Continue please; Bank of New York v. Silverberg, * N.Y.S.2d * (App. Div. *)
In re Virella Citation: * B.R. *
Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, * F.3d *, *–* (3d Cir. *)
* Skinner v. Switzer, * U.S. *, *, * S.Ct. *, * L.Ed.2d * (*)
In re Philadelphia Ent. & Dev. Partners, * F.3d *, *-* (3d Cir. *)
In re Lowry, No. *-*, * WL *, at ** (6th Cir. Dec. *, *)
In re Isaacs, * F.3d * (6th Cir. *)
. In re Sasson, * F.3d *, * (9th Cir. *)
Case Rating: *
Sure, here are the additional cases added to the Table of Authorities:
Table of Authorities
Cases
*. New Hampshire v. Maine, * U.S. * (*)
*. Adam vs. Madison Realty, * F.2d * (3rd Cir. *)
*. Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, * S.Ct. * (*)
*. Stern v. Marshall, * U.S. * (*)
*. Langenkamp v. Culp, * U.S. *, * S.Ct. *, * L.Ed.2d * (*) (per curiam)
*. Barbato v. Greystone Alliance, LLC, * F.3d * (3rd Cir. *)
*. In re Veal, * B.R. *, *-* (B.A.P. 9th Cir. *)
*. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Blendheim (In re Blendheim), * F.3d *, *-* (9th Cir. *)
*. Hafen v. Adams (In re Hafen), * B.R. * (B.A.P. 10th Cir. *)
*. Bank of New York v. Silverberg, * N.Y.S.2d * (App. Div. *)
*. In re Virella, * B.R. *
*. Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, * F.3d *, *–* (3d Cir. *)
*. Skinner v. Switzer, * U.S. *, *, * S.Ct. *, * L.Ed.2d * (*)
*. In re Philadelphia Ent. & Dev. Partners, * F.3d *, *-* (3d Cir. *)
*. In re Lowry, No. *-*, * WL *, at ** (6th Cir. Dec. *, *)
*. In re Isaacs, * F.3d * (6th Cir. *)
*. In re Sasson, * F.3d *, * (9th Cir. *)
Feel free to add any additional statutes or other authorities you need to include in your brief.
Please arrange; Statute
(* U.S.C. § *(d)) * U.S.C. § * * U.S.C. § *:
(* U.S.C. § *(d)) * U.S.C. §§ * & * * U.S.C. § *
* U.S.C. § * et seq. * U.S.C. § * * U.S.C. § *
* U.S.C. § *: (* U.S.C. § *) * U.S.C. § *
(* U.S.C. § *) (* U.S.C. § *) * U.S.C. § *
* U. S. C. §*(a) §§*(a)(*) *(b)(*) §§*(*)(A), *(b), *(a)(*), *(b)(*)
* U.S.C. *. Rule * (c) (*) * USC * * U.S.C. §§ *, *
* U.S.C. § 1692a (*) * USC § 1692a(*) * U.S.C. § 1692g(b). * U.S.C. § 1692e
* U.S.C. §§ *, *, *) * USC *(a) & *(e)(*)
UCC *-* UCC § *-* (*) (UCC) Article *
Case Rating: *
Sure, here is the organized list of statutes for your bankruptcy district court brief:
Statutes
*. * U.S.C. § *(d)
*. * U.S.C. § *
*. * U.S.C. §§ *(a), *(a)(*), *(b)(*)
*. * U.S.C. §§ *(*)(A), *(b), *(a)(*), *(b)(*)
*. * U.S.C. *, Rule *(c)(*)
*. * U.S.C. §§ *, *
*. * U.S.C. §§ *, *, *
*. * U.S.C. § *(d)
*. * U.S.C. §§ *(a), *(e)(*)
*. * U.S.C. §§ *, *
*. * U.S.C. § *
*. * U.S.C. § *
*. * U.S.C. § *
*. * U.S.C. § *
*. * U.S.C. § *
*. * U.S.C. § *
*. * U.S.C. § *
*. * U.S.C. § * et seq.
*. * U.S.C. § *
*. * U.S.C. § *
*. * U.S.C. § 1692a(*)
*. * U.S.C. § 1692a(*)
*. * U.S.C. § 1692g(b)
*. * U.S.C. § 1692e
*. UCC *-*
*. UCC § *-*(*)
*. UCC Article *
Feel free to add any additional statutes if needed.
Do they need to be in any specific order?
Case Rating: *
Statutes in a Table of Authorities are generally organized in numerical order by title and section. This ensures that the reader can easily locate the statutes referenced in your brief.
Would you like more specific guidance on the order or further assistance with your brief?
Please arrange; General Laws
Rule *(b)(*) Rule *(b)(*)
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter *, § *.
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter *, § *,
MGL, Chapter *, § 35A
Case Rating: *
Sure, here is the organized list of General Laws for your brief:
General Laws
- Rule *(b)(*)
- Rule *(b)(*)
- Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter *, § *
- Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter *, § *
- Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter *, § 35A
Feel free to add any other laws or statutes if needed.
Please arrange; Other Authorities
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure *
Rooker-Feldman doctrine
Article III standing
(Bankruptcy Rule *, FRBP *(c)
Title *
Restatement of Contracts §§ * and *
Dodd-Frank Act
Truth in Lending Act Regulation F of the FDCPA
Regulation F of the FDCPA
New York Supreme Court Settlement Agreement lawsuit (EX-*.* * dex992.htm)
Judicial Estoppel
In the Matter of Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Pleadings and Documents Irregularities
Reuters News, Exclusive: Facing criticism, MERS
5th and 14th Amendments
Case Rating: *
Sure, here is the organized list of Other Authorities for your brief:
Other Authorities
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure *
- Bankruptcy Rule *, FRBP *(c)
- Title *
- Restatement of Contracts §§ * and *
- Dodd-Frank Act
- Truth in Lending Act
- Regulation F of the FDCPA (remove duplicate)
- Rooker-Feldman doctrine
- Article III standing
- New York Supreme Court Settlement Agreement lawsuit (EX-*.* * dex992.htm)
- Judicial Estoppel
- In the Matter of Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Pleadings and Documents Irregularities
- Reuters News, Exclusive: Facing criticism, MERS
- 5th and 14th Amendments
Feel free to add any other authorities if needed.
please enhance conclusion; Conclusion
- A straightforward case has escalated into an elaborate malicious prosecution of an *-year- old victim. The primary issue in federal bankruptcy court was to determine if the claimant had a valid claim, regardless of the lower court's decision. The party before the court is not allowed to assuming a position in a legal proceeding that contradicts one they successfully asserted in a previous proceeding.
,A non-party to the mortgage contract and promissory note needed to provide authenticated evidence to establish Article * standing and become a holder in due course with the right to foreclose. The party before the court did not have the status of being a creditor,
Case Rating: *
Conclusion:
- A straightforward case has escalated into an elaborate malicious prosecution of an *-year-old victim. The primary issue in federal bankruptcy court was to determine if the claimant had a valid claim, irrespective of the lower court's decision. The party before the court is not permitted to assume a position in a legal proceeding that contradicts one they successfully asserted in a previous proceeding.
- A non-party to the mortgage contract and promissory note needed to provide authenticated evidence to establish Article III standing and become a holder in due course with the right to foreclose. The party before the court did not have the status of being a creditor, which is critical for validating their claim.
enhance; They filed a fabricated assignment of the mortgage contract without the approval of the Northern California bankruptcy court along with a deceptive attempt to falsify the endorsement of the promissory note, The bankruptcy judge abused her discretion by not determining if there was a legitimate claim and then compounded this error by allowing it to go back to the lower court. The housing court judge further complicated the situation by not referring the Title * case back to the Bankruptcy or district court. The courts have allowed debt collectors, their attorneys, and agents to avoid addressing core issues by invoking the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine; knowing, or should have known this doctrine does not apply to fraudulent transfers.
Case Rating: *
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
Please provide a bit more detail about the fraudulent transfer, such as the impact it has had on you or your property.
please enhance; The party has not validated the debt, shown any injury, established themselves as a creditor, presented a chain of title, or provided a negotiated instrument establishing possession of the promissory note. Without these factors, the court has never established jurisdiction.
Having determined that the claimant was not the original lender, the court needed verification of how and when the claimant became a holder with the right to enforce the promissory note. Instead of addressing this crucial core issue, along with numerous deficiencies, the court has allowed the case to proceed with a non-party that has not submitted authenticated evidence establishing Article * standing.
Case Rating: *
Enhanced Conclusion:
- The party has not validated the debt, shown any injury, established themselves as a creditor, presented a chain of title, or provided a negotiated instrument establishing possession of the promissory note. Without these factors, the court has never established jurisdiction.
- Having determined that the claimant was not the original lender, the court needed verification of how and when the claimant became a holder with the right to enforce the promissory note. Instead of addressing this crucial core issue, along with numerous deficiencies, the court has allowed the case to proceed with a non-party that has not submitted authenticated evidence establishing Article * standing.
- The party filed a fabricated assignment of the mortgage contract without the approval of the Northern California bankruptcy court, along with a deceptive attempt to falsify the endorsement of the promissory note. The bankruptcy judge abused her discretion by not determining if there was a legitimate claim and then compounded this error by allowing it to go back to the lower court.
- The housing court judge further complicated the situation by not referring the Title * case back to the Bankruptcy or district court. The courts have allowed debt collectors, their attorneys, and agents to avoid addressing core issues by invoking the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, knowing or should have known, this doctrine does not apply to fraudulent transfers.
AI, Major points to be considered and implemented; The party before the court is not permitted to assume a position in a legal proceeding that contradicts one they successfully asserted in a previous proceeding. These are characteristics of judicial estoppel and the claimant never submitted a "proof of claim" This court’s actions of allowing this case to proceed has prejudiced me in the lower courts which has led to an eviction while causing a major strain on my mental and physical health
Case Rating: *
It looks like you have a complex case involving judicial estoppel and potential malpractice by the courts. Here are the key points to emphasize:
- Judicial Estoppel: The party is not permitted to contradict positions successfully asserted in earlier proceedings.
- Lack of Proof of Claim: The claimant failed to submit a "proof of claim."
- Court Prejudice: Actions by the court have prejudiced you in lower courts and caused an eviction.
- Mental and Physical Strain: The situation has caused significant stress and health issues.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case? If so, please provide a bit more detail about the fraudulent transfer, such as the impact it has had on you or your property.
The original Refinance lender CLI, was in Northern California bankruptcy court From January *, * until November *, *. BNYMT Submitted an assignment of my property by MERS On December *, * without any approval of the bankruptcy court. I should also emphasizing fraud on the court.
Case Rating: *
It seems you might have a strong case involving complex issues such as judicial estoppel, fraud on the court, and lack of proof of claim. Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
Can you please provide your phone number?
I filled it out before and never had a return call. Few firms want to go up against this predatory industry which is making multiple trillions of dollars annually
Case Rating: *
It sounds like you have a very complex and potentially strong case involving multiple legal issues. I'd recommend continuing to seek legal representation despite the challenges. To better assist you, I need to understand more about your situation. Could you provide some more details about the impact the fraudulent transfer has had on you or your property?
Where shall I implement the following in my conclusion? - Judicial Estoppel: The party is not permitted to contradict positions successfully asserted in earlier proceedings.
- Lack of Proof of Claim: The claimant failed to submit a "proof of claim."
- Court Prejudice: Actions by the court have prejudiced you in lower courts and caused an eviction.
- Mental and Physical Strain: The situation has caused significant stress and health issues.
Case Rating: *
You can incorporate the key points into your conclusion as follows:
Enhanced Conclusion:
- The party has not validated the debt, shown any injury, established themselves as a creditor, presented a chain of title, or provided a negotiated instrument establishing possession of the promissory note. Without these factors, the court has never established jurisdiction.
- Having determined that the claimant was not the original lender, the court needed verification of how and when the claimant became a holder with the right to enforce the promissory note. Instead of addressing this crucial core issue, along with numerous deficiencies, the court has allowed the case to proceed with a non-party that has not submitted authenticated evidence establishing Article * standing.
- The party filed a fabricated assignment of the mortgage contract without the approval of the Northern California bankruptcy court, along with a deceptive attempt to falsify the endorsement of the promissory note. The bankruptcy judge abused her discretion by not determining if there was a legitimate claim and then compounded this error by allowing it to go back to the lower court.
- The housing court judge further complicated the situation by not referring the Title * case back to the Bankruptcy or district court. The courts have allowed debt collectors, their attorneys, and agents to avoid addressing core issues by invoking the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, knowing or should have known, this doctrine does not apply to fraudulent transfers.
- Judicial Estoppel: The party is not permitted to contradict positions successfully asserted in earlier proceedings.
- Lack of Proof of Claim: The claimant failed to submit a "proof of claim."
- Court Prejudice: Actions by the court have prejudiced me in lower courts and caused an eviction.
- Mental and Physical Strain: The situation has caused significant stress and health issues.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
AI, If the registry of deeds files/assign property that has not BeenVerified with an affidavit from an attorney and or it was based on fraudulent material can they be sued and how do you start the process?
Case Rating: *
Yes, if the registry of deeds files or assigns property based on fraudulent material, they can potentially be sued. Here’s how you can start the process:
- Hire an Attorney: Consult a legal professional experienced in real estate and fraud cases.
- Gather Evidence: Collect all documentation related to the fraudulent assignment.
- File a Complaint: Your attorney can help you file a complaint in the appropriate court.
Would you like more detailed steps or further assistance with this?
Can this be done pro se?
Case Rating: *
Yes, you can file a lawsuit pro se (representing yourself) if the registry of deeds has filed or assigned property based on fraudulent materials. However, such cases can be complex and challenging without legal expertise.
Would you like more detailed steps on how to proceed pro se?
yes
Case Rating: *
Sure thing! Here are the detailed steps to proceed with a lawsuit pro se:
*. Research Laws: Familiarize yourself with Connecticut laws concerning property and fraudulent assignments.
*. Gather Evidence: Collect all documents proving the fraud, including the assignment, any communication, and proof of the fraudulent material.
*. Draft a Complaint: Write a detailed complaint including the facts of your case, the laws violated, and the relief you seek.
*. File the Complaint: Submit your complaint to the appropriate court. Check with your local court for filing procedures and fees.
*. Serve the Defendants: Ensure the defendants receive a copy of the complaint. This is often done through a process server.
*. Prepare for Court: Be ready to present your case, including all relevant evidence and legal arguments.
Would you like more specific guidance on any of these steps?
The same process would be for Massachusetts
Case Rating: *
Generally, the process of filing a lawsuit pro se for fraudulent property assignments is quite similar across states, but there may be some variations based on local laws and court procedures. Here are the steps you can follow in Massachusetts:
*. Research Massachusetts Laws: Get familiar with Massachusetts laws concerning property and fraudulent assignments.
*. Gather Evidence: Collect all documents proving the fraud, including the assignment, any communication, and proof of the fraudulent material.
*. Draft a Complaint: Write a detailed complaint including the facts of your case, the laws violated, and the relief you seek.
*. File the Complaint: Submit your complaint to the appropriate court. Check with your local Massachusetts court for filing procedures and fees.
*. Serve the Defendants: Ensure the defendants receive a copy of the complaint. This is often done through a process server.
*. Prepare for Court: Be ready to present your case, including all relevant evidence and legal arguments.
Would you like more specific guidance on any of these steps?
Please help me to write a motion to address the WHC Opposing his last order based on the following
Case Rating: *
Sure, I can help you draft a motion to address the WHC (presumably the court). Here’s a template you can use based on the information you provided:
---
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
[Your Phone Number]
[Email Address]
[Date]
[Court’s Name]
[Court’s Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
Re: [Case Name/Number]
Motion to Oppose the Court’s Last Order
I. Introduction
Your Honor,
I, [Your Name], am writing to file a motion opposing the court's last order dated [Date of Order]. The court’s decision to [describe the court’s decision] has escalated a straightforward case into an elaborate malicious prosecution, causing significant prejudice and harm.
II. Argument and Points of Law
*. Judicial Estoppel: The party before the court is not permitted to assume a position in a legal proceeding that contradicts one they successfully asserted in a previous proceeding. This principle is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
*. Lack of Proof of Claim: The claimant failed to submit a "proof of claim" as required. Without this submission, the court has never established jurisdiction over the matter.
*. Court Prejudice: The actions of the court have prejudiced me in the lower courts, leading to my eviction and causing undue strain on my mental and physical health.
*. Fraud on the Court: The party filed a fabricated assignment of the mortgage contract without the approval of the Northern California bankruptcy court, along with a deceptive attempt to falsify the endorsement of the promissory note.
*. Abuse of Discretion: The bankruptcy judge abused her discretion by not verifying the legitimacy of the claim before allowing the case to proceed. This oversight has been compounded by the housing court judge’s failure to refer the Title * case back to the appropriate court.
*. Misapplication of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine: The courts have allowed debt collectors, their attorneys, and agents to avoid addressing core issues by invoking the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, despite knowing or having reason to know that this doctrine does not apply to fraudulent transfers.
III. Conclusion
Due to the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the court reconsider its decision and address the core issues of the case, including the lack of proof of claim, judicial estoppel, and fraud on the court. The current proceedings have caused significant prejudice against me, resulting in eviction and severe mental and physical strain.
Respectfully submitted,
[Your Signature]
[Your Printed Name]
---
Would you like more specific guidance on any part of this motion or additional assistance with your case?
Asking for a written opinion based on the judicially noticed presented and a finding of facts from my motion pursuant to MA rule * as requested.
It should include my oral argument including all facts presented in the written motion, which included take judicial notice of the following facts.
To not do so is a violation of my civil rights and constitutional rights to equal protection
under the law. Also the courts previous rulings prejudice me in the bankruptcy court,
Because the state court did not have any jurisdiction to make any Order based on the fact that this title * case, upon entering the bankruptcy court, no longer had any jurisdiction to make any determinations pursuant to * USC section *
Case Rating: *
Incorporating your request, here's a more detailed motion:
---
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
[Your Phone Number]
[Email Address]
[Date]
[Court’s Name]
[Court’s Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
Re: [Case Name/Number]
Motion to Oppose the Court’s Last Order and Request for Written Opinion
I. Introduction
Your Honor,
I, [Your Name], am filing this motion to oppose the court's last order dated [Date of Order]. This motion is submitted pursuant to MA Rule *, requesting a written opinion based on the judicially noticed facts and findings presented in my motion. The court's decision has caused a significant escalation and prejudice in my case.
II. Argument and Points of Law
*. Judicial Notice and Findings of Fact: The court must take judicial notice of the following facts as presented in my motion, including all oral arguments. Failing to do so violates my constitutional rights to equal protection under the law.
*. Judicial Estoppel: The party before the court is not permitted to assume a position in a legal proceeding that contradicts one they successfully asserted in a previous proceeding. This principle is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
*. Lack of Proof of Claim: The claimant failed to submit a "proof of claim" as required. Without this submission, the court has never established jurisdiction over the matter.
*. Court Prejudice: The actions of the court have prejudiced me in the lower courts, leading to my eviction and causing undue strain on my mental and physical health.
*. Fraud on the Court: The party filed a fabricated assignment of the mortgage contract without the approval of the Northern California bankruptcy court, along with a deceptive attempt to falsify the endorsement of the promissory note.
*. Abuse of Discretion: The bankruptcy judge abused her discretion by not verifying the legitimacy of the claim before allowing the case to proceed. This oversight has been compounded by the housing court judge’s failure to refer the Title * case back to the appropriate court.
*. Misapplication of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine: The courts have allowed debt collectors, their attorneys, and agents to avoid addressing core issues by invoking the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, despite knowing or having reason to know that this doctrine does not apply to fraudulent transfers.
III. Conclusion
Due to the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the court reconsider its decision and address the core issues of the case, including the lack of proof of claim, judicial estoppel, and fraud on the court. The current proceedings have caused significant prejudice against me, resulting in eviction and severe mental and physical strain.
Respectfully submitted,
[Your Signature]
[Your Printed Name]
---
Would you like any additional assistance with this motion or further details on any specific points?
My mistake, a different court. This motion is for the housing court not the bankruptcy court. I am only addressing the rule *, written explanations based on the finding of facts as requested in that motion, and not having jurisdiction once this case entered bankruptcy and is now considered a title * case.
Case Rating: *
To address the specific needs for the housing court, here is the revised motion:
---
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
[Your Phone Number]
[Email Address]
[Date]
[Housing Court’s Name]
[Court’s Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
Re: [Case Name/Number]
Motion to Oppose the Court’s Last Order and Request for Written Opinion
I. Introduction
Your Honor,
I, [Your Name], am filing this motion to oppose the court's last order dated [Date of Order]. This motion is submitted pursuant to MA Rule *, requesting a written explanation based on the findings of fact as presented in my previous motion. The court's decision has caused significant escalation and prejudice in my case.
II. Argument and Points of Law
*. Judicial Notice and Findings of Fact: The court must take judicial notice of the following facts as presented in my motion, including all oral arguments. Failing to do so violates my constitutional rights to equal protection under the law.
*. Lack of Jurisdiction: Once this case entered bankruptcy and became a Title * case, the housing court no longer had jurisdiction to make any determinations pursuant to * USC Section *.
*. Judicial Estoppel: The party before the court is not permitted to assume a position in a legal proceeding that contradicts one they successfully asserted in a previous proceeding. This principle is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
*. Lack of Proof of Claim: The claimant failed to submit a "proof of claim" as required. Without this submission, the court has never established jurisdiction over the matter.
*. Court Prejudice: The actions of the court have prejudiced me in the lower courts, leading to my eviction and causing undue strain on my mental and physical health.
*. Fraud on the Court: The party filed a fabricated assignment of the mortgage contract without the approval of the Northern California bankruptcy court, along with a deceptive attempt to falsify the endorsement of the promissory note.
*. Abuse of Discretion: The bankruptcy judge abused her discretion by not verifying the legitimacy of the claim before allowing the case to proceed. This oversight has been compounded by the housing court judge’s failure to refer the Title * case back to the appropriate court.
*. Misapplication of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine: The courts have allowed debt collectors, their attorneys, and agents to avoid addressing core issues by invoking the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, despite knowing or having reason to know that this doctrine does not apply to fraudulent transfers.
III. Conclusion
Due to the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the court reconsider its decision and address the core issues of the case, including the lack of proof of claim, judicial estoppel, and fraud on the court. The current proceedings have caused significant prejudice against me, resulting in eviction and severe mental and physical strain.
Respectfully submitted,
[Your Signature]
[Your Printed Name]
---
Would you like any additional assistance with this motion or further details on any specific points?
My mistake, a different court. Please address and enhance only the following; This motion is for the housing court not the bankruptcy court. I am only addressing two issues ; (*) the rule *, written explanations based on the finding of facts as requested in that motion, (*) the court not having jurisdiction once this case entered bankruptcy and is now considered a title * case, which now must be adjudicated in the District Court pursuant to * USC section *.
Case Rating: *
Sure, here is the enhanced motion tailored specifically for the housing court:
---
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
[Your Phone Number]
[Email Address]
[Date]
[Housing Court’s Name]
[Court’s Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
Re: [Case Name/Number]
Motion for Written Explanations and to Oppose Jurisdiction
I. Introduction
Your Honor,
I, [Your Name], am filing this motion to request written explanations based on the findings of fact pursuant to Rule *, and to oppose the court's jurisdiction over this case once it entered bankruptcy and is now considered a Title * case.
II. Argument and Points of Law
*. Rule * Written Explanations:
- I respectfully request written explanations of the findings of fact as requested in my previous motion. This is essential for ensuring that the court's decision is fully transparent and based on the presented facts.
*. Lack of Jurisdiction:
- Once this case entered bankruptcy and became a Title * case, the housing court no longer had jurisdiction to make any determinations. According to * USC Section *, this case must now be adjudicated in the District Court. Continuing to proceed in the housing court is a violation of this statute and undermines the legal process.
III. Conclusion
Due to the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the court provide written explanations for its findings of fact and acknowledge that it no longer has jurisdiction over this case, which must now be adjudicated in the District Court pursuant to * USC Section *.
Respectfully submitted,
[Your Signature]
[Your Printed Name]
---
Would you like any additional assistance with this motion or further details on any specific points?
Excellent; should I also add that any order made before entering bankruptcy need to be re-addressed and orders made after after entering bankruptcy needs to be vacated.
Case Rating: *
You could include a point emphasizing the need to re-address any orders made before entering bankruptcy and vacate those made after entering bankruptcy. Here is the revised motion with that addition:
---
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
[Your Phone Number]
[Email Address]
[Date]
[Housing Court’s Name]
[Court’s Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
Re: [Case Name/Number]
Motion for Written Explanations and to Oppose Jurisdiction
I. Introduction
Your Honor,
I, [Your Name], am filing this motion to request written explanations based on the findings of fact pursuant to Rule *, and to oppose the court's jurisdiction over this case once it entered bankruptcy and is now considered a Title * case.
II. Argument and Points of Law
*. Rule * Written Explanations:
- I respectfully request written explanations of the findings of fact as requested in my previous motion. This is essential for ensuring that the court's decision is fully transparent and based on the presented facts.
*. Lack of Jurisdiction:
- Once this case entered bankruptcy and became a Title * case, the housing court no longer had jurisdiction to make any determinations. According to * USC Section *, this case must now be adjudicated in the District Court. Continuing to proceed in the housing court is a violation of this statute and undermines the legal process.
*. Re-Addressing and Vacating Orders:
- Any order made before entering bankruptcy needs to be re-addressed to ensure it is still valid under the current legal context. Additionally, any orders made after the case entered bankruptcy need to be vacated, as the housing court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter.
III. Conclusion
Due to the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the court provide written explanations for its findings of fact and acknowledge that it no longer has jurisdiction over this case, which must now be adjudicated in the District Court pursuant to * USC Section *. Furthermore, I request that any order made before entering bankruptcy be re-addressed and any orders made after entering bankruptcy be vacated.
Respectfully submitted,
[Your Signature]
[Your Printed Name]
---
Would you like any additional assistance with this motion or further details on any specific points?
In an abundance of caution should I refer to the fact that the Violations attributed to the lack of jurisdiction occurred in the original case number./….
The request for compliance with rule * occurred in the recent motion and hearing in case number....
Case Rating: *
Yes, referring to the original case number and the recent motion and hearing case number can provide clarity and context to your motion. Here’s the enhanced motion with those references:
---
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
[Your Phone Number]
[Email Address]
[Date]
[Housing Court’s Name]
[Court’s Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
Re: [Original Case Number] and [Recent Case Number]
Motion for Written Explanations and to Oppose Jurisdiction
I. Introduction
Your Honor,
I, [Your Name], am filing this motion to request written explanations based on the findings of fact pursuant to Rule * in the recent motion and hearing in case number [Recent Case Number], and to oppose the court's jurisdiction over this case once it entered bankruptcy and is now considered a Title * case under the original case number [Original Case Number].
II. Argument and Points of Law
*. Rule * Written Explanations:
- I respectfully request written explanations of the findings of fact as requested in my previous motion in case number [Recent Case Number]. This is essential for ensuring that the court's decision is fully transparent and based on the presented facts.
*. Lack of Jurisdiction:
- Once this case entered bankruptcy and became a Title * case under the original case number [Original Case Number], the housing court no longer had jurisdiction to make any determinations. According to * USC Section *, this case must now be adjudicated in the District Court. Continuing to proceed in the housing court is a violation of this statute and undermines the legal process.
*. Re-Addressing and Vacating Orders:
- Any order made before entering bankruptcy needs to be re-addressed to ensure it is still valid under the current legal context. Additionally, any orders made after the case entered bankruptcy need to be vacated, as the housing court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter.
*. Violations Due to Lack of Jurisdiction:
- The violations attributed to the lack of jurisdiction occurred in the original case number [Original Case Number]. These violations further emphasize the necessity for this case to be handled by the appropriate court with jurisdiction.
III. Conclusion
Due to the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the court provide written explanations for its findings of fact from case number [Recent Case Number] and acknowledge that it no longer has jurisdiction over this case, which must now be adjudicated in the District Court pursuant to * USC Section *. Furthermore, I request that any order made before entering bankruptcy be re-addressed and any orders made after entering bankruptcy be vacated.
Respectfully submitted,
[Your Signature]
[Your Printed Name]
---
Would you like any additional assistance with this motion or further details on any specific points?
I specifically asked the court to take judicial notice of certain facts. Should I list Each concern
Case Rating: *
Yes, it's important to be specific when asking the court to take judicial notice of certain facts. Listing each concern will ensure clarity and thoroughness. Here's how you can incorporate that into your motion:
---
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
[Your Phone Number]
[Email Address]
[Date]
[Housing Court’s Name]
[Court’s Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
Re: [Original Case Number] and [Recent Case Number]
Motion for Written Explanations and to Oppose Jurisdiction
I. Introduction
Your Honor,
I, [Your Name], am filing this motion to request written explanations based on the findings of fact pursuant to Rule * in the recent motion and hearing in case number [Recent Case Number], and to oppose the court's jurisdiction over this case once it entered bankruptcy and is now considered a Title * case under the original case number [Original Case Number].
II. Argument and Points of Law
*. Rule * Written Explanations:
- I respectfully request written explanations of the findings of fact as requested in my previous motion in case number [Recent Case Number]. This is essential for ensuring that the court's decision is fully transparent and based on the presented facts.
*. Judicial Notice of Facts:
- I specifically asked the court to take judicial notice of the following facts:
- [List each fact or concern here, e.g.,]
- The claimant has not validated the debt.
- The claimant has not shown any injury.
- The claimant has not established themselves as a creditor.
- The claimant has not presented a chain of title.
- The claimant has not provided a negotiated instrument establishing possession of the promissory note.
*. Lack of Jurisdiction:
- Once this case entered bankruptcy and became a Title * case under the original case number [Original Case Number], the housing court no longer had jurisdiction to make any determinations. According to * USC Section *, this case must now be adjudicated in the District Court. Continuing to proceed in the housing court is a violation of this statute and undermines the legal process.
*. Re-Addressing and Vacating Orders:
- Any order made before entering bankruptcy needs to be re-addressed to ensure it is still valid under the current legal context. Additionally, any orders made after the case entered bankruptcy need to be vacated, as the housing court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter.
*. Violations Due to Lack of Jurisdiction:
- The violations attributed to the lack of jurisdiction occurred in the original case number [Original Case Number]. These violations further emphasize the necessity for this case to be handled by the appropriate court with jurisdiction.
III. Conclusion
Due to the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the court provide written explanations for its findings of fact from case number [Recent Case Number] and acknowledge that it no longer has jurisdiction over this case, which must now be adjudicated in the District Court pursuant to * USC Section *. Furthermore, I request that any order made before entering bankruptcy be re-addressed and any orders made after entering bankruptcy be vacated.
Respectfully submitted,
[Your Signature]
[Your Printed Name]
---
Would you like any additional assistance with this motion or further details on any specific points?
In an abundance of caution do I need to requests the court to reopen the original case even though the court declared that the related warehouser case was the only open case and the debt collector and their attorneys needed to be re enjoined into this new case.
Case Rating: *
You might need to request the court to reopen the original case if critical issues were not resolved or if new significant evidence has emerged. However, since the court declared the related warehouser case as the only open one, you should ensure that all necessary parties and issues are addressed within that case.
Would you like more detailed guidance on how to proceed with reopening the original case or addressing the debt collector and their attorneys in the current open case?
TRY ME!
Start a new chat