Deutsch Bank Discovery and Expert Affidavit

Editor’s Comment: The rules concerning qualifying an “expert” to testify have been liberalized to the extent that nearly anyone claiming superior knowledge can be qualified. But Judges are impressed with credentials AND a powerful performance on paper, in live testimony, with the ability to defend against cross examination. Lane Houk here is the expert and has done a really good job for what he was aiming for. But I would caution people who want to present themselves as experts and those who would use such people and pay them a lot of money: the goal is to have the Judge believe the expert. The expert’s conclusions must resonate with the Judge. The acceptance of the testimony is based upon rapport established in court, credibility apart from credentials, and a good application of facts to justify the opinion. I think Houk did that pretty well here. This isn’t a poke at him. But I know from personal experience having been an expert witness since the 1970’s that there are about a hundred ways to discredit an expert even if they are right. So make sure you use someone who has experience on the witness stand.

MUST READ! *cross-posting*

Deposition of Expert Witness in a Securitized Trust/Trustee Foreclosure Case: Deutsche Bank v. Dennis

http://thepatriotswar.com/?p=15768

DEPOSITION:

http://thepatriotswar.com/wp-content/uploads/Deposition_Lane-Houk_Expert-Witness_Deutsche-Bank-v-Dennis.pdf

EXPERT AFFIDAVIT & EXHIBITS:

http://thepatriotswar.com/wp-content/uploads/Executed-Affidavit-and-Exhibits.pdf

AFFIDAVIT OF EXPERT OPINION:

http://thepatriotswar.com/wp-content/uploads/Affidavit-of-Expert-Opinion-Live-Sample.pdf

12 Responses

  1. Here is his number:
    If you would like more information on this, please feel free to contact me at 800-985-4685.

  2. I just read Lane Houk’s affidavit and he blew me away!! My situation is very similar, and my attorneys may be screwing up the case.

    Does anyone know an estimate for what Mr. Houk would charge to prepare an affidavit like that and potentially be available to testify?

    Are there more experts like him available? I’m in Illinois.

    Id Neil’s “combo” deal similar to what Mr. Houk prepared? Would Neil be available over the phone to testify if needed?

    Any feedback is appreciated.

  3. The fruad is happening to one expert as we discuss this matter herein. If interested I can send anyone requesting the information teh details of the case. GMAC seek an assignment for assets paid as of the date the foreclosure action is filed.

    Examples:
    Blank assignements – Per diem interest – Blank Endorsements – Inconcsequential Commitments
    – Altered Documents [verieifed in tacking systems] –
    Tender of the note – Foreclosure under a reverse repo
    (Subrogation claims) brought by DOT under the FDIC (over five hours of conference calls).

    expert.witness@live.com

    Guys, doing a great job…Brad Call me!

  4. Expert must rely on his five senses to demonstrate to the court its hands on experience related to the fraud.

    expert.witness@live.com

  5. THE LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY THAT IS SIGNED WITH DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE WITH THE SERVICER TO UNDERTAKE CERTAIN ACTS. THIS IS IN BK WHEREBY THE SERVICER IS NOT THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST FOR MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/32288921/LIMITED-POWER-OF-ATTORNEY-DEUTSCHE-BANK-AS-TRUSTEE-TRUST-TRANSFER-POWER-OF-ATTORNEY-ATTORNEY-IN-FACT-ALLOWS-SUBSTITUTION-OF-TRUSTEES-AS-ATTORNEY-IN-FACT-FOR-DEUTSCHE-BANK-NATIONAL-TRUST-COMPANY-AS-TRUSTEE-OF-ANY-GIVEN-TRUST

  6. Well, even though expert witness rules are relaxed, the rules on admissibility and use of expert testimony are not. For this reason, it is hard to see the appropriateness of “expert testimony” in many, if not most, foreclosure defense cases.

    For instance, a Virginia court opined that “Qualification of an expert witness does not insure admission of his every statement and opinion.”

    “Expert testimony is allowed [only] where it “will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. An expert’s opinion may be based on “facts, circumstances or data made known to or perceived by such witness.” An expert opinion, however, must have an adequate factual foundation, and an expert’s testimony will be found to be inadmissible if it is speculative in nature. John v. Im, 263 Va. 315, 319-20, 559 S.E.2d 694, 696 (2002); Tarmac Mid-Atl., 250 Va. at 166, 458 S.E.2d at 465-66. It is the trial court’s responsibility “`to ensure that only properly admitted evidence is considered by the jury.'” Casale, 250 Va. at 367, 463 S.E.2d at 450 (quoting Tyger Constr. Co. v. Pensacola Constr. Co., 29 F.3d 137, 143 (4th Cir.1994)).

    “Expert testimony founded upon assumptions that have no basis in fact is not merely subject to refutation by cross-examination or by counter-experts; it is inadmissible. Failure of the trial court to strike such testimony upon a motion timely made is error subject to reversal on appeal.” Vasquez v. Mabini, 269 Va. 155, 160, 606 S.E.2d 809, 811 (2005) (citations omitted).

    Generally, it is Law 101 that an expert is not allowed to give opinion on the ultimate issue of fact. Thus, in most cases, an expert will not be allowed to testify to things like: “in my opinion, the bank here does not own the note” or “in my opinion, the signatory for the bank here is a robo-signer”, etc.

  7. Hehe, here is the latest masterpiece of Judge Schack on robo-signing:

    http://bryllaw.blogspot.com/2010/11/judge-schacks-latest-masterpiece-on.html

  8. Here is a good published case opinion by Judge Posner out the Seventh Circuit explaining securitization in layman’s terms. It should be noted that Posner is a preeminent judge in the area of economic jurisprudence, so this opinion should a pretty good predictor of how courts will view securitiztion issues and servicers’ roles.

    http://bryllaw.blogspot.com/2010/11/judge-posner-explains-securitization-in.html

  9. H.R.3808
    Title: Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010
    Sponsor: Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] (introduced 10/14/2009) Cosponsors (3)
    Latest Major Action: 11/17/2010 Failed of passage in House over veto. Status: On passage, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 185 – 235 (Roll no. 573).

  10. Good one kickboxer

  11. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6AnHt0TIeU&fs=1&hl=en_US]

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: