Deed of Trust

What Texas Courts Do Not Want Homeowners Doing; Discovery before Trial

What Texas Courts Do Not Want Homeowners Doing; Discovery before Trial: Admit historically, in your cases, BDF or their related corporate entities, will sell the home where an order and final judgment of foreclosure from the court has been obtained.

LIT COMMENTARY

27 Feb, 2020

Like the color of the robes they don when you are before them in a courtroom, Texas courts have acted as the executioners and undertakers, leading parent(s), children, the sick and elderly along with their families to a dark and depressing future.

For the last 12 years, judges have been protecting the Banks and their lawyers from fraud, forgery and financial crimes.

The black robes are hiding the truth as they prevent citizens from obtaining the access to justice to which they are entitled. By stopping discovery with the usual “motion to dismiss” ruling, they can keep the corruption in the dark and stop homeowners from presenting their case before a jury of their peers.

These judges and lawyers in Texas have been very successful for the last 12 years implementing their scorched earth policies and judgments.

Well, we’re pretty damn sure that LIT’s investigations and audits have uncovered a bullet-proof argument for a second rising of financial crime investigations.

If the civil division is tainted, then homeowners and civilians should turn to the criminal division for justice.

2019 Request for Admissions for Mark Daniel Hopkins, Attorney, ‘BDF Hopkins’

MARK DANIEL HOPKINS

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS INSTRUCTIONS

A. These Responses call for your personal and present knowledge.
B. If you cannot answer a particular RFA in full after exercising due diligence to secure the information to do so, please state so and answer to the extent possible, specifying and explaining your inability to answer the remainder and stating whatever information or knowledge you have concerning the unanswered portion.
C. You are also advised that you are under a duty to reasonably amend your responses if you obtain information on the basis of which:
1. You know the response made was incorrect or incomplete when made; or
2. You know the response, though correct and complete when made, is no longer true and complete, and the circumstances.

DEFINITIONS

  1. “Defendant”, “Attorney-Defendant”, “You”, “Your(s)” refers to Mark Daniel Hopkins, its firms and legal entities, e.g. Hopkins & Williams, L.L.C., Hopkins Law, PLLC, Leighton, Hopkins & Williams, PLLC, and other related corporate entities, its agents, representatives, employees and any other entity or person acting on its behalf.
  2. “BDF”, “The BDF Law Group”, “NDEX”, “National Default Exchange Holdings, LP” refers to Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP, (Texas & Georgia) Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP (California, Nevada, & Arizona) and Barrett Frappier & Weisserman, LLP (Colorado), “National Default Exchange” (NDeX), NDeX Title, and NDeX West and other related corporate entities, its agents, representatives, employees and any other entity or person acting on its
  3. “Plaintiffs”, “Burkes” refers to the named pro se Plaintiffs in the above-captioned
  4. “Hopkins v Burke” refers to the above styled and captioned
  5. “Hopkins v Ocwen” or “Ocwen” or “Ocwen case” refers to civil action Burke v Ocwen, 4:18-cv-04544, S.D. Tex. (2019).
  6. “Deutsche Bank v Burke” or “Deutsche” or refers to civil action Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Burke, 4:11-cv-01658 (S.D. Tex. 2011)
  7. Deutsche I refers to first case, bench trial and appeal; Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Burke, 655 F. App’x 251 (5th Cir. 2016).
  8. Deutsche II refers to remanded case and appeal; Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Burke, 902 F.3d 548, 552 (5th Cir. 2018).
  9. “Communication” or “communications” shall mean and refer to the transmission or exchange of information, either orally or in writing, and includes without limitation any conversation, letter, handwritten notes, memorandum, inter or intraoffice correspondence, electronic mail, text messages, or any other electronic transmission, telephone call, telegraph, telex telecopy, facsimile, cable, conference, tape recording, video recording, digital recording, discussion, or face-to-face communication.
  10. The term “referring” or “relating” shall mean showing, disclosing, averring to, comprising, evidencing, constituting or
  11. The singular and masculine form of any noun or pronoun includes the plural, the feminine, and the
  12. The term “Closing File” or “Mortgage File”;
  1. means the mortgage servicer or mortgage originator loan application and underwriting files, whether kept in paper or electronic format, including but not limited to all documents, file jackets, file notes, claims diary or journal entries, log notes, handwritten notes, records of oral communications, communications, correspondence, photographs, diagrams, estimates, reports, recommendations, invoices, memoranda and drafts of documents regarding the loan(s).
  2. means the entire file, including all documents and information used for underwriting purposes even if you did not rely on such documents or information in order to make a decision regarding funding a home equity loan for Plaintiffs
  3. means the entire file from inception to 2019, including if and when the Burkes’ loan was alleged to have been transferred or sold, a full download backup of the data stored in the system of record would be performed and included as part of the “closing file” or “mortgage file”.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT

 MARK DANIEL HOPKINS

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit your name is Mark Daniel Hopkins and you are licensed to practice law in the State of Texas in state and federal courts, including appellate and supreme courts.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit your wife is Shelley Luan Hopkins nee Douglass and she is licensed to practice law in the State of Texas in state and federal courts, including appellate and supreme courts.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you and your wife currently work together as attorneys at Hopkins Law, PLLC.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Hopkins Law, PLLC, is a default industry, debt collecting, foreclosure and eviction law firm.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:

Admit you and your related corporate entities offer legal and non-legal services related to the default industry, debt collecting, mortgage, foreclosure, eviction, title and trustee services.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6:

Admit you and your related corporate entities enter into contracts with clients which state you will be required to provide legal representation on foreclosures, deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure, bankruptcies, receiverships, evictions and REO matters.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you and your related corporate entities enter into these contracts with clients which state you will be required to expedite foreclosures and related legal services and your performance is timed, measured and closely monitored on your ability to swiftly obtain foreclosure. It is a performance-based agreement.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit your fee agreement with these clients state you must expedite evictions, which may include ‘cash for keys’ incentives.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit via Connie Pfeiffer (during selected 5th Cir. Mediation) you offered the Burkes $10,000 (ten thousand united states dollars) on a “cash for keys” premise to vacate their homestead permanently.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit your fee agreement with large volume clients come with a set menu of fixed pricing or “wholesale pricing” based on the work performed.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Hopkins Law, PLLC, billable income is derived in the majority from banks and non-banks who have retained your firm and attorney(s) therein (including any non-attorney and/or administrative billings) to represent them in Court in civil actions involving foreclosures of real estate and related legal services in Texas.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit these banks and non-banks who have retained your firm and attorney(s) therein to represent them in Court were in the majority past or current clients of BDF.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

 

Admit you execute a legal a contract for services, or similar named agreement, for these banks and non-banks who have retained your firm and attorney(s) therein to represent them in Court.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you obtain payment directly from these banks and non-banks who have retained your firm and attorney(s) therein to represent them in Court.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you may also obtain payment from your escrow account, representing funds added or received from these banks and non-banks who have retained your firm and attorney(s) therein to represent them in Court.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you may also obtain payment in settlement of your invoices and fees, from your escrow account, representing funds added from any sales of residences sold at foreclosure or related income from clients, homeowners or the courts.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you report to BDF and their related corporate entities for all BDF cases you handle on their behalf.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit BDF referred you the Deutsche Bank v. Burke case.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you accepted the referral from BDF for the Deutsche Bank v. Burke case.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

 

Admit BDF and/or their related corporate entities benefit financially from a referral to Hopkins Law, PLLC.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit BDF and/or their related corporate entities benefit financially from a referral to Hopkins Law, PLLC where an order of judgment of foreclosure or similar is obtained on appeal.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit historically, in your cases, BDF or their related corporate entities, will sell the home where an order and final judgment of foreclosure from the court has been obtained.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit historically, in your cases, BDF or their related corporate entities, will receive financial funds from the sale and will earn any fees or costs allowed in law from the sale proceeds.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you have seen, met and spoken with senior citizens John Burke and Joanna Burke in Southern District Federal Court in Houston, Texas, the Deutsche case before hearings and conferences with former Magistrate Judge Stephen Wm Smith.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you list on your website profile (resume) page at hopkinslawtexas.com the case; Bruce v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, 352 S.W.3d 891 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2011) and that part of the Order of the Court related to attorney fees was reversed.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

 

Admit you have seen, met and spoken with senior citizens John Burke and Joanna Burke in Southern District Federal Court in Houston, Texas, the Deutsche case before hearings and conferences with former Magistrate Judge Stephen Wm Smith.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you have seen and met senior citizens John Burke and Joanna Burke in Southern District Federal Court at the scheduling conference before Magistrate Judge Peter Bray in 2019 for the Ocwen and Hopkins case.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit your first notice of appearance in the related case, Deutsche I, was on March 31, 2015 and your firm name (as submitted to the Court) was Hopkins & Williams, P.L.L.C. (Deutsche Dkt. 79).

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit in the past you worked as an attorney with Savrick, Schumann, Johnson, McGarr, Kaminski, & Shirley, L.L.P., Austin, Texas.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Hopkins & Williams, P.L.L.C. was formed January 27, 2009 and ‘Hopkins’ is reference to you and ‘Williams’ is reference to attorney Matthew “Matt” Williams.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Matt Williams, formed Law Firm of M. Matthew Williams, PLLC on June 8, 2015 per Secretary of State records.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you were a Partner in Leighton, Hopkins & Williams from formation in

 

2010 along with Matt Williams, and William “Bill” Leighton per Secretary of State records.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you know Bill Leighton received a public reprimand which is shown on his SBOT profile in 2014, by violating Rules 1.06(b)(2) and 8.04(a)(1) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Article X, Section 9, State Bar Rules.

(Note: SBOT Link: https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Find_A_Lawyer&templ ate=/Customsource/MemberDirectory/MemberDirectoryDetail.cfm&ContactID

=176205)

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you know Bill Leighton’s father, Leonard Leighton, went before the Tax Court in Leonard L. Leighton and Joyce S. Leighton v Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Case No. 1995-515 found Leighton had misappropriated $762,685 and used those funds for personal purposes.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you know Bill Leighton’s father, Leonard Leighton was found guilty of improper conduct in the handling of his clients’ funds; and the State Bar of Texas, in lieu of  outright disbarment, he was placed on probation for a period  of 10 years.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit David Brantley ‘Brantley’ Boyett is registered as a State Bar of Texas attorney.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit David Brantley ‘Brantley’ Boyett has worked with you, including Hopkins & Williams, P.L.L.C. and other law firms you control[led].

 

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit David Brantley ‘Brantley’ Boyett is familiar with the Burkes’ case(s).

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit David Brantley ‘Brantley’ Boyett assisted you and worked on the Burkes’ case(s).

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you discussed with David Brantley ‘Brantley’ Boyett, the Burkes’ case(s).

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Glenn A. Brown is registered as a State Bar of Texas attorney. Glenn A. Brown is described as a trial lawyer in his LinkedIn bio.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Glenn A. Browns’ relationship with you includes working at Hopkins & Williams, P.L.L.C. and other law firms you control[led].

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Glenn A. Brown is familiar with the Burkes’ case(s).

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Glenn A. Brown assisted you and worked on the Burkes’ case(s).

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you discussed with Glenn A. Brown, the Burkes’ case(s).

 

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Emily Yuras is known to you, was or is employed by you.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Emily Yuras is familiar with the Burkes’ case(s).

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Emily Yuras assisted you and worked on the Burkes’ case(s).

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you discussed with Emily Yuras, the Burkes’ case(s).

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you currently engage; lawyers and non-lawyers working for you and your firm(s) either as employees, partners, contractors or of-counsel.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you had past hires; lawyers and non-lawyers working for you and your firm(s) either as employees, partners, contractors or of-counsel.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you have lawyers who may work for you (at times) in a non-legal capacity while performing work tasks and projects.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you know Warren Johnsey is registered as a State Bar of Texas attorney

 

and former attorney of record for BDF.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit your wife, prior to her departure from BDF, worked at the same firm as Warren Johnsey, namely BDF.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you know Jason Andrew Leboeuf is registered as a State Bar of Texas attorney and former attorney of record for BDF.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit your wife, prior to her departure from BDF, worked at the same firm as Jason Andrew Leboeuf, namely BDF.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you know Jennifer P. Sanders is   registered  as   a State Bar of Texas attorney and former attorney of record for BDF. (Deutsche Dkt. 14, 2012)

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit your wife, prior to her departure from BDF, worked at the same firm as Jennifer P. Sanders, namely BDF.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you know Damian W. Abreo is   registered   as   a State Bar of Texas attorney and former attorney of record for BDF. (Deutsche Dkt. 23, 2012)

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit your wife, prior to her departure from BDF, worked at the same firm as

 

Damian W. Abreo, namely BDF.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you know Damian W. Abreo was removed from the Deutsche case due to discriminatory Facebook posts against homeowners in foreclosure cases, as presented by the Burkes prior to a telephonic conference with former Magistrate Judge Stephen Wm Smith.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you know Coury Matthews Jacocks is registered as a State Bar of Texas attorney and former attorney of record for BDF and replaced Abreo (Deutsche Dkt. 47).

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Coury Matthews Jacocks was counsel of record in Deutsche v Burke, attended the bench trial and presented Deutsche Banks’ arguments and you were hired immediately after he lost the trial to appeal the decision.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit your wife, prior to her departure from BDF, worked at the same firm as Coury Matthews Jacocks, namely BDF.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Michael Blair ‘Mike’ Hopkins is your brother and registered as a State Bar of Texas attorney.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Michael Blair ‘Mike’ Hopkins State Bar of Texas profile links to Hopkins Law, PLLC and the website at hopkinslawtexas.com, a firm and website controlled and owned by you.

 

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Mike Hopkins is familiar with the Burkes’ case(s).

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you discussed with Mike Hopkins, the Burkes’ case(s).

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Mike Hopkins did have a profile page on your past website(s) but that it was removed or hidden from visibility to the public and visitors to the website.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Mike Hopkins works out of an office in the Richardson area of Texas, namely 595 N Central Expy, Richardson, TX 75080-3502 and as per his SBOT profile.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Mike Hopkins office in the Richardson area of Texas, is not owned or leased by Hopkins Law, PLLC or related corporate entity you own.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Mike Hopkins has not attended any court appearances nor worked directly on foreclosure cases as attorney of record for your firm[s] in Texas court(s) in the last 5 years.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Mike Hopkins sued his mortgage lender in civil action Michael B. Hopkins and Robin H. Hopkins, v Metlife Home Loans, a division of Metlife Bank, N.A., et al, U.S. District Court, E.D. Texas, Case No. 4:11-cv-00540-RAS (2012)

 

related to homestead at 8604 Amen Corner, Flower Mound, 75002, Denton County, Texas.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Mike Hopkins divorced Robin H. Hopkins, attorney, and remarried Sarah Seay after she was divorced from George Seay.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you know George Seay as a Chairman of his own Financial Brokerage and as an active Republican and political aide to high ranking Texas politicians as listed on his Wikipedia Profile; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Seay

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you know George Seay remarried Gretchen Seay, nee Guandolo.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you know Gretchen Seay, nee Guandolo holds an executive role at Clear Sign Advisors https://clearsightadvisors.com/team/gretchen-frary-seay/and you are familiar with her career history, which states in part;

“During the financial crisis, Gretchen worked with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) in assisting the federal government with divestitures of assets acquired through bank failures across the US. Gretchen led the Federal Transaction team at PwC and created the process through which billions of dollars of assets were sold back into the private sector.”

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Hopkins Law, PLLC, was formed June 6, 2015 and you are the sole partner per Secretary of State filings.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

 

Admit you did not formally and timely notice the court in Deutsche of this change of company from Hopkins & Williams P.L.L.C., to Hopkins Law, PLLC.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit at the commencement of the State civil action by the Burkes; Hopkins Law, PLLC is a Texas professional limited liability company having its principal place of business in Austin, Texas and may be served with process by serving its registered agent, Mark D Hopkins, Registered Agent Address is; 12117 BEE CAVES RD, STE. 260, AUSTIN, TX 78738. (Mark D Hopkins

is a member and director and has his domicile in Austin,  Texas.  The  company’s tax filing status is listed as In Existence and its File Number is 32057539499.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Shelley Luan Hopkins is not recorded as a Partner at Hopkins Law, PLLC, per Secretary of State filings.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Shelley Luan Hopkins lists herself as a Partner at Hopkins Law, PLLC, per her Linkedin profile.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Shelley Luan Hopkins lists herself as a Partner at Hopkins Law, PLLC, per her profile on your website, hopkinslawtexas.com.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit at the commencement of the State civil action by the Burkes; Defendant Mark Daniel Hopkins is an individual having his domicile in Austin, Texas   and may be served at his  business  address,  3809  JUNIPER  TRCE,  STE  101, AUSTIN, TX 78738-5534, or his place of residence, 3 THE HILLS DR, THE HILLS, TX 78738-153754 or wherever he may be found.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit at the commencement of the State civil action by the Burkes; Defendant Shelley Luan Hopkins is an individual having her domicile in Austin, Texas  and may be served at her business address, 3809 JUNIPER TRCE, STE 101, AUSTIN, TX 78738-5534, or her place of residence, 3 THE HILLS DR, THE HILLS, TX 78738-153765 or wherever she may be found.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Shelley Luan Hopkins father, your father-in-law, is Osly “Frank” Deramus, an administrative law judge in the Social Security offices in Dallas.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Shelley Luan Hopkins father, your father-in-law, is Osly “Frank” Deramus, has previously been employed as a lawyer for the FDIC.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you were assigned the Burkes’ case by BDF Law Group for the purposes of appealing the adverse ruling (for Deutsche Bank) after the trial and order of the Court.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you failed to obtain a surety bond for your firm(s) with the State of Texas. See Burkes’ first amended complaint; EXHIBIT # 2018-SOS-SURETYBOND – Proof Hopkins Law, PLLC does not hold a surety bond.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Hopkins Law, PLLC, fails to maintain the proper surety bond insurance required to legally perform debt collection and related services within the State of Texas and in contravention of the law.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit BDF does hold and maintain a surety bond with the State of Texas;

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit by the time you were assigned and appointed to the Burkes’ case, you had married Shelley Luan Douglass, (in May 2013; EXHIBIT # 2018-MDH-MARR- 2013. Screenshot of Marriages and Marriage Certificate) and she was working with you as a lawyer on this case when you submitted your notice of appearance.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit that Shelley Luan Hopkins nee Douglass was an attorney at BDF.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you were the trial counsel in the Givens v Midland case (Givens v. Midland Mortg. Co., 393 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. Civ. App. – Dallas 2012)) in late 2012 and Shelley Luan Hopkins nee Douglass was an attorney at BDF who provided an affidavit in that civil action.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you never advised the court in Givens that you were in a relationship at the time and soon to be married to Shelley Luan Douglass.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you are aware Shelley Luan Douglass never advised the court in Givens that you were in a relationship at the time and she was soon to be married to you.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you never advised Givens that you were in a relationship at the time and soon to be married to Shelley Luan Douglass.

 

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you are aware Shelley Luan Douglass never advised Givens that you were in a relationship at the time and she was soon to be married to you.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you married Shelley Luan Douglass in May 2013.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit when you married Shelley Luan Douglass in May 2013, she was still employed by BDF.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit that Shelley Luan Hopkins nee Douglass resigned from BDF around November 2013 and commenced working for/with your law firm(s) shortly thereafter.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit that your appointment in this case was after the bench trial and evidence was closed and judgment in favor of the Burkes (Deutsche Dkt.77).

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit that your first action in Deutsche I was to request a reversal of the decision and a ruling in favor of Deutsche via a Motion to Alter/Amend the judgment (Deutsche Dkt.84).

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit that you were aware from the record and documents you would review for the purposes of an appeal, no witnesses or affidavits were

 

presented at the bench trial by Deutsche Bank, some 4 years after the civil action commenced.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit that you made the following [Supplemental] statement per Deutsche Dkt. 90, dated 13th July, 2015:-

“Further, and out of an abundance of caution, Deutsche Bank respectfully requests that the court permit that the evidence be reopened in the trial of this cause so that such direct testimony or introduction of the wet ink original note can be provided to the court.”

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit that you asked the Court in PNC MORTGAGE, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, N.A. SUCCESSOR TO NATIONAL CITY BANK, AND NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE, A DIVISION OF NATIONAL CITY BANK OF INDIANA

  1. JOHN HOWARD AND AMY HOWARD, 05-17-01484-CV, Court of Appeals, Fifth District of Dallas, Texas, Opinion and Judgment entered on June 24, 2019, to open up the record; “After trial, PNC discovered a piece of evidence (a proof of mailing of the Notice of Acceleration to Mr. Howard) that had previously been unable to be located. PNC therefore moved for the admission of the additional evidence (CR 818 – 894).”

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit that you said in PNC MORTGAGE, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, N.A. SUCCESSOR TO NATIONAL CITY BANK, AND NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE, A DIVISION OF NATIONAL CITY BANK OF INDIANA V. JOHN HOWARD AND AMY HOWARD, 05-17-01484-CV, Court of Appeals,

Fifth District of Dallas, Texas, Opinion and Judgment entered on June 24, 2019; “The basis of the Howards’ claim for wrongful foreclosure stems from PNC’s accidental use of its pre-merger name within its Notice of Acceleration and the resulting Substitute Trustee’s Deed.”

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you withheld evidence from the Burkes and the court in the form of the ‘closing file’ or ‘mortgage file’ in the Deutsche lawsuit.

 

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you confessed to withholding evidence as disclosed by you in the Transcript Report, Dkt. 126, p.13/14, Jan 2017, Deutsche II.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you have had access to this Indymac mortgage file since your assignment to the case in 2015.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit your wife had access to this Indymac mortgage file while at BDF.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit your wife had or has access to this mortgage file while at Hopkins & Williams, PLLC / Hopkins Law, PLLC.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you were aware of the Burkes case prior to your notice of appearance in 2015.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you discussed the Burkes case prior to your notice of appearance in 2015 with BDF Partners.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you discussed the Burkes case prior to your notice of appearance in 2015 with BDF staff and attorneys that worked with BDF.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you discussed the Burkes case with Shelley Hopkins while she was at BDF.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you discussed the Burkes case with Shelley Hopkins after she left BDF in 2013 but before you were assigned the case in 2015 for the purposes of appeal.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit your wife, Shelley Hopkins submitted forms, motions and documents by signing “s/” on ECF/PACER filings in the Deutsche case prior to her formally noticing the court and adding herself as an attorney of record on June 21, 2016 (Deutsche Dkt. 108). For example, your “notice of appearance” on March 21, 2015 (Deutsche Dkt. 79) in the underlying case was s/ Shelley Hopkins.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you are aware, your wife, Shelley Hopkins, was actively involved in the Burkes Deutsche case during the entire civil action from 2011-2018, in some capacity, either while at BDF, or while married to you and until final judgment was entered in the case in late 2018.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the sum sued for in Deutsche was for $615,000.00.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the final judgment entered in Deutsche was for $615,000.00.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you wrote in response to the Burkes’ QWR the following, using a non-

 

compliant letterhead from your firm; “As of November 9, 2018, the amount required to pay off your loan in full is $1,136,557.32.”.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the Burkes original mortgage application was with Indymac Bank, FSB, based in Irivine, California.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit IndyMac Bank, FSB relies on a “owner holder” status as a servicer.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the Burkes loan with Indymac was a securitized loan.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the Assignment of Deed of Trust which was executed by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. on January 20, 2011 was signed by Brian Burnett, Assistant Secretary.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Brian Burnett was a known serial Robo-signer.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the Assignment of Deed of Trust which was executed by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. on January 20, 2011 was signed by Brian Burnett, Assistant Secretary and was notarized by Sharon Renee McClendon, a notary public of the state of Texas.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Sharon Renee McClendon was a serial notary public signatory for these Robo-signers.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you know the original loan application and preliminary mortgage offer was for the sum of $539,000 based on court documents and testimony provided in Deutsche.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you reviewed the “mortgage file” and could see Indymac Bank, FSB, later presented the Burkes with a new loan offer of $615,000.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you could clearly see Indymac Bank, FSB, an employee or agent responsible for processing the Burkes application, fraudulently forged income onto the mortgage loan application by entering an annual income of $125,000 on the application.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you could clearly see the income on the loan application was fraudulent, as you had personally reviewed the mortgage file and confirmed there was insufficient employment income.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the only logical reason for adding this imaginary income to the loan application would be to qualify the loan for underwriting approval.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit one of the benefits received by Indymac fraudulently approving the loan would include being able to package and sell the loan (securitization) to unwitting investors.

 

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit at the time of the Burkes’ loan, it was known Indymac frequently issued poorly underwritten and fraudulent loans for financial greed and with the intent of reselling and flipping the loans quickly to investors (securitization).

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit if Indymac or its staff or agents added this imaginary income to the Burkes loan application and without the Burkes knowledge or consent, it is deemed as mortgage loan application fraud in law. See United States of America v. Robert Lueben, 838 F.2d 751 (5th Cir. 1988) “As we agree with the district court that the false statements “had the capacity to influence a savings and loan institution’s decision to make a loan and the capacity to influence the exercise of a government function,” we conclude that the false statements were material.”

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you have reviewed a file called a “mortgage file” or “closing file” (hereinafter called the “mortgage file” or “file”) and that file contains Indymac’s complete mortgage and underwriting file for the Burkes’ loan application(s).

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit this mortgage file was the file you referred to in court filings and transcripts as the file which you withheld from the Burkes and the court.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit that the notes and documents in this mortgage file show the Burkes only completed and posted by mail to Indymac, one signed mortgage application, the preliminary $539,000 loan application

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit that there is no signed second application by the Burkes for the $615,000 where an income of $125,000 is present in the mortgage file.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit that there is no postal proof of a signed second application by the Burkes for the $615,000 where an annual income of $125,000 is present in the mortgage file.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Indymac committed “predatory lending” against the Burkes, as defined by the DOJ website; https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/ divisions/civil- division/predatory-lending.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you knew, based on this mortgage file, that the Burkes’ employment and/or retirement income in the mortgage file as declared by the Burkes’ was insufficient and did not amount to $125,000 p.a., as you had seen and reviewed the file before filing the appeal.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you knew, an investigation by the Center for Responsible Lending (“CRL”) had uncovered substantial evidence Indymac Bank engaged in abusive lending during the  mortgage  boom,  routinely  making  loans  without  regard to borrowers’ ability to repay; Center for Responsible Lending (“CRL”) Report; https://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage- lending/researchanalysis/indymac_what_went_ wrong.pdf

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you knew, and also read; “Lenders made loans that they knew borrowers could not afford and that could cause massive losses to investors in mortgage securities.” – See FCIC Report, page xxii

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you knew, and also read the CRL Report (Center for Responsible Lending); –The CRL interviewed an IndyMac underwriter who admitted to this type of fraud; “ . . . I would reject a loan and the insanity would begin. It would

 

go to upper management and the next thing you know it’s going to closing.” – Audrey Streater, former Indymac underwriting team leader.”

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you have consistently claimed in this civil action that you represent Deutsche and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Hopkins Law, PLLC, is required to maintain professional malpractice insurance.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Hopkins Law, PLLC, maintains professional malpractice insurance for the benefit of the “mortgage servicer”.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Hopkins Law, PLLC, does not maintain professional malpractice insurance for the benefit of the “trustee”.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you cannot represent the trustee/bank/investors [Deutsche] and the mortgage servicer [Ocwen] without there being a conflict of interest per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”) you refer to in court filings.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit your contracts with clients specify “Conflicts of Interest” in the agreement, stating in general that you have a responsibility to ensure there is no conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest in your representation.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit BDF filed the Deutsche civil action in 2011 and stated they were filing as

 

counsel for the “mortgage servicers”.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you were hired as counsel to represent the current “mortgage servicers”.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you entered into a “contract for services” and/or “letter of engagement” and/or “retention agreement” and/or “fee agreement” and/or other contractual agreement with Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC or related servicer or corporate entity for the appeal.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you do not have a “contract for services” and/or “letter of engagement” and/or “retention agreement” and/or other contractual agreement with Deutsche Bank National Trust Company or related trustee or corporate entity for the appeal. RESPONSE:

 

158.                    REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you do not have a “contract for services” and/or “letter of engagement” and/or “retention agreement” and/or other contractual agreement with MERS, MERSCORP or related corporate entity for the appeal.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you do have a “fee agreement” and/or other contractual agreement with BDF or related corporate entity for the Burkes civil action(s) where BDF is involved.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you provided Connie Pfeiffer of Beck Redden, counsel for the Burkes in Deutsche II, a copy of parts of the mortgage file and not the complete file.

RESPONSE:

 

Admit you provided a copy of these part mortgage file documents to the Burkes’ counsel – who subsequently, via email by Beck Redden on Friday, January 27, 2017, sent them to the Burkes’ who referenced the same in court filings.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the Burkes response to Connie Pfeiffers’ office email with the said parts of the mortgage file was as follows; “NO TAB – The $615k Missing Mortgage Application. The loan papers for the $615k that they argue we signed are still invisible and not been presented here or in Court.”

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the Burkes response to Connie Pfeiffers’ office email with the said parts of the mortgage file was as follows; “Tab 1 Borrowers Financial Worksheet. The income verification date of contact by the lender to the Woolwich is 5/17/2007, 3 days before the closing date of 21 May, 2007. The fax I sent from Woolwich showing pension details is dated May 10th, 2007.”

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the Burkes response to Connie Pfeiffers’ office email with the said parts of the mortgage file was as follows; Tab 2 – The Universal Loan Application Form. The loan papers signed on 4/12/2007 are for the rejected loan of $539k.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the Burkes response to Connie Pfeiffers’office email with the said parts of the mortgage file was as follows; “Tab 4- Fair Market Value Acknowledgment The paper is signed on 5/21/2007, at closing.”

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the Burkes response to Connie Pfeiffers’ office email with the said parts of the mortgage file was as follows; “Tab 5- Disclosure Page. Signatures 4/12/2007 – for the rejected loan of $539k.”

RESPONSE:

 

Admit there is no $615,000 mortgage application on file, just a ‘doctored’, fraudulent and forged loan application which is clearly altered as it relies upon the signatures of the Burkes’ original loan application for $539,000 (Tab 5).

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you knowingly withheld the complete mortgage file and evidence in order that you could proceed with an appeal.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you knew it was a doctored mortgage loan application.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you knew the income the Burkes provided did not equal $125,000 p.a. as claimed on the loan application.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you knew Indymac had committed mortgage loan application fraud.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you elected to appeal the Deutsche case anyway.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you knew that withholding the file was a breach of your ethical responsibilities and attorney creed.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you knew that withholding the file was a fraudulent act; “Where a lawyer acting for his client participates in fraudulent activities, his action is “foreign to the duties of an attorney.” Poole v. Hous. & T.C. Ry., 58 Tex. 134, 137 (1882).” RESPONSE:

 

176.                    REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit that you as an attorney cannot avoid liability on the ground that you were acting as an agent for your client if you knowingly commit a fraudulent act that injures a third person. Toles v. Toles, 113 S.W.3d 899, 911 (Tex. App. 2003); Likover v. Sunflower Terrace II, Ltd., 696 S.W.2d 468, 472 (Tex. App. 1985).

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you conspired with your wife to appeal the case.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION: Admit you conspired with BDF to appeal the case. RESPONSE:

 

179.                    REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Indymac Bank, FSB ceased to exist on or around July 11th, 2008.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Indymac Bank, FSB was taken over by FDIC as receiver and a new entity created, called Indymac Federal Bank.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Deutsche never showed or proved the Burkes loan being transferred to this new Indymac entity in the Deutsche case before, during or after the 2015 bench trial.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Indymac Federal Bank became One West Bank.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit One West Bank claimed it assumed the mortgage servicing for the Burkes’ loan.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Deutsche never showed or proved the Burkes loan being transferred to this One West Bank in the Deutsche case before, during or after the 2015 bench trial. RESPONSE:

 

185.                    REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you argued in court filings that after One West Bank, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, assumed the mortgage servicing for the Burkes’ loan.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Deutsche never showed or proved the Burkes loan being transferred to this Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, in the Deutsche case before, during or after the 2015 bench trial.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you nor Deutsche nor Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC showed or proved who owned the mortgage servicing rights for the Burkes’ loan, in the Deutsche case before, during or after the 2015 bench trial.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you nor Deutsche nor Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC showed or proved who owned the mortgage servicing rights for the Burkes’ loan, in the Burke v Hopkins case.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, is a non-bank mortgage servicer.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, is not a registered member of MERS.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

 

Admit Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines as outlined in civil actions listed in the Burkes original and amended complaint in Burke v Hopkins.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, is still involved in civil actions with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and where the Burkes submitted an application to intervene (app. den.). See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. OCWEN Financial Corporation, Inc. et al (9:17-cv-80495- KAM).

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you asked the court to take judicial notice of the Burkes intervention application in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. OCWEN Financial Corporation, Inc. et al (9:17-cv-80495-KAM).

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit, in order to ask the court to take judicial notice, you fully read the Burkes CFPB intervention application in the Florida civil action.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you actively follow[ed] and read the Burkes CFPB intervention application and motions in the Florida civil action.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the CFPB stated in its original complaint; “Ocwen has failed borrowers. Since April 2015, Ocwen has received more than 580,000 complaints and written notices of error from more than 300,000 different borrowers.”

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you are familiar with the Johnson-Seck deposition, who was an Indymac employee at the time of the mortgage crisis and who was deposed in Florida in 2009 and which the Burkes referred to in court documents.

 

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you have read fully the Johnson-Seck deposition, who was an Indymac employee at the time of the mortgage crisis and who was deposed in Florida in 2009 and which the Burkes referred to in court documents.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Barrett, Daffin, Frappin, Turner & Engel (“BDF”) commenced foreclosure proceedings on 24 April 29, 2011,  in  S.D.  Houston  District  Court, Case 4:11-cv-01658; styled plaintiff “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company”.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company” is a corporation with its principal place of business in Santa Ana, California, claimed suit in its capacity as Trustee of the Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2007-A8, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-H under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated June 1, 2007 (“Deutsche Bank”).

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Deutsche never provided testimony or evidence at the bench trial in 2015.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Deutsche never provided or presented a copy of the 2007 Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”) of 2007. Citing; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF THE RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST 2007-A8, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-H UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 1, 2007.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you have relied upon the 2007 Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”) in motions and submissions in Deutsche, Ocwen and Hopkins cases. Citing;

 

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF THE RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST 2007-A8, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-H UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 1, 2007.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you have not provided nor presented a copy of the SERVICING AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN INDYMAC VENTURE, LLC AND ONEWEST BANK, FSB, DATED AS OF MARCH 19, 2009, in any court

filings.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you have not referenced nor relied upon the LOAN SALE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION AS RECEIVER FOR INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, FSB AND ONEWEST BANK, FSB DATED AS OF MARCH 19, 2009, in any court

filings.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you have never relied upon nor mentioned either of these 2 documents regarding the FDIC sale of Indymac, which supersedes the 2007 PSA, in any filings in any of the Burkes’ cases nor the Deutsche case.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you stated the Burkes claims are “all baseless” in Burke v Hopkins, 4:18- cv-04543, Dkt. 14, p.2, January 25, 2019; “In this case, Plaintiffs claims, brought against their adversary’s counsel, are all baseless.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you stated the Burkes have acted in “bad faith” in Burke v Hopkins, 4:18- cv-04543, Dkt. 14, p.2, January 25, 2019; “…Plaintiffs…have apparently requested stay of this case in bad faith.”

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you stated the Burkes proceeded in “Bad faith” in Burke v Hopkins, 4:18- cv-04543, April 18, 2019, Dkt. 35 (Hopkins Motion Extract);

Bad faith or dilatory motive. (emphasis added) One factor a court should examine in evaluating whether to grant a motion for leave to amend is whether the request is brought in bad faith or as a dilatory motive on the part of the movant.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you stated the Burkes have acted in “bad faith” in Burke v Hopkins, 4:18- cv-04543, Dkt. 14, p.2, January 25, 2019; “…Plaintiffs…have apparently requested stay of this case in bad faith.”

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you read the Burkes’ responses and citations to your premature Motion to Dismiss, which was filed 6 days after removal from State to Federal Court; See Gray v. 1 Texas Adjusters, LLC (4:17-cv-02353), Doc. 44 – District Court, S.D. Texas – “In view of the substantial waste of resources, public and private, that results from plainly improper motions of these types, the Court asks your cooperation as follows:(a) adhere to this Court’s Rule 4C relating to discovery disputes; (b) do not designate a motion as one to dismiss an action under Rule 12(b)(6) that is in essence a motion for summary judgment; and (c) do not file a summary judgment motion which must be denied after consideration because some essential factual assertion is in dispute.” – Vanessa D. Gilmore, US District Judge.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you stated the Burkes are “re-litigating” in Burke v Hopkins, 4:18-cv- 04543, April 18, 2019, Dkt. 35 (Hopkins Motion Extract);

“…The Burkes’ repeated efforts at “re-litigating” their case against their mortgage company (and anyone tangentially connected to the mortgage company) is vexatious…”

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Texas legislation define a “vexatious” litigant as; (2) after a litigation has been finally determined against the plaintiff, the plaintiff repeatedly

 

relitigates or attempts to relitigate, pro se… https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.11.htm RESPONSE:

 

214.                    REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you stated the Burkes are “vexatious” litigants in Burke v Hopkins, 4:18- cv-04543, April 18, 2019, Dkt. 35 (Hopkins Motion Extract); “…The Burkes’ repeated efforts at “re-litigating” their case against their mortgage company (and anyone tangentially connected to the mortgage company) is vexatious…” RESPONSE:

 

215.                    REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Texas legislation define a “vexatious” litigant as; (2) after a litigation has been finally determined against the plaintiff, the plaintiff repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, pro se… https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.11.htm

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the Burkes’ were not plaintiffs in Deutsche, they were the defendants. RESPONSE:

 

217.                    REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you stated in a motion for extension of time in the Burke v Ocwen appeal (19-20267, filed on July 25, 2019) at the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit you needed more time, in part, because “Counsel for Appellee are unable to meet the current deadline of August 13, 2019 due to the complexity of the issues involved herein, the length of the procedural case history…”

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you met and discussed the Burkes case where Connie Pfeiffer of Beck Redden represented the Burkes at the Conference hearing you also attended before former Magistrate Judge Stephen Wm. Smith.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you already personally knew and had previous communications with Connie Pfeiffer, attorney and Partner at Beck Redden prior to her contacting you

 

as attorney for the Burkes’.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you had telephone conversation(s) with Connie Pfeiffer about the Burkes case(s).

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you told Connie Pfeiffer “the Burkes were hiding income and assets” or words to that effect or meaning during these telephone conversation(s).

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you repeated this statement at the conference hearing in front of former Magistrate Judge Stephen Wm. Smith, as documented and transcribed in Dkt. 126, Deutsche II.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you have submitted an approved “appellees brief template” at the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which is available on their website for download.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you are aware your wife announced the following statement along with a picture of you both on what appears to be the steps of the John Wisdom Court Building in Louisiana on her twitter profile (@shelleyluan) on June 10, 2016.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you are aware your wife announced on her professional Linkedin profile the following statement; “Literally the shortest opinion we’ve ever received. Love it. – and uploaded the said Opinion by 5th Circuit 3-panel comprising of Smith, Wiener and Willett in mortgage foreclosure appeal #18-50738, Graham v US Bank National Association (2019).

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

 

Admit you acted as “Substitute Trustee” as documented in the following civil action; Trevarthen v New Century Mortgage Corp., et al, 03-12-00790-CV, Court of Appeals for the Third District, Austin, Texas opinion.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit your current office address Suite 101, 3809 Juniper Place, Austin, Texas.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit your wifes’ current office address Suite 101, 3809 Juniper Place, Austin, Texas.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit BDF Partner Brian Scott Engels’ current office address Suite 205, 3809 Juniper Place, Austin, Texas.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit “your expert”, BDF Partner Brian Scott Engels’ firm failed to provide any evidence or witnesses in the Deutsche case which they pursued in their corporate entity name from 2011-2015 against the Burkes.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit BDF Partner Brian Scott Engels’ firm lost at the lower court.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit BDF Partner Brian S. Engel and you enjoy a personal friendship outside of work.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit BDF Partner Steve P. Turners’ current office address Suite 205, 3809 Juniper Place, Austin, Texas.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit    BDF    Partner   Steve    P.    Turners’    current   email    address   is stevet@bdfgroup.com.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit BDF Partner Steve P. Turners’ firm failed to provide any evidence or witnesses in the Deutsche case which they pursued in their corporate entity name from 2011-2015 against the Burkes.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Partner Steve P. Turners’ firm lost at the lower court.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit BDF Partner Steve P. Turner and you enjoy a personal friendship outside of work.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit BDF’s Robert D. Forster II’s current office address 4004 Belt Line Rd, Addison, 75001, Texas.

RESPONSE:

 

 

239. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:
Admit BDF’s    Robert    D.    Forster    II’s current email address is

brianen@bdfgroup.com.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit “your expert”, BDF’s Robert D. Forster II’s firm failed to provide any evidence or witnesses in the Deutsche case which they pursued in their corporate entity name from 2011-2015 against the Burkes.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

 

Admit BDF’s Robert D. Forster II’s firm lost at the lower court.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit BDF’s Robert D. Forster II’s and you enjoy a personal friendship outside of work.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit BDF’s current email address @bdfgroup.com is using a domain name registered by National Default Exchange Holdings, LP, 15000 Surveyor Blvd, Addison, 75001,Texas.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit National Default Exchange Holdings, LP, 15000 Surveyor Blvd, Addison, 75001, Texas is also known as “NDEX”, or “NDeX” or “NDEX West”.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit other similar corporate entities exist; NDeX Title” and “NDEX West”.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit The BDF Law Group created NDeX in September 2008 when the firms split their legal and non-legal operations into separate entities.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit The BDF Law Group sold the NDeX assets to the Dolan Company in September 2008.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit American Processing Company, LLC, (“APC”) signed a definitive agreement to purchase National Default Exchange, otherwise known in the default industry as “NDEx”.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit David Trott is/was president of APC and managing attorney at the law firm that bears his name, while Michael Barrett (deceased) was president at NDEx and managing partner at the law firm BDF.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Minneapolis, Minn.-based Dolan Media Co. (DM) holds an 88.6 percent stake in APC, while Dallas-based private equity firm Trinity Hunt Partners owns an unknown stake in NDEx.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit in 2013 the Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel family of law firms reacquired “National Default Exchange” (NDeX), NDeX Title, and NDeX West from “the Dolan Company”.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the Dolan Company sold the assets of what it called NDeX South to Dallas-based Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP; Atlanta-based Barrett Daffin Frappier Levine & Block, LLP; and Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP, in Diamond Bar, California; all corporate entities known as BDF. RESPONSE:

 

253.                    REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit as of 2019, The BDF Law Group is comprised of the following firms: Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP, (Texas & Georgia) Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP (California, Nevada, & Arizona) and Barrett Frappier & Weisserman, LLP (Colorado). The BDF Law Group provides a full range of legal services to creditors on defaulted commercial and residential mortgage loans.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit these NDeX companies have long-term contracts with BDF Law Group to provide non-legal default services to the firms in states including Texas, California, Georgia, and Nevada.

 

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit during the Dolan ownership, James “Jay” Frappier and the partners and lawyers at BDF Law Group continued to provide hands-on management of the NDeX companies.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the transaction, which closed in July 2013, puts the law firms back in ownership and control of the back office business processing company that previously provided services to the BDF Law Group (NDeX), as well as the title firm (NDeX Title) and the western states trustee operation (NDeX West).

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit BDF started out in 1992 as Barrett, Burke, Wilson, Castle & Frappier, L.L.P.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you know, or are aware of, the merger of Dallas Union Services, Ltd (“DUS”) a Texas LP with National Default Exchange Holdings, L.P.(“Holdings”), a Delaware LP in 2006.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you know, or are aware of, in 2008, the registration of Barrett, Daffin, Frappier, Treder & Weiss, LLP.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit in 2008, when BDF was at its peak, in an amendment at the Secretary of State, had 6 directors listed, as reflected by the firm name; Barrett, Burke, Daffin, Frappin Turner & Engel, LLP.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit BDF has been financially sanctioned in the past for reasons including; “An

 

unfortunate result, according to several judges, is a drive to increase revenue by filing more motions. Jeff Bohm, a bankruptcy judge in Texas who oversaw a case between      William               Allen      Parsley,             a   borrower  in   Willis,  Tex.,  and  legal representatives for Countrywide, (BDF) said the flat-fee structure “has fostered a corrosive ‘assembly line’ culture of practicing law.” – New York Times article. RESPONSE:

 

262.                    REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Partner Michael C. Barrett died on January 11, 2009.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit before his death, Michael founded and served as chairman of the nation’s leading mortgage banking law firm, Texas-based Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit before his death, he founded National Default Exchange LP where he serviced as Chairman Emeritus.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit before his death, he was a member of the Executive Advisory Board of Frost Bank Group.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit before his death, he also served as a frequent advisor on mortgage banking issues for the Texas Supreme Court and Texas Legislature.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you obtained legal cases from this named corporate entity during this period; Barrett, Daffin, Frappin, Turner & Engel, LLP.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you know, or are aware, in 2013, BDF registered the “Assumed Name”

 

with the Secretary of State, of “The BDF Law Group”, for Barrett Daffin, Frappin, Turner & Engel, LLP.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you know, or are aware, in 2013, BDF registered the “Assumed Name” with the Secretary of State, of “The BDF Law Group”, for Barrett, Daffin, Frappier, Treder & Weiss, LLP.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you know, or are aware, in November 2013 BDF changed National Default Exchange Holdings, L.P.(“Holdings”), a Delaware LP to National Default Exchange Holdings, LLC, MN (and which was registered in 2006 per filing at SOS as a foreign LLC).

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you know, or are aware, in 2015 James Frappier signed off at the Texas Secretary  of  State, confirming the 4                   remaining directors who were alive and active at Barrett (deceased), Daffin, Frappin, Turner & Engel, LLP. RESPONSE:

 

272.                    REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you read all the Burkes’ pleadings, complaints, motions including any exhibits thoroughly and completely in all civil actions where you are an interested party.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you specifically read the Burkes’ petiton thoroughly and completely in Joanna Burke, et vir, v Deutsche Bank National Trust, Company, US Supreme Court Case No. 18-1370 https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/ public/18-1370.html

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you specifically read the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (“FCIC”)

 

final report on the causes of the financial collapse of 2008; FCIC Archived Report;              https://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_ report_full.pdf

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you specifically read fully including any hyperlinks to documents in the following articles as referenced in Burkes’ motions and filings; related to Stern; https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/david-j-stern-djsp-foreclosure- fannie-freddie/ and https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/foreclosure- lawyer-david-stern-disbarred-florida/

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you specifically read fully the Deposition of Erica A. Johnson-Seck, Indymac Bank employee. See; Burkes’ first amended complaint in this case, and McDonald v. OneWest Bank, FSB (2:10-cv-01952) District Court, W.D. Washington, Doc. 32-1, Exhibit; Deposition of Ericka Johnson-Seck, OneWest Bank, F.S.B. v Drayton 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 [29 Misc 3d 857]; http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_20429.htm and Joanna Burke, et vir, v Deutsche Bank National Trust, Company, US Supreme Court Case No. 18-1370

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you personally know Erica A. Johnson-Seck, Indymac Bank employee.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Erica A. Johnson-Seck, Indymac Bank employee cites Lender Processing Services as “our system of record” in the 2009 deposition. Admit that was the system of record for the Burkes’ loan at Indymac at the time of origination.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you have used the Indymac the system of record in the past.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

 

Admit you can print screens or ‘dump’ images from the system of record.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you can send and receive emails from the system of record.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION: Admit you can enter notes into the system of record. RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION: Admit you can enter notes into the system of record. RESPONSE:

 

284.                    REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Indymac and the attorneys could communicate with each other about a mortgage using the system of record.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you could alter a document using the system of record.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit there is a history showing when a document was altered using the system of record.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit there is a full history of accounting for the loan using the system of record.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit if the customers loan was transferred or sold a full download backup of the data stored in the system of record would be performed.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the full download backup of the data stored in the system of record would include the full history of accounting for the loan.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit upon transfer or sale of a loan this download backup would be sent to the new mortgage servicer or owner of the mortgage loan.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the Pooling and Servicing Agreement [PSA] for the Burkes loan identifies historical and full accounting of the loan is required for a period of no less than ten [10] years from the start of the loan.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the servicer ‘mortgage file’ you reviewed and refer to in court filings and transcripts includes the data from the system of record for Indymac.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the servicer ‘mortgage file’ you reviewed and refer to in court filings and transcripts includes the data from the system of record for Indymac.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the servicer ‘mortgage file’ you reviewed and refer to in court filings and transcripts includes the data from the system of record for One West Bank.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the servicer ‘mortgage file’ you reviewed and refer to in court filings and transcripts includes the data from the system of record for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you have not provided a complete copy of this ‘mortgage file’ including full backups for Indymac, One West Bank and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. RESPONSE:

 

297.                    REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit the ‘mortgage file’ contents Connie Pfeiffer of Beck Redden sent to the Burkes, and which was supplied to Ms. Pfeiffer by you, is incomplete and only showed limited tabs and documents.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Erica A. Johnson-Seck, Indymac Bank employee cites Deutsche Bank as the “one main” custodian. Admit Deutsche is the custodian of the Burkes home equity mortgage with Indymac.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you specifically read fully the following exhibit in the Burkes’ first amended complaint in this case; EXHIBIT # 2018-LATIMES-INDY-54M – “Deutsche Bank settled the IndyMac Bank law suit by FDIC regarding the non- complaint mortgage loans, paying $54 million, but there was never a public press release.”.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you specifically read fully the following footnote 38, with hyperlinks in the Burkes’ first amended complaint in this case; “After the demise of IndyMac, this resulted in a stream of legal complaints filed around the United States complaining of the failed underwriting standards. For example, see the petition in case filed by MBIA, shown on the MBIA website here; https://www.mbia.com/investor/publications/MBIAvIndyMacComplaint.pdfRESPONSE:

 

301.                    REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you specifically read fully the following footnote 45, with exhibit in the Burkes’ first amended complaint in this case; See EXHIBIT # 2018- SUPREME-COURT-FORECLOSURE-TASK-FORCE – Supreme Court Task

Force Committee Members – BDFTE, Michael Barrett & Tommy Bastian

 

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you personally know Stephen C. Porter, formerly of BDF.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you have been retained in cases where Stephen C. Porter, while at BDF, was a named party.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you have defended Porter, in cases where Stephen C. Porter, while at BDF was a named party. For example; See Kramer v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, 540 Fed. Appx. 319 (5th Cir. 2013).

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Stephen C. Porter was identified by journalists and in court filings as a “robo-signer”.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Stephen C. Porter resigned or retired from BDF due to the “robo-signing” scandal.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit Stephen C. Porter resigned or retired due to the sheer volume of civil actions BDF had to defend naming him as a serial “robo-signer” as he had “robo- signed” so many foreclosure documents while at BDF.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you personally know G. Tommy Bastian of BDF.

 

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you have been retained in cases where G. Tommy Bastian of BDF was a named party.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you have defended Bastian, in cases where G. Tommy Bastian of BDF was a named party.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you know G. Tommy Bastian of BDF was on the Supreme Court Task Force Committee.

RESPONSE:

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you have read the full transcript of the Supreme Court Task Force Committee Meeting as detailed in court filings by the Burkes and where G. Tommy Bastian of BDF was present at the said meeting.

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you specifically read fully the following footnote 68 in Joanna Burke, et vir, v Deutsche Bank National Trust, Company, US Supreme Court Case No.

18-1370

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/ public/18-1370.html

; See Supreme Court of Texas Task Force on Judicial Foreclosures Transcript (Appendix 12, App.110-117)

RESPONSE:

 

 

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you specifically read fully including any hyperlinks to documents in the following article as referenced in Burkes’ civil actions, intervention-

 

applications, supreme court petitions and any other related motions and filings, judicially noticed or otherwise; Florida Bar v David James Stern, Supreme Court of Florida (2013) The Florida Bar File Nos. 2010-51,725(17I); 2011- 50,154(17I); 2011 50, 213(17I); 2011-50,216(17I); 2011- 50,511(17I); 2011-

50,695(17I); 2011-50,850(17I); 2011-50,949(17I); 2011-51,192(17I); 2011-

51,322(17I); 2011-51,329(17I); 2011-51,369(17I); 2011-51,433(17I); 2011-

51,497(17I); 2011-51,696(17I); 2011-51,868(17I); 2012-50,144(17I).

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you specifically read fully including any hyperlinks to documents in the following article as referenced in Burkes’ civil actions, intervention- applications, supreme court petitions and any other related motions and filings, judicially noticed or otherwise; related to Indymac, Lender Processing Services; https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-executive-florida-based-lender- processing-services-inc-sentenced-five-years-prison

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you specifically read fully including any hyperlinks to documents in the following article as referenced in Burkes’ civil actions, intervention- applications, supreme court petitions and any other related motions and filings, judicially noticed or otherwise; related to Indymac CEO Perry and FDIC; https://www.fdic.gov/about/freedom/plsa/ca-indymacperry.pdf

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you specifically read fully including any hyperlinks to documents in the following articles as referenced in Burkes’ motions and filings; related to Partner Bill Leighton; https://blog.chron.com/houstonlegal/2014/12/eleven- texas-lawyers-four-judges-disciplined/

RESPONSE:

 

  1. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

Admit you personally know Alex Charfen of Austin, Certified Distressed Property Expert and co-founder Charfen. (https://www.charfen.com/) RESPONSE:

 

319.                    REQUEST FOR ADMISSION:

 

Admit you personally know Cadey Charfen, of Austin, Texas, President and co- founder of Charfen. (https://www.charfen.com/)

RESPONSE:

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO CLARIFY ORDER (DOC. 50)

Plaintiffs Joanna & John Burke (“Plaintiffs”) question the facts and statements of the Honorable Judge Bray at the conference as grossly incorrect and as a result denied the Burkes due process. The Burkes seek clarification;

(i) if this Court is allowed to unilaterally change a status conference into a motion hearing without notice, and;

(ii) if Judge Bray still holds true his opinion that the Burkes have not answered the Motion to Dismiss, and

(iii) the Burkes seek clarification if this hearing is now deemed void due to a breach of the Burkes constitutional rights to a fair and impartial hearing – based on the facts before the Court – which in this case have not even been acknowledged nor read, and;

(iv) that the response due per the Courts Order (Doc. 50) by the Burkes can be set-aside as they have spent the last 8 days trying to obtain and then review the transcript, trying to make sense of the hearing, and now spending time prepare and submit this motion, and finally

(v) if the Court will reimburse the Burkes costs associated with obtaining the transcript and audio for this hearing which was necessary considering

(a) the potential for dismissal of the case without due process

(b) the fact Joanna Burke noticed the court she was hard of hearing and that unlike the prior conference with Judge Bray, he did not put on his microphone. Also, Hopkins intentionally mumbled his answers, knowing Joanna Burke would not be able to hear his replies.

Background

The Burkes attended a ‘status conference’ with the Hon. Magistrate Judge Peter Bray presiding on September 10, 2019. The Burkes, and also opposing counsel, believed this status conference would be a hearing to discuss discovery and reschedule the scheduling order. The Burkes reference the official transcript report

– which the Burkes requested an expedited order for the very next morning (but took several days to arrive) due to (i) the bizarre events that unfolded at this hearing and

  • the short time the Burkes were given during this hearing to reply to a Motion to

Dismiss (See Doc. 50), despite objections by the Burkes due to Joanna Burkes medical needs and the Burkes other legal deadlines1.

The conference, however, was unilaterally and without notice, changed to a ‘motion hearing’

If the Court reviews Doc. 52, starting at p. 29, you will note even Hopkins questions the “scheduling order” and “deadlines”… This is also what the Burkes had spent days before preparing to discuss and were confused by the unilateral change to a motion hearing, which was thrust upon them without notice.

The Burkes are confused and seek clarification from this honorable court.

This motion is to address the quizzical events that took place, in particular the claims that the Burkes had not answered the Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 52, p. 21+) The fact is, the Burkes did answer the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 32). Hopkins knew the Burkes had answered the Motion to Dismiss as they had replied to the Burkes Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 34), yet Mark Hopkins, who attended the hearing in Houston, for the first time, remained silent and did not contest nor seek to correct the judges’ misunderstanding.

1 The court would also deny the Burkes request in court for an extension of time to reply to the courts demands at the hearing and memorialized in Doc. 50., which is due by [and we assume ‘or on’] September 30th, 2019. The Burkes would now summarize their future diary for the court;

  • Joanna Burke is scheduled for a pre-operation eye-surgery meeting on September 17th, 2019.
  • The Burkes have a reply brief to prepare and submit to the Fifth Circuit on September 25th, 2019. Hopkins lied again when he said this case on appeal “was fully briefed”. See p. 18, Doc. 52; “MR. HOPKINS: Judge Hittner signed the Motion to Dismiss in the Ocwen filing. That case is now fully briefed at the Fifth Circuit. And we’re waiting on their opinion.”
  • Joanna Burke is scheduled for the eye operation on September 26th,

The Burkes timely responded to Doc. 28 by way of Doc. 32.

“Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint”

… “Plaintiffs Joanna Burke and John Burke (“Plaintiffs”) files this motion in response to the Defendants Hopkins Law, PLLC, Mark Daniel Hopkins and Shelley Luan Hopkins (collectively, “Hopkins”) Second Motion to Dismiss and would show this Court the following…”,

The Burkes reply was dated April 11th, 2019 and filed on April 12th, 2019 by this court. Then Hopkins replied to the Burkes Doc. 32 by way of Doc. 34 on April 17th, 2019.

The honorable judge’s commentary inferred the Burkes had not replied to Doc. 28 and yet it is apparent from the record, the Burkes did reply. The court did not say that the Burkes response was inadequate and that the court was allowing the Burkes to present any ‘new facts’. The Court claimed the Burkes had not answered Doc. 28. That would be in error, per the official transcript:

“THE COURT: So the first thing I wanted to know is — so I’ve familiarized myself with your complaint. I have familiarized myself with the prior case that was in here in front of Judge Smith ”

And later in the transcript;

“MR. BURKE: You know, it’s just that I’m still a little bit confused that based on one submission by ourselves, this case continues until it stops.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. BURKE: I just feel that after all we’ve put into this and we’ve been driven by Hopkins and Deutsche Bank, supposedly, and nothing of that is being considered. We’ve been denied the opportunity. It’s stopping mid-stream. We’re being thrown off.

THE COURT: Nobody is throwing you off at this point, sir.

Listen, ma’am, hold on. I’m going to explain it to you one more time because I truly want you to walk out of here understanding. I do. That’s why I called you in here. I wasn’t going to just, you know – like I said, I could have just taken his motion, read it, saw that you didn’t respond and concluded under the Local Rules, Local Rule 7.1, if I’m not mistaken, that says if you don’t respond, you don’t oppose it. And I could have just dismissed your case…

But as the Burkes have advised, Docs 32 and 34 have clearly not been read by the Court, prior to the hearing, or these incorrect statements would not have been made. In summary, due process has been denied and the Burkes object that their constitutional rights to a fair hearing, once again, has been tainted by this Court and now respectfully request an expedited response to their questions.

In the words of Justice Gorsuch, who was recently at the investiture in Austin of Justice Brett Busby to the Supreme Court of Texas;

“Civility and Justice in American Courts should be paramount. Lawyers cost too much. Getting to trial takes too long. Juries promised by the Constitution are rarely used.”

Justice Gorsuch concludes;

“We got this thing called a Constitution, right? And it starts with the three words, ‘We the People’ – not ‘We the judges,’ not ‘We in Washington,’ not ‘We nine old folks’ are going to rule the country.”

RESPECTFULLY submitted this 17th day of September, 2019 [2].

2. Today is Constitution Day, it was signed 232 years ago.

U.S. District Court

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 2/24/2020 at 1:49 PM CST and filed on 2/24/2020

Case Name: Burke et al v. Hopkins et al
Case Number: 4:18-cv-04543
Filer:
Document Number: 65

Docket Text:

MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re [28] MOTION to Dismiss

[27] Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc. and denying as moot

[38] MOTION to Strike

[36] MOTION Expert Designations,

[54] MOTION for Clarification,

[61] MOTION to Stay,

[55] MOTION PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM TO INVITE THE VIEWS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL of the United States,

[40] MOTION to Strike,

[56] PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM TO INVITE THE VIEWS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL for the State of Texas

MOTION (Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter Bray)

Parties notified.(jmarchand, 4)

4:18-cv-04543 Notice has been electronically mailed

U.S. District Court

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 2/24/2020 at 1:50 PM CST and filed on 2/24/2020

Case Name: Burke et al v. Hopkins et al
Case Number: 4:18-cv-04543
Filer:
Document Number: No document attached

Docket Text:

CONTINUATION OF [65] MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY –

ORDER denying as moot [38] Motion to Strike;

denying as moot [40] Motion to Strike;

denying as moot [54] Motion for Clarification;

denying as moot [55] Motion;

denying as moot [56] Motion;

denying as moot [61] Motion to Stay.

(Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter Bray)

Parties notified.(jmarchand, 4)

4:18-cv-04543 Notice has been electronically mailed

Cracking down on mortgage scammers

Originally Published: July 30, 2008 | Republished by LIT: Feb 27, 2020

The Justice Department is going after real estate fraud. The 400-plus people charged nationwide racked up $1 billion in losses. Here’s what they are finding.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — While Congress and the Bush administration are focusing on bailing out struggling homeowners and financial companies, another group of federal officials are going after the people who helped propel the country into the mortgage crisis.

The FBI’s Mortgage Fraud Task Force, which works with federal, state and local law enforcement officials across the United States, has ramped up its work. Its targets: mortgage brokers, lenders, appraisers and professionals who defraud homeowners and bankers.

A federal grand jury is looking into three large players in the housing market – Countrywide Financial, IndyMac and New Century Financial – the Los Angeles Times reported last week.

All three succumbed to the mortgage meltdown. The paper said that investigators are also looking into whether Countrywide founder Angelo Mozilo gave mortgage deals to powerful friends and politicians, including members of Congress.

In recent weeks, law enforcement officials have descended on those suspected of fraud. This month alone, mortgage professionals in Maryland, Florida, Washington and elsewhere have been charged with bilking lenders and homeowners out of millions of dollars.

These charges come on the heels of the U.S. Justice Department’s roundup of more than 400 people – accused of inflicting more than $1 billion in losses – who were caught up in the latest nationwide sweep named Operation Malicious Mortgage.

“Mortgage fraud and related securities fraud pose a significant threat to our economy, to the stability of our nation’s housing market and to the peace of mind of millions of American homeowners,” Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip said in June.

Mortgage pros involved in most fraud for profit

Mortgage schemes come in many flavors, but the most common by far are conducted by industry insiders. Some 80% of all fraud losses involve collaboration or collusion by professionals, which is known as “fraud for profit,” according to the FBI.

Often the schemes involve inflated appraisals, falsified documents and fake buyers.

The crooks take as much equity as they can out of a house before they stop making mortgage payments, usually leaving the lender stuck with the property.

In Las Vegas earlier this month, five people pleaded guilty in a scheme that cost banks $17 million. They were involved in recruiting people to pose as homebuyers, falsifying loan applications and then defaulting on mortgages. Six more people are awaiting trial in the case.

In other schemes, professionals steal people’s identities and credit histories to qualify for loans. Sometimes, the sham involves flipping a house from buyer to buyer, inflating its value, before abandoning it.

In some cases, industry insiders claim to help delinquent borrowers save their homes from foreclosure, but actually take the title of the home, strip out the equity and then desert it.

In mid-July, law enforcement officials charged a 36-year-old Maryland man with defrauding homeowners facing foreclosure. In the case, the man conspired with the owners and employees of the Metropolitan Money Store to dupe struggling borrowers, telling them they could keep their homes and repair their credit if they turned over the title of their houses. Instead, the FBI charges, they stripped the homes of their equity and let them fall into foreclosure. Nine defendants face a variety of charges, including mail fraud, wire fraud and money laundering. He is looking at a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and $1 million fine.

The other type of fraud, known as “fraud for housing,” involves a borrower falsifying his income or employment to qualify for the loan.

While acknowledging that the feds can’t turn a blind eye to mortgage fraud, industry observers question how effective their efforts will be at stemming such crimes.

Some say the problem is just too widespread, while others maintain the key to stopping mortgage fraud lies in closer monitoring of the lenders and other professionals.

“The deterrent will come through better regulation and underwriting standards,” said Todd Foster, a former federal prosecutor and FBI agent who is now a defense attorney in Tampa. “I’m not sure these prosecutions will have as great an effect as that.”

Fraud reports soar with home prices

Law enforcement agencies started ramping up their investigations into mortgage fraud earlier this decade after seeing a spike in banks filing reports of suspected criminal activity. In 2004, they formed a mortgage fraud task force with local and state officials and, within 16 months, had charged more than 300 people with crimes ranging from doctoring loan documents to inflating property appraisals.

There are now 42 regional mortgage fraud task forces nationwide charged with rooting out criminal activity in the housing market, with many of them created after the sector starting imploding last year. One of the most recent was a squad in Southern California, a hotspot for mortgage schemes, which was assembled in June.

“We don’t know the depth of the problem,” said Sharon Ormsby, the FBI’s section chief of financial crimes. “We are trying to be diligent and target those subjects who will do their communities the most harm.”

The FBI has 180 agents devoted to the sector. They are juggling more than 1,400 investigations, double the caseload it had three years ago. It is also probing 22 corporations for subprime-related schemes.

Law enforcement officials have been busy in recent months. In the first four months of the year, the FBI obtained 189 indictments and 122 convictions, on top of 321 indictments and 260 convictions last year. The top markets for mortgage fraud include Florida, Georgia, Michigan, California and Illinois.

The housing market’s collapse doesn’t spell the end of mortgage fraud, Ormsby said. Foreclosure scams will likely increase, for instance.

“The market, whether up or down, doesn’t affect fraud,” she said. Nowadays, the criminals “just need to be more creative.”

Clamping down on mortgage fraud is tough, says Patricia McCoy, law professor at the University of Connecticut. Since the players are often small, law enforcement has to go after “many small fish in many different towns” nationwide, she said.

While many blame the regulators for being too lax during the housing boom, McCoy said officials could have ramped up their efforts earlier too. It might have encouraged lenders to increase their oversight.

“If the FBI had been much more serious about mortgage fraud, they might have gotten the lenders to be serious about taking fraud prevention measures”, she said.

Mortgage fraud inquiry nets hundreds

Government official says losses in the fraud cases total about $1 billion.

June 19, 2008

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Hundreds of people across the country have been arrested by law enforcement officials targeting crooked mortgage brokers, real estate agents, and other industry officials, the head of the FBI and a top Justice Department official said Thursday.

FBI Director Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip announced the arrests the same day two former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers, Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin, surrendered to the FBI. The men are expected to face federal charges that they intentionally misled investors in two funds that collapsed last summer under the weight of wrong-way bets on mortgage-backed securities.

More than 400 people have been charged in the mortgage fraud probe, of whom nearly 300 have been arrested, including 60 in a coordinated sweep Wednesday, the Justice Department said.

The losses in the mortgage fraud cases cost consumers more than $1 billion, Mueller said.

“We will, as appropriate, seek prison terms,” Filip said. “It is a very, very serious matter.”

“Operation Malicious Mortgage,” the investigation by the FBI and Justice Department, began March 1, government officials said. It resulted in 144 fraud cases in which 406 defendants were charged.

The FBI is investigating about 1,400 more cases of potential fraud, Mueller said, calling it “a substantial number of investigations, unfortunately.”

The agency has 42 mortgage fraud task forces in operation, employing 180 agents, Mueller said.

Many agencies were credited as contributing to the investigation, including the Internal Revenue Service, the Secret Service, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, immigration and customs agencies, postal inspectors and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Most of the arrests came Wednesday, federal law enforcement officials said, in Miami, Houston, San Antonio, Baltimore, Chicago, and other cities.

Officials indicated the suspects were involved mostly in small-scale schemes.

Confessions of a subprime lender: 3 bad loans

In his new book, author and ex-lender Richard Bitner owns up to some of his worst mistakes, offering an inside look at how his firm issued bad mortgages.

July 15, 2008

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Richard Bitner opened his own mortgage shop in 2000, and had the good fortune to bail out of the business in 2005, before the housing crisis hit.

He saw the shoddy lending practices that got us into this crisis first hand, and has chronicled them in his book, “Confessions of a Subprime Lender.” By the time he quit, said Bitner, “Lending practices had gone from borderline questionable to almost ludicrous.”

He and his two partners ran Dallas-based Kellner Mortgage Investment, a small subprime lender that issued about $250 million in loans annually. The firm worked through independent mortgage brokers, and then sold the loans it closed to investors or to larger lenders, such as Countrywide Financial, which was recently bought by Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500).

Bitner, like so many other subprime lenders, was drawn to the field by the fat profits it promised – these loans paid three to five times more than prime loans. But, says the 41 year-old married father of two, he also took pride in the idea that he was helping people with damaged credit become homeowners.

Still, things eventually got out of control.

The last straw

One of Bitner’s last clients, which he says was turning point for him, was Johnny Cutter and his wife Patti, from South Carolina. The deal illustrated what had become the fundamental problem with subprime lending: Nobody was bothering to determine whether borrowers could actually afford to make their payments. And so the Cutters, like millions of others, became a foreclosure waiting to happen.

“What really got to me,” said Bitner, “is that we [usually] put people in positions to not fail. This loan didn’t fit that.”

The Cutters wanted a loan to buy a newly built, 1,800 square-foot house, but had been turned down for a mortgage twice because of bad credit. After that, they scrimped for three years and saved enough for a 5% down payment.

But, they still had only $2,200 in combined net monthly income, poor credit and employment histories, almost zero savings and no history of even paying rent. Their mortgage payment, property taxes and insurance came to $1,500, leaving them just $700 a month for all other expenses.

Patti fell ill right after the closing and the couple never made a single payment. Since the Cutters defaulted immediately, Kellner Mortgage was contractually obligated to buy the loan back from the investor it was sold to. That was a huge expense for the small lender.

When Bitner reviewed the loan to find out where his company went wrong he was shocked to see that, technically, no mistakes were made.

Neither the borrower nor the mortgage broker did anything dishonest or fraudulent to obtain the loan. The home’s appraised value was correct, and the income stated on the application was accurate.

But the fact was that the Cutters simply didn’t have enough income to handle this mortgage – the loan never would have been approved a few years earlier.

Their debt-to-income ratio was 54%, way higher than the 36% that most mortgage lenders recommend. But Kellner Mortgage made the loan because the firm knew that loose investor guidelines meant that the mortgage could be resold, at a profit of course.

“We were ultimately driven by the investor guidelines,” said Bitner. “If it fit we closed the loan. It was an indication of how far the industry was willing to go.”

In the end, the Cutter deal cost Kellner Mortgage $90,000.

Pump and dump

In another highly regrettable deal, Bitner’s company was simply scammed.

A criminal crew found a house, bought it for $140,000, and then resold it to a straw buyer for way more than it was worth – $220,000. To get a mortgage, the buyer used an appraisal for an entirely different, and much more valuable, property.

“The broker, buyer, appraiser, and realtor all conspired to perpetrate this fraud,” said Bitner. Indeed, just about all the documentation was falsified.

The group collected the $220,000, and, minus their $140,000 outlay, disappeared with $80,000.

Kellner Mortgage wasn’t aware of any problem until the investor that bought the loan set about investigating when it went unpaid. The investor sent Kellner a letter detailing the ruse and demanding that Bitner’s firm make good on the loan.

Said Bitner, “You read through this letter and you see that the income statement was phony and the appraisal was on another house and you say to yourself, ‘Am I a moron?'”

That cost the company about $100,000.

The whole truth

Of course, brokers dying to make deals also played a big role in pushing bad loans. Often they withheld or misrepresented information lenders needed to accurately assess a loan’s risk.

“With so much money involved, people were willing to fudge to make deals work,” Bitner said.

The Robinson’s broker was a perfect example. The couple, who were divorcing, wanted to refinance their home, which had increased in value, and to take out $25,000 of that added home equity as cash. The plan was that Mrs. Robinson would keep the house and Mr. Robinson would get the cash.

Although the Robinson’s told their broker about their split, the broker chose to not inform Kellner Mortgage of that detail, which would have been a deal breaker. Mrs. Robinson could never qualify for the mortgage based on her income alone, and indeed she defaulted soon after the loan went through, costing Bitner’s company $75,000.

While dishonesty was rampant, the mortgage brokerage industry also suffered from plain incompetence. Many of the new brokers flooding the industry just knew the basics.

Bitner said his loan coordinator at Kellner, Annie Nguyen, once told him, “I had a loan officer ask me if we really needed an appraisal before closing. I thought he was joking.”

Clearly, he wasn’t.

The lack of professionalism, the crazy loans, the finagle factor and the open fraud finally drove Bitner from the business. Although he escaped the worst of the mortgage meltdown, the company he founded did not; it folded in early 2007.

You can find it memorialized on the Implode-O-Meter, an online list of mortgage lenders that have shut down since late 2006. Look for number 44.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Most Popular

ADVERTISE on LIT

Laws In Texas is a blog about the Financial Crisis and how the banks and government are colluding against the citizens and homeowners of the State of Texas and relying on a system of #FakeDocs and post-crisis legal precedents, specially created by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to foreclose on homeowners around this great State. We are not lawyers. We do not offer legal advice. We are citizens of the State of Texas who have spent a decade in the court system in Texas and have been party to during this period to the good, the bad and the very ugly.

Copyright © 2020 Laws In Texas. | All Rights Reserved.

To Top