Potential felony charges make servicers pause Nevada foreclosures
Many mortgage servicers stopped initiating foreclosures in Nevada because of a new law, which carried threats of criminal penalties for faulty filings.
Assembly Bill 284 took effect Oct. 1, making it a felony if a mortgage servicer or trustee made false representations concerning a title. There also will be a $5,000 fine assessed if fraud, such as robo-signing, is detected. The new law requires servicers to provide a new affidavit that provides the amount due on the mortgage, who is in possession of the note and who has the authority to foreclose.
Rest here…
Copy of the bill below…
~
4closureFraud.org
~
[…] non-judicial state among the top dozen states with the highest foreclosure inventories, because they passed a law in 2011 making it a felony if a mortgage servicer made fraudulent representations …, and imposed fines up to $5,000 for falsifying documents, which slowed foreclosures in that state […]
[…] Nevada, the only non-judicial state in the top dozen with the highest foreclosure inventories, passed a law in 2011 making it a felony if a mortgage servicer made fraudulent representations conce…, and imposed fines up to $5,000 for falsifying documents, which slowed foreclosures in that state […]
It is a felony to file false affidavits in public record and the courts. I dont understand the need for this but if it helps lets push all our represenatives to do this. The utters law, the forgery of false affidavitts forery laws I would think would cover this and case law.
See:VII. CASE LAW: 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).
A Court of Appeals does not consider assertions of error that are unsupported by convincing legal authority or argument, unless it is apparent without further research that the argument is well taken. FRAUD is a point well taken! Lambert Supra.
1. 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 ab initio. 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).
(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.
A Court of Appeals does not consider assertions of error that are unsupported by convincing legal authority or argument, unless it is apparent without further research that the argument is well taken. FRAUD is a point well taken! Lambert Supra.
The Supreme Court found that the Plaintiff in a civil RICO action need establish only a criminal “violation” and not a criminal conviction. Further, the Court held that the Defendant need only have caused harm to the Plaintiff by the commission of a predicate offense in such a way as to constitute a “pattern of Racketeering activity.” That is, the Plaintiff need not demonstrate that the Defendant is an organized crime figure, a mobster in the popular sense, or that the Plaintiff has suffered some type of special Racketeering injury; all that the Plaintiff must show is what the Statute specifically requires. The RICO Statute and the civil remedies for its violation are to be liberally construed to affect the congressional purpose as broadly formulated in the Statute. Sedima, SPRL v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 105 S. Ct. 3275, 87 L. Ed. 2d 346 (1985).
AND THIS IS GOOD FOR ALL THOSE SMJ HANDED US ILLEGALLY: See: the ll th Circuit Appeals court: Wekesao Madzimoyo plaintiff/ Appellant v. Bank of New York Mellon, Trust cCo. NA , Bank of NY , JP Morgan Chase ; GMACC: “ Reversed’remands “the federal court lacked jurisdiction because although the petition referenced federal law, none of the claims relied on fed. Law.” The judges in the district courts are of the know the petitioners / now Appellant’s cases does not rely federal law and there are in fact state laws our cases relies on. The district judges are in the know of this, yet allow the defendants to take advantage of the Pro Se clients lack of statutes knowledge and toss their cases in federal court where they are of the know the judges are partial to big business and big banks and rule by bank law and not by the law nor the constitution.
False affidavits to the court is “Fraud upon the court” See case law:
FACT IS AN ERRONEOUS SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS MADE AGAINST THE ERICKSON’S IN ERROR BASED UPON FRAUD UPON THE COURT
Erroneous Summary Judgment denies due process, concealing the truth and facts brought out in an oral trial by jury: The depositions of plaintiff’s witnesses is substantial evidence the city defendants concealed the truth and cause false testimony of city employe witnesses. Pretrial discovery is not intended as a game. Many trial judges throughout this state have bemoaned the tactics of the minority of lawyers and parties that abuse the discovery process; See The Fla. Bar v. Miller, 863 So.2d 231 (Fla.2003) ordering one-year suspension of attorney who deliberately concealed his knowledge of client’s receipt of EEOC’s right –to-sue letter).; The Fla. Bar v. Rood, 569 So. 2d 750 (Fla.1990) (concealing expert’s memorandum and causing clients to sign false answers under oath warranted attorney’s one-year suspension); Mercer v. Raine listed above The Court is also empowered to sanction counsel for its role in the litigation misconduct.. “Fraud up on the Court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court. It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 lll. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934),
The court should freely give leave when justice so requires. Roles v. Davis 1F.&F.563,4 H. &N 484, 28L.J.Exch. 287:Power v . Pringle, 31, Nova Scotia 78, Knight v Dunn, 47. Fla, 175, 36So. 02:
……wow….way too little…..way too late…..
TY!!!! 4closure for keeping all in the loop so we can fight the food fight
I like that I will probably be able to use some of this infor on my mtg. issues, I am close to requesting all info on my mtg (again) file with court and hold pmts in escrow once I do my own audit so until someone makes it damn clear who what when and where all the stolen money has gone to and to question the service/fannie/our gov – just one simple question and adding to this I now have a, what they called a “permanent mod” with not much difference money and more on the loan now (Fraud) the question to the thugs will be -are you the proper entity that should be getting this ill-gotten hard earned money. So prove the standing and a case of fraud will be filed and much MUCH more, just got to get the little duckies in a nice little long row
Great. I hope other states follow suit.