“It is said that, where it appears that a judgment was taken against appellant through the negligence of an attorney who had been employed by such party, nothing is left to the discretion of the court, and the judgment must be set aside.” Pierce v. Vialpando, 78 Idaho 274, 301 P.2d 1099 (1956).

We are now in Washington D.C. fighting to save our home and stop this attack. We intend to knock on every door in D.C. until our story is told, our name is cleared, and all that has been stolen from us is restored.

There is a lot more to our story. We will continue to upload it as time allows. Pray for us as we fight to make the banks do the right thing...for us, and for all homeowners and citizens across America. Get involved. It happened to us. It could happen to you.

The battle continues...



The Nickersons Touch Washington D.C.
In Faith And Prayer.

The Nickersons Touch Washington D.C. In Faith And Prayer




The Nickersons Launch A 50 State Campaign.
The 4610 Tour Expands And Continues.

The Nickersons Launch A 50 State Campaign



















Ronald Casperite had no personal knowledge of our accounts and we proved his claims were inaccurate, but the Judge relied upon them to grant summary judgment. We were denied access to employees with firsthand knowledge, their account notations, recorded conversations that corroborated all our claims, and other such evidence. The laws are in place to protect us from this type of corruption and abusive debt collection practices, but the judge refused to uphold and enforce them. Thus, we found ourselves without any advocate in the law.

Not even our attorney,











We sent the following request to the State of Idaho to question the legality of this.

We have received a document which contains a notary's seal, however, it is not signed by the notary. Is this a valid notarization? If not, please provide the Idaho Statute or policy which requires the notary to sign the document they are notarizing.

We received this response,
We produced evidence from Chase to show the assignment never occurred. As of January 10, 2014, in response to a QWR, Chase provided us a letter that stated they still owned the property. Chase stated,

January 10, 2014
We are not required to produce the original note which will remain in our possession...
The investor for this loan is JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association.


The Court ignored the evidence and allowed PHH and Chase's false and conflicting claims to be relied upon for judgments.

Judge Michael Griffin's opinions about our Note and Mortgage ownership and servicing were almost as conflicting as Chase and PHH's claims of ownership and servicing. We created a document entitled "Court Opinions on Note and Mortgage Ownership and Servicing" to show these contradictions. Below are some of the inconsistencies we found in Judge Griffin's renderings:

“Chase initially serviced this loan. There was no contract between Chase and the Nickersons that has been presented to the court.” Memorandum Opinion Re: Chases’ Motion For Summary Judgment, p. 2 (Nov. 16, 2012)

Problems with this opinion by Judge Michael Griffin:
Exhibit B of PHH’s Complaint is an assignment of note and mortgage from Chase to PHH dated June 9, 2010. This assignment allegedly assigns the contract from Chase to PHH. Therefore, despite Chase’s assertion that they never owned the note, the evidence presented to the court demonstrated there was a contract between Chase and our family. This misrepresentation creates a genuine issue of material fact that defeats summary judgment in favor of Chase. This is especially true when Chase's assertion that there was never a contract between Chase and the Nickersons is why the court dismissed our breach of contract claims by summary judgment.

As a matter of record, Chase denies this assignment ever occurred and has provided letters to us stating they purchased our loan on December 3, 2009, and that as of January 10, 2014, they had our Note in their possession and they were the investor on the loan. Chase had a contract with us, the Nickersons. PHH and Chase committed fraud against the Court to steal our property and defraud our family.

Additionally, there was never any evidence presented for the Court to determine Chase initially serviced the loan. The Court later contradicts himself in his memorandum regarding PHH's second motion for summary judgment.


“The note was initially serviced by J P Morgan Chase Bank (Chase) and later reconveyed to PHH.” Memorandum Opinion Re: PHH’s Motion For Summary Judgment, p. 2 (Nov. 16, 2012)

Problem with this opinion by Judge Michael Griffin: Chase did not initially service our note (see above)


“The note was initially serviced by Mortgage Service Center. J P Morgan Chase Bank (Chase) owned the note and serviced the loan from the end of 2007 until the beginning of 2010. At that time, the Mortgage Service Center resumed servicing the loan.  PHH owned the loan when this lawsuit was filed.” Memorandum Opinion Re: Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 2 (Apr. 4, 2014)  

Problems with this opinion by Judge Michael Griffin:
The Court contradicted its previous memorandums that state Chase initially serviced the note by stating Mortgage Service Center initially serviced the note. The Court contradicted the material facts that he relied upon to grant summary judgments to Chase and PHH. Contradicting a material fact, by definition, constitutes a genuine issue of material fact that prohibits summary judgment. Therefore, Judge Griffin, by his contradictions, admitted there were genuine issues of material fact in existence when he granted summary judgment to Chase and PHH. Thus, those summary judgment decisions are not lawful, should have been vacated, and are unenforceable.  

Further, the Court claims Chase owned the Note in this opinion. This contradicts its previous finding that there was no contract between Chase and the Nickersons. This contradiction also constitutes a genuine issue of material fact which voids and invalidates Judge Griffin's previous summary judgment orders.  

At the time this opinion was rendered, supplemental evidence was in the Court's chambers that demonstrated Chase had the note in its possession and claimed to be the investor on the loan as of January 2014. The evidence also established Chase had purchased the loan on December 3, 2009. Despite this evidence, the Court still claimed PHH owned the loan when the lawsuit was filed in 2011. Judge Griffin intentionally refused to consider the evidence that was in his chambers that proves fraud on the part of PHH and Chase and denies PHH any standing whatsoever.  Therefore, all of Judge Griffin’s orders and judgments are tainted by his prejudice and must be overturned.


“The original loan to the Nickersons was made by Coldwell Banker Mortgage. The loan was originally serviced by Mortgage Service Center. The note was assigned from Coldwell Banker Mortgage to Fannie Mae in December of 2002.  J.P. Morgan Chase acquired the note in November of 2007. In November of 2007 Chase Home Financial took over servicing the loan. Chase assigned the note to PHH in 2010 (June). In February of 2010 Mortgage Service Center again began servicing the loan.” Memorandum Opinion Re: Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment
, p. 3 (Apr. 4, 2014) See problems regarding pg 2.  

Problem with this opinion by Judge Michael Griffin:
The only evidence in the record that Coldwell Banker sold the loan to Fannie Mae in 2002 is a letter from Fannie Mae that states Fannie Mae acquired interest in the loan in December 2002. However, the court barred itself from considering this evidence when he deemed it inadmissible hearsay. If the evidence was inadmissible, then how could the Court cite it as an undisputed fact?!

Further, the letter from Fannie Mae states Fannie Mae’s interest in our loan terminated on December 3, 2009. This is the same day Chase’s Notice of New Creditor letter states Chase acquired interest in our loan.


“At the time PHH filed its Complaint they were the beneficiary of the Deed of Trust. The Nickersons allegations that PHH did not have standing or a beneficial interest are erroneous and not supported by any evidence.” Memorandum Opinion Re: Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 4 (Apr. 4, 2014)

Problem with this opinion by Judge Michael Griffin:
The court had the evidence in its chambers disputing and contradicting PHH’s claims at the time of this opinion. A letter from Chase demonstrated Chase had beneficial interest as of 2014. Judge Griffin simply chose to ignore this evidence so he could rule as he pleased. Again, the laws are in place to save our ranch...

The law cannot be bent by favor, not broken by power, nor corrupted by money; for not only if it be overthrown, but even if it be neglected or carelessly preserved, there is nothing secure in what anyone may think he has, or will inherit from his father, or yet may leave to his children. Cicero, ProCaecina 73


The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's rulings by ignoring the inconsistencies and contradictions that had plagued the case and how they had prejudiced our ability to allege and defend our claims.

Supreme Court Opinion on Note and Mortgage Ownership and Servicing

“The district court determined that the original loan to the Nickersons was made by Coldwell Banker Mortgage and was originally serviced by Mortgage Service Center. In December of 2002, the note was assigned to Fannie Mae, and J.P. Morgan Chase acquired the note in November of 2007, at which point Chase Home Financial began servicing the loan. In February of 2010, Mortgage Service Center resumed responsibility for loan servicing, and in June of 2010, Chase assigned the note to PHH.” PHH Morg. v. Nickerson 160 Idaho 388, 374 P.3d 551 (2016).

Problem with this opinion by the Idaho Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court rubber stamps the facts of the District Court and refuses to perform a true de novo review of the summary judgment proceedings that had occurred at the District Court level. The Supreme Court also ignored the evidence that Chase sent us a letter dated January 10, 2014, in which it states Chase has the note in its possession and is the investor on the loan. This evidence denies PHH standing to foreclose and requires summary judgment be overturned.

By affirming the facts of the District Court, the Supreme Court confirms Chase lied to the Court and committed fraud by claiming it never purchased, owned or sold our note. Yet, the Supreme Court still allowed Chase’s summary judgment dismissing our claims to stand.  

Chase denied they acquired the Note in 2007. Fannie Mae claims to have still had the Note until 2009. Chase claimed in 2014 they still had the Note. There are a lot of problems with this opinion. The fraud, corruption and attack against our family must be stopped. Pray! Get involved!! It happened to us. It could happen to you.

Over and over we communicated to Chase, PHH, Wells Fargo, opposing counsels, and the Courts it was our desire, intent and financial ability to save the ranch.

This is our home.
We want to keep it.
We have the wherewithal to keep it.
We will fight to keep it.


Even though the truth sets us free, and the evidence speaks for itself, the Courts have ruled against us.

The Truth
We were on time and in good standing with Chase in January 2010. There was no default. PHH took over the note in February and claimed we were in default. PHH's claims changed over and over both before and during the litigation. PHH refused to produce any records to demonstrate default. We were never provided an opportunity to cure the alleged default. The falsified claims of default produced during the litigation were provided by persons without personal knowledge, in the form of an illegitimate affidavit that was not properly notarized, and with conflicting records. As a matter of record, their claims of default changed by over $11,000 during the litigation alone and demonstrated a $0 balance with a refund of $1,186.90 is due to our family. Chase claimed PHH had all records. PHH claimed Chase had all records. We begged for records. None were forthcoming.

PHH provided an affidavit with their documentation to try and establish default. We noticed the affidavit was not notarized.


We found out Kirsten was a robosigner and produced evidence the alleged assignment from Chase to PHH was robosigned.
After denying any involvement in our Note and Mortgage whatsoever and claiming to have been only the Servicer to prevail in the first summary judgment, Chase and PHH then claimed Chase had transferred ownership to PHH so PHH could prevail in the second summary judgment. Though Chase denied their involvement in the assignment from Coldwell Banker to Chase in their answer,

(from above)
6. Responding to Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, JPMorgan admits that the Nickersons' Note and Mortgage were assigned by Coldwell, but lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the parties and dates of assignment(s) and therefore denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.'S ANSWER TO THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT pg 3

Judge Michael Griffin determined Coldwell Banker originated the loan, sold it to Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae sold it to Chase, and Chase sold it to PHH. Again, Chase denied ownership and claimed they were the Servicer only to secure the first summary judgment. Then, in total contradiction, PHH claimed standing solely based on an assignment from Chase to PHH to establish PHH's ownership in the second summary judgment. Judge Griffin went along with both narratives even though they contradicted each other.

Take a look at the assignment from Chase to PHH. It is totally fraudulent. Excerpts....

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT FOR VALUE RECEIVED, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A., AS BENEFICIARY, hereinafter referred to as "Assignor", does hereby, without recourse, sell, assign, endorse and transfer unto, PHH Mortgage Corporation all of its right, title and interest in and to the following:

It was signed by a Kirsten Bailey. We did our research to try to find Kirsten so she could be deposed and we could prove this assignment was fraudulent.
This Truth Detector Graph helps to demonstrate the impossibility of their claims.
A little history
In February 2010, Chase and PHH claimed the servicing transferred from Chase to PHH. We were on time and current in January 2010. Then PHH took over the loan and claimed we were in default. We asked for our records to show PHH all the documentation. PHH claimed no records were transferred to them. We contacted Chase, and Chase claimed they no longer had any of our account records. Chase refused to let us speak with Kim, the person who was most familiar with our account. We tried everything we knew to do to gain access to our records, but PHH claimed only Chase could provide our records and Chase refused. PHH refused to validate their claims there was a default. There was no default....

In May 2013, Fannie Mae indicated Chase was the Servicer on our account. See the excerpts from Fannie Mae above. 

Broken Title. False claims of default. Abusive debt collection. A mortgage nightmare!
We created a graph on the broken chain of title to try to help simplify the web of lies and deceit created by PHH, Chase and their accomplices.
Chase agrees this assignment is invalid and not binding. They denied the note and mortgage were assigned to them...or at least that they had any knowledge of their involvement with it in their answer to the Complaint.

Excerpt from JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. Answer To Third Party Complaint

6. Responding to Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, JPMorgan admits that the Nickersons' Note and Mortgage were assigned by Coldwell, but lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the parties and dates of assignment(s) and therefore denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.'S ANSWER TO THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT pg 3

The Paragraph 7 they are referring to simply states,
Coldwell assigned the Note and Mortgage to Chase on or about December 20, 2007.

Chase's denial of this assignment, that was in the record, caused us to start digging deeper to find out what was really going on. Their denials did not stop. Chase repeatedly denied ever purchasing the note and claimed to be the Servicer only during the first summary judgment process to avert providing discovery.


This excerpt from pages 23 - 24 of our Memorandum In Support of Motion To Reconsider Judgment details some of Chase's denials and false claims:

First, the Nickersons would like to direct the Courts attention to the contradictory undisputed facts. The Court states, “J P Morgan Chase Bank (Chase) owned the note and serviced the loan from the end of 2007 until the beginning of 2010…PHH owned the loan when this lawsuit was filed…” and goes on to state, “The note was assigned from Coldwell Banker Mortgage to Fannie Mae in December 2002. J.P. Morgan Chase acquired the note in November 2007…Chase assigned the note to PHH in 2010 (June).” The Nickersons contend a contradictory statement does not qualify as an undisputed fact and, in fact, by definition a contradiction makes it a disputed fact.

1. The record indicates Chase received the Note via an assignment from Coldwell in November 2007. However, as the Court attests above Coldwell assigned the Note to Fannie Mae in 2002. Coldwell could not assign the Note to Chase in 2007 when it had already assigned it to Fannie Mae in 2002. This is a contradiction to what is represented by the Court as an undisputed fact.

2. Chase, in paragraph 6 of their answer to the Nickersons Third Party Complaint allegation that Coldwell assigned the Note and Mortgage to Chase on or about November 20, 2007, states, “JPMorgan admits that the Nickersons’ Note and Mortgage were assigned by Coldwell, but lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the parties and dates of assignment(s) and therefore denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.” Chase is denying Coldwell assigned the Note to them which contradicts what the Court claims is an undisputed fact that Chase acquired the Note in 2007.

3. In response to the Nickersons interrogatories and request for production, Chase denies owning, purchasing or selling the Nickersons note eight times and claims to have been a servicer only (see Affidavit of John Mitchell, 1/22/13, Exhibit C). This testimony strongly contradicts what the Court has entered in the memorandum as undisputed facts. Chase claims they never owned the Note. Therefore, they could not have assigned it to PHH in June 2010 nor could they have acquired it in 2007.

a. “…JPMorgan further objects to this interrogatory as it mischaracterizes the facts, contending that JPMorgan purchased the Nickersons’ note, whereas, JPMorgan was servicer of the note and not a purchaser.” PAGE 2, ANSWER NO. 1
b. “…JPMorgan objects to this interrogatory because it mischaracterizes the facts, contending that JPMorgan purchased the Nickersons’ note, whereas, JPMorgan was servicer of the note and not a purchaser.” PAGE 3, ANSWER NO. 2
c. “…JPMorgan, as a servicer of the loan, did not “sell” the Nickersons’ note.” PAGE 3, ANSWER NO. 3
d. “…JPMorgan did not purchase, own or sell the Nickersons’ note and merely acted as a servicer of the loan.” PAGE 3, ANSWER NO. 4
e. “…JPMorgan further objects to this interrogatory as it mischaracterizes the facts, contending that JPMorgan was the owner of the note, in a position to determine to foreclose or not to foreclose, when in fact, JPMorgan was a servicer of the note.” PAGE 4, ANSWER NO. 7
f. “…As a servicer for the Nickersons’ loan, JPMorgan is not aware of the information exchanged in the transfer/sale of the note between buyer and seller.” PAGE 5, ANSWER NO. 9
g. “…when in fact, JPMorgan was merely a servicer of the note.” PAGES 5-6 ANSWER NO. 10
h. “…JPMorgan did not purchase the Note, but was merely a servicer of the Note.” PAGE 14, RESPONSE NO. 11

4. PHH in their answer to the Nickerson interrogatories claims they received the Note via a transfer from Fannie Mae which contradicts what the Court has represented as an undisputed fact the PHH received the Note via an assignment from Chase. “that it held the original note through its subsidiary, Coldwell Banker. PHH believes that note was transferred to the Federal Home Mortgage Association, (Fannie Mae), which in turn, had JP Morgan Chase service the note…Fannie Mae assigned the note back to PHH as the originating lender.” PAGE 2, ANSWER 1. . (see Affidavit of John Mitchell, 1/22/13, Exhibit D).


In paragraph 3 of Chase's memorandum in support of summary judgment, Chase states,
The Note was immediately sold to Freddie Mac...(emphasis added)

In paragraph 9 of the memorandum in support of summary judgment, Chase states,
In February 2010, PHH repurchased the Note from Freddie Mac and began servicing the Note. (emphasis added)

If Chase did not own the Note, they could not transfer it to PHH. Thus, the "undisputed facts" the Court relied upon to render the first and second summary judgments are invalid and Chase and PHH need to explain their differing accounts and answer for the falsified records.

Additionally, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are two totally different entities. PHH and Coldwell Banker are also two different entities. Remember Cendant and the mortgage crisis they created? PHH is apparently trying to claim some rights to our property through their spinoff from Cendant. However, their timeline is off. Good try. Not valid. PHH and Coldwell Banker had no connection and were not the same entity in 2002. Therefore, PHH had no rights granted regarding this property, and any involvement Coldwell Banker ever had with it is irrelevant in regards to PHH. PHH was not the originating lender and has no lawful right to claim otherwise.

Even if they were, Fannie Mae provided a letter dated May 2, 2013 that claims Fannie Mae bought the note on December 27, 2002 and sold the Note on December 3, 2009. Excerpt....

Dear Ms. Nickerson,

Thank you from contacting Fannie Mae. You requested a written response to your letter dated 4/18/13.

Please be advised that Fannie Mae does not own your loan. Our records show that the loan was sold to Fannie Mae on 12/27/2002, and Fannie Mae's interest in the loan terminated as of 12/3/2009. Your request for copies of your loan file, communications and correspondence should be directed to your mortgage servicer, JP Morgan Chase.

And...Chase sent us a new creditor letter stating,
We have filled the Idaho records with evidence that fatally defeats foreclosure against our property and the targeted assault against our name, family, and entire financial portfolio. We have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that our property is being unlawfully seized, that there is no default, that PHH has no standing to foreclose, that we have been targeted for our faith without cause or right, and the list goes on. The laws are in place that protect us from this malicious attack, but laws have no value unless they are enforced. Read the evidence below. The evidence speaks for itself.

Per Idaho law, falsifying records is a felony offense.

Offering false or forged instruments for record.
I.C. § 18-3203 Every person who knowingly procures or offers any false or forged instrument to be filed, registered or recorded in any public office within this state, which instrument, if genuine, might be filed, or registered, or recorded under any law of this state, or of the United States, is guilty of a felony.

The recorded assignment from Coldwell Banker to Chase in 2007 is fraudulent, invalid and did not actually occur




















































 

 

















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































The Truth Will Set Us Free
The evidence speaks for itself
We had no idea how many dots there would be to connect when we began this fight. Nor did we know how evil those we entrusted our life savings and dreams to were. Our story will be updated in the coming days. Right now all efforts and resources are being expended in fighting bad guys and trying to stop this assault. Pray for us!
Connecting the dots
finding and painting the big picture
VISUAL TIMELINE OF THE IDAHO BATTLE
Click on the image below to view a visual timeline of our story.

In A State Called Idaho
our journey through the injustice system
It Happened To Us In Idaho
The Nick and Donna Nickerson Family
We purchased a property and increased our equity.
We bought a property in 2002. We bought the property to have a place to share with caregivers, people who help others. It was a ranch parcel with a rustic log home and a few outbuildings. Our family worked hard, developed the property, increased our equity, and built a ranch we could be proud of. Our note was on time and in good standing with Coldwell Banker Mortgage for six years. In 2008, Chase took over our loan, messed up our records, and acted rude on the phone.

Chase and PHH took over our mortgage, messed up our records and tried to foreclose.
For two years we had nothing but accounting errors and mortgage inconsistencies on our note. Chase refused to send statements or provide payment receipts so we could review our account or document errors and corrections to our account. They relentlessly victimized us with threatening phone calls; dual billing, “triple” tracking (account in good standing, foreclosure threats, modification help available – sometimes all three claims in the same day); force-placed homeowner insurance policies; inaccurate default letters; libel and slander of credit; inaccurate payment records and reporting created by refusing payments and placing payments tendered into suspense accounts; hiding and embezzling escrow moneys; and other such abusive debt collection practices. Communicating with Chase was a nightmare until we met a Chase representative named Kim who worked with us and the research department to get all the records straightened out. Kim confirmed our note was showing current and in good standing as of January 2010. A few days later we were told the note was sold to PHH and everything kind of went crazy from there, as if it could get any crazier. Kim contacted us and warned us something illegal was going on with our account and a lot of other Chase accounts. Kim then disappeared. PHH Mortgage Company, who claimed to be the new owner of the note, refused to accept any payments. PHH immediately began foreclosure proceedings, destroyed our credit, reduced our long standing income and pursued the theft of years of equity from our family. We contacted their attorneys, Just Law of Idaho Falls, Idaho. Even after hearing our story, seeing proof of the accounting errors, being told by us and our attorney we wanted to keep the property and had the wherewithal to do so, Braden Howell and Jason Rammell of Just Law told us they had been hired to foreclose and that is what they were going to do.

We continued to pay the second on the property while trying to stop the hostile takeover.
We had a second on the property with Wells Fargo that was larger than the first. Even though the first note was in foreclosure, and we were informed we did not have to, we continued to pay the second note. Though we had lost income because of the fraudulent activities of Chase and PHH, we made whatever sacrifices we could and continued to pay it. We worked with a representative named Heather Hummel at Wells Fargo who did everything she could to help. Heather Hummel encouraged us to keep on fighting and to not give up. Heather Hummel thanked us for each payment, acknowledged how hard we were working and how much "Wells Fargo" appreciated it. Heather reached out to her managers to see if our first note could be brought in house. We had a long-standing solid relationship with Wells Fargo, multiple accounts, plenty of equity in other assets, but Wells Fargo surprisingly refused. Heather indicated their decision did not make any sense as the bank would generally want to move into first position when possible. Wells Fargo claimed they could not help or intervene because of our damaged credit score. This was absolutely amazing to us. Our relationship with Wells Fargo and our financial reputation was solid and established. In fact, one of their personal bankers, Teresa Koepke, had stated our credit score was the highest score she had ever personally seen just before this event occurred. She was very familiar with our accounts and contacted different departments to secure help. Wells Fargo knew Chase's inaccurate record keeping and fraud had caused our credit problem. However, we were told banking practices had changed. New rules had been established because of the bailouts and the Obama administration’s new banking regulations. We were told Obama had passed legislation that prevented anyone who had been late or reported late on their payments from receiving a loan or accessing their equity accounts. Wells Fargo told us they were bound to abide by the new regulations. Jody Lauzon, a Wells Fargo Mortgage Representative, who knew us, our payment history, our income history, our credit history, and had processed a home equity line for us in the past, tried to help. There was nothing even she could do.

Others tried to help.
Wells Fargo employees along with other outside sources like Genworth Financial repeatedly told PHH Mortgage Company to work with us to no avail. Genworth representatives sent multiple emails and made phone calls to PHH on our behalf. Even Genworth's legal department looked at the case and stated emphatically there was no financial or other basis for a foreclosure and recommended PHH Mortgage Company work with us immediately. No response was forthcoming from PHH Mortgage Company.

Our family was abused and victimized by those we trusted to help.
Sadly, the battle in Idaho expanded to include our Montana home and our entire financial portfolio. Wells Fargo revealed their true involvement in this attack against our family, and HSBC joined the fight. (You can read about the Montana story on the Montana Our Story page.) We kept fighting, but the fraud, corruption and abuse kept getting bigger and more widespread. Our journey is so long and has so many twists and turns. We have tried to document our story with legal documents, reports, video documentaries, testimonies, and other such evidence. The enormous expenditure of effort and energy required to fight the bad guys has consumed our time and resources.

The worst part is the abuse, the pain, the suffering continued and continues even now.
We finally had a court date on the Idaho Ranch the first week of December 2012. Knowing our story would soon be in front of a judge and jury and the nightmare would be over is what kept us going for most of 2012. Having it over is what we all wanted for Christmas that year. Then the week before trial they moved the trial date to February 2013. It was not the first time justice had been pushed out. It was more than we could handle. We were battle weary, but our family unanimously decided and committed that day to fight all the way for our home. The family battle cry became no more silence and no more abuse. Unfortunately, stopping the abuse proved much harder than we expected. We underestimated and did not recognize the lengths our enemies would go in their assault.

Wells Fargo fired Heather Hummel, then denied her existence.
Heather Hummel had been with Wells Fargo bank for almost 20 years. Her reputation was one of stellar performance. In fact, she led in the Independent Review department when it was first ordered. Heather’s direct involvement with our account and others experiencing similar abuse uncovered illegal and immoral activity at Wells Fargo. Apparently Wells Fargo quickly tried to move her off our account without letting her tell us goodbye or communicating with us in any way. Heather refused to allow her name to be added to the list of those who had failed to stand up for what was right and had done nothing to help us, so she refused. Wells Fargo fired Heather, restricted her from access to our contact information, and denied her existence. We finally made them admit she had worked there, but they denied knowing what department she had been transferred to. All contact with Heather Hummel was lost at that time. (Read more about Heather Hummel) Wells Fargo then, after we had willingly made payments for several years when we had no legal obligation to continue doing so, quit working with us, ceased communication, and closed the account. Wells Fargo then focused on stealing our Montana ranch and entire financial portfolio in a rather comprehensive fraud scheme. The condensed version is they put our Montana Note into a closed trust, refused to accept payments, prevented performance, and had another bank file for foreclosure. (Read more about the Montana story)

We then lost our attorney.
Our attorney directed us to post the following update to this site in late February 2013….

UPDATE FROM ATTORNEY JOHN MITCHELL OF CLARK & FEENEY
The trial scheduled to begin February 25th, 2013 has been vacated! Prior to trial the Court was asked to dismiss the foreclosure action based on improper pleadings, improper service, and deficient/fraudulent documents, and to reinstate our counterclaims. While the Court holds that PHH and its foreclosure action deserves its day in court despite unfavorable law and facts, the Court holds that it will not reinstate the Nickerson counterclaims despite law to the contrary and grotesque amounts of damages being suffered by the Nickersons. An appeal has been filed and amended counterclaims will be pursued. It appears that the level of fraud and cover up is not limited to Chase and PHH! Other entities engaged facilitated and profited in this fraudulent activity. A federal case is in the process of being filed. Federal regulatory complaints have been filed and a federal investigation is underway. We will post more on these entities and their activities soon so stay posted.

At the time of this posting, our counterclaim had been struck, an adverse summary judgment had been granted without our knowledge or defense, no appeal had been filed, and our attorney had secretly filed a motion to withdraw from our case. Our attorney, who we believed was standing as a friend to us and as an advocate to justice, had misled and would continue to mislead us for some time about the legal status of both the Idaho and Montana actions. Addiction problems, unbeknownst to us, had created financial and mental health issues that caused him to fall prey to the schemes of the bank. Eventually, he regretfully admitted to his negligence, resigned from the bar, and informed the Idaho Court via affidavit he had deceived us. We inherited a prejudiced case. We continued the fight as pro se litigants. More on this later.

We told our story in a music video and on www.ithappenedtous.com.
We had grown tired of being silent victims. We had turned all the cheeks we had. So we decided to write some songs and create www.ithappenedtous.com to tell our story. The first It Happened To Us Music Video chronicles how the battle began in Idaho. You can follow our story here at www.ithappenedtous.com. Our music and documentation videos can also be viewed at www.youtube.com/ithappenedtous or click below to play the video.


The Idaho injustice system ignored our pleas for justice.
Part 2 of It Happened To Us In Idaho chronicles the journey through the injustice system as pro se litigants. The record and facts are clear. Laws have been broken. Justice has been thwarted and unjustly held hostage. Our family has been abused. Our property rights have been denied. Our right to a defense and due process have been quashed. The current status is the court has ordered the immediate sale of the Idaho property. Our property rights are being transferred to PHH, an entity that has no rights to our property whatsoever, nor have they ever had rights to our property, using forged and fraudulent, robo-signed documents.

This wrongful foreclosure is occurring when Chase, PHH, and the Court have made conflicting claims of ownership and renderings:
Chase claimed to have never had ownership in the property to avert discovery that implicated them in criminal wrongdoing and to secure a summary judgment in their favor. Judge Menahan determined Chase had never been the owner nor had they had a contract with us.
PHH claimed chain of title and right to standing was received from Chase, the entity that had no ownership and never had a contract with us. Judge Menahan granted summary judgment in favor of PHH based on these conflicting claims.
Chase then contradicted both claims used in the summary judgment process by formally admitting to having had ownership and even being the current owner of the property in response to QWRs.

Multiple different chains of assignment have been claimed and recorded that refute the Court's determinations and findings, but the Court ignored all evidence presented. Thus, the judgments and renderings in this wrongful foreclosure are based on false claims and they unlawfully create double liability for us. We were unable to reverse them on appeal because Judge Menahan, in his own words, had created a record he was confident could not be overturned by the Supreme Court. This was in addition to telling us, we, the Nick and Donna Nickerson Family, could not find relief in his courtroom.

The judgment and renderings in favor of PHH granting authority to wrongfully foreclose on our property prejudicially and maliciously ignore irrefutable facts:

No default or proof of default in the record
Account statements demonstrate and corroborate our testimony of no default
Notary fraud and invalid notarization voids documents being relied upon per the State of
  New Jersey where the notarization was executed
Grotesquely inaccurate accounting
Contradictory claims of default by PHH and Chase
Failure to provide federally mandated notifications
Standing fatally defeated by issues of fact regarding chain of title
Concealment of records, evidence and witnesses
Admitted attorney negligence
An unconscionable contract
Over 100 discrepancies, contradictions, and falsehoods made by PHH in the record
And the list goes on...

We have done nothing to grant cause or right to anyone to foreclose on our ministry ranch. This is theft. No sale date has been set yet. Check back for updates as they unfold.

We have fought and will continue to fight all the way.
Our family has suffered immeasurable and indescribable financial, emotional and physical loss fighting this battle. We have lost more than words can express - time, health, testimony, business opportunities, income, peace, dreams, life. The loss has permeated every area of our life and our family’s lives. The fight continues…

We want every home in America to see what these companies have done, and how much pain and suffering they have caused, not only to us, but to millions of others. We want America to see the injustice. We want America to realize we are not the only ones the banks have done it to, or are going to do it to, if we the people do not stand up and stop them. Look in the legal section of your paper. How many foreclosures were posted this week? The foreclosure crisis is not over for them, or us. Many of these homeowners will never even have an opportunity to appear before a judge to challenge the lawfulness of the actions being taken against them. Many of them are, like us, innocent. We did not default. We did nothing wrong. We are just a normal American family. We have worked hard. We have given our all. Please understand it happened to us, and, it can happen to you.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…Next to the right of liberty, the right of property is the most important individual right guaranteed by the Constitution, and the one which, united with that of personal liberty, has contributed more to the growth of civilization than any other institution established by the human race…I believe the banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
Thomas Jefferson

Our family has fought all the way, but each day begins a new day and a new chapter of fighting. We are unwilling to be silent or silenced victims. We wish none of this had happened. We did not ask for this battle and did nothing to deserve this battle. Nonetheless, this battle has come to us so we are resolved to fight for our family, our home, our way of life, and to preserve our good name. Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide, in the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side.

A NOTICE TO THE BANKS FROM THE NICKERSON FAMILY
Chase, PHH, Wells Fargo, HSBC, your accomplices, we are inviting the world to watch your abuse. We have tried to fight all along, but, make no mistake, today is a new day. No more silence. No more abuse. With the eyes of the world watching, the real fight begins. Before God and man, we launch what may prove to be the most determined offensive attack against banksters in the history of the United States. With cause and with right, we go to war.

Therefore, we, the Nickerson family, because we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, declare that to secure these rights, we will make our voice be heard against the tyranny and oppression of the perpetrators of the mortgage holocaust that plagues this country. It is our right and duty to tell our story until the highest authorities in this land stop the hostile takeover of home ownership by banksters who have become our most dangerous domestic and foreign enemies. We will fight these property right terrorists all the way with the weapons of resolve, publicity, justice and prayer; and today, tomorrow, or in eternity, with the help of truth and justice, we will win.

So help us God,
The Nickerson Family  

And in this do we exercise ourselves to have a conscience void of offense toward God and man. Acts 24:16


Idaho Updates

When we found out PHH had scheduled a public sale of the Idaho Ranch for August 2017, we attempted to stop the sale.

Response in Opposition to Motion to Set Aside Stay and Issuance of Writ of Execution and Order of sale
 

COMES NOW, Defendants, Charles and Donna Nickerson, request PHH’s Motion to Set Aside Stay and Issuance of Writ and Order of Sale be denied. As this Court has found previously, proceeding with a premature execution of judgment perpetuates unnecessary and unwarranted additional harm and damage against our family, our reputation, and the security of our property. It also places Clearwater County and the world at large at unnecessary risk and jeopardy.

As a general rule, a person who causes a writ of execution to issue upon judgment which is later vacated is liable for the damages caused by the wrongful execution. 3D Am. Jur. 2d, Executions, Etc. § 525 Persons liable; officers and assistants

This is especially true in light of the extraordinary circumstances that have surrounded this case in regards to the denial of equal access to justice for our family, the evidences of fraud and misrepresentations that have been presented, and the abuse of process suffered. Further, the facts and true merits of this case support that the final resolution of this case will require the quashing of any execution of judgment against us and demand a complete reversal of judgment in favor of PHH or Chase. It is therefore inappropriate to move forward with an improper execution based on irregular and fraudulent premises. The appeal is still ongoing as we have an unopposed Objection to Costs and Fees and Motion for Sanctions before the Supreme Court requesting Chase be sanctioned in accordance with I.R.C.P. 11(c) and I.A.R. 11.2(a) for “signing and certifying documents to the Court ‘that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact.’ The admissions, interrogatories, briefs and affidavits of Chase presented to the Supreme Court in the record contain statements that are false, not supported by any evidence and conflict with the facts the Court deemed to be undisputed and relied upon to rule against us.” See Objection to Costs and Fees and Motion for Sanctions submitted to this Court in conjunction with our Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Quash Execution and Judgment. By affirming District Court Judge Griffin, the Supreme Court has, in effect and by judgment, found Chase lied. Chase obtained summary judgment in its favor by fraud, and thus, it must be vacated and cannot be relied upon. Because PHH committed fraud in conjunction with Chase, PHH’s case is jeopardized, their standing is fatally flawed, and thus, their entire complaint is based upon false premises. Genuine issues of material facts remain that must be resolved prior to judgment being rendered in favor of PHH and in order to prevent future claims and forthcoming litigation. Therefore, justice and judicial economy require the stay remain in force pending the resolution of the appeal.

In addition to the facts and argument submitted below, we request the Court to consider the facts and argument contained in our Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Quash Execution and Judgment submitted in conjunction with this response.

ARGUMENT

As detailed in our argument regarding our motion to stay and incorporated herein, there are numerous inconsistencies, contradictions and falsehoods District Court Judge Griffin relied upon and perpetrated that, as a matter of law, require the summary judgments in favor of PHH and Chase to be reversed. Our due process and right to a defense has been violated and obstructed by the willful and malicious actions and inactions of PHH, Chase, and those acting on their behalf. Therefore, prior to executing the false and fraudulently obtained judgment and in order to avoid future claims, suffering, and damages, we request this Court recognize PHH and Chase must, at a minimum, provide irrefutable proof and documentation regarding the following genuine issues of material fact.

1. The true chain of title and holder of the note. Chase, throughout this litigation, has declared they never owned the note (R. 109 – Charles Nickerson’s and Donna Nickerson’s Amended Answer, Counterclaim, Third Party Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial – p. 3, L. 11; R. p. 128 – JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA’s Answer to Third Party Complaint – p. 3; R. pp. 747-751, 759, 760 – JPMorgan Chase Bank’s Answers and Responses to Defendants Charles and Donna Nickerson’s First set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, pp. 2-6, 14, 15). PHH claims Coldwell Banker Mortgage initiated the note, sold it to Fannie Mae in 2002 and Fannie Mae transferred it back to PHH in 2010 (R. 882 – Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Nickersons’ First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production – p. 2). Judge Griffin found, contradicting and disputing his own undisputed facts, Coldwell Banker Mortgage initiated the note, sold it to Chase in 2007 and Chase sold it to PHH in 2010. The facts the Nickersons presented through documentation provided by Chase and Fannie Mae demonstrate Coldwell Banker Mortgage sold the note to Fannie Mae in 2002, Fannie Mae sold the note to Chase in 2009 (R. 1112, 1139-1140 – Affidavit of Charles Nickerson in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment – Exhibits 6 and 9) and that as of January 2014 Chase had the note in their possession and was the investor on the loan (R. 1232 – Notice of Supplemental Evidence – Exhibit A). Only the holder of the note has the authority to foreclose, and based on the evidence before the Court, PHH was not the holder of the Note when they initiated this action in 2011. Further, the copies of the notes PHH and Chase provided are different (SAR. 30 – Motion for Relief from Judgment – p.10, L. 23-31). Therefore, this Court must recognize PHH and Chase have not proven with admissible evidence that PHH held the note when they filed this complaint, their complaint must be dismissed with prejudice, and they must be held accountable for fraud and liable for the significant and substantial abuse, suffering and damages inflicted upon our family, our ranch, our reputation, and our entire financial portfolio. Allowing them to proceed with this wrongful foreclosure endorses their malicious actions, encourages their mortgage fraud and abusive debt collection practices, and demonstrates willful and malicious negligence and abuse in these proceedings.

2. Default and default amount. PHH prevented our performance by refusing to accept our payments, refusing to validate their claimed default amount even after we provided proof of payments made, failing to provide proper and accurate notifications, and pushing foreclosure based on an inaccurate and non-existent default amount. State and federal laws governing mortgages and debt collection require PHH and Chase to provide a strict accounting, using the account records submitted in evidence, in order to prove default and accurately prove the claimed default. PHH should have been and must be required to prove up the exact default which they originally claimed and relied on. Anything else is an admission their records were and are inaccurate, cannot be relied upon, constitutes a breach of contract, implicates fraud, and prevents any lawful execution of judgment against any alleged or existing debt. PHH now claims and the Supreme Court affirmed we allegedly missed 9 payments which contradict PHH’s previous claims of 13 and 14 missed payments and, in effect, voids their complaint. In addition, PHH did not reduce the principal amount allegedly owed ($261,170.62) when they reduced the number of payments missed (R. 561 – Affidavit in Support of Summary Judgment – p. 2; R. 1037, 1038 – Second Affidavit of Ronald E. Casperite in Support of PHH’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment – p. 2-3). Obviously, if additional payments are applied to the account the principal amount must be reduced. Further, according to the account records submitted by Chase, the principal balance on the account went to $0.00 in November 2009 and went negative, -$1,186.90, at the time servicing allegedly transferred in February 2010 (R. 441-453 – Affidavit of Jon A. Stenquist in Support of Chase’s Motion for Summary Judgment – Exhibit F.). There is extreme discrepancy between what Chase claims as the principal balance and what PHH claims, and according to Chase’s account records, the records PHH relied upon to claim default, we paid off the loan in November 2009 and were due a refund in January 2010. Therefore, based on the inaccurate evidence in the record, PHH has fatally failed to provide a strict accounting of their claimed default amount and principal balance which was required by law to be verified by the appropriate Chase personnel with personal knowledge of this account (I.R.C.P. 56; 12 C.F.R § 24.38; R. 1419-1423 – Charles Nickerson’s and Donna Nickerson’s Amended Answer, Counterclaim, Third Party Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial – pp. 29-33, Eighth Affirmative Defense). Failure to provide an accurate default dismisses PHH’s complaint. Failing to require an accurate default prevents genuine issues of material fact from being justly litigated in this action, dissolves and thwarts our rights to find relief and final resolution based on the merits in this action, and forces future claims and actions for justice to be pursued.

3. Notice of Default and opportunity to cure. It is critical the alleged default be accurate because it changes the circumstances and basis for the complaint. By contract the note holder must provide notice of default and opportunity to cure. If the default amount changes, as it has in this case, then the notice of default is invalidated or void, but the contractual obligation to provide notice is not erased. Codified and common law clearly establish accuracy in record keeping is necessary for collection enforcement. Therefore, since PHH has fatally failed to establish an accurate default amount, PHH’s complaint must be dismissed as we were never served with a proper and accurate notice of default or provided with an opportunity to cure any alleged default. The difference in the amount, over $11,000.00, could have undoubtedly made a difference in the contractual right and option to cure. Furthermore, we questioned the alleged default amount and the existence of any default whatsoever at that time, provided proof of payments, and requested PHH provide an accounting of our payments. Under RESPA, PHH was required by 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(2)(B) “after conducting an investigation, provide the borrower with a written explanation or clarification.” PHH refused to conduct any investigation and refused to provide us with a written explanation or clarification regarding the disputed default (R. 1419-1423 – Charles Nickerson’s and Donna Nickerson’s Amended Answer, Counterclaim, Third Party Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial – pp. 29-33, Eighth Affirmative Defense). As a result, PHH is in violation of RESPA and their complaint should now be considered moot because it is not accurate and the provisions in the contract regarding notice of default have not been satisfied. Therefore, PHH has no right or cause of action.

The responsibility of this Court and the Idaho judicial system is to ensure equal access to justice is available to both parties. We have been denied this right from the outset of this case due to the fraudulent representation of PHH, Chase and their attorneys of record. As the record shows, the fraud against us, this property, this Court, Clearwater County, and the World at Large extends back to the closing table (SAR. 36-38 – Motion for Relief from Judgment – p. 16, L. 14 – p. 18, L. 11). In addition to the 3 points above, we have included a condensed review of this horrific nightmare as summarized in our brief in support of rehearing submitted to the Supreme Court to aid this Court in determining how substantially PHH and Chase’s actions and inactions have adversely affected the judgments rendered in this case and the ability of the Supreme Court to find and offer any relief to us because of the record created by Judge Griffin (See Exhibit 1). We also direct the Court’s attention to our Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order dated October 3, 2014. This document was filed in the District Court record to find justice and immediate relief from the ongoing assault on our family in Clearwater County. It too demonstrates the extreme prejudice we have experienced.

CONCLUSION

This Court issued a stay for good cause. PHH’s case has significant genuine issues of material fact. These issues have not gone away. If anything, PHH’s position lost any and all potential merit when the Supreme Court, based on their ruling, declared Chase lied. However, due to the biased, sabotaged and prejudiced record produced by Judge Griffin (“The Nickersons submitted additional documents and statements after the hearing…The court will not consider those documents…”), the Supreme Court did not consider documents in which Chase claims to be the holder of the note, have the note in its possession, and to be the investor on the loan. Further, the Supreme Court did not address the assignment of error regarding the ignoring of these documents. Thus, the prejudiced record thwarted a remand at the Supreme Court level. This victimization of our family without cause or right has gone on long enough. Therefore, we call on this Court to stay execution and allow this litigation to proceed on its merits so justice may have the opportunity to remedy the prejudice and injustice suffered; Chase and PHH can be required to admit the truths of this matter; and PHH, Chase and their accomplices can be held accountable for this malicious and unwarranted assault on our family. This District Court has the power and obligation to watch over its judgments and to ensure justice, not injustice, is served within its jurisdictions.

Wherefore, we request PHH’s motion to set aside stay and for issuance of writ and order of sale be denied and that the stay against execution of judgment remain in full force for all of the same reasons it was originally granted and so justice may be served. Chase and PHH must irrefutably prove the chain of title, the default and the claimed default amount and our Objection to Costs and Fees and Motion for Sanctions must be resolved completely prior to any lawful execution of judgment in their favor. A premature execution of judgment irreparably prejudices and damages our rights in this matter, further slanders and defames our character and financial reputation, and increases the exposure and liability for the opposing parties and those involved in enforcing the execution of judgment.

Oral argument requested.


Motion For Sanctions

COMES NOW, Defendants, Charles and Donna Nickerson, in accordance with I.R.C.P. 11(c), move this Court to sanction Chase and PHH for signing and submitting pleadings, motions and other papers to this District Court that were known to be or should have been known to be false, misleading and not grounded in fact. Their joint actions have denied us access to justice, robbed us of our right to due process, and prevented us from finding relief at the District Court and Supreme Court levels. They have maliciously caused a record to be created that is incomplete and based on falsehoods. Judge Griffin’s judgments rely solely upon these falsehoods and are therefore not enforceable by law, fact, or justice. This has created needless pain, suffering, and damages for our family and makes a mockery of finding justice in these proceedings.

PHH has now moved this Court to execute judgment when the appeal has not been fully resolved to circumvent justice and escape full liability for their actions. This Court has rightly granted a stay pending appeal. Since the appeal is not yet fully resolved, PHH’s motion to set aside stay is inappropriate and must be denied. The Idaho Supreme Court has determined Chase lied in their pleadings, but have yet to rule on the full consequences of Chase’s deception.

CHASE

In conjunction with and in support of this motion we are submitting a true and correct copy of our motion for sanctions against Chase that was submitted to the Supreme Court. As stated, the Supreme Court has not yet acted upon this motion. The determination by the Supreme Court on this motion will prove justice has been thwarted and that PHH and Chase have sabotaged all proceedings by Judge Griffin at the District Court and Supreme Court levels.

Among other errors, Chase has made the following statements that are false, not supported by any evidence and contradict the facts determined by the District Court and the Supreme Court.

·         The Nickersons missed 11 payments while Chase was servicing the note.

·         Freddie Mac purchased the note from Coldwell Banker Mortgage.

·         PHH repurchased the note from Freddie Mac.

·         Chase never owned the note.

All of the above effect genuine issues of material fact and since all claims by PHH and Chase have been proven to be false, in addition to any monetary sanctions, an appropriate sanction would be to vacate the summary judgment decision in favor of Chase because frustra legis auxillium quaerit qui in legem comittit – he who offends against the law vainly seeks the help of the law. A very full and detailed briefing regarding this issue was submitted to the Supreme Court and is incorporated into this motion. See Exhibit 2 - Objection to Costs and Fees and Motion for Sanctions and Exhibit 3 - Affidavit of Charles Nickerson in Support of Objection to Costs and Fees and Motion for Sanctions.

PHH

The most damaging and blatantly fraudulent statement made in violation of Rule 11 is PHH’s claim that they were and are the Note Holder. However, the hard evidence presented clearly demonstrates they were not and are not the Note Holder (R. 1112, 1139, 1140 – Affidavit of Charles Nickerson in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment – Exhibits 6 and 9; R. 1232 –  Notice of Supplemental Evidence – Exhibit A). Further, we have documented over 100 discrepancies, contradictions and falsehoods made by PHH and their counsel in our amended answer – Twenty-Second Affirmative Defense – Contradictory Statements. See Exhibit 1. PHH’s and their counsel’s blatant violation of the Rule 11 mandate demonstrates a complete disregard for the integrity of the judicial process and proves malicious intent in the filing and prosecution of these proceedings. Therefore, in addition to monetary sanctions, according to the law, PHH’s complaint must be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

Chase and PHH have built their case based upon lies and deception and have not taken any steps to insure their statements and claims are well grounded in fact. Their actions have created irregularities which render any judgment in there favor void. Therefore, not only are monetary sanctions warranted, it is appropriate and just to vacate the summary judgments in favor of Chase and PHH, dismiss PHH’s complaint with prejudice, and allow us to pursue our amended counterclaims and third party complaint.

This wrongful foreclosure complaint is based solely on records and statements whose authenticity and veracity have been challenged and refuted. It is unjust and unlawful to proceed with execution of judgment without establishing that the facts and issues being relied upon for judgment are truthful and accurately presented in the record. To do otherwise, perpetually condemns the enforceability of this execution. Therefore, a stay continues to be appropriate and necessary until the true merits of this case have been litigated and fully resolved.

Wherefore, we request Chase and PHH be appropriately sanctioned and that we be allowed to pursue all of our claims against them.

Oral argument requested.

 


Motion to Quash Execution and Judgment
 

COMES NOW, Defendants, Charles and Donna Nickerson, to defend our interests in our property from an action that has arisen from fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, fraudulent suppression of material facts, bad faith, breach of trust, breach of contract, abusive debt collection practices, and other such criminal and malicious intent. We hereby move this Court to quash execution and judgment. As detailed throughout the record and in our Response in Opposition to Set Aside Stay and Issuance of Writ and Order of Sale and our Motion for Sanctions, Chase and PHH have obtained their summary judgments based upon contradictory and intentionally fraudulent and misleading statements. They have purposefully and maliciously misled the District Court, and Judge Griffin prejudicially manipulated the proceedings and issued judgment in their favor. They have created irregularities which render the underlying judgment void. Therefore, we call on this Court to use its inherent authority to quash execution and judgment.

AUTHORITY

 

(N.Y.) Execution will be stayed by order of court to prevent fraud or great injustice, either perpetually or for a definite time – Lansing v. Orcott, 16 Johns. 4.

 

Every court has power to watch over the execution of its judgments, and, where its process has been irregularly or fraudulently executed, to quash it. (Ala. 1880) Rhodes v. Smith, 66 Ala. 174; (Md. 1875) Schultze v. State, 43 Md. 295; (Vt. 1837) Mattocks v. Judson, 9 Vt. 343; (Va. 1795) Hendricks v. Dundass, 2 Wash. 50.

American Digest 1658 – Present (Century Edition, Volume 21 1st Decennial – 11th Decennial) Part 447. Grounds and Part 467. Grounds.

            This Court not only has the inherent power and authority to quash execution and judgment, in the interest of justice, it is its duty to quash it.

CONCLUSION

As we have demonstrated in our Response in Opposition to Set Aside Stay and Issuance of Writ and Order of Sale and our Motion for Sanctions, and numerous other pleadings before this Court, Chase and PHH have obtained judgments through concealment, deception, and fraud. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court must quash execution and judgment.

Wherefore, we request execution and judgment be quashed, and that we be allowed to pursue all of our claims against Chase and PHH.

Oral argument requested


We filed additional motions to reverse the judgment - Motion to Vacate or Amend Order of Sale and Decree of Foreclosure, Motion to Reconsider Order Denying Motion to Quash Execution and Judgment and Motion for Sanctions, and Notice of Issues. When the District Court refused to stay the execution of sale, we moved the Idaho Supreme Court to stop the sale. We could not imagine the Court denying the stay since the appeal in front of them specifically dealt with the sale of the property, but we pled for a quick answer. Opposing counsels and the Courts were aware of our desire and intentions to personally publicize the Sheriff’s sale to force a fair purchase of the property if we could not stop the sale altogether. We had researched auction prices, secured a professional estimation of what a minimum purchase price should be if a fair (publicized) auction were conducted, and had a comprehensive list of contact information for potential buyers. A premature sale of the property would deny us the opportunity to at least recover some of the equity so we pled for the Court to rule justly. The Supreme Court denied our request to stay execution on Friday, August 25, 2017. We were extremely prejudiced by the Court’s denial of the stay on the Friday before the sale on Monday.

Neighbors went to the Sheriff’s office on our behalf to try to stop the sale. We provided Clearwater County Sheriff Chris Goetz with proof of fraud and requested he stop the sale. He reviewed the information. The proof of fraud we provided caused him to approach County Attorney Eric Clayne Tyler to see if he, as the Sheriff, had the authority to stop the sale. Sheriff Goetz told us he was instructed to sell the property or he would be held personally liable. To be clear, this means Clearwater County Attorney Eric Clayne Tyler directed Sheriff Goetz to execute what he believed to be an unlawful order.

We were fighting "fires" in Idaho and Montana at the same time.
The Alice Creek fire in Montana exploded on Sunday before the sale. As the fire was burning closer and closer to our Montana home and ranch, we were in Idaho fighting to stop the unlawful sale of the Idaho Ranch. We fought the Montana wildfires in prayer and with heavy hearts and prayed for God to intervene.

On Monday, August 28, 2017, around 2:08 p.m., Sheriff Chris Goetz unlawfully sold the Idaho Ranch at public auction. The time is significant because our prayer alarms went off at 2:08 p.m. Our plates were a little full so none of us had thought to silence them. We have been praying for the State of Idaho, Clearwater County, Orofino, and Idahoans for years. This is the time we have set aside to pray because 208 is the Idaho area code. When the alarm went off, all of us took a deep breath knowing the significance of the hour. Our youngest son instantly knelt down and prayed for Idaho. We continued to pray silently and listened in disbelief as the Sheriff finished the sale. He promised to investigate the fraud and escalate our case to higher authorities with greater jurisdiction after the sale.

We left the sale to return to Montana to fight the fires - wildfire and unlawful seizure - at our Montana Ranch.

The sale was unlawful and is not lawfully enforceable.
Genworth Financial Mortgage Insurance purchased the property at the sale. Genworth was not the Creditor and was barred from presenting a credit bid, as were all other potential buyers except PHH. Numerous laws were broken. We were not allowed to sell the parcels separately to satisfy the wrongful judgment. We were not allowed to direct the order of the sale. None of the issues we requested be resolved prior to the sale were addressed. The judgment only granted the Creditor the right to credit bid to purchase the property. No person from PHH was present. No person from Genworth was present. Genworth bought the property for less than the appraised value of the land without any improvements on it. Allowing Genworth to credit bid created great prejudice against us and the authenticity of the sale as all other bidders had to provide cash only bids. We could not believe Genworth and PHH were getting away with stealing our property through judicial tyranny and procedural manipulation, or trying to.

The property was not lawfully sold so it the sale cannot be lawfully enforced. The ranch is still in our possession, and is not for sale or available for theft by acute regulatory failure or judicial tyranny. We are fighting to keep it and will continue to fight to keep it. Take a look at the pictures below and maybe you will fall in love with it as we and many others have. You can find out more about the Idaho Ranch and how it has ministered and is ministering to others by visiting the Idaho Ranch in the Ranch Ops section of our family website, www.mountn.org. You may click on any of the pictures below to go directly to the Idaho Ranch page on www.mountn.org.








How can PHH foreclose if they are not the owner?
They cannot. For the Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King; He will save us. Isaiah 33:22 The State of Idaho, PHH, Chase and their accomplices are breaking the law to pursue this foreclosure. Despite all evidence and testimony to the contrary, the Court recognized PHH as the owner of the Note and Mortgage and granted PHH Mortgage Company the right to foreclose. It is irrefutable PHH Mortgage does not own or have beneficial interest in our property. Genworth knows this and their involvement in the unlawful sale in August 2017 adds another level of fraud that proves this attack is targeted and malicious. Since 2002, we were unlawfully forced to carry PMI insurance on the property through Genworth. We purchased the property from the previous owner and were given a Warranty Deed. The document is still in our possession. It has never been signed over to any person or entity. We put a lien in the form of a mortgage, not a deed of trust, against the deed. For those of you who were in the banking and legal fields prior to the treasonous transition from mortgages to deed of trusts on real estate, there are big differences between the two documents and the legal rights associated with them. A lot more can be explained, but here is a chart that shows some of the primary differences.

Mortgage

Deed of Trust

·         There are two parties in a mortgage. The lender is called the mortgagee, and the borrower is called the mortgagor.

·         There are three parties in a Deed of Trust. The lender is called the beneficiary, the borrower is called the trustor, and the third party is called the trustee, whose main purpose is to sell the property in case of a default.

·         A mortgage requires a lender to foreclose through the judicial process. It requires the lender to sue the borrower and prove there is a debt, they own it, and that the borrower defaulted. The borrower has the right to defend themselves against false claims and present their own claims against the lender. This arrangement places the burden of proof on the lender.

·         A deed of trust foreclosure does not have to go to court. The lender simply has to claim the borrower defaulted, and instruct the trustee to sell the property at public auction. The borrower’s only recourse is to file a lawsuit against the lender, which places the burden of proof on the borrower. This allows a corrupt lender to take advantage of a struggling borrower who cannot afford to go to court. This arrangement denies due process and the right to defend themselves for most borrowers.

·         A mortgage provides greater judicial protection for the borrower.

·         A deed of trust generally removes judicial protection from the borrower and gives the lender the ability to foreclose or force other actions (deed in lieu of Foreclosure, short sale, etc.) with minimal or no judicial protection or oversight.

·         A mortgage can be placed on any size of property.

·         A deed of trust can have an acreage limitation (40 acres in Idaho and Montana).

·         Mortgages are designed to protect borrower investments and livelihoods while providing an avenue to the lender to recover their investment if the borrower refuses to pay.

·         Deed of trusts were designed to allow lenders to loan money on smaller pieces of property and give them a greater security for their money by allowing them to circumvent the judicial system.

·         The mortgage is a document given to the lender that creates a lien on the property. The borrower holds the title to the property, and the lender holds a lien against it.

·         With a deed of trust, the trustee holds the title to your property until you pay off the loan. When you pay off the loan, the lender tells the trustee to give you the title. In essence, you (the borrower) are just a renter until you have paid off the loan. In many situations, a renter actually has more rights than a borrower with a deed of trust.

·         The Nickersons agreed to a mortgage on their on their over 200 acre Montana ranch and were assured that is what they were signing and had received.

·         Wells Fargo used a Deed of Trust form and changed the title to Mortgage to deceive the Nickersons. They also deleted the paragraph defining who the trustee is, and fraudulently stated the property is not more than 40 acres.



Coldwell agreed to a mortgage not a deed of trust.

Coldwell and our family agreed to encumber our warranty deed with a mortgage only. Coldwell agreed to reserve our rights under the mortgage accordingly. We signed a lien against our property, one parcel, and chose not to put a large down payment on it until we had opportunity to make sure there were no hidden issues. The interest rates were low and we wanted cash in hand to develop the property. We anticipated raising the equity rapidly and had confirmed the agreement allowed us to lift any PMI requirements as soon as we met the equity requirements without consequence or penalties. The closing agent and the Coldwell representative we worked with to consummate the sale remembered and have affirmed these stipulations were agreed to by Coldwell. As planned, within months we increased the property value and approached Coldwell to remove the PMI with Genworth. Coldwell refused and told us we had to wait two years. They claimed it would cost us more to take them to court than to continue to pay. Genworth told us only Coldwell could cancel the PMI. We believed their threats regarding the court costs so we did not file an action against them. Time and this assault have proven how gravely wrong they were. Nonetheless, even though all parties knew they were undisputedly defrauding our agreements, we dutifully continued to pay the PMI monthly. We approached Coldwell again at the end of the two year period, and they again refused to remove the PMI. Regretfully, we did not pursue any legal action at that time. There were other battles to deal with that felt more pressing at the time so we continued to pay and waited to take action. When we were informed the loan changed hands in 2008, we contacted Chase, provided proof of equity, and again requested the PMI be dropped. Chase too unlawfully refused and breached the contract. We continued to pay even though the monthly fees clearly violated any financial obligations we had agreed to.

Genworth knows our entire story and their purchase of the property constitutes fraud.
There is no question Genworth is very aware of the certified value of the property from our previous interactions and the fraud perpetrated and abuse suffered by us from the closing table. We had extensive conversations with Genworth and provided their representatives and legal department with proof of PHH and Chase’s abuse. They have heard our story countless times. Genworth was told this is our home, we want to keep it, we have the wherewithal to keep it, and we are resolved to keep it. The Genworth legal team reached out to PHH and Chase on our behalf to confront their abuse and demand they work with us. Genworth communicated there was no reason for this foreclosure and that PHH was acting illegally to pursue it. Genworth clearly knew and knows this is not a money issue on our end, has firsthand knowledge of the substantial equity in the property, and knows Idaho and federal laws have been broken. As a matter of fact, their legal team provided us with some of the federal laws we have cited and directed us to specific agencies for help. Genworth knew and knows this is a wrongful foreclosure and their involvement in any forced sale of our property incriminates them (corporately and individually as applicable by federal law) in criminal wrongdoing, racketeering, and collusion. As a matter of fact and law, their involvement creates significant and extreme exposure for them as accomplices to all the unlawful and criminal acts committed.

The fraud and corruption surrounding this wrongful foreclosure is inconceivable.
The bottom line is our home is being stolen and we need America's help to stop it. The unlawful sale executed on August 28th is void and unenforceable. As stated above, we are still in possession of our home and are resolved to continue fighting to save it. We are still praying the Idaho Supreme Court will do the right thing and overturn the injustices we have suffered. An appeal is before the Idaho Supreme Court so the opportunity for them to do the right thing and uphold the law is still available. The appeal has been fully briefed. Oral Argument was held on June 11, 2018. We have no way of knowing how the justices will rule. We have stood before them twice now. We have written volumes. We have told the truth and provided evidence that PHH is lying and has committed fraud against us and fraud on the Court. IF they are willing to do the right thing and uphold the law, they will rule in our favor. If not, we will stand against the unlawful seizure of our property. No matter what happens, we know God is still on His Throne, He is in control, and He will render the final verdict in this matter. Click on the play button under the picture of our van parked in front of the Idaho Supreme Court to listen to the Oral Argument. We present our opening argument first (approximately 11 minutes), then opposing counsel presents his argument (approximately 15 minutes) and we are given opportunity to rebut to his arguments and false claims (approximately 20 minutes).


Listen to Idaho Supreme Court Oral Argument by clicking on the picture above.


Idaho Supreme Court Oral Argument Transcript

Hear ye, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho is now in session...

Transcript will be published soon.

Some of the documents and evidence we referenced in the oral argument have been provided below. Additional documentation will be added as time and opportunity allows.

Chase To PHH Alleged Assignment in March 2017

Chase To PHH Alleged Assignment in March 2017 Continued

Excerpt of letter received from Chase dated May 21, 2018, regarding the ownership of our loan ...

The investor for this loan is JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 3415 Vision Drive, Columbus, OH 43219, 1-800-848-9136. The ownership of your loan may change from time to time during the loan term, but this is the current owner.

Lewis Stoddard of Aldridge Pite, the attorney representing PHH, claimed during his oral argument that our possession of the property during the redemption period was not being challenged so it was not an issue. He stated we were not facing any type of ejectment action at the moment. Mr. Stoddard failed to mention PHH tried to forcefully remove us from the property after the unlawful sale, but we blocked their malicious attempt. The following document was served to our property after dark at 8:00 p.m. on a Sunday night. A Clearwater County Sheriff Deputy climbed a locked gate with no trespassing signs to loudly bang on the one of the front doors on the Idaho Ranch. He broke one of the posts on our log entry while trespassing onto the property. The Sheriff's Department has contact information for us and made no attempts to reach us prior to this contact. Further, Sheriff Goetz was informed on August 28, 2017, of our intention to retain possession of the property.

PHH Demand For Possession September 2017

PHH Demand For Possession Continued September 2017

We responded to this notice with the following letter.

Nickerson Response To PHH Illegal Demand For Possession Dated September 2017

PHH responded by retracting their demands in the letter below. Notice the dates. The retraction occurred in 2017, not 2016.

PHH Retraction Of Illegal Demand For Possession Dated September 2017

Unfortunately, this did not end the shenanigans of PHH and their unlawful attempts to evict us from the property or continue their harassment of our family. Even though PHH received the above letter, which clearly communicated our intention to maintain possession of the property, ongoing farming and maintenance operations are visible and undeniable, and PHH retracted their demand for possession, PHH made false accusations to the Clearwater County Sheriff's office that the property was allegedly being occupied by squatters. This wasted Clearwater County tax payer money and resources to research these claims. Consequently, on May 24, 2018, a Clearwater County Sheriff Deputy and a Clearwater County Investigator returned to our property. The officers indicated PHH had been repeatedly calling the Sheriff's Department to complain that squatters were residing on the property. They were informed of the current status of the civil case before the Idaho Supreme Court, that we were and are the rightful owners of the property, that we intend to retain lawful possession of our property, and that our presence on the property was a civil not a criminal matter . They left and we have not heard from them since. We are still in possession of our Idaho property and have no intention of surrendering the property to PHH Mortgage or their mortgage terrorist accomplices.

Both parties referenced our briefs in the oral argument. Our briefs are inserted below. We are the Appellant in the appeal before the Idaho Supreme Court. PHH Mortgage is the Respondant. Additional referenced documents will be uploaded as time and opportunity allows.

Appellant's Brief

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

NOTE: The record in this case is referenced as follows: R – the original clerk’s record produced for the appeal in Docket 42163-2014. SAR – the second amended clerk’s record produced for Docket 42163-2014. CR – the clerk’s record produced for this appeal. FSJ – the first summary judgment. SSJ – the second summary judgment.

This appeal stems from the underlying case in which this Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgments against the Appellants (“Nickersons”). These judgments dismissed our counterclaim and third party complaint, granted a judgment for foreclosure to Respondent PHH Mortgage (“PHH”), and awarded attorney fees and costs to Respondent JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase’). When rendering these judgments, the courts refused to consider evidence, testimony and documentation in the record that demonstrates PHH’s and Chase’s intentionally deceptive, fraudulent and unlawful actions; the admitted negligence of our attorney; and the contradictory opinions of the District Court being relied upon to establish both summary judgments. See Docket 42163-2014.

In response to this extreme miscarriage of justice, we, the Nickersons, filed a petition for rehearing which was prejudicially denied.

In addition, in response to Chase’s request for attorney fees and costs, we filed an objection to the fees and costs and a motion for sanctions against Chase for submitting false, misleading and felonious information to the Court. This motion for sanctions created a truth trap that irrefutably negates any rights to foreclosure based on PHH and Chase’s false and contradictory claims:

If Chase ever owned the property, the first summary judgment (FSJ) must be reversed as its opinion was rendered based on the alleged claims that Chase was the Servicer only and never an owner. Our claims were dismissed, we were restricted from pursuing and securing critical discovery, and were denied opportunity to expand the factual record of the case based on their false claims. Further, the second summary judgment (SSJ) cannot stand on its own without relying upon the FSJ, which was rendered through false claims and admitted attorney negligence.

If Chase never owned the property, PHH committed Fraud On The Court by referencing a forged assignment from Coldwell Banker to Chase dated 2007 with their complaint (filed January 2011) and providing a copy of an alleged assignment from Chase to PHH dated June 2010. Further, PHH fraudulently obtained a wrongful foreclosure judgment and is attempting to legitimize execution of judgment based on these false claims. Chase has affirmed they had ownership in the property per a RESPA Qualified Written Request and a Notice of New Creditor letter claiming they received ownership on December 3, 2009, and still retained it as of January 2014 (R. 1139, 1140, 1232) Further, Fannie Mae affirmed their ownership transferred on December 3, 2009, in response to a formal inquiry (R. 1112). Whether or not Chase ever owned the property, Chase and PHH have made false claims to Idaho Courts, PHH lacks standing to pursue any action against us, all judgments in favor of PHH and Chase are unlawful and must be reversed, the State of Idaho should pursue comprehensive criminal actions for the crimes committed, and Chase and PHH should be severely and punitively punished for what they have done to our family. On September 13, 2016, the Idaho Supreme Court issued an order substantially reducing the amount of fees requested by Chase. However, we did not receive a copy of this order so we did not find out about this order until we contacted the Court on April 17, 2017. This Idaho Supreme Court reduced the amount of Chase’s fees in response to the motion, but did not address the illegitimacy and intentional deception surrounding their claims. This Brief demonstrates PHH has lied and committed fraud as well, and compels this Idaho Supreme Court to sanction PHH, completely reverse summary judgment, dismiss their complaint, void the foreclosure, and reinstate our claims against PHH and Chase. We request this Idaho Supreme Court uphold the law and force PHH to end their fraudulent and unlawful mortgage servicing practices in this state.

In response to the Court’s remittitur dated July 19, 2016, on February 28, 2017, PHH filed their Motion to Set Aside Stay and for Issuance of : (1) Writ of Execution on Judgment of Foreclosure; and (2) Order of Sale on Foreclosure requesting the District Court to lift the stay, and issue a writ for foreclosure and an order of sale.  

On April 11, 2017, we filed:

1) a Response in Opposition to Motion to Set Aside Stay and Issuance of Writ of Execution and Order of Sale with exhibits (CR pp. 4-107) which demonstrated the falsehoods, misrepresentations and inaccuracies surrounding; a) The true chain of title and holder of the note – Chase provided documentation that they were the Note Holder and not PHH; b) Default and default amount – the account records provided by Chase and PHH are conflicting, demonstrate no default existed, and corroborate our claims of fraud and prevention of performance; and c) Notice of Default and opportunity to cure – PHH was notified their Notice of Default was inaccurate but unlawfully took no action to research the inaccuracies or work with us to resolve the disputed default amount. In concluding this document, we once again reiterated the unjustness being perpetrated against us by the courts in stating:

“This [District] Court issued a stay for good cause. PHH’s case has significant genuine issues of material fact. These issues have not gone away. If anything, PHH’s position lost any and all potential merit when the Supreme Court, based on their ruling, declared Chase lied. However, due to the biased, sabotaged and prejudiced record produced by Judge Griffin (“The Nickersons submitted additional documents and statements after the hearing…The court will not consider these documents…”), the Supreme Court did not consider documents in which Chase claims to be the holder of the note, have the note in its possession, and to be the investor on the loan. Further, the Supreme Court did not address the assignment of error regarding the ignoring of these documents. Thus, the prejudiced record thwarted a remand at the Supreme Court level.” 

 

2) Motion for Sanctions with exhibits (CR pp. 108-196) which demonstrated Chase and PHH lied to the courts and concluded,     

“Chase and PHH have built their case based upon lies and deception and have not             taken any steps to insure their statements and claims are well grounded in fact. Their actions have created irregularities which render any judgments in their favor void. Therefore, not only are monetary sanctions warranted, it is appropriate and just to vacate the summary judgments in favor of Chase and PHH, dismiss PHH’s complaint with prejudice, and allow us to pursue our amended counterclaims and third party complaint.”     

 

3) Motion to Quash Execution and Judgment (CR pp. 197-199), which demonstrated the District Court has the inherent power and authority to quash execution and judgment and once again reiterated Chase and PHH obtained judgments through concealment, deception and fraud. Their actions render any underlying judgments void. This motion defended “our interests in a property from an action that has arisen from fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, fraudulent suppression of material facts, bad faith, breach of trust, breach of contract, abusive debt collection practices, and other such criminal and malicious intent.”

The three pleadings listed above demonstrated to the District Court the facts in this case irrefutably document Chase’s and PHH’s lies, misrepresentations, contradictions and unbelievable unwillingness to simply tell the truth. However, on April 13, 2017, the District Court issued an Order Denying Motion to Quash Execution and Judgment and Motion for Sanctions, an Order Lifting Stay and an Order of sale and Decree of Foreclosure granting PHH authority to proceed with the foreclosure sale of our property. CR pp. 200-208.

In response to those orders, on April 27, 2017, we filed: 1) Motion to Vacate or Amend Order of Sale and Decree of Foreclosure (CR 210-214) which demonstrated the unlawfulness of the order and requested it be vacated or amended to conform with the laws governing foreclosure and redemption I.C. §§ 6-101, 102 and 11-301, 304, 310, 401-403; and 2) Motion to Reconsider Order Denying Motion to Quash Execution and Judgment and Motion for Sanctions (CR 215-224) which demonstrated the facts, contradictions and legal basis for our request to quash execution and judgment and sanction PHH and Chase.

On May 16, 2017, the District Court issued orders denying our motion to vacate and motion to reconsider providing no authority or memorandums. CR pp. 225-228.

On May 25, 2017, we filed a Notice of Issues and our Notice of Appeal appealing all of the above mentioned orders. CR pp. 229-240

PHH scheduled the foreclosure sale for August 28, 2017. After finding out PHH had scheduled the sale, on August 10, 2017, we requested PHH stipulate to a stay. On August 11, 2017, PHH refused. We researched lawful options to stop the sale and find relief. On August 21, 2017, we filed an Emergency Motion to Cancel Foreclosure Sale and Stay Execution Pending Appeal with exhibits with this Court. On August 25, 2017, this Supreme Court denied our emergency motion. We presented evidence of fraud to Clearwater County Sheriff Chris Goetz (See Exhibit 2). Based on his review of the evidence surrounding this wrongful foreclosure, he approached Clearwater County Attorney E. Clayne Tyler to stop the sale. Sheriff Goetz was threatened with legal action if he did not move forward with the sale immediately. On August 28, 2017, Genworth Financial, in violation of the District Court’s order which stated only PHH could submit a credit bid, purchased the property at the Sheriff’s sale using a credit bid.

Subsequently, PHH sent a demand letter for possession of the property. We responded with a demand that our lawful rights to remain in possession during the redemption period be upheld. See Exhibit 3. PHH then formally retracted their demands in writing by stating, “Please be advised that the Notice to Quit dated September 12, 2017 is hereby retracted.”

In accordance with Idaho law, we remain in possession of the property. In accordance with justice and the Constitutions of the United States and Idaho, no power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent. (Chief Justice John Jay) We have committed no action or inaction to grant our consent so we are seeking relief from this Idaho Supreme Court and resolutely intend to pursue any and all legal remedies to save our ranch and clear our good name.

On January 3, 2018, the Idaho Department of Finance issued a NEWS RELEASE titled Department of Finance Enters into Settlement Agreement With PHH Mortgage Corp. “’This settlement demonstrates a core responsibility of state regulators to protect consumers from unlawful business practices,’ said Gavin Gee, director of the Idaho Department of Finance.” Further, this settlement is intended to “assist borrowers harmed by PHH during 2009-2012 as a result of severe operational deficiencies in mortgage servicing identified during a multistate examination.” Department of Finance Enters into Settlement Agreement With PHH Mortgage Corp https://www.finance.idaho.gov/PR/2018/PressRel_Settlement_Agreement.pdf and https://www.finance.idaho.gov/ConsumerFinance/Action/Administrative/PHH-MMC-Consent-Order.pdf

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 

A. In its opinion in PHH Morg. v. Nickerson (2016), this Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the contradictory facts regarding the chain of title as presented by the District Court. Emergency Motion to Cancel Foreclosure Sale and Stay Execution Pending Appeal – Exhibits 9 and 16 (filed in this Court on August 21, 2017)

B. This Court’s affirmation of the District Court’s finding of fact, by default, demonstrates this Idaho Supreme Court’s belief that PHH submitted pleadings, motions and other papers to the Court that were known to be or should have been known to be false, misleading and not grounded in fact to secure judgment.

C. This Court affirmed Chase submitted pleadings, motions and other papers to the court that were known to be or should have been known to be false, misleading and not grounded in fact. See September 13, 2016, order on costs and fees.

