So today Ms. Shcolnik filed a Motion to Strike the Declaration of Attorney Will Eidson because he didn't have any firsthand knowledge of the alleged Note that she signed, nor did he have any such knowledge of the purported Loan Modification she allegedly signed but yet he presented those things to Court today for the Truth of the matter asserted, i.e. that she signed them and that they are valid documents. He has no knowledge of any of that shit so the Court let him test-i-lie.
Who did have knowledge of these things, you ask?
Three people who live right here in Washington, as Ms. Shcolnik aptly pointed out to the Court. Rose Kane, Keith Thompson, Esq. and Carey Steingrabber. But the Court, by and through Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Wynne, denied her Motion to Strike solely on the rationale that "those are all public documents" as one will hear on video soon.
The problem is, the Court is wrong. First of all her purported loan modification cover page is most certainly not a public document. But even if all of the documents were public, that has nothing to do with the fact that they are still HEARSAY in this proceeding at this point, with no exception to the Rule being evidenced because all of these people are AVAILABLE. So while Attorney Eidson can ignore me all he wants to in the upcoming elevator video, sooner or later, perhaps by way of Interlocutory Appeal or by Motion to Reconsider or whatever the Shcolniks do, there is no way that this documents can be used at Summary Judgment or at Trial without one or more of these people showing up because only they can authenticate those documents and Ms. Shcolnik -- an elder who was going through chemotherapy during much of this -- flatly denies ever signing any of the relevant documents or meeting any of these people. She is entitled to have a Jury determine credibility and an expert called in to validate the ORIGINAL documents by forensic analysis and signature/handwriting comparisons.
So the Court's ruling today on the Motion to Strike was completely wrong and it simply cannot be sustained. The fact that the purported Loan Modification document references a Deed of Trust as security instrument dated 31 July 2006 in contrast to the DoT that she purportedly signed on 25 July 2006 makes it all the more scandalous and unlawful, right.
But there's more. MERS is listed as the Beneficiary on the mortgage docs. That's a no-no in Washington and a no-no throughout the whole Country. Why just the other day in the Supreme Court of New York a Court actually did the Right Thing in Citibank v. Herman, Supreme Court App Div. 2013-06616, finding that there was no proof that MERS had the ability to Assign a ham sandwich much less any mortgage documents.
But there's more. The Court ignored the current law on Statute of Limitations as well as the current law on whether or not she has to pay her mortgage until the case is decided. I looked up some cases like Kirsch v. Cranberry Fin., LLC, 2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2871 (2013), Walcker v. Benson & McLaughlin, 79 Wn. App. 739 (1995) that the Shcolniks filed and it seems that those cases are on point more so than the ancient Washington case that was not decided in mortgage context or the out-of-state cases that SLS cited that don't even analyze Washington statutes for Crissakes. Crazy, right?
But there's more. The Court steadfastly adhered to the language that purportedly demands that a homeowner pay their monthly mortgage payments while the case is pending, even though they have not produced any lawful proof that Ms. Shcolnik has ever entered into contract. But she sued them under RCW 9A.82 ("Little RICO") because she claims all Defendants are using completely false and fabricated documents and in the Pardo v. MERS case I know for fact that Little RICO claims survived a Motion to Dismiss and it should in this case too because you have to view the facts in the light most favorable to Ms. Shcolnik and that means she never signed any of these documents. And if she did, then Attorney Eidson has no knowledge of it. Focus. She cited Bowcut v. Northstar 95 Wn. App. 311 (1999) case holding that no payments to the Clerk of Courts is required here because it is likely that joint criminal conduct is occurring, to no avail.
But there's more. Remember the Remand stunt that Attorney Glowney pulled? Yeah that's coming up in the video too when I ask Attorney Eidson about it.
And there's more yet again: Either the Court or foreclosing Counsel, in another hearing before Judge Wynne, made the argument that the homeowner had no Standing to challenge a MERS chain of Assignments or anything. But that's wrong too. See all the cases that the Shcolniks dug up in their case including Knecht v. Fidelity, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113131 (Washington WD 2014), Glaski v. Bank of America 218 Cal. App. 4th (5th Dist. 1079), Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Erbobo, 39 Misc.3d 120A, 2013 WL 1831799 (2013) and Cosajay v. MERS, C. A. No. 10-442-M, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160294 (Rhode Island 2013). All of those cases prove that homeowners can challenge Assignments and Chain of Title.
So I'm telling Attorneys Glowney and Eidson they had better watch their steps carefully here because while the Judge didn't get it right today, there are reviewing Courts, and there are post-sale remedies available in the event of a bogus sale and those remedies can be costly, especially if the Shcolniks sue and it winds up before Judge Bowden, ahem.