In baseball, generally, you win some, you lose some. Sometimes you're lucky. Sometimes you're unlucky. Sometimes you hit a home run, and people just watch. Sometimes you get beaned, and people just watch. Actually, it's pretty boring. After seven innings or so, you need to go get a hotdog or something and get some energy. But there are rules that everyone goes by, and there's plenty of umpires to make sure everything is fair. It's entertaining.
How would you like to go watch a game where the rules provided that every pitch was a strike? Every baserunner was OUT! at first base? If a player's shirt wasn't tucked in, he'd be ejected! And the season ticket for your team would be automatically deducted out of your bank every spring, for the convenience. It just wouldn't be that entertaining.
PHH forecloses eight to ten thousand houses every quarter, and throws the bums out. The score on the quarter is generally something like PHH 8,642, Bums 0. How do they do it? They pay the umps. It's not entertaining at all. It's not even good business.
New Orleans in the Springtime
Appeal Exercise / Oral Argument 5th USCA / Fifteen minutes
Put scrambled Rubik's cube in order, 16 squares x 6 sides, one color each side. 42 squares are identifiable color, 8 red, 11 green, 2 white, 5 yellow, 6 blue, 10 orange. The other stickers have been removed and original color must be deduced.
Correct order is
-Side 1, Blue Facts
-Side 2, White Facts
-Side 3, Yellow Issues
-Side 4, Green Facts
-Side 5, Orange Issues
-Side 6, Red Facts
Refer this complex case back to District Court and get the jury to color in the missing squares! It's called judging the Facts and Issues.
In baseball, generally, you win some, you lose some. Sometimes you're lucky. Sometimes you're unlucky. Sometimes you hit a home run, and people just watch. Sometimes you get beaned, and people just watch. Actually, it pretty boring. After seven innings or so, you need to go get a hotdog or something and get some energy. But there are rules that everyone goes by, and there's plenty of umpires to make sure everything is fair. It's entertaining.
Sometimes you only need three cups of tea
I'd like to appear to present oral argument in this matter. I'm not a lawyer so I would appear Pro Hac Vice. I'm not going to read the complaint, all set out in 30 pages or less. I wrote it, you've read it. You have an opinion already. Like Officer Monday, I've stuck to the facts. I try not to judge. If I had my druthers, I would just call the Marshal and haul these people off to jail. They're from New Jersey. What else would they expect?
But, I digress...they're also from America. In America, we're a family. We're better. We're entitled to confront our accusers. Our accusers are allowed to confront us. In complex cases, we collect a jury of impartial citizens. This is not the case in most little countries in the world, where people just get their heads chopped off. I've had a sad experience with these people. If I thought that this was just an unfortunate series of events, I wouldn't waste your time. I would go play golf. I'd go swimming. I'm retired; I have a million commitments today that I'm not going to get to.
But, I digress..the first time I called a lawyer to get this straightened out, I apologized for taking up her time with such a simple matter of obvious confusion. People were trying to steal my house. It looked like a professional crew. Ann actually gave me some good advice. She said 'Why don't you just pay them?' That was in February of 2012. I should have gotten a Title Loan and just paid them off. Then we could go play golf today; none of us would have any work. I didn't pay the ransom. I like my house. I still live in my house. It cost me money. I want my money back.
But, I digress...the first response of the defendants' in this case was 'We didn't do nothin'. He still lives in the house. It's just business.' I've decided that this is a business we don't need. Other people in my neighborhood feel the same way. A friend of mine in California lives in her car. She used to live in a house. In California, at least they have nice beaches. People live there. No dogs, though. A friend of mine in Idaho lives in a connex box. I've lived in connex boxes, out on the ocean. Houses are nicer. I have 690 other friends who have these problems. We will eventually retain counsel, charter a Class, amend our complaint, and proceed through our pretrial motions until we're all prepared and informed. We are not at that point yet.
But, I digress...we aren't going to solve this problem today. We're not going to pass messages back and forth and see who's right and who's wrong. The solution is not in the back of the book. We're talking about more than $75,000. We're talking about my house in Texas, and a bunch of other people spread out over 45 other states. You have that jurisdiction. We need help. I pick up the phone, and talk to people in Pakistan to help me out. It's daytime over there, when it's night over here. I have a blog. Consumer fraud is a hot topic on Google.
But, I digress...Today, I have a proposal, and I'd like to advocate it. I'd like to shed some light on your concerns. I'd like to find out more from my counterparties. I'd like to share our thoughts. The case is closed in Texas, on motion from the defendants, with little discussion. In fact, none. We still have issues. They're on somebody else's docket now. It's five o'clock somewhere. I'd like to remand this case back to Texas, complete our pretrial responsibilities to the best of our ability, and try these issues before a jury. I thought we were doing just that. I think the judicial system, and the jury system, is an incredibly good system for solving problems. This is a problem, in every town in America. Let's use the system. Let's get a jury together. Let's get them the best information we can collect. Let's disclose all our facts, and let's decide all our issues. Let's deliberate, and let's make some intelligent changes. It's 2014 in America. It's modern times. Let's act like citizens. Let's do our jobs. Let's solve some problems. I need your help.
This is only my First Appendix
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
600 S. MAESTRI PLACE - NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
DAVID MCCRAE, qui tam ⎬
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, ⎬
AND CLASS, v. ⎬
PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION (dba BURNET ⎬
MORTGAGE SERVICES; ⎬
CENTURY 21 MORTGAGE; COLDWELL BANKER ⎬ CIVIL ACTION
MORTGAGE; DOMAIN DISTINCTIVE PROPERTY ⎬ #14-51224
FINANCE; ERA MORTGAGE; INSTAMORTGAGE.COM ⎬
MORTGAGE SERVICE CENTER; ⎬
MORTGAGEQUESTIONS.COM; MORTGAGESAVE.COM ⎬
PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES) ⎬
And BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TURNER	⎬
AND ENGEL, LLP, ⎬
STATEMENT OF DAVID MCCRAE
In October of 2001, I retired from Northwestern Steel in Sterling Illinois on occasion of plant bankruptcy and closing. I purchased five acres in Burnet County, Texas and erected a manufactured home. I obtained a mortgage through United Services Automobile Association for $72,500 on declared property value of $100,000. USAA delegated the mortgage to PHH, an unaffiliated recommended vendor, and Barbara and I signed a 15-year conventional mortgage at 6.25% fixed rate. On receipt and review of loan payoff documents filed in Burnet County in March 2014 (Paid in Full 12 years and six months after execution), we noted that the mortgage had been endorsed to Federal National Mortgage Assurance approximately 8 days after we had executed it. Since that time, I believe our mortgage document had been securitized in many investment packages, and held in part or in toto by many investors or syndicates of investors, for trading purposes. Typically these investor groups operate to acquire packages of real property from the securitization authority, hoping to profit from turnover times as short as a few moments, while protecting themselves from any risk of asset maintenance, impairment or destruction. The syndicator surrenders all collateral rights to a black hole, and keeps a commission for his efforts in sorting and posting income payments to the various traders of record. The traders naturally surrender all collateral rights to any individual properties in these monster packages, relying on the statistical general increase of value and yield, while protecting themselves from disaster. The syndicator generally invests a small tithe of his earnings from the package to insure continuous flow of cash for disbursement to his group. With the economies of scale, it generally works to the benefit of all, until the wheels fall off and a major goes bankrupt. Bankruptcy events can also be profitably managed, by those who are a little less bankrupt.
But, I digress. I continued to work in Texas after leaving Northwestern, mostly as a consultant for clients still interested in building or overhauling steel mills, refineries, undersea oil production, and the like. At 62 years old, I came to the end of a project in Mississippi for the Russians and found it convenient to retire almost completely, working occasionally in the area for Home Depot and the like. I decided to pay off my house and economize on my daily/weekly/monthly expenditures. My computer is able to run Excel, so I can find out stuff like @PMT, PRIN, INT, @NOW, @NOW+30.25, and I knew how much money I owed. I called PHH in New Jersey to ask for a loan payoff statement. They were very confused, and unable to send me anything. A while went by, and I received a notice to contact HAMP and get another thirty year mortgage for however much I needed. We were having some difficulty communicating. I sent them a pretty clear letter stating I did not intend to take out a new mortgage, I only wanted them to send me a statement that I owed $7,558 on my existing mortgage, so I could pay it off on 1 January, 2013. I couldn't address it to anyone, as no one signs anything in New Jersey with their name, and different people answer the phone each time I call. Later I found out that they have about 16,000 employees, and maybe one is named Lemony Snicket. I started sending registered mail to se who signed for stuff. I was able to eventually contact Nora Wocken, and found out i needed to send a Qualified Written Request. My next letter to Nora I wrote 'Qualified Written Request,' and asked how we could resolve our issues. She appointed me a Single Point of Contact, Audrey Welsh. Audrey Welsh never answered the phone. She never returned a letter. I spent one day on the phone with Robert, Mike, and Melanie, who consulted their computer screens and eventually told me I owed $8,300+. They indicated I would soon receive a payoff statement. It never arrived. What did arrive was a Notice of Foreclosure, and a house inspector to see if my house did in fact exist, and to hang a notice on my doorknob that she had been there. She didn't have time to talk. She waved as she drove off.
I went to the courthouse to see my house posted for sale on 5 March. BBDFTE would not talk to me on the phone, only in writing. I went to see Ann Little, a local lawyer. She advised me to just pay them whatever they want, it was cheaper. We talked some more, and I decided to hire her for $1,000 to intervene with BBDFTE and get our financial differences resolved. BBDFTE would not talk to Ann without my written authorization. I authorized Ann in writing to communicate with BBDFTE (there were two B's then). BBDFTE told Ann it was their policy to communicate only with their client, and never with an adverse party. Ann told me I could file a lawsuit, but with little probability of success, for $2,500. I considered it. I decided to go to the courthouse and see if I could talk to a judge and stop the sale. I paid $350 and filed my motion. I thought that was more reasonable than $2,500, and it seemed fairly simple. The clerk told me to call Miss Cindy for scheduling. A couple days went by before I could get in touch with Miss Cindy, who told me the Judge couldn't look at my motion due to lack of a white space page for him to sign. Sure enough, I hadn't thought to put in a white space page.
I had to go down Option Path 2 and seek bankruptcy advice. By this time my e-mail and mailbox was full of letters from the bankruptcy attorneys offering to help me out. I picked Ray Fisher. I got quickly trained on credit on the internet, protected all my personal inventory, disclosed all my debts, and we filed our petition and notified BBDFTE that the house was unavailable for sale. I paid Ray a retainer of $1500 for a flat fee of $2500 and dismissed Ann. Later Ann paid me back $400 in unused retainer funds. I paid Ray another $1000 to cover his whole fee. His fee had gone up to $3500 due to the rate change. I paid the rest of my US Income Tax refund to the trustee and started on my $1200 payments, in accord with plan. No one had yet submitted their proof of claim, though we were expecting it. The trustee continued making payments to everyone, plus PHH in anticipation. Mississippi eventually sent me a tax refund of $183, which I gave to the trustee. She was expecting more, since I had filed for $3200 and I was never a resident of Mississippi, just working there occasionally, staying in a hotel and paying my transient tax nightly. I'd also worked that year in Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan, but those were flat rate states and I was not required to file, having paid my obligations as they occurred. Like paying the Federal tax on fuel, every time I purchase a gallon of fuel, wherever I buy it, I pay the tax. So the trustee wanted more money, after the $183. I told Ray that I had agreed to pay all the money, which I had done. Mississippi had not explained their reasoning to me, but I had paid the trustee all the money they had sent. Ray said he would make some calls. The trustee made some calls. Sure enough, Mississippi sent me another $1,630. I gave it to the trustee. Ray told the trustee he had done some extra work, and asked for $450. the trustee gave Ray $450, and added it to my bill. I had to fire ray before he did any more extra work, and I had to pay another $450. I fired Ray, and told the trustee and the judge Ray was no longer working for me and I would handle all further inquiries. I asked the trustee for a proof of claim from PHH and sure enough they had by now submitted one, for $9,465, which was their $7,558 plus a bunch of fees for selling my house. The fees were created from thin air, as BBDFTE had a computer program that specialized in creating fees and submitting them to anyone who had an account. A person logs into the computer system periodically and clicks a permissive, and the fee is generated. They used to do htis by hand, but sometimes they forgot, so they devised a computerized document processing system and patented it. It was a great improvement, and there were no more people involved. They had not sold my house. We never had an auction. They never earned any fees. But this is how they make their living, creating and processing documents, and creating and processing fees. They are apparently tremendously successful. I paid the entire proof of claim. and all of Ray's fees, and told the trustee the plan was all paid and to discharge me. She wanted another $23, which she paid to PHH. PHH returned $18 that was overpaid. The trustee could not give the money to me, so she gave it to a charitable cause.
PHH had been holding $1,280 in escrow for insurance and taxes, and they wanted more. I canceled the PHH insurance and bought my own insurance from Standard Guaranty for $481. We corresponded for a while, and PHH issued a refund credit of $600 for the pro rata insurance premium cancellation. They could not give me the money, so they credited it to escrow. I told them I had already paid the taxes directly so send the remaining escrow money to me, along with the Release of Lien documentation for filing. At the time I had completed the fraudulent Proof of Claim payments so I stopped paying anything. I had no more creditors. All my lawyers were paid. Eventually my bankruptcy was dismissed. Burnet County received the Paid In Full lien release and recorded the paperwork. We now owned our house, two years and eight months before scheduled contractual mortgage end date of 31 October 2016. My payment records showed an additional $1900 in fraudulent fees, $2400 in missing escrow funds, $600 in fees for an ineffective lawyer, and $4950 for an incompetent lawyer.
Now I was able to communicate directly again with PHH, as they were no longer a creditor, and I asked for my money back. I also asked for my fee of one bitcoin per day for the 18 months or so of account administrations. I prefer to deal in bitcoins for my own billing, as it is a more stable currency than the dollar. Some people like renminbi, indeed most people. Renminbis are used in China, and there are more of them than there are of us. I prefer bitcoins, as they go right into my phone, and I can buy whatever I need, wherever I'm at. I don't think PHH took my complaints seriously. I know their lawyer thought I was acting frivolously. But...I was not the one who was threatening to send the sheriff to their office in New Jersey, cleaning out their bank accounts, and evicting all their employees. I just wanted to collect my debts. Now I had them on a downhill pull.
Now that I knew the extent of my damages, I lodged a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB had been set up by Congress as part of the Warren Dodd Financial Reform act of 2012 to strengthen America, and especially to address and reconcile situations just such as I had been going through for the last eighteen months. The Financial Crisis Investigation Committee, in 2008, had issued a report assigning significant responsibility for the Financial Crisis of 2006, to the largely unregulated financial speculators, who were dealing in real estate like they were playing on roulette wheels and living in comped rooms. They were winning the black bets among themselves, and the government was paying the red bets. The situation was intolerable. American citizens who used to own houses were living under bridges. The Americans who still lived in houses were only paying half taxes, because the neighborhoods were full of vacant houses and shantytowns. Long Term US Government Bonds were just for suckers. People like me were working for Russian investors, French investors, German investors, Italian investors, English and Norwegian investors, Chinese investors, and American capital was fleeing the country. Life was intolerable, and getting intolerabler.
I was hopeful that the CFPB would be able to find someone responsible, clear up the confusion and get everything straightened out. I sent in my complaint, and all my documentation. PHH responded with about 62 pages of the confused accounts of Christopher McCrae, who was having similar problems as I, and the same lack of resolution. Christopher lived in Ludlow, Massachusetts, where I lived in second grade, but other than that we were totally unrelated. I gave CFPB some feedback that the response of PHH was totally unresponsive, and they should redouble their efforts. CFPB may or may not have proceeded further, and PHH may or may not have ever replied. After that we were all confidential.
I started assembling my material and organizing to go to court again. I decided i would go in as a class action, and I had learned that since FIRREA of 1989, when the Keating Five went to jail, all these cases needed to be brought by the Attorney General. These cases are often fairly complex, heavily interlocked, sometimes involving organized crime, requiring a lot of deal making and structured prosecution, so they are generally best pursued by an organized, centralized authority. That was sure enough the case with Ocwen, a mirror image of PHH, who entered into a consent agreement on 19 December of 2013 after appearing in court for about 20 minutes with the CFPB and all 50 State attorneys general to resolve their claims without the need for a lot of discrete and time consuming litigation and only the payment of $2.1 Billion in consumer relief to be refunded to damaged individuals just such as myself, and the monitoring for three years of Joseph A. Smith to verify that their activities continued in a lawful and just manner, of benefit to the community. I was greatly encouraged.
I knew I had to go through this qui tam procedure in a specific and lawful manner, so I initially invited my counterparties, PHH and BBDFTE, to an Alternative Dispute Resolution meeting at my house on 25 December 2013, so we could walk around the property, discuss our differences like civilized people, and come to a mutual agreement acceptable to all. Nobody responded. Nobody came. On 26 December 2013, I went to the FBI in Austin, the nearest Department of Justice, and reported the suspicious activity in my community and my intent to prosecute the miscreants to the fullest extent of the law. They have 90 days to make sure there are no investigations in progress that I might disrupt, and are able to order me to desist if they feel that necessary. Unless ordered not to, I am then free as a citizen to represent the United States, investigate the extents of the activity and eventually report my findings to the prosecutor, or prosecute them with my own resources. These methods have been tremendously successful in the arena of drugs or organized crime, and investigators are generally extended the courtesy of anonymity if they so desire, as one contributor to personal security. For financial people, generally considered pillars of the community, I had no such concerns and have waived that privilege.
Actually, the qui tam approach has been of tremendous assistance to the DOJ in their investigations and prosecutions, and a flurry of consent judgments have continued all through 2014, with such large financial institutions as Citibank, Chase/JP, BAC, Greentree, Ally, Wells Fargo quickly coming to fruition. These companies, with their feet held to the fire, are standing in line to come to Jesus, and seeing the benefit of converting large liabilities of unknown size into manageable disgorgements of earnings, and clear regulatory oversight of their continuing operations. To date, at this writing, all settlements have been negotiated by the Department of Justice, and no jury has yet been empanelled for the complex duty of disentangling the web of interlocking debt and speculation. My case would appear to be unique, precedent setting, of great current social import, and of invaluable guidance to the long term planning of both the legitimate businesses and the interested consumers. It's like a sign post on the highway - "How fast should I be able to go here? Is there a school nearby? Does this bridge get icy?" And then you can read the signs - "80 - School Zone 7:15 to 8:45, 2:30 to 4:15 - Bridge Ices Before Road." It all contributes to help make modern life simple. America is not a jungle.
While I was organizing myself and gathering resources, and seeking legal counsel, I received a note that my initial motion to stay my foreclosure sale had been removed to Western Texas District Court, at the request of one of the defendants, PHH. I was at the time wondering what district court I should file a new cause in, and actually Austin is downright convenient. I modified my complaint to update all the intervening time since last visited, in accord with the rules of civil procedure and the local court rules, and delivered my amended complaint to the court clerk. I also simultaneously served my counterparties, applied for my PACER account so we could all work electronically, and stopped by the local Austin FBI office again and delivered them a printed copy of my amended complaint so they could get caught up on events, or take over prosecution if they so desired. We had another long talk and we reviewed my amended complaint. I told them the filing was not sealed, and I had no unusual concerns for my personal protection. I have nothing but good things to say about the FBI field agents, who show remarkable knowledge of and interest in current events. There was a nice picture of Barack Obama on the wall. Maybe today there is someone else.
We then started through the characteristic Complaint-Response-Reply routine characteristic of establishing the informational foundations of emerging conflict, and organizing the presentation to the jury. I thought we were getting ourselves pretty well established in our differing views, and moving toward a little better definition. The defendants consistently motioned for dismissal, on many grounds, which in itself is not unusual. I made sure to move for jury trial under Rule 38, to get it in the record and notify the defendants that they should not neglect their fact-seeking responsibilities to their client. I was accused of being intransitive at one point, so I immediately entered my written offer of settlement. Two have expired, the third offer is still in effect, expiring when we seat a jury. We were all seemingly neglecting our responsibilities under Rule 26, and at one point I moved for Alternative Dispute Resolution to be ordered, as a catalytic process. Time went by. The magistrate judge, Mark Lane, eventually opined in support of the defendants for dismissal, on the basis of very little information. I replied that I'm sure we would continue to entertain motions for dismissal, right up to the point of the jury retiring to deliberations, but we could surely put that off to a point in the future where we might all have a little more information, and a little more basis for our opinion.
On 4 November 2014 the judge dismissed the case. I filed an appeal to USCA 5th to remand the case for proper jury trial, including completing all our obligations under Rule 26 to enable the jury to receive as complete a picture of the situation as possible. PHH forecloses 8-10,000 houses per quarter. Lender owned real estate is a blight on the landscape in every town in America. I believe there are 6,000 people like me who have been damaged by common predatory practices all over the country. I can look on Zillow.com and shop for foreclosed houses nearby, in a 10 mile radius, in Lubbock, Texas, in Washington, D.C. and be overwhelmed with offers from slumlords everywhere. The regulatory and enforcement arms of government have been ineffective. The legislative powers have created sweeping new regulatory powers. The DOJ has a Mortgage Fraud Task Force, with significant power, reach, and budgetary resources. Now I am a judicial activist. Let's put away these bad actors, one by one.
For Truth, Justice, and America,
24 November 2014	/s/ David McCrae
By: DAVID MCCRAE, Pro Se* **
350 Cee Run / Bertram Texas 78605
512.557.0283 / xstek99@gmail.com
* Note: Per FRAP Rule 3 (c)(2) David McCrae also represents claim of spouse, Barbara McCrae
** Note: per FRAP Rule 3 (d)(1) David and Barbara McCrae are Class Members #1 of a future class that is not currently certified
This sworn statement of David McCrae is executed before me on DATE____________
at LOCATION	_________________________________________
I'm Rosa Parks
I've managed to work my way through Western Texas District, got formally judged and dismissed, and...since yesterday, docketed for US Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Case 14-51224. It seems that these issues are complex, weighty, unique, and of some social import, and deserve some more thought. I always knew it. We'll have at least 15 minutes of oral argument, which is 15 minutes more time than we spent in Austin. Actually I think we did make some good progress in exposing some knotty issues among our pleas, responses, replies and such...
I'm channeling Rosa Parks. I've paid my nickel. I'm in my seat. Laissez bon temps roulez! That's French.
Peacemakers can be found Anywhere
350 Cee Run
Bertram Texas 78605
Senator John Cornyn
517 Hart Senate Office Building
cc: Senator Elizabeth Warren
John-
First, my congratulations to both you and Elizabeth on your continuing elected service. You are both doing exceptional work that deserves your well earned remuneration.
I had earlier sent you my sad tale of unfortunate events dealing with my mortgage company here in Oatmeal (PHH up in New Jersey), and the difficulties that may be too typical of your constituents in their home towns. I appreciate the interest you expressed in the speedy resolution. As it turns out, the CFPB was able to make it's investigation, and got some quality of response from the mortgage outfit (of low quality, but a response). They lawyered up, about eight of them, and we have been in Western Texas District Court (Cause 1:14-cv-733-ly-ml) for the last several months making our cases before Judge Yeakel and his magistrate Mark Lane. I believe we have been able to explicate all our issues fairly and amicably. If I haven't been clear, I have only myself to blame, as I have been pro se to this point, my plea in one window and my rulebook in the other. So we have progressed finally to Document 42, and Judge Yeakel dismissed our case, effectively finding for the defendant. I was cheered by Document 43, where he accepted by In Pauperis petition and allowed me to appeal to the 5th Circuit. As a complex case, frap permits me 30 pages (I've cut it to skin and bones at 38 pp.) and 15 minutes oral argument (which would be 15 more minutes than we argued at District). I am hoping to lawyer up myself soon and continue my nationwide search for counsel. I have a promising contact in Detroit (where else would you look to find a foreclosure attorney with some gumption?) and I believe we will be up there in Washington, maybe in 2016 or 17. I hope in the spring.
Meanwhile, I hope to enlist your review of my Appellate Brief - Plaintiff and give me any thoughts that come to mind. PHH appears to be the 7th largest mortgage loan originator, about 2.7% market share among your constituents, and I'm going for some meaningful social change. I think my concerns may be mirrored by many of your constituents out there. My release is till on file, feel free to communicate with anyone if you desire to contribute.
BTW, this is by no means my chief concern. My chief concern is Americans getting their heads chopped off by the barbarians. I know you probably meet up with our CIC occasionally. Help straighten this mess out.
With sincere thanks,
Xstek99@gmail.com
www.icameherefromindiana.weebly.com
www.lifeanddeathinamerica.weebly.com
www.phhmustbedestroyed.weebly.com
www.xstechnology.weebly.com
Juries have ALWAYS been a good idea
Right to jury trial
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. - Heritage Guide to the Constitution
Toward the end of the Constitutional Convention, Hugh Williamson of North Carolina noted that "no provision was yet made for juries in civil cases and suggested the necessity of it." Elbridge Gerry agreed, while George Mason further argued that the omission demonstrated that the Constitution needed a Bill of Rights. Nathaniel Gorham responded that the question should be left to Congress because of complexities in determining what kind of civil cases should be given to a jury. A few days later, when Gerry and Pinckney moved to insert "And a trial by jury shall be preserved as usual in civil cases," Gorham argued that there was no usual form, because the structure of civil juries varied among the states. Apparently sensing the difficulty in phrasing the guarantee, the Convention unanimously defeated the motion.
It was a costly oversight, for the omission of a guarantee of civil juries occasioned the greatest opposition to the Constitution in the ratifying conventions, as Alexander Hamilton candidly admitted in The Federalist No. 83. Hamilton tried to minimize the differences by arguing that the only difference between the supporters and detractors of the Constitution on this issue was that "the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government." Mason and Gerry had themselves refused to sign the Constitution, citing the absence of the guarantee among their other concerns. In the ratification debates, the Anti-Federalists argued that the provision in the Constitution for juries in criminal cases necessarily implied their abolition in civil cases. The Anti-Federalists tied this argument to their objections to the power of the Supreme Court in Article III to hear appeals "both as to law and fact," suggesting that the Constitution would effectively abolish juries in the states as well.
In response, the Federalists continued to argue that defining in the Constitution the appropriate cases for civil juries was too difficult a task and that the Congress could be trusted to make provision for civil juries. This was a weak argument, as twelve of the states themselves protected civil juries in their constitutions. Of the six ratifying conventions that proposed amendments to the Constitution, five included a right to a jury in civil cases.
The history of the revolutionary struggle also counted against the Federalists. The colonists had had no objection to trials without juries in traditional admiralty and maritime cases. But when Parliament extended the jurisdiction of the admiralty courts to other cases, the colonists' opposition to England crystallized around the deprivation of their right to trial by jury. In the Declaration of the Causes of Taking up Arms (1775), the Second Continental Congress declared: "[S]tatutes have been passed for extending the jurisdiction of courts of Admiralty and Vice-Admiralty beyond their ancient limits; for depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable privilege of trial by jury, in cases affecting both life and property." The complaint was also among the bill of particulars in the Declaration of Independence.
The Seventh Amendment, passed by the First Congress without debate, cured the omission by declaring that the right to a jury trial shall be preserved in common-law cases, thus leaving the traditional distinction between cases at law and those in equity or admiralty, where there normally was no jury. The implied distinction parallels the explicit division of federal judicial authority in Article III to cases (1) in law, (2) in equity, and (3) in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The contemporaneously passed Judiciary Act of 1789 similarly provided that "the trial of issues of fact, in the district courts, in all causes except civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, shall be by jury." As Justice Joseph Story later explained inParsons v. Bedford (1830): "In a just sense, the amendment then may well be construed to embrace all suits which are not of equity and admiralty jurisdiction, whatever may be the peculiar form which they may assume to settle legal rights."
The Supreme Court has, however, arrived at a more limited interpretation. It applies the amendment's guarantee to the kinds of cases that "existed under the English common law when the amendment was adopted," Baltimore & Carolina Line v. Redman (1935), or to newly developed rights that can be analogized to what existed at that time, Luria v. United States (1913), Curtis v. Loether (1974). Accordingly, in a series of decisions in the second half of the twentieth century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to trial by jury in procedurally novel settings, like declaratory judgment actions, Beacon Theatres v. Westover (1959), and shareholder derivative suits, Ross v. Bernhard(1970). The Court also applied the amendment to cases adjudicating newly created statutory rights, Curtis v. Loether, Pernell v. Southall Realty (1974). In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that when factually overlapping "legal" and "equitable" claims are joined together in the same action, the Seventh Amendment requires that the former be adjudicated first (by a jury); and that when legal claims triable to a jury are erroneously dismissed, relitigation of the entire action is "essential to vindicating [the plaintiff's] Seventh Amendment rights." Lytle v. Household Manufacturing, Inc. (1990).
The right to trial by jury is not constitutionally guaranteed in certain classes of civil cases that are concededly "suits at common law," particularly when "public" or governmental rights are at issue and if one cannot find eighteenth-century precedent for jury participation in those cases. Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (1977). Thus, Congress can lodge personal and property claims against the United States in non-Article III courts with no jury component. In addition, where practice as it existed in 1791 "provides no clear answer," the rule is that "[o]nly those incidents which are regarded as fundamental, as inherent in and of the essence of the system of trial by jury, are placed beyond the reach of the legislature." Markman v. Westview Instruments (1996). In those situations, too, the Seventh Amendment does not restrain congressional choice.
In contrast to the near-universal support for the civil jury trial in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, modern jurists consider civil jury trial neither "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. State of Connecticut (1937), nor "fundamental to the American scheme of justice," Duncan v. Louisiana (1968). Accordingly, in company with only the Second Amendment and the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Seventh Amendment is not "incorporated" against the states; it applies only in the federal courts. In the federal courts, the parties can waive the right, but there is no longer a requirement, as there was in 1791, that civil juries be composed of twelve persons and must reach a unanimous verdict. Colgrove v. Battin (1973).
Eric Grant
Certified Specialist in Appellate Law
Hicks Thomas LLP
Further Reading - Jury Trial
George E. Butler II, Compensable Liberty: A Historical and Political Model of the Seventh Amendment Public Law Jury, 1 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 595 (1985)
Eric Grant, A Revolutionary View of the Seventh Amendment and the Just Compensation Clause, 91 Nw. U. L. Rev. 144 (1996)
Stanton D. Krauss, The Original Understanding of the Seventh Amendment Right to Jury Trial, 33 U. Rich. L. Rev. 407 (1999)
1 John Phillip Reid, Constitutional History of the American Revolution: The Authority of Rights(1986)
Charles W. Wolfram, The Constitutional History of the Seventh Amendment, 57 Minn. L. Rev. 639 (1973)
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)
Palko v. State of Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937)
Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687 (1999)
Parsons v. Bedford, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 433 (1830)
Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367 (1876)
DRAFT COPY of Appeal Due 1 December 2014
Appellant requests oral argument of this appeal
DATE_________________________
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 5th CIRCUIT
600 S. Maestri Place / New Orleans, LA 70130
Case #14-51224; USDC#1:14-cv-733
DAVID MCCRAE, QUI TAM
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, and CLASS
PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION and
BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TURNER & ENGEL, LLP
MORTGAGE AND CONSUMER FRAUD - COMPLEX
APPEAL OF FINAL JUDGMENT
DAVID MCCRAE , PRO SE	XSTEK99@GMAIL.COM
BERTRAM, TEXAS 78605	512.557.0283
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Plaintiff-Appellee,
David McCrae, Plaintiff-Appellee,
PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, dba BURNET MORTGAGE SERVICES, CENTURY 21 MORTGAGE, COLDWELL BANKER MORTGAGE, DOMAIN DISTINCTIVE PROPERTY FINANCE, ERA MORTGAGE, INSTAMORTGAGE.COM, MORTGAGE SERVICE CENTER, MORTGAGEQUESTIONS.COM, MORTGAGESAVE.COM, PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES; DEFENDANTS
BARRETT, DAFFIN, FRAPPIER, TURNER AND ENGEL, LLP; DEFENDANTS
*If you make your living loaning money at interest, or in real estate speculation and trading, or are now homeless, you may have strongly held personal opinions that should prompt your recusal from this case.
*If you work in law enforcement, or a law practice with an inordinate concentration of either plaintiffs or defendants, you should consider recusal.
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
I'd like to appear to present oral argument in this matter. I'm not an attorney so I would appear Pro Hac Vice. I'm not going to read the complaint, all set out in 30 pages or less. I wrote it, you've read it. You have an opinion already. Like Officer Monday, I've stuck to the facts. I try not to judge. If I had my druthers, I would just call the Marshal and haul these people off to jail. They're from New Jersey. What else would they expect?
But, I digress...the first response of the defendants' in this case was 'We didn't do nothin'. He still lives in the house. It's just business.' I've decided that this is a business we don't need. Other people in my neighborhood feel the same way. A friend of mine in California lives in her car. She used to live in a house. In California, at least they have nice beaches. People live there. No dogs, though. A friend of mine in Idaho lives in a connex box. I've lived in connex boxes, out on the ocean. Houses are nicer. I have 290 other friends who have these problems. There are probably more out there. We will eventually retain counsel, charter a Class, amend our complaint, and proceed through our pretrial motions until we're all prepared and informed. We are not at that point yet.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES	3
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS	4
PHH - PHH Corporation, Defendant, in business in 46 states excluding Hawaii, Illinois, Nebraska and Colorado	4
BDFTE, LLP, or BBDFTE, LLP -Barrett, [Burke], Daffin Frappier, Turner, and Engel - Agent of PHH Corporation in Texas and California	4
FIRREA - Financial Institution Regulatory and Reform Act of 1989, clarification of lawful and unlawful business practices in the United States	4
TILA-RESPA - Truth in Lending Act-Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, clarification of lawful and unlawful business practices in the United States, latest rules have been issued for comment, revised and scheduled to take effect in 2015	4
FRAP - Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, latest revision	5
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT	6
STATEMENT OF ISSUES	6
STATEMENT OF CLAIM	12
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS	13
STATEMENT OF THE CASE	14
OUR PRAYER	15
TRIAL EXHIBITS	18
This case was judged and dismissed without trial.	18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE	19
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 38
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 3
Financial Institution Recovery, Reform and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA)
Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act of 2012
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 2015 (The TILA-RESPA Final Rule)
The Decalogue 20:15-17
Commentaries on the Laws of England - Wm. Blackstone
Fed Up! - Rick Perry
Win Your Case - Gerry Spence
Greedy Bastards - Dylan Ratigan
Web of Debt - Ellen Hodgson Brown
Do - A. C. Ping
A Fighting Chance - Elizabeth Warren
Bull By The Horns - Sheila Bair
The Merchant of Venice - Wm. Shakespeare
The Revolution - Ron Paul
All The Devils Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis - Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera
Broke - Glenn Beck
The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One - Bill Black
Know How - Ram Charan
The No Asshole Rule - Robert Sutton
The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine - Michael Lewis
The Law Hour and Editorial Review - www.GeorgeGordon.org
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
PHH - PHH Corporation, Defendant, in business in 46 states excluding Hawaii, Illinois, Nebraska and Colorado
BDFTE, LLP, or BBDFTE, LLP -Barrett, [Burke], Daffin Frappier, Turner, and Engel - Agent of PHH Corporation in Texas and California
FIRREA - Financial Institution Regulatory and Reform Act of 1989, clarification of lawful and unlawful business practices in the United States
TILA-RESPA - Truth in Lending Act-Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, clarification of lawful and unlawful business practices in the United States, latest rules have been issued for comment, revised and scheduled to take effect in 2015
FRAP - Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, latest revision
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
This case is appealed from Texas Western District Court.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Right to jury trial
Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913)
Baltimore & Carolina Line v. Redman, 295 U.S. 654 (1935)
Beacon Theatres v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959)
Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531 (1970)
Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U.S. 149 (1973)
Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189 (1974)
Pernell v. Southall Realty, 416 U.S. 363 (1974)
Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission, 430 U.S. 442 (1977)
Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412 (1987)
Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989)
Lytle v. Household Manufacturing, Inc., 494 U.S. 545 (1990)
Markman v. Westview Instruments, 517 U.S. 370 (1996)
Rule 38. Right to a Jury Trial; Demand
(a) RIGHT PRESERVED. The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution—or as provided by a federal statute—is preserved to the parties inviolate.
(b) DEMAND. On any issue triable of right by a jury, a party may demand a jury trial by:
(1) serving the other parties with a written demand—which may be included in a pleading—no later than 14 days after the last pleading directed to the issue is served; and
(2) filing the demand in accordance with Rule 5(d).
(c) SPECIFYING ISSUES. In its demand, a party may specify the is- sues that it wishes to have tried by a jury; otherwise, it is consid- ered to have demanded a jury trial on all the issues so triable. If the party has demanded a jury trial on only some issues, any other party may—within 14 days after being served with the de- mand or within a shorter time ordered by the court—serve a de- mand for a jury trial on any other or all factual issues triable by
jury.
(d) WAIVER; WITHDRAWAL. A party waives a jury trial unless its
demand is properly served and filed. A proper demand may be withdrawn only if the parties consent.
(e) ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME CLAIMS. These rules do not create a right to a jury trial on issues in a claim that is an admiralty or maritime claim under Rule 9(h).
-Great as this eulogium may seem, it is no more than the admirable constitution, when traced to its principles, will be found is sober reason to deserve. The impartial administration of justice, which secures both our persons and our properties, is the great end of civil society. But if that be entirely trusted to the magistracy, a select body of men, and those generally selected by the prince or such as enjoy the highest offices in the state, their decisions, in spite of their own natural integrity, will have frequently an involuntary bias towards those of their own rank and dignity: it is not to be expected from human nature, that the few should always be attentive to the interests and good of the many. On the other hand, if the power of judicature were placed at random in the hands of the multitude, their decisions would be wild and capricious, and a new rule of action would be every day established in our courts. It is wisely therefore ordered, that the principles and axioms of law, flowing from abstracted reason, and not accommodated to times or to men, should be deposited in the breasts of the judges, to be occasionally applied to such facts as come properly ascertained before them. For here partiality can have little scope: the law is well known, and is the same for all ranks and degrees; it follows as a regular conclusion from the premises of fact pre-established. But in settling and adjusting a question of fact, when entrusted to any single magistrate, partiality and injustice have an ample field to range in; either by boldly asserting that to be proved which is not so, or more artfully oppressing some circumstances, stretching and warping others, and distinguishing away the remainder. Here therefore a competent number of sensible and upright jurymen, chosen by lot from among those of the middle rank, will be found the best investigators of truth, and the surest guardians of public justice. For the most powerful individual in the state will be cautious of committing any flagrant invasion of another's right, when he knows that the fact of his oppression must be examined and decided by twelve indifferent men, not appointed until the hour of trial; and that when once that fact is ascertained, the law must of course redress it. This therefore preserves in the hands of the people that share which they ought to have in the administration of public justice, and prevents the encroachments of the more powerful and wealthy citizens. Every new tribunal, erected for the decision of facts, without the intervention of a jury (whether composed of justices of the peace, commissioners of the revenue, judges of a court of conscience, or any other standing magistrates), is a step towards establishing aristocracy, the most oppressive of absolute governments.
-Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 3, Chapter 23
# Description Amount
1 Costs of Defense, Professional Services 100
2 Costs of Defense, Court Filings IP
3 Costs of Defense, Incidental n/c
4 Foreclosure Sale in Error 1,000,000
5 Affidavit of Indebtedness Preparation 1,000,000
6 Proof of Claim 1,000,000
7 Motion for Relief from Stay Affidavits 1,000,000
8 Preforeclosure Initiation 1,000,000
9 Fee adherence to guidance 1,000,000
10 Adherence to customer payment processing 1,000,000
11 Reconciliation of certain waived fees 1,000,000
12 Third party vendor management 1,000,000
13 Customer portal (multiple) 5,000,000
14 Single point of contact (multiple) 5,000,000
15 Workforce management 1,000,000
16 Affidavit of indebtedness Integrity 1,000,000
17 Account status activity (multiple) 5,000,000
18 Complaint response timeliness (multiple) 5,000,000
19 Dual track referral to foreclosure 1,000,000
20 Dual track failure to postpone foreclosure 1,000,000
21 Disgorgement of unlawful gains 50,000,000
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 2014 (RESPA)
Joseph A. Smith Mortgage Settlement Oversight Reports
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The defendant BDFTE, as agent for PHH acted to foreclose and sell plaintiff's homestead at public auction. Reference Appendix 1.
The plaintiff filed an unsuccessful motion in Burnet County to stop sale. Reference Appendix 1.
As time went by, plaintiff filed bankruptcy, #13-10386 to protect assets while bankruptcy plan was implemented in satisfaction of creditors. Reference Appendix 1.
BDFTE, a defendant, filed proof of claim with trustee and was paid in full. PHH executed release of lien on mortgage and filed in Burnet County. Reference Appendix 1.
Plaintiff resumed attempts to collect debt from PHH for damages incurred in defense of wrongful foreclosure action, predatory insurance practice of PHH, and lost escrow funds. Reference Appendix 1.
Defendants removed trial from Burnet County to Texas Western District Court, as claim appeared in excess of $75,000. Plaintiff concurred. Reference Appendix 1.
Plaintiff concurred, and filed amended complaint to recover damages for himself and a potential class of like parties. Reference Appendix 1.
Plaintiff filed motion under Rule 38 in demand of jury trial. Jury trial was docketed. Reference Trial Transcript Document 23 - Jury Demand
Prior to trial, the case was judged and dismissed. Reference Appendix 1.
In view of the complexity of issues, the apparent large class of affected parties in similar current or past circumstance, and the continuing financial crisis of far-reaching negative social impact in the United States, I pray this panel to remand this case to Western Texas District court for proper trial before jury of all facts and issues. Reference Appendix 1.
I pray also for directed assignment of a US Attorney or Attorneys from the Mortgage Fraud Task Force Working Group, or the FBI White Collar Crime Task Force, to assist our lead counsel in the prosecution of this case, and the judge in proper case management, as information liaison to facilitate investigation and discovery under Rule 26 prior to trial. Reference Appendix 1.
I pray for production to that attorney, or the Mortgage Fraud Task Force Working Group, of electronically stored information and complete audit of all payment records and circumstances of foreclosures currently in process by PHH in 46 states. I recommend Joseph A. Smith of mortgagesettlementoversight.com as most appropriate analyst and expert witness, based on his current experience as designated monitor for all consent judgments currently under enforcement action by US Department of Justice. Reference Appendix 1.
I pray for meaningful and cautionary sanctions to be assessed versus PHH and BDFTE for gratuitous obstruction of legal process by their obfuscation, dithering and delay up to this point.
I pray for restraining order to stay all non-judicial foreclosures currently in process, about 8-10, 000 across America, by PHH and their regional agents until jury trial in Western Texas of all issues is complete.
THISDATE 2014	/s/ David McCrae
TRIAL EXHIBITS
This case was judged and dismissed without trial.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I have served this Appeal Brief to:
By US Mail, e-mail, CM/ECF
Sworn to on	1 December 2014	by /s/David McCrae, Pro se
Rosa Parks Come Home. All is Forgiven.
Trenz Pruca
Anytown, State ZIP
re:Case 1:14-cv-00733-ly
Dear Trenz,
I'm looking for legal assistance.
In March of 2013 my mortgage servicer filed a foreclosure notice and attempted sale of my home. At that time, advance mortgage payments were made well in advance and fully described in the payment record. Due to the highly automated process and lack of human oversight characteristic of that industry at that time, I sought CH13 bankruptcy protection immediately before sale to protect assets.
Under oversight of the federal trustee, I paid the remaining mortgage balance, and received clear title to property in 2014. I then acted to recover my expenses of defense. An initial pro se filing in 424 Court Burnet County to block sale was resurrected in July of 2014 and moved to Texas Western District Court. I amended complaint to include both the servicer, PHH Mortgage and the Texas mortgage mill, BBDFTE (now BDFTE, B is gone). The 424th had asked my wife to be included as plaintiff, the Western District asked for her to be removed. I filed this action qui tam the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, who now represents the United States. I reported action to the Department of Justice, who showed no interest. Eric Holder currently runs that operation at his pleasure. I've solicited every State AG for any investigatory information they may have in their possession, with cryptic response.
The defendants denied all actions and asked for dismissal. No one had foreclosed the house. The attempt was unsuccessful. I still live here. I agreed with their position and filed an amended complaint, removing 'wrongful foreclosure' and replacing it with 'consumer fraud.' The theft is the same. I have the same damages. I filed a demand under Rule 38 for jury trial of issues, and was docketed as such. The defendants employed at least eight attorneys; no one showed interest in attending a Rule 26(f) meeting. I asked the judge to consider order Alternative Dispute Resolution. I filed three settlement offers for the record, with expiration dates. The third offer is currently open, expiring at jury seating. I think I've been Fair and Generous.
While we've been litigating my insignificant problems, Eric Holder's DOJ, and all 50 State Attorneys general, have enteresd consent judgments with JP Morgan/Citibank, Bank of America, Ocwen, Ally, Greentree, and Wells Fargo, for an aggregate of >80 Billion+. The New Jersey Attorney General has entered a consent judgment with PHH Mortgage, one of my defendants here in Texas, at 615 Million. Possibly I'm a member of that class, Group E. No mortgage servicer has gone to trial anywhere in America in front of a jury. BetterMarkets.com continues to lobby in Washington DC for a more effective justice system. A jury in Yuba County, California, has awarded Philip Linza 16 Million, currently being appealed by PHH, who claim they haven't done nuthin. Last year's budget for the Mortgage Fraud Task Force was over 545 Million, so they've actually been running the only profitable operation in government. PHH Mortgage has about 2.4% of their industry, which is almost insignificant, but they're the only ones who have damaged me, so they are the only ones where I have standing. In 2Q 2014 they only lost $500M, but they successfully divested themselves of $3.5B in assets of their transportation division and now they have great expectations of success in reengineering themselves and refocusing on their core business. They currently have about 1.2M mortgages under management in 46 states. Mine is paid off.
On 4 November Judge Yeakel, rather quickly but not unexpectedly, dismissed the case and ordered me to pay some more costs. I initially offered a bond of One Dollar, possibly costs are higher by now. I believe I've at least preserved all necessary issues to the public record on PACER for appeal, and now I'd like to hire an attorney to manage the appeal and intervention. I'm flabbergasted that I've been denied a trial by jury. I'm flabbergasted that a Federal judge has effectively entered a judgment without even a cursory review of Rule 26(f) report, Alternative Dispute Report, or any trial exhibits. I feel my civil rights have been violated. I'd like the appeal court to remand the case for proper trial, and compel participation of the US Attorney Office, who appear to have substantial information concerning the mortgage servicing industry in general and PHH Corporation in particular.
BTW, at this point I have to proceed In Pauperis. I have no money left. I'll be glad to pay you later.
David McCrae