Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND

JACOB GEESING, et al.

Plaintiff

v. Case No: 13C-09-079000


MATTHEW PALMER,
Defendant

MOTION TO STAY AND DISMISS BASED ON FRAUD ON THE COURT

Comes now the Defendant, Matthew Palmer by and through his counsel, The Law Office

of Gerald Solomon, P.A. and Gerald Solomon, Esquire and Bascietto & Bregman, LLC, and

John Bascietto, Esquire in his Motion to Stay and Dismiss Based On Fraud on The Court, and for

cause, says unto this Court:

1. This is a foreclosure case filed on or about August 21, 2009.

2. The jurisdiction of this court was invoked in this case by the filing of an Order to

Docket.

3. There are two condition precedents to the filing of an Order to Docket:

a. The instrument creating or giving notice of the existence of the lien has to
have been filed for the record; and

b. There is a default that lawfully allows a sale.

4. The Order to Docket must be accompanied by:

a. a copy of the lien instrument supported by an affidavit that it is a true and


accurate copy;

b. an affidavit by the secured party, the plaintiff, or the agent or attorney of


either that the plaintiff has the right to foreclose and a statement of the
debt remaining due and payable;

1
c. a copy of any separate note or other debt instrument supported by an
affidavit that it is a true and accurate copy and certifying ownership of the
debt instrument;

d. a copy of any assignment of the lien instrument for purposes of


foreclosure or deed of appointment of a substitute trustee supported by an
affidavit that it is a true and accurate copy of the assignment or deed of
appointment;

e. an affidavit with respect to any defendant who is an individual that the


individual is not in the military service of the United States; and

f. a statement as to whether or not the property is residential property.

5. Plaintiff Jacob Geesing, Esquire is purportedly a Trustee under an instrument

titled Deed of Appointment of Substitute Trustee.

6. Plaintiff Jacob Geesing, Esquire is also a principal in the law firm of Bierman,

Geesing & Ward, LLC.

7. Bierman Geesing & Ward, LLC also represent Plaintiff Jacob Geesing, Esquire.

8. Plaintiff Jacob Geesing, Esquire invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by the

filing of a Order to Docket and affidavits executed by him in front of a notary as follows:

a. An affidavit stating that the copy of the lien instrument attached to the
pleading was a true and accurate copy;

b. An affidavit by Jacob Geesing, as attorney for the secured party that the
plaintiff, Jacob Geesing, Esquire has the right to foreclose and a statement
of the debt remaining due and payable;

c. An affidavit of a copy of any separate note stating that it is a true and


accurate copy and certifying ownership of the debt instrument;

d. An affidavit stating that the copy of a deed of appointment of a substitute


trustee is a true and accurate copy of the assignment or deed of
appointment; and

e. An affidavit that Defendant was not in the military service of the United
States;

2
9. Each affidavit submitted by Jacob Geesing in this case contained an assertion that

Jacob Geesing personally appeared and gave oath to the affidavit.

10. In the instant case Jacob Geesing, Esquire also executed affidavits for the:

a. Report of Sale; and

b. Notice by Mail Prior to Sale.

11. Upon information and belief Jacob Geesing, Esquire is the named Plaintiff trustee

in approximately 8,000 active cases filed in the State of Maryland for the year 2009 alone.

12. Jacob Geesing is the named Plaintiff trustee in the following named cases:

a. Geesing v. Palmer, Circuit Court for Howard County Maryland, case


number 13C-09-079000;

b. Geesing v. Laur, Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County, Maryland, case
number 18-C-09-001338;

c. Geesing v. Lembach, Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland,


case number 002C09145252;

d. Geesing v. Stewart, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland,


case number 321204V; and

e. Geesing v. Nachbar, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland,


case number 318239V.

13. The affidavits containing Jacob Geesing and notary signatures in the mentioned

cases reveals the following:

Geesing v. Palmer
Affidavit of Non-Military Service

Affidavit of Deed Of Trust Debt and Right to Foreclose

3
Affidavit, Pursuant to MD Rule 14-207(b)(1) Regarding Copy of Lien Instrument

Affidavit, Pursuant to MD Rule 14-207(b)(4) Regarding Copy of Deed of Appointment of


Substitute Trustee

Report of Sale

Affidavit of Notice by Mail Prior to Sale

Geesing v. Laur
Affidavit of Mailing of Notice to Occupants

Affidavit, Pursuant to MD Rule 14-207(b)(4) Regarding Copy of Deed of Appointment of


Substitute Trustee
4
Affidavit, Pursuant to MD Rule 14-207(b)(1) Regarding Copy of Lien Instrument

Affidavit of Deed of Trust Debt and Right to Foreclose

Affidavit of Non-Military Service

Affidavit of Mailing of Notice to Occupants

Geesing v. Lembach
Affidavit of Mailing of Notice to Occupants

Affidavit, Pursuant to MD Rule 14-207(b)(4)


Regarding Copy of Deed of Appointment of
Substitute Trustee

Affidavit, Pursuant to MD Rule 14-207(b)(4) Regarding Copy of Deed of Appointment of


Substitute Trustee

5
Affidavit of Deed of Trust Debt and Right to Foreclose

Affidavit of Non-Military Service

Geesing v. Stewart
Affidavit of Mailing of Notice to Occupants

Affidavit, Pursuant to MD Rule 14-207(b)(4) Regarding Copy of Deed of Appointment of


Substitute Trustee

Affidavit, Pursuant to MD Rule 14-207(b)(1) Regarding Copy of Lien Instrument

Affidavit of Deed of Trust Debt and Right to Foreclose

Affidavit of Non-Military Service

Affidavit of Mailing Notice to Occupants

6
Geesing v. Nachbar
Report of Sale

Affidavit of Mailing of Notice to Occupants

Affidavit of Non-Military Service

Affidavit, Pursuant to MD Rule 14-207(b)(1)


Regarding Copy of Lien Instrument

Affidavit, Pursuant to MD Rule 14-207(b)(1)


Regarding Copy of Deed of Appointment of
Substitute Trustee

Affidavit of Deed of Trust Debt and Right to


Foreclose

7
14. Due to the variation in signatures Katherine Mainolfi Koppenhaver, of Forensic

Document Examiners, Inc. was retained to examine the signatures of Mr. Jacob Geesing and

Rodnita Moulton.

15. Ms. Koppenhaver is an expert in handwriting and document examination and is a

Board Certified Document Examiner by BFDE.

16. Ms. Koppenhaver is the author of two books, has twenty five years of experience

and has handled over 2,500 cases. See Curriculum Vita Exhibit 1.

17. Ms. Koppenhaver examined documents as detailed in her report dated November

12, 2009, Exhibit 2.

18. Ms. Koppenhaver opined that there are four different people signing Mr.

Geesing’s name, and two people signing Rodnita Moulton’s name.

19. The execution of Attorney Geesing’s name by four different people and two

different people executing Notary Rodnita Moulton’s name constitutes a fraud on the court both

for the acquisition of jurisdiction for the court to proceed as well as determination of the merits

of the case.

WHEREFORE, your Defendant prays that this Court:

A. Stay this action pending further investigation to determine the proper


sanction for Plaintiff’s misconduct in this action;

B. Order full discovery pursuant to the Circuit Court Maryland Rules;

C. Award counsel fees and costs associated with this action;

D. Dismiss this case with prejudice; and

E. Grant him such other and further relief as the nature of his cause requires.

8
Respectfully submitted,

The Law Office of Gerald Solomon P.A.

