[00:00:00] Speaker ?:
Okay, last matter.

[00:00:01] Speaker 00:
Okay, Ms.

[00:00:24] Speaker 04:
Simmons, if you'd like to reserve some time for rebuttal, you can do so.

[00:00:27] Speaker 04:
Just tell me how much.

[00:00:33] Speaker 04:
We can't, ma'am, we're not hearing you.

[00:00:35] Speaker 04:
You're muted if you can unmute yourself.

[00:00:39] Speaker 03:
Sorry.

[00:00:39] Speaker 04:
There you go.

[00:00:40] Speaker 04:
OK, you want to reserve a little time for rebuttal?

[00:00:42] Speaker 03:
Yes, please.

[00:00:43] Speaker 04:
You want to tell me how long?

[00:00:46] Speaker 03:
A couple of minutes.

[00:00:47] Speaker 04:
OK, should we say, let's say three minutes, OK?

[00:00:50] Speaker 04:
And by the way, you can invade that.

[00:00:51] Speaker 04:
If you're doing a great job, you just want to plow through the three minutes, you can do it, OK?

[00:00:54] Speaker 04:
It's up to you.

[00:00:56] Speaker 04:
And we'll try to let you know when you're coming close to your three minutes.

[00:00:59] Speaker 04:
OK, you may proceed.

[00:01:03] Speaker 03:
Well, I'm here pro se.

[00:01:06] Speaker 03:
First of all, I'm letting you know that because I've had a hard time finding representation.

[00:01:10] Speaker 03:
There have been multiple attorneys that I've talked to stating through my forensic audit, there is absolutely without a doubt a lot of fraud that is taking place in this case.

[00:01:26] Speaker 03:
And it stems, I'm seeing now there's a lot of collusion that's taking place with different law firms.

[00:01:32] Speaker 03:
And I guess the first question that I have after you have looked over the information is of this matter, it's very simple.

[00:01:43] Speaker 03:
Is the Bankruptcy Appeal Court going to either respect the United States Bankruptcy Court's order from 2008 and the Washington State six-year statute time bar, statute of limitations, where nothing transpired over the claims against my protected property?

[00:02:03] Speaker 03:
and just basically whether you guys are going to endorse that or not.

[00:02:09] Speaker 03:
Also, I wanted to just point out that I have never seen Emily Edling.

[00:02:15] Speaker 03:
She's obviously representing Hauser Law Firm, which Nicholas Reynolds came in at the very tail end of everything.

[00:02:23] Speaker 03:
There's been different law firms that have been coming in onto my case.

[00:02:28] Speaker 03:
It seems like different attorneys will show up,

[00:02:30] Speaker 03:
Um, no one's ever sworn in under penalties of perjury except for myself.

[00:02:35] Speaker 03:
I've been sworn in and, um, it's all hearsay and what they're saying.

[00:02:39] Speaker 03:
So, um, Nicholas at their last hearing, Tom Pierce, first of all, this all comes back to him.

[00:02:47] Speaker 03:
Um, at the superior court, Tom Pierce was with ZBS law and, um, we had a court hearing where I was supposed to prove why I was still in my house.

[00:02:58] Speaker 03:
And Commissioner Hillman at that time at the Superior Court had said, Tom, where's your client?

[00:03:05] Speaker 03:
We can't proceed without your client.

[00:03:08] Speaker 03:
And I just want to point out that HSBC or any of these banks, they have never, there is not one time that has their client

[00:03:17] Speaker 03:
been there with them.

[00:03:19] Speaker 03:
This is all just a bunch of attorneys jumping in on my case.

[00:03:22] Speaker 03:
And I also had another gentleman, Lance Warren.

[00:03:29] Speaker 03:
He's the guy that lifted my wet signature back in 2019 when I was going in in front of Judge Rude.

[00:03:42] Speaker 03:
There had been three attorneys that actually had got off my case.

[00:03:46] Speaker 03:
They wanted to be removed from my case.

[00:03:49] Speaker 03:
I actually had one of them approach me and say, Carrie, we're off your case.

[00:03:53] Speaker 03:
This is so fraudulent.

[00:03:54] Speaker 03:
You need to proceed.

[00:03:56] Speaker 03:
for quiet title and I'm not comfortable and I'm no longer going to be on your case.

[00:04:01] Speaker 03:
So this Lance Warren gentleman back in 2019 came into the case on February and he lifted my, he had a wet ink signature lifted and it was the wrong name and he showed it to judge rule.

[00:04:16] Speaker 03:
And then that's when they proceeded for the foreclosure of my home.

[00:04:20] Speaker 03:
So I did a forensic audit.

[00:04:23] Speaker 03:
There's so much proof in here.

[00:04:25] Speaker 03:
And if you just go back with the different court hearings and people that recuse themselves.

[00:04:31] Speaker 03:
Like I said, I don't know.

[00:04:32] Speaker 03:
Obviously, Emily's showing up here.

[00:04:34] Speaker 03:
And it's interesting to me because Nicholas Reynolds showed up.

[00:04:38] Speaker 04:
Just so you know, as a matter of respect, we use last names here.

[00:04:41] Speaker 04:
We don't call people by their first names, OK?

[00:04:43] Speaker 03:
Oh, I'm sorry.

[00:04:43] Speaker 03:
So Miss Edding, she works with Nicholas Reynolds and Nicholas Reynolds in the last hearing shows up and in front of Tom Pierce, because he shows up too, he says, don't worry, man.

[00:04:56] Speaker 03:
He goes, this is just a car payment for me.

[00:04:58] Speaker 03:
I got this.

[00:04:59] Speaker 03:
So as I'm sitting there listening to him, he knew nothing about my case either.

[00:05:03] Speaker 03:
He showed up one time.

[00:05:04] Speaker 01:
completely cocky in the case and let me ask you just a question we appreciate the information you're providing to us today but you know we really need to hear from you what you think the bankruptcy court did wrong and we did read your briefs

[00:05:23] Speaker 01:
But it will be helpful to us if you can articulate out loud today what you think the Bankruptcy Court did wrong in granting the motion for relief from state, because that's really the matter that's before us.

[00:05:36] Speaker 01:
So I understand you think that there's fraud from inception, but please, can you please focus your argument on what you think the Bankruptcy Court did wrong in granting this motion?

[00:05:50] Speaker 03:
Well, first of all, I feel that they were not recognizing the 2008 bankruptcy discharge.

[00:05:57] Speaker 03:
And then there was a six-year statute of limitations that nothing happened from that point, which would have been 2014.

[00:06:06] Speaker 03:
Then they decided to come in in 2019 and do a wrongful foreclosure on my home.

[00:06:12] Speaker 03:
And then also just allowing these different attorneys to come in with no client.

[00:06:20] Speaker 03:
There's no client.

[00:06:21] Speaker 03:
So I basically just want to know, are you going to recognize the 2008 bankruptcy?

[00:06:27] Speaker 03:
Are you going to recognize the six year statute of limitations?

[00:06:30] Speaker 03:
And that's basically, I didn't know, have you read the statement that I just sent in three days ago?

[00:06:38] Speaker 03:
I e-filed it and it has,

[00:06:42] Speaker 03:
Remedy.

[00:06:44] Speaker 03:
So I'm just hoping we can come to some type of an agreement.

[00:06:48] Speaker 03:
Otherwise, I feel this is just going to continue to go on to higher courts.

[00:06:52] Speaker 03:
I just want my civil rights to be honored.

[00:06:58] Speaker 01:
So regarding the foreclosure action that you mentioned, you said they wrongfully foreclosed.

[00:07:05] Speaker 01:
That was a lawsuit, is that right, in state court?

[00:07:10] Speaker 03:
In Superior Court?

[00:07:11] Speaker 01:
Yes, yeah.

[00:07:13] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:07:14] Speaker 01:
So they foreclosed pursuant to a lawsuit.

[00:07:16] Speaker 01:
And did you, um, you participated in the lawsuit?

[00:07:19] Speaker 01:
In other words, you, you fought that lawsuit?

[00:07:23] Speaker 03:
Actually, um, as far as all the terminology for all of this, um, I, I did fight it.

[00:07:32] Speaker 03:
I did go back and rebut it, you know, their decisions.

[00:07:38] Speaker 03:
Um, yes.

[00:07:44] Speaker 03:
But I tried to get a continuance with this hearing here.

[00:07:50] Speaker 03:
I requested one because there is new evidence now that during that foreclosure court hearing that Lance Warrant, when he lifted my signature, I went back in and that was not admitted, that evidence was not presented to the court.

[00:08:09] Speaker 01:
Well, that's really an issue for the Superior Court, not for us.

[00:08:15] Speaker 01:
And you're certainly free to raise that there.

[00:08:17] Speaker 03:
I'm just wondering where HSBC is today.

[00:08:25] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:08:25] Speaker 03:
Edline is here, so where's your client?

[00:08:31] Speaker 01:
This proceeding requires you to provide information, and we don't really respond to questions.

[00:08:39] Speaker 01:
You'll get our decision once we hear both your side and Ms.

[00:08:44] Speaker 01:
Edlin's side, and then we'll hear your reply to whatever she has to say, and then we'll give you a written decision.

[00:08:50] Speaker 01:
But we're not going to give you an oral decision today.

[00:08:53] Speaker 01:
We'll give you something in writing.

[00:08:56] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:08:56] Speaker 03:
So I guess my main question is, are you going to honor the bankruptcy 2008?

[00:09:01] Speaker 03:
discharge and also the six years statute of limitations because that's the law.

[00:09:06] Speaker 03:
Are you going to abide by the law or not?

[00:09:09] Speaker 01:
That's my question.

[00:09:09] Speaker 01:
Do you have anything else you want to add or do you want to reserve the rest of your time?

[00:09:13] Speaker 03:
I'll reserve the rest of my time.

[00:09:15] Speaker 01:
All right, very good.

[00:09:16] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:09:16] Speaker 01:
All right, Ms.

[00:09:17] Speaker 01:
Edling.

[00:09:20] Speaker 02:
May it please the court.

[00:09:21] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:09:22] Speaker 02:
I'm Emily Edling, representing the respondent in this matter who, for brevity, I'll refer to as HBSC as trustee.

[00:09:29] Speaker 02:
Before, Your Honors, is a simple appeal involving a pro se individual who doesn't understand the law.

[00:09:35] Speaker 02:
And because of that, obviously, she's trying to make connections based on what counsel are on the case and raising facts that aren't in the record.

[00:09:41] Speaker 02:
But this appeal, as she acknowledged herself, is simple.

[00:09:46] Speaker 02:
And her continued advocacy of this appeal, as well as other lawsuits, rests on her mistaken belief that she received a bankruptcy discharge in 2008, and that that discharge prohibited HSBC as trustee from foreclosing on its secured lien.

[00:10:02] Speaker 02:
And of course, as we know from the US Supreme Court case Duesnip versus Tim in 1992,

[00:10:09] Speaker 02:
And other authorities since then, that's simply not the law.

[00:10:13] Speaker 02:
The law is that while Ms.

[00:10:14] Speaker 02:
Simmons' personal liability is discharged in a bankruptcy, a creditor's lien generally survives the bankruptcy unaffected, and the right to foreclose remains intact.

[00:10:23] Speaker 02:
And here, as this court's noted in some of the questions raised, there has been a foreclosure judgment in a state court that occurred in March 2019 and would have resolved any issues that Ms.

[00:10:36] Speaker 02:
Simmons has with the propriety of the foreclosure.

[00:10:39] Speaker 02:
So the sole issue before your honors is whether or not the bankruptcy court correctly granted the HSBCS trustees motion for relief from stay.

[00:10:50] Speaker 02:
And we contend the order should be affirmed on multiple grounds.

[00:10:55] Speaker 02:
One, the automatic stay in the case had already been terminated by operation of law at the time under 362 subsection C, 3A.

[00:11:04] Speaker 02:
And that's because a debtor who previously had a bankruptcy dismissed within the last 12 months and files again only gets 30 days of the automatic stay protection.

[00:11:13] Speaker 02:
Here, by the time HSBC has trustee filed their motion for relief from stay.

[00:11:18] Speaker 02:
that 30 days had already expired.

[00:11:20] Speaker 02:
And so it was completely appropriate for the bankruptcy court to recognize that the motion for relief from stay had expired, but also in case any court disagreed to find that it was terminated for cause on other grounds.

[00:11:36] Speaker 02:
And that leads me to my second point, that the relief from stay was appropriately granted for cause under 362 D1

[00:11:44] Speaker 02:
The first reason for that is that granting relief from stay for cause includes situations like this where the party seeking relief will not be adequately protected during the bankruptcy or where the property is not important to the debtor's reorganization.

[00:11:57] Speaker 02:
Here, the debtor can't use this property to reorganize.

[00:12:00] Speaker 02:
It's not her property.

[00:12:02] Speaker 02:
She has a complete lack of interest in it other than potentially as a squatter, and there's no legitimate reason relevant to the purpose of the bankruptcy code to allow her to possess this property.

[00:12:18] Speaker 02:
And the second reason is that HSBC, as trustee, it lacked protection in its interest.

[00:12:24] Speaker 02:
If the stay remained in effect, it would never be compensated for its loss of use of the property, which has already gone on for a number of years.

[00:12:32] Speaker 02:
Accordingly, the bankruptcy court was well within reason to find that HSBC should be allowed to obtain the benefits, including possession, of this property that had been foreclosed and purchased at an execution sale.

[00:12:44] Speaker 02:
And finally, the court also found bad faith.

[00:12:47] Speaker 02:
I note that it didn't have to find bad faith in order to find cause.

[00:12:52] Speaker 02:
Courts in this circuit have confirmed that where

[00:12:54] Speaker 02:
A party's rights to property are determined pre-petition.

[00:12:58] Speaker 02:
Cause exists even without a finding of bad faith to grant relief from a stay so that a moving party can enforce its rights.

[00:13:06] Speaker 02:
But there are reasons that the court found bad cause and bad faith in this case.

[00:13:13] Speaker 02:
Primarily, the Court found that Ms.

[00:13:14] Speaker 02:
Simpson was motivated by a desire to thwart HSBC as Trustee's effort to enforce its judgment, that Bankruptcy Court had already rejected her primary theory that the 2008 discharge prevented HSBC as Trustee's foreclosure,

[00:13:29] Speaker 02:
And so that it was frivolous to raise that theory again.

[00:13:33] Speaker 02:
And the court also noted that Ms.

[00:13:35] Speaker 02:
Simpson, well, it could have noted, I don't recall if it did, but that Ms.

[00:13:38] Speaker 02:
Simpson filed her petition to avoid removal from the property, which other courts have found is an indication of bad faith.

[00:13:46] Speaker 02:
Your honors, unless there's any questions, I will, that's all I have for your honors.

[00:13:53] Speaker 04:
Okay, thank you very much.

[00:13:56] Speaker 04:
Okay, back to Ms.

[00:13:57] Speaker 04:
Simmons and you got six minutes, 45 seconds.

[00:14:02] Speaker 03:
This absolutely has not been in bad faith.

[00:14:07] Speaker 03:
First of all, HSBC was never on the loan.

[00:14:10] Speaker 03:
My loan was with Greenpoint and Bank of America.

[00:14:13] Speaker 03:
HSBC came in out of nowhere.

[00:14:19] Speaker 03:
And as there's other banks that came in that tried, you know, before that point, and there was no, that they did nothing within that six year statute of limitations.

[00:14:32] Speaker 03:
And 2008, the bankruptcy was not a theory.

[00:14:39] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:14:39] Speaker 03:
Edling kept referencing and it was a theory.

[00:14:42] Speaker 03:
And basically I went through,

[00:14:48] Speaker 03:
process of... I just lost my train of thought, I'm sorry, because I don't want to get back into some of the stuff I'm trying to hit on the points that she just brought up.

[00:15:02] Speaker 03:
I think the biggest point here is that there is no proof that HSBC has hired any of these attorneys.

[00:15:08] Speaker 03:
They have not been present to any of this, and they were never the people that I signed the loan with to begin with.

[00:15:18] Speaker 03:
And there is absolutely no contract with them.

[00:15:20] Speaker 03:
And there was a six year time bar that nothing happened.

[00:15:29] Speaker 03:
And I went through an affidavit process a couple of years ago and asked HSBC among other people to come forward and they did not.

[00:15:44] Speaker 03:
And I have proof that

[00:15:46] Speaker 03:
My sewer bill is in my name.

[00:15:49] Speaker 03:
HSBC stopped paying on the sewer bill three years ago.

[00:15:52] Speaker 03:
And so when I asked them for a cease and desist, because they weren't showing up.

[00:15:57] Speaker 03:
And so my name is on the sewer bill.

[00:15:59] Speaker 03:
My name is on the property records.

[00:16:02] Speaker 03:
If you look at who the property is recorded under, it's me.

[00:16:09] Speaker 03:
So HSBC quit paying.

[00:16:12] Speaker 03:
and it's back in my name as far as my sewer and bills.

[00:16:15] Speaker 03:
So that's all I have to say.

[00:16:18] Speaker 03:
I just want to know if you guys are going to recognize my civil rights and whether you're going to honor the 2008 bankruptcy and the six-year statute of limitations.

[00:16:30] Speaker 03:
Thank you for your time.

[00:16:33] Speaker 04:
Okay, thank you.

[00:16:35] Speaker 04:
Okay, with that, the matter is submitted.

[00:16:37] Speaker 04:
And again, we'll get you a written decision as soon as we can.

[00:16:40] Speaker 04:
Thank you very much.

[00:16:42] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:16:43] Speaker 04:
Okay, I believe that concludes our calendar.

[00:16:46] Speaker 04:
So we're adjourned.

[00:16:47] Speaker 04:
Okay, thank you.