D. The District Court’s Order of Sale and Decree of Foreclosure is unlawful because it does not conform to the Idaho foreclosure and redemption laws. CR pp. 210-213.

E. In PHH’s response in opposition to our motion for summary judgment, PHH states, “There are no genuine issues of material fact regarding PHH’s position as Note Holder.” However, the evidence (R p. 1232) and Idaho law, I.C. § 45-911, declare PHH did not hold or own our Note and Mortgage.

F. PHH falsely claimed Fannie Mae transferred the note directly to them based on the allonges to the Note. However, no allonges are on the note. R pp. 40-42.

G. PHH claimed Chase never owned the note (R p. 882) which contradicts, invalidates, and establishes fraud in both publicly recorded assignments (Assignment 1: Coldwell Banker to Chase; Assignment 2: Chase to PHH), and demonstrates PHH’s malicious intent to mislead, deceive and commit fraud on the Court, defraud us, and acquire unjust gain from the World At Large.

H. Chase allegedly purchased our loan from Fannie Mae on December 3, 2009, and claims to currently hold and own our Note and Mortgage. R pp. 1112, 1139-1140, 1232.

I. We experienced numerous accounting and recording keeping problems with Chase and relentlessly worked to resolve those issues. R p. 109, L. 12-23.

J. We were making regular monthly payments to Chase and were in good standing with Chase in February 2010 when servicing transferred to PHH. R p. 610, L. 12-16; pp. 766-769.

K. According to the account history provided by Chase in support of their motion for summary judgment, and used by PHH and the District Court for judgment against our property, the principal balance on our account was $0.00 in November 2009 and $-1,186.90 on January 21, 2010. According to this account history, we were not in default but, in fact, were due a principal balance refund of $1,186.90 when Chase transferred servicing to PHH. Since Chase failed to demonstrate a principal balance remaining on our account, PHH failed to establish how we were or could have been in default. R. pp. 766-767.

L. Immediately upon transfer of servicing, PHH claimed default and refused to accept any payments. R p. 614, L. 6.

M. The default amount of $32,605.36, 14 missed payments, claimed by PHH in February 2010 differs by over $11,000.00 to PHH’s most recent claim of 9 missed payments in November 2013. R p. 1196, L 18-20. PHH never changed their default notice, nor did they research this error back in 2010 when we provided proof the claimed default was wrong and in violation of lending and debt collection laws governing foreclosure actions. The Court ignored all evidence and testimony of no default, fraud, abusive debt collection, and malicious prevention of performance.

N. The affidavit provided by PHH to support its second motion for summary judgment was invalidly notarized. R pp. 1237-1238, SAR p. 63.

O. Fannie Mae allegedly owned our loan from December 27, 2002, to December 3, 2009, R p. 1112.

P. The assignment from Coldwell to Chase recorded in 2007 constitutes fraud against us, on the Court, and toward the World At Large. Coldwell no longer had any interest in our loan because they sold the loan to Fannie Mae in December of 2002. Thus, they had nothing to assign to Chase in 2007. R p. 1093, L. 7- p. 1094, L. 3.

Q. Chase denied purchasing the Note and Mortgage as a result of the alleged assignment from Coldwell in 2007. R p. 109, L. 11 and p. 128, L. 2-5.

R. The assignment from Chase to PHH in June 2010 cannot be relied upon by PHH to claim beneficial interest or the right to foreclose because Chase still claims to hold and own our Note and Mortgage. R p.1232

S. The assignment from Chase to PHH in June 2010 was robo-signed by Kirsten Bailey. R p. 1099, L. 17 – p. 1100, L. 3; pp. 1136-1138

T. John L. O’Brien, Register of Deeds for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Southern Essex District Registry of Deeds, affirmed Kirsten Bailey is a robo-signer. SAR pp. 90-92.

U. We were making our monthly payments and were current and in good standing prior to February 2010 when PHH refused to accept any payments, prevented our performance, and refused to validate their claim of default. R p. 610, L. 12-16.

V. PHH admitted in July 2012 that “PHH is unaware of any payments made or not made by the Nickersons to Chase.” R. 742 – Response to Request for Admission No. 13. Lawfully, PHH could not claim default for our allegedly not making payments if PHH is “unaware” of the payment history. Further, this is a completely, false misrepresentation and defamatory claim, because we had provided PHH proof of payments made to Chase prior to this claim. R p. 901.

W. PHH refused to work with us regarding PHH’s claim of default. R p. 111, L. 1-7.

X. PHH refused to provide notes and transcripts of phone conversations and oral communications regarding our trying to resolve any alleged default. R p. 886-887.

Y. We provided documentation proving PHH’s default claim was inaccurate. R p. 901

Z. PHH violated RESPA 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(2)(B) by failing to provide a written explanation detailing their default claim and refusing to investigate the disputed default. R p. 1433.

AA. PHH illegally attempted a non-judicial foreclosure after admitting it was unlawful. Our counsel stopped it with threats of legal action. R p. 1434.

BB. Per I.C. § 18-3601. Forgery Defined, PHH and Chase are guilty of forgery.

CC. Per I.C. § 18-3203, PHH and Chase committed felony offenses by recording fraudulent, forged assignments from Coldwell Banker to Chase and Chase to PHH.

DD. PHH moved the Court for an order to serve us by publication when they knew we were represented by counsel, had contact information for both us and our counsel, both we and our counsel previously warned how damaging such a publication would be, and PHH knew we wanted to keep our property and had the wherewithal to keep our property. PHH subsequently served us by publication. R pp. 923-924.

EE. PHH denied they must maintain accurate records of all communication with us. R p. 743 – Response to Request for Admission No. 20.

FF. Request for production number 7 asks PHH to provide any agreements between Chase and PHH related to the transfers and sales of notes. PHH stated they do not have any agreements with Chase related to the transfer and sales of notes. Chase, in the assignment submitted to the Court, claims they received some value for the assignment to PHH so an agreement had to be in place for that to occur. R p. 892.

GG. In his first affidavit, Ron Casperite, a Complex Litigation Liaison (Public research defines Ron’s role as a New Jersey account analyst with a non-foreclosure banking background, who was hired by various banks during the mortgage fraud holocaust to provide counterfeit firsthand deposition and trial testimony.) for PHH, claimed we had missed at least ten (10) monthly payments and in the same affidavit he claimed we had missed thirteen (13) monthly payments (R p. 561). As a matter of public record, Ron Casperite did not work for Chase during the period in question and had no personal knowledge of our accounts; our communications with either bank or their employees; or the record keeping nightmare surrounding this account and other Chase accounts. Further, PHH admitted they had no records or knowledge of payments made or not made to Chase. Therefore, Ron Casperite had no access to authentic records to review and any testimony provided constitutes an uninformed, hearsay opinion and inadmissible fictitious illustration at best. Bank employees were readily identified who could testify to the exact nature and true occurrences surrounding inaccurate record keeping and all prevention of performance claims, but we were denied access to those employees and their account notations. In a second letter that was not notarized or based on personal knowledge, and was therefore inadmissible to substantiate default, Ron Casperite changed his claims and stated we missed only 9 payments (R p. 1037). Mr. Casperite’s fabricated testimony is unsubstantiated, contradictory and provides evidence of incompetence and perjury. The facts in the record and truths of this matter impeach any and all testimony provided by Ron Casperite.

HH. In PHH’s memorandum in support of summary judgment, PHH claimed we missed (11) monthly payments which contradicts Ron Casperite’s claims of ten (10) or thirteen (13) missed payments. R p. 322.

II. In PHH’s conclusion section of the memorandum in support of summary judgment (FSJ), PHH states the deadlines for producing factual information to support claims have long passed. It must be noted that the date of this memorandum for summary judgment is October 12, 2012, and that PHH did not submit their discovery responses until October 18, 2012. This was 5 months after PHH received the discovery requests, 48 days after the discovery cutoff, and after PHH stated the deadlines for producing factual information had long passed. Further, PHH had repeatedly broken promises to produce the discovery and we had repeatedly requested the District Court compel PHH to produce the requested discovery. All parties clearly understood the discovery requested from PHH and Chase was necessary for us to expand the factual record of the case. Our attorney did not provide PHH’s discovery responses to us until after PHH had already secured summary judgment dismissing our claims. In fact, our attorney did not notify us the first summary judgment (FSJ) process was even occurring. SAR pp. 69-70.

JJ. PHH did not provide us with proper notice of default prior to these wrongful foreclosure proceedings as required by law and the alleged contract. PHH never provided a notice of default reflecting the default (9 missed payments) relied upon to claim standing for foreclosure. Therefore, PHH has not fulfilled the conditions precedents required to take action in this case.

KK. In the trial brief PHH states “an employee of Chase, not PHH, may have stated the Nickersons’ loan was current. However, the Nickersons’ have never identified that employee.” R p. 706. This statement is false because in paragraph 20 of our amended answer, we identified Kim as the Chase employee who told us we were in good standing. R pp. 109-110. Additionally, we identified bank employees for depositions and records, but were denied access to them or their notations.

LL. In PHH’s memorandum in support of the plaintiff’s second motion for summary judgment, PHH states, “PHH refused to accept any further payments from the Nickersons until the total amount in default was paid. (Second affidavit of Ronald Casperite).” Mr. Casperite did not make that statement in said affidavit.

MM. In the illustrative loan history provided with Mr. Casperite’s second affidavit, he demonstrates the principal balance on our account should have been $259,983.72 on January 21, 2010. However, contradictorily, he claims in his affidavit that the principal balance was $261,170.62. R pp. 1038 and 1066. Chase’s account history for that time period reflects a negative principal balance ($-1,186.90). R p.766. Chase was the entity accepting and processing payments at that time. Mr. Casperite had no personal knowledge of the account and any discrepancies constitute genuine issues of material fact that prevent summary judgment in favor of PHH.

NN. In PHH’s response in opposition to our motion for summary judgment, PHH states, “Regardless of whether PHH held beneficial interest at the time Just Law, Inc., was appointed successor trustee, it is irrelevant to this judicial foreclosure action.” PHH’s reliance upon the Assignment from Chase to PHH in their complaint establishes the relevance of the content and timeline of when the assignment was signed and provides irrefutable evidence of PHH’s intent to defraud us, the Courts, and the World At Large. Filing false and forged documents to secure wrongful gain constitutes felonious acts and is therefore necessarily relevant to this Supreme Court and the security of Idaho consumers. It also establishes and heightens our rights to defend ourselves from PHH’s targeted, malicious assault. PHH’s flippant attitude toward breaking the law (falsifying records, forging documents, contaminating the integrity and authenticity of county land records, ignoring regulations regarding trustees and trust operations, violating escrow guidelines, impersonating authorities, attacking people for their religious beliefs) challenges the Idaho and United States Supreme Courts and all governing agencies to determine if this attitude is lawful. We, the Nickersons, with the full corroboration of the law and under the banner of liberty, assert PHH and Just Law breaking the law is not irrelevant and is a fatal flaw in establishing their standing to foreclose. We request the Court consider the Idaho Department of Finance’s findings regarding PHH (See Exhibit 1 - Department of Finance Enters into Settlement Agreement With PHH Mortgage Corp), recognize the seriousness and severity of PHH’s statements and law breaking actions, and fulfill your statutory responsibilities to enforce and uphold the law and protect us from judicial tyranny.

OO. In PHH’s response in opposition to our motion for summary judgment, PHH states, “Using language from a recorded assignment of the deed of trust, the Nickersons contend Coldwell Banker did not have any interest in the note or deed as of the date of the assignment. Although the Nickersons reference a paragraph from their memorandum as supporting the alleged fact, there are no facts before the court sustaining the Nickersons’ argument.”

1. The first fact before the District Court was the assignment from Coldwell to Chase which was first referenced by PHH in their complaint.

2. The second fact before the District Court was introduced in evidence by PHH in their responses to interrogatories in which they claim Coldwell transferred the loan to Fannie Mae and is evidenced by a letter in which Fannie Mae claims ownership from December 2002 to December 2009.

3. Based on these facts, Coldwell could not transfer ownership and beneficial interest in the Note and Mortgage to Chase, because Fannie Mae had ownership and beneficial interest at the time of the alleged assignment.

4. Presenting false, misleading and conflicting claims to the District Court to prevent us from securing justice establishes genuine issues of material facts and constitutes fraud. Fraud On The Court has no statutes of limitation.

PP. In PHH’s response in opposition to our motion for summary judgment, PHH states, “In part the Nickersons assert fraud because of the alleged absence of a letter from PHH constituting notice of new creditor. The Nickersons contend the absence of such letter violate the Truth in Lending Act. All of the Nickersons’ claims in their counterclaim were dismissed by summary judgment. They cannot now resurrect those claims.”

1. Note PHH does not claim to have sent a notice of new creditor nor defend the violation.

2. Our counsel did not allege a violation of the Truth in Lending Act in the original counterclaim so we were not resurrecting any claim. We were simply presenting a fact to the court. However, it would be proper and appropriate for this Supreme Court to revisit the decision to dismiss our claims in light of the fraudulent representations PHH and Chase used to manipulate that decision.

3. Further, PHH, Chase and their attorneys of record concealed evidence, refused to provide discovery, submitted fraudulent documents and instruments, obstructed justice, oppressed us and our counsel, conspired against us, prohibited justice being served, and committed other such acts to get our counterclaim dismissed.

QQ. PHH, in their objection to supplemental evidence states, “The Nickersons attempt to present supplemental evidence without affidavit.” However, page 4 of the our notice of supplemental evidence is an affidavit of Charles Nickerson introducing the supplemental evidence into the record. R 1227-1232, 1235

RR. PHH, Chase and their counsels of record have purposefully lied to and deceitfully misled the District Court. R p. 1429, L. 1- p. 1438, L. 14; p. 1453, L. 1 – p. 1477, L3; p. 1527, L. 18 – p. 1537, L. 4; p. 1538, L. 25 – p. 1565, L. 11.

SS. We, the Nickersons, were intentionally kept unaware of the status of our case from the time of our depositions and were deceived regarding the true occurrences of the case from the onset of the case. SAR p. 69.

TT. Our Idaho attorney was negligent. SAR pp. 69-70.

UU. This foreclosure action is fraudulent and wrongful. R p. 1232.

VV. This Court violated the Legal Standard regarding Summary Judgment when it affirmed the summary judgments against us. See Legal Standards below.

WW. PHH and Idaho have entered into a Settlement Agreement to assist borrowers harmed by PHH during 2009-2012 as a result of severe operational deficiencies in mortgage servicing and to protect Idaho consumers from PHH’s unlawful business practices and failure to process mortgage payments in accordance with the law. See Exhibit 1 - Department of Finance Enters into Settlement Agreement With PHH Mortgage Corp

Jo Ann Lanham, Consumer Affairs Officer, Idaho Department of Finance, in a letter addressed to us dated January 4, 2018, stated:

The Idaho Dept. of Finance has reviewed your complaint in relation to our most recent telephone conversation, where you have asked that the Department reopen your complaint based on alleged violations by PHH Mortgage Corp (PHH).

While the Department is sympathetic to your situation, the Department lacks any statutory authority to set aside the court’s determination on your case.

The Department has enclosed a press release for your information issued by the Department and dated January 3, 2018.

At this time, the Department must close your case file, with no further action. Your complaint information will be retained in Department records and may be utilized during the company’s licensing / renewal process as well as by Department field examiners prior to a compliance examination. It is through review of complaints and onsite examination that the Department is often able to identify potential patterns of violations and, where appropriate, take enforcement actions on behalf of the state of Idaho.

III. ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL

A. Whether it is lawful or just for the District Court to disregard the laws of redemption which grant us the right to possess the property during the redemption period.

B. Whether it is lawful or just for the District Court to ignore our requests and right to sell a two-parcel property one parcel at a time and to be allowed to direct the order of sale.

C. Whether it is lawful or just for a District Court to fail to provide memorandum opinions or cite authority, so decisions and renderings can be properly put before the Supreme Court for reversal and whether this type of procedural manipulation can be relied upon to uphold or execute judgment.

D. Whether it is lawful or just to foreclose on a property or execute judgment against a property when a debtor was prevented from performance, never given opportunity to cure the alleged default amount being used to claim default, and was denied their contractual right to provide claims and defenses.

E. Whether it is lawful or just to obtain and execute judgment acquired through mortgage usury and to add accruing interest to that judgment when the prevailing party lied, obstructed justice, never provided an account for missing payments held in suspense accounts, failed to credit substantial escrow moneys, failed to explain why transactions were missing from account records, PHH and Chase contradict their own evidence, opposing parties have admitted the claimed default is inaccurate, the debtor has provided testimony no default existed, the banks have refused to provide discovery based on false ownership claims, and other such record keeping errors exist.

F. Whether it is lawful or just to issue a summary judgment when the judgment amount was never properly established, is disputed, changed multiple times due to inaccurate record keeping, and conflicting claims still exist.

G. Whether it is lawful or just to issue sanctions against the prevailing party and what is the appropriate sanction when it is proven the prevailing party lied, presented contradictory facts and evidence, and presented proven to be fraudulent affidavits and testimony to the court and obtained their summary judgment through fraud and judicial manipulation.

H. Whether it is lawful or just to rely upon a summary judgment obtained through fraud, judicial prejudice, procedural manipulation, and admitted attorney negligence to uphold and execute a second summary judgment.

I. Whether it is lawful or just to uphold a judgment that was fraudulently obtained.

J. Whether it is lawful or just for a judgment to be executed when the Court has made procedural mistakes, discrepancies of fact exist, and assignments of errors are undeniably present.

K. Whether it is lawful or just for a judgment to be executed based solely on procedural manipulation and judicial prejudice when justice has not been served and a victim has reached out to the Supreme Court to uphold laws in place to protect them, save their ranch, and protect their rights and interests.

L. Whether it is lawful or just for attorney fees to be granted to PHH when they illegally attempted a non-judicial foreclosure, purposefully presented false and contradictory statements and evidence, and intentionally concealed evidence.

M. Whether it is OK for an attorney to intentionally lie and mislead the court and the opposing party thereby violating Idaho’s Attorney Oath – “I will never seek to mislead a court or opposing party by false statement of fact or law and will scrupulously honor promises and commitments made”.

N. Whether it is lawful for an attorney practicing law in Idaho to commit felonious crimes, file and record falsified records and evidence and intentionally conceal and withhold evidence.

O. Whether it is lawful or just for an entity beside PHH to purchase the property with a credit bid when the decree of foreclosure only permits PHH to credit bid.

P. Whether it is just to allow the summary judgment for foreclosure to stand when PHH and Idaho have entered into a settlement agreement to “assist borrowers harmed by PHH during 2009-2012 as a result of severe operational deficiencies in mortgage servicing identified during a multistate examination” which validates and affirms our defenses and claims as expressed throughout this judicial process. See Exhibit 1 - Department of Finance Enters into Settlement Agreement With PHH Mortgage Corp

Q. Appellant claims attorney fees on appeal in accordance with the terms of the alleged Note § 6(E) (R p. 41) which provides for the recovery of attorney fees and I.C. §§ 12- 120 and 12-121 which award attorney fees to the prevailing party of a civil suit.

IV. ARGUMENT 

LEGAL STANDARDS

“Appeals from and order of summary judgment are reviewed de novo, ‘and this Court’s standard of review is the same as the standard used by the trial court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment.’ Curlee v. Kootenai Cnty. Fire & Rescue, 148 Idaho 391, 394, 224 P .3d 458, 461 (2008) (citations omitted).

 

Summary judgment is appropriate if ‘the pleading, depositions, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ I.R.C.P 56(c).” Trotter v. Bank of New York Mellon, 152 Idaho 842, 275 P .3d 857 (2012).

 

According to this standard, “All disputed facts are to be construed liberally in favor of the nonmoving party, and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the record are to be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party.” Mackay v. Four Rivers Packing Co., 145 Idaho 408, 410, 179 P.3d 1064, 1066 (2008). If reasonable people might reach a different conclusion from conflicting inferences based on the evidence then the motion must be denied. Id.

 

“If the evidence is conflicting on material issues or supports conflicting inferences, or if reasonable minds could reach differing conclusions, summary judgment must be denied.”

Doe v. Sisters of the Holy Cross, 126 Idaho 1036, 1039, 895 P .2d 1229, 1232 (Ct. App. 1995).

 

“In Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986), the Supreme Court explained… that “[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge, whether he is ruling on a motion for summary judgment or for a directed verdict. The evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505.”

In T.W. Elec. Serv. Inc., v Pacific Elec. Contractor Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626 (9th Cir. 1987), we explained that, “at summary judgment, the judge must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party: if direct evidence produced by the moving party conflicts with direct evidence produced by the nonmoving party, the judge must assume the truth of the evidence set forth by the nonmoving party with respect to that fact.” Id. at 63031 (citations omitted).” Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F .3d 1152 (9th Cir. 1999)

 

“On a motion for summary judgment, the Court does not weigh evidence or determine truthfulness of allegations; instead, it determines the existence of genuine issues of material fact… Direct testimony of the non-movant must be believed… (citations omitted).” Sparks v. Allstate Medical Equipment, INC., Case No. 1:14cv00166EJLCWD

 

“Therefore, accepting the rationale of the Supreme Court in Cooter and

considering our own standard for reviewing other awards of attorney fees, we conclude that the abuse of discretion standard is more compatible with our view of the appropriate role of our appellate courts in reviewing the award of sanctions under I.R.C.P. 11(a)(1)

...

the abuse of discretion standard… is: (1) whether the trial court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the trial court acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (3) whether the trial court reached its decision by an exercise of reason.

The appropriate focus of the trial court should have been whether McCabe "made a proper investigation upon reasonable inquiry." Durrant v. Christensen, 117 Idaho at 74, 785 P.2d at 638. To the extent the trial court did not give appropriate focus to its inquiry, it did not act consistently with the legal standards applicable to the choice it had to make.” Sun Valley Shopping Ctr. v. Idaho Power, 119 Idaho 87, 803 P.2d 993 (1991)

 

A. Did the District Court err in refusing to vacate or amend judgment in order to conform to Idaho foreclosure and redemption laws?

1. Is it lawful or just for the District Court to disregard the laws of redemption which grant us, the Nickersons, the right to possess the property during the redemption period?

            In ¶11 of the Order of Sale and Decree of Foreclosure (CR p. 208), the District Court violated Idaho law by stating,

“That after the confirmation of the sale of Subject Property, the purchaser or purchaser at such sale, or their heirs or assigns, be let into possession of the premises so sold on production of the certificate of sale or a duly authenticated copy thereof, and that each and every other party to this action who may be in possession of the premises, under them or either of them shall deliver to such grantee or grantees named in such certificate of sale possession of such portion of the premises as shall be described under the certificate of sale.”

 

According to I.C. § 6-101, “sales of real estate under judgments of foreclosure of mortgages and liens are subject to redemption”, and according to I.C. §§ 11-310, 401-403 we, the Nickersons, remain in possession of the property during the one year redemption period and until production of the Sheriff’s Deed which does not occur until the redemption period has expired.

A mortgage foreclosure decree, providing that the purchaser of mortgaged             premises at the foreclosure sale should be let into possession thereof, and should have possession on production of sheriff’s deed, conformed to the statute relating to redemption or realty from mortgage foreclosure sale, and cannot be construed to mean that mortgagee or any other purchaser at such sale was to have possession of the mortgaged property prior to one year from the date of sale or before the issuance of the sheriff’s deed. Eastern Idaho Loan & Trust Co. v. Blomberg, 62 Idaho 497, 113 P .2d 406 (1941) 

 

The statements in the Order of Sale and Decree of Foreclosure granting immediate possession upon production of the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale are unlawful and cannot be construed to mean any purchaser at the sale will be let into possession of our property, the Nickerson property, prior to one year from the date of sale or before the issuance of the Sheriff’s Deed which is not issued until the year of redemption has expired. Therefore, the District Court erred by not amending its order and decree to conform to Idaho law.

2. Is it lawful or just for the District Court to ignore our requests and rights to sell a two-parcel property one parcel at a time and to be allowed to direct the order of sale?

According to I.C. § 11-304, when the sale is of real property consisting of several known lots or parcels, they must be sold separately and in the order the judgment debtor determines, and the sheriff must follow their directions. In their motion to vacate or amend, we requested the District Court to amend its Judgment to conform to I.C. § 11-304 (CR pp. 211-212) and allow the parcels to be sold separately in the order we desired. However, the District Court denied this request. Therefore, the District Court acted unlawfully and unjustly and the order of sale and decree of foreclosure must be vacated or amended to conform to Idaho law.

B. Did the District Court err in denying our, the Nickersons, Motion to Quash Execution and Judgment?

            The District Court denied our motion because “Nickersons have not provided any factual or legal basis for relief from Judgment.” Order Denying Motion to Quash Execution and Judgment and Motion for Sanctions (CR pp. 200-201). However, we did provide both a factual and legal basis for relief from judgment.

1) The District Court, Chase and PHH all provided differing and contradictory facts regarding the true chain of title and true holder of the note (CR p. 6), and we provided Chase’s response to a RESPA Qualified Written Request dated January 10, 2014, in which Chase stated the note was in their possession and that they were the investor on the loan (R p. 1232). Therefore, there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding PHH’s standing to foreclose and summary judgment for PHH must be overturned. “If the evidence is conflicting on material issues or supports conflicting inferences… summary judgment must be denied.” Doe, Id.

2) Chase and PHH presented contradictory testimony and evidence of default (CR p.7). PHH’s witness contradicted himself by claiming we missed 10, 13 and then 9 payments. PHH in their memorandum clamed we missed 11 payments. Chase’s account history states the principal balance on the account was $0.00 in November 2009 and $-1,186.90 in January 2010 (R p. 766). PHH’s witness claimed the principal balance was $261,170.62 and then provided an account history that demonstrated the principal balance was $259,983.72 (R p. 1038, 1066). We provided firsthand testimony of no default and malicious prevention of performance and requested discovery that was readily available to corroborate our claims. Therefore, there are genuine issues of material fact regarding the default claimed by PHH and according to the summary judgment standard above “All disputed facts are to be construed liberally in favor of the nonmoving party, and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the record are to be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party.” Mackay, Id. Summary judgment was unlawful and must be overturned.

3) PHH admitted the default claimed in their complaint was inaccurate. Lawfully that should have dismissed their claim and forfeited any summary judgment attempts since they admitted to a genuine issue of material fact regarding the original default claimed. In addition, in July 2012, PHH falsely admitted they were unaware of any payments made or not made by us, the Nickersons, to Chase (R p. 742). In April 2010, we provided evidence of payments made to Chase to PHH when we were disputing PHH’s claims of default (R p.901). In violation of RESPA, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(2)(B), PHH did not investigate our dispute and did not provide us with a written explanation of our alleged default. (CR p.8). Therefore, due to the fact the alleged default was proven to be wrong and PHH violated the law requiring them to investigate our dispute of their alleged default, summary judgment in favor of PHH must be vacated. “On a motion for summary judgment, the Court does not weigh evidence or determine truthfulness of allegations; instead, it determines the existence of genuine issues of material fact… Direct testimony of the non-movant must be believed… (citations omitted).” Sparks, Id.

In addition to the three points above, in our motion to reconsider (CR pp. 215-224), we clearly set forth the undeniable fact that according to evidence in the record (R p. 1232), that was prejudicially ignored by the District Court and this Court, Chase claimed they held our Note and Mortgage during this litigation legally barring PHH’s standing to foreclose. Idaho law, I.C. § 28-1-201, specifically defines holder as the person in possession of a note that is payable either to bearer or the person that is in possession, and Idaho law, I.C. § 28-3-301, specifically defines the person entitled to enforce the note as the holder of the note or a nonholder in possession of the note who has the rights of the holder. In both cases, the note must be in your possession. The evidence presented is clear – PHH did not have the note in its possession. Therefore, according to Idaho law and the legal standards for summary judgment, “at summary judgment, the judge must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party: if direct evidence produced by the moving party conflicts with direct evidence produced by the nonmoving party, the judge must assume the truth of the evidence set forth by the nonmoving party with respect to that fact.” Leslie, Id. The District Court should have quashed execution and vacated summary judgment in favor of PHH.

C. Did the District Court err in denying our, the Nickersons, Motion for Sanctions when it was proven PHH lied, presented contradictory facts and evidence, and presented proven to be fraudulent affidavits and testimony to the Court and obtained their summary judgment through fraud and judicial manipulation?

The District Court denied our motion stating, “Sanctions obviously are not warranted against PHH, the prevailing party…” Order Denying Motion to Quash Execution and Judgment and Motion for Sanctions (CR pp. 200-201). The District Court did not provide explanation as to why PHH was immune from sanctions for breaking the law. Granting impunity from broken laws and acting as a trier of fact to deem PHH the prevailing party in a summary judgment process displays extreme overreach, constitutes judicial tyranny and demonstrates extreme prejudice. No right can rise from an illegal act so the illegal acts committed reversed PHH’s position as the prevailing party. Additionally, this Idaho Supreme Court determined Chase lied and reduced their request for fees even though this Idaho Supreme Court affirmed Chase was the prevailing party in the FSJ. This determination affirmed Chase was the Servicer only and not an Owner of the Note. See order on costs and fees, September 13, 2016. Therefore, as demonstrated in the Statement of Facts, in the issues presented below, and in the fact that this Court affirmed the District Court’s contradictory facts, PHH submitted pleadings, motions and other papers to the Court that were known to be or should have been known to be false, misleading and not grounded in fact to obtain summary judgment. Thus, since this Supreme Court already affirmed PHH lied (The Supreme Court’s affirmation of the FSJ established PHH lied: County records were produced by PHH to show a chain of title from Coldwell Banker to Chase and then from Chase to PHH. PHH claimed they had received the Note from Fannie Mae. Chase and Fannie Mae provided conflicting claims which refuted all claims of PHH regarding their alleged ownerships.), the question to be determined by the District Court was: what is the most appropriate sanction to be administered against PHH? Clearly, the District Court abused its discretion and violated the standard for evaluating a request for sanctions by simply stating PHH was the prevailing party. One of the issues to be addressed by the District Court in evaluating whether sanctions were appropriate was whether PHH and its’ attorneys made a proper investigation upon reasonable inquiry. Sun Valley, Id. All of the evidence and circumstances surrounding this case demonstrate PHH and its’ attorneys did just the opposite by intentionally presenting false and misleading pleadings to the court. Therefore, the District Court abused its discretion and sanctions against PHH and its’ attorneys are appropriate.

We contend since PHH’s summary judgment for foreclosure was granted based upon PHH’s false and misleading statements and facts, the most appropriate and just sanction is PHH’s summary judgment for foreclosure be vacated. This sanction is not moot because even though the foreclosure sale has unlawfully occurred, we remain in possession of the property, the foreclosure is subject to redemption, Genworth Financial purchased the property with a credit bid, so no monies exchanged hands, and no prejudice could be experienced by the purchaser. Therefore, the most appropriate sanction on PHH is to overturn the summary judgment they lied to obtain, vitiate the foreclosure sale and allow us to pursue our claims against PHH and Chase.

The following is a list of issues with citations to the record that demonstrate sanctioning PHH by vacating their fraudulently obtained summary judgment and vitiating the foreclosure sale is the only just outcome to this appeal.

1. Is it lawful or just to obtain or execute judgment acquired through mortgage usury and to add accruing interest to that judgment when the prevailing party lied (Statement of Facts – E-G, M, V, DD, FF-HH, and KK-RR), obstructed justice (Statement of Facts – L-N, Z, BB, CC, and II), never provided an account for missing payments held in suspense accounts (R p. 1066), failed to credit substantial escrow moneys (R p. 692), failed to explain why transactions were missing from account records, the two banks contradict their own evidence (Statement of Facts – A, E-H, K, P-R, MM), opposing parties have admitted the claimed default is inaccurate (Statement of Facts – M, GG, HH), the debtor has provided testimony no default existed (Direct testimony of Charles and Donna Nickerson – R pp. 109, 110, 1086, 1087, 1290, 1291, SAR pp. 46-56), the banks have refused to provide discovery based on false ownership claims (R pp. 747-751, 759, SAR p. 49), and other such record keeping errors exist?

According to the summary judgment legal standards,

Direct testimony of the nonmovant must be believed – Sparks, Id.  

All disputed facts are to be construed liberally in favor of the nonmoving party – Mackay, Id.

If the evidence is conflicting on material issues, summary judgment must be denied – Doe, Id.

The evidence of the non-movant is to be believed – Leslie, Id.,

 

It is and was unlawful and unjust to grant summary judgment to PHH or allow any judgment in their favor to be granted or executed. Common law, codified law, and legal maxims have long supported and upheld that no right to action can arise from an illegal act. Therefore, it is appropriate and just to vacate that judgment at this time.

            2. Is it lawful or just to issue a summary judgment when the judgment amount was never properly established, is disputed, changed multiple times due to inaccurate record keeping, and conflicting claims still exist (Statement of Facts – I-M, U-Z, GG, HH, MM)?

According to the summary judgment legal standard – “If the evidence is conflicting on material issues or supports conflicting inferences, or if reasonable minds could reach differing conclusions, summary judgment must be denied.” Doe, Id., It is and was not lawful or just to issue summary judgment in the presence of genuine issues of material fact surrounding whether a true or accurate default exists or has been properly presented to this Court; when testimony of the nonmoving party asserts there is no default; when PHH and Chase intentionally thwarted providing vital discovery regarding default based on lies and false misrepresentations and refused to provide access to our records and testimony from employees with firsthand knowledge of the true occurrences of this matter; when Chase and PHH presented no admissible evidence or testimony with personal knowledge to substantiate their default claims or refute ours; when Chase and PHH relinquished and impeached their credibility and rights to be heard in this matter with their conflicting, contradictory and inaccurate claims and assertions; and other such issues exist. Therefore, to correct this unlawful and unjust judgment, this Court must vacate the summary judgment granted to PHH, void the foreclosure sale, and allow us to pursue our claims.

            3. Is it lawful or just to foreclose on a property or execute judgment against a property when a debtor was prevented from performance (Statement of Facts – J, L,U-Z), never given opportunity to cure the alleged default amount being used to claim default (Statement of Facts – JJ), and was denied their contractual right to provide claims and defenses (R p. 34)?

According to the alleged Mortgage (alleged Deed of Trust), “22. Acceleration; Remedies. Lender shall give notice to Borrower prior to acceleration…The notice shall specify: (a) the default…The notice shall further inform the Borrower of …the right to bring a court action to assert the non-existence of a default or any other defense of Borrower to acceleration and sale.”, we have the right to present our claims and defenses. In addition, the prevention doctrine prohibits PHH from any complaint of nonperformance.

“Prevention doctrine is a common-law principle of contract law which says that a contracting party has an implied duty not to do anything that prevents the other party from performing its obligation. A party who prevents performance of a contract may not complain of such nonperformance.” www.definitions.uslegal.com

 

In violation of federal law, PHH refused to research or validate their claim of default even after we provided proof of payments that demonstrated we had not defaulted and had established our commitment and desire to keep our property (Statement of Facts – U-Z). PHH fatally failed to present an accurate default that is rooted in fact or reality to us or the Court at any time. Therefore, no opportunity to cure any alleged default and no proper notice has ever been offered as required by law and contract. As demonstrated throughout the factual record, PHH refused to work with us in any way, thereby, preventing our performance and denying us our contractual right to fulfill our obligations. Therefore, it was not lawful or just to allow PHH to foreclose on our property. Thus, this Court must void the foreclosure sale and allow us to pursue our claims against PHH and Chase.

            4. Is it lawful or just to rely upon a summary judgment obtained through fraud (Statement of Facts in their entirety), judicial prejudice, procedural manipulation, and admitted attorney negligence (SAR pp. 60-70) to uphold and execute a second summary judgment?

According to the legal maxim established through the centuries – fraud vitiates everything – and the legal precedent, “It is said that, were it appears that a judgment was taken against appellant through the negligence of an attorney who had been employed by such party, nothing is left to the discretion of the court, and the judgment must be set aside.” Pierce v. Vialpando, 78 Idaho 274, 301, P .2d 1099 (1956). PHH and Chase were not properly compelled to provide records, access to employee testimony, proof of chain of title, and to answer for fraudulently crafted and fabricated documents or contradictory testimony and evidence. PHH and Chase presented a broken and contradictory chain of title to establish ownership history; inaccurate, conflicting and inadmissible evidence to claim default; records fraught with errors, omissions and misrepresentations to support their claims; and other such assertions worthy of dismissal of their case. Our claims were unjustly dismissed, and all subsequent judgments were obtained by relying upon these lies, contradictions and illegal acts. Judgment occurred without our knowledge, input or proper representation.  It was and is not lawful or just to rely upon the FSJ, which is rooted in fraud, to uphold PHH’s summary judgment for foreclosure. Therefore, this Court must sanction PHH by vacating their summary judgment for foreclosure and vitiate the foreclosure sale that has unlawfully occurred.

            5. Is it lawful or just to uphold a judgment that was fraudulently obtained (R pp. 1232, 1429-1435)?

“Fraud vitiates everything it touches. It is difficult to define; there is no absolute rule as to what facts constituted [sic] fraud; and the law does not provide one ‘lest knavish ingenuity may avoid it.” Massey-Ferguson, Inc. v. Bent Equipment Company, 283 F.2d 12, 15 (5th Cir. 1960). ‘[T]he law does not define fraud; it needs no definition; it is as old as falsehood and as versable as human ingenuity.’Id” Tusch Enterprises v. Coffin, 13 Idaho 37, 740 P.2d 1022 (1987).

 

According to Tusch, it is not lawful or just to uphold a judgment that was fraudulently obtained because “fraud vitiates everything it touches.” The District Court exhibited extreme prejudice by ignoring evidence of fraud regarding the true and current ownership of our property and acknowledging genuine issues of material fact as to whether any debt exists to PHH and whether or not a default actually occurred. We provided testimony and were to be believed. PHH and Chase repeatedly lied and misrepresented the truths of the matter to the Court and were inconceivably granted impunity and opportunity to simply change their testimonies. Any de novo review of the record demonstrates this judgment was fraudulently obtained. Therefore, this Court must vitiate the foreclosure sale, vacate the summary judgment in favor of PHH, and allow us to pursue our claims against PHH and Chase because right and fraud never dwell together.

            6. Is it lawful or just for a judgment to be executed based solely on procedural manipulation and judicial prejudice – the District Court refused to consider evidence and reconsider its rulings because of procedural timeliness alone (R pp. 1247, 1791) – when justice has not been served and a victim has reached out to the Supreme Court to uphold laws in place to protect them, save their ranch, and protect their rights and interests?

“In addressing the effect of noncompliance with procedural statutes and rules, the             Court in Stoner v. Turner, 73 Idaho 177, 121, 247, P.2d 469, 471 (1952), said:

 

The object of statutes and rules regulating procedure in the courts is to promote the administration of justice. Those statutes and rules which fix the time within which procedural rights are to be asserted are intended to expedite the disposition of causes to the end that justice will not be denied by inexcusable and unnecessary delay. But, except as to those which are mandatory or jurisdictional, procedural regulations should not be so applied as to defeat their primary purpose, that is, the disposition of causes upon their substantial merits without delay or prejudice.”

“A ‘determination’ of an action within the meaning of Rule 1 is meant to be a determination of the controversy on the merits – not a termination on a procedural technicality which serves litigants not at all. A determination entails a finding of the facts and an application of the law in order to resolve the legal rights of litigants who hope to resolve their differences in the courts. The ‘liberal construction’ of the rules required by Rule 1, while it cannot alter compliance which is mandatory or jurisdictional, will ordinarily preclude dismissal of an appeal for that which is but technical noncompliance. This will be especially so where no prejudice is shown by any delay which may have been occasioned… Sound judicial discretion properly exercised will reflect the judicial policy of this State developed over many years by case law, and lying within the spirit of liberality mandated by Rule 1.” Bunn v. Bunn, 99 Idaho 710, 587 P.2d 1245 (1978).

 

“Appeals from an order of summary judgment are reviewed de novo, ‘and this Court’s standard of review is the same as the standard used by the trial court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment.’ Curlee v. Kootenai Cnty. Fire & Rescue, 148 Idaho 391, 394, 224 P.3d 458, 461 (2008) (citations omitted).

 

Black’s Law Dictionary 10th edition defines appeal de novo as “an appeal in which the appellate court uses the trial court’s record but reviews the evidence and laws without deference to the trial court’s rulings.”

 

According to 1) Bunn “procedural regulations should not be so applied as to defeat their primary purpose, that is, the disposition of causes upon their substantial merits without delay or prejudice… Sound judicial discretion properly exercised will reflect the judicial policy of this State developed over many years by case law, and lying within the spirit of liberality mandated by Rule 1”; 2) Curlee “Appeals from an order of summary judgment are reviewed de novo”; and 3) Black’s “appellate court…reviews the evidence and laws without deference to the trial court’s rulings”. It is not lawful or just for summary judgment to be rendered based on procedural manipulation and judicial prejudice, nor is it lawful or just for this Court to ignore its mandate to perform a de novo review of the evidence and laws without deference to the trial court’s rulings. PHH does not own or have lawful beneficial interest in our property. We did not default. We were never allowed opportunity to challenge or cure the alleged default PHH is claiming in this litigation. We made every effort to fulfill any contractual obligations and were maliciously prevented from performance or relief. PHH and Chase have provided contradictory and conflicting evidence and testimony that impeaches all their claims, so no claim, assertion or accusation lawfully stands against us in this matter. The record in its entirety demonstrates no judgments rendered against us have any factual foundations or basis whatsoever and our constitutional, contractual and procedural rights to defend ourselves against fraud, collusion and prevention of performance have been ignored and silenced by the Idaho judiciary. Therefore, PHH’s grant of summary judgment for foreclosure must be overturned, the foreclosure sale vacated, and we must be permitted to pursue our claims.

            7. Is it Lawful or just for a District Court to fail to provide memorandum opinions or authority so decisions and renderings can be properly put before the Supreme Court for reversal and whether this type of procedural manipulation can be relied upon to uphold or execute judgment?

In the District Court’s June 11, 2014, Order Dismissing Motions to Reconsider, the Court stated:

            “After examining the motions, the court treated the motions as motions to reconsider the court’s prior judgment; the court’s denial of the Nickersons’ motions to amend their pleadings; the court’s prior motion granting plaintiff’s motion to strike Nickersons’ affidavit in support of summary judgment; the court’s ruling on the prior motion to strike the second affidavit of Casperite in support of summary judgment; the court’s denial of the Nickersons’ motion to suppress; and court’s failure to consider the withdrawal of Nickersons’ prior counsel.

            The court granted summary judgment based upon the evidence submitted to the court as of the oral argument on the plaintiff’s second motion for summary judgment…

            After oral argument, the Nickersons submitted numerous documents and motions. The court has denied all of those prior motions.”

 

Justice is the guardian of liberty. The judiciary system ensures equal access to justice at the District Court level by providing oversight at the Supreme Court level. Allowing a District Court Judge to overreach authorities granted to it by acting as a trier of fact in a summary judgment proceeding while prejudicially manipulating civil procedures revokes equal access to justice, holds liberty hostage through judicial tyranny, and negates the merit and value of any systemic guardianship. This is especially true when Judge Michael Griffin ignored all evidence and arguments presented by us and even declared we were spinning our wheels and could not find any relief in his courtroom. The District Court’s failure to provide an order or memorandum opinion denying our motion to amend our pleadings, motion to strike the second affidavit of Casperite, or motion to suppress granted the Court unjust and unlawful impunity from reversal. The District Court provided no opinion to argue on the prior appeal. Consequently, this Supreme Court waived those issues on appeal and justice was denied a voice. According to Bunn and Curlee, this procedural manipulation is not lawful or just. Allowing such abuse of discretion and injustice to prevail without consequence can only serve to encourage judicial tyranny and does not serve to promote justice. Thus, this Court should not have upheld the summary judgment and should have based its opinion regarding our amended pleadings upon the precedent presented by us in our prior appeal (Appellant’s Reply Brief – pp. 15-16) and granted us the opportunity to present our amended pleadings.

“As Foman and Smith declare, a district courts refusal to grant leave to amend without any justifying reasoning is per se, an abuse of discretion.” Clark v. Olson, 110 Idaho 323, 715 P.2d 993 (1986).

 

            8. Is it lawful or just for a judgment to be executed when the Court has made procedural mistakes (See 6 and 7 above), discrepancies of fact exist (Statement of Facts) and assignments of errors are undeniably present?

It is not lawful or just for any execution of judgment to occur that demonstrates prejudice against a litigant. Idaho law grants equal access to justice. Ignoring evidence in the record in the presence of contradictory opinions, determinations, rulings, assertions, claims, and demonstrated malice is judicial tyranny and establishes extreme judicial overreach. Justice for all was not intended to mean justice for most. The opinions rendered by the Courts in this litigation are conflicting and the unsupported and contradictory claims by PHH create impossibility in establishing standing. The truth is clear in this case. Laws have been broken and Idaho Courts have refused to uphold or enforce the laws in place to stop our home from being wrongfully foreclosed upon. This is not lawful or just, and it is time for this Idaho Supreme Court to do the right thing and grant relief to our family, the Nick and Donna Nickerson Family.

            9. Is it lawful or just for attorney fees to be granted to PHH when they illegally attempted a non-judicial foreclosure, purposefully presented false and contradictory statements and evidence, and intentionally concealed evidence (Statement of Facts – B, E-G, M, N, V-Z, AA, DD-RR)?

Centuries of law have determined it is not lawful or just to grant attorney fees to PHH for committing illegal acts, for presenting false and conflicting evidence and for concealing evidence.

Allegans contraria non est audiendus – One making contradictory statements is not to be heard.

Frustra legis auxilium quaorit qui in legem comittit – He who offends against the law vainly seeks the help of the law.

Fraus omnia vitiat Fraud vitiates everything.

Fraus est celare fraudemThe fact it is a fraud to conceal a fraud.

Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant – Fraud and justice never dwell together.

 

Doing so exceeds the jurisdiction and authority of this Supreme Court, because no right can arise from an illegal act. Further, displaying such extreme prejudice and blind affirmation defies this Supreme Court’s role to provide legislative accountability and mandate to ensure equal access to justice. It is clearly an error of judgment to punitively damage us for doing the right thing, telling the truth, and defending ourselves and the World At Large against mortgage fraud, abusive debt collection, and malicious theft. Evidence of comprehensive fraud; broad criminal activity; and severe, significant and substantial abuse is in the record. We are innocent victims who have been attacked without cause or right. We committed no action or inaction to provoke, warrant or justify this attack we are being forced to defend against. We appealed to the Idaho judiciary for relief from fraudulent claims. To allow the District Court to reward PHH with a summary judgment in their favor in the presence of genuine issues of material fact and clear evidence of fraud, systematically denies our rights. This Supreme Court cannot defile its integrity and legitimacy by affirming a judgment which was secured unlawfully and unjustly. Therefore, this Supreme Court must reverse any judgment in favor of PHH and recognize PHH cannot be rewarded attorney fees for breaking the law; nor be reimbursed for legal costs incurred in their attempts to unlawfully steal our property and equity; nor can their personal vendettas against our family and our Christian values be funded through judicial assistance or court ordered unjust gain.  

            10. Is it lawful or just for an attorney to intentionally lie and mislead the court and the opposing party thereby violating Idaho’s Attorney Oath and for an attorney practicing law in Idaho to commit felonious crimes, file and record falsified records and evidence and intentionally conceal and withhold evidence?

Idaho’s Attorney Oath States, “I will never seek to mislead a court or opposing party by false statement of fact or law, and will scrupulously honor promises and commitments made”. I.C. § 3-201. Duties of Attorneys states “4. To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are consistent with truth, and never seek to mislead the judges by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.” The Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct rule 8.4 Misconduct states, “(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”

We have demonstrated that PHH’s and Chase’s attorneys have violated all of the above and intentionally concealed and withheld evidence. R p. 1085, L. 18 – p. 1086, L. 19; p. 1091, L. 14-21; p. 1093, L. 7 – p. 1100, L. 3; p. 1100, L. 14 – p. 1101, L. 18; p. 1177; p. 1179, L. 19 – p. 1182, L. 17; p. 1190, L. 10 – p. 1193, L. 16; p. 1194, L. 15 – p. 1196, L. 16; p. 1198, L. 19 – p. 1205, L. 23; p. 1429, L 1 – p. 1438, L. 14; p. 1453, L. 1 – p. 1477, L. 3; p. 1527, L. 18 – p. 1537, L. 4; p. 1538, L. 25 – p. 1565, L. 11; SAR p. 33, L. 2 – p. 42, L. 26. Therefore, the judgments and orders entered against us must be vacated, PHH’s complaint must be dismissed with prejudice, we must be allowed to pursue our amended counterclaim and third party complaint and the attorneys representing PHH and Chase must be sanctioned for allowing this case to be prosecuted and for inflicting severe, significant and substantial damages upon our family.

Further, Chase, PHH and their attorneys of record intentionally filed and recorded false records which violates I.C. § 18-3203 and constitutes felonious crimes. R p. 1453, L. 1 – p. 1454, L. 2 and p. 1595, L. 12 – p. 1596, L. 3. For justice to be served in Idaho, this Court must hold their violations fully accountable to the law. Their actions require this Idaho Supreme Court to establish whether the Idaho Attorney’s Oath, I.C. § 3-201, the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, and the laws in place to protect Idaho property owners, have merit or validity in the State of Idaho. The Supreme Court and the Idaho judiciary establish the strength and authority of the laws and oaths guarding property ownership and civil liberties in Idaho. Their integrity in fulfilling their duties dictates whether attorneys who lie, commit fraud, purposefully deceive, mislead the judge and opposing counsel, withhold and conceal evidence and commit felonious crimes in Idaho will suffer just consequence or be granted unlawful impunity. No more excuses. Do the right thing.

D. Was it lawful or just to allow Genworth Financial to purchase our, the Nickersons, property at the foreclosure sale with a credit bid?

According to the Order of sale and Decree of Foreclosure (CR p. 207, #6), only the Plaintiff was permitted to credit bid at the foreclosure sale. Genworth Financial (“Genworth”) is not the Plaintiff, and their purchase voids the enforceability of the sale.

Genworth’s involvement with our loan originated in 2002 as the PMI provider. We exceeded the equity requirements to cancel their premiums in 2003, but Genworth violated the cancellation agreements and obdurately refused to cancel the premiums without our pursuing legal action.

As the insurer of the loan, Genworth, has knowledge and internal documentation PHH would not research or work with us to resolve the disputed default in 2010 when the alleged default occurred. Genworth’s legal department researched our fraud concerns and concluded there was no lawful reason for us to lose our property; confirmed PHH was clearly violating lending and debt collection laws; provided legal strategies and directions to help us save our ranch and stop PHH’s abusive debt collection practices; informed PHH they were breaking the law; and sent demands PHH immediately work with us to resolve this conflict. PHH refused.

Genworth knows the truths of this matter. Purchasing the property at a severely reduced fraction of its true market and appraised values demonstrates an extreme conflict of interest and implicates Genworth in collusion and criminal mischief. Therefore, it was not lawful or just for Genworth to purchase the property with a credit bid.

E. Is it just to allow the summary judgment for foreclosure to stand when PHH and the Idaho Department of Finance have entered into a settlement agreement to “assist borrowers harmed by PHH during 2009-2012 as a result of severe operational deficiencies in mortgage servicing identified during a multistate examination” which validates and affirms our, the Nickersons, defenses and claims expressed throughout this judicial process? See Exhibit 1 - Department of Finance Enters into Settlement Agreement - Idaho Department of Finance NEWS RELEASE dated January 3, 2018

This settlement agreement identified five (5) practices that “may otherwise violate the laws and regulations” of Idaho and related federal law all of which we have experienced and endured in this unlawful and fraudulent foreclosure action and have already claimed and demonstrated to the Idaho Courts throughout this entire judicial process. It is time for this Court to right this extreme miscarriage of justice. It is time to hold PHH accountable in this case for their persistent, purposeful and perpetual violations of Idaho laws and regulations and related federal law. The settlement agreement states:

WHEREAS, Reports of Examination and related inquiries and investigations by the State Mortgage Regulators identified practices that may otherwise violate the laws and regulations of the Participating States and related federal law; including, but not limited to, the allegations and releases that are the basis of this Agreement, which specifically include:

1) Lack of controls related to document executions, including, unauthorized execution, inconsistent signatures, faulty assignment, improper certification and notarization, and other related practices affecting the integrity of documents relied upon in the foreclosure process; (See Statement of Facts – N, P-T, and OO, R. p. 1499, L.5 – p.1504, L.13, and SAR p. 80)

2) Deficiencies in servicing, foreclosure, loan modification, and other loss mitigation processes; (See Statement of Facts – G, J-M, U-Z, GG, MM, RR, TT)

3) Deficiencies related to internal controls, including inadequate staffing levels and lack of independence;

4) Deficiencies in control and oversight of third-party providers, particularly local foreclosure counsel; and (See § C.9.. supra)

5) Deficiencies in document maintenance processes, including but not limited to, failure to retain required documents and failure to produce documents requested in tandem with the examinations. (See Statement of Facts – Z, EE and FF)

Settlement Agreement and Consent Order PHH Mortgage Corporation Notes added to demonstrate the Nickersons have documented PHH’s violations throughout this action

 

V. CONCLUSION

We, the Nickersons, have produced and presented volumes of evidence to the Idaho Courts demonstrating PHH lied, presented false and misleading claims and evidence, concealed evidence and committed fraud both on us and the Courts to obtain summary judgment. In addition, the District Court erred by refusing to amend its judgment to conform to Idaho law. Therefore, PHH must be sanctioned and the District Court’s Order of Sale and Decree of Foreclosure must be amended to conform to Idaho law.

Further, the recently announced settlement agreement between PHH and Idaho affirms and corroborates all of our claims regarding PHH’s fraudulent and unlawful actions are merit based and require action. This settlement agreement is intended to prevent PHH from continuing to harm Idaho consumers, such as our family, who have irrefutably demonstrated they have been harmed by PHH’s unlawful business practices. It is time for this Court to stop PHH’s abuse of our family and right the wrong done to us. It is time to correct this miscarriage of justice. It is time to reverse the summary judgment and allow us to pursue our claims against PHH.

Wherefore, we request this Court vacate summary judgment, vitiate the foreclosure sale, and allow us to pursue our claims against PHH and Chase. If this Court refuses to vacate summary judgment, then we request this Court determine another appropriate sanction and require the unlawful sale to be vacated and the Order of Sale and Decree of Foreclosure to be amended to state the purchasers will be let into possession after the period of redemption has expired and the Sheriff’s Deed has been issued, and that the two parcels are to be sold separately at our direction.



Appellant's Reply Brief

In their reply brief, PHH asserts this case is over and this appeal is moot. This case exposes acute regulatory failure, malicious foreclosure fraud, abusive debt collection, procedural manipulation, systemic corruption, judicial overreach, collusive tyranny, admitted attorney deception and negligence, and other such criminal and civil abuse. No justification exists for this wrongful foreclosure, this fraudulent attack on our financial portfolio, or the failure of the State of Idaho to stop these abuses. The law does not grant authority or jurisdiction for the unlawful seizure of our property without cause or right. We did not, by our actions or inactions, give consent to any power on earth to take our property from us; and fraud, collusion and corruption cannot silence our rights to stop this judicially endorsed theft. The truth demonstrates we heroically performed all obligations and walked in complete and total integrity regarding all financial commitments to this property. Moral obligations, patriotism, and the preservation of religious freedoms dictate this fight is not over. This is an issue that defines our American citizenship. It is not time to quit and silently rebuild our losses while we lick our wrongful foreclosure wounds as over seven million foreclosure victims have been forced to do. It is time to stand up for what is right and make a difference for our family, and for all American families. Wrongful foreclosures represent lives lost and destroyed by greedy, evil fraudsters and banksters. Those who have committed these crimes of domestic terrorism and treason against our citizens and our homeland need to be held personally and financially accountable, not rewarded with unjust gain and get out of jail free cards. Only severe consequences will show these corporate mercenaries that making the almighty dollar cannot be more important than preserving life, liberty, and justice for all. Justice is for all in America, not most. Thus, we pursue and will continue to pursue justice until it is found. We have clearly set forth our arguments regarding this appeal in our Appellant’s Brief. We hereby incorporate our Appellant’s Brief and the truths of this matter in their entirety in this Appellant’s Reply Brief. We submit the truth is our defense and pray this Idaho Supreme Court will set aside the grave injustices inflicted upon us and rule righteously and justly.
IN REPLY TO PHH

No lawful or enforceable sale of our property has occurred or can lawfully occur. It is an irrefutable fact all truth defeats any unlawful attempts to wrongfully foreclose upon our ranch. As stated previously, the law does not grant authority or jurisdiction for the unlawful seizure of our property without cause or right. This right cannot be bought, corruptively secured, or collusively enforced because our Constitutional rights allow us to avail ourselves of all legal remedies until the truth is exposed, and PHH and their accomplices are held fully accountable and comprehensively liable for their actions. We are fully resolved to exhaust all time, resources, and energy to securing justice and exposing the corruption and collusion in this case. We hereby submit our rebuttal to the deceptive claims made by PHH in their Respondent’s Brief. Any issue not specifically addressed has already been answered and rebutted by arguments previously incorporated herein.
GENWORTH FINANCIAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE
PHH falsely claims that “Genworth Financial” had nothing to do with the purchase of our property. However, Genworth Financial Mortgage Insurance purchased the property with a credit bid on August 28, 2017. Clearwater County Sheriff Chris Goetz unlawfully accepted this credit bid on the steps of the Clearwater County Courthouse in violation of the order of sale and our objections at the sale. “We will start the bidding with a credit bid from Genworth Financial Mortgage Insurance for $333,000 even…I am taking a credit bid from Genworth Financial for $333,000 even…” (See Affidavit of Charles Nickerson Exhibit 3; See data CD – Video of public auction in MP4 format Public_Auction_Excerpt_August_28_2017.mp4.)

INVALID WRIT
PHH falsely claims our property has been sold. The alleged sale that occurred on August 28, 2017, was executed using a writ dated April 25, 2017. This writ expired on June 25, 2017, and no additional authority was presented to execute the sale.  Thus, for this and other reasons as presented herein, the sale that allegedly occurred on August 28, 2017, did not lawfully occur, is not legally binding, and cannot be lawfully enforced.

TWO PARCELS SOLD AS ONE PARCEL
PHH falsely and deceptively states our property is one parcel when it is unquestionably two parcels. PHH is deceiving the Court to bypass our right to direct the order of sale when there is more than one parcel. We are the owners of the property and have full and correct knowledge as to the number of parcels that comprise our ranch. Both parcels have been developed and invested in to increase our equity and PHH is receiving unjust gain in being allowed to ignore their separate identities. As a matter of public record, property tax records and tax payments indicate the property consists of two separate and distinct parcels. The two parcels are known in the county records as RP36N02E224200A and RP36N02E224205A. See Affidavit of Charles Nickerson Exhibit 1 and 2.

FALSIFIED VALUE STATED TO REDUCE REQUIRED CREDIT BID

PHH falsely submitted an inaccurate and significantly lower appraised value of the property to reduce Genworth Financial’s required minimum credit bid and strip us of the right to secure the significant equity above the judgment amount. Because the Supreme Court denied our Emergency Motion To Cancel Foreclosure Sale And Stay Execution Pending Appeal on the Friday before the scheduled Monday sale, we were unsuccessful in requiring an accurate declared property value and denied opportunity to secure legitimate cash bids at the sale to protect our interests. PHH seized the opportunity to execute the sale prior to the appeal being completed to willfully defraud the integrity of the sale.

PHH deceptively provided inaccurate property value information when certified appraisals by licensed real estate appraisers establish and certify the property value is significantly higher. (See Affidavit of Charles Nickerson Exhibit 2) PHH, JP Morgan Chase, and Genworth Financial have these certified appraisal values, but Genworth Financial unlawfully made a credit bid based on the significantly reduced property value. Genworth Financial’s participation in the sale violates ethical business dealings, creates questions of their involvement in other transactions of questionable legality, and raises concerns regarding their comprehensive involvement in this wrongful foreclosure scheme from the beginning.

As presented in previous filings, a signed sales contract affirmed the certified appraisal represented a fair market value on this property. Selling the property would have prevented these proceedings, protected the pervasive domino effect on our entire financial portfolio, and secured substantial equity to reinvest in another property elsewhere. However, the sale of our property was blocked through the collusion of PHH and JP Morgan Chase. The malicious scheme to steal our ranch began with aggressively bullying and threatening us to sign the deed over. When we refused, they promised to steal all we own and informed us they wanted to foreclose on our property, throw us, our family, and others like us out on the streets because they hate people like us [Christians], and they were going to stop us from what we were doing [ministering to Christian ministry leaders]. We were denied access to any of our equity, lines of credit, and denied new credit options because the Obama Administration had passed laws to prevent anyone who had missed or been accused of missing a loan payment in the last eighteen months from borrowing money, even from their own savings accounts. Opposing counsels told us it would cost us $100,000+ to fight the foreclosure and we would lose because Idaho Courts were bought and paid for. We naively believed this could not be true. We asked the Idaho judicial system to protect us from this foreclosure fraud scheme; however, no advocate was found in the judicial system. In fact, our Idaho Bar certified attorney communicated District Court Judge Michael Griffin was corrupt and affirmed that the corruption was not limited to the banks. The sale of our property would have prevented this litigation from ever taking place if not blocked.

A licensed professional auctioneer with personal knowledge of the property and familiarity with Idaho land auctions estimated the proceeds secured at a properly conducted auction would secure enough funds to satisfy this loan and return the purchase price of the property to our financial portfolio. We were denied the opportunity to sell the property.

Clearwater County failed to conduct the sale of our property lawfully, in order, or based on accurate information. Wherefore, the alleged sale is not enforceable and must be reversed.

UNLAWFUL SALE CONDUCTED
The alleged sale of our property is unlawful for the reasons set forth in our Appellant’s Brief. Additionally, the alleged sale was executed with an expired Writ of Execution; violated our rights to direct the order of sale (I.C. § 11-304); unlawfully sold the two-parcel property as one parcel; allowed an entity without personal rights or interest in the property to credit bid in violation of the expired order of sale; prejudiced our ability to realize a fair market value for the property by allowing an outsider to credit bid below the judgment amount while restricting other potential buyers from submitting a credit bid; is not lawfully enforceable since we are the rightful owners and holders of the actual deed on this property, and have never, at any time, by action or inaction, given our consent for the property to be sold; our deeded rights have never been lawfully encumbered by lien to PHH Mortgage and PHH has no lawful right to take possession of or enforce foreclosure upon our property; the judgment amount stated by the Sheriff was determined by Summary Judgment with a District Court Judge unlawfully acting as a trier of fact to determine ownership and judgment amounts; the judgment amount is in dispute and was under appeal at the time of the alleged sale due to conflicting amounts presented by PHH and JP Morgan Chase; the judgment amount was rendered with conflicting default amounts and contradictory claims of chain of title; delays created by fighting prejudices and injustices caused solely by the lies and misrepresentations of opposing counsel and the admitted deception and negligence of our former attorney have severely inflated the judgment amount and cohesively penalized us for exercising our contractual rights; a falsified appraisal was submitted to significantly lower the minimum credit bid and strip us of substantial equity above the judgment amount; and other such issues that cannot be lawfully ignored. Due process; our rights to a defense; our contractual rights; and state, federal, and common laws and rights granted and recognized in the State of Idaho are being ignored in order to execute and uphold this unlawful sale.
UNLAWFUL SEIZURE IS NOT LEGAL IN AMERICA
First Chief Justice John Jay stated, No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent. We are still in rightful possession of our property and intend to continue pursuing all legal remedies available to save our ranch. This case will not conclude with the unlawful seizure of our ranch.

The State of Idaho must unlawfully seize our ranch to take possession of the property from us or allow any other entity to enter or take possession of our property. In so doing, the State of Idaho is denying our Constitutional rights to own property and stripping us of a foundational element of our American citizenship. This ranch was purchased to build a place for ministry leaders and their families to find rest, renewal and revival. It is being seized to prevent us from helping others help others and as part of an ongoing assault against our family and our Christian faith.

If our Idaho property can be taken from us, no property in America is safe or secure. We believe the outcome of this case is of historic consequence and a matter of national security.

Because finding relief from judgment has been thwarted by corruption, collusion, and criminal obstruction of justice, we travelled to Washington D.C. following the alleged sale to secure additional help to stop this assault against our family. We personally shared our story with the offices of all 535 United States Senators and Representatives, numerous government oversight agencies, various watchdog organizations, and other such entities. As of the writing of this brief, we are also launching a 50-state campaign to raise awareness of what has happened to our family and warn others that it can happen to them and will happen to them if judicial tyranny, abuse and neglect are allowed to continue. We believe we can win this fight in faith and prayer and have created an online website www.ithappenedtous.com to help tell our story. Our prayer is our efforts will make a difference for our family, and for other innocent victims like us. The damages we have suffered grant us the standing and moral obligation to secure relief and we are unanimously resolved to pursue all legal remedies until justice is served and the criminal acts committed against our family are prosecuted. The checks and balances set up by our Founding Fathers and the American populace, should, and we believe will, ultimately determine what is lawful on American soil. We pray God will bless and protect America from those who would wrongfully foreclosure upon her.

WARNING TO THE WISE ONES

Our research has driven us through entire towns that have been foreclosed upon when no significant financial catastrophe occurred that warrants such devastation. We have met suffering victims who bear the undeserved fate of homelessness and debilitating financial loss across America. We have listened to foreclosure nightmares from wounded patriots who today serve in the White House and the United States Capitol while silently bearing burdens created by wrongful foreclosures. Wrongful foreclosures represent lives lost and destroyed by greedy, evil fraudsters and banksters. Those who have committed these crimes of domestic terrorism against American citizens have committed treason against our homeland. They need to be held personally and financially accountable, not rewarded with unjust gain. Corporate mercenaries must know making the almighty dollar cannot be more important than preserving life, liberty or justice for all in America. Thus, we are resolved no property tombstone bearing our name will be erected by PHH or any other entity without us taking a stand and trying to make a difference. Therefore, our ranch will not be unlawfully added to foreclosure graveyards across America until all legal remedies in all three branches of our government have been exhausted and the Court of Public Opinion has rendered their final verdict. Even then, we rest in knowing God will be the Final Judge in this matter. Again, we pray, as we do every day when the clock strikes 2:08 that He will render to every man according to his deeds.

WE DO NOT WANT A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. WE WANT JUSTICE.

We provided information about the recent settlement agreement with PHH as corroborative evidence to our claims and causes of action. Contrary to PHH’s assertions in their brief, we have no desire or intention of being included, nor have we expressed any interest in being included in the agreement. It is our opinion as Idaho ranch owners, and firm conviction as common sense thinkers, that this agreement does not legitimately compensate consumers harmed by PHH, nor serve to effectively deter PHH from continuing to harm Idaho consumers. A review of the agreement demonstrates the State of Idaho enlarges their state coffers by $160,000.00. Whereas, 212 harmed Idaho consumers, including those that lost their homes to wrongful foreclosure, received an average payout of $589.62. To put this in perspective, PHH just wrongfully foreclosed on our property valued at over $1,000,000.00 (See Affidavit of Charles Nickerson Exhibit 2) for $333,000.00. PHH or Genworth Financial stands to gain over $650,000.00 on this foreclosure alone. This means the agreement provides a harmed, innocent, truthful, law-abiding consumer about $600.00 in restitution, while the dishonest law breaker PHH gains over $600,000.00. This model calculates PHH’s windfall is over $1,000.00 for every $1 in penalty. Clearly, PHH’s deception, fraud, judicial manipulation and malicious prosecution is a profitable venture. It should be clear and rather obvious why we would rather sit out this opportunity to reward PHH for abusing us, and enlarging the Idaho state coffers.

Nonetheless, it is a matter of public record an investigation of PHH by State Mortgage Regulators found that PHH violated federal and state laws during the same time in which PHH allegedly took over our loan and started this wrongful foreclosure process. This agreement documents PHH has done to others what they have done to us and demonstrates the abuse of discretion exhibited by District Court Judge Michael Griffin in allowing a known foreclosure fraudster to drive these proceedings while ignoring our claims and denying us due process. PHH has violated Idaho and federal laws regarding mortgages, mortgage servicing, county record recordation, unfair and deceptive trade practices, RESPA regulations, Truth in Lending, Rules of Civil Procedure, Duties of Attorneys, and more as documented and detailed throughout our briefs and the record. This appeal is not moot. These issues have not been properly and lawfully litigated. PHH and JP Morgan Chase have obstructed justice, misrepresented the truths of this matter, and committed fraud on the Court. Consequently, all judgments have been rendered through fraud, misrepresentations, an unlawful summary judgment in which a District Court Judge acted as a trier of fact and denied our rights to due process, and other such injustices as comprehensively detailed in the record. Granting impunity to one who has been deemed a lawbreaker by regulating authorities of the State of Idaho and 45 other states, while denying an Idaho homeowner opportunity to a trial and to be heard, is unjust. It is not lawful to allow PHH to seize our property when they have deceptively and maliciously manipulated the Idaho Courts to steal (2. To take (something) by…false pretenses.  Black’s, Id.) our property.

ATTORNEY FEES

This argument has already been addressed in our brief. We submit PHH has waived and revoked any and all attorney fees by proceeding with the premature sale of the property while it was still in appeal. Lawfully any attorney fees would have come from the proceeds of the sale of the property.

Wherefore, we request this Court grant us costs, attorney fees, and any and all relief that is within their power to grant and that it hold PHH Mortgage accountable to the fullest extent of the law for the actions and inactions committed against us, Idaho Courts, and the World-At-Large.        

UNLAWFUL TRANSLATES TO NOT ENFORCEABLE

Other such criminal and unlawful acts and false claims and misrepresentations surround this sale as are described in our Brief and in the record in its entirety. The State of Idaho is acting as an accomplice in illegal acts by allowing this property to be sold. This exposes the State of Idaho and Idaho property records to needless liability and contamination.

Volumes of evidence and testimony regarding the dishonest, deceptive, fraudulent, and malicious prosecution of this case by PHH and their attorneys of record are before this Court. It is unjust and beyond the discretion and authority of Idaho Courts to reward PHH and their attorneys for their lack of regard for the law, for ethics, and for their duties as Idaho attorneys (I.C. § 3-201. Duties of Attorneys. 4. To employ, for the purpose of maintaining causes confided in him, such means only as are consistent with truth, and never seek to mislead the judges by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.). It is unlawful and unethical for PHH to quash the authority of this Court based on judgments rendered by relying upon false claims.

The right to action cannot be silenced by illegal actions. The law provides a way of escape for wayward decisions to be reversed in the interest of justice. Judgments rendered on false findings cannot be lawfully enforced and therefore must be reversed. The freedom to equitably, fairly, and justly evaluate the merits of this case, and overrule any preexisting prejudice caused by any previous proceedings or determinations made in this case continues, as long as liberty endures. Justice grants the authority to act on this appeal, correct any alleged law of the case, and rule according to the truths of the matter and merits of the case.

NOW IS YOUR MOMENT TO DECIDE FOR THE GOOD OR EVIL SIDE

Opposing counsel is right that it is time for this case to come to an end. However, we do not agree with PHH’s assessment that this appeal is moot or that this Supreme Court has no authority to act. Fraud On The Court has no statute of limitations. Fraud vitiates everything. No lawful right can arise from an illegal act. PHH has committed fraud. Laws have been broken. The time to set the record straight and do the right thing is now. Despite any prejudices Idaho Courts may have toward our family, pro se litigants in general, or our Christian faith, justice requires this Supreme Court justly uphold and enforce the laws of Idaho.

Appealing to the Idaho Supreme Court should not be reduced to a game of finding the correct minutia to force Supreme Court Justices to do their job. We have not asked for special favor or consideration as pro se litigants. We remind this Supreme Court we are representing ourselves pro se because of the lack of integrity and sobriety we have experienced dealing with Idaho attorneys and judges. We have simply asked to be treated fairly and impartially and for this Idaho Supreme Court to listen, hear and act on our pleas. Enough has been said for this Supreme Court to determine the truth and to see all judgements that have been taken against us are in error. The time has come for this Supreme Court to honor your robe and do what is right.

James Russell Lowell once wrote, Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide in the strife of truth with falsehood for the good or evil side. Today is your moment to decide. We have chosen to stand for truth, to honor and protect the freedoms and inalienable rights granted to us by God and our forefathers, to preserve our property rights, to plea that the laws of Idaho be upheld and enforced for all Idaho homeowners, and to stand worthy and in agreement with our American citizenship.

Many gave their lives to give us the right to own property and to be free from religious persecution. It appears most, if not all, of the Justices reading this brief and the attorneys we have battled in this case are affiliated with the Mormon church or Mormon educational institutions. Surely history has taught each of you justice for all cannot mean justice for most. It is well documented injustice for one quickly becomes injustice for all. We are being persecuted, and it is within your power to end the injustices we are suffering. To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. It is your sworn duty to protect judicial integrity in the State of Idaho.

Choose you this day Whom you will serve. We, the Nick and Donna Nickerson Family, are asking you to serve truth, justice, and the American way. PHH is asking you to serve falsehood, injustice, and greedy tyrants. PHH is also asking you to grant impunity for a wrongful foreclosure, establish precedents that empower fraudulent land grabs, allow the foreclosure of American soil to continue with judicial assistance, render rewards for illegal acts, and look the other way while they unlawfully assault our family. We pray you choose wisely. History and our family will record the choice you make.


We are now back home in Montana. This is planting and harvest season for us so life is very busy, but we are actively working on this site and spreading awareness about this battle in the midst of it all. Our plan is to return to Washington D.C. to continue the fight and launch a 50-state awareness campaign to share our story. We are more resolved than ever to save our home and ranches. We did nothing wrong and are committed to do what is right and save them...whatever the cost.

Please pray and share our story with others. This is not a Nickerson only problem. This is not a state specific problem. This is an attack on American citizenship, religious liberties, and property rights. We are victims of malicious fraud, judicial tyranny, acute regulatory failure, and grotesque procedural manipulation. If our Idaho ranch can be stolen from us, and this assault on our persons and our entire financial portfolio can stand in the midst of such fraud and corruption, no home or Christian in America is safe. Either our home must be saved or property rights and religious freedoms have been revoked and are truly non-existent in America. Idaho, wake up before it is too late! America, get involved. You who are reading this....United We Stand. Divided We Fall. Together We Overcome. It happened to us. It could happen to you. It is happening to you. It is time to stand together and overcome. Pray and get involved!

God help America before it is too late and may God render to each man according to his deeds in this battle between good and evil.

Prayer request from the Nick and Donna Nickerson FamilyPrayer request from the Nick and Donna Nickerson Family
Pray without ceasing. 1 Thessalonians 5:17
The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
James 5:16b


The area code of Washington D.C. is 202. Will you set your clocks for 2:02 each day and pause to pray for America, for our administration, for those in leadership across our country, for revival among our people, for our citizens to lay aside their differences and work together to make America greater than it has ever been before? Pray with us. Prayer changes things and we have learned to never doubt the power of prayer. Thank you for praying, caring, and making a difference where you are. God bless you and God protect you in the battles that lie ahead for all of us. Be real and stand for Truth. God is faithful. He will see you, all of us, through.


body_right
 
body_left