Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/53663589/Verified-Rico-Complaint-Template
Timestamp: 2016-10-24 13:20:28
Document Index: 590440454

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2607', '§ 1601', '§ 1341', '§ 1343', '§ 1010', '§ 1961', '§ 77', '§ 860', '§ 1031', '§ 1031', '§ 860', '§ 10', '§1044', '§10', '§10', '§ 1334', '§ 1409', '§ 1961', '§ 1961', '§ 1961', '§ 1961', '§ 1961', '§ 1961', '§ 1961', '§ 1961', '§ 1962', '§ 1962', '§ 1961', '§ 17200', '§ 609', '§ 2924', '§2924']

Verified Rico Complaint Template BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicUNITED STATES ________________ COURT FOR THE _______________DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ______________________________ and all ) persons unknown claiming any legal or equitable ) right, title estate, lien or interest in the property ) described in the complaint adverse to plaintiff’s ) title or any cloud on Plaintiff’s title thereto and ) Does 1 through 100 inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ____________________, and others similarly situated, CASE NO. VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. CIVIL RICO; FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE; REAL ESTATE FRAUD; VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200, et seq.; VIOLATION OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT; TRUTH IN LENDING ACT; FRAUD UPON THE COURT; RESPA; MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD; CIVIL HARASSMENT; PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE; VIOLATION OF 2932.5; UNCONCIONABILITY; ABUSE OF PROCESS; AND QUIET TITLE
INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS
Plaintiff, ______________, hereinafter “_________” or “Plaintiff”, sue the Defendants set forth above for the violations of several Federal and state laws, Civil Rico the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. § 2607 et seg. and the implementing Regulation X (“Reg. X”); the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seg. and the implementing Regulation Z (“Reg. Z”); the Federal Mail Fraud Act, 18 U.S.C § 1341 (the “Mail Fraud Act”); the Federal Wire Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (the “Wire Act”); Bank Fraud 18 U.S.C. §§ 1010, 1014, 1344 (“Bank Fraud”); the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
-1VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seg.; the Securities Act of 1933 15 U.S.C § 77a et seq. (the “33 Act”), and Rules promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”); and for violations of several state and federal and laws. Plaintiff is typically representative of other borrowers that fell prey to the violations outlined and covered by this Complaint. 2. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Insert THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR CASE
When viewed in the totality of the circumstances, this matter is not simply a case of innocent, hard working, honest, home purchasers and borrowers being duped and being taken advantage of by unscrupulous individuals and lending companies. This case deals with arrogant, irresponsible and greedy companies that made predatory, toxic and ultimately unaffordable loans to these Borrowers - VICTIMS, and preyed on gullible, unsophisticated consumers, and, among other things, the: a. Standing1at the outset, of any putative person or entity that claims to have
the power to enforce through foreclosure, the default rights under the applicable mortgage promissory notes (and the deeds of trust) in a securitized mortgage, REMICS or Conduit Loan schemes; b.
Legality of so-called “Negative Amortization Loans”; 2
The issue of “Standing” is a basic issue of Constitutional Law either at the Federal level or at the state district court level. That is to say, if you are not the person directly injured or directly benefiting from a specific law or circumstance, you cannot go to court and try to enforce any rights that do not belong to you. The United States Supreme Court in several cases has stated that federal courts must satisfy for themselves that Standing exists and that "the plaintiff has `alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy' as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction." Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498-99 (1975). Thus, if no direct injury or direct harm to the claimant that wishes to pursue a claim in court, then no right to “standing” or right to be in court in the first place.
The term Negative Amortization loan or NegAm loan in this Complaint refers to mortgage loans that have a “negative amortization” feature. Under the NegAm feature, any accrued interest on a mortgage loan is deferred and added to the outstanding original Principal balance of that mortgage loan if the minimum monthly payment on such mortgage loan on its interest payment date is less than the amount of accrued interest due on that mortgage loan on that payment date. As a result, because the initial payments on these NegAm mortgage loans were “teaser rates” that typically started at 1% or 2%, interest began accumulating from the day of settlement forward. This resulted in a re- calculation of the interest rate each month as the principal balance increased each month
Simply put. as stated in the loan applications which are the subject of the present Complaint. f.
Legality of lenders’ failure to disclose the aggregate costs involved in so-
called "Negative Amortization Loans”. if the investments have already been paid off or “bailed out” by their “securitized pool insurer or credit enhancement
-3VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
. That is to say. whose associated pool has been paid by its “loss of value insurer. Legality of the failure to properly account for. but yet entirely fails to include that YSP in the calculations applicable to the Truth in Lending Act Disclosures (“TILA Disclosures”).” or various “credit enhancement policies” may still foreclose on homes belonging to that pool in a double payment.c. in some cases. and calculate or
list all the quantifiable reasons for the difference that exists between the YSP and the “par value” costs of a loan so as to properly and adequately inform Borrowers the reasons or guidelines as to why they obtained an “above par value” pricing for their particular loan. which. Plaintiffs earned well over their real and unadjusted incomes. Legality of failure to disclose the applicable “par value” of a loan
transaction before the transaction is made or completed. Legality of failure to completely account for the aggregate costs of a
transaction which purports to disclose a “yield spread premium” (“YSP”). e. the transaction as a whole would not have taken place. triple payment or even quadruple payment scheme. if the only way you can afford to buy a house is with a second loan. h. as stated by the OSSAS and MORTGAGE UNLIMITED BROKER in Plaintiffs’ loan applications. then the costs of that loan should be included in the “costs” of the first loan so the buyer can make an informed decision. g. d. disclose. Plaintiffs had excellent credit and. Legality of whether a “pool” or “tranche” of securitized mortgage backed
securities. especially if. Legality of failure to disclose the aggregate costs of the transaction
involved in so-called "Negative Amortization Loans” and any accompanying subordinate financing schemes to purchase or refinance a residential dwelling. but for the subordinate financing.
policy or guarantee” or “bail out federal government entity”. The “Defeasance” of REMICs. giving them yet a fourth source of profit distribution to the investors that purchase the securitized debt obligations in a securitized mortgages pool scheme. a qualified real estate mortgage investment conduit is defined in §§ 860A through 860G of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “IRS” Code”).
Securities Act of 1933. why do they continue to have the right to get paid out yet a second time if they already had required “loss reserves” insured against the possibility of default. the Defendants’ behavior is not just egregious. and that is even before a foreclosure is completely processed.g. i. Internal Revenue Code of 1986 Sections 860D and 1031)3 and applied to these Conduit Loan activities. or otherwise. it is outright robbery and theft being perpetrated against innocent and unsuspecting victims: 1) the people who signed up for these loans and 2) the American taxpayer. is controlled by the like-kind exchange provisions of IRS Code § 1031. has the standing to enforce any provisions of the Note. if done properly and to minimize the tax effects inherent therein. And because of how the Internal Revenue Code is written (e. The “Defeasance” of REMICs. (b). if the investors have already been paid once. as amended. by rules and regulations
. a foreclosure essentially effectuates a potential payment of yet a third time on the same notes. if done properly and to minimize the tax effects inherent therein. is controlled by the like-kind exchange provisions of IRS Code § 1031. In this Complaint. pools. To add insult to injury and add profits for the nefarious actors in these schemes. and greedy. a qualified real estate mortgage investment conduit is defined in §§ 860A through 860G of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “IRS” Code”). as amended. issuer. j. the Commission shall have authority to classify prospectuses according to the nature and circumstances of their use or the nature of the security. Considering the “bail out” payments and the totality of the circumstances. especially when the original Promissory Note is lost. these profits are potentially tax free to the pool owners or investors. § 10(d): Classification of prospectuses: “In the exercise of its powers under subsections (a).” Further. arrogant. unconscionable. including the power to enforce the Note by foreclosure. issue. and. Legality of whether a merely putative “holder or servicer of the Note” but
not the direct “beneficiary of payments of the Note”. are the putative investors still entitled to foreclose on consumers that have not been “bailed out. irresponsible.
One sided practical application of the 33 Act §1044 disclosures and SEC
In this Complaint. or (c). or tranches of securitized mortgage backed securities.
when applied to the mortgage securitization industry. before the prospective investor buys securitized mortgage certificates. but drown the borrowers themselves and never warn the borrowers. These Negative Amortization loans actually create a galling and perplexing dichotomy in the respective prospectus filed with the SEC: always protect the investors and disclose all potential default risks in a certain securitized investment pool.
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 424(b)(5) requires that: “A form of prospectus that discloses information. the prospective pool issuer or sponsor of the REMIC pool or Conduit Loan must comply with the disclosure requirements of the 33 Act by filing a “424(b)(5)”5 prospectus or private placement memorandum.”
This failure to require and enforce appropriate borrower disclosures at the time the securitized loan is made or applied for renders the SEC potentially culpable if not complicit in the predatory lending schemes which are the subject of this Complaint. Basically. what is good for the goose is good for the gander. That Rule 424 filing warns any prospective investors. This failure to “trickle down” and “enforce the warnings and disclosures” as against mortgage loan borrowers is in direct contravention of the 33 Act §10 itself which states: In the exercise of its powers ….” Yet. regardless of whether it is in the public interest to warn the borrowers of the default risks inherent in the loans themselves. facts or events covered … shall be filed with the Commission no later than the second business day following the earlier of the date of the determination of the offering price or the date it is first used after effectiveness in connection with a public offering or sales. to prescribe as to each class the form and contents which it may find appropriate and consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors [emphasis added]. Specifically.Rule 424(b)(5). Failing to warning borrowers that their loans are likely to default because of the nature and characteristics of their loan itself is appropriate and consistent with the public interest.6
and subject to such terms and conditions as it shall specify therein. or transmitted by a means reasonably calculated to result in filing with the Commission by that date. that certain loans in the proposed securitized mortgages pool possessing Negative Amortization or interest only loan characteristics present a “…likelihood of default. in violation of the 1933 Act §10 itself. potential borrowers are never warned or told that their loan type is likely to fail or likely to default regardless of the borrower’s high credit score. especially in the early years…. and valiant effort to pay the mortgage loan. The effects of these failures are being felt all over the country. the Commission shall have authority to …prescribe … the form and contents which it may find appropriate and consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors [emphasis added].
-5VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
. intention.
securitized mortgage pool default insurer). RICO.g. or otherwise improperly completed or tampered with so as to show higher than existing savings and checking account balances at the time of loan application. failures to show the proper and chronological “chain of custody” of a Promissory Note in the securitized mortgage backed securities market so as to unquestionably give the right to the “holder” of the Note to enforce the Notes by foreclosure when the Notes default. are in direct violation of TILA. falsified. and monitor any indicia of quality and/or quality control for those individuals and entities originating loans so that loan applications would be accurately and truthfully completed. Additionally. failures to properly account for all the costs and finance charges associated with Negative Amortization loans. and getting paid out perhaps no less than three (3) times on the same mortgage notes when a foreclosure is instituted against the Plaintiffs.These failures of any putative interested party to have the legal standing to foreclose on defaulting mortgage promissory notes which are part of a mortgage securitization scheme. and others. failures to make sure that bank statements would not be altered. failures to properly disclose all other hidden costs in connection with the financing of a consumer transaction. failures to make otherwise valid and non-negative amortization loans to finance home purchases or refinancings. this suit also raises issues of actual fraud and artifice designed and perpetrated by various parties acting in concert and preying upon unsuspecting consumers. RESPA. credit enhancement payments (e. loss reserve fund payments. Immigration laws. These securitized mortgage pools were set up in a manner which allows them to function
-6VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
. and failures to account for “bail out” fund payments. failures to account for and aggregate ad initio for the cost effects of subordinate financing in a given transaction. failures to disclose to borrowers the risks inherent in Negative Amortization loans. federal and state Bank Fraud laws. failures to adequately create. failures to aggregate financing costs. failures to give timely Truth in Lending Disclosures or Good Faith Estimates. failures to properly state the immigration status of certain individuals when stating that certain individuals are US Citizens when in reality they are Legal Permanent Residents or even Undocumented Aliens of this country. maintain. HOEPA. the 33 ACT.
To make a cruelly and sadly accurate analogy: this is not a simple case of leading lambs to the slaughter. “non-agency mortgage backed security pools”. Most disconcerting. unconscionable. 2. Even after the loans started
“defaulting” these insatiable scavengers continue to feed on their victims’ bodies and souls by securitizing. “securitized investment pools”. and other “securitized debt derivatives” that get cross-defaulted and/or cross-swapped. and then using them to feed their insatiable feeding frenzy. As we now know from the mortgage mess we are all experiencing. OTHER RELEVANT AND PERTINTENT FACTS The issues outlined and challenged by this Complaint seem complicated but in fact are very simple. it is a case of salivating carnivores dressed in lambs’ clothing luring unwitting and docile lambs to the feeding trough with promises of finding delicacies. underhanded. Rather. they pick apart the body and soul of their innocent and unsuspecting victims. ruining Plaintiffs’ credit. and improper profits at the expense of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated class members. insured. collateralizing. these illegal profits are ongoing. and egregious activities generated (and continue to generate) payments that had the effect of artificially inflating the cost of the consumers' loans. Specific allegations regarding the Defendants' ponzi scheme and modus operandi are more fully set forth below. Further. all these violations had the immediate and incurable effect of ruining innocent peoples’ lives. ruining Plaintiffs’ American dream of owning a home they could afford. and credit scores. re-insured and ultimately paid-off (perhaps multiple times) before even reaching the unsuspecting taxpayers and guaranteed government bail-outs. and re-selling these loans in “tranched investment pools”. exhausting any family savings and retirement funds. Like rapacious scavengers. and each of them participated in a racket to defraud a certain class of
-7VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
. these deceiving. credit histories. and reap for the Defendants quite substantial. illegal. Defendants. and ruining all Plaintiffs’ health given the enormous stress as Plaintiffs will likely be rendered homeless due to foreclosure of their homes at any given moment because of their inability to pay the mortgage loans that Defendants set up for them. on-going.as racketeering activities in glorified pyramid and ponzi schemes operating under the color of law.
like an orchestra that has been perfectly choreographed and through the help of their aiding and abetting associates at law firms. Thus. these firms rarely comply with and most times even ignore their fiduciary duty to the affected Borrowers. namely the elderly. including perpetrating fraud upon the court. Since their activities are “presumptively valid” by statute in a non-judicial foreclosure jurisdiction like Virginia. and each of them. the Defendants racket included falsifying documents. in a scheme to defraud them of the equity in their homes if they had one. Many fraudulent acts took place here. the handicapped. Adams 179 VA 170 (VA Sup Ct 1942)(Deed of Trust Trustee has a fiduciary obligation to all parties of the Deed of Trust.people. or fair dealing and set the targeted group into mortgages they could not afford. the fraudulent transfer of funds. these Defendants continue their reign of lawlessness and terror in court of law. and fraudulent foreclosure among numerous other crimes. issuers and owners. and taking every step with reckless disregard to the law of the land.
-8VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
. betting against the fraudulent mortgages created with deadly MALICE AFORETHOUGHT. These Defendants. the securitization pool managers. Fraudulent overvaluation of real estate. at times. Although foreclosing law firms and trustees have a fiduciary duty7 to both a Lender and a Borrower to make sure that the foreclosing entity actually has the power or authority to commence foreclosure proceedings. minorities and those with low credit scores. It is not helpful that their unchallenged participation in the foreclosure process provides these conspirators and aiders and abettors with hefty legal fee revenues and. servicers. the fraudulent creations of balloon payments. If they did not have a home. civil rights. these participating foreclosure law firms and foreclosing representative entities are hardly ever
See Powell v. not just the Lender). participated in a rackets to profit by betting against the loans they created to fail and collect insurance payments in amounts in excess of 20x’s the maturity value of the fraudulent mortgage note. by
unlicensed “real estate appraiser” representatives of subprime bank. commissions of 5% or more of the sale price of a given foreclosed property. the fraudulent creation of stated income. the fraudulent methods of collection on these payments. human rights.
For instance. JURISDICTION AND VENUE Plaintiff is and at all time mentioned herein. statutory penalties and damages. mandated.challenged or questioned in court. just because a child plays with a defective toy and loses an eye. just because car company executives do not know that their New Model car gas tank would explode on contact in a car accident. These actions by Defendants and their attorneys can be deemed as fraud upon the court among other bad faith acts and violations of law. but also the subsequent investor who knowingly and willfully violates the law by boldly attempting to steal Marks home with no legal standing to do so. the costs of this action.C. § 1334. based on verified monthly incomes. venue for this matter.S. 4.S. we need to borrow some case law that has developed from the product liability cases. Plaintiff seeks actual damages. attorneys' fees. reasonable and affordable loan modifications. In the matter at bar Marks has not only had to defend her home against the BANKS that defrauded her. Similarly. III. To put it more simply and to keep things in perspective. § 1409. equitable and remedial damages that this Honorable Court may deem necessary or appropriate in its discretion. This District is the proper venue for this proceeding pursuant to 28 U. injunctive relief to stop foreclosures of Negative Amortization loans covered by this Complaint pending resolutions of the issues being raised herein. compensatory and punitive damages.
-9VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
The transaction took place in this jurisdiction and this Court is the proper
This Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to 28 U. it does not mean they are not liable for the deaths of all affected and charred New Model drivers and passengers. and other legal.C. 1. California (hereinafter the “Subject Property”) 2. the fact the toy maker did not know that the product was defective does not mean they are not liable for making a defective product. 3.
. is an individual residing in the
County of Alameda and the owner of certain real property commonly known as __________________________. if applicable.
the Notice of Default was recorded prior to the fraudulent Assignment and substitution of Trustee. Plaintiff. _____________ attempted unlawful entry to the Subject Property with the clear intent to break into the Property and steal Plaintiff’s personal possessions. Defendant. Defendant. 5. .
THE PARTIES (hereinafter “____________”) is and was at all times material to this
Complaint a resident of ________________ County. fraudulent and void. _______________. __________ cannot be a bonafide purchaser for value. LLC. the Notice of Default was defective and void. As such the Assignment and substitution of Trustee is defective. _________ filed fraudulent documents in the ____________ County Recorder’s office. __________________.
-10VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
. (hereinafter “___________”) is and was at all times
material to this Complaint a corporation doing business in California. California and the sole owner of the property commonly known as ______________________. (hereinafter “Investor”) is and was at all times
material to this Complaint an individual doing business in California. ____________ failed to expunge the Lis Pendens that MARKS recorded fraudulent against the Subject Property. Defendant. (hereinafter “_________”) is and was at all times material to this Complaint
a corporation doing business in California. 2. California (hereinafter “The SUBJECT
PROPERTY”).IV. _______________ is a California Real Estate Broker registered with the Department of Real Estate. __________recorded fraudulent robo-signed documents in the _____________ County Recorder’s office and used fraudulent documents to effect an unlawful foreclosure sale. 1. ___________ TITLE COMPANY.. 4. Defendant. ___________ recorded a fraudulent Notice of Default referencing a loan to which Plaintiff has and has never had any obligation. ____________ trespassed upon the SUBJECT PROPERTY on __________________ and two pick up-trucks. As such. _____________ conducted the fraudulent foreclosure sale. 3. Additionally. (hereinafter “__________”) is and
was at all times material to this Complaint a corporation doing business in California. PRIOR TO to conducting the fraudulent Trustee’s sale.
000 exclusive of interest and costs.S. 1962(b) 1. Defendants. Substance prevails over form.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION CIVIL RICO COUNT ONE: Acquisition and Maintenance of an Interest in and Control of an Enterprise Engaged in a Pattern of Racketeering Activity: 18 U. Plaintiff paid $____________ for her property approximately ____ years various sums from $0. 6. seq. 1331. _________ wrongfully conducted a fraudulent foreclosure sale based upon
fraudulent documents in bold and clear violation of law. No Defendant has any standing to claim ownership of Plaintiff’s homestead and primary residence. This is an action for damages in excess of $150. 8. and hereby incorporates same by reference.
-11VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
. 15 U.C. as if all were set forth fully herein. 9. 6. ago.
This Court has jurisdiction under U. and each of them.____________presents a handwritten receipt which does not reference the Subject Property. Defendants have wrongfully transferred the Subject Property among
themselves. 1640 and 28 U.00. 7. Defendants had no lawful standing to foreclose. 10.
Injunctive and declaratory relief is also sought herein.C. violated RESPA by failing to provide
Plaintiff with the RESPA required 15 day notice prior to transfer.000. §§ 1961(5). This is an action under the Truth-in-Lending Act. Defendants unlawfully and fraudulently recorded a notice of default it
knew or reasonably knew had to be fraudulent at the time it recorded it.S.0 to
Defendant attempted to unlawfully. 5. wrongfully extort
$2. 1601 et.S.S.C. a receipt that can be used for any number of properties. supported by fraudulent documents and robo-signed documents.C. 1337 and 1367. Plaintiff now re-alleges each and every allegation as set forth
above.000.
S. all in violation of 18 U. all Defendants did acquire and/or maintain.C.S. 5. 2010 A. Sec. 4. 6. 3.C. Plaintiff now re-alleges each and every allegation as set forth
above. §§ 1961(5).C. and benefit from a RICO enterprise).
all Defendants did cooperate jointly and severally in the commission of two (2) or more of the RICO predicate acts that are itemized in the RICO laws at 18 U. as if all were set forth fully herein.D. (9). an interest in or control of a RICO enterprise of individuals who were associated in fact and who did engage in. the RICO laws itemized
above are to be liberally construed by this honorable Court. interstate and foreign commerce. Pursuant to the original Statutes at Large. Plaintiff further alleges that all Defendants did commit two (2) or
more of the offenses itemized above in a manner which they calculated and premeditated intentionally to threaten continuity. 1970. During the ten (10) calendar years preceding August 1. 947. §§ 1961(1)(A) and (B). 904. 1962(b) supra. See 84 Stat. a continuing threat of their respective racketeering activities.S. Respondeat superior (principal is liable for agents’ misconduct:
knowledge of. 15.C. however. 1962(c) 7. 1962(b) (Prohibited activities).
-12VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
.S. participation in. Said construction rule was never codified in Title 18 of the United States Code.
At various times and places partially enumerated in Plaintiff’s
documentary material..2. directly or indirectly. and did so in violation of the RICO law at 18 U. and hereby incorporates same by reference. (5). §§ 1961(4). i. Oct. COUNT TWO: Conduct and Participation in a RICO Enterprise through a Pattern of Racketeering Activity: 18 U. Substance prevails over form. also in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S. and 1962(b).e.C. and whose activities did affect.
interstate and foreign commerce. and whose activities did affect.S.8. Plaintiff now re-alleges each and every allegation as set forth Respondeat superior (as
above. all Defendants did associate with a RICO enterprise of individuals who were associated in fact and who engaged in. (5). either
directly or indirectly. Pursuant to 84 Stat. 1962(d) 13. i.S. Likewise. §§ 1961(5). however. 15. During the ten (10) calendar years preceding July 1. and did so in violation of the RICO law at 18 U. 1962(c) supra.C. all Defendants did conduct and/or participate.
documentary material. the RICO laws
itemized above are to be liberally construed by this honorable Court. §§ 1961(4). all in violation of 18 U. 11. 947. Oct. explained above). (9). Plaintiff further alleges that all Defendants did commit two (2) or
more of the offenses itemized above in a manner which they calculated and premeditated intentionally to threaten continuity.C. 1970. and 1962(c). COUNT THREE: Conspiracy to Engage in a Pattern of Racketeering Activity: 18 U.S.C.C.D. 2010 A. 904. Said construction rule was never codified in Title 18 of the United States Code.S.. as if all were set forth fully herein. all
Defendants did cooperate jointly and severally in the commission of two (2) or more of the RICO predicate acts that are itemized in the RICO laws at 18 U. 9. 12. and hereby incorporates same by reference. Substance prevails over form.e. also in violation of the RICO law at 18 U. §§ 1961(1)(A) and (B). in the conduct of the affairs of said RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. 1962(c) (Prohibited activities).S.C. a continuing threat of their respective racketeering activities. 10. Sec.
-13VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
documentary material.14. all
Defendants did cooperate jointly and severally in the commission of two (2) or more of the predicate acts that are itemized at 18 U. §§ 1961(4).e. §§ 1962(c) and (d). 1344 financial institution fraud.S. the RICO laws
itemized above are to be liberally construed by this honorable Court. 17. (5) and (9). in violation of 18 U.S. §§ 1962(b) and (d). Oct.S. Pursuant to 84 Stat. 1962(d). in violation of 18 U. 1970. 16. all Defendants did conspire to acquire and maintain an interest in a RICO enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity. all Defendants did also conspire to conduct and participate in said RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. also in violation of 18 U. 15. fraud in the
-14VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
. 904. and 29 USC 186 501c – fraud connected with a case under title 11.S. explained above)..C. 18 USC 891-984 Extortinate credit transactions. At various times and places partially enumerated in Plaintiff’s
documentary material.S. 2010 A. in violation of 18 U. 1952 rackeetering. Said construction rule was never codified in Title 18 of the United States Code. 1341 mail fraud.C. 1962(d) (Prohibited activities supra). a continuing threat of their respective racketeering activities. Respondeat superior (as
1343 wire fraud. 1956 laundering of monetary instruments. 1503 obstruction of justice.S. See also 18 U. 947.C. 1957 monetary transaction derived from specified unlawful activity. 18. Sec. During the ten (10) calendar years preceding July 1. Plaintiff further alleges that all Defendants did commit two (2) or
more of the offenses itemized above in a manner which they calculated and premeditated intentionally to threaten continuity. however.D. i. §§ 1961(1)(A) and (B). 19.C. 15.C.C.
sale of securities. (2) falsity of the representation.2d
1242 (1996) To sustain a claim of fraud. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT 13. Defendants have wrongfully and unlawfully transferred Plaintiff’s
property among themselves in violation of various state. (7) the hearer’s reliance on the representation. (6) the hearer’s ignorance of the falsity of the representation. 11. 12. Recorder’s Office. Taylor v. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated RESPA and TILA by postering
to be secured creditors when they willfully and knowingly purchased a mortgage in default. (3) materiality of the representation. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION REAL ESTATE FRAUD 22. and (9) the hearer’s consequent and proximate injury caused by reliance on the representation. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs Defendants recorded fraudulent documents in the County
as though set Forth fully herein. insurer was required to plead and prove each of the nine elements of fraud: (1) a representation. though set forth fully herein. 432. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE 20. (8) the hearer’s right to rely on the representation. Defendants cannot be secured creditors under current law. federal and consumer protection laws with fraudulent documents. 175 Mont. State Compensation Insurance Fund. 21. Defendants violated state and federal laws
-15VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs as
. 913 P. 14. (4) speaker’s knowledge of the falsity of the representation. (5) the speaker’s intent it should be relied upon. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs
has not deterred
these Defendants. permits consumers to bring private causes of action against furnishers of information to credit reporting agencies who fail to properly investigate disputed credit information. the intent foreclose is in bad faith.1. No documents are recorded reflecting any defendant as the lawful lender
in due courts. a servicing company has filed negative credit reports in the capacity of a lender.S.
Defendants have filed documents it knows to contain fraudulent
information on Plaintiff’s credit report.S.C. Plaintiff’s lis pendens and the fact that title is clouded. Second Third Fourth Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action as though fully set forth herein. 1681 etseq.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in the First.C 1601 et Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs as
seq. it remains unclear. _________________. 3.. Defendants failed to provide Marks with Respa required notice of transfer. Regardless as to
whatever entity received lawful acquisition of Plaintiff’s property. 17. only the lender can charge late fees and accrue monthly payments and authorize credit reporting. not a servicer. from further damaging Plaintiff’s credit and failing to verify the account to which it intended to service in good faith.
2. Furthermore. 15. A U. 15
U. 4. 16. though set forth fully herein.S.C 1601 ET SEQ. Defendant violated the Federal Truth-in-Lending Act 15 U. district court held that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). 18. (hereinafter “TILA”).S. The Notice of Default is fraudulent.
-16VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
. as in the original New Century/Ocwen matter whom exactly is the lender and/or the servicer. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION TRUTH-IN-LENDING ACT 15 U.
25. 27. 21. including Plaintiff. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the proceeding paragraphs as though set forth fully herein. etc. unfair
and fraudulent business practices alleged herein. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every
allegation contained in the First.
Defendants are not entitled to foreclosure procedures. et seq. which Defendants
are not entitled to initiate.e. Plaintiff brings this action as a private attorney general acting on Plaintiff’s
own behalf and similarly situated other persons pursuant to California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200. Second. and to seek injunctive relief and restitution on behalf of all persons as being affected thereby. participate in or conduct. or
fraudulent business act or practice and provides that a court may order injunctive relief and restitution to affected parties as a remedy for any violations of the UPA.). 23. unfair. Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff has suffered and is suffering and will continue to suffer injury and
financial ruin as a direct and proximate result of Defendants deceptive acts as alleged above. Plaintiff is acting in this capacity to remedy the ongoing unlawful. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200. The UPA defines unfair competition to include any unlawful. Third. 24. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants affect trade and commerce
as that term is defined under the UPA. unethical.19. 26. disgorgement) of all money. property and benefits wrongfully obtained by Defendants (Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust. Plaintiff is entitled under the Business and Professions Code Section 17200 to equitable remedy of restitution (i. ET SEQ. 20. 22. unscrupulous or substantially injurious to Plaintiff and requires this Court to weigh the utility of the Defendants' conduct against the gravity of the harm to Plaintiff.
-17VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
. referred to as the Unfair Practices Act (herein after "UPA").
oppressive. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ conduct is immoral.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUD UPON THE COURT 29. Second Third Fourth Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action as though fully set forth herein. Defendants have filed documents it knows to contain fraudulent
information with the court and with the Alameda County Recorder’s Office. Defendants appear at bar with unclean hands and documents they know to be fraudulent. 2. no defendant has lawful standing to foreclose upon marks NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD 1. Defendants failed notify Plaintiff of her rights under RESPA and violating
her rights in doing so. 2605).28.C.
Beginning on the dates indicated and at all times relevant herein. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every
allegation contained in the First. 32. 31. Defendants
and the DOE Defendants have committed acts of unfair competition proscribed by the UPA including the acts and practices against Plaintiff alleged herein. 30. Furthermore. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF RESPA (12 U. Second Third Fourth Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all proceeding paragraphs as though
fully set forth herein.S. Defendants publically posted a “3 Day Notice to Quit” on Plaintiff’s door where no
-18VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
only that the harasser has reason to know that the conduct would cause such feelings. Recently. Defendants have filed a frivolous unlawful detainer complaint and failed to serve it on Plaintiff as of the date of the filing of this Complaint. no perfected. As such. ownership. Plaintiff called the police on these occasions. Plaintiff has had to call the police on several occasions as a result of these unlawful activities. or has reason to know. young men – one black one white would sit outside Plaintiff’s home in an attempt to intimidate her. Shortly after Defendants were made aware they had no standing to move against her. Harassment can also include intentionally exposing you to materials which the harasser knows. Here.Landlord/Tenant relationship exists. 3. Given Defendant’s constant surveillance of Plaintiff’s daily routine. Posting an unlawful “3 Day Notice To Quit” and filing an unlawful detainer complaint – knowing Defendants have no legal or lawful right to do so. Here Defendants unlawfully have individuals
unlawfully surveil her home. there is no lawful reason not to effect service except to harass plaintiff. is a form of harassment. Plaintiff is waiting for service that never comes. tampering with Plaintiff’s electrical box has resulted in unnecessary expenses that Plaintiff has had to endure. Harassment can mean many things. As a result of the unlawful posting Plaintiff cannot open her windows without someone unlawfully observing her. Defendants and their counsel further abuse the process by filing frivolous complaint and notices to which they cannot prevail under the law. Plaintiff is also seeking a Temporary Restraining Order against Defendants. Plaintiff has suffered greatly by the unlawful acts of Defendants and Plaintiff meets
each and every element of the allegations of her complaint. This act was malicious as Defendant is fully aware Defendant has no lawful right to title. Plaintiff has lived at her home for 13 years. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION CIVIL HARASSMENT 4. It is not necessary that the harasser intend for the conduct to produce feelings of fear or
intimidation in the victim. are culturally offensive or intimidating to you. The public at large driving by walking by her home could see this unlawful notice posted on her door. The law which
-19VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
. occupy or right of any kind to Plaintiff’s property. 6. Furthermore the 3 day notice to quit is defective on its face. 5. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all proceeding paragraphs as though
" (M. if so it is unlawful. Plaintiff was advised by the electrician that the box was tampered with. as there is an area where Defendants may hide and attack her and her handicapped son. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants acts of harassment.S. 10. regardless of the relationship between the actor and the intended target. If that information would have made a difference in the unlawful
-20VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
. I). Perhaps acts of unlawful stalking and intimidation and unlawfully tampering with the electrical system of a property is how they do business. § 609. The Harassment Act 1997 protects Plaintiff against a range of unwanted behaviour. Here Defendant’s and their counsel admit that their title company failed to advise them there was a lis pendens recorded on the property. such
as someone following Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks to restrain Defendants from all acts against Plaintiff. 8. or coming onto Plaintiff’s property. Marks has made the box secure and is now purchasing outdoor surveillance equipment to monitor her home. security or privacy of another. This type of harassment also includes the unlawful surveillance your home by representatives or agents of Defendant. The Harassment Act protects Plaintiff when the harasser is a stranger or someone else you’re not in a family or other domestic relationship with. If so this act is theft and unlawful. words or gestures that are intended to adversely affect the safety. Subd. TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE 9.allows you to get a restraining order defines harassment as "repeated. 7. Plaitiff has installed
motion camera in her back yard. Defendants claim to be Real Estate professionals who purchase properties at foreclosure
sales and flip them. hanging around outside Plaintiff’s home or workplace. her
family and her primary residence in violation of law. Plaintiff has had to expend $700 to repair electrical work as a result of “tampering” with the electrical box outside her home. Perhaps in the past when they purchased a foreclosed property they unlawfully broke in and stole the belongings of the former owner of the property as their common practice.749. repeatedly phoning. intrusive or unwanted acts. texting or writing to Plaintiff. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all proceeding paragraphs as though
fully set forth herein. As such.
an instruments intended to secure the payment of money. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all proceeding paragraphs as though
fully set forth herein. Where a power to sell real property is given to a mortgagee. 13. Defendants have absolutely no standing to seek recovery or relief of ANY KIND from Plaintiff. the power is part of the security and vests in any person by whom lawful assignment becomes entitled to payment of the money secured by the instrument. In light of the foreclosure crisis. in
this foreclosure climate. The power of sale may be exercised by the assignee if the assignment is lawfully assigned. the current New Century liquidating Trustee states that Plaintiff’s obligation has been satisfied in 2007. Furthermore as purported real estate investors in the business of flipping properties.5 11. then Defendants should seek relief there. unlawfully recorded the forged documents and conducted an unlawful foreclosure sale. NOT with plaintiff.foreclosure sale. Defendants here have and attempt to enforce a worthless document. acknowledged and recorded.
-21VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
. 14. pulled The
Plaintiff’s note and created fraudulent documents to conduct an unlawful foreclosure sale. defrauding investors. 12. and acting as real estate investors. As such. Defendants have determined it will be easier to harass and intimidate Plaintiff than to recover the monies expended from the entity that defrauded them. Defendants have made a bad investment. it is clear on the documents recorded in the Alameda County Recorder’s office that there is NO lawful assignment from New Century (the loan originator) to any entity prior to 2007. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 2932. Defendants should reasonably have performed the proper diligence prior to purchasing a property in foreclosure. Furthermore. Defendants have absolutely no standing to continue bad faith and unlawful acts of harassment against Plaintiff her family and her home. It was recently on the news that banks are selling properties at foreclosure sales without having clear titles and thus. or other entity whom has
placed an encumbrance on title.
foreclosing entity forged assignments. The foreclosing entity simply went to the Alameda County Recorder’s office.
When it is claimed or appears to the Court that the contract or any clause thereof may be
unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonably opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting. i. and the Trust Deed is based on documents which were unlawfully and fraudulently recorded. Third. 16. as a matter of law. 18. finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have
been unconscionable at the time it was made.FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNSCIONABILITY 15. there the worthless. Plaintiff’s Mortgage. civil codes. Fifth. the Court may refuse to enforce the contract. Defendants. Second. Fourth. If the court. Here.e. harass Plaintiff to become unjustly enriched an unlawfully steal her home. 17. based upon the lack of lawful recorded documents. lack of adherence to regulations. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every
allegation contained in the First. purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination. Failure of the actual “Note
-22VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
. 36. Only the “Note Holder” can exercise the power of sale under the deed of
trust pertaining to the Property. Likewise. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all proceeding paragraphs as though
fully set forth herein. It has yet to be determined the Note Holder of fact in this matter. the fact that the note has been
paid in full. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION QUIET TITLE 33. Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action as though fully set forth herein. 34. 35. invalid and fraudulent Deed of Trust in the possession of Defendants. federal standard and due diligence that Defendants should have reasonable investigated prior to making a purchase at the unlawful Trustee Sale Defendants here attempt to circumvent the law. the “Note Holder”. as the “Lender” must give As such it is unclear if what entity are true lawful Note Holders of
the required notices pursuant to California Civil Code § 2924.
As defendants have no perfected title. unlawful detainer action is NOT the proper venue to clear title.. (Owner of an instrument in question is a necessary party in order for court to cancel it. the trustee’s deed represents a cloud on Plaintiff’s title to the property adverse to Plaintiff’s interest which requires a determination by this Court as to which person or entity is the legal owner of the Property. 20. Lawrence v. to be fraudulent or in the very least questionable as litigation regarding the property has been ongoing since 2006 and there is a lis pendens recorded which is not expunged. 37. A written instrument that purports to be a Trustee’s Deed upon sale is presently in
existence and in Defendant’s control. and each of them as
-23VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
. §2924. 186 P.Holder” to give the required notices makes the non-judicial foreclosure proceedings defective and void. Plaintiff sues Defendants to quiet title and to obtain the original note under
rules of evidence sufficient to permit a legal determination of rightful title and to discover if the instrument was transferred by assignment or by payment and negotiation. Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants. Here Defendants are entitled to nothing from Plaintiff. including the failure to give the required notices under C. The Trustee’s Deed upon Sale is voidable as it was unlawfully obtained based on fraudulently recorded documents and sold to Defendant’s by an entity having no lawful right to do so. Long Beach Pleasure Pier Co. App. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all proceeding paragraphs as though
fully set forth herein. 606). 21. and not the subject property. (1919) 44 Cal.
PRAYER WHEREFORE. 38. Plaintiff suffers manifest injustice at the hands of these Defendants in the form of
harassment and their postering to enforce a document they knew or reasonably should have known prior to purchase at the unlawful trustee’s sale.C. 410. As a result of the aforesaid defects in the non-judicial foreclosure
proceedings. 19.
and each of them. DATED: __________________ Plaintiff ______________________.. California. heirs. be restored to Plaintiff free and clear of encumbrance of any Defendant. Title to the property commonly known as
___________________________. (b) Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. For immediate CEASE AND DESIST ORDER enjoining all Defendants. 4. California. employees. subsidiaries. corporate affiliates. For immediate preliminary injunction and permanent injunction. in Pro Per
-24VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
. dba’s. on their behalf in any capacity from selling or conveying or attempting to sell or convey any interest whatsoever that Plaintiff may have in the real property commonly known as ___________________. and all persons or entities acting under. servants. heirs. servants. enjoining
all Defendants. and (d) Grant such other and further relief to the Plaintiff as may be just and proper. fka’s. (c) Quiet Title . subsidiaries. in concert with. corporate affiliates. fka’s.follows: 1.
and each of them. their agents. on their behalf in any capacity from selling or conveying or attempting to sell or convey any interest whatsoever that Plaintiff may have in the real property commonly known as
__________________________. and 3. the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant judgment as follows: (a) Declare the Payments to be avoidable preferences and award judgment against the Defendant in the amount indicated. That Plaintiff’s credit standing be fully restored in relating to. dba’s. employees. WHEREFORE. in concert with. their agents. and all persons or entities acting under. 2.
California. I have read the Complaint attached hereto. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Pro Se
-25VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
. I believe it to be true.
_______________________________________ Plaintiff. Executed on this ___________th day of _________. ________________________. am the plaintiff in the above entitled proceeding. in the above-entitled action and know the contents thereof. ___________________. 2011 at _________________. and as to those matters. The same is true of my knowledge except to those matters which are therein stated on information and belief.VERIFICATION I.
Verified Rico Complaint Template Uploaded by BlaqRubiPlaintiffLoanDefendantMortgage LawForeclosureRacketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act2.7K viewsBuy $10.00EmbedDescription: This is a template I created from a Civil Rico complaint I drafted against subprime banks and servicers. I am not an attorney I am a pro se litigant. I have been fighting for my home since 2006. I ...See MoreThis is a template I created from a Civil Rico complaint I drafted against subprime banks and servicers. I am not an attorney I am a pro se litigant. I have been fighting for my home since 2006. I had no one to help me and I hope that this document will serve as a template to other pro se litigants. My docs are available in word for easy modification. I am not an attorney so you should consult one before recording. I verify all my complaints and the verification form is included at the end of the document. I believe all my citations to be correct current and accurate.Copyright: © All Rights ReservedList price: $10.00Flag for inappropriate content
Documents similar to Verified Rico Complaint TemplateSpire Law Federal Complaint in New YorkMajor Banks, Governmental Officials and Their Comrade Capitalists Targets of Spire Law Group, LLP's Racketeering and Money Laundering Lawsuit Seeking Return of $43 Trillion to the United States Treasury - MarketWatchModern Money Mechanics$43 Trillion Ponzi SchemeLawsuit Seeks $43 Trillion From BanksCase Decisions Regarding Proof of ClaimFannie.Mae.Admits.it.Owns.nothing 2013-07-1120100917 Objection to Ptfs Ex Parte M4Substitution of Party PlaintiffHOLMES V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. et al ComplaintLack.of.Standing.case.DismissalsApostolic.letter.issued.motu.Proprio.by.Pope.francis 2013-07-11Citizens.Rule.Handbook.pdfGood Rico Template11 Civ 8500 Keenan ComplaintThe Network of Global Corporate Control3284-EDA-2011$1 trillion Lawsuit - KeenanTHE AFFIDAVIT OF OBLIGATION -- FILING LIENS AGAINST THE TWELVE FEDERAL RESERVE BANKSWorld Savings Remic List029Dialogue With Hidden Hand, 2008BANK OF AMERICA, WELLS FARGO, JPMORGAN SUED BY NEW YORK OVER MERS 2/3/2012Vexatious LitigationBofAComplaintFannie Mae Policy Now Admits Loan Not SecuredCountrywide DiMartiniNew proposed text for Rio+20New Law Re Mortgage Loan OriginatorsUCC Promissory Notes Negitable InstrumentsFIGHTING FORECLOSUREDeposition transcript of Michele Sjolander - Bank of America OfficerDocuments 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 LewandowskiPennie v. Soros et al Amended ComplaintSaudi LawsuitMejia v. Freeman - FIT AND THICK trademark complaint.pdf179125570172Ryan Bundy Mistrial MotionVW Diesel case20160718 - Wwe Cte LawsuitLil Wayne v. Cash Money - complaint.pdfCavanaugh v BarteltAndrea Tantaros suitTake-Two and Rockstar Games v Leslie BenziesZenimax v Oculus - Amended ComplaintAmended Levaquin complaint Mumford Emergency MotionLawsuit against Hillary ClintonSolid Oak Sketches v Take-TwoPalantir LawsuitPokemon Go lawsuitGoguen/Baptiste San Mateo CourtBenzies v RockstarGov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0Fresh Guidelines on Quashing of Proceedings of a Non-compoundable Offence on the Basis of Settlement Between the PartiesGhomeshi rulingCarlsbad Police Brutality ComplaintClass Action Lawsuit Filed Against EOS Lip BalmBooks about LoanThe Borrowers BiblePrimed to PerformDecoding the New Mortgage MarketThe Student Loan MessThe World Bank Annual Report 2005How To Avoid The Debt TrapWho Is Anthony Stephens?25 Insider Tips Home Buyers Should KnowThe U-Haul Trailer & Doolie Weencer's HearsePolitical Economy of Ottoman Public Debt, TheDriving Through PotholesWhat You Don't Know About Student Loans Can Hurt YouFrugalicious HopePut Your Money Where Your Debt IsBut He Was Already Dead When I Got ThereStop the InsanityUnderstanding Credit101 Powerful Tips for Legally Improving Your Credit ScoreWashington, DeceitFree Help from Uncle Sam to Start or Expand Your BusinessThe Military Smartbook for Defeating Student DebtThe Reverse Mortgage BookConnecting the DisconnectedAre Pakistan's Women Entrepreneurs Being Served by the Microfinance Sector?Resource Financed InfrastructureThe World Bank Group and Public ProcurementTackling Small and Medium Enterprise Problem Loans in EuropeSquashing Your Student LoansGrit Vs DebtHow to Get Out of Foreclosure with a Loan ModificationDocuments about Loan5.20.2016 Board Deck v5 (1)50 Slides for the Gold Bulls Incrementum Chartbook.01RNC PlatformThe Open Banking StandardIntroducing the Open Banking StandardProfiles in Innovation - May 24, 2016 (1)2016 Home Buyer and Seller Generational TrendsAllocation of Partnership Liabilities (Full Version)2016 Profile of International Home Buying ActivityRead omnibus spending bill textPromissory NoteExecutive SummaryThe New Microfinance HandbookYork Capital's Letter to InvestorsBook-Keeping and Accounts/Series-4-2011(Code2007)A Guide to Understanding a Residential Appraisal2016 Democratic Party Platform DraftI am an attorney so I decided to sue my lender...Book-keeping and Accounts Level 2/series 2-2009Live Nation PresentationESM PoliciesThe Conservative Nanny StateInside Job - The Documentary That Cost $20,000,000,000,000 to ProduceDepositionAccounting Level 3/series 4-2009How You Got Screwed 1.0CFPB Closing DisclosureReport on Fraudulent & Forged Assignments of Mortgages & Deeds in U.S. ForeclosuresGlenview Q4 14Certificate in Accounting (IAS) Level 3/series 3-2009Books about DefendantThe Jurors Who Knew Too MuchThe FormulaJury DoodyThe VerdictOscar Pistorius The VerdictLaw, Life and LaughterMurder in MarpleDocuments about DefendantJane Doe Declaration as FiledPennie v. Soros et al Amended ComplaintBundy wants govt to ID informantsMejia v. Freeman - FIT AND THICK trademark complaint.pdf17912557017209-20-2016 ECF 1305 USA v SHAWNA COX - Notice That the U.S. Attorneys' Office Has Been Caught Coaching WitnessesRyan Bundy Mistrial MotionUS v. Deric Lostutter20160718 - Wwe Cte LawsuitLil Wayne v. Cash Money - complaint.pdfCavanaugh v BarteltAndrea Tantaros suitTake-Two and Rockstar Games v Leslie BenziesZenimax v Oculus - Amended ComplaintAmended Levaquin complaint Hobos Proffer Mumford Emergency MotionLawsuit against Hillary ClintonSolid Oak Sketches v Take-TwoPalantir LawsuitPokemon Go lawsuitRoss Ulbricht Sentencing Goguen/Baptiste San Mateo CourtBenzies v RockstarGov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0Carlsbad Police Brutality ComplaintClass Action Lawsuit Filed Against EOS Lip BalmBooks 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 StatesDefeat ForeclosureHow 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)I am an attorney so I decided to sue my lender...CFPB Closing DisclosureReport on Fraudulent & Forged Assignments of Mortgages & Deeds in U.S. ForeclosuresGlenview Q4 14Uniform 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 2014.05.05Mortgage Assignments as Evidence of FraudMERS RULES OF MEMBERSHIPMERS QA Procedures Rel19 5 DraftBarack Obama's Blueprint For ChangeMotion for Sanction of Dismissal With Prejudice or Dismissal for Unclean HandsErica Johnson Seck Deposition - Indymac Federal Bank Fsb, Plaintiff, Vs. Israel a. Machado - 50 2008 CA 037322xxxx MbFlorida Rules of Civil ProcedureExplanation of SecuritizationPMI Ocwen Anderson Report - Sue First Ask Questions LaterMotion - 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.Motion to Dismiss Complaint, Motion to Vacate Clerks Default and in the Alternative Motion for Summary JudgmentFlorida Attorney General Fraudclosure Report | Unfair, Deceptive and Unconscionable Acts in Foreclosure CasesDefective Real Estate Documentssection aHomeownership Preservation Policy for Residential Mortgage AssetsGeorgia Foreclosure Fraud Class Action - Georgia Residents v Georgia Foreclosure FraudstersFlorida Bar Ethics Opinion Jan. 11, 2011 Approved by the Fla. Bar's Professional Ethic's Committee June 24, 2011 Fraud and DocumentsHospital Financial Assistance ProgramsForeclosure Subprime Mortgage Lending and MERSBooks about Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations ActI Told You I Wasn't PerfectBugs, Bull and Rats “An Insider’s account of how the Mob Self-destructed”RICO- How Politicians, Prosecutors, and the Mob Destroyed One of the FBI’s finest Special AgentsHow To Steal a Truck Full of NickelsDocuments about Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations ActVW Diesel caseAmended Levaquin complaint Class Action vs Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Gmac, Deutsche Bank, Nation Star, Aurora, Bac, Citi, Us Bank, Lps, Et AlSecuritization is Illegal2015 Texas Gang Threat AssessmentSummary Judgement - Cohen vs. TrumpJudge Naomi Reice Buchwald's rulingAtlanta Eagle RaidMadrigal-Cazares Et Al ComplaintSW Aff FINAL (1Pombert vs Glock complaintBARNETT v OBAMA (9th CIRCUIT APPEAL - Appellants' Opening Brief - No Attachments - Transport RoomChase Initial ComplaintComplaintMadoff Trustee's Lawsuit Against Sonja KohnKEYES|BARNETT v OBAMA - 90 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration - Gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.90.0Gov.uscourtsOliver Garcia Guzman, A043 144 667 (BIA Aug. 20, 2013)3:14-cv-01253 #57 Puerto Rico DecisionWWE’s continuing investigation has uncovered at least nineteen (19) plaintiffs that have signed releases covering the claims alleged in the Complaint.09-20-16 editionYulia Tymoshenko v. Dmytro Firtash, Paul Manafort et alFraud on the Court Full Bench Disqualification Order Re Set Aside Motion - Chief US District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. US District Court Eastern District of California Bench Recusal Order - U.S. v. Sierra Pacific IndustriesDickson v. GFA ComplaintTrump Impeachment Essay - Prof. Chris Peterson, Utah UniversityManookian's Motion to Dismiss Diamond Doctor LawsuitMorgan v Ocwen, MERSATF Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide 2014 EditionEl Monte Flores Takedown.099Prosecutor's response reShawna Cox's claim for damages