Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • Seattle Homeowner Fights Attorney Over Botched Foreclosure Defense

    Caricato da

    christopher king
    713 visualizzazioni4 pagine
    Sunday, September 17, 2017 KingCast and Mortgage Movies See Karen Pooley Succeed in Foreclosure Reconsideration; Issue Complaints Regarding Attorney Richard L. Jones, Esq. This is a difficult piece for me to write. As you can see by the thumbnails below I have published many stories and videos relative to the case of Quality Loan Servicing Inc. (QLSC) v. Karen Pooley. Richard L. Jones was her attorney for some of this case, until there was a substantial disagreement on billing and representation that led to Jones suing Pooley and obtaining a Default Judgment against her as she denied ever receiving service. Ms. Pooley and her friend both issued sworn Affidavits that a process server "served" her friend on a dark night in February, 2016 as she was walking Ms. Pooley's dog. Meanwhile Pooley, a knowledgeable and well-educated pro se litigant, lost her primary case and wrote most of her own Appellate Brief with Jones overlooking, and a Motion for Reconsideration after the Court of Appeals Division One ruled against her on or about 15 August, 2017. The Court ORDERED a substantive response from from QLSC, McCarthy Holthus et al. on or about 15 September 2017. They Court ordered a response within 15 days. ADD or about 15 September, 2017. She contends that the $20,000.00 Judgment that Jones stands to receive at her house closing tomorrow, 19 September 2017 are the product of Unjust Enrichment. She will file ethics charges as well. Jones has been subject to ethical considerations in the past, leading to his removal as pro tem Judge in 2007 according to the Seattle Times. For the purposes of this discussion I will attach a copy of what I drafted as the copy for this story, along with the responses from Ms. Pooley, who as also agreed to go on video. Attorney Jones declined to respond directly to my last letter and stated that he did not receive Ms. Pooley's responses. In turn, I responded to him noting that she had sent her responses to both of us at 3:40pm on 15 September 2017. Here are the last two relevant emails between all three of us, below the Draft post I circulated to them on or about 14 September, 2017 as seen immediately below: ********** From: Christopher King [mailto:kingcast955@icloud.com] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 2:14 PM To: Karen Pooley ; Richard Jones Subject: Draft Publication. Dear Karen and Richard: Richard asked me about the CoA status a few days ago. Since that status changed Ms. Pooley has expressed to me that it bolsters her entire position and she feels that Richard is not entitled to the Judgment obtained in the Default Judgment. At this point I am feeling more like a mediator than a journalist so I can't do anything more with this story besides a voiceover. I do welcome both of you to speak your mind on video at your earliest convenience. As to my $.02 I think y'all need to reach an extrajudicial resolution. Sincerely, Christopher King, J.D. *********** Re: Draft Publication. 2 days ago at 3:45 PM From Karen Pooley To Christopher King Richard Jones Reply-To Karen Pooley Christopher, While you have most of the story correct, there are a few details which are incorrect. Please allow me to correct my allegations of the record: 1) Mr. Jones' failed to check the docket on TWO occasions: a) failed to acknowledge opposition responded to my Partial SJ, causing me to miss a Reply to my Partial Summary Judgment; and b) failed to verify that all documents were indeed filed in the lower court. The lower court apparently rejected his offices' filing of our Response to Opposition's SJ, causing me to spend almost a YEAR's worth of attorney fees correcting the lower court record. Jones billed all this to me. At one point, he claimed I had spent $5000 rectifying the record, but it was much more than that. This is the major point of contention. I spent THOUSANDS of attorney

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formati disponibili

    DOCX, PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento
    Sunday, September 17, 2017 KingCast and Mortgage Movies See Karen Pooley Succeed in Foreclosure Reconsideration; Issue Complaints Regarding Attorney Richard L. Jones, Esq. This is a difficult piece for me to write. As you can see by the thumbnails below I have published many stories and videos relative to the case of Quality Loan Servicing Inc. (QLSC) v. Karen Pooley. Richard L. Jones was her attorney for some of this case, until there was a substantial disagreement on billing and representation that led to Jones suing Pooley and obtaining a Default Judgment against her as she denied ever receiving service. Ms. Pooley and her friend both issued sworn Affidavits that a process server "served" her friend on a dark night in February, 2016 as she was walking Ms. Pooley's dog. Meanwhile Pooley, a knowledgeable and well-educated pro se litigant, lost her primary case and wrote most of her own Appellate Brief with Jones overlooking, and a Motion for Reconsideration after the Court of Appeals Division One ruled against her on or about 15 August, 2017. The Court ORDERED a substantive response from from QLSC, McCarthy Holthus et al. on or about 15 September 2017. They Court ordered a response within 15 days. ADD or about 15 September, 2017. She contends that the $20,000.00 Judgment that Jones stands to receive at her house closing tomorrow, 19 September 2017 are the product of Unjust Enrichment. She will file ethics charges as well. Jones has been subject to ethical considerations in the past, leading to his removal as pro tem Judge in 2007 according to the Seattle Times. For the purposes of this discussion I will attach a copy of what I drafted as the copy for this story, along with the responses from Ms. Pooley, who as also agreed to go on video. Attorney Jones declined to respond directly to my last letter and stated that he did not receive Ms. Pooley's responses. In turn, I responded to him noting that she had sent her responses to both of us at 3:40pm on 15 September 2017. Here are the last two relevant emails between all three of us, below the Draft post I circulated to them on or about 14 September, 2017 as seen immediately below: ********** From: Christopher King [mailto:kingcast955@icloud.com] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 2:14 PM To: Karen Pooley ; Richard Jones Subject: Draft Publication. Dear Karen and Richard: Richard asked me about the CoA status a few days ago. Since that status changed Ms. Pooley has expressed to me that it bolsters her entire position and she feels that Richard is not entitled to the Judgment obtained in the Default Judgment. At this point I am feeling more like a mediator than a journalist so I can't do anything more with this story besides a voiceover. I do welcome both of you to speak your mind on video at your earliest convenience. As to my $.02 I think y'all need to reach an extrajudicial resolution. Sincerely, Christopher King, J.D. *********** Re: Draft Publication. 2 days ago at 3:45 PM From Karen Pooley To Christopher King Richard Jones Reply-To Karen Pooley Christopher, While you have most of the story correct, there are a few details which are incorrect. Please allow me to correct my allegations of the record: 1) Mr. Jones' failed to check the docket on TWO occasions: a) failed to acknowledge opposition responded to my Partial SJ, causing me to miss a Reply to my Partial Summary Judgment; and b) failed to verify that all documents were indeed filed in the lower court. The lower court apparently rejected his offices' filing of our Response to Opposition's SJ, causing me to spend almost a YEAR's worth of attorney fees correcting the lower court record. Jones billed all this to me. At one point, he claimed I had spent $5000 rectifying the record, but it was much more than that. This is the major point of contention. I spent THOUSANDS of attorney

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato DOCX, PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    713 visualizzazioni4 pagine

    Seattle Homeowner Fights Attorney Over Botched Foreclosure Defense

    Caricato da

    christopher king
    Sunday, September 17, 2017 KingCast and Mortgage Movies See Karen Pooley Succeed in Foreclosure Reconsideration; Issue Complaints Regarding Attorney Richard L. Jones, Esq. This is a difficult piece for me to write. As you can see by the thumbnails below I have published many stories and videos relative to the case of Quality Loan Servicing Inc. (QLSC) v. Karen Pooley. Richard L. Jones was her attorney for some of this case, until there was a substantial disagreement on billing and representation that led to Jones suing Pooley and obtaining a Default Judgment against her as she denied ever receiving service. Ms. Pooley and her friend both issued sworn Affidavits that a process server "served" her friend on a dark night in February, 2016 as she was walking Ms. Pooley's dog. Meanwhile Pooley, a knowledgeable and well-educated pro se litigant, lost her primary case and wrote most of her own Appellate Brief with Jones overlooking, and a Motion for Reconsideration after the Court of Appeals Division One ruled against her on or about 15 August, 2017. The Court ORDERED a substantive response from from QLSC, McCarthy Holthus et al. on or about 15 September 2017. They Court ordered a response within 15 days. ADD or about 15 September, 2017. She contends that the $20,000.00 Judgment that Jones stands to receive at her house closing tomorrow, 19 September 2017 are the product of Unjust Enrichment. She will file ethics charges as well. Jones has been subject to ethical considerations in the past, leading to his removal as pro tem Judge in 2007 according to the Seattle Times. For the purposes of this discussion I will attach a copy of what I drafted as the copy for this story, along with the responses from Ms. Pooley, who as also agreed to go on video. Attorney Jones declined to respond directly to my last letter and stated that he did not receive Ms. Pooley's responses. In turn, I responded to him noting that she had sent her responses to both of us at 3:40pm on 15 September 2017. Here are the last two relevant emails between all three of us, below the Draft post I circulated to them on or about 14 September, 2017 as seen immediately below: ********** From: Christopher King [mailto:kingcast955@icloud.com] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 2:14 PM To: Karen Pooley ; Richard Jones Subject: Draft Publication. Dear Karen and Richard: Richard asked me about the CoA status a few days ago. Since that status changed Ms. Pooley has expressed to me that it bolsters her entire position and she feels that Richard is not entitled to the Judgment obtained in the Default Judgment. At this point I am feeling more like a mediator than a journalist so I can't do anything more with this story besides a voiceover. I do welcome both of you to speak your mind on video at your earliest convenience. As to my $.02 I think y'all need to reach an extrajudicial resolution. Sincerely, Christopher King, J.D. *********** Re: Draft Publication. 2 days ago at 3:45 PM From Karen Pooley To Christopher King Richard Jones Reply-To Karen Pooley Christopher, While you have most of the story correct, there are a few details which are incorrect. Please allow me to correct my allegations of the record: 1) Mr. Jones' failed to check the docket on TWO occasions: a) failed to acknowledge opposition responded to my Partial SJ, causing me to miss a Reply to my Partial Summary Judgment; and b) failed to verify that all documents were indeed filed in the lower court. The lower court apparently rejected his offices' filing of our Response to Opposition's SJ, causing me to spend almost a YEAR's worth of attorney fees correcting the lower court record. Jones billed all this to me. At one point, he claimed I had spent $5000 rectifying the record, but it was much more than that. This is the major point of contention. I spent THOUSANDS of attorney

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato DOCX, PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 4

    CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.

    12048 Greenwood Avenue North


    Seattle, WA 98133
    mortgagemovies007@gmail.com
    617.543.8085
    206.299.9333

    15 September 2017

    Re: Karen Pooley Complaint vis a vis King County Superior 17-2-05221-3 SEA;
    05-1-05753-6 SEA

    Dear Attorney Jones and Ms. Pooley:

    Two stalwart protectors of homeowner rights in the post 2008 foreclosure onslaught find
    themselves at odds in a highly contentious foreclosure matter in Seattles north side.

    Attorney Richard L. Jones is a former Pro Tem Judge who has a decorated history in fighting
    unlawful foreclosure with what is perhaps the most seminal area case to his credit (Bain v.
    Metropolitan Housing Group, Inc.). Karen Pooley is an advocate homeowner who was a
    Principal architect in bringing the highly-esteemed Forensic Fraud Specialist Marie
    McDonnell to Seattle to conduct the Seattle/King County MERS audit that the City then
    proceeded to largely ignore.1

    The two came at odds in Attorney Jones representation of Ms. Pooley in Pooley v. Quality
    Loan Servicing, Inc. a case that I have followed with several in-Court video sessions and
    YouTube videos over the years.

    It is chiefly Pooleys argument that she was timely on her payments to Jones and that he was
    derelict in his fiduciary duties when he sued her for unpaid fees. She claims that he failed to
    argument pivotal hearsay matters, and lost an opportunity to issue a Reply Memorandum
    because of his negligence and misdirection. She claims that he billed for preparation and
    participation in a Mediation that never occurred. She also claims that he raised his fees
    from $280/hr. to $320/hr. after their initial meeting. She further believes that his Alford
    plea and eventual expungement for a theft offense at his former home are probative of his
    character.

    Jones claims that the fee increase was contemplated by the retainer agreement and the fact
    that he was acquitted of a similar offense that occurred at the same home of his ex-wife
    during the same time period. He has declined to share the portion of the divorce decree that
    I sought in order to tie the items he removed from his former house to the items recovered
    in the moving truck (see Probable Cause Attachment 1) and noted that the divorce decree is
    a matter of public record [I will need to cross reference the decree]

    I have not seen any proof that he prepared for, or attended any mediation.

    1 Curiously other Counties in Oregon actually agree with McDonnell; several of them sued MERS in
    the past year.
    CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.
    12048 Greenwood Avenue North
    Seattle, WA 98133
    mortgagemovies007@gmail.com
    617.543.8085
    206.299.9333

    Pooley lost her underlying case and Jones requested $8,000.00 before he would write her
    Appellate Brief.2

    Be that as it may, Jones obtained a Default Judgment in his lawsuit against Pooley. However
    Ms. Pooley contends that she never was served. She and a third party issued sworn
    statements to the Court that point toward her friend being allegedly served as she was
    walking Ms. Pooleys dog on a dark evening last winter, wearing a scarf and hat.

    The process server identified Pooley from an older Internet picture but described Pooley as
    58 medium build. She is however 6 even and a large build. This is all a mystery to me. For
    his part, Jones claims that Pooley should have answered the Complaint without waiving
    Jurisdiction. Pooley wants to know why it was necessary for him to sue her in the first place
    given her payment history.

    ***********

    Be that as it may, Ms. Pooley was then compelled to write her own Appellate brief and
    eventually obtain a Motion for Reconsideration. She now contends that any monies obtained
    by Jones in the lawsuit are ill-gotten unjust enrichment for him because he put her into an
    untenable position by not representing her adequately and suing her.

    Lastly, Jones denies urinating in a Folgers can in front of Ms. Pooley and two other female
    employees. He concedes that he did have a prostate issue but denies urinating in front of
    anyone.

    Stay tuned for further updates.

    Respectfully submitted,

    ________________________________________
    Christopher King, J.D.9

    2 On 14 August 2017 the Division I Court ruled against her, however on ___ September 2017 it
    GRANTED her Motion for Reconsideration based on her own filings, including the subheadings seen
    on the following page:
    CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.
    12048 Greenwood Avenue North
    Seattle, WA 98133
    mortgagemovies007@gmail.com
    617.543.8085
    206.299.9333
    CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.
    12048 Greenwood Avenue North
    Seattle, WA 98133
    mortgagemovies007@gmail.com
    617.543.8085
    206.299.9333

    cc: Karen Pooley


    blind copies

    Potrebbero piacerti anche