LNV vs. Gebhardt: Intervenors Motion for Rule 60(b) Relief

Page 1 of 27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

LNV CORPORATION, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No.: 3:12-CV-468-TAV-HBG

)

CATHERINE GEBHARDT )

)

Gebhardt. )

Interveners’ Motion for Relief from Order and Summary Judgment Favoring

LNV Corporation by Vacating a Void Judgment

Denise Subramaniam, and the other interveners hereafter referred to as “The Interveners” move

this court under Rule 60(b)(4) for Relief from Orders and Final Summary Judgment in favor of

Plaintiff; LNV Corporation.

This Motion is timely as the Orders and Final Judgment from which we seek relief were entered

on April 14, 2014 [Docket # 53, Docket # 54 and Docket # 59]

This court is in want of jurisdiction to order a Summary Judgment in this matter due to fraud

upon the court, fraud upon the court by the court, no appearance or testimony of a competent fact

witness, and denial of due process.

THEREFORE under Rule 60(b)(4) The Interveners motion the court to VACATE its VOID

Summary Judgment in favor of LNV.

Page 2 of 27

FRAUD UPON THE COURT

Court Relied on fraudulent records in Granting Summary Judgment to LNV

Gebhardt and the Interveners are victims of the crimes of Lorraine Brown and her co-

conspirators. (United States District Court Middle District of Florida Jacksonville District;

United States of America v. Lorraine Brown; case # 3:12-CR-198-J-25MLR.) See The

Interveners’ Motion For Judicial Notice of Information and Criminal Indictment and Plea

Agreement of Lorraine Brown.

Excerpted from the Lorraine Brown guilty plea:

“In mid-2005, Jacksonville, Florida based Fidelity National Financial, Inc. ("FNF")

purchased DocX from Brown and her partners. Through corporate reorganizations within

FNF, DocX later fell under ownership of Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.

("FNIS"). In mid-2008, FNIS spun off a number of business lines into a new publicly-traded

entity, Lender Processing Services, Inc. ("LPS"), based in Jacksonville, Florida. At that time,

DocX was rebranded as "LPS Document Solutions, a Division of LPS." Following this spin-

off, Brown was the President and Senior Managing Director of LPS Document Solutions,

which constituted DocX's operations in Alpharetta. At all times relevant to this Information,

Brown was the chief executive of the DocX operations.”

Also excerpted from Lorraine Brown criminal plea of guilt:

“The manner and means by which Brown, her co-conspirators, and others sought to

accomplish the purposes and objectives of the conspiracy included forging and falsifying

signatures on the mortgage-related documents that they prepared and filed with property

recorders' offices throughout the United States.

Page 3 of 27

These documents, particularly mortgage assignments and lost note or assignment affidavits,

were later relied upon in court proceedings, including property foreclosures and in federal

bankruptcy court. Brown knew that these property recorders, as well as those who received

the documents such as courts, title insurers, and homeowners, relied on these documents

as genuine.”

A criminal conviction is conclusive proof and operates as an estoppel on Plaintiff as to the facts

supporting the conviction in a subsequent civil action. Local 167 of International Brotherhood of

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of America v. United States, 291 U.S. 293, 298-99,

78 L. Ed. 804, 54 S. Ct. 396 (1934); Brown v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 768, 524 F.2d 693, 705

(1975). “Yet they need not all be indicted or named. Indeed, an indictment charging that the

named defendant and „other persons unknown . . . did . . . conspire‟ was approved in State v.

Hightower, 221 S.C. 91, 94, 69, S.E.2d 363, 366 (1952)[.]” McAninch & Fairey 481. In

Hightower, there was “ample evidence that the conspirators, though unknown, did exist.”

McAninch & Fairey 481.

Gebhardt has emphatically stated throughout her pleadings that she is a victim of the crimes of

Lorraine Brown and her co-conspirators; and that LNV and their counsel are co-conspirators of

Brown; and that the false mortgage documents and land records LNV offered the court to

substantiate its claim of standing through assignment were criminally produced by Lorraine

Brown and her co-conspirators; specifically counsel for LNV.

Both Stites & Harbison and Shapiro & Kirsch are on a list of service providers for LPS. They

and other LPS service providers use the “LPS” computer system to generate mortgage related

Page 4 of 27

documents. As LPS Service Providers, they use the same manner and means indentified by the

United States as those used by Brown to commit her crimes.

These law firms and other LPS service providers continue to submit as evidence in courts across

the county, including courts where the Interveners are each a party defending themselves against

similar fraud upon the court, false land records, false mortgage notes, false alonges and other

false and fraudulently fabricated mortgage related documents. They know these documents are

false. Like Brown, they know that “those who received the documents such as courts, title

insurers, and homeowners, relied on these documents as genuine.” Moreover they count on

courts to rely on them as genuine.

To quote from the court‟s Memorandum Opinion [Docket # 53]:

Although Defendant argues that the Note was the product of fraud, Defendant alleges no

specific misrepresentations of fact made by any of the involved parties, nor provide any

evidence of record from which the Court could determine whether there was a genuine

dispute as to the issue of whether any such misrepresentations were knowingly made or

made with the intent to deceive. The Court thus concludes that plaintiff’s claims of fraud

do not present a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.

Gebhardt articulates to the best of her ability as a pro-se litigant what happened during the

origination of her mortgage and during its servicing and the story she tells in her pleadings is one

of fraud in the factum.

Hughes v. Rowe et al. 449 U.S. 5, 101 S. Ct. 173,66 L. Ed. 2d 163,49 U .S.L. W .3346. “It is

settled law that the allegations of such a [pro se] complaint, "however inartfully pleaded" are

Page 5 of 27

held "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, see Haines v. Kerner,

404 U.S. 519,520 (1972). See also Maclin v. Paulson, 627 F.2d 83,86 (CA7 1980); French v.

Heyne, 547 F.2d 994,996 (CA7 1976). Such a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to

state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support

of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Haines, supra, at 520 521. And, of course, the

allegations of a complaint are generally taken as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss. Cruz

v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319,322 (1972).”

Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown 466 U.S. 147,104 S. Ct. 1723,80 L. Ed. 2d 196,52

U.S.L.W. 3751.: “Rule 8(f) provides that 'pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial

justice.' We frequently have stated that pro se pleadings are to be given a liberal construction.”

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd

240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233: Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to

technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of

perfection as lawyers.

Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938): "Pleadings are intended to serve as a

means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not

raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its

importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."

Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals: The plaintiff's

civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it

was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should

endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."

Page 6 of 27

Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA): It was held that a pro se complaint

requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v.

Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).

Gebhardt plead fraud with specificity even if her writing style is not in keeping with what the

court expects. Specifically Gebhardt asserted and did show that the alleged “original” Note LNV

produced and attached to its Complaint as “Exhibit A” [Docket # 1-1] contains: 1.) the falsified

or forged signature of Judy Faber as Vice President under “PAY TO THE ORDER OF JP

MORGAN CHASE BANK AS TRUSTEE WITHOUT RECOURSE Residential Funding

Corporation” and, 2.) two falsified or forged signatures of Gayna Yeager as Vice President of

SEBRING CAPITAL PARTNERS, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP under “PAY TO THE ORDER

OF RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CORPORATION WITHOUT RECOURSE” and, 3.) an

electronically forged (i.e. Photoshopped) Gebhardt signature.

The signature of Judy Faber on this alleged “original” Note can be proved to be falsified or

forged. Several courts have determined, as a matter of fact and as a matter of law, that similar

endorsements by Judy Faber on similar assignments are not believable and that the assignments

so endorsed by Judy Faber were falsely fabricated and therefore unenforceable; and that the party

claiming to be “holder in due course” based on such an assignment was not the “holder in due

course” and therefore lacked standing to enforce the Note. (See The Interveners’ Motion For

Judicial Notice of judicially determined facts pertaining to the signature of Judy Faber and

the authenticity of deed assignments bearing her signature.)

The signatures of Gayna Yeager on this document can be proved to be falsified or forged. A

copy of Gayna Yeager‟s official signature as a notary was obtained from the Texas Secretary of

Page 7 of 27

State by Gebhardt and attached to her pleadings as an exhibit. [Docket # 48] The signatures on

the document produced by LNV do not match the official signature of Gayna Yeager. If the court

requires a certified copy of the official signature of Gayna Yeager from the Texas Secretary of

State then one can be obtained. Certainly the evidence Gebhardt has already provided with her

pleadings is adequate to warrant a hearing on the merits of the case; and does not warrant

summary judgment in favor of LNV.

BAC Funding Consortium Inc. v. Jean-Jacques, 28 So. 3d 936, 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010): “When

exhibits are attached to a complaint, the contents of the exhibits control over the allegations of

the complaint.”

Gebhardt‟s forged signature on the Note produced by LNV is consistent with a pattern of such

forgeries by LNV and its corporate parent(s) and its “affiliates” which ultimately are all privately

owned by D. Andrew Beal. (See The Interveners’ Motion For Judicial Notice of a judicial

determination of fact that Beal switched a Note to make it appear a wife signed it when she

had not.)

This falsified Note contains a date of November 7, 2002 and purports to transfer the Note from

Sebring Capital Partners, Limited Partnership to Residential Funding Corporation and then to JP

Morgan Chase Bank as Trustee. Gebhardt‟s mortgage closed on November 7, 2002.

The closing of Gebhardt‟s mortgage began at approximately 2:00 PM on November 7, 2002 and

concluded around 7:00 PM. Title attorney, Jerry D. Kerley owner of Guaranty Land Title in

Sevierville, Tennessee was a party to the origination of Gebhardt‟s mortgage and was present at

its closing. He was counsel for broker Joyce Linger and prepared the mortgage contract.

Page 8 of 27

The United States indicted and convicted Jerry D. Kerley of fourteen felony counts, including

wire fraud, bank fraud, conspiracy to defraud, money laundering, and making false statements,

for his role in a $6 million mortgage fraud scheme. United States of America v. Jeffrey Whaley

and Jerry D. Kerley, Case No. 3:10-cr-169 (E.D. Tenn.) See Intervener’s Motion for Judicial

Notice of Criminal Indictment and Conviction by Jury of Jerry D. Kerley.

The origination documents all state that Sebring Capital Partners, Limited Partnership

(“Sebring”) was the lender. Gebhardt has consistently and venomously claimed fraud during the

origination of her mortgage. This alleged “original” Note attached to LNV‟s complaint [Docket #

1-1] is evidence of such.

Since Sebring represented itself as the lender on the loan application, on the Truth in Lending

Statements, on the Deed of Trust and on the Note, any reasonable person would expect financial

records pertaining to the funding the loan to reflect this. The Fedwire transfer receipt from Sevier

County Bank specific to the funding of this loan is attached as Exhibit A. The Fedwire receipt

shows funds were received at 11:53:32 AM on November 7, 2002. The “Sender” of the funds

was Bank One NA Chicago. The “Originator” is identified as “RFC Sebring Capital Corp."

and the “Beneficiary” is identified as “Guaranty Land Title Co.”

Bank One NA Chicago is not identified as a party on any of the Gebhardt mortgage documents.

The false Note shows an alleged transfer November 7, 2002 from Sebring to Residential to JP

Morgan Chase as Trustee. Misrepresentations of material fact on LNV‟s own exhibit are

incriminating and substantiate Gebhardt‟s claims of fraud in the factum.

Page 9 of 27

The Fedwire receipt proves that Jerry Kerely, Joyce Linger, Sebring, Residential Funding

Corporation (RFC”); Bank One NA, and other yet unknown parties knew Sebring was NOT the

lender; yet none of these parties informed Gebhardt.

A contractual obligation imposes expectations for performance on both parties. Gebhardt, like

any borrower who agrees to a 30 year mortgage, has an inherent expectation that a lender will

accept and accurately record their payments and apply their payments to the principal balance of

the loan from its inception to its conclusion; and that the lender will maintain payment records

and provide these records to the borrower in the event a dispute. A true lender that actually funds

a loan has an interest in fulfilling its inherent obligations under the contract, while a non-lender

like Sebring and RFC does not.

Sebring and the hidden parties to the Gebhardt contract all knew the loan was securitized the

same day Gebhardt signed it; yet this was never disclosed to her. Nor was it disclosed to

Gebhardt that she was signing the contract “in blank” although these were facts known to the

other parties to the contract. Any reasonable person knows they should never give someone a

blank check because it is a very risky thing to do.

These misrepresentations and omissions caused Gebhardt to enter into a contract without

accurately realizing the risks, duties, or obligations incurred. These misrepresentations and

omissions induced Gebhardt to sign a mortgage instrument without a reasonable opportunity to

learn of its fraudulent character or essential terms. She relied on these misrepresentations and

omissions and would not have signed the contract with Sebring had these facts not been

misrepresented or omitted.

Page 10 of 27

Misrepresentations and omissions of material facts specific to the nature of monetary

transactions underlying a contract and the identities and roles of the other parties to the contract

constitute fraud in the factum. Fraud in the factum usually voids an instrument, therefore facts

specific to fraud at the origination of the contract are material to the outcome of this case.

For example suppose John tells his mother he‟s taking a college course on handwriting analysis,

and for homework he needs her to read and sign a pretend deed. If Mom signs the deed believing

what he told her, and John tries to enforce the deed, then Mom can plead "fraud in the factum."

A contract that was originated through intentional deceit and fraud is not enforceable.

The mere existence of a contract is not enough to grant damages through a summary judgment to

a moving party like LNV that claims a breach of contract. A determination of whether the

contract is valid and enforceable must first be made to satisfy any concept of justice or fairness.

To prevail in a claim for “Breach of Contract” LNV must prove two facts material to its claims:

1.) A valid and enforceable contract existed between Gebhardt and Sebring;

2.) LNV is the “holder in due course” of this contract and thereby has legal authority to enforce

the terms of the contract.

The court acknowledges this in its Memorandum and Opinion [Docket # 53]:

Under Tennessee law, the basic elements for a breach of contract action include “(1) the

existence of a contract, (2) breach of the contract, and (3) damages which flow from the

breach.” Life Care Ctrs. of America, Inc. v. Charles Town Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 79 F.3d

496, 514 (6th Cir. 1996).

Page 11 of 27

You cannot have a breach or damages that flow from the breach without first establishing that

the contract was valid and enforceable and that the party claiming a breach has standing to do so.

Once the court makes a factual determination that a valid and enforceable contract exists then it

must next determine if LNV is the “holder in due course” of the contract as it asserts.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that the burden of establishing standing rests on the

plaintiff. At each stage of the litigation—from the initial pleading stage, through summary

judgment, and trial—the plaintiff must carry that burden. Standing must exist on the date the

complaint is filed and throughout the litigation. Moreover, standing cannot be conferred by

agreement and can be challenged at any time in the litigation, including on appeal, by the

Gebhardts or, in some circumstances, by the court sua sponte. Finally, plaintiffs must

demonstrate standing for each claim and each request for relief. There is no “supplemental”

standing: standing to assert one claim does not create standing to assert claims arising from the

same nucleus of operative facts. “A party must have standing to file suit at its inception and may

not remedy this defect by subsequently obtaining standing.” Venture Holdings & Acquisitions

Grp.,LLC v. A.I.M. Funding Grp., LLC, 75 So. 3d 773, 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

LNV asserts it is “holder in due course” based on a corporate assignment of the deed of trust

executed on March 10, 2008 that is signed by Betty Wright as Assistant Vice President of

Residential Funding Corporation and notarized by Diane Meistad. This assignment purports to

transfer “all beneficial interest under certain Deed of Trust dated 11/7/2002” It purports that

“Residential Funding Company, fka Residential Funding Corporation” assigns the deed of trust

to LNV Corporation. This assignment was filed with the Sevier County Recorder‟s office on

August 6, 2008. Gebhardt attached this document as evidence to her pleadings. [Docket 15-4]

Page 12 of 27

On the same day (August 6, 2008) the questionable assignment to LNV was filed in the Sevier County

recorder's office another assignment was filed purporting to assign the deed of trust from “The Bank of

New York Trust Company, N.A. as successor to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as Trustee, Residential

Funding Company, LLC fka Residential Funding Corporation, Attorney-In-Fact” to “Residential

Funding Company, LLC”. (Attached as Exhibit B)

All together three assignments of the Gebhardt deed of trust were filed in her county. Gebhardt

attached to her pleading an assignment uncovered in a title search that had been filed in a manner

inconsistent with the standard practices of the recorder‟s office. It was found during a search of

all records naming Sebring as a party. Gebhardt attached this assignment to her pleadings as

evidence. [Docket # 15-6] This assignment has an execution date of November 11, 2002 which is

four days after the closing of her mortgage. It purports to assign from Sebring to “JPMorgan

Chase Bank as Trustee, c/o Residential Funding Corporation”

These three assignments together show evidence of fraud. As a “trustee” JPMorgan Chase Bank

cannot hold a beneficial interest in the deed of trust. The use of “c/o” (i.e. “in care of”) shows

that beneficial interest does not rest with Residential Funding Corporation either. The

designation “c/o” on envelopes signifies an intermediary who is responsible for transferring mail

to another. A trustee is also an intermediary; it has been well established in law that an

intermediary does not hold a beneficial interest in property.

We know from the Fedwire receipt that Bank One NA funded the loan at the center of this

dispute yet Bank One NA is not named as the lender in the loan origination documents, nor is it

named in any of these assignments. Because “JPMorgan Chase Bank as Trustee” and RFC as an

intermediary didn‟t have a beneficial interest in the property in 2002 they could not then transfer

Page 13 of 27

through assignment a beneficial interest in 2008. Therefore none of these assignments, and

specifically the assignment to LNV, are enforceable instruments.

LNV is therefore not a “holder in due course” and lacks standing in this action.

Furthermore, specific to the corporate assignment to LNV executed on March 10, 2008 in the

Gebhardt case which LNV uses to assert it is the “holder in due course” others who are among

the Interveners have almost identical assignments also executed on March 10, 2008 and signed

by either Betty Wright or Michael Mead as Assistant Vice President of Residential Funding

Corporation and notarized by Diane Miestad.

In each case we can show a very similar path of falsely fabricated deed assignments leading up

to the false assignment that benefits LNV by purporting to assign all beneficial interest in the

deed of trust of LNV. Each of these assignments contains false or forged signatures, omissions or

misrepresentations of material fact consistent with the crimes of Brown and her co-conspirators.

Each of these falsely fabricated mortgage records were prepared and filed in our counties by LPS

Service providers.

Northwest Trustee Services (“NWTS”) is on the list of LPS service providers. They too use the

“LPS” computer system to generate false mortgage documents and land records consistent with

the manner and means indentified by the United States as those used by Brown to commit her

crimes and the submit these false documents as evidence in Washington and Oregon State courts

and in the Federal District Courts of the 9th Circuit. In fact they were a party in a fraudulent

foreclosure attempt on the home of Denise Subramaniam in Oregon. Subramaniam has an almost

identical assignment executed on March 10, 2008 and signed by Betty Wright as Assistant Vice

Page 14 of 27

President of Residential Funding Corporation and notarized by Diane Miestad. See Attached

EXHIBIT C.

Employees of NWTS have been deposed and judges in other courts have made determinations of

fact and law specific to parties like LNV who claim to be a “holder in due course” based on

falsified mortgage documents prepared by NWTS and other LPS Service providers. See The

Interveners’ Motion For Judicial Notice of the Depositions of NWTS Employees and Court

Opinions.

The Interveners have obtained hundreds of such assignments executed on March 10, 2008 from

county recorders offices across the county. Gebhardt provided the court with evidence attached

to her pleadings in the form of a certified copy of LNV‟s Articles of Incorporation from the

Nevada Secretary of State that show LNV was not incorporated until March 17, 2008. [Docket #

15-2] The Nevada Secretary of State provided Gebhardt, as well as other Interveners, with a

written confirmation that under Nevada law LNV was not permitted to transact business or to

make financial transactions prior to its date of incorporation. [Docket # 15-3] THEREFORE

LNV was operating illegally when it allegedly “purchased” our deed of trusts.

An initial comparison of the signatures on these many assignments by some of the Interveners,

and by law enforcement professionals indicates that Diane Meistad, along with others, forged or

falsified the signatures of Betty Wright or Michael Mead on these instruments. As a group,

Gebhardt and The Interveners have submitted our collection of deed assignments, including our

own assignments, bearing the signatures of Diane Meistad with either Betty Wright or Michael

Mead to a forensic handwriting analyst so we will be able to provide credible expert testimony

pertaining to the authenticity of these signatures.

Page 15 of 27

Quoting the court‟s Memorandum and Opinion [Docket # 53]:

The moving party bears the burden of establishing that no genuine issues of material fact

exist. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 n.2 (1986); Moore v. Phillip Morris

Cos., Inc., 8 F.3d 335, 339 (6th Cir. 1993). All facts and all inferences to be drawn

therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Matsushita

Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Burchett v.

Kiefer, 301 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir. 2002).

This Memorandum and Opinion spouts the correct verbiage and cites the correct cases but fails

to adhere to the spirit of the message conveyed. The court appears to have actually placed the

“burden of establishing that no genuine issues of material fact exist” on the pro-se litigant,

Gebhardt, rather than on the moving party, LNV.

Gebhardt made much ado in her pleadings about a “replaced” corporate disclosure. [Docket # 32,

33 and 34] This is because the Interveners have compared corporate disclosures submitted to

courts in different cases and this comparison shows that LNV knowing provides courts with

incomplete or inaccurate Corporate Disclosures and often references other Beal owned

companies and corporations as merely “affiliates” in an attempt to hide the ultimate beneficiaries

of the fraudulent activities of Beal‟s sham companies and corporations from the court.

LNV is the creation of D. Andrew Beal, the private owner of Beal Bank and its many off-shoots

including but not limited to Beal Bank Nevada, Beal Financial Corporation, Beal Mortgage Inc.,

Bank Escrow Beal, Beal Nevada Service Corporation, Beneficial Properties, Beneficial Property

Corporation, Beneficial Properties 902; 308 Investors Inc., CLG Hedge Fund LLC, CMLG

Corporation, CSG Investments, LPP Corporation, Property Acceptance Corporation, Umbrella

Page 16 of 27

Bank, Jamacian Redevelopment Foundation, BPB Investments, BCM LP Inc., BCN LP Inc.,

BCN IG LLP, BCN Corporation which also does business as BBC Office Center, Inc. and Scotia

Redwood Foundation, Inc., BRE Inc. which does business in California as Beal Real Estate, Inc.

and its numerous off-shoots named BRE-2 Inc. etc, BRE-2002 Inc., BRE-2004 Inc., BRE-H Inc.,

BRE-N Inc., BRE-T Inc., Florida BRE-1 Inc., BMI LP Inc.; BMI GP Inc.; CXA Corporation and

its numerous off-shoots named CXA-1 through CXA-23 etc, LNV Corporation, MGC

Mortgage Inc., Southgate Master Fund LLC, Martel Associates, and Bemont Investments LLC.

(NOTE: This is a minuscule sampling of the voluminous number of companies and corporations

created by D. Andrew Beal. The vast majority of these companies and corporations exist only on

paper and are sham companies created for purposes of tax evasion and to launder money. LNV

Corporation is one such corporation; as is MGC Mortgage Inc.

Judges in other courts have determined as a matter of fact and as a matter of law that D. Andrew

Beal creates “sham” companies and corporations for the purposes of illegal tax shelters. (See

The Interveners’ Motion For Judicial Notice of the Appellate Opinions in Southgate and

Bemont.)

Collectively the Interveners can prove that LNV along with its alleged mortgage servicer MGC

Mortgage Inc, (“MGC”) and MGC‟s alleged sub-servicer, Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc. (“DMI”)

and other Beal owned companies and corporations including but not limited to CMLG

Corporation, CSG Investments, LPP Corporation, Property Acceptance Corporation and Beal

Bank are used by D. Andrew Beal to shuffle documents and alleged assets back and forth so as

to convolute the facts pertaining to their financial transactions. In the case of this group of Beal

owned companies and corporations the goal of Beal‟s scheme is ultimately to illegally seize

Page 17 of 27

residential property; and to have such illegal activities sanctioned by a court through the use of

fraud upon the court as seen in the Gebhardt case.

Each time a party like LNV commits fraud upon the court and wins a case as a result of it; that

case then sets a legal precedence that can then be used by LNV and other parties with the same

financial incentives and interests as LNV who assert they have standing to seize a citizen‟s

property when in fact they do not.

In fact LNV used the case of Denise Subramaniam, one of the Interveners who had been

representing herself as a pro-se litigant against LNV and other parties [Docket # 28-4 and 28-5]

as an exhibit to support their own pleadings for summary judgment against Gebhardt.

Subramaniam is a disabled person as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Subramaniam‟s disability prevents her from going freely into public places without the

protection of a filtering mask. Her disability and the limitations it places on her ability to

function are well documented. At times her disability causes her mobility problems. She also

suffers periods when she becomes bedridden for weeks or months at a time. Her case was

dismissed with prejudice in the 9th Federal Circuit during such a period of time when she was too

ill to function. This was in spite of motioning the court to allow her to file electronically as an

accommodation for her disability; and motioning the court for an extension of time while she

was too ill to participate in the case.

Millions of American homeowners are losing their homes and their investment in their homes

because parties like LNV, who have billions and trillions of dollars at their disposal and that hire

thousands of attorneys to represent their legal interests, claim to have standing to seize and sell

Page 18 of 27

their homes when in fact they do not; and they know they do not. These parties forge, falsify and

otherwise create fraudulent documents that they then present to courts knowing that most judges

will not question the authenticity of these documents.

In the Gebhardt case LNV has not proved to the mind of any reasonable person that it is a

“holder in due course” of a valid contract; THEREFORE it has NO STANDING in a “Breach of

Contract” lawsuit against Gebhardt. The deed assignments in the Gebhardt case show a clear

break in the chain of title. LNV has failed to show it is a “holder in due course” in its pleadings;

and the court acknowledges this.

FRAUD UPON THE COURT BY THE COURT

To quote from the court‟s Memorandum Opinion [Docket # 53]:

Although the record is unclear as to the precise sequence of ownership, it appears that

the Deed of Trust and Note were assigned to plaintiff in March 2008 by Residential

Funding Company, LLC [Doc. 48-15].

The language used by Judge Thomas A. Varlan in his Memorandum Opinion “THE RECORD

IS UNCLEAR” and “IT APPEARS” shows that that a genuine question of material fact does

exists as to whether or not assignment was legally made to the Plaintiff, LNV. The court has

made a conclusion of FACT against the evidence!

Judge Varlan knew that is was “UNCLEAR” that LNV had standing, yet he granted LNV a

“Three Hundred Eighty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Nine and 83/100 Dollars ($389,509.83)”

summary judgment against Gebhardt.

Page 19 of 27

By granting summary judgment to LNV in this case Judge Varlan stepped beyond abuse of

discretion and into judicial misconduct. His financial disclosures show that he has a vested

interest in several financial institutions and mortgage backed trusts, and specifically he

has invested in Fidelity. (See Exhibit D – Financial Disclosures of Judge Thomas Varlan)

The United States identified Fidelity National Financial Inc. and its subsidiary Fidelity National

Information Services, Inc. corporate parents of Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS) based out

of Jacksonville Florida as companies controlled by Lorraine Brown and used in the commission

of her crimes.

Judge Thomas Varlan was not impartial in his ruling in favor of LNV. He had a personal

financial and political interest to favor LNV. He granted them a summary judgment against the

preponderance of evidence that shows genuine disputes of material fact exist specific to LNV‟s

standing to bring an action for Breach of Contract against Gebhardt.

Excerpted from the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges:

A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner

that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. …A

judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to

influence judicial conduct or judgment. …A judge should neither lend the prestige of the

judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit

others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.

…An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all

the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the

judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is

Page 20 of 27

impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper

conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety.

CANON 3: A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE

FAIRLY, IMPATIALLY AND DILIGENTLY. [Code of Conduct for United States

Judges]

Judge Thomas Varlan should have recused himself from hearing this case. He was unqualified to

perform his legal duties because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality.

Counsels for LNV with counsel for Gebhardt knowing participated in fraud upon the court

To quote from Judge Varlan‟s Memorandum Opinion [Docket # 53]:

Defendant’s primary excuse for her delay appears to be that her attorney did not act on

her behalf, and notes that she was in possession of the information on which her

proposed amendment is based since 2011 and passed it along to her former attorney.

Gebhardt asserts that she was forced to represent herself as a pro se litigant when she was ill

prepared to do so because when LNV filed their motion for summary judgment she realized that

her counsel, Douglas E. Taylor, had done none of the things he said he would do to defend her

against LNV‟s complaint.

Gebhardt did not and does not understand court procedures. This is why she hired an attorney.

She could not have known that Taylor‟s actions or lack of action at strategic points in time would

ultimately sabotage her interests and bar her from seeking relief. Gebhardt had given Taylor

most of the documents she ultimately attached as exhibits to her pro se pleadings. Gebhardt had

explained in layman‟s terms to Taylor why the deed assignments were false and why LNV

Page 21 of 27

lacked standing. Had Taylor had a genuine interest in representing Gebhardt against LNV the

first thing he would have done is file a motion to dismiss because LNV lacked standing.

Gebhardt asked Taylor to file a counter suit immediately after she was served with LNV‟s

complaint in this matter. She was not aware there was a deadline for doing this. Taylor misled

her to believe he was preparing a counter complaint. Taylor did not just fail to represent his

client he appears to have been working to further the objectives of her opponent, LNV.

Other homeowner victims of the crimes of Lorraine Brown and her co-conspirators; and

specifically other victims of LNV have had similar experiences with their attorneys. The

Interveners who have been represented by attorneys each explain such experiences in their

individual motions for intervention.

Furthermore, The Interveners have discovered that attorneys employed by LPS service providers

or other foreclosure mills are falsely advertising themselves as attorneys who will represent

homeowners facing foreclosure. What they really do is facilitate the foreclosure process against

these homeowners in behalf of their true employers and their employers‟ clients. These wins for

the foreclosure mills and their clients, like LNV, then set precedence favorable to their

objectives, and at the same time forever bars homeowners victimized by this fraud from seeking

redress for their injuries at a future date whenever they discover how they were defrauded. These

attorneys know that the Supreme Court has a long standing precedent that clients must suffer the

consequences of their attorneys‟ misconduct.

Millions of homeowners have been victims of this fraud. The demand for attorneys to represent

them is exceptionally high; it is much higher than the supply of attorneys qualified and

experienced enough to prevail against such wealthy and aggressive adversaries. Many attorneys

Page 22 of 27

who lack the skills and experience to prevail seek to capitalize on the current market and thus harm

their clients. It is not uncommon therefore to see multiple lawsuits originating out of the same

fraudulent foreclosure instance.

DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS

Summary Judgment in favor of LNV Violates the United States Constitution

The disputed breach of contract in the LNV v. Gebhardt case is a transaction involving real

property. This property is the home of Gebhardt and her family. Transactions involving real

property have historically been governed by Common Law. LNV ultimately seeks to seize and

sell Gebhardt‟s property to satisfy the damages Judge Varlan awarded LNV through a summary

judgment.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT TESTIMONY OF A COMPETENT FACT WITNESS

Judge Varlan made his summary ruling favoring LNV without hearing testimony from even a

single competent fact witness in violation of well established findings of law. TRINSEY v.

PAGLIARO Civ. A. No. 34873. 229 F.Supp. 647 (1964): “Statements of counsel in their briefs

or argument while enlightening to the Court are not sufficient for purposes of granting a motion

to dismiss or summary judgment.”

Due process does not exist without the opportunity for discovery. Gebhardt was denied an

opportunity for discovery. Due process does not exist without testimony from witnesses

competent to testify about the matter in dispute. Gebhardt was denied an opportunity to produce

such witnesses. Due process does not exist without the opportunity to challenge testimony.

Gebhardt was denied the opportunity to challenge affidavit testimony relied on by the court.

Page 23 of 27

Judge Varlan knew, or should have known, he had a personal financial and political interest that

made it appear he would not be impartial in this matter and that he should have recused himself,

yet he did not.

Judge Varlan in fact ruled in favor of LNV granting summary judgment against the

preponderance of the evidence, when by his own admission it was “unclear” whether LNV had

standing. Judge Varlan appears to have knowingly facilitated fraud upon the court with intent to

further LNV‟s objective to seize real property belonging to Gebhardt in violation of her due

process rights under the Constitution of the United States.

Homeowner victims in these fraud cases are already pitted against adversaries with billions and

trillions of dollars at their disposal; it is unconscionable when a Federal Judge violates the

Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges and forsakes his sworn duty to uphold

the Constitution of the United States by violating the very rights he has been entrusted to protect.

The Gebhardt case is representative of an all too common scenario in a market environment

where the financial incentive is for attorneys to represent financial institutions and not

homeowners; and where scams perpetrated on desperate homeowners by unscrupulous attorneys

are rampant, and where attorneys appear to be paid by their client‟s adversaries to accomplish a

summary judgment or a dismissal with prejudice ruling.

In its Memorandum Opinion [Docket # 53] the court made reference to two prior lawsuits

Gebhardt brought against the Plaintiff and others involved in the origination and servicing of her

mortgage:

Page 24 of 27

The Court notes that the debt at issue in this case has been the subject of litigation in

several previous cases, including Gebhardt v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, No. 3:09-CV-425

(E.D. Tenn.) (Phillps, J.), which was dismissed with prejudice against Gebhardt in this case,

as well as a state case in Sevier County, in which Gebhardt herein sued plaintiff herein and

other parties, and which was dismissed voluntarily by Gebhardt as to plaintiff [Doc. 14-4].

Gebhardt v. GMAC Mortgage was dismissed with prejudice due to the misconduct of her then

attorney, Andrew Farmer, and not because her case lacked merit. When Gebhardt hired Farmer

he was a sole attorney working in a small office. Farmer appeared to be zealously defending

Gebhardt initially, then all the sudden he failed to appear in court and missed deadlines that

resulted in the dismissal with prejudice. Not long after this he acquired a Title Company and

successfully ran for an elected position as a Republican backed candidate for State

Representative of District 17 of the Tennessee General Assembly.

The first bill Farmer sponsored on February 13, 2013 after taking office was Bill HB0050:

Banks and Financial Institutions - As introduced, revises to whom a promissory note

may be issued in order not to be considered an investment certificate under the Industrial

Loan and Thrift Companies Act. [This is a matter of public record.]

Farmer now has several attorneys in his employ and has relocated into the most prestigious law

building in Sevierville across the street from the courthouse. Shortly after Gebhardt discovered

that her counsel, Douglas E. Taylor, was working against her interest in this present case and she

fired him, Taylor relocated to the office of Andrew Farmer.

Page 25 of 27

At the very least these circumstances give the appearance of impropriety. As officers of the court

and members of the Tennessee Bar all the attorneys in this case, Andrew Farmer, Douglas E.

Taylor, Ron Steen, and Kevin Hartley have violated the Tennessee Bar‟s Professional Code of

Conduct and should be sanctioned.

As for the state case in Sevier County, Douglas E. Taylor advised Gebhardt to withdraw.

Unknown to her at the time, this is what opened the door for LNV to bring this current action in

Federal court. Since Judge Varlan has a financial interest in Fidelity and LPS and other financial

institutions that regularly, if not exclusively, use LPS Service providers like Stites & Harbison,

and Shapiro & Kirsch it certainly appears that LNV and its attorneys, Ron Steen and Kevin

Hartley, knew Judge Varlan would be inclined to favor them with a summary judgment.

Property rights are a cornerstone of our Constitution and our form of democratic government.

The Federal Courts are guardians of the Constitution. Federal Judges must make a sworn oath to

honor and uphold the Constitution of the state of Tennessee, and all other states, as well as the

Constitution of the United States of America.

Fraud upon the court by the court erodes public confidence in the judiciary. Unfortunately this

case is not an isolated instance. Many of the Interveners have had their due process and equal

protection rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of our Constitution similarly by

violated by LNV and officers of other courts.

If Judge Thomas Varlan knowingly participated in or facilitated LNV‟s crimes then he should be

held criminally accountable. The Interveners will do everything within our power to make sure

any officers of the court who participates in fraud and fraud upon the court are held accountable.

Page 26 of 27

ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT FOUNDED IN FRAUD UPON THE COURT

The Order and Final Judgment of this court favoring LNV was founded in fraud upon the court

by the court. The defendant, Gebhardt, was denied the opportunity to present the court with

testimony of a competent witness and she was denied her right to due process and equal

protection of the law under the U.S. Constitution.

The summary judgment ordered by Judge Varlan awarding LNV Three Hundred Eighty Nine

Thousand Five Hundred Nine and 83/100 Dollars ($389,509.83) is therefore VOID under Rule

60(b)(4). A VOID judgment is unenforceable and of no consequence.

Federal Rule 60(b)(4) moves the court to VACATE its VOID Summary Judgment favoring

Plaintiff.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on this _____ day of May, 2014

THE INTERVENERS

__________________________________________________________________ DENISE SUBRAMANIAM as Representative for THE INTERVENERS

23rd

Exhibit A - Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT A

Fedwire of mortgage transaction showing


EXHIBIT B

August 2008 Deed Assignment purporting to assign the deed of trust from

“The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. as successor to JPMorgan

Chase Bank, N.A. as Trustee, Residential Funding Company, LLC fka

Residential Funding Corporation, Attorney-In-Fact” to “Residential

Funding Company, LLC”


EXHIBIT C

Subramaniam deed assignment with Betty Wright and Diane Meistad

signatures.



EXHIBIT D

Financial Disclosures of Judge Varlan.

Report Required b)’ the EthicsAO 10 FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT

in Government Act ofl978Rev. 1/2011 FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2010 (5 U.S.C. app..�’~ I01-111)

I. Person Reporting (last name, first, middle initial) 2. Court or Organization 3. Date of Report

Varlan, Thomas A. U.S. District Court, E. Tenn. 05/12/2011

6. Reporting Period 4. Title (Article II! judges indicate active or senior stares; 5a. Report Type (check appropriate type) magistrate judges indicate full- or part-time)

] Nomination, Date 01/01/2010

U. S. District Judge - Active to[] Initial [] Annual [] Final

12/31/2010 5b. [] Amended Report

7. Chambers or Office Address 8.On the basis of the information contained in this Report and anymodifications pertaining thereto, it is, in my opinion, in compliancewith applicable laws and regulations.U. S. District Court

800 Market StreetKnoxville, "IN 37902 Re~dcwing Officer Date

IMPORTANT NO TES: The instructions accompanying this form must be followet£ Complete all parts, checking the NONE box for each part where you have no reportable information. Sign on last page.

I. POSITIONS. (r~o~ng individual only; see pp. 9-13 of fillng inMructlon&)

~] NONE (No reportable positions.)

POSITION NAME OF ORGANIZATION/ENTITY

I. Advisory Board University of Tennessee, Department of Political Science

2. Director Bearden High School Foundation

3. Successor Trustee Alexander Varlan Revocable Living Trust

4. Member Judicial Conference of the United States

5. Associate Board University of Tennessee, College of Arts and Sciences

II. AGREEMENTS. (Reporting individual only; see pp. 14-16 of fillng instructions.)

~ NONE (No reportable agreements.)

DATE PARTIES AND TERMS

Varlan, Thomas A.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT Page 2 of 8

Name of Person Reporting

Var|an, Thomas A.

Date of Report

05/12/201 I

III. NON-INVESTMENT INCO ME. (R,po,~,g i, dlvid,,I,,d spo,se: seepp. IZ-2¢ of~li, g

A. Filer’s Non-Investment Income

~] NONE non-investment income.)(No reportable

DATE SOURCE AND TYPE INCOME (yours, not spouse’s)

2.

3.

4.

B. Spouse’s Non-Investment Income -if you were married during any portion of the reporting year, complete this section.

(Dollar amount not required except for honoraria.)

NONE (No reportable non-investment income.)

DATE SOURCE AND TYPE

1.

2.

3.

4.

IV. REIMBURSEMENTS - transportation, lodging, food, entertainment. (Includes those to spouse and dependent children; see pp. 25-27 of filing instructions.)

NONE (No reportable reimbursements.)

SOURCE DATES LOCATION PURPOSE ITEMS PAID OR PROVIDED

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT Name of Person Reporting Date of Report

Page 3 of 8 \’arian, Thomas A. 05/1:2/:2011

V. GIFTS. a, cl,~es ,hos, ,o spouse u,d de~.d,,, child,~.; s~e pp. 2S-31 of filing instructions~)

NONE (No reportable g~s.)

SOURCE DESCRIPTION VALUE

I.

2.

3.

4.

5.

VI. LIABILITIES. ancl,,~e~ ~ho~ o/spo~se ond d~,en~n, children; see pp. 32-3J of filing in~tructlon&)

NONE (No reportable liabilities.)

CREDITOR DESCRIPTION VALUE CODE

I.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Name of Person Reporting Date of ReportFINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT

Varlan, Thomas A. 05/12/2011Page 4 of 8 iNONE (No reportable income, assets, or transactions.)

A. B. C. D.

Description of Assets Income during Gross value at end Transactions during reporting period

(including trust assets) reporting period of reporting period

(2) (I) (2) (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) I (I) identity ofPlace "(X)" after each asset ~ Amount Typ~ (e.g., Value Value Type (e.g., Date Value Gain

exempt from prior disclosure I! Code I div., rent, Code 2 Method buy, sell, mm/dd~ Code 2 Code I buyer/seller

(A-H) or int.) (J-P) Code 3 redemption) (J-P) (A-H) (if private i (Q-W) transaction)

I. AmSouth Bank Accounts B Interest K T

2. Coca Cola Common Stock B Dividend L T

3. BB&T Common Stock A Dividend J T

4. U.S. Savings Bond A Interest J T

5. Tennessee’s BEST Prepaid Tuition Accounts A Interest J T

6. Strategic Portfolio Service Advantage IRA E Dividend M T -I

7. - Fidelity Adv. Strategy Income A Dividend J T

8. - UMB Scout Stock A Dividend K T

9. - Fideltiy Advisor New Insights A Dividend K T

10. - AM Century Equity Income A Dividend K T

11. - Fidelity Advisors Float Rt A Dividend K T

12. - Franklin Mutual Discovery A Dividend K T

13. - American Century Diversified Bond A Dividend K T

14. - American Century Heritage A Dividend K T

15. - Franklin Mutual Discovery A Dividend J T

16. - American Century Equity Income A Dividend Merged 01/02110 J A (with line 10)

17. - Fidelity Advisors New Insights A Dividend Merged 01/02/10 J A (with line 9)

I. Income Gain Codcs: A -$1,000 or Icss B =$1,001 - $2.500 C =52.501 o $5,000 D =$5,001 - $15,0~0 E =$15,001 - $50.000

(See Columns B I and D4 ) F -$ 50.001 - $ 100.000 G =$ 100.001 - $ 1.000.000 I I I =$ 1.000.001 - $ 5.000.000 112 ~M ore Ill,an

2. Value Codes J =SI 5.0(~ or less K =$15.0OI - $50.000 L =550.001 - 510~.000 M =$100.001 - $250.000

ISce Columns CI and D3) N =$250.001 - 5500.000 O =$50~.001 - $1,0~0.000 PI =51.000.0~1 - 55.000,000 P2 =$5.000.001 - $25.000.00~P3 -525.000.001 - $50.00~.0~1 P4 =More Ihan $50.00~.000

T -~?ash Markc~

(See Column C2) U = t3¢~k Value V =Other W =Estimated3. Value l’.lclhod Codes Q =Appraisal R =~’ost {Real Estate Only) S =Asscssmcn!

Date of ReportName of Person ReportingFINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT Varlan, Thomas A. 05/12/201 IPage 5 of 8

VII. INVESTMENTS and TRUSTS -income, value, transactions tlncludes those of spouse and dependent children; see pl~ 34-60 of fillng instructions.)

NONE (No reportable income, assets, or transactions.)

A. Description of Assets

(including trust asse~)

Place "(X)" after each asset exempt from prior disclosure

B. Income during

reporting period

(t) (2) i Amount Type (e.g.,

Code I div., rent, (A-H) or int.)

Gross value at end

of reporting period

(i) (2) Value Value

Code 2 Method

(J-P) Code 3

(Q-W)

(t) Type (e.g., buy, sell,

redemption)

D. Transactions during reporling period

(2) (3) (4) Date Value Gain

mm/dd/yy Code 2 Code I (J-P) (A-H)

(5) Identity of

buyer/seller (if private

transaction)

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

- American Century Heritage

- UMB Scout Stock

- American Century Diversified Bond

- Fidelity Advisor Float Rt.

- Fidelity Advisors Strategy Income

A

A

A

A

A

Dividend

Dividend

Dividend

Dividend

Dividend

Merged (with line 13)



Merged (with line I 1)


01/02/10

01/02/10

01/02/10

01/02/10

01/02/10

J

J

J

J

J

A

A

A

A

A

23. - Fidelity Advisor Float Re. A Dividend Merged (with line I I)

01/02/10 J A

24.

25.

26.

27.



- American Century Diversified Bond

- Putnam Absolute Return 100

A

A

A

A

Distribution

Dividend

Dividend

Dividend J T




Buy

01/02/10

01/02/10

01/02/10

02/16/10

J

J

J

J

A

A

A

28. Strategic Advantage Service Portfolio IRA -2

A Dividend J T


30. -UMB Scout Stock A Dividend J T

31. - Fidelity Advisors Strategy Income A Dividend J T

32. - American Century Equity Income A Dividend J T

33. - Fidelity Advisors Float Rt. A Dividend J T

34. - Fidelity Advisors New Insights A Dividend J T

I. Income Gain Codes: (See Columr~s BI and 1)4)

2. Value Codc~ (SeeColumnsCI and D3)

A =$1.000 or less F =$50.001 - $100,000 l =515,000 o¢ les~ N :$250.001 - $500.000

B =$1.001 - $2.500 G =$100.0OI - $1.000,000 K =$15,001 - 550.000

O $500.001 - $1.0~0.000

C =$2.501 - $5.000 I II =$1.000.001 - $5.000.000 L =$50.001 - $100.000 PI =51.000.001 - 55.000.000

D =$5.0OI - $15.000 112 =More than $5.000.000 M =5100.001 - $250.000 p2 =55.000.001 - $25.000£�~)

E =515.1)01 - $50.000

P3 =$25.000.001 - $50.000.000 P4 ~More ihan 550.000.000 3. Value Method Codes Q =Appraisal R -~:’ost (Real l~tale Only) S =Assessment T =Cash Market

ISee Column C2) U =Bc~k Value V =O~hct W =Estimated

Name of Person Reporting Date of Repor~FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT

Varlan. Thomas A. 05/12/201 IPage 6 of 8

VII. INVESTMENTS an d TRUSTS - i.co,ne, vot,,e. ~a.$actlo~ (Includes those ofspoase and dependent children; see plx 34-60 of filing instraction~)


A. Description of Assets

(including ~mst assets)

Place "(X)" after each asset exempt from prior disclosure

B. Income during

reporting period

i (I) (2)[ Amount Type (e.g., i Code I div., rent, ] (A-H) or int.) I

C. Gross value at end ofrrponing period

(I) (2) Value Value

Code 2 Method (J-P) Code 3

(Q-W)

(I) Type (e.g., buy, sell,

redemption)

D. Transactions during reporting period

(2) (3) (4) Date Value Gain

mm/ddhyy Code 2 Code I (J-P) (A-H)

(5) Identity of


transaction)

35. - American Century Diversified Bond A Dividend J T

36. - American Century Heritage A Dividend J T

37. - Putnam Absolute Ret 100 A Dividend J T Buy 01/15/10 J

38.

39.

40.

Strategic Porlfolio Service Advantage, SEP/ IRA

- Ishares Russell 3000 Index Fund

Varlan Revocable Living Trust

A

A ¯

Dividend

Dividend

None M W



01/15/10

01/15/10

J

J

A

A

41.

I. Income Gain Codes: A =$1.000 or less B =$1,001 - $2.500 C =$2..501 - $5,000 D =$5.001 - $15.000 E =$15,001 -$50.000

(See Columns BI and IM) F -$50.001 - $100,000 G =$100.001 - $1.000.000 It I =$1,000,001 - $5.000.000 112 =More Ihan $5.000,000

2. Value Codes J =$15.000 or less K =$15.001 - $50.1)00 L =$50.001 - $100,000 M =$100.001 - $250.000

(See Columns Cl and D3) N =$250.001 - $500.000 O =$500.001 - $1.000.000 PI =$1.000.001 - $5,000,000 P2 =$5.000.001 - $25.000.000

P3 =$25.000.001 - $50,00).000 P4 =More than $50.000,000

3. Value Method Codes Q =Appraisal R =:Cost (Real Estate Only) S =Assessment T -~2ash Markc~

(See Colmnn C2) U =Book Value V =O~her W =Estimated


Page 7 of 8 Varlan, Thomas A. 05/12/201 I

VIII. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR EXPLANATIONS.

Name of Person Reporting Date of ReportFINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT Page 8 of 8 Varlan. Thomas A. 05/t2/2011

IX. CERTIFICATION,

! certify that all information given above (including information pertaining to my spouse and minor or dependent children, if any) is accurate, true, and complete to the best of my kno~ledge and belief, and that any information not reported was ~vithheld because it met applicable statutory provisions permitting non-disclosure.

I further certify that earned income from outside employment and honoraria and the acceptance of gifts which have been reported are in compliance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. app. § 501 et. seq., 5 U.S.C. § 7353, and Judicial Conference regulations.

Signature s/Thomas A. Varlan

NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO KNOWINGLY AND WILFULLY FALSIFIES OR FAILS TO FILE THIS REPORT MAY BE SUBJECT TO CIVIL AND CRIMINAL SANCTIONS (5 U.S.C. app. § 104)

Committee on Financial Disclosure Administrative Office of the United States Courts Suite 2-301 One Columbus Circle, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20544

I Report Required by the Ethics

~0 IO FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT in Government Act ofl978

Rev. 1/2011 FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2010 (5 U.S.C. app..~;.~" 101-111)

2. Court or Organization 3. Date of Report

Varlan, Thomas A. U.S. District Court, E. Tenn. 08/17/201 I

I. Person Reporting (last name, first, middle initial)

6. Reporting Period 4. Title (Article III judges indicate active or senior status; 5a. Report Type (check appropriate type) magistrate judges indicate full- or part-time)

] Nomination, Date 01/01/2010

U. S. District Judge - Active [] Initial [] Final to [] Annual 12/31/2010

5b. [] Amended Report

7. Chambers or Office Address 8.Off the basis of the information contained in this Report and anymodifications pertaining thereto, it is, in my opinion, in compliancewith applicable laws and regulations.

800 Market Street, Suite 143Knoxville, TN 37902

U. S. District Court

Reviewing Officer Date

IMPORTANT NOTES: The instructions accompanying this form must be followed. Complete all parts, checking the NONE box for each part where.rou have no reportable information. Sign on last page.

I. POSITIONS. ~R,vo,~,z ~.divld.at o.ty; s,e vv. 9.1~ omi.g instructions.)

D NONE(No reportable positions.)


I. Advisory Board University of Tennessee, Department of Political Science

2. Director Bearden High School Foundation

3. Successor Trustee Varlan Revocable Liv ng Trust

4. Member Judicial Conference of the United States

5. Associate Board University of Tennessee, College of Arts and Sciences

II. AGREEMENTS. t~,po,i,g i.ai~ia.~t o.ty; s,, pp. 14-16 of firing instructions.)

J-~ NONE (No reportable agreements.)

DATE PARTIES AND TERMS

Varlan, Thomas A. A

Name of Person Reporting Date of ReportFINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT Page 2 of 8 Varlan, Thomas A. 08/17/2011

III. NON-INVESTMENT INCOME. tRepo~ng individual and spouxe; see pp. 17-24 of filing instruction.~)

A. Filer’s Non-Investment Income

~ NONE(No reportable non-investment income.)


2.

3.

4.

INCOME (yours, not spouse’s)

B. Spouse’s Non-Investment Income - If you were married during any portion of the reporting )’ear, complete this section.

(Dollar amount not required except for honoraria.)



1.

2.

3.

4.

IV. REIMBURSEMENTS --transpo.a~o~, lodging, load, ente.a~nmen~ (Includes those to spouse and dependent children; see pp. 25-27 o filling instructions.)

[~ NONE (No reportable reimbursements.)

SOURCE DATES LOCATION PURPOSE ITEMS PAID OR PROVIDED

2.

3.

4.

5.


Page 3 of 8 Varlan, Thomas A. 08/17/201 I

V. GIFTS. anct,,des those to spo~e ,,nd de~,endent children; see pp. 28-31 of filing instructions.)

NONE (No reportable gifts.)


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Vl. LIABILITIES. ancl,,d~ those o/spo~e ,,nd de~,endent children; see pp. 32-33 of filing instructions.)


CREDITOR DESCRIPTION VALUECODE

I.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Name of Person Reporting Date of ReportFINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT Page 4 of 8 Varlan, Thomas A. 08/17/201 I

VI I. INVESTMENTS and TRUSTS - income, value, t~a,~a.lo~ (Includes those of spouse and dependent children; see pp. 34-60 of filing instructions.)

D NONE (No reportable income, assets, or transactions.)

Description of Assets Income during Gross value at end Transactions during reporting period (including trust assets) reporting period of reporling period

(i) (2) (I) (2) (3) (4) (5)’~1 (i) (2) Place "(X)" after each asset I Amount Type (�.g., Value Value Type (e.g., Date Value Gain Identity of

exempt from prior disclosure ] Code I div., rent, Code 2 Method buy, sell, rnm/dd~,y Code 2 Code I buyer/seller [ (A-H) or int.) (J-P) Code 3 redemption) (J-P) (A-H) (if private

(Q-W) transaction)

I. AmSouth Bank Accounts B Interest K T


3. BB&T Common Stock A Dividend J T


5. Tennessee’s BEST Prepaid Tuition Accounts A Interest J T

6. Strategic Portfolio Service Advantage IRA E Dividend M T-1

7. - Fidelity Adv. Strategy Income A Dividend J T

8. - UMB Scout Stock A Dividend K T

9. - Fideltiy Advisor New Insights A Dividend K T

10. - AM Century Equity Income A Dividend K T

11. - Fidelity Advisors Float Rt A Dividend K T

12. - Franklin Mutual Discovery A Dividend K T

13. - American Century Diversified Bond A Dividend K T

14. - American Century Heritage A Dividend K T


16. - American Century Equity Income A Dividend Merged ’ 01/02/10 J A(with line I0)

17. - Fidelity Advisors Newlnsights A Dividend Merged 101/02/10 J A(with line 9)

I. Income Gain Codes: A -$1,000 or less B =$1,001 - $2.500 C =$2,501 - $5,000 D =$5.001 - $15.000 E =$15.001 - $50.000

(See Columns BI and D4) F $50.001 * $100.00O G =$IO0.OOI - $1.000.000 Ill =$l.000.0OI - $5.000.000 112 =More than $5.000.000

2. Value Codes J =$15.000 or less K =$15.001 - $50.000 L =$50.001 - $100.000 M =$100.0OI - $250.0~1

IScc Columns CI and D3) N $250.001-$500.000 O=$500.001.$1.000.000 p I =$1.0OO.001 - $5.000,000 P2 =$5.0~O.0OI - $25.000.000

P3 =’$25.000.0OI - $50.000.000 P4 =More than $50.000.0003. Value Method COdes R ~Cos! tRcal Estate Only) S =As~ssme~! T =Cash MarketQ :Appraisal

(See Cohtmn C2) U =Book Value V :Olher W :Eslima~cd

Name of Person Reporting Date of ReportFINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT

Varlan, Thomas A. 08/17/201 IPage 5 of 8

V II. INVESTMENTS and T R U STS -incom,, ,.alum, ~o~actlo~ anciud~ thos~ o/spouse and dependent children; see pl~ 34-60 of filing instructions)


A. B. C. D.

Description of Assets Income during Gross value al end Transactions during reporting period


O) (2) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)l (1) (2)

Place "(X)" after each asset Type (e.g., Value Value Type (e.g., Date Value Gain Identity ofi Amount exempt from prior disclosure [ Code I div., rent, Code 2 Method buy, sell, mm/dd/yy Code 2 Code 1 buyer/seller

I (A-H) or int.) (J-P) Code 3 redemption) (J-P) (A-|I) (if private (Q-W) transaction)

!

18. - American Century Heritage A Dividend Merged 01/02/10 J A (with line 13)

19. - UMB Scout Stock A Dividend Merged OI/02/lO J A (with line 8)

20. - American Century Diversified Bond A Dividend Merged 01/02/10 J A (with line 13)

21. - Fidelity Advisor Float Rt. A Dividend Merged 01/02/I0 J A (with line I l)

22. - Fidelity Advisors Strategy Income A Dividend Merged 01/02/10 J A (with line 7)

23. - Fidelity Advisor Float Rt. A Dividend Merged 01/02/10 J A (with line I I)

24. - American Century Heritage A Distribution Merged 01/02/10 J A (with line 14)

25. - American Century Heritage A Dividend Merged 01/02/10 J A (with line 14)

26. - American Century Diversified Bond A Dividend Merged 01/02/10 J A (with line 13)

27. - Putnam Absolute Return 100 A Dividend J T Buy 02/16/10 J

28. Strategic Advantage Service Portfolio IRA A Dividend -2

29. - Franklin Mutual Discovery A Dividend J

30. - UMB Scout Stock A Dividend J

31. - Fidelity Advisors Strategy Income A Dividend J

32. - American Century Equity Income A Dividend J

33. - Fidelity Advisors Float Rt. A Dividend J

34. - Fidelity Advisors New Insights A Dividend J

I. lncome Gain Codes: A =$1,000 or less B =$1,001 - $2,500 C =$2.501 - $5,000 D 55,001 - 515.000 E =515,001 - $50,000

(See Columns BI and D4) F =$50,001 - $100,000 G =$100.001 - $1.000.000 111 =$1.000,0~1 - $5.0~O.000 112 =More lhan 55.000.000 2. Value Cod~ J =515.000 or less K =$15.001 - 550.0(~) L -$50.0�)1 - $100.000 M =510~).001 - $250.000

(Scc Columrts CI and D3) N =5250.001 - 5500.000 O =5500.001 - $1.00~.000 PI 51.000.001 - $5.000,000 P2 =55.000.001 - $25.000.0~OP3 =$25.000.001 - $50.000.0~0 P4 =More Ihan $50.00~.000

3. Value Method Codes Q =Appraisal R =Cost (Real l~talc Only) S =Asscssmc’nl T =Cash [Slarkcl(See Column C2) V =O~her W =EstimatedU =[look Value

Name of Person Reporting Date of ReportFINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT Page 6 of 8 Varlan, Thomas A. 08/17/2011

VI I. INVESTM ENTS a nd TRU STS - i,.co,.e, vat.,,, tra.s~.io.s a.aud.s ,hos~ o/spots. ~.d d,p~.de.t chiU,,.: s~e pp. 34-60 of filing instructions.)


A. B.

Description of Assets Income during Gross value at end


(I) (2) (i) (2) (i) Place "CA)" after each asset Amount Type (e.g., Value Value Type (e.g.,

Code I buy, sell,exempt from prior disclosure div., rent, Code 2 Method (A-H) or int.) (J-P) Code 3 ~:temption)

(Q-W)

35. - American Century Diversified Bond A Dividend J T

36. - American Century Heritage A Dividend J T

37. - Putnam Absolute Ret IO0 A Dividend J T Buy

38. Strategic Portfolio Service Advantage, SEP/ A Dividend Merged IRA (with line 28)

39. - Ishares Russell 3000 Index Fund A Dividend Merged (with line 28)

40. Varlan Revocable Living Trust None M W (X) (See Part VIII)

41.

1. Income Gain Codes: A =$1.000 or less B :$1.001 . $2.500 C =$2.501 - $5.000

(See Columns BI and D4) F =$50.001 - $100.000 G =$100.001 - $1.0~0,000 Ill =$1.000,001 - $5.000.00~

2. Value Codcs J =$15.000 or Icss K -$15.001 - $50.00~ L $50.0~1 - $10~.000

(See Columns CI and D3) N =$250.001 . $500.000 O -$500.001 - $1.0~0.000 PI =$1.000.001 - $5.000.000 P3 =$25,00~.001 - $50.000.000 P4 =More Ihaa $50.0~0.000

3. Value Method Codes Q =Appraisal R :Cost (Real Estate Only) S :Asscssm,"m (See Column C2) U -Book Value V =Olh...’r W :kstimawcd

D. Transactions during reporting period

(2) (3) (4)Dale Valu~ Gain

mm/dd/yy Code 2 Code I (J-P) (A-H)

01/15/10 J

01/15/10 J A

01/15/10 J A

D :$5.001 - $15.000 112 =More lhan $5.000.000 M =$100.001 - $250.000

P2 =$5.000.001 - $25,000.000

T :Cash Market

(5) Identity of


transaction)

E =$15.001 - $50.000

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT Page 7 of 8

,Name of Person Reporting

Varlan, Thomas A.

Date of Report

08/17/201 I

VIII. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR EXPLANATIONS. (Indicate part of rcpor~)

Part VII, Line 40 "! 17 _~ :_" :~ ~-7~,I, ii_ i: "~

Name of Person Reporting Date of ReportFINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT Page 8 of 8 Varlan, Thomas A. 08/17/201 I

IX. CERTIFICATION.

I certify that all information given above (including information pertaining to my spouse and minor or dependent children, if any) is accurate, true, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that any information not reported was withheld because it met applicable statutory provisions permitting non-disclosure.

I further certify that earned income from outside employment and honoraria and the acceptance of gifts which have been reported are in compliance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. app. § 501 et. seq., 5 U.S.C. § 7353, and Judicial Conference regulations.

Signature: S[ Thomas A. Varlan



,~o ~0 FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT R~o. Required by the Ethics" in Government Act of I 9 78I nev. ~/20t0 ] FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2009 (5 u.s.c, app. ,~,~ i61-¢ ~ 0

I. Person Reporting [’last name, first, middle initial) 2. Court or Organization 3. Date of Report

Varlan, Thomas A. U.S. District Court, E. Tenn. 05/0412010

4. Title (A~liele 111 judges indicate active or senior status; fin. Report Type (check appropriate Wpe) 6. Reporting Periodmagistrate judges indicate full- or part-time)

[] Nomination, Date 0110112009

U. S. District Judge-Active ~ Initial [’~ Annual [~ Final to 12/31/2009

5b. [] Amended Re~.rt

7. Chambers or Office Address 8. On the basis of the information contained in this Report and anymodificalioas pertaining thereto, it is, in my opinion, in compliancewith applicable laws and regulations,

800 Market Street Knoxville, "Flq 37902

U. S. District Court

Reviewing Officer Date

IMPORTANT NOTES: The instructions accompanying this forat must be followed. Complete ull parts, checking the NONE box for each parl where yon have no reporlable information. Sign on last page.

NONE (No reportablepositions.)~


I. Director Board of Visitors, University of TenneSsee, College of Arts & Sciences

2. Director Be.arden High School Foundation

Varlan, Thomas A.

I I. AGREEMENTS. m~,ora,,g individual on/y¢ seepp. 14-16 of.lqling instructions,)

NONE (No reportable agreements.)~

DATE PARTIES AND TERMS.

~’ame of Person Reporting Date of ReportFINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT Page 2 of 9 I Varlan, Thomas A. o51~2oio

III. NO1N-INVESTMENT IN COME. :Re~,or, i,~

A. Flier’s Non-investment lncome

NONE ~o reportable non-investment income.)

DATE ~OURCE AND TYPE INCOME (yau~, n~t s~use’s)

1.

3.

4.

B. Spouse’s Non-Investment Income -l/you were married during anyportion of the rzporting),ear, complete tld~ sectio~

(Dollar amour! no~ required except for honora~a.)



1.

2.

3.

4.

IV. REIMBURSEMENTS - ,,,,,~o~,,,io,. t htc/ude$ those In spouse and dependem children," see pp. 25-27 t~ffiling inSlntClioos.)

NONE (No reportable reimbursemencs.)

,SOURCE DATES LO~ATION PURPOSE ,ITEMS PAID OR PROV1DED

I.

2.

3.

4.

5.

FINA1NCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT Page 3 of 9

.,m~ ol’Person Reporting

Varlan, Thomas A. t Date of Repot!

05104/2010

V. GIFTS. ~1,~t~ae,

NONE ~o reportable g~s.)


2.

3.

4.

5.

I~

1,

2,

3.

4~

5.


CREDITOR DESCRIPTION VALUE CODE

Date of ReporlFINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT Name of Person Reporting

Page 4 of 9 0s/0~/20~ 0I Varlan, Thomas A.

NONE ~o reportable income, assets, or transactions.)

D~ription of Asse~ Income during Gr~s v~lue at end [ Transactions during ~ng ~riod

exempt from prior discl~r¢ Code l div,, rent, C~e 2 Meth~ j buy, ~11, m~d~ C~o 2 j C~e I , buyer/seller(A-H) or int.) (J-P) C~ 3 [ redemption) O-P) (ifprivat~

~ (A-H) ]

l, AmSoufl~ Bank Accounts B lnter~st L T


~3. BB&T Common Slock A Dividend J T

4. City of Knoxville Deferred Compensation A Dividend Closed 02/06/09 M Program (457)

5. - Fidelity Contrafund Sold 02t06/09 : K B

6. - Nationwide Fixed Account Sold 02106109 K B

7. - AIM Century Vista Fd. Sold 02106/09 J B

8. - NAt Gartumura To. Return ~:und D Sold 02/06109 J A

9. -FcdUS G’tsc Fad 2-5Yrs. Sold 02106109 J B

tO. - New Intl. Val Inst. S vc, Sold 02/06/09 J B

11. - New Bar Genesis Fund Sold 02106/09 J A

12. - American Funds Growth Fund of America Sold 02/06/09 J B

13. Wachovia Securities - IRA I A Dividend Closed 02106/09 L

14. - Evergreen US Govt. Sold 02106/09 J A

15. - Alliance Bcmstcin Growth & Income Fd. Sold 02106109 J A CI.C

16. - Allianz NJF Small Cap Value Fund CL-C

t Sold 02/06/09 J A

!7. - Dreyfus Premier Worldwide Growth Fd. Sold 02/06/09 J ACi, C

Income Gain Codes: A ---$ | .000 or less C =$2.501 ÷ $5,DO0 D =$5.001 - $15,000 ~ =$ I 5.001 - $ 50.000 (See Cotumns BI and D4) F --$50.001 - $100,000 G =$100,001 - $ 1.000,000 H I =$1,000,O0~t - $5,000.000 H2 =More than

2. Value Codes J =$15,000 or less K =$15.001 - $50.000 l =$50.001 - $100.000 MI ~$100.001 -(See Columns CI and D3) N =$250.001 - $500,000 O ~$500.001 - $1.000.000 PI =$1,OO0,OO I - $5.O00.0OO P2 =$5.0~l,OOI -

P3 =~25,000,001 - $50.1)00,000 P4 ~Mor¢ than $50.000.0OO3. Value Melhod Codes Q =Appraisal R ~.Cost (Ret~| Estate On!y) S ~As~.’ssment T =Cash Market

~ See Colm’nn C2) U =B~ok Value V ~Other W = Es!.imatod

r~.me of Person Reporting Date o|’ Repot!FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORTPage 5 of 9 wrl.., Thomas A. 0S/04/2010

~ NON~ ~o reportable income, ~sets, or transactions.)

~, ~. ~ c. -b~ ..................................... ~s~iption of Asse~ Income during [ Gross value at end T~nsactions during ~ning peri~ (i~lading ~ as~) ~ning period ] of~poning period

exempt from prior disclosure Code I ~ div., rein, ~ Code 2 ~ Mefl~ buy, sell, m~d~yy C~ 2 ] Code 1 buyer/~ller

I 8. - ~ton Vm~cc Growth Tr. Wofldwid~ Sold 02/06/09 J AHcal~h Scicncc ~d. C

19. - ~vcrgrccn O~ga Fd. Cl. C Sold 02/06/09 J A

20. - Fidelity Advisor Ser. I Mid-Cap Fd. CI. C Sold 02106/09 .I A

21. - Ivy Fd. European Opportunities Fd. CI. C Sold 02106/09 K A

22. - Goldman Sachs Core U.S. Equity Fd. CI. C Sold 02/06/09 J B

23. - Pin, co High Yield Fund C1. C Sold 02/06/09 .1 B

24. - Seligman Communication & Information Sold 02/06/09 J AFd. Inc. CI. D

25. - VK Emerging Growth CL. C Sold 02/06/09 J A

26. Wachovia Securities llL, k 2 A Dividend Closed 02/06/09 K

27. - Evergreen" Omega Fd. C1. C Sold 02/06/09 J A

28. - Goldman Sachs Tr. Growth Opps. Fd. CI. Sold 02/06/09 J AC

29. - John Hancock Invt. Tr. 11 Small Cap. Sold 02/06109 J AEquity Fd. C

30. - Ivy Fd. European Opportunities Fd. C1. C Sold 02/06/09 J A

31. UBS A Dividend Closed 02/06/09 J

32. - UBS Retirement Money Fund Sold 02/06/09 J A


34. Tennessee’s BEST Prepaid Tuition Accounts A Interesl J T

I. Income Gain Codes: A =$1,000 err |wss B =$1,001 - $2,500 C --5;2.501 - $5,000 D =$5,001 - $15.000

2, Value C~ J ~$15~ or less K =$ } 5,~1 - $50,~ L =$50,~1 - $ I ~.~ M =$1 ~,~ I - $250,0~ (See Colmnns CI and 03) N =$250,001 - $500.000 O

(See Column C2) U =~k Val~ V ~ther W =E~timm~

VII. INVESTMENTS and TRUSTS -i..o.,eo ~o~.., ,...~aaio., a.~.~., a,o~. ~f.ro... ..d ~.p..~.,,~ ~i~z.,.~ ,,~ ~.

~ NONE (No re~rtable income, assets, or transactionsO

A. B. C. D. D~iption of Asse~ Income during Gross value at end Tran~ctio~ during re~ing ~ri~ (including ~ a~) r~ing ~6~ of repoSing ~riod~

Pbc¢"(~"dter~ch~et AmountI V~(e.g., Vatu¢ Value V~e(e.g., Da~e [ Value I Gnin ] [demi~of

Code3 mdrmptlon) [ 0-p) I (A-H) . ~i~p~va,e

~(i:~ ozinL)(J-P)

35. Strategic Po~fo]io ~c~ice Advantage IRA - E Divided M T Open 02106/09 M 1

36. - Fidelity Adv. Strategy Income A Dividend J T Buy 02/26/09 J

37. - UMB Scout Stock A Dividend J T Buy 02126/09 J

38. - Fideltiy Advisor New Insights A Dividend J T Buy 02/26/09

39. - AM Century Equity Income A . Dividend J T Buy 02/26/09 J

40. - Fidelity Advisors Float Rt A Dividend J T Buy 02/26/09 ,I

41. - Franklin Mutual Discovery A Dividend J T Buy 02126109 J

42. - American Century Diversified Bond A Dividend J T Buy 02t26/09 J

43. - Amcricm~ Century Heritage A Dividend J T Buy 02/28/09 J

44. - Franklin Mutmal Discovery A Dividend J T Buy 03113!09 J(add’l)

45, - American Century Equity tneome A Dividend J T Buy 03/13/09 J(addq)

46. - Fidelity Advisors New Insights A Dividend .I T Buy 03/13/09 J(add’l)

47. - American Century Heritage A Dividend J T Buy 03113/09 J(add’l)

48. - UMB Scout Stock A Dividend J T Buy 031t3109 J(add’l)

49. - American Century Diversified Bond A Dividend J T Buy 03/13/09 J(add’I)

50. - Fidelity Advisor Float Rt, A Dividend J T Buy 03/| 3/09 J (add’l)

5!. - Fidelity Advisors Strategy Income A Dividend J T Buy 03/13/09 J(add’l)

I. Income Gain Codes: A =$1,000 or less B =21.00! . $2.500 C =$2.501 - $5,000 D =$5.001 - $15.000 E =~}5.001 - ~SO.O00 (Sc¢ Columns B l and D4) F =$50,0fl I - 2100,000 G =2100,0’~1 - $1.000.000 H I =~$I,000,00l - $5,000,00~ H2 =Morn than $5.0{~0,000

2, Value Co~s J =~15.000 o¢" less K =$15,0~1 - $50,000 L =$50,~N)1 - $100,000 M =$100.0~t - $250.000 {See Caktffmg CI arid D3) N =2250,00! - SS00.000 O =$500.001 - $1.00~.000 Pt =$1.000,[KH - $5.000,000 P2 =$5.000.001 -

P3 =$25,000.001 - 250.000.000 P4 =Mo~ than $50,000,0003. VaM¢ Method Codes Q ~Appraisal R --Co*t (Real Estate Only) S ~Asses~n~nt T =Cash Markcl

(Sec Column C2) U -Book VaJ~c V =~Dther W =Esthnate~

Name of Person Reporting Date of Report

PageFINANCIAL7 of 9 DISCLOSURE REPORT Varlan, Thomas A. 05t04/2010

VII. INVESTMENTS and TRUSTS - in¢o.,e, v.t.e, ~.~*e~.. and.de, a, os. oy~ .... a dependent d~ildren; see pp. 34-60 offiling i~truclio,lS.)

NONE ~o reportable income, assets, or transactions3

~. ~. ~ c. I D. "-D~Hpfion of A~ets Income during Gr~s value at end [ Tmnsactio~ during reporting period~

(including ~st ~sets) m~ning period of~iag! --~S ....~ ....~ ...... ~iB ........ ~~) ........ ~i ........ [-1~ ’I ~il ~ r, .....

Idenli~ exempt from prlor dis¢l~ure C~e I1 div., ~nt, C~e2 Meth~ buy, sell, ]m~d~ ~ Code2.1 C~e I ~ buyedseller

(A-H) orinl.) (J-P) C~e3 rMemption) (irprivate (Q-~ i (J-P) ~ (A-H) 1_] ~nsaction)

.

~ [

52. - Fideli~ Advi~r Float Rt. A Divided J T Buy 09/I 1/09 J (add’l)

53. - American Cen~ Heritage A Dividend J T Sold 0911 I D9 J A

54. - American Cena~ Heritage A Dividend T Sold 12/30/09 J A (pan)

55. - American Cen~ Diversifi~ Bond A Dividend J T Sold 12/30/091 l A (pa~)

56. Strategic Advantage Se~i~ Pogfolio IRA - A Dividend J T Open 02/26/09 2

57. - Franklin Mutual Discoveq A Dividend l T Buy 02~6/09

58. - U MB Scount Stock A Dividend J T Buy 02/26/09 J

59. - Fidelity Advisors Strategy Income A Dividend J T Buy 02/26/09 J

60. - Araerican Century Equity Income A Dividend J T Buy 02/26/09

61. - Fidelity Advisors Float Rt. A Dividend J T Buy 02/26/09 J

62. - Fidelity Advisors New Insights A Dividend J T Buy 02/26/09

63. - American Century Diversified Bond A Dividend J T Buy 02/26/09 J

64. - An+eriean Century Heritage A Dividend J T Buy 02/26/09 J

65. Strategic Portfolio Service Advantage, Dividend JA T Open 02/26/09 JSEPflRA

66. - Ishares Russell 3000 Index Fund A Dividend J T Buy 02/26/09 J

I. Incan+m Gain Codes: A =$ | .000 or less B =$ 1,00(See Columns B l ~ ~) F =$50,0~1 - $100,~0 G =$1~,~1 - $ I .~,~ H I =$ l .~0.~ 1 - $5,~0,~ H2 -Morn th~ $5.~,~

2. Value C~s J =$15,~ or ~ K ~15,~1 - $5~ L =$50,~ [ - $100,~ M =$100.~ I - ~250.~0(See Columns C I aria D3) N =$250,~1 - $5~,~0 O =$5~,~ I - $1,~0,~0 P 1 ~$1 .~.~ ~ - $5,~,~ P2 =$5,0~,001 - $25,~.~

3. Value Meted ~s Q =Ap~l R =C~ (Real Estme ~ly) S =Asse~mcnt T ~a~ M~ket{~¢ Col~nn ~) U =~k Val~ V =Other W =Estimal~

Name of Person Reporting Date of ReportFINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT IPage 8 of 9 o5/o~2o,o

[ Varlan, Thomas A.

VIII. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR EXPLANATIONS.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORT N~ ofPer~n aepor~ng D~,e of ~epor, Page 9 of 9 Varla,,, Thomas A. 05/0412010

IX. CERTIFICATION.

I certify that all information given above (including information pertaining to my spouse and minor or dependent children, if any) is accurate, true, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that any information not reported was withheld because it met applicable statutory provisions permitting non-disclosure.

! further certify that earned income from outside employment and honoraria and the acceptance of gifts which have been reported are in compliance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. app. § 501 et. seq, 5 U.S.C. § 7353, and Judicial Conference regulations.


FILING INSTRUCTIONS

Mail signed original and 3 additional copies to:


Exhibit B

Evidence of Douglas E. Taylor’s professional relationship

with GMAC validating the existence of an undisclosed

conflict of interest.

Exhibit C

Wire Records from Sevier County Bank Showing GMAC

RFC as the “Lender” when the lender was misrepresented

on the origination documents as “Sebring Capital Partners”

Documents

LNV vs. Gebhardt: Intervenors Motion for Rule 60(b) Relief