I’m sitting in a room with about a hundred of the best foreclosure attorneys from all across the country. Bright minds, brilliant thinkers, intense and committed people who are dedicated not just to passionately defending their individual cases, but to making right and fixing an entire legal, financial and political system that is grievously broken.
As foreclosure cases now move into trials, the real question develops whether we are going to protect our long-developed rules of evidence and substantive law or we’re going to flush hundreds of years of rules on evidence and procedure down the toilet. We’re either going to enforce consistent rules about who can testify and continue to require witnesses to have personal knowledge and confirm that documents and evidence and records are accurate and authentic or we’re all going to stand beside and allow false evidence and impermissible testimony from witnesses to be part of our court system….goodbye Due Process, goodbye the Rule of Law, hello Legal Anarchy! And because this is indeed happening all across the country, the question is:
How did we all sit back and actively participate in the destruction of our nation’s legal system?
Because if you sit in foreclosure courtrooms and watch these files move through the system, you are watching what was the world’s most respected legal system be destroyed.
The biggest lie that persists across this nation is the bankster attorneys waving around a blank endorsement on a promissory note and claiming this gives them the right to come into court and take our homes.
THIS IS A LIE. A VICIOUS, MONSTROUS LIE THAT LIES AT THE HEART OF THE DESTRUCTION OF FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR NATION’S LEGAL SYSTEM
Warriors need to fight every single foreclosure case and push back against this anarchy…..
Some details behind this from Max Gardner’s Bootcamp:
Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code carries forward and codifies venerable commercial law rules developed over several centuries during which negotiable instruments played a much different role in commerce than they do today. As stated by Grant Gilmore, Article 3 is not unlike a ” museum of antiquities “” a treasure house crammed full of ancient artifacts whose use and function have long since been forgotten.” Grant Gilmore, Formalism and the Law of Negotiable Instruments, 13 Creighton L. Rev. 441, 461 (1979). His following quotation is apt and often-repeated: ” codification . . . preserve[d] the past like a fly in amber”.
In addition, Article 3 does not purport to govern completely the manner in which those ownership interests are transferred. For the rules governing those types of property rights, Article 9 provides the substantive law.17 UCC § 9-109(a)(3) (Article 9 ” applies to . . . a sale of . . . promissory notes“). Article 9 includes rules, for example, governing the effect of the transfer of a note on any security given for that note such as a mortgage or a deed of trust. As a consequence, Article 9 must be consulted to answer many questions as to who owns or has other property interest in a promissory note. From this it follows that the determination of who holds these property interests will inform the inquiry as to who is a real party in interest in any action involving that promissory note.
Obstacles to Negotiability of Residential Mortgage Notes
Max,
I am the Plaintiff/Creditor with New Century/Ocwen in DE bankruptcy court. My pretrial hearing is in May 2012. Can I handle this myself?
Big guns from Madison Ave and the judge is none to happy with the pro se folks. Also, have a federal Case in Wilmington, NC on this end.
Also, can I file a claim on my title insurance?
Any advice would be helpful, I’m running out of gas…PLEASE, Chris
Thank you for sharing this important analysis. I have stopped referring to mortgage notes as promissory notes because the term promissory notes implies negotiability. I also take the position that Article 9 applies to the transfer of the mortgage notes between the buyer and seller of the note, but does not alter the application of the Statute of Frauds vis a vis the homeowner. With the collapse of MERS in one of the states where I practice (and MERS “Rule 8”) the robo-signing of mortgage assignments out of MERS has stopped, leaving a hole in the chain of title. A declaratory judgment finding that an entity is entitled to equitable assignment of the mortgage security should be required. I believe that asking to hold the claimant to the proof under Article 9 will lead the courts to the correct result. There was no true sale in the securitization process, no holder in due course, ergo, no equitable assignment. This information will be extremely helpful.