1

2 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND

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

Thomas P. Dore, Mark S. Devan, Kristen K. Haskins, Gerard F. Miles Jr., and Shannon Menapace

As Substituted Trustees

)

) CASE NO. 03-C-J 0-000465

) )

) MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE )

)

)

Plaintiff,

VS.

Todd Wetzelberger et al

Defendants

MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE

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 aI., St. Johns County, FL, Case No. CA09-0418. Said case was dismissed with prejudice.

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

3. In the instant case, Christoper M. Zeis, as VP ofM&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.

_,DEPT. FEB -4,2011

Page lof6

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

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.coml20 1 0-1 0-12/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 Dare'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.(l)

Page 20f6

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

• 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 hut 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/or 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] 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.

Page 30f6

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

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 ofCA in re: Walker, Case #1O-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 action.

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 RESP A 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, 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.

Page 40f6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

29. Substitute Trustees, Thomas P. Dore, Shannon Menapace, et aI, 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 ofM&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" ofMERS, and purported VP ofM&T Bank should not be compelled to appear before this court to be examined by Defendants under oath and penalty ofperjury, 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

17 knowledge, relied upon to arrive at the figures stated in the Amended Statement of Debt, sworn to under PENALTIES OF PERJURY.

18 19 20 21 22

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 RESP A 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.

27 28

_~.,...--_--II-_-----:: 2011.

~L~~

Enn Rene Wetzelberger

Page 50f6

1

2 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND

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

Thomas P. Dore, Mark S. Devan, Kristen K. Haskins, Gerard F. Miles Jr., and Shannon Menapace

)

) CASE NO. 03-C-IO-000465 )

)

) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE )

)

)

As Substituted Trustees Plaintiff,

VS.

Todd Wetzel berger et al

Defendants

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT per MD Rule 14-207.1 (a) (b) Plaintiff appear before this court to Answer Defendant's Motion To Show Cause as to why Plaintiffs Affidavit of Default, Deed of Appointment of Substitute Trustees, Amended Statement of Debt and Affidavit Certifying Ownership of Debt should not be stricken from the record and Plaintiff's case dismissed for:

1. Failure to prove Plaintiff has standing as real party in interest to docket a foreclosure case as Substitute Trustee.

2. Failure of Plaintiffs to enter any admissible evidence to support a foreclosure case being filed.

3. Failure ofMERS as beneficiary 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.

4. Improper/untrue Affidavits sworn to by Christopher M. Zeis, VP ofM&T and VP of MERS, and filed into the instant case. Said Affidavits are void of all credibility.

5. Improper/untrue Affidavits and purported "evidence" sworn to by Thomas P. Dore, and filed into the instant case. Dore admitted to not having any first hand knowledge in a hearing in Baltimore County Circuit Court on August 11,2010, rendering said Affidavit void of all credibility.

Page lof2

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

6. Failure ofM&T Bank to comply with federal law by fully complying with Defendants' Qualified Written RESPA Request received by M&T Bank via certified mail # 7009 0080000 I 6021 2851 on or about June 22, 2009 pertaining to Acct. No. 0011973187 within the 60 business days allotted per federal law .

7. Failure of M&T Bank to fully comply with said QWR prior to docketing the instant case.

8. Improper/untrue Affidavits sworn to by Substitute Trustee Shannon Menapace, and filed into the instant case. Menapace has no personal first hand knowledge of any facts, rendering said Affidavit void of all credibility.

9. Failure of Substitute Trustees, Dore et al, to fulfill their duty, as attorneys and officers of the court, to investigate the purported claim of M&T Bank and to verify Substitute Trustees have not unwittingly brought a fraud upon the court.

Judge

Page 20f2

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, I CERTIFY that on this 1_ day of Q/lWli

a copy of foregoing Defendants' Motion to Show Cause was personally served upo 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

c-(kiW;elberger

Page 60f6

2011