By Sydney Sullivan
For most of us education is an ongoing process. Whether you are a professional, labor force, homemaker, just a kid or retired we are constantly learning – all of us… except some (but not all) judges, because when they get behind the bench in the black robe, all of a sudden their comprehension and quest for knowledge is severely dulled, yet they still roar like an angry old goat.
You would think judges in Hawaii would be more compassionate to those folks losing their lands since it was only a little over 100 years ago, in 1893, when Hawaii was invaded by American businessmen, who overthrew Queen Liliuokalani and forced an illegal territorial annexation to the United States.
It’s a rather touchy subject that President Clinton tried to address when he made a formal apology to the Hawaiians in 1993 for the shameful events of 1893 and 1898. So, you would think that these fraudulent foreclosures on Hawaii’s homeowners would cause the Hawaii courts to take the lead in holding the banks’ feet to the flame and forcing the burden of proof upon them to verify every single document – especially in light of the $25 BILLION National Mortgage Consent Judgment for forgeries, falsifying documents (essentially fraud on the courts and in the land records office), right?
Nope – just the opposite. Those businessmen 100 years ago were land thieves and, of course, bank related… and it appears they still carry weight into the courtrooms today. Isn’t that a dirty shame?!
Daneford and Ellareen Wright are one of the first, if not the first, Pro Se litigants to force the bank plaintiff to trial on Maui, Hawaii. Wright was, however, denied a jury trial even though he paid for it in 2009.
The plaintiff was US Bank National Association, as trustee for the “STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, 2006-NC1” aka the “issuing entity” of a securitized trust. The Wrights are quite astute after pursuing the path of the New Century Mortgage collateral procurement scheme and learning everything they could about securitization – and now rehypothecation.
Even the Honorable Judge Peter Cahill who presided over the trial said:
“Mr. Wright, you are far more of an expert about all of this other stuff than I’ll ever be.”
“This other stuff” Judge Cahill was referring to is securitization and precisely how collateral is shifted and moved around. Understanding “this other stuff” is crucial to structuring a fair and balanced decision. If the collateral is not handled properly – and it appears this is a major question, the plaintiff cannot establish “standing” which is necessary (and elementary) in any lawsuit which has been the basis of many foreclosure decisions in other courts in other states.
Wright’s evidence, although the judge tried to jump over and dump most of it (including an Affidavit from John O’Brien, the registrar of deeds in Essex County, MA indicating several robo-signers are on the Wright documents), should have awakened the sheeple judge. Instead, Judge Cahill refused to even consider that the documents the plaintiff used, and its servicer Wells Fargo swore to, were forgeries – and of course, ruled in favor of the bank.
The Wrights took the evidence and Judge Cahill’s decision to Honolulu attorney Gary Dubin who agreed to take over the case. Mr. Dubin immediately filed:
In his opening statement Mr. Dubin asserts the unfairness:
“ln past foreclosure hearings, this Court has continued to ignore the sworn admissions of Securitized Trustees like U.S. Bank in numerous Justice Department and State Attorney General formal investigations, resulting so far in over 220 billion dollars in fines, that they have mishandled their chain of title paperwork and have filed false moving documents in American Courts as here.
Instead, this Court frankly continues to enforce fraudulent mortgage assignments and defective promissory notes.
Other attorneys in the undersigned’s law office have called such errors to this Court’s attention in the past with little success, the Honorable Peter T. Cahill reportedly taking personal jabs at the undersigned on the record and outside his presence, while completely ignoring what other Courts have been doing to stop such mortgage fraud.
For instance, the California Supreme Court now has before it three cases raising the exact securitization issues that this Court has cavalierly rejected, most notably whether a borrower has the right to challenge the validity of an assignment to a securitized trust, the lead case of which, certiorari having been granted last year, is Yvanova v. New Century, 226 Cal. App. 4th 495, 172 Cal. Rptr. 3d 104 (2014), now fully briefed and awaiting decision.”
Dubin hammers on the lack of a justifiable Attorney Affirmation that is, by law, a prerequisite in order to proceed with foreclosure. Foreclosure attorneys must verify that these robo-signed documents are legitimate.
Doesn’t it just make you want to shout, “yeah, Judge, out of the millions upon millions of robo-signed note endorsements and assignments of mortgage – this is the one in a million document that Steve Nagy and/or Heather Carrico didn’t robo-sign.” Where did you leave your logical brain?!
It should not be the homeowners’ burden to establish that these documents are robo-signed! There was a Consent Judgment where the banks have already consented to pay $25 BILLION for the forgeries and dual tracking – the money alone is one hell of an admission. Enough that you, your honor, should step back and make the banks prove up that these documents are not robo-signed, don’t you think so?
Let’s face it folks, there are millions of collateral documents with Steve Nagy’s stamp sitting on them. There are plenty of depositions where Steve Nagy and these robo-signers have admitted to the improper execution of documents.
Just suppose that every homeowner was forced to obtain a deposition from these guys (if you can even find them) – they’d be spending 24/7 in depositions and an un-necessary burden and expense for the homeowners. Bottom-line is you don’t pay $25 BILLION dollars for something you didn’t do! That’s just common sense. So, shift the burden to the plaintiff where it rightfully belongs. Let the bank find the robo-signers, bring them to court and let them testify under oath – this is the “one in a million” documents that wasn’t forged.
Just this week when KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General of California entered her YVANOVA v. NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION AMICUS BRIEF OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT in the Yvanova v. New Century, 226 Cal. App. 4th 495, 172 Cal. Rptr. 3d 104 (2014), Gary Dubin filed a Supplement to his already steamy Reconsideration:
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS DANEFORD MICHAEL WRIGHT AND ELLAREEN UILANI WRIGHT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT’S APRIL 8, 2015 ‘FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OR LAW, JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF FORECLOSURE” AND FOR A NEW TRIAL
Immediately opening the memorandum Dubin emphasizes AG Harris’ Amicus Brief:
“2. The Attorney General of the State of California has just now filed an Amicus Brief in support of Plaintiff/Appellant Tsvetana Yvanova, which presents the best legal case yet crafted in effect against this Court’s refusal to allow borrowers facing foreclosure from proving fraud and inconsistencies in the chain of title of assignments of either or both promissory notes and mortgages being loosely tossed about, unlawfully and dishonestly, much like basketballs in the NBA, within and without the otherwise universally violated contractual and tax privileged distrusted labyrinths known as “securitized trusts” that have already drawn hundreds of billions of dollars in regulatory fines for those very reasons, yet incongruously idolized by this Circuit Court.
3. ls there a magic number (half a trillion dollars in fines?) before this Court will acknowledge the admissions in nationwide and individual state regulatory settlements regarding the epidemic of robo-signers, false notes, false note endorsements, false allonges, false notarizations, false mortgage assignments, and perjured affidavits filed robotically and unquestioned in American courts, and recognize instead those blatant violations of law and professional ethics, amounting to a colossal fraud on this Circuit Court.”
Do you think these judges care that they are being duped? They gotta know what’s going on, right? Apparently, Gary Dubin was compelled to offer a little wisdom to the kangaroo court:
“5. This Court should reflect on whether or not intelligent judicial consideration instead should not be shown in this jurisdiction also to that constellation of worthy legal issues now before the California Supreme Court, rather than instead those issues always receiving merely thoughtless knee-jerk rejection by this Circuit Court to the disadvantage of the residents of Maui, in place of this Court’s belittling of the Wrights appearing pro se in this case, and its constant belittlíng of attorneys from the Dubin Law Offices and Attorney Gary Dubin personally in his absence in oral arguments before it in other foreclosure cases raising the identical issues now supported by California Attorney General Harris and contrastingly being taken seriously and awaiting decision by the California Supreme Court on a discretionary writ.”
To quote one homeowner, Judge Cahill “snickered” with the opposing counsel when they discussed the law firm – it was like high school. Even in the Wright’s case, where they were appearing Pro Se, the Judge and opposing counsel made remarks and animated facial expressions about other Dubin cases, said Mr. Wright. Well, now the Judge can confront Mr. Dubin face-to-face.
Normally, this post would end right here – but Mr. Dubin’s Supplemental Memorandum deserves the print… as he penned:
“6. Thoughtful courts by contrast in support of their residents have long recognized the special importance to the welfare of their jurisdiction of protecting a family’s “single most important asset,” its residence, not only from an economic point of view, but also for its inherent social values — as its location often determines where children go to school, where families worship, where family and friends reside, and where the elderly spend their remaining years.
7. In the absence of humane treatment and respect for the rules of evidence by this Court, displaced borrowers, often losing their life savings stored within the equity in their homes, and never given their day in court, may become dependent on public housing and welfare, if available, or forced to reside in sidewalk tents, in their cars, or on the beach, and parental control may be lost and marriages may break up as a result; see Sawada v. Endo, 57 Haw. 608, 616, 561 P.2d 1291 (1977)
8. Surely, with all due respect this Court owes more to the residents of the County of Maui than being in effect as heretofore, largely unthinkingly, an uninformed, rubber-stamping, rocket docket collection agency for crooks.“
From an informed researcher:
JSV (judicial stupidity virus) is not endemic to Hawaii’i. READ BELOW….
Tirbelsky v. U.S. Bank National Assn. CA2/1, B257705 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)
California Court of Appeal / Filed: April 23rd, 2015 / Status: Non-Precedential / Docket Number: B257705
Tribelsky contends the assignment of the deed of trust and the underlying
promissory note to U.S. Bank, and their subsequent conveyance into the mortgage trust,
are void because they occurred after the mortgage trust’s closing date. We disagree.
. . .
Tribelsky was permitted by the nonjudicial foreclosure statutory scheme to avoid
foreclosure only by bringing his payments up to date, not by obligating the foreclosing
creditor to prove chain of title. He does not dispute he is in default on the note. Whether
the proper foreclosing party would be U.S. Bank or another would therefore not matter to
him because his obligations and rights remain unchanged no matter what financial
institution owns his note and trust deed. We therefore conclude Tribelsky lacks standing
to challenge whether the deed of trust was properly transferred to U.S. Bank.
Relying on Glaski v. Bank of America (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1079, Tribelsky
argues the conveyance of his deed of trust into Prime Mortgage Trust, which occurred
after the trust’s closing date, was void under New York law because it contravened the
terms of the PSA governing the trust.
In Glaski v. Bank of America, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th 1079, the Fifth Appellate
District held that a defaulting borrower has standing to sue for wrongful foreclosure on
the ground that a post-closing date assignment into a mortgage investment trust was void.
(Id. at pp. 1096-1097.) But we recently declined to follow Glaski in Yvanova v. New
Century Mortgage Corp. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 495, review granted August 27, 2014,
S218973, and again decline to do so here. Glaski’s holding is a clear minority and is
inconsistent with the statutory scheme governing nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings.
The courts don’t realize it yet that the homeowners’ social security numbers are part of the securitized collateral package that is rehypothecated until default… without consent or disclosure.