REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY

Posted on January 16, 2011 by Neil Garfield

FROM BRIAN DAVIES

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY

Gary Hare, ESQ. (Bar No. #86398)
Global Capital Law, PC 17111 Beach Blvd., Suite
#100 Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Phone: (714) 907-4182
Fax: (714) 807-4175
Email: ghcmecf@gmail.com

Attorney for Debtor and Plaintiff,
Brian W Davies

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re:
BRIAN W DAVIES,
Debtor.
_______________________________
BRIAN W DAVIES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE OF THE RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECUITIZATION TRUST 2007-A5, MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH SERIES 2007-E, UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED MARCH 1, 2007, ITS ASSIGNS AND/OR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST; and all persons claiming by, through, or under such persons, all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to plaintiff’s title thereto; and DOES 1-150, Inclusive;
Defendant. )
Chapter 7

Bankruptcy Case No. 6:10-bk-37900-TD

Adv. Proceeding No. 6:11-ap-01001-TD

DEBTOR’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS FOR DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE, OF THE RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST 2007-A5, MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH SERIES 2007-E, UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED MARCH 1, 2007

Date:
Time:
Dept: ROOM 225 RIVERSIDE
Judge: HON. THOMAS B. DONOVAN

DEBTOR’S REQUEST FOR REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED UPON DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46891451/Adversary-RFA-1-14-11-Davies-With-Exhibits-1-3-FINAL

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud |

« »

15 Responses

  1. WileyC, on April 22, 2018 at 12:48 am said:

    Scribd has deleted the document. Wonder why?

  2. John Porterfield, on July 20, 2011 at 5:31 am said:

    You should know that DBNTC started its life as Banker’s Trust of Ca. In the mid nineties they sold some investments to P&G retirement fund. They were – you guessed it – mortgage back securities and they were crap. P&G sued and in discovery got their hands on a tape recording of some brokers joking about how bad the securities really were and the US attorney brought criminal charges. Banker’s plead guilty to three felony counts and the officers and employees all headed to the doors. Deutsche Bank AG bought Bankers for pennies and let it sit for a while, then changed the name to DBNTC.

    It was formed as a national banking association under title 12 USC. It’s charter requires that it have 5 board members and that each member be a stock holder. Copies of the charter are available from the comptroller of the currency. Since there is only one stock holder – Deutsche Bank AG – the board has not operated legally in years. It’s offices are near Los Angeles in an office building that is leased by Deutsche Bank AG – it is a total sham, simply a shell corporation to allow Deutsche Bank to trade in securities

  3. Jeff, on February 20, 2011 at 5:34 pm said:

    Brian, what did your compliant look like in the BK?

  4. brian davies, on January 17, 2011 at 2:17 pm said:

    PAUL NGUYEN IS THE BEST, HE IS THE PARTNER I WORK WITH.

  5. kickboxer, on January 16, 2011 at 10:11 pm said:

    Brian, I wish I had your attorney. My BK attorney does not want to do anything to help me save my house.

    At the creditors hearing, the bank did not show up. They also haven’t filed a motion to lift the stay. Is this normal? I thought standard procedure for them was to try and get the stay lifted. They still have time to file their claim but I think they are going to come after us once we are discharged. Any advice?

  6. zurenarrh, on January 16, 2011 at 8:40 pm said:

    My requests for admission were answered so absurdly that it’s difficult for me to even point out to the Court how absurd the answers are in a brief motion to deem sufficiency.

    For example, I have five defendants–all were given the opportunity to deny being the holder of the note. They all denied NOT being the holder of the note, which means that they all hold the note, which is of course impossible.

    Similarly, I gave them all the opportunity to deny having any claim to the title of the subject property. They all denied NOT having a claim to the title, meaning they all DO have a claim to the title, which again is impossible.

    If you ask me, Requests for Admission are kind of a waste of time. The only decent thing I got them to admit is that MERS has no employees. But that’s no big secret, especially since Hultman said that in sworn testimony.

  7. Deb wynn, on January 16, 2011 at 8:22 pm said:

    Simonee that’s what they Very typical. Same in my case working on response will share when ready early feb

  8. ANONYMOUS, on January 16, 2011 at 6:48 pm said:

    b davies

    Go for it — you are making headway!! Not always best to be in federal court — but agree BK court the best.

    Ian

    You are right again. And, Simonee is right. But, depends on temperament of the court. If they do not answer — need additional discovery and subpoena – and will court grant??. Maybe depends on which side of the bed the court woke up on.

  9. Jeff, on January 16, 2011 at 5:27 pm said:

    Yep, in CA, BK is the most favorable venue.

  10. Simonee, on January 16, 2011 at 2:18 pm said:

    Most likely they will respond with their standard, “Deutsche objects that this is interrogatory is vague and ambigous. Deutsche further objects that this request is harassing, and calls for irrelevnt information that is not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant information. Deutsche further objects that htis reques calls for information covered by the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges.” — they will fight you tooth and nail to NOT answer the simplest question. You know…like, “Identify when YOU were assigned the Deed of Trust” or ” identify the documents related to the subject loan that were transferred to you” … the slimy thieves will slime you so be careful.

  11. b davies, on January 16, 2011 at 1:07 pm said:

    IAN,

    THIS IS FEDERAL COURT.
    I HAVE ALREADY DONE A THIRD PARTY SUPOENA PRIOR TO THE ADVERSARY.
    THE STATE COURTS ARE A JOKE. THE FEDERAL COURT WILL MAKE THEM ANSWER. THAT IS WHY THE FEDERAL COURT IS THE BEST AND THE BEST OF THE BEST IS THE BK COURT. NO OTHER WAY TO GO. DONE BOTH, STATE COURTS ARE A JOKE.

  13. Neva, on January 16, 2011 at 12:51 pm said:

    Request for Admissions almost seems like an oxymoron. Deutsche will never admit anything until a judge tells them they have to. You go, Brian. http://www.challengingforeclosure.com Sirak@challengingforeclosure.com

  14. David Colley, on January 16, 2011 at 12:49 pm said:

    This looks very, very familiar, However, we are in Nevada. Are there concerns that are not represented here that will be dealt with differently in Nevada?

  15. ian, on January 16, 2011 at 12:29 pm said:

    brian davies’ request for admissions; can any attorney tell us what deutschebank will do with this request? If they answer it truthfully, they’re toast,as we all know what the answers are. So what happens in a case like this? How long can their lawfirm stall, without irritating the judge/trustee,and what are the legal timeframes for this type of action?

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: