17 July 2011

KingCast/Mortage Movies reaching into NJ and Montana, and asking why NH Trustee Lawrence Sumski is derelict in his duty vis a vis Deutschebank v. Anthony Tarantola.....

At left, thanks to my pals at 4Closurefraud journal coverage of Deutschebank v. Anthony Tarantola and Trustee Diane Kerns, you see how clear it is that these banks and servicers almost never have True Standing to foreclose. Okay so I am finally sending out the Ethics Complaint against various NH lawyers and Judge Diane Nicolosi for allowing what appears to be Fraud Upon the Court. If other jurisdictions can see the Fraud and lack of standing inherent to this securitized note fiasco why can't they? Or is it that they see it but just don't care, either way they should be removed from their positions and someone more responsible substituted.


New Jersey favors cameras but there are some limitations that threaten the independent journalist. I meet those criteria and am forwarding my media notice tomorrow. What is most telling however, is that the lawyers for the NJ Bar Association voted against access, which is completely antithetical to everything that law is supposed to stand for. Open government, principled decisions made out in the open, all of it. That's because too many lawyers are involved in shady, corrupt, ethically-challenged, amoral and immoral conduct, and that's a fact. I hate scumbag attorneys.

As I told my Montana friends who are working with me to establish a legal database for wins,  there are not too many people out here who have my unique background as former state attorney, licensed Federal attorney, private practice attorney, large and small newspaper reporter and title insurance producer. Each of these disciplines has attempted to marginalize me in some measure but guess what: The Internet is the Great Equalizer.  So I'm baaaaaack........and I'm good to go. Besides, life is more fun from this side of the camera, anyway :)


Tarantola in text:


IN RE: ANTHONY TARANTOLA – GIVEN THE DEFICIENT AND MISLEADING NATURE OF DEUTSCHE’S FILINGS, THE COURT SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED ISSUING AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
In re:
ANTHONY TARANTOLA,                                         Case No. 4:09-bk-09703-EWH
Debtor.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, as Trustee in trust for the
Certificateholders for Argent Securities             MEMORANDUM DECISION
Inc., Asset-Backed-Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2004-W8, its assignees
and/or successors,
Movant,
v.
ANTHONY TARANTOLA, Debtor; and
DIANNE C. KERNS, Chapter 13 Trustee,
Respondents.
INTRODUCTION
Yet again, the court is called upon to decide whether the purported holder of a note allegedly transferred into a securitized mortgage pool has standing to obtain relief from the automatic stay. Yet again, the movant has failed to demonstrate that it has standing. To make matters worse, the movant filed its motion without evidentiary support of its claim, attempted to create such evidentiary support after the fact, and only disclosed its “real” evidence on the day of the final evidentiary hearing. The relief will be denied.
…because of the tortured history of the filings made by Deutsche, Deutsche, its servicer, and its counsel must be certain that any future pleadings are filed only after adequate due diligence is undertaken to assure that the pleadings are correct. Given the deficient and misleading nature of Deutsche’s filings, the court seriously considered issuing an order to show cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed on Deutsche, its servicer, and its lawyers, especially in light of the fact that sanctions were entered by another court, involving Deutsche, AHMSI and counsel, for conduct similar to the facts in this case. See In re Lee 408 B.R. 893 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2009). Because the court is mindful of the stress confronted by all parties in consumer cases, no sua sponte sanctions order will be issued. Deutsche, AHMSI and counsel should, however, treat this decision as a warning. If, in the future, the court is confronted with filings as deficient and incorrect as filed in this case, the court will issue an order to show cause and consider imposing sanctions including, but not limited to, an award of fees to debtors’ counsel for having to oppose motions filed without proper evidence or worse with improper evidence.

No comments: