17 April 2015

KingCast and Mortgage Movies Present: Trouble in Paradise -- Maui Foreclosures Allowed by Judge Peter T. Cahill Without Proof of Standing or HRS §667-17 Compliance.

24 April 2014 -- First video coming today. Wells Fargo responded after I outed them and counsel for reading my email with proof that all of them had read my inquiry but had not yet responded.

Hello Mr. King,

I wanted to response to your email request.  Given that there is active litigation around his loan we decline to discuss the case in any more detail at this time.  Wells Fargo continues to work with borrowers on mortgage modifications and other options that may help them remain in their homes and avoid foreclosure when possible. We have modified more than 1 million loans since the beginning of 2009. 

Alfredo Padilla
Consumer Lending Communications 
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage   |   333 S. Grand Avenue, 11th Floor  |   Los Angeles, Calif.  90071
MAC E2064-11H
Tel  213-253-3379 |   Cell  213-369-6122   |   Fax  213-617-8135

This e-mail message is being sent solely for use by the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by phone or reply by e-mail, delete the original message and destroy all copies.  Thank you.

Note: That is important for him to say because Dual Tracking is illegal and all these people wanted was a loan mod to get out from under arguably usurious conditions.

All they wanted was a Mortgage Modification. All they got was a hassle and foreclosure pursuant to what appears to be unlawful Dual Tracking:  Carol, Penny and Patti at Upcountry Protea Farm are facing what appears to be an unlawful foreclosure as Carol and Penny take care of Patti, who sustained a brain injury many years ago.  Not that any of that matters too much to Bank of America because I had to document all of their shenanigans along with learned counsel, Seattle City Councilors and SAFE for months before they granted Seattle resident Jane Mair a loan mod that she needed after she sustained a catastrophic brain injury. Watch City Councilor Nick Licata declare war on corporate criminality on Ms. Mair's front porch here. Watch me accompany her to BoA to sign her Loan Mod in the video thumbnailed below and watch other videos with Ms. Mair linked below. 

Meanwhile Daneford and Ellareen Wright are facing a similar fate closer to Kahului. There are gofundme pages for both sets of homeowners:
Save our Farm From Fraudulent Banks.
Please Help Our Ohana Save Our Home.
To my observation as a former Escrow attorney, there are two common denominators in both cases: First is an apparently manufactured and false paper trail that purports to confer authority to foreclose. Second -- and perhaps more importantly -- is the presence of Judge Peter T. Cahill, who is allowing these cases to proceed without strict compliance with HRS 667-17attorney affirmation. As far as I know only Hawaii and New York State have this requirement, but without judicial enforcement it is nothing more than hot air. In NY Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman gets it, citing "systemic structural failings" so why can't Judge Cahill?
Some of the issues common for both cases include the presence of robosigning and whether or not a homeowner may challenge the Chain of Title and Assignments.  As to the former, I am aware that Essex County, MA Register John O'Brien has reviewed the Wright documents and confirmed that they are indeed robosigned but this Court is refusing to acknowledge any of that. O'Brien has gone on record after his audit with Marie McDonnell to state that his office is a corporate crime scene.  Seattle Washington is going to start conducting audits as well. Watch me discuss this matter with City Council here.
Essex County Register John O'Brien
I am also aware that a homeowner most certainly can challenge Assignments of Mortgage First Circuit Cosajay v. MERS C. A. No. 10-442-M, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160294 (Rhode Island 2013) and Culhane v. Aurora. As an aside, it is virtually impossible to find the Cosajay Appellate Court Decision reversing Judge McConnell online...  funny isn't it? Imagine that. I'll post it soon. Also, the Wright's social security numbers are on the Trust documents as a condition precedent. So how in the hell can Courts continue to allow the banks to use us as pawns in some kind of twisted life-scale chess game?

Production of several videos should be complete in the next week, with a lead-in video of an interview with Deadly Clear's Sydney Sullivan regarding Patents and 1003 Mortgage Applications as contemplated by the third video down in this journal entry from New York City. Meanwhile enjoy the WF and BoA videos I have produced on prior occasion, as both of these entities are involved in these cases:

Lastly, I believe that the Wrights are fighting for a Jury Trial that they paid for, but they inform me that Judge Cahill is not allowing it because he claims that foreclosures are a matter of Equity:

Well my research indicates that juries can indeed be drawn on mortgage cases.  See State Savings v. Young 53 Haw. 132; 488 P.2d 703; 1971 Haw. LEXIS 88 (1971). To the North in Oregon we have Bela and Eva Lengyel v. J.P. Morgan with a $10K Jury Verdict against J.P. Morgan. Those who protect the banksters don't want Jury Trials because Juries will punish them for their lawlessness, fancy that.

Further, assuming arguendo that it is a matter of equity, then the Plaintiffs must demonstrate Clean Hands according to the Clean Hands Doctrine. Bank of America recently lost out on that recently:  
Bank of America v. Pate 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 3774 (First Dist. Ct. App March 16, 2015), in which the Court opined: 
The Shoe Foyer at the Wright home. 
“In this civil foreclosure case, the trial court found that Appellant Bank of America (the Bank) engaged in egregious and intentional misconduct in Appellee Pates’ (Pate) purchase of a residential home. Thus, based on the trial court’s finding that the Bank had unclean hands in this equity action, it did not reversibly err in denying the foreclosure action and granting a deed in lieu of foreclosure. In addition, the trial court did not err in ruling in favor of the Pates in their counterclaims for breach of contract and fraud, and awarding them $250,000 in punitive damages and $60,443.29 in compensatory damages….” 
The learned trial judge found that the Bank’s actions demonstrated its unclean hands; therefore, the Bank was not entitled to a foreclosure judgment in equity. 
Unclean hands is an equitable defense, akin to fraud, to discourage unlawful activity. See Congress Park Office Condos II, LLC v. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 105 So. 3d 602, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“It is a self-imposed ordinance that closes the doors of a court of equity to one tainted with inequitableness or bad faith relative to the matter in which he seeks relief[.]”) (quoting Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Auto. Maint. Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945))). The totality of the circumstances established the Bank’s unclean hands, precluding it from benefitting by its actions in a court of equity. Thus, the trial court did not err by denying the foreclosure action.
So by that measure then the Court should be demanding strict compliance with the Statute, right?  I will be contacting the bank attorneys over the weekend and look forward to their responses.

1 comment:

Christopher King said...

Email today 21 April 2015:

Media Request for Interviews/Information on Wright and Lubick/Page Foreclosures
1 minute ago 2:13 PM
Christopher King

Dear Counsel:

While on Maui last week I had the opportunity to interview two sets of homeowners relative to their pending/ongoing foreclosure cases. My initial journal entry regarding these interviews may be found here:

Naturally I am now seeking the "other half" of the story from you or your clients as that space should most definitely include commentary from the Plaintiff(s) in order to present a fair and balanced account. I have not requested or received any input from Attorney Dubin as he apparently believes that his clients may safely speak for themselves and I would by the same token prefer to speak directly with your clients, but in the event that you would rather speak on their behalves I can work directly with you as Counsel.

As such, please contact me immediately to schedule an interview with yourself or your respective clients and have a great day.