• Archives

  • Blog Stats

    • 674,853 hits
  • Categories

  • Advertisements

Gary Dubin: Proposed Mortgage Integrity Act (MIA): — Livinglies’s Weblog

Proposed Mortgage Integrity Act.

Proposed Mortgage Integrity Act.

 

For ten years, Gary Dubin in Hawaii has been practicing law defending homeowners from foreclosure. He has preached his own version of how to combat foreclosure fraud. And he has practiced what he preached. I find his work enlightening and refreshing. So when I read his Proposed Mortgage Integrity Act (MIA) I decided to republish…

via Gary Dubin: Proposed Mortgage Integrity Act (MIA): — Livinglies’s Weblog

I agree with the Proposed Mortgage Integrity Act from Gary Dubin and I believe that every State in the United States should enact it into law.

 

Advertisements

Contingent Fees or Success Fees for Mediators: Why Not? — MEDIATBANKRY

By: Donald L. Swanson I have a new LinkedIn friend, Mark Winters from the U.K., who’s developed a mediation practice within an unusual context. And he’s making it work. Since the practice arose from his own creativity and out of unusual circumstances, he’s unbounded by common norms and can do creative things. One creativity is this: […]

via Contingent Fees or Success Fees for Mediators: Why Not? — MEDIATBANKRY

Interesting article. I agree with the author that contingency fees should be allowed in mediation as long as all of the parties involved have agreed.

The Fallacy of Legitimacy: SEC Documents are not Evidence

I believe that the general rule is, at least in California, that judicial notice can only be taken of the existence of certain documents, even if they are recorded, not their authenticity.
The California Supreme Court has stated that, although the existence of a document may be judicially noticeable, the truth of statements contained in the document and its proper interpretation are not subject to judicial notice if those matters are reasonably disputable. StorMedia, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457, fn. 9.

For example the court can only take judicial notice of recorded documents, it cannot take judicial notice of said documents if their truth or authenticity is disputed. See Skov v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 690, 696 (where bank sought judicial notice of a notice of default declaration stating compliance with Civ. Code, § 2923.5, whether the bank complied with section 2923.5 is the type of fact that is reasonably subject to dispute, and thus, not a proper subject of judicial notice.)

A matter ordinarily is subject to judicial notice only if it is reasonably beyond dispute. See Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp., supra 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 114-115.

When judicial notice is taken of a document, however, the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable. Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage (1986) 184 Cal. App.3d 369, 374. Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage, supra, 184 Cal.App.3d at page 374 stated: “Taking judicial notice of a document is not the same as accepting the truth of its contents or accepting a particular interpretation of its meaning.

I believe that the general rule is, at least in California, that judicial notice can only be taken of the existence of certain documents, even if they are recorded, not their authenticity. The California Supreme Court has stated that, although the existence of a document may be judicially noticeable, the truth of statements contained in […]

View original post

It’s the Rules of Evidence Stupid: 25 Ways in Which Foreclosure Attorneys Are Knowingly Committing Fraud on Our State and Federal Courts — Deadly Clear

Sunday, February 4, 2018 – 3 PM HST (Rebroadcast from June 14, 2015 – Its Super Bowl Sunday – everybody deserves a day off now and then) Upcoming Discussion for Sunday’s THE FORECLOSURE HOUR Sundays: 3 pm (HST) / 5 pm (PST) / 8 pm (EST). Click HERE to listen. ——————————- Not very long ago lenders filing foreclosure actions […]

via It’s the Rules of Evidence Stupid: 25 Ways in Which Foreclosure Attorneys Are Knowingly Committing Fraud on Our State and Federal Courts — Deadly Clear

Knowledge of the rules of evidence for your particular state is vital for anyone fighting foreclosure.  If only the California Supreme Court would rule that lenders must prove their “standing at inception” to foreclose, having evidence of the possession of the underlying promissory note at the time the foreclosure lawsuit was first filed.

A Little Bit of Foreclosure Soap Won’t Wash Away Those Unclean Hands — Livinglies’s Weblog

One who comes into equity must come with clean hands else all relief will be denied him regardless of merit of his claim and is not essential that act be a crime; it is enough that it be condemned by honest and reasonable men” Roberts v Roberts, 84 So.2d 717 (Fla. 1956) By Joel Sucher, […]

via A Little Bit of Foreclosure Soap Won’t Wash Away Those Unclean Hands — Livinglies’s Weblog

The United States Supreme Court has stated that the unclean hands doctrine demands that a plaintiff act fairly in the matter for which he seeks a remedy. He must come into court with clean hands, and keep them clean, or he will be denied relief, regardless of the merits of his claim. Precision Co. v. Automotive Co. (1945) 324 U.S. 806, 814-815, 65 S.Ct. 993, 89 L.Ed. 1381.

Financial Industry Caught with Its Hand in the Cookie Jar — Livinglies’s Weblog

Like the infamous NINJA loans, the REMICs ought to be dubbed NEITs — nonexistent inactive trusts. The idea of switching lenders without permission of the borrower has been accepted for centuries. But the idea of switching borrowers without permission of the “lender” had never been accepted until the era of false claims of securitization. This […]

via Financial Industry Caught with Its Hand in the Cookie Jar — Livinglies’s Weblog

Fact Check: Robo-witness knows nothing — Livinglies’s Weblog

Information is admitted in evidence only after a proper foundation has been laid. If the witness knows nothing about the foundation the evidence should not be admitted as evidence. Appellate courts will usually reverse a trial court’s error in ruling on evidence UNLESS the appellate panel decides that the error would not have made any […]

via Fact Check: Robo-witness knows nothing — Livinglies’s Weblog

%d bloggers like this: