Plaintiff essentially challenges two mortgage foreclosure actions and an ejectment action instituted by some of the Defendants against him in the York County Court with respect to his house located at 100 Spangler Road. Plaintiff avers that the Promissory Note and Mortgage which he allegedly signed in May 1997 regarding a loan to purchase the house at 100 Spangler Road did not contain his signatures. Plaintiff also avers that the Defendant Bank and Defendant mortgage companies have failed to show, in the two state court foreclosure actions which they filed against him, that full and proper disclosure of all terms and conditions of the Promissory Note were provided to him. Plaintiff also states that he was not advised that the Promissory Note could be assigned after it was executed. Further, Plaintiff alleges that he was not afforded a hearing in the three stated cases instituted by some of the Defendants against him in the York County Court with respect to his house located at 100 Spangler Road.
Plaintiff avers that one of the assignees of the Promissory Note, Meritech Mortgage, was erroneously charging him $14,000 and that he tired to rectify this charge but to no avail. As a result, Plaintiff states that in August 1998, he filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Petition in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff states that on November 18, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court issued an Order dismissing his case. (Id., p. 33).
Plaintiff states that in September 2005, Defendant Grenen & Birsic, P.C., on behalf of Defendant EMC, filed a mortgage foreclosure action in rem against him in York County Court. Plaintiff states that after he filed Preliminary Objections, the Complaint was withdrawn. (Id.,p. 34).
Plaintiff states in February 2006, Defendant Grenen & Birsic, P.C., on behalf of Defendant EMC, filed a second mortgage foreclosure action in rem against him in York County Court. (Id.). Plaintiff avers that the second foreclosure Complaint contained references to false assignments of the Promissory Note for his house, and that the assignment from Deutsche Bank to Defendant EMC in October 2004, was unlawful. Plaintiff avers that the stated Defendants in January 2007, filed a defective Praecipe for Default Judgment against him in the second mortgage foreclosure action. Plaintiff states that in December 2007, Defendant Judge Cook of the York County Court, granted Defendant EMC‘s summary judgment motion in the second foreclosure action. (Id. p. 43).
Plaintiff states that he appealed Defendant Judge Cook’s Order to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and that despite his appeal, Defendant EMC noticed him that it was going to sell his house on August 18, 2008. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay Execution and Defendant Judge Renn held a hearing on August 18, 2008. (Id. 45-46). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Judge Renn held improper ex parte communications with Defendant EMC and, that Judge Renn was biased and prejudiced against him. Plaintiff states that Defendant Judge Renn denied his Motion to Stay Execution. (Id., pp. 46-47).
Plaintiff states that he immediately filed another Bankruptcy Petition, #08-2956, M.D. Pa., and that the sale of his house was continued until October 2008. In October 2008, Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion for Stay of the sale on the basis that Defendant EMC had previously represented that the Promissory Note on Plaintiff‘s house was satisfied. (Id., pp. 47- 48). Plaintiff states that Defendant Judge Renn, for the purpose of helping Defendant EMC and to harm him, “willfully and wantonly chose to ignore his judicial duties,” and denied his Motion. (Id., p. 49). Plaintiff states that he again immediately filed another Bankruptcy Petition, #08-3850, M.D. Pa. (Id.). Plaintiff then states that the October 2008, sale of his house was continued a second time to December 2008. (Id., p. 50).
Plaintiff states that the Bankruptcy Court Judge France, who had a distinct bias and prejudice against him, granted Defendant EMC’s Motion to Lift the Automatic Stay so that a sale of his house could be scheduled. (Id., p. 51). Plaintiff states that Judge France ruled against him even though he was waiting for a witness to appear to show that a Satisfaction of the Mortgage on Plaintiff‘s house he recorded.
Thereafter, Plaintiff states that Defendant Judge Renn prevented him, in violation of his ethical duties, from filing documents with the York County Prothonotary’s Office, including a Motion for a Stay and a Mortgage Satisfaction, which would in effect prevent the sheriff’s sale of his house. (Id., pp. 52-53). Consequently, Plaintiff‘s father then filed a Bankruptcy Petition, #09-1185, M.D. Pa., which again continued the sale of Plaintiff‘s house since his father had a lien on it. (Id. p. 54).
Plaintiff also details various other state court proceedings regarding the attempts to conduct a Sheriff’s Sale of his house. (Id. pp. 65-72).
Plaintiff then avers that on February 23, 2009, Defendant G&B, with the assistance of Defendant York County Sheriff Keuerleber, “unlawfully sold [his] property.” (Id., p. 73). Plaintiff states that the sale occurred even though the Satisfaction of his Mortgage which was recorded was not held by the Court to be invalid. Plaintiff states that various Defendants conspired to deprive him of his lawful right to his property. (Id.). In March 2009, Plaintiff states that Defendant York County Judge Linebaugh granted Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Mortgage Satisfaction and denied his Motion to Stay the sale of his house even though the sale has already occurred. Plaintiff states that the “posthumous” Orders of Defendant York County Judge Linebaugh, issued without giving him a hearing and the opportunity to file briefs, did not affect the validity of the Satisfaction at the time of the sale of his property. Thus, Plaintiff essentially avers that the February 23, 2009 sale of his house was not legal. (Id., pp. 74-75). Plaintiff states that Defendant York County Judge Linebaugh‘s Orders showed his bias and prejudice against him and as to the validity of the Satisfaction.
On March 5, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Set Aside the sheriff’s sale of his house and he re-filed his Motion to Recuse Defendant Judge Renn. (Id., p. 76). Plaintiff states that Defendant York County Judge Linebaugh issued Rules to Show Cause regarding his Motions. Plaintiff states that on March 26, 2009, he filed a Motion to Stay all Proceedings in York County Court which to date, has never been ruled on. (Id., pp. 76-77). Plaintiff states that Defendants refused to engage in discovery with respect to his Motions because it would have revealed that the sale of his house was the product of fraud perpetrated by Defendants, as well as Defendants’ perjury. (Id., p. 79).
Plaintiff states that on October 19, 2009, Defendant G&B filed a Complaint in Ejectment against him in York County Court, and that even though he was not properly served with it, the Defendant York County Prothonotary’s Office reinstated it. (Id.). Plaintiff states that the Complaint in Ejectment was taped to his window at his house in January 2010. Plaintiff filed Preliminary Objections to the Ejectment Complaint and a Motion to Strike the Special Order allowing the service of it by posting at his house as well as a Motion to Strike the Complaint. (Id., pp. 80-83).
Plaintiff states that Defendant Renn denied without prejudice his Motions on March 25, 2010. (Id., p. 84). Plaintiff then filed Amended PO’s to the Ejectment Complaint. Plaintiff states that Judge Thompson sustained his PO’s as to improper service of the Ejectment Complaint on him. (Id., pp. 86-87).
On August 3, 2010, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant EMC filed an Amended Complaint in Ejectment against him with an improper verification and with an unauthentic exhibit, i.e., the Sheriff’s Deed to Plaintiff‘s house. On August 17, 2010, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant EMC filed a Supplement to the Complaint and failed to serve it on him. Plaintiff again filed PO’s to the Amended Ejectment Complaint. (Id., p. 87). Plaintiff states that on December 2, 2010, Defendant EMC filed a Praecipe to list his PO’s for one judge disposition. (Id. p. 88).
As stated, Plaintiff then filed his instant Complaint in federal court on December 7, 2010. (Doc. 1).
Plaintiff‘s Complaint also contains, in part, the following specific allegations against Defendants:
241. Upon information and belief, Defendant [Judge] Renn once more violated judicial ethics and canon, when presented evidence of a duly recorded, self-authenticating document, evidencing the Satisfaction of the Mortgage, absent any formal contest made of record, by denying Plaintiff and Mr. Morley their right to at minimum, an evidentiary hearing.
242. Plaintiff Conklin subsequently received a copy of the Order by Judge Renn, and curiously noted that an addition to the distribution list, as to one Lawrence T. Himes, Jr., [Esquire] who, was totally unknown to Plaintiffs’, (sic) having never entered their appearance or having ever filed any papers in the case.
243. Plaintiff believes that Judge Renn’s inclusion of Defendant Lawrence T. Himes, Jr., was indicative of Defendant Renn, once again, having engaged in ex parte communications, to the detriment of Plaintiffs’. (sic).
(Doc. 1, p. 54, ¶’s 241-243). Plaintiff also specifically alleges as follows with respect to Defendants:
279. On or about December 23, 2008, Plaintiff Conklin first received a copy of a “Motion to Continue Sheriff’s Sale and Dispense with New Notice Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule fo Civil Procedure 3129.3(a)”, alleged to have been filed by Defendant Himes as representative for Defendant Anthou.
280. This filing, with a bogus certificate of mailing dated December 9, 2008, indicated, by attached envelope, it was actually mailed from Defendant G & B’s offices in Pittsburgh, on December 22, 2008 and not from Defendant Himes as alleged in the certificate as to have occurred on December 9, 2008.
281. This Motion is now alleged to have been field by Defendant Himes, (concurrent with an order, signed by Defendant Renn, already granting it) was not the same Motion as to have been alleged to have been filed by Defendant Anthou, which Plaintiffs’ (sic) had absolutely no knowledge of Defendant Himes, or his purported filing (with signed Order already attached) until having received it posthumously, by Defendant G&B nearly two (2) weeks later.
282. A review of the docket entries, on or about December 12, 18 and 22 of 2008, respectively, were curiously void of any account of such filing that now bore a time-stamped entry containing the exact same minute for both the Motion and granting Order, as December 12, 2008 at 11:02 am.
283. Attached to the above Motion, which was time-stamped on December 12, 2008 at 11:02 am, was an Order, alleged to have been signed by Defendant Renn on December 11, 2008, bearing the exact same time stamped date of December 12, 2008 at 11:02 am.
284. Clearly, the purported Motion by Defendant Himes, was not filed with the Prothonotary’s office, prior to Defendant Renn, behind the scenes granting it, and, Defendant Renn having granted Defendant Himes Motion, prior to it being ever filed, and without proper notice to Plaintiff, purportedly pursuant to the Motion, in accordance with P.R.C.P. 3129.3(a), violated Plaintiff’s rights to notice and to be heard.
(Doc. 1, pp. 62-63, ¶’s 279-284). Further, Plaintiff alleges, with particularity, as follows:
289. Upon information and belief, Defendant Renn was not appropriate having improperly granted this Motion knowing that there were clear and distinct issues, including, but not limited to the lawful recording of Mortgage Satisfaction that not only had yet to be contested by Defendants’ G&B, et al. but, clearly were yet to be adjudicated.
290. Upon information and belief, Defendant Renn improperly granted a Motion that, in addition to the severe improprieties of Defendant Renn as stated above, said Defendant granted a Motion that even if it were properly stamped in and mailed to Plaintiff, failed in both procedural request and format.
291. Defendant Himes, did not Petition for Special Order of Court, as Plaintiff believes would otherwise be required; nor, did Defendant Himes present his motion as ex parte, or, as uncontested. Instead, Defendant Himes conspired with Defendant Renn to have approved a Motion that denied Plaintiff his absolute and clear right under the Rules of Civil procedure to reply in opposition to Defendant Himes motion, with the ability to have a hearing on said motion’s merits.
292. Upon information and belief, Defendant Anthou’s mailing of Motion for Continuance of Sheriff Sale, was a clear and deliberate attempt to obfuscate, by making it appear as if Defendants’ G & G, et. al., were attempting to comply with the Rules, whilst secretly having Defendant Himes obtain a backroom order by his insider, Defendant Renn.
293. Upon information and belief, Defendant Renn deliberately granted this unstamped and unserved Motion, ex parte, for the expressed purpose of yet again, denying Plaintiff his constitutional rights to a full and impartial hearing, and in willful deference to the well-established Rules of Civil Procedure, governing Motion(s) and required service of pleadings, as to unlawfully aid and abet Defendants’ G & G, et. al., Himes, EMC and Chase in the abrogation of Plaintiff Conklin’s substantive and procedural rights, in furtherance of said Defendants’ theft of Plaintiff’s property.
(Doc. 1, pp. 64-65, ¶’s 289-293). Plaintiff concludes, in part, his Complaint with the following averments:
410. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ G & B et al., and EMC as assisted by both Defendants’ Renn and Linebaugh, have committed a Fraud upon the Court and upon Plaintiffs’ (sic), as Defendants’ G&B et al., and EMC, at no material time, had in their possession the original Promissory or Mortgage Note(s) as required.
411. Additionally, Fraud has been perpetrated by Defendants’ G&B et al., in that the bonded Promissory Note used to pay off and/or otherwise extinguish the underlying alleged Mortgage debt, despite Defendants’ repeated assertions to the contrary, had been accepted for value by said Defendants and subsequently deposited in a Fund account.
(Doc. 1, p. 88, ¶’s 410-411). Plaintiff avers that Defendant EMC accepted and deposited the Promissory Note that was issued on his behalf to pay off in full the mortgage on his house. (Id. ,p. 89). Plaintiff finally alleges:
418. Defendant Anthou’s perjury was suborned by Defendant Grenen, and was later, on numerous occasions, aided and abetted by Defendants’ Renn and Linebaugh, in court proceedings and by subsequent orders issued thereby, as furthered by their material concealment of the lack of possession of the requisite promissory note appertaining to Plaintiff’s property, and having accepted for value, the Bonded Promissory note for their own personal gain.
419. Defendant Linebaugh had a duty to investigate the claim of payment made by Mr. Norley, or to allow additional discovery to allow Plaintiff to fully substantiate Plaintiff’s claim.
420. Defendants’ G&B et al., together with Defendants’ EMC and/or Chase have not only unlawfully taken Plaintiff’s property, as an unjust enrichment, as at no material time were they entitled thereto, but additionally reaped, and yet continue to reap, as an unjust enrichment, untold sums.
421. Plaintiff alleges that all of the foregoing [has] constituted as series of violations of plaintiff’s constitutional and other rights as set forth in the introductory, and supported by Plaintiff’s operative facts.
422. Plaintiff alleges pursuant to his introductory and as supported by the operative facts hereto, that all of the Defendants’ individually and/or collectively were involved in the violation of Plaintiff’s rights as alleged herein and that all said Defendants’ are thus liable to the Plaintiff for compensatory and punitive damages and/or are the subjects of his request for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
(Id., p. 90, ¶’s 418-422). Plaintiff asserts, in part, Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against Defendants with respect to the deprivation of his property, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as conspiracy claims under §1985. Plaintiff further asserts civil RICO claims under 18 U.S.C. §1964 and state law claims for conspiracy, theft and fraud.
This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff‘s action under 28 U.S.C. §1331. See Easley v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 2010 WL 3622511, *1 (3d Cir. 9-20-10). Plaintiff properly filed his action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania since he resides and his property is located in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and his claims relate to events occurring in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Loading ...
Plaintiff‘s present claims include allegations that the mortgage loan on his house was not legal, that it could not be legally assigned to Defendants, and that Defendants failed to produce original documents proving that they had the right to foreclose on his house and to sell it.
The York County Court, in the mortgage foreclosure actions EMC Defendants filed against Plaintiff, wrongfully determined that the assignment of the mortgage loan on Plaintiff‘s 100 Spangler Road house was valid and that EMC Defendants had the right to foreclose on Plaintiff‘s mortgage loan and to sell the property.
The York County Court also erroneously found that Defendants could conduct a Sheriff’s sale of the premises and evict Plaintiff from the premises.
iI was reading about the Steve Conklin case, and some of the documents he filed in the federal courts. It’s astonishing that he is having his property taken without due process of law in 21st century America, or maybe it isn’t so astonishing given the stranglehold the banks seem to have on everything, including the courts. I have a question about some odd implications of the situation presented by Steve Conklin. Earlier this year, Tom Corbett signed the Castle Doctrine into law, which gives property owners the right to use deadly force when on their own property against intruders. I understand what Conklin to be saying is that in America when property is taken without giving the owner a due process hearing, it is a lawless act, that’s what the cases he cites say, and it seems pretty clear. Well, if that is the case, then wouldn’t Conklin be completely free under the Castle Doctrine to defend his property against the intrusion of the York County Sheriff’s with deadly force? I’m not a lawyer, but it would be interesting to see what a lawyer or judge would have to say about something like this. A possible collision course could be set up over this issue, if not with Mr. Conklin, who appears to be a peacable man, then somewhere down the road with some property owner who is not so peacable. This is just a thought.
I have been following this disgusting case of abuse of the courts on this family and would like to respond to the above commenter regarding the castle doctrine.
“Stand your ground” governs U.S. federal case law in which self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (1895) that a man who was “where he had the right to be” when he came under attack and “…did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm…was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground.”
Anyone notice this stuff is getting more and more outrageous? It is almost like they are saying somebody stop us but no one will. I saw a commercial the other night it might have been CNN about how Al Queda’s new threat is they are going to start buying weapons legally in AMERICA at gun shows and use them against us. They had a number to call CONgress to tell congress to make guns illegal. My son and I saw it and we were both shaking our damned heads at that one. The worst part is some people probably actually believe THAT garbage. They will stop at nothing to take away our guns. We can’t ever let that happen no matter what crap they manufacture to try and convince us. Anywhere hear about EXECUTIVE ORDER 13528? It was signed on 1-11-10 by Obama. This EXECUTIVE ORDER ALLOWS INTEGRATION of STATE AND MILITARY FORCES. It was designed to weaken the POSSE COMITATUS ACT of 1878. The POSSE COMITATUS ACT prevents the Government from using military force against us. .Why would Obama sign that? That is outrageous and we never heard a word about that anywhere in the media. That was just an incredibly sneaky and underhanded move. They are completely undermining our U.S CONSTITUTION AND OUR U.S. BILL OF RIGHTS. All of these Dems and Repubs need to be thrown out of office by the people. They are traitors to their own country and people. Elections are a sham.
Screw this, They come in here and they die. ONE, TWO, THREE FOUR, WHAT IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR. It is almost time for WAR!
“Congress shall have power to coin money and regulate the value thereof ” And, back in 1937 our Supreme Court ruled, “Congress cannot abdicate it’s duty” What do you say to the Mafia banker theives. Fuck off!
Any debt resulting from Fraud should be void or voidable. That could be a few trillion dollars, since 1913.
Register of Deeds John O’Brien Releases Forensic Study,
Finds MASSIVE FRAUD in Foreclosure Docs
McDonnell’s Report includes the following key findings:
• Only 16% of assignments of mortgage are valid
• 75% of assignments of mortgage are invalid.
I can tell you that every single assignment of mortgage that was recorded for the purpose of foreclosing the homeowner is invalid, overtly fraudulent, or criminally fraudulent. My findings also show that your constituents who are not in foreclosure, and have never been delinquent in their payments also have clouds on title due to the recording of defective and invalid discharges and assignments of mortgage.” and read the entire article a at the mortgage servicing fraud web sight! The siite with FORUM in the artilces.