Ameriquest What were they hiding? ripoff Internet

Saturday, July 15, 2006
Ameriquest eliminates more jobs

By ANDREW GALVIN
The Orange County Register

Ameriquest Mortgage Co., the Orange-based lender, and its affiliates completed another round of layoffs this week.

Chris Orlando, a company spokesman, declined to specify the number of employees who lost their jobs this week. The cuts came throughout the company and across the country, he said.

"It was a small number of support positions that were a part of our previously announced effort to consolidate corporate functions," Orlando said.

In May, Ameriquest parent ACC Capital said it was closing retail branches nationwide and cutting 3,800 jobs, or about one-third of the positions at the company and its subsidiaries, amid a slowing housing market and fierce competition for customers.

The lender previously let go an additional 1,500 workers last November.

Chris Donabedian, who worked as a senior project manager for enterprise infrastructure in Irvine, said he was among those laid off this week. The North Tustin resident had been with the company for two years.

Donabedian was laid off Wednesday and given severance pay through July 21, he said. He also was offered an additional 30 days pay if he would "sign off saying you won't hold the company responsible for anything beyond that," he said.

Orlando declined to discuss severance pay.

Donabedian said the cuts were concentrated among information technology and human resources positions.
-------
CONTACT US: (((ROR REDACTED PHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS FOR SECURITY PURPOSES)))

Good Job Alvin

CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report.

Pulled from the web


his residential property located at 53 Engle Street, Cresskill, Bergen County, New Jersey

3. Deutsche Bank misrepresented a number of issues before the the New Jersey Superior Court, including but not limited to false representations that they were the proper party and had standing to sue Plaintiff. This frivolous and malicious litigation caused Plaintiff to devote all of his time defending against the litigation, causing his internation internet business to suffer financially to the point of being defunct.
4. Plaintiff contends that a similar international internet business, called Alibaba.com, located in China, and which was only about 1/3 the size of Plaintiff's international internet business, was sold to internet web giant YAHOO.com Corporation for One Billion Dollars ($1,000,000,000.00). Plaintiff's business, if sold in a similar deal would be worth over Three Billion Dollars ($3,000,000,000.00+) today.
5. After at least 2 years of contentious litigation in the New Jersey state courts, Plaintiff accused(s) Deutsche Bank of (a) willfully refusing to produce the original, wet-ink signed mortgage note and other required pertinent lending documents, (b) willfully failed to disclose important terms of the lending agreement to Plaintiff, (c) willfully violated the Truth In Lending Act ("TILA"), 82 Stat. 146, 15 U.S.C. ?1601 et seq., (d) willful violations for "RESPA" and "Regulation Z", (e) willful violations and abuse of the escrow account, (f) short-changing Plaintiff on financing and re-financing amounts, (g) excessive broker fees, (h) illegal filing fees, (i) willful violations of the federal HUD-1 settlement statement including fraudulent government recording fee(s), (j) willful violations of predatory lending practices of "packing" and "equity stripping" of Plaintiff's property in question, (k) willfully and fraudulently force-placed homeowner's insurance against Plaintiff by willfully failing to pay Plaintiff's original homeowner's insurance, which quadrupled Plaintiff's homeowner's insurance premiums without his knowledge or consent, (l) willfully and fraudulently manipulating defaults in payments by creating and fabricating late fees, and other willful, wanton and malicious acts.
6. On April 6, 2005, Deutsche Bank entered a fraudulent Final Judgment of Foreclosure against Plaintiff and his property. Plaintiff was never given notice that any motion had filed for entry of final judgment. Documents procured from the New Jersey Office of Foreclosure show that no service was ever effected on Plaintiff.
7. On July 28, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Petition before the United States Bankruptcy Court, for the District of New Jersey, Newark Vicinage. The Chapter 13 Petition was converted to a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy on November 9, 2005. The filing of the Chapters 13 & 11 petitions automatically stayed any further proceedings against Plaintiff for foreclosure
8. On December 6, 2005 and December 13, 2005, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey ruled that Deutsche Bank was not the proper party, had no standing to bring suit against Plaintiff for foreclosure on his New Jersey property, stated that Deutsche Bank had committed "bad faith" acts, and nullified the Final Judgment for foreclosure. In fact, attorneys representing Deutsche Bank admitted in open court that Deutsche Bank was not a proper party.
9. On December 13, 2005, United States Bankruptcy Judge Donald H. Steckroth, U.S.B.J., ruled that Deutsche Bank's judgment against Plaintiff was invalid and termed said judgment as "useless" and "worthless".
10. However, Deutsche Bank continues to schedule sheriff's sales to harass Plaintiff in view that the matter is res judicata and collaterally estopped, and no appeal was taken from the Bankruptcy Court.
11. No valid original, wet-ink signed mortgage note has ever been produced.
12. Plaintiff brings this action to obtain redress in monetary damages for the unconstitutional deprivation of his liberties guaranteed by the Constitution for the United States of America, First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.
13. Plaintiff brings this action to obtain redress in monetary damages for violations of federal laws including, but not limited to, Truth In Lending Act ("TILA"), "RESPA", "REGULATION Z", HUD-1 settlement documents, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), anti-predatory lending laws.
14. Plaintiff brings this action to obtain redress in monetary damages for fraudulent usage and fraudulent creation of negotiable instruments.
15. Plaintiff brings this action to obtain redress in monetary damages for common law torts of fraud, deception, outrageous conduct, fraudulent conversion of property, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violations of fiduciary duty causing the defrauding of Plaintiff.

JURISDICTION
16. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to (a) 28 U.S.C. ?1331, because the case arises under the Constitution, laws or regulations of the United States;
(b) 28 U.S.C. ?1332, since there is diversity of citizenship and this is a civil action involving, exclusive of interest and costs, a sum in excess of $75,000.00.
17. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Truth In Lending Act ("TILA"), 82 Stat. 146, Title 15 U.S.C. ?1601 et seq., Title 15 U.S.C. ??1635, 1635(f), "RESPA" regulations, "REGULATION Z" regulations, and HUD-1 violations.
18. This Court has further jurisdiction under Article III, section 2, cl. 1 of the United States Constitution.
19. This Court has further jurisdiction under Article I, Section 8, cl. 3 ("Commerce Clause").
20. This Court has further jurisdiction under various federal banking and lending laws.
21. This Court also has jurisdiction over the causes of action alleged pursuant to federal and state pendent jurisdiction.

VENUE
22. Venue is appropriate in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. ?1391(b), because Defendant Deutsche Bank Company Americas f/k/a Bankers Trust Company, as Trustee, has offices located on Wall Street, in New York City, State of New York. Defendant and/or its agents has offices, agencies or entities within the Southern District of New York.
23. Plaintiff, Atoo Heera Sakhrani, resides in New Jersey.

PARTIES
24. Plaintiff, Atoo Heera Sakhrani is a resident and citizen of New Jersey, with an address located at 300 Gorge Road, Suite 59, Cliffside Park, New Jersey 07010.
25. Defendant corporation Deutsche Bank and its officers, agents, and insurors are located on Wall Street, New York City, in the Southern District of New York, New York State.
26. Defendants and John Does 1-10 and Jane Does 1-10 are residents and citizens who, upon discovery, may have individually or in concert conspired to deprive Plaintiff of his property and liberties.



FACTS
1. On October 17, 2003, Defendant Deutsche Bank, filed suit against Atoo Heera Sakhrani, Kazuyo Ueda Sakhrani and the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, Chancery Division, General Equity Part, for foreclosure on Plaintiff Sakhrani's 53 Engle Street, Cresskill, New Jersey 07626 proper. Plaintiff Sakhrani and his wife Kazuyo Ueda Sakhrani, counterclaimed Deutsche Bank, and filed a Third-Party complaint against purported loan servicer Ameriquest Mortgage Company, President Kirk Langs of Ameriquest, Chief Financial Officer John P. Grazer of Ameriquest, and Ameriquest Senior Legal Counsel, Del Dillingham, who certified to the New Jersey Superior Court that the alleged mortgage note in question was never endorsed or altered (there are two mortgage notes--one not endorsed or altered and one that is endorsed and altered), and New Jersey counsel for Ameriquest, Paul Dillon.
2. The New Jersey State action was/is entitled "Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, f/k/a Bankers Trust Company, as Trustee vs. Atoo Heera Sakhrani, et al. vs. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, Kirk Langs; John P. Grazer; Del Dillingham; Paul Dillon, as Third-party Defendants, Docket No. F-18721-03 (Bergen County).
3. With regard to the state case involving Deutsche Bank, Plaintiff Atoo Heera Sakhrani filed a timely statutory Truth In Lending Act (TILA) rescission on the mortgage loan, pursuant to Title 15 U.S.C.S. ?1635 et seq. and 15 U.S.C.S. Appx. 12 C.F.R. ?226.23(a). Plaintiff filed the Rescission because of Deutsche Bank and it's agents, representatives and entities' predatory lending practices.
4. The filing and service of said complaint was the first time the Sakhranis became aware that Deutsche Bank had taken over the mortgage and note, which was under dispute at that time, from Ameriquest Mortgage Company. Deutsche Bank could not produce the original, wet-ink signature mortgage note.
5. On or about April of 2001, Plaintiff Atoo Heera Sakhrani made application for a mortgage to refinance his 53 Engle Street, Cresskill, New Jersey property in the amount $274,900.
6. On or about April 26, 2001, Sakhrani was given a number of lending documents to review and sign by the lending company Ameriquest Mortgage Company's New Jersey Branch Manager Martin Vroegindewey. The loan amount Sakhrani agreed to was $275,000, including broker fees. The note that Sakhrani executed on May 3, 2001 did not disclose fees that Ameriquest later billed to Sakhrani.
7. The broker fees were settled at 3% taken from the total loan amount. Sakhrani was in agreement with the loan amount being $275,000, which amount was inclusive of fees he was liable for.
8. The HUD-1 Settlement Statement showed that Sakhrani was to receive $54,322.98 after all disbursements, plus interest for delays in his receiving the funds, which was due in his bank account on May 7, 2001. Sakhrani informed Vroegindewey that he was in desperate need of the funds because he had already made commitments for those funds.
9. On May 3, 2001 Eric Model, attorney for Dollinger & Ostrowsky, visited Sakhrani's office at 273 Palisade Avenue in Cliffside Park, New Jersey and facilitated a closing for a refinance loan in the amounnt of $274,900.
10. At the closing on May 3rd, Sakhrani was not made aware that the federal HUD-1 Settlement Statement showed a loan discount fee of 4% payable to Ameriquest, rather than the 3% agreed upon in the Good Faith Estimate.
11. During the closing Model handed Sakhrani an envelope containing a set of documents that Sakhrani could open as his after the closing.
12. Sakhrani noticed that the loan application was handwritten by someone else other than him. Sakhrani also noticed that the entire set of loan application forms were blank and thought this to be odd.
13. Mr. Model asked Sakhrani to sign the stack of papers and initial each page of the Fannie Mae form 1003 which is the Uniform Residential Loan Application form. Sakhrani signed a number of papers, but there were no dates on them. Model did not leave copies of the executed documents for Sakhrani as required.
14. Sakhrani never received the difference of the 4% versus the 3% loan discount fee, nor did he receive a copy of the executed loan documents that he purportedly signed.
15. On or about July 2, 2001, Sakhrani received a bill from his original homeowner's insurance company, Newark Insurance Company asking for payment of $609 as premium due on July 25, 2001.
16. On July 3, 2001 Ameriquest contacted Sakhrani by letter stating that they hadn't yet received his homeowner's insurance bill. On the same date Sakhrani called Ameriquest and told them that the insurance was to be paid to Newark Insurance at the time of the closing.
17. Between this time and August 18, 2001, Newark Insurance was never paid by Ameriquest at the closing. On August 18, 2001, Sakhrani was notified by Ameriquest that his own homeowner's insurance carrier had cancelled his policy because it expired. Ameriquest also told Sakhrani that it had secured temporary homeowner's insurance for him. This was fraudulent force-placing of lender's homeowner's insurance and was a predatory lending practice known as "packing".
18. Sakhrani was assured time and again by Ameriquest that they would resolve the situation. Ameriquest did not. On October 28, 2001 Sakhrani received a letter from Ameriquest informing him that Ameriquest secured homeowner's insurance for him, in the amount of $2,320. This is four (4) times what he was paying for his own homeowner's insurance. This is evidence of Ameriquest's predatory lending practices of "packing".
19. During this period, Sakhrani contacted various Ameriquest customer service people and supervisors to have the problem addressed and corrected. He was promised numerous times that the matter would be taken care of. It never was.
20. On or about November 2001 Sakhrani began receiving harassing phone calls from the Ameriquest collections department that he was late with his payments and that they would foreclose on his property. Sakhrani was getting these harassing phone calls from between 7:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. daily.
21. Sakhrani was making payments to Ameriquest, but unbeknownst to him the new homeowner's insurance policy force placed against him by Ameriquest, and which was four times the cost of his original homeowner's insurance policy, was causing the payments to be incorrect. Sakhrani was not made aware of this.
22. What Sakhrani did not know was that Ameriquest was placing his payments in a suspense account because Ameriquest had increased the payments to $3,009.40 per month instead of the normal payments of $2,566.15 per month. This was due to Ameriquest's force-placing of the more costly homeowner's insurance policy against Sakhrani, because they did not pay his old policy when it was due and allowed it to lapse. Ameriquest did this in order to force its own more expensive insurance policy against Sakhrani. This is known as the predatory lending practice of "packing". What also increased the monthly payments were the additional fees that Sakhrani was unaware of because he was not given a true, valid HUD-1 settlement statement at the time of closing.
23. Ameriquest continued to maintain this suspense account in order to compound the late fees and cause Sakhrani's mortgage to fall behind. Sakhrani had contacted the President of Ameriquest, Mr. Kirk Langs, by certified and overnight mail, to investigate and correct the problem. Sakhrani never got any response from Langs.
24. Sakhrani never received the additional cash he was due from a loan for his business at the time of the Ameriquest closing. He also never received any refund on the 1% point he was overcharged on the mortgage.
25. Up to March 2002 Sakhrani was current with his monthly mortgage payments. Yet, he continued to receive harassing phone calls and harassing bills and letters from Ameriquest.
26. On or about March 12, 2002 Sakhrani received a letter from Ameriquest stating he was liable for $95 insurance premium because there was a lapse in the policy payment.
27. Towards the end of March Sakhrani received a bill from Ameriquest for the April 1, 2002 payment, which was showing a past due amount of $2,566.15 and overdue escrow payments in the amount of $718.01.
28. On April 8, 2002 Sakhrani sent a certified letter to Ameriquest asking them to credit his escrow account. Sakhrani enclosed a check for his April 1st mortgage payment and requested Ameriquest to make the relevant credits to his account and to show his payment history as being current.
29. From April 2002 until September 2002, Sakhrani received hundreds of harassing telephone calls from the Ameriquest collections department. This was/is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Consumer Credit Protection Act, Title 15 U.S.C. ?1653 et seq.
30. From October 2001 through 2003, Sakhrani received Notices of Intention to Foreclose from Ameriquest. It is interesting to note here, that Sakhrani received monthly notices of intention to foreclose for almost 2 years, and mortgage foreclosures are usually initiated within 3-9 months.
31. Ameriquest kept charging Sakhrani late fees of $153.97 even though his payments were being timely made.
32. On March 11, 2003, Sakhrani filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, Special Civil Part, Docket No. DC-006443-03, against Ameriquest for recovery of $7,429.16.
33. An attempt was made to settle the case based upon both parties' compliance with a stipulation of settlement dated June 18, 2003 and refereed by a court appointed mediator, Ms. Gabrielle Casini. Ms. Casini told Sakhrani that if he was not happy with the mortgage documents presented for inspection, as per the stipulation of settlement, Sakhrani could refuse to settle and go on to the continuance of the case by asking for a trial date.
34. The stipulation of settlement was drafted and handwritten by Ameriquest's legal counsel, Mr. Paul Dillon. Sakhrani signed it in the presence of the mediator on June 18, 2003.
35. The requirements and terms of the stipulation of settlement were that Ameriquest Mortgage Company agreed to prove to Sakhrani that the adjustable rate note known as the promissory note for the mortgage was never endorsed or altered. Ameriquest was to give Sakhrani a true and correct copy of this note and to show him the actual original note in the presence of a neutral witness from his office.
36. Sakhrani was to also receive the complete set of loan closing documents and a certification from an authorized signatory from Ameriquest Mortgage to the fact that the note had not been endorsed or altered in any way. Sakhrani was to visit Ameriquest's attorney Paul Dillon's office on June 27, 2003 where Dillon would hand him the certification that the mortgage note was not endorsed or altered, and Dillon was to give him all copies of the loan documents.
37. Sakhrani was to provide Paul Dillon with copies of all correspondence between him and Ameriquest before July 7, 2003 which resulted in the lawsuit, because Dillon said he was not receiving any of the documentation from Ameriquest.
38. If both terms above were complied with satisfactorily, Ameriquest was to pay Sakhrani $1,000 as settlement. In the even either side defaulted, the settlement would be set aside and the case be moved for trial.
39. On June 27, 2003, Sakhrani and his wife arrived at Paul Dillon's office and allegedly received all loan documents promised along with a wet ink signed certification from Dillon which was dated June 26, 2003. Dillon's Certification stated the following:
"Del Dillingham of full age certifies as follows:

1. I am employed by Ameriquest Mortgage Company
("Ameriquest"), as Vice President and Senior
Counsel of the Legal Department. As such, I am
authorized to execute this Certification on behalf
of Ameriquest.

2. I hereby certify that the attached Adjustable
Rate Note payable to Ameriquest is the original
document signed by the debtor as maintained by
Ameriquest with the original documents for this
loan and that the Note has not been altered or
endorsed.

I hereby certify that the foregoing statements
made by me are true. I am aware that if any of
the foregoing statements made by me are willfully
false, I am subject to punishment."

It was Dated June 26, 2003, and signed by Del

Dillingham, with original signature.
40. Each copy presented to Sakhrani was in letter size, 8.5" X 11", and had the same certified true and correct stamp on each page. The copy of the Note, in letter size, did not show any endorsement at all.
41. When Sakhrani inspected the legal size document, 8.5" X 14", that was on file with Paul Dillon, Sakhrani realized that the legal sized document did, indeed, show an endorsement of the actual original note that was stamped and signed by the President of Ameriquest, Kirk Langs, and it was also signed and stamped by the C.F.O. of Ameriquest, John P. Grazer, with blank endorsement of the note, making it a negotiable instrument which can be circulated among third parties, and no longer simply a two-party Note. Sakhrani had a photocopy of this legal-sized document made.
42. Sakhrani asked Paul Dillon to write the date on it stating that it was an actual copy from the original, wet-ink mortgage note and initial it, which he did.
43. Sakhrani never received copies of the mortgage documents with the certified true and correct stamp on them. The Sakhranis were told to return to Paul Dillon's office on July 7, 2003 to secure a certified copy of those documents. When the Sakhranis asked for certified true and correct copies of the mortgage documents, said documents were not forthcoming.
44. As a result, on July 15, 2003, Sakhrani filed a motion
to set aside the stipulation of settlement based on the facts that the documents secured were not satisfactory as per the stipulation of settlement.
45. At the motion hearing held on August 8, 2003 before Judge Gaeta, Sakhrani presented to the judge a true and correct copy of the fraudulent note without the endorsement signatures and a true and correct copy of the note with the endorsement signatures.
46. When Sakhrani handed a copy of same to Paul Dillon, Dillon remained silent and never objected if they were incorrect.
47. On August 15, 2003 Paul Dillon filed a "Supplemental Certification" in which he admitted that the promissory note had in fact been endorsed, but then he falsely accused Sakhrani of switching evidence, the unendorsed note with the endorsed note. 48. Dillon submitted false evidence to the Court, and in his same certification, at page 3,?5, he also told the court that "Ameriquest hereby withdraws its opposition to plaintiff's motion to set aside the Stipulation of Settlement, because there is arguably technical noncompliance with the requirement in the Stipulation of Settlement, ?1, that the original Note had not been 'altered or endorsed'".
49. On January 29, 2004, Sakhrani wrote a letter to the Superior Court, Special Civil Part, Bergen County, withdrawing action number DC-6443-03 because Sakhrani filed another action against Ameriquest in the U.S. District Court on December 1, 2003.
50. On March 23, 2004 Sakhranis action against Ameriquest and Deutsche Bank in the U.S. District Court was remanded back to state court. At that point, Ameriquest was no longer a party against Sakhrani. Deutsche Bank continued to pursue the foreclosure action against Sakhrani.
51. On April 26, 2004 Sakhrani properly and timely sent his 3-year statutory "Notice of intention to rescind transaction involving security interest in real property" to Ameriquest by certified mail. Sakhrani's right of rescission was based under Title 12 C.F.R. ?226.23(a) and upheld in the United States Supreme Court case of Beach v. Ocwen Federal Bank, 523 U.S. 410, 140 L.Ed.2d 566, 118 S.Ct. 1408 (1998). The Supreme Court held that the 3-year statutory rescission applies under 15 U.S.C. ?1635 where the lender fails to deliver certain forms or fails to disclose important terms accurately.
53. Ameriquest failed to cure the Truth In Lending Act (TILA) violation that occurred by providing new disclosures and a new cancellation period and conforming the loan terms (new loan) to the new disclosures. To date, neither Ameriquest nor Deutsche Bank has ever cured the TILA violations.
54. The Sakhranis timely and proper Right To Cancel acts as an affirmative defense to foreclosure. Therefore, any attempt at foreclosure, res judicata and collateral estoppel acts as against any foreclosure action.
55. The improper foreclosure action by Deutsche Bank, represented by Richard P. Haber, of Zucker, Goldberg & Ackerman, and the ensuing fraudulent and frivolous litigation instigated by Deutsche Bank, has caused severe damage to the Sakhranis due to the attempted theft by deception of their 53 Engle Street, Cresskill, New Jersey property in the amount of approximately $500,000, (under consumer fraud laws, common law and treble damages for violations of rights).
56. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court in Beach v. Ocwen Federal Bank, supra, held that timely and proper rescission under 15 U.S.C. ?1635 is an affirmative defense to foreclosure if the lender fails to deliver certain forms or fails to disclose important terms accurately.
57. As Paul Dillon already stated, the matter was never settled because of noncompliance with the requirement in the Stipulation of Settlement, ?1, that the original Note had not been 'altered or endorsed'.
58. Deutsche Bank admits to same in their March 1, 2004 "Brief In Further Support of Defendants' Motion To Dismiss And In Reply To Plaintiff's Objection To The Report And Recommendations Filed By Judge Patty Shwartz On Defendants' Motion To Remand". They admitted in their Conclusion, at page 7, and the paragraph above the Conclusion "that the foreclosure and Special Civil Part matter" be remanded to State Court from which they came.
59. Deutsche Bank admitted that the Special Civil Part matter was ongoing and not settled.
60. Because Deutsche Bank lied to the court about plaintiffs not having a germane case against foreclosure, Deutsche Bank left out the salient fact that plaintiffs did indeed file a proper and timely rescission notice pursuant to 15 U.S.C. ??1635 and 1635(f).
61. On April 6, 2005, Deutsche Bank, through its attorneys, filed a fraudulent Final Judgment of foreclosure against Plaintiff. Said Final Judgment purported that Sakhrani received notice of motion for entry of final judgment. Documents procured from the New Jersey Office of Foreclosure will show that Plaintiff Sakhrani was never noticed of any motion or entry of final judgment. Deutsche Bank filed this fraudulent Final Judgment as a retaliation because Sakhrani sued its attorneys.
62. Deutsche Bank attempted to circumvent due process and violated Plaintiff's fundamentally secured rights by surreptitiously filing a false and fraudulent Final Judgment, in order to initiate Sheriff's sales to steal Plaintiff's property through theft by deception, grand theft, fraud, and through false statements to a judicial tribunal.
63. On July 28, 2005, Plaintiff Sakhrani filed a Petition for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. Upon the filing of the Bankruptcy, the automatic bankruptcy stay provision pursuant to 11 U.S.C. ?362 (a) was initiated.
64. Deutsche Bank made an appearance in the Bankruptcy action. They did not file any Proof of Claim. In October of 2005, Plaintiff Sakhrani filed an adversary complaint against Deutsche Bank's attorneys for violating the automatic stay provision. Also, Plaintiff filed an adversary action against Deutsche Bank to strike them as a creditor.
65. On November 9, 2005, the Chapter 13 Bankruptcy was converted to a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy because of the amounts of assets and debts involved.
66. Deutsche Bank continued to schedule Sheriff's sales during this time and in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay, and after the U.S. Bankruptcy Judge told Deutsche Bank to stop scheduling the sheriff's sales.
67. On December 6, 2005, United States Bankruptcy Court Judge, Donald H. Steckroth, ruled that Deutsche Bank was an "incorrect" and "improper" party. Deutsche Bank's attorney, Frances Gambardella admitted the same to the Bankruptcy Court. Judge Steckroth struck Deutsche Bank as a creditor. The Order and Transcript of the Hearing are available for inspection.
68. On December 13, 2005, the United State Bankruptcy Judge Ordered that Deutsche Bank's answer to Sakhrani's action to dismiss Deutsche Bank as a creditor be stricken and dismissed with prejudice. The Order and Transcript of the Hearing are available for inspection.
69. Deutsche Bank's own attorneys admitted that Deutsche Bank was not a "secured creditor" or any other creditor.
70. On December 13, 2005, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Steckroth also struck Ameriquest as an improper party and improper secured creditor. There were no objections from Deutsche Bank's or Ameriquest's attorneys.
71. The Bankruptcy Judge also ruled that Deutsche Bank had no judgment "of any force and effect" and that the judgment was "useless" and "worthless" because Deutsche Bank was not a proper party and was not a creditor, secured or otherwise.
72. Given that the Final Judgment for foreclosure is invalid and of no force and effect, the Writ of Execution is also invalid and stricken. Therefore, no Sheriff's sales are valid.
73. Yet, Deutsche Bank has continues to pursue and schedule Sheriff's sales against Plaintiff's 53 Engle Street, Cresskill, New Jersey property.
74. On January 3, 2006 Plaintiff Sakhrani filed a "Notice and Demand with Affidavit for U.S. Magistrate To Invoke Authority and Empower/Empanel a Grand Jury Investigation" against Deutsche Bank, its attorneys and the New Jersey Superior Court Judge involved.
75. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Deutsche Bank's malicious, frivolous and fraudulent lawsuit, Plaintiff Sakhrani was caused to incur international business losses and damages (as of 2004), to wit:
NetMateWorld Overhead and Operating Expenses: $2,240,000
NetMateWorld Web Design Expenses: $1,296,276
NetMateWorld Chief Operating Officer, David Allen:
$564,284
NetMateWorld Japan Coordinator for Far Eastern
Operations, Ueda Osamu: $200,000

NetMateWorld Lost Business: $2,200,000

Florida Real Estate Lost Earnings: $1,631,250

Legal Counsel, Thomas McDonough $35,000

Total Compensatory Damages (to 2004): $8,166,810

Compensatory Damages to Date exceeds in excess of:
$15,000,000

76. Notwithstanding that Alibaba.com (a similar type of international internet company) was sold to YAHOO Corporation for $One Billion Dollars ($1,000,000,000.00) in September, 2005.






COUNT I
(Defendant Deutsche Bank Violated Federal Laws)
74. Plaintiff Sakhrani reiterates and repeats the allegations in paragraphs 1-73 as set forth herein.
75. Defendant Deutsche Bank, its Defendant Officers, Agents and Representatives violated numerous Federal Laws in bringing a malicious, vexatious and frivolous suit against Plaintiff Sakhrani including violations of the Federal Truth In Lending Act, violations of Federal Regulations involving RESPA and REGULATION Z, violations of the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act for egregiously damaging Plaintiff's credit, violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, violations of Federal HUD laws and regulations, and violations of Federal Banking and Lending laws and violations of other Federal laws and regulations, including R.I.C.O. (both federal and state R.I.C.O. laws).
76. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Deutsche Bank's willful, wanton, malicious, frivolous and fraudulent acts, commissions and omissions, Plaintiff Sakhrani has suffered financial and emotional injuries as well as damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Atoo Heera Sakhrani demands judgment against defendant Deutsche Bank and its officers, agents, representatives and their insurors and any related John Does 1-10 and Jane Does 1-10, individually, jointly and severally, and in the alternative for:
A. Compensatory damages in the amount of $15,000,000;
B. Punitive damages in accordance with Federal consumer protection laws, consumer fraud laws, common law and laws against discrimination in the amount of $100,000,000.00 ($100 Million);
C. Treble damages pursuant to state and federal Consumer Fraud laws;
D. Treble damages pursuant to state and federal R.I.C.O. laws;
E. Continuing damages;
F. Interest;
G. Costs of suit;
H. Attorney fees (when and where necessary), costs and expenses;
I. Any other relief the Court may deem equitable or just.

SECOND COUNT
(MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND
MALICIOUS ABUSE OF PROCESS)
77. Plaintiff Sakhrani reiterates and repeats the allegations in paragraphs 1-76 as set forth herein.
78. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendant Deutsche Bank, and its officers, agents, representatives and related John Does 1-10 and Jane Does 1-10, in pursuing and/or continuing a wanton, willful, malicious, frivolous and fraudulent foreclosure action against the plaintiff and pursuing frivolous litigation when it has been made apparent that rescission is an affirmative defense which collaterally estops foreclosure, defendant Deutsche Bank's acts are being done wantonly, willfully, intentionally, maliciously and outrageously, with an ulterior purpose of stealing by predatory lending practices, grand theft and theft by deception, plaintiff's 53 Engle Street, Cresskill, New Jersey property, and the intended purpose and result of the defendant's fraudulent and criminal acts has caused the plaintiff severe mental anguish, severe emotional and mental distress, humiliation, loss of reputation, and extreme and severe mental suffering, all to plaintiff's damage and injury in an amount within the jurisdiction of the above entitled court.
79. The aforementioned acts were done willfully, wantonly, maliciously and oppressively, when defendant Deutsche Bank was not a proper party and had no standing to bring any suit against Plaintiff whatsoever, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages to plaintiff based upon defendant Deutsche Bank's ability to pay.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Atoo Heera Sakhrani demands judgment against defendant Deutsche Bank, its officers, agents, representative and any related John Does 1-10 and Jane Does 1-10 and their insurors, individually, jointly and severally, and in the alternative for:
A. Compensatory damages in the amount of $15,000,000;
B. Punitive damages in accordance with federal and state consumer fraud laws, common law and laws against discrimination in the amount of $100,000,000.00 ($100 Million);
C. Treble damages pursuant to state and federal Consumer Fraud laws;
D. Treble damages pursuant to state and federal R.I.C.O. laws;
E. Continuing damages;
F. Interest;
G. Costs of suit;
H. Attorney fees (when and where necessary), costs and expenses;
I. Any other relief the Court may deem equitable or just.

THIRD COUNT
(INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)
80. Plaintiff Sakhrani reiterates and repeats the allegations in paragraphs 1-79 as set forth herein.
81. As a direct and proximate result of the wanton, willful, malicious, frivolous and fraudulent conduct of defendant Deutsche Bank, its officers, agents, representatives, their insurors, and any related John Does 1-10 and Jane Does 1-10, it was and is being done wantonly, willfully, intentionally, maliciously and outrageously, with an ulterior purpose of causing the plaintiff severe mental anguish, severe emotional and mental distress, humiliation, loss of reputation, and extreme and severe mental suffering, all to plaintiff's and his wife's damage and injury in an amount within the jurisdiction of the above entitled court.
82. The aforementioned acts were done willfully, wantonly, maliciously and oppressively, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages to plaintiff based on each defendants ability to pay.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Atoo Heera Sakhrani demands judgment
against defendant Deutsche Bank, its officers, agents, representative and any related John Does 1-10 and Jane Does 1-10 and their insurors, individually, jointly and severally, and in the alternative for:
A. Compensatory damages in the amount of $15,000,000;
B. Punitive damages in accordance with federal and state consumer fraud laws, common law and laws against discrimination in the amount of $100,000,000.00 ($100 Million);
C. Treble damages pursuant to state and federal Consumer Fraud laws;
D. Treble damages pursuant to state and federal R.I.C.O. laws;
E. Continuing damages;
F. Interest;
G. Costs of suit;
H. Attorney fees (when and where necessary), costs and expenses;
I. Any other relief the Court may deem equitable or just.



FOURTH COUNT
(FRAUD)
83. Plaintiff Sakhrani reiterates and repeats the allegations in paragraphs 1-82 as set forth herein.
84. As a direct and proximate result of the wanton, willful, malicious, frivolous and fraudulent conduct of defendant Deutsche Bank, its officers, agents, representatives, their insurors, and any related John Does 1-10 and Jane Does 1-10, it was and is being done wantonly, willfully, intentionally, maliciously and outrageously, with an ulterior purpose of defrauding plaintiff through extrinsic fraud, intrinsic fraud, fraud upon the court, trickery and artifice to steal plaintiffs' 53 Engle Street, Cresskill, New Jersey property through predatory lending practices, grand theft and theft by deception, and causing the plaintiff severe mental anguish, severe emotional and mental distress, humiliation, loss of property, loss of reputation, and extreme and severe mental suffering, all to plaintiff's and his wife's damage and injury in an amount within the jurisdiction of the above entitled court.
85. The aforementioned acts were done fraudulently, willfully, wantonly, maliciously and oppressively, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages to plaintiff based upon each defendant Deutsche Bank's ability to pay.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Atoo Heera Sakhrani demands judgment
against defendant Deutsche Bank, its officers, agents, representative and any related John Does 1-10 and Jane Does 1-10 and their insurors, individually, jointly and severally, and in the alternative for:
A. Compensatory damages in the amount of $15,000,000;
B. Punitive damages in accordance with federal and state consumer fraud laws, common law and laws against discrimination in the amount of $100,000,000.00 ($100 Million);
C. Treble damages pursuant to state and federal Consumer Fraud laws;
D. Treble damages pursuant to state and federal R.I.C.O. laws;
E. Continuing damages;
F. Interest;
G. Costs of suit;
H. Attorney fees (when and where necessary), costs and expenses;
I. Any other relief the Court may deem equitable or just.

FIFTH COUNT
(CONSPIRACY)
86. Plaintiff Sakhrani reiterates and repeats the allegations in paragraphs 1-85 as set forth herein.
87. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendant Deutsche Bank, its officers, agents, representatives, their insurors, and any related John Does 1-10 and Jane Does 1-10, it was and is being done in concert with each other to wantonly, willfully, intentionally, maliciously and outrageously, with an ulterior purpose of defrauding plaintiff out of his 53 Engle Street, Cresskill, New Jersey property, and it was and is being done intentionally, maliciously and outrageously, through civil and criminal conspiracy with Deutsche Bank and its officers, agents, representatives and any related John Does 1-10 and Jane Does 1-10, through predatory lending practices of "packing" and "equity stripping", fraud, theft by deception, grand theft, and other causes, thereby causing severe mental anguish, severe emotional and mental distress, humiliation, loss of reputation, and extreme and severe mental suffering, all to plaintiff's damage and injury in an amount within the jurisdiction of the above entitled court.
88. The aforementioned acts were done fraudulently, willfully, wantonly, maliciously and oppressively, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages to plaintiff based upon defendant Deutsche Bank's ability to pay.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Atoo Heera Sakhrani demands judgment
against defendant Deutsche Bank, its officers, agents, representative and any related John Does 1-10 and Jane Does 1-10 and their insurors, individually, jointly and severally, and in the alternative for:
A. Compensatory damages in the amount of $15,000,000;
B. Punitive damages in accordance with federal and state consumer fraud laws, common law and laws against discrimination in the amount of $100,000,000.00 ($100 Million);
C. Treble damages pursuant to state and federal Consumer Fraud laws;
D. Treble damages pursuant to state and federal R.I.C.O. laws;
E. Continuing damages;
F. Interest;
G. Costs of suit;
H. Attorney fees (when and where necessary), costs and expenses;
I. Any other relief the Court may deem equitable or just.

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA

89. Plaintiff Sakhrani reiterates and repeats the

allegations in paragraphs 1-88 as set forth herein.
90. The judicial decisions by the United States Bankruptcy Court on December 6, 2005 and December 13, 2005, and the admissions by defendant Deutsche Bank's own attorneys that Deutsche Bank was not a proper party and had no standing to sue plaintiff for foreclosure, establishes as a matter of law that the above named defendant, Deutsche Bank, was not a proper party, had no standing to sue plaintiff for foreclosure, had their judgment nullified, were admonished by the Bankruptcy Court for committinig "bad faith acts" and therefore, committed willful, wanton, malicious, frivolous, fraudulent, outrageous acts sufficient to prove liability.



JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby demand a Trial by Jury on all issues.







CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the within matter is not the subject of any other action pending in any court or arbitration proceeding, and that no other such action or proceeding, is contemplated.


Dated: January 19, 2006 ____________________________
Atoo Heera Sakhrani


VERIFICATION BY CERTIFICATION
Atoo Heera Sakhrani, of full age, certifies as follows:
1. I am the Plaintiff in the above entitled action.
2. I have read the foregoing Complaint and on my own personal knowledge, I know that the facts set forth herein are true and correct, and they are incorporated in this Certification by reference.
3. I certify that the above statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to the penalties of perjury.



Dated: January 19, 2006 ____________________________
Atoo Heera Sakhrani

I left that company on my own terms in 2003, after they allowed several abuses of employee rights, and while the class action suit RE: overtime pay was pending. Please remember that in addition to this site, you can learn a great amount online by reading at www.ftc.gov -- use the search engine there, AND by using Wikipedia and Google. Most everything you want to know has already been answered somewhere.

In the future, I recommend working only with individuals in the lending industry who are licensed by the Dept of Real Estate, not working with lenders and employees that are licensed by the Dept of Corportations. (If this applies in your state of residence.) When an individual working under the DOC has nothing to lose, anything can happen.
_________

Direct Reply to Kay, who wrote in quotes:
_________

"I have read a lot about the pricing engine on the 2 yr arm's, could someone please explain this to me how they calculate this, and where they hide the hidden charges. I don't understand the points and all that stuff, but would really like to know."
_________

At the time the loan is signed, the final HUD-1 is printed and reviewed with the borrower. On the HUD-1 form, all of the costs associated with refinancing the loan are disclosed in column format. I can't imagine how the costs are hidden from the borrowers as the Lender's Loan Origination Fee (points) are located at the top of the list, and they were printed out specifically on another separate sheet within the note - specifying the $dollar amount of those points.
_________

Somebody here mentioned "loan origination points" being mis-labeled as "discount points". That's beyond me; this forum needs an explanation of the legal implications that I cannot provide.
_________

The Pricing Engine was contained within the software program called "Empower" which is used by the home office of Ameriquest(AMC), and by the Processors who work at the branch offices. In 2002 or 2003, Ameriquest launched a software program called SNAP! which contained a Pricing Engine for loans (read my other posts for more details RE: credit report, AVM, etc.)

SNAP! then was used by every employee as the LOO(loan origination ofcr.) and AE(acct. exec.) no longer had access to Empower for pricing loans -- only the Mgr and the Processor.

Points are the up-front fee a borrower pays for loan origination. You pay up-front with points, over time with interest, or when the loan is paid off during the PrePayment Penalty Period (PPP).

Ameriquest is a capitalistic company that wants its customers to pay all three - to maximize their profit. Clean loans are sold on the secondary market to investors who purchase at, say, $10 or $100 million at a time. Think : FNMA, FDMC.

If your note on a loan at AMC reads 2/28, 7.5%, 3.273 points, 6month LIBOR, $300,000, etc. Then they charged 3.273% times $300,000 just for upfront costs. It's possible that SNAP! generated this when the AE selected a feature within SNAP! to "Solve for Base Pricing", or to "Solve for Rate", or to "Solve for Points". That software changed constantly. My comments on the layout and the options available on the user interface are likely obsolete. Mary Jo Shelton was in charge of all branch operations. Her husband was in charge of the s/w.

Your loan could also have been 2/28, 7.0%, 3.973 points, 6month LIBOR, $300,000.
- OR -
Your loan could also have been 2/28, 6.5%, 4.673 points, 6month LIBOR, $300,000.

Without violating the guidelines of Section 32 of Regulation Z (check www.FTC.gov) as the points increase, the rate decreases. A borrower could "buy down" the interest rate in order to have a lower monthly payment. In some cases, SNAP! forced us to do this to make the new mortgage payment + all the other payments which show on the credit report to calculate a back end Debt to Income ratio below, say, 55% or 40% or whatever the maximum of the AMC lending guidelines were for that particular loan program at that time.

Debt-to-Income ratio maximum % were different for different criteria on each loan, including : Full Doc Income or Stated; credit scores; for 1x30, 1x60, 1x90 days late on the mortgage; for 70% or lower LTV; LTV up to 90%, etc.
_________

"So far it looks like every single loan they did, has something wrong.
Thanks
Kay"
_________

It is NOT possible that the above statement is true. While employed there, I was able to work with hundreds of borrowers to secure loans that had nothing wrong with them. It IS possible that every borrower who posts here is posting about a loan that has something wrong. See the difference?

I could agree that the loans had higher rates and higher fees. They also had the ability to print a loan and sign it same day. For some borrowers, that was incredibly important as they were wallowing in a 6-week process with a broker and they needed to get cash out of the equity in their homes NOW to pay things off and to protect their credit ratings.

After the economic fallout which began in 2001, I helped a large number of homeowners who were dismissed by their employers. Jobs were rare, bills were common.

I'm not defending AMC. I met some great people there --- and some real idiots. I learned a great amount about many things beyond lending. In many cases, my co-workers and I were helping people straighten out their finances. In many other cases, I'm reading about predatory lending practices and outright fraud in some branches. It really depends on the manager and her manager, etc.

Ever buy a car from a legitimate auto salesman? I did, about half a year ago. It's rare, but it can happen. The problem with these structures is the profit sharing that the mortgage lenders and auto dealers set up for their salespeople. The structure encourages them to make as much money for the company so they can earn as much money for their families.

I also would like to know if any more rumors of Ameriquest bein sold. I did ask my lawyer what would happen if they sell or go BK, and she said it will not affect the lawsuites, if they are filed prior to the selling or BK.

I have read a lot about the pricing engine on the 2 yr arm's, could someone please explain this to me how they calculate this, and where they hide the hidden charges. I don't understand the points and all that stuff, but would really like to know.

If anyone has a loan with AMC, I would have a lawyer look at your paperwork and appraisal, just to be safe in case there is something that you might of over looked, before it's to late. So far it looks like every single loan they did, has something wrong.
Thanks
Kay

You and I both know that there's more than "POSSIBLE offenses against consumers" from ex-employees. Upper management found the types of people they should hire and brainwash...young, money hungry, lack of experienced "salespeople." They did WHATEVER they had to do to make their huge commission checks and didn't care what they had to do to get it. Ameriquest mastered this "business" practice and made some ridiculous profits while doing so but now that has all stopped. They are now doing business how it should be done and what do you know, it's just not working for them.

My question is who will buy them out and how much longer?? I predicted 6 months about a month ago but no new rumors (besides HSBC) have come out. What happens to the current lawsuits/consumer issues when Ameriquest get's sold?

My guess is that the AE (acct. exec.) or LOO (loan origination ofcr.) would simply change the address in SNAP!, AMC's 1003 software that instantly merges AVM and credit report. This s/w allows the AMC employee to provide loan program quotes to prospective borrowers during the first telephone contact.

Each outbound telemarketing call originates from a screen which includes name, phone number, address, contact history including name of AMC employee, date(s) calls were made, primary language of the homeowner, and other info.

It's not a line-by-line list of all this info - it's one homeowner's info per screen. This eliminates the chance that you dial a number and then look at the wrong name and really begin the call poorly, addressing Mr. Jones as Mrs. Garcia.

During the conversation with the borrower, the AMC employee determines the goals of that borrower. Maybe they need to pay off their 21% credit card debts. Maybe they need $40,000 for a new roof and some cc debts. Maybe they have an ARM now and want a fixed rate loan.

Using the correct address, an AVM (automated valuation model) is generated and the value of the home is determined in seconds. Or, comparable sales values within six months date of sale are generated and the value of the home is ballparked/determined.

If SNAP! determines that you can provide a loan that meets the borrower's stated goals, an AE or LOO could change the address and Save the file electronically. The request to send a RESPA is automatically forwarded to... the Processor person.

This entire electronic file is reviewable by the Processor, the Branch Mgr, the Area Mgr, and on up the company chain. If the AE or LOO leaves the company, the file doesn't die, it is instantly re-assigned or transferred. The process continues.

Anyway, after the RESPA is mailed out, the AE or LOO can go back into that borrower's SNAP! file and change the address back to the correct address.

When I was at AMC several years ago, AEs and LOOs could also change the name of the AE or LOO responsible for that file/borrower. Or, change the file so that the status read : Customer Declined Offer. Then, you simply re-type the info as if the customer had called into the branch and an AE could eventually close the loan and earn a higher commission % on all his loans for that month.

Using totally false figures, I present an oversimplified example :
An AE is nearing month end with 6 loans signed/funded. This equals 10% commission based on the $60,000 of "revenue" for the company that SNAP! says these loans have generated. If the AE gets one more loan for this month with enough "revenue", she can move into the next higher commission bracket and will be paid on all of the loans for this month 10% + 03% commission. In this example loan number 7 generates $12,000 in "revenue".

So, instead of 10% of $60,000 it becomes 13% of $72,000 and the LOO or AE that "gave" up that 7th loan is paid out in cash. He wasn't going to be paid at 13% because his revenue numbers were lower for that month. Everyone involved earns more income. AMC pays out more commissions.

So, there's several reasons for the AE and LOO to change data within the SNAP! files. After meeting branch mgrs and area mgrs at the company-sponsored events, I learned that some mgrs looked the other way, some trained their people to do this in the interests of employee retention, and some denied knowledge of this practice.

Branch Mgrs. were paid about double the salary as the AE/LOO position and rec'd huge bonuses based on volume. Sometimes, the mgr would take any loan possible for them to move into their next commission%.

Please explain that you have learned how easy it was for an Ameriquest employee to change the mailing address on the RESPA to a phony one and then change it back. They may be interested in this action as it could POTENTIALLY be a violation of federal and state law.

Please explain that you have learned how easy it was for an Ameriquest employee to change the mailing address on the RESPA to a phony one and then change it back. They may be interested in this action as it could POTENTIALLY be a violation of federal and state law.

Please explain that you have learned how easy it was for an Ameriquest employee to change the mailing address on the RESPA to a phony one and then change it back. They may be interested in this action as it could POTENTIALLY be a violation of federal and state law.

Please explain that you have learned how easy it was for an Ameriquest employee to change the mailing address on the RESPA to a phony one and then change it back. They may be interested in this action as it could POTENTIALLY be a violation of federal and state law.

The branch offices and their employees were the last connection to many of the POSSIBLE offenses against consumers. Imagine how difficult it will be to pursue a legal action against Ameriquest for a loan from 2004 or 2005. You would have to track down a variety of people whose only former connection was that branch office. Subpoenas to depose other folks may be difficult since Ameriquest is unlikely to want to keep a list of addresses for former employees or vendors.

My concern is that consumers who MAY have legal issues against Ameriquuest should CRY OUT to their state's Attorney General about this attempted "cleansing" of possible sins that may have happened in a period where Ameriquest swore they were "Doing the Right Thing".

So the ex-employees who forged documents to get loans to go through have the evidence shredded and the all the headaches are elimated for Ameriquest....it's can't be this easy!!!! There still has to be a way to make them pay for their wrongdoings. Even if the evidence is shredded and ex-employees can't "do including ANYTHING that would disparage the company" the fact that documents (such as W2's and paycheck stubs) don't match originals shows that the company (somewhere along the line) is being shady and forging documents. This should hold up in court and the end result should be Null and Void contracts that screw Ameriquest, right?

So the ex-employees who forged documents to get loans to go through have the evidence shredded and the all the headaches are elimated for Ameriquest....it's can't be this easy!!!! There still has to be a way to make them pay for their wrongdoings. Even if the evidence is shredded and ex-employees can't "do including ANYTHING that would disparage the company" the fact that documents (such as W2's and paycheck stubs) don't match originals shows that the company (somewhere along the line) is being shady and forging documents. This should hold up in court and the end result should be Null and Void contracts that screw Ameriquest, right?

So the ex-employees who forged documents to get loans to go through have the evidence shredded and the all the headaches are elimated for Ameriquest....it's can't be this easy!!!! There still has to be a way to make them pay for their wrongdoings. Even if the evidence is shredded and ex-employees can't "do including ANYTHING that would disparage the company" the fact that documents (such as W2's and paycheck stubs) don't match originals shows that the company (somewhere along the line) is being shady and forging documents. This should hold up in court and the end result should be Null and Void contracts that screw Ameriquest, right?

So the ex-employees who forged documents to get loans to go through have the evidence shredded and the all the headaches are elimated for Ameriquest....it's can't be this easy!!!! There still has to be a way to make them pay for their wrongdoings. Even if the evidence is shredded and ex-employees can't "do including ANYTHING that would disparage the company" the fact that documents (such as W2's and paycheck stubs) don't match originals shows that the company (somewhere along the line) is being shady and forging documents. This should hold up in court and the end result should be Null and Void contracts that screw Ameriquest, right?

We are thankful for any help!!!!!

Please keep us updated/

Thank's :o)

It would probably be a good idea to call the Attorney General in your home state and ask them why folks from Ameriquest were going into the closed branches and POTENTIALLY affecting information that could be evidence in legal actions pending against the company.

Let me offer a speculative example that is not based on a real event. Imagine a w-2 was not indicating enough income to allow a loan to be approved. Imagine that an unscrupulous employee, violating company rules, altered that w-2. Certainly the collateral file in Orange would have only the "new" w-2 but the branch file might contain information to indicate that the w-2 was "incorrect".

BTW, did you know that an account executive with Ameriquest could THEORETICALLY derail the RESPA being sent by changing the address in the account and then changing it back after the RESPA was sent?

For those that are curious... I am not a former employee of Ameriquest but you could assume that I REPRESENT one in some capacity.

So do you have more about this. :o)