Motion To Supplement 5th Circuit Appeal Case Record #07-30426
I– Motion To Supplement The Appeal Record
* * * * *
The Louisiana Secretary of State (S.O.S.) database shows that Travelers Mortgage Services became defunct in 1990 when it merged into GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. The S.O.S. further shows that GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., merged into GE Mortgage Services, LLC on October 25, 2002, and subsequently requested its name changed to GE Mortgage Services, LLC. Lastly, the SOS shows that more than 2 years ago GE Mortgage Services, LLC voluntarily has withdrawn from doing business in the State of Louisiana.
1) After October 25, 2002 is it not correct that any foreclosure or litigation pertaining to GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., should be filed as well as maintained in the name of GE Mortgage Service, LLC.? And if / when judicial proceedings are being carried out in the name of a plaintiff which is defunct or no longer has real and actual interest in the matter, is it not correct that the litigation is null as shown from the examples of foreclosures in Florida?
2) Does the fact that the April 12, 2007 Mandamus lawsuit proffered a document that was purported to be a year 2005 bill of sale by GE Capital Mortgage Services to Freddie Mac for Jackson’s 4968 Lurline Street, New Orleans, Louisiana property, change the glaring fact that GE Capital Mortgage Services was no longer in business in 2005?
3) If by chance some other ‘GE Capital Mortgage Services’ company (which no USA State Corporation database lists such a corporation) exist in a different city or state, does such existence change the reality that the GE Capital Mortgage company that was once authorized to do business in Louisiana, and was once domiciled in Cherry Hill, NJ at 3 Executive Campus, and its principle office 6601Six Forks Road, Raleigh, N.C., and became defunct when it merged into GE Capital LLC? As such, is it possible or lawful for real estate to become transferred and conveyed into the name of any entity which does not exist?
4) In challenging the authenticity of the bill of sale Mr. Mullins and Mr. Furr provided, such a challenge accuses them as well as Freddie Mac of seriously fraudulent acts. However, does the accusation itself dictate disregard because the person who makes the challenge is a minority? Should not the evidence lead to wherever the facts are and vice versa?
5) It is common knowledge that companies can have similar or identical names -like a Starbucks or a Toyota or Buick dealership, etc. Name similarities does not mean always the companies have the same owners. The irrefutable information reported from the Louisiana Secretary of State database makes manifest the fact that JUST AS Travelers Mortgage Services became non-existent, SO HAS GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. Some new or a different GE Capital someplace else in the USA does not change these facts. Further, some other GE Capital does not change the reality that someone(s) in the State of Louisiana has been utilizing GE Capital Mortgage Services’ name to carry out real estate transactions and conveyances after the October 25, 2002 date when GE Capital became defunct.
6) Even when / if a mortgage creditor owns the security interest in a note when an initial foreclosure lawsuit becomes filed, is it not unequivocally correct that “substitution” be made in order to conduct judicial proceedings in the name of the “proper” party having real and actual interest?
7) In light of the March 31, 2005 open court testimony of Mr. Paul Rumage, and the multiple court pleadings and documents in the record which expressly state that the ownership of the note for Jackson’s Lurline Street property is and has been –at least since 2002 Wells Fargo, because Wells Fargo purchased the note from GE Capital Mortgage Services prior to its merger into GE Mortgage Services, LLC., should not any foreclosure have been brought in Wells Fargo’s name?
8) If GE Capital Mortgage Services continued to be in existence and somehow sold the Lurline Street property in year 2005 to Freddie Mac, how is that after Jackson filed her 2003 debt collection lawsuit, no other New Orleans foreclosures were filed in GE Capital Mortgage Services’ name –taking into consideration that GE Capital somehow resurfaced after being merged and continued doing business under its old name?
9) In light of the reality that property foreclosures did occur after merger in the name of GE Mortgage Services, LLC (having become owner of GE Capital Mortgage Services), how come GE Mortgage Services, LLC was not the seller of Lurline Street to Freddie Mac?
10) If the facts and evidence prove Mr. Adcock WAS NEVER HIRED by GE Capital Mortgage Services to accomplish foreclosure on the Lurline Street property, how can the purported May 19, 2005 foreclosure auction that was accomplished by Mr. Adcock under the name of GE Capital Mortgage Services be valid?
11) How likely is it that deceptive practices such as those associated with debt collection improprieties had an effect upon yet another business’, namely GE Mortgage Services, LLC., withdrawal from doing