Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY HENRY DISTRICT COURT
CASE NO. 07Ci368
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee

for the Certificateholders of Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005-OPT4,
Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-OPT4
PLAINTIFF
v.
Glenn D. Augenstein, et. al.

DEFENDANTS
MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS
Comes now the defendant, Glenn Augenstein (the “Defendant”), pro se, and respectfully moves this
Court for an Order imposing sanctions on Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as
Trustee for the Certificateholders of Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005-OPT4, Asset Backed
Certificates, Series 2005-OPT4, the Law Firm of Lerner, Samson and Rothfuss, Attorney of Record
Lori Leach, Attorney Richard Mark Rothfuss, and Plaintiff's Affiant Ms. Laura Hescott . In support
thereof please see the attached memorandum.
______________________________
Glenn Augenstein, pro se
932 Wooded Hills Road
Pendleton, Kentucky 40055

Case No. 07Ci368 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v Augenstein et al Page 1 of 15
MEMORANDUM
This unwarranted and unlawful action of foreclosure has been brought by Deutsche
BankNationalTrust Company, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of Soundview Home Loan Trust
2005OPT4,Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-OPT4 (Plaintiff) against Glenn Augenstein, pro
se, (Defendant).
Outline of Proceedings
Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Plaintiff), filed its unverified Complaint and
sham pleading on December 13, 2007 alleging to be the holder and owner of a promissory note, and
the holder of a mortgage securing said note. Attached as exhibits were a copy of an unauthenticated
promissory note naming Option One Mortgage Corporation (Option One) as payee, and a copy of an
unauthenticated mortgage naming Option One as grantee.
Defendant Glenn Augenstein filed his timely answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint on January 2, 2008
generally denying Plaintiff’s allegations.
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to CR 12.08(2) on January 11, 2008.
Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s January 2, 2008, Motion to Dismiss on January 22,
2008. Attached as exhibit to this response was the affidavit of one Laura Hescott, executed in
Dakota County, Minnesota, on December 26, 2007. In this affidavit, among other perjured
statements, Ms. Hescott falsely held herself out to be an officer of Option One Mortgage Company
and falsely averred that she had personal knowledge of facts relating to the alleged mortgage
indebtedness.
On March 12, 2008, Plaintiff filed a “Combined Motion for Summary and Default Judgment”.
No new evidence was attached to this motion.
On March 28, 2008, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction. This motion to dismiss has not been opposed or answered by Plaintiff or addressed by
the Court.
On March 31, 2008, the Court issued a scheduling order requiring the Defendant to file a
response to Plaintiff’s Combined Motion for Summary and Default Judgment by May 5, 2008, and
requiring the Plaintiff to reply by May 25, 2008.
On May 8, 2008, the Court issued an order continuing the Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s

Combined Motion for Summary and Default Judgment until May 30, 2008, and extending the date
for the Plaintiff’s reply until June 10, 2008.
On May 28, 2008, the Defendant filed his First Amended Answer, inclusive of Pleas to the
Jurisdiction and Affirmative Defenses.
On May 30, 2008, the Defendant also filed a separate Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint as the
“Unknown Defendant Occupant”, identifying himself as the occupant of the subject property.
On May 30, 2008, the Defendant filed his “Response to Plaintiff’s Combined Motion for
Summary and Default Judgment” disputing all alleged facts of the Plaintiff’s Complaint, and
pointing out defects and insufficiencies of evidence submitted by Plaintiff. In support of this
response, the Defendant submitted his Affidavit of May 30, 2008.
Believing that all of Plaintiff’s allegations were in dispute and that no summary judgment was
possible, Defendant filed his First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and Request
for Admissions on June 6, 2008.
On June 9, 2008, Plaintiff filed a “Reply to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Combined
Motion for Summary and Default Judgment”. Attached to the Plaintiff’s reply were three
unauthenticated exhibits purporting to establish additional facts disputed by the Defendant,
including a forged assignment, a forged notice of default, and an unauthenticated HUD Settlement
Statement.
On June 12, 2008, the Court entered an order and summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff,
referring the matter to a Master Commissioner.
On June 23, 2008 Defendant timely filed a Motion to Alter, Amend or Vacate, pursuant to CR
59.05.
On July 9, 2008 the Court entered an order for Plaintiff to respond to the Motion to Alter, Amend
or Vacate within 20 (twenty) days, and for the Defendant to reply within 10 (ten) days.
On July 17, 2008 Plaintiff filed its response, along with a Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions against
Defendant.
On July 28 Defendant filed a Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Motion to Alter, Amend or Vacate.
On August 12, 2008 the Court entered an order for Plaintiff to respond a second time to
Defendants Motion to Alter, Amend or Vacate within 20 (twenty) days.
On August 29, 2008 Plaintiff filed its second response to Defendants Motion to Alter, Amend or

Vacate. Attached to the Plaintiff's second response was an unauthenticated exhibit of what it
purports to be a letter of referral from Fidelity National Foreclosure and Bankruptcy Solutions,
located in Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota.
Defendant now moves this Court for an Order imposing sanctions on Plaintiff Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of Soundview Home Loan Trust
2005-OPT4, Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-OPT4, the Law Firm of Lerner, Samson and
Rothfuss, Attorney of Record Lori Leach, Attorney Richard Mark Rothfuss II, and Plaintiff's Affiant
Ms. Laura Hescott, pursuant to Civil Rule 11, for filing a frivolous suit, abuse of process, fraud
upon the court, filing of sham pleadings, evidence fabrication, forgery, possession of a forged
instrument, false swearing, unsworn falsification to authorities, falsifying business records,
tampering with public records, bribing a witness, bribe receiving by witness, tampering with a
witness, subbornation of perjury, perjury, criminal conspiracy, RICO violations, Federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act violations and other criminal behavior in respect of the alleged mortgage
indebtedness and this foreclosure suit.
Kentucky's Standard for Rule 11 Sanctions
Civil Rule 11 of the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the standard for imposition of
sanctions and states in pertinent part as follows:
The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certification by him that he has read
the pleading, motion or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and
belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by
existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing
law, and that it is not and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the
extension, modification or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any
improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase
in the cost of litigation. If a pleading, motion or other paper is not signed, it shall be
stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the pleader
or movant. If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the
court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed
it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to
pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of
the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney's fee. The
Court shall postpone ruling on any Rule 11 motions filed in the litigation until after entry of a
final judgment. (Emphasis added).

Civil Rule 11 is a procedural rule used to curb abusive practices in litigation. Kentucky Courts
have held victims of abuse have the duty to inform the Court of any abusive practices, “A "victim"
of a frivolous lawsuit clearly has the duty to mitigate its losses and to "timely" move for sanctions.
Clark Equipment Co., Inc. v. Bowman, 762 S.W.2d 417; 1988 Ky. App. LEXIS 184; 49 Fair Empl.
Prac. Cas. (BNA) 89. The Court has also clearly enunciated its duty to impose sanctions, “Once a
determination that a violation of this rule is made, the trial court must impose some type of
sanctions.” Louisville Rent-A-Space v. Akai, 746 S.W.2d 85, 1988 Ky. App. LEXIS 31 (Ky. Ct. App.
1988). Furthermore, sanctions can be imposed upon both attorneys and parties for ethical and legal
violations, “When sanctions were imposed against both clients and the attorney who represented
them, there was no merit to the clients' argument that they could not be sanctioned because they did
not sign the offending pleadings.” Hines v. Barnett Bank of Tampa, N.A., -- S.W.3d --, 2008 Ky.
App. LEXIS 94 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008). The Supreme Court of the United States extends the duty to
impose sanctions to cases where Plaintiff lacks requisite standing to initiate a suit, “A Fed. R. Civ. P.
11 sanction may constitutionally be applied even when subject-matter jurisdiction is eventually
found lacking.” Donald J. Willy, Petitioner v. Coastal Corporation, et al. No. 90-1150 Supreme
Court of the United States 503 U.S. 131; 112 S. Ct. 1076; 117 L. Ed. 2d 280; 1992 U.S. LEXIS
1521; 60 U.S.L.W. 4187; 121 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,012; 21 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1121; 92
Cal. Daily Op. Service 1818; 92 Daily Journal DAR 2850; 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 34
The Issue of Standing
Standing is a constitutional imperative for a court to exercise jurisdiction. The Kentucky

Constitution states, in Section 14:
All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him in his lands,
goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and
justice administered without sale, denial or delay.
On December 13, 2007, Plaintiff, by counsel, deceitfully commenced the suit with full
knowledge it was neither the owner of the alleged promissory note nor the holder of the alleged
mortgage, and with full knowledge it did not have standing to bring suit against Defendant.
Plaintiff's pleading was a sham pleading and was an early example of Plaintiffs misconduct.
The Perjured Affidavit

On January 22, 2008, Plaintiff, by counsel, submitted a perjured affidavit of Ms Laura Hescott
(See attached Exhibit “A”). The affidavit was executed on December 26, 2007 in Dakota County
Minnesota, and notarized by Matthew Allen Banaszewski. In this affidavit Ms. Hescott falsely holds
herself out to be an employee as Assistant Secretary of Option One. No authority has been entered
into the record for Ms. Hescott to act on behalf of Option One. Defendant has shown, in the affidavit
of William A. Roper Jr., at paragraphs 30 – 40 (See attached Exhibit “B”), that Ms. Hescott is
actually an employee of FIS Foreclosure Solutions, Inc. (FIS), with an address of 1270 Northland
Drive, Suite 200, Mendota, Minnesota 55120. Ms. Hescott can be reached at FIS Foreclosure
Solutions, Inc. at 651- 234-3500 ext. 3591.
As an employee and contract perjurer of FIS Ms. Hescott routinely, and falsely, holds herself out
to be an employee of various mortgage investors and servicers, and routinely, and falsely, affixes her
signature to various documents, including affidavits and mortgage assignments used in unlawful
foreclosures (See attached Exhibits “C - G “).
On August 29, 2008, Plaintiff, by counsel, submitted as evidence what it purports to be a referral
letter from Default Solutions, a Division of Fidelity National Information Services, also with an
address of 1270 Northland Drive, Suite 200, Mendota, Minnesota 55120. This unauthenticated
document, submitted untimely by Plaintiff, corroborates the affidavit of William A. Roper Jr., and
with specificity paragraphs 31 and 32.
The first sworn averment of Ms. Hescott's affidavit, that she is an Assistant Secretary of Option
One, is patently false, and made under oath constitutes perjury. Ms. Hescott is an untrustworthy
person and of bad moral character whose sworn testimony should be accorded no credibility
whatsoever. Because Ms. Hescott perjuriously misrepresented herself and her authority to act in
any capacity for Plaintiff no other averments or actions of Ms. Hescott should be accorded any
credibility whatsoever.
In Kungys v. United States the US Supreme Court held, “Under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(f)(6), a
person shall be deemed not to be of good moral character if he "has given false testimony for the
purpose of obtaining" immigration or naturalization benefits. On its face, § 1101(f)(6) does not
distinguish between material and immaterial misrepresentations. Literally read, it denominates a
person to be of bad moral character on account of having given false testimony if he has told even

the most immaterial of lies with the subjective intent of obtaining immigration or naturalization
benefits.”Kungys v. United States, No. 86-228, Supreme Court of the United States, 485 U.S. 759;
108 S. Ct. 1537; 99 L. Ed. 2d 839; 1988 U.S. LEXIS 2028; 56 U.S.L.W. 4373.
The willfull and intentional particpation in acquiring and filing Ms. Hescott's affidavit has
created a criminal conspiracy involving Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel of record Lori R. Leach, and
Laura Hescott likely constituting abuse of process, fraud upon the court, false swearing,
subbornation of perjury, and perjury.
Defendant makes no assertions to being a hand writing expert but does note that even to an
untrained eye the differences in the signatures of Matthew Allan Banaszewski appearing on Exhibits
A, E, F and H are radically different from each other. The signature of Ms. Hescott appearing on
Exhibit G is also radically different from others.
The Forged Assignment
On January 3, 2008, Laura Hescott executed a mortgage assignment (See attached Exhibit “H”)
allegedly transferring the subject mortgage from Option One to Plaintiff. Ms. Hescott has already
been shown to be an untrustworthy person and of bad moral character whose averments and actions
should be accorded no consideration whatsoever. Richard Mark Rothfuss, II, is shown to have
prepared the document.
Defendant has shown, in the affidavit of William A. Roper Jr., at paragraphs 17 – 27, that the
purported assignment is a bald fabrication and forgery. A forged assignment is a nullity and conveys
no interest whatsoever in the subject property or mortgage.
Even without reaching the conclusion the assignment is a fabrication and forgery it is
incontestable the assignment was executed (January 3, 2008) and recorded (January 11, 2008) after
commencement of the suit (December 13, 2007), as occurred in the numerous dismissals of cases
brought by Duetsche Bank before the Ohio Federal Courts. Plaintiff's most recent pleading has
consciously chosen to focus on the date the forged assignment was recorded, thereby ignoring
completely the requirements of an assignment being lawfully and timely executed.
The willfull and intentional particpation in executing this fabricated and forged mortgage
assignment has created a criminal conspiracy involving Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel of record Lori

R. Leach, Atty Richard Mark Rothfuss II, and Laura Hescott likely constituting abuse of process,
fraud upon the court, subbornation of perjury, perjury, evidence fabrication, forgery, possession of a
forged instrument, false swearing, unsworn falsification to authorities, falsifying business records,
and tampering with public records.
Irreconcilable Conflicts
Plaintiff, in it's “Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions,” dated July 17, 2008, on page 8, paragraph 1,
asserts that Defendant has made “meritless allegations of fraud.” The allegations are far from
meritless. The factual conflicts are glaringly obvious. One need only look at the perjured and forged
evidence submitted by Plaintiff, and check the dates against a calendar.
At the date of the commencement of the suit, December 13, 2007, in it's initial complaint,
Plaintiff's counsel Ms. Lori R. Leach falsely states on behalf of her client that “Plaintiff is the
holder and owner of a note...” On December 26, 2007, Ms. Hescott, in her sworn affidavit, avers
that “plaintiff herein [Deutsche Bank] has elected to call the entire balance…”. On January 3, 2008,
Ms. Hescott also purports to execute a mortgage assignment of the subject mortgage, said mortgage
assignment prepared by Richard Mark Rothfuss II, granting the alleged mortgage to Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company. On January 22, 2008 Plaintiff's counsel submits the perjured affidavit of
Laura Hescott
If Option One owned the alleged mortgage on January 3, 2008, the statements of Ms. Leach
are false. If Option One owned the alleged mortgage on January 3, 2008, Deutsche Bank could not
have declared default and accelerated the alleged mortgage indebtedness on December 26, 2007. If
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company owned the mortgage on December 13 and December 26,
2007, Ms. Laura Hescott could not have executed an assignment purporting to grant Option One's
interest in the alleged mortgage to Deutsche Bank on January 3, 2008. If Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company owned the mortgage on December 13 and December 26, 2007 then Richard Mark
Rothfuss II could not have lawfully prepared a mortgage assignment memorializing a transaction
that never took place.
The most damning element is that the perjured affidavit was not entered into the court record
until January 22, 2008, 27 days after the perjured affidavit had been executed, and 19 days after the
forged assignment had been executed. Kentucky's CR 11 states:

The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certification by him that he has read
the pleading, motion or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and
belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact ....
Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, and affiant Laura Hescott had more than adequate time to conduct
reasonable inquiry and form an accurate belief regarding the pleadings and the documents executed
and entered into the court record. It is apparent the deceptions, malice and misconduct before this
honorable Court were intentional.
It is impossible to reconcile these conflicts. It is impossible to ignore or deny the conspiratorial

complicity and participation of the numerous parties in this instant matter for filing a frivolous suit,
abuse of process, fraud upon the court, filing sham pleadings, subbornation of perjury, perjury,
evidence fabrication, forgery, possession of a forged instrument, false swearing, unsworn
falsification to authorities, falsifying business records, tampering with public records, bribing a
witness, bribe receiving by witness, and tampering with a witness.
Plaintiff has sought to deprive Defendant of his real property, and his livelihood, through
unethical and illegal means. Further Plaintiff has sought the assistance of this honorable Court in the
process. Equity will not serve one with unclean hands.
In addition to the false, perjured and forged documents purported to be evidence by Plaintiff,
mentioned above, Plaintiff continued throughout the suit to submit additional unauthenticated and
fabricated documents.
Notice of Acceleration
On June 9, 2008, Plaintiff, by counsel, submitted as evidence what it purported to be a notice of

acceleration. There is no affirmative evidence whatsoever in the record that any notice of
acceleration was sent to Defendant by Plaintiff, or by any other party. There is no authentication
pursuant to KRE 902 (11)(A),(B) and (C), or proof of actual mailing. This document is also a bald
fabrication and forgery and should be accorded no more consideration than the perjured affidavit
forged assignment.
Recording the Forged Assignment
On January 11, 2008, Plaintiff, by counsel, recorded the forged assignment in the Henry County

Recorders Office. This recording likely constitutes tampering with public records.
Pleading of the Forged Assignment
On June 9, 2008, Plaintiff, by counsel, submitted as evidence the forged assignment. Plaintiff
waited to submit this forged assignment until June 9, 2008, fully 158 days after it had been
fabricated, forged, and unlawfully executed. As has been discussed previously this late entry acted
as surprise on the Defendant. Submitting this forgery into the court record likely constitutes fraud
upon the court and abuse of process.
Plaintiff Deutsche Bank and Lerner’s Pattern of Misconduct and Abuse of Process
In a review of seventeen (17 ) active foreclosure cases on the Henry County Circuit Court
docket during the last week of July, 2008, for which the law firm of Lerner, Samson and Rothfuss is
the attorney of record, the vast majority have defective pleadings, and paperwork that is not in
accordance with either Kentucky law or the Uniform Commercial Code.
In at least seven (7) of these cases there has been no promissory note whatsoever entered as
evidence. In the majority of the remaining cases the payee named is different than the plaintiff
while the alleged promissory notes are totally devoid of any indoresment. As with the instant case,
the record in these cases is devoid of any competent evidence of delivery of the promissory note
identified as evidencing indebtedness to the plaintiff. In at least five (5) cases there is no recordation
of mortgage assignment whatsoever. In the majority of the remaining cases assignments have been
both prepared and recorded at dates after the commencement of their respective suits, some in
excess of 120 days afterwards.
The majority of these assignments have been prepared in the offices of Lerner, Samson &
Rothfuss by Richard Mark Rothfuss, the same individual who fabricated the forged assignment in
the instant case. The Defendant believes that a careful examination of other assignments pleaded
into evidence by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Lerner in Henry County and
throughout the states of Ohio and Kentucky by a competent expert, such as Mr. William A. Roper,
Jr., would reveal that virtually every assignment prepared and pleaded by Lerner is a bald forgery
expressly fabricated by this dishonest law firm to unlawfully deprive homeowners of their
properties. These actions are damaging all the victims in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
This consistent pattern on the part of Lerner, Samson and Rothfuss is deliberate, purposeful

and intentional and draws into serious question the accuracy and legitimacy of the claims,
assertions and allegations appearing within the complaints in each of these actions. The volume and
consistency of the forgery and other evidentiary irregularities is indicative of behavior that
unquestionably surpasses mere clerical error or mistake. It rises to the level of fraud upon the court
and criminal conspiracy. Under such circumstance it is not possible for defendants in these actions
to be accorded due process or to receive justice.
The Defendant expressly requests that the Court take judicial notice of other foreclosure cases
either currently before the Henry County Circuit Court, or brought before the Court for adjudication
within the past year. The Defendant expressly alleges that a careful scrutiny of the pleadings in
these cases will show that (a) Deutsche Bank and Lerner both routinely plead as evidence
unendorsed promissory notes that prove that the plaintiff cannot be the owner and holder of the
alleged instruments, (b) Lerner routinely fabricates assignments as forgeries for execution by
contract forgers and perjurers within the employ of Fidelity / FIS Foreclosure Solutions, Inc., of
Mendota Heights, Dakota County, MN, which assignments are solely for use as evidence in
foreclosure proceedings and which assignments do not bear any relationship to actual transactions
or transfers of ownership interests in the alleged mortgage indebtedness, (c) Lerner routinely
prepares affidavits for execution by contract perjurers within the employ of Fidelity / FIS
Foreclosure Solutions, Inc. thereby suborning perjury.
Plaintiff Duetsche Bank in the instant matter also has a consistent pattern of knowingly
commencing suit when Plaintiff has no demonstrable interest in the subject property that is
deliberate, purposeful and intentional. The majority of cases dismissed in the Ohio Federal
Courts have been brought by Plaintiff Deutsche Bank, as have the majority of cases in the New York
Supreme Courts. Julie Kay, staff writer for The National Law Journal, wrote an article published
July 16, 2008 that outlines the extent of the issue and some of the key parties, mentioning Duetsche
Bank specifically. A copy of the article, printed from http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?
id=1202423026401, is attached as Exhibit “I”.
Plaintiff, despite numerous opportunities, has not denied the Defendant's allegations of evidence
fabrication, forgery, subbornation of perjury, perjury, and specifically has not denied the allegation
that Laura Hescott is not an Assistant Secretary, and specifically has not denied the allegation that
Richard Mark Rothfuss II fabricated the forged mortgage assignment.

Plaintiff has not denied any of the allegations in the affidavit of William A. Roper Jr.
Plaintiff, despite numerous opportunities, has not entered any sworn testimony it is the owner of
the alleged promissory note or the holder of the alleged mortgage.
Defendant expressly reserves the right to supplement this motion with additional evidence at a
later date.
Defendant also expressly and respectfully requests an Order to Show Cause why Laura
Hescott should not be charged with contempt of court, perjury, and forgery in the second degree.
Pursuant to CR 11, and for the reasons set forth herein, Defendant now respectfully requests
that the Court impose Sanctions upon Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company in the
instant matter in amount of $50,000.00. Defendant also respectfully requests that the court impose
Sanctions upon Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company in any case brought by Plaintiff in
Henry County Kentucky in the past year in which similar violations and bad deeds occurred in
amount of $10,000.00 each case. Defendant also respectfully requests that the court impose
Sanctions upon Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company in any case brought by Plaintiff in
the State of Kentucky in the past year in which similar violations and bad deeds occurred in amount
of $5,000.00.
that the Court impose Sanctions upon the Law Firm of Lerner, Samson and Rothfuss in the instant
matter in amount of $25,000.00. Defendant also respectfully requests that the court impose
Sanctions upon the Law Firm of Lerner, Samson and Rothfuss in any case brought by Lerner,
Samson and Rothfuss in the past year in Henry County Kentucky in which similar violations and
bad deeds occurred in amount of $5,000.00. Defendant also respectfully requests that the court
impose Sanctions upon the Law Firm of Lerner, Samson and Rothfuss in any case brought by
Lerner, Samson and Rothfuss in the past year in the State of Kentucky in which similar violations
and bad deeds occurred in amount of $1,000.00.
that the Court impose Sanctions upon Attorney Richard Mark Rothfuss in the instant matter in
amount of $10,000.00. Defendant also respectfully requests that the court impose Sanctions upon

Attorney Richard Mark Rothfuss in any case brought by Lerner, Samson and Rothfuss in the past
year in Henry County Kentucky in which he was involved in similar violations and bad deeds in
amount of $2500.00. Defendant also respectfully requests that the court impose Sanctions upon
Attorney Richard Mark Rothfuss in any case brought by Lerner, Samson and Rothfuss in the past
year in the State of Kentucky in which he was involved in similar violations and bad deeds in
amount of $500.00.
that the Court impose Sanctions upon Attorney Lori R. Leach in the instant matter in amount of
$10,000.00. Defendant also respectfully requests that the court impose Sanctions upon Attorney
Lori R. Leach in any case brought by Lerner, Samson and Rothfuss in the past year in Henry County
Kentucky in which she was involved in similar violations and bad deeds in amount of $2500.00.
Defendant also respectfully requests that the court impose Sanctions upon Attorney Lori R. Leach in
any case brought by Lerner, Samson and Rothfuss in the past year in the State of Kentucky in which
she was involved in similar violations and bad deeds in amount of $500.00.
that the Court impose Sanctions upon Laura Hescott in the instant matter in amount of $10,000.00.
Defendant also respectfully requests that the court impose Sanctions upon Laura Hescott in any case
in Henry County Kentucky in which she was involved in similar violations and bad deeds in amount
of $2500.00. Defendant also respectfully requests that the court impose Sanctions upon Laura
Hescott in any case in the past year in the State of Kentucky in which she was involved in similar
violations and bad deeds in amount of $500.00.
September 4, 2008
Glenn D. Augenstein
Pro Se
Pendleton, KY 40055
Voice: (502) 743-0504
e-mail: penfurn@aol.com

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
Glenn D. Augenstein being first duly sworn, deposes and says that:
1. My name is Glenn D. AUGENSTEIN. I am a resident of Henry County, Kentucky, and over the
age of 21.
2. The averments within this affidavit are based upon my personal knowledge and all information
appearing within this affidavit is true and correct.
3. I have served a copy of my “Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions” and copies of “Exhibits A – I” upon
each of the parties to this suit by mailing a true copy of the same postage prepaid by First Class Mail
to the attorneys of record at the addresses shown below on September 4, 2008:
Lori Leach
Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss
P.O. Box 5480
Cincinnati, OH 45201-5480
CMRRR No. 7006 2150 0003 7491 6632
Donald T. Prather
500 Main Street
Shelbyville, KY 40065
4. I have also e-mailed a copy of the foregoing document to Lori R. Leach at e-mail addresses
attyemail@lsrlaw.com and lori.leach@lsrlaw.com.
Further, affiant sayeth naught.
Glenn D. Augenstein
Pro Se
Pendleton, KY 40055
Voice: (502) 743-0504
e-mail: penfurn@aol.com

State of Kentucky
County of Henry
On September 4, 2008, before me , Notary

Public, State of Kentucky, personally appeared Glenn D. AUGENSTEIN, personally known to be
the person whose name is subscribed to the affidavit, being first duly sworn, acknowledged to me
that by his signature on this affidavit, he intended to swear to the facts set forth therein.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL:
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:


Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY HENRY DISTRICT COURT

CASE NO. 07Ci368

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee

Glenn D. Augenstein, et. al.

MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS

MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS

MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS

MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS

MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS

The Issue of Standing

Standing is a constitutional imperative for a court to exercise jurisdiction. The Kentucky

The Perjured Affidavit

MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS

MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS

The Forged Assignment

MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS

MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS

It is impossible to reconcile these conflicts. It is impossible to ignore or deny the conspiratorial

On June 9, 2008, Plaintiff, by counsel, submitted as evidence what it purported to be a notice of

MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS

MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS

MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS

MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS

MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS

Further, affiant sayeth naught.

MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS

On September 4, 2008, before me , Notary

WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL:

MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen