Help Ken Dost Appeal Fraud

Please Help Ken and Michele Dost raise money to fight fraud upon the courts.

Ken says his case is regarding a foreclosure matter wherein the basis for the appeal are due process violations against us by the multiple judges involved and them conveniently tripping over each other’s orders to deny our evidence and proper defense. As well as opposing counsel’s proven lies and the continued efforts to obfuscate the presenting of our affirmative defense that the plaintiff lacked standing.

The due process violations are plentiful and started with our very first hearing held September 23, 2013, which was on our motion to dismiss. This hearing was overseen by a traveling judge due to a judge in our district retirement. The temporary judge had no access to the court records and therefore did not review documents before finding in favor of the plaintiff for our alleged failure to confer on this motion. Had this judge been able to review the case documents he would have clearly seen we conferred with the plaintiffs as required. We just were unaware there was a proper form to use. The plaintiff’s attorney lied to the judge that we did not confer. The traveling judge denied our motion to dismiss based upon non conference. We later filed motions stating that we did in fact confer. These motions were never heard even with our multiple attempts to get them heard.

HSBC’s counsel filed a motion for summary judgment on October 23, 2013. This motion and our motion to dismiss were scheduled to be heard on November 18, 2013. At this hearing we argued before the actual presiding Judge M our affirmative defense. The Judge did not want to hear our motion to dismiss as this time and instead focused on the motion for summary judgment instead.  Judge M continued this hearing until December 31, 2013, ordering us to submit our evidence demonstrating our affirmative defenses.  This was done over the course of the next month. The judge also made the statement she would be the presiding over the case until its completion.  

At the December 31, 2013 hearing, defendants and plaintiff’s counsel waited 15 minutes while the judge was on a phone call. Judge M later appeared in the court room. The hearing was never formally started and she never even stepped up onto her bench. She was clearly irritated when she announced that Judge G had already issued an order in our case. It seems two days prior to the continuation hearing, Judge G who had no knowledge whatsoever of the case sent only to Plaintiff’s counsel an executed summary judgment order in favor of Plaintiff which was dated November 1, 2013 (although the docket shows the order entry was in fact created in the computer system on December 9, 2013). This order was dated a full two weeks prior to our summary judgment response being due, clearly a violation of court procedures. Almost two months after Judge G's summary judgment order was signed, the order showed up by first class mail to Plaintiffs counsel only. Prior to this no one knew it existed, not us, not the court record, and not Judge M.

Plaintiff’s counsel admitted at this hearing that Judge G's Summary Judgment was not appropriate and clearly a mistake. However, Judge M, being a newly appointed judge, stated she was not going to overturn another judge's ruling, to which opposing counsel then motioned our counterclaim, all motions, and other filings be dismissed and HSBC be awarded fees, to which Judge M agreed. Keep in mind the hearing was never officially started.

Two days later, Judge M, contacted me ex parte by telephone at my home, apologizing profusely for her error in supporting a Summary Judgment that should never have been executed. Further, she informed me Judge G was going to vacate the order at a hearing, which he did in fact do a month later.

Although he did vacate the summary judgment order he did not restore the parties to their original position as if the mistaken summary judgment had not occurred. This would have been restoring us to Judge Martwick's court with the presentation of our evidence and the reversal of all motions and filings that were granted to opposing counsel only because of Judge G's wrongful summary judgment order.

Instead, Judge G upheld the dismissal of motions and strikes, not even looking at a single motion or strike, which included objections to plaintiff’s counsel several misrepresentations in court filing and in hearings. Judge G granted summary judgment to HSBC despite all our objections and despite evidence that HSBC as Trustee for Ownit 2005-4 sold all rights to the alleged note to Maiden Lane 2 in March of 2011. Which clearly shows HBSC is not the real party in interest and has no standing to bring this action.

Judge G is a disgrace to the bench. His indignant treatment of Michele and I is disgraceful. On April 27, 2015 we had one hour scheduled for our hearing, but we were made to wait 20 minutes while Judge G was engaged on a personal call while he was supposed to be on the bench. We heard the entire conversation; he was speaking about payouts over a 20 year timeframe on a 500k annuity. When he did finally take the bench, he was indignant towards us and had already made up his mind. Further, to quash our repeated arguments and objections he had the clerk shut off the court recording after only 20 minutes. So for one a hour scheduled hearing, we got a mere 20 minutes time. Thankfully, a reporter from the Spotlight was present at the hearing, and we will call her as a witness if need be. Judge G is a disgrace to the bench.

Our civil rights have been blatantly run over by judicial misconduct, whose bias and prejudice is unprecedented, that runs consistent in court rooms across this state and states across the country. People in foreclosure are labeled as deadbeats, liars, and cheats looking to score a free house. There is no free house; our lives are irreparably destroyed in which there is no coming back. The next point is the assumption there is a valid agreement, and this goes to the heart of our affirmative defense and counterclaim. We have uncovered evidence that proves the mortgage loan to agreement to real property is not valid, demonstrated by an intentionally concealed security agreement of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

HSBC’s counsel, Matt Booth, has done everything he can to obfuscate our affirmative defense from being heard, aided and abetted by Columbia County Court Judges. It is an absolute outrage and disgusting portrayal of injustice. The Oregon Mediation Laws were ignored as well.

Sincerely,
Ken Dost