Satori Farm Spiritual Retreat

Legal Bulletin:

Satori Farm Retreat is under attack by EMC Mortgage, represented through the law firm of Grenen & Birsic, with the aid of the York County and Pennsylvania Middle District Courts.

We are currently facing a February 22nd, 2012 eviction at 9:00 am stemming from a fraudulent foreclosure sale.

We will attempt to summarize as briefly as possible, the gravity of the situation with plenty of strong, factual evidence of the outright fraud that is being perpetrated against us.

Nationally recognized expert witness on Foreclosure Fraud Lynn Szymoniak, who was recently featured on 60 Minutes, has provided 2 affidavits to verify Satori Farm has been the victim of Fraudulent Assignments and Fraudulent Verifications, yet York County and PA Middle District Courts with the help of Grenen & Birsic are deliberately trying to ignore these facts and sweep them under the rug.


Proof of the fraudulent foreclosure action being brought by EMC Mortgage against Satori Farm


Lynn Szymoniak, esq., is a nationally recognized expert on foreclosure fraud and has trained the FBI and CIA on examining and detecting fraudulent documents. Lynn has verified this to be a fraudulent foreclosure.

Watch Lynn Szymoniak on 60 Minutes discussing Foreclosure Fraud:

View the Proof of the Fraud being commited against Satori Farm:

Lynn Szymoniak's expert witness affidavits proving fraudulent foreclosure documents are being used against Satori Farm

Szymoniak Exhibit A - The Fraudulent Assignment of Mortgage - backdated and robo-signed, see for yourself!

Szymoniak Exhibit B - Second Fraudulent Assignment of Mortgage - Sherry Doza robo-signature

Here's a nice example of Sherry Doza's signature six different ways on six different recorded instruments

Transfer of Mortgage by Sunset Mortgage to Saxon Mortgage - this somehow occurred two weeks before the alleged loan even originated.

Realty Settlement Services Letter admitting signatures were cut and pasted for settlement

Janus Handwriting Experts affidavit proving more fraud and irregularities against Satori Farm


Current Events & Agenda:


Saturday, Feb 18, 2012: Tuesday night (2/21) @ 8pm The Real Public i will be on together
with Neil Price, a former attorney out of Johnstown call in number is 712-432-8773 code 179441#


Thursday, Feb 16 2012: Here we go, just received notice - eviction now set for Wednesday, Feb. 22 @ 9:30am. (nice, <drip> get a whole five and one half days notice - I dunno, maybe it's me, but I am beginning to think they might really want us out) Obviously this is going to require some considerable deliberation as to what we need try and do next. What card can one yet play when the deck has long since been stacked against you?

I do see a possible trip to Washington, come Monday; if perchance I can timely fashion something to the U. S. Supreme Court (maybe a writ of certiorari) and, to the Department of Justice, and well, the Comptroller of the Currency, (have to go to the comptroller anyways as the Pa. Dept. of Banking is powerless to force a national bank to do anything) amongst others. Tall order.

I know in the interim. having filed today in superior court, with less than 30 seconds to spare, and an appeal in federal court of Judge Mariani's aberrant orders. I still have at least two, ah make that three more due come monday as well; all of which are merely trying to preserve issues otherwise vitiated, albeit, unlawfully by the lower courts. Forgive me, but I must confess, these folks are really starting to piss me off. (I can say that with a smile - they may well succeed in putting us out, but they have no power over me - that is for me to choose :-) in any event, there is my timely update <peace>


Recent Bankruptcy Hearing Dog & Pony Show with Judge Mary France

On Wednesday, January 25th, 2012, just 2 days after filing for Bankruptcy and receiving a stay, Satori Farm received a fed-ex package from the attorneys at Grenen & Birsic for EMC Mortgage, with a request granted by the Bankruptcy court for an expedited hearing @ 9:30 next Tuesday, January 31st, in front of Judge Mary France on the 3rd floor of the Federal courthouse in Harrisburg.

The bank's attorney gets to appear by telephone. They are not only asking for relief from the automatic stay, but are also seeking to bar Stephen Conklin (owner of Satori Farm) from filing anything else, and, seeking sanctions against him for filing in the first place.

Now, Judge Mary France is the judge Mr. Conklin first went in front of on October 21st, 2004 on an emergency motion he had filed trying to stop the bank from selling Satori Farm on October 18, 2004, when there was no judgment and the bank was using a docket number for a different property to get a writ of execution to sell Satori Farm.

They could not get the hearing until 3 days after it occurred. Mr. Conklin has the transcripts of this hearing, where Judge France talks about how bizarre the things happening to Satori Farm were. She also talks about the collusion between the bank and the attorney (Paul Lutz) who had represented Mr. Conklin, and then proceeded to sell Satori Farm out to the bank.

She went on to say Mr. Conklin was going to get a hearing on all of this the following month. Well, when Mr. Conklin went in the next month, it was like night and day, and when he said to her, "last month you said I was going to get a hearing" she replied, "I made a mistake, you're dismissed."

Subsequently, and this Mr. Conklin does not have the transcripts for (as he was not the party in court) she has come to attack him personally.

They will be probably be looking to throw the book at Satori Farm and Mr. Conklin next tuesday so they can quickly take the property thereafter.

Mr. Conklin currently plans to file a motion to recuse judge France, and is open to any additional suggestions.

If we can fill the courtroom on that day, it will be a lot more difficult for Judge France to ignore the rule of law. Please share this event with your friends and come out and witness Pennsylvania Courts in action, firsthand.

You can also contact Judge Mary France and respectfully request that Mr. Conklin be given a fair hearing where he is afforded his due process rights.

Mr. Conklin deserves the right to present his solid, factual evidence, which will prove once and for all that the foreclosure action is clearly based on fraudulent paperwork, with plenty of expert witness affidavits and documents to support his claims, including two from Lynn Szymoniak, esq., who was recently on 60 minutes discussing foreclosure fraud in great detail.

It's ironic that Judge France was going to give Mr. Conklin the hearing in 2004 and then changed her mind 1 month later. Judge France could have ended the whole debacle back then, and is now presented with the same case, 7 years later, with even more fraud proof attached to it.

Chief Judge Mary D. France

John Kelly, Law Clerk

Alex Perez, Law Clerk

Phone: 717-901-2840

Fax: 717-901-2844

Fax for free with FaxZero -

Don't forget to contact your local media and share this event with whoever possible! We thank you all for your continued support and hope to see you there!


Online Links:


Lynn Szymoniak, Esq. on 60 Minutes discussing foreclosure fraud

December 29, 2011:

Why should you leave all the gains to the gluttons, knaves, and imposters? Go in and win! – Bailey class continues to organize / Conklin continues to fight for due process in mortgage fraud case

A Second Expert Witness Affidavit of Lynn Szymoniak, this one on Fraudulent Verifications for Satori Farm in EMC v. Stephen G. Conklin, NO. 2009-SU-005228-04 that York County Courthouse, the PA Middle District Court, EMC Mortgage and Grenen & Birsic Law Firm are Desperately Trying to Ignore without Due Process or Trial

Expert Witness Affidavit of Lynn Szymoniak on Fraudulent Assignments for Satori Farm in EMC v. Stephen G. Conklin, NO. 2009-SU-005228-04 that York County Courthouse, the PA Middle District Court, EMC Mortgage and Grenen & Birsic Law Firm are Desperately Trying to Ignore without Due Process or Trial


December 20, 2011:

Forensic Document Examination Reveals that Documents in Foreclosure Case Brought Against Conklin by EMC and Grenen & Birsic are not Officially Acceptable Originals for a Legitimate Transaction


December 19, 2011:

Grenen & Birsic, with the help of York County and PA Middle District courts continue to ignore all factually based allegations of fraud from the man who discovered and tried to stop foreclosure fraud before it became a nationwide epidemic


December 13, 2011:

Constitutional Law 101: Courts cannot allow property to be taken without due process of law (even in York County) – stop the attack on Satori Farm


December 7, 2011:

EXCLUSIVE: Federal Court grants TRO motion in foreclosure and eviction case that exposes massive mortgage fraud and alleges long term misconduct by the York County Courthouse and U.S. Federal Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

UPDATE – call for action – Federal Middle District Judge Mariani grants TRO to Conklin


December 6, 2011:

CALL FOR ACTION: Occupy Foreclosure – York County, Pennsylvania – Thursday, December 8th – 12:00-4:00 PM


December 5, 2011:

FRAUD in York County Courthouse and U.S. Federal Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania


December 3, 2011:

The man who discovered the foreclosure fraud before it became a nationwide epidemic is a target of harassment


July 18, 2011:

Steve Conklin/York County race issues and treatment by the federal courts




Timeline of events from a 1997-2005 draft as part of an FDCPA Lawsuit:

NOTE: The timeline below is taken from draft notes and may be missing a few pieces of information.


1. Bank knew that Plaintiff Conklin was in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and still proceeded to sell Plaintiff Conklin's farm on October 18, 2005.

2. Mr. Michael Norley notified the defendants that Plaintiff Conklin was protected under the Chapter 13 Bankruptcy.

3. Mr. Michael Norley informed Sheriff William Hose that the foreclosure sale could not proceed because of several material defects making the foreclosure sale null and void.

4. Mr. Michael Norley informed the defendant Bank through its legal representative Mr. Leon Haller, that the foreclosure sale was defective and it should be stopped on legal issues.

top >







1. July 5, 2005 – Retrieved "certified" entry of Dockets from York County Prothonotary, regarding all actions by &/or against Plaintiff Stephen G. Conklin.

2. July 2, 2005 - Received via "certified" mail from EMC, "Act 91" notice.

3. June 28, 2004 – Retrieved information via website, that Purcell, Krug & Haller law firm were "debt collectors".

4. May 17, 2005 – (dated via mail) – Received from Saxon Mortgage Services, "Notice of Inadequate Hazard Insurance" (did not contain a Notice of attempt to collect a debt)

5. April 1, 2005 – (dated mail) – EMC replies to Conklin's previous letter regarding "Debt Validation". EMC #0003095890 Letter states that EMC acquired loan from Saxon Mtg. #10009444 on Nov. 30, 2004. Letter only purports unpaid balance in the amount of $233,238.31. Letter contains "This is an attempt to collect a debt". Letter sent twice/same day.

6. March 30, 2005 – (dated mail) Letter from EMC, requesting 45 additional business days to investigate the "alleged" debt. Letter does not contain " This is an attempt to collect a debt". Letter sent twice/same day.

7. January 24, 2005 – (via docket entry/York) – Writ of execution order to set aside Sheriff sale, signed by Judge Kennedy/Motions court.

8. January 21, 2005 – (phone call 12:30pm/est) Received phone call from EMC, via "Amanda" wanting to know "what my intentions are". Conklin responded that all communications need be only in writing.

9. January __ 2005 – (on or about) Received letter from Pat Anderson of "Foreclosure Assistance Solutions" that "courthouse records show (Conklin) is in default on his obligation with EMC Mortgage Corp. Record is dated as of January 8, 2005.

10. January __ 2005 – (on or about) Received letter from Jeremy Buttke of "Borrower Counseling Service, Inc" entitled " Trustee Sale Date" regarding (Conklin's) obligation with EMC Mortgage Corp. Sale date noted as "pending Proceedings".

11. January 4, 2005 – (dated mail) – Received letter from EMC (#0003095890) requesting 60 business days to investigate the "debt validation. Notice contains " this is an attempt to collect a debt".

top >


December 2004:



12. December 29, 2004 -(dated mail) Notice of "inadequate fire insurance" Notice does contain "This is an attempt to collect a debt".

13. December 27, 2004 – (certified mail sent to) EMC, refuting debt, pursuant to UCC 1-207. Contains "refused for cause without dishonor".

14. December 24, 2004 – (dated mail) Received from EMC via regular mail, "Notice of Debt Validation".

15. December 13, 2004 – (dated mail) Received notice from EMC, that they took over the account from Saxon mtg. Effective Nov.30, 2004. Notice contains RESPA notice. Loan # changes from #10009444/Saxon to 0003095890/EMC. Notice does not contain " this is an attempt to collect a debt".

16. December __ 2004 – (on or about via telephone call) – Pursuant to telephone call from Eugene Campbell: Bank recognizes that they have to start all over; Bank is willing to forgive all interests & penalties, & maybe even a portion of the principal; Bank is willing to possibly re-mortgage property; Per his conversation with Leon Haller, it is unknown whether Haller continues to represent Banks interest.

17. December 7, 2004 – (docket entry/York) – Order setting aside Sheriff's sale, directing to return deposit to "Aldardan inc." by judge Kennedy.

18. December 2, 2004 – (docket entry/York) – Stipulation of counsel to set aside sheriff's sale.

top >


November 2004:


19. November 23, 2004 – (bankruptcy docket) – Case dismissed/terminated.

20. November 19, 2004 – (docket entry/York) – Order of Court scheduling hearing for December 2, 2004 @ 1:30 pm regarding motion to set aside sheriff's sale.

21. November 19, 2004 – (docket entry/York) – Amendment to petition to set aside sheriff's sale & to enjoin transfer of sheriff's deed.

22. November 18, 2004 – (Bankruptcy court appearance/transcripts) – Judge Mary France dismisses bankruptcy protection, disregarding her previous statements. Judge, when pressed about what she said on Oct. 18th hearing admits she made a mistake.

23. November ?, 2004 – (Via undated fax) – Harry Ramage sends to Atty. Don Bailey, a copy of what was provided to Atty. Leon Haller concerning the defective sheriff sale.

24. November 1, 2004 – (As dated/correspondence) – Timothy Ruth on behalf of Harry Ramage a/k/a sends to Leon Haller, Atty. for Bank, information as to why the sheriff's sale was defective.
25. October 28, 2004 – (docket entry/York) – Petition to set aside sheriff's sale.

top >


October 2004:


26. October 25, 2004 (dated mail) – Received from Shuywana Burns of Saxon Mtg. "Forced to initiate foreclosure proceedings". Amount stated is: $168,125.67. Letter was sent regular mail 3 times. Dated same day.

27. October 21, 2004 – (Bankruptcy court appearance/transcripts) – Judge Mary France calls ongoing case "bizarre", talks of "collusion", with regards to the activities of this case. Judge asks "why didn't we compel them to produce the documents?"

28. October 21, 2004 – (dictated letter/ faxed) – Letter dictated by Atty. Don Bailey to Conklin for faxing to Bankruptcy Trustee, Charles DeHart III, regarding motives of parties involved. Very strong letter!

29. October 19, 2004 – (Bankruptcy docket )- Praecipe to withdraw as attorney for, entered by Paul Lutz, regarding Conklin counsel.

30. October 18, 2004 – Foreclosure of farm, conducted by York county sheriff, William Hose, with Leon Haller, atty. for Chase Bank of Texas, & county Solicitor, ______________, in attendance.

31. October 18, 2004 – Attendees of sale, together with Leon Haller, atty. for Chase Bank, __________, York County solicitor, & William Hose, York County sheriff, were all publicly advised both before the onset of any sales, as well as just prior to this specific sale, by Michael Norley of fatal flaws regarding the sale of this property. Leon Haller publicly remarked that he would defend against, what he termed "frivolous" lawsuits.

32. October 18, 2004 – At 2pm, just prior to commencing foreclosure proceedings, Sheriff William Hose publicly states that "he has the power to set aside any sale for cause".

33. October 18, 2004 – Leon Haller, atty for Chase Bank of Texas, William Hose, sheriff for York County, & __________, solicitor for York county were each individually advised by Michael Norley, regarding the fatal flaws that should preclude sale of said property.

34. October 18, 2004 – (dated mail) form #1098 received from Saxon Mtg., tax & interest statement, noting payment of $727.23 had been paid/ real estate taxes.

35. October 18, 2004 – (dated mail) form # 1099-A – Received from Saxon Mtg. "Acquisition or abandonment of secured property". Date of acquisition is same as mail date.

36. October 18, 2004 -(docket entry/ Bankruptcy court) – "Emergency Motion to Vacate Judge's Decree & Re-instate Temporary Restraining Order Pending a Full & Proper Hearing" as filed by Conklin, pro se. Brief notes previous counsel flagrant violations of Conklin's rights, including the motion filed to lift TRO, without Conklin's knowledge or permission.

37. October 17, 2004 – (docket entry/ York) - Liz pendens filed in York county , regarding previous agreement to sub-divide.

38. October 13, 2004 – (docket entry/York) – "Return of Service for Plaintiffs notice of sale of real estate".

top >


September 2004:


39. September 14, 2004 (docket entry/Bankruptcy) – Conklin files response to Trustee's motion to dismiss from bankruptcy protection , & requests court to reinstate TRO.

40. September 9, 2004 (on or about) Agatha Mchale, atty. for Bankruptcy Trustee, Charles J. DeHart III, filed a motion with the court for "Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case".

41. End August/ Beginning September 2004 – Conklin first learns of previous counsels filing of "motion to vacate TRO" after going thru the records. Conklin likewise did not know until this time that previous counsel had to have Conklin's permission to withdraw, nor the full implications of having had TRO lifted.

top >


August 2004:


42. August 23, 2004 (per previous posting) Sheriff sale originally set for this date, is postponed due to no notice given to ex-wife concerning same.

43. August 12, 2004??? – Following several previous attempts to obtain Conklin's work product, i.e. all records as kept by Atty. Paul Lutz, Conklin physically retrieves, what is yet believed to be, an incomplete record.

44. August 10, 2004??? - (on or about)- Stephen & Michael Conklin meet with Atty. Paul Lutz in continuing attempt to collect Conklin case documents., per specific request of Atty. Don Bailey. During the conversation, Atty. Lutz was specifically asked, " Why didn't you compel (opposing counsel) to produce the documents?" To which Atty. Lutz replied, " I cant compel them to do anything!" It was necessary to directly contact Atty. Don Bailey, via telephone in order to facilitate the retrieval thereof. Atty. Lutz also spoke to Atty. Bailey at this time.

top >


April 2004:


45. April 30, 2004 – (docket entry/York) – Bankruptcy Judge Mary France enters order, vacated Temporary Restraining Order.

46. April 30, 2004 – (docket entry/York) – Writ of execution is reissued to Chase Bank of Texas.

47. April 30, 2004 – (docket entry/York) – Atty. Leon Haller, on behalf of Chase Bank of Texas, enters "Entry of Appearance".

48. April 5, 2004 – (docket entry/ Bankruptcy court) – "Notice to Parties of Interest" hearing date regarding Atty. Paul Lutz's motion to withdraw as counsel. Conklin did not know at that time that atty. had to have his concurrence to do so.

top >


March 2004:


49. March 11, 2004 –(on or about) Atty Paul Lutz files motion to "vacate Temporary Restraining Order".

50. March 10, 2004 – (Bankruptcy docket) Atty. Paul Lutz files "Motion for Withdrawal of Appearance" as Conklin's atty.

51. March 8, 2004 – (dated letter) Atty Paul lutz sends cover letter to Bankruptcy court, referencing enclosures that include "Motion to Vacate TRO" & "Motion to withdraw" as counsel. Conklin is not copied on this letter, only the Trustee, Charles J. DeHart III, & Leon Haller, atty. for Chase Bank.

top >


February 2004:


52. February 25, 2004 –@ 10 am: Met with Paul Lutz in his offices regarding various issues. Was informed what Chase Bank was preparing to do & that there was absolutely nothing more I could do to stop foreclosure. Was given a time table as how long before we would be forced from the property. Though paid in full for all previous work rendered, as well as prepared to give significant additional sums to retain services, I was advised that I would be wasting my money. There simply was nothing more that could be done.

53. February 14, 2004 (on or about) – Had telephone conversation with Paul Lutz regarding his previous letter, as I didn't want to miss the deadline he gave in his correspondence. Was prepared to meet the terms he enclosed immediately, but Atty. Lutz didn't see any problem with meeting to discuss these things later in the month.

top >


January 2004:


54. January 14, 2004 (dated mail) – received from Atty. Paul Lutz, regarding an outstanding bill & what is needed to continue representation. Also advised of pending litigation involving bank over our inability to get the sub-division done.

55. January 7, 2004 (Docket entry/ Bankruptcy court) – Atty. Leon Haller, makes "Entry of Appearance".

top >




56. March 14, 2003 (dated mail) – Received from Atty. Paul Lutz, letter concerning time frame for sub-division. Resumed making monthly installments on purported mortgage to Atty. Leon Haller on behalf of the Bank, thru Atty. Lutz, who forwarded to these payments to him. ( records indicate at least 6 payments were made, but once again the bank does not reflect this in applying those payments.. this is the 3rd or 4th different time that payments made since 97 have not been fully applied, properly.)

top >




57. December 10, 2002 – (dated mail) – Received from Atty. Lutz, with regards to tentative agreement, allowing Conklin to pursue sub-division & begin to make monthly installments on mortgage.

58. November 11, 2002 – Received call from Atty. Lutz, regarding opposing counsel's agreement to allow sub-division & resumption of mortgage payments.

59. November 11, 2002 – (dated mail) – Received from Atty. Lutz regarding our conversation appertaining to tentative agreement. Court date originally set for November 25th, now set aside, indefinitely.

60. September 27, 2002 – (dated mail) Received from Atty. Lutz, correspondence sent to Atty. Haller, regarding sub-division plans.

61. September 6, 2002 – (dated mail) – Received from Atty. Lutz letter regarding the fourth law firm now to serve the Bank. States he knows Atty. Haller, & that we can work with him.

62. August 15, 2002 (on or about) – Spoke with Atty. Lutz, in regards to "Discovery" as ordered by Court to be performed within 90 days of order. Atty. Lutz downplayed his, even though Conklin was prepared for his part. Opposing counsel was not prepared, nor offered Discovery. (Did not know at this time they could have been compelled to produce documents)

63. June 4, 2002 – Meritech Mortgage Services, insurance dept. contacted by Lisa Richardson of Dillsburg Unsurance Agency, confirming per "Jennifer" of Meritech, that the coverage in place exceeded what was required. Notation made that Saxon mortgage Services was effective servicer.

64. June 3, 2002 (dated mail) – "Deficiency Notice" regarding hazard insurance sent by Meritech Mortgage Services, Inc., stating that the "amount of coverage is less than required".

65. May 23, 2002 (dated mail) – "Insurane Request" as sent by Meritech Mortgage Services, regarding the possible lapse of coverage &/or cancellation.

66. May 26, 2002 (on or about) – Judge orders trial into issues raised by Conklin since 1998. Discovery is required within 90 days; depositions 120 days; trial 180 days; from date of order.

67. May 31, 2002 (on or about) – Saxon Capital, Inc. ("Saxon") NASDAQ: SAXN, a residential lending & servicing company, announced the name change of its servicing subsidiary, Meritech Mortgage Services, Inc. to Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. ("SMSI")

68. April 30, 2002 – Property appraised. (paperwork received on or about May 10th)

69. April 10, 2002 – (dated mail) – Letter from Atty. Lutz, advising of May 22, 2002 hearing &the need to obtain an appraisal.

70. April 10, 2002 -(dated mail) – Received from Meritech Mortgage, "Deficiency Notice" letter stating "hazard insurance policy does not meet insurance requirements". "Amount of coverage is less than required". (this notice comes a month before annual renewal of policy)

71. April 4, 2002 – (dated mail) – Received from Bankruptcy court, correspondence as petitioned by Atty. Spivak, concerning " status of complaint for temporary restraining order".

72. Februray 1, 2002 - (dated mail) – received copy of correspondence from Atty. Spivak suggesting that Bank may entertain sub-division, provided appraisal, etc. Letter confirms Bank will not yet accept payment.

73. January 22, 2002 – (dated mail) – Received from Atty. Lutz, copy of mail sent to Atty. Spivak, regarding ever-increasing post-arrearages due to Banks refusal to accept payment.

74. January __, 2002 , Completed payment plan as required by Bankruptcy court.

75. January 9, 2002 – (dated mail) – Received correspondence from Atty. Lutz with attachments as sent to Atty. Spivak, alluding to Conklins original contention that some debt may have been taken from other property & improperly applied to purported debt of farm.

76. January 2, 2002 – (dated mail) – Received copy of correspondence from Atty. Spivak, including a purported statement of payments. Statement only addresses post-petition.

top >




77. December 26, 2001 dated mail) – Received from Meritech, "Loan Information" includes basic breakdown (without supporting documentation or specifics) with the total amount owed as $316, 575.21 (does not contain notice of attempt to collect a debt)

78. December 2001 – (or thereabouts) Received from Meritech form #1098

79. December 20, 2001 (dated mail) – Received Print-out from Meritech Mortgage concerning long sought loan information (without supporting documentation) noting total amount owed as $316,575,21.

80. December 17, 2001 (dated mail) Received notice of rescheduled hearing for "answer of Chase Bank to Debtor's Complaint", now due Dec. 27.

81. October 18, 2001 (dated mail) – Received copy of correspondence by Heidi Spivak of Mark Udren's office, with attachment "Answer of Chase Bank of Texas to Debtor's Complaint/Motion" First page of response identifies Chase Bank of Texas ("EMC") Thruout response, repeatedly Atty. Spivak, states "respondent has insufficient information as to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said allegations".

82. September 24, 2001 – Sheriff sale of property nullified by Sept. 19th TRO.

83. September 19, 2001 (dated mail) Via Bankruptcy Court, Judge Woo dside's order enjoining mortgage company from foreclosing. (TRO)

84. September 18, 2001 (filed Bankruptcy court) – Adversary proceeding # 1-01- 00229A: Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.

85. September 6, 2001 (dated mail) – Received letter from Atty. Lutz, referencing Sept. 17th hearing date, as well as exact amount in dispute in pre-petition. Also requests how Conklin proposes to pay "Commerce Bank" post petition arrearages, instead of "Chase Bank of Texas.

86. September 4, 2001 (letter dated 9/1) – Mail sent as generated by Mohan Mohabeek on Conklin's behalf to Saxon Mortgage requesting pertinent information. No response ever received. (was this in fact sent to Saxon & if so, how did we arrive at sending it to Saxon instead of Meritech?)

87. September 4, 2001 – Stopped at York office of the IRS to make a formal request for certain paper work that Meritech had never provided, i.e. #1098, #1099's for several years.

88. August 23, 2001 (as filed) Received thereafter a copy of hearing notic scheduled for Sept. 17th, listing Atty. Joseph Diorio as opposing counsel instead of Atty. ark Udren, who sought this particular foreclosure.

89. July 11, 2001 (or directly thereafter as served) – Received via sheriff's office "Notice of sale of Real Property", as sought by mortgage company by Atty. Mark Udren.

90. May 23, 2001 (or thereabouts) Received from Trustee's office case report of scheduled debt/payments/application(s) from Aug.6, 98 (date of bankruptcy filing) to May 23, 01. Print-out shows almost identical loan amounts of approx. 234k, with arrearages of $14, 418.92 (each? Need find this paper)

91. May 15, 2001 (dated mail) – Received from Meritech "Flat Cancellation Notice", regarding cancellation of previously placed "Forced-Placed" policy in the amount of $2822.99, has been credited to escrow.

92. May 15, 2001 (dated mail) – Received from Meritech, "Deficiency Notice" stating that the "Mortgagers name on the policy is incorrect".

93. April 10, 2001 (dated mail) – Received from Meritech "Notice of Coverage" regading a forced-laced policy in the amount of $2822.99 (includes $130.27 surplus lines tax & $6.72 stamping fee)

94. April 5, 2001 (dated mail) – Received from Meritech "Flat Cancellation Notice" regarding cancellation of previous "forced-placed" policy, in the amount of $1885.50, has been credited to escrow.

95. February 9, 2001 (dated mail) – identical letter to the Feb 8th correspondence by Atty. Mark Domeyer to Atty. Lutz, received, unsigned.

96. February 8, 2001 (dated mail/received via files) – Short attachment with the name of Joanne Bennett, referencing e-mail sent to Atty. Lutz, &/or Martin R. @ Meritech & Atty. Eisenberg, with Meritech rejecting offer.

97. February 8, 2001 (dated mail) – Received via Atty. Lutz copy of correspondence from Atty. Mark Domeyer, of Polk, Scheer, & Prober, rejecting Conklin's desire to sub-divide, citing mortgage company not allowing the property to be "cannibalized". Additionally, the intent to pursue the "lift of stay", as was now being applied to the wrong property was forthcoming. Local counsel is identified therein as Stephen Eisenberg; letter is signed by Mark Domeyer.

98. January 25, 2001 (dated mail) – Received copy of correspondence by Atty. Lutz to Atty. Shaw, of Polk, Scheer, & Prober, regarding their attempt to foreclose (by presumed consent) on the wrong property. Request for pre- petition arrearages accounting, again. Letter also refers to having gained conditional approval to sub-divide & that the proceeds thereof, would be more than sufficient to satisfy as yet verified arrearages.

99. January 12, 2001 - (dated mail) – Received copy of correspondence from Norman Shaw, of Polk, Scheer, & Prober, indicating previous counsel, Linda Hee, of Joseph Diorio's office no longer represented mortgage company's interests.

top >




100. December 27, 2000 (dated mail) – Received from Meritech, "Notice fo Coverage", whereby Meritech effective August 15th, 2000, has forceplaced a policy for insurance in the amount of $1885.50. (does not contain "attempt to collect a debt")

101. December 21, 2000 (dated mail) – Received copy of correspondence from Atty. Lutz, as addressed to Atty. Hee, of Atty. Diorio's office, "in following up to my previous correspondence" seeks verification of debt. Includes, "my last letter requested a copy of the promissory note".

102. December 12, 2000 – Received signatures for sub-division from surveyor , & officials, notarized.
103. December 6, 2000 – Received conditional approval for sub-division of property.

103: ________

104. November 30, 2000 (dated mail) – Received from Meritech, Final insurance request" , indicates that Meritech will force lace a policy, as supposedly insurance ran out as of Aug, 15th. (does not contain, attempt to collect a debt)

105. November 9, 2000 (dated mail) – Received from Meritech, "Insurance request" indicating they had not received renewal information. (does not contain attempt to collect a debt)

106. November 9, 2000 (dated mail) – Received from Meritech, "Deficiency notice" indicating that the insurance in place was not adequate for coverage. (does not contain, attempt to collect a debt)

107. November 9, 2000 (dated mail) – Received from Meritech, "flat cancellaton notice", crediting escrow account in the amount of $2822.99 (does not contain attempt to collect a debt)

108. October 30, 2000 (dated mail) – Received from Meritech, "Due to your failure to honor your commitment", indicates they have initiated foreclosure procedures on property. (This notice is unsigned & Does not contain, tis is an attempt to collect a debt)

109. October 20, 2000 (dated mail) – Received from Meritech, "Monthly billing statement?" Gives a brief statement breakdown which includes, as of that writing amount of arrearage is $53,681.76. Includes $3477.86, late fees, & "other" (undefined) as $3149.81 (Includes "This is not a demand for Payment" "Our records indicate your loan is in bankruptcy")

110. October 5, 2000 (dated mail) – Received copy of Atty. Vitti's "Motion to Amend Caption", regarding captions appertaining to property @ 185 Central View Rd., Dillsburg, &/or Spangler Rd. Property. (Cover letter states, "this is an attempt to collect a debt")

111. September 22, 2000 (dated mail) Received from Meritech, Monthly billing statement".

112. July 21, 2000 (dated mail) – Received from Meritech, Monthly billing statement".

113. June 16, 2000 (dated mail) Received from Meritech, " Monthly billing statement"

114. June 10, 2000 (dated mail) – Received from Meritech, "Fire", indicating that confirmation of insurance coverage must be received within the next thirty days, or a full term policy will be issued at my expense.

115. May 24, 2000 (dated mail) – Received from Meritech notice regarding lack of fire insurance, & the need to place such at my expense.

116. May 19, 2000 (dated mail) – Received from Meritech, monthly billing statement.

117. April 20, 2000 (dated mail)- Received from Meritech, monthly billing statement.

118. March 7, 2000 (dated mail) – Received from Atty. Lutz, copy of letter to Atty. Hee. Of Atty. Diorio's office, "This is the follow-up to my previous correspondence" seeking the promissory note. Letter also raises question as to "why late charges were applied when payments were denied, (14 late charges)

119. March 3, 2000 (dated mail) – Received from Meritech, monthly billing statement. Statement reflects over $8000.00 in payments made to account, as of late Oct. 99. (this may be in contrast to #1098 previously issued)

120. March 1, 2000 (dated mail) – Received from Meritech, monthly billing statement addressed to property, but with the names "Deborah & Herbert Caldwell"

121. February 24, 2000 (dated mail) – Received from Meritech "FIRE", stating, "confirmation of insurance coverage for your property has been received or your loan has been paid in full". Account was billed in the amount of $2489.54, for the property @ 185 Central View Rd.

122. February 4, 2000 (dated mail) – Received from Meritech, montly billing statement for Deborah & Herbert Caldwell, addressed to 100 Spangler rd..

123. February 1, 2000 (dated mail) – Received copy from Atty. Lutz, of correspondence to Atty. Hee, requesting promissory note & question 14 separate late charges applied against property.

124. January 6, 2000 (dated mail) – Received copy of correspondence from Ana Garcia, of Polk, Scheer & Prober, as sent to Atty. Lutz including attached facsimile containing copy of mortgage & voluntary arbitration agreement signed.

top >




125. December ? 1999 (undated mail) – Received from Meritech, #1099, for the year, 1999, in which they claim $15, 409.98 in interest was paid as reported to the IRS & $956.66 applied to principal, leaving a balance of $ 233, 532.43 (indicates 8 payments)

126. December 21, 1999 (dated mail) – Received copy of correspondence from Atty. Lutz to Atty. Hee, of Atty. Diorio's office, indicating receipt of a general payment history that only goes to Nov. 23, 1998. Questions raised include:

127. December 21, 1999 (dated mail) – Received from Atty. Lutz, forwarding a copy of the purported payment history, asking for verification.

128. December 13, 1999 (dated mail) – received copy of Atty. Hee's letter to Atty Lutz, forwarding a hand written purported payment history This was signed by "ANA" presumably Ana Garcia,of Meritech.

129. November 30, 1999 ( dated mail) Received from Meritech noice "FIE" indicating insurance "may have" lapsed. Indicates they have secured fire insurance for property. (does not contain, attempt to collect a debt)

130. November 19, 1999 (dated mail) – Received copy of Atty. Diorio, unsigned letter to Atty. Lutz "enclosed herein is our clients payment log, as of Sept. 1, 1999." Showing post-petition arrearages of $7,569.55, with payments posted thru June of 1999. Indicates they received a payment in Oct 1999, which was applied to July & August of 1999, inferring next payment due for Sept. 1999.

131. November 15, 1999 (dated mail) – Received copy of correspondence from Atty. Lutz to Atty. Diorio " we have not received any proof of payment from my client because you have not provided me with the information I requested, pursuant to our telephone conference with Judge Woodside." (number of payments, exact amounts Meritech is alleging are delinquent etc.) This information was requested from June 1999, & for failure to provide necessitated Judge Woodside's intervention.

132. November 5, 1999 (dated mail) – Received of correspondence from Atty. Diorio to Atty. Lutz, referencing a hearing scheduled for Dec. 13, 1999, with Judge Woodside. Atty. Diorio states that Conklin has failed to provide proof of payments.

133. November 4, 1999 (dated print-out) received from Trustee's office print-out of Chapter 13 account. Indicates 185 Central View rd. property as "surrendered", & arrearages on 100 Spangler rd as $14, 418.92. Undistributed funds are $6,499.15

134. September 28, 1999 (dated mail) Received from Atty. Lutz, letter referring to Conference with Judge Woodside on Sept. 24th, concerning the "Motion of Texas Commerce Bank to lift Stay on Property". Atty. Diorio told the Judge "conklin's were three months in arrears" to which Atty. Lutz replied, "In addition to the consistent problem we have encountered with the Bank refusing to accept payment, we have asked for verification of this delinquency, & have as to date, not received. The Judge ordered the motion of the bank "stayed" until such time as they produce the verification.

135. September 24, 1999 (or thereabouts) – Sheriff sale scheduled today for the property has been "stayed" by previous order of Judge Woodside.

136. July 6, 1999 (dated mail) – Received copy from Atty. Lutz addressed to Atty. Gross of (?) indicating per a recent telephone conversation, $8200.00 wass enclosed, representing 4 months of payments as previously returned by Meritech because the matter was in foreclosure.

137. June 22, 1999 (date filed) – Judge Woodside signs an order " Petitioners Motion to Reconsider & Set Aside the Order Modifying the Automatic Stay" Order refers to May 18th as date filed in courthouse.

138. May 24, 1999 (dated mail) – Received copy from Atty. Lutz to Bankruptcy court, referring to "Motion to reconsider lifting stay".

139. April 30, 1999 (dated fax) - Received copy of fax from Atty. Lutz addressed to Atty. Diorio, referring to letter enclosed therewith, from Atty. Lutz to Atty. Diorio dated March 30, 1999. " In receipt of Atty. Diorio's "Motion to lift stay". "The property that you have listed in the Order, is incorrect. 100 spangler rd. is clients personal residence; 185 Central View rd, is Conklin's former residence which they have agreed to have the automatic stay lifted".

140. March 29, 1999 (as filed/bankruptcy court) – Judge Woodside "lifts stay" on wrong property, pursuant to improper filing by bank Atty.'s

141. March 26, 1999 (Dated mail) – Received copy addressed to Bankruptcy court per motion to "lift stay" as filed by Atty. Diorio. Motion does not contain "Signed" certificate of concurrence from either party.

142. March 2, 1999 – Payment to Atty. Lutz for second mortgage filing for Phillip L. Conklin on property.

top >




143. December 29, 1998 (dated filing/bankruptcy court) – Pursuant to Lonna Gaskin, Ass. Vice president of bank? Claim form submitted indicating pre- petition arrearages of 6 months, late charges of $920.61 & atty. fees of $1,223.33 for a total of $14,418.92

144. December 18, 1998 (statement date) Received from Meritech statement showing amount due as of January 1 will be $18032.45 transaction activity shows three payments taken at once on Nov. 30, 1998. (this included a payment held since May 98, ( believed to be for 185 central view) as well as for Sept. 98 & a current payment) subsequently, caused insufficient funds. Thereafter, Bank moved again to foreclose & refused any payments.

145. December 14, 1998 – sheriff sale originally scheduled for today has been stayed.

146. December 8, 1998 (as dated to) Sent to Atty. Lutz letter regarding several issues. This included a notice of having bounced 2 checks; one to Meritech & the other to the trustee. Letter indicates that I had called in 2 payments months earlier to Meritech (one for each property) neither of which was ever acknowledged by someone, as it was per a message left on a recorder. Prior to writing check to trustee & current one to Meritech I contacted the bank to ascertain what the balance was & to verify if either was taken, & they were not. Subsequently, these payments were taken.

147. December 1, 1998 (dated statement) - Indicates base delinquent amount as $18412.47 plus current payment due of $2045.83 & $1125.19. late fees, $438.33 other fees for a total of $22,021.82 Statements indicates next payment due March 1, 1998.

148. November 20, 1998 (statement date) - Received from Meritech monthly billing statement as follows: Payment due in the amount of $2045.83, interest to year paid, $1932.47 (indicating only one payment)
149. October 8, 1998 – #341 creditor's meeting held at Bankruptcy court.

150. September 21, 1998 (as filed/York court) – notice of sheriff's sale for 100 Spangler rd. as scheduled for Dec. 14, 1998. Docket # 98SU-3535-06

151. September 15, 1998 (dated mail) – letter from Atty. Lutz advising of notice of Creditors meeting (#341) scheduled for October 8th @ 11am.

152. September 11, 1998 (dated filing) – Copy of "complaint in mortgage foreclosure" as filed by Atty. Louis Vitti (filed whilst stay was in place/ used wrong filing docket) Docket # (98SU3535-06) seeking $265,514.16 total, on a principle of $234,718.61 Atty. fees of $11, 735.93 & interest from Feb. 1, 98 to July 31, 98 of $11,430.47 ($63.50 per day thereafter)

153. August 10, 1998 – Sheriff sale for property located at 185 central view, stayed.

154. August 7, 1998 (via fax) – copy of, from Atty. Lutz to sheriff's office: Enclosed find copy of voluntary petition for bankruptcy filed, which should stay scheduled foreclosure sale scheduled for Aug. 10th. (185 central view rd.)

155. August 6, 1998 (as filed/ bankruptcy court) filing of chapter 13 protection.
156. August 6, 1998 ( dated mail) – 10 day default notice given in reference to 100 spangler rd. by Atty. Vitti's office.


158. May 30, 1998 – (file dated/York) – "Complaint in mortgage foreclosure" as filed against 185 central view rd. Docket # 98SU01632-06

159. May 21, 1998 (dated statement) – Received from Meritech monthly billing statement, reflecting only one payment (per interest received) to date.

160. February 19, 1998 (dated mail) – Received rom Atty. Lutz plan for bankruptcy & what it entails. Signed agreement on Feb. 23rd.

161. January 9, 1998 (statement date) – Received from Meritech, monthly billing statement: Record indicates applying two payments, (dec.16th, 97 & Dec, 23rd, 97) Handwritten on this statement is another payment made thru bank of Hanover on Feb. 6th.

top >





162. December 17, 1997 (dated statement) – Received from Meritech monthly billing statement, record indicates that there were no monies due for all of 1997.

163. September ? (labor day weekend) – Now ex-wife leaves & takes virtually everything with her.

164. August ? 1997 (exact date unknown) – Sustained serious physical injury on the farm.

165. May 15, 1997 (settlement date) – Settled mortgage @ sunset Mortgage services, located @ 2550 Kingston Rd. York, with Saxon Mtg. Settlement done by Realty Settlement Services. In attendance were Atty. M. Mcknight III, representing Conklin's, Atty. Jan Wiley, representing sellers interests, Debbie Black, of Sunset Mtg. (owner)

166. May 1, 1997 (dated notice.. need to find) indicating Mtg. had been transferred ahead of actual mtg. Settlement date.


top >