Petition 10: the Miller Petition

Additional commentary by Timothy Horrigan
(member of the House Petitions & Redress Committee)

This is the most worthwhile petition filed in 2011, by far. It deals with a overlooked but extremely important issue. Marie Miller is one of millions of homeowners who have been victimized by the financial system's inability to do one of its most basic duties (i.e., keeping track of who owns property) with even a minimal degree of competence. Her house was sold out from under her by an entity called Nationstar Mortgage even though (according to Ms. Miller) they had no standing to do so.



PETITION 10

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE

TO: The Honorable House of Representatives

FROM: Petitioner Representative Timothy P. Comerford, Rockingham 9

DATE: May 25, 2011

SUBJECT: Grievance of Marie L. Miller, Farmington, New Hampshire

Your Petitioner Representative Comerford on behalf of Marie L. Miller of Farmington, hereinafter presents the following summary of her grievance involving a decision of Associate Justice Marguerite Wageling of the New Hampshire superior court and invokes the constitutional authority and duty of the Honorable House of Representatives pursuant to Articles 31 and 32 to bring about redress:

Grievance involving a decision of Associate Justice Marguerite Wageling of the New Hampshire superior court which allowed a home foreclosure case to proceed without the documentation necessary to prove ownership of the home in question.

Wherefore, your Petitioner prays that the House of Representatives consider this proposed remedy:

  1. Introduce legislation to require proper documentation of property ownership prior to permitting an action involving foreclosure of property to proceed.


  2. Study the procedures used by the New Hampshire superior courts to verify property ownership in foreclosure actions.

Respectfully submitted by Petitioner Representative Comerford on Behalf of Marie L. Miller.

The committee was also provided with the following supporting document, which was written by Ms. Miller. It is a shocking story, which is similar to millions of others nationwide:

PETITION # 10


PETITION (FORECLOSURE)

  1. Petitioner Marie Miller is owner of her residence located at 1 Summer Street, Farmington, where she and her family have resided since 1972.

  2. On June 23, 2008 NationStar Mortgage LLC filed an eviction action against Miller in Rochester District Court. This case was appealed, pursuant to RSA 540:17, to Strafford County Superior Court where NationStar commenced a foreclosure action against Miller. Since the onset of this action, Miller consistently requested that NationStar's agents produce original loan document in support of their foreclosure claim as required by law and supported by many higher court rulings. NationStar failed/refused to do so. Additionally, a Petition for Declaratory Judgment Mandatory Injunction and Damages, dated November 19, 2008, was filed by Attorney Donald F. Whittum.

  3. One year later, on June 26, 2009, Superior Court Judge Kenneth Brown issued an order giving NationStar 21 more days to produce the original documentation. NationStar failed to do so and are in contempt of a court order. Judge Brown has ignored the contempt of court and has abused his power to deny Miller due process and to continue a case which lacks jurisdiction and standing by NationStar.

  4. On November 23, 2009, Judge Marguerite Wageling, who replaced Judge Brown in this case, granted Summary Judgment to NationStar with full knowledge of Judge Brown's order, dated June 26, 2009, and abused her power in the same manner as Judge Brown with the William Miller case.

  5. Petitioner Miller has been forced into an appeal before the N.H. Supreme Court which was timely filed on February 19, 2010, in addition to challenging N.H.'s non-judicial foreclosure in violation of the U.S. Constitution, 7th Amendment and N.H. Constitution, Art. 20.

  6. The threat of removal of Petitioner from her home has been ongoing for over 2 years with the N.H.Supreme Court's delays of one year.

  7. Petitioner's Motion for Summary Reversal to the Supreme Court, pursuant to Rule 25(2), was denied.

  8. On March 29, 2010, Petitioner filed a Motion for Emergency Injunction against NationStar which threatened another eviction process in Rochester District Court, while this appeal was pending. Motion was denied on March 30, 2010. Motion for Reconsideration, denied.

  9. Petitioner's Motion for Writ of Prohibition, entered in the Supreme Court on June 2, 2010, commanding the Rochester District Court to cease from the prosecution of a Landlord and Tenant Writ against Petitioner was treated as a motion to stay and denied on June 3, 2010.

  10. Petitioner's Writ of Mandamus and Objection to court order dated June 3, 2010 was treated as a second motion to stay denied on June 29, 2010 and Objection treated as a motion to reconsider denied August 5, 2010.

  11. The Supreme Court's orders of denial are in violation on the Administrative Procedures ActSection 541-A:35 Decisions and Order. - A final decision or order shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law, separately stated. None of the courts' orders stated findings of fact nor conclusions of law.

  12. The failure of the Supreme Court justices to prevent and correct errors and abuses, to act upon the questions of law and fact, to expeditiously dispose of this case flies in the face of justice and in violation of the following:

  13. The failure of the justices in the Superior and Supreme Courts to uphold the rules of court, constitutional rights, and Judicial Canons to further harm Petitioner constitutes Official Oppression, pursuant to Title LXII Criminal Code, 643:1. A public servant, as defined in RSA 640:2 is guilty of a misdemeanor if, with a purpose to benefit himself or another or to harm another, he knowingly commits an unauthorized act which purports to be an act of his office; or knowingly refrains from performing a duty imposed on him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office.

  14. The Supreme and Superior courts do not apply the same standards to NationStar Mortgage LLC which are applied to Petitioner Miller. Another issue in point, the granting of NationStar's Motion for Extension of Time in which to file their 3-page Brief over Petitioner's Objection.

  15. No trial was ever held in the lower court before Judge Kenneth Brown, nor Marguerite Wageling, Petitioner has been denied her rights to confront witnesses who made claim against her without any evidence and false statements by NationStar.

  16. The court record proves that NationStar Mortgage LLC has not only acted unethically and in bad faith, but has perpetrated a fraud upon Petitioner Miller and the court resulting in a loss of due process for Marie Miller and continued fear for her life, retaliation and harassment by the Farmington Police Department Chief and officers.

  17. Judge Wagelings' abuse of power, obstructions of justice, continue at the N.H. Supreme Court. Judge Wageling had no authority to issue summary judgment to NationStar when she had Judge Kenneth Brown's order, dated on June 26, 2009, to NationStar giving them 21 more days to produce the original documentation which they failed to do and, therefore, lacked standing to bring an action against Marie Miller.

  18. Petitioner Marie Miller wants to sell her home and move away from Farmington. However, due to the failure of the justices in the Superior and Supreme Courts to uphold the rules of court, constitutional rights, Judicial Canons and due process, Miller has been stuck in limbo for years.

  19. These courts have brought total destruction to the Miller family, in addition to aiding and abetting the harassment and retaliation to other members of the Miller family by the Farmington Police Department.

  20. On February 10, 2011 N.H. Supreme Court justices Dalianis, Duggan, Hicks, Conboy and Lynn issued an order denying Miller's motion for hearing on issues of her appeal and affirmed the summary judgment in favor of NationStar Mortgage LLC. The facts in this court's order are false statements.

  21. The justices at the N.H. Supreme Court have aided and abetted the unlawful confiscation of Miller's home; have violated their oaths of office and judicial Canons; have violated Miller's constitutional rights and civil liberties; and are fully aware of NationStar's default and contempt of court.

  22. The concerted and unlawful actions of the justices in the Supreme Court and their refusal to uphold procedural due process and due process is just cause for removal and impeachment pursuant to N.H. Constitution, Art. 73.

  23. The justices named in this petition are a criminal network run amuck which demands answers and accountability of these justices.

  24. Petitioner also raised the question of the constitutionality of the New Hampshire's non-judicial foreclosure law. The Supreme Court justices have totally ignored this issue on appeal.



Ms. Miller gave good testimony on October 20 and December 15, 2011, although Point #3 (which is the key one) is still fuzzy in my mind. The sleazy lender Nationstar allegedly failed to produce the original loan documents, which is an extremely plausible allegation. However, it is clear that no one disputes that the mortgage did in fact exist and that Ms. Miller eventually defaulted on it after making a number of payments. I am wondering if something actually was produced which legitimately satisfied the requirements of New Hampshire's "presentment" laws. Even if something was produced, that would still leave points #1 through #2 and #4 through #24 to be explained away.

We voted on the petition in July 2012, and I actually voted with the Republicans in the petitioner's favor:

Petition #10 grievance of Marie L. Miller.  (Report filed 8/8/12)

Grievance Founded with Recommendations.


Committee Findings:

The Redress of Grievances Committee reviewed the evidence and finds that Associate Justice Marguerite Wageling of the New Hampshire Superior Court allowed a home foreclosure case to proceed without the documentation per RSA 382-A:3-501 which requires that the entity making the foreclosure demand actually prove ownership of the home in question through production of the original instruments if requested. The previous judge, Kenneth Brown, acknowledged the rightness of the Petitioner's request that the company trying to foreclose "shall" produce the documents and was awaiting them as a last item before going to trial. When the case changed judges before the production of documents and Brown was no longer involved, the Petitioner's lawful request was ignored. The Committee agrees with the Petitioner and recommends the introduction of legislation to:

  1. Require proper documentation of property ownership prior to permitting an action involving foreclosure of property to proceed and;

  2. Study the procedures used by the New Hampshire Superior Courts to verify property ownership in foreclosure actions with a view to ending the non-judicial foreclosure approach to such issues. 


Vote 9-1.


Rep. Daniel Itse for the Committee





2011 House Petitions:




See Also:



Home

The Forgotten Liars

2011 Session