Stay-In-My-Home takes over Mark Stopa Failed Foreclosure Pretense Defense Law Practice

Look at this mess. Florida Foreclosure Pretense Defense Attorney Mark Stopa loses his bar license, and Richard Mockler takes over his business. See attached letter that includes the Florida Supremes’ order suspending Stopa from the practice of law and says his law firm has been dissolved.

Above: Mark Stopa getting hammered in court for bad behavior.

See the below email message that attorney Richard Mockler has sent to Stopa’s actual and intended victims in an effort to recruit them as clients.

Now it’s time for a little honesty. Mark Stopa and thousands of attorneys like him deserve censure and public humiliation because of their horrific record of cheating their desperate foreclosure victim clients out of money and an honest advocacy. Such attorneys have built their practice on pretending to defend clients against foreclosure, but without doing any research to discover precisely who injured the clients in the loan transaction and how the injuries happened.

If they had done honest research, they would have discovered that upwards of 90% of home loan borrowers have suffered appraisal fraud, mortgage fraud, contract breaches, regulatory violations, legal errors in their documents, servicing abuse, and/or legal malpractice by the attorneys they hired to help save their home.

Even Richard Mockler, the attorney taking over Stopa’s failed practice, calls his operation “Stay in My Home,” implying that he will somehow magically keep foreclosure victims, who did breach their notes by failing to make timely payments, IN their homes, but without doing any more than Stopa did to prevent foreclosure.

Unless the practitioner PROVES someone involved in the loan transaction or associated activities INJURED the borrower who faces foreclosure for breaching the note, then the vast majority of such borrowers will lose their homes to foreclosure, and the pretender defender attorney will merely delay the process while bilking the foreclosure victim out of monthly payments for the privilege.

The attorney who does that generally commits legal malpractice for failing to investigate the loan transaction to find out how the borrower got injured.

For more information on the right way to attack the validity of the loan, see http://mortgageattack.com.

Bob Hurt
Consumer Advocate
727 669 5511
Clearwater, FL

SIMH – Letter to Client with Attachments.pdf

Advertisements

Two 9th Circuit opinions crush Commie/Dem Gun Law Insanity

Duncan V Becerra

November 2016 – Idiot Californians approved the Proposition 63 1 July 2017 ban on high-capacity magazines (more than 10 rounds), adding to California’s already oppressive and convoluted gun laws. The proposition, citing certain exceptions, requires owners of high capacity magazines to surrender the magazines for destruction, remove hem from the state, or sell them.

May 2017- Virginia Duncan and a handful of other plaintiffs sued the California Attorney General Becerra in California Southern District USDC in May 2017, seeking an injunction against enforcement of the ban on high-capacity magazines, maintaining that it violated the 2nd Amendment and the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause. Judge Roger Benitez ruled against the state and for the gun owners, granting the preliminary injunction. See Duncan v. Becerra, 265 F. Supp. 3d 1106 – Dist. Court, SD California 2017. The court acknowledged as follows (p 1116):

“The Supreme Court also recognizes that the Second Amendment guarantee includes firearms that have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. 816. Millerimplies that possession by a law-abiding citizen of a weapon that could be part of the ordinary military equipment for a militia member, or that would contribute to the common defense, is protected by the Second Amendment.[7] Concluding that magazines holding more than 10 rounds might be found among today’s ordinary military equipment or that such magazines would contribute to the common defense, requires only a modest finding.”

17 July 2018 – Virginia Duncan v. Calif. A.G. Becerra – 9th Circuit panel affirmed the opinion of USDC SDCA Judge Roger Benitez, allowing the injunction against Proposition 63’s ban of high-capacity gun magazines, saying Benitez did not abuse his discretion in ruling against the state because the magazine surrender, removal, or sale provisions of Section 32310 infringed on the core of the Second Amendment right and violated the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause (“private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.”). One of the three judges, Wallace, pedantically dissented in a long-winded, irrational diatribe, attempting to substitute his own discretion for the trial judge’s. See Duncan v. Becerra, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2018.

We can expect more litigation on this issue as the plaintiffs seek a full ruling that Prop 63 is unconstitutional.

Young v Hawaii

12 June 2012 George Young sued the County and State of Hawaii in Hawaii USDC 42 USC 1983 for violating his 2nd Amendment rights by denying his application for a permit openly to carry a firearm. Judge Helen Gillmor granted motions to dismiss under the doctrine of sovereign immunity and sent George off to sulk. See Young v. Hawaii, 911 F. Supp. 2d 972 – Dist. Court, D. Hawaii 2012.

12 Feb 2018 George Young appealed the adverse ruling to the 9th Circuit. The panel reversed as to the County, dismissed as to the state, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion that the Second Amendment protects a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. See Young v. Hawaii, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2018.

9th Circuit upholds crush on high-capacity gun magazine ban 17-56081.pdf

9th Circuit holds open carry Constitutional 12-17808.pdf

Ken Ditkowsi on illegal immigration

The Chan case is of particular interest today. Many well meaning people are upset by the media blitz concerning the separation of children from their mothers. The hue and cry was virtually zero up until the media found that the Trump Administration *****.

I am not arguing for any policy, except equal protection under the law. Equal protection of the law is a hallmark of America that the Political Elite from time to time ignore to foster political expediency.

The DEMAGOGUES have staked a position fueled by half truths and deception. People who resort to this type of tactic are a clear and present danger to democracy and follow the tenets of our enemies.

The Obama administration placed children in cages not because they were monsters or precursors of the Trump Administration – they were following the law. The law as written is indeed harsh, and was engaged by congress. Congress when it enacted the law thought it was acting in good faith and indeed most of the good people who address this charged political situation agreed. Only the hypocrites and demagogues have closed minds.

The law separating children from the parents accused by our society of committing crimes has its origins in parents patrie. It is cruel and unusual punishment to submit a child to prison because the parent has been charged with a crime. The harsh conditions of prison were deemed not appropriate for children, ergo children are relegated to the care of close relatives or government protected facilities. The law is generic and makes no exception for people illegally trying to enter the United States.

The ploy of seeking amnesty/Asylum is in most situations exactly that. Under Law Asylum is not an option, unless it is Mexico (i.e. the country of origin) that is threatening the life of the applicant. Indeed, you and I have had experience with Amnesty/asylum .

Chan, was an engineer by trade living in China. The Red Guard went on a government sponsored rampage and killed all of his family except his grandmother and he. He was shipped to a camp for retraining. When he returned he returned to his job as an Engineer; however, it was not long and the Red Guard became active again. This time they killed grandmother and Chan barely escaped with his life to Hong Kong.

For a finite period of time Chan resided in Hong Kong; however, with the Red Guard sentence of death it was not long before his life once again was in clear and imminent danger. The family arranged for Chan to obtain employment on a Ship (as a seaman) and to travel to the United States. When the Ship arrived in the US, Chan slipped over the side and began his new life. He sought employment in his engineering trade.

As the US takes a dim view ASIAN illegal entry, INS 7 years later seized Chan, he was arrested and charged with the crime of making an illegal entry into the United States. Chan was ordered deported but before this could occur the family arranged for him to come to Chicago. In Chicago the family made the rounds of the immigration bar in anticipation that Chan would be rounded up again. The Bar told the family that Chan was "dead meat" and would be going back to his DEATH in China via Hong Kong.

When Chan was arrested he was immediately prepared to be expelled from the US. I was retained and I filed a petition in the Administrative Court provided by INS. I asked for suspension of the deportation order based upon the fact that Chan’s life was forfeit the second that he arrived in the orient.

The ASA, and the Judge were amused by my petition. The judge ridiculed me by asking me if I knew something that he did not know. I informed him that indeed I did, but assured him that he also knew things I did not know. The Judge then asked me if there was a foreign relations problem with Britain that he had not heard of informing me that the last conflict we had was in 1812. Under the law to be entitled to HC or amnesty Chan would have to prove that the elements required were all in play NOW! The amnesty/protection would then be afforded Chan as they related to the country that he was going to be deported to! In other words – the fact that China would kill Chan on sight, he was not going to be deported to China – he was going to be deported to Hong Kong – Hong Kong was administered to by England. As we had no current problem with England and England was not a danger to Chan my plea was 180 degrees wrong. My petition was to be denied. CHAN WAS GUILTY OF A SERIOUS CRIME – i.e. entry into the United STates illegally – he could either be sentenced to jail or deported. The government chose to deport him. (I recall that Chan had married and had a young child – however, this issue was not raised or considered – Chan would have been separated from his child under our law. If Mrs. Chan was illegal both would have been separated = the child is a CITIZEN and cannot be removed without the consent of his parents. The family would be reunited when returned to the country of origin)

With hat in hand I asked for 24 hours to amend my petition. I read the statute word by word and was confronted with the proposition that Chan having been in the United STates and acting as good person was eligible to a hardship consideration. I presented a "hardship" petition. It was granted and Chan was given a priority admission to the United States from Toronto – Canada.

As you are aware, I was delighted and spraining my arm patting myself on the back when I realized that to get in Canada Chan needed PAPERS. I tried the Chinese– they invited Chan and me to the consulate to talk – I knew that Chan once in the consulate would be a prisoner, so I declined. The US government refused to grant me any considerations and in fact I was told: "If you don’t know what you are doing, you should not do it" I had on the surface no way to get into Canada. The smart ass ASA suggested that I sneak Chan into Canada.

I did not sneak Chan into Canada. As you recall I complied with Canadian Law and accomplished my goal. (I called the Canadian immigration and arranged for an exclusion hearing for Chan – the hearing was scheduled for late in the afternoon so that it had to be adjourned until the next day.) Mr. Chan was paroled into my custody and we went to the American consulate, picked up the papers required for the priority entry, returned to the Court, agreed to the exclusion and Chan was deported to the United States complete with the documents necessary to complete a priority LEGAL admission.

Chan has since become a citizen of the United States of America.

The pictures of caged children and the wild allegations of the demagogues are all political deceptions calculated to advance the political adventures of dishonorable members of the Political Elite and no friends of the proposed immigrants. The hate mongering and intolerance is deplorable and the concern for the immigrants is an oxymoron. If the demagogues had a scintilla of humanity in them, they would address the problem honestly and directly – however, they do not want to do so.

As an example, the demagogues could propose a bill in congress to exempt the immigration scenario from the parens patrie separation of children from their families! Watch – not one of these miscreants will join in proposing legislation or passing such legislation — it is easier and more profitable to continue their policy of deception and fraud.

Ken Ditkowsky

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Winston Shrout Sentencing Delayed again. He must be CRAZY.

Arch Scammer Winston Shrout’s defense team is just Full of tricks, getting the sentencing postponed again. A grand jury indicted him, the Oregon USDC tried him, a jury of his peers convicted him, and he has skillfully avoided sentencing for over a year.

Anna Reizinger, Pope of Cow Plop, your future is calling.

04/21/2017 109 Jury Verdict as to Winston Shrout regarding Winston Shrout (1) Guilty on Count 1s-7s,8s-10s,11s-13s,14s-19s. (bp) (Entered: 04/24/2017)

Here are the most recent docket entries, showing an effort to get him declared mentally incompetent. He must be crazy to spread cow plop regarding paying debts and taxes with international bills of exchange and harvesting unwarranted tax refunds through the 1099-OID scam.

01/23/2018 126 ORDER by Judge Robert E. Jones Granting 123 Third Motion to Continue Sentencing Hearing Date as to Winston Shrout (1) for the compelling reasons submitted in defense counsel’s materials. The Court advises there will be no further extensions for any reason. Sentencing is set for 5/17/2018 at 10:00AM in Portland Courtroom 10A before Judge Robert E. Jones. Sentencing set for 2/20/2018 at 11AM is STRICKEN. (bp) (Entered: 01/23/2018)
03/07/2018 127 Unopposed Motion for Authorization to Travel by Defendant Winston Shrout. (Iniguez, Ruben) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
03/08/2018 128 AMENDED ORDER by Judge Robert E. Jones Granting 127 Motion for Authorization as to Winston Shrout (1) to travel per request in the defendant’s motion and return before his scheduled sentencing on May 17, 2018. ORDER allowing Pretrial Services to return the defendant’s passport and defendant to return the passport within 72 hours of his return. (bp) Modified on 3/12/2018 regarding passport (bp). (Entered: 03/08/2018)
04/16/2018 129 Motion for Hearing To Determine Mental Competency by Defendant Winston Shrout. (Iniguez, Ruben) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
04/16/2018 130 Motion For Order To Seal by Defendant Winston Shrout. (Iniguez, Ruben) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
04/19/2018 131 Motion Motion to File Government’s Response Under Seal filed by USA as to Defendant Winston Shrout. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Langston, Lee) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
04/19/2018 132 ORDER Granting 130 Motion for Leave to File Declaration of Counsel and Exhibit Under Seal as to Winston Shrout (1). Signed on 4/19/2018 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (sss) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
04/23/2018 134 ORDER Granting 131 Motion to File Government’s Response Under Seal as to Winston Shrout (1) Signed on 4/23/2018 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (sss) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
04/25/2018 136 Motion For Leave To File Reply Memorandum In Support of Motion for Hearing To Determine Mental Competency Under Seal by Defendant Winston Shrout. (Iniguez, Ruben) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
04/25/2018 137 ORDER by Judge Robert E. Jones Granting 136 Motion For Leave To File Reply Memorandum In Support of Motion for Hearing To Determine Mental Competency Under Seal as to Winston Shrout (1). (bp) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
04/26/2018 139 Scheduling Order by Judge Robert E. Jones as to Winston Shrout. Oral Argument is set for 5/7/2018 at 11:00AM before Judge Robert E. Jones in Portland Courtroom 10A. (bp) (Entered: 04/26/2018)
05/07/2018 141 Minutes of Proceedings: Granting 129 Motion for Hearing as to Winston Shrout (1). A hearing will be set after the expert witnesses are available for a hearing. Motion Hearing before Judge Robert E. Jones as to Winston Shrout held on 5/7/2018. Sentencing hearing set for 5/17/2018 at 10AM is STRICKEN and will be reset at a competency hearing. ORDER: The court is ordering a competency evaluation by Dr. Lopez at OHSU with a report due no later than 6/29/2018. A competency hearing will be set in July after the evaluation has been completed. ORDER: Defense counsel will submit an unredacted copy of Dr. Martin’s report to the Court. Stuart A. Wexler, Lee Langston present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Ruben L. Iniguez present as counsel for defendant(s). (Court Reporter Jill Jessup.) (bp) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

Crooked Neil Garfield Warns Consumers about Crooked Lawyers

Crooked attorney Neil Garfield, ever concerned about public exposure to crooked or incompetent attorneys, writes to readers of his Living Lies blog:

Warning: Conduct your Due Diligence on ANY Attorney you Hire

by Neil Garfield Before you hire ANY attorney for a phone consultation, to conduct an analysis of your case, or retain them to represent you, please conduct your due diligence first. A simple google search with their name will usually suffice.

In fact, before you hire Neil Garfield for a consultation, case analysis, or other legal matter I suggest you conduct your due-diligence like you would when hiring any professional.

Always use caution if the Bar has publicly reprimanded an attorney.

If you believe you have been a victim of an unethical Florida foreclosure attorney, please report your experience to the Florida Bar at: https://www.floridabar.org/public/acap/assistance/

Contact me at:

Neil Garfield | March 27, 2018 at 2:54 pm

In the same spirit of consumer advocacy, I decided to help crooked Neil Garfield spread the word about crooked lawyers, in this case Neil himself. Here’s a little information on Neil:

http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=548048

JAX DAILY RECORD MONDAY, AUG. 1, 2016 12:00 PM EST

Supreme Court disciplines 32 attorneys

The Florida Supreme Court disciplined 32 attorneys — disbarring six, revoking the licenses of two, suspending 16 and publicly reprimanding eight.

Two attorneys were also placed on probation and another was ordered to pay restitution.

The attorneys are: […]

  • Neil Franklin Garfield, Parkland, to be publicly reprimanded. (Admitted to practice: 1977) In at least four instances, Garfield accepted money to represent clients and failed to follow through. In one case, Garfield did not perform the work and, when asked for a refund, denied knowing the client. In other cases, he failed to communicate, charged excessive fees, failed to return refunds upon request and failed to timely respond to Bar inquiries.

Frivolous Filings and Bogus Legal Theories

Neil Garfield’s frivolous filings and bogus legal theories have already cost at least one client, Zdislaw Maslanka, a wad of attorney fees in an utterly frivolous action to get his house free even though he remained current in his mortgage payments. As the docket entries below show, the Florida 4th District appellate panel affirmed the 17th Circuit’s dismissal of the case and ordered Maslanka to pay the attorney fees of the two mortgage creditors that he sued.

  • 4D14-3015-Zdzislaw E. Maslanka v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and Embrace Home Loans
05/12/2016 Affirmed ­ Per Curiam Affirmed
05/12/2016 Order Granting Attorney Fees­Unconditionally ORDERED that the appellee Embrace Home Loans Inc.’s September 2, 2015 motion for attorney’s fees is granted. On remand, the trial court shall set the amount of the attorney’s fees to be awarded for this appellate case. If a motion for rehearing is filed in this court, then services rendered in connection with the filing of the motion, including, but not limited to, preparation of a responsive pleading, shall be taken into account in computing the amount of the fee
05/12/2016 Order Granting Attorney Fees­Unconditionally ORDERED that the appellee Wells Fargo Home Mortgage’s September 3, 2015 motion for attorneys’ fees is granted. On remand, the trial court shall set the amount of the attorneys’ fees to be awarded for this appellate case. If a motion for rehearing is filed in this court, then services rendered in connection with the filing of the motion, including, but not limited to, preparation of a responsive pleading, shall be taken into account in computing the amount of the fee.

Last but not least, here is the text of an 8-page report that Neil Garfield charged Vincent Newman THOUSANDS of dollars for, advising a foreclosure defense and TILA rescission strategy. Newman obtained a pick-a-pay loan in 2010 to purchase a home, then defaulted. Garfield idiotically suggested mailing a notice of TILA rescission in 2016, and then suing to enforce it, without regard to the fact that the TILA statute of repose of 3 years for conditional rescission had already tolled, and the creditor had not violated TILA. Garfield thereby illustrated his delusional misunderstanding of conditional TILA rescission which the law allows only for non-purchase-money loans like refinances and HELOCS in which the creditor failed to give the borrower required disclosures of the right to cancel and the cost of the loan not more than $35 understated. No such TILA violation occurred in Newman’s case. Thus, Neil Garfield’s incompetent advice, had Newman heeded it, would have caused Newman expense and embarrassment through a frivolous, failing TILA rescission effort.

Open Letter to Gun Control Advocates – I hope the terrorists come for you first

Dear Authors of Senseless (is there any other kind?) Gun Control Articles:

Why don’t our federal and state governments allow citizens to prevail in law suits against law enforcers for failing to protect the citizens?

First of all, governments claim sovereign immunity to lawsuits they don’t want to entertain. Courts have ruled that the First Amendment right to petition for redress does not require government to redress or even to read or listen to the petition.

Second, when two parties have a dispute, an intervenor on the scene has no way of determining who is right or wrong, or to what extent. The rules of evidence and of civil and appellate procedure allow the courts (judges and juries) to determine the facts and governing laws in any dispute. But many judicial activities are hopelessly crooked.

For supporting considerations read Criminal Law 2.0, 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski’s 2015 preface to the Georgetown Law Journal. He shows how flawed evidence gets through the holes in the criminal justice system, crooked prosecutors corrupt due process by manipulating grand juries and intimidating innocent defendants into pleading guilty, and police lie incessantly. Then he makes many suggestions for improving justice. He wouldn’t have done that but for the corruption and criminality of the criminal justice system actors. We simply cannot trust them

Now, then, why doesn’t government have the right to restrain the public from owning and possessing, and carrying dangerous arms (guns, knives, clubs, etc)?

First of all, the 2nd Amendment prohibits such restraint and acknowledges that militias require armed members and ONLY militias and armed individuals can repel tyrants, thugs, invaders, insurrectors, rapists, murderers, psychopaths, and sundry bad guys of any and all sorts.

Second, the people cannot trust Government to protect them from malicious treatment by foreign and domestic enemies; only fools think the law requires police to protect them. In fact, the people know that police don’t care who starts an armed dispute, for they will arrest both the non-government aggressor and the defender, and let the court sort it out. Law enforcers, of course, will not arrest government operative aggressors, and the citizen will just become a victim of that aggression unless he has sufficient arms to repel the aggressor and law enforcers.

You see the point here, right? NOTHING but the citizens’ arms and their indomitable will to use them stands between them and aggressors of all sorts. Any adult who has paid attention to news stories knows that many government operatives are just badged criminals intent upon abusing whomever they wish, without probable cause, often upon fabricated evidence.

I hope you will keep the foregoing realities in mind before penning further gun control advocacy pulp fiction.

Yes, crazy people can grab an AR15 sporting rifle, shoot up a school, and slaughter students and teachers while the FBI sleeps on complaints about the shooters and cops run for cover outside. You well know that gun control won’t solve that problem, for determined assailants can always find weapons for killing unsuspecting people.

But better arming and training for teachers and administrators, and better security procedures at schools, churches, and other public facilities can prevent such incidents. Crazed assailants usually duck and run when defenders start shooting back at them.

Yes, determined and clever aggressors can wear body armor or attack from long distances with bombs or sniper rifles. If they annoy government enough, government will go after them. But the people have no guarantee of it. That just means the citizenry and its militias need ever-more advanced weapons, technology, and means to track the aggressors to their source and eliminate them.

I predict that in due course Islamic Jihadis will perpetrate ever more devastating terrorist acts against the people of the USA. That means the Americanist citizenry must become ever more vigiliant, prepared, armed, and DANGEROUS to violent aggressors through its militias.

There is “no free lunch” when it comes to defending the homeland and its citizens against determined terrorists. I hate thinking of anybody becoming victim of them, but when terrorists come, I hope they come for you first. At least they’ll know that you don’t have any dangerous firearms to ward them off. And we’ll have lost an idiot who wants government to take away our automatic weapons and other means of defending ourselves, our families, our homes, and our communities.