The Rinaldis, collectively “debtors”, come before the Court to state their reasoning for considering abandoning their Chapter 13 proceeding.
The Debtors sought to protect their homestead from a fraudulent foreclosure resulting from a fraudulent, predatory loan, devoid of consideration, and constituting the issuance of a “security” naming Roger Rinaldi as CO-payee with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. It is now blatantly apparent that the “courts”, collectively meaning the State Court, the Eastern District Bankruptcy Court, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, are working collectively to intimidate and silence the Debtors and their counsel, Ms. Nora, to protect the banking oligarchy that currently maintains control over most of the judiciary in this country.
The intentional misconstruction of the facts preceeding, during, and after the vacated foreclosure combined with the obstruction we endured in the first adversary proceeding which in turn were used to create a manifest error of law in the rulings of both Susan V. Kelly (“any similarly named trust can foreclose on the Rinaldis” or “one of the three assignments of mortgage must be valid” and then bifurcating the adversary action againsxt the named RICO defendants) and Circuit Court Judge Stadtmueller stating that the (paraphrasing) State court judge adjudicated filings of assignments of mortgage that occurred AFTER the vacated case was off his docket.
The thousands of pages of pleadings and exhibits filed in this case and others have always been filed in good faith and thoughtfully pleaded. The same cannot be said for the bank attorneys involved in these actions. The immense amount of evidence and knowledge of control fraud collected by Debtors and presented to the courts constituted an immense threat to the banks that are foreclosing on homeowners with claims based on forged, phony, meaningless documents (which this District itself has allowed) allegedly transferring title to an unfunded REMIC trust years after extinguishment of the actual certificates occurred.
The reliance upon the claims of the foreclosing parties and their attorneys with a bias toward homeowners similar to that of judges upholding Dredd-Scott under their forged belief system (no matter how flawed), must come to an end.
Debtors are again being tortured by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the clandestine beneficiary of the proceeds from the much-needed foreclosure judgment and subsequent windfall of the tax-fraud scheme rooted in the reporting of losses based on the issuance of the Debtors note and insurance proceeds from the bond insurer, Triad Guarantee, upon the engineered default.
Debtors filed, in good faith, a workable bankruptcy plan based on ending the 8 years of litigation with the Wells Fargo foreclosure machine. That, however, is not enough for these vultures. They now insist on coming back before the court AS CERTIFICATES OBJECTING TO A PLAN. If the Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as servicer wishes to file claims on behalf of CERTIFICATES, the COURT should now REQUIRE the SERVICER to disclose WHICH CERTIFICATES are holding VALID CLAIMS against the TITLE TO THE HOME the Rinaldis own at law and in equity. The CUSIPS issued related to the WELLS FARGO HOME EQUITY TRUST 2005-2 numbered twenty-two tranches, with multiples of each being sold to investors.
“In passing upon and rejecting or allowing the proof of claim in this case the court of bankruptcy proceeds—not without appropriate regard for rights acquired under state law—under federal statutes which govern the proof and allowance of claims based on judgments. In determining what judgments are provable and what objections may be made to their proof, and in determining the extent to which the inequitable conduct of a claimant in acquiring or asserting his claim in bankruptcy, requires its rejection or its subordination to other claims which, in other respects are of the same class, the bankruptcy court is defining and applying federal, not state, law.” See Prudence Realization Corporation v. Geist, supra, 316 U.S. 95, 96, 62 S.Ct. 982, 983, 86 L.Ed.1293 and cases cited; cf. United States v. Pelzer, 312 U.S. 399, 402, 403, 61 S.Ct. 659, 660, 661, 85 L.Ed. 913
Again, Wells Fargo comes to the Court pleading the name of a non-existent entity objecting to the plan, in the course of breaching their contract to consider the short sale offered by Debtors. This is just another episode of intentional infliction of emotional distress and financial terrorism committed by this group of malfeasants and miscreants. This Court should now take these claimants for what they are and reject their claims under the doctrine of unclean hands, pursuant to Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co., 290 U.S. 240 (1933)