Bagels at a Bar Mitzvah

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Krafty,

Because of the technical nature and arbitrary interpretation of legal theory. In example an earlier judge in my case ruled many of my causes of action as time barred under the misbegotten notion that the running of the statute created a free pass for any misconduct occurring after the original accrual of the cause of action when in fact either the cause of action didn't accrue due to the ongoing nature of the violation (lacking permanence) or each breach or violation reset the statute.

The problem is that judges are expected to be scholars something they often clearly are not. I've seen many judges rule that performance was not prevented when a borrower was told not to make payments because the borrower was not literally prevented. Anyone with any approximate knowledge of contract law knows that prevention of performance encompasses anything done to significantly hinder or impede performance.

The prevention doctrine is a generally recognized principle of contract law. If a promisor prevents or hinders fulfillment of a condition to his performance, the condition may be waived or excused. See
Moore Bros. Co. v. Brown & Root, Inc., 207 F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2000). See Restatement (Second) of Contracts §245 (1981); 13 Williston on Contracts, 4th ed., Lord, §39:4; 17A Am.Jur.2d, Contracts, §703; 17B C.J.S., Contracts, §530. Parrish v. Wightman, 184 Va. 86, 34 S.E.2d 229, 232 (1945); Mardirossian Family Enterprises v. Clearail, Inc., 324 Md. 191, 203, 596 A.2d 1018 (1991).

The prevention of performance doctrine...only requires that the conduct have “contributed materially” to the non-occurrence of the condition. It is as effective an excuse of performance of a condition that the promisor has hindered performance as that he has actually prevented it. Barnhill v. Veneman (In re Peanut Crop Ins. Litig.), 524 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. N.C. 2008); Parrish v. Wightman, 184 Va. 85, 34 S.E.2d 229, 232 (1945),(quoting Amies v. Wesnofske, 255 N.Y. 156, 174 N.E. 436 (1931) (quoting 2 Williston on Contracts §677)); see also Whitt v. Godwin, 205 Va. 797, 139 S.E.2d 841, 844 (1965) (citing 5 Williston on Contracts, 3d ed., Jaeger, §677A for the same proposition).

Sorry for all the case law, I just wanted to show the doctrine is nation wide and well established going back to Williston and Restatement to illustrate the curiously uneducated condition of some of the judiciary.

If courts are baffled by such rudimentary issues how can I expect them to navigate through something truly complex like rescission, something on which even scholars disagree?
 

PatZZ

LoanSafe Member

PatZZ

LoanSafe Member
Krafty,

Because of the technical nature and arbitrary interpretation of legal theory. In example an earlier judge in my case ruled many of my causes of action as time barred under the misbegotten notion that the running of the statute created a free pass for any misconduct occurring after the original accrual of the cause of action when in fact either the cause of action didn't accrue due to the ongoing nature of the violation (lacking permanence) or each breach or violation reset the statute.

The problem is that judges are expected to be scholars something they often clearly are not. I've seen many judges rule that performance was not prevented when a borrower was told not to make payments because the borrower was not literally prevented. Anyone with any approximate knowledge of contract law knows that prevention of performance encompasses anything done to significantly hinder or impede performance.

The prevention doctrine is a generally recognized principle of contract law. If a promisor prevents or hinders fulfillment of a condition to his performance, the condition may be waived or excused. See
Moore Bros. Co. v. Brown & Root, Inc., 207 F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2000). See Restatement (Second) of Contracts §245 (1981); 13 Williston on Contracts, 4th ed., Lord, §39:4; 17A Am.Jur.2d, Contracts, §703; 17B C.J.S., Contracts, §530. Parrish v. Wightman, 184 Va. 86, 34 S.E.2d 229, 232 (1945); Mardirossian Family Enterprises v. Clearail, Inc., 324 Md. 191, 203, 596 A.2d 1018 (1991).

The prevention of performance doctrine...only requires that the conduct have “contributed materially” to the non-occurrence of the condition. It is as effective an excuse of performance of a condition that the promisor has hindered performance as that he has actually prevented it. Barnhill v. Veneman (In re Peanut Crop Ins. Litig.), 524 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. N.C. 2008); Parrish v. Wightman, 184 Va. 85, 34 S.E.2d 229, 232 (1945),(quoting Amies v. Wesnofske, 255 N.Y. 156, 174 N.E. 436 (1931) (quoting 2 Williston on Contracts §677)); see also Whitt v. Godwin, 205 Va. 797, 139 S.E.2d 841, 844 (1965) (citing 5 Williston on Contracts, 3d ed., Jaeger, §677A for the same proposition).

Sorry for all the case law, I just wanted to show the doctrine is nation wide and well established going back to Williston and Restatement to illustrate the curiously uneducated condition of some of the judiciary.

If courts are baffled by such rudimentary issues how can I expect them to navigate through something truly complex like rescission, something on which even scholars disagree?
I don't buy that most of these judges are that baffled at all. If we can comprehend, then so can they. The bigger problem is they just don't care. The lender is supposed to win - end of story.
.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Patzz,
9
You're saying that judges know the cause of action hasn't accrued because the violation it's ongoing and yet rule it time barred? Or that they are fully aware that the word prevention in a legal context it's not used literally yet in full knowledge they allow a demurrer to be sustained against a homeowner?

Ok, I can see there is some corruption, still it's not humanly possible for a judge however erudite to have extensive scholarly knowledge in ever area of our vast legal system
 
Patzz,
9
You're saying that judges know the cause of action hasn't accrued because the violation it's ongoing and yet rule it time barred? Or that they are fully aware that the word prevention in a legal context it's not used literally yet in full knowledge they allow a demurrer to be sustained against a homeowner?

Ok, I can see there is some corruption, still it's not humanly possible for a judge however erudite to have extensive scholarly knowledge in ever area of our vast legal system
But here's the thing---we don't have scholarly knowledge of the legal system either. They know far more than we do, having been educated in it and so on. We are visiting their arena. It's a simple fact, at least in my own case, that the judge knew exactly what she was doing, to the point where at one occasion she would not even allow me to state what my objection was--it was overruled without her ever asking what I was objecting for, and without me being given the chance to say.

The truth is, there's a stigma that cuts both ways. First, the banks should not be allowed to fail, as the reasoning goes....they need to be protected against catastrophic loss....and in that fight, we are expendable to the courts. Never forget this, the court system is an agency of the same government system that, at the federal level, spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to save the big banks, while almost totally ignoring the people. And second, "borrowers just want a free home". That is what we are facing....and in my case for certain, the issues have been decided before we ever stepped in that courtroom.

Consider this...they spend something like $630 BILLION dollars on those bailouts. Imagine this. Somewhere around 8 million homes have been foreclosed upon when that money had been spent. If they had spent, say, $60,000 per home back then, they would have spent about $480 billion....the banks would have STILL gotten their money....and those Americans would in most cases not have been homeless. Government spends a lot less....banks still get their money and don't fail....American people protected. Just one thought I've had in this mess. But we are not profitable to the USG, apparently, because they saw dollar signs. They saw revenue. They forgot totally about the "for the people" portion of what our entire government was designed to be.

But back to the point---they are PEOPLE. They are HUMAN. That means they make mistakes. And the fact that an increasing number of cases is being publicly won--not just settled under a NDA--the tide is definitely turning. We dont need judges to be scholarly experts on the law. We just need them to be honest while on that bench. My first judge intentionally broke the law, had her staff hold private court in order to deny my motion---which clearly had merit or else they would not have taken such steps to kill it off so quickly. My second judge was completely aware of the denial of my due process rights....and refused to allow me to say a single word about it in her courtroom. They KNOW what's going on. More and more people are getting to the COA and getting these piss poor rulings thrown out.

Look at my case. They lied through their MSJ. They KNEW they had not met the requirements of law in their MSJ and affidavit. I brought all of this up in opposition. Judge ignored all that I said and did....and granted their MSJ. So they get ready to auction the house. I file my appeal, auction set for 4/4. The very next day after we paid our appeal costs, that date was magically postponed to 4/11. Then, a couple days later, it gets canceled altogether and the sale is indefinitely "on hold". What changed? NOTHING---except they learned that we paid the costs of appeal, which most people do not do because it's in the thousands. So we pay...and their instant reaction was to move and then cancel the sale??? WHY? If they knew they had a legit judgment, do any of you think they would have done that? Obviously not. The longer this goes on, the more $$$ it costs them, so they're not going to do this without a good reason....and the only reason we gave them was paying the costs. And since I already argued against their MSJ with legit case law and statute, they know already what at least some of the arguments are that we are going to use on appeal. Those known arguments were enough for them to back off---as soon as they learned we would be getting to use them in the appeals court. OF COURSE the judge knew better. This was not her first case as a judge, she's been on the bench for some years now.

My point in all of this is that you make good points about our chances in front of some of these judges. But thats not the issue. The real issue is not their level of knowledge of the law, it's their level of honesty. ANYONE who has ever made an argument about standing, for example, is making one of the most basic and rudimentary arguments in all of the legal world. And before these judges wore robes, they were attorneys themselves, arguing standing in some of their own cases. They KNOW what they are doing, it's not a lack of knowledge. It's a lack of willingness to "give a homeowner a free house", among other things.
 
Putting "scholarly knowledge of the legal system" aside, we should fight them on the basic": the forgery , the misrepresentation, the lie.

"A lawyer cannot act on behalf of a client without the clients knowledge, or approval". Cohen representing Trump in Daniels without Trump's knowledge. A case for disbarment.
I can proof that the foreclosing law firms and their attorneys hired by BOfA misrepresenting (lying) using Bank of New York as trustee of a trust, as plaintiff, to collect on a loan no longer owned by the trust that Bank of New York trustee. Fraud on the Court and ground for disbarment.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Ok, call me paranoid but check this out.

Back in the halcyon days before Saterbak trumped the Yvanova Supreme Court and it was still possible to get a judge to cop to the concept that just maybe if an assignment was in violation of federal law, if a REMIC as not in compliance with tax code then said assignment was void of legal force or effect - you remember those days? Anyway back then the top bank demolishing litigator was Deborah Gutierrez with dozens of pro homeowner rulings. A great consumer advocate who I greatly admired, studied all her cases and spent some time on the phone with, a real nice person. She got hit with an ethics charge for something piddling and it hurt her practice. Then there's the relentless Richard Antognini with gargantuan wins under his belt including Yvanova. He too fell victim to alleged state bar issues.

Those two did more damage to the banks than anyone at the time and just coincidently ran afoul of the bar and were disciplined around the same time and it raised a big question mark in my brain.

You guys, my sounding board, wouldn't feed into my paranoia so I relegated the concept to the outer regions of my overstuffed brain matter. Something happened recently to bring it front and center again. Got a call from my attorneys office and they asked me to give them a Yelp review which I'm more than happy to do but the reason for their request piqued my memory and tentatively connected some dots. They had received a couple very negative Yelp reviews and wanted some positive ones to outweigh it. Then it hit me. We already know there's a lot of money riding on homeowner litigation and they are understandably afraid that the floodgates would open if the right precedent was created. Corrupting judges isn't that easy so what other way to prevent the possibility but to discredit those few attorneys with the capacity to create it on behalf of homeowners? And since it might become too obvious to trump up ethics charges on too many consumer rights attorneys a bit of Yelp malignment could accomplish much the same goal: to steer householders away from attorneys who might help them and decrease the likelihood of successful litigation. It has the added benefit of not being anywhere as potentially illegal as getting a attorney disbarred.

Could the legal community be unaware of this sort of meddling? I doubt it but that makes it all the more effective as it would also steer competent attorneys away from foreclosures after all who wants to risk their practice that way?
 
Ok, call me paranoid but check this out.

Back in the halcyon days before Saterbak trumped the Yvanova Supreme Court and it was still possible to get a judge to cop to the concept that just maybe if an assignment was in violation of federal law, if a REMIC as not in compliance with tax code then said assignment was void of legal force or effect - you remember those days? Anyway back then the top bank demolishing litigator was Deborah Gutierrez with dozens of pro homeowner rulings. A great consumer advocate who I greatly admired, studied all her cases and spent some time on the phone with, a real nice person. She got hit with an ethics charge for something piddling and it hurt her practice. Then there's the relentless Richard Antognini with gargantuan wins under his belt including Yvanova. He too fell victim to alleged state bar issues.

Those two did more damage to the banks than anyone at the time and just coincidently ran afoul of the bar and were disciplined around the same time and it raised a big question mark in my brain.

You guys, my sounding board, wouldn't feed into my paranoia so I relegated the concept to the outer regions of my overstuffed brain matter. Something happened recently to bring it front and center again. Got a call from my attorneys office and they asked me to give them a Yelp review which I'm more than happy to do but the reason for their request piqued my memory and tentatively connected some dots. They had received a couple very negative Yelp reviews and wanted some positive ones to outweigh it. Then it hit me. We already know there's a lot of money riding on homeowner litigation and they are understandably afraid that the floodgates would open if the right precedent was created. Corrupting judges isn't that easy so what other way to prevent the possibility but to discredit those few attorneys with the capacity to create it on behalf of homeowners? And since it might become too obvious to trump up ethics charges on too many consumer rights attorneys a bit of Yelp malignment could accomplish much the same goal: to steer householders away from attorneys who might help them and decrease the likelihood of successful litigation. It has the added benefit of not being anywhere as potentially illegal as getting a attorney disbarred.

Could the legal community be unaware of this sort of meddling? I doubt it but that makes it all the more effective as it would also steer competent attorneys away from foreclosures after all who wants to risk their practice that way?

It's not paranoia. Have you ever read the Ohio case-Schwartzwald? Schwartzwalds won against Freddie Mac. They were represented by Andrew Engel. Here's a link to his ethics hearing in front of the Ohio Supremes.
http://www.ohiochannel.org/video/case-no-2017-1087-disciplinary-counsel-v-engel?3
 
Y'all know what? Screw it....I had thoughts about posting this publicly but the more I think about it, there's no better way to do it.

I want all of you who are in this fight to consider what you're about to read....and consider exactly WHO you're really facing, and how deep this stuff really goes. This is NOT a message telling you to be afraid or to give up the fight--rather, this is a call to battle! We now live in the Wild West again, apparently....where anything goes. If any of you think that this stuff will get better by you doing nothing, think again....

As some of you know, I am in a position in my own fight where the court TOTALLY ignored my state laws and case law standards--including the state supreme court's rulings on the matter--and granted judgment in favor of the pretender lender. We are currently awaiting appeal date. So, I secured my family, to make sure that we can still go on functioning every day without the worry that at any moment the sheriff can knock on the door and force us out. We have not abandoned our property, we spend time there, but we also have another place at the same time. So this past week, I drove to the house. We know they have been doing the drive-by inspections and all....but this time, someone was in the house. A window was broken to gain entry. The same exact car that my neighbor has described, and I've even seen doing the inspections myself, was sitting across the street. I'm a lawful gun owner, and as is permitted in my state, I often carry. I was carrying that day, so I went in. At the other end of the house, I could hear someone smashing things. I went across the house just in time to see the guy throwing a small TV into the wall. Well, in my state, we have the Castle Doctrine, which states that force, up to and including deadly force, can be used if someone breaks into your home(under some conditions) and you have no duty to retreat any further. I don't know this guy, don't know if he's armed, or whatever, so I drew my pistol and shouted at him to get his hands where I could see them. He bolted to the front door and ran out. Hopped in his car and took off out of there.

Police were very reluctant to do anything. They made a report. That's it. No fingerprints taken. No photos taken. Nothing. Clearly they were not very interested in doing anything. One officer was like, "well, since you guys have another place you can live, I would just go live there and stay away from here..."-----seriously....this is MY house. MY property. Why the hell would I need to, or want to, stay away from my own property????

OK, so cops left after a bit. I checked through the rest of the house and secured everything. Then I left. I'm not three minutes away from that property when guess who I see in my rearview mirror.....the same car belonging to the guy who was in my house. It has a certain sticker on the back window and a license plate frame from a certain dealer, so it's identifiable. The guy bumps the back of my truck. Then he pulls up beside me and tries to ram me off the road into a swamp before he takes off. As he takes off, sure enough, I see the back window and know it's the same car. The guy just literally tried to force me into a steep ditch/bayou that is so steep down from the road that the truck would have flipped over and gone into the water.

Cops still do nothing. They told me that without any positive way to ID the driver, there's nothing they can do. They don't look at my truck....they literally do nothing.

And it gets worse.....

I am in sales. The other day, a woman came to my place of business. I spent a little time, maybe 15 minutes with her, and she came across as a customer. Then, she asks for a business card, which I gave her. She takes one look at the card, and then tells me that I am going to lose if I insist on continuing my appeal....No kidding, these idiots sent someone to try to "discourage" me from continuing my case! She said that since I already lost at the trial court, there was no way I could win on appeal and that I should just give it up. I told her that I will stop only when it's time to stop---when they have been made to answer for their criminal behavior.

Is this the new norm now? These crooks steal homes, and now send people out to intimidate homeowners who fight back?? I'm looking for a way to connect this lady to whatever party....the law firm, maybe even the judge who was recused? No way to know right now for certain.

But here's the thing....I WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED. I WILL NOT BACK DOWN. I WILL NOT STOP UNTIL YOU ARE MADE TO ANSWER FOR YOUR CRIMES. KNOW THIS. If that means we go to the state supreme court, or federal courts, so be it. WHATEVER IT TAKES. Seems to me, someone's scared of this case going to appeal. If they were not, then they never would have sent someone like this....
 
Krafty,
You can install a wireless camera very cheaply in your house and check and record it with your phone. Anyway, I agree with you, we have to keep fighting. I do have good news. My fellow pro se who lost on Summary Judgement, lost on appeal, House scheduled to be sole back in January. He kept fighting, appealed to the State Supreme Court, filed suit in Federal Court. Because of his persistence and maybe the fraudsters do not want their scheme exposed in higher court and Federal court, they postponed the sale to Feb, then to April, and finally called it off. Will see how it goes from here. Also, since my answer and counterclaim, BOfA appears to stop using the law firm that filed my complaint, maybe too much legal fees incurred and no result??? They are using other firms now. And finally, another foreclosure defense attorney followed my lead and filed Motion for Sanctions against foreclosing banks. First in foreclosure defense in my State court. If more homeowners file counterclaim and with motion for sanctions, the debt collectors will think twice. We are making progress.
 
Even if your house is sold, they have to file suit again to evict you, then you can counterclaim for wrongful foreclosure, then appeal....the can of worm will be reopened again, hopefully at some time, the justice system will prevail. And if you are pro se, all you need is time. It will be a long time before they can kick you out.
 
Even if your house is sold, they have to file suit again to evict you, then you can counterclaim for wrongful foreclosure, then appeal....the can of worm will be reopened again, hopefully at some time, the justice system will prevail. And if you are pro se, all you need is time. It will be a long time before they can kick you out.
They do not have to file a separate suit here. They get the judgment, hold the auction, file a writ of possession with the sherif and the sheriff comes knocking to evict you. But at the end of the day, I will see justice done.
 
We have Writ of Execution (Sale) here, then 6 months of redemption. The new owner (normally the fake trustee who will be exposed again in the possession suit) has to file suit to evict. We have numerous non-judicial trust sales overturned due to improper- non judicial sales exposed in eviction suits.
 
Is this the new norm now? These crooks steal homes, and now send people out to intimidate homeowners who fight back??
It's not common by any means, but not unheard of either. I know a women that was personally threatened several years ago, in a very public area.

Keep that gun with you at all times. Also - like others mentioned, a Nest Cam with Motion Detection would be a really good idea.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
First off Krafty, I'm so glad you're ok, this is getting hardcore. So this guy commits serious felonies, he breaks and enters, destroys property and then tries you drive you off the road which could have resulted in great bodily harm or worse and the cops are indifferent? In my town the cops would have gone nuts, it'd make front page of the paper. Small town without crime and we're starved for drama. A couple of Mexicans took the turn too wide and plowed through my fence ending up in my yard then got out and started running in opposite directions because they were illegals. Less than ten minutes my yard's packed with neighbors, sheriff's deputies, highway patrol and the fire department and they're chasing the two guys down.

Your cops indifference is just strange. Someone broke into the home you legally own and did damage, how does suggesting you stay at in any way address the crime that occurred? You are to stay away so that it can be broken into more easily?

A shame you or your neighbor didn't get the license plate number. I don't suppose they'll use the same car again.

What happened on the road is even more disturbing because not just your property but your life was endangered. The fact this occurred just after the break in should have given them even more reason to inspect the scene for skid marks and scratches or dents in your truck, some paint transfer (you could still look for that). Why would these cops show so little concern? Just how deep does this go?

Aside from standing your ground how about making some noise? A complaint to the CFPB and the BBB alleging criminal acts is real bad for business. How about a call to your DA's office, a letter to your representative? You could report the incident to your local press and especially the alternative press who would be more likely to pick up the story. Shaming these guys by shedding light on their actions has the additional benefit of hurting their reputation and therefore can hit them in the pocketbook where they live.

Hang in there Krafty, you're becoming even more of a hero. But dude, try to stay alive, ok?
 
First off Krafty, I'm so glad you're ok, this is getting hardcore. So this guy commits serious felonies, he breaks and enters, destroys property and then tries you drive you off the road which could have resulted in great bodily harm or worse and the cops are indifferent? In my town the cops would have gone nuts, it'd make front page of the paper. Small town without crime and we're starved for drama. A couple of Mexicans took the turn too wide and plowed through my fence ending up in my yard then got out and started running in opposite directions because they were illegals. Less than ten minutes my yard's packed with neighbors, sheriff's deputies, highway patrol and the fire department and they're chasing the two guys down.

Your cops indifference is just strange. Someone broke into the home you legally own and did damage, how does suggesting you stay at in any way address the crime that occurred? You are to stay away so that it can be broken into more easily?

A shame you or your neighbor didn't get the license plate number. I don't suppose they'll use the same car again.

What happened on the road is even more disturbing because not just your property but your life was endangered. The fact this occurred just after the break in should have given them even more reason to inspect the scene for skid marks and scratches or dents in your truck, some paint transfer (you could still look for that). Why would these cops show so little concern? Just how deep does this go?

Aside from standing your ground how about making some noise? A complaint to the CFPB and the BBB alleging criminal acts is real bad for business. How about a call to your DA's office, a letter to your representative? You could report the incident to your local press and especially the alternative press who would be more likely to pick up the story. Shaming these guys by shedding light on their actions has the additional benefit of hurting their reputation and therefore can hit them in the pocketbook where they live.

Hang in there Krafty, you're becoming even more of a hero. But dude, try to stay alive, ok?
well, formal complaints are in process now. And also, I'm looking into different---as in, federal---avenues against some of the players. I'm sure it would not be enough to get a lawyer disbarred or anything, but I bet it will at least be enough for certain individuals to take notice that their actions will no longer be tolerated.....
 
well, formal complaints are in process now. And also, I'm looking into different---as in, federal---avenues against some of the players. I'm sure it would not be enough to get a lawyer disbarred or anything, but I bet it will at least be enough for certain individuals to take notice that their actions will no longer be tolerated.....

How about a perfectly innocent QWR to Caliber asking for the dates & amounts for every "property inspection/preservation" visit? It will go to a low level brainless person who may give you some ammo.Keep it innocent, like you're only concerned about the amounts they're adding to your "alleged account". If they paid for an inspection on the date of the break-in......you'll be on your way to discovery in a future Federal case.