The games that some Judges will play in favor of the banks

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

Let’s take a look at Judge William H Harsha’s decision, written for the Fourth District Court of Appeals in Ohio.  One could ask- how confused and mixed up can one person get and what would possess the other two judges to approve of his destruction of the LAW?

 The decision he tried to pen denounced every ounce of common sense and disseminated the legal system at an unprecedented rate of judicial abuse.

 William Harsha gave proof from page 1 of his ignorance of the Laws set down for him to abide by. The evidence was staring him and his two rubber stampers in the face. From the very beginning, if Harsha and his gang knew anything about a PSA or standing this case would not, could not have proceeded to his simple minded concocted mincing of smoke and mirrors. US bank as trustee could not have been the plaintiff. There was no trust as proven which equals no trustee. The note was from 2003 by New Century Mortgage Corporation. In 2003 the note and mortgage was securitized. The note and mortgage were split, separated – bifurcated, sold to investors. New Century sold the mortgage to investors all over the world. How do we know that? – because that’s what investors do. They buy, trade, and sell. 

Remember the Wall Street mess of 2008? The empty bag of tricks caught up with the banks. When mortgage companies were selling what they didn’t own or have.

 But moving on, so we don’t get bogged down by these judges not knowing the facts of securitization of a note! The note and mortgage were bifurcated. The mortgage and note cannot legally be put back together – that’s called adhesion which is also illegal. So, you see the note never made it to the trust. By New York trust law it was void because they did not follow the law of the PSA and there are Ohio case laws to use that if  you are not the original mortgagee you have to show a complete chain of assignments. Just going by US Supreme Court law, Carpenter vs. Longan – Harsha even screws up the appearances of who showed up for oral argument. He has the wrong lawyers listed- but anyway, on to his first point of argument regarding the affidavit of defendant. Once again shows he has not kept up or ignored precedent cases. Example – J.P. Morgan vs. Blank, a recent Ohio case- The case was won on the single affidavit- But, as you will see, this case goes much deeper than the affidavit that Harsha ignored. Later on you will see evidence of where Harsha used as an affiant’s affidavit that was not proof of knowledge but he gives that a pass. Number 2 of Harsha’s proof of ignorance of Laws – more smoke and mirrors – US bank did not have “standing” by the Swartzwald case- which he should have known. This was an Ohio Supreme Court case. Oh, but to think of it- he did hear of this case. Harsha uses this case later to contradict himself – paragraph 36, Harsha states, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that because the mortgagee failed to establish an interest in the note or mortgage at the time it filed suit, it had “no standing” to invoke the jurisdiction of the Common Pleas Court. Proof that US Bank was not the holder of the note (the note that did not exist- it was voided by the PSA)- did not get to the trust. There was, pay attention here judge Harsha and you other rubber stampers, an allonge dated July 31, 2012 that states New Century is the present owner and holder, this is more than four months after the complaint was filed. Were you asleep? What part didn’t these three get about the owner and holder? So, there was NO standing for US bank, but Harsha ignored the law here, the pattern of deception continues. 

Number 3- third contention – they really screw up on this. So far, they have held themselves above Ohio Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court. The arrogance, the premeditation to defecate on the Laws, uphold fraud and corruption. Look at the extent these judges go to avoid justice – violate laws and be a fraud, be a party to fraud.

 Let me put this in childlike Crayola for them. Number ONE – genuine issue of material fact – Hasrsha and McFarland and Hoover ignore issues even gradeschool children could figure out. Number TWO- the original mortgagee was New Century Corporation in 2003. Number THREE- New Century securitized the note and mortgage. Note was voided by PSA. Number FOUR- New Century mortgage went bankrupt in 2007. Number FIVE- New Century liquidated out 2008 – 2009, over, no more – did not exist. Not allowed to do business in Ohio anymore – assets gone – Alan Jacobs was their only trustee – proof, Delaware Bankruptcy Court. What part can’t judge William Harsha understand about bankruptcy liquidation – no more assets – gone, no mortgage- smoke and mirrors concocted up after securitization. But Judge William Harsha does- So, Judge Harsha still thinks that a dead company, New Century, authorized an allonge to be created five years after they no longer existed. First of all, New Century sold a note in 2003 – securitization. New Century goes bankrupt 2007 and the allonge doesn’t come along until 2012. So Harsha and his two judges say they find there is no genuine issue of material fact “because the allonge was irrelevant at the time it filed its complaint in foreclosure” who is Judge harsha? Anyway, Harsha goes on “US bank had possession of the original promissory note endorsed in blank by New Century. IMPOSSIBLE.

And the stamp on the copy of the note was done by a known Robo signer and the notary for the Robo signer was a Robo signer. Proof – defendants had certified document from the Clerk of Courts in Orange County, California submitted as evidence with the summary judgment opposition that there- was no notary Journal turned in which is required by law which made this Robo signature stamp illegal even if it was blank. Remember Robo signing is illegal and the stamp and the allonge and Bailee letter made up by Ocwen did not come along until 2012. Wow! What were these judges thinking? This proof was presented as evidence by the defendants. So the impossibility that this appeals court chose to ignore- March 27, 2012- US bank as trustee files complaint – Allonge July 31, 2012 can come before March 27, 2012 which is impossible. Okay – so – Ocwen attempted to dump the note copy to US bank as trustee while claiming at the same time New Century was still owner and holder of the note in 2012. So Judge William Harsha, you can’t have it your illegal way when there is that much proof in your face.

 Let’s recap – 2003 New Century has note and mortgage. 2003 note and mortgage securitized by New Century, there is a PSA with strict rules by New York State law. The note is VOID by the PSA rules, their own rules and laws to follow. Kicked out. The mortgage was transient, sliced, diced, shredded – numerous holders. No one individual can claim possession of the property, that is what securitization does.  Could that be why Clunk’s lawyers made up a fraudulent asssignment of mortgage after the complaint was filed in 2012.  They dumped off big entities for example – Citigroup, Solomon Brothers, Credit Bassed Asset Servicing and Securitzation and on and on with no permission to do this – violated the PSA long ago which made it VOID.  It bifurcates the note and mortgage. The note is legally gone –  mortgage legally gone. Okay, so, these judges can’t grasp securitization and you have no knowledge of a pooling and servicing agreement. Getting past that – there is no trust – no US bank as trustee has “no standing”– no trust equals no trustee. They at least have to comprehend that much as judges.  You admitted the Swartzwald case proves that fact- that plaintiff must have proof at time of filing claim and by the date complaint was filed which was on March 27, 2012 by US bank as trustee for no trust. The alleged note was still in the name of New Century as present owner and holder on July 31, 2012. Not in the name of US bank as trustee. So, proof- that US bank did not have note at time of filing claim. You, Judge Harsha and your other two judges- McFarland and Hoover have admitted that, but they keep going off the deep end and change their stories which are really made up. Note and mortgage – remember securitization – nine years earlier. Remember the PSA, the remake to see how far Harsha goes overboard, read the affiant’s affidavit and the opposition presented by defendant. Number FIVE – again US bank as trustee could not have had “standing” Nemo DAT. You cannot give what you don’t have. Harsha, as usual, ignores the facts and contradicts himself again and again.  Summary judgment evidence did not establish that US Bank had possession of the note endorsed in blank at the time it filed the complaint and he states also had an equitable assignment of the mortgage. 

OKAY-  One- How could US bank “as trustee” have “standing”. No trust – no trustee! Number two- how could US bank have possession of note when complaint was filed? Remember, complaint was filed March 27, 2012 but the allonge dated July 31, 2012 states New Century is present owner and holder as of that date for the note. Ohio Supreme Court – must have note and mortgage at time of filing complaint or at least one OR the other. In this case they had neither as the evidence by the allonge stating New Century is the present owner and holder after the complaint was filed. More of Harsha’s bag of lies and tricks? 

And the note they used was a known Robo signature – and proof- no notary Journal turned in, you know what that means – the Robo signer was not legally notarized and further Flora Raschty’s affidavit was torn apart with proof the affidavit could not hold up and even Harsha uses Flora’s alleged  affidavit that she had personal knowledge of the facts “alleged”. “And based on these records US bank possessed the original executed note and mortgage” Harsha even ignored the affiant’s liar confusion as to the note. The plaintiff’s summary judgment gave no proof of the legitimacy because they could not. As for William Harsha putting so much into this affidavit, he proves himself allegedly a party to fraud and conspiracy or he is also not knowledgeable about affidavits. The affidavit gives proof that she does not have “personal knowledge”. Example- if Flora Raschty had personal knowledge she would have known about the note and mortgage. She views a computer screen that was doctored with false information and she doesn’t even know how it got put in the computer. Just read the opposition to the affidavit to prove Judge Harsha’s deception or ignorance. In this one decision from Harsha- here is his story. And Judge Harsha’s decision for the appeals court he states number one that US bank had the note and mortgage at the time the complaint was filed. Number two- but another time- he states the note was transferred to US bank by New Century in 2012 by an allonge. Number three- another he states New Century transfereed the note and mortgage to another entity (unnamed). Number four- then he states this unnamed entity signs the note to US Bank. He said the note went from New Century to another entity then to US bank. Number five- then Judge Harsha goes back to say New Century gave the note to US bank by blank endorsement, leaves out Robo signer on copy of note, leaves out New Century did not exist in 2012 when he said New Century gave the note to US bank by the  allonge of 2012. And to think these judges cannot find even one “genuine issue of material fact”.

 Let’s take a look at Judge William Harsha’s cesspool of contradictions and untruths and deceptions in his decision he labels facts. Number seven- this person goes for two points with his lies and corruption of the real facts.

 One (1)-. New Century did not assign the mortgage to another entity as Harsha states. William Harsha had a job to know what the laws are and to keep abreast of cases by the Sixth Circuit Court decisions. These three (3) judges failed in their responsibility to act within the laws or felt themselves above the United States Court of appeals which are considered among the most powerful and influential Courts in the United States (circuit courts). This is a US court which covers four states for our circuit. Evidence was submitted as proof that these assignments were scams and Robo signed. What part of Robo signing doesn’t Harsha get? Robo signing has been proven illegal but Harsha and his other companions totally ignore this as they ignored the United States Court of Appeals decision. New Century securitized the note and mortgage in 2003 making this libelous statement proves his ignorance of securitizations, trusts, PSA’s or he simply ignorant.

 Two (2)-. He states “New Century assigned the mortgage to another entity, which subsequently assigned it to US Bank on March 27, 2012 “. He goes on to say the assignments were recorded. Let’s break this haphazard plot of Harsha’s deception down again, Harsha skips over what really happened to the note through securitization. There was no trust. So, no trustee!

 Three (3)-. These entities made mortgage assignments that were violations of the terms of the PSA which rendered the whole transaction void – “not voidable” by New York Trust Law, their own laws governing these documents. So, again, Harsha attempts to flop around with the assignments- he is counting on no one finding out the defendants have a right to  assignments or he is ignorant of this legal decision made before the claim was filed. Number eight – well – Harsha really goes out on a limb to stretch another fabricated line. So, Harsha sticks with his fraudulent assignment of the mortgage. Harsha is back to the blank endorsed note leaving out that this was a proven Robo sign stamped copy of the note. HE (Harsha) ADMITS  US bank, as trustee did not attach a copy of the mortgage assignment which had been executed same day – Harsha leaves out the fact that it has already been established in Ohio that the paperwork – “documents” must be filed with the complaint. He admits here, all the documents were not filed with the complaint. Judge Harsha had the power and the other two judges also, to dismiss the case because all the paperwork or documents were not filed according to Ohio law. What drove this person ignoring the laws and the other two judges, Hoover and McFarland to work so hard at avoiding and ignoring the laws set forthto scheme to avoid justice even if they didn’t like it. The facts, proof, evidence of these assignments were all laid out for these three but they chose by what? – Ignorance, stupidity or other reasons for alleged personal gain to ramrod and trample the US higher courts authority and they still could not come up with one genuine issue of material fact when they had several. 

At number nine- Judge William Harsha makes himself a violator of justice or just incompetent here. He states “subsequently in July 2012 New Century executed an allonge to the promissory note purporting to transfer the note to US bank”  (A). New century did not exist in 2012. Remember bankrupt in 2007 liquidated completely out of all assets by 2008- 2009. New Century was also barred from doing business in Ohio by then. More deception and lies from Judge Harsha. (B)- The dated allonge was made up by Ocwen who did not come along until almost 2012, late last quarter of 2011 – this was discovered by defendants in discovery and the lawyer from their law firm, hired by Ocwen was terminated. (C)- Harsha states the note was transferred to US bank but US bank is listed as plaintiff as trustee for a trust that never existed. What a tangled web of deception of Judge Harsha weaves to avoid with his lies to avoid the truth. At number ten-. Remember US bank as trustee, had no standing to begin with.  Harsha skips over that, just as his acquaintance Goldsberry did, a dead company making an allonge to US bank by pretending to be the attorney in fact for a company that no longer exist – what happended to clean hands doctrine Judges?  These certain judges, really are more alleged clowns than judges, but moving on. US banks summary judgment afiant’s affidavit was proven a web of deceit and deception and illegal -this was proven in the summary judgment opposition and being allegedly ignorant of what real facts and documents consisted of Harsha refers to the proof, evidence, facts, records of truth as “assorted documents”. As far as the trial court judge, people didn’t really expect him to know any better or even read the summary judgment opposition let alone understand it. He was under investigation by the Sheriff’s Department and being kicked off the bench. So, some just thought of him as the jellybean rope dragging self pitying revengeful joke who continued ignoring the lawss. This wasn’t the only case he screwed over.

At number eleven (11)-. Doesn’t take much common sense to figure this one out. Read the summary judgment and the summary judgment opposition and consider who was responsible for that decision. Really Judge William Harsha- common sense would help here. At number twelve (12)- so, appellate review the summary judgment what about summary judgment opposition that it attacked the summary judgment with proof, facts, evidence, records convenient to skip over that – too much truth to digest? There are more genuine issues of fact in most cases only to be ignored by Harsha and his two rubberstamps.

 Is this the first time Harsha was allowed to write a decision?

 The cases he lists have already been knocked out of the water – don’t waste any time there. At number 13 – more of Harsha’s ramblings defended covered all this so Harsha looks silly by comparison.  Number 14 -there is no doubt as to the trial court’s group but ignoring the real issues from this judge was no surprise. Number 15 – the note was a forged copy and of a Robo signer wouldn’t take a genius to figure that out it was included in the package with the made up allonge in 2012 by Ocwen and inspected PSA voided the original note. Number 16 – there was no “mere speculation” nor “unsupported conclusory assertions” as Judge Harsha can’t seem to grasp reality of fax proof evidence records he can throw out civil 50 6D but it only means he is desperate for words to fill his ramblings. The defendants affidavit went into great detail and did establish the existence of cold hard facts Harsha chose to ignore but upheld an afiant’s affidavit that was so full of holes that makes Swiss cheese looks solid but so much for Judge Harsha denied the truth. Harsha was concerned if he didn’t ignore all the evidence and go with the summary judgment “crippling” use of civil 56 more blabbing might happen. His only concern with the evidence and proof was how he could escape.  As far as merits of claims that was trampled at the trial court level. There was no meritless claims in this case only meritless alleged morally corrupt judges. Number 17- more deception from Harsha – more of his contradictions from under the table. First, defendant stated the note was not the original wet ink request to inspect and it wasn’t. Didn’t take a genius to figure that out not the original wet ink note and this was not challenged by plaintiff. Inspection was during discovery so, Harsha is concerned about defendant not attaching copies to compare it  was “alleged” but he uses “alleged” originals. Even he knows they were not the originals. He is caught up in the crossfire here with this one. Ready – “the promissory note held by US bank did not contain her authentic signature” earlier he stated New Century was the owner and holder of the note. Proof was the laws made in 2012. People, what is wrong with this picture? Harsha tries to discredit defendants – he feels. They are if you read the affidavit you can see he looks foolish going down this hole but worse he is caught up in the crosshairs of his devious deception of who has the note. So far, he has claimed both US bank. We know that isn’t possible and New Century – that is impossible. Judge William Harsha, he can’t seem to get his story straight. 

So, which is it Judge Harsha – maybe you should ask the other two who followed you down this rabbit hole. Number 18 – Harsha rambles on about another case where the defendants affidavit did not have proof but he leaves out in that case that there wasn’t any question as was in this case, the note itself was the original. Even he uses “alleged originals”. This is a person who has skipped, danced, fumbled, stumbled, bumbled his way to ignore- to come up with any excuse against the defendant. He has ignored proof of Robo signing – no standing – the shell game of where is the note, trust – no trustee – no trust – US bank has the note –  New Century has the note. No, New Century can’t have the note with the made up allonge dates but wait- New Century was out of business five years before allonge was made. Judge Harsha states US bank was assigned the note July 2012 and the claim by US bank was filed March 2012. Which is supposed to come first?

 More of Harsha’s deception but moving on to Number 19 – he still rejects defendant’s affidavit. He says US bank has the note- claims New Century has the note in other sections of his confused mess of a decision, this person calls himself a judge and he can’t find one – it only takes one genuine issue of material fact -with all the corruption in this case that has been set before him. Harsha goes on to try and divert the attention away from his negligence here by stating defendant did say she signed a promissory note and so they reject her first contention – defendant did admit signing a note just not that note.  Where was Harsha- doesn’t know it- but it has been pointed out. Not all promissory notes look alike. Defendant made it clear that was not her signature on that copy of the note and it was not the original wet ink. But what can one expect from a judge who doesn’t know where it is or that it was signed over by a dead company. This guy’s privy is full. Number 20 – pooling and servicing agreement – can any judge get more than this guy.   First, the defendant did not admit being in default in her pleadings or affidavit.   Another Harsha made up libelous statement.  Defendant showed proof at trial court level of no default by UCC law.  Number 21 – you would think that judge William Harsha would at least keep up with some of the legal news. But then looking back at what he has distorted, lied about, ignored and contradicted himself on and on. Another big error or just plain lack of knowledge or shoving through his opinion that makes him look incompetent.

 A. Harsha states- a defendant borrower in a foreclosure case lacks standing to challenge the validity of an assignment of the note and mortgage and he goes on to list all cases he must have pulled from someone’s drawer. It looks like Harsha knew the assignments were fraudulent -otherwise- why bring them up? He has already beat himself up with lies and deception for the plaintiff bank that he should have known had no standing. But his alleged incompetence in the first place – how much fraudulent evidence had to be shoved under his nose before he decided he couldn’t keep up the charade. How many laws has this person violated and trample on so far?  moving on. He has completely ignored UCC laws. Plaintiff was not in default and this was disputed with proof of evidence and defenses in recoupment. This gives evidence he did not read the pleading or he just doesn’t understand the laws here or more of his lies. In reality, those cases that he lists are off the chart when it comes to this case. Again if Harsha had read the pleadings or summary judgment opposition he would have or should have known better that he is flying without a kite. He is trying to compare apples to oranges and it won’t work if he knows laws and again Harsha is upholding U.S. Bank unlawfully but he keeps his eyes shut to the fact they have “no standing”. US bank as the trustee cannot be a plaintiff in this case.

Number 22- Judge Harsha does not know what his superiors are saying. Does Slorp vs LSR come to mind? The recent Federal case in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Apparently not or he was asleep! Let’s go there and compare this case with the Slorp case.

This decision regarding US Bank as trustee was made by Judge William Harsha, McFarland and Hoover- file stamped November 5, 2014. The Slorp case was stamped September 29, 2014. The Slorp case makes it clear and was clarified and states “a nonparty homeowner may challenge a putative assignments validity on the basis that it was not effective to pass legal title to the putative assignee” this was made before Harsha and his two came up with their decision to uphold an illegal assignment challenged by the defendant. Seems like they all have trouble with dates, what months come first.

Number 23- Harsha goes on – ready for this? “Nevertheless” “regardless” he goes back to making excuses why defendant has, according to him, “no standing”. Does he do this to keep covering up the fact that U.S. Bank has NO standing? 

The PSA was relevant because it showed the trust, it was proof, that the trust was a fraud. No trust means no trustee. It would be an impossibility –  U.S. Bank could not have been plaintiff as trustee for a trust that did not exist by New York trust governance. What does that mean by their own rules? It means-that it’s void. So, Judge Harsha- U.S. Bank has no standing. What part doesn’t he get? Now, he goes on to say “by virtue of its possession of the note endorsed in blank, U.S. Bank was the holder of the note – defendant already proved at trial court level  that there was a genuine issue of material fact, why? Because the plaintiff answered interrogatories they came into possession and contradicted their own pleadings by the allonge shown in discovery stating New Century had been the holder and owner all along after the complaint was filed and even in 2012. More contradictions. Again, Judge Harsha is back to his old tricks of deception and lies. Note – Robo signing – a dead company New Century – dates – trust – PSA-the disgrace this person has committed against truth and justice.

 Well, we have Harsha contradicting the PSA which is governed by New York law. We have Harsha stating U.S. Bank submitted a copy of the original note endorsed in blank with this complaint. Harsha could not have known this was a copy of the original note. Just more evidence he was in the bank’s pocket or he would have required certified evidence from the bank but he overlooks the endorsed stamp is by a well-known Robo signer which is illegal by Ohio law and the notary was illegal and proof was provided by defendant going through the SEC and receiving a letter from the clerk of courts in California that no notary Journal was turned in. 

So, Judge Harsha upholds a bank with no standing and an illegal Robo stamped copy of the note- no proof from plaintiff but proof from defendant that this is fact. Harsha ignores facts and evidence and goes without proof. Harsha goes on to state “defense of an invalid assignment which essentially contends U.S. Bank does not own the instrument, is irrelevant, because U.S. Bank is a person entitled to enforce the instrument” what is wrong with him? 

U.S. Bank is not a person entitled to enforce. U.S. Bank was acting as a trustee for a trust that did not exist. And as we have went over, he has New Century as the owner and holder as of 2012 after the complaint was filed. People, just stop and look at all the corruption this judge is upholding and bending over backwards to defend for this case for US Bank.

 Now, he is making a statement about a PSA that he is ignorant of or doesn’t know a PSA from a pap smear. Again, he favors the non-standing U.S. Bank with his favoritism. He states that the defendants challenge of the note doesn’t preclude summary judgment for the bank. In other words, illegal assignments of the note and mortgage still allows you. Must play acting as trustee to no trust doesn’t stop summary judgment for the bank. Another disregard for our legal system as if everything else these people have covered up and ignored.

Number 25 – allonge and bankruptcy – people, it only gets worse from this judge just when you think it can’t. How screwed up can these people get? Back to the allonge we go – Which most certainly raised a genuine issue of material fact which the judges award to US Bank but then why not, what more deception and lies. Okay, one- the allonge was created in 2012- nine years after the note.  Ask any knowledgeable judge or lawyer or just look it up. The law is clear on this. Cases have been thrown out over this. One case tried to attach an allonge five years after the note – not allowed. Two – Judge William Harsha twisted this, ignoring that defendant provided a photocopy of the allonge Ocwen had made out and dated 2012 for New Century who did not exist. People – listen up. – Look how far Harsha stretches the this. The defendants affidavit did not indicate that and allonge to the original promissory note raised a genuine issue of material fact about whether the note was transferred to US bank by New Century after New Century had filed for bankruptcy”. What the defendant gave as evidence, proof – a photocopy of the allonge made up by Ocwen in 2012 for the 2003 note of New Century who securitized the note and mortgage. The note was not transferred to US bank by New Century. This judge is so confused he contradicts himself again. Okay, we go to where Harsha says New Century gives note to another entity – no name, of course – this unnamed entity Harsha states gives the note to U.S. Bank as trustee but here, Harsha goes straight from New Century to U.S. Bank with this allonge made up in 2012. So, Harsha is stating that the allonge does not raise, “a genuine issue of material fact about whether the note was transferred to U.S. Bank by New Century after New Century had filed for bankruptcy”. People, that is an impossibility – the note was not transferred to U.S. Bank by New Century. Again, New Century went bankrupt in 2007, liquidated all assets out by 2008 2009. Ocwen Loan Servicing comes along in 2012- last quarter of 2011- U.S. Bank as trustee comes along  2012 – New Century was a dead Dracula – did not exist – was not allowed to do business in the state of Ohio. As for the note- not the original wet ink, as required, but a copy as Harsha admits. It was Robo signed and Robo notary – the Robo signer was famous, the notary Journal does not exist again and again Harsha runs over this, so, there was no legal blank endorsement to U.S. Bank and even at that, U.S. Bank had no standing – no trustee means no trust means no trustee.  

 But what is Judge William Harsha, one could say more idiocy. He rambles on that there is a “potential issue” not a real issue, but a “potential issue” about whether defendant has “standing to attack the validity of the transfer of the note”. One only has to look at this case to know the corruption that is being perpetrated here. 

Number 26 back to the allonge – according to Judge Harsha making up illegal documents is okay and if you do get caught- the illegal documents are just “irrelevant” according to Harsha, McFarland, Hoover of the 4th Dist Court of Appeals in Ohio.  Here we go again – he says, “nevertheless the allonge was irrelevant because U.S. Bank had possession of the original promissory note endorsed in blank by New Century at the time its complaint and foreclosure.” An entity which possesses a note endorsed in blank is a holder entitled to enforce the note – let’s continue on with his asinine deception and lies before we gut his nonsense. “Therefore, even assuming that defendant had the requisite standing to raise this claim, the claim is meritless” his rationale,  affidavit for Ocwen, the servicer. Remember, Ocwen did not come along until 2012 with their records – get to that here in a bit.  Judge Harsha defends the affiant’s affidavit to the point of absurdity and proving him what?  Alledgely silly, incompetent, biases, corrupt.

But first, let’s revisit this silly outhouse analysis of Judge Harsha and his two other judges McFarland and Hoover. Harsha is calling the allonge “irrelevant” but how can that be? If not for this fraudulent made up allonge and fraudulent letter from Ocwen to their lawyers- there would have been no transfer from New Century to U.S. Bank which was a fraud mess to begin with. Back to Judge Harsha holding. For One Thing- He claimed allonge was irrelevant. If allonge was irrelevant why would Ocwen have went to the trouble of creating one? This specific allonge admitted into evidence, specifically stated that New century was owner and holder of the note until July 31, 2012 – this proves his theory is asinine.

For a second thing, He claims U.S. Bank had possession of the original note endorsed in blank by New Century at the time the complaint was filed.  More fantasy land fiction from Harsha.  The original wet ink note never showed up-Why?  It was void by the PSA-What US Bank had that Judge Harsha wants to hide is a copy with an illegal robo signed stamp without any legal notary and a forged defendants signature.  A note void by the PSA – Because it was kicked out by the REMIC and US Bank does not have standing and US Bank, as trustee filed claim while Ocwen is claiming New Century was owner and holder when complaint was filed.  One deception and lie after another, Judge William Harsha?  So, Harsha’s simple little statement of the allonge made in 2012 for the 2003 note is “irrelevant” because US Bank,( notice how he left off “trustee” here)- has the original note and in blank IS fruadulent when you know the facts and all these Judges had the facts laid before them. 

 A. What makes Judge Harsha know this is the original note? It was never analyzed and why take the word of the Plaintiff when their affidavit lies.  New Century had it securitized shortly  destroyed the mortgage- as they say, it was juiced up – sliced – no one person owns it.

 Judge Harsha, the note and mortgage are not together even if you come up with a phony note you don’t have a mortgage. It was put into tranches. No one person has the mortgage – bone up on your securitization if you can. Your so-called make-believe note that you state U.S. Bank has, was Robosigned, that’s illegal. What you have is an allonge stating New Century is the owner and holder dated July 31, 2012. But you call this allonge irrelevant because U.S. Bank has possession of the note at the time the complaint was filed which was March 27, 2012. You screwed yourself again back to no matter what. Your US bank as trustee was not holder when they filed complaint as trustee without a trust while you claim at 27. Here again Judge William Harsha goes into another tailspin of weaving his deceptive web of dishonesty of the plaintiffs affiants, Flora Raschty’s affidavit. The defendants opposition to Rashi’s affidavit goes into great detail as to why it was not valid. Harsha took great pains in trying to prove otherwise but he failed. Judge Harsha with his rantings proved she was supposed to have personal knowledge but he proved she did not. Harsha even proves himself wrong by quoting civil rule 56(E) this Harsha relies on proves his deception and coverup as to the truth she did not, could not have personal knowledge of any factual evidence. Does Judge Harsha believe that no one would read what he just referred to as civil rule 56(E) or was he so quick to distort the real evidence his quotations in paragraph 28 only proves his conspiratorial madhouse of menacing the factual evidence provided for the courses. Judge Harsha still not satisfied with his tangle web continues on with his at paragraph 29, 30, 31, 32 – page after page trying to make a silk purse from a pig’s ear. It is evident that Judge Harsha is so intent to uphold this case for U.S. Bank as trustee or Ocwen or his friend Goldsberry that he has proven he will do anything – even lie, provide false evidence, commit perjury because he did swear to tell the truth that they may be Judge.

 Harsha made a law for himself that he doesn’t have to be honest, fair or truthful just as he gave himself permission to bypass the Ohio concealed carry weapons law. The factual evidence from the defendants opposition to the affiant’s affidavit proves Harsha’s paragraph 28 to be just that. Judge Harsha uses evidence against himself, his “of civil rule 56(E) made him out to be a liar but as said he doesn’t stop there. Paragraph 29 – Judge Harsha continues to ramble on skipping past the real evidence but let’s stop at number five of paragraph 29 of his. “U.S. Bank is in possession of the original note and mortgage, true copies of which had been previously filed in the case in which are attached to her affidavit. More of Judge Harsha’s lies and deception?

 A. How is it possible for Raschty, the affiant, to swear of personal knowledge that U.S. Bank was in possession of the original note mortgage when Judge Harsha earlier states New Century is the owner and holder of the note and mortgage.

 B. In 2003 New Century securitized the original note and mortgage. The PSA proves this fact but Ms. Rashcty doesn’t mention this or know this.

