continuing notice of media coveragedocshare04.docshare.tips/files/13778/137785629.pdfkingcast.net...

KingCastnet ndash Mortgage Movies By Christopher King JD 70 America Street Suite 3F Providence RI 02903 6175438085

TODD WETZELBERGER ) MARYLAND CIRCUIT COURT Counter-Plaintiff ) BALTIMORE COUNTY v ) ) THOMAS P DORE ET AL ) DOCKET NO 10-CV-465 Counter-Defendants )

CONTINUING NOTICE OF MEDIA COVERAGE

Now comes Christopher King JD KingCastnet and Mortgage Movies Journal pursuant to MD Rule 16-109 to note that he intends to cover any and all Courtroom exchanges relative to the above-captioned matter May it please the Court I am a former Assistant Attorney General who has also managed a title insurance company as a title insurance producer Prior to those activities I was an editor and reporter for mid-sized and large daily press I come to you being aware that for years Maryland had the highest per capita foreclosure rate in the Country in large part due to foreclosure mills like that of Thomas P Dore who has now twice incurred reprimand from the Courts regarding his illegal foreclosure practices There is at present a dearth of cases directly involving 14-2071 in spite of the Legislative History noted in the Maryland Court of Appeals in Maddox v Cohn infra In fact a Lexis-Nexis Search reveals but two cases and a general Google search yields the Wetzelberger Case in which the Wetzelbergers were denied a hearing even though the record evidence indicates that Thomas P Dore proceeded on a foreclosure without firsthand knowledge of anything required to foreclose I know for fact that numerous requests for 14-2071 Review are ignored by the Courts in favor of Dore see App A It is worth noting that Dore admitted this under Oath and it is further worth nothing that Judge King ruled in error in December 2012 in punishing Attorney Dore for robo-signing etc when he held that Dore had no prior such disciplinary involvement


In point of fact Judge Philip T Caroom had previously reprimanded Dore with a public reprimand for such conduct just two years earlier on 12 April 2010

As such according to Judge Wilner and the Committee drafting Rule 14-2071 Thomas P Dore has now TWICE been involved in conduct that is ldquoprejudicial to homeowners and constitutes an assault on the integrity of the judicial process itselfrdquo yet the Wetzelbergers are repeatedly denied any meaningful opportunity to address the wrongs in their case that implicate issues of Standing and Real Party in Interest


Meanwhile the Courts for their part are busy with the DLLR and perhaps other governmental entities following my efforts to expose the wrongs Each and every time that I report on the Wetzelbergers filing a case or other development my trackers show that the Maryland government and MampT Bank are on my websites primarily my Mortage Movies Journal page To wit Mr King is aware of the fact that on or about 1100 am 16 August 2011 - - the very same day that Mr Wetzelberer sued Thomas P Dore someone at a State of Maryland Office at the 500 block of N Calvert visited his website see p2 for aerial

State Of Maryland (16710222765) [Label IP Address] helliphellipso there is substantial State interest in this matter therefore everything should be out in the open and I am certain that Attorney Dore will agree so that he may publicly vindicate himself against the allegations Further Mr King is aware of systemic problems in Maryland including Congressman Tony McConkey twice being found in violation of the Protection of Homeowners in Foreclosure Act that have left people homeless


Unfortunately this is not the first or only time I have detected such conduct as it happened again on 2 Jan 2013 when I had to repeatedly call the Court to obtain access to Judge Kingrsquos Dore file The IP address is slightly different but still corresponds to a Delaware State Office apparently the DLLR --- which is supposed to be investigating Dore -- but which instead tries to threaten the Wetzelbergers




The situation has deteriorated to the point that Dore and his associates are fully aware that they can get anything they want in the Courts even dismissals when the Court lacks jurisdiction because of a pending appeal The latest abuse occurred when a defense lawyer (John Y Lee) bragged to Mr Wetzelberger that he was essentially going to hand pick a judge then on 15 January 2013 ccrsquod Judge Mickey Norman on a pleading (a courtesy copy of a Motion to Dismiss and for Sanctions) when Norman apparently was a coach and Attorney Dorersquos alma mater Norman was not yet assigned to the case but yet majestically he became assigned to the case after the Attorney hand-delivered the above-referenced pleadings Mr Wetzelberger served a request dated 30 March 2013 on Patricia Lucchesi Central Assignment to provide the policies and procedures for assigning cases to judges in the Baltimore County Circuit Court To date Ms Lucchesi has neglected to respond to a matter that is clearly subject to the Maryland Public Information Act e sectsect10-611 to 630 Note further that Judge Norman is a former police officer with no substantial background in real estate trust law or commercial law In short he is a ringer all set to dispense whatever brand of Justice that Dore and his friends require of him including dismissals and sanctions against Wetzelberger if or when requested Turning back to 14-2071 Chair Wilner and the Committee noted that there were to be part-time examiners put to work to address the problem which is so large in nature that whistleblower Jose Portillo contacted me to alert me to the fact that there are approximately 8000 bad deeds circulating in the area by and through Shapiro amp Burson alone and many more because of Attorneys Savage and Dore



This is the precise sort of activity that must be curbed yet Maryland Courts are far too often allowing it with impunity at noted on the opening page of this Notice of Ongoing Media Coverage and in Appendix As In Shepard v Burson the Court at least granted a hearing but ultimately denied relief In the cases I have noted the Court has completely violated the intent of the Committee that initiated Rule 14-2071 and as such I am here to carefully review what continues to transpire in this case From Burson

6 HN2 Maryland Rule 14-2071 provides that [i]f the court determines that the pleadings or papers filed do not comply with all statutory and Rule requirements it may give notice to the plaintiff and each borrower record owner party [11] and attorney of record that the action will be dismissed without prejudice

2010 - 2011 Motion to Dismiss Foreclosure Action On December 15 2010 Ms Shepherd moved to dismiss the foreclosure sale pursuant to Maryland Rule 14-2071 based on [572] [549] irregularities in the Notice of Intent to Foreclose6 Specifically citing the documents the substitute trustees had filed in the foreclosure action and served on her more than a year earlier that identified Freddie Mac as the owner of her loan she contended that the failure to identify Freddie Mac as the secured party in the notice violated RP sect7-1051(c)(4)(ii)(1)(A) The circuit court canceled the foreclosure sale to afford review of the motion

On Appeal the Court sustained the lower Court on the particular facts of that

case but the point is that every case has its own particular issues that must be carefully reviewed IN EACH AND EVERY CASEhelliphellip and unfortunately lower Courts have resoundingly failed to do so thus thwarting the intent of the Rule which carries the import of Law

In the second Lexis citing at Maddox v Cohn 424 Md 379 (MD Ct App 2012) the Rule was mentioned only in passing but the Court did provide valuable dicta that ought guide this Court

The Acts of 2011 include another provision designed to limit the practices of foreclosure mills It concerns imposing additional requirements on persons attempting to use Lost Note Affidavits in lieu of the actual instruments of indebtedness Apparently as we have noted in some instances it is alleged that the actual instruments have been lost in the shuffle and mortgage services are attempting to foreclose without sufficiently trying to identify the current holder of the instrument or to retrieve the actual instrument through the use of MERS (see Anderson supra) [23] The 2011 legislative provision limits somewhat their ability to do so


It is clear that the legislative process relating to mortgage foreclosures of the last several years has been designed to slow down the mortgage foreclosure practices to limit the [393] abuses of past years and to provide additional protections to homeowners In our view the Legislature has effectively changed Marylands slanted in favor of secured parties foreclosure practices to one requiring compliance with much stricter standards tipping the playing field to protect debtors The appellees attempt to shift legal fees to prospective purchasers in a manner having no relation to the trustees duty to maximize sums at such sales is contrary to the thrust of the new policies as created by the Legislature and is another example of the abuses that have caused these types of problems in the first instance

Apparently in many instances even though the mortgage servicer allegedly can retrieve the appropriate document or documents by going through the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) or a counterpart it is a somewhat time consuming process This has led to the practice of such mortgage servicers attempting to routinely initiate foreclosures via filing an Affidavit of Lost Instrument The widespread use of such methods to initiate foreclosures raises serious perjury issues on the part of the persons making the affidavit The instruments are not lost they are somewhere in MERS system and generally the affiant is well aware that the mortgage or other instrument of indebtedness is not actually lost

It may prove worthwhile to revisit the legislative History and Intent as did the Maddox Court

Legislative History While certain amendments to some of the statutes relating to foreclosures occurred [15] prior to 2007 (as an example see Chapter 509 of the Acts of 2005 - Protection of Homeowners in Foreclosure Act) we shall concentrate our review of the legislative history by beginning at an obvious point In June of 2007 Governor OMalley established The Maryland Home Ownership Preservation Task Force On November 29 2007 the Task Force issued its report In the cover letter to Governor OMalley the secretaries of the Task Force Mr Thomas E Perez and Mr Raymond A Skinner noted the purpose for which the Task Force had been formed

You charged the Task Force with developing an action plan to address escalating foreclosure rates and identify [389] effective ways to preserve home ownership for Marylanders [432] The specific objectives of the Task Force were to


Examine current laws and regulations in Maryland governing the mortgage industry and the foreclosure process and recommend changes including legislative and regulatory actions where warranted In the letter the Task Force noted Maryland pays a substantial cost for rising foreclosure rates Families lose their homes are uprooted and their lives are disrupted Their ability to obtain credit suffers and many families [16] chief asset the equity in their homes is lost In addition lenders lose money and employees in the mortgage industry are in danger of losing jobs as lenders reel from the weight of defaulting loans

As such there is a lot to be mindful of in this case and that is why I am here and prepared to run courtroom video as I have done throughout the country KingCast ndash Mortgage Movies employs Mr Kingrsquos legal background and experience as a licensed title insurance producer to analyse legal matters relative to foreclosure and all footage shall be made available for media pooling orders or requests in this regard Respectfully submitted sChristopher King JD _____________________________ Christopher King JD httpKingCastnet -- Reel News for Real People httpMortgageMoviesblogspotcom -- Documenting Deceit 6175438085m 8662151207f


APPENDIX A

THE WEAVER AND CARDONI FILES I hereby provide the Court relevant information as to how the Courts have allowed Thomas P Dore to defeat consumers who were seeking basic substantive and due process before the Courts The complete Weaver Motion to Stay is attached as Appendix B I have not receive a full copy of the Cardoni Appeal Kathryn Weaver and Teena Cardoni join the Wetzelberger family as victims of Thomas P Dorersquos power and influence with this Court Here is a sample of a pending Weaver Motion that explains everything in four paragraphs in Dore v Weaver Case No CAE 11-33165 where Dore has been given another gift by the Courts in violation of Rule 14-2071 and basic principles of law and equity WEAVER COMES NOW Kathryn Weaver (hereinafter Weaver) for good cause per Md Rule 14-211(a)(2)(C) and moves the court to stay any further proceedings in the instant case pending the outcome of the investigation by the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and Maryland Department of Licensing Labor and Regulation into the fraudclosure case filed by known fraudclosure mill attorney Thomas P Dore and states as follows

FACTS AND LAW

1 Dore et al are known fraudclosure mill attorneys that have filed thousands

of fraudclosure cases in Maryland courts

ldquoRevelations that attorneys at two Maryland firms had other people sign their names to foreclosure documents brought a rebuke Wednesday from the OMalley administration which called the practice a potential example of further mishandling and mistreatment of Maryland homeownersrsquordquo

httparticlesbaltimoresuncom2010-10-13businessbs-bz-foreclosure-cases-20101013_1_halt-foreclosures-foreclosure-documents-foreclosure-cases httpwwwbaltimorereiacommaryland-foreclosure-fraud


2 Thomas P Dore admitted to filing false affidavits into Maryland

fraudclosure cases

In Baltimore Maryland on 25 January 2011 The Daily Record reports

bull Attorney Thomas P Dore on Tuesday conceded that five pending foreclosure proceedings should be dismissed because he could not vouch for his signature on documents filed with the Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge W Michel Pierson must still determine what action to take if any with regard to at least 15 other foreclosures involving notarized documents not actually signed by Dore who represents lenders bull Eighteen current and former notaries public invoked their Fifth Amendment rights and refused to testify regarding their certification of Dorersquos signature on the documents ldquoTruthful answers to questions posed might tend to incriminate themrdquo the notariesrsquo attorney David B Irwin of Irwin Green amp Dexter LLP in Towson told Pierson ldquoI have no doubt that they have a good-faith invocation rightrdquo bull Notaries who knowingly certify false signatures face possible criminal sanctions for misconduct in office or fraud

httpthedailyrecordcom20110125notaries-invoke-fifth-amendment-in-foreclosure-hearings

3 On March 28 2011 the Circuit Court of Prince Georges County dismissed

fraudclosure Case No CAE 08-35443 Miles et al v Weaver filed by known

fraudclosure mill attorney Thomas P Dore

4 Said case was dismissed as Dore and the additional substitute trustees

including Gerard F Miles Jr had full knowledge of the defects in said case filed by

Dore and Miles Plaintiff was blatantly denied a hearing to dismiss said case with

prejudice (Dkt No 27 29 32 33)

5 Due to the gross error of the court to deny hearing Weaverrsquos motion to

dismiss with prejudice Dore et al were allowed as expected to willfully file yet

another fraudclosure case without meeting any of the conditions precedent on

November 23 2011 Case No CAE11-33165helliphellip


CARDONI In Case No 03-C-11-001492

FACTS AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF APPEAL

The facts and law in support of Appellantsrsquo Notice of Appeal are preemptive since

Appellees are most likely going to attempt to move to dismiss Appellantrsquos appeal as

untimely The fact is Appellees have a history of filing false fraudulent foreclosure

suits such as the suit from which this appeal is taken There is no statute of

limitations on fraud and Appellants are filing this timely notice of appeal based upon

the discovery of fraud upon the court by both Eastern Savings Bank and Appellees

Trustees Miles Dore Menapace et al Appelleestrustees are not competent to testify

as to any purported ldquofactsrdquo as appellees have no first hand knowledge per Md

Evidence Rule 5-602

1 Appellants recently discovered that Eastern Savings Bank (ESB) the alleged

beneficiary committed so much fraud in the ldquooriginationrdquo of alleged ldquoloansrdquo that the

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency sanctioned both ESB and Jonathan I

Feldman Senior Vice President of ESB (Exhibit 1)

2 Appellants recently discovered that Appellees Trustees Dore Miles et al have

a long history of filing false fraudulent foreclosure cases in Maryland courts

3 Said trustees have been caught filing so many fraudulent foreclosure cases in

MD Courts that a December 17 2010 bulletin from Stewart Title Company issued a

warning to all MD offices of Stewart Title to NOT insure the title of any properties

ldquosoldrdquo as a result of foreclosure by Bierman Geesing Ward and Wood LLC (Bierman)

Covahey Boozer Devan and Dore PA (Dore) and Buonassissi Henning amp Lash PC

(Buonassissi) (excerpt below)


Dear Associates

Recently there have been numerous articles disseminated concerning the validity of foreclosures in Maryland The concern has been over certain affidavits and averments filed in connection with foreclosures handled by the law firms of Bierman Geesing Ward and Wood LLC (Bierman) Covahey Boozer Devan and Dore PA (Dore) and Buonassissi Henning amp Lash PC (Buonassissi) These claims involve allegedly fraudulent or forged affidavits executed by parties representing the foreclosing lenders and trustees Additionally new legal developments (described below) have changed the foreclosure landscape and the way in which title insurance can be offered As such we require all issuing agents to be extremely vigilant when reviewing title at or after a foreclosure (including any foreclosure appearing in the chain of title within the last three years from the date of your current vesting deed) Despite the new requirements listed below you must continue to follow all underwriting requirements outlined in any Stewart Bulletins

4 Appellants recently discovered that Md Rule 14-207l was passed in an

emergency session of the Court of Appeals in Maryland in October 2010 to address the

rampant abuses of foreclosure mill attorneys filing false fraudulent affidavits in court


In point of fact Judge Philip T Caroom had previously reprimanded Dore with a public reprimand for such conduct just two years earlier on 12 April 2010

As such according to Judge Wilner and the Committee drafting Rule 14-2071 Thomas P Dore has now TWICE been involved in conduct that is ldquoprejudicial to homeowners and constitutes an assault on the integrity of the judicial process itselfrdquo yet the Wetzelbergers are repeatedly denied any meaningful opportunity to address the wrongs in their case that implicate issues of Standing and Real Party in Interest





























APPENDIX A


FACTS AND LAW







fraudclosure cases


























Evidence Rule 5-602














Dear Associates

































APPENDIX A


FACTS AND LAW







fraudclosure cases


























Evidence Rule 5-602














Dear Associates







fraudclosure cases


























Evidence Rule 5-602














Dear Associates
















Evidence Rule 5-602














Dear Associates






Dear Associates





continuing notice of media coveragedocshare04.docshare.tips/files/13778/137785629.pdfkingcast.net...

Documents