CHRISTOPHER KING, JD.

http://KingCast.net http://MortgageMovies.blogspot.com kingjurisdoctor@gmail.com 617.543.8085/m 617.507.8031/f Re: Unchecked presence of mortgage fraud in Ingress foreclosure case, Hillsborough South Case No. 2010-CV-571:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qai4X9bUSNI(video embedded at Attachment 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_lwjNvqdcI (video embedded at Attachment 2) Re: Dereliction of Duty by U.S. Trustee Lawrence Sumski and Counsel Larry Wahlquistin Leslie Crepeau Bankruptcy Case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5mtCjSioKE (video embedded at Attachment 3) Dear Attorney DeHart and any and all other reviewing counsel: It has come to my attention that there is at least one fraudulent document in the above-referenced Ingress case, a purported assignment bearing the name Linda Green. Ms. Ingress has consistently mounted arguments that Wells Fargo and its servicers are not entitled to foreclose on her property for fraud and lack of standing. Courts all across America are issuing rulings in favor of unlawful foreclosure victims like Ms. Ingress, and right here in New Hampshire this theory has been recognized against banking behemoth Deutschebank: Deutschebank v. Kevlik on appeal from Derry District Court No. 249, April 28 2011: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2011/2011048deutsche.pdf Attorney has no first-hand knowledge of authenticity of the documents and provided no other proof of authenticity. And in this case to add insult to injury, the Attorney didnt even offer the documents in the first place. The mind boggles; any First Year law student can see the inherent problems yet Judge Nicolosi gave it a pass. Why? *********** As you may be aware, I have communicated the pendency of this Complaint to Judge Diane Nicolosi and Wells Fargo foreclosure attorney Shawn Masterson on prior occasion. See Mortgage Movies Journal Entries of 8 April, 18 April and 16 May 2011 including my handwritten letter to Judge Nicolosi. I know for fact that Attorney Mastersons law firm accessed these journal entries: http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2011/04/linda-green-visits-nh-kingcasttells.html FRIDAY, APRIL 8, 2011 Linda Green visits NH; KingCast tells Judge Diane Nicolosi and Attorney Shawn Masterson: If you don't make material changes in Jeanne Ingress' case I am reporting both of you for ethics violations.

http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2011/04/kingcast-note-to-attorney-shawn.html MONDAY, APRIL 18, 2011 KingCast note to Attorney Shawn Masterson and Judge Diane Nicolosi: The Ethics Complaints are coming in the Jeanne Ingress case. http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2011/05/kingcast-tells-shectman-halperinlaw.html MONDAY, MAY 16, 2011 KingCast tells ShectmanHalperin Law firm on the potential Jeanne Ingress/Wells Fargo Rule 3.3 mortgage fraud candor to the tribunal issue: I didn't forget about you. I even offered a bottle of VeuveCliquot to Attorney Masterson up to $150, his choice of vintage. http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2011/04/kingcast-presents-veuve-cliquot.html 22 APRIL 2011 KingCast presents the VeuveCliquot Challenge to Wells Fargo Foreclosure Attorney Shawn Masterson on a "Linda Green" 60 Minutes case.... *************** In Florida, a State ravaged by unscrupulous foreclosures, the Bar Association took control:

A Bar staff opinion held it makes no difference whether the case was open or closed or what stage an open case is at in terms of the lawyers duty. The opinion said that under Rule 4-3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), the improperly prepared affidavits constitute false evidence, and the lawyer has a duty to disclose that to the courts.
As I write this final Ethics Complaint Ms. Ingress is filing in Federal Court and also filing a Motion to Quiet Title in State Court. Stay tuned.... for the chilling conclusion as Justice takes a Holiday in New Hampshire.

As a lawyer, and as someone who managed a title company and who served as a licensed title insurance producer in New Hampshire I feel qualified in making the following observations: 1. The purported assignment is fraudulent. See Attachment 4, infra. As 60 Minutes noted, Linda Green is a robo-signature that Courts all across America are now ignoring. If the assignementis bogus, then it naturally follows that there are likely problems with the note and mortgage as well. 2. Attorney Masterson is in no ways qualified to offer substantive testimony as to the authenticity of any purported original documents including the mortgage or note, yet that is precisely what he did at sidebar in hushed tones as he said: My client... Wells Fargo, we looked at the note yesterday. We have the original and the allonge so I verify that I physically looked at those so we have the right authority for foreclosure.I dont view that as an issue.. That is all hearsay to which Ms. Ingress properly and timely objected, but to no avail! That is known in common parlance as testilying, and Courts across America are dismissing such post hoc efforts to fix a broken chain of custody and securitization. See Aurora v. Carleson, 2011 Wisconsin App. 58, 2011 Wisconsin App Lexis 235 (March 24, 2011):

P5 As to assignment of the note, the Carlsens' argument is simple: the circuit court's findings are clearly erroneous because there was no admissible evidence supporting a finding that Aurora had been assigned the note. The Carlsens contend that, during the evidentiary portion of the trial, the circuit court properly sustained objections to Aurora's assignment evidence, but the court then appears to have relied on mere argument of Aurora's counsel to make factual findings on that topic. We agree. P6 We focus our attention on a document purporting to be an assignment of the note and mortgage from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems to Aurora. At trial, this document was marked as Exhibit D. Although Aurora's counsel seemed to suggest at one point that certain documents, perhaps including Exhibit D, were certified, the circuit court determined that [*4] the documents were not certified. Under WIS. STAT. 889.17, 1 certified copies of certain documents are admissible in evidence based on the certification alone. Aurora does not contend that Exhibit D is admissible on this basis. 1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2009-10 version unless otherwise noted. P7 Aurora argues that Conner's testimony is sufficient to support the circuit court's finding that Aurora had been assigned the note. Our review of her testimony, however, reveals that Conner lacked the personal knowledge needed to authenticate Exhibit D.

SeeWIS. STAT. 909.01 (documents must be authenticated to be admissible, and this requirement is satisfied "by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims"). Relevant here, Conner made general assertions covering several documents. Conner either affirmatively testified or agreed to leading questions with respect to the following: o She works for Aurora. o She "handle[s] legal files" and she "attend[s] trials." o "Aurora provided those documents that are in [her] possession." o She "reviewed the subject file" in preparing for the hearing. o She declined to agree that [*5] she is the "custodian of records for Aurora." o She "look[s] at documentation ... [does] not physically handle original notes and documents, but [she does] acquire documentation." o "Aurora [is] the custodian of records for this loan." o She is "familiar with records that are prepared in the ordinary course of business." o She has "authority from Aurora to testify as to the documents, of [Aurora's] records."

Based on that information which is substantially more information than what was offered by Attorney Masterson the Court ruled against Aurora:
With respect to possession of Exhibit D, Conner did not assert that Exhibit D was an original or that Aurora had possession of the original document. For that matter, Conner did not provide a basis for a finding that any original document she might have previously viewed was what it purported to be. 2 P8 Thus, Conner did no more than identify herself as an Aurora employee who was familiar with some unspecified Aurora documents, who had reviewed some Aurora documents, and who had brought some documents, including Exhibit D, to court. Although Conner was able to say that Exhibit D, on its face, was an assignment, she had no apparent personal knowledge giving her a basis to authenticate that document. SeeWIS. STAT. 909.01. P12 In sum, Aurora failed to authenticate Exhibit D, the document purporting to be an assignment of the note. Thus, regardless of other alleged proof problems relating to that note and the Carlsens' alleged [*9] default, the circuit court's finding that Aurora was the holder of the note is clearly erroneous--no admissible evidence supports that finding. Aurora failed to prove its case, and it was not entitled to a judgment of foreclosure. By the Court.--Judgment reversed.

From todays Associated Press wires (19 July 2011) http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/how-robo-signing-occurs-in-the-mortgageindustry/2011/07/18/gIQA4PWWMI_story.html "Last fall, the nation's largest banks and mortgage lenders, including JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and an arm of Goldman Sachs, suspended foreclosures while they investigated how corners were cut to keep pace with the crush of foreclosure paperwork. Since then, suspect paperwork has been filed not only with foreclosures, but also with new purchases and refinancings. Critics say the new findings point to a systemic problem with the paperwork involved in home mortgages and titles. And they say it shows that banks and mortgage processors haven't acted aggressively enough to put an end to widespread document fraud in the mortgage industry. "Robo-signing is not even close to over," says Curtis Hertel, the recorder of deeds in Ingham County, Mich., which includes Lansing. "It's still an epidemic." In Essex County, Mass., the office that handles property deeds has received almost 1,300 documents since October with the signature of "Linda Green," but in 22 different handwriting styles and with many different titles. Linda Green worked for a company called DocX that processed mortgage paperwork and was shut down in the spring of 2010. County officials say they believe Green hasn't worked in the industry since. Why her signature remains in use is not clear. "My office is a crime scene," says John O'Brien, the registrar of deeds in Essex County, which is north of Boston and includes the city of Salem....." *************** Lastly note that Assignment Fraud vitiated the foreclosure claims against Geoffrey Wilner in Texas, In re Order for Foreclosure Concerning Geoffrey Wilner, 6311 Avanti Drive, Arlington Texas Tarrant County District Court 96-239885-09, January 25, 2010. http://www.scribd.com/doc/28185884/Assignment-Fraud-Example-01

VIOLATIONS
Therefore, in light of the foregoing Decisional Law and basic common sense principles, and in light of the affirmative declarations (testilying) by Attorney Masterson and the failures of Masterson or his client to actually produce the documents I find a likely violation of Rule 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal.
Rule 3.3. Candor Toward the Tribunal (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; (2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or (3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyers client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and comes to know if its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

Similarly on the Judicial side I find a dereliction of duty as implied in this Journal Entry: http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2011/02/nashua-judge-diane-nicolosi-doesnot.html
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2011

Nashua Judge Diane Nicolosi does not care too much about Standing, clouds on title or missing assignments, when it comes to foreclosure the sun is always shining in New Hampshire!

CANON 1
A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective without any limitation upon the supreme court in the exercise of its powers of general superintendence, whether constitutional, statutory or inherent, in areas not delineated in the Code.

CANON 3
A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY A. Judicial Duties in General. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge's other activities. The judge's judicial duties include all the duties of the judge's office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply. B. Adjudicative Responsibilities. (1) A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge except those in which disqualification is required. (2) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism.

Her Honor is charged with a duty to know the laws and to know, in the a priori sense, that a lawyer cannot testify to core substantive issues of a case, particularly without the right of cross-examination, yet this is precisely what she allowed. She therefore stands in derogation of these Canons.

I now direct your attention to U.S. Trustee LawrenceSumski and his FOIA Attorney Larry Walhquist who offered me a meticulously dilatory response to my reasonable FOIA Request. Attorney Trustee LawrenceSumski: For his part, AttorneySumski has taken a path of contempt toward me rather than addressing potential and likely B10 Fraud. Unbeknownst to him, I stood right behind him in Bankruptcy Court on or about 15 April, 2011 when he decried my documentation of the Leslie Crepeau case by stating that the purported debtor had a cohort who was placing video on YouTube, as if I was a criminal or enemy of the State.1He does so in the face of progressive Trustees who are actually working toward The Good. In point of fact, Attorney Sumski to my knowledge2 has NEVER followed his Oath of Office, which no doubt encompasses adherence to the following Statute: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 586(a)(3)(F), a U.S. Trustee has the duty of notifying the appropriate United States attorney of matters which relate to the occurrence of any action which may constitute a crime under the laws of the United States and, on the request of the United States attorney, assisting the United States attorney in carrying out prosecutions based on such action. It should be noted that this section encompasses any crime, not just bankruptcy crimes, and it imposes a duty to assist.. Last fall the Wall Street Journal and Marketwatch reported that U.S. Trustees in Mississippi and Louisiana were actually doing their job: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304316404575580703757450436.html http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trustees-probing-mortgage-handlers-2010-10-28 Pursuing mortgage servicers for improper filings is an important new "prong" of the trustee program's efforts to oversee the flood of bankruptcy cases following the mortgage crisis, Clifford White III , director of the program, said in an August speech. "We aim to hold mortgage servicers to the same standard of completeness and accuracy in their filings that we do the debtors who owe them money," Mr. White said.

In all actuality I am an enemy of the State: To the extent that we are living in a State of Emergency we all are actual or potential enemies of the State. Be that as it may I am also a Journalist, recognized by New England News and Press as a guest speaker, and I am fully entitled to do what I do. 2 Of course my knowledge is somewhat limited because his FOIA Attorney is refusing to respond to my inquiry in which I specifically ask about these matters. I see how it works. And you do too. The question remains what if anything -- you are going to do about it beyond having dinner with the accused and finding a way to pass it off. I dont know, perhaps you can try to get Senator Ayotte to falsely indict me for something else again. You guys all have lunch together, Im sure you can figure something out. Ill be waiting.

Therefore Attorney-Trustee Sumski is actively engaged in a breach of the Duty and Standard of Care that should have been afforded to Ms. Crepeau and any and all others similarly situated. Attorney Larry Wahlquist: I hereby include my response to him that I personally hand delivered to the office, on video, back on or about 15 April, 2011. In said response I properly note that I am entitled to production of the requested documents at no charge owing to the fact that I seek it as a member of the press. He has failed to respond to me, in complete dereliction of duty and in violation of his Oath of Office as a public servant. But dont take my word for it, read the entire correspondence file here at Scribd.com: http://www.scribd.com/doc/51129127/Mortgage-Movies-Surefire-Home-Question-U-STrustees-on-B10-Mortgage-Fraud-Issues Therefore he is actively engaged in a breach of the Duty and Standard of Care that should have been afforded to KingCast.net and any and all others similarly situated. Certainly I will sue him under FOIA if this continues but that is an entirely separate matter from his failure to respond as an ethical breach. **************** And yet there is more as Nevada Courts join the wave of the future in holding banks, nominal lenders, banks and servicers accountable: Pasillas v. HSBC Bank USA, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 39 (July 7, 2011): Respondents failed to meet the mediation programs statutory requirements The Pasillases argue that respondents failed to meet the programs requirementsthe document requirement because respondents failed to bring a complete mortgage note and failed to provide assignments of the note and deed of trust, and the loan modification authority requirement because they failed to have someone present at the mediation with the authority to modify the loan. We agree Here, the mediators statement and his addendum to that statement, which were provided to the district court in the Pasillases petition for judicial review, clearly set out respondents failure to bring the required documents to the mediation and to have someone present with authority to modify the loan. Additionally, respondents do not dispute that they failed to bring all the required documents to the mediation.[9]

Although respondents argue on appeal that their counsel at the mediation had the requisite authority and/or access to a person with the authority to modify the loan, they do not controvert the mediators statement that their counsel claimed at the mediation that additional investor approval was needed in order to modify the loan. The record before the district court demonstrates that respondents failed to meet the statutory requirements. Nonetheless, respondents argue that the district courts conclusion that sanctions were unwarranted did not constitute an abuse of discretion because, despite the failures noted above, they mediated to resolve the foreclosure in good faith. We disagree Because, in this case, the foreclosing partys failure to bring the required documents to the mediation and to have someone present at the mediation with the authority to modify the loan were sanctionable offenses under the Foreclosure Mediation Program, the district court abused its discretion when it denied the Pasillases petition for judicial review and ordered the program administrator to enter a letter of certification authorizing the foreclosure process to proceed.

Therefore, we reverse the district courts order and remand this matter to the district court with instructions to determine the appropriate sanctions for respondents violations of the statutory and rule-based requirements. and: Leyva v. National Default Servicing Corp., 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 40, July 7, 2011 http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/index.php/advancedopinions/1164-leyva-v-nationaldefault-servicing-corpHere, both the statutory language and that of the FMRs provide that the beneficiary shall bring the enumerated documents, and we have previously recognized that shall is mandatory unless the statute demands a different construction to carry out the clear intent of the legislature. S.N.E.A. v. Daines, 108 Nev. 15, 19, 824 P.2d 276, 278 (1992); see also Pasillas, 127 Nev. at ___, ___ P.3d at ___. The legislative intent behind requiring a party to produce the assignments of the deed of trust and mortgage note is to ensure that whoever is foreclosing actually owns the note and has authority to modify the loan.

10

See Hearing on A.B. 149 Before the Joint Comm. on Commerce and Labor, 75th Leg. (Nev., February 11, 2009) (testimony of Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley). Thus, we determine that NRS 107.086 and the FMRs necessitate strict compliance. Because we conclude that strict compliance is necessary, we must discuss what constitutes a valid assignment of deeds of trust and mortgage notes. Transfers of deeds of trust and mortgage notes are distinctly separate, thus we discuss each one in turn. Wells Fargo argues that, under Nevada law, possession of the original note allowed it to enforce the note. We disagree and take this opportunity to clarify the applicability of Article 3 to mortgage notes, as we anticipate increasing participation in the Foreclosure Mediation Program, as well as a corresponding increase in the number of foreclosure appeals in this state. As discussed below, we conclude that Article 3 clearly requires Wells Fargo to demonstrate more than mere possession of the original note to be able to enforce a negotiable instrument under the facts of this case NRS 111.205(1) (emphases added). Thus, to prove that MortgageIT properly assigned its interest in land via the deed of trust to Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo needed to provide a signed writing from MortgageIT demonstrating that transfer of interest. No such assignment was provided at the mediation or to the district court, and the statement from Wells Fargo itself is insufficient proof of assignment. Absent a proper assignment of a deed of trust, Wells Fargo lacks standing to pursue foreclosure proceedings against Leyva. As we concluded in Pasillas, a foreclosing partys failure to bring the required documents to the mediation is a sanctionable offense under NRS 107.086 and the FMRs. Therefore, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion when it denied Leyvas petition for judicial review. Accordingly, we reverse the district courts order and remand this matter to the district court with instructions to determine the appropriate sanctions for Wells Fargos violation of the statutory and rule-based requirement. In doing so, the district court should consider the factors discussed in Pasillas.[10] ************

11

That having been said, I seriously doubt that you will take any action whatsoever because I know how the game works in New Hampshire. You and your office are basically a rubber stamp for wrongdoing, and I will tell it straight to your face. My point here is to at least develop the record, put the information out here on the Internet so that well-intentioned attorneys can help their clients find their way through this Byzantine system of laws that too often protects legally and morally corrupt corporate citizens and their attorneys. Respectfully submitted, Christopher King, J.D. http://KingCast.net http://MortgageMovies.blogspot.com cc: Geoffrey Wilner Merrimack Mortgage Shawn Masterson, Esq. Lawrence Sumski, Esq. Larry Wahlquist, Esq. blind copies ATTACHMENTS 1 THROUGH 4 FOLLOW

12

13

14

ATTACHMENT 4 BOGUS ROBO-SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT

15