Showing posts with label False Affidavit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label False Affidavit. Show all posts

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Ohio Supreme Court's Shocking Decision in Landmark Case

               U.S. Bank National Assoc. v. Antoine Duvall et al.
                                                        CASE Number 2011-0218     

                    CASE DISMISSED as MOOT
   
A Simple question was before the OHIO SUPREME COURT JUSTICES:

To have STANDING, as a plaintiff, in a mortgage foreclosure action, must a party show that it owned the NOTE and the MORTGAGE when the complaint was filed?

OHIO's highest court  - took the easy way out  - with a simple one page ruling 
(HERE) which completely avoids succinctly resolving this issue and now leaves a number of identical cases and litigation - still before them. We had heard from a multiple of sources, attorneys, and "insiders".... that this was the best and easiest "way-out" and a "back- door" solution for Ohio's Highest Court and Judges. The court - once again "buried" the no decision on the LAST PAGE (15th) of Case Announcements(HERE - on the fifteenth and last page under MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS)

The MOOTNESS decision was a predicated result, after a well planned out and orchestrated effort to get this case "Kicked." You see US Bank NA had failed in their three (3) previous attempts to FRAUDulently foreclose  - on the DUVALLS (with a phony undelivered and improperly indorsed note along with a post filing FRAUDulent robo-signed mortgage assignment)


*Attorney Gary Cook and Antoine Duvall
So after initially "Certifying a Conflict" as a way to get this case heard by the court ....the ending (DISMISSAL) from Ohio's Supreme Court... was short and simple:

...........Upon consideration of appellees' Notice of Suggestion of Mootness, IT IS ORDERED by the Court, that this case is DISMISSED as MOOT........(Right Click HERE & open in a new tab )

HOW had DUVALL's three year legal battle......suddenly become MOOT ???

How was the "CASE of the CENTURY" .....suddenly and quietly dissmissed ???
Well it appears that Wells Fargo and US Bank decided to satisfy (pay in FULL) the Duvall mortgage once they realised that this case would be scrutinized at the highest Level (and all the Fraud Exposed) See (below) a copy of the suddenly satisfied mortgage - and a change from a predator drone foreclosure mill fraudsters to a financial "Santa Claus" 

......all of the above ...... triggered our previous below post:

Ohio FRAUDclosure blogger brief to Supreme Court of Ohio
In an effort to "Blindfold Lady Justice" and twist the legal arm of the state's highest court US Bank NA "PAID IN FULL" (satisfied) the Duvall's underlying Mortgage balance in an attempt to force Defendant homeowner counsel, along with plaintiff (Predator Drone Law Firm) to both suggest: The case, decision, and underlying question....are now.... MOOT
Please read our other Commentary and Posts (Below) on this Landmark Ohio Case

OH Supreme Court to Decide What Documents Banks Need to Foreclose?


OHIO SUPREME COURT - to make landmark decision


"CASH REGISTER JUSTICE" by Outstanding Florida Attorney Matt Weidner
…..”The banks just cannot allow major decisions to be reported. The banks will not allow the probing light of justice and truth to shine on what they are doing….so anytime they get backed into a corner with a bad case, they simply pay the mortgage off and walk away….calculating, cold and swift….like a predator drone strike….at the heart of our Constitutional Rights. And just think about the profound impact of having major cases just disappear from high court dockets”………
(Matt coined the phrase - ROBO-SIGNING - and helped expose this fraudulent practice and raise awareness on this issue .....to a national level)

and HomeEquity Theft Reporter: (Click on Headline and detailed Commentary below)
F'closing Banksters Score Another Big 'Win' As Lender Dodges Bullet, 'Games' Judicial System, 'Buys Off' Homeowner; Ohio Supremes Declare Issue "Moot"
.
.......Foreclosing banksters throughout the U.S. are presumably in a celebratory mood as they have recently succeeded in buying off another homeowner in foreclosure who had the temerity to bring a dubiously-conducted foreclosure case to the attention of a state supreme court
......Interestingly, according to footnote 1 of U.S. Bank's Memorandum regarding notice of suggestion of mootness, counsel representing the bankster in this case notes that it also represents the banksters involved in the other two cases. It remains to be seen if the banksters in those cases are equally successful in 'buying off' the respective homeowners in foreclosures.....'

......MUCH MORE TO COME.....
*  Photo appears courtesy of Ohio Public Radio Station WCPN 90.3, Mhari Saito, NPR (ideastream)

Thursday, April 28, 2011

OHIO SUPREME COURT - to make landmark decision

OHIO SUPREME COURT
Justices to soon make landmark decision
Affecting ALL Ohio Homeowners in foreclosure  
The Ohio Supreme Court recently agreed to review a request (from US BANK NA) to resolve what "appears" to be conflicting appellate court decisions in OHIO foreclosure case law. At the heart of this so called conflict is an issue that Plaintiff banks, pretend lenders, and phony Trustees have continuously slipped past our "asleep-at-the-wheel" judges. A similar and deep sleep was exhibited by our U.S. Government (SEC, OCC, OTS) and the rating agencies (Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, Fitch), for years while the Banks went wild! Now, the Ohio Supreme Court is going to attempt a judicial "closing of the barn door"…years after the "criminals"…got away.
Here in Ohio, the plaintiff’s Foreclosure Mill Attorneys and Law Firms try to fast track the process and get a quick default judgment by using or submitting phony, fraudulent, or  robo-signed  mortgage assignments (executed by MERS & LPS employees)  The documents, 90% of the time, result in a plaintiff victory. The rare knowledgeable and awake foreclosure judge or an even rarer appearance by legal counsel on behalf of defendant homeowner (only in 8% of cases) requires Plaintiff - to have STANDING - in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. Inevitably the question and legal hurdle for the plaintiff, in almost every defended OHIO FRAUDclosure and foreclosure case becomes: 
            To have standing, as a plaintiff, in a mortgage foreclosure action, must a party show  that it owned the NOTE and the MORTGAGE when the complaint was filed?
The decision by the Ohio Supreme Court to Certify A Conflict is very troubling, and was hidden in a April 6th, 2011 15-page Ohio Supreme Court Case Announcement (pg 5 case: US BANK v Duvall) This is a travesty and should not have been allowed to get this far. STANDING through ownership (of NOTE & MORTGAGE) has been repeatedly determined in Ohio case law.
Unfortunately, two (2) bad and even slightly off-topic appellate court cases were used
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Marcino, 181 Ohio App.3d 328, 2009-Ohio-1178 (7th Dist.),
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Bayless, Del. App. No. 09 CAE 01 004, 2009-Ohio-6115 (5th Dist.),
to certify the conflict. These poorly decided cases are being incorrectly used as a side-door entrance and distraction to get in front of the great SUPREME COURT of OHIO …and possibly …change or re-determine… existing foreclosure law
So where is all the scrutiny? Where is the publicity? Where are the consumer activists?  What is going on here? Where is the outrage? Why did the Supreme Court allow the Bank’s weak claim for a new chance to change existing OHIO law? The simultaneous ownership of the Note and Mortgage, at the time of filing, has repeatedly been asked, answered, and decided in previous OHIO cases.
YES - Plaintiff must OWN BOTH the NOTE and the MORTGAGE, at the TIME OF FILING - PERIOD
OHIO SUPREME COURT JUSTICES - Please get it right – Don’t sell out to the big banks.  JP Morgan Chase has Ohio Headquarters inconspicuously in your “back yard”.  Hopefully their money can’t buy a decision to create- STANDING – and allow for legal FRAUDclosures or worse… a change to existing law.
NO successor-in-interest, NO back-dating of mortgage assignments, NO endorsement-in- blank, NO successor trustee to empty MBS, NO "Robo-Signed" by LPS or MERS employees (signing as Vice President of the Bank)  NO "created" owner status by allowing back-dating of  documents showing an "effective date" even further back (Mortgage Assignment - "Time Travel") Coined by Lisa Epstein of Foreclosure Hamlet - Link HERE to her post, and HERE (Ocwen time travel)  
All you good Ohio Foreclosure Defense attorneys – now is your chance to step up and shine, Lets have a few Amicus Briefs (send us a copy) You have a right to submit one to the OHIO SUPREME COURT (on behalf of the OHIO homeowner). Lets Go - Legal Aid Offices - Lets hear something from all your fine attorneys and staff. This case needs legal attention - the big banks will throw tons of money and a lot of attorneys at this rare - second bite - on this mortgage apple.
OHIO Supreme Court  Prac.-R. 6.6. Brief of Amicus  Curiae: 
(A) An amicus curiae may file a brief urging affirmance or reversal, and leave to file an amicus brief is not required. The brief shall conform to the requirements of this rule, except that an amicus filing a brief in support of an appellant need not include the appendix required by S.Ct. Prac. R. 6.2(B)(5).
(B) The cover of an amicus brief shall identify the party on whose behalf the brief is being submitted or indicate that the brief does not expressly support the position of any parties to the appeal. If the amicus brief is in support of an appellant, the brief shall be filed within the time for filing allowed to the appellant to file a merit brief, and the amicus curiae may file a reply brief within the time allowed to the appellant to file a reply brief. If the amicus brief is in support of an appellee or does not expressly support the position of any party, the brief shall be filed within the time for filing allowed to the appellee to file a merit brief. The Clerk shall refuse to file an amicus brief that is not submitted timely.
Hundreds of thousands of lives and foreclosure cases will turn on this decision.
Stand up-be heard & Help the OHIO Supreme Court - Get it Right

UPDATE: 9/22/11
Ohio Supreme Court's Shocking Decision in Landmark Case