I told you stop the personal attacks in your pleadings, but you continue with them. Take these paragraphs out they add nothing to your pleading and contribute to making it entirely too long.
On the other hand, plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike is not confusing because it is in plain English. Defendants have attended years of reading complex subjects in schools, graduated then passed the bar, so defendants must be able to discern what the simple pro se plaintiff is saying. Otherwise, how can they object and argue against plaintiffs’ points if they do not understand them? Furthermore, if not, then why do they not ask the plaintiff what he means? Which part is confusing to the defendant? What part is argumentative? Which part is generalized? Certainly the Court is not going to take defendants word for it without even giving an example. They are stalling as usual.
It certainly sounds like defendants’ objection is in itself generalized. Defendant is just throwing out blanket statements that object to nothing specific in plaintiffs Motion to Strike. But they have to say something if they are going to object. Yet, since defendants’ claim that they are confused, plaintiff will have to explain what he thinks defendants are confused about since they do not say, and plaintiff will do that below.
I told you take this out, yet here I am spending another hour going through your pleading where you did not do anything I asked. TAKE THIS OUT:
Plaintiff objects to defendants’ attempt at truth suppression and disinformation by misstating the actual name of the Connor Class Action suit. Defendant states on page 2 of EXHIBIT A: “The affirmative defenses referred to the class action suit, Patricia Connor, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank et al., Case 3:10-cv-01284.”
You can say the full caption of the case is whatever and you can say that it is important because the claim of Connor was against Fannie Mae and in your case Deutsche was the other holder of the mortgage. you can say that in TWO SENTENCES and you do not need 4 paragraphs to dwell on it.
I told you cut this in half at least in length, it is entirely too long.
All this unnecessary text needs to go too:
"only, the rules for which, including succession events, are extensively covered in the prospectus on page S-30, S-44, S-54, S-55, S-57, S-60, S-105, S-110, pages 9, 34, page 50 where it says “…the trustee or any successor servicer must recognize the sub-servicer’s rights and obligations under the sub-servicing agreement”, page 54 - 56, and page 63 located at Doc. 261, Exhibit A. Connors factual allegations starts at Case 3:10-cv-01284-GPC-BGS Doc 110 Filed 05/15/14 PageID.1537 Page 4 of 16 the following:
[Connor] FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
“Plaintiff Connor's Allegations 16 13. Plaintiff Connor obtained home mortgages in the late 2005 -early 2006 time-frame for 17 her real property through Chase's home financing entity Defendant Chase Bank USA, 18 N.A. Those included loan no.(###) ###-#### 191 14. On information and belief, once the loan had closed, Chase sold Plaintiff Connor's mortgages to Fannie Mae. [the instant plaintiffs loan was sold to Deutsche as Trustee for $1 on 4/8/2008, not FNMA.]
Plaintiff Connor's loan has been owned by Fannie Mae and 21 serviced by Chase for Fannie Mae for all of the relevant time period. The Fannie Mae 22 website
responds to an inquiry as to whether Plaintiff Connor's loan is a Fannie Mae loan 23 in the affinitive. Plaintiff Connor was told directly by Chase employee "Lynn", 24 employee number(###) ###-#### in approximately October, 2008, that her loan was in fact owned by Fannie Mae during the relevant time period Plaintiff Connor received the calls 26 complained of herein. 271 15.
Even though Plaintiff Connor's mortgage loans were owned by Defendant Fannie Mae, 281 Chase has serviced the loan throughout the relevant time period, engaged in collection efforts and while doing so, and committed the TCPA violations while acting in such capacity for Defendant Fannie Mae. 31 16. Here Chase had direct communication with Plaintiff Connor in the commission of the TCPA violations alleged herein. However, in engaging in such violations, Chase was acting on behalf of the creditor Fannie Mae, who communicated with Plaintiff Connor only through Chase, without Fannie Mae's direct involvement with Plaintiff Connor. Chase never specifically advised Plaintiff Connor about the sale of her loans to Fannie Mae and the resulting Chase loan servicing agreement with Fannie Mae for several years, until approximately October, 2008 when Chase employee "Lynn", employee number(###) ###-#### informed Plaintiff Connor that her loan had been sold by Chase to Fannie Mae and owned all along by Fannie Mae.”"
The rest is okay.