Emergency Motion To Dismiss or Stay Sheriff Sale PDF

1 IN THE UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT COURT
2
JP MORGAN :
3
4 Plaintiff : # 05579-12
5
v. : Chester County
6
7 T Patrick Murray : Civil Foreclosure Action

8
Tanuja Singh Murray :
9
10 Defendants/Appellants 12(b) MOTION

11
12
13 EMERGENCY 12(b) MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY SHERIFF SALE

14
UNTIL AFTER APPEAL AND FEDERAL CLAIM ADJUDICATION
15
16 Home is the American dream. It is the biggest purchase of our lives, and our lives are
17
lived within this sacred space. Is there such thing as a lawful foreclosure?
18
19 Yes, of course there is but this is not one of them. As a former attorney with an
20
MBA who practiced in two states and federally, I am SADDENED AND
21
22 SHOCKED that we have to resort to these motions after months of clearly notifying
23
all parties of the errors that led us here- not to mention the inexplicable and
24
25 indefensible action by the trial court to take $119 from us as a fee for our timely filed
26
Petition To Open with attached Answer and New Matter and then promptly
27
28 ignore its existence.
[Pleading Title] - 1
1 But there is something more simple and elegant that should stop this madness-
2
proof of the truth evidence of owner identity, and confirmation of fraud and lies by
3
4 both Chase and Phelan Law Firm, who continue their RICO crimes unchecked by
5
any court we are aware of.
6
8
NEW EVIDENCE: THE MORTGAGE IS VOID
9
10 In the Batipps case, it is concluded that the proper reading of 444 is that it
11
provides that an improperly acknowledged mortgage is per se fraudulent.
12
13 For the last 5 years, through 3 different lawsuits arising from alleged default,
14
Chase has averred and sworn under oath that it holds the Note and Mortgage of
15
16 $600k executed on 10/15/04 and that there was and is no assignments or other title
17
chain complexities. Days ago, we discovered what we knew was true- Chase and
18
19 Phelan conspired to lie to us and to this Court- to all Courts, in fact.

20
See Exhibit A. It speaks for itself. The Note (as well as the mortgage as per
21
22 exhibit) were ASSIGNED not TO CHASE but FROM CHASE to Wilmington

23
Trust as trustee for Structured Assets Trust (SASCO-4XS) and therefore, quite and
24
25 elegantly simply, Chase is proven to have no standing, Chase is proven to have

26
committed fraud, Chase is proven to have perjured themselves and Phelan was the
27
28 collusive co-conspirator executing all of this criminal strategy.
1 DISCUSSION
2
The Standard for Dismissal Under Fed. R.C.P. 12(b)(6)
3
4 The dismissal of a complaint for reasons of fraud or factual insufficiency is

5
explained by Fed. R.C.P. 12(b)(6) (Rule 12(b)(6)) as all civil complaints must set
6
7 out sufficient factual matter to show that the claim is facially plausible Fowler v.
8
UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009).
9
10 In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must accept as true all factual
11
allegations contained in the complaint and construe all reasonable inferences drawn
12
13 therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff- unless proof is uncovered that
14
evidences those presumed truthful averments as fraud and lies.
15
16 As explained by the Supreme Court: To survive a motion to dismiss, a

17
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
18
19 relief that is plausible on its face.

20
A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
21
22 allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
23
misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability
24
25 requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
26
unlawfully. In short, proof is in the pudding- and until now, we only knew that
27
28
1 Chase was not the holder in due course, but an audit revealed the foundation of their
2
false claim and fraud upon the court.
3
4 Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendants
5
liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement
6
7 to relief.Ashcroft, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
8
U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007).
9
10 Applying the standard enunciated by Iqbal, the Third Circuit in Fowler v.

11
UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) explained that courts should
12
13 conduct a two-part analysis to determine whether a claim survives the Rule 12(b)(6)
14
motion.
15
16 First, a court must distinguish between the factual and legal elements of the
17
claim. Second, a court must determine whether based upon the facts alleged the
18
19 plaintiff has a plausible claim for relief.

20
A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
21
22 allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
23
misconduct alleged. Ashcroft, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.
24
25 A court may not accept as true threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
26
action, supported by mere conclusory statements. Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210 quoting
27
28 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).
1 Until now, all we had was a he said we said Mexican stand-off now we have a
2
smoking gun and Chase has its fingerprints all over it.
3
4 NO DUE PROCESS BEFORE DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY

5
The Due Process clauses of the 5th and 14thAmendments to The Constitution
6
7 of the United States provide a guarantee of procedural due process before property is
8
taken, and that minimum due process must be maintained and enforced by the
9
10 courts- the branch of the government with the power to decide these civil capital
11
punishment cases of foreclosure, which is the most significant deprivation of life,
12
13 liberty or property one may ever endure or is ever likely to traumatically occur.
14
As the court is obligated to provide procedural due process in this matter, we
15
16 demand a hearing as to our Petition To Open Judgment improperly entered by

17
Chase, as well as in reference to their Motion To Recalculate Damages which ignores
18
19 both Petition to Open/Strike/Set Aside and Notice of Appeal as well.

20
As procedural due process consists of 1) Notice; and 2) Opportunity to be
21
22 heard, we heretofore have not enjoyed one minute of on the record hearings in this
23
very important matter whereby a plaintiff is fraudulently attempting to steal our home
24
25 without standing to do so, and to date, been enabled (innocently perhaps) by the
26
system of the courts which has not protected our rights.
27
28
1 We asked for a hearing and were ignored- and never even saw the face of the
2
judge in this case. There are only pleadings as a record, and despite the right to
3
4 judicial process in foreclosure in PA and our responsive pleadings filed LAST YEAR
5
(not to mention the answer and 500 pages of other pleadings we filed in the previous
6
7 action regarding the identical cause of action) that should have not allowed the filing
8
of a default praecipe, as we have not had our day in court.
9
10 By refusing to provide us with a hearing on the Petition to Open timely filed,

11
as well as compliance with your May 28th order citing statement of errors timely
12
13 mailed, we have been deprived of our right to procedural due process and thereby
14
estopped any process from lawfully proceeding to the Opportunity to be Heard?
15
16 The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall deprive any person of
17
life, liberty, or property without due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV
18
19 PROCEDURAL HISTORY
20
In 2004 we bought a home for 750k, putting up 150k in cash. Only one of us
21
22 signed the Note and both signed the Mortgage, which was not countersigned. At the
23
time, we thought by fraudulent inducement that we were in fact being lent real
24
25 money- cash of the bank called Chase.

26
27
28
1 We deposited nearly 20k in the initial escrow account, and while we paid over
2
four grand a month faithfully, a recent pleading by Plaintiff/Chase cites figures that
3
4 are so wrong it should be a crime, literally. See Exhibit W (W for wrong).

5
We made EVERY payment of over $4000 a month for 60 months straight
6
7 until the crash of 2008 saw the loss of employment and income for both of us.
8
In 2007, 2008 and 2012 J.P. Morgan initiated Foreclosure Action in Chester
9
10 County Court regarding alleged default by Defendants.

11
In the Foreclosure Action, J.P. Morgan sought to foreclose on the Mortgage.
12
13 The Mortgage secured a note executed August 11, 2005 in the amount of $1,462,500
14
(the Note). Both the Note and Mortgage were originally executed in favor of Chase
15
16 Home Finance LLC- and through three foreclosure lawsuits, no assignment was
17
recorded nor averred nor mentioned nor admitted to.
18
19 Why? Because the truth is the enemy of the criminal, and Chase is the mafia of
20
Manhattan, the Feudal Lord of the Federal Reserve they are Butch Cassidy and the
21
22 Sundance Kid without the looks, charm and panache.

23
Faulty Default and the Non Event- No Proceedings Before The Court
24
25 In order to comply with Pa.R.C.P. every complaint in mortgage foreclosure

26
shall contain proof of standing- as recently the Superior Court decided in my brothers
27
28 case (Chase v. Francis X Murray) so ruled and reversed judgment.
1 Rule 237.5 for the form of notice of intention to enter a judgment by default:
2
3
(b) This rule does not apply to a judgment entered
4
5
(1) By an order of court,
6
7
(2) Upon praecipe pursuant to an order of court, or
8
9
(3) Pursuant to a rule to show cause.
10
11
12
Official Note
13
14 Rule 3284 requires that in proceedings to fix fair market value of real property
15
sold, notice must be given pursuant to the requirements of Rule 237.1 et seq
16
17
ABUSE OF DISCRETION by CHASE, PHELAN and INNOCENT
18
19 ERRORS BY PROTHONTARY AND INACTION BY COURT

20
There is nothing of record to establish justification for the procedural error of
21
22 ignoring our petition to open, or our request that the court simply correct error and
23
remand for trial as we had received a trial date listing! All of this should support the
24
25 reversal of judgment and granting of our timely filed petition to open with answer and
26
counter claims new matter.
27
28
1 A petition to open a default judgment is an appeal to the equitable powers of
2
the court, and absent an error of law or a clear, manifest abuse of discretion, its
3
4 decision thereon will not be disturbed on appeal. Kelly v. Siuma, 34 A.3d 86, 91
5
(Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, __ Pa. __, 42 A.3d 294 (2012).
6
7 An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court overrides or misapplies the

8
law, or exercises judgment which is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality,
9
10 prejudice, bias or ill will. Id.

11
Appellants have failed to develop any argument in support of their position that
12
13 the default judgment should have been opened. Our Rules provide that an appellants
14
argument must contain citation to relevant authorities as well as reference to the
15
16 portions of the record and evidence that support the issue on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P.
17
2119(b)-(d).
18
19 The Sanction Issue

20
The Phelan firm filed documentation averring fraudulently that Chase as their
21
22 client was and still is the real party in interest as of the date of the filing of the lawsuit
23
in all past and present foreclosure actions filed by the firm.
24
25 Nevertheless, when we filed our responsive pleadings to this lawsuit, we sought

26
and were denied sanctions against both Chase and Phelan. There was no hearing on
27
28 sanctions.
1 Without the opportunity to be heard, we were denied procedural due process as
2
a prerequisite for being sanctioned. Without procedural due process, the court
3
4 presumably had no authority to sanction the law firm.

5
Theres another possible authority to use as ground to attack those who file
6
7 suits without authority of real party in interest they are vexatious litigants.
8
Because mortgage deeds have been resold by banks and bundled into tranches
9
10 that are sold all over the earth, you can bet that 30 to 60% of all foreclosures filed by
11
plaintiffs who dont have the real mortgage deed to prove they are the real party in
12
13 interest.
14
Therefore, Phelan and other law firms that function as foreclosure mills
15
16 routinely file foreclosure actions without the authority of the real party in
17
interest. That suggests that if you had ten cases filed by those attorneys, at least three
18
19 of them would be without the authority of the real party in interest.

20
If the cases were already resolved, the foreclosure actions would probably have
21
22 been successful in that defendants probably didnt understand Rule 17(a) and
23
unwittingly assented to lose their homes. I wouldnt bet that such past cases could
24
25 be used as evidence of vexatious litigants since the attorneys won (if unfairly) those
26
lawsuits.
27
28
1 But if a defendant in one current foreclosure action found that Chase and
2
Phelan have filed many foreclosures without a real party in interest, then there
3
4 would be evidence of a recurring pattern of lawless conduct by bank and their law
5
firm. Such pattern might be grounds for vexatious litigant charges, recurring
6
7 barratry charges or even a RICO suit. We are filing a Federal lawsuit in the amount of
8
one trillion dollars- no joke- to establish a legal aid fund for families unable to hire
9
10 counsel.
11
As a result of Chases wrongful and deceitful actions, investors purchased what
12
13 were purported to be, but were in reality not, our Note and Mortgage was sold and
14
thusly satisfied when conveyed to a securities backed trust on Wall Street in a pool of
15
16 hundreds of other mortgage notes in the manner required to establish the trust in the
17
manner represented- but then those derivatives lost value when home prices collapsed
18
19 and the securitization and bifurcation of the note and mortgage presented, well, a
20
major legal hurdle for judicial foreclosure.
21
22 FACTS
23
The factual and procedural histories of this action go beyond this case- and the
24
25 complexity of this is compounded by the fact that the certified record on appeal is the
26
sum of the pleadings, as no hearing was ever granted despite our requests for a
27
28 hearing.
1 For reasons quite legitimate, we did not file an answer but a half dozen motions
2
as our responsive pleading. The Court waited until Thanksgiving to deny two of
3
4 them- and then served the order to a random Malvern address (see docket).
5
Add this to the fact that Judge Shenkin, who presided over the two year fight
6
7 over the identical cause of action, issued an order in September 2012 that prohibited
8
all parties from filing any pleadings regarding this cause of action- if we did so, they
9
10 would be legally moot.

11
This Court and this case never reconciled the paradox of these parallel
12
13 jurisdictional claims, for Judge Shenkin could have simply ignored the pleadings of
14
this case for lack of jurisdiction- but he clearly saw that Chase was forum shopping in
15
16 bad faith.
17
Chase did not file a single pleading for 10 months no reply to any of our
18
19 motions to dismiss, or even a reply to our Motion for Sanctions.

20
Then, without requisite 10 day notice, on 4/17/13 Chase filed a praecipe for
21
22 the entry of default judgment and the Prothonotary entered judgment in his favor on
23
that date. On 4/28/13 Appellants presented a petition to open tmely filed with
24
25 answer and new matter, as well as a motion to strike the default judgment and a
26
motion to stay the sheriff sale to the trial court, which resulted in absolutely nothing
27
28 but the chirping of civil court crickets.
1
2
We repeat- the petition and the motions were ignored.
3
4 In our answer to complaint we set forth counterclaims, including wrongful

5
foreclosure, fraud and usury, to name a few crimes we aver were committed.
6
7 As stated, the Shenkin case was revivable- but they did not cite it as required on
8
the cover page of new complaint. Therefore, both of which were active during the
9
10 events at issue here, evidenced by the SHENKIN order in 9/13.

11
COURT OF LAST RESORT
12
13 Despite the fact we filed a petition to open the default judgment timely, we
14
seek the relief of this court because the trial court refuses to address our pleadings.
15
16 The trial court entered NO order denying or granting petition to open- and no refund
17
of our $119 was issued- a gross injustice. In 2013, the case was scheduled for a trial
18
19 and a notice of listing was mailed.

20
Yet Chase did not manage the case and conduct discovery as per their burden-
21
22 and we raised the fact that there had been no ruling on Petition by letters sent to
23
Judge, Sheriff, Prothonotary, Phelan and Court Administraor: Exhibit M. Sensing the
24
25 possibility of being stuck waiting for a decision on the Petition, we waited 29 days and
26
since no action on the Petition was taken by the Judge and no error correction was
27
28 executed by any party empowered to do so, we insured ourselves.
1 Aware of the possibility of due process after the fact and filed a notice of appeal
2
from the faulty default judgment, not order.
3
4 As a result of intersection of the Rules of Appellate Procedure and existing case

5
law, the relief requested by Appellants is paradoxical, as we could not wait past 30
6
7 days to see if the judge would rule.

8
Although orders of court denying motions to strike or petitions to open default
9
10 judgments are interlocutory, what is a judgment improperly signed by a prothonotary

11
illegally?
12
13 Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 311 provides that [a]n appeal may
14
be taken as of right from [a]n order refusing to open, vacate or strike off a
15
16 judgment. If orders opening, vacating or striking off a judgment are sought in the
17
alternative, no appeal may be filed until the court has disposed of each claim for
18
19 relief. Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(1).

20
We could not have appealed from the trial courts denial of their petition to
21
22 open until the trial court ruled on said Petition (or any of the Motions).
23
Furthermore, the notice of appeal filed cited with specificity the trial courts
24
25 failure to even address the petition to open the default judgment. As seen in K.H. v.
26
J.R., 573 Pa. 481, 494, 828 A.2d 863, 871 (2003) ([A] notice of appeal from the
27
28 entry of judgment will be viewed as drawing into question any prior non-final orders)
1 While we know an order is not final for purposes of appeal unless it disposes of
2
all the claims of all the parties, as per Pa.R.A.P. 341, and despite the filing of our
3
4 answer and new matter counterclaims pending since no determination has been made
5
on the Petition, many Motions nor the amount of damages- which Phelan unilaterally
6
7 declared in violation of PA law and rules.

8
Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(1) created an exception to this rule where an appeal is taken
9
10 from the denial of a petition seeking relief from a judgment by default.

11
This is even worse- there is no denial, only non action that is illogically
12
13 unappealable as you cannot prove the negative or appeal a non order.

14
We contend that the trial court erred in failing to address the Petition to Open,
15
16 the Motions for Relief from Error and Mistake, the Motion To Stay Sale, etc. The
17
court should have striken the default judgment entered as Chase failed to mail us as
18
19 well as attach to praecipe a copy of the 10 notice to enter default judgment prior to
20
filing the praecipe for default judgment.
21
22 DISCUSSION
23
We know that we must exhaust all local remedies before seeking the attention
24
25 of the higher Courts. But as the sale is still pending- only 3 weeks away- we must have
26
the attention in this matter of an objective jurist. Our children, our lives are
27
28 depending on due process.
1 Where a fatal defect or irregularity is apparent from face of the record, the
2
prothonotary will be held to lack authority to enter default judgment and default
3
4 judgment will be considered void. Id. Chase Bank, N.A. v. Lupori, 8 A.3d 919, 920-
5
21 (Pa. Super. 2010).
6
7 Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1037(b) provides, in pertinent part, that

8
[t]he prothonotary, on praecipe of the plaintiff, shall enter appealable as of right prior
9
10 to the assessment of damages. Well, they did not let the Court compute damages.
11
Thus, we aver this Court has jurisdiction to determine both this appeal and motion to
12
13 stay sheriff sale despite the fact that the question of damages remains outstanding (see
14
Motion to Reassess Damages by Chase and Reply, Exhibit R)
15
16 This court has held that it is an elementary procedural safeguard to require

17
that the party seeking entry of a judgment which deprives his opponent of his day in
18
19 court should first shoulder the simple burden of submitting proof that he has
20
given notice to his opponent that the opponent has come under a duty to appear in
21
22 the case or suffer judgment by default. Rosser, 75 Pa. D&C.2d at 470-71.

23
In the present case, we allege that we were not properly served with the 10 day
24
25 notice, nor the orders sent to the wrong address, nor the service of sheriff sale notice
26
was proper. In fact, it was served to a mentally disabled incompetent we care for
27
28 without compensation. Not only may the prothonotary NOT provide equitable relief,
1 nor compute damages without evidence, it is the duty of the prothonotary to insure
2
that the prerequisites for entry of a default judgment have been satisfied before
3
4 entering a default judgment. Bank One Delaware N.A. v. Mitchell, 2005 WL

5
1362010 (Pa. Com. Pl. 2005). Unless otherwise provided by statute or rule of court,
6
7 a copy of all pleadings, petitions, motions, rules or answers thereto, or notices or other
8
papers required to be served on another party, shall be served in the manner provided
9
10 by Pa.R.C.P. 440 which governs the service of papers other than original Process.
11
The 10-day notice was required to be served on us then pursuant to state rule,
12
13 and that 10- day notice had to be attached to motion for default judgment. We were
14
neither sent notice nor was notice purported to be sent by attachment to praecipe (yet
15
16 the attorney swore under oath it was sent- perjury, simply).

17
This limitation is consistent with Pa.R.C.P. 239(b)(1), which provides that
18
19 local rules shall not be inconsistent with any general rule of the Supreme Court or
20
any Act of Assembly. Pa.R.C.P. 239(b)(1).
21
22 Pa.R.C.P. 237.1 does require the 10-day notice to be filed with the filing of the
23
praecipe for entry of default judgment. This is clear language in Pa.R.C.P. 237.1
24
25 should have prevented entry of default.

26
Moreover our Petition should have reversed it. Yet it was not denied or
27
28 granted- just ignored like other motions and pleadings.
1 We also argue that the trial court erred in NOT DETERMINING a timely
2
petition to open default judgment which was paid for by check for $119.
3
4 In ignoring the petition to open the default judgment, the trial court not only
5
has erred, but the Court, with respect, in fact abused their discretion as the certified
6
7 record does not contain any order relating to filed petition to open.
8
QUESTIONS
9
10 Whether the entire case is precluded by res juditca/collateral estoppel?

11
Whether the NEW EVIDENCE of assignment FROM Chase to a trust should
12
13 move this court to dismiss this action, or perhaps a Federal Court hearing a 12(b)
14
motion to dismiss based on fraud and new evidence?
15
16 Whether the default judgment entered against the Appellants violated

17
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 237 et seq. and is therefore void?
18
19 Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion by NOT RULING on
20
Appellants petition to open the judgment entered improperly without 10-day notice
21
22 attached and with computed unsupported damages by default?

23
JURISDICTION
24
25 This court may address the issue of our petition only absent a misapplication of
26
the law or a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court. See Boatin v. Miller, 955 A.2d
27
28 424, 427 (Pa. Super. 2007).
1 We aver that the trial court erred in not denying but IGNORING their
2
petition to open and motion to strike default judgment because judgment violated
3
4 PA Rules of Civil Procedure 237 et seq. and is therefore void.

5
INVALID JUDGMENT, WRIT and LIEN/RIGHT TO SALE
6
7 Under Pennsylvania law, liens are classified into three categories: (1) common
8
law liens; (2) statutory liens; and (3) equitable liens. An equitable lien is an equitable
9
10 remedy designed to provide redress in cases where the obligors retention of property
11
or proceeds thereof would constitute unjust enrichment.
12
13 The creation of an equitable lien arises from proof of (1) an obligation; (2) a res
14
to which the obligation attaches; and (3) an intent held by all the parties that the
15
16 property is to serve as security for the obligation.

17
Kern v. Kern, 892 A.2d 1, 8 (Pa. Super. 2005); Hoza v. Hoza, 448 A.2d 100,
18
19 104 (Pa. Super. 1982) (setting forth burden to establish an equitable lien).
20
The Defendants also contend that an equitable lien granted to J.P. Morgan in
21
22 the amount of $700k plus against the Property (the equitable remedy only a court
23
can order) and imposed by the Chester County Court pursuant to NOT any signed
24
25 order by a Judge but a mere fatally defective praecipe and motion for default
26
judgment signed improperly by Prothontary and dated April 17, 2013 (the improper
27
28 judgment) is voidable even without the timely filed Petition to Open.
1 It must be struck as two fatal defects appear upon its face, quite glaringly.
2
Lack on notice sent to us, and lack of notice attached to motion/praecipe.
3
4 Additionally there should have been no computation of damages by anyone but the
5
Court.
6
7 THE FAULTY DEFAULT JUDGMENT

8
Prothonotary does not have the judicial power to enter a monetary judgment
9
10 for unliquidated damages (without any direction from a court) based solely on a
11
plaintiffs request for a default judgment. At most (and this too is contested), the
12
13 Prothonotary can only enter into the docket a default judgment for liquidated
14
damages that can be mathematically computed from the attached documents. See Pa.
15
16 R. Civ. P. 1037(b)(1) which provides:

17
(1) The prothonotary shall assess damages for the amount to which the plaintiff
18
19 is entitled if it is a sum certain or which can be made certain by computation, but if it

20
is not, the damages shall be assessed at a trial at which the issues shall be limited to the
21
22 amount of the damages.

23
Here, those documents (like the account statements) were not even attached to
24
25 the plaintiffs foreclosure complaint as required by Pennsylvania law. See Pa. R. Civ.
26
P. 1019(i).
27
28
1 A fortiori, judgments entered by Prothonotary, and absent court direction, that
2
include unliquidated damages (like the so-called reasonable attorney fees) are void.
3
4 Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 237 delineates the procedure for the
5
notice of praecipe for final judgment. Pa.R.C.P. 237.1(a) specifically provides:
6
7 (2) No judgmentby default for failure to plead shall be entered by the

8
prothonotary unless the praecipe for entry includes a certification that a written notice
9
10 of intention to file the praecipe was mailed or delivered (ii)after the failure to
11
plead and at least ten days prior to the date of the filing of the praecipe to the party
12
13 against whom judgment is to be entered Pa.R.C.P. 237.1(a)(2)(ii).

14
In the instant case, the trial court offered the following analysis relative to
15
16 Appellants and Pa.R.C.P. 237 et seq.: A petition to strike a judgment will only be
17
granted where a fatal defect in the judgment is apparent on the face of the record. See
18
19 Williams [v. Wade], 704 A.2d [132,] 134 [(Pa. Super. 1997)] (quoting U.K LaSalle,
20
Inc. [v. Lawless], 618 A.2d [447,] 449 [(Pa.Super. 1992)]).
21
22 Here, the record does not evidence service of 10 day notice but shows Chase
23
did not attach the ten day notice of intention to take default judgment required by
24
25 Rule 237.5.
26
27
28
1 We did not provide any other address of record for service of pleadings and
2
notices. See Pa.R.Civ. P. 440(a)(2). Yet the Malvern address is there is black and
3
4 white (Exhibit M).

5
Pa.R.C.P. 237 did require Bank to file the ten-day notice of its intent to seek a
6
7 default judgment with the praecipe for default judgment. See Pa. R.C.P. 237.
8
Bank only had to certify in its praecipe to enter default judgment that the
9
10 notice had been provided to Appellants in writing, at least ten days prior to the filing
11
of Chases praecipe and was further obligated to attach to its praecipe a copy of the ten
12
13 day notice. See Pa.R.C.P. 237.1(a)(3).

14
A cursory reciew of the praecipe to enter default judgment reveals that Chase
15
16 through Phelan did not comply with Pa.R.C.P. 237. What greater fatal defect in the
17
judgment [that] is apparent on the face of the record can there be other than no notice
18
19 and no attachment of notice? We contend that trial court erred and abused its
20
discretion by ignoring Appellants petition to open the default judgment.
21
22 To open a default judgment, the movant must promptly file a petition to that
23
effect, must plead a meritorious defense to the claims raised in the complaint, and
24
25 then provide a reasonable excuse for not filing a responsive pleading, and we did so
26
within 10 days. Seeger v. First Union National Bank, 836 A.2d 163, 165 (Pa. Super.
27
28 2003).
1 Here, petition to open was filed 10 days after the default judgment was taken.
2
This was a prompt filing. See, e.g., McCoy v. Pub. Acceptance Corp., 305 A.2d 698,
3
4 700 (Pa. 1973) (finding two and one-half week delay in filing petition to open after
5
default was not prompt filing as a measure of timeliness).
6
7 We certainly have shown we have a defense to merits of mortgage foreclosure

8
action either in their petition or in answer, and the new assignment evidence. See
9
10 Boatin v. Miller, 955 A.2d 424, 429 (Pa. Super. 2008) (explaining that in order to
11
state a meritorious defense, a petitioner need only allege a defense that entitles him to
12
13 a judgment in his favor, if proven at trial). We have done so.

14
Our excuse for not filing an answer is a reasonable one. We received the
15
16 redundant complaint despite the Shenkin case that should have been revived. No
17
order was sent to us by Judge Griffith (sent to Malvern address) and no 10 day notice
18
19 of intention to take default judgment were sent to the address of us, the
20
Defendants/Appellants.
21
22 ESTOPPAL AND RES JUDICTA

23
Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Group., Inc., 584 F.3d 169, 173 (3d Cir. 2009)
24
25 recognizing res judicata bars party from bringing claims that could have been brought
26
as a part of prior action); Olick v. House (In re Olick), Adv. No. 10-38, 2011 WL
27
28 2565665, at *4 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Jun. 28, 2011)
1 The doctrine of res judicata bars not only claims that were brought in a
2
previous action, but also claims that could have been brought in that action arising
3
4 from the same transaction or occurrence.).

5
Chase decided to drag us through two years of discovery and on the eve of 2010
6
7 trial, dismissed it unilaterally without our consent or even notice. Therefore, as there
8
was no external excuse for why they withdrew the case other than the knowledge of
9
10 lack of standing and possible criminal charges for fraud, Chase deprived itself of the
11
second bite at the apple, which is allowed for Plaintiffs who cannot, for a reason other
12
13 than the prospect of losing, go to trial.

14
And if it were a legitimate cause, they would have revived it two years later
15
16 rather than file a new case- seeking in bad faith to distance itself from the very
17
incriminating Shenkin record.
18
19
20
But they lied, about everything.
21
22
23
So long as the federal plaintiff effectively seeks to negate the force of the
24
25 judgment, it is not possible for the federal court to exercise jurisdiction without
26
exercising appellate review of the validity of the state court judgment. In re
27
28 Sabertooth, LLC, 443 B.R. 671, 685 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2011).
1 Since we have encountered inexplicable inaction from the trial court (a
2
misnomer as we have not enjoyed one minute inside his courtroom) this Federal
3
4 Court is not barred from yielding justice of a temporary injunction or righting the
5
procedural errors and mistakes both intentional and innocent.
6
7 Unlike many attempts to attract the gavel of the Federal jurists by foreclosure
8
defendants, this case should be viewed as exempt from the preclusions presumed
9
10 pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, as this court not only does NOT lack
11
subject matter jurisdiction to hear the our claim, it has, we aver, a moral responsibility
12
13 to act upon it- if only to deny it.

14
We are stunned that our Petition was ignored along with a dozen other
15
16 motions (attached as Exhibits) we filed and we do not accuse the Judge of any crimes,
17
only unaccounted and unjustified inaction betrayed by the back and white proof of
18
19 the docket truth.

20
EXCEPTION TO ROOKER FELDMAN
21
22 Even if our claim seems barred by application of Rooker-Feldman Doctrine,

23
our claim regarding the invalidity of the judgment based upon the Mortgage
24
25 assignment fraudulently concealed are not barred by issue preclusion as we brought all
26
of these affirmative defenses up in both the case pleadings in this matter and the
27
28 preceding action with Judge Shenkin which yielded over a THOUSAND PAGES.
1 This record of discovery helped us and hurt them, resulting in their strategic
2
dismissal/forum shopping which is the case at bar.
3
4 We seek a determination by this Court that the Equitable Lien is not

5
enforceable because the Mortgage and Note is NOT OWNED BY CHASE. Because
6
7 the imposition of a sheriff sale is an equitable remedy the default judgment is

8
improper. In cases where a mortgage is invalid due to fraud or forgery, Pennsylvania
9
10 courts have refused to grant an equitable lien or relief of sheriff sale as a remedy.
11
See, e.g., In re Fowler, 425 B.R. 157, 208 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2010) (recognizing
12
13 that prior to imposing an equitable lien Pennsylvania courts consider the balance of
14
equities, including the relative culpability and innocence of the parties, to determine
15
16 whether equitable lien is warranted); Williard v. Millersburg Trust Co., 48 Pa. D.&C.
17
2d 149, 160 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1969)
18
19 The doctrine of res judicata bars not only claims that were brought in a
20
previous action, but also claims that could have been brought in that action arising
21
22 from the same transaction or occurrence.

23
We did in fact raise these defenses may be remedied by this Court if the facts
24
25 averred by us are indeed valid and true.

26
We Satisfy the Requirements for Injunctive Relief
27
28
1 A movant must, in accordance with Federal procedures, satisfy the applicable
2
standards for injunctive relief. In re Wedgewood Realty Group, Ltd., 878 F.2d 693,
3
4 701 (3d Cir. 1989). To be eligible for injunctive relief a party has the burden of
5
establishing each of the following: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
6
7 (2) the party will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) the
8
harm to the party outweighs the harm to its opponent that may be caused by
9
10 injunctive relief; and (4) injunctive relief is in accordance with public interest.
11
The burden lies with the plaintiff to establish every element in its favor, or the
12
13 grant of a preliminary injunction is inappropriate. P.C. Yonkers, Inc. v. Celebrations

14
Party Seasonal Superstore, 428 F.3d 504, 508 (3d Cir. 2005)
15
16 We agree that this is our burden, and we offer the proof of the newly discovered
17
evidence, the fact that Chase made us litigate for two years IN VAIN and dropped the
18
19 case when we DEFENDED IT SO WELL they knew they could not win- why else
20
would they dismiss and WAIT TWO YEARS until AFTER the national settlement
21
22 was signed before they REFILED WITHOUT MANDATORY referencing of the

23
preceding case they should have simply revived as discovery was complete. So the fact
24
25 that Chase has no standing by proof of the recent assignment we found meets the first
26
condition (1) a reasonable likelihood of a successful defense; the scheduled sale of our
27
28 home on 8/15/13 meets requirement two by placing us in a position of danger.
1 This is real imminent, irreparable harm to the homeowners; our situation is
2
similar to millions of others experiencing fraud in foreclosure and our home represents
3
4 .0000000000001% (roughly) of JP MORGAN CHASEs balance sheet IF THEY

5
OWNED THE LOAN so they would not be so harmed.
6
7 Yet denial of an injunction we will either LOSE OUR HOME or be forced to

8
FILE BANKRUPTCY to protect where our children sleep, eat and live- so we meet
9
10 the third and fourth prong of the test as (3) the balance of the relative harm between
11
the homeowners and the largest bank in America would be restrained; and (4) the
12
13 balance between public interest in successful bankruptcy reorganizations and other

14
competing societal interests.
15
16 We established a likelihood of success on the merits by virtue of forcing their

17
hand in 2010 when they blinked when we told them we knew not only that they did
18
19 NOT own the note, but that if we went to Court, we may be able to not only
20
disprove that by omission but evidence the identity of the true owner- which we do
21
22 now today with Exhibit A.

23
One of us, again, is a former attorney who despite being a calculus teacher now
24
25 who can still retain deep inside my educated brain presumed our timely Petition
26
would return litigation to the status of April 16th and proceed to discovery and trial.
27
28
1 We had no reason to suspect the Prothonotary would allow judgment to be
2
taken by default with such defects. We have offered a meritorious defense in the
3
4 Petition, that is, one which is sufficient to justify relief if proven. See SEPTA v.
5
DiAntonio, 618 A.2d 1182 (Pa. Commw. 1992).
6
7 The trial court did not make a ruling for the Petition but we urge this court to
8
assess our answer and counter claims for their level of merit- or, easier and quicker, see
9
10 Exhibit A and anyone with a reasonable mind would agree that the default judgment
11
should thus be opened and that, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the sheriff sale of our
12
13 home- which Chase we can now prove is but a servicer (if that at all, as NO BILLS
14
have been sent to us since 2010) should be stayed pending adjudication of the state
15
16 appeal and the Federal lawsuit we are filing.

17
By granting a stay and/or TRO the Court will allow for a due process decision
18
19 of the merits of that issue as well as a dozen more, from standing to sanctions, fraud to
20
financial accounting. Further, the default judgment entered may be opened by this
21
22 court and remanded back to trial court as an alternative to the TRO and/or stay of
23
sale. As Chase did not offer any explanation for its failure to respond to Counter
24
25 claims as well as every motion we filed, their silence and failure to refute, deny or
26
rebut averments of fraud, usury and other crimes both civil and criminal are by default
27
28 stipulated as silence is assent.
1 Violation of Rule 1037(b)(1) Unliquidated Damages and Void Judgments
2
The amount of the illegal and improper April 17th 2013 default judgment by
3
4 Chase for $700k plus AND THEIR MOTION FOR RECALCUALTION of

5
damages which they curiously WITHDREW after our scathing REPLY cannot be
6
7 computed from the documents that Chase attached to its foreclosure complaint
8
because, well, Chase did not attach anything to the 3 page complaint nor with any of
9
10 its pleadings- in fact, they failed to reply to ANY of our motions- they all went
11
uncontested, even the Petition, and yet, all were denied or ignored.
12
13 Act 6 (41 P.S. 503) Court And Only Court Can Determine Reasonableness
14
of Attorney Fees in Foreclosure Proceedings
15
16 Chase or its debt collector, Phelan, as noted above, calculated and determined
17
the reasonableness of its own attorney fees and then made an award of those attorney
18
19 fees ($5,000) to itself.

20
There was no court determination of whether (or not) those fees were
21
22 reasonable or even had been incurred by plaintiff. Pennsylvania Act 6, 41 P.S. 503
23
and the note and mortgage here, explicitly require that the court award lenders
24
25 counsel attorney fees for foreclosure proceedings. See generally Bavarian Motor
26
Works v. Neal, 882 A.2d 1022 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005).
27
28
1 If a borrower or debtor, including but not limited to a residential mortgage
2
debtor, prevails in an action arising under this act, he shall recover the aggregate
3
4 amount of costs and expenses determined by the court to have been reasonably
5
incurred on his behalf in connection with the prosecution of such action, together
6
7 with a reasonable amount for attorneys fee. In addition, the court, not the lender,
8
must determine who, if anyone, is the prevailing party. See LIPA, 503. No such
9
10 court determinations were made here, as evidenced by the docket entries. For
11
example, the note only authorized reasonable attorney fees as required by
12
13 Pennsylvania law. Loan Interest and Protect Law, 41 P.S. 403 (LIPA).
14
But the foreclosure complaint (and the default judgment) included fees of
15
16 $5,000 that had only been alleged to be reasonable without any documentation.
17
Any lender (or debt collector) under a note much less a mortgage without a
18
19 Note and clearly under Pennsylvania law is not authorized to unilaterally determine
20
the reasonableness of its own fees. LIPA, 503. Only a court, not the plaintiff acting
21
22 sua sponte, can determine what foreclosure fees are reasonable.

23
Pennsylvania law prohibits pre-foreclosure filing attorney fees in excess of $50,
24
25 LIPA, 406(3)(e). Therefore Pennsylvania law limits fees to only those fees that are
26
reasonable and actually incurred by the lender. LIPA, 406(2).
27
28
1 Here, no pleading regarding the alleged $5,000 as a reasonable fee was
2
incurred or already paid by the lender or trustee to its foreclosure counsel for this
3
4 foreclosure proceeding was filed, or if filed, it was withdrawn nor was there any
5
pleading that would support the reasonableness of those fees.
6
7 Other Unauthorized, Undocumented AND Inaccurate Charges

8
As set forth in our Verified Answer and New Matter it is believed and therefore
9
10 averred that there were a number of other unauthorized, undocumented charges, both
11
in our unpaid principal balance account and in escrow account. The charges, in part,
12
13 are highlighted by our specific exhibit of the closing document (Exhibit Z) of the
14
escrow we funded, and in our answer and New Matter, which are incorporated herein.
15
16 Moreover, it is believed and therefore averred that (1) the prerequisites to the
17
imposition of certain of those charges required advance notice which was not provided
18
19 and (2) some of our payments were misapplied misallocated, including payments that
20
were placed in non-interest bearing so-called suspense or unapplied balance
21
22 accounts.
23
These defenses are also set forth in our Verified Answer and are incorporated
24
25 herein.
26
27
28
1 FAILURE TO PROSECUTE IN GOOD FAITH
2
Remember- Chase filed the complaint in June of 2012 and then disappeared-
3
4 they stalled and waited until the right moment and without sending us a 10 day
5
notice, obtained by guile their faulty default judgment no pun intended.
6
7 We filed a timely notice of appeal despite the Petition to Open pending, as we

8
frankly anticipated the reality of the lack of due process- the judge should have
9
10 addressed this petition in April but now it is July and still- nothing. We provided to
11
the trial court the ordered itemization of errors and mistakes both in a memo and in a
12
13 motion that was filed but rendered moot as the prothonotary stated (in the docket-
14
they gave us no notice of this) that the pleadings were unsigned- so we are unsure if
15
16 the Judge saw them- there is a double standard epidemic against pro se litigants, and
17
this comes from a former licensed attorney in three jurisdictions. We have paid all fees
18
19 and we have filed a Motion to Stay Sheriff Sale in May with Chester County- but like
20
the Petition, it has been ignored. According to the docket, a default judgment was
21
22 entered that day. We seek to open that judgment in order and we know that, if our
23
Petition had NOT been ignored, we would only be entitled to relief if we indeed show
24
25 that (1) our petition had been promptly filed, (2) their failure to act before the default
26
judgment was entered can be excused, and (3) they have a meritorious objection. See
27
28 Schultz v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 477 A.2d 471 (Pa. 1984).
1 The petitions to open were filed 4/28/13 ten days following entry of the bogus
2
judgment. Any court should, in a microsecond, find the petition to be timely.
3
4 Ironically, Chases silence regarding their failure to respond to our Motion to

5
Dismiss, our Motion For Sanctions, our Motion To Correct Errors, our Motion to
6
7 Strike Judgment and last but not least the vast averments of our Counter-Claims prior
8
to entry of the default judgment makes little legal strategic logic.
9
10 Prior to the default, we had actively participated in the litigation by way of the
11
slew of UNCONTESTED MOTIONS filed in JULY of 2012 and not determined
12
13 until FOUR MONTHS LATER and then it was mailed to the wrong address in the
14
docket. That is central to why we did not produce an Answer- coupled with the
15
16 SHENKIN ORDER of 9/12 that rendered all pleadings relating to this cause of
17
action MOOT and the bad luck of not being mailed order nor the trial listing
18
19 reminder (sent to Malvern address). How can Chester County court system allow this
20
to happen? We know what we are doing and we can still not stop this runaway train.
21
22 How can the prothonotary deny us default judgment yet enter Chases default without
23
a) the attached notice and b) without any accounting of nearly million dollars they
24
25 seek and then disregard our default judgment praecipe filed by us properly structured
26
with notice attachments and without seeking a sum specific as valid where a party,
27
28 served, fails to answer or defend a suit filed against them?
1 We ask the Court to recognize the pattern here, and ask themselves:
2
1) Why the double standard?
3
5 2) Why was Petition to Open ignored? We paid $119 and it was cashed
6
7 3) Why did the judge address the later filed Notice to Appeal (which we filed as
8 insurance as we feared the injustice that occurred- the Judge would ignore it!)
9
10 We aver the trial court abused its discretion. The April 17th 2013 judgment was
11
fatally defective, and the subsequent Writ was obtained before 10 days had elapsed- in
12
13 effect, denying us the window for Petition to Open which we filed timely- exactly 10
14
days after the default judgment was improperly entered.
15
16 As our petition was timely and contained the requisite showing that Appellants
17
had a meritorious defense to the underlying action and a reasonable explanation for
18
19 their failure to file a responsive pleading.

20
We therefore ask the Court to reverse the trial courts order- excuse us- there is
21
22 NO ORDER- we mean the judgment- a void judgment stamped with the signature
23
of the prothonotary on the default judgment- and address the Courts unexplained
24
25 negligence in NOT DENYING NOR GRANTING Appellants petition to strike or

26
open the default judgment.
27
28
1 We moved for a default judgment on its CounterClaims against Chase for
2
failure to file an Answer thereto- and despite the ATTACHMENT OF 10 DAY
3
4 NOTICE and NO REQUEST FOR SUM SPECIFIC MONETARY DAMAGES as

5
only a court hearing can make such a calculation and determination- our praecipe was
6
7 ignored by prothonary last week and NOT EVEN ENTERED as improper or

8
defective- it was just tossed in the trash.
9
10 The next day we sent a check for the appeal to them- and they certainly
11
acknowledged and cashed that fee payment in the docket. Why?
12
13 Why did they sign defective default judgment for Chase without notice
14
attached and with unsupported damage amounts unverified and unaccounted for in
15
16 the high six figures, which is illegal and improper as per PA law?
17
SERVICE ERRORS
18
19 Since we must articulate all errors and mistakes, it needs to be noted that Chase
20
served the notice of sheriff sale to a non relative who is mentally disabled. According
21
22 to Exhibit E, this service was performed at the incorrect Malvern address first, then
23
the correct one. However, this is not proper service, as a mentally disabled non-
24
25 relative we voluntarily care for is not a competent adult by legal standards and did not
26
inform us of the service, as he is clueless.
27
28 FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION ACT VIOLATIONS
1 In violation of FDRCPA, Chase and Phelan sent to us a FAKE COURT
2
NOTICE as evidenced by exhibit F (F for fake) which at first glance is clearly
3
4 constructed to appear as an official court communiqu, just to intimidate and scare

5
defendants.
6
7 This is not only another example of the dozens of frauds throughout this case-
8
it violates the Least Sophisticated Debtor rule by confusing the Defendant.
9
10 Worse, it is fraudulent in content.

11
The notice sent with the default judgment but BEFORE any writ was
12
13 obtained, tells us that OUR HOUSE IS ALREADY SCHEDULED FOR

14
SHERIFFS SALE ON 8/15/13.
15
16 Repeat- before waiting to see if we filed a Petition to Open and before getting a
17
proper Writ of Execution, heck- before going to the Sheriff to approve it all- they just
18
19 play God and say that the sale is happening- in fact, on page two, it states that the
20
property was seized- not going to be seized but the past tense suggesting to even
21
22 an imbecile that the conveyance has already occurred (in direct contradiction of both
23
reality and the boilerplate notice on page one advising us that we have rights and we
24
25 can do this or that to stop the sale).

26
27
28
1 CONCLUSION
2
On April 17th 2013, the Defendants filed a praecipe for default judgment- yet
3
4 they PAID THE FEE 3 days prior, before it was granted. Why? Its a sure thing when
5
you are part of the system, sadlyWe contend that J.P. Morgans mortgage on the
6
7 Property should be invalidated because, among other things, they ASSIGNED IT TO

8
A TRUST IN 2005 and NEVER GOT IT BACK- and therefore quad erat
9
10 demonstratum, this case must be dismissed at most, opened at least and the sale must
11
be stayed. If we do not obtain a stay or TRO, we will be forced to stop the sale by
12
13 filing bankruptcy, which will deepen the damage done to us by the private and public
14
parties involved. Certainly, the Federal lawsuit for wrongful foreclosure and fraud we
15
16 are filing will be augmented by any involuntary bankruptcy filing, and we will seek
17
remedy for this wrongful sale if it proceeds without the allowance of due process and
18
19 our DAY IN COURT.

20
WHEREFORE, for reasons stated above and in our Verified Answer and counter
21
22 claims, as well as numerous motions, it is respectfully requested that this Honorable

23
Court strike and/or open the default judgment (for the reasons stated above and
24
25 including the fact that it is void by failure to attach 10 day notice and computation of
26
damages without the Court), the new evidence discovered proving that this entire case
27
28 is based upon lies and Chase sold the Note and assigned the mortgage in 2005.
1 Also, we seek the Court to allow us to obtain the default judgment ignored and denied
2
by prothonotary (Exhibit D) by Chases failure to answer the new matter counter
3
4 claims in our attached Verified Answer and New Matter attached to the Petition to
5
Open we filed timely within 10 days of default judgment entry.
6
7 Also, we ask the Court to declare the mortgage and any other claims or rights claimed
8
by J.P. Morgan under the mortgage against the Plaintiffs, including any equitable
9
10 liens invalid as per the newly discovered evidence of the assignment in 2005 FROM
11
Chase to SASCO 4XS;(2) enjoin the original third foreclosure action 05579-12 as it is
12
13 barred by collateral estoppel and based solely on the validity of the note and mortgage
14
Chase and Phelan conspired for 5 years to conceal the true holder of and assignment
15
16 to;(3) declare that J.P. Morgan may have committed fraud and this request for
17
sanctions against them and Phelan required a hearing and finally that Chase has no
18
19 valid claim in this case and should be dismissed with prejudice and award us
20
reasonable attorneys fees and costs for defending the invalid action 3 times over FIVE
21
22 YEARS all for what is a fraudulent (and frivolous) legal action that reflects a federal
23
racketeering enterprise of a lily white collar nature or, in not, at least (4) grant a TRO
24
25 or stay of sheriff sale pending the appeal and adjudication of our Federal lawsuit (5)
26
provide any other relief which this Court may deem necessary.
27
28
1 Chase and Phelan deserve sanctions and a check and balance for this egregious and
2
continually unchecked abuse of discretion and fraud upon the courts.
3
4 We have filed this Injunction Motion in an EMERGENCY BASIS because of

5
the time restraints and the newly discovered evidence. We have hereby requested that
6
7 the Court consider the matter on an expedited basis.

8
Chases Complaint failed to comply with the pleading requirements set forth by
9
10 the U.S. Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and
11
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009), and contained only vague conclusive
12
13 statements. Most believe that remedy of any nature is barred by the Rooker-Feldman
14
doctrine that precludes the Court from reviewing and/or overturning the state court
15
16 judgments. But that is not applicable here- because the Court MADE NO
17
JUDGMENTS! The Court ignored Petition and other Motions, and denied the
18
19 existence of our counter claims when the default judgment we sought last week was
20
ignored by Prothonotary. Therefore, as the trial court LITERALLY failed us by
21
22 omission and inaction or intentional negligence or innocent incompetence, we seek

23
not only the appeal of the non judicial default judgment but for this court to DO
24
25 THE RIGHT THING- which is not siding with us on the merits of our
26
defense/counter claims- but opening the judgment or issuing a stay pending the
27
28 adjudication of due process in all forums and jurisdictions for this issue.
1 But we realize that Federal courts are very cautious about this issue- and may
2
think they must exercise abstention given that the validity of the Mortgage is the
3
4 subject in the State Court that has demonstrated an inexplicable inconsistency in

5
attending to his responsibility for objective determination of legal questions that CAN
6
7 DESTROY LIVES if mishandled not unlike a criminal capital case. This court should
8
impose a stay and have case remanded by another judge in the county- although we
9
10 are filing a RICO/fraud federal lawsuit as well.

11
As Chase has sued us three times for the exact issue we aver it is precluded by
12
13 the doctrine of collateral estoppal and res juditca as it has had the opportunity to
14
already have been fully litigated by the parties for more than five years.
15
16 By this appeal and motion for stay as well as the counterclaims we aver are valid
17
and not dead on arrival, this case continues to be litigated, and as per the NEW
18
19 EVIDENCE it clearly involves several other defendants relating to the SASCO trust
20
and none of whom are parties to the present action and do not appear to be subject to
21
22 this Courts jurisdiction.

23
Finally, we would have the opportunity to seek to be released from the
24
25 Mortgage as the assignment not only released grantors (Chase and us) from the benefit
26
of the mortgage and note, but also the responsibility.
27
28
1 As the validity of the Mortgage assignment is undisputed and FILED BY
2
PLAINTIFF in order to cover their assets they did so without fanfare, or any
3
4 constructive notice to us or the Court. They did it to rewrite history, we theorize, as

5
we informed them that this case was larger than a typical foreclosure, as an award
6
7 winning documentary filmmaker is making a film about this particular case as well as
8
the case involving my brother and parents- a foreclosure action against my relatives by
9
10 none other than CHASE presided over by none other than Judge Griffith. With
11
improbabilities like that, we should play Mega Millions.
12
13 J.P. Morgan has NOT been determined to be the holder in due course and thus
14
standing. Had Chase evidenced some ownership of the Note, this Court would
15
16 indeed be prohibited from reviewing a decision by a state court, but as we cited, this
17
appeal is anomalous as it seeks the action of the Federal court because the trial court
18
19 has evidenced patterned abuse of discretion and bad faith whether innocent or
20
intentional. We hope this Court refuses to tolerate Chas and Phelans successful
21
22 manipulation of the court and their attempt to use the back door to steal a home
23
whose loan we today have proven they DO NOT OWN.
24
25 We ask the Court specifically to examine the collusive attempt by Chase and
26
Phelan to strategically re-litigate matters that could have been decided in 2010.
27
28
1 We are simply attempting to stop a sheriffs sale based on an illegal default
2
judgment entered by a crooked law firm working for the largest bank in America who
3
4 did not hold mortgage nor own the note at the inception of this case or the TWO that
5
preceded it, and committed again and again and again fraud upon this and other
6
7 Courts.
8
Please be the Court that STOPS THIS RACKETEERING FRAUD- as we not
9
10 only seek justice for us, but all those victimized in the past, present and future.
11
Prepared By:
12
13
14
_______________________ ______________________ ________
15
16 Tanuja Singh Murray, JD, MBA Timothy Patrick Murray DATE

17
Pro Se Defendants/Appellants
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Emergency Motion To Dismiss or Stay Sheriff Sale PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Emergency Motion To Dismiss or Stay Sheriff Sale PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1 IN THE UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT COURT

7 T Patrick Murray : Civil Foreclosure Action

10 Defendants/Appellants 12(b) MOTION

13 EMERGENCY 12(b) MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY SHERIFF SALE

28 ignore its existence.

19 Phelan conspired to lie to us and to this Court- to all Courts, in fact.

22 exhibit) were ASSIGNED not TO CHASE but FROM CHASE to Wilmington

25 elegantly simply, Chase is proven to have no standing, Chase is proven to have

28 collusive co-conspirator executing all of this criminal strategy.

4 The dismissal of a complaint for reasons of fraud or factual insufficiency is

16 As explained by the Supreme Court: To survive a motion to dismiss, a

19 relief that is plausible on its face.

10 Applying the standard enunciated by Iqbal, the Third Circuit in Fowler v.

19 plaintiff has a plausible claim for relief.

28 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).

4 NO DUE PROCESS BEFORE DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY

16 demand a hearing as to our Petition To Open Judgment improperly entered by

19 both Petition to Open/Strike/Set Aside and Notice of Appeal as well.

10 By refusing to provide us with a hearing on the Petition to Open timely filed,

25 money- cash of the bank called Chase.

4 are so wrong it should be a crime, literally. See Exhibit W (W for wrong).

10 County Court regarding alleged default by Defendants.

22 Sundance Kid without the looks, charm and panache.

25 In order to comply with Pa.R.C.P. every complaint in mortgage foreclosure

28 case (Chase v. Francis X Murray) so ruled and reversed judgment.

19 ERRORS BY PROTHONTARY AND INACTION BY COURT

7 An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court overrides or misapplies the

10 prejudice, bias or ill will. Id.

19 The Sanction Issue

25 Nevertheless, when we filed our responsive pleadings to this lawsuit, we sought

4 presumably had no authority to sanction the law firm.

19 of them would be without the authority of the real party in interest.

10 would be legally moot.

19 motions to dismiss, or even a reply to our Motion for Sanctions.

28 but the chirping of civil court crickets.

4 In our answer to complaint we set forth counterclaims, including wrongful

10 events at issue here, evidenced by the SHENKIN order in 9/13.

19 and a notice of listing was mailed.

28 executed by any party empowered to do so, we insured ourselves.

4 As a result of intersection of the Rules of Appellate Procedure and existing case

7 days to see if the judge would rule.

10 judgments are interlocutory, what is a judgment improperly signed by a prothonotary

19 relief. Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(1).

7 declared in violation of PA law and rules.

10 from the denial of a petition seeking relief from a judgment by default.

13 unappealable as you cannot prove the negative or appeal a non order.

28 depending on due process.

7 Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1037(b) provides, in pertinent part, that

16 This court has held that it is an elementary procedural safeguard to require

22 the case or suffer judgment by default. Rosser, 75 Pa. D&C.2d at 470-71.

4 entering a default judgment. Bank One Delaware N.A. v. Mitchell, 2005 WL

16 the attorney swore under oath it was sent- perjury, simply).

25 should have prevented entry of default.

28 granted- just ignored like other motions and pleadings.

10 Whether the entire case is precluded by res juditca/collateral estoppel?

16 Whether the default judgment entered against the Appellants violated

22 attached and with computed unsupported damages by default?

28 424, 427 (Pa. Super. 2007).

4 PA Rules of Civil Procedure 237 et seq. and is therefore void.

16 property is to serve as security for the obligation.

28 judgment) is voidable even without the timely filed Petition to Open.

7 THE FAULTY DEFAULT JUDGMENT

16 R. Civ. P. 1037(b)(1) which provides: