This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 325 Melrose Drive, VISTA CA. 92081 MTGLQ Investors L.P. Plaintiff, Catherine Bryan, Defendant, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
DOCUMENT TITLE: DEFENDANT’S OPENING STATEMENT Trial Date: February 1, 2010 Dept: 21 Judge: Joel M. Pressman Action Filed: November 16, 2009 ) Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. My name is Catherine Bryan and I am a mortgage fraud victim, and the In Pro Per Defendant, against a wrongful eviction from my home, by plaintiff MTGLQ Investors L.P, an investor who fraudul ently claims to have purchased the property where I grew up, and where my 87-yea r-old mother I live, and therefore plaintiff MTGLQ Investors L.P, also fraudulen tly 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 Kok opelli Community Workshop Corporation, a non-profit public assistance program, t hat provides educational classes and workshops to assist elderly and disabled vi ctims of predatory lending and create avenues of relief from deceptive and illeg al debt collection practices by the mortgage servicing industry and to offer ref errals to assist families and individuals in crises due to the increasing and in sidious practice of commercial predatory lending fraud. I have undertaken, the In Pro Se, litigation of this case as my own attorney not only to save my home and principal dwelling place, from the unfair, and unconsc ionable deceptive lending practices of an abusive and unresponsive mortgage serv icing 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 this grave on-going legal problem and to consider all the laws and citations that I o ffer here, for the purpose of trying your best to provide us with a fair, just a nd 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 who may not have sufficient resources to retain legal counsel; particularly the eld erly and or handicapped predatory lending victim, and or the non-English speakin g victim, who must be allowed to rely on substantive provisions and strict liabi lity rules of the Truth In Lending Act, which was enacted by our Federal Governm ent, to provide automatic relief for the predatory lending and financial fraud v ictim without the requirement of the services of an attorney or use of court pro cedure. I am therefore asking the jury to seriously undertake the chore of understand ing the purpose and function of some laws that were enacted by our American Hous e of Congress, to protect Americans from fraudulent lending transactions, called the Truth In Lending Act, and also to assist me enforce to my rights, as guara nteed by The Truth In Lending Act and the Consumer Protection Act. The operation of the law, my jury instructions, the citations quoted in this cas e, are really quite straight forward. The Truth In Lending Act was created for t he consumer to have remedy for financial fraud under the strict liability rules of the Truth In Lending Act, automatically, without resorting to judicial recour se or intervention. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution states: “no individual sh all be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... "A ccording to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Due Proc ess Clause and Equal Protection clause (Section 1), expressly declares no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities o f 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 be denied… in certain circumstances when a meaningful hearing is denied, when a vic tim of predatory or deceptive lending, lacks the financial wherewithal to retain counsel to protect their home or property and therefore is deprived of due proc ess and their rightful legal remedies, as guaranteed by the American Constitutio n. It has been difficult for me to understand how any American Homeowner, as a cons titutional right bearer, of whatever race, gender, religion, sexual preference, age, and economic condition can be denied access to justice, or the mandated leg al protection that should be provided to every American Citizen, by virtue of th eir financial reversals, circumstances or economic status. A fundamental Constitutional Right; is the right of every American Person, bein g “created equal” and therefore endowed with certain inalienable constitutional rights." 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 financia l fraud victims like the defendant and her 87-year old mother, and all other def rauded American homeowners. This is the purpose and legitimate power of State Su perior Court System, with its mandate to protect its citizens, which is the keys tone of our American Heritage. In 2008 alone, 2.3 million families faced foreclosure proceedings, the highest n umber 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 made responsible loans, ensuring that the consumer understood all the consequences, a nd had a secure income to support their financing. With the onset of securitizat ion, and the selling off the consumer mortgage loan downstream, to the vast mort gage servicing machine; to be profitable the investors simply wanted to make as many loans as possible. Under the investor backed mortgage securitization business system; Predatory C ommercial Lenders originate mortgages to consumer borrowers and then pledge th em to a secondary lender such as an investment bank or other financial instituti on in return for a loan under a revolving line of credit.” The sub prime home mortgage industry has grown over the last decade, and profita bility of the investors backing the resultant securitized mortgage loans, depend s on successfully maintaining several illegal mortgage industry practices: incl uding making loans containing interest rates, fees or closing costs that are hig her than they should be in light of the borrower s credit and net income, or con taining other exploitative terms that the borrower is not adequately informed of and therefore cannot possibly comprehend. Lender, Fannie Mae, early this year, released a press report stating that c ommercial mortgage lenders are still not complying with the most basic underwrit ing guidelines, such as confirming a borrower s identity or verifying a Social S ecurity number. Marianne Sullivan, a senior vice president and Fannie s chief ri sk officer, sent a nine-page letter to lenders announcing a "Loan Quality Initia tive" to ensure that loans meet the government-sponsored enterprise s credit and eligibility guidelines. Sullivan said Fannie analyzed the primary drivers of lo an-repurchase requests and has launched the initiative to identify ways we can i mprove lender compliance with its guidelines. "Many repurchase requests are driv en by the fact that the delivered loan does not meet Fannie Mae s eligibility re quirements. " Fanny wrote; “ In the next few months, the government-sponsored enterprise pl ans to add quality-control policies to monitor and assess the effectiveness of l enders own quality-control plans. Lenders now will be required to obtain docume ntation to confirm the occupancy of a property. They also must determine that a borrower s debts are not only evaluated as part of the qualification for a mortg age but also are disclosed on the final loan application signed by the borrower at the closing table. Separately, Fannie reported Friday that its net loss narro wed to $16.3 billion in the fourth quarter, from $25.2 billion a year earlier. T he GSE also said it requested another $15.3 billion from the Treasury to help el iminate its net worth deficit.” Fannie Mae has not been able to maintain a positive net worth without governmen t assistance since September 2008. The GSE expects to receive the additional fun ds from the Treasury by the end of March, bringing its total government support to $75.2 billion. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury; Defendant Catherine Bryan, would you to consider, that as long as Predatory Com mercial Lenders can profit by selling the American Consumer a fatally flawed an d predatory commercial mortgage loan product, with the intention of immediately passing their interest in the flawed and illegal mortgage loan downstream, to a partner investor who will hide behind the Securitized Nature of the loan process , while foreclosing on the hapless consumer’s home, then violating investors, like plaintiff MTGLQ Investors L.P. will continue to profi t and misuse civil process and procedure to ensure their unjust enrichment, this would of course encourage the sale of more and more flawed mortgage loans to A merican Consumers. MTGLQ Investors L.P, must be held accountable for their partner lender’s decep tive lending practices, and subject to judicial sanction, for the lender’s no n-compliance with TILA and illegal debt collection practices, or plaintiff MTGL Q Investors L.P. will be allowed to continue to thumb its nose at the Truth In L
ending Act, and profit by untold millions or perhaps even billions of dollars, through the continuing its flagrant wrongful business practices, which are a vio lation of the spirit of the Truth in Lending Act, a disgrace to our American Ju risprudence System, and the true evil at the root of the downward spiral of our American Economic System. The American House of congress, enacted Statutes and Provisions of The Truth i n Lending Act, and Regulation Z to protect consumers against any pattern of mis conduct involving table-funded loans, which are due to their securitized nature, presumed to be predatory! To stop the illegal practice of hiding undisclosed do wnstream parties and undisclosed inappropriate fees, The Truth in Lending Act, p rovides for payment to the borrower of all such undisclosed fees, profits, kickb acks etc. that were associated with the original loan transaction but not reveal ed to the borrower. Where there has been provable creditor misconduct, there are statues and provisions of the Truth In Lending Act requiring punitive sanctions , treble damages, interest, and attorney fees! Kokopelli Foreclosure Workshop’s analysis of over three years of interviews of over 900 local consumers in mortgage loan foreclosure, have revealed that comm ercial sub prime home mortgage industry loan officers are specially trained to d eflect attention away from things that consumers might normally look at, and the loan sales presentation is conducted in such a way as to lead a consumer to dis regard the high annual percentage rate ("APR") and often the consumer was never provided with the federally-required Truth in Lending Statement which would have revealed the unacceptable loan terms. These illegal sub-prime loans were funded in violation of the Federal Truth In Lending Act, and the Consumer Protection A ct, and therefore qualify for self-rescission by the consumer.” Millions of American mortgage loan consumers have lost their homes due to predat ory sub-prime loans with multiple lending law violations. The predatory lenders and their partners in the mortgage servicing industry have been having a heyday, getting unjustly enriched through profiting illicitly through the double insult of wrongful and unjust foreclosure, followed by equity stripping thereby feedin g off the resultant carnage to our American economy. As long as deceptive lending practices go unsanctioned the predatory lenders an d their partners in the mortgage servicing industry will thrive at the expense o f Middle America. If our State Superior Courts, will not provide remedies to American Homeowners, against common and flagrant abuses and violations the Statues and Provisions of The Consumer Protection Act, and the Truth In Lending Act, and therefore allow t he wrongful acts of financial fraud, commonly practiced by a powerful and corrup t commercial mortgage lending industry to go unsanctioned, then the constitution al rights of all American Citizens become meaningless. Long ago laws were enacted by the United States house of congress, to protect ho meowners from unseen unscrupulous and unregulated lenders posing through sham re lationships with shell corporations or through financial institutions that would be paid a fee to pose as the lender. The transactions are labeled, "table-funde d" because of the image of an unknown lender reaching around the "loan officer" at closing and putting the money on the table for the homeowner to borrow. The Truth In Lending Act and the Fair Debt Collection Act, were enacted by the house of congress to protect American Citizens from prohibited creditor cond uct. There can be no legitimate constitutional obstacle to implementing access to jus tice for homeowners. Neither doctrines of judicial restraint, based on misinterp retation of separation of power of the State Courts, or federal supremacy argume nts, can preclude implementation of the American Homeowner’s fundamental constit utional right to protect their home, property and principal dwelling place by th eir right to due process of law. It is a matter of the gravest political and social importance to our general public welfare, to alleviate the continuing disgrace of large numbers of America n Homeowners, in foreclosure, being unlawfully stripped of their homes, while b
eing systematically denied their rightful access to justice, by the illegal pra ctices of an powerful, unconscionable and corrupt, corporate lending and mortgag e servicing machine. Our remedy must rest with our state courts and a bar who is committed, knowledgeable, and well versed in the complexities of the consumer’ s right to be protected from unconscionable practices of debt collectors who com monly attempt to use the nature of the mortgage loan securitization process, to profit by forcing the home into foreclosure, while confusing and misleading the mortgage loan consumer as to the true identify of their creditor, the true sta te of their mortgage, and all too often adding wrongfully inflated fines, penalt ies and other questionable fees and charges to the homeowner’s true mortgage deb t. A Creditor’s accountability to the mortgage loan consumer is mandated by The Con sumer Protection Act, The Fair Debt Collection Act, and Regulation Z, of the tru th In Lending Act. The House of Congress provides relief through rescission to homeowners, in every case where prohibited creditor conduct can be demonstrated. With the onset of bulk selling of consumer mortgage loans downstream, in a proce ss called securitization, the consumer’s bank was no longer the one who would be responsible to collect the loan consumer’s mortgage payment, and in a nutshell it was simply no longer economically expedient for the bank to make a responsibl e mortgage loan. The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") commonly prosecutes violations of federal l ending laws by the mortgage industry creditors who maintain and hold interest in violating consumer loans which have been transferred downstream by the securiti zation process. The resultant cost to our American economy has been staggering: using the Joint Economic Committee estimate of $78,000 per foreclosure. In response to my 84-year old mother’s predatory lending issues, I made an exhau stive effort to retain counsel, extensively interviewing more than 25 attorneys. What I discovered is that due to the current foreclosure crises, most real est ate and property attorney require a retainer of at least $20,000 to even review complex title fraud and financial fraud issues, and the predatory lending specia list attorneys who are willing to work on contingency basis, commonly require fr om 60-80% of any amount rescinded from the predatory lending victim’s title, res ulting that ultimately, the mortgage loan fraud victim’s attorney will soon beco me the hapless victim’s landlord. The predatory lending specialist attorneys ar e typically brokers with little or no sympathy for their homeowner clients. When a creditor such as MTGLQ Investors L.P. becomes so eager to profit by forec losing on the consumer’s property, that the creditor make it a practice to usurp the consumer’s constitutional right to protect their property through due proce ss of law, as guaranteed by Consumer Protection Act, The Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act, and the Truth In Lending Act, and subsequently ignores the l oan consumers duly issued and delivered, Truth In Lending Act Notice of Rescissi on and thereby trample the mortgage loan consumer’s rescission rights under The Truth In Lending Act and the creditor is not disposed to follow and to abide by the rule of law regarding the deadlines and obligations required by regulation Z and the Federal Truth-In-Lending Act; The Court must require a termination of the creditor’s ownership interest of the mortgage loan contract, and promissory note against the violating creditor, for their failure to comply by illegally p roceeding with a foreclosure action or eviction action against the loan consumer despite having received duly issued and Notice of mortgage loan rescission unde r the Truth In Lending Act. I wish to thank the jury in Advance for your efforts to undertake to understand and evaluate the laws and citations that I offer here, and provide a us with a j ust and reasonable determination.
A verdict to dismiss plaintiff, MTGLQ Investors L.P., wrongful eviction actio n will not deprive the lien-holder of his rights to recover his investment; but will merely forces MTGLQ Investors L.P., to accountability, to provide plaintiff with a valid mortgage verification, and accountability for the true amount due, as determined by the mandated judicial rendering of accountability, thereby all owing the property owners to equitably refinance their debt. I thank you for your thoughtful consideration of all these matters. ________________________ Catherine Bryan, defendant In Pro Per
DATED February 1, 2010
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?