Bankruptcy "Protection"
When an individual or business is unable to make payment to creditors to pay off their debts, they can file for bankruptcy protection under the bankruptcy laws of the United States. For an individual, bankruptcy protection may involve either a cancellation of most debts, along with the selling off of some of their assets, or a structured plan to pay down the debts that are owed. For a business, bankruptcy protection may either provide complete or partial relief of debts and contracts, assuming the business will remain in operation, or the business may cease operation and sell off its assets to pay debts.
There are two types of bankruptcy protection commonly used by individuals: Chapter Seven, and Chapter 13, where “chapter” refers to the chapter of the bankruptcy code that describes each one. In Chapter Seven, also called a “straight bankruptcy” or “liquidation”, a trustee is appointed to control the individual’s assets. The trustee then liquidates, or sells the assets, then gives the money to creditors in order to pay off debts, to the extent that this is possible. However, the individual is allowed to keep some personal property, depending on the laws of the state in which they live.
When an individual or business is unable to make payment to creditors to pay off their debts, they can file for bankruptcy protection under the bankruptcy laws of the United States. For an individual, bankruptcy protection may involve either a cancellation of most debts, along with the selling off of some of their assets, or a structured plan to pay down the debts that are owed. For a business, bankruptcy protection may either provide complete or partial relief of debts and contracts, assuming the business will remain in operation, or the business may cease operation and sell off its assets to pay debts.
There are two types of bankruptcy protection commonly used by individuals: Chapter Seven, and Chapter 13, where “chapter” refers to the chapter of the bankruptcy code that describes each one. In Chapter Seven, also called a “straight bankruptcy” or “liquidation”, a trustee is appointed to control the individual’s assets. The trustee then liquidates, or sells the assets, then gives the money to creditors in order to pay off debts, to the extent that this is possible. However, the individual is allowed to keep some personal property, depending on the laws of the state in which they live.
In September, 2009, left with no other options since loan modification was just an illusion, I filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, filing a homeowners's exemption of $150,000 (the limit in Arizona) to protect whatever equity still remained, if any, in my home. From September through February, nothing was heard from the "creditor", ONE WEST BANK, who failed to attend the meeting of creditors. Finally, on Feb. 26, 2010, my case was discharged.
On March 2, 2010, ONE WEST BANK through its attorney filed a Motion to Lift the Automatic Stay for the purpose of foreclosing. I objected to the motion on the grounds that they did not own the loan and had no standing to file such a motion. I presented all the evidence to Judge Redfield Baum that I have presented here today. Judge Baum would never respond directly to this argument and despite the fact that there are two (2) judges in the State of Arizona that require a copy of Note and complete chain of assignments to be attached to any Motion for Relief filed in their Court, he did not, and continually ruled in their favor.
After twice filing Adversary Proceedings and clearly spelling out all the fraud that was perpetrated by ONE WEST BANK, there was an immovable wall in the form of the stubborn and obviously biased judge. This is a portion of the information an argument I submitted to Judge Baum asking him to take "Judicial Notice" of the fact that ONE WEST BANK had not standing and no legal right to even submit the motion.
The judge ruled in favor of ONE WEST BANK. I was to appeal but had a health issue and was hospitalized for a week in late March. When I returned home, I communicated with the judge that I wanted additional time to appeal but received no response and my file was closed.
So much for the "protection" of the Bankruptcy court.
On March 2, 2010, ONE WEST BANK through its attorney filed a Motion to Lift the Automatic Stay for the purpose of foreclosing. I objected to the motion on the grounds that they did not own the loan and had no standing to file such a motion. I presented all the evidence to Judge Redfield Baum that I have presented here today. Judge Baum would never respond directly to this argument and despite the fact that there are two (2) judges in the State of Arizona that require a copy of Note and complete chain of assignments to be attached to any Motion for Relief filed in their Court, he did not, and continually ruled in their favor.
After twice filing Adversary Proceedings and clearly spelling out all the fraud that was perpetrated by ONE WEST BANK, there was an immovable wall in the form of the stubborn and obviously biased judge. This is a portion of the information an argument I submitted to Judge Baum asking him to take "Judicial Notice" of the fact that ONE WEST BANK had not standing and no legal right to even submit the motion.
- The court should take Judicial Notice of the contents of the Case File which include copies of four (4) different “original” Promissory notes, two “Assignments” of Deeds of Trust, one signed as Asst VP of MERS by a ONE WEST BANK employee, Kristin Kemp, the second which was actuallyrecorded, by famed robo-signer, Bryan Bly. Mr. Bly's videotaped deposition in which he admits signing up to 5000 such documents per day while not knowing what they are used for or even what they are, is in the case file. The Note furnished to Plaintiff in response to his RESPA letter inDecember, 2009, with a blank signature as shown below. These is just a few of the illegal tactics employed by ONE WEST BANK in attempting to prove standing and consistent with its behavior that resulted in a Consent Order in California with the Office of Thrift Supervision for inappropriate, illegal, and unethical handling of case files including multiple "originals', bogus assignments, etc.
The judge ruled in favor of ONE WEST BANK. I was to appeal but had a health issue and was hospitalized for a week in late March. When I returned home, I communicated with the judge that I wanted additional time to appeal but received no response and my file was closed.
So much for the "protection" of the Bankruptcy court.