Equal Justice News Release | News Release |  Predatory Lending News Release | Letter to Congress

“A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold.” - Proverb 22:1

Thanks & Praises be unto The Lord for the wisdom, knowledge and understanding on legal matter because I received countless feedbacks from folks facing foreclosure and bankruptcy around the United States as follows:

United States Court of Appeals - District of Massachusetts

Pierre Richard Augustin, PRO SE )

Appellant, )
)
v. ) 07-1750
)
Chase Home Finance, LLC )
Appellee. )

MOTION TO ‘SHOW CAUSE’ PER THE ORDER OF MAY 15, 2007

On May 11, 2007, Appellant submitted an ‘Emergency Motion for a Stay of the foreclosure set for May 16, 2007 and requested an ‘Expedited Review’. In that request, Appellant was only seeking a review of that part of the Order that denied the Stay on May 9, 2007 (not the Order granting motion to dismiss by the District Court).

Appellant was unaware that final judgment has not been entered since his requested for a default order against those two defendants were denied or not acted upon yet and assumed that he was facing dismissal against all defendants. Given that Appellant had filed a timely notice of appeal on April 26, 2007 to the First Circuit of the Court of Appeals, he wrongly assumed that an other notice of appeal was not needed at all.

Essentially, Appellant is now looking for an Expedited Review of this Emergency Motion For A Stay with the provided ‘Show Cause’ written explanation since the foreclosure date has been moved now for May 23, 2007. Thus, on May 15, 2007, Appellant filed for an Interlocutory Notice of Appeal at the District Court based on the facts pointed out by the Court of Appeals and has submitted a revised Motion and Memorandum of Law.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE FOR THE ‘SHOW OF CAUSE’
Is This Written Show Of Cause As Requested by The First Circuit Court of Appeals Intertwined With The Appellant’s Right To Defend His Property Interest On The Merits of ‘Equal Justice Under Law?

FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF ARGUMENT (Les Inusta Non Est Lex)
Ronald Dworkin regards law as an interpretive process under which individual rights are paramount. Therefore, let us consider the following two situation by Dworkin:

First Quotation by Dworkin
“An impatient beneficiary under a will murder the testator. Should he be
permitted to inherit?”

Appellant’s Contextual Analogy of First Quotation
Chase Home Finance as an impatient beneficiary strips away Appellant’s property rights despite his timely legal objections and defenses. Should Chase Home Finance be permitted to inherit the profit by selling Appellant’s property now set for May 23, 2007?

Second Quotation by Dworkin
“A chess grand master distracts his opponent by continually smiling at him.
The opponent objects. Is smiling in breach of the rule of chess?

Appellant’s Contextual Analogy of Second Quotation
Chase Home Finance blind folded their eyes and their two hands over their ears by not answering to Appellant’s timely legal objections and defenses by maintaining silence. Appellant objects but no one is looking or listening. Is the silence of Chase Home Finance in breach of the rules of law?

ARGUMENT
Are The Wordings of “Equal Justice Under Law” At The Façade of The U.S. Supreme Court An Abstract Theory Or A Fundamental Right?

The first quotation mentioned above by Dworkin is “drawn from the New York Decision of Riggs v. Palmer in 1899. The will in question was validly executed and was in the murderer’s favour. But whether a murderer could inherit was uncertain: the rules of testamentary succession provided no applicable exception. The murderer should therefore have a right to his inheritance. The New York Court held, however, that the application of the rules was subject to the principle that ‘no person should profit from his own wrong’. Hence, a murderer could not inherit from his victim.”

According to Dworkin, in the second quotation, “the referee is called upon to determine whether smiling is in breach of the rules of chess. The rules are silent. He must therefore consider the nature of chess as a game of intellectual skill; does this include the use of psychological intimidation? He must, in other words, find the answer that best ‘fits’ and explains the practice of chess.”

Appellant is a victim of Predatory Lending (See Motion on ‘Relevant Evidences’) and Mortgage Fraud initiated by New Century Mortgage Company. Appellant’s mortgage was assigned to Chase Home Finance or Deuthsche National Trust Company (Appellee).

As illustrated above in Appellant’s contextual analogy, he has been injured as a result of Appelle’s silence and other creditors wrongdoings. On February 2006, Appellant’s desperately sought to stop the sale of his house by another creditor unsuccessfully. However, ‘relevant new evidences’ have surfaced in the Washington Post (See Motion on Relevant Evidences) that confirm the fact that Appellant is a victim of predatory lending and mortgage fraud.

Also, according to an article entitled Mortgage fraud seen as prolonging U.S. housing slump, by Bob Ivry of Bloomberg News published on April 26, 2007 states that, "Misstatements about employment and income are being made every day," said Robert Russell, counsel to the director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, which oversees savings and loans. "The brokers are just putting down on paper what the underwriters would require.” The above mentioned article substantiate what Appellant’s has been arguing in his pleadings and motions.

The whole purpose of the law is that New Century Mortgage, Chase Home Finance or Deuthsche National Trust Company are responsible for the harm that arise out of their act. It should not fall on the Appellant, the innocent victim of that act who have acted timely to protect his property interests.

Collateral Order Doctrine
Appellant is seeking a review at the First Circuit, Court of Appeals, according to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 28 U.S.C. 1292, because of the irrefutable facts that Appellee and other creditors failed to respond to his timely TILA notice of rescission and the Mortgage Fraud issue as a defense to foreclosure.

The Supreme Court of the United States delineated the test for the availability of interlocutory appeals, called the collateral order doctrine, for United States federal courts in the case of (Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser et al., 490 U.S. 495 (1989), (Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949)), holding that under the relevant statute (28 U.S.C. § 1292) such an appeal would be permitted only if:

1. The outcome of the case would be conclusively determined by the issue
The Order of the District Court of May 9, 2007 conclusively states that it lacks jurisdiction to even consider the requested stay.

2. The matter appealed was collateral to the merits
As Massachusetts is a non-judicial foreclosure jurisdiction, Appellant will lose his rights of due process, if an entry for a stay by this Court is not granted because the sale of his home will be irreversible and render any subsequent and pending legal actions moot.

3. The matter was effectively unreviewable if immediate appeal was not allowed
The right of Appeal will be 'irretrievably lost' if immediate review is not available and granted.

CONCLUSION
Appellant cannot undo the damages that preceded. But, however harsh it may seems, the law provides Appellant with the right of rescission if he catches any technical violation within 3 years of the signing of the loan documents. Thus, Appellant’s TILA rescission notice was timely sent to Appellee and other creditors on September 21, 2006.

In the marble façade of the Supreme Court, the words one sees are “Equal Justice Under Law”.

Therefore, Appellant’s right of rescission has precedence, negated any foreclosure actions and voided the security interest in his property.

For that matter, Chase Home Finance [cannot be allowed]:
1. To profit from the Predatory Lending practices that it inherited from New Century Mortgage.
2. To remain ‘silent’ on the issues of mortgage fraud and TILA rescission.
3. To continuously defying, trampling and usurping Appellant’s rights and the rule of law.

Respectfully Submitted,
Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se
28 Cedar Street, #2, Lowell, MA 01852,
Tel: 617-202-8069