Foreclosure Mill Attorney Thomas P. Dore Hearing on Emergency Rule 14-207.1 Violations

KingCast.net – Mortgage MoviesBy: Christopher King, J.D.70 America StreetSuite 3FProvidence, RI 02903617.543.8085

TODD WETZELBERGER, ) MARYLAND CIRCUIT COURTCounter-Plaintiff,, ) BALTIMORE COUNTY

v. ))

THOMAS P. DORE, ET AL. ) DOCKET NO: 10-CV-465Counter-Defendants. )

CONTINUING NOTICE OF MEDIA COVERAGENow comes Christopher King, J.D., KingCast.net and Mortgage Movies Journal, pursuant to MD Rule 16-109 to note that he intends to cover any and all Courtroom exchanges relative to the above-captioned matter. May it please the Court:

I am a former Assistant Attorney General who has also managed a title insurance company as a title insurance producer. Prior to those activities I was an editor and reporter for mid-sized and large daily press. I come to you being aware that for years Maryland had the highest per capita foreclosure rate in the Country, in large part due to foreclosure mills like that of Thomas P. Dore, who has now twice incurred reprimand from the Courts regarding his illegal foreclosure practices.

There is, at present, a dearth of cases directly involving 14-207.1 in spite of the Legislative History noted in the Maryland Court of Appeals in Maddox v. Cohn, infra. In fact, a Lexis-Nexis Search reveals but two cases, and a general Google search yields the Wetzelberger Case, in which the Wetzelbergers were denied a hearing even though the record evidence indicates that Thomas P. Dore proceeded on a foreclosure without firsthand knowledge of anything required to foreclose. I know for fact that numerous requests for 14-207.1 Review are ignored by the Courts in favor of Dore, see App. A.

It is worth noting that Dore admitted this under Oath, and it is further worth nothing that Judge King ruled in error in December, 2012 in punishing Attorney Dore for robo-signing, etc. when he held that Dore had no prior such disciplinary involvement:

http://www.courts.state.md.us/communications/camerasincourtroom.html

http://Mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/

http://KingCast.net/


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

As such, according to Judge Wilner and the Committee drafting Rule 14-207.1 Thomas P. Dore has now TWICE been involved in conduct that is “prejudicial to homeowners and constitutes an assault on the integrity of the judicial process itself,” yet the Wetzelbergers are repeatedly denied any meaningful opportunity to address the wrongs in their case that implicate issues of Standing and Real Party in Interest:


Meanwhile the Courts, for their part, are busy with the DLLR and perhaps other governmental entities following my efforts to expose the wrongs: Each and every time that I report on the Wetzelbergers filing a case or other development my trackers show that the Maryland government, and M&T Bank are on my websites, primarily my Mortage Movies Journal page:

To wit, Mr. King is aware of the fact that on or about 11:00 a.m. 16 August 2011 - - the very same day that Mr. Wetzelberer sued Thomas P. Dore, someone at a State of Maryland Office at the 500 block of N. Calvert visited his website, see p.2 for aerial:

State Of Maryland (167.102.227.65) [Label IP Address]

……..so there is substantial State interest in this matter, therefore everything should be out in the open, and I am certain that Attorney Dore will agree so that he may publicly vindicate himself against the allegations.

Further Mr. King is aware of systemic problems in Maryland including Congressman Tony McConkey twice being found in violation of the Protection of Homeowners in Foreclosure Act that have left people homeless.

http://statcounter.com/project/standard/add_ip_address_label.php?project_id=6470780&ip_address=167.102.227.65&return_url=%2Fproject%2Fstandard%2Fpath.php%3Fproject_id%3D6470780

http://statcounter.com/project/standard/magnify.php?project_id=6470780&ip_number=2808537921


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




The situation has deteriorated to the point that Dore and his associates are fully aware that they can get anything they want in the Courts, even dismissals when the Court lacks jurisdiction because of a pending appeal.

The latest abuse occurred when a defense lawyer (John Y. Lee) bragged to Mr. Wetzelberger that he was essentially going to hand pick a judge, then on 15 January 2013 cc’d Judge Mickey Norman on a pleading (a courtesy copy of a Motion to Dismiss and for Sanctions) when Norman apparently was a coach and Attorney Dore’s alma mater. Norman was not yet assigned to the case, but yet majestically he became assigned to the case after the Attorney hand-delivered the above-referenced pleadings. Mr. Wetzelberger served a request, dated 30 March 2013, on Patricia Lucchesi, Central Assignment, to provide the policies and procedures for assigning cases to judges in the Baltimore County Circuit Court.

To date, Ms. Lucchesi has neglected to respond to a matter that is clearly subject to the Maryland Public Information Act, e §§10-611 to 630.

Note further that Judge Norman is a former police officer with no substantial background in real estate, trust law or commercial law. In short, he is a ringer, all set to dispense whatever brand of Justice that Dore and his friends require of him, including dismissals and sanctions against Wetzelberger if or when requested.

************

Turning back to 14-207.1, Chair Wilner and the Committee noted that there were to be part-time examiners put to work to address the problem, which is so large in nature that whistleblower Jose Portillo contacted me to alert me to the fact that there are approximately 8,000 bad deeds circulating in the area by and through Shapiro & Burson alone, and many more because of Attorneys Savage and Dore.



This is the precise sort of activity that must be curbed yet Maryland Courts are far too often allowing it with impunity at noted on the opening page of this Notice of Ongoing Media Coverage and in Appendix As. In Shepard v. Burson the Court at least granted a hearing but ultimately denied relief. In the cases I have noted the Court has completely violated the intent of the Committee that initiated Rule 14-207.1 and as such, I am here to carefully review what continues to transpire in this case. From Burson:

6 HN2 Maryland Rule 14-207.1 provides that "[i]f the court determines that the pleadings or papers filed do not comply with all statutory and Rule requirements, it may give notice to the plaintiff and each borrower, record owner, party, [***11] and attorney of record that the action will be dismissed without prejudice ..."

2010 - 2011: Motion to Dismiss Foreclosure Action

On December 15, 2010, Ms. Shepherd moved to dismiss the foreclosure sale pursuant to Maryland Rule 14-207.1, based on [**572] [*549] irregularities in the Notice of Intent to Foreclose.6 Specifically, citing the documents the substitute trustees had filed in the foreclosure action and served on her more than a year earlier that identified Freddie Mac as the owner of her loan, she contended that the failure to identify Freddie Mac as the secured party in the notice violated RP §7-105.1(c)(4)(ii)(1)(A). The circuit court canceled the foreclosure sale to afford review of the motion.

On Appeal the Court sustained the lower Court on the particular facts of that case, but the point is that every case has its own particular issues that must be carefully reviewed IN EACH AND EVERY CASE…… and unfortunately lower Courts have resoundingly failed to do so, thus thwarting the intent of the Rule, which carries the import of Law. *************

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

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

https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pushme=1&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&taggedDocs=&toggleValue=&numDocsChked=0&prefFBSel=0&delformat=XCITE&fpDocs=&fpNodeId=&fpCiteReq=&expNewLead=id=%22expandedNewLead%22&fpSetup=0&brand=&_m=7c098247675166bcdecf5efa525fee5c&docnum=1&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzk-zSkAA&_md5=b47a62e89e69783395ed1953bb1f4c7d&focBudTerms=&focBudSel=all%23clscc2


limits somewhat their ability to do so.

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

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

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

Legislative History

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

"You charged the Task Force with developing an action plan to address escalating foreclosure rates and identify [*389] effective ways to


preserve home ownership for Marylanders. . . .

[**432] The specific objectives of the Task Force were to:

. . .

Examine current laws and regulations in Maryland governing the mortgage industry and the foreclosure process and recommend changes, including legislative and regulatory actions where warranted; . . . ."

In the letter the Task Force noted:

"Maryland pays a substantial cost for rising foreclosure rates. Families lose their homes, are uprooted and their lives are disrupted. Their ability to obtain credit suffers and many families' [***16] chief asset, the equity in their homes, is lost. In addition, lenders lose money and employees in the mortgage industry are in danger of losing jobs as lenders reel from the weight of defaulting loans."

*************

As such, there is a lot to be mindful of in this case, and that is why I am here and prepared to run courtroom video as I have done throughout the country.

KingCast – Mortgage Movies employs Mr. King’s legal background and experience as a licensed title insurance producer to analyse legal matters relative to foreclosure, and all footage shall be made available for media pooling orders or requests in this regard.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Christopher King, J.D._____________________________Christopher King, J.D.http://KingCast.net -- Reel News for Real Peoplehttp://MortgageMovies.blogspot.com -- Documenting Deceit617.543.8085/m866.215.1207/f

http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/

http://kingcast.net/


APPENDIX ATHE WEAVER AND CARDONI FILES

I hereby provide the Court relevant information as to how the Courts have allowed Thomas P. Dore to defeat consumers who were seeking basic substantive and due process before the Courts. The complete Weaver Motion to Stay is attached as Appendix B; I have not receive a full copy of the Cardoni Appeal.

Kathryn Weaver and Teena Cardoni join the Wetzelberger family as victims of Thomas P. Dore’s power and influence with this Court. Here is a sample of a pending Weaver Motion that explains everything in four paragraphs: in Dore v. Weaver, Case No. CAE 11-33165, where Dore has been given another gift by the Courts in violation of Rule 14-207.1 and basic principles of law and equity.

WEAVER:

COMES NOW, Kathryn Weaver (hereinafter Weaver), for good cause per Md. Rule 14-211(a)(2)(C), and moves the court to stay any further proceedings in the instant case, pending the outcome of the investigation by the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, and Maryland Department of Licensing Labor and Regulation into the fraudclosure case filed by known fraudclosure mill attorney Thomas P. Dore and states as follows:

FACTS AND LAW

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

thousands of fraudclosure cases in Maryland courts.

“Revelations that attorneys at two Maryland firms had other people sign their names to foreclosure documents brought a rebuke Wednesday from the O'Malley administration, which called the practice a "potential example of further mishandling and mistreatment of Maryland homeowners.’”

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-10-13/business/bs-bz-foreclosure-cases-20101013_1_halt-foreclosures-foreclosure-documents-foreclosure-cases

http://www.baltimorereia.com/maryland-foreclosure-fraud/

http://www.baltimorereia.com/maryland-foreclosure-fraud/





2. Thomas P. Dore admitted to filing false affidavits into Maryland

fraudclosure cases.

In Baltimore, Maryland, on 25 January 2011, The Daily Record

reports:

• Attorney Thomas P. Dore on Tuesday conceded that five pending foreclosure proceedings should be dismissed because he could not vouch for his signature on documents filed with the Baltimore City Circuit Court. Judge W. Michel Pierson must still determine what action to take, if any, with regard to at least 15 other foreclosures involving notarized documents not actually signed by Dore, who represents lenders.

• Eighteen current and former notaries public invoked their Fifth Amendment rights and refused to testify regarding their certification of Dore’s signature on the documents. “Truthful answers to questions posed might tend to incriminate them,” the notaries’ attorney, David B. Irwin, of Irwin Green & Dexter LLP in Towson, told Pierson. “I have no doubt that they have a good-faith invocation right.”

• Notaries who knowingly certify false signatures face possible criminal sanctions for misconduct in office or fraud.

http://thedailyrecord.com/2011/01/25/notaries-invoke-fifth-amendment-in-foreclosure-hearings/

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

dismissed fraudclosure Case No. CAE 08-35443, Miles et al. v. Weaver filed

by known fraudclosure mill attorney Thomas P. Dore.

4. Said case was dismissed as Dore, and the additional substitute

trustees, including Gerard F. Miles, Jr., had full knowledge of the defects in

said case filed by Dore and Miles. Plaintiff was blatantly denied a hearing to

dismiss said case with prejudice (Dkt No. 27, 29, 32, 33).

5. Due to the gross error of the court to deny hearing Weaver’s motion

to dismiss with prejudice, Dore et al. were allowed, as expected, to willfully

file yet another fraudclosure case, without meeting any of the conditions

precedent on November 23, 2011, Case No. CAE11-33165…….




*****************

CARDONI

In Case No. 03-C-11-001492:

FACTS AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF APPEAL

The facts and law in support of Appellants’ Notice of Appeal are

preemptive since Appellees are most likely going to attempt to move to

dismiss Appellant’s appeal as untimely. The fact is Appellees have a history

of filing false fraudulent foreclosure suits, such as the suit from which this

appeal is taken. There is no statute of limitations on fraud and Appellants are

filing this timely notice of appeal based upon the discovery of fraud upon the

court by both Eastern Savings Bank and Appellees/ Trustees Miles, Dore,

Menapace, et al. Appellees/trustees are not competent to testify as to any

purported “facts” as appellees have no first hand knowledge per Md Evidence

Rule 5-602.

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

alleged beneficiary committed so much fraud in the “origination” of alleged

“loans” that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency sanctioned both

ESB and Jonathan I. Feldman, Senior Vice President of ESB. (Exhibit 1)

2. Appellants recently discovered that Appellees/ Trustees Dore, Miles, et

al have a long history of filing false fraudulent foreclosure cases in Maryland

courts.

3. Said trustees have been caught filing so many fraudulent foreclosure

cases in MD Courts that a December 17, 2010 bulletin from Stewart Title

Company issued a warning to all MD offices of Stewart Title to NOT insure the

title of any properties “sold” as a result of foreclosure by Bierman, Geesing,

Ward and Wood, LLC (Bierman), Covahey, Boozer, Devan and Dore, P.A.

(Dore) and Buonassissi, Henning & Lash, P.C. (Buonassissi). (excerpt below).


Dear Associates:

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

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

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

address the rampant abuses of foreclosure mill attorneys filing false

fraudulent affidavits in court.

Documents

Foreclosure Mill Attorney Thomas P. Dore Hearing on Emergency Rule 14-207.1 Violations