So the Amicus that is attached here is undoubtedly technically flawed in many different ways, and it does indeed stray off in several different areas, but I love the simple message that it conveys….ordinary Americans suffer while the banks sit on top of mountains of our cash, cash they stole from the American people, with the consent and conspiracy of “our” government.
This 49 State Attorney General Sellout will forever be one of the darkest days in our nation’s history. It represents the formal consecration of the white collar criminal oligarchy that rules our nation today…and has for years now.
This agreement both confirms all their wrongdoing…then affirms that very conduct, providing to each bank otherworldly payoffs for their crimes.
The nation’s biggest banks have been permitted to moonwalk away from our generation’s most pervasive crime spree….with no consequence whatsoever.
When the youth of America, and the rest of this nation, finally wake up and realize just how grossly we’ve all been abused…there will be a day of reckoning.
REJECT AND RECONSIDER THE 49 STATE AG PAYOFF
© 2026 WeidnerLaw. Design by OPM
Eric Holder negotiated this. He is a REPUBLICAN…In the eary 1980’s he was appointed to the federal bench by Reagan.
Then he moved to work in the Bush II justice dept. He supports those who have and not those who have not. Its in his DNA…why
are so many people ignorant of who this guy is and more importantly why did Obama bring this guy on…just to reach across the isle?
Based on results, this guy has been a disaster..its like Bush’s third term.
The Amicus Brief/Motion to Reconsider is very nicely done by the homeowner, but we all know that it cannot succeed. But there is an alternative valuable use of the Consent Judgment in United States of America. et al. v. Bank of America, et al. Case Number 12-cv-361 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
I think that we can use the approved Consent Judgment to show that every ongoing foreclosure effort based on false and forged documents is a sanctionable offense, under the Consent Judgment, per Exhibit E. What are the bank lawyers going to argue to the courts? That they are allowed to consciously steal homes up to the allowed 1% of the loan portfolio? That is an awkward argument, to say the least.
I recently asked the 4th Judicial District Court of Appeals in Wisconsin to take judicial notice of the Consent Judgment in this case as proof that the 5 banks (one of which is a Respondent on appeal) admit that they are taking homes without standing, by using forged documents to do so. Since it was only my own personal case, which I had been fighting since 2003 and still have not discovered the “real party in interest,” I could afford to take the risk of losing the appeal for not filing the Reply Brief timely by asking that the Court of Appeals take judicial notice of the Consent Judgment and to rule on the judicial notice request, so that I could rely on it (or not mention it) in the Reply Brief.
I am asking the Court of Appeals to consider the implications of the Consent Judgment entered on April 4, 2012 and approved by Judge Collyer on April 5, 2012, in addressing the Respondent’s insistence in its Brief that the Court of Appeals should ignore the fabricated documents in the trial court record on April 13, 2012 (nine days later.) What led me to seek the judicial notice on appeal was that the Respondent argued that I believed that there was a vast conspiracy to take my home. I never argued that there was a vast conspiracy to take my home, but stated that there has been an operational business plan to take countless US homes using forged and fabricated documents to make it appear that the 5 banks in the Consent Judgment have standing to do so, when they do not. (This same business plan is used by other foreclosure claimants not named in the Consent Judgment, such as US Bank, Deutsche Bank, Indymac via the FDIC to OneWest Bank, etc.) The extent of the business plan is just beginning to be revealed and has taken us years to discover, by unraveling each relationship between the parties to securitization trusts, once they are able to be discovered. Whether the forgeries are created at Bank of America’s document fabrication units (formerly BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP) in Texas and California, or at Wells Fargo in Minneapolis, or at GMAC Mortgage, LLC in Pennsylvania, or at the law offices of foreclosure mills (using the fake MERS signing officer status prior to July 21, 2011 when MERS withdrew its absurd signing authorizations to anyone who paid $25.00 for the authority) or any combination of these devices, the plan is the same. And it has to stop. These are crimes, as we know and are not to be treated as matters of factual dispute in the civil court proceedings. When the criminal has access to the creation of evidence, the burden is too great on the individual homeowner to prove the crime. The Consent Judgment admits the crimes, and even obtains marginal permission to continue to commit the crimes (1% of the portfolio) where 5 banks are concerned. This is a place where we don’t want to be: among the 1% faux error rate.
Anyone who is being foreclosed with forged and fabricated judgments by Wells Fargo, Bank of America, CitiBank, JPMorgan Chase or GMAC/Ally after April 4, 2012 should use the Consent Judgment as an admission against penal interest that these 5 banks have been and are continuing to steal US homes without standing to do so. The Consent Judgment should be put to good use, despite its flaws–it is an admission of criminal conduct in our court processes. Whereas the 5 banks sought to limit their civil liability for these routine acts from January 1, 2009-February 8, 2012, they have admitted their crimes. We have been preoccupied with the obvious flaws in the settlement terms, but we need to use the admissions contained in the Consent Judgment as a conclusive evidence of the business plan to use forgery, perjury and fraud in the judicial process to take US homes, when the issues arise on evidence of false paperwork in each case.
The position I took before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals was that whatever they choose to do with my appeal, for the sake of all homeowners in the State of Wisconsin, the Court of Appeals should be aware of the operational business plan to take homes by foreclosure judgments in Wisconsin courts. It is not, I have argued, a matter of the homeowner wanting a “free house” by seeking the proper application of the Rules of Civil Procedure, contract law and equity, Uniform Commercial Code and the Statute of Frauds. It is a matter of the banks wanting a “free house” by committing crimes in the Wisconsin courts in order to create the false appearance of standing take a home in which they have no provable financial interest.
I respectfully suggest that all homeowners in judicial states with proof of forged, fabricated and falsified documents involving any of the 5 banks (and even if you have US Bank or Deutsche Bank, you will find a connection to one of the covered 5 banks as depositor, custodian, underwriter, counterparty, etc.) immediately ask the courts to take judicial notice of the Consent Judgment in which the foreclosure proceeding is pending to prove that crimes are indeed being committed in the court proceedings.
I do not have enough knowledge of nonjudicial foreclosure states, but I suggest that those in foreclosure by advertisement or by power of sale states should seek injunctive relief against the sale if they can. I am aware that both Minnesota and Arizona have appellate court decisions which try to exclude homeowners from being parties with standing to question the sales of their homes but I believe that if a crime can be shown to have been admitted, the courts of those states should take action to stop a crime in progress. The very notion that once a homeowner is declared to be in default (which defaults are frequently engineered by servicer greed and perverse incentives) that they should lose their homes to “whatever” bank seeks to exercise a power of sale or foreclose by advertisement due to the homeowner’s “lack of standing” to contest the remedy must now be attacked with the admission of the crime spree in the Consent Judgment. Even in Minnesota and Arizona, I have to believe that homeowners have standing before a state court to urge the court to stop a crime in progress in the attempt to steal their homes. The problem is in identifying the parties to the transactions which are covered by the Consent Judgment in those states where even a “ham sandwich” can foreclose.
The Consent Judgment of April 4, 2012, approved by Judge Collyer on April 5, 2012, stands as an admission by 5 banks (usually servicers acting as and through document fabricators) that crimes have been committed, are being committed and will continue to be committed unless the courts dismiss foreclosures based on crimes committed in the judicial process or otherwise enjoin continuing criminal activity.