24 April 2015

KingCast and Mortgage Movies See More Foreclosure Abuse During Mandatory BK Stay Involving Dirty-Assed Law Firm Reimer, Arnoviz, Chernek & Jeffrey.

In Pattie Busby's case the State Court Judge O'Connell screwed her royally and the State Court Judge even issued rulings after hours during a Mandatory BK Stay. Now the Federal Court Magistrate and Court are ignoring her arguments relative to Rooker-Feldman even though she cited to Sixth Circuit cases in which Rooker-Feldman did not eliminate the possibility of a Federal lawsuit if the State process was a perversion of Justice, particularly if the banks used false, fraudulent or forged Affidavits, which is par for the Course for Reimer, going all the way back to 1997 as noted in my seminal journal entry on these legal maggots. See also my anti-Reimer FB Page and Cindy Seymour Schmittauer's Ohio Homeowners Unite FB Page.

Busby says that the Magistrate in her case, one Michael Merz (gotta love the homophone right), failed to even address his own case on such an issue when he issued both his initial Report and Recommendations as well as his Supplemental R&R. I'll be reading her filing for the case citation today. Found it. Baker v. People's Choice Home Loan, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96454 (SD WD Ohio 2010) -- Read below.  Speaking of R&R there will be none of that for Bank of America's high-paid attorneys because Ms. Busby sees a split in the Circuit Courts on that matter so she's headed to SCOTUS. I love it.
Now today I get a message from another Ohio homeowner who lives not far from Ms. Busby regarding a Sheriff sale that happened yesterday during a Mandatory BK Stay as noted by way of the attached thumbnails showing the sale and the BK filings.
"[Chris], I just got off phone with (my Attorney) Nick ZIngatelli's office. He was in hearing but Tammy gave me BK no 15-11576. You said you didn't need it but just thought I'd share that with you. She confirmed that a fax was sent to Sheriff Office on WED when I filed. She also said they knew my house was illegally sold yesterday (THURSDAY) and they're already on it. She said she notified bank this morning that sale is void. I asked her if I (we) should file something with Sheriff Office alerting them also and she said she didn't know anything about that . And that's when she told me she had faxed alert To sheriff on Wed.  She said she'd talk to Nick after his hearing and let me know."
Can you believe this shit? The brazen indifference to anything legal whenever Reimer Arnovitz enters the room, right. Well Ohio is one dirty-assed State, and I'm glad that folks back in Cleveland are helping my father with his book about his life as a black man dealing with life in a red state in the socio-economic, political and legal realms. I was with him on research for many of his issues and look forward to publication because little people need to have our voices heard too!

Magistrate Judge Merz has ruled on this issue in Baker v. People's Choice Home Loan, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96454 (SD WD Ohio 2010).[1]
The Sixth Circuit explains in McCormick v. Braverman, 451 F.3d 382 (6th Cir., 2006), that for Rooker-Feldman to apply, in light of Exxon Mobile, the harm to plaintiff must flow from the state court judgment, not from actions of others in obtaining that judgment. Todd v. Weltman, Weinberg, & Reis Co., L.P.A., 434 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2006)(Rooker-Feldman does not apply where harm flows not from the state court judgment, but from filing a false affidavit in the state court proceeding.[2]) For example, it does not preclude a claim that the state court judgment was procured by fraud. Brown v. First Nationwide Mortg. Corp., 206 Fed. Appx. 436, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 28077 (6th Cir. 2006).

While there was confusion in Baker because “In this case it is difficult to tell from the pleadings precisely from where Plaintiff alleges her injuries flow,” there is no such confusion here and Plaintiff has lain out a clear cut road map of all of the pre and post judgment lawlessness of all Defendants and why Rooker-Feldman cannot possibly obtain to obviate all of her claims.

[1] Magistrate Merz was and is factually mistaken when he stated at p. 7 of his Report that Plaintiff’s only response to Rooker-Feldman was Johnson v. Pushpin – In her filings Plaintiff set forth a plethora of Rooker-Feldman cases, none of which the Court considered even though the same exact issue was observed in Todd v. Weltman et al.
[2] Emphasis added. This is precisely what is alleged in this case so why was the Magistrate in such a hurry to dismiss with prejudice without addressing this substantive body of case law in which he even participated?

No comments: