the Bible or your religion endorses the above scheme of terminating abuse by cops and others in government, and excising the abusers from government.  The bible says "an eye for an eye," justifying vengeance.  It also says "love your neighbor as yourself," justifying tolerance.  Jesus elevated those notions by saying "love one another as I have loved you" and "forgive others seventy times seven."  And of course, the Golden Rule, a component of all religions, provides "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  So, clearly, justice-seeking has its practical, moral, and ethical limits, ending short of hurting others except in a just cause.  Seeking justice becomes a balancing act.

Well, nothing I have written above violates the most enlightened of those principles.  If you love your fellows, you will not permit government thugs and rogues to abuse them.  You will not abuse them, except in the interest of prevention and justice, and you will not permit their abusing you.

If you have registered to vote, served in the US military or any other government job, or become a naturalized citizen, you have sworn an oath to support the US and state constitutions.  Those documents impose limits on government and police power.  The swearing of an oath has a religious nature, even if you don't add "so help me God" at the end. 

Thus, you have both a legal and religious duty to enforce the imposition of those limits on the authority of government employees.  You MUST, as both a good citizen and a child of God, eliminate crime and criminals from government by whatever means you deem expedient.  So,


EXCISE A GERP TODAY.

 

Reference - READ THESE

Florida Constitution of 1838 Article I:

We the People of the Territory of Florida ... in order to secure to ourselves and our posterity the enjoyment of all the rights of life, liberty, and property, and the pursuit of happiness, do mutually agree, each with the other, to form ourselves into a Free and Independent State, by the name of the State of Florida.

ARTICLE I.  Declaration of Rights.

That the great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:

Section 1.    That all freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal; and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation; and of pursuing their own happiness.

Section 2.    That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and established for their benefit; and, therefore, they have, at all times, an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may deem expedient.

Section 21.    That the free ... of this State shall have the right to keep and to bear arms, for their common defense.

Declaration of Independence of 1776, Paragraph 2:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

--
Bob Hurt
2460 Persian Drive #70, Clearwater, FL 33763-1925
(727) 669-5511   http://bobhurt.com

A Reason to Revise the 13th Amendment

I welcome discussion of the questions and issues raised below, but please keep hateful or insulting rejoinders to yourself.

A Reason to Revise the 13th Amendment

Copyright © by Bob Hurt 18 May 2012. All rights reserved

Pesky Questions About Bozos

Does a society have the right to enact laws that effectively prevent members of the society from

• becoming a financial burden on the rest of society?

• endangering others in society?

• infecting innocent babies with a condition of lifelong obtuseness, brutishness, torpidity, and lack of intelligence?

How and why has the USA changed in average intelligence since its beginning?

Does any right of a society or civilization justify limiting the lower boundary of intelligence for parenting, such as through eugenics programs?

This commentary addresses those questions and might provide insights for the sincere truth-seeker.

Law and Likelihood of Harming Others

Consider the legislative enactments regulating business practices, highway traffic, and human relations. Take for example seatbelt laws. Government requires people to buckle themselves in because:

• People often cause car crashes through negligence, incompetence, judgment error, or equipment failure;

• The violence of car crashes often maim or kill people in and out of the car;

• Such terrible loss causes families to suffer from reduced of earning power and enjoyment of life, and becoming a burden on society;

Thus, modern civilizations prohibit human actions likely to endanger selves. others, and society.

Qualities and Uses of Intelligence in Civilization

According to Wikipedia's IQ article, IQ has high heritability, intgelligence highly correlates to SAT scores, and people with IQ of 70 to 90 will likely engage in criminal behavior. Lynn and Vanhanen's books on IQ show the high correlation of national average IQ to gross national product. Therefore, means exist for society to determine the intelligence (g factor) and IQ of its members, and their corresponding value to society in terms of productivity, academic achievement, likely crimnality, burden on society, and the likelihood of low-intelligence parents procreating low-intelligence children.

One must have an IQ of at least 85 to graduate from high school. US IQ distributions from actual tests reveal that at least 75 million of its people have IQ below 85 and even more cannot graduate from high school because of behavior and health problems associated with low intelligence.

In the past 150 years the US has moved away from circumstances requiring massive numbers of low-intelligence people in its military and work forces. The military leaders of today desperately want recruits to have high school diplomas, and many manual labor jobs have moved to 3rd world countries as mechanization has modernized farms and factories. America needs people who can think, arrive at correct evaluations, and make correct decisions.

Hypocrisy of Ignoring the Gene Pool

Wouldn’t it make sense to reduce the need for protective laws, prisons, and welfare infrastructures legislating to elevate the quality of the gene pool?

I see the refusal to take such action as rank hypocrisy:

• We demand laws regulating seatbelt usage, road, motor vehicle, and building construction, highway speed, driver licenses, professions like plumbing, dentistry, medicine, and lawyering, and many other areas of life, on the basis of likelihood of resultant injury. But,

• We ignore the far higher likelihood of injury resulting from procreation by people of low intelligence.

How much sense does that make?

Hypocrisy aside, does it not seem unintelligent to refuse to discuss the reasons and means for reducing the percentage of grossly unintelligent people in future populations? Does it not seem even more stupid to refuse out of political correctness - the notion of feeling embarrassed that the topic might offend those of grossly low intelligence?

How about taking a poll of the stupid and ask them whether they enjoy feeling confused, frustrated, victimized, in trouble, and unable to learn, to figure things out, or to make prudent decisions? We might discover that they think they figure things out just fine, or that they hate the condition and would become smart if they could.

Well, aside from that, it could go without saying that the highly intelligent would find some tasks boring that the lowly intelligent would find gratifying. Likewise, tasks that would challenge and gratify the intelligent would frustrate and anger the unintelligent.

Many jobs exist that would suit the unintelligent. Thus, society's needs for the unintelligent still exist, such as domestic servitude, and simple tasks for which employers cannot afford machines. But such tasks have an economic value nonetheless, and it makes no economic sense to force an employer to pay more than the value of them.

Intelligence Strata (Classes) in America

The existence of 75 million relatively unintelligent people in America and the lack of available jobs for such people poses a serious problem that has resulted in America's prisons bursting at the seams.

America has entered an age where it handles unintelligent people as follows:

• Puts them into the welfare system (they burden taxpayers); and

• Suffers crimes at their hands (they burden their victims and then the criminal justice system).

Meanwhile, the very smart have advertised the American Dream's cornucopia of goods and services which the unwealthy obtain through debt. The unwealthy, unlike the unintelligent, do have intelligence, but either don't use it sufficiently to become wealthy, or actually don't have quite enough intelligence to become wealthy. That is, wealth does not generally happen by accident except when inherited by someone who very likely has high intelligence, the offspring of someone intelligent enough to garner wealth.

So we have three major strata:

• The highly intelligent wealthy (high class)

• The somewhat intelligent or lazy unwealthy (middle class)

• The unintelligent poor (low class)

In practice:

• The high class has managed to make the middle class into voluntary servants through glitzy ads and debt.

• Many of the high and middle class employ the low class for domestic servants.

• Some, but not that many, of the middle and high classes provide the low class with food, clothing, and shelter as part of the domestic servitude arrangement.

• The existence of many if not most of the low class have made the high and middle classes into their involuntary servants through crime, and taxation that pays for welfare abuse, health care, social workers, failed education efforts, and prisons.

• Even though taxes on the high class do pay for the upkeep of the low class, the high class never notices it as a burden because of other tax benefits and shelters, but those taxes impose a severe burden on the middle class.

The 13th Amendment and Reverse Slavery

This makes it apparent that the 13th Amendment did not actually abolish involuntary servitude. In reality, it appears that Americans, through their misguided sense of fairness, justice, and altruism, have destroyed the effectiveness of community charity programs for the feckless, handing those to government, and converted the middle class into slaves of the low class AND the high class.

The upshot of this weird dilemma: Americans have upset the Law of the Survival of the Fittest with a system of legislated slavery of the middle class to the high class through usurious debt and to the low class through taxation. Victims of this system can only imagine that the high class engineered it intentionally. It does seem pretty slick when one ponders it. And that explanation clarifies the reason Government refuses to patrol the borders or impose some kind of check on the presently unrestrained procreation of children by unintelligent parents.

This dilemma and its causes constitute a wholly immoral, unethical perversion of civilization's ideals. A society ought to engineer civilization for evolution toward some age of light and life, so to speak, where no crime, poverty, or war exists, and people can prosecute their ambitions without unduly burdening their fellows. That can never happen in an increasingly mechanized society in which 25% of the people haven't the cognitive ability to graduate from high school, and will certainly resort largely to crime or welfare abuse to get by.

People of low intelligence make sense in a free society so long as others don't become systematic slaves to them. The unintelligent must have a means of becoming gainfully, self-sufficiently, and happily employed, or the wards of those willing to care for and obtain economic benefits from them. The unintelligent simply cannot become and remain wards of the state without an economic justification. Liberty, after all, comes at the expense of commensurate responsibility.

Reverse Slavery Justifies 13th Amendment Revision

The foregoing discussion sheds new light on the 13th Amendment. That Amendment should stand, but ONLY for people with sufficient IQ and ambition to operate self-sufficiently. So, Congress ought to modify it a bit to that end.

Though many might feel loathe to admit it, involuntary servitude gave many benefits to many people, in spite of members of master and slave classes abusing one another.

Potential Benefits of 13th Amendment Revision

It provided sustenance, employment, and regulation for the servants and labor and other economic and personal benefits for the masters. Both sides benefited and to a large extent enjoyed the arrangement. And most of the servants, though slaves, escaped far worse conditions in their homelands.

But, involuntary servitude had serious deficiencies:

• Incorrigible and violent slaves endangered the master and other slaves, and belonged in prison, not in a family or commercial enterprise.

• Abusive or negligent masters hurt or deprived their slaves.

• Many people became slaves who had the intelligence and raw ability become good, self-sufficient citizens, and should not have become involuntary servants.

Today we have a reverse-slavery system where the high and middle classes, who can care for themselves and become good citizens, have become involuntary servants to the low class who cannot care for themselves or become good citizens.

Society must reverse this situation while dramatically reducing the low class to a size that society actually needs for a smoothly functioning economy. That constitutes the supreme reason to outlaw production of bozos in America. Within 3 generations the averate intelligence of the nation will rise significantly, welfare will diminish so that neighborhoods can handle it without government interference, crime will drop dramatically, inner city ghettos will disappear, prison industries will shrink, and America will become monumentally more productive, more competitive than ever in the world economy.

And, Americans with good sense should demand a change to the 13th Amendment to impose a system of involuntary servitude on able-bodied people who, by their nature, cannot or will not care for themselves without hurting or burdening others.

Americans of good sense will otherwise remain slaves to the unintelligent of the land. And that just doesn't make much sense, does it?

# # #

--
Bob Hurt
2460 Persian Drive #70, Clearwater, FL 33763-1925
(727) 669-5511   http://bobhurt.com

Oh Yeah Sourdough

1847 Oregon Trail Sourdough Starter I granulated 10 years ago and kept in a jar in the fridge. 
Took some out, fed it flour and water for a couple of days, got this frothy, bubbling spongy mess.




Mixed it in with a cup of oatmeal and 50/50 white bread flour with whole wheat flour.
Included a big heaping tablespoon of salt, some olive oil, and sugar. 
Formula:  200g sponge, 20g salt, 650g R/O water, 1000g flour
Got this big blob of dough going.  No kneading.  Just got all the ingredients wet.



Stretched and folded it every 45 minutes, 3 times.
Cut the blob into loaves and let it rise in bread pans for 3 hours.




Snipped a groove in the tops of the loaves with scissors.
Put those loaves in a cold oven and baked them 45 minutes at 375.
Fresh out of the oven, Piping hot at 199 degrees F.  Smelled up the whole house.
Lawdy Momma!  OH  Yeah!  Sourdough!

--
Bob Hurt
2460 Persian Drive #70, Clearwater, FL 33763-1925
(727) 669-5511   http://bobhurt.com