Stephen R

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND

Todd Wetzelberger

P.O. Box 24702

Baltimore, Maryland 21220

Plaintiff,vs.

MARK HOWARD FRIEDMAN3700 Toone Street, Apt. 1537

Baltimore, Maryland 21224KENNETH JOHN MACFADYEN

Friedman & MacFadyen 10856 Sandringham Rd Cockeysville,Maryland21030-2947FRIEDMAN AND MACFADYEN, PA

10856 Sandringham Rd Cockeysville,Maryland21030-2947

LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP

Successor in interest to Fremont Investment & Loan Corporation

4828 Loop Central Drive Houston, Texas 77081MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.

1818 Library Street, Suite 300

Reston, Virginia 20190WELLS FARGO BANK, NA

420 Montgomery Street

San Francisco, CA 94104 Defendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)Case Number: VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DETINUE

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

______________________________________________________________________________

COMES NOW, Todd Wetzelberger, Plaintiff per Md. Rule 12-602(a)2(C) and Md. Code, Courts 11-104 and brings this verified complaint for detinue, to Order the return of Plaintiffs documentary intangible personal property or the value of the property in lieu of its return, as there are no material facts in dispute:

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On 22 December 2006, Plaintiff paid in full a purported loan in the alleged amount of $486,715.31. Said purported loan was allegedly evidenced by a promissory note, and allegedly secured by a deed of trust.

The unencumbered, undivided, right, title, and interest in the original, genuine, wet ink signature note and deed of trust are vested in Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to the immediate possession of Plaintiffs property, or its value.

Despite a good faith pre-suit demand made for the return of Plaintiffs property upon Defendants, its/their agents, principals, assigns, transferors, transferees, and all of them, said property or its value has not been returned. Defendants, and all of them, failed to object and failed to comply with said Notice and Demand.

Detinue is the remedy for the return and immediate possession of property or its value upon judgment, after demand has been made for its return and said property is not returned.

JURISDICTION

1. The events that form the basis of this complaint occurred in Baltimore County, Maryland within the jurisdiction of this court. Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts and do substantial business within this judicial district to be subject to Long Arm Jurisdiction. The complaint involves personal property believed to be in the possession and control of one or more Defendants acting jointly and severally.PARTIES

2. Plaintiff is an individual domiciled in Maryland, holding the legal and beneficial right, title, and interest in the property, the subject of this action.3. Defendant Kenneth John MacFadyen (MacFadyen), an attorney admitted to practice in Maryland, bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct, does substantial business in Baltimore County, Maryland and did so at all times relevant to this action.4. MacFadyen is a necessary party, as MacFadyen, acting as principal of Defendant Friedman and MacFadyen, PA, owed a duty and was obligated to Plaintiff as grantor, to return Plaintiffs property.5. Plaintiff discovered that MacFadyen was reprimanded in his professional capacity by consent Order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland on 20 August 2012.

MacFADYEN, Kenneth John Reprimand by Consent on August 20, 2012, for failures associated with his supervision of lawyer and non-lawyer employees who permitted the execution and notarization of documents in Respondent's name when not personally signed by him.http://www.courts.state.md.us/attygrievance/sanctions13.html

6. Defendant Mark Howard Friedman (Friedman), an attorney admitted to practice in Maryland, bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct at the time the demand was made for return of Plaintiffs property, did substantial business in Baltimore County, Maryland and did so at all times relevant to this Action.7. Friedman, acting as principal of Defendant Friedman and MacFadyen, PA, owed a duty and was obligated to Plaintiff as grantor, to return Plaintiffs property.

8. Plaintiff discovered that Friedman was disbarred by Order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland on 19 April 2013 for conduct involving property (real and personal) and fraudclosure:

FRIEDMAN, Mark Howard Disbarred by Consent on April 19, 2013, for misappropriating escrow funds maintained by his law firm in connection with foreclosure actions. He directed later-paid escrow funds to be used to cover the obligations of which the previously escrowed funds should have been used.http://www.courts.state.md.us/attygrievance/sanctions13.html

9. Defendant Friedman and MacFadyen, PA, (F&MPA) is a Maryland professional stock corporation, formed on 28 June 1973.

10. F&MPA is a necessary party as F&MPA was named as purported trustee on the copy of the deed of trust (assuming arguendo the copy is a true and correct copy of the original), owing a duty and obligation to Plaintiff as grantor, to return Plaintiffs property.

11. Defendant Litton Loan Servicing, LP (Litton), former subsidiary of Goldman Sachs, currently subsidiary of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, is based in Houston Texas.

12. Litton, purportedly successor in interest to Freemont Investment and Loan Corporation (Freemont), is a necessary party, as Freemont is named as purported lender on the copy of the deed of trust (assuming arguendo the copy is a true and correct copy of the original), owing a duty and obligation to Plaintiff as grantor, to return Plaintiffs property.

13. Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Incorporated (MERS), a wholly owned subsidiary of MERSCORP, organized under the laws of Delaware, domiciled in Virginia, is the notorious electronic registration system created for purportedly registering property transfers through its private registry. MERS has been sued by several Registry of Deeds managers for mortgage malfeasance.

14. MERS is a necessary party, as MERS claims to be the purported nominee for Freemont, and alleged holder of Plaintiffs property at the time of the satisfaction of the purported loan. MERS as purported nominee owes a duty and obligation to Plaintiff as grantor, to return Plaintiffs property to Plaintiff.

15. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, NA (WFBNA), a subsidiary of Wells Fargo and Company, has a principal place of business in California.

16. WFBNA is a necessary party, as WFBNA is the purported payee on the 22 December 2006 HUD-1 settlement statement that allegedly received $486,715.31 as payment in full on the purported loan. As purported payee WFBNA owes a duty to Plaintiff as payor to return Plaintiffs property to Plaintiff. 17. Defendants, and all of them, have at all times relevant to this complaint, conducted business in Maryland, including in this judicial district.

18. Due to the complex nature of mortgage servicing, securitization, trust, securities, tax and commercial law, and the presence of conflicting documents and instruments (possibly forged, fraudulent and/or fabricated), Plaintiff has made a good faith effort to determine the legal person(s) in unlawful possession of Plaintiffs property.

19. However, after several thousand hours of investigation, uncovering conflicting information, and the failure of Defendants, their agents, principals and assigns to respond to the Notice and Demand, discovery will be required to determine the exact person(s) to be held to account for the return of Plaintiffs property or the value of Plaintiffs property in lieu of its return.FACTS AND LAW

I. The Alleged Public Record Documents and Instruments

Do Not Add Up

20. It is undisputed that Plaintiff paid off a purported loan in the amount of $486,715. 31, allegedly to WFBNA, as evidenced by Line 104 on the 22 December 2006 HUD-1 Settlement Statement. (Pltf. Exhibit Ex. 1).21. A reasonable person, and impartial trier of fact would agree that only a bona fide payee (allegedly WFBNA) that was paid $486,715.31 would be the only bona fide holder in due course and real party in interest, in possession of Plaintiffs property (original note and DOT).

22. A reasonable person and impartial trier of fact would also agree that no prudent person or business entity would authorize the release of approximately half a million dollars to a fictitious payee if said payee was not the holder in due course of Plaintiffs property.

23. Per Md. Rule 12-602(c)(1), the documentary intangible personal property is more fully described in Plaintiffs Exhibits 2 and 3 (presuming arguendo the copy is a true and correct copy of the original instruments)

24. It is undisputed that the copy of the public record Deed of Trust (assuming arguendo it is a true and correct copy of the original) recorded among the land records of Baltimore County, Maryland in Book 23340, page 126, claims Freemont Investment and Loan is the purported lender in possession of Plaintiffs property (original note and DOT) (Pltf. Ex. 3)25. It is undisputed that Covenant No. 23 in the copy of the DOT referenced in the preceding paragraph of the complaint states (emphasis in bold):

23. Release. Upon payment of all sums secured by this Security Instrument, Lender or Trustee shall release this Security Instrument and mark the Note paid and return the Note to Borrower. Borrower shall pay any recordation costs. Lender may charge Borrower a fee for releasing this Security Instrument, but only if the fee is paid to a third party for services rendered and the charging of the fee is permitted under Applicable Law.

26. It is undisputed that the copy of the public record purported Certificate of Satisfaction (assuming arguendo its a true and correct copy of the original) recorded among the land records of Baltimore County, Maryland in Book 25203, page 262, claims Defendant MERS as purported nominee for Freemont was the alleged holder of Plaintiffs property (original note and DOT) at the time of alleged satisfaction (Pltf. Ex. 4).27. It is unrebutted that Line 104 of the HUD-1 payoff does not comport with the copy of the DOT or the copy of the Certificate of Satisfaction.

28. There is no evidence of a nexus between the purported lender (allegedly Freemont) and WFBNA.

II. Massive Fraud Has Been Committed Upon the Court and Land Records

29. The land records in counties across the country, including the land records of Baltimore County, Maryland have been tainted by the recording of millions of false, forged, fabricated and/or fraudulent documents and instruments.

30. County clerks are finally beginning to wake up, despite the fact that Essex Co. MA Register of Deeds, John OBrien has been warning government officials for the past few years (emphasis in bold).

Visit the office of John O'Brien, register of deeds in South Essex County, Massachusetts, and he'll eagerly show you stacks and stacks of documents. He calls it a crime scene.

Why? These documents, a plethora of mortgage-related assignments, were used as legal justification for evicting millions of families from their homes through a deeply flawed foreclosure process, enabled by the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems industry consortium. There's nothing that gets O'Brien's Irish up more than a discussion of the rampant fraud he sees perpetrated on the court.

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/MERS-county-clerks-fraud-robo-signing-1049990-1.html

31. Clerks and recorders of deeds are suing MERS and other persons for defrauding and depriving county governments of revenue as well as tainting and undermining the integrity of the land recordation system.

It just seems to be if you were a big bank, you didnt necessarily follow the rules, Norfolk County Register of Deeds William ODonnell told the Herald. See more at: http://mfi-miami.com/2012/02/three-massachusetts-counties-sign-up-to-sue-mers/32. It is public record knowledge that due to the rampant filing and recording of false, forged and fraudulent documents and instruments in court dockets and land records in counties across the United States, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Recorder of Deeds Nancy J. Becker filed a class action quiet title complaint on behalf of 16,000 Pennsylvania homeowners similarly situated. Case details are found in the U. S. District Court For The Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds, et al., v. MERSCORP, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-6968. Excerpts from complaint (Dkt 1) below (emphasis in bold). 9. The purpose of these recording statutes are, in the words of one commentator, to prevent disputes over property rights and to facilitate the use of land as collateral by creating a transparent public record that provides certainty in private bargains 17. [W]hen pressed on whether MERS expects financial institutions to update the MERS database regarding changes in loan ownership, the former CEO replied not so much

18. [A]stonishingly, MERS vice presidents are simply paralegals, customer service representatives, and foreclosure attorneys employed by other companies.

20. [M]ERS and MERSCORP engaged in unsafe or unsound practices that expose them and Examined Members to unacceptable operational, compliance, legal, and reputational risks.

21. MERS avoidance of filing mortgage assignments resulted in the loss of millions of dollars to county governments.

22. State and local entities across the nation are bringing suit to rein in Defendants deceptive conduct. Recently, The Delaware Attorney Generals Office brought suit against MERS for deceiving the public. assigning mortgages without the authority to do so.

24. To securitize a mortgage [and deed of trust] several assignments must be made: (A) The mortgage lenders as the [purported] originating lender [purportedly] sell mortgages (promissory note and mortgage documents) to a sponsor. The sponsor is a special purpose entity affiliated with a bank or financial institution. (B) The sponsor initiates the securitization by [purportedly] transferring (i.e. assigning) the mortgage to a depositor. (C) The depositor then [purportedly] transfers the mortgage to a special purpose vehicle (usually a trust) where the mortgages are sold to investors. 25. The securitization process requires three assignments. Under Pennsylvania law, these assignments are conveyances and must be recorded.

26. In reality, members of MERS might record the initial mortgage but as their practice, fail to record all subsequent assignments. Many such mortgages have been [purportedly] sold and assigned on multiple occasions, but there is no recording of these conveyances in the public record.

27. [B]efore this final assignment takes place there might be two, three, or a dozen assignments that are not recorded. The final [purported] assignment from MERS to a member of the mortgage industry typically occurs prior to a terminating event- foreclosure or satisfaction of the mortgage.

28. When this final [purported] assignment takes place, Defendants have already allowed MERS to circumvent recording multiple assignments. This creates gaps in the record of ownership. While the foreclosing entity claims to hold title to the property their rights to the property are in question.

29. Gaps in title cloud ownership, increase questions about foreclosure procedures, and raise doubts on the accurate satisfaction of mortgages, all of which undermine the time honored recording requirements in Pennsylvania and throughout the country.33. The preceding facts, evidencing a pattern and practice of unlawful conduct, are supported by the following statements made by expert witness, consumer/investor advocate and fraudclosure expert Nye Lavalle (emphasis in bold):

I make this report based upon facts personally known by me and my investigation, research, review, and analysis of evidence provided in the many lawsuits I have testified in and assisted lawyers with; gathered from other advocates and lawyers; thousands of other lawsuits; hundreds of thousands of papers, reports, and documents I have read, reviewed, and researched as well as filings filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) available and retrievable at the Edgar database (p.1, 1).

As a consumer/investor advocate and activist, I first identified this fraudulent assignment scheme in the mid to late 90s when various servicers were conducting judicial and non-judicial foreclosures in their names, rather than the real-party-in interest and true owner and equitable holder of borrowers promissory notes (p.1, 4).

One employee of a major servicer, EMC Mortgage a unit of JPMorgan Chase told me that you need to sue the lawyers, they are all in on it meaning the scam and scheme of fraudulent and unlawful foreclosures being conducted in the name of servicers who had no real ownership or interest in the note and thus no right or authority to conduct a foreclosure (p.1, 2, 5). 13. In my opinion, nothing any of these companies place onto a document,

assignment, affidavit, filing with a court, or pleading can be relied upon by any

party or court without a complete forensic audit verifying and validating not only

each fact or information stated on the documents, but the lawful signature and

authorities of each person placing their mark or signature upon each document, including the notary itself on notarized documents. 21. The key servicing challenge for servicers is that via the process of mortgage

securitization and the accounting, tax, and the remote bankruptcy protection sought by those in the secondary mortgage market, promissory notes, and their related assignments on hundreds of thousand and potentially many millions of occasions were never properly, contractually, lawfully, or equitably transferred, assigned, and/or indorsed.

Report on Fraudulent & Forged Assignments of Mortgages & Deeds in U.S. Foreclosures 2010 Nye Lavalle, Permission to Publish With Proper Attribution & Credit. Pew Mortgage Institute, 10675 Pebble Cove Lane, Boca Raton, FL 33498.34. Baltimore County Clerk of Court Julie Ensor was Noticed by Plaintiff of the massive fraud upon the land records in 2011. As of the filing of this complaint, Clerk Ensor has failed to act to remove the tainted documents from the land records.

35. Former DocX president Lorraine Brown is now in jail for admitting to being responsible for the forgery, fabrication, and/or falsification of over one million (1,000,000) bogus documents and instruments being filed in court cases and recorded in land records across the country. The number is most likely much higher than that (emphasis in bold).

Meet Lorraine O. Brown, an individual singled out for actual jail time for her role in the massive mortgage document fraud that plagued this nationFrom 2003 until 2009, DocX routinely forged mortgage documents.

These forged mortgage documents were distributed to county land recording offices and state courts all over the country.

This scheme was part of the giant bundle of illegal conduct known as foreclosure fraud. According to statements of fact from the Justice Department, from 2003 to 2009 DocX recorded over one million fake documents.Thats probably a low number. DocX wasnt just forging signatures, they were fabricating entire loan files.During the bubble years, they created a now-infamous mortgage fabrication price sheet, where mortgage servicers, who had trouble proving in court that they owned the homes they wanted to put into foreclosure, could purchase, at low prices, whatever documents they needed.To Recreate Entire Collateral File, basically the whole set of documents including the promissory note?That would set a servicer back $95.00.http://www.salon.com/2013/02/24/shes_paying_for_wall_streets_sins/

36. Public record documents evidence the fact that said documents crossed state lines and were filed in court records and land records across the country.37. Said document mill DocX, subsidiary of Lender Processing Services, provided fraudulent documents for filing and recording to known fraudclosure mills across the country, including Maryland fraudclosure mills under the direction, supervision and control of Thomas P. Dore, et al., Bierman, Geesing, Ward, and Wood, LLC, Buonassissi, Henning, and Lash, P.C., Shapiro and Burson, LLC, and Friedman and MacFadyen, P.A. among others. 38. Jose Portillo, former paralegal at fraudclosure mill Shapiro and Burson recently testified in Attorney Grievance Commission v. McDowell, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, Case No. 28110M, to having knowledge of over 8,000 fraudulent documents and instruments filed among the land records across Maryland.

39. Now that the qui tam complaint filed by attorney Lynn Szymoniak (U.S.A. v. ACE Sec. Inc. et al., U.S Dist. Court, W. Dist of N. C., Case No. 13-cv-00464) has been unsealed, Plaintiff will be better informed to complete the tracing of the proceeds and illicit gains made off of Plaintiffs property that unjustly enriched unknown persons (emphasis in bold).

Monday, Aug 12, 2013 07:58 AM EST Your mortgage documents are fake! Prepare to be outraged. Newly obtained filings from this Florida woman's lawsuit uncover horrifying scheme (Update) Why did banks have to resort to this illegal scheme? Was it just cheaper to mock up the documents than to provide the real ones? Did banks figure they simply had enough power over regulators, politicians and the courts to get away with it? (They were probably right about that one.)A newly unsealed lawsuit, which banks settled in 2012 for $95 million, actually offers a different reason, providing a key answer to one of the persistent riddles of the financial crisis and its aftermath. The lawsuit states that banks resorted to fake documents because they could not legally establish true ownership of the loans when trying to foreclose.This reality, which banks did not contest but instead settled out of court, means that tens of millions of mortgages in America still lack a legitimate chain of ownership, with implications far into the future.

The 2011 lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in both North and South Carolina, by a white-collar fraud specialist named Lynn Szymoniak, on behalf of the federal government, 17 states and three cities. Twenty-eight banks, mortgage servicers and document processing companies are named in the lawsuit, including mega-banks like JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi and Bank of America.[t]hese notes, as well as the mortgage assignments, were never delivered to the mortgage-backed securities trusts, and that the trustees lied to the SEC and investors about this. As a result, the trusts could not establish ownership of the loan when they went to foreclose, forcing the production of a stream of false documents.

Defendants used fraudulent mortgage assignments to conceal that over 1400 MBS trusts, each with mortgages valued at over $1 billion, are missing critical documents, meaning that at least $1.4 trillion in mortgage-backed securities are, in fact, non-mortgage-backed securities.The federal government, states and cities joined the lawsuit under 25 counts of the federal False Claims Act and state-based versions of the law. All of them bought mortgage-backed securities from banks that never conveyed the mortgages or notes to the trusts. The plaintiffs argued that, considering that trustees and servicers had to spend lots of money forging and fabricating documents to establish ownership, they were materially harmed by the subsequent impaired value of the securities. Also, these investors (which includes the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve) paid for the transfer of mortgages to the trusts, yet they were never actually transferred.

Finally, the lawsuit argues that the federal government was harmed by payments made on mortgage guarantees to Defendants lacking valid notes and assignments of mortgages who were not entitled to demand or receive said payments.Now that its unsealed, Szymoniak, as the named plaintiff, can go forward and prove the case. Along with her legal team (which includes the law firm of Grant & Eisenhoffer, which has recovered more money under the False Claims Act than any firm in the country), Szymoniak can pursue discovery and go to trial against the rest of the named defendants, including HSBC, the Bank of New York Mellon, Deutsche Bank and US Bank.Its good that the case remains active, because the $95 million settlement was a pittance compared to the enormity of the crime. By the end of 2009, private mortgage-backed securities trusts held one-third of all residential mortgages in the U.S. That means that tens of millions of home mortgages worth trillions of dollars have no legitimate underlying owner that can establish the right to foreclose.This disappoints Szymoniak, who told Salon the owner of these loans is now essentially whoever lies the most convincingly and whoever gets the benefit of doubt from the judge. Szymoniak used her share of the settlement to start the Housing Justice Foundation, a non-profit that attempts to raise awareness of the continuing corruption of the nations courts and land title system.http://www.salon.com/2013/08/12/your_mortgage_documents_are_fake/40. Defendant Litton and Wells Fargo Bank Home Mortgage are also defendants in USA v. Ace Sec. Corp. et al.41. For public servants and officers of the court (including the Md. Attorney General, judges and sheriffs), holding an office of the public trust, to ignore the preceding un-rebutted facts, would be grossly irresponsible and negligent.

III. Plaintiffs Property Generated Multiple Times the Value of The Property in

Profits to Unknown Persons.

42. Due to the securitization scheme, including credit default swaps, multiple insurance contracts, multi-pledging of Plaintiffs property, multiple offerings to investors of the same asset, it is more certain that not that Plaintiffs property generated multiple times the face value of the property.

43. Plaintiff is entitled to the return, recoupment, and disgorgement of those profits from persons who were unjustly enriched as a result of unlawfully converting Plaintiffs property.

44. Per Md. Rule 12-602(c)(1) the value of Plaintiffs property is uncertain, but at a minimum is valued at the face amount of the original note.

45. A credible estimate of how much profit was made from the conversion, sale, bifurcation, securitization, syndication, monetization, and/or hypothecation of Plaintiffs property and the true value is found in the declaration of expert witness, and former Wall Street attorney Neil Garfield. (Pltf. Appendix App A).

46. Based on specific calculations, Garfields estimate of value is anywhere from 5 to 20 times the face amount of the original note.

47. Garfield is without a doubt one of the leading experts on securitization schemes, having worked on Wall Street as an attorney, investment banker, and having been involved in many securitization transactions. Garfields family has also owned seats on all the major securities exchanges.

48. Garfields brief biography for evidentiary purposes and as background if Mr. Garfield is called as an expert witness at depositions and trial is found here.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/neil-garfield/8/3a6/323

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/about/

IV. Defendants Have Exhibited Persistent Pattern

and Practice of Prior Bad Acts49. Due to the prior bad acts of MacFadyen, MacFadyen was reprimanded by consent. See 5 to Verified Complaint.

50. Due to prior bad acts of Friedman, Friedman was disbarred by consent. See 8 to Verified Complaint.

51. Due to prior bad acts of F&MPA, F&MPA shut down their Richmond, Virginia operation as reported in Richmond BizSense (emphasis in bold).

Foreclosure Factory Shuts Down

A law firm that became entangled in an investment scam and several federal lawsuits over foreclosure processing has closed its Richmond office.

Friedman & MacFadyen, a debt collection firm that processed a huge number of foreclosures and kept offices in Baltimore and Richmond, recently vacated its office at 1601 Rolling Hills Drive in the Forest Office Park. It occupied a first-floor space in the 36,000-square-foot building

Several sources familiar with the firm said it has been in the process of shutting down since at least June. Calls to the firms Baltimore office have gone unanswered this week, and several messages left with its principals since the summer have not been returned. The firms website is no longer active.

Although it is unclear why the firm is shutting down, Friedman & MacFadyen is the defendant in several federal lawsuits alleging violations of consumer debt collection regulations.

The firm and its principal Mark Friedman also took a big financial hit in 2010 related to a massive investment scam in Los Angeles allegedly run by a relative of Friedmans.

http://www.richmondbizsense.com/2012/10/25/foreclosure-factory-shuts-down/52. F&MPA also shut down its Baltimore office and relocated to Cockeysville, Maryland.

53. F&MPA was sued for stiffing Alex Cooper Auctioneers out of auction fees in fraudclosure auctions as reported in the Daily Record.

BY: Ben MookPOSTED: July 23, 2012 Tags: Alex Cooper Auctioneers Inc., baltimore city circuit court, Bankruptcy, bankruptcy protection, breach of contract, Friedman & MacFadyen P.A., lawsuit, Totman Building

Alex Cooper Auctioneers Inc. is suing a soon-to-close law firm it worked with on a number of foreclosure sales, claiming the attorneys failed to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses.http://thedailyrecord.com/tag/alex-cooper-auctioneers-inc/54. Defendant Litton, as a former subsidiary of notorious Goldman Sachs, is directly involved in the scheme and scam to defraud not only homeowners and investors, but also the federal government as evidenced in the recent whistleblower lawsuit, where Litton is a named Defendant.

Nothing Backed Mortgages And Foreclosure Fraud, The Ocwen/Litton Loan Servicing Whistleblower Lawsuithttp://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2013/06/nothing-backed-mortgages-and-foreclosure-fraud-the-ocwenlitton-loan-servicing-whistleblower-lawsuit

http://gswhistleblower.blogspot.com/55. Plaintiff has made contact with former Litton VP Chris Wyatt to appear as an expert witness at depositions and trial.

56. Defendant MERS prior bad acts go without saying, too numerous to list all of them, and a single example shall suffice. Surely a New York Attorney General would not be so reckless to sue MERS if there was not a high probability of prevailing in the suit.

Schneiderman Sues Three Big Banks, MERS for Deceptive Practices, Illegal ForeclosuresAttorney General Eric T. Schneiderman today filed a lawsuit against several of the nations largest banks charging that the creation and use of the private national mortgage electronic registry system known as MERS has resulted in a wide range of deceptive and fraudulent foreclosure filings in New York state and federal courts, harming homeowners and undermining the integrity of the judicial foreclosure process.The lawsuit further asserts that the MERS System has effectively eliminated homeowners and the publics ability to track property transfers through the traditional public records system.http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/02/03/schneiderman-sues-three-big-banks-mers-for-deceptive-practices-illegal-foreclosures/57. Wells Fargo and Company, parent corporation of Defendant WFBNA, was a party to the well known OCC Consent Order.

WASHINGTON The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Reserve Board today released amendments to their enforcement actions against 13 mortgage servicers for deficient practices in mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing. The amendments require the servicers to provide $9.3 billion in payments and other assistance to borrowers.

The amendments memorialize agreements in principle announced in January with Aurora, Bank of America, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, MetLife Bank, Morgan Stanley, PNC, Sovereign, SunTrust, U.S. Bank, and Wells Fargo. The amount includes $3.6 billion in cash payments and $5.7 billion in other assistance to borrowers such as loan modifications and forgiveness of deficiency judgments.http://occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2013/nr-ia-2013-35.html58. WFBNA, its parent company and subsidiaries, committed additional prior bad acts that evidence a pattern and practice and ongoing scheme as adjudicated (emphasis in bold).

On April 5, 2012, a federal judge ordered Wells Fargo to pay $3.1 million in punitive damages over a single loan, one of the largest fines for a bank ever for mortgaging service misconduct. Elizabeth Magner, a federal bankruptcy judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana, cited the bank's behavior as highly reprehensible, stating that Wells Fargo has taken advantage of borrowers who rely on the banks accurate calculations. She went on to add, perhaps more disturbing is Wells Fargo's refusal to voluntarily correct its errors. It prefers to rely on the ignorance of borrowers or their inability to fund a challenge to its demands, rather than voluntarily relinquish gains obtained through improper accounting methods.

The fine has come at a time that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has launched an investigation of Wells Fargo into racial discrimination practices, the second federal probe in 2012 of alleged violations of misconduct with regard to race. The other, began in 2011 by the National Fair Housing Alliance has found overwhelming and troubling evidence that six of the nation's major banks handle foreclosures in neighborhoods populated primarily by minorities differently than in white communities.

Tax dodging and lobbying

In December 2011, the non-partisan organization Public Campaign criticized Wells Fargo for spending $11 million on lobbying and not paying any taxes during 2008-2010, instead getting $681 million in tax rebates, despite making a profit of $49 billion, laying off 6,385 workers since 2008, and increasing executive pay by 180% to $49.8 million in 2010 for its top 5 executives.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo

59. Due to the prior bad acts of Defendants, and all of them, Defendants cannot be trusted to tell the truth as to the precise location and what person(s) is/are unlawfully in possession of Plaintiffs property without aid of the contempt powers of the court.

V. Plaintiff Made Good Faith Efforts To Recover Plaintiffs

Property Before Resorting to Litigation60. Plaintiff served a pre-suit Notice and Demand that substantially complied with contract, trust, commercial, tax, securities, state, and federal law for the return of Plaintiffs property (Pltf. Ex 5).61. Defendants Friedman, MacFadyen, F&MPA, Litton and its/their agents, principals, assigns, transferors, transferees, nominees, contractors, employees, servants and/or attorneys failed to object to said good faith demand.

62. Defendants Friedman, MacFadyen, F&MPA, Litton and its/their agents, principals, assigns, transferors, transferees, nominees, contractors, employees, servants and/or attorneys failed in their duty and obligation to Plaintiff to comply with said demand.

63. Plaintiff possesses the right to the immediate return of Plaintiffs documentary intangible personal property, the original, genuine (free from fraud or forgery), authenticated, wet ink signature note and deed of trust.

64. Per Md. Rule 12-602(c)(2), Plaintiffs property has been unjustly detained by Defendants individually, jointly by two or more Defendants, or by all of them. See U.S. Bank NA v. Leesburg Pizza Buffet, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 111509, Decided June 14, 2013 (4th Circuit).

65. In the alternative, should Plaintiffs property have been purportedly lost, altered, or destroyed, Plaintiff is entitled to the value of Plaintiffs property and any proceeds generated from said property in lieu of its return per Md. Rule 12-602(c)(3).

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION- DETINUE66. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

Elements for Detinue Complaint to Be Met67. (1) Plaintiff has joined necessary Defendants upon Plaintiffs information and belief based upon copies of instruments in Plaintiffs possession per Md. Rule 12-602(b).

68. (2) Plaintiff has described the property claimed and an estimate of its value per Md. Rule 12-602(c)(1).

69. (3) Plaintiff has clearly stated the property has been unjustly detained by Defendants per Md. Rule 12-602(c)(2).

70. (4) Plaintiff has made a claim for the return of Plaintiffs property or its value per Md. Rule 12-602(c)(3).

71. (5) Plaintiffs claim includes a claim for damages to the property or for its wrongful detention.

SUFFICIENCY OF PLEADING72. A complaint should not be dismissed "unless it appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of her claim which would entitle her to relief. (Housley v. U.S. (9th Cir. Nev. 1994 35 F.3d 400, 401)73. All allegations of material fact in the complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. (Argabright v.United States, 35 F.3d 1476, 1479 (9th Cir. 1996)74. Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that relief can be granted on Plaintiffs single cause of action. This is a pre-emptive statement since Defendant(s) will most likely attempt to file a Motion to Dismiss per Md. Rule 2-322(b)(2), for alleged legal insufficiency of a pleading.75. Plaintiff has exhausted all Plaintiffs extrajudicial and commercial remedies before wasting the taxpayers and courts judicial resources.76. The complaint includes short, plain and precise statements of the basis for relief in accordance with Md. Rule 2-303(b)Contents. Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct77. The Complaint contains cognizable legal theories, sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories, and seeks remedies to which Plaintiff is entitled. (Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); King v. California, 784 F.2d 910, 913 (9th Cir. 1986)).78. The legal conclusions in the complaint can and should be drawn from the facts alleged, and, in turn, the court should accept them as such. (Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752 (9th Cir, 1994).79. Plaintiffs complaint contains claims and has a probable validity of proving a "set of facts" in support of their claim entitling them to relief. (Housley v. U.S. (9th Cir. Nev. 1994) 35 F.3d 400, 401). Therefore, relief as requested herein should be granted.80. There are no issues of material fact in dispute. 81. This matter has been well settled with ample evidence.ESTOPPEL OF DEFENDANTS EXCEPTING WFBNA TO ENTER ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL ARGUMENT 82. An ordinary reasonable person, exercising reasonable care, responds to correspondence.83. Defendants, and all of them, excepting WFBNA, are estopped from uttering any oral or written objection, statement, motion, or any other writing in this matter due to their failure/refusal to answer Plaintiffs demands to return Plaintiffs property. 84. Said defendants had multiple opportunities to object or comply with Plaintiffs demands, but failed and refused to do so.85. Silence is acquiescence where there is a lawful duty to answer. Larry Litton, as CEO of Litton, owed a duty to the corporation to answer and failed in his duty. Larry Litton owed a duty and obligation to Plaintiff to return Plaintiffs property and failed in that duty.86. Friedman and MacFadyen, as officers of the court with a duty to answer at the time the demand was made by Plaintiff, were warned repeatedly that failure to object or comply with Plaintiffs demands would result in judgment being entered against them. See: Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391. Notification of legal responsibility is the first essential of due process of law. Also, see: U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. Bean v. Steuart Petroleum Co., 244 Md. 459, 1966 Md. LEXIS 454 (Md., November 17, 1966, Decided) It would appear that this Court relaxed its view that mere silence is insufficient to create an estoppel and that other misleading action coupled with the silence on the part of the party to be estopped is needed in order to find estoppel in pais..

Wiser v. Lawler. No. 174. 189 U.S. 260; 23 S. Ct. 624; 47 L. Ed. 802; 1903 U.S. LEXIS 1349 Argued February 25, 26, 1903. April 27, 1903, Decided. To constitute an estoppel by silence there must be something more than an opportunity to speak. There must be an obligation. This principle applies with peculiar force where the persons to whom notice should be given are unknown.

The authorities recognize a distinction between mere silence and a deceptive silence accompanied by an intention to defraud, which amounts to a positive beguilement.

In all of the cases holding a party to be estopped by his silence, the silence operated as a fraud and actually itself misled. In all there is both the specific opportunity and apparent duty to speak. And, in all, the party maintaining silence knows that some one else is relying upon that silence, and either acting or about to act as he would not have done had the truth been told. These elements are essential to create a duty to speak. Ganley v. G & W Ltd. Partnership, 44 Md. App. 568, 1980 Md. App. LEXIS 211 (Md. Ct. Spec. App., January 11, 1980, Decided )

Estoppel is cognizable at common law either as a defense to a cause of action, or to avoid a defense. There may be an estoppel to prevent a party from relying upon a right of property or contract, or of remedy both at law or in equity. Equitable estoppel operates as a technical rule of law to prevent a party from asserting his rights where it would be inequitable and unconscionable to assert those rights. It is essential for the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel that the party claiming the benefit of the estoppel must have been misled to his injury and changed his position for the worse, having believed and relied on the representations of the party sought to be estopped. Mere silence will generally not raise an estoppel against a silent party. The doctrine is only applicable when there is a duty imposed upon the party remaining silent to speak. Whether an estoppel exists is a question of fact to be determined in each case.

JUDICIAL NOTICE #1

Plaintiff Notices this court of foreign case citations and code per U.S. Const. art. IV, 1, and Md. Rule 5-201(d) Judicial Notice-A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment as follows:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

a) Entry of an Order declaring that Defendants Friedman, MacFadyen, F&MPA, Litton, MERS, and WFBNA owed a duty, and are obligated to Plaintiff, to return Plaintiffs documentary intangible personal property, or its value;b) Entry of an Order declaring that Defendants Friedman, MacFadyen, F&MPA, Litton, MERS, and WFBNA failed to return Plaintiffs property, or its value, to Plaintiff, after Notice was served to do so; c) Entry of an Order of determination of value of Plaintiffs property.

d) Entry of an Order awarding immediate possession of the subject property to Plaintiff and commanding Defendants, individually, or in the alternative, all of them, to return Plaintiffs property, or its value, to Plaintiff.

e) Entry of an Order directing the Baltimore County Sheriff, or other lawful authority, to use all necessary force to repossess Plaintiffs property or its value, and deliver same to Plaintiff, if the property or its value is not voluntarily surrendered to Plaintiff within seven (7) days of the Courts Order.

f) Entry of an Order awarding Plaintiff compensation for damage to Plaintiffs property and/or for its wrongful detention, to be determined at trial. ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

g) For the costs of suit incurred herein; andh) For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Due the presence of multiple conflicting documents and instruments, it is virtually impossible to determine the exact person(s) in possession of Plaintiffs property at this time. Due to that fact, Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this complaint to join additional Defendants or dismiss existing Defendants after Plaintiff conducts sufficient discovery.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDDated this ___ day of __________________ 2013

___________________________

Todd Wetzelberger

VERIFICATION

STATE OF __________________

COUNTY OF ____________________

BEFORE ME personally appeared Todd Wetzelberger who, being by me first duly sworn and identified in accordance with Maryland law, deposes and says:

1. My name is Todd Wetzelberger.

2. I have read and understood the attached foregoing complaint filed herein, and each fact alleged therein is true and correct of my own personal knowledge.

FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

_____________________________

Todd Wetzelberger, Affiant

Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me ________________________, Notary Public, on this ___ day of _____, 2013, by

, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who appeared before me.

Signature: _________________________SealMy Commission Expires: ____________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI, ______________________ hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing complaint filed in the Baltimore County Circuit Court for the State of Maryland, and summons was served via USPS Certified Mail, Restricted Delivery per Md. Rule 2-121(a) in a sealed envelope on or about this ____day of ______________________, 2013 to the following recipients:1. Summons and Verified Complaint for Detinue

MARK HOWARD FRIEDMAN3700 Toone Street, Apt. 1537Baltimore, Maryland 21224 Cert No. 7008 1300 0000 9074 8870 KENNETH JOHN MACFADYEN

Friedman & MacFadyen, PA 10856 Sandringham Rd Cockeysville,Maryland21030-2947 Cert No. 7008 1300 0000 9074 8887FRIEDMAN AND MACFADYEN, PA

Kenneth John MacFadyen

10856 Sandringham Rd Cockeysville,Maryland21030-2947 Cert No. 7008 1300 0000 9074 8894LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LPLarry B. Litton, Jr., CEOSuccessor in interest to Fremont Investment & Loan Corporation

4828 Loop Central Drive Houston, Texas 77081 Cert No. 7008 1300 0000 9074 8900MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.Bill Beckmann, CEO1818 Library Street, Suite 300

Reston, Virginia 20190 Cert No. 7008 1300 0000 9074 8917WELLS FARGO BANK, NAJohn G. Stumpf, CEO420 Montgomery Street

San Francisco, CA 94104 Cert No. 7008 1300 0000 9074 8924 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing statement is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Executed this ___ day of _________________2013, at __________________ County, Maryland.

______________________________

Todd WetzelbergerPage 1of 21Page 4of 21