This happened to me;

I was aiding someone else in a complaint they had filed because I had a run in w/ the same party a couple years earlier. the person had an Affidavit by the party with the party attesting to "Facts" that were EXACTLY & OPPOSITELY OPPOSED to "Facts" the same party asserted in an Affidavit I had from my case. We submitted these two Affidavits as clear evidence that the party in question was untruthful and whatever they said couldn't be believed. Result, 'we' lost and there was no comment from the judge about the Affidavits each claiming the opposite from each other.

I would say that I hate to say "I told you so"...but I'd be lying.

The government, and that includes the AGs and the rest of the judiciary, are interested in two interconnected things: continuity and self-interest. When threatened with upheaval, a ruling class ALWAYS provides a parody of the vital powers that it is ostensibly supposed to exercise. This is nothing more than the modern equivalent of panem et circenses, and I don't have to tell you that there was never a senator (except those that had the temerity to go against the grain) that found himself mauled by a lion in the Colosseum. It was the dregs of society that found itself the sacrifice on the altar of entertainment used to soothe public outrage.

Welfare/perpetual unemployment was the bread. A few low-level convictions will be the circuses. Freedom will NEVER be returned to us through peaceful protest or due process of law; those that have taken it from us have absolutely nothing to gain by doing so. Mark my words.

What? The dead are signing affidavits? Quelle horreur. I hope you notice that such sins are among the more venial of bankster offerings. Let us not forget that these are the same morally-upright Americans who offered patrons dog-**** securities while betting against them themselves, they put folks with 700 FICO scores into option ARMs, they created and benefited from the housing bubble, they stole trillions and stuffed themselves on taxpayer funded bonuses - and what, we worry that they forged a few documents? Going after the banksters for document fraud is the functional equivalent of going after Hitler for check kiting. When viewed in its entirety, such fraud is "sloppy", after all the far larger crimes are widely being touted as "mistakes in my model" or other similar errors of judgement, not crimes. You want to see crime? I predict that you won't have to wait long after the new, Republican Congress gets going in January. They will fix the foreclosure mess (think "look forward, not backward"), and you will not like how they do so. Never forget, the banksters own the place, especially the Republicans.

Johngrey-

While I agree I must add that populist rage is close to all-time lows so not much will change for the foreseeable future unless I'm missing something.

@Jake

I wish it was only a $125 for running a stop. My wife made a right turn on a red light and got a ticket for $486.00! She got nailed by a red light camera here in California. We the people are paying for this fraud by the taxes of the local Governments! SCREW THESE CROOKS, I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THE BULL****!

If I got a $500 ticket I would move the next month. Honestly. That's beyond ridiculous.

Mayorquimby-

You're quite correct, but not just because of the lack of anger. Populist rage is all well and good in the hypothetical; it provides the necessary counterweight to the inevitable corruption of government, but only when it's refined. But it always requires the revolutionary ideal or some equivalent organizing principle to make it a viable force for change. Without it, you have nothing more than a mob which lashes out blindly. It burns itself out and discourages others from joining in by hurting those around them.

The citizens of this nation, and I have to believe most are at least semi-consciously aware of the screwing being done to them by the red-blue two-party cabal, can't even be marshaled to the self-interest of peaceably electing someone that will represent them fairly at any meaningful level of government. The idea that simply being disgruntled will provide enough forethought and actualization to allow them to fix things is, in my opinion, terribly optimistic. Political change, both good and bad, has always been caused by a proportionally tiny percentage of the population forcing the ruling class to drop its mask of civility and reveal the length and breadth of their corruption and brutality. It is this open display that finally forces the ostriches and fence-sitters to consciously choose slavery or freedom at any cost.

Language!

THERE IS NO DEBT COLLECTION INDUSTRY!!

There is a coercive (bogus-)DEBT PREDATION INDUSTRY consisting of economic cartels, whose sole mission is to create slavery through the back door.

Newspeak: "garnishment", "foreclosure", "creditors' rights".
Factspeak: involuntary servitude, home- and property confiscation, bogus assertions of bogus "creditors".

In the past there was a GENUINE need for a debt collector - anyone in GENUINE business knows this.

But the emphasis is on the English word "genuine", as in bona fide creditors of bona fide businesses asserting PROVEN "creditors' rights".

Anyone old enough to remember the pre-Anymeansjustifiestheend era, or the pre-Everythingisbogus era??

Happy New Year!

The Attorney General should be shot along with a few other lawyers for good measure in front of the capital on a cold day. The states attorney generals offices have broken down to where all they do is chase deadbeat dads. They wouldn't know a real crime if it happened to them.

Quote:

But it always requires the revolutionary ideal or some equivalent organizing principle to make it a viable force for change.

TPTB give people a reason to do the things they do. Slaves could easily overpower their owners but by doing so would lose their livelihoods. Animals can easily overtake the zookeepers but the handouts of food would cease.

What lies beyond the slave farm?

Nothing.

And that's why people put up with so much nonsense.

Quote:

If I got a $500 ticket I would move the next month. Honestly. That's beyond ridiculous.

I was in court suing a tenant a few years back, and most of the people in the clerks office were trying to arrange payment schedules for their various fines; some were large, for DUI or whatnot, but many were just trying to pay off 150 by setting up a 25 dollar per month schedule. And they did not take checks.

For quite a few people, a 500 dollar fine would blow their quarterly budget out of the water.

From my present perspective, the goal at all levels is debt slavery. They take your property, and/or they jail you and take your very freedom.

Ever since I learned of the concept of "economic rents" I have realized that more of our economy is dedicated and predicated upon extraction of such rents than not.

Think about it. You may get taxed at what, a 30% rate? But your subsistence needs are non-negotiable. So of the actual discretionary income (and I mean genuinely discretionary, meaning everything you could potentially choose to do without and still survive and maintain an income stream), the government is taking a great deal more than 30%. Then figure in all the other taxes and mandates and so on, and it would not terribly surprise me to find that 75% or more of the average person's economic surplus is taken from him involuntarily.

We are slaves in this country. You can qualify it by calling it "debt slavery", but chattel we are nonetheless. You can barely be alive in this country without being saddled with these economic rents, one on top of another on top of another, seemingly ad infinitum.

I don't see how this is qualitatively different from we as human beings being considered to be the outright property of those who extract such rents. Hence the surveillance and police state expansion, and rapid erosion of what little is left of our legal and Constitutional rights.

+1 Ican

There is your jurisdiction that you believe in - Vigilantism. I am one who if called upon in jury duty will not convict on vigilantism, regardless of the law. Albeit, should that vigilatism not have merit I will convict. And whether it has merit will be determined on my values.

For example should a:
a(n) executive of a bank get .... - not guilty
jack-booted thug get ..... - not guilty

list yours.

And that is what We the People still have.

Quote:

75% or more of the average person's economic surplus is taken from him involuntarily.

Hence .gov's need to get the multiplier up. They collect taxes on the same dollar multiple times.

Mannfm11 wrote..

They wouldn't know a real crime if it happened to them.

I'm sure if Ms. Swanson were raped she would just view it as a bit of corner-cutting on dating.

Johngrey, I was about to post something similar, but not so eloquent. Our leaders certainly suffer from the 'what's in it for me syndrome'.

wait a minute... She died in 95 and they didn't start till 96? She never even worked for them... at all... and at some point her notary had to be renewed... Not simply an oversight...

but hey it only involved dead beats that owed money - if they paid their bills none of this would be a problem...

You are absolutely right Cobra, but then again, two wrongs don't make a right.

We don't know and can't assume what the story is on the debtor (and they might be just deadbeats), but on the other hand, the bigger crime is the bigger entity that totally thought they were above the law. Stealing a Notary and using it fraudulently (especially on this scale) is down right - oh for God's sake - is there any "law of the land" left?

I really feel like we are in medieval times the way property rights are being handled at this time.

Nice catch on the fact that it is doubtful the Notary stayed valid that long without someone fraudulently renewing it. That would be an interesting lil investigation.

Mannfm11 wrote..

The Attorney General should be shot along with a few other lawyers for good measure in front of the capital on a cold day. The states attorney generals offices have broken down to where all they do is chase deadbeat dads. They wouldn't know a real crime if it happened to them.

No, they wouldn't. And shooting them wouldn't actually be a crime anyway. It would be a genuine public service.

And PRAA was up 15% in December. I would short it, but I'm sure I would be manipulated out of the position.

I did some research recently to find out how my state handles verified pleadings and sworn statements of account. I have been hoping to hear something from our AG or Supreme Court about foreclosures and robosigners. We have been typically consumer friendly in the past so my expectation was that we would join the chorus of states either stopping foreclosures or imposing tough rules on the use of affidavits and verified pleadings and who signs them.

What I discovered surprised the heck out of me. In 2006 a trial judge for a particular part of the state issued an order that under Rule 9 and Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (based on the Federal Rules) an attorney could not submit verified pleadings or sign "Verified Statements of Account" (VSAs) and attach them to complaints. He was rejecting orders submitted by a particular attorney who was signing these documents on behalf of his clients.

The order stated that the pleadings must be verified, or the VSA signed, by an officer or appointed agent of the plaintiff corporation. Now these were suits on accounts - basically collection actions on unsecured accounts and were not foreclosures and the orders were for default judgments on a sum certain. (liquidiated damages) However, the same rules apply in foreclosures. The judge based his order on the language of the rules which seems to say these must be signed by an agent with knowledge of the account. He reasoned that this excluded the attorney because he/she could them become a witness in the case. Sound reasoning I thought.

Our State Supreme Court reversed the Judge and issued an Administrative Order interpreting Rule 9 and 11 to say that the attorney, as agent for the plaintiff, could sign a verified complaint OR the attorney could also sign the VSA and attach it to the complaint. They even took it one step further and said that it was not necessary to have a corporate agent sign if the attorney had the account statements in his possession and was thus the custodian of those records and had personal knowledge of the content of those account records.

This does not stop robosigners because the rule permits a corporate agent to verify the complaint or sign the VSA. It just empowers the attorney for the plaintiff to sign. It also applied to default judgments and not contested cases. However, when an attorney files the summons and complaint he does not know if it will be a default or a contested case. If it becomes contested at any point I see all sorts of problems.

This does several things:
(1) it puts the burden on the attorney - loan servicers are going to ask attys in my state to sign rather than use corporate officers or agents;
(2) judges hearing foreclosure actions with affidavits signed by the attorney are going to be reluctant to look behind those verified pleadings and VSAs;
(3) banks and note holders can hide their fraud by sending the false information to the attorney.

It might also mean:
(1) attys won't sign the VSA and will require the corporate plaintiff to verify;
(2) attys will discover the fraud and not risk discipline by signing something they know to be false;
(3) the risk of attorney discipline might deter attorneys from signing;
(4) judges and special referees or Masters may allow defense attorneys to call the plaintiff's attorney as a witness at a contested foreclosure hearing
(5) the court might amend the rule.

This might actually be a good thing assuming the attorneys actually do verify these things but my concern is that courts will just be reluctant to challenge an attorney's verification.

The real problem is that because they just issued such an order I find it hard to believe that the Court would suddenly change course and order a stop to foreclosures or additional safeguards to avoid robosigning.

If it were me I would never sign a verification or VSA. If I were representing a plaintiff in foreclosure and they FedExed me the VSA already signed and notarized I would not attach it to a complaint and file it unless I had personally spoken with the signer AND the notary and made a note in the file. That is a good practice even in ordinary times.

HR 3808 the Interestate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010 is not dead. It was referred back to the House Committee on the Judiciary on 11/17/2010. The bill is still lurking. It will probably sneak back out for another unanimous consent treatment.

who does ""portfolio recovery solutions"" work for?

is it the banks who made bad loans or the people or banks who bought mbs?

it's sort of a deceptive title without knowing.

Oooh, this will be fun next time my zombie collector calls.

Portfolio Somethingoranother started calling me a couple months ago, claiming I owe $7000 on a supposed car loan from 1994. Like I would even acknowledge a 16yr old debt, much less pay them. I just start some vuvuzela "music" on my headphones and rubber-band them to my phone.

No idea if it's the company listed above, but yelling "like I'll believe anything from a company that is in the news for having dead people file fraudulent paperwork!!" sounds like fun. The first word of their name is the same, close enough.