9th Circuit Court rules visitors to national forest don’t have to pay a fee | Pasadena Star News

By Steve Scauzillo

In a decision that could bring an end to the national Adventure Pass program, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the U.S. Forest Service cannot charge for hiking, walking, picnicking or visiting undeveloped areas of national forest land.

In the unanimous ruling released Feb. 9 in favor of four hikers who objected to paying a fee to visit the forest, Judge Robert Gettleman wrote: “Everyone is entitled to enter national forests without paying a cent.”

The case involved four plaintiffs who objected to paying a fee to the U.S. Forest Service for visiting Mount Lemmon within the Coronado National Forest in Arizona. The court reversed a district court ruling, saying the federal authorities violated the 2004 Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA).

While it remained unclear Wednesday if the ruling spells the end of the Adventure Pass program in the nearby Angeles National Forest, local activists and others involved in the long-standing battle against the fee program say it will be very difficult to charge folks who enter the sprawling forest, which forms the northern border of the San Gabriel Valley. Under the fee program, it costs $5 a day or $30 annually to enter many parts of the forest.

“This is the best news I have heard in years,” said Bob Bartsch, 72, of Pasadena. Bartsch, who still hikes the 10-mile roundtrip up to Henninger Flats and back, has been fighting the Adventure Pass program since it began in 1997.

“I don’t have anything officially on that at this time,” said Sherry Rollman, spokesperson for the U.S. Forest Service in Arcadia. “It happened in another state and we haven’t assessed it yet.”

The strongly worded, 15-page decision says any member of the public who walks, hikes, rides a horse, picnics on the side of a road, camps at undeveloped sites, even parks in a national forest “without using facilities and services” is allowed to do so without being charged. Charging a fee, such as the Adventure Pass, even for someone who visits an area with amenities but doesn’t use them, violates the FLREA, according to the decision. Read more…

New York Sues 3 Big Banks Over Mortgage Database | Reuters

Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman of New York sued three major banks on Friday, accusing them of fraud in their use of an electronic mortgage database that he said resulted in deceptive and illegal practices, including false documents in foreclosure proceedings.

Mr. Schneiderman, co-chairman of a new mortgage crisis unit under President Obama, filed a lawsuit against Bank of America, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase in New York State Supreme Court in Brooklyn.

The database, called the Mortgage Electronic Registration System or MERS, was created in the mid-1990s for tracking mortgage ownership. It is a collaboration of top mortgage servicers, mortgage insurers and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government entities that hold many of the country’s mortgages.

“The mortgage industry created MERS to allow financial institutions to evade county recording fees, avoid the need to publicly record mortgage transfers and facilitate the rapid sale and securitization of mortgages en masse,” Mr. Schneiderman said.

“By creating this bizarre and complex end-around of the traditional public recording system,” Mr. Schneiderman’s lawsuit asserts, the banks saved $2 billion in recording fees.

More than 70 million mortgage loans, including millions of subprime loans, have been registered in the MERS system, rather than in local county clerks’ offices, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit asserts the database is inaccurate and seeks to stop the banks from filing foreclosure actions through MERS and executing false or defective mortgage assignments in New York foreclosure proceedings.

Mr. Schneiderman also is seeking all profits obtained through fraudulent and deceptive practices and other damages, including $5,000 for each violation of general business law.

Patrick Linehan, a JPMorgan spokesman, and Rick Simon, a Bank of America spokesman, declined to comment on the lawsuit. Ancel Martinez, a Wells Fargo spokesman, said the company was reviewing the lawsuit and did not have “anything to add at this time.” Janis L. Smith, a spokeswoman for Merscorp and its subsidiary, MERS, said in a statement that the firms complied with the law and mortgage regulations.

“Federal and state courts around the country have repeatedly upheld the MERS business model, and the validity of MERS as legal mortgagee and nominee for lenders,” the MERS statement said. “We refute the attorney general’s claims and will defend the case vigorously in court.”

Source: New York Times/Reuters

Nevada Makes Illegal Foreclosures Felony | Housing Predictor

By Mike Colpitts

Responding to homeowner complaints, Nevada has become the first state in the nation to make illegally repossessing a home a felony, and  may send bankers to jail for doing such. The new law was enacted after tens of thousands of homeowners complained to lawmakers about their homes being foreclosed without proof of ownership.

The outcry of consumer complaints over illegal robo-signing tactics has produced a series of lawsuits against mortgage servicing companies and banks in Nevada, which has led the U.S. in foreclosures six straight years.

The Nevada law makes it a felony for a mortgage servicer or trustee of a mortgage to make false representations concerning a title such as claiming that they are an executive of a bank or mortgage servicer, which was the case in at least hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of robo-signings. A $5,000 fine will also be assessed if fraud is found. The law requires mortgage companies to provide a new affidavit with the amount owed on the loan, the person who is in possession of the note and the individual with the authority to foreclose on the property.

Some 26 U.S. states conduct foreclosures through the courts, but the new law does not make Nevada a judicial foreclosure state. Foreclosures have been delayed in many cases since the law went into effect Oct. 1 st.

Cathe Cole, vice president of default for Trustee Corps., and foreclosure counsel in Nevada for Freddie Mac said as long as trustees can show a clear chain of title, including the named servicer of the mortgage there would be nothing for companies carrying out foreclosures to fear. “They just want to make sure we’re doing things correctly,” said Cole.

Nevada’s state attorney general is attempting to halt illegal foreclosure practices such as robo-signing with the new law, which they believe are still taking place. Proof of ownership title is critical to the chain of title. If the proof has been lost or never forwarded to a mortgage servicing company the foreclosing party may have no right to formally foreclose and take the real estate.

The Nevada law could provide an example for other states to follow implementing the new law. Homeowners throughout the U.S. have filed lawsuits against mortgage servicing companies alleging fraud in foreclosure proceedings used to formally repossess their homes after Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) reportedly failed to provide the physical documents on foreclosures their electronic system was used for to provide foreclosures through. MERS ordered mortgage servicers and banks to halt foreclosures in its name earlier this year.

Source: Housing Predictor

TSA lies about the Constitution | Tenth Amendment Center

By Michael Boldin

Round two of the battle for travel freedom is well underway.

The first round, which garnered national attention in the fall of 2010, focused primarily on the TSA implementing new procedures…pat downs, body scanners….and the public outcry against it….boycotts, protests, calling congress to demand change.

But, as the public response failed to stop the scanners and searches, round two has moved to state legislatures around the country. Most prominently, Texas, where the state house just passed a bill banning TSA searches without probable cause. Click here to read the Tenth Amendment Center’s report on the bill.

This time, the TSA is on the defensive, and published an official statement about the Texas bill on their blog:

What’s our take on the Texas House of Representatives voting to ban the current TSA pat-down? Well, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article. VI. Clause 2) prevents states from regulating the federal government.

The problem here? The statement is false. Ignorance from the TSA is unlikely, so I’ll call a spade a spade. They’re lying.

The supremacy clause says nothing of the sort. Here’s the full text:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

So, in simple terms, what does the supremacy clause mean? Just what it says. The constitution is supreme. And any federal laws made in line with the constitution is supreme. Nothing more, nothing less.

Notice there’s not one single word in the actual text that says anything about states regulating the federal government as the TSA claims. They’re just making things up as they go. Read more…

Cuccinelli’s Health Care Challenge | New Republic

By Joshua Hersh

The day that President Obama’s Affordable Care Act was signed, March 23, 2010, was also the day that the first challenges to the law were filed in federal court. Back then, the notion that health care reform could be overturned seemed remote. For one thing, it would require the Supreme Court to abandon decades of precedent. But nearly as big an obstacle, it seemed, was that the filer of the first suit to move forward was Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, the attorney general of Virginia, a politician whose seven-year stint in the state legislature had earned him the nicknames “Crazy Cuccinelli” and “Kook-inelli.”

After becoming Virginia’s top lawyer in 2010, Cuccinelli altered the state seal to cover the exposed breast of the Roman goddess Virtus. He has also questioned whether Obama was born in the United States and suggested he might not register the youngest of his seven children for a Social Security number. (“A lot of people are considering that now, because it is being used to track you,” he told a supporter.) The Washington Post‘s editorial board has twice used the word “embarrass” to describe his effect on the commonwealth.

At the outset, Cuccinelli’s health care lawsuit seemed like exactly the sort of intemperate move one would expect from an upstart Tea Party politician who is more concerned with public displays of disaffection than results. And health care reform was far from Cuccinelli’s only gripe. He has also sued the Environmental Protection Agency over its power to regulate greenhouse gases and investigated a former climate-change researcher at the University of Virginia (UVA) for fraud. Last March, he notified state-run universities that their non-discrimination policies could not extend to gay students.

One year on, however, Cuccinelli’s health care challenge no longer seems so far-fetched. Last December, Judge Henry Hudson of Virginia’s Eastern District Court sided with Cuccinelli and ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. Seven weeks later, in Florida, a similar lawsuit filed by more than two dozen attorneys general and governors also successfully challenged the law. Now, even the most determined naysayers have been forced to acknowledge the case’s viability. And Ken Cuccinelli, once easily derided as a mere troublemaker, has become something of a hero to conservative opponents of health care reform.

Long before Cuccinelli became a politician, it was clear that he was drawn to procedure and order, to clear delineations of right and wrong. He served on his college’s judiciary committee, and, at George Mason School of Law in Arlington, he ran for honor board chairman on a platform of firm retribution for violators. Fellow board members recall that he took his duties seriously and didn’t hesitate to schedule board meetings on weekends. In 1994, Cuccinelli oversaw the investigation of a student accused of interfering with the publication of a law journal. The inquiry dragged on for months; eventually the student refused to attend his own hearings and was expelled. While several colleagues on the board describe his management of the matter as fair, years later, something about the investigation troubles them. Maybe, they say, had another personality type been in charge, the case could have been resolved without ending the student’s law career. “It was all pretty black and white to [Cuccinelli],” one board member told me. “He was uncomfortable in the gray.” (Cuccinelli disputes this characterization. “I bent over so far backwards to accommodate him,” he says of the student.)

During the 1990s, Cuccinelli was a familiar sight on Northern Virginia’s GOP scene. But, when he first ran for the state Senate in 2002, his candidacy seemed so unlikely that a number of Democrats voted for him (Virginia has open primaries), thinking he’d be easy to defeat. When Cuccinelli went on to win the primary, the Republican vacating the seat, Warren Barry, backed his opponent. “I don’t want to make a habit of endorsing Democrats,” Barry said at the time, “but, in this case, the GOP picked someone whose thinking is so ancient, he would be an embarrassment to Northern Virginia.” Cuccinelli won by about 2,000 votes. It wouldn’t be the first time his detractors had underestimated him.

The McCoy Case Analyzed – MERS Smackdown! | Q-Law Blog

In a relatively uncomplicated adversary proceeding in Oregon’s bankruptcy court, Judge Alley hit the nail squarely on the head: If lenders in Oregon want to foreclose people out of their homes, they must follow ORS 86.735(1). Or in the words of one Oregon title counsel, Judge Alley’s decision means that “…all assignments behind a MERS trust deed must be recorded for a non-judicial foreclosure. In McCoy, it appeared there were unrecorded assignments by the original lender identified in the promissory note. A “beneficiary” in Oregon is defined as the entity or person identified in the trust deed as the one for whose benefit the trust deed is given (or their successor in interest) – that was not MERS, but rather the original lender making the actual loan to the borrower. Read more…

Johnny Liberty’s “Are You Sovereign” Presentation | Granada Forum (1995) | YouTube Videos

Additional Videos