Docx, Foreclosure Scams, and Mortgage Fraud Exams

Dear Neil Garfield:

The problem you hinted at today with your LivingLies blog entry preoccupies my thoughts. The mortgagees must cram down the loans to present market value minus paid-in equity and refinance at 3% for 30 years. No other equitable solution exists in the lender-driven financial crisis. The mortgage industry operators, loan brokers, realtors, appraisers, etc., all conspired to cheat buyers/borrowers for residential real estate purchases and corresponding loans. They overvalued houses, doctored loan applications, and made predatory loans to people they knew could not repay. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Report illustrates this clearly. So, courts can and should order cram-downs as EQUITABLE remedies for homeowners.

The foreclosure mess brought on by Docx, while containing many crimes by foreclosure mill attorneys, lenders, trustees, mortgagees, etc, has nothing to do with the cheating that underlies most single family home mortgages for the past 15 years.

YOU, Neil, should focus your attention on THAT reality – the fraudulent inducement guilt that lenders and their agents bear.


Because IF the note and mortgage have validity, NOTHING changes the fact that borrowers owe the money and must forfeit the house for not making payments. PERIOD. END OF SUBJECT. No matter what defects arise in the foreclosure, lender/assignee/holder can repair it and foreclose. That’s why virtually ALL foreclosures ultimately go through. And that’s why ALL foreclosure defenders commit malpractice for not seeking and finding the tortious conduct, contract breaches, and legal errors underlying the mortgage, and bringing THAT to the court with the FCIC Report to demand a rescission or cram-down.

I just cannot imagine why you, in spite of your knowledge about this, continue to harp on fighting foreclosures instead of fighting mortgages. You keep asking people to call you for “assistance with presenting a case for wrongful foreclosure.” You recommend bankruptcy by writing “Chapter 11 may be easier than you think.” But the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has declared bankruptcy to stave off foreclosure a mortgage rescue scam. Does that mean YOU are a scammer?

Do you actually take referral commissions for sending clueless, desperate foreclosure victims to your network of malpracticing foreclosure defense lawyers? Would you mind telling me exactly how many of your clients have gotten a cram-down, cash settlement, or their houses free and clear by fighting the foreclosure with your schemes?

Excuse me a moment while I conjecture: ZERO.

The foreclosure ALWAYS goes through to completion and the foreclosure defense client always loses the house. The methods of foreclosure defense have a miserable failing record. They leave the borrower owing a huge judgment lien derived from mounting interest, and plaintiff costs of recovery and legal fees, plus outrageous defense lawyer fees.

Only one approach will win the victim’s house free and clear or a cram-down refinance: a proper, professional, hilt-deep examination sword that finds the causes of action against the lender for fraud, torts, breaches, and errors underlying the mortgage. That and ONLY that will give the victim a win.

WHY? Because these borrowers became MORTGAGE VICTIMS before they became foreclosure victims. Mortgage victims can use the courts properly to redress their injury, and thereby undo the mortgage and obtain compensatory and punitive damages like this. Foreclosure victims cannot undo anything, and they always lose the house. And neither you nor your lawyer referral network will EVER change that stark reality.

Let me give this to you straight, Neil. Your lawyer network costs desperate mortgage victims $10,000 to $50,000 by defending an indefensible foreclosure. The client loses the house and owes a massive judgment lien that endures for 20 years. And your lawyer network never bothers spending money on a professional mortgage fraud examination.

Suppose a client comes to a lawyer asking for help regarding a lenders accusation that the client breached a contract. What SHOULD the lawyer do?

1. Charge the hapless client $30,000 to fight the errors in the lender’s foreclosure effort, and still lose the case? Or

2. Investigate the contract and related papers for causes of action against the lender, and get a cram-down and house free and clear for the client at lender expense?

Which of those makes most sense? Which of these constitutes the lawyer’s PRIMARY legal duty to the client? Does it not constitute a form of malpractice for the lawyer to FAIL to do #2 above? I think you know the answer to that simple question.

To any MORTGAGE VICTIMS who read this: I suggest you stay away from Neil Garfield. He’s a nice man and puts a lot of effort into his blog as an advertising gimmick. But he leads you to ZERO REMEDY, straight into forclosure finality where you will lose your house and end up owing a whopping judgment lien, or into a horrible loan modification leaving you owing double the value of your house and a whopping balloon.

Instead of going through that nightmare, CALL ME and arrange a MORTGAGE FRAUD EXAMINATION that can result in you getting your house free and clear like this mortgage victim did:

Quicken Loans on losing end of $3 million predatory lending verdict

March 3, 2011 7:58 AM

WHEELING – An Ohio County judge has ruled against Quicken Loans in a $3 million predatory lending case.

Circuit Court Judge Arthur M. Recht concluded an eight-day trial that spanned 17 months by awarding punitive damages, attorney fees and costs to mother and daughter Wheeling residents Lourie Jefferson and Monique Brown.

The award of more than $2.1 million in punitive damages, along with attorney fees and costs, brought the total verdict in the case against Quicken Loans to more than $3 million.

Jefferson and Brown also had previously reached a settlement for a confidential amount with the loan appraiser.

If you want this kind of result, CALL ME. 727 669 5511

I’ll explain the mortgage fraud examination requirements and strategy in detail, and tell you what kind of legal assistance you need.

Bob Hurt

Contact: Email bh f t
Blogs: 1 2 3
Law: E-letter Subscribe Donate Learn
2460 Persian Drive #70, Clearwater, Florida 33763 •
727 669 5511


This Microsoft colortag contains my contact info for your smart phone:

So what do you think of cop-killing?

Lawmen, Lawsters, and others:

I hope you and your families enjoyed the Thanksgiving season. I hate to interrupt your reverie, but someone pointed my attention to this video, and I want to know how you would answer it:

The narrator makes sound points about the danger of resisting the illegal behavior of police, bringing the viewer to reconcile him/herself to the fact that when confronted with an abusive policeman one must either submit to the abuse or resist. He explains that effete resistance can become fatal, so the committed resistor must go ahead and kill the policeman. That decision has caused a lot of deaths, and encouraging such resistance will probably result in many more and do little to curtail police crime. I provided these comments to the above-linked video:

Bob Hurt11 minutes ago

Government tends to become abusive in proportion to the percentage of irresponsible people in the population. The people buy Liberty with the currency of responsibility and vigilance. People must use the ideals of good government, law and rules of court, political activism, and community organization to implement eugenics systems and allow suffrage only to the responsible. ONLY THEN can they improve the quality of the electorate and consequently of government. GIGO: Garbage in, garbage out

Bob Hurt18 minutes ago

Every voter and government employee swears an oath to support the Constitution of the US and (if pertinent) of the State of domicile. No law punishes violation of the oath except in the form of some crime. When balloting becomes meaningless by masses of ignorant and irresponsible voters who elect crooks, other citizens have no choice but to devise other methods of keeping crooks out of government and excise them from government.

I believe most non-criminals simply tolerate the police abuse, partly because they don’t come prepared to escape or do battle. If they fight the abuse through internal affairs, it takes years and they get nothing out of it without an expensive follow-up lawsuit. All of that, including injuries by police, for which victims must pay medical costs, causes massive damage to the people and their productivity. And this does not include the billions of dollars police steal in cash and contraband from citizens during traffic stops, raids, and arrests, both lawful and unlawful.

I refer to Government employees who perpetrate crimes or abuses of their oaths as “Gerps” and the illegal or unconstitutional behavior of Gerps as “Gerpitude.” The people should have no obligation to put Gerps through some kind of corrective process, nor to pay dozens to hundreds of hours of their time and anguish, and lots of money to hold the Gerp accountable in our ridiculously expensive courts.

I believe the ideal that citizens should summarily excise such Gerps from authority for each and every act of Gerpitude. But as a practical matter, such excision efforts can become futile, costly, and fatal if the citizen does not execute them properly and wisely.

It seems logical to assume that one’s lethal resistance to Gerpitude falls within the natural law and should fall within statutory law. It follows that a single policeman illegally oppressing, attacking, robbing, threatening, or damaging the property or person of a citizen thereby incites his own assassination. It also follows that the same applies to any Gerp, from the highest to the lowest, who exceeds constitutional and legal authority. It applies to each and every Gerp for each act of Gerpitude. That one Gerp IS government over the citizen whom the Gerp confronts, or over whom the Gerp illegally imposes a condition through vote or issuance of order in any branch of Government.

Both the paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Independence of 1776 and Article I Section 2 of the Florida Constitution of 1838 acknowledge the right of “the people” in this kind of issue:

Florida Constitution of 1838 Article I Section 2 (echoing the Declaration of Independence of 1776 paragraph 2:

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

That includes the right to excise Gerps who have imposed or attempted to impose their own ultra-vires oligarchy upon the people or any member of the citizenry through Gerpitude.

Even so, this is no simple matter. I see the truth about the use of lethal force against crooked police as fairly complex.

1. America contains a lot of extremely stupid and irresponsible people (at least a third and as much as half the population – 25% have IQ too low to graduate from high school).

2. Police have to become tough to deal with hardened criminals, particularly the stupid ones (the smart ones like Bernie Madoff don’t cause much physical danger to police).

3. Unfortunately, many policemen become corrupted, supplementing their official pay with bribes, kickbacks, protection money, and cash and contraband they steal from thieves, drug dealers, robbers, and other criminals.

4. But the police come from the same corrupt population that elects corrupt politicians and tolerates or demands unconstitutional benefits.

So, quote me on this:

America cannot fix its government until it fixes its people and its system of suffrage.”

The video ignores that reality. And so it ignores the solution:

1. We (the people) simply cannot give the stupid and irresponsible the same unit voting power that we give other citizens.

2. We absolutely must elevate the quality of the gene pool – diminish the percentage of stupid and irresponsible in the population.

The narrator of the video focused only on “Cop-Killing.” I noticed the video has over 470 comments, many of which the narrator made in response to others, striving to convince them that his video told the truth. It didn’t. It would make far more sense to preach to people about systems of voluntary sterilization of the stupid, irresponsible, and violently criminal so as to reduce the level of constant threat and intimidation that numbs police to the gentler, more sensible citizenry. And it would make sense to diminish the percentage of say the stupid and irresponsible have in government by scaling the weight of their votes down in contrast to others. That way we the people might elect more enlightened officials who will work to improve the quality of society and its systems of policing and governing.

Oops, did I just repeat myself. Sorry, you’ll just have to suffer through it till you start singing the same song. Do your part and help the message of the two points immediately above go viral. If a Korean can do it with Gangnam Style (even O’Reilly seems to love it) video and song that ONLY KOREANs can understand, surely we can get the point across in simple English:


“No suffrage and No procreation for the stupid and the irresponsible”

If you consider this too Draconian, slip the shoe of common sense on your other foot:

1. Should it be legal knowingly to infect innocent babies with a disease that makes them mentally incompetent for life?

2. Would you give your 8-year-old the keys to your car with instructions that it’s okay to drive across the USA without supervision?

If you answered no to those questions, then you can embrace the above mantra.

Ultimately implementing that Mantra will go a long way toward ending the question of whether it’s okay to kill abusive cops. Someone PLEASE put it in an entertaining music video.


WARNING: I do NOT function as law practitioner, lawyer, licensed attorney-at-law, or legal advisor. Construe my comments ONLY as speculation or general information, and NOT as legal advice for you or anyone else. Consult a well-qualified attorney (good luck finding one) in all questions of legality or law.

Bob Hurt

Contact: Email bh f t
Blogs: 1 2 3
Law: E-letter Subscribe Donate Learn
2460 Persian Drive #70, Clearwater, Florida 33763 •
727 669 5511


How to Fix People’s Reluctance to Use Courts for Settling Disputes

Dear Professor Gillian Hadfield:

I read your 2008 article You suggested that people ought to use the courts instead of avoiding litigation. Well, look at the cost to see why people try to settle.

First, court rules have become arcane to the point of inscrutability for many who know nothing about them and cannot juggle the timing with their personal lives, and cannot possibly master the evidence code during a single litigation effort.

Second, most people cannot afford modern attorneys at $300+ per hour case that might consume 100 to 300+ hours.

Third, public schools do not teach subjects like law ideals, common law, statutory law, the court systems, law practice, evidence code, court rules etc, so the average citizen is utterly ignorant of all of those by middle adulthood UNLESS forced into pro se litigation by the circumstances of life.

Fourth, court judges act like line judges in tennis, and usually don’t take it upon themselves to stop or punish a litigant for abusing the rules. That duty falls on the typically law-incompetent adversary. Litigants get no little or no help from the judge.

Fifth, the people simply cannot trust the competence, rigor, and integrity of lawyers or of the law community, so they have no idea which lawyers are good or bad, or whom to hire. On top of that, many lawyers demand "retainer" gifts, for which they have no obligation to do anything, and they routinely overbill clients, round up to the next $5000, $10,000, or $100,000, and finagle with opposing counsel and judges behind the client’s back to no good end for the client. The profession does not sufficiently police lawyers. It should require all lawyers to divulge their win/loss record and their costs of litigation, and database these for public inspection. And UPL penalties make it impossible to find lawyers who are not attorneys to help them.

Sixth, prosecutors lie to and intimidate defendants with impunity, priding themselves on obtaining unjust plea bargain convictions, even when they suspect or know the defendant is innocent, ESPECIALLY in instances of the politically motivated criminal charges.

Seventh, the cost of filing fees, transcripts, and obtaining court documents in the instant case or research cases can intimidate any litigant to stay away from courts.

Eighth, many litigants become shell-shocked into Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or Legal Abuse Syndrome by the litigation process, especially when dealing with belligerent and intractable judges and attorneys. They typically freeze, flee, or fight unintelligently in reaction to the stress of the proceedings. And that makes them unable to defend themselves. Federal courts need not comply with the American with Disabilities Act, and the law should change to require all courts to accommodate disabilities which the litigation process creates.

Ninth, laws should mandate cost-free access by the public to ALL laws, case law, and unclassified public records, without exception, with no charges for transcripts, court case filing fees, and clerk fees for the opening, closing, filing, prosecuting, and defending court cases. People should be able to exercise the right to petition government for redress and to settle adversarial proceedings at zero charge. Furthermore, since attorneys have become the modern joust champions, armored and mounted on armored steeds of law education and bar membership, all litigants should have free access to such champions or NO access, including corporations. Government has the obligation to level the battlefield to avoid unfair contests, and that includes contests between Government entities and individuals. If one party cannot afford a lawyer, none should have lawyers, or government should pay for equivalent lawyers for both sides. This will dramatically lower the cost of litigation and encourage the people to use the courts.

The above realities operate to make the typical Citizen loathe and distrust lawyers AND the courts. So who blames them for not using the courts to resolve their legal disputes?

The legal community itself has to change this mess to make courts more affordable and worthwhile. Barring that, constitutional amendments and litigation must effect repairs to the system.

The horrid expense of attorneys and litigation drives the people not only away from litigation and toward settling out of court, but also toward alternate dispute resolution like mediation and arbitration. And because the cost of arbitration approaches that of judicial litigation, those costs drive people toward alternatives like violent confrontation with adversaries, thereby burdening law enforcement and criminal courts.

I have expressed a number of actions that can convert this disaster into a workable system that the people willingly use. I’d enjoy reading your reflections on them.


WARNING: I do NOT function as law practitioner, lawyer, licensed attorney-at-law, or legal advisor. Construe my comments ONLY as speculation or general information, and NOT as legal advice for you or anyone else. Consult a well-qualified attorney (good luck finding one) in all questions of legality or law.

Bob Hurt

Contact: Email bh f t
Blogs: 1 2 3
Law: E-letter Subscribe Donate Learn
2460 Persian Drive #70, Clearwater, Florida 33763 •
727 669 5511


Bob Hurt analyzes Jean Keating comments on Winterrowd show

Jean Keating, Foreclosure Defense Guru – Not Really

I’ve heard this stuff from Keating before (appended below) – a couple of years ago. The community of foreclosure defense of lawyers seems to have ignored it. I analyze his comments up to a point.

Keating does not mention Decades of Rules of Evidence Violations

Florida has one example of what courts seem to have ignored for years. Courts accepted a copy of a note and an affidavit of lost note as evidence that the note exists, but the evidence code denies the court the power to admit a copy of the note into evidence. By my reasoning, if the court cannot admit a copy of a note into evidence, then the copy cannot become evidence of a lost note, even with an affidavit. This could impose a hardship on the note holder, particularly if a house fire burned a cache of federal reserve notes. As I see it, these to statutes stand at odds with one another. If I held a copy of a note but could not find the original, any judge should rightly question why I protected the copy but not the original, and flatly deny me the right to enforce it. But here we see the commercial code allowing enforcement under certain circumstances.

90.953 Admissibility of duplicates.—A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original, unless:

(1) The document or writing is a negotiable instrument as defined in s. 673.1041, a security as defined in s. 678.1021, or any other writing that evidences a right to the payment of money, is not itself a security agreement or lease, and is of a type that is transferred by delivery in the ordinary course of business with any necessary endorsement or assignment.

(2) A genuine question is raised about the authenticity of the original or any other document or writing.

(3) It is unfair, under the circumstance, to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.

History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 22, ch. 78-361; s. 1, ch. 78-379; s. 57, ch. 92-82; s. 29, ch. 99-2.

673.3091 Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument.

(1) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if:

(a) The person seeking to enforce the instrument was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred;

(b) The loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure; and

(c) The person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.

(2) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (1) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, s. 673.3081applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.

History.—s. 2, ch. 92-82; s. 1, ch. 2004-3.

You are a Merchant at Law?

Keating says “under 2-104 you are considered a merchant at law because you use commercial paper.” 2.104 does not say that at all, but it categorizes as a merchant a person who hires a broker (real estate broker, mortgage broker). However, very few people who execute a note and mortgage have “knowledge or skill particular to the practices or goods involved in the transaction.” But I question whether a home buyer and mortgagor is actually a merchant at law, and if so, what importance that has in a foreclosure.

672.104 Definitions: “merchant”; “between merchants”; “financing agency.”

(1) “Merchant” means a person who deals in goods of the kind or otherwise by occupation holds himself or herself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction or to whom such knowledge or skill may be attributed by his or her employment of an agent or broker or other intermediary who by occupation holds himself or herself out as having such knowledge or skill.

(2) “Financing agency” means a bank, finance company or other person who in the ordinary course of business makes advances against goods or documents of title or who by arrangement with either the seller or the buyer intervenes in ordinary course to make or collect payment due or claimed under the contract for sale, as by purchasing or paying the seller’s draft or making advances against it or by merely taking it for collection whether or not documents of title accompany or are associated with the draft. “Financing agency” includes also a bank or other person who similarly intervenes between persons who are in the position of seller and buyer in respect to the goods (s. 672.707).

(3) “Between merchants” means in any transaction with respect to which both parties are chargeable with the knowledge or skill of merchants.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 556, ch. 97-102; s. 6, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 2-104, U.C.C.

Bank Can Treat Your Note as a Draft?

Keating refers to 673.1041 (5) below when he says “in 3-104e when you give them the note they can treat it as a liability instrument or they can treat it as a draft.” That provision does not say what Keating alleges. It is a note if a promise or a draft if an order, and if both the person entitled to enforce may treat it as either. Look at the language of the typical mortgage note. The Freddie Mac Fixed Rate multi-state note bears this language, and that makes it a note ONLY, not a draft, so Keating erred in this pronouncement.

