loughren v lion et al complaint in equity

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

PATRICKJ. LOUGHREN,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN M. LION, MARTIN BAIR, BARBARANNE GROARK, LAURA BRYANS, AMALTAKSAOUI, KELLY KULPA, ELIJAH LEWIS, CAROL CONNELL, JESSICA CARTAGENA, JACL YN JAMIESON, NASTASSJA FALTERBAUER, EILEEN O'BRIEN, LISA SODA, NANCY SCHMEHL, DANIELLE DOUGHERTY, SCOTT LION, MARTIN HYNES, TINAMARIE BOSCHETTI, BRIDGET MARIE SPECK, MICHELLE CLARKSON,SHERRIPETERSON,LORETTA CRESPO, NICHOLAS BARONE, LOURDES GERENA, NATALIE ROWAN, KYLE MAHONEY, DIANA MONTANEZ, CHERYL DILCHUS, MICKIE KELLY, NANCY KELLEHER, TABITHA WILSON, JOYCE GARCIA, ERIC KEENAN, BARBARA L. HAND, ANTOINETTE BLACK, and GOLDBECK, McCAFFERTY & McKEEVER, P.C.,

Defendants.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CIVIL ACTION EQUITY

NO. GD-lO

COMPLAINT IN EQUITY

Filed by Plaintiff, pro se

Patrick J. Loughren, Esquire PA ID #80449 Loughren, Loughren & Loughren, P.C. 310 Grant Street Suite 2800 Grant Building Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Telephone: 412-232-3530 Facsimile: 412-232-3535


PATRICKJ. LOUGHREN,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN M. LION, et al.

Defendants.

CNIL ACTION EQUITY

NO. GD-IO

NOTICE TO DEFEND

You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses and objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property of other rights important to you.

YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.

Lawyer Referral Service Allegheny County Bar Association

11 th Floor Koppers Building 436 Seventh Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Telephone: (412) 261-5555

2


PATRICKJ. LOUGHREN, CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY

Plaintiff, NO. GD-to

vs.

KATHLEEN M. LION, et al.

Defendants.

COMPLAINT IN EQUITY

AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Patrick J. Loughren, pro se, and files the following

Complaint averring as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

This is an action to enjoin non-lawyers from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law,

which conduct, in Pennsylvania, is a crime. The Defendants in this action, with the exception of

Goldbeck, McCafferty & McKeever, P.C., are all non-lawyers. These non-lawyers prepare

foreclosure complaints, sign lawyers' names to those complaints, and file those complaints in

county courts across this Commonwealth without an attorney ever having read the document.

The instant such lawsuits are filed, the unauthorized practice of law has been committed. Thus,

upon the filing of the document, a crime has been committed. After they file the foreclosure

complaints in the manner described above, the non-lawyers prosecute the actions, and in doing so

they prepare, sign and file affidavits purporting to be signed by lawyers, but which are in fact

signed by non-lawyers. These documents serve the ultimate purpose of the non-lawyers, which is

to maximize recovery of "attorney fees" through foreclosure and sale of the property. In the

lawsuits they file, these non-lawyers claim "attorney's fees". As a result of the lawsuits, the non

lawyers recover "attorney fees" from Mortgagors directly, in the event the loan is reinstated, or

3

from the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged property in the event that the foreclosure results in

sale of the property. The non-lawyers are assisted by Notary Publics, also defendants herein, who

notarize documents at the request of the non-lawyers, some of which documents falsely purport to

bear the signatures of lawyers, but which in fact are merely non-lawyers forging lawyers'

signatures. Thus, the Notary Defendants aid and abet the non-lawyers in committing the

unauthorized practice of law by providing them with false documents necessary to achieve

foreclosure. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin this unauthorized practice of law, protect his profession and

the integrity of the judicial process, disgorge the defendants of all illegal fees recovered and

restore the monies to the Mortgagors from whom the monies were taken.

II. PARTIES

A. Plaintiff

1. Plaintiff, Patrick J. Loughren, is an adult individual and a member of the bar of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff is a trial lawyer who maintains a principal place of

business at 310 Grant Street, Suite 2800, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219.

B. Non-Lawver Defendants

2. Kathleen M. Lion is on information and belief the Director of Human Resources

and Office Administration at Goldbeck, McCafferty & McKeever, P.C. (hereinafter "GMM"),

Suite 5000, Mellon Independence Center, 701 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106.

3. Defendant, Martin Bair is on information and belief the Manager of Administrative

Support at GMM.

4. Defendant, Barbaranne Groark, is on information and belief the Director of Office

Administrations at GMM.

4

5. Defendant, Laura Bryans, is on information and belief the Manager of Quality

Control & Training at GMM

6. Defendant, Amal Taksaoui, is on information and belief the Administrative

Services Manager of the HR Department at GMM

7. Defendant, Kelly Kulpa, is on information and belief the Team Leader of the

Referrals/Complaint department at GMM

8. Defendant, Elijah Lewis, is on information and belief a member of the


9. Defendant, Carol Connell, is on information and belief a supervisor In the


10. Defendant, Jessica Cartagena, is on information and belief a member of the


11. Defendant, J aclyn Jamieson, is on information and belief a member of the


12. Defendant, Nastassja Falterbauer, is on information and belief a member of the

Referrals/Complaint department at GlVIM

13. Defendant, Eileen O'Brien, IS on information and belief a member of the


14. Defendant, Lisa Soda, is on information and belief a Supervisor of the


15. Defendant, Nancy Schmehl, IS on information and belief a member of the


5

16. Defendant, Danielle Dougherty, is on infonnation and belief a member of the


17. Defendant, Scott Lion, is on infonnation and belief a Supervisor of the Judgment

department at GMM

18. Defendant, Martin Hynes, is on infonnation and belief a member of the Judgment

departmentatGMM

19. Defendant, Tinamarie Boschetti, is on infonnation and belief a member of the

JudgmentdepartmentatGMM

20. Defendant, Bridget Marie Speck, is on infonnation and belief a member of the

Judgment department at GMM

21. Defendant, Michelle Clarkson, IS on infonnation and belief a member of the

Judgment department at GMM

22. Defendant, Sherri Peterson, is on infonnation and belief a member of the Judgment

department at GMM

23. Defendant, Loretta Crespo, is on infonnation and belief the Supervisor of the

Service department at GMM

24. Defendant, Nicholas Barone, is on infonnation and belief the member of the

Service department at GMM

25. Defendant, Lourdes Gerena, is on infonnation and belief the member of the Service

department at GMM

26. Defendant, Natalie Rowan, is on infonnation and belief the member of the Service

department at GMM

6

27. Defendant, Kyle Mahoney, is on infonnation and belief the member of the Service

department at GMM

28. Defendant, Diana Montanez, is on infonnation and belief a member of the

Complaint, Judgment, Log In Department at GMM

29. Defendant, Cheryl Dilchus, is on infonnation and belief the Supervisor of the

Litigation Department at GMM

30. Defendant, Mickie Kelly, is on infonnation and belief the Manager of the

LitigationIREO/Title Curative Department at GMM

31. Defendant, Nancy Kelleher, is on infonnation and belief, a member of the


32. Defendant, Tabitha Wilson, IS on infonnation and belief, a member of the


33. Defendant, Joyce Garcia, is on infonnation and belief, a member of the Litigation

Department at GMM.

34. Defendant, Eric Keenan, is on infonnation and belief, a legal secretary at GMM.

c. The Notary Public Defendants

35. Defendant, Barbara L. Hand, is an adult individual who, on infonnation and belief,

is a member of the "Judgment" department at GMM. On infonnation and belief, Defendant Hand

is and was at all times material hereto commissioned by the Secretary of the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania as a Notary Public pursuant to The Notary Public Law, 57 P.S. § § 147-168.3.

36. Defendant, Antoinette Black, is on infonnation and belief, the Manager of the Sales

Department at GMM. Defendant Black is and was at all times material hereto commissioned by

7

the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a Notary Public pursuant to The Notary

Public Law, 57 P.S. § § 147-168.3.

D. The Law Firm Defendant

37. Defendant GOLDBECK, MCCAFFERTY & MCKEEVER, P.e. (hereinafter

"GMM") is a professional corporation maintaining a principal place of business at Suite 5000,

Mellon Independence Center, 701 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106.

38. Plaintiff is suing GMM only for its vicarious liability for the conduct of the Non-

Lawyer defendants described herein. Plaintiff is not suing GMM for any conduct committed by

the attorneys at GMM as such conduct falls under the jurisdiction of the Office of Disciplinary

CounseL

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

39. The illegal practice of a profession is a proper subject of equitable jurisdiction. See

Childs v. Smeltzer, 315 Pa. 9, 171 A. 883 (1934), Boggs v. Werner, 372 Pa. 312,317,94 A. 2d 50,

51-52 (1953) (dentistry); Palmer v. O'Hara, 359 Pa. 213, 58 A. 2d 574 (1948) (medicine); Neill v.

Gimbel Bros., Inc., 330 Pa. 213, 199 A. 178 (1938) (optometry); Matter of Arthur, 15 B.R. 541

(Bankr. RD. Pa. 1981) (law).

40. Pennsylvania law provides that, "In addition to criminal prosecution, unauthorized

practice of law may be enjoined in any county court of common pleas having personal jurisdiction

over the defendant. The party obtaining such an injunction may be awarded costs and expenses

incurred, including reasonable attorney fees, against the enjoined party." See 42 Pa.C.S. 2524 (c).

41. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated, "The fact that the unauthorized

practice of law is a criminal offense does not, however, deprive a court of equity of jurisdiction to

8

enjoin ongoing unauthorized practice. It is well settled that the criminal remedy is inadequate to

protect the public from continuing unauthorized practice and that an injunction may properly

issue." Dauphin County Bar Asso. v. Mazzacaro, 465 Pa. 545, 551, fn 4 (Pa. 1976) citing Shortz

v. Farrell, 327 Pa. 81, 193 A. 20 (1937); Childs v. Smeltzer, 315 Pa. 9, 171 A. 883 (1934);

American Bar Foundation, Unauthorized Practice Handbook 99 (J. Fischer & D. Lachman eds.

1972); Dobbs, Remedies 117 (1973); Note, Remedies Available to Combat the Unauthorized

Practice of Law, 62 Col.L.Rev. 501, 504 (1962); cf. Everett v. Harron, 380 Pa. 123, 110 A.2d 383

(1955); Boggs v. Werner, 372 Pa. 312, 94 A.2d 50 (1953).

42. An injunction has been regarded as a proper remedy to prevent the illegal practice

oflaw as well as other professions. See 16 P.L.E., COURTS § 392 citing Ginsburg v. Kovrak, 392

Pa. 143, 139 A.2d 889 (1958)(law), Shortz v. Farrell, 327 Pa. 81, 193 A. 20 (1937)(law), Dauphin

County Bar Asso. v. Mazzacaro, 465 Pa. 545, 351 A.2d 229 (1976)(law) and Childs v. Smeltzer,

315 Pa. 9,171 A. 883 (1934)(law); Boggs v. Werner, 372 Pa. 312,94 A.2d 50 (1953)(dentistry);

Palmer v. O'Hara, 359 Pa. 213, 58 A.2d 574 (1948)(medicine).

43. Venue is proper because Defendants regularly and systematically engage in the

conduct described hereinafter in the Allegheny County.

IV. STANDING

44. Loughren has standing to invoke this Court's equity jurisdiction to enjoin the

unauthorized practice of law. Jurisdiction is invokable on the complaint of a duly licensed

member of the profession unlawfully so invaded. Palmer v. O'Hara, 359 Pa. 213, 227, 58 A.2d

574,581 (Pa.1948)

45. As one court has stated, "It must be borne in mind that it has always been held that

a professional man has standing to prevent the improper invasion of his profession...... [T]he

9

right to practice a profession is for many equitable purposes a property right; that such injunctive

action is in the nature of a suit to restrain improper and unlawful competition; that each

professional man bears a responsibility to the public for the proper practice of his profession and

that suit to enjoin improper professional practice is a proper effort to enjoin a public nuisance."

Felix v. Wax, 1958 Pa. Dist. & Cty. Dec. LEXIS 357; 13 Pa. D. & C.2d 600, 604 (Phila. Cty.

1958)

v. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. The Unauthorized Practice of Law by Non-Lawyers Working at Goldbeck, McCafferty & McKeever, P .C.

46. The Supreme Court in this Commonwealth is empowered by Article V, Section

1 O( c} of the Pennsylvania Constitution to govern the conduct of attorneys practicing law within

the Commonwealth.

47. Pursuant to its constitutional authority, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted

the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, which govern the

conduct and discipline of attorneys. Commonwealth v. Stern, 549 Pa. 505, 701 A.2d 568,571

(pa.1997).

48. The Non-Lawyer defendants herein are non-lawyers. They are not subject to the

Rules of Professional Conduct or the Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement.

49. The Non-Lawyers are not" ... bound by a reviewable code of professional ethics

designed to deter [them] from the temptations of self-interest which can frequently arise in the

course oflegal representation." Dauphin County Bar Asso. v. Mazzacaro, 465 Pa. 545 , 555, FN6

351 A.2d 229, 234, FN6 (Pa. 1976)

10

50. On infonnation and belief, the Non-Lawyer Defendants have filed hundreds, if not

thousands of foreclosure lawsuits in the Courts of Common Pleas of the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania that have been written, signed and filed by these Defendants without any attorney

having reviewed the document.

51. The Defendants make it appear as if a lawyer has read, reviewed, and signed the

document by either typing lawyers' names on the documents, signing lawyers' names to the

documents, or both, but the fact of the matter is that no lawyers have read, reviewed, or signed the

documents.

52. The deposition of GMM was taken on September 21, 20 lOin the case of Kimberly

A. Robinson v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al. No. 08-cv-01563 currently pending in the

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

53. As the Court is aware, a witness designated to testify pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 30(b)( 6) speaks on behalf of the corporate entity and the testimony of the designee

is binding on that entity.

54. The witness designated by GMM to testify on its behalf on September 21, 2010

was Gary McCafferty, Esquire. Mr. McCafferty is both a named partner and shareholder of

GMM.

55. Mr. McCafferty admitted that the Non-Lawyer Defendants file prepare, sign and

file foreclosure lawsuits that have ~ been reviewed by any attorney:

Q. Was it the practice in 2006 that Complaints could be filed without an attorney reviewing the Complaint?

A. It could be, yes. Q. Did the finn authorize its administrative staff, which I'll just

describe as non-lawyers, so inclusive of secretaries, paralegals, legal assistants, to sign attorneys' names to Complaints and file them, knowing that the attorney had not read the document?

A. Yes.

11

56. Joseph Goldbeck, Esquire is "of counsel" to GMM and is a fonner shareholder and

fonner actively practicing attorney at GMM. Mr. Goldbeck was also deposed on September 21,

20 lOin the matter of Robinson v. Countrywide, supra. During his deposition, Mr. Goldbeck

testified that non-lawyers were authorized to not only write up foreclosure lawsuits, but to sign his

name to the lawsuits and file those lawsuits without him ever even seeing the document:

Q. Back in 2006, you were an active practicing lawyer at the finn? A. Yes. Q. And did you authorize individuals who were employed at the finn

who were not lawyers to write up Complaints and sign your name to them and file them without you reviewing them?

A. Yes, I did.

57. The third-named partner in GMM, Michael T. McKeever, Esquire, has testified that

the non-lawyers at GMM are engaged in the widespread unauthorized practice of law. While

testifying at a hearing on December 8, 2009 in the matter of DeAngelis v. Countrywide Home

Loans, Inc. (In Re: Hill), 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 3313 (Bankr. WD Pa. 2010), Mr. McKeever

admitted that it was "standard practice" in 2007 for non-lawyers to write up foreclosure lawsuits,

sign lawyer's names to said lawsuits, and file said lawsuits prior to any lawyer reviewing the

lawsuit:

Q.

A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q.

A.

There's a signature page on the foreclosure complaint, and it's actually signed by -- or there's a signature there of Mr. Joseph A. Goldbeck, Jr., correct? Yes. But Mr. Goldbeck did not sign this; is that correct? No, he authorized someone to. But Mr. Goldbeck did not review this document, did he? No, he did not. Okay. He authorized someone to what, stamp his name on this? I think that's a -- I don't believe that's a stamp, but it may be. Okay. I'm sorry, I -- is it that someone signed his name for him, is that what you're saying? Yes.

12

Q. Okay. Do you know who did? A. I don't, no. Q. And this was standard practice at your firm in 2007, correct? A. Yes, it was.

58. Mr. McKeever further admitted that the practice continued at GMM through the

date of his testimony, to wit, December 8, 2009:

Q. In 2007, if this foreclosure checklist did not indicate a reason to request supervision, am I to understand that the foreclosure complaint was filed without attorney review?

A. In 2007, yes. Q. Does that still happen today? A. Yes, unless there's issues that arise that indicate an attorney should review

the file.

B. The Non-Lawyers Perform No Investigation

59. Before they file the lawsuits that they both prepare and sign attorneys' names to,

the Non-Lawyer Defendants perform no investigation into the facts and/or circumstances giving

rise to the claim.

60. On information and belief, some of the foreclosure lawsuits that the Non-Lawyer

Defendants file are filed against Mortgagors who have FHA-Insured loans pursuant to the Federal

Housing Administration (FHA) established under Subchapter II of the National Housing Act, 12

U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.

61. The Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development has

promulgated regulations establishing certain conditions precedent to a Mortgagee's right to

foreclose upon an FHA-Insured loan. See 24 C.F.R. §§ 203.500 et seq.

62. A violation of FHA regulations can, at a minimum, serve as an affirmative defense

to the foreclosure action. See Fleet Real Estate Funding Corp. v. Smith, 366 Pa. Super. 116; 530

A.2d 919 (pa. Super. 1987)("'Today we follow the lead of these decisions and hold that a

13

mortgagor of an FHA-insured mortgage may raise as an equitable defense to foreclosure, the

mortgagee's deviation from compliance with the forbearance provisions of the HUD Handbook

and regulations.")

63. In fact, FHA-Insured loans typically contain provision within them that specifically

limit the Mortgagees' right to accelerate the debt and/or foreclosure prior to compliance with FHA

Regulations. A typical provision states:

9. Grounds for Acceleration of Debt

(d) Regulations of HUD Secretary. In many circumstances regulations issued by the Secretary will limit Lender's rights, in the case of payment default, to require immediate payment in full and foreclose if not paid. This Security Instrument does not authorize acceleration or foreclosure if not permitted by regulations of the Secretary.

64. Mr. McCafferty (on behalf of the firm) testified that the Non-Lawyer Defendants

make no independent undertaking to determine whether the FHA regulations have been complied

with before they (i.e. the non-lawyers) file the lawsuits that they (i.e. the non-lawyers) have

written up, signed and filed without a lawyer having reviewed the document:

Q. Does the firm have a practice when it gets a new case to sue somebody for foreclosure in the situation of an FHA loan, that the firm will undertake affirmatively to determine whether or not the FHA regulations were complied with that are prerequisites to filing the foreclosure case?

A. There's no independent undertaking. Q. What does that mean? A. It means that the firm does not go back and examine whether the

client has complied with whatever regulations. Q. The FHA regulations? A. Correct.

14

65. In fact, during its deposition taken on September 21, 2010, Mr. McCafferty

testified that the non-lawyers who are filing these lawsuits have no training with regard to FHA

regulations:

Q. Does the firm have any training of its employees or continuing legal education requirements that lawyers who sue people to take their houses from them have a good understanding about what the regulations are in the event the loan is an FHA loan?

A. I would say that the staff is not trained in FHA regulations.

66. On information and belief, the non-lawyers working at the firm knowingly filed

lawsuits against Mortgagors - that had not been reviewed by any attorney and they did so

despite knowing that the Mortgagors had absolute defenses to the lawsuits premised upon the

failure of the creditors to comply with FHA regulations.

67. The lawsuits were filed despite the fact that they were meritless because the Non-

Lawyers knew that the Mortgagors were either too unsophisticated to appreciate the defenses

available to them, to economically destitute to hire a lawyer to raise the defenses on their behalf,

or both.

VI. 42 P A.C.S. §2424(a) Has Been Repeatedly Violated

6S. The preparation and filing of a pleading constitutes the practice of law in this

Commonwealth.

69. The federal courts applying Pennsylvania law have held that the filing of petitions

in bankruptcy by non-lawyers constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. See In Re: Poconos

Land, LLC, 343 B.R. lOS, 112 (MD Pa. 2005)(" ... this Court concludes that the filing of the

petitions at issue by non-attorneys on behalf of an artificial business entity constitutes the practice

oflaw in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.")

15

70. In Pennsylvania, the unauthorized practice of law is a crime and is regulated by

statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 2524(a) which states, in relevant part:

(a) General Rille. -- Except as provided in subsection (b), any person, including, but not limited to, a paralegal or legal assistant, who within this Commonwealth shall practice law, or who shall hold himself out to the public as being entitled to practice law, or use or advertise the title of lawyer, attorney at law, attorney and counselor at law, counselor, or the equivalent in any language, in such a manner as to convey the impression that he is a practitioner of the law of any jurisdiction, without being an attorney at law or a corporation complying with 15 Pa.C.S. Ch. 29 (relating to professional corporation), commits a misdemeanor ofthe third degree upon a first violation. A second or subsequent violation of this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree.

71. In Pennsylvania, an "attorney at law" is a person "admitted to the bar of the courts

of this Commonwealth." See 42 Pa.C.S. § 2521.

72. To practice law a person must demonstrate a reasonable mastery of legal skills and

principles, be a person of high moral character and maintain a continuing allegiance to a strict

code of professional conduct.

73. The requirements that must be met to engage in the practice law exist so that the

public is protected. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Shortz et al. v. Farrell, 327 Pa. 81, 193

A. 20 (Pa. 1937) has explained this purpose as follows:

"While in order to acquire the education necessary to gain admission to the bar and thereby become eligible to practice law, one is obliged to 'scorn delights, and live laborious days,' the object of the legislation forbidding practice to laymen is not to secure to lawyers a monopoly, however deserved, but, by preventing the intrusion of inexpert and unlearned persons in the practice oflaw, to assure to the public adequate protection in the pursuit of justice, than which society knows no loftier aim.".

74. The non-lawyers working at GMM whose conduct is described hereinabove are

engaged in the unauthorized practice oflaw.

16

75. When each and every complaint in foreclosure has been filed that has been written

by a non-lawyer, had a lawyer's name signed to it by a non-lawyer, and been filed by a non-lawyer

without any attorney having read the document, the crime of the unauthorized practice of law has

been committed.

76. GMM has authorized the conduct of the non-lawyer defendants, and has profited

from it as described hereinafter. GMM is vicariously liable for the conduct of its non-lawyer

employees who are defendants herein.

77. The non-lawyers are being paid by their "clients", through payments made to

GMM, to engage in habitual drafting and filing of legal instruments that are filed in courts across

the Commonwealth without any lawyer having read same. This constitutes the practice of law.

Northampton County Bar Ass'n. v. Young,1 Monroe L.R. 94, 26 North 363 (1939) See also Matter

of Bradford ARTHUR 15 RR. 541; 1981 Bankr. LEXIS 2522 (B.R. ED Pa. 1981)

78. It is axiomatic that a corporation may appear and be represented in our Courts only

by an attorney duly admitted to practice. Walacavage v. Excell, 331 Pa. Super. 137; 480 A.2d 281

(Pa. Super. 1984) Smaha v. Landy, 162 Pa. Commw. 136, 638 A.2d 392 (Pa. Cmwlth.), petition

for allowance of appeal denied, 539 Pa. 660, 651 A.2d 546 (1994); Fire Prot. Indus. v. Scimeca

Found., Inc., 2006 Phila. Ct. Com. PI. LEXIS 495 (Phila Cty 2006)

79. The hundreds or thousands of cases that have been prepared by, signed by, and

filed by the Non-Lawyer Defendants without attorney review are all lawsuits that have been

filed illegally in violation of the statute prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law. The alleged

"appearance" by the lawyers whose names appear on the documents is a fraud on the Court, as the

lawyers have admitted, under oath, that they have never reviewed the documents written and :filed

by these non-lawyers. Thus, the non-lawyers who put the lawyers' names on the documents are

17

committing both a crime when they file the documents, and a fraud on the Court when they

represent to the Court, via attorney signature, that an attorney has reviewed the document. (This

latter point is more fully explained below in connection with Pa.R.C.P. 1021(c»

80. No lawyer has prepared, read, investigated, studied, considered, and/or

contemplated the facts of the lawsuit, the claims being asserted, or the merit of the lawsuit.

81. Plaintiff avers, on information and belief, that the "clients" of the non-lawyers

consisting of banks, loan servicers, REMIC trusts, and other creditors are all aware that the non

lawyers are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The individuals employed at these

entities (i.e. at the "clients") all interact with the Non-Lawyer Defendants on a day-to-day basis

via email and/or phone and they are aware that the Non-Lawyers are responsible for preparing,

signing and filing these foreclosure cases and that the cases are being filed without any attorney

review.

82. The "clients" of the Non-Lawyer Defendants pay for the services of the Non-

Lawyers and, on information and belief, receive some or all of the illegal fees that the Non

Lawyers collect as a result of their unauthorized practice oflaw.

83. On information and belief, numerous foreclosure actions that have been filed by the

non-lawyers at GMM are currently pending. All of these actions must be dismissed. A complaint

filed by a non-lawyer purporting to represent a third-party is a nullity.

84. The Honorable Michael McCarthy of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny

County has stated, "Proceedings commenced by persons unauthorized to practice law are a nullity,

and an appeal pursued by an individual unauthorized to practice law may be quashed by an

appellate court pursuant to a tribunal's obligation to raise jurisdictional questions sua sponte." Am.

Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Hollind Holdings, Inc., 2010 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 89 (Alleg. Co.

18

201O)(citing Spirit of the Avenger Ministries v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 767 A.2d 1130

(Pa Cmwlth 2001); McCain v. Curione, 106 Pa Cmwlth 552, 527 A.2d 591 (1987); Winters v.

Sheporwich, 1952 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 311; 83 Pa. D. & C. 484 (1952)

85. Federal Courts construing Pennsylvania law are in accord with Judge McCarthy's

holding. See Marin v. Leslie, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80287 (WD Pa. 2008) affirmed in part and

modified in part by Marin v. Leslie, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 15138 (3d Cir. Pa., July 8,

2009)("When a non-lawyer has commenced a proceeding on behalf of a legal entity, the court fails

to obtain jurisdiction over the lawsuit.") See also, Eveready Battery Co. v. Clements Export &

Import, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14197; 20 Fed. R. Servo 3d (ED Pa. 1991)("Since the defendant

corporation's Answer and Counterclaim was executed by the sole corporate shareholder and not by

an attorney, said Answer and Counterclaim must be stricken.")

86. Every foreclosure action pending in every Court of Common Pleas in this

Commonwealth that has been prepared by and filed by the Non-Lawyer Defendants, without

attorney review, should be dismissed on the basis that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the lawsuit.

87. According to the testimony of GMM, Mr. Goldbeck and Mr. McKeever set forth

hereinabove - the Non-Lawyer Defendants engaged in this practice from at least 2006 through at

least December 8,2009.

88. However, on information and belief, and for reasons that will be made clear

hereinafter, Plaintiff avers that the Non-Lawyers continued their criminal conduct even after

December 8, 2009. Moreover, on information and belief, the practice of the Non-Lawyer

Defendants filing lawsuits for third parties without any lawyer having read the lawsuit pre-dated

2006.

19

VII. Violation ofPa.R.C.P.1023.l(c)

89 Each and every time that a Non-lawyer Defendant signs an attorney's name to a

foreclosure complaint - knowing that no lawyer has read or reviewed the complaint and that

document is subsequently filed with the Court, in addition to being the final act in the commission

of a crime, the conduct also violates Pennsylvania Rule of Court 1023 .1 (c).

90. Pennsylvania Rule of Court 1023.1(c) states:

( c) The signature of an attorney or pro se party constitutes a certificate that the signatory has read the pleading, motion, or other paper. By signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating such a document, the attorney or pro se party certifies that, to the best of that person's knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation,

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law,

(3) the factual allegations have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual allegations are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

91. When the Non-Lawyers sign lawyer's names to complaints and file those

documents with the Courts knowing that the documents have not been read or reviewed by the

lawyers, the certification appearing on the document (Le. the signature) is fraudulent and the Non-

Lawyers are knowingly committing a fraud on the Court for at least three reasons.

92. First, the certification that a lawyer had read the lawsuit is blatantly false.

20

93. Second, the certification that the lawyer whose named has been signed to the

document has performed a reasonable inquiry into the merit of the case is blatantly false since no

lawyer has done any inquiry, let alone a reasonable inquiry.

94. Third, certification that the "claims" set forth in the Foreclosure Complaint are

meritorious and nonfrivolous is blatantly false. Each of these complaints sets forth claims for

"attorney fees". Since no attorney has prepared, signed or done any work filing the lawsuits, no

attorney's fees are due. Moreover, and more fundamentally, since the Complaint itself is a nullity,

the claim for attorney's fees is frivolous, false and fraudulent and can never exist even if a lawyer

does read it sometime thereafter and actually work on the file. A nullity is a nullity and the

criminal "bell" can't be un-rung.

95. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1023.3 permits the Court to sua sponte issue

a Rule to Show Cause upon Defendant GMM and the Non-Lawyer Defendants requiring them to

show cause why they are not culpable of the widespread, systematic violation of Rule 1023.1(c).

96. Because the Non-Lawyer Defendants engage in their criminal conduct under the

auspice of the letterhead of the law firm GMM, and because they often use electronic signatures to

further their criminal purposes, they have hidden the true nature of their conduct from both the

public, the mortgagors they have sued, and from the Honorable Judges of the Courts of Common

Pleas. Plaintiff brings this action to not only advise the Courts of the widespread conduct, but to

enjoin it as well.

VIII. The Attorneys' Fees Claims of Non-Lawvers

97. The most egregious course of conduct - aside from the commission of the

unauthorized practice of law as part of taking someone's home - is that the non-lawyers who file

21

these cases without attorney review include claims for attorneys' fees as part of the relief

requested. These claims for attorney's fees are false, fraudulent, frivolous and unfounded.

98. Plaintiff is a trial lawyer who firmly believes that all persons - including creditors

such as Banks who have issued mortgage loans have the right to enforce their rights, including

the contractual right to foreclose where permitted by both the law and the facts. Plaintiff in no

way believes or seeks to enjoin creditors from legally pursuing their rights. However, the Non

Lawyers and the "clients" they serve are blatantly violating the law, and they are taking from

Mortgagors far more than they are legally entitled to.

99. The Non-Lawyer Defendants are claiming substantial sums of money from

Mortgagors - in the form of alleged attorneys fees - that are not due and owing by the

Mortgagors. Thus, all Mortgagors who have paid "attorney fees" have been wronged, and the

Non-Lawyers and their Bank "clients" have converted the Mortgagors' property.

100. The Non-Lawyers and their clients are not desirous of Mortgagors reinstating their

loans, even though such reinstatements do result in payment of illegal "attorneys fees".

101. The Non-Lawyers and their "clients" prefer foreclosure. This is because at

foreclosure, they can illegally claim higher amounts of illegal attorney fees which are paid from

the sale of the mortgaged property or, on information and belief, by various government programs

and/or insurers.

102. In order to achieve foreclosure, however, the Non-Lawyers must commit other

criminal and fraudulent conduct. The non-lawyers file Writs of Execution and other documents

(including affidavits of last known address) upon which they forge lawyers' signatures, often

before a notaries public working at the firm, such as Defendant Hand and Defendant Black, both

of whom knowingly violate their duties as a Notaries Public, (as set forth in great detail below).

22

103. The property is then sold and "attorney's fees" are recovered by Defendants, even

though no attorney has worked on the matter andlor even though the "attorney fees" recovered

bear no relationship, let alone a reasonable relationship, to any work that was done by an attorney.

104. Importantly, the right to claim any attorney's fees arises out ofthe documents upon

which the lawsuits are filed, to wit, the Note and/or the Mortgage.

105. There is no question that neither the Note, nor the Mortgage, nor the law authorize

or permit MortgageeslNoteholders to collect "attorneys fees" where no lawyer has done any work

or as a reward for the commission of a crime.

106. In other cases where non-lawyers have sued Mortgagors, the Mortgagors are able to

scrape up the money to pay the demands being made upon them by non-lawyers. These monies

include alleged "attorney fees" even though no lawyer has done anything to prepare or file the

foreclosure action. These Mortgagor/Homeowners overpay to reinstate their loans.

107. All of the monies recovered by the Non-Lawyers and their "clients" as a result of

the foreclosure actions filed by these Non-Lawyers should be accounted for, and returned to the

Mortgagors from whom they were taken.

IX. The Forgeries

108. While the admissions of the law firm GMM, Goldbeck and McKeever during

deposition testimony set forth hereinabove clearly establish the basis of this action, Plaintiff

independently confirmed that documentary evidence exists that corroborates the testimony. This

documentation is discussed below, and some of it (but certainly not all of it) is attached hereto by

way of exemplar.

109. In connection with collecting "attorney's fees" as a reward for committing the

unauthorized practice of law, and in order to obtain those fees by effectuating the sale of the

23

foreclosed upon home, the non-lawyers routinely forge lawyers names on documents other than

complaints, including affidavits that purport to be signed in the presence of a Notary Public. The

non-lawyers working at GMM know such documents are fraudulent but they use them

nevertheless as the instrumentalities of their widespread commission of the unauthorized practice

oflaw.

110. By way of example, an Amended Complaint in Foreclosure was filed October 7,

2008 in the matter of Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificateholders of CWMBS 2005-RI

v. Kimberly Robinson, No. GD06-030787. The signature page of the document is attached as

Exhibit 1 and purports to be signed by Michael T. McKeever, Esquire whose signature appears as

follows:

By: Nb~ GOLDBECK McCAFFERTY & McKEEVER By: MICHAEL T. MCKEEVER, ESQUIRE ArrORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

111. The signature of Mr. McKeever in Robinson is much different than the signature of

Mr. McKeever on a Complaint filed 11103/08 in JPMorgan Chase Bank Natl Assoc vs Hays-

McGinley GD-08-023649, Allegheny County. The signature page in Hays-McGinley is attached

as Exhibit 2 and the signature appears as follows:

24

cCAFFERTY & McKEEVER T. KEEVER, ESQUIRE

FOR PLAINTIFF

112. Indeed, in the Hays-McGinley case, Mr. McKeever's alleged signature on the

complaint (supra) is different that his signature on the verification to the Complaint attached as

Exhibit 3, which appears as follows

ichael T. cKeever, PA I.D. #56129

113. Another example of Mr. McKeever's alleged signature, appearing on the signature

page (attached as Exhibit 4) on a Complaint filed 11103/08 in Citimortgage Inc. vs Boland GD-08-

023651, Allegheny County, where the signature appears as follows:

25

By: --~~~~~~~~----~~~~~~~~----------

GOLDB CK cCAFFERTY & McKEEVER By: MICHAEL T. McKEEVER, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

114. Even when signed before !! Notary Public, the signature of Mr. McKeever

appears in many different forms.

115. For example, his name is signed to an "Affidavit of Last Known Address"

allegedly signed by Mr. McKeever before Notary Public Barbara Hand on February 5, 2008 and

filed of record on February 6, 2008 in the case of Countrywide Home Loans1nc. vs Raeder etal,

GD-07-018833, Allegheny County. This affidavit is attached as Exhibit 5 and the signature

appears as follows:

26

Affidavit of Last Known Address

I. Michael T. McKeever, Esquire. hereby verify that I am counsel of record for the Plaintiff, COUNTRYWIDE

HOME LOANS INC.; that as such and in my capacity as such, I am authorized to execute the within Affidavit for and

on behalf of Plaintiff; that to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the names and last known addresses

of the Owner(s) and Defendant(s) in the above referenced proceeding are MARK A. RAEDER, 3037 SW 5th

Avenue, Cape Coral, FL 33914 and DEBRA J. RAEDER, 5231 Brightwood Road #1. Bethel Park, PA 15102; I

further understand that false statements herein made are subject to the provisions set forth in 18 Pa.C.SA 4904

relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities.

