Bagels at a Bar Mitzvah

freedomwon

LoanSafe Member
Oct 30, 2010
2,794
23
38
California
Hi Tarin - Thanks for pointing out there may be other strategies to invoke. Regardless of strategy, in Ca. it will run 5-8K to start & could run up 25-50k in legal fees by the time all is said & done & still no guarantee I would win. Be certain you speak to a competent attorney in Real Estate Law & feel comfortable that you're getting a REALISTIC & honest assessment of what to expect.

Have you shopped it to any Law Firms who would take your securitization fraud case on a contingency basis?
I have not approached it from that perspective. That, is a good idea. I will inquire about that. Most attorneys in Ca know what the judges rulings have been in these type cases. I'd be surprised if I found one to take the case on contingency. But, I'll never know if I don't ask.
 
Last edited:

nugirl

LoanSafe Member
Jan 24, 2011
125
0
16
Los Angeles, California
all in one division of the court. That's where I was heading with that idea.[/QUOTE]
Hi,
Would you happen to be referring to the "at law" and "private" sides? Or perhaps, chancery?
I filed a complaint and a lis pendens back in July in State Court. In August, I successfully obtained a 2 month TRO (temporary restarining order) in order to halt a trustee's sale. 2 days before the hearing for a Preliminary Injunction (which is a premanent restraining order) the defendants strategically removed my case to federal court. Which meant everything in state court was vacated including TRO. I re-filed an emergency TRO along with a motion to remand back to state court. The TRO was denied and my house was sold on 11/14 at the auction. It went back to the servicer (Aurora). My motion to remand was granted on 12/7. I am still in my house and I plan on fighting until there is no more fight in me.
Freedomwon, I don't know your story that well. For some reason I picture you with small children. But I KNOW you have what it takes to represent yourself. Representing yourself is very challenging and it does take over your life. You can become consumed. In the midst of this hell, I have found my passion in life. I know that what I have done so far would have cost thousands of dollars, although I have saved money it has cost me time. Fotunately, I'm self-employed, single, my daughter is in college and THANK GOD, I live only 20 minutes from both the state and federal courts. In stating that, I have the freedom to pursue this wholeheartedly. For those of you who are not in a position similar to mine, representing yourself may not be worth it. But, I do encourage everyone to stand up and fight for what you believe in. If we all pooled together our wisdom, knowledge and resources we could cause some damage.
 
Last edited:

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,797
250
83
North bay
Hi Freedonwom,
Still looking forward to seeing your latest, the Plan. Meanwhile, I have something you might want to add to your arsenal, a bit of Uniform Commercial Code that spells out what the promissory note has to do with a foreclosure and this will not make Recontrust a Happy Camper but I’m not sure that ReContrust deserves to camp happily. I will hop over to “My letter to Bofa†and leave the uniform and California version on that thread
 

freedomwon

LoanSafe Member
Oct 30, 2010
2,794
23
38
California
isisis - I just might incorporate that verbage into my next letter for request for postponement. (With your permission of course). Recontrust however simply follows instructions from BofA. One interesting tidbit for you . . . the next sale date is for middle of January. As I look at the sale calendar, most trustee sales in my area for January have a sale amount. My home does not. I'm beginning to wonder if this somehow connected to the fact they never answered my debt dispute letter. So long as the debt is being disputed, I would think BofA does not provide any final sale instructions to Recontrust.
 

Tarin Myhairout

LoanSafe Member
Oct 31, 2011
320
3
0
Twin Cities, MN
Pound on the Table if you must.


It went back to the servicer (Aurora). My motion to remand was granted on 12/7. I am still in my house and I plan on fighting until there is no more fight in me.
Nugirl:

You do my heart good! That removal to Federal Court was just a procedural maneuver to make you back down; and you DIDN'T! How dare they? If it makes you feel any better, it is a huge slap in the face and professional embarrassment for them to lose one of these - to a pro se party!!! Huzzah for you!

Freedomwon: Pro Se is where it's at for us. We don't have the $$$ to retain counsel; even if we could find someone to take it on. If I go down, I will go down swinging; and it is going to cost the bank. I am sufficiently angry about this that they aren't going to be able to just wave me away.

