Supporting, Informing & Connecting People in Foreclosure

Open letter to the SEC about 'missing' assets of Deutsche Bank

Below is my letter to the SEC about the missing assets of Deutsche Bank and the probable falsification of financial information to stockholders (edited only for privacy of names)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 11, 2010

Re: Deutsche Bank and Trust Company Americas
CIK# 0001173854

Securities and Exchange Commission - Division of Enforcement
100 F Street NE
Washington, DC 20549-0000

Dear SEC:

Regarding Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, herein after referred to as ‘Deutsche Bank’ I have great concerns that I believe must be investigated by the SEC. In researching the foreclosure records of Charlotte County Florida in the year, 2008, I discovered Deutsche Bank had a total of forty-five (45) foreclosure lawsuits where they were listed as the Plaintiff. Below is a brief list of these lawsuits:
Last Lawsuit Purported reason required
Case # Name Amount documents missing
1 08-006-CA Hxxx $164,000.00 Lost
2 08-093-CA Dxxxxxx $192,500.00 Lost or destroyed
3 08-133-CA Hxxxxxxx $151,200.00 Lost, destroyed or stolen
4 08-143-CA Exxxxxx $120,600.00 Lost or destroyed
5 08-252-CA Gxxxxx $146,150.00 Lost or destroyed
6 08-253-CA Cxxxxxxx $145,900.00 Lost or destroyed
7 08-311-CA Pxxxxxx $148,320.00 Lost
8 08-428-CA Fxxxxxxx $616,000.00 Lost or destroyed
9 08-464-CA Lxxxxxxx $192,000.00 Lost, destroyed or stolen
10 08-474-CA Fxxxx $215,000.00 Lost
11 08-499-CA Lxxxxxxx $144,000.00 Lost
12 08-530-CA Gxxxxxxx $170,000.00 Lost
13 08-677-CA Sxxxxxx [$106,600.00] POSSIBLY POSSESS (Not in totals)
14 08-792-CA Cxxxxxxxx $126,800.00 Lost or destroyed
15 08-871-CA Hxxxx $456,000.00 Lost, destroyed or stolen
16 08-960-CA Mxxxxxx $361,250.00 Lost
17 08-988-CA Bxxxxxxx $385,600.00 Lost, destroyed or stolen
18 08-1032-CA Jxxxxxx $260,000.00 Lost
19 08-1067-CA Vxxx $428,800.00 Lost or destroyed
20 08-1070-CA Cxxxxxx $526,500.00 Lost or destroyed
21 08-1071-CA Fxxxxxxxxx $293,580.00 Lost
22 08-1198-CA Txxxxxx $157,520.00 Lost or destroyed
23 08-1632-CA Pxxxx $144,000.00 Lost, destroyed or stolen
24 08-1674-CA Fxxxxxxx $448,000.00 Lost, destroyed or stolen
25 08-1981-CA Kxxx $164,800.00 Lost or destroyed
26 08-2187-CA Oxxxxxxxxxx $223,250.00 Lost, destroyed or stolen
27 08-2336-CA Hxxxxx $166,000.00 Lost, destroyed or stolen
28 08-2400-CA Txxxxx $214,700.00 Lost or destroyed
29 08-2406-CA Lxxxxxx $208,200.00 Lost, destroyed or stolen
30 08-2465-CA Txxxxxxx $ 92,250.00 Lost or destroyed
31 08-2751-CA Bxxxxxx $511,200.00 Lost or destroyed
32 08-2839-CA Sxxxxxx $405,600.00 Lost, destroyed or stolen
33 08-2865-CA Dxxxxxx $120,000.00 Lost, destroyed or stolen
34 08-2875-CA Exxxx $142,500.00 Lost, destroyed or stolen
35 08-3030-CA Nxxxxx $148,500.00 Lost, destroyed or stolen
36 08-3085-CA Cxxxxxxx $237,000.00 Lost or destroyed
37 08-3514-CA Rxxxxxx $ 87,000.00 Lost or destroyed
38 08-4352-CA Gxxxx $138,600.00 Lost, destroyed or stolen
39 08-4428-CA Sxxxxxx $440,000.00 Lost or destroyed
40 08-5149-CA Dxxxxxxx $195,000.00 Lost, destroyed or stolen
41 08-5418-CA Mxxxxxx $188,500.00 Lost, destroyed or stolen
42 08-5520-CA Mxxxx $120,000.00 Lost, destroyed or stolen
43 08-6268-CA Hxxxxxxx $151,200.00 Lost, destroyed or stolen
44 08-6470-CA Rxxxxxxxx $195,600.00 Lost or destroyed
45 08-6987-CA Lxxx $135,000.00 Lost, destroyed or stolen
Total $10,278,620.00 for forty-four (44) of the forty-five (45) loans

According to Florida Law, all banks are required according to FS § 90.952 and FS § 90.953 to produce the original mortgage and original note to prove they have a case-in-fact and to start a lawsuit. Deutsche Bank stated eight (8) were lost, sixteen (16) state lost or destroyed, and twenty (20) state lost, destroyed or stolen. One (1) is not clear in the complaint wording, but to error on the side that theymight have it in their possession, I will give them credit even though that is not clear. Having forty-four (44) foreclosures out of forty-five (45) for certain missing the required legal documents to foreclose, which are assets to this bank, and considering Deutsche Bank is a financial company that should maintain these documents, appears to be tremendously irresponsible. Even worse is the inability in thirty-six (36) out of forty-four (44) cases, to narrow down whyDeutsche Bank is not in possession of the original mortgage and original note to just one reason. Are these losses, destruction’s and potential stolen assets as alleged by Deutsche Bank being reported to the appropriate insurance company and/or police departments for investigation? Have they had that many break-ins to their vault that are not being reported? From all researching I amable to do on my own, I cannot find one report in Charlotte County Records regarding these losses, possible thefts, or destruction’s of this banks important assets. In this small sampling of forty-five claims, totaling over ten million dollars, Deutsche Bank is so irresponsible it raises great concerns about the bigger picture of the entire banks assets and how correctly these assets are being reported in official filings and how well Deutsche Bank is keeping track of such assets. The owners and stock holders of Deutsche Bank have a right to know the true and correct financial condition of a company in which they invested money.

Even more strange, ALL complaints by Deutsche Bank that were filed through the Florida Default Law Group PL, LawOffices of Marshall C. Watson PA, and Albertelli Law list the reason they did not file the purported original note and mortgage was “lost or destroyed”. In addition to that, ALL complaints by Deutsche Bank that were filed through the Law Offices of David J. Stern PA list the reason they did not file the purported original note and mortgage was “lost, destroyed or stolen”. Eight of the first thirteen complaints by Deutsche Bank that were filed through Shapiro & Fishman LLP list the reason they did not file the purported original note and mortgage was “lost”, then for the last five, they switched to “lost, destroyed, or stolen”. Deutsche Bank, if they are the true owners and holders of these notes and mortgages as they claim they are, should be giving the details of why they are not in possession of the required documents, but as these complaints are filed, it appears that each law office is ‘determining’ why Deutsche Bank is not giving them the required documents, which would be very inappropriate

For the purposes of this complaint, I will not address the legal issue I have regarding Deutsche Bank stating they are the owners and holders of these mortgages, as I do not believe they are the legal and proper owners of most, if any of these mortgages that have these foreclosure complaints filed. This specific issue is a matter for the court system to address and hopefully handle. But, I am concerned about the stated financial position of Deutsche Bank and it’s allegations that it owns and holds these purported mortgages and notes, yet it can only possibly keep track of one mortgage and note (again these are assets to Deutsche Bank) that it purports to be the rightful owner! It becomes quite apparent based on these statistics that either Deutsche Bank is lying to the court system, lying on it’s financial reports and not fully disclosing how incompetent and malfeasant they are in their record keeping regarding their assets, or both. As a regulatory agency, this should be looked into, and the accounting firm of KPMG that audits Deutsche Bank’s records should also be seriously investigated, as it is not difficult to find how frequently Deutsche Bank makes statements that they can not keep track of their assets. Any quick search of the Internet provides ample examples of these losses. This lack of responsibility should be seen by KPMG and reported to stockholders so they know how inefficient Deutsche Bank is, and the risk to their investment dollars in such a company.

Sincerely,

Tags: bank, deutsche, fraud, sec

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Monte on March 2, 2010 at 5:43pm

The sad part is that 80% of the defendants will not fight for their home and Deutsche Bank wins.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Incognito123 on March 3, 2010 at 1:19pm

Very true, and more like 95-97% and VERY sad since virtually ALL foreclosure lawsuits do NOT have the legal grounds to file, as evidenced even by this letter. Although the focus of this letter to the SEC is about missing 'assets' but those 'missing assets' also means the law firms do NOT have the valid grounds to file foreclosure complaints.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Muckle on March 5, 2010 at 7:44pm

I agree with you 100%

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Glenn Augenstein on March 21, 2010 at 11:26am

DBNT, et. al., are pleading poorly, and often times falsely, and such seems to be SOP and systemic. Without question there are deep problems and issues.

But losing, or having stolen, an instrument is only part of the story and doesn't in and of itself preclude a party for enforcing a lost or stolen instrument.

I think it important, however, to direct attention to the UCC. Article 3-309 addresses lost, destroyed, or stolen instruments, and in essence provides methods and means whereby a party with status of holder in due course (with rights to enforce) can prove up its claim.

3-309(2) is rather interesting: "The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means."

Another interesting section of the UCC is 3-604, which states in relevant part at 3-604(1): "(1) A person entitled to enforce an instrument, with or without consideration, may discharge the obligation of a party to pay the instrument:
(a) By an intentional voluntary act, such as surrender of the instrument to the party, destruction, mutilation, or cancellation of the instrument, cancellation or striking out of the party's signature, or the addition of words to the instrument indicating discharge; or..."

A voluntary act of destruction discharges the obligation. If an instrument has been scanned, a digital copy created, and conveyance from one party to another is accomplished by and through the electronic means, AND the original hard copy has been voluntarily and intentionally destroyed...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Incognito123 on March 21, 2010 at 11:59pm

Understand UCC is CODE (BANKERS CODE AT THAT!!!) not LAW, but interesting point none-the-less. In a sense though, in a round about way, this goes with law as well. Basically, once the document is altered, it is no longer valid and is no longer the original document. Interesting your subsection (a) "addition of words to the instrument indicating discharge" makes me immediately think of the alterations often done to these where it indicates "Pay to the order of Bank XYZ" where Bank XYZ is the bank trying to foreclose (unless more than one, in which case it would be the last endorsement - pay to the order of such & such bank)
Goes to what many of us keep saying, it has been discharged already - so they are trying to collect again, which goes to something I keep trying to explain to everyone that does not understand, FORECLOSURES are WAY MORE LUCRATIVE than loan modification agreements! THAT is why they often do not work with you and/or have HORRIBLE loan modification terms that are VERY ONE SIDED and all the benefits are geared to the bank NOT the person signing the agreement. And by the way, like mortgages and notes, where is the bank signatures on the documents. Ever notice that they are missing!!! Ever wonder why? Because then that bank official could be held accountable for the fraud involved in the mortgage and note in the first place! Interesting, huh?!?!?!?!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Glenn Augenstein on March 22, 2010 at 10:50am

In my state, as in most others, the UCC has been adopted near verbatim and has been incorporated into the statutes.

The "produce the note" strategy popularized by Hoyer's law firm is based on UCC 3-501(2)(b) "Presentment."

You seem to be implying that endorsement of a negotiable instrument - in the case of foreclosure a promissory note - alters the instrument to the point of it becoming unenforceable, or that endorsement discharges the obligation. Can you explain how you come to that conclusion? Do you have case law in support of that conclusion?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Incognito123 on March 22, 2010 at 11:40am

Florida Statues REQUIRE (not sure about all other state, but would imagine they also require) ORIGINALS, and when alterations have occurred, it is just that, an altered document and not the original. Yes, I agree UCC Banker Codes have often been adopted into most if not all states STATUTES, but that is NOT law, it is STATUTES. Also, before things started changing and how mortgages and notes were handled, where and when were they ever negotiable instruments? I am assuming you are quite aware of the process of them (bankers) claiming they are destroyed almost immediately upon receipt from the 'borrower'? But in keeping with them being negotiable instruments and statutes, in Florida anyway,
673.6041 Discharge by cancellation or renunciation.--
(1) A person entitled to enforce an instrument, with or without consideration, may discharge the obligation of a party to pay the instrument:
(a) By an intentional voluntary act, such as:
1. Surrender of the instrument to the party;
2. Destruction, mutilation, or cancellation of the instrument;
3. Cancellation or striking out of the party's signature; or
4. Addition of words to the instrument indicating discharge; or
(b) By agreeing not to sue or otherwise renouncing rights against the party by a signed writing.
(2) Cancellation or striking out of an indorsement pursuant to subsection (1) does not affect the status and rights of a party derived from the indorsement.
By nature, and the way they are done these days, mortgages (notes actually since they are the proof of debt and 'one sided contract') are fraud. Plain and simple by us having a fiat money system. Also, let me point out: RENUNCIATION. The act of giving up a right. By the banks committing fraud, they have given up the right to foreclose. Of course they go around that in 99% of cases, but BY LAW, they have given up that right.
2. It is a rule of law that any one may renounce a right which the law has established in his favor. To this maxim there are many limitations. A party may always renounce an acquired right; as, for example, to take lands by descent; but one cannot always give up a future right, before it has accrued, nor to the benefit conferred by law, although such advantage may be introduced only for the benefit of individuals.
3. For example, the power of making a will; the right of annulling a future contract, on the ground of fraud; and the right of pleading the act of limitations, cannot be renounced. The first, because the party must be left free to make a will or not; and the latter two, because the right has not yet accrued.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Incognito123 on March 22, 2010 at 12:06pm

As a follow-up to this comment, check out my recent blog from the site Foreclosure Defense Nationwide - http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/profiles/blogs/mers-scandal-expose...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Glenn Augenstein on March 22, 2010 at 1:19pm

Blacks has this to say about statute:

statute, n. An act of the legislature; a particular law enacted and established by the will of the legislative department of government, expressed with the requisite formalities (emphasis added)

The section of Florida statutes you've cited, 673.6041, is obviously Floridas incorporation of the UCC into statute. It is identical to UCC 3-604.

A promissory note being defined as a negotiable instrument is covered in UCC 3-104(5). I don't know where it is found in Florida statutes but my guess is 673.1045.

If your understandings and strategies are working and winning for you all I can say is "More power to you!" Though I can't imagine you will, or have, met with favor by any court arguing that statute and law are different, or that the UCC, or any states adoption of such, is not law.

I would still like to see case law in support of your positions.

I am fairly well acquainted with the fiat nature of our monetary system. The only case I have ever seen in which a borrower/defendant prevailed by using an argument of that nature is the Daily case. That was, I believe in 1969, and to my knowledge it hasn't been used successfully since then.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Incognito123 on March 23, 2010 at 12:18pm

An altered document, is just that - an altered document, and not the original. Once altered or copied, it is NOT a persons signature on it as it is not the same as it was when it was an original. Also, look up the legal definition of signature - with knowledge, understanding and acceptance. If there was no meeting of the minds, then it is also not a signature on a document. Were any of us told there was no money in this country when purportedly signing these documents? How about the securitization process? How about the convoluted assignment process? Safe to say in none of these cases is all this stuff disclosed, so in that case, how CAN it be a persons signature on the document? Actually, I am not fighting on the ground that there is no money in this country, however, that is a correct statement.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shawn Alexander on March 29, 2010 at 5:41am

Do you have the case # on this. Please email me more on the Daily case at invstigators@yahoo.com

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Glenn Augenstein on March 29, 2010 at 9:41am

A few simple google searches (or google scholar) will turn up plenty of info on that case.

Jerome Daly
Justice Martin V. Mahoney
Credit River Decision
First National Bank of Montgomery Minnesota
First National Bank of Montgomery Minnesota v. Jerome Daly

As I said I am not aware of one single instance of that argument, or any associated arguments, being used successfully since the Daily case. If you find case/s based on any of those arguments in which the proponent prevailed let us know.