Sworn to and subscribed

Before me this ~ day

of 2008

COMMONWEAl. TM OF PENN8Yl.VANIA

NOTARIAl.. SE:AL ~ L HAND, NoIaIyPubllc City of PhlIadeIphIa, PhIIa. CocIIly

My ComnllSSion ElIpi!as.klne 19,20','

Attorney for Plaintiff

116. Mr. McKeever allegedly appeared before Notary Public Barbara L. Hand and

signed his name to an affidavit (attached as Exhibit 6) filed April 7, 2009 in Citimortgage Inc. vs

Boland GD-08-023651, Allegheny County, and his signature on the affidavit in Boland appears as

follows:

27

AFFJDAVITOF COMPLIANCE WITH ACT'60F 1974,41 P.S. 101, ET.SEQ. AND ACT' 91 OF 1983

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) ) ) SS: )

COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY )

Before me, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for th aid Co and Commonwealth, personally appeared Michael T. McKeever, attorney fo e Plai ff, who being duly sworn accOrding to law deposes and says that on, Defendant(s) was! re rna' a a Notice(s) of Homeowner's emergency Mortgage Assistance Act ofl983 and 6 N 'ce(s) oflntention to Foreclosure by certified mail, return receipt requested and first class U,S. M ,

SWORN TO AND SUBSeRI ED

ME THIS L DA '1 ,.....l.fLl·-'\4PLUl~.

NotalY Public

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NOTARIAL SEAl BARBARA L HAND, Notary Public City of Pf'Jladelphia, f'hiIa. County

l\1y CommiSsion Expires June 19, 2010

117. The alleged signature of Mr. McKeever on the Affidavit of Compliance set forth

below was allegedly signed in the presence of Notary Public Barbara L. Hand. The document,

attached as Exhibit 7, was filed May 1,2009 in LaSalle Bank National Association vs Moore etal

GD-08-023656, Allegheny County:

28

AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE WITH ACT 6 OF 1974,41 P.S. lOt. ET.SEQ. AND ACT 91 OF 1983



Before me, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the said County and Commonwealth, personally appeared Michael T. McKeever, attorney for the Plaintiff, who being duly sworn according to law deposes and says that on , Defendant(s) was/were mailed a Notice(s) of Homeowner's emergency Mortgage Assistance Act of 1983 and Act 6 Notice(s) of Intention to Foreclosure by certified mail, return receipt requested and first class U.S. Mail.

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBEDI EFORE

ME THIS ~~ DAYOF ,2009,

Notary Public


NOTARIAL SEAl ~R8ARA l. HAND, Notary Public City 01 Philadelphia, Phi/a. County

My Commission Expires June 19, 2010

118. On January 23, 2009, an Affidavit of Compliance, attached as Exhibit 8, was

allegedly signed by Mr. McKeever before Notary Public Barbara L. Hand in the case of National

City Mortgage Co. vs Cancilla GD-08-023703, Allegheny County, and the signature appears as

follows:

29

AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE WITH ACT 6 OF 1974, 41 P.S. 101, £I.SEQ. AND ACT 91 OF ]983



Before me, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the said County and Commonwealth, personally appeared Michael T. McKeever, attorney for the Plaintiff, who being duly i sworn according to law deposes and says that on , Dy,fendant(s) was/were mailed a Notice(s) of I Homeowner's emergency Mortgage Assistance Act of 1983 and Act 6 Notice(s) oflntention to Foreclosu,re by celtified mail, return receipt requested and first class U.S. Mail. I

. III", • .., • TAAIIu.. SEAL ., ~AA L HAND NoIaIy CiIy of Phtf~ 'PilIIa. Public My~1 &piIBs County

Notary Public June '9,3)10

I I

I , 1

119. Mr. McKeever allegedly signed an "Affidavit Pursuant to Rule 3129", attached as

Exhibit 9, before Notary Public Antoinette Black on July 15, 2008 that was filed on July 17,2008

in Deutsche Bank National Trust Company vs Johnson GD-07-020865, Allegheny County, as

follows:

30

DATED: July IS, 2008


Befmemethis I~ day

of ~ ,2008

~ NOla!)' Public

(J)jfi~ o11f/1flmM oOLJ)Jj(i <CAfFERTY & McKEEVER BY; Micl1ael T. McKeever, Esq. Attorney for Piaililiff

120. In the same case, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Johnson, No. GD-07-

020865, Mr. McKeever's signature appears on a notarized "Affidavit of Last Known Address",

attached as Exhibit 10, as follows:

31


I, Michael T. McKeever, Esquire, hereby verify that I am counsel of record for the Plaintiff, DEUTSCHE

BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF ARGENT MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC .. ASSET

BACKED PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2OO6-M1 UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING

AGREEMENT DATED AS OF JUNE 1, 2006, WITHOUT RECOURSE; that as such and in my capacity as such, I

am aulhori2:ed to execute !he within Affidavit for and on behalf of Plaintiff; \hal to the best of my knowiedge,

information, and belief, !he names and last known addresses of the Owner(s) and Defendant(s) in the above

referenced proceeding are BARRY W. JOHNSON, 3450 McClure Avenue, Pitts rgh,

understand thai false statements herein made are subject to the provisions set orlh in

unsworn falsifications to authorities.

121. The signature of Mr. McKeever appearing on the Affidavit of Compliance filed in

Cancilla, see ~ 86 supra, is vastly different than the signature of Mr. McKeever appearing on the

Complaint filed in the very same case (i.e. Cancilla) which appears immediately below (signature

page from Complaint in Cancilla attached hereto as Exhibit 11):

... _- - - - - J:

BY:_~oo~~~-rIYl~cM~ ... ........:.-tel_-_ GOLDBECK McCAFFERTY & McKEEVER By: MICHAEL T. MCKEEVER, ESQUIRE

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

122. On information and belief, Defendant McKeever did not sign all of the documents

reference hereinabove, nor did he appear before a Notary Public and sign all of the documents

described hereinabove that were allegedly signed in the presence of a Notary Public.

32

123. The alleged signature of Joseph Goldbeck appears on an "Affidavit of Last Known

Address" attached hereto as Exhibit 12, filed 12/29/06 in the case of MTGLO Investors LP vs

Kobu1insky et aI, No GD-06-023420:


I, Joseph A. Goldbeck, Jr., Esquire, hereby verify that I am counsel d record for the Plaintiff, MTGLQ

INVESTORS, LP; that as such and in my capacity as such, I am authorized to execute the wilhin Affidavit fa and on

behalf of Plaintiff; that to the best of my kno>Medge, information, and belief, tile names and lasl known addresses of

!he CNiner(s) and Defendant(s} in !he above referenced proceeding are ROBIN A. KOBULINSKY, 710 Church

Street Ext, Turlle Creek, PA 15145 and RICHARD W. KOBULINSKY, 710 Church Street Ext, Turlle Creek, PA

15145; I furlher understand that false stataments herein made are subject to the provisions set fath in 18 Pa.C.SA

4904 relating to unsworn falsificalioos to authorities.


Be ore me this L day

124. The signature of Mr. Goldbeck appears on the Complaint filed in the Kobulinsky

matter is very different that the signature filed in the same case before Notary Public. The

signature appearing on the signature page of the complaint, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 13,

looks like this:

33

G014~""'.aJ By:

125. The signature of Mr. Goldbeck appears on an Affidavit of Last Known Address,

attached hereto as Exhibit 14, filed on 5/31107 in the case of Citifinancial Services Inc. vs Harper

etal, GD-06-023422, Allegheny County, as follows:

34


I, Joseph A. Goldbeck, Jr., Esquire, hereby verify thai I am counsel of record for the Plaintiff, GITIFINANClAl

SERVICES INC.; thai as such and in my capacity as such, I am authorized 10 execute the within Affid4vit for and on

behaWof Plaintiff; that 10 the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the names and last known addresses of

the Owner(s) and Defendan~s) in the above referenced proceeding are JAMES E HARPER, 1190 Fot:est Ave Apt

#4, Pittsburgh, PA 15236 and MARGARET M HARPER, 1190 Forest Ave Apt #4 ittsburgh, PA 15236; I further

understand that false statements herein made are subject 10 the provisions

unsworn falsifications 10 authorities.

Sworn to and subscnDed

'sLday

126. The signature of Joseph Goldbeck appears on the signature page of the complaint,

attached hereto as Exhibit 15, filed in Citifinancial Services Inc. vs Arthur GD-06-023421,

Allegheny County as follows:

35

· JOSEPH A. GOLDBECK, JR., ESQUIRE RNEY FOR PLArNTIFF

127. On information and belief, Mr. Goldbeck did not sign all of the documents set forth

above that bear his signature and, on information and belief, there are hundreds if not thousands of

documents that bear his signature that he has not signed which documents have been signed by the

non-lawyers working at GMM who are engaged in the widespread unauthorized practice oflaw.

128. The reason that no lawyers are signing the documents utilized in foreclosing on

homes across Pennsylvania is because no lawyers are, in fact, involved in filing these lawsuits, no

lawyers are involved in defaulting the Mortgagors, and no lawyers are involved in reducing the

defaults to judgment and sale at foreclosure. Rather, the lawsuits are being filed and prosecuted to

conclusion by non-lawyers who are engaged in the unauthorized practice oflaw.

129. On December 29, 2009, a Verification of Non-Military Service attached hereto as

Exhibit 16 was filed in the case of Citimortgage Inc. vs Lower, Allegheny County, M G-09-002231

as part of a Praecipe to Enter Default Judgment. The document is notarized by Defendant Hand

and purports to bear the signature of Mr. McKeever.

130. On information and belief, the signature appearing on Exhibit 16 is not Mr.

McKeever's.

131. On December 31, 2009, an Affidavit of Compliance was filed in Lower as part of a

Praecipe for Writ of Execution. The document attached hereto as Exhibit 17 is notarized by

Defendant Hand and purports to bear the signature of Mr. McKeever.

36

132. On infonnation and belief, the signature appearing on Exhibit 17 is not Mr.

McKeever's.

133. The complaint in JPMorgan Chase Bank NA. vs Morgan, Allegheny County, MG-

09-003126 was filed December 9, 2009.

134. The signature on the complaint purports to be that of Mr. McKeever, but on

infonnation and beliefthe signature is not Mr. McKeever's signature and was placed there by one

of the Defendant Non-Lawyers engaging in the unauthorized practice oflaw.

135. A Praecipe for Default Judgment was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of

Allegheny County on January 21,2010 in Morgan. Appended to the document was a Verification

of Non-Military Service, sworn before Defendant Hand. This document, attached hereto as

Exhibit 18, was sworn January 21,2010, but is dated January 19, 2010.

136. On December 9, 2009, a foreclosure complaint was filed in Citimortgage Inc. vs

Alberts et ai, Allegheny County, MG-09-003129, purportedly signed by Mr. McKeever.

137. On infonnation and belief, the complaint in Alberts was not signed by Mr.

McKeever.

138. On December 11, 2009, a foreclosure complaint was filed in Deutsche Bank

National Trust Company vs Sisco, Allegheny County, MG-09-003150. Both the signature page to

the complaint and the verification to the complaint, attached hereto as Exhibits 19 and 20,

respectively, purport to be signed by Mr. McKeever.

139. On infonnation and belief, one of the Non-Lawyer Defendants engaged in the

unauthorized practice of law signed Exhibits 19 and 20.

37

140. On December 14, 2009, a foreclosure complaint was filed in Wells Fargo Bank

Minnesota vs. Wheeler et aI, Allegheny County, MG-09-003174.

141. The signature page to the complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit 21, purports to be

signed by Mr. McKeever.

142. On information and belief, Mr. McKeever did not sign the complaint in Wheeler

but, rather, the document was signed by Non-Lawyer Defendants engaged in the unauthorized

practice oflaw.

143. On December 17,2009, a foreclosure complaint was filed in Citimortgage Inc. vs

Boyle et aI, Allegheny County, MG-09-003204 and the signature on the complaint, attached as

Exhibit 22, purports to be that of Mr. McKeever.

144. On information and belief, Mr. McKeever did not sign the complaint in Boyle.

145. On February 4,2010, Defendant Boschetti signed her own name to a "Verification

of Military Service" in Boyle that purports to be an affidavit of Mr. McKeever. This document is

attached as Exhibit 23. The document is sworn to and subscribed before a notary public, to wit,

Defendant Hand. The opening paragraph of the document states, "MICHAEL T. MCKEEVER,

hereby verifies that he is attorney for the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, and that on

information and belief, he has knowledge of the following facts, to wit ... "

146. In other words, Defendant Boschetti swore to an affidavit on behalf of Mr.

McKeever, swearing that she knew what information was inside Mr. McKeever's mind, which is

so patently absurd it bears no further comment, except to note that apparently Notary Hand had no

problem permitting this outrageous conduct.

147. On June 17, 2010, Defendant Keenan (who is a secretary) filed an affidavit

claiming to be Mr. McKeever in Boyle. This document is attached hereto as Exhibit 24.

38

148. Plaintiff has reviewed numerous documents filed of record wherein Defendant

Keenan signed affidavits purporting to swear to the knowledge that was inside Mr. McKeever's

head. One such affidavit was an Affidavit Pursuant to Rule 3129 filed June 24, 2010 in

Citimortgage Inc. vs Turner Jr., Allegheny County, MG-1O-000405, which is attached hereto as

Exhibit 25, and which document was notarized by Defendant Black. The document bears the date

June 15,2010 but the notary stamp indicates that it was signed June 21, 2010.

149. In a Supplemental Affidavit filed August 27,2010 in Deutsche Bank National Trust

Company vs Lemp et ai, Allegheny County, MG-10-000406, Defendant Keenan (a legal secretary)

again signed an affidavit, attached hereto as Exhibit 26, purporting to know what is inside Mr.

McKeever's head. The document purports to be notarized by Defendant Black, however,

Defendant Black did not even sign the document, revealing either that Defendant Black is careless

with her notary seal, or she has given it to others who are so anxious to take people's homes while

engaged in the unauthorized practice oflaw that they cannot even "properly" forge a document.

150. In an affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit 27 and filed September 17, 2010, BAC

Home Loans Servicing L.P. vs HUe, Allegheny County, MG-I0-001409 Defendant Keenan again

executed an affidavit before a notary that purports to attest to the knowledge inside Mr.

McKeever's head.

151. On information and belief, in addition to the documents described hereinabove,

Defendants Hand and Black (the Notary Public Defendants) notarized hundreds, if not thousands

of documents in violation of the Notary Public Law, Act of August 21, 1953, P.L. 1323, as

amended, 57 P .S. § 168.

152. The documents that have been notarized by Defendants Hand and Black, such as

the documents set forth hereinabove, have been used by the Non-Lawyer Defendants to foreclose

39

on homes and to collect illegal so-called "attorneys fees" that are being charged by non-lawyers

committing the crime of the unauthorized practice oflaw.

153. Defendants Hand and Black have knowingly aided and abetted the non-lawyers to

engage in the unauthorized practice of law; they have violated their duties as Notaries; they have

stained and undermined the truth finding process and the integrity of the Judicial System. Their

conduct is criminal, and their conduct is outrageous.

154. Defendants Hand and Black should be enjoined from aiding and abetting in the

unauthorized practice oflaw.

X. JUDGMENTS OBTAINED ILLEGALLY

155. The widespread criminal conduct described herein is not the result of excusable

neglect or inadvertence. Rather, it is the result of greed on the part of the Non-Lawyers and the

"clients" they serve while hiding under the letterhead of the law firm Goldbeck, McCafferty &

McKeever. Since Non-Lawyers can never have "clients" as that term is used by Courts and those

who have earned the right and obtained the honor of being admitted to the practice oflaw, Plaintiff

puts the word "clients" in quotations when referring to the "clients" of the Non-Lawyers.

156. The prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.

2524(a) specifically contemplates that paralegals and legal assistants hiding under the letterhead of

a law firm may attempt to engage in the unauthorized practice of law, and the law specifically

makes such conduct a crime. 42 Pa.C.S. § 2524(a) states:

(a) General Rule. -- Except as provided in subsection (b), any person, including, but not limited to, a paralegal or legal assistant, who within this Commonwealth shall practice law, or who shall hold himself out to the public as being entitled to practice law, or use or advertise the title of lawyer, attorney at law, attorney and counselor at law, counselor, or the equivalent in any language, in such a manner as to convey the impression that he is a practitioner of the law of any jurisdiction, without being an

40

attorney at law or a corporation complying with 15 Pa.C.S. Ch. 29 (relating to professional corporation), commits a misdemeanor of the third degree upon a first violation. A second or subsequent violation of this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree. (Emphasis added.)

157. On information and belief, no lawyer working at Goldbeck, McCafferty &

McKeever instructed these Non-Lawyer Defendants to prepare and fIle false affidavits, or to claim

and/or recover "attorney fees" in cases where no lawyers had done any work whatsoever.

158. Where a non-lawyer has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and has

obtained a judgment on behalf of his or her "client", any such judgment should be vacated. The

Court had no jurisdiction over the lawsuit, the judgment is the result of the commission of a crime,

and neither the non-lawyer nor the "client" of the non-lawyer should profit from such conduct.

159. The Prothonotary in all such cases was without authority to enter judgment against

the defendants. The judgments are, therefore, void ab initio. See Mullen v. Slupe, 360 Pa. 485,

490, 62 A.2d 14, 16 (1948) Gudgment "entered without authority ... is no judgment at all so far as

it affects the rights of the defendants. ") (quoting Long v. Lemoyne Borough, 222 Pa. 311, 318 71

A. 211, 212 (1908».

XI. PENDING FORECLOSURE CASES FILED IN VIOLATION OF LAW

160. With respect to pending foreclosure actions fIled by non-lawyers at GMM engaging

in the unauthorized practice of law, such lawsuits should be immediately dismissed, as the Court

has no jurisdiction over them. The lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by having attorneys come

in and claim that they will now respect the rule of law. These Complaints were a nullity when the

were fIled.

41

161. Anything less than dismissal of cases filed in violation of the prohibition against

the unauthorized practice of law by non-lawyers encourages such conduct to be repeated. (See

Chase v. City of Earle, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48230 (ED Ark. 2010)("When a non-lawyer

attempts to represent the interests of other persons, the practice constitutes the unauthorized

practice oflaw and results in a nullity. Jones ex rel. Jones v. Correctional Medical Services, 401

F.3d 950, 952 (8th Cir. 2005). Moreover, a later appointed attorney cannot cure the complaint of

its original defect. Davenport v. Lee, 348 Ark. 148, 155, 72 S.W.3d 85, 88 (2002). This rule

protects the courts interests in ensuring that parties are represented by people knowledgeable and

trained in the law. Jones, 401 F.3d at 952.")

162. Plaintiff avers, on information and belief, that the clients. of GMM knew of,

directed, and profited from the conduct of the non-lawyers described herein. As such, the

"clients" of these Non-Lawyers who are profiteering from the unauthorized practice of law by the

non-lawyers have hands that are as unclean as the Defendants' hands.

163. For example, and without conceding in any manner that their knowledge did not

exist prior to December of 2009, there is no question that Bank of America (which, on information

and belief purchased Countrywide Home Loan, Inc. in July 2008) and BAC Home Loan

Servicing, LP (formerly Countrywide Home Loan Servicing, LP) became aware of the conduct

described hereinabove in December 2009. These entities are only two ofthe entities who the Non

Lawyers file foreclosures on behalf of.

164. On information and belief, on December 8, 2009, John Smith, Esquire, who was at

the time a current employee of Bank of America and who in 2007 was First Vice President of

Foreclosure, Bankruptcy and Real Estate for Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., was sitting in the

courtroom when Mr. McKeever testified (as set forth hereinabove) that it was "standard practice"

42

for the Defendant Non-Lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. As an attorney,

Mr. Smith knew of and understood the significance of Mr. McKeever's testimony, to wit, that

non-lawyers working at GMM were and had been filing lawsuits that had not been reviewed by

attorneys and they had been doing it for several years. On information and belief, Mr. Smith also

knew that such conduct was criminal, such lawsuits were nullities, and all such lawsuits should be

dismissed.

165. The next day, December 9, 2009, during court proceedings presided over by

Federal Judge Thomas Agresti in the case of in DeAngelis v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (In

Re: Hill), 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 3313 (Bankr. WD Pa. 2010), Judge Agresti stated on the record:

THE COURT: But I'm a little concerned about what I'm hearing about the Goldberg firm's handling of cases, filing by paralegals without being, you know, foreclosure actions being filed without attorneys reading them or reviewing them before it's filed, filed under signatures that are -- somebody's authorized to sign a signature -- a name. It's a matter we're going to take up. I don't know if it's relevant to our proceeding today, but I'm quite concerned with what I'm hearing.

166. Despite the fact that Bank of America and its lawyers knew, with certainty, in

December of 2009 that hundreds, if not thousands of foreclosures cases pending had been filed by

the non-lawyers in violation of the prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law, they did

not dismiss any of the pending cases filed by the Non-Lawyers for the reason that said cases were

a nullity and, instead, they continued to permit the Non-Lawyers to prosecute those cases to

conclusion - an act of pure greed and disrespect for the Rule of Law.

stated:

167. On October 5, 2010, Judge Agresti issued an opinion in In Re: Hill wherein he

During the trial the Court also became aware of some apparently routine practices at GMM that raise issues that cannot be ignored. McKeever testified to a procedure at his firm whereby foreclosure complaints are prepared and filed by non-attorneys and never reviewed by an attorney, even though the "signature" of

43

an attorney appears on the document. 12/8 Tr. at 83-84. This would seem to be a violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, which provide that the signature of an attorney on a document filed with a Pennsylvania court is a certification that the document has been read by the attorney. See Pa.R. Civ.P. 1023.1 (c). Even though these foreclosure actions are not being filed in this Court and thus do not expose GMM to sanctions, concern for our sister courts in this Commonwealth compel the Court to at least make publicly known what it learned during the trial.

In Re: Hill, at **117-118. (emphasis added)

168. Plaintiff is unaware as to whether or not Judge Agresti's efforts have had or will

have any effect on the Non-Lawyer Defendants and their "clients" and, therefore, Plaintiff seeks

an injunction to preserve the integrity of the judicial system and the rule of law in this

Commonwealth, as well as to protect the thousands of Mortgagors who have unknowingly been

sued by Non-Lawyers engaged in the unauthorized practice oflaw and who have paid and/or face

the clear and present danger of paying illegal and fraudulent "attorneys fees" to these Non-

Lawyers and their "clients".

169. On information and belief, there are hundreds, if not thousands of mortgage

foreclosure actions pending in Courts of Common Pleas across the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania that have been filed by the non-lawyers at GMM in violation of 42 Pa.C.S. §2524(a)

and which are being prosecuted toward judgment by these same individuals. These actions must

be enjoined from further prosecution.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant the following relief:

1. Declaration that the conduct of the non-lawyers working at Goldbeck, McCafferty & McKeever, P.C. described herein constitutes the unauthorized practice of law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;

44

2. An injunction barring the non-lawyers at Goldbeck, McCafferty & McKeever, P.C. from engaging in the unauthorized practice oflaw within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;

3. An injunction enjoining continued prosecution of any case filed within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in violation of 42 Pa.C.S. §2524(a) by the non-lawyers at GMM;

4. Issuing a Rule to Show Cause Upon GMM to show cause why all pending foreclosure actions in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in which GMM has entered an appearance should not be dismissed as having been filed in violation of 42 Pa.C.S. §2524(a) by the non-lawyers at GMM;

5. Issuing a Rule to Show Cause Why all alleged "attorneys fees" that have been recovered by the Non-Lawyers or their "clients" in foreclosure lawsuits filed in violation of 42 Pa.C.S. §2524(a) in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania should not be accounted for and returned to the MortgagorslHomeowners from whom they were taken;

6. Issuing a Rule to Show Cause Upon Defendants to show cause why every judgment entered in favor of Defendants "clients" in a foreclosure action filed and prosecuted in violation of 42 Pa.C.S. §2524(a) should not be opened and/or vacated;

7. Enjoining Defendants from supporting claims or cases in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with false and fraudulent "affidavits" notarized illegally;

8. Enjoining Barbara L. Hand and Antoinette Black from aiding and abetting in the commission ofthe unauthorized practice oflaw in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by notarizing documents in violation of the Notary Public Law which documents are being utilized by non-lawyers at GMM to prosecute foreclosure actions in violation of 42 Pa.C.S. §2524(a)

9. Enjoining Eric Keenan from signing his name to any legal document to be filed in any court in this Commonwealth.

10. Enjoining all Non-Lawyer Defendants from signing their names, or the names of anyone else, upon any document to be filed in any lawsuit pending in this Commonwealth except in a lawsuit wherein the non-lawyers are parties, such as this lawsuit.

11. Costs of suit;

12. Any other relief this Honorable Court deems appropriate.

45

46

Respectfully submitted,

Appearing Pro Se

Address Loughren, Loughren & Loughren, P.C. 310 Grant Street, Suite 2800 Pittshurgh,Pa 15219 412-232-3530 [email protected]

8. If the Mortgage is reinstated prior to a Sheriff's Sale, the Attorney's Fees set forth above may be less than the amount demanded based on work actually performed. The Attorney's Fees requested are in

. conformity with the Mortgage and Pennsylvania law. Plaintiffis entitled to collect Attorney's fees of up to 5% of the remaining principal balance in the event the Property is sold to a third party purchaser at Sheriff's Sale or if the complexity of the action requires additional fees in excess of the amount demanded in the Action.

9. Plaintiff is not seeking a judgment ofpersonal1iability (or an "in personam" judgment) against the Defendants in this Action but reserves its right bring a separate Action to establish that right, if such right exists. If Defendants have received a discharge of their personal liability in a Bankruptcy proceeding, this Action of Mortgage Foreclousre is, in no way, an attempt to re-establish the personal liabiHty that was discharged in Bankruptcy, but only to foreclose the Mortgage and sell the Property pursuant to Pennsylvania law.

10. The within mortgage is insured by the Federal Housing Administration under Title II of the National Housing Act and, as such, is not subject to the provisions of Pennsylvania Act No. 91 of 1983.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in mortgage foreclosure in the sum of $66,584.36, together with interest at the rate of $8.10, per day and other expenses incurred by the Plaintiff which are properly chargeable in accordance with the terms of the mortgage, and for the foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged premises.

BY:~~.x..:......;...· ~Kt"---4'o'" \~~~~1AI~~~ __ GOLDBECK McCAFFERTY & McKEEVER By: MICHAEL T. MCKEEVER, ESQUIRE

A lTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

EXHIBIT

I -----=-::-:: eD- 06- 0:30181

liability that was discharged in Bankruptcy, but only to foreclose the Mortgage and sell the Property pursuant to Pennsylvania law.

8. Notice ofIntention to Foreclose and a Notice of Homeowners' Emergency Mortgage Assistance has been sent to Defendants by certified and regular mail, as required by Act 160 of 1998 of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on the date(s) set forth in the true and correct copy of such notice(s) attached hereto as Exhibit ''B''. The Defendants have not had the required face-to-face meeting within the required time and Plaintiffhas no knowledge of any such meeting being requested by the Defendants through the Plaintiff, the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, or any appropriate Consumer Credit Counseling Agency.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a de terris judgment in mortgage foreclosure in the sum of $45,058.97, together with interest at the rate of$8.17, per day and other expenses, costs and charges incurred by the Plaintiff which are properly chargeable in accordance with the terms of the Mortgage and Pennsylvania law until the Mortgage is paid in full, and for the foreclosure of the Mortgage and Sheriff's Sale of the Property.

By: .~,~~~~-H~~-------------------------

cCAFFERTY & McKEEVER MIJ~IVEI'. T. KEEVER, ESQUIRE

'T"Tt::.6""~VfFOR PLAINTIFF

EXHIBIT

D- 08-02364'1

VERIFICATION

Michael T. McKeever, Esquire, hereby states that he is

attorney for PLAINTIFF in this matter, that Plaintiff is outside

the jurisdiction of the Court and/or the Verification could not be

obtained wi thin the time allowed for the filing of the pleading

that he is authorized to make this verification pursuant to

Pa.R.C.P 1024 (c) and that the statements made in the foregoing

pleading in the Civil Action in Mortgage Foreclosure are based

upon the information supplied by Plaintiff and are true and

correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.

Furthermore, it is the undersigned's intention to substitute a

verification from Plaintiff as soon as it is received by counsel.

The undersigned understands that this statement is made

subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 4904 relating to

unsworn falsification to authorities.

Date: J I '0 d- \ 0 ¥'

EXHIBIT

J i 3

D- 08- 02.3&4'9

8. Plaintiff is not seeking a judgment of personal liability (or an "in personam" judgment) against the Defendant in this Action but reserves its right to bring a separate Action to establish that right, if such right exists. If Defendant has received a discharge of their personal liability in a Bankruptcy proceeding, this Action of Mortgage Foreclosure is, in no way, an attempt to re-establish the personal liability that was discharged in Bankruptcy, but only to foreclose the Mortgage and sell the Property pursuant to Pennsylvania law.

9. Notice oflntention to Foreclose and a Notice of Homeowners' Emergency Mortgage Assistance has been sent to Defendant by certified and regular mail, as required by Act 160 of 1998 of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on the date(s) set forth in the true and correct copy of such notice(s) attached hereto as Exhibit "B". The Defendant have not had the required face-to-face meeting within the required time and Plaintiff has no knowledge of any such meeting being requested by the Defendant through the Plaintiff, the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, or any appropriate Consumer Credit Counseling Agency.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a de terris judgment in mortgage foreclosure in the sum of $138,899.92, together with interest at the rate of $19.30, per day and other expenses, costs and charges incurred by the Plaintiffwhich are properly chargeable in accordance with the tenus of the Mortgage and Pennsylvania law until the Mortgage is paid in full, and for the~foreClosur~e of~e Mortgage and Sheriffs Sale of the Property.

By: T~-GOLDB CK cCAFFERTY & McKEEVER By: MICHAEL T. MCKEEVER, ESQUIRE


EXHIBIT

I ~ 'D-OB~ 023651


COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC.

Vs.

MARK A. RAEDER DEBRAJ.RAEDER

Plaintiff

Defendant(s)

) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ) OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY ) CIVIL ACTION LAW } ACTION OF MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ) ) GO-O? -018833 )


I. Michael T. IVIcKeever. Esquire, hereby verify that I am counsel of record for the Plaintiff, COUNTRYWIDE

HOME LOANS INC.; that as such and in my capacity as such, I am authorized to execute the within Affidavit for and

on behalf of Plaintiff; that to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the names and last known addresses

of the Owner(s) and Defendant(s) in the above referenced proceeding are MARK A. RAEDER, 3037 SW 5th

Avenue, Cape Coral. FL 33914 and DEBRA J. RAEDER, 5231 Brightwood Road #1, Bethel Park, PA 15102; I

further understand that false statements herein made are subject to the provisions set forth in 18 Pa.C.S.A. 4904

relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities.


Before me this 5" day

Of~~2008 NotaryPu IC


NOTARIAl SEAL . B~aAAAL.HAND,~~ City of Philadelphia, Phlla. County

My CommIssion Expires June 19, 20', '

EXHIBIT

i 5 . D - 01-0185'33

~er Attorney for Plaintiff

.. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CITIMORTGAGE INC. S/BIM CITIFINANCIAL MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC.

Plaintiff vs.

JOANN BOLAND as Executrix of the Estate of Anna M. Crogan, Deceased

Defendant( s)

CNIL DIVISION

NO.: GO-08-023651

AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE WITH ACT 6 OF ] 974,41 P.S. 101. ET.SEO. AND ACT 91 OF 1983



Before me, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the aid Cou and Commonwealth, personally appeared Michael T. McKeever, attorney fo e Plai ff, who being duly sworn according to law deposes and says that on, Defendant(s) wasl re rna' a a Notice(s) of Homeowner's emergency Mortgage Assistance Act of 1983 and 6 No . ce( s) of Intention to Foreclosure by certified mail, return receipt requested and first class U.S. M

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRI ED

ME THIS 11-DA ~

NotalY Public

COM~,'iONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA . EXHIBIT NOTARiAl SEAl..

~RB~ L. HAND, Notary Public I I Cny of ~hl~adelphia, Phila. County .. I.?

My CommissIon Expires JUne 19, 2010 D-08 - 023 65 I

•


LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES I, LLC, ASSET ·BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-HE7

Plaintiff vs.

MAMIE A. MOORE WILLIAM B. MOORE

Defendant(s)

CIVIL DIVISION

NO.: GD-08-023656

AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE WITH ACT 6 OF 1974.41 P .S. 101. ET.SEQ. AND ACT 91 OF 1983



Before me, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the said County and Commonwealth, personally appeared Michae1 T. McKeever, attorney for the Plaintiff, who being duly sworn according to law deposes and says that on, Defendant(s) was/were mailed a Notice(s) of Homeowner's emergency Mortgage Assistance Act of 1983 and Act 6 Notice(s) of Intention to Foreclosure by certified mail, return receipt requested and first class U.S. Mail.

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED I EFORE

ME THIS 2fb DA Y OF ----!~1_4_--, 2009,

Notary Public

EXHIBIT

I 7 . D- 05 - 0236E6

COMMONWEAL TN OF PENNSYLVANIA

NOTARIAL SEAL B~ABAAA L. HAND. Notary Public City of Philadelphia, Phila. County

My Commission Expires June 19, 2010


,NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE, CO., F/KlA NATlONAL CITY MORTGAGE, A DIVISION OF NATIONAL CITY BANK

Plaintiff vs.

DEANA M. CANCILLA Defendant( s)

CIVIL DIVISION

NO.: GO-08-023703

AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE WITH ACT 6 OF 1974.41 P.S. 101. ET.SEO. AND ACT 91 OF 1983



Before me, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the said County and Commonwealth, personally appeared Michael T. McKeever, attorney for the Plaintiff, who being duly , sworn according to law deposes and says that on, Defendant(s) was/were mailed a Notice(s) of I Homeowner's emergency Mortgage Assistance Act 6f 1983 and Act 6 Notice(s) ofIntention to Forec1osJ,re by cel1ified mail, return receipt requested and first class U.S. Mai1. I

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE

METHJS :Jl

Notary Public

--'"~f-=----' 2009, I COMMONWEAL.TH OF PENNsYLVANIA

. BAA NOTARIAL SEAl

EXHIBIT

D- 08-023103

CIty B~ L HAND, Ncmuy Public My eo::l1r faOelPf1ja, Pfotila. County

ISSIOlr expIres June 19, 2010

I I

\ I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I ! I

I I

I

\ I I I I \

.. DATED: July 15,2008

Sworn to and subscribed ,,-

Before me this I ~ day

of ~ ,200S

~f!tacJ{ Notary Public

COMMO~JWEALTH OF ?ENNSYLVANIA

NOTARIAL SEAL ANTONIETTE M. BLACK, Notary Public

City of Philadelphia, Phila. County My Commission Expires Jun~ 27. 2010

lJJJ!/J/J~E~f!JM BY: Michael T. McKeever, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff

EXHIBIT

I 1 . D- Ol- 020865


DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF ARGENT MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., ASSET BACKED PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-M1 UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED AS OF JUNE 1, 2006, WITHOUT RECOURSE

Plaintiff Vs.

BARRY W. JOHNSON Defendant(s)

) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ) OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY ) CIVIL ACTION LAW ) ACTION OF MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ) ) GD-07 -020865 )

Affidavit of Last Known Adciress

I. Michael T. McKeever, Esquire, hereby verify that I am counsel of record for the Plaintiff, DEUTSCHE

BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF ARGENT MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., ASSET

BACKED PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-M1 UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING

AGREEMENT DATED AS OF JUNE 1, 2006, WITHOUT RECOURSE; that as such and in my capacity as such, I

am authorized to execute the within Affidavit for and on behalf of Plaintiff; that to the best of my knowledge,

information, and belief, the names and last known addresses of the Owner(s) and Defendant(s) in the above

referenced proceeding are BARRY W. JOHNSON, 3450 McClure Avenue. Pitts rgh, A 15212; I further

understand that false statements herein made are subject to the provisions set orth in


Sworn

Befo1i

of --If---~:o«Mr---

COMMONWEAL.TH OF PENNSYLVANIA.

EXHIBIT

I /0 D-Oi-020865

9. Notice of Intention to Foreclose and a Notice of Homeowners' Emergency Mortgage Assistance has been sent to Defendant by certified and regular mail, as required by Act 160 of 1998 of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on the date(s) set forth in the true and correct copy of such notice(s) attached hereto as Exhibit "B". The Defendant have not had the required face-to-face meeting within the required time and Plaintiff has no knowledge of any such meeting being requested by the Defendant through the Plaintiff, the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, or any appropriate Consumer Credit Counseling Agency.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a de terris judgment in mortgage foreclosure in the sum of $119,41 0.49, together with interest at the rate of $22.08, per day and other expenses, costs and charges incurred by the Plaintiff which are properly chargeable in accordance with the terms of the Mortgage and Pennsylvania law until the Mortgage is paid in full, and for the foreclosure of the Mortgage and Sheriff's Sale of the Property.

By:_'---'--!«l~J<V!-' ~ ha&~"'-'--_\ ~-cJ@~~-,,------GOLDBECK McCAFFERTY & McKEEVER By: MICHAEL T. MCKEEVER, ESQUIRE


EXHIBIT

I i II £:{D- 06- 023 ,03


MTGLQ INVESTORS, LP Plaintiff

Vs.

ROBIN A. KOBULINSKY RICHARD W. KOBULINSKY

Defendant{ s)

) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ) OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY ) CIVIL ACTION LAW ) ACTION OF MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ) ) GD-06-023420 )


I, Joseph A. Goldbeck, Jr., Esquire, hereby verify that I am counsel of record for the Plaintiff, MTGLQ

INVESTORS, LP; that as such and in my capacity as such, I am authorized to execute the within Affidavit for and on

behalf of Plaintiff; that to the best of my knowledge, information. and belief, the names and last known addresses of

the Owner{s) and Defendant{s) in the above referenced proceeding are ROBIN A. KOBULINSKY, 710 Church

Street Ext, Turtle Creek, PA 15145 and RICHARD W. KOBULINSKY. 710 Church Street Ext, Turtle Creek, PA

15145; I further understand that false statements herein made are subject to the provisions set forth in 18 Pa.C.S.A.

4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities.

--""-"'--_ day

~I---__ ~~ 2006

,:,;or'f1~::;'~_":~./' r :Tl:~.2:::~:·JNS'{!-'.t,"'. :<:::\ .~.:. '} t ,-f".'t~\L ~~r:AL

CHERV < 'll c: ·US. Notary Public City of Ph,:' . :,,\1: .. P!lila. County

My Cnr.1:':1!S$!' • ..;::;1 2009 ~---<"~"--"~~'~'-'. '-. . ' --

EXHIBIT

i }~ D-06 - 023420

· liability that was discharged in Bankruptcy, but only to foreclose the Mortgage and sell the Property pursuant to Pennsylvania law.

9. Notice of Intention to Foreclose and a Notice of Homeowners' Emergency Mortgage Assistance has been sent to Defendants by certified and regular mail, as required by Act 160 of 1998 of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on the date(s) set forth in the true and correct copy of such notice(s) attached hereto as Exhibit "B". The Defendants have not had the required face-to-face meeting within the required time and Plaintiff has no knowledge of any such meeting being requested by the Defendants through the Plaintiff, the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, or any appropriate Consumer Credit Counseling Agency.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a de terris judgment in mortgage foreclosure in the sum of $68,039.32, together with interest at the rate of $17.34, per day and other expenses, costs and charges incurred by the Plaintiff which are properly chargeable in accordance with the terms of the Mortgage and Pennsylvania law until the Mortgage is paid in full, and for the foreclosure of the Mortgage and Sheriffs Sale of the Property.

GO ..... ~ ... ~JL< By: OSEPH A. GOLDBECK, JR., ESQUIRE

A TfORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

EXHIBIT

i I) 6D-06-0?,~4?n

.~ .. .. ' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : .

CITIFINANCIAL SERVICES INC. ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff ) OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY

Vs.

JAMES E HARPER

) CIVIL ACTION LAW :: ) ACTION OF MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE )

MARGARET M HARPER Oefendant(s)

) GD-06·023422 )

Affidavit of last Known Address

I, Joseph A. Goldbeck, Jr., Esquire, hereby verify that I am counsel of record for the Plaintiff, ¢ITIFINANCIAl

SERVICES INC.; that as such and in my capacity as such, I am authorized to execute the within Affidi!vit for and on I

behalf of Plaintiff; that to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. the names and last known addresses of

the Owner(s) and Oefendant(s) in the above referenced proceeding are JAMES E HARPER, 1190 For.est Ave Apt

#4, Pittsburgh, PA 15236 and MARGARET M HARPER, 1190 Forest Ave Apt #4 ittsburgh, PA 15236; I further

understand that false statements herein made are subject to the provisions se



Before me . s 2/J day

of __ ....-.-~:.4----'

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYL.VANIA

NOTARIAL BARBARA L HAND. Notary NlUc ely of ~ PhI&. Cc;uty

My CommIssIon &pires JlIle 19,2010

EXHIBIT

I I If D-06-023422

attached hereto as Exhibit "B". The Defendant has not had the required face-to-face meeting within the required time and Plaintiff has no knowledge of any such meeting being requested by the Defendant through the Plaintiff, the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, or any appropriate Consumer Credit Counseling Agency.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a de terris judgment in mortgage foreclosure in the sum of $74,60 1.02, together with interest at the rate of $21.21, per day and other expenses costs and charges incurred by the Plaintiff which are properly chargeable in accordance with the terms of the Mortgage and Pennsylvania law until the Mortgage is paid in full, and for the foreclosure of the Mortgage and Sheriffs Sale of the Property.

By: ____ ~~~~~~~~----------------

B : JOSEPH A. GOLDBECK, JR., ESQUIRE

A RNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

EXHIBIT

I 15 - D-()6 - 0284- 2 \

GOLDBECK, MCCAFFERTY & MCKEEVER By: Michael T. McKeever Attorney I.D. #56129 Suite 5000-Mellon Independence Center 701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 215-627-1322

CITfMORTGAGE INC.

Vs.

ALISON R. LOWER

ATIORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CIVIL DIVISION

No. MG-09-002231

ALLEGHENY COUNTY

VERIFICATION OF NON-MILITARY SERVICE

MICHAEL T. MCKEEVER, ESQUIRE, hereby verifies that he is attorney for the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, and that on information and belief, he has knowledge of the following facts, to wit:

(a) that the defendant is not in the Military or Naval Service of the United States or its Allies, or otherwise within the provisions of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of Congress of 1940, as amended.

(b) that defendant ALISON R. LOWER is over 18 years of age, and resides at 3602 Shadewell Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15227.

(c) that defendant, ALISON R. LOWER is over 18 years of age, and resides at 3602 Shadewell Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15227.

This statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

December 29, 2009


Before me this )...4 day

Of~ Notary u .


NOTARIAL SEAL BARBARA L HAND, Notary Public City of Philadelphia, Phila. County

My Commission Expires June 19,2010

EXHIBIT

I 16 Mq- OCl- 00223\

MICHAEL T. MCKEEVER Attorney for Plaintiff


CITJMORTGAGE INC. Plaintiff CIVIL DIVISION

vs. NO.: MG-09-002231

ALISON R. LOWER Defendant(s)

AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE WJTH ACT 6 OF 1974,41 P.S. 101, ET.SEO. AND ACT 91 OF 1983



Before me, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the said County and Commonwealth, personally appeared Michael T. McKeever, attorney for the Plaintiff, who being duly sworn according to law deposes and says that on, Defendant(s) was/were mailed a Notice(s) of Homeowner's emergency Mortgage Assistance Act of 1983 and Act 6 Notice( s) of Intention to Foreclosure by certified mail, return receipt requested and first class U.S. Mail.

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE

~rnJS&L~ ,2009,

Notary Pub ic

EXHIBiT

11 M6- 09- 00223i


A TIORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF


.. IPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A, AS ACQUIRER OF CERTAIN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK FROM THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION ACTING AS RECEIVER F/K/A WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA

Vs.

CHARLES M. MORGAN

No. MG-09-003126

ALLEGHENY COUNTY VERIFICATION OF NON-MIUTARY SERVICE



(b) that defendant CHARLES M. MORGAN is over 18 years of age, and resides at 1115 Bakerstown Road, Tarentum, PA 15084.

(c) that defendant, CHARLES M. MORGAN is over 18 years of age, and resides at 1115 Bakerstown Road, Tarentum, PA 15084.

This statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falSification to authorities.

Attorneys for Plaintiff January 19, 2010

Swom to and subscribed

Before me thisL. ( day

of ~2010

Notary Public

By: GOLDBECK MCCAFFERTY & MCKEEVER Michael McKeever Pa. ID 56129 Gary McCafferty Pa. ID 42386 Lisa Lee Pa. ID 78020 Kristina Murtha Pa. ID 61858 David Fein Pa. ID 82628 Thomas Puleo Pa. ID 27615


NOTARIAL SEAL BARBARA L. HAND, Notary Public City of Phllade!phla, Phlla. County

My Comml88ion Expires June 19, 2010

EXHIBIT

I IS M61-0G1- 003/26

8. Plaintiff is not seeking a judgment of personal liability (or an "in personam" judgment) against the Defendant in this Action but reserves its right to bring a separate Action to establish that right, if such right exists. If Defendant has received a discharge of their personal liability in a Bankruptcy proceeding, this Action of Mortgage Foreclosure is, in no way, an attempt to re-establish the personal liability that was discharged in Bankruptcy, but only to foreclose the Mortgage and sell the Property pursuant to Pennsylvania law.

9. Notice ofIntention to Foreclose and a Notice of Homeowners' Emergency Mortgage Assistance has been sent to Defendant by certified and regular mail, as required by Act 160 of 1998 of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on the date(s) set forth in the true and correct copy of such notice(s) attached hereto as Exhibit "B". The Defendant have not had the required face-to-face meeting within the required time and Plaintiff has no knowledge of any such meeting being requested by the Defendant through the Plaintiff, the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, or any appropriate Consumer Credit Counseling Agency.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a de terris judgment in mortgage foreclosure in the sum of $125,440.92, together with interest at the rate of $23.61, per day and other expenses, costs and charges incurred by the Plaintiff which are properly chargeable in accordance with the terms of the Mortgage and Pennsylvania law until the Mortgage is paid in full, and for the foreclosure of the Mortgage and Sheriffs Sale of the Property.

BY:---,tVr~' b~a""","",1~_Q------,1----1'\~ 'Cj~LQJ"",-"",l~~~ __ GOLDBECK McCAWERTY &McKEEVER By: MICHAEL T. MCKEEVER, ESQUIRE

A TIORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

EXHIBIT

J i I Cl M - Oq - 003150

VERIFICATION

Michael T. McKeever, Esquire, hereby states that he is

attorney for PLAINTIFF in this matter, that Plaintiff is outside

the jurisdiction of the Court and/or the Verification could not be

obtained wi thin the time allowed for the filing of the pleading

that he is authorized to make this verification pursuant to

Pa.R.C.P 1024 (c) and that the statements made in the foregoing

pleading in the Civil Action in Mortgage Foreclosure are based

upon the information supplied by Plaintiff and are true and

correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.

Furthermore, it is the undersigned's intention to substitute a

verification from Plaintiff as soon as it is received by counsel.

The undersigned understands that this statement is made

subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 4904 relating to

unsworn falsification to authorities.

Date: \''d -to' OJ \1~QJD1 UQj~ Michael T. McKeever, Esquire PA 1. D. #56129

#91461FC THOMAS DONALD SISCO 8 Monte Carlo Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15239

EXHIBIT

i 20 ME/-OC! -003150

8. Plaintiff is not seeking a judgment of personal liability (or an "in personam" judgment) against the Defendants in this Action but reserves its right to bring a separate Action to establish that right, if such right exists. If Defendants have received a discharge oftheir personal liability in a Bankruptcy proceeding, this Action of Mortgage Foreclosure is, in no way, an attempt to re-establish the personal liability that was discharged in Bankruptcy, but only to foreclose the Mortgage and sell the Property pursuant to Pennsylvania law.

9. Notice ofIntention to Foreclose and a Notice of Homeowners' Emergency Mortgage Assistance has been sent to Defendants by certified and regular mail, as required by Act 160 of 1998 of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on the date(s) set forth in the true and correct copy of such notice(s) attached hereto as Exhibit "B". The Defendants have not had the required face-to-face meeting within the required time and Plaintiff has no knowledge of any such meeting being requested by the Defendants through the Plaintiff, the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, or any appropriate Consumer Credit Counseling Agency.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a de terris judgment in mortgage foreclosure in the sum of$170,330.38, together with interest at the rate of $47.00, per day and other expenses, costs and charges incurred by the Plaintiff which are properly chargeable in accordance with the terms of the Mortgage and Pennsylvania law until the Mortgage is paid in full, and for the foreclosure of the Mortgage and Sheriffs Sale of the Property.

By:~d 1· MC/~l~ GOLDBECK McCAFFERTY & McKEEVER By: MICHAEL T. McKEEVER, ESQUIRE

ATTORNEY FOR PLAfNTIFF

EXHIBIT i I 2\ Mq-OQ- 003114

liability that was discharged in Bankruptcy, but only to foreclose the Mortgage and sell the Property pursuant to Pennsylvania law.

9. Notice ofIntention to Foreclose and a Notice of Homeowners' Emergency Mortgage Assistance has been sent to Defendants by certified and regular mail, as required by Act 160 of 1998 of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on the date(s) set forth in the true and correct copy of such notice(s) attached hereto as Exhibit "B". The Defendants have not had the required face-to-face meeting within the required time and Plaintiff has no knowledge of any such meeting being requested by the Defendants through the Plaintiff, the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, or any appropriate Consumer Credit Counseling Agency.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a de terris judgment in mortgage foreclosure in the sum of$106,814.63, together with interest at the rate of$15.09, per day and other expenses, costs and charges incurred by the Plaintiff which are properly chargeable in accordance with the tenus of the Mortgage and Pennsylvania law until the Mortgage is paid in full, and for the foreclosure of the Mortgage and Sheriff's Sale of the Property.

By: GOLDB~~~@}F~EJryW.~~ By: MICHAEL T. MCKEEVER, ESQUIRE

A ITORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

EXHIBIT

22 i -a -----::-M -0£1-005204




CITIMORTGAGE, INC. S/B/M ABN AMRO MORTGAGE GROUP, INC.

Vs.

JAMES M. BOYLE JR. DIANE J. SCHMIDT

No. MG-09-003204

ALLEGHENY COUNTY VERIFICATION OF NON-MILITARY SERVICE



(b) that defendant JAMES M. BOYLE JR. is over 18 years of age, and resides at 3105 Deerwood Drive, Allison Park, PA 15101.

(c) that defendant, DIANE J. SCHMIDT is over 18 years of age, and resides at 3105 Deerwood Drive, Allison Park, PA 1 5101.

This statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

February 3, 2010

Swom to and SUbsclibed

Before me this ~ day

of ,2010 --""'='~----7"'---

BY: TINAMARIEfx1Cht +h


NOTARIAL SEAL BARBARA L. HAND, Notary Public City of Philadelphia, Phila. County

My Commission Expire~ June 1~010

EXHIBIT

I Z3 1Yt6t-OQ-0032.04-

GOLDBECK McCAFFERTY & McKEEVER BY: Michae1 T. McKeever, Esquire Attorney ID.#56 129 Suite 5000 - Mellon Independence Center 701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 215-627-1322 Attorney for Plaintiff

CITIMORTGAGE, INC. SIBIM ABN AMRO MORTGAGE GROUP, INC., 1000 Technology Drive O'Fallon, MO, 63304

vs. Plaintiff

JAMES M. BOYLE JR. and DIANE J. SCHMIDT Mortgagor(s) and Record Owner(s) 3105 Deerwood Drive Allison Park, PA 15101

AFFIDAVIT

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

OF Allegheny COUNTY

No. MG-09-003204

CITIMORTGAGE, INC. SIBIM ABNAMRO MORTGAGE GROUP, INC., by its specially appointed counsel, Michael T. McKeever, represents as follows;

I. I am the attorney for and representative of Plaintiff. I am authorized to make and do make

this affidavit on behalf of Plaintiff; and that the facts set are true and correct to the best of my

knowledge, infonnation and belief.

2. I collected $0.00 towards my client's debt.

EXHIBIT

I 24 Mq- Oq -003204-

BY: Michael T. McKeever Attorney 1.0.#56129 Suite 5000 - Mellon Independence Center 701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA ]9106 215-825~6320 Attorney for Plaintiff

ClTlMORTGAGE, ]NC. 1000 Technology Drive O'Fallon, MO 63368

vs.

EOW ARD M. TURNER JR. Mortgagor(s) and Record Owner(s)

)0110 Pearl Road Pittsburgh, PA 15235

Defendant( s)

Plaintiff

GOLDBECK McCAFFERTY & McKEEVER


of Allegheny County

CNIL ACTION ~ LAw

ACTION OF MORTGAGE FoREcLOSURE

Tenn No. MG-IO-000405

AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO RULE 3129

ClTlMORTGAGE, ]NC., Plaintiff in the above action, by its attorney, Michael T. McKeever, Esquire, sets forth as of the date the praecipe for the writ of execution was filed the following infonnation concerning the real property iocated at:

10110 Pearl Road Pittsburgh, PA 15235

l.Name and address ofOwner(s) or Reputed Owner(s):

EOW ARD M. TURNER JR. 10110 Pearl Road Pittsburgh, PA 15235

2. Name and address of Defendant(s) in the judgment: ~_1111!!1~~~_""

EXHIBIT EOW ARD M. TURNER JR. 10110 Pearl Road Pittsburgh, PA 15235 2.5

M -/0 - 000405

3. Name and last known address of every judgment creditor whose judgment is a record lien on the prOperty to be sold:

PA OEPART11ENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE - Bureau of Child Support Enforcement

Health and Welfare Bldg. - Room 432 Harrisburg, PA 17105-2675

DOMEsnc RELA nONS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY 440 Ross Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219

4. Name and address of the last recorded holder of every mortgage of record:

5. Name and address of every other person who has any record interest in or record lien on the property and whose interest may be affected by the sale:

6. Name and address of every other person of whom the plaintiff has knowledge who has any record interest in the property which may be affected by the sale.

7. Name and address of every other person of whom the plaintiff has knowledge who has any interest in the property which may be affected by the sale.

TENANTS/OCCUPANTS 10110 Pear] Road Pittsburgh, PA 15235

(attach separate sheet if more space is needed)

I ' I I I

I verify that the statements made in this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my personal I

knowledge or in~onnation and. belief. I understan~ that. false statem~~ts herein are made subject to the penalties of I 18 Pa. C.S. SectIon 4904 relatmg to unsworn falSification to authontles. ; ,

DATED: June 15,2010


me this ~Qj~ __

GOLDBECK McCAFFERTY & McKEEVER BY: ERIC KEENAN Legal Secretary

b TH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NOTARIAl. SEAL ANTONIETTE M. SLACK. Notary Public

City of Philadelphia. Phlla. County My Commission Expires June 27. 2010

i

!

I

BY: Michael T. McKeever Attorney I.D.#56129 Suite 5000 - Mellon Independence Center 701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 215-825-6320 Attorney for Plaintiff

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTlFICATEHOLDERS OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2006-0PT5, ASSETBACKED CERTlFICA TES, SERIES 2006-OPT5 4650 Regent Blvd Irving, TX 75063

KARILEMP MICHAEL LEMP

vs.

Mortgagor(s) and Record Owner(s)

3735 Oakton Road Pittsburgh, PA 15227

Defendant(s)

Plaintiff



of Allegheny CountY

CNILACTION -LAW

ACTION OF MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE

Tenn No. MG-1O-000406

SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDA VIT PURSUANT TO RUl.E 3129

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTlFICATEHOLDERS OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2006-0PT5, ASSET-BACKED CERTlFICA TES, SERIES 2006-0PT5, Plaintiff in the above action, by its attorney, Michael T. McKeever, Esquire, sets forth as of the date the praecipe for the writ of execution was filed the following infonnation concerning the real property located at:

3735 Oakton Road Pittsburgh, PA 15227


KARILEMP 3735 Oakton Road Pittsburgh, PA 15227

MICHAEL LEMP 3735 Oakton Road Pittsburgh, PA 15227

EXHIBIT

i 26 Mq-IO 000406

2. Name and address ofDefendant(s) in the judgment:

KARlLEMP 3735 Oakton Road Pittsburgh, PA 15227

MICHAEL LEMP 3735 Oakton Road Pittsburgh, PA 15227

3. Name and last known address of every judgment creditor whose judgment is a record lien on the property to be sold:

DOMESTIC RELATIONS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY 440 Ross Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219

PA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE - Bureau of Child Support Enforcement Health and Welfare Bldg. - Room 432 ' P.O. Box 2675 Harrisburg, PA 17105-2675

MICHAEL LEMP 3735 OAKTON ROAD PITTSBURGH, PA 15227-3573





TENANTS/OCCUP ANTS 3735 Oakton Road Pittsburgh, PA ] 5227


I verify that the statements made in this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my personal

knowledge or infonnation and belief. I understand that fa1se statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

DATED: August 23,2010


Before me this ~ 3 day

Of~,2010

Notary Public

GOLDBEC . McCAFFERTY & McKEEVER BY: ERIC KEENAN Legal Secretary

· '

BY: Michael T. McKeever Attorney 1.D.#56129 Suite 5000 - Mellon Independence Center 701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 215-825-6320 Attorney for Plaintiff

BAC HOl\1E LOANS SERVICING, LP FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOl\1E LOANS SERVICING LP 7105 Corporate Drive PTXC-35 Plano, TX 75024

vs.

TRUDYHITE Mortgagor(s) and Record Owner(s)

1928 Rhine Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212

Defendant(s)

Plaintiff



of Allegheny County

CIVIL ACTION - LAW

ACTION OF MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE

Tenn No. MG-IO-001409

AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO RULE 3129

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP, Plaintiff in the above action, by its attorney, Michael T. McKeever, Esquire, sets forth as ofthe date the praecipe . for the writ of execution was filed the following infonnation concerning the real property located at: .

1928 Rhine Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212


TRUDYHlTE 311 Faber Street Pittsburgh, P A 15214

2. Name and address of Defendant(s) in the judgment:

TRUDYHlTE 311 Faber Street Pittsburgh, P A 15214

~----~ EXHIBIT

I 21 M~-IO - 00 140q

3. Name and last known address of every judgment creditor whose judgment is a record lien on the property to be sold:

· . . ..

PA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE - Bureau of Child Support Enforcement Health and Welfare Bldg. - Room 432 P.O. Box 2615 Harrisburg, PA 11105-2615

DOMESTIC RELATIONS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY 440 Ross Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219





TENANTS/OCCUP ANTS 1928 Rhine Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212


I verify that the statements made in this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge or information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.s. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

DATED: September 14,2010


GOLDBECK McCAFFERTY & McKEEVER BY: ERIC KEENAN Legal Secretary

Before me this 15 day

of Je~r: 2010 ,....!COM~M!2!:!!!~~~~~~

~Ik~ Notary Public

VERIFICATION

I, Patrick J. Loughren, hereby verify that the avennents contained in the foregoing

Complaint in Equity are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, infonnation and belief.

I understand that the statements and avennents herein made are subject to the penalties of

18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

~~ Date

loughren v lion et al complaint in equity

Documents