gebhardt's counter and thrid party complaint against lnv corporation and d. andrew beal and...

Case 3:12-cv-468 LNV Corporation v Gebhardt

COUNTER COMPLAINT of 51 CROSS CLAIM

IN THEUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

NORTHERN DIVISION AT KNOXVILLE LNV CORPORATION Civil Case No. ____________

Plaintiff, v.

CATHERINE GEBHARDT Defendant and Third-Party Defendant’s Counter to LNV’s Plaintiff Complaint and Cross Claim

v. D. Andrew Beal; Beal Bank SSB et al; Beal Financial Corporation, et al; LNV Corporation et al; Bret Maloney; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NealMikeLance Corporation, et al; Joyce Linger; Michael T. Bates; Sebring Capital Partners Limited Partnership, et al; Jerry D. Kerley; Guarantee Land Title, et al Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc. et al; Jeffery W. Tshirhart; Lorraine Brown; Yet Unknown Unnamed Parties

Third-Party Defendants

I. THIRD-PARTIES

Defendant Name: _________________________________________________________ AND Street Address: _____________________________________________

Third-Party City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________

Plaintiff Telephone No. ______________________________________________

THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS

Defendant No. 1 Name: _________________________________________________________ Street Address: _____________________________________________

City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________

Telephone No. ______________________________________________

3:12–CV–468

Catherine Gebhardt 3753 Thomas Cross Road

Sevierville, TN, 37876

865-774-1248

D. Andrew Beal, c/o Beal Bank 6000 Legacy Drive

Plano, TX 75024 469-467-5000





Telephone No. ______________________________________________



Telephone No. ______________________________________________



Telephone No. ______________________________________________

Defendant No. 5 Name: _________________________________________________________

Street Address: ______________________________________________

City, State & Zip Code: ________________________________________ Telephone No. ______________________________________________

Defendant No. 6 Name: _________________________________________________________

Street Address: ______________________________________________


Telephone No. _______________________________________________ Defendant No. 7 Name: _________________________________________________________

Street Address: ______________________________________________


Telephone No. _______________________________________________



Telephone No. ______________________________________________

6000 Legacy Drive Plano, TX 75024

469-467-5000

Plano, TX 75024

6000 Legacy Drive

469-467-5000

Beal Bank USA

Plano, TX 75024

7195 Dallas Parkway

469-467-5000

LNV Corporation, et al

Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc., et al 1 Corporate Drive, Suite 360

Lake Zurich, IL 60047 847-550-7300

Beal Financial Corporation

Joyce Linger

202 Simmons Street

Bret Maloney, c/o Beal Bank


469-467-5000

Michael T. Bates

865-983-6030

Spencer, West Virginia, 25276

304-519-5225

2592 Creekstone Cricle Maryville, TN 37804



Defendant No. 9 Name: _____________________________________________________ Street Address: ______________________________________________ City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ Telephone No. ______________________________________________

Defendant No. 10 Name: _________________________________________________________ Street Address: _____________________________________________ City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ Telephone No. ______________________________________________ Defendant No. 11 Name: _________________________________________________________ Street Address: _____________________________________________ City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ Telephone No. ______________________________________________ Defendant No. 12 Name: _________________________________________________________ Street Address: _____________________________________________ City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ Telephone No. ______________________________________________ Defendant No. 13 Name: _________________________________________________________ C/O: _____________________________________________ Street Address: _______________________________________________ City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ Telephone No. ______________________________________________ Defendant No. 14 Name: _________________________________________________________ Street Address: _____________________________________________ City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________ Telephone No. ______________________________________________

4000 International Pkwy, #3000 Carrollton, TX 75007

972-862-5000

Sebring Capital Partners Limited Partnership


469-467-5000

Jeffery W. “Jeff” Tshirhart, c/o Beal Bank

4000 International Pkwy, #3000

Carrollton, TX 75007

972-862-5000

NealMikeLance Corporation

800 Market Street, Suite 211

Knoxville, TN, 37902

865-545-4167

Jerry D. Kerely

Mark Devereaux, U.S. Attorneys Office

300 N Hogan Street, Suite 700

Jacksonville, FL 32202

Lorraine Brown

204 Parkway Sevierville TN 37862

865-453-1478

Guarantee Land Title

904-301-6300



II. JURISDICTION Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Only two types of cases can be heard in federal

court: cases involving a federal question and cases involving diversity of citizenship of the parties. A case involving the United States Constitution or federal laws or treaties is a federal question case. A case in which a citizen of one state sues a citizen of another state and the amount in damages claimed is more than $75,000 is a diversity of citizenship case. A. What is the basis for federal court jurisdiction (check all that apply)

Federal Question Diversity of Citizenship

B. If the basis for jurisdiction is Federal Question, what federal Constitutional, statutory, or treaty right is at issue?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

C. If the basis for jurisdiction is Diversity of Citizenship, what is the state of citizenship of each party?

Plaintiff(s) state of citizenship ___________________________________________

Defendant(s) state(s) of citizenship _______________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

The court has jurisdiction over all defendants and Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendants conduct business and can be found in this district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in this district. Additionally damages exceed $75,000.

X X

18 USC 63 et seq., (Mail Fraud and Other Fraud Offenses); 18 USC § 1961 et seq.,

(Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); 12 U.S.C. 27 et seq., (Real

Estate Settlement Procedures Act); 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., (Consumer Credit

Protection and Truth in Lending Acts); 18 USC 47 et seq. (Fraud and False

Statements); 18 USC § 1348 et seq. (Securities and Commodities Fraud); 15 U.S.C. §

77a, et seq., (Securities Act of 1933); 18 USC Chapter 11, et seq., (Bribery, Graft,

and Conflicts of Interest); 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq., (Equal Credit Opportunity Act);

47 U.S.C. § 227(e) et seq. (Truth in Caller ID Act); Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999

(P.L. 106-102, 113 STAT 1338) Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution

Tennessee

Illinois, Texas, Tennessee, Florida, West Virginia,

Nevada



III. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

COUNT I Violation of Privacy of Consumer Personal Financial Information

Counsel for LVN failed to block out my social security number on the Exhibits he filed to support

LNV’s Complaint and other pleadings. This is an egregious violation of my right to the privacy of my

‘‘Nonpublic personal information’’ and it is a violation of the rules pertaining to electronic filing of legal

proceedings in this court. Identity theft is a serious concern and now my social security number has been in

the public record for a year. I beg the court to take immediate action to block out my social security number

on these Exhibits and to reprimand LNV’s counsel for making it public.

COUNT II Defendants: Joyce Linger, Jerry D. Kerley, Guarantee Land Title, Michael T. Bates, Sebring Capital Partners Inc., yet unknown or unnamed parties.

Conspiracy to Defraud in Mortgage Origination

I, Catherine Gebhardt, a single mother of four children, arrived in Sevierville in the year 2002 in

Tennessee for a job transfer/promotion. My children and I arrived to live in Sevierville on or around

September 30, 2002 though we had visited Sevier County for two days the previous month, to see the

attractions in the region, and at that time, I with my children met with realtor Teresa Brooks who

represented ReMax First Choice Realtors. Up to that time, I’d only spoken with Teresa Brooks a few times

by telephone when I was still in Texas. Teresa Brooks showed me and my family a few properties on the

market during that short visit. I was interested in one property shown by Ms. Brooks which is now the

property involved in this court action. I made an offer through Teresa at which time in good faith, I also put

earnest money down with Teresa in the amount of $ 2,500.00. With my family I then returned to Texas.



In the meantime, Teresa Brooks started to organize temporary corporate housing. I had told her we

planned to move to Sevierville as quickly as possible, as all of my children were of school age and the

school year had already begun, therefore time was of the essence. After the corporate housing arrangement

was finalized by Ms. Brooks, I with my children and their beloved pet came to TN to move into the

corporate set-up on or around September 30, 2002. Teresa Brooks introduced me to Broker Joyce Linger,

who said that she could organize financing and that it would be no problem, based upon my income. At the

time of moving to Sevierville, I knew no one else in the area and was not familiar with most land and

property values in Sevierville or in Sevier County. I was, however, highly motivated to find a home for my

children and all persons associated with me at that time knew this to be true.

Joyce Linger gave me a few documents to sign during our first meeting, concerning obtainment of

financing. I had no knowledge the process of securing financing, nor what documents were to be signed,

nor what exactly was involved, as I relied on Joyce Linger as a broker to guide me in the right direction.

Looking backward now, I can certainly attest that the entire process was extremely unorganized and

chaotic. Ms. Brooks tried her best to act as a liaison to facilitate the process, however she herself was

becoming increasingly frustrated with the chaos and at one time within days of the closing date, voiced this

aloud to both Neal and Joyce Linger while in their office; which resulted in Ms. Brooks being abruptly

“thrown out” of Joyce Linger’s office at PrimeOne Group by Joyce and her then husband, Neal Linger. At

this time, Ms. Brooks was very upset and came to my office (which was also in a central downtown region

within fairly close proximity to PrimeOne) and told me that she had been removed from the Linger office by

forcefully being told to “get out!”

Ms. Brooks also stated at that time, that in all of her twenty some odd years in working in real estate,

she had never been kicked out of an office or asked to leave by a party so aggressively. Within just days

after this occurrence, Joyce Linger called me and said that she had gained approval for the loan and she



projected a certain date for closing, though for unknown reasons, that closing date was rescheduled from the

date projected earlier by Joyce herself, to a later date, being November 7, 2002.

On November 6, 2002, I received a call from Guaranty Land Title. The party who called (I can’t

remember exactly who) told me I would need to bring $15,000 plus to closing the following day in the form

of certified cashier’s check.

On November 7, 2002, I attended the closing at Guaranty Land Title in Sevierville which started at

approximately 1:00 pm. To the best of my recollection, in attendance at the closing, were Teresa Brooks of

ReMax, Pioneer Realty Representative (name unknown), Ronnie and Sandra Sullivan (sellers), Joyce and

Neal Linger (PrimeOne Group brokers), Jerry Kerley (attorney), and Lafonda O’Quinn (notary).

At closing, I was given multiple documents to sign by Jerry Kerley and Joyce Linger. I was led to

believe that Sebring Capital Partners, Limited Partnership was the lender. I signed these multiple

documents with the understanding that these papers were genuine closing documents. It is noteworthy to

mention that two transactions occurred on that day, relating to the same property.

The first transaction was for the purchase of the house of which I was led to believe by broker Joyce

Linger, was to be funded by Sebring Capital Partners Limited Partnership. The second transaction was

between me and the seller for the purchase of three additional vacant acres, adjacent to the property with the

house, of which the seller financed and this financing had nothing to do with the lender, Sebring Capital

Partners, Limited Partnership.

During closing, Neal Linger (husband of Joyce Linger) approached me and stated that “their fees

were not included” in the monies made payable to Guaranty Land Title, and I had to leave the closing table

to trek to the bank and obtain additional monies; though the bank was closed. I wrote a personal check and

was directed by Neal Linger to make the check payable to Guaranty Land Title for the broker fees which he



said were not included. After a long and tedious day, Joyce Linger gave me the keys to the house and told

me I could take possession of the house on that day. I with my children and their pet, moved into the house

on the night of November 7, 2002.

Within the first two weeks of taking possession of my home I received a notice in the mail which

stated, “Welcome to Homecomings Financial.” I had no idea who Homecomings was, but I followed the

instructions on the letter directing me to send payments to them. I was very happy to do this as I was happy

to have found a permanent home for my family. I did however find this rather strange, as I’d just left the

closing table two weeks before, believing I’d be paying Sebring Capital Partners, LP.

The Deed of Trust (“DOT”) naming Michael T. Bates as Trustee filed in Sevier County land records

by the Lingers and Jerry Kerley, a partner in Guarantee Land Title, was not the DOT I signed at closing.

I initialed each and every page of the DOT I signed at closing. Kerley did not notarize anything that

was signed at the closing; all notarization was done by Lafonda O'Quinn. Yet the Deed of Trust filed with

the county was notarized by Jerry Kerley and my initials are not on a single page. This is highly irregular as

it is common practice in the mortgage industry for a borrower to initial each page. I discovered this altered

DOT only after LNV filed its Complaint against me in September 2012.

Michael T. Bates appears as Trustee on numerous DOTs filed across the southeastern United States;

he is also named as a party in an insurance fraud investigation initiated by the United States.

Michael T. Bates in 2002 was employed as an executive vice president with Southern Title Insurance

Corporation, a regional title underwriter, based in Richmond VA, with an office in Knoxville TN, which per

the securitization audit report, may be one of the insurance policies taken on the my property as a credit

default swap at the loan’s origination.



Shortly after LNV filed its Complaint I took my origination and closing documents to Michael

Alfred, CPA, in Maryville for review and a professional opinion. Alfred examined all the critical financial

documents and found many serious discrepancies indicating a misappropriation funds and so many

differences between various points of reference on the financial disclosures in the contract that no

contractual terms or agreement could possibly be discerned. Different loan amounts and terms are reflected

on each of the disclosures; i.e. the Truth in Lending Disclosure, the Settlement Statement, the DOT, the

Note, etc. This is a violation of TILA and RESPA.

LNV brings their action against me for breach of contract. A legally enforceable contract must have

clear terms and mutual agreement between parties to be valid and enforceable. Close examination of the

alleged original “contract” shows a much more sinister reason for all the financial discrepancies noted

above; FRAUD.

I had received a letter from Sebring dated November 4, 2002 verifying they had received my loan

application, yet I was asked to sign new loan application at closing. I discovered on or around May 2013,

after I finally obtained records I’d been requesting from Jerry Kerley’s office since 2011, that someone

altered that loan application. The copy I found in Kerley’s records showed that I was not an American

citizen and did not buy my house for residential purposes.

I signed an occupancy certificate at closing that was also signed by Kerley. My children and I did

occupy the house and have occupied the house for residential purposes. I am an American citizen. This false

loan application had to have been altered sometime after closing and may have been used by Kerley, Linger

and/or others for personal gain.

I must have signed a blank loan application at the closing. In fact, a blank “uniform residential loan

application” was attached as Exhibit A to my answer to LNV’s Complaint prepared by my former counsel,

Doug Taylor, and filed on September 27, 2012. This blank loan application with my signature was also



found in the records received from Kerley’s office. A review of the records in their entirety, and the gross

discrepancies which exist, this blank loan application may have been used for any number of transactions by

Kerley and Linger without my knowledge.

I discovered from the Alfred examination of my loan documents that the $28,000 I had arranged to

pay directly to the seller Sullivan for the extra acreage as a separate contract was actually added into the

Sebring loan. I did not receive those funds. I made regular payments of $425/month directly to Sullivan for

the extra acreage. My separate contract with him included a balloon payment due at the end of 2004, but I

nearly died in a car accident on September 16, 2004 and was hospitalized several months so I could not pay

the balloon payment and Sullivan and I mutually agreed to rescind our separate contract.

Kerley and the Lingers apparently kept the extra $28,000 with other funds they had padded into my

loan; including the additional money I was made to pay at closing because the Lingers claimed their fees

was not included. Considerable evidence exists to substantiate my claim of conspiracy between Kerley,

Guarantee Land Title, Bates and the Lingers to defraud me during loan origination.

On or around December 2012 I requested a full history of my homeowner’s insurance policy back to

the inception of my mortgage from Kevin Yates my Allstate agent. The records were archived so Retrieval

took time. They came in April of 2013. My insurance policy I paid for at closing was canceled within one

month. I phoned my agent’s office to ask why. Kristine Meyers verified with their corporate office that the

original policy was written too high, far exceeding the actual value of my home.

Christine further explained that Rick White who originally wrote the policy had done so at the

direction of Joyce Linger or the lender, [Sebring.] Kristine said that Rick White closed his franchise and

sold his assets to Kevin Yates in or around December 2002 and when Yates discovered the canceled policy

he rewrote it for a lower home value and the corporate office accepted it. A new appraisal was not done. The



Allstate corporate office and/ or Yates Allstate did issue a refund because the policy was re-written at a

lower cost, however the refund did not come to me.

The appraisal had been for $286,000 exactly the amount asked for by the seller and is dated

November 7, 2002. It was prepared by Joyce Linger's relative, Virginia Johnson. I had no way to know at

the time that this was an over-inflated appraisal.

Joyce Linger misrepresented and failed to disclose the actual loan terms and the loan costs and fees

added into the loan as required by TILA and RESPA. These misrepresentations and omissions were

knowingly made by Kerley and Linger. I relied on these material misrepresentations and omissions. Kerley

and Linger knew I would rely on them and expected me to rely on them. My reliance on their intentional

misrepresentation caused me to enter into a highly predatory loan contract to my detriment and for the

unjust enrichment of Kerley, Bates, Linger and others.

I also had a title search done after LNV filed their Breach of Contract Complaint against me and

discovered that Jerry Kerley prepared and filed a warranty deed in Sevier County as part of the closing on

November 7, 2002. This was to show that the property was clear from all encumbrances and liens. Sullivan

was paid on November 7, 2002. Land records show that Sullivan still had a Washington Mutual lien on the

property that he personally paid off or around December 2, 2002. Other land records exist that cast doubt on

the title. Several loans appear to have been taken out on the property by Sullivan and it is unclear whether

they were all paid off. I was sold a property with an existing lien and without a clear title; this was not

disclosed to me and is something which would have or should have been known by Kerley.

Kerley, the Lingers, Sebring, Bates and others did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire,

confederate and agree with themselves and with others to commit certain offenses and acts of fraud to

execute and attempt to execute a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means

of material false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises for the purpose of executing such



scheme and artifice which directly caused me to suffer significant pecuniary loss, inconvenience,

discomfort, and substantial mental distress as a result.

Jerry Kerley has already been convicted on criminal charges of mortgage fraud. (UNITED STATES

of America, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey WHALEY, and Jerry D. Kerley, Defendant.)

I am a victim of Kerley’s crimes. A criminal conviction is conclusive proof and operates as an

estoppel on defendants as to the facts supporting the conviction in a subsequent civil action. (Local 167 of

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of America v. United States, 291

U.S. 293, 298-99, 78 L. Ed. 804, 54 S. Ct. 396 (1934); Brown v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 768, 524 F.2d

693, 705 (1975))

Fraud nullifies everything it touches.

THEREFORE, THE VALIDITY AND NEGOTIABILITY OF THE ALLEGED CONTRACT

LNV ALLEGES IT HAS AQUIRED IS DISPUTED.

Conspiracy to Defraud in Mortgage Securitization

On August 30, 2013 I ordered a professional securitization audit on my mortgage. The audit was

done by former police officer and private investigator, Bill Paalato, of BP Investigations. His investigation

uncovered that:

1. Sebring was stated as the “Lender” on the Deed of Trust when in fact Sebring was not the true and

actual “lender”, but rather Sebring was acting as a “Table-Funder.” Table funding is generally

defined as:

“A lending method employed when a loan originator does not have access to the

money necessary to make loans and then hold them until it has enough to sell on the

secondary market. The originator forms a relationship with a lender/investor that



provides the funds for closing and immediately takes an assignment of the loan.

This is called table funding. Under regulations of the Department of Housing and

Urban Development, table-funded loans must disclose service release premiums,

i.e. profit received by the originator on the loan closing settlement statement.”

(Source: The Free Dictionary by Farflex, which can be found at http://financial-

dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/table+funding. This website cites “The Complete

Real Estate Encyclopedia by Denise L. Evans, JD & O. William Evans, JD.

Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. as a source for its

information.” Id.)

None of these facts were disclosed to me as required by RESPA. I relied on Sebring’s

misrepresentation that they were a “lender” with an interest in properly recording her monthly

payments and accurately applying them to the loan’s balance when in fact Sebring had no such

interest because their intent was to immediately sell my mortgage into the secondary securitized

mortgage market; which they in fact did.

2. Shortly after origination, evidence shows that mymortgage was sold to the “RASC 2003-KS1

Trust” (“the Trust”), and was paid off within the Trust on or about July 1, 2007 with the Trust

declaring “zero losses.” Evidence shows that this particular trust obtained insurance policies on the

loan pools to which there were multiple beneficiaries of these policies.

3. Evidence suggests that the subject loan (mine) was involved in “hypothecation fraud” whereby the

Note and Deed of Trust where pledged and sold in multiple directions simultaneously. There does

not appear to be any disclosures that my loan was in fact securitized and paid off.

4. Common "securitization" of private label MBS Trusts show a fact pattern where the subject Note

and Deed of Trust were pledged as collateral to a securitized trust, yet the legal conveyance of the

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/table+funding�

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/table+funding�



asset to the trust either never occurred, or was illegal and in direct contravention of the trust's

governing document (the "Pooling & Servicing Agreement").

5. The "Cut-Off Date" for assets to be transferred to the RASC 2003-KS1 Trust was “January 1,

2003." The Depositor was Residential Asset Securities Corporation, which filed for bankruptcy on

May 14, 2012, New York Southern Bankruptcy Court, Case number: 1:12-bk-12054. The Master

Servicer was Residential Funding Corporation. (“RFC”)

6. My loan was originated on November 7, 2002 with the "lender" on the DOT being "Sebring

Capital Partners Limited Partnership." ("Sebring") A copy of the Note was provided which bears a

blank, unexecuted endorsement by the originating entity on the bottom of the signature page. This

is evidence that the note was prepared for sale immediately upon closing.

7. We know that the loan was indeed sold in the Trust because it shows up in Trust database data:



My loan is identified as loan number "8263393" within the RASC 2003-KS1 Trust. (Note: Loan

numbers often do not match the original assigned numbers on the Notes and DOT’s.)

Additionally a snapshot of the RASC 2003-KS1 dated August 28, 2013 shows list of 8 "Tranche" /

Classes within the RASC 2003-KS1 Trust with 8 tranches being "paid off." Loan level history /

data within the RASC 2003-KS1 Trust show the loan as being current with an ending balance of

$236,681.71 on July 1, 2007. The trust shows a “Current Gain Loss Amount” of “0.” The loan

characteristics and identifiers are an identical match to my loan regarding the interest rate, rate

caps, and margin. PDV RASC 2003-KS1, August 28, 2013, shows history and paid off dates for all

Tranche level data within the RASC 2003-KS1 Trust.

8. The named “Originator” in the Trust’s internal data is “Residential Funding Corp” (“RFC”) and

not Sebring. This raises questions about how RFC obtained the loan, and why RFC misrepresented

to the investors that it was the loan’s originator.

9. I received a welcome packet from Homecomings Financial Network (“Homecomings”) on or

around December 1, 2002. I wasn’t sure why I was to pay Homecomings instead of Sebring, but I

made payments to Homecomings as instructed in the welcome packet beginning on January 1,

2003.



I now understand I may have been paying the wrong party. From page 133 Paragraph 399 of John

Hancock Life Insurance Co. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.(NY 2012): On October 27, 2010, Katherine

Porter, then a visiting a professor at Harvard Law School specializing in consumer credit,

consumer protection regulation, and mortgage servicing, provided testimony before the

Congressional Oversight Panel:

“The implications of problems with transfer are serious. If the [securitization] trust does not

have the loan, homeowners may have been making payments to the wrong party. If the trust

does not have the note or the mortgage, it may not have standing to foreclose or legal

authority to negotiate a loan modification.”

On or around July 1, 2007 on my payment statements “Homecomings” was replaced with “GMAC

LLC” with a Waterloo, IA address. At this time I had no idea that this change was indicative of a

change in servicer or that my DOT was assigned away from Sebring; I had no knowledge or

understanding about land records or deed assignments or mortgage servicing at that time. I did not

know that such changes required notification under RESPA. I never received any notification

regarding the change on my payment statements and continued making my payments, assuming

Homecomings maybe changed their name and business location.

Beach of Contract by Securitization parties (third-party defendants)

Loans that made up “pools” in the Trust were essentially converted into stock certificates. Investors

in the Trust purchased certificates that did not provide them with an undivided interest in any one particular

loan/mortgage. Thus the original terms and conditions of the mortgages and deeds of trust were changed

without the borrowers’ consent. This constitutes breach of contract, and violates the Truth in Lending Act

(“TILA”) and RESPA. And my property after securitatization was no longer collateral for the loan.



Securities and Commodities Fraud

The Note and DOT for my mortgage were created and used to perpetuate a fraud. My loan went into

the RASC 2003-KS1 Trust as a “hologram” and was eventually “paid off” in July 2007 by insurance. The

goal in this massive “Ponzi Scheme” was / is to expedite or manufacture a so-called default by the

borrowers of the underlying loans in order to trigger the insurance clauses.

The failure to record the assignments and sales to the Trust entities, and the failure to disclose the

Trust’s interest in my Note and DOT and subsequent payoff of such, creates a fatal defect in the chain of

title and chain of trustee that cannot be re-engineered. Any party attempting to claim ownership of my note

and DOT after July 2007 has “unclean hands.”

COUNT III Defendants: Sebring Capital Partners Inc., NealMikeLance Corporation, MGC MortgageInc., Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc., LNV Corporation, D. Andrew Beal, Beal Bank SSB, Beal Financial, Bret Maloney, Jeffery W. “Jeff” Tshirhart; yet

unknown or unnamed parties.

Conspiracy to Defraud in Mortgage Servicing and Forclosure Fraud

I paid Homecomings as directed either through check by phone, certified cashier’s check, or by

Western Union Quick Collect. I paid Homecomings Financial up until on or about the end of 2006 or the

beginning of 2007 when I was directed by mail, that the servicing of this mortgage would be transferred to

GMAC. Then I began to pay GMAC at the address provided. After paying GMAC for quite some time, I

was again directed to pay another party: MGC Mortgage Inc. (“MGC”).

After paying MGC in October of 2008, I was instructed by GMAC personnel over the phone to

again pay GMAC, claiming that the transfer to MGC had not yet fully finalized but “not to worry”.



This is where my ordeal became very confusing and strange as I had been paying a lot of money to

GMAC and MGC. During this time, I repeatedly asked questions but most often I could not reach anyone at

MGC and whenever I did, they were not helpful or knowledgeable about anything and had no answers about

what happened to my payments. Whenever I reached someone at GMAC, I was given excuses. In essence, I

was given “the major runaround,” though I continued to pay.

On or around December of 2008, I was told by GMAC personnel that the transfer from GMAC to

MGC Mortgage had still not “finalized completely” and that my payment would soon be increasing to over

$4000.00 per month; I became upset and questioned this reason for this increase. I was told that if I did not

comply with this increase, I would be foreclosed upon. I requested GMAC personnel to put this payment

increase in writing of which they never did. Fearful of losing my home, I paid the $4080+ beginning early in

2009 as demanded by GMAC.

After this time, I believed something was amiss and started to ask even more questions. During this

time, there was much talk on the news about loan modifications and governmental bailouts, so I hired a

local mortgage broker to attempt to modify this loan because the payment was astronomically increased

without explanation. This broker worked hard on my behalf but could not succeed at modifying the loan nor

could she get any explanations about the huge increase in my payments.

I hired a second broker and she too attempted to make sense of all that was happening to my loan.

She also made numerous inquiries and calls to GMAC only to meet with the same resistance and confusion I

had met, and she received the same excuses by GMAC and MGC, with no solutions.

I sent two inches of documentation repeatedly to GMAC by facsimile at least five times yet the

company claimed on two occasions to have never received it, claimed on at least two occasions that

documentation was not “uploaded to their system, and claimed multiple times that a decision had not yet

been rendered.



The website for GMAC fully supported the Troubled Asset Relief Program and claimed to support

loan modifications and it was well known that GMAC took troubled relief money from the government. I

was still asking questions, only my questions kept falling upon deaf ears and not being addressed or

answered by anyone. I also consulted with an attorney in and around this time who told me that legally I

was entitled to see certain documents which GMAC continually failed to produce.

I then rigorously took it upon myself to investigate these companies, and in the process of this

investigation, found out that the address given by MGC, 7195 Dallas Parkway, Plano TX 75024, for mailing

payments is an empty lot. At this point, I was not prepared to send any more money to an empty lot when so

many of my payments had already been misappropriated. MGC and GMAC through their own shenanigans

caused my loan to go into default and since I had already paid exorbitant amounts of money that was never

credited to my account; I decided to stop making payments until a proper accounting was provided for the

payments I had already made.

In or about April 2009, I received a foreclosure notice from a law firm named McCurdy and Candler

located in Georgia. I retained the counsel of attorney Andrew Farmer who obtained a temporary restraining

order from a Sevier County circuit judge to halt the trustee’s sale. Then he filed a Complaint in Sevier

County Circuit Court in my behalf against GMAC Mortgage Corporation and MGC for “unconscionability”

and “adhesive contract.” I made no claims of fraud at that time, because I had not yet discovered evidence

of fraud.

Opposing counsel requested the case be removed to Federal court. Farmer felt this was appropriate. I

relied on his judgment. However Farmer missed some filing deadlines and this case was ultimately

dismissed against me with prejudice. This case has been referenced in Hartley’s pleadings as “Gebhardt I”.

I don’t remember any debt demand letter being sent prior to this 2009 foreclosure attempt.



In December 2009, my daughter was shot by a neighbor, in the presence of two witnesses. She

sustained serious injuries and required major medical care as well as counseling. This ordeal took much of

my time and energy to resolve/ adjudicate and is a matter of public record. My daughter is still recovering.

Around June 2011 I was advised by a credible Sevier County attorney to contact Congressman

David “Phil” Roe’s office. Press coverage at that time disclosed many improprieties had been suspected or

committed by large corporate banking and financial institutions resulting in improper foreclosures, so it was

hoped if I enlisted the help and support of my Congressional representative I might finally get some answers

and resolution to my problems with GMAC and MGC.

On or about August 1, 2011, I prepared a sworn affidavit and filed it in the Sevier County Register

of Deed’s office explaining my difficulties in obtaining a full accounting of my mortgage payments and

other requested documents from all the companies involved up to that point. I also reached out to many

government agencies and government authorities for help during this time.

A second foreclosure attempt was made in on September 16, 2011. I’d never heard of the foreclosing

party, Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc. (“Dovenmuehle”). I never paid them and had no prior communications

with Dovenmuehle whatsoever. I also received communications that named another company I’d never

heard of: LNV Corporation.

By this time I was not only confused, but physically, emotionally, and mentally exhausted by the

ordeal I’d been put through and at a stage of complete physical and emotional breakdown. As a single

mother I had to push forward and carry on the fight to protect my children’s home and provide them the

stability and security they deserve.

In response to a demand letter sent to me by Shapiro and Kirsch I consulted a professional legal

advisor to review the mountains of documentation pertaining to my mortgage and to write a letter in my



behalf disputing the debt as per the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and to make a qualified written

request under RESPA for written verification of the debt and a full accounting of my payments. Shapiro and

Kirsch never provided proof of debt or an accounting of my payments.

I retained Douglas E. Taylor, Esq. who stopped the second foreclosure, by obtaining a temporary

restraining order issued by the same Sevier County Circuit judge who knew about the civil action filed in

behalf of my daughter, as well as the ongoing criminal court actions pending against the perpetrator of my

daughter’s shooting.

Counsel Taylor advised me to make an appearance at the scheduled court-house sale because he

feared that in view of all the strange events that had transpired from the inception of my loan the parties

involved might try to move ahead with the sale despite the signed temporary restraining order.

I could not leave my work so I sent a friend to this sale, who reported back that the auctioneer did try

to ignore the signed judge’s order by saying that she could not contact the attorneys in Memphis who were

pushing for the foreclosure. My friend escorted her into the Mayor’s office where the auctioneer was

instructed to send the judge’s order to Shapiro and Kirsch by facsimile and then to follow-up with a

telephone call to verify they had received the judge’s order.

On or about September 23, 2011, I received a call with a voice mail message from a woman who

identified herself as “Vanessa” with MGC. She wanted to know if I had received the hardship package she

claimed was sent to me. I thought this to be very strange, being that this call came one week after the

attempted second foreclosure where Dovenmuehle claimed to be the party foreclosing. I never received a

hardship package, nor had I ever asked MGC for one. In September 2013 I did a reverse telephone look up

on the number Vanessa used to phone me and it traced to a company called MTG Operations, not MGC or

LNV Corporation.



On my 2011 tax forms (1098 form) Dovenmuehle was listed as the “servicer” for MGC.

On or about September 23, 2011 my Counsel, Taylor filed suit in my behalf in the Circuit court of

Sevier County TN against LNV Corporation, Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc, Shapiro and Kirsch LLP, Joyce

Linger as (DBA) PrimeOne Group Inc.

I relied completely on my Counsel, Taylor, and never knew exactly what happened with this case.

For reasons unknown, broker Joyce Linger was not sued individually. The only thing I heard from Taylor

was that PrimeOne Group in Knoxville had already been dissolved.

I did not know who the opposing counsel was at that time though I thought it was Shapiro and

Kirsch LLP. I relied completely on the guidance and direction of my counsel, Taylor, who suggested we

voluntarily non-suit my complaint because the way the paperwork from the opposing counsel was written it

could be brought back within a year in the Circuit Court.

I now believe that there were two law firms involved as opposing counsel in 2011. My now former

counsel, Taylor, told me when the breach of contract suit was filed in 2012 by LNV that he again “was

dealing with the same guy as last time” meaning Kevin Hartley.

A full year passed without demands from any company whatsoever, during which time I continued

to pay my now former counsel, Taylor on a regular and ongoing basis. I fully expected him to put up a fight

for me.

On or about September 4, 2012 I received a certified letter which was a debt demand letter written

by Ronald Steen Jr. of Stites & Harbison and which was carbon copied to an attorney named Jeff Tschirhart.

On or about September 5, 2012 I received a summons from a process server for LNV Corporation’s claim of

Breach of Contract in Federal Court and I immediately informed my now former counsel, Taylor. At that



time I told Taylor I wanted to file a counter suit naming third parties because I had collected strong evidence

of fraud that I did not have in 2011.

Taylor never told me that we had a 14 day deadline to do this. I made continued and regular requests

for him to file a counter complaint that included third parties. I completely trusted him and thought he was

waiting for me to gather more evidence. Now I realize he may have been intentionally working against me

in favor of LNV by delaying discovery and by not filing a counter complaint naming third parties as I

requested him to do last year.

Taylor contacted the opposing attorney (Kevin Hartley) on September 26, 2012 and requested

validation and verification of the debt. Hartley responded by saying that they did not have to provide any

such accounting, as “Ms. Gebhardt is aware of the claims made against her and her debt has been previously

verified.” This is untrue. In spite of my numerous requests for verification of the debt dating back to 2009

none has ever been provided.

Taylor received from Hartley a letter dated September 26, 2012 that stated he was enclosing

documents in an email “to verify the validity of the defendant’s debt.” Nothing in these emailed documents

validates or verifies this alleged debt; and in fact many of these documents prove the opposite that LNV had

fabricated numerous false and fraudulent documents with intent to deceive me and others regarding their

false claims.

Most disturbing, this letter from Hartley also stated that the opposing counsel’s client, LNV, was

never a “party to any law suit.” I questioned Taylor about whether process of service was ever made, which

to date, he has not answered.

Shortly after LNV filed its Breach of Contract Complaint I took a friend with me to meet with

Taylor and discuss how he should defend me. It was mutually agreed that I would, in conjunction with



others, continue to research and investigate LNV’s claims and furnish Tayor with our findings and evidence

to support my position specific to a counter claim naming third parties. I was advised that I could serve

interrogatories upon LNV as part of discovery so I compiled several interrogatory questions and sent them

to Taylor in December 2012, January 2013, and March of 2013. Each of these emails also stated my desire

to move forward with a counter complaint adding third parties and a jury demand. This can be substantiated

with copies of the email transmissions. I came to learn only during the past few weeks that Taylor did

nothing with those interrogatories.

On or around mid May 2013, I visited Taylor’s office to show him two examples of strange mailings

I’d received over a period of time by U.S. Mail. Two of these letters pertained to changes in interest rate as

per the London Inter-bank Offer Rate, abbreviated LIBOR index. These two separate mailings received in

May 2013 both contain Pitney Bowes metered postage. Both envelopes were postmarked May 2013 yet one

of the letters enclosed was dated May 2012.

Both of these letters contain a Lake Zurich Illinois address yet the envelopes they came in have a

metered postage stamp with a Jacksonville, Florida zip code. The MGC letterhead on the letters looks

different from anything else in my possession with MGC’s letterhead. In May I considered this strange, but

in September I discovered they are evidence of fraud.

Several times my interest rate was changed illegally. Letter from GMAC Mortgage dated 11/6/2008

stated my interest rate will be adjusted effective 1/1/09. The LIBOR index interest rate stated on this letter

was 3.12100% yet the true published LIBOR for January 2009 on a 2/6 arm (fixed for two years and interest

adjusting every six months), which is what I am locked into, was 1.6211%, much lower than what GMAC

stated in their letter. A letter dated May 13, 2011 from MGC Mortgage Inc. states that my interest rate

would change effective 7/20/2011 and that the new index interest rate was 0.43050% while the actual

LIBOR rate for this time period effective in July 2011 was 0.4139%. A letter from Homecomings dated



June 9, 2006 stated that my interest rate was about to change effective June 1, 2006; more than a week

before the letter was dated.

In August and September of 2013 I sent two wire fund transfers to a Bank of America account as

instructed in a demand letter. (Bank of America Chicago IL ABA Number 026009593 8666116790)

During the past year I have been comparing documents and experiences and research with a group of

other victims of MGC, LNV and other companies created by D. Andrew Beal who is the ultimate owner of

both MGC and LNV. We noticed that several of us had been sent demand letters with this same Bank of

America account provided. Initial research into this account prompted us to further verify it as Bank of

America told us repeatedly that it was not a valid account. I volunteered to pay to send a wire transfer. I

thought it would be rejected and I would then have documentary evidence that it was not a valid account.

I was surprised when it actually went through. I, and others in our victim group, reached out to some

people we know in law enforcement to find out what could be going on. It was suggested that a Bank of

America employee must have setup an account that was not detectible by Bank of America’s computer

systems, and that this was possibly being done illegally. I sent a second wire transfer, this time not directing

it to Chicago as instructed and this time the transfer was rejected. Then my bank manager received a strange

phone call by someone identifying himself as Charles King. The caller ID on the phone showed “U.S.

Government” and he said he worked for a government agency. The same day the first wire transfer that was

initially accepted was returned. Both return receipts show Dovenmuehle as the receiver of the funds. One of

the return receipts states: “RETURNING WIRE FOR LN, 1423946779 PER CHARLES KING

REQUEST.”

Members in our victim group investigated “Charles King” and found an attorney with this name

works for Dovenmuehle and another man named Charles King works with Bank of America in Jacksonville,

Florida; who also has connections with Texas Hold‘em.



D. Andrew Beal is an infamous gambler and a supporter of online gambling and high stakes Texas

Hold ‘em. D. Andrew Beal is linked to an international gambling ring operated by the Russian mob.

According to an April 2013 federal criminal indictment: “The Nahmad-Trincher Organization used online

gambling websites, operating illegally in the United States, to operate an illegal gambling business that

generated tens of millions of dollars in bets each year… The Nahmad-Trincher Organization laundered the

proceeds of the gambling operation through a host of American bank accounts… people who personally

attended the games in question… including household names in the world of finance such as Daniel Andrew

“Andy” Beal, chairman of Beal Bank, who makes no secret of his enjoyment of and expertise in poker,

along with others who are less eager to publicize their affinity for Texas hold ’em.”

One of the Beal victims in our group asked her representative’s office about the government agency

“Charles King” told my bank manager he worked for and she was told no such government agency exists.

Caller ID spoofing can falsely make “U.S. Government” show up which is illegal. Charles King has no

business identifying himself as a U.S. government employee when he is not.

In a breach of contract claim, where LNV is the direct beneficiary for which MGC was allegedly

collecting payments, LNV cannot claim that I breached the contract when they themselves breached the

contract by not properly accounting for my payments.

The most basic of performance expectations a borrower holds when they take out a mortgage to

finance their home, the largest investment they are likely to make in their lifetime, is that the mortgage

holder will record their payments and apply them accurately to the loan’s balance from its inception to its

conclusion; and when mistakes are made that they will be corrected. This did not happen in my case. The

expectation of such performance for a mortgage lender is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

LNV and MGC and their predecessors breached the implied covenants of their contract with me as early as

October 2008.



If an enforceable contract ever existed; which evidence shows it did not, then LNV cannot claim

breach when they themselves and/or their predecessors breached the alleged contract as early as October

2008. Furthermore in a breach of contract claim the non-breaching party is only entitled to recover its actual

damages. Based on reliable data this is likely less than $10,000. LNV (aka D. Andrew Beal) is only entitled

to the amount it/he actually paid; not to its/his speculative gains.

Furthermore the debt Beal allegedly purchased was unsecured due to the bad faith actions of the

Trust from which he purchased it; and Beal knows he purchased unsecured debt. Advertisements he placed

in the Wall Street journal and other trader publications substantiate this.

Forclosure Fraud, Mail Fraud and Other Fraud Offenses

LVN claims to have acquired the DOT and Note by assignment from RFC. Evidence suggests that

RFC’s claims to the DOT and Note are based on fraud. If RFC doesn’t have valid claim to the DOT and

Note; then neither can LNV have a valid claim to the DOT and Note.

LNV has attached to its Complaint as “Exhibit A” what it claims is a copy of the “original” Note

signed by me on November 7, 2002. I disagree that this “Adjustable Rate Note” (“Note”) produced by LNV

is the “original” Note.

The signatures on this alleged “original” Note produced by LNV are forged and falsified signatures.

My signature has been electronically added onto this document.

Gebhardt’s signature forged on LNV’s alleged “original” Note

Although I signed a Note on November 7, 2002 it did not contain the signatures of Gayna Yeager,

Judy Faber or Notary Amy Marie Bean. These signatures were added at a later date and not in my presence.

This in and of itself might not be evidence of fraud, however when the facts alleged in the Note produced by

LNV are compared with the land records and other mortgage documents it can be proved that fabrications,



misrepresentations and omissions of material fact were intentionally and knowingly made by LNV and

others with intent to deceive me and others, including this court, for the purpose of encroachment on the my

property and to injure me by depriving me of the enjoyment of my property for which I have already paid

consideration in excess of $200,000; and when such encroachment would deprive me and my children of

their home and the stability a home provides a family with children.

My signature on the alleged “Floor Rate Addendum to Note” in LNV’s Exhibit A to their Complaint

appears to have been electronically copied and pasted onto this document, as well as onto other documents

produced by LNV. My signature is alleged by LNV to be the “original” wet signature. It is impossible for

white spaces around the pen strokes of the signature to exist on an original wet signature. (See Exhibit A on

page 48 of 51)

Two independent professional evaluations have determined that the signatures on the alleged

“original” Note and other documents LNV has produced and submitted to this court as genuine in support of

their claims are in fact forgeries and false signatures.

Gayna Yeager signatures are forgeries on LNV’s alleged “original” Note

Evidence exists that multiple individuals have signed as Gayna Yeager on land records across the

country when in fact they are not Gayna Yeager. In addition, Gayna Yeager has been identified in these

alleged land records and in LNV’s alleged “original” “Adjustable Rate Note” as both Vice President of

Sebring and Vice President of NealMikeLance Corporation; and Gayna Yeager has allegedly authenticated

the signatures of others on such land records pertaining to property throughout the United States as a Notary

commissioned in the State of Texas.



Gayna Yeager has violated her oath taken with the State of Texas and Texas laws by allowing other

individuals to forge her signature and/or by notarizing documents where the signers were not physically

located in Texas and did not sign in her presence or were not the individuals for which they signed.

On page 4 of 9 of LNV’s Exhibit A, the alleged “original” Note, Gayna Yeager’s signature appears

with that of Judy Faber who is identified as the Vice President of “Residential Funding Corporation” located

in Minnesota. The signatures of Gayna Yeager and Judy Faber are forgeries and false signatures.

Examples of at least six variations of Gayna Yeager’s signature are shown above. Even to an

untrained eye it is obvious these signatures are not made by the same individual and they are not consistent



with Gayna Yeager’s official signature I obtained from the Texas Secretary of State Notary Public Unit on

October 10, 2012.

Judy Faber’s signature is false on LNV’s alleged “original” Note

There are also validity issues pertaining to Judy Faber’s signature on LNV’s alleged “original”

“Adjustable Rate Note”. Judy Faber has been named in numerous lawsuits involving fraudulent foreclosures

and she been deposed in Bass vs. US Bank, her testimony pertaining to her job duties shows that she is a

“ro-bo signer” and the North Carolina Court of Appeals in that case, which has many similarities to this

case, found that US Bank is not the Note Holder. (US Bank is not the Note Holder – North Carolina: Bass

vs. US Bank)



As with Gayna Yeager, multiple variations of Judy Faber’s signature exist on land records filed with

county recorders across the nation; this is evidence of forgeries and false signatures; and this is consistent

with the manner and means the United States identified as the crimes in their indictment and conviction of

Lorraine Brown, former owner of DocX, Fidelity National Financial Inc. and Lender Processing Services

(LPS) for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. (United States District Court Middle District of

Florida Jacksonville District; United States of America v. Lorraine Brown; case # 3:12-CR-198-J-25MLR.)

False Assignment filed with Sevier County on 4/24/2003

An Assignment of DOT filed with Sevier County on April 24, 2003 was very recently found. This

assignment was difficult to find because it was filed in way that was inconsistent with how land records are

typically indexed and cross referenced by the Sevier County land recorder. Instead of being filed under the

homeowner’s name it was filed under “Sebring” the alleged lender. Additionally the record had no book or

page number in the computer system or on the face of the record. So far only one other record has been

found to be improperly filed and cross referenced like this assignment in the Sevier County land records.

Further discovery might uncover a motive for this and the party or parties responsible.

This assignment was allegedly executed on November 11, 2002 and it alleges that Sebring “does

hereby grant, bargain, assign and transfer to grantee or assignee: JPMortgage Chase as Trustee, c/o

Residential Funding Corporation, 2255 North Ontario, Suite 400, Burbank, CA 91504-3190….”

Many problems exist with this assignment. First a trust is a fiduciary relationship with respect to

specific property, to which the trustee holds the legal title for the benefit of one or more persons, who hold

equitable title as beneficiaries. Here the equitable title is allegedly being assigned to “JPMortgage Chase as

Trustee.” Equitable title cannot be assigned to a trustee.



Second, Michael T. Bates was the trustee named on the DOT executed on November 7, 2002 and

filed with Sevier County on November 13, 2002. No substitution of Trustee was filed during the three days

between execution date of the DOT and the execution date of this alleged assignment. Tennessee is a three

party State, so how can JPMorgan Chase Bank be the trustee in an assignment allegedly executed on

November 11, 2002 while Michael T. Bates is also named the trustee? This would mean two trustees; i.e.

four parties not three.

Third, the assignment is made to Chase “c/o Residential Funding Corporation.” The meaning of

“c/o” is unclear here, but it appears to imply that Chase is receiving in behalf of RFC. We know from the

securitization audit that RFC was the “Master Servicer” for the Trust. Equitable title cannot be assigned to a

servicer anymore than it can be assigned to the trustee.

Fourth, typically when “c/o” is used in mail; i.e. a letter is addressed to John Doe c/o Peter Paul it

means that the letter is for John Doe and will be given to John Doe by Peter Paul in trust. This would mean

that RFC is not the beneficiary or the party of interest to receive the equitable title; but the go-between for

some un-named party. This is not a legal assignment of a DOT. (see Exhibit C on page 51 of 51)

Remember that the Trust data shows RFC as the loan “originator” which is conclusively false,

because Sebring was the originator.

Additionally a break in the chain of trustee exists. For the first foreclosure attempt on my property in

2009 a substitute of trustee document was filed with my county that named Patrick Taggart as substituting

Michael T. Bates. Remember in 2002 there were two trustees named simultaneously, Michael T. Bates and

JPMorgan Chase. Then for the foreclosure attempt in 2011 a substitute of trustee document was filed with

my county that substituted Michael T. Bates with Shapiro and Kirsch; leaving JPMorgan Chase and Patrick

Taggart as continuing trustees; five parties in a three party State.



Gayna Yeager signature is a forgery on this assignment

The alleged signature of Gayna Yeager is on this assignment is a forgery. The variation of her

signature on this alleged assignment is inconsistent with Gayna Yeager’s official signature and with her

signature on the alleged “original” Note that LNV produced as Exhibit A to their Complaint.

Amy Marie Bean signature is a forgery on this assignment

The signature of Amy Marie Bean as the Notary commissioned in Texas is also inconsistent with her

official signature on file with the Texas Secretary of State.

False Assignment filed 8/06/2008

An alleged Corporation Assignment of DOT was filed with Sevier County on August 6, 2008 and

alleges that “The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. as successor to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as

Trustee, Residential Funding Company LLC fka Residential Funding Corporation, Attorney-In-Fact 2255

North Ontario, Suite 400, Burbank, CA 91504-3190 the undersigned hereby grants, assigns and transfer to:

Residential Funding Company LLC, 8400 Normandale Lake Blvd Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55437 all

beneficial interest under certain Deed of Trust…”

Many problems with this alleged assignment exist. First Residential Funding Company LLC is

assigning the DOT from itself to itself.

Second, this assignment is signed by Christine Renner simultaneously as Assistant Vice President of

four different companies and is allegedly executed on May 30, 2007. Thirdly, in the lower left corner of this

assignment it states: “Prepared by MGC Mortgage.” MGC Mortgage was not incorporated until January 1,

2008. Fourthly:



Christine Renner signature is a false signature

Christine Renner signed similar land records as the Vice President of Deutshe Bank Trust Company

Americas fka Bankers Trust Company as Trustee, Residential Funding Company, LLC fka Residential

Funding Corporation, Attorney-In-Fact. (see Exhibit B on pages 49 and 50 of 51)

Christine Renner cannot at the same time be the Vice President of:

1. The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. as successor to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. etc… as

per the assignment pertaining to my DOT and,

2. Deutshe Bank Trust Company Americas fka Bankers Trust Company etc… as per the Pottawattamie

County Iowa assignment.

False Assignment filed 8/06/2008

An alleged Corporation Assignment of DOT was filed with Sevier County on August 6, 2008 that

purports “For value received ‘Residential Funding Company LLC fka Residential Funding Corporation’ the

undersigned hereby grants, assigns and transfer to: LNV Corporation, 7195 Dallas Parkway, Plano Texas

75024. (Notice this is the same address as MGC for the empty lot.)

This assignment was allegedly executed on August 10, 2008. However LNV Corporation was not

incorporated in Nevada until August 17, 2008. According the Nevada Secretary of State, Nevada law

specifies that an entity cannot legally do business or enter into transactions prior to its incorporation date.

I can produce several witnesses with similar evidence of fraud committed by LNV against them.

When this evidence is considered together as a whole it shows a conspiracy to defraud and a pattern of fraud

on the part of LNV, MGC, and Beal and his other “sham” companies. It further shows D. Andrew Beal who

is the ultimate owner of LNV and MGC is also a co-conspirator in the crimes of Lorraine Brown who has

already been convicted with unnamed co-conspirators for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud in favor of



the United States. (United States District Court Middle District of Florida Jacksonville District; United

States of America v. Lorraine Brown; case # 3:12-CR-198-J-25MLR.)

Excerpted from Lorraine Brown criminal plea of guilt:

“The manner and means by which Brown, her co-conspirators, and others sought to accomplish the

purposes and objectives of the conspiracy included forging and falsifying signatures on the

mortgage-related documents that they prepared and filed with property recorders' offices

throughout the United States.

These documents, particularly mortgage assignments and lost note or assignment affidavits, were

later relied upon in court proceedings, including property foreclosures and in federal bankruptcy

court. Brown knew that these property recorders, as well as those who received the documents such

as courts, title insurers, and homeowners, relied on these documents as genuine.”

The forged and falsified signatures on the Deed Assignments filed against my property are consistent

with the manner and means identified by the United States in their criminal conviction of Brown. These

false records were indeed mailed and/or transferred electronically to my county. I am most certainly a

victim of the same crimes identified by the United States in their indictment of Lorraine Brown. The United

States identified unnamed co-conspirators in their indictment, LNV, MGC, Dovenmuehle, Beal and his

other companies and other accomplices are responsible for producing and mailing or electronically

transferring these false instruments.

A criminal conviction is conclusive proof and operates as an estoppel on defendants as to the facts

supporting the conviction in a subsequent civil action. (Local 167 of International Brotherhood of

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of America v. United States, 291 U.S. 293, 298-99, 78 L. Ed.

804, 54 S. Ct. 396 (1934); Brown v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 768, 524 F.2d 693, 705 (1975))



CONCLUSION

Beal, Beal Bank, Beal Financial, LNV, and Dovenmuehle along with NealMikeLance Corporation,

Lorraine Brown, and others, did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate and agree with

themselves and with others to commit certain offenses and acts of fraud to execute and attempt to execute a

scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of material false and fraudulent

pretenses, representations, and promises, by utilizing the United States mail and private and commercial

interstate carriers, for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, in violation of Title 18, United

States Code, Section 1341.

A determination of the ultimate facts pertaining to an assignment from Sebring to either RFC or the

Trust is at the heart of this case. LNV cannot have a valid claim against me for breach of contract when:

1. There is question about the enforceability of the contract between the original parties,

2. LNV has no proof a valid or legal assignment of the DOT and Note (i.e. mortgage contract) was ever

made from Sebring to RFC. Further complicating the matter is that we know my mortgage was

securitized into the Trust between November 7, 2002 and January 1, 2003, the closing date for the

Trust. No legal or valid assignment exists between Sebring and the Trust. And by all appearances

RFC has made a false and illegal claim of equitable interest in the DOT.

3. LNV cannot prove is has the true “original” Note; since the one it has produced and submitted to this

court is a false fabrication. And it can be deduced from the fact that LNV resorted to producing a

false fabrication that LNV does not have the original wet signature Note.

4. The fact that LNV has produced falsified documents and caused them to be filed through the mail

and via electronic transmission with the Sevier County land recorder bars LNV from prevailing in a

breach of contract because it has “unclean hands” and because it has committed the crime of fraud.



COUNT IV Defendants: All named and yet unnamed and unknown defendants

Pattern of Criminal Activity Prohibited Under 18 USC Chapter 96 This action is brought pursuant to the provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act (“RICO”) 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1331 and 18 U.S.C. § 1964.

Defendants named in this counter complaint with third party cross defendants are engaged in a

regular and systematic course of conduct in Tennessee, and across the United States that included(s) but was

and is not limited to: false claims and representations in the origination of mortgage loans; false claims and

representations regarding mortgage loan costs; false claims and representations regarding Libor and

mortgage rates; false claims and representations regarding mortgage loan defaults; false claims and

representations regarding mortgage securitizations; false claims of the acquisition of mortgage loans relating

to real property; the institution of fraudulent threats of foreclosure and fraudulent foreclosure proceedings

based on false and fraudulent misrepresentations; the fraudulent collection, through one or more agents

including but not limited to the named and yet unknown and unnamed defendants of monies allegedly owed

on secured promissory notes as to mortgage loans through false and fraudulent misrepresentations; and the

perpetration of frauds upon the Courts of the United States, including this Court, through false and

fraudulent misrepresentations in connection with the filing of foreclosure actions and the prosecution of

non-judicial foreclosure actions which conduct, in the aggregate and in the manner executed, constituted a

pattern of criminal activity.

The actions and course of conduct of Third-Party Defendants named in this complaint were

executed, as to me, in the same manner and means (fraudulent misrepresentations in the origination of

mortgages); (fraudulent misrepresentations in the securitization of mortgages); (fraudulent

misrepresentations in documents filed in courts, public records, and through the mails); with the same



motive (to institute fraudulent foreclosure proceedings) and the same intended class of victims (owners of

real property) and the same intended consequences (wrongfully foreclosing on real property), pursuant to a

well-planned and orchestrated scheme to defraud which was executed on a national scale throughout the

United States through the institution of fraudulent foreclosure actions and regular and systematic violations

of foreclosure laws in both judicial and non-judicial foreclosure jurisdictions, resulting in a nationalized

fraud which has resulted in damages to me and to hundreds of thousands of other homeowners in Tennessee

and in other States.

This pattern of fraudulent origination of mortgages, fraudulent securitization of mortgages, insurance

fraud, servicing fraud, filing false declarations in foreclosures for purposes of manufacturing legal standing

and causing the execution of false and fraudulent “Assignments” of mortgages and DOTs and failure to

provide proof of legal ownership of the full and unencumbered interest in the Note and Mortgage to further

fraudulent foreclosures nationwide is consistent with defendants’ pattern of criminal activity prohibited

under 18 USC Chapter 96 - RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS; 18 USC

§ 1962 - Prohibited activities.

At all times material hereto, the Third-Party Defendants named in this complaint had actual

knowledge that their written statements as to alleged ownership of my mortgage loan and the legal

entitlement to demand monies from me and which they used to institute foreclosure proceedings were false

statements of material fact which were false when made and known by said Third-Party Defendants to be

false when made.

Third-Party Defendants made the subject false statements with the specific intent that I and the

courts would rely thereon and with the separate specific intent, which separate specific intent was unknown

to me at the time, to defraud me.



Not being in the mortgage lending or mortgage loan acquisition businesses, I reasonably relied upon

the written statements of Third-Party Defendants and acted thereon, including but not limited to paying

monies to said Third-Party Defendants when demanded thereby.

As a direct and proximate result of the actions and course of conduct of these Third-Party

Defendants, I have suffered damages and personal injury.

The fraudulent conduct engaged in by the Third-Party Defendants constitutes a separate and

independent tort separate and apart from any breach of any contract.

Third-Party Defendants’ CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD includes, but is not limited to: At all times

material hereto, these Third-Party Defendants agreed, between and among themselves and in combination

with each other and various agents identified herein, as to each overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy

and enterprise, to engage in unlawful actions for a common purpose, to wit: to perpetrate a fraud upon me

and others through fraudulent mortgage origination practices, through fraudulent mortgage securitization

practices, through fraudulent mortgage servicing practices, through fraudulent threats of foreclosure and

fraudulent foreclosure filings whereby the Defendants would obtain the use and benefit, under fraudulent

pretenses, of my real property at my expense and without compensating me therefore; to unlawfully convert

my real property and permanently deprive me thereof; and to cause all deleterious consequences of these

Third-Party Defendants’ actions to be saddled upon me, which consequences include but are not limited to

the loss of real property; the incurring of expenses; personal injury; and the adverse effects of claimed

defaults and foreclosures placed on my credit report.

18 USC § 1962 provides, in pertinent part, that it is unlawful for any person:

1) who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering

activity to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of



such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any

enterprise.

2) through a pattern of criminal activity, acquired or maintained, directly or indirectly, any

interest in or control of any enterprise or real property;

3) employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or

indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity;

4) to conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsections (1), (2), or (3).

All Third-Party Defendants here named have engaged in “racketeering activity” as defined by 18

USC § 1961.

As set forth above, these Third-Party Defendants intentionally manufactured a scheme to defraud

homeowners on a nationalized level whereby these Third-Party Defendants, through the use of the mails, the

public records, and the Courts, intentionally devised false and fraudulent documents relating to the claimed

and alleged ownership and “holder” status of mortgage loans when these Third-Party Defendants had actual

knowledge that they had no such status, doing so through perjured documents and material

misrepresentations with the specific intent to commit theft of residential real property.

As set forth above, I relied upon these Third-Party Defendants’ representations (as any reasonably

and similarly-situated homeowner would), which directly and proximately caused me to suffer specific

damages and personal injury.

The actions of these Third-Party Defendants were specifically directed to the named Third-Party

Plaintiff herein.

In order to accomplish their objective, these Third-Party Defendants developed and were part of an

enterprise, which consisted of these Third-Party Defendants and their agents including but not limited to



various law Firms and “Trustee Sale” companies, which worked together and in concert at the direction of

the Defendants for the specific purpose of furthering the pattern of criminal activity set forth herein,

including notary fraud and a regular pattern and practice of filing false and perjured documents in the public

records to institute and further fraudulent foreclosures and steal residential real property from its owners.

18 USC Chapter 96 defines “pattern of criminal activity” as engaging in at least two incidents of

criminal activity that have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims, or methods of

commission or that otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents

and that the last of such incidents occurred within 5 years after a prior incident of criminal activity. As set

forth herein, the pattern of criminal activity engaged in by these Third-Party Defendants did not arise out of

a single contract or transaction, and in fact involved numerous contracts and transactions which spread

across the United States, including those pertaining to the Third-Party Plaintiff identified herein.

As set forth herein, the Third-Party Defendants, through their predicate acts and pattern of criminal

activity which these Third-Party Defendants engaged in throughout the United States on a regular and

continuous basis and with a defined and intentional purpose, conducted a nationalized fraud, the victims of

which were the American homeowner including the Third-Party Plaintiff herein.

As further set forth herein, these RICO Defendants who were employed by and associated with the

enterprise conducted and participated in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity including but

not limited to a nationalized pattern of filing false and perjured documents in the public records; instituting

false and fraudulent foreclosure proceedings; and deliberately ignoring and failing to comply with

applicable foreclosure laws.

As set forth hereinabove and hereinbelow, these RICO Defendants also conspired and endeavored to

violate the activities prohibited by 18 USC § 1961 sections (1), (2), and (3).



These RICO Defendants specifically engaged in their pattern of criminal activity at my expense and

for their own benefit.

As a direct and proximate result of the overt, concerted, and conspiratorial actions of the here named

Third-Party Defendants through and with their agents, I have suffered significant pecuniary loss, personal

injury, inconvenience, discomfort, and substantial mental distress by reason of these RICO Defendants’

numerous violations of Federal and State laws regulating fraud, racketeering, theft, forgery, perjury, bribery,

graft and corruption with intent of defrauding me of my money and my property.

As set forth above, I am thus entitled to demand and does demand threefold actual damages against

the RICO Defendants.

COUNT V Defendants: All named and yet unnamed and unknown defendants

Discrimination Under 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. and 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq.

I was targeted for property appraisal fraud, loan origination fraud, a highly predatory loan,

fraudulent loan padding, securitization fraud and other misrepresentations and omissions of material fact

that I relied upon to my detriment; and that those here named knew to be false and had made with intent to

deceive me and with motive of unjust enrichment. I was targeted for such fraud because I met certain

criteria, including but not limited to:

a. I am a female head-of-household and the sole signer on her mortgage.

b. I was new to the area and desperate to get my children settled into a home so they could

begin school and I could focus on my new job.

This criterion was used by defendants to target minorities and other vulnerable consumer groups

(including female head of households) for highly predatory mortgage loans and for other financial fraud.



There is no legal definition of “subprime loan,” although the federal government has provided guidance on

how to identify subprime loans. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (“HMDA”) required mortgage lenders

to disclose certain information about each mortgage loan originated or purchased in a fiscal year. Pursuant

to regulations promulgated by the Federal Reserve Board, since 2004 the HMDA data has included a

designation for “high-cost” loans. Indentifying certain loans as “high-cost” operates as a proxy for

identifying subprime loans. A “high-cost” loan is defined as a first-lien loan with an annual percentage rate

and borrowing costs that exceed by more than 3 percentage points Treasury securities of comparable

maturity.

Although the distinction between prime and subprime lending ostensibly tracks differences in a

borrower's creditworthiness, in fact many lenders and brokers simply tried to maximize the share of loans

they originated on subprime terms. One analysis conducted for the Wall Street Journal found that, in 2005,

55% of subprime mortgages were given to borrowers with sufficiently high credit scores to qualify for

prime loans. See Rick Brooks & Ruth Simon, Subprime Debacle Traps Even Very Credit-Worthy, Wall

Street Journal, Dec. 3, 2007, at A1.

Not all subprime loans are predatory, but nearly all predatory loans are subprime. Most

fundamentally, predatory loans place a borrower at an elevated risk of default or foreclosure. The

interagency Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending enumerates certain tactics that may indicate

predatory lending. Nonprofit groups have also published widely accepted guidance on the kinds of practices

that may constitute predatory lending. See, e.g., NAT’L COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COAL., THE BROKEN

CREDIT SYSTEM: DISCRIMINATION AND UNEQUAL ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE LOANS BY RACE AND AGE 4 (2004).

Like the Combined-Risk Loan at issue in this complaint, predatory loans typically combine risky loan

features, thereby placing the borrower at an excessive risk of default and foreclosure.



For purposes of this complaint, "Combined-Risk Loans" are loans that meet the definition of high-

cost loan under the HMDA and also contain two or more of the following high-risk terms: (a) the loan was

issued based upon “stated income,” rather that the verified income, of the borrower; (b) the debt-to-income

ratio exceeds 55%; (c) the loan-to-value ratio is at least 90%; (d) the loan has an adjustable interest rate; (e)

the loan has “interest only” payment features; (f) the loan has negative loan amortization features; (g) the

loan has “balloon” payment features; and/or (h) the loan imposes prepayment penalties.

Individually these loan features make loans riskier and costlier to the borrower. When multiple such

features are layered within the same loan, the riskiness and the costliness of the loans increase dramatically.

The age and gender disparities giving rise to this action/cause were a direct consequence of the

Trusts’ policies for securitizing Sebring loans. Joyce Linger’s and Sebring’s intensive focus on originating

subprime loans classified as “high-cost” under HMDA was a result of higher fees offered by the Trusts for

such loans. Because its receipt of fees had little or no connection to how securities performed, and because it

saw financial advantages for itself in buying and packaging Combined-Risk Loans in particular, the Trust,

focused heavily on increasing the volume of Combined-Risk Loans it purchased. The predominant standard

for loan quality for Sebring and other loan originators like them, became whether the loans they originated

could be initially sold or securitized in the secondary market. The Trust understood the key role that

securitization played in shaping the practices of “lenders” like Sebring.

During the time period when my loan was originated, the Trust required Sebring, as a condition of

the companies’ lucrative business relationship, to issue large volumes of Combined-Risk Loans. The high

risk features of these loans increased the costs of the loans for borrowers and placed them at greater risk of

default, delinquency, and foreclosure.

These Third Party Defendants’ aggressive development of these loan pools disproportionally

impacted minorities, female head-of-households, the disabled and seniors over the age of 50 who were more



likely to receive these categorically harmful loans than other borrowers. As a result, I faced a greater risk of

default and foreclosure.

The racial, gender and age disparities giving rise to this action were a direct consequence of the

Trust’s policies for securitizing loans originated by the Lingers and Sebring and other subprime “lenders.”

Defendants’ policies and practices have resulted in considerable racial, gender and age disparities. I

seek, through this action, to obtain injunctive relief preventing these Third-Party Defendants from engaging

in this discriminatory conduct in the future.

I also seek to disgorge unjust enrichment these Third-Party Defendants derived from its

discriminatory conduct and to remedy economic harms suffered as a result of the policies challenged in this

lawsuit.

These Third-Party Defendants’ discrimination violates the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et

seq. ("FHA"), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq. ("ECOA").

This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the FHA and ECOA claims pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331, 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1)(A), and 15 U.S.C. § 1691e(f).

Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendants conduct business

and can be found in this district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims

alleged herein occurred in this district.

FURTHERMORE;

I am filing this complaint pro-se because I have no choice. I do so at a horrific disadvantage, but I

am helpless to do otherwise.



According to The National Center for State Courts, courts are continuing to see an increase in the

numbers of litigants who represent themselves and statistics regarding pro-se litigants are very disturbing for

those who know the issues regarding the courts and legal counsel in this country.

Slightly over 88% of judges surveyed believed that the extent to which litigants committed

procedural errors was a problem for pro se litigation. Studies of the trends in pro-se litigants show that the

vast majority of them have modest incomes. Source: the website for The National Center for State Courts:

http://www.ncsconline.org/wc/publications/memos/prosestatsmemo.htm

These cases are all very complex; made so deliberately by the criminal activities of the defendants

with intent to thwart consumers’ ability to seek legal redress and to prevent them from prevailing whenever

they do. Even trained attorneys struggle to adequately represent their clients’ rights in such cases; yet pro-se

litigants must take on these very complex cases without training in the law and without confidence in their

ability to adequately present their case or follow expected procedures.

Therefore, my Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States

are violated by the named Third-Party Defendants in this complaint.

This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over Constitutional claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1331.

Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because these Third-Party

Defendants conduct business and can be found in this district, and a substantial part of the events or

omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in this district.

http://www.ncsconline.org/wc/publications/memos/prosestatsmemo.htm�



V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Gebhardt prays for relief as follows:

1. That the Court determines that it has jurisdiction over this action;

2. That a judgment be entered against LNV and the other Third-Party Defendants in favor of Gebhardt

for injunctive relief and declaratory relief, and for equitable monetary relief in the nature of

disgorgement, in amounts to be determined at trial;

3. That the Court award damages for tortious injury and personal injury and other equitable relief to

Gebhardt, in amounts to be determined at trial;

4. That the Court award actual damages to Gebhardt, in amounts to be determined at trial;

5. That the Court awards threefold actual damages to Plaintiff, as per the RICO Statutes.

6. That the court appoint a pro-bono counsel(s) to assist Gebhardt in discovery and at trial;

7. That the Court order Defendants to pay Gebhardt’s litigation costs.

8. That the Court award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, to the extent allowable by law; and

9. That the Court grant for all other and further relief as this Court may deem necessary, appropriate

and which is just and proper under the totality of the circumstances.

Plaintiff requests a jury on the claims so triable.

________________________________________

Catherine Gebhardt



This is page 6 of 9 from LNV’s “Exhibit A” attached to their Complaint. LNV alleges Gebhardt signed an Addendum to the original Adjustable Rate Rider. The alleged Gebhardt signature is not dated and this page is not numbered. Nothing associates this alleged signature page with the alleged Adjustable Rate Rider or the alleged Addendum it allegedly approved.

It appears Gebhardt’s signature has been electronically lifted and placed onto the page. Had the printer ink streak occurred when this page was printed or if it was on the page when the signature was made then there would not be white space between the edges of the letters. See close-up below.

Notice the white spaces – this can only occur on a PhotoShopped fabrication; i.e. an electronically lifted image of a signature that was placed on top of the ink streak. This would be an impossible on an original wet signature as LNV claims this is.

Exhibit A



EXHIBIT B - page 1

Gebhardt assignment – Christine Renner signs as Assistant Vice President of The Bank of New York Trust Company NA, as successor to JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. as Trustee, Residential Funding Company, LLC fka Residential Funding Corporation, Attorney if Fact

MGC Mortgage is the preparer of this instrument that was allegedly executed on May 30, 2007 when MGC was not incorporated until January 1, 2008.

This instrument is allegedly executed on May 30, 2007. This is not possible since the Trust databases show that the Gebhardt loan was not paid off in the Trust until July 2007.

This instrument allegedly assigns equitable interest from RFC to RFC.

Why would RFC need to execute an assignment to itself?



EXHIBIT B - page 2

In this Pottawattamie County assignment – Christine Renner signs as Assistant Vice President of Deutsche Bank Trust Company America fka Bankers Trust Company, Residential Funding Company, LLC fka Residential Funding Corporation, Attorney if Fact

In the Gebhardt land record she is VP of two companies – between these two instruments it appears that Christine Renner is VP of four companies at the same time.

This instrument is allegedly executed on March 22, 2007 barely two months before the Gebhardt assignment was allegedly executed.



This assignment is a false instrument for the following reasons:

The DOT was executed on 11/7/02 and filed on 11/13/02 – the Trustee named on the DOT is “Michael T. Bates.” This assignment alleges that “JPMorgan Chase Bank” is the Trustee. No Substitution of Trustee had been filed between the execution dates of these two instruments, and it is not legally possible for there to be two trustees.

It is unclear who is actually being assigned the equitable interest in the DOT. Chase is the “trustee” and equitable title cannot be assigned to the trustee. The use of “c/o RFC” means that RFC is an agent in behalf of some unnamed entity and RFC is entrusted to “deliver” to this party. This is not a legal assignment of equitable title in property.

RFC is named as the “Servicer” for the Trust in which the Gebhardt loan was securitized. Equitable title cannot legally be assigned to a “Servicer.”

Additionally the signature of Gayna Yeager is a forgery.

Exhibit C

gebhardt's counter and thrid party complaint against lnv corporation and d. andrew beal and...

Documents

state zip code

street address

lnv corporation et

thirdparty city

parties defendant

cross claim defendant

plaintiff telephone

catherine gebhardt defendant