Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Fighting a Foreclosure

Expand Messages
  • mn_chicago
    Monday 9 July 2007 It was wrong of me to vascillate and wonder if I should go to court for what seemed like a perfuntory procedure, a substitution of parties.
    Message 1 of 15 , Jul 9, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Monday 9 July 2007

      It was wrong of me to vascillate and wonder if I should
      go to court for what seemed like a perfuntory procedure,
      a substitution of parties. I went this morning.


      The complaint to foreclose was filed on 19 January 2007.

      The alleged plaintiff filed using only the mortgage as
      "evidence" to foreclose....no note was filed.

      In preparing for this morning's session, I reviewed the
      assignment of mortgages which I just received a few days
      ago in the plaintiff's amended summary judgment.

      The first assignment was the mortgage from MERS to the
      plaintiff. It is dated 1 February 2007, 22 days AFTER
      the complaint was filed.

      So the plaintiff did not have the mortgage under which it
      filed properly assigned to it until after filing the
      complaint.

      The second exhibit was the plaintiff assigning the mortgage
      and note back to the original alleged lender. That assignment
      is dated 15 June 2007, four days before the amended summary
      judgment.

      BUT, in reading the last paragraph of that assignment, it
      states that the assignment of the mortgage and noted was in
      effect ON OR BEFORE 10 JANUARY 2007!

      In the first instance, the plaintiff was not assigned the
      mortgage until AFTER it filed the complaint.

      In the second instance, the plaintiff assigned the note
      and mortgage to another "lender" by 10 January 2007, nine
      days before it filed the complaint, and 21 days before it
      was assigned the mortgage!

      The first words out of my mouth to the judge were to demand an
      immediate dismissal of the case for lack of proper standing
      and fraud upon the court.

      I stated I have an unrebutted affidavit on record that there
      was no proper party plaintiff, and no fact evidence on the
      record.

      The judge noted my objection, but allowed the substitution
      of parties because that was the motion to be heard. My
      demand for immediate dismissal would be appropriate for my
      response to the summary judgment, she said.

      I asked, could I not object to allowing the substitution
      because of faulty assignments?, and she said no.
      [That was my effort to ask questions, per FF]. I could
      take that issue up in my response to the amended summary
      judgment.

      Now I have a month to respond, and the new plaintiff gets
      14 days to respond back, and then back to court in late
      August.

      ---

      I had just read a case cite the previous Saturday that I
      thought was appropriate but did not write it down at the
      time. I immediately went to the library on the next floor
      and there it was:

      "A court should of its own volition, and without any motion
      dismiss a suit at any time when its attention is called to
      the fact that such suit is being prosecuted without proper
      authority." Town of Kankakee v K & I RR CO, 115 Ill 88

      Some of you may be able to learn from my mistakes and see
      what to expect when in a courtroom situation.

      One thing is apparent: I am making headway. The summary
      judgment against me by a substitute judge was vacated, and
      I have the opportunity to shoot down the plaintiff in a few
      ways that violate the statutes under which it files, and
      now, the improper order of assignments.

      Cheers!

      mn

      Moderator/Bear: I would put that authority from Kankakee into a "renewed" demand to dismiss in writing and file it pronto. Try to make the word "should" stand out. Maybe you could make "should" stand out by way of related cases that put emphasis on what the court is supposed to do. You should be able to find some related authority that you should not have to expend resources to defend a suit brought without authority. Include your new exhibits regarding the history of assignments with a discussion in the motion about why they are relevant. Put in a separate motion to hold the plaintiffs in contempt of court for the fraud on the court. Also, look into a separate motion for Rule 11 sanctions as the suit is not warranted if they had made a reasonable investigation into the law and the facts entitling you to sanctions.
    • mn_chicago
      Sunday 23 December 2007 An update on my efforts to ward off a foreclosure judgment, now in the appellate court. A few weeks ago, I was Noticed by a new firm
      Message 2 of 15 , Dec 23, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Sunday 23 December 2007

        An update on my efforts to ward off a foreclosure
        judgment, now in the appellate court.

        A few weeks ago, I was Noticed by a new firm that
        it was taking over the case. Guess the "lender"
        recognized that the local foreclosure-mill firm was
        out of their league beyond the routine, so they
        stepped it up a few notches to a firm with offices
        around the country.

        This time, I am fighting back from the onset by
        sending out a subpeona ducus tecum to the two that
        claim to be licensed to practice law in Illinois.
        Because a notice was mentioned as being sent to
        the initial "attorney" this new firm is replacing,
        I sent a subpoena to him, as well, (I figure, they
        opened the door for it), demanding that they all
        produce a license to practice law, with the oath
        of office certified and inscribed on the license,
        as prescibed by law, and that the firm they are with
        is also in compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rules.

        Now lets see how the judge tries to deal with this
        approach.

        Cheers,

        mn


        Let me add, while preparing my appeal for a guilty
        verdict on a moving traffic violation, I noticed
        that my reasoning for having that judgment dismissed
        also applied to the foreclosure appeal.

        Making objections is key for any appeal, (and I am
        on the record for making them), for without
        objections on the record, the reviewing court has
        nothing to review...

        ...unless one can bring in the plain error doctrine
        where the judge's behavior/ruling is so egregious that
        it could deteriorate judicial integrity. Then, it is
        not necessary that any objection appear on the record.

        My point?

        Never give up. Be aware of the plain error doctrine for
        your own state, in case you ever need it.

        I tried to schedule the court date for the subpeona for
        the 19th of January, the one year anniversary from when
        my case was filed, but it falls on a weekend. I doubt
        the other side would have noted my irony.
      • Frog Farmer
        ... Flabby couldn t cut the mustard! ... There will come a day when these losers realize their error, but it isn t soon. ... Could you post the Illinois law
        Message 3 of 15 , Dec 24, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          mn_chicago wrote:

          > A few weeks ago, I was Noticed by a new firm

          Flabby couldn't cut the mustard!

          > that
          > it was taking over the case. Guess the "lender"
          > recognized that the local foreclosure-mill firm was
          > out of their league beyond the routine, so they
          > stepped it up a few notches to a firm with offices
          > around the country.

          There will come a day when these "losers" realize their error, but it
          isn't soon.

          > This time, I am fighting back from the onset by
          > sending out a subpeona ducus tecum to the two that
          > claim to be licensed to practice law in Illinois.
          > Because a notice was mentioned as being sent to
          > the initial "attorney" this new firm is replacing,
          > I sent a subpoena to him, as well, (I figure, they
          > opened the door for it), demanding that they all
          > produce a license to practice law, with the oath
          > of office certified and inscribed on the license,
          > as prescribed by law, and that the firm they are with
          > is also in compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rules.

          Could you post the Illinois law that requires that the oath be ON the
          license? Here in California it is Business & Professions Code Section
          6067. I've told many people of this law but few choose to use it. I
          have used it, and it is fun to use, because these attorneys just stand
          and stammer at you - they don't have any excuse for the ignorance you
          suddenly illuminate. I once "won" a whole bunch of "valuable prizes" at
          a seminar where a supposed attorney was charging for and giving "trust"
          advice. I expanded my booty by telling him my own interpretation of his
          published words in his invitation, and I interpreted his words in my
          favor and not his and demanded satisfaction, with witnesses of course,
          and after I told him about 6067, I got all I wanted and MORE (when I
          threw in a promise to forget all prior transgressions once I was
          satisfied there and then)!

          > Now lets see how the judge tries to deal with this
          > approach.

          I hate leaving outcomes up to them!

          > Making objections is key for any appeal, (and I am
          > on the record for making them), for without
          > objections on the record, the reviewing court has
          > nothing to review...

          That should be capitalized, or a text file with just that fact should be
          put in this list's file section for people to find, because it seems
          that many people don't realize it and then just waste more time and
          resources on an appeal that could never have won in the first place,
          without a snowball's chance where users of the word that sounds like
          gawd are going!

          > ...unless one can bring in the plain error doctrine
          > where the judge's behavior/ruling is so egregious that
          > it could deteriorate judicial integrity. Then, it is
          > not necessary that any objection appear on the record.

          I don't like relying upon that "plain error doctrine" for this reason:
          what should already be plain to Americans, like things that are plain to
          maybe you and me, are not plain at all. Americans as a whole are
          unconscious donkeys to permit what was once the best country in the
          world to fall so low so fast without much resistance. As a whole,
          Americans (and I am one) disgust me! I wouldn't trust a consensus from
          a herd of donkeys (now genetically modified with lemming chromosomes)
          for any decision I was going to make. So, I assume it is always me
          against everyone else, and I let my allies show themselves and make
          themselves plain to me; I do not assume they are out there anymore to
          confirm that the errors I point out are "plain error". Maybe they used
          to be there when people read more. But I would not bet a nickel they'd
          be there now, in my own case, when I need reason logic and common sense
          to prevail.

          > My point?
          >
          > Never give up. Be aware of the plain error doctrine for
          > your own state, in case you ever need it.

          Right, never give up. And throw in the kitchen sink if you think it will
          guarantee the outcome you prefer. Do whatever is possible to save the
          day! I once saw a picture titled "Never Give Up!" It showed a frog
          about to be swallowed by a heron, but the frog was choking his neck
          making it impossible. You do what you have to do.

          My first case, where I had set out to get prosecuted just to get
          courtroom experience (which maybe was a dumb move looking back; I still
          haven't decided because of the cheap education) I typed with no computer
          available and produced over an inch and a half of paperwork over nine
          months and nine hearings! The kitchen sink was in there! But later, for
          my next performance, I worked without a net and reduced my efforts to
          only one hearing and ten pages for a similar win. I guess I'm saying,
          if you are in doubt do everything, but later, when you know the game,
          you can just nail all the free throws.

          > I tried to schedule the court date for the subpeona for
          > the 19th of January, the one year anniversary from when
          > my case was filed, but it falls on a weekend. I doubt
          > the other side would have noted my irony.

          Maybe they'd "get" April 19th.

          Regards,

          FF
        • Michael Noonan
          ... Of particular interest for you is 205/5, at the end: Illinois Compiled Statutes (705 ILCS 205/1) (from Ch. 13, par. 1) Sec. 1. No person shall be permitted
          Message 4 of 15 , Dec 25, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:

            >
            > Could you post the Illinois law that requires that
            > the oath be ON the license? Here in California it
            >is Business & Professions Code Section 6067.

            Of particular interest for you is 205/5, at the end:

            Illinois Compiled Statutes

            (705 ILCS 205/1) (from Ch. 13, par. 1)
            Sec. 1. No person shall be permitted to practice
            as an attorney or counselor at law within this State
            without having previously obtained a license for that
            purpose from the Supreme Court of this State.
            No person shall receive any compensation directly
            or indirectly for any legal services other than a
            regularly licensed attorney, nor may an unlicensed
            person advertise or hold himself or herself out to
            provide legal services.
            A license, as provided for herein, constitutes the
            person receiving the same an attorney and counselor at
            law, according to the law and customs thereof, for and
            during his good behavior in the practice and
            authorizes him to demand and receive fees for any
            services which he may render as an attorney and
            counselor at law in this State. No person shall be
            granted a license or renewal authorized by this Act
            who has defaulted on an educational loan guaranteed by
            the Illinois Student Assistance Commission; however, a
            license or renewal may be issued to the aforementioned
            persons who have established a satisfactory repayment
            record as determined by the Illinois Student
            Assistance Commission. No person shall be granted a
            license or renewal authorized by this Act who is more
            than 30 days delinquent in complying with a child
            support order; a license or renewal may be issued,
            however, if the person has established a satisfactory
            repayment record as determined (i) by the Department
            of Healthcare and Family Services (formerly Illinois
            Department of Public Aid) for cases being enforced
            under Article X of the Illinois Public Aid Code or
            (ii) in all other cases by order of court or by
            written agreement between the custodial parent and non
            custodial parent. No person shall be refused a license
            under this Act on account of sex.
            Any person practicing, charging or receiving fees
            for legal services or advertising or holding himself
            or herself out to provide legal services within this
            State, either directly or indirectly, without being
            licensed to practice as herein required, is guilty of
            contempt of court and shall be punished accordingly,
            upon complaint being filed in any Circuit Court of
            this State. The remedies available include, but are
            not limited to: (i) appropriate equitable relief; (ii)
            a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000, which shall be
            paid to the Illinois Equal Justice Foundation; and
            (iii) actual damages. Such proceedings shall be
            conducted in the Courts of the respective counties
            where the alleged contempt has been committed in the
            same manner as in cases of indirect contempt and with
            the right of review by the parties thereto.
            The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to
            other remedies permitted by law and shall not be
            construed to deprive courts of this State of their
            inherent right to punish for contempt or to restrain
            the unauthorized practice of law.
            Nothing in this Act shall be construed to conflict
            with, amend, or modify Section 5 of the Corporation
            Practice of Law Prohibition Act or prohibit
            representation of a party by a person who is not an
            attorney in a proceeding before either panel of the
            Illinois Labor Relations Board under the Illinois
            Public Labor Relations Act, as now or hereafter
            amended, the Illinois Educational Labor Relations
            Board under the Illinois Educational Labor Relations
            Act, as now or hereafter amended, the State Civil
            Service Commission, the local Civil Service
            Commissions, or the University Civil Service Merit
            Board, to the extent allowed pursuant to rules and
            regulations promulgated by those Boards and
            Commissions or the giving of information, training, or
            advocacy or assistance in any meetings or
            administrative proceedings held pursuant to the
            federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
            the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the federal
            Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or the
            federal Social Security Act, to the extent allowed by
            those laws or the federal regulations or State
            statutes implementing those laws.
            (Source: P.A. 94 659, eff. 1 1 06; 95 331, eff. 8 21
            07; 95 410, eff. 8 24 07.)


            (705 ILCS 205/5) (from Ch. 13, par. 5)
            Sec. 5. It shall be the duty of the clerk of the
            supreme court to make and keep a record, stating at
            the head thereof that the persons whose names are
            therein written have been regularly licensed and
            admitted to practice as attorneys and counselors at
            law within this State, and that they have duly taken
            the oath of office as prescribed by law, which shall
            be certified and indorsed on the license.
            (Source: Laws 1965, p. 34.)


            Heh, heh.



            > > Now lets see how the judge tries to deal with this
            > > approach.
            >
            > I hate leaving outcomes up to them!


            Point taken.


            > I don't like relying upon that "plain error
            > doctrine" for this reason: what should already be
            > plain to Americans, like things that are plain to
            > maybe you and me, are not plain at all.

            I am using it for an appeal on a moving violation
            where no objections on the record, except for lack of
            proper oath for the issuer of the complaint.

            For lack of objections on record, this can be the next
            best approach that I know of, and I fully intend to
            show how egregious was the behavior of the judge,
            like when after reading a comparison of the required
            constitutional oath and the one on file...similar, but
            not the same, as I pointed out...he laughed and said
            to me, "You must be kidding!" Then in an aside to
            his clerk, he said, "It must be a full moon."

            Should be fun, as you say.



            > Americans as a whole are unconscious donkeys to
            > permit what was once the best country in the
            > world to fall so low so fast without much
            > resistance.

            Now THIS is what should be in the files for everyone
            to read!

            Kind regards,

            mn


            ____________________________________________________________________________________
            Looking for last minute shopping deals?
            Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.