September 28, 2016

The Colorado Supreme Court is holding a public hearing on Friday, November 10, 2016 as to proposed amendments to CRCP 120, which Rule governs the initiation and proceedings for non-judicial foreclosures in Colorado. Mr. Barnes’ Firm has been defending CRCP 120 proceedings for over eight years, and has seen first-hand the problems with the existing procedure. Mr. Barnes will be speaking at the meeting as to proposed amendments to the Rule.

The hearing will be held in the Colorado Supreme Court courtroom, 2 East 14th Avenue, 4th Floor, Denver, Colorado on Friday, November 10 beginning at 2:30 p.m. The hearing is open to the public.

Jeff Barnes, Esq.,


September 19, 2016

We have received praises and kudos from those who attended the first in the series of Foreclosure Defense seminars, which was held last Friday in Parsippany, New Jersey. The seminar was attended by attorneys and paralegals who came from Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, with one attendee having come all the way from Tennessee. The seminar was haled as “exceptional, A+, 5 star” and “money well spent”, with the presentation being praised as “thorough and on point, entertaining, and memorable”.

The next seminar is scheduled for Friday, October 14, 2016 in the San Francisco Bay area. Registration may be done by going to the seminar website,

Jeff Barnes, Esq.,


September 12, 2016

Today, FDSeminars has received, from The Florida Bar, formal accreditation for all five of the courses being taught by Jeff Barnes, Esq. at the upcoming Foreclosure Defense Seminars including that scheduled for this Friday, September 16, 2016 in Parsippany, New Jersey. The Florida Bar CLE accreditation confirmation documents will be given to each attorney participant at the seminar. Each course has been accredited for one hour of general CLE credit.

Jeff Barnes, Esq.,


September 11, 2016

Summary judgment was denied to Bank of NY as the claimed “trustee” of a 2005 CWALT (Countrywide) securitization involving America’s Wholesale Lender (AWL) in Sevierville, Tennessee on Friday, September 9, 2016. after extended argument before the Court. Jeff Barnes, Esq. represents the homeowners together with local TN counsel and Tennessee State Representative Andrew Farmer, Esq. Mr. Barnes drafted all of the legal memoranda and argued the case before the Court last Friday.

Both sides had filed Motions for Summary Judgment: the homeowners on the basis that AWL never existed (per the findings of the St. Lucie County, FL Circuit Court in the Dimant  decision), and BNY based on a “blank endorsement” theory. After extensive briefing and argument, the Judge stated: “the issues in this case are greatly disputed. There are issues as to whether the lender existed; who owns and loan; and whether it has been paid off”.

This is a significant victory in multiple respects: it calls into question the alleged “existence” of AWL, which claims in the Deed of Trust to be “a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York” which the Dimant court found not to be true, and in fact determined that AWL never existed at all. One of the significant legal issues is whether a non-existent lender may (a) transfer any interest in the Note and mortgage instrument (here, a DOT) to anyone, and (b) whether a downline transferee may seek to enforce an interest which the original alleged “lender” never had.

Another significant issue is whether the loan has been paid off through credit enhancements, outright insurances, or otherwise (e.g. though a credit default swap), which directly affects BNY’s claim of the alleged amount owed. The homeowners’ expert, former Wall Street securtization professional Richard Kahn, has already testified that there are protections in place to pay in the event of borrower defaults, and that the borrowers paid for these protections.

The case now proceeds to trial, which is set as “number 1” beginning Monday, October 17, 2016.

Jeff Barnes, Esq/,

Seminar CLE Accreditation Update

September 2, 2016

The Florida Bar has approved CLE accreditation for the first of five courses to be taught by Mr. Barnes at the foreclosure defense seminar series. The process to accredit the other four courses has been temporarily interrupted due to the closure of the offices of The Florida Bar as a result of Hurricane Hermine.

The five courses to be taught by Mr. Barnes at the seminars are:

(a)  Identifying Preliminary Defenses and Case Screening (CLE approved);

(b)  Securitizations, SBM, Asset Purchase, and Merger Cases

(c)  Discovery and Dealing With Objections;

(d)  Filing and Defending Dispositive Motions and Declaratory Relief; and

(e)  Forbearance Agreements, Loan Modifications, Mediation, and Bankruptcy Issues.

Securitization expert and former Wall Street mortgage-backed securities manager and mortgage lender Richard Kahn will be teaching Securitization analysis and Loan History Examinations, including the use of expert testimony for discovery, defending summary judgment motions, and trial.

The seminars are open to attorneys, homeowners, paralegals, and anyone desiring to obtain knowledge as to the defense of foreclosure actions. Registration may be made by going to the website,

Jeff Barnes, Esq.,


August 31, 2016

The new location of the Colorado branch office of W.J. Barnes, P.A., that being 600 17th Street, Suite 2800, Denver, Colorado 80212, will be effective September 1, 2016. The office suite is on the top floor of one of the most prestigious buildings in downtown Denver, and is adjacent to the upscale 16th Street mall with its many restaurants and shops.

The telephone number for this new office is (303) 634-2225; the fax number is (303) 634-2227. Both numbers are scheduled to go into effect September 1, 2016. Appointments to meet Mr. Barnes in this office may be made by e-mailing Tiffany Goldwater at

Jeff Barnes, Esq., W.J. Barnes, P.A.


August 12, 2016

The Barnes law Firm has litigated in over 35 states across the United States, and has represented individuals from other countries in stateside litigation. Recently, the Barnes law practice has had inquiries from individuals in London and Australia requesting representation, and has made the decision to expand its practice into international business consulting, mediation, and litigation. The Barnes law Firm has joined the American Society of International Law as well.

The Firm is very excited and is looking forward to serving and assisting individuals and companies with their domestic (US-related) and international legal business needs including review of contracts and agreements, consulting on issues involving those contracts and agreements, mediation of disputes, and litigation.

Jeff Barnes, Esq.


August 11, 2016

[The following is the opinion of the editor]

I have been practicing law for 28 years across the United States at the trial and appellate levels. For the most part, opposing counsel have been professional and courteous despite differences in position in the cases and notwithstanding that we are “adversaries” in the technical sense (that is, we have opposing views as to the issues in a case). We all know we will have to see each other again, and professionalism works both ways.

Recently, however, there has been a spate of genuinely arrogant and unprofessional conduct on the part of certain attorneys which is not only resulting in unnecessary litigation, but is also costing everyone (including the court system) time and money. These chest-pounding pontificators, both male and female, think that they can (a) ignore the rules of professional conduct with impunity; (b) bully their way through the courts without regard for the local rules and without consideration of the schedules and professional commitments of their adversaries; and (c) insult and demean not only opposing counsel, but their clients as well. Unfortunately, this “Rambo-lawyering” appears to be on the rise, especially in certain parts of the United States.

There is an old adage that goes something like “bad karma comes home to roost”. It is thus only a matter of time before these arrogant types are sanctioned by the courts, and perhaps suspended from the practice of law for repeated violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. What the courts need to do is to enforce professionalism, and caution those bent on ignoring the rules of professionalism that they have been warned.

It is only through such action that the nonsense will stop, and the courts will stop wasting their precious time and money dealing with egos and on matters, like scheduling of hearings and depositions, that should be worked out between the attorneys. There are several Judges I have seen over the years who have hit attorneys with monetary fines for wasting the court’s time. We need more of the Judges to do this so that a semblance of professionalism is restored and time and money are not wasted on dealing with some arrogant attorney’s self-aggrandizing grandstanding.

Jeff Barnes, Esq.,


August 1, 2016

[The following is the opinion of the editor based on over eight (8) years of experience in foreclosure defense across over 35 states at both the trial and appellate levels and in both state and Federal court.]

In the old days, when the “lender” was in fact the entity which lent money in connection with a mortgage loan, the lender would keep the Note and mortgage instrument (called, depending on the state and the structure of foreclosure law (judicial or non-judicial), a Mortgage, Deed of Trust, or as they call it in Georgia, a “Security Deed) in a vault or other secured place, and if there was a foreclosure, simply pull the documents out of the vault and present them to the Court. That was the old days.

I spent years litigating what was called, at the time, “limited partnership private placement tax syndication litigation”, which arose out of the sale of what were “limited partnership interests” in what was supposed to be shopping centers, oil and gas wells, etc. Limited partnership “Certificates” were sold to those with 6-or more figure incomes so that they could take a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 tax writeoff (meaning, for example, that if you invested $100K into the syndication, you could deduct $200K or $300K off of your income right off the top for tax purposes). When the Tax Reform Act of 1986 passed, those “writeoffs” were disallowed, and the investors took a major tax hit from the IRS including disallowance of the writeoffs, and penalties and interest on the taxes which were assessed.

At that time, my job, as an associate of a Miami law Firm, was to defend 66 lawsuits at the same time filed by banks against our Firm’s client, who syndicated shopping centers. As an associate, you do what you are told, or “there’s the door”.

This morphed into what was called the “Ginnie Mae” securitizations of the 1990s, which were derivative investments involving the bundling and securitization of second mortgage loans. I was charged by my boss with the duty of defending one of the most successful securitizers of the day in numerous lawsuits against him (who lived in Palm Beach, Florida and was voted the “Best Dressed Man in Palm Beach at the time). Again, that was my job. The market for these “Ginnie Mae securities” was high-level investors.

What Anthony Mozillo and his crew learned from all of this was that you could make the American homeowner your market, and thus ran with the concept of the “mortgage-backed security” in connection with granting anyone a loan who could sign a piece of paper. The market thus increased exponentially overnight, as there was no regulation on granting loans to borrowers who “qualified” for a loan. As we all know, the situation got so bad with “NINJA” (no income, no job, no assets) loans that a guy working in 7-11 could get a million dollar loan on stated income (no documentation to prove what he made).

What this resulted in was the foreclosure crisis which began in 2007-2008. As this entire situation was totally new to the courts, there was no law on the real issues (such as what constitutes a valid assignment or endorsement under the circumstances; whether a downline transferee is in fact a “holder” of the Note, etc.). The biggest problem, which continues to confront us today, is that the bankster and servicer attorneys have essentially lied to the courts by claiming that even a thief of a Note can foreclose on a mortgage, and that the old law applies to the unique factual situations of the present.

Modern day foreclosures involving securitization; “SBM” cases (“successor by merger”, like Wells Fargo on Wachovia originations); and cases involving bankrupt or non-existent “lenders” who may or may not have been real “lenders” (and brokers who were essentially acting as agents for third-party funding entities), had no fact-specific or issue-specific legal precedent to rely on. Thus, the bankster and servicers attorneys try to convince the Judges that the law of securities, contracts, fraud, corporations, transfers of beneficial interests under mortgage instruments, constitutional law, etc. do not apply to what they call a “routine foreclosure” where the only issues, according to them, are “the homeowner did not pay and we have the Note with a blank endorsement”. Unfortunately, many of the Judges believe this swill as many cases have gone uncontested.

However, despite this intentional effort on the part of attorneys for the banksters and servicers to pervert the law to their own benefit, the law remains unsettled. For example, the January, 2015 Jesinoski decision from the U.S. Supreme Court opened more doors than it closed, and the litigation as to what the decision really means remains unresolved and continues. Another example is Mr. Barnes’ victories in the Supreme Courts of Oregon and Montana as to whether MERS is the “beneficiary” of a Deed of Trust (which it is not, as both Supreme Courts so ruled), which directly affects any alleged “transfer” of a beneficial interest in the mortgage instrument.

It is up to us, on the right side of the law, to continue the fight, and we sincerely thank those who have the gumption to continue it.

Jeff Barnes, Esq.,