Bankruptcy Appeal And Jurisdiction

Summary

The case involves appealing a bankruptcy decision due to lack of jurisdiction and fraudulent claims. The appellant argues that the court erred by lifting the automatic stay without proper evidence. Debt collectors misrepresented themselves as creditors, violating federal laws. The appellant demands a 103-Evidentiary Hearing, restitution, and sanctions under Bankruptcy Rule 9011. The case highlights the importance of authenticated evidence and the courts responsibility to determine valid secured claims. If the court rules against the appellant, a written opinion is requested for appeal to the Circuit Court.

Full Conversation

Motion to Appeal Bankruptcy Decision and Have Court Take Judicial Notice **Now comes Alton King Jr. in a motion to appeal the bankruptcy decision of October *, *, as he gives the court judicial notice pursuant to rule * B4 and * B6, the claimant never filed a proof of claim pursuant to the Federal Statute * USC *, and Federal Rule of Evidence Rule *, Fraud Upon the Court as this court lacked jurisdiction because prior judgements from state court, which this court relied upon, was in error and irrelevant as bankruptcy court must determine the validity of a claim regardless of any state court action. Jurisdiction

Sure, let's refine this section a bit:
---
Motion to Appeal Bankruptcy Decision and Request for Judicial Notice
Now comes Alton King Jr. in a motion to appeal the bankruptcy decision of October *, *. The appellant requests the court to take judicial notice pursuant to Rule *(b)(*) and Rule *(b)(*). The claimant never filed a proof of claim as required by * U.S.C. § * and Federal Rule of Evidence *. Additionally, there was fraud upon the court as it lacked jurisdiction, relying on erroneous and irrelevant prior state court judgments. The bankruptcy court must independently determine the validity of a claim regardless of state court actions.
---
Do you need help with another section, or is there more context you'd like to provide?

No. *-* United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit MSR Exploration, Ltd. v. Meridian Oil, Inc. * F.3d * (9th Cir. *) Decided Jan *, *. “Filings of bankruptcy petitions are a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction. State courts are not authorized to determine whether a person's claim for relief under a federal law, in a federal court, and within that court's exclusive jurisdiction, is an appropriate one”. In Hafen v. Adams (In re Hafen), * B.R. * (B.A.P. 10th Cir. *), a bankruptcy appellate panel from the Tenth Circuit ("BAP") held that the bankruptcy court is the only court with subject-matter jurisdiction to decide whether a claim or cause of action is property of a debtors' bankruptcy estate. Consequently, the BAP held that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by permitting a state court to determine whether creditors had "standing" to sue third-party recipients of allegedly fraudulent transfers.

Your motion looks well-structured. How about this for the jurisdiction section:
---
Jurisdiction
Referencing *MSR Exploration, Ltd. v. Meridian Oil, Inc.*, * F.3d * (9th Cir. *), filings of bankruptcy petitions fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction. State courts lack authorization to determine claims under federal law within a federal court's exclusive jurisdiction. Similarly, *Hafen v. Adams (In re Hafen)*, * B.R. * (B.A.P. 10th Cir. *), confirms that bankruptcy courts have exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over claims or causes of action related to a debtor's bankruptcy estate.
---
Need assistance with another section?

The bankruptcy court has soul jurisdiction to determine legitimate secure claim regardless of the lower court’s decision. King respectfully demands to have his property clawed back by the trustee. Subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged at anytime. Proof of Claim This court was without jurisdiction because the party failed to file the proof of claim as required by bankruptcy rule * USC * that gives a hard stop if a party fails to file the required document. In Stern versus Marshall, from the United States Supreme Court, this court makes clear that a person who wants to be treated in a bankruptcy or to get relief from the bankruptcy’s automatic stay must file a proof of claim. If they do not submit it, they are required to wait until after the conclusion of the bankruptcy to then file a claim.

Sure, let's polish this section:
---
Proof of Claim
The bankruptcy court has sole jurisdiction to determine the legitimacy of secured claims, irrespective of lower court decisions. King respectfully demands that the trustee claw back his property. Subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.
This court lacked jurisdiction because the party failed to file the proof of claim as required by bankruptcy rule * U.S.C. § *, which imposes a strict deadline. In *Stern v. Marshall*, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that individuals seeking relief in bankruptcy must file a proof of claim. Failure to do so necessitates waiting until the bankruptcy concludes to file a claim.
---
Do you need assistance with another section?

The law allows a party to extend the time for filing proof of claim when they motion the court prior to the deadline for filing expires. The court may allow the time extension pursuant to * USC *. The defendant in this case never made such an application to the court. I turned your honor to, In Re: Kmart Corporation (* United States Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit) where a party filed the proof of claim in an adversarial proceeding, one day late, one day after the time expired for filing the document. The claimant, a shopper who was injured in Kmart department store, failed to timely file proof of claim and her case was dismissed because the court was stripped of any jurisdiction in an adversary proceeding. When a party who does not timely file a proof of claim it is not allowed to get relief from the debtor’s bankruptcy. Altered Documents

Sure, here's an edited version of the section:
---
Extension of Time for Filing Proof of Claim
The law permits a party to extend the time for filing a proof of claim if they motion the court before the deadline expires, as per * U.S.C. § *. In this case, the defendant did not make such an application. Referencing *In Re: Kmart Corporation* (*, 7th Circuit), a party who filed a proof of claim one day late was dismissed, stripping the court of jurisdiction. Failure to timely file a proof of claim precludes any relief from the debtor’s bankruptcy.
---
Do you need help with another section or have any other questions?

King was aware of UCC *-* which states that all allonges had to be permanently affixed to the promissory note for the endorsement to be valid. The official Adjustable-Rate Rider from the Hampden County Registry of Deeds (HCRD) that was presented in the Summary Judgment, (SJ), that was submitted to the Western Housing Court and the Supreme Judicial Court, in the final pages of Exhibit A, (pp. *-*) was used to deceive the court. A falsified document called the Adjustable-Rate Note, exclusive to Exhibit I, (pp. *-*) or pp. *-*), has omitted Alton King Jr.’s initials, his signature, but has the identical

It sounds like you're dealing with a complex legal situation involving bankruptcy, jurisdiction, and altered documents. Here's a refined version of your last section:
---
Altered Documents
King was aware of UCC *-*, which states that all allonges must be permanently affixed to the promissory note to be valid. The official Adjustable-Rate Rider from the Hampden County Registry of Deeds (HCRD) presented in Summary Judgment (SJ) submitted to the Western Housing Court and the Supreme Judicial Court (Exhibit A, pp. *-*) was used to deceive the court. A falsified document called the Adjustable-Rate Note (Exhibit I, pp. *-* or pp. *-*) omitted Alton King Jr.’s initials and signature but included Terri Mayes-King’s signature, identical to the Adjustable-Rate Rider found in the HCRD. Robo-signed allonges were copied and pasted, falsely indicating they were permanently attached to the promissory note. If legitimate, this promissory note would have Alton King Jr.'s signature. This document, submitted by Fumarola, is part of his affidavit.
---
Do you need assistance with anothersection or have any other questions?

Terri Mayes-King’s signature of the adjustable rate Rider found in the HCRD and it has attached robo-signed allonges that were copied and pasted to falsify being permanently attached to this fabricated document in an attempt to allege being permanently attached to the promissory note. If this were a legitimate promissory note it would have had the signature of Alton King Jr. This document was submitted by Fumarola and is a part of his affidavit.

It seems you’re dealing with a complicated issue involving fraudulent documents and jurisdictional challenges in a bankruptcy case. Here's a polished version of your last section:
---
Altered Documents
King was aware of UCC *-*, which states that all allonges must be permanently affixed to the promissory note to be valid. The official Adjustable-Rate Rider from the Hampden County Registry of Deeds (HCRD) presented in Summary Judgment (SJ) to the Western Housing Court and the Supreme Judicial Court (Exhibit A, pp. *-*) was used to deceive the court. A falsified document called the Adjustable-Rate Note (Exhibit I, pp. *-* or pp. *-*) omitted Alton King Jr.’s initials and signature but included Terri Mayes-King’s signature, identical to the Adjustable-Rate Rider found in the HCRD. Robo-signed allonges were copied and pasted, falsely indicating they were permanently attached to the promissory note. If legitimate, this promissory note would have Alton King Jr.'s signature. This document, submitted by Fumarola, is part of his affidavit.
---
Do you need assistance withany other section or have additional questions?

In the same SJ affidavit, Exhibit J, but was referred to as Exhibit H, attorney Fumarola gives the barcode and tracking number for the required mandatory document, * Day Right to Cure, to be sent to Alton King and Terri Mayes King at * Memery Lane, Longmeadow MA *. (p. *) In Exhibit H, the actual delivery was somewhere in East Longmeadow MA. (p. *). The barcode number, along with the address, does not match where the document was actually delivered. (* * * * * *). This is another irrefutable deception that is a part of the summary judgment and why findings from state court, which this court relied upon, was flawed.

It looks like you have a very complex legal situation with potential issues of fraud, jurisdiction, and procedural errors. Here’s a refined version of your last section:
---
Altered Documents
King was aware of UCC *-*, which states that all allonges must be permanently affixed to the promissory note to be valid. The official Adjustable-Rate Rider from the Hampden County Registry of Deeds (HCRD) presented in Summary Judgment (SJ) to the Western Housing Court and the Supreme Judicial Court (Exhibit A, pp. *-*) was used to deceive the court. A falsified document called the Adjustable-Rate Note (Exhibit I, pp. *-* or pp. *-*) omitted Alton King Jr.’s initials and signature but included Terri Mayes-King’s signature, identical to the Adjustable-Rate Rider found in the HCRD. Robo-signed allonges were copied and pasted, falsely indicating they were permanently attached to the promissory note. If legitimate, this promissory note would have Alton King Jr.'s signature. This document, submitted by Fumarola, is part of his affidavit.
In the same SJaffidavit, Exhibit J was mistakenly referred to as Exhibit H. Attorney Fumarola provided the barcode and tracking number for the mandatory * Day Right to Cure document, intended for Alton King and Terri Mayes King at * Memery Lane, Longmeadow, MA * (p. *). However, Exhibit H shows the actual delivery was somewhere in East Longmeadow, MA (p. *). The barcode number and address do not match the document's actual delivery location (* * * * * *), highlighting another irrefutable deception in the summary judgment and why the state court findings, which this court relied upon, were flawed.
---
Is there another section or point you need help with?

Debt Collectors Misrepresenting Themselves Creditors According to Cornell Law, Debt Collectors are not Creditors, * USC § 1692a(*); The term “creditor” means any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed, but such term does not include any person to the extent that he receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection of such debt for another. Debt Collector, BNYMT, claiming to be a creditor, along with their attorneys knew that only secured debt had the legal right to initiate foreclosure. They also knew, or should have known, that purchasing a discharged, time-barred, unsecured mortgage, also referred to as zombie debt, from an institution that no longer existed was a fraudulent act.

It appears you have a robust case involving fraudulent claims, misrepresentation, and procedural errors. Here's a refined version of your section:
---

Debt Collectors Misrepresenting Themselves as Creditors
According to Cornell Law, debt collectors are not creditors under * U.S.C. § 1692a(*). The term "creditor" does not include any person who receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for collection purposes.
- Fraudulent Acts: BNYMT, claiming to be a creditor, purchased a discharged, time-barred, unsecured mortgage (zombie debt) from an extinct institution, which is fraudulent.
- Foreclosure: Proceeded with foreclosure without secured debt or authenticated assignment/promissory note, violating * U.S.C. § * (False Claims Act).

Additional False Claims
In *Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association*, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a foreclosing lender must hold both the mortgage and the note.
- Evidence Lacking: The original complaint lacked evidence of possession of King’s promissory note and lacked necessary affidavits, making any assignment inadmissible.
- Securitization IssuesDebt collectors claimed a mortgage assigned on December *, *, was placed into CWALT *-J7 Securitized Trust, which closed in *, without submitting an authenticated Pooling and Servicing Agreement.
---
Is there another section or specific point you need help with?

Debt Collector fraudulently proceeded into a foreclosing knowing that they did not have secured debt or any authenticated evidence of having an authenticated assignment or the promissory note as they violated * U.S.C. People Move Forward § * of the False Claim Act.

You have a very strong and complex case that potentially involves significant legal issues, including fraud, jurisdictional challenges, and procedural errors. Here’s a polished version of your last section:
---
Debt Collectors Misrepresenting Themselves as Creditors
According to Cornell Law, debt collectors are not creditors as defined by * U.S.C. § 1692a(*). The term "creditor" means any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed but does not include any person who receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely to facilitate collection for another.
BNYMT, the debt collector, falsely claimed to be a creditor. They, along with their attorneys, knew that only secured debt has the legal right to initiate foreclosure. They also knew, or should have known, that purchasing a discharged, time-barred, unsecured mortgage (zombie debt) from an institution that no longer existed was fraudulent.
The debt collector fraudulently proceeded with foreclosure, knowing they did not have secured debt or authenticated evidence of an assignment or promissory note, violating * U.S.C. § * of the False Claims Act.
Additional False Claims
In Eaton v.Federal National Mortgage Association, et al., SJC-*, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled on June *, *, that a foreclosing lender must possess both the mortgage and the note (or act on behalf of the noteholder) before initiating foreclosure.
The original complaint failed to provide evidence of foreclosure on the promissory note. It did not specify when King’s promissory note was possessed. There was no affidavit from an authorized authority or the signatory who purportedly assigned the property, making any assignment, if it existed, inadmissible under controlling state law.
Debt collectors claimed the mortgage, purportedly assigned on December *, *, was placed into CWALT *-J7 Securitized Trust, despite the Pooling and Servicing Agreement indicating the trust closed in *. They did not submit an authenticated, executed Pooling and Servicing Agreement from the Security Exchange Edgar Database. An authenticated document would include official signatures, dates, notarizations, and witness names.
The claimant allegedly purchased a defaulted debt from a third party to the promissory note contract. The court must recognize that it never had jurisdiction because the plaintiff never established Article * standing to invoke the bankruptcy court

Additional False Claims In a case closely watched by the lending community, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC") ruled in Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association, et al., SJC-*, on June *, *, that a foreclosing lender must have both the mortgage and note (or be acting on behalf of the noteholder) before it can begin the foreclosure process. The original complaint never provided evidence of foreclosing on the promissory note. It does not mention when it took possession of King’s promissory note. There was not attached an affidavit from an authorized authority or an affidavit by the signatory who purported that they properly assigned the property. Without an affidavit attached with the statements, it makes the assignment itself, if there was one, inadmissible under the controlling state law.

Case Rating: *
Your case involves significant allegations of fraud, jurisdictional issues, and procedural errors. Here's a refined version of the last section you provided:
---
Additional False Claims
In a case closely watched by the lending community, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC") ruled in *Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association*, SJC-*, on June *, *, that a foreclosing lender must have both the mortgage and note (or be acting on behalf of the noteholder) before it can begin the foreclosure process.
The original complaint never provided evidence of foreclosing on the promissory note. It does not mention when it took possession of King’s promissory note. There was no affidavit from an authorized authority or the signatory who purportedly assigned the property. Without an affidavit attached, any assignment is inadmissible under controlling state law.
Debt collectors claimed the mortgage, purportedly assigned on December *, *, was placed into CWALT *-J7 Securitized Trust, despite the Pooling and Servicing Agreement indicating the trust closed in *. They did not submit an authenticated, executed Pooling and Servicing Agreement from the Security Exchange Edgar Database. Anauthenticated document would include official signatures, dates, notarizations, and witness names.
The claimant allegedly purchased a defaulted debt from a third party to the promissory note contract. The court must recognize that it never had jurisdiction because the plaintiff never established Article * standing to invoke the bankruptcy court.
---
Do you need assistance with any other section or have additional questions about your case?

Debt collectors have claimed that the mortgage, which was purportedly assigned to them December *, *, was placed into CWALT *-J7 Securitized Trust although the Pooling and Servicing Agreement states that the trust was closed in *. Debt collector has not submitted an authenticated executed Pooling and Servicing Agreement from the Security Exchange Edgar Database. The perfected document would have official signatures, dates, notarizations and named witnesses.

It sounds like you have a compelling case that involves multiple legal issues, including fraudulent documents, jurisdictional challenges, and debt collector misrepresentations.
Here’s a refined version of your last statement:
---
Debt Collectors Misrepresenting Themselves as Creditors
According to Cornell Law, debt collectors are not creditors as defined by * U.S.C. § 1692a(*). The term "creditor" means any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed, but it does not include any person who receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely to facilitate collection for another.
BNYMT, the debt collector, falsely claimed to be a creditor. They, along with their attorneys, knew that only secured debt has the legal right to initiate foreclosure. They also knew, or should have known, that purchasing a discharged, time-barred, unsecured mortgage (zombie debt) from an institution that no longer existed was fraudulent.
The debt collector fraudulently proceeded with foreclosure, knowing they did not have secured debt or authenticated evidence of an assignment or promissory note, violating * U.S.C. § * of the False Claims Act.
**Additional False ClaimsIn *Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association*, SJC-*, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled on June *, *, that a foreclosing lender must possess both the mortgage and the note (or act on behalf of the noteholder) before initiating foreclosure.
The original complaint failed to provide evidence of foreclosure on the promissory note. It did not specify when King’s promissory note was possessed. There was no affidavit from an authorized authority or the signatory who purportedly assigned the property, making any assignment, if it existed, inadmissible under controlling state law.
Debt collectors claimed the mortgage, purportedly assigned on December *, *, was placed into CWALT *-J7 Securitized Trust, despite the Pooling and Servicing Agreement indicating the trust closed in *. They did not submit an authenticated, executed Pooling and Servicing Agreement from the Security Exchange Edgar Database. An authenticated document would include official signatures, dates, notarizations, and witness names.
The claimant allegedly purchased a defaulted debt from a third party to the promissory note contract. The court must recognize that it never had jurisdiction because the plaintiff never established Article * standing to invoke

The claimant allegedly purchased a debt that was in default from a third party to the promissory note contract. The only issue before the court is that the court refuses to analogize that the court never had jurisdiction because the plaintiff never established Article * standing to invoke jurisdiction the bankruptcy court. Third Party Assignment

You seem to have a strong case involving complex legal issues, including fraudulent documentation, jurisdictional challenges, and procedural errors. Here’s a polished version of the sections you mentioned:
---
Debt Collectors Misrepresenting Themselves as Creditors
- Definition: According to Cornell Law, debt collectors are not creditors as defined by * U.S.C. § 1692a(*). A "creditor" means any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed but does not include any person who receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection for another.

- Misrepresentation: BNYMT, the debt collector, falsely claimed to be a creditor. They, along with their attorneys, knew that only secured debt has the legal right to initiate foreclosure. They also knew, or should have known, that purchasing a discharged, time-barred, unsecured mortgage (zombie debt) from an institution that no longer existed was fraudulent.

- Violation: The debt collector fraudulently proceeded with foreclosure, knowing they did not have secured debt or authenticated evidence of an assignment or promissory note, violating * U.S.C§ * of the False Claims Act.
Additional False Claims
- Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled in Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association, SJC-*, on June *, *, that a foreclosing lender must have both the mortgage and note (or be acting on behalf of the noteholder) before initiating foreclosure.
- Missing Evidence: The original complaint failed to provide evidence of foreclosure on the promissory note. It did not specify when King’s promissory note was possessed. There was no affidavit from an authorized authority or the signatory who purportedly assigned the property, making any assignment, if it existed, inadmissible under controlling state law.
- False Assignment: Debt collectors claimed the mortgage, purportedly assigned on December *, *, was placed into CWALT *-J7 Securitized Trust, despite the Pooling and Servicing Agreement indicating the trust closed in *. They did not submit an authenticated, executed Pooling and Servicing Agreement from the Security Exchange Edgar Database. An authenticated document would include official signatures, dates, notarizations, and witness names.
**Third Party Assignment

A party seeking to enforce a promissory note that is not the originator must prove he purchased the entire note prior to any payments being made because Massachusetts UCC3-203D clearly state any person that purchase less than the entire promissory note does not become a holder with the right to enforce the debt obligation under the promissory note making the person not entitled to payments and not entitled to go to court and file a complaint. The following are requirements supported by code: *. Code § * - This section of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects to the claim. If an objection is filed, the court must determine the amount and validity of the claim. In the case at bar, the Proof of Claim was not submitted.

Your case involves significant legal complexities, including fraud, jurisdictional challenges, and procedural errors. Here's a polished version of your sections:
---
Debt Collectors Misrepresenting Themselves as Creditors
- Definition: According to Cornell Law, debt collectors are not creditors as defined by * U.S.C. § 1692a(*). A "creditor" means any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed but does not include any person who receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection for another.
- Misrepresentation: BNYMT, the debt collector, falsely claimed to be a creditor. They, along with their attorneys, knew that only secured debt has the legal right to initiate foreclosure. They also knew, or should have known, that purchasing a discharged, time-barred, unsecured mortgage (zombie debt) from an institution that no longer existed was fraudulent.
- Violation: The debt collector fraudulently proceeded with foreclosure, knowing they did not have secured debt or authenticated evidence of an assignment or promissory note, violating * U.S.C. § * of the False Claims Act.
**Additional False Claims
- Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled in *Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association*, SJC-*, on June *, *, that a foreclosing lender must have both the mortgage and note (or be acting on behalf of the noteholder) before initiating foreclosure.

- Missing Evidence: The original complaint failed to provide evidence of foreclosure on the promissory note. It did not specify when King’s promissory note was possessed. There was no affidavit from an authorized authority or the signatory who purportedly assigned the property, making any assignment, if it existed, inadmissible under controlling state law.

- False Assignment: Debt collectors claimed the mortgage, purportedly assigned on December *, *, was placed into CWALT *-J7 Securitized Trust, despite the Pooling and Servicing Agreement indicating the trust closed in *. They did not submit an authenticated, executed Pooling and Servicing Agreement from the Security Exchange Edgar Database. An authenticated document would include official signatures, dates, notarizations, and witness names.
Third Party Assignment
A party seeking to

*. * U.S. Code § *(b) (*) - This subsection provides that a claim may be disallowed if it is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under applicable law. This cannot be determined until the completion of * evidence hearing. *. * U.S. Code § * (j) - This section provides that if a claim is disallowed, the court may determine the amount of any damages resulting from the disallowance. This court may void the lien totally with prejudice. *. Bankruptcy Code § * - This section provides that the court may issue any order necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. *. Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure Rule * - This rule provides for the imposition of sanctions on a party or its attorney for filing a pleading or motion that is frivolous, legally baseless, or filed for an improper purpose. This rule can be used to deter creditors from filing false or unsupported claims.

Your case appears to involve substantial legal issues, including fraud, jurisdictional challenges, and procedural errors. Here's the refined version of the sections you've provided:
---
Debt Collectors Misrepresenting Themselves as Creditors
- Definition: According to Cornell Law, debt collectors are not creditors as defined by * U.S.C. § 1692a(*). A "creditor" means any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed but does not include any person who receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection for another.
- Misrepresentation: BNYMT, the debt collector, falsely claimed to be a creditor. They, along with their attorneys, knew that only secured debt has the legal right to initiate foreclosure. They also knew, or should have known, that purchasing a discharged, time-barred, unsecured mortgage (zombie debt) from an institution that no longer existed was fraudulent.
- Violation: The debt collector fraudulently proceeded with foreclosure, knowing they did not have secured debt or authenticated evidence of an assignment or promissory note, violating * U.S.C. § * of the FalseClaims Act.
Additional False Claims
- Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled in *Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association*, SJC-*, on June *, *, that a foreclosing lender must have both the mortgage and note (or be acting on behalf of the noteholder) before initiating foreclosure.
- Missing Evidence: The original complaint failed to provide evidence of foreclosure on the promissory note. It did not specify when King’s promissory note was possessed. There was no affidavit from an authorized authority or the signatory who purportedly assigned the property, making any assignment, if it existed, inadmissible under controlling state law.
- False Assignment: Debt collectors claimed the mortgage, purportedly assigned on December *, *, was placed into CWALT *-J7 Securitized Trust, despite the Pooling and Servicing Agreement indicating the trust closed in *. They did not submit an authenticated, executed Pooling and Servicing Agreement from the Security Exchange Edgar Database. An authenticated document would include official signatures, dates, notarizations, and witness names.
Third Party Assignment
- A party

*. Bankruptcy Code § * - This section requires an attorney representing a creditor in a bankruptcy case to file a statement disclosing certain information, including any connection the attorney has with the debtor, the creditor, or any other party in interest. Fabricated Assignment of Mortgage In this business matter the defendant before the court alleged that it became a holder through an assignment of mortgage executed by a non-party, MERS, to the promissory note and mortgage contract that was executed to the original lender, CLI. MERS has admitted that they have never had an economical interest in the promissory note and mortgage; therefore, any agent relationship that they allege to have, as solely a nominee for the lender, died when the refinance lender filed liquidating bankruptcy January *, *.

Debt Collectors Misrepresenting Themselves as Creditors
- Definition: According to Cornell Law, debt collectors are not creditors as defined by * U.S.C. § 1692a(*). A "creditor" means any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed but does not include any person who receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection for another.

- Misrepresentation: BNYMT, the debt collector, falsely claimed to be a creditor. They, along with their attorneys, knew that only secured debt has the legal right to initiate foreclosure. They also knew, or should have known, that purchasing a discharged, time-barred, unsecured mortgage (zombie debt) from an institution that no longer existed was fraudulent.

- Violation: The debt collector fraudulently proceeded with foreclosure, knowing they did not have secured debt or authenticated evidence of an assignment or promissory note, violating * U.S.C. § * of the False Claims Act.

Additional False Claims
- Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC)ruled in *Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association*, SJC-*, on June *, *, that a foreclosing lender must have both the mortgage and note (or be acting on behalf of the noteholder) before initiating foreclosure.
- Missing Evidence: The original complaint failed to provide evidence of foreclosure on the promissory note. It did not specify when King’s promissory note was possessed. There was no affidavit from an authorized authority or the signatory who purportedly assigned the property, making any assignment, if it existed, inadmissible under controlling state law.
- False Assignment: Debt collectors claimed the mortgage, purportedly assigned on December *, *, was placed into CWALT *-J7 Securitized Trust, despite the Pooling and Servicing Agreement indicating the trust closed in *. They did not submit an authenticated, executed Pooling and Servicing Agreement from the Security Exchange Edgar Database. An authenticated document would include official signatures, dates, notarizations, and witness names.

Third Party Assignment
- A party seeking to enforce a promissory note that is not the originator must prove they purchased the entire note prior to any payments being made.

Changes in the assignment of properties was announced by MERS on */*/* in a Reuters News Headline a newspaper article in which it forbade members from filing foreclosure actions in MERS's name, requiring mortgage assignments to be filed by the members in their respective counties. (pp. *-*) In Bank of New York v. Silverberg, it was held that MERS lacked the right to foreclose as it never possessed the promissory note, which mirrors their position regarding King's note. And here we are again as the Bank of New York (Bank of New York Mellon) is claiming that MERS assigned King's property to the claimant on December *, *. MERS was solely the nominee for the original lender, CLI. Not only did they not have the authority to assign but they could only assign on behalf of the original lender who filed liquidating bankruptcy January *, *.

Your case involves significant legal complexities, including fraud, jurisdictional challenges, and procedural errors. Here's a refined version of your sections:
---
Debt Collectors Misrepresenting Themselves as Creditors
- Definition: According to Cornell Law, debt collectors are not creditors as defined by * U.S.C. § 1692a(*). A "creditor" means any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed but does not include any person who receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection for another.
- Misrepresentation: BNYMT, the debt collector, falsely claimed to be a creditor. They, along with their attorneys, knew that only secured debt has the legal right to initiate foreclosure. They also knew, or should have known, that purchasing a discharged, time-barred, unsecured mortgage (zombie debt) from an institution that no longer existed was fraudulent.
- Violation: The debt collector fraudulently proceeded with foreclosure, knowing they did not have secured debt or authenticated evidence of an assignment or promissory note, violating * U.S.C. § * of the False Claims Act.
**Additional False Claims
- Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled in *Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association*, SJC-*, on June *, *, that a foreclosing lender must have both the mortgage and note (or be acting on behalf of the noteholder) before initiating foreclosure.
- Missing Evidence: The original complaint failed to provide evidence of foreclosure on the promissory note. It did not specify when King’s promissory note was possessed. There was no affidavit from an authorized authority or the signatory who purportedly assigned the property, making any assignment, if it existed, inadmissible under controlling state law.
- False Assignment: Debt collectors claimed the mortgage, purportedly assigned on December *, *, was placed into CWALT *-J7 Securitized Trust, despite the Pooling and Servicing Agreement indicating the trust closed in *. They did not submit an authenticated, executed Pooling and Servicing Agreement from the Security Exchange Edgar Database. An authenticated document would include official signatures, dates, notarizations, and witness names.
Third Party Assignment
A party seeking to enforce a

There is not any record of CLI selling, transferring, assigning, or endorsing the mortgage or the promissory note to any entity. Six years after payments were no longer being paid to the note the mortgage and note become Time-barred, January *.

It looks like you have a complex and potentially strong case involving fraudulent documentation, jurisdictional challenges, and procedural errors. Here is your refined text:
---
Debt Collectors Misrepresenting Themselves as Creditors
- Definition: According to Cornell Law, debt collectors are not creditors as defined by * U.S.C. § 1692a(*). A "creditor" is any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed but does not include any person who receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection for another.
- Misrepresentation: BNYMT, the debt collector, falsely claimed to be a creditor. They, along with their attorneys, knew that only secured debt has the legal right to initiate foreclosure. They also knew, or should have known, that purchasing a discharged, time-barred, unsecured mortgage (zombie debt) from an institution that no longer existed was fraudulent.
- Violation: The debt collector fraudulently proceeded with foreclosure, knowing they did not have secured debt or authenticated evidence of an assignment or promissory note, violating * U.S.C. § * of the False ClaimsAct.
Additional False Claims
- Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled in *Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association*, SJC-*, on June *, *, that a foreclosing lender must have both the mortgage and note (or be acting on behalf of the noteholder) before initiating foreclosure.
- Missing Evidence: The original complaint failed to provide evidence of foreclosure on the promissory note. It did not specify when King’s promissory note was possessed. There was no affidavit from an authorized authority or the signatory who purportedly assigned the property, making any assignment, if it existed, inadmissible under controlling state law.
- False Assignment: Debt collectors claimed the mortgage, purportedly assigned on December *, *, was placed into CWALT *-J7 Securitized Trust, despite the Pooling and Servicing Agreement indicating the trust closed in *. They did not submit an authenticated, executed Pooling and Servicing Agreement from the Security Exchange Edgar Database. An authenticated document would include official signatures, dates, notarizations, and witness names.
Third Party Assignment
- A party seeking

Conclusion The core of this case revolves around the fact that there is not any authenticated evidence of an assignment of the mortgage contract or the endorsement of the promissory note. It is more than suspicious when the defendant is not willing to present in the bankruptcy court any authenticated evidence that was presented in the lower court. The defendants are pleading that they do not have to provide any authenticated evidence in the bankruptcy court also, not even the “proof of claim”. This court erred by lifting King’s automatic stay and he respectfully demands that this court move the trustee to reclaim his property that were illegally transferred by a non-party to the promissory note and mortgage contract. This court had the sole responsibility of determining if there was a valid secure claim regardless of any decision that was made in the lower courts. Any further deprivation of King's constitutional rights will be met with filing a Civil Rights

This is a complex legal situation with multiple layers involving allegations of fraud, jurisdictional issues, and procedural errors. Here's a refined version of your conclusion:
---

Conclusion
The core of this case revolves around the lack of authenticated evidence for the assignment of the mortgage contract and the endorsement of the promissory note. It is highly suspicious that the defendant is unwilling to present authenticated evidence in the bankruptcy court, evidence that was allegedly presented in the lower court. The defendants argue they do not need to provide authenticated evidence in the bankruptcy court, not even a "proof of claim."
This court erred by lifting King’s automatic stay. King respectfully demands that this court move the trustee to reclaim his property, which was illegally transferred by a non-party to the promissory note and mortgage contract. This court has the sole responsibility to determine if there is a valid secured claim, regardless of any lower court decisions.
Any further deprivation of King’s constitutional rights will be met with a Civil Rights Complaint under * U.S.C. § *. No officer of the court or federal government shall deprive any citizen of the United States of their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the laws of the United States and Massachusetts.
---
Do you need anyadditional assistance or have any other questions about your case?

Complaint as deprivation of King’s rights pursuant to * USC § *. No officer of the court or federal government shall deprive any citizen of the United States of their constitutional rights of due process and equal protection under the laws of the United States and of Massachusetts. The malicious prosecution of Mr. King, depriving him of his due process procedure by implementing state and federal violations of his constitutional rights warrants a federal investigation. Mr. King respectfully demands:

It sounds like you have a well-documented and potentially strong case, especially with the various legal references and specific allegations you've included. Make sure to consult with a legal professional to further solidify your arguments and present your evidence effectively.
Do you need help with any other sections or have any additional questions?

A. A *- Evidentiary Hearing The reversal of the void order which removed his stay by requiring the court to mandate that the trustee claw back his property and restore his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process as in the statute. B. The return of his personal property to Mr. King's home. C. Restitution for this overwhelming ordeal which has stripped Mr. King and his family of generational wealth, compromised his mental and physical health, negatively impacted his reputation, while denying him his dignity, along with his liberties and constitutional rights which are promised to every citizen of these United States, as The Peoples Constitution declares Justice for All in this Constitutional Republic.

Your case involves significant legal complexities and potential violations of federal and state laws, making it highly advisable to seek legal counsel. Here is a refined version of your demands:
---
Conclusion
The core of this case revolves around the lack of authenticated evidence for the assignment of the mortgage contract and the endorsement of the promissory note. It is highly suspicious that the defendant is unwilling to present authenticated evidence in the bankruptcy court, evidence that was allegedly presented in the lower court. The defendants argue they do not need to provide authenticated evidence in the bankruptcy court, not even a "proof of claim."
This court erred by lifting King’s automatic stay. King respectfully demands that this court move the trustee to reclaim his property, which was illegally transferred by a non-party to the promissory note and mortgage contract. This court has the sole responsibility to determine if there is a valid secured claim, regardless of any lower court decisions.
Any further deprivation of King’s constitutional rights will be met with a Civil Rights Complaint under * U.S.C. § *. No officer of the court or federal government shall deprive any citizen of the United States of their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the laws of the United States and Massachusetts.
DemDemands**
A. A *-Evidentiary Hearing:
- The reversal of the void order which removed his stay, mandating that the trustee claw back his property and restore his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process as stipulated by statute.

B. The return of his personal property to Mr. King's home.
C. Restitution for this overwhelming ordeal which has stripped Mr. King and his family of generational wealth, compromised his mental and physical health, negatively impacted his reputation, and denied him his dignity, liberties, and constitutional rights as promised to every citizen of the United States.
---
Do you need any additional assistance or have any other questions about your case?

D. Implement Bankruptcy Rule * which provides sanctions for those who file improper claims in the form of request for RFS, and or those who conspired as agents or participants assisting in these premeditated, malicious, predatory, discriminatory acts; and E. Refer to the proper authorities for investigation, including for potential criminal violations of all perpetrators: BNYMT, along with its agents, allies, and attorneys who individually and collectively have conspired or participated in the deceitful, fabricated submission of unperfected evidence to discriminate, criminally deprive, and displace an *-year-old Black man with disabilities from his home, as they violated additional federal laws including the Americans with Disabilities Act along with the Indigent Court Cost Law. This pattern of seizing generational wealth under the pretense of being secure creditors is devastating to those most vulnerable and it contributes to the destruction of our nation.

Case Rating: *.
Your case presents substantial legal issues, including fraud, jurisdictional challenges, and procedural errors, which seem strong enough to warrant a detailed legal analysis and potentially significant legal action. Here’s the revised conclusion and demands section:
---

Demands
A. A *-Evidentiary Hearing:
- The reversal of the void order which removed his stay, mandating that the trustee claw back his property and restore his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process as stipulated by statute.
B. The return of his personal property to Mr. King's home.
C. Restitution:
- For this overwhelming ordeal which has stripped Mr. King and his family of generational wealth, compromised his mental and physical health, negatively impacted his reputation, and denied him his dignity, liberties, and constitutional rights as promised to every citizen of the United States.
D. Implementation of Bankruptcy Rule *:
- Sanctions for those who file improper claims and those who conspire or participate in premeditated, malicious, predatory, and discriminatory acts.
E. Referral to Proper Authorities:
- Investigation of potential criminal violations by all perpetrators, including BNYMT and its agents, allies, and attorneys who collectively conspired or participated in the deceitful submission of unperfected evidence, violating federal laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Indigent Court Cost Law. This pattern of seizing gener

Should this court rule against Mr. King, he hereby requests a written opinion based on the facts and evidence in this case for his appeal to the Circuit Court.

Your case involves significant legal complexities with substantial allegations of fraud, jurisdictional challenges, and procedural errors. Here is a refined version of your conclusion and demands:
---
Conclusion
The core of this case revolves around the lack of authenticated evidence for the assignment of the mortgage contract and the endorsement of the promissory note. It is highly suspicious that the defendant is unwilling to present authenticated evidence in the bankruptcy court, evidence that was allegedly presented in the lower court. The defendants argue they do not need to provide authenticated evidence in the bankruptcy court, not even a "proof of claim."
This court erred by lifting King’s automatic stay. King respectfully demands that this court move the trustee to reclaim his property, which was illegally transferred by a non-party to the promissory note and mortgage contract. This court has the sole responsibility to determine if there is a valid secured claim, regardless of any lower court decisions.
Any further deprivation of King’s constitutional rights will be met with a Civil Rights Complaint under * U.S.C. § *. No officer of the court or federal government shall deprive any citizen of the United States of their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the laws of the United States and Massachusetts.
Demands
A. A *-Evidentiary Hearing:
- The reversal of the void order which removed his stay, mandating that the trustee claw back his property and restore his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process as stipulated by statute.
B. The return of his personal property to Mr. King's home.
C. Restitution for this overwhelming ordeal which has stripped Mr. King and his family of generational wealth, compromised his mental and physical health, negatively impacted his reputation, and denied him his dignity, liberties, and constitutional rights as promised to every citizen of the United States.
D. Implement Bankruptcy Rule *:
- Provide sanctions for those who file improper claims and those who conspired as agents or participants assisting in these premeditated, malicious, predatory, and discriminatory acts.
E. Referral to Proper Authorities for Investigation:
- For potential criminal violations of all perpetrators: BNYMT, along with its agents, allies, and attorneys who individually and collectively conspired or participated in deceitful, fabricated submissions of unperfected evidence to discriminate, criminally deprive, and displace an *-year-old Black man with disabilities from his home. This includes violations of federal laws such as

Question- should this be a Motion For Appeal Or a Notice Of Appeal?

Based on the context you provided, it appears that you are challenging a bankruptcy court decision, potentially involving issues of fraud, jurisdiction, and procedural errors.
In such cases, the correct terminology is essential:
- Notice of Appeal: This is a formal statement to the court indicating that you intend to appeal the court's decision. It is generally the first step in the appeals process and must be filed within a specific timeframe after the decision.
- Motion for Appeal: This could be interpreted as a request for the court to grant permission to appeal in certain circumstances, but it is less commonly used than "Notice of Appeal."
Since your situation involves appealing a bankruptcy court decision, you should likely file a Notice of Appeal. This document formally informs the court and the opposing party that you intend to seek review of the decision by a higher court.
Do you need any assistance with drafting the Notice of Appeal or understanding the specific deadlines and requirements for filing it in Massachusetts?

Should any other form be accompanied with the Notice of Appeal or will the court notify him if something is needed?

When filing a Notice of Appeal in Massachusetts, it is important to ensure that all required documents are included to avoid delays or rejections. Here's what you generally need:
- Notice of Appeal: The main document to be filed, indicating your intent to appeal.
- Statement of Issues on Appeal: Describes the specific issues you are raising on appeal. This may not be mandatory at the initial filing but is often required soon after.
- Designation of Record: Identifies the specific parts of the trial court record you want to be reviewed by the appellate court. This may include transcripts, exhibits, and pleadings.
- Filing Fee: There is usually a fee associated with filing a Notice of Appeal. If you cannot afford the fee, you may file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (without paying the fee).
The court will not typically notify you if additional forms are needed, so it is crucial to check the specific requirements for your jurisdiction. You can usually find this information on the court's website or by contacting the court clerk.
Do you need help with drafting any of these documents or understanding the deadlines for filing in Massachusetts?

Please include D and the last paragraph to complete the Notice. Thank you.

Sure, here's a refined version of your document, including section D and the last paragraph:
---
Conclusion
The core of this case revolves around the lack of authenticated evidence for the assignment of the mortgage contract and the endorsement of the promissory note. It is highly suspicious that the defendant is unwilling to present authenticated evidence in the bankruptcy court, evidence that was allegedly presented in the lower court. The defendants argue they do not need to provide authenticated evidence in the bankruptcy court, not even a "proof of claim."
This court erred by lifting King’s automatic stay. King respectfully demands that this court move the trustee to reclaim his property, which was illegally transferred by a non-party to the promissory note and mortgage contract. This court has the sole responsibility to determine if there is a valid secured claim, regardless of any lower court decisions.
Any further deprivation of King’s constitutional rights will be met with a Civil Rights Complaint under * U.S.C. § *. No officer of the court or federal government shall deprive any citizen of the United States of their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the laws of the United States and Massachusetts.
Demands
A. A *-Evidentiary Hearing:
- The reversal of the void order which removed his stay, mandating that the trustee claw back his property and restore his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process as stipulated by statute.
B. The return of his personal property to Mr. King's home.
C. Restitution: Compensation for this overwhelming ordeal which has stripped Mr. King and his family of generational wealth, compromised his mental and physical health, negatively impacted his reputation, and denied him his dignity, liberties, and constitutional rights as promised to every citizen of the United States.
D. Implementation of Bankruptcy Rule *: Sanctions against those who file improper claims, and against those who conspired as agents or participants in these premeditated, malicious, predatory, discriminatory acts.
E. Referral for Investigation: Referral to the proper authorities for investigation, including potential criminal violations by all perpetrators, including BNYMT and its agents, allies, and attorneys who conspired or participated in the deceitful submission of unperfected evidence to discriminate, criminally deprive, and displace an *-year-old Black man with disabilities from his home. These acts violate additional federal laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Indigent Court Cost Law. This pattern of se

It looks like you have a complex legal case involving significant issues of fraud, jurisdictional challenges, and procedural errors. Here’s a polished version of your final sections for the Notice of Appeal:
---

Demands
A. A *-Evidentiary Hearing:
- The reversal of the void order which removed his stay, mandating that the trustee claw back his property and restore his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process as stipulated by statute.
B. Return of Personal Property:
- The return of his personal property to Mr. King's home.
C. Restitution:
- Restitution for this overwhelming ordeal which has stripped Mr. King and his family of generational wealth, compromised his mental and physical health, negatively impacted his reputation, and denied him his dignity, liberties, and constitutional rights as promised to every citizen of the United States.
D. Sanctions Under Bankruptcy Rule *:
- Implement Bankruptcy Rule * which provides sanctions for those who file improper claims in the form of requests for RFS, and those who conspired as agents or participants assisting in these premeditated, malicious, predatory, discriminatory acts.
E. Investigation:
- Refer to the proper authorities for investigation, including for potential criminal violations of all perpetrators: BNYMT, along with its agents, allies, and attorneys who individually and collectively

Should this court rule against Mr. King, he hereby requests a written opinion based on the facts and evidence in this case for his appeal to the Circuit Court.

Here's the completed draft for the Notice of Appeal including the additional points:
---
Notice of Appeal
To: [Court Name]
From: Alton King Jr.
Date: [Date]
Re: Notice of Appeal
Case Number: [Case Number]
Notice of Appeal:
Alton King Jr. hereby gives notice of his intent to appeal the bankruptcy court's decision dated October *, *. The appellant respectfully requests a written opinion based on the facts and evidence in this case for his appeal to the Circuit Court.
Statement of Issues on Appeal:
*. The court's lack of jurisdiction due to the failure to file a proof of claim as required by bankruptcy rule * U.S.C. § *.
*. Fraud upon the court through the use of falsified documents, including but not limited to the Adjustable-Rate Note and robo-signed allonges.
*. Misrepresentation by debt collectors claiming to be creditors, in violation of * U.S.C. § 1692a(*).
*. Procedural errors in lifting the automatic stay without proper authenticated evidence.
Demands:
A. A *-Evidentiary Hearing: The reversal ofthe void order which removed his stay, mandating that the trustee claw back his property and restore his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process as stipulated by statute.
B. Return of Personal Property: The return of his personal property to Mr. King's home.
C. Restitution: Compensation for the overwhelming ordeal which has stripped Mr. King and his family of generational wealth, compromised his mental and physical health, negatively impacted his reputation, and denied him his dignity, liberties, and constitutional rights as promised to every citizen of the United States.
D. Sanctions under Bankruptcy Rule *: Implementation of sanctions for those who file improper claims and those who conspired as agents or participants in these premeditated, malicious, predatory, and discriminatory acts.
E. Investigation and Criminal Violations: Referral to the proper authorities for investigation, including potential criminal violations by BNYMT and its agents, allies, and attorneys who conspired or participated in the deceitful, fabricated submission of unperfected evidence to discriminate, criminally deprive, and displace an *-year-old Black man with disabilities from his home, in violation of federal laws including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Indigent Court Cost Law.
Should this court rule against

Thank you for providing the additional details. Here's a refined version of your conclusion and demands, incorporating sections D and E:
---
Conclusion
The core of this case revolves around the lack of authenticated evidence for the assignment of the mortgage contract and the endorsement of the promissory note. It is highly suspicious that the defendant is unwilling to present authenticated evidence in the bankruptcy court, evidence that was allegedly presented in the lower court. The defendants argue they do not need to provide authenticated evidence in the bankruptcy court, not even a "proof of claim."
This court erred by lifting King’s automatic stay. King respectfully demands that this court move the trustee to reclaim his property, which was illegally transferred by a non-party to the promissory note and mortgage contract. This court has the sole responsibility to determine if there is a valid secured claim, regardless of any lower court decisions.
Any further deprivation of King’s constitutional rights will be met with a Civil Rights Complaint under * U.S.C. § *. No officer of the court or federal government shall deprive any citizen of the United States of their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the laws of the United States and Massachusetts.
Demands
A. A *-Evidentiary Hearing:
- The reversal of the void order which removed his stay, mandating that the trustee claw back his property and restore his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process as stipulated by statute.
B. The return of his personal property to Mr. King's home.
C. Restitution:
- Compensation for this overwhelming ordeal which has stripped Mr. King and his family of generational wealth, compromised his mental and physical health, negatively impacted his reputation, and denied him his dignity, liberties, and constitutional rights as promised to every citizen of the United States.
D. Implementation of Bankruptcy Rule *:
- Sanctions for those who file improper claims in the form of requests for relief from stay, and/or those who conspired as agents or participants assisting in these premeditated, malicious, predatory, discriminatory acts.
E. Referral to Proper Authorities:
- Investigation, including for potential criminal violations of all perpetrators: BNYMT, along with its agents, allies, and attorneys who individually and collectively have conspired or participated in the deceitful, fabricated submission of unperfected evidence to discriminate, criminally deprive, and displace an *-year-old Black man with disabilities from

Bankruptcy Appeal And Jurisdiction

Summary

Full Conversation

Related Chats