_______________________________
By: Gerald Solomon, Esquire1
9857 Majestic Way
Boynton Beach, Florida 33437
(561) 735-3536

And

Bascietto & Bregman, LLC

_______________________________
By: John Bascietto, Esquire
4741 Sellman Road
Beltsville, Maryland 20708
(301) 937-3300

Attorneys for Defendant

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Plaintiff, Jacob Geesing, Trustee invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing an

Order to Docket. Md Code Ann., Real Property, Rule 14-207(a)(1). The Order to Docket

“shall” be accompanied by:

(1) a copy of the lien instrument supported by an affidavit that it is


a true and accurate copy, or, in an action to foreclose a statutory
lien, a copy of a notice of the existence of the lien supported by an
affidavit that it is a true and Accurate copy; (Emphasis added)

(2) an affidavit by the secured party, the plaintiff, or the agent or


attorney of either that the plaintiff has the right to foreclose and a
statement of the debt remaining due and payable; (Emphasis
added)

(3) a copy of any separate note or other debt instrument supported


by an affidavit that it is a true and accurate copy and certifying
ownership of the debt instrument; (Emphasis added)

1
Executed through electronic image emailed to co-counsel for presentation to the court with authority.
9
(4) a copy of any assignment of the lien instrument for purposes of
foreclosure or deed of appointment of a substitute trustee
supported by an affidavit that it is a true and accurate copy of the
assignment or deed of appointment; (Emphasis added)

(5) an affidavit with respect to any defendant who is an individual


that the individual is not in the military service of the United States
as defined in the Service members Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. app.
§§501 et seq., or that the action is authorized by the Act;
(Emphasis added)

(6) a statement as to whether or not the property is residential


property;

(7) in an action to foreclose a lien instrument on residential


property, to the extent not produced in response to
subsections(b)(1) through(b)(5) of this Rule, the information and
papers required by Code, Real Property Article, §7-105.1(d),
except that if the name and license number of the mortgage
originator and mortgage lender is not required in the notice of
intent to foreclose, the information is not required in the order to
docket or complaint to foreclose; and

(8) in an action to foreclose a land installment contract on property


other than residential property, an affidavit that the notice required
by Rule 14-205(c) has been given. (Emphasis added)

Md. Code Ann., Real Property, Rule 14-207(b). The requisite affidavits are jurisdictional, that

is, they are necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.

Plaintiff often takes the position that:

Further, the appellate Courts are clear that foreclosure is not a civil
matter, but is rather "is an in rem procceding," that "an order to
docket is not a pleading" within the meaning of the Rules, and that
"it is not necessary to serve the opposing party with process" when
commencing a foreclosure proceeding. . . .

Geesing v. Stewart, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, case number 321204V,

Substitute Trustees’ Opposition to Motion to Stay.

In all five cases cited herein, Plaintiff moved forward with either a sale of the property

despite obvious defects in title or has noticed the property for sale despite motions pending

10
before the court and failure to proceed in good faith in President Obama’s Making Home

Affordable provision designed to help Americans keep their homes after the recent housing

crash:

Geesing v. Palmer, Circuit Court for Howard County Maryland,


case number 13C-09-079000. Plaintiff obtained the jurisdiction of
the court through false affidavits, swore that the copy of the note
submitted with the Order to Docket was a true and accurate copy
and proceed to sale despite the fact that there was no indorsement
on the note and therefore they lacked standing to bring the action;

Geesing v. Laur, Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County, Maryland,


case number 18-C-09-001338. Plaintiff obtained the jurisdiction
of the court through false affidavits, swore that the copy of the note
submitted with the Order to Docket was a true and accurate copy
and noticed the property for sale despite: open discovery requests;
open motions; the fact that the note in question was indorsed to
Countrywide Bank, N.A.; the fact that there was no indorsement
on the note; and the entity initiating the action was The Bank of
New York Mellon as a trustee for a securitized trust. Plaintiff
lacked standing to bring the action;