I know for many Forum members dealing with HUGE mortgages and impossible payments, this seems like a real yawner - who can care about a $36,000 mortgage? But I came up poor. I have always seen the poor paying the highest interest rates, getting the worst quality of goods and services, being the last hired and the first fired.

The people who need the modifications the most are the last to get them. Why? The first foreclosures were happening in areas nobody really cared about anyway. It wasn't until middle America started seeing the neighborhoods flooded with the 'foreclosed property' signs that it seemed important enough to do anything about it.

And the modification process itself is a middle income game. From the very beginning of this ordeal, I have wondered how you ever get a loan mod if you don't have broadband internet and a computer at home, email, cell phone, copy machine, fax machine, access to all during regular business hours, and pretty good English as your first language. In our area, faxes cost $1.00 a page. I have submitted the same documents multiple times, via email and fax. People living paycheck to paycheck simply don't have the budget to apply for a 'free' loan mod; and that's assuming you have a job that allows you to be absent the time it takes to deal with the process; and you can afford an even smaller payday next week.

The irony is that our foreclosure still happened, because the bank lied to me about it. And afterward, I was repeatedly told there was nothing I could do about it. But they are wrong. I kept calling, I kept faxing, I kept writing. I can fight it to the last; and that is what I am doing.

And as of last week, FreddieMac agreed to require the Bank to finish our Hamp review and rescind the foreclosure sale when we are found eligible - which we clearly are. I don't trust the Bank, and so my lawsuit is ready to be served and filed when they try to let the redemption period run without a HAMP mod.

I'm doing it for us, and for all the other people in our neighborhood and in our city who didn't get the help they were promised; did all they were supposed to do, and were foreclosed upon anyway.

I don't know if my lawsuit will get any traction in the 2nd Judicial District, but it will cloud the title and make the Bank pay an attorney to respond to it. It strikes at the heart of the HAMP fraud perpetrated by the banks. It is unusual enough that it might even garner some media attention -and then the Bank can explain to the public why it was better to make it come to this than deal responsibly with such a tiny loan. (US Bank does NOT need more bad press in MN; and the city doesn't need another foreclosed and vacant house)

The caption is from the old advice about how to present your case in Court: "When the Law is on your side, pound on the Law. When the Facts are on your side, pound on the Facts. When neither are on your side, pound on the Table! I have plenty of law and facts on my side, but the table pounding is important, too. And in the final analysis if it is the last available option, then it has to be done.

Freedomwon - you obviously have what it takes to do this on your own; you have already done everything else!! Whether or not you decide to undertake this last step is your decision alone; but I might feel sorry for any attorney who went up against you. If you need any further convincing, just take a little poll of LS Forum members to see who else thinks you can do it.

Now climbing down off the soapbox,

Tarin
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,797
250
83
North bay
Received a response to my OCC complaint today which I was told would be treated like a QWR. A previous QWR was "answered" by their legal dept, Blank Rome, in which my questions regarding the violation of Ca Civil Code 2943.5 and the terms of the Stipulated Judgment they declined to answer as being outside the scope of a QWR. It did, however, provide an accounting showing over $10,000 in various fees over the life of the loan.
This time my answer was through the Office of the CEO. The OCC complaint deal with Civil Code, Stipulated Judgment , RESPA violations and with Unfair and Deceptive business practices - that's what the AG pressured them with in the Judgment.

“Bofa acted in bad faith by offering me improved loan terms, misleading me regarding crucial information, not following the laws of foreclosure procedure meant to protect borrowers by ensuring actions are overseen and signed by proper parties, by ignoring correspondence requesting an explanation for these things and finally delaying denial. I think laws were broken and the modification process used for the opposite reason it was created – it was used as a means to maneuver me out of my house. There is no proof that they acted intentionally. All I can show is a series of actions, their results and that I have been injured due to unfair and deceptive business practices.â€

With the receipt of this answer, I am now convinced that in order to move up the ranks in Bofa you must become tremendously adept at the art being evasive. There can be no question that she read my letter as the bulk of hers was in paraphrasing mine but without answer or explanation until she hit on something that could work as a theme and jumped on it. However, a misconception I may not cure her of it – she became convinced I’d been turned down for not sending in paperwork (for which I received a little lecture). That seemed cute to me, after reading off a list of legal violations that they are guilty of I got scolded! LOL. Then finally, she exhorts me to work hand in hand with my very own Customer Relationship Manager and thanks me for my business. Maybe it’s even stranger that I’m finding this amusing. I will probably become less amused before too long and send back the complaint with the questions numbered and blank spaces for answers.

Still doing tons of legal research and trying to put a complaint together and met up with the Occupy group in my area which was interesting.
 
Last edited:

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,797
250
83
North bay
Reconnaissance is a two-way street and hats off to you Mr Ibanez!

Nothing’s quite as valuable in battle as finding out what the other side is thinking. That’s not as easy for us as it is for them. We dominate the search engines: Loansafe has WEB PRESENSE. But every so often a nugget comes my way.

Here’s one advising lenders on navigating the perils bought on by the Ibanez ruling. It suggests – imagine this – that they not initiate foreclosure proceedings without having their paperwork in order. Here's a segment.

[h=3]Tips On Special Servicing (Loss Mitigation) After Ibanez[/h]Your Collateral File Should Contain (guidelines of ownership chain-of-title given by the Ibanez court):
  1. An assignment of the note AND the lien that is -
    • Recorded - although in Ibanez, an assignment did not need to be in recordable form at the time of notice or foreclosure sale (under Massachusetts law), "recording is likely the better practice."
    • Made by a party that itself held the mortgage
  2. The assignment (or other document containing the transfer) should contain conveyance language of a present assignment ("does hereby assign" and "does hereby deliver") - rather than conveyance language of an intent to assign in the future.
  3. A transfer document containing an assignment of multiple notes AND liens (into a securitized trust, if a CMBS pool) should clearly and specifically identify each mortgage being assigned.
  4. This identification may be evidenced by attaching to the pooling & servicing agreement (or other assignment instrument) a schedule or listing of the assigned loans and mortgages.
    • A sufficient description would include a complete property address; the loan number, assuming it is referenced in the mortgage or deed of trust; filing record of the mortgage; or other similar proof which would allow tracing if any question were raised.
    • On the other hand, a mere description of the mortgage by property zip code and payment history is insufficient proof.
What an imposition for them! Keeping proper records, forgery and backdating documents is hard work. And here we thought it was all champagne, caviar and thievery.
[h=3]
[/h]



[h=3]
[/h]
 

Tarin Myhairout

LoanSafe Member
Oct 31, 2011
320
3
0
Twin Cities, MN
Hi Isisis:

Been missing you.

Yes, I just don't see why we want to be so unreasonable! They simply shouldn't be expected to engage in these pesky housekeeping activities, LOL!

The scary part is that they need to be told this...I take better care of my junk mail before shredding!

I guess they were absent from school the day the teacher covered this material in class. Good thing they have servicing guidelines training now to help them do better in the future. 'Course, it isn't going to help them find and cover all those naked notes, is it?

Perhaps on the next visit to Savile Row for those custom tailored suits they can detour to your home for bagels and nosh. If this servicing guidelines training does give us a peek into the pre-Ibanez industry standards; I believe the Emperor is going to be in need of a wardrobe upgrade.

You always make me smile!

Tarin
 

freedomwon

LoanSafe Member
Oct 30, 2010
2,794
23
38
California
isisis - Have you been paid another visit by the lady in the Mercedes lately? lol Just checking in to see how that "trial modification" is coming along that BofA has for you. wink wink
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,797
250
83
North bay
Hi Freedomwon,

Nothing, nada. When I've spoken to various bank reps they don't know a thing about it or my alleged trial mod. Hard to figure if these guys are hapless or premeditated at times. I'm also waffling between staying quiet and under the radar or going more on the offensive and leaning towards the latter particularly with the automatic stay likely to be short lived.

With that in mind I've penned a Freedomwon style “Rescind the NOD” to our friendly reconveyance company, Recontrust, dealing only with their initiation of foreclosure. I’m preparing to send it – cc to all the usual suspects, Bofa, BNY, OCC, CA AG - and would appreciate feedback such as should cease and desist been included.

Re: Loan #---------

TS#--------

OCC complaint #---------

To Recontrust:

Recontrust must cancel the foreclose sale #------------- of the property located at--------------and rescind the “Notice of Default” for the following reasons.

While there are numerous problematic legal issues with the treatment of my loan file, for the purposes of Recontrust’s involvement we will consider only three.

1. Violation of a court order

Pursuant to the Stipulated Judgment with the Attorney General, Bank of America and thus Recontrust its wholly owned subsidiary is under court order prohibiting the initiation of foreclosure proceedings on eligible Countrywide borrowers without prior contact. California v. Countrywide Stipulated Judgment states:


2. Violation of California Civil Code.

A. Invalid Notice of Default. Assignment of Trust after the filing of the NOD.

Recontrust did not have authority to record the Notice of Default on Feb --, 2010 because it was not the Trustee of record on that date nor had Recontrust the right to initiate foreclosure on behalf of Bank of New York Trustee for CWABS 2006 SD2 as the Assignment of Deed of Trust was not validly executed before it was notarized on March--th and then recorded on March --[SUP]th[/SUP]. My Deed of Trust lists CTC Real Estate Services as the Trustee and MERS as Beneficiary and states that a Substitution of Trustee must be executed by the Lender, Countrywide Home Loans, and recorded in the county.

See Ohlendorf v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, No. CIV. S-09-2081, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31098 (E.D.Cal. Mar. 30, 2010) (recipient of backdated assignment may not have had authority to record Notice of Default). Castillo v. Skoba, Vice President of Aurora Loan Services, LLC2010 WL 3986953 (N.D.Cal., November 30, 2010). Ibanez U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, trustee vs. ANTONIO IBANEZ (and a consolidated case) SJC-10694 10/07/2010.

B. Fraudulent documents signed by notorious robo signers.

In the person of T Sevillano, signing a backdated Assignment of Trust and then notarizing a Substitution of Attorney, we have a figure developing the legendary proportions of Keri Selman or Linda Green. While she purports to work in various capacities for MERS, BNY and Bofa, I understand she in fact works for you.

The use of robo signers with no knowledge of the documents they are signing in attempt to foreclose results in a violation of California’s Unfair Competitiion Law (UCL), which prohibits any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice. (B&P Code section 17200.) and The Rosenthal Debt Collection Practices Act [RDCPA] which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair practices in the collection of consumer debts. (Civ. Code section 1788, et. Seq.)

Penal Code Section 115.5(a) states “(a) Every person who files any false or forged document or instrument with the county recorder which affects title to, places an encumbrance on, or places an interest secured by a mortgage or deed of trust on, real property consisting of a single-family residence containing not more than four dwelling units, with knowledge that the document is false or forged, is punishable, in addition to any other punishment, by a fine not exceeding seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000).”


Clear title cannot derive from fraud. See Trout v. Trout, (1934), 220 Cal. 652 at 656 "Numerous authorities have established the rule that an instrument wholly void, such as an undelivered deed, a forged instrument, or a deed in blank, cannot be made the foundation of a good title, even under the equitable doctrine of bona fide purchase.”

Stuart-Wright Mortgage, Inc. (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1279 at 1286
"It is the general rule that courts have power to vacate a foreclosure sale where there has been fraud in the procurement of the foreclosure decree or where the sale has been improperly, unfairly or unlawfully conducted, or is tainted by fraud.”

3. Noncompliance with California’s version of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) 3-301.

Enforceability of a foreclosure only arises upon actual note possession and endorsement or 3-301(b) a non-holder with holder rights. Not only is possession of the note required in California, POSSESSION and ENDORSEMENT are needed to even be considered a “Holder in Due Course” by way CCC 1-202 to satisfy 3-301.

CCC 3-306
A person taking an instrument, other than a person having rights of a holder in due course, is subject to a claim of a property or possessory right in the instrument or its proceeds, including a claim to rescind a negotiation and to recover the instrument or its proceeds. A person having rights of a holder in due course takes free of the claim to the instrument.

The assignment of a mortgage without a transfer of the indebtedness confers no right, since debt and security are inseparable and the mortgage alone is not a subject of transfer, ” Hyde v. Mangan (1891) 88 Cal. 319, 26 P 180, 1891 Cal LEXIS 693; Johnson v, Razy (1919)181 Cal 342, 184 P 657; 1919 Cal LEXIS 358; Bowman v. Sears (1923, Cal App) 63 Cal App 235, 218 P 489, 1923 Cal App LEXIS 199; Treat v. Burns (1932) 216 Cal 216, 13 P2d,724, 1932 Cal LEXIS 554.

Upon receipt of this notice, Recontrust loses its exemption from liability and becomes subject to all remedies and penalties including a private right of action under RESPA. Any claimed exemption by 2924(b) is extinguished and you shall be subject to Title 1.6c Sec 1788.

If Recontrust wishes to take my property rather than provide me with the modified loan terns for which I am eligible under the Countrywide Stipulated Judgment it must attempt to do so by lawful means.

Fondly,
Isisis

Well, the section from the Judgment wouldn't paste because it's pdf I suppose but it specifically states that foreclose cannot be inititated without determining borrower interest in modification, paraphrased.
 
Last edited:

freedomwon

LoanSafe Member
Oct 30, 2010
2,794
23
38
California
Gee, I'm not surprised. BofA was just trying to distract you just as we suspected. Good letter you've got there. One thing to double check before sending is to look at your DEED OF TRUST & see who the trustee is listed on there. It's entirely possible Recontrust was the original trustee on the DEED OF TRUST. (You just want to be accurate, that's all).

You've got a lot of quoted laws in your letter. Some fell in your lap & some you had to research. Carefully consider if you want to use it all at once in this first letter or save a couple for your next letter. It's all about how much time & energy you have to dedicate to this.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,797
250
83
North bay
Hi Freedomwon,


The original Trustee was CTC Real Estate Services, Full Spectrum the lender and in the same deed switched to Countrywide.
Should I have done a Cease and Desist included in the letter, you think?

Re the case law: it all fell into my lap thanks to Al Gore's brilliant invention called the internet.

Not seriously expecting the NOD to be rescinded but not going down without a fight.
 

freedomwon

LoanSafe Member
Oct 30, 2010
2,794
23
38
California
Should I have done a Cease and Desist included in the letter, you think?
I don't recommend the cease & desist letter & here's why. You want to lead them down the road that you're willing to work with them, you're open to ideas, & will entertain any proposal they might present. A cease & desist (gives them written proof) & sends a direct message you're not interested in working something out. I have not issued a cease & desist in my case nor will I. What I have done however, numerous times, is indicated that all communications must be conducted in writing.
 

freedomwon

LoanSafe Member
Oct 30, 2010
2,794
23
38
California
On a little sidenote . . . Much to my surprise, I learned the internet was actually invented back in the 1960's. It was originally developed for our government to communicate intelligence. Then it was opened up to Universities for sharing important research & after that opened up to the general public. I had read about this at the tech museum in San Jose, Ca.

O.K. Carry on everyone!
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,797
250
83
North bay
KA - CHING! Score one for the Resistance!

An honest Judge, a homeowner win and some juicy case law. Horace vs LaSalle Bank 4/2011. Foreclosure prevented dispite the securitized trust being the holder of the wet ink note because it hadn't been endorsed and assigned before the trust closed as stipulated by the PSA. The Horaces used an expert witness on the topic of securitization.
There's some good commentary by Abigail Field but I can't post a link mobile.
Thank you, Morgane and Freedomwon thanks for the advice on the C&D.
The ticklish part for me is the negotiation and positioning; at that I feel wholly inept, like playing a card game with no notion of the rules. I can learn the applicable law, gather the case law but how and when to deploy that ammo at faceless and skilled adversaries is daunting. That's one of the reasons the input from this forum is so valuable.
Re internet invention: isn't it possible that Al Gore invented it but later and subconsciously like when George Harrison got sued for "My Sweet Lord" being like "She's So Fine"? LoL
 

freedomwon

LoanSafe Member
Oct 30, 2010
2,794
23
38
California
I can learn the applicable law, gather the case law but how and when to deploy that ammo at faceless and skilled adversaries is daunting.
I have felt that way since day 1. It's a daunting task to contemplate the next move. Because it feels like one wrong move & it's all over! I put a lot of trust & faith in my gut instinct & just had to "go with it". I had no example to follow. I knew I had to be a pioneer if you will.
 

hotwelder3

LoanSafe Member
Jul 29, 2011
12
0
0
I just read this thread, I wish I had done so sooner. The first thing came to mind was the lady driving the Mercedes, was she a "Hot" LOL And thank you isisis I think I can use some of your ideas from this thread , if I get a chance to use them.
 

Tarin Myhairout

LoanSafe Member
Oct 31, 2011
320
3
0
Twin Cities, MN
Freedomwon: . Hear, Hear! It has been a big problem for me as well. I have some ideas right now that would really cut to the chase and solve everything- but I don't know what to do with them! I fear that approaching the wrong person (if I could even find someone to approach) will prejudice other options, and I don't want to inadvertently derail a solution that is already in process. My stuff is different than yours, because I have the ear of FreddieMac, and now the MN AG is onboard as well. It isn't so much fighting the foreclosure (a done deal, essentially), or stopping an eviction (they have given up on that); but unscrewing it all after the fact. I am also not confident that I have the same securitization/robo-signing facts on my side. Still, the fact remains that strategizing is important, and I just don't know what to do next. I did consult with an attorney who proposed a solution, but it was an all-or-nothing approach, and if it wasn't successful, we lose everything. I don't like this, because I would like to keep more options on the table. As you have pointed out before, things are always changing. Much more is known today about robo-signing, and misleading and outright fraudulent foreclosure practices than was known even 6 months ago. Now, even very conservative economists are talking about the necessity of principle write-downs on underwater mortgages, and the behemoths Fannie and Freddie are beginning to rethink the wisdom of dumping even more foreclosed properties on the saturated real estate market. I often feel like I am wearing rollerskates and mittens on the streets of San Francisco, in an earthquake, during a monsoon, at night. I am holding three of those long poles, with spinning plates atop each one, and two of the plates are starting to wobble. Do I abandon the wobbly ones and go for the steady one? Do I try to keep all three limping along? What if someone were to come by and take over stewardship of one of the wobbly ones? Sometimes I just want to give all the poles the heave-ho and skate away down the hill. Tarin
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,797
250
83
North bay
Yep. the Naked Emperor's Listening

Hang in there, Tarin, don't forget we're fighting a Naked Emperor! And one, it would seem, increasingly aware of the people pointing that out. I know you're not BofA but still check out the latest, (emphasis added).

"Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Bank of America Corp. is impeding an investigation of its loan modification practices by negotiating settlements with borrowers who must agree to keep them secret and not criticize the bank in exchange for cash payments and loan relief, Arizona officials say.
The Arizona Attorney General’s office is asking a court to block those aspects of the settlements and require the bank to turn over all the agreements. The bank denies any wrongdoing.
One 2011 accord involving a borrower facing foreclosure who defaulted on a $253,142 mortgage included a $5,000 payment, plus $7,500 for legal fees, and the defaulted payments were waived and the loan was modified to a 40-year term with a 2 percent interest rate, court documents show. The terms of the original loan and the borrower’s complaint about the lender weren’t described in the documents.
The borrower “will remove and delete any online statements regarding this dispute, including, without limitation, postings on Facebook, Twitter and similar websites,” and not make any statements “that defame, disparage or in any way criticize” the bank’s reputation, practices or conduct, according to documents filed in state court in Phoenix. The borrower’s name and address were redacted."

This next comment is mine directed to Bank of America:

If you would like to avoid disparagement and criticism STOP TAKING OUR HOMES INSTEAD OF GIVING US AFFORDABLE PAYMENTS! STOP PUTTING FAMILIES ON THE STREET WHILE YOU GIVE EXECUTIVES BONUSES! OUT OF EVERY DOLLAR WE GIVE YOU $.46 GOES TO EXECUTIVE BONUSES AND COMPENSATION AND YET WE HAVE FAMILIES LIVING IN CARS BECAUSE YOU TOOK THEIR HOMES WITHOUT EVEN THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO SO. THE TRUTH IS COMING OUT MORE EVERYDAY. YOU ARE NOT TO BIG TO FAIL, YOU'RE TOO BIG TO THINK STRAIGHT AND SEE THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES FOR GREED.

AS THOSE OF US FIGHTING TO PREVENT OUR HOMES FROM BEING STOLEN DIG DEEPER AND SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FRAUD INVOLVED YOU WILL FIND IT HARDER TO HIDE BEHIND CORRUPT JUDGES AND POLITICIANS. I URGE YOU TO DEAL FAIRLY WITH US NOW WHILE YOU STILL HAVE THAT VOLUNTARY OPTION. THE TIMES ARE CHANGING, THE RULES ARE CHANGING AND YOU ARE VULNERABLE.
GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tadias13