Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/37752629/09-16-10-Complaint
Timestamp: 2016-10-25 06:12:38
Document Index: 557431363

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 39161', '§ 4', '§ 39', '§ 1331', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 1331', '§ 1341', '§ 33', '§ 226', '§ 5', '§ 212', '§ 226', '§3', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28Your Name here Your address here Your address here Your phone here Your email here IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Your Name here , pro se and ) Case no: ??????????? Your Name here, pro se ) Plaintiffs, ) Vs. BRIAN T. MOYNIHAN, and/or his ) successor, individually, and in his ) official capacity as PRES/CEO OF COMPLAINT BAC HOME LOANS SERVICNG, ) LP, ) ) JAMES F. TAYLOR and/or his successor, individually, and in his ) (Oral argument requested) official capacity as PRES. OF FIN. & ) ADMIN. OF RECONTRUST ) COMPANY, N.A., ) BRIAN T. MOYNIHAN, and/or his ) successor, individually, and in his ) official capacity as PRES/CEO OF (Assigned to Hon. ??????????) BANK OF AMERICA, ) ) ANGELO MOZILO, and/or his ) successor, individually, and in his official capacity as former PRES/CEO ) OF COUNTRYWIDE HOME ) LOANS, INC., ) R.K. ARNOLD and/or his successor, ) individually, and in his official capacity ) as PRES/CEO OF MORTGAGE ) ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., ) MICHAEL R. ZARRO JR. and/or his ) ) successor, individually, and in his official capacity as PRES/CEO EMC ) MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ) ) MARY HAGGERTY and/or her successor, individually, and in her ) official capacity as PRES/CEO BEAR ) STERNS RESIDENTIAL ) MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ) AND JOHN DOES (Investors) 1) 10,000, Et al, Defendant. )
Your Name here pro se, and Your Name here, pro se (“Plaintiff”), hereby files their Complaint. Plaintiff states on and for the record, and as an offer of proof, in accordance with the testimony of a certified forensic examiner, Plaintiff believes that Defendants jointly and/or separately have violated: A.R.S. §§ 39161, 33-420, 13-2301 et seq, 33-801 et seq and/or other Arizona laws and if true; Plaintiff believes Defendants have knowingly, intelligently and willfully with full knowledge of the consequences thereof permanently forsaken the right and/or standing to foreclose on Plaintiff’s real property. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4, Plaintiff hereby notifies this Court of numerous felonies Plaintiff believes the evidence proves Defendants have committed, by and through their corporate entities. See Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 696-97 (1972) (citation omitted): “Such activity has been a federal crime since the First Congress, for “the common law recognized a duty to raise the `hue and cry’ and report felonies to the authorities. . . . It is apparent from this statute, as well as from our history and that of England, that concealment of crime and agreements to do so are not looked upon with favor. Such conduct deserves no encomium.” The Courts have concluded that ‘misprision of felony’ is a crime of: “moral turpitude because it necessarily involves an affirmative act of concealment or participation in a felony, behavior that runs contrary to accepted societal duties and involves dishonest or fraudulent activity.” The Supreme Court observed that: “Concealment of crime has been condemned throughout our history… Although the term “misprision of felony” now has an archaic ring, gross indifference to the duty to report known criminal behavior remains a badge of irresponsible citizenship.” Plaintiff hereby alleges as follows: PREFATORY STATEMENT 1. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff has discovered that
33-420 and others. Title 47. At issue is the fact Defendants’ Corporations are attempting to act as. Plaintiff is holding each of the Defendants and/or their successor accountable for what harm their Corporation has done to them. 13-2301et seq. there is a broken chain of August 24. 4. Pursuant to. Plaintiff has discovered no valid assignment assigning any rights for Therefore. 8. and/or. individually in their official capacity as President/ CEO. Plaintiff questions the authenticity and validity of all recorded and/or notarized documents. their Deed of Trust to Bank of America has been recorded. A. when it appears that none of the Defendant’s Corporations possess any rights or authority to foreclose on Plaintiff’s property. therefore requiring any and all said parties to provide evidence of authenticity and validity for any and all signatures on any and all documents and/or pleadings. inter alia. either the Beneficiary or Trustee with the Power of Sale. and former President/CEO of their Corporations .C. upon information and belief. Plaintiff hereby questions the authenticity and validity of the signatures of all parties.C. U.S.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Bank of America is not the Real Party of Interest. 3. §§ 39-161. Pursuant to. 33-801 et seq. Plaintiff is suing each of the Defendants and/or their successor.R. and/or President of Finance and Administration. 2. inter alia.S.R. title to which none of Defendants by and through their Corporations have any right and/or authority to hold the Trustee Sale currently scheduled for 2010. 6.
. A. inter alia. JURISDICTION AND PARTIES 7. 5.
by and through his corporation . Michael R. At all times material hereto Mortgage Electronic Registration Arizona. 14. EMC Mortgage Corporation (“EMC”) is Arizona. 13. Any allegations about the acts of the Corporations means that those acts were committed through their officers. 11. At all times material hereto. by and through
their Corporation (“Defendants”) has caused events to occur within the jurisdiction of the Court from which Plaintiff’s complaint arises. agents. as set forth in Systems Inc. Mary Haggerty and or her successor or predecessor. The Defendant. Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage Corporation (“Bear Sterns”) is a corporation that may be authorized to do business Plaintiff is a married couple and citizens and civilians of the State of
predecessor. (“MERS”) which has been a Delaware corporation that is neither registered nor authorized to do business within the state of the records of the Arizona Secretary of State . and/or representatives while those individuals were acting within the actual or implied scope of their authority. 10. directors. Arizona. employees. EMC caused events to occur within the jurisdiction of the Court from which the Plaintiff’s complaint arises.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Each one of the Defendants and/or their successor. and or his successor or a corporation that may be authorized to do business in At all times material hereto. or permitted others to commit the acts alleged in this Complaint. Zarro Jr. Bear Sterns caused events to occur within the jurisdiction of the Court from which the Plaintiff’s complaint arises. At all relevant times. 15. the Defendants committed the acts. 12. The Defendant. in Arizona. by and through her corporation . 16. caused or directed others to commit the acts.
has been a foreign Arizona Secretary of State.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
17.A. Countrywide.K. MERS has caused events to occur within the jurisdiction of the Court from which the Plaintiff’s complaint arises. a corporation that may be authorized to do business in
by and through his corporation. caused events to occur within the jurisdiction of the Court from which the Plaintiff’s complaint arises. 21. and or his successor or predecessor. The Defendant Angelo Mozilo. has caused events corporation. Inc. The Defendant Brian T. 19. by
and through his corporation. (“Countrywide”) . Moynihan and or his successor or At all times material hereto BAC Home Loans Servicing. 20. The Defendant. caused events to occur within the jurisdiction of the Court from which the Plaintiff’s complaint arises. by and through his corporation
. At all times material hereto Bank of America . as set forth in the records of the Arizona Secretary of State. BAC has caused events to occur within the jurisdiction of the Court from which the Plaintiff’s complaint arises. by and through his corporation. James F. (“Recontrust”). The Defendant Brian T. Arnold and or his successor or predecessor. a foreign corporation. Countrywide Home Loans. At all times material hereto. has been a foreign corporation that may be authorized to do business in
predecessor. Taylor . Moynihan and or his successor or predecessor. 23. LP (“BAC”).
The Defendant R. as set forth in the records of the 25. 22. neither registered nor authorized to do business within the state of Arizona. N. Arizona . this state. by and through his corporation . 24. Recontrust . Bank of America. 18. neither registered nor authorized to do business within the state of Arizona . At all times material hereto Recontrust Company.
to the Deed of Trust. as Arizona has primary jurisdiction pursuant to A. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges paragraphs 1 through 26 hereinabove On or about March 28. 26. § 1331. 1997 as Maricopa County recorded document no.C. Plaintiff refinanced the property through the sale of the Promissory Note to Federal Savings Bank. § 12-401. 1997.S. This Court has secondary jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U. The first dormant Deed of Trust was recorded on April 1. CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 27.R. § 12-123. the Promissory Note was not integral Promissory Note to Norwest Mortgage Inc. Plaintiff purchased the property through the sale of Plaintiff’s Upon information and belief.S. 30.C.S. 31. 29. residential real property located within the jurisdiction of this Court. it appears. and venue lies in the Arizona Court pursuant to A.
. 2005. § 1331 and venue lies in the Court pursuant to 28 U.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
to occur within the jurisdiction of the Court from which the Plaintiff’s complaint arises. the Plaintiff purchased certain as if set forth more fully hereinbelow. (The term “dormant Deed of Trust” will be referred to as the purported unenforceable and invalid Deed of Trust).R. Plaintiff recently learned that since a Deed of Trust must be evidenced by a Promissory Note. ????????? (A copy of the 1 st dormant Deed of Trust is attached hereto as Exhibit 1). located at Your address here (“property”). On or about July14. a Deed of Trust not integral to a Promissory Note may be unenforceable and invalid.S. 32. 28.
Plaintiff refinanced the property
pursuant to the Promissory Note to Bear Sterns Residential Mortgage Corporation.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
33. ??????????? (A copy of the dormant Deed of Trust is attached hereto as Exhibit 3). 2005 as
Maricopa County recorded document no. and Plaintiff was informed that BAC was the servicer of the Promissory At some point of time. merger. Plaintiff was notified that Countrywide was the On or about July 2008. 2006 as Maricopa County recorded document no. Plaintiff was referred to Community Services of Arizona by a Bank of On or about November 2009. The dormant Deed of Trust was recorded on December 6. of Trust is attached hereto as Exhibit 2) 34. 41. Plaintiff was told by an agent of Bank of America that they were not eligible for a modification until they missed three monthly payments. 2006. 36. (“Bear Sterns”).
????????? (A copy of the dormant Deed
On or about December 1. Plaintiff was told by an agent from America agent for the Foreclosure Intervention Program. 39. Plaintiff inquired about modifying his current purported mortgage. (See: Exhibit 4) Community Services of Arizona they were denied a loan modification. (See: Exhibit 3) Bear Sterns appointed MERS to act as the Nominee for the purported Lender and purported Beneficiary of the dormant Deed of Trust. Pursuant to the terms of the dormant Deed of Trust. On or about July 2009. At some point of time. Plaintiff was notified that his Promissory Note
. Note. with Bear Sterns was transferred to EMC. 35. 37.
The dormant Deed of Trust was recorded on
July 20. Bank of America acquired Countrywide via a servicer of the Promissory Note. 42. 40. 38.
Plaintiff hired Charles J. Mail Fraud and Swindles. pages 6-10). 2010 Plaintiff received the Forensic Examination from Horner. 44. regarding the foreclosure documents.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
On or about May 2010.R. 46. 39-161. F.T. 12 C. there is a missing Assignment of Pursuant to the document.. 49. 2010 assigning the beneficial rights of the Deed of Trust to BAC. 48. 33-804.S. RESPA 3500.F. pursuant to Horner’s Examination. violations against BEAR STEARNS (A copy of the Forensic Examination is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. Horner and Associates (“Horner”) to conduct a Forensic Examination of documents from Bear Sterns and the current recorded foreclosure documents. a Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust dated January 21.17.23. 15 U. (A copy of the Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust is attached hereto as Exhibit 6).33-808. 18 U.C. Upon information and belief.C. USC § 1341.R.C. §§ 33-706. may cause the ORIGINAL contract/Deed of Trust/Promissory Note to be void in their entirety. MERS.S.. § 226. see: pages 1-6).S. § 5.F. 1681 § 212 subsection 609(g). 47. and Deceptive Business Acts resulting in violations of A. 5-6) of false instrument for filing. as nominee for Bear Sterns signed Deed of Trust assigning beneficial rights to Bank of America.
.C. C... RESPA 3500. 50. On June 17. Pursuant to Horner’s examination. the discovery of numerous violations.. Plaintiff was informed by a Bank of America
agent that his Promissory Note was not able to be modified due to the terms of the purported mortgage pooling and servicing agreement. 45.R. The Forensic Examination indicates the following violations were The Horner Forensic Examination indicated evidence of Presentment committed by Grand Canyon Title. (See: Exhibit 5. It indicated multiple counts of TILA.10. and FCRA 15 U.10: (See: Exhibit 5pgs.S. On or about June 2010.§ 226. may have been committed by Recontrust.
and not an employee of MERS. a back ground investigation of ??????? indicated that she is actually an employee of Recontrust. Bank of Pursuant to the document. 2010.R. According to Horner’s Forensic Examination. (See: Exhibit 5. LP signed a Substitution of Trustee Arizona in Tarrant County. page 7). 33-706. (A copy of the Substitution of Trustee Arizona is attached hereto as: Exhibit 7). (See: Exhibit 5. ??????????. 52. personally witnessed the signature of ??????? and verified the same with his Texas driver’s license. witnessed the signature of ???????? as Assistant Secretary of MERS and verified the same with her Texas driver’s license.S. Name of notary. Texas. (See: Exhibit 7)
51. 55. Pursuant to the document. Pursuant to the document. Name of notary personally America has no standing as beneficiary to commence a foreclosure.
Pursuant to Horner’s examination. from which Name of Notary could have signed the Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust of behalf of MERS. MERS does not have offices in Tarrant County. page 6). JP Morgan Chase acquired Bear
Sterns in March 2008 and there is no assignment from JP Morgan Chase to Bank of America. pursuant to A. Pursuant to Horner’s examination. (See: Exhibit 6). 56. pursuant to Horner’s Examination. page 7). the Assigner. Upon information and belief. who is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America. Texas dated January 21. (See: Exhibit 6 and See: Exhibit 5. 57. page 7). “This is now a case whereby a bank has bestowed upon itself the powers of a beneficiary without authority to do so and has further substituted the Trustee with Recontrust Company who is also an entity owned by Bank of America. 58. Furthermore. 53. 54. Assistant Secretary of BAC Home Loans Servicing. Notary. Notary.” (See: Exhibit 5.
they are themselves. the use of the same notary on all these documents suggests a notary preference that is willing to commit perjury in the acknowledgement of those instruments.” “It is quite obvious that the signees of these documents are not who they alleged to be. According to Horner. Furthermore. Texas. Horner states.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
59. N.” (See: Exhibit 5 page 7) 64. the date of execution and the date of
recording are the exactly the same as that of the Assignment of Deed of Trust.A. employees of Recontrust Company. 61. have composed the Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust and possibly forged the signature of ??????????. Recontrust Company. as Assistant Secretary of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. they[Recontrust] are Assistant Secretary for MERS [Exhibit 6] and in another instance. pursuant to Horner’s Forensic Tarrant County. Horner states.” (See: Exhibit 5 page 7) 63. Upon information and belief. Examination. “In one instance. Horner states.A . (See: Exhibits 6 and 7) 60.
Pursuant to Horner’s examination. 65. N. Trustee. they are Assistant Secretary for BAC Home Loan Servicing [Exhibit 7] and they in yet another instance. Recontrust has appointed oneself as the
. “The mere fact that they used the exact same notary in the exact same State in the exact same County where neither MERS nor BAC have offices displays a blatant and careless disregard for Arizona statutes and judicial system whereby they believe they can escape with such acts. Inc.” (A copy of the Notice of Trustee Sale Arizona is attached hereto as Exhibit 8) 62. does have offices in Upon information and belief. “Furthermore.
does not have an unbiased interest in the instruments she is acknowledging. 2010.
Upon information and belief. employees of Recontrust Company. all dated January 21. Notary Name of notary may have not personally witnessed the signatures of ??????? or ????????? as she claimed with her
. Texas. 68. Substitution of Trustee Arizona.8 and See also: Exhibits 6. 7 and 8). 67. 71. 2010 is hereby attached as Exhibit 10). and Notice of Trustee Sale Arizona. Assistant Secretary of BAC Home Loans Servicing LP. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Notary Name of notary with the Secretary of State of Texas on June 28.K. Name of Notary. (See: Exhibit 5 page 8). Name of notary. Upon information and belief fraud may have occurred regarding the notarizations on the foreclosure documents. Upon information and belief. 2010. is employed by Recontrust and as such. 70. (A copy of the Criminal Offense Investigation Referral dated August 2. have composed the Substitution of Trustee Arizona and possibly forged the signature of ?????????. 2010 in Tarrant County. (See: Exhibit 5 pages 6.A . Plaintiff filed criminal charges against Notary. Horner discovered evidence of possible fraud committed by Notary Name of Notary who notarized the Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust. who notarized the foreclosure documents dated January 21. Upon information and belief fraud may have occurred regarding the notarizations on the foreclosure documents. Upon information and belief fraud may have occurred regarding the recorded foreclosure documents. Pursuant to Horner’s Forensic Examination. Plaintiff filed criminal charges against R. (A copy of the Notary complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 9). notarization. 72. N. pursuant to Horner’s Forensic
Examination.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Arnold. Inc." This is because MERS merely holds title as nominee for the true beneficiary. informed Plaintiff that MERS has stated that they are not. (A copy of the Notice of Completion attached hereto as Exhibit 12). website: “Normally. ??????????????. and was not. pursuant to the Deed of Trust dated December 1. the name of the grantee will be different than the name of the entity foreclosing. and 8) 74. 7. Defendant’s Corporations may have filed and/or recorded numerous forged.
. 76. the Trustee’s Deed upon Sale states that the "Grantee was not the foreclosing beneficiary. 2010 is hereby attached as Exhibit 11). it is the true beneficiary that has actually foreclosed and acquired title”. James F. A Notice of Completion has been recorded at the Pinal County Recorders office evidencing the findings of Charles J. Horner. fraudulent. Plaintiff is concerned that pursuant to Horner’s Forensic Examination. MERS acted solely as nominee for Bear Sterns recorded document no. (A copy of the Consumer Complaint Form dated August 7. In addition. even where the property reverts. the true beneficiary thereby nullifying the nomination to BAC Home Loans Servicing LP . Moynihan. See: Excerpt from the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. Upon information and belief. where the name of the grantee under the Trustee’s Deed upon Sale is different than the name of the foreclosing entity. Taylor." This designation triggers the imposition of transfer taxes on the sale. (See: Exhibits 5. It is important to note that in a MERS foreclosure sale. Mail Fraud and Swindles. of Presentment of false instrument for filing. and Brian T. (See: Exhibit 3). 75. 6. the Trustee’s Deed upon Sale should state that "The Grantee was the foreclosing beneficiary. 2006. 73. and Deceptive Business Acts regarding the foreclosure documents. Nonetheless. and/or false documents into the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office to steal Plaintiff’s property. Horner and Associates.
Case No. 79. 10-21656-E-11 which found that MERS could not. National Association. Gallardo. Also pursuant to Horner “There have been many court decisions of late which have acknowledged that MERS is not the owner of the underlying note. 2010 in the matter of In Re: Walker. In Luis E. Without evidence either that MERS could properly assign the note. there are many judicial opinions in several different states that MERS does not have the capacity as only a nominee to execute the process of foreclosure or to assign security instruments from one beneficiary to the other.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
77. MERS initiated the foreclosure
process by executing and recording certain instruments which sets in place the entities that carry out the process of foreclosure. according to Horner. For example. According to Horner. as Trustee for CSMC Mortgage-Backed Pass-Through Certificates. Movant has not established standing to seek stay relief. Series 2006-7. 10-04710-MM7. a recent San Diego Bankruptcy decision handed down by the Honorable Judge Margaret M. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California has issued a ruling dated May 20.” 80. as a matter of law. there is no evidence that MERS ever received an assignment of the note or had the ability to assign the note to Movant. vs Movant US Bancorp. which assigns the trust deed and the related note. But. have transferred the note to Citibank from the
. Movant has attached an "Assignment of Deed of Trust" from MERS to Movant. The note attached to the motion does not indicate that the note has been endorsed to Movant or endorsed in blank such that it became bearer paper. or that the note was endorsed to Movant or in blank. Judge Mann ruled: “Movant has not supplied evidence that establishes that Movant has standing to seek stay relief.
In that capacity. 78. Mann.
But. Lamy (New York). §3-302(d. or foreclose on the property secured by the deed”. Movant has attached an "Assignment of Deed of Trust" from MERS to Movant. there is no evidence that MERS ever received an assignment of the note or had the ability to assign the note to Movant. it appears to Plaintiff that no entity exsists today with the right to commence a nonjudicial foreclosure on Plaintiff’s property.C. Mann.” 81. which assigns the trust deed and the related note. Landmark v. the beneficial interest in the deed of trust. and In Re Foreclosure Cases (the “Boyko” decision from Ohio Federal Court). The Court’s opinion is headlined stating that MERS and Citibank are not the real parties in interest. Judge Mann ruled “Movant has not supplied evidence that establishes that Movant has standing to seek stay relief. Without evidence either that MERS could properly assign the note. citing the well-known cases of In Re Vargas (California Bankruptcy Court). The court found that MERS acted “only as a nominee” for Bayrock under the Deed of Trust and there was no evidence that the note was transferred. since Plaintiff’s Promissory Note was transferred. Bayrock Mortgage Corp.C. Kesler (Kansas decision as to lack of authority of MERS). g) only a Holder in Due Course and not a Holder has the right to foreclose on Plaintiff’s property. Movant has not established standing to seek stay relief.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
original lender. Upon information and belief pursuant to inter alia. e. or that the note was endorsed to Movant or in blank. Therefore. U.
. The opinion also provides that “several courts have acknowledged that MERS is not the owner of the underlying note and therefore could not transfer the note. LaSalle Bank v. The note attached to the motion does not indicate that the note has been endorsed to Movant or endorsed in blank such that it became bearer paper. a recent San Diego Bankruptcy decision handed down by the Honorable Judge Margaret M. In another case.
v. 88.D. [Plaintiff] in turn traded the check for the house. District Judge MARK R.R.. and does not have standing as a real party of
. § 33-801. BAC is not a true Holder in Due Course
or the real party in interest with standing to act as beneficiary of Plaintiff’s Deed of Upon information and belief.S. (See: Exhibit 5and 3) 87. exchange and not a Loan pursuant to Money Transmitter Law by selling the Promissory Bear Sterns as described in the memorandum decision by U. Upon information and belief.” (Emphasis added). 83. and does not have standing as a real party of interest. District of Connecticut. Bank of America is not the true Holder in
Due Course or the real party in interest with standing to act as beneficiary of Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
82. they are not limited to gold and silver coins. No. 2010. Bank of America has not put assets at risk or provided consideration in this matter. Plaintiff contends they did a currency as successor trustee with the power of sale. 86. Neither transaction implicates or violates a constitutional restriction on the states. Defendant. KRAVITZ: See: RAYMOND WINTSON McLAUGHLIN and Shakir Ra-Ade Bey. 3:09CV1762 (MRK). Upon information and belief. “Private parties may enter into transactions to trade whatever they agree on as having equal value. BAC has not put assets at risk or
provided consideration in this matter. Here.
Upon information and belief. United States District Court. Trust. 85. interest.S. INC. June 11. CITIMORTGAGE.
Upon information and belief. Connecticut. Upon information and belief Recontrust does not have standing to act Upon information and belief.C. the Mortgage Company traded its check for [the] promise to pay on the promissory note executed at the time of the mortgage's creation. Plaintiffs. 84. D.. BAC is not a valid nominee for the current purported Beneficiary of Plaintiff’s dormant Deed of Trust as defined by A.
Plaintiff contends. the Deed of Trust may be unenforceable See: Carpenter v Longan.R. that there exists a broken chain of ownership and that none of the Defendant’s Corporations have the right to act as the Trustee or Beneficiary of the Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust pursuant to A.R. therefore. Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin the Defendants from conducting a Trustee’s Sale unless and until such time that the Defendant’s can establish to this Court that they are qualified to act and exercise the powers and remedies of the Trustee. 95. and Beneficiary pursuant to ARS §§ 33-801 et seq. 96. obligations and liabilities that exist among the parties to the Agreements.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
89. 16 Wall. the Deed of Trust and the Promissory they ever received a loan from Bear Sterns in which to be in default of. 93. By reason of the foregoing a declaratory judgment is both necessary and proper in order to set forth and determine the rights.Civ.R. Judge Kravitz’s
statement: “promissory note executed at the time of the mortgage's creation” is the court’s acknowledgement that the Promissory Note was not a part of the Deed of Trust. 271 (1872).S. 83 U.P. Plaintiff contends. Should Plaintiff prevail in this matter they are entitled to an award of Plaintiff has filed contemporaneously herewith a Motion for a
Court costs and fees pursuant to F. 97. Upon information and belief.S. a controversy exists as to whether or not any of the Defendants are qualified or entitled to sell Plaintiff’s Property as permitted by A.
Upon information and belief. 91. Based upon the forgoing.S. Note were not integral. 92. § 33-807. 94. Plaintiff has not found any evidence that Upon information and belief. The Plaintiff has incurred Court costs and fees in this matter. § 33-301et seq. /
Order that Defendants correct all filings with the Maricopa County Award Plaintiff their court costs and fees incurred herein. D. Interpret the Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust.
. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment as follows: A. DATED: the 9th day of August. agent Your Name here. C. E. pro se Signed reserving all my rights at UCC 1-308 VERIFIED STATEMENT Recorder’s Office. pro se Signed reserving all my rights at UCC 1-308 BY: ____________________________. B. agent Your Name here. in the year of Our Lord..1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
// RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE. Enter a temporary restraining order enjoining the Defendants from exercising the power of the Trustee and Beneficiary of the Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust pursuant to ARS § 33-801 et seq.. 2010 BY: ____________________________. to act as the Trustee and Beneficiary of the Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust and exercise any rights or obtain any remedies thereto. Determine and declare if the Defendants do have the right pursuant
to ARS § 33-801 et seq. until such time that Defendants can clearly establish by documentary evidence that they have the right to do so.
3. hereinafter “Plaintiff”.. Plaintiff is competent to state the matters set forth herein.. All the facts herein are true. correct and complete. agent Your Name here. pro se Signed reserving all my rights at UCC 1-308
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ORIGINAL and ONE COPY delivered to UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. and if called upon as a witness. DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. pro se Signed reserving all my rights at UCC 1-308 VERIFIED STATEMENT The undersigned Plaintiff. All the facts herein are true. and if called upon as a witness. does solemnly declare and state as follows: 1. hereinafter “Plaintiff”. correct and complete. this 9th day of August. and a civilian. 2010. to
the best of Plaintiffs knowledge and belief. and admissible as evidence. Plaintiff has knowledge of the facts stated herein. and admissible as evidence. 3.
. 2.. does solemnly declare and state as follows: 1. agent Your Name here. not misleading. pro se. BY: ____________________________. Plaintiff has knowledge of the facts stated herein. pro se. Plaintiff will testify to their veracity. not misleading. Your Name here. Plaintiff will testify to their veracity. a man.. and a civilian. a woman. Plaintiff is competent to state the matters set forth herein.. to
the best of Plaintiffs knowledge and belief. BY: ____________________________.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
The undersigned Plaintiff. Your Name here. 2..
Moynihan. Shely Gregory B. Central Avenue Suite 1800 Phoenix. R. P.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT has been furnished by Certified U. Taylor. Sparks 3200 N. Central Avenue Suite 2200 Phoenix. Arnold Certified Mail Return Receipt # 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 MAYNARD CRONIN ERICKSON CURRAN & SPARKS. James F. Douglas C. Erickson Jennifer A.L. Angelo Mozilo. 2010 to: Certified Mail Return Receipt # 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 BRYAN CAVE LLP Robert W. AZ 85012 Attorneys for Defendant: SERVICE BY PROCESS SERVER TO: Name of Defendant here Address of Defendant here Address of Defendant here Name of Defendant here Address of Defendant here Address of Defendant here Name of Defendant here Address of Defendant here Address of Defendant here Name of Defendant here Address of Defendant here Address of Defendant here
.S.C. Mail on this 9th day of August.K. AZ 85004-4406 Attorneys for Defendants: Brian T. Iannelli Two N.
S. 83 U.Y.2d 873
.2d 224 Indymac Bank v.S.S. Bethley.S. 271 Wells Fargo. HSBC Bank v.2d Wells Fargo v.Y.2d 21. Longan.Y. Farmer. 880 N. pro se Signed reserving all my rights at UCC 1-308
CASES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS Carpenter v.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Name of Defendant here Address of Defendant here Address of Defendant here BY: ____________________________. 866 N..S. 867 N. agent Your Name here..2d 91 EquiFirst Indymac Bank v. Peabody. Boyd.Y. Litton Loan v.Y. 880 N. 867 N. 16 Wall. Reyes.S.
App. 880 N. 867 N. 55 F. 07AP-615 In Lambert v. 658 F. 526 (7th Cir. 658 F. 528. 230 N.W. 83 Ark.).S. Reyes. 202. Emma Mason. Inc. Firstar Bank. Litton Loan v. v.R. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. 178 Ohio App. Menominee River Co. Citizens National Bank. 875 N. Tweel. 115 S.R. Citizens State Bank.2d 529.S. 216 P. PA. Banks and Banking 5th Ed. v.ons. v. No. 387. Bethley. 550 F. Sec 65.E. Augustus Spies L & C Co.2d 21 United States v.2d 595 Novastar Mortgage.S." American Express Co. Sec 248. 130 S. 534 United States v.S. Chong. Kis. 526 (7th Cir. 291.C.2d 21 Wells Fargo.3d 158 20. 559 at p. Stachnik v. Byrd.S. CASE NO. Magee. 514 U.2d 873 Heintz v.2d 764 Landmark National Bank v. U.). 172.Y.S. 07-MA-17 Everhome Mortgage Company v. 757.Y. Atkinson. Jenkins.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
HSBC Bank National Trust Co v. Kis. 289 Kan. Snyder 3:07CV480 DLJ Capital. Kesler.W.Y.Y. 181 Wis. Farmer.S. Winkel. vs. 465
. 259. NY Slip Op 51471U Wells Fargo v. Howard & Foster Co. v. 46 N. 318. 3rd Ed.). 2d 395 Lebanon Correctional Institution v. 867 N.D.2d Wells Fargo Bank. 133 S. Court of Common Pleas 35 Ohio St. 572. Ed. v. Torres. 147 Wis.3d 285. Ct. 127 S.2d.S. 1489.LaSalle Bank v. I Morse.2d 297 (1977). 44 Minn. v. 132 NW In re Hwang.2d. Indymac Bank v. 824 N.. 375. 3d 523 Anheuser-Busch Brewing Company v.W.Y. Rowland. C. 394 Mich. Banks and Banking. Inc v. 131 L. Inc. 766-67 (Bankr. 396 B. Cal. Ahearn. 194 NW 427 National Bank of Commerce v.
Supp. 43 Wis. 69 S. MA. Flushing Nat 'l Bank. Inc.. Blevins v...).3d 432 (6th Cir.
.hall v. 87 L. Dist.) Delawder v.2d 298 Leonard v. 2d 655 (S. Griffith v. 473 U.P. 121 B.D. Block & Rathbone. 2d 346 Wright v.D.. Iverson.S.D. 105 S. Monroe. Supp. Savings Bank. Ed.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
National Bank of Commerce v.R. 233 F.S.. 8 Kan.. App. Weinberg & Reis Co.R.2d 239 Sedima. 54 P.W.3d 469 (7th Cir. 1:04-cv. Guardian Agency v.S.S. 23 A. 2005 U. 197 Ill 532. Atkinson. 279 NW 79 Whipp v.R. 8 First Nat'l Bank of Tallapoosa v. Ct. Guardian Mut. Hartman v.2d 166. 755 F.2d 645. 30. 227 Wis. Nagler. L. 1:03-cv-113. 479.. 90-6452 U.Ohio). 3275. 1:04cv238 (S. Moore v.). 279 N.147 Wis.W. SPRL v. 155 Gearing v.. 79 Durante Bros. & Sons. 133 B. Check Brokerage Corp. Weltman. 2004 U. Block & Rathbone. 1123 Whipp v. Javitch. 395 F. 550. 572. Springer. 43 Wis. Dist. No. 64 NE 299 Menominee River Co. 168 N. Javitch. 2d 166. Imrex Co.Y.E. Inc.S.D.S. 704 (Pa. v. Security State Bank of Hamilton. Asset Acceptance Corp.). 135 Ga 614. Hudson & Keyse.Ohio... 257 N. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co. 2d 856 (S. 405 F.2d 201 Bankers Trust v. 559 at p. Gionis v. 814 Steinbrechis v. Civil Action No.).A. 110 B.680.R.Ohio. Todd v. Iverson. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co. LLP. Augustus Spies L & C Co. Platinum Financial. 434 F. v.
09 16 10 ComplaintUploaded by Mike RothermelPlaintiffDeedMortgage LawTrust LawForeclosure292 viewsDownloadEmbedSee MoreCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)List price: $0.00Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content
Documents similar to 09 16 10 ComplaintCognovit Defense PaperworkBank of New York v. Silverberg[1]Bank of New York v. Silver Berg wFOLLOWING THE MONEY — WHAT TO ASK FOR AND LOOK FORMERS Info - Discovery - Submissions - InterrogatoriesMERS chongamicusbrieffinalBank of NY v SilverbergKiller Foreclosure Discovery Order Certifying MERS QuestionsForeclosure Subprime Mortgage Lending and MERSCase Decisions Regarding Proof of ClaimClass Action vs Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Gmac, Deutsche Bank, Nation Star, Aurora, Bac, Citi, Us Bank, Lps, Et AlRobo-signer Complaint 03Hooker v Northwest Trustee Memorandum of Law 14 Oct 2010Townsend VComplaintUnder Seal Special Warranty DotReply to Opposition for Motion for Evidence Hearingl[1]MS Kirby v BoAGeorgia Federal Class ActionNiday vs GMAC, MERS, et al July 18, 2012My Own Adversary Complaint San Jose Judges Just Don’t Get It When It Comes Down To Who Owns The Note To Your Property. Bank of Metropolis v. Guttschlick, 39 U.S. 19 (1840)the magicDancy v MERS and ALSFederal Complaint (Plaintiff or sDeutsche v. Williams DecisionGeorgia Foreclosure Fraud Class Action - Georgia Residents v Georgia Foreclosure FraudstersHawaii - Deuche Bank v. williamses-order - MTD Granted - SecurizationBooks similar to 09 16 10 ComplaintLegal Words You Should KnowThe Complete Dictionary of Mortgage & Lending Terms Explained SimplyNational Bureau of Economic Research Series on Long-Term Factors in Economic DevelopmentDefeat ForeclosureYour California Will, Trusts, & Estates Explained SimplyYour Georgia Wills, Trusts, & Estates Explained SimplyCollection of Inside Stories 2015Consumer BankruptcyBeing A RealtorThe Borrowers BibleFederal Bankruptcy RulesAspects of the International Banking Safety NetThe U-Haul Trailer & Doolie Weencer's HearseHow to Become a Mortgage Loan CloserThe Bankrupt
or Advice to the Insolvent. A Poem, addressed to a friend, with other piecesFinancing Real Estate Investments For DummiesTiny HousesDocuments about PlaintiffAmended Complaint Filed 9/30/2016 Doe v. Trump et al refiled complaint 9/30/16Tiffany Doe DeclarationiPhone Touch Screen - Amended Complaint [CONFORMED COPY]2016-04-18 Cheri Jacobus Lawsuit Against Trump and LewandowskiSaudi LawsuitPennie v. Soros et al Amended Complaint179125570172Mejia v. Freeman - FIT AND THICK trademark complaint.pdfVW Diesel caseLil Wayne v. Cash Money - complaint.pdf20160718 - Wwe Cte LawsuitCavanaugh v BarteltAndrea Tantaros suitTake-Two and Rockstar Games v Leslie BenziesZenimax v Oculus - Amended ComplaintAmended Levaquin complaint Lawsuit against Hillary ClintonSolid Oak Sketches v Take-TwoPalantir LawsuitPokemon Go lawsuitGoguen/Baptiste San Mateo CourtBenzies v RockstarFresh Guidelines on Quashing of Proceedings of a Non-compoundable Offence on the Basis of Settlement Between the PartiesMumford Emergency MotionGov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against EOS Lip BalmGhomeshi rulingHaloSongs Inc v SheeranCarlsbad Police Brutality ComplaintDocuments about DeedMassachusetts Quitclaim Deed ExampleI am an attorney so I decided to sue my lender...Fraudulent Conveyance Quiet Title PacketReport on Fraudulent & Forged Assignments of Mortgages & Deeds in U.S. ForeclosuresREBA v. NREIS DecisionMERS RULES OF MEMBERSHIPMERS QA Procedures Rel19 5 DraftDefective Real Estate DocumentsGeorgia Foreclosure Fraud Class Action - Georgia Residents v Georgia Foreclosure FraudstersForeclosure Subprime Mortgage Lending and MERS Informal Settlements and Finance in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Quit Claim DeedIbanez Case JAN 2011Gunsmoke Guns Search Warrant AffidavitProduce the Note California StyleBank of America Countrywide Class Action CaliforniaGeorge Gingo - In the 5th District Florida Court of AppealsMERS, The Unreported Effects of Lost Chain of Title on Real Property Owners and Their NeighborsMills Response To First Horizon's Motion To DismissTwo Faces Demystifying the Mortgage Electronic Registration System's Land Title TheorySaxon Mortgage Services, Inc., Et Al., Plaintiffs, V. Ruthie b. Hillery, Et Al., DefendantsChase Initial ComplaintGrant DeedMortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc and Country Wide Home Loans Inc v Warren e Agin Trustee AppelleeThe Florida Foreclosure Judge’s Bench BookCity Council Agenda, Dec. 19, 2011Contract for DeedMortgage DeedVoices of Women Entrepreneurs in TanzaniaBooks about Mortgage LawNavigating the Mortgage MazeI'm Losing My Home!; What Am I Going To Do Now?25 Insider Tips Home Buyers Should KnowThe Reverse Mortgage BookMoney—How to Save It, Spend It, and Make ItDocuments about Mortgage Law2016 Profile of International Home Buying Activity501 - Contract to Purchase Real Estate (c) 2012 - ID-WATERMARKA Guide to Understanding a Residential AppraisalYork Capital's Letter to InvestorsDepositionJames Gandolfini WillCFPB Closing DisclosureUniform Commercial Code UCC – The Note The Transferee and the WardrobeClass Action vs Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Gmac, Deutsche Bank, Nation Star, Aurora, Bac, Citi, Us Bank, Lps, Et AlRent to Own AgreementForeclosure Case Killer!- An Allonge Is Not Admissable Evidence of Bank’s OwnershipBarack Obama's Blueprint For Change50 Cent v. World Star Hip Hop OpinionMortgage Assignments as Evidence of FraudMortgage Broker Resume SampleAmerican International Group Inc and SubsidiariesMERS RULES OF MEMBERSHIPLease AgreementMERS QA Procedures Rel19 5 DraftMotion for Sanction of Dismissal With Prejudice or Dismissal for Unclean HandsExplanation of SecuritizationPMI Ocwen Anderson Report - Sue First Ask Questions LaterMotion to Dismiss Complaint, Motion to Vacate Clerks Default and in the Alternative Motion for Summary JudgmentDefective Real Estate DocumentsApartment Rental AgreementLease with Option to Purchasesection aBooks about Trust LawA Tax Guide to Conservation EasementsInside Stories 2014Your Massachusetts Wills, Trusts, & Estates Explained SimplyYour Michigan Wills, Trusts, & Estates Explained SimplyYour Indiana Wills, Trusts & Estates Explained SimplyYour Virginia Wills, Trusts, & Estates Explained SimplyYour Washington Wills, Trusts, & Estates Explained SimplyYour Ohio Wills, Trusts, & Estates Explained SimplyCollection of Inside Stories 2015An Everyday Aussie’s Guide to Discretionary TrustsA history of romanian oil vol. I8 Ways to Avoid ProbateHow to Settle a Simple Estate Without a LawyerLawDocuments about Trust LawRNC PlatformThe Open Banking StandardProfiles in Innovation - May 24, 2016 (1)SEC v. CoopermanBlockchain TechnologyHidden Debt, Hidden DeficitsPalantir LawsuitPublication 6744, Volunteer Assistor's Test/RetestAmnesty-Breaking the Social Security BankLiving TrustLast Will and TestamentSWARM Working Paper, Distributed Networks and the LawMass Surveillance ReportJames Gandolfini WillUniform Commercial Code UCC – The Note The Transferee and the Wardrobe2012 Edelman Trust BarometerClass Action vs Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Gmac, Deutsche Bank, Nation Star, Aurora, Bac, Citi, Us Bank, Lps, Et AlForeclosure Case Killer!- An Allonge Is Not Admissable Evidence of Bank’s OwnershipBill Ackman's Presentation on Corrections Corp of America (CXW) @ the Value Investing CongressWedbush November ReportMortgage Assignments as Evidence of FraudSecuritization is IllegalDePauw Magazine Winter 2009-10NBA Constitution and by LawsLaurinaitis et al v. World Wrestling Entertainment et al complaintMERS RULES OF MEMBERSHIPBooks about ForeclosureNothing Down for the 2000sDo You Have a MERS Mortgage?The Everything Guide to Buying ForeclosuresForeclosure DefenseThe Pre-Foreclosure Real Estate HandbookForeclosure Survival Guide, TheHouse of DebtFree & Clear, Standing & Quiet TitleUse Foreclosure LawThe Realtor & Investor's Complete Step by Step Guide To Mastering Foreclosures By State (Insider Secrets to Finding, Listing, Selling AND Profiting from Foreclosure Properties in ALL 50 States!)How to Avoid Foreclosure in California, 2012 EditionHUD Homes Half Off!Overcoming ForeclosureFederal Reserve Consumer HandbooksThe Broke Man's Survival GuideForeclosing the DreamHow to Buy Bank-Owned Properties for Pennies on the DollarForeclosure Mitigation Efforts in the United StatesHow To Find Free Foreclosure Listing Sites With No Sign-up Mini-GuideHow To Buy Foreclosure Homes Step-By-Step Guide With 40+ FREE Foreclosure Listings SitesFrom Foreclosure to Fair LendingThe 250 Questions Everyone Should Ask about Buying ForeclosuresHow to Buy Foreclosed Real EstateNine-tenths of the LawMortgage HellLoan Modifications, Foreclosures and Saving Your HomeHow to Survive and Prosper After a Financial MisfortuneThe Complete Guide to Locating, Negotiating, and Buying Real Estate ForeclosuresThe Complete Guide to Preventing Foreclosure on Your HomeDocuments about Foreclosure2016 Home Buyer and Seller Generational TrendsAllocation of Partnership Liabilities (Full Version)Glenview Q4 14CFPB Closing DisclosureUniform Commercial Code UCC – The Note The Transferee and the WardrobeClass Action vs Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Gmac, Deutsche Bank, Nation Star, Aurora, Bac, Citi, Us Bank, Lps, Et AlForeclosure Case Killer!- An Allonge Is Not Admissable Evidence of Bank’s OwnershipIra Sohn Presentation 2014.05.05Barack Obama's Blueprint For ChangeMortgage Assignments as Evidence of FraudMERS RULES OF MEMBERSHIPFlorida Rules of Civil ProcedureErica Johnson Seck Deposition - Indymac Federal Bank Fsb, Plaintiff, Vs. Israel a. Machado - 50 2008 CA 037322xxxx MbMERS QA Procedures Rel19 5 DraftMotion for Sanction of Dismissal With Prejudice or Dismissal for Unclean HandsExplanation of SecuritizationPMI Ocwen Anderson Report - Sue First Ask Questions LaterMotion to Dismiss Complaint, Motion to Vacate Clerks Default and in the Alternative Motion for Summary JudgmentDefective Real Estate DocumentsMotion - Substantiated Allegations of Foreclosure Fraud That Implicates the Florida Attorney General’s Office and The Florida Default Law GroupDocket - Nguyen Et.al. v. Chase Bank USA, NA; Chase Home Finance LLC. Et.al.section aMortgage Assignment Fraud - U.S. Bank National Assoc., As Trustee v. Ernest E. Harpster Sl-2007-CA-6684-ESFlorida Attorney General Fraudclosure Report | Unfair, Deceptive and Unconscionable Acts in Foreclosure CasesHomeownership Preservation Policy for Residential Mortgage AssetsGeorgia Foreclosure Fraud Class Action - Georgia Residents v Georgia Foreclosure FraudstersForeclosure Subprime Mortgage Lending and MERS