Subpoena Request To Michigan Attorney General

“A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold.” - Proverb 22:1

Praises & Thanks be unto The Lord My God for the wisdom, knowledge and understanding on legal matter because I received countless feedbacks from folks facing foreclosure and bankruptcy around the United States as follows:

Comments: "I have been inundated with TILA questions. So I went out hunting to see if anyone had already written about it in terms that a lay person might be able to understand. What I found is shown below. I believe it to be generally correct and the citations are good citations of law. See this site for the entire write-up. It should give most lay people an idea on how to handle this and it will be valuable to your lawyer if he/she is not totally familiar with the TILA context at the following link:" http://rcxloan.com/Civil_Action_BK_Motion_14.htm. Statement made by Attorney at Law, Neil F. Garfield, M.B.A., J.D.

A STORY TO THINK ABOUT
“Once upon a time in the Ancient Roman Empire, 27 BC, there were two men living in Jerusalem. One was named Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust, a rich man whose land was worth close to $700 billion in today‘s money; the other, Mr. Augustin, a farmer whose land was worth $300,000. One day, Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust asked Mr. Augustin to give him his land, that he may have it for a vegetable garden. But, Mr. Augustin said to Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust, “The Lord forbid me that I should give to you the inheritance of my fathers”.

When Jezebel, the wife of Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust, heard what Mr. Augustin said to him. She said, don‘t worry love, I will take care of the matter? Arise, eat bread, and let your heart be joyful; I will give you Mr. Augustin‘s land. So, Jezebel wrote letters in Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust’s name and seal them with his seal and sent letters to the elders and to the nobles who were living in Jerusalem. Now she wrote in the letters, saying, proclaim a ‘relief of stay trial’ in the absence of Mr. Augustin. Then, issued a decree that Mr. Augustin’s land is now Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust.

So the men of Jerusalem, the elders and the nobles did as Jezebel had sent word to them, just as it was written in the letters which she had sent them. Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust take possession of Mr. Augustin’s land which he had refused to give. The sad part is that Mr. Augustin was forced off his land illegally and fraudulently. Mr. Augustin left with nothing and forced to seek refuge from Jerusalem to a land called ‘Fairfax, Virginia’ to start from scratch. Whereas, Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust became more wealthy with the unwarranted possession of his and hold more than $700 billion of assets as a result.

Questions? Why was Mr. Augustin absent in the relief of stay trial? Why did the elders and the nobles just do as Jezebel asked them? Let us all fast forward in 2008, what do you think the elders and the nobles should have done differently?”
-------------------------------------

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - Western District of Michigan

Pierre Richard Augustin, PRO SE )
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
New Century TRS Holding, Inc. )
New Century Liquidating Trust )
Defendants )

Non-Parties that hold information likely to lead to admissible evidences:

Attorney General Mike Cox
G. Mennen Williams Building, 7th Floor
525 W. Ottawa St.
P.O. Box 30212
Lansing, MI 48909

EMERGENCY MOTION TO REQUEST THE ISSUANCE
OF NOTICES TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS &
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM re DEPOSITION TO NON-PARTIES
WITNESSES in case 07-10416-KJC in Delaware Bankruptcy Court

INTRODUCTION
[Our justice system is not perfect. Mistakes are inevitable. However, when
New evidences are presented, the will to do good must prevail over the status quo]

Honorable and Distinguish CHIEF JUDGE Paul L. Maloney, May The Lord Almighty Bless You For Being A Dedicated Public Servant And Grant You More Wisdom, Knowledge And Understanding To Make Wiser Decisions On Behalf Of The Citizen Of The Greatest Nation On Earth, The United States Of America.

Your Honor, Extraordinary and Swift measures by our Political and Public Policy makers with the passing of the $700 billion bill bailout for Financial Institutions on Friday, October 3, 2008 demands an ‘Equal Extraordinary, Unprecedented and Exceptional’ ruling from the United States District Court for the District for [E]quality and [F]airness by granting this Emergency request to issue SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM concerning deposition, production and inspection of documents that will likely lead to admissible evidences in accordance with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(2).

“I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” - Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust victim

“Our regulatory system must protect consumers and investors by punishing individuals who engage in fraud, break contracts, or lie to customers -- like the predatory lenders who know you can't afford an adjustable rate mortgage, but mislead you into signing one. These actions are criminal and the people who commit them should be behind bars.” - Statement by a Presidential Candidate

“The prospect of waging a protracted discovery battle with all of these well funded parties in hopes of uncovering evidence of predatory lending can be too daunting even for those victims who know such evidence exists. So imposing is this opaque corporate wall, that in a “vast” number of foreclosures, MERS actually succeeds in foreclosing without producing the original note--the legal sine qua non of foreclosure--much less documentation that could support predatory lending defenses”.
- Inside B&C Lending, supra note 431, at 14 (quoting MERS CEO R.K. Arnold)

A STORY TO THINK ABOUT
“Once upon a time in the Ancient Roman Empire, 27 BC, there were two men living in Jerusalem. One was named Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust, a rich man whose land was worth close to $700 billion in today‘s money; the other, Mr. Augustin, a farmer whose land was worth $300,000. One day, Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust asked Mr. Augustin to give him his land, that he may have it for a vegetable garden. But, Mr. Augustin said to Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust, “The Lord forbid me that I should give to you the inheritance of my fathers”.

When Jezebel, the wife of Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust, heard what Mr. Augustin said to him. She said, don‘t worry love, I will take care of the matter? Arise, eat bread, and let your heart be joyful; I will give you Mr. Augustin‘s land. So, Jezebel wrote letters in Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust’s name and seal them with his seal and sent letters to the elders and to the nobles who were living in Jerusalem. Now she wrote in the letters, saying, proclaim a ‘relief of stay trial’ in the absence of Mr. Augustin. Then, issued a decree that Mr. Augustin’s land is now Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust.

So the men of Jerusalem, the elders and the nobles did as Jezebel had sent word to them, just as it was written in the letters which she had sent them. Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust take possession of Mr. Augustin’s land which he had refused to give. The sad part is that Mr. Augustin was forced off his land illegally and fraudulently. Mr. Augustin left with nothing and forced to seek refuge from Jerusalem to a land called ‘Fairfax, Virginia’ to start from scratch. Whereas, Ameriquest-New Century-Chase Home Finance-Deutsche Bank National Trust became more wealthy with the unwarranted possession of his and hold more than $700 billion of assets as a result.

Questions? Why was Mr. Augustin absent in the relief of stay trial? Why did the elders and the nobles just do as Jezebel asked them? Let us all fast forward in 2008, what do you think the elders and the nobles should have done differently?”

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
[Our justice system is not perfect. Mistakes are inevitable. However, when
New evidences are presented, the will to do good must prevail over the status quo]

Plaintiff bought his former home at 28 Cedar Street, Lowell, Massachusetts in January 1999. On March 18, 2002, he conveyed the property to his business, 26-28-30 Cedar Street, Inc., subject to two mortgages. On May 17, 2002, Plaintiff obtained a loan with DanversBank for the amount of $55,000 on behalf of AdMerk Corp. Inc., secured by his principal dwelling. The DanversBank mortgage note was assigned to Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company. On March 27, 2003, Plaintiff obtained an Ameriquest Mortgage in the amount of $244,000, portions of which were used to pay the original two mortgages. On April 15, 2004, a $289,000 stated income loans which was originally designed primarily for self-employed borrowers was given to his wife, a W-2 wage earners of only $2,786.99 in 2003. Thus, New Century underwriters had failed to verify the false stated income provided by the mortgage company that acted as a finder for New Century and failed to call her employer as required under prudent underwriting guidelines. Many of the acts and transactions that constitute violations of Federal Law included the dissemination to the public of untrue statements of material facts, directly or indirectly, used the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including, but not limited to, the United States mails, interstate telephone communications and the facilities of national securities exchanges (Section 11 & 15) since many of the financial institutions acted with scienter, acting intentionally or with a deliberate reckless disregard of the true facts, in making or participating in the making of these misstatements and omissions that ultimately led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s property rights and the civil conspiracy of mortgage/real estate fraud, predatory lending including forgery, federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud. Also, that New Century mortgage note was assigned to Chase Home Finance. Then Chase assigned it to Deuthsche Bank National Trust. Upon filing for Bankruptcy in Delaware, New Century Mortgage named Mr. Pierre Augustin (Plaintiff in this matter) as a Creditor. Here is the Delaware Bankruptcy Court order regarding Plaintiff’s claim against New Century Mortgage:

Extracted from June 24, 2008 Delaware Bankruptcy Court Transcript, page 59 to 62

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Augustin, as the debtor has indicated in its pleadings, I must first address a threshold issue, and that is whether I should even get to the merits of any claim that you might have, because it was later field. And the standard I look to is the one that the debtor has described in its papers, and that is, I must consider the following factors. One, the danger of prejudice to the debtor, two, the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, three, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and four, whether the movant acted in good faith. There is no one factor that’s dispositive. Not necessarily all are to be considered. I look at those factors and I find, as you might have gleaned from my discussions with debtor’s counsel at the outset of this hearing that I don’t see much prejudice to the debtor in allowing the late claim. The reason for the delay and whether you acted in good faith, I would say against another backdrop might not carry a lot of weight with me, but it’s obvious that you have been aggressively pursuing this dispute whether it has merit or not. And it seems to me your positions and your multiple filings support the view that you certainly didn’t intend to pass up on an opportunity to make a claim knowing that you had one. So for those reasons on balance I will allow it. Now, the next question in my mind is whether, and we won’t reach the merits today, but the first question in my mind, Mr. Samis, I’ll direct to you, and that is, is this a matter that needs to proceed by adversary or is it a contested
matter?

MR. SAMIS: Well, Your Honor, I would say that given the rules that would govern an adversary proceeding and the rules that would govern a contested matter, I think this would be better, we would better be able to pursue the matters I think as a contested matter in the court case. I think that we can probably -- now that the issue of whether or not the claim was late filed is resolved, I think that the debtors can better and formally communicate with Mr. Augustin to reach a resolution at this point.

THE COURT: Well, let’s do this. Let’s put it on for statue in the August Omnibus hearing and, Mr. Augustin, if the matter’s not resolved by agreement before that time, you may participate by telephone, you will not need to appear personally for the hearing in August, which is which date?

MR. SAMIS: Your Honor, I would have to go back and check, but I can circulate it. August 20th, I believe, Your Honor, is that correct, at 2:30 p.m.

THE COURT: August 20th at 2:30. But if it’s not resolved at that point, my intention would be to enter a scheduling order not unlike what I would schedule in an adversary proceeding. I would also likely order mediation. Now, Mr. Augustin, what I want you to be aware of is, if the matter’s not resolved, you’re perfectly free to press your claim. Don’t take any remark of mine to be considered my advice to you that you settle. But if you decide to press forward and bring to me the merits of your claim against New Century, you will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code, the bankruptcy rules, our local rules and any order that I enter governing the conduct of this litigation. And the fact that you choose to represent yourself will not excuse you from compliance with any of those requirements, and you need to understand this. So I’ll give Mr. Samis a chance to discuss with you whether you can resolve this matter after this hearing. If not, we’ll hear from you in August, we’ll set up a schedule for the taking of discovery and other things that are necessary to govern the resolution of this dispute.


Extracted from August 20, 2008 Delaware Bankruptcy Court Transcript, page 69

“MR. AUGUSTIAN: -- you gave the option to -- to the attorney Christopher whether I should proceed as an adversary proceeding or contested matter. He chose adver -- contested matter. I was not called forward to ask my opinion. That’s why I stepped forward to --

THE COURT: Yeah. Well, the --

MR. AUGUSTIAN: -- let the Court know.

THE COURT: I guess the -- the short way of -- of responding to that is we can design pre -- pretrial procedures basically to afford whatever due process rights you would like to have. So, in substance, there’s going to be no difference at the end of the day. So, you will have all the rights that you would have had had this been commenced as an adversary proceeding. And, it’s actually procedurally probably better for you that it proceed that way. So, we’ll make it so that there is no difference. Do you understand what I’m saying?

MR. AUGUSTIAN: Yes, Your Honor. I was just reading the -- the rules as it states. So, I am not expert in the law. But, if you feel that way, that I -- all my rights will be protected, then -- it’s on the record. Then, if -- if some time I feel it does not and something fall through the crack, I’ll file an appeal.

THE COURT: Well, you know where to find me.

MR. AUGUSTIAN: Okay.”

II. WHY DOCUMENTS ARE NEEDED FROM NON-PARTIES ?
[Our justice system is not perfect. Mistakes are inevitable. However, when
New evidences are presented, the will to do good must prevail over the status quo]

Plaintiff strongly believes in the transparency of the judicial system in the United States of America to uphold the law as well as ponders and reflects on the following oath that every federal judge takes to uphold the Constitution of the United States:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Likewise, ““parties appearing pro se are allowed greater latitude with respect to reasonableness of their legal theories (Patterson V. Aiker, 111 F.R.D. 354, 358 [N.D. GA 1986])”. Also, the court is supposed to judge the case based on its merits even if procedural errors are made. Thus, the Court must give this Plaintiff, “every favorable inference arising from his pro se status” (Hall v. Dworkin, 829 F. Supp. 1403, 1409 (ND NY 1993)). In re Haines: pro se litigants are held to less stringent pleading standards than bar licensed attorneys. Regardless of the deficiencies in their pleadings, pro se litigants are entitled to the opportunity to submit evidence in support of their claims. In re Platsky: court errs if court dismisses the pro se litigant without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings. In re Anastasoff: litigants’ constitutional rights are violated when courts depart from precedent where parties are similarly situated. All litigants have a constitutional right to have their claims adjudicated according the rule of precedent. See Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000).”

In accordance to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff is seeking permission from the United States District Court [to obtain documents ] from the non-parties witnesses who are not parties in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court matter because they reside within the Court Jurisdiction and they possessed evidences, documents or eyewitness information that might assist the discovery efforts and records that may have some bearing on his claim IN ORDER TO MEET THE DEADLINE OF FACT DISCOVERY OF DECEMBER 19, 2008. According to the discovery rule, a party may obtain any information that pertains, even slightly, to any issue in the lawsuit, as long as the material sought is not legally ‘privileged’ or otherwise protected and [will tend to lead to admissible evidence.]

The term “document” is used in the broadest possible sense and means, Electronically Stored Information (ESI), without limitation, any written, printed, typed, photostatic, photographed, recorded or otherwise reproduced communication or representation, whether comprised of letters, words, numbers, pictures, sounds or symbols, or any combination thereof, including, but not limited to, all memoranda, notes, records, letters, envelopes, telegrams, messages, studies, analyses, contracts, agreements, projections, estimates, working papers, summaries, statistical statements, financial statements or work papers, accounts, analytical records, reports and/or summaries of investigations, opinions or reports of consultants, opinions or reports of accountants, other reports, trade letters, press releases, comparisons, books, diaries, articles, magazines, newspapers, booklets, brochures, pamphlets, circular, bulletins, notices, forecasts, drawings, diagrams, instructions, minutes of meetings or of other communications of any type, including inter and intra-office communications, questionnaires, and surveys, charts, graphs, photographs, phonographs, films; tapes, disks, data cells, drums, print-outs, all other date compilations from which information can be obtained (translated, if necessary, by defendants through detection devices into usable form), any preliminary versions, drafts or revisions of any of the foregoing, and other writings or documents of whatever description or kind, whether produced of authorized by or on behalf of the defendant or anyone else, including non-identical copies and draft of any of the foregoing, now in the possession, custody or control of defendants, their former and present directors, officers, counsel, agents, employees partners, principals and/or persons action on their behalf.

III. REQUESTING ‘RAW FACTS & REAL EVIDENCE’ DOCUMENTS
[Our justice system is not perfect. Mistakes are inevitable. However, when
New evidences are presented, the will to do good must prevail over the status quo]

Now the time has come, in view of the financial crisis, for the non-parties Counsels to move behind the legal technicalities and abide by their oath for due diligences…

“I (repeat the name) solemnly swear that I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless, or unlawful suit, or give aid or consent to the same; I will delay no man for lucre or malice; but I will conduct myself in the office of an attorney within the courts according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, and with all good fidelity as well to the courts as my clients. So help me God”

… because the $700 billion bailout to Financial Institutions on Wall Street by our Political Leaders and Public Officials resulted out from poor mortgage underwriting practices encouraged by the banks involved in this matter.

Reflectively, Plaintiff stands before the non-parties Counsels with a sense of sadness for the ongoing foreclosure crisis has resulted in the largest currency devaluation in modern U.S. History and affects every American and every foreign person, government, agency, village or city that put money into pooled funds of the collateralized debt obligations CDO’s as well as affecting schools & local government budget. Let us all hope and pray that the bailout stabilized local, national and global financial market and economical activities.

The timing of these economical, financial and operative facts mentioned above are intertwined with Plaintiff’s matter and are always considered fair game for discoveries. So too are the legal theories and defenses of the action along with all real evidence that any party has obtain or discover (Myers v. City of Highland Village, 212 F.R.D. 324 (E.D. Tex. 2003). The scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as with all of its state counterparts is very broad. Rule 26(b)(1) specifically permits discovery of “any matter, not privileged, which is relevant” with respect to any “claim” or “defense.”

The subsection then takes the trouble to list certain examples, such as “books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.” If there is any point or purpose at all to the discovery process, it must enable Plaintiff’s access to those raw facts and pieces of “hard evidence” that form the underlying basis for the subject matter. These are the one-of-a-kind materials and information that the court have always make available through discovery.

(Extract from the August 20, 2008 Transcript p 70: 12-21, “Obviously you had said why don’t you, in the meantime, reach out to Mr. Augustian, investigate the facts and circumstances on -- you know, from a substantive perspective, and determine whether or not there’s any way to settle the claim. I did commence an investigation and spoke with the former general counsel of the company, who is now functioning as a consultant. The results of that investigation at our transition meeting I did produce to Mr. Carickhoff, so he has them).”

Experts who are to testify and who also provide analysis, guidance, reports and opinions are witnesses nonetheless. An expert may wear the hat of a “consultant,” but his status as a testifying witness trumps the consultant status. In particular, as a testifying expert, he is certainly subject to discovery. Rule 26(a)(2)(B) mandates both the preparation and disclosure of a written signed report. According to that rule, the report:

“... shall contain a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefore; the data or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinions; any exhibits to be used as a summary of or support for the opinions; the qualifications of the witness, including a list of all publications authored by the witness within the preceding ten years; the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony; and a listing of any other cases in which the witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four years.”

The Counsels should not use the Work Product Doctrine as a device for hiding facts or evidence that are discoverable. Those hoping to erect a shield for such information often mix the hard evidence with work product materials, or try to mis-characterize such evidence as work product United States v. Dentsply Int’l, 187 F.R.D. 152 (D.Del. 1999); United States v. Frederick, 182 F.3d 496 (7th Cir. Wis. 1999); Starlight Int’l, Inc. v. Herlihy, 186 F.R.D. 626 (D.Kan. 1999). Common sense dictates that all parties should be entitled to know the underlying predicates and defenses of all of the other parties. The Advisory Committee Notes for the 2006 amendments to Rule 34(b) state as follows: Rule 34(b) provides that a party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the discovery request. The production of electronically stored information should be subject to comparable requirements to protect against deliberate or inadvertent production in ways that raise unnecessary obstacles for the requesting party. As provided in Rule 45, If requested documents are within the control of a party upon whom a valid request is made, that party must obtain and produce those documents (Pleasant v. Pleasant, 632 A.2d 202, 97 Md.App. 711 (1993)).

RELIEF REQUESTED
[Our justice system is not perfect. Mistakes are inevitable. However, when
New evidences are presented, the will to do good must prevail over the status quo]

Plaintiff is not looking for sympathy. Plaintiff is not looking to be rewarded. Plaintiff is not here seeking the punishment of Debtor, Liquidating Trust or non-parties witnesses. Plaintiff, as a Pro Se, recognizes that he is facing a milestone and an uphill battle against lawyers that are well schooled with an in-depth knowledge of the law, influences, technical maneuvers and equipped with various inside scoop of TRIAL and courtroom strategies that he lacks. Although not a lawyer or pretending to be one, Plaintiff is asking the Court to grant his request for Subpoena Duces Tecum to obtain documents from Non-Parties in the Court Jurisdiction.

Your Honor, “the public has an interest in the orderly administration of justice. Public policy favors the full litigation of the ‘claims‘on its merit and to broadly conduct discovery. (See U.S. v. Premises and Real Prop. At 4492 S. Livonia Rd., F. 2d 1258, 1263 (2d Cir. 1989), see also U.S. v. All Assets of Statewide Auto Parts, Inc., 971 F. 2d 896, 902 (2d Cir. 1992) (a claimant’s interest in his home merits special constitutional protection).” Ronald Dworkin regards law as an interpretive process under which individual rights are paramount. Society is composed of individuals. Thus, protection of Plaintiff’s individual rights arguably becomes part of the public interest which in turn benefits some members of the population who were given risky loans and harms no taxpayers in the process. Plaintiff, as an outsider of courtroom litigation ponders and reflects on the following oath that every Federal Judge takes to uphold the Constitution of the United States:
''I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Respectfully Submitted,
Pierre R. Augustin, MPA, MBA, Pro Se, Plaintiff
3941 Persimmon Drive, #102, Fairfax, VA 22031 (617)202-8069

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true copy of this Emergency Motion was served to all non-parties and attorneys.

Sincerely,
Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se, 3941 Persimmon Drive, #102
Fairfax, VA 22031, Tel: 617-202-8069


VERIFICATION
I, Pierre R. Augustin, hereby depose and state as follows:

1. I am Pierre R. Augustin, represented by self.

2. I have read the foregoing Motion filed herein and knowing the contents thereof have found that the allegations of fact set forth therein are true of my own personal knowledge, except as to those allegations based on information and belief which I believe to be true.

Signed under the penalties of perjury this ________day of ____________2008.

X ________________________________

STATE OF ________________________COUNTY OF _____________________________

On this _____ day of __________, 2008, before me, the undersigned notary

public, personally appeared ___________________________, proved to me

through satisfactory evidence of identification, which was __________________________________________________, to be the person whose name is

signed on the preceding or attached document, and acknowledged to me that s/he signed it

voluntarily for its stated purpose.

______________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
(SEAL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - Western District of Michigan

Pierre Richard Augustin, PRO SE )
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
New Century TRS Holding, Inc. )
New Century Liquidating Trust )
Defendants )

AFFIDAVIT / AFFIRMATION

I, Pierre-Richard Augustin, affirm the following under penalty of perjury, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1) I am the Plaintiff in this action, and I respectfully submit this affidavit/affirmation.

2) I have personal knowledge of facts which bear on this Motion.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, except as to those allegations based on information and belief which I believe to be true.
Dated:_______________________________________________________
Pierre-Richard Augustin, Pro Se, Plaintiff
3941 Persimmon Drive, #102, Fairfax, VA 22031 (617) 202-8069

STATE OF _______________________________COUNTY OF_________________________
On this _____ day of __________, 2008, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared ___________________________, proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, which was _________________________________________________________, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding or attached document, and acknowledged to me that s/he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose.
______________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
(SEAL)

Exhibit 1



Exhibit 2


Exhibit 2 - Continued


Exhibit 3

Exhibit 4


-------------------------------------
I can be reached for a FREE consultation at (cell) 617-202-8069 or (703) 584-5998,



it's FREE, there is no obligation whatsover...! Sincerely, Pierre R. Augustin, MPA, MBA

P.S. - What 3 friends do you know who would benefit from FREE Expert Loan Advice...!
1. Call and Speak with a Consultant, 1-617-202-8069 or (703) 584-5998, it's FREE!