Motion to Recuse Judge Deutschebank v Augenstein Inappropriate Exparte Contact

8/13/2019 Motion to Recuse Judge Deutschebank v Augenstein Inappropriate Exparte Contact

1/19

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKYHENRY CIRCUIT COURT

No.07-Ci-00368DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUSTCOMPANY as Trustee for theCertificateholders of Soundview Home LoanTrust 2005 0PT4 Asset- BackedCertificates Series 2005 0PT4v.Glenn D. Augenstein

Plaintiff

Defendant

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DISQUALIFIACTION FOR VIOLATION OFKRS 26A.015 LOCAL RULES OF THE TWELFTH 12T JUDICIAL CIRCUITAND KENTUCKY CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

Comes Defendant Glenn D. Augenstein by counsel and moves this Court for thedisqualification of Circuit Judge Karen A. Conrad. Defendant no longer trusts that theOUli acts impartially or that Defendant will receive due process of law both substantive

and procedural and equal prot ection of the law and a fair appli cation of law and fairapplication of the rules of evidence and procedure.

In support of said motion Defendant states as follo ws:The Ex Parte Communication1. On April 132012 Circuit Judge Conrad and Attorney Carole Schneider an

attorney with Lerner Sampson Rothfuss who repre sent the Plaintiff hereinengaged in ex parte communication in regard to Henry Circuit Case No. 07-CI-00368 and Kentucky Court ofAppeals Case No. 200 9-CA-000058-MR cases inwhich Augenstein is Defendant and Appellant respectively.

2. The ex parte communication was held in violation of the Local Rules of the

M UTION \ UJ DI SQUALlFICATIUN

CASE NO. 07Ci368 Deutsche ank National Trust Company v ugenstein et al Page I of 18


2/19

Twelfth (12 th) Judicial Circuit. 1 A copy of the Local Rules of the Twelfth (12 th)Judicial Circuit are attached hereto as Exhibit A.

3. General Rule 4.2 prohibits ex parte communications (hereinafter impermissiblecommunication ), except in instances of emergency relief or temporaryrestraining orders.'

4. The impermissible communication between Judge Conrad and Attorney CaroleSchneider' lasted approximately eight (8) minutes. There was no mention ofanything relating to emergency relief or restraining orders.

5. There was no motion scheduled for Motion Day. This was in violation of GeneralRule 2.3(A).5

6. There was no motion filed with the Henry Circuit Clerk. This was in violation ofGeneral Rule 2.3(B).6

7. There was no motion or notice served upon Defendant, and no cause, good orotherwise, for such failure was shown. This was in violation of General Rule2.3(B).7

Local Rules of the Twelfth(12 Ih) Judic ial C ircuit wer e signed into effect by C ircuit Judge Conrad onOctober 20 008, and by the Chief Jus tice on November 19, 2008 .

2 Ge nera l Rules , 4.2 Exparte Communications, states, in part, With the excep tion of actions foremergency relief or tem porary restraining orders, there sho u ld be no ex par te communications with theJudge by counselor parties in criminal or civil actions.

3 Though Carole Schn eider, KBA 8881 2, had made no official appearance in e ither case at the time ofthe imp ermissibl e communication it is ev iden t from the en suing record her unofficial involvement wassignifica nt. Subsequen t to the imperm issible communication Ms . Schneid er made oral arguments onbehalf of PlaintiffDEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for theCertificateholders of Soundview Horne Loan Trust, 2005-0 PT4, As set- Backed Certificates, Series2005-0PT4, in a June 28 , 2013 , hearing relating to Defendant s recovery of costs. Further subsequentMs. Schneider enter ed an appearance as counsel of record in Plaintiffs Respon se to Defendant'sSubmission of Expert's Fees, of Ju ly 23, 2013.

4 The impermissible communication began at approx imately 01:56:36, P.M ., ET, and ended atapprox imately 02 :04 :26, P.M ., ET.

5 General Rules 2 .3(A) states in pa rt, A ll motion s sha ll be scheduled for Motion Day, except as follo ws : I) Motions for Default Judgment. (2) Prisoner cases. (3) Motions for the Court on wh ich all partieswaiv e service and notice requirrnents und er 53.06.

6 General Rules 2 .3(8 ) requires that Motions sha ll be filed no later that 4 :00p .m. Per th e foll owingschedule:

7 General Rules 2 .3(8) requires that A ll oth er motions and noti ce thereof shal1 be 'served' at le ast sevenMOTj lN Hll< D IS UA I,IFICIITION

CASE NO. 07Ci368 Deutsche ank National Trust Company v ugenstein et al Page 2 of 18


3/19

8. The impermissible communication occurred in the courtroom of the OldhamCircuit Court. This was in violation of General Rule 2.3 F)

9. The impermissible communication was not o f an emergency nature, and doesnot appear to have been pre-approved with the Cour t. This was in violation ofGeneral Ru le 2.3F) l).9

10. The impermi ssible communication does not appear to have been subject to aCourt order. This was in violation of General Rule 2.3 F) 2).IO

11. Canon 3B7) prohibits a judge from initiating, permitting, or considering ex partecommunications with attorneys or parties concerning a pend ing or impendingproceeding.II

12. The prohibition includes communications from lawyers and other persons even ifnot previously participants in the proceeding.

13. Defendant was not notified in any way of the impermissible communication andJudge Conrad appears to have made no provisi on to promptly notify Defendant inregard to the substance of the impermissible communication pursuant to Canon3B 7) a) ii) .ll

14. Defendant respectfully requests the Court take judicial notice under KRE 201d)of the video transcript in possession of the Oldham Circuit Clerk dated April 13,

7) days pr ior to the time specified for the hearing/motion hour, except for go od cause shown .8 Gene ra l Rule 2.3 F states, in part, C ivil motions shall be docketed and hea rd in the county where the

action is filed unless.9 General Rul e 2.3 F) states, in part, 1)The matter is of an emergency nature and pre- approved with the

Court.10 General Rule 2.3 F states, in pa rt, 2) The Court orde rs otherwise.11 Canon 38 7) provides limited exception s to the general pro hibition on ex pa rte comm unica tions,

however, non e of those exceptional circ umstances appear to be pre sent.12 Whether Ms. Schneid er had made an officia l appearance in the case at the date of the impermissible

communi cation, Apr il 13, 20 12, is irrelevan t13 Canon 38 7) a) ii) states, the judge makes provision promptly to no tify a ll othe r parties of the

substance of th e ex parte communication and allows an opportunity to respond.M m IONFOR D I QUAIIFlC JON

CASE NO. 07C i368 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v ugens tein et al Page 3 of 18


4/19

2012, beginning approxim ately 0 1:56:30 P.M ., ET, and ending approximately02:04:30 P.M ., ET.

15. From the imp ermissible communication of April 13, 2012;At :56:36 :- Caro le Schneider: I kno w . . . Th eres nothing on Oldham County docket ... Butcan you put on yo ur Henry Co unty hat?- Judge Co nrad : Wh at? What s goi ng on in Henry?At :57: 3:

- Carole Schneider: Th is is the infamous Augenstein case.- Jud ge C on rad:And um .. . Mis s um muffled) Thi s attorney was here on anotherca se and he showed up actually. What s going on in that case ...?- Carole Schneider: Well, well wh at what s happened on this case is apparently,um, we d ec id ed .. .- Ju dg e C on rad : Cause I m not getting copied on some of .. . if this is recent..nothat s not re cent.- Car ole Schneider: It s not too rec ent. We had moved for a new, ah, for a newhearing, and think the latest dec ision was November. But they have determinedthat we are not the real party in interest and have remanded it back so guess ourqu estion is wha t do we need to do to get it dismissed? laughs) Do need to cop yyou on so mething? laughing)At :57:39:- Jud ge Conrad : Who is the real party of int e re s t ?- Ca role Schneider: whispered) I don tkno w. I don tknow if we re gonna, if

14 Here Judge Conrad ma ke s an inquiry into the procedural posture of the case.15 Here Judge Conrad ma kes an inquiry in the substance of the case.Ivl oTION F r< D JSQlJAJ.IrICAT] J1\

C SE NO. 07Ci368 Deutsche ank Nat ional Trust Co p ny v ugenstein et al Pag e 4 of 18


5/19

we r e refi-ing, or what we r e doing on this.At 1:58:29:- Jud ge Co nra d: But the re was som e issue about when they were ass igned thenote .. .1 think it had I think maybe the issu e was that they too k it wit hin about 3day s afte r they filed their lawsuit and .. . urn .. . Lerner Sampson cited a lot ofOhio Law and Federal Law on it.- Carole Schneider: laughing)- Jud ge Conr ad : and so I ruled in their favor.

At 1:59: 6:- Caro le Schneider: And they ve remanded it back to yo u and we j ust want to getit dismissed . What do we need to do? 6At 2: 1 :29 Judge Conrad places a call to the Henr y C ou nt y Clerk to inquireregarding the status of the case . The inquiry lasts approximately 2.5 minutes.At 2: 4: 4:- Judge Conrad: I m gon na suggest that you ju st tell them to go ahead and file a ...- Carole Schneider: File motion.- Jud ge Conrad : . . . motion to dismiss based upon the Court of Appeals decisionand they set it for one of the motion hours . ..- Car ole Schneider : OK.- Jud ge Conra d : ... I got two of them a mon th up there .- Caro le Schneider: Alright, I ll have them do that.

16. Judge Conra d , by permitting and considering ex parte communi cation, violated16 Here uninvolved counsel seeks advice from the OLIrtHere Judge Conrad, after making procedural and substantiv e inquiries, and after emp loying staff in both

the Oldham Circuit Court and Henry Circuit Court, practices law from the bench and offers legal adviceto uninvolved counsel to the benefit of Plaintiff. TION rOt D ISVI M I lFI CATION

CA SE NO. 07Ci368 Deutsche ank National Trust Company v ugenstein et al Page 5 of 18


6/19

SCR 4.300 Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct, a copy of which is attachedhereto as Exhibit B ; l Canon 1, by failing to maintain and enforce highstandards of conduct and did not personally observe those standards so that theintegrity and impartiality of the judiciary would be preserved; (2) Canon 2A, byfailing to respect and comply with the law and to act in a manner that promotespublic confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; (3) Canon 3Aand B(2), by being unfaithful to the law; (4) Canon 3B(7), by permitting andconsidering ex parte communications with regard to an impending proceeding; (5)

Canon 3B(7)(a)(ii) by failing to inform Defendant of the substance of theimpermissible communications and allow an opportunity to respond; and (6)numerous of the Local Rules of the Twelfth(l2th) Judicial Circuit, including 4.2,2.3(A), 2.3(B), 2.3(F), 2.3(F)(l) and 2.3(F)(2).

17. It is presumed Judge Conrad and Attorney Carole Schneider are aware ofthe localrules, the rules of procedure, and the Supreme Court Rules.

Additional Impermissible Communications18. The record indicates there have been additional impermissible ex parte

communications in regard to Henry Circuit Case No. 07-CI-368.19. Appearing on a AOC-955 Recording Log, beneath the entry date stamp of

September 13, 2013, the Henry Circuit Clerk s hand written message states 1udgeConrad has had the file. Hearings were done in Oldham County. A copy of thisAOC-955 Recording Log is attached hereto as Exhibit c

20. Defendant respectfully requests the Court take judicial notice under KRE 201(d)of the AOC-955 Recording Log, entry stamped by the Henry Circuit Clerk on

MOTJ lN F(ll{ DISQIMLIFICAI N

CASE NO. 07Ci368 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v ugenstein et a Page 6 of 18


7/19

September 13,2013 , in possession of the Henry Circuit Clerk.21. Judge Conrad, by permitting and considering additional ex parte communication,

vio lated SCR 4.300 Kentucky Code of Judi cial Conduct; (1) Canon 1, by agai nfailing to maintain and enfo rce high standards of conduct and did not personallyobserve those standards so that the integrity and impartiality of the judiciarywould be preserved; (2) Canon 2A, by again failing to respect and comply withthe law and to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity andimpartiality of the judiciary; (3) Canon 3A and B(2), by again being unfaithful to

the law; (4) Canon 38 7), by aga in permitting and considering ex partecommunications with regard to an impending proceeding; (5) Canon 3B(7)(a)(ii)by again fai ling to inform Defendant of the substance of the impermissiblecommunications and allow an opportunity to respond; and (6) aga in by numerousviolations of the Local Rules of the Twelfthl2 th) Judicial Circuit, including 4.2,2.3(A), 2.3(8 , 2.3(F), 2.3 F l and 2.3 F 2 .

The June 28, 20 13 Hearin g on Costs - Henry Circuit llli v. Augenstein22. On March 7, 2013, Defendant filed notice with Deutsche Bank National Trust

Company seeking, as prevailing par ty, to recover his costs in Henry Circuit CaseNo. 07-CI-368, and Kentucky Court ofAppeals Case No. 2009-CA-000058-MR.

23. Recovery of such costs was specifically referenced in the Court s order of June22,20 12, attached hereto as Exhibit D.

24. Defe ndant requests the Court take j udicial notice und er KRE 20 1(d) of theoriginal Court order of June 22, 20 12, in Henry Circuit Case No 07-CI-368 on filewith the Henry Circuit Clerk.

M Ol l (lN I (JI{ D ISQIJALlf ICt\T ION

CASENO. 07C 68 Deutsche ank National Trust Company v ugenstein et al Page 7 of 18


8/19

25. Plaintiff did not timely tile objections .26. On June 28, 2013 a hearing on Defendant s recovery of co st s was held in the

Henry Circuit Court.27 . Defendant respectfully requests the Court take judicial notice under KRE 201 d)

of the video tra nscript in possession of the H en ry Ci rc ui t C le rk da ted J un e 28,2013 , betwe en the tim es of approximately 08:38:00. A.M., ET, and approximately09 :14:14, A.M., ET.

8 C ounsel for Defense , R obert Smith, began making oral presentation at08:39:49.

29 . At 8:48:4 :- J ud ge Co nrad: Yeah. He s also tri ed to get i nv ol ve d in other cases up here.- R obert F. Smith: And, and ...- Judge C onra d: nd he s s ub mi tt ed d oc um en ts in o th er c as es and I had to, ... hewas reviewing cases up h ere, to try and get involved in other cases. And I hadone c ouple tha t ap pro ach ed the b en ch who had no idea who this gentl eman wastha t was submitting things in the ir cas e . They had reac h ed a deal w it h s omeo ne.So Mr. ugen stein was very act iv e in, um , in, in thi s sort of litigation as far as Icould see.At 8:49: :

- J ud ge onr ad : Well, I ll h av e to go back and tak e a look at it.- R obert F. Smith: A nd , and, and , again judge Mr. Au genstein as a citizen of theCommonwealth of Kentucky is all owed to ask p eo pl e w he th er or not the y reinterested in obtaining assistance w it h reg ard to their issues.- J udg e Conrad: He didn t ask. He did it on his own. He didn t ask on that case he

M OTl N n l{ D S j I:Al IFfCAT1 N

CASE NO . 07Ci368 Deutsche ank National Trust Company v ugenstein et al Page 8 of 18


9/19

entered this without anyone s knowledge. He just submitted something to theclerk and it became a part of the file.- Robert F Smith:And Judge, again, even if he did that that s not germane to theseproceedings.- Judge Conrad: Well I don t know what all this expert was used for, is all I msaymg .. .- Robert F Smith: Judge ...- Judge Conrad: Mr. Augenstein went on a one man campaign it seemed to me fora while about a lot of this stuff.8

30. Defendant Augenstein submitted a single affidavit, a copy of which is attachedhereto as Ex hibit E, into Henry Circui t Case No . 08-CI-147, Bank of New YorkTrust Company v. Payton, on August 13 2008 .

31. Defendant requests the Court take judicial notice under KRE 201(d) ofDefendant s affidavit filed August 13, 2008, into Henry Circuit Case No. 08-CI-147, in the office of the Henry Circuit Clerk.

32. Though admittedly unconventional Defendant s submission of the affidavitinvolved no nefarious intentions and was a good faith ef fort to inform and assis tthe Court.

33. Defendant s interests were stated unambiguously in his preamble.

Comes now Glenn Augenstein, a non party to the above matter, anddue to the affiants interest in the integrity of the Court system ofthe Commonwealth of Kentucky, and the protection of the citizensof the Commonwealth of Kentucky, submits the followingaffidavit.

34. The averments of Defendants a ffidavit merely recounted facts reflected in the18 The term o ne man campaign did not seem to be intended as flattering.

M OTION rOR DIS QlJflL WIC/ 1 ON

CASE NO. 07Ci368 Deutsc he ank National Trust Comp any v ugenstein et al Page90f1 8


10/19

record of Henry Circuit Case No. 08-CT147 at the time.35. The following day, August 14, 2008, Judge Conrad issued an order striking the

affidavit from the record, instructing Defendant to file no further affidavits incases not involving him, and instructing the clerk not to file same. A copy of theorder is attached hereto as Exhibit F

36. Defendant requ ests the Court take judicial notice under KR 20I(d) of theoriginal Court order of August 14, 2008, in Bank New rk Trust Company Payton Henry Circuit Case No. 08-CI-147 , in the office of the Henry CircuitClerk.

37. On August 15, 2008, counsel for Plaintiff Bank of New York Trust Company,Michael R. Brinkman (of Lerner, Sampson Rothfuss), withdrew PlaintiffsMotion for Summary Judgment, a copy of which is attached heret o as ExhibitG

38. Defendant requests the Court take judicial notice under KRE 201(d) of theoriginal Notice of Withdrawal of Motion for Summary Judgment in Bank New rk Trust Company PaytonHenry Circuit Case No. 08-CI-147, in theoffice of the Henry Circuit Clerk.

39. Defendant note s that on September 2, 2008 a short sale of the Payton propertyoccurred. Copi es of the deed and mortgage associ ated with this short sale are

attached hereto as xhibit H, and xhibit T respectively.40. Defendant requests the Court take judicial notice under KR 20 1(d) of the

orig inal deed at D 260 Pg 556, mortgage at M 280 Pg 255 in the office of the

19 The certificate of service on Plaintiff Bank of New York Trust Company Notice of Withdrawal ofMotion for Summary Judgment bears the date August 15, 2008. The notice bears the clerk s entry dateof August 20, 2008.M T ON l U < l . l l l l l \ l l N

CASE NO. 07Ci368 Deutsche Bank Nationa l Trust Company v ugenstein et al Page 1 of 18


11/19

Henry County Clerk.41. Defendant is concerned that a good faith recounting of facts reflected in the

record of Henry Circuit Case No. 08-CI-147 raises such ire from Judge Conrad.42. Defendant is conce rned that such ire has been sustained by Judge Conrad for five

(5) years.43. Defendant is further concerned that such ire was expressed and brandished by

Judge Conrad in a hearing five (5) years subsequent on a completely unrelatedmatter.

44. Judge Conrad has violated KRS 26A.015(2)(a), a copy ofwhich is attached heretoas Exhibit J, by failing to disqualify hersel f in the presence of bias andprejudice, SCR 4.300 Kentucky Code of Jud icial Conduct; (1) Canon 1, by failingto maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and did not personally observethose standards so that the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary would bepreserved; (2) Canon A by failing to respect and comply with the law and to actin a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality ofthe judiciary; (3) Canon 3 2), by being unfaithful to the law; (4) Canon 3 5) byfailing to perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice ; (5) Canon 3E( I byfailing to disqualify when the judge s impartiality is reasonably questioned; and(6) Canon 3E(1 )(a) by failing to disqualify in the presence of bias and prejudice.

The Perjured Affidavit of Jeffrey Stephan45. Defendant notes the June 23, 200 8, affidavit submitted in support of Plaintiffs

motion for summ ry judgm nt in Bankojew York Trust ompany v. Pay tonHenry Circuit Case No. 08-Cl-147, was executed by Jeffrey Stephan, a copy of

M OT I N H I D rSVIIAI, IFlCi\TIDN

CASE NO . 07Ci368 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v ugenstein et al Page of 18


12/19

which is attached hereto as Exhibit K.46. Defendant reque sts the Court take judicial notice under KRE 201(d) of the

original affidavit of Jeffrey Stephan filed June 23, 2008 , into Henry Circuit CaseNo. 08-CI-147, in the office of the Henry Circuit Cleric

47. Jeffrey Stephan has testified in at least two (2) depositions, one on December 10,2009, attached hereto as Ex hibit L, another on June 7, 20 10, attached hereto as Exhibit M that he and his team of 13 people produced 10,000 documentsmonthl y yet had no personal knowledge in respect to the veracity of theinformation in the documents .

48. Defendant requests the Court take judicial notice under KRE 20 1(d) of theDecember 10, 2009 and June 7, 2010 depositions of Jeffrey Stephan. Both havebeen covered and distributed so broadly as to render them public documents.

49. It was the deposition testimony of Jeffrey Stephan that led to the patterns andpractices of fraud, fraud upon the Court/s , perjury, evidence fabrication andforgery becoming broad publi c knowledge in September of 20 10, under the catch-all term of ro bosigning. ?

50. The contrast is clear; rather than being upset or concerned that fraud is beingperpetrated in her Court in the Payton case, in this case, and other cases, JudgeConrad has chosen to punish the individual bringing such fraud to the Courts

atten tion .

2 The practice ro investopedia, In the third and fourth quarters of 21 a robo-signing scandalemerged in the United States involving GMACMortgage and a number of major U.S banks. Banks hadto haltthousands of foreclosures in numerous stateswhen it became known that the paperworkwasillegitimate because the signers had not actually reviewed it.While some robe -signers were middlemanagers, others were temporaryworkers with virtually no understanding of the work they weredoing.Mo Il l), r Ult D lSt)\ JI\1.11 lCI\IION

SE NO . 07Ci368 Deutsche ank National Trust Co p ny v ugenst ein et al Page 12 of 18


13/19

The Courts Refusal to Consider Fraud and Other Misbehavior51. During the contentious June 28, 2013 hearing in Deutsche Bank ugenstein

Henry Circuit Case No 07-CI-368, the issue of fraud was discussed at length.Counsel for Defendant, Robert Smith, correctly argued Defendant hadprevi ously raised fraud, and other misbehavior, repeatedly in the Circuit Court.Thi s is well supported by the record .

52. Judge Conrad argued there had been no findin g of fraud. However, Judge Conradexpressly refused to even consider fraud in any of the prior proceedings.

53. For example, on October 16, 2009 , Defendant filed a motion under CR 60.02(e).54. On page two (2) of the motion Defendant expressed Defendant incorporates by

reference his previous pleadings., specifically his Motion to Alter, Amend orVacate dated June 23, 2008, and attached Affidavit, Defendant s Reply toPlainti ff s Response to Defendant s Motion to Alter, Amend or Vacate dated July28 008, and attached exhibits, Defendant s Motion for Rule Sanctions datedSeptember 5, 2008, and attached exhibits, all of which placed before the Courtevidence and information supporting Defendant s arguments and allegations ofPlaintiff s lack of standing, the Court s lack of jurisdiction, as well as Plaintiff sperjured affidavit, evidence fabrication and fraud upon the Court.

55. In additi on to the arguments incorporated by reference, and to the twenty two (22)

page CR 60 .02(e) motion itself, Defendant also submitted seventeen (17) exhibits,in fifty-five (55) pages, to support his October 16, 2009, motion under CR60.02(e).

56. Defendants October 16,2009, CR60.02(e) motionwas primarily concerned withthe use of perjured affidavits, forged, falsified and fabricated documents, and the

M o N FO]{ D ISQI J LlH T ION

CASENO. 07Ci368 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v ugenstein et al Page 13 of 18


14/19

coordinated involvement of Laura Hescott, Matthew Banaszewski, FidelityNati onal Information Services (and one or another of its various incarnations) ,and Lerner, Sampson Rothfuss, in the production, and submi ssion upon this andother Courts, of same.

57. The terms f raud and fraudulent are used twel ve (12) times in Defendant sOctober 16 2009, motion under CR 60.02(e).

58. The terms perjury and perjured are used fifteen (15) times in Defendant sOctober 16 2009, motion under CR 60.02(e).

59. The terms f a bricated and fabrication are used nineteen (19) times inDefendant s October 16, 2009, motion under CR 60.02(e).

60. The name Hescott is referenced forty-two (42) times in Defendant s October 16,2009, motion under CR 60.02(e).

61. The name Banaszewski is referenced thirteen (13) times in Defendant s October16, 2009, motion under CR 60.02(e).

62. The name Fidelity, and one or another of its various incarnations, is referencedtwenty three (23) times in Defendant s October 162009 motion under CR60G2 e

63. Lerner, Sampson Roth fuss, or Le rner, is referenced twenty-three (23) timesin Defendant s October 16, 2009, motion under CR 60.02 (e).

64. Defendant respectfully requests the Court take judicial notice under KRE 201(d)of the video transcript in possession of the Henry Circuit Clerk dated October 29,2009, between approximately 02:06:05 P.M., ET, and approximately 02:33:20P.M., ET.At 2: :22:

M O l10N 10 1< St lJI\LlFI \T ION

CASENO. 07Ci368 Deutsche ank National Trust Company v ugenstein et al Page 14 of i8


15/19


16/19

At 2: 5:29:- Judge Conrad: Because there is paperwork that can be produced, by someone,somewhere, that wil l fill in the gaps on this case.At 2: 5:37:- Judge Conrad: It is not it is not there yet, but it does happen and it is going tohappen on this case.At 2: 6:26 :- Judge Conrad: h...Valerie, you do not have the paperwork, and I realize Ihurried you on this ...um...and L .my position on it is I am going to cancel the saleuntil the bank can satisfy me that they have got their ducks in a rowan this case.At 2: 6:48:- Judge Conrad: Ah ...ifit takes a month, fine, ifit takes 3 months ...whatever it sgoing to take. You are always going to be free to come back and ...um...try topersuade me that you now have your pap erwork.

67 The above statements by Jud ge Conrad are further evidence of her bias.68 Judge Conrad was aware Plaintiff had not yet establi shed a right to bring suit, and

this almost two (2) years after commencement, yet she emphatically refused todismiss the case. Thi s case o es not go away Thi s case is not going to bedismissed. In other words even though you re right I m not going to rule in your

favor.69. Judge Conrad also assures Plaintiff it will be given as many opportunities as

neecled. Ah...ifit takes a month, fine , ifit takes 3 months...whatever it s going totake. You are always going to be free to come back and...um ...try to persuade me

22 Here Judge Conrad is referring to counsel for Plaintiff Valerie Van Valkenbu rg, who was in the employof Lerner, Sampson Rothfuss at the time.

M OTION FOj{ DI SUU l l FICIITION

CASE NO. 07Ci368 Deutsche ank National Trust Company v ugenstein et al Page 16 of 18


17/19

that you now have your paperwork.70. In the face oframpant robosigning thi s was an invitation for Plaintiff to create

whatever false documents it might need , wi thout fear, and with impunity. JudgeConrad did not , would not, and will not consider anything relating to perjury,forgery, evi dence fabri cation or fraud.

71. In l ight of such a reasonable person would perceive Jud ge Conrad s willingness orability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality andcompetence is impa ired .

72 . Defendant is also concerned that similar judicial behavior may be present, andoccurring, in other cases ove r which Judge Conrad presides in Henry, Oldham andTrimble counties .

73 . Defendant is informed by the Kentucky Administrative Office of Courts thatbetween ApriJof2008, and September 20 13, there have been approximately 2,185foreclosure cases riled in Henry, Oldham and Trimble Counties.

74 . Herein, Judge Conrad has violated KRS 26A.015(2)(a) by failing to disqualifyherself in the presence of bias and prejudice, SCR 4.300 Kentucky Code ofJudicial Conduct; 1)Canon 1, by failing to maintain and enforce high standardsof conduct and did not personally observe those standards so that the integrity andimpartiality of the j udiciary would be preserved; (2) Canon 2A, by fai ling to

respect and comply with the law and to act in a manner that promotes publicconfidence in the integrity and impartiality of the j udiciary ; (3) Canon 3B(2), bybeing un faithful to the law ; (4) Canon 3B 5) by fai ling to perform judic ial dutiesw ithout bias or prejudice; (5) Canon 3E l by failing to disqualify when thejudge s impartiali ty is rea sonably questioned; and (6) Canon 3E l )(a) by fai ling to

M OT O \01{ D ISQll i\J ,II, c /\nO

CASE NO. 07Ci368 Deutsche ank National Trust Company v ugenstein et al Page 17of 18


18/19

disqualify in the presence of personal bias and prejudice.75. This judicial behavior ceases to be good faith err oneous rulings on the law and

becomes something more. It is indeed impermissible bias and/or prejudiceconcerning Augenstein.

76. Should the Court request f endant is willing and able to provide additionalexamples in support of his motion.

For the foregoing reasons Defendant respectfully requ ests Judge Conraddisqualify and remove herself from Henry Circuit Case Nos . 07 CI 368.

ROBERAttorney for ugensteinSMITH CARTWRIGHTSuite 600 Starks Building455 South Fourth AvenueLouisville Kentucky 40202Phone: 502 618 2485Facsimile: 502 470 3777

OTl lN 1 0 1( D ISI}IJ/\ I. III Cr ( iN

CASE NO. 07Ci368 Deu tsche ank National Trust ompany v ug n stein et al Page 18 of 18


19/19

ERTIFI TE OF SERVI E

I hereby certify that a true copy Defendant s Motion and Memorandum. forDisqualification and Exhibits A M were this ] day November 2013 mailed postageprepaid deposited with the U.S.P.S. and addressed to:

Lori R. LeachLerner Sampson RothfussP.O. Box 5480Cincinnati OH 45201-5480Carole SchneiderLerner Sampson RothfussSuite 917 KY Home Life Building239 South Fifth StreetLouisville KY 40202

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	charltonbutler
View:	225 times
Download:	0 times

Motion to Recuse Judge Deutschebank v Augenstein Inappropriate Exparte Contact

Documents