I do hope this will help several people with these illegal foreclosure. You must go after the attorneys, if they have file a Rem Action against you file to have your case heard in a judicial matter ; the rem sir faca prevent you from defending yourself, its a nice way of the attorneys telling you to shut up while they steal your home from you for the banks. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Case No. 387, 2015
RE: Pickens, Charles vs Citi Mortgage Inc.
Appellants Opening Brief
Res ipsa loquitur
Appellant respectfully calls upon the Honorable SUPREME COURT; OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE; to reverse the ruling Granted to Appellee by the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY.
Granted on July 13, 2015 by the Honorable, Judge, Jane M, Brady; as per Rule 56; and Grant Appellant and his children; full wrights to Appellant home; in addition, to issuing Appellant with the right to sue Appellee and both racketeering law firms; McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter as well as Morris/Hardwick/and Schneider; Law Firm, and including Wittstadt; additionally, Appellant, request that this honorable court refer this matter to the Attorneys Bar Association as well as the F.B.I and the State of Delaware Attorney General office; for disciplinary action and criminal charges; regarding various; vicious, unethical, inhuman, corrupt, dishonest, demoralizing, hateful, discriminating, for profit Racketeering criminal acts, including fraud, perjury, Child endangerment, and illegally hacking into Appellant personal computer as per illegal internet crimes.
Appellant, will prove to the court that Appellant has shown Material Facts from the very beginning of this case; even before Appellant knew the legal defense; additionally, Appellant will show that Appellee has not proving to the Court how this Appellant is in default with this mortgage nor can they do so at this time; as payment of this mortgage was never a problem for this Appellant; in addition the Superior Court never gave a reason why Summary Judgement was even granted.
Next; Appellant will prove to the Court that this Rem Action was used by Appellee, to estoppel this Appellant from defending his position as this was an illegal attempt to steal Appellant property and to take advantage of Appellant due to his mental disability and base on his race and education on paper.
Appellant will also prove to the court that all Appellants legal rights to his property were illegally taken away; although it was this Appellant who purchase the property in question; as no one including Appellant ex-wife was ever giving power of attorney over this Appellant, at any time, most importantly Appellant purchase the property in question by himself and only added his wife name to the documents regarding the note and the mortgage; while using his credit only; which is a matter of material fact.
In as much Appellant will also show to the court that both McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter in addition to Morris/Hardwick/and Schneider; Law Firm, and including Wittstadt, both law firms had full knowledge that this was an illegal foreclosure attempt, additionally both law firms used the powers of their office to assist their client in committing fraud against this Disable defendant; becoming partners in an illegal racketeering scam against this defenseless appellant as appellant has no legal counsel to protect him.
Appellant will also show that this Predatory mortgage was targeted towards Appellant base on Appellant race and his disability along with his education; in as well as his ability to retain counsel.
Additionally Appellant informs the court that appellant was hinder from defending himself when his motion to come out of this Rem Scire Facias action was denied; received by the Court on April 14, 2015 in as much as all of appellant documents submitted to the court was not address that included material facts.
Appellant will also provide evident to the Court proving Appellee has knowingly committed perjury in the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY; When Appellee stated this this Appellant was not on the note to the home that he purchase, as appellant initials are a legal signature; which also was never address by the Superior Court; although Appellant brought this matter to the Court attention; in addition it is illegal to remove a spouses name from their mortgage in order to be granted a refinance; especially a spouse who was suffering from mental problems at the time of this refinance.
Appellant will also show that the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE require this appellant to refinance his home while it was in a foreclosure matter; something, impossible to do, as no lender in the United States of America would consider this as an option while Appellee is seeking a Summary Judgement against the property.
Appellant will also show that the Superior court had to recognize that appellant was indeed on the note as per the Courts instruction to refinance the mortgage; as it is impossible to refinance a home if your name is not on the note.
Appellant will also show the court were the Honorable Judge herself hinder this Appellant from defending his position fully as there are only three defenses to a rem action; therefore denning this appellant request to move to a judicial court estoppel this Appellant from bring in key material facts; most of all as initials are a legal signature which bears this appellant mark on the note in question, and not for the reason stated by Appellee; to show appellant being aware of the matter.
Appellant will provide for the court evident of title fraud; as there is no title insurance on the property in question; although this Predatory mortgage listed it as being on the property; as title insurance protect both the buyer and the lender; which would have help this appellant with proper representation to defend appellant title against all encumbrance.
Appellant will also provide for the Court evident of appellant putting forth vigorous effort to prevent this illegal attempt to foreclose; as most of his communication to Appellee went unanswered, by Appellee and both of their racketeering attorneys law firms,
In their attempt to help their client steal the property in question; while appellant pleaded, with appellee and all of their attorney to communicate with him regarding problems with this predatory mortgage; as payment of this mortgage was never a problem for this Appellant, even offering to make rent payment until this matter could be rectified; however Appellee never gave this Appellant any rights to his mortgage or note from the beginning of this predatory refinance; nor would they communicate with Appellant even when appellant was making payments on his mortgage and note.
Appellant will show that as require by law, the appellee estoppel appellant from receiving his mandatory mediation as appellee went as far as to commit perjury in court as well as causing appellant and his children to be put out of their home for 8 months by the Family Court Judge; because, appellee illegally took all of his rights to his property away from him and stated to everyone that this appellant was not on the note to the property that appellant purchase by himself; additionally even if there was some fraud by this Appellant ex-wife committed against him, Appellee had no legal rights to remove this appellant from his note or mortgage as this appellant was the one whom purchase the property in question, so how did this appellant lose any of his rights to his note and mortgage.
The same Family Court Judge 8 months later, reverse his ruling, and granted appellant and his children all rights to the property in question; in addition to allowing this appellant to quick claim deed the property in hope that it will help keep the property from being foreclose upon.
Appellant will show that appellee and both of their racketeering attorneys law firms with criminal intent did everything they could do to prevent this appellant from receiving help from any were; most of all from the offices that the United States government has put in place to help prevent illegal foreclosure; as appellee did everything they could think of to keep this appellant quite, are in other words shut up while we take your home away from you and prevent you from defending yourself or position.
Appellant will show that the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE did not properly address serious material facts brought to the Court attention by this appellant such as Racketeering allegations, Perjury, Sub contracting attorneys allegations; in addition, to damages done to appellant and his children due to the Perjury committed by Appellee and their attorneys; whom had full knowledge that this appellant was always on the note in question; but because appellant was not represented by counsel, appellee and their racketeering attorneys continue with this illegal attempt to foreclose on appellant property, as appellee’s attorneys used their knowledge of the law to assist their client CitiMortgage with another illegal foreclosure; while hindering this appellant from defending himself as appellees attorneys knew that material facts was indeed an issue.
Even after being advise by appellant to stop and review the note and all documents, as they were put on proper legal notice, that this action was an illegal attempt to foreclose on appellant and his children home; however because Appellant was not represented by counsel, these Racketeering attorneys continue to assist their client with this illegal foreclosure, therefore both McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter in addition to Morris/Hardwick/and Schneider; Law Firm, are both guilty of illegal racketeering, by using the powers of their office and abusing the trust they have been granted as officers of the court, in addition to being a legal law firm; whom both were issue power by the state of Delaware; as both law firms sold their office and its powers and repartition for illegal profits, in their attempt to assist appellee CitiMortgage in committing fraud and thief of appellant home.
Morris/Hardwick/and Schneider; Law Firm, and including Wittstadt, are the largest real estate closing firm in the nation, the firm handles over 36, 000 closings annually
They operates their title company, Land Castle Title, in title states. Management of the firm and title company is vested in the Managing Partner, Mark Wittstadt.
Illegal foreclosures can be beaten and put to an end by a few Pro Sa Appellant or John Q Public; but as per my experience; A lot of Judges do not give non attorneys victory’s over an establish Attorney, regardless, how good the Appellant prove their case; it is the justice system, though the means of it Racketeering attorneys who are supposed to be officers of the Court, whom are breaking the laws every day, these racketeering attorneys are giving innocent home owners like myself the problem not as much as the corrupt banks; as the Racketeering attorneys and their law firms are the ones whom are doing the final part of this illegal scam; assisting Appellee with their illegal foreclosures.
The banks or not the only ones whom are foreclosing on innocent home owners, it is their racketeering partners A.K.A Attorneys; whom are doing the job for them; without the corrupt attorneys the banks could never get away with illegal foreclosures, while the attorneys are illegally using and selling the powers of their law firms or office, to help the banks continue to commit these horrible crimes; even though these attorneys have full knowledge that it is wrong and illegal; even when they are inform of the corruption they proceed on with the illegal foreclosures.
What do they care, these people have no one to represent them and have very limited knowledge of the law and the rules of the Courts; so, it’s easy money for the attorneys and the Banks; and by continuing allowing these corrupt Banks and their attorneys to file Non judicial Rem Action foreclosures motion to estoppel Appellants from defending themselves; allows the racketeering attorneys to used the Non Judicial rem Action as a means to keep the innocent home owner quite; as they help the banks steal innocent people home; as the Non judicial Rem Action foreclosures motion gives the racketeering attorneys an open door to continue committing these crimes against the poor and estoppel the innocent home owner from defending themselves.
Regardless’ of how many fines the United States Attorney General gets against these big banks like Citi mortgage, their profits over weigh their fines by one thousand percent, are more; as they are teaming up with Law Firms though out the United States to use their knowledge of the law against innocent home owners; henceforth the attorneys are racketeering partners with these corrupt banks and have never had to answer for their role in illegal foreclosures; until the Honorable Supreme Court accepted this Appellants appeal.
In the racketeering attorneys attempted to help their client Citi Mortgage get away with thief by deception, by use of force, in addition to filing a untrue Rem Action against appellant and appellant children home, ; it is important for appellant to inform the court that appellant, did reach out to others agency; for help; and most of all payment of this mortgage was never a problem for this appellant.
On March 24, 2014 Appellant attempted to file criminal charges against Appellee and their racketeering attorneys; Morris, Hardwick, Schneider; Appellant went to the U.S. District Attorney’s office at 1007 Orange Street in Wilmington, De 19801 Suite 700 and was told that Appellant would not be able to file criminal charges there, and was advise to file his criminal report at the New Castle County Court House; upon arriving there at the New Castle County Court House again, Appellant was told that he could not file these criminal charges at that location; and once again Appellant was advise to move on, this time to the Attorney General Fraud Dept., located at 820 North French St, Caravel State Building.
At first Appellant was told by the receptionist that Appellant could not file charges because Appellant was not an attorney and that he had to be an attorney in order to file a complaint; after refusing to accept this answer and explaining to the receptionist that he was a Pro Sa attorney, the receptionist finally allowed appellant to fill out a complaint statement received on March 24, 2014 by the Fraud & Consumer Protection Division; how is Appellant expected to win his case as a Pro Sa attorney when the scales of justice or unbalance; and the Pro Sa attorney is not giving the full benefits or the respect as a qualified attorney? I am sure as an attorney Appellant would have been settle this matter; but as a Pro SA attorney the deck is truly stack against me; it’s like me expecting help from the other team to win.
Appellant had little faith or confident that his complaint would be taken serious or even look at; as appellant explain to the Honorable M. Jane Brady Judge for the Superior Court for New Castle County 500 North King Street, Suite 10400 Wilmington, De 19801-3733 whom was assign this case; (C.A. N13L-02-021MJB) and to this date Appellant have still not received any correspondent are assistance from the Attorney General office.
On April 2, 2014 Appellant filed a complaint with the OFFIC OF DISIPLINARY COUNSEL located at the Carvel State Office Building, 11th floor 820 North French Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, I received their reply dated May 5, 2014 in a nice way appellant was told to shut up, by the Bar, or they would make it worst for me if I bring this matter up again, as I stated above attorneys looks out for their own especially against a Pro Sa Attorney.
On March 31, 2014 I filed a Motion to change Plaintiff Rem Scire Facias Action, Motion From A Non-Judicial Hearing to A judicial Hearing; Case No.: N13L-02-021 MJB because plaintiff could not and has not proving that this mortgage was in default; additionally, they refuse to settle this matter as advise by the Honorable M. Jane Brady; Judge for the Superior Court for New Castle County on 3 to 4 different occasion though out this matter; however it was denied for some reason unclear to me, therefore, this decision hinders Appellant from defending himself against this Rem Scire Facias Action; as it estoppels appellant from bringing in key facts; since it is a non-judicial hearing, this decision has allow the scales of justice to remain unbalance and in flavor of Citi Mortgage and their Racketeering Attorneys; since appellant is not allowed to bring in any of his arguments, as there is only three defensive to a Rem Scire Facias Action.
Just as some police officers look out for each other it seems to be the same way in the court system; these attorneys are highly decorated; and know each other, and the judges (I am not accusing this Judge of any wrong doing in this matter as she have giving me more opportunity to get my affairs in order to move out of my home, then most judges would have) however you tell me where do John Q Public or a Pro Sa Appellant stand a chance against a system already purchase by the Banks with their wealth.
I have reached out to almost every organization for assistance but received none; most of all because appellee committed perjury and stated that this appellant was not no his own note to his home.
More Material Facts
. On April 13, 2005 doing a refinance; Plaintiff Charles Pickens and his now ex-wife executed and delivered to appellee and/or its assignors a Mortgage on the property known as 36 Osage Road, Claymont, Delaware 19703, Tax Parcel No. 06-070.00-109 (the Mortgage’’)
2. The Mortgage provides that upon the failure of the borrowers to pay when due any obligation of any portion thereof when due, the loan shall be in default and Plaintiff, upon thirty (30) days’ notice, may accelerate the sum secured by the Mortgage and may foreclose upon the mortgage property for the collection of the obligation together with the costs of suit and reasonable attorney’s fees plus any sum hereinafter expended in the preservation of the property and Defendant security.
3. Appellee has falsely accused Appellant Charles Pickens of being in default with this mortgage; when Appellant made every attempt to pay this mortgage and to rectified issues regarding this mortgage as payment of this mortgage was never a problem for this Appellant.
4. Additionally; Appellee and their former attorneys Lisa Hatfield; Managing Attorney, Christina Pross, and Chase Miller, all of MORRIS/HARDWICK/SCHNEIDER has committed prudery; and attempted fraud, against this appellant.
On November 14, 2013 Appellee stated in the Superior Court of Law that Appellant Charles Pickens was not on this note; however the note clearly shows Appellant mark/initials on the front page of the note provided to the court by Appellees own attorney’s; as their own exhibits; including on the Prepayment Rider to Note. Additionally, regarding the Mortgage itself section (D) provide information regarding the Note; were Appellant initials are clearly mark as being on the Note in question.
5. Since April 13, 2005 Appellee has violated this note/Mortgage against this Appellant and has denied this Appellant any and all right’s regarding his note; and his Mortgage including; refusing to communicate with this Appellant on behalf of his Mortgage; which Appellant was clearly entitled to. Appellee Citi mortgage was even advise four different times by the Superior Court Judge, Jane Brady; to settle this matter with this Appellant and Appellee still refused to do so; even after receiving an order, by a Superior Court Judge for the State of Delaware; to sit down with this Appellant and settle this matter; On December 19, 2013; There was no negotiation at all with this Appellant;. As a result, any damages that the Appellee are claiming are of their own doing and Appellant claims for damages are still continuing.
6. This predatory mortgage was targeted towards this Appellant base on his race and his disability; in addition to his limited education, on the record; and most importantly the lack of being able to attain counsel.
7. The reason Why Appellee Citi Mortgage refuse to give Appellant a Mortgage/Refinance after being a vise 4 different times to settle this matter by the Superior Court Judge; was because Appellant already had a Mortgage with Appellee Citi Mortgage, and Citi Mortgage with the help of their Racketeering attorneys did everything they could do to hide this information; including committing perjury in the court of law; although, Appellee Citi Mortgage has denied this fact for over 8 years to this Appellant, to the Courts, and to various offices that the United State Government has put in place to help prevent foreclosures against home owner’s; violating this Mortgage and this note from its beginning with this Appellant.
8. The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) requires the servicer to acknowledge your request within 20 business days and to try to resolve the problem within 60 business days. Giving Appellant such right’s as to file a civil lawsuit against the servicer since the service violated the RESPA requirements.
The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., prohibits discrimination by direct providers of housing, such as landlords and real estate companies as well as other entities, such as municipalities, banks or other lending institutions and homeowners insurance companies whose discriminatory practices make housing unavailable to persons because of race or color religion sex national origin familial status, or disability.
In cases involving discrimination in mortgage loans or home improvement loans, the Department may file suit under both the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Under the Fair Housing Act, the Department of Justice may bring lawsuits where there is reason to believe that a person or entity is engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination or where a denial of rights to a group of persons raises an issue of general public importance. Where force or threat of force is used to deny or interfere with fair housing rights, the Department of Justice may institute criminal proceedings. The Fair Housing Act also provides procedures for handling individual complaints of discrimination. Individuals, who believe that they have been victims of an illegal housing practice, may file a complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] or file their own lawsuit in federal or state court. The Department of Justice brings suits on behalf of individuals based on referrals from HUD.
Discrimination in Housing Based upon Disability; The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all types of housing transactions. The Act defines persons with a disability to mean those individuals with mental or physical impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. The term mental or physical impairment may include conditions such as blindness, hearing impairment, mobility impairment, HIV infection, mental ###ation, alcoholism, drug addiction, chronic fatigue, learning disability, head injury, and mental illness. The term major life activity may include seeing, hearing, walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, caring for one's self, learning, speaking, or working. The Fair Housing Act also protects persons who have a record of such impairment, or are regarded as having such impairment. Current users of illegal controlled substances, persons convicted for illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance, sex offenders, and juvenile offenders are not considered disabled under the Fair Housing Act, by virtue of that status. The Fair Housing Act affords no protections to individuals with or without disabilities who present a direct threat to the persons or property of others. Determining whether someone poses such a direct threat must be made on an individualized basis, however, and cannot be based on general assumptions or speculation about the nature of a disability. The Division enforcement of the Fair Housing Act'
; s protections for persons with disabilities has concentrated on two major areas. One is insuring that zoning and other regulations concerning land use are not employed to hinder the residential choices of these individuals, including unnecessarily restricting communal, or congregate, residential arrangements, such as group homes. The second area is insuring that newly constructed multifamily housing is built in accordance with the Fair Housing Acts accessibility requirements so that it is accessible to and usable by people with disabilities, and, in particular, those who use wheelchairs. There are other federal statutes that prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is enforced by the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division.
Appellant was made to feel like appellant only choice was to commit suicide as appellant stated to Appellee’s attorneys, Chase N. Miller; on November 15, 2013 while having a mental break down after the Summary judgment hearing; also several times to appellant therapist; in addition to calling the Delaware Help line number 211 were a operator there had to call appellant back several times; in the month of August of 2013 to make sure appellant would not harm himself; as appellant was willing to take his own life in order for his Children to have a better life; because appellant would not be able to provide for his children; and failure as being a parent would be unbearable for appellant..
Appellant has been under doctor’s care since August 4, 2004 for mental conditions and was in no condition to protect himself against this attempt to steal appellant property nor did he know or understand what was happening to him at the time of this predatory refinance.
Appellant have been diagnosis as a Paranoid Schizophrenic which is appellant claim for appellant disability; approved by Social Security Disability.
Most importantly; Appellee Citi Mortgage, and their attorneys are not in compliance with the American Disability Act; regarding their actions and unethical business practices towards this disable appellant as appellant disability made it easy for appellee to take all of this appellant legal rights to his property unnoticed.
Appellant made every effort to prevent any kind of foreclosure action to appellant and his children’s home, even offering to pay rent or make good faith payments (like appellant had done in the past) until this matter could be rectified as payment of the mortgage was never a problem for this Appellant, and now because appellant have been able to expose MORRIS/HARDWICK/SCHNEIDER Law firm racketeering practice they were granted permission to bring in corporate attorneys to protect them and their client Citi Mortgage from federal racketeering charges.
So in comes McElroy, Deutsch, Deutsch, Mulvaney& carpenter big corporate Attorneys to protect MORRIS/HARDWICK/SCHNEIDER from Federal Rico charges; whom never proven that they represent appellee CitiMortgage and was not hired by MORRIS/HARDWICK/SCHNEIDER as per sub-contracting Attorneys to clean up this situation cause by MORRIS/HARDWICK/SCHNEIDER in there illegal racketeering scam to help their client appellee CitiMortgage get away with thief and illegal foreclosure; as this matter was also brought to the courts attention but not properly address.
Crimes committed by Appellee.
Bank Secrecy Act
The Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970 (which legislative framework is commonly referred to as the “Bank Secrecy Act” or “BSA”) requires U.S. financial institutions to assist U.S. government agencies to detect and prevent money laundering. Specifically, the act requires financial institutions to keep records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments, file reports of cash transactions exceeding $10, 000 (daily aggregate amount), and to report suspicious activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activities. It was passed by the Congress of the United States in 1970. The BSA is sometimes referred to as an “anti-money laundering” law (“AML”) or jointly as “BSA/AML.” Several AML acts, including provisions in Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, have been enacted up to the present to amend the
BSA. (See 31 USC 5311-5330 and 31 CFR Chapter X [formerly 31 CFR Part 103] )
Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) Statute• 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314e• 5316-5330• 5331• 5332e• 12 U.S.C. 1829b• 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959e• Federal Crime of Money Laundering - Title 18, U.S. Code, Crimes and Criminal Procedure • Federal Crime of Operating an Unlicensed or Unregistered Money Transmitting Business - Title 18 U.S. Code, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.
Codified Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) Regulations • 31 CFR Chapter X (Effective March 1, 2011)• 31 CFR Part 103 (Effective through February 28, 2011)
FIN – 2012 - R005Issued: August 13, 2012Subject: Compliance Obligations of certain loan or finance company subsidiaries of federally regulated banks and other financial institutions The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network FinCEN) is issuing this ruling to clarify the requirements under FinCEN’s regulations for loan and finance companies that are subsidiaries of financial institutions subject to the same regulations applicable to the parent financial institution and examinations of a Federal functional regulator for compliance with the anti- money laundering and counter - terrorist financing obligations under the laws generally known as the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”)FinCEN hereby determines that a loan or finance company that: 1) is a subsidiary of a financial institution subject to these regulations, including at least anti- money laundering program (“AML”) and suspicious activity reporting (“SAR”) requirements; 2) is required to comply with the AML and SAR regulations applicable to the parent financial institution; and 3) is subject to examination by the Federal functional regulator of the parent financial institution is deemed to comply with FinCEN’s regulations at 31 CFR 1029.
On February 14, 2012, FinCEN issued a final rule titled “Anti- Money Laundering Program and Suspicious Activity Report Filing Requirements for Residential Mortgage Lenders and Originators” (“Final Rule”), which defined non- bank residential mortgage lenders and originators as loan or finance companies for the purpose of requiring them to establish AML and SAR programs and comply with other requirements under FinCEN’s regulations.
Non-Bank For purposes of this Ruling, the term “financial institution” shall have the meaning set forth in 31 CFR 1010.100(t)
The term “Federal functional regulator” is defined at 31 CFR 1010.100(r). Unless otherwise noted, the other terms in this Ruling shall have the meaning of the term set forth in 31 CFR 1010.100 (2011).
A loan of finance company is a subsidiary of a financial institution if the company is controlled by the parent financial institution See, e.g., 12 CFR 5.34 regarding Operating Subsidiaries of National Banks 77 FR 8148 (Feb. 14, 2012), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-02-14/pdf/2012-3074.pdf codified at 31 CFR §§ 1010.100, 1029.210 and 1029.320.
The Final Rule was preceded by an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2009 and 2010, respectively See 74 FR 35830 (July 21, 2009), “Anti- Money Laundering Program and Suspicious Activity Report Requirements for Non- Bank Residential Mortgage Lenders and Originators http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E -9- 17117.pdf; 75 FR 76677 (Dec. 9,
A collection of the statutes existing and in force in a given state, all laws and parts of laws relating to each subject-matter being brought together under one head, and the whole arranged systematically in one book, either under an alphabetical arrangement or some other plan of classification. Such a collection of statutes differs from a code in this, that none of the laws so compiled derives any new force or undergoes any modification in its relation to other statutes in pari materia from the fact of the compilation, while a code is a re-enactment of the whole body of the positive law and is to be read and interpreted as one entire and homogeneous whole. Railway Co. v. State, 101 Ga. 831, 31 S. E. 531; Black, Intcrp. Laws, p. 363
A separate account funded by direct contributions or the redemption or repurchase of debt set aside to systematically eliminate debt. It also refers to company funded self-insurance used to cover risks. Refer to doubling option and sinker.
Abuse of power, Abuse of process, ANTICIPATORY AVOIDANCE; CHILD ABUSE, Child Endangerment, COMPILED STATUTES, CONSPIRACY, Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, Conspiracy to Defraud United States (Obstruct Justice) -- 18 USC Â§ 371, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau volitions, CONTRACT PROCEDURES, CRIMEN FALSI, Title Fraud,
According to TITLE 25 Property mortgages and other liens Chapter 21. Mortgages on Real estate regarding ₴ 2103 Effect on mortgage executed by trustee for mentally ill spouse. Any mortgage executed and acknowledged by a trustee for a mentally ill married man or woman, appointed pursuant to the provision of ₴ 104 or ₴ 105 of this title, shall be as valid and effectual to bar and divest his or her estate as tenant by the curtesy or dower interest in case he or she survives his or her spouse, as if he or she had been legally capable, and had in fact executed and acknowledged such mortgage; and any such mortgage, or the record thereof, shall be competent evidence in all courts of this State.
17 Del. Law, c. 616, ₴ 2; 22 Del. Laws, c. 444, ₴₴ 1, 2; Code 1915, ₴₴ 3202, 3203; Code 1935, ₴₴ 3663, 3664; 25 Del. C. 1953, ₴ 2103; 49 Del. Laws, c. 57, ₴ 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, ₴ 1.;
Appellant could continue listing Laws and providing documents in regarding Appellant appeal; however Appellant is unsure if all his documents will be accepted as appellant did submit documents to the Superior Court however none of these argument was even address by Superior Court, and Appellant is sure that appellee and their racketeering attorneys will submit to the court an attempt to throw-out most of the documents that appellant has already submitted to the court as appellee and their attorneys has done everything in their powers to Estoppel this Appellant from bring in matters which clearly show material facts.
Therefore; Appellant will now bring to the Honorable Courts attention the matter regarding Fraud and hacking in to Appellant computer as per internet crimes.
On July 22, 2015 Appellant received an email from Driver Support address to Attorney Aaron S. Applebaum (See Fraud and Hacking 2015) in appendix; because of the mental stress and appellant disability that this matters regarding the illegal attempt to steal appellant home away from him and (his two Honor roll R.O.T.C) sons, has place on Appellant, appellant was unable to deal with any other problems; as appellant continue to consider suicide as an option to bring this morally repugnant, destructive, Unacceptable discrimination to an end; with that in mind; Appellant place the email into a folder on his computer in case he had to recall upon it again.
On September 16, 2015 Appellant attempted to log on to Appellant Yahoo account; when appellant went to place his user name in, to log on to appellant account Attorneys Aaron S. Applebaum name appeared as a user on Appellant computer; as no one name would ever appear in that user box unless they have been on Appellant computer and used a pass word to excess all information on Appellant computer. (See pictures provided by Appellant in the Fraud and Hacking section located in the appendix)
Appellant; remembered the email Appellant saved and located it in his folders; after further review of the document Appellant place his pointer in the area were the email is address to and it highlighted more damaging criminal information regarding Fraud, and internet criminal activity, the contact information was Appellants name and email address however, the phone number listed as Appellant contact number Cleary belongs to Appellees Attorneys McElroy; Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP
In addition to the above stated in the body of the email the driver was for a HP/Compaq all in one 20 PC series; which is not the computer Appellant has; the description of Appellant computer is HP 23”/Intel Core 17-4790S/8GB (See Geek Squad Service Order: 00465-104640535 dated 09/21/2015
On are about September 18, 2015 Appellant took his computer to Geek squad to have a professional opinion and to confirm for the Court the illegal criminal action and behavior of appellee CitiMortgage and their Racketeering Attorneys; On September 21, 2015 Geek Squad confirm that the driver was indeed install on appellant computer. (See client receipt from Geek squad Client Copy dated 9/21/15
On September 29, 2015 Appellant filed a Request for an extension of time; for reasons set forth in the matter; Due to the fact that Appellant is acting as Pro SA Appellant was unaware that appellee had an additional 3 days to respond to the matter at hand; (For responses being answered though the mail or by computer) therefor Appellant filed a Motion to Compel; in addition, to requesting that the Honorable court order Appellee’s Racketeering Attorneys to produce the information Appellant requested in Appellant Request for production of Documents; dated October 13, 2015
The information that appellant was requesting would clearly show further proof of Appellee’s racketeering Attorneys criminal actions and behavior unbecoming of an offer sir of the Courts, and this Great State of Delaware; therefore appellant respectfully request that this honorable Court order appellees attorneys to produce the production of documents as requested by appellant, as per appellant Yahoo account; it shows the logging on to appellant account from various places appellant have never taken his computer to, or been, appellant never had this problem until appellees attorneys illegally hack into appellants personal computer.
On October 14, 2015 Appellant received Appellee’s Racketeering Attorneys answer to Appellant request for an extension of time; Appellee’s Attorneys Unequivocally denied all of the allegations of wrongdoing; once again committing out right perjury; so that McElroy; Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP Law Firm can continue assisting their client CitiMortgage with illegal foreclosures and save their Law firm from being disbarred and investigated by the F.B.I and the United States District Attorney’s Office but most of all protecting their Law firm from having to turn over all moneys made with CitiMortgage in their Racketeering scam over to the United States Government as per the Rules/Laws governing racketeering actions and behavior.
Appellant Contacted Driver Support several times in the month of September and was told that someone would return his call; however this never happen nor would the representative or sales rep giving Appellant any information after Appellant inform Driver Support that appellant did not order this driver and wanted to know the credit card numbers use to purchase this driver and name; so on September 22, 2015 Appellant called for the last time; appellant informed Driver support that appellant had a ticket number which is indicated on the email address to Mr. Aaron S. Applebaum ticket number (Ticket #dh_AoeS1437530267610)(5)
Phone number 512.373.3518 the sales rep name is Christina and after several attempts to get my questions answered reluctantly the sales rep gave me the names of a supervisor James White; and the CEO is Mike Hurd; as this company is very much aware of what McElroy; Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP is doing with their drivers.
The driver that McElroy; Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP has put on Appellant computer is very sophisticated something that you would expect the United State Government to use; as it also instills a HTML folder on your computer so McElroy; Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP never need to know any ones pass word as this driver allows McElroy; Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP to create their own pass word; on any ones computer in the world.
Appellant had to stop using appellant bring new computer as the HTML folder is still attach to appellant computer and although the driver has been removed it is still possible for Appellee’s racketeering attorneys to log on to appellant computer; appellant can bring the computer in question to the Honorable Court at the request of the court for your own review of the computer and McElroy; Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, HTML folder down loaded on appellant computer as additional evidence.
Additionally regarding Appellant Yahoo account history; appellant, has been log on from various States and location he have not been to in addition to someone cell phone activity.
In conclusion all appellant ever wanted was to pay his mortgage and raise his sons into productive members of this society; plaint some flowers and be a great neighbor and see a few grandchildren.
Appellant did not want this fight and did everything possible to prevent it from happening.
Just because a person has a mental disability does not mean that that person is incompetence for there is a beautiful mind in all of the disable people.
Therefore Appellant ask the Court how is Summary Judgement giving to Appellee; when material facts, have not been address, and Appellant rights to defend himself has been denied by the courts.
Wherefore; Appellant respectfully request the Honorable Court to reverse the ruling Granted to Appellee by the SUPERIOR COURT,
as per Rule 56; and Grant Appellant and his children; full wrights to Appellant home; in addition, to issuing Appellant with the right to sue Appellee and both racketeering law firms; McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter as well as Morris/Hardwick/and Schneider; Law Firm, and including Wittstadt; additionally, Appellant, request that this honorable court refer this matter to the Attorneys Bar Association as well as the F.B.I and the State of Delaware Attorney General office; for disciplinary action and criminal charges; regarding various; vicious, unethical, inhuman, corrupt, dishonest, demoralizing, hateful, discriminating, for profit Racketeering criminal acts, including fraud, perjury, Child endangerment, and illegal internet crimes, by hacking into Appellants personal computer as per illegal internet crimes and fraud from opening an illegal account with Driver Support in Appellants name and using their own office number McElroy; Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP as a contact number to reach appellant.
Respectfully Submitted. November 16, 2015
I am expecting the Supreme court to rule on this matter by May 5, 2016