Subject: Minutes recorded for the Telephonic Status Conference held on October 14, 2011, 3:06 PM as directed by Hon. Denise K. LaRue, US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana

Attendees: Hon. Denise K. LaRue, US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana

Neal Bailen, Attorney at Law, Counsel for BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP

Carlin Philips, Attorney at Law

Robert Duff, Attorney at Law

David L. LeForge, Plaintiff

On October 14, 2011, 3:06 PM, Courtroom Deputy(317-229-3970) Ruth E. Olive within the office of Hon. Denise K. LaRue U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana contacted me via my cell phone. Ruth Olive explained that Hon. Denise K. LaRue wanted me to join in on a Telephonic Status Conference. I, David L. LeForge, proceeded to inform Deputy Olive, as per a previous email dated 10-12-2011, that I was uncomfortable in joining the Telephonic Status Conference because my wife, Luda Christine LeForge, was unavailable, and I was not being represented by legal counsel.

Courtroom DeputyOlive’s comment was, “You said you would be available” at that point I referred her to my email dated October 12 2011 where I explained my availability. “Iwill be available, simply meant if, my wife could be available, I would be available, whereas we don't feel it would be properor advantageous for me to participate alonein the telephonic status conference without my wife or proper legalcounsel inattendance”. She then stated,“You should inform the Magistrate you are not comfortable joining in on the Telephonic Status Conference because your wife is unable to be present and you are not being represented by legal counsel.

Courtroom Deputy, Olive proceeded to patch me into theTelephonic Status Conference.

I immediately informed Hon. Denise K. LaRue I am not comfortable with joining in the Telephonic Status Conference as my wife is unavailable and I am not being represented by legal counsel. Hon. Denise K. LaRuemandatedI sit inand hear her out. I remained on the Telephonic Status ConferencewhileHon. Denise K. LaRueproceededin taking a roll call. Attorney’s Robert Duff, Carlin Phillips, Neal Bailen, myself and Hon. Denise K. LaRue were in attendance.

Hon. Denise K. LaRue started by reviewing and commenting on the revised Settlement Agreement (revised1LCL) my wife and I signed, notarized, and sent to all parties. Hon. Denise K. LaRue made several comments about my refusal to participate, I again stated several times: that I was uncomfortable in joining the Telephonic Status Conference because my wife, Luda Christine LeForge, was unavailable, and I was not being represented by legal counsel. Hon. Denise K. LaRue continued commenting and asking about the language difference within the signed revised Settlement Agreement (revised1LCL) and the unsigned version (72906-4 JEFFERSONVILLE) defense counsel had generated over a month prior.

After a lengthy discussion regarding an Aug 12, 2011 teleconference, Hon. Denise K. LaRue pointed outshe will take full responsibilityforthe mistake in allowing Mr. Carlin Philps and Mr. Robert Duff, our attorneys of record, to act only as a conduitfor information and not be required to provide us legal counsel from August 12, 2011 to present.

Hon. Denise K. LaRue suggested Mr. Phillips and Mr. Duff withdrawal from us as legal counsel. Mr. Phillips gave an affirmation to the withdrawal and made a comment regarding themoney they felt wasowed from the signed Settlement Agreement (revised1LCL).

Hon. Denise K. LaRue kept prodding me to respond and answer to what she felt was theproblem with the signed Settlement Agreement (revised1LCL). I again toldHon. Denise K. LaRue I could and would not respond without my wife being present and legal counsel.

Hon. Denise K. LaRue asked Neal Bailen if he would be willing to accept the language changes in the signed Settlement Agreement (revised1LCL). Mr. Bailen agreed tothe changes in the (revised1LCL) with the exception of item # 7, but felt item #6 was contingent to the previous language in (72906-4 JEFFERSONVILLE) item # 7. I commented by saying my wife and I had a very valid reason for our revision of the language in #7, and that I could not discuss it without my wife or legal counsel present. Hon. Denise K. LaRue asked MrBailen if the language in item # 7 and # 6 could be accepted as per the (revised1LCL). Mr. Bailen said no, that his client would not approve of the change. Denise K. LaRue commented on how the language in the (72906-4 JEFFERSONVILLE)Agreement was common language in any settlement agreements.

After being prodded to answer questions, I decided to ask Hon. Denise K. LaRue about the abused extensions of time the courts gave defense counsel to prepare the Settlement Agreement document. Hon. Denise K. LaRue explained that from time to time a case might run over the extension and shewill make decisions on a case by case basis, thus allowing each case a little extra time if needed. The extra time in this case happened to be over a month.

Hon. Denise K. LaRue decided and stated we should be permitted time to seek legal counsel and stated the LeForges have until November 14, 2011 to seek legal counsel. Mr. Bailen was not in agreement with thedecision and voiced his concerns. Mr. Bailen raised concern to the confidential aspects of the case, stating the case would be aired to other legal counsel. Hon. Denise K. LaRue explained to Mr. Bailen we had the right to legal counsel. Mr. Bailen asked Hon. Denise K. LaRue about the possibility of speaking with us once Mr. Phillips and Mr. Duff have withdrawn. Hon. Denise K. LaRue told him there was nothing restricting him from speaking with us once Mr. Phillips and Mr. Duff have withdrawn. I commented by stating this could have been resolved if we were afforded the opportunity to speak directly to Mr. Bailen a long time ago. Mr. Bailen also said he did not want to scare the LeForge’s, but, if we had not come to an agreement on items #7 and #6 by Nov. 14, 2011, that he be allowed the right to force us to sign and collect attorney fees. Hon. Denise K. LaRue agreed to allow Mr. Bailen that legal right.I asked Hon. Denise K. LaRue about when we could expect our files back from our attorneys of record once they withdraw. Denise K. LaRue could not give me a definitive answer, and further stated we shouldn’t need our files for another legal counsel to look at item # 7 in Settlement Agreement (72906-4 JEFFERSONVILLE).

I askedHon. Denise K. LaRue if thisTelephonic Status Conference was being recorded.Hon. Denise K. LaRue said no, Telephonic Status Conferences were not recorded and then asked me to take notes. I commented by stating I was not a secretary and did not feel I should be taking minutes. I also stated there should be some record made of the teleconference. Hon. Denise K. LaRue stated she was unsure how to record it without breaking the rules of confidentiality. My notes are being published to all parties as the recorded minutes of the meeting.

Hon. Denise K. LaRue stated she was trying to understand the issue with the Settlement Agreement and what the LeForges expected. Her first thought was the LeForges agreed to the agreement document during the previous call on August 12, 2011, and then changed their minds. Hon. Denise K. LaRue’s second thought was, theLeForge’s had no legal counsel to explain the contents of the Settlement Agreement and help them fully understand the agreement. At that point, I responded, now you are getting it.Hon. Denise K. LaRue commented by saying “Mr. LeForge you did not make it clear” At that point I made no more comments.

At the end of the Telephonic Status Conference I again stated twice, I was uncomfortable in joining the Telephonic Status Conference because my wife, Luda Christine LeForge, was unavailable, and I was not being represented by legal counsel.

Hon. Denise K. LaRue asked all parties if there were any other questions.

The Telephonic Status Conference ended after 57 minutes and 25 seconds.