This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
102) 1 returning visit Update 2 May 2013: I see my friends at M&T Bank are back.... what's the matter guys, never seen a reporter with my knowledge base and skill set before, have you? Better get used to it.
Movie coming soon! There is Attorney John Y. Lee. I don’t know what is in his trick bag today but yesterday, and several weeks ago he somehow managed to fit a Baltimore Circuit Court Judge in that bag: Today I attended what basically resembled a kangaroo court hearing that was orchestrated at the outset by Attorney John Y. Lee, when he hand delivered memoranda to Judge Norman….. before Norman was even assigned to the case. Naturally Judge Norman became the Judge on the case. One must wonder why Lee picked Norman instead of, say, Judge King who found foreclosure mill attorney Thomas P. Dore to have violated several ethics rules. It was the second such determination that Dore has faced in connection with foreclosure cases in the past 3 years, for use of false documents and signatures.
S. impressionable female law clerk or bailiff told me I could set up my rig in the corner after I explained that I had filed not one but at least two Notices of Media Coverage. Dore has now TWICE been involved in conduct that is “prejudicial to homeowners and constitutes an assault on the integrity of the judicial process itself. He then bellowed at everyone that criminal contempt would be levied against anyone who had any electronic device on. no one at the Court had shown any recollection or acknowledgment of receiving any of my media notices even though the second one was sent via tracked U.1 Thomas P. according to Judge Wilner and the Committee drafting Rule 14-207. impressionable clerk received a talking to by one of Thomas P.As such. a message clearly intended for Yours Truly. Naturally. After that point I was persona non grata and received stern rebuke from her and from everyone else at the courthouse. As you may recall. with the Judge at one point even making me remove my equipment from the Courtroom even though it was all packaged up and sitting in a corner. as I was setting up my tripod the young. an aging. But alas. Mail: ****************** . Dore had 18 notaries relinquish their commissions and many cases were discharged. Both of these Notices thoroughly documented the fact that the Court and other government entities track my Mortgage Movies Journal every time I document activity against Thomas P.” yet the Wetzelbergers are repeatedly denied any meaningful opportunity to address the wrongs in their case that implicate issues of Standing and Real Party in Interest: The fun started this morning when a young. Dore’s attorneys. Dore. pasty white male.
From my observations today.This is not unusual as Mr. Dore has now TWICE been involved in conduct that is “prejudicial to homeowners and constitutes an assault on the integrity of the judicial process itself.1 was created. according to Judge Wilner and the Committee drafting Rule 14-207.” As such.1 Thomas P. Wetzelberger – the homeowner in this case – has routinely filed documents that the court willfully ignored. Judge Norman was a ringer. Dore has now TWICE been involved in conduct that is “prejudicial to homeowners and constitutes an assault on the integrity of the judicial process itself. He claimed that Emergency Rule 14-207. As such. including every possible reason why the homeowners should be sanctioned. “because of the use of bogus affidavits…. Here are the principal reasons why Rule 14-207. yet took painstaking time to address everything else to suit his arbitrary and capricious whimsy.” yet the Wetzelbergers are repeatedly denied any meaningful opportunity to address the wrongs in their case that implicate issues of Standing and Real Party in Interest: 3. such as the Motion to Recuse Judge Norman for the clear cut appearance of impropriety on receiving a courtesy copy of a pleading BEFORE he was even assigned to the case. Judge Norman refused to address the pending Motion to Recuse in any substantive fashion..” yet the Wetzelbergers are repeatedly denied any meaningful opportunity to address the wrongs in their case that implicate issues of Standing and Real Party in Interest:s 2. according to Judge Wilner and the Committee drafting Rule 14-207. while ignoring many filings by the homeowner that the Court unlawfully ignored or failed to rule on. I have direct knowledge that almost every homeowner who actually requests such a hearing is denied. then majestically being assigned to the case while the clerk of courts refuses to answer the homeowner’s question as to how assignments are made. but that was indeed the purpose as I noted last week after reading the committee report. . and he is completely disingenuous for reasons I will now elucidate: 1.1 was not created to address false documents and mortgage foreclosure fraud.1 Thomas P.
the Order could NEVER be “with prejudice” because the Court LACKED JURISDICTION. That certainly shows clear-cut bias and antipathy toward the homeowner. The homeowner told the Court that it was his belief that the burden of proof and production is on the attempted foreclosure. in a prior adverse ruling. yet the Court and opposing counsel continued to assume that only the “with prejudice” Order was valid. . showing clear cut bias in an attempt to bolster the finding that the homeowner had engaged in frivolous and vexatious litigation. 5. In point of fact the testimony revealed that homeowner Wetzelberger had never seen such order until recently. and his observation is correct in my opinion. Any first year law student can comprehend this. again because the prior court lacked jurisdiction. See how Judge Norman.4. but rather he was basing his actions on an order from the same day that held that his Complaint was barred because of subject matter jurisdiction: There was a pending appeal. As such. At several points the Court berated the homeowner for filing a case for Declaratory Judgment even though he was subject to an order that his case on these grounds had been dismissed with prejudice. relied only on the more negative order that could not be an order in the first place. Whoops. The Court effectively shifted the burdens of proof in a foreclosure case by repeating an Order (from an unpublished opinion of course) that held that the homeowners failed to put on any evidence that the signatures presented on a purported note and mortgage were not theirs.
In a separate case Mr.6. Furthermore. asked opposing counsel “how could such a thing happen without a complaint being attached” or words of substantially similar import. The Court did not care whatsoever that the homeowner had attempted to obtain relevant information through extrajudicial discovery. But he doesn’t care because he is too busy with his fixed goal in mind to make Mr.a/k/a “the ringer” – refused to hear him. Wetzelberger lawfully sought pre suit discovery against Attorney Renee Dyson. Judge Norman. The homeowner attempted to explain that he attempted lawful extrajudicial discovery (as permitted and mandated by RESPA and Local Court Rules) but Judge Norman -. 7. The Answer Your Honor is that pre suit discovery is completely legal in Maryland. in case you didn’t know. See my related video regarding this matter here: . sounding ignorant in the extreme. and even chastised the homeowner for using the word “extrajudicial” by telling him to not to use such big words. Wetzelberger into a “vexatious litigant” so he can shut him up and restrict his First Amendment Rights to plead.
completely lied. above. who had previously withdrawn on that other case as noted in the Mortgage Movies Journal link and rat video. Wetzelberger to redefine some of his requests but at no point indicated his actions were frivolous. in effect. Wetzelberger was harassing her client in another case.html http://www.youtube. after her client LOST her Motion to Dismiss. I believe it was Rita Ting Hopper. The Court had told Mr.http://mortgagemovies.com/watch?v=1RR3NIpzzUU 8. .com/2013/01/counsel-for-maryland-lawyerrenee. Wetzelberger to file any more paperwork in this case or in another other related case. As Mr. Wetzelberger attempted to discuss the ramifications of that case Judge Mickey Norman interrupted him and lied. stating that he was not going to be addressing the other case…… yet and still when he issued sanctions he forbade Mr.blogspot. which did cause Attorney Hopper to nod her head enthusiastically. Judge Norman. It gets worse: Some Asian Attorney for Renee Dyson complained that Mr.
Attorney Lee’s head visibly dipped when this document was produced. . buyer etc.9. and other related documents online and in a movie soon. Pardon my unsteady hand as this picture was taken on the courthouse steps this morning in a hurry but you’ll see more of this. It will be curious to see what happens next with regard to this document.) was not personally liable. This document was today entered into evidence. Last but not least – and this will be a matter for the IRS and other investigative agencies. much as the Court attempted to terminate any and all possible matters relative to this foreclosure the Court does NOT have jurisdiction to tell the IRS what to do or what not to do. purported debtor. the Form 1099A that was issued by M & T Bank noting in box 5 that the homeowner (i.e.
M&T Bank basically runs Maryland.CONCLUSION I am nowhere near naïve. and that is what clearly happened in this and in many other cases I have been monitoring in the State with the highest foreclosure rate per capita in the United States. and that is why I have seen so much activity on my tracker whenever I run a journal entry about any of this. But those facts should never take a front seat to Justice. M&T Bank administers the State pension fund as well. .
. I know the game. look at the times carefully. So they can’t find the Media Notices in the file But their law clerk/court clerk certainly knew how to find me during the hearing... At one point I caught her staring and me and I just looked back and smiled.. Watch the times carefully: .PS: The clerk who originally said it was ok for me to set up was apparently on the Google about me during the hearing.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.