Geesing v. Lembach, Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County,


Maryland, case number 002C09145252. Plaintiff obtained the
jurisdiction of the court through false affidavits, swore that the
note submitted with the Order to Docket was a true and accurate
copy, and proceeded to note a sale despite the fact that there was
discovery not answered, there were open motions, and the
Servicer, One West Bank, denied their application under Making
Home Affordable under the auspices that they did not have
authority to modify the loan when public documents clearly gave
them the authority to modify the loan:

Geesing v. Stewart, Circuit Court for Montgomery County,


Maryland, case number 321204V Plaintiff obtained the jurisdiction
of the court through false affidavits, swore that the note submitted
with the Order to Docket was a true and accurate copy, and
proceed to note a sale despite the fact that there was discovery not
answered, there were open motions, and the Servicer, One West
Bank, denied Defendant’s request for loan modification despite the
fact that she is obviously well qualified, and did not offer the
alternatives to foreclosure under Making Home Affordable.
Moreover, the note was allegedly indorsed by a “secretary”

11
without attaching any type of corporate resolution that a secretary,
as opposed to a corporate officer, has authority to indorse a note.

Geesing v. Nachbar, Circuit Court for Montgomery County,


Maryland, case number 318239V. Plaintiff obtained the
jurisdiction of the court through false affidavits, swore that the
copy of the note submitted with the Order to Docket was a true and
accurate copy and proceed to sale despite the fact that there was no
indorsement on the note and therefore they lacked standing to
bring the action.

The case of Outen, et.al., v. Baltimore County, Maryland, et.al., 177 F.R.D. 346, (1998)

spoke to the issue of fraud on the court:

"Fraud on the court" is a doctrine more difficult to define than to


apply. Because the doctrine permits a Court to overturn settled
decrees and orders, it is narrowly construed and is confined to the
"most egregious cases, such as bribery of a judge or juror, or
improper influence exerted on the court by an attorney, in which
the integrity of the court and its ability to function impartially is
directly impinged." Great Coastal Express, Inc. v. International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, 675 F.2d 1349, 1356 (4th Cir. 1982).
Courts routinely hold that only fraud which does, or attempts to,
defile the court itself, or is perpetrated by its officers, constitutes
fraud on the court. E.g., Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Area
Boliviana, 24 F.3d 457, 460 (2nd Cir. 1994); see also Weese v.
Schukman, 98 F.3d 542, 552-53 (10th Cir. 1996); First Nat'l
Bank of Louisville v. Lustig, 96 F.3d 1554, 1573 (5th Cir. 1996).
The party alleging fraud on the court must prove it by clear and
convincing evidence, and all doubts are resolved in favor of
sustaining the prior court action. Weese, 98 F.3d at 552. (emphasis
added)

In Green v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al., 198 F.R.D. 645 (2001) The

Honorable Frederick N. Smalkin faced a similar set of facts, although not as egregious as the

instant case. Plaintiff in the Green case submitted statements in opposition to a Motion for

Summary Judgment. Subsequent to the submission of the statements, Plaintiff, himself a high

ranking police officer and a notary, signed signatures of the affiants, without any indication of

agency, sealed the document with a notary’s seal and stated that the signatures were “Sworn

12
before me.” Subsequent to the filing of the false affidavits the affiants stated that they authorized

the Plaintiff notary to sign for them after they were told that the amendments had been made.

Judge Smalkin observed:

They were falsely made because they were patently falsely


notarized by plaintiff, with a false statement that the affidavits had
been sworn to before the plaintiff. In fact, the "affidavits" were not,
and could not have been, so sworn, as they were executed by
plaintiff himself outside the presence of the purported affiants, who
never appeared to take an oath before plaintiff. The affiants never,
in fact, even swore to the truth of their original statements before
plaintiff or any other notary, much less did they swear to the
documents actually submitted to the Court.

Green, at 646. Judge Smalkin further noted:

Here, lacking any statement therein that the submissions were


made under penalty of perjury, see 28 U.S.C. § 1746, an oath
before a duly authorized officer was necessary to make the
affidavits effective to oppose summary judgment. Thus, the
affidavits -- and the integrity thereof -- were both material and
critical to an important part of the Court's process of adjudication.
The plaintiff's conduct in submitting these falsely notarized
affidavits, especially when done by someone who should know
better as the holder of two offices of trust, amounts to "willfully
deceiving the court and engaging in conduct utterly inconsistent
with the orderly administration of justice." United States v.
Shaffer Equipment Co., 11 F.3d 450, 462 (4th Cir. 1993)(quoting
United States v. National Med. Enters., Inc., 792 F.2d 906, 912
(9th Cir. 1986)). See also Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d
1115 (1st Cir. 1989), cited with approval in Liva v. County of
Lexington, 972 F.2d 340, 1992 WL 187299, slip op. at 1-2 (4th
Cir. 1992).

In dismissing the case with prejudice, Judge Smalkin noted:

The prejudice to the integrity both of the process of adjudication in


general and of this Court in particular, which relies on the
trustworthiness of those who submit -- not to mention notarize --
affidavits, is manifest. The public interest in preserving the
trustworthiness of sworn documents as part of the process of
orderly adjudication demands that the strongest means available be
taken to redress the situation in this particular case and to deter
similar misconduct by others. See Shaffer Equipment, supra, 11
13
F.3d at 462-63. See also Richardson v. Cabarrus Co. Bd. of
Educ., 151 F.3d 1030, 1998 WL 371999 (4th Cir. 1998).

Green at 647. Finally, Judge Smalkin noted that

"Once a litigant chooses to practice fraud, that misconduct infects


his cause of action . . . ." Aoude, 892 F.2d at 1121, cited with
approval in Liva, supra. In this Court's judgment, plaintiff has
fatally infected his own case and must suffer the consequences.

The immediate case and four other cases referred to herein (similar motions are being

brought simultaneously with this motion or will be brought within the next few days) are a

microcosm of the foreclosures filed in Maryland by Plaintiff’s law firm. There are

approximately eight thousand open cases filed in 2009 alone that were filed by Plaintiff. If each

case was filed using the same fraudulent tactics then hundreds of people per day are losing their

homes to foreclosure grounded on fraud on the court with an untold number of cases based upon

defective filings, such as the note issue as previously discussed.

It is understandable why Plaintiffs have resisted discovery and have not produced one

piece of paper requested by many of the Defendants. They claim that the court must grant leave

to take discovery. It is that very discovery that would disclose the extent of the fraud practiced

within Plaintiff’s law firm and moreover, the extent of deficiency in the underlying submissions

to the Court, such as a note that was not indorsed, the appointment of a substitute trustee made

without authority or a false statement made in denial of a Making Home Affordable application.

As this Motion sits on the Court’s desk awaiting action there are homeowners who are

being put into the street because they were conned into exotic loans which they were told that

they could afford, by individuals trained in finances and sales. The securitization process of

these pooled loans made trillions of dollars for those within the banking and investment industry.

These same lenders received billions of dollars in bailout funds and are now using the services of

14
Plaintiff who is foreclosing on their properties through outright fraud. This must be stopped,

even if done one case at a time. Plaintiff and his principals have infected their claim through

fraud and the case should be dismissed with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,

The Law Office of Gerald Solomon P.A.

_______________________________
By: Gerald Solomon, Esquire2
9857 Majestic Way
Boynton Beach, Florida 33437
(561) 735-3536

And

Bascietto & Bregman, LLC

_______________________________
By: John Bascietto, Esquire
4741 Sellman Road
Beltsville, Maryland 20708
(301) 937-3300

Attorneys for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the ______ day of ______________, 2009 a copy of the

foregoing was faxed and mailed to Jacob Geesing, Esq., counsel for Jacob Geesing at Bierman,

Geesing & Ward LLC, 4520 East West Highway, Suite 200, Bethesda, MD 20814.

________________________________
John Bascietto, Esq.

2
Executed through electronic image emailed to co-counsel for presentation to the court with authority.
15