1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Page 1of 6

Thomas P. Dore, Mark S. Devan, Kristen K. Haskins, Gerard F. Miles Jr., and Shannon Menapace As Substituted Trustees Plaintiff, VS. Todd Wetzelberger et al Defendants ) ) ) ) ) MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE ) ) ) CASE NO. 03-C-10-000465

COMES NOW, Todd Wetzelberger and Erin Rene Wetzelberger per MD Rule 14-207.1 (a) (b) Court Screening, and moves the court to enter an Order to Show Cause why Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Default, Deed of Trust Affidavit, Affidavit Certifying Ownership of Debt and Amended Statement of Mortgage Debt should not be stricken from the record and Plaintiff’s case dismissed with prejudice. In support of Defendant’s Motion Defendant states that:

1. M&T Bank was caught entering fraudulent assignments of mortgage in M&T Bank v.
Lisa D. Smith, et al., St. Johns County, FL, Case No. CA09-0418. Said case was dismissed with prejudice.

2. Christoper M. Zeis, as VP of MERS purportedly signed the second assignment of
mortgage in the aforementioned FL case from MERS as nominee of First Bank Mortgage to M&T Bank.

3. In the instant case, Christoper M. Zeis, as VP of M&T Bank swore in an affidavit under
penalty of perjury that a copy (inadmissible evidence) of the “original” promissory note was true and correct despite being strangely absent an indorsement. Approximately 18 months prior, the ’08 note with indorsement was also sworn to under penalty of perjury as a true and correct copy by both Laurie Abramo Asst VP, M&T Bank and Thomas P. Dore, substituted trustee.

4. On August 11, 2010, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, Thomas P.
Dore admitted on the record under oath and penalty of perjury that he did not have any personal knowledge of any facts in the purported “loan agreement”, the subject of this foreclosure action.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page 2of 6

5. Dore also admitted on the record, under oath in the same hearing on August 11, 2010, that he was not present at the purported “loan closing” and is not a competent witness to attest to any purported “facts” in the instant case. 6. Defendants have discovered that on or about October 13, 2010 Judge Alan M. Wilner, who chairs the Maryland Court of Appeals Special Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, wrote in a memo to committee members that "preliminary audits have shown that hundreds of such bogus affidavits have been filed in Maryland circuit courts. The judges are alarmed at this development." 7. Judge Wilner also stated in a letter to the court “In the Committee’s view, the use of bogus affidavits to support actions to foreclose…. constitutes an assault on the integrity of the judicial process itself”

8. Defendants have discovered that the law firms Bierman, Geesing, and Ward; and,
Covahey, Boozer, Devan and Dore admitted to filing false affidavits into Maryland foreclosure cases. (http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-10-12/business/bs-bzforeclosure-attorneys-20101012_1_foreclosure-cases-halt-foreclosure-sales-signatures)

9. Per an October 12, 2010 article in the Baltimore Sun, “In the corrective affidavits filed by
Jacob Geesing, of Bierman, Geesing, Ward & Wood in Bethesda, and Thomas P. Dore, with Hunt Valley-based Covahey, Boozer, Devan & Dore, both lawyers said the information in the original documents was accurate — except for the signatures.” 10. Defendants just discovered on January 31, 2011 that: In Baltimore, Maryland, The Daily Record reports:

• Attorney Thomas P. 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 W. Michel Pierson must still determine what action to take, if any, with regard to at least 15 other foreclosures involving notarized documents not actually signed by Dore, who represents lenders.

• 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. “Truthful answers to questions posed might tend to incriminate them,” the notaries’ attorney, David B. Irwin, of Irwin Green & Dexter LLP in Towson, told Pierson. “I have no doubt that they have a good-faith invocation right.”

• Notaries who knowingly certify false signatures face possible criminal sanctions for
misconduct in office or fraud.(1)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page 3of 6

Dore came under heavy questioning from the judge and a special master appointed to review his foreclosure documents for irregularities. At the end of his testimony, Dore expressed regret to the court for failing to sign the documents himself but said he always acted in good faith.

• “I apologize for having put you through this,” Dore told Pierson from the stand. “I

made a terrible mistake,” he added. “It was never my intent to deceive the court. It was frankly stupid, your honor.” [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, in fact, signed foreclosure documents, he said.

• “Ethically, I should have signed those affidavits myself,” Dore said. “I realized I made a
stupid mistake and we changed our practice.” Dore insisted that at no time did documents leave his office without being carefully reviewed for accuracy. For more, see Notaries invoke Fifth Amendment in foreclosure hearings.

11. Thomas P. Dore admitted under oath that he did not have any personal first hand
knowledge of any purported “facts” Plaintiff alleged as true in affidavits entered in the instant case. 12. Plaintiff Thomas P. Dore, with knowledge and forethought filed false documents into the instant case, with no personal knowledge as to any facts he alleged as true and correct.

13. The aforementioned Declaration of Substitution of Trustees states in the last paragraph
on page 1 of the declaration that “The act of one Substituted Trustee shall bind all of the Substituted Trustees.”

14. On 14 December 2010, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Statement of Debt sworn to be true
under penalty of perjury by Shannon Menapace.

15. The Certificate of Service states the Amended Statement of Debt was not mailed until 28
December 2010, fully 2 weeks after the filing. 16. Defendants did not receive service until 31 December 2010. 17. Shannon Menapace has no first hand knowledge of any facts in this case. 18. The affirmation of Shannon Menapace is not credible.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page 4of 6

19. Defendants are unsure if Thomas P. Dore disclosed to Shannon Menapace that Dore admitted under oath that he did not have any personal knowledge of any facts in this case.

20. The Deed of Trust recorded in the land records of Baltimore County in Book 27296, page
281, names Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. as Beneficiary.

21. On 20 May 2010, the US Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of CA in re: Walker,
Case #10-21656-E-11 stated that MERS is merely a “nominee” with no right, title, or interest, therefore cannot transfer any beneficial interest in a Deed of Trust (DOT).

22. MERS as beneficiary has failed to prove or even take the position that it is the holder of
all rights under the Note, which is the instrument of indebtedness which would permit the legal holder thereof to declare a default which would trigger a foreclosure.

23. MERS has no legal interest in either the mortgage/ DOT or the Note, the subject of this

24. Defendant intends to examine Ms. Menapace under oath to ask her to explain to the court
exactly how Ms. Menapace arrived at the exact figures stated in said affidavit.

25. Defendant Notices this court that on or about June 22, 2009, M&T Bank received a
Qualified Written RESPA Request sent via certified mail # 7009 0080 0001 6021 2851 for an audit of Account No. 0011973187 per Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692G Section 908(b) of all official documents that would establish validity of this debt and allow a team of analysts to review all official contracts, records, ledger entries, the original genuine (free from fraud or forgery)promissory note, and book keeping practices pertaining to Acct. No. 0011973187.

26. Per Federal Law the respondent to a RESPA QWR had 60 business days to fully comply
with the request.

27. The information necessary to conduct forensic accounting regarding Acct. No.
0011973187, including the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA), verified chain of custody of the original security (unaltered, genuine, free from fraud or forgery, wet ink signature promissory note), that after 545 days, has not been provided in direct violation of Federal law.

28. Said QWR was sent well in advance of the foreclosure case being docketed and it is
Defendant’s belief that M&T Bank willfully failed/ refused to comply with said QWR as is its duty, in an attempt to illegally foreclose on Defendant’s house without validating,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page 5of 6

substantiating and authenticating its/their proof of claim, in direct violation of federal and state law and in violation of Defendant’s due process rights.

29. Substitute Trustees, Thomas P. Dore, Shannon Menapace, et al, have no personal first
hand knowledge, and therefore have no sufficient basis to attest to the accuracy of any of the purported “facts” in this case.

30. Substitute Trustees, do have a duty, as attorneys and officers of the court, to investigate
the purported claim of M&T Bank and verify Substitute Trustees have not unwittingly brought a fraud upon the court. WHEREFORE, Defendant moves the court to enter an Order to Show Cause: Why Christopher M. Zeis, purported “VP” of MERS, and purported VP of M&T Bank should not be compelled to appear before this court to be examined by Defendants under oath and penalty of perjury, as to the accuracy of the purported “facts” sworn to by affiant. Why Christopher M. Zeis is named as “Vice President” of MERS when MERS has no Employees. Why Christopher M. Zeis is also named as “Vice President” of M&T Bank. Why Shannon Menapace should not be compelled to appear before this court to be examined under oath by Defendants as to her first hand knowledge of any “facts” in this case. What facts and admissible evidence Shannon Menapace, who has no personal knowledge, relied upon to arrive at the figures stated in the Amended Statement of Debt, sworn to under PENALTIES OF PERJURY. Why a “c” level executive (CEO, CFO, COO) from M&T Bank should not be compelled to appear before this court and be examined by Defendants under oath as to why M&T Bank failed/ refused to comply with federal law by fully complying with the RESPA QWR and validation of Debt request over 545 days ago. Defendant also moves the court to grant such other and further relief as the court may seem just and equitable to include sanctions if the court determines Plaintiff’s claim was a fraud upon the court. Dated this _______ day of __________________ 2011. _____________________________ _____________________________

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Page 6of 6

Todd Wetzelberger


UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, I CERTIFY that on this ___ day of _______________ 2011 a copy of foregoing Defendants' Motion to Show Cause was personally served upon the following parties. BRANDON M. KILBERG, Attorney for Plaintiffs COVAHEY, BOOZER, DEVAN, & DORE, P.A. of counsel to Huesman, Jones & Miles, LLC Executive Plaza III, Suite 400 Hunt Valley, MD 21031

____________________________ Todd Wetzelberger
State of _____________________ County of ______________________ BEFORE ME_________________________Notary Public, personally appeared Todd Wetzelberger identified in accordance with Maryland law, and acknowledged the foregoing document to be his/her act. in my presence this day of 2011 ______________________ Notary Public My commission expires:

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful