18 November 2015

To All:
Whatever Ms. McDonnell told the Wolf v. Wells Fargo Jury… is Fair Game before
City Council as an operation of law and common sense, period. No ifs, ands or buts.
Here are my final comments on this sad situation, and I can safely say I speak on
behalf of the thousands of homeowners who apparently will not enjoy their primary
or derivative rights to see Ms. McDonnell present before Council Committee.
First of All, my 19 October 2015 public information request is growing moss. I look
forward to the prompt production, forthwith. The 20 business days noted by the
AG's Office on 26 October are up this Friday, to my count. As to the City, please
advise.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/286115247/KingCast-Seattle-City-Council-and-WAAG-Ferguson-Public-Info-Request-on-Suppression-of-Marie-McDonnell-and-ScottStafne-Land-Audit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNovxzcwAss
Next, Please consider this as official request for:
1. A copy of any and all proposed (and rejected) requests for confidentiality made
upon Ms. McDonnell, as well as
2. All redlined versions of Ms. McDonnell's Report as sent to Ms. McDonnell by
certain City Attorney(s). These are not work product or subject to any sort of
attorney-client privilege, I am quite sure of that.
Next, review this weeks excellent article written by Attorney Scott Stafne,
"Seattle's Homeless Should be Very Angry,"
http://www.scottstafne.com/seattles-homeless-should-be-very-angry/..... which
noted, inter alia:
"But the land expert refused to sign the confidentiality agreement. The expert
knew the conclusions in her report were accurate. The expert wouldn’t sign any
agreement that allowed the City to bury her report and not consider its forthright
and honest conclusions."

Next, as you note:
“The consultant will also prepare and make one presentation of the report’s
findings and recommendations to City of Seattle policy makers as directed.” (my
emphasis added).
Well in point of fact, Ms. McDonnell was directed to sign a confidentiality
agreement and was requested to temper her report by way of several redline
proposals that you will soon be providing me. She was then directed to come to the
9 December 2015 Committee meeting but the City reneged, most likely because

of pressure from the banking/mortgage industry and perhaps Attorney
Ferguson and City Attorneys (my emphasis added).

There was simply no reason for the City to renege, particularly in light of the
$355M Bank of America v. MERS and Ms. McDonnell's expert testimony in Wolf v.
Wells Fargo as I pointed out on several occasions, including this week.
http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2015/11/kingcast-and-mortgage-movies-seesec-v.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F74gjNxP9U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej331dTN74Q
I hate to do this, but I will soon release the entire hallway conversation between
Councilor Nick Licata and me. Nick is an admirable man who has done good things. I
believe he is honestly trying to do the right thing in this instance as well, however it
is readily apparent from his body language and comments that there is a Heavy
Hand out here that is calling the shots. I sincerely hope he is not upset with me,
but is more appropriately disgusted by the conditions that made me do it.
This is the end of his in-office legacy. To the extent that this CODA is tarnished
the fault lies with people other than him, and those people should be ashamed of
themselves.

The taxpayers deserve better, and perhaps they will get better when Ms.
McDonnell appears in Seattle in another forum.
Very Truly Yours,
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.
kingcast955@icloud.com
mortgagemovies007@gmail.com
http://affordablevideodepo.com
http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com
617.543.8085m
206.299.9333f
*************
(Tuesday evening email from my mobile phone)
I will respond in full tomorrow but for now I maintain that whatever she told that
Jury she is entitled to say here for reasons noted on video.
Moreover it just makes no sense NOT to welcome her in given the recent legal
developments as I have repeatedly noted, not to mention the renege issue.
Sent from my iPhone
*************
On Nov 17, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Herbold, Lisa <Lisa.Herbold@seattle.gov> wrote:
Dear Mr. King,
As it relates to your first question, as I understand it, the issue of “Whether the
assignments of the selected mortgages are valid in light of the 2012 Washington
State Supreme Court ruling that deemed certain MERS practices to be invalid”
requires a legal interpretation. On the other hand, I understand the answer to the
question: “How discoverable is the true, current owner of the mortgage?” to be a
factual question, not requiring legal interpretation. In other words, we could look at

195 mortgages and decide from an objective review of factual information that in
100% of the mortgages we could not discover the “true, current owner,” but that
does not automatically mean that the assignments of those 195 mortgages are
invalid.
The factual question of the “discoverability” the owner of the mortgage, according
to Ms. McDonnell’s report, was determined by reviewing this information below,
which I understand to require no legal interpretation:
1.

the information contained on the face of the assignment;

2.

a review of the ancillary documents recorded in the chain of title; and

3.

a MERS MIN Number search which revealed the identity of the servicer.
Again, as I understand it, not being able to discover the “true, current owner,” does
not automatically make an assignment invalid. The reason for that is that under
Bain the court ruled that the legal effect of MERS acting as unlawful beneficiary
would depend upon a legal analysis of the facts of each individual case. I do take
personal responsibility for inclusion of the question of validity of the assignments in
the consultant scope of work. If I understood this issue more in November 2014, it
very likely would not have been included.
As it relates to your second question, I don’t recall Ms. McDonnell’s scope requiring
her presentation. I’d have to check the actual language of the contract itself, but
Ms. McDonnell quotes from the scope as follows:
“The consultant will also prepare and make one presentation of the report’s
findings and recommendations to City of Seattle policy makers as directed.” (my
emphasis added)
Best,
Lisa Herbold
Legislative Aide to Councilmember Nick Licata
Seattle City Council
lisa.herbold@seattle.gov
206-684-8803
Keep in touch...

*************
(Tuesday afternoon email from me)
An astute observer noted:
I don’t get how anyone thinks the first part of this matter requires rendering a
legal opinion, but determining the ‘true, current owner’ does not.
I understand that part of the scope of Ms. McDonnell’s review included the
question: “Whether the assignments of the selected mortgages are valid in
light of the 2012 Washington State Supreme Court ruling that deemed
certain MERS practices to be invalid.” …
Instead, please, in preparing for your briefing, focus upon a presentation
based upon the factual findings and recommendations related to the first
question in the scope of the study which was: “How discoverable is the true,
current owner of the mortgage?”
I also don’t understand how he/anyone else thinks you can determine the true,
current owner without addressing the validity of the documents (including
assignments) in the chain of title.
Another major point, - The requirements of the report instructed Marie to provide
her perspective on this. She didn’t just come up with this. And, If she DOESN’T
share this perspective, - wouldn’t it appear that she failed to deliver on ½ of her
obligations?
Wow. A lot of politics for sure.
.....Sadly, I concur in full, no dissent. I have a doctor's appointment but hope to
hear back today that Council has reversed its opinion.
Sincerely,
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.
kingcast955@icloud.com
mortgagemovies007@gmail.com
http://affordablevideodepo.com
http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com
617.543.8085m
206.299.9333f