Lawyer Disbarred for Exposing Corruption (The Real Story)

This was standard procedure handed down by all the big banks. All these assignments of mortgage are fake. It's a felony, man. And that actually leads us into the realm of the truly earthshattering secret that this is all designed to hide.

You know, being a debate person, a master debater, so to speak, it's kind of a natural progression to uh become an attorney. I got a scholarship to law school, graduated, and uh almost immediately started my own firm. Then I mean the foreclosure thing hit, you know, and I was >> What year was this? >> Uh that was about the end of 2009. Well, it was 2009 really when we started having so many, you know, foreclosures and uh basically it was the the great recession, you know.

So, as a result of that, or maybe as the next step in the banker's plan, uh we had a recession and we had lots of homes going into foreclosure. So, as a guy who has a little mom and pop law firm there in a strip mall, you know, it just seems natural, I guess, that I would start to get some foreclosure cases to defend. And you know, a foreclosure is basically a breach of contract case where you know, you you made a contract. You signed a contract that says in exchange for being able to live in this house, I'm going to pay X number of dollars every month. And if you don't, then you breached the contract and therefore as a security for that to protect the lender against that breach, you know, they can take your house. As everyone knows, that's what a foreclosure is.

Well, so my very first foreclosure case, which really is the leadin to pretty much the story I'm here to tell today, um, was a case in which there was, uh, you know, you figure a foreclosure is pretty hard to defend. I mean, clearly we haven't paid. Clearly these we signed these documents, you know, and our house is security for this loan. So, what are our defenses going to be? Well, I wasn't sure what I could come up with, but I did notice that although my client had borrowed money from some bank, I I call it ABN Ramrod. I have my little pet names for all the banks, but uh some obscure bank was the lender in the in the documentation, but yet my client was being sued by City Mortgage, Inc., and we didn't borrow the money from City Mortgage. So, it was sort of a common sense kind of thing. I sent out a request to the other side for documents. It's called a request for production saying, "Show me the evidence that City Mortgage now has the right to collect on this promisory note, foreclose on this mortgage when I don't see the name City Mortgage anywhere in the paperwork."

So, you know, I might be in debt, but if you're not the person I borrowed it from and you come to court and sue me, I mean, you're so, right? That's not that doesn't fly. just because I'm in debt doesn't mean that anybody in the world can just sue me to collect a debt that you know really is the property of someone else. So it was weird because they would delay and I had to go to court a couple of times and and ask for an order compelling the plaintiff to respond to our request for production.

This was getting into >> Is that normal? >> No, but but there were so many foreclosures going on at the time and these law firms. I was up against the law office of David Stern, which plays a big role in this story, but I didn't know it at the time. The attorney that was working for Stern, his name was Greg Dryinger, and he would give me excuses and he would play the nice guy. And I was still a little bit straight off the turnip truck. I had about four years of experience. And I grew up in the South. So I was probably I'm sure I was a little too trusting or maybe a lot too trusting at that point in the professionalism and ethics of my opponents. So he would soothe my eye in court, you know, and be nice and talk about family and kids playing baseball and stuff like that and effectively lull me into some degree of complacency. Oh, we'll get that to you. You know, I've just been busy. And you figure, you know, City Mortgage, City Bank, I mean, they're not going to be complete charlatans. I figured it was just, you know, paperwork. They're busy, whatever.

But after I went back like the second or third time to get an order from the court, I started to get a little uh intrigued. And my client, who was an African-American gentleman, said, "Uh, I don't trust him, Mr. Trent. I don't trust him." Well, he was right because, you know, I was getting the wool pulled over my eyes by this uh I call it the milk toast persona, you know, and because I I learned after a while when I really understood how these foreclosure mills operate, I saw that this was a common tactic, a common personality. You know, they don't send in these ball busters to uh foreclose on people. They send in inoffensive people. You know what I mean? sort of like like customer service type personalities, you know, the milk toast like sort of bland and uh not inoffensive under the circumstances, you know. So, they're like, "Oh, we know, we know. We're going to work this out." And so, I I began to learn that this milk toast persona was SOP for not only the law office of David Stern, but all of the other law firms that were handling that were doing foreclosures for the banks during this time.

But, but I'm getting ahead of myself. So, so do you think that that's because they don't want to come off as the big bad bankers that are trying to take your house from you that this way they're like, "Hey, I get it. Like, I understand. They got behind. I feel for them. I got kids, too. Nobody wants to throw Nobody wants to throw you good at it. >> Can we work this out? I mean, you know, right?" >> Of course, knowing they don't have the money to work it out. >> Well, not only that. Not only that, but knowing that they are going to foreclose >> you. Yes, that is part of the reason, but I think the a bigger part of it is that they really didn't have what they needed to prove their cases at trial. Plus, that takes a lot more time, a lot more attorney hours, and they're trying to rush through as many foreclosures as they can, as rapidly as possible. So, they all hit the courts at the same time at the end of 2009 as Florida courts. Mind you, I'm in South Florida, which is really the epicenter of the foreclosure thing. You know what I mean? It was uh I was in the right place at the right time. and had the right case.

So when I I think eventually nothing happened in the case for like 6 months and eventually we were set for trial I believe in January of 2010 but just like in any civil case before you have a trial in Florida they send you to mediation. >> Mhm. >> So we had to go to mediation and this is where things started to get really weird. This is where the Twilight Zone experience kicked in. We went into the mediation and I'm figuring, okay, we need to just be nice and hopefully kind Mr. Dryinger will work with my clients because I didn't want to go to trial. I didn't really think I had any issues to to really battle with, >> right? >> And to be honest, I I think that whole situation with that assignment of mortgage, what I had requested, might have might have slipped my mind because thinking back now, I don't remember having that on my mind going into the mediation. I just remember thinking, we better make a deal. Time to make a deal, you know? So, I wasn't going in there being a ball buster either. I was going to bring my own milk toast persona and try to work this out.

But to answer your question, yeah, the real reason is because they can't prove their case except by using fabricated evidence. So, any agreement that they can make, boom, that's they had it down to a science. They would say, "Oh, you need some more time." Because everybody thinks they're going to get a loan modification >> or some kind of reinstatement or refi. So, they would uh tell the people, "Oh, you want extra time? How about we give you 90 days?" Oh, yeah. That would be great. Well, what the homeowners didn't realize is that they're agreeing to a final judgment being entered and just a delayed sale date, which, you know, supposedly it's to give them time to modify the loan. But, as we found out later with the national mortgage settlement and all the millions of dollars that were given to the big banks to encourage them to actually give loan modifications, fact is that was all a charade. They they were giving like 1% of people legitimate modifications and the rest of it was all for show, you know. And what they really did was lull people into complacency by sending them these letters, making them think that the bank wants to work it out with them, sending in attorneys with the milk toast persona, non-threatening, saying, "Yeah, we're going to give you 90 days." And by doing that, they were able to keep guys like me away from actually trying a case, actually forcing them to show up in court and present their evidence and present their witnesses because they had a major vulnerability, which was, as I will explain more throughout this conversation, that they didn't have authentic, legitimate evidence to be able to foreclose because all those original lenders such as ABN Ramrod, I called him, in that first case, they all went out of business. And this was all part of the big bank's plan, as I came to understand later. So, if the company that you borrowed the money from is out of business, well, who's going to come to court and and take my house? And there's nobody to even sign a document that says, "Okay, we're transferring this loan over to City Mortgage because the company is out of business." So, they have a problem. You understand? Like, it could be an uninforcable uh debt or at least an uninforcable mortgage. the debt might still stand because there are different rules with regard to debt collectors assigning things. But as far as the ability to take your house, you know, they've got to prove that they acquired that from the original lender and they weren't able to do that except by creating fabricated evidence, assignments of mortgage.

So, we went to the mediation and there was Mr. Dryinger and my client and there was a a submissive substitute librarian serving as our mediator. Not exactly one that's going to force anyone's hand. She was the ultimate milk toast. And then we have some somebody there who's supposedly a bank rep, but he doesn't say anything and he doesn't have any authority. And when we try to get the loan reinstated and we make offers, this dryinger is going outside of the room and like whispering on his cell phone and then he would come back in and say stuff like, "Well, if you want the specifics, I'll tell you. My client hadn't paid for like a year at this point because the foreclosure case has been going on for a year. There was, however, a case where my client's payments were not all applied correctly. So, basically, their their paperwork showed him owing about $600 more dollars than he actually did. So, one of his payments was not applied correctly. So, we wanted to reinstate the loan. My client said, "Let's just get the loan reinstated." They admit they made a mistake with my payments. let's just get the loan reinstated and have my my same payments. And I said, "Yeah, we should be able to accomplish that. They're admitting they made a mistake." Well, when the attorney came back in from whispering on the cell phone, he said, "No, that's against the investor's rules. We cannot extend the date of the final payment." So, by virtue of the fact that they had not paid for 12 months, their monthly payment was going to go up because it's a shorter period of time now, you know, to make the remaining payments.

>> So, my client said, "Well, hell no. Why should I have my why should I have my payment go up when it was their fault to begin with? Yeah, I'm an advocate for my client. I mean, so that's I guess I've got to take that and run with it. I I mean, that's a somewhat reasonable position in my opinion. I'm an advocate. So, I thought, well, we're going to go to trial. And I have a lot of confidence in my trial advocacy, but at the same time, I did not have a lot of confidence in my case. So, I remember I'll always remember after that mediation was over. I know it was dark and I was thinking, I've got to try this case in a month. What the hell am I going to do? And at that point, it occurred to me, did I ever get that transfer documentation that I was dragging them to court, you know, 9 months ago to produce. And I went to my office and I had just a regular box and it was full of all his mortgage, their mortgage statements and everything. And there it was at the bottom. I guess after the second time I went to court at some point they had actually sent me an assignment of mortgage and this is the document that changed my life. Okay. So that night after the mediation I'm you know stressed out like what kind of a defense do I have to offer for my clients? Sleep quality declines in people as early as 30 years old. When you were young your body was producing a good amount of sleep regulating your hormones. As you get older your body's ability to produce those hormones declines making it harder to fall asleep and stay asleep. But nothing has moved the needle like Evening Being by Verso. After 3 years of perfecting the formula, they created a melatonin-free drink mix with clinically studied patented ingredients. It's formulated to calm an active mind, help you fall asleep fast, stay asleep longer, and improve deep and rim sleep, all without creating dependency or causing morning groggginess. I look forward to drinking evening being every night. Not only because it helps me fall asleep faster, but it tastes so good, it's become my go-to night cap. Click the link in the description box or head over to Verso, that's ver S and use the coupon code Cox to save 15% on your first order.

And I look at this thing and it's like a gift from God. I mean, or from Satan, one of the two. It's uh it's an it's an assignment of mortgage and it's supposed to say that the original lender is hereby transferring this loan over to City Mortgage, which would give City Mortgage the right to foreclose, the right to accept payments, and all of that.

>> Okay. Well, the signature of the officer of the original lender and the signature of one of the two uh witnesses and the signature of the notary were identical. Doesn't take a genius to go, hm, might want to look into this. So, I uh would just simply looked at the name. So, and and did the document say it was from it was assigning it to City Bank from the original lender? Yes, it did. So there was no in between parties right at that time, >> right? >> Okay, >> that's a good question and we'll we'll get to some of those in between. >> That seems pretty pretty cut and dry if you had if it would be cut and dry if you hadn't noticed the signatures, >> right? If it weren't an obvious forgery. I mean, so the notary can't have the same signature as the the bank officer who's signing it. So I just looked at the name of the officer, the bank officer who's, you know, the name was printed beneath her signature and I looked online. I just typed in her name and the first thing I saw I'll never forget was full deposition of the soontobe infamous Cheryl Sammons cuz that was her name, you know, Cheryl Sammons. I'm like, "Wow." I mean, practically got a Woody. checking this out and next thing you know I'm reading this incredible deposition transcript where this awesome attorney named Thomas Ice Ice Ice Baby had actually gotten it was in my shoes a year earlier only he was in Palm Beach and I was in Broward and he had gotten suspicious about one of these assignments of mortgage and he had brought in this lady who was signing him for a deposition and he proceeded to ask her some questions about MS M now this is very complicated aspect of the story but it's very important it's very MS is called is mortgage electronic registration systems inc now it's not middle east respiratory syndrome although it is a virus as I will I will explain because it's a virus that affects the titles to properties of you know Florida homeowners >> Florida is nationwide >> nationwide nationwide but in my case yeah it is a nationwide thing And what it is, you know how a company is is sort of a fictitious person in the law. Well, MS is like a fictitious bank. It's like another level removed uh from, you know, we have a fictitious person and now we have a fictitious bank and it's like metaphysical in a way because it's never had any employees. It's never had any assets. Yet it's written into the language of 62 million subprime mortgages that were given to people, you know, in the early 2000s. Okay? The same ones that are being for were being foreclosed in 2009, 2010 in in that area as a result of the great recession.

So, um, this ladies, but for this point, at this point in the story, it's best to just think of MS as another bank, okay? and then we'll get into some of the the truly diabolical aspects a little bit later. So this lady is signing this document on behalf of MS to say MS is standing in the shoes of the original lender. So when you ask me was it from the original lender to um to City Mortgage there was no other you know actual transferee in between. However, MS was acting as so-called agent or nominee for uh the original lender by signing this this lady, you know, signing it on behalf of MS because there's basically this gobbleygook sort of uh paragraph in all of the subprime mortgages. Maybe this is a good time to to tell you about this. Okay, so in what I'm looking at here is a federal class action that I filed that has the language from the MS mortgages. Um, and you know when you read this, this is a really ingenious provision because to judges, this is one of those things where you feel like you, you almost understand and you should understand and if you have the slightest bit of intellectual insecurity. It's kind of like the emperor's new clothes. It sounds really sophisticated and sounds like if you're a judge or a legal professional, you should know what this means. So, I think people tend to pretend like they understand it, >> right? when in actuality >> the emperor's naked. >> That don't make any sense. I don't make any sense, y'all. You know what I mean? Just to put, you know, from a common man's perspective. So, just just check this out. Parse this language a little bit. MS is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. MS is a separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for lender and lenders, successors, and assigns. MS is the mortgage E under this security instrument. Not really. The mortgage e in black's law dictionary is the bank that that gets the payments. MS never gets any payments. MS is organized and existing under the laws of Delaware and has an address and telephone number of PO Box 2026, Flint, Michigan. Telephone 888679 MS transfer of rights in the property. This is what was in all those subprime mortgages. This security instrument secures to lender one the repayment of the loan and all renewals, extensions and modifications of the note and two the performance of borrower's coveners covenants and agreements under this security instrument and note. For this purpose, no purpose was stated in the preceding sentence. Borrower does hereby mortgage grant and convey to MRS solely as nominee for lender and lender successors and assigns and to the successors and assigns of MRS. Huh. the following described property and then it would give the legal description you know and it would say borrow and then it the subprime mortgages go on to provide borrower understands and agrees that MS holds only legal title to the interest granted by borrower in this security instrument but if necessary to comply with law or custom oh yes MS of course it's uh you know, it's a routine customary thing like what MS as nominee for lender and lender successors and assigns has the right to exercise any or all of those interests including but not limited to the right to foreclose and sell the property and releasing and cancelling this security instrument.

Okay. So relying upon this completely, you know, nonsensical word salad gobbledygook uh pro, you know, obfiscatory provision, they have 20,000 people known as robo signers who would sign assignments of mortgage just to make it look like whichever company they're using to foreclose is the one who owns your mortgage. Okay? And nothing could be further from the truth. It doesn't correspond with any real world transaction. It's just generated in the lawyer's office for to facilitate them taking your house in foreclosure even though they don't have the evidence and they're not the people that you borrowed the money from. You don't actually owe them, you know, anything and without without this.

So, did you have a question? >> No. I mean, I I I mean, the the legal practice would be I go to Sun Coast Credit Union. I borrow money to buy a house. I make the payments on the house. Sun Coast Credit Union goes under. >> They go under and during their bankruptcy, some vice president or president, someone who's authorized to sign to assign those mortgages assigns the mortgages to Bank of America. Bank of America >> like happened with WAMU, >> right? And then Bank of America starts collecting those payments and six months later they the person stops paying and they foreclose because >> Bank of America would be able to foreclose. >> They would because they've been assigned it. But instead what's happening is at Sunko's >> Credit Union is nobody they've gone under completely. All the vice presidents didn't get paid and said go [ __ ] yourself. I'm not I'm not helping you through their bankruptcy. That's your problem. And suddenly, Bank of America is just stepping in and saying, >> "It's us. It's us. We're the ones who owe the money to." >> Well, Sunost Credit Union owes or or we're taking over that mortgage. >> And when you then say, "Okay, well, I need to see the assignment showing that you actually have an agreement with them or they assigned it to you." They say, "Oh, here's the satisfaction of mortgage." And instead of Sun anybody at Sunage, I'm sorry, what did I say? >> A satisfaction of mortgage. Sorry, that's stories about that. That was my game. Um, yeah, those are beautiful. >> Yeah. Instead of the the assignment of mortgage, they provide uh they provide an assignment of mortgage that was signed by someone who supposedly works for MS saying, "Hey, we've been elected to sign for uh the credit union and we're assigning the credit union's mortgage to Bank of America." However, there's nothing saying that they were ever granted the right by the credit union to do this. >> Right. Correct. >> So, so you're just This is just me stepping in saying, "Here, yeah, I'll sign it." Yeah. Here it's been assigned to Bank of America and because all that does is say, "Who the [ __ ] are you?" Well, well, uh uh I represent them. How do you like where's the where's the where's the agreement with you and them that and their assignment to you giving you that power. Oh, that doesn't exist. You just have to take my word for it.

>> And when I requested it, that is the document that I got in my first foreclosure case, which opened up the window to me to to realize that all these assignments of mortgage are fake. You know, there there these things are being recorded willy-nilly in the in the official records by all of these foreclosing law firms and every single one of them is a fabricated official instrument that's impairing title to somebody's home. It's a felony, man. It's totally fabricated. So, when these banks come after you and say, "Oh, you've been scamming us on these loan applications." You know, the fact of the matter is they've got the world beaten badly when it comes to fabricating documents having to do with mortgages. You know, ironically enough, Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo, all those guys, and they're the biggest scammers of all because they're every single one of these things is used to steal somebody's house. I mean, I've got I had a thousand of them at one time, and there's >> Okay. Well, let's let's go back to the the person that was signing them. You said you were you were looked at you looked at her deposition >> and she's being depo you're reading a deposition from a year earlier from another attorney. And what does she say in that deposition? Well, he's asking her whether um you know what relationship she actually has with MS, what authority she actually has with MS, what office she has with MS to uh give her the power to sign someone's house away, you know, basically with her signature. Because if she doesn't really have authority, that's why I said it's easier to just treat MS at this point as just some other bank. she doesn't have authority, then this document is totally uh toilet paper and you know they're not going to be able to foreclose and Mr. Ice is going to be able to win his client's foreclosure case and I'm going to be able to win mine. So that's why Mr. Ice was asking these questions. The question was you have no job duties as an assistant secretary of MS. Correct. Because that was what it said under her name like assistant secretary but she also signed as vice president. All right. >> It sounds like she notorized her own signature too. >> Oh you think maybe just maybe just occasionally. The question was, you have no job duties as an assistant secretary of MRS. Correct. I do not have any job duties other than signing the assignments of mortgage. Does that help? Yes. Here, I'll try to rephrase this. Do you attend any board meetings at MRS? No, sir. Do you attend any meetings at all at MS? No, sir. Do you report to the Secretary of MS? No, sir. Who is the Secretary of MS? I have no idea. Where are the Mrs. offices located? I can't remember. How many offices do they have? I have no idea. Do you know where their headquarters are? Nope. Have you ever been there? No. How many employees do they have? I have no idea. Where does she work out of? David Stern's office in Plantation. One of his,200 employees at that time.

>> So, this is She's not even at I mean, she's not even at um uh City Bank. >> No, she has nothing. She's She It's not Well, I mean, that'd look even worse, right? Like we we got this chick in the back room signing us, you know, making these fake This is like um like uh uh Bernie Maid off having like the guys on the eighth floor making all the documents. >> No, they did. There's actually been testimony because this thing >> But I'm saying he you're I'm saying not in there. They weren't in that bank. They're at the law office, >> right? Yeah. She doesn't know. >> But so he knows. So he he's So he's not like it's not like he got these it's not like he got this assignment and all this paperwork from his client and he can say that's what my client gave me. >> Are you talking about David Stern? >> David Stern. David Stern's actually got this chick in the back room making Oh yeah. doing Okay.

>> But but it's not just that him and his law firm are some some wild men that are doing something that's outside of the uh box for the big banks because no matter who they are representing and no matter which law firm it is, they all do the same thing. This was a standard practice across the country. This wasn't just some crazy lawyer. This is like standard. It's just the law office of David Stern was a little bit sloppier, had a little worse case of hubris than some of the others. And so, and I got lucky because this one, you know, was so obvious that it it opened the window to make me delve further into it. So, I end actually in in that my first foreclosure case, I ended up getting to take the lady's deposition myself and ask her and I got Mr. Isis's depo transcript like under the under the table, you know, reading half the questions back to her and getting totally different answers, of course, because, you know, >> now she's been she's been uh coached or or what are they >> I don't know, but she was all over the place.

>> So, >> so this is back to the original one. >> Yeah, we're still in the the original case. So, I don't know if you want to hear some of my questions to her, but they were they were pretty earthshattering as well. >> Are these are yours or I thought because I thought you were reading from ISIS. Uh, I'm actually reading from the federal lawsuit that I filed in 2010. >> Okay. >> And where I quoted Mr. ISIS de Yeah. Cuz I took her deposition before that in the foreclosure case. Okay. So, that's why that's both in the same document. >> Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. >> Yeah. So, I mean, it's long, but I'm trying to trying to uh figure out what's the best excerpt to use. Let's just let's just uh start from the beginning here. >> Run it. >> All right. So I asked her about the assignment of mortgage, you know, in our case, >> right? >> I asked her, it says, "But effective as of the 19th day of February, 2008." Do you see that? Yeah, that was another thing. It was backdated by year because they needed it to be before the foreclosure action was filed. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, even though it was supposedly notorized in 2009, it says but effective this backdated to February 19, 2008. Do you see that? Yes. Where did you get that date from? I did not pick that date. That date was put in by the processor that prepared the assignment. And who was that? Off the top of my head, I do not know who actually typed this assignment. Okay. But you are signing on behalf of MS. And you are stating here that it is effective as of the 19th day of February, 2008. Correct. Correct. At the time you signed this, what reason did you have as agent for MRS to make it effective as of the 19th day of February, 2008? I did not pick that date and I do not recall this document. sitting here today, you have no idea why it is that it says effective as of the 19th day of February, 2008. Is that correct? Looking at this one particular piece of paper, I do not recall or know the answer to that question. No. Um, I want to skip to the part about Oh, yeah. It says in all these legal documents, you have to have something called consideration, which is, you know, if you make a promise to someone and you're not getting anything in return, that promise is considered gratuitous and it's not enforceable in court. So, there has to be an exchange of value called consideration. Exactly. It usually says $1 or $10 in the assignments.

>> And um >> so this is when I I asked her about that. I said, "If you could go back please to exhibit two, the assignment of mortgage." We're on the first sentence of the first paragraph. You see where it says for an inconsideration of the sum of $1 on the second line of that paragraph? Yes, I do. Did you pay that dollar or did you receive that dollar? I did not have anything to do with any money exchanging hands on these assignments. Okay. So, when you signed this assignment, did you take any steps to determine whether or not this $1 actually changed hands? No. Do you know of any information that would establish that this $1 did or did not change hands? No. Who would I ask to find out? I have no idea. It says other good and valuable consideration. Do you see that? I do. In executing this assignment foreign on behalf of MRS, can you tell me what other good and valuable consideration there was that gave rise to this assignment? No, I cannot. Do you know who I could contact to find out what the good and valuable consideration was? No. It says the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged. Do you see that? Yes, I do. Did you acknowledge receipt of that $1 and other good and valuable consideration when you sign this document? No. So when it says the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, is that an error? I have no idea. Okay. So this lady is a is vacuous. She doesn't have the slightest clue. She's just in a room. This is the testimony literally where they're signing 2,000 of these per day. They have like two days a week that's just signing day. And it's her and some notaries in there and they're just signing. they did signing willy-nilly, you know, it's whatever the lawyer put together for them. So, the biggest thing is that this wasn't just an isolated practice of one, you know, one uh what do they outlier. This was standard procedure handed down by all the big banks. And that actually leads us into the realm of the truly earthshattering secret that this is all designed to hide.

>> Okay? And that is that nobody owns any of these loans and all the the securities that were sold, trusts, uh, rimics, real estate, mortgage, investment conduits, all these these, uh, securities that were sold, uh, many of which were sold to the government for employee retirement accounts for federal workers, uh, states, same thing. Um, they're all worthless, okay? Because none of the loans, there's a thing called securization. And I know you and I spoke about it briefly and it's pretty technical, but for for your viewers to really understand the significance of all of these fraudulent documents, you have to understand a little bit about securitization. Just like so many things with the banks, it's almost like they have a sense of humor with the terms that they use, you know, like securization. I mean, if anything is insecure, it's this process of securization, you know. Um they what they do is the reason that they started approving everybody or you know making these stated income loan applications all that having such relaxed standards you know basically they invited guys like you Matt to to just get them something that they could ostensibly with a straight face approve so that they could have more loans because what they did was the way that they were actually making money on these subprime loans was not to have you pay your loan over 30 years. That's the last thing they wanted to happen. And that's the last thing that they intended to happen. What they intended was for you to default. One of the things they used to do that was the adjustable rate mortgages. Start out with a nice payment, $800 a month. What's the big deal? No problem. I can handle that. And then, you know, two years later, it's 2500 a month. But your realtor, your mortgage broker, we're telling you, oh, by the time your your rate adjusts, >> we'll refinance it. >> The equity is going to go up and you'll be able to refi. You'll have equity in your house again >> every six months. every sometimes 90 days and for a while that that seemed to work. >> Yeah. Every 90 days, every 6 months it would adjust and so your $800 payment 6 months later suddenly it becomes you know $95 and you think okay it's not that big of a deal. >> 6 months later it becomes it's you know it's it's it's $1,080. 6 months later it's it's 1201. And then if you really look at it you're like okay it's been 18 months. my payment doubled. My payment doubled. Like this is like this is insane, you know? And then it keeps and >> and then they have to come see their mortgage broker again. >> Right. Right. And of course they got they got a 95% LTV loan. >> Right. >> They could refinance if it was an 80% LTV loan, but in 18 months it hasn't gone up by 20%. >> Right. >> So it's that they've got a problem. >> Yeah. Especially when the bottom fell out. >> Yeah. you know, >> which which which by within three when they started this process about 3 four years before 2008. So by the time it became >> overly obvious to everybody involved, that's when and they could these people can't refinance. That's when everything >> the bike said the bottom fell and and and and it was just it was just a straight shot to the bottom. But what I've learned in my career as the foreclosure destroyer though is that that's all actually part of the bank's plan because their money was really made on securization. The more loans that they have that ostensibly meet certain criteria, the more securities they can sell in these trusts um also known as rimix, real estate mortgage investment conduits. These real estate mortgage investment conduits or trusts are the beneficiaries of an exemption given by the IRS in advance of all this scandal taking place uh to allow the banks to have these trusts which are taxexempt entities. Okay. Now the only way that they can maintain that taxexempt status is to acquire certain number of loans like a thousand loans by a certain date and to acquire them these are all part of the IRS regulations. They have to get the original blue ink we called it promisory note transferred to the designated trustee of this particular trust. So all the loans in the trust would say they would be marketed to investors. The trust would be marketed to investors. For example, these people all have 7030 ratio or less. You know what I mean? They have at least 30% equity over the over and above their their loan balances. Uh they have 700 credit scores, whatever. So these are highly qualified borrowers that are highly likely to perform. These mortgages, these loans are likely to perform. That's how they would market it to the investors, namely institutional investors like the federal government, you know, buying this stuff up so that it can be placed in their employees retirement funds thereby, you know, their their employees when they retire, you know, have have a reasonable income from these investments. Well, the thing is they actually also lobbyed the uh Securities and Exchange Commission to change some rules about how these trusts are audited. So basically, they don't have to identify ahead of time which loans are in which trust. So that enabled the banks to take one loan and at any given time claim that it's in any given trust. if there's any questions about this this trust or the assets that were acquired by this trust and to do that they end up needing to fake documents because you know it was a big thing everybody was getting approved it was like they were overwhelmed you know it was a boom cycle so none of the loans were getting transferred none of the original promisory notes were transferred to the trustee by the closing date I mean that almost never happened so that means that if the government finds that out they're going to lose their tax exemptions and all of these trusts which there are thousands of them and they're at least at least in the tens of millions of dollars, even the smallest ones, and some much much more than that. It's a 100% or 99.9% tax penalty if there's any transfers uh into the trust or out of the trust after the closing date, which is a date by which all the loans are supposed to be acquired. So, you know, Joe Schmo gets a loan and then that loan theoretically the original documents are transferred to the trustee and then there's all this complicated paperwork called a pooling and servicing agreement which allows the trustee or servicesers to collect all the payments and then distribute Pratta shares to the investors in this trust or this rimick. Well, none of the loans were transferred. So what has been sold to the federal government? This is why the Bush administration, the Obama administration, they they still they did the same thing. They didn't go after these guys when all the [ __ ] hit the fan. They went after >> I mean, no offense, but like small guys like you. You're a small guy compared to like, you know, Ben Bernani or because I really think that the Fed was was was in on this. But that's a little bit conspiracy theorist and I don't have the evidence of that. Everything else I'm going to tell you, I have the evidence. So, we won't we'll leave that one alone as far as the the complicity of the Fed itself.

>> So, I have a quick question. Did you ever see the big short? >> Uh, no, but I've heard that it's quite similar to >> It's great. It's great. It's it's a it's a great uh you you'd love it. I can't believe you've never seen The Big Short. >> Well, I I lived it myself and I really didn't want to influence my story with watching all these movies that are talking about sort of the same thing that I'm talking about because then it's kind of like the authenticity gets diluted. Maybe I'll accidentally start bringing in some of these concepts that I got from these movies and, you know, it'll sound like I'm just spouting rhetoric from having watched, you know, one of these movies a couple too many times. >> No, I I think it's it's it's good. It's a It's funny. It's Did you ever see >> I mean, I've been told to watch a million times The Wolf of Wall Street, you know. >> No, I would has nothing to do with this, but um what I would >> I've heard of the big There's another one, too. >> Yeah. Yeah. Too big to fail. >> Yeah. Um, and that's a great one because it gives you a a macro vision of what happened. You know what I'm saying? Like from from from all the people at the top where from the first phone call to what's going on. You know what I'm saying? Like it's it's it's really amaz and and the the deals they're making behind the scenes. They're pleading to try and get this bill passed. They're like you like you know Congress is arguing, you know, president's argu like everybody's arguing. Ben Berni's arguing >> the bailout and all that. >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. This is up to the bailout, but they're bailout. >> They're sitting there and they're arguing and they're these guys are not understanding the detriment of what is happening to the company or to the country. Sorry. And they're you've got these senators, I'm not doing this and I'm and they're like, you don't seem to understand what's about to happen. Like you've already got credit drying up. Like companies aren't going to be able to make payroll um unless we do something. So it's it's it's interesting. you'd you'd probably and you might watch the whole thing and say that's not possible. That's not what happened. That's not why they did that. You may have a completely different take, but anyway. Yeah. Can we So, >> can we jump back to because you we kind of got off track. You did the deposition with her. Like, what ends up happening with your your case?

>> Well, or these guys. I mean, do they >> I filed a motion for summary judgement showing the judge that this was a fraudulent assignment of mortgage and seeking sanctions and they did a voluntary dismissal of the case. And as soon as they did that, I started pulling people together because >> Well, what does that mean? They they devel they they dismissed the case. They dismissed the foreclosure case against your client. So, what does that mean for your client? >> Well, as the law has developed since then, it doesn't mean that much because they can turn around and sue you over and over again and just say, "Oh, we want to do over dismiss that one and then come after you again." Of course, he gets his attorney fees. So, I got an attorney fee award for my client like, you know, 20 grand or something like that, >> right? and and uh but they would have the right to sue him again. That's uh right now they because of of all of this that is basically the way that all these foreclosures glutted the system and the way that all these scandals arose from these fake documents and everything because this ultimately did turn into a fairly big scandal in 2010, the robo signing scandal and uh the Florida Well, so but you were trying to lead me back to discussing like what happened with

This case and where it went from there. Yeah, but I mean, she, she basically, she's, she's admitting. I, I do have another question. Is she getting a check from MS?

>> No, MS has never had any employees and never had any assets.

>> So, how can you say I represent MS and I'm an employee of MS and I'm, I'm authorized to sign these documents on behalf of MS if I don't even work for MS?

>> It's, this, it's a fiction. It's a fiction that some evil geniuses dreamed up to justify this practice of robo-signing. It's all, it's from David Stern. Okay.

>> See, he's getting paid well by Fanny May and Freddy Mac and all the big, you know, banks. And

>> so was I. They said it was fraud when I did it.

>> I know. I, I had somebody in the back room.

>> That's why I'm such a good match. I'm such a good, I'm such a good, uh, you know, match for your channel because I'm going to. Everything I say here exonerates you and makes you look like a better and better guy. I mean, you haven't even Bank of America, man. I could, I could do a week on Bank of America. I mean, skank of America is what I call them. Too bad I don't have my bumper stickers anymore since they

>> That's so funny. That's the exact, that's the same, that's the same signature. That's the same signature.

>> But these are both me and my bar complaint against you. Yeah, but look, they're the same. It's, it's allowed to be me. They're both Kenneth Trent.

>> Where's hers? Hers looks just like your signature.

>> No, it doesn't.

>> Now, we're going to need a side-by-side comparison from uh

>> Oh, hers is. This is hers.

>> Yeah. Plus, it's the signatures over different names. Mine's over the same name. You know, mine's over my name.

>> Okay.

>> This is

>> Yours looks kind of similar to this.

>> Okay. I'm a robo-signer. This is

>> It's very swirly.

>> I'm actually very undercover.

>> No, this is what happens when you have to sign 2,000 a day and you're, and you're. I mean, I asked her questions about that. Like, does she have her own notary stamp?

>> Yeah.

>> Like, who's not? Who? How are you signing for the notary?

>> She's got. She's just stamping and signing. Stamping and signing. It could be they have all different notaries. The stamps are all out there on the table and anybody who's working that day can just come in there and sign them all and put any stamp that they want. That's the testimony. And it wasn't just at this law firm. It was also at Marshall Watson, whatever the other, you know, Florida Default Law Group, just like the big banks, they like to change their name every so often to get out from under the, uh, whatever heat is coming their way, you know, these, these law firms. But so, yeah, I should tell you though, before, so I ended up understanding that they've stolen, you know, David Stern's office has stolen 100,000 homes in Florida with these fake documents. You know, something needs to be done. I mean, it says right here, the law office, it's David J. Stern prepared it. So there was no question of, you know, who is responsible for these. So I was getting ready to file my class action. I wanted to file a class action to do something for all of these, uh, homeowners that were getting scammed, you know, by David Stern's office and and the other law firms. Um, and so to me, it was perfect RICO. But before, before we got to that, um

>> I got a call from the, uh, Florida Attorney General's office. At that time, it was Bill McCollum. I didn't hear from Bill McCollum, but his two right-hand attorneys, his two assistant attorneys, uh, Teresa Edwards and June Clarkson, they actually got interested because, oh, yeah, that's what happened. I ended up filing a RICO suit against David J. Stern and MS and immediately thereafter amending it to add all of the shareholders of MS, which is like the full, you know, gamut of Bank of America, Scank of America, Untrust, Shitty Bank, Wells Fargo, Dewey, Cheatem and Howe, no, double white home loans, but no, it was, uh, Fanny May, don't even need to change anything with that, Freddy Mac. But, um, yeah, so I, I ended up filing a RICO lawsuit, Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act, and I put it out there on the internet and it was July 26, 2010. And I really felt like, wow, you know, I've made it. I mean, I remember I had tears in my eyes when I filed that suit because I knew that I felt like God had blessed me to be in the right place at the right time and to like land on this huge secret that's going to change the world and, you know, it's going to make my life a lot better because I basically had a, you know, I don't want to say poverty-stricken, but I had my times as a child that I was living in poverty, you know, with, uh, no running water because the pipes froze in the winter and, you know, my mom was pretty poor, so I definitely wasn't from the, the advantaged socioeconomic class. So, I was feeling that this was a blessing and I was going to be able to do a lot of good for a lot of regular people, a lot of the 99%, you know, I was going to wreak some vengeance on these scumbags, which is what I always wanted to do. I actually, when I was in law school, I used to watch these shows, American Justice, where they would innocent people would be in jail for 10, 20 years and then finally they would get exonerated by DNA, you know, and, uh, I wanted to go to law school so I could bust the corrupt cops that were framing people and putting them in jail for crimes they didn't commit. Right.

>> But then I learned about this and this was like

>> they're way worse than corrupt cops. They have way more power actually to destroy more people. I mean, the number of people that had relapses, number of marriages that broke up over these foreclosures, you know what I'm saying? That human destruction, stressful.

>> Human destruction is off the chart. So, there was a whole racket of, oh, you're going to get a modification, string them along, and then

>> they don't get a lawyer because they need to make their trial period plan payments, you know, like $1,200 a month for three months. Well, they can either hire a lawyer to defend a foreclosure that common person doesn't really think they have a defense to, or B, they can take that money, pay these three trial payments, and get a modification. So what would happen is people would make the trial payments and then the deadline for them responding to the lawsuit would pass and then they would get a default because the person didn't hire an attorney, didn't respond to the lawsuit thinking it was taken care of and then boom, they would be informed, oh, the investor, there we go again with that term, doesn't approve, didn't approve.

>> did not, not knowing that the investor had to sign off to begin with, right? Like that's

>> you just said I had to make three [ __ ] payments. You didn't say somebody else I had to approve. Yeah, that was just like that investor that was being, I was being told about in that mediation like this supposed to be, last I checked, it's supposed to be a plaintiff and their lawyer, defendant and their lawyer. Who the hell is the investor? Why do I have to? Why is this person I can't identify? Like throwing my clients out of their house. You know what I'm saying? That's that's against our system of justice. You're supposed to be able to confront your accuser. You know what I mean? And, and challenge them. So we don't even know who it is. It's like somebody behind the mask. And really, it was someone behind the mask of MS. I later came to understand because they can do anything they want to you and just wear this mask, and you can't tell who the hell you're dealing with. It's not Cheryl Sammons. She's not the, who's making these decisions, right?

>> You know what I mean? You can never, ever pin it down. So that's what this robo-signing and, and stuff is designed. So you file, you filed the, the, you file your class action lawsuit.

>> and then we got a call from the attorney general's office.

>> and they wanted copies of everything we had and there were, I don't mean to say that I was the only person on this. There were, I don't know, hate to use a really dated, uh, quote from a president, but a thousand points of light like George H.W. Bush mentioned once about, you know, I guess people doing charitable works. Well, it was a thousand points of light of litigants and attorneys all over the country getting suspicious about these shady documents and these horrible practices and the scam of, "Oh, you're going to get a modification. Oop, no you aren't. And now it's too late. You've already got a default against you. The case is over. The foreclosure sale is in a week. Good luck." Right?

>> So, I, uh, the, the attorney general, Bill McCollum, uh, God, God bless him, went after these law firms, you know, pretty aggressively and they had press conferences with, uh, McCollum and, and Edwards and Clarkson, and they were conferring with me all the time. And they, they went after, they filed suit against David Stern and Marshall Watson and two or three other firms that were doing this in Florida. This kind of thing. They put together a huge, uh, I forget what it's called. What is it? Like overhead? I mean, what's

>> presentation over PowerPoint? PowerPoint of like, you know, all these fake signatures and Linda Green and this person doesn't work for this bank and you had this scandal sort of breaking. So, I was able to, when I did my federal lawsuit, I was able to take not only from what I had learned in my short period of time defending foreclosures, but stuff was coming about and being compiled on the internet like Mr. Ice's deposition of of Cheryl Sammons. Somebody had actually taken the deposition of the MS CEO, uh, William Holman. That one was an eye-opener, which maybe we'll get to today or or another time. I mean, this guy, you know, the stories, the, the word salad, the ambiguity that spews from his mouth, you know, the misdirection is just, it's un, it's like record-setting. You know what I mean? This guy talks more double-talk than anyone you could imagine, any caricature.

>> So, the attorney's general's office, they do the, the PowerPoint presentation, they file a suit, they start, uh, they start, um, deposing people. What happens with that?

>> Well, among those depositions was the one where there was testimony about 2,000 of these being signed, uh, daily and two days a week, you know, and people just having their, any random notary stamp, anyone can sign, you know, they just have a pile and they have to sign them. And people like Cheryl Sammons, she started out writing her signature, but then after a while, it just got ridiculous and it turned into, cuz she has to do so many of them. I'm sure her hand probably hurt.

>> And so this, this scandal sort of was breaking nationwide. And I filed this lawsuit. I had the Florida Attorney General basically on my team. I mean, help, you know, fighting the same fight that I'm fighting from a more official, um, position. And, you know, things were going well. And I was, I wrote that lawsuit. It fit RICO perfectly because it's basically, it's basically when you have a criminal enterprise. It's a business. It looks like a legitimate business, but actually it's a criminal. It's part of a criminal conspiracy and they use the mails and the wires to transmit documents and they commit any of the number of predicate acts such as wire fraud. I mean, fraud, it's fraud. What, you know, to all day long, it's fraud. So

>> basically I had a great case with that. And so what we wanted to do was, uh, recover triple damages under RICO for all of the class member homeowners who got their homes stolen through the court system by perversion of the justice system by feeding fake evidence into the, into the process, you know, fake instruments and recording fake instruments in the official records. So, um, it was, it was good. And I ended up on the national news, not CNN, not Fox, not the ones controlled by, you know, the 1%, but it was PBS NewsHour. And, uh, you know, I think Trump needs to lay off a PBS because they did at least carry this story about MS and this robo-signing cuz I was one of the few to actually see that or declare that MS is designed simply to run this huge fraud relating to securitization because it enables them to create ownership documents for any loan for any entity to any entity at any given time. Voila. It could be out of business, never existed in the first place. Doesn't matter. You know, they can create simulate, um, ownership of a mortgage by a particular entity.

>> So, um, I got on the national news on PBS NewsHour, and you're not going to believe this. Your viewers may not believe it. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the person that appeared in that episode on PBS NewsHour from October 10 or 12 of of 2010 was an actor. Like he's supposed to be the CEO of MS. Okay. But the guy's name, and you can't make this stuff up, is R.K. Arnold, like Benedict Arnold, you know, from the history books. And then R.K. Arnold, which is like John Grisham. All the, the bad guy attorneys, they always have those first initial and then middle name and then last name. You know what I mean? And this is pretty much the same, same kind of thing. R.K. Arnold or something, you know, those initials. So, I think it was like the dumbest possible, most malleable guy they could find with a law degree because he's has a law degree. I looked him up from South Texas College of Law, the same, strangely enough, as David Stern. So, here's this hillbilly with a high and tight haircut on PBS NewsHour and they've got this phone room with just a bunch of computer monitors in the background pretending like that's MS. MS doesn't have any offices. I have the testimony of the real people behind it, or some of them. You know, it doesn't have any offices. It doesn't have any employees. This is all a complete charade put on for the news, for the news. And here's this guy R.K. Arnold talking in this podunk accent, you know, and the, he's being asked by somebody from PBS, you know, what gives, uh, MS the right to foreclose? It's the mortgage. It's a standard, uh, provision that all the borrowers agree to when they sign the. Nobody knows what the hell that means or, you know, nobody's agree. It's certainly not a standard provision. I mean, it's, it's non-sequitur after non-sequitur. It's Greek to me, as they say.

>> So, um, I thought I was, I thought I made it. You know what I mean? I'm riding high. And I had filed a bar complaint against David Stern because, well, I thought that's what I was required to do. It's not because, you know, I'm some holier-than-thou or just wanted to, you know, be judgmental or or just bully someone. Fact is that I'm still going to court like in 2010, 2000, and I'm, I'm still seeing the same crap go on every day in the hallways with these attorneys pretending to be nice to the homeowners, getting them to agree when really the bank doesn't have the paperwork. They're presenting fabricated evidence all day, every day in court. And I mean, I believe that stuff they taught in law school about ethics. And I really, you know, I was naive, I guess, but I thought there's a law that says if you know, there's a rule of ethics that says if you know an attorney that has like an ongoing criminal activity, you as another member of the bar are supposed to turn them in. You're required to turn them in.

>> So, I filed a bar complaint against David Stern on August. I do need to look at this somewhere just to get the date. It was August 10, 2010, when it was received by the bar. And I just gave them samples of those assignments and mortgage. They all say prepared by David Stern and I said, "Hey, you need to look into this. They're using fabricated evidence to foreclose on on people, you know, all day, every day."

>> So, uh, we went to federal court and we got a judge by the name of Cecilia Altanaga, who's now the chief judge of the Southern District. Man, I, I don't know how to explain. I just knew I had him right. So, it's little old me with my GED and my class representative Damian Figueroa versus all of Wall Street, pretty much. They, all these big law firms and, you know, it's just little old me and my next to the fetish factory in Oakland Park, you know, writing these briefs and and going against them. And I, I thought it was great because I was in the right and I could, you know, I knew it was a $7.5 billion lawsuit on its face because, uh, they, they foreclosed on a, a 100,000 homeowners in Florida with fake documents, but we get triple damages if we win. So if you foreclose on a $250,000 house, that's $750,000 for that one person, right? Okay. And then I, we conservatively estimated that we could get 10,000 class members, which would have been $7.5 billion. Okay. So it was fairly high stakes, you know, involved here. So we, we set about litigating it. And one of the arguments that the, um, the banks came up with was, well, you're trying to overturn these state court foreclosure judgments in federal court. And federal court is not an appeals court for the state court. So we have to, this case has to be dismissed. You can't appeal the foreclosure judgments. But it's clearly obvious from the complaint that's not what we were doing. We're seeking damages. We're treating the foreclosures as a fait, a complete, like accomplished. It's over with. All right.

>> There's nothing we can do. It's already been sold.

>> We can't throw the people that currently live in that house out and give it back to our clients. What's a, that's dead?

>> You were way smarter than to try to do something like that. So,

>> even if it was done illegally, it's done.

>> It's done. It's still a final judgment, right?

>> It's like a guy that gets found guilty of murder and 20 years later he's found innocent. Okay. Well, we, we can't reverse time. Right. I can't give him the 20 years back. I'm asking for damages.

>> Yeah. Plus, you know, these homes by this point have been sold at the foreclosure auction, sold by some of the realtor, you know. So, there's all kind of innocent people whose rights are. We would never, we were never going to do that. That's why we have RICO. We're suing for damages only. We're not suing to get the houses back. So, ultimately, to make a long story short, the, the federal judge Altanaga,

>> she ruled in a way that none of the bank's awesome lawyers even came up with. They were trying to have the case dismissed under Florida, uh, federal rule of civil procedure 12B6, which is basically, uh, the court has to take all the allegations of the complaint as true and then determine whether they state a cause of action. Well, 12B1, something like the court doesn't have to take the allegations of true as true and can figure it out for herself. I don't know. It's some kind of obscure provision that's not very often used in federal court. It's not an argument that any of the banks were making, but yet that was the provision that was the basis for for Judge Altanaga's decision. And that, and we're trying to overturn the state court foreclosure judgments. And we can't do that because we have separation of the federal system from the state system. And the federal courts cannot overturn the state court foreclosure judgments. Nobody was asking you to do that, you know, but that was the fiction that caused or that was the the articulated basis supposedly for her 35-page opinion. And if you actually read it, she'll make one claim, you know, about our case. And then a few pages later when she quotes another section of our complaint, it disproves what she just characterized that, you know what I mean? Like the whole opinion really collapses on itself because

>> what she's saying isn't true. We weren't trying to overturn the state court judgments and never, never had that in mind. So that's unfortunate. But I, I think I understand now that really that was a factor of too big to fail. We can't let this case go through because if it does, what's it going to do to the economy? All Wall Street's going to collapse. Right. Right. Horrendous. Well, sometimes, you know, I think every time there has to be pain before there can be gain, you know, and, and I'm sure there are plenty of geniuses in this country that can come up with alternative systems of of government and everybody would bounce back. There would be, you know, if, if all of Wall Street collapsed, there would be alternative ways of of running our economy, you know what I mean? With like Bitcoin and all that. I mean, crypto currency, obviously, Bitcoin is a bit of a dated, uh, reference. It's not Coca-Cola for all, you know, it's not Bitcoin for all. It's not, it's not, uh, whatever. It's not ChatGPT for all AI. You know what I'm saying? Anyway, I filed this bar complaint against David Stern and the Florida Bar is taking it. Of course, there were several other complaints that had been filed about him and they were like, the Florida Bar was like exchanging emails and, and information with me and I would get another transcript of some other former Stern employee and I would send it to them and, and, um, so David Stern never offered me anything. They just came into court and pretty much had no, no shame with the BS, you know, like this is standard industry practice. Well, that doesn't mean it's not a criminal enterprise. I mean, yeah, I was going to say, not a very good argument.

>> And, uh, so David Stern was in some trouble. And then in October of 2010, I, I really feel like I contributed greatly to the nationwide foreclosure freeze because right after that PBS NewsHour thing came out and the story was building in the news, you know, this robo-signing thing, next thing you know, it's all the big banks have announced. Bank of America announces that they're freezing all foreclosures to check and double-check, check and verify their paperwork. So, it was kind of a blip on the screen. It only lasted about 10 or 12 days, but they were, they were putting on this charade that they were going to go through and evaluate all the paperwork. Oh, we haven't found anything that, uh, affects anything. Just a few discrepancies with a few notaries or whatever, you know. And, uh, at this point, actually, because of the Florida Attorney General's investigation, the, uh, 48 other state attorneys general started similar investigations of these foreclosure mill law firms in their states and the big banks and the servicers. And that, that very same, uh, trend ended up in the national mortgage settlement in 2012, which was supposed, which did require by its terms Bank of America and Wells Fargo and all these banks had to give like a certain number of modifications. They got a huge amount of money from the government. So not only did they get the bailout, they got money from the government as part of the national mortgage. Well, they had to pay, they had to pay, you know, money to the, to the government, but there were all these incentives where if they gave a certain number of modifications or processed a certain number in good faith, then they wouldn't have to pay as much. But, you know, I think it was $12 billion or $12 million for Bank of America. That's a joke. You know, now these, the attorneys general could go to their voters and say, "Look, we got Bank of America to pay $12 million." Do you think Bank of America gives a rat's ass about $12 million? Really, in the overall scheme of things, when we're talking about a nationwide securitization regime where they're selling air to institutional investors all over the world. I mean, you know, they, they make so much more money off of that. You know, they act like, oh, they fight it tooth and nail and they act like $12 million is going to hurt them and they need a bailout. You know, Bank of America paid back its bailout like extra early with interest. It's not, you know, they're so, they're so calculating. You know, they didn't need to be bailed out to begin with. They were the ones that orchestrated, not just Bank of America, but all the big banks. They orchestrated the boom and bust cycle. They've been doing it for hundreds of years. Okay? They make money on the way up when the market's on the way up, and then they stop approving everybody. They raise the interest rate, the market crashes again, and they have, they have everything set up in just such a way that they make money on the way up and money on the way down. And they are intentionally orchestrating collapses. That's what these big banks do. And so in, in my world with securitization, I call it faux securitization, like fake, because it's, it's there's nothing there. There's nothing in any of these trusts. Yet that's the biggest asset that our, our government employees have in their retirement accounts. Well, guess who else has to worry about their retirement accounts? Judges. Okay. So, if the judges start throwing out all these foreclosures and saying, "Oh, look at this is all fabricated documents and referring people to the state attorney's office," well, what's going to happen to their retirement when they retire in five years? Now, their retirement fund is totally gutted, right?

>> Because there's been a big scandal where a conflict of interest.

>> right? Oh, huge. But I, I wouldn't put it past the banks to have actually that's part of their plan. You know, these judges, I learned over the years, they have a tremendous bias in favor of the plaintiffs in these foreclosure cases. Like, seems like no matter what you show them, most of them, you know, they just wouldn't listen. They would, they would pretend to listen and then just go ahead and give the bank the house anyway. You know, no matter how much fraud you proved, they would just turn a blind eye to it. Turn a blind eye to it time and time again. Now, there's also, there were other attorneys like myself who were became, you know, really prominent in this area. We have Mr. Ice, of course, Bruce Jacobs out of Miami, Mark Stoopa out of, um, Tampa area, and Matt Widner out of the Tampa area to name some of the, the primary ones. And, uh, ultimately, so let's get back to the David Stern bar complaint. So after like a year, the Florida Bar had not done anything to David Stern. He still had a law license. Here we are in February of 2011 or or after that, I think more than a year from the time I filed the complaint. And I'm going to court every day and I'm still seeing the same tactic, the same crap, the same fabricated assignments of mortgage. He's still in business. I thought it would be an emergency suspension order by the Florida Bar, but they've basically done nothing in a year. They've collaborated with me and gotten information, but they haven't done anything to him. The case is just lagging there. So, mistake of my life, I guess. I wrote a letter to the bar prosecutor who was handling the case against David Stern. Her name is Adria Quintella. She's now a law professor at Florida State. I wrote her a letter and I began it with niceties. I was polite. Uh, but I said, you know, I'm simply, but then it got a little bit less polite. I wrote, I am simply floored that the bar has taken no action against David Stern after the passage of more than 12 months since you received all the evidence you would ever need to know that this guy is basically a danger to the public, a criminal that must be stopped. I didn't say that part, but I said, "I'm floored the bar has taken no action. Uh, several people up here not to be doing their jobs. And if you're not the person to whom I should address my concerns, please tell me who it is that I should write to." I didn't send it to the board, bar of governors, bars, board of governors. I didn't send it out to the media. I just sent it to her. And I was forced to copy David Stern's attorney because you can't, uh, unilaterally communicate, you know, in that situation. You have to copy the other side.

>> But, um, she never responded to that letter. Like eight months after that, they finally announced they were moving ahead with the case against David Stern. I got interviewed by the Palm Beach Post, and I'm quoted in the Palm Beach Post as saying, "I was greatly relieved to hear that the Florida Bar is doing its job." And, um, these people, well, they still teach you about ethics in law school, and these people made a mockery of it. That was the quote. Well, when it was time for David Stern's ethics trial, I was supposed to be the second witness, but the night before they sent me an email and said, "We won't be needing you, Mr. Trent." Okay. But I, I still went and watched because I had, was it? I was vested in this. And they sort of like eliminated all the allegations about the fabricated evidence and they just were presenting stuff in in Stern's ethics trial about, oh, his associates didn't show up for court or they didn't meet deadlines, you know, they didn't respond to subpoenas, whatever. Basically convicting him of gross negligence rather than the rampant criminality that he was actually, you know, perpetrating. So that was unfortunate, but I didn't understand at the time, but, but later on, I, I came to understand. So that was, he got finally disbarred in 2013, and I went on practicing law. We lost the federal case, lost the appeal. That was unfortunate, but I was still the foreclosure destroyer. Had a good reputation and had a lot of a lot of business and, you know, I was practicing law. Well, uh, ultimately the Florida Bar decided to come after me. All right. And they, they, they bited their time. Adria Quintella, uh, waited her chance to go after me. I think largely because of that letter and that article in the Palm Beach Post, which she undoubtedly read, and she could have interpreted it as being much harsher criticism than it really was. When I said these guys made a mockery of ethics, the preceding sentence I did reference the Florida Bar. If she's inclined to interpret it, you know, in a negative light, she

>> I'm assuming you meant

>> um, I did mean, I most certainly did. And I didn't say, you know, I didn't tell the Palm Beach Post, "Yeah, I wrote her a letter a year ago and they still didn't do shit." I mean, it wasn't like that. It wasn't my intention. I know better than to completely antagonize the bar. But I should have never written that letter because unbeknownst to me, it appears that this lady who eventually became the head of the state bar prosecution division, like the head of the disciplinary wing of the Florida Bar. So she's in charge of bar discipline for the whole state,

>> right?

>> Okay. By the, you know, by the time, uh, 2020 comes around and I end up pissing off a bankruptcy judge. The guy was like 80 years old. My client was the only African-American in the room. I don't know how much time we have, but basically my client's bankruptcy attorney had given away her house in the bankruptcy in the chapter 13 without discussing it with her. That was what my client explained to me. So, I simply came into the bankruptcy case and did a, a sworn motion signed by my client that my client never agreed to surrender her primary residence. The whole reason she declared bankruptcy to begin with, chapter 13, was to keep her primary residence and her attorney did that without her knowledge. So, that would be a basis to set aside the agreed order of the bankruptcy court, uh, surrendering her primary residence to the bank. And we had several hearings in front of this federal bankruptcy judge named Raymond Ray. They don't have a retirement age. I believe he was over 80 at the time. And ultimately, my client testified, her former attorney, who at this point is very defensive. She thinks she's going to get a bar complaint because she gave away my client's house, which is not an unreasonable thing to anticipate. However, she never got one. That wasn't our plan. It was, we're just trying to, I'm just trying to protect my client. I'm not Robin Hood out filing, you know, bar complaints.

>> You're trying to rectify the situation for your client.

>> But of course, the attorney is going to, the attorney comes in there and says, "Oh, yes. We discussed this in depth." And the judge is 80 years old. The, the attorney's whiter than my client. The judge is from Alabama. He probably thinks, you know, that whatever. He decides that my client's lying. I have no indication that she was to this day. I don't believe she was. She was telling the truth. I never caught her in a lie. And so he ordered, he entered an order that myself and my client are not to oppose the entry of a final judgment of foreclosure over in state court because see, bankruptcies in federal court, foreclosures in state court. I knew we could win her foreclosure because of something having to do with the condition proceeded demand notice, which you may be aware if they're going to foreclose on you, they have to send you a letter like 30 days in advance says you're behind these payments. Here's what you have to pay to reinstate. If you don't pay it by this deadline, then we can foreclose. That's some federal regulations. So any of these federally insured loans, Fanny May, Freddy Mac, they have to give people a demand notice. It's written into all these mortgages,

>> right?

>> Well, I happen to know because I just won a case on a demand notice in front of this judge that had the same defect as the one in this case for this lady.

>> So, you know, you're, it's a slam dunk to win this one,

>> right? I've got a great chance of winning in state court if we can just get around this alleged agreed order to surrender her property in bankruptcy. So the bankruptcy judge says, "No, not having it. Mr. Trent and Miss Scott, you are not to oppose the entry of an immediate final judgment of foreclosure in state court." So talked it over with my client and it occurred to me maybe we could just dismiss the bankruptcy because the state judge, first of all, doesn't like the federal judge controlling what goes on in his courtroom. He had already expressed that.

>> Secondly, I did some research and I found a law review article entitled the chapter 13 debtor's absolute right to dismiss. Read the article. It's great. Supreme Court case law cited in there. Even a decision called Law versus Seagull, of all things. And it said, "We have every right to dismiss the bankruptcy. Once we dismiss the bankruptcy, the bankruptcy judge no longer has jurisdiction over this property. It's now back with the state court. His order no longer has effect. He doesn't have jurisdiction anymore. And then my client can defend herself." All she wanted was the right to defend herself on the merits. So, this is, this is the situation that gave Adria Quintella and the Florida Bar the alleged, you know, the basis to come after me and, and basically take my license. So, this is the, the, uh, the ruse. So, what happened was we did the research, talked it over with my client. She had paid like $20,000 in payments for her other debts, um, in the bankruptcy plan. But by dismissing the case, she was going to lose the benefit and those other creditors would now be able to come after her again. And she's not going to get the discharge of all of her debts that she was hoping to get. But she decided it was worthwhile. She would rather save her primary residence. That's been her goal the whole time. She already surrendered like her, her rent, her house, her, her investment property and stuff. So, we did a notice of voluntary dismissal of the bankruptcy case. Well, the federal judge, Judge Ray, set it for hearing. And I had a case from the Southern District of Florida that said there is no hearing authorized or permitted on a notice of voluntary dismissal. It's just a notice. There's no motion. There's no request. There's no hearing. But he set a hearing anyway for like 20 days out. Meanwhile, the bank's very astute attorney gets a quick hearing in foreclosure court and tells the judge, "Hi, judge. We're just here to get our final judgment of foreclosure since Mr. Trent and Miss Scott are prohibited from contesting it." And I said to the state court judge, I have the transcript. You know, I explained everything just like basically I explained to you and, uh, said now we're just waiting. I know that he's going to have to honor the dismissal, but right now we're in limbo because the order is still in effect until the bankruptcy judge officially dismisses the case and she's dragging us in here and I'm not enable, I'm not allowed to oppose. Uh, so I just explained the situation to the, the state court judge and I said, um, you know, if you want to have the judgment entered, as long as it has a provision that says when the bankruptcy is dismissed, the foreclosure judgment is vacated or just hold it in obeyance until we have this hearing in 10 days. Because if I didn't stand up for my client at that hearing, she could lose her discharge because I know the bankruptcy case is going to be dismissed. He has to dismiss it. He has to honor that US Supreme Court case law. And number two, so she's going to lose her discharge of all of her debts and she's going to not be able to defend her. I couldn't let that happen. That's double jeopardy, right? That's going to destroy my client.

>> right?

>> Maybe I don't know if that's clear, but

>> yeah, it's

>> Yeah. So, I had to say, you know, I couldn't just roll over and die and say, "Okay, get a state court judgment while, you know, it was a conundrum." So, I explained to the judge and I'm in a delicate position here. I would never disobey a court order, but this is all transcript. So the, the state judge says, "Well, there's nothing I can do until, you know, Miss Scott. It's not even really up to me to consent to judgment. That would be on her. You know what I'm saying? Like, it's sort of unreasonable for me to even be, it's, it's not my. She gets to decide what she does with her property, not me, right?

>> You know, so, um, the state court judge said, "Well, I'm not granting the bank a judgment because the bank wouldn't agree to have a provision in there that says this is vacated when the bankruptcy is dismissed." Of course, they don't want to do that. So, the bankruptcy judge ultimately has the hearing and decides that, yeah, he's going to dismiss the case, get this, as a sanction against my client and I for violating the court order. You know, he, he's dismissing it as a sanction. No, we already dismissed it as the reality and he couldn't. So, he's, he makes up this fiction. He's dismissing it as a punishment to Miss Scott for abuse and I for abusing the bankruptcy process. And the bankruptcy judge orders me to send that order to the Florida Bar. Now, mind you, me and this judge never had a cross word. We had 15 hours of hearings over four months and he sustained most of my objections. He laughed at my jokes. I mean, we never had a problem. He never said, "Trent, you're barking up the wrong tree." You know what I mean? Like, you're pissing me off. Nothing. Because that, all those hearings were about whether or not my client had actually agreed to the agreed order surrendering her property in the bankruptcy. So, I was shocked that the judge ordered me to turn myself into the bar, but of course I did. And I includes my transcript from the state court where I was totally open about everything. Nothing unethical in anything that I've done. She had the absolute right to dismiss her bankruptcy case and I didn't violate the court order. All it said was shall not oppose the entry of a judgment. Well, I didn't oppose. I just explained we, you know, might be prudent for the court to wait until we see what's going to happen because I can't let my client get double whammy, get double screwed, double [ __ ]. You know, I'm sure we can say that on your channel.

>> So, so what? So, it goes in front of the bar and did they, they have a hearing case?

>> Yeah.

>> Well, yeah. So, here's where the conspiracy really kicks in. So, uh, the bar ignores the exculpatory transcript that I included and they immediately assign it to Fort Lauderdale. And anyway, the bar goes ahead. They, they initiate a formal complaint against me. And lo and behold, who is the attorney that signed at the bottom? But my old friend Adria Quintella. So, I thought, didn't I write her a nasty letter once upon a time? Something like that. So miraculously, organization is not really my strong suit. But amazingly enough, I found my letter, my 2011 letter in 2020 when this happened. And there's my letter saying several people appear not to be doing their jobs. And how does he still have a license? And so I'm thinking, why are they running with this? Because here's the real defense to the ethics charge about this alleged violation of a court order. Every time an attorney violates a court order, it's not an ethics violation. The rule says it's a vi, it's an ethics violation to violate a court order unless it's an open refusal based on a belief that no valid obligation exists. So if somehow you could say I violated a court order, clearly it was an open refusal. It wasn't surreptitious. It wasn't sneaky. It wasn't underhanded. It was, judge, you know, we're entitled to dismiss this case. Uh, you know, everything was an open book. So it definitely fell within that caveat or carve-out of the rule undoubtedly, I mean, clearly. So, um, so Adria Quintella is prosecuting this case and I decide, and it gets assigned to a referee. Referee is like a judge who's going to hear the ethics case. And the first rule of bar discipline in Florida is that the venue, that is the location where the ethics case is going to be tried, is supposed to be in the attorney's home district, which is defined as where their primary office is located, where their home is located, or where the offense was committed. In my case, it's Broward, Broward, and Broward. But somehow the referee assigned is someone I've never heard of, Scott Suscauer, out of Palm Beach County. So, I take a look and Scott Suscauer is married to Michelle Suscauer, who at that time was the president of the Florida Bar. They serve one-year terms. It's mainly a ceremonial position, but before that, she worked at the Florida Bar in the same office as Adria Quintella for like 10 years. Okay.

>> So, they're probably friends.

>> Oh, yeah. So, so suddenly now Adria Quintella is, could be her best friend's husband is, is the referee in my case and he's in Palm Beach County. I mean, I practiced mostly in Broward. I had a good reputation. I knew the chief judge. I had like four trials with the chief judge and he ruled for me every time we got along. He laughed at my jokes. He said hi to me in the hall. And he's the one that would have, I mean, I'm a good, I was a good attorney. I wasn't a scumbag. Most, most judges I had a good relationship with at at Broward. And even if I didn't know them, you know how it goes through the grapevine. They would know just from seeing me around and, you know, being friendly and cuz I was a friendly guy. I didn't personalize anything with my opponents. You know, I was, I was well accepted, liked at the courthouse as far as I could tell. I always got a warm welcome. Certainly in Judge Stone's courtroom, which was the foreclosure judge, uh, in state court that I dealt with the most. He wrote, he ended up writing letters for me even about that case. They're not allowed really to get heavily involved. But he wrote a letter saying, in this, this case with Miss Scott, I've reviewed the file and Mr. Trent was open and obvious with the court and I don't see what the problem is. I mean, even

The judge judge wrote that on my behalf. No effect. So, the case is up here with Scott Suscau in Palm Beach County. Sorry about, you know, covering my face, but it's just this guy. Turns out, I mean, I'm going to get sued for defamation. So, let me just give you the disclaimer. This is my opinion based on the facts that I'm articulating in this broadcast because those are defenses to uh defamation or slander.

In to all appearances, this man is an opioid addict. Okay? I mean, I don't know if you ever been around him, but they used to have him hang out close to the fetish factory when imagine that when when uh there was the big thing with all the pill mills and people were coming from other states to get >> drugs here, get opioids. And it's that certain really slow like monotone way of talking that constant concern with when is this going to be over when can I get when can I leave you know like you could tell it's just desperate to escape for because he wants to get more he's coming down you know you could tell I mean I know you said you don't have much experience with drugs but you've personally I've known plenty >> oh yeah once you know that opioid p personality I mean you could pick it up like that I It's that I mean I drool but it's more drooling. It's drooling. No, it's just uh this guy he's a he's a lug nut up there. I mean he graduated from like North Northwestern University School of Law. I mean he has to be able to have had to have been able to read at one time, but he can't remember what exhibit we're on. He's looking in the wrong notebook. Like you know the lawyers we give him notebooks. He doesn't know. He can't remember anything. He gets mad at me because I said, I mean, also they they get temperamental about things that don't really make sense. I mean, I've seen this before. I've had clients who were like that.

So, in this hotly contested ethics trial, he's saying, uh, he got mad because I said that the attorney for the bank in the Scott case was a flamethrower. And he got so mad he's like, "Mr. Trent, what's your what's your language about?" Well, he didn't talk that energetically, but basically it was in that monotone that's out of line. You cannot speak about your have some respect for opposing. That was respectful actually. If it's one trial lawyer saying another trial lawyer is a flamethrower, is that porative? Is that some kind of an insult? Do you guys throw throw hands over that in the pin about like saying someone's a flamethrower? What?

If you sleep hot at night, you know how disruptive that can be. Whether you're having trouble falling asleep, you're waking up sweating in the middle of the night, or all of the above, that's where Ghost Bed can help. As the makers of the coolest beds in the world, Ghost Bed is your go-to for cooling mattresses, cooling pillows, and cooling bedding. From their signature Ghost Ice fabric to patented technology that adjusts to your body's temperature. Every Ghost Bed mattress is designed with cooling in mind. So whether you want a plusher mattress that cushions your shoulders and hips or a firm option with exceptional support, your Ghost Bed will keep you cool and comfortable all night long. When you purchase a Ghost Bed mattress, your comfort is guaranteed. You can try out your mattress for 101 nights risk-free to make sure it's the right fit for you. Plus, they offer free shipping and most items are shipped within 24 hours. If you're not sure which Ghost Bed is right for you, check out their mattress quiz. You'll answer a few questions and get a personalized recommendation. Even better, our listeners will get 10% off for a limited time. Just visit ghostbed.com/cox and use code cox at the checkout. That's ghostbed.com/cox and use code cox for 10% off sitewide.

>> I mean, that says they're formidable to me. >> I was gonna say it just Yeah, I I understand it. It might be ambiguous to some people, but it's not I don't see the negative like the insult right that it was a compliment. In fact, she was a great attorney, very effective. She had that old judge thinking that my client and I were some real real operators, you know, apparently.

So, uh, but so, so when I was getting ready for my ethics trial, I thought, you know, this actually I didn't realize Suscau's connection at the beginning and I didn't realize maybe I wasn't aware. I don't I I guess I didn't really challenge the idea at first of it being up in Palm Beach County with Suscau because I thought I was so innocent that any judge would see, you know, still naive. >> Yeah. >> So, I I uh had to there came a deadline by which I had to disclose all of my intended exhibits for the ethics trial. Exhibit number one was my letter from nine years earlier to Adria Quintella and my article in Palm Beach Post because I wanted to be able to show the referee some sort of ostensible motivation for the bar coming after me, right?

>> Cuz you know, it's all gray area sort of like sort of like subject subjective like whether somebody has violated these things like conduct prejuditial to the administration of justice. I mean that's in the eye of the beholder, you know. So, I was concerned that the referee would want me to have be able to articulate some possible motive that the bar could have for coming after me on something when I didn't commit an ethical violation on the face of it. You know what I mean? Like, she had every right to do. All I did was a voluntary dismissal of a bankruptcy case, which is 100,000% authorized. By the way, my client ended up keeping her house for like six more years until they finally took my license and had the suspension not uh be lifted after my period had run. And at that point, finally, she lost her house, but she was able to she was able to flip it and get like $350,000 because in that amount of time, like six and a half years, it had gone up, you know, she had like 100,000 in equity, she'd gone up to 350,000 in equity. So house went from 4 to 7 or something like that in that time period. So basically I won that case for her. They couldn't foreclose. The the demand letter was defective, but they needed to get a workound. They needed to get it through the bankruptcy court. And when that didn't work out, so so I sent in my um my exhibits to the bar cuz you know when you file something nowadays in court, it's email disseminated to all council of record.

>> Yeah. and Adria Quintella was the council for the bar in the case. So when I sent my exhibits out and exhibit one was this letter up to that point she didn't know that I would remember or that I would have that you know that's what I I believe. So the next time well first of all the bar immediately filed a strenuous objection to that exhibit and only that exhibit out of 24. Okay. And then and then the next time I filed something in the case, I got a bounce back that said Adria Quintella is no longer employed by the Florida Bar. And I was like, what? Wow. I mean, she had been working there 18 years at this point, worked her way all the way up from, you know, assistant counsel in the local office to head head of bar discipline for the state. I mean, she was basically a powerful politician at that point. And they're going to they're going to just she doesn't work at the bar anymore. Like, what the heck? How do you even fire someone like that? I didn't really know. So, they have a cover story like, oh, it's a lateral transfer. It's been planned, you know, for a while. Now, she's a law professor at Florida State. Um, but that's a pretty significant coincidence. It's pretty hard to uh, you know, I thought the bar at that point was probably going to drop this frivolous case against me, but uh, they went ahead and continued with it, I think, just to save face. You know what I mean? They're not going to they're not going to if they throw her under the bus then how many prior convictions and disbarments and suspensions has she >> been involved in proceeded over that her so the but the referee is still her her husband right >> well that's her friend's husband >> her friend's husband right >> very closely connected >> yeah so that does just because you change jobs doesn't change the relationship >> well yeah and also the fix is still on because there's other people involved clearly because I come to find out. I I delved into this at some point. The way that the referee is assigned is like this. The bar files a case with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, the bar files a statement of what's the proper jurisdiction, which in this case, Adria Quintell, a smart lady, filed Broward, Broward, Broward. But the next thing you know, there's an order from Chief Justice Charles Kennedy assigning the case to Palm Beach County where the Palm Beach County Chief Judge gets to pick one of her minion to be my referee. Well, the Palm Beach County Chief Judge is Christa Marx or was Christa Marx. Christa Marx I had previously filed a JQC complaint against because she was hiding the transcripts from uh Epstein. See, because Epstein had this cushy deal with the state attorney up in Palm Beach County where he was busted for sex, but they they put him on house arrest, but then he had like an escort from the sheriff's office. and the sheriff ends up being Christa Marx's husband. And then years later, Epstein becomes a big public enemy and the scandals break and now he's been probably murdered in jail. And so the Palm Beach, the Miami Herald was trying to unseal the grand jury transcripts from like seven years earlier to figure out if the state attorney had soft-pled to the grand jury about Epstein because he had so much money and influence. And all the people that were involved in that and and risked being exposed were former sheriff Rick Bradshaw, some guy Aaron Berg, I don't know, is another one that's associated like her son worked at the sheriff's office. There was a whole bunch of like inbreeding going on, you know what I mean? There was a whole bunch of uh close relationships there. There were many, many close relationships.

So, um, now it's Christa Marx, who I'm sure isn't a big fan of mine. I'm sure she probably remembers this uh JQC complaint. I just felt it as a random citizen because I read an article. I didn't have a particular axe to grind against Epstein. In fact, I kind of think it's it's unfair that sometimes he's grouped in with like serial killers and that's, you know what I mean? That's I don't equate his conduct with serial killers and in terms of, you know, evil.

>> I'm sure that's going to go over well in the comments. Go ahead. >> Well, whatever. You can eliminate it if you want. >> Okay. Do you really think he's a You really think he's If you really think he's a serial killer, I mean, >> I don't think he's a serial killer. >> I don't think it's an equivalent. I don't think it's a comparable crime. I mean, I'm not saying I like Epstein. I'm not saying I don't think Epste should have been in jail. I definitely do think he should be in jail. Should have been in jail, but whatever. I have a defense lawyer at heart. I always say the best.

>> I was going to say, yeah, >> but I but on this case, I was on the side of those people that want are going to be attacking me, attacking me on the on your channel because I wanted the grand jury transcripts to come out. >> Right. Right. >> And I read this article like in 2016. It didn't have anything to do with me, but it blew my mind because the Miami Herald is petitioning the Palm Beach County Court to release the grand jury transcript so they can find out what went on with Epstein and Chris the Marx's husband is the sheriff or something or the state attorney who stands to be exposed if the transcripts reveal a soft pedal job, which we think they're going, you know, which the indications are since he got such a slap on the wrist for a sec first time. And instead of recusing herself, Christa Marx denies the Miami Herald's motion. I mean, maybe it's just me, but I think when you have personal involvement like that, you have to disqualify yourself and let some other judge rule upon it.

>> So, to me, it was a blatant ethics violation. And I, like I said, I really believed in like ethics and and, you know, I thought that was disgusting that she would I'm I'm for, you know, government transparency, so she wants to hide hide that [ __ ] I wasn't I wasn't down with that. So anyway, >> so she's in charge of she's now the new referee. >> She's No, she gets to pick the referee. >> Oh, okay. >> Because some reason, Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court, Charles Kennedy, sent my case to Palm Beach County, even though the the file says Broward, Broward, Broward for me. And then it just happens to be Suscau. Christa Marx, you know, I don't know. So Susour, he's he's vegetable up there, you know, he doesn't know what's going on. and the Florida Bar is trying to get two-year uh suspension and but Suscow is not I don't think he's an evil man. He's just probably under the thumb of, you know, certain influential females and certain, you know, addictions. Quite frankly, that's my opinion, my my opinion, solely my opinion based on my experience.

But, um, he didn't really want he first of all, he wanted it to be over immediately. He didn't really want to hear like 3 days like it was scheduled. What time we're getting out of here? Are you guys ready for a break? I need to take a break. You know what I mean? That's all it was. That's all he would ask. The only questions practically he asked the whole time were how much longer is this going to take? When are we going to get out of here? you know, and it's not my life on the line, but pretty close to it. It's pretty serious. And my clients, too. You know, I had clients there trying to support me and testify and file affidavit. I had opposing attorneys that filed affidavit for me. I had judges that tried to help me, you know, but anyway, so Suscow ends up saying that I deserve a sixmon suspension, which is less, you know, like I said, he wasn't consciously like sold out. I don't think it's more subtle than that. You know what I mean? Like, yeah, whatever. He doesn't realize, in my opinion, he wasn't openly a member of the conspiracy. He was more like a a pawn for them, right?

>> So, he uh he recommends 6 months and I'm like, "Hell no, I didn't do anything wrong." I and the Florida Bar both challenge that ruling and the Florida Supreme Court, without any explanation at all, changes it to two years.

>> Okay, >> no explanation. I'm not kidding. All it says is this case is before the court on the petition to review the referee's determination. We agree with the referee's determination as to the facts, but we disagree with his punishment. He's now two years. What? Why? I mean, I didn't commit an ethical violation. Two years. You have to reapply. Well, not reapply to the bar, but you have to file a whole new lawsuit, like a petition, and then pay money and go through all this process to see whether or not your suspension should be lifted. They suspended me for two years and it's like under the circumstance. I mean, it's just incredible. So, it's pretty obvious to me based upon my letter, the article, you know, Christa Marx, uh, Adria Quintella, the fact that she's no longer employed by the Florida Bar, you know, I think there's a pretty compelling case to be made that, you know, this was clearly there's no explanation for how it got sent to Palm Beach County. I mean, none.

So ultimately when they took my license, refused to reinstate me, I decided, well, I'm going to just to demonstrate how unfair the bar is truly as an as an institution. I I decided I was going to file bar complaints against people that committed ethical violations in prosecuting me, my alleged ethical violation. Just for example,

>> that's probably not a good idea. Well, it's it's the idea that I chose because now I mean the idea was really just to >> I already knew that these people were so >> dead set against me that I was never going to get reinstated. Like I should have gotten reinstated the first time. I mean I did everything. >> This was two years. I mean this is a suspension for two years. Like you get reinstated after the two years. >> After two years you petition for reinstatement and it was denied. >> Oh. >> Oh. Okay. So then that's when I started filing that's when I started filing bar complaints against bar people. >> Okay. >> Still haven't actually filed filed it against Adria Quintella because >> you know I don't exactly have conclusive overwhelming evidence. I have quite a few strong inferences a strong >> a strong uh circumstantial case. But you know I I >> as I I I did write her one email. You know I don't stalk this lady. It's nothing like that. But I did write her an email. I filed bar complaints against Charles Kennedy and and uh Judge Suskau and and a few others. But and this prosecutor that was assigned to the the bar of prosecution who hid the transcript. I call it the exculpatory transcript of the hearing in state court where I explained to the judge, I'm not here to oppose. I'm not allowed to oppose. Here's the deal. We filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. We're waiting for the hearing. whatever that transcript it was it was deep what is it 86 deep6 it was like it was hidden the whole time it was hidden from the the grievance committee that voted to move ahead with this complaint and uh you know it clearly was was concealed he even pretty much admitted it was concealed in an email because I knew the grievance committee was meeting this was before it went to Suscau and all that I knew the grievance committee was meeting it's I'm not allowed to go it's just the bar prosecutor try it's like a grand jury and but I I was able to ask the bar prosecutor, you know, have you given my exculpatory transcript to the committee before the hearing? Uh, oh yes, uh, that's being provided to the the committee members today, like today. The rule is they're supposed to have all the materials like two weeks before they meet, right?

>> I mean, so they can review it. It's just people. >> And I said, "Today." And he actually wrote me back an email that said, "You misunderstood the meaning of the word today." Or something like that. Like, what? What? You know, it defies credibility when you really get into the the details of like the correspondence and everything. It's just pretty overwhelming that, you know, that was shady. A lot of shady stuff going on. So, uh, where was I? So, I file these bar complaints. Nothing really happens. File it. You know, they just rubber stamp whatever the bar did. And it's it's really unfortunate. But, uh, so my class action gets dismissed. they decide to retaliate against me after I, you know, exposed a real threat to the reputation of attorneys. I mean, and it's not just me. The other attorneys that really stood out defending homeowners in foreclosure that really were aggressively pursuing and exposing the the fraud of Wall Street and the the use of fake fabricated evidence on a wholesale basis to foreclose on people, the the real fighters. Boom. Boom. Boom. The bar has just come after us and taken us out one by one. Mark Stoopa, he probably great attorney. Probably won more appeals for homeowners than any of the rest of us. Well, then the rest of us combined over here in the second DCA in Lakeland. They they not only did they disbar him, they raided his office with FDLE, Florida Department of Law Enforcement. You know, that's how bad they were after him. And you know what he did? I mean, they have a lot of charges on his bar thing, which I don't know how many of them are true, but I know he did a a tremendous amount of work for his clients. He was a great advocate. He won a lot of cases. He won he won appeals that gave other homeowners something to to utilize to win their cases. And but you know, I don't know. He just had a bit of a temper, I guess, because he would tell judges to their face that they were incompetent or corrupt. And that's that's frowned upon. Yeah. You know, me, I'm still like the southern guy. I was still polite. I never really mowed off or showed my ass. You know, I would maybe roll my eyes or shake my head or something, but you know, I was always maintained

>> Yeah. And uh cuz I was, you know, he must have come from a slightly wealthier family. He had a little bit more cushion than me. I always knew my law license was my only ticket. So like, you know, I wasn't going to be out there, you know, throwing around a bunch of [ __ ] this and you know, you're an [ __ ] So uh and that's sim something similar happened with uh uh Bruce Jacobs, who's a Miami attorney who is very aggressive, very effective for homeowners. And uh Bruce would would write in his pleadings to the judges that they were it's either corruption or incompetent. Either you guys are unqualified to be judges or you're entirely entirely corrupt. And last I heard last I checked we had freedom of speech. I didn't that's not one of the oaths you take when you become an attorney is to relinquish your right to speak the truth as you perceive it. I mean and they did a petition for emergency suspension on the guy for what? for typing sub sub pjorative term in a brief. I mean clearly he hit a nerve just like I clearly hit a nerve when I said several people appear not to be doing their jobs or what is going on here

>> in my letter to Adria Quintella in 2011 for her to hold a grudge for nine years over something like that. So, so are you saying >> same thing with the bar like >> systematically going out and taking out all of these attorneys that >> I mean I didn't use the word systematically but I mean three out of the I mean the the three most aggressive >> Yeah. >> and who were you know had and made a name for ourselves they came after all of us. >> Okay. Who was the other one? >> Mark Stoopa, Bruce Jacobs, and myself. >> Okay. I mean, I guess I should I should be honored I didn't get a petition for emergency suspension or emergency disbarment, you know?

So, it's I mean, it's really unfortunate, you know, like a a disbared or suspended attorney is not a very empathetic victim. You know what I mean? Like, nobody gives a [ __ ] >> You must be a scumbag. I used to think the same thing. But, ironically, they use the bar as a political tool to take out anybody who rocks the boat, who actually fights against the establishment. And that's something that needs to change.

>> So, how do you get your license back? >> I don't think I'm ever going to get my license back. Certainly not from the state of Florida, unless I mean, you would think that you would get like a change over in personnel at some point. You know what I mean? But for them to give me my license back, you know, they want to I mean, the the grounds that they used before, they they used the ground that for denying reinstatement that I owed the IRS money. Well, what do you expect when you take somebody's professional license? You know what I mean? And besides, I had a payment plan set up with the IRS, and there was case law that says an attorney is entitled to be reinstated when he has a tax delinquency as long as he has a payment plan in place. So, I had everything that I needed to have, and they still going to deny it. So, I mean, you know, I'm 52 years old. I don't know how much longer I'm going to be blessed to be alive. And I don't want to go down in history. I don't want my child, I don't want my kids, I don't want people that might buy my book or see my book in the future to be like, "Oh, this guy's just a scumbag." The truth needs to come out. The truth needs to come out about the banks and how they the kind of fraud, the criminality that they're engaged in. The truth needs to come out about anything that involves corruption in government. And the Florida Bar is like this secretive organization has there's no oversight practically. It's all very mysterious. Hush hush behind closed doors. And it's has so much potential for abuse and so many people who've had very legitimate bar complaints. I mean, I heard this every day of my career. Can you believe this attorney did this, this, and this to me and the Florida bar didn't do anything? You know, so I think they're largely ineffective as a disciplinary arm of the the court system. And I think there's a lot of potential for it to be used as a a method of political retaliation or, you know, just keeping down those people that might rock the establishment. It keeps corruption entrenched when they have this weapon that they can use, the Florida bar. They don't have to really observe due process. They just do whatever they want. They don't even have to respond to your your your statutory defenses. I mean, I had a statutory defense based on the language of the rule that says it's not a violation. It's not an ethical violation to violate a court order as long as it's an open and obvious refusal based on a belief that no valid obligation exists. That's exactly what this was. Never in the entire disciplinary process did the the bar attorney, any of the judges did anybody say, "No, that doesn't apply because xyz or it wasn't an open and ob." Nobody ever addressed that argument. They it's a joke. They just leave it alone. And I've seen this too as an appellet attorney. You could have the greatest case in the world, but if it's going to shake up the powers that be or the establishment, you get what's called percurium affirmed. That's like we don't even need to explain. We're just going to affirm what the lower court did. So, you know, your 80 pages of brilliant legal argument and issues and and proof that the other side is committing all this fraud. PCA, we don't even have to explain it to you. And I've seen that utilized to perpetrate grave injustices on people.

So, you know, my book, The Banker Secret, that's B- N K E R S Apostrophe Secret is a story basically of my career, what I learned about the banks. It gives all the documentation, all the details, all the transcripts of the big court hearings and all the the evidence that you would need to really understand more about this whole securization fraud, robo signing, and what it means like for the future, for the property markets, for for Wall Street, and uh what we can all do about it to have less corruption. I think most of your audience certainly can agree with me that that's a worthy goal to have.

>> Hey you guys, I appreciate you watching. Do me a favor. Hit the subscribe button, hit the bell so you get notified of videos just like this. Please go into the description box and click on the link. We're going to have Kenneth's book that he just tal he just talked about. Goes over Does it go over this? Does it go over this case?

>> Uh not my not my bar case, but it goes into great detail about the the federal class action and all that with the robo signing and >> awesome, etc. All right, cool. It it goes over uh the everything that we just went over in great detail. Has uh uh has everything you need to know about the case. uh go into the description box, click on the link, it's going to take you to Amazon so you can buy a copy of the book uh download it, whatever. All right, I once again appreciate you guys. Thank you very much for watching. See you.