Anda di halaman 1dari 10

DOCKET NO.

CV - 09- 5011137 S

SUPERIOR COURT

BANK OF AMERICA
:

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
STAMFORD / NORWALK

AT STAMFORD

NOVEMBER 7, 2013

VS.
ROBLES, ANDY

MOTION TO DISMISS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE


The Defendant, Andy Robles, in the above-entitled action respectfully files his Motion
To Dismiss Foreclosure Action With Prejudice, of the Plaintiffs, Bank Of America,
foreclosure action. The Defendant seeks a Dismissal of Action with Prejudice based on
fraud and unconscionability committed within this lawsuit, as well as clear known
misrepresentations, gross misconduct, and unfair trade practices. In support of the
instant motion, the Defendant represents and states:
I. LACK OF JURISDICTION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STAMFORD
1. The Superior Court at Stamford lacks the Subject Matter Jurisdiction to continue
to hear this matter, as the Plaintiff, Bank Of America, N.A., never acquired the
standing necessary to bring the instant action and seek foreclosure of
Defendants home.
2. The Alleged Plaintiff, Bank Of America, N.A. is not the Real Party In Interest as
alleged and the Court is stripped of its Jurisdiction to allow foreclosure of
Defendants Home.
3. It is first, a material misrepresentation by Plaintiff in Paragraph 1 of its Complaint
that Andy Robles owed Washington Mutual Bank, FA on December 20, 2006
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
TESTIMONY MAY BE REQUIRED

(2)
$616,000.00 as evidenced by a Promissory Note executed on that date to
Washington Mutual Bank, FA. Washington Mutual Bank, FA did not exist and
was a non-operative entity on December 20, 2006. The alleged original Lender
Washington Mutual Bank, FA ceased to exist on April 4, 2005 with a legal name
change to Washington Mutual Bank. It is a legal impossibility that Andy Robles
owed this, and/or any other entity or person who was dead and had no legal
capacity to execute contracts.
4. The alleged Promissory Note that Plaintiff purports was signed by Andy Robles
(Denied), if such original unaltered document exists, is void ab initio, as it is an
instrument of fraud and deception, contended to be a fake, and fabricated
instrument. Any document offered by Plaintiff which alleges that Andy Robles
made agreements and promises to Washington Mutual Bank, FA twenty (20)
months after its life passed and it ceased to exist is legally void and
unenforceable, much the same as a presented fake counterfeit $100 dollar bill
presented to a restaurant for payment of services.
5. The allegation by Plaintiff that Washington Mutual Bank became JPMorgan
Chase Bank, and thus magically Andy Robles owed JPMorgan Chase Bank
$616,000.00. also fails as a valid legal argument. Thereafter, any entity or
person such as Bank Of America who alleges Andy Robles owes it, by virtue of
an Assignment of Mortgage and/or Sale of the purported Note from JPMorgan
Chase Bank, is making fallacious claims which cannot be supported by any valid
and verifiable legal foundation and evidence.
6. Lawrence Nardi, JPMorgan Chase Bank Executive, and former WAMU:
executive testified under oath and admitted in his recent deposition that there is
no evidence which exists and/or otherwise supports the argument that JPMorgan

(3)
Chase Bank, F.A. bought or acquired all the assets of the failed bank
Washington Mutual Bank (WAMU) from the FDIC. Nardi made Judicial
Admissions on a systematic Nationwide Basis, contrarily stating that no such
assignments , schedule of assets, and/or other proof exists which would prove
that JPMorgan Chase Bank purchased, all, most, and/or any specified certain
assets of the defunct institution WAMU.

II. Assignment Of Mortgage Is An Instrument Of Fraud And Is Void


1. The alleged Assignment Of Mortgage, purportedly executed on June 5, 2009, is
highly fraudulent, suspect, and unlawfully allegedly made by Robo-Signer Jodi
Sobotta as Attorney-In-Fact for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. The alleged
assignment and sale to Bank Of America, N.A. by the unclean hands of Jodi
Sobotta is void. First, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. did not own the assets and
the alleged debt it was purporting to transact and sell to Bank Of America. Andy
Robles has no legal obligation and /or other contractual obligation to either
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and/or Bank Of America, N.A.
2. There is no proof which has been presented and/or exists which evidences that
Jodi Sobotta had the authority to execute the alleged Assignment Of Mortgage
on behalf of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Jodi Sobotta is a known Robo-Signer
who worked for Lender Processing Services, contended to be a Fraud Shop,
executing similar documents on behalf of multitudinous entities around the
country, with starkingly different and varying signatures. The myriad of
Assignments and other instruments signed by Jodi Sobotta in numerous
registries of deeds around the country are evidence of a serious and unexusable
fraud being perpetrated on our land records and courts. The unlawful acts as

(4)
described are very similar to the Robo-Signer Linda Green who also allegedly
signed such documents for LPS. Linda Green did not exist, and men and other
high school women were routinely signing and forging the name of Linda Green.
The widely varying signatures that appear in numerous registries of deeds of Jodi
Sobotta are further examples of forgery and unlawful acts being perpetrated on a
systematic basis. Factually speaking, there is no Power Of Attorney found to
authenticate and authorize the actions of Jodi Sobotta in the Robles matter, if
such signature is even really that of Jodi Sobotta. It is denied and rebutted that
such signature is valid or true and that of one Jodi Sobotta.
3. The alleged assignment is futher void and suspect for the reasons that
Minnesota State Notary, Mark Biscof, is additionally a Robo-Signer who alleges
to witness the purported signature of Robo-Signer Jodi Sobotta, has numerous
varying, non-matching signatures of his own name appearing in registries of
deeds all across the United States. There is evidence which suggests that Mark
Biscof is not who he purports to be, and such credible evidence that many
persons are forging the name of Notary Mark Biscof. It is a fact that Biscof has
notarized many signatures of other well known Robo-Signers that work for LPS
(Lender Processing Services).
4. It should be made clear to the Superior Court at Stamford, that a Robo-Signer is
a well known legal term as of late for persons who not only are charged with
signing sometimes 10,000 documents or more a month without reading them, but
such persons are being frequently found to have committed other unlawful,
deceptive, and unconscionable acts to defraud our Courts and Land Records.
The wrongdoing by said Robo-Signers includes Forgery, by many perpetrators
who purport to be the Robo-Signer who appears on the document, Robo-Signers

(5)
purporting on behalf of MERS to represent Banks and/or other lending
institutions who have failed, are defunct and no longer in business, Robo-Signers
are known to allegedly Notarize and witness the signature of other well known
Robo-Signers, in many instances when such persons never appeared before the
Notary, and/or where there is further instances of Forgery and impersonation of
the alleged Signer. Robo-Signers are also charged and known to be involved in
professedly selling and assigning Notes and Mortgages illegally on behalf of
entities, such as MERS and others, who have no interest and ownership in what
they purport to sell, Robo-Signers have in many instances purported to make
Assignments of Mortgage and such sales without any legal authority at all,
despite making false allegations of having such authority, where no Power Of
Attorney has been executed.
5. Further suspect on the alleged Robles Assignment Of Mortgage is the fact that
the address used for JPMorgan Chase Bank is in Florida, and the purported
Notary Mark Biscof is in Minnessota. Such sequence of events points to the fact
that the document is a fake, is fraudulent, and has been manufactured by a
Fraud Shop such as LPS, and other Robo-Signers solely for litigation purposes
and effectuating and facilitating a fast foreclosure.
6. Lender Processing Services (LPS) was ordered to pay settlement charges of
$127 Million as restitution to 46 States for forging documents that were used to
illegally foreclose on homeowners. It is further noted and offered to this Court
that the involvement in this Robles case, and the Robo-Signed Assignment of
Mortgage involving LPS is unlawful, equally fraudulent, and legally void.

(6)
7. The FDIC seized and became receiver for Washington Mutual Bank on
September 25, 2008. There is no documentation that has been offered
evidencing that the FDIC had any involvement in the alleged Robles mortgage.
8. There is no valid and credible evidence that exists to prove that Bank Of America
acquired any asset or mortgage involving Elvis Robles from any such alleged
Assignment Of Mortgage, and/or other sale or transfer from JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A.
9. On June 5, 2013, JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA did not own the alleged Robles
Note and Mortgage, had no interest in said instruments, and did not make any
valid legal transfer and sale of the alleged Robles mortgage to Bank Of America,
NA. Jodi Sobotta acting as an alleged Attorney-In-Fact for JP Morgan Chase
Bank, NA, was in reality an employee of contended Fraud Shop Lender
Processing Services.
III. Bank Of America Lacks Standing To Foreclose
1. The facts and information as plead in Sections I and II are hereby incorporated
and made a part herein of Section III as if plead anew.
2. Bank Of America is not the owner and/or holder of the alleged note, was not the
holder of the alleged Note at the commencement of this action, and at no time
possessed the rights of a holder. It is denied and rebutted that Bank Of
America is the party entitled to collect the alleged debt and enforce the alleged
Note.
3. As incorporated and alleged in the above sections, due to a series of unlawful
and fraudulent acts, Bank Of America did not purchase the alleged Robles Note
and Mortgage from JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, as
the previous alleged creditor was not the holder of the alleged note, had no

(7)
such rights of a holder, and was not authorized to sell and assign the alleged
Note and Mortgage to Bank Of America.
4. Bank of America, NA, if it offers and presents an alleged original Note, has done
so by unlawful means. Bank Of America did not obtain the alleged Note in
good faith which is a prerequisite and requirement to having the rights and
entitlements of a holder. Although presumed and assumed that Bank Of
America as alleged in its Complaint is the holder, there is no supporting
evidence which illustrates that Bank Of America has any connection to the
broken chain of title, and has any interest in the alleged Robles Note and
Mortgage.
5. The alleged Robles Mortgage, by its fraudulent Assignment Of Mortgage is void
and fails as a matter of law to follow the alleged Note, as prescribed by
Connecticut General Statute 49-17. Thus, in the instant Robles Matter, the
alleged Note and Mortgage have been divorced of each other and bifurcated,
thus causing the alleged debt to be unsecured. The alleged Mortgage (Security
Instrument) does not secure the Note.
6. It is alleged and maintained that the alleged Robles Note and Mortgage have
been securitized, and presumably sold to an unknown entity(s) prior to the
collapse of the failed bank WAMU. The only certainty that exists in the instant
matter, is that it is uncertain as to who exactly is/are the true owner(s) of the
alleged Note and Mortgage. There exist numerous issues of material fact,
examples of fraud, unconsionability, and valid suspicions that place into question
the true ownership of the alleged Robles Mortgage Loan. It is certain that Bank
Of America is not entitled to collect payments under the Note, and is not the

(8)
proper and Real Party In Interest authorized by said Note to foreclose the
Mortgage.
IV. Unconsionability
1. The information and facts as plead in the previous sections I, II, and III are duly
and wholly incorporated and become a part hereof Section IV, and are evidence
to this Court and a showing of unconscionable acts and practices by Plaintiff and
its agents.
V. Violation Of The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act
1. The information and facts as plead in the previous sections I, II, III, and IV are
duly and wholly incorporated and become a part hereof Section V, and are
evidence to this Court and a showing of acts and practices which are unfair and
deceptive, and which constitute conduct the nature by Plaintiff and its agents
which is in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act [C.G.S. 42110(b)].

VI. Violation Of The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)


1. The information and facts as plead in the previous sections I, II, III, IV, and V are
duly and wholly incorporated and become a part hereof Section VI, and are
evidence to this Court and a showing of acts and practices which are unfair,
deceptive, unlawful, and are in violation of Federal Law, particularly the FDCPA,
15 USC 1692g, Et Al.

(9)
WHEREFORE, based upon all the above cited facts and information, the Defendant
Elvis Robles maintains that this foreclosure lawsuit was filed with fraudulent and
deceptive means. The Defendant respectfully asks that the instant motion upon review
be GRANTED and the Plaintiffs Foreclosure Action Dismissed With Prejudice, as its
action, cause, and purpose are a Fraud Upon The Court.
Dated: November 8, 2013

The Defendant (Andy Robles)


Respectfully Submitted ,
By:___-305747-____
David A. Scalzi #305747
921 Stillwater Road
Stamford, CT 06902
Tel: 203-323-8232
Email: scalzi@optonline.net

(10)

ORDER
The foregoing Defendants Motion To Dismiss Foreclosure Action With Prejudice having
been presented to the court;
It is hereby ORDERED: GRANTED

DENIED

By the Court:
___________________________________
Clerk / Judge
Date of Order: ________________________

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
The Defendant, Elvis Robles, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Motion To Dismiss Foreclosure Action With Prejudice has been furnished via
U.S. First Class Mail on November 8, 2013 to the office of the Plaintiffs counsel Bendett
& McHugh, PC, at the address of 160 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06032.
Additional Service Provided To All Parties To This Action

Certification Of Service By The Defendant


305747 _________________________________
By David A. Scalzi, Defendants Attorney