Well, Michael, it certainly has been a few years since our last series of exchanges. Perhaps you have forgotten, but I already have your email and phone numbers from those.
First I will make note that you are correct in that I could have used a different word in this essay than “bankruptcy”. I understand and admit that that word was used for the theatre of the point and misguided. You are not the first person to point that out. Bankruptcy has a series of true action items that the process entails of which the country did not go through, and in all actuality it never would. The reasons for this is that our government has the right to create money, therefore the idea that it can go bankrupt is totally false. However, I was using the word as effect and it was not correct. I had already begun working on a re-write of this post of which I will be correcting that issue and going into more depth.
I am working on that with Steve Grumbine, the known Modern Monetary Theory podcaster from RealProgressives.com and the respected podcasts “Mac n Cheese”, “The New Untouchables”, and others on his platform which he founded. It was on that platform with The New Untouchables, which I am a founding member of, where I met and first worked with him. You will find a podcast which I was a guest on with The New Untouchables in season 2, along with noted paralegal Paris Dube and our interview together with Steve Grumbine and Patrick Lovell.
It’s actually a bit of a funny story, because you brought up your deep respect for the documentary film, THE CON. You express the detail and expertise of the work of the producer, who you mentioned that you know. I am very familiar with this film and have seen it a few times indeed. I agree whole heartedly that it is an amazing piece of work. I have been friends with the producer of the film, Patrick Lovell, for a handful of years, but you couldn’t have known that. We have been in conversation and exchanging ideas for years before his film was completed and before my book was finished. We stay in frequent communication and continue to work the process of exposing the corruption of the law, its lawyers and judges and others that are associated with Wall Street, politics and our judicial systems that are so broken. In fact, Patrick, was kind enough to show his deep respect for my work and my book that he wrote the Foreword to it. You can look that up or buy my book. Here is a link:
I have stated numerous times, in my book, on my blog and other platforms to which I have written or been a guest speaker on that I am not an attorney. But, then neither are you. Your disbarment should be noted so that people don’t follow up with you for legal advice either. Here are a some links for people if they choose to follow up on that, too:
This is my blog and platform and I have decided to set this up in that I want clarity to make sure that people are given the full story. My whole premise of this blog was to expose ideas in ways that we are able to view both sides to concepts, theories and ideas. So, transparency is paramount in order that people be given both sides of a point or conversation.
I stated earlier that law is interpretive. It is through this process that interpretation can create both positive and negative changes and connotations to the rule of law and precedent. When you add capitalism to the world of law, in all of its places, you get corrupt and greedy lawyers, judges, lobbyists and politicians.
As per your comment about “fiat” currency I am well aware of the fact and could have worded some of the essay differently in that I do know that gold was taken out of our monetary system as it’s backing during the Nixon administration. I have written of that previously on my first blog, which you have visited and we have discussed extensively before.
As I said, I am doing a re-write of this post, and will also do a re-recording of the podcast that I did, as well. I am doing it this was in order to show that I understand that no one is perfect. We all can learn from new information and, as a writer and published author of the book “Quantum of Justice” I am well aware that words are powerful. I do not claim to be an expert at law, however, my experience as a Pro Per litigant against Wells Fargo Bank, and my level of curiosity and research to detail is shown in my book.
I am proud of the work I have created with “Quantum of Justice” and what is transpiring. It is being well received and respected. I am proud to have had Patrick write the Foreword to my work. I am proud to have my work read and reviewed by practicing licensed attorneys across the country. Some of them even quote some of my work in their case files in their State Supreme Court filings.
I have also been asked to speak in front of the International Bar Association this coming year. We are currently working on the date for this discussion and I will certainly make note of this as soon as the date is solid.
OMG. SORRY DOUG, I CAN'T LISTEN TO ANYMORE. YOU COMPLETELY SAY THE WRONG THINGS ABOUT SECURITIZATION, FRAUD, COUNTERFITTING , FORGERYS, LOST DOCUMENTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. I suspect you lost your own case as a "pro per" and filed ridiculous things. Read about the law on Neil Garfields site please. It is complex. You completely misstate the cases you cite and the statutes. Briefly, for one thing there is evidence that many of the promissory notes were destroyed. The Notes and Deeds of Trust were both supposed to be "assigned" and recorded as you mentioned. They were not, which is what gave rise to "robo-signing" which is crucial to understand. You also must understand the role of the infamous "MERS" (Mortgage Electronic Registration System). You also confuse "judicial foreclosure" and what happens in court and "non-judicial foreclosures" which you mention in your promotion materials. YOU ARE THE TYPICAL PERSON WHO IS NOT A LAWYER, DOES NOT UNDERSTAND ANYTHING ABOUT THE LAW, AND FILED THINGS IN COURT AND NOW WROTE A BOOK WHICH IS COMPLETELY WRONG. YOU ARE DOING GREAT HARM.
However, as I tried to tell you since virtually everything that cash flows is "securitized" and illegal nothing can be done without crashing the whole system. Judges know what is going on but are part of the system and don't want it to fail which is why they don't rule in favor of homeowners. So sadly, your book will do no good.
Thanks so much for your prompt response. Virtually everything you said in the first 15 minutes (which is all I listened to) was dead wrong. Things are in fact much worse than you state. I am not sure how much time you have but to get things right would take a lot of time. If you are really interested, I would respectfully suggest you take the time to learn more.
I have been a lawyer since 1977. I represented people in the Savings and Loan crisis in the 1980's. With all due respect, I spent many years in school, was tested, and spent many years intently studying the law full time and litigating cases. It is not possible to become a legal expert by reading things here and there online as you appear to have done. It would be like asking someone to perform surgery who learned off the internet.
By the time 2008 came around I was already known as an expert and in about 2009 or '10 I was first interviewed by the LA Times and one comment I made was "here we go again". Myself and most experts knew it was similar if not the same to what the financial institutions did in the 1980's. During the 2008 crisis I went on to represent many homeowners with success. I was, and am, considered one of the leading lawyers in the United States on this subject of the bad conduct of the banks. I represented some famous people.
There are millions of pages of misinformation about the 2008 crisis and millions of court filings by people representing themselves that are horrible. This creates a big problem because then cases by homeowners get a bad reputation with judges which are already hard enough. Judges talk with one another and every time a person not a lawyer files something in court it is usually ridiculous and judges say to one another "you should see what was filed in my court".
The topic is way too complex and there is so much to it that emails alone will not suffice. However, I will soon listen to your whole Podcast and provide my comment on some things you say as I feel strongly about this and am encouraged you seem interested. The Con which you may have seen already is about the best docu-series on the subject and I know the producer/narrator and what he did is accurate. I WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU WATCH IT. IT IS 5 HOURS AND LAST TIME I CHECKED WAS $20. BUT ALSO AVAILABLE ON MOST OF THE STREAMING SERVICES IF YOU ARE ALREADY A MEMBER.
Another good source of information is Neil Garfield's site and I can provide you with much more. I helped Neil get started over ten years ago and his site has had millions of visitors.
Neil Garfield | Livinglies's Webloghttps://livinglies.me
For starters, I will tell you the following about the first ten minutes or so of your podcast. Things are far far worse than you portray them.
LOAN ORIGINATION
Most loans are originated by loan brokers or representatives of the "Banks". In the majority of cases they were "liars loans". The borrower's qualifications were usually false and the loan broker put on the application whatever he thought would get someone the loan. In many if not most cases this was completely made up information. The story of Addie Polk in The Con is just one example (she never even applied for a loan but was foreclosed on).
The money for the loans comes from investors on Wall Street and NOT from the Banks. "Table Funding" is usually used which is complicated but the important thing to know is that the money for the loans comes from investors on Wall Street in a very complex series of transactions called "securitization" (my old seminars for lawyers when I taught securitization took 3 days). Your description however of where the money comes from is all wrong. You confuse where the money comes from (investors on Wall Street actually do provide the funds) with what "money" really is. As far as "money" we do have a fiat currency not backed by gold or anything else which is addressed below. But, as I said, investors on Wall Street do pay money to purchase "Mortgage Backed Securities" as an investment.
You are right that there is typically a 3 day right of rescission and the information needed by the borrower to decide whether to rescind is rarely provided. However, I am aware of many cases where the borrower did send the notice of rescission and the loan was processed anyway.
The two most important documents for a real estate loan are the Promissory Note and Deed of Trust (in some states still a mortgage). As I mentioned, these documents reflect that the loan is a "secured loan" (repayment secured by the house) as opposed to an "unsecured loan" (i.e. credit card debt) the repayment of which is not secured by anything. BUT THIS IS NOT A "SECURITY" as you imply. Those securities are investments which are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and traded on Wall Street. A "security instrument" and "registered security" are completely different.
In fact, this difference is very important from a legal standpoint. The Note and Trust Deed were meant to be used with real estate loans having nothing to do with "securities" sold on Wall Street. They were documents intended to have legal ramifications for a borrower and lender only, not with respect to securities issued for sale on Wall Street. But, the loans were in fact "securitized" and turned into registered securities (usually bonds) and sold on Wall Street when they were never intended to be such. This process of securitization is extremely complex legally and Neil does a good job on his site. Long before 2008, legal experts said it was a criminal scheme and it was and is.
There is an enormous body of real estate law and "commercial paper" which applies but I don't have much time to go into it now.
Almost everything you said about what happened in "1933" is wrong. There was no bankruptcy and that is not when the U.S. really went off the gold standard. While on June 5, 1933 Congress did act, as did FDR as an emergency to try to stop the run on the banks, it was not until 1971 when Nixon ended pegging the value of the dollar to gold that the dollar was not really backed by anything. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2021/01/25/the-gold-standard-ended-50-years-ago-federal-debt-has-only-exploded-since/?sh=37df5ac81e17). Much has been written about the crash of 1929 and what happened in 1933 and I have read a number of books about it which if you are interested I can refer you to. Some things FDR did were good and worked and some bad. FDR tried many of the things being tried today that did not work.
We do have a "fiat currency" not backed by anything since Nixon took us off the gold standard in 1971 The problems with a fiat currency combined with the fact that the Fed is "printing" record amounts of dollars and we have historic levels of debt is the subject of an enormous amount of discussion these days. Ray Dalio studied 500 years of history about how societies fail and there are great parallels to what happened during the 1930's and now. Most experts agree we are going to crash and worse than what happened in 1929. Everyone knows this and it is discussed pretty much daily on the internet.
I was shocked that your book seems to be selling out. You may have inspired me to write a book!!
Sorry Doug, virtually everything you state is legally wrong. For example, you don't understand the difference between a "security instrument" (trust deed or mortgage") which is merely evidence that a debt is "secured" as opposed to "unsecured". This is far different than a "security" that is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and traded. I can't even begin to state what else is wrong as I have limited time.
Michael, you are certainly entitled to your own point of view. The interesting thing about the world of law is that it is based upon interpretation. I welcome you to bring your necessary evidence to substantiate your position rather than your assertion followed by “you don’t have time”. That kind of response serves no one.
Well, Michael, it certainly has been a few years since our last series of exchanges. Perhaps you have forgotten, but I already have your email and phone numbers from those.
First I will make note that you are correct in that I could have used a different word in this essay than “bankruptcy”. I understand and admit that that word was used for the theatre of the point and misguided. You are not the first person to point that out. Bankruptcy has a series of true action items that the process entails of which the country did not go through, and in all actuality it never would. The reasons for this is that our government has the right to create money, therefore the idea that it can go bankrupt is totally false. However, I was using the word as effect and it was not correct. I had already begun working on a re-write of this post of which I will be correcting that issue and going into more depth.
