Following Barry Fagan
Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Bank Re: VERIFIED COMPLAINT 1. FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF; 2. TO QUIET TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY; 3. FRAUD/MISREPRESENTATION-CONCEALMENT; 4. FRAUD/MISREPRESENTATION-INDUCEMENT; 5. VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1641 (g) 6. FOR AN ACCOUNTING
Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Bank Re: Request for Production of Documents Set One SC117023
Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Bank NOTICE OF RULING RE: COURT ORDER ISSUING INJUNCTION AGAINST WELLS FARGO BANK UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT SC117023
Please See Attached Files Below:
Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Re: Reply to Wells Fargo’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Motion to Compel WITH EXHIBITS A, B, C, D, E, F & G
Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Re: County of Los Angeles Department of Consumer Affairs Complaint
Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Bank Re: Request for Judicial Notice OF SIX RELATED CASES/REPORTS Concerning Document Fraud, Predatory Lending, Loan Application Fraud, Discovery Act Abuse, and Robosigning
Comes now Plaintiff Barry S. Fagan herewith serves upon Defendants and their
Attorneys of record his Request for Judicial Notice of Six Related Cases/Reports,
and Plaintiff hereby requests that the Court take Judicial Notice of the following: Pursuant to the provisions of California Evidence Code §§ 451, 452, and 453, it is a matter of judicial notice that that Defendant WELLS FARGO has an established pattern and practice (modus operandi) of falsifying real property documents including recorded instruments, and of submitting such
falsified documents to courts in an effort to commit intentional fraud upon said courts. Defendant WELLS FARGO has heretofore submitted altered, and hence false and fraudulent, documents and recorded instruments to this Court in the course of this action, with the intention that the Court be deceived and misled thereby. For purposes of judicial notice, the court’s attention is directed to the following:
A. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF A RELATED CASE/REPORT OFFICE OF THE ASSESSOR-RECORDER SAN FRANCISCO REPORT AS SPONSORED BY PHIL TING ASSESSOR-RECORDER FOR SAN FRANCISCO ENTITLED FORECLOSURE IN CALIFORNIA A CRISIS OF COMPLIANCE SAN FRANCISCO | FEBRUARY 2012 (As filed with the court on February 21, 2012 on file herein)
B. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE RECORDED NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION WITH EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE OF DOCUMENT FRAUD. (As filed with the court on December 19, 2011 on file herein)
C. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE $87,000,000 CONSENT DECREE AGAINST WELLS FARGO BANK FOR EMPLOYEES FALSIFYING BORROWERS LOAN APPLICATIONS. (As filed with the court on July 22, 2011 on file herein)
D. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE OCC CONSENT DECREE DATED APRIL 13, 2011. Relating to Foreclosure Fraud Issues. (As filed with the Court on April 21, 2011 on file herein)
E. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, REGION IV OFFICE OF AUDIT MEMORANDUM NO. 2012-AT-1801. Wells Fargo Bank routinely signed and certified that they had personal knowledge of the contents of documents, including affidavits, without the benefit of supporting documentation and without reviewing the source documents referred to in the affidavits and verifying the accuracy of the foreclosure information stated in the affidavits. A number of affidavit signers admitted having signed up to 600 documents per day. (As filed with the Court on March 15, 2012 on file herein)
F. U. S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 22305 / MARCH 23, 2012 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, CIVIL ACTION NO. CV-1280087 CRB MISC. (N.D. CAL. MARCH 23, 2012) SEC Files Subpoena Enforcement Action Against Wells Fargo for Failure to Produce Documents. (As filed with the Court on March 26, 2012 on file herein)
The issues and findings are intimately related to the case at bar and is authorized under California Evidence Code §451, 452 & 453.
Request for Judicial Notice Re: Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Bank Request for Judicial Notice of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Inspector General, Office of Audit Memorandum No 2012-AT-1801
Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Bank Re REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE of a RELATED CASE/REPORT Office of the Assessor-Recorder San Francisco Report as Sponsored by Phil Ting Assessor-Recorder for San Francisco Entitled Foreclosure in California a CRISIS OF COMPLIANCE
Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Bank Re: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Complaint
Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Bank Reply Brief with Expert Opinion of CPA Shawn P Adamo and Forensic Document Examiner Dr. Laurie Hoeltzel concerning Wells Fargo’s bank fraud.
Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Bank Request for Judicial Notice of the Recorded Lis Pendens with Evidence of Document Fraud and Expert Opinion of Forensic Document Examiner
Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Bank Re: Wells Fargo’s Supplemental Responses to Fagan’s RPD 2
Wells Fargo Bank is unable to locate any proof to show that Wells Fargo Banks holds Barry Fagan’s loan on their balance sheet. If Wells Fargo truly held the loan it would be on-balance sheet and if they sold it or securitized it they would move the loan off-balance sheet.
Because Wells Fargo Bank has now admitted through their verified discovery responses that there are NO balance sheet entries related to any part of Barry Fagan’s transaction, the following is really what Wells Fargo Bank is saying:
1. There has been no principal balance associated with Barry Fagan’s alleged transaction and Wells Fargo did not provide Barry Fagan with any capital.
2. Wells Fargo is carrying nothing allocated to a loss reserve for Barry Fagan’s alleged “transaction”.
3. Wells Fargo is not the servicer and has booked no servicing fee (whether a profit or a loss) for Barry Fagan’s alleged “transaction”.
4. Wells Fargo has no “up-front” transaction costs associated with Barry Fagan’s alleged “transaction”.
5. Wells Fargo has booked nothing on their balance sheet in regards to Wells Fargo’s interest in Barry Fagan’s alleged “transaction”.
6. Wells Fargo is not carrying anything in regards to the value of the servicing asset for Barry Fagan’s alleged “transaction”.
There can be nothing owed in regards to Barry Fagan’s transaction because Wells Fargo is NOT the owner of Barry Fagan’s alleged loan.
Further, Wells Fargo has no record or no balance sheet entries indicating that the alleged “loan” was ever sold to another party. This could mean that what Wells Fargo is really saying is that Barry Fagan’s loan was table funded where the lender was named as Wells Fargo but the funds were provided by another party. (see Wells Fargo Bank’s discovery responses to items No. 17, 18, 19, and 20)
The other party (“Investor”) would have booked the loan on their balance sheet and/or sold the loan to another (either directly or through a securitization).
This explains why Wells Fargo Bank has fraudulently altered Barry Fagan’s Deed of Trust as that Original Wet Ink Deed of Trust contains an irrevocable assignment to the Investor and would destroy Wells Fargo Bank’s Power of Sale, thus proving that this is a Fraudulent Non-Judicial Foreclosure!
In the within action, the subject Deed of Trust has been altered to conceal a irrevocable assignment of that Deed of Trust to undisclosed third parties who or which are not identical to assignees of the related Note. The court may take judicial notice, from matter on file in this action, that Plaintiff’s discovery requests for evidence as to any rights vesting in WELLS FARGO have been consistently ignored by said Defendant. Ad interim, the court may deem Defendant’s failure to respond as an admission that no such evidence exists. Documents submitted by Defendant have been incomplete on their face. There is a well-settled common law “rule of completeness” which requires that the whole of a document be introduced in order to present a fair and balance perception of the matter, rather than a potentially misleading excerpt, only. This common law rule is codified in California Evidence Code § 356 which states, in pertinent part, “Where part of an act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by an adverse party … when a detached act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, or writing which is necessary to make it understood may also be given in evidence.” Similarly, the Federal Rules of Evidence have partially codified the doctrine of completeness in Rule 106: “When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.”
Barry Fagan v Ebert Appraisal Service Inc Request for Production of Documents Set No. 2
Barry Fagan v Ebert Appraisal Service Inc Re: Office of the Real Estate Appraisers takes appropriate action against James Ebert
4 articles written by Neil Garfield on Living Lies
BARRY FAGAN: WELLS FARGO FRAUD CASE AND ROBO-SIGNED RHONDA BERNARD THOMAS
Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Bank
Re: Link to Lis Pendens with Evidence of Deed of Trust alteration and fraud by Wells Fargo Bank.
And evidence of multiple authors of Wells Fargo Bank employee Rhonda Bernard Thomas
And evidence of multiple authors of Wells Fargo Bank employee Rhonda Bernard Thomas
Comptroller of the Currency
Administrator of National Banks
1301 McKinney Street,
October 14, 2011
Re: Case No. 01751312
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA
BARRY S FAGAN- Complainant/Plaintiff
Los Angeles Superior Court Case SC112044
SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE OF BANK DOCUMENT FRAUD
A.VIOLATIONS OF THE OCC CONSENT ORDER DATED APRIL 2011
Dear Mr. Chandler:
I am in receipt of your letter dated September 6, 2011 and wish to further supplement my complaint (01751312) with additional evidence of document fraud.
Attached hereto and made a part hereof are Exhibits A through C, all of which will be filed with the Superior Court of Los Angeles CASE NUMBER SC112044 and as a result have not yet become a public record.
Contained within those exhibits, 3 different ORIGINAL Deeds of Trust.
Exhibit A is the Deed of Trust as filed with the Los Angeles County Registrar Recorders Office, while Exhibit B and Exhibit C were provided by Wells Fargo Bank as alleged original documents. The magnified version of page 4 all clearly show variations of the same hand written number and is an indication that the original Exhibit A as recorded in the Los Angeles County Recorders Office has been altered.
Kindly review the additional exhibits to see that Wells Fargo Bank’s entire loan file is wrought with errors and inconsistencies and quite frankly fraud!
So I continue to write to the regulatory authority that supposedly enforces and promulgates rules for National Banks to follow, and submit both evidence and allegations of fraud.
I believe if my case is reviewed at the highest levels, the OCC can indeed do something to prevent fraud rather than in my opinion harbor it.
Kindly forward this additional evidence to California Attorney General Kamala Harris’ office so that they too can review these three exhibits for possible State prosecution of these fraudulent and criminal acts.
Barry S. Fagan Esq.
Malibu, CA 90265
FINALLY SOMEONE IS GOING AFTER THE APPRAISAL FRAUD: BARRY FAGAN, ESQ.
WHY THEY LIE
SEE BARRY FAGAN v WELLS FARGO BANK VERIFIED RESPONSES #9 RPD AND #4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
It is always the same. The pretenders will say whatever they want to satisfy their needs at the moment. In Court, they don’t care whether it is true or not, they just say it because the Judge expects them to say it. The reason they do it is because they can: up until recently the representations of counsel in Court proceedings were taken as gospel by Judges on the bench ALL OF THE TIME. Now, with clear evidence of forgery and fabrication all over the media, the pretenders are getting their way MOST OF THE TIME.
What will it take to have Judges actually require evidence? More time, I suppose. Meanwhile, people are being terrorized by a group of individuals and companies who have nothing but complete disdain for the American homeowner and would just as soon foreclose on him as look at him, regardless of whether or not he is up to date on his payments.
Here is a clear case in point, which is repeated all over the country. I get more reports about these discrepancies with Wells Fargo but it is apparent from the reports that all the banks are doing it. They deny the loan was securitized if they filed the action in the name of a bank, especially if the bank is the same one who originated the loan. They admit that the loan was securitized when they are seeking some relief that can only be obtained by stating that an asset-backed pool exists (even if it doesn’t) and that the subject loan is in the pool (even if it isn’t).
But the main culprit here is myth and ideology. Based upon a double-standard that defies rational explanation, it is perfectly OK for a business to cram down or discharge a lien that was never perfected. That’s OK. But it isn’t OK for a homeowner to do the exact same thing for the same reasons — the original deal didn’t work out. In this case the original deal didn’t work out because it couldn’t and nobody except the borrower wanted it to work out. The investor had no idea what was being done with investor money.
The bottom line that is dragging our economy into a ditch deeper than the one that Bush gave us, is that we would rather have banks collect taxpayer money and get ownership of homes on which they advanced no funds, than to give the collateral benefit of defects in the loan and transfer procedures to the borrower. It’s either the bank gets a free house or the homeowner gets a lien-free house and then still owes money. Somehow, everyone seems to be in agreement that it is better to give the banks a free house than to allow the operation of existing law.
And somehow, the banks have succeeded in controlling the narrative such that it appears as though the homeowner is seeking a free home, not the banks. Neither Judges nor even homeowners can quite grasp the idea that the bank has no financial interest in their loan transaction. Most people walk away handing the keys to complete strangers. If anyone else asked for the keys they would sent packing, but somehow the homeowner presumes that the bank wouldn’t be there if it didn’t own the loan. It just isn’t so, and saying it doesn’t make it so either.
Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Bank Re Supplemental Objection to Request for Judicial Notice With 3 Original Deeds of Trust With Different Page Fours.
Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Bank Re Supplemental Objection to Request for Judicial Notice With 3 Original Deeds of Trust With Different Page Fours. SEE ATTACHED!