MORE DELIBERATE PROCEDURAL ERRORS BY JUDGE MARGUERITE WAGELING (NH)

Update on the deliberate procedural errors by Judge Marguerite Wageling in the Marie Miller (NH) foreclosure case. (NationStar Mortgage LLC v. Marie Miller Case No. 219-2008-EQ-00206)

To those who attended the scheduled hearing on Marie Miller’s (NH) foreclosure case in Strafford County Superior Court on Thursday, November 3, 2011, things are not as they appeared to be! Clerk Julie Howard lied to Marie Miller, before several witnesses, leading her to believe that she had won her case against NationStar Mortgage LLC.

I attended the rescheduled hearing on Marie Miller’s Motion to Stay the Writ of Possession which was originally filed on June 24, 2011. This matter was to scheduled for hearing on September 2, 2011. The hearing was cancelled and rescheduled to November 17, 2011. See Order. (The notice of canceled hearing for Sept. 2, 2011 was issued at the bottom of Chief Justice Robert Lynn’s Order (10-14-09) which assigned Judge Wageling to Miller’s case. Justice Lynn is no longer Chief Justice and currently sits on N.H. Supreme Court which dismissed Miller’s appeal.) The court rescheduled the hearing to November 3, 2011.

When we arrived at the courthouse on Thursday, Nov. 3rd we learned that the hearing was canceled because NationStar had withdrawn its motions. Marie was informed by Julie Howard, clerk, that the case was over and that she would receive the monies she placed in an escrow account with the court. Marie was advised by Julie Howard, Clerk, that she would need to file a form with the IRS. (I still don’t understand this – the IRS?) There were several witnesses to this conversation. Marie was hand delivered a copy of the Notice of Withdrawl of Pending Motions, dated October 20, 2011, with Judge Wageling’s notation of the withdrawal and “matter is hereby closed”, dated 11/1/11. See Motion/Order. Marie had NOT received this notice, nor order, prior to hand delivery by the Clerk on the afternoon of November 3, 2011. Marie was only given the first page of this motion. The file did not contain a Certificate of Service to Miller.

Upon reviewing the file, Miller discovered other motions filed by NationStar, dating back to June 2011, with Judge Wageling’s orders dated 11/1/11 none of which were sent to Miller. The court had time to send these prior to Miller’s rescheduled hearing on 11/3/11.

Miller immediately filed a Motion for Clarification on the Notice of Withdrawal and noted, for the record, that she only received the notice on Nov. 3rd, which contained Judge Wageling’s order, which prevented Miller from responding to NationStar’s withdrawal.

I learned from Marie Miller that when everyone left the courthouse, she went back to Clerk Julie Howard and requested the IRS form she needed to fill out. Clerk Howard advised Miller that “since she reopened the case by filing a clarification,” Miller did not need to fill out the IRS form at that time. Additionally, Clerk Howard stated “NationStar will foreclose on you anyway.”

Miller and a few people met that same afternoon to review prior motions/orders (hand delivered to Marie on 11/3/11) which Miller had not received from NationStar, nor the court. There is a five day old fish smell to this case.

Review of copies given to Miller:

Motion to Issue Writ of Possession, dated June 16, 2011, w/ Judge Wagelings noted “moot”, dated 11/1/11, (no Certificate of Service)
Miller’s Motion to Stay Writ of Possession (filed June 14, 2011) w/ Judge Wageling’s order, Denied, dated 11/1/11.
NationStar’s Notice of Withdrawal, dated October 20, 2011
NationStar’s Motion to Release Bond w/ Judge Wagelings noted “moot” order, dated 11/1/11, (pages missing, inc. Certificate of Service)

Why did it take nearly 5 months for Judge Wageling to deny Miller’s Motion to Stay Writ of Possession?
Why didn’t the court send Miller these rulings prior to her rescheduled hearing that was once again canceled?
In my humble opinion, Judge Wageling cannot deny that there ARE legal issues that need addressing! Like Miller not receiving a Mandate from the N.H. Supreme Court in order to file an appeal.

In our culture of secrecy, secrecy only begets bigger problems. When will N.H.’s general court realize this? They hold the key to resolving the injustices done to the people.

ANOTHER INJUSTICE THAT FALLS BY THE WAYSIDE. ANOTHER ABUSE OF TAXPAYER MONEY THAT PAYS THE SALARIES OF OFFICIALS TO REPRESENT AND DO RIGHT FOR THEIR CONSTITUENTS. ANOTHER ABUSE OF TAXPAYER MONEY THAT PAYS THE SALARIES OF CORRUPT JUDGES.

The theft of peoples’ homes, the aiding and abetting of these thefts by judges and court clerks is a crime. The failure of N.H.’s Attorney General to uphold the law, shielding the perpetators of these crimes, is a crime. Is the poor job performance by N.H.’s Attorney General politically motived? It appeared to be so when Kelly Ayotte was New Hampshire’s A.G.!

Perhaps it’s time to demand a financial audit on Judge Wageling? The facts certainly demand an investigation into Judge Wageling’s (and N.H. Supreme Court justices) modus operandi.

Do all of the justices have a vested interest in the Miller case?

Are judges private contractors?

I submitted the following testimony, for the record, in support of Marie Miller’s petition before the NH House Redress of Grievances Committee on October 20, 2011.

Advertisements
Published in: on November 4, 2011 at 9:54 pm  Comments (4)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://unmasker4maine.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/more-deliberate-procedural-errors-by-judge-marguerite-wageling-nh/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

4 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Very interesting, so among other things you are telling me that Nationstar is going to foreclose anyway because they still have Wageling’s Order in hand, seeing as Ms. Miller’s Appeal was dismissed in the high court?

    And I most definitely heard Clerk Howard tell all of us that Ms. Miller would receive her escrow monies….. I’ll be calling the Court on Monday.

    Bogus Foreclosure: NH State Rep helps slam Harmon foreclosure mill.



    C

  2. Per Marie Miller, Clerk Howard told her they would foreclose anyway. This is totally contradictory to what Howard stated before several witnesses.

    On the face of the Motion to Withdraw, with Judge Wageling’s order, it leaves an impression that Marie won her case. However, after reviewig previous motions/orders (not sent to Marie, but given in hand at court the day of her scheduled hearing), the motion and order are misleading, notwithstanding the fact that the court withheld these documents from Marie. Wageling’s order implies that Marie did not win her appeal. If Marie had not viewed her file that day, she would have no clue as to the motions/orders sitting there! This put Marie at a disadvantage because she was dealing with the latest withdrawal and her expected scheduled hearing. She had no time deal with orders withheld! Sneaky……..

    And why did Clerk Howard lie to Marie?

    In my opinion, Supreme Court Justice Kelley is in direct conflict with Marie’s appeal. Furthermore, one important legal issue of material fact is that Marie did not receive a Mandate from the Supreme Court in which to appeal further.

  3. I added to my journal entry:

    http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2011/11/kingcast-and-mortgage-movies-look.html

    Sunday 8:50p update:

    The following paragraph is apparently a lie. After we all left Ms. Miller went back inside to fill out the W9 form or whatever and was told that her Motion for Clarification reopened the case and that she would not then get the money tendered back to her. But that sounds shady because all she asked for was clarification to make certain that the withdrawals were with prejudice. So if she was “reopening the case” that doesn’t make any sense because all the clerk had to do was tell her “no need we will issue a notation that the withdrawals were with prejudice” or words to that effect.

    The Clerk then told her that they were going to go ahead and foreclose on her anyway, which would make the whole thing appear to be nothing more than an attempt to keep KingCast and Mortgage Movies cameras away from the Action. For more information read the Unmasking of Maine journal.

  4. Hi!

    Was the judge’s error a “harmless error?”

    It most certainly doesn’t appear that way in the Miller case.

    Did Ms. Miller ask for the judge’s commission to verify if “that” judge
    can lawfully sit on the bench which is the “constitutional office” since
    it is the commission that “vests” the office to the person so named in the commission?

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: