1

2
3

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND

)
Todd Wetzelberger
)
P.O. Box 24702
Case Number:
Baltimore, Maryland 21220
)

4
5

vs.

6
7

MARK HOWARD FRIEDMAN

3700 Toone Street, Apt. 1537
Baltimore, Maryland 21224

KENNETH JOHN MACFADYEN

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)

LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP

Successor in interest to Fremont Investment &
Loan Corporation

Defendants

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

10856 Sandringham Rd
Cockeysville, Maryland 21030-2947

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA

420 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94104

)
)

FRIEDMAN AND MACFADYEN, PA

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.
1818 Library Street, Suite 300
Reston, Virginia 20190

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR

DETINUE

Friedman & MacFadyen

10856 Sandringham Rd
Cockeysville, Maryland 21030-2947

4828 Loop Central Drive

Houston, Texas 77081

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

21

22

23
24
25
26

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

27
28

Page 1of 22

SUMMARY OF ACTION
On 22 December 2006, Plaintiff paid in full a purported loan in the alleged amount of

2
3
4

$486,715.31. Said purported loan was allegedly evidenced by a promissory note, and allegedly
secured by a deed of trust.
The unencumbered, undivided, right, title, and interest in the original, genuine, wet ink

5
6

signature note and deed of trust are vested in Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to the immediate
possession of Plaintiffs property, or its value.

7
8
9
10

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

11
12

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

13
14

JURISDICTION
1.

The events that form the basis of this complaint occurred in Baltimore County, Maryland

15

within the jurisdiction of this court. Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts and do

16

substantial business within this judicial district to be subject to Long Arm Jurisdiction. The

17
18

complaint involves personal property believed to be in the possession and control of one or more
Defendants acting jointly and severally.
PARTIES

19
20
21

2.

Plaintiff is an individual domiciled in Maryland, holding the legal and beneficial right, title,

and interest in the property, the subject of this action.

3.

Defendant Kenneth John MacFadyen (MacFadyen), an attorney admitted to practice in

22

Maryland, bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct, does substantial business in Baltimore

23

County, Maryland and did so at all times relevant to this action.

24

4.

MacFadyen is a necessary party, as MacFadyen, acting as principal of Defendant Friedman

25

and MacFadyen, PA, owed a duty and was obligated to Plaintiff as grantor, to return Plaintiffs

26

property.

27
28

Page 2of 22

5.
1

consent Order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland on 20 August 2012.

MacFADYEN, Kenneth John Reprimand by Consent on August 20, 2012, for
failures associated with his supervision of lawyer and non-lawyer employees who
permitted the execution and notarization of documents in Respondent's name when not
personally signed by him.

2
3
4
5
6

Plaintiff discovered that MacFadyen was reprimanded in his professional capacity by

http://www.courts.state.md.us/attygrievance/sanctions13.html
6.

Defendant Mark Howard Friedman (Friedman), an attorney admitted to practice in

Maryland, bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct at the time the demand was made for

return of Plaintiffs property, did substantial business in Baltimore County, Maryland and did so

at all times relevant to this Action.

9
10
11
12

7.

Friedman, acting as principal of Defendant Friedman and MacFadyen, PA, owed a duty and

was obligated to Plaintiff as grantor, to return Plaintiffs property.

8.

Plaintiff discovered that Friedman was disbarred by Order of the Court of Appeals of

Maryland on 19 April 2013 for conduct involving property (real and personal) and fraudclosure:
FRIEDMAN, Mark Howard Disbarred by Consent on April 19, 2013, for
misappropriating escrow funds maintained by his law firm in connection with
foreclosure actions. He directed later-paid escrow funds to be used to cover the
obligations of which the previously escrowed funds should have been used.

13
14
15

http://www.courts.state.md.us/attygrievance/sanctions13.html

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

9.

Defendant Friedman and MacFadyen, PA, (F&MPA) is a Maryland professional stock

corporation, formed on 28 June 1973.

10. F&MPA is a necessary party as F&MPA was named as purported trustee on the copy of the
deed of trust (assuming arguendo the copy is a true and correct copy of the original), owing a duty
and obligation to Plaintiff as grantor, to return Plaintiffs property.
11. Defendant Litton Loan Servicing, LP (Litton), former subsidiary of Goldman Sachs,
currently subsidiary of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, is based in Houston Texas.
12. Litton, purportedly successor in interest to Freemont Investment and Loan Corporation

24

(Freemont), is a necessary party, as Freemont is named as purported lender on the copy of the

25

deed of trust (assuming arguendo the copy is a true and correct copy of the original), owing a duty

26

and obligation to Plaintiff as grantor, to return Plaintiffs property.

27
28

Page 3of 22

13. Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Incorporated (MERS), a wholly

1

owned subsidiary of MERSCORP, organized under the laws of Delaware, domiciled in Virginia,

is the notorious electronic registration system created for purportedly registering property

transfers through its private registry. MERS has been sued by several Registry of Deeds

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

managers for mortgage malfeasance.

14. MERS is a necessary party, as MERS claims to be the purported nominee for Freemont,
and alleged holder of Plaintiffs property at the time of the satisfaction of the purported
loan. MERS as purported nominee owes a duty and obligation to Plaintiff as grantor, to
return Plaintiffs property to Plaintiff.
15. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, NA (WFBNA), a subsidiary of Wells Fargo and Company,
has a principal place of business in California.
16. WFBNA is a necessary party, as WFBNA is the purported payee on the 22 December
2006 HUD-1 settlement statement that allegedly received $486,715.31 as payment in full on the

12

purported loan. As purported payee WFBNA owes a duty to Plaintiff as payor to return

13

Plaintiffs property to Plaintiff.

14
15
16

17. Defendants, and all of them, have at all times relevant to this complaint, conducted business
in Maryland, including in this judicial district.
18. Due to the complex nature of mortgage servicing, securitization, trust, securities, tax and

17

commercial law, and the presence of conflicting documents and instruments (possibly forged,

18

fraudulent and/or fabricated), Plaintiff has made a good faith effort to determine the legal

19
20
21
22

person(s) in unlawful possession of Plaintiffs property.

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

23
24
25
26

FACTS AND LAW

I. The Alleged Public Record Documents and Instruments
Do Not Add Up

27
28

Page 4of 22

20. It is undisputed that Plaintiff paid off a purported loan in the amount of $486,715. 31,
1

allegedly to WFBNA, as evidenced by Line 104 on the 22 December 2006 HUD-1 Settlement

Statement. (Pltf. Exhibit Ex. 1).

3
4
5

21. A reasonable person, and impartial trier of fact would agree that only a bona fide payee
(allegedly WFBNA) that was paid $486,715.31 would be the only bona fide holder in due course
and real party in interest, in possession of Plaintiffs property (original note and DOT).
22. A reasonable person and impartial trier of fact would also agree that no prudent person or

business entity would authorize the release of approximately half a million dollars to a fictitious

payee if said payee was not the holder in due course of Plaintiffs property.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

23. Per Md. Rule 12-602(c)(1), the documentary intangible personal property is more fully
described in Plaintiffs Exhibits 2 and 3 (presuming arguendo the copy is a true and correct copy
of the original instruments)
24. It is undisputed that the copy of the public record Deed of Trust (assuming arguendo it is a
true and correct copy of the original) recorded among the land records of Baltimore County,
Maryland in Book 23340, page 126, claims Freemont Investment and Loan is the purported
lender in possession of Plaintiffs property (original note and DOT) (Pltf. Ex. 3)
25. It is undisputed that Covenant No. 23 in the copy of the DOT referenced in the preceding
paragraph of the complaint states (emphasis in bold):
23. Release. Upon payment of all sums secured by this Security Instrument,
Lender or Trustee shall release this Security Instrument and mark the Note
paid and return the Note to Borrower. Borrower shall pay any recordation
costs. Lender may charge Borrower a fee for releasing this Security Instrument, but
only if the fee is paid to a third party for services rendered and the charging of the
fee is permitted under Applicable Law.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

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

27
28

Page 5of 22

28. There is no evidence of a nexus between the purported lender (allegedly Freemont) and
1
2
3

WFBNA.
II. Massive Fraud Has Been Committed Upon the Court and Land Records
29. The land records in counties across the country, including the land records of Baltimore

County, Maryland have been tainted by the recording of millions of false, forged, fabricated

and/or fraudulent documents and instruments.

6
7
8
9
10

30. County clerks are finally beginning to wake up, despite the fact that Essex Co. MA Register
of Deeds, John OBrien has been warning government officials for the past few years (emphasis
in bold).
Visit the office of John O'Brien, register of deeds in South Essex County,
Massachusetts, and he'll eagerly show you stacks and stacks of documents. He calls
it a crime scene.

11
12
13
14

Why? These documents, a plethora of mortgage-related assignments, were used as

legal justification for evicting millions of families from their homes through a
deeply flawed foreclosure process, enabled by the Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems industry consortium. There's nothing that gets O'Brien's Irish up more than a
discussion of the rampant fraud he sees perpetrated on the court.

15
16
17

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

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

31. Clerks and recorders of deeds are suing MERS and other persons for defrauding and
depriving county governments of revenue as well as tainting and undermining the integrity of the
land recordation system.
It just seems to be if you were a big bank, you didnt necessarily follow the rules,
Norfolk County Register of Deeds William ODonnell told the Herald. See more
at:
http://mfi-miami.com/2012/02/three-massachusetts-counties-sign-up-to-suemers/
32. It is public record knowledge that due to the rampant filing and recording of false, forged
and fraudulent documents and instruments in court dockets and land records in counties across
the United States, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Recorder of Deeds Nancy J. Becker filed a

27
28

Page 6of 22

class action quiet title complaint on behalf of 16,000 Pennsylvania homeowners similarly
1

situated. Case details are found in the U. S. District Court For The Eastern District of

Pennsylvania, Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds, et al., v. MERSCORP, Inc., et al., Case

No. 11-cv-6968. Excerpts from complaint (Dkt 1) below (emphasis in bold).

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

9. The purpose of these recording statutes are, in the words of one commentator,
to prevent disputes over property rights and to facilitate the use of land as
collateral by creating a transparent public record that provides certainty in
private bargains
17. [W]hen pressed on whether MERS expects financial institutions to update the
MERS database regarding changes in loan ownership, the former CEO replied not
so much
18. [A]stonishingly, MERS vice presidents are simply paralegals, customer
service representatives, and foreclosure attorneys employed by other companies.
20. [M]ERS and MERSCORP engaged in unsafe or unsound practices that
expose them and Examined Members to unacceptable operational, compliance,
legal, and reputational risks.
21. MERS avoidance of filing mortgage assignments resulted in the loss of
millions of dollars to county governments.
22. State and local entities across the nation are bringing suit to rein in
Defendants deceptive conduct. Recently, The Delaware Attorney Generals
Office brought suit against MERS for deceiving the public. assigning mortgages
without the authority to do so.
24. To securitize a mortgage [and deed of trust] several assignments must be
made: (A) The mortgage lenders as the [purported] originating lender [purportedly]
sell mortgages (promissory note and mortgage documents) to a sponsor. The
sponsor is a special purpose entity affiliated with a bank or financial institution. (B)
The sponsor initiates the securitization by [purportedly] transferring (i.e. assigning)
the mortgage to a depositor. (C) The depositor then [purportedly] transfers the
mortgage to a special purpose vehicle (usually a trust) where the mortgages are
sold to investors.
25. The securitization process requires three assignments. Under Pennsylvania
law, these assignments are conveyances and must be recorded.

24
25
26

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

27
28

Page 7of 22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

27. [B]efore this final assignment takes place there might be two, three, or a
dozen assignments that are not recorded. The final [purported] assignment from
MERS to a member of the mortgage industry typically occurs prior to a
terminating event- foreclosure or satisfaction of the mortgage.
28. When this final [purported] assignment takes place, Defendants have already
allowed MERS to circumvent recording multiple assignments. This creates gaps
in the record of ownership. While the foreclosing entity claims to hold title to the
property their rights to the property are in question.
29. Gaps in title cloud ownership, increase questions about foreclosure
procedures, and raise doubts on the accurate satisfaction of mortgages, all of
which undermine the time honored recording requirements in Pennsylvania and
throughout the country.
33. The preceding facts, evidencing a pattern and practice of unlawful conduct, are supported
by the following statements made by expert witness, consumer/investor advocate and
fraudclosure expert Nye Lavalle (emphasis in bold):
I make this report based upon facts personally known by me and my
investigation, research, review, and analysis of evidence provided in the many
lawsuits I have testified in and assisted lawyers with; gathered from other
advocates and lawyers; thousands of other lawsuits; hundreds of thousands of
papers, reports, and documents I have read, reviewed, and researched as well
as filings filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) available
and retrievable at the Edgar database (p.1, 1).
As a consumer/investor advocate and activist, I first identified this fraudulent
assignment scheme in the mid to late 90s when various servicers were conducting
judicial and non-judicial foreclosures in their names, rather than the real-party-in
interest and true owner and equitable holder of borrowers promissory notes
(p.1, 4).
One employee of a major servicer, EMC Mortgage a unit of JPMorgan Chase
told me that you need to sue the lawyers, they are all in on it meaning the scam
and scheme of fraudulent and unlawful foreclosures being conducted in the name of
servicers who had no real ownership or interest in the note and thus no right or
authority to conduct a foreclosure (p.1, 2, 5).
13. In my opinion, nothing any of these companies place onto a document,
assignment, affidavit, filing with a court, or pleading can be relied upon by any
party or court without a complete forensic audit verifying and validating not only
each fact or information stated on the documents, but the lawful signature and
authorities of each person placing their mark or signature upon each document,
including the notary itself on notarized documents.
21. The key servicing challenge for servicers is that via the process of mortgage
securitization and the accounting, tax, and the remote bankruptcy protection
Page 8of 22

1
2
3
4

sought by those in the secondary mortgage market, promissory notes, and their
related assignments on hundreds of thousand and potentially many millions of
occasions were never properly, contractually, lawfully, or equitably transferred,
assigned, and/or indorsed.
Report on Fraudulent & Forged Assignments of Mortgages & Deeds in U.S.
Foreclosures 2010 Nye Lavalle, Permission to Publish With Proper Attribution &
Credit. Pew Mortgage Institute, 10675 Pebble Cove Lane, Boca Raton, FL 33498.

5
6
7

34. Baltimore County Clerk of Court Julie Ensor was Noticed by Plaintiff of the massive fraud
upon the land records in 2011. As of the filing of this complaint, Clerk Ensor has failed to act to
remove the tainted documents from the land records.

35. Former DocX president Lorraine Brown is now in jail for admitting to being responsible for

the forgery, fabrication, and/or falsification of over one million (1,000,000) bogus documents and

10

instruments being filed in court cases and recorded in land records across the country. The

11

number is most likely much higher than that (emphasis in bold).

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Meet Lorraine O. Brown, an individual singled out for actual jail time for her role
in the massive mortgage document fraud that plagued this nation
From 2003 until 2009, DocX routinely forged mortgage documents.
These forged mortgage documents were distributed to county land recording
offices and state courts all over the country.
This scheme was part of the giant bundle of illegal conduct known as foreclosure
fraud. According to statements of fact from the Justice Department, from 2003 to
2009 DocX recorded over one million fake documents. Thats probably a low
number. DocX wasnt just forging signatures, they were fabricating entire loan
files. During the bubble years, they created a now-infamous mortgage fabrication
price sheet, where mortgage servicers, who had trouble proving in court that they
owned the homes they wanted to put into foreclosure, could purchase, at low
prices, whatever documents they needed. To Recreate Entire Collateral File,
basically the whole set of documents including the promissory note? That would
set a servicer back $95.00.
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/24/shes_paying_for_wall_streets_sins/
36. Public record documents evidence the fact that said documents crossed state lines and were
filed in court records and land records across the country.
37. Said document mill DocX, subsidiary of Lender Processing Services, provided fraudulent

26

documents for filing and recording to known fraudclosure mills across the country, including

27

Maryland fraudclosure mills under the direction, supervision and control of Thomas P. Dore, et

28

Page 9of 22

al., Bierman, Geesing, Ward, and Wood, LLC, Buonassissi, Henning, and Lash, P.C., Shapiro and
1

Burson, LLC, and Friedman and MacFadyen, P.A. among others.

38. Jose Portillo, former paralegal at fraudclosure mill Shapiro and Burson recently testified in

Attorney Grievance Commission v. McDowell, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland,

4
5

Case No. 28110M, to having knowledge of over 8,000 fraudulent documents and instruments
filed among the land records across Maryland.
39. Now that the qui tam complaint filed by attorney Lynn Szymoniak (U.S.A. v. ACE Sec. Inc.

et al., U.S Dist. Court, W. Dist of N. C., Case No. 13-cv-00464) has been unsealed, Plaintiff will

be better informed to complete the tracing of the proceeds and illicit gains made off of Plaintiffs

property that unjustly enriched unknown persons (emphasis in bold).

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Monday, Aug 12, 2013 07:58 AM EST

YOUR MORTGAGE DOCUMENTS ARE FAKE!
Prepare to be outraged. Newly obtained filings from this Florida woman's lawsuit
uncover horrifying scheme (Update)
Why did banks have to resort to this illegal scheme? Was it just cheaper to mock
up the documents than to provide the real ones? Did banks figure they simply had
enough power over regulators, politicians and the courts to get away with it? (They
were probably right about that one.)
A newly unsealed lawsuit, which banks settled in 2012 for $95 million, actually
offers a different reason, providing a key answer to one of the persistent riddles of the
financial crisis and its aftermath. The lawsuit states that banks resorted to fake
documents because they could not legally establish true ownership of the loans
when trying to foreclose.
This reality, which banks did not contest but instead settled out of court, means
that tens of millions of mortgages in America still lack a legitimate chain of
ownership, with implications far into the future.
The 2011 lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in both North and South Carolina,
by a white-collar fraud specialist named Lynn Szymoniak, on behalf of the federal
government, 17 states and three cities. Twenty-eight banks, mortgage servicers and
document processing companies are named in the lawsuit, including mega-banks like
JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi and Bank of America.
[t]hese notes, as well as the mortgage assignments, were never delivered to the
mortgage-backed securities trusts, and that the trustees lied to the SEC and
investors about this. As a result, the trusts could not establish ownership of the
loan when they went to foreclose, forcing the production of a stream of false
documents.
Defendants used fraudulent mortgage assignments to conceal that over 1400 MBS
trusts, each with mortgages valued at over $1 billion, are missing critical
documents, meaning that at least $1.4 trillion in mortgage-backed securities are,
Page 10of 22

in fact, non-mortgage-backed securities.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

The federal government, states and cities joined the lawsuit under 25 counts of
the federal False Claims Act and state-based versions of the law. All of them
bought mortgage-backed securities from banks that never conveyed the mortgages
or notes to the trusts. The plaintiffs argued that, considering that trustees and
servicers had to spend lots of money forging and fabricating documents to
establish ownership, they were materially harmed by the subsequent impaired
value of the securities. Also, these investors (which includes the Treasury
Department and the Federal Reserve) paid for the transfer of mortgages to the
trusts, yet they were never actually transferred.
Finally, the lawsuit argues that the federal government was harmed by payments
made on mortgage guarantees to Defendants lacking valid notes and assignments
of mortgages who were not entitled to demand or receive said payments.
Now that its unsealed, Szymoniak, as the named plaintiff, can go forward and
prove the case. Along with her legal team (which includes the law firm of Grant &
Eisenhoffer, which has recovered more money under the False Claims Act than
any firm in the country), Szymoniak can pursue discovery and go to trial against
the rest of the named defendants, including HSBC, the Bank of New York Mellon,
Deutsche Bank and US Bank.
Its good that the case remains active, because the $95 million settlement was a
pittance compared to the enormity of the crime. By the end of 2009, private
mortgage-backed securities trusts held one-third of all residential mortgages in the
U.S. That means that tens of millions of home mortgages worth trillions of dollars
have no legitimate underlying owner that can establish the right to foreclose.

19

This disappoints Szymoniak, who told Salon the owner of these loans is now
essentially whoever lies the most convincingly and whoever gets the benefit of
doubt from the judge. Szymoniak used her share of the settlement to start the
Housing Justice Foundation, a non-profit that attempts to raise awareness of the
continuing corruption of the nations courts and land title system.

20

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/12/your_mortgage_documents_are_fake/

17
18

21
22
23
24
25
26

40. Defendant Litton and Wells Fargo Bank Home Mortgage are also defendants in USA v. Ace
Sec. Corp. et al.
41. For public servants and officers of the court (including the Md. Attorney General, judges
and sheriffs), holding an office of the public trust, to ignore the preceding un-rebutted facts,
would be grossly irresponsible and negligent.
III. Plaintiffs Property Generated Multiple Times the Value of The Property in
Profits to Unknown Persons.

27
28

Page 11of 22

42. Due to the securitization scheme, including credit default swaps, multiple insurance

contracts, multi-pledging of Plaintiffs property, multiple offerings to investors of the same asset,

it is more certain that not that Plaintiffs property generated multiple times the face value of the

property.

5
6
7
8

43. Plaintiff is entitled to the return, recoupment, and disgorgement of those profits from
persons who were unjustly enriched as a result of unlawfully converting Plaintiffs property.
44. Per Md. Rule 12-602(c)(1) the value of Plaintiffs property is uncertain, but at a minimum is
valued at the face amount of the original note.
45. A credible estimate of how much profit was made from the conversion, sale, bifurcation,

securitization, syndication, monetization, and/or hypothecation of Plaintiffs property and the true

10

value is found in the declaration of expert witness, and former Wall Street attorney Neil Garfield.

11

(Pltf. Appendix App A).

12
13

46. Based on specific calculations, Garfields estimate of value is anywhere from 5 to 20 times
the face amount of the original note.
47. Garfield is without a doubt one of the leading experts on securitization schemes, having

14

worked on Wall Street as an attorney, investment banker, and having been involved in many

15

securitization transactions. Garfields family has also owned seats on all the major securities

16

exchanges.

17
18
19

48. Garfields brief biography for evidentiary purposes and as background if Mr. Garfield is
called as an expert witness at depositions and trial is found here.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/neil-garfield/8/3a6/323
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/about/

20
21
22

IV. Defendants Have Exhibited Persistent Pattern

and Practice of Prior Bad Acts

23
24
25
26

49. Due to the prior bad acts of MacFadyen, MacFadyen was reprimanded by consent. See 5
to Verified Complaint.
50. Due to prior bad acts of Friedman, Friedman was disbarred by consent. See 8 to Verified
Complaint.

27
28

Page 12of 22

51. Due to prior bad acts of F&MPA, F&MPA shut down their Richmond, Virginia operation
1

as reported in Richmond BizSense (emphasis in bold).

Foreclosure Factory Shuts Down

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

4
5
6
7
8
9

Friedman & MacFadyen, a debt collection firm that processed a huge number of
foreclosures and kept offices in Baltimore and Richmond, recently vacated its
office at 1601 Rolling Hills Drive in the Forest Office Park. It occupied a first-floor
space in the 36,000-square-foot building
Several sources familiar with the firm said it has been in the process of shutting
down since at least June. Calls to the firms Baltimore office have gone
unanswered this week, and several messages left with its principals since the
summer have not been returned. The firms website is no longer active.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Although it is unclear why the firm is shutting down, Friedman & MacFadyen is the
defendant in several federal lawsuits alleging violations of consumer debt
collection regulations.
The firm and its principal Mark Friedman also took a big financial hit in 2010
related to a massive investment scam in Los Angeles allegedly run by a relative
of Friedmans.
http://www.richmondbizsense.com/2012/10/25/foreclosure-factory-shuts-down/
52. F&MPA also shut down its Baltimore office and relocated to Cockeysville, Maryland.
53. F&MPA was sued for stiffing Alex Cooper Auctioneers out of auction fees in fraudclosure
auctions as reported in the Daily Record.
BY: Ben Mook
POSTED: July 23, 2012
Tags: Alex Cooper Auctioneers Inc., baltimore city circuit court, Bankruptcy,
bankruptcy protection, breach of contract, Friedman & MacFadyen P.A., lawsuit,
Totman Building

23

Alex Cooper Auctioneers Inc. is suing a soon-to-close law firm it worked with on a
number of foreclosure sales, claiming the attorneys failed to pay for hundreds of
thousands of dollars in expenses.

24

http://thedailyrecord.com/tag/alex-cooper-auctioneers-inc/

22

25

54. Defendant Litton, as a former subsidiary of notorious Goldman Sachs, is directly involved

26

in the scheme and scam to defraud not only homeowners and investors, but also the federal

27

government as evidenced in the recent whistleblower lawsuit, where Litton is a named Defendant.

28

Page 13of 22

Nothing Backed Mortgages And Foreclosure Fraud, The Ocwen/Litton Loan

Servicing Whistleblower Lawsuit

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2013/06/nothing-backed-mortgages-and-foreclosurefraud-the-ocwenlitton-loan-servicing-whistleblower-lawsuit

http://gswhistleblower.blogspot.com/

4
5
6
7

55. Plaintiff has made contact with former Litton VP Chris Wyatt to appear as an expert witness
at depositions and trial.
56. Defendant MERS prior bad acts go without saying, too numerous to list all of them, and a

single example shall suffice. Surely a New York Attorney General would not be so reckless to sue

MERS if there was not a high probability of prevailing in the suit.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Schneiderman Sues Three Big Banks, MERS for Deceptive Practices, Illegal
Foreclosures
Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman today filed a lawsuit against several of the
nations largest banks charging that the creation and use of the private national
mortgage electronic registry system known as MERS has resulted in a wide range
of deceptive and fraudulent foreclosure filings in New York state and federal
courts, harming homeowners and undermining the integrity of the judicial
foreclosure process.
The lawsuit further asserts that the MERS System has effectively eliminated
homeowners and the publics ability to track property transfers through the
traditional public records system.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/02/03/schneiderman-sues-three-big-banks-mersfor-deceptive-practices-illegal-foreclosures/
57. Wells Fargo and Company, parent corporation of Defendant WFBNA, was a party to the
well known OCC Consent Order.
WASHINGTON The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the
Federal Reserve Board today released amendments to their enforcement actions
against 13 mortgage servicers for deficient practices in mortgage loan servicing and
foreclosure processing. The amendments require the servicers to provide $9.3
billion in payments and other assistance to borrowers.

24
25
26
27
28

The amendments memorialize agreements in principle announced in January with

Aurora, Bank of America, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase,
MetLife Bank, Morgan Stanley, PNC, Sovereign, SunTrust, U.S. Bank, and Wells
Fargo. The amount includes $3.6 billion in cash payments and $5.7 billion in other
assistance to borrowers such as loan modifications and forgiveness of deficiency
Page 14of 22

judgments.
1
2
3

http://occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2013/nr-ia-2013-35.html
58. WFBNA, its parent company and subsidiaries, committed additional prior bad acts that
evidence a pattern and practice and ongoing scheme as adjudicated (emphasis in bold).

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

On April 5, 2012, a federal judge ordered Wells Fargo to pay $3.1 million in
punitive damages over a single loan, one of the largest fines for a bank ever for
mortgaging service misconduct. Elizabeth Magner, a federal bankruptcy judge in
the Eastern District of Louisiana, cited the bank's behavior as highly
reprehensible, stating that Wells Fargo has taken advantage of borrowers who
rely on the banks accurate calculations. She went on to add, perhaps more
disturbing is Wells Fargo's refusal to voluntarily correct its errors. It prefers to
rely on the ignorance of borrowers or their inability to fund a challenge to its
demands, rather than voluntarily relinquish gains obtained through improper
accounting methods.
The fine has come at a time that the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) has launched an investigation of Wells Fargo into racial
discrimination practices, the second federal probe in 2012 of alleged violations
of misconduct with regard to race. The other, began in 2011 by the National Fair
Housing Alliance has found overwhelming and troubling evidence that six of
the nation's major banks handle foreclosures in neighborhoods populated
primarily by minorities differently than in white communities.
Tax dodging and lobbying

19

In December 2011, the non-partisan organization Public Campaign criticized Wells

Fargo for spending $11 million on lobbying and not paying any taxes during
2008-2010, instead getting $681 million in tax rebates, despite making a profit
of $49 billion, laying off 6,385 workers since 2008, and increasing executive pay
by 180% to $49.8 million in 2010 for its top 5 executives.

20

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo

17
18

21

59. Due to the prior bad acts of Defendants, and all of them, Defendants cannot be trusted to tell

22

the truth as to the precise location and what person(s) is/are unlawfully in possession of Plaintiffs

23
24

property without aid of the contempt powers of the court.

25

V. Plaintiff Made Good Faith Efforts To Recover Plaintiffs

Property Before Resorting to Litigation

26

60. Plaintiff served a pre-suit Notice and Demand that substantially complied with contract,

27
28

Page 15of 22

trust, commercial, tax, securities, state, and federal law for the return of Plaintiffs property (Pltf.
1
2

Ex 5).
61. Defendants Friedman, MacFadyen, F&MPA, Litton and its/their agents, principals, assigns,

transferors, transferees, nominees, contractors, employees, servants and/or attorneys failed to

object to said good faith demand.

62. Defendants Friedman, MacFadyen, F&MPA, Litton and its/their agents, principals, assigns,

transferors, transferees, nominees, contractors, employees, servants and/or attorneys failed in their

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

duty and obligation to Plaintiff to comply with said demand.

63. Plaintiff possesses the right to the immediate return of Plaintiffs documentary intangible
personal property, the original, genuine (free from fraud or forgery), authenticated, wet ink
signature note and deed of trust.
64. Per Md. Rule 12-602(c)(2), Plaintiffs property has been unjustly detained by Defendants
individually, jointly by two or more Defendants, or by all of them. See U.S. Bank NA v. Leesburg
Pizza Buffet, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 111509, Decided June 14, 2013 (4th Circuit).
65. In the alternative, should Plaintiffs property have been purportedly lost, altered, or
destroyed, Plaintiff is entitled to the value of Plaintiffs property and any proceeds generated from
said property in lieu of its return per Md. Rule 12-602(c)(3).

16

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION- DETINUE

17

66. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully

18

set forth herein.

Elements for Detinue Complaint to Be Met

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

67. (1) Plaintiff has joined necessary Defendants upon Plaintiffs information and belief based
upon copies of instruments in Plaintiffs possession per Md. Rule 12-602(b).
68. (2) Plaintiff has described the property claimed and an estimate of its value per Md. Rule
12-602(c)(1).
69. (3) Plaintiff has clearly stated the property has been unjustly detained by Defendants per
Md. Rule 12-602(c)(2).
70. (4) Plaintiff has made a claim for the return of Plaintiffs property or its value per Md. Rule
12-602(c)(3).
71. (5) Plaintiffs claim includes a claim for damages to the property or for its wrongful
Page 16of 22

detention.
1

SUFFICIENCY OF PLEADING

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

72. A complaint should not be dismissed "unless it appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can
prove no set of facts in support of her claim which would entitle her to relief. (Housley v. U.S.
(9th Cir. Nev. 1994 35 F.3d 400, 401)
73. All allegations of material fact in the complaint are taken as true and construed in the light
most favorable to Plaintiff. (Argabright v.United States, 35 F.3d 1476, 1479 (9th Cir. 1996)
74. Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that relief can be granted on Plaintiffs single cause of action.
This is a pre-emptive statement since Defendant(s) will most likely attempt to file a Motion to
Dismiss per Md. Rule 2-322(b)(2), for alleged legal insufficiency of a pleading.
75. Plaintiff has exhausted all Plaintiffs extrajudicial and commercial remedies before wasting
the taxpayers and courts judicial resources.
76. The complaint includes short, plain and precise statements of the basis for relief in

12

accordance with Md. Rule 2-303(b) Contents. Each averment of a pleading shall be simple,

13

concise, and direct

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

77. The Complaint contains cognizable legal theories, sufficient facts to support cognizable
legal theories, and seeks remedies to which Plaintiff is entitled. (Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); King v. California, 784 F.2d 910, 913 (9th Cir. 1986)).
78. The legal conclusions in the complaint can and should be drawn from the facts alleged,
and, in turn, the court should accept them as such. (Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d
752 (9th Cir, 1994).
79. Plaintiffs complaint contains claims and has a probable validity of proving a "set of facts"
in support of their claim entitling them to relief. (Housley v. U.S. (9th Cir. Nev. 1994) 35 F.3d
400, 401). Therefore, relief as requested herein should be granted.
80. There are no issues of material fact in dispute.
81. This matter has been well settled with ample evidence.

23
24
25
26

ESTOPPEL OF DEFENDANTS EXCEPTING WFBNA TO ENTER ANY WRITTEN OR

ORAL ARGUMENT
82. An ordinary reasonable person, exercising reasonable care, responds to correspondence.
83. Defendants, and all of them, excepting WFBNA, are estopped from uttering any oral or

27
28

Page 17of 22

written objection, statement, motion, or any other writing in this matter due to their failure/refusal
1
2
3
4
5

to answer Plaintiffs demands to return Plaintiffs property.

84. Said defendants had multiple opportunities to object or comply with Plaintiffs demands,
but failed and refused to do so.
85. Silence is acquiescence where there is a lawful duty to answer. Larry Litton, as CEO of
Litton, owed a duty to the corporation to answer and failed in his duty. Larry Litton owed a duty
and obligation to Plaintiff to return Plaintiffs property and failed in that duty.

86. Friedman and MacFadyen, as officers of the court with a duty to answer at the time the

demand was made by Plaintiff, were warned repeatedly that failure to object or comply with

Plaintiffs demands would result in judgment being entered against them. See:

9
10
11
12
13
14

Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391. Notification of legal
responsibility is the first essential of due process of law. Also, see: U.S. v. Tweel,
550 F. 2d. 297. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or
moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally
misleading.
Bean v. Steuart Petroleum Co., 244 Md. 459, 1966 Md. LEXIS 454 (Md., November
17, 1966, Decided) It would appear that this Court relaxed its view that mere
silence is insufficient to create an estoppel and that other misleading action coupled
with the silence on the part of the party to be estopped is needed in order to find
estoppel in pais..

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Wiser v. Lawler. No. 174. 189 U.S. 260; 23 S. Ct. 624; 47 L. Ed. 802; 1903 U.S.
LEXIS 1349 Argued February 25, 26, 1903. April 27, 1903, Decided. To constitute
an estoppel by silence there must be something more than an opportunity to speak.
There must be an obligation. This principle applies with peculiar force where the
persons to whom notice should be given are unknown.
The authorities recognize a distinction between mere silence and a deceptive silence
accompanied by an intention to defraud, which amounts to a positive beguilement.
In all of the cases holding a party to be estopped by his silence, the silence operated
as a fraud and actually itself misled. In all there is both the specific opportunity and
apparent duty to speak. And, in all, the party maintaining silence knows that some
one else is relying upon that silence, and either acting or about to act as he would not
have done had the truth been told. These elements are essential to create a duty to
speak. Ganley v. G & W Ltd. Partnership, 44 Md. App. 568, 1980 Md. App. LEXIS
211 (Md. Ct. Spec. App., January 11, 1980, Decided )
Estoppel is cognizable at common law either as a defense to a cause of action, or to
avoid a defense. There may be an estoppel to prevent a party from relying upon a
right of property or contract, or of remedy both at law or in equity. Equitable
Page 18of 22

estoppel operates as a technical rule of law to prevent a party from asserting his
rights where it would be inequitable and unconscionable to assert those rights. It is
essential for the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel that the party
claiming the benefit of the estoppel must have been misled to his injury and changed
his position for the worse, having believed and relied on the representations of the
party sought to be estopped. Mere silence will generally not raise an estoppel against
a silent party. The doctrine is only applicable when there is a duty imposed upon
the party remaining silent to speak. Whether an estoppel exists is a question of
fact to be determined in each case.

JUDICIAL NOTICE #1

1
2
3
4

7
8
9
10

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

11
12

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment as follows:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

13
14
15
16

a) Entry of an Order declaring that Defendants Friedman, MacFadyen, F&MPA, Litton,

MERS, and WFBNA owed a duty, and are obligated to Plaintiff, to return Plaintiffs
documentary intangible personal property, or its value;
b) Entry of an Order declaring that Defendants Friedman, MacFadyen, F&MPA, Litton,

17

MERS, and WFBNA failed to return Plaintiffs property, or its value, to Plaintiff, after Notice

18

was served to do so;

19

c) Entry of an Order of determination of value of Plaintiffs property.

20

d) Entry of an Order awarding immediate possession of the subject property to Plaintiff

21
22
23

and commanding Defendants, individually, or in the alternative, all of them, to return Plaintiffs
property, or its value, to Plaintiff.
e) Entry of an Order directing the Baltimore County Sheriff, or other lawful authority, to
use all necessary force to repossess Plaintiffs property or its value, and deliver same to Plaintiff,

24

if the property or its value is not voluntarily surrendered to Plaintiff within seven (7) days of the

25

Courts Order.

26
27
28

f) Entry of an Order awarding Plaintiff compensation for damage to Plaintiffs property

and/or for its wrongful detention, to be determined at trial.
Page 19of 22

ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

1

g) For the costs of suit incurred herein; and

h) For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Due the presence of multiple conflicting documents and instruments, it is virtually impossible

to determine the exact person(s) in possession of Plaintiffs property at this time. Due to that fact,

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this complaint to join additional Defendants or dismiss

6
7
8

existing Defendants after Plaintiff conducts sufficient discovery.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Dated this ___ day of __________________ 2013

___________________________
Todd Wetzelberger

10
11

VERIFICATION

12
13
14

STATE OF

__________________

COUNTY OF ____________________

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

BEFORE ME personally appeared Todd Wetzelberger who, being by me first duly sworn
and identified in accordance with Maryland law, deposes and says:
1. My name is Todd Wetzelberger.
2. I have read and understood the attached foregoing complaint filed herein, and each fact
alleged therein is true and correct of my own personal knowledge.
FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
_____________________________
Todd Wetzelberger, Affiant
Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me ________________________, Notary Public,
on this ___ day of _____, 2013, by
, who proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who appeared before me.
Signature: _________________________Seal

My Commission Expires: ____________

27
28

Page 20of 22

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

3
4
5
6
7

I, ______________________ hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing complaint filed in

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

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

MARK HOWARD FRIEDMAN

3700 Toone Street, Apt. 1537
Baltimore, Maryland 21224

Cert No. 7008 1300 0000 9074 8870

KENNETH JOHN MACFADYEN

Friedman & MacFadyen, PA
10856 Sandringham Rd
Cockeysville, Maryland 21030-2947

Cert No. 7008 1300 0000 9074 8887

FRIEDMAN AND MACFADYEN, PA

Kenneth John MacFadyen

10856 Sandringham Rd
Cockeysville, Maryland 21030-2947

Cert No. 7008 1300 0000 9074 8894

LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP

Larry B. Litton, Jr., CEO
Successor in interest to Fremont Investment & Loan Corporation

4828 Loop Central Drive

Houston, Texas 77081

Cert No. 7008 1300 0000 9074 8900

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.

Bill Beckmann, CEO
1818 Library Street, Suite 300
Reston, Virginia 20190
Cert No. 7008 1300 0000 9074 8917
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA
John G. Stumpf, CEO
420 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94104

Cert No. 7008 1300 0000 9074 8924

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing statement is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Executed this ___ day of _________________2013, at __________________ County, Maryland.

26
27
28

Page 21of 22

______________________________

Todd Wetzelberger

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Page 22of 22