I am working on that with Steve Grumbine, the known Modern Monetary Theory podcaster from RealProgressives.com and the respected podcasts “Mac n Cheese”, “The New Untouchables”, and others on his platform which he founded. It was on that platform with The New Untouchables, which I am a founding member of, where I met and first worked with him. You will find a podcast which I was a guest on with The New Untouchables in season 2, along with noted paralegal Paris Dube and our interview together with Steve Grumbine and Patrick Lovell.
It’s actually a bit of a funny story, because you brought up your deep respect for the documentary film, THE CON. You express the detail and expertise of the work of the producer, who you mentioned that you know. I am very familiar with this film and have seen it a few times indeed. I agree whole heartedly that it is an amazing piece of work. I have been friends with the producer of the film, Patrick Lovell, for a handful of years, but you couldn’t have known that. We have been in conversation and exchanging ideas for years before his film was completed and before my book was finished. We stay in frequent communication and continue to work the process of exposing the corruption of the law, its lawyers and judges and others that are associated with Wall Street, politics and our judicial systems that are so broken. In fact, Patrick, was kind enough to show his deep respect for my work and my book that he wrote the Foreword to it. You can look that up or buy my book. Here is a link:
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Justice-Foreclosure-Illegal-Securitization-ebook/dp/B09H3TVZ7G/ref=sr_1_1?crid=25DXB61QR9XWH&keywords=quantum+of+justice+book&qid=1639338438&sprefix=Quantum+of+j%2Caps%2C225&sr=8-1
I have stated numerous times, in my book, on my blog and other platforms to which I have written or been a guest speaker on that I am not an attorney. But, then neither are you. Your disbarment should be noted so that people don’t follow up with you for legal advice either. Here are a some links for people if they choose to follow up on that, too:
https://www.calbarjournal.com/April2011/TopHeadlines/TH4.aspx
https://fraudstoppers.org/disbarred-attorney-michael-pines-fraud-warning-alert/
https://www.mcall.com/sdut-former-foreclosure-attorney-probation-violation-2014feb10-story.html
https://casetext.com/case/pines-v-dir-of-atascadero-state-hosp
This is my blog and platform and I have decided to set this up in that I want clarity to make sure that people are given the full story. My whole premise of this blog was to expose ideas in ways that we are able to view both sides to concepts, theories and ideas. So, transparency is paramount in order that people be given both sides of a point or conversation.
I stated earlier that law is interpretive. It is through this process that interpretation can create both positive and negative changes and connotations to the rule of law and precedent. When you add capitalism to the world of law, in all of its places, you get corrupt and greedy lawyers, judges, lobbyists and politicians.
As per your comment about “fiat” currency I am well aware of the fact and could have worded some of the essay differently in that I do know that gold was taken out of our monetary system as it’s backing during the Nixon administration. I have written of that previously on my first blog, which you have visited and we have discussed extensively before.
As I said, I am doing a re-write of this post, and will also do a re-recording of the podcast that I did, as well. I am doing it this was in order to show that I understand that no one is perfect. We all can learn from new information and, as a writer and published author of the book “Quantum of Justice” I am well aware that words are powerful. I do not claim to be an expert at law, however, my experience as a Pro Per litigant against Wells Fargo Bank, and my level of curiosity and research to detail is shown in my book.
I am proud of the work I have created with “Quantum of Justice” and what is transpiring. It is being well received and respected. I am proud to have had Patrick write the Foreword to my work. I am proud to have my work read and reviewed by practicing licensed attorneys across the country. Some of them even quote some of my work in their case files in their State Supreme Court filings.
I have also been asked to speak in front of the International Bar Association this coming year. We are currently working on the date for this discussion and I will certainly make note of this as soon as the date is solid.
This all makes me proud to say the least.
OMG. SORRY DOUG, I CAN'T LISTEN TO ANYMORE. YOU COMPLETELY SAY THE WRONG THINGS ABOUT SECURITIZATION, FRAUD, COUNTERFITTING , FORGERYS, LOST DOCUMENTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. I suspect you lost your own case as a "pro per" and filed ridiculous things. Read about the law on Neil Garfields site please. It is complex. You completely misstate the cases you cite and the statutes. Briefly, for one thing there is evidence that many of the promissory notes were destroyed. The Notes and Deeds of Trust were both supposed to be "assigned" and recorded as you mentioned. They were not, which is what gave rise to "robo-signing" which is crucial to understand. You also must understand the role of the infamous "MERS" (Mortgage Electronic Registration System). You also confuse "judicial foreclosure" and what happens in court and "non-judicial foreclosures" which you mention in your promotion materials. YOU ARE THE TYPICAL PERSON WHO IS NOT A LAWYER, DOES NOT UNDERSTAND ANYTHING ABOUT THE LAW, AND FILED THINGS IN COURT AND NOW WROTE A BOOK WHICH IS COMPLETELY WRONG. YOU ARE DOING GREAT HARM.
I suggest you ask me questions. magicalmichael2000@gmail.com and maybe we can talk on the phone.
However, as I tried to tell you since virtually everything that cash flows is "securitized" and illegal nothing can be done without crashing the whole system. Judges know what is going on but are part of the system and don't want it to fail which is why they don't rule in favor of homeowners. So sadly, your book will do no good.
Doug,
Thanks so much for your prompt response. Virtually everything you said in the first 15 minutes (which is all I listened to) was dead wrong. Things are in fact much worse than you state. I am not sure how much time you have but to get things right would take a lot of time. If you are really interested, I would respectfully suggest you take the time to learn more.
I have been a lawyer since 1977. I represented people in the Savings and Loan crisis in the 1980's. With all due respect, I spent many years in school, was tested, and spent many years intently studying the law full time and litigating cases. It is not possible to become a legal expert by reading things here and there online as you appear to have done. It would be like asking someone to perform surgery who learned off the internet.
By the time 2008 came around I was already known as an expert and in about 2009 or '10 I was first interviewed by the LA Times and one comment I made was "here we go again". Myself and most experts knew it was similar if not the same to what the financial institutions did in the 1980's. During the 2008 crisis I went on to represent many homeowners with success. I was, and am, considered one of the leading lawyers in the United States on this subject of the bad conduct of the banks. I represented some famous people.
There are millions of pages of misinformation about the 2008 crisis and millions of court filings by people representing themselves that are horrible. This creates a big problem because then cases by homeowners get a bad reputation with judges which are already hard enough. Judges talk with one another and every time a person not a lawyer files something in court it is usually ridiculous and judges say to one another "you should see what was filed in my court".
The topic is way too complex and there is so much to it that emails alone will not suffice. However, I will soon listen to your whole Podcast and provide my comment on some things you say as I feel strongly about this and am encouraged you seem interested. The Con which you may have seen already is about the best docu-series on the subject and I know the producer/narrator and what he did is accurate. I WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU WATCH IT. IT IS 5 HOURS AND LAST TIME I CHECKED WAS $20. BUT ALSO AVAILABLE ON MOST OF THE STREAMING SERVICES IF YOU ARE ALREADY A MEMBER.
www.thecon.tv.
Another good source of information is Neil Garfield's site and I can provide you with much more. I helped Neil get started over ten years ago and his site has had millions of visitors.
Neil Garfield | Livinglies's Webloghttps://livinglies.me
For starters, I will tell you the following about the first ten minutes or so of your podcast. Things are far far worse than you portray them.
LOAN ORIGINATION
Most loans are originated by loan brokers or representatives of the "Banks". In the majority of cases they were "liars loans". The borrower's qualifications were usually false and the loan broker put on the application whatever he thought would get someone the loan. In many if not most cases this was completely made up information. The story of Addie Polk in The Con is just one example (she never even applied for a loan but was foreclosed on).
The money for the loans comes from investors on Wall Street and NOT from the Banks. "Table Funding" is usually used which is complicated but the important thing to know is that the money for the loans comes from investors on Wall Street in a very complex series of transactions called "securitization" (my old seminars for lawyers when I taught securitization took 3 days). Your description however of where the money comes from is all wrong. You confuse where the money comes from (investors on Wall Street actually do provide the funds) with what "money" really is. As far as "money" we do have a fiat currency not backed by gold or anything else which is addressed below. But, as I said, investors on Wall Street do pay money to purchase "Mortgage Backed Securities" as an investment.
You are right that there is typically a 3 day right of rescission and the information needed by the borrower to decide whether to rescind is rarely provided. However, I am aware of many cases where the borrower did send the notice of rescission and the loan was processed anyway.
The two most important documents for a real estate loan are the Promissory Note and Deed of Trust (in some states still a mortgage). As I mentioned, these documents reflect that the loan is a "secured loan" (repayment secured by the house) as opposed to an "unsecured loan" (i.e. credit card debt) the repayment of which is not secured by anything. BUT THIS IS NOT A "SECURITY" as you imply. Those securities are investments which are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and traded on Wall Street. A "security instrument" and "registered security" are completely different.
In fact, this difference is very important from a legal standpoint. The Note and Trust Deed were meant to be used with real estate loans having nothing to do with "securities" sold on Wall Street. They were documents intended to have legal ramifications for a borrower and lender only, not with respect to securities issued for sale on Wall Street. But, the loans were in fact "securitized" and turned into registered securities (usually bonds) and sold on Wall Street when they were never intended to be such. This process of securitization is extremely complex legally and Neil does a good job on his site. Long before 2008, legal experts said it was a criminal scheme and it was and is.
There is an enormous body of real estate law and "commercial paper" which applies but I don't have much time to go into it now.
Almost everything you said about what happened in "1933" is wrong. There was no bankruptcy and that is not when the U.S. really went off the gold standard. While on June 5, 1933 Congress did act, as did FDR as an emergency to try to stop the run on the banks, it was not until 1971 when Nixon ended pegging the value of the dollar to gold that the dollar was not really backed by anything. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2021/01/25/the-gold-standard-ended-50-years-ago-federal-debt-has-only-exploded-since/?sh=37df5ac81e17). Much has been written about the crash of 1929 and what happened in 1933 and I have read a number of books about it which if you are interested I can refer you to. Some things FDR did were good and worked and some bad. FDR tried many of the things being tried today that did not work.
We do have a "fiat currency" not backed by anything since Nixon took us off the gold standard in 1971 The problems with a fiat currency combined with the fact that the Fed is "printing" record amounts of dollars and we have historic levels of debt is the subject of an enormous amount of discussion these days. Ray Dalio studied 500 years of history about how societies fail and there are great parallels to what happened during the 1930's and now. Most experts agree we are going to crash and worse than what happened in 1929. Everyone knows this and it is discussed pretty much daily on the internet.
I was shocked that your book seems to be selling out. You may have inspired me to write a book!!
Michael
619-771-5302
Sorry Doug, virtually everything you state is legally wrong. For example, you don't understand the difference between a "security instrument" (trust deed or mortgage") which is merely evidence that a debt is "secured" as opposed to "unsecured". This is far different than a "security" that is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and traded. I can't even begin to state what else is wrong as I have limited time.
Michael, you are certainly entitled to your own point of view. The interesting thing about the world of law is that it is based upon interpretation. I welcome you to bring your necessary evidence to substantiate your position rather than your assertion followed by “you don’t have time”. That kind of response serves no one.