Tuesday, February 14, 2017

BEWARE: Mainstream Insanity!

As I continue to witness the growing division between Americans along fictitious political “ideologies” we are instructed to view as “liberal left” and “conservative right”, it does seem as though the so called political “left” has become as crazy likening Trump to Adolf Hitler as the so called political “right” had been about claiming Obama to be the end-time Biblical Anti-Christ.

Has most everyone gone completely mad?  Or is it merely that the most unsound thinking Americans among us are being magnified by the fear mongering mainstream media in order to rally the masses into a hysterical frenzy riddled with hate, destruction of private property, and general violence?  I tend to believe the latter.

Whenever natural rights are being violated I try to criticize whichever faction of the partisan duopoly is responsible with the intent of soliciting consideration of some alternative option that would maximize peace, prosperity, and liberty.  This often involves mandating the government cease interfering in matters of private life and return to performing its proper function of protecting the Natural Rights of the Individual through the rule of law.

Right now I wonder how many Americans believe it is more proper for the Federal government to create it’s own health insurance plans and then force everyone to purchase them, than it is to secure our national borders.

The issue is rather interesting to me because many who have in years passed claimed “they still read” apparently still do not comprehend, for the very same people who misinterpret the US Constitution’s so called “Welfare Clause” are now doing likewise with the “Defense Clause”.

The US Constitution Preamble clearly states:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, *provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare*, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Notice the section, “provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare”.

For decades the so called “Welfare Clause” has been misinterpreted to mean, *provide for specific welfare*, which is of course something entirely different from what it plainly says.

This legal error has been used by the collectivist “left” (and embraced by the collectivist “right”) to have the STATE interfere in the once free — and affordable — markets of medicine and health care, violating both the US Constitution and our unalienable Natural Right to Medical Freedom.  In doing so “BIG PHARMA”, or the “Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex”, was created and healthcare costs began to skyrocket.

Now, the same collectivist “left” is misinterpreting “provide for the common defense”, as erroneously meaning *promote common vulnerability”.  Because by calling for absolutely no immigration vetting process they desire to render our national borders largely defenseless and We the People vulnerable.

Are these people willingly ignoring the fact that some percentage — 5%?… 1%? — of Muslim immigrants have potential ties to, or are directly involved with, one of the various known Muslim terrorists groups?  One would appear ludicrous to be against some kind of vetting process that might catch a few potentially dangerous individuals.

Let’s also consider all the various American immigrants who have spent both monty and time — in fact years of their lives going through a painstakingly long legal process involving background checks and medical history.  If so called “liberals” and “progressives” truly desire “fairness” and “equality” as they so often claim, why would they desire to treat immigrants so unfairly?

Sure, the American immigration system is in dire need of reform, but so is every other area of this corrupted Neo-Amerikan government.  Let’s pursue full reform of government in all branches and at all levels rather than continue in selectively enforcing poor legislation.

But besides considering such simple logistics of reality which all nations must address, does the collectivist “left” not comprehend the difference between the words “promote” and “provide”?  Further, do these apparently confused people not even recognize the fact that nations have borders, and that it is the proper function of government to secure those borders?

If we libertarians didn’t have actual principles, we could also twist the US Constitution according to our own personal whims by asserting that, “provide for the common defense”, means our personal firearms should be purchased by public funding.

Not only is the so called “tolerant” and political “left” entirely out to lunch regarding all these facts, these collectivists who are likening Trump to Hitler are playing the hypocritical fool because factually, Hitlary Clinton is FAR more like Hitler — she is the one who wants to disarm Americans EXACTLY as Hitler disarmed the Jews in Nazi Germany!  (Such is why I call her “Hitlary”.)

Perhaps most amazing in all this insanity is witnessing how effective the century-long mass indoctrination of Collectivism has been in causing the deceived masses to follow after these modern day false prophets, aka: the mainstream media.

Let us recognize the mainstream for what it’s always been — a wide and deceptive gate which leads the collectivist masses unto utter destruction.


bernard baruch carman
* * *
- truth seeker/seeder • SeedsOfTruth.org • ∞Liberty
infinityGAMES ∞ SmokinGames ~ audio/Mac specialist

∞ ∞ ∞

Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Individualism in Early America

FB thread post:

I read on Facebook a lot of empty bravado calling anyone who isn't a Trump supporter a whiney sore loser or "cry baby liberal pansy" or worse. I don't think these types of self-satisfied people are prepared for the pushback taking place. When people see their very idea of Democracy threatened it awakens something. We will allow a plutocracy to prevail and push women & minorities back to the 50s over our cold. dead. bodies.

Noam Chomsky: With Trump Election, We Are Now Facing Threats to the Survival of the Human Species

My initial reply:

These guys, along with "Democracy Now" are nothing but a bunch of Collectivists who are perfectly fine with tyranny -- tyranny is what Collectivism breeds.

Where were their criticisms of the Obama administration when it bailed out the massive banking corporations in the exact manner as did the Bush administration?

Where is their criticism of the Obama administration when he signed the NDAA of 2012 which legalized rendition?

Where is their criticism of the Obama administration which also just declared CBD to be "non-medicinal" and now a schedule 1 drug?

Why are seemingly intelligent people championing such anti-liberty actions of Collectivists on "both sides" of the false political paradigm?

Why worry about what Trump *might* do when these Collectivists have no regard for all the evils of past administrations?

This all just seems like total insanity to me. After all, it's the Hillary supporters who had been rioting and destroying the private property of other individuals.

I cannot take anything these Collectivists have to say seriously due to their blatant hypocrisy.

I find it very sad that the masses continue to worship the STATE rather than stand up against such tyranny.

Philosophy - Natural Rights Coalition

FB thread poster reply:

Can you give an example when your vision on non-"collectivism" has been implemented?

My reply:

I will gladly try to answer your question while at risk of being lengthy in doing so.  8-)

Even if I could not give such examples of how the Philosophy of Individualism has been implemented at the founding of America’s Civil Law through the honoring and protection of our Natural Rights, it wouldn’t justify the hypocrisy these collectivists exemplify in only criticizing one side of the partisan duopoly for such violations of our Natural Rights.

And please don’t misunderstand, I am equally as critical of so called “Conservatives” when they act likewise hypocritical.

My point is that the masses continue to listen to hypocritical collectivists who are deceiving them into believing that only the other so called “side” of the false political “left-right” dichotomy is tyrannical.  Call them fascists or socialists, they are all collectivists.  And by definition of their chosen philosophy, they do not honor the unalienable Natural Rights of the individual.

The Philosophy of Individualism has been implemented in America's Civil Law from the onset, albeit imperfectly — certainly, slavery in America was hypocritical to our founding documents.  However, it should also be noted that pre-Civil War America’s slavery population was ~13%.  Compare that to the present situation whereby nearly everyone has become “wage” slaves of the STATE.  It’s supposed to be the other way around.  the STATE is supposed to be our servant.

Natural Rights principles are what our entire founding documents were created upon.  They are what Jefferson penned as being "self-evident” in the Declaration of Independence.

Examples of Individualism in America’s onset include:

• Natural Right of health care freedom: the STATE didn’t violate or engage in the private free market of medical care and medicine (i.e.: the STATE waged no selective drug wars, so people were free to choose drug remedies by their own free will); the STATE didn’t force out of business or out of the country medical scientists who provided remedies that had a proven track record of success for people’s ailments; the STATE didn’t mandate uncontrolled dosing of the masses through their water supplies of chemicals proven to be toxic; etc…

• Innocence until proven guilty: the STATE used to honor this principle, yet there are a myriad of instances where individuals are treated as guilty until proven innocent; tyrannical acts such as rendition were not practiced by the STATE (while rendition had been likely practiced illegally by previous administrations for perhaps decades, it has only been recently legalized by the most recent administration as previously noted).

• Natural Right of property & privacy: there was never originally a so called “income” tax in America; the founders mandated such direct taxes to be illegal, for it was self-evident that every individual had the right to the fruit of his/her own labor AND the right to keep one’s personal affairs private; the STATE didn’t engage in “civil asset forfeiture”; the STATE didn’t engage in massive general spying on its citizens; the STATE never prohibited gardening or farming on one’s own property.

• Natural Right to self-defense: the STATE didn’t violate violate one’s Natural Right of self-defense by prohibiting or interfering with individual armament (in fact, it was militias of individuals who volunteered to fight in the Revolutionary War in order to maintain this paramount Natural Right… now, such collectivists I criticize desire to entirely disarm Americans who have not violated the Natural Rights of others, thus another example of guilty until proven innocent).

• Natural Right to free market commerce and private contract: the STATE didn’t initially control or manipulate currency, nor did it infringe upon free market commerce; private individuals were free to engage — or NOT engage — in their private business with others according to their own free will and without ANY STATE intervention whatsoever; business licenses didn’t initially exist because it was self-evident that individuals have the Natural Right to profit and therefore survive; marriage licenses didn’t originally exist — marriage is not only a private matter, but also one of CHURCH rather than STATE… remember “separation of CHURCH & STATE”?  ;-)

[noteworthy: a “license” or “permit” means that the STATE is asserting it’s authority over the individual — as “master” — giving the license/permit bearer *permission* to do something that the individual doesn’t have the Natural Right to already do.]

We could go on about how far more tyrannical America has become since its Individualistic leaning onset, resultant of embracing Collectivist principles.  But basically, if one wasn’t violating the Natural Rights of anyone else, the STATE at most all levels didn’t interfere in the private lives of individuals.

… That was the original concept anyway, and I submit that these principles define libertarianism, however, definitely not according to the Libertarian Party.  The LP is largely divided by libertarians, and anarchists who call themselves “libertarians”.  There are also anarchists who call themselves “voluntarists” (or some form thereof), no doubt hoping to make their false ideology sound more alluring to the ignorant.

However, by contrast libertarians understand that if no one ever violated the Natural Rights of anyone else, there would be no need for government at all, and therefore, anarchy could actually work.  We also realize that this is a fantasy.

We who live in the real world of human society, and are of sound mind, acknowledge that some people will always violate the Natural Rights of others.  Therefore, limited government having the primary if not sole function of protecting the Natural Rights of ALL individuals is necessary for a society whose goal is to maximize peace, prosperity, and liberty for ALL.

But I have digressed…

Of course, maintaining a libertarian leaning republic didn’t last long.  Government continued to wax corrupted and powerful, thus a new tyranny was born and since fostered by the advance and then mass indoctrination of Collectivist philosophy.

I’m very glad you asked me this question, because just taking this time to exemplify some of the various ways tyranny has grown in America is helping to encourage me in my goal of fleshing out the www.NaturalRightsCoalition.com website, especially to address various Natural Rights violations by the US Government at all levels and offer practical solutions that end all such violations.

I truly believe that Natural Rights principles, which are all also rooted in the “Golden Rule” shared by many cultures of commoners throughout all of human history, are unifying rather than dividing.  And right now, there is only growing division in “Neo-Amerika”… and that’s not sustainable — Untied We Stand, Divided We Fall.


bernard baruch carman
* * *

infinityGAMES ∞ SmokinGames ~ audio/Mac specialist
∞ ∞ ∞

one Chris responded:

Chomsky critical of bank bailouts: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/20467-noam-chomsky-interview

Chomsky critical of NDAA: https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/noam-chomsky-on-the-ndaa-the-u-s-constitution-is-being-scrapped/

Chomsky on medical marijuana: https://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/noam-chomsky-talks-the-truth-on-marijuana/

Chomsky critical, in general of Obama and Clinton: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/244731-noam-chomsky-obama-is-an-opportunist

one Nancy responded:

Democracy Now has hosted plenty of guests who criticized Obama for the bank bail-outs, for increased prosecutions for cannabis, for deportations, wiretapping, and rendition – among many other perceived violations of civil liberties. It’s fair to say that it has been the crux of its reporting throughout the last eight years. 

The collectivist vs. natural rights debate is constructed on straw men. Any civilization, but especially one with a population in excess of 324 million people (in the US), requires organization – which entails planning, management and arbitration for collective interests. Even in a micro unit as small as a family, individual rights and interests are compromised for the shared welfare. 

Especially after reading “Dark Money,” I’m pretty much convinced that the ‘freedom movement’ – at least as it relates to libertarian ideals – is a cover for greed. It’s no ideology; it’s authoritarian pathology.

my lengthy reply:

thank you again Chris for sharing those links where Chomsky rightly criticized a few Democrats, proving that he doesn’t just criticize Republicans.  i admit that i need to do better in the area of giving credit where credit is due.  perhaps DN does strive to hold both so called “sides” accountable, at least on occasion.

i have definitely signed more than one petition that Democracy Now has distributed in the past.  however, i have also seen DN solicit petitions that ran entirely contrary to Natural Rights principles, and i therefore eventually unsubscribed from their newsletters.  and while i didn’t take time to watch the video of Chomsky, i didn’t notice in the article where he criticizes Obama and Clinton any specific mention of Natural Rights violations.

from my perspective, it seems that both DN and Chomsky — and really the general masses — do not seem to have an objective set of principles upon which their perceived ideology stands firm upon and in truth.  this is why i elected to respond to the initial post of this thread by Davyne, although i admit i was perhaps slightly abrasive in my initial post.  it has not been easy for me to overcome my personal anger issues regarding losing my entire livelihood and life long nest egg resultant from local Collectivism and hypocrisy, but i’m working on it.

consider that no one can justly make up laws according to their own personal whims and desires, or selectively pass into “law” that which will benefit their own cronies rather than everyone.  we libertarians have the same kind of disdain over the practice of “crony capitalism” (which is certainly NOT free market capitalism), as we do for any form of collectivist ideologies (Socialism, Communism, Fascism, etc.).  “crony capitalism” is yet one more form of Collectivism because it inherently violates the Natural Right to be treated as equals under Civil Law.

through the gradual adoption of various elements from these collectivist ideologies in our American Civil Law, the masses have been hoodwinked into believing that we can only choose from two so called “sides” of the false “left/liberal - right/conservative” political landscape dominated by a partisan duopoly for far too long.  We the People have the means to put an end to this partisan domination, but we cannot do so without first breaking free from this collectivist deception while considering the re-implementation into our Civil Law, Natural Rights principles rooted in Individualism.

Nancy, you make assertions such as "collectivist vs. [individualism, and/or] natural rights debate is constructed on straw men".  i’m curious as to what particular examples i have already shared above that you find to be constructed on a false argument.  do you believe that individuals have free will and self-ownership, or that they don’t?

you use the phrase "perceived violations of civil liberties”.  for many years i have found it interesting that when we hear the media speak of “rights” it most often uses the phrase “civil rights”.

there is a major difference between Natural Rights and Civil Rights, as well as Natural Law VS Civil Law — Natural Rights are an extension of Natural Law which pre-exists civil government, while Civil Rights are an extension of Civil Law which is created by civil government.

i submit that the reason we don’t hear the media reference Natural Law or Natural Rights is because there has been an agenda for a very long time to advance Collectivist indoctrination, which has been occurring from *both* the so called political “left” and “right”.  this indoctrination process begins at a very young age through the government school system, and continues through adulthood through mass media.

anyone who doesn’t believe this can simply focus on one media talking point issue at a time, compare and contrast the views of the opposing sides being presented, and then ask oneself if there are any other potential solutions to the issue.

for example, same sex marriage debates by the partisan duopoly rarely include any other option other than STATE interference and infringement upon the Natural Right to Private Contract.  massive collectivist indoctrination of the public has caused the masses to forget that the STATE has no authority interfering in private contracts, and likewise that the institution of marriage is not only a private matter but also one of CHURCH rather than STATE.

the answer to this controversial issue is simple — get the STATE out of the equation entirely as it should be.  not every issue is as simple, but in general the STATE should never violate ANY Natural Right of the individual.  if we could just accomplish this, ALL Americans would enjoy a massive increase in peace, prosperity, and liberty… and thus, we would all be able to more easily and happily live and let live.

but let us not be so gullible to think this false partisan dichotomy we have been taught to believe is not by design in order to continue the ever growing great divide between Americans.  United We Stand, Divided We Fall is a true ancient adage; its very concept is fundamental to Sun Tzu’s “Art of War”.  we would be wise to heed such wisdom, especially in light of the present state in which we find ourselves as a society.

for the Philosophy of Collectivism to be adopted, the principles upon which Natural Rights are built must be obfuscated.  followers of the collectivist philosophy must be willing to abandon their individual free will and self-ownership, for servitude to the STATE.  the most popular argument has been that doing so is for the so called “greater good”.

however, once freed from the indoctrination of Collectivism we have been under for most of our lives, we who cherish our individual sovereignty now understand that we have not willingly given it up to the STATE — it has been usurped through the use of force by the very same STATE that by law is supposed to be protecting our individual sovereignty.

Civil Law implementation of Individualism and Natural Law through the protection of unalienable individual Natural Rights does not prohibit organization.  in fact, the organization into Civil Law of such principles is paramount to the maximizing of peace, prosperity, and liberty.  the majority of the problems we face as a society are resultant from the STATE violating Natural Rights of the individual resultant from pandering to collective (or *special*) interests.

regardless what personal whims of collectivist partisans who disregard individual sovereignty and free will have managed to get passed into “law” though bribery, favor, or some other form of corruption in the Legislature, it’s not within the authority of the STATE to infringe upon the private lives of individuals — ANY and ALL such Civil Law which violates Natural Law, and individual Natural Rights by extension, is illegal.

if Democracy Now is actually being critical of the various issues cited in this thread, then it should be explaining the real reason *why*.  it should know that these matters are in direct violation of our Natural Rights which do not originate from any STATE.  We the People should all know and understand this fundamental truth.  however, and again, we have been deceived by collectivist indoctrination to forget such true principles.

further, Natural Law and Individualism does not prohibit welfare.  however, welfare should never be used as an excuse to violate the Natural Rights of anyone.  welfare itself should always be a function of charity, which can really only be voluntary.  although, while some may erroneously believe the use of force equates to charity, this concept obviously adopts a perverse form of reasoning.

therefore, whatever tax/welfare system we construct in our Civil Law should never engage in theft.  rather, we should implement a tax/welfare system that is voluntary, not forced.  while such a task seems daunting, based upon at least one tax structure concept i’ve been reading about, i’m convinced it is possible.

i find it interesting that you have concluded the so called “freedom movement” relating to your present understanding of “libertarian ideals” to be a cover for greed.

i am quick to admit that the so called “freedom movement” and even “Libertarianism” by various so called self-prescribed “authorities” has been corrupted in like manner as other political movements.  segments of these freedom or liberty movements have been for quite sometime hijacked by anarchists, while others by so called “progressives” and “neo-cons”.  such is why i have been working on establishing an accurate standard of principles for what libertarianism truly is, and what it is not, through NaturalRightsCoalition.com.

so in focusing more specifically upon specific principles, please help me understand how any of the points i included in my short bulleted list of Individualism examples in early America have anything whatsoever to do with any concept of greed.  further, which principles on the NRC website do you feel are rooted in greed, and why?

please also consider that greed is largely subjective, for everyone has varying views as to what being greedy really is.  it is impossible to construct a just and sustainable legal system of Civil Law in a society upon subjective ideas like greed, for example.  we must always seek objective standards rather than subjective ones when dealing in law.

regardless, if you're going to criticize those motivated by greed, then you must certainly criticize those who engage in and protect the political establishment’s banking scheme which has been in place since 1913.  consider that almost no US administration since has sought to audit or expose the Federal Reserve banking system... except JFK and we know where that tragically got him.

also regarding greed, consider that greed and theft are associatively relative to one another.  the ideology of libertarianism rooted in the Philosophy of Individualism that i am advancing through the honoring and protection of Natural Rights by society’s Civl Law, specifically does not allow for theft because individuals have the Natural Right to property.  conversely, the adoption of Collectivist ideologies in our Civil Law does allow and even attempts to justify theft… and again, for the so called “greater good”.

for those who seem to entirely disagree with the concept that Natural Rights principles must be implemented in Civil Law for peace, prosperity, and liberty to be maximized in a society, i must question such a rationale and solicit an alternative concept that could do likewise which is not rooted in the Philosophy of Collectivism.


Wednesday, October 28, 2015

How Socialism Destroyed My Livelihood

Detailed Summary of The Murray House Saga at 191 Cumberland Ave

In 1988, I purchase the historic Murray House at 191 Cumberland Ave in a near-condemned state as a restoration project using the 8 bedrooms as rental in order to finance the restoration.  The property’s 1977 R3 zoning had no prohibitions against “boarding houses”, non-retail businesses, and B&B’s.

While the historic site needed much work in order to complete the restoration, I viewed the property as a good investment seeing how there were such a variety of property use options,  while I could simultaneously offer very affordable housing in a green living environment, as well as making a valuable contribution to the Montford Community in restoring an old historic home to a condition it hadn’t seen for several decades.

I thought after restoring it I might perhaps sell it to someone interested in opening it as a B&B, as it would have been perfect for this use.  In addition, I also wound up operating a small computer consulting business out of it between 1988 and 1995, bringing a variety of local print & design businesses like Biltmore Press & Daniels Graphics up to speed with current electronic publishing technology.

Until my financial hardship in 2010, throughout the entire process of this long term restoration project I had never missed nor been late on any mortgage payment and I never went in debt on the project beyond what I could afford.

In mid-2010, I was informed by the City of AVL that by using all 8 bedrooms for tenants I was in violation of a city ordinance which wasn’t created until the passage of the 1997 UDO (Unified Development Ordinance) — about a decade after I purchased my home — which prohibited “boarding houses” in the redefined zoned areas in Asheville (my R3 became RS8).

Under threat of an unreasonably exorbitant fine of $100/day, I was told by the City that I would have to kick out 3 of my renters to comply with its ordinance.  When I questioned “grandfathering” or “Use by Right”, City representatives told me that this was not an option, even though I had been using my home for what they consider a “boarding house” for 22 years since 1988.  So while I had later discovered that I had the civil right to be “grandfathered”, the City representatives deceitfully convinced me otherwise.

Further, I discovered that in 1998 a short clause was added to the UDO which instituted a 500’ proximity restriction for B&B’s.  I was never notified of this property use rights “taking” without compensation by the City (Fifth Amendment violation; also a 14th Amendment violation for unequal protection and enforcement of law).  Thus again greatly devalued my property.  By comparison, Carolina B&B next door (much smaller house & property) sold for $1.1M in 2009, at the height of the mortgage bubble burst.  Even after market bounce back and again began to thrive, my property was only appraised for ~$800k due to the UDO B&B restriction, and for which I never received compensation.

All these actions thus far exemplify at least several rights violations by the City of Asheville:
1. violation of my natural right to privacy;
2. deceitful denial of my civil right of “Use by Right”, or “grandfathering”;
3. Fifth Amendment violation — “boardinghouse” property use rights taking (thus devaluing my property) without compensation;
4. Fifth Amendment violation — B&B property use rights taking (thus devaluing my property) without compensation (Fifth Amendment violation);
5. Fourteenth Amendment violation — unequal protection and enforcement of law.

In spite of explaining to City representatives that my compliance with newly adopted codes would prevent my ability of making my mortgage payments due to such a drastic reduction in my monthly income risking default on my mortgage note and foreclosure of my property, under duress of a $100/day fine, on Dec of 2010 I complied with the City kicking out 3 tenants, and then continued in my attempts to work with the City in seeking a zoning variance/modification by following its instructions.

The City led me into a course of action seeking a zoning change it claimed would remedy the so called “violation” dependent upon the investigative site plan by a local landscape architect, whom I was supposed to hire.  After spending ~$1500 on all this, the landscape architect found that my property would in fact qualify for the new RM11 zoning regulations after a few thousand dollars worth of shrub & tree planting.  However, when he went to present his final site plan before this very same committee which instructed this very course of action and worked with him directly on the plan for some time, both he and I were shocked and infuriated when told that this course in which we were instructed to follow was not an option because of the B&B next door.  The committee knew this fact from the onset because this was one of the primary reasons I had been seeking a zoning variance/modification to being with.  It then became blatantly obvious that the City representatives deceitfully lured me into an expensive plan which it had never intended to approve.

In the weeks leading up to Dec of 2010, I had already approached a few mortgage lending sources, including the so called “HAMP/HARP” services, as well as Wachovia/Wells Fargo (who held my mortgage note) about seeking help with a loan modification of some kind which would allow me to prevent defaulting on my mortgage loan.  Thinking it to be rational, my goal was to avoid any chance of default by addressing the matter ahead of time.  I was instructed by these various groups that due to my never missing any payments, I would have to be at least two months behind on my mortgage payments before any lender would even consider helping me with a loan modification.

Also, among the myriad of advertisements regarding loan mods due to the “bank bailouts”, I also heard about a law firm in CA called K2 Law who was advertising for their “mass joinder” (class action type of suit) explaining how many loans that were made in the 2000’s were done so using fraudulent methods of transfer.

Upon contacting K2 Law, I was led to believe that my loan fell into this category.  Upon paying their retainer of $5000, I was told that the worst case expected from this mass joinder settlement would be 80% loan to value @ 2% fixed rate (which would have been around ~$1200/month (plus taxes & insurance) — this would have been certainly doable should I continue to be restricted by the City to have only 4 or 5 renters.  I was also told by K2 Law that it would also handle possible loan mod negotiations with Wachovia/Wells Fargo, should anything occur other than success of the suit.

Noteworthy: both the representatives of Wachovia/Wells Fargo (among others) and K2 Law advised me to stop paying my mortgage payments.  While I was merely following the instruction of those from whom I sought advice, my compliance with the City in kicking out 3 renters prohibited my being able to continue making my payments regardless.

The first half of 2011 mostly consisted of periodic communication with my K2 Law representation, all the time being reassured they were handling various communications with Wachovia/Wells Fargo during this time — and I recall, they were.  At some point mid 2011, the case had been advanced from district to federal court.  It was explained to me that the case was moving forward as predicted.

Late Summer 2011 I was notified by the CA State BAR that K2 Law was under investigation for “breaking advertising rules”.  Out of concern, I asked my K2 Law rep if this would in any way interfere with or hinder the suit and my case — I was told “no”.  Shortly thereafter, all communication from K2 Law ceased.  I attempted to contact Phillip A. Kramer (K2’s primary attorney) directly, but was only given contact info from the CA BAR for the legal firm representing his defense — I never heard back from them.  I later discovered that Phillip A. Kramer would soon be disbarred and our mass joinder case dismissed.  I applied for reimbursement of my retainer through the CA BAR jumping through a myriad of bureaucratic hoops, and then waited until October of 2015 only to discover that out of the $5000 retainer for doing absolutely nothing, I was reimbursed $375.  I can only wonder what the CA State BAR did with all that extorted money.

Communications ceased from K2 by Fall of 2011, and I then received a foreclosure sale date letter from Wells Fargo, who had apparently by that time completed the purchase of Wachovia through one of the bank “bailouts”.  I then sought new legal defense.  By Jan 2012, I hired SoboleskI Law, a local firm specializing in foreclosure who was able to stop the foreclosure proceedings and represent me regarding this matter with Wells Fargo.

SoboleskI Law spent the beginning of 2012 becoming acquainted with the history of all that had occurred thus far as well as investigating the legitimacy of the WF mortgage note.  Although their investigation concluded that the origination of the note and its two transfers (from World Bank, to Wachovia, to Wells Fargo) was supposedly “above board”, I continue to have my doubts due to it being a negative amortization loan, as well as the time period in which it had originated.  “Bad mortgage loans” were being uncovered during this time at an alarming rate.

Around mid Spring of 2012 we finally entered the long awaited loan modification application process with Wells Fargo that I wanted before I ever defaulted.  Most of this process was spent waiting for Wells Fargo to reply after all the data was submitted for the application.

It was June 25, 2012 before WF responded having denied the loan mod.  However, when Jane SoboleskI notified me of this news she was happy, because according to WF the figure they gave us was less than $300/mo shy of loan mod qualification.  Were were told by WF that if I could attain and prove just a bit of additional monthly income, it would re-consider the loan mod decision.

Around that time my employer, Sunspots Productions, was in the process of losing an engineer so I soon began getting more hours.  I also began getting some additional side work in a local event hall called The Altamont.  Further, I added one more tenant increasing the number to 5 (an option for an alternative plan the City had also mentioned) and increased the rent to $500/mo.  All this surpassed the targeted ~$300/mo target goal by more than double.

By Fall of 2012 I began showing this increase of monthly income via reporting check stubs and bank statements through Soboleski Law as instructed by WF.  By Dec of 2012, I was ready for reapplication after at least three months of increased proof of income.  Laura Ceva, of SoboleskI Law, was at that point handling my case and sending all monthly follow-up reporting of my documents to WF.  Her attempts of getting WF to address the new numbers were met with silence for months as we continued the process as instructed by WF.

On April 24, 2013 my attorney, Laura, was finally contacted by the WF attorney who said WF was now unwilling to consider me for a loan mod because I had applied before and been denied.  Laura immediately responded with a letter stating she was very confused by this considering the loan mod process thus far.  She also explained that I had taken steps based on these representations over the last year in anticipation of successfully reapplying for the loan mod, especially resultant from the most recent statements by WF, and that I would have certainly chosen a different route upon the loan mod denial of June 25, 2012 (nearly a year previously) if I was told then that WF would deny any reapplication for the loan mod, rather than it saying the opposite of merely attaining a bit more more monthly income.  She further stated that I should have been informed upon WF’s hiring of counsel of this fact, or at least when she requested info regarding using some new reapplication forms in Jan & Feb 2013 (details in Laura’s letter to WF).

Laura also stated that I was at that time poised to file suit against WF for violations of NC’s Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices Statute §75-1.1 along with other equitable and injunctive remedies pursuant to North Carolina General Statute §45-21.34.  Although she further explained in her letter that WF’s actions have been substantially injurious to me, she also stated that I continued to desire another review for modification at this time (again, details are in her letter).

After a short time she heard back from the WF attorney stating that WF will again consider a loan mod, but that we would have to begin all over again from the start of the application process.  We did so and later heard back from WF that my loan mod was again denied and gave no reason.  When Laura pressed for the reason for denial, WF said that my monthly debt-to-income ratio still didn’t qualify but gave no specific numbers.  And of course at this point, an entire year had passed since the first denial, so WF was now able to increase the arrears by at least double, plus added fines.

I had already known that such actions by various banks — including WF — whereby loan mod application processes are drawn out while giving hope to the homeowner of success to the point where the lending institution can more easily deny the modification, making it appear that it actually had intentions on helping the homeowner.  I just didn’t think such fraud was so easily possible within the American Justice system while having legal representation.

Upon consultation with both Jane and Laura of Soboleski Law, it was decided at that point (July of 2013) the best way to stop the foreclosure proceeding WF had apparently intended all along, was to seek bankruptcy defense while simultaneously bringing suit against WF for the previously mentioned violations of NC Law.  The hope was still to seek a loan mod as settlement to this lengthy plight.

I then discovered Oliver Max Garner Law in Shelby, who apparently had a good reputation in mortgage dealings, and especially with fraudulent actions of banks during these “bailouts”.  However, since he was apparently very sick, his cases were being handled by Kerry Lowery, and she began the Chapter 13 application process.  While Soboleski Law had prepared to handle the suit side of the case, Kerry told me that she would handle it.

Beginning in Aug 2013, I began making payments as prescribed by the Federal Bankruptcy Court in Asheville starting at $4200/mo, and then in Jan 2014 increasing to $4900/mo — I had not missed any payments.  In order to afford such payments, it was only at this point that I had to fill the remaining empty rooms back up in my house.  Regardless, WF objected to the Chapter 13 plan.  Within its objection documents I found inaccurate information regarding various pieces of data.

Due to apparent personal sickness, Kerry had continued the scheduled court hearings a few times.  I continued to follow her advice in coming up with some fallback plans, so I listed my lake property lot with my realtor.  When she asked about selling my house, I explained that I just didn’t want to rush the sale as the real estate market continued to improve.  However, I decided in December to list my house on a WNC FSBO listing service for my planned asking price of $1M, in case I might attract a buyer before reaching settlement with WF.

When we finally met again at the Federal Court for the rescheduled hearing early Feb 2014, she began to change her tune in regard to the potential of my suit’s success against WF.  It was the first I heard of this.  She said it was “difficult to prove intent”, to which I wondered what proving “intent” had to do with proving damages resultant of fraud — if a mugger murders someone in the process of committing larceny, shall he be absolved of murder because he didn’t intend it?  Besides, in this case intent should not be all that difficult to prove beyond damages seeing how WF, among other banks, have been telling people as a standard practice they have to be two months behind in default prior to considering a loan modification, then dragging the process out and denying them.

Regardless, she suggested we make a settlement offer to WF of dispensing with the bankruptcy plan to which it objected, make a $50,000 payment that would cover all claimed arrears (~$115k) and bring the note current, upon which I would continue in the loan payments, and we would not pursue the suit dropping all claims against WF.

Upon conveying our offer, the WF attorney implied she might be bluffing about the suit to which Kerry responded, “If I say I’m going to initiate the suit — I’m going to do it!”  The WF attorney said she would take our offer back to WF.  Kerry thought it was a reasonable offer and that she would be surprised if WF turned down.

Later Kerry told me that she was told by the WF attorney, Julie B. Pape, that WF was never going to grant me a loan modification because of my “not being in compliance with the City codes.”  This was of course a lie, as the entire reason I was in default was because I complied with the tyrannous demands of the City of Asheville.  I wondered just how long WF had taken this position while it was having me jump through the hoops of its loan mod application process.  Also noteworthy, if WF had been telling the truth regarding my being only ~$300/month shy of it approving a loan mod qualification in June of 2012, I would have been able to make the monthly payments while continuing in compliance with the City.

I waited a couple weeks before writing Kerry to ask if she had heard back anything.  She responded saying she would imagine we would not hear a reply so quickly.  I continued to wait for another few weeks and asked again, but she told me she had still yet to hear any reply.

She also asked me if my lake property had sold yet.  I explained that the lake lot selling season had not even yet begun, but that I listed it for its assessed tax value of $100k late in 2013 — I reminded her that I didn’t wish to lose money by such a fast sale and that I would rather come up with the $50k settlement offer in other ways.  She said I should drop the price and sell it fast in case because we should have all the money ready immediately should WF accept our offer — this was the first I heard of this plan, but I contacted my real estate agent and reduced the lot listing price to $75k.

I later asked her that since our offer doesn’t include continuing in the Chapter 13 application process to which WF objected, then I should be able to use all the money currently in escrow with the Ch13 trustee I had paid toward these ends, which was ~$30k (minus Kerry’s and the trustee’s legal fees) and then only have to come up with ~$20-30k more, which I might be able to do with the help of friends/investors.  She gave me some convoluted answer which meant no sense whatsoever to me.  I tried to ignore and not worry about it, yet it continued to bother me.

I continued to wait for a reply about our settlement offer to WF.  As of Thursday, May 1, I also decided to list my house in the MLS directory.  Also on this date, I received an email from Kerry stating that WF had sent a counter offer to her office on April 7, but her secretary failed to forward it to her.  She gave me the overview of their counter offer which is a bad offer, considering all of the circumstances leading up to this point in this entire matter beginning in 2011.

·         The Debtor will pay $5,000 per month into his plan with Wells Fargo receiving its regular monthly payments out of that amount. *
·         The Debtor will have one month to pay $50,000 to Wells Fargo to be applied against the arrearage.    
·         The Debtor will release any and all claims against Wells Fargo. 
·         The Debtor will have six months to sell the real property comprising Wells Fargo’s collateral and pay off Wells Fargo in full, including the remainder of the arrearage claim.  The Debtor must take affirmative steps to sell the property, including but not limited to engaging an agent and listing the Property on the MLS by a date certain. 
·         In the meantime, the Debtor will make his regular monthly payments due under the Note to Wells Fargo either through a chapter 13 plan or independently.
·         If the Debtor misses any monthly payment or the total payment due at the end of the six-month period and does not cure the default within 30 days, Wells Fargo shall be entitled to immediately commence or reconvene foreclosure proceedings without seeking relief from stay or taking any other action.

She also stated:

“It appears we will not be able to work them toward any solution other than sale of the house.  My initial impression is that you would be better off to dismiss the bankruptcy, take back the money you have paid into the case and then let them foreclose.  The only reason we would offer the $50,000 is for settlement of the arrears and continuation of the loan under its current terms.  I have a phone call scheduled with their attorney on Monday at 1pm.  Let’s talk about this before then.”

I was of course shocked at her apparent recent decision to forego the suit against WF that she said she would do for me from the onset.  She didn’t even suggest anything other than giving up and giving WF my home of 25 years after all this.

I sent her my reply stating that I would like to reply to WF with a reasonable settlement counter offer:

$50,000 + ~$30,000 (in Ch13 trust) = $80,000 — this $80k payment settles all claimed arrears & fines (~$115k) and brings current mortgage to current (immediate payment of the ~$30k trust, 90 days of the $50k payment).
~$485,000 balance remains on the same bad neg-amoritization Note; terminate the unfinished Chapter 13 application process to which WF objected; the Debtor will make his regular monthly payments due under the Note to Wells Fargo.
The Debtor will release any and all claims against Wells Fargo.
If the Debtor misses any monthly payment for the duration of the Note and does not cure the default within 30 days, Wells Fargo shall be entitled to immediately commence or reconvene foreclosure proceedings without seeking relief from stay or taking any other action.

Upon pleading along such lines via emails over the days to follow, she responded on Sunday, May 4:

I wish I had an answer to what you are going through but with this recent “offer” I’m afraid the options are now limited.  I will call you tomorrow to discuss.  I think it is time to consider dismissal of the case and surrender of the house.

I was further infuriated.

Then I received a phone call at work from Kerry on Monday, May 5.  She told me for the first time that there was a hearing scheduled for the next morning Tuesday, May 6 in which I would probably have to speak before the judge, explaining how I believe I was wronged.  I had little time to prepare, as this was the first I heard about the hearing date.  In fact, a similar thing happened with regard to the Feb hearing date — I received a phone call around 8AM that morning from Kerry informing me the hearing was happening at 9:30AM that morning.

Still in shock, as I continued to ponder over all that had recently occurred over the past several months since hiring Kerry, I also wondered why she didn’t even suggest seeking a continuance in order for me to have time to consider the counter “offer” from WF to which I only days prior became privy, or to seek an alternate pathway to settlement.  I decided this was the best plan that I would speak with her about the next morning prior to entering the courtroom.

She called me in the morning to tell me her car broke down leaving Shelby.  I shared with her my idea of continuance for having just been notified, and she agreed.  I then shared with her my great disappointment in her recent change of heart with regard to pursuing suit against WF in hopes of getting the arrears reduced and fines dropped, along with sharing how I would have spent around $15,000 in legal fees since all this began yet feeling no closer to a resolve.  She said that while she attempted to help me, she felt as though I was not satisfied with her representation and offered to withdraw and she would waive her legal fees — it wasn’t until sometime in the beginning of 2015 that she claimed she never made this offer and expected full payment in spite of her utter negligence and deceit in representation.

She decided it was not necessary for her to come to the hearing, and I went before the bankruptcy judge by myself requesting a continuance to consider the WF offer and alternate options for settlement, as well as seek new counsel to represent and advise me at this point.  He granted 15 days and set up the continued hearing for May 20.

Over these months I had been sharing much of this with a friend of mine, Dan Rosenthal, who has been living in Historic Montford over the past few years.  He and his wife had been looking for another Montford property with more house and yard space for their two growing daughters.  They had been considering the possibility of purchasing my house, and became more serious about doing so.

Although I had longed to sell my investment property of 26 years for at least market value (~$800k), the City forcing me into a literal nightmare in dealing with a crooked lending institution who merely wanted to take my property, along with a couple of dishonest lawyers, had driven me to a point of despair where I no longer felt I had any recourse whatsoever to these various injustices, causing me great financial and emotional damages.  I therefore settled on a sort of unofficial “short sale” of $650 selling price for my property, in order to settle this matter of the outstanding note and finally put an end to this entire ordeal without it being dragged on any longer than it already has by what can be described as nothing more than a bunch of looters.

I then spent another several thousand dollars on hiring yet another bankruptcy lawyer in Asheville, Rod Kight, to handle the settlement proceedings with WF.

During these negotiation proceedings to follow, while WF was being insistent upon its claim of “legal fees” totaling over $40k, plus a host of other frivolous fines and fees, Laura Ceva (formerly of Soboleski Law) came to the rescue by writing yet another letter on my behalf explaining how she viewed a potential lawsuit against WF to be successful for now being able to much more easily show the financial damages I had incurred.  WF then finally agreed to settle for principal plus interest, and withdraw all other claims.  I then agreed to withdraw my various charges against WF.

The house closing occurred on Nov 17, 2014.  I finally saw the proceeds of the sale in June and July of 2015, which were only a fraction of what would have been according to fair market value of the property.

— — —

I have to wonder about the present state of our American system of justice which allows a banking institution to get away with intentional deceit and fraud.  To recap, here is a list of factual events for consideration regarding my dealings with Wells Fargo:

• My attempt to seek a loan modification prior to mortgage default from this publicly bailed-out bank;
• My being told that my payment history was perfect and therefore was not eligible to apply for a loan modification unless I was in at least two months of default;
• My following this advice and proceeding to request for the loan modification application to be considered, yet WF initiated the foreclosure procedure thus forcing me to cover legal fees in order to protect my property rather than simply working with me on a loan modification process;
• My being led to believe WF actually had intention to consider the loan modification once I procured legal counsel — I discovered much later that the WF attorney told my first bankruptcy attorney that while it was supposedly considering a loan mod, it was really not going to ever consider approving one because I was "violating City code", which was false because I had complied with the City's mandate under duress of massive daily fines since December of 2010;
• My attorney and I being told by WF that upon going through my financial data, I would qualify for the loan modification if I could increase my monthly income by ~$300;
• My following this advice by gaining more hours from my employer, gaining additional employment, and adding one additional renter (in accordance with another suggested zoning plan by the City allowing for 5 rather than 4 renters to maintain compliance), thus showing an increase in monthly income of at least $600 (doubling WF’s qualification figure);
• My supplying WF this financial data via my attorney for at least six months as instructed by WF;
• WF dragging out this process for at least six months only to finally respond to my attorney that it decided to foreclose on my property, giving absolutely no reason for doing so and making no mention of the fact that we had been showing the financial data WF requested from me in order to qualify for the loan modification;
• My attorney immediately responding to WF in the 4/29/13 letter which included the following statement:  "Mr. Carman has, in good faith, been ready, willing, and able to submit this application since December 2012 showing, as advised by Wells Fargo’s representatives, additional income.  At this time, Mr. Carman is poised to file suit against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. for violations of North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Statute (N.C. General Statute §75-1.1) along with other equitable and injunctive remedies pursuant to North Carolina General Statute §45-21.34.";
• My continued effort to again follow the instruction of WF, in initiating from scratch the entire loan modification application process, thus dragging on the entire ordeal even further — again, by WF's instruction;
• WF's response, denying my loan application giving no specific reason and ignoring the financial data given which proved monthly income qualification for the loan modification according to the previous statement by WF;
• WF's continued perseverance toward foreclosure in spite of even a legitimate bankruptcy plan to save my property, and in light of WF's attorney's comment regarding WF's intent to deny said loan modification because of non-compliance with the City (which again is a complete falsehood);
• That in spite of this loan modification process being dragged out so long by WF rather than myself, WF insists that I should pay for its own self-induced claimed legal fees;
• That this entire ordeal perfectly exemplifies how in spite of my procuring legal defense, WF and other various banks who capitalized on the publicly funded bank bailouts have likewise victimized homeowners by luring them into a loan modification application process which would be dragged out as long as possible in order to create a financial mountain of debt which cannot be reasonably covered by the homeowner, so that foreclose on their property would ensue;
• That WF cannot even produce the original signed in ink note in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C. § 3-501. PRESENTMENT.) — I have been told by my last bankruptcy attorney that adherence to this law isn’t mandated in NC.. I then must wonder why both creditor and debtor must sign in triplicate three original notes, as opposed to simply signing one and make copies;
• That in spite of my following every procedure and instruction given to me by WF in good faith that it would actually work with me in a loan modification, and after procuring legal defense to ensure WF would not likewise financially victimize me, I have now lost all of the equity I have created in my historic property over 26 years — and in effect, lost my home and investment which I was bequeathed upon the death of my parents;
• That it is deplorable WF can break the law and steal property from homeowners who are supposed to be aided in the taxpayer funded post-mortgage-bubble-burst “bailout” not only with impunity, but can further get away with charging the homeowner its own self-induced “legal fees” in the process.

Worse, I have to wonder about the present state of our American system of government, even to the point where local government itself can get away with deceit and fraud while violating both natural and civil law, including but not limited to:

1. violation of my natural right to privacy;
2. deceitful denial of my civil right of “Use by Right”, or “grandfathering”;
3. Fifth Amendment violation — “boardinghouse” property use rights taking (thus devaluing my property) without compensation;
4. Fifth Amendment violation — B&B property use rights taking (thus devaluing my property) without compensation (Fifth Amendment violation);
5. Fourteenth Amendment violation — unequal protection and enforcement of law.

Should such egregious tyrannical actions be tolerated by a would-be People in a so called “Land of the free, and home of the brave”?

I therefore now seek justice through peaceful and legal recourse for relief of the various damages the City of Asheville has caused me, including but not limited to financial damages (loss of credit, legal fees, short sale loss, and various property value losses) as well as health damages (over four years of extreme stress and depression), as it violated my civil and natural rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution.

bernard b carman
∞ ∞ ∞