I will not stop until Justice Prevails!!

by Tracey T. Wilson

The Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vs. Sandra A. Ford was NOT a Pro Se case. Sandra A. Ford was defended by Legal Services of New Jersey, Inc., attorneys; Ms. Jurow and Rebecca Schore and the case was decided January 28th 2011. The case in New Jersey that WAS defended and won Pro Se was Deutsche Bank vs. Tracey T. Wilson. Tracey T. Wilson was the Pro Se defendant and the case was decided ninedays earlier on January 19th 2011 in favor of the Pro Se defendant.
To ignore the case Deutsche Bank vs. Tracey T. Wilson allows concealment of the following facts and truths in the case not disclosed to the public:
• Tracey T. Wilson et al, Pro Se defendant was the first Appellate case decided in the State of NJ in a foreclosure matter in favor of the Defendant. The appellate decision was on January 19th, 2011 and was not approved for publication since defendant was Pro Se and not an attorney.
• Defendant was Pro Se due to the fact that upon the onset of the initial foreclosure action in October 2007 every attorney she contacted in the State of NJ refused to take the case to defend the foreclosure action and told her that there was nothing she could do. Defendants did not qualify for free Legal Services of New Jersey due to family incomes being over the Legal Aid Services guidelines. Finally, an attorney who actually accepted the case in August of 2008 was never heard in the court when his Motion to Reconsider Summary Judgment was not granted by the court. Judge quoted that “defendant did not deserve a second “bite at the apple” simply because they now have an attorney.
• Defendants owned the property with her husband of 25 years since 1994 and had previously paid over $370k in mortgage payments through the years.
• Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a Certification with a signature from the plaintiff’s attorney. This submission / signed document was not based upon personal knowledge, but was based upon incompetent hearsay by the plaintiff’s attorney.
• Attorneys’ for plaintiff never proved that they were the lawful holder to the note and mortgage prior to their commencement of foreclosure action. As of today Plaintiff has still not proved that they were a holder in due course.
• The court did not dismiss foreclosure complaint filed by plaintiff, but however within the next six months from March 2008 through August 2008 were allowed several adjournments for plaintiff to produce assignment of mortgage and original mortgage note. As the months progressed awaiting the plaintiff to produce valid documentation, within those six months plaintiff produced an assignment that was signed by Laura Hescott, alleged AVP of Washington Mutual and notarized by Bethany Hood, in the State of MN; A certification from Ann Garbis; and a final certification from Janine Timmons on August 29th 2008. Laura Hescott and Bethany Hood were at that time employees of LPS and are now known to the public as Robo-signers who have admitted fraud and not having any personal knowledge. The certification from Janine Timmons was accepted by the court on August 29th 2008, without allowing defendant discovery. The court granted Summary Judgment to the Plaintiff. Defendant was denied due process.
• Defendant obtained attorney to file a Motion to Reconsider, however, as mentioned in earlier bullet points this motion was denied in October 2009.
• Defendant asked her attorney to Appeal the Final decision and attorney told her he would NOT write appeal and then provided incorrect dates of final decision, documentation, due dates, etc.
• With no other choice defendant Tracey T. Wilson filed her own appeal Pro Se in December 2009.
• Plaintiff never responded to Appeal.
• The case was placed on the calendar for the Appellate Judges on November 3rd, 2010.
• The Appellate Court rendered their decision on January 19th 2011 in favor of Pro Se Defendant and the case was REVERSED AND REMANDED back to the lower court. Same Judge who presided over the case since 2007.
• Unfortunately, within the thirteen month time period when the appeal was submitted December 2009 and Appellate Court decision on January 19th 2011, a Sheriffs sale notice was placed on my home December 16th 2009 less than two weeks after my appeal was submitted with a sale date of January 6, 2010.
• Findings reveal that my home was sold to the bank at sheriffs’ sale in February 17th 2010 for $100.00.
• The home was sold to a third party (believed to be an investor) in June 2010 for $262,000.00 to cure the debt to prevent the sheriff sale, the plaintiff was asked to pay in excess of $550,000.00 which included tagged on erroneous fees b y the bank.
• Other illegal tactics such as the mortgage never being filed in the County Clerk’s office and altered files of tax record lot and block numbers exist.
• As of today, there is no property and I have been told there is nothing I can do to ever get my home back. The case should be dismissed since my home was foreclosed upon illegally and there is no property however the Judge has now requested a trail for June 2011 for the “Discovery” that was never granted to me in the first place. The court no longer has jurisdiction since there is no equitable property, however plaintiff will once again be given the chance to produce documents he was not able to produce to the Appellate Court nor during the four years this case has gone on for.
• The banks want a pass on the law and want to skirt the law; there are no laws currently on the books that have allowed for the injustice done to our society. – Standing is a major issue.
• The Republic has to be for the people and by the people. The banks are attacking a main component of the constitution which is protection of its citizen’s property rights. They did not take care of their due diligence. The whole premise of home ownership has been eroded.
• This is why they want to conceal my case and not hear the truth.
• I will not stop until Justice Prevails!!

Tracey T. Wilson

18 Responses

  1. joequinn@PraiseYAHWEH.com
    732-566-8599
    keep us informed

  2. We got the same Deutsche BANK TRUST Comapny THEY DO NOT HAVE TRUSTEE STATUS IN nj EITHER
    The same law firm Zucker Goldberg Ackerman. Some justice the house is sold before the case is settled. The same Ackerman also signed as VP of MERS. We did find some help in NJ for PRO SE former broker and victim of the system he has not lost a case yet. now he said the NJ Assembly is putting him out of business by passing another bill to stop pro se from getting help outside of lawyers. his site is not easy to find http://www.mortgagelitigationservices.com its only a flash site he may be able to help you? He believes wrong should not win!

  3. Tracey congratulations can I come down and do a video with you?

    Here’s some good news from Mass:

    http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2011/02/massachusetts-joins-tennessee-kingcast.html

    Christopher King, J.D.
    617.543.8085m

  4. Working with analyst’s covering various issues of MBS and CDO series and from exposure to structured vehicles and debt offereing , I think your task of identifying parties in court is not that hard.

    Not in comparison to brain surgery or a final’s in french culinary – Read the recent statements or published memorandums issued by the Fed / FDIC qualifying the assets in question and current ownership.

    You’re dealing with toxic paper as in shares outstanding contra to mortgages. Shares are possibly wrote down to zero pending – ??? Assignment to successors ??? So where’s the arguments going – unless I am lost. Assets and ownership fall lin place with capitalization tendered and lost by some very large big cap players – financial institutions, etc. measured by COMBINED capitalization you can see the need to include the FDIC in a Fed owned and operated banking system.

    It is the Banks Citi BAC Well’s we are talking about and who are the same players making a comeback to profitability – after sticking the Fed with a trillion in debt this government can never afford to pay back (includes Fannie Freddie, etc. AIG)
    Your reader’s talking up the FDIC is on track but that’s not real hard to figure out and….I jumped in asking “you’re trying to accomplish?” / Analysts scramble numbers found in facts for valuation purposes line with calculating phantom revenue, anticipated charges or existing write downs and recap efforts under the Fed’s intervention, FannMae/ FredMAc etc. – submitting to TARP.

    Judicial approach suffers from lack of a paradigm shift away from trial and appellate towards statements, earnings, loss reporting and more published statements. You interpretive analysis draws early conclusions based upon . . what ? I don’t know, to be honest.

    The point to get across questions the random selection of parties and players that emerge in these lawsuits.
    EXAMPLE – [“…A predatory lending practices suit brought against Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”), and its various financing partners, which, in this case, was Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”).]
    No analyst will rest quiet addressing a valuation or earnings discussion subject to a servicing agent’s role? The servicing effort under an independent outsources – OCWEN – unless servicing provider is the ownership for the assets. If the trustee is in its proper capacity and shown in the recitals “…and its various financing partners . . . Deutsche Bank National Trust Company”, then? Servicers own squat the registration, securities vesting and trustee /whatever / are FBO the holders of preferred capital pools.

    Preferred debt is you’re creditors claim and first in line for whatever can be salvaged over the next decade. But it’s the common stock on the minds of the reader / litigants here. If it’s owned by a Taxable REI Subsidiary it’s likely charged to a write down, but of little concern from this vantage and view.

    Your clients keys hindge on a deals that tendered debt for common stock. There is the ownership of the assets in question along with a 10 % reinvestment in Trust Preferred. Search out economic and judicial value in salvaging common shares while sniffing out the real retained cash the trust is sitting on. This might be why the FDIC has more to do with who you target in a collateral entitlement suit – more here than meets the eye. It’s the Fed moving in FDIC cover and promulgating its way in receivership for purposes of accumulating liquidity and perhaps seizing fixed asset’s like title to REO / property seized or soft assets for hard – from interest’s converted confiscation, etc. It make sense if you target the growing list of vultures (funds) who hover over FDIC domain, more likely than not continuing to call the shots or wait it out.
    My questions are therefore aiming at lawyers fighting for title holders rights to collateral held in receivership; to circumvent creditor rights, you’re going to need competent a back door to enter from and figure out how to ambush the successors expectation if the FDIC is cutting deals.. . This is the problem with the FDIC and its debt collectors across the nation. Another take on the severity of the issues you’re facing.

    So let’s ask, “who are the actors and where are these players before litigating the case? And as for competent due diligence for addressing assets, charges and prevailing ownership, calculate the basis in asset and question the entities reporting requirements (consolidating , distribution’s and allocating credit’s to shares the Fed.

    Your litigant benefits knowing the actors in this great train heist. Who is current shuffle pointing to and it’s not Owen in the above example.

    It’s appropriate, to ferret out standing by isolating executed agreements amongst prinicpals as successors – at time of filing [litigation]. It’s should lead you to the FDic sorry to say . and a balance sheet “statements” under house arrest . Your pursuit is perhaps a receiver’s who is working hard to effect value in line with certain “non-performing assets.” MB09
    The comments, past experiences observations and statements herein are personal opinions and do not reflect any recommendations suggesting the reader consider any one securities broker dealer services for the purpose of acquiring , purchasing and selling or liquidating securities registered in accordance with the SEC

  5. David Acosta,

    Yes– not everything is FDIC.

  6. Tracey

    Do you have an attorney?

  7. Vegasdude,

    I have a case in Nevada Supreme Court as pro se. I filed lis pendens on the day of the auction. Bank counsels tried to expunge the lis pendens with no success. Would you please take a look of my case http://www.wellsfargomortgagefraud.com and give me some recommendations.

    Thanks.

  8. I agree with your comment. However, I don’t see any FDIC involvement in this case nor any connection to their avoidance powers here.

    Please bring some additional light to your point.

  9. 9 Responses

    David Acosta, on February 22, 2011 at 1:36 pm said: Foreclosing plaintiffs know very well that it is a huge risk to move to sell a property after foreclosure judgment has been entered and that is subject of an appeal.

    M.Soliman

    See the FDIC Repudiation and avoidance powers; available to stay releif claims for declaratory judgement and other injunctive remedies as well as avoid any state or District court order and overturn judgment. It is the most powerful agency in the United States at the moment. (citation needed)

    expert.witness@live.com

  10. Foreclosing plaintiffs know very well that it is a huge risk to move to sell a property after foreclosure judgment has been entered and that is subject of an appeal. I have done quite a few appeals in Florida and have assisted with some in New Jersey as well, and the plaintiffs always cancel the sale and wait the outcome of the appeal. To do otherwise exposes them to significant liability because the legal effect of reversal of a judgment is, in most cases, the same as vacating a judgment. That is, the law treats the vacated judgment as if it never existed. When the judgment holder moves to sell the property in the absence of a judgment, or with one subject to reversal as in this case, it treads precariously on violating numerous consumer protection statutes and civil rights. It is not insignificant.

    That someone is telling you that the court lacks jurisdiction because the house has been sold is hogwash. The appellate court’s specific instructions on remand to the lower court is direct evidence that the chancery court judge has jurisdiction. You are likely to face these kinds of illusory obstacles because of the high stakes they played and lost. I have seen this pattern before – in New Jersey – and eyebrows go up when I tell them what kind of abuses are seen even in the appellate division. Just amazing. Be prepared. This is why you need competent counsel to take this case forward.

    You are now in the best posture to get an attorney interested in your case, and I cannot imagine why a consumer protection lawyer would not want this case RIGHT NOW. In my view what the plaintiff and their lawyers have done to you amounts to egregious violations of various statutes that provide for actual damages, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Some statutes will provide avenues for punitive damages as well. The foreclosing plaintiff, its servicer (to the extent it directed any of this litigation), the attorneys and their law firm are all exposed to liability. Once a tightly drafted complaint survives attacks for dismissal they will want to open their checkbooks to avoid having this issue tried before a jury. This is not theoretical for me. I have done it and have been paid thousands of dollars in settlements.

    Please contact me at david@caseclarity.com I would like to see you succeed with assistance of counsel and may be able to connect you with an attorney in New Jersey. Keep up the fight and congratulations on your victory. Don’t buy any of their self-serving and erroneous information.

  11. Tracey:

    Your pending appeal is the same as having a lis pendens recorded (if you had one during the first case at the trial court level):

    “The fact that a plaintiff who has filed a lis pendens in a specific performance action loses at the trial level and has not filed a supersedas, or otherwise attempted to stay the carrying out of the court’s decision does not render the lis pendens a nullity, and any party taking an interest in the property will still be bound by the outcome of the case on appeal.”

    Weston Builders & Developers, Inc. v. McBerry, L.L.C., 891 A.2d 430 (Md. App. 2006)

    I use this case a lot, because when cases get dismissed at the trial court level here in Nevada, which happens a LOT, the parties quickly move for expungement of the lis pendens. We always appeal the decision, and follow that up with letters to the opposition containing this case. They usually don’t sell the property during the appeal.

  12. Tracey, you are being given wrong information. I may be able to connect you with a NJ attorney for this matter. Please contact me.

  13. To: Tracey T. Wilson.
    My case in New Jersey is on the Appellate Court (Docket?). Fortunately, I was able to find an attorney(second one) that is really very helpful an affordable. The first attorney left us hanging in the wind by not OPPOSING a SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Although I didn’t have enough knowledge to fight it as Pro Se, I tried to defend our case on a Motion to Vacate Summary Judgment but was denied . Then, our second attorney filed a Motion to Reconsider and it was denied. STANDING, I also think is the major issue but the New Jersey judges are hell bent to dismiss anything in favor of homeowners even when the facts show that there are TWO entities claiming the same MORTGAGE/NOTE. It will take a GIGANTIC step toward justice if one of those two ladies (Jurow or Schore) would help you, Pro Bono or pay, because they know the law. We in New Jersey need attorneys to step up and help fight the fraud that the courts and judges are allowing to continue. I know that Legal Services of New Jersey are the only foreclosure advocates that are helping, but we need more cases on the win column. The Supreme Court’s hearing on the six banks coming this March 15 is just going to be a Pinata Party and we’re the pinatas. But, homeowners like you and I are not going to give up and in our small effort , hopefully we can turn the stick on the judges and banks until they see that DUE PROCESS is for everyone and not just the banks.
    Would like to share so questions and answers with you. My email is eugenevillarreal@hotmail.com

  14. We all need to form a link to each other, so that all can work together, my story is almost the same.

    If the motions work we all need to use the same ones, so that it is a collective tool.

    My email is mike@cleanresources.net

  15. You go girl…give’m hell

  16. Don’t give up Tracy. Get a good defense attorney now. One that knows what they are doing. Bless u and good luck. U will need it in this fraudulent era we are living in. What a shame when the banks are more like robbers in this time and age. Don’t give up girl. Hopefully justice really has a meaning. Debi

  17. tRACEY i WOULD LOVE TO TALK TO YOU SINCE I AM IN THE SAME STATE AND THE SAME SITUATION OF RECONSIDERATION, i HAVE EVEN PID THE HOUSE OFF AND THEY ARE STILL TRYING TO FORECLOSE BECAUSE I DID NOT ANSWER IN TIME, THEY STATED THAT TO PAY THE HOUSE OFF IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH EXCUSE FOR THEM TO STEAL MY HOME i AM NOW FILING FOR CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY AND WILL PREVAIL WITH JUSTICE AS WELL.

    Email me if you wish to chat I am in Camden County New Jersey

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: