Foreclosure Strategists: Phx. Meeting Guest speaker Maricopa County Recorder, Helen Purcell

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

NEW! 2nd Edition Attorney Workbook,Treatise & Practice Manual – Pre-Order NOW for an up to $150 discount
LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts
For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Want to read more? Download entire introduction for the Attorney Workbook, Treatise & Practice Manual 2012 Ed – Sample

Pre-Order the new workbook today for up to a $150 savings, visit our store for more details. Act now, offer ends soon!

Editor’s Comment:

Contact: Darrell Blomberg  602-686-7355

Meeting: Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012, 7pm to 9pm

Special Guest

Maricopa County Recorder, Helen Purcell 

I have not received many questions yet.  Please email me your questions for the Maricopa County Recorder.

(I’d appreciate it if you could cite a statutory or authoritative reference or example with your question.)

Helen Purcell will be joining us to discuss all aspects of recording documents in Maricopa County Recorder’s Office.  Helen Purcell will also give us a brief overview of her official capacity as it relates to voting as we’ve just hosted the Arizona Secretary of State, Ken Bennett who handles the same capacity for the state.I will focus my questions around document integrity, database integrity, policies vs. statutes and accommodation differences between documents offered by individuals and corporations.  Please let me know what else you’d like to ask.

Special guest protocol

The agenda for a special guest meeting is that we will ask for a brief Bio / Official Capacity Overview followed by overview of their position as it relates to foreclosures.  Once that is complete, I will be presenting the questions that have been submitted to me via email.  This will be followed by an open question and answer period as time permits.  This is how the prior meets have been structured and it works well.

I have one request of attendees.  It has to do with the acceptance of silence.  If there is a period of silence, it is not an opportunity to blurt out a comment or question to take the guest in a different direction.  I have carefully arranged your submitted questions in a specific order to create valid learning experience and directed communication with the guest.  By diverting the guest you are diminishing the impact of both of these goals.  The use of silence is intended to allow the guest an opportunity to be accountable to the topic at hand.  Please be aware of your relationship to silence and understand that it is one of the most effective communication tools.(If you’d like to study the impact of silence, take some time and watch the master, Bill Cosby!
 Here’s a link:,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=663e9dd7db06d2dd&ion=1&biw=1600&bih=837) 

We meet every week!

Every Tuesday: 7:00pm to 9:00pm. Come early for dinner and socialization. (Food service is also available during meeting.)
Macayo’s Restaurant, 602-264-6141, 4001 N Central Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85012. (east side of Central Ave just south of Indian School Rd.)
COST: $10… and whatever you want to spend on yourself for dinner, helpings are generous so bring an appetite.
Please Bring a Guest!
(NOTE: There is a $2.49 charge for the Happy Hour Buffet unless you at least order a soft drink.)


I have set up a Facebook page. (I can’t believe it but it is necessary.) The page can be viewed at, look for and “friend” “Foreclosure Strategist.”

I’ll do my best to keep it updated with all of our events.

Please get the word out and send your friends and other homeowners the link.


I have set up a MeetUp page. The page can be viewed at Please get the word out and send your friends and other homeowners the link.

May your opportunities be bountiful and your possibilities unlimited.

“Emissary of Observation”

Darrell Blomberg


One Response

  1. please call me i need help , this is now case law this could be a game changer but i need some help call me 1216 403 8350 my name is Kenneth S. Taylor Pro Se”TAYLOR v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY
    KENNETH S. TAYLOR; ALYCIA TAYLOR DRIGGINS, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for Certificate Holders of Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006-Opt2, Asset Backed Certificates Series 2006-Opt2; AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.; ROBIN M. WILSON, both Official and Individual Capacity; THOMPSON HINE LLP; CYNTHIA STEVENS; SCOTT WALTER; SAND CANYON CORPORATION; JEANELLE GRAY; CHICAGO TITLE, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-3277.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

    May 23, 2012.

    Before: DAUGHTREY, MOORE, and COLE, Circuit Judges.


    Kenneth S. Taylor and Alycia Taylor Driggins, Ohio residents proceeding pro se, challenge the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of their complaint alleging various federal and state claims related to the foreclosure on their property. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. We unanimously agree that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a). For the reasons articulated below, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over the final judgment in this case and therefore cannot review the sua sponte dismissal of the Taylors’ complaint. However, we vacate the district court’s order that denied the Taylors’ motion for relief from the final judgment and remand this case for further proceedings.
    On December 6, 2010, the Taylors filed a complaint against 23 defendants and effectuated service on four: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc., Thompson Hine LLP, and Robin M. Wilson — an attorney at Thompson Hine. Construed liberally, the complaint alleged violations of various federal statutes and Ohio laws for conduct that occurred during the execution of a mortgage and subsequent foreclosure proceeding on their property.
    On December 27, Thompson Hine and Robin Wilson (collectively Thompson Hine) moved to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds: (1) they were not liable for actions taken in good faith during representation of a client1; (2) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because both diversity and a federal question were lacking; (3) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine2 barred the instant lawsuit; (4) the Taylors’ claims in the instant lawsuit were barred by issue preclusion; and (5) the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. To its motion, Thompson Hine attached several documents regarding the foreclosure case.
    On December 29, the district court issued an order sua sponte dismissing the Taylors’ case. The court concluded that the instant action was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because “[t]he Summit County Common Pleas Court Docket show[s] that foreclosure on [the Taylors’] property occurred on February 1, 2010.” The court also determined that res judicata barred the Taylors’ federal case because it raised claims that could have been raised in the state foreclosure case.
    On January 4, 2011, the Taylors filed an “opposition” to Thompson Hine’s motion to dismiss, an “opposition” to the district court’s December 29 order, and a motion for both “an order to show cause” and a temporary restraining order. The district court denied the motion in a marginal entry order on January 7. On January 10, the Taylors filed a motion for relief from judgment, which the district court denied on January 11. On January 14, the Taylors filed a motion in “opposition” to the district court’s December 29 order, requesting a default judgment and relief from the judgment. In a marginal entry order on January 19, the court denied this motion. On February 11, the Taylors filed another “opposition” to the district court’s December 29 order, requested a default judgment, and sought relief from the judgment. The court denied this motion in a marginal entry order on February 14. On February 22, the Taylors filed a motion to impose sanctions on Thompson Hine for contempt. On March 1, the district court denied this motion and directed its clerk “to no longer accept filings from [the Taylors] in this matter.” On March 9, the Taylors filed a notice of appeal.




    1. Documents submitted with the motion indicate that Thompson Hine represented Deutsche Bank in the foreclosure proceedings.
    Back to Reference
    2. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is derived from Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The doctrine “prevents the lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by `state-court losers’ challenging `state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced.'” Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 460 (2006) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)).
    Back to Reference
    Click here for unpaginated view

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: