XXX DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF XXX

……………………………………………………………………..X

XXX,

Appellant, Case No: XXX

XXX,

INC., XXX

XXX

Appellees.

……………………………………………………………………..X

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

COMES NOW, Appellant XXX respectfully moves this Court to reconsider its decision: affirming the Settlement Order and the Order Denying Dismissal, and denying Appellant’s letter motion. In support thereof, Appellant states as follows:

Standard of Review
Motions for reconsideration allow the district court to correct its own mistakes. See, e.g., Bell Sports, Inc.XXXX.
“The standard for granting [a motion to reconsider] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked — matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” See XXX.
The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the district court. See In re Solv-Ex XXX
Arguments
The Court made a mistake when it failed to recognize that the State Court lacked jurisdiction
According to XXX, the law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings. Further, once jurisdiction has been challenged, the Court should halt all further proceedings and stay all orders that it has issued.
Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court has no authority to issue decisions on merits and should rather dismiss the action. XXX. Further, a judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction over the defendant is null and void. It is a nullity. Notably, if jurisdiction does not exist, it cannot justify conviction or judgment. It follows; if a court that lacks jurisdiction, to proceed would be in excess of jurisdiction, which is as well FATAL to the State’s cause. See In rXXX
In the instant action, Defendant filed a jurisdictional challenge to the State Court. In the jurisdictional challenge, the Defendant averred, inter alia, that the Plaintiffs in the case(s) failed to provide any evidence or material facts as to the jurisdiction of the Court in the foreclosure cases.
It is Appellant’s contention that the Plaintiffs in the foreclosure cases failed to prove standing to bring the cases. “Standing to sue requires an interest in the claim at issue in the lawsuit that the law will recognize as a sufficient predicate for determining the issue at the litigant’s request” XXX
Since the foreclosure actions were commenced by parties that did not yet at the time have an interest in the mortgage and note, the complaints should have been dismissed without prejudice, sua sponte, for lack of standing. Marchione, 2XXX
Plaintiff further asserts that this Court’s Order issued on May 9, XXX, and the subsequent judgment issued on May 11, XXX, made no reference to the want of jurisdiction of the State Courts. Plaintiff’s records in this action are replete with a statement of facts and/or grounds that show the lack of standing for the Plaintiffs in the foreclosure cases. The issue of standing is pertinent in this case because had the foreclosure courts denied hearing the cases, the matter would not have escalated to this stage. For the reasons discussed above, Appellant seeks a reconsideration of this Court’s order to reassess the issue of lack of the foreclosure courts’ jurisdiction.
The Court made a mistake when it failed to address the failed retainer agreements
Appellant also seeks this Court to reconsider the fact that XXX forged a retainer agreement, in order to take control of Appellant’s personal injury case. This issue is central to this case because the XXX intended to have Appellant enter the Settlement Agreement, which this Court has affirmed.
Equity suffers no wrong to be without a remedy. Appellant fails to understand why the Court has not determined the blameworthy conduct of Appellant’s former attorney, Frank XXX abandoned Appellant, and became counsel for XXX. Consequently, after filing a motion to withdraw Chapter 7 bankruptcy on XXX filed a forged/false retainer agreement at the court, to take control of Personal Injury Case. The forged agreement was intended to show to the Court that Appellant had acquiesced to the Settlement Agreement.
It is noteworthy that Appellant had a copy of the retainer with only her signature. In June of 2021, she requested a copy with their signature and the date which was sent. The forged retainer that was filed in the court on XXX does not have a date, and the signature is not the same. Besides, from the State Court Filings, Matthew Maloney’s signatures are totally different from what was presented in the forged retainer. Notably, Matthew Maloney, of XXX had appended his signatures on the Court Filings in the State Supreme Court. However, Matthew Maloney’s signatures in the Court filings are materially different from his signatures in the three Retainer Agreements. It is also notable that Matthew Maloney was not employed by XXX, when the retainer dated April 16, 2015 was signed.
Further, the third page of the retainer filed on XXX shows that the information of George Crozier was CROSSED out. Also XXX claims expenses when in fact page two indicated that the client was not responsible for expenses.
Despite the glaring discrepancies, Judge XXX and the Trustee approved the Settlement, which approval Appellant challenges.
Appellant therefore seeks a reconsideration of the fraud and forgery that was done in this case, which forgery formed the basis of the Settlement Agreement that this Court is affirming. Appellant states that this Court runs the danger of legitimizing fraud, if it does not reconsider this issue.
The Court made a mistake when it failed to address the issue of false proofs of claims
Appellant states that this Court failed to consider the false proofs of claims that were presented in this case. The issue of the proofs of claims is pertinent in that it speaks to Appellant’s intention to voluntarily dismiss the case because of frustration. It appears like nobody is paying attention to the Appellant’s attempts to call out the fraud that has tainted this case from its inception.
False claims under § 727(a)(4)(B) generally involve the scheduling of non-existent debts, the scheduling of inflated debts, or the filing by the creditor of a false proof of claim. In XXX see also XXX.
Appellant requests this Court to note that on XXX Courtney Williams filed a fraudulent Proof of Claim 5-1 in the name of U.S. Bank National Association as Legal Title Trustee for Truman 2016 SC6 Title Trust with Fay Servicing, LLC as the alleged servicer for the investment property located in Howard Beach, NY. Appellant avers that Truman is not a creditor because there is no privity of contract between the Appellant, on one hand, and Fay or the Howard Beach property servicer on the other hand. Appellant also maintains that Fay and the Howard Beach Property Servicer are not creditors because they are “bulk debt buyer”’ or “debt collectors” as opposed to creditors.
Also, on January 9, 2020, Courtney Williams filed a fraudulent Proof of Claim 6-1 in the name of Tiki Series IV Trust with Rushmore as the servicer. Courtney Williams’ client was Rushmore Loan Management services and not the alleged secured creditor of her choosing, as she seemed to fluidly represent multiple parties claiming secured creditor status with days of each other. Appellant avers that the alleged creditor failed to prove ownership of the Residential Property Note. There is also no privity between the Appellant and Tiki or its agents. Further, the lender on the Residential Property’s XXX Note is America’s Wholesale Lender, but that entity was incorporated in New York in 2008, years after the date of the Residential Property note and mortgage. It follows; Tiki and the Residential Property Servicer, Rushmore Loan Management Servicing, committed fraud by filing the Residential Property Proof of Claim without valid evidence of ownership of the debt and/or note.
The Appellant vehemently objected to said Proof of Claim 5.1 and 6.1 with factual evidence that was ignored by the court. It is abundantly clear that Courtney Williams, Esq and her employer, XXX LLC represent alleged servicers and not the alleged creditors.
On February XXX, XXX (attorney for XXX, LLP) filed her Notice of Appearance on behalf of Rushmore as servicer for U.S. Bank Trust, NA as Trustee for Dwelling Series IV Trust regarding the Residential Property. Consequently, on March 11, 2021, Katherine filed the document titled “Assignment of Mortgage” from MTGLQ Investors, LP to US Bank Trust National Association as Trustee for Tiki Series IV Trust (with another company’s address,XXX Capital, a global investment firm) executed on April 28, 2020. Clearly contradictory to her argument that Proof of Claim 6.1 filed by attorney Williams is valid. The Proof of Claim 6.1 was in the name of Tiki Series IV Trust only on January 9, 2020.
Also, the Proofs of Claim were defective in that inter alia, they alleged that the claims had not been acquired from someone else, yet a separate record from said creditor(s) stated that there was prior management. The claim(s) also addressed debts that are already discharged.
In the foreclosure cases, the Plaintiff lacked standing due to the fact that they have not filed it on the record in the form of an Affidavit on behalf of a competent witness with first-hand knowledge and under oath and penalty of perjury to the allegations stated in the Complaints and or alternatively had a witness of a certain Corporate Officer Level testify in person in court.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs in the foreclosure cases never established on the record that there was a real matter in controversy between them and the Debtor nor any injury or damages proven to exist. The foreclosure courts therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matters due to the fact that the Plaintiffs and their Attorney failed to establish standing by the foregoing means as required as a matter of law. The courts also lack jurisdiction because the Judges failed to require that Plaintiffs prove Standing on the record.
The result of the foregoing is that all foreclosure judgments and subsequent orders and sales of the Debtor’s Property are Void. This Court should therefore reconsider the issue of the false Proofs of Claims and issue an appropriate determination.

CONCLUSION

Appellant has been subjected to endless litigation in her attempt to pursue justice. She has been relentless in seeking judgment against fraud and illegalities that have been committed against her since the foreclosure judgments. For instance, she filed a Motion to Vacate the Void Orders in State Court. She also filed a Motion for 103 Evidentiary Hearing, in a bid to have the Court conduct an evidentiary hearing and probe the evidence that supports Appellant’s case. It follows; the instant appeal is another of Appellant’s attempts to get legal recourse. Appellant therefore requests this Court not to disregard the pertinent issues raised in this Motion for Reconsideration. A proper consideration of the issues will provide this Court with sufficient ground to vacate its order and subsequent judgment issued on May 11, 2023.

In light of the foregoing, Appellant respectfully requests that this Court issues an Order:

Reconsidering its Order issued on XXX.
Reconsidering its Judgement issued on XXX

Vacating the Settlement Order.

Vacating the Order Denying Dismissal.
Affirming Appellant’s letter motion.
Lastly, Appellant prays for any other Order this Court deems just.

Date: _________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, certified that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration will be served via electronic mail on this _______ to the parties listed below:

XXX

XXXX

XXX

Nicolas John Bebirian & Marie Theresa Nicholson

XXXX

XXX

____________________________________ __________________

XXX Date

XXX

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

CONCLUSION

Recent Posts

Quick Links

Legal Info

Services

Contact Us