Page 1 of 9

JOSEPH ALTMANN
45 Stagecoach Rd
Cold Spring, NY 10516


Phone/Fax 1(845) 265-3836
altgang@gmail.com

Friday, J uly 25, 2014
Nancy M. Marigold
Office Of the chief Clerk
District Executive
Dear Ms. Marigold:
I am in receipt of your Correspondence dated J uly 18
th
2014, a copy of which is enclosed
for your convenience.
Right below the date, It is stated that Wells Fargo Bank, NA is the plaintiff in this case
and that I caused them an injury and am therefore a defendant. I fail to see how I caused an
injury to Wells Fargo Bank, NA. I never entered into any agreement at all with this bank in my
entire life. The only relationship that I have with Wells Fargo is that I hold an account with
them, a checking account. I also did not choose Wells Fargo as my banker of choice, Hudson
Valley National Bank was my original banker.
In addition to the above facts, my lawyer and I attended voluntarily a "conference" where
the so called "plaintiff" set up card tables like a cheap personal injury lawyer at a plane crash.
This "plaintiff" was too cheap to even have real lawyers, they used "interns". From then on and
previously, I am personally at a loss to determine who is the party of interest in this matter. I
take solace that on page two of the conference notice of the Administrative Court , there is a
requirement that the "plaintiff" provide the note along with some other requirements. Since the
mortgage and an endorsed note would be sufficient proof of the standing of the party endorsing
it, I fail to understand why this "plaintiff" chose to fake a mortgage assignment, fake an allonge
in lieu of this simple time tested step. Since I am not permitted to challenge the validity of the
assignment mentioned above, I would like to have the opportunity to request, and to so request
of the "plaintiff" this very note prior to this settlement conference. Your notice says mortgage
and note, not a copy. It is known as a wet ink note. If I wanted a photo-shopped note, I will
make one myself. Consider the following:
JP Morgan Chase Bank, tried to introduce the original wet ink promissory note in a foreclosure trial pending in Boca Raton, Florida.
The Bank previously said that the original note had been lost before the foreclosure filing. Because the Bank did not seek to amend its
pleadings before the trial or notify the borrower or the Court that the note had been located, and because the homeowner was not
provided with an advance opportunity to inspect and evaluate the note, the Court found that the Bank violated the rules of civil
procedure, and the case was dismissed in favor of the homeowner.
Joseph Altmann Page 2 of 9

JP Morgan Chase Bank may not be able to reinstitute a foreclosure action in this case because of Statute of Limitation issues. Lawyers
for JP Morgan Chase Bank have declined the opportunity to comment.
Geoffrey Broderick, the senior partner of the Resolution Law Group, says JP Morgan Chase Bank did not follow established rules.
They tried to gain an advantage by withholding the document until the time of trial. Judges do not tolerate trials by ambush, and the
Bank was therefore unable to avoid complying with the rules of civil procedure.
It is within the realm of the possible today that the "plaintiff" will pawn off a defective or
non- negotiated note now knowing full well that the borrower was not going to win a challenge
of the fake assignment. The fake assignment is a decoy for the non-perfected note or fake note.
Notes: Required documents before foreclosing entity (attorney) can legally foreclose:
Original (not copy) wet ink promissory note signed by borrower at closing endorsed.(signed/notarized) in sequence
from the mortgagee to the foreclosing party. Or ,absolute proof of loss of note (per UCC Section 3-309).
Assignments of Beneficial Interest in Deed to Secure Debt in sequence - from mortgagee to foreclosing entity Signed
and notarized Deed of Trust or Security Deed (with recording information)
Copy of modifications of the Note (with recording information). Accurate accounting of payments and charges.
Security Deed or Deed of Trust has to have a legitimate Power of Sale provision.
CAUTION: Why is it the Borrower's right to demand proof that the foreclosing entity is the legal note holder? In the
event the judge allows a "copy" to be submitted, the Borrower will be at risk because the original note holder could later
come forward demanding payment.

MERS was created in the mid to late 1990's by the mortgage bankers association along with companies like
Bank of America, Wachovia, J P Morgan Chase, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac because the bankers did not
want to pay recording fees on every transaction where they bought and sold mortgages by and
between themselves. Therefore, they invented a corporate model (which never received Congressional
approval or any kind of legislative approval) to circumvent (go around) the public registry that has been in
place since the U.S. first started keeping record of property transactions. The whole goal of MERS was to
avoid the fees that would have been assessed at the county courthouse for recording documents.
It was long established by the U.S. that information (transactions) should be available to everyone in order
to see what a clear chain of title is on a property. That is important to a buyer because when he/she intends to
buy a property, he/she can be confident that the property will be theirs, not property that has been fraudulently
sold to the buyer. This would be like stealing a car and selling it to someone else.
MERS does not share their registry with anyone and therefore, it has created a shadow or false registry.
Because they refuse to share the information, they can create any document they want.
Example of fraud: Let's say the "lender" with whom the borrower started is now out of
business. The Borrower goes into default. MERS creates an assignment from a lender (that is now
defunct) to another entity. (The original "lender" never transferred anything to any entity on the county
records.) MERS will maintain that it "has the authority" to do an assignment based on a relationship that may
or may not still be active. In most cases where the original "lender" is defunct (is not active) -- you cannot
continue contractual relationship with a defunct party.
fake note v. perfected lien:
Joseph Altmann Page 3 of 9

How the Lender Perfects its Lien
To perfect its lien, the lender must record or file the mortgage with the appropriate legal authority. This typically means recording the
mortgage in the land records in the county where the property is located.
The purpose behind the recording requirement is twofold:
It serves as a public declaration of the lender's lien against the real estate. (This gives other parties, such as potential purchasers and other
lenders, notice of the lien.)
Once a lender perfects its lien by recording the mortgage, this establishes its priority.

There are three claims right now before your court :
1) Mr. Adam Speregen ESQ. An Allonge that appears on the complaint only.
2) A fake assignment prepared by Security Connections and signed by notorious robo faker
Melissa Hively. The notary was none other than Krystal Hall herself:
http://www.adamsperegen.com/krystal-hall.html . This document traveled through various
abstract companies and such before ending up in Mr. Sant's registry by sheer magic.
Drawer #01 book#0022 page 213and returnable to a "law firm"
http://www.adamsperegen.com/melissa-files.html
3) An approved letter from the Sand Canyon Corporation, successor to the defunct Option One
corporation. I wrote personally to Mr. Dale Sugimoto at his residence and he denied that he
ordered or caused the allegations in item 2 although the assignment is in the name of the
Sand Canyon Corporation. This letter was recorded by me with the Putnam County Clerk
and rests there indexed to item2.
All the above parties should have perfected their Liens if they were legitimate as of the
date of these transactions as consideration is crucial. This "plaintiff" is so cheap that he or they
did not even record them with Mers, the rich man's county clerk. There is not a case where a
trustee can and should be the party to a foreclosure unless that trustee purchased the loan. In
such cases, they must not represent themselves as nominees for the trust.
As of this date, the party of interest is: Home Loan Servicing Solutions (NASDQ: HLSS)
TheStreet Ratings rates Home Loan Servicing Solutions as a sell. The area that we feel has been the company's
primary weakness has been its disappointing return on equity.
I could not agree with them more. If you would like to buy some shares, you may have to
stand in line behind the investors of the trust that contains my loan. Servicers advances contain
dog dodoo mortgages.

https://www.usbank.com/pdf/community/Role-of-Trustee-Sept2013.pdf
It appears to me that in not perfecting liens on mortgages, there is a bigger force at work,
aside from plain old thrift. A note is a security instrument when duly recorded and notarized at
the local registry. There is no party that can be created that is more devoid of a conflict of
Joseph Altmann Page 4 of 9

interest than a county clerk or registrar. It is actually more expensive to create events and sell
them to judges after the fact than to present a perfected note recorded soon after the event along
with the proof of consideration.
The "plaintiff" is going to, and has represented to the NY Supreme Court the allegation
that they operate solely in the interest of the investor, and now, they cannot alter the loan as
they are loath to suffer their wrath. I understand that this mythology is certainly alluring and
inspirational for those individuals in the judicial profession. I hate to be a killjoy and am also
plenty annoyed that this calumny has traveled the world and back several times and the poor
truth is just barely getting her slippers on (quote adapted from W. Churchill). Enclosed with this
document is a notice by "plaintiff" with regards to the disposition of usually non-perfected
foreclosure assets called "REO owned". REO means that these assets will require much
imagination in the fabrication of title to make them marketable. You could do it if you owned
your own title insurance company. Well, the "plaintiff" does, that story is for another time.
Now let's get back to the "Notice to the holders of certificates, notes, or other securities
regarding U.S. district court decision". In the decision, the "trustee" US bank asserted in civil
court that since they sold a foreclosed property, the investors no longer had any standing with
regards to warranties made upon them. I am going to enclose this notice. US bank also prepared
for the Mortgage Bankers Association a paper about the role of the "trustee". There is a
difference between the bank account of the US bank corporate Trust Service and the depositor
account of each trust that they manage. Fortunately, truth may finally get her clothes on. In the
case of The estate of Michael J ackson:
It has been a very good week for AIG in California litigation. AIG prevailed in the publicized Michael J ackson trial. Less
publicized, but probably more valuable to AIG is the recent ruling by a Federal J udge in the central district of California.
AIG previously sued Bank of America over fraudulent mortgage securities. Bank of America argued that AIG had
no standing to sue because it had transferred that right when it sold the instruments to the federal Reserve Bank of New
York in 2008.
Geoffrey Broderick, the senior partner of the Resolution Law Group, says J udge Pfaelzers finding that AIG has standing
to sue Bank of America may also be bad news for other banks that sold troubled mortgage securities to the insurer. AIG
has not yet sued other institutions, but we know from public records that AIG suffered at least $11 Billion in losses
involving other banks.
AIG was the PMI (primary mortgage insurer). It is also annoying that most low information
journalists and other purveyors of mythology blame the crash of this industry on the evil borrower,
who is looking for a roof over his head. For your information, AIG insured only 60 percent of the
loan pools. These policies covered the loss of interest to the pool if there was a pre-payment. The
stimulus and Fed reserve policies caused the prime rate to drop. The borrowers of the prime loans
refinanced to lower priced instruments. Those are high buck loans with low rates. Socialism for the
rich so to speak. For the bantam borrower, they remained stuck with low buck loans with high and
floating rates. All in all the bantam borrowers are supporting what is left of these securities.
Joseph Altmann Page 5 of 9

Foreclosures are added to the disbursement of interest to the investors. Many trust servicers used
CDS (credit default swaps) to provide coverage for the subprime loans, but it is an avenue that is
closed to them now as they have run out of suckers.
The "plaintiff" trust as represented to your court and according to the loan collateral file on
CTS link shows the following in the loan ticker tape to closing:
criteria in 68 +- columns wide by 4662 rows long
Row 1 is a column descriptor
loan numbers are therefore 4661 and match the ending number on SEC 8K last filing prior to
closing the trust
The data on these loans, after import shows the following:
A wide geographical spread. People in Alaska even financed their igloos in Anchorage
Alaska Zip 99508,99508 and 99517. That would be, in sequence loan 511024985 for
$220,500, and loan 5111025434 for $60,000 and loan 191012352 for $149,150
A sort by wet loans shows that trustee accepted forty percent of loans with documentation
issues and that the trust was still closed with their inclusion.
Most of these loans were from Option One, acting as servicer and originator
The remainder are from Chase. I am not particularly interested in them.
The loan to value ratios at inception of all loans appear to be high
My loan to value ratio is the lowest of all the loans in the pool
The data on the trustee reports from the various servicers shows the following:
From 2003 to June 2014 shows that the trust asset pool shrank from 4661 loans to 391.
From the day of the first report, although the responsibility of the servicer according to the
PSA is to insulate the investor from the vicissitude of the market, the trustees did not require
the advances to pay for the investors agreement as clearly stated in the PSA
Although the servicers collected PMI and CDS to pay for losses, they are self servingly not
reported to the trustee in any report.
The servicers also did not report to the trustee all the sub-deals that they made using the
investors 's collateral such as over-collateralization and reserve fund accounts.
Note: this is strictly a report for the investors and not the servicer's real accounting, which is not
publicly available. As it says on the bottom of the page, "All distributions required by the pooling
and servicing agreement have been calculated by the certificate administrator on behalf of the
trustee."
About Radian Guaranty: The PMI insurers received $24,551for the month of J une 2014 to
reimburse the loan pool in case of loan foreclosures for the 60% of the loans that are not wet. There
is therefore no harm done to the servicer. This is a monthly premium and is equal to the total
servicing fee for June and charged to them accordingly. There is no harm done to the investor if the
PMI pays for his loss through the servicer. Why the servicer is reporting this to the trustee is a
mystery. The PMI, upon receiving a properly filed EOB claim (Explanation of Benefits) will
approve or disapprove a claim and in case of approval, remit to the servicer the amounts in default,
thereby leaving the servicer unharmed. As is generally the case with insurance, the PMI will
Joseph Altmann Page 6 of 9

become the party in interest with regard to individual collateral as they were the party injured by
the non-payment.
Almost all PMI policies cover the certificate holders for losses involved with loans being modified
due to low LTV's caused by unrealistic down-payments and changing market valuations. PMI
policies also do not cover mortgages where there is no perfected liens.
About the chorus line of servicers: The "plaintiff's" protection of the investors or certificate
holders is worthy of a mental hygiene conservatorship. There is no consideration of the interests of
Investors, borrowers, prevailing laws. Real Estates Trust were not conceived to just benefit the
administrators of these entities.
Sometime, it is cheaper to dispose of the borrower despite claims to the contrary just to save
on paperwork. Not perfecting liens is a prime example. It must be done WHEN an event occurs
and not custom manufactured to suit the convenience of a servicer.
This infirmity would now also cause the PMI to reject the coverage afforded by Radian
Guaranty with respect to the terms of the pool policy as the loan is unsecured.
I personally think that the servicers are just too cheap to care. Servicers ARE NOT in the
servicing business, they are in the foreclosure business. It is bizarre that the trustee and servicers
would choose to insure and pay for PMI insurance and choose Judicial redress instead of filing a
form to save money. PMI insurance was meant to cover BOTH borrowers and investors. For
Radian's master policy, go to:
http://www.radian.biz/sfc/servlet.shepherd/version/download/068C0000001uXPKIA2

Condition Ten Option to Acquire Loan (from policy above)

At any time after a Default, and prior to the conclusion of Appropriate Proceedings, the Company shall have the option
to acquire the related Loan. The Company shall exercise such option in writing and within thirty (30) days after the date
thereof, the Insured shall furnish to the Company a written statement of the acquisition cost of such Loan. The
acquisition cost shall be computed in the same manner as the computation of Loss set forth in Condition Eleven of this
Policy, except that interest shall be calculated only through the date of acquisition. Payment of the acquisition cost so
computed shall be made by the Company to the Insured within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such statement from
the Insured together with all supporting documentation reasonably required by the Company. Contemporaneously
therewith, Insured shall execute and deliver to the Company, or its nominee, such instruments or documents which the
Company may reasonably require to effect or confirm the assignment or transfer of the Loan and any right, title or
interest of the Insured in and to the Property, Appropriate Proceedings and any other collateral or security. In addition,
Insured shall assign and deliver to the Company existing fire, hazard and title insurance policies relating to the Loan. The
assignment or transfer of the Loan, any other collateral or security, and all related documents by the Insured to the
Company shall constitute a warranty by the Insured that it has good title to such Loan, collateral, security and related
documents, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, and that there are no setoffs or counterclaims which may be
asserted by the Borrower, and that the Insured has done nothing to impair the validity and enforceability of its rights
with respect to such Loan, such collateral or security and such related documents.
Claim requirements
Joseph Altmann Page 7 of 9

(3) Evidence satisfactory to the Company that the Insured has Borrowers Title to the Property, except where there has
been an Approved Sale or the Company has elected to acquire the Property;
(4) If the Company elects to acquire the Property, evidence that the Insured has acquired and can convey Merchantable
Title; and .....


For the last time, I am going to refer to Radian Guarantee guide lines titled:
Servicer's Basic Duties and Responsibilities:
Perform all professional functions and take all necessary steps to protect the collateral securing the mortgage
loan insured by Radian;
http://www.radian.biz/servlet/servlet.ImageServer?id=015800000012u8SAAQ&oid=00D80000
000auGU
That would be the link to Default and Claims Servicing Guide.
CONCLUSION:
Although it appears that I am defending the investors here, the idea behind Real Estate Trusts of
this nature is for the mutual benefit of both parties. What is happening here is that both the
investor or certificate holder and the borrower are taken to the cleaners.
I have presented here the following facts:
1. The trustee is conducting a foreclosure as a nominee for the servicer. That is a role for the
servicer. The trustee should not even know;
2. The pool of mortgages is covered by PMI insurance. The loss of income to the certificate
holders should be covered by the servicer's advances. The servicer should then make a
claim to the PMI insurer who may at his option buy the mortgage loan or cover the losses
and cost incurred by the servicer. The PMI policy also covers loss mitigation, such as
principal reduction and hamp, harp etc. It covers the servicer's advances. There should be
no diminution of income for the certificate holder during that time;
3. The pool of mortgages is shrinking from 4661 to 391 to date;
4. It appears that the trust is nothing more than a pyramid scheme where foreclosed loans
pay for current dividends;
5. The trustee and servicer are in collusion with this scheme. While they pretend to or pay a
PMI insurer, it is just for show; as an insurer requires a perfected lien;
6. The certificate holder is none other than FHFA, the conservator for Freddie and Fannie;
7. Servicing fees are over 50% of gross trust income once foreclosure proceeds are
deducted;

Joseph Altmann Page 8 of 9

8. Foreclosed loans get resold and the cycle begins again.
9. Check PSA regarding PMI insurance.
10. I think I will ask Radian Guarantee if this "plaintiff" has a policy with them and if it was
exercised.
11. Left unexplored are counterparty investors. The servicer may at his option share his risk
with other investors. The instrument to that effect is a CDS (credit default swap). It is
similar to insurance. http://www.radian.biz/page?name=SecondaryMarketing

I thought that perhaps Radian Guaranty was a boy scout company, a delusion that was put
to rest for me rather expeditiously by a consent judgment and order that Radian entered
into on J anuary 31
st
2014:
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201402_cfpb_0002_exhibit-C.pdf
Hello Enron:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-26/lawsky-cites-ocwen-conflicts-as-he-reviews-
wells-fargo-deal.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/06/wellsfargo-ocwen-mortgages-
dUSL2N0LB1DQ20140206
Lawsky's office has previously taken action against Ocwen. In December 2012, the department announced
that it was requiring the Atlanta-based company to install a monitor to ensure Ocwen was meeting certain
mortgage servicing guidelines.
Ocwen agreed to follow the mortgage servicing rules, such as ending robo-signing and other practices, to
get the regulator's approval to purchase Goldman Sachs Group Inc's Litton Loan Servicing unit in
September 2011.
Wow really, I am shocked.
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2014/08/paul-krugman-just-made-the-worst-call-of-his-career/
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/district-court-judge-william-zloch-deals-65888/
J udge decision is below:
http://documents.jdsupra.com/3296aa19-f1ba-48c0-827b-eafa6a0cfc32.pdf
For a final comment, regarding the "plaintiffs" is the case of Sarah C. Yarney 3:12cv00014
that I will enclose in its totality. It is so outrageous that it speaks for itself. There is a mixture
here of Kafka and the worst kind of human malfeasance. The fear of the entity committing fraud
to delegate any authority to anyone along with an infirmity to do so create a surreal world of
Joseph Altmann Page 9 of 9

perpetual defendant ship for the hapless borrower. Even total surrender is not enough. Unlike
humans, dead corporations can hire counsel, plead in court, assign rights and the like. I applaud
Benjamin Lawsky action toward Wells Fargo and Ocwen, but there is one thing missing. The
borrower and the investor never benefit. Only the government does.
I remain, your obedient servant
?
J oseph Altmann
Enclosures and bibliography:
Yarney: enclosed and in print (J ustia)
Kevin M. Wenzel: Fighting zombie corporations, tornadoes and fake forced placed insurance.
A great potential screenplay. http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-
bin/recentops.pl?filename=boal/pdf/11-
30211%20wenzel%20order%20on%20motions%20to%20dismiss%20final.pdf
The Estate of Michael J ackson and AIG:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/bank-of-america-to-pay-650-million-to-aig-in-mortgage-disputes-
1405547611
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/11/04/310298.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-berlau/matt-taibbi-sort-of-defen_b_2490219.html
Note to investors on WF CTS link: In print, for further info on using master collateral files and
creating style sheets for them call or email me. It is legal. It will be my pleasure to do it free for
the NY Supreme Court.
GEE WF you forgot to mention YOUR involvement in that case.
PSA: File location SEC http://www.secinfo.com/dRSm6.2145.d.htm?#46d
Closing date August 25
th
2003
Cut off Date August 1
st
2003
Acknowledgment: I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Dale Sugimoto and Sand
Canyon Corporation for making me the first American to merit a reply to an inquiry without the
need to have it done by a legal instrument. Richard Gerbino calumnies before the PCSC was an
inducement that was irresistible.
http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/10jd/nassau/decisions/index/index_new/palmieri/2009jan/021
490-07.pdf