Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Buy Now $8.00
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
P. 1
Sample Motion to Compel Discovery with an Expert Opinion Declaration Concerning the Robosigning Signature of Rhonda Bernard Thomas

Sample Motion to Compel Discovery with an Expert Opinion Declaration Concerning the Robosigning Signature of Rhonda Bernard Thomas

Ratings: (0)|Views: 318|Likes:
Published by Barry Fagan Esq.
Wells Fargo has not identified any line items for their balance sheet and have specifically stated that NO part of Plaintiff’s loan is associated with any balance sheet line item for Wells Fargo (RPD2 no.s 17, 18, & 20), and yet they simultaneously respond with copies of Reports that allegedly conclude that Plaintiff’s loan is included in those Call REPORTS. The Call Reports are roll-up information, Plaintiff’s loan does NOT specifically appear on those line items, as it is a roll-up of ALL items for that field. These are blatant discovery act violations as you can’t talk out of both ends, if those ends completely conflict with one another. That given all of the inconsistencies already uncovered through the discovery process in this case, this Motion to Compel Defendant Wells Fargo Bank to further clarify Plaintiff’s discovery requests is more imperative than ever. Plaintiff has received expert opinion testimony which calls into question whether Wells Fargo Bank is actually legitimately verifying their discovery responses by having multiple authors signing the name Rhonda Bernard Thomas and this alone is a blatant robosigning violation of the April 13, 2011 OCC consent order with Wells Fargo Bank. (See Declaration of Dr. Laurie Hoeltzel dated January 2, 2012 as Exhibit G and the April 13, 2011 OCC Consent Order on file herein)
California Evidence Code 623 states the following: Whenever a party has, by his own statement or conduct, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, he is not, in any litigation arising out of such statement or conduct, permitted to contradict it. Clearly Wells Fargo must be compelled to produce both public FDIC links and private balance sheet accounting which can not be construed as being in violation of California Evidence Code 623.
The only reason for Investor No: 175263872 on the Substitution of Trustee is that the ownership of the loan was sold to an unnamed and undisclosed entity and explains why Wells Fargo Bank altered the Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust. (See Plaintiff’s December 19, 2011 Request for Judicial Notice with expert opinion on Document Fraud on file herein)
Wells Fargo has not identified any line items for their balance sheet and have specifically stated that NO part of Plaintiff’s loan is associated with any balance sheet line item for Wells Fargo (RPD2 no.s 17, 18, & 20), and yet they simultaneously respond with copies of Reports that allegedly conclude that Plaintiff’s loan is included in those Call REPORTS. The Call Reports are roll-up information, Plaintiff’s loan does NOT specifically appear on those line items, as it is a roll-up of ALL items for that field. These are blatant discovery act violations as you can’t talk out of both ends, if those ends completely conflict with one another. That given all of the inconsistencies already uncovered through the discovery process in this case, this Motion to Compel Defendant Wells Fargo Bank to further clarify Plaintiff’s discovery requests is more imperative than ever. Plaintiff has received expert opinion testimony which calls into question whether Wells Fargo Bank is actually legitimately verifying their discovery responses by having multiple authors signing the name Rhonda Bernard Thomas and this alone is a blatant robosigning violation of the April 13, 2011 OCC consent order with Wells Fargo Bank. (See Declaration of Dr. Laurie Hoeltzel dated January 2, 2012 as Exhibit G and the April 13, 2011 OCC Consent Order on file herein)
California Evidence Code 623 states the following: Whenever a party has, by his own statement or conduct, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, he is not, in any litigation arising out of such statement or conduct, permitted to contradict it. Clearly Wells Fargo must be compelled to produce both public FDIC links and private balance sheet accounting which can not be construed as being in violation of California Evidence Code 623.
The only reason for Investor No: 175263872 on the Substitution of Trustee is that the ownership of the loan was sold to an unnamed and undisclosed entity and explains why Wells Fargo Bank altered the Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust. (See Plaintiff’s December 19, 2011 Request for Judicial Notice with expert opinion on Document Fraud on file herein)

More info:

Published by: Barry Fagan Esq. on Jan 03, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial
List Price: $8.00 Buy Now

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
See more
See less

05/13/2014

$8.00

USD

You're Reading a Free Preview
Pages 3 to 20 are not shown in this preview.

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
dgrimes23 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->