For those who know the basis of the foreclosure fraud taking place in the US, and elsewhere, the following will be a ray of hope.
Granted the court system is a mafia run private corporation. But even within that organization, there are human beings who can choose to act honorably. It appears that a landmark decision in Nebraska took place recently. This is in relation to Promissory Note Assignment, which under equity law, requires the wet ink signature of the borrower in order to be binding. And in the vast majority of assigned notes, they do not have consent from the borrower and are fraudulent. The courts have ignored that fact and allowed servicers (third parties who purchase the Note from the originator) to foreclose without explicit consent from all parties.
This recent case does not question that aspect, however claims that the recording of the Note into the MERS system never actually took place. The Prosecution attempted to dismiss the case based on prior court decisions allowing the use of MERS, but the judge denied the motion. Opening the door for an investigation, revealing the securitization fraud taking place.
This has the potential to be a huge disclosure for the people. Clearly the scope of the fraud goes much deeper than this, but this can be used to help crack open the minds of the public who blindly accept the justice system’s authority. The mortgage industry is fraud layered upon fraud, and until the people realize this and issue non-consent on masse, it will continue via acquiescence. Like the Libor scandle, its one more straw on the back of the sleeping masses, help share this with others, and if you are in foreclosure, look into how you can use this case to possibly stay a decision from the court.
Source – Foreclosure Defense Nationwide
LANCASTER COUNTY, NEBRASKA DISTRICT COURT DENIES BANK OF AMERICA’S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, QUIET TITLE, ACCOUNTING, CONVERSION, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
April 23, 2015
A District Court Judge in Lancaster County, Nebraska has denied Motions to Dismiss filed by Bank of America which were directed toward the homeowner’s claims against BOA and the alleged substitute trustee for declaratory relief, quiet title, accounting, conversion, and injunctive relief. The homeowner is represented by Jeff Barnes, Esq. and local Nebraska counsel Doug Ruge, Esq. Mr. Barnes prepared the Complaint; Mr. Ruge prepared the Brief in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.
The Court entered a narrative order which made a very important specific finding and legal distinction. The Order recites that the homeowner is not asserting that the holder of the Note and DOT could not assign them, but rather that she is questioning whether what was done actually accomplished that goal. The case involved an alleged MERS assignment. The Court held that the homeowner is entitled to a determination that the party to whom she pays is the party to who she owes the money, and that the other causes of action spring from the possibility of a finding that the defendants are not the proper parties to proceed with the foreclosure.
This is a very significant ruling. It distinguishes the bank and servicer mantra that borrowers do not have standing to challenge assignments (which, by the way, they do pursuant to the recent Slorp decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit which clarified their prior opinion in Livonia Propertieswhich the 6th Circuit held “confounded courts and litigants” across the country).
The Court’s reasoning provides a sound basis for the assertion of an action for declaratory relief and all of the other causes of action alleged while also clarifying an important legal distinction as to a challenge to an alleged transfer of a Note and DOT.
Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com