 C. Securitization by law destroys the note. The mortgages sold to investors – the mortgage is even putting this aside 

D. Judge Harsha has missed Rashcty “knowing” that U.S. Bank has the note.  Judge Harsha is ignoring the dates he wants to – the allonge dated 2012 has New Century as the owner and holder of the note not U.S. Bank. Not until July 31, 2012 did this allonge made up for New Century allegedly signed over to U.S. Bank.  US bank did not file the complaint until March 27, 2012- any copy attached to her affidavit would have been a made up copy with the signature and stamp of a known Robo signer. Which it was. If this affidavit had any truth or merit to it, the affiant could not have sworn to the lie that U.S. Bank had the original note and mortgage. Remember, according to the records, U.S. Bank did not have possession of anything until after the complaint was filed. Not even the phony illegal documents Judge Harsha has covered up. Remember, Judge Harsha states once that New Century signs note to another entity – this entity unknown and then this unknown signs note to U.S. Bank then another time he states New Century signs a note to U.S. Bank.  When he confuses himself and he leaves out that if not the mortgagee then there has to be endorsements. There were no endorsements on the note which is legally required. Number seven of paragraph 29 – according to their records, U.S. Bank, even as trustee to no trust did not have the note in order to accelerate anything. Remember, complaint filed New Century did not sign over by allonge until July 31, 2012 even though New Century was gone in 2007. So, the old shell game, who has the note? But then Judge Harsha wants everyone to overlook the illegal documents and a Robo signed copy of a note that was securitized and not only Robo signed the proof was given as this known Robo signers notary was not legal and did not turn in notary Journal as required but according to judge Harsha this is to be swept under the legal rug.

 Number eight of paragraph 29 – oh yes, the assignment of the mortgage to U.S. Bank.

 1. This assignment of the mortgage was made up by U.S. Bank lawyers from Clunk’s foreclosure mill law firm in Stow, Ohio dated same day as complaint but not recorded until April 5, 2012 the same day complaint was filed by U.S. Bank but this assignment was not filed with complaint. Take a good look at the notary page! Take a look at the assignment in general and you will see why they needed a new assignment. Talk about fraudulent documents – how did all these entities get wiped out? Number nine – business records of Ocwen – the servicer of 2012 not U.S. Bank as trustee the plaintiff and no records of the 2003 loan or securitization or records of the PSA while they fought hard to keep away from the defendant. The PSA which judge Harsha  ignored given further proof that affiants did not have “personal knowledge” only what she was fed and what they wanted her to have.

 Number 10 – loan modification – no money exchanged hands – it would have been impossible for any entity to do a loan modification when they had no authority or ownership. Ocwen came along later in 2011 adding on fees that were not required or performed. Ocwen was fined for this very practice of over 2 billion but judge Harsha doesn’t want that mentioned – more deception in number 11 not accurate. Paragraph 30 still judge Harsha trying to beat a dead horse to convince that their affidavit holds up under his fiendish deception of untruths. Look how far this judge has went with this affidavit to subvert justice and to avoid the facts and truths. He has went from stating everything even including U.S. Bank having the note that the affiant “personally” knew to “the affidavit included statements from which it could be inferred that Rashcty compared the original promissory note and mortgage and other pertinent documents to the copies so she could attest that the copies attached to her affidavit were true and accurate” besides all of his other nonsense he goes from stating civil rule 56 affiant must have “personal knowledge” to now here he states civil rule 56(E) he only requires an assertion of personal knowledge which he throws in some, if this and if that, are there. His iffie’s and thatie’s isn’t there, people- common sense proves this Raschty could not have compared the original wet ink note and original mortgage. Harsha states “other pertinent documents” -what other documents? The securitization from 2003, the PSA, New Century bankruptcy 2007, liquidation of new century 2008 -2009, the Bailee letter stating New Century is the present owner and holder in 2012, the allonge from New Century to U.S. Bank 2012, interrogatories of U.S. Bank declaring New Century is holder and owner of note and mortgage, the new mortgage assignment made up in 2012 by bank’s lawyers. Paragraph 31 judge Harsha continues to try and dig himself out of this deep hole of lies, fallacies, contradictions. 

Judge Harsha is now back to employee “with knowledge”. More deception from this judge. Her job gave her personal knowledge of the pertinent facts, what pertinent facts? Hell, they didn’t even know who, what or where the note was. (1). Did U.S. Bank have the note when complaint was filed? No.

 (2) was U.S. Bank as trustee the plaintiff? No.

 (3) did New Century give U.S. Bank the note in 2012? No.

 (4) did new century cease to exist in 2007? Yes.

 (5) was new century assets all gone by 2009? Yes – liquidated out.

 (6) was Alan Jacobs the trustee of new century liquidation in 2008 -2009? Yes.

 (7) was the note mortgage securitized in 2003 by New Century? Yes.

 (8) did the state of Ohio forbid New Century to do business in Ohio 2007? Yes.

 (9) did OCWEN make an allonge in 2012 to state New Century gives note to U.S. Bank? Yes. was this illegal? yes. 

 (10) when a mortgage is bifurcated by securitization, can a mortgage that was sold to investors be put back together to be taken? No – the mortgage is held by numerous investors and no one individual can collect on that property.That people is securitization- even the mortgage assignment in 2003 lists numerous entities as owners of the mortgage.

 (11) did U.S. Bank as trustee of a nonexisting trust file foreclosure complaint March 27, 2012 while Ocwen made an allonge stating in a bailee letter and U.S. Bank interrogatories stated New Century was current holder and owner of note July 31, 2012? Yes.

 (12) did Judge William Harsha state that New Century signed note to U.S. Bank July 31, 2012? Yes.

 (13) did judge Harsha state that New Century assigned note to another unknown entity in this unknown entity signed note to U.S. Bank? Yes he did!

(14) Did Judge William Harsha favor the bank after evidence proved U.S. Bank was not holder owner of the note when the complaint was filed? Yes.

 COULD that be why Clunk’s lawyers rushed to make up a new mortgage assignment March 27, 2012 but didn’t get it done in time to file with U.S. Bank’s complaint?  Phony assignment that was recorded April 5, 2012 with thier law firms code.

 U.S. Bank never amended their complaint with this mortgage assignment.

 This assignment made up for U.S. Bank makes all of these investors disappear.

 Mr. Harsha’s argument fails with his own contradictions of this individual’s personal knowledge for this paragraph also, but he keeps on grasping for straws.  And to believe there was not one “genuine issue of material fact” for these judges to act on!  Unbelievable – no wonder there was so many illegal foreclosures on homeowners with judges like these.  At paragraph 22 – again, judge Harsha is off base with his excuses not only off-base but proven him incompetent. The case he tries to discredit, Wachovia Bank of Delaware fifth District Stark number 2010 Ohio is not misplaced- ID at paragraph 28. By contrast he states “Raschty specified how her position as contract management coordinator” Ocwen “made her “familiar” with the loan account records made her familiar notice he doesn’t say she had “personal knowledge” she is “familiar” with Ocwen’s records- if she is “familiar” with Ocwen’s records does this mean she knew of the interrogatories of U.S. Bank stating New Century Mortgage corporation was current owner and holder of note and mortgage in 2012? Was Flora Raschty familiar with the Bailee letter and made by Ocwen in 2012 stating New Century was owner of note and mortgage. Being “familiar” with Ocwen’s records as judge Harsha stated. How could this affiant, Flora Raschty, testify that U.S. Bank, as trustee held the note and mortgage viewing the PSA (pertinent) document that there was no trust. Not just ignoring or circumventing the facts, evidence, proof in case laws and the roles he is to uphold, he implements his own meaning menacing, fiendish will as he chooses to subvert the law to uphold the trial court judge Alan Goldsberry. What other reason could he have for subjecting himself to such a disgraceful illegal decision of ignorance that not only makes him look incompetent but a violator of the judicial system. Paragraph 34 – as if he has not cornered himself like a rat without a hole to crawl in, he keeps on going – now we come to standing. The audacity of this person to even call himself a judge is, what can you say? 

(1) He attacks the “allonge” that defendant used as evidence against U.S. Bank. 

(2)  The assignment of the mortgage to U.S. Bank. Have to keep reading to see where he is gone with these two attacks. One- Harsha admits that parties must have “standing” to come before the court. He even cites cases – Ohio Supreme Court – must have standing at time cases filed. U.S. Bank did not. Harsha cites another case that “lack of standing challenges a parties capacity to bring an action” well, so far judge Harsha uses the Schwartzwald case to prove one must have standing. Then he uses another Ohio Supreme Court case to prove that lack of standing challenges a case not the subject matter of the court. He cites, a school board case against the city board of revision. As you can see what he is doing here is silly – what does a school board suing city board revision have to do with this case? This is a homeowner foreclosure case filed by U.S. Bank, as trustee, that does not have standing to sue. To quote this case makes him look allegedly incompetent and stupid but moving on to his paragraph 36.  Before we move on to paragraph 36 – did judge Harsha just shoot himself in the foot with his no permit carrying gun? It has been proven throughout and admitted time and time again that U.S. Bank had no standing to file this lawsuit foreclosure claim. Now, Judge William Harsha admits no standing – no case – U.S. Bank did not have the note or mortgage at the time they filed complaint. Harsha already admitted this and so did US Bank’s affidavit. So did U.S. Bank, so did Ocwen. All according to their own statements! Paragraph 36 – again, Judge Harsha uses this workflow case. Here we go again. He goes on to say standing revolves whether plaintiff has interest in note and/or mortgage at the time filed suit. Harsha claims it’s worthwhile, bank was not an assignee of the note or holder of the note, the mortgage secured when complaint was filed and only become so after complaint was filed. Well, guess what people – this puts U.S. Bank as trustee as a plaintiff in much more crap up to their assets then the bank who went after the sports world home according to Judge William Harsha who is allegedly bending over backwards to please judge Goldsberry from the trial court or for whatever other biased reasons he may have. But so far he has supported the defendant’s position of standing, not the plaintiff U.S. Bank.

Paragraph 37 – still one source won’t case – Harsha states the six, seven, eight, 10, 11 and 12 district Court of Appeals all hold opinion interest in note or mortgage only a time suit is filed.  Harsha goes on to list half dozen cases – rational questionable, I’m sure we’re all pretty clear on the meeting of the word “or”. Moving on to paragraph 38 – “nevertheless” – hold on, more flute playing. The first and ninth District Court of Appeals decided that both the note and mortgage had to be held by the plaintiff as any entity etc. etc. and it is apparent that the Ohio Supreme Court did not consider this precise issue in Schwartzwald” etc. according to Judge William Harsha, and he goes on – I do believe the Ohio Supreme Court trumps Mr. Harsha, but they will probably be glad to know his opinion of what they did not consider. At paragraph 39 – ready for this part from Judge William Harsha. One. We don’t have to regard this part about interest according to Harsha, why? Two. “U.S. Bank established that it had an interest in both at the time it filed the complaint in foreclosure” well, no they did not – if judge Harsha had read or understood the summary judgment opposition he would not be contradicting himself and lying so much to appease another or from just plain ignorance that makes him appear so. Three. Judge Harsha goes on with the summary judgment proof U.S. Bank had “standing” to bring this action against the homeowner. Why? Because they according to Harsha had the “note” at the time it filed case “attaching the bearer paper endorsed in blank by new century”. Well, U.S. Bank did not have standing when they found the case. U.S. Bank did not have the note. U.S. Bank did not have the mortgage. U.S. Bank was acting as trustee, but problem, no trust. U.S. Bank was not the proper party. The note attached to U.S. Bank’s complaint was not endorsed by New Century. It was Robo signed and stamped – no date on this Robo signed copy. Even the Robo signature notary was not legal. Proof from defendant that judge Harsha chooses to ignore was provided. New century securitized the note mortgage in 2003. No note – no mortgage. Pooling and servicing agreement – judge Harsha refuses to knowledge the PSA or he just doesn’t understand securitization and the PSA. U.S. Bank, according to the servicer Ocwen did not have possession of the note or mortgage. Judge Harsha seems to like repetition – so here we go again. One. New century securitized- no mortgage 2003. two- PSA proof of what happened to note mortgage which was included as defendants evidence. Three. New Century goes bankrupt in 2007. All assets liquidated out by 2008- 2009, Alan Jacobs as their trustees. Four- New century barred from doing business in Ohio, and injunction placed on them. Five-According to the PSA, the assignments were to go from A to B to C to D but it did not. This made the note void by New York Law. Six- New Century did not follow PSA that went skipping assignments they went directly from A to D. Seven- The PSA did not allow a blank endorsement. Eight-This all created a fraud but then neither Harsha nor the trial court could understand this or they chose to ignore evidence.

Well, with no trust – how could U.S. Bank be a trustee? They could not – an empty bag of tricks. 10- So, Ocwen who comes along in late 2011 made up fees to add on to mortgage payment – Ocwen was fined over 2 billion for the corruption December 2013. 11- U.S. Bank has no note or mortgage, so they make a Bailee letter telling their lawyers which is Clunk law firm to make New Century signing over to U.S. Bank- this was in 2012, remember, New Century was bankrupt by 2007 and not allowed to do business in Ohio. 12- Ocwen makes up an allonge dated 2012 for this 2003 note. So, we have allonge dated in 2012 where New Century is the owner and holder of note and mortgage not U.S. Bank. And we have U.S. Bank interrogatories dating owner and holder of note and mortgage is New Century after the complaint was filed. Does the allonge made for New Century in 2012 by Ocwen five years after New Century did not exist.  It’s like magic from Harsha – New Century is magically back in business.  According to this allonge, New Century was the owner and holder of the note July 31, 2012 when U.S. Bank filed the complaint March 27, 2012. 

Judge Harsha which came first? – remember what she said about standing, apparently not old, by the way according to Judge William Harsha the allonge was “unnecessary and irrelevant”. If it was not necessary why did Ocwen have it made up – the big mistake made was letting it out to be seen by the defendants in discovery. on page 39, Judge William Harsha states the impossible – is this judge guilty of fraud? Taking up for the bank it was unnecessary for them to make up illegal documents because he already has his mind made up? His arrogant attitude that this homeowner wasn’t going to have justice, not in his court. This is what he states, “consequently the subsequent allonge which appeared to renegotiate the note to U.S. Bank was unnecessary and irrelevant to the bank standing to institute a foreclosure action” this judge keeps passing over facts and truth to fit his self serving purpose. In the interrogatories from discovery stated clearly that New Century was the owner and holder of the note, not U.S. Bank. Harsha is allegedly so biased against homeowners he ignores reality for lies and fiction. So, Judge William Harsha states as his excuse for Ocwen to have made up an allogne nine years later which appeared to renegotiate the note to U.S. Bank was unnecessary and irrelevant to the bank standing to institute foreclosure action.

 Is this action not a genuine issue of material fact with his fraud to make up documents and ignore the laws. Example, the law that an allonge cannot be made nine years later to add to a note. Especially a note that was voided, a note copy that was Robo signed and not legally notarized, by PSA and bankrupt mortgagee. Judge William Harsha even digs his hole deeper. He contradicts himself numerous times but at one point he states New Century signed a note to an “unknown” entity, then this unknown entity signed it to U.S. Bank. Well, if this were the case according to judge Harsha – how does Harsha explain the lack of assignments that must be done when the note is not directly negotiated by the mortgagee. The mortgagee, according to judge Harsha, being New Century five years after they went bankrupt. No chain of title, judge Harsha – Judge McFarland – Judge Hoover – another time Harsha states the note went from New Century directly to U.S. Bank after securitization, after five years note  with the Robo signed illegal note copy. Still these judges can’t find one genuine issue of material fact so it is condoned by these judges that is it is okay although not legal that if a bank doesn’t have a note or doesn’t have standing- just make up the documents but don’t get caught. It cannot be irrelevant to make up documents that are illegal. U.S. Bank states New Century had note (interrogatories) when complaint was filed. Ocwen’ internal documents by Bailee letter and the allonge states New Century had note at time U.S. Bank filed claim. The dates, judge Harsha, the PSA prove there was no trust when U.S. Bank filed foreclosure complaint as trustee. The mortgage assignments prove there was no proper assignments. Judge Harsha, MacFarland and Hoover all declare U.S. Bank to be holder when U.S. Bank itself and servicer Ocwen and all the real documents prove otherwise. Harsha not only contradicts himself throughout but he contradicts U.S. Bank and Ocwen.

At 40 -more of judge Harsha’s fantasy excuses and distortion or just? He states (sounds like he keeps trying to convince himself of his own deception) that U.S. Bank was entitled to enforce the note at the time to file foreclosure action. Still having problems with standing and his dates apparently, he states that U.S. Bank also has the mortgage even though they didn’t. “equitable holder of the mortgage regardless of whether it had been formerly assigned the mortgage at the time of filing” not following legal procedure judge Harsha again? If Harsha knew the parties had the same intent but the defendant proved that the parties did not have the same intent, so- therefore he is rambling again. U.S. Bank was not the holder or owner of the note or mortgage. U.S. Bank had no standing and the note had been split in 2003. Bifurcation – adhesion, these are legal terms Harsha is supposed to understand but then he goes off not getting standing. There were several genuine issues of material fact raised by defendant but Judge William Harsha has proven his ignorance and/or disobedience of the laws he swore to uphold. More Judge William Harsha’s ignorance of the law – a complete chain of endorsements (assignments) must have- if not the original mortgagee. There was no complete chain of endorsements. Proof of this was provided for Harsha and McFarland and Hoover, his fellow judges- Several numerous genuine issues of material facts were raised with enormous amounts of proof, facts, evidence, records, dates, admissible evidence.

 If these judges are so lawless and corruptible to ignore justice they should be off the bench and behind bars.

 You be the judge. Read the case. The summary judgment, the summary judgment opposition the affidavit and the affidavit opposition – the conflicting contradictions, the ignorance of not understanding documents as evidence compared to “assorted” documents, the obvious distortion, overwhelming biased opinion against homeowners, ignoring the latest law that proved this decision of these judges without merit and illegal while before judge Harsha wrote this deceptive and contradictory opinion. Dishonest and corrupt- Then you have McFarland and Hoover which go right along with this asinine and lawless decision that was apparently written by Harsha.