SBA Loan Authorization
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust shows their Breach of Contract and Mortgage Modification Fraud to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Case # 01394465 – Case # 770567 and Case # 01549780 in their May 6, 2011 Letter pdf. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust in their May 19, 2011 letter pdf... Show their continued Fraud and Breach of Contract.
Diana Jessup Lee States June 3, 2011 for SBBT and it's board of Directors, after asking questions of SBBT. "The questions you ask are answered with full explanations in my letters to you dated May 6 and 19, 2011."
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust against the OCC findings have prepared a differn't accounting as seen in this May 5, 2011 amortization schedule pdf. This amortization schedule compleatly goes against, the OCC findings.
SBA FOIA Documents December 20, 2011 PDF Showing Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts Board of Directors January 14, 2011 and May 19, 2011 Notice of Defaults to be Fraudulent!
From: Bill Bookout
[mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:11 PM
To: 'Mendoza, Carlos G.' (Carlos.Mendoza@sba.gov); 'SBA National
Ombudsman'; 'dporter@dfi.ca.gov'; 'Hedgespeth, Grady'
Cc: 'Fredericks, Jeffrey'; 'da, sbcounty'; 'dvallely@co.slo.ca.us';
'sanschromo@yahoo.com'; 'Nudson, Anne'; 'lol@rsmediate.com'; 'San Diego General
Box'; 'ombudsman@fdic.gov'; 'Garcia, Ruben R.'; 'Lcannon@dfi.ca.gov';
'legal@fdic.gov'; 'England, Jacqueline'; 'kari.overson@sba.gov'; 'Kaplan, Adam
D.(Off. Inspector Gen.)'; 'sbcountyda@co.santa-barbara.ca.us'; 'Mendoza, Carlos
G.'; 'Hobby, Jill C.'; 'Richard Rossi'; 'dlee@rppmh.com';
'rforouzandeh@rppmh.com'; 'bso@dfi.ca.gov'; 'keithcarls@kcoy.com'; 'velie@calcoastnews.com';
'gstarkey@newtimesslo.com'; 'mfountain@newtimesslo.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 22, 2013
CARLOS
G.
MENDOZA
US Small Business Administration State of
California Dept of Financial Institutions
District
Director 409
3rd St,
SW
45 Fremont Street, Suite 1700
Central
California/
Fresno Washington
DC
20416
San Francisco, CA 94105-2219
Small
Business Administration
559/487-5785,
Ext
2710
800/359-1833,
OPTION
6
Dear
Mr. Carlos Mendoza/SBA National Ombudsman/California DFI
Union
Banks Senior Vice President, Christine Sontag hired Diana Jessup Lee,
Esq. California State Bar # 155191 to
answer Union Banks SBA Loan questions! Diana Jessup Lee and Robert B. Forouzandeh are not qualified to answer Union Banks SBA loan
questions as seen in the May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedule and Diana Jessup
Lee’s January 24, 2013 email!
US Small Business Administration, I am
again requesting an accounting from the US Small Business Administration, of
Union Banks SBA PLP Loan charge of $39,750.00 to fix up the Oceano Nursery SBA
PLP loaned property from the Appraisal of $265,000.00 and that this money is
returned with interest as seen in Exhibit A-22 at www.sbaplploans.com along
with the Union Bank charge of $26,500.00 (10% standard deduction by the bank on
all foreclosures).
I am
requesting an accounting from the US Small Business Administration, per Union Banks Attorney fees of $57,676.17 for asking SBA PLP Loan
Questions of Union Bank successor to SBB&T per
the Union Bank May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedules and May 19, 2011 NOD! US
Small Business Administration, Please review Union Banks emails below from
January 25, 2011 to February 13, 2013 showing SBA Loan Fraud and Breach of
Contract by Union Bank! Attached
is Union Banks May 6, 2011 amortization schedule, that Union Bank claims again
on January 24, 2013 is correct against IRS 1098 Forms from 2007-2010!
US Small Business Administration, I am
again making a full FOIA request of the SBA for any and all documents
pertaining to the Oceano Nursery SBA PLP loan, with Union Bank successor to SBB&T May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedules
(SBA) Loan accounting against the August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 or the June 30,
2011 Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks letter, Case
# 01394465 as seen at www.sbaplploans.com and at
www.governorjerrybrown.net
US Small Business Administration, Please review Union Banks emails below from January 25, 2011 to
February 13, 2013 and then see that the SBA or Union Bank answers the 48
questions below on
February 14, 2013 with Union Banks SBA loan Fraud per the SBB&T May 19,
2011 NOD and Diana Jessup Lee’s January 24, 2013 email with Lol Sorensen’s
February 19, 2013 response!
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
State of California Department of Financial Institutions
45 Fremont
Street, Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94105-2219
Tel: (415) 263-8500
Fax: (415) 288-8830 CC Denise Moncus
From: Ashker, Terrill K. [mailto:terrill.ashker@sba.gov]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 11:34 AM
To: Bill Bookout; SBA National Ombudsman; dporter@dfi.ca.gov;
Hedgespeth, Grady; Mendoza, Carlos G.
Cc: Fredericks, Jeffrey; da, sbcounty; dvallely@co.slo.ca.us;
sanschromo@yahoo.com; Nudson, Anne; lol@rsmediate.com; San Diego General Box;
ombudsman@fdic.gov; Garcia, Ruben R.; Lcannon@dfi.ca.gov; legal@fdic.gov;
'England, Jacqueline'; 'kari.overson@sba.gov'; Kaplan, Adam D.(Off. Inspector
Gen.); 'sbcountyda@co.santa-barbara.ca.us'; Mendoza, Carlos G.; Hobby, Jill C.;
Richard Rossi; dlee@rppmh.com; 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
Mr. Bookout:
You have been informed countless times
that SBA cannot answer your questions relating to your dealings with Santa
Barbara Bank & Trust or Union Bank- your repetitive emails will not change
that fact so it will be much appreciated if you will refrain from sending
similar emails to this Agency in the future.
Terrill K. Ashker
Acting Fresno District Counsel
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:49 AM
To: SBA National Ombudsman; dporter@dfi.ca.gov; Hedgespeth, Grady;
Mendoza, Carlos G.
Cc: Fredericks, Jeffrey; da, sbcounty; dvallely@co.slo.ca.us;
sanschromo@yahoo.com; Nudson, Anne; lol@rsmediate.com; San Diego General Box;
ombudsman@fdic.gov; Garcia, Ruben R.; Lcannon@dfi.ca.gov; legal@fdic.gov;
'England, Jacqueline'; 'kari.overson@sba.gov'; Kaplan, Adam D.(Off. Inspector
Gen.); 'sbcountyda@co.santa-barbara.ca.us'; Mendoza, Carlos G.; Ashker, Terrill
K.; Hobby, Jill C.; Richard Rossi; dlee@rppmh.com; 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 20, 2013
CARLOS
G.
MENDOZA
US Small Business Administration
District
Director 409
3rd St, SW
Central
California/
Fresno
Washington DC 20416
Small
Business Administration
559/487-5785,
Ext
2710
800/359-1833,
OPTION
6
Dear
Mr. Carlos Mendoza/SBA Obudsman
Union Bank successor to SBB&T, has
without the involvement of Santa Barbara Mediator, Lol Sorensen, falsified SBA
Loan accounting in Union Banks, Diana Jessup Lee May 6, 2011 Accounting and Amortization
Schedules as seen at www.governorjerrybrown.net
--- www.unionbank.me and
above. Please review Mr. Lol Sorensen’s February 19, 2013 email response
below! I am requesting a full Small Business Administration, SBA PLP Loan investigation and accounting
into Union Banks claim that their amortization schedules are more accurate then
IRS 1098 Forms or SBA 1149 Forms with the SBB&T May 19, 2011 NOD from the
two SBB&T May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedules created by Santa Barbara Bank
& Trust!
Union Bank successor to SBB&T has ignored SBA 1149 accounting and IRS
1098 forms and stated in their (Diana Jessup Lee) SBA loan Representative’s May
6, 2011 letter?: “In the process of creating Schedule 1, some relatively minor
differences of opinion developed regarding how to interpret and apply the terms
of the Forbearance Agreement. As part of the mediation and
compromise process, we decided to prepare a second schedule, “Schedule 2,”
which extends every possible advantage to you, even if not consistent with the
terms of your SBA loan or computerized software that tracks loans.”
Again, I am asking for a full investigation from the
Small Business Administration in Union Bank successor to SBB&T, SBA Loan
Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2003
and that all questions asked below on February 8, 2013 and again on February
14, 2013 of Union Bank are now answered by the United States Small Business
Administration! Both, Union Bank SBA loan
Representatives Diana Jessup Lee and Robert B. Forouzandeh continue to ignore
SBA 1149 Forms and IRS 1098 Forms from 2007-2010 showing Union Bank successor
to SBB&T fraudulent accounting per the SBB&T May 19, 2011 NOD and the
two May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedules that Union Bank now again on January 24,
2013 states: : “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?”
US Small Business Administration, Please review the February 13, 2013 email below from Union Banks SBA
loan representative, Robert B. Forouzandeh Stating: “I
am compiling answers to questions in your recent email to my office. Once
I have gathered all necessary information, I will respond further.” The US
Small Business Administration now needs to see that the 48 question asked of
Union Bank on February 14, 2013 are fully answered and that Union Bank is not
using (Amortization Schedules) as official SBA loan bank documents over IRS
1098 forms or SBA 1149 accounting with other SBA loan customers!
The Santa Barbara Superior Court (Denise Motter) per the
request of Union Banks Vice President Christine Sontag, will only allow Union
Bank SBA PLP loan questions to be asked of Robert B. Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee; making it necessary for the US Small Business Administration to answer
the 48 questions asked below of Union Bank on February 14, 2013!
US Small Business Administration, I am
requesting an accounting from the US Small Business Administration, of
Union Banks charge of $39,750.00 to fix up the Oceano Nursery SBA PLP loaned
property from the Appraisal of $265,000.00 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). I am
requesting an accounting from the US Small Business Administration, per Union Banks Attorney fees of $57,676.17 for asking SBA PLP Loan
Questions of Union Bank successor to SBB&T per
their May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedules and May 19, 2011 NOD! US
Small Business Administration, Please review Union Banks emails below from
January 25, 2011 to February 13, 2013 showing SBA Loan Fraud and Breach of
Contract by Union Bank!
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
Union Bank successor to SBB&T, From: Lol Sorensen [mailto:lol@rsmediate.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:30 AM
To: 'Bill Bookout'
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to
theSanta Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216
Bill,
No,
I was not involved in the preparation of the schedules.
Best
regards,
Lol Sorensen
Mailing
Address:
690 Oak Grove Court
Ojai, CA 93023
Santa Barbara Office:
211 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
lol@rsmediate.com
(805) 689-6654 (phone)
(866) 423-9058 (fax)
**************************************************************
This message is sent by an attorney-mediator and may contain
information that is privileged or confidential.
If you received this transmission in error, please notify the
sender by reply e-mail and delete the message
and any attachments.
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 8:41 AM
To: lol@rsmediate.com
Cc: 'Bill Bookout'; Fredericks, Jeffrey; da, sbcounty; dvallely@co.slo.ca.us; sanschromo@yahoo.com; Nudson, Anne
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to
theSanta Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216
February
15, 2013
Lol
Sorensen
690 Oak
Grove Court
Ojai, CA 93023
(805) 649-1389 (phone)
Dear Mr.
Sorensen,
In the
Diana Jessup Lee May 6, 2011 Union Bank/SBBT accounting and Amortization
Schedules as seen at www.governorjerrybrown.net --- www.unionbank.me and
above. Did you as the Mediator have any involvement in the creation of
these two Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Amortization Schedules as Diana Jessup
Lee States in her May 6, 2011 letter?: “In
the process of creating Schedule 1, some relatively minor differences of
opinion developed regarding how to interpret and apply the terms of the
Forbearance Agreement. As part of the mediation and compromise
process, we decided to prepare a second schedule, “Schedule 2,” which
extends every possible advantage to you, even if not consistent with the terms
of your SBA loan or computerized software that tracks loans.”
The
questions below of Union Bank on February 8, 2013 and February 14, 2013 will
now have to be answered by Union Bank. Diana Jessup Lee has stated
January 24, 2013 in her exhibit (G) 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?”
Again was
the creation of these two amortizations schedules part of the (Mediation
Process) with you on April 27, 2011 and did you help in anyway in creating
these Amortization Schedules as Diana Jessup Lee has stated in her May 6, 2011
letter? “As part of the mediation and compromise process, we decided to
prepare a second schedule, “Schedule 2,”? It is now very
important to know who Diana Jessup Lee is referring to as “WE”
Sincerely
Bill
Bookout
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 7:22 AM
To: 'Diana Lee'; rforouzandeh@rppmh.com; Fredericks,
Jeffrey (jfreder@co.santa-barbara.ca.us)
Cc: 'Mendoza, Carlos G.'; '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'; 'Bill Bookout' (Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net)
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to
theSanta Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216
February
14, 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
Received the February 13, 2013 email
below from Robert B. Forouzandeh pertaining to the 2012 IRS Form 1098. Diana Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to SBB&T. Again please
answer the questions asked of Union Bank below on February 8, 2013 and again on
February 14, 2013! Please immediately provide a Monthly (Payment
Notice) statement for February 2013! Diana Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to SBB&T; Explain why Union Bank successor to SBB&T, has not adjusted the monthly payment
of the Oceano Nursery SBA PLP loan with Union Banks profitable sale of the
Oceano Nursery inventory and property to Rick Gambril?
Robert B. Forouzandeh sent a second
email on February 13, 2013 stating per the February 8, 2013 questions asked
below! “On February 13, 2013
at 3:22 p.m. you communicated directly with Union Bank in violation of Section
6(a)(4) of the Modified Restraining Order entered on February 5, 2013. “As stated in that Order you “must direct any
communications pertaining to [your] SBA Loan solely to Diana Jessup Lee or
Robert Forouzandeh, and not to any officers, directors or employees of SBBT or
Union Bank.” (Emphasis in original.) Your violation constitutes contempt
of Court.” “This letter serves as a warning. However, if
you violate the Restraining Order again, we will bring your conduct to the
Court’s attention, seek a contempt citation and pursue all available remedies.”
“I
am compiling answers to questions in your recent email to my office. Once
I have gathered all necessary information, I will respond further.”
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 PLP Loan Questions! Please answer the Union Bank SBA loan
questions below on February 14, 2013 and February 8, 2013! All questions
asked of Union Bank successor to SBB&T can
be seen at www.unionbank.me and at www.governorjerrybrown.net
Diana
Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to
SBB&T. Again please provide a current (Loan Transaction History
Statement for 2012) per the IRS 1098 Forms attached and the SBA Forms 1149
Attached! Union Bank has been unable within 24 Hours to show
evidence of the May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedule # 2 or #1 being accurate
against Union Bank successor to SBB&T IRS 1098 Forms from 2007-2010! Robert B. Forouzandeh emails below do not provide a current
(Loan Transaction History Statement for Union Banks 2012 changed IRS Form 1098!
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?
47)
Union Bank successor to SBB&T: Explain why Union Bank successor to SBB&T, has not adjusted the monthly payment
of the Oceano Nursery SBA PLP loan with Union Banks profitable sale of the
Oceano Nursery inventory and property to Rick Gambril?
48) Union Bank successor to SBB&T: Explain what Union Bank has
done with the extra Principal paid Union Bank from the improperly amortized SBA
PLP Loan payments from 2007 to 2011 of $4,121.06 per month? Diana Jessup
Lee in the June 29, 2011 email below, you have stated! “Solely for settlement purposes I offered
to discount your loan by various amounts, including $7,000.”
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 detailed statement 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 January 28, 2013! “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, 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 (IRS 1098 Forms) to
back up the May 6, 2011 amortization schedule as you (Diana Jessup Lee) have
stated January 24, 2013: Then please provide these Union Bank successor to SBB&T documents as you have stated for
Union Bank on January 24, 2013! “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, Again answer the 48
Questions asked above of Union Bank! 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 and below 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. Attached are Union
Bank successor to SBB&T emails from January 25, 2011 to
February 13, 2013 showing Union Banks SBA loan Fraud and Breach of Contract!
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: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 6:22 PM
To: Bill Bookout (Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net)
Subject: Notice of Violation of Modified Restraining Order
Mr. Bookout:
On February 13,
2013 at 3:22 p.m. you communicated directly with Union Bank in violation of
Section 6(a)(4) of the Modified Restraining Order entered on February 5,
2013. As stated in that Order you “must direct any communications
pertaining to [your] SBA Loan solely to Diana Jessup Lee or Robert Forouzandeh,
and not to any officers, directors or employees of SBBT or Union Bank.”
(Emphasis in original.) Your violation constitutes contempt of Court.
This letter serves
as a warning. However, if you violate the Restraining Order again, we
will bring your conduct to the Court’s attention, seek a contempt citation and
pursue all available remedies.
I am compiling
answers to questions in your recent email to my office. Once I have
gathered all necessary information, I will respond 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: 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 detailed statement 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 California
Governor
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.net has 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 27th of 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, 2010 and 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 (5th Cir. 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 (5th Cir. 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 detailed statement 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 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: 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: Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:24 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Karen Grant; Richard Rossi; Diana Lee
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007
Mr.
Bookout:
I again
remind you that the Santa Barbara Superior Court ordered you not to contact
anyone at Santa Barbara Bank and Trust other than Diana Jessup Lee and
myself. The Restraining Order still stands and remains in full force and
effect. If you fail to abide by its terms, the Court will take
action against you accordingly.
Additionally,
you have failed to confirm whether you conducted an unauthorized recording
of our telephone conversation yesterday as you orally represented to me at
the very end of the call. If your statement was true, then your
recording would constitute a criminal act on your part.
As to the
questions you have posed in your email below. I have answered each and
every one of them on multiple occasions in the past. All of the answers
you seek can be found in the prior communications you have received from Ms.
Lee and/or myself. In fact, you have even cut and pasted and included
many of my answers to your questions in the email below. Simply
because you did not like our prior answers does not mean that our answers will
change if you ask the same question over and over again.
I should
not have to remind you again that you are represented by counsel in your
currently pending bankruptcy petition. Any questions should be directed
through your attorney of record.
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: Monday, January 09, 2012 10:44 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Diana Lee; Mary Jo Barbeau; Richard Rossi
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007
Mr.
Bookout:
As you are
fully aware, pursuant to the Restraining Order issued by the Santa Barbara
Superior Court on June 27, 2011, you are not to contact anyone at Santa Barbara
Bank and Trust other than Diana Jessup Lee and myself. Failure to
abide by the Restraining Order may result in the Court holding you in contempt
and incarcerating you and/or imposing civil penalties and fines against you.
I have
reviewed the 10 questions you posed below. These are questions which you
have previously asked on multiple occasions and which have been previously
answered on multiple occasions by either Mrs. Lee or myself.
Additionally,
as you are aware, you have initiated a new bankruptcy claim in the
United States Bankruptcy Court in which you are represented by
counsel. The questions you have posed go directly to Santa Barbara Bank
and Trust's loan to you and its claim in your bankruptcy proceeding and thus,
any and all questions pertaining to your loan with Santa Barbara Bank and Trust
must be posed by your counsel.
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: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 9:14 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Robert Forouzandeh
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007
Mr.
Bookout,
Your
questions have been repeatedly answered. Your accusations are inaccurate,
and repeating them over and over is not productive. Please see the many
factual responses we have provided you which explain exactly the amount of your
default, the amount due on your loan and where all your payments have been
credited.
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: 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: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 4:41 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per their Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007'Senator.Lowenthal@senate.ca.gov'
Mr.
Bookout,
You
continue to repeat the same questions that Diana Lee and myself have repeatedly
answered. I again direct your attention to the correspondences sent to
you by Diana Lee on the following dates: May 6, May 26, May 31, June 28, July 5
and July 15, 2011. I also direct you to my correspondences to you dated:
August 2 and 3, 2011. All of the questions that you have posed in your
email below have been answered in the emails that I have identified.
Robert
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:18 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per their Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007
Mr.
Bookout:
In
response to your questions :
"Wasn’t
the deferred payments amortized from 2007 into this loan as presented to the
Internal Revenue Service by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust for 2007 and 2008?
Why did
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust not properly amortize this loan per the written
2007 Forbearance agreement?"
My
response is as follows: Initially, the deferred payments were amortized into
the loan after execution of the forbearance. This was indicated in the
two amortization schedules that Ms. Lee provided to you previously.
Subsequently, you defaulted on the loan and the forbearance agreement by
failing to make payments. Pursuant to Section 4(b)(ii) of the Forbearance
(which you cut and pasted to your email below), "In the event of default
under this Agreement or the Applicable Loan Documents, Bank shall be entitled
to cancel the forbearance applicable to the Deferred Payments and shall be
entitled to demand that Borrower within fifteen (15) business days of the
demand, pay to Bank in full (i) the Deferred Payments and (ii) the Deferred
Late Charges..." Accordingly, after you defaulted on the Forbearance
Agreement, Santa Barbara Bank and Trust demanded that you pay the
entire Deferred Payment amount in full within 15 business days, which
you failed to do. Accordingly, this amount was added to the Notice
of Default which was recorded against your property in May.
All other
questions that you pose in your latestemail were previously answered by Ms. Lee
in the various emails that I identified below.
I hope
that this clears up any confusion that you may have as to the handling of your
loan.
Robert
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 10:04 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007
Mr.
Bookout,
The July
27, 2011 statement sent from Santa Barbara Bank and Trust does not include the
amounts owed by you for the deferred payments under the Forbearance
Agreement. When you breached the Forbearance Agreement by going into
default on your loan, pursuant to contract, the deferred payments were
accelerated and due in full immediately. Accordingly, they were added to
the notice of default amount. Nonetheless, as a token of good faith, if
you pay the amount set forth on the July 27, 2011 statement
($102,859.01), Santa Barbara Bank and Trust will accept this as a
complete cure of your default on your loan which is now in its 21st month.
All of the
other questions you refer to in your email were fully and completely answered
in the various emails from Ms. Lee to you that I identified in my August
1, 2011 email to you. Please go back and review them in depth and you will
find answers to all of your questions, including how the May Notice of Default
was calculated.
Thank you.
Robert
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 4:45 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Diana Lee
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007
Mr. Bookout,
I disagree
with your assertion that Ms. Lee has been "unable to answer" your
questions. Ms. Lee has answered all of your questions repeatedly. I
would refer you to Ms. Lee's correspondences to you dated: May 6, May 26,
May 31, June 28, July 5 and July 15, 2011 (among others), in which Ms. Lee has
answered each and every one of your questions repeatedly.
If you
have any new information or any new questions, please provide those to me and I
will respond accordingly.
Thank you.
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
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Levas, Vickie [mailto:vickie.levas@fnf.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 9:28 AM
To: pismobeachsurfshop@charter.net
Subject: File: 11-00126-5, 15899
Mr. Bookout:
Per your request, here is a breakdown of the amount showing on the NOD which
has recorded 5/19/2011. A copy is attached.
10 payments 10/2006 thru 07/2007 $45,171.20
17 payments 01/2010 thru 05/2011 $65,853.51
TOTAL: $111,024.71
thank you,
Vickie Levas
Fidelity National Title Company
3075 Prospect Park Drive, Ste 100
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Telephone (916) 636-0114 x2095
E-Mail vickie.levas@fnf.com
NOTE: PRIVATE AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION: THIS TRANSMISSION MAY CONTAIN
INFORMATION OR MATERIAL WHICH IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT TO BE DISCLOSED TO ANYONE
OTHER THAN THE PERSON TO WHOM THIS TRANSMISSION IS DIRECTED. ANY DISCLOSURE,
DISTRIBUTION, COPYING OR USE OF THIS COMMUNICATION BY ANY OTHER PERSON IS
STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE
CONTACT US BY TELEPHONE IMMEDIATELY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL COMMUNICATION TO US
AT T! HE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
COOPERATION AND UNDERSTANDING.
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 7:40 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: 'Lol Sorensen'; Doug.Lutz@pcbancorp.com; legal@fdic.gov; 'Ashker,
Terrill K.'; 'Pamela Brinks'
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation
Dear Mr.
Bookout,
Thank you
for approving the environmental inspection for May 6. We are putting
together the information we agreed to provide you, which hopefully will assist
you in seeing that your assumptions are not correct.
Please
comply with your commitment not to communicate with anyone other than me about
this matter until May 13, 2011.
Diana Lee
From: Lol Sorensen [mailto:lol@rsmediate.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 8:24 PM
To: 'Diana Lee'; 'Bill Bookout'
Cc: Doug.Lutz@pcbancorp.com
Subject: Bookout/PCB Mediation
Dear Bill and Diana:
I am writing this message to you at the conclusion of today’s
mediation to confirm the things that the parties have agreed to over the next
16 days:
1. By May 6, 2011, PCB will provide to Bill
a schedule that lists the application of the payments that he made from and
after July 1, 2007 and a loan amortization that shows how payments were
anticipated to be applied from July 1, 2007 to the end of the term of the loan.
2. Between now and May 13, 2011, Bill will
cooperate with an inspection by PCB (and its agents) of each of the two
properties (1341 Paso Robles Street, Oceano, and 470 Price Street, Pismo Beach)
on a date selected by PCB yet giving Bill at least 3 days notice of the
date. PCB will pay for the inspections.
3. PCB will not record a Notice of Sale or a
new Notice of Default until May 13, 2011 at the earliest.
4. Bill will not add content about PCB to
any websites, and will not send any emails or other communications related to
PCB until May 13, 2011 at the earliest, except that Bill may email to Diana Lee
and may consult with attorneys in an effort to secure legal counsel.
5. I will stay in touch with both of you as
we continue to explore a possible settlement.
Best regards,
Lol Sorensen
www.rsmediate.com
690 Oak Grove Court
Ojai, CA 93023
lol@rsmediate.com
(805) 649-1389 (phone)
(805) 689-6654 (cell)
(866) 423-9058 (fax)
**************************************************************
This message is sent by
an attorney-mediator and may contain information that is privileged or
confidential.
If you received this
transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the
message
and any attachments.
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 3:55 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, Pacific Capital
Bancorp---Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007!
Dear Mr.
Bookout,
Your email
below is inaccurate. In our conversation this afternoon, you called my
attention to the typographical error in my March 22, 2011 email which contained
a 2012 year rather than 2011. You and I acknowledged that
the conversations upon which that email was based, as well as the other
emails we have exchanged specified that your web sites and You Tube sites
needed to go dark on March 23, 2011, not March 23, 2012.
As I
stated in our conversation, the bank is willing to go to mediation with you on
April 7, the date you requested, and has arranged for Lol Sorensen, the
mediator you selected, to serve as the mediator. The bank has also
agreed that you need not pay any mediation fees upfront, and that the topic of
how the mediation fees are paid will be addressed at the mediation. The
bank also agreed to toll the running of time under your Notice of Default, all
conditioned on you agreeing to cease all communications, except with me,
regarding this dispute, including causing your webs sites and your You Tube
site to go dark until the mediation. You told me that you would not agree
to cause your web sites to temporarily go dark pending the mediation.
Accordingly,
you have declined the bank's generous offer and there is nothing further I can
do for you. This file will be returned to Mr. Lazar, and you should
direct all further communications to him.
Sincerely,
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: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 5:51 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: SBA Bank Fraud---Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Case # 01394465 -Amortization Schedule
Dear Mr.
Bookout,
I
contacted Mr. Sorensen's office, and obtained the following dates on which he
is available: April 7, 8, 18 or 19. I must check with my client to
see what days she is available. Are any of these days convinient for you?
I just
checked your web sites and they are still up. I'm not sure if you do not
intend to cause your sites to go dark as I specified, or if you have
delayed because you believe I need to read the material on your sites. In
hope that it is the later, I will have my assistant print out everything
on your sites first thing in the morning, and then I expect you to cause
them to go dark by 10:00 a.m. Otherwise, we do not have an agreement, and
there will not be a tolling of the time accruing under your Notice of
Default. The complete cessation of all postings was an important part of
the bank's agreement to freeze the accrual of time under your Notice of
Default, and if your web sites and You Tube postings are going continue, then
there is no agreement to freeze the accrual of time under the Notice of
Default.
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: George C. Lazar [mailto:GLazar@foxjohns.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 2:00 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: Pacific Capital Bank
Mr. Bookout:
With regard to your request for an itemization of the
amounts which comprise the delinquency amount set forth in the notices of
default recently recorded, the amount is calculated as follows:
UNPAID PAYMENTS
10 Deferred 10/2006 - 7/2007
$37,801.09
Jan-Dec
2010
$49,452.72
Total:
$87,253.81
Late charges to
11/16/10
$4,858.96
Appraisal
Fees
$4,050.00
Legal
Fees
$50.00
UCC Search
Fees
$15.50
Amount shown on
NOD
$96,228.27
With regard to the questions you have been propounding
which you chose to resolve through complaint to the OCC, this email will advise
you that Pacific Capital Bank has responded to the OCC within their prescribed
timeframes, and we assume they will follow up with you based upon that
response. Any issues you have with the Bank’s response to the OCC, or
with the OCC’s response, should be taken up with the OCC.
With regard to your request for an amortization schedule,
an amortization schedule is necessarily based upon assumptions, such as a
static interest rate, and assumes strict performance by the
borrower as required by the terms of the loan. In the case of your loan,
the significant defaults and the agreements that have been made not only make
any previously-issued amortization not relevant to the loan’s current status,
but they preclude a current amortization, since the defaults are continuing,
additional charges are being incurred, and the time to maturity is decreasing,
among other things. Should the loan be put in a
performing status, we could address amortization schedule issues at that time.
Finally, you continue to state that Pacific Capital Bank
is required to respond to you in a time period you specify and that if there is
no response, you are entitled to assume that a statement you have made is
accurate or otherwise has been validated by Pacific Capital Bank. Again,
I reiterate that Pacific Capital Bank’s lack of a response to a communication
from you within any time period specified by you is not an admission by the
Bank that any statement you have made is accurate or is adopted by the Bank.
And, if you were ever to claim to any third party that Pacific Capital Bank’s
failure to respond to a communication from you was an admission of some kind by
the Bank, that claim would be knowingly false on your part and could be,
depending on the circumstances, libelous, a matter the Bank takes very
seriously.
As before, I remain your contact point for questions
directed to Pacific Capital Bank. Please note the amount required to cure
your loan default has increased since the amounts provided in the Notice of
Default. Should you be interested in curing the default, please advise
George C. Lazar
FOX JOHNS LAZAR PEKIN & WEXLER, APC
525 B Street, Suite 1500
San Diego, California 92101-4417
Tel: 619.595.7187
Toll
Free: 877.272.3734
Mobile: 619.823.7375
Fax:
877.227.0150
email: glazar@foxjohns.com
THIS EMAIL IS INTENDED FOR THE
DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) ONLY AND MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL, INCLUDING
ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS. IF YOU RECEIVE THIS EMAIL IN ERROR, PLEASE
NOTIFY ME BY RETURN EMAIL AND DELETE THIS EMAIL TOGETHER WITH ANY ATTACHMENTS.
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 10:33 AM
To: 'Robert Forouzandeh'
Cc: 'Kaplan, Adam D.(Off. Inspector Gen.)'; 'kari.overson@sba.gov'; 'Ashker, Terrill K.'; 'cj.ward@keyt.com'; 'rmiller@newtimesslo.com'; 'velie@calcoastnews.com'; 'lol@rsmediate.com'; 'Diana Lee'; 'lol@rsmediate.com'; 'Mary Jo Barbeau'
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007
December 26, 2011 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Complaint Re: Case# 01944977
Robert B. Forouzandeh
Attorney at Law
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Robert Forouzandeh, California State Bar # 247177,
Thank you for your response below on December 24, 2011 “You are not to contact anyone at Santa Barbara Bank and Trust. If you do so you will be in violation of the restraining order issued against you by the Santa Barbara Superior Court.” Can you answer the questions asked on June 3, 2011 below of Mr. Mark K. Olson and Mr. Richard Nightingale of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust with Diana Jessup Lees refusal to answer banking questions asked of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust?
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Re: Case # 01944977—SBA---San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara News Media attached, should have full knowledge of the predatory lending that has taken place by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust and how Christine Sontag filed a restraining order for the questions asked below from May 19, 2011 to June 3, 2011 of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust and Mr. Mark K. Olson and Mr. Richard Nightingale after Diana Jessup Lee refused to answer banking questions asked of her since her May 19, 2011 letter!
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Case # 01944977---01394465 -01672308 –770567 has full knowledge of the documents attached and Santa Barbara Bank & Trust claim that principal had been paid! Robert Forouzandeh, Please explain as to why the IRS 1098 Form 1098 attached does not show any Principal paid as Santa Barbara Bank & Trust had informed the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency? Notice SBA From 1149 showing no principal paid!
Robert Forouzandeh, Can you explain for Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, as to why a Santa Barbara Bank & Trust would file a restraining order for asking SBBT Banking questions in regards to SBBT Banking Mistakes made by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust since 2007? Notice the SBA Form 1149 provided at Mediation with Lol Sorensen as the Mediator. Explain as to how Santa Barbara Bank & Trust amortized this SBA loan from the 2007 forbearance and workout agreement?
Robert Forouzandeh, How did Santa Barbara Bank & Trust in the two May 5, 2011 Amortization Schedule come to 10 deferred payments of $4,517.12 or $45,171.20 when the January 9, 2007 demand letter written by Heidi Dugan showed payments owed of $4,391.08 for October 2006--$4,246.38 for November 2006—4,053.66 for December 2006 and $3,813.90 for January 6, 2007? The SBBT payment notice of $3,529.24 for the February 6, 2007 payment. The SBBT payment notice February 21, 2007 of $3,201.82 March 24, 2007 of $2,832.93 May 23, 2007 for May 6, 2007 of $2,428.61 and the June 6, 2007 payment of 1,990.57 along with the June 23, 2007 First Bank of San Luis Obispo June 23, 2007 invoice for July 6, 2007 payment of $1,524.46 which adds up to $32,012.65 instead of $45,171.20? The NOD filed January 14, 2007 by Pacific Capital Bank claimed 10 Deferred payments from 10/2006 - 7/2007 of $37,801.09 instead of $45,171.20! showing more Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Banking Fraud!
Robert Forouzandeh, As you are now fully knowledgeable, Santa Barbara Bank & Trust claims in the August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 as provided to the U. S. Small Business Administration as seen at www.sbaloanauthorization.com and www.sbaplploans.com that only interest was paid from the 2007 forbearance agreement! Diana Jessup Lee has stated! “3. I will check on the 2007 Form 1098 and see if it should be amended to reflect that you paid less in interest.” Robert Forouzandeh, attached is the January 9, 2007 Demand Letter written by Heidi Dugan! How did SBBT come up with $45,171.20 per the May 19, 2011 Notice of Default and SBA Form 1149?
Robert Forouzandeh, Can you explain as to why as stated by SBBT. “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.? Was withdrawn and then was falsified on May 19, 2011 by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust? Notice the SBA Form 1149 attached above showing only interest being paid in 2007!
Robert Forouzandeh, Can you explain as to why Santa Barbara Bank & Trust would State: “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.” And then Falsify the May 19, 2011 NOD as seen in the SBA Form 1149 Diana Jessup Lee, provided at our mediation with Mr. Lol Sorensen as seen attached above?
Robert Forouzandeh, Can you explain as per SBA Form 1149 as stated by SBBT: to “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.” Robert Forouzandeh, How was the Principal Payments credited per Diana Jessup Lees email statement on June 29, 2011?
Robert Forouzandeh, please explain as per SBA Form 1149 that Diana Jessup Lee, provided per our mediation as to how Santa Barbara applied principal to my SBA loan? “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.” Robert Forouzandeh, notice in the SBA Form 1149 attached that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has not applied principal as stated by Diana Jessup Lee in her email on June 29, 2011!
Robert Forouzandeh, what is the status of this statement from Diana Jessup Lee! “3. I will check on the 2007 Form 1098 and see if it should be amended to reflect that you paid less in interest.” Have you or Diana Jessup Lee, checked on the 2007 1098 Form and had it amended to reflect that I paid less in interest from Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts accounting mistakes?
Robert Forouzandeh, can you explain for Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, as to why Santa Barbara Bank & Trust would file a restraining order for questioning mistakes or fraud that have been made by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust since 2007?
Robert Forouzandeh, California State Bar # 247177, why did Santa Barbara Bank & Trust in the SBA Form 1149 not start lowing the principal balance of $420,024.30 in July 2007 and waited until September 30, 2008? What did Santa Barbara Bank & Trust do with this principal paid per the January 14, 2011 NOD and the May 19, 2011 Notice of Defaults?
Sincerely
Bill Bookout
CC Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Re: Case # 01944977
CC United States Small Business Administration
CC Adam D. Kaplan Assistant Counsel to the Inspector General U.S. Small Business Administration
CC Kari A. Overson, Special Agent in Charge Western Regional Office U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Inspector General
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2011 2:37 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Mary Jo Barbeau; Diana Lee; lol@rsmediate.com
Subject: Re: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007
Mr. Bookout:
You are not to contact anyone at Santa Barbara Bank and Trust. If you do so you will be in violation of the restraining order issued against you by the Santa Barbara Superior Court.
All necessary tax forms will be provided to you in early 2012 as required by law.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 24, 2011, at 2:31 PM, "Bill Bookout" <Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2011 10:26 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: Automatic reply: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007
I will be out of the office between December 28, 2011 and January 8, 2012. I will be checking my email periodically during that time. If you need immediate assistance please contact my assistant Mary Jo Barbeau at (805) 966-2440.
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.
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: Bill Bookout [mailto:Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 4:25 PM
To: Diana Lee
Cc: lol@rsmediate.com; Robert Forouzandeh
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007June 27, 2011 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Case # 01394465
Diana Jessup Lee, Esq.
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Dear Mrs. Diana Jessup Lee,
The NOD that Pacific Capital Bank has file May 19, 2011 does not take into account the 29 payments PCB has over charged my SBA Loan by $7,172.57. This action by Pacific Capital Bank is a Breach of Contract and I am again willing to sit down in Mediation with Pacific Capital Bank to resolve this issue since 2007!
The $7,172.57 would have saved my personal house required by Pacific Capital Bank in the 2007 loan modification in which Pacific Capital Bank immediately broke this signed agreement as seen in your May 6, 2011 amortization schedule.
You State: “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 provide the computerized records showing how Pacific Capital Bank has come up with the $4,055.30 monthly payment or the $4,028.05 payments seen in your May 6, 2011 letter and amortization schedules. If these amortization schedules are not created from Pacific Capital Banks computerized records, then please explain if they where created by you or how they were created? You now have, had a chance to see the Pacific Capital Bank computerized records dated June 6, 2007 and July 24, 2007 showing your May 6, 2011 amortization schedules to be wrong.
The 1098 forms are in your possession as seen in Exhibit # 6 per the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Harassment claim June 27, 2011 “Please send me a copy of the "1098 form" about which you have questions and I will obtain an explanation for you.” Please review all computerized Pacific Capital Bank documents in Exhibit # 6!
No, your May 19, 2011 letter did not explain the $22,274.46 in detail per your statement: “My May 19, 2011 letter to you explained the application of the $22,274.46 in detail. Please read my letter.” Please explain why none of this $22,274.46 was applied towards principal per the July 6, 2007 Forbearance and Workout Agreement? This is a Breach of Contract and Mortgage Modification Fraud on top of the $7,172.57 overpaid in principal to Pacific Capital Banks since 2007! On Page (3 # 2 i) It States: “$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).” This was not done by Pacific Capital Bank and is not seen in your May 19, 2011 Letter!
Per your Statement: “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.”
1) Please explain, why this was not done in the January 14, 2011 NOD?
2) Please explain why the May 6, 2011 amortization schedule prepared by you or the May 19, 2011 letter does not show this explanation?
3) Please explain why the extra principal paid of $7,172.57 is not seen in this new Pacific Capital Bank accounting method per the NOD filed May 19, 2011?
4) Again In exhibit # 6 is a Pacific Capital Bank Loan Transaction History, dated September 13, 2010, showing no principal reduction of the five payments as seen in your May 6, 2011 amortization schedules. Can you explain how the $22,274.46 was applied to reduce this loans principal as you had mentioned before court? This is not seen in the May 19, 2011 NOD reducing Principal per the July 6, 2007 Forbearance and Workout Agreement prepared by Pacific Capital Bank as Stated: “$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).”
This $22,274.66 figure above was not taken into account in the May 19, 2011 NOD and was not explained in the May 19, 2011 letter per your harassment claim! You State: “Pursuant to the terms of the Forbearance Agreement, you paid $22,274.46 to satisfy the May 2006 through September payments,” Please note that you have not included the principal paid per this 2007 Forbearance Agreement in the May 19, 2011 NOD! Can you explain why Pacific Capital Bank has not done this?
Sincerely
Bill Bookout
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: Bill Bookout [mailto:Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 4:25 PM
To: 'jmackall@seedmackall.com'
Cc: 'Diana Lee'; 'mark.olson@pcbancorp.com'; 'avw@newspress.com'; 'lol@rsmediate.com'; 'Senator.Blakeslee@senate.ca.gov'; 'sbcountyda@co.santa-barbara.ca.us'; 'sandiego@sba.gov'; 'velie@calcoastnews.com'; 'rmiller@newtimesslo.com'; 'crigley@newtimesslo.com'; 'rnightingale@dbntm.com'; 'Carlos.Mendoza@sba.gov'; 'matt@christmankelley.com'; 'John W. Belsher'; 'Pamela Brinks'; 'Manalli, John A.'; 'Ashker, Terrill K.'; 'Congresswoman Lois Capps'
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007
June 3, 2011 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Case # 01394465
Mark K. Olson---Chief Financial Officer -- Nightingale, Richard A CPA - Damitz Brooks Nightingale
Pacific Capital Bancorp --200 E Carrillo St Ste 202
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust -- Santa Barbara, CA 93101
1021 Anacapa St --(805) 963-1837Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Dear Mr. Mark K. Olson and Mr. Nightingale,
Re: Diana Lee (155191), Esq. of Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP June 3, 2011 email explanation in regards to questions asked of Pacific Capital Bank! Diana Lee states for Pacific Capital Bank: “The questions you ask are answered with full explanations in my letters to you dated May 6 and 19, 2011.” Unfortunately Diana Jessup Lees response are unacceptable and she has not answered the questions asked of Pacific Capital Bank! Is this how Pacific Capital Bank handles all of their Loans?
The Accounting from the June 23, 2007 First Bank of San Luis Obispo payment notice showed a balance of $452,024.05 on July 6, 2007 after the payment on July 6, 2007 of $22,274.46. With the Pacific Capital Bank NOD on January 25, 2011 as seen below the July 6, 2007 loan modification should have been amortized at $414,222.96 and monthly payments of $3,609.41! Why did Pacific Capital Bank charge the Oceano Nursery SBA loan $4,121.06 per month since 2007? The actual Balance as of December 6, 2010 would have been $344,415.68 with differed payments of $37,801.09 or $32,012.65 as Pacific Capital Bank documents show! Pacific Capital Bank has acknowledged May 19, 2011 that they believe the monthly payments should have been $3,873.73 per the May 19, 2011 NOD!
Please explain how Pacific Capital Bank on May 5, 2011 came up with a SBA loan debt of $465,195.50 or $462,069.51 with monthly mortgage payments of $4,055.30 or $4,028.05 per month instead of the monthly payment of $4,121.06 charged by PCB since July 2007? This amortization Schedule prepared by Diana Lee is different then the $3,873.73 per month NOD filed by Pacific Capital Bank on May 19, 2011? This is Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract as now seen in Diana Lees May 3, 2011 email!
1) The Pacific Capital Bank/SBA total loan debt on June 30, 2007 should have been $452,024.05 per the June 23, 2007 First Bank of San Luis Obispo monthly statement! How did Pacific Capital Bank on May 5, 2011 come up with $462,069.51 per amortization schedule 2 and $465,195.50 per amortization schedule # 1 that Diana Lees states on May 3, 2011 The questions you ask are answered with full explanations in my letters to you dated May 6 and 19, 2011.”?
2) Mark K. Olson, How did Pacific Capital Bank in the May 5, 2011 Amortization Schedule come to 10 deferred payments of $4,517.12 or $45,171.20 when the January 9, 2007 demand letter written by Heidi Dugan showed payments owed of $4,391.08 for October 2006--$4,246.38 for November 2006—4,053.66 for December 2006 and $3,813.90 for January 6, 2007? The PCB payment notice of 3,529.24 for the February 6, 2007 payment. The PCB payment notice February 21, 2007 of $3,201.82 March 24, 2007 of $2,832.93 May 23, 2007 for May 6, 2007 of $2,428.61 and the June 6, 2007 payment of 1,990.57 along with the June 23, 2007 First Bank of San Luis Obispo June 23, 2007 invoice for July 6, 2007 payment of $1,524.46 which adds up to $32,012.65 instead of $45,171.20? The NOD filed January 14, 2007 by Pacific Capital Bank claimed 10 Deferred payments from 10/2006 - 7/2007 of $37,801.09 instead of $45,171.20! showing more Pacific Capital Bank Fraud Accounting!
3) Mark K. Olson, How has Pacific Capital Bank in the May 5, 2011 amortization schedule # 2 reduced the SBA loan payments of $22,274.46 per the June 30, 2007 Forbearance and workout agreement only by $3,125.99 as seen in the “Cash Flow Data” Balance after 5 payments---$416,898.31? Why does Diana Lee believe that in her May 19, 2011 letter that schedule 1 prepared by her on May 5, 2011 accounts for the principal in this SBA loan when it has not been applied to reduce the 2007 five payments per the Pacific Capital Bank loan modification?
4) Diana Lee in her May 6, 2011 letter states: “As you know, a schedule showing anticipated payments and application of those anticipated payments was not requested or prepared at the time you entered into the Forbearance Agreement effective June 30, 2007.” Pacific Capital Bank should be responsible for their customer accounting actions and not the customers! Having in July 2007 finding accounting problems with First Bank Of San Luis Obispo—Pacific Capital Bank and bringing these problems to PCB’ attention; PCB stated in a letter August 1, 2007 “The proper Bank officials will look into the computerized records and determine if there are any problems.” It is unfortunate that this PCB---SBA loan was never properly looked into and amortized properly in 2007. How did PCB come up with the SBA loan payment of $4,121.06 instead of $3,659.96? Why is Diana Jessup Lee, threatening me with foreclosure with Pacific Capital Banks admitted Breach of Contract and Mortgage Modification Fraud since June 30, 2007 in her May 6, 2011 letter?
5) Mark K. Olson, Again, please answer the questions that have been asked of Pacific Capital Bancorp! Pacific Capital Bancorp shows their theft of Principal and Breach Of Contract, in the May 19, 2011 NOD as accounted for by Fidelity National Title Company! “Per your request, here is a breakdown of the amount showing on the NOD which has recorded 5/19/2011. A copy is attached. 10 payments 10/2006 thru 07/2007 $45,171.20 -- 17 payments 01/2010 thru 05/2011 $65,853.51” Heidi Dugan of Pacific Capital Bank had showed payments owed PCB of $4,391.08 for October 2006--$4,246.38 for November 2006—4,053.66 for December 2006 and $3,813.90 for January 6, 2007! Please provide the Pacific Capital Banks computerized records to back up Diana Lees claims per her May 19, 2011 letter as she States May 3, 2011 “The questions you ask are answered with full explanations in my letters to you dated May 6 and 19, 2011.”
6) Mark K. Olson, Does Pacific Capital Bank really believe that they can steal $45,171.20 from me in the NOD filed May 19, 2011? Please provide the Pacific Capital Bank computerized documents to back this debt up if you can! These computerized documents will be provided to the news media attached per Diana Lee’s statements in your May 19, 2011 letter as seen at www.pacificcapitalbank.co ! Pacific Capital Bank actions are known to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Case # 01394465. The OCC has been investigating Pacific Capital Banks actions since December 2010.
7) Does Pacific Capital Bank really feel that Diana Lee’s statement May 31, 2011 is correct? “The information I provided you with my May 6, 2011 letter is correct and consistent with the pending NOD.” Pacific Capital Bank knows that 17 payments of $3,873.73 totals $65,853.51? Why would Pacific Capital Bancorp steal $247.33 per month from the Oceano Nursery SBA loan as now seen in Pacific Capital Banks, May 19, 2011 NOD? Why does Pacific Capital Bank not account for this $247.33 in the May 19, 2011 NOD? How did Diana Jessup Lee, come up with an amortized payment of $4,055.30 on May 5, 2011 instead of $3,873.73 now claimed in the Pacific Capital Bank May 19, 2011 NOD? Remember Pacific Capital Bancorp has been charging this SBA loan since the 2007 loan modification, $4,121.06 per month which now ads up to Grand Theft and Breach of Contract by Pacific Capital Bank! How is Pacific Capital Bank going to handle this Mortgage Modification Fraud and Breach of Contract?
8) Mark K. Olson, Diana Lee States: May 31, 2011 to the SBA, Congresswoman Lois Capps, Senator Sam Blakeslee, the Santa Barbara District Attorney and local News Media! “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.” Please see that Pacific Capital Bank answers all of the questions above that are copied to the SBA, Congresswoman Lois Capps, Senator Sam Blakeslee, the Santa Barbara District Attorney and local news media!
================================================
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
================================================
Mark K. Olson, It is unfortunate that Pacific Capital Bank would want to charge Attorney fees to answer accounting questions of Pacific Capital Bank and that Diana Lee would ignore this fact as Pacific Capital Bank stated May 12, 2008, in regards to asking accounting questions of Pacific Capital Bank! “The requests you have made, and the delinquencies in the documentation, have resulted in the Bank incurring additional attorney's fees. As a result, you are requested to forward to Pacific Capital Bank, c/o Ms. Sheffield, a check in the amount of $750.00 to cover anticipated attorney's fees incurred in responding to the requests for information. Of course, this amount is only an estimate, and if the fees exceed the amount received, an additional deposit will be required. Please forward the deposit as soon as possible so that the Bank can begin work on the research you have requested.”
In prior attempts to obtain a proper accounting; Pacific Capital Bank has stated December 30, 2010 "Second, you asked for an amortization schedule. As I indicated in my email of last week, I will provide information on your agreement that you will communicate only with me, rather than sending emails to a number of persons at Pacific Capital Bank. As you have not made that agreement, I do not feel that any further response is necessary. I believe that the request that you communicate with me is reasonable and necessary, and we will insist on that condition. (In the event that you do agree to this request, please let me know exactly what you mean by an "amortization schedule".) Is this how Pacific Capital Bank treats all of their customers who ask for an accounting of their loans?
Pacific Capital Bank has stated January 4, 2011 affecting all PCB Banking, Customers! "I will, of course, respond to any written communications. However, as I have previously advised you, I will not be providing any substantive responses until such time as you agree, in writing, that you will communicate exclusively with me for the purpose of communicating to Pacific Capital Bank regarding your loan. You have persisted in your efforts to involve other Bank employees in this matter. As a result, I remain unwilling to provide you any information that the Bank is not required to provide you. (An amortization schedule is not information the Bank is required to provide you.) If there is anything further at this time, please let me know, in writing."
Pacific Capital Bank has stated March 4, 2011 showing PCB Loan Accounting Fraud and Breach Of Contract with the May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedule prepared just two months later by Pacific Capital Bancorp! “In light of your claims, we have reexamined the computation of the amount owing under the terms of the promissory note you executed. (As you will recall, by virtue of the fact of the default under the forbearance, the note terms were reinstated.) In fact, it turns out that the notice of default understates the amount that was due at the time of the recording of the notice of the default. The amount owing was $97,369.07, not the $96,434.82 set forth in the NOD.”
Mark K. Olson, Why has it taken Pacific Capital Bank from July 2007 to May 6, 2011 to acknowledge the Loan Modification Fraud and Breach of Contract committed by Pacific Capital Bancorp since 2007? Pacific Capital Bank stated August 1, 2007 “The proper Bank officials will look into the computerized records and determine if there are any problems.”
Mr. Mark K. Olson, it is unfortunate that Pacific Capital Banks actions since 2007 are now made public and known to the SBA, Congresswoman Lois Capps, Senator Sam Blakeslee, the Santa Barbara District Attorney and local News Media, however Pacific Capital Bank is going to have to stop hiding behind their Attorneys for their Mortgage Modification Fraud, Breach of Contract and the of the Oceano Nursery SBA loan principal theft since 2007!
Mr. Olson and Pacific Capital Bank---- Again, please answer the questions asked of Pacific Capital Bank Yourself and all Pacific Capital Bank Board Directors! Diana Lee is not competent to answer the questions of Pacific Capital Bank as seen at www.pacificcapitalbnak.co and www.santabarbarabankandtrust.co
Sincerely
Bill Bookout
CC
John Walsh, Office of Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks Case # 01394465
1301 McKinney Street, Suite 3450,
Houston, Texas 77010-9050
Attorney General Kamala D. Harris
California Department of Justice
P. O. Box 944255
Sacramento, Ca 94244-2550
FDIC Consumer Response Center
1100 Walnut Street, Box #11
Kansas City, MO 64106
From: George C. Lazar [mailto:GLazar@foxjohns.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 2:00 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: Pacific Capital Bank
Mr. Bookout:
With regard to your request for an itemization of the amounts which comprise the delinquency amount set forth in the notices of default recently recorded, the amount is calculated as follows:
UNPAID PAYMENTS
10 Deferred 10/2006 - 7/2007 $37,801.09
Jan-Dec 2010 $49,452.72
Total: $87,253.81
Late charges to 11/16/10 $4,858.96
Appraisal Fees $4,050.00
Legal Fees $50.00
UCC Search Fees $15.50
Amount shown on NOD $96,228.27
With regard to the questions you have been propounding which you chose to resolve through complaint to the OCC, this email will advise you that Pacific Capital Bank has responded to the OCC within their prescribed timeframes, and we assume they will follow up with you based upon that response. Any issues you have with the Bank’s response to the OCC, or with the OCC’s response, should be taken up with the OCC.
With regard to your request for an amortization schedule, an amortization schedule is necessarily based upon assumptions, such as a static interest rate, and assumes strict performance by the borrower as required by the terms of the loan. In the case of your loan, the significant defaults and the agreements that have been made not only make any previously-issued amortization not relevant to the loan’s current status, but they preclude a current amortization, since the defaults are continuing, additional charges are being incurred, and the time to maturity is decreasing,
among other things. Should the loan be put in a performing status, we could address amortization schedule issues at that time.
Finally, you continue to state that Pacific Capital Bank is required to respond to you in a time period you specify and that if there is no response, you are entitled to assume that a statement you have made is accurate or otherwise has been validated by Pacific Capital Bank. Again, I reiterate that Pacific Capital Bank’s lack of a response to a communication from you within any time period specified by you is not an admission by the Bank that any statement you have made is accurate or is adopted by the Bank. And, if you were ever to claim to any third party that Pacific Capital Bank’s failure to respond to a communication from you was an admission of some kind by the Bank, that claim would be knowingly false on your part and could be, depending on the circumstances, libelous, a matter the Bank takes very seriously.
As before, I remain your contact point for questions directed to Pacific Capital Bank. Please note the amount required to cure your loan default has increased since the amounts provided in the Notice of Default. Should you be interested in curing the default, please advise
George C. Lazar
FOX JOHNS LAZAR PEKIN & WEXLER, APC
525 B Street, Suite 1500
San Diego, California 92101-4417
Tel: 619.595.7187
Toll Free: 877.272.3734
Mobile: 619.823.7375Fax: 877.227.0150
email: glazar@foxjohns.com
THIS EMAIL IS INTENDED FOR THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) ONLY AND MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL, INCLUDING ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS. IF YOU RECEIVE THIS EMAIL IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY ME BY RETURN EMAIL AND DELETE THIS EMAIL TOGETHER WITH ANY ATTACHMENTS.
