Recommended Posts

Hey, Everyone!

 

I have a case in which "evidence" provided by Plaintiff (Portfolio) includes an alleged Bill of Sale signed (possibly robo-signed) by David Nauman of HSBC BANK NEVADA, N.A. and an Affidavit of Sale signed (again, probably robo-signed) by an Ashley Oku of HSBC.  I'd like to be able to show that neither are residents of California, but they haven't stated their locations in the documents.

 

Initial internet searches seem to indicate that the former may be in Philadelphia, while the latter seems to be a ghost.  Has anyone had a case with either of these individuals named and discovered their places of residence/business?  Also, if you know of any documented instances of robo-signing associated with these names, it would be very helpful.

 

Pro pers unite and stand strong!

Link to post
Share on other sites

That affidavit shows that she works for HSBC Bank in Nevada.

 

 

 

That link appears to be an old one because the person to who it claims she is an administrative assistant no longer works for HSBC.  He's now with Capital One.

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/stuart-austin/7/471/320

 

That is also confirmed by the following CA case:

 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14083751526739158314&q=%22Stuart+Austin%22+AND+%22Capital+One%22&hl=en&as_sdt=6,41

Link to post
Share on other sites

@bassplayr

 

As noted, I also found a possible link to Ashley Oku and Cap One too.  So at this point, she might not even work for HSBC anymore and her name might still be used for affidavits....which would not work out too well once it becomes known.

 

 

If she no longer works for HSBC, it would depend upon when the affidavit was signed. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

David Nauman....

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/dave-nauman/3/9b7/237

 

This one has a Delaware phone number, supposedly to reach him:

https://leadferret.com/directory/person/david-nauman/34549137

 

This one gives a Delaware address where he can be reached, this was in 2010:

http://dalie.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2010.09.29-HSBC-Consumer-Lending-to-CACH-09-29-2010-as-is.pdf

 

Keep in mind that the "Greater Philadelphia Area" contains parts of PA, NJ, and DE.  He also attended college in DE.  That's where he's located.

 

Ashley Oku:

 

https://connect.data.com/contact/view/jM5qoFlE8iL1QRsSzUFDvA/ashley-oku

Looks like she's in New York.

 

http://imgweb.charlestoncounty.org/CMSOBView/Service1.asmx/StreamDocAsPDF?viewertype=cms&ctagency=10002&casenumber=2011CP1003027&docseq=P2A1

 

Here's an affidavit that Ashley signed, it's notarized by a notary in Nevada which is notary fraud.  That notary can get into hot water for notarizing documents when the signer of that document did not personally appear.  Does your affidavit have a notary on it as well?  If so, who and from what state?

 

Also, I found a 2015 posting on another forum where Ashley Oku signed an affidavit claiming to be a business analyst for HSBC....but she's claiming in other places to be an Asst Vice President....

Well done, bassplayer!  

 

This is just the kind of thing I was looking for.  I had found Dave Nauman on LinkedIn as well, but was lacking a document with his address.  What you say about the Greater Philly area makes sense.  Ashley was a total mystery to me.  Glad you were able to find something on her.  Not sure what the judge's reaction will be to proof from internet sites, but I intend to put it in.  And yes, my Affidavit from Ashley Oku does indeed have a Notary Public stamp on it from Nevada (Madellaine Castro Opulencia), which could of course have been added through Photoshop (the whole thing's a weak-looking photocopy, dated 2012).  Though the Notary is different, Ms. Oku's signature looks as though it's signed by the same hand.   The language of the doc is identical to mine, right down to not having a proper account number.  Ms. Oku also claims to be an "Assistant VP and Assistant Secretary, Administrative Division of HSBC."  Sounds like a totally made-up combination of titles that have noting to do with each other (no assistant VP I know would have the word "Secretary" in his/her title).  Thanks a lot for your help!   

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know he's with Cap One....but it does not matter either way because the OP is looking to see if they are residents of CA or some other state.  Whether NV, NY, VA, or DE, it's still outside CA, correct?

 

Exactly.

 

As noted, I also found a possible link to Ashley Oku and Cap One too.  So at this point, she might not even work for HSBC anymore and her name might still be used for affidavits....which would not work out too well once it becomes known.

 

Indeed.  My Affidavit is dated 2012.  Somewhere along the line Capital One acquired HSBC, so I'll have to find out when that went down.  But I mention it now because for some pro pers, the introduction of a new entity (Capital One) could add another layer in Chain of Custody.  Thanks again, bassplayer!

Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't have to be from California.

You can object to the affidavit itself as they are not admissible in CA. CA EVIDENCE CODE 1200. The case to cite is Elkins v Superior Court.

Thanks as always, Anon.  CA EVIDENCE CODE 1200/Elkins is definitely my first line of defense in regard to the Affidavit and Bill of Sale.  It's just that I currently have supporting lines in my Objections and Trial brief about affiants being from out-of-state, so I wanted a little info to back up my assertions.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As noted, I also found a possible link to Ashley Oku and Cap One too.  So at this point, she might not even work for HSBC anymore and her name might still be used for affidavits....which would not work out too well once it becomes known.

If she doesn't work for HSBC anymore, what does HSBC stand to gain by still using her name for affidavits?  Is there a shortage of people that work at HSBC who are qualified to provide affirmation of the needed details?  I have to say that I don't believe so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Everyone!

 

I have a case in which "evidence" provided by Plaintiff (Portfolio) includes an alleged Bill of Sale signed (possibly robo-signed) by David Nauman of HSBC BANK NEVADA, N.A. and an Affidavit of Sale signed (again, probably robo-signed) by an Ashley Oku of HSBC.  I'd like to be able to show that neither are residents of California, but they haven't stated their locations in the documents.

 

 

 

In my opinion you are in the middle of a very common sidetrack. It is the evidence and affidavits that are being used against you in an attempt to prove  their claim that you need to focus on and attack (not the residence of the affiants). No one ever claimed to be from CA, and those are not the allegations that you are fighting. Also, there's no law they have to be from California.

 

You may have mentioned it in your trial brief, but you don't have to prove it. If you haven't filed the trial brief yet you could always adjust it rather than trying to prove the points. If you do prove they aren't from CA (An allegation they never made) you don't gain anything from it.  If the judge is willing to spend a specific amount of time on  your case I wouldn't want to waste any of it with the residence of these people.

 

My concern is the amount if time that could be spent researching and then arguing (in trial) a moot point, when you have objections to file and arguments and rules to know how to present.

 

You need to show how the bill of sale doesn't meet all of the subdivisions of CA Evidence Code 1271, which doesn't qualify it as a business record. It doesn't meet the business records exception to hearsay and is inadmissible. It has nothing to do with where the declarants live, and that would be a sidetrack from the rules you are citing.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are doing a lot of research for something that isn't going to help you, it's not needed. I wouldn't be surprised if the judge said it was in material before you even finished the point you were trying to convey. I would focus my energy on other areas.

Also, if this is related to your current thread for the suit you are fighting, small suggestion to keep it all together. Makes it much easier for others to help if all your info is in one spot.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are doing a lot of research for something that isn't going to help you, it's not needed. I wouldn't be surprised if the judge said it was in material before you even finished the point you were trying to convey. I would focus my energy on other areas.

Also, if this is related to your current thread for the suit you are fighting, small suggestion to keep it all together. Makes it much easier for others to help if all your info is in one spot.

I get what you're saying.  It was just something that i wanted to keep in the exemplar Trial Brief I was using, in order to cast further doubt on credibility.  Not a big deal, I only spent a few minutes on it.  I realize that there are more important things to focus on, but I'm currently stuck on issues regarding the differences that should exist between my Trial Brief and written Objections and needed a diversion, since no one's been able to explain it in a way that I can quite grasp.  I started a separate thread to get these names because I mentioned Ashley Oku many times in my main Portfolio thread, but no one ever had any input on her.  I was hoping to cast a wider net by starting a new (brief) thread, that would catch the eye of anyone that recognized the names.  Sorry if this was poor form.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's  going to be a lot of repetition. There won't be a huge difference between  your trial brief and your objections.

 

Your objections are all separate and can be filed or made orally at trial. They contain specific rules why each piece of evidence should be inadmissible. The judge knows these rules and deals with this day in and day out case after case. These objections (when written and filed) also preserve the record for an appeal later if needed. Oral objections at trial do the same IF YOU SECURED AND  PAID FOR A COURT REPORTER.

 

While the judge may know all of this, he doesn't remember your case or may not know what's happened with it and what the elements are. That's where your trial brief comes in. It's a brief story of your case, filling the judge in and getting him up to speed and all in one place. If he wants more detail and specifics he can see your objections, which again are pretty much the same thing, the rules of evidence and your arguments haven't changed.

 

The difference is you don't have to file a trial brief (but you should), but you do have to make the objections.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern is the amount if time that could be spent researching and then arguing (in trial) a moot point, when you have objections to file and arguments and rules to know how to present.

Here here!  There should be a lot more of this kind of advice being dispensed around here.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You can object to the affidavit itself as they are not admissible in CA. CA EVIDENCE CODE 1200. The case to cite is Elkins v Superior Court.

 

Thanks for this, Anon.  CA code 1200 and 1271 (mentioned elsewhere) are really helping me focus on the correct points to hit in my objections to evidence, which in turn is helping me determine what gets saved for the Trial Brief.  It's the direction I've been looking for.  :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I respectfully ask you to reconsider that.

 

Harry posted that comment because Harry wants to see you win the case.  This is not about "not helpful"--what he posted is indeed helpful.  Harry's wanting to see the main focus be on the main issues.  He simply agreed with what anon posted, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Apologies if I misunderstood intent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here here!  There should be a lot more of this kind of advice being dispensed around here.

 

To clarify however (regarding post # 23), the ONLY point I found moot and should not have been fought or researched was the actual residence of the bottom feeder's affiant. Everything else here (OP'S case) should be fought and objected to, including any and all affidavits, BOS, CC statements, etc etc , regardless of mention of name or account number.

 

There has been no shortage of good opinion dispensed to CA members in the Cali threads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I disagree with anon about is the idea that researching that avenue is not worth doing.  Unless you are VERY short of time, I typically recommend researching every angle you can get your hands on. 

 

The OP is extremely short on time and having some confusion that is being worked out on some very critical areas. Also OP is in the middle of drafting objections and trial brief. Bogged down.

 

Think about this, anon.....what if the consumer decided not to research Martha Kunkle back in 2007?  Thousands of those affidavits, over at least 12 years, and from an original creditor too.  If we do not research all angles, then things like that will slip right by.

In Cali it wouldn't have mattered because affidavits are inadmissible at trial.  Also no one in any of those affidavits claimed to be from Cali, nor does the law require them to be. I was saying it's a waste of time to prove they aren't from CA when it's not even a requirement or an allegation.

Technically the affidavit is supposed to be printed on recycled paper too, and the OP may be able to prove it wasn't, but it's not going to add any value to the case, and it would be a waste of time.

  I do agree that time should be focused on the more relevant issues in the particular case, but what if in this case it would turn out that those affidavits were "signed" after the people no longer worked for HSBC? 

 

They probably were, and they are probably full of misinformation. That's why affidavits are inadmissible at trial. As for the affidavits they are already beaten (if objected to)  And I was saying not to worry about where these affiants live (which is the topic of this thread).

These issues you mention here however may be coming up again in the BOS and non affidavit documents where these facts (signed after no longer working there etc) would be attacked in the BOS for example by using CA Evidence Code 1271 (time and method of preparation untrustworthy) and showing how they are not business records because they can't meet an exception. It may also be used to impeach them if they happen to show up as a witness (but they do not have to be subpoenaed).

Then it would present another issue that should be fought, IMO.

My opinion was that where the witness lives is not an issue, or an allegation, and shouldn't be fought. I doubt there's even an argument there to fight as the affiant never asserted they lived in CA in the first place, so proving they don't live here is a waste of time (for defendant) and will not help the case especially when affidavits are inadmissible at trial.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.