1. Heres a letter written to Rosiki and Associates regarding similar issue: Personal information is redacted for obvious reasons.

If anyone has any further information related to similar issues please call me at (818)340-7600 OR if you need any further information on similar issues you may contact me. Thank you very much for offering me workout options for borrowers in Bankruptcy. While I appreciate your generous offer I have several issues with the purported loan on which I am a purported borrower. Unless these issues are resolved that has been a part of ongoing correspondence ever since the origination of the purported loan your offer to resolve through a workout remains moot. Before I proceed further to discuss the issues in this case, I would like to bring to the attention of your firm that your own representations to the Court in court proceedings will be a subject of discussion and possible trial. I am led to believe that every representations you have made thus far and documents presented to the court has been reviewed by your office and that you will stand by to testify to the fact that the originals of the copies of documents you have presented is in your possession or that your office has reviewed the original documents before the copies were presented to the court. While I am currently in bankruptcy proceedings, I have reviewed the Proof of Claim , on Form 10 along with supporting exhibits, that has been filed by the purported creditor in this case. Based on the information presented on the aforesaid Proof of Claim filed in Bankruptcy Court in the aforementioned case number I have made the following observations. 1. Name of the Creditor: Deutsche Bank national Trust Company as Trustee for the holders of Asset Backed pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004 FR1. 2. Amount of claim: $799,927.33 3. Basis for Claim: Mortgage Note. 4. Arrearages and other charges as of the time case file included in secured claim: $255,207.48 5. Amount of Secured claim; $799,927.33 6. Signature of Creditor: Signed by Andrew Goldberg as Creditors Authorized Agent. According to existing case laws the person filing the claim must sign it. Sign and print name and title, if any, of the creditor or other person authorized to file this claim and state name and telephone number if different from the notice address above. Attach copy of power of attorney, if any. Form 10 filed by your office is deficient in this respect. This has not yet happened in my case. Your claim will be objected . The documents attached as Exhibits in support of the claim include the following: 1. Exhibit A: Itemization of Claim. 2. A copy of a document purported to be a recorded Deed of Trust signed by me and that was recorded at the Los Angeles County Recorders office as document number 04 0593924 by Ameriquest Mortgage Company 3. A copy of a purported 2 page document titled Fixed Rate Note: that is not endorsed and has some illegible alterations at the bottom of page two. 4. A purported copy of a rubber stamped allonge: belongs to other loan documents or loans to which I am not a party. 5. A copy of an original of an Assignment of a Deed of Trust that was purportedly recorded at the County Recorders office. (When compared with recorded document ,this seems to be an altered document)

The entire set of documents described above has been filed by your office which is evidenced by the fact that it represents PROOF OF CLAIM filed by your office in Case Number 11-18041 in my Chapter 11 case and has your firms name and address on it. This case has a long history of fraud, violations of RESPA, Violations of provisions of Truth in lending Act, forgeries, false representations, fraud upon the court, false and forged documents, altered documents, false assignments, false notarizations, forged signature and other issues not being deliberately raised at this time. I have seen similar issues with other loans that are currently in foreclosure originated by Ameriquest Mortgage Company. While I have not filed RICO allegations against any of the participating institutions yet in any court, there is a strong possibility that your firm is participating in the ongoing fraud and racketeering activity and may be subject of sanctions and other liability more so after I have briefly disclosed the issues in this case to you. (See settlement agreement between United States of America vs. Steven J Baum. P.C. and Pillar processing LLC). While certain issues are barred by statute of limitations, the issue that presents itself as most controversial is the standing of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustees for the holders of Asset backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004FR1 and its standing to initiate any foreclosure on me and my property. Previously this matter has also been addressed with Charles E. Bell Esq. at McCarthy Holthus LLP., and Roup & Associates, A Law Corporation who have dropped the ball in this case. I am now addressing the issues with your office. First, please let me address the issue with the Assignment of Deed of Trust and the allonge to the alleged note. There are several issues with it. A. According to Pooling and Servicing Agreement related to the Series FR1 the closing date to transfer any security is April 14, 2004. This purported assignment was executed on February 4, 2009. (A five/six year discrepancy). B. Assignment is made by Ameriquest Mortgage Company instead of Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc.,. (The Alphabet problem). AMC cannot assign the same mortgage three times at different times. C. No evidence that the note was negotiated and delivered to Deutsche Bank as Trustee for the asset backed securities. (See Deutsche Bank natl Trust Co v. Tarantola (In re Tarantola)). An instruments usefulness in negotiation or transfer can only be evidenced by looking at it or any attachments. Also there is no evidence in the record to establish that there was any value paid by the Trust or received by Ameriquest Mortgage Company. D. The date of execution of the (false and fabricated) document itself February 4, 2009 and recorded on February 17, 2009. (See Deutsche bank Natl Trust Co v. Babb RE-09-01). I have not waived any right to compel your clients to produce the original note. E. The date when the document was prepared or backdated to (for obvious reasons prior to initiation of a foreclosure action). Allonge created after the commencement of litigation to get the attorneys the [evidence] they needed to create standing, but not in existence at the time of filing and never affixed to the original note, does not create an indorsement. Ironically, your client in the last two years have presented copies of documents that are not identical with respect to endorsement or allonge affixed to the copy of the original note. F. The recording was requested by Litton Loan Servicing LP. (Possibly a document fabrication unit) G. Notarization by Laura Bursey a controversial figure in several foreclosure & robo signing cases. H. Signed by Patricia Olivera purportedly a vice president of several corporations at the same time again a controversial figure in several foreclosure cases and operating from different

locations on the same day. I. The date of notarization i.e. 2/4/09 almost forty-one days from the date of filing of Notice of Default i.e. 12/24/2008 and forty-nine days from the date of cancellation of TD. 12/17/2008 and recorded after two months after the date of cancellation of Trust deed i.e. 2/17/2009. J. Handwriting of the notary seems to differ in several foreclosure cases and similar documents. K. Purported assignment of deed of trust long after the date of closing (April 14, 2004) pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement i.e. stale dated assignments. L. Depositor excluded from assignment an inconsistency with the provisions of the Pooling and Servicing Agreements. M. The intermediate assignees including but not limited to Ameriquest Special Servicing, CITI, and Ameriquest Securities Inc., missing and in contradiction with documented representations made as to the identity of the lender by Litton Loan Servicing LP to me. N. Alteration of document with respect to recording date and recording number of the assignment of the purported deed of trust possibly to defraud the court and the alleged borrower. O. Filing of the purported assignment of Deed of Trust, after Notice of Default was filed in this case by LSI Title Company for Quality Loan Service Corp on December 24 of 2008 renders any foreclosure void and the standing of Deutsche Bank Natl Trust Co. to foreclose is thereby challenged. P. Substitution of Trustee document notarized on January 5, 2009 prior to the purported assignment of Deed of Trust or mortgage note on February 4, 2009 duly notarized by Brenda Mc Kinzy again a controversial figure and notarization in this case is legally unsound. Q. Signing of document of Substitution of Trustee by an Attorney in fact who is a corporation, (not a natural person)and signed by a purported Assistant Vice President namely Diane Dixon of Litton Loan Servicing LP for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Asset backed pass through Certificates, Series 2004-FR1 when the assignment was purportedly executed on February 4, 2009 long after the substitution of trustee document prepared by Litton on behalf of Deutsche. A Tremendously convoluted affair. Also see Debt validation Notice dated December 17, 2008. (Evidence contradictory to representations). R. Unsigned Affidavit of mailing by Kimsen Keth purportedly of Quality Loan Servicing Corp located in San Diego. This document was also allegedly prepared (fabricated and back dated) on 12/22/2009 long before Duetsche Bank Natl Trust Co. had any interest (if any, at any time) in the securities that were purportedly assigned on February 4, 2009. And was purportedly mailed to the alleged borrower on January 9, 2009. S. According to LSI Title Company, the purported Substitution of Trustee document that was notarized on January 5, 2009 was recorded in the County recorders office on February 4, 2009. T. Filing of the Notice of Default by LSI Title Company, as Agents for Quality Loan Service Corp, as agents for unknown beneficiaries on December 24, 2008 for monies purported ly owed to the beneficiaries as of 02/01/2008 is also invalid. U. According to public records the purported loan was rescinded and trust deed cancelled on 12/19/2008 and was recorded as instrument number 20082235355 and any assignments of note or deed of trust thereafter into a pool of mortgage loans to be securitized by Ameriquest Securities Inc., the Depositor, according to Pooling and Servicing Agreement related to the pool of mortgages in the aforementioned series may amount to fraud upon the investors and the beneficiaries of the purported securitization, if any, and to which the alleged borrower would be a third party beneficiary. V. Pursuant to clause U above the trustee has the obligation, pursuant to the trust terms, to review, or cause to be reviewed, each mortgage file within ninety days after closing date of the Trust. The trust terms clearly dictate that within the review period, the trustee has the obligation to cure the defect or remove the defective loan documents from the trust. Assuming

without prejudice that the loan was securitized by Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc., and others involved in this transaction, then I have been damaged by such negligence by the trustee as a third party beneficiary of the Trust as my loan was rescinded prior to such securitization and my loan was paid off at the time the loan was securitized and there has been no default. W. According to Litton Loan Servicing LP, on December 17, 2008 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company were trustees for Asset backed pass Through Certificates, Series FR1 into which the purported loan was allegedly pooled. If this was true then a document that was purportedly prepared /fabricated/backdated, was unnecessary as such a document should have already been in existence at the time Litton made such representations. X. Further the Securities prospectus describes in detail a chain of ownership that corresponding note and mortgage must have been subjected to in order for the Trust to become the owner of the said instruments. Pursuant to prospectus related to FR1 series it is clear that the Depositer is Ameriquest Mortgage securities Inc and public records clearly indicate such practice has been maintained for almost all but for a few mortgage loans a violation of Pooling and Servicing agreement. At least two different endorsements would be necessary under the pooling and Servicing agreement and such endorsement is missing in the Deed of Trust. There is no evidence in the record to prove that the note was ever endorsed to Deutsche bank Natl Trust Co or its trustees. Thus because the true terms and documents have been violated, the Trust cannot and does not own or hold the Note and Deed of Trust as a matter of California law. Y. Needless to discuss the IRC ramifications for a REMIC tax election to be maintained by the trust that will require substantial compliance with the terms mentioned in the Pooling and Servicing agreements as is filed with the Securities exchange Commission in relation to offering for sale of investment certificates failing which it could be construed as an admission of securities fraud pursuant to Section 12 (C) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C.A. 77(a) (2). Z. Lastly as a matter of law, the trustee of a trust cannot commit the ultra varies act of enforcing loan documents that its trust does not own. See Restatement of the Law, Second, Trusts, 187 (1992 ed), which explains that the exercise of a [trustee] power is discretionary except to the extent to which its exercise is required by the terms of the trust or by the principles of law applicable to the duties of trustees. Restatement of the Law, Second, Trusts 185 explains where by the terms of the trust it is provided that in the administration of the trust the trustee shall do certain acts if he is directed by another person to do them, it is ordinarily his duty to comply with such directions and he is ordinarily liable if he fails to do so. So also, where by the terms of the trust it is provided that the trustee shall not do certain acts without the direction or consent of another, it is ordinarily his duty not to do such acts without such direction or consent. I have in the past discussed this matter with two different law firms representing your clients. Thereafter they have dropped the ball and I have not had any response from them . You are the third law firm involved in this case. A creditors standing to file a proof of claim for repetition debt must exist at the time the claim is filed. See In re: Foreclosure Cases, 2007 WL 3232430, at *2;. According to Fed R. bankruptcy Procedure 3001(c),(d), a claim based on a writing and/or security interest in the debtors property must include a copy of the writing and evidence of perfection. In this case the only documents presented include fabricated, altered, false and forged documents and thus fails the evidentiary test. While any default dispenses with the proof of the note, it does not with its production. See Sheehy v. Mandeville, 11 U.S. 208, 218 (1812). Also see UCC 3-203 official cmt. 1 (An instrument is a reified right to payment. The right is represented in the instrument itself.).

Here there is a factual dispute as to the validity, ownership and amount of claim. Further I sincerely believe without prejudice, that if my loan is validly securitized , as a third party beneficiary of my loan ( if any), it should have been paid off and I should be entitled to the proceeds of the transaction between Ameriquest Mortgage Company and such other parties involved in the securitization of my note and deed of trust that was made without my consent and without my permission and without my knowledge at the time of origination and the Trustee of the trust along with other parties including title companies that insured my title and the loan in question may be directly and indirectly liable to me for any and all such proceeds and profits that may accrue from such securitization. The above mentioned limited facts and miniscual arguments are just the tip of an iceberg that will be raised in a court of appropriate jurisdiction at an appropriate time and possibly in current bankruptcy proceedings. In lieu of the above I hereby request you and your clients to investigate this case fully and then either furnish me with more information and documents to support your claim in my bankruptcy case or in the alternative withdraw your claim altogether and notify me of your decision, so I may act accordingly. Further given the aforementioned issues, if your firm is willing to address the issues with me and willing to testify as to the authenticity of documents you have presented to court, please let me know, subject to which I may work with your office to discuss any matter related to the workout options you may have and I will prepare a plan of reorganization accordingly