Bagels at a Bar Mitzvah

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,486
262
83
So far, I have come up with RICO (one year of SOL left), FFDCPA ( on -going violation) for my federal. Other claims: theft by deception, UTPA, and unjust enrichment (tort) but can only assert them after injury (house sold). Fraud's sol expired.
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Jan 27, 2014
1,232
162
63
Well they're we have it. Proof that Pelosi et all are trolling Bagels for campaign strategy. Krafty, there's your response to democrats not saying anything.


I'll be honest. The first word that came to mind when I saw Pelosi and crew kneeling for nine minutes in full cultural appropriation regalia was pandering. But then I stopped to remind myself I never signed anything promising to be jaded all the time. Kneeling is a posture too rife with historical symbolism not to be powerful. It signifies concession, penitence, a plea, a willingness to compromise, adoration, atonement and a prayer among other things. More generally it signifies humility in the face of something greater than yourself. Genuflection is a gesture of the deepest respect.

Kaepernick used the poignant stance as protest and it was interrupted as a sort of arrogance which was ironic but it caught on due to the "arrogance" of bowing to something more powerful than our society's perception of equality. So hats off to the democrats and Mitt Romney as well for marching with the protesters! And the policemen too who took a knee. Now let's see if it engenders positive change.

BTW, cultural appropriation is a good thing you silly PC types. It's one of the ways society grows and strengthens with our diversity
My friend, there's another side to that which you might find interesting. Yes, it was pandering...yes, it was to promote themselves....and yes, it was disgusting and done rather inappropriately.

You see those kente cloths they are wearing? Therein lies the problem, and it is twofold. First, in modern times those represent the affluent. The wealthy. In modern times, you would find rich people wearing them, not the everyday average person that those Democrats want us to believe they are kneeling to represent. And second--and here's the bigger faux pas--traditionally they were worn by the wealthy members of the Ashanti tribe, in what today is known as Ghana. They were usually made of silk--which was reserved only for the rich folks back then. But the real issue? The wealthy Ashantis who wore these were land owners who owned slaves, or slave traders who made their fortunes by selling people as property. That's what happens when someone who doesn't understand the culture tries to elevate themselves in a photo op. She's trying to tell the black community, "We're with you", by wearing a symbol traditionally reserved for rich slave owners in Africa. Yep.....pandering.george floyd flag.jpg

And it gets worse. See that photo.

The photo I attached shows Nancy Pelosi presenting George Floyd's brother with a folded American flag. The flag apparently flew above the Capitol on the day George died. Think about this for a moment....ever seen a folded flag given to family members when someone has died? Sure, we all have. When does it happen? It's done for firefighters, police, first responders, and members of our military, often when they died in the line of duty.

I get it, George Floyd did not deserve to die, and his death is criminal...I hope those former cops are prosecuted to the fullest extent. But this is something reserved for a very specific purpose, and this was like spitting in the face of those whose loved one died earning that tribute. A couple of the best people ever put on this earth, that I had the honor of serving with, are among those. This was a real slap in the face. And of course, photo op. This is the same Nancy Pelosi who declared a couple years ago that Trump's wall idea was stupid because walls and fences don't work....while she lives in a large house with a high fence all around it. She is pandering, absolutely. And it's painfully obvious.
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Jan 27, 2014
1,232
162
63
So far, I have come up with RICO (one year of SOL left), FFDCPA ( on -going violation) for my federal. Other claims: theft by deception, UTPA, and unjust enrichment (tort) but can only assert them after injury (house sold). Fraud's sol expired.
I wonder if the fraud SOL is indeed expired, because you might or might not be able to tie it into whenever the injury occurs--when they sell the house. Maybe, maybe not, just thinking out loud....
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,486
262
83
I reread the Slorp v Bank of America case (available on PACER). He also had a state foreclosure judgement against him but he filed a federal suit against the law firm, the robosigner, BOfA, the case lasted 4 years. I checked Zillow yesterday, his house was never sold. There is also a strong possibility that BOfA will do nothing, Ocwen may realize it's too much trouble to get my house, even if after they sell. I think it will be long time, just have to keep litigating. I talked to an attorney yesterday, expensive $325/hour. Expensive.
 

just_me

LoanSafe Member
Sep 14, 2015
643
62
28
Is anyone familiar with a stipulated dismissal? IE keeping counterclaims after plaintiff's case is dismissed.This is one *little* legal item that my former legal aid attorney *neglected to mention.* It was my primary concern, she knew it, yet she played ignorant. I'm so angry to find that she could have protected my rights during a dismissal and did not tell me the truth.
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Jan 27, 2014
1,232
162
63
Is anyone familiar with a stipulated dismissal? IE keeping counterclaims after plaintiff's case is dismissed.This is one *little* legal item that my former legal aid attorney *neglected to mention.* It was my primary concern, she knew it, yet she played ignorant.
I've come across it a lot in research, what kind of info are you looking for?
 

just_me

LoanSafe Member
Sep 14, 2015
643
62
28
I've come across it a lot in research, what kind of info are you looking for?
Does it necessarily need to be agreed to or approved by the Judge in advance, in order to obtain a dismissal. Why would a dismissal of their case automatically make my claims "dissappear" especially since I have already answered. I believe somewhere in there, is a procedure or a right. Where? All I found was a sample motion where the judge approved the stipulation. Ordinarilly, one sues for costs and makes opposing party liable, but when you have a free attorney or are pro se, you have no billable hours for that particular claim. (So they argue no harm no foul even though they have tied you up for a decade.)

I can certainly see getting taken advantage of on a procedural level (for pro se) by both the judge and opposing counsel when given (or taking) the opportunity to dismiss a FC against you.
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Jan 27, 2014
1,232
162
63
Does it necessarily need to be agreed to or approved by the Judge in advance, in order to obtain a dismissal. Why would a dismissal of their case automatically make my claims "dissappear" especially since I have already answered. I believe somewhere in there, is a procedure or a right. Where? All I found was a sample motion where the judge approved the stipulation. Ordinarilly, one sues for costs and makes opposing party liable, but when you have a free attorney or are pro se, you have no billable hours for that particular claim. (So they argue no harm no foul even though they have tied you up for a decade.)

I can certainly see getting taken advantage of on a procedural level (for pro se) by both the judge and opposing counsel when given (or taking) the opportunity to dismiss a FC against you.
OK, a stipulated dismissal is one in which the parties agree to dismiss their claims. It's not an automatic thing. Can you back up a bit? I am curious, did the other side bring this up to you, and if so, how did they discuss it? What did they say?

A stipulated dismissal is one in which both parties discuss it and come to an agreement--for example, I agree to dismiss my suit against you if you agree to cover your own costs. That's one example of a stipulation. Another is if there's a counter suit---the parties can stipulate to the court that both sides agree to dismiss their respective suits against each other.

I think they may be trying to pull a fast one on you. I could be wrong, but if they are telling you anything about offering a stipulated dismissal, especially if they told you that your counter claim would be dismissed, there's a chance they are trying to fool you. That's why I asked specifically what was said about it. I'm wondering--did they tell you that your case would automatically go away? Did they offer to drop theirs as long as yours went away as well?

Usually, the parties will agree to whatever the stipulations are, and then they will present it to the court. Typically, especially in civil cases, the judge signs off on it.

But the reason why this even exists is because your case does NOT automatically go away if theirs is dismissed. For example, my state's CCP Article 1039 states:

"If an incidental demand has been pleaded prior to motion by plaintiff in the principal action to dismiss the principal action, a subsequent dismissal thereof shall not in any way affect the incidental action, which must be tried and decided independently of the principal action. "

In other words, if they dismissed their own suit, without stipulation, your suit would still survive and would still be heard by the court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: just_me

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,486
262
83
My experience is the foreclosing bank/servicer/so-called investors will do anything to steal your house because they know the judges are already bought off. Once they know you are up to their tricks they will prolong the case to run out all the SOLs on fraud, misrepresentation counterclaims with the blessing of the judges. If you are not up to speed on the law +procedure (like I was) the SOLs will run out on your claim. So the bank/servicer's position is if the homeowner does not know we get a free house, if he knows we will trick him so there will be no harm to us.

In my case, the judge was on the side of BOFA excluded my evidence on indorsements and I let it go without filing an appeal. I was not up to speed on evidence rulles and how to authenticate records. Then she excluded all the evidence in concluding the note and indorsements were authentic. I think my claim on fraud and misrepresentation expires since I filed my motion more than 2 years ago. Now I have to wait for them to make the next move because if they make the wrong move (like filing for a writ) they could restart the my fraud and misrepresentation claim. For now, The only way to get back at them is to file a whistle-blower with the SEC and the DOJ, then a federal suit on RICO before the SOL on that expires. If they sell my house then I can file for unjust enrichment and theft by deception (can not do it now because there is no damage yet).
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Jan 27, 2014
1,232
162
63
My experience is the foreclosing bank/servicer/so-called investors will do anything to steal your house because they know the judges are already bought off. Once they know you are up to their tricks they will prolong the case to run out all the SOLs on fraud, misrepresentation counterclaims with the blessing of the judges. If you are not up to speed on the law +procedure (like I was) the SOLs will run out on your claim. So the bank/servicer's position is if the homeowner does not know we get a free house, if he knows we will trick him so there will be no harm to us.

In my case, the judge was on the side of BOFA excluded my evidence on indorsements and I let it go without filing an appeal. I was not up to speed on evidence rulles and how to authenticate records. Then she excluded all the evidence in concluding the note and indorsements were authentic. I think my claim on fraud and misrepresentation expires since I filed my motion more than 2 years ago. Now I have to wait for them to make the next move because if they make the wrong move (like filing for a writ) they could restart the my fraud and misrepresentation claim. For now, The only way to get back at them is to file a whistle-blower with the SEC and the DOJ, then a federal suit on RICO before the SOL on that expires. If they sell my house then I can file for unjust enrichment and theft by deception (can not do it now because there is no damage yet).
SOL cannot run out on your claim if you already filed it with the court. If you filed a counter claim or cross claim, then as long as it was still within SOL on the day you filed, you're fine. Just as SOL cannot run out on their foreclosure claim once it's filed, same applies to our counter claims. That's the weapon we have available to counter that effort. Unfortunately, for most of us, we either didn't file a counter claim or we filed one that did not include everything we could and should have put in there.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,797
250
83
North bay
My friend, there's another side to that which you might find interesting. Yes, it was pandering...yes, it was to promote themselves....and yes, it was disgusting and done rather inappropriately.

You see those kente cloths they are wearing? Therein lies the problem, and it is twofold. First, in modern times those represent the affluent. The wealthy. In modern times, you would find rich people wearing them, not the everyday average person that those Democrats want us to believe they are kneeling to represent. And second--and here's the bigger faux pas--traditionally they were worn by the wealthy members of the Ashanti tribe, in what today is known as Ghana. They were usually made of silk--which was reserved only for the rich folks back then. But the real issue? The wealthy Ashantis who wore these were land owners who owned slaves, or slave traders who made their fortunes by selling people as property. That's what happens when someone who doesn't understand the culture tries to elevate themselves in a photo op. She's trying to tell the black community, "We're with you", by wearing a symbol traditionally reserved for rich slave owners in Africa. Yep.....pandering.View attachment 163

And it gets worse. See that photo.

The photo I attached shows Nancy Pelosi presenting George Floyd's brother with a folded American flag. The flag apparently flew above the Capitol on the day George died. Think about this for a moment....ever seen a folded flag given to family members when someone has died? Sure, we all have. When does it happen? It's done for firefighters, police, first responders, and members of our military, often when they died in the line of duty.

I get it, George Floyd did not deserve to die, and his death is criminal...I hope those former cops are prosecuted to the fullest extent. But this is something reserved for a very specific purpose, and this was like spitting in the face of those whose loved one died earning that tribute. A couple of the best people ever put on this earth, that I had the honor of serving with, are among those. This was a real slap in the face. And of course, photo op. This is the same Nancy Pelosi who declared a couple years ago that Trump's wall idea was stupid because walls and fences don't work....while she lives in a large house with a high fence all around it. She is pandering, absolutely. And it's painfully obvious.
Sometimes you need to look at the forest not the trees. Whatever specific symbolism the clothes or flag contain and even if the democrats have their own agenda the gestures themselves matter because they're acknowledging the validity of the protests. When the powerful are willing to bow and admit to injustice it makes a strong statement to the oppressed.
The president failed to meet grief and justifiable anger with any promises of ameloration and justice. Instead he threw gasoline on the fire with threats of retaliation. The democrats gesture may have done something to calm down the rioters that Trump all but incited.
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Jan 27, 2014
1,232
162
63
Sometimes you need to look at the forest not the trees. Whatever specific symbolism the clothes or flag contain and even if the democrats have their own agenda the gestures themselves matter because they're acknowledging the validity of the protests. When the powerful are willing to bow and admit to injustice it makes a strong statement to the oppressed.
The president failed to meet grief and justifiable anger with any promises of ameloration and justice. Instead he threw gasoline on the fire with threats of retaliation. The democrats gesture may have done something to calm down the rioters that Trump all but incited.
I've been watching Pelosi's actions for some time now. Ever wonder why she only does this kind of thing in an election year? I sure noticed that. This is pandering, plain and simple. She has not shown an ounce of care or concern, not even for the people within her own district. This is not about the forest or the trees. It's about truth. Did you know that her father is Thomas D’Alesandro Jr. ? This man was mayor of Baltimore from 1947 to 1959. He personally oversaw so many racist policies and plans that Baltimore has been forever scarred by his racism. She didn't fall far from the tree. In 1948, when statues of Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee were dedicated in Baltimore, Pelosi was in attendance at the ceremony with her dad. Pelosi only gets involved with race issues when there's a tv camera rolling and there's an election coming up. She's a racist from a family of racists. Even younger democrats like AOC have pointed to Pelosi's racist attacks.

Look around her district. Even if you take race completely out of the picture, she's doing absolutely nothing for the people of San Francisco. That once great and fascinating city has become an absolute disaster....people literally defecate in the streets in broad daylight there. There was a program to hand out free needles to addicts....now there are used needles all over the sidewalks. Even if you unplug race from the equation, she's doing nothing at all for the people she's supposed to represent. Nothing good, anyway. It's a miracle she keeps getting reelected. Remember when, back in January, Trump was calling for a travel ban from China because of COVID-19? Pelosi actually went down to Chinatown and urged the public to come out and spend money. She accused Trump of trying to overstate what was just a regional issue in China and nothing to worry about. THEN, when coronavirus hit the US, Pelosi was among the people claiming that Trump did not act quickly enough. Seriously. And Trump did not incite the rioters. I certainly think he severely missed an opportunity to try to unite the people in this country....and I think his actions now are too reactionary. He had a golden opportunity to lead, and blew it. But I don't believe he incited riots. Democrat politicians who actually went out and stood with protesters, who all of a sudden did not care about COVID-19 anymore after threatening to imprison protesters of "stay at home" just weeks or even days before....they did not help the situation either. What we need is to unplug from both parties and become "we the people" again.

You know I have nothing but respect for you--always will. I know we don't agree on some of these political issues and that's totally fine. I do agree with you that we all need to pull together, that's the one way this gets solved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: isisis

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,797
250
83
North bay
Actually, Krafty you were very helpful to me in understanding and accepting Trump's presidency in the beginning. I figured if someone I respected thought he would be a good president then maybe I didn't have a complete understanding of everything involved.

I pretty much was on for the ride - like you I know we take turns in this democracy and hope for the best - until this year when everything went crazy.

I'm not a democrat and don't support their actions either. In this singular circumstance, their responsibilities changed but they didn't seem to notice and instead became enablers.

At the beginning of the year when the virus was looming in the none to the far distance, they needed to recognize that things had shifted and they needed to align their priorities with the good of the nation rather than bringing Trump down.

We were facing a crisis that could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans and frankly, we had a mad man at the wheel. Trump could only focus on Trump and his re-election. He didn't want to even think about a deadly virus killing voters and being a gambler he decided to ignore it and trust to his luck that it would go away. (He figured if worse came to worse he could do what he always does: blame it on someone else.)

Pelosi should have cared about America enough to put partisan issues aside and calmed the mad man down. All of those things that could have been done in those lost six weeks to prepare us to contain the virus might have happened if they were seen as a bipartisan effort. Trump would have been willing to prepare the country for an earlier lockdown and make life-saving preparations with testing and tracing if he didn't think it would impact his election chances.

In this fictional scenario, we could have saved tens of thousands of lives.
 

just_me

LoanSafe Member
Sep 14, 2015
643
62
28
SOL cannot run out on your claim if you already filed it with the court. If you filed a counter claim or cross claim, then as long as it was still within SOL on the day you filed, you're fine. Just as SOL cannot run out on their foreclosure claim once it's filed, same applies to our counter claims. That's the weapon we have available to counter that effort. Unfortunately, for most of us, we either didn't file a counter claim or we filed one that did not include everything we could and should have put in there.
My "lender" amended their argument, several times, (completely new now) so I see no problem to amend by homeowner to include new claims or additional claims, especially if they are newly discovered and as long as it relates back. (No haven't done it yet) I really do think they tried to run out the SOLs on me (on their acts). It's not going to work.

I agree with MT in that they will get you on procedure. I heard once, "If they argue procedure, you argue substance." and vice versa.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,797
250
83
North bay
My "lender" amended their argument, several times, (completely new now) so I see no problem to amend by homeowner to include new claims or additional claims, especially if they are newly discovered and as long as it relates back. (No haven't done it yet) I really do think they tried to run out the SOLs on me (on their acts). It's not going to work.

I agree with MT in that they will get you on procedure. I heard once, "If they argue procedure, you argue substance." and vice versa.
Little known fact. The clock stops ticking on a SOL while you're in Chapter 13. Maybe seven too.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,797
250
83
North bay
I was researched SOL workarounds a couple years ago. Along with delayed discovery and equitable tolling accrual can be an important factor in extending the SOL because even if the wrongdoing took place outside the SOL until actual injury takes place the cause of action doesn't accrue. "But when the plaintiff does not actually suffer injury until sometime after the alleged misrepresentations were made to it, accrual of the limitations period may start only when the injury occurred. NYC Tr. Auth. V. Eisen, PC, 276 A.D.2d 78 (1st Dep’t 2000)."

There's also the doctrine of continuous accrual for repeated injury and the closely associated (but slightly different) doctrine of continuing harm. From the 9th Circuit:

“Under the continuing harm doctrine, the statute of limitations will not bar an action based on conduct outside the limitations period if the harm alleged continues into the limitations period. LaSalvia v. United Dairymen of Arizona, 804 F.2d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 928 (1987); See Eichman v. Fotomat Corp., 880 F.2d 149, 160 (9th Cir.1989) (statute of limitations runs from last overt act where plaintiff alleges continuing violation of law).

No. 90-16592. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 977 F.2d 591.”

The "last overt act" is a doctrine in itself though usually used in showing conspiracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kraftykrab

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,486
262
83
Thanks, Isisis, we are on the same page.
That’s exactly what I am thinking. I have unjust enrichment, theft by deception, and extortion if the house if sold, if not I still have violations of FFDCPA, unlawful trade practice, unconscionable collection practice, fraud and misrepresentation , and RICO against the law firm, BOfA, bank of ny, and Ocwen. In addition to equitable tolling, the law firm on behalf of BOfA in collusion with Ocwen, with BONY permission did file the response to my brief in March 2020. That extent my sol to March 2022 on fraud and misrepresentation and other allegations. I plan to file the federal no later than Aug 2021, sol on RICO, expires. Will go all the way to the US Supreme Court to let people how these outfits been ripping off taxpayers.