Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Pro Per Stops Eviction With Jury Supporting Her

Pro Per Stops Eviction With Jury Supporting Her

Ratings: (0)|Views: 45 |Likes:
Published by 83jjmack
This Pro Per stopped her eviction with the jury supporting her!!
This Pro Per stopped her eviction with the jury supporting her!!

More info:

Published by: 83jjmack on Sep 04, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/07/2010

pdf

text

original

 
THE JURY VOTED 10-2In support of this In Pro Per litigant defendantEVICTION CANCELLED!SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA325 Melrose Drive, VISTA CA. 92081MTGLQ Investors L.P.Plaintiff,Catherine Bryan,Defendant,)))))))))))))Case# 37-2009-00040923-CL-UD-NCDOCUMENT TITLE:DEFENDANT’S OPENING STATEMENTTrial Date: February 1, 2010Dept: 21Judge: Joel M. PressmanAction Filed: November 16, 2009) Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. My name is Catherine Bryan andI am a mortgage fraud victim, and the In Pro Per Defendant, against a wrongfuleviction from my home, by plaintiff MTGLQ Investors L.P, an investor who fraudulently claims to have purchased the property where I grew up, and where my 87-year-old mother I live, and therefore plaintiff MTGLQ Investors L.P, also fraudulently claims to now own it, and served us a notice demanding that we leave.I would like to make the jury aware, that on October 14, 2007, I founded the Kokopelli Community Workshop Corporation, a non-profit public assistance program, that provides educational classes and workshops to assist elderly and disabled victims of predatory lending and create avenues of relief from deceptive and illegal debt collection practices by the mortgage servicing industry and to offer referrals to assist families and individuals in crises due to the increasing and insidious practice of commercial predatory lending fraud.I have undertaken, the In Pro Se, litigation of this case as my own attorney notonly to save my home and principal dwelling place, from the unfair, and unconscionable deceptive lending practices of an abusive and unresponsive mortgage servicing industry, but also to create a legal path that others may follow.
 
I wish to thank you in advance for your efforts to undertake to understand thisgrave on-going legal problem and to consider all the laws and citations that I offer here, for the purpose of trying your best to provide us with a fair, just and reasonable determination.I also would ask the jury to consider that my assertions, and your determination, in this case, may be of critical importance for all mortgage fraud victims whomay not have sufficient resources to retain legal counsel; particularly the elderly and or handicapped predatory lending victim, and or the non-English speaking victim, who must be allowed to rely on substantive provisions and strict liability rules of the Truth In Lending Act, which was enacted by our Federal Government, to provide automatic relief for the predatory lending and financial fraud victim without the requirement of the services of an attorney or use of court procedure.I am therefore asking the jury to seriously undertake the chore of understanding the purpose and function of some laws that were enacted by our American House of Congress, to protect Americans from fraudulent lending transactions, calledthe Truth In Lending Act, and also to assist me enforce to my rights, as guaranteed by The Truth In Lending Act and the Consumer Protection Act.The operation of the law, my jury instructions, the citations quoted in this case, are really quite straight forward. The Truth In Lending Act was created for the consumer to have remedy for financial fraud under the strict liability rulesof the Truth In Lending Act, automatically, without resorting to judicial recourse or intervention.The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution states: “no individual shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... "According to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Due Process Clause and Equal Protection clause (Section 1), expressly declares no stateshall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,liberty, or property, without due process of law..."The defendant would like the jury to consider, that … Due Process of law may bedenied… in certain circumstances when a meaningful hearing is denied, when a victim of predatory or deceptive lending, lacks the financial wherewithal to retaincounsel to protect their home or property and therefore is deprived of due process and their rightful legal remedies, as guaranteed by the American Constitution.It has been difficult for me to understand how any American Homeowner, as a constitutional right bearer, of whatever race, gender, religion, sexual preference,age, and economic condition can be denied access to justice, or the mandated legal protection that should be provided to every American Citizen, by virtue of their financial reversals, circumstances or economic status.A fundamental Constitutional Right; is the right of every American Person, being “created equal” and therefore endowed with certain inalienable constitutionalrights." What could be clearer and more fundamental that that?Similarly, where there is a "right," there must also be a "remedy of due process," regardless of uncertain economic circumstances, providing relief for financial fraud victims like the defendant and her 87-year old mother, and all other defrauded American homeowners. This is the purpose and legitimate power of State Superior Court System, with its mandate to protect its citizens, which is the keystone of our American Heritage.In 2008 alone, 2.3 million families faced foreclosure proceedings, the highest number since the Great Depression.Many of these families are innocent victims of a vast and complex change in how
 
America does business called securitization. Not too many years ago, banks maderesponsible loans, ensuring that the consumer understood all the consequences, and had a secure income to support their financing. With the onset of securitization, and the selling off the consumer mortgage loan downstream, to the vast mortgage servicing machine; to be profitable the investors simply wanted to make asmany loans as possible.Under the investor backed mortgage securitization business system; Predatory Commercial Lenders originate mortgages to consumer borrowers and then pledge them to a secondary lender such as an investment bank or other financial institution in return for a loan under a revolving line of credit.”The sub prime home mortgage industry has grown over the last decade, and profitability of the investors backing the resultant securitized mortgage loans, depends on successfully maintaining several illegal mortgage industry practices: including making loans containing interest rates, fees or closing costs that are higher than they should be in light of the borrower
 
s credit and net income, or containing other exploitative terms that the borrower is not adequately informed ofand therefore cannot possibly comprehend.Lender, Fannie Mae, early this year, released a press report stating that commercial mortgage lenders are still not complying with the most basic underwriting guidelines, such as confirming a borrower
 
s identity or verifying a Social Security number. Marianne Sullivan, a senior vice president and Fannie
 
s chief risk officer, sent a nine-page letter to lenders announcing a "Loan Quality Initiative" to ensure that loans meet the government-sponsored enterprise
 
s credit andeligibility guidelines. Sullivan said Fannie analyzed the primary drivers of loan-repurchase requests and has launched the initiative to identify ways we can improve lender compliance with its guidelines. "Many repurchase requests are driven by the fact that the delivered loan does not meet Fannie Mae
 
s eligibility requirements. "Fanny wrote; “ In the next few months, the government-sponsored enterprise plans to add quality-control policies to monitor and assess the effectiveness of lenders
 
own quality-control plans. Lenders now will be required to obtain documentation to confirm the occupancy of a property. They also must determine that aborrower
 
s debts are not only evaluated as part of the qualification for a mortgage but also are disclosed on the final loan application signed by the borrowerat the closing table. Separately, Fannie reported Friday that its net loss narrowed to $16.3 billion in the fourth quarter, from $25.2 billion a year earlier. The GSE also said it requested another $15.3 billion from the Treasury to help eliminate its net worth deficit.”Fannie Mae has not been able to maintain a positive net worth without government assistance since September 2008. The GSE expects to receive the additional funds from the Treasury by the end of March, bringing its total government supportto $75.2 billion.Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury;Defendant Catherine Bryan, would you to consider, that as long as Predatory Commercial Lenders can profit by selling the American Consumer a fatally flawed and predatory commercial mortgage loan product, with the intention of immediatelypassing their interest in the flawed and illegal mortgage loan downstream, to apartner investor who will hide behind the Securitized Nature of the loan process, while foreclosing on the hapless consumer’s home, thenviolating investors, like plaintiff MTGLQ Investors L.P. will continue to profit and misuse civil process and procedure to ensure their unjust enrichment, thiswould of course encourage the sale of more and more flawed mortgage loans to American Consumers.MTGLQ Investors L.P, must be held accountable for their partner lender’s deceptive lending practices, and subject to judicial sanction, for the lender’s non-compliance with TILA and illegal debt collection practices, or plaintiff MTGLQ Investors L.P. will be allowed to continue to thumb its nose at the Truth In L

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->