Manufacturers And Traders Trust Company (192.216.61.

102) 1 returning visit Update 2 May 2013: I see my friends at M&T Bank are back.... what's the matter guys, never seen a reporter with my knowledge base and skill set before, have you? Better get used to it.

Movie coming soon! There is Attorney John Y. Lee. I dont know what is in his trick bag today but yesterday, and several weeks ago he somehow managed to fit a Baltimore Circuit Court Judge in that bag: Today I attended what basically resembled a kangaroo court hearing that was orchestrated at the outset by Attorney John Y. Lee, when he hand delivered memoranda to Judge Norman.. before Norman was even assigned to the case. Naturally Judge Norman became the Judge on the case. One must wonder why Lee picked Norman instead of, say, Judge King who found foreclosure mill attorney Thomas P. Dore to have violated several ethics rules. It was the second such determination that Dore has faced in connection with foreclosure cases in the past 3 years, for use of false documents and signatures.

As such, according to Judge Wilner and the Committee drafting Rule 14-207.1 Thomas P. Dore has now TWICE been involved in conduct that is prejudicial to homeowners and constitutes an assault on the integrity of the judicial process itself, yet the Wetzelbergers are repeatedly denied any meaningful opportunity to address the wrongs in their case that implicate issues of Standing and Real Party in Interest: The fun started this morning when a young, impressionable female law clerk or bailiff told me I could set up my rig in the corner after I explained that I had filed not one but at least two Notices of Media Coverage. Both of these Notices thoroughly documented the fact that the Court and other government entities track my Mortgage Movies Journal every time I document activity against Thomas P. Dore. As you may recall, Dore had 18 notaries relinquish their commissions and many cases were discharged. But alas, as I was setting up my tripod the young, impressionable clerk received a talking to by one of Thomas P. Dores attorneys, an aging, pasty white male. After that point I was persona non grata and received stern rebuke from her and from everyone else at the courthouse, with the Judge at one point even making me remove my equipment from the Courtroom even though it was all packaged up and sitting in a corner. He then bellowed at everyone that criminal contempt would be levied against anyone who had any electronic device on, a message clearly intended for Yours Truly. Naturally, no one at the Court had shown any recollection or acknowledgment of receiving any of my media notices even though the second one was sent via tracked U.S. Mail: ******************

This is not unusual as Mr. Wetzelberger the homeowner in this case has routinely filed documents that the court willfully ignored, such as the Motion to Recuse Judge Norman for the clear cut appearance of impropriety on receiving a courtesy copy of a pleading BEFORE he was even assigned to the case, then majestically being assigned to the case while the clerk of courts refuses to answer the homeowners question as to how assignments are made. From my observations today, Judge Norman was a ringer, and he is completely disingenuous for reasons I will now elucidate: 1. He claimed that Emergency Rule 14-207.1 was not created to address false documents and mortgage foreclosure fraud, but that was indeed the purpose as I noted last week after reading the committee report. I have direct knowledge that almost every homeowner who actually requests such a hearing is denied. Here are the principal reasons why Rule 14-207.1 was created, because of the use of bogus affidavits..

As such, according to Judge Wilner and the Committee drafting Rule 14-207.1 Thomas P. Dore has now TWICE been involved in conduct that is prejudicial to homeowners and constitutes an assault on the integrity of the judicial process itself, yet the Wetzelbergers are repeatedly denied any meaningful opportunity to address the wrongs in their case that implicate issues of Standing and Real Party in Interest:s 2. As such, according to Judge Wilner and the Committee drafting Rule 14-207.1 Thomas P. Dore has now TWICE been involved in conduct that is prejudicial to homeowners and constitutes an assault on the integrity of the judicial process itself, yet the Wetzelbergers are repeatedly denied any meaningful opportunity to address the wrongs in their case that implicate issues of Standing and Real Party in Interest: 3. Judge Norman refused to address the pending Motion to Recuse in any substantive fashion, yet took painstaking time to address everything else to suit his arbitrary and capricious whimsy, including every possible reason why the homeowners should be sanctioned, while ignoring many filings by the homeowner that the Court unlawfully ignored or failed to rule on.

4. The Court effectively shifted the burdens of proof in a foreclosure case by repeating an Order (from an unpublished opinion of course) that held that the homeowners failed to put on any evidence that the signatures presented on a purported note and mortgage were not theirs. The homeowner told the Court that it was his belief that the burden of proof and production is on the attempted foreclosure, and his observation is correct in my opinion. 5. At several points the Court berated the homeowner for filing a case for Declaratory Judgment even though he was subject to an order that his case on these grounds had been dismissed with prejudice. In point of fact the testimony revealed that homeowner Wetzelberger had never seen such order until recently, but rather he was basing his actions on an order from the same day that held that his Complaint was barred because of subject matter jurisdiction: There was a pending appeal. As such, the Order could NEVER be with prejudice because the Court LACKED JURISDICTION. Any first year law student can comprehend this, yet the Court and opposing counsel continued to assume that only the with prejudice Order was valid, showing clear cut bias in an attempt to bolster the finding that the homeowner had engaged in frivolous and vexatious litigation. See how Judge Norman, in a prior adverse ruling, relied only on the more negative order that could not be an order in the first place, again because the prior court lacked jurisdiction. That certainly shows clear-cut bias and antipathy toward the homeowner. Whoops.

6. Furthermore, The Court did not care whatsoever that the homeowner had attempted to obtain relevant information through extrajudicial discovery, and even chastised the homeowner for using the word extrajudicial by telling him to not to use such big words. The homeowner attempted to explain that he attempted lawful extrajudicial discovery (as permitted and mandated by RESPA and Local Court Rules) but Judge Norman -- a/k/a the ringer refused to hear him. 7. In a separate case Mr. Wetzelberger lawfully sought pre suit discovery against Attorney Renee Dyson. Judge Norman, sounding ignorant in the extreme, asked opposing counsel how could such a thing happen without a complaint being attached or words of substantially similar import. The Answer Your Honor is that pre suit discovery is completely legal in Maryland, in case you didnt know. But he doesnt care because he is too busy with his fixed goal in mind to make Mr. Wetzelberger into a vexatious litigant so he can shut him up and restrict his First Amendment Rights to plead. See my related video regarding this matter here:

http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2013/01/counsel-for-maryland-lawyerrenee.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RR3NIpzzUU

8. It gets worse: Some Asian Attorney for Renee Dyson complained that Mr. Wetzelberger was harassing her client in another case, after her client LOST her Motion to Dismiss. I believe it was Rita Ting Hopper, who had previously withdrawn on that other case as noted in the Mortgage Movies Journal link and rat video, above. The Court had told Mr. Wetzelberger to redefine some of his requests but at no point indicated his actions were frivolous. As Mr. Wetzelberger attempted to discuss the ramifications of that case Judge Mickey Norman interrupted him and lied, stating that he was not going to be addressing the other case yet and still when he issued sanctions he forbade Mr. Wetzelberger to file any more paperwork in this case or in another other related case, which did cause Attorney Hopper to nod her head enthusiastically. Judge Norman, in effect, completely lied.

9. Last but not least and this will be a matter for the IRS and other investigative agencies, the Form 1099A that was issued by M & T Bank noting in box 5 that the homeowner (i.e. purported debtor, buyer etc.) was not personally liable. This document was today entered into evidence. Attorney Lees head visibly dipped when this document was produced. It will be curious to see what happens next with regard to this document, much as the Court attempted to terminate any and all possible matters relative to this foreclosure the Court does NOT have jurisdiction to tell the IRS what to do or what not to do. Pardon my unsteady hand as this picture was taken on the courthouse steps this morning in a hurry but youll see more of this, and other related documents online and in a movie soon.

CONCLUSION

I am nowhere near nave. M&T Bank basically runs Maryland, and that is why I have seen so much activity on my tracker whenever I run a journal entry about any of this. M&T Bank administers the State pension fund as well. But those facts should never take a front seat to Justice, and that is what clearly happened in this and in many other cases I have been monitoring in the State with the highest foreclosure rate per capita in the United States.

PS: The clerk who originally said it was ok for me to set up was apparently on the Google about me during the hearing. So they cant find the Media Notices in the file But their law clerk/court clerk certainly knew how to find me during the hearing..... look at the times carefully. At one point I caught her staring and me and I just looked back and smiled, I know the game. Watch the times carefully: