CFLA Scam Report – beware of purveyors of securitization audits

Scam Report:

Certified Forensic Loan Auditors, LLC.

By Bob Hurt, http://MortgageAttack.com

Subject of this report:

Certified Forensic Loan Auditors, LLC (CFLA)

13101 West Washington Blvd. Suite 444

Los Angeles, CA 90066

310-579-7422

Andrew Lehman, CFLA President/Owner

Warning to Borrowers Facing Foreclosure: Do not waste money buying a securitization or chain of title audit from CFLA or anyone else. Numerous court opinions, cited below, support this warning.

CFLA aggressively promotes its loan audit, securitization audit, and chain of title audit services to home loan borrowers (mortgagors) who have defaulted on their loans and feel desperate to prevent foreclosure. CFLA gives such desperate borrowers false hope that the borrowers can use their audits and expert witness testimony to avert foreclosure, even though borrowers breached the terms of their loan contracts and really ought to lose their homes to foreclosure. Virtually no mortgagor in foreclosure who purchases a loan-related audit from CFLA or any other company successfully avoids foreclosure because of information contained in the audit. The following statements by experts show why.

Florida Foreclosure Defense Attorney Matthew Weidner warned the public against securitization audits in his blog:

MORTGAGE LOAN SECURITIZATION AUDITS ARE A CRIME!

VIOLATIONS.””A person who violates any provision of this section commits an unfair and deceptive trade practice as defined in part II of this chapter. Violators are subject to the penalties and remedies provided in part II of this chapter, including a monetary penalty not to exceed $15,000 per violation.

Just this week I had another client in my office who almost lost their home because they had given thousands of dollars to a loan audit/securitization “expert” who told the to ignore the lawsuit that was filed against them. They did not respond to the lawsuit and the bank was prepared to set a sale. The judge did not have to let my new client defend the case, but the judge recognized that this old, immigrant family had indeed been the victim of a widespread and rampant fraud so the judge allowed them to defend their case and their home is safe…for now. Good call by the judge. Fair. Balanced. So now, I’m going to bust my hump to make sure this client fills out all their paperwork and gets the modification done. Here’s the thing….with their income, they could have had the modification done months ago….if only the scammer had not sold them up the river.

I get variations of the loan audit scam in my office nearly every single day. Hapless consumers are either directly approached by companies or they respond directly to any one of the hundreds of websites that have sprung up everywhere. Here’s the rap: The company or expert will audit their loan, show them how the bank committed fraud or their documents are bad or whatever and the homeowner can use that information to get a free house….for a small upfront fee of several thousand dollars…and maybe a small monthly fee if the mark can swing it.

ANY REPRESENTATIONS LIKE THIS ARE A VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAW!

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has warned mortgagors that forensic loan audits are a scam:

“there is no evidence that forensic loan audits will help you get a loan modification or any other foreclosure relief, even if they’re conducted by a licensed, legitimate and trained auditor, mortgage professional or lawyer.”

California’s Department of Real Estate warned borrowers against forensic loan audits.

This alert and warning is issued to call to your attention the often overblown and exaggerated “sales pitch(es)” regarding the supposed value of questionable Forensic Loan Audits. It is critical to note that a loan audit (audit report) has absolutely no value as a stand-alone document.

Whether they call themselves Forensic Loan Auditors, Certified Forensic Loan Auditors (there are no such certifications in the State of California), Mortgage Loan Auditors, Forensic Attorney-Backed Foreclosure Prevention Auditors, or some other official, important or lofty sounding title(s), there are thousands of individuals and companies that have popped up and appeared all over the State of California. Most of these individuals and companies are unlicensed, and some were previously engaged in illegal foreclosure rescue and loan modification scams.

The DRE has seen a wide variety of claims and sales pitches, where impressive sounding loan review services are offered with the goal of taking your money. Quite simply, the bad players market hope – and all too often, it is false hope.

A Georgia US District Court in Demilio v US Bank issued a scathing indictment of Demilio’s effort to subvert a foreclosure with a CFLA securitization audit.

Having reviewed the Complaint and all appropriate exhibits, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to set forth sufficient facts to show he is entitled to relief on any of his asserted claims. In fact, rather than alleging any material facts in his pleading, Plaintiff attempts to “lodge” “[t]he facts and statements made in the securitization audit attached herein.”13Frankly, the Court is astonished by Plaintiff’s audacity. Instead of providing the “short and plain statement” of facts required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,14 Plaintiff requires the Court to scour a poorly‐copied, 45‐page “Certified Forensic Loan Audit” in an attempt to discern the basic facts of his case. This alone would be sufficient for dismissal.15 However, the Court is equally concerned by Plaintiff’s attempt to incorporate such an “audit,” which is more than likely the product of “charlatans who prey upon people in economically dire situation,” rather than a legitimate recitation of Plaintiff’s factual allegations.16As one bankruptcy judge bluntly explained, “[the Court] is quite confident there is no such thing as a ‘Certified Forensic Loan Audit’ or a ‘certified forensic auditor.’”17In fact, the Federal Trade Commission has issued a “Consumer Alert” regarding such “Forensic Loan Audits.”18The Court will not, in good conscience, consider any facts recited by such a questionable authority.19

16 In re Norwood, 2010 WL 4642447, at *2.

17 Id.

18 Id. at *2 n.2; see (Mar. 2010), http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0130‐forensic‐loan‐audits. The State of California Department of Real Estate issued a similar alert entitled Fraud Warning Regarding Forensic Loan Audits (Feb. 2010), http://www.dre.ca.gov/Consumers/ConsumerAlerts.html.

19 See, e.g., Fidel, 2011 WL 2436134, at *1 (disregarding a “Securitization Audit and Forensic Audit” attached as exhibits to plaintiff’s complaint); accord Hewett v. Shapiro & Ingle, No. 1:11CV278, 2012 WL 1230740, at *4, n.4 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 12, 2012) (discussing various “audits” and noting that such documents “confirm the empty gimmickery of these types of claims.”).

State and federal courts across the land have denounced securitization and chain of title audits, and have uniformly ruled against the clients of CFLA who relied on CFLA audits to save their homes from foreclosure. The end of this report lists 26 court opinions which borrowers should read BEFORE deciding to spend money on a useless CFLA loan/securitization/chain-of-title audit. None of the judges in those case ruled in favor of the borrower. The Leadbeater v JP Morgan opinion provides this comment in footnote 9:

“Judge Madeline Cox Arleo has previously cautioned that she has “concern over the dubious nature of such reports [prepared by
Certified
Forensic Loan Auditors, LLC.]”Hicks v. The Bank of New York, et al.,Civil Action No. 15-1620, Letter Order, D.E. 22 (Feb. 22, 2016). The FTC has recently warned consumers to be wary of “forensic mortgage loan audits.” Federal Trade Commission, Forensic Loan Audits, https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0130-forensic-loan-audits (last visited September 13, 2017) (“According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation’s consumer protection agency, the latest foreclosure rescue scam to exploit financially strapped homeowners pitches forensic mortgage loan audits.”).”

Blogger and mortgage pundit Martin Andelman wrote this about one of CFLA’s attorney-instructors:

Patricia Rodriguez, Attorney at Law –Patricia is another of CFLA’s instructors. She also has been very active representing homeowners. Going back to June of 2012,Westlaw shows her handling 20 cases, (and you can find a list of her cases at that link).

None were any sort of win for the homeowners… in one she was sanctioned by the court and the 19 others were dismissed, many with prejudice or without leave to amend… the three quiet title cases were all dismissed.She also filed a mass joinder lawsuit that was also dismissed.But it’sMcGough v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2012 WL 6019108 (U.S. DC N.D. Ca. 12/3/12), that deserves to be highlighted because in this case, Ms. Rodriguez ended up being sanctioned by the court for violating Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and ordered to attend 20 hours of continuing legal education. Here’s what the court said about Ms. Rodriguez…

The Court is disheartened by counsel’s failure in this case, even in responding to the present motion, to recognize that she has erred. If she had approached her practice with a measure of common sense, Counsel might have reconsidered her position…

And on a very basic level, the Court wishes to remind counsel that if an ordinary person cannot understand what she is saying in her pleadings—a neighbor, friend, or family member—then it is very likely that the Court and opposing counsel will not be able to either. The kind of garbled pleading that counsel has three times submitted to this Court imposes a burden that all involved would like to avoid in the future.

Accordingly, the Court hereby orders counsel, Patricia Rodriguez, to attend a minimum of twenty (20) hours of MCLE-accredited legal education courses, apart from any compliance hours regularly required by the California Bar Association. These hours shall include a minimum of eight hours in complaint-drafting or other legal writing, eight hours addressing the substantive law of foreclosure, if indeed it is an area in which Ms. Rodriguez wishes to continue practicing, and two hours of legal ethics training.

And remember that Patricia is a CFLA Instructor, training lawyers and others around the country in how to represent homeowners in quiet title cases and how to use CFLA’s securitization audits in foreclosure defense.

Look, I understand that foreclosure defense has been incredibly difficult even for the most dedicated and experienced attorneys. So losing is not necessarily a bad thing all by itself. But the way CFLA markets the company’s instructors, experts and seminars as leading the industry is at least misleading.

Mortgagors facing foreclosure might wonder why they cannot find more consumer complaints against CFLA at sites like RipoffReport.com. Upon visiting that site a search for CFLA under its full name will reveal multiple pages of advertising showing CFLA to be a model company, but no complaints at all. The reason: CFLA’s principal has paid the equivalent of a bribe to the principal of RipoffReport to remove all complaints against CFLA from the site and replace them with advertisements making CFLA seem honorable. Clearly, CFLA has earned so much money scamming troubled mortgagors that it now seems evident that CFLA can afford to pay bribes or issue threats to get webmasters to remove complaints and to get angry customers to retract their complaints. The court opinions that follow prove that CFLA cons troubled mortgagors into buying CFLA’s useless securitization, chain-of-title, and loan audit services. Borrowers who rely on CFLA audits lose in court.

Court Opinions Showing Borrowers LOSE by Relying on CFLA Audits

Google Scholar search for “Certified Forensic Loan Audit” and “Certified Forensic Loan Auditors” produced 27 results 2019-03-04

  1. DEMILIOv. CITIZENS HOME LOANS, INC. Dist. Court, MD Georgia, 2013
  2. Barrionuevo v. Chase Bank, NA 885 F. Supp. 2d 964- Dist. Court, ND California, 2012
  3. Blanchard v. FREMONT HOME LOAN TRUST 2005-D Dist. Court, WD Washington, 2017
  4. BARRIONUEVO v. CHASE BANK, NA Dist. Court, ND California, 2013
  5. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA v. Galloway NM: Court of Appeals, 2018
  6. WAN v. PULTE MORTGAGE Dist. Court, D. Nevada, 2014
  7. MANTOVANI v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA Dist. Court, D. New Jersey, 2018
  8. GILARMO v. US BANK NA AS TRUSTEE FOR CSAB MORTGAGE BACKED TRUST 2006-1 Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, 2016
  9. Sarkar v. WORLD SAVINGS FSB Dist. Court, ND California, 2014
  10. VIERA LOPEZ v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC Dist. Court, SD New York, 2017
  11. IM v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC Dist. Court, SD New York, 2018
  12. Dumas v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA Cal: Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate Dist., 2014
  13. McGough v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA Dist. Court, ND California, 2012
  14. Hernandez v. RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS, INC. Dist. Court, ND California, 2016
  15. English v. RYLAND MORTGAGE COMPANY Dist. Court, D. Maryland, 2016
  16. Cox v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC Dist. Court, SD New York, 2016
  17. LEADBEATER v. JP MORGAN CHASE, NA Dist. Court, D. New Jersey, 2017
  18. Hylton v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA Dist. Court, SD New York, 2018
  19. Sanders v. SUTTON FUNDING, LLC Dist. Court, SD California, 2014
  20. Sylvester v. INTERBAY FUNDING LLC Dist. Court, SD New York, 2017
  21. Suggs v. M & T BANK 230 F. Supp. 3d 458- Dist. Court, ED Virginia, 2017
  22. Avila v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC. Dist. Court, SD Texas, 2012
  23. Williams v. Ward Md: Court of Special Appeals, 2016
  24. Stephens v. BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS, INC. Dist. Court, North Carolina, 2017
  25. Baker v. CitiMORTGAGE, INC. Dist. Court, Minnesota, 2018
  26. GONSALVES-CARVALHAL v. AURORA BANK Dist. Court, ED New York, 2014
  27. Kennedy v. WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB Dist. Court, ND California, 2015

* * *

CFLA scam report.pdf

Advertisements

Winston Shrout still not in prison, but soon, maybe

A The Jury convicted arch scammer and tax cheat Winston Shrout on 19 counts 21 months ago. Now, in early February 2019, Judge Robert E. Jones of the Portland Division for the Oregon US District Court still has not managed to get Winston Shrout imprisoned. According to the docket report, Shrout appealed his conviction to the 9th Circuit, and moved the court to allow him to remain out of prison on bond, pending the final outcome of the appeal. Judge Jones denied the motion and ordered Shrout to show up at the federal prison in early January 2019, but Shrout appealed that order to the 9th Circuit which ordered Judge Jones to explain why he denied the motion. Judge Jones explained that Shrout poses a danger of continuing to scam people, that the only reason for the appeal is to delay going to prison, that the appeal raises no new issue of law or fact, and that even if he succeeded in winning on some element of the appeal, he would end up in prison anyway.

Now we wait to discover whether the 9th Circuit will do the right thing and affirm Judge Jones’ ruling, sending Shrout to prison where he has belonged for the past 12 years.

I have attached some items from PACER. Notice the dreck from Winston Shrout in documents 9, 10, 13, 23, and 31. That cockamamie nonsense typifies the kind of content Shrout advised others to file in their court cases.

  • The docket report
  • The superseding indictment
  • Doc 185 – Judge Jones explanation of his denial of Shrout’s motion for release on bond
  • Several idiotic filings by Winston Shrout

Shrout_Doc_9_WS_apptmt_&_lien_&_invoice.pdf
Shrout_Doc_10_WS_liquidation.pdf
Shrout_Doc_13_WS_status.pdf
Shrout_Doc_23_WS_plea_bill_of_particulars,_invoice.pdf
Shrout_Doc_31_WS_mtn_dismiss_for_treaty_viol.pdf
Shrout_Doc_185_Reasons_for_Denying_release_on_Bond.pdf
Shrout_superseding_indictment.pdf
Shrout_docket.pdf

Does the Koran claim Jesus was a Son of God?

According to the Koran (Qur’an), Muhammad went to great lengths denying that Jesus was a son of God AND asserting that a Trinity or other deity multiplicity does not exist and that there is only one supreme deity, Allah (God).

  • And yet some people assert, “God has taken unto Himself a son!” Limitless is He in His glory! [96] Nay, but His is all that is in the heavens and on earth; all things devoutly obey His will. – 2:116 (Asad)
  • O FOLLOWERS of the Gospel! Do not overstep the bounds [of truth] in your religious beliefs, [180] and do not say of God anything but the truth. The Christ Jesus, son of Mary, was but God’s Apostle – [the
    fulfilment of] His promise which He had conveyed unto Mary – and a soul created by Him.[181] Believe, then, in God and His apostles, and do not say, “[God is] a trinity”. Desist [from this assertion] for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God. – 4:171 (Asad)
  • the Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could it be that He should have a child without there ever having been a mate for Him – since it is He who has created everything, and He alone knows everything? – 6:101 (Asad)
  • AND THE JEWS say, “Ezra is God’s son,” while the Christians say, “The Christ is God’s son.” Such are the sayings which they utter with their mouths, following in spirit assertions made in earlier times by people who denied the truth! [44] [They
    deserve the imprecation:] “May God destroy them!” [45] How perverted are their minds! [46] – 9:30 (Asad)
  • [And yet] they assert, “God has taken unto Himself a son!” Limitless is He in His glory! [89] Self-sufficient is He: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth! No evidence whatever have you for this [assertion]! Would you ascribe unto God something which you cannot know? – 10:68 (Asad)
  • and say: “All praise is due to God, who begets no offspring, [133] and has no partner in His dominion, and has no weakness, and therefore no need of any aid” [134] -and [thus] extol His limitless greatness. – 17:111 (Asad)
  • Furthermore, [this divine
    writ is meant] to warn all those who assert, “God has taken unto Himself a son.” – 18:4 (Asad)
  • It is not conceivable that God should have taken unto Himself a son: limitless is He in His glory! [26] When He wills a thing to be, He but says unto it “Be” -and it is! – 19:35 (Asad)
  • As it is, [75] some assert, “The Most Gracious has taken unto Himself a son„! [76] – 19:88 (Asad)
  • Indeed, [by this assertion] you have brought forth something monstrous, – 19:89 (Asad)
  • whereat the heavens might well-nigh be rent into fragments, and the earth be split asunder, and the mountains fall down in ruins! – 19:90 (Asad)
  • That men. should ascribe a son to the Most Gracious, – 19:91 (Asad)
  • although it is inconceivable that the Most Gracious should take unto Himself a son! [77] – 19:92 (Asad)
  • And [yet,] some say, “The Most Gracious has taken unto Himself a son”! Limitless is He in His glory! [33] Nay, [those whom they regard as God’s “offspring” are but His] honoured servants: [34] – 21:26 (Asad)
  • Never did God take unto Himself any offspring, [52] nor has there ever been any deity side by side with Him: [for,
    had there been any,] lo! each deity would surely have stood apart [from the others] in whatever it had created, [53] and they would surely have [tried to] overcome one another! Limitless in His glory is God, [far] above anything that men may devise by way of definition, [54] – 23:91 (Asad)
  • He to whom the dominion over the heavens and the earth belongs, and who begets no offspring, [2] and has no partner in His dominion: for it is He who creates every thing and determines its nature in accordance with [His own] design. [3] – 25:2 (Asad)“God has begotten [a son]”; and, verily, they are lying [too, when they say], – 37:152 (Asad)
  • Had God willed to take Unto Himself a son, He could have chosen anyone that He wanted out of whatever He has created – [but] limitless is He in His glory! [4] He is the One God, the One who holds absolute sway over all that exists! – 39:4 (Asad)
  • Say [O Prophet]: “If the Most Gracious [truly] had a son, I would be the first to worship him!” – 43:81 (Asad)
  • Utterly remote, in His glory, is the Sustainer of the heavens and the earth – the Sustainer, in almigh­tiness enthroned [58] from all that they may attribute to Him by way of definition! [59] – 43:82 (Asad)
  • for [we know] that sublimely exalted is our Sustainer’s majesty: no consort has He ever taken unto Himself, nor a son! – 72:3 (Asad)

However, he did confess that God created Jesus as a spirit from himself:

  • [4:171] O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion, and do not say about God except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, is the Messenger of God, and His Word that He conveyed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and do not say, “Three.” Refrain—it is better for you. God is only one God. Glory be to Him—that He should have a son. To Him belongs everything in the heavens and the earth, and God is a sufficient Protector.”

Clearly, Muhammad admitted that Jesus was God’s (presumably the UNIVERSAL Father’s) SPIRIT OFFSPRING.

We should interpret that as Muhammad asserting that, while God bore no physical offspring (that he knew of), God did produce Jesus’ person (or personality) as God’s SPIRITUAL offspring, albeit Mary actually bore the physical body of Jesus in her womb.

Muhammad also confessed that Jesus performed miracles with the support of the Holy Spirit. He did not explain the nature, origin, or presence of the Holy Spirit – obviously, he did not consider the Holy Spirit a deity co-ordinate of God (the Universal Father), but what else could she be?

  • [2:87] We gave Moses the Scripture, and sent a succession of messengers after him. And We gave Jesus son of Mary the clear proofs, and We supported him with the Holy Spirit. Is it that whenever a messenger comes to you with anything your souls do not desire, you grew arrogant, calling some impostors, and killing others?
  • [2:253] These messengers: We gave some advantage over others. To some of them God spoke directly, and some He raised in rank. We gave Jesus son of Mary the clear miracles, and We strengthened him with the Holy Spirit. Had God willed, those who succeeded them would not have fought one another, after the clear signs had come to them; but they disputed; some of them believed, and some of them disbelieved. Had God willed, they would not have fought one another; but God does whatever He desires.
  • [5:110] When God will say, “O Jesus son of Mary, recall My favor upon you and upon your mother, how I supported you with the Holy Spirit. You spoke to the people from the crib, and in maturity. How I taught you the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel. And recall that you molded from clay the shape of a bird, by My leave, and then you breathed into it, and it became a bird, by My leave. And you healed the blind and the leprous, by My leave; and you revived the dead, by My leave. And recall that I restrained the Children of Israel from you when you brought them the clear miracles. But those who disbelieved among them said, `This is nothing but obvious sorcery.'”

Lomachenko vs Pedraza, Dec 2018 – WOW!

Vasyl Lomachenko vs Jose Pedraza

Vasyl Lomachenko is THE most exciting boxer of this century, so far, and maybe the best of all time. In four of his last six fights, his opponents have simply given up and failed to answer the bell part way through the fight. His only loss in 14 professional fights, the referee and judges were obviously prejudiced in favor of Orlando Salido who fouled incessantly throughout the bout.

In his December 2018 contest against Pedraza (top link above), Lomachenko scored two knockdowns late in the fight, then won a decision to become the unified WBA and WBO lightweight champion of the world.

See these highlights of past fights.

Letter to my Florida Representative Chris Latvala – fix the criminal contempt law

Dear Florida Legislator:

I write to ask you to sponsor legislation to change the way Florida’s courts deal with criminal contempt. The courts assert that criminal contempt is not a crime, and that under the common law the contemnor has no right to trial by jury for a criminal contempt trial. However, Article I of the Florida Constitution clearly articulates the right of criminal defendants to trial by jury. And the rules for trying criminal contempt appear in Rules 3.830 and 3.840 (appended below) of the Florida Rules of CRIMINAL Procedure. Convicted contemnors must serve jail time and pay a fine, so clearly Criminal Contempt is a crime.

Additionally, the judge charging someone with criminal contempt may try the case himself, even though he is a party to it as the accuser, clearly prejudicial, and a violation of Article I Section 16 requirement of trial by impartial jury. Furthermore, the convicted contemnor who appeals the conviction must sit in jail during pendency of the appeal, so that he has completed his sentence when the court hears the appeal. The Florida Constitution Article I Section 17 forbids this cruel punishment.

The Florida Constitution supersedes the Common Law that the courts rely upon in their crooked determination that the criminal contemnor has no right to a jury trial.

As to trials, the speedy trial right is meaningless if lengthy incarceration destroys the defendant’s life, causes him to lose his job, home, vehicle, family, etc. The speedy trial must be reduced to a more practical period. The Legislature should not hand over its responsibility in this matter to the Supreme Court of Florida.

I recommend the following improvements to Florida Statutes chapter 38, 908.15, and Rules of Criminal Procedure:

1. Criminal Contempt, whether Direct or Indirect, is a MISDEMEANOR CRIME triable under the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and Florida Statutes.
2. The Florida Constitution Declaration of Rights supersedes and takes precedence over any and all common law related to contempt proceedings.
3. The trial courts must try Criminal Contempt as a crime and, at defendant request, provide a jury of the defendant’s peers, the jurors of which determine both the law and the facts of the case.
4. The judge who charged the defendant with Criminal Contempt shall not try the case, but another judge selected by lottery in the trial courts shall try the case.
5. The court in which the judge serves who charged the defendant with Criminal Contempt shall not try the case. The County Court shall try a Circuit Court criminal contempt defendant, and the Circuit Court shall charge a County Court, District Court, or Supreme Court criminal contempt defendant. Only Circuit and County Courts local to the defendant shall try criminal contempt cases, irrespective of whether the charge originated in the Florida Supreme Court or District Court of Appeals or any other court.
6. In the event the criminal contempt defendant accuses the trial judge of prejudice in a motion to disqualify, and therein expresses fear that he cannot get a fair trial, the trial judge shall disqualify himself as prescribed in the rules of judicial administration and Florida Statutes chapter 38. In the event the trial judge refuses to disqualify himself, claiming the motion to disqualify is not legally sufficient, the defendant may file an interlocutory appeal or petition for writ of prohibition, and shall remain free from incarceration pending the outcome of the appeal or petition.
7. Convicted criminal contemnors shall remain at liberty pending their appeal and shall not be incarcerated unless and until all appeals have been exhausted and the conviction affirmed in the final appellate proceedings.
8. Speedy Trial shall constitute 30 days for a misdemeanor and 90 days for a felony. In no case shall a defendant remain incarcerated beyond those time limits, regardless of the reason, unless the trier has found the defendant guilty.
9. The Florida Constitution should empower grand juries to investigate all felonies, and not leave that up to the State Attorneys. It should empower petite juries to judge both the law and the facts of the case. And the court should be required to notify jurors of their powers.
10. The courts shall have no power to denominate litigants as “vexatious” or deny them the right to appear pro se and file motions and pleadings without the assistance of an attorney.

I hope you will convene fellow area legislators to discuss the foregoing changes. I’ll happily bring a law expert with me to your meeting to lay out the fundaments so they can see how the Courts use contempt charges highhandedly to thwart the exercise of constitutional rights.

I have appended below an excerpt from the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure dealing with criminal contempt for your reference. Please read the absurd justifications for denying a contemnor a fair trial by an impartial jury.

918.015 Right to speedy trial.—
(1) In all criminal prosecutions the state and the defendant shall each have the right to a speedy trial.
(2) The Supreme Court shall, by rule of said court, provide procedures through which the right to a speedy trial as guaranteed by subsection (1) and by s. 16, Art. I of the State Constitution, shall be realized.
History.—s. 195, ch. 19554, 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 8663(202); s. 6, ch. 71-1(B).
Note.—Former s. 916.01.

XVI. CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
RULE 3.830. DIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
A criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the court saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt committed in the actual presence of the court. The judgment of guilt of contempt shall include a recital of those facts on which the adjudication of guilt is based. Prior to the adjudication of guilt the judge shall inform the defendant of the accusation against the defendant and inquire as to whether the defendant has any cause to show why he or she should not be adjudged guilty of contempt by the court and sentenced therefor. The defendant shall be given the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances. The judgment shall be signed by the judge and entered of record. Sentence shall be pronounced in open court.

Committee Notes
May 10, 2018 Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 284 The Florida Bar
1968 Adoption. This proposal is consistent with present Florida practice in authorizing summary proceedings in direct criminal contempt cases. See Ballengee v. State, 144 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); Baumgartner v. Joughin, 105 Fla. 334, 141 So. 185 (1932); also see State v. Lehman, 100 Fla. 481, 129 So. 818 (1930), holding that the defendant is not entitled to notice of the accusation or a motion for attachment. Fairness dictates that the defendant be allowed to present excusing or mitigating evidence even in direct criminal contempt cases.
Much of the terminology of the proposal is patterned after Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(a) with variations for purposes of clarity. What may be considered a significant change from the terminology of the federal rule is that the proposal provides for a “judgment” of contempt, whereas the term “order” of contempt is used in the federal rule. Both terms have been used in Florida appellate cases. The term “judgment” is preferred here since it is consistent with the procedure of adjudicating guilt and is more easily reconciled with a “conviction” of contempt, common terminology on the trial and appellate levels in Florida. It also is consistent with appeals in contempt cases. See, e.g., State ex rel. Shotkin v. Buchanan, 149 So. 2d 574, 98 A.L.R.2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963), for the use of the term “judgment”.
1972 Amendment. Same as prior rule.

RULE 3.840. INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
A criminal contempt, except as provided in rule 3.830 concerning direct contempts, shall be prosecuted in the following manner:
(a) Order to Show Cause. The judge, on the judge’s own motion or on affidavit of any person having knowledge of the facts, may issue and sign an order directed to the defendant, stating the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged and requiring the defendant to appear before the court to show cause why the defendant should not be held in contempt of court. The order shall specify the time and place of the hearing, with a reasonable time allowed for preparation of the defense after service of the order on the defendant.
(b) Motions; Answer. The defendant, personally or by counsel, may move to dismiss the order to show cause, move for a statement of particulars, or answer the order by way of explanation or defense. All motions and the answer shall be in writing unless specified otherwise by the judge. A defendant’s omission to file motions or answer shall not be deemed as an admission of guilt of the contempt charged.
May 10, 2018 Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 285 The Florida Bar
(c) Order of Arrest; Bail. The judge may issue an order of arrest of the defendant if the judge has reason to believe the defendant will not appear in response to the order to show cause. The defendant shall be admitted to bail in the manner provided by law in criminal cases.
(d) Arraignment; Hearing. The defendant may be arraigned at the time of the hearing, or prior thereto at the defendant’s request. A hearing to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant shall follow a plea of not guilty. The judge may conduct a hearing without assistance of counsel or may be assisted by the prosecuting attorney or by an attorney appointed for that purpose. The defendant is entitled to be represented by counsel, have compulsory process for the attendance of witnesses, and testify in his or her own defense. All issues of law and fact shall be heard and determined by the judge.
(e) Disqualification of Judge. If the contempt charged involves disrespect to or criticism of a judge, the judge shall disqualify himself or herself from presiding at the hearing. Another judge shall be designated by the chief justice of the supreme court.
(f) Verdict; Judgment. At the conclusion of the hearing the judge shall sign and enter of record a judgment of guilty or not guilty. There should be included in a judgment of guilty a recital of the facts constituting the contempt of which the defendant has been found and adjudicated guilty.
(g) Sentence; Indirect Contempt. Prior to the pronouncement of sentence, the judge shall inform the defendant of the accusation and judgment against the defendant and inquire as to whether the defendant has any cause to show why sentence should not be pronounced. The defendant shall be afforded the opportunity to present evidence of mitigating circumstances. The sentence shall be pronounced in open court and in the presence of the defendant.

Committee Notes
1968 Adoption.
May 10, 2018 Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 286 The Florida Bar
(a)(1) Order to Show Cause. The courts have used various and, at times, misleading terminology with reference to this phase of the procedure, viz. “citation,” “rule nisi,” “rule,” “rule to show cause,” “information,” “indicted,” and “order to show cause.” Although all apparently have been used with the same connotation the terminology chosen probably is more readily understandable than the others. This term is used in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(b) dealing with indirect criminal contempts.
In proceedings for indirect contempt, due process of law requires that the accused be given notice of the charge and a reasonable opportunity to meet it by way of defense or explanation. State ex rel. Giblin v. Sullivan, 157 Fla. 496, 26 So. 2d 509 (1946); State ex rel. Geary v. Kelly, 137 So .2d 262, 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).
The petition (affidavit is used here) must be filed by someone having actual knowledge of the facts and must be under oath. Phillips v. State, 147 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); see also Croft v. Culbreath, 150 Fla. 60, 6 So. 2d 638 (1942); Ex parte Biggers, 85 Fla. 322, 95 So. 763 (1923).
(2) Motions; Answer. The appellate courts of Florida, while apparently refraining from making motions and answers indispensable parts of the procedure, seem to regard them with favor in appropriate situations. Regarding motions to quash and motion for bill of particulars, see Geary v. State, 139 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); regarding the answer, see State ex rel. Huie v. Lewis, 80 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1955).
Elsewhere in these rules is a recommended proposal that a motion to dismiss replace the present motion to quash; hence, the motion to dismiss is recommended here.
The proposal contains no requirement that the motions or answer be under oath. Until section 38.22, Florida Statutes, was amended in 1945 there prevailed in Florida the common law rule that denial under oath is conclusive and requires discharge of the defendant in indirect contempt cases; the discharge was considered as justified because the defendant could be convicted of perjury if the defendant had sworn falsely in the answer or in a motion denying the charge. The amendment of section 38.22, Florida Statutes, however, has been construed to no longer justify the discharge of the defendant merely because the defendant denies the charge under oath. See Ex parte Earman, 85 Fla. 297, 95 So. 755 (1923), re the common law; see Dodd v. State, 110 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959) re the construction of section 38.22, Florida Statutes, as amended. There appears, therefore, no necessity of requiring that a pleading directed to the order to show cause be under oath, except as a matter of policy of holding potential perjury prosecutions over the heads of defendants. It is recommended, therefore, that no oath be required at this stage of the proceeding.
May 10, 2018 Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 287 The Florida Bar
Due process of law in the prosecution for indirect contempt requires that the defendant have the right to assistance by counsel. Baumgartner v. Joughin, 105 Fla. 335, 141 So. 185 (1932), adhered to, 107 Fla. 858, 143 So. 436 (1932).
(3) Order of Arrest; Bail. Arrest and bail, although apparently used only rarely, were permissible at common law and, accordingly, are unobjectionable under present Florida law. At times each should serve a useful purpose in contempt proceedings and should be included in the rule. As to the common law, see Ex parte Biggers, supra.
(4) Arraignment; Hearing. Provision is made for a pre-hearing arraignment in case the defendant wishes to plead guilty to the charge prior to the date set for the hearing. The defendant has a constitutional right to a hearing under the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions. State ex rel. Pipia v. Buchanan, 168 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). This right includes the right to assistance of counsel and the right to call witnesses. Baumgartner v. Joughin, supra. The defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself. Demetree v. State, ex rel. Marsh, 89 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1956).
Section 38.22, Florida Statutes, as amended in 1945, provides that all issues of law or fact shall be heard and determined by the judge. Apparently under this statute the defendant is not only precluded from considering a jury trial as a right but also the judge has no discretion to allow the defendant a jury trial. See State ex rel. Huie v. Lewis, supra, and Dodd v. State, supra, in which the court seems to assume this, such assumption seemingly being warranted by the terminology of the statute.
There is no reason to believe that the statute is unconstitutional as being in violation of section 11 of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution which provides, in part, that the accused in all criminal prosecutions shall have the right to a public trial by an impartial jury. Criminal contempt is not a crime; consequently, no criminal prosecution is involved. Neering v. State, 155 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1963); State ex rel. Saunders v. Boyer, 166 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); Ballengee v. State, 144 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).
Section 3 of the Declaration of Rights, providing that the right of trial by jury shall be secured to all and remain inviolate forever, also apparently is not violated. This provision has been construed many times as guaranteeing a jury trial in proceedings at common law, as practiced at the time of the adoption of the constitution (see, e.g., Hawkins v. Rellim Inv. Co., 92 Fla. 784, 110 So. 350 (1926)), i.e., it is applicable only to cases in which the right existed before the adoption of the constitution (see, e.g., State ex rel. Sellers v. Parker, 87 Fla. 181, 100 So. 260 (1924)). Section 3 was never intended to extend the right of a trial by jury beyond this point. Boyd v. Dade County, 123 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1960).
May 10, 2018 Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 288 The Florida Bar
There is some authority that trial by jury in indirect criminal contempt existed in the early common law, but this practice was eliminated by the Star Chamber with the result that for centuries the common law courts have punished indirect contempts without a jury trial. See 36 Mississippi Law Journal 106. The practice in Florida to date apparently has been consistent with this position. No case has been found in this state in which a person was tried by a jury for criminal contempt. See Justice Terrell’s comment adverse to such jury trials in State ex rel. Huie v. Lewis, supra.
The United States Supreme Court has assumed the same position with reference to the dictates of the common law. Quoting from Eilenbecker v. District Court, 134 U.S. 31, 36, 10 S.Ct. 424, 33 L.Ed. 801 (1890), the Court stated, “If it has ever been understood that proceedings according to the common law for contempt of court have been subject to the right of trial by jury, we have been unable to find any instance of it.” United States v. Barnett, 376 U.S. 681, 696, 84 S.Ct. 984, 12 L.Ed.2d 23 (1964). In answer to the contention that contempt proceedings without a jury were limited to trivial offenses, the Court stated, “[W]e find no basis for a determination that, at the time the Constitution was adopted, contempt was generally regarded as not extending to cases of serious misconduct.” 376 U.S. at 701. There is little doubt, therefore, that a defendant in a criminal contempt case in Florida has no constitutional right to a trial by jury.
Proponents for such trials seemingly must depend on authorization by the legislature or Supreme Court of Florida to attain their objective. By enacting section 38.22, Florida Statutes, which impliedly prohibits trial by jury the legislature exhibited a legislative intent to remain consistent with the common law rule. A possible alternative is for the Supreme Court of Florida to promulgate a rule providing for such trials and assume the position that under its constitutional right to govern practice and procedure in the courts of Florida such rule would supersede section 38.22, Florida Statutes. It is believed that the supreme court has such authority. Accordingly, alternate proposals are offered for the court’s consideration; the first provides for a jury trial unless waived by the defendant and the alternate is consistent with present practice.
(5) Disqualification of Judge. Provision for the disqualification of the judge is made in federal rule 42(b). The proposal is patterned after this rule.
Favorable comments concerning disqualification of judges in appropriate cases may be found in opinions of the Supreme Court of Florida. See Pennekamp v. State, 156 Fla. 227, 22 So. 2d 875 (1945), and concurring opinion in State ex rel Huie v. Lewis, supra.
(6) Verdict; Judgment. “Judgment” is deemed preferable to the term “order,” since the proper procedure involves an adjudication of guilty. The use of “judgment” is consistent with present Florida practice. E.g., Dinnen v. State, 168 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); State ex rel. Byrd v. Anderson, 168 So .2d 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964).
May 10, 2018 Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 289 The Florida Bar
The recital in the judgment of facts constituting the contempt serves to preserve for postconviction purposes a composite record of the offense by the person best qualified to make such recital: the judge. See Ryals v. United States, 69 F.2d 946 (5th Cir. 1934), in which such procedure is referred to as “good practice.”
(7) Sentence; Indirect Contempt. The substance of this subdivision is found in present sections 921.05(2), 921.07 and 921.13, Florida Statutes. While these sections are concerned with sentences in criminal cases, the First District Court of Appeal in 1964 held that unless a defendant convicted of criminal contempt is paid the same deference the defendant is not being accorded due process of law as provided in section 12 of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Neering v. State, 164 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964).
Statement concerning the effect the adoption of this proposed rule will have on contempt statutes:
This rule is not concerned with the source of the power of courts to punish for contempt. It is concerned with desirable procedure to be employed in the implementation of such power. Consequently, its adoption will in no way affect the Florida statutes purporting to be legislative grants of authority to the courts to punish for contempt, viz., sections 38.22 (dealing with “all” courts), 932.03 (dealing with courts having original jurisdiction in criminal cases), and 39.13 (dealing with juvenile courts). This is true regardless of whether the source of power is considered to lie exclusively with the courts as an inherent power or is subject, at least in part, to legislative grant.
The adoption of the rule also will leave unaffected the numerous Florida statutes concerned with various situations considered by the legislature to be punishable as contempt (e.g., section 38.23, Florida Statutes), since these statutes deal with substantive rather than procedural law.
Section 38.22, Florida Statutes, as discussed in the preceding notes, is concerned with procedure in that it requires the court to hear and determine all questions of law or fact. Insofar, therefore, as criminal contempts are concerned the adoption of the alternate proposal providing for a jury trial will mean that the rule supersedes this aspect of the statute and the statute should be amended accordingly.
1972 Amendment. Same as prior rule.

Birthright citizenship requires one to become “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”

14th Amendment first sentence:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. ”

Aliens, including those with residence permits, are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are subject to the jurisdiction of their homeland governments, and live in the US under terms of treaties.

This is why the man born in Philadelphia to Jamaica citizen parents is NOT a US Citizen unless he has gone through the naturalization process to remove his allegiance and nexus to Jamaica and replace it with allegiance and nexus to the United States.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/florida-keys/article222557500.html

The story fails to say whether Brown’s parents were Jamaica citizens. If Brown’s parents were Jamaica citizens at the time of his birth in Philadelphia, then Brown is also a Jamaica citizen.

The President has the duty to enforce the US Constitution and laws pursuant thereto, regardless of the politically motivated edicts of the US Supreme Court and whining of leftists in Congress. He could start deporting people like Brown in the above cited article who claim, but do not have, US Citizenship.

Do home loan creditors owe borrowers a loan modification? Or should borrowers ATTACK?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/wells-fargo-computer-glitch-blamed-as-hundreds-lose-their-homes/ar-BBQtjz7

“Wells Fargo says a computer glitch is partly to blame for an error affecting an estimated 500 customers who lost their homes. The giant bank filed papers with the Securities and Exchange Commission last month, revealing it incorrectly denied 870 loan modification requests. About 60 percent of those homeowners went into foreclosure.”

Since when does a lender owe a loan modification to a borrower? Since NEVER*.

The borrower and lender agreed on the original loan, the borrower signed the note and the security instrument (deed of trust or mortgage), the borrower owes the creditor the money through the monthly payment schedule, and if the borrower breaches the agreement, the creditor has the right to foreclose and force a sale of the mortgaged property to discharge the debt.

The courts have the obligation to enforce the terms of that agreement, and in the case of a deed of trust, the borrower has confessed judgment against himself for failure to make timely payments, so the creditor doesn’t even have to sue in order to enforce the agreement.

Government has no authority to force a modification of the terms of a valid, conscionable contract (albeit some courts have highhandedly abrogated valid agreements in the past).

*The creditor owes no obligation to the borrower to modify the terms of the loan, unless the creditor promised the borrower a loan mod if the borrower completed the trial payment program under the Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP). HAMP expired on 31 Dec 2016. In any case, the loan mod constitutes a terribly bad deal for mortgagors because the interest rate goes up in a few years, and the borrower owes a huge balloon payment at the end of the loan term which most borrowers cannot afford.

The best way to avoid foreclosure is to save up and PAY CASH FOR THE HOUSE or lease it with an option to buy.

Mortgage Attack – the only sensible strategy for borrowers

From my observations, one or more entities injured the borrower in the loan transaction, so I recommend finding the injuries and going on the ATTACK (see http://mortgageattack.com). Think about it. The appraiser lies about the value of the property, the mortgage broker lies about the terms of the loan and charges excessive interest, the servicer forces insurance on the borrower who already has adequate insurance, the creditor lies about the loan mod, the creditor lies about the cost of the loan. I estimate that upwards of 90% of the home loan/HELOC borrowers have suffered such injuries in the past 15 years. By finding the injuries and attacking the injurious entities, the borrower can end up with damages and fees paid, and the house free and clear. Mortgage Attack makes sense for all home loan borrowers.