Atomic Bomb

Via: 4ClosureFraud

(St. George, UT) June 5, 2010 – A court order issued by Fifth District Court Judge James L. Shumate May 22, 2010 in St. George, Utah has stopped all foreclosure proceedings in the State of Utah by Bank of America Corporation, ;

Judge James L. Shumate

Recontrust Company, N.A; Home Loans Servicing, LP; Bank of America, FSB; The Court Order if allowed to become permanent will force Bank of America and other mortgage companies with home loans in Utah to adhere to the Utah laws requiring lenders to register in the state and have offices where home owners can negotiate face-to-face with their lenders as the state lawmakers intended (Utah Code ‘ 57-1-21(1)(a)(i).). Telephone calls by KCSG News for comment to the law office of Bank of America counsel Sean D. Muntz and attorney Amir Shlesinger of Reed Smith, LLP, Los Angeles, CA and Richard Ensor, Esq. of Vantus Law Group, Salt Lake City, UT were not returned.

The lawsuit filed by John Christian Barlow, a former Weber State University student who graduated from Loyola University of Chicago and receive his law degree from one of the most distinguished private a law colleges in the nation, Willamette University founded in 1883 at Salem, Oregon has drawn the ire of the high brow B of A attorney and those on the case in the law firm of Reed Smith, LLP, the 15th largest law firm in the world.

Barlow said Bank of America claims because it’s a national chartered institution, state laws are trumped, or not applicable to the bank. That was before the case was brought before Judge Shumate who read the petition, supporting case history and the state statute asking for an injunctive relief hearing filed by Barlow. The Judge felt so strong about the case before him, he issued the preliminary injunction order without a hearing halting the foreclosure process. The attorney’s for Bank of America promptly filed to move the case to federal court to avoid having to deal with the Judge who is not unaccustomed to high profile cases and has a history of watching out for the “little people” and citizen’s rights.

The legal gamesmanship has begun with the case moved to federal court and Barlow’s motion filed to remand the case to Fifth District Court. Barlow said is only seems fair the Bank be required to play by the rules that every mortgage lender in Utah is required to adhere; Barlow said, “can you imagine the audacity of the Bank of America and other big mortgage lenders that took billions in bailout funds to help resolve the mortgage mess and the financial institutions now are profiting by kicking people out of them homes without due process under the law of the State of Utah.

Barlow said he believes his client’s rights to remedies were taken away from her by faceless lenders who continue to overwhelm home owners and the judicial system with motions and petitions as remedies instead of actually making a good-faith effort in face-to-face negotiations to help homeowners. “The law is clear in Utah,” said Barlow, “and Judge Shumate saw it clearly too. Mortgage lender are required by law to be registered and have offices in the State of Utah to do business, that is unless you’re the Bank of America or one of their subsidiary company’s who are above the law in Utah.”

Barlow said the Bank of America attorneys are working overtime filing motions to overwhelm him and the court. “They simply have no answer for violating the state statutes and they don’t want to incur the wrath of Judge Shumate because of the serious ramifications his finding could have on lenders in Utah and across the nation where Bank of America and other financial institutions, under the guise of a mortgage lender have trampled the rights of citizens,” he said.

“Bank of America took over the bankrupt Countrywide Home Loan portfolio June 3, 2009 in a stock deal that has over 1100 home owners in foreclosure in Utah this month alone, and the numbers keep growing,” Barlow said.

The second part of the motion, Barlow filed, claims that neither the lender, nor MERS*, nor Bank of America, nor any other Defendant, has any remaining interest in the mortgage Promissory Note. The note has been bundled with other notes and sold as mortgage-backed securities or otherwise assigned and split from the Trust Deed. When the note is split from the trust deed, “the note becomes, as a practical matter, unsecured.” Restatement (Third) of Property (Mortgages) § 5.4 cmt. a (1997). A person or entity only holding the trust deed suffers no default because only the Note holder is entitled to payment. Basically, “[t]he security is worthless in the hands of anyone except a person who has the right to enforce the obligation; it cannot be foreclosed or otherwise enforced.” Real Estate Finance Law (Fourth) § 5.27 (2002).

*MERS is a process that is designed to simplifies the way mortgage ownership and servicing rights are originated, sold and tracked. Created by the real estate finance industry, MERS eliminates the need to prepare and record assignments when trading residential and commercial mortgage loans.

Frivilous Pleading Letter (Florida) to Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A.

I really enjoy MR. BARNES work!


July 23, 2008

William Jeff Barnes, Esq. 1515 North Federal Highway
Atrium Building, Suite 300
Member of Florida and Colorado Bars Boca Raton, Florida 33432
Certified Mediator (Florida, Minnesota)
Certified Arbitrator (Florida) telephone: (561) 864-1067
telefax: (702) 804-8137
Ruth Barnes: International/Multilingual
Certified Mediator (Florida, Minnesota) e-mail:
Certified Arbitrator (Florida)

July 2, 2008

(954) 233-8333
Maria M. Solomon, Esq.
Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A.
801 South University Drive, Suite 500
Plantation, Florida 33324

Re: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Defendant (Key West, Florida): FORMAL STATUTORY


Dear Ms. Solomon:
This letter is being provided to you, the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., and your client Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Plaintiff in the Action identified herein) as formal notice, pursuant to the matters herein and Fla.Stat. sec. 57.105, of this Firm’s client Defendant demand that you immediately and forthwith dismiss, with prejudice, that certain civil action styled Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Defendant et al., 16th Judicial Circuit Court Case No. 2007-CA-1120-K (Key West, Florida, hereafter referred to as the “Action”); to provide clear title to the real property the subject of the Action; for refund of all monies paid by Defendant incident to the alleged “loan” the subject of the Action; and for payment of attorneys’ fees and costs which are awardable under various Federal and state statutes violated by your filing of the Action. This letter is also being sent as formal notice of Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions (copy attached hereto) which will be filed and set for hearing unless, pursuant to Fla.Stat. sec. 57.105(4), within twenty-one (21) days of today, Defendant’s demands as set forth herein are not complied with in writing confirmed by fax receipt, by this Firm, of the July 2, 2008 57.105 demand and notice to Maria Solomon, Esq. re: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Defendant et al., page 2 of 3

necessary documents to legally effect the demands made herein. The facts supporting this demand and the attached Motion are as follows, which are admissions by you, as an agent of the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., in the Complaint which you filed:

(a) On or about August 22, 2007, you, as an agent and attorney of the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., caused a civil action for foreclosure and to “enforce loan documents” to be filed in the 16th Judicial Circuit in and for Monroe County, Florida, which has been assigned case number 2007-CA-1120-K;

(b) In paragraph “5.” of Count I of the Complaint, you affirmatively represent to the Court that “The Plaintiff owns and holds the Note and Mortgage”;

(c) In paragraph “4″ of Count I, you affirmatively represent to the Court that the mortgage was “subsequently” assigned to the Plaintiff “by virtue of an assignment to be recorded” (that being some time in the future);

(d) In paragraph “20″ of Count II, you affirmatively represent to the Court that “The Plaintiff is not presently in possession of the Note and Mortgage” and “the Plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain possession of the Note and Mortgage because THEIR whereabouts cannot be determined (original emphasis):

(e) In paragraph “22″ of Count II, you affirmatively represent to the Court that “The Plaintiff will agree to the entry of a Final Judgment of Foreclosure wherein it will be required to indemnify and hold harmless the Defendant(s) [sic] Defendant, from any loss they [sic] may occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the lost Note and Mortgage.”;

(f) The Action thus inconsistently but affirmatively alleges, in Count I, that “Plaintiff owns and holds the Note and Mortgage” when in fact the admissions in Count II demonstrate, by the allegations of paragraphs “20″ and “22″ of the Complaint, that the Plaintiff DOES NOT and CANNOT legally establish possession or ownership of the Note or the Mortgage and that same is/are in the possession of an unknown party or parties;

(g) A copy of the Note is not even attached to the Complaint (only an alleged “ledger of loan”);

(h) By virtue of the admissions of the Plaintiff in paragraphs “20″, “21″, and “22″ of the Complaint, the Plaintiff has actual knowledge that it never, at any time material, had possession of either the mortgage or the note as same were sold, assigned, or transferred as part of the single-transaction securitization process which resulted in the subject mortgage and/or note being sold as

July 2, 2008 57.105 demand and notice to Maria Solomon, Esq. re: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Defendant et al., page 3 of 3

parceled obligations and becoming part of one or more tranches within a special investment vehicle;

(i) that the Plaintiff cannot establish that the subject note or mortgage is owned or controlled by the Plaintiff “indenture trustee” for unnamed holders of a series of asset-backed bonds (a copy of which are not even attached to the Complaint);

(j) As a direct and proximate result of the transaction referred to in paragraph “h” above, the Plaintiff does not and cannot establish legal standing to even institute a foreclosure action;

(k) As such, the allegation by the Plaintiff in paragraph “5″ of the Complaint constitutes matters which are completely devoid of factual or legal support and are thus “frivilous” within the meaning of Fla.Stat. sec. 57.105;

(l) As the primary and threshold issue of legal standing to institute the Action cannot be satisfied (which was known to you, the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., and the Plaintiff at the time that the Action was instituted), the Action is a patently frivilous claim within the meaning of Fla.Stat. sec 57.105 and the filing and prosecution thereof constitutes a fraud upon the Court.

Your client and your Firm are thus charged with actual notice of the filing of an frivilous claim, as you, your client, and the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. knew or should have known that the Action was both not supported by the material (and record) facts necessary to establish the claim for foreclosure and would not (and could not) be supported by the application of then-existing law to the material (and record) facts.

As such, this Firm has been directed to file and set for hearing, after the expiration of twenty-one (21) days from today (that being Thursday, July 24, 2008), the attached Motion for Sanctions and to seek attorneys’ fees from both your client and your Firm if the demands set forth herein for immediate dismissal of the Action with Prejudice, providing of clear title to the property the subject of the action, refund of all monies paid by Defendant in connection with the original “loan” the subject of the Action, and payment of all attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this demand are not complied with in writing by the close of business (5:00 p.m.) Wednesday, July 23, 2008.


Jeff Barnes, Esq.

attachment (enclosed with mailed original)
copy to: Defendant (w/attachment)