One ping from Bob Hurt

BobHurt
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2016 6:21 pm

Re: One ping from Bob Hurt

#51

Post by BobHurt » Tue Apr 19, 2016 2:21 pm

What you 2nd Amendment absolutists don't understand is that Government protects the rights of others by sensible, coherent system of delimiting your 'absolute' rights. And don't neglect that word "regulated." They didn't put that phrase in there for nothing.

IMHO guns should be treated like cars: you can own a gun on your own property without registration and licensing.
What makes you think I'm an absolutist? I simply pointed out an example of how the Constitution clearly does not mean what it plainly says, and you slobber all over yourself to accuse me. Pay attention the point. The problem with "interpreting" the law in such a way that it does not mean what it says lies in the evident license that gives to legislatures to make it mean anything and to impose any restriction based on whim alone.

You say above that common sense should prevail (treat guns like cars - dangerous in the hands of the irresponsible). I agree. But then I did not write the constitution. Had I, I might have included a provision requiring demonstrable responsibility for the exercise of certain guaranteed rights, like the right to keep and bear arms. I might have insisted that betrayal of the public trust is a public hanging offense. I might have required a passing constitution competency test for all who would swear an oath to support, protect, or defend the constitution. I certainly would have stipulated that all federal and state jurisdictions have grand juries of seasoned, well-educated, productive voters to investigate all felonies and all citizen complaints of public malfeasance, and I would have devised a means of preventing the courts and prosecutors from interfering with those investigations or stymieing efforts to prosecute public employees for their crookedness. I also would have mandated permanent excision of bar organizations from government and assigned licensing of attorneys to the executive branch. And I would have imposed severe limits on sovereign immunity.

I would have clarified the meaning of apportionment of direct taxes, and prohibited direct taxation of the people under the guise of indirect taxation. I would eliminate all secret cash awards to government employees. I would have prohibited taxes on wages and compensation for services because that stifles productivity. I would limit the legislature's power to make laws with riders or covering multiple subjects. I would have required legislative review and rewrite of all laws on the meaning of which the courts do not unanimously agree.

Knowing what I know now, I would have done a lot of things differently, so as to have a government of more sublime integrity and efficiency.



boots
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: One ping from Bob Hurt

#52

Post by boots » Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:09 pm

Edit: How the heck would you know what "all lawyers" "know intuitively" since you have never been one? I am one, am highly versed in this area of law, and don't "know intuitively" that your one-size fits all solution will enrich every homeowner. I also don't know intuitively that you can attack the validity of every mortgage, especially without litigating it (which you can't do since you aren't a lawyer). I also don't know intuitively that one can't successfully litigate a wrongful foreclosure case, if indeed it was wrongful under the law, and one knows how to litigate. I also don't know intuitively that "attacking the mortgage" is going to settle for lots of money.

I DO know intuitively not to take legal advice from non-lawyers, or to recommend anyone else do so. I know intuitively that a website that promises vaguely to have the solution without giving any specifics is iffy, especially if it has cartoon comic book characters on it. I know intuitively that one can't be a hammer, as in treating everything as a nail. Some cases (rare) are appropriate for loan origination fraud cases; some (also rare) for a wrongful foreclosure case, some (rare to the point of near extinction) can be rescission cases.

The great majority of aggrieved homeowners probably don't have a meritorious case, and the best thing a lawyer can do for that homeowner is tell them they are hosed. Not everyone with a hard luck story is the victim of fraud, at least not in a form that our legal system presently considers actionable. One can make the argument that given the size of the bailouts, every homeowner should've been given a loan modification or a principal reduction of some kind if they were distressed, but the law doesn't comport with that position.



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6980
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: One ping from Bob Hurt

#53

Post by Northland10 » Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:16 pm

Over the years, too many have decided that you can everything you want now without any thought on the ability to pay, either now or in the future. We take way to much debt without considering our ability to pay over the long period. Yes, there is mortgage fraud out there, but the larger problem is too many people thinking they can have it all, now. That creates a mortgage industry that is more than willing to tell you what you want to hear.

Living off of debt has become our addictive drug, whether it is companies or individuals. It is unfortunate though that companies and the people running them are rewarded for destroying a company by over use of debt while individuals are punished for the same activities their personal life. Unfortunately, the anti-gov crowd is happy to do the bidding of those business folk that believe that defaulting on obligations is just another way to increase revenue.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

BobHurt
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2016 6:21 pm

Re: One ping from Bob Hurt

#54

Post by BobHurt » Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:17 pm

I am one, am highly versed in this area of law, and don't "know intuitively" that your one-size fits all solution will enrich every homeowner. I also don't know intuitively that you can attack the validity of every mortgage, especially without litigating it (which you can't do since you aren't a lawyer). I also don't know intuitively that one can't successfully litigate a wrongful foreclosure case, if indeed it was wrongful under the law, and one knows how to litigate. I also don't know intuitively that "attacking the mortgage" is going to settle for lots of money.
Even I, a non-lawyer, know that if you don't intuitively know those things, you should, and therefore, no matter how highly versed you consider yourself, borrowers in trouble will make a mistake hiring you.

You should know those things intuitively because you have lived through the past 15 years of mortgage and securitization shenanigans, and government collusion with banking to encourage subprime, predatory lending, and because you studied torts and contracts in law school, and TILA, RESPA, HOEPA, ECOA, FDCPA, FCRA, and related state laws since then. If you have read the FCIC report, you know where most of the responsibility for the financial collapse lies, albeit greedy home loan borrowers contributed to their problems by creating debt to make imprudent investments in real estate.

You well know, or should know, that appraisers have historically overvalued real estate to match the purchase price of real estate, mortgage brokers have falsified loan applications in order to obtain financing, and overpriced their services. You know that a client coming to you for help defending a foreclosure automatically imposes a responsibility on you to investigate the underlying loan for evidence of tortious conduct, contract and regulatory breaches, and legal errors. And if your negligence in failing to do that caused the client to lose his home to foreclosure, then you deserve for the client to sue you for legal malpractice if the investigation would have revealed causes of action justifying litigation against the injurious parties for damages. And you should know that the threat of such litigation, or just filing the claims, will motivate the injurious parties to settle with your client.

But just in case you did not know those things, you do now, so you have no excuse for claiming otherwise.

You could look at the West Virginia Brown v Quicken Loans case as a poster child for bringing about well-deserved punishment of the crooked lender and appraiser, and financial compensation for the feckless borrower. Sure, most attorneys probably cannot afford to take such cases on contingency, but they can afford a mortgage examination to find the causes of action to use as the basis of negotiating a settlement.

If you don't believe me, let this FDIC report guide you. The FDIC examined 259 loans and found that only 7 complied with guidelines, and 75% contained multiple errors.

Let's say a mortgage victim came to you for help defending against foreclosure of a loan justified by one of those appraisals. How would you ever know without examining the appraisal against USPAP guidlines to determine whether it complied? Suppose the appraiser and loan underwriter valued the property at 30% more than its actual value (in Brown's case, the Quicken-hired appraiser nearly TRIPLE overvalued).

How would you discover that, and what would you do about it?

How would you explain your incompetence if you did not discover and act on it for your client?

I have seen a couple dozen mortgage examination reports. More than 2/3 revealed actionable appraisal fraud. Borrowers with such crookedness in their loans need competent attorneys to get them compensated for their injuries. THINK about it.

Attorney Matthew Weidner bragged publicly that he had saved THOUSANDS of homes. I dug into court records for the Florida 6th circuit where he practices and the 2nd appellate district. His name did not appear in any district records, so evidently he never won an appeal. He lost 20% of his cases outright, and he drug the rest of them out. Frankly I don't believe his claim. He is what I call a foreclosure pretender defender. He probably uses cookie cutter pleadings to protest against standing and conditions precedent, all things that the creditor can fix and bring back to trial for a win.

Why does he do only this even though he well knows the mortgage attack methodology is the ONLY One that reliably gives borrowers an opportunity to obtain financial compensation for their injuries?

I'll explain why. He cannot afford to litigate on behalf or broke borrowers pro bono, or even on contingency. He does not have the technical competence to examine a loan transaction for all of the evidence of causes of action. And his business model, probably derived from Neil Garfield whom I consider a charlatan who belongs disbarred and in jail for misleading the public and his clients, depends upon charging the client $300 to $1500 a month for as long as he can keep them in the house, and then dragging out the foreclosure for years, eventually leading them into the jaws of foreclosure where many of them (but not most and not all) belong.

I like Matt, enjoy his fetching personality and willingness to blog to the public. He seems like a charming, handsome man, and a fantastic husband and father. But how does he actually help ANY mortgage victim?

You see my blind spot here, don't you? You realize that I cannot see the SETTLEMENTS Matt obtained for his clients. The courts don't document those. The client signs a non-disclosure. But I could not find a single case that Matt actually won for a foreclosure victim client. Frankly, I'd like to see proof of his saving houses, but how can he save a house from foreclosure when he knows the borrower obtained a loan and breached the note by failing to pay timely?

Hey, fogbowsters, I'm just a student. Teach me about how you win for your foreclosure victim clients without ever examining the loan transaction for evidence of errors, breaches, and torts. But don't try to convince me that dragging out the foreclosure constitutes winning.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: One ping from Bob Hurt

#55

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:26 pm

Racist Butt Hurt lectured with Charles Edward Lincoln, III as recently as last year. I don't believe anything he writes. What I do know, following California cases, is that his theories of liability are never successful in California. A few have gotten by the pleading stage, but most lose, like Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase, decided last month (and attached). When they do get by the pleading stage they don't win at trial. And the lawyers pursuing these cases are not incompetent. The law is just against them. And this is in California, Ground Zero where Countrywide preyed on people. (In the lead up to the Great Recession, the CFO of Countrywide and his family moved in two doors down from my house.)

The Lincoln stink still envelops Butt Hurt. It's not coming off soon despite their financial dispute.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



BobHurt
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2016 6:21 pm

Re: One ping from Bob Hurt

#56

Post by BobHurt » Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:42 pm

Living off of debt has become our addictive drug
I agree. I have lived debt-free for a decade. These are the happiest years of my life. That's one reason I easily afford teaching others about Mortgage Attack free.
Racist Butt Hurt lectured with Charles Edward Lincoln, III as recently as last year.
Really? That's news to me.

First of all I am not a racist, and you are a hate-monger for calling me a racist.

Second, Butt never became part of my name and you have no rational basis for trying to humiliate me with it. If you accomplish anything by it, you just expose your own weakness and inadequacy.

Third, I don't have any association with Charles Lincoln these days, I did befriend him on Christmas day 2014 and for 3 months thereafter because I felt sorry for him. However, I did not lecture with him.

So you write falsehoods derived from your imagination or false sources.

What do you expect to accomplish by such character assassination other than to show yourself a mendacious psycho bigot?



BobHurt
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2016 6:21 pm

Re: One ping from Bob Hurt

#57

Post by BobHurt » Tue Apr 19, 2016 11:01 pm

I DO know intuitively not to take legal advice from non-lawyers, or to recommend anyone else do so. I know intuitively that a website that promises vaguely to have the solution without giving any specifics is iffy, especially if it has cartoon comic book characters on it.
Okay, try this. Find technical flaws with Mortgage Attack.com and prove them to me. I'll happily correct them.

Why do people come to me for guidance? Because they don't trust people like you to do an honest job for their hard-earned money. The nation is plagued with foreclosure pretender defenders and they know it. Most people who come to me have already wasted money on securitization or loan audits and incompetent or crooked BAR-licensed attorneys who never bothered to examine the loan transaction for evidence of causes of action.

I don't give legal advice. And I plainly ask them questions that lead inexorably to conclusions that make sense to them. For example, IS it bad business to hire an incompetent or lazy or crooked attorney who bilks them for the privilege of guiding them into foreclosure summary judgment, the ultimate fate of most of them in judicial foreclosure states? Does it make sense to fight foreclosure when you know the loan transaction was fully valid and you breached the note? I show them court opinions and case histories that prove what does not work and what does. I tell them how to look up statutes and case law for themselves. I tell them how to find a competent litigator to help them once they get a mortgage examination done. From the exam report they know whether it makes sense to put up a fight or not. Common sense tells them that.

But I cannot honestly tell them that they can find any attorney willing to fight the battle for them that they need fought for the price they can afford. Oh well, I guess we don't live in a perfect world.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: One ping from Bob Hurt

#58

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Apr 19, 2016 11:03 pm

I miswrote. You quoted Lincoln approvingly as recently as last year. September 14, 2015 to be exact. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... PHXT_2JRBw

And your own words demonstrate that you're a racist and eugenecist https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... F2M4-7r1XU
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... wpXpCa-FN8

Let us just say your reputation precedes you. And it's a very ugly reputation. http://www.fpg-usa.com/#!richard-kahn-e ... hurt/c1dwk



User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14637
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Re: One ping from Bob Hurt

#59

Post by ZekeB » Tue Apr 19, 2016 11:15 pm

I'm buying a house. This is the fifth, and probably last, house I will have bought in my lifetime. In each and every case I was told what the interest rate was; what the payments would be; and what the escrow payments would be. I was also told that I was required to pay the taxes and insurance. I was also told that my house would be in foreclosure if I didn't keep up my end of the bargain, especially in regard to payments. I understood that if I lost my job or ran into other financial difficulties I stood a very real chance of having my house in foreclosure. Why is it so difficult for some people to understand that if you fail to hold up your end of a loan you will lose your house or property. Why do so many people allow themselves to be taken in by charlatans who can work an angle on the system?


Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

Nech mě domluvit! - Orly Taitz

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: One ping from Bob Hurt

#60

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Apr 19, 2016 11:21 pm

I forgot an incipient antisemite: http://bobhurt.blogspot.com/2005/08/jew ... ution.html

Anybody who can so casually make the offensive generalizations that Hurt makes about groups that aren't him demonstrates his character.

You wrote it. Now you get to wear it.



User avatar
Dallasite
Posts: 3082
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:38 pm
Location: About 40,000 light years from the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.
Occupation: Senior Scheduling Manager
Chemtrails Program
Human Factors and Behavioral Sciences Division

Re: One ping from Bob Hurt

#61

Post by Dallasite » Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:39 am

Hmmmm...by Bobbie's own words, he should have been sterilized and not be allowed to vote.


"I drank what?!?!" - Soctates, 399 BC

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: One ping from Bob Hurt

#62

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:46 am

Dallasite wrote:Hmmmm...by Bobbie's own words, he should have been sterilized and not be allowed to vote.
Except that he's white.



boots
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: One ping from Bob Hurt

#63

Post by boots » Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:16 am

BobHurt wrote: Even I, a non-lawyer, know that if you don't intuitively know those things, you should, and therefore, no matter how highly versed you consider yourself, borrowers in trouble will make a mistake hiring you.
You don't know squat.
BobHurt wrote: should know those things intuitively because you have lived through the past 15 years of mortgage and securitization shenanigans, b;ah, blah, etc. ad nauseum...
You still don't know squat.
BobHurt wrote: You well know, or should know, that appraisers have historically overvalued real estate to match the purchase price of real estate, mortgage brokers have falsified loan applications in order to obtain financing, and overpriced their services. You know that a client coming to you for help defending a foreclosure automatically imposes a responsibility on you to investigate the underlying loan for evidence of tortious conduct, contract and regulatory breaches, and legal errors. And if your negligence in failing to do that caused the client to lose his home to foreclosure, then you deserve for the client to sue you for legal malpractice if the investigation would have revealed causes of action justifying litigation against the injurious parties for damages. And you should know that the threat of such litigation, or just filing the claims, will motivate the injurious parties to settle with your client.
Still, you don't know squat. You are entirely unqualified to comment on the standard of care for attorneys. You aren't an attorney. In court you would not be allowed to render such opinions because they are worthless as you would not be able to demonstrate any skill, education or experience sufficient to qualify you to have such an opinion.

But, what makes you think that a good litigator wouldn't look at loan origination? Most do. But, and get it this time around, because I already said it before - that doesn't help the vast majority of homeowners. Fraud has a three year statute of limitations (in my state). You can try to plead delayed discovery but let's face it, most homeowners if they've been defrauded know within the first few months of their loan and they take action. You exhibit your lack of knowledge and experience by talking about things as if loan origination problems are some sort of cure all for the average homeowner in default, when that is not remotely the case. And no, the "mere threat of litigation" especially from a non lawyer boob with super hero comic book characters on his website is not going to get Wells and BofA shaking in their boots.

Aside from that, am not going to join you in piling on Matt Weidner. I don't know much about him, he is in Florida, but has a decent reputation among those who actually know what they are doing.



boots
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: One ping from Bob Hurt

#64

Post by boots » Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:20 am

[ah nevermind, who cares. I'm done talking to the butthurt



boots
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: One ping from Bob Hurt

#65

Post by boots » Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:22 am

BobHurt wrote:I show them court opinions and case histories that prove what does not work and what does.. From the exam report they know whether it makes sense to put up a fight or not...
did you stay at a Holiday Inn last night?



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15870
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: One ping from Bob Hurt

#66

Post by Suranis » Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:24 am

You attack the Mortgage like Sandy the love Ewe. #bundyeroticfanfic


Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

boots
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: One ping from Bob Hurt

#67

Post by boots » Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:28 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Racist Butt Hurt lectured with Charles Edward Lincoln, III as recently as last year. I don't believe anything he writes. What I do know, following California cases, is that his theories of liability are never successful in California. A few have gotten by the pleading stage, but most lose, like Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase, decided last month (and attached). When they do get by the pleading stage they don't win at trial. And the lawyers pursuing these cases are not incompetent. The law is just against them. And this is in California, Ground Zero where Countrywide preyed on people. (In the lead up to the Great Recession, the CFO of Countrywide and his family moved in two doors down from my house.)

The Lincoln stink still envelops Butt Hurt. It's not coming off soon despite their financial dispute.
As to the lawyers pursuing these cases, a lot of them are boobs. But they aren't the ones who are appealing and settling and making new case law. The attorney who handled Saterbak in particular is highly competent, and has handled several other cases that have established important new precedents in the last couple of years. Caselaw has gotten a lot friendlier to the plaintiff homeowners attorney in the past 2 years. But it's still difficult. I'm still not clear what a "mortgage attack" is but Mr. Hurt, Butt: can't explain so I guess I'll have to stick with reading caselaw and treatises for edumacashun.



boots
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: One ping from Bob Hurt

#68

Post by boots » Wed Apr 20, 2016 7:56 pm

Family Liberty Patriot wrote:
ButtHurt wrote:I have zero respect for political correctness.
Protip: telling people that up-front is tipping your hand; it just screams "I AM AN ASSHOLE." Be a sport, let them figure that out on their own!
:clap: :boxing: :rotflmao:



User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6051
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: One ping from Bob Hurt

#69

Post by Sam the Centipede » Thu Apr 21, 2016 3:34 am

Techno Luddite wrote:
Family Liberty Patriot wrote:
ButtHurt wrote:I have zero respect for political correctness.
Protip: telling people that up-front is tipping your hand; it just screams "I AM AN ASSHOLE." Be a sport, let them figure that out on their own!
:clap: :boxing: :rotflmao:
Yabbut how will the poor maltreated people - and all those misguided judges and attorneys - respect ButtHurt and lurn from him if he doesn't provide his credentials? :confused:



Post Reply

Return to “FEMA Camp 7½”