Monday, August 1, 2016

Letter to Media

August 1, 2016
Corona, CA

Attention Reporters and Editors: For over 15 years I have tried to gain a trial or hearing to prove to the court, that I have undeniable proof that Ocwen Federal Bank, and Chase Manhattan bank, violated federal bankruptcy law, and that violation of law cost my home of 26 years and my new startup business, Residential Fire Sprinklers, operated from that home since leaving Microsoft in 1991.
On May 17, 2001, the bank’s service agent, Ocwen, sold my house and issued a deed to O’Neal. This was unlawful because I was protected by an 'automatic stay' in my Chapter 13 reorganization bankruptcy case. the bank's trustee issued a deed to O'Neal who recorded that deed on May 29, 2001, when my attorney contacted the bank's attorney, he or she, told my attorney they would rescind the deed, and return the money to the O'Neals. Sixteen months later, when my bankruptcy case was dismissed, out of bankruptcy, I was approved for a new loan with Indy Mac, I had plenty of equity, but the loan could not close because the title was still in the O'Neals name. Instead of fixing this by rescinding the O'Neal deed. and only Chase Manhattan, or the Trustee have the legal authority to rescind a trustee's deed. But instead of doing the lawfull thing, the right thing, Ocwen rolled the dice, and again sold my house to a real estate investor, Vista Homes. .

I am a 66-year-old native of California and have have been fighting in court, with and without legal representation, for now, 15 years (2001) asking for a trial or hearing,
The bankruptcy court ruled it had no jurisdiction to hear my complaint about this violation of law after the case was closed in May.

This began a decade and one-half of legal appeals to gain my day in court. On March 25, 2016, the court issued a published opinion, after a five-year wait. The opinion took away much of the BAPs authority, which ruled that the intermediate court, the bankruptcy appellant panel, or BAP, did not have the jurisdiction to issue a writ. Next, I filed for a rehearing en banc, where all active judges read the petitions and the decision is made by the majority vote.
Fortunately, on February 13, 2016, the court approved my petition for rehearing.
Because of the impact of this ruling, the American Bar Association, and the California Bankruptcy Forum, both filed "Friend of the Court Briefs" or Amicus Curiae, supporting a rehearing.

So while the judiciary works out jurisdiction, the banks have won, for now,15 years, and I still have not be given, what the first amendment to our constitution guarantees, that the government will provide a mechanism (courts) to resolve disputes. Yet I can't get a hearing!
Something is very wrong here and I would like a news organization to become interested in this case, follow it, and perhaps write about it, if this citizen has to appeal to the Supreme court!

Thank you for consideration

Gary Ozenne

No comments:

Post a Comment