Housing is a Civil Right

Housing is a Civil Right

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

KingCast and Mortgage Movies See Frail Elderly Pro Se Slam NWTS on CPA and Little RICO 9A.82 Motion to Dismiss in WA Snohomish Superior Court

Court colloquy above, Interviews below.

Note: All four of the Ha Dao Deposition videos are online for free (free as in "Free Country," right) at Affordable Video Depo. OK first she won her Motion to Remand after a rather specious, calculated and dilatory Motion Practice tactic by apparently only one Defendant. Then last week we saw how in a companion part of this case, Select Portfolio got away with attorney testimony regarding an alleged Deed of Trust that cancer survivor Marilynn Shcolnik claims she never signed. She is moving for an Appeal because the Court gave short shrift to her Motion to Strike the Attorney Declaration of J. Will Eidson even though the signatories all reside right here in Seattle. She claims her passport/Canadian & U.S. Border Patrol documents show that she was not in town on 25 July 2006.

Not only that, but the alleged Loan Modification she signed references yet a different date for the security instrument: 31 July, 2006. This shit is crazy, right.

None of the three putative signatories to to the Deed of Trust -- Rose Kane, Keith Thomson, Esq. and Carey Steingrabber -- have stepped forward to acknowledge that she signed the documents in their presence, which is the basis of the interview I conducted with NWTS Counsel as seen on TV errrr... as seen on YouTube because major press almost never conducts the sort of interviews that I do, ahem. For what it's worth, Ms. Shcolnik did make the point that Rose Kane seems to be wearing an awful lot of hats these days.........

Anyway here's the fun part: The Court DENIED Northwest Trustee Services (NWTS) Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss, based on the presentation you see in the top video. I don't have time to transcribe it but you get it. I'm sure you get it. And so do they.

Interestingly, my presence was challenged in Court today as you will see in both videos. I never lose those challenges, as the scurrying Apple attorneys back in Boston will tell you in "Censorship Fail: Apple Lawyers Slammed on Genius Bar Courtroom Video." And as I told Judge Weiss today, I know that some of these bankster attorneys gravely object to my presence, and some of attorney are pretty friggin' rude so I had to put them in their place, also as seen on YouTube, "Judges Will Watch as Foreclosure Mill Attorneys Threaten Depo Videographer with Security and Arrest."   

Thursday, February 12, 2015

KingCast and Mortgage Movies See Marilynn Shcolnik Win Remand in Wrongful Foreclosure But Court Allows SPS Attorney to Testify About Note and Alleged Loan Mod.


Look at the date of the purported Security Instrument on her purported Loan Mod.
It references 31 July 2006.
The purported Note reads 25 July 2006.
And oh, Ms. Shcolnik says her Canadian Border Patrol docs prove
she was out of the Country all day. Are they claiming she signed it at night?
Well then if so the people who signed on her Deed of Trust have to testify,
rather than Attorney Eidson. This is simple, folks.
Video forthcoming. Here is the first journal entry with the background leading up to today.  So what happened today? Well it was crazy. The Court granted Injunctive Relief against the pending sale date, which was now moved from tomorrow out into March, 2015 as SLS no doubt tries to shore up their evidentiary trail and try to extinguish that Lis Pendens that Ms. Shcolnik filed.

So today Ms. Shcolnik filed a Motion to Strike the Declaration of Attorney Will Eidson because he didn't have any firsthand knowledge of the alleged Note that she signed, nor did he have any such knowledge of the purported Loan Modification she allegedly signed but yet he presented those things to Court today for the Truth of the matter asserted, i.e. that she signed them and that they are valid documents. He has no knowledge of any of that shit so the Court let him test-i-lie.

Who did have knowledge of these things, you ask?

Three people who live right here in Washington, as Ms. Shcolnik aptly pointed out to the Court. Rose Kane, Keith Thompson, Esq. and Carey Steingrabber.  But the Court, by and through Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Wynne, denied her Motion to Strike solely on the rationale that "those are all public documents" as one will hear on video soon.

The problem is, the Court is wrong. First of all her purported loan modification cover page  is most certainly not a public document. But even if all of the documents were public, that has nothing to do with the fact that they are still HEARSAY in this proceeding at this point, with no exception to the Rule being evidenced because all of these people are AVAILABLE.  So while Attorney Eidson can ignore me all he wants to in the upcoming elevator video, sooner or later, perhaps by way of Interlocutory Appeal or by Motion to Reconsider or whatever the Shcolniks do, there is no way that this documents can be used at Summary Judgment or at Trial without one or more of these people showing up because  only they can authenticate those documents and Ms. Shcolnik -- an elder who was going through chemotherapy during much of this -- flatly denies ever signing any of the relevant documents or meeting any of these people.  She is entitled to have a Jury determine credibility and an expert called in to validate the ORIGINAL documents by forensic analysis and signature/handwriting comparisons.


So the Court's ruling today on the Motion to Strike was completely wrong and it simply cannot be sustained. The fact that the purported Loan Modification document references a Deed of Trust as security instrument dated 31 July 2006  in contrast to the DoT that she purportedly signed on 25 July 2006 makes it all the more scandalous and unlawful, right.


But there's more. MERS is listed as the Beneficiary on the mortgage docs. That's a no-no in Washington and a no-no throughout the whole Country. Why just the other day in the Supreme Court of New York a Court actually did the Right Thing in Citibank v. HermanSupreme Court App Div. 2013-06616, finding that there was no proof that MERS had the ability to Assign a ham sandwich much less any mortgage documents.

But there's more.  The Court ignored the current law on Statute of Limitations as well as the current law on whether or not she has to pay her mortgage until the case is decided. I looked up some cases like Kirsch v. Cranberry Fin., LLC, 2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2871 (2013), Walcker v. Benson & McLaughlin, 79 Wn. App. 739 (1995) that the Shcolniks filed and it seems that those cases are on point more so than the ancient Washington case that was not decided in mortgage context or the out-of-state cases that SLS cited that don't even analyze Washington statutes for Crissakes. Crazy, right? 

But there's more. The Court steadfastly adhered to the language that purportedly demands that a homeowner pay their monthly mortgage payments while the case is pending, even though they have not produced any lawful proof that Ms. Shcolnik has ever entered into contract.  But she sued them under RCW 9A.82 ("Little RICO") because she claims all Defendants are using completely false and fabricated documents and in the Pardo v. MERS case I know for fact that Little RICO claims survived a Motion to Dismiss and it should in this case too because you have to view the facts in the light most favorable to Ms. Shcolnik and that means she never signed any of these documents.  And if she did, then Attorney Eidson has no knowledge of it. Focus. She cited Bowcut v. Northstar 95 Wn. App. 311 (1999) case holding that no payments to the Clerk of Courts is required here because it is likely that joint criminal conduct is occurring, to no avail.

But there's more. Remember the Remand stunt that Attorney Glowney pulled? Yeah that's coming up in the video too when I ask Attorney Eidson about it.

And there's more yet again: Either the Court or foreclosing Counsel, in another hearing before Judge Wynne, made the argument that the homeowner had no Standing to challenge a MERS chain of Assignments or anything. But that's wrong too. See all the cases that the Shcolniks dug up in their case including Knecht v. Fidelity, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113131 (Washington WD 2014), Glaski v. Bank of America 218 Cal. App. 4th (5th Dist. 1079), Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Erbobo, 39 Misc.3d 120A, 2013 WL 1831799 (2013) and Cosajay v. MERS, C. A. No. 10-442-M, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160294 (Rhode Island 2013). All of those cases prove that homeowners can challenge Assignments and Chain of Title. 

So I'm telling Attorneys Glowney and Eidson they had better watch their steps carefully here because while the Judge didn't get it right today, there are reviewing Courts, and there are post-sale remedies available in the event of a bogus sale and those remedies can be costly, especially if the Shcolniks sue and it winds up before Judge Bowden, ahem.

Thursday, January 29, 2015

KingCast and Mortgage Movies See Marilynn Shcolnik Fight for Federal Remand Against Select Portfolio Servicing in Wrongful Foreclosure/Quiet Title/Little RICO Action.

Above: Update from the new journal entry.
NOTE: Phase two of this saga continues with today's hearing in Snohomish County Superior Court.

NOTE: Ms Shcolnik went to Federal Court today (2 Feb 2015) with a bit of an oddball pleading. She filed for a TRO because she was worried about missing her hearing for injunctive relief because of the last minute Removal of her Complaint to Federal Court. But she also notes that it is doubtful that the Court even has Jurisdiction.

Judge James Robart Presiding, at least for now. Nope. He saw right through this happy-assed bullshit. Here are 3 of the money pages from today's Remand, along with my comment, which is:

SPS slammed as I predicted. 
Query, was it all a stunt to get rid of judge Bowden?
They knew goddamn well it was a weak Removal case.
With the Remand Bowden is probably no longer the presiding Judge.
They agreed to a TRO but with a bond payment -- monthly note payment.
I call bullshit on that because there are Little RICO violations here.

The question is, in my estimation, how much bullshit should a relatively frail, elderly woman have to deal with in a questionable foreclosure Action? 

The answer, is, in my estimation, as much bullshit as the banksters and their attorneys can throw at them, that's how much. I first met Ms. Shcolnik about a year ago at the Matt Taibbi speaking engagement at the Town Hall Forum when he agreed with me in asserting how crucial it is for lawyers to ban together to most effectively prosecute homeowners' cases.

Well Ms. Shcolnik could use some legal help after this week's runaround by SLS's Glowney. They removed the case to Federal Court but she and her son (who is studying for the LSAT) maintain that the case was wrongfully removed on the verge of today's scheduled hearing in Sonomish Superior Court because she never specifically stated a Federal Claim for FDCPA. She says that she *DID* notice the Court that their was an FDCPA Violation, but her Complaint clearly shows that she did not label FDCPA as a "Cause of Action" whereas she did clearly cite all of the State Claims as "Causes of Action," either by Statute or at Common Law for Quiet Title. She told me that she directly modeled her Complaint after one that was Remanded on Plaintiff's Motion. I have yet to see it, but have no reason to doubt that.

So now she has to file her Motion to Remand in Federal Court, which from what I've seen, will be GRANTED. Why? Because she never filed an FDCPA Cause of Action, and even if she did, all of the State Law claims are clearly the prevalent salient issues.  Not only that, but the Federal Court is supposed to return all of the State claims instead of exercising pendant Jurisdiction as they did back in the dark ages when I practiced, LOL.

For what it's worth, she has included a "Little RICO" claim because, among other things, there are signatures on documents that bear her signature involving people she never even met. More on this later. She also showed me U.S. Customs records that she claims prove that she was driving in Canada on the day, date and time she allegedly signed a Note. More on this later. She also says that Countrywide and their pals conspired to force her into foreclosure by telling her to stop making payments, then engaged in unlawful dual tracking by refusing her payments when she started paying in the trial period.

I've seen crap like this on many occasions and I don't doubt her for one minute. I will be forwarding this journal entry to SLS Attorney John Glowney for comment.

Below is Attorney Glowney prevailing in an Action in King County Superior Court in which I believe the Judge ignored all matter of evidentiary precepts.  One thing for sure: By attempting to remove this case, they have made it substantially more difficult for Ms. Shcnolik to have her Motion for Injunctive Relief heard. And not only that, the Defendants know that even once the case is Remanded, they won't be in front of Judge George Bowden, who has completely slammed Bank of America et al. in Bradburn v. ReconTrust, at bottom video. They may be hoping to get the Judge of their choice.

"The Removal was completely frivolous," says her son Nathan. Video of today's non-hearing and hallway commentary by Friday. 

Friday, January 23, 2015

KingCast Says "You Didn't Stop Skating Because You Got Old.... You Got Old Because You Stopped Skating!"

Gotta' stay nice and young to keep healthy so I can keep exposing these banksters and their attorneys for what they are...... which is pretty much the Anti-Christ.

Well well well... Aunt Dell Stewart Bailey made my Day with this 1976 pic of me before I got my first real skateboard. Wow. I think it wasn't long after that, that Uncle Joe (RIP) and Aunt Dell brought my cousin Randall over...... I recall him being like a toddler who was taller than I was LOL.... thanks Auntie I love you. I'm on the inlines these days but another skate deck is in my future. You don't stop skating because you got old. You got old because you stopped skating, don't get it twisted.


Friday, January 9, 2015

KingCast & Mortgage Movies:QLSC v. Karen Pooley QLSC loses Motion to Dismiss Fraudulent Concealment Argument before Judge Kenneth Schubert.

As you can see in the top movie, Quality Loan Servicing Corp. (hereinafter, "QLSC") 
lives by the principle of See no evil, hear no evil....... 

Note: Kathy Salyer had Eleanor Dubay running a sweep to keep KingCast cameras at bay.  You may recall about a year ago to the Day when Karen Pooley had Quality Loan Servicing and their lawyers at McCarthy Holthus for a snack before Judge Kenneth Schubert as the Court issued adverse rulings on allegedly confidential discovery issues.  Well today the smorgasbord continued, with Ms. Pooley taking some hits on the RCW 9a "Little RICO" and brick and mortar causes of action relative to QLSC.  Unfortunately they lost a Motion to Dismiss relative to Ms. Pooley's Fraudulent Concealment Claims in that the Court found that she is allowed to seek discovery and litigate the issue of whether or not the purported Beneficiary (holder/owner of Note) used fake documents when the either knew or should have know that the documents were bogus.          
And then I was writing just now to a very high-powered attorney in another jurisdiction about the ongoing La Mar Gunn stolen Recorder of Deeds election in Kent County, Delaware and I was explaining what I do. I told said Counselor: 

Here are pictures and upcoming videQuality Loan Servicing losing a MTD on Fraudulent Concealment today; their lawyer can't stand me either. She's got her little knave running sweep to try to deny me the hallway shot, but I came through as usual. That camera comes out and their guilty conscience gets the better of them almost every time. Heck man, that's why they all hate me. But that's not my fault. If they were upstanding citizens like Judge Schubert they wouldn't give a shit.  

He and I always have a good little rap session where we remind each other that we appreciate the other one. If we had more cameras like mine and more judges like him we wouldn't be in this fucked up situation and our time and resources as lawyers, industry analysis and just plain American people would be spent on more productive pursuits.

Video forthcoming. For now here's last year's. 

And oh as a bonus Remember what an ass Joe McIntosh was when M & H threatened to have me arrested for no lawful reason? I forgot about that, but yah that's why they fucking hate me, well fuck you too. Unreal the goddamn hubris these people have. I am so done with taking it, and I say it right out in the open, the same kind of language I know they used behind closed doors. I have friends in places like these and I've been around the block a few times too my friends. You just have to call a spade a spade.

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

KingCast and Shoreline Community Wince as Alleged Gunman Reported at Meridian School.

I asked, but they haven't a clue as to what he looks like, only that he had a pulled over-head hoodie. No clue as to whether it was a handgun or a rifle. No notation as to the general size of the suspect, thin, fat, medium, tall, short.... No notation as to whether he had an accent or anything..... More pictures and interview with Deputy Sheriff Gates to follow. Note: The rifle pictured is reportedly NOT the suspect weapon. No injuries are reported, and some of the children at other area schools are on lockdown as they received notification of the event after students had arrived.  

The total lockdown was a joint decision by the district and area law enforcement. Any other incidents in the future will be handed on a case-by-case basis.

Tuesday, January 6, 2015

KingCast and Mortgage Movies and Washington Appellate Judges Hear Case on Unconstitutional Nature of Washington's Deed of Trust Act.

Judge Dwyer's prior, well-principled Decisions have met with disapproval from the bankster-controlled State Legislature in Olympia. Details and full video coming by tomorrow.

I have reviewed this matter on prior occasion and believe that the DTA is a completely unconstitutional end-around judicial substantive and procedural due process There are some who believe that declaring the Deed of Trust Act unconstitutional may have detrimental effects on homeowners in the short run if judges continue to overlook the law and just basically kowtow to the banks like so many legislators down in Olympia. 

We must applaud, rather than criticize judges like Stephen Dwyer who attempt to maintain some sense of decency justice and fair play in a system so overwrought with criminality that it makes me, as a former escrow attorney, throw up in my mouth a little bit each and every day. I've testified in Olympia before. Remember the Joint Reform Bill 6507 that died on the vine? Watch the response in today's movie.

From Attorney Scott Stafne:

I will be arguing Sandra Shelley Jackson. APP. V. Quality Loan Service Corp. of Washington, et al.. Res, Case # 72016-3-, before Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals on Tuesday, January 6, 2015. The case involves several questions, including the constitutional nature of the superior courts' jurisdiction to hear cases under the Deeds of Trust Act. Several people have asked me if the arguments are open to the public. The answer to that question is yes. Art. I, section 10 of the Washington Constitution requires such appeal to be heard publicly.

I have interviewed Attorney Stafne on related matters on prior occasion, to wit: