Tuesday, March 1, 2016

High Court Stumped

March 3, 2016


As the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,  ponders my case to decide if I should be able to bring a lawsuit against Chase Manhattan, and Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, so that I can prove that Chase and Ocwen , had violated the law, which caused the loss on my home of 26 years, and home of Residential Fire Sprinklers, I started after I retired from Microsoft. 

I am still befudled that the court of appeals for the 9th circuit court of appeals, have taken so long to recognize what had happened to me. It was not complex. A 15 minute segment on Judge Judy ! 

 After a decade of trying to tell my story in a court of law. That's it !  A chance to show I was wronged. 

The notice of Appeal was filed on June 20, 2011.  It's actually quite simple, easy for a judge or jury of my peers, to determine if the banks violated the law. 

That's the way High School teacher, Richard Gertson, taught us. I believed ever word.  

Now I am uncertain .  

Here is the basic rundown of my case since my first appeal. 

9th Cir. Case No.  11-60039                                                                                

2.         What are the facts of your case?

"The service agent violated bankruptcy law and that violation prevented me from obtaining a new loan after my case was dismissed.

While protected by a bankruptcy stay, the banks service agent violated 11 USC 362(a) by issuing a deed to O’Neal at a foreclosure sale. Sixteen months later this deed prevented me from obtaining a new loan after the bank successfully argued to have my bankruptcy case dismissed for bad faith. After the case was dismissed, instead of resolving the title issue, which prevented my approved refinance, the bank held another sale, and two days after that new buyer gained possession in state court, the bank recorded a rescission of the O’Neal deed with the Riverside County Recorder.

I have sought a hearing on this violation of law since the President’s Day 2003 eviction from my home of twenty-six years. My home based business, Residential Fire Sprinklers, operated from my home since 1991, failed shortly after my eviction.  At a February 24, 2003 hearing the bankruptcy court recognizes  the violation of law,  but continues the hearing for 10 days and then declines to accept jurisdiction and dismisses  the case with prejudice!  After almost a decade of attempting to to tell my story through the appeals process, the effort is now focused on the Bankruptcy Appellant Panel’s denial of my request for mandamus relief, to enforce the law as determined by 9th Cir BAP published opinion   In re Nathan Johnson  9th Cir BAP July 7, 2006 which determined the bankruptcy court must hear violations of 11 USC 362, when asked to do so. Even after the dismissal of the main case." 

No comments:

Post a Comment