“In return for a loan that I have received, I promise to pay U.S. $___ (this amount is called “Principal”), plus interest, to the order of the Lender. The Lender is _________. I will make all payments under this Note in the form of cash, check or money order”

Florida Statute

673.1041 Negotiable instrument.

(1) Except as provided in subsections (3), (4), and (11), the term “negotiable instrument” means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if it:

(a) Is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder;

(b) Is payable on demand or at a definite time; and

(c) Does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money, but the promise or order may contain:

1. An undertaking or power to give, maintain, or protect collateral to secure payment;

2. An authorization or power to the holder to confess judgment or realize on or dispose of collateral; or

3. A waiver of the benefit of any law intended for the advantage or protection of an obligor.

(2) The term “instrument” means a negotiable instrument.

(3) An order that meets all requirements of subsection (1), except paragraph (a), and otherwise falls within the definition of “check” in subsection (6) is a negotiable instrument and a check.

(4) A promise or order other than a check is not an instrument if, at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder, it contains a conspicuous statement, however expressed, to the effect that the promise or order is not negotiable or is not an instrument governed by this chapter.

(5) An instrument is a “note” if it is a promise and is a “draft” if it is an order. If an instrument falls within the definition of both “note” and “draft,” a person entitled to enforce the instrument may treat it as either.

(6) The term “check” means a draft, other than a documentary draft, payable on demand and drawn on a bank or a cashier’s check or teller’s check. An instrument may be a check even though it is described on its face by another term, such as “money order.”

(7) The term “cashier’s check” means a draft with respect to which the drawer and drawee are the same bank or branches of the same bank.

(8) The term “teller’s check” means a draft drawn by a bank:

(a) On another bank; or

(b) Payable at or through a bank.

(9) The term “traveler’s check” means an instrument that:

(a) Is payable on demand;

(b) Is drawn on or payable at or through a bank;

(c) Is designated by the term “traveler’s check” or by a substantially similar term; and

(d) Requires, as a condition to payment, a countersignature by a person whose specimen signature appears on the instrument.

(10) The term “certificate of deposit” means an instrument containing an acknowledgment by a bank that a sum of money has been received by the bank and a promise by the bank to repay the sum of money. A certificate of deposit is a note of the bank.

(11) A warrant of this state is not a negotiable instrument governed by this chapter.

History.—s. 2, ch. 92-82.

Keating claims “And if they endorse it on the back pay to the order of, that’s a commercial draft. And if you deposit that in a bank account it becomes the equivalent of cash or money under 1813L1 of Title 12.”

The indorsement of the person entitled to enforce the note does not convert the note into a draft. It merely assigns the beneficial interest in the note to another entity or to no one, making it a bearer instrument. The law ( – Federal Deposit Insurance Act) in 12 USC 1813 shows definitions. Subsection L to which Keating refers uses the word “note,” but not in the context Keating seems to imply:

12 USC 1813(l) Deposit

The term "deposit" means –

(1) the unpaid balance of money or its equivalent received or held by a bank or savings association in the usual course of business and for which it has given or is obligated to give credit, either conditionally or unconditionally, to a commercial, checking, savings, time, or thrift account, or which is evidenced by its certificate of deposit, thrift certificate, investment certificate, certificate of indebtedness, or other similar name, or a check or draft drawn against a deposit account and certified by the bank or savings association, or a letter of credit or a traveler’s check on which the bank or savings association is primarily liable: Provided, That, without limiting the generality of the term "money or its equivalent", any such account or instrument must be regarded as evidencing the receipt of the equivalent of money when credited or issued in exchange for checks or drafts or for a promissory note upon which the person obtaining any such credit or instrument is primarily or secondarily liable, or for a charge against a deposit account, or in settlement of checks, drafts, or other instruments forwarded to such bank or savings association for collection.

(2) trust funds as defined in this chapter received or held by such bank or savings association, whether held in the trust department or held or deposited in any other department of such bank or savings association.

(3) money received or held by a bank or savings association, or the credit given for money or its equivalent received or held by a bank or savings association, in the usual course of business for a special or specific purpose, regardless of the legal relationship thereby established, including without being limited to, escrow funds, funds held as security for an obligation due to the bank or savings association or others (including funds held as dealers reserves) or for securities loaned by the bank or savings association, funds deposited by a debtor to meet maturing obligations, funds deposited as advance payment on subscriptions to United States Government securities, funds held for distribution or purchase of securities, funds held to meet its acceptances or letters of credit, and withheld taxes: Provided, That there shall not be included funds which are received by the bank or savings association for immediate application to the reduction of an indebtedness to the receiving bank or savings association, or under condition that the receipt thereof immediately reduces or extinguishes such an indebtedness.

(4) outstanding draft (including advice or authorization to charge a bank’s or a savings association’s balance in another bank or savings association), cashier’s check, money order, or other officer’s check issued in the usual course of business for any purpose, including without being limited to those issued in payment for services, dividends, or purchases, and

(5) such other obligations of a bank or savings association as the Board of Directors, after consultation with the Comptroller of the Currency, Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, shall find and prescribe by regulation to be deposit liabilities by general usage, except that the following shall not be a deposit for any of the purposes of this chapter or be included as part of the total deposits or of an insured deposit:

(A) any obligation of a depository institution which is carried on the books and records of an office of such bank or savings association located outside of any State, unless –

(i) such obligation would be a deposit if it were carried on the books and records of the depository institution, and would be payable at, an office located in any State; and

(ii) the contract evidencing the obligation provides by express terms, and not by implication, for payment at an office of the depository institution located in any State;

(B) any international banking facility deposit, including an international banking facility time deposit, as such term is from time to time defined by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in regulation D or any successor regulation issued by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; and

(C) any liability of an insured depository institution that arises under an annuity contract, the income of which is tax deferred under section 72 of title 26.

The above definition uses the term “promissory note” in the context of one which the taker of money has a liability to pay. But the mortgagor’s note obligates only the mortgagor to pay it. Thus only the mortgagor could deposit in accordance with the foregoing definition. I believe Keating has misconstrued the law. I would like to see proof of the deposit of a mortgage note into a bank account before I believe Keating’s allegation.

Bank Can Treat Your Note as Cash?

Keating says “the Financial Accounting Standard Board, number 95, statement of cash flow. …treat it as a note, it’s cash.” Now he asserts that the mortgage note becomes cash, even though he must also know that a note is a promise to pay in the future according to schedule, and it does not constitute today-money except in some dramatically discounted form. shows FAS 95, Statement of Cash Flows. Note that this document does not magically convert a promissory note into cash. It merely establishes a means of accounting for the flow of notes as investments and means of payment, and the flow of payments on those notes. This creates a muddiness that cash flow statements exist to clear up, and the statement has caused dissent in the accounting industry. See pages 12 and 13 of the article. They bear this text:

“Messrs. Lauver, Leisenring, and Swieringa also dissent to this Statement’s requirement to classify certain cash receipts and payments according to the nature of an earlier transaction rather than according to the nature of the cash receipts and payments. Under this Statement, an enterprise that sells merchandise in one year for an installment note receivable and receives principal payments on the note in subsequent years will classify those principal payments as operating cash inflows. They believe that those principal payments should be classified as cash inflows from investing activities because they represent a return of the enterprise’s investment in the installment note. Classifying those principal payments as operating cash inflows denies receipt of the installment note as a noncash investing activity, is inconsistent with the enterprise’s recovery of its investment in that note, and is inconsistent with the treatment of the receipt of principal payments on other investments in debt instruments as cash inflows from investing activities. They also note that this Statement will result in similar inconsistencies for the purchase of inventory in exchange for a note payable.”

It seems clear to me that Keating does not understand the true nature of a promissory note as separate from actual cash because the true value of a promissory note diminishes with the character of the maker, and the US Government has a more reliable character than any individual or bank in the mind of the public.

Keating refers to 12 USC 24 text empowering national banks to lend money, but not credit.

Seventh. To exercise by its board of directors or duly authorized officers or agents, subject to law, all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking; by discounting and negotiating promissory notes, drafts, bills of exchange, and other evidences of debt; by receiving deposits; by buying and selling exchange, coin, and bullion; by loaning money on personal security; and by obtaining, issuing, and circulating notes according to the provisions of title 62 of the Revised Statutes. The business of dealing in securities and stock by the association shall be limited to purchasing and selling such securities and stock without recourse, solely upon the order, and for the account of, customers, and in no case for its own account, and the association shall not underwrite any issue of securities or stock; Provided, [blah blah blah – okay to buy gov’t securities]

Banks Lend You Credit?

Keating says “And if you read your credit application it says that they’re loaning you credit.” Fannie Mae Residenial Loan Application form 1003 contains NO language indicating the borrower seeks to borrow or the lender seeks to lend “credit.” It refers to credit in the traditional sense of borrowing money. It bears this text:

“Uniform Residential Loan Application – This application is designed to be completed by the applicant(s) with the Lender’s assistance. Applicants should complete this form as “Borrower” or “Co-Borrower,” as applicable. Co-Borrower information must also be provided (and the appropriate box checked) when the income or assets of a person other than the Borrower (including the Borrower’s spouse) will be used as a basis for loan qualification or the income or assets of the Borrower’s spouse or other person who has community property or similar rights pursuant to applicable state law will not be used as a basis for loan qualification, but his or her liabilities must be considered because the spouse or other person who has community property or similar rights and the Borrower resides in a community property state, the security property is located in a community property state, or the Borrower is relying on other property located in a community property state as a basis for repayment of the loan. If this is an application for joint credit, Borrower and Co-Borrower each agree that we intend to apply for joint credit (sign below):

“(2) the loan requested pursuant to this application (the "Loan") will be secured by a mortgage or deed of trust on the property described in this application;”

When You Can Rescind Your Mortgage Under TILA Reg Z

Keating says 12 CFR226.23 Truth in Lending Act Regulation Z provides that borrowers cannot rescind a mortgage loan “Go to 226.23, Right to Rescind. Now, it will tell you in there that it doesn’t apply to mortgage loan transactions. And the reason it doesn’t is because they can’t loan credit. But if you go down to Section H it says, when a loan goes into foreclosure—and a lot of you are in foreclosure—you could rescind the loan transaction.”

Regulation Z does indeed look weird at 12 CFR 226.23 Rescission

§ 226.23 Right of rescission.

(a) Consumer’s right to rescind. (1) In a credit transaction in which a security interest is or will be retained or acquired in a consumer’s principal dwelling, each consumer whose ownership interest is or will be subject to the security interest shall have the right to rescind the transaction, except for transactions described in paragraph (f) of this section. 47

(f) Exempt transactions. The right to rescind does not apply to the following:

(1) A residential mortgage transaction.

(h) Special rules for foreclosures —(1) Right to rescind. After the initiation of foreclosure on the consumer’s principal dwelling that secures the credit obligation, the consumer shall have the right to rescind the transaction if:

(i) A mortgage broker fee that should have been included in the finance charge was not included; or

(ii) The creditor did not provide the properly completed appropriate model form in appendix H of this part, or a substantially similar notice of rescission.

So, a home mortgage makes the principle dwelling into a security interest, thus owner has right to rescind, but it’s a mortgage, so now owner doesn’t have right to rescind, except it’s a foreclosure, so now owner does have right to rescind. Some mortgage circumstances justify Rescission, but it has nothing to do with lending credit.

Your Mortgage Note Becomes YOUR Investment?

Keating says a mortgage is an investment, citing 328 US 293 : “And what you’re dealing in is a security and not a promissory note. What’s the difference between a promissory note—ok, here’s the cite. It’s 328 US 293 and that’s volume 328, US Reports, page 293. The name of the case is SEC. It means Securities Exchange Commission v. Howey. It’s a 1946 US Supreme Court decision. And I had cases clear up to 2010. What you’re dealing in is not a mortgage loan, it’s an investment contract. What’s the proof of that? I can prove this as a matter or law. And what’s the proof? All of your mortgage payments are going to the investors under a pooling and servicing agreement as cash flow claims. They’re using them as cash flow claims to pay the investors.”

The case law he cited refers to an investment contract from the perspective of the investor (lender/assignee/indorsee), not from the perspective of the borrower.

The term "investment contract" is undefined by the Securities Act or by relevant legislative reports. But the term was common in many state "blue sky" laws in existence prior to the adoption of the federal statute, and, although the term was also undefined by the state laws, it had been broadly construed by state courts so as to afford the investing public a full measure of protection. Form was disregarded for substance, and emphasis was placed upon economic reality. An investment contract thus came to mean a contract or scheme for "the placing of capital or laying out of money in a way intended to secure income or profit from its employment." State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co.,146 Minn. 52, 56, 177 N.W. 937, 938. This definition was uniformly applied by state courts to a variety of situations where individuals were led to invest money in a common enterprise with the expectation that they would earn a profit solely through the efforts of the promoter or of some one other than themselves. [Footnote 4]

By including an investment contract within the scope of § 2(1) of the Securities Act, Congress was using a term the meaning of which had been crystalized by this prior judicial interpretation. It is therefore reasonable to attach that meaning to the term as used by Congress, especially since such a definition is consistent with the statutory aims. In other words, an investment contract, for purposes of the Securities Act, means a contract, transaction

Page 328 U. S. 299

or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party, it being immaterial whether the shares in the enterprise are evidenced by formal certificates or by nominal interests in the physical assets employed in the enterprise. Such a definition necessarily underlies this Court’s decision in SEC v. Joiner Corp., 320 U. S. 344, and has been enunciated and applied many times by lower federal courts. [Footnote 5] It permits the fulfillment of the statutory purpose of compelling full and fair disclosure relative to the issuance of "the many types of instruments that, in our commercial world, fall within the ordinary concept of a security." H.Rep. No.85, 73rd Cong., 1st Sess., p. 11. It embodies a flexible, rather than a static, principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits.

The borrowed money to buy a house might or might not constitute an investment, and the borrower totally controls the house within the scope of the mortgage security instrument. But the investment contract language in the cited case refers to the fact that the investor (bank, assignee, indorsee, and related investors in any mortgage-backed securitization trust) does NOT manage the target of the investment, but totally trusts someone else to do it, as did the investors in Howey, Company’s Florida orange grove acreage. Therefore, mortgage lenders to home buyers have no obligation to register the loan as a security with respect to the borrower, but they have an obligation to register it with respect to any MBS investor. Here again, Keating seems to get his wires crossed.

Relation of Statute of Frauds to Loan Mod

Keating tries to draw a connection between California mortgages entering default and loan mods thusly: “All of your mortgage payments are going to the investors under a pooling and servicing agreement as cash flow claims. They’re using them as cash flow claims to pay the investors. That’s why California passed 2923.6 into the California Civil Code. …try to do a loan modification, that’s to protect the investment contract that you’re involved in as an undisclosed third party under the statute of frauds. That’s why you have to raise the statute of frauds because it’s evidentiary and if you don’t waive it at the trial court level you waive it. You cannot be made a party to a contract unless it’s memorialized or subscribed to by you. But if you don’t raise the issue, you waive it.”

To address these claims, we look first at the cited code.

Legal Research Home > California Laws > Civil Code > California Civil Code Section 2923.6

(a) The Legislature finds and declares that any duty servicers may have to maximize net present value under their pooling and servicing agreements is owed to all parties in a loan pool, or to all investors under a pooling and servicing agreement, not to any particular party in the loan pool or investor under a polling and servicing agreement, and that a servicer acts in the best interests of all parties to the loan pool or investors in the pooling and servicing agreement if it agrees to or implements a loan modification or workout plan for which both of the following apply:

(1) The loan is in payment default, or payment default is reasonably foreseeable.

(2) Anticipated recovery under the loan modification or workout plan exceeds the anticipated recovery through foreclosure on a net present value basis.

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent offer the borrower a loan modification or workout plan if such a modification or plan is consistent with its contractual or other authority.

(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2013, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2013, deletes or extends that date.

This law clearly shows the duty of the servicer to maximize the return on the pool investors’ investment by offering a loan modification in lieu of foreclosing, if within its legal power. This has nothing to do with maximizing the homeowner’s return on investment. Many loan mods actually cheat the borrower, resulting in the borrower owing double the value of the mortgaged house, and having a whopping balloon which most mortgagors will not have the ability to pay, making foreclosure inevitable. The loan mod just drags out the process and maximizes the return to the pool investors. However, it does leave the victim in the home the victim so ardently and stupidly craves.

As to the Statute of Frauds, it exists to make important oral agreements unenforceable in court, owing to the fact that people generally have faulty memories. Here I present Florida’s TWO Statutes of Frauds, the first from the UCC:

672.201 Formal requirements; statute of frauds.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his or her authorized agent or broker. A writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon but the contract is not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of goods shown in such writing.

(2) Between merchants if within a reasonable time a writing in confirmation of the contract and sufficient against the sender is received and the party receiving it has reason to know its contents, it satisfies the requirements of subsection (1) against such party unless written notice of objection to its contents is given within 10 days after it is received.

(3) A contract which does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) but which is valid in other respects is enforceable:

(a) If the goods are to be specially manufactured for the buyer and are not suitable for sale to others in the ordinary course of the seller’s business and the seller, before notice of repudiation is received and under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the goods are for the buyer, has made either a substantial beginning of their manufacture or commitments for their procurement; or

(b) If the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in his or her pleading, testimony or otherwise in court that a contract for sale was made, but the contract is not enforceable under this provision beyond the quantity of goods admitted; or

(c) With respect to goods for which payment has been made and accepted or which have been received and accepted (s. 672.606).

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 557, ch. 97-102.

Note.—s. 2-201, U.C.C.





725.01 Promise to pay another’s debt, etc.

725.03 Newspaper subscription.

725.04 Voluntary payment; pleading.

725.05 Satisfaction for less than amount due.

725.06 Construction contracts; limitation on indemnification.

725.07 Discrimination on basis of sex, marital status, or race forbidden.

725.08 Design professional contracts; limitation in indemnification.

725.01 Promise to pay another’s debt, etc.—No action shall be brought whereby to charge any executor or administrator upon any special promise to answer or pay any debt or damages out of her or his own estate, or whereby to charge the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person or to charge any person upon any agreement made upon consideration of marriage, or upon any contract for the sale of lands, tenements or hereditaments, or of any uncertain interest in or concerning them, or for any lease thereof for a period longer than 1 year, or upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of 1 year from the making thereof, or whereby to charge any health care provider upon any guarantee, warranty, or assurance as to the results of any medical, surgical, or diagnostic procedure performed by any physician licensed under chapter 458, osteopathic physician licensed under chapter 459, chiropractic physician licensed under chapter 460, podiatric physician licensed under chapter 461, or dentist licensed under chapter 466, unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought, or some note or memorandum thereof shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or by some other person by her or him thereunto lawfully authorized.

History.—s. 10, Nov. 15, 1828; RS 1995; GS 2517; RGS 3872; CGL 5779; s. 10, ch. 75-9; s. 933, ch. 97-102; s. 60, ch. 97-264; ss. 227, 294, ch. 98-166.

725.03 Newspaper subscription.—No person shall be liable to pay for any newspaper, periodical or other like matter, unless the person shall subscribe for or order the same in writing.

History.—s. 1, ch. 379, 1851; RS 1997; GS 2519; RGS 3874; CGL 5781; s. 934, ch. 97-102.

725.04 Voluntary payment; pleading.—When a suit is instituted by a party to a contract to recover a payment made pursuant to the contract and by the terms of the contract there was no enforceable obligation to make the payment or the making of the payment was excused, the defense of voluntary payment may not be interposed by the person receiving payment to defeat recovery of the payment.

History.—ss. 1, 2, ch. 21902, 1943; s. 1, ch. 29737, 1955; s. 41, ch. 67-254.

Note.—Former s. 52.24.

725.05 Satisfaction for less than amount due.—When the amount of any debt or obligation is liquidated, the parties may satisfy the debt by a written instrument other than by endorsement on a check for less than the full amount due.

History.—s. 1, ch. 71-94.

725.06 Construction contracts; limitation on indemnification.

(1) Any portion of any agreement or contract for or in connection with, or any guarantee of or in connection with, any construction, alteration, repair, or demolition of a building, structure, appurtenance, or appliance, including moving and excavating associated therewith, between an owner of real property and an architect, engineer, general contractor, subcontractor, sub-subcontractor, or materialman or any combination thereof wherein any party referred to herein promises to indemnify or hold harmless the other party to the agreement, contract, or guarantee for liability for damages to persons or property caused in whole or in part by any act, omission, or default of the indemnitee arising from the contract or its performance, shall be void and unenforceable unless the contract contains a monetary limitation on the extent of the indemnification that bears a reasonable commercial relationship to the contract and is part of the project specifications or bid documents, if any. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the monetary limitation on the extent of the indemnification provided to the owner of real property by any party in privity of contract with such owner shall not be less than $1 million per occurrence, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. Indemnification provisions in any such agreements, contracts, or guarantees may not require that the indemnitor indemnify the indemnitee for damages to persons or property caused in whole or in part by any act, omission, or default of a party other than:

(a) The indemnitor;

(b) Any of the indemnitor’s contractors, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, materialmen, or agents of any tier or their respective employees; or

(c) The indemnitee or its officers, directors, agents, or employees. However, such indemnification shall not include claims of, or damages resulting from, gross negligence, or willful, wanton or intentional misconduct of the indemnitee or its officers, directors, agents or employees, or for statutory violation or punitive damages except and to the extent the statutory violation or punitive damages are caused by or result from the acts or omissions of the indemnitor or any of the indemnitor’s contractors, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, materialmen, or agents of any tier or their respective employees.

(2) A construction contract for a public agency or in connection with a public agency’s project may require a party to that contract to indemnify and hold harmless the other party to the contract, their officers and employees, from liabilities, damages, losses and costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees, to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness, or intentional wrongful misconduct of the indemnifying party and persons employed or utilized by the indemnifying party in the performance of the construction contract.

(3) Except as specifically provided in subsection (2), a construction contract for a public agency or in connection with a public agency’s project may not require one party to indemnify, defend, or hold harmless the other party, its employees, officers, directors, or agents from any liability, damage, loss, claim, action, or proceeding, and any such contract provision is void as against public policy of this state.

(4) This section does not affect any contracts, agreements, or guarantees entered into before the effective date of this section or any renewals thereof.

History.—s. 1, ch. 72-52; s. 935, ch. 97-102; s. 31, ch. 2000-372; s. 10, ch. 2001-211.

Note.—Former s. 768.085.

725.07 Discrimination on basis of sex, marital status, or race forbidden.

(1) No person, as defined in s. 1.01(3) shall discriminate against any person based on sex, marital status, or race in the areas of loaning money, granting credit, or providing equal pay for equal services performed.

(2) Any violation of this section may be brought in the courts of this state by the individual upon whom the discrimination has been perpetrated in a civil action, and said individual shall be entitled to collect, not only compensatory damages, but, in addition thereto, punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees for a violation of this section.

History.—ss. 1, 2, ch. 73-251.

725.08 Design professional contracts; limitation in indemnification.

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 725.06, if a design professional provides professional services to or for a public agency, the agency may require in a professional services contract with the design professional that the design professional indemnify and hold harmless the agency, and its officers and employees, from liabilities, damages, losses, and costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys’ fees, to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the design professional and other persons employed or utilized by the design professional in the performance of the contract.

(2) Except as specifically provided in subsection (1), a professional services contract entered into with a public agency may not require that the design professional defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the agency, its employees, officers, directors, or agents from any liability, damage, loss, claim, action, or proceeding, and any such contract provision shall be void as against the public policy of this state.

(3) “Professional services contract” means a written or oral agreement relating to the planning, design, construction, administration, study, evaluation, consulting, or other professional and technical support services furnished in connection with any actual or proposed construction, improvement, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, management, relocation, demolition, excavation, or other facility, land, air, water, or utility development or improvement.

(4) “Design professional” means an individual or entity licensed by the state who holds a current certificate of registration under chapter 481 to practice architecture or landscape architecture, under chapter 472 to practice land surveying and mapping, or under chapter 471 to practice engineering, and who enters into a professional services contract.

(5) This section does not affect contracts or agreements entered into before the effective date of this section.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2000-162; s. 11, ch. 2001-211.

Thus, the Courts will not enforce certain contracts unless the parties have executed them in writing, and the Legislature considers certain provisions in contracts unenforceable as a matter of law because they prejudice or violate people’s rights. Frankly, I do not see what this has to do with loan modifications unless a lender idiotically imposes one upon a borrower without the borrower’s signature.

I am not a lawyer, but as I see it, the court takes mandatory judicial notice of all laws including the statute of frauds, and a judge’s failure to apply it to the other facts of the case constitutes reversible error. So I don’t know why Keating threw out this red herring. As a matter of history, many people have become incredibly stupid in managing inability to pay mortgages timely. They fall for servicer suggestions that they not pay the mortgage for three months in order to qualify for a loan mod. This violates the mortgage note terms and justifies initiation of the foreclosure process. Servicers have foreclosed on many notes in this crooked manner. Servicers or lenders or mortgage brokers have also forged borrower signatures on many loan modification documents and stuck borrowers with a loan to which they did not agree. Borrowers have no choice but to capitulate or challenge the forgeries and breaches of good faith in court, and most haven’t the money to raise such a challenge.

End of My Keating Comments Analysis

At the above point I have stopped in my analysis of Jean Keating’s comments on the Ralph Winterrowd radio show. I find Jean personable and affable, and I like him. But he’s a fast talker who quotes and cites laws the way he might his teenage memories, and most people cannot keep up with him OR vet his assertions. So I have spent my morning doing just that, and I have found them erroneous or red herrings lacking in substance, up to the point where I ended my analysis. I encourage extreme caution when listening to Jean Keating. I have shown above how he has made misleading assertions. Possibly everything he propounds suffers from similar problems.

Why Foreclosure Defense Makes ZERO Sense

Foreclosure defenders, whether non-lawyer free-lance self-appointed gurus like Jean Keating, or the attorneys who pay for glitzy ads, border on committing legal malpractice, in my non-lawyer opinion. They merely take the foreclosure victim’s money (which the victim should have paid to the lender/servicer) and drag out the foreclosure while running up legal fees, interest, and related costs which the foreclosure victim will have to pay ultimately. Meanwhile, the foreclosure defender does not bother examining the mortgage and underlying documents and circumstances for evidence showing the lender or lender agents cheated the client. And therein lies the malpractice. Someone goes to a lawyer saying “BOA accused me of breach of contract and wants to foreclose.” What should the lawyer do? Examine the note, mortgage, loan application, appraisal, and every single paper associated with that deal so as to build a case for the client against the lender.

Instead, the pretender defender only looks at flaws in the FORECLOSURE, not in the mortgage. But the defender knows well that disputing foreclosure flaws only delays the inevitable, and the foreclosure always goes through, and the client always loses the house. Meanwhile, the pretender defender pockets $10,000 to $30,000 while the foreclosure slogs its way to completion. No foreclosure pretender-defender ever got the client’s house free and clear. Well, it has happened, but only with extreme rarity.

Why a Competent Mortgage Fraud Examination Makes PROFOUND Sense

In many if not most cases, the victim should get the mortgage examined for torts, breaches, and legal errors (including mortgage broker fraud and appraisal fraud), and then hammer the lender for a cash award or house free and clear in a lawsuit or settlement. Failing the discovery of causes of action, the victim should negotiate a keys for cash deal, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or short sale, and RUN from the overvalued house. Why? Because most houses have collapsed to an “under water” value lower than the loan balance. The homeowner’s investment has gone bad and the homeowner with good sense will abandon it if the lender won’t forgive the debt.

Securitization Audits: WORTHLESS for Foreclosure Defense – Get a Mortgage Exam Instead.

If you have a mortgage, whether or not you face foreclosure, CALL OR WRITE ME for guidance as to HOW to get the examination done. And for GOD’s sake, DON’T waste your precious money on a securitization audit.

WARNING: No, I’m not a lawyer, don’t have a law license, don’t practice law, don’t give legal advice. I’m just a student and commentator. Consult a competent attorney on any questions of law. Be sure to demand a competence guarantee, and strict accounting of all charges, fees, and work done. Pay money on account only against services, NOT for a retainer of any kind. Consider everything I have written above as an academic exercise, and not advice for you or anyone else.


Bob Hurt

Contact: Email bh f t
Blogs: 1 2 3
Law: E-letter Subscribe Donate Learn
2460 Persian Drive #70, Clearwater, Florida 33763 •
727 669 5511


From: warrior7 []
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 5:47 PM
To: Bob Hurt

On 11/21/2012 5:28 PM, Bob Hurt wrote:

I’d love to read an executive summary. I don’t have the patience to listen to them.


Bob Hurt

Contact: Email bh f t
Blogs: 1 2 3
Law: E-letter Subscribe Donate Learn
2460 Persian Drive #70, Clearwater, Florida 33763 •
727 669 5511


From: warrior7 [mailto:warrior7]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 11:05 AM
To: bob

Jews pushed around for belief in God or the Bible, or for racial bigotry?

Ben commentedI don’t like getting pushed around for being a Jew and I don’t think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians.

As I see it intolerant people push Jews, Christians, and Muslims around for the same reason. That reason has nothing to do with believing in God. It has everything to do with the associated dogma-driven bigotry derived from ancient writings loaded with errors. Jews, Christians, and Muslims shove the dogma, derived from their “Holy” scriptures, down the throats of their children, scaring them half to death in the process, and giving them a HORRID concept of God as a result.

Judaism Jews don’t proselytize much outside their families. They act as though they don’t want non-Jews in their religion. THAT attitude alienates many non-Jews, and it raises a sticking point about Judaism: what does “Jew” mean?

Does “Jew” mean “born to a Jewish mother?” Or does it mean “believes Jewish religious philosophy and the practices of Judaism? Or both? The fact that no clear meaning exists causes much confusion and resentment in the minds of non-Jews.

Christians and Muslims want to convert the whole world to embrace of their dogmas. That causes resentment in people of intelligence who find serious fault with their religious texts.

Americanist bible scholar Thomas Paine documented a vast array of inconsistencies and inaccuracies of the Pentateuch (the base religious text of Judaism) and Bible (the base religious text of Christians) in his three-part book Age of Reason over 200 years ago. And modern science has utterly disproven the Creation myth that Christians and Jews insist their children believe in defiance of common sense.

Christians also believe the pagan-origin religious philosophy of the so-called apostle Paul. He pronounced that God ordered the human-sacrifice death of his only-begotten son Jesus of Nazareth to atone for the sins of God’s other children, and that whoever did not believe it would burn in hell for eternity. He maintained the people who did not accept the notion of Jesus’ sacrificial death could not have relationship with God, in spite of the fact that Jesus openly encouraged his followers to pray directly to God.

Logical, thinking truth-seekers find the human-sacrifice concept abhorrent and inconsistent with the nature of a wise and loving Heavenly Father which Jesus of Nazareth taught about throughout his public ministry.

But the absurdities of similar beliefs within the dogmas of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity so alienate many intelligent people that they turn away from religion altogether in favor of hard core agnosticism or atheism, or they gravitate toward Buddhism which does not endorse a concept of a single personalized God.

Such is the damage human-origin religious dogmas have done to the spread of the God concept on our planet. Yes, the world has a billion Muslims, two billion Christians, and a billion or more polytheists because people naturally crave to know God and become like him. But the dogmas of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have actually driven away many of the more intelligent and logical in utter and unsalvable frustration.

Why unsalvable? Because NO religion exists on planet Earth that will satisfy their craving for logic and common sense. So they have dispensed with it altogether in their lives. And many Christians have abandoned their faith for similar reasons of gross dissatisfaction with logically untenable doctrines.

I can think of only one other reason that people would want to “Push others around for being Jews”: the traditional iconic avarice and arrogance of Jews toward non-Jews. Possibly this derives in part from the high average intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews coupled with their clannish endogamy intended to preserve that intelligence. Most people know of the one parable of Jesus that highlighted this tendency toward an attitude of racial superiority – the Good Samaritan story.

The temple rulers and Hebrew clerics interpreted the word “neighbor” as “fellow Jew” so as to exclude gentiles from the embrace of these scripture about God’s greatest commandments:

  • Deuteronomy 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
  • Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

In Luke 10:25 et seq., a Sanhedrin lawyer intended to trick Jesus into blaspheming against the official Jewish interpretation of the word “neighbor” in the above scripture to mean “fellow Jew.” He knew Jesus had taught that we should love all people as brothers and sisters, and Jesus asserted that was the proper meaning of “neighbor.”

25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
8 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

Jews had traditionally hated Samaritans for 400 years for giving quarter to the army of Alexander the Great during its march through the area. Jesus used this for dramatic effect in answering the lawyer with the Good Samaritan story.

Yes, I Speak TWEET

I just found out that WordPress tweets all the articles I publish to my WordPress blog:


That means ALL of you can follow me at

If you do, you can see the headlines at a glance at twitter, and get a ding on your smart phone too. It makes searching easier if you use them as a reference.

Hey, I can use more Twitter followers, anyway. Tell your friends and neighbors