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
Interestingly enough my hubby brought me the mail today. Something must be going on. I got an ORDER FROM THE COURT TODAY.... So I wonder what the hell this means. I thought my case was over when the judge I felt DENIED ME MY RIGHTS IN COURT...

The undersigned having determined that she should disqualify herself from this proceeding pursuant to 28U.S.C.$ 455(a),  IT IS HEREBY ORDERED  that the undersigned United States District Judge is disqualified from handling any further matters in this case. ]

Signed by the same Judge who DENIED us our rights. I just don't understand why this came out. I didn't put in anything with the courts to receive an order on this. So I'm kinda blown outta the water on this.

Here's what it said about the code on the order:

§ 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Now this is by the Chief United States District Judge here in St. Louis. So now I'm trying to get PACER back up and running. But I find it kinda mind blowing. So now what do I do? First she DENIED us our RIGHTS. Now outta the blue she's disqualifying herself. Shouldn't she have done this before she ever made a decision to Deny us our rights?
Quote 0 0
Interesting...judges usually recuse themselves because there is a current or potential conflict of interest in the case they are assigned to hear.

This may mean that this judge has a vested interest in whatever company you are fighting. Related to someone within the company, stock holdings in the company, something of that nature.

If you can find out what the conflict is you may be able to refile whatever matter you felt you were denied justice in if the conflict existed at that time.

Yes, she should have disqualified herself before she was hearing these cases. You would be amazed at how many judges are hearing cases where these conflicts exist; they keep them secret and plow right on ahead. Looks like someone may have uncovered a secret and confronted her with it....

These judges are not part of the solution; they are part of the problem.

Quote 0 0
Thanks Arky,

I found out that this Judge has also reassigned my case. I just don't get it... I've lost my home and been told I basically am a POS. Now this Judge seems to want to bring it back to life by reassigning it to another Judge. So what gives? Now this Judge is a lower ranking Judge in the same District. Things that make you go Hmmm...


On January 8, 2009, United States District Judge Carol E Jackson,

entered an order of recusal that directs the Clerk of Court to reassign the above styled cause to

another Judge of this Court.


IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above styled cause is randomly reassigned

to UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Charles A. Shaw for all further proceedings.

January 8, 2009 JAMES G. WOODWARD, CLERK


By: /s/ Kara Scheele

In all future documents filed with the Court, please use the following case number:

4:08cv1201 CAS.

Quote 0 0
The Equitable One
I don't know exactly what it means, but it sounds like a potential opening for you. 

Drive on in.
Quote 0 0
 Well I found out last night another judge has now recused himself from my case as well. Then today I got a cancellation of debt notice from HOMEQ. The ones who've already been proven to have NO STANDING AT ALL....

What a nightmare of bs....Any advice?


Quote 0 0
Ksu wrote:
 Well I found out last night another judge has now recused himself from my case as well. Then today I got a cancellation of debt notice from HOMEQ. The ones who've already been proven to have NO STANDING AT ALL....

What a nightmare of bs....Any advice?



A "cancellation" of debt notice?  Perhaps HOMEQ doesn't want to defend their status as a creditor in the case any more, which (and this IS NOT legal advice) implies they figured out someone else is the party in interest - OR they have actually sold it and no longer count it as a debt. The thing to worry about here is the tax implications from forgiven debt.

Two recusals is unusual but not impossible but they can't go on forever. Judges have bosses too and if a party stays on top of their case there are avenues to prevent it being stalled via not being able to find a Judge.

Just my thoughts.


Quote 0 0


I don't know how they can sell something they've never been able to prove who owns.

As far as their two now recusals I've put them to the test. And tested their IMPARTIALITY. That they never give us HOMEOWNERS a CHANCE in COURTS.
Plus what I've filed is the COUNTERCLAIM against the SR. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE here in St. Louis. For a violation of my civil rights. For whatever reason they think its APPROPRIATE to not be able to get any help in fighting THE MORTGAGE MOBSTERS.

It wouldn't of been filed against the BK judge but he and the Trustee for whatever reason DISSUADED my BK Atty from doing my ADVERSARY. That or he thought it was better to keep working with a Chp 7 Trustee and representing the CROOKS. The Judge didn't even make the other side have to ANSWER the ALLEGATIONS. I would consider that a VIOLATION of DUE PROCESS. So now in my counterclaim they just don't know what to do but RECUSE themselves. They REFUSE to ACCEPT my information as TRUTH vs. MERE ALLEGATIONS. FACTS that THEY REFUSE to INVESTIGATE.

Its pretty interesting and unfortunate. They've removed pages from my complaints in both the adversary and civil suit. If there was something they didn't like they could of just marked through it but to remove PAGES. Come ON!

Then the JUDGE SUA SPONTE RECUSED AND DISQUALIFIED HERSELF. i BELIEVE for VIOLATION of JUDICIAL ETHICS. IN which rather your suppose believe you got JUSTICE out of the JUSTICE SYSTEM instead of BS.

MYSELF while some can question me I don't. I BELIEVE if I was told by my EMPLOYER THAT I HAD THE RIGHT TO SELL MORTGAGE NOTES FOR ONE OF THE BIGGEST BANKS IN THE WORLD THEN FOUND OUT THEY LIED THEY SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LYING TO ME! Cause they involved me in something I wouldn't of been involved in had they not LIED TO ME.

I also believe if someone HABITUALLY BUYS defaulted debts then breaks the law in doing collections then comes back to sue the bank they should be stopped. Found out the B**** I lost my job over not only made $170 k out of Chase she possibly also got another $350k out of them. Then as well she has sued various entities only with ONE FOCUS HER POCKETBOOK and what she can do to LINE IT.

So YES I'M FIGHTING THEM. I need the BANKERS they have available. I WANT TO COLLECT MY BILL!!!! lol lol...if they give me banker I go away with MONEY to really get Help for HOMEOWNERS! Just trying to even the PLAYING FIELD. How can I pay my BILL IF THEIR ALL CORRUPT?

The only way I see their not CORRUPT is IF they ACTUALLY INVESTIGATE what I TELL them otherwise their CORRUPT! I sure in the HELL don't have anything to gain by telling them LIES! They could put me in JAIL for that. As I said before BERNIE MAD MONEY is just the TIP OF THE ICEBERG!


Quote 0 0
ksu courts and judges don't investigate anything and they will strike frivolous stuff from the record. And you can't sue a judge.

What bill are you trying to collect?

Quote 0 0

Usually you would be right. However, they can be sued in their personal and official capacity. Also, they said it was frivolous and I thought were going to just close it they didn't. Their the one's who have revived it and recused it not me.

As far as the BILL I'm trying to COLLECT how about all the homeowners that've lost their home due to their CORRUPTION? If I WIN IT'LL HELP HOMEOWNERS...US that NEED THE HELP! NOT THE BANKS WHO ROBBED AND STOLE WITH THE INTENT TO STEAL!

Quote 0 0
Here's this info as well:

United States
The impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist presiding. The House managers are seated beside the quarter-circular tables on the left and the president's personal counsel on the right, much in the fashion of President Andrew Johnson's trial.

Similar to the British system, Article One of the United States Constitution give the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try convictions. Unlike the British system, conviction requires a two-thirds vote.

[edit] Impeachable offenses

In the United States, impeachment can occur both at the federal and state level. The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may only be impeached and removed for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". [2] Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes an impeachable offense.[citation needed] In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford defined the criteria as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."[3] Four years later, Ford would become president when President Richard Nixon resigned under the threat of impeachment.

Article III of the Constitution states that judges remain in office "during good behaviour", implying that Congress may remove a judge for bad behavior via impeachment. Whether this is the only method available to remove judges is a subject of controversy.[citation needed] The House has impeached 13 federal judges and the Senate has convicted six of them.[4]

[edit] Officials subject to impeachment

The central question regarding the Constitutional dispute about the impeachment of members of the legislature is whether members of Congress are "officers" of the United States. The Constitution grants the House the power to impeach "The President, the Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States." [2] Many believe firmly that members of Congress are not officers of the United States.[5] Others, however, believe that members are civil officers and are subject to impeachment.[citation needed]

The House of Representatives did impeach a senator once[6]: Senator William Blount. The Senate expelled Senator Blount and, after initially hearing his impeachment, dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction.[7] Left unsettled was the question whether members of Congress were civil officers of the United States. The House has never impeached a member of Congress since Blount. As each House has the authority to expel its own members without involving the other chamber, expulsion has been the method used for removing Members of Congress.

Jefferson's Manual, which is integral to the House rules, states that impeachment is set in motion by charges made on the floor, charges preferred by a memorial, a member's resolution referred to a committee, a message from the president, charges transmitted from the legislature of a state or territory or from a grand jury, or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House. It further states that a proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business.

[edit] Process

The impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass by a simple majority articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. This may include the impeachment of the vice president, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of someone other than the President), the duties would fall to the President pro tempore of the Senate.

In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. Conviction by the Senate does not bar criminal prosecution. Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to impeach to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote "guilty", the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

[edit] History of federal impeachment proceedings

Congress regards impeachment as a power to be used only in extreme cases; the House has initiated impeachment proceedings only 62 times since 1789 (most recently against President Bill Clinton), and only occupants of the following 16 federal offices have been impeached:

  • Two presidents:
    • Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 after violating the then-newly created Tenure of Office Act. President Johnson was acquitted by the Senate, falling one vote short of the necessary 2/3 needed to remove him from office, voting 35-19 to remove him.
    • Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives on articles charging perjury (specifically, lying to a federal grand jury) by a 228–206 vote, and obstruction of justice by a 221–212 vote. The House rejected other articles. One was a count of perjury in a civil deposition in Paula Jones's sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton (by a 205–229 vote) and an article which accused Clinton of abuse of power by a 48–285 vote. The Senate fell short of the necessary 2/3 needed to remove him from office, voting 45-55 to remove him on obstruction of justice and 50-50 on perjury.
  • One cabinet officer, William W. Belknap (Secretary of War). He resigned before his trial, and was later acquitted. Allegedly most of those who voted to acquit him believed that his resignation had removed their jurisdiction.
  • One Senator, William Blount (though the Senate had already expelled him).
  • One Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Samuel Chase in 1804.
  • Twelve other federal judges, including Alcee Hastings, who was impeached and convicted for taking over $150,000 in bribe money in exchange for sentencing leniency. The Senate did not bar Hastings from holding future office, and Hastings won election to the House of Representatives from Florida. Hastings's name was mentioned as a possible Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, but was passed over by House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, presumably because of his previous impeachment and removal. Source U.S. Senate

Many mistakenly assume Richard Nixon was impeached. While the House Judiciary Committee did approve articles of impeachment against him and did report those articles to the House of Representatives, Nixon resigned prior to House consideration of the impeachment resolutions and was subsequently pardoned by President Ford.

Quote 0 0
I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish, ksu. Ed is right, you can't sue a judge acting in their official capacity. Congress can impeach a judge but that's something only they can do.

And you can't sue on behalf of someone else, so the collection of a bill for everyone else doesn't make sense.

I'm sorry but it's kind of hard to understand what you're doing and what help you're asking for.


Quote 0 0
I know it seems hard to understand what I'm attempting to do or who I'm attempting to help. However, in relation to the Disqualification of Judge and such I found this. I thought it was interesting.

Disqualification or “recusal” is the principal statutory method of dealing with
potential conflicts of interest of an executive branch officer or employee, whereby
the officer or employee is prohibited from participating in any particular official
governmental matter in which that official, or those close to the official whose
financial interests may be “imputed” to the official, has any financial interest. While
the statutory provision requiring disqualification is a criminal provision of law, and
covers only current or existing financial interests of the officer or employee, there is
also a “regulatory” recusal requirement that may apply to certain past affiliations and
previous economic interests. Such recusals may be required in particular matters
involving specific parties when organizations, entities, or clients with which the
federal official had been associated during the previous one-year period are or
represent parties in those matters. Additionally, executive branch regulations also
provide for a two-year recusal requirement barring an official in the executive branch
from participating in a particular matter in which a former employer is a party (or
represents a party) when that former employer had made an “extraordinary payment”
to the official prior to entering government. Aside from the specific regulatory and
statutory restrictions and requirements on past associations and employments, there
is no general regulation or standard on possible or perceived “philosophical” or
“ideological” biases which a federal regulator or administrator may allegedly have
on a subject because of the past affiliations or previous employments or professional
activities of that official.

Here's the full 22 page doc I found it under.

Quote 0 0
ksu wrote:
I know it seems hard to understand what I'm attempting to do or who I'm attempting to help. However, in relation to the Disqualification of Judge and such I found this. I thought it was interesting.

Disqualification or “recusal” is the principal statutory method of dealing with
potential conflicts of interest of an executive branch officer or employee, whereby
the officer or employee is prohibited from participating in any particular official
governmental matter in which that official, or those close to the official whose
financial interests may be “imputed” to the official, has any financial interest. .....

Judges are not part of the executive branch.


Quote 0 0

I found an interesting case covering recusal down in Louisana. So I thought I would post the reads here. From what I'm finding the more you prove they've acted IMPARTIAL in their treatment of you the better chance you have to get someone JUDICIALLY REVIEW the actions that have been taken against you.

While this case I'm showing the opinions on isn't per say a RE matter it revolves around proper treatment in the courts.

Now if you actually took the time to read these I realize in my case I've not been made aware of any such hearings on recusal. Now mind you the case was filed as a Civil Rights Violation. Then the second judge went on with DENYING ME MY RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS.  Then came back and sua ponte recused and disqualified herself. The next judge recused as well.

I believe the CONFLICT OF INTEREST discussed could be a lot of variable things.

1) The first two judges are both Chief District Court Justices

2.) I've proven they acted in an IMPARTIAL/BIASED way BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

3. MY suit isn't about acting in a vindictive way. Yes there are circumstances beyond my control. That the way I structured my information means the JUDGES were BEYOND CONTROL in executing their foreclosure against me.

4.) That the MTV I filed wasn't so FRIVOLOUS. Which I guess now depending on how our JUDICIARY acts will see how my case turns out.  

5.) While I don't have a LAW degree I've obviously made clear who I AM. Regardless, of them removing pages of an adversary that my attorney, trustee didn't follow thru on due to the DISUASION of the judge. That they WORK for us PEOPLE instead of LIP SERVICE.

I think the info I provided is a good SHOCK AND AWE to what’s happening in the vast markets today. This is listening to everyone else instead of US. I OBVIOUSLY hit a few nerves with the knowledge I gave them. I just want to make sure these JUDGES are acting IMPARTIALLY or get out of MY court. WE obviously see what has happened since they have been given free REIGN over us. We've been dutiful CITIZENS just to be STRIPPED of OUR RIGHTS. For the sake of their HIGH AND MIGHTIES.

That THEY are no different from US. If they try to say I'm VINDICTIVELY coming after them I can Strike that as well. ESPECIALLY considering all the PEOPLE I'll have to back me up. Which will probably be every homeowner in AMERICA.

That we are AMERICANS and WE CAN CHANGE the WORLD if WE TRY. That regardless of nationality or race if we strive for RIGHTEOUSNESS FOR ALL we might finally get some cooperation.  
Not just some Critic calling us low life’s for circumstances one can't always control.


Then I just found this article tonight:

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...