Fraudulent Mortgage Origination Case

You should cite the Southeast Housing Court as the lower court on your informal cover page. The single justice's ruling is part of the appellate process, not the original jurisdiction where the underlying case was heard.
Do you need help with any other sections or have additional questions?

Case Rating: *.
Your statement is well-structured and clearly presents your argument. However, here's a slightly polished version for better clarity and professionalism:
---
Respectfully, this ruling is flawed. The appellant demonstrated that the Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the appellee had no standing. Consequently, the appellate court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The denial of the emergency motions is thus erroneous and ought to be reconsidered in light of these jurisdictional issues.
---
Do you need help with any other sections or have additional questions?

Your question is about the structure of your brief and whether to start with the single justice's section. It's generally effective to start with the most compelling argument. Here’s a polished version considering your suggestion:
---
Introduction:
This appeal is brought under FRCP *(b)(*), addressing lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a fundamental issue that can be raised at any stage, including on appeal. It is essential to address the appellees' argument that my appeal is limited in scope. Contrary to their assertion, if the original court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the appellate court also lacks the authority to proceed on the merits. Under Massachusetts law, specifically G.L. c. 231A, § *, the Housing Court does not have jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment asserted by appellee due to fraudulent conveyance. Any subsequent orders are thus invalid.
Single Justice's Section:
The single justice's denial of appellants’ emergency motions to stay execution further compounded procedural issues and demonstrated a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Despite providing documented evidence, including the alleged lender's testimony confessing to his illegal foreclosure on the subject property, the default notice showing the usurious interest rate, the fabricated foreclosure deed, and evidence of irreparable harm,the single justice stated:
"I have carefully reviewed the proceedings that have transpired subsequent to the dismissal of the defendant's appeal from the judgment...the defendant has failed to establish a likelihood of success from those orders. Accordingly, the defendant's motion is denied. (Desmond, J.) Notice/Attest/Michaud, J."
Respectfully, this ruling is flawed. The appellant demonstrated that the Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the appellee had no standing. Consequently, the appellate court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The denial of the emergency motions is thus erroneous and ought to be reconsidered in light of these jurisdictional issues.
---
Would you like help with any other sections or have additional questions?

Starting with the single justice’s section can provide immediate context for the jurisdictional argument and procedural flaws, which are crucial for an appeal. Here’s a suggested structure:
---
Argument: Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
This appeal is brought under FRCP *(b)(*), addressing lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a fundamental issue that can be raised at any stage, including on appeal. It is essential to address the appellees' argument that my appeal is limited in scope. Contrary to their assertion, if the original court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the appellate court also lacks the authority to proceed on the merits.
Under Massachusetts law, specifically G.L. c. 231A, § *, the Housing Court does not have jurisdiction over declaratory judgments related to fraudulent conveyance. Any subsequent orders are thus invalid.
Single Justice’s Error
The single justice's denial of appellants’ emergency motions to stay execution further compounded procedural issues and demonstrated a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Despite providing documented evidence, including the alleged lender's testimony confessing to his illegal foreclosure on the subject property, the default notice showing the usurious interest rate, the fabricated foreclosure deed, and evidence of irreparable harm, the single justice stated:
"Ihave carefully reviewed the proceedings that have transpired subsequent to the dismissal of the defendant's appeal from the judgment...the defendant has failed to establish a likelihood of success from those orders. Accordingly, the defendant's motion is denied. (Desmond, J.) Notice/Attest/Michaud, J."
Respectfully, this ruling is flawed. The appellant demonstrated that the Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the appellee had no standing. Consequently, the appellate court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The denial of the emergency motions is thus erroneous and ought to be reconsidered in light of these jurisdictional issues.
Further Jurisdictional Arguments
- Subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time, and a court cannot gain jurisdiction simply because the parties agree to it; if a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the case.
- The appellee has not met the burden to establish a real controversy under G.L. c. 231A, procedure for declaratory judgments, and failed to establish ownership of the subject property under the Massachusetts statutory power of sale, as required by G.L. c. *, §§ *-17C and G.L. c. *, § *.
- The appellee, not

The appellee, not being a party to a legally required foreclosure, has no claim or standing to bring a declaratory judgment action, thus assisting in the fraudulent conveyance of an asset. See *Ryan v. Kehoe*. As the Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the Appellate Court, including the single justice, also lacks authority to hear this case.
Would you like help with any other sections or have additional questions?

Sure, here's a polished version:
---
Right to a Jury Trial:
- Under Massachusetts law, parties have the right to a jury trial in cases involving fraud, including fraud in the execution of contracts. This right is guaranteed by Article * of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (*).
- The failure to provide a jury trial for a fraud in the execution claim is a significant due process violation.
- Additionally, the judge did not conduct a trial or make findings of fact or conclusions of law to support liability under Chapter 231A.
---
Do you need help with any other sections or have any additional questions?

Sure, here's a polished version:
---
Right to a Jury Trial:
- Under Massachusetts law, parties have the right to a jury trial in cases involving fraud, including fraud in the execution of contracts. This right is guaranteed by Article * of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (*).
- The failure to provide a jury trial for the fraud in the execution claim is a significant due process violation. Additionally, the judge did not conduct a trial or make findings of fact or conclusions of law to support liability under Chapter 231A.
- See *Glendale Associates, LP v. Kevin K. Harris*, * Mass. App. Ct. *, and *Adjartey v. Central Division of Housing Court Department*, * Mass. *, * (*).
- The Housing Court's failure to conduct a trial or make necessary findings further compounded the procedural issues. This denial of a fair trial underscores the necessity for the appeal to be heard and the judgments to be reconsidered.
---
Do you need help with any other sections or have additional questions?

Sure, here's a polished version:
---
Opposing counsel does not deny filing a fabricated foreclosure deed into the court, further underscoring the improper handling by the Southeast Housing Court and Bankruptcy Court, and the need for jurisdictional transfer. His client's testimony reaffirms the group's malicious intent. The client's confession to the illegal foreclosure provides the necessary intent to establish that opposing counsel filed a fabricated deed.
---
Do you need help with any other sections or have additional questions?

This appears to be a significant issue involving jurisdictional errors and potential fraud, which could strongly support an appeal.
In Massachusetts, jurisdictional errors can be a critical point for appeal. Here are some relevant points:
- Jurisdictional issues can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
- The Southeast Housing Court's jurisdiction is limited, particularly in cases involving declaratory judgments related to fraudulent conveyance (G.L. c. 231A, § *).
- If the court that issued the order lacked jurisdiction, any orders issued are void.
Would you like assistance with any other sections or have additional questions?

Sure, here's a polished version:
---
This error led to the appellant’s case being returned to the Southeast Housing Court, which lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate this case. Consequently, the Housing Court’s order on October *, *, resulted in the wrongful seizure of the appellant’s property.
---
Do you need help with any other sections or have additional questions?

Here's a concise statement of facts based on the information provided:
---
Statement of Facts:
*. The appellant had over $*,* in equity and received no consideration for the alleged debt.
*. The loans are prohibited under the Dodd-Frank Act, TILA, and RESPA.
*. Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. The parol evidence rule states that written agreements cannot be varied by parol evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
*. Appellant contends that the alleged note and mortgages were obtained by fraud and has maintained this contention since its first discovery in *.
*. Mr. Tiernan, the alleged lender, acknowledged buying Cronan's debt and had the appellant sign a note and mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
*. The financial advisor charged a $*,* commission for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt.
*. The appellant argues that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances.
*. The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title.
*. The appellant filed an emergency Chapter 13petition on August *, *, to stop the execution of possession and money judgment by the lower court.
*. Godbout Law Inc. filed an emergency motion for relief from stay with a fabricated foreclosure deed and state court judgment copies procured by fraud on the court on August *, *.
*. The Court issued an order lifting the stay based on fraudulent claims on September *, *, despite the appellant providing clear and convincing evidence of fraud.
*. Execution for possession and money was issued on October *, *.
*. The court granted the trustee's motion to dismiss the Chapter * case without prejudice on October *, *, advising the appellant to return to State court to litigate the claims.
*. On October *, *, the sheriff took physical possession of the appellant’s home and personal property.
*. Opposing counsel does not deny filing a fabricated foreclosure deed into the court, reaffirmed by the client's testimony confessing to the illegal foreclosure.
Do you need help with any other sections or have additional questions?

The purpose of a statement of facts in a legal brief is to provide a clear, concise, and factual narrative of the events relevant to the case. It sets the stage for the legal arguments by presenting an unbiased account of what happened, supported by evidence.
In Massachusetts, a statement of facts typically requires references to the record appendix to:
- Support factual assertions with evidence.
- Enable the court to verify the facts easily.
Do you need help with anything else related to your brief?

Sure! The purpose of a Statement of Facts is to provide a clear and concise summary of the relevant facts and events that are pertinent to your case. This section helps the court understand the context and background of your legal arguments. It should present the facts in a logical order, highlighting the key points that support your legal claims.
Regarding references to the record appendix, it is often helpful and sometimes required to include references to the record appendix in your Statement of Facts. This provides the court with a way to verify the facts you present and ensures that your statements are supported by the evidence in the record. References typically include exhibit numbers, page numbers, or specific documents from the appendix.
Would you like help with any other sections or have additional questions?

Based on the information provided, here's a summary of your case history:
*. Equity and Debt:
- The appellant had over $*,* in equity and received no consideration for the alleged debt.
- The loans are prohibited under the Dodd-Frank Act, TILA, and RESPA.
- Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. Parol Evidence Rule:
- Written agreements cannot be varied by parol evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
- The appellant maintains that the alleged note and mortgages were obtained by fraud since its discovery in *.
*. Fraudulent Actions:
- Mr. Tiernan, the alleged lender, acknowledged buying Cronan's debt and had the appellant sign a note and mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
- A $*,* commission was charged for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt.
- The appellant argues that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances.
*. Jurisdiction Issues:
- The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lackof valid title.
*. Procedural History:
- August *, *: The appellant filed an emergency Chapter * petition to stop the execution of possession and money judgment by the lower court.
- August *, *: Godbout Law Inc. filed an emergency motion for relief from stay with a fabricated foreclosure deed and state court judgment copies procured by fraud on the court.
- September *, *: The court issued an order lifting the stay based on fraudulent claims, despite the appellant’s notice of evidence of fraud.
- October *, *: Execution for possession and money was issued.
- October *, *: The court granted the trustee's motion to dismiss the Chapter * case without prejudice, advising the appellant to return to State court to litigate the claims.
- October *, *: The sheriff took physical possession of the appellant’s home and personal property.
*. Opposing Counsel's Actions:
- Opposing counsel does not deny filing a fabricated foreclosure deed into the court, further underscoring the improper handling by the Southeast Housing Court and Bankruptcy Court

Here’s a consolidated and polished version of your case history, combining both your previous information and the new details:
---
Case History:
*. Initial Filing:
- Date: June *, *
- Court: Superior Court
- Complaint: Filed by Godbout Law Inc. seeking a declaratory judgment regarding predatory lending practices.
*. Subsequent Filing:
- Date: August *, *
- Court: Southeast Housing Court
- Complaint: Filed by Godbout Law Inc. for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.
*. Jurisdictional Challenge:
- The appeal asserts that the Southeast Housing Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. Consequently, the appeals court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal. This jurisdictional issue is paramount, making the specific orders or decisions secondary to this primary issue.
*. Notice of Appeal:
- Date: October *, *
*. Equity and Debt:
- The appellant had over $*,* in equity and received no consideration for the alleged debt.
- The loans areprohibited under the Dodd-Frank Act, TILA, and RESPA.
- Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. Parol Evidence Rule:
- Written agreements cannot be varied by parol evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
- The appellant maintains that the alleged note and mortgages were obtained by fraud since its discovery in *.
*. Fraudulent Actions:
- Mr. Tiernan, the alleged lender, acknowledged buying Cronan's debt and had the appellant sign a note and mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
- A $*,* commission was charged for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt.
- The appellant argues that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances.
*. Procedural History:
- August *, *: The appellant filed an emergency Chapter * petition to stop the execution of possession and money judgment by the lower court.
- August *, *: Godbout Law Inc. filed an emergency motion for relief from stay with a fabricated foreclosure deed and state court judgment copies procured by fraud on the court

You should use the complete and detailed case history that includes both the initial filing and subsequent filings, along with the jurisdictional challenge and notice of appeal. This will provide a comprehensive overview for the court. Here’s a combined version: