Source: http://4closurefraud.org/2012/07/27/kaboom-coursen-vs-jp-morgan-chase-fidelity-national-financial-fnf-mtd-denied-rico-racketeering-perjury-fraud-sham-fabricated-manufactured-evidence/
Timestamp: 2017-10-21 19:32:13
Document Index: 40066356

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 817', '§ 831', '§ 501', '§1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1962']

KABOOM | COURSEN vs JP MORGAN CHASE, FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL (FNF) MTD DENIED – RICO, Racketeering, Perjury, Fraud, Sham, Fabricated, Manufactured Evidence | Foreclosure Fraud
KABOOM | COURSEN vs JP MORGAN CHASE, FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL (FNF) MTD DENIED – RICO, Racketeering, Perjury, Fraud, Sham, Fabricated, Manufactured Evidence
Posted by 4closureFraud on July 27, 2012 · 5 Comments
ELIZABETH H. COURSEN,
Motion to Dismiss DENIED – RICO, Racketeering, Perjury, Fraud, Sham, Fabricated, Manufactured Evidence
A FLA Fed court accepted arguments of “manufactured default” allowed discovery to establish that FNF, LPS et al are “debt collectors” and part of a civil conspiracy and RICO enterprise!!!!
The borrower is out of the house, been foreclosed on twice and motion to vacate for fraud on court denied, yet the new RICO claim, civil conspiracy, and Debt collection action stands. If every foreclosed homeowner had a good lawyer and an expert affidavit no bank or servicer would be able to defend against such an attack.
RICO actions should and will be forthcoming for ALL homeowners illegally foreclosed upon and the “manufactured default” and soon the “piling on” scheme of legal fees and fraudulent costs will be the moving mantra for RICO and Wrongful Foreclosure actions, not foreclosure defense!!!
The client ONLY asked for the following as settlement: 1) payment of her legal fees (15/20K); 2) an apology, and, 3) assurances that they would change their policies and practices so that such a fraud would never occur or hurt another homeowner again.
Wonder how our friends at FHFA are justifying Fannie et al turning down such a reasonable settlement offer!!!! Legal fees will surely exceed a million dollars. Stupid, plain stupid and costing U.S. taxpayers for the F ups and frauds of WaMu and Chase!!! UGH
Just tell the truth and stop the fraud!! Make up rather than attempt to destroy borrowers, their lawyers, and whistle-blowers by spoliation of evidence and fraud.
Now, some excerpts from the ORDER:
that Plaintiff failed to seek and obtain leave to add FNF as a party Defendant. However,
under Rule 1.190(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, leave of court or the consent of the
pleading has not been filed in the case. At the time that Plaintiff amended the complaint,
no responsive pleading had yet been filed. The sole Defendant had only filed a motion to
dismiss. A motion to dismiss is not considered a “responsive pleading” because it is not a
“pleading” under Rule 1.100(a) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and, therefore,
Plaintiff’s absolute right to amend the complaint “once as a matter of course” had not
terminated. Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2005).
FNF next asserts that Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege FNF’s liability. Plaintiff
does, however, allege that FNF, as well as FNDS, LPS, FNIS, LPSDS, and DocX,
her homestead through a wrongful foreclosure. (Dkt. 2, ¶¶ 16-18.) Further, Plaintiff sets
out the following allegations of FNF’s vicarious liability:
-FNF is the parent company of FNDS at all times material. (Dkt. 2, ¶11.)
-FNF acquired LPS a/k/a FNIS in 2003, and was its parent until 2008. (Id. at ¶13.)
-LPSDS is an alter ego of LPS. (Id. at ¶14.)
-DocX is/was a wholly owned a subsidiary of LPS and/or LPSDS. (Id. at ¶15.)
-Defendant Dory Goebel (“Goebel”) is an employee of all, or some, of the
aforesaid entities. (Id. at ¶16.)
-Goebel violated Fla. Stat. § 817.54 and § 831.06 by executing an Affidavit of
Indebtedness as “AVP Washington Mutual Bank” on October 23, 2006, in the 2006
foreclosure action. (Id. at ¶18(a).)
-At all times material hereto FNF and/or FNDS and/or FNIS/LPS and/or LPSDS
and/or DocX were instrumentalities of each other and they engaged in improper conduct
a. Observe corporate formalities;
b. By commingling funds;
c. By commingling assets;
d. By failing to adequately capitalize;
e. By using either corporate form to avoid liability for the other;
f. By actively conspiring to defraud Plaintiff of her homestead real property in
violation of her constitutional rights.
(Id. at ¶17.)
injustice. Eckhardt v. U.S., 463 F.App’x 852, 855 (11th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (citing
corporate veil is proper if the corporation “is a mere device or sham to accomplish some
ulterior purpose, or is a mere instrumentality or agent of another corporation or individual
accomplish some fraud or illegal purpose.” Eckhardt 463 F.App’x at 855 (quoting Aztec
Motel, Inc. v. Faircloth, 251 So. 2d 849, 852 (Fla. 1971)). To pierce the corporate veil in
corporation to such an extent that the corporation’s independent existence was in fact
non-existent and the shareholders were in fact alter egos of the corporation; (2) the
fraudulent or improper use of the corporate form caused injury to the claimant. Eckhardt,
463 F.App’x at 855-56 (quoting Gasparini v. Pordomingo, 972 So. 2d 1053, 1055 (Fla.
Plaintiff’s allegations sufficiently plead these factors for vicarious liability on the
part of FNF. The Court also takes judicial notice of the Securities and Exchange
Commission filings that Plaintiff provided to support her allegations that the LPS
Defendants are instrumentalities of each other and to devise her flow chart demonstrating
the corporate hierarchy of the LPS Defendants. (See Dkt. 40; Dkt. 39, p. 6.) Therefore,
the First Amended Complaint, taken as true, sufficiently establishes FNF as a proper
Defendant for purposes of this Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal proceeding. Whether Plaintiff’s
FNF also challenges Plaintiff’s claim against it for violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1)(2001),
FDUTPA has three elements: (1) a deceptive act or unfair practice; (2) causation; and (3)
actual damages. Virgilio v. Ryland Group, Inc., 680 F.3d 1329, 1338 n.25 (11th Cir.
Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, including FNF, violated FDUTPA by using fake
identities and manufactured documents to deprive her of her homestead through
(Dkt. 2, pp. 16-19.) The First Amended Complaint identifies FNF as the parent company
of the other LPS Defendants and alleges that FNF is liable for the alleged fraudulent acts
that caused her to lose her homestead. Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to withstand a
Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. She must afforded the opportunity to prove the allegations
through the discovery process.
Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) because FNF was neither owed any part of the loan
debt nor did it attempt to collect any money from Plaintiff on the loan in question.
Notwithstanding, 15 U.S.C. §1692(a)(6) defines the term “debt collector” to include any
the principal purpose of which is the enforcement of security interests. Plaintiff alleges
that FNF, through its alleged alter ego, FNDS, “supplies record-keeping and litigation
and verification of multitudinous affidavits which are filed with various court clerks in
Florida.” (Dkt. 2, ¶11.) She also alleges that Goebel oversees a section of individuals
brought by FNF clients and several boilerplate documents used in the foreclosure of
Plaintiff’s home. (Id. at ¶16.) Furthermore, under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f, “[a] debt collector
Subparagraph (6) of that section specifically prohibits taking or threatening to take any
nonjudicial action to effect dispossession or disablement of property … if there is no
security interest. As previously discussed, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants fabricated
documents in furtherance of a conspiracy to unlawfully divest Plaintiff of her homestead.
to whether FNF’s activities violated the FDCPA, and she must be allowed the opportunity
to establish those facts through the course of discovery.
Questions of fact preclude dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim under the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act (“FCCPA”), Chapter 559, Florida Statutes, as well,
legal right to collect the alleged debt and created manufactured evidence and sham
pleadings to do so. (Dkt. 2, ¶¶18-19.) Section 559.72, Florida Statutes, provides that “no
person shall” do any of the 19 enumerated items, including collecting a debt which is not
owed or is the result of a “manufactured default.” Section 559.72(9) requires that
Plaintiff must show that FNF asserted a legal right that did not exist, with actual
knowledge that the right did not exist. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s allegations in support
of her FCCPA claim are sufficient to overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
Plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim requires that she prove: (a) the existence of an
requires a showing of willful or intentional misuse of process for some wrongful or
unlawful object, or ulterior purpose not intended by law. Peckins v. Kaye, 443 So. 2d
1025, 1026 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983) (citing Cline v. Flagler Sales Corp., 207 So. 2d 709
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)). Plaintiff is able to overcome dismissal of her common law
her factual allegations that Defendants acted unlawfully, and in agreement, with the intent
to defraud her through the use of sham documents and fabricated evidence, and that their
actions caused her damages. (Dkt. 2, ¶¶6-13, 18(e), 23.)
Finally, Plaintiff’s civil RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 alleges facts that, at
least for purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, are adequate to support each of the
Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) S.A., 119 F.3d 935, 949 (11th Cir.
1997) (holding that in order to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege facts
predicate acts) (citing Central Distribs. of Beer, Inc. v. Conn, 5 F.3d 181, 183-84 (6th Cir.
1993)). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants unlawfully employed the United States mail,
(Dkt. 2, ¶¶1-16.) She alleges that Defendants were the principals of, or participated in, the
operation or management of the enterprise itself and that the pattern of racketeering
of Mortgage and fictitious corporate signatures. (Id. at ¶¶6-12.) Furthermore, Plaintiff’s
civil RICO claim is not time-barred inasmuch as Plaintiff asserts that she was prevented
Defendant Fidelity National Financial, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First
Full order below…
COURSEN vs JP MORGAN CHASE
Cummings Issues Statement on DOJ, OCC Settlement Against Capital One for Violating the Rights of Servicemembers →
5 Responses to “KABOOM | COURSEN vs JP MORGAN CHASE, FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL (FNF) MTD DENIED – RICO, Racketeering, Perjury, Fraud, Sham, Fabricated, Manufactured Evidence”
alan bernson says:
what is “FNF? “
“If every foreclosed homeowner had a good lawyer and an expert affidavit no bank or servicer would be able to defend against such an attack” it is my understanding this is a Pro Se case. Am I wrong?
Now RICO would get interesting real quick!
Treble damages sure would pay off your home and then some.
Wow, this is really getting interesting.
” No principle is better established than the principle, that a mortgagee shall not get any advantage out of the mortgage fund beyond his principal and interest. “
They re technically all rico potential suits against the banksters…