16 Year FRAUDclosure warrior (Davet) continues FIGHT

OHIO FRAUDclosure  - Guest Post - by Jack Wright

Mr Jack Wright provides homeowners one of the best and most informative web-sites to research, study, and discuss FRAUDclosure. The web-site (MSFRAUD) even has a forum in which readers can interact and connect with others similarly situated. Along with a "legal lounge" and video links the site has an armament of other tools to assist in the battle against the FRAUDclosure machine.

RELATED UPDATE: 2-29-12  Ohio Supreme Court Denies "Reconsideration" request
In a separate "Pro-Se" brief submitted on 9-1-2011 (HERE) Mr Davet asked the high court justices to review and reconsider the [Dismissal] action of the 8th Appellate court (decision of June 7th 2011). It is from this Appellate Court ruling that Mr Davet asked for an a) en banc consideration, b) reconsideration and to c) certify a conflict (citing exact same circumstances that court accepted to certify a conflict in US Bank v Duvall. Sadly, this ruling seeks to cover-up bad decisions and conflicted case law. This magnifies the injustice suffered by one of America's original FRAUDclosure victims.

Mr Wright shared his "Must Read" article (linked at bottom)  in which he details one of the nations first (if not the original) victims of FRAUDclosure. The in depth story of OHIO "Hero" Richard Davet is linked below. We've excerpted a few salient points.

In 2007 Ohio Judge Christopher Boyko so eloquently stated in his now famous Opinion:

“The {Banks, Loan Servicers, and Predator Drone foreclosure mill} institutions seem to adopt the attitude that since they have been doing this for so long, unchallenged, this practice equates with legal compliance. Finally put to the test, their weak legal arguments compel the Court to stop them at the gate.”

This week, Ohio’s 8^th District Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in what must be one of the most disturbing foreclosure cases in the nation’s history.  It is the case of Richard Davet, ...{which} should have been dismissed with the bank’s 1996 filing.  Subsequent Ohio case law agrees. [But}, Instead of dismissing the complaint, the 1996 court somehow granted judgment to Bank of America after it was already established they were not the real party, and therefore the court was without jurisdiction to render judgment.  Since then, {16 years} Davet has been stuck inside a judicial treadmill, and for reasons that many consider highly suspect, the seemingly influenced Ohio courts have vigorously refused to release Davet from the injustice of its own void ab initio {improper horrible} judgment. 

Ohio’s judiciary does not have a highly-regarded history like Massachusetts, which is poised to rule (as soon as this month) on a foreclosure case {Eaton v. Fannie Mae} that could justly lead to a surge in claims from home owners seeking to overturn unlawful seizures. But Ohio has shown promise during Davet’s ordeal with widely-cited foreclosure opinions such as:

Wells Fargo v. Jordan,

Wells Fargo v. Byrd and

Deutsche Bank v. Triplett

-     [A]ll fit squarely within the four corners of Davet’s (and many Ohio litigants}case(s) and support vacating the void ab initio judgment: 

"if plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law"

and 

“in a foreclosure action, a bank that was not the mortgagee when suit was filed cannot cure its lack of standing by subsequently obtaining an interest in the mortgage.”

The Wells V. Jordan opinion also states:

“Several judges have held that a complaint must be dismissed if the Plaintiff cannot prove that it owned the note and mortgage on the date the complaint was filed.”

These IDENTICAL issue were before the Supreme Court of OHIO in Landmark:

US BANK v DUVALL

However the tainted result of that decision created an even bigger legal mess - which has been twisted in to a new certified conflict  - in the case now before the High Court captioned:

FEDERAL HOME LOAN Corp.(Freddie Mac) v SCHWARTZWALD

The case is set for "Oral Argument" before OHIO's highest court on April 4, 2012 and will be handled by outstanding Foreclosure Defense attorney - Andrew Engel
OHIO FRAUDclosure has submitted an Amicus Curiae brief {on behalf of Ohio Homeowners and in support of Schwartzwald} through Attorney Bruce Broyles a brilliant Foreclosure Defense specialist.

How Will Ohio Address Its Wrongful Foreclosure Problem?

What would the condition of {OHIO and} Cleveland be today if its courts had taken a proactive approach to tainted foreclosures when it first noticed the problem in 1996?  Will the court now take results of recent studies, surveys and audits into consideration?  Or will they continue aiding in the conspiracy {and crime} of concealment?  
PLEASE READ JACK WRIGHTS:
OHIO Courts' reluctance to ADMIT FRAUD causes 16 years of foreclosure litigation