Complaint Review: Jamal Karmouta

In October 2007, I lost my home to foreclosure. Life had to go on, but I am desperately seeking justice for how this was done. I'm sure you hear many compelling stories, but this is not your typical foreclosure.

When I spoke with Legal Aid, I did tell them detail for detail what took place. I was on the phone with them for almost 2 hours. It has been a very difficult time for us since we lost our home. When we were evicted, illegally, we were forced to move to the first available property that would rent to us considering the credit damage this foreclosure created. The house we moved into was not ready for move-in and has a broken septic tank. Our landlord here is most likely in trouble with his loan, a representative for loss mitigation has shown up at our door on 2 occasions asking for him. When I asked him (landlord) about it, he shrugged it off as if it is none of my concern. Ordinarily he would be right, however, we LIVE here!! It is very painful to delve into the details of what took place and re-live the biggest loss our family has ever endured, but I know that if there is to be justice, I must do it. So, without further ado, here is the story......

First I will introduce the parties involved, Gary(my husband) Jamal (second mortgage holder, hard money) Jennifer (me)

Gary seeks out a second mortgage and meets Jamal Karmouta by chance doing electrical work at his home in Laguna Niguel.

Jamal Karmouta convinces Gary that a private money loan is the best way for him to go and to meet with him in his office to go over the details.

Gary meets with Jamal and signs the documents, we are now ok for a while.

Gary's electrical business is slow and he falls behind on payments, not only to Jamal, but to Chase Home Finance as well (first position).

Jamal calls Gary once or twice a day to inform him that he WILL be getting our home and that he better start packing.

Gary files for Bankruptcy, without an attorney and a stay is placed on his debts, including Jamal's loan.

Gary contacts Chase Home Finance and works out a loan modification for the amount of approx. $25K. They come to an agreement and Gary is to resume making payments 30 days from that phone conversation with a Chase representative.

Jamal or his attorney, file a motion to lift the stay and a court date for a hearing is set. We receive an envelope 1 week after the hearing with the date and time of the hearing whited out on our doorstep.

Gary contacts the court and discovers that Jamal and his attorney attended the hearing and since Gary failed to appear, the stay was lifted in Jamal's favor. There is a proof of service signed by someone Jamal put up to delivering the hearing document. It was cut and dry, Gary doesn't show up, Jamal wins. I think this is called improper service in the legal world?

During this time, Gary comes up with the $13k owed to Jamal and brings a certified bank check to his office to cure a Notice of Default. Jamal had allready arranged for the public auction sale of the home to take place at the steps of city hall for that same morning. We made it just in time. Or so we thought.

Jamal instructs his secretary to take our check and assures us over the phone, that he will call off the sale and that the default had been cured. Jamal was out of town on this day. We ask for something in writing, but Jamal refuses to provide us with anything. Relieved that we got him off our back, we leave his office and return home.

Jamal contacts Chase, acting as Gary, accesses the account to find out what the amount due is, and wires Chase the full amount.

Jamal calls Gary and says "Hey, where is my $25K??? I paid Chase and now you owe me that money or I will file NOD again and take the house, because I know that you aint got it Gary". Gary tells him to explain how that could be and he (Jamal) hangs up the phone.

Jamal files a Notice of Default against Gary for the amount he paid to Chase knowing that Gary could not pay it at that time.

Gary calls Chase to ask how Jamal was able to access his account and they inform him that the call was made by Gary Boyne!

Jamal purchases our home or assumes the loan form Chase at the public auction of our home. We never received any notification nor did Jamal post the sale as he did with the previous situation where we paid him his $13K and cured the default.

Jamal calls me (jennifer) and tells me to get the #^% out of HIS house and that he just bought our house on the steps of city hall. He was the only purchaser that showed up for this auction. He then tells me that he is having us evicted and that Gary, our 2 children, our pets and all of our belongings will be on the streets.

Gary calls Jamal and warns him of his actions, but Jamal won't budge. I called Jamal to let him know that we had just given him the last of our cash to cure his default and that we were in no position to move. He says that is not his problem and to get out.

Eviciton proceedings begin and the rest is a blur. I know that it was a mad panic to find a home and move everything we owned in only a matter of a couple of weeks.

We had no choice but to go on and continue life. During this time I was pregnant with what would have been our 3rd child. I lost that pregnancy. Our kids were uprooted from the home they grew up in and we ended up in a place where we don't want to be. Many nights, I cannot sleep thinking about what Jamal did to our family and to our lives. If you are not able help us, please, please guide me in the right direction as to how to find justice. I can't just let this one go. I hope to hear from you very soon.

Respectfully,

Jennifer \Gary B. Jr.

((REDACTED BY ROR))

Below is a case that I came across in my search about this issue:

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Pierre Richard Augustin, PRO SE )
Debtor ) C.A. No. 05-46957 (JBR)
)
) Amendment to the Motion Objecting to
) Propose Sale Of Debtor's Property
v. ) on May 16, 2007 pursuant Rule 6004 (b)
)
DANVERSBANK, ET AL., )
Defendants. )

Amendment to the Motion Objecting to Propose Sale (docket # 169) for the consolidation of Debtor's Motions & affirmative defense adversary proceedings since they are both governed by Rule 9014 with a Motion of Relevant Evidences to Support both Motions

Your Honor, parties appearing pro se are allowed greater latitude with respect to reasonableness of their legal theories (Patterson V. Aiker, 111 F.R.D. 354, 358 [N.D. GA 1986]). To the extent that Debtor did not confine strictly to the rules, specifically relating to formatting, Debtor respectfully apologizes to this court. In consequence, the court is supposed to judge the case based on its merits even if procedural errors are made. Therefore, the court must give a Pro Se Debtor, every favorable inference arising from his pro se status (Hall v. Dworkin, 829 F. Supp. 1403, 1409 (ND NY 1993).

Despite Debtor's timely legal objections and defenses, the propose sale or Illegal Foreclosure of his property took place on May 23, 2007. Thus, Debtor is amending his previously filed motion scheduled for the Hearing scheduled for 6/7/2007:

1. to set aside the sale of the Illegal Foreclosure of May 23, 2007;
2. to consolidate his affirmative defense adversary proceedings and the motion filed on May 11, 2007 (Docket # 169) under rule 6004(b) since they are both governed by Rule 9014 and are considered contested matter or core proceedings.

FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF ARGUMENT
Ronald Dworkin regards law as an interpretive process under which individual rights are paramount. Therefore, let us consider the following two situation by Dworkin:

1. First Quotation by Dworkin
An impatient beneficiary under a will murder the testator. Should he be permitted to inherit?

2. Debtor's Contextual Analogy of First Quotation
Chase Home Finance as an impatient beneficiary strips away Debtors property rights despite his timely legal objections and defenses. Should Chase Home Finance be permitted to inherit the profit by selling Debtors property now set for May 23, 2007?

3. Second Quotation by Dworkin
A chess grand master distracts his opponent by continually smiling at him. The opponent objects. Is smiling in breach of the rule of chess?

4. Debtor's Contextual Analogy of Second Quotation
Chase Home Finance blind folded their eyes and put their two hands over their ears by not answering to Debtor's timely legal objections and defenses by maintaining silence. Debtor objects but no one is looking or listening. Is the silence of Chase Home Finance in breach of the rules of law?

5. Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court As Basis To Set Aside The Illegal Foreclosure all attorneys are considered as officers of the court. Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted)".

"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."

"Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court. It is also clear and well-settled law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. (See In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill. App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill. App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill. App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949)). Under Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

6. Homestead rights and Federal Rule Civil Procedure 60(b)
Debtor does not in anyway waive his homestead rights (State, ex rel., O'Brien v. Superior Court, 173 Wash. 679, 24 P.2d 117 (1933); State, ex rel., White v. Douglas, 6 Wn.2d 356, 107 P.2d 593 (1940)). Thus, the illegal foreclosure be vacated under rules allowing vacating judgments, e.g. F.R.Civ.P 60(b).

7. Analogous Cases For Basis to Set Aside the Illegal Foreclosure Sale
Anyone having an interest in the real property security, including the borrower, may restrain the non-judicial foreclosure of a deed of trust on any proper ground (See, e.g., Reiserer v. Foothill Thrift and Loan, 208 Cal.App.3d 1082, 256 Cal.Rptr. 508 (1989) (unpublished opinion); Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. La Mansion Hotels & Resorts, Ltd., 762 S.W.2d 646 (Tex.App.1988); Bekins Bar V Ranch v. Huth, 664 P.2d 455 (Utah 1983); National Life Insurance Co. v. Cady, 227 Ga. 475, 181 S.E.2d 382 (1971); Peoples National Bank v. Ostrander, 6 Wn.App. 28, 491 P.2d 1058 (1971).

See, generally, note, Court Actions Contesting The Nonjudicial Foreclosure of Deeds of Trust in Washington, 59 Wash.L.Rev. 323 (1984); Restraining Orders in Non-Judicial Deed of Trust Foreclosures, Property Law Reporter, June 1987 (Vol. 3 Nos. 4 & 5)). Proper grounds to set aside this illegal foreclosure include: (1) there is no default on the obligation, Salot v. Wershow, 157 CA.2d 352, 320 P.2d 926 (1958) and (2) proposed conduct of the sale is defective, Crummer v. Whitehead, 230 CA.2d 264, 40 CR 826 (1964) are analogous to Debtors situations since he has timely and legally rescinded the mortgage per TILA.

8. Debtors Mortgage & Note Were Timely & Properly Rescinded per TILA
A mortgage and a note are two different documents. The note is the pledge that you will pay back the money you "borrowed" to purchase your house. The mortgage is the instrument used to establish your house as collateral. In the event you do not comply with the provisions of your note, the mortgage is the instrument used to establish the right to foreclose. The note dictates what terms and conditions fees, late charges, etc. can be imposed. The note dictates when a "default" can be declared. The note dictates when a mortgage can be accelerated. The note dictates when foreclosure proceedings can commence. The note dictates if the money must be applied to P&I first, or fees first.

The statute and regulation specify that the security interest, promissory note or lien arising by operation of law on the property becomes automatically void. (15 U.S.C. 1635(b); Reg. Z 226.15(d)(1), 226.23(d)(1). As noted by the Official Staff Commentary, the creditor's interest in the property is automatically negated regardless of its status and whether or not it was recorded or perfected. (Official Staff Commentary 226.15(d)(1)-1, 226.23(d)(1)-1.).

ARGUMENT
The first quotation mentioned above by Dworkin is drawn from the New York Decision of Riggs v. Palmer in 1899. The will in question was validly executed and was in the murderer's favour. But whether a murderer could inherit was uncertain: the rules of testamentary succession provided no applicable exception. The murderer should therefore have a right to his inheritance. The New York Court held, however, that the application of the rules was subject to the principle that no person should profit from his own wrong. Hence, a murderer could not inherit from his victim.

According to Dworkin, in the second quotation, the referee is called upon to determine whether smiling is in breach of the rules of chess. The rules are silent. He must therefore consider the nature of chess as a game of intellectual skill; does this include the use of psychological intimidation? He must, in other words, find the answer that best fits and explains the practice of chess.

Debtor is a victim of Predatory Lending (See Motion on Relevant Evidences) and Mortgage Fraud initiated by New Century Mortgage Company. Debtor's mortgage was assigned to Chase Home Finance or Deuthsche National Trust Company. As illustrated above in Debtor's contextual analogy, he has been injured as a result of Chase Home Finance and Deutsche National Trust's silence and other creditors wrongdoings. However, relevant new evidences have surfaced in the Washington Post (See Motion on Relevant Evidences) that confirm the fact that Debtor is a victim of predatory lending and mortgage fraud.

Also, according to an article entitled Mortgage fraud seen as prolonging U.S. housing slump, by Bob Ivry of Bloomberg News published on April 26, 2007 states that, "Misstatements about employment and income are being made every day," said Robert Russell, counsel to the director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, which oversees savings and loans. "The brokers are just putting down on paper what the underwriters would require. The above mentioned article substantiate what Debtor's has been arguing in his pleadings and motions.

1. Irrefutable Facts
Chase Home Finance and Deuthsche National Trust Company and other creditors failed to respond to Debtor's timely TILA notice of rescission and the Mortgage Fraud issue as a defense to foreclosure. As Massachusetts is a non-judicial foreclosure jurisdiction, Debtor will lose his rights of due process, if an entry to set aside the illegal foreclosure sale by this Court is not granted. The whole purpose of the law is that New Century Mortgage, Chase Home Finance or Deuthsche National Trust Company are responsible for the harm that arise out of their act. It should not fall on the Debtor, the innocent victim of that act who have acted timely to protect his property interests.

2. Affirmative Defenses based on TILA
The first circuit court of appeals has unequivocally stated that any violation of TILA, regardless of the technical nature of the violation, must result in a finding of liability against the lender. Bizier v. Globe Financial Services, Inc., 654 F.2d 1, 3 (lst Cir. 1981). TILA is a remedial statute which is designed to balance the scales "thought to be weighed in favor of lenders," and is therefore to be liberally construed in favor of borrowers. Id. A creditor who fails to comply with TILA in any respect is liable to the consumer under the statute, regardless of the nature of the violation or the creditor's intent. Thomka v. A.Z. Chevrolet Inc., 619 F.2d 246, 249-50 (3d Cir. 1980). Even if the borrower can demonstrate no actual damages, TILA's penalties are applied regardless of whether the borrower was misled or injured. See, Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 680 F.2d 927, 932-33 (3d Cir.), vacated on other grnds, 459 U.S. 56, 103 S.Ct. 400, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982).

This strict compliance rule is what makes TILA so effective. "This strict interpretation of the TILA has largely been responsible for the TILA's success in achieving widespread compliance with its requirements." In re Brown, 106 B.R. 852, 857 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1989).

3. TILA and the Courts
This rule is inviolate and is followed by courts in all jurisdictions. See, e.g., Smith v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., 989 F.2d 896, 898 (3rd Cir. 1990)(The federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) achieves its remedial goals by a system of strict liability in favor of consumers when mandated disclosures have not been made); Lewis v. Dodge, 620 F.Supp. 135, 138 (D. Conn. 1985); In re Porter, 961 F.2d 1066 (3rd Cir. 1992); Rowland (John M., Carol S.) v. Magna Millikin Bank of Decatur, N.A., 812 F.Supp. 875 (C.D. Ill. 1992) ("even technical violations will form the basis for liability"); New Maine Nat. Bank v. Gendron, 780 F.Supp. 52 (D. Me. 1992); Dixon v. S & S Loan Service of Waycross, Inc., 754 F.Supp. 1567 (S.D. Ga. 1990); Woolfolk v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 783 F.Supp. 724 (D. Conn. 1990) (same with Unfair Debt Collection Practices Act); Morris v. Lomas and Nettleton Co., 708 F.Supp. 1198 (D. Kan. 1989); Jenkins v. Landmark Mortg. Corp. of Virginia, 696 F.Supp. 1089 (W.D. Va. 1988); Laubach v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., 686 F.Supp. 504 (E.D. Pa. 1988); Searles v. Clarion Mortg. Co., 1987 WL 61932 (E.D. Pa. 1987); "Liability will flow from even minute deviations from requirements of the statute and Regulation Z." Dixon v. S & S Loan Service of Waycross, Inc., 754 F.Supp. 1567, 1570 (S.D. Ga. 1990); Shroder v. Suburban Coastal Corp., supra. at 1380; Charles v. Krauss Co., Ltd., 572 F.2d 544 (5th Cir. 1978).Shroder v. Suburban Coastal Corp., 729 F.2d 1371, 1380 (11th Cir. 1984) ; Goldberg v. Delaware Olds, Inc., 670 F.Supp. 125 (D. Del. 1987); Curry v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., 656 F.Supp. 1129 (E.D. Pa. 1987); Laubach v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., 1986 WL 4464 (E.D. Pa. 1986); In re Wright, 133 B.R. 704 (E.D. Pa. 1991); Moore v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., 1991 WL 146241 (E.D. Pa. 1991); In re Marshall, 121 B.R. 814 (Bankr.C.D. Ill. 1990); In re Steinbrecher, 110 B.R. 155 (Bankr.E.D. Pa. 1990); Nichols v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., 1989 WL 46682 (E.D. Pa. 1989); In re McElvany, 98 B.R. 237 (Bankr.W.D. Pa. 1989); In re Johnson-Allen, 67 B.R. 968 (Bankr.E.D. Pa. 1986); In re Cervantes, 67 B.R. 816 (Bankr.E.D. Pa. 1986); In re McCausland, 63 B.R. 665, 55 U.S.L.W. 2214, 1 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1372 (Bankr.E.D. Pa. 1986); In re Perry, 59 B.R. 947 (Bankr.E.D. Pa. 1986); In re Schultz, 58 B.R. 945 (Bankr,E.D. Pa. 1986); Solis v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., 58 B.R. 983 (E.D. Pa. 1986).

4. HOEPA Disclosures Affirmative Defense
HOEPA disclosure notice must be delivered to Debtor at least three business days prior to the closing of the loan. 15 U.S.C. 1639(b); 12 C.F.R. 226.31(c). The notice must inform the Debtor that he need not enter into the loan, and that if he does enter the loan, he could lose his home and any money he has put in it. 15 U.S.C. 1639(a); 12 C.F.R. 226.32(c)(1). The notice must also include an accurate statement of APR, monthly payment and balloon payment amount, and maximum payment amount on a variable-rate loan. 15 U.S.C. 1639(a)(2); 12 C.F.R. 226.32(c)(2)-(4); Official Staff Commentary 12 C.F.R. 226.32(c)(3)-2.

Failure to deliver the required HOEPA notice or inclusion of a prohibited term triggers an extended (three-year) right of rescission (described above). 15 U.S.C. 1639(j); 12 C.F.R. 226.23(a)(3) n.48.; Bryant v. Mortgage Capital Resource Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS1566 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 14 ,2002); In re Barber, 266 B.R. 309 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2001); In re Jackson, 245 B.R. 23 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2000); In re Murray, 239 B.R. 728, 733 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1999). In addition to regular TILA monetary damage remedies (see above), HOEPA violations give rise to enhanced monetary damages under 15 U.S.C. 1640(a)(4), namely, all payments made by the borrower. In re Williams, 291 B.R. 636, 663-64 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2003).

As with any TILA violation (see above), the rescission remedy runs against any assignee of the loan. 15 U.S.C. 1641(c). In addition, where the loan documents demonstrate that the loan is covered by HOEPA coverage, assignees shall be subject to all claims and defenses with respect to that mortgage that the consumer could assert against the creditor. 15 U.S.C. 1641(d)(1). This provision mirrors the FTC Holder Rule and creates assignee liability for all state and federal claims and defenses.

5. Breach of Fiduciary Duties (Trustee in the following is referring to Deutsche National Trust)
The breach proximately caused the injury to the Debtor since he was misled as to the true terms of the loan since the secure loan was a higher-than-par rate and the broker pocket a yield-spread premium (a commission on the higher rate) from the lender since it was acting as finder for New Century Mortgage. (Martin v. Heinold Commodities, Inc., 163 Ill. 2d 33, 53, 205 Ill. Dec. 443, 643 N.E.2d 734 (1994)). At the time of the closing, Debtor did know the true meaning of yield-spread premium on the loan documents and is a violation of RESPA.

A. Hostility or Indifference to Rights of Debtor - In Dingus, supra, at 289, it is stated: In an action to set aside a foreclosure sale under a deed of trust, evidence showing that the trustee was hostile and wholly indifferent to any right of the mortgagor warrants setting aside the sale. Lunsford v. Davis, 254 S.W. 878 (Mo. 1923).

B. Failure to meet these requisites may render the trustee's sale void. In Cox v. Helenius, 103 Wn.2d 383, 693 P.2d 683 (1985), the court concluded that a trustee's sale was void under circumstances where the borrower had filed an action contesting the obligation and that action was pending at the time of the trustee's sale. The action was filed after service of the notice of default but before service of the notice of foreclosure and trustee's sale.

C. Chase Home Finance transfer the note after Debtor has exercised his legal right to rescind the mortgage and the note. Thus, Deutsche National Trust Company as the trustee was not properly appointed and do not have the authority to act and foreclose on Debtors property. When an eager, Deutsche National Trust Company, "jumps the gun", the actions are equally void.

6. Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court and The Illegal Foreclosure based on Previously Statement provided in Federal Courts
Debtor believes in the Justice System whereby all parties whether Attorneys or individual such as myself, self-represented, will not, in any way, grossly file and provide false statements in order to achieve ones end. The unthinkable had happened in Federal Court; Counsel for Chase Home Finance has provided, in bad faith, not only misstatements of facts but also less than candid, inaccurate and absolutely false information to mislead this court.

Based on personal ethic and principle, Debtor stands by the motto that the truth will set him free or the truth shall prevail. For that matter, Debtor repudiated the fact that Counsel for Chase had to result to smear tactics in his March 16, 2007 Motion responding to an order of a Federal Judge as evidences that fraud upon the court and the silencing of Debtors rights have been committed. Also, Chase Home Finance and Deutsche National Trust Company knowingly accepted the fruits of the fraud by New Century Mortgage (Moore v. Pinkert, 28 Ill. App. 2d 320, 333, 171 N.E. 73 (1960); Pulphus v. Sullivan, No. 02 C 5794, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7080, at **61-62 (N.D. Ill. April 25, 2003)).

A. 1st FALSE and INACCURATE Statements made by Counsel of Chase in Paragraph labeled #1 of page 1
Based on the transcript on page 9, line 22-25 of the bankruptcy hearing on December 7, 2005, Attorney Robert L. Marder, of DanversBank provided documents to state their second mortgage is now the first lien holder as follows:

Excerpt on page 12, line 21-25 of the Judges Rosenthal statement at that hearing:

Excerpt on page 13, line 23-25 of the Judges Rosenthal statement at that hearing:

A full copy of the transcript of that hearing is included as Exhibits. Based on the provided excerpt of that hearing, the matter of priority has not been resolved legally. On that same day, Chase customer service department told me that if the court states that they are not in first position then Chase is not the first lien holder. However, on September 21, 2006, Debtor invoked his right of rescission per the Truth-in-Lending Act which voided the security interest of those two mortgages in his property. Thus, Counsel of Chase submitted [F]alse and Inaccurate statements to the court in bad faith and willfully despite knowing the facts.

B. 2nd FALSE and INACCURATE Statements made by Counsel of Chase in Paragraph labeled #7 of page 2
On July 3, 2006, Debtor filed a motion at the Bankruptcy Court to amend schedule B & C which was allowed with No Objection by the bankruptcy court (See Docket # 94). Debtor cited his civil suit, case#: 06-10368, as an asset in Schedule B and exempted it in Schedule C. According to Collier on Bankruptcy, the debtor has a right to amend the petition, lists, schedules or statement as a matter of course until the case is closed. Thus, for example, before the closing of the case, the debtor may amend the exemption schedule to include property that had been omitted (Lucius v. McLemore, 741 F.2d 125, 11 C.B.C.2d 296 (6th cir. 1984). No court approval is necessary for
an amendment filed before the case is closed (In re Michael, 163 F.3d 526 (9th Cir. 1998)).

The permissive approach to amendments has been construed to give courts no discretion to reject amendments unless the debtor has acted in bad faith or concealed property or the amendment would prejudice creditors (In re Yonikus, 996 F. 2nd 866 (7th Cir. 1993) (clear and convincing evidence of prejudice or bad faith required to deny right to amend); In re Williamson, 804 F.2d 1355, 15 C.B.C. 2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1986); In re Doan, 672 F.2d 831, 6 C.B.C.2d 306 (11th cir. 1982)). Thus, for example, the Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit in Kaelin v Bassett (In re Kaelin), (308 F.3d, 885 (8th Cir. 2002)), allowed a debtor to amend his schedule of exemptions to claim as exempt a cause of action soon after he learned that the cause of action existed. Because the debtor acted promptly to exempt the cause of action and because the debtor had not concealed the property, the court found that no bad faith existed.

In retrospect, Debtor states that there was absolutely no objection by the Trustee or Creditors/Lenders to the motion to amend schedules and the motion was allowed by the bankruptcy court uncontested. Also, neither the Trustee nor the creditors ever filed an appeal within the 10 days or time limit. Hence, the order entered by Judge Rosenthal (See docket # 94) on July 19, 2006 was deemed final and unappealable. Thus, Counsel of Chase submitted [F]alse and Inaccurate statements to the court in bad faith and willfully despite knowing the facts.

C. 3rd FALSE and INACCURATE Statements made by Counsel of Chase in Paragraph labeled #8 on page 2
Counsel of Chase is misleading the court by stating that Debtor amendment as a matter of right according to Rule 1009 of the Bankruptcy code as long and tortured which contrary to the facts. Here are the reasons why Plaintiff had to amend his schedules according to the text docket entry of the bankruptcy court:

1. October 11, 2005 Motion to Amend Schedules A through J, Summary of Schedules and Statements
10/11/2005 8
Motion filed by Debtor Pierre R. Augustin to Amend Schedules A-J, Summary of Schedules and Statements RE: 1 Voluntary Petition (Chapter 7)) Receipt Number 527970, Fee Amount $26. (ach, usbc) (Entered: 10/13/2005)

2. November 10, 2005 Motion to Correct Schedules A through J, Statement of Financial Affairs and Matrix
11/10/2005 15
Motion filed by Debtor Pierre R. Augustin to Correct Schedules A-J, Statment of Financial Affairs and Matrix 1 Voluntary Petition (Chapter 7). (ach, usbc) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
11/10/2005 16
Court's Order of Deficiency RE: 15 Motion filed by Debtor Pierre R. Augustin to Correct Schedules. Deficiency Due 11/21/2005. (ach, usbc) (Entered: 11/10/2005)

3. February 17, 2006 Motion to Amend Schedule F to add Unsecured Creditor
02/17/2006 42
Motion filed by Debtor Pierre R. Augustin to Amend Schedules F RE: 1 Voluntary Petition (Chapter 7). c/s. Receipt Number 00529133. Fee Amount $26. (ach, usbc) (Entered: 02/21/2006)

4. April 10, 2006 Motion to Amend Schedule F to add Unsecured Creditor
04/10/2006 86
Motion filed by Debtor Pierre R. Augustin to Amend Schedules F RE: 1 Voluntary Petition (Chapter 7). Receipt Number 529413, Fee Amount $26. (ach, usbc) (Entered: 04/10/2006)

5. July 3, 2006 Motion to Amend Schedule F to add Unsecured Creditor
07/03/2006 90
Motion filed by Debtor Pierre R. Augustin to Amend Schedules F RE: 1 Voluntary Petition (Chapter 7). Fee Not Paid in Amount $26 with certificate of service. (ach, usbc) (Entered: 07/06/2006)

6. July 3, 2006 Motion to Amend Schedule B & C for Civil Suit; 06-10368
07/03/2006 91
Motion filed by Debtor Pierre R. Augustin to Amend Schedules B and C RE: 1 Voluntary Petition (Chapter 7) with certificate of service. (ach, usbc) (Entered: 07/06/2006)

7. September 21, 2006 Motion to Amend Schedules B and C to moved Secured Creditors as Unsecured because Plaintiff's TILA Right of Rescission has voided the security interest in his home
09/21/2006 100
Motion filed by Debtor Pierre R. Augustin to Amend 1 Schedules B and C with certificate of service. (ach, usbc) (Entered: 09/26/2006)

In determining whether Debtors amendment would prejudice Chase or other creditors, the appropriate inquiry is not whether a creditor will recover less or be adversely affected by the amendment (Kaelin v. Bassett (In re Kaelin), 308 F.3d 885 (8th Cir. 2002); see also In re Arnold, 252 B.R. 778 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2000) (neither delay, by itself, nor disappointment of creditors expectations is prejudice)). Thus, Debtor was merely adjudicating for his right by correcting errors in his schedules, adding creditors and classifying secured creditors as unsecured note holder since TILA states that upon rescission, the security interest is void, rendering the debt, if any, unsecured (See in re Perkins, 106 B.R. 863, 874 (Bankr. E.D.Pa. 1989); In re Brown, 134 B.R. 134 (Bankr. E.D.Pa. 1991); In re Moore, 117 B.R. 135 (Bankr.E.D. Pa. 1990)). Thus, Counsel of Chase submitted [F]alse and Inaccurate statements to the court in bad faith and willfully despite knowing the facts.

D. 4th FALSE and INACCURATE Statements made by Counsel of Chase in Paragraph labeled #8 on page 2
Counsel for Chase [F]alsely and [I]naccurately stated that as follows:

Unfortunately, whether or not the attorneys for Chase like it, the facts are the facts and Debtor has included a copy of Schedule C below that clearly states that his property is claimed as exempt and his original filing (See Exhibit 2).
According to case law, debtor has claimed his property as exempt was not objected by neither the Trustee nor the creditors. Thus, the property or claim will be deemed exempt, even if there is no basis for the exemption. (Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, 503 U.S. 638, 643-45 (1992)). Thus, Counsel of Chase is acting maliciously by providing the court with absolutely false information.

CONCLUSION
Debtor cannot undo the damages that preceded. But, however harsh it may seems, the law provides Debtor with the right of rescission if he catches any technical violation within 3 years of the signing of the loan documents. Thus, Debtors TILA rescission notice was timely sent to Chase Home Finance, Deuthsche National Trust Company Lawyers and other creditors on September 21, 2006. Therefore, Debtors right of rescission has precedence, negated any foreclosure actions and voided the security interest in his property.

For that matter, Chase Home Finance and Deutsche National Trust [cannot be allowed]:
1. To profit from the Predatory Lending practices that it inherited from New Century Mortgage.
2. To remain silent on the issues of mortgage fraud and TILA rescission.
3. To continuously defying, trampling and usurping Debtors rights and the rule of law
4. To commit Fraud upon the court by approving the illegal foreclosure.

Further, given Chase Home Finance and Deutsches recalcitrance in refusing to honor this clearly valid assertion of federally mandated rights, it is appropriate in this instance to give effect to the clear language of 1635(b), and declare that the tender obligation has been vitiated by the lender's violation of TILA, requiring the intervention of this court in a matter which is clearly not subject to either factual or legal dispute.

Where a debtor rescinds within the context of a bankruptcy, courts have held that the rescission effectively voids the security interest, rendering the debt, if any, unsecured. See, e.g., In re Perkins, 106 B.R. 863, 874 (Bankr. E.D.Pa. 1989). See also, In re Brown, 134 B.R. 134 (Bankr. E.D.Pa. 1991); In re Moore, 117 B.R. 135 (Bankr.E.D. Pa. 1990); In re Brown, 106 B.R. 852, 862 (Bankr.E.D. Pa. 1989). The creditor would then be entitled to payment upon the same terms as other unsecured creditors.

"[O]nce the court finds a violation, no matter how technical, it has no discretion with respect to liability." In re Wright, supra. at 708; In re Porter v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., 961 F.2d 1066, 1078 (3d. Cir. 1992); Smith v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., supra. at 898. "Any misgivings creditors may have about the technical nature of the requirements should be addressed to Congress or the Federal Reserve Board, not the courts.

Requested Relief
WHEREFORE, the Debtor respectfully requests a Jury Trial and that this honorable Court will Grant the Objection to the Sale, Grant the Motion to Set Aside the Sale and:

a. to declare that the Debtor has validly rescinded the transaction, that the illegal foreclosure sale is therefore void and unenforceable per TILA enacted by Congress;

b. to declare that the Creditors' failure to honor the Debtor 's valid rescission notice in accordance with the dictates of 15 USC 1635 and M.G.L. c. 140D 10 vests in the Debtor the right to retain the net loan proceeds and that the Creditors has no allowable unsecured claim in this bankruptcy case;

c. to set aside the sale of the Illegal Foreclosure of May 23, 2007 and award damages for wrongful foreclosures

d. to consolidate Debtors affirmative defense adversary proceedings and the motion filed under rule 6004(b) since they are both governed by Rule 9014 and are considered contested matter or core
proceedings.

e. to vacate the illegal foreclosure under rules allowing vacating judgments, F.R.Civ.P 60(b).

Respectufully Submitted,

Pierre R. Augustin, 28 Cedar Street, Lowell, MA 01852, Tel; 617-202-8069

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

====================================
Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best 2008.

Jennifer
La Habra, California
U.S.A.