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.
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.
Christopher King, J.D.
cc: Judge Andrea Darvas