UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVIS ION

IN RE:

SAMUEL F. WORRELL Case No.:21-20622-PDR

Debtor Chapter 13

DEBTOR'S RENEWED OBJECTIONS,

TO SHORT-FUSED RUSHED SCHEDULING OF EVIDENTIARY HEARING,

BEFORE DEBTOR IS SERVED, CAN PAROLE ITS EVIDENCE,

OR READY TO PROVE ITS CASE

The Debtor, SAMUEL F. WORRELL, hereby registers strong objections to the rushed

scheduling of this very imporlant Evidentiary Hearing in contradiction to the Federal Rules of

Evidence ( FRE ) 902 (11) ;and ( FRE ) 803 (6), in conjunction with the corresponding

Bankruptcy Rules , including the local rules, and the specifics articulated in the Couft's order for

February, 16,2022, and Amended Orders of February, 17,2022, for authentication of

Documentary Evidence laying out an evidentiary foundation to meet a burden of proof.

1. The rules mandate that to avoid ambush and to respect due process, all pafties must

be given sufficient time to examine, and scrutinizethe proffers made by an adverse

pafty.

2. Additionally, parties must be allowed adequate time to properly prepare for a

Hearing.

3. Failure to comply with the rules will render the proffers inadmissible.

4. In this case, the docurnents and records being proffered by New Rez Mortgage

Servicing, LLC. and their local foreclosure attorneys also the same local foreclosure

-1-

Case 21-20622-PDR Doc 47 Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 5
attorneys for Ditech Financial LLC. were not delivered to the Debtor until

Wednesday,23'd, February,2022, (via UPS -Next Day Air).

Here, the courts seem willing to overlook several defects and conflicts, rendering the

contradictory, mutually exclusive, false claims filled in this case, legally untenable.

Defect/Conflict# 1 :

Here, alleged servicer entities, namely New Rez Mortgage Servicing LLC, and Ditech

Financial, LLC. supposedly are now, and always were, represented by the same

counsel******Except prior to January,l ,2021, when the law firm had a name change

from Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, PL.to Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane &

Pafiners, PLLC. Prior to the name change they were represented by the same law firm but

under their previous name of Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, P.L.

Defect/ Conflict# 2 :

These parties each have knowingly lied to, and have continually deceived the courts.

And have also falsely claim and have even repeatedly falsely advertised- as recently as

November,2021 - that Ditech Financial, LLC. is the correct entity or person holding a "

Secure Claim " against See Debtor's Evidence Composite Exhibit - A, SHOWING

FALSE CLAIM that Ditech Financial. LLC. is the secure creditor. Moreover,New Rez

Mortgage Servicing and Ditech Financial, LLC. are both being allowed I by the coutl(s) ]

to assert false claims entirely without any justification for wrongfully and maliciously

presenting and prosecuting such false claims.

a

'LCase 21-20622-PDR Doc 47 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 5
Additionally, for the issues now before the court for proving up validity and extent of

claims against the Chapter 13 Debtor, even after knowingly filing false Proofs of Claim

(POC) documents in this courl claiming falsely that New Re z Mortgage Servicing, LLC.,

who is a separate entity from Ditech Financial, LLC., is the rightful servicer and the

rightful " secure Creditor " in the Debtor's prior Chapter l3 case 20-11803, entirely

without justification or even a scintilla of evidentiary support. They continually proceed,

fraudulently. See Debtor's Evidence Composite Exhibit-B, showing false claims

knowingly filed by New Rez Morlgage Servicing, LLC on April 21 ,2020, without any

legitirnate servicing actions for almost two years, until November 2021. Thus, illegally

pennitting a different entity, namely Ditech Financial, LLC, to assert its own false

claims against the Debtor.

Defect / Conflict #3:

Even after filing its false proofs of claim in this Court on April 21,2020, New Rez

Mortgage Servicing, LLC., entirely and repeatedly failed to properly seek any payment

from the Debtor or otherwise attempt to satisfy ordinary conditions precedent. It instead

quietly returned to lurking in the shadows solely to facilitate having a different false

entity wrongly prosecute (and persecute) the Debtor, who is now legally entitle to relief

under title I 1, and other governing laws.

Moreover, a party who simply sits on a claim it alleges against any Debtor, especial a

"Servicer" who refuses to service, is barred legally from suddenly appearing in Court and

-3-

Case 21-20622-PDR Doc 47 Filed 02/25/22 Page 3 of 5
assefting any well perfected claims. Due in part to its inexcusable failure to reasonably

pursue its claims before coming to courl.

Defect I Conflict#4:

Additionally, these parties are barred by both the doctrines of clean hands and judicial

estoppel from seeking relief from this Court. Otherwise, the Court must accurately

determine whether they lied in prior court precedings by claiming that Ditech Financial

LLC is the "secured Creditor", or these claiming that New Rez Mortgage Servicing,

LLC., was somehow properly assigned mortgage servicing rights long after Ditech

Financial, LLC., claims that it had already accelerated, foreclosed, and terminated those

rights. IDebtor hereby serves Judicial notice of said contrary foreclosure court pleadings

by Ditech Financial LLC and New Rez Morlgage Servicing, LLC]. These co-conspirators

are therefore legally barred - both by the Judicial estoppel and Clean Hands doctrines,

from continuing to assefi false clairns against the Debtor. Furthermore, Debtor is entitled

to title 11 relief against them, including punitive damages justly warranted to dissuade

future false creditors from knowingly filing false claims.

Finally, according to the local Rules in this district, and pertinent regulations, before

appearing before the Court and filing papers in any case, the attorneys for a represented

party must swear an oath. Otherwise, it might be difficult to hold them accountable for

deceptive, false, or perjurous acts and statements made to mislead the Courts. Which

-4-

Case 21-20622-PDR Doc 47 Filed 02/25/22 Page 4 of 5
cerlainly appears to be the case here -- all without appropriate sanctions to discourage

such future misconduct. Therefore, perversely incentivizing such misconduct.

Dated / signed: Thursday ,24t1' ,Febru ary,2022.

Signed:

SAMUEL F. W!

7420 N.W. 4l COU

IFF-DEBTOR, pro se.

:, LAUDERHILL, FLORIDA 33319

-5-

Case 21-20622-PDR Doc 47 Filed 02/25/22 Page 5 of 5