Housing is a Civil Right

Housing is a Civil Right

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Cyrusgate? Did Perkins Coie Advise Cyrus Habib to Internet Scrub and to Ignore Four Troublesome Questions in the 48th Senate Race Against Michelle Darnell?

Michelle Darnell should have won last night, but the Mainstream Republicans of Washington don't like her enough to fund her and truly support her because she tells the Truth, and the Dems don't like her because she tells the Truth. The homeowners and taxpayers love her though so stay tuned for her next phase! 
And if you don't believe this race is important, then answer the question as to why POTUS is watching. And he's not for Michelle Darnell that's for sure. The problem is, the Republicans aren't helping her out much either because she says things about finance and the mortgage industry that cut too close to the bone. Cyrus won't touch any of it. He just wants a nice easy ride, but that's not what exactly what he's going to get because I have some questions for him and at some point we will meet again face to face. So when both parties try to ignore the candidate, that is the candidate for whom you're supposed to vote, simple.
Update 4 Sept. 2014: I am 99% certain that Cyrus Habib and Perkins Coie scrubbed the Internet to have negative information about him deleted.
See that negative return in the lower left corner?
Apparently no negative information about Cyrus Habib 
will be allowed online. Sorry, I must have missed the memo.
In full disclosure I am listed as a team member for Michelle Darnell's campaign because she paid me $250 to make her first 3 videos. I haven't been paid a dime since then yet I continue to document what I am seeing in this race because I feel like it and I have just enough of my own money and time to do so. I am not part of the control group and I make no decisions on policy or any of that. I am just the guy with the camera, documenting Ms. Darnell and Mr. Habib. 

Here then, is a link to Ms. Darnell's responses to the four questions that Mr. Habib ignored.


The Seattle Stranger wrote that Michelle Darnell was in favor of raising taxes on the middle and lower economic strata, and clearly implied that she was a hypocrite. I got into it with them because they wouldn't release a video or audio of the exchange and I know for fact that Ms. Darnell does not want to raise taxes in that fashion. 

Now I have worked as a field scout for three different presidential campaigns going back to the 80s with Jesse Jackson, and in the modern era for Dick Gephart and John Kerry. Along with way I have won several first amendment trials and settlements so I am very particular about political commentary or defamation issues. Just this spring a $.5M Defamation Jury Verdict was entered against the Boston Herald after I helped Joanna Marinova secure her counsel at Todd & Weld 4 years ago. Todd Weld summary.

That having been said not every situation calls for legal action. While I most certainly do view the comments from the Stranger as Defamatory, this isn't the place for a lawsuit, but it is a place for me to ask the questions to both candidates that the Stranger will not openly discuss. I gave both candidates written questions and an opportunity to respond in unedited video but only Candidate Darnell responded. Her full response, unedited, appears above and her written responses are forthcoming today on the journal page. Bur first watch my video visit to Cyrus Habib's office at Perkins Coie -- counsel for the entire democratic party, who advised Candidates Kerry and Obama along the way. Query, did they advise Cyrus Habib to ignore these questions:
Remember the four (4) questions I posed to 48th District Candidates Cyrus Habib and Michelle Darnell a month ago after a completely inaccurate endorsement from the Seattle Stranger stated that Ms. Darnell was in favor of raising taxes on Joe the Plumber?  Well in case you don't recall, they are linked above and replicated in the comments section below for your edification.

Candidate Darnell timely responded with video and written responses that directly contradict the materially false and misleading endorsement for Cyrus Habib, whose $200,000.00 war chest was built largely with out-of-state contributions like any other corporate attorney candidate. There's nothing new here.

Be that as it may, I waited patiently for a response from Attorney Habib for weeks, emailing and calling him at his campaign headquarters and legislative office. Finally, having not received any response I took a video ride to his high-rise digs at Perkins-Coie, the law firm that also serves as counsel for the National Democratic Party.  In the video I wonder if they advised Cyrus Habib to stonewall me...... on the believe that Ms. Darnell is not a viable threat even though she garnered 37% of the vote with 4% of the money.

This is part one. In part two I will air Candidate Darnell's written and video responses. Keep in mind that I afforded Cyrus Habib the exact same opportunity, to run unedited written and video responses but he didn't believe that transparency required him to engage himself.  Let's see how that plays with the voters and on public access TV here in the Sound.

Saturday, August 23, 2014

KingCast and Mortgage Movies See Court Slam Stafne Law Offices in Lamelson v. NWTS Without Discovery: "They Have the Original Note and Allonge, Summary Judgment Granted."

Two videos forthcoming. 
Saturday: Post Hearing Discussions
Monday: The entire hearing.
Here is Plaintiff's failed Motion to Strike Summary Judgment. There is a pending Discretionary Review out there on the lack of Discovery afforded Plaintiff, meanwhile NWTS will have to Counterclaim for Foreclosure or Possession because it is certainly a Compulsory Counterclaim to Plaintiff's DTA Action.  The full video of the hearing is coming by the top of the week, but for now just watch the tail end of the proceedings as I discuss matters with Attorneys Gromley and Stafne, and interview Attorney Stafne outside.  He believes that expert witness Nye Lavelle's declarations of probable falsity in this specific case were grounds to allow Discovery to see if those documents were fabrications, as so many of them are these days.  He also claims -- with some force -- that other Courts have recently found that the entire MERS model renders them without power to transfer anything.  I watched some of these other cases as noted in recent journal entries, and I must concur.

I also have grave concerns about MERS being in the purported Chain of Title, Assigning more than it legally could have. Take a look at the thumbnail.

Be that as it may, while you can't hear much of it because of competing conversations, my discussion with Attorney Gromley largely concerns Fn3 from Knecht v. Fidelity and whose burden it is to prove up the Chain of Title.

Friday, August 15, 2014

KingCast and Mortgage Movies Celebrate as Stafne Law Crushes MERS, Fidelity and Deutsche Bank in Knecht v. Fidelity Summary Judgment; MERS Assignment a Legal Nullity.

Above: Attorneys Scott Stafne and Josh Trumbull at the command center 
as we discussed the ramifications of yesterday's Federal Court victory.

Several months ago KingCast/Mortgage Movies cameras interviewed Attorney Scott Stafne relative to the Unconstitutional Nature of the Deed of Trust Act vis a vis his pending case of Knecht v. Fidelity, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113131 (Washington WD 2014).  We were both clearly worried but it turned out for the good because they got a Judge who actually gives a damn. You see, in my vast experience as former escrow attorney and in shooting dozens of courtroom videos I see that some Courts and Judges get it: See Bradburn v. ReconTrust in which I shot the entire argument on some of the same issues manifest herein.  See also this summer's case of Pardo v. OCWEN, MERSCORP, NWTS. In this case the Judge denied the Stafne Constitutional arguments but at least got most of the the evidentiary matters correct.

However, some steadfastly refuse to acknowledge what I consider to be basic tenets of Jurisprudence. To wit, Judge Marsha Pechman, who is -- unfortunately in my opinion -- the Chief Justice in the Western District. I'll tell it straight to her face if given the opportunity, it's a Free Country the last time I checked. Heck, Attorney Stafne said as much when he moved to recuse her last year as noted in the above links, supra.

Here is the yesterday's ORDER from Hon. Richard C. Jones. I have taken the liberty of quoting some of the salient passages but there is much more.
"In Washington, lenders hoping to take advantage of the MERS system designated MERS as the beneficiary of deeds of trust, just as ABC did in Mr. Knecht’s deed of trust. But it is now clear that Washington law does not permit MERS to act as a beneficiary unless it is also the “holder” of the note secured by the deed of trust. Bain, 285 P.2d at 47. 

There is no suggestion that MERS ever held Mr. Knecht’s note, and yet it purported in April 2010 to assign to DB “the Promissory Note secured by [the Knecht] deed of trust and also all rights accrued or to accrue under said Deed of Trust.” The assignment, which is recorded in King County, was executed by “MERS as nominee for [ABC],” but there is no evidence that ABC actually authorized MERS to effect the transfer. See Bavand v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 309 P.3d 636, 649 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013)(noting MERS’s failure to establish its agency relationship with a noteholder). There is no dispute in this case that MERS lacked the power to transfer anything to DB. Knecht, 4-5. 

Mr. Knecht has offered two pieces of evidence: his original note and deed of trust, in which DB held no interest; and the MERS assignment, which was a legal nullity. A trier of fact could determine that this evidence makes it more likely than not that DB has no valid interest in Mr. Knecht’s note or deed of trust. Knecht, at 7. 

 Fn3 --  The court observes that it is the beneficiary, not the borrower, who can be expected to possess evidence that it is the holder or owner of a promissory note. The court finds it unlikely that a Washington court would burden the borrower alone with providing that evidence. As the Bain court observed, in cases where “the original lender ha[s] sold the loan, th[e] purchaser would need to establish ownership of that loan, either by demonstrating that it actually held the promissory note or by documenting the chain of transactions.” 285 P.3d at 47-48.
Mr. Knecht has evidence of damages caused by MERS’s and DB’s conduct. Mr. Knecht did what many homeowners faced with the prospect of foreclosure would do: he investigated. His evidence establishes that he spent substantial time on that investigation, and that suffices to establish a CPA injury. Walker, 308 P.3d at 727 (“Investigative expenses, taking time off from work, travel expenses, and attorney fees are sufficient to establish injury under the CPA.”). DB and MERS insist that the cause of Mr. Knecht’s injury was his default, not their wrongdoing, but they are mistaken. If a jury concludes that DB had no authority to foreclose, then a trier of fact could infer that the cause of his need to investigate was DB’s wrongfully-initiated foreclosure proceedings."

Sunday, August 10, 2014

KingCast and Mortgage Movies See Superior Court Judge Ignore Relevant Evidentiary Rules and Principles to Grant Summary Judgment in Foreclosure Case with Select Portfolio Services.

In stark contrast to the cases I've recorded where Stafne Law Firm wins (Pardo v. NWTS, MERSCORP, Ocwen on Civil Conspiracy) and (Bradburn v. ReconTrust on vertical integration and Trustee Bad Faith set aside sale) the Judge in this case completely neglected to issue any specific Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law.  There were issues of multiple entities claiming to hold the note, which in and of itself is a viable claim these days.  How can it be in the Trust and be in the lawyer's office at the same time, it is simply impossible. And whose burden is it to prove original signature -- always the foreclosing party last time I checked.  Expert witness Nye Lavalle (Deadly Clear) will be interested to know that the Court docked the homeowner because he did not explicitly say "that's not my signature." Well then going forward I would hope that homeowners explicitly say "that's not my signature" because as the Florida Bankers have stated, the original documents have pretty much been destroyed so no, if they are proclaiming to have your original signature then guess what: They are lying. I'll see to it that he gets this journal entry.

Just watch the first 5:25 minutes or so for the recap of essential arguments.

Friday, August 8, 2014

Thursday, August 7, 2014

KingCast and Mortgage Movies Say D-48 Senate Candidate Michelle Darnell is a Hit with Elders, Children and Voters: 5% of Cyrus Habib's Money and 36% of the Vote!

In this week's Primary run Candidate Michelle Darnell garnered 36% of the vote in Washington's 48th  District. Meanwhile her opponent Cyrus Habib -- a well-known, high-powered Yale Attorney -- continues to ignore the four (4) basic questions on education funding (McCleary), taxation and foreclosure that I tendered to both candidates two weeks ago.   That's probably not a Good Idea but then what do I know: I only graduated from Case Western Reserve School of Law..... the Harvard and Yale guys get to play by a different set of rules apparently, and it is in my opinion that sort of Old Boy Network (and a touch of voter apathy) that Habib is counting on to carry him to the finish line. Time will tell but whatever the case it appears that he will have a good run for his money.

And speaking of money, Crosscut Journal shows Darnell with $7,022.00 and Habib with $161,626.00. In today's video feature Darnell quips:
"That's a pretty good return on investment. Someone like that ought to be running the State budget." 
Stay tuned in the coming months for more updates.

Friday, August 1, 2014

Pardo v. NWTS -- KingCast Mortgage Movies See Stafne Trumbull Crush Ocwen, NWTS, RCO, MERS, MERSCORP in King County Superior Court Motion Hearing: Civil Conspiracy Moves to Discovery.

Court:  Originally the holder was Landhome... 
PTF:    Correct Your Honor.... 
Court:  And then Landhome assigned it to whom.... 
PTF:    We have no idea, that's the problem. We're here to get Discovery to find out what happened!!!"

Cross-Post: Deadly Clear Journal

Quick Update from Ohio: 

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Smith, 2014-Ohio-2845 -- The hits keep coming. Copies do not prove ownership of a Note, Mortgage/Deed of Trust nor do they confer the right to foreclose. Here is an analysis of the Note followed by the Mortgage at paras 14-15 and 18, respectively.  
[*P14] A review of the case law in Ohio indicates that, in order for a trial court to consider the content of a promissory note in a foreclosure action, that note must be properly authenticated and admitted into the record. The Sixth Appellate District held that an affidavit that failed [**10] to properly authenticate a promissory note in a foreclosure case precluded its consideration and prevented summary judgment in favor of the bank. HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc. v. Edmon, 6th Dist. Erie No. E-11-046, 2012-Ohio-4990, ¶ 23; see also BAC Home Loans Servicing v. Moore, 5th Dist. Licking No. 12 CA 50, 2012-Ohio-6284, ¶ 27; Wachovia Bank of Delaware v. Jackson, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2010-CA-00291, 2011-Ohio-3203, ¶ 39, 53-57. 

 [*P15] In its complaint, Bank of America's only claim that Smith owed it money arises from its allegation that Smith breached the terms of the promissory note. And Bank of America failed to properly introduce the note into the record to support its motion for summary judgment. Therefore, summary judgment was improper as to that claim.

[*P18] In this case, there is nothing from the Hamilton County Recorder's office certifying that the photocopy (of the Mortgage) was an accurate reproduction of the original. Therefore, it does not qualify for self-authentication pursuant to Evid.R. 902. Without an affidavit attesting to its authenticity, it was not properly before the trial court. Therefore the trial court erred when it considered the mortgage as evidence when it granted Bank of America's motion for summary judgment.




Note: This is in many ways the most important Mortgage Movie I have made, as MERS/MERSCORP, NWTS, and Routh, Crabtree did not escape a Motion to Dismiss for Civil Conspiracy to Steal and Resell... as such it is even more momentous than the Decision Reversing a sale in Bradburn v. ReconTrust, another case involving vertical integration and deceit, breach of Good Faith Covenants, etc. In essence Your Honor, the Emperor has no clothes.... and you can't bifurcate the note from the Deed of Trust. When MERS or anyone else "conveys" anything such as a Deed of Trust or Mortage by Assignment without a Note it is a legal nullity.

Significantly, the Court -- with urging from Stafne Attorney Brian Fisher captured on video -- affirmed Carpenter v. Longan 88 U.S. 271 (1872). Then there are the theft with intent to resell claims that survived as well......

"The Borrower needs to know who they are supposed to be negotiating with (Counsel and Court share a smile of common sense reasoning and logic).... The Note has to go first and the Deed of Trust is simply incident to that Transfer. If you just transfer the Deed of Trust, you've got nothing."-Brian Fisher, Esq.
Video of the Bench Ruling in Pardo v. NWTS et al 14-2-11741-8 coming shortly is here.