Professional Documents
Culture Documents
20 3. In the instant case, Christoper M. Zeis, as VP of M&T Bank swore in an affidavit under
penalty of perjury that a copy (inadmissible evidence) of the “original” promissory note
21
was true and correct despite being strangely absent an indorsement. Approximately 18
22 months prior, the ’08 note with indorsement was also sworn to under penalty of perjury
as a true and correct copy by both Laurie Abramo Asst VP, M&T Bank and Thomas P.
23 Dore, substituted trustee.
24 4. On August 11, 2010, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, Thomas P.
25 Dore admitted on the record under oath and penalty of perjury that he did not have any
personal knowledge of any facts in the purported “loan agreement”, the subject of this
26 foreclosure action.
27
28
Page 1of 6
1
2 5. Dore also admitted on the record, under oath in the same hearing on August 11, 2010,
that he was not present at the purported “loan closing” and is not a competent witness to
3 attest to any purported “facts” in the instant case.
4
6. Defendants have discovered that on or about October 13, 2010 Judge Alan M. Wilner,
5 who chairs the Maryland Court of Appeals Special Committee on Rules of Practice and
Procedure, wrote in a memo to committee members that "preliminary audits have shown
6 that hundreds of such bogus affidavits have been filed in Maryland circuit courts. The
judges are alarmed at this development."
7
8 7. Judge Wilner also stated in a letter to the court “In the Committee’s view, the use of
bogus affidavits to support actions to foreclose…. constitutes an assault on the integrity
9 of the judicial process itself”
10 8. Defendants have discovered that the law firms Bierman, Geesing, and Ward; and,
Covahey, Boozer, Devan and Dore admitted to filing false affidavits into Maryland
11 foreclosure cases. (http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-10-12/business/bs-bz-
12 foreclosure-attorneys-20101012_1_foreclosure-cases-halt-foreclosure-sales-signatures)
13 9. Per an October 12, 2010 article in the Baltimore Sun, “In the corrective affidavits filed by
Jacob Geesing, of Bierman, Geesing, Ward & Wood in Bethesda, and Thomas P. Dore,
14 with Hunt Valley-based Covahey, Boozer, Devan & Dore, both lawyers said the
15 information in the original documents was accurate — except for the signatures.”
27
28
Page 2of 6
1
2 • Dore came under heavy questioning from the judge and a special master appointed to
review his foreclosure documents for irregularities. At the end of his testimony, Dore
3 expressed regret to the court for failing to sign the documents himself but said he always
4 acted in good faith.
5 • “I apologize for having put you through this,” Dore told Pierson from the stand. “I
made a terrible mistake,” he added. “It was never my intent to deceive the court. It was
6 frankly stupid, your honor.”
7
• [D]ore’s system of authorizing others to sign for him “had gotten out of hand” and he
8 discovered that staff members whom he had not authorized to sign his name had, in fact,
signed foreclosure documents, he said.
9
10 • “Ethically, I should have signed those affidavits myself,” Dore said. “I realized I made a
stupid mistake and we changed our practice.” Dore insisted that at no time did
11 documents leave his office without being carefully reviewed for accuracy.
6 21. On 20 May 2010, the US Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of CA in re: Walker,
Case #10-21656-E-11 stated that MERS is merely a “nominee” with no right, title, or
7
interest, therefore cannot transfer any beneficial interest in a Deed of Trust (DOT).
8
22. MERS as beneficiary has failed to prove or even take the position that it is the holder of
9 all rights under the Note, which is the instrument of indebtedness which would permit the
legal holder thereof to declare a default which would trigger a foreclosure.
10
11 23. MERS has no legal interest in either the mortgage/ DOT or the Note, the subject of this
action.
12
24. Defendant intends to examine Ms. Menapace under oath to ask her to explain to the court
13
exactly how Ms. Menapace arrived at the exact figures stated in said affidavit.
14
25. Defendant Notices this court that on or about June 22, 2009, M&T Bank received a
15 Qualified Written RESPA Request sent via certified mail # 7009 0080 0001 6021 2851
for an audit of Account No. 0011973187 per Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC
16 1692G Section 908(b) of all official documents that would establish validity of this debt
17 and allow a team of analysts to review all official contracts, records, ledger entries, the
original genuine (free from fraud or forgery)promissory note, and book keeping practices
18 pertaining to Acct. No. 0011973187.
19 26. Per Federal Law the respondent to a RESPA QWR had 60 business days to fully comply
with the request.
20
21 27. The information necessary to conduct forensic accounting regarding Acct. No.
0011973187, including the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA), verified chain of
22 custody of the original security (unaltered, genuine, free from fraud or forgery, wet ink
signature promissory note), that after 545 days, has not been provided in direct violation
23
of Federal law.
24
28. Said QWR was sent well in advance of the foreclosure case being docketed and it is
25 Defendant’s belief that M&T Bank willfully failed/ refused to comply with said QWR as
is its duty, in an attempt to illegally foreclose on Defendant’s house without validating,
26
27
28
Page 4of 6
1
2 substantiating and authenticating its/their proof of claim, in direct violation of federal and
state law and in violation of Defendant’s due process rights.
3
4 29. Substitute Trustees, Thomas P. Dore, Shannon Menapace, et al, have no personal first
hand knowledge, and therefore have no sufficient basis to attest to the accuracy of any of
5 the purported “facts” in this case.
6 30. Substitute Trustees, do have a duty, as attorneys and officers of the court, to investigate
the purported claim of M&T Bank and verify Substitute Trustees have not unwittingly
7
brought a fraud upon the court.
8
WHEREFORE, Defendant moves the court to enter an Order to Show Cause:
9
Why Christopher M. Zeis, purported “VP” of MERS, and purported VP of M&T Bank
10 should not be compelled to appear before this court to be examined by Defendants under
oath and penalty of perjury, as to the accuracy of the purported “facts” sworn to by
11
affiant.
12
Why Christopher M. Zeis is named as “Vice President” of MERS when MERS has no
13 Employees.
14 Why Christopher M. Zeis is also named as “Vice President” of M&T Bank.
15
Why Shannon Menapace should not be compelled to appear before this court to be
16 examined under oath by Defendants as to her first hand knowledge of any “facts” in this
case.
17
What facts and admissible evidence Shannon Menapace, who has no personal
18 knowledge, relied upon to arrive at the figures stated in the Amended Statement of Debt,
19 sworn to under PENALTIES OF PERJURY.
20 Why a “c” level executive (CEO, CFO, COO) from M&T Bank should not be compelled
to appear before this court and be examined by Defendants under oath as to why M&T
21 Bank failed/ refused to comply with federal law by fully complying with the RESPA
QWR and validation of Debt request over 545 days ago.
22
23 Defendant also moves the court to grant such other and further relief as the court may seem just
and equitable to include sanctions if the court determines Plaintiff’s claim was a fraud upon the
24 court.
11
12 ____________________________
Todd Wetzelberger
13
14 State of _____________________
15 County of ______________________