Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998: A Twenty-Year Anniversary and Impressive Results — MEDIATBANKRY

By: Donald L. Swanson 2018 marks the twenty-year anniversary of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998 [codified at 28 U.S.C. § 651 et seq., the “ADR Act”]. Preamble The preamble to the ADR Act contains these findings on mediation: –“mediation . . . may have potential to reduce the large backlog of cases now […]

via Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998: A Twenty-Year Anniversary and Impressive Results — MEDIATBANKRY

Altering or amending a judgment in United States District Court

http://www.legaldocspro.com/blog/motion-for-reconsideration-in-united-states-district-court/

 

Correction of a clerical error in United States District Court

http://www.legaldocspro.net/blog/motion-to-correct-a-clerical-error-in-united-states-district-court/

 

Sovereign citizen legal argument

http://www.legaldocspro.net/blog/sovereign-citizen-legal-argument/

 

Free sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation

Free sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation are the topic of this blog post. If you are looking for a bill of sale or other sample legal document be sure to check out the embedded document below that has more details.

 

Rule 7001(2) complaint to determine validity of liens in United States Bankruptcy Court

http://www.legaldocspro.net/blog/adversary-complaint-to-determine-validity-of-liens-in-united-states-bankruptcy-court/

 

USURY REVIVED: 2d Circuit Rules Assignee Does Not Inherit the Preemption of National Banks

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the case of Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC that state usury law apply to assignees of debt and that preemption rules of the National Banking Act do not apply. I agree with Neil Garfield that this case could have far reaching implications, particularly if it is cited by other Circuit Courts of Appeal.

Livinglies's Weblog

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688.

===================================

see Assignees of Debt May Not Charge Usurious Rates in the State of the Borrower

This is a decision with extremely far reaching consequences. Practically all debt now is subject to claims of securitization. Thus most “loans” are assigned and/or sold or transferred to a third party. It has been assumed that the National Banking Act preempted any local laws on usury.

But it turns out that the ability of national banks (like Bank of America et al) to exclude themselves from laws setting the limit for the rate of interest they can charge is limited to that Bank. The hidden ruling here is that for all those loans that are originated by “lenders” that are NOT national banks, the local usury laws apply. The obvious ruling that any successor that is not a national bank must comply with local laws…

View original post 723 more words

Rescission Confusion Persists

Another Neil Garfield blog post on rescission in which he claims that there is nothing contingent about a TILA rescission and that once the notice is mailed the burden is then on the bank to file a lawsuit within 20 days contesting the notice of rescission.

Livinglies's Weblog

For more information on common law rescission, TILA Rescission and foreclosure defenses please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

THIS IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION ON ANY ONE PARTICULAR CASE. GET A LAWYER, BUT INSIST THAT HE OR SHE  DO THOROUGH ANALYSIS BEFORE HE OR SHE GIVES AN OPINION.

===========================================

THERE IS NOTHING CONTINGENT ABOUT TILA RESCISSION

“EFFECTIVE” MEANS GAME OVER, IT’S DONE

Confusion reigns only because those who are questioning me are not doing their homework and not reading the statute, and not reading Reg Z and not reading the Jesinowski decision. So let me be clear — there are dozens of lawyers who agree with what I am about to tell you. Our rescission package does look at the content and the addressees of the notice of rescission, but 99% of it is about what happens after the notice of rescission is sent. The problem is that most lawyers are…

View original post 1,259 more words

California Court Pierces the Curtain of Secrecy on WAMU Deals

A United States District Judge in the Northern District of California in case of Burke v.JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. rules that if a big bank such as WAMU had sold the loan before it then sold the loan to a trust or anyone else, then the entire chain is void. Another win for a California homeowner is always good news to me.

Livinglies's Weblog

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

NOTE: My new administrative assistant is Susan Rose. Danielle and Geordan no longer work for livinglies or my law practice.

==========================================

Hat Tip to Dan Edstrom, DTC Systems, our senior forensic analyst.

This decision finally brings the real issue to the forefront: who, if anyone, actually has the legal status of creditor or the right to claim ownership of the debt, loan, note or mortgage? In this case the Court correctly centered on the real issue: if WAMU had ALREADY sold the loan before it “sold” the loan to a trust or anyone else, then the entire chain is not just defective, or corrupted, it is void. And then you have quiet title, wrongful foreclosure and probably RICO although that does not seem to be in the pleadings for this case.

Lawyers take note: This Judge still doesn’t like the rambling shotgun…

View original post 1,308 more words

6th Circuit Reverses Trial Court on RICO Against BofA, Law firm, et al

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a decision in which they reversed the trial court and allowed a RICO lawsuit to proceed against Bank of America and a law firm. The decision also stated that if the party foreclosing has no right to foreclose then the alleged default of the alleged borrower doesn’t matter. This is a great decision that I found on the Neil Garfield website. I just wish the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals would issue a decision like this one.

Livinglies's Weblog

For more information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

HOLD THE PRESSES! RICO IS ALIVE AND WELL — IT IS THE DEFAULT THAT IS IRRELEVANT!!!

============================================

SEE http://www.troydoucet.com/racketeering-lawsuit-over-robo-signing-can-proceed/

SEE

The key element here is the Court’s determination that the lawyers were misleading the court by characterizing the homeowner’s claim as seeking damages for a false assignment. The Sixth Circuit correctly analyzed the situation and arrived at the simple conclusion: if BOA didn’t have any right to foreclose the mortgage then it doesn’t matter whether or not the homeowner defaulted.

The importance of this finding, finally, in a somewhat conservative court cannot be understated. It might well be as important as the Jesinoski decision. The reason it is so important is that this means that the primary assumption by virtually all courts in the land is turned upside down. That assumption is that if the borrower defaulted it doesn’t matter who is…

View original post 269 more words