Poppa Koppa Reporting Success in So. Cal.


COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

Charles Koppa Reporting:

I had 3 hearings today, June 23, 2011: The status conference for my Adverse Claim, the Motion to dismiss the Adverse Claim, and the Motion for Relief of Automatic Stay. My Adverse Claim was dismissed until I have standing to bring the claim (when the Trustee removes himself from my case next week). I needed to amend it anyhow, so I can just re-file. I already filed my own B-10 Proof of Claim for the Loan Servicer (allowable under FRBP 3001). It may have to be re-filed by the Trustee, if he decides against abandoning the claim. Ch 7 BK is just not a good idea if someone wants to bring an Adverse Claim. I may need to re-request conversion (the conversion from the Ch 7 to the 13 never happened). In a Ch 7, once the Trustee files the NDR, the case can be dismissed. At least in Ch 13, the case stays open. Live and learn, I suppose.

***This is the kicker: This is the 2nd motion the bank had to file to lift the stay because they got the name of the party incorrect. The first Motion for Lift of Stay was filed in the name of US Bank NA…not US Bank NA, AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE…as even I had thought was proper. But today, the Federal BK Judge denied US Bank NA, as Indenture Trustee’s “Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay” until after I am given the chance to file a reason it should not be lifted on July 22, 2011. After that, there will be a hearing, and if he grants the motion, it won’t be for another few weeks or so after July 22!

It was awesome how the BK judge reprimanded the bank’s attorney, and the judge even said in open court how he does not believe the Trustee’s Deed was legitimate, nor that the UD was brought in the name of the proper party either! He said it should have been Terwin Mortgage Trust…THE TRUST, NOT THE TRUSTEE bringing the action in UD court, therefore the Writ of Possession was issued in the name of the improper party. He did say he cannot undo a state court decision, and that I’ll have to seek remedy for that through the proper channels (aka Appellate court). Regarding the wrong party filing the UD AND the Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay by the law firm he represents, the judge said, “What do you have to say about that, Mr. Boyer (US Bank NA’s attorney)???” The attorney replied, “Uh, I, um, I don’t have anything to say, your honor.” (Mind you, this is a federal BK judge reprimanding an attorney for something his law firm did in a state court action! It was kind-of funny…yet eye opening!)

If anything, this may force US Bank NA to produce the PSA my loan has been put into…thus far, it is a private trust that even the pro’s can’t get the PSA for! Even a PSA may not do the job for them.

There is a chance I can get my UD case into the State Court of Appeals and have a TRO from them issued pending the outcome of appeal BEFORE the BK hearing after July 22nd. I am aiming to have it filed next week. (I lost my appeal with the in-house appellate panel on June 6th…they just affirmed the UD court’s decision, despite citing Subject Matter Jurisdiction and CA Judges Benchguide. Wimpy, if you ask me!). A TRO from the State Court of Appeals will protect me from eviction in the event the BK judge lifts the bk stay eventually if I am unable to convince him of denial of it.
After that, it is on to the CA  Supreme Court while the appeal is still pending.

26 Responses

  1. Monday 27 June 2011


    Apparently you have never defended yourself in a FC case. I did
    state the summary judgment was granted against me because of
    the judge, not because the plaintiff/attorney made their case.

    The judges in Cook County are very lender friendly, and adverse
    to anyone not a part of the system. I was always courteous to
    each judge…there were three. None of them did anything to
    help my case along, in fact to the contrary.

    The last judge “lost” my last three responses to plaintiff motions
    that were so damning to their cause. She had no idea how it
    happened, on each occasion, and had no interest in learning

    In the last instance, I gave it to the judge’s personal assistant,
    with the assurance that the judge would get it, which she
    did, but denied it anyway.

    Would I piss off a judge if the occasion called for it? In a heart
    beat, but they would know why. They were all sandbagging me
    from beginning to end. What difference would it make? They
    have only so much leverage in the face of arguing law, not opinion.

    Despite myself? Hardly. I got where I did because I fought
    for every pleading and against every decision, and I never
    gave up. I even lost in appeals, but that did not stop me.

    Call me the last man standing, in this instance.

  2. that’s still a lot. how about 4 or 5k with monthly payments for the rest? it’ll take a while anyway, so there’s time to make installments I would think. shop it around. if you offer to do some of the research and prep that might make it more appealing. that’s tricky though, since no matter how much or how little you do it’ll still be the atty’s neck on the line for malpractice.

    not even close on the abandonment – the trustee has simply given up any rights in Brian’s lawsuit. Brian “owns” and controls his suit again instead of the BK trustee. he still has to prosecute and win his case to get the free and clear house. but he’s one step closer…

  3. tn–the quote was for more than bankruptcy—it was for the whole “shebang”—like what Brian Davies has been posting here…

    So…does the abandonment of trustee issue mean that Brian has the house with no mortgage now?

  4. @Dave – am i missing something about the site monitoring issue? Yours appears to have been last updated in April? Am I going to the wrong link?

  5. @edgetrader – it sounds more like you won in spite of yourself. pissing off the judge to the point that he or she doesn’t listen to you isn’t a great long-term plan.

  6. abandonment is when the trustee relinquishes control of your assets, including your house and any potential lawsuits. a chapter 7 trustee “owns” all of your assets your filing and determines if they are worth liquidating to pay your debts.

    unless you’re a small business filing a chapter 11, there is no bankruptcy worth $10k

  7. Monday 27 June 2011

    Jan van Eck says:

    >The individual litigation is controlled by the outsourced mill
    >attorneys, and their egos are far too large to allow for concern
    >about law tactics from pro-se homeowners. The attitude is that
    >they can run over anyone with a steamroller because (a) they
    >are lawyers and you are not, and (b) they have the judge in
    >their back pocket.

    That is only true by default, that is if an individual homeowner
    allows him/herself to be run over.

    Firstly, I would get away from the term “pro se,” which means one
    who “represents” him/herself. I never use that jurisdictional term.
    How can you “represent” [act in the place of another] yourself if
    you ARE yourself. I am a defender of my rights, and I let the court
    know that from the outset.

    The FC-mill “attorneys’ against me, for four years now, just
    withdrew from representing the plaintiff against me in my case.
    From day one, I never let any “lawyer” speak. I interrupted and
    demanded to know from the judge if the “speaker” were a party
    or a witness to the case. From that point on, the “attorneys”
    were pretty mute, except for addressing a legal issue if asked
    by the judge.

    When I referred to the FC-mill attorneys in all of my pleadings,
    i called them debt collectors, not attorneys. If anyone were to
    call their office, the initial recording identified them as a debt
    collector attempting to collect a debt.. I know it rankled them,
    but that was my point.

    I challenged each lawyer in the law firm to produce their license,
    with their oath of office “inscribed on the back,” per the Illinois
    Attorney Act. This did not sit well with the judge, but I kept
    pushing them, and not the other way around.

    Big egos? Absolutely right, and I took advantage of every
    opportunity to belittle them. In my appeal, I made mention of
    the fact that when I challenged any lawyer trying to speak,
    they then “stood silent like a lamppost.”

    Did they beat me? Yes and no. They got summary judgement,
    thanks to the judge. They even got my house sold at auction,
    February 2010. When it came time to confirm the sale and
    make it all complete, they read my challenge to confirmation
    and withdrew their own motion.

    A year plus later, they have withdrawn, citing communication
    problems with their client…the one that filed for BK over two
    years ago, yet somehow managed to make a “credit bid” at
    the auction, unbeknownst to the federal BK and the law firm
    representing their “client” while in BK. That stopped them
    cold from trying to confirm the sale. That is the “no” part
    to the response, did they beat me?

    The point to all this is to say I was at a disadvantage from
    the beginning, not quite sure of how to fight, but fight I
    did and put them down so many times was my intent.

    Are attorneys, servicers, MERS monitoring this site? Good!
    You had better pray that you never come up against me,
    you thieving bastards, and I will get that accross to the
    court in my pleadings.

    Go ahead, make my day!

    To quote that no-good socialist bastard FDR, “The only
    thing you have to fear is fear itself.” I never feared them.
    Sometimes, ignorance IS bliss.

    One more point. These FC-mill attorneys are not that good,
    when challenged

  8. I probably can’t do it pro se…I inquired re. Brian Davies’ attorney, but I would have to come up with around $10,000…definitely don’t have that!

  9. tn— what exactly is “Abandonment of Trustee”? Thanks.

  10. i don’t see a lot of “success” on the part of Mr Koppa so far. in fact, it seems that he’s blundering around a little bit and running afoul of some rules. and his last statements about ch7 versus ch13 should really be a red flag to everyone thinking of doing this themselves. there are a lot of holes you can step in as a pro se bankruptcy petitioner.

  11. Notice of motion and motion to compel abandonment of property by by the trustee. Either they do it or you do a formal motion to compel.



    the signed order.

  12. Notice of motion and motion to compel abandonment of property by by the trustee. Either they do it or you do a formal motion to compel.


    the signed order.

  13. When you formally get your property abandoned by 11 U.S.C. 544(B) (Expressed Abandonment) and no a no asset 11 U.S.C. 544(C), There is little chance that can overcome and set it aside by law. That is why a notice of motion and motion to compel abandonment is critical for anyone doing a chapter 7 and adversary.



    The trustee has little chance to get an over turned order once formally abandoned. See the motion of the trustee and the response.

  14. That’s a little over the top Jan. Maybe DK needs to add FBI or homeland security to his list of people reading the blogs

  15. to Dave Krieger:
    It makes little difference if the bank IT Department is ramped up or not. The individual litigation is controlled by the outsourced mill attorneys, and their egos are far too large to allow for concern about law tactics from pro-se homeowners. The attitude is that they can run over anyone with a steamroller because (a) they are lawyers and you are not, and (b) they have the judge int heir back pocket. Trying to track down individual suits from the postings on this blog is literally looking for a needle in a haystack. All that said, I remind both the mill lawyers and the bank managers that is is only a matter of time before some outraged homeowner shows up with a smoking sub-machine gun and blows everyone away in your office. There are some 400 million firearms loose in the US; does anyone seriously doubt where this is headed?

    Go ahead, fellas, and do your robo-signing and your frauds on the Court. Remember: I don’t sit shiva.

  16. Thanks.

  17. @Carie – bankruptcy trustee. and NDR is likely “No Distribution Report” filed by the trustee to signify the estate has no assets to distribute

  18. tnharry—you say:

    “The trustee owns your potential claims against your mortgage company.”

    What if there is no transfer to the trust???
    How then can a “fake” trustee do anything???

    I have another “layman” question: What is an “NDR”—from the article above— “In a Ch 7, once the Trustee files the NDR, the case can be dismissed.”

  19. Dave Krieger—

    No matter what any “bankster” says or does, you can’t trust the trusts.
    You can’t go back and put something in a trust that was never put in a trust.
    You can’t go back and change contract formation failure.
    The truth and the LAW (if they are forced to follow it), MUST PREVAIL.
    No conveyance—no possession.
    We don’t need to be “derogatory”…we just need to reveal the TRUTH.

    Truth and law are on OUR side.

  20. Wendy – you’re in CO right?

    DK – I guarannn’ tee they are!
    Been getting a lot of these types of visitors lately:

    Bronx, New York, United States
    American International Group Data Center (

    New York, United States
    Goldman Sachs Company (

    New York, United States
    Morgan Stanley Group (

    Columbus, Ohio, United States
    Jpmorgan Chase & Co. (

  21. Wendy,
    That is terrorism

  22. Funny you should mention BK…..Keep on keeping on….


    SUNDAY, JUNE 26, 2011

    KingCast/Mortgage Movies files Ethics Complaint against Judge Diane Nicolosi, Attorney Shawn Masterson, U.S. Trustee Lawrence Sumski, U.S. FOIA Attorney Larry Wahlquist.

    Re: Unchecked presence of mortgage fraud in Ingress foreclosure case, Hillsborough South Case No. 2010-CV-571:

    Re: Dereliction of Duty by U.S. Trustee Lawrence Sumski and Counsel Larry Wahlquist in Leslie Crepeau Bankruptcy Case:
    (Actual FOIA correspondence reproduced herein)

    Dear Attorney DeHart and any and all other reviewing counsel:

    It has come to my attention that there is at least one fraudulent document in the above-referenced Ingress case, a purported assignment bearing the name “Linda Green.” Ms. Ingress has consistently mounted arguments that Wells Fargo and its servicers are not entitled to foreclose on her property for fraud and lack of standing. Courts all across America…..

  23. For what it’s worth, this is what I’ve been cautioning about regarding Chapter 7. The trustee owns your potential claims against your mortgage company.

    Odd that the BK judge was criticizing the state court proceeding though. He can’t do anything about it.

  24. Mr. Koppa,

    If I were your adversary bank, I’d be thanking you right now for telling me all about what you’re going to do on your case against us. Thanks.

    To those of you reading this …

    For those of you who are not aware … it was made known to me through my network that Bank of America, Chase and MERS have ramped up their IT departments to include monitoring this site, my site and a host of other blog sites for information that can be used to bolster their case. (… and why am I not surprised.)

    Bear in mind that what you discuss on here is NOT protected by attorney-client privilege and is thus DISCOVERABLE. If you say something on here that is derogatory or leads them to believe you are pursuing a given point of attack, I guarantee you it will be used against you.

    I will be on The Power Hour this coming Wednesday at 8 a.m. CDT.
    You can hear it in streaming audio on http://www.thepowerhour.com … I guarantee you the banks will be listening.

  25. Charles, that is terrific news! I sure wish I knew how to do all of that! Finally, some judges are understanding the true reality! I wish you all the very best!

  26. We have two judges, who have sided with us. The first one stating we were not in default and Citi and their attorney’s could not foreclose or sale our house. Then the BK judge, sided with us, not only were they NOT interested in our property to sale off and pay for debts, they also stated that Citi had no validity to our property. YET our house is still on the Public trustee liste of foreclosures, every two weeks the trustee put its there. The trustee has all the same judges docs that we have and Citi is NOW contacting us again. WE Paid our house off in full, have recordings stating that, these two judges sided with us, yet Citi doesn’t care? What now?

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: