Tuesday, March 24, 2015
KingCast & Mortgage Movies Called by Subpoena to Testify on RCO/NWTS Auctions in Wetmore v. NWTS, BoA & Vonnie McElligott
Y'all remember the chat I had with security at the Northwest Trustee/RCO auction/corporate crime scene over at 13555 SE 36th St Ste 120, Bellevue, WA? The one where I had to wonder why the First Amendment atmosphere was so oppressive at what is allegedly a public event. Yeah, that one. If you have any questions just watch the video, above.
Well guess what? I get to reprise that visit under the direct and potentially cross examinations of Attorney Scott Stafne and his opposing counsel in Wetmore v. Northwest Trustee Services, Bank of America, N.A. & Vonnie McElligott. Here is a Trujillo briefing as filed into this case regarding the viability of post sale damages.
Here's another fun fact: The opposing counsel of Heidi Buck Morrison and John McIntosh don't want me on that stand for long on X/E because I will rip them to shreds on this issue. I already schooled them once when Mac and his buddy Luke Wozniak had the nerve to threaten me with arrest when they reneged on a video agreement. Yep, fucking-A-right watch the video that I caught because my DSLR was still running. I told those cats they better back off because I was winning Jury trials before they could pee straight. Listen to McIntosh's exasperated sigh at about 0:45 when he says "You want me to have security escort you out of here," whereupon I tell him, "Do it... .and I'll video that, too. I'm not scared of you, Counselor." Anyway, you know it's always tricky shooting video with those things you know because you think you've turned it off sometimes only to discover that you haven't. Sometimes this actually works in your favor, take a look:
Meanwhile, Ms. McElligott is a 17-year career employee at Northwest Trustee Services who is not yet an equity partner and who does not sign documents under her legal name, as I recall her Deposition Testimony in another case. Anyway, you can watch said Depo over at my Affordable Video Depo pages as well as the Mortgage Movies Journal Entry of 9 June, 2014. Here's another McElligott Depo from 2013 in text/pdf format from Attorney Dao's office. But you know what, to hell with it. Here's all of the 2014 video, along with some choice colloquy to boot:
Q: My Question is then is why you don't sign with your legal name?
A: I don't sign using my legal name.
Q: And you have no reason for that?
A: I don't.
Q: What does the term Actual Holder mean to you?
A: The one who actually holds the note as stated in the Beneficiary Docs.
Q: As prepared by NW Trustee?
Q: What is your working knowledge of Beneficiary?
A: Holder of the Note.
Q: Actual Holder?
A: I don't know.
Q: I want to draw you attention to Para C the Declaration of Payment Default (on a
Notice of Default). It says the Beneficiary Declares you to be in Default.... Take a
moment and tell me where the Beneficiary is identified.
A: The Beneficiary does not appear to be identified.
Q: So if you receive a Beneficiary Declaration you assume they are the Holder of the
Q: Do you know why there are two Beneficiary Declarations in the Lucero case?
A: No, I don't.
Q: Is it the practice of your company to submit different version of Declarations in
mediation or litigation?
A: I have no way of answering that. I'm not involved....
Q: Are both capable of being true.. Ex. 12 notifies the Borrower that the owner of the
Note is Freddie Mac. If Freddie Mac is the owner of the Note who is the Creditor to
Whom the Debt is owed?
A: According to the Document in front of me it is Wells Fargo.
Q: How can that be true?
A: I have no Answer for you.
Q: Why didn't you take an opinion when these documents were distributed?
A: My job isn't to take an opinion.
Q: How many NoDs does NWTS perform in a week?
A: I have no idea.
Q: In a month?
A: I don't know.
Q: As you sit there today you have no inkling as to 2013?
A: No idea.
Q: Do you have any idea why Exhibit 24 would be recorded a year after it was
A: I do not.
Q: What is the rationale of recording an appointment of successor Trustee nearly a year
after it was drafted?
A: I can't tell you.
Q: Why was Exhibit 24 Recorded?
A: I have no way of knowing without looking at my file.
Q: Do you recognize Exhibit 25 as a document that your team would have been
Q: What is the purpose of Exhibit 25 that you executed. Why did you execute it.
A: Because we were setting the sale of the property.
Q: Can you say that you relied on the Appointment of Successor Trustee?
A: I don't understand your question.
Q: Is 25 related to the Appointment of Successor Trustee?
Note: I'll be tying up a bit more of a heated exchange in the morning.
OK here it is:
Q: Why would the question of who holds my note be a legal question.... Let's talk about
A: You could refer her to the Beneficiary Declaration.
Q: But she doesn't have a copy of that [Deponent smiles]. As you sit there the question I
pose to you is not to be comical and it is a question of fact. If I can't know who holds
my note how can I find out how do I do it.... you don't know or you don't have an
Q: At the time my client received the NoD she had no access to the [Beneficiary]
A: How will that help her?
Q: [Attorney Dao, exasperated].... She wants to know who holds the note and who has
the power to foreclose and you have no answer or resources?
A: I guess I don't.
Monday, March 23, 2015
KingCast and Mortgage Movies Present: Forum -- What You Really Need to Know About Foreclosure in Washington State.
This is an ongoing series sponsored by Greater Seattle attorneys and real estate professionals including, but not limited to Kreg Kendall, Michelle Darnell, Jeff Jared, Esq. and Ha Dao, Esq. Stay tuned for more information.
Monday, March 16, 2015
KingCast and Mortgage Movies King5 Follow Up on Safeguard/LPS Unlawful Foreclosure with Attorney Ha Dao on RCW 7.28.230(1).
As a former AAG I say it's always good practice to help out the Senior AG:
Life is good for Safeguard... because they are friends with the Bush family.
Just do your due diligence you'll find it.
Here is the King5 feature story from March 3, 2015
"It's a tricky business accessing property that the bank doesn't truly own, and Beal says the industry known as "property preservation" has plenty of faults. "The pressures are pretty intense," said Beal. A KING 5 Investigation shows that those pressures may be one reason behind numerous complaints filed with attorneys, housing assistance groups, and the Washington Attorney General's Office. Typically, a homeowner complains that they have not abandoned the home, yet but have been locked out or found their personal property is missing."Says Attorney Dao:
"Mr. Ingalls. I came across your story concerning banks' break-ins and would like to inform you that existing Washington laws DO prohibit such conduct. RCW 7.28. 230(1) provides: “A mortgage of any interest in real property shall not be deemed a conveyance so as to enable the owner of the mortgage to recover possession of the real property, without a foreclosure and sale according to law[.]”
A mortgagee does not gain any greater right to possession simply because the mortgagor defaults on the underlying obligation. Howard v. Edgren, 62 Wn.2d 884, 385 P.2d 41 (1963) (A borrower does not lose his right to possession of mortgaged real property by failing to make payments on the mortgage, or by moving out of the community); Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Tacoma Junk Co. (1926), 138 Wash. 1, 5, 244 P. 117, 119; Cameron v. Bustard (1922), 119 Wash. 266, 205 P. 385 (The right of possession is not lost because of abandonment). Once trespasser status is determined, Washington law, RCW 4.24.630 allows the plaintiff to recover treble damages, attorneys fees and costs."
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
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. Herman, Supreme 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!"
1976/7.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.