Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/52570747/48/The-federal-and-State-courts-are-injured-by-the-Defendants%E2%80%9F
Timestamp: 2015-03-29 06:55:33
Document Index: 352924241

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1341', '§ 1983', '§ 1964', '§ 1964', '§ 1331', '§ 1367', '§ 1692', '§ 1983', '§ 1961', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 1']

59. The federal and State courts are injured by the Defendants‟ for Class Action IL Amended Complaint Final
Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See moreDownloadStandard viewFull view of .Add to collectionMark as finishedMarked as finished. UndoRemove from libraryLook up keyword or sectionLike thisShare on social networks16Activity×Share to your social networks.TweetEmbedTable Of Contents1. Defendants are Credit Suisse and its association-in-fact of banks;3. Plaintiffs are the homeowners in the United States who have been4. Defendants supported their attempt illegally to seize and convert5. Defendant Washington Mutual Bank did thereby attempt to seize10. Defendants supported their illegal seizure of Ms. Martinez‟s home11. A mortgage Note is a negotiable instrument, like a check written14. Defendants supported their illegal seizure of Mr. Cruz‟s and Mrs15. Mortgage Notes are negotiable instruments. What Defendants did16. Plaintiff family Number 4 is Rondell Muhammad and Sharon17. Defendants supported their illegally seizure of the Muhammads‟19. Mortgage Notes are negotiable instruments, like bank drafts on20. The fifth Plaintiff family is James M. Ami and Sharon K. Ami of21. Defendants supported their illegal seizure of the Amis‟ home by23. Mortgage Notes are negotiable instruments. What the Defendants24. The sixth Plaintiff family is that of Ms. Bettye Jean Brown of25. The Defendants‟ plan of extortion succeeded and Ms. Brown refi-26. The Defendants intentionally injured Ms. Brown and her family27. The seventh Plaintiff family is that of Mohsin M. Dhanji and28. Defendants supported their illegal seizure of the Dhanjis‟ home by29. The Defendants, having illegally driven the Dhanjis and their30. Mortgage Notes are negotiable instruments. What the Defendants31 The eighth Plaintiff family is that of Ms. Donna R. Love and Mr32. Defendants supported their illegal seizure of Ms. Love‟s home by34. Mortgage Notes are negotiable instruments, like drafts on bank35. The ninth Plaintiff is Exiquio Camacho, formerly of 16116 Prairie36. Defendants supported their illegal seizure and conversion of Mr38. A mortgage Note is a negotiable instrument, like a bank draft on a39. One of Plaintiffs‟ attorneys has examined hundreds of foreclosure40. This action also is a class action on behalf of the following Class:41. This case also is a civil R.I.C.O. (“Racketeer Influenced and42. The Parties to this case include:43. All named Plaintiffs are residents of the Northern District of44. In all of the acts alleged herein, during all relevant times, all of45. This Court has jurisdiction over all of the parties to this case, and46. The amount in controversy is more than $5 million47. Congress has authorized jurisdiction in federal district courts “of48. Count I alleges wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, wire fraud49. Count II alleges conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and emotional50. Count III alleges multiple violations of the Fair Debt Collection51. Count IV alleges multiple violations of the Ku Klux Klan Act52. Count V seeks certification of a Class under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 23 of53. Count VI alleges violations of R.I.C.O. (“Racketeer Influenced and54. Count VII alleges conspiracy to violate R.I.C.O.. This Court has55. Venue in the case at bar is proper because all parties either reside56. There are eight ways in which Plaintiffs have been injured by57. All of the injuries to Plaintiffs complained of herein occurred inde58. The junior mortgagees are injured because the Defendants, who59. The federal and State courts are injured by the Defendants‟60. Among all the parties that are harmed by the Defendants‟62. In sum, millions of homeowners and junior mortgagors certainly63. The reason the Defendants are engaged in this scheme is that, by64. However, upon information and belief, the mortgage Notes were65. Mortgage Notes are negotiable instruments under the Uniform66. However, the banks did not want to accept this legal result. If the67. It is precisely to prevent this sort of scheme that the knowing68. In addition, since the banks all share the same risk and the same69. This massive fraud on the courts requires forged documents. So70. In the case of the Plaintiffs (except Rondell and Sharon71. The Robo-Signer companies used by the Defendants are not72. Beginning on December 10, 2009, the so-called “Robo-Signers”74. Ms. Green got the attention of the press. On Thursday, September77. Later that same day, Defendant J.P. