https://revolution.radio/
It’s Time For Battle
The law. It works!
I caught up with a good friend who never reports back on his legal issues.
He was sued for and beat his time share.
He learned about contract law.
He was sued as a business man owner.
He learned how to settle to control the outcome.
He just beat his speeding ticket.
He learned what the court needed to excuse him.
(16:36) Music
Free Raine – Freeze on me
(17:15)
Chestnut v. Dixon (Fla. Supreme CT 2023)
Petitioner was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Including the habeas corpus petition in the instant case, Petitioner filed thirty-one pro se petitions with the Supreme Court, and the Court never granted Petitioner the relief he sought in his filings. The Supreme Court held that Petitioner had abused this Court’s limited judicial resources, concluded that Petitioner’s habeas petition was a frivolous proceeding, and directed the Clerk of Court to reject any future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Petitioner unless such filings are signed by a member of The Florida Bar.
https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/2023/sc2023-0719.html
Levin v. State (FLA Supreme Ct 2023)
Petitioner was convicted of lewd and lascivious sexual battery of a victim twelve to fifteen years old lewd and lascivious exhibition using a computer and traveling to meet a minor for sex. Including the habeas corpus petition in the instant case, Petitioner filed nineteen pro se petitions with the Supreme Court, but the Court never granted Petitioner the relief he sought in his filings. As to the current action seeking a writ of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court held that Petitioner had abused this Court’s limited judicial resources, concluded that Petitioner’s habeas petition was a frivolous proceeding, and directed the Clerk of Court to reject any future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Petitioner unless such filings are signed by a member of The Florida Bar.
https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/2023/sc2023-0616.html
(22:15) Music
Free Raine – Awake
(22:40)
Hello Real Estate Agents, We Want Your $100,000 Signing Bonus Back
On the basis that it was a loan, a mortgage company with the ironic name “Guaranteed Rate” is demanding ex-employees return their signing bonus, some up to a million dollars.
Not a Signing Bonus, It’s a LoanThe signing bonus wasn’t a bonus, it was a loan unless the employees stayed two years and met performance goals.
Nations Lending and CrossCountry Mortgage also seek return of signing bonuses.
Steve Walsh at Scout Mortgage says headcount is down about 90%. Walsh wants to downsize. but he has been unable to sell his 7,700-square-foot house at the $3 million he is seeking.
https://mishtalk.com/economics/hello-real-estate-agent-we-want-your-100000-signing-bonus-back/
(30:00 music)
Listen in to a real educational conversation with a friend
The friend/student is anonymized. You are listening to excerpts from a much longer call. The issues, parties, and strategies are not disclosed.
15 U.S. Code § 1641 – Liability of assignees
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1641
Hour 2
Opening Music “It’s Time For Battle”
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CvlPUgcM1Pj/
It works, but your are making it complicated.
You might not have much context for this, but I want you to understand that sometimes we have power but don’t know how to use it. My grandfather taught me how to use a wheelbarrow when I was young. Most of the time, he chased us because we hid from our chores. One day, he told me to grab the wheelbarrow and bring it over. I struggled to get it over a small curb. He showed me an easier way by pulling backwards instead of pushing it. Just like that, the law can be easy if you know how to use it.
In a previous discussion, I mentioned a law called § 1641. It tells you what information a Servicer must provide. You can’t win cases with just that info, but it’s a stepping stone. Some people don’t know how to use this law properly, like using the wheelbarrow.
When fighting foreclosure, many people try to prove the bank can’t foreclose. It’s like a fly banging against a window when the door is open. Instead of making it your problem, make things easy on you, and make them prove they have the right to enforce your note in order to foreclose.
Prima facie evidence is when something appears valid at first glance but isn’t necessarily proof. In foreclosure cases, banks often present a note, mortgage, payment history, and assignment of mortgage as evidence to foreclose. However, it’s important to focus on the validity of the note itself. Their so-called evidence is only prima facie exhibits. Untested.
Make things easy on yourself—make others prove their case. Understanding how to use the law properly helps you navigate difficult situations effectively.
Finders, keepers, losers, weepers. What does that mean?
The UCC says a person in wrongful possession may enforce the note AS IF they are the holder. This makes for easy foreclosures. The UCC defines who can enforce the note. You have the right to challenge them.
Nobody can prove an authority they don’t have. For example, if a bank wants to foreclose, saying they have the right to enforce the note, you can challenge them under the UCC. If they can’t prove their authority in the note, they can’t use the mortgage to foreclose.
The mortgage is just an accessory to the note. If they don’t have a right to use the note, they can’t use the mortgage in court. If they can’t show valid documents and proof of authority, they don’t have the right to foreclose.
I’m not here to help people get free houses, but I want to help them fight for their rights. I’ve seen students make legal arguments in court and win battles for discovery when banks won’t provide what they want. A judge once ordered a bank to give a student everything she asked for under the UCC—they settled.
In summary, you have the right to challenge a bank’s authority to enforce a note and foreclose on your home. If they can’t prove their authority, they don’t have the right to use the mortgage in court.
In court, there are no secrets. If they claim the right to foreclose, they can’t hide behind confidentiality. When the plaintiff enters, they must be prepared to prove every element of every claim. If they can’t, like proving authority to enforce a note, they won’t succeed.
Use the law as your shield.
Your world matters to both of us.
(20:00)
BURT CAMENZIND V. CALIFORNIA EXPOSITION AND STATE FAIR, ET AL, No. 22-15931 (9th Cir. 2023)
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for Defendants. The panel first held that the enclosed, ticketed portion of the fairgrounds constituted a nonpublic forum under the United States Constitution and the California Speech Clause. The space did not permit free access, its boundaries were clearly delineated by a fence, and no evidence suggested that access had previously been granted as a matter of course. The panel further noted that California courts have drawn distinctions between ticketed and unticketed portions of venues, and Plaintiff pointed to no case holding that an enclosed area with a paid-entry requirement constitutes a public forum. The panel determined that it need not decide whether the area outside the fence was a public forum under the First Amendment because the California Speech Clause provided independent support for Plaintiff’s argument that it was indeed such a forum, albeit subject to reasonable restrictions on speech. The panel concluded that the Free Speech Zones in the exterior fairgrounds were a valid regulation of the time, place, and manner of Plaintiff’s speech. The guidelines on distributing literature in the enclosed area were likewise permissible.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/22-15931/22-15931-2023-10-31.html
(25:00)
State v. $2,435 in U.S. Currency
(ind. Sup. CT 2023)
The State filed a complaint to forfeit $2,435 in cash that police officers recovered after stopping Alucious Kizer for a traffic violation, alleging that the money had been “furnished or intended to be furnished” in exchange for a crime, that it had been “used to facilitate” a crime, or that it was “traceable as proceeds” of a crime. Kizer requested a jury trial. The State moved to strike the demand, arguing that no such right existed under either the Indiana or United States Constitution. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Kizer was not entitled to trial by jury. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ opinion and affirmed the trial court, holding (1) Ind. Const. Art. I, 20 protects the right to a jury trial for in rem civil forfeitures; and (2) therefore, Kizer had a constitutional right to trial by jury.
https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/supreme-court/2023/23s-cr-00072.html
BURT CAMENZIND V. CALIFORNIA EXPOSITION AND STATE FAIR, ET AL, No. 22-15931 (9th Cir. 2023)
The panel further noted that California courts have drawn distinctions between ticketed and unticketed portions of venues, and Plaintiff pointed to no case holding that an enclosed area with a paid-entry requirement constitutes a public forum. The panel determined that it need not decide whether the area outside the fence was a public forum under the First Amendment because the California Speech Clause provided independent support for Plaintiff’s argument that it was indeed such a forum, albeit subject to reasonable restrictions on speech. The panel concluded that the Free Speech Zones in the exterior fairgrounds were a valid regulation of the time, place, and manner of Plaintiff’s speech. The guidelines on distributing literature in the enclosed area were likewise permissible.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/22-15931/22-15931-2023-10-31.html
(38:05)
The cfpb is doing great things
Take a look.
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/?categories=press-release
(46:50)
Public vs Private Property: THIS is what I mean
. . . if six thugs walk into a shop, beat up the owner, put him in the hospital, and steal $100,000 worth of merchandise…the cops investigate briefly…long enough to realize they have no idea who the thugs were…and then abandon interest.
Because the store is private property.
If the store was a Congressman’s office, and the thieves stole a few wrist watches and punched the Congressman in the stomach, the FBI and six other agencies would launch a nationwide manhunt for them. Reporters at the New York Times would piss blood and demand the Pentagon place permanent snipers all over the neighborhood of the Capitol.
https://jonrappoport.substack.com/p/public-vs-private-property-this-is-what-i-mean
Credits
Jeremiah Johnson:
Mutt_retro
https://www.instagram.com/stories/mutt_retro/
and, Free Raine (circa 2003)
Mason Proffit – Two Hangmen
https://youtu.be/CC3yZdG_2B
Copyright 2023. All rights reserved in print and audio content.