Fla 4th DCA: Original Note Must Be Sequestered with Court

From Katherine

Editor’s Note: I almost passed on this. Then I started thinking. If the original note must be sequestered with the Court to prevent further negotiation of the note, it locks in the other side pretty early. If you can convince the court that tendering the original note to the court is a condition precedent to getting judgment, then they must come up with it immediately. It also underscores the issue of the burden of proof in a “lost note” situation, which is to prove the entire path that the note took, how it came to be lost, and what assurance you can give to the court that it is not in the hands of someone who could negotiate it.

Once they offer the “original” it can be examined for authenticity. And in discovery you can find out if there are other “originals” that were used in other transactions with insurers, counterparties in credit default swaps, federal bailout, etc.

See: JAMES F. JOHNSTON and SANDRA JOHNSTON, Appellants,                             v. JEANNE HUDLETT, Appellee. No. 4D08-4636 [March 31, 2010]

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA,

FOURTH DISTRICT, January Term 2010

“Moreover, in the case of original mortgages and Promissory notes, they are not merely exhibits but instruments which must be surrendered prior to the issuance of a judgment. The judgment takes the place of the Promissory note. Surrendering the note is essential so that it cannot thereafter be negotiated.

See Perry v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 888 So. 2d 725, 726 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

The judgment cancels the note.”

21 Responses

  1. This web site truly has all of the information and facts I wanted concerning this subject and didn’t know
    who to ask.

  2. KENNETH S. TAYLOR ETAL [PRO SE]
    PRO SE 8610 HADDEN TWINSBURG OHIO 44087

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

    DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFIATEHOLDERS OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2006-OPT2, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-OPT2,
    Plaintiff,
    vs.
    KENNETH S. TAYLOR et.al. ALYCIA TAYLOR-DRIGGINS,
    Defendant. )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    ) Case No.: 5:11 CV 521

    MOTION TO STAY WITH MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT , PENDING APPEAL AT NINTH JUDICIAL CICRIUT 25281, AND THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 11-047, AND THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 11-3277, AN COUNTERCLAIM TRIAL IN THIS COURT AND, FEDERAL COMPLAINT 5:10 V 2766 ALL FOR TILA Right of Rescission, : PREDATORY LENDING, OHIO RICO,
    DECLARATORY RELIEF AND FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM: WIRE
    FRAUD; CANCELATION OF WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS, RICO Due Process and Equitable Tolling,
    FRAUD UPON THIS COURT, AND OTHER COURTS; FORGERY, TORTIOUS VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS, EMERGENCY/ TRO, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FROM UNLAWFUL SHERIFF’S SALE OF PLAINTIFFS PROPERTY, ON 12/17 2010, MAIL FRAUD. TILA VIOLATIONS; RESPA; FDCPA, HOEPA; FCRA; VIOLATIONS; Civil Conspiracy; QUEIT TITLE REAL PROPERTY An action to determine all adverse claims to the property in question; a suit in equity brought to obtain a final determination as to the title of a specific piece of property;
    JURY DEMAND ENDOSRED HEREON.

    Motion to stay SHOULD be granted ,Judges must look at Praecipe For Order For Sale filed by Kevin L. Williams in trial court on June 1 2010 attached as Exhibit ( A A ) the signature on this filing is another forgery of his name. The court has erred, the entire case contains many errors of substantial Due Process, substantial Procedural Due Process, With all due respect to the Judges residing, you have failed to preserve any of the Taylor’s Constitutional Civil Rights to any hearing before the court , to contest fraudulent assignment, fraudulent affidavit, the eight forgeries before the court , the defective order of sale , the void summary Judgment granted, with no original blue ink note, that has been reported to court as lost or destroyed and missing, with no title in any plaintiffs name ever in this case, with no mortgage in any plaintiffs name, with no title search being performed, an the judge Tom Parker who has allowed this Case to matriculated through the court ILEGALLY AND UNLAWFULLY WITH BIAS , PARTIAL , RULINGS AND PREDETERMINATON TO HELP AND ASSIST PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEY by lying about defendants Counterclaim , an conspiring with plaintiffs attorney , lying throughout his summary judgment order , while he is under two motions of recusal ,and has violated his sworn oath of office, violated Cannons, an refused to honor a direct order of the appeals court and has not set case for trial, and have not followed the Ohio and U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio along with the Ohio prosecutors office is on notice of the incessant egregious level of fraud and corruption by this law firm of Manley Deas Kochalski , the court should Call them and ask to speak to Kevin L. Williams, ask a hard question, why do you have two uniquely different signatures.) And why have either attorney for plaintiffs ever made an appearance? as the court just sits and watches and turns a blind eye, not only is this one Black African American Family home being destroyed in which they have lived for 23 years , its bigger than us it is a destruction of the American legal system as the founding fathers are turning in their graves. This entire system was created on Gods biblical principals, this court has a sworn duty to act and act with a since of urgency even in the face of trying to preserve a banking system that has destroyed this country morals and ethics and continues to rip away at the fabric of America, all by unbridled greed. Plaintiff must be stop for unlawful sale of defendants home as they have filed a second unlawful order of sale with trial court that no longer has jurisdiction over this case that has been remove to this federal court its force is inescapable, the case is now pending in four higher courts as lower court has just made to many errors See latest plaintiffs illegal order of sale filed on docket:
    18/2011 — **CASE COSTED THRU 3/18/11 – PENDING. No Image
    03/18/2011 — #2010-2098 ORDER OF SALE RETD. ENDR. AND I MAKE THIS RETURN BY ORDER OF PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY. SCSO Document 1

    03/14/2011 PRO SE DEFENDANTS, KENNETH AND ALYCIA TAYLOR’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL UNDER CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2005, FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION. Document 2

    03/10/2011 NO ATTY. REQUIRED COURT ORDERS PARTIES TO BRIEF THEIR POSITIONS. PARTIES ARE TO FILE BRIEFS, NOT TO EXCEED FIVE PAGES IN LENGTH, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AND PROVIDE COPIES TO COURT’S STAFF. TP Document 3

    03/01/2011 NO ATTY. REQUIRED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR SANCTIONS FOR MISBEHAVIOR OF OPPOSING COUNSEL. Document 4

    Now comes Defendants Kenneth S. Taylor and Alycia Taylor- Driggins from hereinafter the (“Taylor’s”) And they hereby gives notice that they are requesting in this Case No.: 5:11 CV 521, a

    MOTION TO STAY WITH MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT , PENDING APPEAL AT NINTH JUDICIAL CICRIUT 25281, AND THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 11-047, AND THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 11-3277, AN COUNTERCLAIM TRIAL IN THIS COURT AND, FEDERAL COMPLAINT 5:10 V 2766 ALL FOR TILA Right of Rescission, : PREDATORY LENDING, OHIO RICO,
    DECLARATORY RELIEF AND FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM: WIRE
    FRAUD; CANCELATION OF WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS, RICO Due Process and Equitable Tolling,
    FRAUD UPON THIS COURT, AND OTHER COURTS; FORGERY, TORTIOUS VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS, EMERGENCY/ TRO, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FROM UNLAWFUL SHERIFF’S SALE OF PLAINTIFFS PROPERTY, ON 12/17 2010, MAIL FRAUD. TILA VIOLATIONS; RESPA; FDCPA, HOEPA; FCRA; VIOLATIONS; Civil Conspiracy; QUEIT TITLE REAL PROPERTY An action to determine all adverse claims to the property in question; a suit in equity brought to obtain a final determination as to the title of a specific piece of property;
    JURY DEMAND ENDOSRED HEREON.

    This Court has the power to Grant Relief from these proceedings, Grant Relief under both federal and state rules and laws 28 U.S.C. 1655 ., Moreover absolute proof of fraud is attached; a forgery of Kevin L. Williams signature submitted to trial court date January 15, 2010 as Exhibit (B2) all which have affected Defendants Substantial rights and Procedural rights to Due Process and Fundamental rights; Rights to Privacy, Life, Liberty or Property Goss v. Lopez, Roe v Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut; Rights To Notice/ Contest Charges/ Hearings, Private v. Public , National v. State Governments, In School v. Out Of School Suspensions , Laney v Farley. WHEREAS: We pray now and for last as humbly as we know how that this Honorable high District Court and its high District Court Honorable Judge Pearson grant this motion to stay in one of the most remarkable and bizarre set of circumstances before are nation courts in this case in whole .
    Respectfully and Humbly Submitted by:
    _______________________
    Alycia Taylor- Driggins, Kenneth S. Taylor [prose] /s/ for Defendant/ Appellant Kenneth S. Taylor 8610 Hadden Road Twinsburg Ohio 44087 1-330-425-1542 katickit@yahoo.
    Memorandum In Support
    A rescission action may not be barred by prior or subsequent TILA litigation which did not involve rescission (Smith v. Wells Fargo Credit Corp., 713 F. Supp. 354 (D. Ariz. 1989) (state court action involving, inter alia TIL disclosure violations did not bar a subsequent action based on rescission notice violations in conjunction with same transaction which were not alleged or litigated in prior action) (See also In re Laubach, 77 B.R. 483 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987) (doctrine of merger bars raising state and federal law claims arising from a transaction on which a previous successful federal TILA action was based; merger does not bar, however, rescission-based on the same transaction)).

    Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor Pro Se filed a copy of the notice of rescission letter (See Exhibit I)
    The Truth-in-Lending law empower Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor Pro Se to exercise his right in writing by notifying creditors of his cancellation by mail to rescind the mortgage loan transactions per (Reg. Z §§ 226.15(a)(2), 22e6.23(a)(2), Official Staff Commentary § 226.23(a)(2)-1) and 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b).
    Also, the principle does apply to TILA 3 years period of rescission since despite due diligence, Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor Pro Se could not have reasonably discovered the concealeed fact of TILA violations in-depth and explicitly until after this court dimissed plaintiffs lawsiut for lack of standing filed in this Federal District Court in Ohio Northern Division on June 20,2007 case number 5: 07 CV -0840 SEL and Mr.Kenneth S. Taylor was alerted of fraud invovled in his mortgage loan tranaction, and nothing has change the Plaintiff continue to lack standing,as the same defective fraudulent assigment is before this court again, as this matter has been decided by this very court .
    The equitable tolling principles are to be read into every federal statute of limitations unless Congress expressly provides to the contrary in clear and ambiguous language, (See Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 560-61, 120 S. Ct. 1075, 145 L. Ed. 2d 1047 (2000)). Since TILA does not evidence a contrary Congressional intent, its statute of limitations must be read to be subject to equitable tolling, particularly since the act is to be construed liberally in favor of consumers.
    Security Interest is Void
    The statute and regulation specify that the security interest, promissory note or lien arising by operation of law on the property becomes automatically void. (15 U.S.C. § 1635(b); Reg. Z §§ 226.15(d)(1), 226.23(d)(1).
    As noted by the Official Staff Commentary, the creditor’s interest in the property is “automatically negated regardless of its status and whether or not it was recorded or perfected.” (Official Staff Commentary §§ 226.15(d)(1)-1, 226.23(d)(1)-1.).
    Also, the security interest is void and of no legal effect irrespective of whether the creditor makes any affirmative response to the notice. Also, strict construction of Regulation Z would dictate that the voiding be considered absolute and not subject to judicial modification.
    This requires the original lender Option One Mortgage Corporation, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company to respond and to submit canceling documents creating the security interest and filing release or termination statements in the public record. (Official Staff Commentary §§ 226.15(d)(2)-3, 226.23(d)(2)-3.) Instead they all made excuses, Option One admitted receiving right of recession to cancel loan on July 18, 2008 in there legal department, See exhibit (G-2) and failed to respond See exhibit (G), exhibit (E) shows American Home Mortgage failing to rescind loan. its all completely fraudulent as plaintiffs attorney , has sworn in her brief before the Court Of Appeals in Ohio Ninth Judicial District at III Statement Of The Case Sands Canyon excited the loan on February 6, 2006, and they conveyed property to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company on June 29th 2007 that is after they lied to this court and said they owned Taylor home and filed a federal lawsuit pretending to be owners of are home and real property this is a crime that has harmed us nothing can cure this fraud it cannot be fix, more lies and corruption are for sure going to keep reoccurring as these plaintiffs continue to lie to court any witness affidavit or affiants testimony to these facts are perjury , not one single allege lender has responded to defendant rights to cancel. Add to that plaintiffs have sworn original promissory note is missing, title is missing , they have no deed of trust or mortgage in plaintiffs name it’s the worst case of fraud ever realized in a court of law in which judges sworn to uphold the law just look the other way.
    Extended Right of Rescission
    The statute and Regulation Z make it clear that, if Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor Pro Se has the extended right and chooses to exercise it, the security interest and obligation to pay charges are automatically voided. (Cf. Semar v. Platte Valley Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 791 F.2d 699, 704-05 (9th Cir. 1986) (courts do not have equitable discretion to alter substantive provisions of TILA, so cases on equitable modification are irrelevant).
    The statute, section 1635(b) states: “When an obligor exercises his right to cancel…, any security interest given by the obligor… becomes void upon such rescission”. Also, it is clear from the statutory language that the court’s modification authority extends only to the procedures specified by section 1625(b).
    The voiding of the security interest is not a procedure, in the sense of a step to be followed or an action to be taken.
    The statute makes no distinction between the rights to rescind in three day or extended in three years for federal and four years under Ohio. TILA, as neither cases nor statute give courts equitable discretion to alter TILA’s substantive provisions.
    Since the rescission process was intended to be self-enforcing, failure to comply with the rescission obligations Option One Mortgage Corporation, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Sands Canyon Corporation, America Home Mortgage Servicing Incorporated, subjects themsevles to potential liability.
    XIII. Non-Compliance
    Non-compliance is a violation of the act which gives rise to a claim for actual and statutory damages under 15 USC 1640. TIL rescission does not only cancel a security interest in the property but it also cancels any liability for the Mr.Kenneth S Taylor, Pro Se to pay finance and other charges, including accrued interest, points, broker fees, closing costs and that the lender must refund to Mr.Kenneth S. Taylor Pro Se all finance charges and fees paid.
    Plaintiffs all of them mentioned above have failed to respond to recession letter as set forth by the law Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor Pro Se has the option of enforcing the rescission right in the federal, bankruptcy or state court (See S. Rep. No. 368, 96th Cong. 2 Sess. 28 at 32 reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.A.N. 236, 268 (“The bill also makes explicit that a consumer may institute suit under section 130 [15 U.S.C., 1640] to enforce the right of rescission and recover costs and attorney fees”). That lawsuit has been filed and is pending in this court also; case number 10-02766, which is why a stay is absolutely necessary.
    TIL rescission does not only cancel a security interest in the property but it also cancels any liability for Mr. Kenneth S.Taylor Pro Se to pay finance and other charges, including accrued interest, points, broker fees, closing costs and the lender must refund to Mr. Kenneth S.Taylor Pro Se all finance charges and fees paid
    Thus, Option One Mortgage Corporation , Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Sands Canyon Corporation are obligated to return those charges to Mr. Kenneth S Taylor, Pro Se (Pulphus v. Sullivan, 2003 WL 1964333, at *17 (N.D. Apr. 28, 2003) (citing lender’s duty to return consumer’s money as reason for allowing rescission of refinanced loan); McIntosh v. Irwing Union Bank & Trust Co., 215 F.R.D. 26 (D. Mass. 2003) (citing borrower’s right to be reimbursed for prepayment penalty as reason for allowing rescission of paid-off loan).
    XIV. Sources of Law in Truth in Lending Cases
    “These include TILA itself, the Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation Z which implements the Act, the Official Staff Commentary on Regulation Z, and case law. Except where Congress has explicitly relieved lenders of liability for noncompliance, it is a strict liability statute. (Truth-In-Lending, 5th Edition, National Consumer Law Center, 1.4.2.3.2, page 11)
    XV. Synopsis of How Rescission Works
    The process starts with the consumer’s notice to the creditor that he or she is rescinding the transaction. As the bare bones nature of the FRB model notice demonstrates, it is not necessary to explain why the consumer is canceling. The FRB Model Notice simply says: “I WISH TO CANCEL,” followed by a signature and date line (Arnold v. W.D.L. Invs., Inc., 703 F.2d 848, 850 (5th cir. 1983) (clear intention of TILA and Reg. Z is to make sure that the creditor gets notice of the consumer’s intention to rescind)). See exhibit ( I)
    The statute and Regulation Z states that if creditor disputes the consumer’s right to rescind, it should file a declaratory judgment action within the twenty days after receiving the rescission notice, before its deadline to return the consumer’s money or property and record the termination of its security interest (15 USC 1625(b)). Once the lender receives the notice, the statute and Regulation Z mandate 3 steps to be followed.
    XVI. Step One of Rescission
    First, by operation of law, the security interest and promissory note automatically becomes void and the consumer is relieved of any obligation to pay any finance or other charges (15 USC 1635(b); Reg. Z-226.15(d)(1),226.23(d)(1). . See Official Staff Commentary § 226.23(d)(2)-1. (See Willis v. Friedman, Clearinghouse No. 54,564 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May 2, 2002) (Once the right to rescind is exercised, the security interest in the Mr. Kenneth S Taylor’s property becomes void ab initio).
    Thus, the security interest is void and of no legal effect irrespective of whether the creditor makes any affirmative response to the notice. (See Family Financial Services v. Spencer, 677 A.2d 479 (Conn. App. 1996) (all that is required is notification of the intent to rescind, and the agreement is automatically rescinded).
    It is clear from the statutory language that the court’s modification authority extends only to the procedures specified by section 1635(b). The voiding of the security interest is not a procedure, in the sense of a step to be followed or an action to be taken.
    The statute makes no distinction between the right to rescind in 3-day or extended as neither cases nor statute give courts equitable discretion to alter TILA’s substantive provisions. Also, after the security interest is voided, secured creditor becomes unsecured. (See Exhibit #6)
    XVII. Step Two of Rescission
    Second, since Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor has legally rescinded the loans transaction, the alleged mortgage holders Option One Mortgage Corporation , Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Sands Canyon Corporation must return any money, including that which may have been passed on to a third party, such as a broker or an appraiser and to take any action necessary to reflect the termination of the security interest within 20 calendar days of receiving the rescission notice which has expired.
    The creditor’s other task is to take any necessary or appropriate action to reflect the fact that the security interest was automatically terminated by the rescission within 20 days of the creditor’s receipt of the rescission notice (15 USC 1635(b); Reg. Z-226.15(d)(2),226.23(d)(2).
    XIII. Step Three of Rescission
    Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor is prepared to discuss a tender obligation, should it arise, and satisfactory ways in which to meet this obligation. The termination of the security interest is required before tendering and step 1 and 2 have to be respected by Option One Mortgage Corporation , Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, and Sands Canyon Corporation
    XIV. Conclusion
    I will be requesting an itemized statement of my payment record in writing to Option One Mortgage Corporation , Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Sands Canyon Corporation
    Once the court finds a violation such as not responding to the TILA rescission letter, no matter how technical, it has no discretion with respect to liability (in re Wright, supra. At 708; In re Porter v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., 961 F,2d 1066, 1078 (3d. Cir. 1992); Smith v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., Supra. At 898. Any misgivings creditors may have about the technical nature of the requirements should be addressed to Congress or the Federal Reserve Board, not the courts.
    Since Option One Mortgage Corporation , Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Sands Canyon Corporation have not cancelled the security interest and return all monies paid by Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor to we request Stay all court litigation in this matter UNTIL ALL MONIES PAID BY TAYLOR ‘S ARE RETURNED. The lenders named above are responsible for actual and statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a). Once again, THIS COURT SHOULD REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO send a copy of my payment history and other document showing the loan disbursements, loan charges and payment made directly to this court for examination.

    Dated this 22nd day of March, 2011

    PRO SE 8610 HADDEN TWINSBURG OHIO 44087
    KENNETH S. TAYLOR ETAL [PRO SE]

  3. BIG PROBLEM WITH Wet Ink Signatures…Now they have computerized signature machines that will copy your signature and dupliate it with a PEN..even pressing hard and easy lik eyour signature. The only way to tell is to test inks, aging, etc.

  4. Mario Kenny ™
    Skip to contentHomeBankruptcy rocket docket and foreclosure by Sue D. Banker PAhttp://foreclosuresafehouse.forum-pro.org/memberlist.forumLoan Closing AuditorsBrian K. Korte Esq a “Lawyer who gets it”, serves clients in all areas of Florida. ← President Barak ObamaIf I Were A Terrorist A James Pence Video! →
    Max Gardner`s
    Posted on October 12, 2010 by MARIO KENNY| 5 Comments
    i Rate This

    http://www.maxbankruptcybootcamp.com/

    Share this: Share Email
    Print
    Facebook
    StumbleUpon
    Reddit
    Digg
    This entry was posted in Max Gardner`s and tagged Max Gardner`s. Bookmark the permalink.
    ← President Barak ObamaIf I Were A Terrorist A James Pence Video! →LikeBe the first to like this post.
    5 Responses to Max Gardner`s
    Pingback: Twitted by MarioKenny

    kenneth S Taylor | October 14, 2010 at 2:03 pm | Reply
    Corruption, Extreme Egregious Abuse Of Discretion By Judge Tom Parker, An Attorney KevinL.Williams,(0061656), Robin M. Wilson (#0066604) You Will Ever Find In A Court Room. White Collar Crime. Fraud, Forgery.
    Kenneth S. Taylor 8610 Hadden Road Twinsburg Ohio 44087-2116

    Reporters and Editors,
    If the judges had only given me ,the homeowner a chance to go to trial the truth would have come out a long time ago, This disaster in the foreclosure gate scandal has only gotten deeper and deeper because many Judges all across the country were acting like collectors for the lenders and servicers. Judge Tom Parker never gave me (Kenneth S. Taylor) an the other homeowners, a fair chance to prove their case, many judges took it personal and just said pay your dam bills and get the hell out of my court room. For example Judge Tom Parker in a legal brief ; The judges deep-rooted bias and unequivocal antagonism is so very evident when he states in one of his orders, his personal opinion not based on any laws or facts, but on erroneous unsubstantiated facts, hearsay and rhetoric as follows: “it appears to the court the Taylor’s suffered severe case of buyer’s remorse after entering into a loan agreement with plaintiff”. The statement is false and misleading and is not the truth. There were some judges who always did the right thing but many hate the poor who are struggling with debt and they hate them tying up their courtrooms. Just look at my case in Akron Ohio Summit County Court Of Common Pleas, (In The Court Of Common Pleas Summit County, Ohio on November 30, 2007 case number CV-2007-11-8364 and the plaintiffs Counsel Rebecca Shrader of Manley Deas Kochalski LLC. Haphazardly filed a second (2) lawsuit against me in the same court, on 12/ 11/ 2007 case no; C V –2007-12 – 8613, and you will see for yourself how they are treating the attorneys and the homeowner. Rocket dockets and retired judges are the rule of the day in akron as this case has saw its 4th forth judge and that may be against the law. They treated lawyers defending homeowners like idiots and banned most the truth from the court room with their maritime old world summary judgments. So let them pay now for the mistakes that were made and why haven’t you exposed them? Talk to any attorney and you will see way they did it. Many attorneys say serious violations of ethics and rules of law may have been broken but most wont say it publicly because they might lose their licence’s. But there are some please find them. Call me directly at home 330) 425-1542 as I am putting a multi- billon dollar federal lawsuit together to halt this in Akron.
    October 14, 2010

    FBI. U.S. Federal Government, U.S. Department of Justice.
    1501LakesideAvenueCleveland,OH44114
    Phone:(216)522-1400
    Fax:(216)622-6717
    E-mail: cleveland.cv@ic.fbi.gov
    SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE .

    Dear Sir or Madam:
    Now comes Defendants Kenneth S. Taylor and Alycia Taylor- Driggins from hereinafter the (“ Taylor’s”) and they hereby present this bar complaint to the FBI. U.S. Federal Government, U.S. Department of Justice for disciplinary action against Judge Tom Parker who is currently residing over the instant case of DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY as Trustee For the Certificateholders of Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006 -OPT2, Asset-Backed Certificates Series 2006- OPT2 CASE NO. CV- 2007-11-8364 v. Kenneth S. Taylor and Alycia Taylor- Driggins.

    We implore this F.B.I. Disciplinary Counsel to emergency action to cure and put an immediate halt to the corruption and egregious abuse of judicial discretion, incessant unethical behavior, and misconduct by a sitting judge ever realized in a free society
    The judge should be removed from elected office as his most recent behavior is a complete dereliction of his duty and violation of sworn oath of office and he just refuses to follow the law. . Kevin L. Williams has left the firm and has failed to prosecute the case as a result of his year long disappearance, cannot be reach by phone, his name is being forged for certain. If Kevin L. Williams did not sign these documents himself its forgery, however if he had someone else sign his name the net result is fraud upon the court and all forged documents are invalid, and the judge must dismiss this case .THESE ARE CRIMES OF MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL SUBSTANCE, FRAUD TO DEFRAUD TAYLOR’S OF THEIR REAL PROPERTY And also sanction plaintiffs for extreme ridiculous forgeries, as a bar complaint and disciplinary action is appropriate here. And judge should recuse himself and if he is so embroiled with taking defendants home, and he is so emotionally attached he can’t be fair he should remove himself, as he has loss sight of all justice for defendants. The Plaintiffs have filed and forged Kevin L. Williams signature on five (5) different documents five times, the Summit County Prosecutors Office, and the FBI have reviewed four (4) of the signatures in a interview with Kenneth S. Taylor, Kevin L. Williams is missing, and no longer can be reach at the number submitted to the court, this is fraud and misleading, he no longer works for this law firm, the court, should try calling him, at 1-614-222-4921 or ask his co-counsel Robin Wilson where he is. The plaintiffs have not denied that these signatures are forgeries, no person signs legal documents with (5) variations of their personal signature. The judge should resign from his elected office, for abuse of discretions and for failure to notice and state the obvious illegal fraud by this law firm, which has harmed the Taylor case and has block the administration of justice. This is a total mockery of the judge and the court. The judge is watching a magic trick, the invisible man; this law firm is making a fool out of the court. Not one legal argument can cure the extreme, ridiculous fraud, they have sworn under oath these five (5) differing signatures are Kevin L. Williams, but he has disappeared, vanished into thin air. JUDGE TOM PARKER HAS SEEN ALL THESE FICTICTIOUS SIGNATURES, AN HAS KNOWNIGLY AN WILLING CONDONE THIS FRAUD AND USED INVALID DOCUMENTS AGAINST THE TAYLORS. The signatures are from courts docket filed in this court with clerk’s office, the signatures are attached, below:

    Judge lacked jurisdiction to sign final decree order filed on February 01, 2010. The judge’s extreme bias and deep-rooted prejudice and inability to be fair has harmed defendants. The judge has become so personally involved and embroiled with helping plaintiffs win at all cost, (See document # 4 filed 1/29/10 on clerks pleading text,) he has compromised the integrity of the court, and he has loss sight of any justice for the defendants and has interfered with the administration of justice and short-circuited the rights of defendants to a fair trial. Statement of the case: Filed November 30, 2007and Final appleable order sign on February 01, 2010. Statement of facts: The judge Tom Parker conspired with the plaintiff’s attorney Robin Wilson of Thompson Hine LLP in a joint effort to destroy defendants counterclaim. The judge directed her to draft a false and misleading statement in a previous Final decree of foreclosure. Robin Wilson did so knowingly and willingly by inserting false claims of judge Tom Parker that he had considered defendants counterclaim is his motion granting plaintiff summary judgement in their favor. Robin Wilson drafted and sent a letter dated September 28,2009 to Judge Tom Parker confirming the act of conspiracy and her participation as such. The letter states per verbatim “ Enclosed, in response to your telephone request, is a revised Judgment Entry and Decree in Foreclosure so as to include Defendants’ Counterclaim and Plaintiffs’ Reply to Counterclaim”. Signed by Robin Wilson. See Exhibit (A). The judge never once mentioned defendants counterclaim, prior to this directive, nor is there any evidence the judge has reviewed the counterclaim. This was a wicked scheme perpetrated against defendants; the judge lied in effort to deprive defendants of their rights to homeownership. Judge Tom Parker and Robin Wilson have given false and material declarations to the trial court violating federal laws under 18 U.S.C. 1623 which is a both a criminal and civil act of conspiracy against defendants. The judge has violated the courts own Decree and order Misc No 325,Rule 11.01, 11.02 (Certificate of Readiness). The judge denied the defendants rights to a trial by jury without explanation after defendant stated to judge while in his chambers in a status hearing held on July 22, 2009 that he had a jury demand on both answer to complaint and counterclaim and the judge knew or should have known he was violating defendants rights to due process under the law by ordering a bench trial .See documents # 52 filed on 7/22/2008 judge orders bench trial on 10/1/2009 and defendants request again by motion for jury trial filed on 8/5/ 2009 document # 50/ 51 . “Standard of Review”; “clearly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious,” “De Novo” reviews necessary the judge has displayed through out this entire case a deep-rooted prejudice and bias and an inability to be fair and impartial and honest and has violated his sworn oath of office. Prima facia evidence is before the court on these facts. See Defendants Motion Opposing Notice Of Filing Revised Judgement Entry And Decree In Foreclosure filed on October 30,2009 document #32 on clerks docket/pleading text. Also view Judges order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs filed on October 10,2009 document # 35 on clerks docket / pleading text. The judges deep-rooted bias and unequivocal antagonism is so very evident when he states in that order his personal opinion not based on any laws or facts, but on erroneous unsubstantiated facts, hearsay and rhetoric as follows: “it appears to the court the Taylor’s suffered severe case of buyer’s remorse after entering into a loan agreement with plaintiff”. The statement is false and misleading and is not the truth. The Taylor’s did not enter into an agreement with this plaintiff .The judge has form his opinion which is based on fraud, and ruled in favor of plaintiffs a summary judgment base on his personal opinion See page 5 prg.2 of the above order. The judge lied on page 5 prg. 3 when he stated “ On June 2,2008 the parties entered into a settlement agreement after mediation, this is not a true statement, its false and misleading and the judge has relied heavily on this lie in his ruling and order, it was impossible to reach such a conclusion as the plaintiffs have never had anyone with settlement authority present at any mediation hearings the judge cannot be trusted and the judge violated the rules under Mediation Confidentiality (O.R.C. 22.6) See document #75 7/15/2008 and # 76 7/22/2008 of clerks file. The judge’s statements in this order are mind-boggling and “shock the conscience” See page 6 prg. 2 judge states; “the Taylor’s borrowed money in February 2006” (there is no substance to this statement, it ambiguous, and goes no where, the date is suppress because plaintiff has not establish a true current accurate date of execution of loan and is a genuine material fact in dispute which make granting of summary judgement void, as date of execution is not established by the plaintiffs), the judge then states without any supporting accounting documents attached or witness; “the Taylor’s have not made a payment on loan since its inception” this is ambiguous hearsay constitute false and misleading deceptive testimony and is not the truth . The judge just simply made this statement up. The judge has allowed both lawyers to continue to litigate matters after violating Rule 8.01 (B), (C), (D 1-20), (F), and Civil Rule 37 Pre – Trial and Procedure which state attorneys who will actually handle case must attend pre- trial and both Robin Wilson or Kevin L. Williams have not done so and both have illegally intruded into this case and this tag team from two law firms has harmed defendants and judge has been put on notice by defendants motion and has refused to remove them, there is a motion filed on; 9/02/2009 doc # 40. The testimony of Cynthia Stevens absolutely and unequivocally disputes this statement by judge. She is the only witness and her affidavit is new and her personal knowledge is limited as the firm she works for American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc.was founded in April of 2008, the defendants loan closed in March of 2006 which makes it impossible for her to have competency to testify at trial, she has not reveal what her scope of employment is or her job description, however she swears and deposes under oath that the defendants made a payment of 679.50 on March 30,2007 and in the same sentence says they have not made payment. See page 3 prg 1, of Affidavit Regarding Account And Competency And Military Status, document #32 clerks/text pleading. The judge used these convoluted oxymoronic, ambiguities, and perjured testimony to rule in favor of summary judgement and relied heavily on it to make his ruling. The Final Judgement Entry And Decree In Foreclosure submitted to this court and filed and signed by judge Eis a completely fraudulent and forgery as the attorneys for plaintiffs both in a joint effort of equal participation submitted these documents to the court and constitute fraud upon the courts and judge Tom Parker has willing and wittingly and knowingly sign this order that is fake and fraudulent as the law firm has forged attorney Kevin L.Williams signature on that order filed with court. And the title search is a counterfeit and forgery and no title search was performed by Chicago Title Company and title work is copied and pasted together by the law firm Manley Deas Kochlaski. This is more fully explained with proof of forgery at Defendants Opposition To Plaintiffs Notice of filing Of Final Judicial Report Fraud Upon The Courts, document #10 clerks/ pleading text. Filed 1/19/2010.
    Argument and law:
    “Justice must give the appearance of justice” Levine v. United States 362 U. S. 610, 80 S. Ct 1038 (1960). The judge has never explained to defendants what a summary judgment is, the judge has refused all request and motions by defendants to hold a hearing on the record including denying defendants evidentiary hearing motion. The defendants filed its first motion to recuse Judge Tom Parker on January 12, 2010. The judge failed to hold hearing in front of another judge pursuant to both federal and state rules under Cannon (4), 3 (d). The judge’s impartiality was reasonable questioned in this case by defendants. The Second, Rule 2 Cannon C 3 (1) sets forth a circumstances in which a judge should disqualify himself. When one of these causes to recuse appears a judge must do so, and he is without jurisdiction and prohibition lies. These are the controlling cases: State ex rel. Raack v. Kohn, 720 S.W.2d 941, 943 (Mo.Banc 1986). State ex rel. Wesolich v. Goeke, 794 S.W. 2d 692, 698 Mo.App.1990). Berry, 654 S. W. 2d at 163 (Dixion, J., concurrig). See Grant v. State, 700 S. W. 2d 170, 171, (Mo. App.1985). . Conclusion and precise relief: judge errs in refusing to recuse himself, denying defendants motion without plausible explanation, judge lacked jurisdiction to sign final Judgement order. We now ask this court to reverse the trial court ruling and remand case back to trial court for hearing in front of another judge and sanction plaintiffs attorneys by ordering there removal for fraud.

    We implore this FBI. U.S. Federal Government, U.S. Department of Justice Disciplinary Counsel to emergency action to cure and put an immediate halt to the corruption and egregious abuse of judicial discretion, incessant unethical behavior, and misconduct by a sitting judge ever realized in a free society
    The judge should be removed from elected office as his most recent behavior is a complete dereliction of his duty and violation of sworn oath of office and he just refuses to follow the law.
    Respectfully yours,

    Defendants Kenneth S. Taylor and Alycia Taylor- Driggins
    Pro se

    Kst.

    00 i Rate This

    kenneth S Taylor | October 14, 2010 at 2:13 pm | Reply
    Corruption, Extreme Egregious Abuse Of Discretion By Judge Tom Parker, An Attorney KevinL.Williams,(0061656), Robin M. Wilson (#0066604) You Will Ever Find In A Court Room. White Collar Crime. Fraud, Forgery.
    Kenneth S. Taylor 8610 Hadden Road Twinsburg Ohio 44087-2116

    October 14, 2010

    FBI. U.S. Federal Government, U.S. Department of Justice.
    1501LakesideAvenueCleveland,OH44114
    Phone:(216)522-1400
    Fax:(216)622-6717
    E-mail: cleveland.cv@ic.fbi.gov
    SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE .

    Dear Sir or Madam:
    Now comes Defendants Kenneth S. Taylor and Alycia Taylor- Driggins from hereinafter the (“ Taylor’s”) and they hereby present this bar complaint to the FBI. U.S. Federal Government, U.S. Department of Justice for disciplinary action against Judge Tom Parker who is currently residing over the instant case of DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY as Trustee For the Certificateholders of Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006 -OPT2, Asset-Backed Certificates Series 2006- OPT2 CASE NO. CV- 2007-11-8364 v. Kenneth S. Taylor and Alycia Taylor- Driggins.

    We implore this F.B.I. Disciplinary Counsel to emergency action to cure and put an immediate halt to the corruption and egregious abuse of judicial discretion, incessant unethical behavior, and misconduct by a sitting judge ever realized in a free society
    The judge should be removed from elected office as his most recent behavior is a complete dereliction of his duty and violation of sworn oath of office and he just refuses to follow the law. . Kevin L. Williams has left the firm and has failed to prosecute the case as a result of his year long disappearance, cannot be reach by phone, his name is being forged for certain. If Kevin L. Williams did not sign these documents himself its forgery, however if he had someone else sign his name the net result is fraud upon the court and all forged documents are invalid, and the judge must dismiss this case .THESE ARE CRIMES OF MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL SUBSTANCE FRAUD TO DEFRUAD TAYLOR’S OF THEIR REAL PROPERTY And also sanction plaintiffs for extreme ridiculous forgeries, as a bar complaint and disciplinary action is appropriate here. And judge should recuse himself and if he is so embroiled with taking defendants home, and he is so emotionally attached he can’t be fair he should remove himself, as he has loss sight of all justice for defendants. The Plaintiffs have filed and forged Kevin L. Williams signature on five (5) different documents five times, the Summit County Prosecutors Office, and the FBI have reviewed four (4) of the signatures in a interview with Kenneth S. Taylor, Kevin L. Williams is missing, and no longer can be reach at the number submitted to the court, this is fraud and misleading, he no longer works for this law firm, the court, should try calling him, at 1-614-222-4921 or ask his co-counsel Robin Wilson where he is. The plaintiffs have not denied that these signatures are forgeries, no person signs legal documents with (5) variations of their personal signature. The judge should resign from his elected office, for abuse of discretions and for failure to notice and state the obvious illegal fraud by this law firm, which has harmed the Taylor case and has block the administration of justice. This is a total mockery of the judge and the court. The judge is watching a magic trick, the invisible man; this law firm is making a fool out of the court. Not one legal argument can cure the extreme, ridiculous fraud, they have sworn under oath these five (5) differing signatures are Kevin L. Williams, but he has disappeared, vanished into thin air. JUDGE TOM PARKER HAS SEEN ALL THESE FICTICTIOUS SIGNATURES, AN HAS KNOWNIGLY AN WILLING CONDONE THIS FRAUD AND USED INVALID DOCUMENTS AGAINST THE TAYLORS. The signatures are from courts docket filed in this court with clerk’s office, the signatures are attached, below:

    Judge lacked jurisdiction to sign final decree order filed on February 01, 2010. The judge’s extreme bias and deep-rooted prejudice and inability to be fair has harmed defendants. The judge has become so personally involved and embroiled with helping plaintiffs win at all cost, (See document # 4 filed 1/29/10 on clerks pleading text,) he has compromised the integrity of the court, and he has loss sight of any justice for the defendants and has interfered with the administration of justice and short-circuited the rights of defendants to a fair trial. Statement of the case: Filed November 30, 2007and Final appleable order sign on February 01, 2010. Statement of facts: The judge Tom Parker conspired with the plaintiff’s attorney Robin Wilson of Thompson Hine LLP in a joint effort to destroy defendants counterclaim. The judge directed her to draft a false and misleading statement in a previous Final decree of foreclosure. Robin Wilson did so knowingly and willingly by inserting false claims of judge Tom Parker that he had considered defendants counterclaim is his motion granting plaintiff summary judgement in their favor. Robin Wilson drafted and sent a letter dated September 28,2009 to Judge Tom Parker confirming the act of conspiracy and her participation as such. The letter states per verbatim “ Enclosed, in response to your telephone request, is a revised Judgment Entry and Decree in Foreclosure so as to include Defendants’ Counterclaim and Plaintiffs’ Reply to Counterclaim”. Signed by Robin Wilson. See Exhibit (A). The judge never once mentioned defendants counterclaim, prior to this directive, nor is there any evidence the judge has reviewed the counterclaim. This was a wicked scheme perpetrated against defendants; the judge lied in effort to deprive defendants of their rights to homeownership. Judge Tom Parker and Robin Wilson have given false and material declarations to the trial court violating federal laws under 18 U.S.C. 1623 which is a both a criminal and civil act of conspiracy against defendants. The judge has violated the courts own Decree and order Misc No 325,Rule 11.01, 11.02 (Certificate of Readiness). The judge denied the defendants rights to a trial by jury without explanation after defendant stated to judge while in his chambers in a status hearing held on July 22, 2009 that he had a jury demand on both answer to complaint and counterclaim and the judge knew or should have known he was violating defendants rights to due process under the law by ordering a bench trial .See documents # 52 filed on 7/22/2008 judge orders bench trial on 10/1/2009 and defendants request again by motion for jury trial filed on 8/5/ 2009 document # 50/ 51 . “Standard of Review”; “clearly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious,” “De Novo” reviews necessary the judge has displayed through out this entire case a deep-rooted prejudice and bias and an inability to be fair and impartial and honest and has violated his sworn oath of office. Prima facia evidence is before the court on these facts. See Defendants Motion Opposing Notice Of Filing Revised Judgement Entry And Decree In Foreclosure filed on October 30,2009 document #32 on clerks docket/pleading text. Also view Judges order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs filed on October 10,2009 document # 35 on clerks docket / pleading text. The judges deep-rooted bias and unequivocal antagonism is so very evident when he states in that order his personal opinion not based on any laws or facts, but on erroneous unsubstantiated facts, hearsay and rhetoric as follows: “it appears to the court the Taylor’s suffered severe case of buyer’s remorse after entering into a loan agreement with plaintiff”. The statement is false and misleading and is not the truth. The Taylor’s did not enter into an agreement with this plaintiff .The judge has form his opinion which is based on fraud, and ruled in favor of plaintiffs a summary judgment base on his personal opinion See page 5 prg.2 of the above order. The judge lied on page 5 prg. 3 when he stated “ On June 2,2008 the parties entered into a settlement agreement after mediation, this is not a true statement, its false and misleading and the judge has relied heavily on this lie in his ruling and order, it was impossible to reach such a conclusion as the plaintiffs have never had anyone with settlement authority present at any mediation hearings the judge cannot be trusted and the judge violated the rules under Mediation Confidentiality (O.R.C. 22.6) See document #75 7/15/2008 and # 76 7/22/2008 of clerks file. The judge’s statements in this order are mind-boggling and “shock the conscience” See page 6 prg. 2 judge states; “the Taylor’s borrowed money in February 2006” (there is no substance to this statement, it ambiguous, and goes no where, the date is suppress because plaintiff has not establish a true current accurate date of execution of loan and is a genuine material fact in dispute which make granting of summary judgement void, as date of execution is not established by the plaintiffs), the judge then states without any supporting accounting documents attached or witness; “the Taylor’s have not made a payment on loan since its inception” this is ambiguous hearsay constitute false and misleading deceptive testimony and is not the truth . The judge just simply made this statement up. The judge has allowed both lawyers to continue to litigate matters after violating Rule 8.01 (B), (C), (D 1-20), (F), and Civil Rule 37 Pre – Trial and Procedure which state attorneys who will actually handle case must attend pre- trial and both Robin Wilson or Kevin L. Williams have not done so and both have illegally intruded into this case and this tag team from two law firms has harmed defendants and judge has been put on notice by defendants motion and has refused to remove them, there is a motion filed on; 9/02/2009 doc # 40. The testimony of Cynthia Stevens absolutely and unequivocally disputes this statement by judge. She is the only witness and her affidavit is new and her personal knowledge is limited as the firm she works for American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc.was founded in April of 2008, the defendants loan closed in March of 2006 which makes it impossible for her to have competency to testify at trial, she has not reveal what her scope of employment is or her job description, however she swears and deposes under oath that the defendants made a payment of 679.50 on March 30,2007 and in the same sentence says they have not made payment. See page 3 prg 1, of Affidavit Regarding Account And Competency And Military Status, document #32 clerks/text pleading. The judge used these convoluted oxymoronic, ambiguities, and perjured testimony to rule in favor of summary judgement and relied heavily on it to make his ruling. The Final Judgement Entry And Decree In Foreclosure submitted to this court and filed and signed by judge Eis a completely fraudulent and forgery as the attorneys for plaintiffs both in a joint effort of equal participation submitted these documents to the court and constitute fraud upon the courts and judge Tom Parker has willing and wittingly and knowingly sign this order that is fake and fraudulent as the law firm has forged attorney Kevin L.Williams signature on that order filed with court. And the title search is a counterfeit and forgery and no title search was performed by Chicago Title Company and title work is copied and pasted together by the law firm Manley Deas Kochlaski. This is more fully explained with proof of forgery at Defendants Opposition To Plaintiffs Notice of filing Of Final Judicial Report Fraud Upon The Courts, document #10 clerks/ pleading text. Filed 1/19/2010.
    Argument and law:
    “Justice must give the appearance of justice” Levine v. United States 362 U. S. 610, 80 S. Ct 1038 (1960). The judge has never explained to defendants what a summary judgment is, the judge has refused all request and motions by defendants to hold a hearing on the record including denying defendants evidentiary hearing motion. The defendants filed its first motion to recuse Judge Tom Parker on January 12, 2010. The judge failed to hold hearing in front of another judge pursuant to both federal and state rules under Cannon (4), 3 (d). The judge’s impartiality was reasonable questioned in this case by defendants. The Second, Rule 2 Cannon C 3 (1) sets forth a circumstances in which a judge should disqualify himself. When one of these causes to recuse appears a judge must do so, and he is without jurisdiction and prohibition lies. These are the controlling cases: State ex rel. Raack v. Kohn, 720 S.W.2d 941, 943 (Mo.Banc 1986). State ex rel. Wesolich v. Goeke, 794 S.W. 2d 692, 698 Mo.App.1990). Berry, 654 S. W. 2d at 163 (Dixion, J., concurrig). See Grant v. State, 700 S. W. 2d 170, 171, (Mo. App.1985). . Conclusion and precise relief: judge errs in refusing to recuse himself, denying defendants motion without plausible explanation, judge lacked jurisdiction to sign final Judgement order. We now ask this court to reverse the trial court ruling and remand case back to trial court for hearing in front of another judge and sanction plaintiffs attorneys by ordering there removal for fraud.

    We implore this FBI. U.S. Federal Government, U.S. Department of Justice Disciplinary Counsel to emergency action to cure and put an immediate halt to the corruption and egregious abuse of judicial discretion, incessant unethical behavior, and misconduct by a sitting judge ever realized in a free society
    The judge should be removed from elected office as his most recent behavior is a complete dereliction of his duty and violation of sworn oath of office and he just refuses to follow the law.
    Respectfully yours,

    Defendants Kenneth S. Taylor and Alycia Taylor- Driggins
    Pro se

    Kst.

    10 i Rate This

    kenneth S Taylor | December 13, 2010 at 1:32 am | Reply
    Foreclosure Cases filed in the Ohio Northern District Court
    View as TableCases 1 – 20 of 1,740Taylor et al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al
    Filed: December 6, 2010 as 5:2010cv02766 Updated: December 8, 2010 01:17:11
    Plaintiffs: Alycia Taylor Driggins and Kenneth S. Taylor
    Defendants: Allondian Title, Inc., American Home Mortgage, American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc., American Home Title Solutions Ltd. First Image Title Inc., Chicago Title and others
    Presiding Judge: John R. Adams
    Cause Of Action: Declaratory & Injunctive Relief – Foreclo
    Court: Sixth Circuit > Ohio > Northern District Court
    Type: Real Property > Foreclosure

    00 i Rate This

    kenneth S Taylor | December 21, 2010 at 3:23 pm | Reply
    Finally a Winning Pro se fight War not Over ;CV2007 11 8364-Deutsche Bank Natl Trust Co v Kenneth S Taylor, et al. Property located at 8610 Hadden Road, Twinsburg. Appraised at $81,000. Terms of sale, cash. K L WILLIAMS, Columbus atty. Cancelled.

    00 i Rate This

  5. Foreclosure Cases filed in the Ohio Northern District Court
    View as TableCases 1 – 20 of 1,740Taylor et al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al
    Filed: December 6, 2010 as 5:2010cv02766 Updated: December 8, 2010 01:17:11
    Plaintiffs: Alycia Taylor Driggins and Kenneth S. Taylor
    Defendants: Allondian Title, Inc., American Home Mortgage, American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc., American Home Title Solutions Ltd. First Image Title Inc., Chicago Title and others
    Presiding Judge: John R. Adams
    Cause Of Action: Declaratory & Injunctive Relief – Foreclo
    Court: Sixth Circuit > Ohio > Northern District Court
    Type: Real Property > Foreclosure

  6. […] “Fla 4th DCA: Original Note Must Be Sequestered with Court […]

  7. Response to Franie Lee;
    The problem with sequestration of the Notes is that
    many Judges themselves are in on the scam. They
    only want to sequester the Notes so the public will
    not be able to test them and they will continue to issue
    summary judgements to “pretender lenders” and
    “robber banks” based on counterfeit, color, photocopies. This happened to one of my clients this
    very week. In spite of the fact the plaintiff was not the
    original lender, and the Note was a blatant color photo
    copy and the Judge was fully informed, he entered summary judgement against my client. That was not
    the first time I’ve seen this happen.
    Every defendant should have the right to examine
    the Note and test it at least 20 days before a summary
    judgement hearing and the general public should have
    that right also so they can Judge the Judges honesty.

  8. It seems to me that our problem as it relates to original, wet ink notes vs. false affidavits could easily be solved on a national level, if in fact each and every state simply demanded what a few are just now requiring….that the wet ink note be sequestered with the court. It’s really just that simple. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

    Since we know that they don’t have them, by their own admission, this single act would finally impress upon the courts and other nonbelievers that this is truly about pandemic fraud, not deadbeat borrowers.

    And since my understanding of law (admittedly elementary) states that the note legally needs to be surrendered either in foreclosure or at satisfaction of mtge, to be cancelled or marked paid in full and returned to the borrower either way to negate possible future creditors on the same note, this is a needed but overlooked act anyway.

    Here is a motion template for your perusal:

    http://showmetheloan.net/1/documents.html

    When you enter this page, you need to click on the what’s new in fighting forecloure tab. Then click redacted Sequester the note. Mighty interesting. I’d appreciate any comments.

  9. lyou must look at this;Corruption, Extreme Egregious Abuse Of Discretion By Judge Tom Parker, An Attorney KevinL.Williams,(0061656), Robin M. Wilson (#0066604) You Will Ever Find In A Court Room. White Collar Crime. Fraud, Forgery.
    Kenneth S. Taylor 8610 Hadden Road Twinsburg Ohio 44087-2116

    October 20, 2010

    FBI. U.S. Federal Government, U.S. Department of Justice.
    1501LakesideAvenueCleveland,OH44114
    Phone:(216)522-1400
    Fax:(216)622-6717
    E-mail: cleveland.cv@ic.fbi.gov
    SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE .

    Dear Sir or Madam:
    Now comes Defendants Kenneth S. Taylor and Alycia Taylor- Driggins from hereinafter the (“ Taylor’s”) and they hereby present this bar complaint to the FBI. U.S. Federal Government, U.S. Department of Justice for disciplinary action against Judge Tom Parker who is currently residing over the instant case of DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY as Trustee For the Certificateholders of Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006 -OPT2, Asset-Backed Certificates Series 2006- OPT2 CASE NO. CV- 2007-11-8364 v. Kenneth S. Taylor and Alycia Taylor- Driggins.

    We implore this F.B.I. Disciplinary Counsel to emergency action to cure and put an immediate halt to the corruption and egregious abuse of judicial discretion, incessant unethical behavior, and misconduct by a sitting judge ever realized in a free society
    The judge should be removed from elected office as his most recent behavior is a complete dereliction of his duty and violation of sworn oath of office and he just refuses to follow the law. . Kevin L. Williams has left the firm and has failed to prosecute the case as a result of his year long disappearance, cannot be reach by phone, his name is being forged for certain. If Kevin L. Williams did not sign these documents himself its forgery, however if he had someone else sign his name the net result is fraud upon the court and all forged documents are invalid, and the judge must dismiss this case .THESE ARE CRIMES OF MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL SUBSTANCE FRAUD TO DEFRUAD TAYLOR’S OF THEIR REAL PROPERTY And also sanction plaintiffs for extreme ridiculous forgeries, as a bar complaint and disciplinary action is appropriate here. And judge should recuse himself and if he is so embroiled with taking defendants home, and he is so emotionally attached he can’t be fair he should remove himself, as he has loss sight of all justice for defendants. The Plaintiffs have filed and forged Kevin L. Williams signature on five (5) different documents five times, the Summit County Prosecutors Office, and the FBI have reviewed four (4) of the signatures in a interview with Kenneth S. Taylor, Kevin L. Williams is missing, and no longer can be reach at the number submitted to the court, this is fraud and misleading, he no longer works for this law firm, the court, should try calling him, at 1-614-222-4921 or ask his co-counsel Robin Wilson where he is. The plaintiffs have not denied that these signatures are forgeries, no person signs legal documents with (5) variations of their personal signature. The judge should resign from his elected office, for abuse of discretions and for failure to notice and state the obvious illegal fraud by this law firm, which has harmed the Taylor case and has block the administration of justice. This is a total mockery of the judge and the court. The judge is watching a magic trick, the invisible man; this law firm is making a fool out of the court. Not one legal argument can cure the extreme, ridiculous fraud, they have sworn under oath these five (5) differing signatures are Kevin L. Williams, but he has disappeared, vanished into thin air. JUDGE TOM PARKER HAS SEEN ALL THESE FICTICTIOUS SIGNATURES, AN HAS KNOWNIGLY AN WILLING CONDONE THIS FRAUD AND USED INVALID DOCUMENTS AGAINST THE TAYLORS. The signatures are from courts docket filed in this court with clerk’s office, the signatures are attached, below:

    Judge lacked jurisdiction to sign final decree order filed on February 01, 2010. The judge’s extreme bias and deep-rooted prejudice and inability to be fair has harmed defendants. The judge has become so personally involved and embroiled with helping plaintiffs win at all cost, (See document # 4 filed 1/29/10 on clerks pleading text,) he has compromised the integrity of the court, and he has loss sight of any justice for the defendants and has interfered with the administration of justice and short-circuited the rights of defendants to a fair trial. Statement of the case: Filed November 30, 2007and Final appleable order sign on February 01, 2010. Statement of facts: The judge Tom Parker conspired with the plaintiff’s attorney Robin Wilson of Thompson Hine LLP in a joint effort to destroy defendants counterclaim. The judge directed her to draft a false and misleading statement in a previous Final decree of foreclosure. Robin Wilson did so knowingly and willingly by inserting false claims of judge Tom Parker that he had considered defendants counterclaim is his motion granting plaintiff summary judgement in their favor. Robin Wilson drafted and sent a letter dated September 28,2009 to Judge Tom Parker confirming the act of conspiracy and her participation as such. The letter states per verbatim “ Enclosed, in response to your telephone request, is a revised Judgment Entry and Decree in Foreclosure so as to include Defendants’ Counterclaim and Plaintiffs’ Reply to Counterclaim”. Signed by Robin Wilson. See Exhibit (A). The judge never once mentioned defendants counterclaim, prior to this directive, nor is there any evidence the judge has reviewed the counterclaim. This was a wicked scheme perpetrated against defendants; the judge lied in effort to deprive defendants of their rights to homeownership. Judge Tom Parker and Robin Wilson have given false and material declarations to the trial court violating federal laws under 18 U.S.C. 1623 which is a both a criminal and civil act of conspiracy against defendants. The judge has violated the courts own Decree and order Misc No 325,Rule 11.01, 11.02 (Certificate of Readiness). The judge denied the defendants rights to a trial by jury without explanation after defendant stated to judge while in his chambers in a status hearing held on July 22, 2009 that he had a jury demand on both answer to complaint and counterclaim and the judge knew or should have known he was violating defendants rights to due process under the law by ordering a bench trial .See documents # 52 filed on 7/22/2008 judge orders bench trial on 10/1/2009 and defendants request again by motion for jury trial filed on 8/5/ 2009 document # 50/ 51 . “Standard of Review”; “clearly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious,” “De Novo” reviews necessary the judge has displayed through out this entire case a deep-rooted prejudice and bias and an inability to be fair and impartial and honest and has violated his sworn oath of office. Prima facia evidence is before the court on these facts. See Defendants Motion Opposing Notice Of Filing Revised Judgement Entry And Decree In Foreclosure filed on October 30,2009 document #32 on clerks docket/pleading text. Also view Judges order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs filed on October 10,2009 document # 35 on clerks docket / pleading text. The judges deep-rooted bias and unequivocal antagonism is so very evident when he states in that order his personal opinion not based on any laws or facts, but on erroneous unsubstantiated facts, hearsay and rhetoric as follows: “it appears to the court the Taylor’s suffered severe case of buyer’s remorse after entering into a loan agreement with plaintiff”. The statement is false and misleading and is not the truth. The Taylor’s did not enter into an agreement with this plaintiff .The judge has form his opinion which is based on fraud, and ruled in favor of plaintiffs a summary judgment base on his personal opinion See page 5 prg.2 of the above order. The judge lied on page 5 prg. 3 when he stated “ On June 2,2008 the parties entered into a settlement agreement after mediation, this is not a true statement, its false and misleading and the judge has relied heavily on this lie in his ruling and order, it was impossible to reach such a conclusion as the plaintiffs have never had anyone with settlement authority present at any mediation hearings the judge cannot be trusted and the judge violated the rules under Mediation Confidentiality (O.R.C. 22.6) See document #75 7/15/2008 and # 76 7/22/2008 of clerks file. The judge’s statements in this order are mind-boggling and “shock the conscience” See page 6 prg. 2 judge states; “the Taylor’s borrowed money in February 2006” (there is no substance to this statement, it ambiguous, and goes no where, the date is suppress because plaintiff has not establish a true current accurate date of execution of loan and is a genuine material fact in dispute which make granting of summary judgement void, as date of execution is not established by the plaintiffs), the judge then states without any supporting accounting documents attached or witness; “the Taylor’s have not made a payment on loan since its inception” this is ambiguous hearsay constitute false and misleading deceptive testimony and is not the truth . The judge just simply made this statement up. The judge has allowed both lawyers to continue to litigate matters after violating Rule 8.01 (B), (C), (D 1-20), (F), and Civil Rule 37 Pre – Trial and Procedure which state attorneys who will actually handle case must attend pre- trial and both Robin Wilson or Kevin L. Williams have not done so and both have illegally intruded into this case and this tag team from two law firms has harmed defendants and judge has been put on notice by defendants motion and has refused to remove them, there is a motion filed on; 9/02/2009 doc # 40. The testimony of Cynthia Stevens absolutely and unequivocally disputes this statement by judge. She is the only witness and her affidavit is new and her personal knowledge is limited as the firm she works for American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc.was founded in April of 2008, the defendants loan closed in March of 2006 which makes it impossible for her to have competency to testify at trial, she has not reveal what her scope of employment is or her job description, however she swears and deposes under oath that the defendants made a payment of 679.50 on March 30,2007 and in the same sentence says they have not made payment. See page 3 prg 1, of Affidavit Regarding Account And Competency And Military Status, document #32 clerks/text pleading. The judge used these convoluted oxymoronic, ambiguities, and perjured testimony to rule in favor of summary judgement and relied heavily on it to make his ruling. The Final Judgement Entry And Decree In Foreclosure submitted to this court and filed and signed by judge Eis a completely fraudulent and forgery as the attorneys for plaintiffs both in a joint effort of equal participation submitted these documents to the court and constitute fraud upon the courts and judge Tom Parker has willing and wittingly and knowingly sign this order that is fake and fraudulent as the law firm has forged attorney Kevin L.Williams signature on that order filed with court. And the title search is a counterfeit and forgery and no title search was performed by Chicago Title Company and title work is copied and pasted together by the law firm Manley Deas Kochlaski. This is more fully explained with proof of forgery at Defendants Opposition To Plaintiffs Notice of filing Of Final Judicial Report Fraud Upon The Courts, document #10 clerks/ pleading text. Filed 1/19/2010.
    Argument and law:
    “Justice must give the appearance of justice” Levine v. United States 362 U. S. 610, 80 S. Ct 1038 (1960). The judge has never explained to defendants what a summary judgment is, the judge has refused all request and motions by defendants to hold a hearing on the record including denying defendants evidentiary hearing motion. The defendants filed its first motion to recuse Judge Tom Parker on January 12, 2010. The judge failed to hold hearing in front of another judge pursuant to both federal and state rules under Cannon (4), 3 (d). The judge’s impartiality was reasonable questioned in this case by defendants. The Second, Rule 2 Cannon C 3 (1) sets forth a circumstances in which a judge should disqualify himself. When one of these causes to recuse appears a judge must do so, and he is without jurisdiction and prohibition lies. These are the controlling cases: State ex rel. Raack v. Kohn, 720 S.W.2d 941, 943 (Mo.Banc 1986). State ex rel. Wesolich v. Goeke, 794 S.W. 2d 692, 698 Mo.App.1990). Berry, 654 S. W. 2d at 163 (Dixion, J., concurrig). See Grant v. State, 700 S. W. 2d 170, 171, (Mo. App.1985). . Conclusion and precise relief: judge errs in refusing to recuse himself, denying defendants motion without plausible explanation, judge lacked jurisdiction to sign final Judgement order. We now ask this court to reverse the trial court ruling and remand case back to trial court for hearing in front of another judge and sanction plaintiffs attorneys by ordering there removal for fraud.

    We implore this FBI. U.S. Federal Government, U.S. Department of Justice Disciplinary Counsel to emergency action to cure and put an immediate halt to the corruption and egregious abuse of judicial discretion, incessant unethical behavior, and misconduct by a sitting judge ever realized in a free society
    The judge should be removed from elected office as his most recent behavior is a complete dereliction of his duty and violation of sworn oath of office and he just refuses to follow the law.
    Respectfully yours,

    Defendants Kenneth S. Taylor and Alycia Taylor- Driggins
    Pro se

    Kst.

  10. MikeH ,

    Get one of those “digital microscopes” they sell for computers ,, they can easily show if the signature is real or not ,, a continuous line or a series of dots ..

    The body of the document would usually be printed on a black/white laser printer and would be dots also.

    When you look at a digitally printed “signature” with a microscope and you have it displayed on your laptop screen IT WILL BE CLEAR TO ALL if it is from a pen or a computer.

  11. All of this represents control. Even if you are quite sure that there is a clear defense to foreclosure due to fraudulent origination, fraudulent conveyance, and fraudulent foreclosure, the foreclosure attorneys will alter documents, substitute documents, fabricate documents, falsify affidavits – and any other method to convince the court the foreclosure is valid. There is no legitimate claim when there is such fraud. And, if the courts allow the so called “lender” to come back again – they will just do the same fraud – all over again.

    And, the fraud upon foreclosure victims is spilling over to home owners who are not in default, not under-water, and not in foreclosure.

    The only way to stop the fraud is by criminal investigation. And, they should start with the foreclosure law firms.

  12. This is bad news because now it is impossible to
    do a forensic analysis of the Note before the hearing.
    I have seen many color photocopies being submitted as being the original. If one can not examine
    and test it, how can one know if it is real or not?
    The test is simple, feel for ridge marks on the opposite side of the pages where it was signed or initialed. If no ridge marks, test a small sample with
    a clean, original, yellow magic marker and see if the
    blue ink smudges. If not, it is a color photocopy.

  13. Does anyone have a copy of the above case?

  14. is it legal for some one to take your note and use it as chips in a casino, by over extending unilaterally your liability many times over without approval or disclosure

  15. the note and deed of trust being inseparable is not applicable in virginia, there was a change i the property conveyance statutes.

    or at least the is what our honorable judges have been ruling.

    how can any one protect the integrity and prevent the felonious manipulation of the note.

  16. My apologies Bob & thanks Jan for pointing that out to us!

  17. Since “Bob G” was merely quoting someone who posted in the NY Times blog, and was not advancing these comments for himself, Bob remains innocent of criticism.

    That cannot be said for the “Law degree” fellow in the blog. I would note that, ref. #11, I have seen “transfers” where the claim is made that the “sale” was done for $10 – not $10 and other consideration.” There is a perfectly good reason to assume that a Note (or a mortgage) was sold for only $10: both the buyer and the seller knew that the Note was already paid by someone else, e.g. insurance against credit default, so the Note was effectively worthless, except to the schemer who implicitly proposes in the purchase to attempt to steal the house by scamming the Courts. There are a lot of these bottom-feeders out there, in particular the sub-entities created by Banks for that express purpose.

    #9 “improper recordation” may well stop a foreclosure dead in its tracks, see: “In re Foreclosure Cases,” n.d. Ohio, J. Boyko, where 56 foreclosures in Federal District Court were tossed for failure to demonstrate, through Recordation, that the plaintiff actually held both the Note and the Mortgage.

    #10 Most interesting is #10. While the writer is probably correct in the assertion that filing an untruthful affidavit will only lead to a do-over in the State Court system, that is not uniformly true. Judges in Long Island NY, particularly Suffolk County, have been vacating mortgages and ordering them stricken from the land records for the filing of untruthful pleadings and affidavits. Also, within the bankruptcy court there is a recognition that falsely averring a matter will result in heavy sanctions. See: In re Noyes, US Bankr. Ct Mass, where Judge Rosenthal hammered Sanctions of about $750,000 against the lender, the law firm, and the individual lawyers for the falsity of claiming that the servicer held the Note and was entitled to standing in his Court. Since the house was perhaps $170,000, the homeowner collected far more in sanctions money than the property could ever be worth.

    Also, note that another source of sanctions for false affidavits or other bad behavior can lead to “equitable subordination” of the claim within the BK Court, under Rule 510(c): see: “In re Landmark Development,” USBC Montana, where Credit Suisse was hammered for $323 million. Yup, you read it right: $323,000,000. Now THAT is a nice hit. Serves them right. And the Court did is “sua sponte,” the debtor did not even have to ask for the subordination of the debt. Always nice.

  18. Why does the media call this a crisis?

    BECAUSE IT IS! Tens of Millions of people have lost their life savings, their jobs and their homesTO FAKES WITH FAKE PAPERS.

    COPYING NOTES AND SELLING THEM INTO MULTIPLE POOLS & INSURING THEM WITH MULTIPLE SETS OF DEFAULT SWAPS.

    RE: MERS & RECORDING

    Members appoint MERS as the mortgagee of record on all loans that they register on the MERS System. This appointment “eliminates the need for any future assignments” – (OH REALLY?)

    Instead of preparing a paper assignment to track the change in the county land records, all subsequent transfers are tracked electronically on the MERS System. – (YOU DON’T SAY)

    MERS does not create or transfer beneficial interests in mortgage loans or create electronic assignments of the mortgage. – (BUT THEY CAN ISSUE DISCHARGE OF MORTGAGES UNDER THEIR NAME?)

    What MERS does do is eliminate the need for subsequent recorded assignments altogether.

    BUT THE STANDARD FANNIE/FREDDIE MORTGAGE “CONTRACT” SAYS (SECTION 20) THAT THE NOTE CAN BE SOLD BUT “ONLY” IF THE MORTGAGE GOES WITH IT.

    Can you explain this BOB G.?

    You must not be a real estate lawyer, if you were – you would understand that the note & mortgage are ‘supposed’ to stay together… the transfer of ownership ‘supposed’ to be recorded in public land records per the mortgage “contract” and the pooling & servicing agreement.

    The reason is simple; you do not want to have multiple copies of a note floating around. What could happen is that the note could be copied many times and sold into multiple pools and insured with multiple sets of credit default swaps.

    See here – page 23
    http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2008/nr-occ-2008-152a.pdf

  19. Bob G. ..you might have a law degree but you sound exactly like a lawyer for the Banks. You got a lot to learn!

  20. Interesting blog post from a lawyer (source today’s NY Times). Comments?

    “Why does the media insist upon calling this a “crisis’? (And I’ll note that nearly all of the questions in posts 1-11 are LEGAL questions and not the province of a econ wonk all though Mr. Lawler does great posts for Calculated Risk.)

    “For example #1 asks if the taxes stop on the property when the owner is in foreclosure. Answer is NO. Real estate taxes go with the land and any unpaid taxes keep accruing until the taxing body (local government) seizes it and sells it at tax sale. Buy a foreclosure with unpaid taxes, you get the tax bill as well.

    “#4 asks what would happen if primary mortgages could be crammed down in bankruptcy like mortgages on 2nd homes. Answer is nothing that hasn’t happened in the past since that is the way it was with primary mortgages being crammed down in bankruptcy up until the mid-1990s when Congress prohibited the bankruptcy courts from cramming down primary mortgages.

    “#9 asks about improper recordation (ie: not getting the mortgage properly recorded down at the local county building.) Answer is that it does NOT matter as between the borrower and lender (or subsequent purchasers of the loan).

    “Failure to have it recorded properly ONLY is of importance when an innocent 3rd party (a buyer of the property or the local bank who makes another loan on the property) do not have notice of the prior mortgage because it was not recorded properly.

    “The only one who can effectively raise the issue of improper recordation (loan not being recorded) is the innocent 3rd party who bought the place and didn’t know it has a lien or mortgage against it because the loan was not recorded.

    “The borrower KNOWS that he owes the money and KNOWS that there is a mortgage. Ergo he is not an ‘innocent party to the underlying transaction and debt.’

    “#10 goes off on the ‘where are the criminal charges’ rant.

    “And that goes right back to the courts to impose a remedy. For an affidavit where the person signing made false statements (aka ‘I have knowledge of” when they didn’t) remedies are very simple. The court merely orders the affidavit stricken and hits the offending side with the attorney fees for the other party (here the debtor). The fees will ONLY be for an amount equal to what it took to prove the false statement. And the lender can refile. That’s it. That’s the remedy. It is called ‘sanctions’ or ‘civil contempt.’ Already exists in the RUles of Civil Procedure.

    “COurts are NOT going to bog down their dockets by imposing criminal contempt over stupidity and carelessness.

    “The only ‘fraud’ was upon the court and it was not an out-an-out fraud by getting something the lender wasn’t really entitled to get (ie: paid.) It was filing false doucments in support of a legitimate claim where if someone else ahd signed the douments, it would havebeen true. No criminal intent to defraud – just serious stupid that annoys the Judge.

    “No damages to defaulting borrowers who got lucky and got to stay in the house longer because the lender buggered it up and filed untrue affidavits. If the lender hadn’t done that, the borower would have been out on their….er, ear, a lot sooner.

    “And this goes to why it is NOT really a “crisis’ in the hyperventilating term of the media. Remedies will be that the lenders have to (a) go back and fix it and file accurate documents & (b) pay the borrower’s legal fees ONLY for the cost of finding and proving the inaccurate affidavits (or that there is no mortgage at all cause the homeowner doesn’t have one)

    “And there are NO “damages” to the borrower who is in default. And courts are NOT gonna cancel a valid mortgage because the loan servicer buggered up the pleadings in the case as that would be an excessive windfall to the defaulting debtor.

    “#11 apparently isn’t reading the WHOLE sentence in his loan documents. I will happily wageer that his loan documents say the loan was sold for “$10 and other good and valuable consideration.” That does NOT mean the loan was sold for ONLY $10. It means the loan was sold for $10 PLUS MORE but the total amount was not put in the documents. Done all the time to keep the actual amount of the sale (be it the property or the loan being sold) from being part of the public record. Perfectly proper.

    “So please explain why the media keeps scraming ‘crisis’ when the remedies to fix the misconduct are limited (refile and pay other side’s legal fees). The foreclosures will not stop and the deadbeat borrower will not get to keep the house and will not get a windfall of money (aside from the legal fees for the lawyer.)

    “The lenders who botched it up by trying to do it for the lowest possible cost will have to eat the costs of doing it over and the costs of paying the other side’s legal bill for catching them (probably around $3000 -25,000 max.)

    “BTW, I HAVE the law degree and know what I am talking about. Can’t say the same for the media who think econ wonks can answer questions about the legal implication”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: