You have to include in the case the fraud and conspiracy with JP Morgan Chase; the standing which is based on false statements both in their original Motion for Foreclosure, in their Motion for Reinstatement and in their Rebuttal to the latest Hearing; RESPA violations, and the Chapter 11 Federal Court rulings which establishes that the Statute of Limitations has expired on BOTH cases. My pro-SE against Hawk in March of 2015, shows that the District Court respects the ruling of the Federal Court and they ruled in my favor.
We also need to have Backus recused based on her letters to S&S Financial and her prior knowledge of the property – her unwillingness to divide the property as requested into three instead of two pieces – she based her decision on the 5 year ruling – at the time I had owned the property for 18 years. (I did not know it, but in researching the documents, the loan #6241388344, 2-11-02 used the 110C survey (third parcel) as the collateral – which would have been free and clear if Backus had not ruled as she did – Exhibit 15)
According to rule 13 of civil procedure: You have to include in the case the fraud and conspiracy with JP Morgan Chase; the standing which is based on false statements both in their original Motion for Foreclosure, in their Motion for Reinstatement and in their Rebuttal to the latest Hearing; RESPA violations, and the Chapter 11 Federal Court rulings which establishes that the Statute of Limitations has expired on BOTH cases. My pro-SE against Hawk in March of 2015, shows that the District Court respects the ruling of the Federal Court and they ruled in my favor.
BOOK DIRECT
PURCHASE QUOTE
YourCAMContractor
