Housing is a Civil Right

Housing is a Civil Right

Friday, May 13, 2011

Is foreclosure king Thomas P. Dore involved in retaliatory and abusive criminal threats against Mortgage Movies associate Todd Wetzelberger of Surefire Home Retention?

There is much more on this later including documents upload but for right now know this:

To my knowledge Todd Wetzelberger ("Dubya") is not a criminal, yet he is being treated as if he is. Like me, he reports crimes involving mortgage fraud as do our other affiliates including financial planner Lamar Gunn and Attorney Lynn Szymoniak, whom you have undoubtedly seen on 60 Minutes as noted herein. And as noted in the above video, Dubya cornered Mr. Dore in court and made him admit that he has no firsthand knowledge of the events he uses in Court to obtain his foreclosures and evictions. That's a huge problem because along with the bogus robo signatures, it means that the foreclosures are illegal and arguably CRIMINAL.

So why then is Dubya receiving false Affidavits from Delaware law enforcement? He writes: 
They've now resorted to making up false affidavits claiming some "agent" for the attorney or bank (wasn't clear) visited the property and was threatened and no one was even at the property. My wife and I were at my daughter's spring program at her school when this person was allegedly threatened and there were about 60 witnesses there. (attached) 
He has countered with his own Affidavit and is seeking protection from the FBI.  Baltimore Sun writer Jamie Smith Hopkins telephoned him on Mother's Day but he was traveling and did not get to comment on this related news story but there will be more.

Similarly, there will be coverage of Mr. Gunn's case next door in Maryland, in which he lost his home to foreclosure even though he never missed a payment. There was a bogus claim brought against the property and he did not have borrower's insurance. The problem is Mr. Gunn has proof from a Bloomberg terminal that the prior mortgage was paid off and should have been recorded as such. This is about to get heavy; he's got proof of many more similar violations. What happened when he telephoned a lawyer involved at her publicly-listed contact number? She alleged that he was, you guessed it, a Dangerous Black Man. I've been there before, we are dangerous by our intellect only.

And I have had bogus criminal charges levied at me as well, by former NH AG cum U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte, whom I am now suing in Federal Court for Free Press and racial violations, she's got a Judge who used to work for the same law firm she did, and under the same boss, issuing adverse rulings left and right, welcome to America the Home of the Brave. I will link the documents later today, frankly I am exhausted keeping up with this judicial and political violence against lawful American Citizens.

2 comments:

  1. OK, THIS IS SO STRANGE I have just completed a writing, outlining how this can be brought to Federal Court under a 42 USC 1983.
    We know that it is a corporate entity but at the same time I is mascarading as a public building "Court House" so lets hold them to that till they say otherwise and then we will have them testifying that it is a corporation masquerading and not a court of the United States or of the State..
    This is clearly a violation of the second amendment (Amendment II) "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
    It does not say "swords, guns, cannons, tazers or explosives" it says "arms" is not the camera an "arm" one uses to secure their rights and to protect them from false accusations? Absolutely! to deny you this is a breach! and is a Rights Violation. You have the Right to Defend yourself from all enemies and a duty to defend the republic form enemies without as well as enemies within.
    "The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.". Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).

    Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason (see below). If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason." found quote at http://caught.net/caught/crime.htm
    I went looking for the case and found a great web site.
    You see my point?
    By the way I see you are also in Maryland. I have a way to blow the lid off the whole damn thing but need help writing it. putting it into proper format.. can you or someone help me in that process? Give a shout I want to do it in such a way the others can use it like a cookie cutter.. it is sound and still not put into proper legal format.. and some of it is in my head but getting it on paper in the proper manner is for me difficult. I have helped others to correct or make better their papers but to get it even started is really tough for me.. any volunteers? You can use it and will have the first hand understanding of it.... truthmonger6@gmail.com
    or should I just finish mine and go back to the Caribbean and forget about the rest of you??? I don't and never did need any of this, I believed that Creator wanted me here to help... but perhaps people don't want to help those that are here to help. It seems they want it done for them..... Where is the team, family, fellow countrymen in "me".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do you have any more on Thomas P. Dore ? I have a fraudclosure with him as well which the court was in absolute collusion by keeping me in the lobby from morning to 4:30 running an associate back and forth to stall me from getting and emergency stay of eviction while the Sheriffs were throwing my stuff onto my lawn in the rain.. horrible experience. Then at 4:30 the court called the sheriff and told him to wrap it up and he did (had a witness there) and then came out with an order stating that it was denied because despite all the fraud I had evidenced and the proper necessity to protect my rights and property (the very reason for an emergency TRO) it was "moot" because the eviction had been accomplished. WTF??
    Since then I received a check for $2,500.00 on a suit because it was found that they had committed fraud and settled out of court and my portion was $2,500 on a 540k house. No apology no return of the house only that I am not precluded or barred from prosecuting on my own should I choose to..
    so do you have any more on them.. in a 42 USC 1983 one needs to show a "policy" of the State to allow a certain activity which violates some right..
    The criminal stuff is just fine they can do that but if you can show that a right was violated then you have a chance in federal court.
    Bankruptcy court used to be more strict on claimants proving a "debt" but now they too are corrupted.
    BTW lack of due process is a "depravation of right" problem is that bankruptcy is usually in Federal court and the federal courts like the State Courts will spend money, lie cheat and steal to protect their own.... Which is why I suggest to people that the bankruptcy is not the way to go. After all you are not bankrupt, the State and the Treasury owes you about 6.2 billion and the US is liable for any of your debts. All debts of the people are an "obligation of the United States". And there never was a loan in the first place so there is no "debt evidenced by the Note" for the DOT to secure. There is no Deed of Trust active. It dissolved the moment they took your Note and deposited it .. in fact the moment you gave it to them without them giving you a Loan before hand "In return for a Loan I have received" it is conditional and subject to the condition precedent. Thus there is no DOT for them to foreclose on. And on top of that it never had a Trustee so it never was instituted.. no trust to enforce... I could go on up to in my case 64 times each of which viserates the fraudclosure.

    ReplyDelete