Bagels at a Bar mitzvah Part II

[Javagold]

It may or may not fall under dual tracking, since you followed the direction of a party that you couldnt possibly know was not the proper party. Either way, you should have all the evidence you need to show the mod and to show your payments in good faith.

The referred for foreclosure letter....did they ever accelerate the balance on the note? Generally, that's a prerequisite to forclosure, though your state may vary. The referred letter may contain the language needed to satisfy whatever your state's laws require. Did they ever accelerate the balance?

I'd check to see if you have any documentation or if there's something in your state that requires that 60 day grace period. If so, you have them on that as well, though that's more likely to be a procedural flaw and not of much more value than that.

Regarding the modification, usually you handle that with the servicer, not the investor. Did you sign paperwork with the investor, or was it with the servicer? If with the servicer, you're fully within your rights to demand their performance on it because the servicer does not always chance when a new investor steps in. But if it was with the investor, then you have a new issue--fraud. The former investor no longer has any authority to make such arrangements like that.

The modification was allegedly signed and represented to me as US Bank NA Trusteee for ABC Trust , which I come to find out with this Referred For Foreclosure letter that 123 Trust is the “new investor” however, 123Trust allegedly purchased the NPLs of ABC Trust in 2021 , unbeknownst to me and BEFORE the modification was signed in 2022 as US Bank NA Trustee for ABC Trust.

There is no acceleration letter. No NOI Foreclose letter. They did stop the monthly payment on the last statement and put the entire lump sum they say is allegedly owed since February 2023. But never any certified or mail letters or notifications until this Referred For Foreclosure letter and $1500 legal fees on my account as of this week.

I spoke with Servicer today and they insisted that they have strict check & balances to make sure a NOI Foreclose was sent out, as he admitted this would be a serious violation and breech and would be 1 in million of happening. When I called him out on the dates the notifications were sent. He came up empty. And insisted I call the foreclosure attorneys. I told him I refuse to speak with liars and I’m his customer. Silence. 1 in a million I said. 1 in a million.

Seems I may have just won the Debt Collector Servicer Lottery !!

 

[kraftykrab]

The modification was allegedly signed and represented to me as US Bank NA Trusteee for ABC Trust , which I come to find out with this Referred For Foreclosure letter that 123 Trust is the “new investor” however, 123Trust allegedly purchased the NPLs of ABC Trust in 2021 , unbeknownst to me and BEFORE the modification was signed in 2022 as US Bank NA Trustee for ABC Trust.

There is no acceleration letter. No NOI Foreclose letter. They did stop the monthly payment on the last statement and put the entire lump sum they say is allegedly owed since February 2023. But never any certified or mail letters or notifications until this Referred For Foreclosure letter and $1500 legal fees on my account as of this week.

I spoke with Servicer today and they insisted that they have strict check & balances to make sure a NOI Foreclose was sent out, as he admitted this would be a serious violation and breech and would be 1 in million of happening. When I called him out on the dates the notifications were sent. He came up empty. And insisted I call the foreclosure attorneys. I told him I refuse to speak with liars and I’m his customer. Silence. 1 in a million I said. 1 in a million.

Seems I may have just won the Debt Collector Servicer Lottery !!

You don't end up with $1500 in legal fees unless they are already retaining that attorney and that attorney has already taken billable action for them---and because it's a flat rate kind of number, I'd suggest you check immediately with your court clerk's office to see if they filed a suit.

The knuckleheads I'm dealing with did dual tracking with me before it was ruled to be illegal--back in 2010. They literally informed me that the so-called creditor accepted the forbearance agreement in writing on the same exact day that they filed a foreclosure suit--which caused $1600 to be added to the fee balance for no legit reason. Then, they asked the sheriff to withhold service....so we didnt even know we were being dual-tracked. Their collections office started calling 2 months later and leaving messages saying we were over $3500 past due....not possible. We had proof we were paying every month and the payment was less than $600. The following month it was up over $4K past due. And the funny thing was, I'd call in to speak to them, and the rep on the phone would tell me to "just disregard that message"....they said they could see the forbearance agreement and they could see we were brought current and were paying on time, etc etc.

Bottom line, if they cannot prove they sent you the notice, then it didnt happen. That's how we must regard this.

 

[kraftykrab]

Keep this in mind--as part of my exhibits, I included the letter from the law firm I'm fighting....on their own letterhead....actually signed by this lawyer's actual dad (he's a partner in the firm). In response, she provided zero evidence of any kind--she literally just told the court that no such forbearance ever happened. Like I said, they are paid to lie for a living.

She claimed it never happened, and then said even if it had, it has no bearing on the state of the account. Let's completely ignore the fact that they dual tracked me when they took a lump sum of money from me for this agreement. Let's completely ignore the fact that they admitted in writing to bringing the same account current that they sued me over, claiming I owed them thousands in past due balance. Let's also forget that their intentional mishandling of my payments caused the default in the first place. All of this goes back to that forbearance agreement that she claims never happened and is irrelevant.

 

[Javagold]

You don't end up with $1500 in legal fees unless they are already retaining that attorney and that attorney has already taken billable action for them---and because it's a flat rate kind of number, I'd suggest you check immediately with your court clerk's office to see if they filed a suit.

The knuckleheads I'm dealing with did dual tracking with me before it was ruled to be illegal--back in 2010. They literally informed me that the so-called creditor accepted the forbearance agreement in writing on the same exact day that they filed a foreclosure suit--which caused $1600 to be added to the fee balance for no legit reason. Then, they asked the sheriff to withhold service....so we didnt even know we were being dual-tracked. Their collections office started calling 2 months later and leaving messages saying we were over $3500 past due....not possible. We had proof we were paying every month and the payment was less than $600. The following month it was up over $4K past due. And the funny thing was, I'd call in to speak to them, and the rep on the phone would tell me to "just disregard that message"....they said they could see the forbearance agreement and they could see we were brought current and were paying on time, etc etc.

Bottom line, if they cannot prove they sent you the notice, then it didnt happen. That's how we must regard this.

There is NO record as of today with either the NJ Office of Fraudclosure and/or the County Clerks office, local Court and of course the Sheriff office. As this is a judicial state!!!

 

[Survivor_IN]

There is NO record as of today with either the NJ Office of Fraudclosure and/or the County Clerks office, local Court and of course the Sheriff office. As this is a judicial state!!!

That 1500 legal fee is BS. It's like adding force-placed insurance on an account where you are current with your homeowners and it is paid through escrow and the servicer knows this is not cancelled. It's a means to force default by adding a charge to your account that you can't pay... BUT... they know it is not legitimate and such charge is legally entitled to be reversed.
(Please complain on the complainer site at CFPB)

Also appears that they did wait the alleged 6 month default (from February) in order to skirt the CFPB law on 6 month delay and that they needed to reject payments to complete that... hence the legal fee addition.

I have fought the unknown legal fee addition. Of course after arguing it in an MSJ, they withdrew then they amended and removed all bogus charges... but continued to foreclose even after correcting their records and proving I was current at the time of foreclosure.

Butt faced shysters!

Just answer any lawsuit and if you need help on that I'm at mssmithhomeowner1 at gmail dot com and I am not an attorney but can refer you to resources on it related to NJ or judicial responses.

 

[kraftykrab]

That 1500 legal fee is BS. It's like adding force-placed insurance on an account where you are current with your homeowners and it is paid through escrow and the servicer knows this is not cancelled. It's a means to force default by adding a charge to your account that you can't pay... BUT... they know it is not legitimate and such charge is legally entitled to be reversed.
(Please complain on the complainer site at CFPB)

Also appears that they did wait the alleged 6 month default (from February) in order to skirt the CFPB law on 6 month delay and that they needed to reject payments to complete that... hence the legal fee addition.

I have fought the unknown legal fee addition. Of course after arguing it in an MSJ, they withdrew then they amended and removed all bogus charges... but continued to foreclose even after correcting their records and proving I was current at the time of foreclosure.

Butt faced shysters!

Just answer any lawsuit and if you need help on that I'm at mssmithhomeowner1 at gmail dot com and I am not an attorney but can refer you to resources on it related to NJ or judicial responses.

Well, they did but they didn't...because when javagold operated under the signed agreement for a mod, they are pretending there's a default when there isn't. So they can claim on paper that they did. Java should be able to overcome that with the written agreement and the evidence of payments made.

 

[isisis]

Going through another mock execution when inexplicably my tormentors chose to forego the last minute pleasure of making me squirm and postponed a week early. Maybe it's lost its novelty and they decided to get creative and incorporate another tradition's method of cruel and unusual - the Chinese water torture - and just keeping on posting then postponing over and over.

Or maybe they're trying to be inclusive, this is California after all and they can't foreclose without sending notices in every possible language including Tagalog. So maybe some people objected that mock executions were a Middle eastern terrorist thing and they felt their culture wasn't being represented. They said they were cool with torture and all that but it was necessary to include other tradition's methods to be politically correct. The servicer was only too happy to oblige but regrettably had to reject some suggestions - roasting on a spit, sharp objects under the fingernails - as being too logistically challenging. Then they hit on Chinese water torture and ran with it.

A bit of levity in this insanity keeps me sane. Well, almost....

 

[Survivor_IN]

Just remember, if you are in beginning stages or "pre-foreclosure" and you start missing payments, keep your missed payments under the six month accrual. (Per CFBC this is mandated) You can do this by making payments sufficient to stay under this danger zone time period needed for a legal foreclosure filing. These six months are technically to give you a chance to catch up or make arrangements to cure. If you have to miss a payment or two or even three, but then have funds, make the effort to pay one or more payments at the same time to cure and defer.

While a rolling late is not good, you will buy time for resolution. For example, if you miss two payments, and then continue to pay regularly, you will have what is called a "rolling late." It's important to not let them reverse or withhold your payments in order to qualify you for a foreclosure referral. It is also illegal per the CFBC to not apply the payment. If they don't apply the payment and retain the payment, then you have a cause of action. In the case of a predatory servicer, you can expect them to reverse between one and three payments in order to declare default. Even if they do add charges causing a "late," these are usually not enough to make a full payment missed but it does suspend the application. It's common to "add to" the missed payments where the property would be profitable to foreclose.

Servicers can not refuse to apply payments without returning those payments. The can not hold indefinitely and the CFPB has ruled that all payments accepted MUST be applied.

Plus, I like this guy and he does handle federal cases as well as State cases.

Blog | Ira J. Metrick, Esq. | New Jersey Foreclosure Blog

Visit the blog of the law office of Ira J. Metrick to learn more about NJ foreclosure defense, loan modifications, sheriff sales, and more. Contact us today to discuss your case.

www.metrickesq.com

 

[Survivor_IN]

I would also like to say that even though the CFPB servicing rules were not implemented until 2014, dual tracking and not applying payments is still a wrong and a violation of law under both State and Federal Unfair and Deceptive Practices. This is why the CFPB implemented certain rules as these were to prevent unfair practices in servicing.

 

[moretrouble]

Good article:

Don't Ask Who Holds the Note, Ask Who REALLY Owns Your Debt - LivingLies

One of the most important things I learned from Neil Garfield in the time he was mentoring me and preparing me to take over his practice is this: When you're

livinglies.me

Still looking for a Max Gardner boot camp bk attorney, getting close. Below is a detail report to the certificate holder. My loan may not be even in the trust.

 

[Javagold]

Good article:

Don't Ask Who Holds the Note, Ask Who REALLY Owns Your Debt - LivingLies

One of the most important things I learned from Neil Garfield in the time he was mentoring me and preparing me to take over his practice is this: When you're

livinglies.me

Still looking for a Max Gardner boot camp bk attorney, getting close. Below is a detail report to the certificate holder. My loan may not be even in the trust.

How about the attorney who took over for Garfield???

 

[isisis]

Here's a case where the homeowner is using the argument that I'd been considering a few years ago regarding REMIC tax consequences rendering acceptance into the trust as void. It got shot down by the court.

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

More Trouble,

I've tried to get on Max Gardner website a couple times now with no luck, it just won't load.

https://maxconsumerdefenseacademy.com/

 

[moretrouble]

Here's a case where the homeowner is using the argument that I'd been considering a few years ago regarding REMIC tax consequences rendering acceptance into the trust as void. It got shot down by the court.

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

More Trouble,

I've tried to get on Max Gardner website a couple times now with no luck, it just won't load.

https://maxconsumerdefenseacademy.com/

Here's a decent looking list of Gardner graduates. Taken from: http://www.maxbankruptcybootcamp.com/find-graduates

Selected states

California
Mark Ankcorn
Ankcorn Law Firm
9845 Erma Road, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92131
(619) 870-0600
Send Email
Back to top
Guy Chism
Chism Law Offices
2225 Grant Road Suite 3
Los Altos, CA 94024
(650) 386-1557
Send Email
Back to top
Edmund Dechant
Law Offices of Edmund Dechant
Two E Street
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
(707) 604-0042
Send Email
Back to top
Linda Deos
Law Office of Linda Deos
330 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 442-4442
Send Email
Back to top
Steve Doan
Doan Law, LLP
635 Camino de los Mares, 100
San Clemente, CA 92673
(949) 472-0600
Send Email
Back to top
Barbara Gilbert
Law Office Of Barbara J Gilbert
2230 W Chapman #203
Orange, CA 92868
(949) 854-1838
Send Email
Back to top
Walter Hackett
Inland Counties Legal Services
Send Email
Back to top
Jason Jones
Avatar Legal, P.C.
12526 High Bluff Dr., Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92130
(858) 793-9800
Back to top
Stephen Kim
Stephen H. Kim, Attorney at Law
376A Main Street
Salinas, CA 93901
(831) 221-5022
Send Email
Back to top
Gina Klump
Law Office of Gina R. Klump
17 Keller Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) 778-0111
Send Email
Back to top
James Michel
Law Office of James Michel
2912 Diamond St. #373
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94131
Back to top
Lorene Mies
Lorene Lynn Mies, A PLC
38975 Sky Canyon Dr., Ste. 204
Murrieta, CA 92563
(951) 894-4791
Send Email
Back to top
Norberto F. Reyes
REYES LAW GROUP, APLC
3600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 820
Los Angeles, CA 90010
(213) 382-6600
Send Email
Back to top
Selwyn Whitehead
Law Offices of Selwyn D. Whitehead
4650 Scotia Avenue
Oakland, CA 94605
(510) 632-7444
Send Email
Back to top

New Jersey
Virginia E. Fortunato
Mark Goldman, P.C.
7 Glenwood Avenue
East Orange, NJ 7017
(973) 677-9000
Back to top
David Giller
Law Offices of David Giller LLC
1 University Plaza Drive #412
Hackensack, NJ 7601
(201) 478-7412
Send Email
Back to top
Bruce Levitt
Levitt & Slafkes, P.C.
76 South Orange Avenue, Suite 305
South Orange, NJ 7079
(973) 313-1200
Send Email
Back to top
Andy Winchell
Law Offices of Andy Winchell
332 SPRINGFIELD AVE STE 203
SUMMIT, NJ 7901
(973) 457-4710
Send Email
Back to top

New York
Theodore Araujo
Bankruptcy Law Center
313 East Willow Street #105
Syracuse, NY 13203
(315) 422-1234
Send Email
Back to top
Kathleen Cully
Kathleen G Cully PLLC
305 Broadway, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10007
(212) 447-9882
Send Email
Back to top
Jay fleischman
Shaev & Fleischman LLP
Back to top
Ronald Kim
Law Offices of Ronald J. Kim
36 Long Alley Suite 101
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
(518) 581-8416
Send Email
Back to top
Jayson Lutzky
Law Offices Of Lutzky & Labayen, LLP
26 West 183rd Street
Bronx, NY 10453
(800) 660-5299
Send Email
Back to top
Linda Tirelli
Law Offices of Linda M. Tirelli PC
1 North Lexington Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601
(914) 946-0860
Send Email
Back to top

Ohio
Christopher Spiroff
Spiroff Law Office
1180 S. High Street
Columbus, OH 43206
(614) 224-2104
Send Email
Back to top
Oklahoma
No Graduates In This State
Back to top
Oregon
Thomas McAvity
Northwest Debt Relief Law Firm
2225 NE Alberta, Ste A.
Portland, OR 97211
(503) 860-6868

 

[Survivor_IN]

Good article:

Don't Ask Who Holds the Note, Ask Who REALLY Owns Your Debt - LivingLies

One of the most important things I learned from Neil Garfield in the time he was mentoring me and preparing me to take over his practice is this: When you're

livinglies.me

Still looking for a Max Gardner boot camp bk attorney, getting close. Below is a detail report to the certificate holder. My loan may not be even in the trust.

FYI - The attorney I listed above is actually a graduate of the bootcamp. This attorney is aligned with Dan Law in Ohio. Marc Dan is former OH Attorney General and has been fighting foreclosures since prolly 2008. His practice has expanded to several states and they do federal cases too. I listed him because he is in NJ but since the discussion is rotated on Max's boot camp, well there you go. They have resources to take on cases in multiple jurisdictions like federal. It couldn't hurt to get the free consult. But I think the securitization argument was quashed by the judges and the banks some time ago and that's when MG stopped his training sessions, plus there's other stuff too. It doesn't mean that the argument is not valid if you have the pieces.

 

[Survivor_IN]

Isisis,

I read the case you posted. I have one issue with this that I believe was lacking. The Plaintiff did not properly characterize the IRS prohibited action. (Disregarding that the court stated that this "new" argument was not to their liking just because it expanded on the void reasoning with a little more merit.)

All parties are required to act within the bounds of the law in their conduct and business.

I would have elaborated that a prohibited act is unlawful or illegal as against public policy. And used this definition from the dictionary:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/prohibit#google_vignette

PROHIBIT
TRANSITIVE VERB
If a law or someone in authority prohibits something, they forbid it or make it illegal.
[formal]
(examples)
...a law that prohibits tobacco advertising in newspapers and magazines.
... Fishing is prohibited.

Hence, If an action is prohibited by the IRS, it is in fact unlawful. US tax law is enacted by prevailing authorities. The IRS is the prevailing authority. For something to be "void" (a matter of law) as opposed to "voidable" (discretionary between the parties) then it has to be based on something unlawful, illegal, or against public policy.

It appears the argument wasn't quite expanded or worded correctly or just plain ol shot down for the sake of denial as was happening left and right against homeowners.

 

[Survivor_IN]

I'm looking for a couple quotable on the hearsay of affiants if anyone has some time. I think I found some in Utah once. lol. Lender is now arguing they only have to "attest" that they had the note at the time of filing. There is no proof of this, nor did they supply any business documents showing delivery. Initial complaint is a copy of unendorsed note. They are also mocking and insulting me on my darn good opposition to MSJ cause I offered some substantial evidence on the fake note.

 

[kraftykrab]

Isisis,

I read the case you posted. I have one issue with this that I believe was lacking. The Plaintiff did not properly characterize the IRS prohibited action. (Disregarding that the court stated that this "new" argument was not to their liking just because it expanded on the void reasoning with a little more merit.)

All parties are required to act within the bounds of the law in their conduct and business.

I would have elaborated that a prohibited act is unlawful or illegal as against public policy. And used this definition from the dictionary:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/prohibit#google_vignette

PROHIBIT
TRANSITIVE VERB
If a law or someone in authority prohibits something, they forbid it or make it illegal.
[formal]
(examples)
...a law that prohibits tobacco advertising in newspapers and magazines.
... Fishing is prohibited.

Hence, If an action is prohibited by the IRS, it is in fact unlawful. US tax law is enacted by prevailing authorities. The IRS is the prevailing authority. For something to be "void" (a matter of law) as opposed to "voidable" (discretionary between the parties) then it has to be based on something unlawful, illegal, or against public policy.

It appears the argument wasn't quite expanded or worded correctly or just plain ol shot down for the sake of denial as was happening left and right against homeowners.

I think the bigger issue there is that legality is not the only concern before the court--anyone who raises this in a foreclosure case risks the court asking "but how are you injured specifically relating to the IRS issue?" And the problem is, the direct violation of law complained about does not provide us a private right of action or a cause against them. Take the FCRA for example. There is a specified pattern of behavior that we must be able to show we performed before we have a private right of action for their violations there. If you were to sue a debt collector under FCRA and you did not perform the required actions first, the illegal nature of their actions will not matter. The court would first consider the fact that you did not abide by the requirements of the law and your case would most likely get tossed.

I suspect that an easy "out" for the fraudsters in this case is that the IRS must pursue such violations--and that fact alone would most likely tend to convince judges not to give it a second thought. Opposing counsel would likely argue that you presenting this info is nothing more than an attempt to deflect away from the fact that you have not paid, blah blah blah. And most courts have agreed--too many cases were and are decided on "but did you pay" without even a cursory look by those courts into whether or not the plaintiff actually had any standing or was entitled to enforce the note as a matter of law.

By all means, I'd still argue it, but I would certainly not hang my hat on the IRS issue. Remember, that law says that they would be subject to 100% forfeiture as a tax penalty if they violate it--but that 100% tax is not payable to you or me. So, I can actually see a court saying that the IRS issue is immaterial to the case at hand, and if the IRS wished to pursue the matter, that's an issue between the plaintiff and the IRS.

 

[kraftykrab]

I'm looking for a couple quotable on the hearsay of affiants if anyone has some time. I think I found some in Utah once. lol. Lender is now arguing they only have to "attest" that they had the note at the time of filing. There is no proof of this, nor did they supply any business documents showing delivery. Initial complaint is a copy of unendorsed note. They are also mocking and insulting me on my darn good opposition to MSJ cause I offered some substantial evidence on the fake note.

What state are you in? I can take some time and look for you today.

There are plenty of cases in other states--Florida comes to mind--where the note MUST be in the possession of the plaintiff prior to filing a foreclosure suit. I think that's what you're talking about, is that right? I know Florida has a good bit of case law showing that when the plaintiff could not prove it had the note in its possession at the time of filing the suit, the case is subject to dismissal.

Unfortunately, it's not as much a requirement in my state, but in my case that's not really an important issue because they have lied and changed their story so many times--"we have the note"...."we never had the note"....even the claimed original creditor--the party that filed the suit--did not have the note in its possession by its own later admission when the suit was filed. Down here, the law requires certain actions to be taken to reestablish a lost note, and they must be performed within a reasonable time of the discovery of the loss. Rather than do that, they simply hid it from the court and from us for years. When they were finally forced to admit it, it was neary 5 years after they had filed the suit.

As far as the mocking and insulting, consider that the law firm who wrote that nonsense is most likely subject to the FDCPA as a third party debt collector, and if they are mocking and insulting you, that would be a violation of that law.

 

[moretrouble]

FYI - The attorney I listed above is actually a graduate of the bootcamp. This attorney is aligned with Dan Law in Ohio. Marc Dan is former OH Attorney General and has been fighting foreclosures since prolly 2008. His practice has expanded to several states and they do federal cases too. I listed him because he is in NJ but since the discussion is rotated on Max's boot camp, well there you go. They have resources to take on cases in multiple jurisdictions like federal. It couldn't hurt to get the free consult. But I think the securitization argument was quashed by the judges and the banks some time ago and that's when MG stopped his training sessions, plus there's other stuff too. It doesn't mean that the argument is not valid if you have the pieces.

I talked to Marc Dan. He was very nice but does not practice in my state. Also talked to another Max G boot camp attorney who referred me to another but seems like my case is too complicated for him, also it appears that any attorney would cost me at least 30K for my case, so I may have to do it myself.
Another twist, in reading the ResCap bankruptcy case, my debt is belonged to the Liquidating Trust, not RAAC 2005 RP3, and ResCap and the subsequent LT never pursued the foreclosure on me because of RFC's (the debtor) misconducts in acquiring and securitizing my loan, furthermore, 10 year statue of limitations applies. So I may file chapter 13 naming the LT as creditor, Wilmington, N. A. as trustee, not RAAC 2005 RP3 and Bank of New York as trustee. It gets interesting all the time.

 

[Survivor_IN]

I think the bigger issue there is that legality is not the only concern before the court--anyone who raises this in a foreclosure case risks the court asking "but how are you injured specifically relating to the IRS issue?"

Yes, you are right on that point. And yes, the Judges will rule against you when opposing counsel argues "you did not pay." It's insidious. I like what Isisis said. "I didn't agree to pay more than I owe. I did not agree to pay the wrong party. I did not agree to ongoing harassment." I swear, I am encountering an average of 3 FDCP violations per year. But who has time for those distractions? I will have to check my original answer to see if I incorporated that one. But again Krafty you are right, if one doesn't take the proper acts in response then one isn't entitled to take action. Also, I'm in tri-state area and will shoot you an email instead of posting publicly.