Bank Of America has been ordered to stop all foreclosures in Nevada a non-judicial state.
The judge ruled they can only foreclose with a judges order, which is only for judicial state foreclosures. The non-judicial states do not need court orders for foreclosing, the companies can simply foreclose after advertising the foreclosure for 4 weeks.
The non-judicial foreclosure states will have law firms and companies which represent the banks and become the trustees for foreclosing. In Nevada that firm seems to be ReconTrust, which handles the foreclosures for banks.
By a lawsuit going against ReconTrust who is handling foreclosures in Nevada for banks, hopefully all foreclosures will have to be stopped, not just Bank of America's foreclosures.
It is amazing how people think the foreclosure crisis is behind us and it is all straightened out, because MSM does not mention it anymore. Yet there is more going on then ever before and more and more rulings FOR THE PEOPLE by judges. Some judges still rule for the banks, but I would think in appeals, the correct ruling by law will have to be applied and thus it should be for the homeowner. I linked a New Jersey ruling below, which was for the bank, yet it went against all laws and rights.
Portion:
John Christian Barlow, a lawyer who represents North, said the lawsuit claims ReconTrust doesn’t have the authority to foreclose on homes in Nevada. Bank of America and other banks use ReconTrust to seize homes in Nevada, he said. Barlow said he will seek class-action, or group, status for the lawsuit.
In Tennessee and Arkansas I know it is a law firm named Wilson and Associates who become the trustee and substitute trustee to foreclose on people for the banks.
Every state is different and what is a shame is a judge in New Jersey is allowing foreclosures when the note is not available, which says who is owed the debt. I certainly hope the people appeal this ruling by that judge. As that goes against all laws and rules of foreclosures.
. . .
ReplyDeleteIn the BoA v. Alvarado case, read decision here:
https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/decisions/BOA_110112.pdf
It is important to make several observations:
1. ALL of the “players” in the case, Plaintiff attorney, Defendant Attorney, and the judge, are ALL LAWYERS.
Christopher Ford, Counsel for Plaintiff
Adam Deutsch, Counsel for Defendant
MARY F. THURBER, Judge
2. The judge tortured the meaning of unjust enrichment to mean that Alvarado would receive a windfall with respect to BoA.
3. No mention was made of the actual amount paid by BoA for the Alvarado so-called “account.” (probably fractions of a cent on the dollar).
4. Alvarado’s BAR-fly lawyer gave her up by ADMITTING to an unsubstantiated obligation that was only evidenced by a PHOTOCOPY
5. Alvarado’s BAR-fly lawyer gave her up by ADMITTING for her that a PHOTOCOPY of her autograph was actually her autograph, (see paragraph 2, page 1 of Thurber’s “decision,” more like a “fix’).
6. Alvarado’s BAR-fly lawyer NEVER objected to the OBVIOUS fact that a PHOTOCOPY of Alvarado’s autograph is a COUNTERFEIT, FORGED, PHOTO-SHOPPED, and FRAUDULENT.
7. Alvarado’s BAR-fly lawyer never approached the fact that the so-called “creditors” NEVER produced any of their own money as a so-called ‘LOAN,” and now claims that Alvarado wishes to take advantage of a “windfall” unjust enrichment.
8. The BAR-fly judge Thurber, never considered the validity of the so-called assignments, just declaring them to be valid without evidence of any validation.
9. BAR-fly lawyers and the BAR-fly judge, ADMIT that the so-called original “creditor,” who NEVER risked any money at all, transferred (SOLD) the ORIGINAL promissory note and mortgage agreement into a securitized “pool.” (See 1st paragraph at top of page 2 of Thurber’s decision.)
10. The BAR-flys fail to get into the amount of money that was paid to the so-called "original creditor," when SOLD to WaMu. After the SALE of the instruments, which is a transfer, the so-called "original creditor" did NOT have the right to enforce the instrument. See UCC 3-309
(a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if
(1) the person seeking to enforce the instrument
(A) was entitled ** to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or
(B) has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred;
(2) the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person . . .
Uh ohh.
11. Alvarado’s BAR-fly lawyer betrayed her by ADMITTING to the terms of a contract that could only be proved to exist by a PHOTOCOPY of a writing which is a COUNTERFEIT, FORGED, PHOTO-SHOPPED, and FRAUDULENT.
12. Alvarado’s BAR-fly lawyer was obviously incompetent, and was in total collusion with the other two BAR-flys, (the BAR-fly judge and BAR-fly for plaintiff), in setting up the case.
13. Additionally, the UCC does NOT cover negotiable instruments that have been SECURITIZED and traded in the stock market. Other law overshadows the UCC when there is a conflict of jurisdictions. Securities laws are applicable. None of the BAR-flys in the Alvarado case even go near this issue.
14. I would be willing to say that Alvarado’s BAR-fly lawyer NEVER asked any revealing questions in discovery.
Alvarado’s BAR-fly lawyer is a SKUNK. An animal that will piss on you when you least expect it.
This is what happens when you trust a BAR-fly lawyer-liar-attorney.
There is a lot more to this case that is NOT discussed here.
The Alvarado case file will reveal the magnitude of her betrayal.
This case isn't over yet.
. . .
. . .
ReplyDeleteAccording to BAR-fly judge Thurber, BoA need NOT produce proof of existence of an ORIGINAL note!
We don’t need no stinkin’ note!
Washington Mutual Bank even claimed to have “lost” the note immediately after execution, created an Affidavit of Lost Note, (AoLN) and sold THAT (the AoLN) in a “pool.”
They actually SOLD something that could NOT be proved to have ever existed.
This is getting G-O-O-D!
Just sell an affidavit that swears that the Affidavit IS the promissory note & mortgage agreement, and that the buyer is actually buying a promissory note and mortgage agreement (or something) by buying the affidavit.
Hey, Wall Street criminal, here's my affidavit swearing that I lost a $50,000 Federal Reserve Note. This Affidavit is now the $50,000 note. I'll sell you this affidavit for $40,000, and you go cash the affidavit (which is the note) at the Federal Reserve Bank.
Is that "down the rabbit hole?" or not?!
The banks are in a state of extreme desperation. As well they should be.
I am of the opinion that the BAR-fly judge Thurber has been eating a mixture fruit-loops and bat manure.
. . .
How will this affect the way Recontrust does business in California? Any insight or opinions?
ReplyDeleteYo Sherrie Questioning All!
ReplyDeleteDo you also wish to know the 9/11 truth?
Here it is: This is the truth - The WTC was destroyed by 3 thermo-nuclear explosions.
It's all covered in this interview with Dimitri Khalezov, a former officer of the Soviet nuclear intelligence unit.
Sites:
http://www.disclose.tv/forum/dimitri-khalezov-wtc-nuclear-demolition-full-playlist-t21675.html
http://www.youtube.com/user/DimitriKhalezov?feature=mhum
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/dropbox/Dimitri_Khalezov_Book_Third_Truth_911_free_11chapters.pdf
http://www.danielestulin.com/wp-content/uploads/11septemberthirdtruthenglishnexus.pdf
http://www.911thology.com/forum/index.php/board,27.0.html
Hint: The interview is in 26 parts and lasts over 4 hours. Check out parts 4, 14, 24 and 25 first before watching the whole interview.
Part 4 tells you of the NUCLEAR demolition scheme of the WTC.
Part 14 tells you what happened to WTC-7 which fell 24 mins after the BBC announced its collapse.
Parts 24 & 25 is about the radiation sickness of the WTC responders.