Charles Barker ill 

1548 E 30th 

Portland, Oregon 97214 

mortgagerecon@ gmail.com 

Plaintiff in Pro Se 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CHARLES BARKER ill 

Plaintiff 

v. 

UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK, aka ) 

U.S. NATIONAL BANK, U.S. BAN CORP, ) 

U.S. BANK AS TRUSTEE FOR GREENPOINT ) 

MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUST MORTGAGE ) 

PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES AR4, ) 

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING INC., ALLY BANK, ) 

ALLY FINANCIAL, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC ) 

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS aka MERS, ) 

BANK OF AMERICA, CITffiANK N.A. AS ) 

INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR BEAR STEARNS ) 

LIEN TRUST 2007-1, ) 

And DOES 1-25 ) 

Defendants ) 

3'14-CV-2050. AC, 

CMLCASENo. -------

COMPLAINT 

Comes Now Plaintiff CHARLES BARKER III and files this Complaint, for Defendants' 

violations of multiple state and federal laws, unlawful foreclosure, and financial damages and 

emotional injury which have been inflicted upon the Plaintiff by each of Defendants. 

As Plaintiff appears prose, the terms "Plaintiff'', "Barker" and first-person terms "1", 

"my", and "me" are used interchangeably throughout to refer to the Plaintiff. 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 1 of 58
INTRODUCTION 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES 

LITIGATION OVERVIEW 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF FACTS 

CONTENTS 

CHASE I JPMC RENEGED ON PAYMENT PLAN AGREEMENT; ARGUMENT 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION- FRAUD 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION- VIOLATIONS OF ORS 86.060 et seq 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION -UNFAIR, DECEPTIVE and FRAUADULENT PRACTICES 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION- VIOLATIONS OF U. S. SECURITIES LAWS 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION- FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION- VIOLATION OF RACKETEER INFLUENCED & 

CORRUPTORGAMZATIONSACT 

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION- CONVERSION 

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION- RESTRAINT OF TRADE & PUBLIC POLICY 

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION- OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION- WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE I QUIET TITLE 

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION- UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES 

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION- RESPA VIOLATIONS 

FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - UNFAIR & BAD FAITH DEALING 

FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACTTRUTH-IN-LENDING 

SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION- FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 

SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION- UNJUST ENRICHMENT 

EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION- CONTRACT OF ADHESION 

CONCLUSION 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

l 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 2 of 58
INTRODUCTION 

1. This is a case involving wrongful attempted foreclosure, by a deceptively layered 

consortium of banks and their complicit entities and agents who have engaged in a multiplicity 

of deceptive and flagrantly illegal schemes and practices, all designed to leverage their 

monetary profits, at the expense of United States taxpayers and to the extreme prejudice and 

harm to the Plaintiff Charles Barker ill herein. 

2. I originally purchased this residential property for my daughter, a student at the 

University of Oregon, in 2004, made the down payment from family savings, and I have since 

invested many thousands of dollars in improvements to the subject property, including 

insulation, laundry room addition, brick patio, exterior painting, interior painting, window 

upgrades, etc. together aggregating over $75,000.00 in cash invested in purchase and upgrades. 

This is a modest residential property, close to the University of Oregon college campus. 

3.1t is unconscionable that a consortium of mega-financial institutionsill- who view a 

home mortgage as mere "financial instrument"; a commodity that they routinely buy and sell 

on 'secondary markets' that are invisible and inaccessible to the homeowner, be allowed to 

pursue a foreclosure and to eject people from their home, all to monumentally profit the banks. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

4. Jurisdiction arises out of diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. 1332 as the Plaintiff 

resides in the State of Oregon and Defendants are domiciled in and/or incorporated in other 

states, including Minnesota (U.S. Bank), Florida (Ocwen Loan Servicing), Michigan (Ally 

Bank), Utah (Ally Financial), Virginia (MERS), North Carolina (Bank of America) and New 

York (Citibank). 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 3 of 58
5. Jurisdiction also exists due to certain actions of Defendants which have occurred in 

states throughout the United States, including alleged transfers of ownership of the mortgage 

and/or deed of trust, interstate transfers of securities instruments related to the subject note and 

deed of trust, interstate transfers of depository funds, and clandestine execution of documents 

related to these transactions in as-yet unknown locales. 

6. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C Sec 1367 over the Oregon 

state claims, including ORS Sec 86.060 et seq, which are closely related to federal claims, and 

form part of the same case or controversy under Article lll of the United States Constitution. 

7. There are United States Federal laws which are at issue in the instant matter, including 

Securities Laws (the Securities Act of 1933, as amended) and Interstate Trade Law violations. 

Jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action lies with this Court pursuant to Section 17(a) 

(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933, which cannot be heard by a state court. 

8. Jurisdiction also arises out of 15 U.S.C. Sec 1640 (e) of the United States Consumer 

Credit Protection Act, action may be brought in U.S. District Court. 

9. Jurisdiction also arises out of 18 U.S.C. 1961 (a) authorizing proceeding in U.S. 

District Court under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. 

10. All of the matters of this lawsuit concern a residential property located within the 

State of Oregon; however, none of the Defendants have their corporate domicile in Oregon. 

Consequently, the conduct of all activities has occurred in multiple states of the United States, 

including Minnesota, Florida, Michigan, Utah, Virginia, North Carolina and New York. 

11. As a consequence of all of the foregoing: Federal District Court in the District of Oregon is 

the correct jurisdiction and venue. 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 4 of 58
SCHEDULE OF PARTIES 

Plaintiff: 

Charles Barker III 

1548 SE 30th Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97214 

Defendants: 

UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK, aka U.S. Bank and US Bancorp (herein, "US Bank") 

Portland Main Office: 

309 SW 6th Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

Corporate Headquarters: 

800 Nicollet Mall 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC (herein, "OCWEN") 

1661 Worthington Road; Suite 100 

West Palm Beach, Florida 33409-6493 

ALLY BANK (herein "ALLY") 

Headquarters Office 

P.O. Box 200 

Detroit, Michigan 48265-2000 

ALLY FINANCIAL (herein "ALLY") 

Headquarters Office 

P.O. Box 725 

Midvale, Utah 84047 

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS (aka and herein, "MERS") 

Corporate Offices: 

1818 Library Street, Ste 300 

Renton, Virginia 20190 

Registered Agent: Sharon McGann-Horstkamp 

1818 Library Street, Ste 300 

Renton, Virginia 20190 

Note: While corporate offices located in Virginia, MERS is registered in Delaware 

BANK OF AMERICA (herein "BofA") 

Corporate Offices 

100 North Tryon Street 

Charlotte, North Carolina 28255 

CITIBANK (herein "CITI") 

399 Park Avenue 

New York, New York 10043 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 5 of 58
12. Defendant US Bank is a company that acts, or pretends to act, variously as a) owner 

of the Note, orb) as a trustee for banks, trusts or for investors in securitized transactions, or 

other partially disclosed, unknown, undisclosed or unidentified owners or purported owners of 

the Note and/or mortgage trust deed. 

13. Defendant US Bank as Trustee for Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Trust 

Mortgage Pass-through Certificates Series 2006-AR4 is a company that acts, or pretends to 

act, variously as a) owner of the Note, or b) as a trustee for banks, trusts or for investors in 

securitized transactions, or other partially disclosed, unknown, undisclosed or unidentified 

owners or purported owners of the Note and/or mortgage trust deed. 

14. Defendant OCWEN is a company that acts, or pretends to act, variously as a) 

"servicer" of the Note, or b) owner of the Note, or c), as a trustee for banks, trusts or for 

investors in securitized transactions, or other partially disclosed, unknown, undisclosed or 

unidentified owners or purported owners of the Note and/or mortgage trust deed. 

15.DefendantAily Bank is a company that acts, or pretends to act, variously as a) owner 

of the Note, or b) as a trustee for banks, trusts or for investors in securitized transactions, or 

other partially disclosed, unknown, undisclosed or unidentified owners or purported owners of 

the Note and/or mortgage trust deed. 

16. Defendant Ally Financial is a company that acts, or pretends to act, variously as a) 

owner of the Note, orb) as a trustee for banks, trusts or for investors in securitized transactions, 

or other partially disclosed, unknown, undisclosed or unidentified owners or purported owners 

of the Note and/or mortgage trust deed. 

17. Defendant Bank of America is a company that acts, or pretends to act, variously as 

a) owner of the Note, or b) as a trustee for banks, trusts or for investors in securitized 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 6 of 58
transactions, or other partially disclosed, unknown, undisclosed or unidentified owners or 

purported owners of the Note and/or mortgage trust deed. 

18. Defendant Citibank is a company that acts, or pretends to act, variously as a) owner 

of the Note, orb) the entity having authority to negotiate modifications to the note; specifically 

the payment plan set forth in their October 12, 2009letter. 

19. Defendant MERS is not yet known, ad only through discovery will it be revealed, if 

the subject mortgage is registered on the MERS registry, or whether MERS was involved with 

any of the alleged transfers or assignments. By MERS own documents, they descibe 

themselves variously and in a contradictory manner both "SOLELY AS NOMINEE", 

simultaneously and falsely pretending to be the beneficiary of the interest in real property, yet 

also as "possessing only legal title" to all mortgage tust deed referenced herein, but not as 

nominee, beneficiary or trustee or any other capacity for the note, which recites the terms of the 

fmancial relationships between the parties. 

20. Defendant Does 1-25 are defendant persons and/or entities, the names of which are 

not yet known to Plaintiff. Note: None of the above-named Defendants are proven to be either 

the real party in interest or the actual owner of the notes; therefore, the yet-unnamed Does may 

prove to be the actual owner of the note and/or mortgage trust deed. 

II 

II 

II 

II 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 7 of 58
LITIGATION OVERVIEW 

21. The subject case is rooted in the flagrant and purposeful disregard by all named 

Defendants of Oregon state, and United States federal, laws, including the Real Estate 

Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Consumer Protection Act I Truth-In-Lending, the Fair 

Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), federal Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 

laws, Oregon statutory requirements for service of notices, providing of documents, service of 

notices, violations of unfair or deceptive acts and practices, conversion, restraint of trade, and 

fraud, in a complex scheme [the Defendants' pattern of behavior constituting the required 

specific criteria such as constitute violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 

Organizations Act (RICO)] designed intentionally to defraud the Plaintiff, and to inflict upon 

him catastrophic financial harm. Multiple significant state and federal laws were enacted to 

protect property owners and mortgage borrowers from abuses by financial institutions, and the 

proper invocation of these laws, as well as the commensurate remonstration against the 

Defendant fmancial institutions, and appropriate remedy and restitution to Plaintiff, is 

warranted, and is the foundation of necessity of filing this lawsuit. 

22. Defendants have caused, and are attempting to further cause, catastrophic financial 

injury upon the Plaintiff, by attempting to foreclose upon the residence which Plaintiff 

purchased for his daughter to live, and into which Plaintiff has invested over $75,000.00 of his 

own personal savings, in down payment and additional improvements. Moreover, the 

Defendants each seek to inflict severe and traumatic emotional harm by ejectment of the 

residents from their home. The Defendants seek to to inequitably take this away from Plaintiff, 

not only absent any recompensation to him for same, but in a context of falsified documents, 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 8 of 58
missing documents, unsupported, unproven and unprovable chains of ownership of the note 

and trust deed, and in flagrant, contemptuous disdain and disregard for laws of the State of 

Oregon and the United States of America. 

23. Defendants US Bank, and their alleged predecessor GMAC Mortgageffi, Ally Bank, 

Ally Financial, Ocwen Loan Servicing have further, and specifically, aggravated this by luring 

Plaintiff into believing that he had resolved a mortgage restructuring that was affordable and 

manageable, then suddenly, unilaterally and without cause or provocation, retracted, reneged, 

and summarily refused to continue to accept the restructured payment. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF FACTS 

24. In 2004, I purchased the property located at 1815 E19th Avenue, in Eugene, Oregon 

("Plaintiffs home,'). 

25. I invested over$ 50,000.00 in the original cash down payment and related costs at the 

time of purchase of this home (HUD-1 closing will be submitted as evidence). 

26. I have, since first purchasing over a decade ago, additionally invested and made 

substantial capital improvements to this property up to and including the present date, to an 

extent in excess of $25,000.00. 

27. This dwelling was purchased for my daughter, as her residence. 

28. On December 12, 2014, a batch of papers was delivered to the property, with "Mary 

Ruth Dunham, et ar' hand scratched off and "occupants" instead handwritten on a summons in 

a state court foreclosure case. From this, Plaintiff learned that an unknown party or group of 

parties (see attached Exhibit "A,,), identified as: 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 9 of 58
"U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Trust 

Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR4" 

had filed a purported "complaint for foreclosure" in the Circuit Court of Oregon for Lane 

County. Upon reading through the stack of papers handed at the door, these unknown parties 

("U.S. Bank, as trustee for Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Trust Mortgage Pass-Through 

Certificates Series 2006-AR4"), it is plainly evident that the true, actual, real-party-in-interest is 

deviously concealed by this "trustee" attempting to assert some kind of claim. In fact, they have 

none. 

29. Moreover, even if the true owner of the note is ultimately uncovered (which it is the 

intention to do in the instant case) their complaint is fatally defective, as it is based upon a 

default notice (attached as exhibit hereto) that they themselves included, which is prima facie 

evidence of the fatal defect, to wit: 

a. In accord with their Exhibit "D" (attached), the amount due each month until October 

2013 was $543.35 per month. 

b. In accord with their Exhibit "F" (attached), on March 5, 2013, Ocwen- which 

represented itself as being the party authorized to collect the monthly payments 

on this note, asserted: 

"We have not received your mortgage payments for the month of 

2/01113 through 3/01113" 

c. This is a period of one month. 

d. The mortgage payment had been made and received by Ocwen and was current for the 

preceding month: 1/01/2013 through 2/01/13. 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 10 of 58
e. The "default" letter, on which US Bank was relying to attempt to foreclose (their 

Exhibit "F", attached), stated, on the next lines: 

Payments $ 1696.40 

Late charges: 437.71 

Fees, costs, and other 125.00 

Suspense -0.00 

Total Amount Due $2259.11 

f. This "default" letter is plainly erroneous, as only $543.35 was due for the one month 

on 2/01113 through 3/0112013. 

g. Despite repeated attempts to have this corrected, Ocwen refused to correct the amount 

due, and refused to provide the documents, despite Plaintiff having requested 

same by telephone and not less than three (3) times in writing (see attached 

Plaintiffs exhibits). 

h. From March 2013 forward, Ocwen refused to accept the monthly payments, which 

continued to be $543.35 for another eight (8) months (see their Exhibit "D"), and 

refused to accept less than what they declared to be the total amount "due" of 

$2259.11, despite that figure being plainly erroneous. 

30. The party (US Bank as Trustee") which was attempting to file some kind of 

foreclosure has any relationship whatsoever to Plaintiff and is not known to Plaintiff, and has 

no demonstrable or provable foundation to allege any default, much less purport to "foreclose" 

or to take Plaintiffs home away from him and his family .. The party which was attempting to 

sue in that Lane County Circuit is not the owner of either the note or deed of trust, nor do does 

"US Bank, as Trustee" own any right to attempt to assert a foreclosure. Even their own case 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 11 of 58
caption is prima facie evidence that they are neither the real party in interest, nor the owner of 

the note, to wit: U.S. Bank is named as a "trustee" for Greenpoint Mortgage, which in tum is 

described as a "trustee" for "Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Trust Mortgage Pass-Through 

Certificates Series 2006-AR4", an entity that investigation reveals does not exist and is not 

registered in any of the fifty states of the United States. This "Funding Trust Mortgage PassThrough" is clearly a farcical sham entity for what are hundreds of millions of dollars of 

mortgages it supposedly "owns", which in tum is an unknown "trust series 2006-AR4", itself 

an unidentified "trust" (and still not an actual owner) which is subject to Securities and 

Exchange Commission regulatory rules. 

31. Based upon this fraudulent attempt to pursue a foreclosure, and myriad violations of 

state and federal law by those parties attempting foreclosure, as well as multiple related entities 

to those parties, Plaintiff had necessity of filing of the instant lawsuit. 

GMAC Mortgage, later known as Ally Bank and Ally Financial 

UNILATERALLY RENEGED ON PAYMENT PLAN AGREEMENT 

32. As hereinabove set forth, Defendants Ally (Note: while it was still GMAC Mortgage 

at the time they reneged on the written payment plan (attached hereto as exhibit), GMAC 

transferred the loan by some mechanism that is not yet known, but will be revealed in 

discovery, and then filed bankruptcy as herein above footnoted. Thus GMAC, following their 

bankruptcy discharge, cannot be named as a defendant; however, the responsibility and fiscal 

liability for having reneged on the payment plan - each payment upon which I timely made -

runs with the note, and thus is inalienably taken on by Ally. Ocwen, representing themselves as 

having some authority as a servicing agent of some sort, aggravated this state of affairs by 

luring Plaintiff into believing that he had resolved a mortgage restructuring that was affordable 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 12 of 58
and manageable, then suddenly, unilaterally and without cause or provocation, issued a 

defective default letter, and summarily refused to continue to accept the restructured payment, 

despite every single payment having been made on time and as agreed by Plaintiff. 

33. This payment modification called for payments of $543.35 per month. Each and 

every payments was made up to and including the payment at which Ocwen incorrectly 

asserted a 'default' in the amount of $2259.11. 

34. This payment plan was prepared and agreed with GMAC Mortgage, who represented 

themselves to be, and Plaintiff was led to believe was, the owner of his mortgage. 

35. There is demonstrably present an egregious inequity, with the homeowner diligently 

sending all monthly payments in, yet simultaneously the "lender" or "servicer" GMAC 

Mortgage and/or Ocwen abrogating and dishonoring the very payment restructure agreement 

that they themselves had prepared, and to which Plaintiff agreed. The difference here is that on 

one hand, we have the Plaintiff honoring and abiding by the Agreement, yet, on the other 

hand we have the banking institution dishonoring and failing to abide by the Agreement. 

36. This obviates the question: Where was all the money that Plaintiff sends to GMAC 

and Ocwen going? To what credit was it being posted? Where did all the many thousands of 

dollars in interest payments that I previously sent in go? And this leads us to the successor 

question: Who is it that is actually receiving the Plaintiffs payments, who actually owns the 

note and mortgage? 

37. Once Ocwen I GMAC began to refuse to accept my payments, I knew not where to 

tum, to have GMAC maintain the Agreement to which they had agreed. Calls to GMAC, when 

a live person could even be reached, were connected to staff persons who were unable to 

provide me with any information, nor get GMAC back on track with the payment plan 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 13 of 58
Agreement. In fact, the Ocwen and GMAC staff persons that could be reached by phone were 

remarkably unhelpful, and none appeared to have any ability or authority whatsoever to get 

things sorted out or make any kind of decision. Finally, one of the staff members admitted in a 

telephone call that "Ocwen was not actually the owner of the loan, they were just the servicing 

company". Does this mean that the Agreement, that Plaintiff entered into in good faith reliance 

on GMAC Mortgage that it was a valid and mutually binding Agreement, was not that at all, 

but merely a farcical attempt on Ocwen's part to extract payments under false pretenses? Yes, it 

now appears that this is indeed the case. 

38. The Defendants, and each of them, in their complicit and mysterious web of who is 

the real- party-in-interest and owner of this note, abrogated the very payment modification 

Agreement to which they had agreed. Why did they renege on their agreement? Absent any 

evidence to the contrary, only one explanation is possible: that it was more profitable for them 

to foreclose on and evict the family that lived in this home, and to take away not only all of 

their life savings, but to cast them out, uproot them from their community, and sell the house 

off to another person, possibly for much, much less than the original amount of the loan. What 

social purpose is served by uprooting one family, and providing a bargain to some other party 

who had not put $75,000.00 of their life savings into this home? 

LENDERS FORECLOSE IN ORDER TO COLLECT ON 

U.S. TREASURY 80% REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM 

39. The purpose and intent of the Defendants U.S. Bank, Bank of America, and 

Citibank, and other financial institutions, some of whom may not yet even be known, is indeed 

nefarious and dark. This is a carefully contrived and structured fmancial scheme, and it harms 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 14 of 58
not only all taxpayers of the United States, but the Plaintiff most cruelly. What is little known 

by the public, or possibly even the judiciary, is that these lenders must complete the foreclosure 

in order to "quantify the loss" - e.g. establish what amount they actually collect (and 

supposedly "lose") for this loan asset foreclosure sale. The lenders then immediately tum to the 

U.S. Treasury, where they are reimbursed at 80% of the face value of the mortgage. However, 

in most cases, the down-the-chain "successor" of the multiple transfers has paid little, or even 

nothing whatsoever, for this note receivable. In 2009, in backroom over-a-weekend sessions 

with then-Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, massive amounts of assets were doled 

out to a select few mega-banks: Countrywide Mortgage went to Bank of America, Chevy Chase 

Bank went to Capital One, IndyMac Bank went to One West, Washington Mutual Savings Bank 

went to JP Morgan Chase, Wachovia Bank and World Savings went to Wells Fargo, etc. The 

mega-banks paid only cents on the dollar, or, in many cases, nothing whatroevEJ', in taking 

over (as compared to actually buying) what were then termed "toxic" assets. 

40. Disturbingly, what is little known by the public, is that concomitant with this out-ofpublic-view mortgage loan asset hand-off was a deal to guarantee these mortgages at 80% of 

their face value to the lenders being assigned them. Herein lies the particularly devious part, 

about which banks do not wish the public to have knowledge: these banks are reimbursed 80% 

of the face value of the mortgage (again, only when they quantify the "loss"; namely complete 

the foreclosure and then claim "we only got 'xyz' dollars"), without examination of what they 

paid, or, more significantly, what they did not pay, to acquire this mortgage. Thus, they are 

supremely motivated to foreclose on families, and in this case, abrogate their modification 

agreement and eject the persons who live here. 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 15 of 58
Following is an illustrative example: 

Bank Receives 

Mortgage Face Amount: $300,000.00 

Bank takes over "failed" institution; buys mortgage for 10% of face value: $30,000.00 

Large bank forecloses on homeowner, sells house to another 

person for $150,000.00 

Bank turns in claim to Dept of Treasury for 80% of 

face value of mortgage: .8 x 300,000 = $240,000.00 

Less amount received from foreclosure sale: 

$240,000.00- 150,000.00 = 90,000.00 

TOTAL COLLECTED BY BANK: 

$150,000.00 

+90.000.00 

$ 240,000.00 

41. However, and this is the big however, the bank paid as little as $30,000.00, or 

in many cases nothing whatsoever (e.g. took over for the loan. Thus, even giving the megabank the benefit of the doubt that they paid as much as $30,000.00 for acquiring the loan, they 

are receiving $240,000.00, a windfall profit of 800%. This is truly unconscionable, particularly 

so when it is on the crushing suffering being inflicted upon the homeowner, who loses their life 

savings, are evicted from their own home, disrupting families, having to change schools, 

putting jobs in jeopardy and disrupting the stability of communities. 

Homeowner Receives 

Loss of down payment and life savings 

Loss of all money and work in capital improvements 

Loss of all interest and principal paydown made 

Ruination of credit, making securing even rental housing difficult 

Displacement of self and family 

Disruption of neighborhoods and community 

Diminution of value of surrounding homes, due to foreclosure sell-off at low price 

Emotional trauma 

Catastrophic financial disaster 

42. There are no mortgage bail-out programs for the homeowners; these were instead 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 16 of 58
exclusively reserved for, and handed out to, the banks. It is no surprise that each and every 

banking institution that received Troubled Asset Recovery Program (TARP) funds in 2008-

2009 has repaid these in full: these have been the most profitable quarters and years in United 

States banking history, for every one of the largest ten banking conglomerates. This is not due 

to their making more loans and earning interest on those loans (rather the contrary, interest 

earnings have been modest (at least in a relative sense to the performance return on banks 

respective asset bases) in recent years, and it is not because of the monumentally profitable 

bank profits such as they experienced in the period of 2002-2007, which derived from the ultrafast-track origination and tum-around sale of these mortgage-backed securities (bundles of 

many home loans). Banks and mortgage companies pushed these loans as "products", even 

calling them that, and imposed interest rates that were increased, just to make the loan 

"commodity" more valuable in the secondary markets. It is not because of credit card earnings; 

statistics show Americans have reduced their credit card debt in the last five years. From 

whence is all of this windfall profit coming? Why do JP Morgan Chase, US Bancorp, Wells 

Fargo Bank, Bank of America, Citibank, Capital One Bank, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley 

report record earnings and record asset balance sheets? The answer lies in their real estate loan 

receivable portfolios, which are American home mortgages, many of which were acquired 

when the now mega -banks took over the "failed" institutions; which read like a litany of the 

ultra-aggressive perpetrators of these home loans that put homeowners such as myself at such 

risk- Countrywide Mortgage, Washington Mutual Savings Bank, World Savings, Wachovia 

Bank, IndyMac Bank, Home Savings of America, Bear-Steams Mortgage, etc. These loans did 

not go away- they just got acquired by the newly emergent monolithic banking institutions -

which spawned the phrase "too big to fail", and led to the creation of the TARP big-bank loans 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 17 of 58
and the U.S. Treasury 80% reimbursement programs. However, for the hundreds of thousands 

of individual American homeowners that still struggle with these loans on their own homes to 

this day, they have been forgotten and discarded as "too small to be of consequence". 

43. It is time that this wrong be corrected, one homeowner at a time, starting with this 

loan. 

44. Consequently, as a matter of justice and equity, not only must the chain of title for 

ownership, from day one of loan origination, until the present date, be produced, but the 

amounts actually paid must be proven by documentary evidence, in each of those transactions, 

for two reasons: 

a. to determine what was paid for purposes of perusal of the matter of equitable 

and fair treatment of the borrower: if some invisible entity is buying the subject 

mortgage for some fraction of its face value, then the borrower should at least 

have the same opportunity to buy back the mortgage on their own home for an 

equivalent amount. 

b. To determine if the sale or transacting of this loan and mortgage were indeed 

contractually valid events, which require that consideration (money) be paid by 

the receiving party to the transferring party in order to be a legally valid 

transaction. 

LENDERS AGGRESSIVELY MARKETED HOME LOANS 

THAT PLACED THE HOMEOWNERS AT UNKOWING RISK 

45. These home loans were aggressively marketed in Oregon and nationwide in the 2002 

to 2007 housing 'boom', with mainland lenders (particularly Greenpoint Mortgage, Bear 

Steams Mortgage, Wells Fargo, Washington Mutual, US Bank, Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 18 of 58
Wachovia, Bank of America, Countrywide), many of which had no branch banking presence in 

the locales where they were pushing these loans, and thus no branch where a homeowner could 

go in, sit down and say: "I don't understand this paragraph", or "I am struggling with this loan, 

what can we do to work this out so it doesn't end in disaster?" swarming to entice homebuyers 

with easy-to-qualify loans (including "stated" income loans, and "no-income qualifiers"), all 

designed to originate massive volumes of loans for these lenders to package together in what 

are termed "mortgage-backed securities", which are nothing other than batches of home 

mortgages, that are sold in bulk to a succession of invisible investors, all buying them to profit 

on the backs of the struggling American homeowners. 

46. Now, neither Greenpoint Mortgage nor GMAC Mortgage even show up as the 

supposed plaintiffs in their attempted state court foreclosure, except possibly in some unknown, 

undefined and secret relationship with "Mortgage Finance Trust Series" ... what is that 

association? Was the real owner of the note even receiving the payments that Plaintiff was 

sending? Who is the owner of this note and mortgage? And what producible proof do they 

have of current ownership and a verifiable chain of ownership transfers, assignments and sales? 

And both Greenpoint and GMAC have eiher disappeared completely (as is the case with the 

former) or declared bankruptcy (as is the case with the latter) 

47. Finally, the mysterious entity that attempted to file and pursue that Lane County 

foreclosure action against me is nothing but an unknown, vague and illusory "trust" of some 

sort or another- a simple reading of the cover page of their complaint exposes this ruse: 

"U.S. Bank, as trustee for Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Trust Mortgage PassThrough Certificates Series 2006-AR4" 

48. Never is an actual bank or real party ever identified or disclosed. It is impossible to 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 19 of 58
discern who is one's counterparty or adversary, a mandatory prerequisite to commencing the 

discovery and production of documents and evidence to make a threshold determination as to 

whether they even have standing to appear, much less to attempt a foreclosure of the Plaintiff's 

property. 

49. Moreover, none of those "trustees" is a tangible party with whom Plaintiff can sit in a 

room and negotiate in good faith any resolution of the matters surrounding this mortgage, 

which long ago became a prerequisite before any foreclosure could commence. 

50. The foregoing being the complex, confusing and confounding situation, it is the 

purpose of this lawsuit to: 

a. determine the real owner of the note and the mortgage, and thus the real party in 

interest; 

b. ascertain what monetary consideration was exchanged for each transfer of the note 

and/or mortgage; 

c. devise a judicially supervised reasonable and equitable resolution and modification of 

this home loan to prevent catastrophic financial injury, emotional harm and 

disruption to Plaintiff and his family; 

d. examine and evaluate in this court of law what state and federal laws have been 

violated by the parties and their affiliates who have attempted foreclosure; 

e. determine what fiscal remuneration for Plaintiff and remonstration against Defendants 

is warranted as a result of the foregoing. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

Fraud 

51. All of the elements of fraud are present. Defendants US Bank, MERS, BofA, Citi, 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 20 of 58
Ally, Ocwen and their employees, agents, attorneys, contractors and assignees, have signed 

purported transfers, affidavits and other documents in the in the long history of these 

documents from the moment of origination of this loan until the present date prior to attempting 

to initiate foreclosure proceedings (a) which contained representations, (b) which were material 

to the foreclosure proceedings, (c) some of which were made with knowledge of the falsity and 

others which were made with utter disregard for whether they were true or false, (d) which 

were made with the intent of misleading the courts and opposing parties into relying upon 

them, and upon which the courts and the opposing parties justifiably relied. 

52. Defendants US Bank, MERS, BofA, Citi, Ally, and Ocwen directed their employees, 

affiliate companies, attorneys, and assignees and agents in conducting mortgage foreclosure 

activities in Oregon and nationwide, benefiting financially from the filing of false affidavits, 

assignments and other documents. These were (a) representations made at the direction of 

Defendants (b) which were material to foreclosure proceedings, (c) which were made with 

knowledge of their falsity or with utter disregard for whether they were true or false, (d) which 

were made with the intent of misleading the courts and opposing parties into relying upon 

them, and on which the courts and the opposing parties justifiably relied. 

53. The Defendants US Bank, MERS, BofA, Citi, Ally, and Ocwen have attempted to 

conduct foreclosure proceedings without producing any chain of title, much less proof of 

current ownership of the Note or Deed of Trust, intentionally to avoid accountability, and to 

abort and avoid defenses lawfully available to the party from whom the property is being taken 

or which attempts are being made to take such property. This was done purposefully and 

intentionally by these lenders, banks, mortgage servicing companies, foreclosure processing 

companies and title companies to conceal defects in their chain of title and assignments. 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 21 of 58
54. The original note has never been produced, with the resultant failure to prove 

ownership or standing to conduct a foreclosure. Absent the note and legally cognizable chain of 

transfer or assignment, with consideration for such transfer or assignment proven, Defendants 

may have been intentionally destroyed documents due to missing assignments on the note 

which render it void and a legal nullity, thus having expunged and exploited key and vital 

evidence. 

55. Other unnamed and disclosed real parties in interest may have a claim to the note and 

the subject property, and be the rightful beneficial owners to the note and/or the subject 

property, and must be identified and brought before the Court. 

56. Absent the original note and mortgage trust deed, and a complete and verifiable 

chain of assignments, the subject note may have been destroyed or lost intentionally, and 

attempting to hide the beneficial owners and shield them from any assignee liability arising 

from the actions of the servicer who they hire and supervise. 

57. Any subsequent endorsements following loan origination are demonstrably not in the 

records of the Lane County Recorder, excepting only the much later (almost 10 years after the 

origination of the subject loan; recorded after the 2009 loan agreement modification with 

GMAC Mortgage, during which five year time, no public recordation of any alleged 'transfer' 

or sale of the subject note or mortgage had ever been disclosed; Plaintiff had no way to tell who 

his loan was actually owned by then, and to this date still has no way to discern who might own 

this loan). By this tardy assignment recording, Greenpoint and MERS introduced a variety and 

string of purported "trustees" and "trusts", which may (or may not) have been involved in this 

chain of custody and sales of the note and mortgage, rights to collect payments, or any rights to 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 22 of 58
declare a default, much less to attempt to foreclose on the Plaintiff homeowner. By failing to 

record the multiple alleged assignments, Defendants attempted to avoid payment of required 

Oregon and Lane County statutory transfer fees and taxes and to hide true and real beneficial 

interests. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violations of Orea:on Revised Statues §§ 86.010 et seq 

58. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as if completely rewritten herein, the facts and 

allegations hereinabove set forth in this Complaint. 

59. Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in a pattern and practice of unfair, 

deceptive, and unconscionable acts in violation of Oregon Revised Code§§86.010 et seq by 

authorizing and directing the filing of affidavits, assignments and other documents that were 

false and by proceeding to foreclosure on properties in spite of the false affidavits, assignments 

and other documents. 

60. Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in a pattern and practice of unfair, deceptive, 

and unconscionable acts in violation of Oregon Revised Code§§ 86.010 et seq by conducting 

their improper and illegal mortgage foreclosure activities, by benefiting financially from the 

filing of false affidavits, the filing of incorrect assignments and other documents, and by 

proceeding with foreclosure proceedings in spite of the affidavits, assignments and other 

documents that were false, by concealing, hiding, failing to produce, and potentially destroying 

documents as may evidence ownership or the real parties in interest of the subject Notes and 

Trust Deeds. 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 23 of 58
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

COMMISSION OF UNFAIR. DECEPTIVE and FRAUADULENT PRACTICES 

61. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as if complete! y rewritten herein, the facts and 

allegations hereinabove set forth in this Complaint. 

62. All of the elements of fraud are present. The Defendants, and each of them, and their 

employees, agents, attorneys, contractors and assignees, have signed affidavits and other 

documents in these Oregon foreclosure proceedings (a) which contained representations, (b) 

which were material to the foreclosure proceedings, (c) some of which were made with 

knowledge of the falsity and others which were made with utter disregard for whether they 

were true or false, (d) which were made with the intent of misleading the courts and opposing 

parties into relying upon them, and upon which the courts and the opposing parties justifiably 

relied. 

63. The Defendants directed their affiliate companies, and assignees and agents in 

conducting mortgage foreclosure activities in Oregon, benefiting financially from the filing of 

false affidavits, assignments and other documents. These were (a) representations made at the 

direction of Defendants (b) which were material to foreclosure proceedings, (c) which were 

made with knowledge of their falsity or with utter disregard for whether they were true or false, 

(d) which were made with the intent of misleading the courts and opposing parties into relying 

upon them, and on which the courts and the opposing parties justifiably relied. 

64. The Defendants have previously attempted to conduct foreclosure proceedings 

outside Court scrutiny in a "notice and trustee's sale" process, also known as a "non-judicial 

foreclosure" process, intentionally to avoid accountability, and to abort and avoid defenses 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 24 of 58
lawfully available to the party from whom the property is being taken or which attempts are 

being made to take such property. This is done purposefully and intentionally by lenders, 

banks, mortgage servicing companies, foreclosure processing companies and title companies to 

avoid having to produce proof of Note and Trust Deed ownership, and to conceal defects in 

their chain of title and assignments. All of the subject cases are statutorily defective, due to 

their having failed to comply with the clear specification of not merely one, but two Oregon 

Statutes: 

86.060 Assignment of mortgage. Mortgages may be assigned by an instrument in writing, 

executed and acknowledged with the same formality as required in deeds and mortgages of real 

property, and recorded in the records of mortgages of the county where the land is situated. 

Thus, all attempts to transfer or assign the mortgage, as has been attempted by MERS, are 

statutorily defective, as this section clearly recites the requirement of the same formality as 

required in deeds and mortgages. and recorded in the records of morgages of the county where 

the land is situated. These notes are therefore still owned by the original mortgage beneficiary, 

which is the ONLY party that has authority to conduct any foreclosure proceeding. 

86.735 Foreclosure by advertisement and sale. The trustee may foreclose a trust deed 

by advertisement and sale in the manner provided in ORS 86.740 to 86.755 if: 

(L) The trust deed, any assignments of the trust deed by the trustee or the beneficiary 

and any appointment of a successor trustee are recorded in the mortgage records in the 

counties in which the property described in the deed is situated; and 

All MERS assignments and transfers are statutorily defective. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violations of United States Securities Laws 

Section 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 

Fraudulent Interstate Transactions 

65. The subject Property title is further clouded by the Defendants US Bank, MERS, 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 25 of 58
BofA, Citi, Ally, and Ocwen fraudulent violations of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 

1933. While Defendants might contend that Plaintiff herein is not an investor in such securities, 

The United States Supreme Court specifically observed that: 

"nothing on the face of the statute requires a plaintiff to reach investor 

status in order to avail himself of section 17(a) remedies." 

See United States v. Naftalin, 579 F.2d 444,445 (8th Cir. 1978); notes 14 & 18 supra; 

441 U.S.; Id. at 772; see note 7 supra 

66. While that ruling was in a context of Supreme Court case involving securities 

brokers, it has applicability herein by way of Section 17(a)(2) containing no recital that antifraud remedies are available to only "investors" in the securities in question. 

67. Concealed ownership via the securitized offerings with which the Plaintiffs 

mortgage was clearly involved - this is obviated by way of the "US Bank as Trustee for 

Greenpoint Mortgage Trust Series" which is itself an aggregation of individual home loans into 

a "package" that was sold as a securitized financial investments[20], automatically invoking 

Securities and Exchange Commission regulatory applicability and jurisdiction. clandestine 

transacting and transferring outside of the Lane County public recorder's office, invokes the 

fraud provisions of Section 17(a)(2) (3) of the Securities Act of 1933. 

68. Defendants US Bank, MERS, BofA, Citi, Ally, and Ocwen knowingly violated 

Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, specifically: 

FRAUDULENT INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS 

SEC. 17. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person in the offer or sale of any securities 

(including security-based swaps) or any security- based swap agreement (as defined in 

section 3(a)(78) of the Securities Exchange Act) by the use of any means or instruments 

of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use 

of the mails, directly or indirectly-

(1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, or 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 26 of 58
(2) to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material 

fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements 

made Defendants US Bank, MERS, BofA, Citi, Ally, and Ocwen: 

a) made untrue statements of material facts, and 

b) omitted to disclose that the note and mortgage trust deed had purportedly been 

transferred to another party or buyer, and 

c) obtained money by means of these untrue statements and omissions of material facts, 

inasmuch as it is a reasonable presumption that the recipient of money transacted this via 

Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR4, 

which is a security as defined under the United States Security Act of 1933, as follows: 

DEFINITIONS 

SEC. 2. (a) DEFINITIONS.-When used in this title, unless the context otherwise 

requrres-

(1) The term "security" means any note ... evidence of indebtedness, certificate of 

interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust 

certificate ... or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or 

based on the value thereof) ... or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly 

known as a "security", or any certificate of interest or participation in, receipt 

for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the 

foregoing. 

69. The ultimate owner or owners of said securities are not yet known to Plaintiff, which 

ultimate owners may later become added within the group of currently unknown Doe 

defendants. 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 27 of 58
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Breach of Trustee Fiduciary Duty 

70. As against US Bank, who asserts that they are trustees in the case they had filed in 

the Lane County Court: The trustee's roles in the subject mortgage transactions appear to have 

been inadequately examined, particularly with multiple secret hand-offs and concealed attempts 

at transfers of ownerships of interests in real property- specifically trust deed mortgages - and 

the responsibility of such trustees to conduct their fiduciary duty to the client party by whom 

they have been compensated: by the receipt of interest payments received from the property 

buyer I borrower, who is the Plaintiff herein. 

71. In the instant case, US Bank acted in a trustee capacity, purportedly regarding 

financial instruments in which Plaintiff has a clear interest. The only person known to have 

paid, and thus hired, in the subject loan transaction was the Plaintiff, deriving from mortgage 

origination points paid, loan fees, and subsequent interest payments made of many thousands of 

dollars. These trustees thus owe a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff, having accepted compensation 

engagement as an alleged trustee. These Defendants also have an inalienable fiduciary 

responsibility to protect the interests of their client, which they appear to believe they can 

blithely abrogate by opting out of their responsibilities as trustee, when they substitute other 

successor trustees in the course of events. 

72. It is possible that US Bank may have a dual, and conflictoo inta-est, role in 

potentially attempting to also be trustee for the various other entities, including MERS, Bank of 

America, GMAC Mortgage and Ally. 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 28 of 58
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

73. Violation of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The acts and 

omissions of Defendants US Bank, MERS, BofA, Citi, Ally, and Ocwen utilized means which 

were false, deceptive and/or misleading. In attempting the collection of this debt, Defendants 

did and do utilize unfair and/or unconscionable means of collections against Plaintiff, which 

have caused the harm to be caused to the Plaintiff herein, who now owns property which has 

clouded and defective title. 

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Oreanizations Act 

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961-1968 

Double Damaees Apply 

74. The frequency and persistence of the behaviors of Defendants US Bank, MERS, 

BofA, Citi, Ally, and Ocwen is so nationally widespread, repeat and continuous that it cannot 

be characterized other than as profligate, insidious, and pervasive, and it can only be 

characterized as a pattern of behavior so institutionalized and pervasive that it conforms to the 

definition of racketeering, as defined under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 

Organizations Act (RICO) prescriptions. 

75. Each of the Defendants US Bank, MERS, BofA, Citi, Ally, and Ocwen, and their 

owners, officers, directors and agents have committed not less than two federal and/or state 

crimes. The requisite number per 18 U.S.C Sec 1961 is thus met: 

18 U.S.C. § 1957. Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 29 of 58
specified unlawful activity sets forth: 

(a) Whoever, in any of the circumstances set forth in subsection (d), 

knowingly engages or attempts to engage in a monetary transaction in 

criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000 and is derived 

from specified unlawful activity 

(f) As used in this section-

(1) the term "monetary transaction" means the deposit, withdrawal, 

transfer, or exchange, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, of 

funds or a monetary instrument (as defmed in section 1956(c)(5) of this 

title) by, through, or to a financial institution (as defined in section 1956 of 

this title), including any transaction that would be a financial transaction 

under section 1956( c)( 4 )(B) of this title, 

(2) the term "criminally derived property" means any property constituting, 

or derived from, proceeds obtained from a criminal offense; and 

(3) the terms "specified unlawful activity" and "proceeds" shall have 

the meaning given those terms in section 1956 of this title. 

76. Defendants US Bank, MERS, BofA, Citi, Ally, and Ocwen have contrived, conspired and 

colluded to create and an illegal scheme of recordation, commonplace utilization of falsified 

documents and intentionally obstructed justice in hiding documents as would evidence either 

ownership or divulging financial accounting disclosure in profiteer activities. So insidious are 

these practices that they can only be deterred via the imposition of an order of RICO violations, 

and the concurrent double damages clause as set forth therein. 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 30 of 58
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Conversion 

Conversion by US Bank, MERS, BofA, Citi, Ally, and Ocwen 

77. The nature of the noncompliance is Defendants attempt to convert the property, and 

all of the down-payment, costs of property acquisition and capital improvement expenses 

invested by Plaintiff to the Defendants own cash, by the Defendants' attempt to foreclose on 

Plaintiffs Home. 

78. The noncompliance is intentional; as demonstrably evidenced in thousands of similar 

cases nationwide, Defendants US Bank, MERS, BofA, Citi, Ally, and Ocwen continue 

unrelentingly to attempt to conduct their foreclosures. They cannot feign ignorance, and thus 

their practice is clearly intentional. 

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Restraint of Trade 

79. Plaintiff has been harmed by all Defendants in now being restricted, as a result of the 

actions of Defendants from being able to refinance or, at any later date, sell the Property, as 

Plaintiff now has constructive notice that title to the property is defective, due to the defective 

mortgage currently of record. Should Plaintiff fail to disclose, in any potential sale or refinance 

transaction, that he has constructive notice of same, then Plaintiff would become complicit in 

the illegal scheme perpetrated by Defendants, and incur financially substantial liability, and 

possibly even criminal fraud liability. Consequently, this constitutes both: 

a) financial harm which grows worse with each passing month while Plaintiff cannot 

replace the existing loan put in place at the time of purchase, and 

b) a restraint on Plaintiff's ability to transact or later sell the Property, as no sale could 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 31 of 58
occur without Plaintiff intentionally concealing the defect in title (which Plaintiff will not do), 

thus imposing a concealed liability to any subsequent purchaser, or accepting a diminution of 

value as compensation for a subsequent purchase to purchase the Property with its appurtenant 

title defect. 

80. There is nothing which prevents a presently unknown entity from claiming to be the 

actual owner of the Note and/or Deed of Trust, which would further impair the title to the 

Property, and would cause Plaintiff to have to expend time and costs to defend against loss of 

the Property into which he has invested substantially. 

Contravention of Reasonable Public Policy 

81. Defendants US Bank, MERS, BofA, Citi, Ally, and Ocwen have engaged in practices 

which constitute a contravention of reasonable public policy, by dislocating one resident for 

another, often entire families, causing massive life disruption, loss of jobs, forced moves to 

different schools, economic hardships, impairment of credit, emotional distress, and even 

breakup of families. These Defendants attempt to foreclose, throw the owner out on the street, 

then sell or rent to someone else for a reduced price due to the diminished economic state of the 

market. This contravenes reasonable public policy, in dislocating American persons and 

families merely to serve the financial agenda - and monumental monetary gain - of the banks, 

mortgage companies, and the law firms they engage to pursue these foreclosures. As a 

consequence of this, it is incumbent upon this Court to see to the cessation of the rampant 

proliferation of the same. 

! 

i 

: 

I 

f 

[; 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i 

~ 

I 

I 

I 

t 

! 

f 

! 

! 

t 

1: 

t 

I 

l 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 32 of 58
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Obstruction of Justice 

82. Defendants US Bank, MERS, BofA, Citi, Ally, and Ocwen have, both individually, 

and as a cooperative undertaking amongst various alliances amongst themselves, conspired to 

obstruct the carriage of justice in the within matters and transaction. The combination of 

intentional violations of law, secret transfers not recorded in the public record, hidden 

ownership interests (including securities ownership and fractional ownerships via the Chase 

Greenpoint Mortgage Finance Trust), using falsified documents, relying on "documents" which 

do not even appear to exist (i.e. the purported transfer of ownership of the note and mortgage 

trust deed from Greenpoint and GMAC Mortgage), stubborn refusal to produce documents 

requested, and attempts at avoidance of scrutiny by courts by way of quickly filing motions to 

dismiss and for summary judgment, together comprise an intentional attempt by all Defendants 

to obstruct justice. While Plaintiff does not pretend (and obviously cannot) to assert a claim of 

criminal obstruction of justice1

, 

83. 18 USC Chapter 73, Sections 1505 (Obstruction of Proceedings before departments, 

agencies and committees), 1517 (Obstructing examination of financial institution) and 1520 

(Destruction of corporate audit records). 

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Wron&ful Foreclosure - Quiet Title 

84. Defendants US Bank, MERS, BofA, Citi, Ally, and Ocwen have engaged in a pattern 

and practice of unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable acts in violation of Oregon Revised Code 

Although eoch and e.~e~:y one of thewithi n civil deenclants is and has been the rubject of many criminal investigations 

by state and fooe~:al Attorneys General, and Ptantiff herein has rE;questoo ~fie investigation by the Oregon 

Department of Justice into the transa:;ti ons which ere the rubj ect matter of this ci vi I compl ant. 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 33 of 58
by authorizing and directing the filing of affidavits, assignments and other documents that were 

false and by proceeding to foreclosure on properties in spite of the false affidavits, assignments 

and other documents. 

85. Defendants US Bank, MERS, BofA, Citi, Ally, and Ocwen have engaged in a pattern 

and practice of unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable acts in violation of Hawai'i law, by 

conducting their improper and illegal mortgage foreclosure activities, and by benefiting 

financially from the filing and failing to produce assignments and other documents, and by 

proceeding with foreclosure proceedings in spite of the affidavits, assignments and other 

documents that were false, by concealing, hiding, failing to produce, and potentially destroying 

documents as may evidence ownership or the real parties in interest of the subject note and 

mortgage deed of trust. 

86. Notes are pledged, sold, bifurcated, and traded in various derivative transactions. 

Only possession of the actual original note can prove the actual owner and holder in due 

course. It is not yet known if the subject mortgage was ever registered in the MERS system. As 

recently upheld by the Washington Supreme Court in Bain v. Metropolitan Mortgage Group, it 

was definitively ruled that MERS was not a lawful beneficiary and did not have the right to 

appoint trustees. The decision states: 

"A plain reading of the statute leads us to conclude that only the actual holder of the 

promissory note or other instrument evidencing the obligation may be a beneficiary 

with the power to appoint a trustee to proceed with a foreclosure on real property. 

Simply put, if MERS does not hold the note, it is not a lawful beneficiary". 

87. A "nominee" such as MERS has no legal authority to foreclose upon the Plaintiff. 

MERS also maintains a defective claim to simultaneous status as "nominee" and as "holding 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 34 of 58
only legal title", two clearly contradictory roles and definitions. 

MERS pretends to be a "beneficiary", but is not; they have never had any financial interest 

whatsoever in the mortgage trust deed, and thus cannot gain any right to claim they were ever 

an actual beneficiary. 

88. Lenders are beneficiaries under the statute if they are the ones "designated in the 

trust deed as the person[s] for whose benefit [the] trust deed is given. MERS never was a 

lender; a lender is defined as "one who loans money". 

89. MERS mere self-recital that they are a "beneficiary" is abjectly devoid of any 

meaning. Were that to be taken without delving into the legally cognizable definition of a 

beneficiary, then any corporation, or a falsely made-up name, could be simply inserted into a 

deed of trust. No court would endorse such a sham, or could recognize any purported later 

assignment by corporation, or falsely made-up fictitious entity. And no court informed of the 

above can endorse the sham of pretending that MERS is a legal beneficiary, simply because 

"MERS" says they are. The trust deed language was written by the Defendant MERS and their 

member banks and to suit their wholly owned and controlled secretive "recordation" scheme. 

"MERS", and their self-proclamations, do not create something which is not. 

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Unfair Practices- Gross Financial Inequity 

90. Plaintiff is suffering from the injustice of a gross financial inequity, as lender is 

protected by three governmental guarantees: 

i. FDIC 80% lender guarantee based on original note balance 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 35 of 58
ii. Mortgage Insurance policies risk-of-loss insurance not available to 

borrowers (Note: over 70% of all mortgage insurance policies were 

underwritten, issued and held by AIG, which was the largest single 

recipient of TARP (Troubled Asset Recovery Program) governmentdistributed funds. 

iii. TARP bailout funds distributed to Bank of America, Citibank and US 

Bank, 

while the borrowers have no similar protections whatsoever, thus an egregiously inequitable 

situation is extant. 

90. Inequity due to gross imbalance of monumentally vast financial and legal resources 

at the disposal of banks, compared to the financially disadvantaged consumer borrowers, as a 

matter of "equity" in the courts. Plaintiff herein does not have financial resources to even hire a 

single attorney, while the Defendants have, in any comparative measure, effectively unlimited 

financial and legal resources at their disposal, and bring them to bear against the disadvantaged 

Plaintiff, as Defendants US Bank, MERS, BofA, Citi, Ally, and Ocwen work feverishly to 

avoid a case precedent that is expositive of their abuses in foreclosures, fraudulent activities, 

and flagrant violations of Oregon and federal laws, their profiteering at the expense of total 

and catastrophic losses by property owners, who are at risk of the loss of ALL of their down 

payment savings and monies invested in capital improvements, while the banks are protected 

by insurances and taxpayers monies to which the homeowners have no access. 

91. When the real estate markets collapsed in Oregon in 2008-09, and have not yet 

recovered, the individual homeowner Plaintiff was at a monumentally disadvantageous and 

! 

I 

I 

! 

I 

f 

f 

I 

t 

I 

t 

! 

I 

i 

~ 

f 

! 

I i 

! 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 36 of 58
inferior position to each of the extreme-wealth Defendants. This alone is sufficient cause to 

weigh the inequities and relative respective financial and emotional injury inflicted upon the 

Plaintiff vs. the "harm" suffered by Defendants (as above set forth, the 'harm' they shrilly cried 

of having to absorb "toxic" assets of portfolios of home loans is abjectly farcical; the Defendant 

banks US Bank, MERS, BofA, Citi, Ally, and Ocwen each have monumentally profited on the 

back of both U.S. Taxpayers and foreclosed homeowners. But the underlying truth is even more 

insidious: this situation was caused by the insatiable greed of the mega-banks. I did not design, 

create, and procure these no-income qualifier and 'stated-income' loans into the marketplace, 

these lenders did; the lenders did so for a single reason: their own stratospheric profit, buying 

and selling batches of mortgage portfolios in the secondary market. Investigations by state 

attorneys general, and by the United States Department of Justice, the new Financial 

Institutions Oversight Committee and by the Securities and Exchange Commission have slowly 

and incrementally revealed the rampant and pervasive extent to which the banking industry was 

instrumentally responsible for having made real estate purchase credit available at what 

appeared to be increasingly attractive terms to hopeful homebuyers, which caused property 

prices to explode; buyers worried they would never be able to afford to own a home for their 

family; so, they gathered all of their savings, in order to buy a home before they would be 

forever priced out of the market. The banks, with teams of highly educated and specialized 

economists, propagated and fueled - by providing these so-called "easy-qualifier" loans - this 

overheated market, while furiously selling off and trading these mortgage-backed securities 

portfolios, all based on what is, from any competent economists perspective, an abjectly 

unsustainable inflation of prices: income levels simply do not support hat level of housing 

costs. But the home buyers - and I did not know this - all they knew was that they seemed to 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 37 of 58
have one last chance to buy a home for their families before prices raced forever out of reach. 

92. Now, after the windfall profits reaped by, US Bank, Citibank and Bank of America, 

they seek to go again return to the cache of golden coins, take away the Plaintiffs property, tum 

around and sell the house to someone else, and then collect at the winnings window of the U.S. 

Treasury. It is incumbent upon this Court to prevent this egregious inequity from occurring. 

THIRTEENTHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Obstruction of .Justice- RESPA Violations 

93. "Servicers must respond with the information requested by the borrower'' 12 

U.S.C. Sec 2605(e)(2)(C)(i)". Despite Plaintiffs two separate submissions under RESPA 

Qualified Written Requests (QWR's), Ocwen and GMAC (aka Ally) failed to produce even a 

single page of the documents that were actually requested (evidences of legal transfer, proof of 

custodianship of original documents, current location of original documents, chain of custody 

of original documents, certified copies of blue ink signed original notes and trust deeds, 

evidence of amounts paid at each alleged transfer). Defendants steadfastly and persistently 

refused to supply any documents which would connect them to any present day claim of 

ownership. 

94. This intentional and purposeful failure to produce documents constitutes no less 

than a clear violation of Federal law, under RESPA, 12 USC Section 2605, and an obstruction 

of justice by Defendants. 

FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Unfair and Bad Faith Dealin& 

95. Defendants US Bank, MERS, BofA, Citi, Ally, and Ocwen have engaged in practices 

which constitute Unfair and Bad Faith Dealing, with a secret hidden agenda of making it 

! 

f 

! 

I 

! 

t 

i 

I 

t 

f 

l 

i 

f 

t 

! I 

r 

i fc 

r 

f 

! 

f 

I 

I 

t 

i i 

~ 

t 

l 

I 

I 

' I 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 38 of 58
appear to the public that they are negotiating mortgage modifications in earnest, when they are 

actually completing only a select few that "fit" the federal Homeowner Retention Plan, and 

even deceiving their own staff members (who are fed the "company line" and perhaps 

genuinely believe they are actually trying to get workouts completed), with the real agenda 

being to take the property, thus be able to declare and quantify the "loss", and recover money 

(that is, taxpayer money) based on the face value of the original note, irrespective of what they 

actually paid for it. This, of course, is why the lenders fiercely persist in failing to turn over 

evidentiary documents, it is why they try to further hide and conceal the ownership transfers, 

and why the Defendants pretend they don't have them, produce only copies of the note and 

Trust Deed, but not the ownership, transfer or amount paid documents. Because of this unfair 

and bad faith dealing, the Plaintiff is at risk of suffering damages including the loss of their 

savings and down payment funds exceeding $115,000.00, capital improvements made over the 

course of nearly a decade, and tens of thousands of dollars in interest payments made. 

FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of the Consumer Credit Protection Act 

Truth In Lendin& 

96. Violation of the Consumer Credit Protection Act 15 U.S.C. Section 1640 (Truth in 

Lending). Jurisdiction is applicable, as action may be brought in any US District Court per 15 

USC Sec 1640(e). Additionally, per 15 USC Sec 1640 (a)(2)(A)(iv), in the cases of an 

individual action relating to a credit transaction not under an open-end credit plan that is 

secured by real property; thus applicability is relevant. 

97. Not only were the original loan documents setting up a situation for the Plaintiff that 

was not explained, nor was Plaintiff informed by Greenpoint that his loan might (actually 

! 

t 

' t 

~ 

I 

f 

! 

' I 

I 

! 

I 

! 

' 

' i 

t 

e 

' 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 39 of 58
would, as it was clearly the premeditated intention of Greenpoint to sell this loan off to another 

'investor' or to other unknown parties right from the origination of the loan) be sold off to an 

unknown, unidentified and unreachable owner, with whom Plaintiff could establish no bilateral 

dialogue, nor with whom Plaintiff could not meet and converse about loan modification 

discussions when the real estate marketplace collapsed, rendering Plaintiff at an unbelievably 

inferior disadvantage to those who owned - and those who claimed to own, his home loan. 

SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of Federal Debt Collection Practices Act- Section 1692 

98. 15 USC, Chapter 41, § 1692j. Furnishing certain deceptive forms (a) It is unlawful to 

design, compile, and furnish any form knowing that such form would be used to create the false 

belief in a consumer that a person other than the creditor of such consumer is participating in 

the collection of or in an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegedly owes such creditor, 

when in fact such person is not so participating. 

99. The FDCPA, Section 1692 reads as though the lawmakers who passed this law 

contemplate, or have observed, and thus precipitated necessity of legislative enactments and 

protections, creditor violations exactly as have been done by JPMC, US Bank, Wells Fargo and 

Chase. 

a. These Defendants and their predecessors, on whose documents they rely to attempt to 

foreclose, designed, compiled and furnished the forms. 

b. These Defendants and their predecessors, knew that their forms would create a false 

belief that a person other than the creditor ("creditor" is defined as one who extends credit; the 

party or lender who actually provides the money) is participating in the attempt to collect a 

debt, when in fact such person is not participating. 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 40 of 58
c. These Defendants went to great lengths to create an impression that they were the 

"beneficiary", iterating such throughout the myriad 'trustees' and unknown 'trust entities', when, 

in fact, none of these entities either the creditor, or a beneficiary. A beneficiary is "person for 

whose benefit the trust deed is given". MERS also does not fit this definition, as the person 

[party] for whose benefit the trust deed was given was the lender, and the lender alone, who 

provided the item of contractual benefit and consideration [money] to the borrower. 

100. This is a clear and direct violation of federal law, and the Defendants violation of 

same has caused catastrophic financial harm to the Plaintiff. 

101. The FDCPA, Section 1692 (b) recites: "Any person who violates this section shall 

be liable to the same extent and in the same manner as a debt collector is liable under section 

1692k of this title for failure to comply with a provision of this subchapter". 

102. Violation of 15 USC, Chapter 41, Sec 1692K, the Debt Collection Practices Act. 

(DCPA.),(b) Factors considered by court: 

"In determining the amount of liability in any action under subsection (a) of this section, the 

court shall consider, among other relevant factors-

(1) in any individual action under subsection (a)(2)(A) of this section, the frequency 

and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such 

noncompliance, and the extent to which such noncompliance was intentional". 

SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Unjust Enrichment - Windfall Profits 

103. Judicial Notice is requested to recognize that none of the Defendant banks that have 

been allegedly "burdened". "Burdened" is a misnomer; these were arrangements whereby 

certain banks were given TARP funds and supported by government (taxpayer funded) 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 41 of 58
fmancial guarantees with taking over failed institutions, i.e. Bank of America taking over 

Countrywide; Wells Fargo taking over Wachovia & World Savings, One West taking over 

Indy Mac, JP Morgan Chase taking over Washington Mutual, Capital One taking over Chevy 

Chase ... this was little other than a back-room card game, doling out the monumentally valuable 

(made more so by their loans being guaranteed by the federal government and taxpayers in the 

process) assets, which was completed secretly outside public inclusion or scrutiny. It is no 

happenstance that one does not hear of banks complaining that they have been forced to take 

over so-called "toxic assets"; this is because they are covertly monumentally profiting, as 

described hereinabove. This has set the stage for windfall profits to be reaped by the banks, to 

the gross prejudice and harm of the Plaintiffs. This is why we observe JP Morgan Chase, US 

Bank, Wells Fargo and the other giant banks reporting, in the preceding five fiscal quarters, the 

largest profits in their histories. . .it is not due to new lending activity (which is now largely 

FannieMae and Freddie Mac standardized loans) or due to efficiencies and reductions in bank 

expenses, it is because they purchased the batches of home loans, or even entire former 

institutional mortgage lenders, for a fraction of their face value. 

Example: Bank of America acquired all assets and receivables of Countrywide Mortgage 

for less than one cent on the dollar, in a secret, out-of-public-scrutiny, weekend meeting; they 

are happy to foreclose on a $100,000 loan they paid $1 ,000 for, make it appear that they are 

"suffering" because they are "only" getting, say, 50% of the amount due, which would equate 

to $50,000 from the foreclosure sale, then turning the claimed "loss" which is now quantified 

(which only occurs when they complete the foreclosure, and thus quantify the "loss") in for 

"loss coverage" to FDIC, which pays them the difference between the amount received and the 

80% of the face value of the note, which equals $80,000; thus, they get $30,000 from FDIC, 

~ 1 

l 

[ 

! 

~ 

I 

I 

i 

i 

i 

I 

i 

I 

t 

I 

I 

t 

! 

t 

~ 

i l 

! 

J 

! 

f 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 42 of 58
plus the $50,000 from the roughshod foreclosure; therefore, they are receiving $80,000.00 for a 

note for which they paid $1,000. A more profitable scheme is scarcely able to be conceived. 

This is a 7900% return on investment, a monumental windfall. 

104. It is not only possible, but reasonably certain, that exactly the same circumstance 

has occurred in the subject JPMC Mortgage and subsequent "transfers", and assignments. The 

only way this can ever be discovered by the Plaintiff, and by this Court, is to require: 

i.) Production of all documents of the chain of ownership passing of both the note 

and mortgage trust deed, and 

ii.) Production of all documents, evidence, checks, wire transfers, exchange of 

money or other consideration which was involved at each fulcrum point of each 

transfer. 

105. This may take a bit of investigative work, perhaps be a bit burdensome (but, given 

the amount of money involved, and the pervasive practice by the Defendants herein, it does not 

meet a standard of "unduly burdensome" to attempt to resist production); however, it is 

essential and mandatory to determine what the extents and amounts of Unjust Enrichment and 

Windfall Profits have been for the Defendants herein. 

106. The Plaintiff has no such protections, and no similar access to windfall profits. 

Instead, the Plaintiff has suffered, and continue to suffer damages including the loss of his 

savings and down payment funds, should any foreclosure be allowed to conclude. 

107. This is not right. This is not just. This is not equitable, by any stretch of 

opinion. It is a matter of justice and equity that must be administered by this Court. 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 43 of 58
EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

Contract of Adhesion 

108. In each and every instance, the loan documents which were presented to the 

Plaintiff were entirely of the lenders own devisement. If a borrower wished to purchase a 

property, they had no choice but to sign the documents placed in front of them by the lenders. 

The Plaintiff was afforded no opportunity to propose amendments, or adjust language to create 

balanced lender-borrower contractual relationships. These are true contracts of adhesion: sign it 

or get out of the office. Worse still, these documents are lengthy tomes, which contain language 

that even many persons within the industry cannot decipher or interpret, such as in reference 

their recitals of simultaneous status as "nominee" and as "holding only legal title", but then 

later claiming to be the "beneficiary", with unbridled self-appointed license to assign and 

transfer with wanton disregard for state law. So profligate is the "industry standard" of 

presenting pre-printed contracts with no chance for the other party to suggest language and 

content for their own protection, that lenders have adopted the undeniably arrogant position 

that their loan documents are irrefutably appropriate. Moreover, lenders, the Defendants 

herein, adopt this presumptive posture for the sake of their own "efficiency" and "uniformity", 

such that they retain absolute control and the upper hand in the event of any later loan 

disagreement or "default", with lenders having effectively sole position to unilaterally assert 

(merely by their own proclamation, with no supporting evidence or documentation) that a 

default is purported to have occurred, and thus abjectly unfair and imbalanced relationship 

between the parties. 

109. These banks were intent on maximizing their loan production volumes by removing 

any requirement of reasonable ascertaining of borrower income capacity to make loan 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 44 of 58
payments, and then worsened the situation by creating and participating in a "secondary 

market", often called "mortgage securitization", where batches of home loans were packaged 

into "portfolios", and sold to other investors and institutions; moreover, and worse still, these 

lenders were motivated to charge the highest rate possible to the borrowers, as the higher rate 

notes were worth more in these secondary markets, in many cases even more than the face 

amount of the loan. 

110. The Defendants cannot bifurcate and distance themselves from the original 

circumstances and actions of the original lender by their insertion of a multiplicity of 'trustees' 

and unknown 'trust entities', as it is on these same original loan documents on which they 

purport to be able to claim any interest in the real property, and thus attempt to conduct any 

foreclosure sale, provided, of course, that they can even document and prove a legally valid 

chain of ownership in accord with Oregon Revised Statutes. The Defendants cannot selectively 

pluck out the portions which describe security interests or foreclosure, and yet not select the 

terms and situation under which the loans were propounded upon the borrowers. 

111. The subject loan in the instant case was a "no-income qualifier"; that is, Greenpoint 

Mortgage, by loan guidelines which were entirely of their own devisement, and about which 

loan underwriting criteria the borrowers had no say or input whatsoever, approved the 

borrowers while intentionally ignoring analysis of the borrower's ability to pay the proposed 

payments. 

112. These lenders, the Defendants herein, did this for one reason: profiteering, to the 

extreme detriment and harm of borrowers and the Plaintiffs. 

113. This alone is sufficient cause for these loans to be voided completely. When viewed 

in the context of all of the other causes of action, there is more than ample grounds for these 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 45 of 58
loans to be declared unenforceable in toto. 

ARGUMENT 

114. This matter involves a pervasive disregard for state and federal laws and regulatory 

requirements, and an attempt to improperly foreclose on a family home by a complex scheme 

of illusive and vague factions of fmancial entities and their myriad agents and trustees. 

115. The very first step in peeling back the layers of supposed trustees, hidden alleged 

transfers of the note and/or the trust deed, the consideration tendered [or, conversely, not 

tendered] in any of these alleged transfers, the attempts to avoid and subvert discovery and 

production of documents that MUST be produced and made available for review by this Court, 

the Plaintiffs and to the public record, and the repeated attempts by these Defendants in cases 

nationwide, as well as the instant matter, to attempt to conduct foreclosure not only lacking 

proper standing to do so, but having violated myriad state and federal laws along the way, must 

commence with a full and complete discovery process. 

116. The Plaintiff has a well-founded and reasonable cause to believe Defendants, 

together and collectively, have committed multiple and complex frauds, propounded deceptive 

and unconscionable acts and practices upon Plaintiff, causing egregious harm and financial 

losses to Plaintiff, for the sole purpose of the Defendants own unjust enrichment. The 

Defendants have used and abused foreclosure processes, purposefully attempting to take the 

property belonging to Plaintiff, cause Plaintiff catastrophic financial loss of all his savings, 

down-payment monies, and capital improvements made to the subject property, and to eject 

Plaintiff and his family from their Home. 

117. All Defendants have stubbornly resisted producing even a single document page 

which might prove [or, conversely, disprove] that they even have any ownership interest in the 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 46 of 58
subject notes or trust deeds, instead relying solely on their own undocumented presumptions, 

proclamations and assertions, as though that should somehow suffice, simply because they are 

some multi-billion dollar financial institution, or "too big to fail" in recently used jargon. All 

Defendants herein have expended great time effort and production of writings, expended untold 

millions of dollars on their attorneys, all attempting to prevent homeowners from obtaining the 

simple, straightforward, honest disclosure of such ownership documents, claiming that such 

documents are somehow "privileged", "proprietary" or "unduly burdensome" to produce. If 

they truly have any documents, it cannot be any but the simplest matter to produce the same to 

this Court. No court should allow these lenders and their complicit associates to proceed until 

they have provided irrefutable evidence to the Court that they have a valid current claim of 

ownership. 

118. The Defendants have operated in collusion amongst themselves, creating a complex 

fabric of deception, solely to serve their own profitability purposes, all to the extreme prejudice 

of Plaintiff. The Defendants have used falsified documents, and obstructed and caused 

intentional miscarriages of justice by failing to produce documents as would evidence their 

ownership, and lack thereof, of the note or mortgage trust deed. Defendants US Bank, MERS, 

BofA, Citi, Ally, and Ocwen, in their attempt to foreclose, have acted illegally, in blatant and 

intentional violations of clear state statutes requiring the recordation of any assignment of any 

interest in real property, which a mortgage irrefutably is.- which has never been recorded in the 

records of the state. Recordation and registration is required by law, and the trust deed, and any 

of the transfers secretly conducted by any sub-assignment thereunder, including any purported 

transfers to other Defendants, are statutorily unenforceable. 

119. The Defendants have further intentionally and purposefully complicated, delayed 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 47 of 58
and prevented - indeed, they even have reneged on the agreement of October 2009 - any 

attempts by the Plaintiff to reasonably modify the loans to reflect financial and real estate 

markets and conditions of the economy. The Defendants, and their predecessors and assignors 

(upon whose same documents the Defendants rely to attempt to foreclose) have intentionally 

enticed and lured borrowers into accepting loans which bear high rates of interest, based on 

indexes unknown and far beyond the control of any individual borrower and wildly fluctuating 

interest rates, all for the singular purpose of selling these loans into "secondary" markets, often 

at prices even higher than the face amount of the note, which practice constitutes profiteering 

and unjust enrichment to the extreme harm and detriment of the Plaintiffs. 

120. The Defendants have attempted to wrest all of the Plaintiffs down payment funds 

and capital improvement monies away from Plaintiffs without just compensation, attempted to 

unlawfully eject legitimate residents of the homes which are the collateral security for the note 

instruments at question, used falsified, incomplete and inadequate documents to attempt to 

improperly take the Plaintiffs home. The Defendants have sought to inequitably and unjustly 

enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayers of the United States of America by 

foreclosing on properties, then turning and collecting windfall profits via U.S. Treasury 

programs which reimburse lenders based upon the original face value of real estate loans. The 

Plaintiff herein has been United States citizen since birth, and a taxpayer for many years, and 

thus has standing not only as an individual, but as a member of a class: U.S. Taxpayers. 

121. The Defendants have violated the laws of the State of Oregon and of the United 

States of America. 

122. The above actions of Defendants now aggregate to a clear conspiring and collusion 

by the Defendants to take money and properties from Oregon and nationwide homeowners by 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 48 of 58
illegal foreclosure practices. The Defendants then attempt to convert this to cash for 

themselves, thus becoming guilty of conversion, to the detriment of Plaintiffs and for 

Defendants own enrichment. 

123. The Defendants have violated federal laws, including the Fair Debt Collections 

Practices Act, the Consumer Credit Protection Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 

Organization Act, and are guilty of obstruction of justice. 

124. The inequity and egregious misconduct on the part of the Defendants must be 

arrested and rectified, plus proper recompense paid to Plaintiff, including his loss of over 

$75,000.00 of savings and cash investment in his property. 

CONCLUSION 

125. The extent of the gross inequities between the individual Plaintiff homeowner and 

the mammoth banking entities in plainly evident. The Defendants blatant and arrogant 

violations of the laws of both the State of Oregon and the United States of America are readily 

apparent, pervasive, and so recurrent as to constitute a chronic pattern of behaviors. The 

financial, emotional and family harm that these banks and their complicit cohorts are insidious 

and egregious. 

126. It is time, long past time, that this be viewed in the entirety of its context, for both 

myself, as well as all homeowners nationwide that have been placed in this severely 

disadvantaged situation by these banks. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court: 

A. ISSUE a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining all Defendants (doing 

business under any name, their agents, partners, servants, attorneys, representatives, 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 49 of 58
subsidiaries, parent companies, alleged owner or alleged real-party-in-interest of the Note 

and/or Mortgage, employees, successors and assigns and all persons acting in concert and 

participation with them, directly or indirectly, through any corporate device, partnership or 

association) from proceeding with foreclosure on the property of Plaintiff. 

B. ORDER the production of all documents which may evidence ownership of the Note 

and Deed of Trust, including all chain of such transfers of ownership. 

C. ORDER the productions by Defendants of the actual blue-ink original Note and 

Mortgage for the subject loan. 

D. ORDER the production of all documents, payments, wire transfers of funds, checks, 

and all other which evidence the actual amount(s) paid at each and every transacting of the 

Note and Deed of Trust for the subject loan. 

E. ORDER the production of all documents which document each of the multiple layers 

of "trust and trustee relationships between the various defendants. 

F. DECLARE all Defendants in violation of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices 

Act, and award Plaintiff the sum of $1000.00 from each Defendant for same. 

G. DECLARE all Defendants in violation of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, and 

award Plaintiff the sum of $1000.00 from each Defendant for same .. 

H. DECLARE all Defendants in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 

Organizations Act, and award Plaintiff the sum of $450,000.00 (treble damages) from the 

Defendants jointly and severally for same. 

I. DECLARE all Defendants in violation of Section 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities 

Act of 1933, and award Plaintiff the sum of $1000.00 from each Defendant for same. 

J. DECLARE all Defendants in violation the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 50 of 58
award Plaintiff the sum of $1000.00 from each Defendant for same .. 

K. DECLARE quiet title and expungement of the mortgage lien recorded against 

Plaintiffs property, in the absence of production of the original Note and Mortgage and a valid 

legal chain of ownership of same. 

L. DECLARE all Defendants guilty and financially responsible to Plaintiff for fraud, 

common law fraud, restraint of trade, conversion, unfair business practices, bad faith dealing, 

and in violation of their trustee fiduciary duty, 

M. ORDER Defendants to pay additional actual and non-economic damages deriving 

from the conduct of the Defendants. 

N. ORDER Defendants which have common business associations or are partnered as 

loan servicer, alleged note owner, "trustee" holding interests for another party, "mortgagebacked securities portfolio", or investment company, to be jointly and severally liable for all 

monetary amounts awarded herein; 

0. ORDER Defendants to pay Plaintiff its attorney fees (if any, should Plaintiffs hire 

attorneys in the conduct of this case) and costs. 

P. GRANT such other relief as the court deems to be · 

Dated: December 26, 2014 

Respectfully Submitted, 

/Cha 

Charles Barker III, PLAINTIFF 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 51 of 58
SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 

1. U.S. Bank N.A. v. Ibanez and Wells Fargo Bank NA v. LaRace et al, Supreme Judicial 

Court of Massachusetts. No. SJC-10694. 

In a decision that may affect foreclosures nationwide, Massachusetts' highest court voided the 

seizure of two homes by Wells Fargo & Co and US Bancorp after the banks failed to show they 

held the mortgages at the time they foreclosed. 

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on Friday issued its decision, which upheld a 

lower court ruling. 

The unanimous decision is among the earliest to address the validity of foreclosures done 

without proper documentation. That issue last year prompted an uproar that led lenders such as 

Bank of America Corp, JP Morgan Chase & Co and Ally Financial Inc to temporarily stop 

seizing homes. 

Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp lacked authority to foreclose after having "failed to make the 

required showing that they were the holders of the mortgages at the time of foreclosure," 

Justice Ralph Gants wrote for the Massachusetts court. 

In a concurring opinion, Justice Robert Cordy lambasted "the utter carelessness" that the banks 

demonstrated in documenting their right to own the properties. 

Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin said he agrees with the ruling, which he said 

demonstrates the need for judicial review of foreclosures in the state to give homeowners more 

protections. 

Courts in other U.S. states are considering similar cases, and all 50 state attorneys general are 

examining whether lenders are forcing people out of their homes improperly. 

In the Massachusetts case, U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo had said they controlled through 

different trusts the respective mortgages of Antonio Ibanez and the married couple Mark and 

Tammy LaRace, who lost their homes to foreclosure in 2007. 

"It is the first time the supreme court of a state has looked straight at securitization practices 

and told the industry, you are not immune from state statutes and homeowner protections," Paul 

Collier, a lawyer for Ibanez, said in an interview. 

The Supreme Judicial Court also rejected the banks' request that the ruling apply only in the 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 52 of 58
future, leaving homeowners who had already been foreclosed upon without a remedy. 

2. Rinegard-Guirma v. Bank of America, 10-1065-PK, in opinion by Judge Garr King). 

The public interest is served by ensuring that foreclosure sales only occur when there is no 

defect in the preceding property transaction 

3. Federal Circuit Courts have ruled that the only way to prove the perfection of any 

security [including promissory note] is by actual possession of the security. Current or prior 

possession must be proved up. Where the complaining party cannot prove the existence of the 

note, then there is no note. 

See Pacific Concrete F.C.U. V. Kauanoe, 62 Haw. 334, 614 P.2d 936 (1980), GE Capital 

Hawaii, Inc. v. Yonenaka 25 P.3d 807,96 Hawaii 32, (HawaiiApp 2001). 

4. To recover on a promissory note: the Note and Trust Deed owner must prove: 

(1) the existence of the note in question; 

(2) that the party sued signed the note; 

(3) that the foreclosing party is the owner or holder of the note; and 

(4) that a certain balance is due and owing on the note. See In Re: SMS Financial LLC. v. Abco 

Homes. Inc. No.98-50117 February 18, 1999 (5th Circuit Court of Appeals.) 

Volume 29 of the New Jersey Practice Series, Chapter 10 Section 123, page 566, emphatically 

states, " ... ; and no part payments should be made on the bond or note unless the person to 

whom payment is made is able to produce the bond or note and the part payments are endorsed 

thereon. It would seem that the mortgagor would normally have a Common law right to 

demand production or surrender of the bond or note and mortgage, as the case may be. See 

Restatement, Contracts S 170(3), (4) ( 1932); C.J.S. Mortgages S 469, in Carnegie Bank v, 

Shalleck 256 N.J. Super 23 (App. Div 1992), the Appellate Division held, "When the 

underlying mortgage is evidenced by an instrument meeting the criteria for negotiability set 

forth in N.J.S. 12A:3-104, the holder of the instrument shall be afforded all the rights and 

protections provided a holder in due course pursuant to N.J.S. 12A:3-302" 

Unequivocally, the Courts rule is that in order to prove the "instrument", possession is 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 53 of 58
mandatory. 

See Matter of Staf!Mortg. & Inv. Com., 550 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir 1977). "Under the 

Uniform Commercial Code, the only notice sufficient to inform all interested parties that a 

security interest in instruments has been perfected is actual possession by the secured party, his 

agent or bailee." Bankruptcy Courts have followed the Uniform Commercial Code. In Re 

Investors & Lenders, Ltd. 165 B.R. 389 (Bankruptcy.D.N.J.1994), "Under the New Jersey 

Uniform Commercial Code (NJUCC), promissory note is "instrument," security interest in 

which must be perfected by possession. 

5. State of Ohio v. GMAC Mortgage 

GMAC Mortgage Continued to File False Affidavits in 2009 and 2010 "Stephan" has been a 

team leader in the foreclosure department of GMAC Mortgage for years, including through at 

least August 2, 2010. Stephan had been an employee of GMAC Mortgage, or affiliates, for 

approximately 5 years. 

In a December 10, 2009 deposition, in a Florida state court foreclosure case, Stephan 

testified that his team brought to him approximately 10,000 affidavits and assignments in a 

month for him to sign (2009 Deposition, p.7, Is 18-20). 

In spite of the Florida Foreclosure Decision, Stephan testified that he did not sign the 

affidavits based on his personal knowledge and that he relied on others (2009 Deposition, p. 10, 

Is 6-15). However, he also testified that his team did not verify the accuracy of the information: 

"They do not go into the system and verify the information as accurate. We are relying on our 

attorney network to ensure that they are asking for the correct information." (2009 Deposition, 

pp. 12-13, Is 16-25 and 1-4). Stephan knew or should have known that these hundreds of 

affidavits would be filed in Ohio courts and relied upon by Ohio Common Pleas Judges in 

deciding whether the plaintiff in the particular case had a right to foreclose on Ohio residents. 

When Stephan executed an affidavit, he testified he did not ascertain who the current 

promissory note-holder was (2009 Deposition, p. 31, Is. 12-14), even though his affidavits 

always stated or implied that plaintiff was the holder of the note. The agents of GMAC 

Mortgage prepared these affidavits to mislead the courts in Ohio on such matters as who kept 

the applicable records, who the holder of the note was, the amount due to whoever the holder of 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 54 of 58
the note was, and whether proper notice alleging default had been sent to the borrower. 

In spite of his lack of personal knowledge, Stephan swore in the hundreds of affidavits 

he signed for Ohio courts that "I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this 

affidavit," or equivalent words. Stephan signed hundreds of these false affidavits, and 

Defendants caused hundreds of these false affidavits to be filed in hundreds of mortgage 

foreclosure cases in Ohio. 

Stephan - claiming to be an officer of MERS - signed for many Ohio foreclosure cases 

Assignments of Mortgage falsely claiming that he assigned a borrower's mortgage and note 

from MERS to the plaintiff , even though he did not have the authority of MERS to assign a 

note to any party. 

Stephan signed hundreds of affidavits outside of the presence of a notary public (2009 

Deposition, p. 13, ls. 10-17) that were filed in Ohio foreclosure cases. 

Stephan was acting within the scope of his employment with GMAC Mortgage when he 

executed the false affidavits, when he executed the affidavits outside the presence of notaries 

public and when he execute the false assignments of note from MERS to plaintiffs in Ohio 

mortgage foreclosure cases. 

Ally and GMAC Mortgage had authority over the right to control the actions of Stephan 

and benefited financially from the actions of Stephan. The actions of Stephan were part of the 

business plans of Ally and GMAC Mortgage. 

GMAC Mortgage has outsourced various pieces of the foreclosure process. For 

instance, GMAC Mortgage contracts with Fiserv, Inc. ("Fiserv") to provide such computer 

services as recording payments received from, and amounts allegedly due, lenders. Fiserv 

advertises that it is a "leading global provider of information management and electronic 

commerce services" which provides "solutions for optimizing all aspects of the payments mix 

to help create efficiency and growth." 

GMAC Mortgage employees executed thousands of false affidavits and purported to 

enter payments, failures to pay, and other information in computers for the Fiserv system. 

It is Fiserv that creates and maintains the records and calculates the amounts allegedly 

due from borrowers. 

In a June 7, 2010 deposition, in a Maine mortgage foreclosure, Stephan testified that he 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 55 of 58
did not have "any knowledge about how GMAC ensures the accuracy of the data entered into 

the system" (2010 Deposition, p. 30, ls. 10-13). 

Lender Processing Services, Inc. ("LPS") provides a separate system that creates 

documents for GMAC Mortgage in the foreclosure process and acts as an intermediary between 

attorneys for GMAC Mortgage and GMAC Mortgage in the foreclosure process (2010 

Deposition, pp. 35-42 and 56-57). 

As part of GMAC Mortgage policy, Stephan did not read every paragraph of the 

summary judgment affidavits he signed (2010 Deposition, pp.61-64) that were prepared by 

LPS. The summary judgment affidavits signed by Stephan contained inaccuracies. 

GMAC Mortgage knew or should have known that failure to supervise the accuracy of 

the input of information into, maintenance of information in, and calculations provided by, the 

outsourced computer systems and document preparation would lead to errors and inaccuracies 

that would violate GMAC Mortgage's duty to consumers to accurately account for payments 

received by consumers and payments owed by consumers. 

GMAC Mortgage and Ally learned of the 2009 Deposition soon after that deposition, but 

took no corrective action. 

During the 2010 Deposition, Stephan testified: (a) he signed the affidavits outside of the 

presence of a notary (p. 56, ls. 10-28); (b) when he signed a summary judgment affidavit he did 

"not inspect any exhibits attached to it" (p. 54, ls. 12-25); (c) he did no read every paragraph of 

the summary judgment affidavits he signed (p. 60, ls. 24-25 and p. 62, ls. 1-3); and (d) the 

process he followed "in signing summary judgment affidavits is in accordance with the policies 

and procedures require of you by GMAC Mortgage." (p. 64, ls. 8-14). 

GMAC Mortgage and Ally learned of the 2010 Deposition in June, 2010. 

7. Sanctions in Maine in 2010 

The Defendant in the Maine Mortgage Foreclosure moved for sanctions for a false 

affidavit signed by Stephan and relied upon by the court in granting summary judgment for 

plaintiff. The Maine court held oral argument on the motion on September 1, 2010. 

On September 24, the Maine court vacated the grant of summary judgment and also 

addressed the motion for a protective order that had been filed that would have prohibited the 

dissemination of the deposition of Stephan taken in the case. The Maine court said that 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 56 of 58
"Plaintiff points to the embarrassment of GMAC and its employees have suffered, and will 

continue to suffer, from the posting of excerpts from Stephan's deposition transcript on an 

Internet blog." The Maine court denied the motion for protective order, noting "Stephan's 

deposition was taken to advance a legitimate purpose ... " 

The Maine court then granted the motion for sanctions filed by the borrower, awarding 

to the borrower the borrower's attorneys fees: "Rather than being an isolated or inadvertent 

instance of misconduct, the Court finds that GMAC has persisted in its unlawful document 

signing practices long after and even in the face of the Florida Court's order, and that such 

conduct constitutes 'bad faith' under Rule 56(g). These documents are submitted to a court 

with the intent that the court find a homeowner liable to the plaintiff for thousands of dollars 

and subject to foreclosure on the debtor's residence. Filing such a document without 

significant regard for its accuracy, which the court in ordinary circumstances may never be able 

to investigate or otherwise verify, is a serious and troubling matter." 

Since the oral argument in the Maine mortgage foreclosure case was held on September 

1, 2010, GMAC Mortgage knew after September 1 that sanctions were imminent. 

On September 17, 2010, Ally sent a memo to "GMAC Preferred Agents" directing these 

agents that GMAC Mortgage "may need to take corrective action in connection with some 

foreclosures" in 23 states, including Ohio. In addition, for these states, including Ohio, it 

directed the agents: (a) "Evictions: Do not proceed with evictions, cash for keys transactions, or 

lockouts. All files should be placed on hold, regardless of occupant type. (b) REO Closings: 

Do not proceed with REO sale closings." 

In spite of his admissions in his depositions, Jeffrey Stephan is still employed by GMAC 

Mortgage, reflecting the fact that his actions were in accordance with GMAC Mortgage policy. 

In light of the actions of Ally, GMAC and Stephan, the Attorney General of Ohio has 

reasonable cause to believe that GMAC employees in addition to Stephan have signed false 

affidavits, assignments of notes and other documents in connection with foreclosure cases. 

On September 27, 2010 the Ohio Attorney General sent a letter to the General Counsel 

of Ally expressing concerns over GMAC Mortgage's actions and requested that Ally/GMAC 

Mortgage describe the steps being taken to remedy the problems identified, the steps to alert 

Ohio courts of the problems, including cases that had already proceeded to a foreclosure 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 57 of 58
judgment, and the actions to ensure that the problems related to its foreclosure affidavits notreoccur in the future. On September 30, Plaintiff requested that Ally/GMAC Mortgage agree not 

to proceed towards a judgment, sale, eviction, or transfer of any property until there was 

agreement that proper remedial action had been taken. 

GMAC Mortgage and Ally claim that they will review the affidavits signed by Stephan 

and other GMAC Mortgage employees since July of 2009, but not affidavits signed before July 

of 2009. They have not yet reviewed the majority of the affidavits signed by Stephan or other 

GMAC Mortgage employees. Ally/GMAC Mortgage said they would review all the affidavits 

by the end of October, 2010, but did not indicate they would review any Assignments executed 

by Stephan, even though they were improperly prepared and executed. 

Ally/GMAC Mortgage said they would substitute new affidavits for improper affidavits, 

without any assurance of which affidavits they would consider improper and while still 

asserting they would rely on their outsourced system for the calculation of amounts allegedly 

due. Ally/GMAC Mortgage has not yet explained how it planned to determine from its review 

of outsourced computer records who the holder of the note and mortgage was in any particular 

case, which of necessity must involve a review of the actual note, mortgage and any 

assignments or endorsements. 

Case 3:14-cv-02050-MC Document 1 Filed 12/29/14 Page 58 of 58