DEUTSCH BANK DISCOVERY

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY ANSWERS TO PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ALL THREE SETS WITH RESPONSES. THIS RULING IS BIG.

DEUTSCHE-BANK-NATIONAL-TRUST-COMPANY-AS-TRUSTEE-PRODUCTION-REQUEST-SET-3

DEUTSCHE-BANK-NATIONAL-TRUST-COMPANY-AS-TRUSTEE-REQUEST-FOR-PRODUCTION-OF-DOCUMENTS-SET-2

DEUTSCHE-BANK-NATIONAL-TRUST-COMPANY-AS-TRUSTEE-PRODUCTION-OF-THE-DOCUMENTS

SUPONEA-Deutsche-Bank-National-Trust-Company-as-Trustee-and-Custodian-of-Records

 

b.daviesmd@gmail.com
brian davies
0

26 Responses

  1. Lets say your mortgage was a MBS to a trust. The Trust being the Fake Lender/Plaintiff & the Orig note showed up.

    1st thing you have to decipher is HOW THE NOTE SHOWED UP? WHERE DID IT COME FROM?? IF IT WAS ENDORSED, WHO ENDORSED IT, and did that entity have authority to endorse the note!

    IF note showed up via the Originating Lender/Sponsor, then you can bet the sponsor NEVER TRANSFERRED the DOcs to perfect the trust security interest in the Trust name. In other words, the security transferred to the trust WITHOUT THE DOCS!

    So what happened to the DOCS? They still reside at the Sponsors place of Bid’ness which is against the law. WHY, because the DOCS don’t belong to the Sponsor, they belong to the Trust. Think of it as harboring Stolen property!

    The cover up…….Since this was a screw-up by the Sponsor, and now there’s a default, how do we get that nasty note over to the trust without the Judge finding out?? Well, lets start with the old “lost note” BS, and the Judge takes it Hook,line & Sinker. Works every tine!

    While no one is looking, the sponsor pulls the note, and endorses in blank to plaintiff! What a surprise!

    But wait…..the Sponsor can’t endorse stolen property (the note they never transferred ) can they??!! But if it could?? I’m sure the Sponsor DID NOT AUTHORIZE IT! And even if the trust did Authorize ( which it couldnt ), the bylaws of the trust DO NOT AUTHORIZE it ORIGINAL NOTE OR NOT!

    But just for fun, lets assume all the BS worked just like it has before incompetent judges for the last 3 years, the plaintiff lawyers cackling about that UCC crap about the Holder doesn’t have to be the holder, but can be the Holder when he wants to be the Holder crap! Who writes this BS!

    What does the UCC says about transferring Stolen documents endorsed in Blank?? If the Sponsor was supposed to Transfer the damn docs to the trust, but didn’t, and decided to sit on the Title, Mtg, Note, Insurance, PMI, ect… WTF! By this time, the Judge is so Fuk’n confused, his own Bench Manuel can’t save his ass.

    Forget that crapola about ” if they have a Original Note ” b#ll sh@t. You still have all kinds of defenses.

    One final thought………..IF you have a Orig Note endorsed in Blank, check your Trust rules to see if thats acceptable. Most of the trust I’ve seen do not all a Blank Endorsement!

    Of course, if there’s a trust, and there’s a Blank endorsement, then you can damn near bet something smells like doodoo.

  2. LOL…….Looks lie dutche is throwing a Blocker on duh Judge. Except now its the Fed Gov. their messing with. Seems to me that IF this avoidance continues, the Judge will dismiss the POC, and someone will get a free casa.

  3. I do not see how forged and fraudulent documents can be made to go away. The crime is there, and it is obvious. The assignment on my loan has notary fraud and it has been signed by a robo-signer. Moreover, it was created in SC and then notarized in Texas–that is fraud. http://www.challengingforeclosure.com Sirak@challengingforeclosure.com

  4. Gregory:

    Your excerpt regarding the “burden of proof in non-judicial states” is excellent. A well-written brief…if you happen to have the full securitization info.

  5. Gregory,

    “Cases where the bank produces the original note are the hardest.”

    I can’t entirely agree with that statment. First, if they had the Note I would bet that it was not endorsed indicating it had not gone through the proper channels of securitizion. This would mean that the Note never found it’s way to the trust and the trustee who is tasked with it’s security. Second, if the forecloseing entity has the Note it more than likely never left “the premisis” and was stored at same. This would bring forth a very good case to present to the court for Biforcation of the Note and DOT.

    Gary

  6. here is an excerpt addressing burden of proof in a nonjudicial state and some securitization trust issues:

  7. @Michael:
    There is no set way to obtain documents contradicting the bank’s case. It depends on the situation, as each case is different. For instance, you should be on the look out for any robo-signers in your docs, and should also question the chain of endorsements if a securitization trust is involved.

    @david:
    Cases where the bank produces the original note are the hardest. You may be better off challenging them on consumer protection violations (TILA, etc.) than on technical defenses (chain of title, etc.). If there is a securitization trustee involved, one of the challenges available would be to argue that the trustee did not have capacity to acquire any interest in the note at the time the note was attempted to be transferred into the trust.

  8. http://www.scribd.com/doc/41958410/Deutsche-Banks-Response-to-Request-for-Admissions-Set-3-Rfa-3-07-21-10-Form-Int

    ANSWERS TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET 3 BY DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE INDYMAC MBS RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST 2007-A5, SERIES 2007-E PASS THROUGH, PSA 3-1-2007.

  9. Gregory Bryl,

    Thanks for that. I am almost exactly in that position in my bankruptcy case. The only difference is that the pretend bank in my case actually has the note. Do to the submission of evidence, they were forced to admit they do not own the note or the mortgage but have rights to foreclose as “holder of the note”.

    The bank will not state that they are a servicer. And if the note they have in their possession is the original, then they “hold” the note as a custodian.

    The judge granted my request in open court to compel the bank to document “who they are” in relation to the owner of the note. It will be interesting to see what story they come up with in the January briefing.

    I’m pro se and proceeding cautiously watching for tricks that kick me out of court. I have recently found a lawyer to help with the next moves including an adversary proceeding.

    Any comments: davidwood100@yahoo.com

  10. ANSWERS FROM ONEWEST FORM INTERROGATORIES WITH SET 3 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/41958055/INDYMAC-OR-ONEWEST-RESPONSE-TO-FORM-INTERROGATORIES-AND-ADMISSIONS-SET-3Indymac-Form-Int-Ad-3

  11. http://www.scribd.com/doc/41944736/Production-of-the-Loan-Level-Files-Arizona-Re-Chapter-11-SARAH-SHARER-CURLEY-Bankruptcy-Judge-I-Bailey

    JUDGEAt this time, the Court has ordered the following according to a November 9, 2010 Minute Order:

    MR. HIRSCH (COUNSEL FOR BONY) IS DIRECTED TOGET THE ORIGINAL CUSTODIAL FILE FROM NEW YORK FOR THE COURT TO REVIEW. HE SHOULD ALSO GET AN AFFIDAVIT FROM
    THE INDIVIDUAL GETTING THE FILE, THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY CHANGES SINCE 2006. IT IS ORDERED CONTINUING THIS
    HEARING TO JANUARY 13, 2011 AT 10:00 A.M.

  12. I need an answer quick ..

    FLORIDA STATUTE THAT WOULD APPLY TO BID RIGGING OR COLLUSION IN A CLERK OF COURT SALE…

    I have it recorded and it cost me plenty of money..

    Thanks in advance..

  13. Can anyone please post the ORDER to make them produce or the Response?

    And could anyone post the reply by the Plaintiff to the Objections the Defendant made, so we can learn how to reply back to get them to produce stuff.

  14. Great going Brian!

  15. Help me out here guys, why is this “big” it just looks like the response to RTP was standard lawyer stonewall….everything you request is “overbroad and burdensome”

    Am I missing something here?

    Keep up the good fight Brian….doesn’t it at least give you some satisfaction that the lawyers on the other side are taking your name in vain daily at this point

  16. HI
    AS FAR AS DOCUMENTS–QWR, DISCOVERY TRIES.
    IT IS HARD WORK.

  17. ATTORNEY BRYL,
    I HAVE READ YOUR OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY. IT IS WELL DONE.
    HERE IS MY OBJECTION TO ONEWEST THE SERVICER FOR THEIR MOTION WITHOUT POC MOTIONOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY BY ONEWEST. A PARTY NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE CHAPTER 7 FILING. HOWEVER, MOVANT ONEWEST COMES INTO THE COURT WITH 1) NO STANDING, 2) FALSIFIED AFFIDAVITS 3) DISCOLORED NOTES NOT COPIES OF THE ORIGINALS 4) SIGNED AFFIDAVITS BY BRIAN BARNHILL THAT ARE INACCURATE 5) DEED OF TRUST THAT IS FAULTY AND NOT PERFECTED 6) A SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF THE DEED OF TRUST WHICH TRIES TO CORRECT SECURITY INTEREST AND TITLE ISSUES.. DEBTOR ASKS FOR SANCTIONS. READ THE ENTIRETY AS IT IS LISTED AS UNSECURED DEBT, ONLY ORIGINATOR IS LISTED.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/39002836/ONEWEST-HAS-NO-STANDING-MOTION-FOR-RELIEF-FROM-STAY-WITH-OBJECTIONS

    AND THEIR REDO MOTION IN WHICH THE ABOVE WAS DEFILED AS ABOVE AND THEN THE FIRST PAGE CHANGED TO [PUT “ONEWEST SERVICING AGENT FOR DEUTSCHE BANK”

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/39002836/ONEWEST-HAS-NO-STANDING-MOTION-FOR-RELIEF-FROM-STAY-WITH-OBJECTIONS\

    THIS IS ATTORNEY BRYL’S DOCUMENT REFERENCED. WELL DONE.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/32272622/Opposition-to-Motion-to-Lift-Stay-it-Won-and-is-Well-Written

    COMMENTS WELCOME.
    BRIAN
    760-904-4928

  18. @Gregory Bryl,

    Hats off to you. Glad to hear of a nice push back. I wish you great success.

  19. Gregory and Brian:

    Thanks for your very illuminating responses. I have two questions:

    1) How does a person that is not involved in foreclosure or bankruptcy proceedings and resides in a non-judicial state, go about obtaining the specific documentary evidence to pursue Quiet Title and other legal remedies?

    (Brian)
    2) Pretty much the same question as 1) but more relating to the type of documents you stated Seck-Johnson robo-signed?

    My guess is that I will be doing good if I manage to get one bite at the apple and do not want to blow it. When the time comes to lawyer up I need to make sure I have a clear understanding of what winning strategies exist lest I might be led astray.

    Thanks for your willingness to share!!

  20. I have been helping a homeowner in Virginia to stave off a foreclosure based on the bank’s lack of authority to foreclose. Initially, the homeowner proceeded in the case pro se (without an attorney). After receiving a foreclosure notice, the homeowner filed suit against the bank challenging its right to foreclose. The bank responded that Virginia is a non-judicial foreclosure state, so that the owner cannot question the bank’s right to foreclose and thus arbitrarily convert her foreclosure from non-judicial to judicial. As expected, the judge sided with the bank and dismissed the homeowner’s case without giving her a fair chance to hold the bank to the burden of proving its authority to foreclose.

    When the homeowner came to my office, we got a “second bite at the apple” after the homeowner filed for bankruptcy and challenged the bank’s status as a creditor in bankruptcy. During the bankruptcy proceeding, the bank made the same argument: that Virginia is a non-judicial state, that their filings with the county records pertaining to appointment of substitute trustees and other foreclosure-related documents established a prima facie case of their right to foreclose, and that it had to be the end of the story.

    In response, we explained to the judge that not all challenges to a bank’s right to foreclose are equal. While foreclosure-related filings (even though often blatant and self-serving lies by the bank) may be entitled to some prima facie validity, their validity can successfully be challenged by producing specific evidence contradicting the bank’s filings. In other words, although the bank produced a document stating “I, the bank, am the holder of the note and can enforce the debt,” we also produced specific documents showing that the bank could not in fact have been the holder of the note (and addressing other deficiencies). The crucial distinction here was that we did not just “allege” that the bank was wrong. We produced specific documents showing that the bank’s statement could not have been true, or at least a substantial question existed as to its veracity.

    The judge sided with us and noted in his ruling in open court that (paraphrasing) “while documents such as a deed of appointment and similar filing enjoy some degree of prima facie validity, in this case the homeowner has produced sufficient evidence to at least cast serious doubt upon the validity of such documents.” The judge then admonished the bank’s counsel not to proceed with foreclosure unless the bank’s defective filings were rectified.

    The moral of the story is that, while it may be impossible in a non-judicial state to challenge a foreclosure by merely questioning (through contrary allegations and mere disagreement) the bank’s right to foreclose, it is certainly possible to challenge the bank’s right to foreclose by adducing specific documentary evidence sufficiently contradicting the bank’s prima facie case. Even if your case is as weak as the bank’s, it still may be enough to defeat the initial prima facie validity of the bank’s case and have your day in court, as long as you come forth with more than just bare allegations.

  21. Yes.

    My discovery is verified by ERCICA JOHNSON-SECK THE ROBOSIGNOR FOR ONEWEST AND MANY OTHERS. SHE IS THE INFAMOUS FOR THE NEW YORK RULING.

    VERIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

    I have read the foregoing document entitled Defendant DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF THE RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST 2007-A5, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATE, SERIES 2007-E UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED MARCI I 1, 2007’s

    Response Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents, Set One and know its contents.

    I am an officer of ONE WEST BANK, FSB, a party to this action, and attorney in fact and agent for DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF THE RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST 2007-A5, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATE, SERIES 2007-E UNDER TIIE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED MARCH 1, 2007, a party to this action.

    I am authorized to make this verification on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true and correct.

    Executed on 2-26, 2010 , at Austin, State of Texas.

    I declare under penalty of perjury
    under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct

    Erica Johnson-Seck
    Vice Preside for ONEWEST BANK, FSB and attorney in faet and agent for DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF THE RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST 2007-A5, MORTGAGE PASS-TI IROUGH CERTIFICATE, SERIES 2007-E UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED MARCH 1, 2007
    DEFENDANT DEUTSCHE. BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY. AS TRUSTFF, OF ,’LIE. RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURFLIZATION

  22. Neil:

    By “This Ruling Is Big” do you mean the issuance of a supoenas for the documents that Deutsche seemed to be blocking via discovery?

  23. CONTRACT FOR FORENSIC EVALUATION OF THE BLUE INK COPY OF THE NOTE. MR. LIEBSCHER INTERVIEWS WELL AND IS KNSWLEDGABLE FOR OUR TYPE OF CASE.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/41930448/Larry-Liebscher-Forensic-Examiner-Fee-Schedule-and-Contract

  24. THE DISCOVERY BLOCK IS CRIMINAL. IF THE DOCUMENTS WERE FACTUAL AND REAL IT WOULD BE EASY TO PRESENT. THESE ACTIONS SHOULD HAVE THE CALIFORNIA BAR INVESTIGATING THIS FORECLOSURE MILL NDEX WEST AND THE BARRET DAFFIN ATTORNEY GROUP

    A LETTER IN REGARDS TO NO PRODUCTIONS.

    Masumi Patel
    Attorney Barrett, Daffin, Frappier, Treder & Weiss
    20955 Pathfinder Road
    Diamond Bar, California 91765 May 21, 2010 Faxed to 626-915-0289 DAVIES vs. NDEX WEST LLC —INC 090697 Attorney Patel, I am responding to your letter dated 5-20-2010.
    Re:Demanding I stop contacting Deutsche Bank for documents you have refused to supply.
    You have systematically have tried to block all forms of discovery that I have propounded.
    The loan file was originated by fraud, and is therefore fruit from the poisonous tree.
    I am entitled discovery for fraud.
    Professional rules of conduct do not refer to Pro Se Attorney.
    I am able to contact anyone I want to determine the facts, especially when you continue to abuse you professional rules of ethical consideration, a risky position for you. Ethical considerations:
    Improper use of discovery undermines public respect and confidence in the legal system.
    It therefore violates the attorney’s fundamental duty to uphold the laws of the state of
    California (Business and Professional Code §6068(a)).
    RAST 2007-A5, PASS THROUGH SERIES 2007 E, WITH THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED 3-1-2007. This was formed under New York Trust Laws. It must follow Internal Revenue Service rules. LOAN FILE:for 43277 Sentiero Drive Indio, California,including all assignments. MIN: 100059600080428639 original loan number: 0008042863.The second lien
    information is included.It is required to have all assignments and a complete chain of
    title.
    It also has many other required documents as outlined in the Pooling and Servicing
    Agreement filed with the SEC.This agency has confirmed this to me.
    The CUSTODIAN LOAN FILE is required as part of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement from the Original Trust 2007-A5. My loan wasassigned by Onewest Bank employee Suchan Murray as a MERS signatory
    agent for UNIVERSAL AMERICAN MORTGAGE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA on
    August 20. 2009.The loan file is under NY Trust Laws and Security and Exchange filing
    requirements.The Internal Revenue Service states that this transfer 2.5 years after the trust was closed is not allowed. Additionally: 1)Discovery is due on June 4, 2010 for NDEX, DBNTC Set 2
    2)ONEWEST is due on June 14 Set 2
    3)MERS is due on June 7, 2010 Set 2
    4)Monday June 14, 2010is the date set to examine the
    original loan file in the offices of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company in Santa Ana, California. 5)June 21, 2010 is the date for production of docuemnts Set 3
    for Onewest, Deutsche Bank and Set 2 documents for MERS,
    including their documents of my loan as requested on their
    system.
    I can only hope that you follow your professional
    rules of conduct and supply the required discovery
    requests.
    If you plan to block my discovery rights then please
    let me know early so I may determine my next steps to
    acquire discovery.
    Best regards, Brian Davi

  25. Neil

    Thank you much for your post.

    Is their any other place to post .pdfs other than Scribd. I don’t want to have to obtain a ‘Facebook account’ to save them, because I don’t trust Facebook, and related, with all of their privacy ‘leaks’.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    Patrick.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,992 other followers

%d bloggers like this: