Maryland - Motion Dismiss Fraud Court

8/8/2019 Maryland - Motion Dismiss Fraud Court

1/15

1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND

JACOB GEESING, et al.

Plaintiff

v. Case No: 13C-09-079000

MATTHEW PALMER,

Defendant

MOTION TO STAY AND DISMISS BASED ON FRAUD ON THE COURT

Comes now the Defendant, Matthew Palmer by and through his counsel, The Law Office

of Gerald Solomon, P.A. and Gerald Solomon, Esquire and Bascietto & Bregman, LLC, and

John Bascietto, Esquire in his Motion to Stay and Dismiss Based On Fraud on The Court, and for

cause, says unto this Court:

1. This is a foreclosure case filed on or about August 21, 2009.2. The jurisdiction of this court was invoked in this case by the filing of an Order to

Docket.

3. There are two condition precedents to the filing of an Order to Docket:a. The instrument creating or giving notice of the existence of the lien has to

have been filed for the record; and

b. There is a default that lawfully allows a sale.4. The Order to Docket must be accompanied by:

a. a copy of the lien instrumentsupported by an affidavit that it is a true andaccurate copy;

b. an affidavit by the secured party, the plaintiff, or the agent or attorney ofeither that the plaintiff has the right to foreclose and a statement of thedebt remaining due and payable;


2/15

2

c. a copy of any separate note or other debt instrument supported by anaffidavit that it is a true and accurate copy and certifying ownership of thedebt instrument;

d. a copy of any assignment of the lien instrument for purposes offoreclosure or deed of appointment of a substitute trusteesupported by an

affidavit that it is a true and accurate copy of the assignment or deed of

appointment;

e. an affidavit with respect to any defendant who is an individual that theindividual is not in the military service of the United States; and

f. a statement as to whether or not the property is residential property.5.

Plaintiff Jacob Geesing, Esquire is purportedly a Trustee under an instrument

titled Deed of Appointment of Substitute Trustee.

6. Plaintiff Jacob Geesing, Esquire is also a principal in the law firm of BiermanGeesing & Ward, LLC.

7. Bierman Geesing & Ward, LLC also represent Plaintiff Jacob Geesing, Esquire.8. Plaintiff Jacob Geesing, Esquire invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by the

filing of a Order to Docket and affidavits executed by him in front of a notary as follows:

a. An affidavit stating that the copy of the lien instrument attached to thepleading was a true and accurate copy;

b. An affidavit by Jacob Geesing, as attorney for the secured party that theplaintiff, Jacob Geesing, Esquire has the right to foreclose and a statement

of the debt remaining due and payable;

c. An affidavit of a copy of any separate note stating that it is a true andaccurate copy and certifying ownership of the debt instrument;

d. An affidavit stating that the copy of a deed of appointment of a substitutetrustee is a true and accurate copy of the assignment or deed ofappointment; and

e. An affidavit that Defendant was not in the military service of the UnitedStates;


3/15

3

9. Each affidavit submitted by Jacob Geesing in this case contained an assertion thatJacob Geesing personally appeared and gave oath to the affidavit.

10. In the instant case Jacob Geesing, Esquire also executed affidavits for the:a. Report of Sale; andb. Notice by Mail Prior to Sale.

11. Upon information and belief Jacob Geesing, Esquire is the named Plaintiff trusteein approximately 8,000 active cases filed in the State of Maryland for the year 2009 alone.

12. Jacob Geesing is the named Plaintiff trustee in the following named cases:a. Geesing v. Palmer, Circuit Court for Howard County Maryland, case

number 13C-09-079000;

b. Geesing v. Laur, Circuit Court for St. Marys County, Maryland, casenumber 18-C-09-001338;

c. Geesing v. Lembach, Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Marylandcase number 002C09145252;

d. Geesing v. Stewart, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Marylandcase number 321204V; and

e. Geesing v. Nachbar, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Marylandcase number 318239V.

13. The affidavits containing Jacob Geesing and notary signatures in the mentionedcases reveals the following:

Geesing v. PalmerAffidavit of Non-Military Service

Affidavit of Deed Of Trust Debt and Right to Foreclose


4/15

4

Affidavit, Pursuant to MD Rule 14-207(b)(1) Regarding Copy of Lien Instrument

Affidavit, Pursuant to MD Rule 14-207(b)(4) Regarding Copy of Deed of Appointment of

Substitute Trustee

Report of Sale

Affidavit of Notice by Mail Prior to Sale

Geesing v. LaurAffidavit of Mailing of Notice to Occupants

Affidavit, Pursuant to MD Rule 14-207(b)(4) Regarding Copy of Deed of Appointment ofSubstitute Trustee


5/15

5


Affidavit of Deed of Trust Debt and Right to Foreclose

Affidavit of Non-Military Service

Affidavit of Mailing of Notice to Occupants

Geesing v. LembachAffidavit of Mailing of Notice to Occupants

Affidavit, Pursuant to MD Rule 14-207(b)(4)

Regarding Copy of Deed of Appointment ofSubstitute Trustee


Substitute Trustee


6/15

6



Geesing v. StewartAffidavit of Mailing of Notice to Occupants


Substitute Trustee




Affidavit of Mailing Notice to Occupants


7/15

7

Geesing v. Nachbar

Report of Sale

Affidavit of Mailing of Notice to Occupants


Affidavit, Pursuant to MD Rule 14-207(b)(1)Regarding Copy of Lien Instrument

Affidavit, Pursuant to MD Rule 14-207(b)(1)Regarding Copy of Deed of Appointment of

Substitute Trustee

Affidavit of Deed of Trust Debt and Right to

Foreclose


8/15

8

14. Due to the variation in signatures Katherine Mainolfi Koppenhaver, of ForensicDocument Examiners, Inc. was retained to examine the signatures of Mr. Jacob Geesing and

Rodnita Moulton.

15. Ms. Koppenhaver is an expert in handwriting and document examination and is aBoard Certified Document Examiner by BFDE.

16. Ms. Koppenhaver is the author of two books, has twenty five years of experienceand has handled over 2,500 cases. See Curriculum Vita Exhibit 1.

17. Ms. Koppenhaver examined documents as detailed in her report dated November12, 2009, Exhibit 2.

18. Ms. Koppenhaver opined that there are four different people signing MrGeesings name, and two people signing Rodnita Moultons name.

19. The execution of Attorney Geesings name by four different people and twodifferent people executing Notary Rodnita Moultons name constitutes a fraud on the court both

for the acquisition of jurisdiction for the court to proceed as well as determination of the merits

of the case.

WHEREFORE, your Defendant prays that this Court:

A. Stay this action pending further investigation to determine the propersanction for Plaintiffs misconduct in this action;

B. Order full discovery pursuant to the Circuit Court Maryland Rules;C. Award counsel fees and costs associated with this action;D. Dismiss this case with prejudice; andE. Grant him such other and further relief as the nature of his cause requires.


9/15

9

Respectfully submitted,

The Law Office of Gerald Solomon P.A.

_______________________________By: Gerald Solomon, Esquire1

9857 Majestic Way

Boynton Beach, Florida 33437(561) 735-3536

And

Bascietto & Bregman, LLC

_______________________________

By: John Bascietto, Esquire

4741 Sellman RoadBeltsville, Maryland 20708

(301) 937-3300

Attorneys for Defendant

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Plaintiff, Jacob Geesing, Trustee invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing an

Order to Docket. Md Code Ann., Real Property, Rule 14-207(a)(1). The Order to Docke

shall be accompanied by:

(1) a copy of the lien instrumentsupported by an affidavit that it isa true and accurate copy, or, in an action to foreclose a statutory

lien, a copy of a notice of the existence of the lien supported by an

affidavit that it is a true and Accurate copy; (Emphasis added)

(2)an affidavit by the secured party, the plaintiff, or the agent orattorney of either that the plaintiff has the right to foreclose and astatement of the debt remaining due and payable; (Emphasis

added)

(3) a copy of any separate note or other debt instrument supported

by an affidavit that it is a true and accurate copy and certifying

ownership of the debt instrument; (Emphasis added)

1 Executed through electronic image emailed to co-counsel for presentation to the court with authority.


10/15

10

(4) a copy of any assignment of the lien instrument for purposes of

foreclosure or deed of appointment of a substitute trusteesupported by an affidavit that it is a true and accurate copy of the

assignment or deed of appointment; (Emphasis added)

(5) an affidavit with respect to any defendant who is an individual

that the individual is not in the military service of the United States

as defined in the Service members Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. app.501 et seq., or that the action is authorized by the Act;

(Emphasis added)

(6) a statement as to whether or not the property is residential

property;

(7) in an action to foreclose a lien instrument on residentialproperty, to the extent not produced in response tosubsections(b)(1) through(b)(5) of this Rule, the information and

papers required by Code, Real Property Article, 7-105.1(d),

except that if the name and license number of the mortgageoriginator and mortgage lender is not required in the notice of

intent to foreclose, the information is not required in the order to

docket or complaint to foreclose; and(8) in an action to foreclose a land installment contract on property

other than residential property,an affidavit that the notice required

by Rule 14-205(c) has been given. (Emphasis added)

Md. Code Ann., Real Property, Rule 14-207(b). The requisite affidavits are jurisdictional, tha

is, they are necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.

Plaintiff often takes the position that:

Further, the appellate Courts are clear that foreclosure is not a civil

matter, but is rather "is an in rem procceding," that "an order todocket is not a pleading" within the meaning of the Rules, and that

"it is not necessary to serve the opposing party with process" when

commencing a foreclosure proceeding. . . .

Geesing v. Stewart, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, case number 321204V

Substitute Trustees Opposition to Motion to Stay.

In all five cases cited herein, Plaintiff moved forward with either a sale of the property

despite obvious defects in title or has noticed the property for sale despite motions pending


11/15

11

before the court and failure to proceed in good faith in President Obamas Making Home

Affordable provision designed to help Americans keep their homes after the recent housing

crash:

Geesing v. Palmer, Circuit Court for Howard County Maryland,

case number 13C-09-079000. Plaintiff obtained the jurisdiction ofthe court through false affidavits, swore that the copy of the note

submitted with the Order to Docket was a true and accurate copy

and proceed to sale despite the fact that there was no indorsement

on the note and therefore they lacked standing to bring the action;

Geesing v. Laur, Circuit Court for St. Marys County, Maryland,

case number 18-C-09-001338. Plaintiff obtained the jurisdictionof the court through false affidavits, swore that the copy of the note

submitted with the Order to Docket was a true and accurate copyand noticed the property for sale despite: open discovery requests;

open motions; the fact that the note in question was indorsed to

Countrywide Bank, N.A.; the fact that there was no indorsement

on the note; and the entity initiating the action was The Bank ofNew York Mellon as a trustee for a securitized trust. Plaintiff

lacked standing to bring the action;

Geesing v. Lembach, Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County,

Maryland, case number 002C09145252. Plaintiff obtained the jurisdiction of the court through false affidavits, swore that the

note submitted with the Order to Docket was a true and accuratecopy, and proceeded to note a sale despite the fact that there was

discovery not answered, there were open motions, and the

Servicer, One West Bank, denied their application under Making

Home Affordable under the auspices that they did not haveauthority to modify the loan when public documents clearly gave

them the authority to modify the loan:

Geesing v. Stewart, Circuit Court for Montgomery County,

Maryland, case number 321204V Plaintiff obtained the jurisdictionof the court through false affidavits, swore that the note submitted

with the Order to Docket was a true and accurate copy, and

proceed to note a sale despite the fact that there was discovery not

answered, there were open motions, and the Servicer, One WestBank, denied Defendants request for loan modification despite the

fact that she is obviously well qualified, and did not offer the

alternatives to foreclosure under Making Home Affordable.Moreover, the note was allegedly indorsed by a secretary


12/15

12

without attaching any type of corporate resolution that a secretary,

as opposed to a corporate officer, has authority to indorse a note.

Geesing v. Nachbar, Circuit Court for Montgomery County,Maryland, case number 318239V. Plaintiff obtained the

jurisdiction of the court through false affidavits, swore that the

copy of the note submitted with the Order to Docket was a true and

accurate copy and proceed to sale despite the fact that there was noindorsement on the note and therefore they lacked standing to

bring the action.

The case ofOuten, et.al., v. Baltimore County, Maryland, et.al., 177 F.R.D. 346, (1998)

spoke to the issue of fraud on the court:

"Fraud on the court" is a doctrine more difficult to define than to

apply. Because the doctrine permits a Court to overturn settleddecrees and orders, it is narrowly construed and is confined to the

"most egregious cases, such as bribery of a judge or juror, or

improper influence exerted on the court by an attorney, in whichthe integrity of the court and its ability to function impartially is

directly impinged." Great Coastal Express, Inc. v. International

Brotherhood of Teamsters , 675 F.2d 1349, 1356 (4th Cir. 1982).Courts routinely hold that only fraud which does, or attempts to,

defile the court itself, or is perpetrated by its officers, constitutes

fraud on the court. E.g., Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza AreaBoliviana , 24 F.3d 457, 460 (2nd Cir. 1994); see also Weese v.

Schukman , 98 F.3d 542, 552-53 (10th Cir. 1996); First Nat'lBank of Louisville v. Lustig, 96 F.3d 1554, 1573 (5th Cir. 1996).

The party alleging fraud on the court must prove it by clear and

convincing evidence, and all doubts are resolved in favor of

sustaining the prior court action. Weese, 98 F.3d at 552. (emphasisadded)

In Green v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al., 198 F.R.D. 645 (2001) The

Honorable Frederick N. Smalkin faced a similar set of facts, although not as egregious as the

instant case. Plaintiff in the Green case submitted statements in opposition to a Motion for

Summary Judgment. Subsequent to the submission of the statements, Plaintiff, himself a high

ranking police officer and a notary, signed signatures of the affiants, without any indication of

agency, sealed the document with a notarys seal and stated that the signatures were Sworn


13/15

13

before me. Subsequent to the filing of the false affidavits the affiants stated that they authorized

the Plaintiff notary to sign for them after they were told that the amendments had been made.

Judge Smalkin observed:

They were falsely made because they were patently falsely

notarized by plaintiff, with a false statement that the affidavits hadbeen sworn to before the plaintiff. In fact, the "affidavits" were not,

and could not have been, so sworn, as they were executed by

plaintiff himself outside the presence of the purported affiants, who

never appeared to take an oath before plaintiff. The affiants never,in fact, even swore to the truth of their original statements before

plaintiff or any other notary, much less did they swear to the

documents actually submitted to the Court.

Green, at 646. Judge Smalkin further noted:

Here, lacking any statement therein that the submissions were

made under penalty of perjury, see 28 U.S.C. 1746, an oath

before a duly authorized officer was necessary to make theaffidavits effective to oppose summary judgment. Thus, the

affidavits -- and the integrity thereof -- were both material and

critical to an important part of the Court's process of adjudication.The plaintiff's conduct in submitting these falsely notarized

affidavits, especially when done by someone who should knowbetter as the holder of two offices of trust, amounts to "willfullydeceiving the court and engaging in conduct utterly inconsistent

with the orderly administration of justice." United States v.Shaffer Equipment Co., 11 F.3d 450, 462 (4th Cir. 1993)(quoting

United States v. National Med. Enters., Inc., 792 F.2d 906, 912

(9th Cir. 1986)). See also Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d1115 (1st Cir. 1989), cited with approval in Liva v. County of

Lexington, 972 F.2d 340, 1992 WL 187299, slip op. at 1-2 (4th

Cir. 1992).

In dismissing the case with prejudice, Judge Smalkin noted:

The prejudice to the integrity both of the process of adjudication in

general and of this Court in particular, which relies on the

trustworthiness of those who submit -- not to mention notarize --affidavits, is manifest. The public interest in preserving the

trustworthiness of sworn documents as part of the process of

orderly adjudication demands that the strongest means available be

taken to redress the situation in this particular case and to detersimilar misconduct by others. See Shaffer Equipment, supra, 11


14/15

14

F.3d at 462-63. See also Richardson v. Cabarrus Co. Bd. of

Educ., 151 F.3d 1030, 1998 WL 371999 (4th Cir. 1998).

Green at 647. Finally, Judge Smalkin noted that

"Once a litigant chooses to practice fraud, that misconduct infects

his cause of action . . . ." Aoude, 892 F.2d at 1121, cited with

approval in Liva, supra. In this Court's judgment, plaintiff hasfatally infected his own case and must suffer the consequences.

The immediate case and four other cases referred to herein (similar motions are being

brought simultaneously with this motion or will be brought within the next few days) are a

microcosm of the foreclosures filed in Maryland by Plaintiffs law firm. There are

approximately eight thousand open cases filed in 2009 alone that were filed by Plaintiff. If each

case was filed using the same fraudulent tactics then hundreds of people per day are losing their

homes to foreclosure grounded on fraud on the court with an untold number of cases based upon

defective filings, such as the note issue as previously discussed.

It is understandable why Plaintiffs have resisted discovery and have not produced one

piece of paper requested by many of the Defendants. They claim that the court must grant leave

to take discovery. It is that very discovery that would disclose the extent of the fraud practiced

within Plaintiffs law firm and moreover, the extent of deficiency in the underlying submissions

to the Court, such as a note that was not indorsed, the appointment of a substitute trustee made

without authority or a false statement made in denial of a Making Home Affordable application.

As this Motion sits on the Courts desk awaiting action there are homeowners who are

being put into the street because they were conned into exotic loans which they were told that

they could afford, by individuals trained in finances and sales. The securitization process o

these pooled loans made trillions of dollars for those within the banking and investment industry

These same lenders received billions of dollars in bailout funds and are now using the services of


15/15

15

Plaintiff who is foreclosing on their properties through outright fraud. This must be stopped

even if done one case at a time. Plaintiff and his principals have infected their claim through

fraud and the case should be dismissed with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,

The Law Office of Gerald Solomon P.A.

_______________________________By: Gerald Solomon, Esquire2

9857 Majestic Way

Boynton Beach, Florida 33437(561) 735-3536

And

Bascietto & Bregman, LLC

_______________________________

By: John Bascietto, Esquire

4741 Sellman RoadBeltsville, Maryland 20708(301) 937-3300

Attorneys for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the ______ day of ______________, 2009 a copy of the

foregoing was faxed and mailed to Jacob Geesing, Esq., counsel for Jacob Geesing at Bierman,

Geesing & Ward LLC, 4520 East West Highway, Suite 200, Bethesda, MD 20814.

________________________________

John Bascietto, Esq.

2 Executed through electronic image emailed to co-counsel for presentation to the court with authority.

Documents

Maryland - Motion Dismiss Fraud Court