Homeowner Seeks Court Action Against Fraudulent Foreclosures

By MARK ANDERSON

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on June 12 stamped the relevant documents and finally officially agreed to review a “King’s Bench” petition filed by a citizen under the auspices of monetary-reform activist Mickey Paoletta. This development represents another significant step forward regarding Paoletta’s 35 years of effort to help distressed homeowners (and credit-card holders) by exposing the corrupted banking system and its allies in the legal field.

But getting the high court to move this matter forward was grueling.

“They put us through pure hell for seven or eight days in a row, but they accepted it — reluctantly,” Paoletta said, referring to what he and embattled York, Pa., homeowner-petitioner Christopher Inch experienced. “There’s corruption in the highest places and more and more people know what’s up. And they want it stopped.”

According to Paoletta, the means of stopping it is found in the “King’s Bench jurisdiction” — a British common-law legal concept carried over to several states during America’s formative years, including the commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia. The goal in Pennsylvania is to compel the high court to uphold the law and carry out broad oversight of the lower courts, and of those licensed to practice law, in order to stop the torrent of fraudulent foreclosure proceedings against homeowners such as Inch.

This is explained in Inch’s petition being reviewed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Section 6 of the petition states: “This petitioner makes application to this Court to invoke its inherent supervisory power over this case [a lending company’s ongoing lawsuit versus Inch] and the other similar state cases and take corrective action over its licensed attorneys and inferior tribunals.”

Section 7 adds that Inch petitioned the court “to grant an injunction on this conspiratorial enterprise, to grant relief in connection with an issue of immediate public importance that has affected thousands of homeowners and potentially could affect thousands more.”

Beyond the crucial element expressed in Sections 6 and 7—intended to get the high court to greatly accelerate relief for Inch and all other similarly oppressed homeowners in one fell swoop rather than one case at a time—the information in Sections 8 and 9 is of paramount importance. It outlines for the court the “extrinsic fraud used to obtain a summary or default judgment” against homeowners whose homes are under foreclosure on the basis of “forged and fraudulent foreclosure documents.”

Section 9 specifies that Inch, “through affidavits, exhibits and expert testimony can and will prove conclusively” that debt-collection law firms, and various lenders, including banks, “participated in a deliberately planned and carefully executed scheme to defraud not only Inch, but the Pennsylvania Courts, and the due process rights of this Plaintiff [Inch] and thousands of others so similarly situated.”

Paoletta, of Mechanicsburg, Pa., added that he’s broadening the scope of his efforts. “Based on my research, it’s the Supreme Court’s duty in each state, not just Pennsylvania, to see that their inferior courts follow all the laws. My goal is to work with the leaders of the 50 states to get them thinking down the same path. And I did some extensive research and found you can do this with the US Supreme Court for [overseeing] the federal district courts.”

He went to say: “We should be able to stop all judicial and non-judicial foreclosures. In a judicial state, such as Pennsylvania, they [the debt-collectors] have to file a complaint in state courts, but in non-judicial states the debt-collectors and the debt-purchasers — which are one and the same in most cases — the homeowners’ rights to a trial by jury in foreclosure cases are denied by the courts. In non-judicial states, you’ve already ‘agreed’ you’re in default when you sign the deed of trust. You’ve already given them the rights to your house and commenced judgment against yourself.”

Inch remarked: “I don’t think the laws actually need changing much, but if the lawyers and banks could be compelled to follow the laws on the books, much of this could be resolved. The courts would not be so easily swayed by the banks and their lawyers, if the homeowners and citizens knew the laws, knew their responsibilities, knew the corruption the banks are doing, and had the means to fight it.”

He concluded, “We need the public educated so it’s not just lawyers and banks pushing around poor people, but the people pushing back against this racket.”

Mark Anderson is a veteran journalist who divides his time between Texas and Michigan. Email him at truthhound2@yahoo.com.

From The Progressive Populist, August 1, 2018


Populist.com

Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links

About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us


Copyright © 2018 The Progressive Populist

PO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652