Clinton pushed Affordable Housing to get the Stupid to vote Democrat

Pelosi managed Financial Crisis Report to Cloak the Ugly Truth

I have provided here a table showing recent US Presidents.

Recent Presidents of the United States
President	Political Party	Dates in Office
Franklin Delano Roosevelt	Democratic	1933–45
Harry S. Truman	Democratic	1945–53
Dwight David Eisenhower	Republican	1953–61
John Fitzgerald Kennedy	Democratic	1961–63
Lyndon Baines Johnson	Democratic	1963–69
Richard Milhous Nixon	Republican	1969–74
Gerald Rudolph Ford	Republican	1974–77
Jimmy Carter	Democratic	1977–81
Ronald Wilson Reagan	Republican	1981–89
George Herbert Walker Bush (Bush 41)	Republican	1989–93
Bill Clinton	Democratic	1993–2001
George Walker Bush (Bush 43)	Republican	2001–09
Barack Hussein Obama	Democratic	2009–

ALL of the Democrat Presidents have worked for laws seeming to help predominantly poor sections of the population, such as by protecting them in obtaining jobs, housing, food, transportation, phones, education, and loans for mortgages and education and businesses.  More modern Republican presidents have contributed to that effort as well.

But, as we stagger to sort out and understand the confusing burden of myriad laws and financial debacles, we should not focus on the poor as the source of the problem.  The actual source lies in the circles of the filthy rich and political power brokers who OWN and manipulate elected officials, particularly the President and Congress, and including jurists.

And they have done their worst damage to the United States and its citizenry when a Democrat President AND Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress ruled the land.

Johnson spearheaded the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Fair Housing Act of 1968, to reduce discrimination against Negroes.  Regarding the Civil Rights Act Johnson quipped:

"I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." —Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One. (Ronald Kessler, 1995, Inside the White House). Read more.

Ford championed the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 to end discrimination against minorities and women; and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (HMDA) to make certain that lenders inform borrowers about the details of their loan and rights of redress.

Carter pushed Housing and Community Development Act of 1977 (also known as the CRA or Community Reinvestment Act)  to reduce discrimination against Negroes attempting to buy or rent housing, or work in a financial institution, or obtain education loans.

Bush 41 signed the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 to reform the banking industry in the wake of the S&L scandals, and the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 so "that every American family be able to afford a decent home in a suitable environment," and the Resolution Trust Corporation Reform Act of 1991 to ensure every minority neighborhood with a failed bank could get another bank to serve them. 


Clinton signed the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, which repealed restrictions on interstate banking, and the backlash against ensuing mergers and acquisitions, caused banks to spin off subsidiaries for lending in poor minority neighborhoods.  Clinton's push against "redlining" a discriminatory but laudable practice that avoided subprime lending (lending to those unlikely to repay) violated the tried and true practice of banks to lend only to creditworthy borrowers, not to deadbeats. In 1995, the OCC, FED, FDIC, OTS even gave advice on how to minimize risk when making subprime loans, and these recommendations ultimately replaced the related federal regulations.

Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Blilley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 to repeal portions of the Glass-Steagall Banking Act of 1933 which had established the FDIC and separated the functions of commercial and investment banks and insurance companies, and prohibited commercial banks from trading in certain stocks.  This action, the culmination of the error of appointing Andrew Cuomo to oversee HUD, set the stage for a financial crisis free-fall - the predatory lending disaster that collapsed jobs, real estate prices, and homeowner equities across the land, and caused millions of home mortgage foreclosures.

Wikipedia provides this enlightenment on the CRA

"In the fall of 1999, Senators Dodd and Schumer prevented another impasse by securing a compromise between Sen. Gramm and the Clinton Administration by agreeing to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. ch 16) to allow banks to merge or expand into other types of financial institutions. The FDIC related provisions of the new Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, along with the addition of sub-section 2903(c) directly to Title 12, insured any bank holding institution wishing to be re-designated as a financial holding institution by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System would also have to follow Community Reinvestment Act compliance guidelines before any merger or expansion could take effect.^[57]

"At the same time the G-L-B Act's changes to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act would now allow for bank expansions into new lines of business, non-affiliated groups entering into agreements with these bank or financial institutions would also have to be reported as outlined under the newly added section to Title 12,§ 1831y (CRA Sunshine Requirements), to satisfy Gramm's concerns."^[58][59]

This directly precipitated the financial crisis of the past decade, and I believe we head for a new one as banks have begun making more subprime loans.

In 2010 the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission studied the issues and presented a report (http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_full.pdf).  Before you put yourself to sleep reading it, read the article I have duplicated below which explains why it has obscured many truths for political expediency.

I shall summarize the real problem.

Financially irresponsible people become POOR.  Even potentially financially responsible people may become BROKE because of an investment unforseeably gone bad as they learn how to make money the earnings of money they invest in an enterprise or scheme.  But the poor usually suffer from the handicap of STUPIDITY.  80 million people, a quarter of the US population, are so stupid they cannot graduate from high school.  These people are destined for poverty, and in a free society, that IS as it SHOULD BE.  Even Jesus said "The poor will always be with us."

Stupid people are nearly always financially irresponsible and poor because they make stupid choices because they cannot evaluate relative importances or solve problem well.  They can study, but they don't quite get it.

They do understand one thing.  They flat-out LOVE ANY politician who promises them more rights, privileges, benefits, money, or FREE STUFF without demanding responsible behavior or honest work as a prerequisite, OR in return.

ALL of these Acts that all of these Presidents signed into law which protect poor people and help them get loans are INSANE and constitute INSTITUTIONALIZED CRIME. 

Laws that increase the taxes of productive people or make a business unprofitable to help unproductive people constitute legalized PLUNDER.  These laws make poor people happy as a clam if they get their share of the plunder.

But let us swivel our heads in the other direction for a moment at who really benefits from these corrupt laws:  the OWNERS of banking and investment concerns.  These men and women OWN and CONTROL lobbyists, legislators, and the President to the extent they must in order to make enormous profits and control resources.

THEY have engineered the financial system, the banking system, the money system.  They have engineered the crises that lead to ever more control.  They have encouraged endless no-win wars and they finance all the combatants as they see fit.  They have engineered the system of open borders and unrestrained immigration and procreation of ever more stupid people so that the stupid offspring will vote for their giveaway programs such as subprime loans (a free house for a while), free food stamps, free housing, free education, free everything for the poor and corrupt, turning the entirety of the impoverished people of the land into a polyglot cauldron of criminals.

Affordable housing?  If government wants affordable housing, it must create appraisal guidelines, not leave it up to appraisers, such that the most important factor is INCOME CAPITALIZATION, not manipulated market value.  That is precisely what the banking and finance industry wants  - they want to know how to get their money back.  So should homebuyers.  And the main way to do that is to answer this question with numbers that reveal a profitable deal: 

1. "At what price can I buy this house that will allow me to make the payments from the rental income or other business use?"
2. "What will it cost me to replace this house if it burns down the day after I buy it?"
3. "Is the present market value a manipulated value - such as by very low interest rates, snob appeal, etc, and does it compare favorably to similar houses similarly situated?"

Modern appraisals valuate the properties in the opposite order from the above.  That fact, more than population pressure, has caused a house worth $15,000 in 1956 to rice in market value to $1,000,000 in 2015.  Only decades of rigged appraisals could account for that rise in value.

Take note also, that federal legislation making it easier for deadbeats to buy houses has had the effect of rigging prices because subprime borrowers don't care how much the house costs so long as they can get it.  That makes sellers raise prices.

Securitization? Securitization provides a real benefit to investment profiteers because it lets all classes of investors buy mortgage backed security certificates and receive interest on them which comes from interest borrowers pay on mortgages. 

This practice has existed in the USA for hundreds of years, but it only became broadly popular during Clinton's reign.  Once the financial minds worked out the formulae for the pooling and servicing agreements, they set up the trusts and started buying loans.    Lenders would arrange to sell the loans to the trust mechanism as soon as the ink dried on the paper, so to speak.  Lenders bought the money at the Fed discount window, then made the loan deal, earned their discount points, and their 2% to 5% profit on sale of the note, plus they earned the down payment if any.  They felt no repercussion for making a predatory loan because they sold it immediately.  So they did not have to worry about the borrower defaulting. 

That meant they didn't care if mortgage brokers lied about the creditworthiness of the borrower, or if the appraiser lied about the value of the house, or if the title company screwed up the paperwork.

Think about this.  In the old days, back in the early 1970's, borrower could only get a fixed interest 30-year loan with 20% down, or 10% on a VA loan. Now because of dereliction in Congress, borrowers can get a zero-down 40-year interest-only loan with a balloon a few years hence.

People SHOULD simply save their money and pay cash.  Maybe Congress should outlaw mortgage loans for all but the most affluent. 

All of this liberty.  Minimal responsibility. 

Dear President and Congress:

If you want poor stupid people to own a house, YOU BUY IT FOR THEM with your own money.

Bob Hurt, 727 669 5511

P.S.  Dear Reader:

If you or a loved one or friend suffer the after effects of a predatory loan, visit and read http://MortgageAttack.com, then call me.  There's only one reliable way to beat a crooked lender:   find out how the lender injured you, then SUE.

BH


http://www.redstate.com/2015/01/24/report-financial-crisis-commission-report-rigged-punish-banks-protect-democrats/

Report: Financial Crisis Commission report rigged to punish banks and protect Democrats

By: streiff (Diary)  |  January 24th, 2015 at 06:00 PM  |  12

Back in 2009, which is the political equivalent of a geological epoch, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) was established to investigate what led to the general apocalypse of the financial markets in 2007-2008. It has long been suspected that the fix was in and the commission followed the Alice in Wonderland formula of "Sentence fist! Verdict afterwards."

In a just-released book, former FCIC member Peter Wallison says that a Democratic Congress worked with the commission's Democratic chairman to whitewash the government's central role in the mortgage debacle. The conspiracy helped protect some of the Democrats' biggest stars from scrutiny and accountability while helping justify the biggest government takeover of the financial sector since the New Deal.

Wallison's sobering, trenchantly written "Hidden in Plain Sight: What Really Caused the World's Worst Financial Crisis and Why It Could Happen Again" reveals that the Democrat-led panel buried key data proving that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and other federal agencies pushed the housing market over the subprime cliff. The final FCIC report put the blame squarely on Wall Street.

The commission was run a long time Democrat operative, fixer, and crony of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)11% with his own checkered history in real estate development funded by the taxpayers. Some key bullets from the book.

• GOP members were authorized zero staff. Democrats had a staff of 80.
• GOP not informed of witnesses, interview times, or allowed to examine or cross-examine them.
• Democrat witnesses were not under oath (not sure what difference that makes to tell you the truth).
• Angelides concealed information from GOP members.
• GOP members received a 900-page draft report only eight days before it went to the printer.
• A 43,000 word dissent was cut down to 9,000 words by Democrats.

What is most instructive is that the Dodd-Frank Act was passed in July 2010, six months before the FCIC released its report. This clearly demonstrates that the Democrats already knew what they wanted to do in way of regulating the finance industry. Even though the federal mortgage entities, Fannie and Freddie, were the epicenter of the financial market meltdown they and HUD were left untouched. Again demonstrating that this cash cow used to prop up big city Democrat machine politicians was too valuable to be reformed.

The new Congress should take a hard look at Dodd-Frank. It has become a regulatory behemoth that exerts a demonstrable drag on the economy. Fannie and Freddie are back up to their old tricks and we may be on the verge of another housing bubble bursting:

Contrary to the prevailing view that only borrowers with pristine credit records can get a mortgage these days, many risky loans are still being made. A new index published by the International Center on Housing Risk at the American Enterprise Institute measures this risk month by month, based on about three-quarters of all home-purchase loans extended across the country. And the index clearly shows that many of today's mortgages would not perform well under stressful conditions. This conclusion holds for the nation as a whole and for nearly every state individually, California included.

Here's why. In recent months, fully half of all the home loans covered by the risk index had a down payment of 5% or less. With so little money down, those borrowers would be underwater with only a modest decline in housing prices. In addition, for nearly half of the recent loans, borrowers' monthly payments on their mortgage and other debt exceeded 38% of their pretax income, the traditional threshold for acceptable payment burdens. Such borrowers could find it difficult to make their monthly payments if they came under even moderate economic stress, such as a temporary layoff or a reduction in work hours.

The Federal Housing Administration is the prime source of this risk. It now guarantees more than a quarter of the newly originated home loans, and it does so with little regard for risk. Under the banner of expanding homeownership, the FHA provides risky loans to households that often lack the resources to make the payments if anything goes wrong.

Like most anything else the Democrats touch, the FCIC was corrupt to its core. It's inquiry was deeply dishonest. The report was structured to protect Democrat interests and punish industries the Democrats wished to demagogue.

--

Bob Hurt            Blog 1 2   f  t   2460 Persian Drive #70 Clearwater, FL 33763 Email Call: (727) 669-5511 Law Studies: Donate   E-Letter Subscribe Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

 

CFPB adopts plan to publicly disclose consumer complaint narratives

The CFPB needs to make it easy for consumers to complain about what the lender or servicer did, such as by providing a stock set of complaints with check boxes beside them, and allow consumers to fill in any additional details.

Boxes for each of these (for example)

• Servicer Force-Placed hazard insurance on my property
• I already had insurance that had not expired and complied with requirements
• Force-placed insurance company charged more than my previous policy, so obviously the servicer did not submit it for competitive bidding:
• 1.5x or less
  
• between 1.5x and 2x
  
• between 2x and 3x
• between 3x and 4x
• between 4x and 5x
• 5x or more
• Servicer did not alert me of the expiration of the hazard insurance policy or the need to renew it.
• Servicer lied about terms of loan mod
• Servicer told me I'd have to miss payments in order to qualify for loan mod
• Servicer strung me along for months without making a determination of whether or not to provide a loan mod.
  
• Servicer claimed to lose paperwork I submitted
• 1 time
• 2 times
• 3 times
• 4 or more times
• Servicer failed to provide me with notice of acceleration or intent to foreclose
  

etc.  These should come from typical complaints people file.  YOU could help by providing a comprehensive list of items you know about.

People get an extra benefit of such a table of complaints and exacerbations lies.  It alerts them to issues that could arise, and it helps them to think back to whether it happened or not, so they can include EVERY worthy THING in the complaint.

CFPB Monitor - CFPB adopts plan to publicly disclose consumer complaint narratives

---

CFPB adopts plan to publicly disclose consumer complaint narratives Posted: 20 Mar 2015 07:22 AM PDT Trevor R. Salter The CFPB has adopted its controversial proposal to publicly disclose consumer complaint narratives in its Consumer Complaint Database.  Its plans for disclosing the narratives are set forth in a final policy statement.   According to the Federal Register document announcing the policy statement, the CFPB will not disclose any narratives for at least 90 days after the statement's publication in the Federal Register.  In the notice's supplementary information, the CFPB states further that it will not disclose narratives "until sufficient time has elapsed to allow the Bureau to adequately complete and assess" various actions needed to implement the policy statement, such as modifying its website, online complaint intake form and company web portal. Consistent with its proposal, the CFPB will not publish a complaint narrative unless the consumer has given consent by checking an opt-in form that the CFPB plans to include in the submission phase of the complaint process.  A consumer can withdraw his or her consent at any time by informing the CFPB and the narrative will be removed from the database.  (In response to a commenter's concern that companies might require non-disclosure agreements from consumers creating an account, the CFPB states that it "would likely look disfavorably upon agreements that require a consumer to withdraw his or her consent to have a narrative published as a condition of settlement.") The policy statement indicates that the CFPB "intends to apply to all publicly-disclosed narratives a robust personal information scrubbing standard and methodology" to address the risk of re-identification, which is modeled after the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Safe Harbor Method.  The CFPB does plan to disclose 5-digit zip codes next to narratives, except were the population in the zip code contains fewer than 20,000 people.  (In such cases, the CFPB plans to disclose the 3-digit zip code unless the 3-digit zip code population is less than 20,000.) The CFPB's proposal would have allowed companies to submit an unstructured narrative response to appear next to the consumer's narrative.  In response to industry comments that legal, business and reputational concerns would limit a company's ability to provide meaningful public-facing unstructured responses, the CFPB will provide companies within the company web portal a "set list of structured company response options" and a company will have the opportunity to recommend which option, if any, it would like included as a public-facing response.  The list is intended to relieve companies from having to assess "what level of detail will address a complaint while protecting confidential information."  A company will not be required to provide a public-facing response, and while the CFPB states that it generally plans to adopt a company's recommended response, it reserves discretion "to assess whether there are good-faith bases for the recommendations." With regard to the timing of posting a consumer narrative and a company response, the CFPB plans to disclose the narrative when the company provides its public-facing response, but not later than 60 days after the complaint is routed to the company.  (The CFPB's complaint system gives companies 15 days to provide an initial response to a complaint and 60 days to provide a final response.)  This timing is intended to guarantee that a public-facing response, if provided within the 60 day period, will be disclosed contemporaneously with the consumer narrative. We share industry's disappointment with the CFPB's action.  From the time the CFPB first announced its plan to publicly disclose complaint data, we have had concerns about disclosing unverified date.  The CFPB's decision to disclose consumer narratives only exacerbates those concerns. We take little solace in the CFPB's comment in the policy statement's supplementary information that this concern is sufficiently addressed by its disclaimer on the complaint database that "we don't verify all the facts alleged in these complaints but we take steps to confirm a commercial relationship between the consumer and company."  We doubt many consumers, even if they read the disclaimer, will appreciate what that means for a complaint's validity and will continue to assume that a complaint is true because it is being published on a government website.  In other words, complaints will take on an unwarranted level of credibility by virtue of them appearing on the CFPB's website. The CFPB prides itself on being a data-driven agency.  Its disclosure of consumer narratives is the antithesis of being data-driven.  Instead, the CFPB will be publishing anecdotes much in the same way as an Internet gripe site. To address industry comments that the complaint database should include positive feedback in conjunction with complaint narratives, the CFPB also issued a notice and request for information about "the potential sharing of consumer compliments about providers of consumer  financial products and services and more information about a company's complaint handling."  Comments on the RFI are due on or before 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register.  In the RFI, the CFPB describes two potential avenues for sharing positive feedback: by providing more information about a company's complaint handling and by collecting and providing consumer compliments independent of the complaint process. With regard to complaint handling, the CFPB is seeking information on potential ways it could "record, calculate, standardize, short, share, and visualize the data" associated with complaints "in ways that reveal positive company behavior."  Among the potential metrics suggested by the CFPB are total number of complaints by product and issue and timeliness and speed of responses.  The CFPB also seeks comment on adding a consumer feedback process to its complaint system that would allow a consumer to rate a company's handling of his or her complaint. With regard to soliciting, collecting and sharing compliments, the CFPB asks for comment on expanding its "Tell Your Story" feature on its website to share compliments and establishing a new database to take and publish compliments.

TILA Rescission in the wake of Jesinoski

Truth In Lending Act (TILA)

See the full law here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1635
See the regulation Z here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/226.23

Congress intended the right of rescission to protect the consumer from putting the family home at risk by using the home or the equity in it to secure a loan. It doesn't apply in mortgage loans for the purpose of PURCHASING the house.  The TILA right of rescission doesn't protect the home purchaser; it protects the borrower who has the home or equity in it.

When looking at laws, read the whole area of a topic to find the definitions and rules of construction, like this one:

15 U.S. Code § 1602 - Definitions and rules of construction 

(x) The term "residential mortgage transaction" means a transaction in which a mortgage, deed of trust, purchase money security interest arising under an installment sales contract, or equivalent consensual security interest is created or retained against the consumer's dwelling to finance the acquisition or initial construction of such dwelling.

The SCOTUS recently affirmed the simplicity of rescission in Jesinoski v Countrywide Home Loans.

Read a discussion of the opinion here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/01/opinion-analysis-shortest-opinion-of-the-year-explains-tila-rescission-right/

The lender, upon receiving a rescission notice may either accept the rescission or dispute it.  If accepted the lender must return all payments and terminate its security interest. The borrower then must tender the loan proceeds to the lender. Should the lender wish to contest the rescission notice, it should send a letter so stating to the borrower. Then either the lender or the borrower may file a declaratory judgment action to determine whether the notice was valid. Warning, if the borrower files a lawsuit, there is a filing fee and there is an obligation by the borrower to certify that they are making a pleading in good faith and upon a reasonable investigation. That should weed out a lot of truly frivolous claims. Without that mechanism in place, anyone can send a letter and assert a rescission demand, but if they do, they will be sanctioned. 

In the case of the borrower defaulting, the lender might file a foreclosure action or initiate nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings as appropriate. The borrower would then assert rescission as an affirmative defense to foreclosure or in a declaratory judgment action to halt a nonjudicial sale. 

  

Remember, courts have the discretion to not only determine whether there is a proper basis for a rescission notice but also to reorder the creditor's and debtor's obligations in the event rescission was proper. Even if the rescission notice is well founded, a court can still require the borrower to show an ability to tender before forcing the lender to return funds and void a security interest.


Charlatans and Bozos in the foreclosure pretense defense industry have made grand pronouncements about how many lawsuits borrowers will file for rescission or injury resulting from having a rescission effort denied.  Frankly, I have no idea how many borrowers gave the lender a TIMELY TILA rescission notice.  But it makes no sense for the majority of borrowers over the past 7 or 8 years because many bought at the peak of the market, and 3 years later they had underwater loans because of the collapse of house values generally.  How could they pay that back?  Well, the arithmetic would allow subtraction Borrower Repayment minus Lender Repayment.  That might yield a sufficiently low amount for the borrower to sell the house in order to raise the money for repaying the lender.   But, in many cases, borrowers would still fall short, and they could not repay the lender, so the court would not order a rescission.

Yes, a few rescission lawsuits will come up, but not that many.  The Foreclosure pretender defenders will gladly take those borrower's money for filing the action.

Bob Hurt            Blog 1 2   f  t   2460 Persian Drive #70 Clearwater, FL 33763 Email Call: (727) 669-5511 Law Studies: Donate   E-Letter Subscribe Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

 

Are Attorneys Smart Enough to Pay Finder Fees?

Apparently not.  It seems to me that attorneys should have the intelligence, acumen, etc, to figure out how to pay for a marketing service (ultimately, sharing fees) without suffering torture by the bar as a consequence.  After all, they can hire paralegals to do attorney tasks, and they pay those paralegals, either as contractors or as employees, ultimately sharing fees with them.  But Florida attorney S. Tracy Long didn't get away with it.

• http://realtime.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2015/02/02/delray-beach-attorney-suspended-for-multiple-foreclosure-related-offenses/
• http://www.floridabar.org/DIVADM/ME/MPDisAct.nsf/DISACTVIEW/5FB66995A1CC8C7A85257D9B000DDADD/$FILE/_8.PDF
• http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk_dispositions_2014_11_14-2098.pdf
• http://www.nolo.com/lawyers/profile/law-offices-s-tracy-long-esq
• http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/S-Tracy-Long/Deerfield-Beach-Florida-33441/S-Tracy-Long-promised-last-December-to-return-90000-taken-out-of-my-credit-account-Dee-917562
• http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/federal_judge_recommends_criminal_charges_for_lawyers_who_questioned_his_im

What do I care?  Well, I DON'T care about Long because he's just another foreclosure pretender defender who led many clients to loss of their houses  while taking monthly payments from them for the "privilege."  However, if I knew of a worthy, reliable attorney who would actually purchase or do a comprehensive examination of the mortgage transaction (see http://mortgageattack.com) and then aggressively fight for a settlement or damages for the damaged mortgagor, I'd spread his fame far and wide.  I wouldn't mind at all if he paid me for that service, either as a percentage of his fees, or as a per-paying-client honorarium.  Cheated borrowers across America feel desperate to find just one honest attorney who will help them beat up the lender and others who injured them at the inception of the loan.

HONEST, COMPETENT ATTORNEYS:  PLEASE STAND UP and get counted!  AMERICA NEEDS YOU!

http://realtime.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2015/02/02/delray-beach-attorney-suspended-for-multiple-foreclosure-related-offenses/

Delray Beach attorney suspended for multiple foreclosure-related offenses

 February 2, 2015

Delray Beach attorney S. Tracy Long was suspended for one year and must pay $11,500 in restitution following charges of sharing fees with a non-lawyer and foreclosure-related offenses.

The Florida Supreme Court approved the suspension in late November. It was announced Friday by the Florida Bar.

According to a conditional guilty plea signed by Long, in 2011 he used two companies to market foreclosure defense and loan modification work to be done by his law office. One of the firms hired a non-attorney, who obtained 31 clients for Long. The non-attorney had a contract with the firm that hired him to get 12 percent of the legal fee _ a violation of the Florida Bar's rules of professional conduct.

Four other Florida Bar cases against Long charge:

• He failed to pay a mediator $875 after he said he was dissatisfied with the mediator's service.

• He failed to adequately communicate the chance of success to clients in a foreclosure case he accepted to defend in 2011 for $2,500. The case had been adjudicated in 2008 and the Bar says there was a statute of limitations that prevented Long from addressing the foreclosure case. Long's clients were forced to vacate their home in October 2011.

• He failed to properly represent a church in a case against the City of Sunrise in which he accepted $2,500. The lawsuit was filed in federal court, where Long was no longer licensed.

• He was hired in August 2012 to defend a foreclosure in New Jersey, where he is not licensed to practice law. Long hired a New Jersey attorney to handle the case but the attorney did no work on the file. The homeowners paid $6,500 but a default judgment was entered against them in April 2013.

Learn how to solve a mortgage problem.  Visit and study http://MortgageAttack.com now!

--

-->

Bob Hurt            Blog 1 2   f  t  2460 Persian Drive #70 Clearwater, FL 33763 Email Call: (727) 669-5511 Law Studies: Donate   E-Letter Subscribe Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

Keep and Bear Arms and accessories in Missouri

Francis Slay and Sam Dotson are KOOL-AID DRINKERS.  These fools obviously don't understand the Second Amendment or the brilliant changes to the Missouri Constitution wrought by the voters.  See the changes below.  Slay and Dotson stupidly whine that people should have to report guns stolen from them.  These men refuse to admit that people WOULD report the theft IF the cops would find and return them without repercussion.  But gun owners know the cops will come looking for them if someone else uses a stolen unregistered gun to commit a crime.  And once the cops know a person had a gun, they know he probably has more, and that "heads-up" will make them dangerous to the gun owner in any of a variety of ways.

Slay and Dotson whine that felons can possess firearms under the amended text. How Stupid!  Of COURSE they can, but they, being felons, probably flout the law anyway, and will get firearms anyway if they please.  Even so, felons have paid their debt to society.  And while society might not trust them (because most become repeat offenders), felons have a right to self defense just like anyone else does.  Felons should have the right to own and possess firearms.

Furthermore, the amendment wisely removes the proscription against concealed weapons.  Most people feel nervous seeing others walk around with a pistol strapped on.  Most would prefer not seeing it, and concealment is a good idea for many reasons.  But if EVERYONE knew people might be armed, concealed or not, then EVERYONE would treat others with more respect.  Thugs would become very careful about holding others up, mugging, carjacking, becoming violent and disrespectful, etc.

Bottom line, unrestricted right to own and possess and bear weapons should remain intact until our society begins to impose laws controlling procreation of and by the stupid and mentally defective, and controlling procreation by parents who cannot support their brood without public assistance or private charity, controlling procreation by parents ignorant of the principles of family maintenance and child-rearing, and controlling the hiring and training of police so as to guarantee that they know and respect constitutional rights.

Of course, that might not happen for the next few thousand years.  Therefore the right to keep and bear arms and normal accessories (including silencers, huge magazines, automatic rifles and shotguns and pistols, lasers, tasers, and protective gear) should mean exactly that.





Missouri Constitution Article I
Section 23. Right to keep and bear arms—exception.—That the right of every
citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when
lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not
justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

The Right to keep and bear arms changed recently...
http://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Right_to_Bear_Arms,_Amendment_5_(August_2014)

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those duly adjudged mentally infirm by a court of competent jurisdiction.^[6]


March 02, 2015 5:15 pm  •  By Francis Slay and Sam Dotson

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Since its adoption, scholars and lawyers have debated what the Second Amendment means, and how it applies. Until recently, there seemed to be a consensus that reasonable regulations on guns, the purchase of guns, and the use of guns were both constitutional and wise policy.

That consensus no longer exists in our state.

Last year, we argued against a proposed constitutional amendment that made Missouri law far more protective of guns than the federal Second Amendment requires. We spoke out against the new state amendment because there are too many guns on the streets. Guns are too easy to get, and the plentiful supply of legal guns means they are readily available to criminals. Hundreds of guns are stolen from law-abiding citizens each year: In 2014 alone, more than 470 guns were reported to the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department as stolen. The number of unreported stolen guns in Missouri is not known, because even the simple requirement that legal owners report stolen guns to local police departments is apparently too controversial to be a law.

We also argued that the proposed state constitutional amendment was ambiguous. We warned, loudly and in many venues, including the courts, that it could lead to unforeseen results, results that could endanger our city.

But despite the warning and even though the language was ambiguous, sponsors of the proposed amendment were not dissuaded. They asserted that the amendment could not be used to protect the "right" of a convicted criminal to carry a gun anywhere he pleased. One of the amendment's proponents, a state senator, even said explicitly that the intent of the amendment was to leave in place the laws prohibiting convicted criminals from carrying guns.

Reassured by this, voters of Missouri adopted the new amendment. Now, we are starting to see the troubling results of that decision.

Last week, a state judge in St. Louis declared that the law banning criminals from carrying guns was unconstitutional, based on the amendment. He ruled that a convicted felon in undisputed possession of a firearm cannot be charged.

The judge's decision will be appealed, though the law will still be enforced, and the city will follow the case closely through the court system. Also pending in the Missouri Supreme Court is a challenge brought by law enforcement officials and an advocacy group of parents to declare the amendment itself invalid. The outcome of neither case is certain.

The Missouri Legislature, therefore, should not wait.

Many voters took legislators at their word that Amendment 5 would not make it more dangerous for police officers and more difficult for prosecutors to their jobs. It has. Legislators should act immediately to restate the law barring felons from possessing firearms.

In the meantime, we should be resolved as a region to take a hard look ourselves at gun laws. We cannot stand by and allow careless state policy to trump reasonable regulations aimed at keeping our families safe. We must begin to push the limits at the local level, looking at all of our legal options, whether that is a new ordinance, new policing strategies, or a new gun docket in the court system to track those gun criminals that are prosecuted. And we must press our legislative delegation to either fix the law, or to revisit the constitutional amendment in 2016, and let the voters decide whether they want to keep this amendment on the books now that we know how bad its results are.

Francis Slay is mayor of St. Louis. Sam Dotson is the city's police chief.

--

Bob Hurt            Blog 1 2   f  t   2460 Persian Drive #70 Clearwater, FL 33763 Email Call: (727) 669-5511 Law Studies: Donate   E-Letter Subscribe Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

 

Pinings at the Mount

by Bob Hurt, 15 September 1981

There lives a lass I dearly love.
She near the mountain dwells;
Spirit-bright, she smiles a lot
And seldom ever tells
Of how she yearns and longs inside
For him upon a steed,
Her Knight in shining armor, yea,
The Captain of her need.
Some say she'll pine her life away,
Awaiting years gone by
For one who's just a misty dream,
Clouding up her sky.
But patiently she waits him out,
The fire within her glows:
The mountain soon will send him forth,
She consumately knows.
Now if only I could be the one,
And upon a stallion ride,
I'd swoop right down upon her
And pull her to my side.
I'd comfort, love, and cherish her,
Put waiting to an end;
I'd be the pride and envy of
Ten thousand thousand men.
But I know naught of knights and such,
Nor mountain mystery.
I'm just a poor and simple man -
She'd never go for me.
Each night I sigh myself to sleep
And dream how history tells
About the lass I dearly love
Who near the mountain dwells.

--

-->

Bob Hurt            Blog 1 2   f  t 2460 Persian Drive #70 Clearwater, FL 33763 Email Call: (727) 669-5511 Law Studies: Donate   E-Letter Subscribe Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

Article: When and why you should raise your price

I have a theory about providing services and charging fees.  As you become a better master of your domain, you must charge more because you have become worth more.  Clients don't realize that you have become much better at your work, that you make less errors, that you get more done in less time, and that THEY benefit immensely from that.  That means they typically do not know that you gave them a service worth what they paid, and now your service has become worth more than they paid.  Typically, because you do better work in less time, clients will spread your fame and more clients will come to you for help.  Then you will become overwhelmed, overworked, and your quality and relationships at home will suffer as you head toward burnout.

It should go without my saying, but I'll say it anyway, that the work you do today must provide you with an income close to double what you need to live on.  Ideally, you will work until you have accumulated sufficient savings from your earnings to live independently, without working for a living, for the rest of your life.  Your work will become a labor of love because you will have the ability to work at anything you please, for money or for free.   I estimate that in order to accomplish this, a teenager should put 20% of all earnings, off the top, into cash reserves, and live off the rest.  Cash reserves should go into very secure investments that earn dividends, interest, and grow in value.  You should never, ever, NEVER spend your cash reserves.  And you should never, ever NEVER borrow money for something that won't earn you more money by improving your ability to deliver high-quality, high-value services.

When working as an independent contractor running a business, the worker should go through this sequence:

1. Set your fees to match your quality and quantity of results
2. Deliver your service to paying clients and collect the money
3. Economize, pay all bills, and invest sparingly in whatever improves the ability to deliver better service
   
4. Master the job and refine the mastery
   
5. Update your advertising to reflect your improvements  - this will bring you more customers
   
6. Raise your prices - you will lose those customers who won't pay, but you'll keep the others
   
7. Improve your services by enhancing and adding
8. As you get both, cycle back to #1
9. Otherwise, migrate to a new business

When working for a company as an employee, that means the worker should go through this sequence:

1. Master the job
2. Economize and spend time and other resources wisely
   
3. Update your resume and send it around to new prospective employees
   
4. Demand more money
5. Demand more responsibility
6. When you get both, cycle back to #1
7. Quit and take the new job.

The biggest raises I ever EARNED came when I changed jobs, even after getting fired 4 times.  At my last firing I started my own corporation and made WAY more money than I ever had before.

As your skill improves, raise your fees and promote aggressively to cash-rich prospects.  After all, we are not Communists.  You will always lose clients who wish you were a Communist who understood "middle class economics."   But the ones you keep will pay more to make up for the loss, and eventually you will make enough to go on month-long voyages to Shangri-La, etc., with your lover, stopping off in Tahiti to polish up your French.

And in time you will die happy and prosperous like a good Capitalist should, you will go to Heaven, and you will hear God say, in her own soothing voice, "My Child, you have done really well down there.  Now look what we have in store for you."

You see, it's all about "good stewardship."  All of us get 24 hours a day for as many days as we can live.  If we use them wisely, we'll flourish and prosper.

My wife did housekeeping when I married her.  She charged her clients $10 per hour. She followed my formula above. When she retired a few years later, her rates had grown to  $30 to $40 per hour.  She cleans house impeccably about twice as fast as anyone else, so the client received full value for the money.  At first she felt so horrible, like a greedy cheat, when I first encouraged her to raise prices in order to cull out the Communists from her customer list. Later, she felt just fine, and she had more money for life's necessities.

Here's a bonus truth - many people love paying a lot for their service, especially when they have the BEST service provider and others have to stand in line and pine for that service.  That needs to become part of your promotional information.  Imagine yourself standing confident and professional while hungry prospect hands reach up, yearning to touch you and receive your attention and your service. What a picture!

--

Bob Hurt            Blog 1 2   f  t   2460 Persian Drive #70 Clearwater, FL 33763 Email Call: (727) 669-5511 Law Studies: Donate   E-Letter Subscribe Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary