Author Archives: dboggs07

Your Cup Runneth over

Your Cup Runneth Over

WHY SOME PEOPLE HAVE IT ALL

How many times have you met people who seem to have “it all” and yet, all they do is complain about how bad they have it? Then there are others who in spite of having to cope with unusually difficult challenges see themselves as fortunate and even blessed. I think this goes further than simply letting a smile be your umbrella. Rather it’s the deeper perspective they hold for themselves and the world around them that colors every event and interaction of their daily lives. For those who see the glass as half-full, the voice is a friendly one. However, wouldn’t it be great if those who live in a world of half-empty glasses could change their perspective to bring more joy and satisfaction to their lives?

HEARING THE VOICE IN YOUR HEAD

All of us have constant and highly dictatorial voices in our heads that we are so used to hearing that we believe them to be real and wise. This voice is very much in control of many of your actions, much of what you think, what you will and won’t say. The inner voice constantly frets about the future… it chatters away about its worries concerning life, people and how things will go. And it seems to us that the voice is just being smart by warning of danger and by being protective from all of the bad people and events in the world or is being smartly speculative… we think it’s completely rational, understanding, even brilliant, especially in a world filled with terrorism, natural disasters and economic uncertainty.

WHAT YOU SAY IS WHAT YOU GET

The problem is that the explanations that our inner voices provide about events in the past and predictions for the future leave us stuck with low expectations and a sense of resignation. This voice’s confident assessment of future reality may thus lead you to lock yourself into patterns of behaviors in small ways and large ones. For example, you might refuse to go out to dinner with your spouse because “we always argue when we go out to dinner” or “we never have anything to talk about so it’s not fun.” Another possibility is that you may live with chronic, low-level melancholia because your life never seems to work out the way you would like.

Your voice is really telling you the story of your life — the reason it is the way it is, why you are the way you are, and who you can blame.” Listen carefully, to hear how it drones on in a constant state of sameness and how its themes become the themes of your life. By listening to and following the guidelines of these inner voices, people get exactly what they expect from their lives — dissatisfaction. But no one really wants to be unhappy in life,we’d all prefer to be happy and fulfilled.

THOUGHTS CAN BE CHANGED

The good news is thoughts can be changed. They can be denied, laughed at and even eliminated — and you can bring your inner voice in line to harmonize with what you want for your life. You must learn to understand what it is saying and how that affects what you do… what you believe… and who you are.

The point is you are not your inner voice. You are a person who actually has a choice whether or not to listen to your inner voice. Your voice may tell you “you’ll never do that”… or “you can’t succeed”… when you’re considering a new job. Or, it may make excuses that sound more like “I don’t have time,” “I can’t take a class that’s so far away” or “my spouse would never let me spend money on that.” Beneath those excuses, however, is the real message: “I’m scared to ask for what I want and go for it.” The voice may seem like it is keeping you safe, helping you avoid rejection or keeping you from getting hurt… but it is really just holding you back.

With such discouragement coming at you all day, is it any wonder you can’t muster a productive attitude and therefore end up perceiving your life as lacking? Be aware that wherever in your life you lack satisfaction, the voice is probably running rampant. Its many versions keep you the innocent victim with a no-fault policy. This, however, is exactly what stops you from believing in yourself. Regardless of how much you have, there is always what you still want. If you’re not moving toward getting there, you may well be listening to your own drama or resignation that explains why you can’t.

CHANGING THE MESSAGE

And so the first step in revising the messages is to discover exactly what they contain. Here’s how to do that: For a week or two or maybe even a month, keep a “thought log” detailing the comments you make in your head. This teaches you to hear how your voice talks to you — about you, about others, about your body and the events of your day. Get to know this voice and really hear the dialogue that plays endlessly in your head. List the excuses (“no time” or “no money,” for instance). The point is to become so present to your themes that at last you can see where you have been dwelling. What you discover doesn’t have to make sense initially, but if you approach this exercise with humor you can enjoy discovering your hidden influences. This practice begins to separate you from your inner voice.

The next step is to identify your themes. Give them nicknames — are you a sourpuss, always looking to the bleak side? A know-it-all martyr, endlessly doing for others and never for yourself? Perhaps you are a mean saint or a better-than-everyone-else Goodie Two Shoes. Probably your voice has several themes and this is your opportunity to discover them all.

A NEW VOICE

The most challenging task follows — putting into practice the commitment to changing your thoughts. Having exposed them and interpreted their themes and messages, the odds are that you’ve realized these are not the themes you want to be living with. By taking charge of your thoughts you can take charge of your life.

Make rules that help you accomplish this. For instance, you might make a rule that you don’t allow yourself to make snide remarks to yourself about people you see on the street. Another one: Your internal voice is not allowed to tell you that life is short-changing you… and it is never, ever to announce negative conclusions about anything you are facing. To be effective, these rules demand vigilance, diligence and discipline — otherwise your life will slip back to being what it was.

LEARNING TO LAUGH AT YOURSELF IS A MAJOR STEP

No doubt you will find that much of what your voice says concerns others in your life, since your inner voice is practiced at coming to conclusions about what others think, including about you. Your inner voice is really a lot like a bad journalist — reporting what it decides is true without bothering to check the facts. Challenge yourself to do the research by asking the other person or people for their input about what troubles you. It calls for personal courage, but it can be done with honor and respect. When you “hear” such a fear or concern three times, ask questions. Start by saying something like, I’m saying this stuff to myself and I think you could clarify it for me… since it is about you and I want to know if I am nuts or not.

When walking down the street, remind yourself to love people, not pick on them. Assigns light consequences to yourself if you starts to fret, replacing worries with positive thoughts. “This is the most important work you can do. “It’s like building the muscle of the mind. If your thoughts run you and you don’t manage them it is a bit like allowing your child to watch television all the time. We know how that turns out — inconsistent and most likely unhealthy.”

Once you introduce yourself to the storyteller inside your head, you can start working at last on the life and relationships your true self has long hoped to have. With effort, your cup may indeed begin to run over.

 

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2017 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

It’s actually all quite simple, but so corrupt

Once you see behind the proverbial curtain you will find that “it’s actually all quite simple, but so corrupt.”  Why do we call it a justice system, when the justice is gone?  Why do we call it a Trustee when it is in fact a strawman?  Why do we call it a Deed of Trust, when there is no trust involved?  Why do we call it a Non-judicial foreclosure procedure, when the courts are partisan to the fraud?  Perhaps it is called Non-judicial because you will never find true justice.

 

It all comes down to this: “The banks are incapable of proving that the Trustee is in fact independent in the Deed of Trust contract which the bank used as the instrument as means to attach the home as collateral against the mortgage.  The bank is incapable of proving that the Trustee has the power to protect the homeowner from any wrongdoing by the bank during the life of the Deed of Trust contract as described by the need for the Trustee to be recognized as an independent party to the Deed of Trust transaction.  If the banks are unable to prove of the independence of the Trustee in a Deed of Trust agreement then they are in fact committing fraud when using a Deed of Trust agreement when they do not inform the borrower of the fact that the Trustee is not independent and is incapable of looking out in the best interests of the borrower in the Deed of Trust.  If the bank uses a Deed of Trust agreement, knowing that the Trustee is not independent as described by the CA Supreme Court in 1978; Garfinkle v Superior Court of Contra Costa County, they are in fact committing fraud against the borrower at the inception of the contract which makes the contract in fact VOID.”

 

Because the bank knows that they are in control of the Trustee in a non-judicial foreclosure action they are able to in fact foreclose on anyone, anytime, anywhere whether they have a mortgage or even paid cash for their property.   Because the banks know that they own the power to replace the Trustee at any time for any reason they see fit they know that if they wish to file fraudulent paperwork to the County Recorder’s Office in a non-judicial foreclosure.  Because there is no party looking out for the interest of the property owner and the courts have handed over the justice system to the Trustee in a Non-Judicial foreclosure action.  Because the courts have entrusted the Trustee, and the CA  Supreme Court has ruled that the Trustee is to be independent in a Deed of Trust agreement they have given the judicial power of correctness to all of the documents that are filed into the court in a non-judicial foreclosure procedure.
The reason the bank or other party is able to file whatever paperwork they choose in order to foreclose on someone is due to a 1998 rule that changed the rules to the Power of Sale clause.  This rule comes from the 1996 Senate bill 1638:

SB 1638, Johnson. Deeds of trust: trustee substitution. Existing law sets forth the procedures for the substitution of trustees under a deed of trust upon real property or an estate for years therein. This bill would, as an alternative procedure, set forth the procedures for the substitution of trustees under a deed of trust upon real property or an estate for years, given to secure an obligation to pay money, by the beneficiary or beneficiaries under the trust deed who hold more than 50% of the record beneficial interest of a series of notes secured by the same real property or of undivided interests in a note secured by real property equivalent to a series transaction. The bill would also establish a process through which all of the beneficiaries under a trust deed can agree to be governed by beneficiaries holding more than 50% of the record beneficial interest of a series of notes in real property or interests in a note equivalent to a series transaction, as specified. In order to substitute trustees or agree to be governed by the majority interest holders, all parties to the transaction would be required to sign and record a document containing specified information.

This rule gave the bank to power to substitute a new trustee at the will of the bank thereby destroying any semblance of law to the Power Of Sale clause or CA Civ Code 2924 therein making any Deed of Trust agreement fraudulent on its face and therefore void.  Which makes EVERY Deed of Trust agreement since Jan 1, 1998 in fact VOID.

 

We will go over the true repercussions of this next.

 

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2017 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

HSBC v Buset decision

Someone recently called the HSBC v Buset decision to my attention. This decision came out almost a year ago, but I think it’s good to have a reminder. I was going to write my own analysis but then I came across the following. It basically hits on most of the points I would have made anyway.

Now it needs to be said – this decision doesn’t even appear in the regular section I would normally pull decisions from. That tells me this is not a precedential decision. I think the analysis the Judge provides is the most important part. His analysis can be used to formulate these same arguments.

If anyone needs to know the note is not negotiable argument, I have it nearly verbatim to what they judge has in this decision. I’ve seen the argument before and have it written.

The definition of Note Holder in the Note is not the same as the one in the UCC. The Judge addresses that in this decision as well.

 

Okay, here’s an analysis of the decision:

Posted on May 25, 2016 by attorney Susan Lacava

(Originally published on AFN – Anti-Foreclosure Network)

This decision from a trial court in Miami addresses hot topics in foreclosure defense:

  1. assignment of a mortgage by a defunct company;
  2. failure to transfer the loan to the depositor during the securitization;
  3. the subsequent loan servicer hearsay problem;
  4. and the negotiability of the note.

ASSIGNOR OUT OF BUSINESS
The original lender was Freemont Investment and Loan. MERS held the mortgage as nominee of Freemont. In 2012, Ocwen had the mortgage assigned to it in preparation for the foreclosure. Freemont, however, went out of business in 2008. Here is what Judge Butchko had to say about that: The Court takes judicial notice that on July 25, 2008, Freemont Investment and Loan (“Freemont”) entered into a voluntary liquidation and closing which did not result in a new institution. As such, the status of MERS as nominee for Freemont ended when Freemont closed on July 25, 2008, which renders the AOM created in 2012 void ab initio. [ab initio is Latin for from the first act or meaning from the start.]

This is straightforward application of the Agency rule that when the principal dies, the agency dies. MERS ceased being Freemont’s agent in 2008, when Freemont went out of business. It had no authority to act on behalf of Freemont in 2012 when the mortgage was assigned from MERS to Ocwen. There are 3 things I want you to notice in this paragraph. First, a new institution was not begun out of Freemont’s ashes. That meant that Freemont was conclusively dead. Other lenders, such as Countrywide, were purchased by other businesses. Whether the agency survived either the merger or the sale of assets is a difficult legal question, which may hinge on the details of the transaction. Second, the court took judicial notice of records kept online by the FDIC. Judicial notice is a rule of evidence that allows the court to accept evidence without a witness. You must look at the evidence code in your state to seek whether a piece of evidence is capable of being admitted by judicial notice. Third, be certain to visit the FDIC database if the original lender in your case went out of business. If, like Freemont, the lender went out of business and another business was not created from the liquidation, you may have a good argument that the lender is without question dead.

That lays the groundwork for arguing that MERS stopped being an agent when the original lender went out of business. Here is how the death of the agency played out in court: The transaction described in the AOM never legally occurred. There was never a transaction between MERS and/or Freemont Investment and Loan that sold Defendant’s loan directly to the Trust. Not in 2012, not in 2005, not ever. This is an application of the holding that the assignment was void ab initio. Something that is void ab initio has never existed legally.
PSA NOT FOLLOWED The Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA), like all PSAs, required the loan to go from the originator to the depositor to the trust. (If you would like some background information, read How Securitization Was Supposed To Work on the website). The note for the loan before the court, however, went from the originator directly to the trust. The AOM [assignment of mortgage] is missing a key party in the chain of ownership, the Depositor, Freemont Mortgage Securities Corporation. Similarly, the undated, specific endorsement affixed to the back of the promissory note reflects the same defective transfer from the originator to the Plaintiff, without reference to the depositor.

This endorsement is contrary to the unequivocal terms of the PSA, in evidence over Plaintiff’s objection, which required all intervening endorsements be affixed to the face of the note because there was ample room for endorsements on the face of the note. There is also no evidence the endorsement was affixed before the originator went out of business in 2008. The requirement that the loan go from the originator to the depositor to the trust serves a very important purpose, it puts the trust assets out of the reach of a bankruptcy trustee: The Court accepts the testimony of Defendant’s well qualified expert witness, Kathleen Cully, who explained the securitization model which required the protection of assets from future bankruptcy clawbacks. There could be no direct sale from the originator to the trust directly.

If you have read the post on void and voidable transactions, you know that the last sentence — there could be no direct sale from the originator to the trust directly — is very important: it means that the attempt to transfer the loan from the originator directly to the trust is void, not merely voidable. Judge Butchko also held that Ocwen lacked standing because of the failure to transfer the loan to the depositor before transferring it to the trust: Plaintiff, HSBC Bank USAS, National Association, as trustee for Freemont Home Loan Trust 2005-B mortgage Backed Certificates, Series 2005-B, failed to prove it is the proper owner and holder of the Defendant’s loan by virtue of the endorsement on the note or the assignment of mortgage. Both the endorsement and the assignment omit the Depositor, Freemont Mortgage Securities Corporation, from the transaction which constitutes a fatal break in the chain of title. 45. The Defendant presented the testimony of their expert witness, Ms. Cully, who testified that the endorsement on the note is contrary to the instructions in 2.01 of the PSA that required a complete chain of endorsements, which would include the Depositor, to be placed on the face of the note so long as space allowed. The Court notes there is ample space on the face of the note for endorsements. Therefore, the Court finds that the undated specific endorsement from the originator directly to the trust found on the back of the note is inherently untrustworthy.

The Court further questions the validity of the endorsement in that Plaintiff violated the Court’s order to produce the custodian’s records or documents showing when and how the endorsement was affixed to the original note. In addition, the Court accepts Ms. Cully’s testimony that the form of the endorsement and assignment would be grounds for the Trust to reject this loan pursuant to the PSA. There is not a complete chain of endorsements on the face of the note. The PSA required no assignment of mortgage, only that the Trust appear in the MERS system as the loan owner. For these reasons, the Court finds Plaintiff failed to prove its standing to foreclose the note and mortgage in this action.

RECORDS OF PRIOR SERVICER
Servicers incorporate the records of prior servicers in their own records. Servicers sometimes argue that the mere incorporation of the records into its system ought to allow one of its employees to testify about the things that must be proved in order to have the records admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. (if you need some background on hearsay and the business record exception read Hearsay and the Prior Servicer Problem on mywebsite, mortgage-rights.com).

There are two problems with the servicer’s argument. First, its employee does not have personal knowledge of the business practices of the prior servicer. Witnesses are not allowed to testify about events for which they have no personal knowledge. You can find this rule in the Rules of Evidence. Second, to be admissible, the current servicer has to examine the records of the prior servicer to determine whether the records are accurate during the “loan boarding” process. Readers of the blog know that a close inspection of Ocwen’s loan boarding process reveals that there is no check for accuracy.

See my prior post, “Ocwen Boarding Process Fails to Check Accuracy of Prior Servicer’s Records.” Here is the testimony that Judge Butchko heard: Ms. Keeley testified the loan boarding process involved two steps. First, Ocwen confirmed that the categories for each column of financial data from the prior servicer matched or corresponded to the same name Ocwen used for that same column of financial data. Second, Ocwen confirmed the figures from the prior servicer transferred over such that the top figure from Litton became the bottom figure for Ocwen.

Ms. Keeley admitted there was absolutely no math done to check the accuracy of the prior servicer’s records or numbers. The loan boarding process’ verification to ensure the trustworthiness of the prior servicer’s records is therefore a legal fiction. In this case, Ocwen simply accepted the prior servicer’s numbers as true without any effort to audit or confirm their accuracy. The only confirmation appears to have been the check a carryover of figures from one servicer’s columns to the columns of another.

Moreover, Ms. Keeley testified loans with “red flags” would never be allowed to board onto Ocwen’s system until the prior servicer resolved them. However, Ms. Keeley also admitted she has witnessed loans that went through the boarding process that had misapplied payments and substantially incomplete loan payment histories from the prior servicer. The existence of misapplied payments and incomplete payment histories in loans that went through the loan boarding process contradicts any suggestion that the boarding process identifies red flags and/or clears them, such that Courts can trust the reliability of their records.

To support the court’s concern regarding the lack of foundation of the so called boarded records in this case, the Court takes Judicial Notice of the Consent Order entered in the matter of Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC by the New York State Department of Financial Services dated December 22, 2014. This Consent Order documents Ocwen’s practice of backdating business records that it failed to fully resolve “more than a year after its initial discovery.” Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff failed to inquire into the accuracy, reliability or trustworthiness of the prior servicer’s payment history. Ocwen’s own payment history merely accepts the prior servicer’s records as accurate without question unless the numbers were challenged at some point after the loan boarding process. That is simply not enough to for this court to accept the prior servicer’s records as trustworthy and admit them into evidence here. A mere reliance by a successor business on records created by others, although an important part of establishing trustworthiness, without more is insufficient. Bank of New York v. Calloway, 157 So.3d 1064, 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

As such, this Court exercised its discretion to sustain Defendant’s objections to both payment histories as inadmissible hearsay. Therefore Plaintiff lacked evidence of an essential element of proof, damages, warranting an involuntary dismissal. “Involuntary Dismissal,” by the way, means Ocwen lost the foreclosure case… big time. Judge Butchko may sanction the Trust and/or its attorneys for fraud on the court. I would like to add another point: we may be able to use Judge Butchko’s decision to prevent Ocwen from arguing that its boarding process checks the accuracy of the prior servicer’s records. The legal term of this is “issue preclusion.” Various states may have different rules, so you need to research the issue preclusion rule in your state. In Wisconsin, parties cannot litigate issues that pass these tests: (1) whether issue preclusion can, as a matter of law, be applied, and if so, (2) whether the application of issue preclusion would be fundamentally fair. In re Estate Rille ex rel. Rille, 728 N.W.2d 693, 2007 WI 36, par. 36, 300 Wis.2d 1 (Wis., 2007). Issue preclusion can be applied as a matter of law if (1) the issue or fact was actually litigated and determined in the prior proceeding by a valid judgment in a previous action and (2) whether the determination was essential to the judgment. Judge Butchko’s opinion clearly satisfies the first requirement. She heard evidence at a trial and found that the Ocwen boarding process does not verify the accuracy of the prior servicer’s records.
THE NOTE IS NOT NEGOTIABLE
The homeowner presented a terrific expert witness at trial, who demolished Ocwen’s contention that the note is a negotiable instrument governed by Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Before you decide to use this argument in your foreclsoure case, please look at the caution in section “Questioning the Negotiability of the Note” on my website, mortgage-rights.com. The problems that the Negotiable Instruments law inflicts on homeowners is covered in “Botched Securitization and Dernier: Lost or Stolen Notes” on my website, mortgage-rights.com. The Court gives great weight as the trier of fact to the testimony of Defendant’s expert witness, Kathleen Cully.

Ms. Cully is a Yale Law School graduate that worked her entire career in structured finance transactions since 1985. She was extremely well versed in the Uniform Commercial Code. Among many other tasks and accomplishments, Ms. Cully testified that she led the Citigroup team that created the first pooling and servicing agreement ever. She led Citigroup’s Global Securitization strategy. The Court finds Ms. Cully eminently qualified as an expert witness in the area of securitized transactions and their interplay with the Model Uniform Commercial Code. Ms. Cully gave extensive testimony explaining that the negotiability of a promissory note is not a consideration in the securitization model. Securitization sells pools of thousands of mortgages with ever having an intention to sell each loan by individual negotiation.

Moreover, securitization routinely involves the sale of non-negotiable instruments such as car loans, rent receivables, even David Bowie’s intellectual property rights. Judge Butchko’s holding that the note was non-negotiable is based on section 3-104(1) of the UCC. Here is the statute in Wisconsin: 403.104 Negotiable instrument. (1) Except as provided in subs. (3) and (4), “negotiable instrument” means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if all of the following apply: … (c) It does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money, but the promise or order may contain any of the following: 1. An undertaking or power to give, maintain or protect collateral to secure payment.

Judge Botchko analyzed whether the promise in the mortgage note was unconditional. Article 3 defines “unconditional” as: 403.106 Unconditional promise or order 1)(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, for the purposes of s. 403.104 (1), a promise or order is unconditional unless it states any of the following:

  1. An express condition to payment.
  2. That the promise or order is subject to or governed by another writing.
  3. That rights or obligations with respect to the promise or order are stated in another writing. … (b) A reference to another writing does not of itself make the promise or order conditional.

Judge Butchko found that the note was governed by the mortgage, which rendered the note non-negotiable and that the note was not for a fixed amount. . Her analysis is set out below. I suggest you read her work with a copy of your mortgage in hand.

Since notes and mortgages are fairly uniform, you may find that you have the same provisions in your mortgage, giving you a good argument that your note is non-negotiable. This Court does not address the provision [of the note] described in the Nunez opinion, instead grounding this decision on a myriad of other provisions of the Mortgage establishing the Note is subject to and governed by the Mortgage, rendering the note a non-negotiable instrument. Among other things, the additional protections routinely change the “fixed amount of money” due under the promissory note and require additional undertakings and instructions for the borrower beyond the mere repayment of money.

First, at page 2 of the mortgage, sub-section (G) expressly provides that “‘Loan’ means the debt evidenced by the Note, plus interest, any prepayment charges and late charges due under the note, and all sums due under this Security Instrument, plus interest.” (emphasis added). Paragraph 3 of the Mortgage provides for the payment of taxes and interest on the property. These payments are not described in the Note, which requires payment only of principal, interest, late fees and costs and expenses of enforcement. The Court finds the amounts due under the Mortgage are “other charges” that are not “described in” the Note, as required by 673.1041(1), Florida Statutes. That alone destroys negotiability. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s complaint seeks damages for all sums due under the Note and “such other expenses as may be permitted by the mortgage.”

Standard mortgage servicing industry practice treats all sums due under the note and mortgage as the “loan” payoff amount or the total amount needed to liquidate in full all monetary obligations arising under both the Note and the Mortgage–the Loan, as defined in the Mortgage–not just the Note. Not only does that payoff amount include charges not described in the Note, it is much more than a mere “reference” to the Mortgage “for a statement of rights with respect to collateral, prepayment or acceleration”–it means that the Note is effectively “subject to or governed by” the Mortgage, which in turn means that it is not unconditional. See Fla. Stat. 673.1061. That also destroys negotiability of the Note.

This Court finds that the Note is non-negotiable as the amounts payable under the Complaint include amounts not described in the Note and as the Note does not contain an unconditional promise to pay. The promise is not unconditional because the Note is subject to and/or governed by another writing, namely the Mortgage. Moreover, rights or obligations with respect to the Note itself–as opposed to the collateral, prepayment or acceleration–are stated in another writing, namely the Mortgage.

Moreover, the UCC definition of “holder” would necessarily include a thief that takes by forcible transfer. However, a thief would never be entitled to the equitable relief of foreclosure. Defendant correctly cites to paragraph 1 of the promissory note that expressly provides a different definition of “Note holder” from the definition of holder under Fla. Stat. 673.3011. 68. The promissory note defines the term “Note Holder” at paragraph 1 as “anyone who takes this Note by [lawful] transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under this Note.” 69. By its terms, paragraph 1 requires that any subsequent party attempting to enforce the note prove they came into possession of the note by lawful transfer and have the right to receive payments under the Note. This provision establishes the parties’ intention to contract out of the UCC definition of holder, so as to limit the right to enforce only to those who proved ownership.

The Court finds the amounts due under the mortgage are “additional protections” from possible losses that protect the Note Holder pursuant to the Uniform Secured Note provision. The protections necessarily affect the fixed amount of money due under the note. The Court further notes Plaintiff’s complaint seeks all sums due under the note and mortgage. Standard mortgage servicing industry practice treats all sums due under the note and mortgage as the “loan” payoff amount or the total amount needed to liquidate in full all monetary obligations arising under both the Note and the Mortgage. At page 4 of the mortgage, Uniform Covenant 2 entitled “Application of Payments or Proceeds” provides that “payments be applied in the following order of priority: (a) interest due under the Note; (b) principal due under the Note; and (c) amounts due under Section 3 [of this Security Instrument]. Any remaining amounts shall be applied first to late charges, second to any other amounts due under this security Instrument, and then to reduce the principal balance of the Note.” (emphasis added).

As payments are applied to amounts due under both the note and mortgage, this Court finds the Uniform Covenant 2 in the mortgage must be read as an integrated agreement with the promissory note that will necessarily change the fixed amount of money due thereunder. At the first paragraph of page 7, the mortgage provides: “Any amounts disbursed by lender under this Section 5 shall become additional debt of Borrower secured by this Security Instrument. These amounts shall bear interest at the Note rate from the date of disbursement and shall be payable, with such interest, upon notice from Lender to Borrower requesting payment.” Therefore, pursuant to the Uniform Secured Note Provision of the note and Section 5 of the mortgage, forced placed insurance premiums become additional debt secured by the mortgage bearing interest at the note rate which changes the “fixed amount of money” due. At page 8 of the mortgage are two provisions which involve rights or obligations with respect to the promise or order stated in another writing and constitute instructions and undertakings of the borrower to do acts in addition to the payment of money. At paragraph 6 of the mortgage the borrower is obligated to occupy the property as a principal residence within 60 days after signing the mortgage and must continue to occupy the property as Borrower’s principal residence for a least one year. At paragraph 7, Borrower is obligated to maintain the property and permit lender to conduct inspections, including interior inspections, upon notice stating cause for the inspection. At paragraph 8 of the mortgage, “Borrower shall be in default if” borrower gave materially false or misleading information during the loan application process or concerning Borrowers occupancy of the property as Borrower’s principal residence. At paragraph 9 of the mortgage entitled, “Protection of Lender’s Interest in the Property and Rights Under this Security Instrument” the mortgage states “any amounts disbursed by Lender under this Section 9 shall become additional debt of Borrower secured by this Security Instrument. These amounts shall bear interest at the Note rate from the date of disbursement and shall be payable, with such interest, upon notice from Lender to Borrower requesting payment.” At paragraph 14 of the mortgage entitled “Loan Charges” provides for refunds of such charges and states: “the Lender may choose to make this refund by reducing the principal owed under the Note or by making a direct payment to Borrower.” Again these additional protections for the Note Holder provided in the Uniform Secured Note provision in the note necessarily affect the “fixed amount of money” due under the note.
From: https://www . avvo . com/legal-guide s/ugc/the-latest-in-foreclosure- defense-let-hsbc-bank-v-buset-gu ide-your-arguments

 

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site, to receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2017 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

Uncovering the Truth

Information can be difficult to ascertain when we are uncovering the truth.  Not only do we have facts that make up the truth, also we as a society have come to accept a level of fraud, of deception and fakery that we now call Alternative Facts.  There has developed a blatant disregard for facts and truth in much corporate media today it has made finding out “the truth” can be quite difficult.
The media has been playing with your brain.  Over the previous decades the corporate media has become obsessed and adept and controlling how and what the public thinks and feels.  The repetition of falsehoods do not make a truth.  Yet, this is what seems to be going on.  Has a complacency of a collective intelligence left a decline in desire for truth and intellect?  We must make ourselves wake from our slumber.  We must be conscious enough to read between the lines of rhetoric, emotion and alternative facts in order to find the truth inside of the information that we are being fed.
In 2008, I wrote a two part article that was an exercise in watching your own mind, emotions, and social tendencies become exposed and react as you read through.  Given the cloudiness to truth that we have in journalism today due to alternative facts, better known to most as “lies”, I thought it would be good to post this exercise again.

 

Uncovering the Truth – Part One

Is it possible that there has been a mistake? Is there a possibility that there has been some misunderstanding? Is there a possibility that our government has done something wrong?

 
This is the story of a fair skinned woman, a mother of three children, born on March 2, 1972. She comes from an upper middle-class family and spent more than 10 years studying at elite universities in the United States. Her father was a surgeon, the mother is a housewife. At one time the family lived abroad in the British city of Manchester, and in Zambia. Her brother is an architect and lives in Houston. Her sister is a neurologist and has worked at one of the best hospitals in Boston. She studied biology on a scholarship at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and earned a PhD in neuroscience at Brandeis University, where she was considered an outstanding scientist.
 
In 1992, as a sophomore at MIT, she received a Carroll L. Wilson Award for her research proposal “Islamization in Pakistan and its Effects on Women”. As a junior, she received a $1,200 fellowship through MIT’s LINKS program to help clean up Cambridge elementary school playgrounds. During her undergraduate career, she lived in McCormick Hall and worked at the MIT libraries. She graduated from MIT in 1995. In 1996, she wrote an article for the MIT Information Systems newsletter about the File Transfer Protocol and the then-emerging World Wide Web.
 
In 1999, while living in Boston, she and and her husband founded the nonprofit Institute of Research and Teaching. She went on to graduate study in Neuroscience at Brandeis University, receiving a Ph.D. degree in 2001 for her dissertation, entitled “Separating the Components of Imitation”.
 
She was active with charities and a refugee center to which she raised money for Bosnian orphans.
 
On March 1, 2003, she sent an an email to her professor, Robert Sekuler, at Brandeis University outside Boston. She was looking for a job. “I would prefer to work in the United States,” she wrote, noting that she was having difficulty finding work despite her educational background. A few days later, she disappeared. Early in the morning on the day of her disappearance, she left her parents’ house, together with her three children. She took a taxi to the airport to catch a morning flight. She was planning to visit her uncle. Two of her children are reported missing.
 
The last thing she remembers, she says, was receiving an injection in her arm. She says that when she regained consciousness she was in a prison cell, which she believes was on a military base in Afghanistan, because she heard aircraft taking off and landing. She claims that she was held in solitary confinement for more than five years, and that it was always the same Americans who interrogated her, without masks or uniforms. For days, she says, they would play tape recordings of her children’s terrified screams, and she claims that she was forced to write hundreds of pages about the construction of dirty bombs and attacks using viruses.
 
Her baby was taken away immediately, she says. They showed her a photograph of her seven-year-old, lying in a pool of blood. The only one of her children they occasionally showed her, she says, was Mariam, shown as a vague outline behind a pane of frosted glass.
 
On April 21, 2003, the NBC ran a story about her arrest on the evening news.
 
According to Human Rights Commissions, there are at least 52 secret prisons, just in the country of Pakistan, in which thousands of people are believed to have disappeared since the beginning of the war on terrorism.
 
The CIA denies that its agents had anything to do with her disappearance. Michael Scheuer, a member of a unit that pursued al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden (to which is still at large) from 1996 to 1999, says curtly: “We never arrested or imprisoned a woman. She is a liar.”
 
There were never any weapons on mass destruction. That was a lie. The Bush Administration has stated that they never tortured or wrongfully imprisoned people, to which we have found numerous untruths to this as well.
 
But if it is true that a woman was tortured and disappeared into a secret dungeon, would it be a first in the post-September 11 world — and yet another example of the decay of standards in America? Will the truth ever be uncovered?
 
 
Uncovering the Truth – Part Two
 
 
Now this time there couldn’t have been a mistake. There could be no misunderstanding on this one. Our government couldn’t have done something wrong on this one.
 
This is a story of one of the most sought after terrorists on the planet. John Ashcroft had once placed this person to the level of “the deadly seven”. Meaning one of the seven most wanted people in the world.
 
Then on a Thursday evening on July 17, 2008 in a Bazizi Mosque in Ghazni, just south of Kabul, the men were coming out of their evening prayers. They paused when they saw someone cowering on the ground. They formed a circle around the person, who was holding two small bags at their side. Fearing that this person could be carrying a bomb, one man called the police.
 
Not long after this scene, a telephone rang at the headquarters of the Federal Bureau of Intelligence (FBI) in Washington more than 11,000 kilometers away. After the call someone crossed one of “the deadly seven” names off of the suspect list and wrote the word “arrested”.
 
It took two weeks after some interrogation at the US Air Force Base in Bagram, Afghanistan before the prisoner was taken to New York. Now in a tracksuit, the now frail 90lb, 5’4″ prisoner was escorted, on August 11, 2008, into US Federal Court in Manhattan in a wheel chair. The accused had two bullet wounds in the abdomen. In October the prisoner was taken to Carswell Psychiatric Center in Fort Worth, TX for psychological review.
 
Considered a genius and hunted by the CIA and the FBI, the prisoner is believed to be a key player in raising money for al-Qaida by collecting donations and smuggling diamonds. A feather in the cap for the Bush Administration? The prisoner was considered the most important catch in five years, according to John Kiriakou, a CIA terrorist hunter.
 
This is where things can get a bit odd, though. The prisoner has not been charged with collaborating or as an accomplice in terrorist attackes. The charge was attempted murder of U.S. soldiers and FBI agents, to whom were attacked with a weapon in Afghanistan. If convicted the prisoner could face up to 20 years in prison.
 
The chief planner of the 9-11 attackes, Khlid Sheikh Mohammed, was arrested on March 1, 2003, in Rawaplindi, Pakistan. He was the biggest catch at that time in the battle against al-Qaida. The CIA interrogated him at an secret location where, it is reported he revealed aspect of the inner world of internal terrorism.
 
It is also widely known that someone being interrogated will say nearly anything in order for these interrogations to stop. It is also noted that our government used waterboarding.
 
This interrogation prompted a series of arrests not long after. The CIA felt that any name that Mohammed mentioned was immediately and automatically an important al-Quida terrorist. This one of “the deadly seven” was one of those.
 
Elaine Whitfield Sharp is an attorney for the prestigious law firm of Sharp and Sharp. On their website it states, “We are trial attorneys who represent people. Our practice is dedicated to securing justice for people in state and federal courts. We do not represent big business, the government, or insurance companies.”
 
She has represented the prisoner of this story since 2003. She is convinced that this person, who was a high-level classification prisoner and who spent five years in what is referred to as a “black site” in Bagram, the most notorious in the legal system, is being detained for political reasons and not for murder of soldiers or agents.
 
A number of other prisoners held at Bagram Air Base, the site of the most important US detainee camp in Afghanistan, say they heard a woman screaming. The woman was nicknamed the “gray lady of Bagram.”
 
She reports that the allegations brought against the prisoner thus far are “proven wrong and unsubstantiated”. The FBI and the CIA have made no comment as to these claims.
 
Sharp claimed that “every time that US authorities accused Aafia of something, we showed it was false”.
 
Sharp states, “They accuse of brokering a diamond ring for giving the proceeds to al-Quida. They said the prisoner was in Liberia when this took place. We showed the prisoner was in Boston, running a play group with a sister of the prisoner. They talked of involved in the production of neuro-chemical to be used by terrorists in the US. We showed that the accused was not.”
 
The U.S. authorities accused the prisoner of other crimes to which when Sharp asked for evidence, they never gave any.
 
There is also a media report, to which Sharp has rejected, of papers seized in Guantanamo Bay prison that state Aafia Siddiqui is married to Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, who is an alleged al-Quida facilitator who intended to blow up gas stations or poison water reservoirs in the United States. Sharp disputes any report that she is married to this man. There has been no evidence brought forward by the government agencies to substantiate this claim.
 
Sharp states emphatically that there has been no substantiated evidence and all of this has been concocted to paint her guilty by association.
 
For your reference, these two stories are of the same person. I specifically wrote them this way so to show how your mind can go to places by simple racial, religious or terrorist phrases. When those phrase are not included, as in the first section, there might be more of a shadow of doubt and how a society might choose to react or is programmed to react a specific way to those words and phrases.
 
Either way, will her truth ever be uncovered?

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site, to receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2017 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

What exactly is a bona fide purchaser for value?

One of the key points to my upcoming book “The Unlawful, Unlawful Detainer – a true case file study” deals with the question “what exactly is a “bona fide purchaser for value” (BPV) and every part of CA Civ . Code 2924.

The code references a Bona fide Purchaser for Value” as:
“2924.(c) A recital in the deed executed pursuant to the power of sale of compliance with all requirements of law regarding the mailing of copies of notices or the publication of a copy of the notice of default or the personal delivery of the copy of the notice of default or the posting of copies of the notice of sale or the publication of a copy thereof shall constitute prima facie evidence of compliance with these requirements and conclusive evidence thereof in favor of bona fide purchasers and encumbrancers for value and without notice.”

This language seems to imply that even if a trustee utterly failed to comply with one or more “requirements of law” above, a BPV would remain unaffected as long as the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale states that the trustee complied. A Trustee that is owned or controlled by the bank or  a lawfirm friendly to the bank or simply to profit for themselves are able to file misrepresented statements on foreclosure documents with the County Recorder’s Office for a non-judicial foreclosure.  However, it is presumed that the borrowers might still have claims in such a case against the trustee, however, the BPV purchase would remain intact.

The courts seem to side with some seemingly nonsensical  special protections for BPV’s claims of error in the *content* of the NOD or other documents.  These can vary from a typo in the name, or the like, as long as if it would not be viewed as legally irrelevant.

In my experience in both Superior and Federal courts, the BPV’s are substantially protected against claims of error, although they don’t seem to describe the actual scope of that protection, even in general terms such as what various errors that are covered.

The courts seem to have a “favored” treatment of a BPV (relative to a beneficiary) limited to the explicit references to that concept in CC 2924.  I have not found any more general principle that is reflected in CA case law that can apply in other scenarios.

But my question is quite simple.  How can the buyer be considered a BFP under 2924)c) or the Mendez case – “without notice of any adverse interest or of any irregularity in the sale proceedings” –

I am no lawyer but the key seems to me to be the requirement that the buyer is purchasing “without notice of any adverse interest or of any irregularity in the sale proceedings”. If there is a recorded Lis Pendens on the property, the buyer is on notice. Also whether the buyer is a professional buyer could impact his ability to deny, he didn’t know since as professional in the field it could be argued by the plaintiff that the buyer as a professional should be held to a different standard when he attempts to claim he didn’t know about the Lis Pendens when he purchased the property.

I would think one could argue he was negligent if he claims he didn’t look because under the circumstances since he is in the business of buying foreclosed(step) properties he should know that he should check the records on the property before purchasing.

I would also add not to accept the judge’s ruling in an unlawful detainer action that the buyer can’t be challenged as to whether he was a BFP in an unlawful detainer action. Again I am no lawyer and am not presuming to be giving anyone legal advice, but my reading of the that section of the law saying the buyer can’t be a BFP if he didn’t purchase “without notice of any adverse interest or of any irregularity in the sale proceedings” seems to prima facie that if a judge made such a ruling in an Unlawful Detainer action, he as made an error as a matter of law and should be reversed on appeal. Hence if one gets such a ruling he should immediately appeal.

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site, to receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2017 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

The Bedroom Antics of Technology and Politics!

Are the bedroom antics of technology and politics making politics impossible? The simple answer yes, and no. It’s like asking “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” The answer just isn’t that simple.

There has always been a very close relationship between politics and technology. Governments fund the research that drives many birthing technologies that then help to create many of the problems with which the government eventually wishes to solve. It’s an inherent conundrum of the dog chasing the tail.

Technology has always seemed to have been a double edged sword when it comes to politics. It takes its shape in many forms. We can reference both Hitler and Roosevelt and their power and popularity with radio. Hitler’s intense emotional “Zeig Heil” speeches that gave rise to the hands of the Nazi party, and Roosevelt’s friendly fireside chats where he entered nearly all of the living rooms of America. We recall the first televised United States Presidential debate between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy helping solidify the well known catch phrase of “Never let them see you sweat.” These types of arguments can always find a pro and con angle, although it would simply depend on which political platform one might be standing on.

Technology guides some leaders to help them find solutions to their cause. Truman and the atomic bomb would be one of those examples. There was no reason these two bombs needed to be dropped onto the Japanese cities of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, on August 6th and 9th, 1945, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and decimating generations with its fallout. It was only a few months before, in April 1945, that Hitler had been defeated. By August of that year the world knew, as well as, Japan that the Japanese could no longer win. Also, at that time Russia was retreating under their own internal collapse. World War II was ending and America was shining bright. However, Truman felt the need to make a statement to the world of the dominance of American power.

It seemed that Truman felt his message would be better served through the massive anhiliation of innocent lives rather than through the inevitable round table agreements of acquiesence to western dominance. This new technology created the cold war that lasted decades. That continued quest of who is the biggest bully on the block. It defined the adage of whomever has the most destructive toys wins.

Technology and politics took a turn in the late fifties to a place where no man has gone before. We found ourselves fighting over space, that final frontier.

The technology race toward the end of World War II was moving towards rockets. Nazi Germany was leading the way before they lost the war and the United States took their chief engineer named Von Braun. It was Von Braun’s dream to put a rocket on the moon and he didn’t seem to care who allowed him to accomplish the task. When Germany was defeated the United States captured Von Braun and most of his team, who later helped develop the space programs and military missiles in America. Politics seemed to be holding its own with technology.

Having Von Braun helped the United States compete in the new space race of the new “cold war”. This push helped create the computer industries that were necessary to put a man on the moon. Since the Russians got to space first, the Americans wanted the moon. As Von Braun did his work, IBM did theirs by creating the initial computer programs that would eventually put a man in space, and in the words of Frank Sinatra in 1964 “Fly Me to the Moon”, which America did in July, 1969.

The space race created the satellite craze that followed with the new powerful computer programs. Technology was moving ahead quickly and politics was its driving force. The United States was also moving forward with a new idea called the internet.

The U.S. Dept. Of Defense began awarding contracts in the early 1960’s for packet network systems, including the development of ARPANET. This was an early packet switching network and the first to implement the protocol TCP/IP, which is the foundation of the internet. This research began in several different computer science labs around the United States, United Kingdom and France. The first message ever sent over the ARPANET was from computer science Professor Leonard Kleinrock’s lab at UCLA to the second network receiving at Stanford Research Institute.

In the beginning of the internet the digital technological platform was welcomed throughout the world and nearly everyone who could jumped in. It was the epitome of the freedom of information. The internet craze created instant millionaires and billionaires and was heralded as the way to level the expanding global playing field. Children in Nairobi could feasibly have access to the same information as a child in the United States. When this new technology began it was open, chaotic and de-centralized. It spanned the globe creating an international cross platform allowing people on opposite sides of the world the ability to share ideas and information with each other for free. It allowed borders to be crossed that had never been crossed before. It was this that made the governments begin to take notice and begin to get nervous, despite that it was the United States government that funded the invention of the architecture of the internet back in the 1960’s.

It the 1980’s, at CERN, in Geneva, Switzerland we find British computer scientist Tim Berner-Lee’s creation of the World Wide Web. This technology included the rise of instant communication by email, instant messaging, VoIP telephone calls, video calls, discussion groups, blogs, and eventually leading to the powerful social media networks we have today. Some of those Social media giants in the United States include Facebook, Twitter, Google, and others.

Now, we’re in a world where the technology is about information. Digital information data is the gold standard in capitalism and in politics. Corporations capture and control information. If corporate interests, such as oil companies utilize their ability to control information on climate change, as an example, and are able to convince the public that climate change is a fraud and if successful at this manipulation of information then they are able to save billions or perhaps trillions of dollars in taxes, regulations and increased profits. Recently, we have seen evidence of acts such as this in the corporate world with Volkswagon defrauding their customers into thinking that their diesel cars produce lower carbon emissions than the company claimed to have said that they did. They got caught defrauding the public of over 11 million cars sold. We have also seen the evidence of information control or rather the attempt to control information in the political arena with President Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal eventually ending in his impeachment.

 

When the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government.

Thomas Jefferson Paris-1789

 

Information is power. Corporations want it, governments want it, and people want it. Corporations want it in order to maximize their opportunity for profits. Governments want it in order to control the huddled masses. People want it in order to know what the governments and the corporations are doing in order to be able to appropriately hold those parties accountable for those wrongdoings against the people, the environment, and the freedom of information itself. These three parties are desperately attempting to get along in the challenging digital world we now live in. Information is under attack.

As it was with radio, telephone, television, print media, and film industries it quickly began consolodating as big corporations swallowed up small start-ups. This is the process of capitalism and it seems as though this is a good result, however we have reached a point where there are only 6 corporations that own nearly all of the radio and television networks in the United States. So, today these large media corporations are able to control most of the information and lobby politicians and political parties for votes to deregulate their industry or for tax breaks in exchange for large campaign contributions. This is where we begin to lose the line between freedom of the press and independent journalism and politicians acting in the best interests of their constituents rather than the profits of the corporations.

The same kind of monopolies that were created through the deregulation of the telephone industry has happened with the new social media/information companies today. The internet has become capitalized, monetized and monopolized and controlled by some of the largest corporations in the world who now subsequently control the information that feeds the minds the global populace. This is known as institutional corruption. The public has become complacent with such type of corruption that it is now considered to be a type of legal corruption rather than illegal corruption. Which undermines the overall effectiveness of government. Through this type of corruption it may result in corrupt means as to how congress funds elections or the message of politicians and even the political message and voting of entire political parties.

The internet was originally designed to be end to end, peer to peer and a way for the average person to communicate and organize without control by corporations or governments. This was the architecture of the internet from its inception. As the internet has grown to become such a powerful global force of the acquisition and delivering of information governments have been trying to find ways to keep their foot in the door to have more control over this technology. Can the internet be kept free from government censorship, control or manipulation? It depends on the country. Time will tell. We have already seen evidence that the United States government has used the accepted legal corruption process of listening to and recording every citizen’s telephone calls without consent or a warrant. The liberties of privacy as defined under the constitution have been slowly eroding away.

With the release of the documents by the whistle-blower, Edward Snowden, we have come to find that our privacy has not only been under attack, but has been stolen. Politics and Technology can make interesting bed partners. We found that Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, ATT, T Mobile and other corporations were disseminating and delivering billions of terabites of information to the government about the lives of every American. Some people say, “That’s okay, I’m not doing anything wrong. As long as I am safe and our freedom is protected.” What they fail to realize is that their freedom is already deteriorating as these actions whittle away at the protections within the Constitution.

We as a society have come to accept a level of institutional corruption with our government rather than holding them accountable. Snowden simply pulled back the curtain and exposed the existing institutional corruption. As a society we were sold a line of information by the government who said they were doing it in the best interest of the people to keep them safe. Much of the public remained complacent and are too busy posting pictures of their lunch or cats in order to use that same technology to create a groundswell of people rising up and holding our elected leader accountable for these actions. Although, Egypt and Tunisia and the Arab Spring taught us different and began to show the world the power of digital technology.

 

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

Benjamin Franklin to the Pennsylvania Assembly 1775

 

Before President Trump was sworn into office he was already following President Obama’s lead using the power of digital media. Trump’s is a prolific Twitter “er” to communicate with his voters, fans, and followers. The President-elect began disseminating Tweets about his political views and possible upcoming policies all for the world to see. He quickly became known as the first President who would be Tweeting his politics 140 characters at a time. Certainly a new way of doing things. Many people agree that this is not the most appropriate way of leading the world. He breaks stride in the procedural processes of global politics.

Wikileaks changed the geopolitical game by releasing their first document in December 2006 of a decision to assassinate government officials signed by a Somali political figure who was on the U.S terrorist list since 2001. Since then Wikileaks has released terabites of corporate, government and private citizen’s information. They make little effort to remove sensitive personal information. They continue to hold governments, politicians and corporations feet to the fire. In January 2017, a Wikileaks Twitter account stated it would create a data base of Twitter users which would include sensitive personal information, homes families and finances. Twitter bans the use of Twitter data for “surveillance purposes,” stating “Posting another person’ private and confidential information is a violation of the Twitter rules.” Wikileaks’ official Twitter page has disavowed that Twitter account.

Trump has enough power in the volume of Twitter followers to make the mass media kowtow to his whimper. He stated to the main stream media outlets that they were not being fair to him. If they continued to pose him in a negative way he will simply not allow them to interview him unless they can guarantee him a favorable view. As we will soon find with the Supreme Court vacancy to be filled with what he has promised to be a conservative judge the idea of free speech will be challenged. With a conservative Supreme Court, a Republican House and Senate, and Trump as President, this creates dangerous precedent that could find detrimental results to the First Amendment.

In order to truly answer this query we must keep both eyes open. In order to trust in technology we must be able to maintain the independence and transparancy of the medium. This is our only hope to be able to hold governments accountable.

Google had been doing business in China with a version of its service that conformed to the government’s oppressive censorship policies. Google officials stated at the time that they felt the most ethical option was to offer some services, though restricted due to China’s censors. The company wanted to get their hands on the enormous Chinese market. The are twice the amount of people in China on the internet that the entire population of the United States, and the numbers continue to grow. Google had been doing business for four years there before a cyber attack was discovered from within the country itself. Google found that the Gmail accounts of numerous Chinese human rights activists had been hacked so they shut down their operation. Instead of complying with the Chinese regime and continue to censor their platform they chose to direct all of the Chinese traffic to an uncensored version of its search engine based in Hong Kong. The Chinese government reacted and this action in effect made Google’s services inaccessible to the hundreds of millions of internet users in a handful of weeks.

As digital technology has created a platform of disseminating information across the globe it is quite a balancing act for corporations to maintain their business practices and abide by all the varying countries laws and regulations. What is good for the goose is not always good for the gander. There are much more repressive governments than others and as an example more variable ideas of what hate speech is or what exactly human rights are in one country than another.

The key to all of this is transparency. People must be able to know if the content is being monitored and censored by the governments. The freedom and power of holding governments accountable is based on the depth of the information that the government is withholding from the people themselves and how the various media companies are complying with the specific governmental regulations that they are tasked with.

Twitter took a major step forward and created a process in Iran that is known as two-factor authentication. This is a login option that allows users with Iranian phone numbers to use two activation processes in order to access their services. This action created a higher level of security for the resistance of any governmental attempts to censor or access any of the user’s content.

We find that digital technology corporations are ahead of the curve in attempting to maintain a free and independent internet. However the battle remains. Politicians are not laying down to the technology. Across the globe there are varying levels of censorship and government control.

Have you ever wondered why in America we can no longer purchase Blackberry devices or service? But, we can see the President and other politicians using the device and service? This is due to the fact that the Canadian firm’s platform is so difficult to hack. The United States government wanted to be able to have access to these devices just as Snowden exposed the extent that they have access to all other carriers and devices. But, the Canadian firm would not budge to the American government terms. So, we see our politicians using unhackable devices while “we the people attempting to form a more perfect union” are left with devices and services that the NSA can monitor, record, and even turn on and off remotely. Benjamin Franklin would be rolling over in his grave.

The politics is clear that the government has no problem with acquiring more information through the legal corruption of our individual rights and freedoms as outlined in the Constitution. And so far the people have made it clear that they don’t seem to mind as long as they are “safe and free.” From the political side of things digital technology doesn’t seem to make politics impossible. But we are only a few Tweets away from this new President to see if there is another side to this story.

 

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site, to receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2017 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

Supreme Court limits Fannie Mae’s cases to federal court

LIGHTFOOT ET AL. v. CENDANT MORTGAGE CORP., DBA PHH MORTGAGE, ET AL | Supreme Court limits Fannie Mae’s ability to take cases to federal court

It was in a unanimous opinion handed down Wednesday, that the United States Supreme Court limited Fannie Mae’s ability to transfer cases to federal court, ruling that the government-sponsored enterprise’s charter does not grant it the right to move all state cases to the federal level.

The decision, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, overturns a lower court’s ruling, which held that the “sue-and-be-sued” clause in Fannie Mae’s charter allowed for the GSE to transfer any lawsuits against it filed at the state level to federal court.

In the opinion, Sotomayor writes that none of Fannie Mae’s arguments about the interpretation of the “sue-and-be-sued” clause are “persuasive.”

Sotomayor writes that the Court previously ruled on several other arguments from other federally chartered organizations, but notes that Fannie Mae’s charter differs in that “sue-and-be-sued” clause states that cases can be transferred to “any court of competent jurisdiction.”

The clause in question authorizes Fannie Mae “to sue and to be sued, and to complain and to defend, in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal.”

From the Author:  Despite the unanimous decision, this is a mixed bag, in my opinion.  The problem here lies in the well known fact, for people who are entrenched into the fraudulent foreclosure system commonly agree, that most state court systems are so corrupted it is more advantageous to get your case heard in federal court.  This decision does not negate the opportunity to remand a case to the federal jurisdiction, but it might make things more difficult for that remanding to take place.

From my experience in the courtroom the remanding tactic can be used to burden and even confuse litigants.  Especially those who are acting in Pro Per/Pro Se due to the changes in Rules of Court and Rules of Procedure from the state level.  Also, there are many attorneys that have never acted in Federal court which could create the opportunity for errors.

So, the fact that there might be less remanding could be good to not create confusion.  It could also solve some people’s issues of having an attorney that is unfamiliar with the federal court structure.  However, it then leaves more of these fraudulent foreclosure cases in the state court level where there lies most of the corruption on a national scale.

 

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site, to receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2017 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved