Fight Fraudulent Foreclosures: Make 'Em Produce The Note...

11/2/2013
FRAUDCLOSURES OVER FAMILIES IN THE BUCKEYE STATE
{A case of stolen Chapter 13 payments, the defendant’s counsel suddenly being suspended during the appellate phase by the Ohio Supreme Court, and surreal interpretations of case law highlight 2012 CitiMortgage v. Patterson (98360) anti-homeowner decision in Ohio} WE NEED YOUR HELP!
This narrative is being forwarded to all media, national political figures, law constructs, and all other venues otherwise influential as our family has reached the precipice with regard to attempting to achieve fair and equitable redress in the nefarious State of Ohio’s judicial system. We have been denied our request for a jury trial and to file criminal charges. Our family has battled for the last seven years to defeat a fraudulent foreclosure that was, as of December 2012, granted to CitiMortgage by the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals as the Appellate Court deceitfully overturned a correctly adjudicated dismissal of this case decided eight months prior by the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. Our attorney at the time was former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann who won the case at the trial court level in April of 2012 based on the legal precedent at the time of Wells Fargo v. Jordan which stated that a bank, financial institution, or other Plaintiff seeking a foreclosure in Ohio, has to own the note and mortgage at the time of filing. Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court Magistrate Jim Jackson rightly ruled (albeit six years after Citi’s original filing) that CitiMortgage did not own the mortgage at the time of filing and dismissed the case (Judge Janet Burnside concurring). The trial court additionally expressed concern relative to the authenticity of the promissory note (and rightfully so), although the Court’s ruling to dismiss focused on the mortgage not being assigned prior to filing and that dynamic was enough to conclude that the requirements of Jordan had not been met.
Subsequently, although Citi had utilized the notoriously infamous foreclosure mill of Lerner, Sampson, and Rothfuss to do its legal dirty work throughout the trial court proceedings, it was time to hand the legal baton to the more “seasoned” law firm of Graydon Head and Ritchey for the appeal. Although both firms are out of Cincinnati, Ohio, GHR has been around since 1871, and they’ve been handling these types of cases a very long time. One of their first maneuvers was to request that the Eighth District Court of Appeals “revisit” Jordan and secondly, to wait until the Ohio Supreme Court ruled on the highly anticipated (at the time) Federal Home Loan v. Schwartzwald decision before deciding on their Appellate ruling relative to CitiMortgage v Patterson. Then a very curious thing occurred, a development no one can convince us was coincidence. Our attorney Marc Dann, one of the foremost legal minds not only in Ohio but in this region relative to cases of “fraudclosure” and who argued at the Appellate hearing that Citi was without question perpetrating a “fraud before the Court” was suddenly suspended for six months by the Ohio Supreme Court for indiscretions committed by him during his tenure as the Ohio Attorney General. Keep in mind that the wrongs Marc was allegedly being disciplined for took place four years prior to the Appellate hearing and raised significant questions relative to the timing and motivation of this sudden decision by the Ohio Supreme Court. We believe this maneuver was designed to marginalize our legal representation as this case was and is clearly precedent setting, a fact we have no doubt the OSC was cognizant of when this decision was made.
Then, The Eighth District Court of Appeals, less than 30 days after Dann’s suspension, reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the foreclosure (based on a surreal interpretation of the Federal Home Loan v. Schwartzwald decision that Citi asked the Appeals Court to wait for), reinstated the foreclosure and sheriff’s sale, and instructed the trial court to see its decision to conclusion. Moreover, the sheriff sale that was reinstated was the very one previously vacated when the Chapter 13 stay was lifted in violation of Bankruptcy laws. To add insult to injury, the Ohio Supreme Court, who thought it proper to suspend Dann for six months in the middle of our case rather than allow him to see it to completion, refused to hear this matter on further appeal.
This case also features a conflicting opinion on a core issue. The Eighth District Court of Appeals, in an assessment predicated on the Court’s twisted view of the Ohio Supreme Court Schwartzwald decision, ruled in Patterson that a Plaintiff merely needs to own the note or an assigned mortgage to have standing. However in a case journalized the same day as Patterson, the case of Davet v. Sensenbrenner, this same Court said in paragraph 14 that they concurred with Davet that the plaintiff “must own the mortgage”. How could they journalize on the same day, December 13, 2012, two separate cases and in one concur that a plaintiff must own the mortgage to establish standing, and in the other rule that ownership of the mortgage isn’t necessary if you have the note? It’s clear, we were defrauded out of our home by this Appellate Court and we need help to fight back.
To those that receive this correspondence, I will attempt to be concise and not embark on an exhaustive commentary at this juncture. We have a considerable amount of evidence available (including some written admissions by Citi’s own counsel) that supports our assertions of this “fraudclosure” and is available to anyone who chooses to come forth and assist us in overturning a decision that not only adversely affects our family but also unfairly targets homeowners throughout Cuyahoga County. We have pay stubs to show payments were made in a Chapter 13 although there is no evidence to show where those payments went.
Additionally, the promissory note Citi claimed was a blank endorsement was endorsed by the same person who claimed to be the V.P. of two different banks at the same time, and I will also include the attachment for the 60(B) trial court motion filed by Marc Dann (upon request) which explains the fraud as well as providing the legal proof that the note and mortgage were separated which makes Citi’s argument duplicitous. If there is anyone that can help us expose this travesty for the miscarriage of justice it is please call or email us. We don’t have much time before they have a rescheduled eviction order in place, so help us tell our story if you are a media source, and help us to fight this legally if you are an attorney or law firm who endeavors to see justice done. This isn’t just for the Patterson family, it’s for all of those that have been or will be foreclosed on by “pretender lenders” with an assist from overwhelmed judges being pushed by legislators to clear their congested dockets. Irrespective of conservative conveyance, homeowners in default shouldn’t be forced to relinquish their homes to banks that don’t own them.
What’s exceedingly ironic is that these same bankers who mismanaged untold billions by making extremely reckless decisions with depositor funds, got bailed out by many of the very citizens in default that they now call deadbeats. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Please give us whatever assistance you can. We need your help as time is of the essence. You have our gratitude.
Sincerely,
David and Marva Patterson
216/280-6059, 334-7013
marvidpp@aol.com