Thursday, April 19, 2012

TRIAL TRANSCRIPT- What All of America Should Know About American Home Mortgage Servicing (AHMSI)

Matt Weidner's law blog:

There are in fact two AHMSI. A Maryland corporation and a Delaware Corporation. These is not just a technical distinction, they are as different as night and day. And this key fact should be disclosed in the tens of thousands of foreclosure cases pending all across this country in which one version or the other is a Plaintiff or was the Plantiff. The pleading requirement is simple, it’s either:

1. AHMSI a Delaware Corporation or 2. AHMSI a Maryland Corporation

And because one is related to a federal bankruptcy proceeding and the other did not, we need to know, and certainly judges all across this country need to know, which it is we’re dealing with. But the darnedest things are happening in my cases…


Right, I know, it’s shocking…isn’t it. I mean, they probably are waiting to get around to letting judges know that the books and the records and the affidavits and the assignments and all that evidence filed by the old AHMSI or prepared by the old AHMSI relied upon now by the MAGIC! brand spanking new AHMSI. I’m sure all the attorneys are busy preparing the motions and making proper disclosures to the court so that courts all across this nation are aware of this little game of three card monty.

Now some might try to convince a court that this little shift a roo doesn’t matter, but I’m here to tell you that it damn sure matters. EVERYTHING MATTERS.

Defendants have a right to know when the company suing them is not the same company that comes into court years later, despite the same (apparent) name.

Judges and courts have a right to know when the Plaintiff appearing before them is a completely different version from the one that first appeared and that produced evidence the court is relying upon to throw Americans out into the street.

I have previously posted a transcript of another AHMSI trial that I am appealing and I learned yesterday that AHMSI is appealing this one….(tit for tat, you take that). (Here’s the trial transcript) There are many issues in each of these trials that are being appealed, but the over arching issue is,

Are We As a Society Going to Require Parties to Be Truthful in Courts of Law?


Will We Require Parties to Disclose All Relevant Facts?

MR. WEIDNER: Thank you, Your Honor.
7 Raised in our motion to dismiss and
8 specifically raised as an affirmative defense
9 in our answer in affirmative defenses, we
10 challenged the capacity of the plaintiff
11 that’s named in the lawsuit. This case is
12 going to illustrate for the Court very clearly
13 why capacity is no important.
14 We’ll note in this lawsuit that they know
15 that American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.,
16 without saying anything more. There are at
17 least two separate and distinct American Home
18 Mortgage Servicing Inc.’s that existed at one
19 point in time. The witness has stated that’s
20 she’s here to testify on behalf American Home
21 Serving Inc. Before she goes any further, she
22 needs to make clear which she’s testifying on
23 behalf of.

Do you know what computer operating
6 system was maintained by American Home Mortgage
7 Servicing, Inc., a Maryland Corporation?
8 A. No, I’ve never worked for that company.
9 Q. Do you know anything about how the
10 records of American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.,
11 a Maryland Corporation were maintained?
12 A. I know the records were kept in the regular
13 business industry standards.
14 Q. How do you know that, what’s the basis
15 for your knowledge?
16 A. Because they’re kept the same way they are
17 kept within our company today.

2 Q. Do you know when American Home Mortgage
3 Corporation, a Maryland Corporation ceased to
4 function as a business?
5 A. I don’t know.
6 Q. Do you know when they ceased to function
7 as a business prior to when you — do you know if
8 they ceased to function as a business prior to when
9 you started working for American Home Mortgage
10 Servicing, Inc., a Delaware Corporation?
11 A. I don’t know.


calyonAdversary case 0751704 Complaint

calyon Adversary case 0751704 Complaint REQUEST F – Part 1-1


Amended Plan

No comments: