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
j
I owe this to Mr. William A. Roper Jr:

link to the complete thread: Judicial Admissions -- Exhibits Control Over Allegations In Pleadings: Khan v Bank of America.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/110194102

http://www.scribd.com/doc/110194376
Quote 0 0
Eugene
It is appalling that the site administrator removed this very critical thread to please the banks or the swindlers that advertise here. Bless you for re-posting that.

If we could even have back one half of the posts by Mr. Roper which were deleted by the site administrator, it could save countless homes. Anyone who reads this thread can easily see why Mr. Roper stopped posting here.
Quote 0 0
Bob
This apparently is a strategy that is legally valid and actually works. No wonder the site administrator deleted the thread.
Quote 0 0
$&?!
On Quasi Admissions

"Although this is a matter of first impression in Rhode Island,[4] the issue has been thoroughly discussed in other jurisdictions and by text writers.  When a pleading is amended, the superseded portion disappears from the record as a judicial admission limiting the issues and putting certain facts beyond dispute.  Nevertheless, the original pleading remains a statement once deliberately made by the party.  See 4 Wigmore, Evidence § 1067 at 88 (Chadbourn rev.ed.1972).  According to the great weight of authority, the original pleading is admissible for impeachment purposes even though it has been abandoned or amended.  See, e.g., Wiseman v. Reposa, 463 F.2d 226, 227 (1st Cir. 1972) (per curiam); Foster v. Feder, 135 Colo. 585, 587, 316 P.2d 576, 578 (1957); Carlson v. Fredsall, 228 Minn. 461, 472, 37 N.W.2d 744, 751 (1949); Stoelting v. Hauck, 32 N.J. 87, 107, 159 A.2d 385, 395 (1960); Moore v. Drennan, 269 Or. 189, 192, 523 P.2d 1250, 1252 (1974); Monaco v. Gula, 407 Pa. 522, 524, 180 A.2d 893, 894 (1962); 4 Wigmore, § 1067 at 88-95; Annot., Evidence-Admission in Pleading, 52 A.L.R.2d 516 (1957).  The pleader is always able to offer an explanation to the trier of fact why the complaint was amended.  In essence, the rule permitting the liberal amendment of pleadings allows a litigant to change horses in midstream but does not relieve him of the burden to show why it was necessary to do so.  We believe that the majority view is well founded.  Other prior inconsistent statements are routinely admitted to impeach declarants.  There is no sound reason why such statement made in a pleading in a civil action should not also be available for impeachment purposes, particularly in light of the good-faith requirement imposed upon all pleadings by Super. R.Civ.P. 11."
Gormley v. Vartian, 403 A. 2d 256 (RI 1979)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5792298357863920782
Quote 0 0
banned
nice find! tu
Quote 0 0
Scott
The case Raulie v. United States also supports the proposition that a preceding pleading may be introduced as evidence to impeach an allegation appearing in a superseding pleading:

[i]Raulie v. United States, No. 9145, 400 F. 2d 487, 526 (10th Cir. 1968)[/b]
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6780901418142592810

There are actually many, many cases which support this doctrine, which like Mr. Roper's suggested identification of the attachment of an exhibit as a judicial admission is universally accepted, mainstream American law. As far as I know, there are no contrary cases.

It is very obvious that the scam artists are suppressing this defense because it might cut into their profits. Sale of bogus "securitization audits" and useless "quiet title" materials is a source of many millions in prefits for the scam artists. They throw corrupt site administrators a few advertising dollars to keep defendants confused and in the dark about what really works so they can continue to prey upon the naive.
Quote 0 0
Colin
Take a look at:

20 Am.Jur., Evidence, §631
Quote 0 0
Colin
Also read:

[i]Fruco Constr. Co. v. McClelland, 192 F.2d 241, 245 (8th Cir.1951), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 945, 72 S.Ct. 558, 96 L.Ed. 703 (1952)[/b]
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1302238572567547466
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...