Request for Judicial Notice

“A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold.” - Proverb 22:1

Praises & Thanks be unto The Lord My God for the wisdom, knowledge and understanding on legal matter because I received countless feedbacks from folks facing foreclosure and bankruptcy around the United States as follows:

Comments: "I have been inundated with TILA questions. So I went out hunting to see if anyone had already written about it in terms that a lay person might be able to understand. What I found is shown below. I believe it to be generally correct and the citations are good citations of law. See this site for the entire write-up. It should give most lay people an idea on how to handle this and it will be valuable to your lawyer if he/she is not totally familiar with the TILA context at the following link:" http://rcxloan.com/Civil_Action_BK_Motion_14.htm. Statement made by Attorney at Law, Neil F. Garfield, M.B.A., J.D.

A STORY TO THINK ABOUT
“Once upon a time in the Ancient Roman Empire, 27 BC, there were two men living in Jerusalem. One was named Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust, a rich man whose land was worth close to $700 billion in today‘s money; the other, Mr. Augustin, a farmer whose land was worth $300,000. One day, Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust asked Mr. Augustin to give him his land, that he may have it for a vegetable garden. But, Mr. Augustin said to Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust, “The Lord forbid me that I should give to you the inheritance of my fathers”.

When Jezebel, the wife of Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust, heard what Mr. Augustin said to him. She said, don‘t worry love, I will take care of the matter? Arise, eat bread, and let your heart be joyful; I will give you Mr. Augustin‘s land. So, Jezebel wrote letters in Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust’s name and seal them with his seal and sent letters to the elders and to the nobles who were living in Jerusalem. Now she wrote in the letters, saying, proclaim a ‘relief of stay trial’ in the absence of Mr. Augustin. Then, issued a decree that Mr. Augustin’s land is now Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust.

So the men of Jerusalem, the elders and the nobles did as Jezebel had sent word to them, just as it was written in the letters which she had sent them. Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust take possession of Mr. Augustin’s land which he had refused to give. The sad part is that Mr. Augustin was forced off his land illegally and fraudulently. Mr. Augustin left with nothing and forced to seek refuge from Jerusalem to a land called ‘Fairfax, Virginia’ to start from scratch. Whereas, Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust became more wealthy with the unwarranted possession of his and hold more than $700 billion of assets as a result.

Questions? Why was Mr. Augustin absent in the relief of stay trial? Why did the elders and the nobles just do as Jezebel asked them? Let us all fast forward in 2008, what do you think the elders and the nobles should have done differently?”

------------------------------

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE In Support of Request
for Emergency Motion to Issue Subpoenas Duces Tecum

FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF ARGUMENT

[Our justice system is not perfect. Mistakes are inevitable. However, when
New evidences are presented, the will to do good must prevail over the status quo]

Honorable and Distinguish CHIEF JUDGE, May The Lord Almighty Bless You For Being A Dedicated Public Servant And Grant You More Wisdom, Knowledge And Understanding To Make Wiser Decisions On Behalf Of The Citizen Of The Greatest Nation On Earth, The United States Of America.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence, Judicial notice in federal court is based on the notion that certain undisputed facts or incontrovertible propositions exist that may be accepted as true without further proof.

Your Honor, Extraordinary and Swift measures by our Political and Public Policy makers with the enacted $700 billion bill bailout for Wall Street on Friday, October 3, 2008 demands an ‘Equal Extraordinary, Unprecedented and

Exceptional’ ruling for [E]quality and [F]airness. Equally alarming are the consumer protection laws that evolved prior the widespread securitization of subprime mortgages are antiquated and not reflective of the current commercial transactions and [Present Tsunami of Financial Crisis].
“I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” - Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust victim and writer

“Our regulatory system must protect consumers and investors by punishing individuals who engage in fraud, break contracts, or lie to customers -- like the predatory lenders who know you can't afford an adjustable rate mortgage, but mislead you into signing one. These actions are criminal and the people who commit them should be behind bars.” - Statement by a Presidential Candidate

“The prospect of waging a protracted discovery battle with all of these well funded parties in hopes of uncovering evidence of predatory lending can be too daunting even for those victims who know such evidence exists. So imposing is this opaque corporate wall, that in a “vast” number of foreclosures, MERS actually succeeds in foreclosing without producing the original note--the legal sine qua non of foreclosure--much less documentation that could support predatory lending defenses”.
- Inside B&C Lending, supra note 431, at 14 (quoting MERS CEO R.K. Arnold)

A court must take judicial notice "if requested by a party and provided with the necessary information." Federal judicial notice is appropriate when a fact "not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either:

(1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court (common knowledge throughout the world of a $700 billion bailout law to financial institutions in the United States) or

(2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned (Expert testimonies, public speeches by the President of the United States & member of both Houses of Congress regarding the root causes of bailout or see the ‘Statement by the Presidential Candidate Above‘)."

1. STANDING

[Our justice system is not perfect. Mistakes are inevitable. However, when
New evidences are presented, the will to do good must prevail over the status quo]

The minimum constitutional requirements for standing are: proof of injury in fact, causation, and redressability. Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 472. In addition, “the Consumer Creditor must be a proper proponent, and the action a proper vehicle, to vindicate the rights asserted.” Coyne, 183 F. 3d at 494 (quoting Pestrak v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 926 F. 2d 573, 576 (6th Cir. 1991)).

To satisfy the requirements of Article III of the United States Constitution, the Consumer Creditor must show he has personally suffered some actual injury as a result of the illegal conduct of the parties in his case by depriving him of his property rights. (Emphasis added). Coyne, 183 F. 3d at 494; Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 472.

A person has standing if the Court order “diminishes the person’s property, increases the person’s burdens, or impairs the person’s rights.” Williams v. Marlar (In re Marlar), 267 F.3d 749, 753 n.1 (8th Cir. 2001). The mere loss of a statutory right to disclosure is an injury that gives Consumer Creditor standing for Article III purposes (DeMando v. Morris, 206 F.3d 1300 (9th Cir. 2000).

2. JURISDICTION

[Our justice system is not perfect. Mistakes are inevitable. However, when
New evidences are presented, the will to do good must prevail over the status quo]

Personal jurisdiction is lawfully exercised over a defendant if the person lives in a jurisdiction, operates a business in a jurisdiction, owns property in a jurisdiction, or commits an injury in a jurisdiction and has had notice and opportunity (is in receipt of service and has a copy of the petition, claim, or complaint). If these elements are complete, personal jurisdiction CANNOT BE DENIED.

Subject matter jurisdiction is the court’s power to hear and determine cases of the general class or category to which proceedings in question belong; the power to deal with the general subject involved in the action. Subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived, cannot attach by mutual consent of the parties, or through lapse of time or course of events other than sufficient pleadings. Also, the Federal Reserve Act that allows banking is not a state issue as well as, but a Federal issue which falls within the jurisdiction of the District Court.

3. REFLECTION

[Our justice system is not perfect. Mistakes are inevitable. However, when
New evidences are presented, the will to do good must prevail over the status quo]

Three years ago, unable to afford and to obtain legal representation to prevent the lost of his primary residence in Lowell, Massachusetts, Consumer Creditor ventured in the Federal Court system in search of [R]edress and [F]airness. Consumer Creditor has relied on the help of the Almighty to grant him wisdom, knowledge, understanding to quickly grasp legal concepts in order to articulate his written legal argument to the best of his given abilities.

In Picking, the Consumer Creditors civil rights was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept." Nevertheless, it was held: Where a Consumer Creditor pleads pro-se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the court should endeavor to construe Consumer Creditors pleading without regard to technicalities. Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway , (151 F2d. 240) Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

In Walter Process Equipment v. Food Machinery 382 U.S. 172 (1965), it was held that in a "motion to dismiss, the material allegations of the complaint are taken as admitted." From this vantage point, courts are reluctant to dismiss complaints unless it appears the Consumer Creditor can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief (see Conlev vs. Gibson , 355 U.S. 41(1957).

In Puckett v. Cox , it was held that a pro-se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer (456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth Circuit USCA) said Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson . 355 U.S. 41 at 48(1957)

The Federal Rules rejects the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits. According to rule 8(f) FRCP all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice."

Incidentally, Consumer Creditor had received a similar subprime loans with adjustable interest rates (2/28) from New Century Mortgage. In reality, it was a predatory loan. It is similar to what Countrywide had issued to borrowers nationwide and prompted Bank of America to settle with many states’ Attorneys General. (See Exhibit for the full story)

Based on the cited cases above, NEW Relevant Evidences from the root causes of the current Financial Crisis, recent settlement by Bank Of America with at least 10 Attorney Generals on risky mortgage loans similar to that given to Consumer Creditor and the law review article on ‘Predatory Structured Finance‘ provided in the exhibits, May the Court grant the request for issuing Subpoena Duces Tecum to depose the non-parties witnesses within the Court jurisdiction.

“Yet, this Court possesses the independent obligations to preserve the judicial integrity of the federal court and to jealously guard federal jurisdiction. Neither the fluidity of the secondary mortgage market, nor monetary or economic considerations of the parties, nor the convenience of the litigants supersede those obligations.” - Christopher A. Boyko, U. S. District Judge

4. PRECENDENT CASE OF JUDICIAL NOTICE

[Our justice system is not perfect. Mistakes are inevitable. However, when
New evidences are presented, the will to do good must prevail over the status quo]

“Abraham Lincoln defended a man named William "Duff" Armstrong, who had been charged with murder. Armstrong's co-defendant, Jim Norris, had already been convicted of murder, and Armstrong was to be tried next. The testimony at Norris' trial was that, on the evening of August 29,1857, Armstrong and Norris argued with a man named Metzker, who was later found dead. Charles Allen was the state's key eyewitness. Allen claimed he saw Norris and then Armstrong strike Metzker in the head. The prosecution used Allen's eyewitness testimony to convict Norris.

During Armstrong's trial, Allen again presented testimony similar to his testimony in the Norris trial. Lincoln cross-examined Allen in great detail, directing much of his examination to Allen's claim that he had seen the whole attack on Metzker in bright moonlight on the evening of August 29, 1857, from a distance of some 150 feet. At the end of the cross-examination, Lincoln produced an 1857 edition of an almanac that contained information that the moon would not have been shining brightly on August 29, 1857. Based on that information, Lincoln argued Allen could not have clearly seen the attack from 150 feet away. Many have since posited that Lincoln's production of the almanac--and the lower court's judicial notice of it--broke the prosecution's case and won the acquittal of Lincoln's client.

But did the court properly allow the almanac? Without question, the issue of whether the moon shone brightly that evening was relevant and vital to the prosecution, because Allen testified he could see the attackers at night some 150 feet away. But whether the moon shone brightly that evening was also a basic, indisputable fact, which is precisely why a trial court correctly allowed it.?”

Like Abraham Lincoln, Consumer Creditor would like the court to take Judicial Notice that the underlying causes of mortgage fraud and loose underwritings were the root causes of massive foreclosures today that ultimately led to the historical and unprecedented Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 that grants the Treasury Secretary unprecedented authority to buy up to $700 billion of Toxic Assets (bad & risky otherwise predatory mortgage loans made to borrowers in the U.S. (see article entitled ‘Predatory Structured Finance in Exhibits‘) from ailing financial institutions in an effort to stave off more bankruptcies and provide cash for new loans to ease the credit market freeze-up both in the U.S. and abroad.

5. EMERGENCY ECONOMIC RECOVERY BILL OF 2008

[Our justice system is not perfect. Mistakes are inevitable. However, when
New evidences are presented, the will to do good must prevail over the status quo]

“President Bush Signs H.R. 1424 Into Law - On Friday, October 3, 2008, the President signed into law: H.R. 1424, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008, and Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008, which authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a Troubled Assets Relief Program to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions; provides Alternative Minimum Tax relief; extends expiring tax provisions and establishes energy tax incentives; and temporarily increases Federal Deposit Insurance limits” from $100,000 to $250,000.

Furthermore, during the debate of the bill in both the House and the Senate by Expert Economists, Financial Executives and speeches by members of congress, the common theme was that loose underwriting guidelines and mortgage fraud were some of the causes that led to this financial crisis. According to an article entitled Mortgage fraud seen as prolonging U.S. housing slump, by Bob Ivry of Bloomberg News published on April 26, 2007 states that:

"Misstatements about employment and income are being made every day," said Robert Russell, counsel to the director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, which oversees savings and loans. "The brokers are just putting down on paper what the underwriters would require.” The above mentioned article substantiate what Consumer Creditor has been arguing in his pleadings and motions before the Federal Courts.

CONCLUSION

[Our justice system is not perfect. Mistakes are inevitable. However, when
New evidences are presented, the will to do good must prevail over the status quo]

Consumer Creditor as an outsider of courtroom litigation ponders and reflects on the following oath that every federal judge takes to uphold the Constitution of the United States:

''I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Counsels in this case are not without legal objections and legal technicalities so as to avoid the litigation based on the merit of Consumer Creditor’s claim. However, now the time has come for the opposing counsels to rise above and behind legal technicalities and irrefutable common knowledge of providing predatory loans to borrowers such as Consumer Creditor in accordance to their Attorney’s Oath to support the Constitution of the United States:

“I (repeat the name) solemnly swear that I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless, or unlawful suit, or give aid or consent to the same; I will delay no man for lucre or malice; but I will conduct myself in the office of an attorney within the courts according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, and with all good fidelity as well to the courts as my clients. So help me God.”

According to rule 8(f) FRCP all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice." The Court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.’’ It could also be argued that to dismiss a civil rights action or other lawsuit in which a serious factual pattern or allegation of a cause of action has been made would itself be violation of procedural due process as it would deprive a pro-se litigant of equal protection of the law vis-a-vis a party who is represented by counsel.

Consumer Creditor recognizes that he is facing a milestone and an uphill battle against lawyers that are well schooled with an in-depth knowledge of the law, influences, technical maneuvers and equipped with various inside scoop of courtroom strategies that he lacks. Although not a lawyer or pretending to be one, Consumer Creditor need not specify specific statutes or regulations that entitle him to relief; this court should examine this motion on any possible legal theory or as the court judge just to bring about a fair and equitable resolution (Hill v. GFC Loan Co., 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4345 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2000).

In a fair system, victory should go to a party who has the better case, not the better representation. Mr. Augustin (Consumer Creditor) is a victim of predatory lending and civil conspiracy of mortgage fraud. The financial institutions ultimately deprived him of his property rights with an illegal and unwarranted foreclosure to name a few violations. To further support his argument, Consumer Creditor has submitted as ‘Documented Evidences’ a law review article entitled “Predatory Structured Finance” by Christopher L. Peterson published in the Cardozo Law Review (see Exhibit).

1. Request To Obtain Subpoena Duces Tecum Based On The Merits
Likewise, “parties appearing pro se are allowed greater latitude with respect to reasonableness of their legal theories (Patterson V. Aiker, 111 F.R.D. 354, 358 [N.D. GA 1986])”. Also, the court is supposed to judge this motion based on its merits even if procedural errors are made. Thus, the Court must give this Consumer Creditor, “every favorable inference arising from his pro se status” (Hall v. Dworkin, 829 F. Supp. 1403, 1409 (ND NY 1993)).

Consumer Creditor is not looking for sympathy. Consumer Creditor is not looking to be rewarded. Consumer Creditor is not here seeking the punishment of the Non-Parties Witnesses. Consumer Creditor is seeking the Subpoenas from this Court to operate within the confinement of the law in litigating his claims fully based on the merits by seeking information likely to lead to admissible evidences (See Exhibits).

Your Honor, the public has an interest in the orderly administration of justice. Public policy favors the full litigation of the mortgage fraud claims on its merit and to broadly conduct full discovery. (See U.S. v. Premises and Real Prop. At 4492 S. Livonia Rd., F. 2d 1258, 1263 (2d Cir. 1989), see also U.S. v. All Assets of Statewide Auto Parts, Inc., 971 F. 2d 896, 902 (2d Cir. 1992) (a claimant’s interest in his home merits special constitutional protection).

[“In federal diversity actions, state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues.” Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 63 (1938); Legg v. Chopra, 286 F. 3d 286, 289 (6 Cir. 2002); Gafford v. General Electric Company, 997 F. 2d 150, 165-6 (6 Cir. 1993). Consumer Creditor’s, “Judge, you just don’t understand how things work,” argument reveals a condescending mindset and quasi-monopolistic system where financial institutions have traditionally controlled, and still control, the foreclosure process. Typically, the homeowner who finds himself/herself in financial straits, fails to make the required mortgage payments and faces a foreclosure suit, is not interested in testing state or federal jurisdictional requirements, either pro se or through counsel. Their focus is either, “how do I save my home,” or “if I have to give it up, I’ll simply leave and find somewhere else to live.”

In the meantime, the financial institutions or successors/assignees rush to foreclose, obtain a default judgment and then sit on the deed, avoiding responsibility for maintaining the property while reaping the financial benefits of interest running on a judgment. The financial institutions know the law charges the one with title (still the homeowner) with maintaining the property. There is no doubt every decision made by a financial institution in the foreclosure process is driven by money. And the legal work which flows from winning the financial institution’s favor is highly lucrative. There is nothing improper or wrong with financial institutions or law firms making a profit — to the contrary , they should be rewarded for sound business and legal practices. However, unchallenged by underfinanced opponents, the institutions worry less about jurisdictional requirements and more about maximizing returns. Unlike the focus of financial institutions, the federal courts must act as gatekeepers, assuring that only those who meet diversity and standing requirements are allowed to pass through. Counsel for the institutions are not without legal argument to support their position, but their arguments fall woefully short of justifying their premature filings, and utterly fail to satisfy their standing and jurisdictional burdens. The institutions seem to adopt the attitude that since they have been doing this for so long, unchallenged, this practice equates with legal compliance. Finally put to the test, their weak legal arguments compel the Court to stop them at the gate” (Christopher A. Boyko, United States District Judge).

In retrospect, Martin Luther King could not have said it better:

“But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. For at the real heart of battle for equality is a deep seated belief in the democratic process.“

[E]quality and [F]airness cannot co-exist if Consumer Creditor is not allowed to FULLY litigate his claims based on the merit as a result of the NEW Relevant Evidences submitted as possible admissible evidences. Ronald Dworkin regards law as an interpretive process under which individual rights are paramount. Society is composed of individuals. In the name of society’s public interest and good, protection of Consumer Creditor’s rights arguably becomes part of the public interest and good which in turn benefits some members of the population who were given risky loans and harms no members of society in the process.
Lastly, Consumer Creditor stands before this court with a sense of sadness for the ongoing foreclosure and financial crisis has resulted in the largest currency devaluation in modern U.S. History and affects every American and every foreign person, government, agency, public schools, village or city that put money into pooled funds of the collateralized debt obligations CDO’s.” Let us all hope and pray that the bailout stabilized local, national and global financial market and economical activities.

Thank you for taking ‘Judicial Notice’ of these NEW relevant evidences submitted and May the Honorable Chief Judge grant the request for the Subpoenas Duces Tecum as the Court deems just and proper. May God Bless you, America and our leaders.

[Our justice system is not perfect. Mistakes are inevitable. However, when
New evidences are presented, the will to do good must prevail over the status quo]

Respectfully Submitted,

Pierre R. Augustin, MPA, MBA, Pro Se
Consumer Creditor, 3941 Persimmon Drive, #102
Fairfax, VA 22031 (617)202-8069

----------------------------------------------

I can be reached for a FREE consultation at (cell) 617-202-8069 or (703) 584-5998,



it's FREE, there is no obligation whatsover...! Sincerely, Pierre R. Augustin, MPA, MBA

P.S. - What 3 friends do you know who would benefit from FREE Expert Loan Advice...!
1. Call and Speak with a Consultant, 1-617-202-8069 or (703) 584-5998, it's FREE!