Before the
World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration And Mediation Center is presented our rights to freedom of speech and
noncommercial use of a domain and if criticism and Commentary is allowed on
websites. please review the pending case and its outcome as seen
attached.
Is Union Bank Legally allowed to falsify and
change loan documents as presented in the ANNEX's 1-6 to WIPO?
Is Freedom of Speech still legal on the
internet?
Can you present Criticism and Commentary on
the internet when a Bank commits fraud and perjury?
Union Bank admitted in their June 27, 2013
email, that Union Banks May 19, 2011 NOD and May 19, 2011 letters were both
false. Union Bank admitted that their May 6, 2011 letter and Amortization
Schedules were both false. Union Bank admitted their May 23, 2013
Email--February 28, 2013 Email--January 24, 2013 Email and January 8, 2013
Emails are false.
In 2007 I Bill Bookout as Oceano Nursery
entered into a Forbearance and Workout Agreement with Union Bank Successor to
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, now fully known as Union Bank. Union Bank
immediately reneged on the 2007 Forbearance agreement by improperly amortizing
my Oceano Nursery SBA Loan. This has lead to Union Banks Perjury and
Fraud as Union Bank on December 26, 2011 have attempted to change their
mistakes within the United States Bankruptcy system. Union
Bank changed their prior Loan Transaction History and provided a
new one on June 27, 2013. Union Bank in this email claimed to waiving
$14,984.80 in various fees and then charged $57,676.17 in Attorney fees on
February 22, 2012. How
is this type of loan fraud legal in California?
Union Bank in January 2011 filed a fraudulent
NOD on my SBA loaned property claiming $37,801.09 owed Union Bank on top of
true Principal and Interest owed. This lead to a lot of questions in
emails to Union Bank. In May 2011 I went into mediation with Union Bank
in which the prior NOD was cancelled. Union Bank then filed a new NOD on
May 19, 2011 claiming a new falsified amount owed of $45,171.20 on top of
Principal and Interest owed. When I tried showing Union Bank their
mistakes Union Banks Senior Vice President Christine Sontag filed for and
obtained a Restraining order in June 2011 stopping any further questions of
Union Bank, other then Union Banks Attorney Diana Jessup Lee and Robert
Forouzandeh. How
is it Legal for Union Bank to claim $45,171.20 not owed Union Bank?
Union Bank in their Perjury and fraud as seen
in Union Banks January and May 19, 2011 NOD and May 19, 2011 Diana Jessup
Lee falsified Accounting letter have stolen SBA loaned money by claiming
$45,171.20 owed in deferred payments. The fact is Union Bank in 2007
fully amortized the Oceano Nursery SBA Loan at $472,823.87 with amortized
monthly payments of $4,121.06 per month. How can a Union Bank fully amortize a loan and then claim
$45,171.20 owed in deferred and defaulted payments? This question is
asked publicly!
Union Bank claims in their now falsified May
19, 2011 Accounting letter that five payments totaling $22,274.16 was
subtracted from their claimed debt of $487,469.96 down to
$465,195.20. This is not seen in the Certified August 29, 2011 SBA Form
1149 (Loan Transaction History) Union Bank did not apply any of the Principal
from these five payments or properly amortize the Oceano Nursery SBA
Loan. See IRS 1098 Forms from 2007 to present. Union Bank then
commited Perjury and Fraud before the United States Bankruptcy Court on
December 26, 2011 when they attempted to change their prior mistakes!
Union Bank actually amortized $472,941.06 at 6% over 171 payments of $4,121.06
per month. Union Bank does not deny this per a August 26, 2014 letter
written to Union Banks two SBA loan representatives Diana Jessup Lee and Robert
Forouzandeh. How
can Union Bank take five payments and not apply any principal per their own
forbearance agreement?
Union Bank in this Falsified May 19, 2011
letter stated: "In this letter I again answer your most repeated
questions and warn you that if you contact any PCB employees, officers or
directors, I will seek a restraining order against you." Union Bank
then did this as seen in the PDF files attached.
On June 6, 2011 Union Banks Senior Vice
President Christine Sontag filed a restraining order for asking SBA loan
questions of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust at the time. Christine Sontag
believes it is harassment to ask banking questions # 5 in her beginning
arguments she acknowledges the May 6, 2011 Diana Jessup lee letter; that has
been shown on June 27, 2013 to be false Exhibit E. Christine Sontag then
acknowledges the May 19, 2011 letter that Robert Forouzandh on June 27, 2013
has shown to be fraudulent per the Amortization schedule accounting.. Exhibit #
G.
Union Banks January 30, 2013 restraining
order shows Union Banks Senior Vice President Christine Sontag's Perjury and
Fraud in her signed Declaration. Union Banks Christine Sontag backs up
Diana Jessup Lees May 19, 2011 letter in which on June 27, 2013 Union Banks SBA
Loan representative Robert Forouzandeh claims is not accurate! Union
Banks Senior Vice President Christine Sontag States: "In an effort to dissuade Bookout
from continuing his harassment, Ms. Lee again answered the four main questions
Bookout continually asked over and over in his many communications."
Union Banks fraud and perjury has put Oceano
Nursery out of Business! This is a very large loss.
Union Banks Fraud and Perjury caused my
Bankruptcy in which Union Bank took this opportunity to take a falsified
principal balance of $390,996.91 and raise it to $400,962.89 during bankruptcy
on December 26, 2011. This is $9,965.98 stolen by Union Bank during a
forced Bankruptcy as Union Bank now claims on June 27, 2013 that their
amortizations schedules leading to them filing a restraining order and forcing
bankruptcy are not accurate. How
is legal for Union Bank to falsify Loan Transaction history's against IRS 1098
Forms from 2007 to present?
Union Bank before changing the August 29,
2011 Certified SBA Form 1149 Loan Transaction History on December 26, 2011
filed a Proof of Claim by Union Banks Senior Vice President Doug Lutz on
October 28, 2011. In this Proof of Claim Union Bank claimed past due
principal and interest payments of $82,162.79 with a principal balance of
$400,962.89 against the certified August 29, 2011 Loan Transaction
History. Union Bank claimed a payment due of $4,077.32 against Union
Banks August 24, 2011 Payment notice of $4,121.06 and then Union Bank claimed
$45,171.20 owed in deferred and defaulted payments past due with Union Bank
having previously amortized the SBA loan in 2007 at $472,941.06 at 6% over 171
payments. How is
this type of theft and banking fraud legal in California? How could Union
Bank ad on $45,171.20 showing principal and interest payments due of $82,162.79?
Karen L. Grant in her November 18, 2011
Objection claims $127,333.39 owed against Union Banks August 24, 2011 payment
notice of $107,186.12. These fraudulent actions are before Union Bank
changed the August 29, 2011 loan transaction history on December 26,
2011. Union Bank having
amortized the SBA loan in 2007 from $472,941.06 over 171 payments at 6%
should never have been allowed to ad on $45,171.20 in Union Banks October 28,
2011 fraudulent Proof of Claim. Richard Rossi on December
15, 2011 presented to the United States Bankruptcy Court a copy of the
Certified August 29, 2011 Loan Transaction History. This loan History
does not show Union Banks claimed $45,171.20. How is it legal for Union Bank to
steal this money in front of a United States Bankruptcy Court?
Union Banks Senior Vice president Doug Lutz
commits perjury and fraud in his declaration P. 11 in his claim that principal
and interest was paid on the $22,274.46 as this was not the case until Union
Bank changed the Certified Loan transaction history on December 26, 2011!
He admits to the claimed $45,171.20 of Principal and interest being added into
and amortized into the total balance of the loan. How is it legal for Union Bank to
amortize unpaid Principal into a monthly payment? On P.
13 Doug Lutz then claimed "The
principal balance of the loan has at all material times been in excess of
$400,000." This only occurred when Union Bank
changed the August 29, 2011 Loan Transaction history on December 26, 2011 as
Union Bank provided evidence of this on June 27, 2013. How is it legal for Union Bank to
commit this kind of fraud and Grand Theft?
Union Banks Senior Vice President Doug Lutz
without providing the Loan transaction History changes on December 26, 2011 on
P. 15 argues a monthly payment owed of $4,077.32 and that "the arrearage amount set forth
in the SBBT"s proof of Claim filed in the first Petition was
correct. Bookout's unsubstantiated contention that the arrearage amount
is incorrect is without merit." On p. 16 Union Bank
Senior Vice President Doug Lutz after changing the August 29, 2011 loan
Transaction history on December 26, 2011 states: As a result, it is unknown why
Bookout tendered his October and November 2011 monthly payments in the amount
of $4,121.06. Neither SBBT nor its counsel requested this amount."
Union Bank ignores their November 7, 2011
online Loan transaction History and their monthly payment notice on August
24, 2011 in their fraudulent clams to the Bankruptcy Court. Is it legal for Union Bank to withhold
their fraudulent Loan Transaction History changes on December 26, 2011 until
June 27, 2013? Why would Union Bank not show these changes in their
January 6, 2012 (Proof of Claim)?
Union Banks Bankruptcy Attorney Karen l.
Grant in her January 25, 2012 Statement of facts P. 4 claimed the $22,274.46
five payments in 2007 were for Principal and interest against Union Banks
August 29, 2011 Certified SBA Form 1149. Karen L. Grant then claims
$45,171.20 would be deferred by being added to and amortized into the total
balance of the loan. How
is it legal for Union Bank to amortize unpaid principal into monthly SBA
loan payments? Union Bank again filed a fraudulent
January 6, 2012 Proof of Claim. Karen l. Grant acknowledged P. 4 the
proper 6% interest rate that Union Bank improperly amortized. Without
Union Bank notifying myself or my Attorney Richard Rossi of their loan changes
on December 26, 2011; Karen L. Grant on P. 6 disputed the $107,185.12 presented
in my Bankruptcy plan and claimed their $127,333.39 was accurate pursuant to
Union Banks Proof of Claim. Karen Grant acknowledged Richard Rossi's objection
on December 15, 2011 jut days before Union Bank would change their loan
Transaction History. How
is it legal for Union Bank to commit Breach of Contract by not applying any
principal paid per the five payments?
Karen l. Grant on P. 9 1/11/12 without providing
the December 26, 2011 Loan Transaction History changes during bankruptcy to
myself or Richard Rossi as presented by Union Bank on June 27, 2013
claimed. "The
Debtor has failed to rebut by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary the
presumptions that this case has not been filed in good faith."
Karen Grant states without providing the December 26, 2011 Loan Transaction
history changes as provided on June 27, 2013. "There is no evidence provided
to this court that there has been a substantial change in the financial or
personal affairs of the debtor since the dismissal of his prior chapter 13
case." Is it legal for Union Bank to make Loan transaction History
changes against IRS 1098 forms during a forced Bankruptcy and not tell the
residing Judge Robin L. Riblet of these changes?
Union Banks Breach of Contract, Fraud and
Perjury have caused the foreclosure of the Oceano Nursery property with their
loan changes during bankruptcy. My personal residence and another
commercial property in Oceano. Union Bank appraised the Oceano Nursery
property at $265,000.00 and then subtracted $26,500.00 as a standard 10% Bank
foreclosure fee after their changing certified loan documents. Union Bank
then charged $39,750.00 to fix up the Oceano Nursery property once they had
completed foreclosing on it. Union Bank then subtracted $9,274.00 in
property taxes the day before foreclosure. This left $189,000.00 to be
applied to the Oceano nursery SBA loan. Union Banks Attorneys Diana
Jessup Lee and Robert Forouzandeh then charged $57,676.17 in SBA loaned
money from the forced foreclosure sale of the Oceano Nursery Property and
inventory. How is
any of this legal in California Banking? How is it legal for Union Bank
to take $57,676.17 of SBA Loaned Money?
Union Bank hired a Bankruptcy Attorney Karen
L. Grant who charged $15,922.92 for her partispitation in Union Banks fraud and
perjury before the United States Bankruptcy Court. How is this legal?
Attorney fees for having to file Bankruptcy
cost $7,625.00 for Richard Rossi. He was only allowed to charge
$4,500.00. How
is this legal as asked of the United States Bankruptcy Trustee?
The Oceano Nursery inventory foreclosed on by
Union Bank was valued at $307,500.00. Union Bank never paid for this
inventory, even after selling it. How
is this legal?
Union Bank has made no attempt to correct
their amortizing unpaid principal into an amortized SBA loan. How is this legal?
1.2 MB
From: Robert Forouzandeh
[mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:18 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Richard Rossi [richard@rossilegal.com] (richard@rossilegal.com); Chris Gautschi (sanschromo@yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to
theSanta Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216
Mr. Bookout,
Here are the answers to your
questions posed below:
1.
On February
19, 2013, I sent your February 2013 Billing Statement to your attorney.
The March statement will be sent to your attorney in late-March when it is
prepared.
2.
The attorneys’ fees
credited as a result of the foreclosure of the Oceano property were credited as
provided in your Deed of Trust. This process was supervised by the
Bankruptcy Court.
3.
SBBT required no
such thing.
4.
SBBT did not breach
the 2007 Forbearance Agreement.
5.
In response to your
question pertaining to your 2007 IRS Form 1098: As a result of your many
defaults on your loan, there have been many changes to your loan
calculations. The settlement you negotiated in the 2007 Forbearance
Agreement was very unique and benefitted you in ways that were contrary to your
loan terms, as well as the bank’s standard procedures. The department
which sends out the IRS Forms 1098, which is separate from the department that
handles your loan, was not aware of the more favorable terms given to
you. The interest amount listed in the 2007 Form 1098 does not affect how
your loan has been credited or amortized by SBBT.
6.
SBBT did not commit
fraud.
7.
IRS 1098 Forms and
amortization schedules are two different things with different purposes.
Our May 6, 2011 amortization schedule is accurate.
Attorney at Law
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for
the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by
others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 11:33 AM
To: dlee@rppmh.com; Fredericks, Jeffrey (jfreder@co.santa-barbara.ca.us)
Cc: 'Mendoza, Carlos G.'; 'Ryner, Leanne M.'; 'Ryner, Leanne M.'; 'dvallely@co.slo.ca.us'; 'velie@calcoastnews.com'; 'gstarkey@newtimesslo.com'; 'mfountain@newtimesslo.com'; 'lol@rsmediate.com'; 'Nudson, Anne'; 'da, sbcounty'; 'sanschromo@yahoo.com'; 'Richard Rossi'; 'Debra Hernandez'; 'adam.kaplan@sba.gov'; 'sandra.mazzoni@sba.gov'; 'Sabado, Michelle'; rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216
February 8, 2013
Diana Jessup Lee, Esq. California State Bar # 155191
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Dear Mrs. Diana Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to SBB&T
Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, has appointed you (Diana Jessup Lee) as Union Bank successor to SBB&T; SBA Loan representative to answer Oceano Nursery SBA Loan Questions! Please answer the Union Bank SBA loan questions below on February 8, 2013! All questions asked of Union Bank successor to SBB&T can be seen at www.unionbank.me
Diana Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to SBB&T
1) Explain as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098, SBBT/Union Bank did not apply any of the five forbearance agreement payments towards Principal?
2) Explain as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098, SBBT/Union Bank shows a (Ending Principal Balance) of $420,024.30 and does not reduce this balance as seen in the December 31, 2006 IRS Form 1098?
3) Explain as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098, SBBT/Union Bank shows only interest of $53,358.70 paid and nothing towards principal?
4) Explain as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098, SBBT/Union Bank does not apply any extra principal paid as seen on 7/31/07?
5) Explain as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098, SBBT/Union Bank charges (Regular Payment)s of $4,121.06 from 9/11/07-12/13/07?
6) Explain as to why in the December 31, 2008 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank charged monthly payments of $4,121.06 against SBA loan rules? Diana Jessup Lee, You Claim January 24, 2013 that this monthly payment should have been $4,028.05!
7) Explain as to why in the December 31, 2008 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank did not re-amortize the payment of $4,121.06?
Diana Jessup Lee, You Stated June 29, 2011: “I have reviewed your Ex. 6 and cannot find the document to which you reference. Nevertheless, it does not matter. The operative documents are my May 6 and 19 letters to you with enclosed schedules and the May 19, 2011 NOD. All three of these documents credit the $22,274.46 as if you had timely made the monthly payments due May, 2006 through September, 2006, as agreed in the Forbearance Agreement.”
8) Explain as to why in the IRS 1098 Forms from 2007 to 2010 from your June 29, 2011 email as to how SBBT/Union Bank prepared the May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedule against your June 29, 2011 email?
9) Explain how Union Bank has credited the $22,274.46 principal, per the 2007-2010 IRS forms 1098?
10) Explain as to why in the December 31, 2008 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank applied extra principal paid of $78.94 to interest on 4/15/2008?
11) Explain as to why in the December 31, 2008 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank applied extra Principal paid of $1078.94 to interest on May 21, 2008?
12) Explain as to why in the December 31, 2008 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank charged $157.88 in (Late Charges Paid YTD)?
Diana Jessup Lee, You Stated June 28, 2011: “Please send me a copy of the "1098 form" about which you have questions and I will obtain an explanation for you.”
Diana Jessup Lee, You Stated July 5, 2011: “The schedules and "computerized records" you request were included with and explained in my May 6 letter.”
13) Explain as to why in the December 31, 2009 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank charged monthly payments of $4,121.06 against SBA loan rules?
14) Explain as to why in the December 31, 2009 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank did not re-amortize the payment of $4,121.06?
15) Explain as to why in the December 31, 2009 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank charged $711.40 in (Late Charges Paid YTD)?
Diana Jessup Lee, You Stated June 28, 2011 “I do not know what "computerized" records you are requesting. The May 6, 2011 schedules are official and are correct, so there is no need for any other records.”
16) Explain as to why in the December 31, 2010 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank claimed a Principal Balance of $390,996.91 against the January 6, 2011 SBBT (Proof of Claim) amount of $400,962.89?
17) Explain as to why in the December 31, 2010 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank charged late payment fees of $206.05 or 5% of $4,121.06 against SBA loan Rules or Your (Diana Jessup Lee) January 24, 2013 claim of a monthly payment of $4,028.05?
18) Explain as to why in the December 31, 2010 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank charged $2,800.00 as an Appraisal fee? Please provide a copy of this September 17, 2010 appraisal as charged!
19) In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust August 24, 2011 (Payment Notice) explain why Union Bank/SBBT did not claim $45,171.20 owed Union Bank per the May 19, 2011 NOD?
20) In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust August 24, 2011 (Payment Notice) explain why Union Bank/SBBT claimed a monthly payment of $4,121.06 against SBA loan amortization rules?
21) Explain how Union Bank on/SBBT on May 6, 2011 came up with $4,028.05 instead of the August 24, 2011 (Payment Notice) $4,121.06?
22) In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust August 24, 2011 (Payment Notice) explain Union Bank/SBBT (Charges/Fees Due) of $20,643.86?
23) In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust August 24, 2011 (Payment Notice) explain why Union Bank/SBBT claims 20 payments of $4,121.06 totaling $82,421.20 against the May 19, 2011 NOD, SBA loan rules and Your (Diana Jessup Lee) January 24, 2013 email Stating? “As I have done on numerous occasions, I direct you to Schedule 2 which was attached to my May 6, 2011 letter to you as well as my letter to you dated May 19, 2011 in which I explain that your $22,274.46 payment in July, 2007 was applied to satisfy your monthly principal and interest payments due for May, June, July, August and September, 2006 which you had failed to pay. The reduction in principal on your loan after application of this payment is confirmed in Schedule 2. “
24) As seen in the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 24, 2007 (Payment Notice) explain why Union Bank/SBBT claimed a payment due of $4,121.06 per month against the 2007 forbearance agreement?
25) As seen in the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 24 2007 (Payment Notice) explain how Union Bank/SBBT amortized the Oceano Nursery SBA loan at 6% against the your January 24, 2013 email by (Diana Jessup Lee)?
26) As seen in the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust June 23, 2007 (Payment Notice) explain how Union Bank/SBBT amortized $474,298.51 at 6%? Diana Jessup Lee, You Claim January 24, 2013 that the SBA loan was amortized at $462,069.51 with a monthly payment of $4,028.05!
27) Explain as to how you as Union Banks SBA loan representative, (Diana Jessup Lee) can claim January 24, 2013 that the Oceano Nursery SBA loan was amortized from Schedule 2 after five payments totaling $22,274.46 down to $416,898.31 and then adding 10 payments of both principal and interest totaling $462,069.51 making a monthly payment of $4,028.05 against Union Bank/SBBT’s SBA Forms 1149 and all IRS Form 1098 from 2007 to present?
28) As seen in the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust June 23, 2007 (Payment Notice) explain how Union Bank/SBBT paid and applied principal from the five payments of $22,274.46 per the June 30, 2007 forbearance agreement against your (Diana Jessup Lee) January 24, 2013 email below?
29) In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 4, 2007 online accounting explain how Union Bank/SBBT did not account for the June 30, 2007 five payments of principal and interest totaling $22,274.46?
30) In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 17, 2007 online accounting explain how Union Bank/SBBT claimed interest due of $33,945.49 after subtracting $22,274.46?
31) In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 23, 2007 online accounting explain how Union Bank/SBBT claimed interest due of $33,821.79 after subtracting $22,274.46 and receiving two principal and interest payments of $5,000.00?
32) Explain as to why in Union Banks May 6, 2011 amortization schedule # 2 that SBBT/Union Bank does not account for the extra principal paid?
33) In the Pacific Capital Bank January 9, 2007 (Demand Letter) from Heidi Dugan. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT ignored paying principal from five payments of $22,274.46 per the June 30, 2007 forbearance agreement?
34) In the Pacific Capital Bank January 9, 2007 (Demand Letter) from Heidi Dugan. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT claimed $45,171.20 owed in the May 19, 2011 NOD compared to Pacific Capital Banks January 9, 2007 (Demand Letter) loan accounting?
35) In the Pacific Capital Bank September 29, 2006 (Letter) from Heidi Dugan. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT claimed $45,171.20 owed in the May 19, 2011 NOD compared to Pacific Capital Banks loan accounting?
36) In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust August 29, 2011 SBA form 1149 explain how Union Bank/SBBT claimed monthly payments of $4,121.06 per month against the 2007 forbearance agreement and your Union Banks SBA Loan Representative (Diana Jessup Lee) May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedule?
37) Explain as to How Union Bank believes that an Amortization Schedule is accurate against IRS Forms 1098 and SBA Forms 1149?
Diana Jessup Lee, You stated for Union Bank on January 8, 2013 against IRS 1098 Forms and SBA 1149 Forms as presented to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner, Denise Motter: “As Mr. Forouzandeh stated to you in his November 23, 2011 email, the $390,996.91 balance was apparently obtained by you from SBBT's online banking feature which temporarily showed a principal balance of $390,996.91 for the loan. The $390,996.91 was calculated using the fixed interest rate of 6% set forth in the Forbearance Agreement.”
38) Please provide a current Union Bank SBA Loan Transaction History with your January 8, 2013 email statement! Please explain the 2008 IRS Form 1098 Balance of $390,996.91 against your January 6, 2012 (Proof of Claim) to Judge Robin L. Riblet?
39) In the October 26, 2010 Demand Statement from Vice President Sandra Sheffield. Explain as to why Pacific Capital Bank did not claim $45,171.20 in deferred and defaulted payments against Union Banks May 19, 2011 NOD?
40) In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust September 20, 2010 SBA form 1149 explain how Union Bank/SBBT claimed monthly payments of $4,121.06 per month against the 2007 forbearance agreement?
41) In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust September 20, 2010 SBA form 1149 explain how Union Bank on January 24, 2013 that the May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedule # 2 is accurate against the September 20, 2010 SBA Form 1149?
42) In the May 2, 2011 Email to Diana Jessup Lee, copied to Mediator Lol Sorensen. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT ignored the September 13, 2010 SBA Form 1149 provided in Mediation with Lol Sorenson by Doug Lutz?
43) In the Email to yourself (Diana Jessup Lee) and Mediator, Lol Sorensen on May 2, 2010. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT ignored the Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts online accounting as of May 2, 2012 with monthly payments of $4,121.06 and a principal balance of $390,996.91?
44) Explain how Union Bank successor to SBB&T can charge 10% ($26,500.00 of an appraised property value of $265,000.00) as a Foreclosure fee on all (SBA PLP Loan) Foreclosures? Union Bank in their 2013 Form 1099-A Claim a (Fair market Value of Property) to be $189,000.00 against Union Banks own property appraisal of $265,000.00!
45) Explain how Union Bank successor to SBB&T can charge charge $39,750.00 off of an $265,000.00 Appraised value to fix up a SBA loaned property that they are foreclosing on as seen in Union Banks February 21, 2012 Exhibit A-22 as presented to United States Bankruptcy Judge Robin L. Riblet?
46) Explain how Union Bank successor to SBB&T charge $57,676.17 in Attorney fees, for asking bank loan questions; without paying back an SBA loan with this money or creditors from profits in a forced foreclosure sale caused by Union Bank Successor to SBB&T as seen in Union Banks February 27, 2012 Exhibit B-23 as presented to United States Bankruptcy Judge Robin L. Riblet and Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter?
Diana Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to SBB&T, I am asking for a full accounting of Union Banks Attorney fees as “Bankruptcy Rule 2016(a) mandates that “an entity seeking compensation for services or reimbursement for expenses shall file an application setting forth a detailedstatement of (1) the services rendered, time expended and expenses incurred, and (2) the amounts requested.”41” Union Bank charged $57,676.17 by Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP in Exhibit B-23 (Case No. ND11-15818RR). Union Bank in front of Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denis Motter has claimed that this $57,676.17 in Attorney Fees had nothing to do with the questions asked of Union bank as stated by Robert Forouzandeh January 28, 2013!
Robert Forouzandeh Stated! “MR. FOROUZANDEH: Your Honor, the $57,000 in attorney's fees had very little to nothing to do with the prior restraining order. That matter has been adjudicated in front of the bankruptcy court. That's all been resolved. There was no request for attorney's fees, either in our last petition before you or this present petition before you. As to the questions, Mr. Bookout, yes, he is correct. He's contacted the CEO of Union Bank asking questions about his loan. That e-mail was forwarded to us. We immediately contacted Mr. Bookout and asked him to direct all of his questions pertaining to his loan through our office and when he CC's the other official, we again respond and say, "Mr. Bookout, here are the answers to your questions, but please stop e-mailing everybody in the organization."
Diana Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to SBB&T, Again answer the 46 Questions asked above of Union Bank!
Diana Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to SBB&T, I am requesting an accounting of Union Banks charge of $39,750.00 and that this money is returned with interest as seen in Exhibit A-22 along with the Union Bank charge of $26,500.00 (10% standard deduction by the bank on all foreclosures) Union Bank as the lender, holds the primary responsibility for keeping accurate records. See, In re Parrish, 326 B.R. 708, 721 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2005), and In re Jacobson, 5 B.R. 274, 277 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1980). See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jones (In re Jones), 439 Fed.Appx. 330 (5th Cir. 2011). Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Stewart (In re Stewart), 647 F.3d 553 (5th Cir. 2011). See, e.g., In re Henry, 266 B.R. 457, 480 (Bankr. C.D.Cal. 2001)(Awarding interest in addition to compensatory damages under 362(h)).
Diana Jessup Lee, If Union Bank successor to SBB&T, has any documents to back up the May 6, 2011 amortization schedule as you (Diana Jessup Lee) have stated January 24, 2011: Then please provide these Union Bank successor to SBB&T documents as you state! “As I have done on numerous occasions, I direct you to Schedule 2 which was attached to my May 6, 2011 letter to you as well as my letter to you dated May 19, 2011 in which I explain that your $22,274.46 payment in July, 2007 was applied to satisfy your monthly principal and interest payments due for May, June, July, August and September, 2006 which you had failed to pay. The reduction in principal on your loan after application of this payment is confirmed in Schedule 2. Why do you keep asking the same question? If you believe my explanations are wrong, please state precisely why and explain your conclusion as opposed to simply asserting false conclusory statements.”
Diana Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to SBB&T; The attached, Union Bank SBA loan documents, show Union Bank successor to SBB&T (IRS Forms 1098 from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and a September 13, 2010 SBA Form 1149 as presented at Mediation with Lol Sorensen by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust. Please answer the question above of Union Bank from these Union Bank successor to SBB&T documents! Please also provide your response to Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee Fax (818) 933-5755
Sincerely
Bill Bookout
CC Jeffery Frederick Santa Barbara District Attorney Supervising Investigator
CC Chris Gautschi
CC Richard Rossi
CC Judge Robin L. Riblet Case # ND11-15818-RR
CC Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee Fax (818) 933-5755
CC California State Bar
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 7:28 AM
To: Fredericks, Jeffrey
Cc: 'Mendoza, Carlos G.'; 'Ryner, Leanne M.'; 'Ryner, Leanne M.'; 'dvallely@co.slo.ca.us'; 'velie@calcoastnews.com'; 'gstarkey@newtimesslo.com'; 'mfountain@newtimesslo.com'; 'lol@rsmediate.com'; Nudson, Anne; da, sbcounty; dlee@rppmh.com; 'sanschromo@yahoo.com'; Richard Rossi; 'Debra Hernandez'; adam.kaplan@sba.gov; 'Bill Bookout'; sandra.mazzoni@sba.gov; 'Sabado, Michelle'
Subject: FW: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216
February 6, 2013
California Governor Jerry Brown
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 445-2841
Fax: (916) 558-3160
Dear CaliforniaGovernor Jerry Brown,
Please review Union Bank successor to SBB&T, Small Business Administration (SBA) PLP loan # 664-196-4009 Fraud and Breach of Contract as seen below in the January 24, 2013 and January 8, 2013 emails from Union Banks SBA loan Representative Diana Jessup Lee, Esq. California State Bar # 155191. Union Bank successor to SBB&T clams that a May 6, 2011 Amortization schedule is accurate against Union Banks IRS 1098 Forms. Please review the January 24, 2013 questions asked of Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Mrs. Diana Jessup Lee, Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka, Simon Bonilla, Daniel Weidman, and Thomas Taggart below.
Attached is the January 28, 2012 Santa Barbara Superior Court Transcript in front of Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Commissioner Motter is fully aware of Union Bank successor to SBB&T, IRS 1098 Forms and SBA Forms 1149 showing Union Banks full knowledge of SBB&T Fraud and Breach of contract! Union Banks States to Commissioner Motter: “There's nothing falsified. The documents speak for themselves.” Union Bank successor to SBB&T claims in the Court Transcript on P. 6 and 7 that that they have answered questions after Union Banks President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka has made aware of SBB&T actions! Union Bank then claims that no evidence has been provided!
A website www.governorjerrybrown.nethas been set up to show Union Banks successor to SBB&T; SBA loan fraud against Santa Barbara Bank& Trusts IRS Forms 1098 from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and Santa Barbara Bank& Trusts August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149. Please provide this information and evidence to the California State Attorney General Kamala D. Harris/California State Bar and see that the questions asked below on January 24th 25th and 27th of Union Bank are answered by Union Bank as presented to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, on January 28, 2013.
California Governor Jerry Brown,
1) Is it legal In California for Union Bank/SBBT to falsify a NOD and Monthly overcharge an (SBA)Small Business Administration loan since 2003 and 2007 as seen in Union Banks IRS Form 1098 documents as Successor to SBB&T?
2) Can California Banks legally charge a 10% ($26,500.00 of an appraised property value of $265,000.00) Foreclosure fee on all (SBA PLP Loan) Foreclosures? Union Bank in their 2013 Form 1099-A Claim a (Fair market Value of Property) to be $189,000.00 against Union Banks own property appraisal of $265,000.00!
3) Can California Banks charge $39,750.00 off of an $265,000.00 Appraised value to fix up a SBA loaned property that they are foreclosing on as seen in Union Banks February 21, 2012 Exhibit A-22 as presented to United States Bankruptcy Judge Robin L. Riblet?
4) Can a California Bank charge $57,676.17 in Attorney fees, for asking bank loan questions; without paying back an SBA loan with this money or creditors from profits in a forced foreclosure sale caused by Union Bank Successor to SBB&T as seen in Union Banks February 27, 2012 Exhibit B-23 as presented to United States Bankruptcy Judge Robin L. Riblet and Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter?
5) Can a California Bank in a May 19, 2011 NOD falsely claim $45,171.20 owed Union Bank Successor to SBB&T against their own IRS Forms 1098 from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 as seen at www.governorjerrybrown.net?
6) Are California Banks now allowed to charge interest on unpaid principal as claimed with Union Bank Successor to SBB&T May 19, 2011 NOD claim of both Principal and interest of $45,171.20 owed against the June 30, 2011 Comptroller of Currency Findings?
7) As a Small California Business person in Pismo Beach California. Union Bank successor to SBB&T; fraudulent actions has also cost $7,625.00 in Bankruptcy Attorney fees and two California Business properties plus business inventory and business loss! How is it legal in California for Union Bank Successor to SBB&T to ignore their own Computerized Bank Records and IRS 1098 Forms; against Union Banks SBA loan Representative Diana Jessup Lee’s May 6, 2011 and May 19, 2011 letters as seen at www.governorjerrybrown.net? Please review Karen L. Grant March 30, 2012 Case 9:11-bk-15818-RR, response from Union Bank Successor to SBB&T at www.governorjerrybrown.net .Karen L. Grant charged $15,922.92 for her fraudulent statements to Bankruptcy Judge Robin L. Riblet as seen in Karen L. Grant March 30, 2012 Case 9:11-bk-15818-RR, response!
California Governor Jerry Brown. Union Bank Successor to SBB&T has again falsely stated January 24, 2013 as presented to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner, Denise Motter: “As I have done on numerous occasions, I direct you to Schedule 2 which was attached to my May 6, 2011 letter to you as well as my letter to you dated May 19, 2011 in which I explain that your $22,274.46 payment in July, 2007 was applied to satisfy your monthly principal and interest payments due for May, June, July, August and September, 2006 which you had failed to pay. The reduction in principal on your loan after application of this payment is confirmed in Schedule 2. Why do you keep asking the same question?” The Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks has investigated Santa Barbara Bank & Trust and found in the OCC letter on June 30, 2011 at www.governorjerrybrown.net Santa Barbara Bank & Trust not applying any principal as seen in Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts IRS Forms 1098 from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. How are Union Bank Successor to SBB&T fraudulent loan actions legal in California? Please review the emails below from Union Bank successor to SBB&T going back to January 25, 2011. Union Banks Schedule 2 does not exist per IRS 1098 Forms!
California Governor Jerry Brown. Again, please provide this information to the California State Attorney General, Kamala D. Harris /California State Bar and see that the questions asked below on January 24th 25th and 27thof Union Bank are answered by Union Bank as presented to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, on January 28, 2013. The Santa Barbara District Attorney Office has stated December 13, 2012 “As we discussed the District Attorney’s Office is not the primary investigative agency for these types of situations. My recommendation would be to make a referral to the appropriate regulatory agency for your type of loan, if they determine that there is any inappropriate criminal action by the lending institution they can investigate and make a referral to the appropriate jurisdiction..”
California Governor Jerry Brown, I believe the appropriate regulatory agency begins with the California State Attorney General Kamala D. Harris/California State Bar and your Office. Union Banks successor to SBB&T Attorney charges of $73,5999.09 for asking for an accounting of a SBA loan, should be accounted for with the Union Bank January 24, 2013 email/Accounting from Diana Jessup Lee, Esq. California State Bar # 155191! Attached are Union Banks, Attorneys Diana Jessup Lee and Robert B. Forouzandeh emails from May 31, 2011 to January 24, 2013 including an email from SBB&T Attorney George C. Lazar on January 25, 2011. Each of these Emails go against the June 30, 2011 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Bank letter and Union Banks own IRS Forms 1098 from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 at www.governorjerrybrown.net
CC Santa Barbara Superior Court Denise Motter Case # 1381216
CC Michelle Sabado
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:46 AM
To: 'dlee@rppmh.com'; 'Masashi.Oka@unionbank.com'; rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Cc: 'simon.bonilla@unionbank.com'; 'sanschromo@yahoo.com'; 'Richard Rossi'; 'Mendoza, Carlos G.'; 'Ryner, Leanne M.'; 'Nudson, Anne'; 'dvallely@co.slo.ca.us'; 'da, sbcounty'; 'velie@calcoastnews.com'; 'gstarkey@newtimesslo.com'; 'mfountain@newtimesslo.com'; 'Fredericks, Jeffrey'; 'lol@rsmediate.com'; 'daniel.weidman@unionbank.com'; 'thomas.taggart@unionbank.com'; 'donnasikola@unionbank.com'; 'bobj@westdalecapital.com'; Scott Waker <swalker@cobrakayaks.com> (swalker@cobrakayaks.com); 'Debra Hernandez' (debra@rossilegal.com)
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216
January 27, 2013
Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter
Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka and Simon Bonilla.
Diana Jessup Lee, Esq. California State Bar # 155191
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Dear Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka, Simon Bonilla, Daniel Weidman, and Thomas Taggart
The attached Exhibits are Union Bank documents, showing Union Bank/ Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (IRS Forms 1098 from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010and a September 13, 2010 SBA Form 1149 as presented at Mediation with Lol Sorensen by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust. These documents are against Union Banks Vice President, Christine Sontag’s January 24, 2013 Second Set of Supplemental Exhibits; Motion to Modify a Restraining order for asking SBA PLP Loan questions of Union Bank from the Declaration of Robert B. Forouzandeh. Each document presented by Union Bank on January 24, 2013 asks for an SBA loan accounting, from Union Bank/SBBT’s May 19, 2011 NOD, May 6, 2011 and May 19, 2011 letters written by Diana Jessup Lee, Esq. California State Bar # 155191. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jones (In re Jones), 439 Fed.Appx. 330 (5th Cir. 2011). Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Stewart (In re Stewart), 647 F.3d 553 (5thCir. 2011).
Union Bank in their Exhibit F. provides to the Santa Barbara Superior Court on January 24, 2013. Union Banks (Payment Notices 2006-2007) Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks June 30, 2011 findings, December 20, 2011 FOIA Documents with letters written by Pacific Capital Bank, Union Banks SBA Forms 1149 documents dated May 30, 2008, September 13, 2010 and August 29, 2011. April 2, 2012 letter written to Robert Forouzandeh by the Law Offices of Chris Gautschi per the Oceano Nursery inventory, Pacific Capital Banks May 15, 2007 letter written by Vice President Sandra Sheffield followed by Pacific Capital Banks May 17, 2007 foreclosure letter and actions! Union Bank in their Exhibit F. A Preliminary Title Report for the Oceano Nursery property, A San Luis Obispo County Assessed Value of the Oceano Nursery property of $299,910.00 along with an email from Pacific Capital Bank on August 21, 2010 claiming that Pacific Capital Bank no longer makes SBA loans!
Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Please see that the questions asked below January 24, 2013 and January 25, 2013 of Union Bank are answered with these Union Bank documents showing Union Banks SBA loan Fraud as recently as January 24, 2013, per the statements from Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP! Union Bank on January 24, 2013 claims that their May 19, 2011 and May 6, 2011 SBBT letters are accurate against IRS Forms 1098 and the September 13, 2010 SBA Form 1149 as presented at Mediation with Lol Sorensen by SBBT. Union Bank in their January 24, 2013 Exhibit F. have provided the Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks June 30, 2011 findings, showing Union Banks May 6, 2011 letter (amortization schedule) and May 19, 2011 NOD to be fraudulent! Union Bank in the June 30 2011 OCC letter is found talking about the Restraining order filed with the Santa Barbara Superior Court on June 3, 2011 and that Ms. Diana J. Lee had been hired as counsel. The OCC found that SBBT/Union Bank did not apply any principal from the five payments totaling $22,274.46 and that extra principal payments paid SBBT were applied to only interest.Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jones (In re Jones), 439 Fed.Appx. 330 (5th Cir. 2011). Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Stewart (In re Stewart), 647 F.3d 553 (5thCir. 2011).
Union Bank in their December 21, 2012 Declaration to the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, falsely claim: “In an effort to dissuade Bookout from continuing his harassment, Mrs. Lee again answered the four main questions Bookout continually asked over and over in his many communications. A True and correct copy of the May 19, 2011 letter is attached as Exhibit F to the Original Request and incorporated herein.”
Union Bank has stated January 24, 2013 against Exhibits 6 and 10 as previously presented to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner, Denise Motter: “As I have done on numerous occasions, I direct you to Schedule 2 which was attached to my May 6, 2011 letter to you as well as my letter to you dated May 19, 2011 in which I explain that your $22,274.46 payment in July, 2007 was applied to satisfy your monthly principal and interest payments due for May, June, July, August and September, 2006 which you had failed to pay. The reduction in principal on your loan after application of this payment is confirmed in Schedule 2. Why do you keep asking the same question?”
Union Bank States in their closing argument on January 24, 2013: “It must be noted that in some of Bookout’s emails he attaches an email from Union Banks council in which all of his questions were answered.”
“Exhibit G Consists of the two emails from Diana Jessup Lee, counsel for Union Bank, to Bookout between January 8, 2013 and January 23, 2013. These are the two most recent emails in which Ms. Lee answers Bookout’s questions pertaining to his loan.”
Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. The Statements by Union Bank representatives on December 21, 2012 and January 24, 2013 are again Fraudulent! Union Bank has not answered the SBA loan questions asked of Union Bank as seen in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098 and Union Banks 2008, 2010 and 2011 SBA Form 1149. Attached as Exhibits are 55 Union Bank documents showing the fraudulent answers from Diana Jessup Lee on January 8, 2013 and January 24, 2013.
I am asking for full compensation of all Union Bank/ Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Attorney Fees charged by Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP and Karen L. Grant along with Richard Rossi of $7,6125.00 due to the Union Bank Vice President Christine Sontag retaliatory actions after asking SBA loan questions of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust/Union Bank. I am asking with the fraudulent answers from Diana Jessup Lee on January 8, 2013 and January 24, 2013; that the current restraining order be removed and that a Union Bank representative is designated to answer Union Bank SBA PLP loan questions! I ask that this communication be provided to Judge Robin L. Riblet and Elizabeth F. Rojas, Chapter 13 Trustee.
I am asking for a full accounting of Union Banks Attorney fees as “Bankruptcy Rule 2016(a) mandates that “an entity seeking compensation for services or reimbursement for expenses shall file an application setting forth a detailedstatement of (1) the services rendered, time expended and expenses incurred, and (2) the amounts requested.”41” Union Bank charged $57,676.17 by Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP as seen attached in Exhibit B-23 (Case No. ND11-15818RR). I am requesting an accounting of Union Banks charge of $39,750.00 and that this money is returned with interest as seen in Exhibit A-22 along with the Union Bank charge of $26,500.00 (10% standard deduction by the bank on all foreclosures) Union Bank as the lender, holds the primary responsibility for keeping accurate records. See, In re Parrish, 326 B.R. 708, 721 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2005), and In re Jacobson, 5 B.R. 274, 277 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1980). See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jones (In re Jones), 439 Fed.Appx. 330 (5th Cir. 2011). Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Stewart (In re Stewart), 647 F.3d 553 (5th Cir. 2011). See, e.g., In re Henry, 266 B.R. 457, 480 (Bankr. C.D.Cal. 2001)(Awarding interest in addition to compensatory damages under 362(h)).
Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. With Union Banks fraudulent December 21, 2012---January 24, 2013 statements and attached (Bankruptcy Case NO. ND11-15818 RR) Exhibits showing Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP; actions and use, after obtaining a restraining order from the Santa Barbara Superior Court Case NO. 1381216. I am requesting a Court Reporters Transcript of this hearing, January 28, 2013 Case NO. 1381216. I again request, that the current and requested restraining order be removed and that a Union Bank representative is designated to answer Union Bank SBA PLP loan questions! I ask that this communication be provided to Judge Robin L. Riblet and Elizabeth F. Rojas, Chapter 13 Trustee.
Sincerely
Bill Bookout
Pismo Beach Surf Shop
CC Masashi Oka--Union Bank
CC Chris Gautschi
CC Richard Rossi
CC Judge Robin L. Riblet
CC Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee
CC California State Bar
CC Santa Barbara Superior Court Denise Motter
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 2:51 PM
To: 'dlee@rppmh.com'; 'Masashi.Oka@unionbank.com'; rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Cc: 'simon.bonilla@unionbank.com'; 'sanschromo@yahoo.com'; 'Richard Rossi'; 'Mendoza, Carlos G.'; 'Ryner, Leanne M.'; 'Nudson, Anne'; 'dvallely@co.slo.ca.us'; 'da, sbcounty'; 'velie@calcoastnews.com'; 'gstarkey@newtimesslo.com'; 'mfountain@newtimesslo.com'; 'Fredericks, Jeffrey'; 'lol@rsmediate.com'; 'daniel.weidman@unionbank.com'; 'thomas.taggart@unionbank.com'; 'donnasikola@unionbank.com'; 'bobj@westdalecapital.com'; 'Bill Bookout' (Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net)
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216
January 25, 2013
Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter
Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka and Simon Bonilla.
Diana Jessup Lee, Esq. California State Bar # 155191
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
RE: Union Banks Motion to Modify Restraining Order Case # 1381216 -----Exhibits previously filed with the Santa Barbara Superior Court 1-15 filed (June 24, 2011.CH-110) Union Banks Exhibits provided to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter on January 24, 2013.
Dear Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka, Simon Bonilla, Daniel Weidman, Thomas Taggart and Diana Jessup Lee,
In Response Union Banks Vice President Christine Sontag’s January 24, 2013 Motion to Modify a Restraining order for asking SBA Loan questions of Union Bank. Please see that the questions asked below January 24, 2013 and January 25, 2013 of Union Bank are answered!
Union Bank claims on January 24, 2013 against all (IRS Forms 1098 from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and Mediation SBA Forms 1149) Union Bank States: “It must be noted that in some of Bookout’s emails he attaches an email from Union Banks council in which all of his questions were answered.” This is not the case and is why the questions asked again on January 24, 2013 and January 25, 2013 must be answered by Union Bank!
Union Bank has stated January 24, 2013 against Exhibits 6 and 10 as presented to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner, Denise Motter: “As I have done on numerous occasions, I direct you to Schedule 2 which was attached to my May 6, 2011 letter to you as well as my letter to you dated May 19, 2011 in which I explain that your $22,274.46 payment in July, 2007 was applied to satisfy your monthly principal and interest payments due for May, June, July, August and September, 2006 which you had failed to pay. The reduction in principal on your loan after application of this payment is confirmed in Schedule 2. Why do you keep asking the same question?”
Union Banks (May 19, 2011 letter) Applies no principal as claimed by Union Banks Vice President Christine Sontag again on January 24, 2013! Union Banks Exhibit E. May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedule was never used by Union Bank/SBBT in any SBA Form 1149 or IRS Form 1098! Union Bank in Schedule 2 claims 10 payment totaling $45,171.20 owed by amortizing both principal and interest into the 2007 forbearance and workout agreement! Union Bank/SBBT had Stated June 28, 2011 against Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts-- 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 IRS Form 1098: “I do not know what "computerized" records you are requesting. The May 6, 2011 schedules are official and are correct, so there is no need for any other records.”
“Please send me a copy of the "1098 form" about which you have questions and I will obtain an explanation for you.”
A) Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Union Bank needs to explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098, SBBT/Union Bank did not apply any of the five forbearance agreement payments towards principal as claimed by Diana Jessup Lee on January 24, 2013!
B) Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Union Bank needs to explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098, SBBT/Union Bank charged a monthly payment of $4,121.06 per month up to November 2011?
C) Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Union Bank needs to explain as to why SBBT/Union Bank filed a Fraudulent NOD on May 19, 2011 and claimed $45,171.20 owed in Deferred and Defaulted Payments against the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098 as seen in exhibit # 6?
D) Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka, Simon Bonilla, Daniel Weidman and Thomas Taggart, If Union Bank has any SBA loan documents to back up Union Banks SBA Loan Representative Diana Jessup Lees January 24, 2013 email against all Union Bank/SBBT (IRS Forms 1098 from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and Mediation with Lol Sorensen; September 13, 2010 SBA Forms 1149 along with the August 29, 2011 SBA form 1149) then please provide these documents to myself and Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter by January 28, 2013!
Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. All questions are fully asked of Union Bank on January 24, 2013 and January 25, 2013. I ask that this communication be provided to the Judge Robin L. Riblet and Elizabeth F. Rojas, Chapter 13 Trustee.
Sincerely
Bill Bookout
Pismo Beach Surf Shop
CC Masashi Oka--Union Bank
CC Chris Gautschi
CC Richard Rossi
CC Judge Robin L. Riblet
CC Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee
CC California State Bar
CC Santa Barbara Superior Court Denise Motter
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 5:29 PM
To: dlee@rppmh.com; Masashi.Oka@unionbank.com
Cc: Masashi.Oka@unionbank.com; simon.bonilla@unionbank.com; sanschromo@yahoo.com; 'Richard Rossi'; 'Mendoza, Carlos G.'; 'Ryner, Leanne M.'; 'Nudson, Anne'; dvallely@co.slo.ca.us; 'da, sbcounty'; velie@calcoastnews.com; gstarkey@newtimesslo.com; mfountain@newtimesslo.com; 'Debra Hernandez'; 'Fredericks, Jeffrey'; lol@rsmediate.com; daniel.weidman@unionbank.com; thomas.taggart@unionbank.com; 'donnasikola@unionbank.com'; bobj@westdalecapital.com; 'Scott Waker'; 'Kaplan, Adam D.(Off. Inspector Gen.)'; 'Bill Bookout'
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216
January 24, 2013
Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter
Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka and Simon Bonilla.
Diana Jessup Lee, Esq. California State Bar # 155191
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
RE: Union Banks Motion to Modify Restraining Order Case # 1381216 -----Exhibits previously filed with the Santa Barbara Superior Court 1-15 filed (June 24, 2011.CH-110)
Dear Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Mrs. Diana Jessup Lee, Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka, Simon Bonilla, Daniel Weidman, Thomas Taggart,
On January 24, 2013 and On January 8, 2013—Union Banks SBA Loan Representative (Diana Jessup Lee) has shown Union Bank/Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts, SBA loan Fraud since 2007! Union Bank questions asked below of Union Bank on January 15, 2013 now have to be answered by Union Bank, along with the follow up questions on January 22, 2013 and January 24, 2013! Union Bank Stated January 8, 2013: “You ask why SBBT“would file a fraudulent NOD…” SBBT did not file a fraudulent NOD, and you have provided no evidence to the contrary.” Union Bank has provided in their Exhibit A to the Santa Barbara Superior Court on December 21, 2012 back up evidence showing Union Bank/SBBT SBA loan Fraud! As previously presented to the Santa Barbara Superior Court are Exhibits 6 and 10 of 15.
Union Bank has stated January 24, 2013 against Exhibits 6 and 10 as presented to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner, Denise Motter: “As I have done on numerous occasions, I direct you to Schedule 2 which was attached to my May 6, 2011 letter to you as well as my letter to you dated May 19, 2011 in which I explain that your $22,274.46 payment in July, 2007 was applied to satisfy your monthly principal and interest payments due for May, June, July, August and September, 2006 which you had failed to pay. The reduction in principal on your loan after application of this payment is confirmed in Schedule 2. Why do you keep asking the same question?” Union Banks June 6, 2011 Exhibit E. (CH-100) Applies no principal as claimed by Diana Jessup Lee again on January 24, 2013! Union Banks Exhibit E. May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedule was never used by Union Bank/SBBT in any SBA Form 1149 or IRS Form 1098! Union Bank in Schedule 2 claims 10 payment totaling $45,171.20 owed by amortizing both principal and interest into the 2007 forbearance and workout agreement! Union Bank/SBBT had Stated June 28, 2011 against Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts-- 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 IRS Form 1098: “I do not know what "computerized" records you are requesting. The May 6, 2011 schedules are official and are correct, so there is no need for any other records.”
“Please send me a copy of the "1098 form" about which you have questions and I will obtain an explanation for you.”
Union Bank/SBBT States June 29, 2011 against Santa Barbara Bank& Trusts 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 IRS Form 1098: “The two amortization schedules enclosed with my May 6, 2011 letter were created by SBBT based on the terms of your original loan, the forbearance agreement, and your payment history. Your request for additional computerized documents makes no sense.”
“I will check on the 2007 Form 1098 and see if it should be amended to reflect that you paid less in interest.”
Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka, Simon Bonilla, Daniel Weidman and Thomas Taggart, With the Emails from Union Banks SBA Loan Representative Diana Jessup Lee. Please answer a few questions of Union Bank before the January 28, 2013 hearing in front of Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter! These questions are very important with Union Banks January 24, 2013 and January 8, 2013 emails below! Union Bank has been provided Exhibit 1-15 as mentioned by Union Banks SBA loan representative Diana Jessup Lee on June 29, 2011 as she States: “I have reviewed your Ex. 6 and cannot find the document to which you reference. Nevertheless, it does not matter. The operative documents are my May 6 and 19 letters to you with enclosed schedules and the May 19, 2011 NOD. All three of these documents credit the $22,274.46 as if you had timely made the monthly payments due May, 2006 through September, 2006, as agreed in the Forbearance Agreement.”
1) Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098, SBBT/Union Bank did not apply any of the five forbearance agreement payments towards Principal?
2) Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098, SBBT/Union Bank shows a (Ending Principal Balance) of $420,024.30 and does not reduce this balance as seen in the December 31, 2006 IRS Form 1098?
3) Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098, SBBT/Union Bank shows only interest of $53,358.70 paid and nothing towards principal?
4) Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098, SBBT/Union Bank does not apply any extra principal paid as seen on 7/31/07?
5) Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098, SBBT/Union Bank charges (Regular Payment)s of $4,121.06 from 9/11/07-12/13/07?
6) Explain as to why SBBT/Union Bank filed a Fraudulent NOD on May 19, 2011 and claimed $45,171.20 owed in Deferred and Defaulted Payments against the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098 as seen in exhibit # 6?
Union Bank/SBBT States June 29, 2011: “I have reviewed your Ex. 6 and cannot find the document to which you reference. Nevertheless, it does not matter. The operative documents are my May 6 and 19 letters to you with enclosed schedules and the May 19, 2011 NOD. All three of these documents credit the $22,274.46 as if you had timely made the monthly payments due May, 2006 through September, 2006, as agreed in the Forbearance Agreement.”
7) Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2008 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank charged monthly payments of $4,121.06 against SBA loan rules? Diana Jessup Lee Claims January 24, 2013 that this monthly payment should have been $4,028.05!
8) Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2008 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank did not re-amortize the payment of $4,121.06?
9) Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2008 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank applied extra principal paid of $78.94 to interest on 4/15/2008?
10) Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2008 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank applied extra Principal paid of $1078.94 to interest on May 21, 2008?
11) Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2008 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank charged $157.88 in (Late Charges Paid YTD)?
Union Bank/SBBT States June 28, 2011: “Please send me a copy of the "1098 form" about which you have questions and I will obtain an explanation for you.”
Union Bank/SBBT States July 5, 2011: “The schedules and "computerized records" you request were included with and explained in my May 6 letter.”
12) Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2009 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank charged monthly payments of $4,121.06 against SBA loan rules?
13) Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2009 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank did not re-amortize the payment of $4,121.06?
14) Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2009 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank charged $711.40 in (Late Charges Paid YTD)?
Union Bank/SBBT States June 28, 2011 “I do not know what "computerized" records you are requesting. The May 6, 2011 schedules are official and are correct, so there is no need for any other records.”
15) Explain as to why in the December 31, 2010 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank claimed a Principal Balance of $390,996.91 against the January 6, 2011 SBBT (Proof of Claim) amount of $400,962.89?
16) Explain as to why in the December 31, 2010 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank charged late payment fees of $206.05 or 5% of $4121.06 against SBA loan Rules or Diana Jessup Lees January 24, 2013 claim of a monthly payment of $4,028.05?
17) Explain as to why in the December 31, 2010 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank charged $2,800.00 as an Appraisal fee? Please provide a copy of this September 17, 2010 appraisal as charged!
18) In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust August 24, 2011 (Payment Notice) explain why Union Bank/SBBT did not claim $45,171.20 owed Union Bank per the May 19, 2011 NOD?
19) In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust August 24, 2011 (Payment Notice) explain why Union Bank/SBBT claimed a monthly payment of $4,121.06 against SBA loan amortization rules?
20) In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust August 24, 2011 (Payment Notice) explain Union Bank/SBBT (Charges/Fees Due) of $20,643.86?
21) In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust August 24, 2011 (Payment Notice) explain why Union Bank/SBBT claims 20 payments of $4,121.06 totaling $82,421.20 against the May 19, 2011 NOD, SBA loan rules and Diana Jessup Lees January 24, 2013 email Stating? “As I have done on numerous occasions, I direct you to Schedule 2 which was attached to my May 6, 2011 letter to you as well as my letter to you dated May 19, 2011 in which I explain that your $22,274.46 payment in July, 2007 was applied to satisfy your monthly principal and interest payments due for May, June, July, August and September, 2006 which you had failed to pay. The reduction in principal on your loan after application of this payment is confirmed in Schedule 2. “
22) As seen in Exhibit # 6, in the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 24, 2007 (Payment Notice) explain why Union Bank/SBBT claimed a payment due of $4,121.06 per month against the 2007 forbearance agreement?
23) As seen in Exhibit # 6, in the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 24 2007 (Payment Notice) explain how Union Bank/SBBT amortized the Oceano Nursery SBA loan at 6% against the January 24, 2013 email by Diana Jessup Lee?
24) As seen in Exhibit # 6, in the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust June 23, 2007 (Payment Notice) explain how Union Bank/SBBT amortized $474,298.51 at 6%? Diana Jessup Lee Claims January 24, 2013 that the SBA loan was amortized at $462,069.51 with a monthly payment of $4,028.05!
25) Explain as to how Union Banks SBA loan representative, Diana Jessup Lee claims January 24, 2013 that the Oceano Nursery SBA loan was amortized from Schedule 2 after five payment totaling $22,274.46 down to $416,898.31 and then adding 10 payments of both principal and interest totaling $462,069.51 making a monthly payment of $4,028.05 against Union Bank/SBBT’s SBA Forms 1149 and all IRS Form 1098 from 2007 to present?
26) As seen in Exhibit # 6, in the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust June 23, 2007 (Payment Notice) explain how Union Bank/SBBT paid and applied principal from the five payments of $22,274.46 per the June 30, 2007 forbearance agreement and Diana Jessup Lees January 24, 2013 email?
27) In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 4, 2007 online accounting explain how Union Bank/SBBT did not account for the June 30, 2007 five payments of principal and interest totaling $22,274.46?
28) In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 17, 2007 online accounting (Exhibit # 6), explain how Union Bank/SBBT claimed interest due of $33,945.49 after subtracting $22,274.46?
29) In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 23, 2007 online accounting (Exhibit # 6), explain how Union Bank/SBBT claimed interest due of $33,821.79 after subtracting $22,274.46 and receiving two principal and interest payments of $5,000.00?
30) In the Pacific Capital Bank January 9, 2007 (Demand Letter) from Heidi Dugan. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT ignored paying principal from five payments of $22,274.46 per the June 30, 2007 forbearance agreement?
31) In the Pacific Capital Bank January 9, 2007 (Demand Letter) from Heidi Dugan. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT claimed $45,171.20 owed in the May 19, 2011 NOD compared to Pacific Capital Banks January 9, 2007 (Demand Letter) loan accounting?
32) In the Pacific Capital Bank September 29, 2006 (Letter) from Heidi Dugan. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT claimed $45,171.20 owed in the May 19, 2011 NOD compared to Pacific Capital Banks loan accounting?
33) In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust August 29, 2011 SBA form 1149 explain how Union Bank/SBBT claimed monthly payments of $4,121.06 per month against the 2007 forbearance agreement and Union Banks SBA Loan Representative Diana Jessup Lee?
Union Bank Stated January 8, 2013 against Exhibits 6 and 10 as presented to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner, Denise Motter: “As Mr. Forouzandeh stated to you in his November 23, 2011 email, the $390,996.91 balance was apparently obtained by you from SBBT's online banking feature which temporarily showed a principal balance of $390,996.91 for the loan. The $390,996.91 was calculated using the fixed interest rate of 6% set forth in the Forbearance Agreement.”
34) In the October 26, 2010 (Exhibit # 6) Demand Statement from Vice President Sandra Sheffield. Explain as to why Pacific Capital Bank did not claim $45,171.20 in deferred and defaulted payments?
35) In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust September 20, 2010 SBA form 1149 (Exhibit # 7), explain how Union Bank/SBBT claimed monthly payments of $4,121.06 per month against the 2007 forbearance agreement?
36) In Exhibit # 10 is a May 2, 2011 Email to Diana Jessup Lee, copied to Mediator Lol Sorensen. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT ignored the September 13, 2010 SBA Form 1149 provided in Mediation with Lol Sorenson by Doug Lutz?
37) In Exhibit # 10 Email to Diana Jessup Lee and Mediator, Lol Sorensen on May 2, 2010. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT ignored the Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts online accounting as of May 2, 2012 with monthly payments of $4,121.06 and a principal balance of $390,996.91?
Union Banks SBA loan Representative, Diana Jessup Lee, states June 29, 2011 from the IRS Form 1098/First Bank of San Luis Obispo (Payment Notice)s evidence presented to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter: “I have reviewed your Ex. 6 and cannot find the document to which you reference. Nevertheless, it does not matter. The operative documents are my May 6 and 19 letters to you with enclosed schedules and the May 19, 2011 NOD. All three of these documents credit the $22,274.46 as if you had timely made the monthly payments due May, 2006 through September, 2006, as agreed in the Forbearance Agreement.”
Union Banks Senior Vice President, Christine Sontag on June 6, 2011 had claimed to the Santa Barbara Superior Court commissioner Denise Motter, Case # 1381216: “All communications by him are to be directed to Mr. Lazar and subsequently to Mrs. Lee, and that any and all of his questions would be answered by those designated representatives.” Again the questions asked above need to be answered by Union Bank as stated June 6, 2011 from Union Banks Senior Vice President, Christine Sontag to Santa Barbara Superior Court Denise Motter.
Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka, Simon Bonilla, Daniel Weidman and Thomas Taggart, If Union Bank has any SBA loan documents to back up Union Banks SBA Loan Representative Diana Jessup Lees January 24, 2013 email, then please provide these documents by January 28, 2013!
Sincerely
Bill Bookout
Pismo Beach Surf Shop
CC Masashi Oka--Union Bank
CC Chris Gautschi
CC Richard Rossi
CC Judge Robin L. Riblet
CC Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee
CC California State Bar
CC Santa Barbara Superior Court Denise Motter
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:21 AM
To: Vicki Cogley; Bill Bookout (Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net)
Cc: Robert Forouzandeh
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216
Mr. Bookout:
As I have done on numerous occasions, I direct you to Schedule 2 which was attached to my May 6, 2011 letter to you as well as my letter to you dated May 19, 2011 in which I explain that your $22,274.46 payment in July, 2007 was applied to satisfy your monthly principal and interest payments due for May, June, July, August and September, 2006 which you had failed to pay. The reduction in principal on your loan after application of this payment is confirmed in Schedule 2. Why do you keep asking the same question? If you believe my explanations are wrong, please state precisely why and explain your conclusion as opposed to simply asserting false conclusory statements.
Again, please limit your correspondences to either me or Robert Forouzandeh and stop harassing Union Bank personnel who are not responsible for responding to your questions which contain hundreds of pages of emails that repeat ad nauseam your unfounded accusations and questions.
Diana Jessup Lee, Esq.
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440 ext. 463
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: dlee@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 6:04 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to the Santa Barbara Superior Court. Case # 1381216
Mr. Bookout:
This email is in response to your email sent to me on January 7, 2013 at approximately 8:38 am. I repeat the demand previously made by Robert Forouzandeh of my office that you cease contacting any Union Bank officers or employees pertaining to your SBA loan since their only involvement is as the successors to the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (“SBBT”)personnel you have been ordered not to contact.
As to the questions posed in your email, although both Mr. Forouzandeh and I have answered each of them on multiple prior occasions, I will do so again on behalf of Union Bank.
1. You ask about my “SBA loan training and knowledge…” Both Mr. Forouzandeh and I have access to all necessary information pertaining to your SBA loan, and we are authorized by Union Bank to answer your questions.
2. You ask for the “amount of inventory sold by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust/Union Bank with the sale of the Oceano Nursery Inventory.” The answer is none. On April 2, 2012, Mr. Forouzandeh wrote your attorney Mr. Gautschi stating that Santa Barbara Bank& Trust (“SBBT”) did not foreclose on any of the Oceano Nursery inventory, and that the foreclosure was limited to the real property. The only“inventory” left at the Oceano property after the Trustees Sale was landscape rock. In that same correspondence, Mr. Forouzandeh stated that you were free to pick up the landscape rock at any time and that if you failed to do so within a reasonable timeframe the landscape rock would be deem abandoned at which point SBBT would proceed to hire a hauling company to come to the property to remove the rocks. Your reference to a 2007 Inventory Opinion Letter is misplaced since no inventory was foreclosed. Furthermore, since the real property was not foreclosed until February 2012, the value and amount of inventory in 2007 is irrelevant.
3. You ask why SBBT/Union Bank“claimed…attorneys fees of $57,676.17…” As we have previously stated, the note for your SBA loan specifically permits SBBT to charge you for the attorneys fees and costs incurred as a result of your default of the note, including those incurred in bankruptcy proceedings. You defaulted on both the Note and then on the Forbearance Agreement. On both occasions, you bombarded the bank’s attorneys and employees with duplicative and voluminous correspondences and false allegations which resulted in significant fees being incurred. You then filed bankruptcy which resulted in SBBT incurring additional attorneys’ fees and costs to protect its position in the Bankruptcy. Thus, not only is this amount permitted by the terms of your SBA loan, the amount is reasonable in light of your actions.
4. You ask how SBBT “applied the 2007 five payments of $22,274.46…” As I stated in detail in my May 19, 2011 letter, pursuant to the express terms of the Forbearance Agreement, the $22,274.46 payment was credited towards satisfying the principal and interestowed by you for the May 2006-September 2006 payments on your SBA loan which you had previously failed to make.
5. You ask how SBBT “can amortize a SBA loan…by adding into it unpaid principal and then claiming a balance owed of $465,195.50.” Again, I specifically addressed this issue in my May 19, 2011 letter to you. In 2007 your loan was past due $67,445.66. You paid $22,274.46 which paid a portion of the past due principal and interest with the remaining $45,171.20 past due being added to the outstanding balance due and the combined total was re-amortized to assist you in bringing the loan current. You expressly agreed to this when you entered into the Forbearance Agreement.
6. How SBBT “has a legal right to charge interest on principal…” I am unclear what you mean by this question. Lenders charge interest on the principal balance of loans. That is legal.
7. You ask why SBBT “would file a fraudulent NOD…” SBBT did not file a fraudulent NOD, and you have provided no evidence to the contrary.
8. You ask why “attorneys fees of $58,700.00 are due for asking banking questions…” Your statement is incorrect. The attorneys fees included in SBBT’s claim in your bankruptcy arose from your default on the SBA Loan, your default on the Forbearance Agreement, and your bankruptcy proceeding. Had you not defaulted on your SBA loan, you would not have been charged these fees.
9. You ask how SBBT “feels a legal right to charge 10% of $265,000.00 as a standard Santa Barbara Bank & Trust foreclosure fee.” SBBT did not “charge” a foreclosure fee. The entity conducting the foreclosure charged a foreclosure fee, as is standard.
10. You ask why your loan balance was deemed to be $400,962.89 instead of $390,996.91 in November 2011. As Mr. Forouzandeh stated to you in his November 23, 2011 email, the $390,996.91 balance was apparently obtained by you from SBBT's online banking feature which temporarily showed a principal balance of $390,996.91 for the loan. The $390,996.91 was calculated using the fixed interest rate of 6% set forth in the Forbearance Agreement. Due to your default on the Forbearance Agreement, the Forbearance Agreement was rescinded and the principal amount of the loan was re-calculated and re-amortized going back to the date of the Forbearance Agreement using the interest rate of Prime + 2% (as required in your original loan) for the time period between the date of the Forbearance Agreement and the date of the Proof of Claim with the loan being re-amortized on a yearly basis per SBA loan rules. The Prime Rate during that period varied between 3.25%-8.25% and thus the interest rate for your loan during that period of time varied between 5.25%-10.25. Since the interest rate was higher than the fixed 6% rate for much of this period, when the loan was re-calculated and re-amortized under the original loan terms, your principal amount increased to $400,962.89 due to the higher interest rate and the fact that you failed to make any payments for a large portion of that period of time. The $390,996.91 balance temporarily appeared on SBBT's online account access for your loan because that system had not been updated to rescind the terms of the Forbearance Agreement and had not re-calculated or re-amortized your loan based on the original loan terms.
I trust that these responses answer your questions. If you have any further questions pertaining to your SBA loan, please contact Robert Forouzandeh or me, but do not contact any SBBT or Union Bank officers or employees.
Diana Jessup Lee, Esq.
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440 ext. 463
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: dlee@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:23 AM
To: dlee@rppmh.com; Masashi.Oka@unionbank.com
Cc: Masashi.Oka@unionbank.com; simon.bonilla@unionbank.com; sanschromo@yahoo.com; Richard Rossi; 'Mendoza, Carlos G.'; 'Ryner, Leanne M.'; Nudson, Anne; dvallely@co.slo.ca.us; da, sbcounty; velie@calcoastnews.com; gstarkey@newtimesslo.com; mfountain@newtimesslo.com; 'Debra Hernandez'; 'Bill Bookout'; Fredericks, Jeffrey; lol@rsmediate.com; daniel.weidman@unionbank.com; thomas.taggart@unionbank.com; 'donnasikola@unionbank.com'
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216
January 15, 2013
Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka and Simon Bonilla.
Diana Jessup Lee, Esq. California State Bar # 155191
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Dear Mrs. Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka, Simon Bonilla, Daniel Weidman and Thomas Taggart,
Again thank you for Union Banks January 8, 2013 response below! Attached is the Santa Barbara District Attorney with Union Banks SBA loan Fraud, Breach of Contract, Predatory Lending, as again seen in your January 8, 2013 Union Banks email response below! Attached is Union Banks/ Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts documents presented to the Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks. Please immediately provide Union Banks documents showing Union Bank having a second SBA loan accounting as seen in Diana Jessup Lees January 8, 2013 email below! Explain as to why SBBT/Union Bank did not provide this second accounting to the Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks, per the U.S. Small Business Administration December 20, 2011 FOIA documents and the June 30 2011 Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks letter?
Diana Jessup Lee, The U.S. Small Business Administration States on December 20, 2011: “The submitters of the enclosed information have been afforded Predisclosure Notification and all records listed herein are being released in full.” Diana Jessup Lee, from Union Banks January 8, 2013 email below! Please provide Union Banks documents showing the SBA December 20, 2011 provided documents to be false! You have stated January 8, 2011 on behalf of Union Bank: “Both Mr. Forouzandeh and I have access to all necessary information pertaining to your SBA loan, and we are authorized by Union Bank to answer your questions.”
Diana Jessup Lee, from your June 29, 2011 email as seen below! Explain as to what Union Bank Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has done with this extra principal paid and charged from the monthly payments of $4,121.06? Explain what Union Bank has done with the extra principal paid as seen in Union Banks Exhibit A. --June 30, 2011 (Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks) letter and the August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 prepared by SBBT Vice President Sandra Sheffield to the Small Business Administration!? You have acknowledged this over payment and stated on June 29, 2011! “1. The bank did not overcharge you $7,172.57. Each of your payments were applied to outstanding interest and then to principal. Many of your early payments were for more than the minimum amount due, and the principal balance was reduced accordingly with each payment. Solely for settlement purposes I offered to discount your loan by various amounts, including $7,000.”
Diana Jessup Lee, As you can see from Union Banks (Exhibit A.) August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 prepared by SBBT Vice President Sandra Sheffield to the Small Business Administration!? Union Bank/Santa Barbara Bank & Trust did not pay any Principal as you have stated! “Many of your early payments were for more than the minimum amount due, and the principal balance was reduced accordingly with each payment.”
Diana Jessup Lee, As you are Union Banks SBA loan Representative: Can you provide the Union Bank second set of documents in which you claim SBA loan principal was paid on the five payments totaling $22,274.46 per the 2007 forbearance agreement? In Mediation with Lol Sorensen, you provided a September 13, 2010 SBA Form 1149, showing that this principal had not been paid! This September 13, 2010 SBA Form 1149 is provided for Santa Barbara Superior Court Denise Motter as attached! Diana Jessup Lee, you have falsely stated against the Comptroller of the Currency letters on behalf of Union Bank on January 8, 2013!
“You ask how SBBT “applied the 2007 five payments of $22,274.46…” As I stated in detail in my May 19, 2011 letter, pursuant to the express terms of the Forbearance Agreement, the $22,274.46 payment was credited towards satisfying the principal and interest owed by you for the May 2006-September 2006 payments on your SBA loan which you had previously failed to make.”
Diana Jessup Lee, As Union Banks SBA Loan Representative please explain, Union Banks Exhibit A. evidence to Santa Barbara Superior Court Denise Motter, in the June 30, 2011 (Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks) letter and the August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 prepared by SBBT Vice President Sandra Sheffield to the Small Business Administration! Explain as to why Union Bank does not apply any Principal from the five payments totaling $22,274.46 per the 2007 forbearance agreement, as seen in the two SBA Form 1149, Union Bank documents? Explain as to why Union Bank then charged a monthly payment of $4,121.06 compared to Union Banks May 6, 2011 and May 19, 2011 accounting to Santa Barbara Superior Court Denise Motter of $4,055.30 per month? You have been provided the December 20, 2011 U.S. Small Business Administration SBA loan documents and the July 2, 2008 Pacific Capital Bank letter from Pacific Capital Bank Vice President Pierette Marie Mageo, 2007 Declaration of Default!
Diana Jessup Lee, Explain as to why Union Bank filed a fraudulent NOD on May 19, 2011 claiming $45,171.20 owed Union Bank with your January 8, 2013 response below? Explain as to why Union Bank would amortize unpaid principal on top of interest? Why would Union Bank claim that Union Bank was owed $465,195.50 and amortize this amount from your May 19, 2011 accounting letter against the OCC documents? You have stated on behalf of Union Bank on January 8, 2013!
“You ask how SBBT “can amortize a SBA loan…by adding into it unpaid principal and then claiming a balance owed of $465,195.50.” Again, I specifically addressed this issue in my May 19, 2011 letter to you. In 2007 your loan was past due $67,445.66. You paid $22,274.46 which paid a portion of the past due principal and interest with the remaining $45,171.20 past due being added to the outstanding balance due and the combined total was re-amortized to assist you in bringing the loan current. You expressly agreed to this when you entered into the Forbearance Agreement.”
Diana Jessup Lee, Explain as to why Union Bank in the 2010 and 2011 SBA Form 1149; Union Bank documents did not live up to the 2007 forbearance agreement as stated! “ The Forbearance Agreement required that the Debtor, among other fees and costs, pay SBBT $22,274.46, which would be applied to pay off the principal and interest for five of the fifteen payments that the Debtor had missed.” ?? Diana Jessup Lee, why as seen in your January 8, 2013 email below would Union Bank #5 amortize the SBA loan from $465,195.50 as you have claimed against the May 30, 2008 SBA Form 1149 prepared by Michell Najera and presented to the Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks by Pacific Capital Banks Vice President Joe L. Kennedy on June 3, 2008 in his letter to the Comptroller of the Currency, (Customer Assistance Group)?
Diana Jessup Lee, In Union Banks Exhibit A. June 30, 2007 forbearance and workout agreement. Explain to myself and Santa Barbara Superior Court Denise Motter, on P. 3 as to why Union Bank did not live up to #2.(b)? Explain as to why Union Bank did not properly amortize this SBA loan as seen on P. 4 #3 (a)? Union Bank States “The Modified Payment Amount will be calculated so as to amortize payment of the outstanding principal and the current unpaid interest (after application of the funds from the Suspense Account at a Contingent Interest Rate over the remaining life of the loan.”
Diana Jessup Lee, From your January 8, 2013 Email Response below. Explain as to why Union Bank filed a fraudulent NOD on May 19, 2011 claiming $45,171.20 owed Union Bank against Union Banks June 23, 2007 Santa Barbra Bank & Trusts; Payment Notice, as seen in Judge Robin L. Riblets Exhibits # 1 of 3?
Diana Jessup Lee, Explain as to why Union Bank added 15 payments of principal on top of the original principal and interest owed, when they amortized the SBA loan from the 2007 forbearance and workout agreement as seen in your January 8, 2013 email? Does Union Bank believe that this is Legal in California?
Diana Jessup Lee, Explain Union Banks exhibit # A February 21, 2012 email to Chris Gautschi, Exhibit A-22 of the $39,750.00 charged with the foreclosure of the Oceano Nursery property for Union Bank to do Demolition and Repair of the Oceano Nursery property once Union Bank foreclosed on this property? Diana Jessup Lee Please provide the Union Bank Receipts for this demolition and repair! In Union Banks exhibit # A documents is the Union Bank ”$26,500.00 (10%standard deduction by the bank on all foreclosures)” that you have commented on January 8, 2013! You have stated for Union Bank! “SBBT did not “charge” a foreclosure fee. The entity conducting the foreclosure charged a foreclosure fee, as is standard.”
Diana Jessup Lee, Attached is the Union Bank January 25, 2011 email in (Judge Robin L. Riblets Exhibits # 1 of 3)? as Union Bank presented to Santa Barbara Superior Court Denise Motter. Explain why Union Bank claimed from January to December 2010-- that the Oceano Nursery monthly payments was $4,121.06 per month compared to Union Banks May 19, 2011 NOD claim of $4,055.30 as seen in Union Banks Exhibit A. Union Bank claims January 25, 2010 in their first NOD before Mediation with you-- 10 deferred payments owed of $37.801.09 compared to Union Banks NOD claim on May 19, 2011 of $45,171.20. You have stated on behalf of Union Bank on January 8, 2013! “How SBBT “has a legal right to charge interest on principal…” I am unclear what you mean by this question. Lenders charge interest on the principal balance of loans. That is legal. “ Explain why Union Bank falsified both of these Notice of Defaults with Union Banks June 30, 2011 (Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks) letter and the August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 prepared by SBBT Vice President Sandra Sheffield to the Small Business Administration? Explain as seen in Union Banks August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 prepared by SBBT Vice President Sandra Sheffield as to why Union Bank after receiving $22,274.46 for five payments on July 6, 2007 with a principal balance of $420,024.30 did not reduce this principal until September 30, 2008 with the Union Banks May 19, 2011 NOD claim of $45,171.20 owed?
Diana Jessup Lee, Explain as to why Union Bank has charged $57,676.17 in Attorney Fees with Union Bank falsifying two Notice of Defaults as seen above? Please again provide an itemized accounting of your Attorney fees of $57,676.17 to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, and myself before the January 28, 2013 hearing Case # 1381216. You stated on January 8, 2013 on behalf of Union Bank!
You ask why SBBT/Union Bank “claimed…attorneys fees of $57,676.17…” As we have previously stated, the note for your SBA loan specifically permits SBBT to charge you for the attorneys fees and costs incurred as a result of your default of the note, including those incurred in bankruptcy proceedings. You defaulted on both the Note and then on the Forbearance Agreement. On both occasions, you bombarded the bank’s attorneys and employees with duplicative and voluminous correspondences and false allegations which resulted in significant fees being incurred. You then filed bankruptcy which resulted in SBBT incurring additional attorneys’ fees and costs to protect its position in the Bankruptcy. Thus, not only is this amount permitted by the terms of your SBA loan, the amount is reasonable in light of your actions.
Diana Jessup Lee, explain as to why the Oceano Nursery /Pismo Beach Dive Shop and Pismo Beach Surf Shop creditors were not paid prior to Union Banks Attorney Fees of $57,676.17? The creditors that should have been paid prior to Union Bank are: The County of San Luis Obispo $27,150.29, Union Pacific Rail Road $18,452.13, Trident Surfboards $4,020.72, Cobra Kayaks$5,940.50, Surf-tech Surfboards $1.550.00, Attorney John Belsher $2,566.15, Origional Metal Signs $533.63, Wet Products $886.20! Why did Union Bank not claim these Attorney Fees as seen in Union Banks Exhibit A. January 6, 2012 (Proof of Claim) by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Senior Vice President Doug Lutz?
Diana Jessup Lee, Attached are exhibits in (Judge Robin L. Riblets Exhibits # 1 of 3) for Santa Barbara Superior Court Denise Motter. Union Banks/SBBT June 3, 2008 letter to the Comptroller of the Currency with a May 30, 2008 SBA form 1149 showing no principal paid from the five payments totaling $22,274.46! A Union Bank/SBBT July 2, 2008 letter from SBBT/Union Bank to the Comptroller of the Currency showing a (Default Affidavit) showing the fraud in the May 19, 2011 NOD and Diana Jessup Lee letter! Attached is a September 30, 2008 letter from Sandra Sheffield showing the Fraud in the May 19, 2011 NOD! Attached, is a January 9, 2007 SBBT/Union Bank letter and accounting showing the May 19, 2011 NOD to be Fraudulent along with the June 23, 2007 SBBT payment Notice showing the May 19, 2011 NOD to again be Fraudulent! Attached is Union Banks Exhibit A May 19, 2011 NOD and May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedule # 1! Emails from George C. Lazar and the August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 prepared by SBBT Vice President Sandra Sheffield to the Small Business Administration!
Diana Jessup Lee, It is important that Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka, Simon Bonilla, Donna Sikola, Thomas Taggart, Daniel Weidman and Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, have full knowledge of Union Banks Senior Vice President, Christine Sontag’s actions after asking Union Bank SBA PLP loan # 664-196-4009 Bank Questions of Union Bank! Diana Jessup Lee, as you have stated on January 8, 2013; “As to the questions posed in your email, although both Mr. Forouzandeh and I have answered each of them on multiple prior occasions, I will do so again on behalf of Union Bank.” Diana Jessup Lee, again answer the SBA PLP loan questions above and below on behalf of Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka, Simon Bonilla, Donna Sikola, Thomas Taggart, Daniel Weidman! Please provide Union Banks truthful answers to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, and myself before the January 28, 2013 hearing Case # 1381216.
Sincerely
Bill Bookout
Pismo Beach Surf Shop
CC Masashi Oka--Union Bank
CC Chris Gautschi
CC Richard Rossi
CC Judge Robin L. Riblet
CC Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee
CC California State Bar
CC Santa Barbara Superior Court Denise Motter
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 9:57 AM
To: Fredericks, Jeffrey (jfreder@co.santa-barbara.ca.us); dlee@rppmh.com
Cc: Masashi.Oka@unionbank.com; simon.bonilla@unionbank.com; sanschromo@yahoo.com; Richard Rossi (richard@rossilegal.com); 'Mendoza, Carlos G.' (Carlos.Mendoza@sba.gov); 'Ryner, Leanne M.' (Leanne.Ryner@sba.gov); Nudson, Anne (anudson@co.santa-barbara.ca.us); dvallely@co.slo.ca.us; da, sbcounty (sbcountyda@co.santa-barbara.ca.us); velie@calcoastnews.com; 'gstarkey@newtimesslo.com'; 'mfountain@newtimesslo.com'; 'Debra Hernandez' (debra@rossilegal.com); 'Bill Bookout' (Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net)
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216
January 10, 2013
Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter,
Santa Barbara District Attorney Joyce E. Dudley,
Santa Barbara Deputy District Attorney Anne C. Nudson,
Jeff H. Fredericks Supervising Investigator Santa Barbara District Attorney,
312- D E. Cook Street
Santa Maria, California 93454
Dear Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter,
Santa Barbara District Attorney Joyce E. Dudley, Deputy District Attorney Anne C. Nudson and Supervising Investigator Jeff H. Fredericks,
Union Banks Attorney, Diana Jessup Lee California State Bar # 155191 is not qualified to answer to answer SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009 banking questions asked of Union Bank. Please review Diana Jessup Lee’s Union Bank January 8, 2013 email below! Diana Jessup Lee States # 1: “You ask about my “SBA loan training and knowledge…” Both Mr. Forouzandeh and I have access to all necessary information pertaining to your SBA loan, and we are authorized by Union Bank to answer your questions.” Union Banks Attorney, Diana Jessup Lee California State Bar # 155191 ultimately has refused to answer Union Banks questions truthfully as asked below of Union Bank! Union Banks Attorney actions have lead, to having to file for bankruptcy, After Union Banks September 7, 2011 email as seen below! Union Bank States: “Lastly, you have not provided any information or evidence which would lead Santa Barbara Bank & Trust to either rescind the most recent notice of default or to suspend the currently scheduled Trustee Sale from proceeding.” Union Banks actions have caused the foreclosure of my 1921 Cienega property by Dan Hilford and Bruce Eisengart. Union Banks actions have caused the foreclosure of my Oceano Nursery property and inventory. Union Banks actions have cost through Richard Rossi $7,625.00 in Attorney fees, Union Bank has charged $57,676.17 in Attorney Fees without providing an itemized accounting or judgment! Union Bank charging bankruptcy Attorney fees of over $14,000.00. Union Bank falsifying information to Judge Robin L. Riblet have financially affected all businesses owned by Bill Bookout/Pismo Beach Surf and Dive Shop and his venders!
The questions asked below are also asked of Union Banks Attorney Diana Jessup Lee California State Bar # 155191! Diana Jessup Lee needs to explain, Union Banks Exhibit A. evidence in the June 30, 2011 (Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks) letter and the August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 prepared by SBBT Vice President Sandra Sheffield to the Small Business Administration! Diana Jessup Lee does not acknowledge either of these in her January 8, 2013 email. Union Banks President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka and Simon Bonilla are both attached as all questions asked below either need to be answered by Diana Jessup Lee or Union Bank. Union Banks Senior Vice President, Christine Sontag on June 6, 2011 had claimed to the Santa Barbara Superior Court. “All communications by him are to be directed to Mr. Lazar and subsequently to Mrs. Lee, and that any and all of his questions would be answered by those designated representatives.” The questions asked of Union Bank are also seen at www.governorjerrybrown.net www.unionbank.me and www.unionbancalcorp.com Union Banks designated representatives have not answered Oceano Nursery SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009 questions!
At the January 28, 2013 Hearing Case No. 1381216 in front of Commissioner Denise Motter. I am requesting a Court Reporters transcript of this hearing and a written decision from Commissioner Denise Motter from the Exhibit A. Evidence as presented by Union Banks Senior Vice President Christine Sontag and her signed December 20, 2012, Declaration. I am requesting an itemized accounting of Union Banks Attorney Fees charged of $57,676.17. On December 20, 2012 Christine Sontag Senior Vice President and Senior Council of Union Bank, N.A. signed a Motion to Modify A Restraining Order for asking SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009 banking questions of Union Bank, from November 27, 2012 to December 12, 2012, Case # 1381216 with Santa Barbara Superior Court, Commissioner Denise Motter. Robert B. Forouzandeh California State Bar # 247177 an Attorney for Union Bank in his Superior Court, Declaration on December 21, 2012 States: “But Bookout soon returned to his harassing tactic of personally sending multiple emails to SBBT’s counsel asking over and over the same questions repeatedly answered by SBBT’s counsel.” I ask that the question again asked on January 7, 2013 and now January 10, 2013 asked of Union Bank are answered.
I ask that the previous restraining order be removed with the Union Banks Perjury in front of the Santa Barbara Superior Court. Union Banks counsel is not qualified to answer SBA PLP loan questions as seen in the (January 8, 2013 email and in Union Banks emails on---January 18, 2012—January 3, 2012—February 1, 2011—December 14, 2011—November 27, 2012—September 7, 2012—July 5, 2011—June 29, 2011—June 28, 2011—June 3, 2011—May 31, 2011—January 25, 2011) In Union Banks Exhibit A and E as presented to the Santa Barbara Superior Court.
Union Bank has provided to Santa Barbara Commissioner Denise Motter, a full packet of documents Exhibits A, B, C and D that now need to be admitted into evidence of the Union Bank/Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Fraud, Breach of Contract and the Grand Theft of SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009-Oceano Nursery Money and Principal since 2007. The questions asked of Union Banks, representatives Robert B. Forouzandeh California State Bar # 247177 on November 27, 2012 need to be answered as well of Diana Jessup Lee California State Bar # 155191 on January 7, 2013 and December 12, 2012 as seen below and in Union Banks Exhibits A and B.
1) Union Bank has provided in their exhibit A. A copy of the June 30, 2011 (Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks) letter showing the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust May 19, 2011 NOD to be fraudulent! The June 30, 2011 (Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks) letter shows Santa Barbara Bank & Trust not applying any Principal from the $22,274.46 received in 2007 for five payments towards principal per the 2007 Forbearance and Workout agreement as provided in Union Bank Exhibit # A. The Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks letter shows that this money was only applied to interest and that this interest was claimed by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust to have been $54,922.70 before the $22,274.46 interest only payment!
2) Union Bank has provided in their exhibit A. A copy of Union Banks Principal Balance changes made in front of Judge Robin L. Riblet; changing the principal SBA PLP Loan balance from $390,996.91 to $400,962.89, while in Bankruptcy, against Union Banks August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 as prepared by Santa Barbara Bank Trust Vice President Sandra Sheffield for the Small Business Administration! This SBA Form 1149 was prepared after the SBBT May 19, 2011 NOD and May 6, 2011 Diana Jessup Lee accounting! Diana Jessup Lee in her January 8, 2013 email below does not mention the August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 or the June 30, 2011 (Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks) letter.
3) Union Bank has provided in their exhibit A. A copy of the Union Banks falsified May 19, 2011 claim of (“10 payments 10/2006 thru 07/2007 $45,171.20”) This exhibit A. claim letter is dated May 26, 2011. Diana Jessup Lee States January 8, 2013. “How SBBT “has a legal right to charge interest on principal…” I am unclear what you mean by this question. Lenders charge interest on the principal balance of loans. That is legal.” Charging interest on 10 payments of Principal and Interest in 2007 of $45,171.20” and then claiming this amount in the May 19, 2011 NOD is not legal! Lenders are not allowed to charge interest on top of a principal balance due! This loan should have been amortized at 6% per the 2007 forbearance and workout agreement. Union Bank after the 2007 forbearance and workout agreement amortized the Oceano Nursery SBA loan with a monthly loan payment of $4,121.06. This $4,121.06 monthly payment was not correct in 2007 and neither was Diana Jessup Lees May 6, 2011 claim of $4,055.30 as seen in Union Banks Exhibit A!
4) Union Bank has provided in their exhibit A. The May 19, 2011 letter and accounting from Diana Jessup Lee. This Union Bank Accounting is false and fraudulent! Union Bank does not apply any principal from the five payments of $22,274.46. Union Bank in this May 19, 2011 letter amortizes the Oceano Nursery SBA loan from $465,195.50 including the $45,171.20 as Union Bank claimed owed in the May 19, 2011 NOD! Union Banks accounting in this May 19, 2011 Letter shows that Union Bank is charging interest on unpaid and unjustified additional principal added onto the SBA loan! How is this legal in California? Union Bank then amortizes principal on top of the June 30, 2011 (Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks) letter.
5) Union Bank has provided in their exhibit A. A copy of their May 6, 2011 fraudulent amortization schedules. The Santa Barbara Commissioner Denise Motter will notice that Union Bank does not apply any principal to the five payments of $22,274.66 and then amortizes principal from 2007 in the Union Bank claim of $45,171.20 owed in this May 6, 2011 Union Bank accounting! It should again be noted that on May 19, 2011 Union Bank filed a NOD claiming that Union Bank was owed $45,171.20 as seen in Union Banks exhibit dated May 26, 2011.
6) Union Bank has provided in their exhibit A. A copy of Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts Vice President Sandra Sheffield’s August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 showing Union Bank applying no principal from the $22,274.46 five payments! Union Bank in this exhibit does not reduce any principal from 4/1/2006 to 9/30/2008 from the August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 loan Principal balance of $420,024.30 in July 2007. Union Bank does charge a monthly payment of $4,121.06 per month. Diana Jessup Lee does not talk about this in her January 8, 2013 email as she states: “The $390,996.91 balance temporarily appeared on SBBT's online account access for your loan because that system had not been updated to rescind the terms of the Forbearance Agreement and had not re-calculated or re-amortized your loan based on the original loan terms.” The original terms never included an amortized monthly payment of $4,121.06 per month. Nor did they allow Union Bank to claim $45,171.20 owed on May 19, 2011 with Union Bank not reducing the SBA loan from the principal in the five payment per the 2007 forbearance and workout agreement totaling $22,274.46.
7) Union Bank has provided in their exhibit A. Union Banks responses on April 13, 2012 to Judge Robin L. Riblet. Union Bank States: “ The Forbearance Agreement required that the Debtor, among other fees and costs, pay SBBT $22,274.46, which would be applied to pay off the principal and interest for five of the fifteen payments that the Debtor had missed.” The remaining ten missed payments on the variable interest rate loan, totaling $45,171.20, would be deferred by being added to and amortized into the total balance of the loan (the “Deferred Amount”). This has not been the case with the Union Banks May 19, 2011 NOD of $45,171.20 owed Union Bank or the June 30, 2011 (Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks) letter.
8) Union Bank has provided in their exhibit A. A copy of their January 6, 2012 Proof of Claim from Doug Lutz, Senior Vice President of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, claiming $45,171.20 owed Union Bank as of January 6, 2012. This is against Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 and Diana Jessup Lee’s May 6, 2011 amortization schedules 1 and 2. Please view Union Banks exhibit A to see their Amortization Schedule # 1 provided to Santa Barbara Commissioner Denise Motter. Please view Union Banks Exhibit A (June 30, 2011 (Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks) letter.)
9) Union Bank has provided in their exhibit A. A copy of the signed 2007 Forbearance And Workout Agreements stating: “$22,274.46 to pay the monthly principal and interest payments owing on the note for the earliest five past due monthly payments (May, 2006, June, 2006, July, 2006, August, 2006 and September, 2006).” Union Bank has not lived up to the 2007 Forbearance And Workout Agreements as stated and seen in the May 6, 2011 and May 19, 2011 Union Bank accounting!
10) Union Bank has provided in their exhibit A. A copy of the October 6, 2003 (U.S. Small Business Administration Note) SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009 showing that monthly SBA loan payments from 2003 should have been $3,411.73 and not the claimed amount of $3,412.99 from 12/1/2003 as seen in the Union Bank Exhibit-August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149. In this SBA Note it States: “Lender must adjust the payment amount at least annually as needed to amortize principal over the remaining term of the note.” This has not been done as seen in Union Banks August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 exhibit!
11) Union Bank has provided in their exhibit A. A copy of their March 2, 2012 Trustee’s Deed upon Sale for APN 062-042-044 claiming under # 2 “2) The amount of the unpaid debt together with costs was ……………..$532,047.05” I ask for a full accounting of these Union Bank claimed costs? Union Bank has taken and sold the Oceano Nursery, personal property and inventory as claimed without any compensation to SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009 or creditors. Union Bank States March 2, 2012. “Together with that certain personal property more particularly described as follows: All inventory, chattel paper, accounts, equipment, general intangibles and fixtures;”
Union Bank states on January 8, 2013.
“You ask for the “amount of inventory sold by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust/Union Bank with the sale of the Oceano Nursery Inventory.” The answer is none. On April 2, 2012, Mr. Forouzandeh wrote your attorney Mr. Gautschi stating that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (“SBBT”) did not foreclose on any of the Oceano Nursery inventory, and that the foreclosure was limited to the real property. The only “inventory” left at the Oceano property after the Trustees Sale was landscape rock. In that same correspondence, Mr. Forouzandeh stated that you were free to pick up the landscape rock at any time and that if you failed to do so within a reasonable timeframe the landscape rock would be deem abandoned at which point SBBT would proceed to hire a hauling company to come to the property to remove the rocks. Your reference to a 2007 Inventory Opinion Letter is misplaced since no inventory was foreclosed. Furthermore, since the real property was not foreclosed until February 2012, the value and amount of inventory in 2007 is irrelevant.”
12) Union Bank has provided in their exhibit A. A copy of the November 29, 2012 email to Robert Forouzandeh again asking questions of SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009. In this email, is provided a copy of Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts November 4, 2011 “Online Banking Feature” accounting that was changed during bankruptcy in front of Judge Robin L. Riblet, by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust! Notice, Union Banks December 14, 2011 email from Robert Forouzandeh and the September 7, 2011 email from Robert Forouzandeh as he is now Representing Union Bank.
13) Union Bank has provided in their exhibit A. Union Banks August 29, 2003 (Authorization (SBA Guaranteed Loan) with two different page 5’s. I ask Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Santa Barbara District Attorney Joyce E. Dudley, Deputy District Attorney Anne C. Nudson and Supervising Investigator Jeff H. Fredericks to obtain from Union Bank the Original August 29, 2003 (Authorization (SBA Guaranteed Loan) per the Loan Agreement signed October 6, 2003 as provided by Union Bank? I ask for a copy of the Environmental Requirements done on the 470 Price Street property in Pismo Beach as seen on Page 6?
14) Union Bank has provided in their exhibit B. A copy of the December 12, 2012 email from (Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP) per the questions asked of Diana Jessup Lee on December 12, 2012 and mentioning the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust June 27, 2011 restraining order. This restraining order has not covered Union Bank. All questions asked of Union Bank have been presented by Union Bank in their exhibits A, B and C. Each of these repeated questions now need to be answered through Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Santa Barbara District Attorney Office as Diana Jessup Lee and Robert B. Forouzandeh, now representing Union Bank have been unable to answer these questions since Christine Sontag’s Declaration to the Santa Barbara Superior Court on June 6, 2011 Stating. “All communications by him are to be directed to Mr. Lazar and subsequently to Mrs. Lee, and that any and all of his questions would be answered by those designated representatives.”
15) Union Bank has provided in their exhibit A. A copy of Union Banks/SBBT January 25, 2011 Notice of Default accounting by George C. Lazar; fraudulently claiming $37,801.09 owed in (“Unpaid Payments 10 Deferred 10/2006 – 7/2007 $37,801.09”). This $37,801.09 claimed by Union Bank/SBBT goes against, Union Banks exhibit A evidence in the June 30, 2011 (Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks) letter and the August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 prepared by SBBT Vice President Sandra Sheffield to the Small Business Administration!
16) SBBT/ Union Bank in their June 6, 2011 exhibits filed with the Santa Barbara Superior Court (Denise Motter) have provided a copy of their Diana Jessup Lee, May 6, 2011 letter and Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts, two amortization schedules in exhibit # E. SBBT/ Union Bank has provided a copy of their Diana Jessup Lee’s May 19, 2011 letter and accounting in their exhibit F. Both SBBT/Union Bank documents show Grand Theft of SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009-Money and Principal payments since 2007. SBBT/ Union Bank on August 29, 2011 after a hearing with Santa Barbara Superior Court (Denise Motter) provided an SBA Form 1149 to the Small Business Administration, thus showing SBBT/ Union Banks May 19, 2011 and May 6, 2011 accounting to be fraudulent! This is backed up in the June 30th Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks) letter showing the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust May 19, 2011 NOD to be fraudulent!
I ask the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Santa Barbara District Attorney Office for an accounting of the 2007 Forbearance and Workout Agreement five monthly payments totaling $22,274.46 as they were to be applied to both Principal as well as interest? Karen L. Grant, in Union Banks exhibit # A, falsified information to Judge Robin L. Riblet in her signed March 29, 2012 SBA PLP loan accounting P. 2! Please explain how the $22,274.46 was applied towards principal as claimed by Karen L. Grant? Diana Jessup Lee in her May 6, 2011 Amortization schedules and her May 19, 2011 letter does not apply any of the five payments totaling $22,274.46 to principal as claimed by Karen L. Grant to Judge Robin L. Riblet! Union Banks exhibit A evidence in the June 30, 2011 (Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks) letter and the August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 prepared by SBBT Vice President Sandra Sheffield to the Small Business Administration shows that no principal was paid with the five payments totaling $22,274.46. Diana Jessup Lee in her May 19, 2011 accounting letter just ads $22,274.46 plus $45,171.20 plus the principal balance of $420,024.30 totaling $487,469.96 and then subtracts $22,274.46 and then claims that the new SBA PLP Loan Debt is $465,195.50 after the 2007 forbearance agreement!
Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Why in California would a bank SBA loan borrower have to pay interest on Principal per the May 19, 2011 $45,171.20 SBBT NOD? Diana Jessup Lee States for Union Bank on January 8, 2013 # 5! “You ask how SBBT “can amortize a SBA loan…by adding into it unpaid principal and then claiming a balance owed of $465,195.50.” Again, I specifically addressed this issue in my May 19, 2011 letter to you. In 2007 your loan was past due $67,445.66. You paid $22,274.46 which paid a portion of the past due principal and interest with the remaining $45,171.20 past due being added to the outstanding balance due and the combined total was re-amortized to assist you in bringing the loan current. You expressly agreed to this when you entered into the Forbearance Agreement.”
I ask Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Santa Barbara District Attorney Office for an accounting of the claimed 2007 Forbearance and Workout Agreement ten payments totaling $45,171.20 per Union Banks exhibit # A Forbearance Agreement? I ask for an explanation as to how Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has a legal right to charge interest on principal per the claimed $45,171.20 owed in the SBBT/Union Banks May 19, 2011 NOD---As seen in Union Banks exhibit # A as presented to Santa Barbara Commissioner Denise Motter? Diana Jessup Lee States for Union Bank on January 8, 2013 # 5! “You ask how SBBT “can amortize a SBA loan…by adding into it unpaid principal and then claiming a balance owed of $465,195.50.” Again, I specifically addressed this issue in my May 19, 2011 letter to you. In 2007 your loan was past due $67,445.66. You paid $22,274.46 which paid a portion of the past due principal and interest with the remaining $45,171.20 past due being added to the outstanding balance due and the combined total was re-amortized to assist you in bringing the loan current. You expressly agreed to this when you entered into the Forbearance Agreement.”
I ask Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Santa Barbara District Attorney Office for an accounting of how Union Bank/Santa Barbara Bank & Trust came to a monthly payment in 2007 of $4,121.06 per month, against the $4,055.30 claimed by Diana Jessup Lee in her May 19, 2011 Accounting letter and her May 6, 2011 Amortization schedules? Union Bank in their Exhibit A. December 21, 2012 documents have provided their June 30, 2011 (Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks) letter showing Union Banks accounting to be fraudulent! Diana Jessup Lee States January 8, 2013 # 10! “You ask why your loan balance was deemed to be $400,962.89 instead of $390,996.91 in November 2011. As Mr. Forouzandeh stated to you in his November 23, 2011 email, the $390,996.91 balance was apparently obtained by you from SBBT's online banking feature which temporarily showed a principal balance of $390,996.91 for the loan. The $390,996.91 was calculated using the fixed interest rate of 6% set forth in the Forbearance Agreement. Due to your default on the Forbearance Agreement, the Forbearance Agreement was rescinded and the principal amount of the loan was re-calculated and re-amortized going back to the date of the Forbearance Agreement using the interest rate of Prime + 2% (as required in your original loan) for the time period between the date of the Forbearance Agreement and the date of the Proof of Claim with the loan being re-amortized on a yearly basis per SBA loan rules. The Prime Rate during that period varied between 3.25%-8.25% and thus the interest rate for your loan during that period of time varied between 5.25%-10.25. Since the interest rate was higher than the fixed 6% rate for much of this period, when the loan was re-calculated and re-amortized under the original loan terms, your principal amount increased to $400,962.89 due to the higher interest rate and the fact that you failed to make any payments for a large portion of that period of time. The $390,996.91 balance temporarily appeared on SBBT's online account access for your loan because that system had not been updated to rescind the terms of the Forbearance Agreement and had not re-calculated or re-amortized your loan based on the original loan terms.”
I ask Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Santa Barbara District Attorney Office for an accounting as to why Santa Barbara Bank & Trust would file a fraudulent NOD on May 19, 2011 in the SBBT claim of $45,171.20 owed in deferred payments? Union Bank/SBBT did not amortize the Oceano Nursery SBA PLP loan from $420,024.30 in 2007 with the May 19, 2011 claimed deferred amount of $45,171.20 owed? Please review Union Banks exhibit # A. Diana Jessup Lee States January 8, 2013 # 6! “How SBBT “has a legal right to charge interest on principal…” I am unclear what you mean by this question. Lenders charge interest on the principal balance of loans. That is legal.”
I ask Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Santa Barbara District Attorney Office for an accounting and receipts from Union Banks exhibit # A, 10% of $265,000.00 as a standard Santa Barbara Bank & Trust foreclosure fee? Please see P. 7 of Karen L. Grants response of her signed March 29, 2012 response to Debtors Objection, in Union Banks Exhibit A? Property taxes of $9,274.00 are acceptable and legal as taken out of the appraised $265,000.00 by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust. Diana Jessup Lee States January 8, 2013 # 9! “ You ask how SBBT “feels a legal right to charge 10% of $265,000.00 as a standard Santa Barbara Bank & Trust foreclosure fee.” SBBT did not “charge” a foreclosure fee. The entity conducting the foreclosure charged a foreclosure fee, as is standard.”
I ask Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Santa Barbara District Attorney Office for an accounting and receipts from Union Banks exhibit # A of the $39,750.00 charged by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust per P. 7 of Karen L. Grants response of her signed March 29, 2012 response to Debtors Objection? How is this charge against a SBA PLP loan legal with Union Banks Exhibit A Documents?
I ask Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Santa Barbara District Attorney Office for an accounting of the Oceano Nursery inventory sold by Union Bank/Santa Barbara Bank & Trust since SBBT foreclosed on the Oceano Nursery inventory and property! This inventory is part of the Bankruptcy estate which owned the material, as seen in the April 2, 2012 letter attached! Union Banks exhibit A. Documents explains the use of this inventory as the April 2, 2011 letter attached. Diana Jessup Lee has stated January 8, 2013 # 2. “You ask for the “amount of inventory sold by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust/Union Bank with the sale of the Oceano Nursery Inventory.” The answer is none. On April 2, 2012, Mr. Forouzandeh wrote your attorney Mr. Gautschi stating that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (“SBBT”) did not foreclose on any of the Oceano Nursery inventory, and that the foreclosure was limited to the real property. The only “inventory” left at the Oceano property after the Trustees Sale was landscape rock. In that same correspondence, Mr. Forouzandeh stated that you were free to pick up the landscape rock at any time and that if you failed to do so within a reasonable timeframe the landscape rock would be deem abandoned at which point SBBT would proceed to hire a hauling company to come to the property to remove the rocks. Your reference to a 2007 Inventory Opinion Letter is misplaced since no inventory was foreclosed. Furthermore, since the real property was not foreclosed until February 2012, the value and amount of inventory in 2007 is irrelevant.”
I ask Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Santa Barbara District Attorney Office for an accounting Union Bank/Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, October 2011 principal balance change of $390,996.91 up to $400,962.89 during bankruptcy in front of Judge Robin L. Riblet? See Union Banks August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 exhibits compared to Union Banks accounting to Judge Robin L. Riblet on January 6, 2012 in Union Banks Exhibit A. Documents. Again, Christine Sontag on June 6, 2011 had claimed to the Santa Barbara Superior Court (Denise Motter) on P. 2. “All communications by him are to be directed to Mr. Lazar and subsequently to Mrs. Lee, and that any and all of his questions would be answered by those designated representatives.” This has not been the case and makes it important for Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Santa Barbara District Attorney Joyce E. Dudley, Deputy District Attorney Anne C. Nudson and Supervising Investigator Jeff H. Fredericks to help in this Union Bank SBA Loan Fraud case.
I ask the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Santa Barbara District Attorney Office for an itemized accounting of the Union Bank Attorney Fees of $57,676.17? I ask that this $57,676.17 in Attorney Fee accounting be presented at the January 28, 2013 Hearing Case No. 1381216 in front of Commissioner Denise Motter. Union Banks Attorney Diana Jessup Lee States on January 8, 2013 # 4. “You ask why SBBT/Union Bank “claimed…attorneys fees of $57,676.17…” As we have previously stated, the note for your SBA loan specifically permits SBBT to charge you for the attorneys fees and costs incurred as a result of your default of the note, including those incurred in bankruptcy proceedings. You defaulted on both the Note and then on the Forbearance Agreement. On both occasions, you bombarded the bank’s attorneys and employees with duplicative and voluminous correspondences and false allegations which resulted in significant fees being incurred. You then filed bankruptcy which resulted in SBBT incurring additional attorneys’ fees and costs to protect its position in the Bankruptcy. Thus, not only is this amount permitted by the terms of your SBA loan, the amount is reasonable in light of your actions.”
I ask the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Santa Barbara District Attorney that the questions asked of Diana Jessup Lees on January 7, 2013 attached below and in Union Banks, Exhibit A email dated December 12, 2012 be answered along with Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, questions asked of Robert B. Forouzandeh on November 27th and November 29, 2012 in Union Banks Exhibit A emails! Union Banks Attorneys have falsified the Union Bank/SBBT May 19, 2011 NOD. Diana Jessup Lee States January 8, 2013 # 7! “ You ask why SBBT “would file a fraudulent NOD…” SBBT did not file a fraudulent NOD, and you have provided no evidence to the contrary.”
Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka, Simon Bonilla and Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter now have full knowledge of Union Banks Senior Vice President, Christine Sontag’s actions after asking Union Bank SBA PLP loan # 664-196-4009 bank accounting questions in Union Banks Exhibits! Union Bank in there Index of Exhibits A. shows Union Banks Fraud and Breach of Contract to the Santa Barbara Superior Court Case # 1381216 as presented by Union Bank. Union Bank filed a fraudulent NOD on May 19, 2011. Union Bank Claimed Attorney fees of $57,676.17. Union Bank charged $26,500.00 as a standard Bank foreclosure fee. Union Bank charged $39,750.00 to fix up the Oceano Nursery property for after they foreclosed!
Sincerely
Bill Bookout
Pismo Beach Surf Shop
CC Masashi Oka--Union Bank
CC Chris Gautschi
CC Richard Rossi
CC Judge Robin L. Riblet
CC Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee
CC California State Bar
CC Santa Barbara Superior Court Denise Motter
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 6:04 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to the Santa Barbara Superior Court. Case # 1381216
Mr. Bookout:
This email is in response to your email sent to me on January 7, 2013 at approximately 8:38 am. I repeat the demand previously made by Robert Forouzandeh of my office that you cease contacting any Union Bank officers or employees pertaining to your SBA loan since their only involvement is as the successors to the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (“SBBT”) personnel you have been ordered not to contact.
As to the questions posed in your email, although both Mr. Forouzandeh and I have answered each of them on multiple prior occasions, I will do so again on behalf of Union Bank.
1. You ask about my “SBA loan training and knowledge…” Both Mr. Forouzandeh and I have access to all necessary information pertaining to your SBA loan, and we are authorized by Union Bank to answer your questions.
2. You ask for the “amount of inventory sold by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust/Union Bank with the sale of the Oceano Nursery Inventory.” The answer is none. On April 2, 2012, Mr. Forouzandeh wrote your attorney Mr. Gautschi stating that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (“SBBT”) did not foreclose on any of the Oceano Nursery inventory, and that the foreclosure was limited to the real property. The only “inventory” left at the Oceano property after the Trustees Sale was landscape rock. In that same correspondence, Mr. Forouzandeh stated that you were free to pick up the landscape rock at any time and that if you failed to do so within a reasonable timeframe the landscape rock would be deem abandoned at which point SBBT would proceed to hire a hauling company to come to the property to remove the rocks. Your reference to a 2007 Inventory Opinion Letter is misplaced since no inventory was foreclosed. Furthermore, since the real property was not foreclosed until February 2012, the value and amount of inventory in 2007 is irrelevant.
3. You ask why SBBT/Union Bank “claimed…attorneys fees of $57,676.17…” As we have previously stated, the note for your SBA loan specifically permits SBBT to charge you for the attorneys fees and costs incurred as a result of your default of the note, including those incurred in bankruptcy proceedings. You defaulted on both the Note and then on the Forbearance Agreement. On both occasions, you bombarded the bank’s attorneys and employees with duplicative and voluminous correspondences and false allegations which resulted in significant fees being incurred. You then filed bankruptcy which resulted in SBBT incurring additional attorneys’ fees and costs to protect its position in the Bankruptcy. Thus, not only is this amount permitted by the terms of your SBA loan, the amount is reasonable in light of your actions.
4. You ask how SBBT “applied the 2007 five payments of $22,274.46…” As I stated in detail in my May 19, 2011 letter, pursuant to the express terms of the Forbearance Agreement, the $22,274.46 payment was credited towards satisfying the principal and interest owed by you for the May 2006-September 2006 payments on your SBA loan which you had previously failed to make.
5. You ask how SBBT “can amortize a SBA loan…by adding into it unpaid principal and then claiming a balance owed of $465,195.50.” Again, I specifically addressed this issue in my May 19, 2011 letter to you. In 2007 your loan was past due $67,445.66. You paid $22,274.46 which paid a portion of the past due principal and interest with the remaining $45,171.20 past due being added to the outstanding balance due and the combined total was re-amortized to assist you in bringing the loan current. You expressly agreed to this when you entered into the Forbearance Agreement.
6. How SBBT “has a legal right to charge interest on principal…” I am unclear what you mean by this question. Lenders charge interest on the principal balance of loans. That is legal.
7. You ask why SBBT “would file a fraudulent NOD…” SBBT did not file a fraudulent NOD, and you have provided no evidence to the contrary.
8. You ask why “attorneys fees of $58,700.00 are due for asking banking questions…” Your statement is incorrect. The attorneys fees included in SBBT’s claim in your bankruptcy arose from your default on the SBA Loan, your default on the Forbearance Agreement, and your bankruptcy proceeding. Had you not defaulted on your SBA loan, you would not have been charged these fees.
9. You ask how SBBT “feels a legal right to charge 10% of $265,000.00 as a standard Santa Barbara Bank & Trust foreclosure fee.” SBBT did not “charge” a foreclosure fee. The entity conducting the foreclosure charged a foreclosure fee, as is standard.
10. You ask why your loan balance was deemed to be $400,962.89 instead of $390,996.91 in November 2011. As Mr. Forouzandeh stated to you in his November 23, 2011 email, the $390,996.91 balance was apparently obtained by you from SBBT's online banking feature which temporarily showed a principal balance of $390,996.91 for the loan. The $390,996.91 was calculated using the fixed interest rate of 6% set forth in the Forbearance Agreement. Due to your default on the Forbearance Agreement, the Forbearance Agreement was rescinded and the principal amount of the loan was re-calculated and re-amortized going back to the date of the Forbearance Agreement using the interest rate of Prime + 2% (as required in your original loan) for the time period between the date of the Forbearance Agreement and the date of the Proof of Claim with the loan being re-amortized on a yearly basis per SBA loan rules. The Prime Rate during that period varied between 3.25%-8.25% and thus the interest rate for your loan during that period of time varied between 5.25%-10.25. Since the interest rate was higher than the fixed 6% rate for much of this period, when the loan was re-calculated and re-amortized under the original loan terms, your principal amount increased to $400,962.89 due to the higher interest rate and the fact that you failed to make any payments for a large portion of that period of time. The $390,996.91 balance temporarily appeared on SBBT's online account access for your loan because that system had not been updated to rescind the terms of the Forbearance Agreement and had not re-calculated or re-amortized your loan based on the original loan terms.
I trust that these responses answer your questions. If you have any further questions pertaining to your SBA loan, please contact Robert Forouzandeh or me, but do not contact any SBBT or Union Bank officers or employees.
Diana Jessup Lee, Esq.
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440 ext. 463
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: dlee@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 8:38 AM
To: dlee@rppmh.com
Cc: 'Nudson, Anne'; 'Chris Gautschi'; 'Debra Hernandez'; 'Richard Rossi'; 'Mendoza, Carlos G.'; 'Ryner, Leanne M.'; 'dvallely@co.slo.ca.us'; 'da, sbcounty'; Masashi.Oka@unionbank.com; 'simon.bonilla@unionbank.com'
Subject: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to the Santa Barbara Superior Court. Case # 1381216
January 7, 2013
Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka and Simon Bonilla.
Diana Jessup Lee, Esq. California State Bar # 155191
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Dear Mrs. Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka and Simon Bonilla.
Thank you for providing the January 3, 2013 email to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, (Exhibit E below.) Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka and Simon Bonilla, Please see that the SBA PLP loan questions asked of Union Bank on December 10, 11, 12th and 13th are answered by Union Bank. The Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP December 21, 2012 Declaration P.4 statement is false: “In an effort to dissuade Bookout from continuing his harassment, Ms. Lee again answered the four main questions Bookout continually asked over and over in his many communications. A true and correct copy of the May 19, 2011 letter is attached as Exhibit F to the Original Request and incorporated herein.” Diana Jessup Lee, California State Bar # 155191 I ask that you answer the following questions for Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter and Union Bank! It is important for Union Banks President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka and Simon Bonilla, know the actions of Union Banks Senior Vice President, Christine Sontag and yours; in regards to the handling the Oceano Nursery SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009.
Diana Jessup Lee you have stated on P. 4 to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, “Based on Bookout’s unjustified harassment, this Court issued the Restraining Order and ordered Bookout not to contact Sontag or any of the Protected Persons, all of whom were SBBT officers, directors and employees, and that he was to only communicate with SBBT’s outside counsel Diana Jessup Lee and her associate Robert B. Forouzandeh regarding any matters pertaining to his SBA Loan.” Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank. Please explain and show Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter your SBA loan training and knowledge, against the June 30, 2011(Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks) letter and the August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 prepared by SBBT Vice President Sandra Sheffield to the Small Business Administration!
Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank. Please show the amount of the inventory sold by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust/Union Bank with the sale of the Oceano Nursery Inventory. Please provide the amount Union Bank sold the Oceano Nursery property for? Attached is the April 2, 2012 inventory letter from Chris Gautschi, to (Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP) Please provide this to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, This information as well, needs to be provided to the SBA, Judge Robin L. Riblet and Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee. Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank. The June 28, 2007 SBBT (Inventory Opinion Letter) showed a retail inventory of $450,000.00! Please provide the 2012 SBBT (Inventory Opinion Letter) to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter.
Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer---Masashi Oka, Simon Bonilla, Please have Union Bank explain as to why Santa Barbara Bank & Trust/Union Bank has claimed in their March 30, 2012 Declaration to Judge Robin L. Riblet; Attorney fees of $57,676.17 for having to ask SBA PLP loan questions of “Diana Jessup Lee” (Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP)? Please have Union Bank account for the Attorney fees charged of $57,676.17 by Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP? Attached below are emails from (Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP) from May 31, 2011 to December 12, 2012. These emails are now presented to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Please have Union Bank provide an itemized accounting of Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP Attorney fees charged against the Oceano Nursery SBA PLP loan from the start of these Attorney Fees of $57,676.17? Please have Union Bank explain how SBBT/Union Bank can pay attorney fees out of SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009 money, before the Oceano Nursery SBA PLP loan is paid back?
Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank. Please have Union Bank explain Karen L. Grants response to Judge Robin L. Riblet on P. 6 of her signed March 29, 2012 response to Debtors Objection as seen in Union Banks Exhibit A and pdf files at www.governorjerrybrown.net www.unionbank.me www.unionbancal.net and www.unionbancalcorp.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka and Simon Bonilla. Please explain as to how Union Bank/Santa Barbara Bank & Trust applied the 2007 five payments of $22,274.46 to pay off the principal and interest for five of the 15 payments that the debtor had missed; as seen in the SBBT September 7, 2011 email below? I have attached Union Banks Exhibit A./ August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 to www.unionbank.me This August 29, 2011 SBA form 1149 does not show any principal paid? Diana Jessup Lee, you have stated June 29, 2011. “3. I will check on the 2007 Form 1098 and see if it should be amended to reflect that you paid less in interest.” Explain as to how Union Bank accounts for this $22,274.46 only being applied to interest as seen in your May 19, 2011 accounting in Union Banks Exhibit A?
Diana Jessup Lee. On June 28, 2011 stated in an email:
“I do not know what "computerized" records you are requesting. The May 6, 2011 schedules are official and are correct, so there is no need for any other records.
Please send me a copy of the "1098 form" about which you have questions and I will obtain an explanation for you.
My May 19, 2011 letter to you explained the application of the $22,274.46 in detail. Please read my letter.”
Union Banks Attorneys (Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP) falsely State on September 7, 2011:
“As you will see at the top of Amortization Schedule 1, it clearly shows that $22,274.46 was reduced from the outstanding balance of principal and interest due on the loan at the time of the forbearance agreement. This is why the $22,274.46 is placed inside of parenthesis ($22,274.46) on the Amortization Schedule. The fact that it is in parenthesis shows that it was reduced from the outstanding balance of principal and interest owed on the loan at that time. Similarly, at the top of Amortization Schedule 2, it shows that your Principal Balance "after 5 payments" was $416,898.31. The "5 payments" refers to the $22,274.46. Thus, the $22,274.46 was reduced from the principal and interest on the loan (the outstanding balance) prior to the loan being re-amortized pursuant to the Forbearance Agreement.
I trust that this explanation will answer your questions about the manner in which the $22,274.46 was credited towards your account.
As to the alleged comments from the OCC: You continue to ignore our request that you provide us with copies of the OCC letters dated July 16, 2008, June 30, 2011 and August 2, 2011 which you continually refer to. I am unable to comment on those letters until you send them to me.”
Union Banks Attorneys (Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP) State on January 18, 2012:
“In regards to the May 19, 2011 from Diana Jessup Lee to you. This letter is not fraudulent and we continue to stand by its validity and accuracy. In that letter, Ms. Lee specifically stated that the $465,195.50 figure, "does not include any late fees, attorneys fees or any other charges other than principal and interest." (emphasis in original) As you are well aware, both your original note and the forbearance agreement allow SBBT to add late fees, attorneys fees and other costs incurred by SBBT as a result of your default of the note or the forbearance agreement.”
In regards to the SBA Form 1149 of August 29, 2011, as I told you during the telephone call, this form was calculated using the figures and interest rate from the Forbearance Agreement. Due to your default of the Forbearance Agreement, the Bank, as it was permitted to in the Forbearance Agreement, elected to revoke the benefits that the Forbearance Agreement provided to you. This resulted in a recalculation of your loan based on the original note terms. Due to the fact that the interest rate for your loan is lower based on the original method of calculation (Prime Rate + 2%= 5.25%) as opposed to the 6% fixed rate set forth in the Forbearance Agreement this was the crucial factor which resulted in the monthly payment amount being reduced to the amount set forth in SBBT's various filings in your bankruptcy proceeding. Thus, neither the August 29, 2011 Form 1149 nor SBBT's bankruptcy filings are incorrect or fraudulent as you contend.”
Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka and Simon Bonilla. Explain to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, as to how Union Bank/SBBT believes that Union Bank can amortize a SBA loan as seen in the Diana Jessup Lee, May 19, 2011 letter by adding into it unpaid principal and then claiming a balance owed of $465,195.50? Explain why Union Bank then charged $4,121.06 per month as seen in Union Banks Exhibit A. to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter?
Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka and Simon Bonilla. In Union Banks December 21, 2012 Exhibit A. Union Bank provides; Union Banks May 6, 2011 letter and Amortization Schedule # 1. Please explain to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, as to how Union Bank claims my monthly payment should have been $4,055.30 per month? Please explain as to why Union Bank amortized $45,171.20 into my SBA loan bringing a 2007 amortized debt balance of $465,195.50? Please explain why Union Bank is charging interest on top of principal as seen in the Union Bank claimed amount of 10 payments owed of $45,171.20 amortized in 2007 from $465,195.50?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank. In Union Banks Exhibit A. to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Karen L. Grant falsified information to Judge Robin L. Riblet in her signed March 29, 2012 SBA PLP loan accounting P. 2! Please explain to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, as to how the five payments totaling $22,274.46 was applied towards principal as claimed by Karen L. Grant?
Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank. . In Union Banks Exhibit A. to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Diana Jessup Lee of Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP in her SBBT May 6, 2011 Amortization schedules and her May 19, 2011 SBBT letter does not apply any of the five payments totaling $22,274.46 to principal as claimed by Karen L. Grant to Judge Robin L. Riblet. Again please provide an accounting for five payments totaling $22,274.46 to principal as claimed by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust!
Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank. . In Union Banks Exhibit A. to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. In the remaining ten payments totaling $45,171.20 as claimed by Karen L. Grant to Judge Robin L. Riblet on P. 2. Please immediately provide an accounting of how this money was deferred and amortized? Please explain to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, as to how Union Bank/Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has a legal right to charge interest on principal per the SBBT claimed $45,171.20 owed in the May 19, 2011 NOD?
Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank. In Union Banks Exhibit A. to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Please immediately provide an accounting for Karen L. Grants claim on P. 2 that the SBA loans interest rate was modified to 6%? Please show an accounting of how Santa Barbara Bank & Trust came to a monthly payment of $4,121.06 per month, against the $4,055.30 claimed by Diana Jessup Lee in her May 19, 2011 Accounting letter and her May 6, 2011 Amortization schedules? Please show in detail as to what Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has done with these payments overcharged! Extra Principal payments were made as seen in the Union Banks Exhibit A. August 29 2011 SBA Form 1149. What has Union Bank done with these extra Principal payments made?
Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank. Please explain as to why Santa Barbara Bank & Trust would file a fraudulent NOD on May 19, 2011 in the SBBT claim of $45,171.20 owed in deferred payments? Explain why SBBT did not amortize the Oceano Nursery SBA loan from $420,024.30 in 2007 with the May 19, 2011 claimed deferred amount of $45,171.20 owed?
Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank. Please explain Karen L. Grants response to Judge Robin L. Riblet in Union Banks Exhibit A. on P. 6 of her signed March 29, 2012 response to Debtors Objection? Explain why Attorney fees of $58,700.00 are due for asking banking questions of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust; for SBBT improperly amortizing a SBA PLP loan since 2007 and then filing a fraudulent NOD on May 19, 2011, claiming $45,171.20 owed in deferred payments? Explain to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, per Union Banks Exhibit A. P. 6 as to how a debtors, conduct for asking for an accounting of a SBA loan; costs $58,700.00?
Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank. Explain and show in Union Bank Exhibit A. documents as to how Santa Barbara Bank & Trust feels a legal right to charge 10% of $265,000.00 as a standard Santa Barbara Bank & Trust foreclosure fee? Please see in Union Banks exhibit A. P. 7 of Karen L. Grants response of her signed March 29, 2012 response to Debtors Objection? With the $26,500.00 charged by SBBT as seen in Union Banks Exhibit A-22 as presented to the United States Bankruptcy Court. Please show how this is legal with the Oceano Nursery SBA PLP Loan?
Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank. Please provide an accounting and receipts of the $39,750.00 charged by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust per P. 7 of Karen L. Grants response of her signed March 29, 2012 response to Debtors Objection as seen in Union Banks Exhibit A.? How is this charge against a SBA PLP loan legal? Please immediately provide to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter a copy of the two most recent Oceano Nursery SBA loan appraisals! I am also requesting a copy of the most recent (Inventory Opinion Letter) as the last one I have is dated June 28, 2007!
Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Vice President, Doug Lutz in his Declaration to Judge Robin L. Riblet on P. 11 claims that SBBT applied the $22,274.46 “to pay off the principal and interest for five of the 15 payments that the debtor had missed.” Please show Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter how this principal was applied as claimed by Vice President Doug Lutz of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust? Explain how SBBT Vice President Doug Lutz accounts for the $45,171.20 unpaid principal/interest being amortized into the SBA loan on P. 12? Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank. Why would Santa Barbara Bank & Trust amortize unpaid principal and then charge interest on unpaid principal as seen in SBBT Vice President, Doug Lutz statements to Judge Robin L. Riblet on P. 12 of his Declaration?
Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka and Simon Bonilla. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Vice President, Doug Lutz, in Union Banks exhibit A to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter claims on P. 13 to Judge Robin L. Riblet, that “the principal balance of the loan has at all material times been in excess of $400,000.” Please provide any and all documents that Union Bank/Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has to back this up with the Union Bank May 19, 2011 NOD claim of $45,171.20 owed in deferred payments! Please provide an accounting per SBBT Vice President, Doug Lutz P. 15 Attorney fees of $58,700.00 and $8,953.68! Please explain why a SBA PLP Business loan debtor is not allowed to ask banking Questions as Doug Lutz states: “The amount of these fees and costs incurred by SBBT were largely due to Debtor’s own conduct and the necessity to employ counsel to directly communicate with the Debtor regarding any loan issues in accordance with the terms of the restraining order.” Again please explain to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter as to why the Diana Jessup Lee’s May 19, 2011 Accounting letter and her May 6, 2011 amortization schedules shows Santa Barbara Bank & Trust not properly amortizing the Oceano Nursery SBA PLP Loan?
Diana Jessup Lee/Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka and Simon Bonilla. Please explain, to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, as to how Union Bank/Santa Barbara Bank & Trust changed; there prior October and November 2012 principal balance of $390,996.91 up to $400,962.89 during bankruptcy in front of Judge Robin L. Riblet? Please provide to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, an accounting, back to the beginning of the Oceano SBA PLP Loan with SBBT adding $9,965.89 to the Oceano Nursery SBA PLP loan during Bankruptcy in front of Judge Robin L. Riblet and Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee!
Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka and Simon Bonilla. Please review the Union Bank Exhibit A. Accounting below! Union Bank in their exhibit A to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter have provided a two year online accounting from November 13, 2009 to November 4, 2011! Union Bank/SBBT changed this online accounting as stated in Union Banks Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP November 30, 2011 Email while in bankruptcy in front of Judge Robin L. Riblet and Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee.
|
11/4/2011 |
|
|
$4,121.06 |
$390,996.91 |
|
|
10/11/2011 |
|
|
$4,121.06 |
$390,996.91 |
|
|
9/16/2011 |
|
$206.05 |
|
$390,996.91 |
|
|
8/30/2011 |
|
$650.00 |
|
$390,996.91 |
|
|
8/30/2011 |
|
$4,000.00 |
|
$390,996.91 |
November 30, 2011 Email “You ask: "How did Santa Barbara Bank & Trust come up with a principal balance owed of $400,962.89..." In doing so, you post what appears to be a cut and paste excerpt from SBBT's website which shows a principal balance of $390,996.91 for the loan.
Our response is as follows: The $390,996.91 was calculated using the fixed interest rate of 6% set forth in the Forbearance Agreement. Due to your default of the Forbearance Agreement, the Forbearance Agreement was rescinded (as permitted by its terms) and the principal amount of the loan was re-calculated and re-amortized going back to the date of the Forbearance Agreement using the interest rate of Prime + 2% (as required in your original loan) for the time period between the date of the Forbearance Agreement and the date of the Proof of Claim with the loan being re-amortized on a yearly basis per SBA loan rules. The Prime Rate during that period varied between 3.25%-8.25% and thus the interest rate for your loan during that period of time varied between 5.25%-10.25%. Since the interest rate was higher than the fixed 6% rate for much of this period, when the loan was re-calculated and re-amortized under the original loan terms, your principal amount increased to $400,962.89 due to the higher interest rate and the fact that you failed to make any payments for a large portion of that period of time. The $390,996.91 balance appears on SBBT's online account access for your loan because that system has not been updated to rescind the terms of the Forbearance Agreement and has accordingly not re-calculated or re-amortized your loan based on the original loan terms.”
Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka and Simon Bonilla. Please provide full documentation as to Union Bank/SBBT SBA PLP loan changes from Union Banks Attorneys Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP November 30, 2011 Email. Please provide this accounting from the beginning of the Oceano Nursery SBA loan as seen in Union Banks Exhibit A. August 29 2011 SBA Form 1149.
Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Union Bank with this November 30, 2011 Email needs to account for Union Banks May 19, 2011 NOD against Union Banks Exhibit # A. June 30, 2011(Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks) letter and the August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 prepared by SBBT Vice President Sandra Sheffield to the Small Business Administration! Both Union Bank Exhibit A. December 21, 2012 Documents where prepared after the SBBT May 19, 2011 NOD! Union Banks Statement “The $390,996.91 was calculated using the fixed interest rate of 6% set forth in the Forbearance Agreement.” Needs to be fully looked at with the Union Bank May 19, 2011 letter and claim of $45,171.20 amortized in 2007 from $465,195.50? Union Bank/SBBT has ignored SBA yearly amortization loan rules as stated by Union Bank and seen in the August 31, 2011 SBA form 1149 as seen in Exhibit A.: “with the loan being re-amortized on a yearly basis per SBA loan rules.”
Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Union Banks Senior Vice President, Christine Sontag on June 6, 2011 had claimed to the Santa Barbara Superior Court. “All communications by him are to be directed to Mr. Lazar and subsequently to Mrs. Lee, and that any and all of his questions would be answered by those designated representatives.” Union Bank/Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts representatives Diana Jessup Lee and Mr. Lazar both have refused to answer SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009 banking questions against the June 6, 2011 Declaration of Christine Sontag Senior Vice President and Senior Council of Union Bank, N.A. Diana Jessup Lee’s and Robert Forouzandeh emails and responses are attached below for Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka and Simon Bonilla both need to have full knowledge of how Christine Sontag Senior Vice President and Senior Council of Union Bank, N.A. has been handling the Oceano Nursery SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009.
Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Can see from Union Banks December 21, 2012 Declaration P.4 statement: “In an effort to dissuade Bookout from continuing his harassment, Ms. Lee again answered the four main questions Bookout continually asked over and over in his many communications. A true and correct copy of the May 19, 2011 letter is attached as Exhibit F to the Original Request and incorporated herein.” Diana Jessup Lee’s and Robert Forouzandeh representing Union Bank have not answered SBA PLP loan questions and ignored their own fraudulent May 19, 2011 Exhibit F letter and their Exhibit A evidence of the June 30, 2011 (Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks) letter showing Santa Barbara Bank & Trust not applying any Principal from the $22,274.46 received in five payments towards principal and interest per the 2007 Forbearance and Workout agreement. The June 30, 2011 Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks letter shows that this money was only applied to interest and that this interest was claimed by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust to have been $54,922.70 before the $22,274.46 interest only payment by SBBT. The questions asked of Union Bank are justified! Diana Jessup Lee and Robert Forouzandeh state on Union Banks December 21, 2012 Declaration P. 4 “Based on Bookout’s unjustified harassment, this Court issued the Restraining Order and ordered Bookout not to contact Sontag or any of the Protected Persons, all of whom were SBBT officers, directors and employees, and that he was to only communicate with SBBT’s outside counsel Diana Jessup Lee and her associate Robert B. Forouzandeh regarding any matters pertaining to his SBA Loan.” The Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks June 30, 2011 letter shows that the questions asked of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust are justified!
Diana Jessup Lee and Robert Forouzandeh Eight emails below from July 15, 2011 to September 7, 2011 talk about the June 30, 2011 (Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks) letter. The May 19, 2011 letter accounting by Union Bank is fraudulent as claimed on Union Banks P. 4 to Santa Barbara Superior Court Denise Motter! Robert Forouzandeh California State Bar # 247177 states in the January 18, 2012 email below. “In regards to the May 19, 2011 from Diana Jessup Lee to you. This letter is not fraudulent and we continue to stand by its validity and accuracy. In that letter, Ms. Lee specifically stated that the $465,195.50 figure, "does not include any late fees, attorneys fees or any other charges other than principal and interest." (emphasis in original)”
Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Robert Forouzandeh California State Bar # 247177 in an email November 18, 2011 States: “There is nothing deficient about the May 19, 2011 NOD. Santa Barbara Bank and Trust will not rescind it. We have reviewed all of the information pertaining to this NOD and it is valid.” Santa Barbara Superior Court. From Reviewing Union Banks Exhibits and Evidence, I now ask Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Santa Barbara District Attorney Joyce E. Dudley, Santa Barbara Deputy District Attorney Anne C. Nudson and Jeff H. Fredericks Supervising Investigator Santa Barbara District Attorney as to if Santa Barbara Bank & Trust/Union Banks actions are legal in their fraudulent May 19, 2011 NOD?
Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka, Simon Bonilla and Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter now have full knowledge of Union Banks Senior Vice President, Christine Sontag’s actions after asking Union Bank SBA PLP loan # 664-196-4009 bank accounting questions in Union Banks Exhibits! Union Bank in there Index of Exhibits A. shows Union Banks Fraud and Breach of Contract to the Santa Barbara Superior Court Case # 1381216 as presented by Union Bank.
Sincerely
Bill Bookout
Pismo Beach Surf Shop
CC Masashi Oka--Union Bank
CC Chris Gautschi
CC Richard Rossi
CC Judge Robin L. Riblet
CC Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee
CC California State Bar
CC Santa Barbara Superior Court Denise Motter
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:35 PM
To: Bill Bookout (Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net)
Cc: Chris Gautschi (sanschromo@yahoo.com); Richard Rossi [richard@rossilegal.com] (richard@rossilegal.com)
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007
Mr. Bookout,
Over the past several days you have transmitted at least four email correspondences directly to various Union Bank officers, employees and directors who are the successors to the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (“SBBT”) individuals you were ordered not to contact. Your conduct violates the spirit of the June 27, 2011 Restraining Order after Hearing to Stop Harassment issued against you by the Santa Barbara Superior Court (the “Restraining Order”). As part of the Restraining Order you were precluded from communicating with any SBBT officers, directors or employees and were ordered to direct any questions pertaining to your SBBT Small Business Administration Loan only to either Diana Jessup Lee or myself.
This letter shall serve as the one and only demand that you cease and desist from contacting any Union Bank officers, directors or employees pertaining to your SBBT Small Business Administration loan. Failure to abide by this demand will result in Union Bank initiating legal action against you to extend the Restraining Order to explicitly cover all Union Bank officials. In the event legal action becomes necessary to modify the Restraining Order, Union Bank will seek reimbursement of all of its attorneys’ fees and costs from you as permitted by statute.
Furthermore, as I have reminded you on countless occasions, since the initiation of your bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court, you are represented by counsel of record. Any communication regarding your SBBT loan while you are represented by counsel must be directed through your counsel.
Lastly, I would like to address your December 2012 bank statement request. As I told your attorney Mr. Gautschi on numerous occasions, the bank statements for your account are generated in the third or fourth week of each month. Thus, no December 2012 statement has been created yet for your account. Once the December 2012 statement is generated, I will immediately forward it to Mr. Gautschi as I have done before. I provided your November 2012 statement to Mr. Gautschi on November 27, 2012.
Robert B. Forouzandeh
Attorney at Law
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:43 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Richard Rossi; Diana Lee; Karen Grant
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007
Mr. Bookout:
This correspondence is provided to you for information purposes only and does not constitute a demand for payment.
As you are well aware, you have filed bankruptcy. Thus, as your attorney will be able to advise you, all issues surrounding your secured loan, including any accountings to be provided by secured creditors, are governed by federal statute. Santa Barbara Bank and Trust has provided to you all accountings and records required by federal statute. I again reiterate, your January post-petition payment to Santa Barbara Bank & Trust was $4,077.32 and your February 2012 post-petition payment along with all future post-petition payments for the 2012 calendar year are $4,389.64 per month.
As to your question about the lack of late charges on your January 19, 2012 Statement that I provided to you, if you examine it closely, you will see that the late charges are identified as "Post Petition Late Charges Due". This section only covers late charges that have accrued for the period of time since you filed your latest bankruptcy petition.
Lastly, as I have now stated to you on multiple occasions, the Santa Barbara Superior Court issued a restraining order against you (at a hearing in which you attended) which precluded you from contacting anyone at Santa Barbara Bank & Trust other than Diana Jessup Lee and myself. That restraining order is still in full force and effect. Again, as I am sure your attorney can advise you, any attempt by you to contact anyone at Santa Barbara Bank & Trust other than Diana Jessup Lee or myself would result in you being held in contempt of a valid Court Order by the Court.
Robert B. Forouzandeh
Attorney at Law
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 11:57 AM
To: Richard Rossi; Bill Bookout
Cc: Karen Grant; Diana Lee
Subject: In re William Arthur Bookout USBC Cen. Dist. CA. Case No. 9:11-bk-15818
Mr. Rossi:
Pursuant to the Addendum to Chapter 13 Plan Concerning Debtors Who Are Repaying Debt Secured by a Mortgage on Real Property filed by you on behalf of Mr. Bookout in the above entitled matter, secured creditor Santa Barbara Bank & Trust hereby submits the following monthly loan statement for Mr. Bookout's loan for the months of January and February 2012. I have also attached the payment amount change notice as well. As you will see, and as Mr. Bookout has mentioned on multiple occasions in the past, pursuant to the terms of Mr. Bookout's note, his loan was re-amortized this month and his new payment amount will be $4,389.64. The new payment amount is effective for the post petition payment due on February 6, 2012. Please be advised that Mr. Bookout has not tendered his post petition payment for January 2012 in the amount of $4,077.32 which is why this amount is listed as being "Post Petition Past Due Amount" on the monthly statement.
Pursuant to federal statute, this information is being provided to you and Mr. Bookout for information purposes only and these documents do not constitute demand for payment.
If there are any questions, I would suggest that you, as opposed to your client, contact me to discuss further.
Robert B. Forouzandeh
Attorney at Law
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:30 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Richard Rossi; Diana Lee; Karen Grant
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007
Mr. Bookout:
First, you have refused to answer my question as to whether or not you recorded our telephone conversation from earlier this morning, as you orally told me that you had done. If in fact you did record the telephone call, this would constitute a criminal act in violation of California Penal Code Section 632.
In regards to the May 19, 2011 from Diana Jessup Lee to you. This letter is not fraudulent and we continue to stand by its validity and accuracy. In that letter, Ms. Lee specifically stated that the $465,195.50 figure, "does not include any late fees, attorneys fees or any other charges other than principal and interest." (emphasis in original) As you are well aware, both your original note and the forbearance agreement allow SBBT to add late fees, attorneys fees and other costs incurred by SBBT as a result of your default of the note or the forbearance agreement.
In regards to the SBA Form 1149 of August 29, 2011, as I told you during the telephone call, this form was calculated using the figures and interest rate from the Forbearance Agreement. Due to your default of the Forbearance Agreement, the Bank, as it was permitted to in the Forbearance Agreement, elected to revoke the benefits that the Forbearance Agreement provided to you. This resulted in a recalculation of your loan based on the original note terms. Due to the fact that the interest rate for your loan is lower based on the original method of calculation (Prime Rate + 2%= 5.25%) as opposed to the 6% fixed rate set forth in the Forbearance Agreement this was the crucial factor which resulted in the monthly payment amount being reduced to the amount set forth in SBBT's various filings in your bankruptcy proceeding. Thus, neither the August 29, 2011 Form 1149 nor SBBT's bankruptcy filings are incorrect or fraudulent as you contend.
At no point during our telephone conversation did we discuss any issues surrounding your inverse condemnation case. Your claim that we discussed this issue is patently false.
As I stated to you during the telephone call, SBBT will not forgive either the deed of trust against the Oceano property or the Pismo Beach property unless your loan to SBBT is satisfied.
Lastly, I have stated to you on numerous occasions, due to your currently pending bankruptcy proceeding in which you are represented by counsel, it is highly inappropriate for you to be contacting me directly, as opposed to through your attorney of record. This morning's telephone call during which you illegally recorded the call without my approval is a prime example.
Robert B. Forouzandeh
Attorney at Law
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:26 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Diana Lee; Richard Rossi
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007
Mr. Bookout:
Your reference to the document that you have attached an image of below is not helpful for your position as it is not current and your account balance has changed significantly since that time due to your failure to make any payments on the loan other than for October and November 2011.
More importantly, please read the language of the second paragraph where it specifically states in capital letters, "ACCEPTANCE OF ALL NET PROCEEDS OR THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED ABOVE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FULL PAYMENT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS AND ANY REMAINING BALANCE WILL STILL BE OWED BY THE BORROWER AND GUARANTORS."
Thus, neither Mr. Lutz's declaration nor the Demand Statement are inaccurate.
Robert B. Forouzandeh
Attorney at Law
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:24 PM
To: 'Richard Rossi'
Cc: 'Chris Gautschi'; Diana Lee; 'Karen Grant'; Bill Bookout; Mary Jo Barbeau
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Loan Fraud and Breach of Contract SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009
Mr. Rossi:
Your client is asking what his December 2011 payment to Santa Barbara Bank and Trust ("SBBT") should be. I would direct his attention to the Proof of Claim filed by SBBT in Mr. Bookout's bankruptcy proceeding, which states that Mr. Bookout's post-petition payments to Santa Barbara Bank & Trust should be $4,077.32. This amount is based on the recalculated principal balance of $400,962.89 which was determined as a result of Mr. Bookout's pre-petition default of the Forbearance Agreement (which had a fixed interest rate of 6%) resulting in the termination of the interest rate afforded under the Forbearance Agreement. I have explained this re-calculation process to your client on several occasions.
Please be advised that pursuant to the terms of Mr. Bookout's loan, the loan will be re-amortized as of January 2012. Due to Mr. Bookout's long running default on this loan, upon re-amortization, the monthly payments will change. Once the loan is re-amortized, I will provide you with the new payment amount which will be applicable for the entire 2012 calendar year.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Robert B. Forouzandeh
Attorney at Law
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 10:22 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Richard Rossi; sanschromo@yahoo.com; kgrant@silcom.com; Diana Lee
Subject: FW: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Loan Fraud and Breach of Contract SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009
Mr. Bookout:
Since you have retained legal counsel, I have stated to you on more than three occasions now, any questions, comments or concerns pertaining to your SBBT loan should be directed through your attorneys only.
With that being said, I did notice one new question that you have posed in your email below which does not pertain to any legal matters and I will proceed to answer it at this time and CC your attorneys on this email so that it is not construed as an ex parte communication.
You ask: "How did Santa Barbara Bank & Trust come up with a principal balance owed of $400,962.89..." In doing so, you post what appears to be a cut and paste excerpt from SBBT's website which shows a principal balance of $390,996.91 for the loan.
Our response is as follows: The $390,996.91 was calculated using the fixed interest rate of 6% set forth in the Forbearance Agreement. Due to your default of the Forbearance Agreement, the Forbearance Agreement was rescinded (as permitted by its terms) and the principal amount of the loan was re-calculated and re-amortized going back to the date of the Forbearance Agreement using the interest rate of Prime + 2% (as required in your original loan) for the time period between the date of the Forbearance Agreement and the date of the Proof of Claim with the loan being re-amortized on a yearly basis per SBA loan rules. The Prime Rate during that period varied between 3.25%-8.25% and thus the interest rate for your loan during that period of time varied between 5.25%-10.25%. Since the interest rate was higher than the fixed 6% rate for much of this period, when the loan was re-calculated and re-amortized under the original loan terms, your principal amount increased to $400,962.89 due to the higher interest rate and the fact that you failed to make any payments for a large portion of that period of time. The $390,996.91 balance appears on SBBT's online account access for your loan because that system has not been updated to rescind the terms of the Forbearance Agreement and has accordingly not re-calculated or re-amortized your loan based on the original loan terms.
I hope this answers your question. Again, please direct any future questions, comments or concerns through your attorneys only.
Robert B. Forouzandeh
Attorney at Law
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 4:33 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: 'Chris Gautschi'; 'Richard Rossi'; Diana Lee
Subject: RE: plan
Mr. Bookout:
As I have repeatedly stated to you in the past, you are represented by counsel. In fact, you have included them as recipients of your email. Please direct any requests, demands or any other information through them and them only. Please do not contact me directly again while you are represented by counsel.
With that being said, as I have done on countless occasions in the past, I deny each and every one of the false allegations that you have set forth in your email below. There is nothing deficient about the May 19, 2011 NOD. Santa Barbara Bank and Trust will not rescind it. We have reviewed all of the information pertaining to this NOD and it is valid.
Robert B. Forouzandeh
Attorney at Law
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:12 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Theft of Principal, Breach of Contract and Mortgage Modification Fraud.
Mr. Bookout,
Thank you for faxing and emailing to me this afternoon the OCC letters dated July 16, 2008, June 30, 2011, July 15, 2011, August 2, 2011 and August 30, 2011. I have now reviewed these documents and am prepared to respond. My review of the 5 OCC letters that you have provided does not alter my prior conclusion that there is not a single piece of evidence which would even imply any acts of "Predatory Lending, Breach of Contract and Fraud" on the part of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust. In fact, after reviewing the OCC letters the only thing that is clear to me is that you are in breach of contract with Santa Barbara Bank & Trust as a result of your default on your loan.
Specifically, the following quotes demonstrate that the OCC has not made any findings of wrongdoing on the part of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust:
1. July 16, 2008 Letter, the OCC stated, "The OCC cannot resolve contractual disputes between national banks and their customers. When a clearly defined civil dispute develops, an agency such as the OCC would be acting beyond its authority as a trier of fact or adjudicator of civil disputes."
2. June 30, 2011 Letter, the OCC stated, "As your difficulty with the bank was in mediation and is subject of litigation, it is inappropriate for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to intervene in this case."
3. July 15, 2011 Letter, the OCC stated, "Because your matter is a contractual dispute and the subject of arbitration, the OCC cannot comment on any information you may have received. Based on the current course of events between you and the bank, we are unable to assist you further."
4. August 2, 2011 Letter, the OCC stated, "The OCC does not have the authority to intervene in such matters. We have previously responded to you on July 16, 2008, January 7, 2009 and June 30, 2011. Our position has not changed. We will no longer respond to phone calls or correspondences regarding this issue. This letter represents our final response."
5. August 30, 2011 Letter, the OCC stated, "As your dispute with the bank involves a business loan and therefore is governed by the contract signed between you and the bank, consumer compliance laws do not apply."
Furthermore, as we have repeatedly told you, the amortization schedules that we provided to you on May 6, 2011 were prepared by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust employees, not by any of the attorneys in this office, this office simply delivered them to you. Thus, your claim that "Neither You [Robert Forouzandeh] nor Diana Jessup Lee are qualified to prepare Santa Barbara Bank & Trust amortization schedules" is simply incorrect. Also, we provided you with 2 amortization schedules simply as a courtesy to you and to extend additional benefits in Schedule #2 to you which you were not entitled to as a gesture of good faith and in an effort to settle this matter.
Lastly, you have not provided any information or evidence which would lead Santa Barbara Bank & Trust to either rescind the most recent notice of default or to suspend the currently scheduled Trustee Sale from proceeding.
Robert B. Forouzandeh
Attorney at Law
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:36 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Theft of Principal, Breach of Contract and Mortgage Modification Fraud.
Mr. Bookout:
Although Ms. Lee and I have answered this question repeatedly and the amortization schedules that we provided to you in May speak for themselves, I will answer this question one last time in the hopes of providing you with clarity once and for all.
As you will see at the top of Amortization Schedule 1, it clearly shows that $22,274.46 was reduced from the outstanding balance of principal and interest due on the loan at the time of the forbearance agreement. This is why the $22,274.46 is placed inside of parenthesis ($22,274.46) on the Amortization Schedule. The fact that it is in parenthesis shows that it was reduced from the outstanding balance of principal and interest owed on the loan at that time. Similarly, at the top of Amortization Schedule 2, it shows that your Principal Balance "after 5 payments" was $416,898.31. The "5 payments" refers to the $22,274.46. Thus, the $22,274.46 was reduced from the principal and interest on the loan (the outstanding balance) prior to the loan being re-amortized pursuant to the Forbearance Agreement.
I trust that this explanation will answer your questions about the manner in which the $22,274.46 was credited towards your account.
As to the alleged comments from the OCC: You continue to ignore our request that you provide us with copies of the OCC letters dated July 16, 2008, June 30, 2011 and August 2, 2011 which you continually refer to. I am unable to comment on those letters until you send them to me.
Additionally, I have reviewed your two newest correspondences and my position remains the same: After reviewing all of your emails and correspondences, I have not found a single piece of evidence which would even imply any acts of "Predatory Lending, Breach of Contract and Fraud" on the part of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust.
Robert B. Forouzandeh
Attorney at Law
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 4:31 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Theft of Principal, Breach of Contract and Mortgage Modification Fraud.
Mr. Bookout,
Yet again, you continue to blatantly ignore our request that you provide us with copies of the OCC letters dated July 16, 2008 and June 30, 2011 that you refer to. Furthermore, in your latest email you also cite to an OCC letter dated August 2, 2011. You fail to attach this letter as well.
As stated before, your failure to send us copies of these letters leads us to believe that your references to these letters may not be accurate. Without copies of these three letters, we are unable to respond to your questions pertaining to those letters. Please forward these alleged letters to me at your earliest convenience so that I may review them and respond to your questions accordingly.
As to the other questions you have chosen to again repeat in your most recent email, I again repeat that all of these questions have been answered by either myself or Ms. Lee exhaustively and I would direct you to our prior correspondences to you for the answers that you seek.
Robert B. Forouzandeh
Attorney at Law
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 3:12 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Theft of Principal, Breach of Contract and Mortgage Modification Fraud.
Mr. Bookout,
You continue to blatantly ignore our request that you provide us with copies of the OCC letters dated July 16, 2008 and June 30, 2011 that you refer to. As stated before, your failure to send us copies of these letters leads us to believe that these references may not be accurate. Without copies of these two letters, we are unable to respond to your questions pertaining to those letters. Please forward these alleged letters to me at your earliest convenience so that I may review them and respond to your questions accordingly.
As to the other questions you have posed in your most recent email, I again repeat that all of these questions have been answered by either myself or Ms. Lee exhaustively and I would direct you to our prior correspondences to you for the answers that you seek.
Robert B. Forouzandeh
Attorney at Law
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 3:38 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Robert Forouzandeh
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Theft of Principal, Breach of Contract and Mortgage Modification Fraud.
Dear Mr. Bookout:
You purport to quote from letters from the OCC dated July 16, 2008 and June 30, 2011, yet you refuse to provide us with copies of these letters. Accordingly, we suspect your references to these letters are inaccurate. We have answered your questions many times over, yet you refuse to answer our request for these letters. Please provide the letters if you want us to respond further to your accusations.
Diana Jessup Lee, Esq.
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: dlee@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 11:42 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Theft of Principal, Breach of Contract and Mortgage Modification Fraud.
Mr. Bookout,
I have repeatedly asked you to provide me with copies of the July 16, 2008 and June 30, 2011 OCC letters that you claim that you are citing to. You have failed to do so. Therefore, I am unable to respond to the allegations you make in reference to those letters.
Please forward those letters to me at your convenience so that I can review them and respond.
Robert B. Forouzandeh
Attorney at Law
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 2:38 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Theft of Principal, Breach of Contract and Mortgage Modification Fraud.
Mr. Bookout:
We have repeatedly, in writing, denied your false allegations of "the Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract committed by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust since 2007" and provided you with the evidence to substantiate our position. We continue to stand by this denial. We have also repeatedly told you that any delay in responding to your allegations does not constitute an admission of your allegations.
It must also be noted that neither the SBA, FDIC or OCC has made any findings of improper conduct on the part of Santa Barbara Bank and Trust in relation to your loan.
As I have stated to you on numerous occasions, the correspondences to you from Ms. Lee dated May 6, May 26, May 31, June 28, July 5 and July 15, 2011 and the correspondences to you from myself dated August 2 and 3 provide ample evidence to refute all of your false allegations against Santa Barbara Bank & Trust. Please direct your attention to those documents.
Robert B. Forouzandeh
Attorney at Law
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 2:28 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007
Dear Mr. Bookout,
Please provide me with a copy of the OCC finding referenced in your email below.
If in fact there have been no such findings (as I believe to be the truth), then your public statements constitute slander and trade liable. To date Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has not sought legal recourse for your unlawful statements. If you persist, however, the bank may find it necessary to obtain a court order against you, just as you pushed the bank to the pointing of obtain a restraining order against you.
Diana Lee.
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 6:20 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007
Dear Mr. Bookout,
Pacific Capital Bank has not breached the 2007 Forbearance Agreement, and I never said otherwise.
We have repeatedly answered all of the questions you ask. You simply do not like the answers, so you selectively refer to old documents. The schedules and "computerized records" you request were included with and explained in my May 6 letter. The bank cannot and will not buy you a new home, re-establish your failed business or pay the judgments entered against you.
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: dlee@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 3:55 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: lol@rsmediate.com; Robert Forouzandeh
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007
Dear Mr. Bookout:
1. The bank did not overcharge you $7,172.57. Each of your payments were applied to outstanding interest and then to principal. Many of your early payments were for more than the minimum amount due, and the principal balance was reduced accordingly with each payment. Solely for settlement purposes I offered to discount your loan by various amounts, including $7,000. Your mischaracterization of such offers is discouraging. The bank is willing to discuss any reasonable proposal for curing your loan default. The fact that another bank foreclosed on your home because you did not pay that bank either, is not a topic we can address.
2. The two amortization schedules enclosed with my May 6, 2011 letter were created by SBBT based on the terms of your original loan, the forbearance agreement, and your payment history. Your request for additional computerized documents makes no sense.
3. I will check on the 2007 Form 1098 and see if it should be amended to reflect that you paid less in interest.
4. Your July 2007 payment of $22,274.46 was used "to pay the monthly principal and interest payments owing on Note for the earliest five monthly past due payments (May, 2006, June, 2006, July, 2006, August, 2006 and September, 2006)" exactly as stated in the Forbearance Agreement (emphasis added). This has been explained to you repeatedly. See my May 19, 2011 letter as well as the charts enclosed with my May 6, 2011 letter. I do not intend to continue repeating myself, so please do not keep asking this same question.
5. 1) The January 14, 2011 NOD was withdrawn as part of our mediation offer to you. I have not reviewed it, nor is there any reason to do so since it is irrelevant.
2) The May 19, 2011 NOD states the amount of your default, not the outstanding balance due on the loan. My May 6 and 19 letters addressed your questions about past payments and the outstanding balance due on your loan. The pending NOD is consistent with my May 6 and May 19 letters, and all three are accurate; they simply address different issues.
3) All principal payments you made were credited prior to determining the amount of your default as stated in the pending NOD. See explanation 1. above.
4) I have reviewed your Ex. 6 and cannot find the document to which you reference. Nevertheless, it does not matter. The operative documents are my May 6 and 19 letters to you with enclosed schedules and the May 19, 2011 NOD. All three of these documents credit the $22,274.46 as if you had timely made the monthly payments due May, 2006 through September, 2006, as agreed in the Forbearance Agreement.
Diana Jessup Lee, Esq.
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: dlee@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 12:18 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: lol@rsmediate.com; Robert Forouzandeh
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007
Dear Mr. Bookout:
As you are fully aware, I never admitted that Pacific Capital Bank over charged your account. We have repeatedly provided you with detailed schedules showing how your payments have been applied and how your default balance is calculated. You have not made any payments in 1.5 years and the bank is currently proceeding with foreclosure proceedings. I have offered discount your loan by various amounts, including $7,000, if it would settle your claims and you would resume making loan payments. On every occasion that a settlement has been offered to you, you have declined it. Your mischaracterization of settlement offers as admissions makes it very difficult to have productive discussions with you. Nevertheless, the bank remains willing to consider any reasonable proposal you have to cure your loan default.
I do not know what "computerized" records you are requesting. The May 6, 2011 schedules are official and are correct, so there is no need for any other records.
Please send me a copy of the "1098 form" about which you have questions and I will obtain an explanation for you.
My May 19, 2011 letter to you explained the application of the $22,274.46 in detail. Please read my letter.
As we explained, a lower number was used in the NOD in an effort to eliminate any possible dispute. In calculating your missed payment amounts for the NOD, the missed payments in 2010-2011 were calculated at 5.25% interest ( then current prime rate of 3.25% + 2% as stated in the original loan) as a courtesy to you. Pursuant to the Forbearance Agreement the bank is entitled to charge you 6%. If you pay this lower number, the NOD will be withdrawn.
Diana Lee.
Diana Jessup Lee, Esq.
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: dlee@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 10:04 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007
Dear Mr. Bookout:
The questions you ask are answered with full explanations in my letters to you dated May 6 and 19, 2011.
Diana Jessup Lee, Esq.
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: dlee@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 5:20 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: avw@newspress.com; 'Ashker, Terrill K.'; lol@rsmediate.com; 'Congresswoman Lois Capps'; Senator.Blakeslee@senate.ca.gov; sbcountyda@co.santa-barbara.ca.us; sandiego@sba.gov; velie@calcoastnews.com
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation
Dear Mr. Bookout,
As I have stated on a number of occasions, I have found no evidence of fraud in Pacific Capital Bank's handling of your loan nor in its handling of your many defaults on the loan and subsequent attempts to restructure your loan in an effort to help you cure your defaults. The information I provided you with my May 6, 2011 letter is correct and consistent with the pending NOD.
If you would like to discuss ways to cure your default, please let me know your idea.
Diana Lee