INTRODUCTION This brief was drafted by non-attorney Appellants.

Appellants have made every attempt to comply with any and all applicable Rules of the Court and Maryland Rules of Civil Procedure at all times. Objections to key purported evidence in the circuit court were timely made and preserved for appeal. The record extract contains all things "necessary for the determination of the questions presented by the appeal and includes the judgment appealed from, contrary to Tretick v. Layman, 95 Md. App. 62, 1992 or Rogers v. Baker, 77 Md. App. 1988. Citations to the record are thorough and legal assertions are supported by cited case law with Appendices when applicable. If there are any mistakes in Appellants’ brief, Appellants will amend to conform to the rules. Appellants sit in the same shoes as the litigants in Bank of NY v. Walden, 751 NYS 2d 341, 2002 NY Misc LEXIS 1513 (2002) and in Stovall v. SunTrust Mortg., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106137 (September 20, 2011) as shall be demonstrated later in this Brief and it is axiomatic to American Jurisprudence that this appeal be heard on the merits with a de novo standard of review. Foreclosure and “mortgage” servicing fraud is rampant across the country and has been exposed as a national epidemic. Lives have been destroyed and families torn apart, resulting in divorce, suicide, substance abuse, depression, homelessness, and a host of other social ills; the direct result of the fraud of the banks (masked as “irregularities”) upon the people, aided by a complicit, uninformed, and/or apathetic government, complicit media, and complicit attorneys, looking out for their own self interest. Contrary to public perception and myth, molded daily by the controlled media, this is 1

not about irresponsible or greedy “deadbeat” homeowners who can’t “honor their obligations” or “carry their weight”, as the same tired sound bites, and boilerplate, scorched earth, foreclosure mill “pleadings” would have one believe. This is about a very complex fraud that most persons, including state and federal judges, and many foreclosure defense attorneys, barely comprehend. The self described maxim “the more complex the fraud, the easier it is to hide” rings true in the area of foreclosure, securitization, and mortgage servicing fraud. If one remembers back to the BCCI scandal, “..it proves an old maxim: ‘The best way to launder money is to own a bank.’ Or, bank, mortgage company, real estate brokerage or investment business.” (Appendix (App) 1 p.2). Appellant Todd Wetzelberger, a former deep sea diver that worked in the energy business in the Gulf of Mexico during the Enron scandal (very similar swindle), and 15 yr veteran real estate investor and developer, with an MBA and finance background, has developed intimate knowledge of foreclosure, securitization, and “mortgage” servicing fraud as Appellant invested over 5,000 hours investigating and exposing the “how to” aspects of the fraud, aided and abetted by unknowing or complicit courts over the past several years. BACKGROUND ON “MONEY” TO UNDERSTAND THE CASE Here’s how the scam works. It’s about the note, not the house. Contrary to what unscrupulous foreclosure mill attorneys with no first hand knowledge claim, this is not theory, it is fact. The house is merely the vehicle to perpetrate the fraud via an illegal foreclosure “sale”. The fraud being the illegal conversion of the homeowner’s personal property (original note) from a promise to pay into a draft/ security, and subsequent securitization and sale for

2

multiple times the face amount of the note (App 13 p.6 ¶¶ d,e,f) (Extract (E) 167 p. 39 L4-17, p.40 L 14-18). The ill gotten profits from the sale of the homeowner’s personal property (unjust enrichment) do not include the additional profits collected via multiple unregulated insurance contracts (credit default swaps) (App 13 p.5) on pools of notes that allegedly “defaulted”. The bifurcated recorded copy of the mortgage/DOT (rendering it void) (E. 167 p 39 L 22-25, p. 40 L 1-4) is pledged as collateral by county governments to purchase securities through the collection of ad valorem taxes. The homeowner’s note and credit, not the bank, funded the whole transaction. The bank never put one cent at risk, and the purported “contract” fails for lack of consideration in violation of MD Comm. Law Art. §3-303(b) (E. 23 ¶¶ 3-6). The bank suffered no “injury” as a condition precedent to commence either a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure. (App 2 p.1-2, App 3 p. 3-6) Due to the United States bankruptcy of 1933 and abrogation of the gold clause as evidenced by Public Law 73-10, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3123, 5103, and treaty law (UNCITRAL and Universal Postal Union) debt instruments circulate as functional “money” in our present fiat currency system. The attached Appendix 4 explains the complex financial arrangement on which our country functions. (App-4) No person of the U.S. can lawfully pay for anything, as gold and silver no longer circulate as currency. The current private Federal Reserve (they are no more “federal” than Federal Express) debt money system is a topic for another brief, but suffice it to say that all one can do is pass on the debt (i.e. Fed Reserve notes- FRNs) to the next person to “pay” for goods and services.

3

Since the U.S. currency is no longer backed by tangible gold and silver, those FRNs and other debt instruments (i.e. homeowner’s note) circulate as “money” and have value because they are backed by the “full faith and credit” of the American people; whose labor and property have been pledged to support the currency and allow the country to operate. If all the working people of America decided to stay home from their jobs and businesses for a few months and lay on the couch eating bonbons while watching television, the current U.S. debt money system would come crashing down. If anyone is watching economic events unfold domestically and around the world, (Greece protests, Italy’s Unicredit imminent collapse, teachers protesting pension cuts in WI) it’s very close to that point now. If one researches the phrase “history of money”, as Appellants did many years ago, one would discover that every economy that operated on a “fiat” debt money system, since the Romans began the practice in the first century, eventually collapsed, with no exceptions. One only has to look at pre-WWII Germany to see a recent example of that fact. Per the un-rebutted preceding facts, homeowners’ original, genuine, “wet ink” signature notes are “money” in the current system. They are the same as the FRNs in one’s pocket, only with more zeros. Banks, through sleight of hand, creating the appearance of “lending” money, dupe the homeowner into signing the all important original note (fraud in the inducement), thinking they received a “loan”, when in fact they just created a publicly issued debt instrument (30 yr bond) that is discounted (original issue discount) to its present face value (i.e. amount of purported “loan”).

4

Without express or implied consent by the homeowner, their instrument is then illegally converted (alteration voids the note) by indorsing the note “pay to the order of.. without recourse..” in violation of MD Comm. Law Art 3-407(a) and (b) (E. 24 ¶¶ 9,11). Per MD Comm. Law Art. 4-406, the customer has a duty to discover and report an unauthorized signature or alteration. That is exactly what Appellants did (E. 12-22, E. 25 ¶17). This goes well beyond the mere changing of a date witnessed in cases like Placido v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co., No. 128, September Term, 1977, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 38 Md. App. 33; 379 A.2d 773; 1977 Md. App. LEXIS 350; 23 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (Callaghan) 113, November 10, 1977. Via the “magic” of fractional reserve “banking”, that note is hypothecated (pledged to borrow multiple times the face amount), and/or securitized (depending on whether it’s a residential or commercial “portfolio” note) and is used by the bank or the SPV (special purpose vehicle) or REMIC (real estate mortgage investment conduit) to “fund” further instruments and securities (derivatives) via false statements to the bondholders on the back end (i.e. AAA rated toilet paper sold to unwitting investors and pension funds). The irony is that those same state pension funds that judges in every state are vested in, were also duped into investing in those very same bogus derivatives, CDO’s, CMO’s, hedge funds, credit default swaps, and bank stocks of the very banks that continue to swindle homeowners on a daily basis. For evidence of this fact, see the line item investments in public record CAFRs (comprehensive annual financial report) on state pension funds for each state. The entire “money” system is one big, bloated, ponzi scheme that dwarfs the Madoff ponzi scheme 1000 fold. At the base of the scheme is the unwitting homeowner/consumer who

5

when in fact UCC Article 8 controls per UCC and MD Comm. 169 p. this explains why original notes are never returned to the homeowner when the purported “loan” is paid off (conversion and theft) (E 167. courts across the country are making rulings by applying UCC Article 3 with regard to alleged “holders” of notes. Since original notes are “money” in the current system.) Further. Article Sec. p. never provided valuable consideration (a necessary element for a lawful contract per MD Comm. purported “originator”. or “lender” with unequal bargaining power. and Article 3 was improperly applied when Article 8 controls. E. 121 ¶ 11. Law. engaged in fraud in the inducement through material omissions. never disclosed material facts (failure of meeting of the minds). Burson is flawed in that Anderson mistakenly admitted default.e. Article 3 of UCC did apply. In pursuit of the media fueled illusion of the “American Dream”. never suffered any “injury”.f). thereby violating the Statute of Frauds per MD Comm. both articles are addressed in the Notice of Adverse Claim. never risked a penny. 39 L 3-16). (E. 118 ¶ 4. violated the Statute of Frauds. E. and must be applied when there is a conflict since the note was converted into a security. Assuming arguendo. generating multiple times the face amount of the note and generating additional proceeds from the mortgage/DOT (App 13 p. 119 ¶ 7. 1-206. the fact that there 6 . (E. 122-132). Law Art 4-102. § 3-303(b)).6 ¶¶ d.must continue “consuming” to keep the scheme afloat. 51 L 18-23). illegally converted the homeowner’s personal property. The recent Maryland decision in Anderson v. the homeowner was made an unwitting third party to an undisclosed investment contract via the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) (E. Despite the fact that the “bank”. Art.

428 (200). copies or purported “original” notes (in truth color copies of scanned documents). 43 L 1-7) and should be demanded by every homeowner. bogus unsubstantiated “affidavits” with no first hand knowledge. 168 p. a copy of a fraudulently recorded DOT/mortgage that is bifurcated and void (App 6 p. Defense of lack of consideration could be raised in suit on negotiable instrument under seal. simply walk away from the property despite the 7 . E. 15.is no amount due and owing. and the fact there was never a “default”. and outright lies to the tribunal and to the homeowner. thinking they are “deadbeats” who can’t “pay their bills. Most unsophisticated homeowners. 133 Md. no chain of custody of authenticated documents. and the case was remanded. 6 L 11-18. App. 25 ¶¶ 14. 801. R.8). 22-23. The recital “for monies received” in the note constituted prima facie proof the note was supported by consideration but did not establish conclusive presumption to that effect.Law Art. a purported “amount due and owing”. 42 L 5-13. The sham filings allege a purported “default”. Mere recitals and promises of Consideration having been given are insufficient. P. in that originals were demanded by Appellants per MD Comm. p. no admissible evidence. 161 p. foreclosure mill attorneys across the country file sham complaints with boilerplate alleged “pleadings” violating Md. Goldberg. and MD Evidence Rule 5-1002 (E.” or even the more sophisticated homeowners who are so far upside down they “strategically default” as a financial decision. See Generally Venners v. 3-308. Civ. The legal maxim “a thing similar is not exactly the same” applies. E. 2-303(e) (complaints are to be constructed to do substantial justice). and parol evidence could be admitted to prove the contrary. Summary judgment was vacated. 707. the fact that the DOT and trusts created to “pool” notes violates the Uniform Trust Code §§ 406.

manipulative court-wise litigants bent on abusing the legal system. http://www. in District Court.nsf/mortgage/9B099A9DD32030BE852577130 0426A68 Allegation or issue being investigated: “Docx has produced numerous documents. as noted by Bank of NY v. that to even the untrained eye. face well funded foreclosure mill attorneys. called Assignments of Mortgage.com/lit_ec. misleading and possibly criminal.fact that they were swindled. Subject corporations seem to be creating and manufacturing "bogus assignments" of mortgage in order that foreclosures may go through more quickly and efficiently. incorrectly and illegally executed. when it actually appears that they are fabricated in order to meet the demands of the institution that does not. The very small percentage who discover the fraud. Florida 8 . 639/02.” AG unit handling case: Economic Crimes Division in Ft. Walden. in fact. and demand “proof of claim” and injury. and unwitting and/or complicit courts. false and misleading. County of Nassau pending the final determination of this action. with foreclosure mill documents supplied by document mills like DocX and LPS (under investigation by the FL AG) (E. 42 ¶¶ 5-12). But that is not the proper route to take.   The defendants are typical of the people preyed upon: working poor. These documents are then used to gain standing for the plaintiff in a foreclosure suit. who aid and abet the scheme under color of law.  (See Ex. Lauderdale.myfloridalegal. 751 NYS 2d 341. have the necessary documentation to foreclose according to law. there is ample evidence that the practices of Delta and their cohorts were fraudulent. These documents appear to be forged. These documents are used in court cases as "real" documents of assignment and presented to the court as so. as any reasonable person would. is granted. 2002 NY Misc LEXIS 1513: The plaintiff attempts to portray the defendants as conniving.   Rather. appear to be forged and/or fabricated as the signatures of the same individual vary wildly from document to document. B to defendants motion)…… Motion by attorney for Defendant' Walden for an Order restraining the execution of the eviction proceeding commenced under Index No. minority homeowners with little or no experience in financial matters.

issued by the very banks that are either suing to foreclose or being sued for their fraud. In most cases.The losers are forcibly removed from their home by coercion and threat of bodily harm at gunpoint by complicit sheriffs’ deputies.’ If left unaddressed. Title 12 U. 6-9). 291 US 245. claiming “I’m just doing my job”.3). covered up by a complicit title company and complicit attorney who whitewashed the title abstract. derivatives. again acting under color of law. “Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has taken up the cause of reforming state judicial campaign and election systems. under the bank’s fraudulent claim they are a “bona fide” buyer (App 5 p. It’s common public record knowledge that the purported “justice” system is corrupted beyond recognition. 134 Me. ‘the perception that justice is for sale will undermine the rule of law that courts are supposed to uphold. one has to question how “impartial” can the judiciary be when every judge has a pecuniary self-interest in the outcome of the case.C forbids it and “Nowhere is the express authority given to the corporation to lend its own credit” Gardiner Trust v. despite the fact the bank never risked a penny of its own “funds. This final step completes the fraudulent money laundering cycle to be repeated all over again. etc. writing that the ‘crisis of confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is real and growing. swaps. The property is then sold to an unsuspecting new buyer (investor or homeowner) who unbeknownst to them has a defective title (App 5 p. the new “buyer”. NOT the house).3. said O'Connor.’ 9 . or bank credit. Augusta Trust. p.S. CMO’s.” “funds” of depositors. Knowing that judges participate in pension funds in every state. signs a new note (remember it’s about the note. 191. and the fact that those very pension funds are invested in the same bank stocks.

but also errors on conclusions of law that warrant a de novo review. yet all have turned a deaf ear and in 10 . and local law enforcement agencies. 364 (1948).S.” Miller v. and only shortly before the news broke in the local media that Appellee Dore was caught filing fraudulent affidavits in foreclosure cases. 104.O'Connor's comments came in her introduction of a new report which concludes that partisan and special interest groups have grown far more organized in their efforts to use judicial elections to tilt the scales of justice.talkingpointsmemo. state. 22). What does “clearly erroneous” mean? In United States v. United States Gypsum Co. according to the report. elusive. 474 U. As the Supreme Court has observed. (E. Campaign fundraising for judicial elections more than doubled from $83. 333 U.9 million in 2000-2009. 137-138 ¶ 28) STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review as to all issues should be de novo.php. The initial order by Judge Nagle denying Appellants Motion for Declaratory Judgment on 27 September 2010 (E 57-59) that led to the subsequent order(s) from which this appeal is taken. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants have reported the fraud. along with supporting evidence to federal (FBI) (E 137 ¶¶ 21. Fenton. Not only were there clear errors in the finding of fact. “[T]he appropriate methodology for distinguishing questions of fact from questions of law has been. the Supreme Court gave this answer: “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it. was made erroneously.com/2010/08/sandra_days_new_quest_stat e_judicial_reform. to say the least.3 million in 1990-1999 to $206.S. 113 (1985). the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed”.” http://tpmmuckraker.

Those attacks have been aided and abetted by (hopefully unwitting) law enforcement acting under color of law. Appellants have been personally attacked on multiple occasions. 290 US 504. Due to the exposure of said fraud at great risk. ed. who worked on Wall Street. “The fact that the means employed to effect the fraudulent conveyance was the judgment of a court and not a voluntary transfer does not remove the taint of illegality. in the classic phrase of Justice Cardozo. 301 US 278. and expert in securitization fraud. Ed 1085 “Suits as well as transfers may be the protective coverings of fraud. 78 L. who has been exposing this very fraud for over 15 years. 465. In spite of the lack of action by law enforcement with a duty to investigate crimes reported to them. has also been attacked in an attempt to discredit him for revealing the complex truth. Neil Garfield. A private attorney general action will fill the gap for failure of those with an oath and duty to enforce the law to do so. Further.. Garfield’s declaration (App 13) is a must read in its entirety (several times) to fully understand the complex fraud. This appeal is the result of a fraudulent purported “foreclosure” case filed against Appellant in retaliation for exposing the fraud of the banks long before the sham case was filed. a 30 year veteran attorney.”. Appellants have continued to document and expose the fraud of the banks and their attorneys upon unwitting homeowners and the courts.” 11 .unison claimed “this is a civil matter”. as has Nye Lavalle.youtube. a member of the mainline Pew family. in Steelman v All Continent Corp. 81 L. be it known. http://www. Well known veteran foreclosure defense attorneys Matt Weidner and April Charney have been repeatedly attacked. themselves victims of the same fraud.com/watch? v=jYZi2NFsq84&feature=player_embedded The pattern of attacking those that expose the fraud is common knowledge to those in this arena. that as in First National Bank v Flershem.

p. of Apppellees’ fraud upon Appellants and the court. 2011 Mass. Nature of the Case This is an interlocutory appeal from a circuit court decision in error. and have repeatedly ducked Appellants’ pre-petition discovery requests. as a condition precedent per MD Rule 14-202(b). cert denied 540 US 1017 [2003]) Professor Siegel (NY Prac. Bevilacqua v. is just another way of saying that this particular plaintiff is not involved in a genuine controversy. Acts of fraud taint/void everything it touches as the US Supreme Court has declared: “There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts.3) “Standing to sue is critical to the proper functioning of the judicial system. 95 ¶ 17-21). may cross the threshold and seek judicial redress. Throckmorton. and even judgments. 45-56). and (3) the courts therefore have no jurisdiction of the case when such a plaintiff purports to bring it. 94 ¶ 16. 955 N. E. Despite public record self authenticating admissible fact evidence (E. at 232 [4d ed]). (2) a plaintiff found to lack “standing” is not involved in a controversy. § 136.(f). 100 NY2d 801 812 [2003]. 98 U. -106) per MD Evidence Rule 5-902.” in other words.” (United States v. E. filed into the case by Appellants (E. 28 ¶ 15. A want of “standing to sue. . instructs that: [i]t is the law’s policy to allow only an aggrieved person to bring a lawsuit .8. It is a threshold issue. 61)" A.S. 762.(c). 85-91) per MD Rule 14-207. 93) but mysteriously not filed into the record until 16 February 2011.(q) (E. 26 ¶¶ 12 .“It may not be desirable merely to assume the accuracy of a plaintiffs's factual assertions”.1 without a hearing. the circuit court refused to dismiss Appellees’ case. served over 6 months prior to the fraudulent case being filed by Appellees (E. .E. Inc. If standing is denied. purportedly “ratifying” a fraudulent “sale” allegedly ordered on 31 January 2011 (E. 27 ¶ 7. . v Pataki. Appellees have proffered no admissible evidence.2. LEXIS 918 (App 5 p.2d 884. Rodriguez 460 Mass. the pathway to the courthouse is blocked. The plaintiff who has standing. however. and a simple syllogism takes us from there to a “jurisdictional” dismissal: (1) the courts have jurisdiction only over controversies.9. documents. 12 days after the circuit court also summarily denied Appellants’ Show Cause Motion (E.” (Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce.(k). from the day Appellees’ case was docketed.

E. 2010 Judge Alan M. a sham foreclosure case. had Appellants been aware that MD Rule 14-207.7) Despite the failure of Appellees.19-21. who chairs the Maryland Court of Appeals Special Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure. The circuit court doesn’t follow its own rules when it doesn’t suit the court. Appellants would have filed the Show Cause Motion much sooner than the 4 February 2011 filing date. the circuit court again grossly erred by summarily refusing to grant Appellants’ Show Cause motion per MD Rule 14-207. the use of bogus affidavits to support actions to foreclose…. and Motion to Reconsider. 2010 news story: http://thedailyrecord. The judges are alarmed at this development. To add insult to injury.17. 1 was passed in an emergency session of the MD Court of Appeals to address the very abuses. 8 L 4-10). 107-111. and fraudulent documents filed into MD foreclosure cases.24. Appellants did not become aware of the rule until shortly before the motion was filed. 29 ¶ 16. filed on 4 February 2011. Dore as noted in this October 19. E. E. in flagrant violation of MD Rule 2-311(f). and erroneous “ratification” of the illegal 13 . and willful failure of the purported “lender” M&T Bank to answer any prepetition discovery requests in violation of federal and state laws (E. to meet any of the conditions precedent to file a purported “foreclosure” case per MD Rule 14-200. constitutes an assault on the integrity of the judicial process itself” (E. 78-80) (App 8) (E. MD Rule 14-207.1 is designed to specifically address bogus affidavits filed by Appellee Thomas P. 161 p. 19. 161 p. Wilner. On or about October 13.30 ¶ 21. E. 85-92). without a hearing (E.1 was passed sooner. 86 ¶ 6. wrote: "preliminary audits have shown that hundreds of such bogus affidavits have been filed in Maryland circuit courts.20.1 (E. MD Rule 14-207. illegal “credit bid” by M&T Bank with prior knowledge of defects in their claim. filed in retaliation for exposing the fraud of M&T Bank was filed on 14 January 2010. with prior knowledge of defects.117).com/2010/10/19/maryland-court-of-appeals-adopts-newforeclosure-rule/ To rebut the presumption that Appellants may have “slumbered on their rights” (which they did not).judicial foreclosure “sale”. A subsequent fraudulent non. 8 L 4-10)." Judge Wilner also stated in a letter to the court that: “In the Committee’s view.

The final insult and affront on the integrity of the judicial process is the fact that Substituted Trustee Thomas P. 3d 1074 Forgery-Procuring Signature by Fraud (1967)] “Case authority provides that procuring of a genuine signature to an instrument by fraudulent representations constitutes forgery.. Parker 255 Cal. (E 362-363 ¶ i) Despite the complete lack of credibility of Appellees and affiants.“sale” was granted by the court in blatant denial of Appellants’ substantive and procedural due process rights protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Federal Constitution and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.§ 3-401(a). even if the note was authenticated as the original (which is virtually impossible) signatures can only be attested to by one who actually signs a note. etc. Criminal Law (3rd ed. (E 97-106) (E.8-11) Assuming arguendo. 163. and public record evidence of prior knowledge of the fraud of Appellees and M&T Bank upon the court (E. § 3-308(a). (E. 2d 664. App. Appellants per Md. lack of any admissible evidence entered by Appellees. pp. Comm Law Art. 194-195 and annotated. People v Looney 125 Cal. not even a high quality scan. upon the objection of Appellants. denied any purported “original” signatures as masterful forgeries. 74-77). Filing bogus “original” notes in fraudulent foreclosure cases is common practice as original notes are destroyed.14 L. p.L. People v. evidencing the fact that the “original” note was printed from a printer and is NOT a wet ink original.R.” 2 Witken & Epstein.13-14) is a counterfeit color copy of a scanned document. 45-56). mortgage. 2000) Crimes Against Property § 164. 4th 754. Judge Dugan erroneously signed the ratification order. Esq.17 L. a partner in one of the largest foreclosure mills in MD. 11 A. Law Art. Comm. lack of standing (App 5 p. 162 p. and was not present or a witness to the purported “closing”. 162 p. (E. admitted under oath in a hearing on 11 August 2010 that he had no personal first hand knowledge of any facts. The signatures are masterful forgeries under [People v Martinez 161 Cal App. 1922) The alleged unauthenticated “original” note entered into the record (E. was not the document custodian. One can see with the naked eye (or using a 10x jeweler’s loop) that the purported “signature” is made up of a series of broken lines and dots. 16 L.2). per MD. could not authenticate any documents. and Judge Turnbull erroneously summarily 14 . deed. 4th 242. Dore. Cal.

denied Appellants’ Show Cause hearing that would further expose the fraud upon the court and Appellants. Must a Plaintiff prove standing as the real party in interest per MD Rule 2-201 and carry the burden of proving their case with admissible evidence. including but not limited to the denial of Appellants’ Motion to Show Cause. Must a court take Judicial Notice of adjudicative facts and act on crimes reported to Judicial Officers? STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. To conserve judicial resources.). Appellants are also addressing the subsequent summary denial of the Show Cause Motion filed on 4 February 2011. 93). this appeal is taken from the Order of Ratification erroneously signed by Judge Dugan on 31 January 2011 (E. along with the erroneous decision denying Declaratory Judgment to Appellants (E 57-59) without evidentiary support. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Were Appellants denied Substantive and Procedural Due Process. 15 . that led to subsequent rulings. Must a witness have personal first hand knowledge to attest to facts under oath and to be deemed a credible witness? 4. the exact parties. and had M&T Bank complied with state and federal law by producing the PSA. The PSA is the “holy grail” of securitization. 2. Appellants have suffered bias and prejudice at the hand of the circuit court in an obviously fraudulent foreclosure case filed without a shred of admissible evidence entered by substituted trustees with a history of filing fraudulent foreclosure cases in Maryland courts. Article Sec. 118 ¶ 5. beyond a naked affidavit in order to commence foreclosure? 3. At said closing Appellants were made an undisclosed third party to an investment contract via the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) violating the Statute of Frauds per MD Comm. 1-206 (E. signed by Judge Turnbull on 8 February 2011 but not filed into the circuit court until 16 February 2011. where a judicial process riddled with fraud voids the entire proceeding? 2. Appellant attended a purported “closing” on 22 December 2006.

MD Rule 14-207. liabilities. unaltered wet ink promissory note and original Deed of Trust (DOT) were bifurcated/ split (App 6 p. 78-80) (App 8) (E. 97-106) without the express or implied consent of the bona fide owner/bailor of said note.S.17. 161 p.1 was added to the MD Rules of Civil Procedure on October 20. authentication and validation of the purported “debt” claimed as allegedly due and owing to M&T Bank (purported beneficiary under the DOT) on June 22.obligations. 16 Wall. Appellant’s personal property. the DOT was also bifurcated/split from the note rendering the security instrument void (App 6 p. E. 83 U. original. At no point in time have any original authenticated documents (admissible evidence). M&T Bank failed/ refused to comply with state and federal law in substantively 16 . 6 months prior to the fraudulent foreclosure case being willfully filed by Appellees in the circuit court. (E. genuine. 26 ¶¶ 19-21. 707. genuine (free from fraud or forgery per MD Comm. said “digital” note was securitized and sold as evidenced by M&T Bank’s own public record 2007 10k Annual Report filed with the SEC. Art. deposited into a transaction account and sold for an undisclosed multiple of the face amount of the note. dispute and TILA request for substantiation. 2009. 35-38). 3. 29 ¶ 16. 6. unaltered. 801. E. 8.24. Sec 1-201(18)). E. Longan. After destruction of the original note and conversion to digital form. Said personal property as a special deposit was to be held in safekeeping by the bailee/bank per Title 12 U. i. 8) voiding the DOT per Carpenter v. 5. DOT/mortgage.20. Appellant served a RESPA Qualified Written Requests (QWR).e. 19. 8) 10.S. i. assignments or allonge been entered into evidence by the Appellees. As admitted by the Florida Banker’s Association to the Florida Supreme Court. (E. 271 (1872) 4. physical notes (personal property of homeowner) are routinely destroyed and converted to digital form (E.C. original. In addition to the DOT being void for violating the Uniform Trust Code §§ 406. (App 7) 7. FDCPA validation of debt. and duties would have been identified for the court. 8 L 4-10) 11. un-bifurcated note.30 ¶ 21.e. 2010. Said note was illegally converted from a promise to pay into a draft/ security. 9.

C § 1601 et seq. (E. Comm. § 8-606 by filing false 17 . 3-501(b)(2). and failed/ refused to settle the purported account. Appellants tendered legal tender funds per MD Comm. 14. failed/refused to collect the legal tender funds. including the return of Appellant’s personal property when legal tender funds were tendered per MD Comm.S. When choosing to either defraud the IRS or the court.S. (b). Said filing stated in Box 5 “was borrower personally liable for repayment of the funds ?” was checked NO. and form 8281. 142) 15. 34 ¶ 51-55. Law Art. Crim. On or about 24 August 2009. Law Art. Evidence of the fact that M&T Bank reported Appellants had no obligation under the purported “contract” is the fact that M&T Bank filed a 1099a with the Internal Revenue Service. (E. Per MD Comm.(E 34. 3-311(a) (E. Had the court not erred by saving Appellees the embarrassment of appearing for a Show Cause hearing. 2011-SU-1542-06 (App 9) E. and evidencing the “source of funds” that would have gotten to the bottom of who the bona fide “creditor” in the transaction truly was. despite their duty to do so and in violation of MD Comm. M&T Bank had a mandatory statutory duty to rescind the security instrument and failed/refused to do so.answering the QWR.95). E. York Cty. Upon receipt of a TILA rescission. § 1601. (E. Law Art. FDCPA. 96). 78-80) for settlement and closure of the account consistent with the dismissal in Pennsylvania in Citimortgage v. and Md.34 L 10-13). M&T Bank went with the safer bet. ¶55) 16. 33 ¶ 44-50. Law Art. 20. and 3-603(b). Paules. 12. identifying the issuer. the purported “obligation” was discharged as an operation of commercial law. and maker. 17. Appellees as agent for M&T Bank. 166 p. (App 10) 18. 13. violated Md. Appellees as agent for M&T Bank engaged in continued collection efforts in violation of 15 U. 14-16). 5 months prior to the fraudulent foreclosure case filed.§13-316. via Cert.C. On 16 February 2010. M&T Bank failed/ refused to produce the required documents. Appellees and purported “affiants” would have had to produce the IRS forms 1099 OID. 19. Mail # 7009 0820 0001 5470 7295. Law Article §§ 3-311(a). 14-202(8). and TILA demand for proof. 38-39 ¶¶ 88. (E. Law Art. drawer. Appellants served a TILA rescission per 15 U. (E.

§7-401(c). 8-602. M&T Bank engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of Md.prnewswire. Crim. Appellants noticed Clerk of Court Julie Ensor of these crimes on 26 August 2011.S. rendering the purported contract unconscionable and void.” 22. 26. SunTrust's Motion to Dismiss is denied with respect to Count Three. M&T Bank and its/their agents is/are estopped from entering any oral or written rebuttal. http://www. self authenticating evidence entered into the record by Appellants has passed long ago. including proceeding with any fraudulent “foreclosure” sale. 2011 U. Law Art. Inc.(3). See Stovall v. and Ward.fraudulent documents into the Circuit Court and Land Records for Baltimore County. as the time to object or rebut the public record. Law Art 8-601. violated Md.S. M&T Mortgage Case #CV-05-2498. Appellees as agents for M&T Bank violated Md. Government via the HUD 203K program. 24. ¶¶ 4850. Due to M&T Bank’s failure/refusal to comply with Appellant’s pre-petition notices and demands. filed and had notarized various documents with deliberate misstatements as to the documents' true signatories.Y. The power of sale and/or consent decree clause found in ¶22 of the DOT essentially has the same force and effect as a confessed judgment rendering the DOT void.4556). and 8-402. Case details are found in the U. M&T Bank violated Md Comm. Accordingly. and including M&T Bank. See Am.. (E. that in connection with the foreclosure instituted by SunTrust's substitute trustee. 25. M&T Bank and its/their agents (notice to agent is notice to principal/notice to principal is notice to agent) are estopped from any continued collection activity. These allegations are sufficient to plead a violation of the MMFPA. District Court. SunTrust Mortg. Comm. M&T Bank was caught in a scheme to defraud the U. Geesing.S.html 18 . 2011) “Stovall has alleged.com/news-releases/m--tbank-subject-of-whistle-blower-lawsuit-bank-accused-of-defrauding-government-out-ofmillions-from-forged-mortgages-52712792. Pugach et al v.Eastern District of N. (E. Compl. 45-56). Law Art. (E. §13-301(12) by use of a confessed judgment clause in the DOT. 45-56).. Dist. §13-301(1). 21. Appellees as agents for.(9). Real Property Art. 23. The security instrument has “clogging provisions” extinguishing the homeowner’s right of redemption. LEXIS 106137 (September 20. Bierman.

E. 29. but an astonishing total of 374 fraudulent mortgages worth some $500 million! Marcus previously represented to the court that M & T had no knowledge of any fraud in the origination of any of these loans. admitted in a letter to the court that his client never made him aware of a secretive deal between the bank and HUD. 32.20. according to a letter dated January 11. other than offering his opinion to the court. (E. Bierman 19 .1 to personally examine alleged “affiants”. Marcus told the court on Friday that he was not aware of the agreement or even the letter's existence until April of this year!” 27. p. Appellants filed a Mandatory Judicial Notice of relevant law that was ignored in violation of Substantive and Procedural Due Process. (E. in which HUD agreed to pay off not just these 50 fraudulent mortgages. 36). 166 p. subsequent to Dore’s admissions. the Baltimore Sun broke the story reporting the filing of fraudulent documents in foreclosure cases by Dore et al. 33. (E. Appellants filed a Motion for Reconsideration and request for hearing per MD Rule 2- 311(f) that was summarily denied. June 29. 16. and lack of credibility as a witness. p. As fate would have it. 164 p. A new admission by M & T's lawyer reveals there are nearly 400 fraudulent mortgages worth a half-billion dollars. Although his law partner attended the meeting at which the deal was reached. 33.19.“The whistle blower suit stems from a case involving more than 50 mortgages owned by M&T on properties in Manhattan and Brooklyn that were fraudulently secured through HUD's 203K program for non-profits. to impeach the testimony of purported “affiants” and destroy the credibility of purported “affiants” while under oath. E.21. (E. The deal between M & T was reached six years ago. Todd Marcus. his inability to authenticate documents. 2007. 41-44) 28. E. on Friday night. 85-92) 30. 35. Appellants moved the circuit court for a Show Cause Hearing per MD Rule 14-207. yet another violation of Substantive and Procedural Due Process. p.117) 31. 163 p. 2001. Appellee Dore admitted under oath in the 11 August 2010 hearing to no first hand knowledge. Indeed. Appellants were erroneously summarily denied the show cause hearing without explanation. 162 p. Appellants are most likely the only litigants in Maryland and possibly the entire United States to have the good fortune of examining a foreclosure mill attorney under oath. the attorney for M & T. in violation of Substantive and Procedural Due Process. finding of fact or conclusion of law.

Maryland. Nagle III was served a Notice of Felony Crime on 10 August 2010 and 20 . David B.” he added. At the end of his testimony. “It was never my intent to deceive the court. • Eighteen current and former notaries public invoked their Fifth Amendment rights and refused to testify regarding their certification of Dore’s signature on the documents. I should have signed those affidavits myself.” Dore said. Judge W.” Dore insisted that at no time did documents leave his office without being carefully reviewed for accuracy. Appellants/ Defendants discovered that: In Baltimore. Irwin. with documented prior knowledge. 86-87) 34. Dore on Tuesday conceded that five pending foreclosure proceedings should be dismissed because he could not vouch for his signature on documents filed with the Baltimore City Circuit Court. Judge John J. It was frankly stupid. “I made a terrible mistake.et al. must do equity” by coming to court with unclean hands. Appellees. and pursued a case that other well-seasoned jurists have found to be without merit. with regard to at least 15 other foreclosures involving notarized documents not actually signed by Dore. • “I apologize for having put you through this. he said. The Daily Record reports: Attorney Thomas P. and Buonassissi et al. signed foreclosure documents. 86-87) 35. if any. On 31 January 2011. of Irwin Green & Dexter LLP in Towson. violated the equity maxim “those who come to equity.” Dore told Pierson from the stand. (E.” the notaries’ attorney. in fact. (E. are well aware they committed fraud upon the court. 36. told Pierson. “Truthful answers to questions posed might tend to incriminate them.” • [D]ore’s system of authorizing others to sign for him “had gotten out of hand” and he discovered that staff members whom he had not authorized to sign his name had.” • Notaries who knowingly certify false signatures face possible criminal sanctions for misconduct in office or fraud. • “Ethically. “I have no doubt that they have a good-faith invocation right. and without • meeting the conditions precedent. as officers of the court. your honor.(1) • Dore came under heavy questioning from the judge and a special master appointed to review his foreclosure documents for irregularities. who represents lenders. Michel Pierson must still determine what action to take. “I realized I made a stupid mistake and we changed our practice. Dore expressed regret to the court for failing to sign the documents himself but said he always acted in good faith.

Per Md. 163 p. E. § 3-305 (a)(1) Appellants preserved defenses and asserted a Notice of Adverse Claim and claim in recoupment.4). 38. Comm. 40. 21 L 1-24). 118-136) to further educate the court on the fraud being perpetrated by purported “lenders”. It is well settled in law that “No right by ratification or other means can arise out of fraud. 142 ¶ 3. (E. and Motion to Reconsider particularly against the backdrop of MD Rule 2-201. despite their duty and oath to do so. Law Art. Comm. E.1. Appellants also asserted per MD. summary denial of Appellants’ Motion to Show Cause.20 L 7-24.” It undermines the very foundation of our judicial system to allow fraud to taint a case. 164 p. to date neither Judge Nagle. has acted on the Notice of Felony Crime. or any other judicial officials with an oath and bond. where a judicial process riddled with fraud voids the entire proceeding? Absolutely. 143 ¶ 2. 45-56) 37. (E. (E. and would cause anarchy and civil unrest if allowed to go unchecked. the admissions by Dore (E. The Lower Court cannot explain the complete failure to address the public record self authenticating evidence per MD Evidence Rule 5-902 of fraud upon the court filed by Appellants. Law Article §3-305(c) the affirmative defense of recoupment and Notice of Adverse Claim. Were Appellants/Defendants unlawfully denied Substantive and Procedural Due Process. 39. Neither Appellees or M&T Bank are the real parties in interest per MD Rule 2-201.had a duty to act on said Notice per Title 18 USC Sec4 Misprision of Felony. 120 ¶ 9). 21 . including but not limited to the denial of Appellants Show Cause Hearing per MD Rule 14-207. Appellants encourage the appellate court to review Appellant’s Notice of Adverse Claim (E. to allow one’s 5th and 14th Amendment right to due process and equal protection to be trampled upon. 41. ARGUMENT 1. Appellants are in possession and control of additional overwhelming evidence if the court should so desire to review additional evidence. Upon information and belief.

” Estoppel by Silence. Your silence is your acquiescence. 7 So.. to be admitted to repel relief. 61)" As said long ago by the great Justice Story in Prevost v Gratz. . 19 L Ed 6 27. Throckmorton. 99 US 578 @ 581. et seq. 14 Wash. On the contrary. inducing person claiming estoppel to alter his position.” (United States v. Lenconi v Fidelity Trust & Savings Bank of Fresno.S. To date both M&T Bank and Appellees. Pence v Langdon. 2d. 5 L Ed 311. 200 La. Co. v. 38 F Supp 130. App. See: Connally v. and even judgments. 385. and calls more loudly upon a court of equity to grant ample and decisive relief. and Silence. 134. 273 P. length of time ought not. 9 Wall 72. 219 Iowa 556. 140 Misc. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. 497.S..” US v Grossmayer. thereby admitting to their fraud.” Also. willful or culpable silence. failed/refused to answer Appellants discovery requests. 258 NW 892. DC Mas s.” In Re McArdles Estate. Braunch v Freking. 490. 103 et seq. is rather an aggravation of the offense. Harvey v Richard. 98 U. et seq. 18 F Supp 83. General Construction Co. 550 F.“A transaction originally unlawful cannot be made any better by being ratified. it would seem that the length of time during which the fraud has been successfully concealed and practiced. knowledge of facts and of rights by person estopped. and an opportunity to act upon it. 269 U.S. Cushing v US. 297. and in a case where fraud is imputed and proved.” Acts of fraud taint/void everything it touches as the US Supreme Court has declared: “There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts. and the circuit court has denied Appellants access to Appellees and other purported “witnesses” under oath in blatant denial of court rules. 315. upon principles of eternal justice. 257. where duty and opportunity to speak. Wise v USDC Ky. 6 Wheat 481. documents. both with a duty to answer. 2d 674. see: U. 96 Cal. 97. 128 P 2d 968. Appellees are estopped from entering any oral or written rebuttal. Tweel. to work estoppel. Codd v Westchester Fire Ins. creating ignorance of facts. 391. Appellees had a duty to answer and remained silent. must amount to bad faith. “It is currently true that length of time is no bar to a trust clearly established. 151 ALR 316. Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law. 22 . 2d 600.. “Silence” implies knowledge. “It arises where a person is under duty to another to speak or failure to speak is inconsistent with honest dealings.

App 6 p. Z. respondent lacks standing to maintain this suit. Inc. Defenders of Wildlife . at 560.38 L 19-25). The circuit court cannot explain the complete failure of Appellees to prove Standing per Maryland Rule 2-322 (a) and (b). 147 ¶ 21).2. Welfare Rights Organization. Per Article III § 2 of the National Constitution. R. 148. standing is a threshold issue that should have been addressed by the court sua sponte but never was (E. beyond a naked affidavit in order to commence foreclosure? Yes.S. Lujan v. v. and should have been dismissed per MD Rule 2-324(b) (App 5 p.’…. 95. 2. . Pp. at 23 . not 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical. Eastern Ky. Second. Simon v. there must be causation-a fairly traceable connection between the plaintiff's injury and the complained-of conduct of the defendant. (App 5 p. by very definition.' " Whitmore v. an ultra vires act.P 2-324(b). Pp. LEXIS 8538 (1995) At no time did Appellees substitute or join indispensible parties per MD Rule 2-211. 26.1. 461 U. 523 U. Neither Appellees or M&T Bank suffered any injury. 155 (1990) (quoting Los Angeles v. E. Dist. 41 -42 (1976). and this Court and the lower courts lack jurisdiction to entertain it. Arkansas . at 149. and shall dismiss per Md. Citizens for a Better Env’t. Must a Plaintiff prove standing as the real party in interest per MD Rule 2-201 and carry the burden of proving their case with admissible evidence.S.. 5-16) When a plaintiff lacks standing the court is deprived of jurisdiction. The Court cannot grant foreclosure because a Jury is entitled to determine who the Real Party in Interest is.. 8-17 . 101 -102 (1983)).” “The ‘irreducible constitutional minimum of standing’ contains three requirements. Id. And third. 1995 U. 83 (1998) “Held: Because none of the relief sought would likely remedy respondent's alleged injury in fact. supra . 3-26” “This Court declines to endorse the ‘doctrine of hypothetical jurisdiction. 167 p.2. 426 U.3).S. When the court finds Plaintiff lacks standing the court shall dismiss the complaint (E.N.” “For a court to pronounce upon a law's meaning or constitutionality when it has no jurisdiction to do so is. Lyons. there must be redressability-a likelihood that the requested relief will redress the alleged injury. Steel Co. First and foremost. Civ. there must be alleged (and ultimately proven) an "injury in fact"-a harm suffered by the plaintiff that is "concrete" and "actual or imminent.S. supra . See Townsend Properties v.

24 . causation. on information and belief. LLC v Weisblum.” FW/PBS. 541 U.C. (E. 774 (2004). 143 ¶ 2) Neither M&T Bank or Appellees/ Substituted Trustees have a legal interest in either the mortgage/DOT or the Note. This triad of injury in fact. when plaintiffs “can no longer rest on such ‘mere allegations. 887 N. issued securities which may or may not have been properly registered and in the form of either collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) or collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) or other form of exotic investment vehicle which may or may not be collateralized in whole or in part by the mortgage/DOT the subject of this action. 207. p. N. Standing “cannot be inferred argumentatively from averments in the pleadings.S. Whereas “general factual allegations of injury” may suffice at the pleading stage.S. the subject of this action. be dismissed. 422 U. Z. (App 7) To wit: Aurora Loan Servs. 1:100561. D.14 of doc) These bare allegations must fail – especially at this stage of the litigation. fully understands that when a party is not injured they lack standing to sue. City of Dallas. overruled in part on other grounds by City of Littleton v.S. 490. 69 AD3d 204. 2011 NY Slip Op 4184 (May 17. 2011) In order to commence a foreclosure action. al v..’ but must ‘set forth’ by affidavit or other evidence ‘specific facts. 56(e)). the plaintiff must have a legal or equitable interest in the mortgage (see Wells Fargo Bank. Holder Jr. v.7 (p. Attorney General. Yet the record contains no evidence of concrete.S. P. 215. see also Warth v.Y. 505 (1975). U. Defenders of Wildlife. 555. 493 U. and redressability. in whole or in part. Holder. 561 (1992) (citing Fed. Gifts D4. Doc 61. Seldin.S. LLC. Inc. personal injury resulting from the 2006 Amendments on their face. Civ. M&T Bank is acting as purported servicer for an entity (unknown at this time) which. Claim Two must. v Marchione.A.45-46.J.S.” U.’” Lujan v.2d 615). 231 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). and where the Certificate holders of the subject securities may or may not have an interest. but rather must affirmatively appear in the record. See Laroque et. therefore. R. 504 U. they are insufficient at the summary judgment stage. Eric H.. in the mortgage and or the Note the subject of this action.S District Court.

has presented authority or credibility to authenticate any admissible documents in said fraudulent foreclosure case per MD Evidence Rule 5-901. the Bank of New York Case and the case at bar the same result must obtain. VP of Chase Home Finance LLC. 5-6) 25 .2d 578).A. v Collymore.P. Affidavits are out of court statements made to prove the truth of the matter asserted. of M&T Bank. purported V. There being no material distinction between the Aurora case(s). or witness for Appellees. N. purported V. yet the second “original” copy was missing the indorsement that was on the first copy Zeis swore to as the “original” (E. Affidavits are hearsay and are inadmissible per Md.Y. Zeis was caught in other cases in FL and NY filing false affidavits as VP of MERS and Asst. 13-18) Appellees made general assertions to the circuit court. as long as the plaintiff can establish its lawful status as assignee. Evid. Zeis.4-11. 68 AD3d 752. 161 p. 69 AD3d at 207-209.S. v Marchione.A. and were merely opinion. Bank.S. prior to the filing of the complaint. and has zero credibility. 754.(App 11 p. U. N. Thus. filed the first affidavit in support of the alleged note.S. the recording of a written assignment after the commencement of the action does not defeat standing (see U. Rule 5-802. either by written assignment or physical delivery. however none of those assertions were supported with admissible evidence or first hand knowledge per MD Evidence Rule 5602. of M&T Bank filed an affidavit attesting to a second copy of a purported “original” note. particularly in light of MD Rule 2-201. Affiant Christopher M. either by physical delivery or execution of a written assignment prior to the commencement of the action with the filing of the complaint (see Wells Fargo Bank. We find that Aurora has failed to make this showing. N.P. 890 N.A plaintiff has standing where it is both (1) the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and (2) the holder or assignee of the underlying note. Bank. Affiant Laurie Abramo. 68 AD3d at 754). No Plaintiff/Appellee.A. v Collymore.

30 ¶ 25) The fact remains that MD Rule 2-201. 296 AD2d 566 [2d Dept 2002]. Per MD Rule 5-301(b) “If underlying considerations are of equal weight. since two different copies of alleged “originals” were filed into the case. an explanation from BNY of why it purchased a nonperforming loan from 26 .Y. plaintiff BNY submitted an affidavit of merit and amount due by Ely Harless. who fully understand the Wall Street abuses. Instead. have shut down in other jurisdictions where the Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) or Real estate mortgage investment conduit (REMICs) are created under New York Trust law: Well known N. Hazim v Winter.1 were enacted to prevent the sort of abuses that New York Courts. an affidavit from Ely Harless. and MD Rule 14-207. Dore tried to explain this “irregularity” as a “mistake”. 5-802. Shack opined: Plaintiff BNY failed to submit “proof of the facts” in “an affidavit made by the party. 17 AD3d 495. 2 AD3d 581[2d Dept 2003]. 496 [2d Dept 2005]." The presumption that M&T Bank is the creditor and holder in due course has been soundly rebutted with substantial public record evidence entered into the circuit court. Corp. Appellants preserved Appellants’ objections to the purported “evidence” offered in the 11 August 2010 hearing in the transcript and in the record.”(Blam v Netcher. Yet. (E. anticipating a future appeal of an erroneous decision. Finnegan v Sheahan. Goodman v New York City Health & Hosps. 269 AD2d 491 [2d Dept 2000]. explaining his employment history.M&T must use invisible ink. Drake v Drake. Parratta v McAllister. yet the second copy was missing the indorsement. Dore has no credibility either.” and failed to submit a valid power of attorney for that express purpose…… It is clear that plaintiff BNY failed to provide the Court with: an affidavit of merit by an officer of plaintiff BNY or someone with a valid power of attorney from BNY. the presumptions shall be disregarded. and. 283 AD2d 625 [2d Dept 2001]. 234 AD2d 422 [2d Dept 1996]). Supreme Court Justice Arthur M. Inc. MD Evidence Rules 5-801. “an employee of Countrywide Home Loans.

This practice is so pervasive. who lacks first hand knowledge is hearsay and is inadmissible per MD Evidence Rule 5-802. Carlsen.” 3.01 (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").. Even if plaintiff BNY owned the subject mortgage and note when the case commenced. § 909. claiming that “[t]he affidavits requested in Honorable Arthur M. Esq. reveals that Conner lacked the personal knowledge needed to authenticate Exhibit D.MERS. Testimony of foreclosure mill attorneys is often offered as “fact” when it’s against the MD Lawyers Rules of Professional Conduct and MD Evidence rules. and 30 veteran attorney Neil Garfield. See Wis. Plaintiff’s counsel offers a lame and feeble excuse for not complying with my June 3. mortgage servicing and foreclosure fraud. Stat. The comments are from renowned Florida foreclosure fraud/ defense attorney Matt Weidner. Our review of her testimony. 2008 decision and order. Moreover. given the annexed closing loan schedule. but is common practice as most litigants don’t object to said attorneys opinions. as nominee of DECISION ONE. two well known attorneys recently addressed the issue in a public record blog post. Conner made general assertions covering several documents. Relevant here. MERS lacked the authority to assign the subject MULLIGAN mortgage to BNY. LLC v. The testimony of Dore. plaintiff BNY did not own the subject mortgage and note when the instant case commenced. Conner either affirmatively testified or agreed to leading questions with respect to the following: 27 . in ¶ 23 of his affirmation in support. however. 2011) the Court reasoned and held as follows: P7 Aurora argues that Conner's testimony is sufficient to support the circuit court's finding that Aurora had been assigned the note. 2011 WI App 58 (March 24. Schack’s Decision and Order should not be required. Must a witness have personal first hand knowledge to attest to facts under oath and to be deemed a credible witness? Absolutely. as will be explained further. (App 12) Appellants cite Aurora Loan Servs. who is one of the nation’s experts in securitization.

." • She "look[s] at documentation . [does] not physically handle original notes and documents. Aurora failed to authenticate Exhibit D. the document purporting to be an assignment of the note." • She is "familiar with records that are prepared in the ordinary course of business. of [Aurora's] records. • She "handle[s] legal files" and she "attend[s] trials." • "Aurora [is] the custodian of records for this loan. who had reviewed some Aurora documents. For that matter. on its face. § 909.. 28 . • She declined to agree that she is the "custodian of records for Aurora. was an assignment. Thus." With respect to possession of Exhibit D." • She "reviewed the subject file" in preparing for the hearing. to court.P12 In sum." • Exhibit D is "an assignment of mortgage. Stat. See Wis. Although Conner was able to say that Exhibit D." As it specifically pertains to Exhibit D. but [she does] acquire documentation. the circuit court's finding that Aurora was the holder of the note is clearly erroneous—no admissible evidence supports that finding. Conner testified: • Aurora has "possession of Exhibit D." • She has "authority from Aurora to testify as to the documents. 2 P8 Thus. Conner did not provide a basis for a finding that any original document she might have previously viewed was what it purported to be. she had no apparent personal knowledge giving her a basis to authenticate that document. regardless of other alleged proof problems relating to that note and the Carlsens' alleged default. and it was not entitled to a judgment of foreclosure. the document purporting to evidence the assignment of the note and mortgage from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems to Aurora.01.• She works for Aurora. including Exhibit D. Aurora failed to prove its case. Conner did no more than identify herself as an Aurora employee who was familiar with some unspecified Aurora documents." • "Aurora provided those documents that are in [her] possession. and who had brought some documents. Conner did not assert that Exhibit D was an original or that Aurora had possession of the original document.

Appellants identified persuasive law in Florida that mirrors MD rules. Appellants had planned to examine Appellee Menapace under oath as to her first hand knowledge of purported “facts” had the Show Cause Motion per MD Rule 14-207. LaSalle Bank. in blatant denial of Appellants due process rights. Orsini did not know who entered the data into the computer. No. and he could not verify that the entries were correct at the time they were made. who filed the fraudulent “Amended Statement of Debt”.000 figure from his company’s computer system. Every attempt by Appellants to attack the credibility of the declarants that filed bogus affidavits in the circuit court per MD Rule 5-806 has been summarily denied in error.4dca. Said motion was summarily denied in error to shield substituted Trustees/attorneys/ officers of the court the uncomfortable duty of having to be examined under oath by a litigant who knows exactly what kind of fraud Appellees are perpetrating. Inc.op. appellants filed Orsini’s deposition. However. 4D Florida District Court of Appeals. In opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Home Loan Services. See Glarum v. Self-serving Affidavits are insufficient in order to commence foreclosure proceedings. likewise has no first hand knowledge of any purported “facts”.1 been granted. 4D10-1372 http://www. wherein Orsini explained that he derived the $340. LaSalle filed the affidavit of Ralph Orsini. Orsini claimed in the affidavit that appellants were in default of their payment obligations and owed in excess of $340. Article 9-102(a)(3) they would be unable to do so. Appellees and purported “affiants” know that if they were to be sworn in under oath and had to identify the “account debtor” per MD Comm.org/opinions/Sept%202011/09-07-11/4D10-1372.pdf To establish the amount of appellants’ indebtedness for summary judgment. a “specialist” at the loan servicer. Affidavits are hearsay and inadmissible per MD Rule 5-802.Appellee Dore admitted under oath as to no first hand knowledge and lack of credibility as a witness. Appellee Menapace.000 on the note. To calculate appellants’ 29 .

IV § 1 “full faith and credit” clause of the National Constitution. Appellants in the Case at Bar do not. ……. None of that changes the basic fact that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish their case through any reliable means. could not support LaSalle’s motion for summary judgment. Per MD Evidence Rule 5-201(d) the court must take notice of facts not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. The failure of Judge Nagle and Appellees. and Judge Nagle should have recused himself from the case. Appellees were also served a copy of said notices and had a duty as officers of the court to act on those notices per Title 18 USC Sec 4. as such.1 4. and the court failed to act on those notices. We find that Orsini’s affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay and. adds additional taint to this case and Appellants were prejudiced by that taint. all of whom had a duty to act. a prior servicer of appellants’ loan. Nagle III with a duty to act per Title 18 USC Sec 4 Misprision of Felony. Note that Defendants in the FL case admitted default.payment history. but failed to act on those notices. 1 30 . Must a court take Judicial Notice of adjudicative facts and act on crimes reported to Judicial Officers? Absolutely. Orsini relied in part on data retrieved from Litton Loan Servicing. Any orders issued after being noticed of crimes committed should have been voided. The circuit court was noticed of foreign case citations per Art. evidencing the fraud of M&T Bank upon the FL and NY courts along with the Notice of Felony Crime served on Judge John J. but failed to do so.

elephant in the room will just disappear if no one is looking. Appellants failed to pay the amount due and owing. Michel Pierson must still determine what action to take. boring “argument” that “Appellants defaulted. blah. and the court should just “take their word for it”. Irwin. with regard to at least 15 other foreclosures involving notarized documents not actually signed by Dore. who represents lenders. told Pierson. “Truthful answers to questions posed might tend to incriminate them. Eighteen current and former notaries public invoked their Fifth Amendment rights and refused to testify regarding their certification of Dore’s signature on the documents. with zero credibility.” Yet Appellees can offer no admissible evidence to prove their claim. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF The more important question (that is better addressed in another brief) is who is going to protect Appellants. “I have no doubt that they have a good-faith invocation right. if any.Given the paucity of any admissible evidence filed in the record in the circuit court. there is an amount due and owing. Dore on Tuesday conceded that five pending foreclosure proceedings should be dismissed because he could not vouch for his signature on documents filed with the Baltimore City Circuit Court.” the notaries’ attorney. and no first hand knowledge.” Appellees. on January 31. David B. Judge W. blah. Maryland. one must review the fact that Maryland as a quasi non-judicial foreclosure state. Appellees will duck the substantive elements of Appellants brief and hope that the 600 lb. In Baltimore. should the bona fide holder in due course (if UCC Article 3 controlled) 31 . 2011 The Daily Record reports: • Attorney Thomas P. At the same time. is a hotbed for criminal activity that has led one of the State’s largest foreclosure mill attorneys to back away from several cases amidst a pandemonium of Fifth Amendment fear by the associated notaries as must be restated from ¶ 18 in the Statement of Facts. will most likely put forth • the same tired. of Irwin Green & Dexter LLP in Towson.

Clerk Ensor. Law. Mark Czarnecki (M&T Bank CEO). VP Jill M. Devan. none of the above parties can guarantee the purported claim of M&T Bank is not a sham and a fraud. Abramo. Haskins. The fact is. and alleged “ratification” should be reversed with instructions to set aside the foreclosure as defective for the reasons stated above. Judge Dugan. For the reasons set forth above. or any other parties who are culpable (wittingly or unwittingly) in the fraud perpetrated upon Appellants. Baltimore County Sheriff R. there is such a person(s) out there that could make a bona fide claim. Miles. §3-309(b)? 3-309 (b) "The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument". alleged “affiants” Zeis. who is going to indemnify Appellants against that claim? Appellants guarantee if Appellees Dore.come out of the dark to collect on the purported “obligation” that is claimed to be owing in compliance with MD Comm. the orders of the circuit court denying Appellants Motion for Declaratory Judgment. The odds of getting struck by lightening are barely higher than this scenario happening. a reasonable person could presume that no one would step up to assume the liability and indemnify Appellants. were questioned under oath as to whether they should be held personally liable to Appellants. Jay Fisher. but assuming arguendo. Judge Turnbull. Appellants only need about 15 minutes with each trustee and alleged “affiant” under oath in a Show Cause hearing. denial of Appellants Show Cause Motion. Menapace. Smith (who illegally indorsed the note). Art. 32 . Judge Nagle. to get to the bottom of who committed the fraud.

S. Constitution 14th Amendment Sec.Dated this ___ day of _______________ 2012 Respectfully submitted. Records and Judicial Proceedings of every other State” U. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Sec 1 “Full Faith and Credit shall be given to each State to the public Acts.S. 1 “…nor shall any state deprive any person of life. 13 point ______________________ Erin Wetzelberger TEXT OF PERTINENT CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND RULES U.” U. without due process of law. or property without due process of law. Constitution 5th Amendment “No person shall… be deprived of life. without just compensation. Constitution Article IV. liberty. nor shall private property be taken for public use. liberty or property.” Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights 33 . _______________________ Todd Wetzelberger Font: Times New Roman.S.

That no man ought to be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his freehold. 1978). Acts of 1977. liberty or property. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Cross references. MD Evidence Rule 5-602 -. or. "Hearsay" is a statement. hearsay is not admissible. (c) Hearsay. -. other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing. MD Evidence Rule 5-201(d) (d) When mandatory. liberties or privileges. consist of the witness's own testimony. A "statement" is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person. 7.Lack of personal knowledge Except as otherwise provided by Rule 5-703. MD Evidence Rules 5-801 -. Testimony of a witness with knowledge that the 34 . A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.Requirement of authentication or identification (a) General provision. and not by way of limitation. or outlawed. A "declarant" is a person who makes a statement. if it is intended by the person as an assertion. MD Evidence Rule 5-901 -. By way of illustration only. or exiled. MD Evidence Rule 5-802 -. in any manner. a witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.Definitions The following definitions apply under this Chapter: (a) Statement. but by the judgment of his peers. destroyed. offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.Hearsay rule Except as otherwise provided by these rules or permitted by applicable constitutional provisions or statutes. ratified Nov.Rule 5-104 (b). or by the Law of the land (amended by Chapter 681. (b) Declarant. the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this Rule: (1) Testimony of witness with knowledge. (b) Illustrations. or deprived of his life. but need not.

and (C) has been in existence twenty years or more at the time it is offered. Identification of a voice. Non-expert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting. e. or a purported public record. Evidence that a document or data compilation: (A) is in such condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity. (8) Ancient document or data compilation. -. or (B) in the case of a business. substance. such as appearance. (2) Non-expert opinion on handwriting. Rule 5-702 and its Committee note. statement. location. or data compilation. report. Evidence describing a process or system used to produce the proffered exhibit or testimony and showing that the process or system produces an accurate result. show the person answering to be the one called. (6) Telephone conversation.This Rule is not intended to indicate the type of evidence that may be required to establish that a system or process produces an accurate result. based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation. (B) was in a place where. is from the public office where items of this nature are kept. (9) Process or system. Comparison by the court or an expert witness with specimens that have been authenticated. See. (7) Public record. Circumstantial evidence. including self-identification. if authentic. Committee note. (4) Circumstantial evidence. A telephone conversation. circumstances. (3) Comparison with authenticated specimens. the call was made to a place of business and the conversation related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone. based upon the witness having heard the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker. that the offered evidence is what it is claimed to be. internal patterns..offered evidence is what it is claimed to be. (5) Voice identification. if (A) in the case of a person. 35 . or other distinctive characteristics. Evidence that a writing authorized by law to be recorded or filed and in fact recorded or filed in a public office.g. by evidence that a telephone call was made to the number assigned at the time to a particular person or business. contents. it would likely be. whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording.

for good cause shown. or of any state. "certifies. A final certificate may be made by a secretary of an embassy or legation. If reasonable opportunity has been given to all parties to investigate the authenticity and accuracy of official documents. and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution. if a public officer having a seal and having official duties in the district or political subdivision of the officer or employee certifies under seal that the signer has the official capacity and that the signature is genuine. or of a political subdivision. or agency thereof. A document purporting to bear the signature in the official capacity of an officer or employee of any entity included in subsection (a)(1) of this Rule. with respect to a domestic record or public document. A document purporting to be executed or attested in an official capacity by a person authorized by the laws of a foreign country to make the execution or attestation and accompanied by a final certification. effective July 1. 10. officer. 1998. having no seal. or consular agent of the United States. A document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States. or a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country who is assigned or accredited to the United States." or "certification" means. consul general. (4) Certified copies of public records.(10) Methods provided by statute or rule. (Amended Feb. Except as otherwise provided by statute. (3) Foreign public documents. vice consul. department. district. territory. order that they be treated as presumptively authentic without final certification or permit them to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without final certification. The certificate relating to a foreign record or public document must be accompanied by a final certification as to the genuineness of the signature and official position (1) of the individual executing the certificate or (2) of any foreign official who certifies the genuineness of signature and official position of the executing individual or is the last in a chain of certificates that collectively certify the genuineness of signature and official position of the executing individual. or the Panama Canal Zone. a written declaration under oath subject to the penalty of perjury and. would subject the maker to criminal penalty under the laws of that country. 1998. or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a 36 . the court may. commonwealth. if falsely made. with respect to a foreign record or public document. Any method of authentication or identification provided by statute or by these rules. or insular possession thereof. (2) Domestic public documents not under seal." "certificate. As used in this Rule. consul.) MD Evidence Rule 5-902 -. extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following: (1) Domestic public documents under seal.Self-authentication (a) Generally. or the trust territory of the Pacific Islands. A copy of an official record or report or entry therein. a written declaration signed in a foreign country which.

and 3-505. (8) Acknowledged documents. §§ 1-202. or court order. commercial paper. rule. a written objection as to authenticity is required to be made before trial. or labels purporting to have been affixed in the course of business and indicating ownership. e. Any signature. Cross references. Printed materials purporting to be newspapers or periodicals. rule. (6) Newspapers and periodicals. 3-308. certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification. signs. control..g. or other publications purporting to be issued or authorized by a public agency. (9) Commercial paper and related documents. document. -. or order. by certificate complying with this Rule or complying with any applicable statute or these rules. Unless justice otherwise requires. (b) Certified records of regularly conducted business activity. Documents accompanied by a certificate of acknowledgment executed in the manner provided by law by a notary public or other officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments. To the extent provided by applicable commercial law. including data compilations.public office. (1) Procedure. or origin. within the scope of Rule 5-803 (b)(6) that has been certified pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of this Rule. or other matter declared by applicable statute or treaty to be presumptively genuine or authentic. Commercial Law Article. (5) Official publications. Testimony of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required as to the original or a duplicate of a record of regularly conducted business activity. Committee note. 37 . (10) Presumptions under statutes or treaties. (7) Trade inscriptions and the like. any item as to which. Code.As used in this Rule "document" is a generic term. -. It includes public records encompassed by Code. (11) Items as to which required objections not made. and related documents. pamphlets. and an objection was not made in conformance with the statute. Books. signatures thereon. tags. by statute. provided that at least ten days prior to the commencement of the proceeding in which the record will be offered into evidence. § 10-204. Courts Article. Inscriptions.See. (A) the proponent (i) notifies the adverse party of the proponent's intention to authenticate the record under this subsection and (ii) makes a copy of the certificate and record available to the adverse party and (B) the adverse party has not filed within five days after service of the proponent's notice written objection on the ground that the sources of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness.

except as otherwise provided in these rules or by statute. and (2) The attached records (a) are true and correct copies of records that were made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth by. (2) Form of certificate. the original writing. assignee for the benefit of creditors. a person with knowledge of these matters. For purposes of subsection (b)(1) of this Rule. recording. and (b) were kept in the course of regularly conducted activity. personal representative. do hereby certify that: (1) I am the Custodian of Records of or am otherwise qualified to administer the records for: (identify the organization that maintains the records). trustee of an express trust. except that an executor. guardian. trustee of a bankrupt. and (c) were made and kept by the regularly conducted business activity as a regular practice. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. bailee. or a person authorized by 38 . . person with whom or in whose name a contract has been made for the benefit of another.Committee note.Real party in interest Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. -. MD Rule 2-201 -. or photograph. Signature and title: Date: MD Evidence Rule 5-1002 -. the original or duplicate of the business record shall be certified in substantially the following form: Certification of Custodian of or Other Qualified I. administrator. recording.An objection to self-authentication under subsection (b)(1) of this Rule made in advance of trial does not constitute a waiver of any other ground that may be asserted as to admissibility at trial. or from the information transmitted by.Requirement of original To prove the content of a writing. receiver. or photograph is required.

(c) Effect of inability to join. or 2-534. in a proper case. whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence will be adequate. the person shall be made either a defendant or. other than a motion filed pursuant to Rule 2-532. A pleading asserting a claim for relief shall state the name. or (2) disposition of the action may impair or impede the person's ability to protect a claimed interest relating to the subject of the action or may leave persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring multiple or inconsistent obligations by reason of the person's claimed interest. A party desiring a hearing on a motion. MD Rule 2-311(f) – Motions (f) Hearing -. Factors to be considered by the court include: to what extent a judgment rendered in the person's absence might be prejudicial to that person or those already parties. (b) Reasons for nonjoinder. If the person should join as a plaintiff but refuses to do so. Except when a rule expressly provides for a hearing. When a statute so provides.Required joinder of parties (a) Persons to be joined. of a person meeting the criteria of (1) or (2) of section (a) of this Rule who is not joined and the reason the person is not joined. if known to the pleader. MD Rule 2-211 -.statute or rule may bring an action without joining the persons for whom the action is brought. a person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the action if in the person's absence (1) complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties. an action for the use or benefit of another shall be brought in the name of the State of Maryland. 2-533. an involuntary plaintiff. The court shall order that the person be made a party if not joined as required by this section. Except as otherwise provided by law." The title of the motion or response shall state that a hearing is requested. No action shall be dismissed on the ground that it is not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest until a reasonable time has been allowed after objection for joinder or substitution of the real party in interest. The joinder or substitution shall have the same effect as if the action had been commenced in the name of the real party in interest. and finally. If a person meeting the criteria of (1) or (2) of section (a) of this Rule cannot be made a party. the court shall determine whether the action should proceed among the parties before it or whether the action should be dismissed.Other motions. to what extent the prejudice can be lessened or avoided by protective provisions in the judgment or other measures. whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder. the 39 . (d) Exception. shall request the hearing in the motion or response under the heading "Request for Hearing. This Rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 2-231.

If the party against whom a hearsay statement has been admitted calls the declarant as a witness.Attacking and supporting credibility of declarant (a) In general. MD Rule 5-301(b) -. but the court may not render a decision that is dispositive of a claim or defense without a hearing if one was requested as provided in this section. 40 . Whenever it appears that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter. If not so made and the answer is filed. (2) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. inconsistent with the declarant's hearsay statement. and (5) governmental immunity. the party is entitled to examine the declarant on the statement as if under cross-examination. or in any other appropriate manner after answer is filed. the credibility of the declarant may be attacked. This Rule does not apply to statements by party-opponents under Rule 5-803 (a) (1) and (a) (2). the court shall apply the one that is founded upon weightier considerations of policy and logic. If the underlying considerations are of equal weight. MD Rule 5-802 -. and (4) insufficiency of service of process. When a hearsay statement has been admitted in evidence.Preservation of certain defenses (b) Subject matter jurisdiction. (3) insufficiency of process.court shall determine in each case whether a hearing will be held. (b) Permissive. if an answer is required: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the person. if an answer is required: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. hearsay is not admissible. The following defenses may be made by motion to dismiss filed before the answer. The following defenses shall be made by motion to dismiss filed before the answer. the presumptions shall be disregarded. MD Rule 2-324(b) -. MD Rule 5-806 -. these defenses and objections may be made in the answer. is not subject to any requirement that the declarant may have been afforded an opportunity to deny or explain. (4) discharge in bankruptcy. by any evidence which would be admissible for those purposes if the declarant had testified as a witness.Presumptions in civil actions (b) Inconsistent presumptions. the court shall dismiss the action. and if attacked may be supported.Hearsay rule Except as otherwise provided by these rules or permitted by applicable constitutional provisions or statutes. (b) Exception.Preliminary motions (a) Mandatory. (2) improper venue. these defenses are waived. If two presumptions arise which conflict with each other. Evidence of a statement or conduct by the declarant at any time. MD Rule 2-322 (a) and (b) -. (3) failure to join a party under Rule 2-211. If not so made.

Subtitle 2. "Lien" means a statutory lien or a lien upon property created or authorized to be created by a lien instrument.3 (a)(6).MD Rule 14-202(b)(c)(f)(k)(q) – Definitions (b) Borrower. (6) a person whose property is subject to a lien under Code. (2) the holder of a note secured by a deed of trust or indemnity deed of trust. (q) Secured party. (f) Lien. § 8402. The term includes: (1) a mortgagee. Real Property Article. Subtitle 2 (Maryland Contract Lien Act). (3) any person liable for the debt secured by the lien. and 41 . "Debt" means a monetary obligation secured by a lien. a sale of the property subject to the lien. Title 14. (5) a condominium council of unit owners. Real Property Article. Title 14. Real Property Article. (3) a vendor under a land installment contract or holding a vendor's lien. in the event of a specified default. (4) a person holding a lien under Code. (4) a maker of a note secured by an indemnity deed of trust. "Secured party" means any person who has an interest in property secured by a lien or any assignee or successor in interest to that person. "Borrower" means: (1) a mortgagor. (2) a grantor of a deed of trust. as defined in Code. "Power of sale" means a provision in a lien instrument authorizing. (c) Debt. and (7) a leasehold tenant under a ground lease. (7) a property owners' or community association. (6) a homeowners' association. (k) Power of sale. (5) a purchaser under a land installment contract.

record owner. party. 42 . because the affiant does not have a sufficient basis to attest to the accuracy of the facts stated in the affidavit. Real Property Article. Committee note. the court may order the party to show cause why the affidavit should not be stricken.Court screening (a) Generally. record owner. and. why the action should not be dismissed or other relief granted. borrower. the court may order that the affiant and any notary appear before the court at a time stated in the order for the affiant to attest under penalty of perjury that the affiant read and personally signed the affidavit and had a sufficient basis to attest to the accuracy of the facts stated in the affidavit. borrower. -. If the court determines that the pleadings or papers filed do not comply with all statutory and Rule requirements. it may give notice to the plaintiff and each borrower.(8) a ground lease holder. record owner. where a party is represented by an attorney. or party concerning the truth or accuracy of a pleading or paper. (4) A copy of the order shall be sent to the plaintiff and to each borrower. Cross references. (1) In this section. The court may adopt procedures to screen pleadings and papers filed in an action to foreclose a lien. MD Rule 14-207. -. as defined in Code. to permit service on only the attorney. "affidavit" includes any attestation or certification by an attorney.See Rule 1-341. for the affiant and the notary to attest that the affiant appeared before the notary and made the oath stated." (2) If the court has reason to believe that an affidavit filed in the action may be invalid because the affiant has not read or personally signed the affidavit.See Rule 1-202 (b) for a general definition of "affidavit. record owner. This Rule requires service on both.3 (a)(3). and.This Rule prevails over the provision in Rule 1-321 (a) or any other Rule that purports.1 -. together with a notice that they may appear and examine the affiant and notary. record owner. if applicable. or. and attorney of record. party. because the affiant did not appear before the notary as stated. party. Cross references. if it is stricken. The court may further require that the plaintiff serve the order and any response thereto on each borrower. (b) Review of affidavits. § 8-402. party. or agent of the attorney. if applicable. and attorney of record that the action will be dismissed without prejudice or that some other appropriate order will be entered by reason of the noncompliance if the plaintiff does not demonstrate within 30 days that the papers are legally sufficient or that the deficiency has been cured. (3) As part of the show cause order. -. and attorney of record.

Statute of frauds for kinds of personal property not otherwise covered (1) Except in the cases described in subsection (2) of this section a contract for the sale of personal property is not enforceable by way of action or defense beyond $ 5. 2-303(e) -. the special master or examiner may serve on a pro bono basis. (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to contracts for the sale of goods (§ 2-201) nor of securities (§ 8-113) nor to security agreements (§ 9-203). the costs and expenses of the special master or examiner may be assessed against one or more of the parties pursuant to Code. MD Comm.Form of pleadings (e) Construction of pleadings.General definitions (18) "Genuine" means free of forgery or counterfeiting. Civ. P. and make appropriate recommendations to the court. (d) Assessment of costs. P.000 in amount or value of remedy unless there is some writing which indicates that a contract for sale has been made between the parties at a defined or stated price.(c) Special masters or examiners. the instrument is also issued for consideration. § 3-303(b) -. If an instrument is issued for a promise of performance.Value and consideration (b) "Consideration" means any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract. expenses. Subject to section (d) of this Rule. conduct proceedings under section (b) of this Rule. the court shall dismiss the action. Article §1-201(18) -. and is signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent. including any costs or expense of a special master or examiner under section (c) of this Rule. and attorney's fees of any proceeding under this Rule. R. Whenever it appears that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter. Courts Article. unless the affidavit in question was filed by or on behalf of the borrower or record owner. Law Art. 2-324(b) -. MD Comm. All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice. § 2-102 (c). R. The costs. Md. Article §1-206 -. The drawer or maker of an instrument has a defense if the instrument is issued without consideration. expenses. The court may designate one or more qualified Maryland lawyers to serve as a part-time special master or examiner to screen pleadings and papers under section (a) of this Rule. MD Comm. 43 . shall not be assessed against the borrower or record owner either directly or as an expense of sale. the issuer has a defense to the extent performance of the promise is due and the promise has not been performed. reasonably identifies the subject matter. and attorney's fees. With his or her consent. or Rule 2-542 (i). Civ. If an instrument is issued for value as stated in subsection (a). Md.Preservation of certain defenses (b) Subject matter jurisdiction. Rule 2-541 (i).

or illegality of the transaction which. destroyed. and authority to make. or (iv) discharge of the obligor in insolvency proceedings. (iii) fraud that induced the obligor to sign the instrument with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to learn of its character or its essential terms. the right to enforce the obligation of a party to pay an instrument is subject to the following: (1) A defense of the obligor based on (i) infancy of the obligor to the extent it is a defense to a simple contract. (b) If the validity of signatures is admitted or proved and there is compliance with subsection (a). or claim to the instrument (§ 3-306) of another person. (ii) duress. in an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument. but the signature is presumed to be authentic and authorized unless the action is to enforce the liability of the purported signer and the signer is dead or incompetent at the time of trial of the issue of validity of the signature. nullifies the obligation of the obligor.Proof of signatures and status as holder in due course (a) In an action with respect to an instrument. the obligor may not assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument a defense. but the other person's claim to the instrument may be asserted by the obligor if the other person is joined in the action and personally asserts the claim against the person entitled to enforce the instrument. Art. under other law. claim in recoupment. § 3-305 (a)(1) -. § 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. unless the defendant proves a defense or claim in recoupment. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur 44 . §3-309(b) -. Comm.Law Art.c) Except as stated in subsection (d).Defenses and claims in recoupment (a) Except as stated in subsection (b). Law Art. MD. If an action to enforce the instrument is brought against a person as the undisclosed principal of a person who signed the instrument as a party to the instrument. the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the defendant is liable on the instrument as a represented person under § 3-402 (a). the burden of establishing validity is on the person claiming validity. lack of legal capacity. a plaintiff producing the instrument is entitled to payment if the plaintiff proves entitlement to enforce the instrument under § 3-301. If a defense or claim in recoupment is proved. Law Article §3-305(c) -. the right to payment of the plaintiff is subject to the defense or claim. 3-308 -. MD Comm.MD Comm. An obligor is not obliged to pay the instrument if the person seeking enforcement of the instrument does not have rights of a holder in due course and the obligor proves that the instrument is a lost or stolen instrument. MD Comm. Law. or stolen instrument (b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument.Enforcement of lost. If that proof is made. each signature on the instrument is admitted unless specifically denied in the pleadings. except to the extent the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff has rights of a holder in due course which are not subject to the defense or claim. If the validity of a signature is denied in the pleadings. the authenticity of.

the person making presentment must (i) exhibit the instrument. No other alteration discharges a party. agreement of the parties. Law Art § 3-407(a) and (b) – Alteration (a) "Alteration" means (i) an unauthorized change in an instrument that purports to modify in any respect the obligation of a party. 3-501(b)(2) – Presentment (b) The following rules are subject to Title 4. MD Comm. (ii) the amount of the claim was unliquidated or subject to a bona fide dispute. (ii) give reasonable identification and. or (ii) an unauthorized addition of words or numbers or other change to an incomplete instrument relating to the obligation of a party. Comm Law Art.by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Law Article §§ 3-311(a). and clearinghouse rules and the like: (2) Upon demand of the person to whom presentment is made. Law Art. and the instrument may be enforced according to its original terms. MD Comm. 3-311(a) -. the following subsections apply. the claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was tendered as full satisfaction of the claim. (b) Unless subsection (c) applies. the following subsections apply.§ 3-401(a) – Signature (a) A person is not liable on an instrument unless (i) the person signed the instrument. if presentment is made on behalf of another person. (ii) the amount of the claim was unliquidated or subject to a bona fide dispute. MD Comm. and (iii) the claimant obtained payment of the instrument.Accord and satisfaction by use of instrument (a) If a person against whom a claim is asserted proves that (i) that person in good faith tendered an instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction of the claim. MD. reasonable evidence of authority to do so. an alteration fraudulently made discharges a party whose obligation is affected by the alteration unless that party assents or is precluded from asserting the alteration. or (ii) the person is represented by an agent or representative who signed the instrument and the signature is binding on the represented person under § 3-402.Accord and satisfaction by use of instrument (a) If a person against whom a claim is asserted proves that (i) that person in good faith tendered an instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction of the claim. and (iii) the claimant obtained payment of the instrument. Law Art. (b) Except as provided in subsection (c). (b) -. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means. MD Comm. and (iii) sign a receipt 45 .

the customer must exercise reasonable promptness in examining the statement or the items to determine whether any payment was not authorized because of an alteration of an item or because a purported signature by or on behalf of the customer was not authorized. if the bank also proves that it suffered a loss by reason of the failure. the person retaining the items shall either retain the items or. The statement of account provides sufficient information if the item is described by item number. A customer may request an item from the bank that paid the item. if the items are destroyed. (b) If the items are not returned to the customer. amount. there is discharge. If. a legible copy of the item. to the extent of the amount of the tender.Customer's duty to discover and report unauthorized signature or alteration. if the item has been destroyed or is not otherwise obtainable. § 3-603(b) -. the customer must promptly notify the bank of the relevant facts. MD Comm. the customer should reasonably have discovered the unauthorized payment. (c) If a bank sends or makes available a statement of account or items pursuant to subsection (a). Law Art. (d) If the bank proves that the customer failed. in which to examine the item or statement of account and notify the bank. 46 . § 4-406 -. Law Art. based on the statement or items provided. and (2) The customer's unauthorized signature or alteration by the same wrongdoer on any other item paid in good faith by the bank if the payment was made before the bank received notice from the customer of the unauthorized signature or alteration and after the customer had been afforded a reasonable period of time. not exceeding 30 days. of the obligation of an indorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates. MD Comm. with respect to an item.Tender of payment (b) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused. comparative fault (a) A bank that sends or makes available to a customer a statement of account showing payment of items for the account shall either return or make available to the customer the items paid or provide information in the statement of account sufficient to allow the customer reasonably to identify the items paid. and that bank must provide in a reasonable time either the item or. and date of payment.on the instrument for any payment made or surrender the instrument if full payment is made. maintain the capacity to furnish legible copies of the items until the expiration of 7 years after receipt of the items. to comply with the duties imposed on the customer by subsection (c) the customer is precluded from asserting against the bank: (1) The customer's unauthorized signature of the customer or any alteration on the item.

the preclusion under subsection (d) does not apply. -(1) In this section the following terms have the meanings indicated.Definitions and index of definitions (a) In this title: (3) "Account debtor" means a person obligated on an account. or other lien on 1 to 4 family residential real estate located in this State. the loss is allocated between the customer precluded and the bank asserting the preclusion according to the extent to which the failure of the customer to comply with subsection (c) and the failure of the bank to exercise ordinary care contributed to the loss. (f) Without regard to care or lack of care of either the customer or the bank. (3) "Servicer" means a person responsible for collection and payment of principal.Mortgage servicers (a) Definitions. escrow. The term does not include persons obligated to pay a negotiable instrument. MD Comm. If there is a preclusion under this subsection. security agreement. and telephone number of the new servicer and the address where mortgage payments are to be forwarded. (3) The telephone number of the contact designated under subsection (c) of this section. (2) "Mortgage" includes a mortgage. Comm. interest. even if the instrument constitutes part of chattel paper.(e) If subsection (d) applies and the customer proves that the bank failed to exercise ordinary care in paying the item and that the failure substantially contributed to loss. Article 9-102(a)(3) -. -. address. and other moneys under an original mortgage. deed of trust. (2) The principal balance and escrow balance. chattel paper. If the customer proves that the bank did not pay the item in good faith. or general intangible. a customer who does not within 12 months after the statement or items are made available to the customer (subsection (a)) discover and report the customer's unauthorized signature on or any alteration on the item is precluded from asserting against the bank the unauthorized signature or alteration. Md. 47 . a servicer shall send to the mortgagor a written notice containing the following information regarding the mortgage on the date of transfer: (1) The name. (b) Notice to mortgagor after acquisition of mortgage servicing.Within 7 days of acquiring mortgage servicing. the payor bank may not recover for breach of warranty under § 4-208 with respect to the unauthorized signature or alteration to which the preclusion applies.§13-316 -. Law Art.

with regard to the taxes. or threaten to enforce a right with knowledge that the right does not exist. (d) Payments of tax or insurance premiums. Md. attempt. Law Art. Law Art 8-601. -.(4) The responsibilities of the contact under subsection (c) of this section.Certain acts prohibited (8) Claim. Comm. (2) The contact shall respond in writing to each written complaint or inquiry within 15 days if requested. (2) check. 48 . may not counterfeit.A person. with intent to defraud another. (e) Penalties for noncompliance. -(1) A servicer shall designate a contact to whom mortgagors may direct complaints and inquiries. 14-202(8) -. -(1) If a servicer fails to comply with any provision of this section.A servicer shall make timely payments of the taxes or insurance premiums due under the mortgage so long as the mortgagor has paid an amount sufficient to pay the tax or insurance premium due and. cause to be counterfeited. the servicer is liable for any economic damages caused by the violation. 8-602. so long as the servicer is in possession of either the tax bill or notice from the taxing authority. -. Md. Counterfeiting of private instruments and documents (a) Prohibited. (f) Toll-free telephone number. (2) The penalties provided in this section are in addition to any other applicable remedies. and 8-402 -. -. (c) Contact person for complaints and inquiries.A servicer shall provide a toll-free telephone number through which any borrower residing in this State may direct telephone inquiries on outstanding loans during regular business hours. or willingly aid or assist in counterfeiting any: (1) bond.§ 8-601. Crim. and (5) A statement that the servicer's violation of this section will result in the servicer being held liable under subsection (e) of this section.

(11) release or discharge for money or property.A person may not knowingly. -. (5) endorsement or assignment of a bond. (c) Penalty. willfully. 49 . (8) negotiable instrument. (12) title to a motor vehicle. -. (4) draft. or promissory note. (d) Venue.000 or both. (13) waiver or release of mechanics' lien. (10) promissory note. (b) Prohibited -.(3) deed. the prosecution of an alleged violation of this section or for an alleged violation of a crime based on an act that establishes a violation of this section may be commenced in any county in which: (1) an element of the crime occurred.Notwithstanding any other provision of law. check. (7) letter of credit. (6) entry in an account book or ledger. (9) power of attorney.000 or both. draft. or (14) will or codicil. and with fraudulent intent possess a counterfeit of any of the items listed in subsection (a) of this section. (2) A person who violates subsection (b) of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $ 1. -(1) A person who violates subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a felony and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding $ 1.Possession of counterfeit.

-. -. or filed with the register of wills. communicate with. or retrieve data from. (b) Penalty. received. may not issue or publish as true a counterfeit instrument or document listed in § 8-601 of this subtitle. or otherwise use equipment including computers and other data processing equipment or resources connected with computers or other data processing equipment. filed with the clerk of the circuit court.(2) the deed or other alleged counterfeit instrument is recorded in the county land records. -(1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated. or record. § 8-606 -. Fraudulent misrepresentation by corporate officer or agent (a) Prohibited. (3) "Public record" includes an official book. or (4) if the victim is not an individual.A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding $ 1. (c) Statute of limitations and in banc review.000 or both. Crim. store data in.A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not less than 6 months and not exceeding 3 years or a fine not less than $ 1. to: (1) enhance or depress the market value of the corporation's shares or obligations. with intent to defraud another. paper.000 and not exceeding $ 10. Issuing counterfeit private instruments and documents (a) Prohibited. -.With intent to defraud.A person.A person who violates this section is subject to § 5-106(b) of the Courts Article. Md. or affairs. -.Making false entries in public records and related crimes (a) Definitions. Law Art. (b) Penalty. or (2) commit fraud in another manner. or used by a unit of: 50 . a statement to or a publication for the public or the shareholders that contains false representations of the corporation's assets.000 or both. kept on a manual or automated basis. § 8-602. (3) the victim resides. (2) "Access" means to instruct. or in any manner assent to. § 8-402. an officer or agent of a corporation may not sign. that is created. the victim conducts business. liabilities. -.

In this case. deface. -. is declared to be against public policy.. (b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay interest due or accrued on the public debt. Public Law 73-10. (c)(1) The Secretary may issue a bond. remove. As the Secretary considers expedient. destroy.every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency. the personal representative is liable for a wrongful act of the nominee in connection with the security held. note. or certificate. -. Real Property Art.C. the Secretary may pay in advance interest on the public debt by a period of not more than one year. 31 U. willfully and intentionally access a public record.000 or both.A person may not or may not attempt to: (1) willfully make a false entry in a public record. or (iii) a multicounty agency. 51 . §3123 (a) The faith of the United States Government is pledged to pay. (b) Prohibited. §§ 3123. or (3) except under proper authority. in legal tender.A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $ 1. Md. principal and interest on the obligations of the Government issued under this chapter.S. (2) except under proper authority. 5103 Public Law 73-10 “.(i) the State. §7-401(c) (c) He may hold a security in the name of a nominee or in other form without disclosure of the interest of the estate. (ii) a political subdivision of the State.C. with or without a rebate of interest on the coupons. (c) Penalty.” 31 U.. note. or conceal a public record. willfully alter. or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby.S. or certificate of indebtedness authorized under this chapter whose principal and interest are payable in a foreign currency stated in the bond.

public charges. 707 (1) Unless a cotrustee remains in office or the court otherwise orders. or undue influence. arising under this Constitution.--to all cases affecting ambassadors. and certificates of indebtedness that may be issued under this chapter. notes. or certificates of indebtedness payable in the foreign currency may be deposited.The Secretary may dispose of the bonds. under their authority. (3) The Secretary may designate depositaries in foreign countries in which any part of the proceeds of bonds. Article III § 2 of the National Constitution The judicial power shall extend to all cases. the dollar equivalent of the amount of bonds. successor trustee. notes. the trustee shall administer the trust expeditiously and in good faith. notes.C. Uniform Trust Code §§ 406. a trustee who has resigned or been removed has the duties of a trustee and the powers necessary to protect the trust property. and dues. in accordance with its terms and purposes and the interests of the beneficiaries. notes. and in accordance with this chapter. 5103 United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts.--to controversies between two or more states.--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party. or which shall be made. § 136.S.--between a state and citizens of another state. and between a state. other public ministers and consuls. and foreign states. (2) A trustee who has resigned or been removed shall proceed expeditiously to deliver the trust property within the trustee's possession to the cotrustee. and certificates payable in a foreign currency is determined by the par of the exchange value on the date of issue of the bonds. the laws of the United States. or the citizens thereof. 801 Upon acceptance of a trusteeship. taxes. citizens or subjects.--between citizens of different states. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts. and treaties made. duress. in law and equity. or certificates as published by the Secretary under section 5151 of this title. 31 U. NY Prac. and until the trust property is delivered to a successor trustee or other person entitled to it. or other person entitled to it. §§ 3123. 801 406 A trust is void to the extent its creation was induced by fraud. 707. notes.--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states. (2) In determining the dollar amount of bonds. and certificates at a price that is at least par value without complying with section 3102(b)-(d) of this title.--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. at 232 [4d ed] 52 .

Title 18 USC § 4 Misprision of Felony Whoever.S. conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States. shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years. § 909. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissiblity [admissibility] is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. and a simple syllogism takes us from there to a "jurisdictional" dismissal: (1) the courts have jurisdiction only over controversies. (2) a plaintiff found to lack "standing" is not involved in a controversy.[i]t is the law's policy to allow only an aggrieved person to bring a lawsuit . 15 U. . § 1601 (a) Informed use of credit. having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States. 53 . The informed use of credit results from an awareness of the cost thereof by consumers. See Wis. The Congress finds that economic stabilization would be enhanced and the competition among the various financial institutions and other firms engaged in the extension of consumer credit would be strengthened by the informed use of credit. ." in other words. and (3) the courts therefore have no jurisdiction of the case when such a plaintiff purports to bring it. or both.C. It is the purpose of this title [15 USCS §§ 1601 et seq. and to protect the consumer against inaccurate and unfair credit billing and credit card practices. is just another way of saying that this particular plaintiff is not involved in a genuine [*4] controversy. A want of "standing to sue. Stat.] to assure a meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him and avoid the uninformed use of credit.01 General Provision.

Michael T. 2 copies of Appellants’ Brief and Record Extract filed in the MD Court of Special Appeals was served via USPS First Class Mail upon the following parties. Maryland 21201 ____________________________ Todd Wetzelberger 54 .CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I ____________________________certify that on this ___ day of _______________ 2012 per MD Rule 1-321. Charles Street Suite 702 Baltimore. Pate Law Office of Michael T. Pate. LLC 20 S.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful