..

Nye Lavalle
.. 3491 Buckhead Loop # 1605
.. Atlanta, GA 30326
.. 404/ 844-4000
..

Predatory Grizzly "Bear"

Attacks Innocent, Elderly,
. . Poor,
. . Minorities,
. . Disabled
. . . .
& Disadvantaged!

The Story of Bear Stearns Direct Involvement In

And Support Of Predatory Lending In America!
 ..
..
..
..
..

Predatory Grizzly "Bear"

Attacking Elderly, Disabled,
Minorities, Disadvantaged &
Poor With Predatory Lending
Scams & Frauds
Executive Summary & Overview Of Findings & Facts

INTRODUCTION

This report documents what is now known to be one of the largest predatory
lending, servicing and financial scandals in America. The report documents and
provides conclusive proof of widespread corruption, accounting fraud and abuse
existing at Bear Stearns & Co., a major Wall Street investment bank and related
subsidiaries.

This report is being provided as a service to Federal and State regulatory

agencies; members of the media and press; politicians and congressional
committees investigating predatory lending; concerned Bear Stearns
stockholders; Bear's auditing firm, Deloitte & Touche; partners, employees and
members of the board of directors of Bear Stearns; and civic, consumer and legal
groups investigating predatory lending.

The objectives of this report are as follows:

(a) Shed focus and light on Bear Stearns and its predatory lending practices;
(b) Cause Bear Stearns to cease its predatory lending practices;
(c) Cause Bear Stearns to change its policies, practices and procedures;
(d) Insure that Bear Stearns complies with Federal and state laws and
regulations;
(e) Cause Bear Stearns to provide fair, reasonable and just compensation to the
victims of its predatory lending abuses;
(f) Provide regulators, lawyers, press, media, civic groups, Congress, State AGs
and others investigating predatory lending with a "blueprint" and "genetic"
map of how predatory lenders actually operate and their various schemes,
scams and programming methods;
(g) Focus attention on the national and community crises called predatory
lending;
(h) Educate consumers, the public, the courts, Congress and corporate America
on the subject of predatory lending; and
(i) Define and highlight actual predatory lending practices, schemes and abuses.

2
Bear Stearns & Co. [Bear Stearns] is one of the nation's leading "market makers"
in what is called the mortgage backed securities market. From complex
mortgage backed securities, collateral mortgage obligations and other mortgage
"derivative" products, Bear Stearns has been actively involved in the
development, placement and market ["manufacturing"] of mortgage securities in
what is termed the sub-prime B & C markets for the past decade.

Sub-prime lending has recently come under intense scrutiny by various federal
and state regulatory agencies, the U.S. Congress, state legislatures and various
civic groups for "predatory lending" abuses. Attention, however, has been
primarily focused upon unscrupulous mortgage brokers who use a variety of
fraudulent, predatory and abusive practices to take advantage of elderly,
disadvantaged, minority and disabled Americans.

Yet, what is unreported is that the mortgage brokers are mere "street" dealers
that only sell, at the highest price, the supply "made available" to them with
investment help from the "suppliers." Without the supply and support of "key
suppliers" and "manufacturers" there would be no supply of such mortgages for
the brokers to sell. The brokers only "make the deal" and then immediately "sell
the deal" [the actual mortgages] to various Wall Street firms. Bear Stearns is
one such firm. However, In Bear Stearns case, besides "manufacturing" and
"supplying" the product for the dealers to sell, Bear also provides "enforcement
and protection" though the use of various other subsidiaries and affiliates.

In Bear Stearns case, the enforcement and protection activities are left to EMC
Mortgage Corporation in Las Colinas, Texas. Classified as a "mortgage servicer,"
EMC actually acts as "collectors and henchmen" to secure and collect mortgage
mortgage loans with predatory provisions and even "usurious" debts. Unlike mob
loan sharks and henchmen however, EMC employs a factory of collectors, lawyers
and "foreclosure specialists" to literally steal the roof from under its customer's
noses.

EMC Mortgage is one of the nation's leading practitioners of what is termed

predatory lending. However, EMC is not an actual lender, but mortgage servicer.
That is why I use the word "predatory servicing" in this report for it is after the
loan is closed that EMC does its most damage. In reality, EMC operates like an
"enforcer" for the suppliers [Bear Stearns and other investors]. Though a variety
of abusive, aggressive and even illegal collection acts, EMC willfully engages in
extortion and threats against its customers.

First, EMC intentionally programs its computers to unlawfully increase

customer's payments and escrow and account balances. It' collectors then go to
work to collect such unlawful payments. Then, by using threats against
property, home and family, EMC collectors are taught by their own collection
manuals to use "fear" as a method for collection.

Instead of threatening the breaking of bones however, EMC collectors threaten to

take someone's home away, ruin their credit, destroy their business, and/or ruin
their family unless the unlawful payment is made and continued to be made.
When questioned, EMC refuses to provide rightful answers to their customer's
questions about increases of their customer's payments.

3
 EMC also uses a variety of doctored, fraudulent and confusing accounting records
to support the collector's demands upon EMC customers. The customers,
typically elderly, disadvantaged, minority and disabled homeowners who have
high equity in their homes, usually do not possess the sophistication, education
or means to challenge EMC and its collectors or fight their acknowledged "deep
pockets."

While the pain and suffering of broken bones inflicted by mob henchmen and loan
sharks may eventually heal or go away, the pain and suffering inflicted by EMC
many times lasts a lifetime; costs a livelihood and occasionally even costs a life!

I have conducted a six year [over 8000 hour] investigation and examination of the
mortgage banking, financing and predatory lending and servicing operations and
practices of Bear Stearns and EMC. This report and the exhibits and evidence
attached will detail my findings.

I have reached my findings, opinions and conclusions at great personal risk,

suffering and cost to my family and I. However, their silence and ours cannot be
bought. I will leave you to reach your own opinions, verdicts and conclusions by
the careful reading of this report and a careful examination of the attached
supporting exhibits and evidence.

It is my hope that this report, and the "decoding" of the various predatory lending
scams, schemes and frauds perpetuated by Bear Stearns and EMC, will lead
others to fight similar predatory lenders in America. I pray that your silence as
well cannot be bought and that each of you who reads this report will take
positive and constructive steps to end and stop this American nightmare!

Key Findings

My investigation has included over 8000 hours of research, review, study,

examination and analysis of over 100 personal interviews, depositions and
testimony as well as over 100,000 pages of documents, legal discovery, and
transaction histories.

This exam and investigation has uncovered massive wide-scale fraud, abuses,
illegal and even criminal activity employed, sanctioned, paid for and supported
by Bear Stearns & Co., EMC and various law firms and attorneys they retain.
Over sixty [60[ "individual" fraudulent schemes and scams have been identified.

The abusive, fraudulent, illegal and even criminal schemes and predatory
lending and servicing practices by EMC and Bear Stearns uncovered and
outlined below include:

(a) Fraudulently and artificially increasing the amounts of EMC customer’s

principal balances so as to increase the allocation of interest payments to
EMC from customers with adjustable rate mortgages and also thereby
fraudulently increasing the payment of servicing fees paid by investors in
various mortgage securities marketed by Bear and serviced by EMC;

4
(b) Misrepresenting to EMC customers and courts across America the “true”
ownership, sale, assignment, and chain of title of promissory notes, deeds of
trusts and mortgages EMC claims to own but which many are owned by Bear
Stearns and have been owned by others in mortgage backed securities and
also through trustees such as State Street Bank & Trust and Banker's Trust;

(c) Misrepresenting to customers and courts across America the alleged loss or
destruction of promissory notes, deeds of trusts and mortgages EMC claims
to own and have lost when such notes, deeds of trust and mortgages were
assigned to various mortgage pools and investors and are being held by
trustee banks as collateral for various mortgage backed securities marketed,
placed and sold by various Bear Stearns companies and EMC affiliated and
sister companies;

(d) Misrepresenting to customers and courts across America the alleged loss or
destruction of promissory notes, deeds of trusts and mortgages EMC claims
to own and have lost when such notes, deeds of trust and mortgages are
actually owned by others;

(e) Delaying credits and adjustments to EMC customer’s escrow accounts, that
EMC knows the customer is due, on or before impound/escrow analysis dates
so as to intentionally increase and inflate the actual amount of a customer’s
escrow payment to EMC to increase revenue, income, cash flow, interest and
investment returns to EMC and Bear Stearns;

(f) Placing charges and debits to EMC customer’s escrow accounts, that EMC
knows the customer does not owe, prior to impound/escrow analysis dates so
as to intentionally increase and inflate the actual amount of a customer’s
escrow payment to EMC to increase revenue, income, cash flow, interest and
investment returns to EMC and Bear Stearns;

(g) Placing forced place insurance on top of an EMC’s customer’s own hazard
insurance policy and charging the customer for a policy that EMC knows the
customer does not owe, prior to impound/escrow analysis dates so as to
intentionally increase and inflate the actual amount of a customer’s escrow
payment to EMC to increase revenue, income, cash flow, interest and
investment returns to EMC and Bear Stearns;

(h) Canceling EMC customer’s hazard insurance and then ordering forced placed
insurance coverage at rates higher than the customer was previously paying
and then placing such charges into EMC customer’s escrow accounts prior to
impound/escrow analysis dates so as to intentionally increase and inflate the
actual amount of a customer’s escrow payment to EMC to increase revenue,
income, cash flow, interest and investment returns to EMC and Bear Stearns;

(i) Refusing to accept EMC customer’s hazard insurance policies that meet
EMC’s insurance requirements and then ordering forced placed insurance
coverage at rates higher than the customer was previously paying and then
placing such charges onto EMC customer’s escrow accounts prior to
impound/escrow analysis dates so as to intentionally increase and inflate the
actual amount of a customer’s escrow payment to EMC to increase revenue,
income, cash flow, interest and investment returns to EMC and Bear Stearns;

5
(j) Refusing to accept EMC customer’s hazard insurance policies that meet the
requirements of the customer’s mortgage terms without the payment of a
“substitution fee” and then ordering forced placed insurance coverage at rates
higher than the customer was previously paying and then placing such
charges onto EMC customer’s escrow accounts prior to impound/escrow
analysis dates so as to intentionally increase and inflate the actual amount of
a customer’s escrow payment to EMC to increase revenue, income, cash flow,
interest and investment returns to EMC and Bear Stearns;

(k) Failing to timely pay EMC customer’s hazard insurance premiums from their
escrow accounts and then ordering forced placed insurance coverage at rates
higher than the customer was previously paying and then placing such
charges onto EMC customer’s escrow accounts prior to impound/escrow
analysis dates so as to intentionally increase and inflate the actual amount of
a customer’s escrow payment to EMC to increase revenue, income, cash flow,
interest and investment returns;

(l) Failing to inform customers that their payments or any portion of their
payments are being held in a suspense account so as to intentionally hide
such positive account balances and cause confusion about the proper amounts
owed to EMC by their customers in as effort to intentionally increase and
inflate the actual amount of a payment to EMC to increase EMC’s revenue,
income, cash flow, interest and investment returns;

(m) Delaying the preparation and mailing of contractually obligated monthly

payment coupons until after the actual due date called for in the customer’s
promissory note so as to intentionally cause a delay in payment of a
customer’s account so as to improperly assess, demand, and collect late fees
caused by the direct actions of EMC so as to intentionally increase and inflate
the actual amount of a late fee payment to EMC to increase revenue, income,
cash flow, interest and investment returns to EMC and Bear Stearns;

(n) Demanding overpayment of over-calculated escrow shortages [double or triple

escrow billing] in addition to the shortage payment already calculated in the
new escrow analysis so as to intentionally increase and inflate the actual
amount of a customer’s escrow payment to EMC to increase revenue, income,
cash flow, interest and investment returns to EMC and Bear Stearns;

(o) Delaying credits, payments and adjustments to EMC customer’s accounts,

that EMC has already collected, cashed or received, on or before statement
preparation dates so as to intentionally increase and inflate the actual
amount of the payment that EMC claims is due, is demanding and/or
collecting so as to cause EMC customers to send in overpayments that are
placed into suspense accounts to increase EMC’s revenue, income, cash flow,
interest and investment returns to EMC and Bear Stearns;

(p) Placing various charges and debits to EMC customer’s accounts, that EMC
knows the customer does not owe, prior to impound analysis dates so as to
intentionally increase and inflate the actual amount of a customer’s escrow
payment to EMC to increase revenue, income, cash flow, interest and
investment returns to EMC and Bear Stearns;

6
(q) Placing amounts paid by EMC customers into suspense accounts and not
crediting their accounts for principal, interest, escrow and other amounts due
while at the same time sending monthly payment statements, demand letters
and other collection documents that do not reflect or credit the amounts held
in suspense in an effort to demand, extort and collect excessive payments
from EMC customers that are not owed so as to increase EMC’s revenue,
income, cash flow, interest and investment returns to EMC and Bear Stearns;

(r) Unlawfully modifying the terms of EMC customer’s loan documents in

violation of RESPA and the customer’s loan documents by sending so-called
“welcome” letters that contain due dates and late fee assessment dates in
advance of the actual due dates and late fee assessment date obligated under
the loan terms so as to stimulate payments in advance of their contractual or
lawful due date to increase revenue, income, cash flow, interest and
investment returns to EMC and Bear Stearns;

(s) Unlawfully modifying the terms of EMC customer’s loan documents in

violation of RESPA and the customer’s loan documents by sending so-called
“welcome” letters that contain principal and interest payment amounts that
exceed the required monthly payment so as to stimulate overpayments of
EMC customer’s contractual and lawful monthly payments to increase
revenue, income, cash flow, interest and investment returns to EMC and
Bear Stearns;

(t) Unlawfully modifying the terms of EMC customer’s loan documents in

violation of RESPA and the customer’s loan documents by sending so-called
“welcome” letters that contain escrow payment amounts that exceed the
required monthly escrow payment so as to stimulate overpayments of EMC
customer’s contractual and lawful monthly escrow payments to increase
revenue, income, cash flow, interest and investment returns to EMC and
Bear Stearns;

(u) Unlawfully modifying the terms of EMC customer’s loan documents in

violation of RESPA and the customer’s loan documents by sending so-called
“welcome” letters that contain late fee payment amounts that exceed the
maximum allowed monthly late fee payment so as to stimulate overpayments
of EMC customer’s contractual and lawful late fee payments to increase
revenue, income, cash flow, interest and investment returns to EMC and
Bear Stearns;

(v) Increasing and overstating payments due to EMC by customers that have
high equity values in their homes so as to cause such customers to either pay
EMC the overpayment or to dispute and refuse to pay the amounts and
overpayments demanded by EMC so that EMC can assess, charge and collect
late fee revenue directly attributable to their refusal to accept a customer’s
payment that was less than “one penny” less than what EMC claimed or
demanded was owed;

(w) Instructing EMC customers, who are disputing amounts claimed to be owed,
not to send in a payment until the research on their account is completed,

7
 then charging those same customers with late fees associated with the
months the customers were told not to send in payments by EMC employees;

(x) Using the due date instead of the statement date on monthly payment
coupons sent to EMC customers to calculate late fees and demand, extort and
collect excessive late fees and overpayment of late fees that are not owed to
increase revenue, income, cash flow, interest and investment returns to EMC
and Bear Stearns;

(y) Placement into escrow accounts of debts and obligations not legally obligated
or owed by EMC customers such as BPO fees, inspection fees, appraisal fees,
legal fees and other expenses that are not owed or allowed by law to be placed
into mortgage escrow accounts to increase revenue, income, cash flow,
interest and investment returns to EMC and Bear Stearns;

(z) Concealment of debts and obligations not legally obligated or owed by EMC
customers such as BPO fees, inspection fees, appraisal fees, legal fees and
other expenses as “misc.” adjustments to customer's accounts or escrow
balances that are not owed or obligated to in an effort to increase revenue,
income, cash flow, interest and investment returns;

(aa) Misrepresenting non-recoverable advances such as BPO fees as “misc. legal

advances” that are not only not owed but intentionally and fraudulently
dumped into attorney fee demands made by EMC upon its customers to
increase revenue, income, cash flow, interest and investment returns to EMC
and Bear Stearns;

(bb) Miscalculating and over-charging escrow accounts of EMC customers that are
not owed in an attempt to increase revenue, income, cash flow, interest and
investment returns to EMC and Bear Stearns;

(cc) Miscalculating and over-charging principal balance accounts of EMC

customers that are not owed in an attempt to increase revenue, income, cash
flow, interest and investment returns to EMC and Bear Stearns;

(dd) Miscalculating and over-charging payoff amounts on the accounts of EMC

customers that are not owed in an attempt to increase revenue, income, cash
flow, interest and investment returns to EMC and Bear Stearns;

(ee) Billing, charging and assessing the attorney fees of EMC co-defendants in
lawsuits as EMC’s own attorney fees when in fact EMC has no claim to such
fees and the co-defendants have made no claim for such attorney fees;

(ff) Instructing EMC customers to take disputes and complaints about amounts
owed, balances, payments and other “qualified” matters that customers had
with previous servicers to those servicers when EMC has the legal and
contractual obligation to address such matters under their so-called purchase
as well as under RESPA;

(gg) Refusing to address complaints and disputes from EMC customers about
amounts owed, balances, payments and other “qualified” matters that
customers had with previous servicers after EMC has taken over servicing of

8
 the loan when EMC has the legal and contractual obligation to address such
matters;

(hh) Refusing to address complaints and disputes from EMC customers and/or
delaying responses about amounts owed, balances, payments and other
“qualified” matters with EMC itself so that EMC can delay the dates of any
filing of lawsuits so as to assert various waiver and statute of limitation
defenses when customers ultimately file suit to protect their interests;

(ii) Failing to recalculate, amortize and adjust payments and interest

assessments when errors, mistakes and overpayments have been found and
documented on an EMC’s customer’s account;

(jj) Concealing the names of additional parties, litigants, owners in due course,
trustees and investors who actually own; have an interest in EMC customer’s
notes and/or have approved actions taken against EMC customers by EMC
itself;

(kk) Collecting debts and obligations for others and concealing that fact and
representing that EMC is collecting an obligation or debt of its own;

(ll) Conducting property inspections upon delinquent EMC customers and

assessing, charging, demanding and collecting property inspection fees, in
addition to late fees that are assessed and collected from customer’s whose
note’s provide for such expenses and are part of liquidated damage “late fee”
provisions of a customer’s account;

(mm) Conducting property inspections upon supposed delinquent EMC customers

and assessing, charging, demanding and collecting property inspection fees in
which the stated purpose of the so-called property inspection was to collect
the EMC customer’s payment;

(nn) Diverting payments intended for principal and interest payments toward the
payment of various fees and expenses not owed by EMC customers instead of
payment to reduce principal balances;

(oo) Holding in suspense and not crediting partial and even full payments on
dates received from customers who sent in more money than what was owed
to advance pay their mortgage and reduce the principal balance of their
loans;

(pp) Diverting payments intended for principal and interest payment toward the
payment of various fees and expenses not demanded by EMC according to the
terms and conditions of EMC customer’s promissory notes;

(qq) Assessing, claiming, demanding and collecting attorney fees for defense of the
wrongful actions of EMC and terming such demands as attorney fees for
“collection of a note” when in fact such fees are for EMC’s own defense;

(rr) Assessing, claiming, demanding and collecting attorney fees from EMC
customers for defense of co-defendants in lawsuits with EMC for the wrongful
actions of such co-defendant and terming such demands as attorney fees for

9
 collection of a note when in fact such fees are for EMC’s co-defendant’s
defense;

(ss) Assessing, claiming, demanding and collecting attorney fees for collection of a
note when in fact the customer’s note does not contain a cost of collection or
litigation provision or clause as other EMC notes do;

(tt) Charging various legal expenses including expert, investigation and support
fees and then assessing, claiming, demanding and collecting such fees by
fraudulently concealing them as attorney fees;

(uu) Charging various legal expenses including copy, lunch, travel, parking,
phone, postage and other expenses and then assessing, claiming, demanding
and collecting such fees by fraudulently concealing them as attorney fees;

(vv) Retaliating against EMC customers and their families who have filed suit or
made complaints to EMC or State and Federal authorities by continuing false
and negative credit reporting and refusing to report accounts as being in
dispute to credit reporting agencies;

(ww) Refusing to correct known false credit reporting in order to use as "blackmail"
and "extortion" against EMC customers to get them to pay money EMC's
knows is not obligated for;

(xx) Making demands for payment of principal and excess escrow payments in
excess of interest, advances and expenses after EMC has accelerated a
customer’s note;

(yy) Making demands for payment of excess principal, interest and escrow
payments far in excess of the actual interest, advances and expenses owed to
EMC;

(zz) Failing to provide EMC customers with proper information and data on
mortgage notes that have negative amortization provisions so as to cause
deferred interest payments to be placed into the customer’s account so as to
increase interest payments, income, revenue and cash flow to EMC and Bear
Stearns;

(aaa) Failing to follow the terms of EMC customer’s promissory notes and altering
key terms of promissory notes upon transfer of servicing in violation of
RESPA and the actual terms of each customer’s notes and mortgages;

(bbb) Providing false and fraudulent transaction and account data to EMC
customers who have disputed transactions, account balances and payment
demands by EMC;

(ccc) Intentionally failing to timely credit or adjust EMC customer’s account from
months to even years for expenses, charges and advances not owed;

(ddd) Paying inspection fees, attorney fees, late fees and other expenses from
customer’s payments before their application to principal and interest
payments actually due in violation of the terms and conditions of EMC
customer’s promissory notes;

10
(eee) Extorting sums and payments known not to be owed to EMC by threatening
the credit of customers and illegal foreclosure of their homes;

(fff) Intentionally extorting exorbitant sums and payments for attorney fees
known not to be owed to EMC by threatening the credit of customers and
illegal foreclosure of their homes;

(ggg) Intentionally blackmailing EMC customers to pay sums not owed or legally
obligated to in order to protect their credit reputation or foreclosure of their
home;

(hhh) Mischaracterizing the amount, type and status of EMC customer’s debts with
EMC by mislabeling, misrepresenting and misstating the types, nature and
amounts of customer’s payments, balances and credit and debit transactions;

(iii) Intentionally reporting false and negative credit information to prevent

customers from refinancing their loans;

(jjj) Foreclosing on customer’s loans and padding expenses via false affidavits to
the courts so that the equity of borrower’s homes can be stripped away;

(kkk) Stripping equity in foreclosures by claiming non-recoverable advances such

as BPO fees in the claim and lost rent when in fact EMC does not and has not
intended to rent the foreclosed property;

(lll) Seeking claims and recovery from U.S. government agencies such as VA,
FHA and HUD for shortfalls after foreclosure in which EMC has hidden and
padded non-recoverable advances and artificially inflated the principal
balances by various means so as to secure a higher claim than it is rightfully
entitled to;

(mmm) Wrongfully foreclosing on customer's homes; increasing internal costs to

equity strip the borrowers and then underbid the value of those properties by
"buying them low and selling them high" as one EMC manager was quoted as
saying to make a profit to the benefit of EMC and Bear Stearns.

Emc & Bear Stearns Illegal Activity & Noncompliance

EMC and Bear Stearns willfully violate and fail to comply with various Federal
and State laws, statutes and regulations. In order to save money and earn
additional revenue, EMC and Bear Stearns has been found to violate the
following Federal and State laws as well as RESPA and HUD policies,
regulations and procedures, including, but not limited to:

(a) Violation of the 20/60 rule and a failure to correct mortgage discrepancies,
errors, and misapplications within 60 days after complaint;

(b) Violation of the 20/60 rule by failing to acknowledge and investigate the Pews
and other customer's continual written complaints and demands within 20
days of notice to the lender;

11
(c) Violation of RESPA’s 2 month limitation of escrow cushion by demanding
more than lawfully allowed amounts of escrow deposits for taxes; escrow for
wrongfully forced place insurance and refusal to credit the previous year’s
escrow charges in demands for payment when all and/or portions of those
payments were included as part of escrow shortage calculations in
subsequent year’s escrow analyses’ and payment demands;

(d) Violation of RESPA’s 2 month limitation of escrow cushion by demanding 7

month’s worth of escrow for wrongfully forced place insurance that was
represented as being credited to the Pew’s account but was still be demanded
in payment demands over a year after the represented credit;

(e) Violation of RESPA in changing the terms and conditions of a customer's note
when assigned or purchased;

(f) Violation of RESPA’s guidelines in calculating escrow payments and

demands;

(g) Failure to stop negative credit reporting for 60 days upon written disputes;

(h) Abusive collection practices through threats of intimidation, ruin of credit

and wrongful foreclosure of homes;

(i) Failure to properly notify customers of escrow activity in their escrow

account;

(j) Misleading customers as to escrow activity and payments in their escrow

account;

(k) Misstating, mischaracterizing and misrepresenting the amount of payments

due EMC and the status of customer's debts;

(l) Violation of Truth In Lending Laws, Fair Credit Act & Debt Collection Laws;

(m) Violations of various state and federal banking laws and regulations;

(n) Violation of various state collection, consumer protection and deceptive trade
practice laws;

(o) Violation of HOEPA;

(p) Violation of State & Federal RICO acts.

12
Potential Criminal Activity Discovered

Certain potentially "criminal” behaviors have also been discovered and

documented. Such criminal activity uncovered in this investigation include:

(a) The obstruction of justice by the use of “corporate dummies” as corporate

representatives in depositions who are purported and represented to have
knowledge of facts, information and practices of EMC and Bear and who have
little knowledge of facts or information, but have been coached and instructed
to obstruct justice and provide perjured testimony by EMC corporate counsel
and outside attorneys;

(b) The obstruction of justice by the use of “corporate dummies” as corporate

representatives in depositions instead of key executives who have actual
knowledge of facts, information and practices of EMC and Bear and who have
little knowledge of facts or information, but have been coached and instructed
to obstruct justice and provide perjured testimony by EMC corporate counsel
and outside attorneys;

(c) The obstruction of justice by knowingly providing false and misleading

affidavits, account histories, answers to interrogatories, deposition questions
and trial and hearing testimony before courts across America;

(d) The rubberstamping of affidavits filed with courts across America including
affidavits singed by individuals without knowledge to the facts as well as
individuals who are different than the individuals identified on the face and
first page of the affidavits;

(e) Reporting to courts that individuals purporting to have custody and control of
pertinent documents and records when in fact such individuals and even
EMC itself does not have direct control of the document and evidence
referenced in the affidavits;

(f) Representing to courts and litigants that documents do not exist or have been
destroyed that in reality do exist;

(g) Destruction, alteration and expoliation of records, documents and evidence

including master tapes of major transactions, loan histories, computer
comments, memos, depositions,

(h) Sponsorship, approval and support of experts bought to conduct fraudulent

analyses and reports to conceal known mistakes, wrongful actions, omissions,
transactions and frauds;

(i) Sponsorship, approval and support of witness tampering via paying off and
buying fraudulent analyses and reports of auditors to conceal known
mistakes, wrongful actions, omissions, transactions and frauds;

13
(j) Invasion of privacy by hiring outside investigators to illegally obtain
personal, credit, medical and business information on family members of
customers and potential witnesses;

(k) Fraudulently billing co-defendant’s legal fees as its own and lying and
misrepresenting such facts to the courts, litigants and investors;

(l) Criminal trespass and theft of property in homes by investigators and agents
of EMC and their attorneys litigating claims and foreclosures against EMC
customers;

(m) Falsification of business records, documents, promissory notes, and evidence

presented in civil trials and foreclosures;

(n) Intentionally providing false and perjured testimony to mislead litigants,

attorneys and courts across America.

All-in-all, EMC, Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual, SOA and their related
attorneys, law firms and executives are directly participating in what can best be
termed a “white collar criminal enterprise.” While attempting to provide the
illusion of a “normal” business practice, the harsh reality is that the abuses and
predatory practices exhibited by these companies and individuals not only
violates so-called industry standards, ethics and practices, but willfully violates
various federal and state laws, codes, and regulations.

A detailed examination of all of EMC’s compliance audits, complaints, complaints

logs, court pleadings, settlement agreements, agreements, closing books, and
other documents known to exist would shed further light and provide additional
evidence on EMC’s and Bear Stearns illegal behavior.

As one state regulator from New York said, if you’re a mortgage company or bank
and want to steal a hundred million dollars, would you do it all at once or steal
many pennies, dimes and dollars millions of times?

14
 ..
..
..
..
..

Actions Affect The Public &

Many Constituencies
Actions Affect Public, Financial Markets, Customers,
Shareholders & Employees

Effects On Bear Stearns' Publics & Key Constituencies

As exhibited below, the effects of Bear Stearns’ and EMC’s actions affect many
direct and indirect constituencies. In light of recent litigation, public and
regulatory investigations and the hits and shots that Bear has taken a
"Predatory" Bear should willingly want to hibernate or cage itself, rather than
being shot down by state agencies and regulators. This would minimize Bear’s
and EMC’s exposure and prevent further attacks and harm upon the predatory
Bear’s victims.

Recently, Federal and state agencies, regulators, civic organizations and

Congress have focused their attention on what’s termed “predatory” lending and
servicing practices. In light of such focus, EMC’s and Bear’s arrogance,
ignorance, non-compliance of and abuse of the law is startling! This arrogance is
reflected by EMC's own foreclosure manuals when customers are frequently
referred to as "smucks" instead of borrower, Jane or John Doe or Smith.

The effects of Bear's behavior has a wide range effect on many, not just the EMC
customers being abused. This includes Bear Stearns’ own shareholders,
investors, government and the public. Effects on specific segments of Bear
Stearns’ constituencies are as follows:

Effects On Financial Markets

The effects of Bear Stearns’ and EMC’s actions on financial markets include:

(a) Devaluing of various mortgage derivative products due to increased liabilities

caused by predatory lending practices;

(b) Failure of major banks and wall street firms if value of derivative products
falls, interest rates rise and calls are made on credit enhancement
guarantees;

(c) Reluctance of corporations, mutual funds and other investors to invest in

legitimate mortgage backed securities that are not predatory;

15
(d) Increased government regulation and supervision.

Effects On EMC Customers

The effects of Bear Stearns’ and EMC’s actions on its customers include:

(a) Illegal stripping of equity in EMC customer’s homes;

(b) Illegal foreclosure and loss of EMC’s customer’s homes;

(c) Emotional and mental abuse and distress intentionally inflicted upon EMC
customers;

(d) Impairment of customer’s physical and mental health;

(e) Intentional infliction of emotional duress;

(f) Intentional retaliation upon those smart enough to discover abuses;

(g) Economic damages suffered by customers for intentional and wrongful

reporting of credit, loss of property and payment of legal expenses;

(h) Overpayment of non-obligated fees, expenses, advances, and payments by

customers;

(i) Increased payoffs of customer's mortgages and notes;

(j) Divorce, family estrangement, death and imprisonment of EMC customers

and their family members;

16
 Effects On EMC / Bear Investors & Trustees

The effects of Bear Stearns’ and EMC’s actions upon institutional investors and
trustees related to their various subsidiary’s mortgage backed securities include:

(a) Increased liability if named in lawsuits by EMC customers where investors or

trustees have been assigned an interest in such customer’s mortgage;

(b) Payment of advances for fees, legal expenses and liabilities caused by EMC’s
direct actions and fraud;

(c) An outcry from shareholders and constituents regarding the support and
finance of predatory lending practices;

(d) A credit downgrading of mortgage backed securities marketed by Bear

Stearns and serviced by EMC due to EMC's and Bear Stearns predatory
lending practices;

(e) A credit downgrading of mortgage backed securities marketed by Bear

Stearns and serviced by EMC due to EMC's and Bear Stearns fraudulent
accounting methods;

(f) Payment of advances for fees, legal expenses and liabilities actually collected
by EMC for its own benefit;

(g) Increased principal payments and payoffs by customers who don’t want to do
business with EMC because of its abusive servicing practices;

(h) Decreased payments and value of securities if customers exert rights to

foreclosure or default based on the loss of promissory notes, deeds of trusts
and mortgages by EMC;

(i) Decreased payments and value of securities if customers exert rights to

foreclosure or default based on the loss of loan and transaction histories by
EMC or previous servicers;

(j) Loss of interest in real estate by court and regulatory rulings of legal opinions
or State AGs;

(k) Increased and overpayment of “servicing fee” payments by investors, due to

EMC’s manipulation of customer’s principal balances and failure to properly
credit customer’s accounts in a timely manner;

(l) Ruling by courts, SEC or other government agencies that sales of securities
were not “true sales” as represented to investors, SEC and security credit
rating agencies;

(m) Reduced value of market securities if rating agencies downgrade ratings;

17
(n) Reduced marketability of market securities if rating agencies downgrade
ratings or securities impaired by legal or regulatory decisions;

Effects On Bear Stearns Stockholders & Company

Bear Stearns and its shareholders, including the over 40% of shares held by
employees can be affected in various ways including:

(a) Reduced stock prices upon adverse legal and regulatory decisions;

(b) Refusal of various communities like Chicago to do business with Bear

Stearns due to the predatory practices of EMC and Bear Stearns;

(c) Refusal of various corporations to do business with Bear Stearns due to the
predatory practices of EMC and Bear Stearns;

(d) Reduced stock prices upon news of adverse legal and regulatory
investigations;

(e) Reduced stock prices upon news of court award of damages, fines and
sanctions;

(f) Increase in legal expenses and fees to corporation due to unnecessary

operational risks, assessments and decisions with a reduction to profit
thereby reducing shareholder value, returns and dividends;

(g) Increased focus and time addressing legal, noncompliance and regulatory
issues;

(h) Loss of business from communities, companies and governments not willing
to conduct business with supporters of or predatory lenders themselves;

(i) Negative press and media reports and harm to the company’s image and
reputation from the publication and exposure of repeated scandals;

(j) Difficulty recruiting, hiring and retaining qualified employees, managers and
executives who do not want to be associated with the company or its culture;

(k) Increased exposure to liabilities and government oversight, regulation and

sanctions.

18
 Effects On Bear Stearns Executives, Partners & Employees

Bear Stearns employees can also be directly affected by Bear’s actions. Such
effects could include:

(a) Elimination of jobs due to cuts and layoffs resulting from jury awards, fines
and sanctions or elimination of divisions due to regulatory or court pressures;

(b) Criminal or regulatory prosecution of those, such as in the Harrington affair,

of those who have knowingly or unwittingly supported, endorsed or
participated in any of the fraudulent schemes employed by Bear Stearns and
EMC;

(c) Increased public scrutiny by the press, media, and regulatory agencies and
officials of other activities;

(d) Public publication and exposure of individuals and their home addresses who
are directly responsible for Bear and EMC actions in the press, media and
internet;

(e) Public and private humiliation and embarrassment to those supporting

illegal, criminal or unethical practices;

(f) Loss in stock, fines or employment and even imprisonment to those

supporting illegal, criminal or unethical practices.

Effects On Local, State & Federal Governments

Local, state and federal governments are also affected by Bear Stearns’ and
EMC’s actions. Some of the effects on government include:

(e) Overpayment of false and fraudulent claims to EMC by federal government

mortgage insurers such as VA, FHA and HUD;

(f) Increased taxpayer expense in use and abuse of court systems to defend or
prosecute Bear’s & EMC’s illegal actions;

(g) Support and taxes exhausted by local, state and federal government for
individuals who are forced to seek taxpayer support, living assistance,
financial aid and living assistance;

(h) Loss of tax revenue and income from taxpayers who are forced to file
bankruptcy due to EMC’s illegal or overstated demands and foreclosures;

(i) Increase in abandoned homes due to predatory practices and wrongful

foreclosures by EMC;

(j) Costs, expenses and manpower taken by government to examine, investigate

and prosecute Bear Stearns and EMC’s operations.

19
..
..
..
..
..

The Business Of Bear Stearns,

EMC Mortgage Corporation &
It's Mortgage Operations
Bear Stearns Big Player In Predatory Lending Field

The "Mortgage" Business Of Bear Stearns

Bear Stearns has been one of the top underwriters of mortgage products every
year for the past decade. During fiscal year 1999 the firm maintained its top-five
leadership position in mortgage underwriting according to Securities Data
Company. Innovation in products and structures is the cornerstone of their
business. For example, in non-agency mortgages, they leveraged their structuring
expertise to become the leader in the subordinated-credit securities marketplace.

Bear Stearns’ Equities Group combines the efforts of sales, trading and research
professionals to offer in-depth expertise in areas such as block trading,
convertible bonds, over-the-counter ("OTC") equities, equity derivatives and risk
arbitrage. Fixed Income provides distribution power for issuers in the primary
market, liquidity for investors in the secondary market, research for institutional
clients and offers expertise in products such as mortgage-backed and asset-
backed securities, corporate and government bonds, municipal and high yield
securities, foreign exchange and derivatives.

Bear Stearns’ Investment Banking Group provides a variety of services to its

clients, including capital raising, strategic advisory, mergers and acquisitions
and merchant banking capabilities. Capital raising encompasses the Company's
underwriting of equity, investment grade debt and high yield debt securities.

Bear Stearns business includes: market-making and trading in US government,

government agency, corporate debt and equity, mortgage-related, asset-backed
and municipal securities: trading in options, futures, foreign currencies, interest
rate swaps and other derivative products; securities, options and futures
brokerage; providing securities clearance services; managing equity and fixed
income assets for institutional and individual clients; financing customer
activities; securities lending; securities and futures arbitrage; acting as specialist
on the floor of the NYSE and the AMEX; underwriting and distributing
securities; arranging for the private placement of securities; assisting in mergers,
acquisitions, restructurings and leveraged transactions; making principal
investments in leveraged acquisitions; engaging in commercial real estate

20
activities; investment management and advisory; fiduciary, custody, agency and
securities research services

Subsidiaries involved in various aspects of Bear’s mortgage operations include:

AMC Real Estate Inc., Bear Stearns Asset Backed Investors Corp., Bear Stearns
Asset Backed Securities, Inc., Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage, Inc., Bear
Stearns Home Equity Trust, Bear Stearns Investments Products Inc., Bear
Stearns Mortgage Capital Corporation, Stearns Secured Investors Inc., Bear
Stearns Secured Investors Inc. II, Bear, Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities
Inc., Commercial Asset Structured Securities Inc., CTC Services, Inc., Custodial
Trust Company, EMC Funding Corporation, EMC Funding Corporation Two,
EMC GP Capital Inc., EMC Mortgage Corporation, EMC Residential Mortgage
Corporation, Structured Asset Mortgage Investments Inc. and Structured
Mortgage Asset Corp. However, Bear Stearns and EMC have trsutee
relationships with State Street Bank & Trust and Banker's Trust as well.

The Business Of EMC Mortgage

EMC Mortgage Corporation ("EMC"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Bear

Stearns Companies Inc. It was originally established as a full-line mortgage
banking company to facilitate the purchase and servicing of what were supposed
to be whole loan portfolios. However, evidence presented in this report will
demonstrate that both EMC and Bear Stearns & Co. have intentionally mislead
investors, regulators and ratings firms. Certain transactions, including the SOA
deal, were not actual whole loan sales, but rather sham sales that were classified
as “true” sales to mislead investors, government regulators and borrowers.

EMC’s claims its mortgage portfolios contain various levels of quality "investment
grade" loans to various degrees of "non investment grade" loans. EMC also
acquires mortgaged properties through foreclosure or deed-in lieu of foreclosure.
Such mortgaged properties are commonly referred to as "REO Properties.”
However, according to EMC employees virtually all customers and mortgages
serviced are either deliquent, in default or foreclosure.

EMC was incorporated in the State of Delaware on September 26, 1990 and
commenced operation in Texas on October 9, 1990.

EMC's principal business has been the purchase, assignment, sale, and
foreclosure of non-performing residential mortgage loan portfolios and properties.
Such real estate and loans have been traditionally acquired from the Resolution
Trust Corporation ("RTC"), failing thrifts, private investors and, most recently,
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development through its auctions of
defaulted Federal Housing Authority mortgage loans.

21
EMC's claims that its mortgage servicing portfolio consists primarily of two
categories: (i) performing investment-quality loans serviced for EMC's own
account or the account of Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"),
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac"), private mortgage
conduits and various institutional investors, and (ii) non-investment grade, sub-
performing loans, non-performing loans and REO Properties serviced for EMC's
own account and for the account of investors in various securitized performing
and non-performing collateral transactions developed, sold, marketed and placed
by Bear Stearns & Co. and related subsidiaries.

EMC's claims its operations resemble those of most mortgage banking companies,
except that significant and special emphasis is placed on the “aggressive”
collection of non-performing loans and their immediate liquidation wherever,
whenever and however possible.

However, it is EMC’s reputation as a “foreclosure factory” and “toxic mortgage

waste dump” that EMC and Bear Stearns have built a thriving business on.
EMC’s utilization of predatory practices and extortionate threats make Mafia
henchmen look merciful. While a broken leg or beating soon heals, the scars left
by EMC’s relentless attacks on consumers leaves borrowers wishing they would
have borrowed money from a loan shark instead.

“Aggressive” collection tactics that EMC employees use include fear and
intimidation by collectors that work for EMC. Many of these collectors are
temporary workers that EMC uses. Collectors are paid bonuses on the amounts
they collect.

EMC employees stated that EMC regularly fails to comply or honor state and
federal laws, rules and regulations. They stated that it is cheaper for EMC to
violate the law and fight those who choose to fight them.

They also called EMC “a foreclosure factory” that once you are in the system,
you’re just a number on an assembly line. They also suggested that the best way
to beat EMC is to "sue the lawyers."

In one case, EMC sent collectors to a “disputing” customer’s door in Oregon to

collect 18¢. Yes 18¢! In the Pew case, EMC and it’s lawyers have spent over $1
million dollars defending a loan of approximately $104,000.00 that the Pew's
could pay with the stroke of a pen. By far, this case is the most visible example
in the entire United States of predatory lending and servicing practices.

The investigation and this report conclusively proves that EMC and Bear Stearns
actively supports, funds and encourages predatory lending practices. However,
what is even more disturbing is that Bear Stearns & Co., via EMC, is
“aggressively” involved in predatory lending and servicing practices directly.

22
..
..
..
..
..

Tracking & Hunting The Big

Bad Bear!
Writer Discovers Wide-Scale Predatory Lending Frauds
& Scams Through Victimization Of His Own Family

Overview Of Investigation

This investigation was conducted due to EMC’s attempted wrongful and illegal
foreclosure of Anthony and Matilde L. Pew's property in Dallas, Texas in 1994.
EMC has claimed and demanded almost $1 million in payment from the Pews for
the pay off of a loan taken out with SOA in the original amount of $109,000.00 in
1989. The Pews have paid SOA and EMC over $100,000 since 1989 and have
been forced to pay over $250,000.00 in legal fees and expenses due to EMC's
actions.

The loan had an approximate principal balance of only $104,000.00 as of

December 31 of 1999. For over 6 years, the Pews have and had offered to pay off
their entire mortgage obligation to EMC or whoever could be shown to own the
Pew note. The Pew's also had and have sufficient liquid resources to pay off their
rightful loan balance in cash with a check. They also have access to a family
trust that could have paid off the loan balance at any time for them.

However, EMC and its predecessor, SOA, fraudulently demanded anywhere from
$2000.00 to over $20,000.00 in fraudulent excess charges and escrow payments
from the Pew's prior to their filing of a lawsuit. At one point, in February of
1992, the Pew's annual tax payment was $2602.28.

However, SOA demanded payment from the Pews for tax escrow in an amount of
over $3000.00 per month for a five month period! SOA then refused to provide a
written breakout of how it calculated or arrived at this amount. The Pews
refused to pay SOA without documentation or verification of how this amount
was calculated.

Due to SOA’s and EMC’s actions, the Pews were forced to file a lawsuit in Dallas,
Texas to prevent the non-judicial foreclosure of their second residence and
demand a proper accounting of their loan.

To date, EMC and SOA have provided over twenty [20] different loan histories,
accountings and expert opinions. Such histories do not match and many exclude
tens of thousands in various wrongful and illegal transactions that have been
documented to occurred on the Pew’s account.

23
Instead, EMC and SOA embarked on a six year, over $1 million dollar cover-up
that has attempted to conceal the existence and nature of their frauds, abuses
and predatory lending practices..
They have also attempted to conceal the fraudulent alleged sale of a $2.3 billion
mortgage loan portfolio from SOA to EMC that was actually a sham sale and
really a creative financial scheme to save SOA from takeover by the Resolution
Trust Company in the early 90s.

As illustration and proof of these abuses all one has to ask are these two simple
questions. Why would a bank or mortgage company spend over $1 million in
attorney fees to “foreclose” on a $104,000.00 obligation? And, since the Pew's
have been forced to spend over $250,000.00 in legal related payments, attorney
fees, accountants, expenses etc., couldn’t they have afforded to pay off in cash a
$104,000.00 loan balance?

EMC has refused to allow the Pews to pay off their mortgage loan with EMC
without the payment of over $750,000 in legal fees and non-recoverable charges.
The demand is not only for wrongful and illegal charges, but for the fees and
expenses they have incurred to “defend” the wrongdoing of their company and
that of SOA as well.

Since the inception of their alleged purchase of the loan from SOA, they have
demanded that the Pews pay off attorney fees and other “non-recoverable” fees
and expenses that ranged from $20,000.00 to over $800,000.00. They have also
demanded the pay off of their co-defendant, SOA, for their attorney fees even
though SOA acknowledges that it never made a claim for such fees.

EMC has also demanded the silence, confidentiality and destruction of evidence
in their lawsuit by the Pews that have been steadfastly refused. In court, EMC
has attempted to paint the Pews as “McDonalds type Plaintiffs” which is an
obvious reference to the infamous McDonalds coffee spill case. However, nothing
could be father from the truth. The Pews, while not wealthy, prior to their
lawsuit as well as now, are financially stable and had liquid assets of
approximately $500,000.00 and little if any debt except for that claimed to be
owed by EMC.

Mr. Pew is also the beneficiary of a family trust. The trust provides for a
comfortable existence if it were not for the costs, expenses and fees related to the
litigation that the Pews were “forced and coerced” to take against EMC. All to
defend the white-collar theft of their property in an illegal non-judicial
foreclosure action by EMC. EMC even told the Pews that the only way for them
to get satisfaction on their claims against SOA, was to sue SOA. EMC claimed
that it had no obligation to fix or correct the problems and mistakes of SOA, even
though they claimed they purchased the Pew's note.

The principal loan balance of the Pew's loan is approximately $104,000.00 and
the property in question is valued at approximately $160,000.00 although EMC
claims to be putting the home up for sale at $172,000.00. The Pews could have
sold their property and recouped their equity or have written a check for this
amount at any time. The foreclosure was not then and was never based on the
Pew's inability to pay off their mortgage loan. To the contrary, it was the
extortionate “demands” of EMC for the Pews to pay from $20,000 to over

24
$800,000.00 in fees and additional expenses related to EMC’s and SOA’s defense
of the Pew's lawsuit

My investigation has also uncovered massive abuse and fraud upon “other”
customers of EMC Mortgage and investors of mortgage backed securities sold by
Bear Stearns that my estimates total over $1 billion USD! Thousands of lawsuits
and defenses have been filed across the nation against EMC and SOA alleging
many of the same complaints made by the Pews. EMC and SOA have also
received “tens” of thousands of similar complaints in writing and via the
telephone that are documented in SOA’s and EMC’s call records and complaint
logs.

This report also details what could be one of America’s largest financial scandals
ever, resulting from the development, placement and sale of various mortgage
backed securities and “derivative” products by Bear Stearns. However, this
report primarily focuses attention on the predatory lending and servicing
practices of EMC Mortgage.

This report is the story of one of America’s largest Wall Street investment bank’s
“direct” involvement in the development, making, and support of a nationwide
system of predatory lending practices, frauds and abuses.

From the local aluminum siding or repair scam artist who does shoddy work to
the unscrupulous mortgage broker who charges thousands in up front fees for a
mortgage in excess of 18%, Bear Stearns and EMC Mortgage Corp. funds,
supports, sponsors and even “services” many of these predatory lending con
artists.

However, unlike the A.R. Baron scandal where Bear Stearns paid tens of millions
in fines and claims, Bear can’t claim ignorance of the clearing of fraudulent
trades by others. Bear’s own paw marks, scratches and attacks are firmly
embedded upon its victim’s backs! Their "trail" is now trackable. The hunt is
now on to kill the Bear before it hurts any more families in America.

Methodology Employed In My Investigation

I have conducted a thorough review and analysis of various documents sent to

Anthony and Matilde Pew [Pews], produced by SOA and EMC in legal discovery
as well as other documents secured by my own private investigation. Documents
have come from ex-employees, employees, court files, lawyers, other litigants,
EMC customers and state and federal government agencies and regulators.

I have examined and reviewed over 100,000 pages of documents and have spent
over 8000 hours of analysis work over the past 6 years. Documents that have
been reviewed and analyzed include:

The Pew's Mortgage Servicing File; Investor Prospectuses; Policy & Procedure
Manuals; 10 K Filings; Deposition Testimony; Tax Records; Demand Letters;
Payoff Quotes; Reinstatement Quotes; Payment Coupons; Monthly Statements;
Loan Data Sheets; Closing Documents; Call Records; Foreclosure Notes;
Customer Letters; Monthly Statements; Annual Statements; Annual Loan

25
Histories; Escrow Histories; Escrow Account Analyses; Customer Complaint
Logs; Customer Complaint Letters; Internal EMC Audits; Compliance Records;
Answers To Interrogatories; Court Pleadings; Findings of Independent Auditor;
Internal Notes & Memos; Loan Servicing Records; Insurance Documents &
records; CPI Computer System Files; Loan Accounting Records; Cancelled &
Non-Cancelled Checks; Promissory Notes, Mortgages & Deeds Of Trusts; Court
Records; Hearing Transcripts; Internet Pages; Annual Reports; HUD & Treasury
Reports; CPI Training Materials; HUD & Fannie Mae Guidelines & Regulations;
Federal & State Consumer, Banking, Credit & Lending Laws;.

In addition, personal interviews and depositions were conducted with:

Current And Past Bear Stearns, EMC And SOA Employees, Temporary Help,
Managers And Attorneys;; Financial Advisors And Brokers;; Mortgage Broker
And Banking Officials;; Mortgage Lending And Servicing Experts;; Forensic
Accounting Experts; Forensic Document Experts; Accountants; Banking And
Mortgage Regulators; Federal Officials; Financial Analysts; Individuals,
Organizations, State And Local Officials Investigating Predatory Lending
Practices..

My investigation is still on-going and expanding. Additional documents need to

be gathered and need to be analyzed and compared against what are believed to
be and are represented as “Master Transaction Registers” and records of account
between the Pews and SOA and EMC.

Since 1991, EMC and SOA have sent and produced over twenty [20] different
transaction, loan and account histories on the Pew's account. Many of these
"histories" contain omissions, redaction, manually altered figures, fraudulent
entries, unverifiable entries, non-documented entries, journal entries,
intentionally mislabeled entries, different codes, and other figures, labels, codes,
entries and transactions designed to defraud, mislead, misinform, and throw off
the courts, investigators, experts, accountants, the Pews and myself.

26
..
..
..
..
..Documenting
& Substantiating
The Frauds & Predatory
Lending Practices Of EMC
Unraveling The "Genetic" Code Of EMC's & SOA's
Predatory Lending Frauds & Schemes

Statement

This report deals with my review, examination and analysis of the documents
and interviews described above and an analysis of all documents gathered and
produced. Particular emphasis is placed upon amounts claimed owed by SOA
and EMC over the years; taxes, insurance, escrow, and misc. credits, payments
and debits to the Pew's account and the way the Pew's loan was handled,
serviced, charged and accounted for by both SOA and EMC.

SOA Monthly Payment & Coupon Statement Scheme

Monthly payment and loan statements were a necessity and of great concern to
the Pews and other SOA mortgage customers. The importance of these monthly
payment statements were for the following reasons:

(a) SOA did not and refused to provide payment coupon books to customers. As
such, the monthly payment coupons were the only means to know how much
was due to SOA each month;
(b) Monthly payment statements attempted to break out payment amounts for
what was due and what each payment was for;
(c) SOA's Loan Commitment Agreement [Exhibit 1] and Promissory Note
[Exhibit 2] stated that the Pews and other SOA customers "must" send their
payments to a location designated by SOA;
(d) SOA changed the designated location where payments should be sent several
times while the Pews had an account with them;
(e) Monthly payment statements would provide important account activity for
the previous month. Such information would alert the Pews or other
customers to any problems such as dates payments were recorded as being
received, any missed payments, unapplied payments, late fees wrongfully
assessed, escrow mistakes, insurance charges or any account activity out of
the ordinary;
(f) Without such statements, SOA was free to run amuck and take advantage of
customers since they had no knowledge or proof of how SOA was
"manipulating" their accounts;
(g) The Pew's and other SOA customers had negative amortization clauses in
their notes;

27
(h) Without a monthly payment coupon, the Pews and other SOA customers
would not be able to determine how much additional interest termed
"deferred interest" was being placed upon their account;
(i) Such deferred interest increased the actual principal balance of the Pew's and
other SOA customer's accounts;
(j) Increases to Principal Balances also affected the amounts that would be
credited toward principal and interest payments;
(k) The Pews and other SOA customers had the right to pay more than the
regular scheduled monthly payment to avoid such deferred interest from
being charged to their account or to reduce their principal balance;
(l) Without this vital information each month, the Pews and other SOA
customers really had no sense of where their mortgage balance or payments
stood;
(m) As such, it was difficult for the Pews to determine the amount to tender to
SOA for payments owed since it was the Pew's desire to tender sufficient
amounts to meet the fully amortized payment.

The loan documents executed by SOA and the Pews obligated SOA to send
monthly statements to the Pews as provided in paragraph 3 of Exhibit 1
attached. In addition, SOA’s employees made numerous representations to the
Pews that monthly statements would be sent. The loan evidenced by the loan
documents is an adjustable rate mortgage ("ARM") which provides for monthly
adjustments in the interest rate.

From the inception of the loan, SOA failed and/or refused to send monthly
mortgage statements to the mailing and billing address as indicated in SOA’s
own internal records attached as Exhibit 3 and as the Pews and I had instructed
them to do.

Despite the fact that the Pews advised SOA several times to send monthly
statements to their then-current residence and mailing and billing address in
Michigan as provided in the documents attached as Exhibit 4 SOA ignored these
instructions. Because I, was in Dallas often running our family business, and
because statements were incorrectly sent on a sporadic basis to Dallas, I made
many payments on behalf of the Pews and dealt with SOA and EMC on the Pew's
behalf since the inception of all matters between them.

SOA, from the outset, failed and then refused to send monthly statements to the
Pews indicating the amounts owed pursuant to obligations under the loan
documents. Despite the fact that SOA did not give the Pews notice of the
amounts they owed each month, the Pews made good faith attempts to tender
and pay SOA in accordance with the terms of the Note.

As evidenced by the document attached as Anthony Pew's Affidavit attached as

Exhibit 5 and the Exhibits attached to it, especially Exhibit G of Exhibit 5,
SOA refused and sent back checks that the Pews tendered that were actually in
excess of what the Pews owed SOA at the time.

SOA, by contract and by representation, agreed to send statements to the Pews

on a monthly basis but failed to do so. As a result, the Pews were misled
concerning the amounts SOA claimed were owed on their Note.
In addition, the Note itself, attached as Exhibit 2, is internally ambiguous
concerning the amount owed on a monthly basis. For example, paragraph 1 of

28
the Note indicates the monthly payments will remain at $791.52 throughout the
life of the loan, while a later paragraph indicates the amount of the payments is
subject to change. This ambiguity, and others, made it difficult, if not impossible,
for lay persons such as the Pews to know how much was owed. Notwithstanding
the ambiguities contained in the loan documents, the Pews attempted to make
payments on their Note as required.

SOA Extortionate Payment Demand Scheme

SOA made improper and extortionate demands and/or collected monies not due
and owing under the Note and Deed of Trust attached as Exhibit 6 such as
excess late fees, interest attached to late fees, excess interest, appraisal and
inspection fees, which sums were not properly chargeable to the Pews. Moreover,
SOA actively and intentionally, as a matter of custom and practice, disguised
such improper fees as misc. advances and legal fee transactions in its internal
accounting records as demonstrated in Exhibit 7 & 8.

Furthermore, SOA refused all requests for comprehensible records regarding the
Pew's Note and the charges made by SOA. They provided fraudulent and
manually prepared or typed over account histories that did not reflect the Pew's
actual account activity and altered, hid or concealed various transactions, credits,
debits and account activity.

Evidence of such claims can be found in the attached affidavit labeled Exhibit 9.
Exhibit 9 is an affidavit with supporting exhibits that detail many of SOA's and
EMC's fraudulent representations, fraudulent documents and misrepresentations
to the Pews. An examination of this affidavit and the loan records and histories
provided to the Pews clearly demonstrates the great lengths that SOA and even
EMC went to conceal the frauds and misrepresentations taken upon the Pews.

29
SOA Fraudulent Loan History Scheme

The fraudulent loan and transaction histories sent to the Pews attached as
Exhibit 7 redacted, omitted, altered or concealed:

• actual transactions;
• principal balances;
• year-to-date balances;
• life-to-date balances;
• escrow balances;
• suspense/unapplied balances;
• insurance advances;
• insurance payments;
• insurance credits;
• tax advances;
• tax payments;
• tax credits;
• impound adjustments;
• principal and interest adjustments;
• interest and principal; and
• other credits, debits and transactions on the account.

These allegations are supported by my affidavit attached as Exhibit 9 and the

exhibits attached to my affidavit. Anyone can easily question and see that these
documents sent to the Pews were materially altered and contained numerous
misrepresentations.

From the closing of the loan through transfer of the loan from SOA to EMC, SOA
never sent the Pews payment coupons on a regular monthly basis. Furthermore,
SOA also failed and refused to send monthly payment statements to the Pews
after verbally agreeing to do so with the Pews on many occasions to do so.
Attached as Exhibit 10 are the only monthly payment statements sent to the
Pews by SOA in almost 5 years.

SOA’s failure and refusal to send monthly payment coupons to the Pews at their
mailing and business address caused delays in payment by the Pews through no
fault of the Pews. As such, SOA caused the assessment and collection of late fees
to the Pew's account in the amount of $2,167.75. The Pews have from the first
month of the loan disputed all late fees assessed and collected by SOA.

To date, SOA has never provided the Pews an accounting of how they calculated
late payments or which months late payments were assessed to the Pews. The
"automatic" deduction of such late fees by SOA from Pew payments artificially
inflated the Pew's principal balance and did not reduce such balances and also
altered the amount being charged and credited toward the Pew's account for
interest payments since the loan was an adjustable rate mortgage. Since the
formula for crediting interest on an adjustable rate mortgage calculates the
current principal balance multiplied by interest rate, any increase in the
principal balance that was incorrect or unlawful affects each and every other
calculation and credit towards interest made on an account.

30
As such, when an error or misapplication was discovered, a recalculation of the
loan and adjustments to the amortization of the loan needed to be made. Such
adjustments usually must be done manually. However, even after SOA and EMC
learned of such problems with the Pew's loan, they never once properly adjusted
the Pew's loan to reflect the proper credits and interest chargeable to the loan.

As told to me by SOA employees, these actions of SOA were knowingly conducted

in order to generate additional income, revenue, cash flow, interest and
investment revenue since SOA was a Savings and Loan in financial distress at
the time. The Pews paid SOA on a regular basis upon their receipt of the actual
monthly payment coupons sent by SOA. On behalf of the Pews, I paid, at SOA
branch offices, the majority of payments to SOA through the end of 1991. This
was done to expedite payment to SOA since SOA did not send statements to the
Pews at their mailing and billing address.

Though an agent for the Pews at the time, I was not required or obligated to
make payments such payments to SOA. He only did so on his family’s behalf so
as not to cause any further delays due to SOA’s breach of their agreements with
his family. The Pews later would reimburse me for such payments. Finally, after
numerous breaches of agreements and misrepresentations by SOA to the Pews, I
instructed my family to direct all phone inquires and requests for payments to
him since SOA was not complying with the terms of their agreements with his
family.

The Pews continually called and wrote SOA to demand that monthly statements
be sent and that they be sent first to the Pews residence in Michigan and later to
their residence in Florida. The Pews also demanded removal of all late fees
charged to their account as well as the stop of such abusive practices by SOA and
the clearing of any negative credit that was reported by SOA.

The failure to send proper monthly payment statements to he Pews caused much
confusion and alarm to the Pews. They did not know how much money to send in
as a payment to SOA to fully offset any negative amortization that was occurring
on their loan. The monthly loan statements were the only means the Pews had
available to them to see if their payments were being credited in a proper
manner; on a timely basis and in accordance with the terms of their loan
agreements with SOA.

According to employees of SOA, the failure of SOA to provide such basic

information was an intentional act by SOA. It is believed that the failure to send
monthly statements to the Pews and other SOA customers was done so by SOA to
hide fraudulent, deceptive, prohibited and illegal charges that were being placed
on the Pew's and other SOA customer’s accounts.

An examination of the actual monthly statements sent against the loan histories
and transaction registers that SOA provided the Pews clearly shows why SOA
would intentionally refuse to send the Pews the required monthly statements.

31
SOA Predatory Force Place Insurance Scheme

SOA engaged in a pattern of activity and instituted various policies, procedures

and practices that would divert, and misapply payments made by the Pews and
other customers to SOA. These policies included delaying payment or not paying
the Pew's and other SOA customer’s own property insurance at all or when
obligated to do so. SOA also refused to accept insurance of the Pews and other
SOA customers.

After agreements to do so, SOA refused and failed to establish an escrow account
for the payment of insurance on behalf of the Pews. SOA and EMC knowingly
misrepresented in documents that payments for the Pew's insurance were made
from their escrow account as demonstrated in Exhibit 11 which is a response
letter from EMC to the Pews. As you can see, EMC clearly references payments
from the Pew's escrow account for insurance.

However, in fact SOA never maintained an escrow account for the payment of the
Pew's insurance even though both SOA and EMC represented to the Pews that
they did. Also, SOA's own expert David Smith, years after the filing of the
lawsuit by the Pews, misrepresents that such payments for insurance were made
out of an impound/escrow account as reflected in his reports and spreadsheets
attached as Exhibit 12.

SOA also, after agreements to do so, failed to send the Pews records and proof for
the payment of insurance on behalf of the Pews that SOA made. To this date,
after 10 years of requests, SOA has never provided the Pews with one copy of one
cancelled check that SOA claims to have paid insurance for. Despite agreements
and court orders to do so, SOA has never provided prior to litigation and during
production of over 5000 pages of production any cancelled checks or the master
insurance policy for any policy it placed on the Pew's property.

Also, during the course of the Pew's account with SOA, SOA's employees,
including Terry Carr, made an agreement to send the Pews the name of the
insurance carrier and policy number for the insurance SOA was placing on the
Pew's property. This is evidenced by Exhibit 13 that are the internal notes of
Terry Carr and SOA. Yet, even as noted by Mr. Carr's notes, SOA never sent the
Pews this vital information so that they could secure their own insurance after
SOA caused the cancellation of the Pew's own insurance policies through
nonpayment.

EMC and SOA knowingly mislead the Pews that an escrow account for payment
of insurance did exist when in fact it did not and never did exist while the Pew's
account was with SOA. This representation was made to the court in affidavits
by SOA's and EMC's expert witness with the full and complete knowledge of SOA
and EMC that the expert's opinion affidavit and report was indeed false.

SOA also placed layers upon layers of fraudulently and wrongfully ordered forced
place insurance from insurance agencies such as Commence Agency and Griffin
Financial owned by SOA's parent company.

32
As demonstrated by the Insurance Affidavit attached as Exhibit 14 and its
attached Exhibits, SOA informed the Pews that they placed not one, not two, but
three forced placed insurance polices on top of the policy that the Pews actually
had in place.

SOA claims that only two policies were ever charged to the Pews account.
However, this cannot be determined for a certainty since the accounting records
and documents provided to the Pews are suspect at best. EMC and SOA claim
that the computer-tape of the master transaction records of the Pews and over
8000 other customers from the alleged sale of loans to EMC from SOA were
destroyed. Such records of a supposed $2 billion dollar sale being destroyed or
lost are suspect at best and criminal at worst and could be the intentional
destruction of valuable evidence.

The placement of policies upon the Pew's property was the direct fault and
confusion of SOA itself. SOA required that the Pews and other SOA customer's
insurance carriers would provide them with a 30 day notice of cancellation prior
to cancellation of any property insurance.

SOA would order forced placed insurance on the Pew' property when it received
such a 30 day notice, even though days later SOA would receive a rescission of
such notice as indicated in the documents attached as Exhibit 15 to this report.
Even after receiving notice that the Pew's insurance was in full force and effect,
SOA would still order and charge the Pew's account many months later for forced
placed insurance when SOA had full and complete knowledge that the Pew's
insurance was properly maintained.

The actual cause of any failure to pay insurance premiums was not the Pews, but
SOA's steadfast refusal to pay the Pew's own insurance carrier per their bills and
requests to the carrier when SOA had informed the Pews that they were indeed
paying the Pew's own insurance.

Requests by the insurance agency and the carrier as evidenced by Exhibit 16

attached were ignored by SOA so that they could use their own insurance agency
and earn money or actually charge the Pews and other customers for a policy that
never really was individually paid for by SOA.

In either case, even if the Pews through their own fault failed to pay their
insurance, SOA could have at any time paid the Pew's own policy and then billed
the Pews for such policy or created an escrow account, as represented, for the
payment of such policies.

SOA could have an excuse for a delay and a payment of a forced placed policy on
top of the Pew's own policy. However, there cannot be or could never be an
excuse by SOA for any placement of a forced placed policy that overlapped and
duplicated coverage periods of previous forced placed policies that SOA itself had
ordered on the Pew's or anyone else's property. Yet, this is what SOA by its own
admission did to the Pews and potentially thousands of other customers.

The Pews requested many times that their insurance and taxes be escrowed after
the opening of their loan. On 3/14/90, the Pews even faxed a written notice
attached as Exhibit 17 to SOA to do so. SOA did not honor this request, even
though today all that it takes is a simple phone call to do so.

33
Furthermore, SOA refused to use the Pew's designated insurance carrier and
insurance company as reflected in the document attached as Exhibit 18 and
signed by the Pews prior to the closing of their loan.

SOA’s parent company's agencies reportedly collected a commission on the

policies it ordered on the Pew's property. This was a severe conflict of interest.
SOA maintained a master policy with such carriers and on information provided
did not actually pay for the "individual" policies of the Pews and other SOA
customers. Records indicate that SOA made “paper and journal entries” and
never actually paid for the insurance policies it charged the Pews and other
customers for.

Such policies, when charged, had a detrimental effect on the Pews and other
customers. For one, such policies were three to five time higher than equivalent
policies that could have been purchased by the Pews or from their designated
insurance agent or carrier.

Second, such policies didn't provide liability and content insurance for valuables
of the Pews and other customers. Policies with much better coverage and
superior insurance were available for two to three times less than what SOA
charged its customers.

The effects of such charges also caused much damage to the Pews and other
customers. For one, payments were diverted from monthly payments for
principal and interest and credits to interest and principal balances were
negatively affected. Neither SOA nor EMC has ever gone and readjusted or
recalculated the Pew's account for such credits due to the Pews.

These practices ultimately led to a class action lawsuit being filed against SOA
and its parent company the H.F. Ahmanson Company in San Diego. The Pews
opted out of this class action lawsuit within the required time frame. Portions of
the complaints and allegations contained in the Pew's action against SOA and
EMC are identical in nature to those exerted in the class action lawsuit against
SOA. This class action suit was ultimately settled with the class by SOA’s
parent company, the H.F. Ahmanson Company, weeks before they agreed to a
merger with the Washington Mutual. Such settlement was made to facilitate the
merger and that Washington Mutual had full and complete information and
knowledge of SOA’s actions.

The insurance disputes also included the supposed escrow account that the Pews
requested SOA to establish for payment of taxes and insurance on March 14 of
1990. On numerous occasions, SOA fraudulently and deceptively represented in
phone calls and letters to the Pews that such payments for insurance were being
made for “their” insurance policy from their escrow account. In fact, no payments
were being made to the Pew's own insurer, CNA, or their designated agent,
Hotchkiss Insurance.

34
SOA / EMC Insurance Escrow Misrepresentations

EMC later continued this practice of fraud and deception when it informed the
Pews in writing [Exhibit 11] via the U.S. mail and in phone calls over phone
lines that SOA made payments for the Pew's insurance from their “escrow
accounts.”

SOA and EMC knew then and know now that SOA never once made any
insurance payment from the Pew's escrow account established by SOA. Instead,
SOA made what are termed "advances" to the principal balance of the Pew's loan
for each charge for forced placed insurance SOA made on the Pew’s account and
to the account of thousands of other SOA customers.

At various times, and specifically from May of 1990 through January of 1992,
SOA informed the Pews that they were paying the Pew's own secured insurance
policy. Yet, in fact it was an insurance policy wrongfully and intentionally
ordered by SOA that SOA was actually allegedly paying from the Pew's account.
The Pews, as a precaution, continued to pay their insurer directly when notified
that SOA had failed to pay the billed insurance premium from the Pew's escrow
account. SOA refused to take or return calls to the Pew's designated insurance
agent and agency or pay for their insurance policy with CNA and later Lloyds
Insurance.

The refusals and actions of SOA caused 30 day cancellation notices to be sent to
SOA as requested by SOA’s own internal policies from the Pews and their
insurance carrier. Days later, the CNA cancellation notices were rescinded
when the Pews were forced to pay the insurance payments that SOA claimed and
represented to the Pews it had paid from their escrow account.

Each time the Pews contacted SOA regarding this matter, they were assured that
the matter was being taken care of and that no duplication of insurance existed
and that SOA was paying the Pew's insurance. These assurances and
representations were knowingly false and SOA wrongfully caused several policies
to be placed upon not only the Pew's own insurance but on top of their own forced
placed policies as well. In fact, SOA ordered and placed the wrongfully and
fraudulently forced placed insurance policies on the Pew's property many weeks
and even months after they had received notice that the Pew's own policy was
paid for and in full force and effect.

SOA intentionally kept the Pews in the dark over payments and credits to their
account with regards to insurance by refusing to send monthly payment
statements detailing account activity, balances, credits, adjustments and debits
as provided for in the agreements executed between the Pews and SOA.

Upon receipt of a cancellation notice by SOA from the Pew's insurer, SOA would
immediately proceed to notify the Pews that it was ordering forced placed
insurance on their property even though SOA had received notices days earlier or
later that the Pew’s policy was in full force and effect. SOA also used the U.S.
mails to deceptively represent to the Pews that it placed policies and charged
their account for policies they now claim never existed or were never charged to
the Pew’s account.

35
SOA Over-Payment Demand & Misapplications

Beginning in February of 1991 and continuing until August of 1991, SOA began
wrongfully and fraudulently deducting and diverting a total of $846.72 from
payments made by the Pews made that were intended to pay the rightful
monthly payment they owed and were obligated for to SOA.

As evidenced by the attached affidavit labeled Exhibit 19 and its exhibits, this
fraud was carried out by deducting eight monthly payments of $105.84 for the
monthly payments due from 11/10/90 until 6/10/91 from payments the Pews
made to SOA. These payments were intended to be applied to the Pew's account
for payment of principal and interest first and then to any escrow payments due
to SOA.

At the time, SOA had full and complete knowledge that the Pews had insurance
on their property. They still continued to not only demand, but extort and collect
such payments from the Pews while concealing their existence by refusing to
account for or provide proof and evidence of such payments to insurers and
refusing to send the Pews monthly statements detailing the account activity on
their loan.

As if this were not enough, SOA then began on 5/22/91 to wrongfully deduct and
divert a total of $371.16 from payments the Pews made that were intended to pay
the rightful monthly payment they owed and were obligated for to SOA. This
was carried out by deducting four monthly payments of $92.79 for the monthly
payments due from 3/10/91 until 6/10/91 from payments the Pews made to SOA.
These payments were also intended to be applied to the Pew's account for
payment of principal and interest first and then to any escrow payments due to
SOA.

SOA then deceptively represented to the Pews in writing via the U.S. mail and in
telephone calls to the Pews that two other policies in the amounts of $881.00 and
$1004.09 were charged to the principal balance of the Pew's account and later
credited. This is evidenced by Exhibit 20. Yet, SOA failed and refused to
provide the Pews with documentation and support for such charges and credits.
SOA had full and complete knowledge that the Pews had insurance on their
property.

Still, SOA continued to not only demand, but to intentionally mislead and
confuse the Pews and other customers with regards to the status of their account
concerning the charges and credits due to the Pew's and other SOA customers
from forced placed insurance.

At the time, SOA was going through a terrible financial and liquidity crisis that
put SOA, the nation’s largest Savings and Loan at the time, in fear of and on the
verge of collapse and/or takeover by the Resolution Trust Corporation. In an
attempt to mislead, conceal and divert attention away from this crisis, SOA
intentionally manipulated their customer’s accounts and payments via a variety
of fraudulent accounting schemes. These schemes were carried out to artificially
and wrongfully report earnings, income and balances to the RTC, it’s

36
stockholders, investors, the SEC and other Federal and state agencies and
officials so as not to have pressure placed upon SOA for a government takeover or
merger.

SOA Benefits From Predatory Insurance Scheme

The forced placed insurance policies that were wrongfully placed upon the Pew's
property and other SOA customers and allegedly charged to the Pew's and other
SOA customer’s accounts were placed by subsidiaries of the H.F. Ahmanson
Company, SOA’s parent, which were sister companies of SOA. These
subsidiaries reportedly received commissions ranging from 20% to 35% on each
policy if actually placed.

SOA as a pattern of purpose, practice, policy and procedure did, with the intent
to deceive, mislead and confuse the Pews and other SOA customers, maliciously
and intentionally designed and implemented several fraudulent and deceptive
schemes to force place insurance on it’s customer’s accounts. This was done so
that SOA could charge the Pew's and other customer’s accounts to increase
revenue and income to SOA directly and to its corporate parent the H.F.
Ahmanson Company. The fraudulent and deceptive insurance practices and
policies SOA implemented included:

(a) wrongfully refusing to accept the insurance policies secured by the Pews and
other SOA customers;
(b) refusing to pay premiums to the Pew's designated agency and insurance
carrier;
(c) misleading the Pews that SOA was paying their insurance out of their escrow
account;
(d) refusing to properly account, detail and support the charges and credits for
forced placed insurance policies to the Pew's and other customer’s accounts;
(e) failing to properly credit in a timely fashion credits due to the Pew's and
other customer’s accounts for cancelled forced placed insurance;
(f) failing to properly credit in a timely fashion credits due to the Pew's and
other customer’s accounts for wrongfully ordered forced placed insurance;
(g) failing to properly provide credits due to the Pew's and other customer’s
accounts for late fees wrongfully assessed and collected from the Pews and
other SOA customers associated with wrongfully ordered forced placed
insurance;
(h) misleading the Pews and other SOA customers via monthly payment
statement codes that payments for forced placed insurance were actually
payments made by the Pews and other SOA customers;
(i) intentionally refusing to send the Pews and other SOA customers monthly
payment statements which would have detailed and identified the wrongful
forced placed insurance charges, payments, credits and debits;
(j) sending the Pews and other SOA customers manually prepared loan account
and transaction histories that intentionally hid and concealed the wrongful
forced placed insurance charges, credits and debits that SOA placed on the
Pew's accounts;
(k) placing and charging the Pew's and other SOA customer’s accounts for forced
placed insurance policies on their properties when they already had existing
insurance on their properties;

37
(l) sending the Pews false and misleading letters indicating that SOA had
placed forced placed insurance on their property and charged and then
credited their account when in fact no such insurance had ever been ordered
and no such charges or credits made;
(m) conspiring with EMC, SOA’s and their experts and the independent court
appointed auditor to hide, conceal, redact and omit insurance policies,
transactions, charges, debits and credits that were made on the Pew’s
account with SOA;
(n) providing the Pews via the U.S. mail, and on information and belief other
SOA customers, with fraudulently altered and doctored documents, loan and
account transaction histories that hid and concealed the wrongful insurance
charges that SOA made on the Pew's and other SOA customer’s accounts;
(o) not actually paying for the insurance policies that SOA claims to have forced
placed on the Pew's and other SOA customer’s properties;
(p) refusing and failing to provide and then concealing the existence of the Pews
and other SOA customers with the policy numbers and carriers of forced
placed insurance placed on their properties so that the Pews and other SOA
customers would find it difficult to obtain their own property insurance from
their own carriers; and
(q) refusing to maintain or pay for, as agreed upon, the Pew's and other SOA
customer’s insurance policies that were superior in coverage to the SOA
policies at two to three times less the cost.

SOA and its parent company, the H.F. Ahmanson Company and sister companies
including Griffin Financial and the Commerce Agency directly benefited
financially in commission, fee, interest, income and revenue from the frauds
perpetuated by SOA upon the Pews and other SOA customers. These fraudulent
financial gains occurred in several ways. However, chief among these methods
was the way SOA allegedly paid for and then charged the Pew's and other SOA
customer’s accounts for the forced placed insurance wrongfully placed on their
properties.

Instead of establishing an interest free escrow account for the payment of

insurance as SOA represented to the Pew's and other SOA customers, SOA
advanced sums for insurance and charged the Pew's and other SOA customers for
such advances. The advances made to the Pew's account, and to the accounts of
other SOA customers, had several direct financial consequences to the Pew's
account. First, SOA would determine the amount of the advance by a formula
tied to the amount of the outstanding principal balance. As such, the higher the
outstanding principal balance on the Pew's and other SOA customer’s accounts,
the higher advance payment for ordered force placed insurance and repayment of
such advance.

38
SOA Predatory Advance, Escrow & Late Fee Scheme

SOA also considered advances for force placed insurance as an advance towards
principal and wrongfully used such repayments for these advances as part of its
calculations for late fees charged to the Pew's and other SOA customer’s
accounts. Years later, when SOA discovered that its forced placed policies were
wrongfully placed, SOA failed to credit the Pew's and other SOA customers for
the increase in late fees that were assessed and collected by SOA that were
attributable and calculated from the wrongful force placed insurance advances.

On the Pew's account in particular, this included an extra $6.35 for late fees
demanded, assessed and collected from the Pews with payments, SOA deemed
late, associated with the $105.84 wrongful repayment of the $1,008.30 insurance
advance charged to the Pew's account on 9/24/90. It also included an extra $5.57
for late fees demanded, assessed and collected from the Pews with payments,
SOA deemed late, associated with the $92.79 wrongful repayment of the $884.00
insurance advance charged to the Pew’s account on 1/14/91. Evidence of these
charges can be found in Exhibit 8 attached.

The Pew's mortgage and other mortgages of SOA customers were adjustable rate
mortgages in which payments that the Pews and other customers made went to
the payment of interest first and then to the payment of principal. The Pew's
mortgage could generate negative amortization. SOA diverted payments made
by the Pews that should have gone to the payment of principal and instead was
diverted to increased interest payments to SOA. This practice wrongfully
increased the principal balance of the Pew's and other SOA customer’s mortgage
loans and increased the amounts of interest that SOA charged the Pews and
other SOA customers instead of properly reducing the principal balances of their
loans.

This scam increased the revenue to both SOA and EMC and EMC had and has
full knowledge of this practice by SOA and has failed to properly recalculate and
re-amortize the Pews loan and other loans of SOA customers that EMC have
serviced and demanded payments from. SOA also failed to properly recalculate
and credit the Pew's loan and loans of other SOA customers who SOA wrongfully
charged for forced placed insurance.

SOA "Stall" & "Delaying" Tactics Scheme

SOA failed and refused to properly investigate and respond to the Pews over all
their disputes related to insurance charges to their account. In fact, SOA
concealed and hid from the Pews throughout the life of the Pew's loan many
insurance charges and credits. The only response to any dispute ever provided to
the Pews by SOA was on 1/23/92. This letter actually admitted errors and how
SOA planned to fix their admitted errors. Instead, SOA failed to provide the
Pews with documentation and support for such credits as well as did not address
several of the other policies SOA claimed to have forced placed.

39
The fix that SOA claimed it had made in this letter was not done according to the
master transaction register records of SOA [Exhibit 8]. SOA intentionally
misrepresented the corrections and multiple number of adjustments, credits and
debits related to the wrongful forced placed insurance that SOA conspired to
conceal and hide from the Pews with EMC, its expert David Smith and Ike Guest.

SOA and EMC intentionally sent the Pews, via U.S. mail and telephone lines,
computer and manually prepared transaction histories and spreadsheets that
redacted, omitted, concealed and hid SOA’s fraudulent insurance actions and the
supposed credits and adjustments made to the Pew's account.

To date, EMC, SOA, its expert David Smith and Ike Guest have continued to
perpetuate this fraud and hide and conceal in their reports, schedules and
spreadsheets all of the wrongful insurance transactions and adjustments
committed by SOA when compared to the master transaction register of SOA.

When SOA placed multiple forced placed insurance policies on the Pew's account,
it artificially and fraudulently inflated the outstanding principal balance of the
Pew's account thus increasing the amounts of interest paid to SOA. It also
increased the amounts of advances for forced placed insurance policies that SOA
charged to the Pews.

SOA & EMC Concealment Of Fraud After Suit Scheme

David Smith, SOA’s and EMC's expert, prepared an affidavit in support of a

summary judgement motion filed on behalf of SOA and EMC on May 1, 1997 that
was attached with a spreadsheet he had prepared. This spreadsheet purported to
represent all of the transactions that occurred on the Pew's account with both
SOA and EMC. His affidavit and spreadsheet are attached as Exhibit 21.

However, David Smith failed to disclose the existence of a $930.00 insurance

advance that SOA placed upon the Pew's account on 2/4/93 and then later
transferred to EMC. David Smith, in his 4/7/97 spreadsheet attached with his
affidavit in support of EMC's and SOA’s summary judgement motion, knowingly,
willfully and intentionally reflected this $930.00 insurance advance which was
actually a debit transaction as a principal reduction of $930.00 on 9/1/93.

Both EMC and Washington Mutual had and have full and complete knowledge of
the wrongdoing of SOA with regards to insurance matters through their due
diligence efforts. EMC, SOA and Washington Mutual have also received
lawsuits, complaints and disputes identical in nature to the Pew's complaints
about SOA’s insurance practices from former SOA customers.

EMC employees even went so far as to admit wrongdoing by SOA to the Pews
and other customers with regards to tax, insurance and escrow payments but
refused to properly investigate and correct the wrongful and fraudulent charges,
fees and misapplication of payments by SOA.

40
Instead, as a matter of practice, policy and procedure, EMC would demand
“payment to the penny” of their demands from the Pews and other SOA
customers who had very legitimate disputes and complaints related to SOA's tax,
insurance and escrow payments and accounting of such activity.

Attached are EMC's own internal notes as Exhibit 22 and other response letters
to customers attached as Exhibit 23. EMC, as a matter of practice, policy and
procedure, instructed the Pews and other SOA customers that any complaints or
disputes they had with SOA had to be taken up with SOA directly. This is in
direct contradiction of SOA’s Servicing Transfer Letter of 8/16/93 attached as
Exhibit 24 and against the provisions of the Real Estate Settlement &
Procedures Act [RESPA].

EMC claimed it had no obligation, right or need to rectify or correct problems

associated with SOA’s or other previous servicers account which they had
purchased since those were SOA’s or other servicers problems. A review of
Exhibit 25 by EMC's corporate counsel clearly proves this attitude.

EMC's counsel also stated to me that SOA’s acts for SOA’s insurance mix-ups
were no reason for the Pews to sue EMC and demand payment of any damages.
As such, EMC acknowledged by and through it’s own employees and attorneys
that it knew of the existence of wrongful actions by SOA pertaining to tax,
insurance and escrow payments and accountings for such.

Furthermore, prior to the filing of the Pew’s lawsuit against EMC and SOA, EMC
had full and complete knowledge of SOA’s mishandling, irregularities, problems,
failures and prohibited activities of the insurance, tax and escrow payments and
accounts of other SOA customers.

In addition to due diligence performed prior to sale, immediately after the alleged
sale and transfer, EMC received a plethora of complaints from former SOA
customers whose loans they serviced regarding like, similar and identical
complaints and disputes associated with SOA’s handling and servicing of their
loan.

This is evidenced by just a sample of the many dispute letters and responses to
disputes by EMC contained in Exhibit 26 related directly to EMC's knowledge of
SOA's wrongdoing, problems and actions.

EMC's and Bear Stearns executives, managers, law firms and employees have
and had full and complete knowledge through its own investigation of the Pew's
and other customer’s complaints of SOA’s servicing problems, mistakes, wrongful
actions and fraudulent activities.

In fact, EMC executed indemnification agreements with SOA in the claimed sale
and servicing agreements between SOA and EMC. A review of Exhibit 27 will
document this. This agreement provides for the indemnification of EMC for the
prior bad acts of SOA and the repayment to EMC of any expenses and damages
incurred by it for SOA’s actions.

41
As such, EMC ignored and willfully failed to investigate and act upon the
complaints, disputes and problems made by the Pews and other customers
against SOA or previous servicers who EMC had purchased loans from.

Such indemnification agreements and also repurchase clause also made the sale
not a "true sale." In fact, the sale that was represented to the Pews, government
agencies and regulators as a true sale "without recourse" was actually a complex
derivative "financing scheme" and sale of servicing rights, not of mortgages since
the sale actually had full recourse provisions and was not a sale without
recourse.

EMC fraudulently represents to the Pews on their note that is attached as

Exhibit 28 that the sale from California Loan Partners to EMC was made
"without recourse" while the testimony of EMC's own dummy corporate
representative states that the sale was "with recourse. The servicing agreement
between SOA and EMC attached as Exhibit 27 also shows that the sale had
recourse provisions.

The practice of refusing to investigate the Pew's and other EMC customers, who
had been customers of SOA, and their complaints was intentionally carried out
by EMC to circumvent the Pews disputes, complaints and claims. It also made it
extremely expensive, difficult, frustrating, aggravating and time-consuming as
possible for the Pews and other SOA customers to correct problems and protect
their rights.

This policy was also intended to stretch out and delay any possible claims a
customer may exert in litigation by EMC's claim of waiver or a running out of
statute of limitations.

This was done so that EMC would not have to expend funds, manpower or time
on such actions which would have had an effect on reducing its profitability and
also increasing its liability in other causes and actions that were filed against
EMC and/or SOA. EMC and Bear Stearns benefited from and are the direct
benefactor of SOA’s ill-gotten and fraudulent gains that it had allegedly
purchased at a substantial discount from SOA.

EMC & Bear Stearns Gains & Profits From SOA Frauds

EMC and Bear Stearns received or claimed to receive the ill-gotten gains of SOA
that included:

(a) increases to the principal balance of the Pew's and other SOA customer’s
accounts;
(b) prohibited inspection fees placed upon their accounts;
(c) accumulated and additional interest gained from wrongful advances, late fees
and interest on wrongful advances to their account;
(d) appraisal fees wrongfully charged to their accounts;
(e) late fees wrongfully assessed and charged to their accounts;
(f) excessive late fees assessed and charged to their accounts;
(g) credits due to their accounts;

42
(h) recalculations of principal and interest and amortization due their accounts
due to the intentional and wrongful actions of SOA; and
(i) various other fraudulent schemes perpetuated by SOA upon the Pews and
other SOA customers and later concealed by SOA, Washington Mutual, Bear
Stearns, EMC and their executives, managers, experts and attorneys.

SOA and EMC employed and do employ a variety of fraudulent and deceptive
schemes using the U.S. mail as well as telephone lines located in various states
throughout the U.S. These schemes include extortionate demands to make
payments not owed by the Pews and other SOA customers. SOA threatened the
credit worthiness and livelihoods of the Pews if they refused to pay the
extortionate demands made by SOA.

A review of Anthony Pew's affidavit attached as Exhibit 5 and the exhibits

attached to that affidavit clearly shows and proves such fraudulent and
extortionate schemes.

A prime example of such extortion was the 2/7/92 demand letter attached to
Exhibit 29.A that SOA sent to the Pews and later made demand upon in phone
calls to the Pews. Even according to the independent auditor's schedule of
payments in his report, this letter attempts to maliciously and intentionally
extort over $19,000 in wrongful, fraudulent and prohibited charges from the
Pews. Such actions were also instituted against other SOA customers.

Long prior to the 2/7/92 demand letter sent to the Pews by SOA, the Pews had
long standing disputes over the crediting of payments, tax payments, insurance
payments, escrow charges, late fees and the accounting, administration and
handling of the Pew's account with SOA. The Pews disputed the wrongful
placement and charges for forced placed insurance on the Pew's property when in
fact they had insurance on their home.

Yet to date, SOA or EMC has ever explained how such a dramatic and
extortionate demand was ever made upon the Pews. Shortly thereafter, after the
continued refusals of SOA to provide the Pew's with proper explanations,
accounting records and documents, the Pews refused to remit any additional
payments to SOA in excess of what the Pew's own calculations provided.

When the Pews attempted to tender such amounts that they attempted to
calculate, SOA refused to accept such payments. The auditor's report shows that
some of these payments were actually in excess of what was due and owing to
SOA at various times.

In an effort to conceal these frauds and wrongful acts, SOA, Washington Mutual,
Bear Stearns, EMC and their attorneys, agent and experts conspired with each
other and tampered with witnesses including the independent auditor.

This was done to try and adjust EMC's and SOA’s records to reflect different
transaction, principal balances, credits, debits, escrow balances, advances and
other transferred on the Pews account. The loan histories, dispute responses and
explanations sent to and communicated to the Pews previously were all
fraudulent and consisted of different amounts and figures.

43
One such history actually excluded a $4,512.06 payment made by the Pews in
January of 1993. EMC and their expert, David Smith, claim in this same
spreadsheet and affidavit [Exhibit 21] that there were no payments, credits,
debits, escrow payments, advances, charges or other similar transactions with
SOA from January 1, 1993 until transfer to EMC in September of 1993.

These “missing” transactions were later discovered not by EMC's expert or the
court appointed auditor, but I as part of my over 8000 hour investigation of
EMC's and SOA’s actions and activities concerning the Pew's and other SOA
customer’s accounts.

EMC and their expert claim in affidavits [Exhibit 21] filed with the Dallas
District Court in support of Summary Judgement that the attached spreadsheets
of both EMC and EMC's expert account for each and every credit, payment and
“transaction” to the Pew's account with both SOA and EMC. These affidavits are
false and fraudulent and EMC, Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual and their
experts and counsel have full and complete knowledge of this. The false and
fraudulent affidavits of both David Smith and EMC's representative, Annette
Mitchell, are contained with the summary judgement motion filed by EMC in
early 1997. Proof that such affidavits are false and fraudulent is conclusive.

EMC's expert, David Smith, has prepared at least two additional spreadsheets
dated 7/31/97 and 4/7/98 attached as Exhibit 12 which he produced during his
deposition. Each of these spreadsheets reflect additional changes, adjustments,
credits, debits, balances and transactions that were not reflected in his 4/7/97
spreadsheet attached with his affidavit in support of EMC's and SOA’s summary
judgement.

Furthermore, EMC and SOA incorporate into responses for production and
interrogatories signed with affidavits that verify such responses, the so-called
independent auditor’s report [Exhibit 29.B] as answers to questions regarding
amounts of payments, insurance, tax and other transactions that occurred on the
Pew's account with both SOA and EMC. Yet, this report includes amounts of
payments, insurance, taxes and other transactions that occurred on the Pew's
account with both SOA and EMC that David Smith and EMC did not include in
their spreadsheets attached with their affidavit in support of EMC's and SOA’s
summary judgement motion.

Since 1991, [over nine years now] the Pews have been complaining about the
accounting of the their loan with SOA and EMC ass well as credits, debits, late
fees, misc. fees, and adjustments and transactions from virtually the inception of
the Pew's loan with SOA.

The origination of the Pew's lawsuit against EMC and SOA was a direct result of
suspected fraud and wrongful accounting. The failure of EMC and SOA to
properly account for and provide details, explanations and support for charges,
credits, adjustments and transactions that occurred on the Pew's account with
both SOA and EMC, could not be tolerated any longer.

Yet, as evidenced by EMC's motion for summary judgement and the affidavits
and spreadsheets prepared by both their expert and corporate representative,
EMC then and still to this date can not only properly document and account to
the Pews for all of the transactions that occurred on the Pew's account.

44
Still, to this date, in order to defraud the Pews and cause the Pews irreparable
harm, EMC and SOA through Washington Mutual still knowingly, willfully and
intentionally hide, conceal, misrepresent, deceive and mischaracterize the Pew's
account and transactions that occurred on their account.

This is proven by evidence! First, despite changing his spreadsheets and

accounting on the Pew's account at least two times, EMC's and SOA's expert
David Smith has not supplemented, removed, altered or amended the affidavits
and evidence in support of their summary judgement motion filed on May 1.
1997. EMC, Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual and their counsel have full and
complete knowledge of the falsely filed affidavit.

EMC, SOA, Washington Mutual, Bear Stearns, Ike Guest, David Smith and their
counsel are fully aware that such a change, amendment or alteration to Smith's
affidavit would conclusively prove and support the Pew's allegations in their
lawsuit against EMC and SOA. If done, the Pews could have easily obtained
summary judgement on numerous counts of the Pew's suit that would only result
in a trial on damages against EMC and SOA.

Instead, EMC, SOA and their counsel, and their expert have continued to deceive
and defraud the Pews and the courts by knowingly, willfully and intentionally
misrepresenting and characterizing the status and amounts of the Pew's debt as
well as transactions that occurred on their account.

In proof of this allegation, SOA, EMC, Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual, their
expert, their counsel and the so-called independent auditor have colluded
together to mislead, hide, conceal, misrepresent and mischaracterize unapplied,
suspense, escrow, insurance, tax, inspection fee, attorney fee, and other
transactions that occurred on the Pew's account.

SOA & EMC Concealment Of Fraudulent Escrow Scheme

One of the major misrepresentations, mischaracterization and frauds concern the

Pew's escrow account and transactions. Three years after preparation of his
report and spreadsheet, that was to detail and account for the Pew's account with
SOA and EMC, they have failed to amend knowingly false and fraudulent
affidavits and reports filed with the Dallas District Court in the Pew's action
against EMC and SOA.

EMC's expert in his affidavit [Exhibit 21] in support of his report states in
paragraph 4. “I have prepared a spreadsheet of my own which accounts for all
dollars received, applied, and charges made by both EMC Mortgage Corporation
and Home Savings of America on the Promissory Note and Deed of Trust at all
times from April 17, 1989 to the present. The spreadsheet attached hereto as
Exhibit A accurately sets out my findings and conclusions regarding the handling
of the Pew's account.”

This spreadsheet did not account for the SOA transactions on the Pew's account
from 1/1/93 to 9/16/93. Smith, EMC and SOA knowingly attempts to conceal and
hide EMC's and SOA’s fraudulent representations concerning, taxes, insurance

45
and escrow by intentionally concealing, disguising and misrepresenting what he
and EMC and SOA know are tens of thousands of dollars in unapplied/suspense
transactions as impound/escrow transactions.

Proof of this fraud is obtained by a review of 031 and 041 unapplied/suspense

transactions that are documented by the master transaction registers of SOA
[Exhibit 8]. Most alarming is David Smith’s response to the 9/30/97 fax
attached as Exhibit 30 concerning an “Impound” question from Ike Guest. In
this fax, Mr. Guest requests an explanation and detail of an $11,796.34 dollar
“impound” transaction that is reflected not only on David Smith’s spreadsheet of
4/23/97, but also his spreadsheet of 7/31/97.

In his response via a letter and explanation dated 10/17/97 [Exhibit 31] there is
no question that Mr. Smith and his clients [SOA, EMC and Washington Mutual]
had full and complete knowledge that there was "never" an impound/escrow
transaction of $11,796.34. Yet, such an exaggerated amount for escrow is listed
on both of his spreadsheets to this date as an impound/escrow account. In fact,
as evidenced by the second page of this response, this transaction was actually a
very large unapplied account transaction. The title of this page that Mr. Smith
himself created is titled “Application of Unapplied Balance” in big bold type.

As if this were not enough to prove the concealment and fraud, Mr. Smith then
goes on to detail the various transactions. The transactions include an $814.31
late charge; $10.00 service charge; six [6] loan payments of $1,168.58 and three
[3] loan payments of $1099.98 as well as an appraisal fee of $275.00 and a
supposed charge of $365.81 for outside counsel.

As evidenced by an SOA Escrow Transaction History [Exhibit 32] sent to the

Pew’s for the time frame of 1/1/93 to 9/1/93, there was never such an escrow
transaction on the Pew's account. In fact, none of the transactions listed under
Impounds and Impound Balance on his 4/23/97 spreadsheet attached to his
affidavit are escrow transactions. They are all unapplied/suspense transactions
and not impound/escrow transactions.

EMC, SOA, Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual, Mr. Smith and their counsel have
for over nine years and six years of litigation knowingly, willfully and
intentionally concealed, hid, misrepresented and mischaracterize these
transactions. They have disguised them in an effort to further mislead and
confuse the Pews, their agents, attorneys and intentionally set them and their
experts on a wild goose chase.

They intentionally wanted the Pews and I to spend as much time, money, energy
and resources trying to find the needle in one of the over dozen haystacks in
order to pick the lock and unlock the dozens of fraudulent schemes. Such
schemes and literally “thousands” of misrepresentations, mischaracterization and
omissions related to the Pew's account with EMC and SOA have been identified.

EMC had and has full and complete knowledge that such an effort would be
virtually impossible to let alone uncover and discover, but to determine exactly
what the schemes were and document each and every fraudulent accounting
scheme, practice and instance of abuse. The Pews received estimates of between
$250,000 and $500,000 to do all of the forensic and mortgage accounting that
needed to be conducted in their case. SOA and EMC knew this.

46
They know how much they have spent on their own “limited exercise” with their
experts and the auditor who they tampered with and know the costs involved
would have been enormous to review, evaluate, analyze and reconcile each and
every document provided to the Pews.

SOA & EMC Predatory & Abusive Collection Practices

Since the inception of the Pew's lawsuit against EMC and SOA, EMC and their
counsel repeated the mantra “tell of what we did wrong and we’ll fix it.” “If we
did anything wrong, we’ll fix and let’s get along with this loan.” However, EMC's
arrogance, pattern of corruption and illegal racketeering activity cannot be fully
realized until you speak with other customers that they have intentionally ruined
and the many lives they have affected and destroyed.

Both SOA and EMC used extortionate methods to extort money from the Pews
and other customers of SOA and EMC. EMC made a practice and policy to refuse
payment, payment offers, or payoffs that were 1¢ less than what they claimed
was owed. They did this even when they knew and had full knowledge that the
demands they were making were based on previous fraud, missing documents,
erroneous facts, mistakes and willful miscalculations and computer
programming. Such fraudulent schemes were designed to increase cash
payments, cash flow, investment income and revenue to EMC their parent and
affiliated companies and investors.

Such an arrogant, unconscionable and obnoxious approach is easily reflected in

an examination of EMC's documents, practices, policies, procedures and even the
manuals that govern such procedures and policies. EMC and SOA would use the
threat of foreclose and the ruining of the Pew's and other customer's credit and
business as a loaded gun to their heads in order to squeeze and extort more
money from them.

In one case, EMC sent collectors to a customer’s door and threatened foreclosure
proceedings for him supposedly being 18¢ in arrears. This case is well
documented. EMC also retaliates against those who question them or threaten to
take some form of legal or agency action against them. For example, it is the law
[RESPA] that when a dispute is made to EMC or any other mortgage company,
that credit reporting be stopped for at least 60 days until the dispute can be fully
researched, responded to and corrected. EMC's own manuals show this policy as
well as how easy it is for someone to do.

In the policy, all that is necessary is once a dispute is made by a customer, all
EMC has to do is have anyone, including a secretary, just type in an “*” [asterisk]
into a selected field on a computer screen. That’s all! But, time and time again
after six years of litigation and virtually a year of previous disputes and
complaints, EMC, not once, ever typed an asterisk into this field or stopped
reporting negative credit on the Pews.

These actions were based on direct threats of abusive actions by employees and
counsel for EMC. “Pay us what you owe us and we’ll stop reporting your credit as
being bad.” “You need the credit for your business so why don’t you pay us what
you owe.” “Pay us now, get this loan on the track it needs to be in and then we’ll

47
investigate your disputes and answer accordingly.” “We’re not responsible for the
problems and disputes you had with SOA, if you want to protect your property or
your credit, you’ll pay us now what is owed and then go take up any complaints
you have with SOA with them since we’re not responsible for their actions.” “If
you don’t pay us, we’ll ruin your family’s credit and your business.”

These are just a handful of the threats exerted against the Pews and I over the
years from EMC. EMC's willful conduct and effort to destroy and ruin the Pews
and I are again realized in an exchange in the law offices of Settle & Pou between
myself and an individual representing EMC named Brad Cope. After discovering
a number of problems with the previous servicers account in a deposition, a
heated exchange was conducted in which counsel for EMC said “pay us what you
owe us, get this loan back on track and we’ll fix your credit and pay your attorney
fees.” Such a suggestion was met with a strong response on behalf of the Pews.

Such a suggestion was made after two years of damages incurred to my family
and our family’s business interests and he was flatly told where to place such a
suggestion. Cope, on the other hand, issued a threat and said “don’t push us, we
can push you and push back much harder and much stronger than you can.”

Cope was right. Instead of trying the facts in this case for over six years, EMC,
Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual, SOA in direct conspiracy and cooperation
with their counsel have engaged in a pattern of corruption, obstruction of justice
and fraud to cover-up their illegal actions. This has been done in an attempt to
destroy the Pews, their family, their credit, lives, livelihood, business interests,
business property and business opportunities. They have also intended to
intentionally inflict emotional and mental duress though a pattern of abuse,
harassment, invasion of privacy, defamation and slander that is intended as
retaliation for the Pews exerting their legal rights under the law. Their actions
have been unconscionable, let alone illegal and potentially criminal!

EMC selectively purchases customers based on analysis. Such customers are

selected based on a relative higher LTV ratio on the property of the mortgage
they purchased and a note holder who is elderly, ethnic, non-English speaking,
lower-income, or in financial distress. In other words, they prey on those who are
least able to fight back the abuse or extortionate efforts in the sub-prime B and C
markets. As such, EMC and Bear Stearns can exert pressures and abuses upon
the customers by assessing, demanding and in some cases as in the Pew's case,
extorting money through threats of intimidation and abusive tactics.

EMC's allegedly purchases or services loans from previous servicers that they
know were bad or fraught with systematic errors, misapplications of funds,
missing payments, missing titles, missing notes and other servicing nightmares
left over from the old savings and loan scandal days and unscrupulous mortgage
brokers. This "toxic waste" dump as one EMC employee put it results in EMC's
servicing of nothing more than what they consider delinquent accounts and
undesirable customers who EMC refers to in its manuals as "smucks!" [Exhibit
33].

Yet, EMC immediately attempts to collect and foreclose on such notes even when
they do not have possession of the records of account from the previous servicers
or even when they have knowledge of wrongdoing of the previous servicer. When
a dispute arises, EMC ignores, does not respond in a timely fashion according to

48
law, does not credit accounts at all or in a timely fashion according to law and
does not properly investigate, research, credit, adjust and take corrective actions
at all or in a timely fashion.

When credits are due, such credits are delayed as long as possible so as to earn
additional revenue, interest and fees by miscalculation of principal balances on
loans and escrow accounts. In one case, EMC delayed the credit of $92.00 it
knew was owed and to be applied to the Pew's account in September of 1993 that
was not supposedly credited, and against the escrow balance not principal
balance as supposed to be until the end of July 1994. This was done to hundreds
and potentially thousands of additional customers who were due far greater
credits in excess of $1000.00.

EMC also took a year to remove the unnecessary force place insurance it
wrongfully ordered on the Pew's property in October of 1993 when the Pews had
insurance on their property and had complied with EMC requests for such
insurance and proof of insurance. EMC failed to investigate or rectify the Pews
complaints with regard to this insurance policy and took over a year to credit the
account. Yet, even after a credit was supposedly issued, EMC still incorporated
$2,077.11 in payment demands, affidavits filed with courts in support of money
claimed owed by the Pews when in fact this amount was supposed to be credited
back. EMC let this amount remain in the escrow payments of $754.52 from
3/10/94 through 4/10/94 as per an escrow analysis provided in litigation
production. EMC had full and complete knowledge, even after a supposed credit
in late 1994, that the Pews did not owe this money. Yet, EMC still sought
payment of this money all the way through 1997 when it changed its accounting
and demands to the Pews to hide it's illegal and extortionate demands and
wrongdoing.

EMC knowingly filed several affidavits with the Dallas District Court claiming
an amount to be owing and due that EMC had full and complete knowledge were
misleading and mischaracterized the status of the Pew's debt. It also attempted
to defraud them by extorting payments and amounts not owed or obligated to,
even during legal proceedings.

EMC has claimed in previous testimony and in responses to interrogatories that

the Pews “have no legitimate complaints” when in fact they have direct
knowledge that many of SOA's and EMC's own reports, demands, transactions
and accounting were fraudulent and misrepresented the facts to the Pews.
However, if EMC and their counsel would even admit one mistake, let alone
fraud, misrepresentation or mischaracterization, they could not with clean hands
and a straight face claim one dollar out of the over $900,000 they claim the Pews
owe them for defending their illegal actions.

As such, EMC and their attorneys continue a pattern of fraud, deception and
concealment until stopped by the courts or a State or Federal agency. EMC also
hires, rates and compensates their attorneys and their collectors based on their
“aggressiveness” and amounts they collect. This directly and deliberately leads
to a pattern of abuse, misconduct and misrepresentations made to the Pews and
other customers in order to secure some sort of compliance in payment or other
term and then later claim such agreement was not made.

49
To clearly show EMC's arrogance, obnoxious and total disregard for the rights of
the Pews and other customers, one only has to look at a collection of form letters
that are sent to EMC's customers when they reach the foreclosure process. Such
form letters, instead of referring to a generic customer as John or Jane Doe or
John Smith as in other form letters EMC has in other departments, list EMC's
customers as “SMUCKS." This can only be described as evidence of EMC's
arrogance, mindset, demeanor, training and responses in dealing with the Pews
and other customers.

EMC and their experts have knowingly provided over twenty separate versions of
loan and account transaction histories. These histories contradict each other,
exclude transactions that occurred and intentionally conceal, hide, misrepresent
and mischaracterize transactions that occurred on the Pew's account to prevent
them from learning what happened to their account and to cost them time,
money, aggravation and frustration.

This was intentionally done to prevent the Pews, their counsel and experts from
determining how their account was actually handled and compare it to “how” it
“should have been handled." Most importantly, is to compare to “what” EMC and
SOA actually represented to the Pew's how their account was being handled.

SOA & EMC Fraud Upon Court & Witness Tampering

EMC, Bear Stearns, SOA. Washington Mutual, David Smith and their counsel
also colluded and conspired with the independent auditor, to cover-up and
conceal the fraudulent actions and abuses of SOA and EMC. This is clearly
evidenced by an examination of documents discovered wherein the auditor had
prohibited ex-parte communications and dealings with SOA and EMC and their
counsel and experts during and after his audit.

The auditor, Ike Guest, even went so far as to commit perjury. In his deposition
he claims that he had no assumptions or basis in which to examine or calculate
an escrow account. However, he had over six years worth of escrow records and
reports that he "intentionally" ignored so as to conceal the frauds and abuses of
SOA and EMC that he was informed of according to his own notes and work
product.

In fact, the auditor, a former partner in Deloitte & Touche [Bear Stearns &
Washington Mutual's accounting firm] went to great lengths to conceal their
fraud and to intentionally mislead the Pews, their experts and I further. He even
did extensive work for SOA and EMC, after the audit was complete, that he
claims was done for free!

After being provided with direct evidence of his fraud and the fraud of SOA and
EMC, he retained counsel and filed various false and malicious motions to
prevent his testimony or further deposition on the facts discovered.

As illustration of these frauds, the transactions of $1168.58 and $1099.98

payments listed on David Smith’s response to Ike Guest [Exhibit 31] about an
“Impound” transaction each consists of $253.88 in escrow payments.
Furthermore, not one of the transactions listed in SOA’s escrow account

50
statement for 1993 [Exhibit 32] are reflected on their spreadsheets. What is
even more incredulous, is that none of SOA’s escrow transactions for 1992 are
contained, including a $2,602.28 escrow payment for taxes on 3/26/92 that is not
reflected. None of the $253.88 escrow payments for payments due from 12/10/91
to 12/10/92 and paid by the Pews are reflected. Also, various unexplained $00.10
transactions are also not reflected in his spreadsheet.

The records prove that SOA mishandled the Pew's escrow account and the
annual analysis and adjustment dates for their escrow account. In further proof
of EMC's fraud, EMC's expert, David Smith, in spite of having full and complete
knowledge that the figures contained in his report in support of his affidavit are
false, prepares yet another spreadsheet on 4/7/98 attached as Exhibit 12.A. This
spreadsheet provided to the Pews in production continues to misrepresent and
mischaracterize the transactions that occurred on the Pew's account.

This spreadsheet still does not reflect the SOA escrow account transactions and
reports unapplied/suspense transactions, including the $11,796.34 unapplied
transaction that he and EMC are fully aware are not impound/escrow
transactions.

Additionally, Mr. Smith has included the $4512.06 payment made on 1/27/93.
This payment was not reflected in his spreadsheet attached with his affidavit in
support of EMC's and SOA's Summary Judgement motion. He has now changed
his spreadsheet at least twice and has not amended his affidavit or supplemented
his report to the District Court in Dallas, Texas even though EMC, SOA, their
counsel and Mr. Smith are fully aware that such report and affidavit are false.

In fact, the Pews are in possession of two additional spreadsheets that Mr. Smith
has prepared that reflects a $930.00 insurance advance on 2/4/93 as well as
multiple transactions that occurred on the Pew’s account. They were not and still
to this date have not been supplemented or amended even though both EMC and
SOA as well are their respective counsel know for a fact that Mr. Smith’s
affidavit and his attached report is false, fraudulent and misleading. This, three
[3] years after the actual filing of their motion.

Still, SOA and EMC as well as their attorneys, David Smith and Ike Guest
attempt to cover-up and conceal the wrongful and fraudulent actions of both SOA
and EMC with concerns to the insurance frauds and transactions that occurred
on the Pew's account while with SOA and later EMC.

51
SOA Predatory Late Fee "Churning" Scheme

In addition to the deceptive and fraudulent insurance schemes that SOA carried
out, SOA executed a number of practices, policies and procedures designed to
increase and "churn" late fee revenue to SOA. These deceptive and fraudulent
practices included:

(a) the delayed crediting and posting of payments made at SOA branches to the
Pew's and other SOA customer’s accounts so as to incur, assess and collect
late fees caused by the delayed crediting and posting of payments;
(b) assessing, demanding and attempting to and collecting the payment of late
fees from the Pews and other SOA customers in advance of the date they
were contractually due;
(c) making advances to the Pew's and other SOA customer’s accounts and then
considering such advances as part of principal and interest payments due
and calculating, assessing, demanding and collecting a 6% late fee
attributable to such advances;
(d) calculating, assessing and collecting a 6% late fee attributable to a $2.19
principal reduction on the Pew's account on 12/17/91;
(e) calculating, assessing, demanding and collecting a 6% late fee attributable to
wrongful forced placed insurance advances made on the Pew's and other SOA
customer’s accounts;
(f) intentionally refusing to and failing to send monthly payment coupons to the
Pews at all so as to intentionally cause the Pews and other SOA customers to
be late in the payment of their monthly payments to SOA so that SOA could
assess, demand and collect a late fee from them;
(g) intentionally refusing to and failing to send monthly payment coupons to the
Pews and other SOA customers at their residence and mailing addresses so
as to intentionally cause the Pews and other SOA customers to be late in the
payment of their monthly payments to SOA so that SOA could assess,
demand and collect a late fee from them;
(h) intentionally sending what monthly payment coupons they did send to the
Pews and other SOA customers on a “receipt and bill” system so as to
intentionally cause the Pews and other SOA customers to be late in the
payment of their monthly payments to SOA so that SOA could assess,
demand and collect a late fee from them;
(i) calculating, assessing, demanding, charging and collecting late fees on
wrongfully placed inspection fees placed upon the Pew's and other SOA
customer’s accounts;
(j) calculating, assessing, demanding, charging and collecting late fees on
wrongfully charged forced placed insurance advances placed upon the Pew’s
and other SOA customer’s accounts;
(k) calculating, assessing, demanding, charging and collecting late fees on
wrongfully charged tax advances placed upon the Pew’s and other SOA
customer’s accounts that should have been charged to their escrow accounts;
and

52
(l) calculating, assessing, demanding, charging and collecting late fees in
advance of their actual due dates; intentionally misapplying and placing
payments received from the Pews and other SOA customers into a non-
interest bearing suspense/unapplied account that SOA had direct access to
and use of and which SOA did not apply to the Pew's payment for principal
and interest on a timely basis or even for several months which SOA actions
intentionally caused the Pews to be in arrears so that SOA could assess,
demand and collect a late fee that was not owed or due from the Pews and
other SOA customers.

By intentionally using the schemes, policies and practices contained above, it was
SOA’s direct and malicious intent to delay payment to and/or crediting of the
Pew's and other SOA customer’s payments to their loans so as to cause the
assessment, demand and collection of inappropriate late fees.

As evidence of this practice, please examine Exhibit 34 attached which is an

affidavit certifying the amount of late fees assessed and collected from the Pews
in their account with SOA according to SOA's records.

From June of 1989 through March of 1993, SOA assessed and collected
approximately $2,167.75 in late fees. The Pews have disputed and still dispute to
this date the legitimacy of these late fees due to breach of SOA’s agreements with
the Pews and the wrongful actions of SOA that were the direct cause of the
assessment and collection of late fees from the Pews. SOA also assessed
additional late fees that EMC now claims are owed and due to EMC due to a
transfer by SOA to EMC.

SOA Predatory Unapplied / Suspense Account Scheme

SOA’s own internal written policy directed that amounts held in unapplied
accounts be held no more than a maximum of 45 days except for loans in
bankruptcy and who have a repayment plan in place.

SOA violated its own policies by holding payments and portions of payments
made by the Pews in unapplied for as long as seven months before their
application. Except for a couple of occasions, SOA didn’t inform the Pews in
writing or in telephone calls to the fact that monies they paid to SOA were in fact
being held in suspense accounts and diverted away from crediting to their
account. The Pews and I believed such payments were going to pay principal,
interest and escrow payments only,

SOA, not once, ever provided the Pews with any explanation or reason why SOA
would take their payments and not apply them, but make use of such payment
for its own benefit. In essence, SOA, in its desperation and need for income and
revenue, would make itself interest free loans from the Pew's payments and other
SOA customers to be repaid weeks or even months later at SOA’s own behest and
without the Pew's knowledge or consent to such actions.

53
SOA would further complicate matters by not informing the Pews and other SOA
customers that substantial sums of money were being held in an unapplied
account and had not been credited to their payments or the principal balance of
their account. To further this scheme, SOA would then shortly after receiving a
payment that it placed in an unapplied account, use the U.S. Mail to send a
demand letter to the Pews and other SOA customers that demanded payments
from the Pews. SOA used extortionate tactics such as threatening to foreclose on
the Pew's and other SOA customer’s properties and ruin their credit.

SOA's Predatory "Payment Extortion" Scheme

One prime example of this SOA extortion scheme occurred between January 1
and April 1 of 1992. SOA had not sent the Pews any monthly statements
detailing the amounts of their payments, payment, credit and debit activity to
their account or support for all of the forced placed insurance policies that SOA
informed the Pews it had placed on their account and charged their account for.
The Pews had been disputing late fees and the assessment and collection of late
fees from July of 1989 and had disputed all amounts claimed to owed to SOA
without proper written verification and support of what SOA claimed was owing
and due.

The Pews sent both SOA and EMC written and faxed complaints. Such
complaints are attached as Exhibit 35. The disputes included the payment of
the Pew's taxes, insurance, escrow and monthly payments as well as any other
miscellaneous charges that SOA had applied to the Pew's account. The Pew's
and I could not reconcile or ascertain how SOA arrived at it’s payment demands
and requests for payments without monthly payment statements or account
histories detailing the application of credits, debits and all transactions to the
Pew's account with SOA.

SOA, in it’s own internal memo dated 10/17/91 attached as Exhibit 36 states
that the Pews are “disputing the amount that has been paid and the amount that
is due.” Yet, the Pews made numerous complaints about all fees, expenses,
charges, escrow, taxes and insurance to their account.

However, SOA’s only response to the Pews on 1/23/92 attached as Exhibit 37

only outlines their response to only a few of the insurance issues and problems
with the Pew's account. It does not address each and every insurance policy
placed on their account, payments to their accounts, late fee charges to their
account; inspection fees charged to their account; taxes charged to their account
or how their money was applied, adjusted or credited.

In conversations with the Pews, employees of SOA did admit to them that there
were many complaints with and problems occurring at SOA’s tax and insurance
departments and that they would fully investigate the Pews complaints and
disputes. An SOA employee later informed me that SOA had screwed up the
establishment of the Pews escrow account for the payment of their taxes. He also
stated that SOA had placed multiple layers of insurance on their home that
needed to be credited.

54
As a solution to the Pews disputes and complaints, he was going to “spread out”
the repayment of any taxes or insurance premiums actually due over 18 months.
This was supposed to be accomplished by placing such a repayment into the Pews
escrow account so as not to cause any hardship to the Pews due to SOA’s own
admitted mistakes. He said that the next monthly statement the Pews would
receive in January of 1992 would reflect such activity and corrections to their
account.

Exhibit 38 is a copy of an internal SOA manually prepared payment escrow

calculation that supports the employee's statement to Mr. Pew and I.

He informed the Pews that the new monthly payment for escrow for the taxes
and insurance due to SOA would be in the vicinity of $375.00 per month.
However, he said that the actual figures would be contained in an upcoming
statement that the Pews would receive prior to their next payment due date on
1/10/92.

I agreed to remit a check on behalf of the Pews to SOA in the amount of $2500.00
to cover any existing principal and interest payments due and provided that SOA
would finally send the monthly payment statement and coupon that the Pews
had been requesting for over a year. I made a payment to SOA as agreed and
then stopped that payment from being processed when SOA did not honor its
agreement with me on behalf of the Pews. The Pews never received the monthly
loan coupons and statements they had requested detailing the amounts owed on
their account nor the accounting of how their previous payments were handled
nor the verification of taxes and insurance paid and credited to the Pew's account
with SOA.

Later, upon threat of SOA's employees, I made a $2,500.00 cash payment at an

SOA branch to insure that SOA would comply with its agreements. This cash
payment is not properly and fully reflected on the Pew's loan histories and only
portions of the payment are included as credits to the Pew's account.

Instead of complying with its agreements, SOA furthered its deception and fraud
by causing to be sent via the U.S. Mail, conflicting and contradictory demand
letters and so-called delinquent notices in the months of 12/91 and 1/92 which are
attached as Exhibit 39. SOA then sent the Pews a response to their complaints
in a letter from Clark Helzer dated 1/23/92 attached as Exhibit 37 in which SOA
admits certain so-called errors and mistakes on its part and its solution on how
they were going to fix the problems. This letter was the “only” letter the Pews
“ever” received from SOA that addressed even one of their myriad of complaints
and disputes with SOA from the inception of the loan in June of 1989 until the
transfer of the loan to EMC in September of 1993.

In this response letter to the Pews, SOA only addresses two of the forced placed
policies it issued and charged the Pew's account for. It fails to mention the
charges and credits for other SOA forced placed policies that SOA placed on the
Pew's property or informed the Pews that such placement and charges occurred
and this letter does not even address even one tax or escrow transaction and
other disputes. It also fails to address the late fees charged to the Pew’s account,
inspection and other fees that the Pews had disputed. It also does not provide an
accounting and detail of transactions, charges, payments, credits and debits with
supporting documentation that the Pews had requested from SOA.

55
The monthly payment coupon promised by SOA to arrive by 1/10/92 never was
sent and terms of the agreement reached regarding the repayment of all taxes
and insurance through the Pew's escrow account in the vicinity of $375.00 per
month for 18 months was never received as well.

Instead, SOA via the U.S. Mail and in telephone calls to the Pews used and made
extortionate demands for tens of thousands of dollars that were not even owed or
due to SOA under the terms of the Pews promissory note and deed of trust.
When the Pews disputed these amounts in writing and in telephone calls, SOA
still claimed that the amounts demanded in writing and via telephone were in
fact due and owing.

An examination of Anthony Pew's affidavit and the attached exhibits to that

affidavit attached to this report as Exhibit 5 clearly demonstrates such
extortionate demands by SOA which have to this date been intentionally and
fraudulently concealed to the Pews, courts and their experts and counsel by
EMC, SOA. Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual and their respective executives,
law firms and counsel.

To illustrate this extortion demand, please examine the following that is now
known from a forensic accounting of the Pew's records and SOA's master
transaction register.

In an internal SOA document attached as Exhibit 38, that was not provided to
the Pews until the discovery process of their litigation, SOA shows that the Pews
owe SOA the sum of $1,289.28 for the monthly payment due on 11/10/91. This
payment was broken down as $914.70 attributable to the payment of the regular
monthly principal and interest payment and $374.58 attributable to an advance
payment to be paid over 18 months. Arguably, this is most likely the
approximate $375.00 the SOA employee informed Mr. Pew and I that the Pews
would pay monthly to their escrow account for the payment of all current and
back taxes and insurance that SOA claimed due. Yet, as evidenced by this
document, the representations made to the Pews were in fact deceiving,
misleading and fraudulent.

This document reflects that the $374.58 was actually being treated as an advance
and not as part of the Pew's escrow account as they were informed. Further, the
document reflects that the 12/10/91 monthly payment due from the Pews was
$1,543.16. This payment was broken down as $914.70 attributable to the
payment of the regular monthly principal and interest payment and $374.58
attributable to an advance payment to be paid over 18 months and $253.88 for an
impound payment for a term of 12 months.

As evidenced by Exhibit 40, on 12/17/91 SOA sent to the Pews a Delinquent

Notice that claims that the Pews owe SOA the sum of $11,230.28 for five [5] past
due payments on their loan. On 1/21/92 SOA sent to the Pews a Delinquent
Notice that claims that the Pews owe SOA the sum of $13,455.28 for four [4] past
due payments on their loan. On 1/26/92 SOA sends to the Pews a Delinquent
Notice that claims that the Pews owe SOA the sum of $12,156.62 for three [3]
past due payments on their loan. On 1/30/92 SOA sends to the Pews a Delinquent
Notice that claims that the Pews owe SOA what is believed to be the sum of
$15,283.84 for six [6] past due payments on their loan.

56
Taking into consideration the $2500 payment that I made on the Pew's account
and then intentionally caused to be uncollected due to the breach of SOA’s
agreements, there is no support, justification or lawful obligation by the Pews to
pay any of these conflicting demands. In an attempt to remedy the situation, and
after threats of coercion and intimidation by SOA employees, I then made a cash
payment of $2,500.00. I then later again attempted to make a payment at an
SOA branch of $5000.00 on or about 1/30/92 and was told that the sum was
insufficient to bring the Pews up-to-date on their loan. I was also told that the
payment could not be accepted for that reason and additionally the payment is
not in certified funds.

In the 1/23/92 SOA response letter to the Pews, SOA claims that $6,874.81 is
owed as of that date. As such, on 2/4/92 Mr. Pew causes to be drafted a certified
check in the amount of $6,874.81 attached as Exhibit 41 as directed by SOA on
the phone and this payment is made on that day at the West Boca Branch office
of SOA. The payment is reflected on SOA’s master transaction register [Exhibit
8] on page 411,568.

SOA delayed the posting, processing and crediting of this payment until 2/11/92
when it wrongfully conducted a transaction that sends $3,757.59 to SOA’s
unapplied account to increase the unapplied balance to $4,374.81. Then, SOA
only pays three [3] monthly payments of principal and interest in the amounts of
$914.70 and three [3] monthly payments of escrow in the amount of 10¢ for the
8/10/91, 9/10/91 and 10/10/91 monthly installments due SOA as well as a
repayment of an advance, now known to be for taxes, in the amount of $372.82.

SOA had full control, custody and deposit of the certified funds of the Pews in the
amount of $6,874.81 as of February 4, 1992. As can be computed by using the
above figures and documents, there is no conceivable way that the Pews ever did
lawfully or contractually owe or could have owed the figures claimed to be due
and owing to SOA in its delinquency notices.

To further compound this SOA fraud and extortion scheme, SOA with the
malicious intent to defraud the Pews, did demand payment on 2/7/92 [Exhibit
42] attempting to extort the amount of $18,633.67 from the Pews. SOA issued
threats against person and property via the U.S. Mail and telephone services if
the Pews refused to comply with their request. SOA claimed that the $18,633.67
was due for all payments and fees obligated by the Pews to SOA from 8/10/91
through 2/10/92 for a total of seven [7] monthly installment payments. This
would mean that SOA was claiming the Pews owed $25,508.48 for the payments
due from 8/10/91 through 2/10/92. The regular monthly principal and interest
payment for the monthly installment dates from 8/91 through 2/92 were $914.70
each and totaled a combined $6,402.90 for seven payments. When you subtract
$6,402.90 from the figure of $25,508.48 you get a figure of $19,105.58 that SOA is
demanding and attempting to extort from the Pews for all payments, fees, taxes,
insurance and escrow other than the regular monthly principal and interest of
$914.70 for seven months.

57
Yearly taxes and property insurance on the Pews property were approximately
$2608.28 and $600 respectively. The Pews had paid SOA for the 1989 taxes
though its payments and for all insurance SOA claimed was owed. In fact, in the
letter of 2/23/92 SOA states that the Pews were in fact owed a credit to their
account for almost $2000.00 for all the wrongful overcharges relating to forced
placed insurance. As such, this demand meant that SOA was attempting to
extort, at a minimum, over $15,000 from the Pews with threats of coercion, harm
and intimidation.

This extortionate demand is not only unconscionable but also usurious. There is
no conceivable way that SOA could lawfully or contractually justify this amount
as being owed by the Pews. Again, the Pews disputed these demands in letters,
faxes and phone calls to SOA such as included in Exhibit 43. Yet, SOA verified
the amounts demanded in the letter of 2/7/92 via phone and refused to accept any
payment from the Pews for less than what SOA claimed was owed. Such
verification came weeks and even months after the letter was sent and SOA
finally applied, although wrongfully, the payment of $6,874.81 on 2/4/92.

As such, due to the attempted extortion of the Pews by SOA, the Pews refused to
tender any more money to SOA until all amounts SOA demanded from them
were verified and accounted for. SOA failed and refused to do so as requested in
writing, faxes and phone calls to SOA by the Pews. I then instructed my family
to have all communication from SOA directed towards me so that I could address
the issues directly since the Pews were elderly, ill and disabled and did not have
sufficient legal knowledge to confront and challenge SOA.

SOA Account, Balance & Transaction Frauds

SOA intentionally refused to breakdown the numbers it demanded in demand

letters it issued to the Pews. It also intentionally refused to send the required
monthly loan coupons it agreed to send in writing prior to closing and in
subsequent verbal agreements reached over the phone with the Pews in an effort
to secure payment. It intentionally and continually sent doctored, altered,
fraudulent, misleading, conflicting and contradictory demands for payment, loan
histories, year-end summaries of account, delinquent notices, statements and
other documents with the intent to mislead, confuse and defraud the Pews and
extort unlawful sums of money from them.

On 2/21/92 SOA claims to have caused to be created and sent to the Pews a
document [Exhibit 44] that purported to be a corrected monthly escrow analysis
for escrow payments. This document claimed that the current monthly impound
payment that SOA claimed was due form the Pews was an astronomical $2602.28
per month. It claimed that the new monthly impound payment due from the
Pews would be $253.91. There is no evidence anywhere in any of SOA’s records
or in the reports of Ike Guest or David Smith that such an amount was ever
calculated as part of a the Pew's payment or credited or charged to their account.
In fact, the contrary is known.

58
The Pew's escrow account with SOA was, via the testimony of Lionel Antunes,
established by SOA in November of 1991. The terms of such an escrow
agreement were originally agreed upon between Marshall Emerson of SOA and I
as evidenced by Exhibit 38. Mr. Emerson claimed that SOA had made
numerous mistakes and that their insurance and tax departments were
overworked, understaffed and executed poorly and failed to timely make
payments from SOA customer’s escrow accounts. Furthermore, he admitted to
the wrongfully forced placed insurance policies placed on the Pew's property and
to the receipt and existence of the Pews requests to escrow their taxes and
insurance in early 1990.

He represented to me that after SOA’s research and investigation were complete

with regards to the Pew's taxes, insurance and escrow complaints, that SOA
would spread any shortages that existed over 18 months. Instead, after a four
year forensic review, analysis and reconciliation of SOA loan histories and the
documents sent to the Pews, it has been determined that Mr. Emerson’s
representation to the Pews that shortages would be carried out over 18 months
from the Pew's escrow account never occurred.

Instead, SOA did in fact deduct $2602.28 from the Pew's payment intended to go
toward the payment of principal and interest as was represented by SOA for the
payment of one year’s taxes. This $2,602.28 payment was attributable by SOA to
the monthly installment payment due for 11/10/91.

Furthermore, a forensic accounting of this letter recently completed by the Pews

determined that this letter attempted to extort from and defraud the Pews of over
$15,000! The accounting, based on the master transaction register provided by
SOA in production indicates that SOA demanded, misrepresented and attempted
to extort four [4] separate payments of $2,602.28 for taxes from the Pews for the
11/10/91 through 2/10/92 monthly payments due in addition to an amount of
$372.82 that was being charged to the Pew's account for the 10/10/91 payment
through 2/10/92 monthly payments.

The $372.82 was supposed to be the total amount of escrow charged by SOA to
the Pews on a monthly basis for 18 months due to SOA’s claimed mix-ups and
problems according to Mr. Emerson. Yet, it is Mr. Emerson himself who authors
and signs the 2/7/92 letter that attempts to defraud and extort unconscionable
sums of money from the Pews and goes back on the agreements reached with the
Pews and I on behalf of the Pews. This is further supported by the SOA’s
internal call notes which note many, but not nearly all, of the telephone
conversations between the Pews, SOA and I.

The call records as well as SOA’s master transaction register make reference to
some sort of placement and removal of a “payment plan” associated with the
$372.82 payments for taxes that were charged to the Pew's account.

In actuality, SOA and Mr. Emerson continued their pattern of fraud, deception,
deceit and extortion by representing one thing to the Pews and even documenting
the representation, then completely doing the opposite to intentionally harm and
defraud the Pews to the benefit of SOA.

59
Evidence of SOA’s attempt to extort money from the Pews and further defraud
them is found in the master transaction register of SOA [Exhibit 8] and the
numerous principal and interest adjustments as well as adjustments to the
impound account that were recorded, like musical chairs, from 8/2/91 through
9/9/92.

Review of SOA's master transaction register [Exhibit 8] reflects the following:

On 8/2/91 SOA processed a tax advance in the amount of $2,544.88 and charged
this amount to the Pew's account with repayment with interest in the amount of
$266.85 per month for ten [10] months starting with the 10/10/91 monthly
payment. This transaction was conducted during the period of the Pew’s disputes
with SOA over taxes and insurance. On 8/15/91 SOA sent via the U.S. Mail a
letter to the Pews [Exhibit 45]. This document was sent to the Pew's property
address and not their mailing address as reflected in SOA’s internal records.
This was the only notice the Pews received from SOA pertaining to this
particular transaction and the related repayment schedule.

On 8/19/91 SOA processed a tax advance in the amount of $1,016.35 and charged
this amount to the Pew's account with repayment with interest in the amount of
$105.97 per month for ten [10] months starting with the 10/10/91 monthly
payment that was added to the previous amount of $266.85 to give a total of
$372.82 payment for a total repayment of $3,561.23 plus interest in tax advances
made on 8/2/91 and 8/19/91 over ten months from 10/10/91 through 7/10/92
payments. SOA failed to send the Pews notice of this transaction or an increase
in their monthly payment or escrow account.

On 8/13/91 SOA processed a principal and interest adjustment transaction to the

Pew's account in the amount of $72.40 which increased the amount of the Pew's
payment for monthly principal and interest from $1,234.54 to $1,306.94 effective
with the 6/10/91 payment due. SOA intentionally refused and failed to send the
Pews notice of this transaction or notice of this increase in their monthly
payment as contractually obligated to.

On 8/22/91 SOA processed an impound adjustment transaction to the Pew's

account in the amount of $2,602.28 which increased the amount of the Pew's
payment for monthly impounds from $00.00 to $2,602.28 effective with the
11/10/91 payment due. SOA failed to send the Pews notice of this transaction or
notice of this increase in their monthly payment for escrow.

SOA did however send a letter dated 9/15/91 [Exhibit 46] in which SOA advises
the Pews that they are establishing an impound account and requiring the Pews
to have $2,602.28 in their impound account to cover the payment of taxes for the
monthly payment due 11/10/91. This letter however is a further attempt to
intentionally confuse, deceive and defraud the Pews and an attempt to extort
sums of money not contractually or legally obligated to be paid to SOA from the
Pews. This letter goes on to further misrepresent to the Pews that the escrow
account that is being established to pay their taxes would have a monthly
impound payment of $216.86.

60
SOA never once in the history of the Pew's loan ever processed an impound
transaction in the amount of $216.86 nor did any year-end escrow statement from
SOA or SOA document, coupon or record ever show that the amount of $216.86
was ever billed to the Pews for payment of escrow.

At this time, the Pews were disputing all amounts claimed to be owed by SOA.
The disputes included all charges, fees, taxes, insurance and insurance since the
Pews were not being provided with monthly statements or any documents which
listed and documented the various transactions occurring on the Pew's account.
The Pews also believed, which was later confirmed, that SOA was overcharging
them for charges and fees not owed to SOA as evidenced by SOA's letter of
1/23/92 [Exhibit 37].

On 9/5/91 SOA processed an impound payment transaction from the Pew's escrow
account in the amount of $2,602.28. The Pews were not notified on this
transaction until a year later when they received a year-end escrow statement
from SOA [Exhibit 47].

On 8/27/91 SOA again processed an impound adjustment transaction to the Pew's

account in the amount of $2,602.28 which supposedly increased the amount of
the Pew's payment for monthly impounds from $00.00 to $2,602.28 effective with
the 11/10/91 payment due. However, SOA had already processed such a
transaction on 8/22/91 and there is no corresponding transaction that subtracted
this transaction then charged it again. As such, the validity and authenticity of
the records of SOA is questionable and cannot be completely relied upon.

On 10/14/91 SOA processed a principal and interest adjustment transaction to

the Pew's account in the amount of $7.06 which increased the amount of the
Pew's payment for monthly principal and interest from $1,306.94 to $1,314.00
effective with the 7/10/91 payment due. SOA intentionally refused and failed to
send the Pews notice of this transaction or notice of this increase in their monthly
payment statement as contractually obligated to.

On 11/4/91 SOA processed a principal and interest adjustment transaction to the

Pew's account in the amount of $105.84 which reduced the amount of the Pew’s
payment for monthly principal and interest from $1,314.00 to $1,208.16 effective
with the 7/10/91 payment due. SOA intentionally refused and failed to send the
Pews notice of this transaction or notice of this decrease in their monthly
payment as contractually obligated to. Furthermore, this decrease in the
principal and interest charge was the result of an admitted overcharge by SOA
for forced placed insurance that SOA wrongfully placed upon the Pew's account.

As such, all demands and requests for payments, as well as payment

transactions, that included the $105.84 amount from 11/30/90 when the $105.84
principal and interest adjustment was first made through 11/4/91 when it was
removed were wrongful, deceptive, contractually not obligated for and in violation
of various state and Federal laws.

All documents mailed to the Pews during this time period via the U.S. mail
contained material misrepresentations of the amounts owed to SOA by the Pews
and/or a mischaracterization, misrepresentation and over-statement and demand
of the status of their debt.

61
In addition, SOA, EMC, Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual and their experts and
law firms, while having complete knowledge of this overcharge, have never in
eight years gone back and recalculated principal and interest adjustments and
credits to the principal balances of the Pew's account as of the date of each
overpayment. They have also ignored the crediting as well as associated
increases in late fees that SOA assessed and collected from the Pews resulting
from this overcharge.

This transaction was and has been intentionally and fraudulently concealed,
hidden, redacted and altered in the SOA loan histories provided to the Pews by
SOA as well as by EMC when the loan was assigned. Furthermore, both Ike
Guest and David Smith in their reports and affidavits in support of their reports
intentionally and fraudulently ignore, redact, omit, alter and conceal the
existence of this transaction in their schedules, reports and spreadsheets.

On 11/7/91 SOA processed a principal and interest adjustment transaction to the

Pew's account in the amount of $92.79 which reduced the amount of the Pew’s
payment for monthly principal and interest from $1,208.16 to $1,115.37 effective
with the 7/10/91 payment due. SOA intentionally refused and failed to send the
Pews notice of this transaction or notice of this decrease in their monthly
payment as contractually obligated to. Furthermore, this decrease in the
principal and interest charge was the result of an admitted overcharge by SOA
for forced placed insurance that SOA wrongfully and fraudulently placed upon
the Pew's account.

As such, demands and requests for payments, as well as payment transactions,

that included the $92.79 amount from 1/14/91 when the $92.79 principal and
interest adjustment was first made through 11/7/91 when it was removed were
wrongful, deceptive, contractually not obligated for and in violation of various
Florida state and Federal laws. All documents mailed to the Pews during this
time period via the U.S. mail contained material misrepresentations of the
amounts owed to SOA by the Pews. SOA and EMC never adjusted for such fees
or for the associated late fees charged to the Pew's account.

This transaction was and has been intentionally and fraudulently concealed,
hidden, redacted and altered in the SOA loan histories provided to the Pews by
SOA as well as by EMC when the loan was assigned. Furthermore, both Ike
Guest and David Smith in their reports and affidavits in support of their reports
intentionally and fraudulently ignore, redact, omit, alter and conceal the
existence of this transaction in their schedules, reports and spreadsheets.

On 12/17/91 SOA processed a principal and interest adjustment transaction to

the Pew's account in the amount of $200.67 which reduced the amount of the
Pew's payment for monthly principal and interest from $1,115.37 to $914.70
effective with the 8/10/91 payment due.

On 12/18/91 SOA processed an impound adjustment transaction to the Pew's

account in the amount of $00.10 which increased the amount of the Pew’s
payment for monthly impounds from $00.00 to $00.10 effective with the 8/10/91
payment due. SOA intentionally refused and failed to send the Pews notice of
this transaction or notice of this increase in their monthly payment as
contractually obligated to. Furthermore, it is inconceivable that such an amount

62
could ever be considered an impound amount for payment of any taxes or
insurance since it is so insignificant. Additionally, SOA was imposing an
increase in the impound payment of $2,602.18 on the same date. When the
$00.10 is added to the amount of $2,602.18 the result is $2,602.28 which SOA
adjusts and increases on 8/22/91 and 8/27/91 respectively.

There is no justifiable reason why this transaction appears again nor why $00.10
was deducted from the $2,602.28 in the first place other than to further confuse
and deceive the Pews.

On 12/18/91 SOA processed an impound adjustment transaction to the Pew’s

account in the amount of $2,602.18 which increased the amount of the Pew's
payment for monthly impounds from $00.00 to $2,602.18 effective with the
11/10/91 payment due.

On 1/10/92 SOA processed a principal and interest adjustment transaction to the

Pew's account in the amount of $372.82 which increased the amount of the Pew’s
payment for monthly principal and interest payments from $914.70 to $1,287.52
effective with the 10/10/91 payment due.

On 1/17/92 SOA processed a principal and interest adjustment transaction to the

Pew's account in the amount of $372.82 which decreased the amount of the Pew's
payment for monthly principal and interest payments from $1,287.52 to $914.70
effective with the 8/10/91 payment due.

On 1/21/92 SOA processed a principal and interest adjustment transaction to the

Pew's account in the amount of $372.82 which increased the amount of the Pew's
payment for monthly principal and interest payments from $914.70 to $1,287.52
effective with the 10/10/91 payment due.

On 1/28/92 SOA again processed an impound adjustment transaction to the Pew's

account in the amount of $2,602.28 which supposedly increased the amount of
the Pew's payment for monthly impounds from $00.00 to $2,602.28 effective with
the 11/10/91 payment due.

On 1/30/92 SOA processed a principal and interest adjustment transaction to the

Pew's account in the amount of $372.82 which decreased the amount of the Pew's
payment for monthly principal and interest payments from $1,287.52 to $914.70
effective with the 8/10/91 payment due.

On 1/30/92 SOA processed an impound adjustment transaction to the Pew's

account in the amount of $00.10 which increased the amount of the Pew's
payment for monthly impounds from $00.00 to $00.10 effective with the 8/10/91
payment due.

On 2/11/92 SOA processed a principal and interest adjustment transaction to the

Pew's account in the amount of $372.82 which increased the amount of the Pew's
payment for monthly principal and interest payments from $914.70 to $1,287.52
effective with the 10/10/91 payment due.

63
On 2/11/92 SOA again processed an impound adjustment transaction to the Pew's
account in the amount of $2,602.28 which supposedly increased the amount of
the Pew's payment for monthly impounds from $00.00 to $2,602.28 effective with
the 11/10/91 payment due.

On 2/20/92 SOA again processed an impound adjustment transaction to the Pew's

account in the amount of $2,348.40 which supposedly increased the amount of
the Pew’s payment for monthly impounds from $00.00 to $2,348.40 effective with
the 12/10/91 payment due.

However, the master transaction register and records of SOA indicates that this
transaction should have been a reduction instead of an increase as indicated by
the letter “N” next to the $2,348.40 transaction amount listed. This again proves
that SOA documents can be manually altered and transactions can be
fraudulently manipulated to provide amounts, figures, calculations and posting
dates that are contrary to the representations made. In fact, there is no way to
ascertain if these records are the actual records of SOA at the time in question or
were fraudulently recreated years later to hide the fraudulent transactions that
SOA conducted at the time.

To illustrate this point, when $2,348.40 is subtracted from the $2,602.28 a figure
of $253.88 is obtained which is the new monthly escrow payment that SOA was
charging the Pews. This is confirmed by the transaction that occurred on 3/26/92
when SOA, yet again, made another impound transaction in an amount of
$253.88. SOA claims that an increase from $00.00 to $253.88 occurred on this
date. However, again there are no corresponding transactions that reconcile and
balance these transactions out.

On 9/9/92 SOA processed a principal and interest adjustment transaction to the

Pew's account in the amount of $372.82 which decreased the amount of the Pew’s
payment for monthly principal and interest payments from $1,287.52 to $914.70
effective with the 12/10/91 payment due.

SOA knowingly, willfully and intentionally refused and failed to send the Pews
notice of any of the principal and interest and impound adjustment transactions
reflected above or notice of such increases or decreases in the Pew's monthly
payment statement as contractually obligated to.

These transaction were and continue to be knowingly, willfully, intentionally and

fraudulently concealed, hidden, redacted and altered in the SOA loan histories
provided to the Pews by SOA as well as EMC when the loan was assigned.
Furthermore, both Ike Guest and David Smith, in their reports and affidavits in
support of their reports to the District Court in Dallas Texas, did knowingly,
willfully, intentionally and fraudulently ignore, redact, omit, alter and/or conceal
the existence of these transactions in their schedules, reports, spreadsheets and
testimony.

EMC, SOA, Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual, David Smith, Ike Guest and their
agents and counsel are fully aware of these misrepresentations and frauds and
have actively participated in a conspiracy to prevent their clients from facing
testimony with regards to the various frauds and misrepresentations highlighted
in this report.

64
SOA claims that a $253.88 escrow adjustment and payment would begin on
12/10/91 and be for 12 months. EMC later used this same amount plus the
addition of $00.01 from an unexplained adjustment to claim escrow due for tax
and insurance escrow payments due SOA and EMC beginning in March of 1993
and ending with the February 1994 payment. However, SOA’s internal records
and correspondence sent to the Pews by SOA indicates that the actual escrow
payment was adjusted with an increase of $94.14 by SOA on 2/23/93 with that
made the monthly escrow payment for the next 12 months beginning with the
4/10/93 payment, including all applicable shortages for a total of $347.98.

This transaction as well was and has been knowingly, willfully, intentionally and
fraudulently concealed, hidden, redacted and altered in the SOA loan histories
provided to the Pews by SOA as well as EMC when the loan was assigned.
Furthermore, both Ike Guest and David Smith, in their reports and affidavits in
support of their reports to the District Court in Dallas Texas, did knowingly,
willfully, intentionally and fraudulently ignore, redact, omit, alter and/or conceal
the existence of this transaction in their schedules, reports, spreadsheets and
testimony.

EMC claims in its affidavits to the court, in documents produced to the Pews and
in testimony that the Pews owed SOA and then EMC the sum of $253.89 for
monthly escrow payments due SOA and EMC from 3/10/93 until 2/10/94.

In fact, both SOA and EMC had and continue to have knowledge of the actual
escrow amounts that were adjusted, charged, billed, credited, debited, placed and
made to the Pew's account as well as representations to the Pews. However, at
various times, it has been the position of EMC and their attorneys that an escrow
account did not exist. Yet, as shown by the overwhelming evidence attached as
Exhibit 48, there was an escrow account that was established by both SOA and
EMC. EMC, SOA, their experts, counsel and even Ike Guest wish to conceal the
transactions of the escrow account since such transactions misrepresented,
mischaracterize and intentionally over-calculated to deceive, defraud and extort
additional income and reserves of money from the Pews that they did not legally
owe.

Mr. Guest even goes so far as to testify that he had no assumptions or

information available him to determine escrow amounts due and that the deed of
trust and note, contrary to what is in the documents, did not provide for the
establishment of an escrow account. Mr. Guest colluded with EMC, SOA and
their experts and counsel to conceal and intentionally not examine the Pew's
escrow account so as to conceal and hide obvious fraud and misrepresentations.

65
SOA & EMC Predatory Inspection Fee Scheme

The Pews were never notified by SOA that property inspections were being
conducted on their property or that they were being charged for such inspections.
In fact, contrary to SOA's assertions, many of these inspections were actually
collection efforts by SOA.

SOA never informed the Pews that money was being directly diverted form the
Pew's payments without notice to pay for property inspections. In fact, SOA
intentionally concealed such inspections by referring to them as misc. advances
and legal fees in their loan histories.

David Smith and Ike Guest in their reports, even after having complete
knowledge of such property inspections being charged to the Pew's account as
evidenced by their notes and personal handwriting in Exhibit 49, intentionally
redact, hide and conceal these transactions in their reports to the courts and to
the Pews [Exhibits 21 and 29].

The following are some of the property inspection transactions that were charged
to the Pew's account by SOA:

On 4/12/91 SOA processed an advance in the amount of $8.50 with interest of

$00.08 for a total of $8.58 to be repaid in a term of one month effective with the
6/10/91 monthly payment due from the Pews.

On 5/16/91 SOA processed an advance in the amount of $8.50 with interest of

$00.08 for a total of $8.58 to be repaid in a term of one month effective with the
7/10/91 monthly payment due from the Pews.

On 10/14/91 SOA processed a principal and interest adjustment transaction to

the Pew's account in the amount of $7.06 which increased the amount of the
Pew's payment for monthly principal and interest payments from $1,306.94 to
$1,314.00 effective with the 7/10/91 payment due.

On 12/17/91 SOA processed a collection of an advance in the amount of $15.50

with interest of $00.13 for a total of $15.63 that be collected with the 7/10/91
monthly payment due from the Pews.

The Pews did not know that such an advance was for the repayment of wrongful
charges in the form of property inspection fees that the Pews and other SOA
customers were not obligated to pay. Both SOA and EMC knowingly, willfully
and intentionally misrepresented to the Pews and other SOA customers as legal
fees and misc. advances.

After the discovery of the fact that SOA and EMC conducted and charged for
such property inspections on the Pew's and other SOA and EMC customer’s
properties, EMC and SOA then knowingly, willfully and intentionally
misrepresented to the Pews and their attorneys the nature and reasons for such
inspections in deposition testimony.

66
SOA and EMC knowingly, willfully and intentionally misrepresented to the Pews
and continue to misrepresent to its customers that these inspections are to
protect and preserve the properties in question. In reality, both SOA and EMC
have used and continued to use property inspections as a method for collection of
a debt and notification to SOA and EMC customers of a debt. They even have
someone come to the door of customers to harass, alarm and annoy them in
violation of Federal and State consumer collection laws

Both SOA and EMC have knowingly, willfully, intentionally and fraudulently
concealed, hidden, redacted and altered the SOA loan histories provided to the
Pews by SOA as well as EMC when the loan was assigned that hid and
attempted to conceal the fact that the Pews did not owe such fees. Such fees were
never requested or demanded to be paid by SOA and SOA without notice did in
fact charge and collect such fees form the Pews from payments intended to reduce
the Pew's principal balance.

As such, all principal balances and representations of amounts due and

applications of principal and interest since the deduction and payment of the first
property inspection are incorrect and misstate the status of the Pew's account
with both SOA and EMC.

In further support of this fraud, both Ike Guest and David Smith, in their reports
and affidavits in support of their reports to the District Court in Dallas Texas,
did knowingly, willfully, intentionally and fraudulently ignore, redact, omit, alter
and/or conceal the existence of these inspection fee transactions in their
schedules, reports, spreadsheets and testimony when they had full and complete
knowledge of these fees.

This was done at the behest and request of EMC and SOA's counsel who knew
such fees posed a class action liability to both SOA and EMC.

SOA and EMC have knowingly, willfully and intentionally misrepresented

inspection fees to the Pews and other SOA and EMC customers as a legal fee or
misc. advance. SOA and EMC knew then as they know now that inspection fees
were wrongfully placed upon, charged and advanced to the Pew's account and
accounts of other SOA and EMC customers. These customers were not
contractually obligated to be charged for such fees. EMC and SOA, under the
liquidated damages provisions contained in the late fee clauses and sections of
their promissory notes, both availed themselves of any remedy.

Furthermore, common law prevails under a liquidated damages provision, when

the party attempting to collect the liquidated damages, which in this case were
EMC and SOA, are only allowed to obtain the actual amount of their liquidated
damages unless state or federal law supercedes and allows for a higher
percentage or formula as late fee compensations to banks, trusts, mortgage
servicers and other financial institutions.

Regardless, since EMC and SOA availed themselves of the liquidated damages
provision in assessing, demanding and collecting a late fee to serve as liquidated
damages for all expenses and damages relating to a payment by the Pews being
late, then were estopped from asserting an additional claim for so-called property
inspections as well as property inspections that were actually used as collection
methods and activities by EMC and SOA.

67
EMC's testimony was clear. EMC automatically orders a property inspection on
a monthly basis when a customer is delinquent with a payment. If the
inspections were for the real intention and use of property inspections [which is
the preservation of property, especially those properties located in , dangerous,
dilapidated and run down neighborhoods] then a “monthly” inspection of a
property in “good” condition and in a “good” neighborhood as referred to in
property inspection reports would appear to be rather redundant. EMC and SOA
property inspection documents clearly show that EMC and SOA use such
inspections as collection vehicles and devices.

SOA Fraudulent Document & Loan History Scheme

Many of the impound, principal and interest adjustments recorded on SOA’s

master transaction register do not correlate or reconcile with the immediate
preceding and succeeding adjustment transactions leading to the conclusion that
fraudulent and/or intentional altering of the document or the actual transactions
has occurred.

Furthermore, in the only loan histories ever sent to the Pews various fraudulent
representations and misrepresentations are made including:

(a) principal balances don't match;

(b) year-end and beginning balances don't match;
(c) supposed escrow transactions are not accounted for;
(d) payments and other transactions are omitted and excluded;
(e) year-to-life information is actually year-to-date information;
(f) and in the proof is in the pudding, computer entries on the original
documents that have never been provided are actually whited out and typed
over with a typewriter and do not match the actual master transaction
register of SOA.

Additionally, SOA's master transaction can not be relied upon since it does not
match other SOA records provided and certain balances do not correspond with
previous transactions.

SOA intentionally refused and failed to send the Pews notice of impound,
principal and interest adjustment transactions or notices of any increases in their
monthly payment statements as contractually obligated to. In fact, these
transactions were, and still to this date have, been knowingly, willfully,
intentionally and fraudulently concealed, hidden, redacted and altered in SOA
loan histories, expert’s reports, affidavits, spreadsheets and other documents
provided to the Pews by SOA as well as EMC.

Both Ike Guest and David Smith in their reports and affidavits in support of
their reports intentionally and fraudulently ignore, redact, omit, alter and/or
conceal the existence of these transactions in their schedules, reports and
spreadsheets.

68
The deception and fraud perpetuated on the Pews was even more significant
when agents, representatives and employees of SOA and EMC verified and
validated the amounts, charges and extortionate demands to the Pews and I from
January of 1992 through July of 1993. Throughout this time, SOA misapplied
payments intended toward the payment of principal and interest to excessive tax
escrow payments, late fees, inspection fees, force placed insurance advances,
appraisal fees, tax penalties and other charges not approved, accepted or agreed
to by the Pews.

SOA continued its pattern of fraud and deception with the Pews by not
addressing, answering, or responding to their verbal, written, certified and
verified disputes, complaints, questions, requests and the needs of the Pews
regarding amounts claimed to be due and owing, late fees, escrow payments,
taxes, insurance, misc. fees, statements and the other duties and obligations of
SOA.

SOA then went to the extent of attempting to foreclose on the Pew's property if
they did not pay the extortionate demands and claims for payment exerted by
SOA and it’s employees. The Pews and I again issued letters, faxes and verbal
complaints and disputes to SOA with no response except to threaten foreclose
and the ruin of the Pew’s credit and businesses if their extortion demands were
not paid. In the face of such threats, the Pews did again pay SOA the sum of
$15,708.66 to stop the unlawful attempt to foreclose on the Pew's property on
8/27/92.

This is evidenced by Exhibit 50 but not credited to the Pew's account until the
date processed date of 9/2/92 and date received date of 9/1/92 even though SOA
received this payment on the 27th. Furthermore, Karen Turner in her own notes
in Exhibit 50 states that such payments would be credited toward the Pew's
payment by 9/3/92. The amount paid by the Pews is almost $10,000.00 more
than what the auditor claims the Pews owed at the time.

SOA Violation Of Loan Agreements & Delayed Payments

According to SOA's Master Transaction Register [Exhibit 8], SOA against the
terms of the Pew's note and against Ms. Turner's representations to the Pews
referenced in her own notes did not credit any of the Pew's payment to any
monthly payments due until 10/23/92.

Instead, against the terms of the note, SOA first processed a 052 transaction on
9/9/92 for the payment of a tax advance and on the same date did make another
052 transaction in the amount of $1,437.00 for the payment of disputed force
place insurance SOA had ordered on the Pew's property and charged their
account for.

In an incredulous transaction that is not even documented in SOA's Master

Transaction Register [Exhibit 8], SOA takes $275.00 out of the Pew's account on
10/19/92 for a 041 transaction unapplied debit that actually was for the payment
of an appraisal fee that the Pews were not obligated for and was against the
terms of the Pew's note.

69
This was validated by the testimony of EMC's corporate representative. SOA
concealed this transaction from the Pews and they were never informed of this
transaction until a few years after litigation.

On 10/23/92 SOA processed a 038 transaction in the amount of $814.31 for the
collection of late charges the Pews were disputing since the Pews had refused to
pay SOA their previous extortionate demands and SOA refused to accept
payment from the Pews of what the Pews had calculated their obligation to be.
In addition to this transaction, SOA also processed a 039 transaction for
collection of a $10.00 service fee.

All of these transactions after the $15,708.66 payment by the Pews on 8/27/92
were made prior to any application of this payment to the Pew's account for the
payment of principal and interest payments as called for in the Pew's promissory
note.

Again, SOA provided misleading, deceptive, fraudulent and contradictory

responses via the U.S. Mail and telephone in an attempt to defraud the Pews and
secure more money than was legally obligated to be paid to SOA. The Pew's
continued their disputes when they received SOA document 51 dated 8/26/92 that
was supposed to detail how the Pew's account would be credited with the money
that was being sent.

SOA Fraudulent "Accounting" Of Pew's Loan

The Pews disputed all fees and amounts claimed by SOA in excess of what was
owed for actual principal and interest payment, taxes minus penalties, insurance
at the Pew's previous insurer’s rate. They also said they would not pay SOA any
attorney fees since the Pews had at all times offered to pay the “rightful”
amounts owed if SOA could support those figures. This was done after the Pews
received confirmation in January of 1992 that SOA had indeed been overcharging
them and which response was still not sufficient to respond to the Pews disputes
and complaints.

At the same time the Pews are still in dispute with SOA, SOA issues an
extortionate demand of $18,633.67 that attempted to extort over $15,000.00 from
the Pews. SOA still had not answered any of the tax, late fee, other fee, payment
amount questions, complaints or disputes the Pews made.

In fact, they had provided further misleading, deceptive and false statements
while still failing and refusing to send the Pews “any” monthly statements at all
or an accurate accounting of their account or responses to their many disputes in
writing and phone calls. This is evidenced by Anthony Pew's affidavit and the
exhibits attached as Exhibit 5.

The Pews had proof that SOA was overcharging them for over a year when SOA
admitted this in their letter of January 23, 1992 [Exhibit 37] which clearly
shows that the Pews disputes and claims for over a year were valid. As such,
after receiving the extortionate demand of 2/7/92, I instructed my family not to
remit any more funds to SOA until they provided a complete and accurate
accounting of the Pew's account.

70
The Pews and I also informed SOA this and instructed them in writing and by
phone to send proof for such demands and copies of all checks for taxes and
insurance they claimed to have paid. SOA also claimed that the amounts in the
letter of 2/7/92 were accurate and valid and they claimed the majority of such
amounts were for back taxes and insurance. SOA never, and still to this date has
never provided support and documentation for the amounts claimed to be owed in
the 2/7/92 letter. SOA has also never once in ten years addressed or responded in
any letter or response except the 1/27/92 letter any of the Pews complaints and
disputes.

The Pews continued their disputes and complaints to SOA and never stopped
disputing the amounts claimed to be owed by SOA and demanding strict proof
thereof. Also, the Pews tendered amounts to SOA that were returned or refused
to be accepted at branch offices for payment.

As such, SOA basically estopped the Pews from making any payments on the
Pew's account and breached their agreements, commitments and contracts with
the Pews.

On 4/3/92 SOA sent yet another demand letter [Exhibit 52] to the Pews in which
the letter demanded payment of $7,950.36 for payments due from 12/10/91
through 4/10/92 and $6,332.31 demanded for payments due from 12/10/91
through 4/10/92.

Again, this document attempts to extort money from the Pews not owed and
conceals the fact that $485.01 is being held in an unapplied account and has not
been paid or credited toward the Pew's account even though such money was
received on 2/4/92 over two months earlier.

Representatives of SOA refused to send the Pews a detailed written accounting,

breakdown and detail of how such amounts were calculated to be due and owing,.
They also refused to provide the Pews the monthly payment statements and
account activity that the Pews had requested for years and Ms. Turner agreed to
send.

To this date, SOA has refused to provide such a detail accounting on how the
amounts claimed due in this letter were derived or calculated. In deposition
testimony SOA claims not to know how such figures were arrived at and also
claims that the Pews could ascertain such calculations and details from the
internal records of SOA and EMC that were produced. However, such documents
intentionally were not identified so as to continue to mislead, confuse and
defraud the Pews and divert them away from SOA’s fraudulent actions.

On or about 8/20/92 the Pews again contacted SOA and informed them they were
disputing all amounts claimed to be owed since SOA had not provided the Pews
any monthly statements or the documentation for the amount of money SOA
claimed was due and owing. Specifically, the Pews disputed amounts for taxes
and insurance payments and escrow since they had not received any verification
on such transactions as previously requested from SOA on dozens of occasions.

71
Between 8/20/92 and 8/25/93 I sent SOA numerous letters and faxes disputing
the amounts claimed by SOA and requesting an accounting on the Pew's account
as well as monthly statements. During this same time, the Pews and I held
several conversations with SOA employees and was given contradicting
information about amounts due for taxes, insurance and payments being claimed
due by SOA. SOA threatened to go ahead and foreclose on the Pew's property
unless they paid SOA the money they were claiming to be owed by SOA only via
a phone call without the support documentation or verification requested.

I vehemently disputed such amounts and demanded in phone calls, letters and
faxes to SOA written verification and breakouts of the amounts claimed to be
owed and due to SOA.

I held several conversations with SOA and after lengthy discussions with the
Pews did reluctantly, under protest and duress and under threat and
intimidation by SOA of extortionate demands did allow my family to pay SOA on
8/27/92 the sum of $15,708.66. This payment was intended by the Pews to pay
all principal and interest due and taxes but not insurance, late fees, or any other
fees.

In an 8/26/92 fax to the Pews attached as Exhibit 51, SOA did knowingly deceive
and defraud the Pews despite knowing of their complaints and disputes. In this
fax, sent to the Pews over U.S. phone lines, SOA did misrepresented that their
monthly installment payments due for 4/10/92 and 5/10/92 were $1,205.65 when
in fact such payments due were $1,168.58 for the 4/10/92 and 5/10/92 payments
due. SOA knowingly, willfully and intentionally, in an effort to deceive, defraud
and extort money from the Pews that they were not legally obligated for, did
demand payment of this amount in order for the Pews to avoid repossession of
their property.

The fax sent to the Pews by SOA did knowingly, willfully and intentionally
misrepresent that their monthly installment payments due from 6/10/92 through
8/10/92 were $1,137.05 when in fact such payments due were $1,099.98 for
6/10/92 through 8/10/92 payments due.

SOA also failed to represent to the Pews in this fax that they would charge
$275.00 for a wrongful appraisal fee to their property which SOA did on 10/19/92.
On 10/19/92 SOA took $275.00 from the Pew's account for the payment of an
unauthorized appraisal on their property. They took this money from the Pew's
unapplied balance without detailing where this money was diverted to in their
records or any other documents sent to the Pews prior to litigation.

Furthermore, this payment was in violation of the Pew's note which directed the
application of all payments received by SOA to be paid toward monthly principal
and interest payments due first and then to other amounts.

Also, Karen Turner of SOA informed me that all money received would be paid
toward the payment of principal and interest payments by the first week of
September and the Pews would then receive a monthly payment statement from
SOA.

72
In an effort to conceal SOA’s fraud from the Pews, this transaction was
misrepresented to the Pews as a reduction in escrow and later as a reduction in
the Pew's unapplied balance with no corresponding support in SOA’s documents
sent to the Pews or in SOA’s master transaction register to show how the $275.00
was spent until production in litigation many years later.

On 8/27/92, the Pews did deliver to SOA a certified check in the amount of
$15,708.66 under protest, duress and dispute as evidenced by Exhibit 50. As
evidenced by SOA’s own internal notes [Exhibit 53] me, on the same date and on
behalf of the Pews, did protest, complain and dispute the amount of payment
demanded and extorted by SOA.

SOA informed the Pews that this amount would be the total reinstatement of
their account and that such funds would be credited to their account upon
receipt. SOA also said that the Pews would receive monthly payment
statements, a complete accounting of their account and a complete investigation
and review of their complaints and disputes as well as a written response to such
complaints and disputes.

SOA never followed up on the Pew's complaints and disputes and did not send
the Pews their monthly payment statements, a complete accounting of their
account nor a written response responding to their disputes as represented.

In contrast, SOA did deceive and defraud the Pews to their detriment via a
number of additional fraudulent schemes and deceptive practices. These
fraudulent schemes and deceptive practices included delaying the credit of and
diverting, misapplying, and taking money extorted by SOA from the Pews and
paid by the Pews.

While SOA accepted the payment from the Pews on 8/27/92, the payment was
received by SOA’s Karen Turner on 9/1/92 and not credited until 9/2/92. SOA’s
Karen Turner in her own internal notes [Exhibit 53] states that such payments
were to be applied to the Pew's monthly payments and account by 9/3/92 which
SOA knowingly, willfully and intentionally did not intend nor do in a further
effort to deceive and defraud the Pews.

These actions were done by SOA with the intent to assess and collect additional
fee income to the Pew's detriment and use their money to SOA’s benefit. In
essence, SOA gave itself an interest free loan and in effect increasing SOA’s cash
balances, reserves, liquidity and accounts at a time when SOA was in financial
distress.

SOA financially benefited by not applying the $385.62 on a timely basis to the
Pew's payments and reducing the Pew's principal balance. This increased the
amount of money that was applied to the payment of interest and reduced the
amount of money applied to principal on the Pew's account for the 9/10/90
through 12/10/90 payments due SOA.

73
SOA Fraudulent Charges & Fees Placed On Accounts

As such, SOA knowingly, willfully and intentionally sent the letters of 12/15/92
and 12/18/92 [Exhibit 54 and 55] to the Pews via U.S. mail with the knowledge
that they were attempting to collect money from the Pews that they did not owe.
These letters did not reflect the wrongful charges of SOA for the $275.00
appraisal fee that was not owed by the Pews as well as the additional $385.62
that was taken from the Pew's account and not accounted for.

EMC's own corporate rep acknowledged in a deposition that this charge was
wrong and was not allowed to be charged to the Pew's account. To date, neither
SOA nor EMC has credited the Pew's account or changed their affidavits and
reports filed with the District Court in Dallas. Both SOA and EMC and their
attorneys and experts had and have complete knowledge of these facts and have
made, sponsored and supported perjured testimony and affidavits to the direct
detriment of the Pews and I.

According to SOA's master transaction register, as of 10/23/92, The late fee

balance claimed to be owed on the Pews account was $0.00 and all claimed late
fees assessed paid through the 8/10/92 installment payment. The principal and
interest payment due to SOA for the 9/10/92,10/10/92, 11/10/92 and 12/10/92
monthly installment for principal and interest was $846.10 as reflected on SOA’s
master transaction register.

The monthly escrow payment claimed to be due for this same time frame from
9/10/92 through 12/10/92 was $253.88 for a total monthly payment due of
$1,099.98 per month.

The monthly late fee that SOA assessed for the 9/10/92 through 12/10/92
payments was $50.77 which is 6% of the $846.10 monthly principal and interest
payment. On 12/15/92 SOA sent to the Pews via the U.S. mail a Notice of
Foreclosure as attached as Exhibit 56. In this letter, SOA claims the Pews are
in default even though SOA had not sent the Pews a monthly payment statement
or breakout of amounts claimed to be due as agreed to by SOA’s Karen Turner.
This letter again was an attempt by SOA to extort money from the Pews and
threaten theft of their property as well as the ruin of their credit unless the Pews
paid SOA the amount of $4,461.29.

The auditor claims in his report that the Pews were actually owed $572.47 as of
this date and SOA has testified that the Auditor's report reflects the amounts due
to SOA by the Pews.

However, as we now know, in addition to the thousands of dollars that SOA

diverted, misapplied and overcharged the Pews, this amount was still yet another
attempt to extort money from the Pews that was not owed. As of this date, SOA
was holding $90.94 in the Pew's unapplied/suspense account as indicated in
SOA’s master transaction register and its letter to the Pews of 12/18/92 [Exhibit
55].

74
SOA does not account to the Pews for $275.00 which it charged the Pews for an
appraisal that was not allowed to be charged to their account and does not
account at all for $385.62 that mysteriously disappeared from the Pew's account
and was unaccounted for in any of SOA’s records produced to the Pews from
10/23/92 when SOA withdrew $11,521.34 from money then held in the Pew's
unapplied/suspense account until 3/10/93 when the missing $385.62 mysteriously
reappears as a reduction in principal transaction on SOA's master transaction
register.

SOA claims in the auditor’s report and in correspondence to its expert that this
figure was for the payment of attorney fees. SOA’s Karen Turner represented to
the Pews that they would not charge the Pews any attorney fees if they remitted
the extortionate demand of $15,708.66 since the Pews had been and were still
disputing all amounts SOA claimed to be owed. SOA informed me that there was
some form of mix-up with the taxes that SOA was working on resolving. The
foreclosure never went ahead since the Pews tendered, under duress and protest
$15,708.66 at the Boca SOA branch 343 on 8/27/92

SOA informed the Pews this payment would be applied immediately to their
account so as not to cause any additional late fees to be assessed to their account.
SOA also insured the Pews that they would send the Pews a monthly payment
statement as well as an accounting for all of the money tendered.

According to SOA's master transaction register [Exhibit 8] SOA, against terms

of the Pew's promissory note and representations to the Pews, took the $275.00
for an appraisal fee on 10/19/92 before applying any applications of the Pew's
$15,708.66 payment toward the payment of the Pew's monthly installment which
was finally done on 10/23/92. On 12/10/92 SOA assessed a property inspection
fee of $7.00 effective with the 1/10/93 monthly payment. SOA also assessed
$00.05 in interest for such fee.

SOA's Refusal To Document & Adjust Accounts

The Pews continued to complain to SOA and dispute the amounts claimed to be
owed by SOA until SOA provided the Pews with a verified accounting of what
they claimed money was owed for and how that money was being applied. As
such, after phone calls by SOA employees threatening foreclosure and the ruin of
the Pew's credit if payment was not made, the Pews again under duress, protest
and intimidation did once again succumb to the extortionate demands for
payment by SOA.

As such, for years, SOA refused to act upon the disputes and complaints of the
Pews. Under threats and intimidation, the Pews were forced, intimidated and
coerced into sending in the payments demanded by SOA. Yet, time and time
again, SOA intentionally, willfully and fraudulently made false and fraudulent
representations to the Pews. SOA never would honor its agreements to send the
Pews a proper accounting of the Pew's account or the monthly payment
statements they agreed to provide.

75
Such acts were an intentional attempt and scheme to collect money from the
Pews that they were disputing. SOA knew that such sums were not owed. This
pattern of conduct was also carried out against other SOA customers as well.

SOA continues its pattern of deception, fraud and extortion when on 3/10/93 it
issues another demand letter to the Pews [Exhibit 57] claiming that they were
in default of their loan. SOA sill had not responded to the Pew's complaints and
a full and complete accounting of their loan. In this letter, SOA demands a
payment of $3,417.47 for the Pew's alleged delinquency. An examination of
SOA’s master transaction register clearly shows that as of 3/10/93 the only
payments that the Pews could possibly be delinquent on were the 1/10/93 and
2/10/93 payments since they were paid though the 12/10/93 payment installment
on their account.

However, in its demand, SOA assumes that the Pews are delinquent with their
3/10/93 monthly payment when the payment isn’t even due till that day and SOA
has no knowledge if the Pews had or had not made such payment when this
letter was drafted.

Based on SOA’s master transaction register, the payment demanded by SOA in

this letter of $3,417.47 is composed of a payment of $846.10 for the amounts of
regular monthly principal and interest due for payments due on 1/10/93, 2/10/93
and 3/10/93; an amount of $15.00 for inspection fees improperly assessed to the
Pew's account for the 1/10/93 payment; $00.09 in interest improperly assessed to
the Pew's account related to the $15.00 inspection fees for the 1/10/93 payment;
$253.88 in escrow payments for taxes related to the payments due on 1/10/93,
2/10/93 and 3/10/93; $51.67 for a late fee assessment related to the 1/10/91
monthly payment where SOA is charging the 6% late fee on the $15.09 in
inspection fees and interest as well as $50.77 for the late fee SOA assessed for
the 2/10/93 payment due.

Yet again, SOA claims the Pews are delinquent in advance of any real knowledge
that the Pews had not made a payment on 2/10/93. SOA is declaring a payment
due in advance of any real knowledge that the payment is due since the due date
of the Pew's payment is the 10th of each month.

76
SOA Advance Late Fee Collection Scheme

SOA in the 3rd paragraph of this letter then goes on to demand and claim that if
the Pews did not make payment to SOA by 3/10/93 which is the exact same date
of this letter they would owe of $3,468.24.

When you subtract $3,468.24 from the $3,417.47 claimed in this letter to be owed
as of the same date you receive a remaining amount of $50.77. $50.77 is the
exact amount that is associated with a 6% late fee [or charge as SOA sometimes
refers to it] associated with the $846.10 monthly installment due on 3/10/93.
Even if the Pews were not disputing their account and late fees and even if they
were ever late on a payment, the Pews could not be late until the 15th day after
10th when their payment was due on a monthly basis. This would make the late
fee assessment date the 25th of each month. This is again conclusive proof of
SOA’s fraudulent and deceptive schemes to charge the Pews and other SOA
customers a late fee 15 days in advance of such late fee even being due, let alone
the regular payment due on the same date of 3/10/93.

This fraudulent scheme is further proved up by internal documents and records

of SOA which are titled “Foreclosure Checklists” [Exhibit 58] and which clearly
prove this fraudulent scheme. At the bottom of these two documents there is a
heading labeled “Summary of Collection Efforts” where to the immediate bottom
right of this heading you see printed “Overpaid LC or Unapplied n/a.” The
“Overpaid LC” portion of this statement is meant to mean Overpaid Late
Charges. It is inconceivable to contemplate how any customer could ever overpay
a late charge unless the late charge was overly assessed, demanded and paid or
was assessed, demanded and paid in advance of its actual due date.

Such demands constitute demands for interest and excess interest than the law
provides when calculated on an annual basis. SOA knowingly, willfully and
intentionally created and carried out this fraudulent scheme.

Furthermore, the letter of 3/10/93 refers to another installment being due which
directly implies a monthly payment installment. In an effort to further confuse
the Pews, despite their many complaints, SOA intentionally represents that their
monthly installment due for 3/10/93 is $50.77 when in fact it is actually a late
charge that couldn’t be owed or assessed until March 25, 1993.

On or about March of 1993, a gentleman named Terry Carr of SOA contacted the
Pews again about payments that the Pews were disputing. Mr. Carr tried to
explain over the phone what SOA claimed was owed, but the Pews or I could not
understand where Mr. Carr arrived at his figures and they continued to dispute
the amounts claimed owed by Mr. Carr and SOA.

77
SOA Fraudulent Scheme Of Hiding Loan Transactions

Mr. Carr then agreed to provide the Pews a transaction history of their account
from inception of the loan to the present for the $20.00 they had paid [Exhibit
59] that would detail each and every charge, credit, debit, payment and fee
assessed to the Pew's account. Mr. Carr did then go on to prepare a transaction
history [Exhibit 60] that was knowingly, willfully and intentionally created by
SOA to further defraud the Pews and conceal and hide SOA’s continuous fraud
and abuse on their account.

SOA sent the Pews fraudulent, misrepresentative, misleading and redacted loan
account and transaction histories that intentionally hid unauthorized,
fraudulent, deceptive, prohibited, and wrongful charges including inspection fees,
interest charged for inspection fees, an appraisal fee, money not applied to
account that disappears from their account and other related fees and expense.

The SOA transaction history “SOA/Carr Transaction History” [Exhibit 60] was
prepared and sent to the Pews by Mr. Carr on 5/19/93. This document alone,
after dozens of disputes and complaints by the Pews I further deceives, defrauds,
misleads and confuses the Pews. The loan history prepared by SOA and Mr. Carr
to "clarify" and "explain" their account did exclude, omit, and/or misclassify
escrow transactions, unapplied credits and debits, late fees, insurance advances,
tax advances, tax payments, escrow payments, deferred interest charged and
other transactions in cumulative total of approximately $20,000.00.

This is supported by the affidavit attached as Exhibit 61 and the exhibits

attached to this affidavit.

SOA in the transaction history Mr. Carr sent to the Pews via the U.S. mail, in an
effort to cover-up their previous fraudulent and wrongful action, did also
knowingly, willfully and intentionally omit or hide 038 late fee transactions on
the Pew’s account. This included a $113.20 late fee collected 038 transaction on
11/30/90 that was knowingly, willfully and intentionally reflected as a credit to
principal transaction on the SOA transaction history Mr. Carr sent to the Pews.

The SOA transaction history Mr. Carr sent to the Pews also omitted a 038 late
fee collected transaction in the amount of $814.31. EMC and it’s expert, David
Smith, had full and complete knowledge of these transactions and did also
knowingly, willfully and intentionally misrepresent, deceive and defraud the
Pews and conceal the fraudulent, deceptive and wrongful actions of SOA.

On 4/12/93 SOA sent via the U.S. mail a document titled Adjustable Rate
Mortgage Notification [Exhibit 62] that knowingly, willfully and intentionally
misrepresented, deceived and attempted to defraud the Pews by collecting more
money that they were legally obligated to. In this document, SOA claims that the
Pew's monthly payment beginning on 6/10/93 would be $1,468.38. Yet, SOA’s
letter to the Pews of 6/30/93 [Exhibit 63] indicates that the payment due SOA
for the 6/10/93 monthly installment was $1,444,73. The difference of such
payments is $23.65.

78
During this time SOA continued to knowingly, willfully and intentionally refuse
to send the Pews monthly payment statements as agreed upon. Except for the
monthly payment statements originally sent, the fraudulent demand letters and
requests over the phone, SOA’s only notice to the Pews of their monthly payment
was the annual adjustable rate notification that SOA sent the Pews.

SOA represents in paragraph 2 of the Pew's promissory note [Exhibit 2] that the
amount of their monthly payment would be adjusted on June the 10th of each
year and such adjustment would not increase or decrease by more than 7.5% of
the previous monthly payment for principal and interest. SOA also confirmed to
the Pews via the telephone that their new monthly payment beginning on 6/10/93
would be $1,468.38 per month till June of 1994.

The representation made to the Pews in this notification was knowingly made to
deceive and defraud the Pews and extort from the Pews money not owed and
amounts not due. Based upon the internal records, documents and “SOA Master
Transaction Register” it is now known that the monthly payment of $1,468.38
that SOA represented to the Pews was composed of the following: $782.64 for
regular monthly principal and interest payments; $314.07 for an insurance
advance; $278.35 for monthly escrow payments for taxes; $69.67 for monthly
escrow shortage payments; and $23.65 for inspection fees.

To illustrate the extent of SOA’s fraud and deception, the $23.65 in wrongfully
charged inspection fees, even if rightfully owed, were only the total of $23.65 that
was wrongfully assessed by SOA to be paid for an effective term of one month for
the payment due 1/10/93. As such, any inclusion of this amount is an over-
demand and fraudulent attempt to extort money not owed by the Pews to SOA.
Such over-demand for twelve months would amount to $283.80.

Furthermore, the $314.07 charge for the wrongfully ordered force placed
insurance was to be repaid for a period of only three months beginning with the
April 10, 1993 payment and ending with the June 10, 1993 payment. As such,
this amount should not be included as a part of the monthly payment and even if
it were a valid charge, it would only be attributable to the 6/10/93 payment alone.
As such, SOA knowingly, willfully and intentionally misrepresents to the Pews
that they owe $314.07 for eleven [11] months which would total an over demand
for payment of $3454.77 from 7/10/93 through 5/10/94.

SOA also demands payment for an escrow shortage of $69.67 that was not owed
because SOA had previously and knowingly, willfully and intentionally delayed
the credits of the Pew's payments to not reflect a payment to escrow when the
escrow analysis was being conducted so as to fraudulently inflate their monthly
escrow payment for a shortage not owed that was actually a surplus if SOA had
timely credited the account.

As such, SOA knowingly, willfully and intentionally attempted to defraud and

extort from the Pews additional payments of $69.67 for 12 months which were
not owed or legally obligated for and totaled an over-demand of $836.04.

The Pews still continued their disputes, questions and complaints during this
time period. Mr. Carr had several conversations with me during this time period.
However, the SOA transaction history Mr. Carr sent to the Pews was still

79
misleading as that I could not decipher the insurance, tax, and escrow
transactions. As such, the Pews disputed amounts owed for tax and insurance
transactions until documentation in the form of cancelled checks, bills, vouchers
and the similar documents would be provided to the Pews to verify all tax and
insurance payments and credits on their account. I also demanded that my
family’s credit be fixed due to the damage it was doing to our family business as
well as a removal of all late fees since the inception of the Pew's loan since it was
SOA’s mistakes that caused such problems.

These disputes were not only made my phone calls with SOA but followed up in a
letter from the me to Terry Carr of SOA dated 6/21/93 [Exhibit 64]. In less than
seven days SOA responded to the Pews with another extortionate demand letter
dated 6/30/93 [Exhibit 63] SOA didn’t even attempt to respond to the Pew’s or
my complaints, disputes and requests. Instead, they made another demand and
extortionate threat instead of properly responding according to the Pew’s
complaints and disputes.

The agreements reached between Terry Carr of SOA and I on behalf of the Pews
is supported by SOA’s own internal records and call reports [Exhibit 13]. On
7/27/93 Mr. Carr calls the Pews and asks if they have received the “tax and
insurance info” and Anthony Pew responds that he’s not sure since Mr. Lavalle
takes care of his account and resides at the property. I instructed the Pews not to
take any phone calls from SOA to in order to avoid the harassment, threats and
intimidation of SOA and its employees.

He told them to always have SOA employees call him that he was responsible for
approving any payments and for taking care of all disputes. This is supported by
Mr. Carr’s own notes.

A careful review of both the Pews and SOA’s production in the Pew's litigation
shows that SOA never sent the Pews any documents or response to their disputes
as they had failed to do on every other occasion, except one, before. In fact,
instead of a response to their disputes, the Pews received their check back
returned not cashed and another threat. Mr. Carr make a notation in his call
records on 6/30/93 [Exhibit 13] that he has received the important insurance
information that the Pews were requesting. He writes in this report “I will note
account with this info but borrower needs to be sent this information.” “She
stated she will have Dave send this.” The Pews never received any of this
information.

On 6/14/93 [Exhibit 13] Carr writes that the Pews are disputing taxes and
insurance and that they wanted to buy their own insurance but SOA hadn’t
provided them with information necessary to do so. Mr. Carr notes that on
6/23/93 he received a fax from borrower disputing taxes and insurance. His notes
states that the Pews would send $5,013.17 to cover principal and interest
payments only. Also, Mr. Carr’s notation states “he will not pay insurance and
taxes until he gets information from each department as to what time frame they
are charging him.” On 6/23/93 [Exhibit 13] Mr. Carr also notes “gave copy of fax
to Roffi in Tax department who in turn gave it to Ingrid for response.”

An additional matter that Mr. Carr agreed, on behalf of SOA to do for the Pews,
was to supply and send to the Pews the policy # of the current force placed
insurance policy SOA had placed so that they could secure their own insurance.

80
The Pews had attempted to secure this information from SOA before, yet SOA
gave conflicting information that prevented the Pews from obtaining their own
adequate coverage at a reasonable price. Each agency would request from the
Pews the policy number of the current insurance policy in effect.

Mr. Carr agreed to do all these things except remove all late charges without
discussing that with management. He also said that sending in the $5,013.00 for
a “total reinstatement” would go a long way toward getting the Pews satisfaction
on their disputes and showing good faith on the Pew's behalf. However, SOA’s
actions would be their last hurrah before allegedly selling away the servicing
rights and loans to Bear Stearns and EMC.

SOA & EMC "Alleged" Sale Of "Servicing" Rights

Such sale took place on or about July 19 of 1993. However, according to the Sales
& Servicing Agreements [Exhibit 27] between SOA, California Loan Partners
and EMC, SOA was to service the loans under EMC's direction until the service
transfer date which took place on or about 9/1/93 on the Pew's loan according to
EMC's and SOA’s representatives.

As evidenced by SOA’s own internal documents including the “SOA Call Notes as
well an “SOA Internal Memo” dated 6/23/93 [Exhibit 65] from Dave Evans to
Terry Carr, SOA was supposed to provide the Pews in writing the policy number
of the forced placed policy they had ordered and charged the Pew's account for.

This memo clearly states in what is believed to be Terry Carr’s handwriting

“spoke to ins dept will send information to borrower,” which SOA never did and
can be proved by SOA’s only response which is their letter of 6/30/93 to the Pews
in which no response at all or reference to any of the Pew's complaints or disputes
are even addressed.

The letter does not address the promises and agreements made by Mr. Carr
including the sending of the policy numbers and documentation for all tax,
insurance and escrow payments by the Pews and SOA.

SOA from the date of the Pews complaint of 6/23/93 through even toady’s date
seven years later, SOA has never responded to the Pew's complaints or disputes
at all, let alone the time limitation of 60 days imposed by RESPA.

Immediately, preceding their transfer of service to EMC in September of 1993,

SOA knowingly, willfully and intentionally caused the cancellation of the forced
ordered insurance policy it had placed on the Pew's property without warning or
notice and without previously providing the Pews the policy # of such policy, as
agreed, so that they could obtain their own insurance month’s earlier.

To leave the Pews and their property without insurance demonstrates a complete
lack of controls and willful disregard for the property rights of the Pews. SOA
also cancelled the policies of other SOA customers whose loans were being sold to
EMC.

81
After six years of investigation and litigation the following is known:

(a) SOA as a pattern of purpose, practice, policy and procedure did, with the
intent to deceive, defraud, mislead and confuse the Pews and other SOA
customers, maliciously and intentionally refuse to send the Pews monthly
payment statements, as agreed to with the Pews in their loan agreements
with SOA, so as to intentionally prevent the Pews and other SOA customers
from identifying, discovering and disputing the existence of fraudulent,
deceptive and prohibited charges to their account;

(b) SOA as a pattern of purpose, practice, policy and procedure did, with the
intent to defraud, the Pews and other SOA customers, intentionally and
fraudulently increase interest and fee revenue to SOA by refusing to send the
Pews monthly payment statements, as agreed to with the Pews in their loan
agreements with SOA, so as to intentionally prevent the Pews and other SOA
customers from the timely payment of their accounts so as to intentionally
place the Pews and other SOA customers in arrears so that SOA could assess
and collect late fees that were deceptively and fraudulently charged to the
Pews and other SOA customer’s account;

(c) SOA as a pattern of practice, policy and procedure did, with the intent to
defraud the Pews and other SOA customers, increase late fee revenue to SOA
by refusing to accept payments that were less than what SOA claimed was
owed from the Pews and other SOA customers who disputed their account
balances, monthly payments and prohibited or unknown charges to their
account. This practice was executed by SOA with the intent to prevent the
Pews and other SOA customers from timely payment on their accounts. This
practice was intentionally designed to wrongfully place the Pews and other
SOA customers in arrears so that SOA could assess and collect late fees that
were deceptively and fraudulently charged to the Pews and other SOA
customer’s accounts;

(d) SOA as a pattern of practice, policy and procedure did, with the intent to
defraud the Pews and other SOA customers, increase late fee revenue to SOA
by intentionally delaying credit and posting of payments made by the Pews
and other SOA customers at SOA branch offices. SOA would allow payments
at a local branch as agreed upon in the loan documents executed by the Pews
and other customers. SOA, on occasion, would actually instruct the Pews to
make payment at a branch. Payments made by the Pews and other
customers at SOA branches would be received at the branch and a receipt
issued by the branch location of SOA on many occasions. SOA would send
these payments to its loan processing center in Pasadena, California and
intentionally delay crediting and posting of such payments to the Pews and
other SOA customer’s accounts for several days. This deceptive and
fraudulent practice by SOA was intended to make the Pews and other SOA
customers “late” with their payments so that SOA could assess and collect a
late charge. Since the Pews and other SOA customers did not receive a
regular monthly statement or accurate loan histories, such intentional delays
in posting payments and the associated late charges assessed and collected
by SOA from the Pews and other SOA customers were fraudulently and
deceptively hidden;

82
(e) SOA as a pattern of practice, policy and procedure did, with the intent to
defraud the Pews and other SOA customers, increase late fee revenue to SOA
by wrongfully placing forced place insurance on the Pews property when the
Pews had their own insurance in place. Both SOA and EMC also deceptively
and fraudulently represented to the Pews, the Dallas District Court and the
Pew's experts that such insurance charges were transactions in the Pews
“escrow account.” In fact, SOA never once ever made an insurance
transaction related to the Pews escrow account with SOA from inception of
the loan until transfer to EMC. Instead, SOA advanced sums for wrongfully
forced placed insurance on the Pew's property and added such advances to
the Principal Balance of the Pew's and other SOA customer’s loans. Such
advances were then considered by SOA to be part of the monthly principal
and interest payments. SOA and EMC did intentionally hide this deceptive
and fraudulent practice by telling the Pews and other SOA customers that
the insurance transactions were part of the Pew's escrow account with SOA;

(f) SOA on the majority of occasions did not provide notices to the Pews or other
SOA customers of such changes in the principal and interest charges as
required in the loan documents executed by the Pews and other SOA
customers. SOA then went on to calculate, assess and collect late charges of
6% based on the monthly portion of the forced placed insurance advance that
was charged to the Pew's and other SOA customer’s accounts that SOA
fraudulently attempts to claim was part of the principal and interest
payment. Later, SOA allegedly credited the Pew's account for excess
payments that were diverted from intended principal payments by the Pews.
However, SOA did never credit back the portion of the late fees that it
assessed and collected from the Pews that were attributable to the portions of
the monthly payments that were related to the monthly repayment for the
wrongful forced placed insurance ordered and placed by SOA;

(g) SOA with the intent to defraud the Pews did intentionally and fraudulently
increase interest revenue to SOA by refusing to send the Pews notices of
changes in the adjustable monthly interest rate, as agreed to with the Pews
in their loan agreements with SOA, so as to intentionally prevent the Pews
and other SOA customers from knowing what their rightful monthly
principal and interest payments were;

(h) SOA with the intent to defraud the Pews did knowingly, willfully,
intentionally and fraudulently delay the timely payment of the Pew's and
other SOA customer’s account so as to place the Pews and other SOA
customers in arrears so that SOA could assess and collect inspection fees that
were deceptively and fraudulently charged to the Pews and other SOA
customer’s accounts;

(i) SOA with the intent to deceive, defraud, mislead and confuse the Pews, as
well as obstruct justice, did knowingly, willfully and intentionally prepare
and send the Pews via the U.S. mail fraudulent, misrepresentative,
misleading and redacted loan account and transaction histories that
contained whited out transactions typed over with false figures that do not
match the internal and master accounting records of SOA;

83
(j) From 1991 until 1997, SOA with the intent to deceive, defraud, mislead and
confuse the Pews, as well as obstruct justice, did intentionally prepare and
send the Pews fraudulent, misrepresentative, misleading and redacted loan
account and transaction histories that were intentionally and manually
altered to hide fraudulent and prohibited charges on the Pew's account;

(k) From 1991 until 1997, SOA with the intent to deceive, defraud, mislead and
confuse the Pews, as well as obstruct justice, did intentionally prepare and
send the Pews fraudulent, misrepresentative, misleading and redacted loan
account and transaction histories that were intentionally and manually
altered to intentionally hide principal, unapplied, advance, escrow and year-
end balances on the Pew's account;

(l) From 1991 until 1997, SOA with the intent to deceive, defraud, mislead and
confuse the Pews, as well as obstruct justice, did intentionally prepare and
send the Pews fraudulent, misrepresentative, misleading and redacted loan
account and transaction histories that were intentionally and manually
altered to intentionally hide escrow and suspense activity on the Pew's
account;

SOA & EMC Predatory Force Place Insurance Scheme

However, SOA acted in direct concert with EMC in that on the date of
cancellation, EMC placed a binder on the Pew's property as well as other SOA
customers whose loans they were assuming. On the date of cancellation of the
forced place policy by SOA, SOA had already charged the Pew's account $930.00
plus interest.

On 9/5/93 SOA sent the Pews an “Insurance Notification” [Exhibit 66] that
informed the Pews that their policy was scheduled to renew on 10/7/93. This
notice again does not respond to the Pew's request for a policy number and does
not contain either the policy number nor name the insurance carrier that
supposedly has the policy on the Pew's property as SOA and Mr. Carr had
promised.

On 9/13/93 Dependable Insurance Company, at the behest and direction of SOA,

did send the Pews a letter of cancellation [Exhibit 67] stating that SOA had
cancelled their insurance as of 9/1/93 and that a credit of $92.00 would be
credited to the loan balance of their account. As such, when SOA sent the Pew's
its Insurance Notification on 9/5/93 it had full knowledge that it had already
cancelled the Pew's policy without notice to them of such cancellation.

Furthermore, both EMC and SOA had complete knowledge that EMC was
servicing the loan at that time and it had not at that time provided any notice to
the Pews of cancellation or renewal. Additionally, according to other documents,
EMC had ordered a binder on the Pew's property and did not inform the Pews
that there was a lapse of insurance on their property. EMC knowingly, willfully
and intentionally did not notify the Pews of any lapse of their insurance nor did
they promptly take prudent actions to allow the Pews to secure their own
insurance.

84
Instead, in a scheme knowingly, willfully and intentionally created to secure
additional cash flow and revenue from the Pews and other EMC customers, EMC
fraudulently and deceptively charged, demanded and collected from the Pews and
other customers additional escrow money not legally owing to invest, use and
obtain interest and profits on their own behalf and the behalf of its parent
company, Bear Stearns and their investors.

The escrow account was a non-interest bearing account that EMC had full and
complete control over and on information and belief did not segregate payments
from. As such, EMC's intention was to use the extra money to fraudulently
inflate the earnings, income and assets of itself and its parent company, Bear
Stearns.

Finally, in a letter dated 10/16/93 [Exhibit 68] EMC finally informed the Pews
that when their loan was audited, EMC did not find a hazard insurance policy.
In fact, EMC had full and complete knowledge before such claimed audit, that
the Pews did not have a policy since it participated in the cancellation of the
policy SOA had placed on the Pew's property. EMC also had already placed an
insurance binder and paid $1.00 for such binder to their insurance carrier. As
such, this letter by EMC is outright deceitful and misleading. In the third
paragraph of this letter, EMC states “to avoid unnecessary force placed insurance
on your loan, please provide a policy within thirty [30] days of this notice.

The Pews went ahead and secured a policy with All-State within the prescribed
thirty days and did call and inform EMC of this fact via the toll-free number
provided. They were referred to a Misti Schuler in the foreclosure department of
EMC at extension 2633. Ms. Schuler did not properly respond to the calls placed
to her or return any of the calls that the Pews made.

EMC then sent to the Pews a letter dated 10/25/93 [Exhibit 69] that informed
them that EMC had “renewed” their insurance and that a premium of $1,311.87
was billed to their account. This was done by EMC only nine [9] days after the
previous letter sent to the Pews requesting an insurance policy and 21 days
ahead of the thirty days that EMC provided them to “to avoid unnecessary force
placed insurance” on their loan. In the 3rd paragraph of this letter, EMC again
informs the Pews that they have the option to secure their own coverage from
their own agency and company. Yet, EMC refused to accept the Pew's insurance
when sent and made demands not contained in their previous agreements with
SOA including a demand to pay a $10.00 fee for EMC to accept their insurance
[Exhibit 70] as provided in a letter of 12/16/93.

I informed EMC that the only obligation the Pews had was to keep insurance on
the property and notify EMC of such insurance and that any further questions
could be addressed with All-State, but the Pews would not provide EMC with a
payment of $10.00 to accept their policy.

85
EMC Accounting & "Welcome Letter" Scheme

On or about 9/24/93, EMC did cause to be sent to the Pews monthly payment
coupons for a due date of 9/1/93 [Exhibit 71]. EMC sent these statements to the
Pews with full and complete knowledge that the amounts and dates stated in this
letter and the attached coupons were indeed false, deceptive and an attempt to
secure additional cash from the Pews and other customers while EMC sorted
things out with their problematic loan servicing operations.

According to EMC, the purchase of loans from SOA was at the time the largest
purchase of loans by EMC and one of the largest purchase of loans anywhere. It
involved over 8000 loans with a value of over $2 billion. Yet, at the transfer date
to EMC by SOA, EMC had possession of all pertinent data in their computer
systems and knew which dates the Pew's loan were due on as well as the past
due date when a late fee, if appropriate, could be assessed [Exhibit 72].

In monthly payment coupons that EMC sent to the Pews and other EMC
customers, EMC takes a very similar page out of SOA’s “How to Defraud
Customers” book by stating that there is no past due amount and the amount of
the new payment was $1,099.98 for a payment due on 10/1/93 and 11/1/93 with
$00.00 past due or for other assessments [Exhibit 73]. EMC claims that there
were other monies due them at the time in their responses to interrogatories.
This was the first time that EMC was computing and communicating payments
and amounts owed by the Pews as well as other SOA customers. EMC claims in
deposition testimony that such payment coupons were only "welcome letters."

At the same time, EMC also had knowledge that the Pews and other SOA
customers had long running complaints and disputes with SOA about the
accounting of their loans and charges and prompt credits to their loan for years.

The Pews assumed, as well as other SOA customers, that EMC had gone in an
“investigated their account and fixed all of the problems caused by SOA” when in
fact, the opposite was true. EMC, in an effort to further confuse the Pews and
other SOA customers, did knowingly, willfully and intentionally misrepresent the
figures contained in the payment coupons that they claim was a welcome letter.

The Pew's promissory note, as well as others SOA customers, state that their
payments are due on the 10th day of each month and late fees assessed on the
25th if a payment is not made. These statements claim payments are owed on the
1st and late fees assessed on the 15th.

Furthermore, the 9/93 statement is sent out on 9/24/93 twenty-four days later
than the claimed due date of 9/1/93 thus making any payment received late and
subject to EMC's assessment of a late charge. In fact, in what has and continues
to be a pattern of fraud and deceit by EMC and their predecessor, SOA, EMC
states that a late fee of $50.77 is due if payment is not made by 9/16/93 when in
fact this date should be the 25th. As such, the Pews and other customers were
knowingly, willfully and intentionally deceived into believing that their payments
would be late and a late fee assessed when this was not the case on this date

86
Only EMC knows for sure how many customers complied with this request and
sent money not owed to EMC before it should have been assessed and allowed
EMC to place the money in a suspense account and use of their money to its own
direct benefit with no interest to their customers or benefit to them.

While SOA did not send monthly payment coupons as they were obligated to,
EMC was diligent in sending the Pews and other customers a regular monthly
statement and coupon, at least until EMC foreclosed on a customer’s property.
EMC knowingly, willfully and intentionally used and still uses its monthly
payment and coupon statements to carry out additional deceptive and fraudulent
schemes against the Pews and other customers as well.

EMC Predatory "Suspense" Account Scheme

One of the primary and major deceptive and fraudulent acts that EMC employs is
the placement of money sent in by customers and cashed and accepted by EMC
into was is called a suspense or unapplied account. This scheme involves
accepting and cashing the Pew's and other EMC customer’s checks, then placing
the money into the EMC's general account for months and in some cases even
years, all the while never informing the Pews or other EMC customers where
their money went and why it hadn’t been credited to their account for payments
or reducing their balances. EMC knowingly, willfully and intentionally continues
this practice to this date.

A review of EMC's records attached as Exhibit 74 reflects the following:

In the Pew's case, after receiving the first two deceptive monthly payment
statement from EMC on or about the first week in November of 1993, the Pews
sent EMC two checks totally $2200.00 in payment which were placed into
suspense by EMC on 11/19/93 and not credited to any payments, principal or
interest or escrow until 1/21/94 almost two months later. During this time, EMC
sent the Pew's monthly payment coupons for December of 1993 [Exhibit 75] and
January of 1994 [Exhibit 76] which had not credited or reflected the credit of the
Pew's payment of $2200.00 toward any monthly payment, principal balance or
escrow account.

A review of documents in other litigation across America clearly proves that EMC
still operates this fraudulent scheme to this date by not reporting to their
customers amounts in suspense accounts that they have not credited yet to any of
their customer's accounts, their monthly payments for principal and interest,
escrow payments, advances or escrow payments. EMC still to this date sends its
customers over-demands for payments whose balances do not reflect previous
credits from payments that EMC is holding in suspense.

87
EMC Fraudulent Scheme Of Late Fee Over-Demands

On or about 11/17/93, EMC caused to be prepared and did sent via the U.S. mail
a monthly payment coupon [Exhibit 75]. This statement does not reflect at all
the $92.00 credit that the Pews were entitled to by SOA’s cancellation if their
insurance policy nor the $2,200.00 payment the Pews made to EMC in November
of 1993. In another effort to knowingly deceive, confuse and defraud the Pews,
EMC does not spell out the actual amount of its late charge. Instead, it makes it
part of the calculation and explanation in saying that if payment is not received
after 12/25/93 the payment due would be $12,853.39. When you subtract the
amount EMC claims is due on 12/10/93 $12,802.62 from the payment of
$12,853.39 claimed due on the 25th, you get a difference of $50.77 which is the
late fee that is actually associated with the claimed “Past Due” date on this
document which is 1/10/93 when the amount of the regular monthly principal and
interest was $846.10.

A 6% late fee assessment on $846.10 equals $50.77. In order to assess a proper

and legal late charge, if actually due, EMC needed to use the current payment
due date of 12/10/93 and the late fee assessment date of 12/25/93 which they
knowingly do not use so as to secure additional income from the Pews and other
customers to the direct use, benefit and investment of EMC and its parent
company, Bear Stearns.

In this case, the regular principal and interest payment due on 12/10/93 is
$782.64 and the related 6% late charge would be $46.96. As such, as petty as this
scheme may sound, EMC is knowingly trying to demand, extort and collect an
extra $3.81 that is not owed or legally obligated to them. As the head of
investigation for the New York Banking regulatory agency informed me, “if
you’re a bank and going to steal millions or tens of millions, you don’t do it all at
once, it becomes too noticeable. You do it in tens of thousands and millions of
penny, dollar and five dollar transactions that customers and even we can’t
detect most times.”

EMC Delayed Credit Predatory & Fraud Scheme

EMC in the balances claimed owed, has not made any adjustments for any of the
Pew's disputes and also includes hidden property inspections never identified to
the Pews. This is in addition to late fees, inspection fees and insurance advances,
except for the $92.00 credit the Pews are owed now for over three months.

On or about 12/17/93, EMC caused to be prepared and did sent via the U.S. mail
a Loan Summary [Exhibit 77]. This statement does not reflect at all the $92.00
credit that the Pews were entitled to by SOA’s cancellation if their insurance
policy but does reflect the $2,200.00 payment the Pews made to EMC in
November

88
In another effort to knowingly, willfully and intentionally deceive, confuse and
defraud the Pews, EMC does not inform the Pews that their $2,200.00 is being
held in a suspense/unapplied account and not currently being credited toward the
payment of any past due balances, monthly payments, escrow balances or escrow
payments.

As such, the principal balance of $108,714.98 has not been adjusted by the
payment of the Pew's payment of $2,200.00 a month earlier. Also, the past due
balance of $12,765.66 does not reflect any credit of the $2,200.00 payment the
Pews made in November to EMC. Furthermore, the escrow balance of $6,226.90
also has not been credited either with the $253.88 monthly portion that EMC
claimed were owed for monthly escrow payments at that time nor the $92.00
credit due to the Pews as well as other credits due to former SOA customers.

To briefly illustrate the known fraud, misrepresentations and deception that

EMC uses in this document, EMC knowingly, willfully and intentionally does not
break down how these so-called past due balances and escrow balances are
calculated. For example the escrow balance has not as yet credited two payments
of $253.89 that should have been paid with the Pew's November payment. This
totals $507.78. EMC has not removed the $1,311.87 force placed insurance policy
it ordered because of their previous cancellation of the Pews policy and while
EMC has proof and knowledge of the Pews All-State policy, EMC is still
continuing to charge the Pew's account for the $1,311.87 insurance charge.

EMC Fee Dumping & Escrow Inflation Escrow Scheme

EMC nor SOA ever did inform the Pews that a $930.00 advance for force placed
insurance that the Pews were disputing did in fact get transferred to the Pew's
escrow account and there is no notice to the Pew's of such transfer to their escrow
account nor the transfer of $57.00 in wrongfully ordered and charged inspection
fees to the Pew's escrow account.

This is a common practice by EMC in that they take charges not lawfully allowed
to be placed into escrow accounts and make so-called “misc. escrow adjustments
to their customer’s accounts without notice or explanation of such adjustments or
charges to their escrow accounts.

Evidence gathered also suggests that EMC does far more with escrow
adjustments than merely place inspection fees and other advances in. Former
EMC customers have complained about EMC placing debts that they had
discharged in a U.S. Bankruptcy Court back into their escrow accounts illegally
and not informing the customers of how the so-called escrow adjustment was
made.

EMC did not inform the Pews of any escrow adjustments and of what such
adjustments were for. In fact, EMC has gone to great lengths including
knowingly, willfully and intentionally providing false testimony, fraudulent
affidavits and expert reports to mask and hide the fraud committed by EMC.

89
On or about 12/31/93, EMC caused to be prepared and did send via the U.S. mail
a Mortgage Interest Statement [Exhibit 78]. This statement does not reflect at
all the $92.00 credit that the Pews were entitled to by SOA’s cancellation if their
insurance policy and does credit any of the $2,200.00 payment the Pews made to
EMC in November toward interest or principal or tax escrow. As such, EMC by
its actions did use the $2,200.00 payment to their benefit and the benefit of its
parent company, Bear Stearns, but prevented the Pews of taking approximately
$2000.00 in tax deductions for the 1993 tax year for interest and taxes.

This document claims $00.00 paid for taxes, interest and insurance when the
Pews knew they paid EMC $2,200.00 in November, As such, EMC knowingly did
confuse, deceive and defraud the Pews further and did cause them damage.

EMC again illustrates the known fraud ,misrepresentations and deception that
EMC uses in this document. EMC knowingly, willfully and intentionally does not
break down how the so-called misc. disbursements of $496.44 were carried out or
how the monthly escrow account is calculated at $233.88 per month when the
Pews were previously informed by SOA in their very last escrow analysis that
their monthly escrow payment from 4/10/93 to 3/10.94 was $348.02 which was
over-calculated by $69.67 for a shortage when there was actually a surplus
because of a balance held in unapplied by SOA during SOA’s escrow analysis
period.

As such, the Pew's new monthly escrow payment for taxes should have been in
the vicinity of $278.35 for taxes only. If SOA had allowed the Pews to secure
their own insurance, by providing accurate records and canceling the force placed
policy they had on the property, the monthly payment for the Pew's own property
insurance would have been in the general vicinity of $50.00 per month.

The escrow balance on this document is mis-calculated. For example the escrow
balance has not as yet credited two payments of $253.89 that should have been
paid with the Pew's November payment. This totals $507.78. EMC also has not
removed the $1,311.87 force placed insurance policy it ordered because of their
previous cancellation of a the Pews policy and while EMC has poof and
knowledge of the Pew's All-State policy, EMC is still continuing to charge the
Pew's account for the $1,311.87 insurance charge.

EMC nor SOA ever did inform the Pews that a $930.00 advance for force placed
insurance that they were disputing did in fact get transferred to the Pew's escrow
account with EMC and there is no notice to the Pews of such transfer to their
escrow account nor the transfer of $57.00 in wrongfully ordered and charged
inspection fees to the Pew's escrow account. EMC knowingly and intentionally
concealed, hid, mislabeled, misapplied, added and did not properly credit or
account for such transactions in a further attempted to confuse, deceive and
defraud the Pews and other EMC customers.

Monthly statements were knowingly, willfully and intentionally prepared,

reviewed and sent via the U.S. mail to the Pews and those statements dated from
11/1/93 to 1/21/94 did not credit the $2,200.00 payment to their principal balance,
escrow account or interest until after 1/21/94.

90
All of the monthly statements were knowingly, willfully and intentionally
prepared, reviewed and sent via the U.S. mail to the Pews and those statements
dated from 9/1/93 to 6/29/94 did not credit the $92.00 to the Pew's principal
balance or escrow account as had been owed to the Pews since 9/1/93.

This is important due to the fact that the Pews were disputing the Pew's taxes,
insurance, escrow, late charges and any and all fees or charges placed on the
account except for the monthly P&I charges and the rightful amounts due for
taxes and the Pew's own insurance. EMC was fully aware of these disputes.

In March of 1990, I on behalf of the Pews, after a phone call with an SOA
representative at a branch office, did fax a request from New York City to the
SOA office at Prestonwood requesting the establishment of an escrow account.
The SOA employee who I spoke with informed him that she would forward the
fax to SOA’s loan service center to insure that they received it since previous
notes, faxes and correspondence sent by the Pews to the California and Texas
offices of SOA were ignored and not responded to by SOA.

SOA employees and EMC in their phone calls and correspondence to the Pews
represented that the Pews escrow account was established in 1990 to pay their
taxes and insurance [Exhibit 11]. However, only after three years after the
inception of the Pew's litigation did they learn that SOA never escrowed any
money for insurance payments and in fact had knowingly misrepresented this
fact to them and failed to and refused to provide documents pursuant to the
Pew's many requests, demands, disputes and complaints.

EMC Predatory & Fraudulent Escrow Miscalculations

A careful reconstruction of the Pew's account from SOA and EMC documents
clearly demonstrates that both SOA and EMC did knowingly, willfully and
intentionally cause miscalculations to the Pew's account and escrow account by a
variety of fraudulent schemes. Each did not properly apply credits on a timely
basis so as to provide proper notification and balances when properly due. Both
held funds in suspense and did not credit them when due so as to fraudulently
cause higher escrow calculations and demands for payments to the Pews and
other SOA and EMC customers.

There was never any notification by SOA or EMC that SOA were transferring
any escrow balances to EMC, let alone a balance of $1,471.28 as is now claimed
by SOA and EMC. To the contrary, the purchase and sales agreement executed
between SOA and EMC indicates that any “positive” balances and money would
be transferred to EMC by SOA but that EMC had no obligation to repay and
would not repay any negative escrow balances that existed in SOA customers
whose accounts they were purchasing.

91
In fact, EMC later commits another fraudulent act when in testimony and in
documents it makes references to amounts repaid to SOA for taxes on the Pew's
escrow account when in fact, the amounts claimed repaid and the checks claimed
to be issued from EMC to SOA were actually checks from EMC to EMC itself and
were only paper and journal entries and an intentional misrepresentation to the
Pews.

EMC Fraudulent Affidavits & Perjured Testimony

EMC also knowingly, willfully and intentionally created a manually prepared

spreadsheet labeled as Exhibit B attached to EMC's Responses to the Pew's
interrogatories and titled “EMC Loan History" [Exhibit 79]. EMC lists under
the column for tax advances the figure of ($496.44) and ($970.00) and calls the
($970.00) an advance by SOA and the ($496.44) a “repayment” to SOA. If indeed,
there was any escrow transferred from the Pew's account, it would have to be the
supposed $484.28 that was the escrow credit on 9/1/93 on SOA’s Year-To-Date
Escrow Statement [Exhibit 80].

The $970.00 EMC reflects as a tax advance is now known to be actually a $930.00
advance for forced placed insurance ordered by SOA and cancelled as of 9/1/93 in
which the Pews were then owed an immediate credit to their account of $92.00.
Yet, this amount is not immediately credited at all.

SOA and EMC have gone to great lengths to conceal the existence of various fees
and transactions and hide, omit, redact or misclassify them and even bury them
in the Pew's escrow account and call them “Taxes” when in fact, they were not
owed, ever owed and had no rightful place on the Pew's account.

David Smith, in his affidavit states that he has accounted for each transaction on
the Pew's account and EMC states that their spreadsheet and records provided
with their motion for summary judgement does the same. In fact, at the behest
of EMC and their counsel, David Smith knowingly, willfully and intentionally
omits and conceals the existence of these charges and transactions then conspires
with Ike Guest, the independent auditor, to further hide and conceal the
existence of various transactions.

According to EMC, EMC Mortgage Corporation is a 100% wholly owned

subsidiary of the Bear Stearns Companies, a major Wall Street Investment Bank.
EMC's primarily business is the servicing of mortgage loans for clients of Bear
Stearns and various investors.

EMC and their parent and affiliate companies purchases loans that are later
sold, assigned, transferred or made into mortgage backed securities and
derivative products that are bought and sold by Bear Stearns and various other
EMC sister and Bear Stearns subsidiary companies.

92
Bear Stearns sells such mortgage backed and collateralized securities to various
institutional investors. The investors are provided securities issued by Bear
Stearns and the various mortgages, promissory notes and deeds of trusts bought
and sold by EMC and Bear Stearns directly are put up as collateral and held in a
vault by a trustee bank to secure the transaction on behalf of the institutional
investors.

To date, the original of the Pew's promissory note and deed of trust executed by
the Pews and Savings of America along with all proper assignments, alonges, and
chain of title have not been produced to the Pews, as well as other EMC and SOA
customers by EMC and Washington Mutual. Our investigation has uncovered a
real question as to whether EMC or Washington Mutual are "true" owners of the
notes or are engaged in a fraudulent conspiracy to hide, conceal and protect the
real and true owners of the notes.

Many of the supposed "lost" notes and documents, and deeds of trusts are not
owned or held by EMC or Bear Stearns but are held by a trustee for investors
who have been sold mortgage backed securities in various mortgage pools.

The Pew's note was among over 8000 loans that were claimed to be sold to EMC
by SOA. However our investigation has concluded that the transaction between
SOA and EMC was a fraudulent transaction perpetuated by SOA, EMC and Bear
Stearns to defraud the U.S. Government, the RTC, stockholders, investors and
the mortgage holders. Since the transaction date of July of 1993, SOA and it’s
successor in interest by merger, Washington Mutual, have made many exchanges
of money, consideration, notes, and deeds of trusts with each other and EMC has
availed itself of various "recourse" provisions with SOA and Washington Mutual.

To further illustrate the fraudulent nature of this transaction, the assignments

executed by EMC, SOA and California Loan Partners shows the sale and
assignment of loans from SOA to California Loan Partners was done "without
recourse" and then the sale and assignment from California Loan Partners to
EMC was done "with recourse" provisions. Yet the actual promissory note
executed by the Pews with SOA and recorded in Collin, County, Texas [Exhibit
28] is stamped with an assignment that shows the loan was sold without
recourse from California Loan Partners to EMC when in fact it was sold with
recourse.

It is criminal, let alone a civil offense, when an individual that wields an

inordinate amount of power and control over another person threatens to
physically harm that person unless the targeted person pays the individual
threatening him blackmail, money or other consideration to save himself from
harm. Both SOA and EMC have direct knowledge and information that bad
credit or the ruining of one’s credit worthiness can directly cause an individual
consequential financial, physical, emotional and mental harm, damage and ruin.
Both SOA and EMC have repeatedly used this power to extort money from the
Pews and other customers of each company.

93
Furthermore, EMC and SOA have gone to great lengths to conceal their
transactions and frauds including:

(a) in production substituting false documents in place of the actual documents;

(b) prepared, sponsored and given false testimony and affidavits;

(c) committed perjury and lied under oath;

(d) created false documents;

(e) conspired with experts and legal counsel to conceal frauds and crimes;

(f) intentionally destroyed evidence;

(g) concealed the existence of the payment of attorney fees for the defense of
their co-defendants from the Court and the Pews;

(h) tampered with witnesses;

(i) altered documents;

(j) and a variety of other illegal, unscrupulous and unethical behavior in an

effort to obstruct justice and a fair trial for the Pews.

As an example, EMC's supplemental response to the Pews interrogatory No. 7

states “Per the data provided by Savings of America, as of August 31, 1993, the
total amount owing to EMC by the Pews on the loan was $115,963.66. This
amount consists of the following elements: principal $108,714.98; accrued
interest $5,488.51; advances for taxes and insurance $1,471.38; late charges
$328.89.”

Both SOA and EMC have referred to their internal documents and account
histories produced in various interrogatory responses as their answers to
questions in depositions about amount due and breakouts of fees, expenses and
amounts claimed owed and due to both SOA and EMC at various times.
However, the various documents produced by SOA and EMC contradict and
conflict with each other and can not be relied upon. Furthermore, it is clear that
SOA, EMC and their experts and counsel are knowingly, willfully and
intentionally engaged in a concentrated conspiracy, fraud and effort to hide and
cover-up the illegal, deceptive and fraudulent actions and representations of
SOA, EMC, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual.

As evidence, the interrogatory response listed above states that “advances for
taxes and insurance $1,471.38” were due from the Pews as of August 31, 1993.
In fact, the figure SOA and EMC claim before is actually $1,471.28 not $1,471.38.
However, this is not a difference of just $00.10, but most importantly is how EMC
has misrepresented this amount and it’s detail during the course of the Pew's
litigation.

94
EMC previously provided a sworn affidavit and statement attached to their first
answers to interrogatories when they attached an exhibit via a spreadsheet as
the answers to how much was charged to the Pew's account and how such
amounts were credited.

In the document titled “EMC Loan History” EMC testified that ($970.00) was
advanced and placed into the Pew's escrow account as a Tax Advance when in
fact this entire amount was the result of adding $930.00 in an insurance advance
by SOA and the remaining $40.00 as part of $57.00 that was illegally charged for
property inspection fees to the Pew's loan and hidden by both SOA and EMC.
EMC not only attempts to hide such inspection fees by illegally placing such fees
into the Pew's escrow account, but it also tries to confuse the Pews and their
experts by knowingly, willfully and intentionally disguising the existence of such
transactions.

EMC breaks up the $1,471.28 that they claimed SOA transferred to them by
calling the $970.00 a tax advance and then detailing another tax advance of
$496.44 and an unapplied balance adjustment of $4.84. When these figures are
added together, you get the $1,471.28 that EMC claims was transferred by SOA
to the Pew's escrow account.

However, testimony by SOA’s Lionel Antunes and an examination of SOA’s

master transaction register shows that this amount consists of $484.28 as a
balance on tax escrow; $930.00 for an insurance advance; and $57.00 in
inspection fees. EMC fraudulently hides this figure from the Pews and the court
and has knowingly, willfully and intentionally provided a false and perjured
document, testimony and affidavit to the court.

EMC Illegal & Abusive Collection & Foreclosure Acts

Regardless, as EMC allegedly assumed the loan for SOA, it assumed certain
assets as well as any liabilities to the Pew's and others accounts. EMC informed
the Pews as well as other customers, that they had to pay EMC everything they
owed to them, but take any problems or disputes they had with SOA to SOA
since EMC could not and would not fix them. This brings into question whether
EMC ever actually took possession or ownership of the Pew's note.

Thousands, if not tens of thousands of SOA customers had complaints and

disputes while at SOA including the majority of the customers that were assigned
and/or sold to EMC. EMC by and through it’s parent company, Bear Stearns,
also knew from their own due diligence of the servicing, payment, escrow,
accounting, reporting, tax, and insurance problems SOA had in its servicing
operation.

While EMC assumed all these problems, they protected themselves because of
special indemnification and recourse clauses in their agreement with SOA. As
such, EMC made little if any reasonable effort to review, let alone investigate the
SOA customer’s complaints.

95
To the contrary, EMC would aggressively institute collection and foreclosure
actions against all customers strictly from what information was contained on a
data tape [allegedly lost and destroyed] not even bothering to go into reconciling
a customer’s account, examining their escrow and unapplied accounts or
examining the individual terms of each promissory note and deed of trust where
they were different.

To heighten the problem, many of the individuals at EMC that are loan
collectors, foreclosure specialists, loss mitigation specialist, researchers and
customer service personnel as well as other functions not listed, aren’t even
EMC's employees. They are contract labor hired by such companies as Empower
Corporation who have brief or little training. Furthermore, those who are
assigned to collect for loans are compensated on a combined hourly, salary and
commission basis based on how much money they can bring in and how quickly
they could bring it in. Such collectors would skirt the lines of the law and proper
ethics and use whatever tactics they could to intimidate, scare or embarrass
customers to pay what EMC claimed the customer owed. Some of these
techniques are discussed in EMC's own manuals.

When disputes arose, such collectors would make agreements they were not
empowered to make to induce the customer to remit payment to EMC. Also,
promises and assurance of certain actions would be given by the EMC's collection
representative that EMC would later fail and refuse to abide by.

One key instruction made by EMC employees to EMC customers, including one
made by EMC's Bob Graff to me was “don’t send any money in now until we get
this matter fully researched and reviewed and find out what’s owed.” Even
against this statement, the Pews tendered EMC a check for what they believed
was roughly owed for principal and interest payments for the time EMC held the
loan so as to demonstrate good faith and reduce whatever obligation they might
have incurred.

Furthermore, they did not want late fees being charged to their account in the
mean time or EMC's going ahead with foreclosure while investigating their
complaints, disputes and claims.

96
EMC Fraudulent Accounting

The Pews followed up their phone call complaints to EMC along with written
letters of dispute and complaints to EMC on 2/28/94 [Exhibit 81] and 3/11/94
[Exhibit 82]. I also had a meeting in June of 1994 with EMC to voice their
complaints, disputes and questions.

In the first response letter dated 4/29/94 from EMC to the Pews [Exhibit 83].
EMC misrepresented the escrow balance of The Pew's account as -$1499.80
which was the Pew's escrow balance as of 1/31/92 and the beginning of January
1993. However, this representation did not include four [4] escrow payments of
$253.88 totaling $1,015.52 made by the Pews in late January of 1993 that was
not credited by SOA to the Pews escrow account until 3/1/93.

In EMC's first response letter of 4/29/94 EMC states in the first sentence of the
first paragraph "Below we have outlined the following escrow transaction that
occurred from your previous servicer, Home Savings of America, along with EMC
Mortgage Corp."

In the second sentence of this paragraph EMC states "In review of the previous
servicers history, the escrow account at date of transfer shows that it should have
posted -$1471.28."

As is now known through evidence and testimony, the -$1,471.28 is the amount
that EMC actually did post to the Pew's escrow account. However, $930.00 of
this amount was never placed in the Pew's escrow account with SOA and was
actually an insurance advance that SOA previously represented to the Pews was
being paid out of "escrow" but upon evidence and testimony of EMC and SOA was
never in an escrow account with SOA.

Furthermore, $57.00 of the -$1,471.28 that was never even a tax or insurance
transaction. The $57.00 was attributable to property inspection fees wrongfully
charged to the Pew's account at SOA and now again, after SOA concealed this
transaction, was now buried in the Pew's escrow account. Again, this figure of
$57.00 was never in the Pew's escrow account with SOA.

As such, a total of $987.00 of the $1,471.28 was never in The Pew's escrow
account with SOA. This again is a misrepresentation to the Pews and EMC
never explained how this amount was arrived at in either of their response
letters to the Pews or in their meeting with me.

Secondarily, as evidenced by the actual document, EMC didn't even include 1¢ of

any actual credit or debit transaction to the Pew's escrow account with SOA.
They also fail to address the dispute over the wrongfully forced place insurance
policy in the amount of $1,311.87 when the Pews and All-State Insurance had
notified EMC that the Pews had paid for and had insurance on their property.

This letter does not include tens of thousands of dollars in individual debit and
credit transactions on the Pews loan and escrow account with SOA that the Pews
had been disputing with SOA for over three years then.

97
Such transactions are reflected on the attached SOA escrow transaction
statements [Exhibit 84] and a spreadsheet detailing all escrow activity on the
Pew's account. Yet, the escrow statements do not provide all of the tax and
insurance transactions that occurred on the Pew's account.

All of these the tax and insurance transactions are listed in the attached
spreadsheet as Exhibit 85 that are taken from SOA's master transaction
register.

What is now known from the evidence provided to the Pews, is that EMC was not
in possession of the Pew's entire loan and escrow transaction history for the
previous servicer, SOA, at the time this letter was drafted and based on EMC's
own testimony, was not even possessed by EMC on the date that the Pews filed
suit in November of 1994.

In fact, according to testimony by EMC attached as Exhibit 86 in another

deposition, EMC collects money from customers when in fact in many, many
cases, they are not even in possession of loan histories and documents to answer
any complaints or make any adjustments due to a client's valid dispute. EMC
just accepts "as is" the figures and balances that previous servicers provide and
does little if anything to validate and verify that such balances and payments are
indeed correct, just, legally obligated and due.

Some call EMC a mortgage "toxic waste dump" where any mortgage company or
broker with problem loans, fraudulent loans, no documents, bad servicing records
and the like can dump off their junk to EMC and EMC will pay them and collect
on such loans.

In fact, what was used by EMC in responding to the Pews disputes and
complaints were the fraudulent and redacted SOA loan histories that were
previously sent the Pews that did not contain tens of thousands of dollars in
transactions. This is evidenced not only by EMC's testimony, but by their
responses to the Pews; the figures provided in EMC's letters; the SOA loan
histories sent to the Pews attached with their 4/29/94 letter and Exhibit A sent
by David Smith to the court appointed auditor.

However, the SOA loan histories provided to the Pews by SOA [Exhibit 87]
when their loan was with SOA and by EMC a year later are fraught with fraud,
alterations, omissions, redaction, whited out and type over figures and
manipulated balances and figures as previously described in this pleading.

Yet another fact is that the SOA loan histories provided to the Pews by both SOA
and EMC did not contain tens of thousands of dollars in payments, credit and
debit transactions. This was especially true in relationship to the escrow, tax
and insurance disputes, complaints and questions that the Pews had for years
now.

As such, years after the original fraud was perpetuated against the Pews by SOA
in providing fraudulent documents, EMC now and still attempts to cover-up,
conceal and extend the fraud perpetrated by SOA by sending the Pews the same
documents.

98
The SOA loan histories sent to the Pews by both SOA and EMC for 1991
knowingly, willfully and intentionally omitted all SOA loan transaction from
10/23/91 to 12/31/91. This was an especially crucial time since this time frame
corresponded with the Pews disputes about amounts owed SOA, tax, insurance
and payments on their account. Both SOA and EMC concealed these transaction
for years to a date after statute of limitations could expire so as not to provide the
Pews with evidence of their fraud.

EMC, their parent company Bear Stearns and SOA and their successor in
interest, Washington Mutual, had and have full and complete knowledge of this
fraud. In order to attempt to avoid liability and exposure each has knowingly,
willfully and intentionally spent over $1 million to conceal these fraudulent
actions over a basically $100,000 mortgage note.

What these companies are trying to conceal is the very fraudulent nature of their
transaction and the knowledge of all of SOA's and EMC's fraudulent actions.
SOA and EMC and their parent companies created a slight-of-hand transaction
to defraud not only SOA's and EMC's customers, but officials of the federal
government, government agencies, the RTC, investors and stockholders.

SOA transferred certain assets to EMC and its parent, Bear Stearns, to be sold
as mortgage backed securities, obligations and securities. EMC fraudulently
recorded mortgages, deeds of trusts and promissory notes with various local
governments for the loans it claimed to have purchased as loans that were sold to
EMC "without recourse."

In actuality, such loans were sold with recourse according to testimony by EMC
and the sales and transfer of servicing agreement between SOA and EMC. What
SOA did was transfer losses that it should have written down immediately which
would have technically placed SOA in such financial distress that it would be
insolvent and subject to liquidation or takeover by the RTC.

Instead, to save the S & L, SOA made a deal with its investment advisor, Bear
Stearns, to have a unit of Bear Stearns, EMC, assume such obligations and claim
that such a deal was made without recourse when in fact the transaction was
with recourse. What Bear Stearns and SOA attempted to do was defer losses for
SOA and keep them from writing down loans they should have written down at
the time which would have made SOA insolvent, and extended the losses and
wrote them down using a shell company called California Loan Partners, in
which SOA's parent was the General Partner, to cover and pay losses to Bear
Stearns and EMC over a period of years in the recourse provisions. This would
allow SOA to defer its losses and not write them down as they should have at the
time of SOA and EMC's agreement.

As further evidence of EMC's fraud, the second response letter of EMC to the
Pews [Exhibit 88] again did not include tens of thousands of dollars in credit
and debit transactions relating to escrow, taxes and insurance payments and
transactions.

99
On 5/27/94, over three year's after the Pews disputes, complaints and questions
to SOA regarding insurance, tax and escrow transactions and after three months
after the Pews disputes, complaints and questions to EMC, EMC did again
knowingly, willfully and intentionally mislead, deceive and defraud the Pews by
providing a response to their disputes and validation of the Pew's debt that did
not include approximately $5,414.20 in tax transactions as well as not 1¢ of tens
of thousands of dollars in escrow payments or credits for transactions concerning
taxes and insurance on the Pew's account with SOA.

In addition, EMC only addressed one insurance issue and policy of several
insurance policies payment and credit issues that the Pews had provided in their
disputes, complaints and questions to EMC regarding payment and crediting of
any tax, insurance and escrow transactions with SOA. It also did not again
address the forced placed policy in the amount of $1,311.87 in October of 1993
taken out by EMC. Furthermore, EMC created a "new" escrow account which
included shortages and amounts for escrow transactions that were not even owed
or obligated to be paid for by the Pews.

The Pews alleged escrow payment grew from $253.88 to 754.52 when on 2/28/94
EMC sent the Pews an escrow analysis [Exhibit 89] for their account. It is
inconceivable, let alone reality, that if the Pews escrow balance was only $484.28
with SOA as of 9/1/93 that their escrow payment could have grown so high in less
than one year. As of 1/31/93, The Pew's actual escrow balance with SOA was
$484.28 except for the fact that SOA did not properly and on time credit the
Pew's escrow account on a timely basis.

Furthermore, a $92.00 credit due the Pews in September or October of 1993 still
was not credited as of this date. Also, EMC now knew that the Pews had paid for
insurance on their property through this date and they had still refused to
acknowledge, address or credit the Pew's account with EMC with any portion of
the $1,311.87 that EMC charged the Pew's escrow account for unnecessary forced
placed insurance.

EMC in each and every affidavit they prepared to be filed with the Dallas District
Court knowingly, willfully an intentionally misrepresented the status, character
and amount of the Pew's debt and obligation with EMC. Furthermore, EMC and
their counsel have conspired with their experts, employees, SOA, and the court
appointed auditor to conceal their known fraudulent actions, transactions and
representations to the Pews.

EMC's own expert, David Smith, has participated in this fraud and has
knowingly, willfully and intentionally prepared false and fraudulent reports to
the Dallas District Count and the Pews. This fraud continues to this day and is
under continual investigation by the Pews.

The Pews have been forced by the actions of EMC and SOA to expend over
$250,000 and 8000 hours of time in fighting the illegal and abusive actions of
both. EMC's failure to admit even one mistake, when it has full and complete
knowledge of their wrongful and illegal actions and then conspire and attempt to
conceal such acts is nothing less than incredulous. What’s more revealing of
EMC's aggressive nature and behavior however, was the illegal foreclosure of the
Pew's property.

100
The Pews agreed to pay EMC in full, even over $60,000 in disputed charges to
their account for title and possession to the property so that the Pews could sell
the property.

EMC intentionally and without right to do so, did demand the payment of all of
it’s attorney fees from the inception of the Pews lawsuit until sale of their
property. For an original $109,100 note and less than $105,000 principal balance
which was in dispute, EMC and its attorneys have attempted to extort over
$750,000 in attorney fees from the Pews that they are not legally obligated for.

They even tortuously interfered with the Pew's law firm and Bear Stearns
created a conflict by retaining the Pew's firm and interfering with their
representation of the Pews. A "visiting" and "retired" judge was placed on the
case when 3 weeks before the original trial the judge who had been sitting on the
case for 5 years unexpectedly and without explanation recused himself.

The new judge, on information and belief, as well as local Dallas court officials
has been influenced by cash payments to various judges and court officials in
Texas by EMC's law firm, Fulbright & Jaworski. Rulings by the judge have been
made without proper notices of hearings to the Pews and without hearings at all
taken place.

EMC, Bear Starns, SOA & Washington Mutual Conspiracy

In essence, EMC, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual have bought and paid for
"Texas Frontier Justice" to conceal and cover-up the illegal, unethical and even
criminal acts of their companies and the attorneys hired to represent them.

EMC claims that the Pews are not only responsible for the payment of their
defense, but the defense of their co-defendant, SOA even though SOA made no
claim for damages or attorney fees. EMC, also, with the full knowledge of their
attorneys and corporate counsel and that of Bear Stearns and its executives, did
try to extort the payment of attorney fees for their co-defendants and
fraudulently concealing and hiding such arrangements from not only the Pews
but the Dallas District Court.

EMC claim the Pews are responsible for the payment of their defense is not only
frivolous in light of their knowledge of this own wrongful acts, but in direct
contradiction to the terms of the Pew's agreements with SOA which it claims to
assume. The Pews promissory note does not contain a provision to pay attorney
fees upon litigation as does other notes [Exhibit 90] that SOA allegedly sold and
assigned to EMC. However, even if the Pew's claims in their litigation were
frivolous and unmerited, EMC would only be entitled to recover for it’s own
attorney fees, not the fees of it’s co-defendant SOA which must sue to recover its
fees.

However, its co-defendant, SOA, never sued to recover or claimed any of its
attorney fees. In fact, to the contrary, it represented to not only to the Pews and
their counsel, but to Judge Hall of the Dallas, District Court in open court, that
SOA was not asking for any recovery of its attorney fees.

101
Yet, EMC, it’s counsel and the counsel for SOA all knew that EMC was not only
seeking the recovery of their own attorney fees, but were intentionally hiding and
misrepresenting the recovery of their co-defendants SOA attorney fees from the
Pews in demands EMC issued to the Pews

A such, all demands, filings with the court and documents sent to the Pews that
include even one penny in the attorney fees or costs for SOA are fraudulent,
misleading and mischaracterize the status of the Pews obligation and debt.

The Pews can never in any situation be held to be responsible for the previous
owner of their note’s legal expense because the current holder has an
indemnification agreement with the previous owner of the Pews note. SOA
would have to sue on its own to recover any attorney fees that it may be entitled
to. To prove this fraud, all one has to do is ask itself how would EMC prove up
the attorney fees it was seeking recovery for before the Dallas District Court.
Who would have testified and what physical bills would have been actually
produced?

Harm & Damages To Pews & Other SOA / EMC Customers

The actions of the EMC, SOA, Washington Mutual, Bear Stearns, Ike Guest,
David Smith and their attorneys have made the Pews spend six years
investigating and documenting the illegal abuses, practices and schemes
described herein and caused millions of dollars in monetary damages and losses
as well as great emotional, psychological and physical health.

Both SOA and EMC did knowingly, willfully and intentionally make negative
credit reports regarding the Pews to credit reporting agencies in an effort to
damage the Pews and their related business interests. By EMC's own admission,
such negative reports began on at least November 21, 1993 and have been done
continuously by EMC. EMC's reports regarding the Pews were improper,
inaccurate and done solely to abuse, damage and harass the Pews and extort
payment of the inflated amounts claimed by EMC not obligated to be paid by the
Pews.

In fact, EMC used the negative credit reporting in attempts to extort and coerce
payments from the Pews by stating that the negative credit reporting would
cease if the Pews paid the amounts claimed by EMC, including disputed
amounts.

On January 4, 2000, EMC wrongfully foreclosed on the Pews property, ostensibly

purchasing the property that was valued at over $160,000.00 for $130,000.00.
Prior to the wrongful foreclosure, EMC did not send proper notices required by
Texas law, and further EMC made improper demands for payment. EMC's
demands, contrary to Texas law, included demands for over $750,000.00 in
attorneys’ fees for not only EMC's but EMC's predecessor, SOA. The Pews were
never provided an opportunity to pay the proper amounts due or owed according
to Texas of Federal law. Likewise, EMC did not provide the Pews with
reinstatement and payoff figures as required by the terms of the note and by
Texas law until a date after the actual illegal foreclosure by EMC.

102
The Pew's equity in their house was stolen and misappropriated by EMC, and the
Pew's property was sold for an amount less than fair market value.

The Pews have been severely damaged by the actions of SOA and EMC. Despite
the fact that the Pews have made payments required by the loan, SOA and EMC
have misapplied the funds and/or held the funds in a suspense account refusing
to apply the funds, with the intent of keeping the Pews in arrears, charging
additional late charges and, ultimately, attempting to foreclose on their property.

Additional Fraud & Cover-Up By SOA & EMC

This report can not justly detail a nearly 12 year scandal which involves not only
the Pews, but tens of thousands of customers of EMC, SOA and other mortgage
companies including Fleet Financial. Washington Mutual, United Servicing and
others.

The evidence uncorked shows that the abuses are not in the tens of millions of
dollars, but in the high hundreds of millions and potentially billions when all
factors are taken into consideration. In short, this report skims on what is
perhaps the largest financial scandal ever discovered and reported.

The origination of this scandal began in the savings and loan liquidation crisis of
the late 80s and early 90s. Bear Stearns, as a financial advisor to SOA’s parent
company, helped create an alleged “whole sale” of SOA loan portfolio assets to
EMC.

At the time, SOA needed to “park off its books” non-performing loans that they
needed to write down. If this write down had been taken when required, SOA
would have been technically insolvent according to existing standards at the time
and would have needed to be liquidated or sold. They could not use a goodwill
write down at the time.

In an effort to avoid such an action, H.F. Ahmanson, with the help, support and
counsel of Bear Stearns, created a limited partnership called California Loan
Partners. SOA sold an approximate $2,4 billion loan portfolio of approximately
8000 loans to California Loan Partners “without recourse.”

On the same date, California Loan Partners allegedly “sold’ the same portfolio to
EMC. However, the sale to EMC was sold “with recourse” which technically was
not a whole loan sale. SOA, EMC and Bear Stearns then went to great lengths to
hide the “true nature” of this transaction and the fact that this was not a “true
sale” but an elaborate and creative “financing scheme” that still exists to this
day.

Side deals and agreements were created whereby SOA and later Washington
Mutual have compensated EMC and Bear for shortfalls, expenses related to
litigation, liabilities and other obligations.

103
Bear Stearns and EMC sister and affiliated companies then sold mortgage
backed securities and collateral obligations to various institutional investors in
pools consisting of the SOA loans.

SOA and EMC even went to the extent of having promissory notes, deeds of
trusts and mortgages stamped with sale endorsements that claims a sale from
California Loan Partners to EMC “without recourse.” Some of these documents
were recorded and others not.

In fact, EMC, SOA and Washington Mutual claim that “hundreds” [and perhaps
“thousand’s] of these notes were lost or destroyed without any explanation [see
EMC and Washington Mutual affidavits in various courts attached as [Exhibit
91].

In reality, it would be impossible for such a large amount of “negotiable”

instruments of such enormous value, exceeding tens of millions of dollars, to be
lost or destroyed without an explanation or investigation into such a loss.

This investigation has discovered that such notes were not lost or destroyed. In
reality, many of these notes and mortgages were bartered, assigned, sold and
traded like cheap baseball cards from one investor, trustee or bank to another. In
many cases, the actual assignments were only “book-entry” computer
transactions or were accomplished by various “alonges” executed by EMC that
were never recorded.

The motives, purposes and reasons behind EMC’s and Washington Mutual’s
refusal to produce the actual mortgages and promissory notes include:

(a) The notes and mortgages are not under the direct control and custody of EMC
or Washington Mutual;

(b) The notes and mortgages show a different chain of title and ownership in due
course than what has been reported to the courts, the borrowers and/or
recorded in county land records;

(c) The notes and mortgages have been assigned to others in various pools of
mortgage related securitizations and as such are held in the control and
custody of various trustees and document custodians in their vaults;

(d) EMC and Washington Mutual, while the servicer of the note or mortgage, are
not the actual owners of the note or mortgage upon which they attempt to
foreclose upon in their own name, rather than the name of the trustee or
actual investor in the note or mortgage.

The original loan taken out by the Pews was for an original loan balance of
$109,100.00 with the original lender, Savings of America. The Pews signed a
“blank” mortgage application [a key factor in predatory lending] forwarded to
them by SOA. SOA employees then made several material misrepresentations in
the application, contrary to the information provided to them, and conducted
fraud in the loan origination process.

104
Furthermore, SOA and its employees made a number of additional verbal and
written misrepresentations to the Pews in the loan process. One example of such
fraud was the Federal Reserve’s Regulation Z “Disclosure Statement” attached as
Exhibit 92. The statement that the Pews were sent, that is acknowledged by
their signatures, indicates the amount to be financed to be $105,683.09.

Yet, later, an SOA employee submitted another disclosure document unsigned by

the Pews and never sent or forwarded to the Pews that was contained in their
loan file. This disclosure document is referenced by Exhibit 93.

The promissory note executed by the Pews [Exhibit 2] however called for a
principal balance loan in the amount of $109,100.00 which was not previously
disclosed to the Pews. The note also contained a provision for negative
amortization, another common technique used today by predatory lenders than
Congress is looking to abolish in new legislation before Congress.

During the approximately four years that Savings of America owned and serviced
the Pew's loan, they misrepresented the Pew's payments, balances and amounts
owed by varying degrees as much as $20,000 in one particular instance. At one
point, when the Pews had insurance on their property SOA had placed not one
but three additional insurance policies on their loan and informed the Pews that
such policies in amounts as high as $1008.00, were charged to their loan.

SOA also failed to pay the Pew's own insurance from escrow and instead placed
their own policies using an insurance agency that SOA’s parent company owned.
As such, SOA’s parent company’s subsidiary earned commissions ranging from 20
to 30% on such polices.

However, to date, in over 10 years of requests and litigation, SOA has not
provided even one cancelled check for the over $5000.00 in insurance they
claimed to have charged and credited the Pew's account.

The predatory lending and servicing practices of EMC and SOA go back many
years before the known existence of what is now commonly referred to as
predatory lending. This writer first discovered such abuses over ten years ago.

However, due to the fraudulent and predatory actions of EMC, Bear Stearns,
Washington Mutual and SOA, it has taken 10 years, over 8000 hours and the
expenditure of over $250,000.00 to fully document and prove the allegations
made in this report.

105