Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Cyrusgate? Did Perkins Coie Advise Cyrus Habib to Ignore Four Troublesome Questions in the 48th Senate Race Against Michelle Darnell?
Remember the four (4) questions I posed to 48th District Candidates Cyrus Habib and Michelle Darnell a month ago after a completely inaccurate endorsement from the Seattle Stranger stated that Ms. Darnell was in favor of raising taxes on Joe the Plumber? Well in case you don't recall, they are linked above and replicated in the comments section below for your edification.
Candidate Darnell timely responded with video and written responses that directly contradict the materially false and misleading endorsement for Cyrus Habib, whose $200,000.00 war chest was built largely with out-of-state contributions like any other corporate attorney candidate. There's nothing new here.
Be that as it may, I waited patiently for a response from Attorney Habib for weeks, emailing and calling him at his campaign headquarters and legislative office. Finally, having not received any response I took a video ride to his high-rise digs at Perkins-Coie, the law firm that also serves as counsel for the National Democratic Party. In the video I wonder if they advised Cyrus Habib to stonewall me...... on the believe that Ms. Darnell is not a viable threat even though she garnered 37% of the vote with 4% of the money.
This is part one. In part two I will air Candidate Darnell's written and video responses. Keep in mind that I afforded Cyrus Habib the exact same opportunity, to run unedited written and video responses but he didn't believe that transparency required him to engage himself. Let's see how that plays with the voters and on public access TV here in the Sound.
Saturday, August 23, 2014
KingCast and Mortgage Movies See Court Slam Stafne Law Offices in Lamelson v. NWTS Without Discovery: "They Have the Original Note and Allonge, Summary Judgment Granted."
Two videos forthcoming.
Saturday: Post Hearing Discussions
Monday: The entire hearing.Here is Plaintiff's failed Motion to Strike Summary Judgment. There is a pending Discretionary Review out there on the lack of Discovery afforded Plaintiff, meanwhile NWTS will have to Counterclaim for Foreclosure or Possession because it is certainly a Compulsory Counterclaim to Plaintiff's DTA Action. The full video of the hearing is coming by the top of the week, but for now just watch the tail end of the proceedings as I discuss matters with Attorneys Gromley and Stafne, and interview Attorney Stafne outside. He believes that expert witness Nye Lavelle's declarations of probable falsity in this specific case were grounds to allow Discovery to see if those documents were fabrications, as so many of them are these days. He also claims -- with some force -- that other Courts have recently found that the entire MERS model renders them without power to transfer anything. I watched some of these other cases as noted in recent journal entries, and I must concur.
I also have grave concerns about MERS being in the purported Chain of Title, Assigning more than it legally could have. Take a look at the thumbnail.
Be that as it may, while you can't hear much of it because of competing conversations, my discussion with Attorney Gromley largely concerns Fn3 from Knecht v. Fidelity and whose burden it is to prove up the Chain of Title.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
Friday, August 15, 2014
KingCast and Mortgage Movies Celebrate as Stafne Law Crushes MERS, Fidelity and Deutsche Bank in Knecht v. Fidelity Summary Judgment; MERS Assignment a Legal Nullity.
Above: Attorneys Scott Stafne and Josh Trumbull at the command center
as we discussed the ramifications of yesterday's Federal Court victory.
Several months ago KingCast/Mortgage Movies cameras interviewed Attorney Scott Stafne relative to the Unconstitutional Nature of the Deed of Trust Act vis a vis his pending case of Knecht v. Fidelity, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113131 (Washington WD 2014). We were both clearly worried but it turned out for the good because they got a Judge who actually gives a damn. You see, in my vast experience as former escrow attorney and in shooting dozens of courtroom videos I see that some Courts and Judges get it: See Bradburn v. ReconTrust in which I shot the entire argument on some of the same issues manifest herein. See also this summer's case of Pardo v. OCWEN, MERSCORP, NWTS. In this case the Judge denied the Stafne Constitutional arguments but at least got most of the the evidentiary matters correct.
However, some steadfastly refuse to acknowledge what I consider to be basic tenets of Jurisprudence. To wit, Judge Marsha Pechman, who is -- unfortunately in my opinion -- the Chief Justice in the Western District. I'll tell it straight to her face if given the opportunity, it's a Free Country the last time I checked. Heck, Attorney Stafne said as much when he moved to recuse her last year as noted in the above links, supra.
Here is the yesterday's ORDER from Hon. Richard C. Jones. I have taken the liberty of quoting some of the salient passages but there is much more.
"In Washington, lenders hoping to take advantage of the MERS system designated MERS as the beneficiary of deeds of trust, just as ABC did in Mr. Knecht’s deed of trust. But it is now clear that Washington law does not permit MERS to act as a beneficiary unless it is also the “holder” of the note secured by the deed of trust. Bain, 285 P.2d at 47.
There is no suggestion that MERS ever held Mr. Knecht’s note, and yet it purported in April 2010 to assign to DB “the Promissory Note secured by [the Knecht] deed of trust and also all rights accrued or to accrue under said Deed of Trust.” The assignment, which is recorded in King County, was executed by “MERS as nominee for [ABC],” but there is no evidence that ABC actually authorized MERS to effect the transfer. See Bavand v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 309 P.3d 636, 649 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013)(noting MERS’s failure to establish its agency relationship with a noteholder). There is no dispute in this case that MERS lacked the power to transfer anything to DB. Knecht, 4-5.
Mr. Knecht has offered two pieces of evidence: his original note and deed of trust, in which DB held no interest; and the MERS assignment, which was a legal nullity. A trier of fact could determine that this evidence makes it more likely than not that DB has no valid interest in Mr. Knecht’s note or deed of trust. Knecht, at 7.
Fn3 -- The court observes that it is the beneficiary, not the borrower, who can be expected to possess evidence that it is the holder or owner of a promissory note. The court finds it unlikely that a Washington court would burden the borrower alone with providing that evidence. As the Bain court observed, in cases where “the original lender ha[s] sold the loan, th[e] purchaser would need to establish ownership of that loan, either by demonstrating that it actually held the promissory note or by documenting the chain of transactions.” 285 P.3d at 47-48.
Mr. Knecht has evidence of damages caused by MERS’s and DB’s conduct. Mr. Knecht did what many homeowners faced with the prospect of foreclosure would do: he investigated. His evidence establishes that he spent substantial time on that investigation, and that suffices to establish a CPA injury. Walker, 308 P.3d at 727 (“Investigative expenses, taking time off from work, travel expenses, and attorney fees are sufficient to establish injury under the CPA.”). DB and MERS insist that the cause of Mr. Knecht’s injury was his default, not their wrongdoing, but they are mistaken. If a jury concludes that DB had no authority to foreclose, then a trier of fact could infer that the cause of his need to investigate was DB’s wrongfully-initiated foreclosure proceedings."
Monday, August 11, 2014
KingCast and Mortgage Movies See Judges Watch as Foreclosure Mill Attorneys Threaten Depo Videographer with Security and Arrest.
The Layman's Guide to Fighting Foreclosure is a very good book!
Update 18 August 2014 -- an email I sent to many people involved in this case. Check the thumbnail below showing RCO and NWTS assiduously following me as their lawyer Heidi Buck Morrison assiduously refuses to answer my simple question about why she told Attorney Ha Dao that she refuses to participate in Depositions where I am present.
I told you before -- as noted below -- that I am a reasonable man and I pose absolutely no threat to you that should make you justifiably refuse my presence at video depositions. But apparently there is something threatening about me, enough so that your co-counsel completely disrespected me last week. And you are continuing in that vein by not answering my well-reasoned question.
Please advise because obviously I can see you and your people are reading and so can anyone else for that matter because I am posting these three screen captures -- showing RCO, NWTS and FEI process servers at IP address 126.96.36.199 reading assiduously -- on my journal page.
The issue isn't exactly going to go away Heidi because other lawyers will be using my services, and they will be much more likely to force your hand on this. And when they do, and if you fight, the evidentiary trail is right here in these emails, and in that audio from last week.
Don't forget that for one minute.
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.
UPDATE 13 August 2014:
Good Day to All:
I was notified today by someone who saw the video that Attorneys have been working with Dr. Karin Huffer to protect litigants who have been adversely affected by the traumatic stress incurred when dealing with pugilistic corporate lawyers:
To that end I'll tell you how it works even though the defense counsel have no say in it whatsoever:
The litigant is declared to have a form of PTSD. A Petition to the Court administration is made pursuant to the ADA to have a consultant present and run video. The video gives a sense of reassurance to the litigant and helps recall, among other things. The Court Administration of course has a non-delegable duty to accommodate, particularly when the accommodation is not overly burdensome. Sounds just like my old Civil Rights/Employment cases, right.
And it works.
I am hereby attaching information from people affiliated with Dr. Huffer in BK showing where a confirmation court hearing was today -- hot off the presses -- rescheduled for October 8 because of the ADA request. However the predicate 341 Creditors' meeting has been canceled and not rescheduled.
Seems like folks are running from the cameras again, ahem.
And oh, by the way the answer to the question I know the Defense Counsel are asking is.... No. No you do not get to see anything or fight it because it is all protected by HIPAA. So now your clients face fascinating predicament: Subject themselves to scrutiny by cameras in Federal Court (where I say they belong in the first place) or drop the case.
I'll be sure to press a DVD of this event for every time they seek a Protective Order against me running video so that the Court can make an informed judgment. As Tony Montana said, "You f___ with me, you f_____ with the best!" Heck, I would encourage anyone to download and use it because as you can see by the Phelan Hallinan situation in NJ a couple of years ago this is a pattern and practice of foreclosure lawyers and "their buddies" to coin a phrase from Attorney Wozniak I overheard when he was having a go at Attorney Ha Dao. I never filed an ethics complaint there but there's not exactly a Statute of Limitations on such a thing and the evidence certainly is preserved, no spoliation going on here, LOL. Now then, that is the exasperated sigh of McCarthy Holthus' junior attorney Joseph MacIntosh. Why? I'll get there momentarily.
I have been recording video depositions in Lucero v. Bayview for weeks now (see Affordable Video Depo and Mortgage Movies Journal (Vonnie McElligott) (Jeff Stenman) links), and so when the homeowner was being deposed she figured that I could video her deposition, given that the Defendant's own notice indicated that they have the right to video as well. So I appeared at the court reporter's office -- not run or controlled by any of the Defendants' counsel I might add -- where Attorney Wonziak objected. We worked it out between attorney Ha Dao, Attorney Omar Barraza and myself and I memorialized it looking out the window, noting that I would just hold the video in abeyance until the matter was briefed, simple. But then Routh Crabtree Olsen's Heidi Buck Morrison and McCarthy Holtus' Joe MacIntosh show up and Luckasz unilaterally renege on the promise, then threaten to call security on me as I am packing up, as the Court reporter will no doubt testify if necessary.
But here's the fun part: In all the melee my DSLR was on from when I was starting to set up when we DID have authority. It was now in my backpack and you can hear parts of the conversation where both men threaten to call security on me. I tell them go right ahead and you'll catch a case for false arrest. Meanwhile they try to tell me I am not an invitee -- even though it's not even their premises so they have no right to try to make that claim. (I was probably a licensee for what it's worth). But they apparently are used to doing that sort of thing because too many courts allow them to get away with it. Anyway at a minimum I was a licensee and certainly not a trespasser so I told them all "I'm not scared of you."
And I'm not. I was winning jury trials before any of these three could even pee straight and I will publicly say this right now: If you want to come after me for my actions today I say let's submit it to the court and get on with it because this is what little people like us have to do to protect ourself against these banksters and their attorneys who bully everyone and try to take control of things that aren't even theirs in the first place. You guys might try to bully weak attorneys or unrepresented homeowners but if you think you can bully me I am here to thoroughly disabuse you of that notion.
I may even report you to the local bar so as I said, you will be well-advised to watch your tone. And oh, the last time some some dirty lawyers called security on a homeowner and me the security guards asked them "What the fuck is going on?"
Sunday, August 10, 2014
KingCast and Mortgage Movies See Superior Court Judge Ignore Relevant Evidentiary Rules and Principles to Grant Summary Judgment in Foreclosure Case with Select Portfolio Services.
The Layman's Guide to Fighting Foreclosure is a very good book!
In stark contrast to the cases I've recorded where Stafne Law Firm wins (Pardo v. NWTS, MERSCORP, Ocwen on Civil Conspiracy) and (Bradburn v. ReconTrust on vertical integration and Trustee Bad Faith set aside sale) the Judge in this case completely neglected to issue any specific Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law. There were issues of multiple entities claiming to hold the note, which in and of itself is a viable claim these days. How can it be in the Trust and be in the lawyer's office at the same time, it is simply impossible. And whose burden is it to prove original signature -- always the foreclosing party last time I checked. Expert witness Nye Lavalle (Deadly Clear) will be interested to know that the Court docked the homeowner because he did not explicitly say "that's not my signature." Well then going forward I would hope that homeowners explicitly say "that's not my signature" because as the Florida Bankers have stated, the original documents have pretty much been destroyed so no, if they are proclaiming to have your original signature then guess what: They are lying. I'll see to it that he gets this journal entry.
Just watch the first 5:25 minutes or so for the recap of essential arguments.
Friday, August 8, 2014
This is an accidental post that was supposed to be at
Chris King's First Amendment Page. Enjoy it anyway.