Breitlings' Clarification for Defendant Codilis & Stawiarski

7/23/2019 Breitlings' Clarification for Defendant Codilis & Stawiarski

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breitlings-clarification-for-defendant-codilis-stawiarski 1/106

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate Directly Related Cases Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

SAMUEL G. BREITLING AND §

JO ANN BREITLING, §

§Plaintiffs, §

§

vs. § NO. 3:15-CV-00703

§

LNV CORPORATION, ET AL., §

§

Defendants. §

§

PLAINTIFFS’ CLARIFICATION AS TO CLAIMS AGAINST CODILIS &STAWIARSKI PC

In Response to Defendant Codilis & Stawiarski’s motion for clarification filed March 18, 2015

Plaintiffs state the following:

Defendant Codilis & Stawiarski (“C&S”) is a Lender Processing Services (“LPS”) aka Black

Knight Financial Services affiliated service provider (See Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A – List of LPS

affiliated service providers.) Defendant C&S uses the “LPS Desktop” software application to

create the mortgage related documents it uses for foreclosures. This software application

contains the products of the crimes of Lorraine Brown. (See Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B copy of a

motion for judicial notice of adjudicative fact filed on August 18, 2014 in Plaintiffs’ noticed

related case LNV v. Breitlings, Cause No. DC-14-04053 in the 134th

Dallas District Court,

(which is the crux of the present case). The adjudicative facts to be noticed are from a criminal

indictment and conviction of Lorraine Brown for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud.

LPS is a corporate vehicle identified by the United States as being used in the commission of this

criminal conspiracy to defraud.

Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 53 Filed 07/13/15 Page 1 of 106 PageID 1871




MGC Mortgage Inc. employee Bret Maloney also testified under oath that the “Beal entities” and

their agents use the LPS Desktop software. (See Plaintiffs’ Exhibit C – Deposition of Bret

Maloney taken on July 11, 2014 for Swift Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Case No. 12-35690 in the

United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division; highlighted

areas on pages 17 to 26. Note: for brevity sake this exhibit contains an excerpt of the deposition

which is 152 pages.) Quoting excerpted questions asked by attorney Mr. Bach and answers

provided by witness MGC employee Bret Malone excerpted from pages 17 to 26 of the deposition:

“Q. By LPS, you mean Lender Processing Services, correct?

A. Correct. ...

Q. You have a computer system that was written -- the software was written by LPS, correct?A. Yes.

Q. You obviously get computer services from them. Do you use them for -- to find attorneys

to represent you in various matters?

A. You're talking about LPS Desktop?

Q. Yes.

A. Our subservicer does.

Q. Who is the subservicer?

A. Dovenmuehle. ...

Q. What does LPS Mortgage Platform do on a general basis, what kind of functions does it

serve?

THE WITNESS: It's where all loan information is housed with regards to where payment

applications are made, where the notes are documented on the system. It has, you know, each

of the different areas of functionality, bankruptcy, loss mitigation, foreclosure, the different

templates that would be opened up for those different areas.

Q. So it basically takes care of any function within -- that you would need to service a loan,

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Is there anything it does not take care of?

A. Can you be more specific?

Q. I don't know. I don't know much about mortgage. That's not my job. I am just wondering.It takes care of all the functions basically that you would need, it sounded like, but that was

more just to conclude that?

A. I think everything that is needed for the daily operations to servicing the loan would be in

that system.

Q. So it takes care of accounting, management and reporting, all of those things, correct?

A. Correct.





Q. Now within the plat -- the LPS Mortgage Platform, how does it keep images or copies of

documents that are related to a particular file?

A. Anything that's entered onto the records, such as the notes or the payment history

transactions, that is kept on the system. Any of the letters or any letters, correspondence, all

that would be in a document scan imaging system that's separate from that system.

Q. Can you access it from the LPS Platform? Meaning if you're looking -- Let's just be blunt,as I say. If you're looking at the Swifts' account, okay, if you're looking at the Swifts' account,

if there are letters that were sent to them, can someone pull them up?

A. Yes. You would have access to that document scanning image system, but not from inside

the LPS System.

Q. How would you have to get them?

A. You would have to have access to that platform.

Q. Okay. So maybe I guess we will go back. So copies of documents are kept on a different

platform than the LPS Mortgage Platform?

A. Yes. So if it shows that a letter was transmitted -- The letters would be generated off of the

system if there was anything sent out to the loans. The document would then be scanned and

imaged into a document scanning imaging system, and then it would be housed in thatsystem.

Q. So if someone wanted to get a copy of letters, how would they do it?

A. Would go into the document imaging system, put in the loan number, and then it would

pull up the list of the documents, and you would go there and select the document that you're

requesting.

Q. So it's not a difficult thing. And how long would that take?

A. Seconds, minutes.”

Bret Maloney’s testimony in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit C establishes a relationship between Defendant

C&S and their client Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc. (“DMI”) and its client Defendant LNV

Corporation (“LNV”) which in turn establishes a direct relationship between all these entities

and Lorraine Brown and her criminal conspiracy crimes which are consistent with the criminal

actions these entities both as agents for Defendant LNV via its instruction and by their own

independent volition perpetrated against Plaintiffs in respect to their real property and to their

persons.

January 2014

Plaintiffs’ first contact with C&S was a letter they sent to them as a “debt demand” dated

January 14, 2014. This letter was signed by Melissa McLain at C&S. In this letter Defendant





C&S indentified their client as “Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc.” Plaintiffs had never received any

communications nor had they had any transactions with Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc. (See

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit D – Initial letter to Plaintiffs from Defendant C&S). The letter stated among

other things that:

“PURSUANT TO THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (FDCPA)YOU ARE ADVISED THAT THIS COMMUNICATION IS FROM A DEBT

COLLECTOR AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT

A DEBT. ALL INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THATPURPOSE.”

This evidences the fact that Defendant C&S is a debt collector. The aforementioned letter

further states:

“You are further notified that Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc. is acting as a mortgageservicer for LNV Corporation who is the mortgagee. Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc. as

mortgage servicer is representing the mortgagee whose address is 1 Corporate Drive,

Suite 360, Lake Zurich, Illinois 60047. The mortgage servicer is authorized torepresent the mortgagee by virtue of a servicing agreement with the mortgagee.

Pursuant to the servicing agreement and TEXAS PROPERTY CODE SECTION

51.0025, THE MORTGAGE SERVICER IS AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT THEDEBT AND TO ADMINISTER ANY RESULTING FORECLOSURE OF THE

PROPERTY SECURED BY THE ABOVE REFERENCED LOAN.”

This evidences the fact that DMI is also a debt collector as defined by the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act; and that both Defendant C&S and DMI know they are debt collectors as defined

by the FDCPA; and that their debt collection activities are regulated by the FDCPA.

February 2014

Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling responded to the aforementioned letter from C&S on February 3, 2014.

Plaintiffs’ response was well within the 30-days specified on the letter pursuant the FDCPA.

Plaintiffs specified in their response letter to C&S that their letter was a “Debt Dispute and

Validation” request pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq.)

See Plaintiffs’ Exhibit E, (i.e. Plaintiffs’ response to C&L’s initial letter to them), which states:





“My husband Samuel G Breitling and I vehemently dispute the validity of this alleged

debt in its entirety. We have never received any communication by mail or by phonefrom a company named Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc. Nor have we ever received any

communication by mail or by phone from a company named LNV Corporation in

Lake Zurich, IL.

We have never done business with either of these companies. We have never enteredinto any contract, mortgage or otherwise, with either of these companies. I’ve

enclosed the debt demand letter sent by your law firm. In this letter you reference

‘case number 44-14-0070’ the letter also states: ‘Foreclosure has been instituted or

will be instituted as soon as possible.’

We have never received any notice of default on any loan from either of the above

named companies. Neither of these companies has any legal right to foreclose on our

property and if a foreclosure action has been initiated against us we have never

received a summons of such. Your letter references a case number as if there is anactive legal action against us; when to our knowledge no legal action has been

initiated against us. This is misleading; and in violation of the FDCPA.

We request your client(s) provide validation of their debt claim in the form of

contract documents with our autographs. Your letter states that if we request ‘thename of the original creditor, if different from the current one’ then you will furnish

this information. This language seems to imply that some prior third parties may be

involved in this false debt claim, so we most certainly do request such information ifit exists. We hereby request validation of any and all parties claiming to be or to have

been creditors involved in this alleged debt and any and all documents they have to

substantiate their claims of debt.”

C&S responded with a letter dated February 25, 2014 signed by Mary Speidel, Managing

Attorney at C&S. (See Plaintiffs’ Exhibit F.) Included with this letter was a packet of documents

from court cases Plaintiffs had filed against MGC Mortgage Inc. (“MGC”) for mortgage

servicing fraud and other offenses and it was through discovery in these earlier cases that

Plaintiffs learned that MGC appeared to lack legal standing to collect mortgage payments from

them. Their attorney at the time, Emil Lippe, told them to stop making payments to MGC

because their own attorney did not know who owned Plaintiffs’ mortgage.





In the aforementioned letter dated February 25, 2014 from Defendant C&S attorney Mary

Speidel states:

“We are in receipt of your letter dated February 3, 2014. In response, enclosed please

find copies of the note, security instrument, assignments, notice of default,reinstatement quote, payoff statement and payment history.

The name of the original creditor was Aames Funding Corporation, A California

Corporation, DBA Aames Home Loan, a Corporation whose address was 350 S.

Grand Ave., 42nd

Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071.

The documentation and verification is that of your lender/servicer. This letter is for

purposes of verification of the debt. As the information has been provided to you,

your lender/servicer has instructed us to proceed with the foreclosure process.”

The first document in the packet inclusion sent by attorney Mary Speidel is a “reinstatement”

letter dated February 6, 2014 allegedly sent to Plaintiffs by Defendant C&S. However, Plaintiffs

never received any such letter by mail on or around February 6, 2014 and the first time they saw

this letter was via its inclusion in Mary Speidel’s packet of documents. Mary Speidel included

three copies of this February 6, 2014 letter in her packet of documents sent with her February 25,

2014 letter. (See Plaintiffs’ Exhibit G.)

Attorney Mary Speidel ignores Plaintiffs’ dispute of the debt and only focuses on providing

Plaintiffs with the name of the original creditor; she does this with intent to cloud the real issues

specific to the validity of the debt and to give lip service to the FDCPA when she knew or should

have known that the minimal action she took to give the appearance of compliance with the

FDCPA does not constitute “validation” of the debt.

March 2014

Plaintiffs responded in a letter dated March 11, 2014 to C&S attorney Mary Speidel’s February

25, 2014 letter to them. In this letter Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling made very specific claims as to

why debt collector C&S’s client debt collector DMI and their client LNV did not have a valid





debt claim against the Plaintiffs. (See Plaintiffs’ Exhibit H.) Quoting from Plaintiffs’ March 11,

2014 letter to Defendant C&S:

“We are sending this letter in response to a packet of documents you sent dated

February 25, 2014 in response to our written debt dispute letter dated February 3,2014 as per the FDCPA, (15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq.)

You simply enclosed copies of documents included as part of a civil lawsuit in the

116th Texas District court where we were the Plaintiffs. This lawsuit was specific to a

misappropriation of our payments and a false claim of default which subsequently ledto our discovery that your client’s debt claim against us is false...

None of the documents you sent in this packet are sufficient to verify the alleged debt.

Most specific to your client’s debt claim are alleged assignments of deed filed on

May 27, 2008. One purports to transfer the deed of trust to LNV Corporation fromEllington Mortgage Partners, L.P. and the other purports to transfer the deed of trust

from Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee FKA Bankers Trust

Company of California, NA as Trustee to Ellington.

These assignments contain many flaws that render them unenforceable. One identifies‘DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FKA

BANKERS TRUST COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, N.A. AS TRUSTEE’ as the

‘ASSIGNOR’ and purports to ‘GRANT, COVEY, ASSIGN, AND TRANSFER TO:ELLINGTON MORTGAGE PARTNERS, LP … ALL BENEFICIAL INTEREST

UNDER THAT CERTAIN DEED OF TRUST:’

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee (‘Deutsche’) has no legal

authority or standing under which it could grant, covey, assign, and transfer all beneficial interest under our deed of trust because:

1. As a Trustee it never held any beneficial interest

2. No legal assignment was ever recorded between the original Lender, AamesFunding Corporation or its alleged ‘assignee’ Aames Capital Corporation.

The other assignment identifies Ellington Mortgage Partners, LP (‘Ellington’) as the

‘ASSIGNOR’ and purports to ‘GRANT, COVEY, ASSIGN, AND TRANSFER TO:

LNV Corporation … ALL BENEFICIAL INTEREST UNDER THAT CERTAINDEED OF TRUST’ The alleged assignment to Ellington in not legal or enforceable,

so Ellington has no legal authority or standing under which it could grant, covey,

assign, and transfer all beneficial interest.

Included in your packet of documents is a notice of default dated January 4, 2013 thatScott Hayes, attorney for MGC in Dallas, Texas, told our attorney was generated in

error.

In fact, we never defaulted on our mortgage. A long-standing dispute has existed over

misappropriation of our payments and other grievances that included, but are notlimited to, inaccurate statements, little to no customer service, inability to reach

anyone at MGC to resolve disputes, and problems finding anyone at MGC who

could/would accept payments. These grievances were the cause for our lawsuit





against MGC in February 2010. We were current at the time we filed our lawsuit and

stopped making payments after our attorney discovered that our mortgage wasfraudulent from its inception and that MGC had no legal authority to collect payments

from us.”

If the assignment of mortgage to C&S’s client DMI’s client LNV was so flawed as to render it

unenforceable then serious problems with LNV’s debt claim against Plaintiffs in fact existed and

as a law firm and a debt collector C&S (specifically C&S attorney Mary Speidel) knew or should

have known that they and their client debt collector DMI had an obligation pursuant to the

FDCPA to investigate these claims and to authenticate LNV’s claim of assignment of mortgage

(i.e. the validity of the debt) before proceeding with any further attempts to collect on this debt.

The Plaintiffs are “consumers” as defined by the FDCPA. 15 U.S. Code § 1692g(b) of the

FDCPA states:

“If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period

described in subsection (a) of this section that the debt, or any portion thereof, is

disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor,the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof,

until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the

name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by

the debt collector. Collection activities and communications that do not otherwiseviolate this subchapter may continue during the 30-day period referred to in

subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the

debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the consumer requests the name

and address of the original creditor. Any collection activities and communicationduring the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure

of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the

original creditor.”

Instead of complying with the FDCPA and stopping further collection activities until the debt

collector did a true validation of the debt and obtained a genuine verification of the debt,

Defendant C&S proceeded to move forward with a foreclosure to collect the debt with full

knowledge that the debt was in fact in dispute; such action is in violation the FDCPA.





On March 14, 2014 Defendant C&S sent Plaintiffs a debt demand letter signed by C&S attorney

Jeff Hardaway when they knew that the debt was still in dispute; and the FDCPA requires them

to cease collection activities and to take genuine steps to validate the debt. (See Plaintiffs’

Exhibit I.) Note: Defendant C&S included seven (7) copies of this letter as LNV’s exhibit H

attached to their foreclosure petition.

Neither Defendant C&S nor their attorney Jeff Hardaway nor LNV ever sent Plaintiffs a “20 day

notice” or Demand for Payment (Notice of Default) and Notice of Intent to Accelerate that

allowed them to cure the default pursuant to Texas Property Code § 51.002(d). A “20 day

notice” that is in compliance with Texas Property Code § 51.002(d) must specifically give the

borrower a twenty-day opportunity to cure the default(s) before acceleration of the note; it must

specify each event of default and may not accelerate based on a default not identified in the

original “20 day” notice of default. Defendant C&S wrote Defendant LNV’s pleadings and C&S

attorney Jeff Hardaway represented LNV in court; Defendant C&S colluded and conspired with

Defendant LNV to forge and falsify mortgage related documents and file them with the Dallas

County recorder’s office in a manner consistent with the crimes of Lorraine Brown; C&S

colluded and conspired with LNV and with LNV’s agent DMI to violate Texas Property Code

and Texas Penal Code with intent to deceive the court and to thereby deprive Plaintiffs of their

property without due process or equal protection of the law; and to thereby intentionally deprive

them of the civil rights pursuant to the United States Constitution.

In a letter sent to Plaintiffs dated March 21, 2014 and signed by C&S attorney Jeffrey Hardaway,

(see Plaintiffs’ Exhibit J), Hardaway states:

“Please be advised our client is in receipt of you correspondence dated March 11,

2014. After careful review, they are unable to honor your request for a refund.”





This communication from Defendant C&S evidences the facts that 1.) C&S attorney Hardaway

knew the debt was in dispute; 2.) Defendant C&S’s client, debt collector DMI knew the debt was

in dispute; 3.) DMI’s debt collector client LNV knew the debt was in dispute. All three of these

debt collection entities know or should know the FDCPA requirements for debt validation and

cessation of debt collection activities when a consumer disputes a debt pursuant to the FDCPA.

Knowledge is a primary element necessary to determine intent; and since Defendant C&S knew

that the debt was in dispute and knew or should have known the FDCPA requires them to

validate the debt and stop collection activities until they genuinely do so, then any reasonable

person would conclude that Defendant C&S intentionally violated the FDCPA; and their doing

so has caused Plaintiffs great harm.

April 2014

Plaintiffs wrote another letter from dated April 3, 2014 which they mailed to Defendant LNV, its

agent DMI and Defendant C&S and which Plaintiff JoAnn Breitling also hand delivered to DMI

at 1 Corporate Drive, Suite 360, Lake Zurich, Illinois 60047 on April 10, 2014. (See Plaintiffs’

Exhibit K.)

This aforementioned letter dated April 3, 2014 from Plaintiffs to Defendant C&S still disputes

the debt Defendant C&S claims their client debt collector DMI is attempting to collect in behalf

of their client LNV (which is in truth merely a debt collector for an un-disposed party.)





A letter from C&S attorney Jeffrey Hardaway dated April 9, 2014, (see Plaintiffs’ Exhibit L),

that states it is in reference to “Our” correspondence dated April 3, 2014 simply states:

“Thank you for your correspondence dated April 3, 2014. We are in the process of

reviewing it.”

On April 15, 2014, in spite of this debt being in dispute, Defendant C&S filed a foreclosure

petition in behalf of Defendant LNV against Plaintiffs’ property without ever validating the debt.

(Defendant C&S merely took their client’s word for the validity of the debt which is not the

same as validating the debt.)

The Plaintiffs are “consumers” as defined by the FDCPA. 15 U.S. Code § 1692g(b) of the

FDCPA states:

“A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or

means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the generalapplication of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

(2) The false representation of—

(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or

(B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully

received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt.

(6) The false representation or implication that a sale, referral, or other transferof any interest in a debt shall cause the consumer to—

(A) lose any claim or defense to payment of the debt; or

(B) become subject to any practice prohibited by this subchapter.”

Plaintiffs informed Defendant C&S that the character, amount, and legal status of the debt they

were attempting to collect was misrepresented. Plaintiffs informed Defendant C&S that they

disputed the debt because it was a false claim of debt, yet Defendant C&S persisted in taking

actions prohibited by this aforementioned subchapter of the FDCPA that caused Plaintiffs

(consumers) to lose their claim or defense to payment of the debt; and unconstitutionally

deprived Plaintiffs of their property in direct violation of the FDCPA.





Defendant C&S as a debt collector knowingly and willfully violated the FDCPA. 15 U.S. Code

§ 1692k(a) states:

“Except as otherwise provided by this section, any debt collector who fails to comply

with any provision of this subchapter with respect to any person is liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of—

(1) any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of such failure;

(2)(A) in the case of any action by an individual, such additional damages as the

court may allow...”

15 U.S. Code § 1692k(b) states:

“In determining the amount of liability in any action under subsection (a) of thissection, the court shall consider, among other relevant factors—

(1) in any individual action under subsection (a)(2)(A) of this section, the frequencyand persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such

noncompliance, and the extent to which such noncompliance was intentional; or

(2) in any class action under subsection (a)(2)(B) of this section, the frequency and

persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such

noncompliance, the resources of the debt collector, the number of persons adversely

affected, and the extent to which the debt collector’s noncompliance was intentional.”

In addition to violations of the FDCPA Defendant C&S colluded and conspired with Defendant

LNV and with LNV’s agent DMI to violate Texas Property Code and Texas Penal Code with

intent to deceive the courts through fraud upon the court and through improper influence and

other prohibited means to deprive Plaintiffs of their civil rights in violation of 42 U.S. Code §

1981 et seq. and specifically including but not limited to § 1982; § 1985; and § 19865.

Plaintiffs therefore seek civil relief pursuant to 42 U.S. Code § 1983; and seek prosecution

pursuant to 42 U.S. Code § 1987 by the United States attorneys, marshals, and deputy marshals,

the United States magistrate judges appointed by the district and territorial courts, with power to

arrest, imprison, or bail offenders, and every other officer who is especially empowered by the

President, are authorized and required, at the expense of the United States, to institute





prosecutions against all persons violating any of the provisions of section 1990 of this title or of

sections 5506 to 5516 and 5518 to 5532 of the Revised Statutes, and to cause such persons to be

arrested, and imprisoned or bailed, for trial before the court of the United States or the territorial

court having cognizance of the offense.

Additionally Plaintiffs are victims of the crimes of Lorraine Brown and her LPS affiliated co-

conspirators Defendant C&S which is an LPS affiliated service provider that uses the LPS

Desktop software that contains the products of Brown’s crimes; specifically the false and forged

assignments of deed of trust and allonges and other documents filed with Plaintiffs’ County that

Defendant LNV claims (knowing such claims to be false) give it standing to foreclose on

Plaintiffs’ property. As crime victims Plaintiffs seek relief and restitution pursuant to 18 U.S.

Code § 3663A.

Respectfully Submitted,

_________________________________________JoAnn Breitling




Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A




http://interchange.lendingsvcs.com/providers.html

Codilis & Stawiarski PC

LNV v Breitlings / Breitlings v. LNV

Codilis & Associates, P.C.

Swifts’ 2007 Bankruptcy

Freedman Anselmo Lindberg & Rappe LLC

LNV v Swifts / Swifts’ 2012 Bankruptcy







Shapiro & Kirsch LLP (TN)

LNV v Gebhart

Northwest Trustee Services Inc.

Subramaniam v Beal/MGC/LNV/Dovenmuehle

LNV v. Subramaniam

Fauley v Washington Mutual Bank FA, LNV, others

LNV v Fauley




RCO Legal P.S.

Subramaniam v LNV/ LNV v Fauley

Trott & Trott, P.C.


Bret Maloney claimed in his deposition that IsraelBrown (who was employed by Trott & Trott

through May 2014) created the Swifts’ alleged

loan payment history which does not match the

Swifts’ own bank records.




LPS Desktop

LNV v Swifts / Swifts’ 2012 Bankruptcy –

invoices brought by Bret Maloney have “LPS

Desktop – Invoice Management – Invoice Detail”on the top left of the documents. Also stated in the

document header is “Vendor LSI” which is an LPS

subsidiary.

All the Beal/LNV victims in the Noticed RelatedCases have LPS generated mortgage/foreclosure

related documents.




Bank of America N.A.

FISERVAre involved in most if not all the Noticed Related

Cases




Dovenmuelhe Mortgage Inc.

Involved in all the Noticed Related Cases

Safegaurd Properties Inc.

Swifts’ 2012 Bankruptcy – Bret Maloney brought

alleged loan history documents when he went to

Chicago for the deposition with have thiscompany’s in multiple invoice records supplied by

Dovenmuelhe Mortgage Inc.

LSI and LPS Company

Involved in most if all the Noticed Related Cases

Pro-Teck





Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B




Cause No. DC-14-04053

LNV CORPORATION, §

ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff, §

§v. §

§

§

§ DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

SAMUEL G. BREITLING, §

JO ANN BREITLING, §

GMAC MORTGAGE, INC., §

NORTHWEST MORTGAGE, INC., §

PINNACLE REALTY ADVISORS, INC., §

and PALISADES ACQUISITION V, LLC §

§

Defendants. § 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF INFORMATION AND

CRIMINAL INDICTMENT AND PLEA AGREEMENT OF

LORRAINE BROWN

Now comes defendants Samuel G. and JoAnn S. Breitling representing themselves,

pursuant to Texas Rules of Evidence 201 “Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts” and hereby

requests this Court take Judicial Notice of the documents described herein and in support states

as follows:

1. THE BREITLINGS move this Court to take judicial notice of:

I nformation regarding Lor raine Brown, Uni ted States of America v. Lorraine Brown,

Case No. 3:12-cr-198-J-25 MCR, (M.D. Fl a.) (attached hereto as “Exhibit A.)

Plea Agreement of Lorraine Br own, Uni ted States of America v. Lorraine Brown, Case

No. 3:12-cr-198-J-25 MCR, (M.D. F la.) (attached hereto as “Exhibit B.)

DALLAS

8/18/2014 10:

GARY FITZS

DISTRI




2. Under the Texas Rules of Evidence, judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the

proceeding. Tex. R. Evid. 201(f). A "judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to

reasonable dispute in that it is . . . capable of accurate and ready determination by resort

to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." See Tex. R. Evid. 201(b).

The Court may take judicial notice of records of any court of record of the United States.

A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary

information. A fact of which judicial notice can be taken is "a matter of evidence and

knowledge on the part of courts which requires no formal proof." Harper v. Killion, 162

Tex. 481, 348 S.W.2d 521, 523 (1961) (quoting Burtis v. Butler Bros., 148 Tex. 543, 226

S.W.2d 825, 830 (1950)). A criminal conviction is conclusive proof and operates as an

estoppel on defendants (note: in this case the plaintiffs, LNV, Dovenmuehle Mortgage

Inc. (“DMI”) and their attorney Jeffrey Hardaway with Codilis & Stawiarski as

known LPS service providers and co-conspirators with Brown in the commission of her

crimes) as to the facts supporting the conviction in a subsequent civil action. Local 167 of

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of America v.

United States, 291 U.S. 293, 298-99, 78 L. 1 Ed. 804, 54 S. Ct. 396 (1934); Brown v.

United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 768, 524 F.2d 693, 705 (1975).

3. On November 20, 2012, Lorraine Brown, a former executive of Lender Processing

Services, Inc. (LPS) and DocX LLC, a LPS company, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to

commit mail and wire fraud.

4. In mid-2005, Jacksonville, Florida based Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (FNF)

purchased DocX from Brown and her partners. Through corporate reorganizations within




FNF, DocX later fell under ownership of Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.

(FNIS). In mid-2008, FNIS spun off a number of business lines into a new publicly-

traded entity, Lender Processing Services, Inc (LPS) based in Jacksonville, Florida. At

that time, DocX was re-branded as “LPS Document Solutions, a Division of LPS.”

Following the spin-off, Brown was the President and Senior Managing Director of LPS

Document Solutions. At all times relevant to this Information, Brown was the chief

executive of the DocX / LPS operations.

5. THE BREITINGS move this Court to take Judicial Notice of Brown‟s information and

Plea Agreement because these documents confirm that LPS employees (and employees

of LPS service providers like DMI and Codilis & Stawiarski) engaged in a massive

fraud scheme in the preparation of hundreds of thousands of mortgage-related documents,

including Mortgage Assignments, and Mortgage Allonges. The Breitings contend that the

Mortgage Assignments and Mortgage Allonges prepared and filed by LPS in her case,

bearing the signatures of K.C.Wilson as Attorney in Fact for Elllington Mortgage

Partners, L.P.; Jeanne Stafford Orange County California notary commission # 1729363;

Christopher Corcoran as Vice President of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as

Trustee; Amy Brackett as Assistant Secretary of Aames Funding Corportation DBA

Aames Home Loan; and K. Branson Orange County California notary commission #

1211863 are such fraudulent mortgage assignments.

6. The Breitings further contend that attorneys representing LNV in this case (and MGC

Mortgage Inc. in their earlier litigation as Plaintiff‟s in the 116th

District Court) are

Brown‟s unnamed criminal co-conspirators. They are in fact LPS Service providers.




They use the same computer software system developed by Brown and her co-

conspirators to commit the crimes for which the United States has already convicted

them.

7. By way of background, LPS was hired by residential mortgage services to (among other

things) assist in creating and executing mortgage-related documents filed with recorders‟

offices across the country.

8. At the direction of Brown and other co-conspirators, employees of LPS, including those

who were not authorized to sign documents and temporary workers hired to sign

documents without quality control and without legally required knowledge specific to the

Mortgages for which the documents were prepared, began forging and falsifying

signatures of the mortgage-related documents that they had been hired to prepare and file

with property recorders‟ offices.

9.

After these documents were falsely signed and falsely notarized, Brown and her co-

conspirators authorized LPS employees to file and record with property recorders‟ offices

across the country.

10. Many of LPS‟s temporary employees signed thousands of mortgage assignments each

day, often signing the names of other persons on the Mortgage Assignments that would

then be witnessed and notarized. These employees often signed as officers of banks and

mortgage companies. The employees signed without reading the documents or in any

way ascertaining the truth of the matter presented therein, including the grantor, grantee,

and the date of the purported transfer.




11. Many of the documents, including mortgage assignments and lost note affidavits, were

later relied upon in court proceedings including foreclosure proceedings and federal

bankruptcy actions.

12. Brown admitted that she and others took various steps to conceal their actions from law

enforcement authorities and others. These steps to conceal included testing new

employees to ensure they could mimic [forge] signatures.

13. A criminal conviction is conclusive proof and operates as an estoppel on defendants (or

Plaintiffs as in the case of LNV here) as to the facts supporting the conviction in a

subsequent civil action. Local 167 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters,

Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of America v. United States, 291 U.S. 293, 298-99, 78

L. 1 Ed. 804, 54 S. Ct. 396 (1934); Brown v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 768, 524 F.2d

693, 705 (1975). “Yet they need not all be indicted or named. Indeed, an indictment

charging that the named defendant and „other persons unknown . . . did . . . conspire‟ was

approved in State v. Hightower, 221 S.C. 91, 94, 69, S.E.2d 363, 366 (1952)[.]”

McAninch & Fairey 481. In Hightower, there was “ample evidence that the conspirators,

though unknown, did exist.” McAninch & Fairey 481. Criminal liability is sometimes

referenced as the Pinkerton doctrine, which is based on the seminal United States

Supreme Court case of United States v. Pinkerton, 328 U.S. 640 (1946). Federal judges

frequently describe the doctrine in jury instructions as “the hand of one is the hand of all

to the conspiracy.” Below is an excerpt of a Pinkerton jury instruction that was approved

by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Aramony, 88 F.3d 1369 (4th

Cir. 1996):




“Whenever it appears beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence in the case that a

conspiracy existed and that a defendant was one of the members, then the statements

thereafter knowingly made and the acts thereafter knowingly done by any person

likewise found to be a member may be considered by the jury as evidence in the case

as to the defendant found to have been a member, even though the statements and the

acts may have occurred in the absence of and without the 16 knowledge of the

defendant, provided such statements and acts were knowingly made and done during

the continuance of such conspiracy and in furtherance of some object or purpose of

the 18 conspiracy.

Furthermore, all members of the conspiracy are equally guilty of all crimes

committed pursuant to and in furtherance of the conspiracy. For example, if, in the

process of committing the bank fraud pursuant to the conspiracy one of the co-

conspirators illegally laundered the money proceeds, all of the conspirators would be

criminally liable for the unlawful money laundering as well as the bank fraud and

criminal conspiracy. ” United States v. Zabic, 745 F.2d 464, 474-75 (7th Cir. 1984).

14. The documents attached hereto as Exhibits “A” and “B” may be accessed online from

PACER under United States of America v. Lorraine Brown, Criminal Docket # 3:12-cr-

00198-HLA-MCR-1.

15. Timely written notice of this request is hereby given by email and postal mail service

upon Plaintiff‟s counsel as required by law.




WHEREFORE, pursuant to Texas Rule of Evidence 201 THE BREITLINGS move this

Court to take Judicial Notice of the Information and Plea Agreement of Lorraine Brown

United States of America v. Lorraine Brown, Case No. 3:12-cr-198-J-25 MCR, (M.D.

Fla.) without hearing, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and

proper under the circumstances.

______________________________ ______________________________

JoAnn S Breitling Samuel G. Breitling
























































































Plaintiffs’ Exhibit C




1

I N THE UNI TED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DI STRI CT OF I LLI NOI S

EASTERN DI VI SI ONI N RE: )

) J udge Car ol A. Doyl e

CHRI STOPHER T. SWI FT and)

MARCI A A. SWI FT, ) No. 12- 35690

)

Debt or s. ) Chapt er 13

RULE 30( B) ( 6) DEPOSI TI ON OF

BRET MALONEY J ULY 11, 2014

10: 00 A. M.

Cal l ed as a wi t ness her ei n, pur suant t o t he Feder al

Rul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e of t he Uni t ed St at es Bankrupt cy

Cour t , per t ai ni ng t o t he t aki ng of deposi t i ons, bef or e

WENDY M. STRI CKLER, C. S. R. , Li cense No. 084- 003257,

qual i f i ed and commi ssi oned f or t he St at e of I l l i noi s,

t aken at 900 J or i e Boul evar d, Sui t e 150, Oak Br ook,

I l l i noi s.

COUNSEL PRESENT:

SULAI MAN LAWGROUP, by

MR. PAUL M. BACH and

MS. PENNY BACH

900 J or i e Boul evar d

Sui t e 150

Oak Br ook, I l l i noi s 60523

appear ed on behal f of t he Debt ors;




Br et Mal oney J ul y 11, 2014

630. 653. 1622Count y Cour t Repor t er s, I nc.

2

1 COUNSEL PRESENT: ( Cont d. )

2 FREEDMAN, ANSELMO, LI NDBERG, by

MR. CHRI S I ARI A

3 1771 W. Di ehl Road

Sui t e 120

4 Naper vi l l e, I l l i noi s 60563

5 appear ed on behal f of t he Def endant .

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1415

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24






3

1 I N D E X

2 WI TNESS: PAGE

3 BRET MALONEY4 Exami nat i on by Mr . Bach 4

Exami nat i on by Ms. Bach 108

5 Exami nat i on by Mr . I ar i a 122

6

7

E X H I B I T S

8

Deposi t i on Ex. No. 1 5

9 Deposi t i on Ex. No. 2 38








13 Deposi t i on Ex. No. 10 83Deposi t i on Ex. No. 11 90


15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24






4

1 MS. REPORTER: My name i s Wendy St r i ckl er . I

2 am af f i l i at ed wi t h Count y Cour t Repor t er s, I nc. My

3 addr ess i s 600 S. Count y Far m Road, Wheat on, I l l i noi s,

4 60187. The dat e i s J ul y 11, 2014. The t i me i s 10: 05

5 a. m. , and we ar e at 900 J or i e Boul evar d, Oakbr ook,

6 I l l i noi s. The deponent ' s name i s Br et Mal oney.

7 ( Wi t ness swor n. )

8 MR. BACH: Let t he r ecor d r ef l ect t hat t hi s i s

9 t he Feder al Rul es of Bankrupt cy Pr ocedur e, Rul e 30( b) ( 6)

10 Deposi t i on of Br et Mal oney, whi ch i s t aken pur suant t o

11 Not i ce t hat was pr evi ousl y gi ven and order ed t o occur by

12 t oday by t he Honorabl e J udge Cassl i ng.

13 BRET MALONEY,

14 cal l ed as a wi t ness her ei n, havi ng been f i r st dul y

15 swor n, was exami ned and test i f i ed as f ol l ows:

16 EXAMI NATI ON

17 BY MR. BACH:

18 Q. Si r , coul d you pl ease st at e your name.

19 A. It's Bret Maloney.

20 Q. Can you pl ease spel l i t .

21 A. B-R-E-T, M-A-L-O-N-E-Y.

22 Q. And what i s your busi ness addr ess?

23 A. 7195 Dallas Parkway, Plano, Texas, 75024.

24 Q. And who ar e you empl oyed by?






5

1 A. MGC Mortgage, Inc.

2 Q. Okay. Do you know why you ar e here t oday?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And why i s t hat ?

5 A. For a deposition in regards to the Swift

6 bankruptcy.

7 (WHEREUPON, Deposition Exhibit

8 No. 1 was marked for

9 Identification as of this

10 date.)

11 BY MR. BACH:

12 Q. Okay. Now, bef or e we get - - I am goi ng t o

13 show you what I have mar ked as Mal oney Deposi t i on 1,

14 whi ch i s her e, and I have a copy f or your Counsel , whi ch

15 i s j ust a Not i ce of Deposi t i on.

16 Have you seen t hi s document bef or e?

17 A. I have.

18 Q. And when di d you f i r st see i t ?

19 A. I first saw it a couple of months ago, when I

20 was asked to be the witness to attend the deposition.

21 Q. Pr i or t o seei ng t hi s document and hear i ng

22 about t hi s deposi t i on, had you ever had any cont act wi t h

23 t he Swi f t case bef or e?

24 A. Not that I am aware of, no.






6

1 Q. Have you ever t al ked t o Marci a Shi f t or t o

2 Chr i s Swi f t ?

3 A. Not that I recall.

4 Q. Okay. Now, have you r evi ewed t hat document ?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Now, t hi s document i s pur suant t o - - as you

7 hear d me say j ust a coupl e mi nut es ago, pur suant t o

8 Feder al Rul es of Ci vi l Procedur e 30( B) ( 6) . Do you know

9 what t hat means?

10 A. No.

11 Q. A 30( B) ( 6) deposi t i on al l ows me t o t ake a

12 st at ement f r om a desi gnat ed of f i cer , di r ect or of a

13 par t y, and i t al l ows - - i t has a l i s t of i nqui r i es to

14 whi ch you ar e - - by di scl osi ng you as a wi t ness, you ar e

15 t he most knowl edgeabl e person, or t he person abl e t o

16 answer al l of t hese.

17 Have you r ead t he ent i r e l i st of t opi cs

18 t hat we i nt end t o tal k about t oday?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And ar e you pr epar ed t o t al k about al l t hose

21 t opi cs?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. What di d you r evi ew t oday i n order t o pr epare

24 f or t hi s deposi t i on?






7

1 A. I reviewed the original notes, I have reviewed

2 the mortgage, the assignments of mortgage. I have

3 reviewed the servicing notes, the payment histories, the

4 foreclosure default letter, correspondence, the

5 pleadings, both bankruptcy docs., the bankruptcy plans.

6 I am trying to recall what else I reviewed. I think

7 that's about it.

8 Q. Okay. Wel l , we wi l l get i nt o t he act ual l i st

9 i n a second, and t hat you have seen i t . A l ot of t he

10 pur pose of t hi s deposi t i on, as f ar as I am concer ned, i s

11 t o cl ear up a l ot of quest i ons t hat I have r egar di ng t he

12 f act s, okay? Or i gi nal l y, t her e wer e document s by LNV

13 Corpor at i on. You have t ol d me t hat you are empl oyed by

14 MGC Servi ci ng.

15 Let ' s st ar t wi t h you t el l i ng me about t he

16 r el at i onshi p bet ween t hose t wo ent i t i es.

17 A. Okay. MGC Mortgage, Inc. is the servicer for

18 LNV Corporation.

19 Q. Okay. I s t hat al ways t he case?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. I s t here - - Ar e t hey owned by t he same

22 par t i es?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And who i s t hat ?






8

1 A. Beal Financial Corp.

2 Q. Beal Fi nanci al Cor p. I have al so seen Beal

3 Bank U. S. A. , and t hat i s t hat i s a Feder al bank as f ar

4 as I coul d - - as f ar as I coul d t el l . I s t hat not

5 true?

6 MR. I ARI A: Can you def i ne or - - I t ' s ki nd of

7 ambi guous. Can you def i ne, "Federal bank?" Do you mean

8 l i ke FCC i nsur ed?

9 MR. BACH: That ' s part of what I am sayi ng.

10 But f r om what I am seen, i t ' s cal l ed Beal Bank U. S. A. ,

11 whi ch usual l y means t hat i t ' s a bank. I t ' s not an

12 i mpor t ant poi nt , but what i s t he - - what i s t he

13 r el at i onshi p bet ween Beal Bank as wel l as t he other t wo

14 ent i t i es t hat you have al r eady ment i oned?

15 A. They are all affiliated companies under the

16 same corporate umbrella underneath Beal Financial

17 Corporation.

18 Q. So i f I under st and t hat - - pl ease cor r ect me

19 i f I am wr ong - - t hat t hey ar e r eal l y one - - They ar e

20 di f f er ent ent i t i es. I under st and t hat f r om a l egal

21 per spect i ve. But t her e ar e di f f er ent f unct i ons t hat ar e

22 car r i ed out by each one. I s t hat r eal l y what i t i s?

23 A. No. They are different entities that are made

24 up underneath that corporate umbrella. I don't think






9

1 there is any -- I don't know as far as the functionality

2 goes.

3 Q. Okay. Does MGC onl y ser vi ce f or Beal Bank - -

4 Beal - - I f or got t he ot her ent i t i es t hat you

5 ment i oned - - Beal , t he management - - I t sounds l i ke

6 t hey ar e a par ent company?

7 A. MGC Mortgage, Inc. services for Beal Bank --

8 Q. That ' s what I want t o know.

9 A. -- LLP Mortgage, LNV Corporation and Beal Bank

10 U.S.A.

11 Q. Those ar e t he onl y ones, cor r ect ?

12 A. We do have a relationship where we are

13 servicing and own some loans that are, I believe, Fannie

14 Mae, but it's a very small number.

15 Q. Meani ng t hat t hey ar e owned by Fanni e Mae or

16 t hat t hey ar e - - or t hey ar e Fanni e Mae- t ype l oans,

17 whi ch ar e - - whi ch ar e - -

18 A. They are owned by Fannie Mae, serviced by MGC.

19 Q. Okay. Do you have an i dea of what per cent age

20 of t he busi ness t hat t hat woul d be?

21 A. Less than half a percent. I mean, it's very

22 small.

23 Q. Okay. I s t her e al so a r el at i onshi p bet ween

24 CLMG Cor p. ?






10

1 A. There is.

2 Q. And what i s CLMG Cor p. ?

3 A. CLMG Corp. is the commercial loan servicer

4 underneath that same corporate umbrella. CLMG Corp.

5 also is the custodian of the original loan documents.

6 Q. So t hey keep al l or i gi nal l oan document s f or

7 whom?

8 A. For all of those different entities that I

9 have previously mentioned.

10 Q. And how about Pr oper t y Accept ance

11 Cor por at i on?

12 A. Also another affiliated company underneath

13 that same corporate structure.

14 Q. Okay. Ar e t her e any other - - besi des t he ones

15 we have t al ked about , besi des t hat , any ot her af f i l i at ed

16 compani es?

17 A. LAC, Loan Acceptance Corporation. Those are

18 the only ones that I am aware of that are tied to the

19 residential side.

20 Q. And what does LAC, Loan Accept ance

21 Cor por at i on, do?

22 A. I am not quite sure, because I don't have very

23 much involvement with them, other than I know that they

24 purchase loans on behalf of the other entities.






11

1 Q. I s t her e a r eason why cer t ai n l oans ar e hel d

2 by LNV or Beal Bank?

3 A. That, I am not aware of how that -- How the

4 loans go into which investor.

5 Q. Now, i s t her e a cont r act bet ween al l of t hese

6 di f f er ent ent i t i es on how t hi s i s one?

7 A. Again, I am not aware of that.

8 Q. So you don' t know i f t her e i s a cont r act - - I

9 wi l l j ust gi ve you an exampl e - - bet ween MGC, who you

10 sai d t hat you were empl oyed by, and Beal Bank?

11 A. No. There is a servicing agreement between

12 Beal Bank and MGC.

13 Q. Okay. I s t hi s al so t he same ser vi ci ng

14 agr eement - - t he same servi ci ng agr eement f r om LNV and

15 MGC?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. I t has t he same sor t of t er ms i s what you' r e

18 sayi ng?

19 A. As far as the servicing agreement, yes.

20 Q. And what sor t of t er ms are t hose? I am

21 l ooki ng f or a gener al i dea.

22 MR. I ARI A: Obj ect i on t o vague.

23 THE WI TNESS: I t ' s j ust t al ks about t he

24 ser vi ci ng of t he l oans and t he rel at i onshi p of MGC bei ng






12

1 t he ser vi cer f or t hose di f f er ent ent i t i es.

2 BY MR. BACH:

3 Q. Okay. Does i t i ncl ude t hat MGC accept s f unds

4 on behal f of t he other compani es and t hen wr i t es t hem a

5 check f or t he l oan payment ?

6 A. I would have to look at the agreement to see

7 specifically if that's mentioned in there.

8 Q. I am j ust t r yi ng t o under st and. Li ke i f MGC

9 get s a l oan payment f r om somebody, t he Swi f t s, or

10 anybody el se, and i t ' s $2, 000, okay, because I know a

11 l ot of servi ci ng agr eement s you don' t have t o pay t o the

12 i nvest ors and peopl e actual l y own t he l oan because

13 t hat ' s who woul d get t he money.

14 A. Right.

15 Q. I woul d guess t her e i s some sor t of an

16 agr eement t hat says t hat at t hat poi nt MGC woul d then

17 wr i t e t he check t o t he owner of t he l oan, whi ch coul d be

18 i n t hi s case, Beal Bank U. S. A. or LMV or one of t he

19 ot her compani es you ment i oned. Does t hat sound about

20 r i ght ?

21 A. It sounds about right.

22 Q. Okay. Now, besi des t he compani es we

23 ment i oned, you sai d, "on t he r esi dent i al si de. " What

24 di d you mean by t hat ?






13

1 A. I work on the residential side of MGC

2 Mortgage. There is a commercial division under the

3 CLMG. There may be different entities over there. I

4 don't know all the different entities that they have or

5 investors that are set up under the CLMG side.

6 Q. Now, do most of t hem have an address f or 7195

7 Dal l as Parkway?

8 A. The LMV does, MGC does. I believe Beal and

9 LPP is 6000 Legacy Drive. It's actually the same

10 building, just two different streets that merge. Some

11 are listed under 6000 Legacy Drive, the others are

12 listed under 7195 Dallas Parkway.

13 Q. What ' s t he di f f er ence bet ween one or t he

14 ot her , i f you know?

15 A. I don't.

16 Q. At 7195 Dal l as Par kway, t her e i s act ual l y a

17 bui l di ng?

18 A. At the corner of 7195 Dallas Parkway and 6000

19 Legacy Drive, there is a building, yes.

20 Q. Now, bef or e we get i nt o a l ot of ot her t opi cs,

21 why don' t you gi ve me an i dea about about your

22 educat i onal hi st or y.

23 A. Okay. I have a Bachelor of Business

24 Administration, graduated in 1993 from Steven F. Austin






14

1 State University. That's located in Nagodoches, Texas.

2 Q. And you have had no educat i on beyond

3 Bachel or ' s degr ee, cor r ect ?

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. And how about your empl oyment hi st or y?

6 A. How far do you want to go?

7 Q. Why don' t you gi ve me an i dea, when di d you

8 st ar t wi t h t he Beal Gr oup of compani es. I wi l l j ust

9 cal l i t t hat way.

10 A. December of 2000, I started, and I did leave

11 for one year, and that was from June 2007 through August

12 2008. I worked for Saxon Mortgage in Fort Worth, and

13 then I came back.

14 Q. Why was t hat ?

15 A. Because I --

16 MR. I ARI A: Obj ect i on, r el evance.

17 MR. BACH: He ment i oned i t .

18 A. I enjoyed working for the Beal Corporation.

19 Q. That ' s al l I expect ed you t o r eal l y say. I t

20 was mor e j ust a cur i osi t y. You sai d you l ef t , so i t ' s a

21 l i t t l e unusual t o l eave one f i r m and t hen come back to

22 anot her . That ' s t he poi nt I was t r yi ng t o make.

23 Bef ore 2000, when you st ar t ed worki ng f or

24 t he Beal Gr oup of compani es, di d you work f or anot her






15

1 banki ng i nst i t ut i on or do ot her t ypes of j obs bef or e

2 that?

3 A. No, other types of jobs before that.

4 Q. So t he f i r st t i me you had any access, any

5 exper i ence wi t h banki ng, was about 2000, corr ect ?

6 A. December 2000.

7 Q. And why don' t you gi ve me an i dea of t he t ype

8 of posi t i ons t hat you have hel d. I assume you have

9 al ways worked f or MGC, cor r ect ?

10 A. MGC, since August 2008 until present.

11 Q. Okay. So who di d you t echni cal l y work wi t h

12 bef ore August 2008?

13 A. Saxon Mortgage from June 2007 to August 2008.

14 It was Beal Service Corporation from December of 2000

15 through June of 2007.

16 Q. Was t hat j ust a change i n name or was t hat a

17 separate company t hat no l onger exi st s?

18 A. There was a change in the name. Beal Service

19 Corporation still does exist, but the residential side

20 change to MGC Mortgage in early 2008.

21 Q. So i t was more of a spl i t bet ween t he

22 r esi dent i al and t he commer ci al , cor r ect ?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Now, get t i ng back t o t he deposi t i on, I






16

1 i ni t i al l y asked you when you f i r st had - - you sai d a

2 coupl e mont hs ago, okay. We had agreed upon you had

3 some pr obl ems wi t h your f ami l y I under st ood, corr ect ?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Wi t h your f at her - i n- l aw i s what I under st ood,

6 correct?

7 A. Yes. He went in the hospital for three weeks

8 and then eventually passed.

9 Q. I ' m sor r y t o hear about i t . That ' s why we

10 kept cont i nui ng i t , because f ami l y i s much mor e

11 i mpor t ant t han anyt hi ng i n l aw or a cour t case, and I

12 get t hat , and you have my condol ences f or t hat .

13 A. And I appreciate that. Thank you.

14 Q. Then we set i t f or J une 5t h, and t hen we had

15 some l egal i ssues t hat came up. Di d you have a pl ane

16 t i cket t o come her e on J une 5t h?

17 A. I did.

18 Q. Okay. So you wer e goi ng t o arr i ve on J une 4t h

19 of t hat day?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. But you di d have t r avel ar r angement s f or t hat

22 day, cor r ect ?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Okay. Now, we spent some t i me t al ki ng about






17

1 t he Beal Gr oup of compani es i n t er ms of t he servi ci ng

2 and al l t hose sor t of t hi ngs. Do t hey have t he same

3 comput er syst em t hat t hey share?

4 A. On the residential side, yes. Commercial side

5 uses a totally different system.

6 Q. I am obvi ousl y more i nt er est ed i n t he consumer

7 r esi dent i al s i de.

8 A. Right.

9 Q. For obvi ous r easons. So why why don' t we j ust

10 conf i ne our sel ves t o t hat f or r i ght now.

11 A. Okay.

12 Q. But i t ' s t he same comput er - - f r om what I

13 underst and, i t ' s t he same comput er syst em, whether t he

14 l oan i s t echni cal l y owned by Beal Bank U. S. A. or i t ' s

15 owned by LMV, cor r ect ?

16 A. That is correct.

17 Q. Now, i n t erms of comput er syst ems, what

18 sof t ware i s bei ng used, LPS Mort gage Pl at f orm? Di d you

19 use LPS f or any f unct i ons?

20 MR. I ARI A: Obj ect i on, vague. I don' t

21 under st and t he quest i on.

22 BY MR. BACH:

23 Q. By LPS, you mean Lender Pr ocessi ng Servi ces,

24 correct?






18

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. Besi des f or t he comput er pl at f orm, do you use

3 t hem f or - - Do you use t hem f or anyt hi ng el se?

4 MR. I ARI A: Obj ect i on. Ambi guous. I don' t

5 know wher e you' r e goi ng wi t h t hi s, by f unct i ons or

6 anyt hi ng el se. I f you can j ust cl ar i f y.

7 BY MR. BACH:

8 Q. You have a comput er syst em t hat was wr i t t en - -

9 t he sof t war e was wr i t t en by LPS, cor r ect ?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. You obvi ousl y get comput er servi ces f r om

12 t hem. Do you use t hem f or - - t o f i nd at t or neys t o

13 r epr esent you i n var i ous mat t er s?

14 A. You're talking about LPS Desktop?

15 Q. Yes.

16 A. Our subservicer does.

17 Q. Who i s t he subservi cer ?

18 A. Dovenmuehle.

19 Q. What ' s Dovenmuehl e' s - - I know t hey are - -

20 dobi n Mul e i s i n not t oo f ar f r om her e, i n Lake Zur i ch.

21 A. That's correct.

22 Q. What i s t hei r f uncti on i n al l of t hi s? I got

23 some names we ment i oned a l i t t l e bi t ear l i er .

24 A. They are the subservicers for our Legacy






19

1 portfolio. They handle all the day-to-day operations.

2 Q. When you mean Legacy por t f ol i o, what do you

3 mean?

4 A. The loans that are owned by each of those

5 different entities, that there is no other -- Let me

6 clarify this. I have two portfolios. One is a Legacy

7 portfolio wholly owned between all those different

8 investors, then another portfolio that's under an

9 agreement with the FDIC with a loss-share agreement,

10 segregated with the different subservicers.

11 Q. Al so a di f f er ent subser vi cer ?

12 A. Cenlar.

13 Q. Cenl ar handl es t he one t hat has al so shar ed

14 agr eement s i s what you' r e sayi ng?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. That ' s a di f f er ent - - ever y ot her l oan i s a

17 Legacy l oan besi des t hat , cor r ect ?

18 A. That is correct.

19 Q. Whi ch meant - - j ust so I make sur e we' r e on

20 t he same page - - I under st and i t was a l oss- shar e

21 agr eement . That usual l y means t hat t he FDI C had t aken

22 over another bank. You bought asset s f r om t he FDI C,

23 correct?

24 A. Correct.






20

1 Q. And t hen t he FDI C and who t hen who ent ers i nto

2 an agr eement ? Woul d i t be one of t hese compani es that

3 we have t al ked about or wer e t her e speci al i zed - - I s

4 t her e a cer t ai n - - I t ' s onl y Cenl ar you ment i oned?

5 MR. I ARI A: Obj ect i on, r el evance t o t hi s

6 case.

7 MR. BACH: I am j ust t r yi ng t o under st and t he

8 whol e t hi ng.

9 A. The owners of the loss-share ones are under

10 Beal Bank and LPS Mortgage, and those are all being

11 serviced by Cenlar.

12 Q. So Legacy coul d have any of t he ones we

13 di scussed al r eady, cor r ect , or Legacy i s par t of t he

14 Legacy por t f ol i o?

15 A. Everything else outside of the FDIC loss

16 year.

17 A. C-E-N-L-A-R. Cenlar.

18 Q. Who owns t he LPS Mor t gage Pl at f orm? I s t he

19 pr ogr am act ual l y sol d t o you or i s i t on a l ease

20 agr eement ?

21 MR. I ARI A: Obj ect i on, r el evance.

22 THE WI TNESS: I don' t know.

23 BY MR. BACH: That ' s f i ne.

24 Q. What does LPS Mor t gage Pl at f orm do on a






21

1 gener al basi s, what ki nd of f unct i ons does i t ser ve?

2 MR. I ARI A: Obj ect i on, vague and r el evancy.

3 THE WI TNESS: I t ' s wher e al l l oan i nf or mat i on

4 i s housed wi t h r egards t o wher e payment appl i cat i ons ar e

5 made, wher e t he not es ar e document ed on t he syst em. I t

6 has, you know, each of t he di f f er ent ar eas of

7 f uncti onal i t y, bankr upt cy, l oss mi t i gat i on, f or ecl osur e,

8 t he di f f er ent t empl ates t hat woul d be opened up f or

9 t hose di f f er ent ar eas.

10 Q. So i t basi cal l y t akes car e of any f unct i on

11 wi t hi n - - t hat you woul d need t o servi ce a l oan,

12 correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. I s t her e anythi ng i t does not t ake car e of ?

15 A. Can you be more specific?

16 Q. I don' t know. I don' t know much about

17 mor t gage. That ' s not my j ob. I am j ust wonder i ng. I t

18 t akes car e of al l t he f unct i ons basi cal l y t hat you woul d

19 need, i t sounded l i ke, but t hat was mor e j ust t o

20 concl ude t hat ?

21 A. I think everything that is needed for the

22 daily operations to servicing the loan would be in that

23 system.

24 Q. So i t t akes care of account i ng, management and






22

1 r epor t i ng, al l of t hose t hi ngs, cor r ect?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. Now wi t hi n t he pl at - - t he LPS Mort gage

4 Pl at f orm, how does i t keep i mages or copi es of document s

5 t hat ar e r el at ed t o a par t i cul ar f i l e?

6 A. Anything that's entered onto the records, such

7 as the notes or the payment history transactions, that

8 is kept on the system. Any of the letters or any

9 letters, correspondence, all that would be in a document

10 scan imaging system that's separate from that system.

11 Q. Can you access i t f r om t he LPS Pl at f or m?

12 MR. I ARI A: Obj ect i on. Can you

13 speci f y, "accessed?"

14 BY MR. BACH:

15 Q. Meani ng i f you' r e l ooki ng - - Let ' s j ust be

16 bl unt , as I say. I f you' r e l ooki ng at t he Swi f t s'

17 account , okay, i f you' r e l ooki ng at t he Swi f t s' account ,

18 i f t her e ar e l et t er s t hat wer e sent t o t hem, can someone

19 pul l t hem up?

20 A. Yes. You would have access to that document

21 scanning image system, but not from inside the LPS

22 System.

23 Q. How woul d you have t o get t hem?

24 A. You would have to have access to that






23

1 platform.

2 Q. Okay. So maybe I guess we wi l l go back. So

3 copi es of document s are kept on a di f f er ent pl at f or m

4 t han t he LPS Mor t gage Pl at f orm?

5 A. Yes. So if it shows that a letter was

6 transmitted -- The letters would be generated off of the

7 system if there was anything sent out to the loans. The

8 document would then be scanned and imaged into a

9 document scanning imaging system, and then it would be

10 housed in that system.

11 Q. So i f someone want ed t o get a copy of l et t er s,

12 how woul d t hey do i t ?

13 A. Would go into the document imaging system, put

14 in the loan number, and then it would pull up the list

15 of the documents, and you would go there and select the

16 document that you're requesting.

17 Q. So i t ' s not a di f f i cul t t hi ng. And how l ong

18 woul d t hat t ake?

19 A. Seconds, minutes.

20 Q. Now, i s t he same t hi ng t r ue i s i f as par t of

21 t he escrow - - I am j ust t r yi ng t o under st and your

22 syst em - - as par t of t he escr ow you make - - you pay some

23 t axes, you pay some r eal est at e t axes, r i ght ?

24 A. Mm-hmm.






24

1 Q. Ther e i s obvi ousl y - - at l east i f I am goi ng

2 t o pay somethi ng, I want t o keep an i nvoi ce and I want

3 t o have a copy of t he check whi ch shows t hat i t was sent

4 out . I s t hat done as wel l i n t he same way?

5 A. It would be imaged, yes.

6 Q. Okay. I s t hat par t of t he LPS Pl at f or m or

7 par t of t he ot her pl at f or m t hat we wer e di scussi ng?

8 A. It would be -- the actual transaction would

9 take place in the transaction. In the payment history

10 notes, it would show if a payment was disbursed.

11 Q. Ri ght .

12 A. The checks and/or statements or invoices, as

13 you will, would have been scanned and imaged into the

14 document imaging system.

15 Q. So you woul d have kept t he i nvoi ce, corr ect ,

16 or a copy of t he bi l l t hat you wer e payi ng?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And i t woul d be ver y easi l y accessi bl e,

19 correct?

20 A. It should be, yes.

21 Q. And t he same woul d be t r ue i f , f or i nst ance,

22 t her e was - - l et ' s say many t i mes mor t gage servi cer s

23 choose t o do pr oper t y i nspect i ons of pr oper t i es t hat ar e

24 i n f or ecl osur e, cor r ect?






25

1 A. Say that one more time.

2 Q. Pr oper t y i nspect i ons.

3 A. Okay.

4 Q. Okay. I see t hem qui t e of t en on pr oof of

5 cl ai ms, t hat ' s why I know t hat t hey happen.

6 A. Sure.

7 Q. So you have a pr oper t y i nspect i on t hat t akes

8 pl ace, and obvi ousl y t he per son t hat goes out t o t he

9 pr oper t y want s t o make sur e that t hey get pai d f or t hei r

10 work. They send you an i nvoi ce and you send t hem a

11 check. I s t he same i nf or mat i on cat al oged f or t hat t ype

12 of t r ansact i on?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And i t ' s easi l y accessi bl e, as you sai d, al l

15 someone has t o do i s j ust pr i nt i t out ?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Ar e t her e addi t i onal - - St r i ke t hat . How does

18 t he sof t war e system t r ack del i nquenci es? Does i t t el l

19 you when someone hasn' t pai d af t er t he 15- day gr ace

20 per i od? Do you get a r eport ?

21 A. Yeah. I mean, you would have a report that

22 would, of course, pull it to see which loans are

23 actually delinquent at that point. But, yes, it would

24 be report-generated.






26

1 Q. Does t he sof t ware aut omat i cal l y charge a f ee

2 f or l i ke a l at e - - f or l i ke a l at e payment af t er 15

3 days, or does i t r equi r e a human t o act ual l y assess i t ?

4 A. The late fees are set up in the computer

5 system. It's programmed in there. I am not an IT tech

6 guy, so --

7 Q. That ' s f i ne.

8 A. I couldn't explain that, but it's set up based

9 on the terms of the note. So if the note says on Day 16

10 that we need to assess a late fee of five percent of

11 whatever it says in the note, then it would assess that

12 to that loan at that point in time.

13 Q. So we' r e goi ng t o come back t o a l i t t l e more

14 di scussi on because we' r e goi ng t o pul l out t he pay

15 hi stor y and go t hr ough i t l i ne by l i ne i n a l i t t l e bi t ,

16 but l et ' s move on t o some of t he ot her basi c t hi ngs t hat

17 I have.

18 MR. I ARI A: Paul , j ust as a - - Sor r y t o cut

19 you of f her e. We do have some addi t i onal document s

20 r egardi ng pay hi st ory and some other chart s t hat you

21 wer en' t i n possessi on of . I don' t know i f you want t o

22 go of f t he recor d f or a second and t ake a l ook, and

23 maybe t he ver si on we have here i s t he number s ar e done

24 i n a way t hat ' s pr obabl y easi er t o f ol l ow f or t he




Plaintiffs’ Exhibit D










Plaintiffs’ Exhibit E




JoAnn & Samuel G. Breitling

1704 Cornwall Lane

Sachse, TX 75048

February 3, 2014

Melissa McLain

Codilis & Stawiarski

650 N Sam Houston Parkway East, Suite 450Houston, TX 77060

Re: Debt Dispute and Validation Demand

Dear Ms. McLain,

I am sending this letter as per the FDCPA, (15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq.) in response to a written

debt collection notice dated January 14, 2014 I received by regular mail at my home address from

your law firm.

My husband Samuel G Breitling and I vehemently dispute the validity of this alleged debt in its

entirety. We have never received any communication by mail or by phone from a company namedDovenmuehle Mortgage Inc. Nor have we ever received any communication by mail or by phone from

a company named LNV Corporation in Lake Zurich, IL.

We have never done business with either of these companies. We have never entered into any

contract, mortgage or otherwise, with either of these companies. I’ve enclosed the debt demand letter

sent by your law firm. In this letter you reference “case number 44-14-0070” the letter also states:

“Foreclosure has been instituted or will be instituted as soon as possible.”

We have never received any notice of default on any loan from either of the above named

companies. Neither of these companies has any legal right to foreclose on our property and if a

foreclosure action has been initiated against us we have never received a summons of such. Your

letter references a case number as if there is an active legal action against us; when to our knowledgeno legal action has been initiated against us. This is misleading; and in violation of the FDCPA.

We request your client(s) provide validation of their debt claim in the form of contract

documents with our autographs. Your letter states that if we request “the name of the original

creditor, if different from the current one” then you will furnish this information. This language seems

to imply that some prior third parties may be involved in this false debt claim, so we most certainly do

request such information if it exists. We hereby request validation of any and all parties claiming to be

or to have been creditors involved in this alleged debt and any and all documents they have to

substantiate their claims of debt.

All Rights Reserved, without prejudice (UCC 1-308)

____________________________________ ____________________________________

JoAnn Breitling Samuel G. Breitling

Sent Via Certified Mail, Regular Mail, and Facsimile




Plaintiffs’ Exhibit F







Plaintiffs’ Exhibit G










Plaintiffs’ Exhibit H




Page 1 of 2

JoAnn & Samuel G. Breitling1704 Cornwall LaneSachse, TX 75048

March 11, 2014

Mary SpeidelManaging AttorneyCodilis & Stawiarski650 N Sam Houston Parkway East, Suite 450Houston, TX 77060

Re: The Packet Sent in Response to Our Debt Dispute and Validation Demand

Dear Ms. Speidel,

We are sending this letter in response to a packet of documents you sent dated February 25,2014 in response to our written debt dispute letter dated February 3, 2014 as per the FDCPA, (15U.S.C. §1692 et seq.)

You simply enclosed copies of documents included as part of a civil lawsuit in the 116th TexasDistrict court where we were the Plaintiffs. This lawsuit was specific to a misappropriation of ourpayments and a false claim of default which subsequently led to our discovery that your client’s debtclaim against us is false. We non-suited without prejudice in July, 2013 because the attorneysrepresenting your client at that time could not produce a shred of valid evidence that their clienthad any title interest in our property and continually postponed litigation as a result.

None of the documents you sent in this packet are sufficient to verify the alleged debt. Mostspecific to your client’s debt claim are alleged assignments of deed filed on May 27, 2008. Onepurports to transfer the deed of trust to LNV Corporation from Ellington Mortgage Partners, L.P.

and the other purports to transfer the deed of trust from Deutsche Bank National Trust Company asTrustee FKA Bankers Trust Company of California, NA as Trustee to Ellington.

These assignments contain many flaws that render them unenforceable. One identifies“DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FKA BANKERS TRUSTCOMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, N.A. AS TRUSTEE” as the “ ASSIGNOR ” and purports to “GRANT,COVEY, ASSIGN, AND TRANSFER TO: ELLINGTON MORTGAGE PARTNERS, LP … ALLBENEFICIAL INTEREST UNDER THAT CERTAIN DEED OF TRUST:”

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee (“Deutsche”) has no legal authority orstanding under which it could grant, covey, assign, and transfer all beneficial interest under ourdeed of trust because:

1.

As a Trustee it never held any beneficial interest2.

No legal assignment was ever recorded between the original Lender, Aames FundingCorporation or its alleged “assignee” Aames Capital Corporation.

The other assignment identifies Ellington Mortgage Partners, LP (“Ellington”) as the“ ASSIGNOR ” and purports to “GRANT, COVEY, ASSIGN, AND TRANSFER TO: LNV Corporation … ALL BENEFICIAL INTEREST UNDER THAT CERTAIN DEED OF TRUST” The alleged assignment toEllington in not legal or enforceable, so Ellington has no legal authority or standing under which itcould grant, covey, assign, and transfer all beneficial interest.




Page 2 of 2

Included in your packet of documents is a notice of default dated January 4, 2013 that ScottHayes, attorney for MGC in Dallas, Texas, told our attorney was generated in error.

In fact, we never defaulted on our mortgage. A long-standing dispute has existed overmisappropriation of our payments and other grievances that included, but are not limited to,

inaccurate statements, little to no customer service, inability to reach anyone at MGC to resolvedisputes, and problems finding anyone at MGC who could/would accept payments. Thesegrievances were the cause for our lawsuit against MGC in February 2010. We were current at thetime we filed our lawsuit and stopped making payments after our attorney discovered that ourmortgage was fraudulent from its inception and that MGC had no legal authority to collectpayments from us.

Included in your packet of documents is a “NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT, SALE, ORTRANSFER OF SERVICING RIGHTS” dated May 16, 2008 from Wilshire Credit Corporationinforming us that “effective June 2, 2008” MGC Mortgage Inc. (“MGC”) would be our new servicer.

We relied on this communication as being truthful and complete. We never received any

notice, as required by law, that the beneficial interest in our deed of trust was also transferred at thistime, nor had we ever received notice it was previously transferred as purported by the assignments you included in your packet. Due to these omissions we believed, as any reasonable person would,that MGC was collecting payments in behalf of the original lender Aames Funding Corporation(“Aames”). It was only through our subsequent legal actions and discovery that we learned LNVclaimed to have acquired the beneficial interest in our deed of trust (which it turned out was a falseclaim) and that MGC was collecting payments from us in behalf of LNV (a party with no legalauthority to collect payments from us) and not Aames.

We hereby demand that your client, LNV, return to us all payments we made to MGC it itsbehalf, an estimated total amount of $28,770, with interest.

We also hereby demand that you and your client cease and desist from all attempts to collecton this false debt.


____________________________________ ____________________________________ JoAnn Breitling Samuel G. Breitling





Plaintiffs’ Exhibit I










Plaintiffs’ Exhibit J







Plaintiffs’ Exhibit K




Page 1 of 2

JoAnn & Samuel G. Breitling1704 Cornwall LaneSachse, TX 75048

April 3, 2014

Mary Speidel, Managing Attorney Jeffrey Hardaway, AttorneyCodilis & Stawiarski650 N Sam Houston Parkway East, Suite 450Houston, TX 77060

Re: Debt Collection Letter Dated March 14, 2014

Dear Ms. Speidel and Mr Hardaway,

We send this letter in response to a debt demand letter you sent to us dated March 14, 2014.On March 11, 2014 we sent you a letter disputing the debt you claim we owe your client. We’veenclosed a copy of this letter. You sent a letter dated March 21, 2014, also enclosed, which evidencesthe fact you received our earlier debt dispute and demand for validation. Both our letters are beingsent per the FDCPA, (15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq.)

Your March 14th letter clearly identifies Codilis & Stawiarski as a “debt collector” attempting to collect a debt. Your letter identifies your client as Dovenmuelhe Mortgage Inc. and alleges theyare a “mortgage servicer” for LNV Corporation. Your letter also alleges that LNV is the “mortgagee.”None of these allegations are true.

Your March 14, 2014 letter contains a case number (“Case No. 44-14-0070”) which decepti velygives the appearance of an active legal action against us pertaining to this false debt. This is a violation of the FDCPA. This letter provides an alleged “Loan No. xxxxxx5965” with Dovenmuelhe

Mortgage Inc. when we’ ve never had a mortgage loan serviced by Dovenmuelhe Mortgage Inc. We’ ve never received a statement from Dovenmuelhe Mortgage Inc. We’ ve never made a paymentto Dovenmuelhe Mortgage Inc. We’ ve never received any notification as required by RESPA (12 U.S.Code § 2605) pertaining to a transfer of servicing to Dovenmuelhe Mortgage Inc.

As clearly stated in our letter to you dated March 14th LNV Corporation’s claim that it is“mortgagee” is based on two alleged assignments of deed both filed on May 27, 2008. One purportsto transfer the deed of trust to LNV Corporation from Ellington Mortgage Partners, L.P. and theother purports to transfer the deed of trust from Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as TrusteeFKA Bankers Trust Company of California, NA as Trustee to Ellington. As pointed out in our earlierletter these deed assignments contain misrepresentations of material fact, forgeries and false

signatures made with intent to deceive and to harm us. An investigation into the business practices of Dovenmuelhe Mortgage Inc. will show that it

is closely affiliated with LNV Corporation and MGC Mortgage Inc. both sham companies ultimatelycreated by D. Andrew Beal and/or his privately owned Beal Bank. Considerable evidence exists toshow that LNV Corporation and MGC Mortgage Inc. commit fraud on a large scale specific to falseclaims of mortgage debt and fraudulently fabricated deed assignments; and that they routinely useDovenmuelhe Mortgage Inc. to hide or confound the identity of the benefactors and beneficiaries ofthe ill-gotten proceeds of this fraud; as well as to launder those proceeds.




Page 2 of 2

We suggest that your law firm make a proper investigation into the validity of the debt you areattempting to collect; as you are required to do under the FDCPA.

We hereby warn you that your client Dovenmuelhe Mortgage Inc. and their client LNVCorporation and LNV ’s other alleged “mortgage servicer” MGC Mortgage Inc. are preparing and

manufacturing false deed assignments and other false documents and legal instruments thatcontain misrepresentations of material fact, forgeries and false signatures made knowingly withintent to deceive homeowners and courts so as to fraudulently foreclose on properties.

According to the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (“TDRPC”) “Fraud” or“Fraudulent” denotes conduct having a purpose to deceive and not merely negligentmisrepresentation or failure to apprise another of relevant information; “Knowingly,” “Known,” or“Knows” denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question; and that a person’s knowledge may beinferred from circumstances. The TDRPC further states:

Rule 1.02(c) - A lawyer shall not assist or counsel a client to engage in conduct that the lawyerknows is criminal or fraudulent. A lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of

any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel and represent aclient in connection with the making of a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law:

Rule 1.02(d) - When a lawyer has confidential information clearly establishing that a client islikely to commit a criminal or fraudulent act that is likely to result in substantialinjury to the financial interests or property of another, the lawyer shall promptlymake reasonable efforts under the circumstances to dissuade the client fromcommitting the crime or fraud.

Rule 1.02(e) - When a lawyer has confidential information clearly establishing that the lawyer’s

client has committed a criminal or fraudulent act in the commission of which thelawyer’s services have been used, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts underthe circumstances to persuade the client to take corrective action.

Your client is engaging in criminal and fraudulent activity specific to the collection of this false debtIf Codilis & Stawiarski continues its attempts to collect on this false debt that we have consistentlyand continually disputed and fails to investigate the validity of such debt as required under theFDCPA then we will not hesitate to hold each of you individually as attorneys, and your employeraccountable and liable for violations of the TDRPC and for knowingly participating in your client’sfraud.


____________________________________ ____________________________________ JoAnn Breitling Samuel G. Breitling





Plaintiffs’ Exhibit L





Documents

Breitlings' Clarification for Defendant Codilis & Stawiarski