Receive News from Operation Disclosure via Email

Guest Posting

If you wish to write a post/article on Operation Disclosure all you need to do is send your entry to UniversalOm432Hz@gmail.com applying these following rules.

The subject of your email entry should be: "Entry Post | (Title of your post) | Operation Disclosure"

- Must be in text format
- Proper Grammar
- No foul language
- Your signature/name/username at the top

Send your entry and speak out today!

News Alerts

RV/INTELLIGENCE ALERT

NO ALERTS AT THIS TIME.

FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE RV VISIT:
http://www.dinarchronicles.com/intel

---

Featured Post

Restored Republic via a GCR Update as of Dec. 6 2016

Source: Dinar Chronicles Restored Republic via a GCR Update as of Dec. 6 2016 Compiled in the early morning hours (EST) of 6 Dec. 2016 by ...

Monday, May 16, 2016

Bankster Mortgage Fraud, Everyone is Pointing a Finger

Angelini v. HSBC USA, N.A. | FL 4DCA - Bank here failed to introduce evidence that it held (through the possession of the blank-indorsed paper) the note, as opposed to merely owned the note, when the foreclosure complaint was filed.

Over the past several months, one of the newer arguments challenging foreclosure by borrowers is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government actors, and therefore, they may not foreclose by advertisement because doing so violates borrowers’ due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. As our readers are aware, on September 6, 2008, the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorships. As Conservator, FHFA “immediately succeed[ed]” by operation of law to “all rights, titles, powers, and privileges of [Fannie Mae]” and was empowered to “take over the assets of and operate [Fannie Mae] with all the powers of the shareholders, the directors, and the officers of [Fannie Mae] and conduct all business of the regulated entity,” and to “perform all functions of [Fannie Mae] in [Fannie Mae’s] name.” 12 U.S.C 4617(b)(2)(B). Essentially, borrowers argue that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are subject to constitutional claims as a government actor because they were placed into conservatorship by the FHFA. 


Dykema has continued to obtain successful results obtaining dismissal of these claims, arguing that underLebron v. National Passenger Railroad Corporation, 513 U.S. 374, 115 S. Ct. 961, 130 L. Ed. 2d 902 (1995), neither Fannie Mae nor Freddie Mac are government actors for constitutional purposes, as they are both private corporations, and the FHFA’s conservatorship does not give the federal government permanent control over either entity. See, e.g. Fannie Mae v Manglos, unpublished opinion of ED Mich, issued Jan 14, 2013 (Case No. 2:12-cv-13618), Moon v. Freddie Mac, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals dated April 18, 2013 (Docket No. 311330, lv den December 23, 2013 (Docket No. 147182), Fannie Mae v. Jenks, No. 13-15-AV, (slip op.) Ingham County, July 31, 2013, Fannie Mae v Everingham, No. 13-430-AV (slip op.) Ingham County, January 14, 2014. And while none of these cases are binding on any Michigan court, after receiving a ruling at the circuit court level that Freddie Mac was a governmental entity who cannot foreclose pursuant to Michigan’s foreclosure by advertisement statute, Dykema convinced the Michigan Court of Appeals to entertain an application for leave to appeal, which is currently awaiting oral argument and an opinion. Fed Home Loan Mortg Corp v Kelley, No. 315082, Mich Ct App (Application For Leave to Appeal granted Oct 11, 2013).


CASE DECISIONS REGARDING PROOF OF CLAIM

CASE DECISIONS:
Patton v. Diemer, 35 Ohio St. 3d 68; 518 N.E.2d 941; 1988). A judgment rendered by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is void abinitio. Consequently, the authority to vacate a void judgment is not derived from Ohio R. Civ. P. 60(B), but rather
constitutes an inherent power possessed by Ohio courts. I see no evidence to the contrary that this would apply to ALL courts.

“A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court unless he has, in an individual or a representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of the action. Lebanon Correctional Institution v. Court of Common Pleas 35 Ohio St.2d 176
(1973).

“A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court unless he has, in an individual or a representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of an action.” Wells Fargo Bank, v. Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285,200 hio-4603,897 N.E.2d
722(2008). It went on to hold, ” If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law”

(The following court case was unpublished and hidden from the public)
Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). “Wells Fargo does not own the mortgage loan… Therefore, the… matter is dismissed with prejudice.”

(The following court case was unpublished and hidden from the public)
Wells Fargo v. Reyes, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). Dismissed with prejudice, Fraud on Court & Sanctions. Wells Fargo never owned the Mortgage.

(The following court case was unpublished and hidden from the public)
Deutsche Bank v. Peabody, 866 N.Y.S.2d 91 (2008). EquiFirst, when making the loan, violated Regulation Z of the Federal Truth in Lending Act15 USC §1601and the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act 15 USC §1692; "intentionally created fraud in the
factum" and withheld from plaintiff… "vital information concerning said debt and all of the matrix involved in making the loan".

(The following court case was unpublished and hidden from the public)
Indymac Bank v. Boyd, 880 N.Y.S.2d 224 (2009). To establish a prima facie case in an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff must establish the existence of the mortgage and the mortgage note. It is the law's policy to allow only an aggrieved person to bring a lawsuit . . . A want of "standing to sue," in other words, is just another way of saying that this particular plaintiff is not involved in a genuine controversy, and a simple syllogism takes us from there to a "jurisdictional" dismissal:

(The following court case was unpublished and hidden from the public)
Indymac Bank v. Bethley, 880 N.Y.S.2d 873 (2009). The Court is concerned that there may be fraud on the part of plaintiff or at least malfeasance Plaintiff INDYMAC (Deutsche) and must have "standing" to bring this action.

(The following court case was unpublished and hidden from the public)
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co v.Torres, NY Slip Op 51471U (2009). That "the dead cannot be sued" is a well established principle of the jurisprudence of this state plaintiff's second cause of action for declaratory relief is denied. To be entitled to a
default judgment, the movant must establish, among other things, the existence of facts which give rise to viable claims against the defaulting defendants. “The doctrine of ultra vires is a most powerful weapon to keep private corporations within their legitimate
spheres and punish them for violations of their corporate charters, and it probably is not invoked too often…” Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First National Bank,103 Wis. 125,79 NW 229(1899). Also see: American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 181 Wis. 172, 194 NW 427(1923).

(The following court case was unpublished and hidden from the public)
Wells Fargo v. Reyes, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). Case dismissed with prejudice, fraud on the Court and Sanctions because Wells Fargo never owned the Mortgage.

(The following court case was unpublished and hidden from the public)
Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). Wells Fargo does not own the mortgage loan. "Indeed, no more than (affidavits) is necessary to make the prima facie case." United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d, 526 (7th Cir. 1981).

(The following court case was unpublished and hidden from the public)
Indymac Bank v. Bethley, 880 N.Y.S.2d 873 (2009). The Court is concerned that there may be fraud on the part of plaintiff or at least malfeasance Plaintiff INDYMAC (Deutsche) and must have "standing" to bring this action.

Lawyer responsible for false debt collection claim Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,15 USCS §§ 1692-1692o, Heintz v. Jenkins,514 U.S. 291; 115 S. Ct. 1489, 131 L. Ed. 2d 395 (1995). and FDCPA Title 15 U.S.C. sub section 1692. In determining whether the plaintiffs come before this Court with clean hands, the primary factor to be considered is whether the plaintiffs sought to mislead or deceive the other party, not whether that party relied upon plaintiffs' misrepresentations. Stachnik v. Winkel,394 Mich. 375, 387; 230 N.W.2d 529, 534 (1975).

"Indeed, no more than (affidavits) is necessary to make the prima facie case."United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d, 526 (7th Cir. 1981). Cert Denied, 50 U.S. L.W. 2169; S. Ct. March 22, (1982).

“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” U.S. v. Tweel,550 F.2d 297(1977).

“If any part of the consideration for a promise be illegal, or if there are several considerations for an un-severable promise one of which is illegal, the promise, whether written or oral, is wholly void, as it is impossible to say what part or which one of the considerations induced the promise.” Menominee River Co. v.Augustus Spies L & C Co., 147 Wis. 559 at p. 572;132 NW 1118(1912). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr.C.D. Cal. 2008). Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006). MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note. Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, 289 Kan. 528,216 P.3d 158(2009).

“Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-260(b) allows relief from a judgment based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence that could not have been timely discovered with due diligence; fraud or misrepresentation; a void judgment; a judgment that has been satisfied, released, discharged, or is no longer equitable; or any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The relationship that the registry had to the bank was more akin to that of a straw man than to a party possessing all the rights given a buyer.” Also In September of 2008, A California Judge ruling against MERS concluded, “There is no evidence before the court as to who is the present owner of the Note. The holder of the Note must join in the motion.” LaSalle Bank v. Ahearn, 875 N.Y.S.2d 595 (2009). Dismissed with prejudice.

Thanks Howard for your inspiration to me to be an eternal student of the law

Shoutbox Disclaimer

Please be advised that the Shoutbox is NOT moderated. Use it at your own will.

Note: The Shoutbox is home to a rare species called "Carlos Marine" aka "zeusisback". Please don't feed.