This is one of the more incredible and infuriating foreclosure cases that I’ve been involved with for several years now.  A foreclosure trial was held more than a year ago. For the reasons that are so clearly articulated in our Motion to Vacate the Final Judgment, namely our accusations that Rushmore Loan Servicing engage in misconduct in the course of the trial, we urged the judge to Vacate the Final Judgment.

Well….before we got to  a hearing on that motion, Rushmore Loan Servicing apparently decided that going through all the discovery on these things was going to be a very bad idea…so they filed their own Motion to Vacate Final Judgment.

Truly incredible…..Rushmore has a Final Judgment….but they agree that their own Final Judgment should be set aside.

Wonder why?

Well, the fact of the matter is all that Rushmore starts going nuts with all kinds of crazy motions, filled with even crazier statements within their motions:

From Rushmore:

Appellee can address all three of Appellant’s possible outcomes with a single response: the possible outcomes are not available options because Appellant has already submitted a motion to vacate judgment with the trial court, alleging the same “misconduct” as the proposed motion at bar. The trial court has already ruled against Appellant on this issue multiple times and to grant relinquishment of jurisdiction is the antithesis of judicial economy.

So here’s one of the things that really has Rushmore going full bore nuts…you see, in the attached Motion for Deposition that I have…I’m begging and asking the court to force Rushmore and their attorneys to sit for depositions so I can figure out exactly how they mysteriously came into possession of documents that they used at trial.  Have a look at this Motion that spells it all out:


And Then This:

1 So we have both the corporate witness and we
2 have a technical witness that would be responsible
3 for these records that are at issue.
4 I would ask for all those witnesses to be able
5 to take a deposition.
6 Additionally, I would ask —
7 THE COURT: And that is — I’m going to agree
8 to that. At her expense. He isn’t going to pay —
9 Mr. Wall isn’t going to pay for any of this anymore.
10 This is — just been wrong. It’s just been wrong.
11 MR. WEIDNER: The only other thing I would
12 like, Judge —
13 THE COURT: So I’ll reserve on some of that, if
14 you want to remove after depositions.
15 MR. WEIDNER: Okay. The only other thing that
16 I think is appropriate would be for the court to
17 conduct an in camera review of the records between
18 Ms. Gaita, Mr. Copeland and Mr. Witness —
19 Mr. Winston about this issue.

7 Recall that, in e-mails, both formally and
8 informally, I’ve been seeking deposition of the
9 witnesses, because — and have been refused.
10 Now, if I presented to you deposition testimony
11 where there was in fact complicity and conspiracy on
12 behalf of the witnesses and the lawyers, and very
13 real perjury, and in fact we quoted all that case
14 law in there, your assertion, the judgment you just
15 asserted there, would clearly be different.
16 I certainly respect —
17 THE COURT: Might be.
18 MR. WEIDNER: Thank you.
19 So what I would ask for is a direction at the
20 same time that the corporate witness appear in Pasco
21 County for deposition; that Juliana Gaita appear for
22 deposition; that Courtney Copeland, who was the
23 trial counsel as well, appear for deposition. And
24 then we’ve got an employee of Rushmore, this
25 technical term of boarding.

More from Rushmore’s attorneys:

There is certainly an allegation, and there’s
18 an acknowledgment by — on the plaintiff’s side —
19 that the documents were obtained without following
20 the rules correctly.

Just read all these motions…including especially Rushmore’s goofy responses:


MT for Rehearing (Wall)

Appellee’s Response to Appellant’s MTN for Clarification


OrderDenyMTRecon (Wall)

P MTN for Reconsideration

Appellees Opp to Appellant’s MTN to Relinquish Jurisdiction

MTClarification (Wall)

Motion To Vacate Judgement Set Matter for New Trial



USBank vs Wall_10-05-15_Judge Babb_FullSize

9-17-14 Condensed Transcript

Transcript 3-23-15


One Comment

  • kim says:

    I am filing a case in both Federal and Common pleas court ohio on, Wells fargo /servicer, US Bank -trustee for SASCO, Lerner Sampson n Roth. I lost my home after fraudulently foreclosure, by US Bank, I however received 2 ltrs from Pres.Usb trust “Usb has no authority to foreclose on you, we r trustee, since closing from sellers 2006 I have every doc. Shows open record of numerous fraud, forgy, presenting fraudulent docs to both bankruptcy ct. Common court. I have my w.deed also, schB. Don’t ins wf. I have prove,not presumption. Any advice. THERE’S SO MUCH MORE, DON’T WANT TO PUBLICIZE AT THIS POINT. thanks.

Leave a Reply