21 September 2014

KingCast and Mortgage Movies Launch a New Facebook Page: Fight Safeguard and Reimer Arnovitz Chernek & Jeffrey for Ethics Violations.



2 November 2015 Update: Massive Pennsylvania Retirement Pension lawsuit begets massive $335M settlement with BoA & MERS.... with direct implications to Pattie Busby and other lawsuits against BoA.

Shareholders also said the bank knew that record-keeping in Merscorp Inc's private Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems registry was so poor that it would not be able to legally foreclose on thousands of delinquent mortgages. MERS was established in 1995 to circumvent the often cumbersome process of transferring ownership of mortgages and recording changes with county clerks. 
28 August 2015 Update: Busby v. Reimer & BoA Rule 60 Memorandum using Ron Chernek Deposition in which he admits he doesn't know jack shit!




Ronald John Chernek, Esq. a resident of Ohio is a lawyer licensed to practice law and a shareholder of Reimer. He was the head of the foreclosure Department. F. Peter Costello, Esq. of Reimer prepared the bogus Assignment of Mortgage in the Busby’s foreclosure case. Reimer engaged in a pattern and practice of creating, submitting to courts, and recording documents with false and/or misleading representations in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e(2) &(10) and 1692f.
From Glazer v. Chase:
Both foreclosure complaints filed against Plaintiff state that CHF is “the holder” of the Klie note. (Exhs B&D.) Under the version of R.C. 1301.01 in effect at the time relevant to this matter, “holder” means either of the following: “(a) if the instrument is payable to bearer, a person who is in possession of the instrument; or “(b) if the instrument is payable to an identified person, the identified person when in possession of the instrument.”
Mr. Chernek testified regarding RACJ’s process for verifying that the foreclosure plaintiff was in fact the holder of the note:

Q.   So what steps were required in your firm in 2008 to confirm that the Plaintiff can actually have the authority to enforce a lost note?
A   We -- first of all, we executed the assignment that we reviewed before and that was recorded --
Q    Okay.
A --and that was the governing document. We wouldn't file a case unless we had an Assignment. [...]
Q.    Let's go to the assignment that you signed in the Klie matter.
A    Okay.
Q    And you see there you are transferring a note from J.P. Morgan to Chase? 
A   Okay.
Q    So, sir, when you prepared this assignment, how did you determine that J.P. Morgan actually held a note signed by Mr. Klie?
MS. BROWN: Objection.
A    We -- we didn't have a copy of the note, so we-- I don't know how we would have done it at this time. I don't really know. I don't remember this one.
Q    And how would you have gone to confirm that J.P. Morgan has the authority to enforce a note that they may or may not hold?
A    We can only look at the mortgage, the title work, and the assignment alleges both, as it is here, but I have nothing in my possession -- we have nothing in our possession.
Q    So if there's a mortgage, you assume that the person who is the mortgagee have the note? A Well, they -- we assert that they're the holder of the note, yes.
Q.    But do you verify that factual assertion in any way?
A    Other than what the client represents to us, no, because we're not at Chase. (ECF Doc. #179 Chernek 130:7-132:16)

Defendants knew that FNMA was the owner and holder of the Klie note: the FADIS referral letter said so. (see also Decl Exh. P, p1, L) FNMA’s Servicing Guide is equally clear on the fact that FNMA owned and held the note.

Q    My question is: When you, as the preparing entity, you go in to prepare an Assignment of Mortgage, you said there's some verbiage that is required by Ohio law. If the Assignment of Mortgage will say that the note has been transferred, you personally, did you have a way to verify that that transfer had already occurred?
A    No, I mean -- no.
Q    No? 
A    No. [...]
My question, then, is: When you go in to prepare an Assignment of Mortgage and the Assignment of Mortgage will be saying that an assignment of a Promissory Note is being accomplished with the transfer, how did you verify the accuracy of that information?
MS. BROWN: Objection.
A    There's nothing to verify. I'm just stating that with this document that that Promissory Note is being transferred.
Q    At the time when you put down that information,you're not saying the Promissory Note was already transferred?
A    I'm not saying that, no.


July 4 2015 update: More to follow. Looks like a Motion for Summary Judgment and Class Action lawsuit in Glazer v. CHASE and Reimer Arnovitz!


There is more coming for these sleazebags... 
read the entire Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, below.

Mr. Chernek testified regarding RACJ’s process for verifying that the foreclosure plaintiff was in fact the holder of the note:

Q. So what steps were required in your firm in 2008 to confirm that the Plaintiff can actually have the authority to enforce a lost note?
A We -- first of all, we executed the assignment that we reviewed before and that was recorded --
Q Okay.
A -- and that was the governing document. We wouldn't file a case unless we had an Assignment. [...]
Q. Let's go to the assignment that you signed in the Klie matter.
A Okay.

Q And you see there you are transferring a note from J.P. Morgan to Chase?
A Okay.
Q So, sir, when you prepared this assignment, how did you determine that J.P. Morgan
actually held a note signed by Mr. Klie?

MS. BROWN: Objection.

A We -- we didn't have a copy of the note, so we-- I don't know how we would have done it
at this time. I don't really know. I don't remember this one.
Q And how would you have gone to confirm that J.P. Morgan has the authority to enforce a note that they may or may not hold?
A We can only look at the mortgage, the title work, and the assignment alleges both, as it is here, but I have nothing in my possession -- we have nothing in our possession.

Q So if there's a mortgage, you assume that the person who is the mortgagee have the note?
A Well, they -- we assert that they're the holder of the note, yes.
Q. But do you verify that factual assertion in any way?
A Other than what the client represents to us, no, because we're not at Chase.

Defendants knew that FNMA was the owner and holder of the Klie note: the FADIS referral letter said so. (see also Decl Exh. P, p1, L) FNMA’s Servicing Guide is equally clear on the fact that FNMA owned and held the note:

Fannie Mae is at all times the owner of the mortgage note, whether the note is in our portfolio or whether we own it as trustee for an MBS trust. In addition, Fannie Mae at all times has possession of and is the holder of the mortgage note, except in the limited
circumstances expressly described below.

RACJ knew, or should have known, about the requirements of R.C. §1301 et seq. and thus made deliberate misrepresentations about the character and legal status of the debt they sought to collect. In Wallace the Sixth Circuit observed that......




So we've already gone through the litany of lies and of deceit by this law firm ad nauseam, going back to 1977 go here if you need any of that, plus you can read the Ethics Complaint I filed against them that is still in Play with respect to the managing partners.  So you know those creepy lawyers lied against me to the Columbus Bar Association and claimed they didn't talk to me as a reporter on the Pattie Busby foreclosure case because of FDCPA privacy concerns, only for me to prove that they had actual knowledge that she waived privacy, LOL.

So now the question is will these dozens of Summit County return checks, from 2012-2014 match the client disbursement checks to the banks, and will everything reconcile cleanly with the Reimer IOLTA accounts. Many many people tell me that they may not, because Reimer basically "took the money and ran" on many occasions by simply zeroing out the account when the the client was allegedly entitled to the full face value of the check because Reimer had promptly billed them when they set up each account with the Court in the first place.

If everything comes up clean, fine. If not I have no problem watching these lying-assed dirtbags squirm around a bit, maybe lose a license or two, three or four. This is where the banksters and I have an odd alliance: They don't want to be associated with firms that get caught breaking the law and they certainly don't want their money stolen, right. Scuttlebutt has it that the banks have been demanding full accounting from Reimer, Arnovitz lately. Well after they get done reviewing these checks the scrutiny just might heat up a notch or two, LOL guys looks like you fucked with the Wrong Guy. I warned you about that but your waxing hubris and sense of self-entitlement got the better of you.

2012 Returned Checks
2013 Returned Checks
2014 Returned Checks



27 October 2014 Update: Bogus, retaliatory "Ethics Complaint" filed by Reimer's Rachel Kuhn was dismissed. Stay tuned for page two later today as I just noticed that botched the photo.  Basically it says regarding my comments about the firm that while they are not pleasant or whatever, Reimer has legal options. Yeah and I'd love to see them try to exercise any of them. I have got these clowns right where I want them, and when the Summit County Clerk starts identifying specific check numbers and amounts dispersed y'all know full well the banksters are going to be spending a lot of time on my journal pages right. ROTFLMAO.

I have documented proof in courts of law and from my own experience that Ohio Foreclosure Mill Reimer, Arnovitz Chernek & Jeffrey have been telling lies since 1977. I also have substantial reason to believe that the odds are good that the goods are odd when it comes down to their IOLTA accounts as noted in prior videos. I am now going to receive copies of canceled checks from the Summit County Clerk of Courts regarding the close out foreclosure files. From what I understand Reimer's clients are now demanding strict accounting because of ethical concerns.





Introducing... Kemp v. Scott Ciupak: What exactly was this former Albion, MI Police Officer's role in the death of a suspect who died in Police custody after they knew he had ingested cocaine? I need to get a copy of the original Complaint, damn I wish this case had been filed in Federal Court it would be a snap. Anyway Scott Ciupak is now a Reimer, Arnovitz attorney.  As to the relatively low $55K Jury Verdict that was sustained on appeal, hell I got more than that ($58,500)for a guy named Michael Isreal who got choked and lived to tell about it. Plus I got the cops found liable for making him a Victim of Violent Crime by the Ohio Court of Claims. Probably because of the criminal conduct involved the Jury took it easy on the City in Ciupak's case. So this is kind of tangential but then again not really. Reimer will hire anyone with a pulse to do their dirty work, then fuck them over if they have too much integrity or competence. It's really a Land of Misfits over there. Stay tuned for more.

The Summit County Clerk of Courts stopped in for a visit.


And this just in: Reimer arguably discriminates against elder and experienced professionals. They screwed Anne Kazuka, a then 59 year-old Leukemia patent, right on out of her job. They also shit-canned two other older employees at the time. Word has it that they continue to do so, in the sense that As a former employment attorney I find this conduct morally aberrant, repugnant even. Case history showing settlement. Link to Plaintiff's Complaint.
13. Defendants, individually and collectively, maintained a practice of discriminatory disparate treatment of older workers, in that in the past two years, two employees were either terminated and/or subjected to adverse employment actions, i.e. Janine Veits, age 60, who was demoted and replaced by an individual not in an age-protected class; and Barbara Rhinehart, age 67, who was terminated.
KingCast note: I have reason to believe this practice still continues, but with employees who are all under the age of 40. They don't have skilled accountants or paralegals anymore, just people with no real education so Reimer can blame everything on them. These people are pure scum and I'm obviously not afraid to say it. As I say, if they want to fuck with me I'll take them on a hell ride they will never forget.

Goddamn False Affidavit, standard Reimer modus operandi

You know there is no honor among thieves: Would aspiring figure skater Rachel M. Kuhn (pictured in the thumbnail below) have appreciated such skullduggery 
in her own foreclosure (Judgment) back when she was skating on thin financial ice? 

 

Oh my God... Dennis Reimer has been a goddamned liar since 1977 --when I was 12 years old -- on the subject of Service against a homeowner who spanked his ass at trial. So is it far-fetched to believe Reimer Arnovitz fabricated those U.S. Mail green cards in the Busby matter? It is a pattern and practice but wealthy establishment attorneys always get away with it. Don't get mad at me I'm just exposing it:

Sims v. Bloomfield Sav. Bank, 1977 Ohio App. LEXIS 8777 (9th App Summit County 1977)

"The evidence relating to the affidavit to secure service on Mrs. Sims was so patently false that the trial court should have so instructed the jury."

Counsel for Bloomfield [*16]  argued at length as to the nature of his agency and the failure of Mrs. Sims to establish proof of this agency. Mr. Reimer said, under oath, that he was instructed to file the foreclosure action against Mrs. Sims and the Strattons. All of the questions directed to Mr. Reimer bear on the question of the foreclosure. It was Mr. Reimer who swore under oath that he used reasonable diligence to discover the address of Mrs. Sims. It was Mr. Reimer who swore under oath that he did "absolutely nothing" to discover the address of Mrs. Sims. It is Mr. Reimer who now says in his brief at page 44:

"The only evidence presented at the time of trial as to what the Appellant did or did not do with regard to finding the Appellee was the testimony of the attorney that he could not remember what he did or did not do to find out her whereabouts. ....


Just what should this court believe? At all times the address of Mrs. Sims could have been easily discovered not by reasonable diligence but by any diligence. Bloomfield had information in its files which showed where Mrs. Sims had worked for one employer for many years. She still worked at the same place at the time the action [*17]  was filed. We find no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant as to assignment of error eight.

*********

They can block me from emailing all they want to... because I know they are still reading, I have a tracker what a bunch of pompous dumb asses. LMAO right.

BTW I am told that one of their building owners is suing them too.
Haven't verified that yet. I called Chelm yesterday.

Stop the presses: Just off the Lexis updates....  same exact issues Pattie Busby is alleging against Reimer but the goddamn State Court won't address it. Can you say "Judicial Notice." 

Citing Refs. With Analysis Available. Click to Shepardize®Kline v. Mortg. Elec. Sec. Sys., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124406 

II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The Amended Complaint alleges that Kline entered into a $160,000 loan transaction with WMC Mortgage Corporation ("WMC") in June of 2004. Doc. #157 ¶ 25. After Kline fell behind on the payments and defaulted on the loan, Reimer commenced foreclosure proceedings against him in August, 2005, on behalf of WMC and the loan servicer, HomEq Servicing Corporation ("HomEq"). Id. ¶¶ 26-29. The mortgage was later reinstated and the foreclosure case against Kline was dismissed. Id. ¶ 30.

By December of 2006, Kline had again fallen behind on the loan payments, and HomEq notified him that he faced further foreclosure proceedings if he failed to bring the loan current. Id. ¶ 31. Another foreclosure action was filed against Kline on March 16, 2007, again with Reimer as counsel, but this time with "Wells Fargo  Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking SearchesBank, [*7]  N.A., as Trustee" ("Wells Fargo Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches") named as the plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 32-33.

Kline alleges that although the foreclosure complaint stated that Wells Fargo  Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searcheswas the owner and holder of the promissory note and the mortgage, the mortgage was not assigned to Wells Fargo  Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searchesuntil March 26, 2007, ten days after the filing of the foreclosure action. Id. ¶¶ 34, 37. He also alleges that both Wells Fargo  Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searchesand Reimer knew that the papers filed in the foreclosure action falsely represented Wells Fargo  Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searchesas the owner of the note and the creditor to whom Kline owed the debt. Id. ¶¶ 34-36. Kline also alleges that an employee of HomEq falsely represented himself as a Vice-President of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") in order to effect the assignment to Wells Fargo.  Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking SearchesId. ¶¶ 39-44. During these foreclosure proceedings, Kline sold his home and paid off the loans secured by it. Id. ¶ 43.

Kline alleges that Reimer charged him a number of fees and expenses to pay off the delinquent loan held by Wells Fargo.  Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking SearchesId. ¶¶ 45-61. These fees included $450.00 for "Process Service," $75 for each of the parties served, $100 to serve MERS, a $50 "handling" fee, $803 for a "Preliminary Judicial Report" (of which [*8]  $335 went towards an "Exam Fee"), $150 for a "Final Judicial Report" (of which $50 went towards an "Exam Fee"), and late fees charged after the acceleration of the loan. Id ¶¶ 45-67. According to Kline, Reimer's actions make it liable under the FDCPA, the OCSPA, and a claim for unjust enrichment under state law.


B. Unjust Enrichment Claim

Reimer got out of various other claims on a technicality but not this one:

Nevertheless, as Kline points out, the factual allegations in Paragraphs 54-59 of the Amended Complaint can be read to support a claim for unjust enrichment. Those allegations state that Reimer "improperly passed the costs of a so-called 'Preliminary Judicial Report' to Kline" by having it conducted by Nova Title Agency, Inc., which was "effectively the same entity" as Reimer. [KingCast Note: See below, I said the same thing yesterday]. 

They also state that Kline "was charged" various amounts for a "Preliminary Judicial Report," and a "Final Judicial Report," along with "Exam Fees." It can be inferred that Reimer received a benefit from Kline by having "improperly passed the costs" of these allegedly unnecessary reports to him. The applicable standard of review requires that the Court draw any inferences from the facts of the Amended Complaint in Kline's favor. Wallin v. Norman, 317 F.3d 558, 561 (6th Cir. 2003).

Apart from the inferential case to be made from the language of the Amended Complaint, the record before the Court contains evidence that Reimer sought and obtained a monetary benefit from Kline that corresponds to the allegations in the Amended Complaint. First, a November 15, 2007, letter on Reimer's letterhead [*19]  that is addressed to Kline's attorney demands a payoff amount of $176,332.28, which "includes an estimate of court costs." Doc. #274-10 at 2. Kline alleges that he paid this amount on November 18, 2007. Doc. #157 ¶ 66. Second, a February 7, 2008, letter on Reimer's letterhead that is addressed to Kline's attorney contains an itemized list, under the heading "court costs," that corresponds in name and amount to the fees described in the Amended Complaint. Doc. #274-11 at 1. The letter states that the "court costs were actual deposits made by our office." Id. Nova Title, Inc., is mentioned nowhere in either letter sent from Reimer to Kline's attorney. Thus, whatever role Nova Title, Inc., played in the allegedly illegal fees and costs appears to predate the receipt of the benefit that forms the basis for Kline's claim of unjust enrichment.1

*************

Hmmm.... Nova Title Agency, same entity.... what did I just tell you yesterday? See below. And I've got more. Much more. I'll be in touch now with Kline's Attorney. That is my First Amendment Right goddammit and don't you ever forget it. I'll fight you until Hell freezes over and then I'll ice skate right on over you. Rachel Kuhn was brought in as a newbie, to try to run over Pattie Busby and me, and now she and Reimer are regretting every minute of it, and rightfully so. I will take them down.

They want to fuck with me I'll tell them just as "Employment Lawyer of the Year 2010" 
Brad Seigel told me on a Civil Rights case that finally settled:
"I'll rip your heart out and feed it to you."
These high-powered attorneys are often scummy but feel that they can say and do anything because the Ohio Bar and Columbus Bar Association won't do anything to them. In fact, they often get negative reinforcement for their actions. Now Brad's Partner John Stephen, great guy never a problem with him, always professional.

I'll tell it as it is, and let the chips fall where they may because like I say, at just about 
50 years of age I realize that I just don't have to give a shit anymore.
**********

New info from another insider: 

i did find that yesterday, but how did u find me? or know we might have common interests? Cause we do, u are correct about them, i believe they deserve this karma...... i am most curious how u found out about their billing issues?? those are correct too, they have a lot of money that does not belong to them and u can find it in their trust account, they were constantly co-mingling of funds.

Reimer uses Nova Title Company... (see above Court Decision denying Judgment on the Pleadings, LOL). Owning that meant if a client questioned the double billing, the accountant (Lorri Cox) would email downstairs to Nova to quickly 'zero it out" That was the solution to so much. Zero it out. If the client didn’t ask about it, it slid by. Only fix if they ask. “If we owe, zero it out so the file is at zero. If they owe us, take it from the court cost refund.” They said the files were so old the client wont even notice. But we double billed for a publication!!! We owe then $150!! Nope zero it out. *******

Safeguard continues to break into homes and cover it up. And that's a fact. Watch the videos documenting more of that, along with the Illinois Attorney General's ongoing lawsuit against them. Meanwhile an inside source tells me that Bank of America lawyers at Reimer, Arnovitz steal from the clients, illegally use court refund monies, and abuse employees. They too, work hand-in-hand with Safeguard and they try to avoid hiring real accounting professionals, more on this at a time I deem appropriate.

I further believe that Reimer authorized others in their control to posit fake U.S. Mail Return of Service green cards in order to "prove" service in a wrongful foreclosure case as previously-noted.

Furthermore, I know they were rocked by my phone calls with homeowner Pattie Busby because they sent out a global email to the employees about me, making sure nothing got public. Too bad it got public anyway. 
Lastly, I know for FACT that Reimer Arnovitz, by and through Rachel Kuhn lied to the Columbus Bar Association to please the name partners at Reimer Arnovitz. We have a new FB page: Fight Safeguard and Reimer & Arnovitz Ethics Violations.  Kuhn said the firm could not talk with me, as a reporter, about a homeowner's file regarding falsified U.S. Mail Docs. and tried to get me for unauthorized practice of law, but in fact they already knew the homeowner had waived FDCPA confidentiality. 

The homeowner even called Reimer with me on the phone so they knew damn well they could have spoken with me as a reporter.  Anyway Rachel Kuhn sent a link to a YouTube video she and Reimer were complaining about in her complaint to the Bar Association. Too bad the link clearly shows the homeowner has waived confidentiality concerns! Look at it, above. 
  PS: I forgot 2-3 years ago name partner Henry Fein lied about his very identity when facing KingCast/Mortgage Movies cameras. Watch it right here! 

1 comment:

Christopher King said...

OMG read this excerpt from Richey v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160148

B. FDCPA Claim

HN13Go to the description of this Headnote.If a law firm forecloses on a mortgage knowing that the party lacks standing or the case is otherwise improper, the law firm can be liable under the FDCPA because it is acting as a debt collector, attempting to collect on a debt owed to another.93 Plaintiffs have alleged that Reimer filed a foreclosure lawsuit knowing that the mortgage and note were forged.94 Reimer says that "Plaintiffs' allegation that the note contained forged signatures does not invalidate the ability to enforce the note under the Ohio Revised Code."95 Frankly, this unsupported assertion is plainly false. HN14Go to the description of this Headnote.A promissory note that has been forged is void.96 If the promissory note is void, no debt exists on which Plaintiffs could have defaulted. And if Plaintiffs did not default on any debt, no person could foreclose on Plaintiffs' house. By knowingly foreclosing on Plaintiffs' property even though Reimer knew the note and mortgage were void, Reimer would knowingly bring a foreclosure suit without standing. This violates the FDCPA, and [*23] Plaintiffs have stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.

FOOTNOTES

93 See, e.g., Whittiker v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 605 F. Supp. 2d 914, 929-30 (N.D. Ohio 2009) (holding that filing of foreclosure action while knowing that one lacks ability to prove ownership of debt is actionable under the FDCPA); Williams v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, LLP, 480 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1021-23 (S.D. Ohio 2007) (holding that knowledge that information in affidavit is false as to specifics of debt violates FDCPA); Delawder v. Platinum Fin. Servs., 443 F. Supp. 2d 942, 947-49 (S.D. Ohio 2005) (holding that falsely representing the nature of a debt in a civil action to collect on the debt violates the FDCPA).

94 Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 11, 14. The fact that Reimer says the documents attached to the foreclosure complaint were "facially valid," Doc. 22 at 12, is irrelevant; the Court takes as true the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint. The complaint says that the documents were forged.

....I mean, really guys? Really?