Supporting, Informing & Connecting People in Foreclosure
I am not an attorney, so I cannot give advice. Self-represented homeowners like myself should be careful about those whom we receive advice from. I've heard some sad stories about some people taking advantage of homeowners fighting fraudulent foreclosure who do not have enough money to hire an attorney, only to be led astray, or to entrust their situation (or money) to someone who did nothing except hasten the homeowner's demise (perhaps placed by those perpetuating Foreclosure Fraud in some way).
I am a homeowner, self-represented or Pro Se or pro per, and do not have an attorney to represent me in my fraudulent foreclosure-related court battles. I have had to learn very much and very fast to bring myself up to speed enough to be a bit of a threat to the foreclosing entities advancing rapidly upon me to steal my home. They want a free house that had been 100% unencumbered up until 2007 when I borrowed some of my own equity/financial interest, wrongly classified as a "Re-finance", Lender filed bankruptcy 11 days after closing, different creditor, failed/denied HAMP loan mod, false inducement into fake default by fraudulent inducement into 2 deferred payments on a never-before missed payment, notary fraud, robo-signing, a non-existent empty trust, fraudulent foreclosure, denial of due process by the courts, etc...too much to list). I've gleaned much of what I know about fighting foreclosure fraud by studying laws, statutes, codes, case law, etc., until my eyes are about to pop, and believe it or not, I have learned from my opposition! Yep...you read it correctly. The Banks', Loan Servicer's, and Trust's attorneys (from at least 10 different law firms thus far in the past 18 months) have taught me much. No, I won't use their underhanded tactics. I play by the rules and follow the law. What I have learned from them is much about court procedure from how the bank's attorneys do things. I have even pulled the Bank's court filings from my foreclosure-related cases out of my files to see just how they positioned something on a page, or how a citation was indented, or how they constructed their "Memorandum of Points and Authorities" outline. Even some of the wording they use is also what is reflected in much legislation and in case law...so I am learning to use some of that as well. An attorney friend of mine (wrong area of law to help me with foreclosure) told me to try to think like my opponent and if I were them, what are my weaknesses, and if I were the opponent, how would I defeat myself, and so I do try to think accordingly and to write my court papers that way, too...although I will never completely understand why these people choose to sell their hearts and souls for money and power as it is apparent that they are. I also can see from what they say in their pleadings as to what I must counter and oppose. I also look to what the courts have decided at the hearings in my cases and why...to teach me what I did right or wrong (some of the reasoning is still unclear, but ask Foreclosure Defense Attorneys and I'm sure they'll concur that it does not always make sense, nor is the law always followed. I'm not saying that it is always deliberately disregarded, but sometimes it is an oversight that can be pointed out in open court or in a court paper or filing or pleading. I am just curious, why don't Foreclosure DEFENSE Attorneys start calling themselves Foreclosure "OFFENSE" Attorneys???).
Maybe the banks have learned a few things from me as well. For one thing, they ought not to pick on homeowners who are determined to fight them every step of the way. Sure, I've had a few close calls, such as one of the Bankruptcy 362 Motions for Relief from Automatic Stay was GRANTED...meaning that I was mere days from eviction from my home, BUT hat same motion was Rendered moot a few weeks later after US Bank filed another 362 Motion in the name of tbe Terwin Trust. The Bankruptcy Judge finally listened to the issues I had been raising all along as well as my objections to opposing counsel's filings.
As I mentioned in an earlier Blog, my Bankruptcy (BK) case was closed on Dec. 1, 2011. In State Court, the same "Unlawful Detainer" (UD) eviction action taken against me by US Bank/Terwin Trust, mentioned in the Ruling in my BK case, and a full week before my bankruptcy was closed/terminated, a "Motion to Amend Judgment" was filed in state unlawful detainer court by the very party that was denied a lift of the automatic stay in my bankruptcy [see Published BK Rling below]! The already adjudicated UD case was granted in favor of US Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee"...but the "Motion to Amend Judgment" was filed by the Trust, another plaintiff altogether, (as the BK court ruled, and explained, my paraphrase), the bank is one entity, the Trustee is another, and the Trust another. The enviction action (UD) was granted to "US Bank, NA , as Indenture Trustee." The hearing on US Bank's/Terwin Trust's "Motion to Amend Judgment" took place on December 29, 2011 despite all the fuss I made about the bank's counsel violating the BK Automatic Stay. What is so ridiculous is that he jumped the gun by only 7 days. So what did it matter that he filed it before the stay was lifted? Read on and you'll see one of the sly tactics commonly practiced by the foreclosing banks' attorneys...and watch for it in other cases. Even if there was no stay in place as to my property that was not part of the BK estate (because it had been (albeit fraudulently) conveyed to US Bank at a bogus Trustee's Sale (credit bid) following a nonjudicial foreclosure (no court necessary to foreclose), then Finally adjudicated (Final Ruling given in favor of the Bank) in a State Court eviction action ("Unlawful Detainer" as it is called in most nonjudicial states and also in CA))...THE AUTOMATIC STAY REMAINS as to a party specifically denied relief of stay who is not a real party in interest who's rights are affected by the automatic stay (see the BK ruling below)...but oh well, who am I to tell the judge and the state court they should have rejected the bank's VOID filing of what procedurally and legally a void motion in blatant and direct violation of a Bankruptcy Automatic Stay and is procedurally incorrect? Violation of the Automatic Stay is not the only thing wrong with this motion, and CA attorneys (or even other attorneys not familiar with CA law) will know what I am talking about. It is not even pertaining to Sanctions for violation of the stay, which I have already issued a Notice of Intent to file a Motion for Sanctions", with allowance of time for them to correct the sanctionable problem and to "remove the offending document" from the court (a tad too late for that at this point). I will update this blog later to tell you all what I am using in this matter...of a case that is technically closed, not open any longer...when I no longer care whether opposing counsel found what I did in my studies of the law. If they find it, they'll correct their own mistake, but if not, it is going to get really interesting. I'm just as curious as you as to how the judge is going to handle this matter of two clashing motions at the next hearing.
The Bank's/Terwin Trust's attorney was somehow allowed to violate the Bankruptcy Automatic Stay, but I was prevented from filing a response or opposition in the State UD court until the court could determine whether or not the stay had been lifted! Nonetheless, I attended the hearing on the Terwin Trust's "Motion to Ament Judgment" with my own "Motion to Strike" in hand to give the judge and to opposing counsel in court at the hearing, but the judge refused to accept it until it had been served a 2nd time upon opposing counsel reflecting the new hearing date he set at the end of that hearing. Oh well. I re-typed up the title page reflecting the new hearing date and re-served it via mail to the opposition, and re-filed it in court along with my POS (proof of service). I gladly abide by rules, yet the opposing counsel gets to break them. Go figure.
My next hearing in State UD court is on January 26, 2012 which is a dual or joint hearing on BOTH Parties' MOTIONS: Terwin Trust's "Motion to Amend Judgment" and my "Motion to Strike their Motion to Amend Judgment". We'll have to wait and see how the judge deals with this situation.
There is much more that I would love to say here in this blog or on this site, but I don't want to have anyone misconstrue what I am doing in my own case and misconstrue it as legal counsel. This could lead someone to make a mistake in their own case. This is why I usually post what has occurred "after-the-fact", not before-hand. No one, even seasoned attorneys with many wins under their belt know precisely how court cases play out because there are so many variables. Who am I but a homeowner that has been learning about how to fight for my home by attending an "on the job" legal training program in what is known as "Save your own home from fraudulent foreclosure!" Foreclosure is, according to even the best foreclosure defense attorneys, a very complex legal process. Foreclosures, especially if fought from the beginning to the end, commonly deal with banking law, trust law, real estate law, contract law, torts, evictions, criminal law, and more...and that's not to mention court procedure and court rules. I heard once early on in my battle that more self-represented litigants lose on procedure than any other thing. That is why I rely upon the enunciation of principles in Haynes v. Kerner, where the pleadings of those not schooled in law are to be looked to as far as content, not form.
I don't think US Bank's nor Terwin Trust's attorneys like me very much (and that is an understatement). That's just too bad I'm such a nuisance thwarting their noble(?) efforts. What a shame, don't ya think? They are trying to steal my home...well, on paper and as far as the courts can tell at the moment, they have "stolen" my home...only I still live in it and have possession of it.
***HINT: I highly recommend GOOGLE SCHOLAR, which is absolutely FREE, FOR RESEARCHING AND CROSS-REFERENCING COURT CASES FROM ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MANY VENUES, FOR AS FAR BACK IN TIME AS POSSIBLE...a great tool that I utilize frequently in my Pro Se foreclosure fraud court battles!!!
I joked in many of my earlier blog posts about my blunders and mistakes and being the "Court Jester", and I am quite serious about that joke! Mistakes can be good...IF the mistakes are learned from...and even better if we can laugh at ourselves when we make some mistakes (after we are finished crying and kicking ourselves). I have made some mistakes in court procedure, court filings, and in open court...BUT so has my opposition...every last one of them! Be it the Loan Servicer's, the Bank's, the Trusts', or the Trustee's counsel in state court, eviction court, appellate court, Supreme Court, Bankruptcy court, and where ever else this case may go.
By the way, my CA Supreme Court En Banc Writ of Certiorari was denied for hearing, not decided on the merits or according to review. The Writ was not a request for review, but a challenge to the court system regarding court actions involving the foreclosure, the unlawful detainer action and the Appeal of that case through both levels of the CA Appellate court system that ran simultaneously with my bankruptcy. I was denied 6 separate Stay requests in state court. Not one state court would hear anything I had to say! Bankruptcy is the only court in which a judge listened to anything I had to say. My main contention with the Unlawful Detainer court was obvious, but most disappointing was the State court's in-house appellate panel and the State Court of Appeals not willing to address the obvious issue of subject matter jurisdiction of all the lower state courts, as well as the abject denial of my due process rights prior to deprivation of property. The Supreme Court did, however, request the lower court files, and after review of them, decided to deny hearing of my Writ. My opinion as to the reason why is that it may have opened a HUGE can of worms on some matters within our courts that all courts across this nation are trying to suppress or distract attention away from. In my Writ to the CA Supreme Court, I pulled no punches and respectfully addressed the problems I had encountered with the entire CA Superior and Appellate Court systems. The problems I encountered here in CA are the same across the nation. Stop laughing! I seriously thought they'd care! Not "Pro Se bravado", but just trying to save my home and a few million other homes along the way. At least I tried. I decided against moving my case to the US Supreme Court by Dec. 28, 2011, the deadline for doing so, but also, my case is not yet ready. Perhaps later this year I will be able to move it on.
I will post UPDATES as my case progresses.
(I am sure most of you by now know that Millie is my nickname).
My email: firstname.lastname@example.org