HisAdvocates.org - Kelby Smith & foreclosure stupidity

[Flatulating Bovine]

My question for our resident lawyers: can someone do this legally? Although he has a huge disclaimer saying hes not offering legal advice, he is clearly doing so, and for a profit, and hes clearly guiding people in way that will simply get their homes taken/thrown in jail if they listen. I know the guidelines for the practice of law vary by state, so he lives in Arizona. In the pictures of the seminars, it looks like hes getting at least 30 suckers to sign up for this insanity - thats $9k a pop for something that including travel expenses couldn't cost him more than $1k to run.

No, you can't do this legally. The murky depths of the internet, particularly on youtube and other places which give a platform for idiots to spread their disinfo, are full of people giving bad, fake legal information or education with disclaimers that they are doing so "just for entertainment purposes." Some even will add that if you want legal advice consult a lawyer.

Persons who didn't go to law school often think that the legal system is slightly more ridiculous than it actually is (probably too much television). One way this manifests itself is that they believe that all the laws can be thrown off by simplying re-labelling one's actions. Shady loan modification scam firms will say they are not doing loan modifications, but rather "contract negotiations." This specific clown thinks that by saying he just giving "Christian counseling" he is somehow immune to any laws relating to practicing without a license. How much do you wanna speculate that he will try to claim the income is tax free? The law doesn't recognize such purely semantic distinctions, which seem to be the underpinnings of a lot of the sovereign legal mythology.

It becomes much more onerous IMHO when they give case-specific advice. I've even had one fruitcake I confronted take it a step further, and say that because he wasn't a lawyer, he wasn't giving "legal advice" per se and alone therefore can't possibly be practicing without a license.

Certainly, anyone who watches a video, or reads a book or article, and acts on that alone, is foolish - and I would say that such don't amount to legal advice unless it is purportedly geared to that person's situation. (In other words, this is not legal advice, either!!! So take that! ) But it sounds like this character was charging a fee to give "Christian counseling" that consists of case-specific legal advice, and that is what it is, not what he calls it.

That being said, I don't know where this case is located. In some states it is a misdemeanor to practice without a license, though for some reason, courts rarely get excited when they are confronted with the mounds of gibberish that obviously comes from untrained and nonlicensed paralegals/mortgage consultants/swamis/gurus/and other assorted poopheads. In some states one may be required to have a law license to practice law, but there may be no statute criminalizing the unlicensed practice.

But aside from that, giving a room full of people who have paid lots of $ a seminar on bad faith legal tactics and fake laws that don't exist (e.g. "strawman" crap) sounds a lot like "fraud" and illegal for that reason.

[wserra]

The latest brilliant contribution to the HisAdvocates blog, this one from "Michael777":

Hi, I am starting a class action law suit against the state of Washington for mental and physical abuse for turning me a flesh and blood man without my consent or meeting of the minds into an artificial person (corporation) for the purpose of monetary, equity gain and full control over my life a flesh and blood man made in the image of God.

Don't worry, Michael. That "turning [you] a flesh and blood man (sic) without [your] consent" stuff - well, it didn't work. You still don't pass the Turing test.

Try the Wizard of Oz.

[wserra]

These guys are a hoot.

One "Fannie Coleman" asks (I'm gonna forget about "sic" with these guys):

I wanted to ask, after submitting an EFT to dischage my mortgage account and also an EFT to dischage the balance of my automobile, how does one clean up their credit or increase their credit score? Thank you, any help is greatly appreicated.

Let me get this straight, Fannie: you first try to welsh on your debts and then want to "clean up [your] credit"? My guess is that you don't have a completely clear picture of the function of a credit score.

BTW, I'm not sure what these guys mean by "EFT". The only thing that acronym means to me is "electronic funds transfer". Maybe that's what it means to them too, just they roll their own. In any event, if you use the board's search function for "EFT", you get lots and lots of posts to the effect that "I used an EFT to discharge my taxes|mortgage|car note, but then I got levied|foreclosed|repossessed. What do I do now?"

I didn't actually check Smith and company's answers, but I'd bet they sound a lot like "Give us more money".

[wserra]

I now recall that you need to be a member in order to access the site.

Heh, heh.

[notorial dissent]

As near as I can determine from the explanation one of the dim and bewildered tried to pass off on me, the "EFT" scam, is just a dressed up, modernized version of the old write a check off of a closed account "for closure and settlement" scam. Didn't work then, doesn't work now, and gets bounced a whole lot faster." For some reason, the dimboid who tried to explain this to me could never explain how writing a check off of a closed account could do anything other than getting the writer nailed for knowingly writing NSF checks. Magic don't you know!!

Oddly enough, I haven't seen much of that lately, as most jurisdictions prosecute for either variety of it anymore, pretty readily. So the doesn't work evidence mounts up pretty fast, along with the fines and jail time.

[LightinDarkness]

A recent post to Kelby Smith's lovely web site:

I just got a call about my student loan I got from the bank of North Dakota. That I EFTed. The guy told me that the are contacting the FBI and they are going to sue me for fraud. I don't really know what to do. Any suggestions?

I'm sorry, but what did this person think was going to happen? "EFT"ing is essentially from what I understand trying to pass off a fraudulent financial instrument. The stories of it "working" are usually because the front-line people who process payment don't exactly have the time or knowledge to carefully examine it and think its a valid check - so the account gets paid off but then bounces later.

Although you have to be completely stupid to do this sort of thing, it still sort of gets me that Kelby Smith is allowed to do so with no liability. I mean, if you promote financial scams that - while people have to be stupid to follow, they still do - you should be responsible.

[LightinDarkness]

In response to that post by the way one of the moderators replied and said he should use this as "proof" that the EFT is valid:
http://www.hisadvocates.org/fileSendAct ... dacted.pdf

Its a tax lien release letter from the IRS - but its from February 2013. So its only a matter of time - probably right around now if not sooner - when that check would have not only bounced but worked its way through the IRS bureaucracy. Of course I am sure the person who EFTed their unpaid taxes will not update us with the letter from the IRS putting the lien back in place.

[notorial dissent]

Why is the latest sob story at Kelby's house of lies NOT a surprise, simply because it isn't.

EFT'ing as it is now called is nothing more than writing a bad check except that you are doing it electronically. I suspect part of the delusion comes from the fact that most places assume their customers are honest, and they give what is essentially provisional credit for the bad EDT. When it bounces, which it inevitably does, once they are notified and their bookkeeping department gets to it, it is reversed, and things are back to square one, EXCEPT, that the instigator now has essentially a bad check charge, and in some cases, it has probably become a Federal crime. Stupid stupid stupid, but then the stupid is really strong in Kelby's followers.

The tax lien release is a similar item, they assumed whatever was sent them was good, wehn it turns out it isn't, they will void the release, and then the fool will be in a world of hurt as that will be a Federal matter at that point.

I agree, in my opinion, Kelby is just as guilty as the schlubs using his methods and should be held accountable.

[Chados]

These guys are a hoot.

One "Fannie Coleman" asks (I'm gonna forget about "sic" with these guys):

I wanted to ask, after submitting an EFT to dischage my mortgage account and also an EFT to dischage the balance of my automobile, how does one clean up their credit or increase their credit score? Thank you, any help is greatly appreicated.

A recent post to Kelby Smith's lovely web site:

I just got a call about my student loan I got from the bank of North Dakota. That I EFTed. The guy told me that the are contacting the FBI and they are going to sue me for fraud. I don't really know what to do. Any suggestions?

[LightinDarkness]

So here is what the student loan EFT guy is going to do now:

Thanks for all the information! I will get the affidavit of non signature done. I'm going to keep fighting and hopefully it will all work out in the end.

Yes, because the FIRST TIME you used a soverign citizen remedy it worked so well - what better way to follow up on your "success" by sending them a SECOND legal gibberish document. I am sure that will make the lender go away. The stupid is so strong with these people.

[notorial dissent]

Well, think how nice all that gibberish will look in his file when it inevitably comes up for trial. I don't predict a happy ending there either.

Unfortunately, as has been prove time and again, there is no cure for stupid.

[Flatulating Bovine]

What exactly is an "affadavit of non-signature" and why do these nuts think it is useful?

I am guessing that if they are required to sign something, they then claim that they are not signing it while signing it, and by submitting the affadavit, that makes the signature both effective and entirely without consequence, all simultaneously, just because they said so!!!

I am scared that I may be understanding their "logic" too much if my guess is correct!

[notorial dissent]

I suspect it is in the realm of signing something followed by "all rights reserved" or something to that effect, meaning you signed it, but didn't really mean it. i am also of the opinion that someone who signs a ticket or something like that that way, should not collect $200, not pass go, and go directly to jail.

[LightinDarkness]

What exactly is an "affadavit of non-signature" and why do these nuts think it is useful?

I am guessing that if they are required to sign something, they then claim that they are not signing it while signing it, and by submitting the affadavit, that makes the signature both effective and entirely without consequence, all simultaneously, just because they said so!!!

I am scared that I may be understanding their "logic" too much if my guess is correct!

Yeah, basically what you (and notorial) said. Its a multi-page legal gibberish document basically stating that since someone signed a document and then either put:

- All rights reserved without prejudice UCC 1-308
- Under duress

Therefore, since they did the above, by legal magic (TM) the signature has no effect and without a signature you don't have my consent, Mr/Ms Judge/Court. Therefore YOU HAVE NO POWER OVER ME!

http://memegenerator.net/instance/37874985

It would be so funny if this guy didn't actually think it was going to work.

[fortinbras]

An "affidavit of non-signature" is, judging from the descriptions in various court decisions, a document signed by the party to the effect that his signature(s) appearing on a previous document, usually mortgage papers or the like, is a forgery or otherwise ineffectual.

This appears to have first appeared in Midfirst Bank v. Rath (2000) 270 App.Div.2d 932, 706 NYS2d 651. Where Rath filed an affidavit that simply said that his signature on mortgage papers was a forgery. The court rejected this as conclusory and unsupported by evidence (such as a professional opinion on the signature) - especially since the signatures on mortgage papers had been notarized! In fact, this case has been cited several times by other courts rejecting 'affidavits of non-signature'.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I'm still trying to cope with how you sign an affidavit of non-signature.

[fortinbras]

Essentially, "I hereby attest that my signature on the mortgage agreement presented by the other side is a fake. ¶ Signed and sworn this day, .... notarized ...." (with, of course, the appropriate names, dates, and other details)

[notorial dissent]

Mustn't forget "with all rights reserved UCC 301?", otherwise it isn't a genuine sovrun signature.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Essentially, "I hereby attest that my signature on the mortgage agreement presented by the other side is a fake. ¶ Signed and sworn this day, .... notarized ...." (with, of course, the appropriate names, dates, and other details)

Which only leaves the problem that the signature at the bottom of the affidavit, confirming "this isn't my signature", looks exactly like the signature on the document that is being claimed as fake.
(I'd have lots of fun with the logic of this if I were a lawyer)
If, of course, the soverigneejit now signs as "Jon Doe: of the family Pillock" you go with either "Well thank you for telling us you sign yourself differently now" or "Obviously this person isn't the person on the mortgage, or the deeds, so, given we have correctly served the parties, we ask for judgement as they (the correct defendants) obviously haven't bothered to appear. (Don't know why this "of the family Pillock" guy is here but hey, it's a free country.)

[fortinbras]

Good point.

//Fortinbras, of the House of Pancakes.