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
Texas
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11103769371036248478&q=44+U.S.+534&hl=en&as_sdt=2,44

versus

https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/44/44.US.534.html  (identical to Westlaw version)

Why is there a difference?
Quote 0 0
Brad
Yeah, I read Texas' case, too. It clearly doesn't support his argument and he seems to be relying upoon arguments actually rejected by the Supreme Court. Maybe Texas was drunk when he read this decision.
Quote 0 0
Bob Schmidt
Persons,

Texas helped break this fraud.  It could be, like myself, that he filed long ago.  I filed June 6, 2006.  I was way ahead of the curve & I lost.   

Like Texas, I'm still working to get our rightful home back.

You folks are learning from what we and others worked night and day to expose and understand.

Best,
Bob
Quote 0 0
Ben Tuey

thanks Texas for 'starting' this thread ... one of the 'few' threads that have provided helpful info ... & discussion!/jl

Quote 0 0
Liz
Quote:
thanks Texas for 'starting' this thread ... one of the 'few' threads that have provided helpful info ... & discussion!/jl


The thanks are due Thad for posting the clear, well articulated answer. While it is good that Texas posed the question, unquestionably that the answer wasn't already obvious to Texas exposes the shallowness of Texas' understanding about the law.

Of course, this doesn't make Texas a bad person. But for Texas to be posting various assertions as fact or precriptions which he identifies as important or enduring legal principles is certainly wrong. Hopefully, next time there is a discussion and Texas doesn't actually know the answer, perhaps he can pose a well thought ought question rather than a legally erroneous statement which purports to be the answer.

There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know". This is far better than asserting that one does know or asserting certainty when one hasn't made a thorough investigation or lacks the knowledge, skill or training to give a correct answer.

In fact, the ability to step back away from the questions where one lacks expertise is what usually distinguishes the true scholar from the pretender.
Quote 0 0
Texas
In Westlaw version of State v. Baltimore & O.R. Co.;Supreme Court of the United States January 1, 1845 44 U.S. 534 the following words appear noted number of times:

crime - 1 time in the body of the opinion
commit - 2 times in the body of the opinion
void - 5 times in the body of the opinion

Nowhere do these words appear in the Westlaw Headnotes.

Love word crafting games, nice try...

One golden rule, know the answer to the question before you ask the question.
Quote 0 0
Matthew
Quote:
In Westlaw version of State v. Baltimore & O.R. Co.;Supreme Court of the United States January 1, 1845 44 U.S. 534 the following words appear noted number of times:

crime - 1 time in the body of the opinion
commit - 2 times in the body of the opinion
void - 5 times in the body of the opinion

Nowhere do these words appear in the Westlaw Headnotes.


Texas asks a question and Thad gives the clearly correct answer. Others point out that Texas' question exposes Texas to be a Charlatan.

The gracious thing would be for Texas to recognize his error and to accept that he has learned something useful from Thad. Instead, what we get from Texas is denial.

As Thad explained, in older published decisions a summary of the facts by the publisher and/or a summary of the arguments appearing within the parties' briefs are included. These are not a part of the court's decision.

Even without Thad's thoughtful explanation, this is obvious to any thinking person. In the case cited by Texas, the actual decision begins with the words "Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court."

Thus, the tabulation given by Texas is not merely erroneous, but rather blatantly misleading. The FULL TEXT of the actual opinion is given at the Google Scholar presentation of the decision:

[i]State of Maryland v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 44 U.S. 534, 3 How. 534 (U.S. 1845)[/b]
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11103769371036248478

When reading the decision in LEXIS or WestLaw, the distinction between the synopsis of facts and issues, the briefs and the decision itself is less readily apparent, but is quite conspicuous when reading the formatting within the published report of the deccision. The images from the reported decision are avaialable, as predicted by Thad, at Google Books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=_HU-AAAAYAAJ&dq=%22State%20of%20Maryland%22%20%22Baltimore%20%26%20Ohio%20Railroad%22%20%22Supreme%20Court%22&pg=PA534#v=onepage&q&f=false

Volume 44 of the United States Reports decisions series was authored by Benjamin C. HOWARD and published in Philadelphia by "T & J. W. Johnson, Law Booksellers"

http://books.google.com/books?id=_HU-AAAAYAAJ&dq=%22State%20of%20Maryland%22%20%22Baltimore%20%26%20Ohio%20Railroad%22%20%22Supreme%20Court%22&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q&f=false

As is clear from the formatting and any ordinary reading of the case by a person of average intelligence, the material appearing at pages 534 through 548 of the published report on the case, up through the words "Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court", were written by the author of the Reporter, Mr. Benjamin HOWARD. The actual decision begins following the identification of the author of the opinion.

The distinction is also clear from the Justia presentation from the decision:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/44/534/case.html

When completing the tabulation proposed by Texas as to word counts using the text of the decision rather than the editorial comments by Mr. HOWARD, the tabulation comes out like this:

crime - 0 times in the body of the opinion
commit - 1 time in the body of the opinion
void - 1 time in the body of the opinion

The latter term appears ONLY within this sentence:

"Undoubtedly, if the money was due to Washington county by contract, the act of 1840, which altogether takes away the remedy, would be inoperative and void."

The language which Texas cites in support of his argument came not from the decision, but rather from the synopsis of the argument of one of the parties and this analysis was clearly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court within the decision itself!

Not only is Texas quoting material which does not appear within the decision, but he takes rejected language completely contrary to the holding and the context of the decision. [i]This would be considered [u]misconduct if presented by an attorney within argument or a brief.[/i][/b]

*

Texas has exhibited himself not merely to be ignorant of the law and lacking in common sense, but the most recent post suggests that he is also [i]dishonest. Shame on you, Texas!! This Forum deserves better![/b]
Quote 0 0
Chas
I am also deeply troubled and embarassed by Texas' posts in this thread. He had led us to believe that he was a close personal friend of Mr. Roper's. And Texas seemed to know a lot about the UCC. Instead of manning up and admitting his mistake, Texas has now gone into full throttle trying to justify his mistake apparently to save face.

I remember seeing a few posts where Mr. Roper made a mistake and he quickly and openly admitted it. Mr. Roper is a man of integrity. Texas is showing that he is not. What a disappointment!
Quote 0 0
Bart
I think Texas was probably drunk when he posted that. When he sobers up he will come clean. Texas is a good man. He just doesn't understand the law that well.
Quote 0 0
Vin
Quote:
I think Texas was probably drunk when he posted that. When he sobers up he will come clean. Texas is a good man. He just doesn't understand the law that well.


Texas is in complete denial not only about the outcome of his own case, but also as to the law. He is unable to read and understand even the most basic case law or decisions. When the holdings conflict with his flawed world view, he just tunes out the reality and wraps himself in his delusional caccoon. This is tragic.

Those who have engaged in battles with the banks often have experiences that can give others real insight. Some learn both from their successes and their mistakes and share their experiences with fellow borrowers. Others become angry and seem to want injure anyone and everyone. For people like Mike H., this involves swindling other people and profitting as he speeds the loss of their homes. Others like Texas conceal their mistakes and pontificate, pretending to have expertise and causing harm by spreading disinformation. Of course, swindlers like Mike H. are far worse than those merely in deep denial who are only subconsciously causing harm.

Mike belongs in prison. Texas needs a good psychologist and treatment.
Quote 0 0
Kevin
Quote:
Texas is in complete denial not only about the outcome of his own case, but also as to the law. He is unable to read and understand even the most basic case law or decisions. When the holdings conflict with his flawed world view, he just tunes out the reality and wraps himself in his delusional caccoon. This is tragic.

Those who have engaged in battles with the banks often have experiences that can give others real insight. Some learn both from their successes and their mistakes and share their experiences with fellow borrowers. Others become angry and seem to want injure anyone and everyone. For people like Mike H., this involves swindling other people and profitting as he speeds the loss of their homes. Others like Texas conceal their mistakes and pontificate, pretending to have expertise and causing harm by spreading disinformation. Of course, swindlers like Mike H. are far worse than those merely in deep denial who are only subconsciously causing harm.

Mike belongs in prison. Texas needs a good psychologist and treatment.


Comparing Texas and Mike H. is just wrong. It is like comparing Marie Osmond and Adolph Hitler.

Marie may know nothing about foreclosures or the law, but she is harmless and is simply eager to perform and relish the opportunity to entertain and be a subject of adulation, like Texas. Mike H. is sinister and evil. He sold his soul to Satan and works to being about the everlasting reign of the Anti-Christ.

We know that Marie Osmand cannot really sing, but we do not hate her for it. Everyone is correct to hate Mike H. and all of the evil he stands for.
Quote 0 0
Andy
I agree with Bob Schmidt. Texas is good guy. When he is sober and he re-read this thread, he will realize he make a mistake and he will "man up".
Quote 0 0
$&?!
I am sorry to learn of Texas' adversity in the Texas courts.  Texas is far more knowledgeable than most regarding the UCC, but seems to have a rather shallow understanding of other aspects of the law.  But as already pointed out in some of the more acerbic posts by others, happily he is not a scoundrel and has the best interests of distressed borrowers at heart. 

I, too, am disappointed that Texas hasn't realized and appreciated the error of his interpretation of the ancient Supreme Court case.  The analysis of others is correct that the U.S. Supreme Court did not embrace the holding regarding voidness that Texas seems to have erroneously taken from this case.

In any event, God Bless Texas and his family!
Quote 0 0
Joseph
You are wrong about Texas. He will never admit it when he is wrong.

Texas would rather leave erroneous information in place and have hundreds of borrowers lose their homes than to suffer the embarassment of admitting that he didn't understand that case and had no idea whatsoever what he is talking about.

Texas doesn't really care about borrowers. He only cares about showing off and pretending to know about matters he doesn't actually understand.
Quote 0 0
Barry
Quote:
You are wrong about Texas. He will never admit it when he is wrong.

Texas would rather leave erroneous information in place and have hundreds of borrowers lose their homes than to suffer the embarassment of admitting that he didn't understand that case and had no idea whatsoever what he is talking about.

Texas doesn't really care about borrowers. He only cares about showing off and pretending to know about matters he doesn't actually understand.


I hate to admit it, but you seem to be correct. Texas has nothing but contempt for borrowers. He posts only to inflate his self-image and will never admit that his posts are mostly hot air.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...