Barry Fagan Launches Administrative Counter Attack

Editor’s Comment: Barry Fagan is pulling out the stops and challenging the CA AG to do her job. I am surprised that those who specialize in administrative law have not used the presumed findings of several Federal and State agencies as to a pattern of conduct that is fraudulent and which requires forgery to proffer in court and perjury to testify as to the foundation that would authenticate the invalid documents. Such administrative findings usually carry a presumption of validity.

Here Barry takes it one step further. He is using one specific case and the documents pertaining to only that case to raise the issues that clearly accuse Wells Fargo of criminal misconduct. Such conduct is the custom and practice of the entire foreclosure industry. Notice that I didn’t say the “mortgage industry,” because the foreclosure industry is predicated on getting a deed on foreclosure based upon a false credit bid from a party who neither funded nor purchased the loan.



Barry S Fagan
Malibu, California 90265

Complaint Against:
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
420 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, California 94104
As an Officer of the Court, I am under a continuing obligation to inform both the Court and Law Enforcement of Fraud and Perjury. As a result, I have retained Dr. Laurie Hoeltzel a forensic document examiner with over 20 years of forensic document analysis experience to confirm that three different versions of the same deed of trust exists for my primary residence and on May 11, 2012.
I recorded all three versions of the same deed of trust with the Los Angeles Registrar Recorders Office under instrument no. 2012-0711277.
Wells Fargo Bank has fraudulently altered Barry Fagan’s Deed of Trust and the attached expert opinion dated 1/12/2012 from Forensic Document Examiner Dr. Laurie Hoeltzel specifically explains that the handwritten page 4 has been altered on two separate versions of that original Deed of Trust. Dr. Laurie Hoeltzel makes the following findings of fact with respect to the LA Registrar Recorder’s ‘original office record’.
“Based upon my initial preliminary analysis of the above items, it appears more than one person authored the number 4 on all three documents, which purports to be the same document.” The recorded Notice of Pendency of Action shows three different versions of that same July 9, 2007 Deed of Trust as originally recorded under instrument no. 2007-1622100 and I have submitted credible evidence from a forensic document examiner with over 20 years of experience that multiple fraudulent alterations have occurred on the “Handwritten Number page 4” which is located on page 3/4 of the Deed of Trust.
All of the Deeds of Trust now reflect an entirely different handwritten NUMBER 4, and one of the exhibits also has a snake like line drawn on it, which is not present on the other two exhibits.
C.P.A. Shawn P. Adamo stated: “It is my professional opinion that the altered deed of trust is concealing an irrevocable assignment, and explains why Wells Fargo is unable to produce loan level accounting concerning Mr. Fagan’s loan. Wells Fargo claims that any level of detail relating to Mr. Fagan’s mortgage is non- existent. As a result, CPA Shawn Adamo provided two expert opinions, one an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury dated January 24, 2012 and the other is a Feb. 6, 2012 complaint letter addressed to various regulatory agencies. In those two expert opinions, C.P.A Shawn Adamo explains that Wells Fargo Bank has failed to provide a loan level balance sheet accounting and is concealing the fact that they do not own Barry Fagan’s loan.
Additionally, forensic document Expert Dr. Laurie Hoeltzel has declared under penalty of perjury on January 2, 2012 that Wells Fargo Bank is robo-signing Discovery Responses by using multiple authors of the name Rhonda Bernard Thomas.
Insofar as Wells Fargo Bank, NA is a loan servicer, it cannot enforce the note in its own right in that according to the information in the documents and the information available through discovery and expert opinions, the loan is owned by an undisclosed investor with which Wells Fargo has concealed and not established its relationship to.
Wells Fargo as the alleged servicer must, in addition to establishing the rights of the true holder, identify itself as an authorized agent for the INVESTOR.
If Wells Fargo Bank is compelled by law enforcement to comply with either of the obligations described above it will subject them (Wells Fargo) to a finding of perjury!
Wells Fargo is a criminal enterprise that is attempting to exercise rights over my primary residence by way of fraudulently altered documents, robo-signed discovery responses, no loan level accounting and Barry Fagan’s loan file needs to be investigated at the highest level within your organization to see that a crime has actually occurred!
The law offices of Kutak Rock LLP located in Irvine, California needs to have Barry Fagan’s Note and Deed of Trust subpoenaed so that the GRAND JURY can inspect those documents to see that they have indeed been fraudulently altered and photo-shopped.
/s/Barry Fagan
Barry Fagan Esq.
Approved by Governor September 25, 2012

SB 1474, Hancock. Grand jury proceedings: Attorney General: powers and duties.
Existing law authorizes the Attorney General to convene the grand jury to investigate and consider certain criminal matters. The Attorney General is authorized to take full charge
of the presentation of the matters to the grand jury, issue subpoenas, prepare indictments, and do all other things incident thereto to the same extent as the district attorney may do.

54 Responses

  1. I agree Patrick….They capitalized on the ORIGINATION FRAUD by quintillions…..Now they want to claim they were harmed….. This hidden method by these hidden crooks is allowing the FED & THEIR INVESTORS TO RE-CAPITALIZE on the ORIGINATION FRAUD …..That is not only criminally heinous, that is the method they are using to create complete communism. That RE-CAPITALIZATION also called RE-SOCIALISM IS REALLY ROBBERY OF OUR REMAINING WEALTH and that method of FASCISM…being used by the FED INVESTORS….. THAT FORCED REPAYMENT OF THE FED’S MASSIVE, UNSUSTAINABLE FRAUD DEBT IS a method called CONTROL FRAUD AKA…… TOTALITARIANISM ……

  2. Wells Fargo Bank has failed to provide loan level balance sheet accounting…..

    Thats because the loan liability was moved off balance sheet when the anticipated receivables were transferred (i.e. sold). The lender already realized the value of the instrument when it financed (i.e. factored) the scheduled payments. There are no more scheduled payments due and owing to the lender because it has already been made whole by a third party. A lender with no more repayment rights under an instrument can’t report the offsetting liability on its balance sheet ledger. No liability = no ownership. No instrument ownership = no lien rights.

    Don’t presume the note or instrument has retained value on the books as evidenced by an offsetting liability. Deny the stated value as a matter of course.

  3. Thank z…..we don’t need “fixers”…….we have all had enough of their brand of “hope & change”….it’s a giant deception to defraud all of US into a manufactured hell of their making.

  4. Cheryl,
    Don’t know good document examiner in MO, but make sure that BoA filed an affidavit/declaration along with this “ta-dah” note they just came up with. For a corporation, that is the only way that they can put a note into evidence. BoA tried to enter the same fake note into evidence twice with me, both times without authentication via affidavit/declaration. I pointed this out in a motion to strike, and the judge issued an order to show cause about why there was a new note and no authentication. In that order, he basically told them what he wanted to hear, which they did, and then he allowed the note.

    If you do what I did and they have suddenly come up with an endorsed note to replace the unendorsed note, they will try to excuse that failing by saying that they first relied on the “origination file” version and not the “collateral file” version of the note. They will then have someone–probably Sjolander or Meder–sign a declaration saying that having the two different versions was the standard practice of Countrywide in those days, yada yada. Just a heads up.
    For more info, contact me at


    You’re right–no offense to good attorneys, but most attorneys available to us little people only want to preserve the system and will make a deal to end the case with the least possible ruffling of the court’s feathers. Since their careers depend on it, they can’t afford to piss off the judges and opposing counsel because they will have to deal with those people for many years. Pro se is the way to go. And for those who say that judges don’t take pro se seriously, you’re already admitting that the courts are broken and corrupt, because the judges are supposed to be impartial whether you have an attorney or not. So given that the courts are corrupt and broken, all an attorney is going to be able to do is get you some crooked deal at great expense to you, both in attorney’s fees and in loss of your rights.

  5. The investors in these corps know how to play the game and win…..For them, there are many more aspects to investing than the initial investments. Those other aspects…that’s where the real money is made….CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP INSURANCE…..BUYBACKS…FRAUDCLOSURES….REFIS…LOAN MODS…ARE INVESTMENT OPTIONS….But you have to be in the big club to play and win…The game is always rigged in their favor….Those are the so called investors who the CFR….THE SEC….THE OCC…THE POLITICIANS, THE MEDIA, THE JUDICIARY & LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE PROTECTING….the members of the BILLIONAIRES CLUB….they are also the criminals who have robbed & hijacked the American peoples wealth…

  6. I am mostly talking about the bondholders & shareholders in this scam….The large institutional investors…..they aren’t unsophisticated ..not by a long shot. They are crooks too….To the rest of them who bought investments in nothing with those notes…… you are lucky you got what you did…..these crooks are ruthless…

  7. Carie….There are no investors because of the ORIGINATION FRAUD….You can’t own or sell investments in property you never held legal title to in the first place. Those investors never owned anything. Besides, they all made tons…& were insured on their “risk.” I don’t want to hear about them because IMHO…they are crooks too. Goddamned vultures….all of them…!

  8. from above:

    “…the loan is owned by an undisclosed investor with which Wells Fargo has concealed and not established its relationship to.
    Wells Fargo as the alleged servicer must, in addition to establishing the rights of the true holder, identify itself as an authorized agent for the INVESTOR…”

    from my servicer:

    “We fulfilled our obligations under the Truth In Lending Act to identify the investor who owns the loan by identifying the name of the trustee and the name of the securitization trust: The mortgage-backed security (MBS) is identified as (INDX XXXX-ARXX) and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company is the trustee…”

    But—that does NOT comply with the TILA Amendment and Federal Reserve Opinion —-specifically — Federal Reserve Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 60143 (November 20, 2009) – Final Rule at 75 Fed Reg. 58489 (September 24, 2010), definition as to creditor under the TILA, 15 U.S.C. sec. 1641, et seq.,

    REMICs are not the creditor, and neither is the trustee or security investors.

  9. They are a really sick bunch. My daughter told me a 21 yr old young man from our town was diagnosed with colon cancer & he died 2 weeks later. A girl she knows 17 years old found a lump in her breast & it was cancer. Checkout the link…Overlords of Chaos……

  10. Anyone here

    The reason foreclosures are down…40 Billion of MBS’ are being purchased each month for 18 months, courtesy of the taxpayers.

    40 Billion x 18 mos. = $7,200,000,000,000.00 Thank you Americans…Sincerely, BOA, Citi, Wells Fargo, etc…

  11. Did anyone hear the National news last night? Here it is: “less homeowners’ have FILED for foreclosure” this year. Really? I never remember filing for foreclosure on myself…DAH! Truth in news…

  12. there an endorsement on that note..? If not, will have to prove up the chain of title. Anyone can bring in a “signed” copy of a note…with no endorsement, and no chain of title, that note is a counterfeit and they are IMPOSTERS. If there is an allonge, they stand in the shoes of the original “lender” and they still have to prove up the chain. They need all of the docs. This is why I don’t trust these whatchamacallit attorneys. No offense to Neil of course, but my sister & my brother in law both were thrown under the bus by these whatchamcallit attorneys. I have heard many horror stories about these “fixers” for the Government. They are traitors. What I learned is, the honest ones won’t tell you to settle for fraud, they won’t represent you either. This is Illinois though…the land of honest Abe and all that…it’s a real horror show. Educate yourself & they can’t fool you & Good Luck…!

  13. Zurenarrh – After 4 years of looking for the note, bank finally found it. I denied I signed it. There are false initials in change of address and signature. think it is photoshopped but Atty (contingent) tells me whoever has the note gets the house. I want to have it authenticated but Atty. says it costs $2,000 which do not have. Does anyone know of a good analyst in MO to verify the note? This is a QT. Thanks.

  14. That’s encouraging enraged. Some good news for a change. Foreclosures are at a 5 year low is what I heard today. I hope that’s true but, from the stacks I saw in the courtroom a couple of weeks ago, I don’t see evidence of that being true. The media should be in those courtrooms everyday reporting on the fraudclosures. They are traitors & cowards.

  15. Slow death of a world order…

    Thursday, October 11th 2012 – 05:26 UTC
    Seed giant Monsanto suspended in Argentina on allegations of tax irregularities

    Argentine authorities suspended the local unit of US seed giant Monsanto from a local grains registry over allegations of tax irregularities. The company denied the allegations in a statement issued late on Wednesday.

  16. Who is dead in the water shadowcat?

  17. dead in the water

  18. Some idiot on CNBC just said ….just because we are on the precipice of insolvency, does not mean we should not keep paying our debts…..? They all deserve the death penalty.

  19. this is better read thank you. the less i type the better but its good to hear some derrier kicking, good for Barry.

  20. Its in the paper everyday …. deceased forclosed on. HMMM. Are you a Title Theory State or a Lien Theory State? Do you want to leave this mess to your children and grandchildren?

  21. Thanks DCB! I must admit I am a little overwhelmed, but still looking for ways to fight the good fight. I’m curious about this administrative approach. I’d describe it as more of a criminal approach, though. Grand juries should be used for stuff like this.

  22. The scratching of the signature is only 1 part that makes a signature legal….the disclosure of every aspect of the transaction seals the deal. They obviously did not do that…

  23. qssignments of mortgage are meaningless unless used as a FDCPA device–need to see if tese are authorized –see eg UCC definition of signature—they are bleeding over the UCC rules into the property docs

  24. As far as we are concerned the fed is does what it puts on public record—nothing more—out of our league—–read and use what they say and the rest is irrelevant for practical purposes

  25. By statute, Every financial institution must report abandoned property as defined—–notes payable, deposits, etc—if a erson leaves the bank area or dies and nobody catches the deposit–then the bank is supposed to give the asset to the state–or at least the value of it.

    The state escheats in abandoned real estate too—the owner disappears???? it goes to the local and auctioned–but proceeds to state after the taxes withdrawn–this springs as a certainty of english ancient common law—-sometimes there are laws that say people that find stuff get a share—but goes back to all land being really rented from the crown

  26. The Next Headline … ” Bad Boys” … ” Bad Boys” … What to Do If They Come For You. ….

  27. The Consent Decree is a Jugdment by a regulatory agency an “Order” : could be described as a regulator’s findings of fact and conclusion—orders re compliance and correction—verges on rule-making except no timelines —but the fact is that autheritative sources said on the record that the record cleaping was sloppy —12 different ways.

    The consents may be less persuaive that fed pronouncements.

    but you must be prepared to appeal or nobody takes you seriously–you may have to appeal —-right now you are exposed to double liability if you cannot prove the note to the next claimant–think about that aspect–due process denial however which way they set up the procedure–what happens in cal if you give yor house to the wriong person and it is converted to their exonomic benefit—-

  28. Oops! I misread. The court is still involved. Sorry about that.

  29. Zur,

    I did a little poking…

    “A consent decree is a settlement that is reached between the parties and presented to the court, which reviews it and issues it as an official decree. When a court issues a consent decree, it becomes an ongoing participant in the case and routinely monitors the defendant’s actions to ensure that the promises in the decree are being kept. Consent decrees differ from settlements in three ways: settlements are usually private and confidential between the parties, the case is usually dismissed as a condition of the defendant’s settlement, and the court isn’t involved in the settlement’s enforcement.”

    You need to know exactly what the consent decree states but notice that the court is no longer involved after it has been pronounced and the case has been dismissed. Since you’re not paying rent or anything, invest what you save in an attorney and have him review it. if you can quiet title in spite of it, by all means, go for it!

  30. QT…now, later. or at any time soon. yep! yep! Nobody to stand up to Grandma? Scared of the Switch? Am I that Scary? BOO! back @ ’em!

  31. @ DCB: that would be my guess also. But is there any way we can get our guess confirmed or denied? Is there any way to find out for sure? I think my questions about QE3 below are very germane to all of our cases–the problem is, as you say, the process is quite opaque. But someone has to know the definitive answer. Who would that be, besides Osama Ben Bernanke?

  32. Whink….

  33. i can only guess that fed is farming out servicing still—these mbs may be trading –but they are separated from the notes–the fed will want paid–it just laid out 100 cents on the dollar for 15 cents—-at least sometimes i must guess—–the behind scenes ownership of mbs is opaque to you—-unless the fed uses the role to force action to mod etc

  34. @DCB: please elaborate on escheat.

  35. sooner or later the banks are going to trot out the narrative that you’re just looking for a free house no matter how much you deny that you aren’t

    if its a lost note that nobody will prove up then it escheats and you must face that or zu is absolutely correct—no free house unless state ag abandons the note’s collection—-the state inherits lost notes

    what you are proving is that nobody owns the note–that triggers escheat

  36. @DCB,
    If the Fed buys my pool/trust from Fannie, why should Fannie get to take the house? That’s what I’m trying to get to. I’m not on my knees! I’m on my feet! I’m assisting others.

  37. @DCB, yes challenged it. Denied it. Deposed the supposed endorser who admitted she did not endorse it herself, did not know the name of the person who supposedly endorsed it, was not present when it was supposedly endorsed. Judge didn’t care about any of that.

    @ enraged–thanks for the tips!

    @hman–keep up the pressure. However, sooner or later the banks are going to trot out the narrative that you’re just looking for a free house no matter how much you deny that you aren’t. And the judge will agree. And he will give the bank another free house. That’s what I’m hearing from other friends who still have ongoing cases. I hope that doesn’t happen to you and I’m not trying to be negative, just realistic. I sincerely wish you the best of luck.

  38. Keep It together Z…… You have done the right thing! Fight Back … Shortly we will part ways with the rapist. No one should be forced to marry a rapist no lone carry its child! Listen to your Attorney! Somin about Wall Street Abandoning Obama. ????

  39. there were things that you could do –could have done but its procedural intense—-but damn how is knowing intricaies of fed reserve going to do anything for you???? i dont get it–is the note the one you signed? you think you know? did you get it back? come on zu get off your knees

  40. out of nowhere–produced an endorsed note after 2 years of litigation

    did you challenge it? deny it? offer the industry practice–early then yet

    they really dont give a whole lot of attn to unrepresented persons because they want to have people settle and basically the collection agencies will not settle with you absent counsel

  41. Zurr,

    If they haven’t taken the house, stay in it as long as you can. in fact… here are a few things you might want to think about or submit to an attorney:

    1) Does a consent order have to be recorded anywhere?
    2) If yes, how long after it has been issued? Is there a deadline?
    3) If they blew a deadline, can you do something? Does that open the door for you to come from behind and… quiet title?

    I don’t know the laws in your state but I always want to look at every angle. It may be worth looking into. Otherwise, stay put and enjoy.

  42. collateral complaint to set aside ? he probaly dint read your brief—or use the atty to reopen —–or give up and dont fret about it–they will be getting around sooner or later—people think its a big deal they cut back on seizures before election—well duh–now they have financing reo rentals coming etc—if you get an atty maybe youl get an offer preferable to a short walk to the curb

  43. zurenarrh,

    Yup, I getting a lawyer is pricey. However, w/o one I think we have a very slim chance of getting anywhere and I believe this is the banks whole tactic. They know most homeowners don’t have the $ to fight. On top of that procedure will kill most of us not to mention the time it takes for all the research…as you know it is exhausting. I try to educate myself the best I can but it seems impossible to know everything.

    I decided I could stop paying the mortgage and put that $ towards an attorney or stop paying and live there as long as possible and start saving cash for a deposit on a new place. I honestly thought I would be done by now. I’m going on 2 years no payment but also the courts move at a snails pace.

    I think the banks go after those who don’t put up a fight first. Next, the go after those of us who fight. I think they intentionally prolong the foreclosure in attempts to bleed hoping we’ll quit. Those of us who can afford to hang in there will be offered some type of “modification” which again will benefit the bank.

    If they offer me a good MOD I’m taking it as long as they agree to correct the title or issue a policy with no exclusions. Ethically, I don’t want a free house. Even it somebody paid it off I didn’t. I won’t roll the dice in my state with the amount of bad cases that have went against the homeowners in favor of MERS and the banks. Even though we all agree it’s the banks getting the free house the risk to me isn’t worth it.

  44. DCB–yes, the judge openly acknowledged, in writing, that I would have won if they had not suddenly–as if by magic, out of nowhere–produced an endorsed note after 2 years of litigation. Despite that, he decided to allow the new note into evidence. Of course–ain’t that America, (not) for you and me!

  45. they had to cheat to “win.”

    that is standard procedure—-they are consistent

  46. The problem with rule 60 as I understand it is that the judge that already ruled against me would have to agree to re-open the case. It can’t be re-opened automatically. Plus he could argue that the consent decrees and the settlement came to light while my case will still being decided–they aren’t post-order evidence. I did use the consent orders in my briefs. He ignored them.

  47. ZU: Are you stating that there has been significant new evidence that has come to light since your final order and it could have a substantial effect of the outcome? and the collection agency has not relied to its detriment on your failure to immediately reopen your case? rule 60

  48. Shadowcat–I’d love to get an attorney but can’t afford one. I had an attorney at the beginning before removal to federal court. I was lucky to get him b/c no other attorney would take my case. When the case got really serious, he told us it would cost $30K to prosecute the entire case–and those were friend prices. I don’t have that kind of money laying around. I took it on myself and didn’t do too damn shabby–they had to cheat to “win.”

  49. And I’ve been pondering QE3 and hope maybe some of you guys could help me understand or flesh out what I’m thinking. So basically QE3 is the Fed buying $40 billion/month of “mortgage-backed” securities from Fannie and Freddie. What does that mean, really?

    I mean, if the Fed pays Fannie for the pool my note is/was supposedly in, what does that mean for me? If I understand QE3 correctly (and I probably don’t), that means that Fannie has been paid for my note, right? I mean, the value of these Fannie pools is determined by the value of the notes contained in the pools, yes? So if the pool my note is supposedly in is bought by the Fed, Fannie is not only paid off for my note, but also the Fed now becomes the holder of my note. Is that right? Anybody know for sure?

    If that is correct, why should Fannie or Fannie’s supposed agents be able to take my house? Is it because along with the Fed’s purchases of MBS, they arrange to make Fannie the Fed’s agent for the purposes of foreclosure? If so, how would/should the notice of sale read? How would/should the trustee’s deed after the sale read? Does anyone think that the trustee’s deed will be in the name of the Federal Reserve? Shouldn’t it be if the Fed is actually the owner of the note?

    Lots o’ questions there, I know…anybody got any answers?

  50. @Z… Get any Attorney! PLZZZZ….

  51. I totally agree with you, DCB. When I filed my suit in August 2009, there were no consent orders. The mortgage settlement didn’t exist. QE3 had not been announced. But now we have all of these things, and It has now been 6 months since I “lost” my lawsuit and these bastards have still not taken my house. Why?

    My wife thinks it’s because they just haven’t gotten back around to it yet. I think that might be a small part of it. But I think that the consent orders, settlement, and QE3 are also part of the reason they haven’t taken my house yet. Even with the judge’s order in my case, the only way they could actually foreclose is through fraud. And since I know these bastards know who I am and I know this board is monitored by the banks, I’m telling them now–I KNOW ABOUT THE CONSENT ORDERS. I KNOW ABOUT THE MORTGAGE SETTLEMENT. I KNOW WHAT QE3 IS DOING. Just want them to know that I know those things, that’s all. And knowledge is power.

    “I am surprised that those who specialize in administrative law have not used the presumed findings of several Federal and State agencies as to a pattern of conduct that is fraudulent and which requires forgery to proffer in court and perjury to testify as to the foundation that would authenticate the invalid documents”

    I believe that this might be accomplished by listing the links to a few —more than 3–less than 10—–of the Fed Reserve stuff —the Consent Orders—speaches circa dec 2011—–ask court to take judicial notice of this as evidence referenced as fact by pleadings—must request court take judicial notice in complaint and by separate filing”

    this evidence contravenes the presumption of truth given the presenter of the note in order to get the note dishoroed so as to be in default—-

    plus anything else like conflicting credit bureau reports–failure to file loan schedules per UC art 9—-these issues then must be overcome with evidence that the note is the note and properly endorsed by persons with authority—and really because of physical nature of note–its chain of physical custody—-so it doesnt begin at printer in alpharetta

  53. Double Splat!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: