MOTION TO RECONSIDER

CHESTER COUNTY

CIVIL JUDGE CODY

IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHESTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
PENNYMAC
v
GEORGE DESENBERG

:
:
:
:
:
:

Docket No. 14-07575

PRAECIPE FOR DETERMINATION

DEAR PROTHONOTARY:
PLEASE TIMESTAMP and FILE THESE COPIES OF THIS RECONSIDERATION
MOTION and FORWARD A COPY TO JUDGE CODY FOR DETERMINATION.
THANK YOU

_________________________
GEORGE DESENBERG
PRO SE DEFENDANT

DATE____________________

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

CHESTER COUNTY

CIVIL JUDGE CODY

IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHESTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
PENNYMAC
Plainti
v
GEORGE DESENBERG
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Docket No. 14-07575

Motion To Reconsider

The Essential Question Of Standing and Fraud Upon This Court

The Defendant, pro se, hereby requests that the Court reconsider the rejection of my
Petition to Vacate Judgment and void the default judgment due to RECENTLY
DISCOVERED HARD EVIDENCE of fraud, improper assignment recordation and
complete and utter lack of standing.
We ASK THE HONORABLE COURT THIS ONE QUESTION:
How can you refuse a request for an evidentiary hearing on three assignments I discovered
after exhaustive investigation which indicate in SIMPLE TERMS REGARDING THE
DATES OF THE ASSIGNMENTS AND THIS PROVES that the PLAINTIFF HAS
NO STANDING IN MATTER AND CANNOT BRING FORECLOSURE SUIT.
Its very simple to disprove my theory, and a hearing would prove or disprove the evidence,
BUT IF I AM RIGHT ABOUT THIS, you would be TAKING AWAY A MANS HOME
and giving it to THE WRONG ORGANIZATION.
Is that due process? Is that justice?
Constitutional Causation: Why Due Process Must Be Served
WE HAVE FILED newly discovered assignment evidence that PROVES IN BLACK
AND WHITE the Plainti s lack and standing, and this fraud upon the court is
compounded by fact that the Court will not grant us a hearing on the meaning of these
three assignments- assignments never disclosed by the Plainti, assignments that prove that
Plainti is a fraud, assignments that are clear and simple evidence of fraud- all has been
placed on the record of this court yet all of it has been ignored.

CHESTER COUNTY

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

CIVIL JUDGE CODY

We ask for DUE PROCESS before deprivation of property, and respectfully ask for a ONE
HEARING ON THE MATTER OF THE NEWLY FOUND THREE ASSIGNMENTS
EVIDENCE and the burden of proof regarding the plainti s STANDING
The Silent Assent: Why Plaintiff s Failure To File Reply Against My Allegations
I aver that the Plainti is not the holder is due course, and the fact that they failed to
REPLY or REFUTE on the record is wise of them as they did want to commit any further
acts of FRAUD UPON THE COURT, as knowingly misrepresenting the standing of the
Plainti is a crime that could result in the disbarment of the attorney handling the case.
Therefore I ask the Court to CONSIDER THE MEANING of the PLAINTIFFS
FAILURE to REPLY TO A PLEADING THAT ACCUSES THEM OF FRAUD AND
FAILURE TO POSSES LEGAL STANDING and thereafter enters a MOTION TO
POSTPONE SALE- their SECOND postponement.
Let there by A HEARING TO PROVE THE STANDING OR LACK OF STANDING of
the Plainti. My HOME IS ON THE LINE, as this is the MINIMUM DUE PROCESS
that the Court can aord me, as I was deprived of a trial on the merits of these issues.
I ask you to reconsider my request that the default judgment be vacated because it is and
always was void, as per the evidence I have presented REGARDING THE THREE
ASSIGNMENTS and how they prove that the PLAINTIFF LACKS STANDING..
To err on the side of postponing the sale and vacating the default judgment does not injure
the Plainti, as all I ask is that this new evidence be examined during a hearing, whereby the
Plainti would simply need to meet the minimum threshold of burden of proof.
This burden was wholly avoided because health problems of a close friend precluded my
ability to mount a defense to this foreclosure.
So therefore, in light of this evidence, I aver that to deny this Motion would irreparably
injure me and deprive me of my right to due process of law before the deprivation of
property.
The Motion Of Plaintiff To Postpone Sheriff Sale
The Plainti themselves motioned the Court to postpone the sale, and DID NOT REPLY
to my previous pleading accusing them of fraud.
This is clear evidence that they are concerned about the truth I have revealed by my
attachment of the assignments which prove that Plainti has NO STANDING to bring
foreclosure.
Therefore I ask the Court to vacate the default judgment because the evidence proves that
Pennymac did not have possession of the Note at the time of filing the foreclosure.

CHESTER COUNTY

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

CIVIL JUDGE CODY

The Court to stay a Sheri s Sale upon a showing of any legal or equitable ground derives
not only from Rules of Court, but also from the inherent power of the court to control its
own judgments and thereby prevent injustice. Wilner v. Croyle, 214 Pa. Super. 91, 95, 252 A.
2d 387, 389 (1969); Link Building and Loan Association v. Melnick, 325 Pa. 182, 184- 185, 189 A. 470,
472 (1937) (Stay of execution is common, Sinking Fund Commissioners of Philadelphia v.
Philadelphia, 324 Pa. 129, 188 A. 314; Augustine v. Augustine, 291 Pa. 15, 139 A. 585; Lewis v. Linton,
207 Pa. 320, 56 A. 874; Taylors Appeal, 93 Pa. 21).
Rule 1147(a)(1) -- A Requirement of Standing
In order to establish trust ownership of the foreclosure claims (and standing), at a
minimum, plainti trustee must plead and document a chain of title from the original
mortgagee to itself. See Pa. R. Civ. P. 1147(a)(1). See also Pa. R. Civ. P. 1019(i).
Here, there is no evidence half dozen entities listed within the records that compose
the chain of title have or ever had proper standing to foreclose- not Pennymac nor Primary
Residential Mortgage nor or Wilmington Savings Society nor Christiana Trust nor HLSS
Master Trust nor MERS had had ownership of the debt as evidenced in the newly
discovered clouded chain of title, nor is there any evidence Pennymac acquired at inception
of foreclosure note and/or mortgage, and that they ever had an ownership interest in the
note (the only debt instrument) on date Plainti caused its foreclosure complaint to be filed.
Plainti s complaint was therefore deficient because it failed to plead a chain of title
leading up to the current ownership of the note in direct violation of special foreclosure
Rule 1147(a)(1). This defect creates a lack of standing on the face of plainti s complaint.
This is a fatal defect.
The Standing Requirement. Plainti in its foreclosure complaint did not attach a
copy of the note as required by Pa. R. Civ. P. 1019(i) and the note, unlike the mortgage, is
not publicly recorded and therefore, falls outside the scope of Pa. R. Civ. P. 1019(g).
The party that possesses the or has custody or control of the note, with exceptions not
applicable here, is a real party in interest under Pa. R. Civ. P. 2002.
Pennymac failed to pled that it has the original note in its possession, custody or
control, a factual fatal defect.
A court MUST VERIFY and properly determine if the plainti had ownership of the
Note at the time this foreclosure was filed. The Court MUST NOT PRESUME the Plainti
has standing as THE COUNTY HAS SUED THE PLAINTIFF AND OTHER BANKS
FOR THEIR FAILURE to properly RECORD MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENTS with the
County, creating a recordable date of first awareness by the County of this very serious
problem which results in gained properties with CLOUDED TITLES that cannot be
insured and transferred easily because of the aforementioned CLOUDED nature of them.
Since they were involved by attachment within the structure of a secondary derivative wall
street investment vehicle, or trust. Plainti has NOT MET the burden of proving standing.

CHESTER COUNTY

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

CIVIL JUDGE CODY

Therefore the County and by extension this Court has not only the ordinary fiduciary duty
to its citizen litigants to provide competent adjudication and preserve basic rights, like the
right to be heard, but in light of their UNIQUE KNOWLEDGE of the way mortgage
assignments, and, by extension, mortgage foreclosure civil cases, had made the process of
selling the home/debt paper dicult.
This made the normally straightforward foreclosure judicial process near impossible if the
evidence was ever truly examined, as the nature of securitization, note and mortgage
bifurcation and failure to properly record the assignments themselves all conspire to deprive
the Plainti with standing to bring this action.
For the evidence of the assignments in the recording database of the county itself, proves
Pennymac DID NOT HAVE OWNERSHIP OF THE NOTE at the time this compliant
was filed, as is required by law and precedent.
I beg the Court to simply hold a evidentiary hearing for one issue and one issue aloneexactly what the Debts history; its true chain of title looks like by means of analysis of
public assignment and tax records, has standing, .i.e., is the note holder.
In addition, if this action is allowed to proceed without an analysis of the evidence I have
brought forth about the assignments, I as the Defendant will lose significant constitutional
and statutory protections ad suer INJURY by the fraud of Plaintiff and the
NEGLIGENCE of the County who knew by record of the MERS lawsuit that mortgage
assignment recordation was highly problematic and inaccurate, yet the County nor the
Courts did ONE THING TO WARN the citizen defendants or raise awareness within the
community of judges who hear foreclosure cases who are entirely BASED UPON the
evidence of mortgage assignment records.
2 13 Pa. C.S.A. ' 3309(b) provides:
A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the
terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument. f that proof is
made, section 3308 (relating to proof of signatures and status as holder in due course) applies
to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court
may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the
person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur
by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may
be provided by any reasonable means.
I have evidence assignments were out of order, reflected fraud and proved lack of standing by Plainti,
and moreover, creates a controversy as to WHO IN FACT has standing.
While I still intend to file a PETITION TO OPEN DEFAULT JUDGMENT if this
motion fails to attract the attention of the Court, as I feel this new evidence is very

CHESTER COUNTY

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

CIVIL JUDGE CODY

important and cannot be just ignored as its existence proves that the Plainti MAY NOT
have standing as per rigorous standard established by Chase v Francis X Murray, PA Superior.
The record here fails to reflect that Pennymac held the note and mortgage at the time it
filed the mortgage foreclosure complaint.
Because of this defect, I maintain that evidenced by the assignments recorded
but never disclosed by Plaintiff, it is not an option but A FACT that Plaintiff
lacked standing to file mortgage foreclosure complaint and the default judgment
is therefore voidable and the sheriff sale should be stayed.
With respect to my averment that Plainti lacked the authority (i.e., capacity to sue) to
request the sale of the Property, we refer the Court to the three records/assignments, which
we have attached to this Motion. WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated before and today
and including the fact that it is rendered void by new evidence), and remand to trial and
allow me to file a Verified Answer and enjoy the due process right of trial where Plainti
meets their burden and proves standing in light of evidence discovered otherwise.
Respectfully submitted by
__________________________ GEORGE DESENBERG Pro Se DATE ___________
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I hereby verify, subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn
falsification to authorities, that a copy of the Motion has been served on the Plainti s
attorney as follows:
Plainti s Attorney: _____________________________________________________
Oce Address: _________________________________________________________
Date: ___________ ____________________________ Signature GEORGE DESENBERG
Verification
This Motion is verified by me. I understand that the statements contained in this Petition are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statement herein is
made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
__________________________ Signature GEORGE DESENBERG
__________________________ Print Name GEORGE DESENBERG

CHESTER COUNTY

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

CIVIL JUDGE CODY

IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHESTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
PENNYMAC
v
GEORGE DESENBERG

:
:
:
:
:
:

Docket No. 14-07575

ORDER
AND NOW, this ______ of ______ 2016, upon consideration of the Reconsideration Motion
and any reply thereto, the Motion is GRANTED and the sale is postponed to
_________________2016.
A hearing on the matter of new evidence will be scheduled for _________ 2016.

BY THE COURT:
___________________
Judge Cody
DATE_____________