03 July 2015

KingCast & Mortgage Movies See Foreclosure Mill Attorney J. Will Eidson Run From Cameras During Inspection of a Public Document.... A Purported Deutsche Bank Original Note.





14 July Update:
I emailed the Court and all Counsel with my observations that mere possession of a Note is not enough, and that Attorney Eidson cannot testify. Read the comment section including a reference to prior deceitful acts committed by his firm (through Partner John Glowney no less) and a look at Feltus v. U.S. Bank, 80 S. 3rd 375 (2012).

13 July 2015 Update1:
As to Her Honor's stated concern about applying law and facts that may be technically out of Rule, it is now my understanding that Chase admitted they acquired only servicing rights. I don't even have to pull up case law on that because we all know it exists, but I will tomorrow.  
DBNC v. FDIC.

13 July Update 2:  
J. Will Eidson tells me a categorical lie, i.e. that he "does not hate my cameras" in direct response to my question "why do you hate my cameras."  If he does not hate my cameras why did he slam the door on my last week then, during inspection of a purportedly 9 year-old Note that looked like it was printed yesterday. No weathering, no crimped edges, nothing. Pristine. And they won't allow for date testing because it would "damage or degrade" the Note.

He said he wouldn't talk about the case so I asked him if he was aware that Decisional case law throughout the Country is holding that homeowners have a right to challenge the Chain of Title, and he again said "I'm not discussing the case," and I again said "we're speaking in the abstract, Sir....." 

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?

I also asked him how JP Morgan obtained the Note in 2008 if it was in a Trust in 2006. Neat trick, that.


Same ol' same ol.  Video coming.  But you can clearly see by his cheery visage that he just loves my cameras.

8 July update from Ms. Erickson:  The blank unendorsed note is what Valerie states proves is now a securities fraud instrument good or fake. The prospectus of the trust states it has to be endorsed into the trust. It says to send it in blank and then deposit it into the trust along with the assignment, that never happened and stayed on county records in Long Beach name until Rebecca Dietrich, a Chase employee signed by power of attorney for DBNTC seven years after the trust closed. 

I have long wondered about this because a Note can't be in two places at once, think about it. I know there is some Decisional law on this so I'll start looking into it. I think Erbobo v. Wells Fargo touches on this.

At bottom, watch a prior video involving Marilynn Shcolnik's remand after a dirty removal trick pulled by the banksters. See how shifty Attorney J. Will Eidson appears in that video? Well we saw it again yesterday. In a King County (Kent) Superior Court yesterday in Deutschebank v. Erickson 14-2-00426-5 KNT Judge Andrea Darvas Denied Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and permitted inspection of what is purportedly the original Note.  I know several things for fact:

A Note is a public document.


J. Will Eidson hates my cameras.

J. Will Eidson runs from my cameras every single time.

The signatures and authenticity of the Note are still not resolved.


Other Notes have been presented as authentic but found to be otherwise.

I am going to seek an advisory opinion from the Attorney General regarding inspection of a public document:  Having settled many a case in conference rooms I told the Bailiff that I had no problem staying away from a conference room if there is true conferencing going on. But that is not what was going on yesterday. What was going on yesterday was inspection of a public document, which could have been done in the hallway or courtroom. Whatever the case, it is my contention that that is not a private event when the inspection is occurring in a public building.  If this were a divorce case involving intricate private family details such as tax documents or estate planning I would not make this argument.... but again that is not the situation contemplated by yesterday's activities, so stay tuned. Here's how the letter will read:

Dear Attorney General Ferguson: I have provided your office crucial information regarding the illegal practices of Cal Western on prior occasion when I was working on mortgage mediations. That having been said, as a former Assistant Attorney General I have a great degree of respect for the 50 State AG offices and hope that you can review this situation as seen at this YouTube link and on the enclosed SD card and advise me as to whether inspection of a public document in a public building can ever be a private matter, such that both counsel have to agree to have a reporter present.


Given the state of America's foreclosure crisis and all of the fraud and deceitful practices that were in play, unbeknownst to me as an escrow attorney 13 years ago, I would hope that your office issue an advisory opinion that inspection of a public document in a public building is subject to the First Amendment principles of open media.  It is clear to me that what happened yesterday in the Kent Courthouse was and is a form of unlawful prior restraint.


Respectfully submitted,


Christopher King, J.D.


cc:  Judge Andrea Darvas

1 comment:

Christopher King said...

My email to the Court and Counsel:

20 minutes ago 5:09 PM

Possession of an allegedly valid note is not enough.....And Attorney Eidson cannot testify on S/J

It's like I told Attorney Eidson in the hallway a few months ago, he can't testify to ANYTHING. In that case the original signatories to a DoT were right here in Washington and the homeowner said she never met these people but the Court let Eidson proceed. This is the interview when Eidson couldn't wait to get away from me when I exposed the fact that the Removal was a complete stunt that wasn't even done in compliance with the Rules and Principles of Discovery. And the document numbers and dates don't even match on the underlying obligation. Watch the video from 2:00 on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCKszEnCiQE

The woman in that case had not even alleged an Federal Claim in the first place, there was no Diversity, and the Record that I saw was completely void of any proof of mutual assent from all Defendants. So it was a crap move that the banks get away with 99% of the time when the run over an elderly pro se homeowner.... until the homeowner gets a competent attorney or KingCast/Mortgage Movies exposes the sham.

Accord Feltus v. U.S. Bank FL 2nd Circuit Ct. App.

In addition, the affidavit of indebtedness revealed no basis for the affiant's assertion that U.S. Bank owns and holds the note. The affiant is an assistant secretary for the alleged servicing agent of the Bank, and she asserted that she had personal knowledge of the loan based on the loan payment records.



She did not assert any personal knowledge of how U.S. Bank would have come to own or hold the note. See Shafran v. Parrish, 787 So. 2d 177, 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ("When affidavits are filed to establish the factual basis of the motion [for summary judgment], they must be made on personal knowledge, demonstrate the affiant's competency to testify, and be otherwise admissible in evidence."). The trial court erred in entering final summary judgment of foreclosure because the documents before it created a genuine issue of material fact of who owned or held the note. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2011/October/October%2019,%202011/2D10-3727.pdf

I believe this is Feltus II: Feltus v. U.S. Bank N.A., 80 So. 3d 375 (2012)

2 HN4 A cause of action must be complete before a party files a lawsuit. See Trawick, Fla. Prac. and Proc., § 14:8 (2010 ed.); see also § 95.031(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). Thus, even if U.S. Bank had properly amended its complaint to travel on the [**7] original note endorsed in blank, it would have needed to prove the endorsement in blank was effectuated before the lawsuit was filed.

The trial court erred in entering final judgment of foreclosure because the documents before it did not establish conclusively that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that U.S. Bank was entitled to foreclose Feltus's mortgage as a matter of law. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

CASANUEVA CRENSHAW JJ., Concur.

**********

I don't know how else to say it, but it is high time to stop letting these banks run amok with the evidentiary laws and principles put into place to prevent the same sort of widespread fraud that tanked the U.S. and World economy in 2008, with ongoing and far-ranging effect, including mass disfranchisement of America's middle class.

But of course that was The Plan all along and it's cyclical. Keating 5 in the 80's. Enron in the 90's. I'm not stupid, nor should this Court be hoodwinked, either.

With that, I'm back to editing a video.