Wednesday, November 9, 2016
KingCast and Mortgage Movies Update on the "Original" Deutschebank Note that Will Eidson Refused to Allow me to See.
Deutschebank v. John E. and Shelly A. Erickson Washington
1st District Ct App. No. 73833-0-1 -- full hearing video and hallway video coming tomorrow.
Y'all remember former Stoel Rives Attorney Will Eidson? He took a powder a year or so ago after my repeated and pointed questioning regarding his clients' apparent lack of integrity and truthfulness on a couple of cases. See generally Shcolnik and Erickson.
For fun, I've included some of last year's festivities on the overleaf, or jump page. LOL, remember reading a real newspaper?
Well sports fans, we are here today to specifically address the Erickson case that was argued today before the King County Court of Appeals Division 1. Things got very interesting because the Deutschebank entity claiming to have authority to foreclose never provided any sworn declaration about any specific original Note in question. Instead, in the instant case they offered some attorney testimony of sorts from Will Eidson, who rushed me out of the room last fall with I tried to observe a review of the original Note, just watch the video below.
The problem, as I see it.... or at least one of the problems facing Deutschbank in this case is the fact that they never produced the allegedly original Note in a prior related Federal case, and all they have is Attorney Will Eidson Declaration regarding the purported authenticity of the Note they scurried up last year, see link above. But the Appellant homeowner and her Counsel say that the Note they saw last year is not the same Note that was shown as a copy in the prior Federal case.
Speaking of notes, here are mine from today:
Court: Didn't they have the original note?
Kah: Theres no evidence that they had the original note your honor?
July 2015 Eidson brought it in -- he did not testify -- he made unsworn statements but none of them establish it was og note nothing proved DB had the note
this court ought to require more then unverified unsworn statements by a lawyer?
one of the largest corps in the western hemisphere but cannot bring a single person with personal knowledge?
my clients do not concede that DB came into possession by virtue of position of alleged trustee Note copy 2006 is not payable to DB trust company -- long beach mtge co. merged to WAMU -- then to receivership -- sold to JP Morgan Chase by and through the FDIC (where was the Erickson Note?)
The Note copy attached to complaint is clearly a photocopy of a copy. It is payable to Long Beach mtge and with no indorsement. First time ind appears is when atty will eidson pops up, with undated indorsement.
Well developed body of law as to how you enforce notes
When you submit the original note you have establish prima facie case. The original with original signature -- no testimony (court)
"Notes are self-authenticating and are not hearsay" So it's a prima facie case
"If you want to challenge it you must raise it in your complaint and say we deny it. They didn't do it." "They brought no evidence in to rebut the presumption of any kind."
Collateral estoppel applies (Judge Applewick was not so sure of this, check him out questioning Glowney. Judges Spearman and Becker completed the panel. There were some very interesting cases today, actually).
In effect the issue had already been decided "In the federal court the original note was not produced so in terms of collateral estoppel we don't have absolute proof..."
Fed court said we don't have to prove you have to have original note
Helmut Kah on rebuttal: Only once established and authenticated does the presumption become valid.
Me grilling Glowney in the hallway, on video. Stay tuned:
WHY didn't you produce the original note in the related federal court case?
WHEN did your client come into possession of the note?
Glowney: "Read the law, Mr. King.
Me: "I don't have to read the law Counselor I wrote these deals for WAMU when I was a residential closing attorney... I'm just asking you a question...."
14 July Update:
I emailed the Court and all Counsel with my observations that mere possession of a Note is not enough, and that Attorney Eidson cannot testify. Read the comment section including a reference to prior deceitful acts committed by his firm (through Partner John Glowney no less) and a look at Feltus v. U.S. Bank, 80 S. 3rd 375 (2012).
13 July 2015 Update1:
As to Her Honor's stated concern about applying law and facts that may be technically out of Rule, it is now my understanding that Chase admitted they acquired only servicing rights. I don't even have to pull up case law on that because we all know it exists, but I will tomorrow.
DBNC v. FDIC. (see more at Erickson link, above).