Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
Rusty

Homeowners Issue three raised on appeal stated:

 

"BY FAILING TO PRESENT EYIDENCE OF ITS PRINCIPAL'S

RATIFICATION OF ITS ACTS, RCS FAILED TO PROVE ITS

STANDING"

 

After lengthy briefs and oral argument the Appellate Court (in less than one week time after oral argument):

 

"Affirmed" w/out comment!

 

Hope this is not a silly question but: In reference to the issues raise and the briefs submitted Is there any significance or can one take anything when 'issues' on Appeal are Affirmed w/out comment?



Quote 0 0
Brent
Quote:

Homeowners Issue three raised on appeal stated:

 

"BY FAILING TO PRESENT EYIDENCE OF ITS PRINCIPAL'S

RATIFICATION OF ITS ACTS, RCS FAILED TO PROVE ITS

STANDING"



What case?  Where was this decision handed down?
Quote 0 0
Rusty
Of course the second dca FLORIDA!

link: http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/pca.pdf

Listing of "ALL" Briefs plus the trial transcript at this link:

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2012/11/bombshell-stuff-video-playback-of-oral-arguments-before-the-second-district-court-ahmsi-v-hassell/


Quote 0 0
Marshall

Quote:
Hope this is not a silly question but: In reference to the issues raise and the briefs submitted Is there any significance or can one take anything when 'issues' on Appeal are Affirmed w/out comment?


What the Court is saying when it affirms without a written opinion is that the issues in the appeal are so clear and stark as well as amply addressed in prior written decisions that the matter doesn't even warrant the energy of writing an opinion.

They are basically saying that the appeal is devoid of any legal merit and is a complete waste of time.  They are also implicitly saying that Matt Weidner is an incompetent and mediocre attorney whose claim to fame is that he is a loudmouth who makes a lot of noise to drum up new business for his defensive foreclosure mill, but that he actually never can make a winning case.

The decision is a rather stark repudiation of the argument that Mike H. keeps telling everyone is a "sure thing" that notes are not negotiable.

A per curium affirmance such as this one also essentially deprives the appellant of any opportunity to appeal.  Typically, one appeals an appellate decision to have the higher court review an erroneous decision as to the law.  Without a written opinion, the Supreme Court must essentially affirm the appellate court decision if there is any legal theory that would support the appellate court's decision.

The appellant cannot economically write a Supreme Court petition for appeal because there is no identifiable basis for the appellant to ascribe error.

Basically, the 2nd District Court of Appeals is telling Weidner to stop wasting everyone's time making frivolous legal arguments.  If he brings a similar appeal again, he may be subject to sanctions.

The great news for the swindlers is that this will all be easily misunderstood.  They can circulate some Weidner's arguments and briefs and claim that the basis for their swindle is sound.  No one will ever find, read and understand the simple per curium affirmance.   To the extent that someone does read the decision, these judges will be accused of corruption.  This is always the answer whenever a decision goes against the swindle.  This sort of decision ultimely helps keep the scam going and helps the swindlers to rip off distressed borrowers for additional millions of dollars. 

If you are visiting the Weidner web site to learn about foreclosure defense, then you are completely wasting your time, because that guy doesn't have a clue about how the UCC works.  All Florida judges realize that he is simply a complete buffoon who is a cult here only to the gullible who have bought into the myths perpetrated by the swindlers.

Quote 0 0
Ned
So this is the decision of the 2nd DCA in Hassell v. Residential Credit Solutions, Inc., 2D12-2013?  I heard that this was the big case that was going to prove once and for all that promissory notes are not really negotiable.  How will this effect my Quiet Title suit?
Quote 0 0
Rusty
Marshall, I totally agree with you,"because that guy doesn't have a clue about how the UCC works", that is the reason that I specifically addressed the "third" argument that I thought he had a chance to, in the minimum, force a response from the court. 
Quote 0 0
It was a bad decision by three judges as a matter of law but I think it's a wake up call that we have to do more to educate judges throughout the country by not retaining these judges in states where they are elected. 

There is a signifant case on ERISA before the US Supreme Court. If the court rules in favor of USAirways, Americans will have a rude awakening.  I have known the US Supreme Court was headed in that direction for 25 years but could never figure out why other Americans couldn't see it.  This case will wake them up.  Just as in the Florida case there is a silver lining and that silver lining means that citizens will pay attention.  We can't go any lower.  Once Americans realize our courts have been taken over by corporations they will begin to work on changing it.

Florida's citizens have a lot of waking up to do if they want to gain back their rights in that state.  Why on earth would you re-elect a county clerk that did nothing to help homeowers and stop the fraud instead of someone knowledgeable about the fraud that would have worked to stop it. The citizens have to demand more from the elected officials in the state and those that appoint these judges.  This is what you get when you don't understand the consequencies of elections. 



Quote 0 0
Oscar
Quote:
So this is the decision of the 2nd DCA in Hassell v. Residential Credit Solutions, Inc., 2D12-2013? I heard that this was the big case that was going to prove once and for all that promissory notes are not really negotiable. How will this effect my Quiet Title suit?


So this is an appeal of the Hassell decision?  That is actually really funny.  That disturbed woman Ann used to tell us that everyone should use Matt Weidner because he is some sort of genius.  And she posted model pleadings from the Hassell case telling everyone that this was the best possible defense.

Then, Forum seniors, including ka who no longer posts here, took Hassell and Weidner apart.

Take a look at these posts from earlier this year:

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1272662413&postcount=2
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1272671638&postcount=5
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1272677389&postcount=11

These are within this thread:

Mattweidner Esq. gift to you - Foreclosure Defense pleadings
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=4835206



See also J's posts in this thread.

Basically, the seniors at this Forum predicted that Hassell would lose and noted that Weidner was making the legally incorrect arguments.  Why then should we now be surprised that both the trial court and three appellate judges on the 2nd District Court of Appeals agree?

And why would we accuse these judges of corruption or erroneous thinking when they ruled precisely as the seniors predicted they should and would almost a year ago?
Quote 0 0
James
Quote:
There is a signifant case on ERISA before the US Supreme Court. If the court rules in favor of USAirways, Americans will have a rude awakening. I have known the US Supreme Court was headed in that direction for 25 years but could never figure out why other Americans couldn't see it. This case will wake them up. Just as in the Florida case there is a silver lining and that silver lining means that citizens will pay attention. We can't go any lower. Once Americans realize our courts have been taken over by corporations they will begin to work on changing it.


Did you notice that we just had a national election and that the public re-elected the guy who orchestrated the cover-up of the mortgage fraud?  What are you smoking?  What is the possible basis for any assertion that somehow the public cares or would possilby be enraged by a court decision?  You think anybody cares that the Hassell case was affirmed without comment?  Get a life!
Quote 0 0
James wrote:

Did you notice that we just had a national election and that the public re-elected the guy who orchestrated the cover-up of the mortgage fraud?  What are you smoking?  What is the possible basis for any assertion that somehow the public cares or would possilby be enraged by a court decision?  You think anybody cares that the Hassell case was affirmed without comment?  Get a life!


For thirty years we have been electing politicians that have been appointing corporatist judges.  It can't be turned around in one election cycle, it is going to take three or four but it is happening. 

For those of you that are interested in honest dialogue watch the new Chris Whalen and what an expert is saying. He has recently changed his tune. 

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/?s=whalen&.x=0&.y=0

Quote 0 0
     Actually, the plaintiff in this case conceded that the "Fannie Mae" adjustable rate Note was not
a negotiable instrument by recording an "assignment of the mortgage" after the case was filed. Had
plaintiff's attorney Ron Gache believed it was a "negotiable instrument", there would have been no
point in filing with the Court below, a certified copy of the assignment of the mortgage.
     The real issue in this case, was whether or not the plaintiff owned the "obligation" at the inception
of the case. The defense attorney, Matt Weidner said no because the "assignment" was done after
the filing of the case. The plaintiff attorney said yes and presented a witness to testify that the
plaintiff was in possession of the "obligation" several months before the case was filed.
      At that point, Mr. Weidner objected that the witness's testimony was "hear say" because the
"business records" had not been entered into evidence before she testified. However, the Note itself,
was the "key business record" and it had been entered into evidence before she testified, so the
Court below denied Mr. Weidner's objection. The three DCA judges affirmed on this issue.
      So this whole case was really about "Standing" at the inception of the case. It had nothing to
do with whether or not the note was negotiable. This latter issue was "moot" because the plaintiff
had filed the assignment of the mortgage. Thus the Note and mortgage were in fact transferred together
as required for a "non negotiable" note.
      The third issue: whether a servicer must identify the principal for whom they are servicing the
"obligation" was also "moot" because the servicer claimed to own and hold the Note and mortgage,
therefore, the servicer was in effect servicing the obligation for itself.
       In my opinion, this whole appeal was much ado about nothing. The real issue should have been
whether or not the Note submitted into evidence was the "real" Note, or a COUNTERFEIT COLOR
PHOTOCOPY as in so many other cases when there is a blank endorsement on the Note.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...