Preview
AC 47342
APPELLATE COURT MARCH 4, 2024
LOWER CASE NO. FST CV 22 5027106 S
CASE MANAGER CORY M DAIGE
PETER LUNDSTEDT
Non-represented Plaintiff-Appellant
Vv.
DEUTSCHE BANK ET AL.
Defendant-Appellee
PLAINTIFF APPELLANTS
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
FOR OPPOSITION
AND TRANSCRIPTS
JURY DEMANDED.
Az
\\
Good Cause For Late Filing
The Plaintiff-Appellant, as non-represented, moved to stay appellate proceedings
due to delay in lower court proceedings in FST CV 22 5027106 S that include a
denied motion for review of 1-22-2020 order for summary judgment granted to
Defendant that Plaintiff opposes and objected to, a Plaintiff Reply at Dkt. No.
216.00 2/26/2024 P “Reply To Defendants Objection To Motion To Reargue”
(DOC. 215,00), a 03/11/2024 Short Calendar SC-11 #002 Calander event that
plaintiff will mark ready next week, and a denied motion to compel discovery in
the same case.
I Brief History.
In the lower Stamford Superior Court, Case FST CV 22 5027106 S, a summary
judgment order in favor of Defendant Appellee on all counts was issued on
January 22, 2024. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reargue or Alter the Summary
Judgment on February 12, 2024 which was denied.
Because the requirement to file certain documents within ten days was delayed,
and because Plaintiff is seeking and has not found legal representation, Plaintiff
asked the court to stay the proceedings until he is able to find representation to
file the required items due within ten days of filing the appeal and his appellate
brief.
Judgment was entered on January 22, 2024, and this appeal immediately followed
on February 9, 2024 in which all parties were noticed. Plaintiff Appellant was
denied a motion to amend without prejudice. At Doc. No. 203.00, on 01/16/2024,
Plaintiff Appellant alleged the following amended causes of action which was
denied. In support of this motion, the undersigned represents as follows:
ee
II Facts
WaMu issued Plaintiff Appellant a defective 2006 mortgage broker originated
Note and Security Instrument Residential Mortgage Loan Installment Contract
that lacked interest rate disclosures after telling Plaintiff Appellant he could
refinance in six months which they did not honor.
.
Plaintiff Appellant tried to work with WaMu to reduce his rate which they ignored
and in September 2007, Plaintiff Appellant, a non-represented litigant with
disabilities and little money, after making payments for a year, was forced to
default on the defective 2006 mortgage broker originated Note. WaMu then
partially accelerated the defective 2006 mortgage broker originated debt in
October of 2007.
Defendant Appellee acknowledged that the 2006 mortgage broker originated Note
and Security Instrument Installment Contract was invalid and on May 1, 2008,
Defendant Appellee Deutsche Bank et al. “originated” and issued a new modified
Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract that modified the loan “out of
foreclosure” as stated in servicer phone logs.
On December 4, 2008, Defendant Appellee filed a new complaint for strict
foreclosure in Stanford Superior Court. However, Defendant Appellee, later in
2008, found out that the new Defendant Appellee originated modified 2008 Note
was tainted and unenforceable so Defendant Appellee knowingly sued on the
mortgage broker originated canceled 2006 original Note and Security Instrument
Installment Contract that neither party were a party to. See attached memorandum
of law in EXHIBIT A.
Defendant Appellants attorney Kolakowski, Juris Number: 408783, a‘proclaimed
Commissioner of the Court, in a contested presentation, assured the September
16, 2013 trial court judge that his papers were in order and that those papers were
valid and enforceable.
Nowhere in the September 16, 2013 Trial Transcripts did Defendant Appellees
attorney Kolakowski Juris Number: 408783 ever mention the 2008 Defendant
Appellee originated modified Note and Security Instrument that represented the
agreement between the parties.
Even though Defendant Appellee was well aware that he had omitted the tainted
modified 2008 Note and even more aware that he was suing the Plaintiff
Appellant on a Note that had been canceled five years prior.
This is a fact and coordinated scheme that Plaintiff Appellant only discovered two
years after the judgment of strict foreclosure on the canceled 2006 original Note,.
Both Notes were judicially Noticed on July 31, 2015 at FST CV 08 5009697 S
Dkt. No. 217 while Defendant Appellant had a fiduciary duty to tell the Plaintiff
Appellee that they intended to include only the canceled original 2006 Note and
exclude the 2008 modified Note.
For five years, from 2008 to 2013, Defendant Appellees servicer assured the
Plaintiff Appellant that the 2006 original Note they were suing on was valid.
However, because Defendant Appellee “originated” the 2008 modified Note and
made suitability recommendations to the Plaintiff Appellee, that meant that
Defendant Appellee, at that point on May 1, 2008, became fiduciaries with a duty
to the Plaintiff Appellant to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with law, a
duty which they abused permanently injuring the Plaintiff Appellant that took the
Plaintiff Appellants ability to work and earn an income away.
When it came time for the Trial in 2013, Defendant Appellee omitted the newer
2008 agreement between the parties and only sued on the canceled 2006
agreement that both parties agreed to cancel. Neither Plaintiff Appellant nor the
trial court were aware that Defendant Appellant had misrepresented the canceled
2006 original Note evidence as valid and enforceable.
Nor did Plaintiff Appellant consent to being sued on the canceled 2006 Note
Contract. Had Plaintiff Appellant known there is no doubt that he would have
stood up and made the issue known in the court where Plaintiff Appellant
repeatedly objected preserving his right to appeal.
The fact that Defendant Appellee and their attorneys knew the Note Defendant
Appellee was suing on was not valid meant that they lacked standing to sue.
Plaintiff Appellant never consented to being sued on the canceled Note.
In Defendant Appellees motion to dismiss the Appeal, they state their second
argument as: “(2) fails to advance a good faith argument for the claims raised or
for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.
Plaintiff Appellant objects and opposes this theory because he has continuously
defended himself against Defendant Appellees misrepresentations on issue after
issue, and because Plaintiff Appellant had pursued his rights diligently constantly
noticed Defendant Appellee of his issues.
III Legal
Plaintiff Appellant does and will present several good faith arguments for the
claims raised or for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.
These include Plaintiff Appellants questions from the Order for Summary
Judgment regarding the case cited by the court in SOUSA v. SOUSA as to
collateral attacks on judgments from a different case. Plaintiff Appellant will pose
questions regarding how this case is different from Sousa v. Sousa. See EXHIBIT
F.
This includes, is Plaintiff Appellants claim a direct attack and if a judgment was
made on an invalid agreement as if it were a valid agreement and what the effect a
null judgment can even be collaterally attacked if it is decided that there was no
agreement or Contract before the court. And is it a collateral attack if the contract
was null and would that make the judgment null? And can one lawsuit case allege
wrongdoing in another case specifically on actions in the other case that caused
damages but that are not attacking the judgment itself? Is a collateral attack only
an attack on a “Judgment” as decided in Sousa v. Sousa or can other liabilities be
addressed by the behavior of the Plaintiff in another case besides the judgment
such as procedural damages not presented to the court in the other case?
Plaintiff Appellant would also pose questions regarding the ruling on res judicia
and the statute oflimitations verses concealment of causes of action missed by
the other case, etc.? Or does a Plaintiff Appellant required to file motions in the
other case that did not discover new information and new causes of action from
other behaviors apart from the Judgment itself? And can the court rule on a
canceled contract if they believe the contract is valid? And are there statutes of
limitations on Foreclosures? And is an opposing attorney liable to a Defendant if
they commit fraud upon the court?
The specific facts demonstrate good cause for a stay until matters have been
decided in the lower. court and that permit Plaintiffto find an attorney that
specializes in the issues of this case namely fraud on the court, canceled null and
voided original Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract mortgage loan
documents, undisclosed, suppressed, and concealed modified Note and Security
Instrument Installment Contract loan documents that the court did not see until ten
years after the time the Defendants complaint was filed, and motioning to open,
vacate, and dismiss a null judgment of strict foreclosure that the court did not
know was a canceled Contract/Note that had no standing.
Plaintiff
has been diligent every day since 2008 and through all state and federal
appeals by pursuing his rights diligently and thus equitable tolling applies in this
case in light of nondisclosure of pertinent loan documents meaning the modified
Note.
See: “Equitable tolling pauses or “tolls” a statutory limitations period after it has
commenced. A litigant qualifies for equitable tolling if they establish:(1) that he
has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that’some extraordinary
circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.” Id. at 363, citing
Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 577 U.S. 250, 255 (2016).” 19
“For Truth in Lending Act disclosure violations, Statute of Limitations runs from
the time ofdisclosure. NCLC’s Truth in Lending § 13.7.3.” Carnese v. Middleton,
supra, 27 Conn. App. 542.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Appellant requests a stay until the lower court is finished
and until Plaintiff Appellant can find an attorney who specializes in these issues.
NOTE: The motion shall be typewritten (12 point serif font, with section captions
in 14 point serif font), line spacing can be between 1.3x and 1.5x and must be
uniform throughout (including block quotes and footnotes), with: appropriate
margins, and shall not exceed 3500 words, exclusive of the case caption, signature
block, certifications, and appendix.
As a non-represented litigant Plaintiff-Appellant, I am entitled to liberal reading
and interpretation of my pleadings; See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 520 (1971),
US Supreme Court; “Court errs if court dismisses the non-represented litigant
without instruction of-how pleadings are. deficient and how to repair pleadings.”
Platsky v. C.I.A. 953 F.2d. 25., See: Chambers vs. Time Warner 282 F.3d 147,
152-53 (2d Cir. 2002). “The court must take all factual allegations in the
complaint and its exhibits as true, and cons-rue all reasonable inferences in the
plaintiff’s favor.”
Plaintiff appellant has read and affirms that this complaint is grounded in fact, to
the best of Plaintiffs’ knowledge, information, belief; and that it is brought in
Good Faith.
Respectfully submitted,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
s
Peter Lundstedt
812 Stonington Road
Stonington, CT 06378
203-733-0311
plundstedt@gmail.com
OS oe
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to P.B. §§ 62-7 and 66-3, it is hereby certified that a copy of the forgoing
was sent electronically this 4th day of March, 2024, to: ZEK LLP, 1 Landmark
Sq. Fl. 4, Stamford, CT 06901 203-622-0900 Defendant’s attorney defendant
appellee, Deutsche Bank et al. It is also certified that this document has been
redacted or does not contain any names or other personal identifying information
that is prohibited from disclosure by rule, statute, court order, or case law. It is
also certified that this document complies with all applicable rules of appellate
procedure.
It is also certified that this motion, exclusive of the case caption, signature block
of counsel of record, certifications, and appendix, is 1927 words.
Respectfully submitted,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
s.
Peter Lundstedt
812 Stonington Road
Stonington, CT 06378
203-733-0311
plundstedt@gmail.com
AC 47342
APPELLATE COURT MARCH 4, 2024
LOWER CASE NO. FST CV 22 5027106 S
CASE MANAGER CORY M DAIGE
PETER LUNDSTEDT
Non-represented Plaintiff-Appellant
Vv.
DEUTSCHE BANK ET AL.
Defendant-Appellee
OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT APPELLEES
MOTION TO DISMISS
JURY DEMANDED
Good Cause For Late Filing
The Plaintiff-Appellant, as non-represented, moved.to stay appellate proceedings
due to delay in lower court proceedings in FST CV 22 5027106 S that include a
denied motion for review of 1-22-2020 order for summary judgment granted to
Defendant that Plaintiff opposes and objected to, a Plaintiff Reply at Dkt. No.
216.00 2/26/2024 P “Reply To Defendants Objection To Motion To Reargue”
(DOC. 215.00), a 03/11/2024 Short Calendar SC-11 #002 Calander event that
plaintiff will mark ready next week, and a denied motion to compel discovery in
the same case.
In the lower Stamford Superior Court, Case FST cv 22 5027106 S, a summary
judgment order in favor of Defendant Appellee on all counts was issued on
January 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reargue or Alter the Summary
Judgment on February 12, 2024 which was denied.
Because the requirement to file certain documents within ten days was delayed,
and because Plaintiffis seeking and has not found legal representation, Plaintiff
asked the court to stay the proceedings until he is able to find representation to
file the required items due within ten days of filing the appeal and his appellate
brief.
Judgment was entered on January 22, 2024, and this appeal immediately followed
on February 9, 2024 in which all parties were noticed. Plaintiff Appellant was
denied a motion to amend without prejudice. At Doc. No. 203.00, on 01/16/2024,
Plaintiff Appellant alleged the following amended causes of action which was
denied. In support of this motion, the undersigned represents as follows:
I Brief History.
Plaintiff Appellant has never had his issues properly adjudicated. ' Plaintiff
Appellant was injured starting in 2008 whose injuries grew due to Defendant
Appellees negligence and suppression of documents.
WaMu issued Plaintiff Appellant a defective 2006 mortgage broker originated
Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract that lacked interest rate
disclosures after telling Plaintiff Appellant he could refinance in six months which
they did not honor. Plaintiff Appellant tried to work with WaMu to reduce his rate
which they ignored and in September 2007, Plaintiff Appellant, after making
payments for a year, was forced to default on the defective 2006 mortgage broker
originated Note. WaMu then partially accelerated the defective 2006 mortgage
broker originated debt in October of 2007.
Te
...the court must make certain that there was a full and fair opportunity
to litigate. The requirement of full and fair litigation ensures fairness, which is a
crowning consideration in collateral estoppel cases. . . . [I]f the nature of the
hearing carries procedural limitations that would not be present at a later hearing,
the party might not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate.” (Internal quotation
marks omitted.) Gateway, Kelso & Co. v. West Hartford No. 1, LLC, 126 Conn.
App. 578, 584, 15 A.3d 635, cert. denied, 300 Conn. 929, 16 A.3d 703 (2011).
The constitutional concerns, however, that are admittedly in § 961, require a
"thorough inquiry" which must appear on the record. This record falls far short of
this, (as does the Defendants record in this case). To conclude otherwise is judicial
blinking at the mandate that the record establish that the defendant ""knows what
he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open." Faretta v. California 558*558
supra, 835, citing Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 279, 63
S. Ct. 236, 87 L. Ed. 268 (1942). - Therefore, I dissent and would order a new
trial. 193 Conn. 526 (1984) State Of Connecticut V. David Gethers (10953)
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
WaMu was going to enter bankruptcy and assigned the defective 2006 Note to
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage
Loan Trust 2006-10, (“Deutsche Bank et al.”, or “Defendant Appellee”), for $1,
(one dollar), while the 2006 Note was in default. Three weeks later, Defendant
Appellee solicited Plaintiff Appellant to sign a May 1, 2008 Defendant Appellee
Deutsche Bank originated modified Note and Security Instrument Installment
Contract that “Forever canceled, null, void[ed]” the 2006 mortgage broker
originated 2006 Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract under duress
of imminent ejection from his house.
Upon acquiring the 2006 Note in default for $1 on April 8, 2008, Deutsche Bank
et al. acknowledged Plaintiff Appellants complaint, in a new May 1, 2008
Defendant Appellee Deutsche Bank originated modified Note and Security
Instrument Installment Contract, that the 2006 Note was defect. See FST CV 22
5027016 S EXHIBIT 26 EXHIBIT B1 Clause 14 that stated: “...As part of the
consideration for this Agreement, Borrower agrees to release and waive all claims
... against the Trust ...which Borrower contends caused Borrower damage or
injury, or which Borrower contends renders the Note or the Security Instrument
void, voidable, or unenforceable...”
The 2008 Defendant Appellee Deutsche Bank originated modified Note canceled
the 2006 mortgage broker originated original Note. See FST CV 22 5027016 S
EXHIBIT 26 EXHIBIT BI Clause 6 which states: “The following terms and
provisions of the original Note and Security Instrument are forever canceled,
null and void, as of the date of this agreement.” The 2008 Defendant Appellee
Deutsche Bank originated modified Contract is a new Contract. See citations. ?
? “If the original contract was modified and changed by subsequent agreement,
the contract as changed became a new contract.” Malkan v. Hemming, 73 A. 752
Prior to the assignment of the defective 2006 mortgage broker originated Note for
$1, Defendant Appellee prematurely initiated foreclosure on the 2006 mortgage
broker originated Note. It was premature because that they did not own yet and
scrambled to back out of it unseen. On October 20, 2008, Defendant Appellee
withdrew its premature strict foreclosure complaint and three weeks later refiled
the same Complaint on the canceled 2006 mortgage broker originated Note while
omitting the 2008 Defendant Appellee Deutsche Bank originated Modified Note
entirely from the Complaint. See the September 16, 2013 Trial Transcripts in
(Conn. 1909) Supreme Court of Conn. PRECEDENTIAL Status: Precedential
Citations: 73 A. 752, 82 Conn. 293n Judges: THAYER; See: “If the original
contract was modified and changed by subsequent agreement, the contract as
changed became a new contract.” Teal v. Bilby, 123 U.S. 572, 578,8 Sup. Ct. Rep.
239; Rollins v. Marsh, 128 Mass. 116, 120; Rogers v. Rogers, 139 id. 440, 444, 1
N.E. 122. See: “...to find that Silvestri was a party to the modified contract and
hence personally liable for breach of contract . . . [t]he contract as modified
becomes a new contract between the parties” [internal quotation mark.] appearing
in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or
Connecticut Appellate... Joseph General Contracting, Inc. v. Couto (Conn. 2015)
Date Filed: July 21st, 2015 Status: PRECEDENTIAL Docket Number:
SC19209... Corp., supra, 295 Conn. 229. SC19209 Supreme Court of
Connecticut, Joseph General... Realty v. Connecticut National Bank, 53 Conn.
App. 524, 534, 732 A.2d 181, cert. denied, 250 Conn. 901, 734. See: “Under law
of contracts, a substituted contract is a new contract.. Any default of the principal
obligor on the substituted contract does not revive the original underlying
obligation or the secondary obligation. A modification of the underlying
obligation that imposes risks of secondary obligor fundamentally different from
those present initially is the substantial equivalent of a substituted contract, and
similarly discharges the secondary obligation.” St. Petersburg Bank v. Boutin,
1971. See: “U.S. 26 CFR 1.1001-3 - Modifications of debt instruments. (B)
General rule. § 1.1001-1(A), a significant modification of a debt instrument,
within the meaning of this section, results in an exchange of the original debt
instrument for a modified instrument that differs materially either in kind or in
extent.”
EXHIBIT B, where Defendant Appellee exclaims the validity of the canceled
2006 mortgage broker originated Note BUT NEVER MENTIONS ONCE the
2008 Defendant Appellee Deutsche Bank originated modified Note. EXHIBIT C
shows the instant lower court Transcripts.
Six weeks later, on December 4, 2008, Defendant Appellee filed the virtually
same premature strict foreclosure complaint again on the Plaintiff Appellant with
no attachment or mention of the 2008 Defendant Appellee Deutsche Bank
originated modified Note, the only Note that legally represented the agreement
between the patties.
The complaint claims to accelerate the 2006 mortgage Broker originated Note
that Defendant Appellant already canceled on May 1, 2008 meaning it was
impossible to accelerate because it no longer existed having been extinguished
seven months prior on May 1, 2008.
The Complaint, in its entirety, fails to mention the Defendant Appellee originated
2008 modified Note, something that the court would have been very interested in
seeing. Defendant Appellee orchestrated the containment of information available
to the trial judge thereby causing manifest injustice and prejudice against the non-
represented Plaintiff Appellant.
Had the judge known that critical legal papers were being hidden from him he
would have been outraged.
Then, the Defendant Appellees December 4, 2008 complaint failed in its entirety
to properly accelerate the Defendant Appellee originated 2008 modified debt as
required by law, and another injustice imposed upon the Plaintiff Appellant.
Having known that the Defendant Appellee originated 2008 Note was not being
disclosed in its complaint caused a state of perjury to exist. \
The Defendant Appellee and several “Commissioners of the Court” also known as
attorneys, had full knowledge that the complaint was being made on canceled
documents which shows that a continuing course of conduct was being
perpetuated at the expense of the Plaintiff Appellant and undermining the integrity
of the Justic System and the Stamford Connecticut Superior Court.
A jury would certainly be outraged if it knew that not only the Defendant
Appellee was committing fraud upon the court, and exponentially so if it knew
court officials were involved in the scheme.
Defendant Appellee has never admitted that the Defendant Appellee originated
2008 modified Note exists, although one of its servicers included the undisclosed
Defendant Appellee originated modified 2008 Note in.a RESPA Qualified Written
Response in 2023 for the first time, nearly fifteen years after it should have.
Had the Defendant Appellant and the several Commissioners of the Court of
Connecticut that represented them disclosed the prohibited Defendant Appellee
originated 2008 modified Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract
when they should have in 2008, Plaintiff Appellant would have been able to avoid
the unyielding inflictions of daily emotional, physical, financial, professional,
societal, and reputational distresses and destruction of his life for fifteen years, the
compounding and continuing course of conduct which permanently injured him to
the point of not being able to work. Defendant Appellee destroyed all of Plaintiff
Appellants dreams of owning his own houses, his own business, and the chance to
have a family while chaining him to an enormous debt that he would never be
able to pay off. >
3 Serious, or severe, emotional distress means emotional distress of such
substantial quantity or enduring quality that no reasonable person in a’ civilized
society must be expected to endure it. It may consist of all highly unpleasant
Furthermore, to enhance their deception, Defenant Appellee clouds the complaint
with every detail of the contents of the Greenwich, CT Land Recordings on the
property but noticeably fail to record the Defendant Appellee originated 2008
modified Note, the only agreement that existed between the Defendant Appellee
and the Plaintiff Appellant.
In the December 4, 2008 Defendant Appellee complaint at EXHIBIT D, the
complaint states in Paragraph 3. See February 18, 2008 premature Defendant
Appellee sent foreclosure complaint in EXHIBIT E.
“Said Note is in default and the Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company,
as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10 as the holder of said
Mortgage and Note has elected to accelerate the balance due on said Note, to
declare said Note to be due in full and to foreclose the Mortgage securing said
Note.”
Defendant Appellee knew full well that they were no longer the holder of the said
mortgage broker originated 2006 Note they complained of because “THEY”
canceled it which extinguished on May 1, 2008 making it a false statement in a
court filing. The only Note that Defendant Appellee were a holder of was the
Defendant Appellee originated 2008 modified Note and Security Instrument
Installment Contract which Defendant Appellee never sued upon.
In 6., the next paragraph, Defendant Appellee again misrepresents itselfto the
court by stating: “The Plaintiff has provided written notice in accordance with the
inental reactions such as fright, grief, horror, shame, loss of enjoyment of life,
humiliation, nervousness, anxiety, embarrassment, anger, chagrin,
disappointment, worry, indignity, or nausea, as well as physical suffering. The
intensity and the Duration of the distress are factors to be considered in
determining its severity. (Hailey vs. California Physicians. service (2007) 158 Cal.
App. 4th 452; Schild vs. Ruybin (1991) 232 Cal. App. 3d 755, 762-763.)
Note and Mortgage to the Defendant(s) of the default under the Note and
Mortgage, but said Defendant(s) has failed and neglected to cure the default.”
Here again, Defendant Appellee never provided any written notice in accordance
with the Defendant Appellee originated 2008 modified Note and because of that,
Plaintiff Appellant could not have failed to cure a default on a canceled mortgage
broker originated Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract which
neither he NOR Defendant Appellee were a party to after May 1, 2008 when
Defendant Appellee themselves canceled it.
In the Complaint, the Plaintiff goes on to state it has elected to accelerate the
balance due on said mortgage broker originated 2006 Note that they canceled, to
declare said canceled mortgage broker originated 2006 Note to be due in full and
to foreclose the Mortgage securing said Note which they nor the Plaintiff
Appellee were no longer a party to.
Next, in paragraph 10. Defendant Appellee states that the Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company, as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loon Trust 2006-
10, (“Defendant Appellee”), has further caused a Lis Pendens to be recorded on
the Land Records of the Town of Greenwich. A copy of said Lis Pendens is
attached hereto as Exhibit A. This misrepresents the Lis Pendant because there
was no longer a mortgage dated September 25, 2006 because the Defendant
Appellee canceled it and replaced it with their own Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company, as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loon Trust 2006-10 written and
originated May 1, 2008 modified Note and Security Instrument Installment
Contract with its own four corners. Thus, the Defendant Appellees “acquired”
September 16, 2013 Judgment of Strict Foreclosure was only enforceable on the
mortgage broker originated 2006 Note and not the never disclosed to the court
Defendant Appellees 2008 originated modified Note, the only valid and
enforceable agreement between the.parties. Had the trial court actually seen the
CO
Defendant Appellees originated modified 2008 Note with materially different
Terms and Provisions, and then proclaimed the Defendant Appellee originated
modified 2008 Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract as the
agreement between the parties, then the September 16, 2013 Order for Judgment ,
of Strict Foreclosure would have been valid and would have had legal effect.
Furthermore, until the Defendant Appellee discloses
the actual Defendant
Appellee originated 2008 modified Note and Security Instrument Installment
Contract agreement between Plaintiff Appellant and the Defendant Appellee to the
court, the September 16, 2013 Judgment of Strict Foreclosure must exist in a state
of nullity since legally it represents no valid Contract that “was before the court,”
and they knew it.
Plaintiff Appellant was a sole practitioner small businessman in 2008 and just
starting his new company having raised $4 million in his fee only portfolio
managed program, *
WaMu was failing and assigned the Plaintiff Appellants’ sole proprietor small
businessman business suffered when Defendant Appellee engaged in predatory
lending and predatory litigation aimed at improperly acquiring the cash from the
sale of Plaintiff Appellants house, of which Defendant Appellee acquired
$560,000.00 from, based on the September 16, 2013 judgment of strict
foreclosure on the canceled 2006 Note which the trial court did not know was
canceled, and resulting invalid accrued interest of $1.2 million, claimed to have
come from an invalid 2006 original mortgage broker originated Note and Security
Instrument Installment Contract that had been forever canceled, null, and void on
May 1, 2008 by a newer but illegal modified Deutsche Bank May 1, 2008
4 See Plaintiff Appellants old business website at https. lideshare.net/plundstedt001
10
EE
originated Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract. while the Trial
Court was not aware of another predatory loan Contact that violated consumer
law which neither the Defendant Appellee, nor its attorneys, nor servicers wanted
the court to see because it was adhesive.
Plaintiff Appellant alleges that he was so overwhelmed by Defendant Appellees’
1.) pattern of continuous conduct of alleged reckless lending, 2.) alleged predatory
litigation, 3.) alleged fraud upon the court, 4.) alleged conspiracy with each of
their attorneys and servicers to withhold disclosure of the tainted and abusive
prohibited modified Note and Security: Instrument, and 5.) to fraudulently litigate
on a cancelled mortgage broker originated Note and Security Instrument
Installment Contract Note, that neither were a party to, that it eventually
permanently shut Plaintiff Appellant down 1.) emotionally, 2.) physically, 3.)
financially, 4.) professionally, and 5.) socially, that he could not function or
properly in society or defend himself as a non-represented litigant against contract
papers he was not even a party to. See Plaintiffs income drop off starting in 2008
at the same time Defendant Appellee began its campaign to acquire Plaintiff
Appellants property
Because of that, Plaintiff Appellant was left unable to work, eventually becoming
homeless after losing his home, business, and potential spouse forever, where he
was never provided relief from the Defendant Appellees’ predatory lending and
litigation schemes. None of Plaintiff Appellants issues were adjudicated because
he was delayed by appeals, the judges of which never knew that Defendant
Appellee had no standing when they filed their complaint of strict foreclosure on
the canceled original Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract.
After shutting down in 2008, Plaintiff Appellant remained in a catatonic state,
unable to participate in business or society, in constant fear of dying of a heart
attack or stroke from the immense weight of Defendant Appelleés’ improper
a1
litigation against him under false pretenses while they allegedly concealed cause
of actions that Plaintiff Appellant did not become aware of a number of years after
they acquired a judgment of strict foreclosure on the canceled original Note and
Security Instrument Installment Contract which the trial judge was unaware of its
invalidity and which Plaintiff Appellant objected to and did not
Where the affidavit of compliance with Emergency Mortgage Assistance Act was
not valid because the affidavit was on a canceled piece of paper and not on a
current contract with four corners, where the trial judge stated:
COURT: Do you have any objection to the affidavit of debt, sir?
MR. LUNDSTEDT: I do.
THE COURT: Okay. What is your objection?
MR. LUNDSTEDT: I just object, Your Honor, for the record.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. LUNDSTEDT: It’s my feeling that it’s not correct.
THE COURT: Okay and what is the basis of your feeling that it’s not correct?
MR. LUNDSTEDT: Because it’s not a legitimate loan.
See the FST CV 08 5009697 S Trial Transcripts in EXHIBIT B.
The Plaintiff Appellant could not have know that the Note the trial judge was
ruling on was not a valid Contract because he would have stated it then and there.
Because there was never a judgment on his issues, which was delayed because
Plaintiff Appellant -
There was no res judicia on Plaintiff Appellants claims or allegations because
none of his claims were adjudicated and not one had a judgment.
12
and then alleged suppression and alleged concealment and failure to disclose
another prohibited modified adhesion agreement and Mortgage Broker Mariners
Capital solicited Plaintiff Appellant and originated a Note and Security Instrument
Residential Mortgage Loan Installment Contract, the (“2006 Note”), using
Plaintiff Appellants house as collateral. Plaintiff Appellant questioned the high
interest rate and was told he could refinance in six months.
‘WaMu then failed to send Plaintiff Appellant the required Interest Rate Disclosure
letter so that Plaintiff Appellant would not pull out of the deal.
Due to economic events, Plaintiff Appellant was unable to make the high interest
rate payments. Plaintiff Appellant called WaMu to let them know he was unable to
handle the high monthly payments and asked if they could temporarily reduce his
payments until his sole practitioner portfolio management business could recover.
Instead of considering his request, WaMu entered Plaintiff Appellant into an
aggressive robocalling program that asked him the same thing over and over and
over again for more than five years. Plaintiff Appellant was forced to default on
the 2006 broker originated Note in September of 2007.
Defendant Appellee Deutsche Bank, (“Deutsche Bank et al.”), was not the owner
of the 2006 broker originated Note yet, but was the passive Trustee to the Long
Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10 that held Plaintiff Appellants’ 2006 Note.
Plaintiff Appellant attempted to negotiate a lower rate but was ignored. In 2007,
Plaintiff Appellant discovered that the 2006 broker originated Note was defective
13
and violated Connecticut and Federal consumer and contract law which he
notified WaMu who notified Deutsche Bank et al.
‘WaMu was failing and agreed to “give” the 2006 loan Note to Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-
10 by assignment while the 2006 broker originated Note was in default, who then
prepared to receive the 2006 broker originated Note by assignment for the
consideration of $1.00 to take place on April 8, 2008. Deutsche Bank was on the
verge of landing a one million dollars basically for $1 (one dollar).
However, Deutsche Bank et al. seemed to so eager to acquire the 2006 broker
originated Note for practically nothing that they jumped the gun and prematurely
filed a strict foreclosure complaint in Stamford Superior Court on February 18,
2008. See entire file in EXHIBIT E.
This case disappeared from the Docket but was fortunately preserved by the court.
See EXHIBIT E which shows the premature, not yet ripe, Complaint and the
entire file, that was served on the Plaintiff Appellant with a return date of March
18, 2008, nearly a month “before” the assignment took place, on April 8, 2008
and before Deutsche Bank owned the Note which was still owned by Long Beach
Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10.
Notice the last page where their motion to withdraw again omits the year date
showing only a partial year date. That violated the law. Defendant Appellee has
shown their propensity to cheat and take short cuts recklessly ordered by the
Defendant Appellee as a pattern of continuous course of conduct that is
unbecoming of what are supposed to be sophisticated mortgage loan experts that
are fiduciaries that have a duty to consumer borrowers on the mortgage loans they
originate.
14
See Title XIV—Mortgage Reform And Anti-Predatory Lending Act. Subtitle A—
Residential Mortgage Loan Origination Standards, Sec. 1404 Liability. ?
5 «8 129B. Residential mortgage loan origination. “(a) FINDING AND
PURPOSE.— ‘‘(1) FINDING.—The Congress finds that economic stabilization
would be enhanced by the protection, limitation, and regulation of the terms of
residential mortgage credit and the practices related to such credit, while ensuring
that responsible, affordable mortgage credit remains available to consumers.
(2) PURPOSE.—It is the purpose of this section and section 129C to assure that
consumers are offered and receive residential mortgage loans on terms that
reasonably reflect their ability to repay the loans and that are understandable and
not unfair, deceptive or abusive. “‘(b) DUTY OF CARE.— “(1) STANDARD.—
Subject to regulations prescribed under this subsection, each mortgage originator
shall, in addition to the duties imposed by otherwise applicable provisions of
State or Federal law— “(A) be qualified and, when required, registered and
licensed as a mortgage originator in accordance with applicable State or Federal
law, including the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of
2008; and “(B) include on all loan documents any unique identifier of the
mortgage originator provided by the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and
Registry. “(2) COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES REQUIRED.—The Board shall
prescribe regulations requiring depository institutions to establish and maintain
procedures reasonably designed to assure and monitor the compliance of such
depository institutions, the subsidiaries of such institutions, and the employees of-
such institutions or subsidiaries with the requirements of this section and the
registration procedures established under section 1507 of the Secure and Fair
Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008.” (b) CLERICAL
AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for chapter 2 of the Truth in Lending Act
1s
After Plaintiff Appellant complained to WaMu and Defendant Appellee of the
defective 2006 broker originated Note and the premature defective foreclosure
court filing, Defendant Appellee decided to get out of the defective 2006 broker
originated Note “Contract” by forever cancel, null, and voiding the 2006 broker
originated Note Contract and replacing it with a new May 1, omitted 2008
Deutsche Bank “originated” modified Note and Security Instrument Installment
Contract, the (“2008 Note”).
The omitted 2008 Deutsche Bank “originated” modified Note exonerated
Defendant Appellee and its servicers and attorneys from liability to Plaintiff
Appellant from the defective 2006 broker originated Note AND the improper
premature February 18, 2008 foreclosure action.
On or about May 1, 2008, one of the Defendant Appellees’ internal attorneys
called the Plaintiff Appellant to pressure him to sign the new omitted 2008
Deutsche Bank “originated” modified Note and Security Instrument Installment
Contract and told the Plaintiff Appellant that if he did not sigh the new omitted
2008 Deutsche Bank “originated” modified Note Contract Agreement Defendant
Appellee would immediately foreclose on the Plaintiff Appellant which would
have caused the Plaintiff Appellant to become homeless.
On May 6, 2008, Defendant Appellee signed the new omitted 2008 Deutsche
Bank “originated” modified Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract if
from of three witnesses including the Notary who Notarized the new Contract.
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 129 the following new
items: “129A. Fiduciary duty of servicers of pooled residential mortgages.
“129B. Residential mortgage loan origination.”.
16
However, the omitted 2008 Deutsche Bank “originated” modified Note was in
effect an adhesion contract that did nothing for the Plaintiff Appellant and actually
increased his monthly mortgage payments from $10,352.00 to $10,622.00 when
the Plaintiff Appellant could hardly afford $3,000.00 per month at the time of the
omitted 2008 Deutsche Bank “originated” modified Note origination.
The Defendant Appellee held the Plaintiff Appellant down while avoiding
disclosure of their faulty and prohibited omitted 2008 Deutsche Bank “originated”
modified Note with reckless Terms and Provision where, at the same time,
Defendant Appellee was lowering other borrowers monthly payments thus
prejudicing the Plaintiff Appellant which Defendant Appellees own mortgage loan
expert, who testified against the Plaintiff Appellant in his federal case, then left
the employ of Defendant Appellees servicer, only to attest for Plaintiff Appellant
to that afterwards in 2018 AFTER the federal case partial judgment as to NIED
only and for only 200 or so robocalls in an affidavit in EXHIBIT G below.
These unreasonable predatory reckless lending patterns and policies guaranteed ,
the Plaintiff Appellants’ foreclosure and crushed any chance of him ever
recovering while placing him into a reckless predatory debt position of
imprisonment of over $1.2 million from which he could never recover after which
he lost everything and was forced into homelessness for the next seven years
while barely surviving, having to shower at the local YMCA, on just over $400.00
a month until he was able to take early Social Security and receive some relief
from the Veterans Administration while spending much of his time at the library
where he continued to diligently pursue his rights.
Nearly seven months later, WaMu failed and was taken over by the Federal
goverriment where servicer JPMorgan Chase acquired the WaMu robocalling
collections department, which continued to hound the Plaintiff Appellant for the
next five years, and then became the new servicer for the Trust holding the 2006
17
broker originated Note that secured Plaintiff Appellants home as collateral for the
omitted 2008 Deutsche Bank “originated” modified Note where Defendant
Appellee never Noticed the Trust that the 2006 broker originated Note had been
replaced with a new omitted 2008 Deutsche Bank “originated” modified Note
which was another omission by Defendant Appellee.
After giving it seven months of breathing room, on October 20, 2008, Defendant
Appellee directed its servicer JPMorgan Chase Bank to withdraw the defective
February 18, 2008 premature strict foreclosure complaint. See EXHIBIT E below.
A month and a half later, Defendant Appellee, now as Trustee to the Trust AND
owner and issuer of the omitted 2008 Deutsche Bank originated modified Note,
directed its servicer to file the same February 18, 2008 Complaint, filed by its
previous servicer, for strict foreclosure on December 4, 2008.
The December 4, 2008 Complaint in EXHIBIT D was virtually the same as the
February 18, 2008 complaint in EXHIBIT E below. However, the December 4,
2008 Complaint for strict foreclosure only referenced the canceled null and
voided 2006 broker originated Note and said NOTHING about the defective
omitted 2008 Deutsche Bank “originated” modified Note new agreement between
Plaintiff Appellant and the Defendant Appellee.
Standard
The standard set by the court, and in all Appellate and Supreme Courts is that if
you are going to file a complaint on a Contract dispute, you must prove to the
court that the Contract you are presenting to the court as evidence of a debt, owed
by a Defendant and entitled to be collected upon by the Plaintiff, must be a valid
enforceable Contract between the parties. Otherwise the subject of the Complaint,
here the 2006 broker originated Note, does not have standing to be sued upon, and
even more so if the actual Note, whether vail or not, is omitted from the eyes of
18
the trier of fact, even more so again, if the trier of fact lacks knowledge of the
omitted modified Note and whose contained knowledge created by the Plaintiff in
a complaint is not known. In the December 4, 2008 case, the Defendant Appellee
succeeded in containing what the judge knew about the facts without the judges or
Plaintiff Appellants consent or permission. The Defendant Appellees attorney
grossly violated his duty and oath, and as he often states, Commissioner of the
Court, when he contained the case with misrepresented facts where the judge
thought the Note he was ruling on was a valid Document. See the Transcripts in
EXHIBIT C.
Argument
Plaintiff Appellant opposes and objects to Defendant Appellees’ motion to
dismiss. In their motion to dismiss, Defendant Appellee states the following:
“APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS Pursuant to § 66-8 of the
Connecticut Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Appellee, Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company, as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust
2006-10 (“Defendant”), hereby moves to dismiss this appeal of Peter
Lundstedt (“Plaintiff”) for the reason that the Appeal: (1) was taken
primarily for the purpose of harassing and/or maliciously injuring
Defendant, and; (2) fails to advance a good faith argument for the claims
raised or for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.”
Plaintiff Appellant opposes Defendant Appellees’ state reason (1) above for the
following reasons: A. Defendant Appellees’ statement that Plaintiff Appellees
Appeal “was taken primarily for the purpose ofharassing and/or maliciously
injuring Defendant.” This is patently untrue.
19
See also “Statements of counsel, in their briefs or their arguments are not
sufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary Judgment,” Trinsey vs.
Pagliaro, d. C. Pa. 1964.
Plaintiff Appellant never was asked by Defendant Appellee why he was filing his
Appeal of the lower courts order of summary judgment, and Plaintiff Appellant
never told Defendant Appellee that he was filing for the purpose of harassing
and/or maliciously injuring Defendant.
Defendant Appellee shows no proof that Plaintiff Appellant “thought” that was
the reason for his appeal. Defendant Appellees’ statement is conjecture and at
most an unsupported opinion. This is Defendant Appellees’ number one reason for
moving to dismiss the Appeal.
This shows Defendant Appellees’ pattern and continuing course of conduct of
deception and misrepresentation, omitting crucial modified 2008 loan documents
that showed reckless predatory lending practices, while presenting the trial court
with invalid canceled original 2006 loan papers while assuring the court and
Plaintiff Appellant that their papers were in order and valid, when in fact, they
were 100% invalid and lacked standing to proceed with their foreclosure under
pretense and with full knowledge of their presentation of invalid forever canceled,
null and void papers, and deception towards the Plaintiff Appellant and the court
for over sixteen years from 2008 to 2024, and Defendant Appellee still has not
disclosed the defective omitted 2008 Deutsche Bank “originated” modified Note
to the state court. ©
5 In (Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Bialobrzeski, 3 A.3d 183
(Conn App. Ct. 2010) Trust: Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-3), the Court
ruled: The judgment for the trust was reversed and the case was remanded for a
hearing on the motion to dismiss. “The key to resolving the defendant's claim is a
20
Even in their motion to dismiss, Defendant Appellee continues to
Preview
AC 47342 APPELLATE COURT MARCH 4, 2024 LOWER CASE NO. FST CV 22 5027106 S CASE MANAGER CORY M DAIGE PETER LUNDSTEDT Non-represented Plaintiff-Appellant Vv. DEUTSCHE BANK ET AL. Defendant-Appellee PLAINTIFF APPELLANTS MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR OPPOSITION AND TRANSCRIPTS JURY DEMANDED. Az \\ Good Cause For Late Filing The Plaintiff-Appellant, as non-represented, moved to stay appellate proceedings due to delay in lower court proceedings in FST CV 22 5027106 S that include a denied motion for review of 1-22-2020 order for summary judgment granted to Defendant that Plaintiff opposes and objected to, a Plaintiff Reply at Dkt. No. 216.00 2/26/2024 P “Reply To Defendants Objection To Motion To Reargue” (DOC. 215,00), a 03/11/2024 Short Calendar SC-11 #002 Calander event that plaintiff will mark ready next week, and a denied motion to compel discovery in the same case. I Brief History. In the lower Stamford Superior Court, Case FST CV 22 5027106 S, a summary judgment order in favor of Defendant Appellee on all counts was issued on January 22, 2024. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reargue or Alter the Summary Judgment on February 12, 2024 which was denied. Because the requirement to file certain documents within ten days was delayed, and because Plaintiff is seeking and has not found legal representation, Plaintiff asked the court to stay the proceedings until he is able to find representation to file the required items due within ten days of filing the appeal and his appellate brief. Judgment was entered on January 22, 2024, and this appeal immediately followed on February 9, 2024 in which all parties were noticed. Plaintiff Appellant was denied a motion to amend without prejudice. At Doc. No. 203.00, on 01/16/2024, Plaintiff Appellant alleged the following amended causes of action which was denied. In support of this motion, the undersigned represents as follows: ee II Facts WaMu issued Plaintiff Appellant a defective 2006 mortgage broker originated Note and Security Instrument Residential Mortgage Loan Installment Contract that lacked interest rate disclosures after telling Plaintiff Appellant he could refinance in six months which they did not honor. . Plaintiff Appellant tried to work with WaMu to reduce his rate which they ignored and in September 2007, Plaintiff Appellant, a non-represented litigant with disabilities and little money, after making payments for a year, was forced to default on the defective 2006 mortgage broker originated Note. WaMu then partially accelerated the defective 2006 mortgage broker originated debt in October of 2007. Defendant Appellee acknowledged that the 2006 mortgage broker originated Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract was invalid and on May 1, 2008, Defendant Appellee Deutsche Bank et al. “originated” and issued a new modified Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract that modified the loan “out of foreclosure” as stated in servicer phone logs. On December 4, 2008, Defendant Appellee filed a new complaint for strict foreclosure in Stanford Superior Court. However, Defendant Appellee, later in 2008, found out that the new Defendant Appellee originated modified 2008 Note was tainted and unenforceable so Defendant Appellee knowingly sued on the mortgage broker originated canceled 2006 original Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract that neither party were a party to. See attached memorandum of law in EXHIBIT A. Defendant Appellants attorney Kolakowski, Juris Number: 408783, a‘proclaimed Commissioner of the Court, in a contested presentation, assured the September 16, 2013 trial court judge that his papers were in order and that those papers were valid and enforceable. Nowhere in the September 16, 2013 Trial Transcripts did Defendant Appellees attorney Kolakowski Juris Number: 408783 ever mention the 2008 Defendant Appellee originated modified Note and Security Instrument that represented the agreement between the parties. Even though Defendant Appellee was well aware that he had omitted the tainted modified 2008 Note and even more aware that he was suing the Plaintiff Appellant on a Note that had been canceled five years prior. This is a fact and coordinated scheme that Plaintiff Appellant only discovered two years after the judgment of strict foreclosure on the canceled 2006 original Note,. Both Notes were judicially Noticed on July 31, 2015 at FST CV 08 5009697 S Dkt. No. 217 while Defendant Appellant had a fiduciary duty to tell the Plaintiff Appellee that they intended to include only the canceled original 2006 Note and exclude the 2008 modified Note. For five years, from 2008 to 2013, Defendant Appellees servicer assured the Plaintiff Appellant that the 2006 original Note they were suing on was valid. However, because Defendant Appellee “originated” the 2008 modified Note and made suitability recommendations to the Plaintiff Appellee, that meant that Defendant Appellee, at that point on May 1, 2008, became fiduciaries with a duty to the Plaintiff Appellant to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with law, a duty which they abused permanently injuring the Plaintiff Appellant that took the Plaintiff Appellants ability to work and earn an income away. When it came time for the Trial in 2013, Defendant Appellee omitted the newer 2008 agreement between the parties and only sued on the canceled 2006 agreement that both parties agreed to cancel. Neither Plaintiff Appellant nor the trial court were aware that Defendant Appellant had misrepresented the canceled 2006 original Note evidence as valid and enforceable. Nor did Plaintiff Appellant consent to being sued on the canceled 2006 Note Contract. Had Plaintiff Appellant known there is no doubt that he would have stood up and made the issue known in the court where Plaintiff Appellant repeatedly objected preserving his right to appeal. The fact that Defendant Appellee and their attorneys knew the Note Defendant Appellee was suing on was not valid meant that they lacked standing to sue. Plaintiff Appellant never consented to being sued on the canceled Note. In Defendant Appellees motion to dismiss the Appeal, they state their second argument as: “(2) fails to advance a good faith argument for the claims raised or for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. Plaintiff Appellant objects and opposes this theory because he has continuously defended himself against Defendant Appellees misrepresentations on issue after issue, and because Plaintiff Appellant had pursued his rights diligently constantly noticed Defendant Appellee of his issues. III Legal Plaintiff Appellant does and will present several good faith arguments for the claims raised or for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. These include Plaintiff Appellants questions from the Order for Summary Judgment regarding the case cited by the court in SOUSA v. SOUSA as to collateral attacks on judgments from a different case. Plaintiff Appellant will pose questions regarding how this case is different from Sousa v. Sousa. See EXHIBIT F. This includes, is Plaintiff Appellants claim a direct attack and if a judgment was made on an invalid agreement as if it were a valid agreement and what the effect a null judgment can even be collaterally attacked if it is decided that there was no agreement or Contract before the court. And is it a collateral attack if the contract was null and would that make the judgment null? And can one lawsuit case allege wrongdoing in another case specifically on actions in the other case that caused damages but that are not attacking the judgment itself? Is a collateral attack only an attack on a “Judgment” as decided in Sousa v. Sousa or can other liabilities be addressed by the behavior of the Plaintiff in another case besides the judgment such as procedural damages not presented to the court in the other case? Plaintiff Appellant would also pose questions regarding the ruling on res judicia and the statute oflimitations verses concealment of causes of action missed by the other case, etc.? Or does a Plaintiff Appellant required to file motions in the other case that did not discover new information and new causes of action from other behaviors apart from the Judgment itself? And can the court rule on a canceled contract if they believe the contract is valid? And are there statutes of limitations on Foreclosures? And is an opposing attorney liable to a Defendant if they commit fraud upon the court? The specific facts demonstrate good cause for a stay until matters have been decided in the lower. court and that permit Plaintiffto find an attorney that specializes in the issues of this case namely fraud on the court, canceled null and voided original Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract mortgage loan documents, undisclosed, suppressed, and concealed modified Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract loan documents that the court did not see until ten years after the time the Defendants complaint was filed, and motioning to open, vacate, and dismiss a null judgment of strict foreclosure that the court did not know was a canceled Contract/Note that had no standing. Plaintiff has been diligent every day since 2008 and through all state and federal appeals by pursuing his rights diligently and thus equitable tolling applies in this case in light of nondisclosure of pertinent loan documents meaning the modified Note. See: “Equitable tolling pauses or “tolls” a statutory limitations period after it has commenced. A litigant qualifies for equitable tolling if they establish:(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that’some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.” Id. at 363, citing Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 577 U.S. 250, 255 (2016).” 19 “For Truth in Lending Act disclosure violations, Statute of Limitations runs from the time ofdisclosure. NCLC’s Truth in Lending § 13.7.3.” Carnese v. Middleton, supra, 27 Conn. App. 542. WHEREFORE Plaintiff Appellant requests a stay until the lower court is finished and until Plaintiff Appellant can find an attorney who specializes in these issues. NOTE: The motion shall be typewritten (12 point serif font, with section captions in 14 point serif font), line spacing can be between 1.3x and 1.5x and must be uniform throughout (including block quotes and footnotes), with: appropriate margins, and shall not exceed 3500 words, exclusive of the case caption, signature block, certifications, and appendix. As a non-represented litigant Plaintiff-Appellant, I am entitled to liberal reading and interpretation of my pleadings; See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 520 (1971), US Supreme Court; “Court errs if court dismisses the non-represented litigant without instruction of-how pleadings are. deficient and how to repair pleadings.” Platsky v. C.I.A. 953 F.2d. 25., See: Chambers vs. Time Warner 282 F.3d 147, 152-53 (2d Cir. 2002). “The court must take all factual allegations in the complaint and its exhibits as true, and cons-rue all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” Plaintiff appellant has read and affirms that this complaint is grounded in fact, to the best of Plaintiffs’ knowledge, information, belief; and that it is brought in Good Faith. Respectfully submitted, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT s Peter Lundstedt 812 Stonington Road Stonington, CT 06378 203-733-0311 plundstedt@gmail.com OS oe CERTIFICATION Pursuant to P.B. §§ 62-7 and 66-3, it is hereby certified that a copy of the forgoing was sent electronically this 4th day of March, 2024, to: ZEK LLP, 1 Landmark Sq. Fl. 4, Stamford, CT 06901 203-622-0900 Defendant’s attorney defendant appellee, Deutsche Bank et al. It is also certified that this document has been redacted or does not contain any names or other personal identifying information that is prohibited from disclosure by rule, statute, court order, or case law. It is also certified that this document complies with all applicable rules of appellate procedure. It is also certified that this motion, exclusive of the case caption, signature block of counsel of record, certifications, and appendix, is 1927 words. Respectfully submitted, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT s. Peter Lundstedt 812 Stonington Road Stonington, CT 06378 203-733-0311 plundstedt@gmail.com AC 47342 APPELLATE COURT MARCH 4, 2024 LOWER CASE NO. FST CV 22 5027106 S CASE MANAGER CORY M DAIGE PETER LUNDSTEDT Non-represented Plaintiff-Appellant Vv. DEUTSCHE BANK ET AL. Defendant-Appellee OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT APPELLEES MOTION TO DISMISS JURY DEMANDED Good Cause For Late Filing The Plaintiff-Appellant, as non-represented, moved.to stay appellate proceedings due to delay in lower court proceedings in FST CV 22 5027106 S that include a denied motion for review of 1-22-2020 order for summary judgment granted to Defendant that Plaintiff opposes and objected to, a Plaintiff Reply at Dkt. No. 216.00 2/26/2024 P “Reply To Defendants Objection To Motion To Reargue” (DOC. 215.00), a 03/11/2024 Short Calendar SC-11 #002 Calander event that plaintiff will mark ready next week, and a denied motion to compel discovery in the same case. In the lower Stamford Superior Court, Case FST cv 22 5027106 S, a summary judgment order in favor of Defendant Appellee on all counts was issued on January 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reargue or Alter the Summary Judgment on February 12, 2024 which was denied. Because the requirement to file certain documents within ten days was delayed, and because Plaintiffis seeking and has not found legal representation, Plaintiff asked the court to stay the proceedings until he is able to find representation to file the required items due within ten days of filing the appeal and his appellate brief. Judgment was entered on January 22, 2024, and this appeal immediately followed on February 9, 2024 in which all parties were noticed. Plaintiff Appellant was denied a motion to amend without prejudice. At Doc. No. 203.00, on 01/16/2024, Plaintiff Appellant alleged the following amended causes of action which was denied. In support of this motion, the undersigned represents as follows: I Brief History. Plaintiff Appellant has never had his issues properly adjudicated. ' Plaintiff Appellant was injured starting in 2008 whose injuries grew due to Defendant Appellees negligence and suppression of documents. WaMu issued Plaintiff Appellant a defective 2006 mortgage broker originated Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract that lacked interest rate disclosures after telling Plaintiff Appellant he could refinance in six months which they did not honor. Plaintiff Appellant tried to work with WaMu to reduce his rate which they ignored and in September 2007, Plaintiff Appellant, after making payments for a year, was forced to default on the defective 2006 mortgage broker originated Note. WaMu then partially accelerated the defective 2006 mortgage broker originated debt in October of 2007. Te ...the court must make certain that there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate. The requirement of full and fair litigation ensures fairness, which is a crowning consideration in collateral estoppel cases. . . . [I]f the nature of the hearing carries procedural limitations that would not be present at a later hearing, the party might not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gateway, Kelso & Co. v. West Hartford No. 1, LLC, 126 Conn. App. 578, 584, 15 A.3d 635, cert. denied, 300 Conn. 929, 16 A.3d 703 (2011). The constitutional concerns, however, that are admittedly in § 961, require a "thorough inquiry" which must appear on the record. This record falls far short of this, (as does the Defendants record in this case). To conclude otherwise is judicial blinking at the mandate that the record establish that the defendant ""knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open." Faretta v. California 558*558 supra, 835, citing Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 279, 63 S. Ct. 236, 87 L. Ed. 268 (1942). - Therefore, I dissent and would order a new trial. 193 Conn. 526 (1984) State Of Connecticut V. David Gethers (10953) Supreme Court of Connecticut. WaMu was going to enter bankruptcy and assigned the defective 2006 Note to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10, (“Deutsche Bank et al.”, or “Defendant Appellee”), for $1, (one dollar), while the 2006 Note was in default. Three weeks later, Defendant Appellee solicited Plaintiff Appellant to sign a May 1, 2008 Defendant Appellee Deutsche Bank originated modified Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract that “Forever canceled, null, void[ed]” the 2006 mortgage broker originated 2006 Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract under duress of imminent ejection from his house. Upon acquiring the 2006 Note in default for $1 on April 8, 2008, Deutsche Bank et al. acknowledged Plaintiff Appellants complaint, in a new May 1, 2008 Defendant Appellee Deutsche Bank originated modified Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract, that the 2006 Note was defect. See FST CV 22 5027016 S EXHIBIT 26 EXHIBIT B1 Clause 14 that stated: “...As part of the consideration for this Agreement, Borrower agrees to release and waive all claims ... against the Trust ...which Borrower contends caused Borrower damage or injury, or which Borrower contends renders the Note or the Security Instrument void, voidable, or unenforceable...” The 2008 Defendant Appellee Deutsche Bank originated modified Note canceled the 2006 mortgage broker originated original Note. See FST CV 22 5027016 S EXHIBIT 26 EXHIBIT BI Clause 6 which states: “The following terms and provisions of the original Note and Security Instrument are forever canceled, null and void, as of the date of this agreement.” The 2008 Defendant Appellee Deutsche Bank originated modified Contract is a new Contract. See citations. ? ? “If the original contract was modified and changed by subsequent agreement, the contract as changed became a new contract.” Malkan v. Hemming, 73 A. 752 Prior to the assignment of the defective 2006 mortgage broker originated Note for $1, Defendant Appellee prematurely initiated foreclosure on the 2006 mortgage broker originated Note. It was premature because that they did not own yet and scrambled to back out of it unseen. On October 20, 2008, Defendant Appellee withdrew its premature strict foreclosure complaint and three weeks later refiled the same Complaint on the canceled 2006 mortgage broker originated Note while omitting the 2008 Defendant Appellee Deutsche Bank originated Modified Note entirely from the Complaint. See the September 16, 2013 Trial Transcripts in (Conn. 1909) Supreme Court of Conn. PRECEDENTIAL Status: Precedential Citations: 73 A. 752, 82 Conn. 293n Judges: THAYER; See: “If the original contract was modified and changed by subsequent agreement, the contract as changed became a new contract.” Teal v. Bilby, 123 U.S. 572, 578,8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 239; Rollins v. Marsh, 128 Mass. 116, 120; Rogers v. Rogers, 139 id. 440, 444, 1 N.E. 122. See: “...to find that Silvestri was a party to the modified contract and hence personally liable for breach of contract . . . [t]he contract as modified becomes a new contract between the parties” [internal quotation mark.] appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate... Joseph General Contracting, Inc. v. Couto (Conn. 2015) Date Filed: July 21st, 2015 Status: PRECEDENTIAL Docket Number: SC19209... Corp., supra, 295 Conn. 229. SC19209 Supreme Court of Connecticut, Joseph General... Realty v. Connecticut National Bank, 53 Conn. App. 524, 534, 732 A.2d 181, cert. denied, 250 Conn. 901, 734. See: “Under law of contracts, a substituted contract is a new contract.. Any default of the principal obligor on the substituted contract does not revive the original underlying obligation or the secondary obligation. A modification of the underlying obligation that imposes risks of secondary obligor fundamentally different from those present initially is the substantial equivalent of a substituted contract, and similarly discharges the secondary obligation.” St. Petersburg Bank v. Boutin, 1971. See: “U.S. 26 CFR 1.1001-3 - Modifications of debt instruments. (B) General rule. § 1.1001-1(A), a significant modification of a debt instrument, within the meaning of this section, results in an exchange of the original debt instrument for a modified instrument that differs materially either in kind or in extent.” EXHIBIT B, where Defendant Appellee exclaims the validity of the canceled 2006 mortgage broker originated Note BUT NEVER MENTIONS ONCE the 2008 Defendant Appellee Deutsche Bank originated modified Note. EXHIBIT C shows the instant lower court Transcripts. Six weeks later, on December 4, 2008, Defendant Appellee filed the virtually same premature strict foreclosure complaint again on the Plaintiff Appellant with no attachment or mention of the 2008 Defendant Appellee Deutsche Bank originated modified Note, the only Note that legally represented the agreement between the patties. The complaint claims to accelerate the 2006 mortgage Broker originated Note that Defendant Appellant already canceled on May 1, 2008 meaning it was impossible to accelerate because it no longer existed having been extinguished seven months prior on May 1, 2008. The Complaint, in its entirety, fails to mention the Defendant Appellee originated 2008 modified Note, something that the court would have been very interested in seeing. Defendant Appellee orchestrated the containment of information available to the trial judge thereby causing manifest injustice and prejudice against the non- represented Plaintiff Appellant. Had the judge known that critical legal papers were being hidden from him he would have been outraged. Then, the Defendant Appellees December 4, 2008 complaint failed in its entirety to properly accelerate the Defendant Appellee originated 2008 modified debt as required by law, and another injustice imposed upon the Plaintiff Appellant. Having known that the Defendant Appellee originated 2008 Note was not being disclosed in its complaint caused a state of perjury to exist. \ The Defendant Appellee and several “Commissioners of the Court” also known as attorneys, had full knowledge that the complaint was being made on canceled documents which shows that a continuing course of conduct was being perpetuated at the expense of the Plaintiff Appellant and undermining the integrity of the Justic System and the Stamford Connecticut Superior Court. A jury would certainly be outraged if it knew that not only the Defendant Appellee was committing fraud upon the court, and exponentially so if it knew court officials were involved in the scheme. Defendant Appellee has never admitted that the Defendant Appellee originated 2008 modified Note exists, although one of its servicers included the undisclosed Defendant Appellee originated modified 2008 Note in.a RESPA Qualified Written Response in 2023 for the first time, nearly fifteen years after it should have. Had the Defendant Appellant and the several Commissioners of the Court of Connecticut that represented them disclosed the prohibited Defendant Appellee originated 2008 modified Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract when they should have in 2008, Plaintiff Appellant would have been able to avoid the unyielding inflictions of daily emotional, physical, financial, professional, societal, and reputational distresses and destruction of his life for fifteen years, the compounding and continuing course of conduct which permanently injured him to the point of not being able to work. Defendant Appellee destroyed all of Plaintiff Appellants dreams of owning his own houses, his own business, and the chance to have a family while chaining him to an enormous debt that he would never be able to pay off. > 3 Serious, or severe, emotional distress means emotional distress of such substantial quantity or enduring quality that no reasonable person in a’ civilized society must be expected to endure it. It may consist of all highly unpleasant Furthermore, to enhance their deception, Defenant Appellee clouds the complaint with every detail of the contents of the Greenwich, CT Land Recordings on the property but noticeably fail to record the Defendant Appellee originated 2008 modified Note, the only agreement that existed between the Defendant Appellee and the Plaintiff Appellant. In the December 4, 2008 Defendant Appellee complaint at EXHIBIT D, the complaint states in Paragraph 3. See February 18, 2008 premature Defendant Appellee sent foreclosure complaint in EXHIBIT E. “Said Note is in default and the Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10 as the holder of said Mortgage and Note has elected to accelerate the balance due on said Note, to declare said Note to be due in full and to foreclose the Mortgage securing said Note.” Defendant Appellee knew full well that they were no longer the holder of the said mortgage broker originated 2006 Note they complained of because “THEY” canceled it which extinguished on May 1, 2008 making it a false statement in a court filing. The only Note that Defendant Appellee were a holder of was the Defendant Appellee originated 2008 modified Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract which Defendant Appellee never sued upon. In 6., the next paragraph, Defendant Appellee again misrepresents itselfto the court by stating: “The Plaintiff has provided written notice in accordance with the inental reactions such as fright, grief, horror, shame, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, nervousness, anxiety, embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment, worry, indignity, or nausea, as well as physical suffering. The intensity and the Duration of the distress are factors to be considered in determining its severity. (Hailey vs. California Physicians. service (2007) 158 Cal. App. 4th 452; Schild vs. Ruybin (1991) 232 Cal. App. 3d 755, 762-763.) Note and Mortgage to the Defendant(s) of the default under the Note and Mortgage, but said Defendant(s) has failed and neglected to cure the default.” Here again, Defendant Appellee never provided any written notice in accordance with the Defendant Appellee originated 2008 modified Note and because of that, Plaintiff Appellant could not have failed to cure a default on a canceled mortgage broker originated Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract which neither he NOR Defendant Appellee were a party to after May 1, 2008 when Defendant Appellee themselves canceled it. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff goes on to state it has elected to accelerate the balance due on said mortgage broker originated 2006 Note that they canceled, to declare said canceled mortgage broker originated 2006 Note to be due in full and to foreclose the Mortgage securing said Note which they nor the Plaintiff Appellee were no longer a party to. Next, in paragraph 10. Defendant Appellee states that the Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loon Trust 2006- 10, (“Defendant Appellee”), has further caused a Lis Pendens to be recorded on the Land Records of the Town of Greenwich. A copy of said Lis Pendens is attached hereto as Exhibit A. This misrepresents the Lis Pendant because there was no longer a mortgage dated September 25, 2006 because the Defendant Appellee canceled it and replaced it with their own Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loon Trust 2006-10 written and originated May 1, 2008 modified Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract with its own four corners. Thus, the Defendant Appellees “acquired” September 16, 2013 Judgment of Strict Foreclosure was only enforceable on the mortgage broker originated 2006 Note and not the never disclosed to the court Defendant Appellees 2008 originated modified Note, the only valid and enforceable agreement between the.parties. Had the trial court actually seen the CO Defendant Appellees originated modified 2008 Note with materially different Terms and Provisions, and then proclaimed the Defendant Appellee originated modified 2008 Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract as the agreement between the parties, then the September 16, 2013 Order for Judgment , of Strict Foreclosure would have been valid and would have had legal effect. Furthermore, until the Defendant Appellee discloses the actual Defendant Appellee originated 2008 modified Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract agreement between Plaintiff Appellant and the Defendant Appellee to the court, the September 16, 2013 Judgment of Strict Foreclosure must exist in a state of nullity since legally it represents no valid Contract that “was before the court,” and they knew it. Plaintiff Appellant was a sole practitioner small businessman in 2008 and just starting his new company having raised $4 million in his fee only portfolio managed program, * WaMu was failing and assigned the Plaintiff Appellants’ sole proprietor small businessman business suffered when Defendant Appellee engaged in predatory lending and predatory litigation aimed at improperly acquiring the cash from the sale of Plaintiff Appellants house, of which Defendant Appellee acquired $560,000.00 from, based on the September 16, 2013 judgment of strict foreclosure on the canceled 2006 Note which the trial court did not know was canceled, and resulting invalid accrued interest of $1.2 million, claimed to have come from an invalid 2006 original mortgage broker originated Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract that had been forever canceled, null, and void on May 1, 2008 by a newer but illegal modified Deutsche Bank May 1, 2008 4 See Plaintiff Appellants old business website at https. lideshare.net/plundstedt001 10 EE originated Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract. while the Trial Court was not aware of another predatory loan Contact that violated consumer law which neither the Defendant Appellee, nor its attorneys, nor servicers wanted the court to see because it was adhesive. Plaintiff Appellant alleges that he was so overwhelmed by Defendant Appellees’ 1.) pattern of continuous conduct of alleged reckless lending, 2.) alleged predatory litigation, 3.) alleged fraud upon the court, 4.) alleged conspiracy with each of their attorneys and servicers to withhold disclosure of the tainted and abusive prohibited modified Note and Security: Instrument, and 5.) to fraudulently litigate on a cancelled mortgage broker originated Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract Note, that neither were a party to, that it eventually permanently shut Plaintiff Appellant down 1.) emotionally, 2.) physically, 3.) financially, 4.) professionally, and 5.) socially, that he could not function or properly in society or defend himself as a non-represented litigant against contract papers he was not even a party to. See Plaintiffs income drop off starting in 2008 at the same time Defendant Appellee began its campaign to acquire Plaintiff Appellants property Because of that, Plaintiff Appellant was left unable to work, eventually becoming homeless after losing his home, business, and potential spouse forever, where he was never provided relief from the Defendant Appellees’ predatory lending and litigation schemes. None of Plaintiff Appellants issues were adjudicated because he was delayed by appeals, the judges of which never knew that Defendant Appellee had no standing when they filed their complaint of strict foreclosure on the canceled original Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract. After shutting down in 2008, Plaintiff Appellant remained in a catatonic state, unable to participate in business or society, in constant fear of dying of a heart attack or stroke from the immense weight of Defendant Appelleés’ improper a1 litigation against him under false pretenses while they allegedly concealed cause of actions that Plaintiff Appellant did not become aware of a number of years after they acquired a judgment of strict foreclosure on the canceled original Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract which the trial judge was unaware of its invalidity and which Plaintiff Appellant objected to and did not Where the affidavit of compliance with Emergency Mortgage Assistance Act was not valid because the affidavit was on a canceled piece of paper and not on a current contract with four corners, where the trial judge stated: COURT: Do you have any objection to the affidavit of debt, sir? MR. LUNDSTEDT: I do. THE COURT: Okay. What is your objection? MR. LUNDSTEDT: I just object, Your Honor, for the record. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LUNDSTEDT: It’s my feeling that it’s not correct. THE COURT: Okay and what is the basis of your feeling that it’s not correct? MR. LUNDSTEDT: Because it’s not a legitimate loan. See the FST CV 08 5009697 S Trial Transcripts in EXHIBIT B. The Plaintiff Appellant could not have know that the Note the trial judge was ruling on was not a valid Contract because he would have stated it then and there. Because there was never a judgment on his issues, which was delayed because Plaintiff Appellant - There was no res judicia on Plaintiff Appellants claims or allegations because none of his claims were adjudicated and not one had a judgment. 12 and then alleged suppression and alleged concealment and failure to disclose another prohibited modified adhesion agreement and Mortgage Broker Mariners Capital solicited Plaintiff Appellant and originated a Note and Security Instrument Residential Mortgage Loan Installment Contract, the (“2006 Note”), using Plaintiff Appellants house as collateral. Plaintiff Appellant questioned the high interest rate and was told he could refinance in six months. ‘WaMu then failed to send Plaintiff Appellant the required Interest Rate Disclosure letter so that Plaintiff Appellant would not pull out of the deal. Due to economic events, Plaintiff Appellant was unable to make the high interest rate payments. Plaintiff Appellant called WaMu to let them know he was unable to handle the high monthly payments and asked if they could temporarily reduce his payments until his sole practitioner portfolio management business could recover. Instead of considering his request, WaMu entered Plaintiff Appellant into an aggressive robocalling program that asked him the same thing over and over and over again for more than five years. Plaintiff Appellant was forced to default on the 2006 broker originated Note in September of 2007. Defendant Appellee Deutsche Bank, (“Deutsche Bank et al.”), was not the owner of the 2006 broker originated Note yet, but was the passive Trustee to the Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10 that held Plaintiff Appellants’ 2006 Note. Plaintiff Appellant attempted to negotiate a lower rate but was ignored. In 2007, Plaintiff Appellant discovered that the 2006 broker originated Note was defective 13 and violated Connecticut and Federal consumer and contract law which he notified WaMu who notified Deutsche Bank et al. ‘WaMu was failing and agreed to “give” the 2006 loan Note to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006- 10 by assignment while the 2006 broker originated Note was in default, who then prepared to receive the 2006 broker originated Note by assignment for the consideration of $1.00 to take place on April 8, 2008. Deutsche Bank was on the verge of landing a one million dollars basically for $1 (one dollar). However, Deutsche Bank et al. seemed to so eager to acquire the 2006 broker originated Note for practically nothing that they jumped the gun and prematurely filed a strict foreclosure complaint in Stamford Superior Court on February 18, 2008. See entire file in EXHIBIT E. This case disappeared from the Docket but was fortunately preserved by the court. See EXHIBIT E which shows the premature, not yet ripe, Complaint and the entire file, that was served on the Plaintiff Appellant with a return date of March 18, 2008, nearly a month “before” the assignment took place, on April 8, 2008 and before Deutsche Bank owned the Note which was still owned by Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10. Notice the last page where their motion to withdraw again omits the year date showing only a partial year date. That violated the law. Defendant Appellee has shown their propensity to cheat and take short cuts recklessly ordered by the Defendant Appellee as a pattern of continuous course of conduct that is unbecoming of what are supposed to be sophisticated mortgage loan experts that are fiduciaries that have a duty to consumer borrowers on the mortgage loans they originate. 14 See Title XIV—Mortgage Reform And Anti-Predatory Lending Act. Subtitle A— Residential Mortgage Loan Origination Standards, Sec. 1404 Liability. ? 5 «8 129B. Residential mortgage loan origination. “(a) FINDING AND PURPOSE.— ‘‘(1) FINDING.—The Congress finds that economic stabilization would be enhanced by the protection, limitation, and regulation of the terms of residential mortgage credit and the practices related to such credit, while ensuring that responsible, affordable mortgage credit remains available to consumers. (2) PURPOSE.—It is the purpose of this section and section 129C to assure that consumers are offered and receive residential mortgage loans on terms that reasonably reflect their ability to repay the loans and that are understandable and not unfair, deceptive or abusive. “‘(b) DUTY OF CARE.— “(1) STANDARD.— Subject to regulations prescribed under this subsection, each mortgage originator shall, in addition to the duties imposed by otherwise applicable provisions of State or Federal law— “(A) be qualified and, when required, registered and licensed as a mortgage originator in accordance with applicable State or Federal law, including the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008; and “(B) include on all loan documents any unique identifier of the mortgage originator provided by the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry. “(2) COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES REQUIRED.—The Board shall prescribe regulations requiring depository institutions to establish and maintain procedures reasonably designed to assure and monitor the compliance of such depository institutions, the subsidiaries of such institutions, and the employees of- such institutions or subsidiaries with the requirements of this section and the registration procedures established under section 1507 of the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008.” (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for chapter 2 of the Truth in Lending Act 1s After Plaintiff Appellant complained to WaMu and Defendant Appellee of the defective 2006 broker originated Note and the premature defective foreclosure court filing, Defendant Appellee decided to get out of the defective 2006 broker originated Note “Contract” by forever cancel, null, and voiding the 2006 broker originated Note Contract and replacing it with a new May 1, omitted 2008 Deutsche Bank “originated” modified Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract, the (“2008 Note”). The omitted 2008 Deutsche Bank “originated” modified Note exonerated Defendant Appellee and its servicers and attorneys from liability to Plaintiff Appellant from the defective 2006 broker originated Note AND the improper premature February 18, 2008 foreclosure action. On or about May 1, 2008, one of the Defendant Appellees’ internal attorneys called the Plaintiff Appellant to pressure him to sign the new omitted 2008 Deutsche Bank “originated” modified Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract and told the Plaintiff Appellant that if he did not sigh the new omitted 2008 Deutsche Bank “originated” modified Note Contract Agreement Defendant Appellee would immediately foreclose on the Plaintiff Appellant which would have caused the Plaintiff Appellant to become homeless. On May 6, 2008, Defendant Appellee signed the new omitted 2008 Deutsche Bank “originated” modified Note and Security Instrument Installment Contract if from of three witnesses including the Notary who Notarized the new Contract. is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 129 the following new items: “129A. Fiduciary duty of servicers of pooled residential mortgages. “129B. Residential mortgage loan origination.”. 16 However, the omitted 2008 Deutsche Bank “originated” modified Note was in effect an adhesion contract that did nothing for the Plaintiff Appellant and actually increased his monthly mortgage payments from $10,352.00 to $10,622.00 when the Plaintiff Appellant could hardly afford $3,000.00 per month at the time of the omitted 2008 Deutsche Bank “originated” modified Note origination. The Defendant Appellee held the Plaintiff Appellant down while avoiding disclosure of their faulty and prohibited omitted 2008 Deutsche Bank “originated” modified Note with reckless Terms and Provision where, at the same time, Defendant Appellee was lowering other borrowers monthly payments thus prejudicing the Plaintiff Appellant which Defendant Appellees own mortgage loan expert, who testified against the Plaintiff Appellant in his federal case, then left the employ of Defendant Appellees servicer, only to attest for Plaintiff Appellant to that afterwards in 2018 AFTER the federal case partial judgment as to NIED only and for only 200 or so robocalls in an affidavit in EXHIBIT G below. These unreasonable predatory reckless lending patterns and policies guaranteed , the Plaintiff Appellants’ foreclosure and crushed any chance of him ever recovering while placing him into a reckless predatory debt position of imprisonment of over $1.2 million from which he could never recover after which he lost everything and was forced into homelessness for the next seven years while barely surviving, having to shower at the local YMCA, on just over $400.00 a month until he was able to take early Social Security and receive some relief from the Veterans Administration while spending much of his time at the library where he continued to diligently pursue his rights. Nearly seven months later, WaMu failed and was taken over by the Federal goverriment where servicer JPMorgan Chase acquired the WaMu robocalling collections department, which continued to hound the Plaintiff Appellant for the next five years, and then became the new servicer for the Trust holding the 2006 17 broker originated Note that secured Plaintiff Appellants home as collateral for the omitted 2008 Deutsche Bank “originated” modified Note where Defendant Appellee never Noticed the Trust that the 2006 broker originated Note had been replaced with a new omitted 2008 Deutsche Bank “originated” modified Note which was another omission by Defendant Appellee. After giving it seven months of breathing room, on October 20, 2008, Defendant Appellee directed its servicer JPMorgan Chase Bank to withdraw the defective February 18, 2008 premature strict foreclosure complaint. See EXHIBIT E below. A month and a half later, Defendant Appellee, now as Trustee to the Trust AND owner and issuer of the omitted 2008 Deutsche Bank originated modified Note, directed its servicer to file the same February 18, 2008 Complaint, filed by its previous servicer, for strict foreclosure on December 4, 2008. The December 4, 2008 Complaint in EXHIBIT D was virtually the same as the February 18, 2008 complaint in EXHIBIT E below. However, the December 4, 2008 Complaint for strict foreclosure only referenced the canceled null and voided 2006 broker originated Note and said NOTHING about the defective omitted 2008 Deutsche Bank “originated” modified Note new agreement between Plaintiff Appellant and the Defendant Appellee. Standard The standard set by the court, and in all Appellate and Supreme Courts is that if you are going to file a complaint on a Contract dispute, you must prove to the court that the Contract you are presenting to the court as evidence of a debt, owed by a Defendant and entitled to be collected upon by the Plaintiff, must be a valid enforceable Contract between the parties. Otherwise the subject of the Complaint, here the 2006 broker originated Note, does not have standing to be sued upon, and even more so if the actual Note, whether vail or not, is omitted from the eyes of 18 the trier of fact, even more so again, if the trier of fact lacks knowledge of the omitted modified Note and whose contained knowledge created by the Plaintiff in a complaint is not known. In the December 4, 2008 case, the Defendant Appellee succeeded in containing what the judge knew about the facts without the judges or Plaintiff Appellants consent or permission. The Defendant Appellees attorney grossly violated his duty and oath, and as he often states, Commissioner of the Court, when he contained the case with misrepresented facts where the judge thought the Note he was ruling on was a valid Document. See the Transcripts in EXHIBIT C. Argument Plaintiff Appellant opposes and objects to Defendant Appellees’ motion to dismiss. In their motion to dismiss, Defendant Appellee states the following: “APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS Pursuant to § 66-8 of the Connecticut Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Appellee, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10 (“Defendant”), hereby moves to dismiss this appeal of Peter Lundstedt (“Plaintiff”) for the reason that the Appeal: (1) was taken primarily for the purpose of harassing and/or maliciously injuring Defendant, and; (2) fails to advance a good faith argument for the claims raised or for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.” Plaintiff Appellant opposes Defendant Appellees’ state reason (1) above for the following reasons: A. Defendant Appellees’ statement that Plaintiff Appellees Appeal “was taken primarily for the purpose ofharassing and/or maliciously injuring Defendant.” This is patently untrue. 19 See also “Statements of counsel, in their briefs or their arguments are not sufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary Judgment,” Trinsey vs. Pagliaro, d. C. Pa. 1964. Plaintiff Appellant never was asked by Defendant Appellee why he was filing his Appeal of the lower courts order of summary judgment, and Plaintiff Appellant never told Defendant Appellee that he was filing for the purpose of harassing and/or maliciously injuring Defendant. Defendant Appellee shows no proof that Plaintiff Appellant “thought” that was the reason for his appeal. Defendant Appellees’ statement is conjecture and at most an unsupported opinion. This is Defendant Appellees’ number one reason for moving to dismiss the Appeal. This shows Defendant Appellees’ pattern and continuing course of conduct of deception and misrepresentation, omitting crucial modified 2008 loan documents that showed reckless predatory lending practices, while presenting the trial court with invalid canceled original 2006 loan papers while assuring the court and Plaintiff Appellant that their papers were in order and valid, when in fact, they were 100% invalid and lacked standing to proceed with their foreclosure under pretense and with full knowledge of their presentation of invalid forever canceled, null and void papers, and deception towards the Plaintiff Appellant and the court for over sixteen years from 2008 to 2024, and Defendant Appellee still has not disclosed the defective omitted 2008 Deutsche Bank “originated” modified Note to the state court. © 5 In (Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Bialobrzeski, 3 A.3d 183 (Conn App. Ct. 2010) Trust: Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-3), the Court ruled: The judgment for the trust was reversed and the case was remanded for a hearing on the motion to dismiss. “The key to resolving the defendant's claim is a 20 Even in their motion to dismiss, Defendant Appellee continues to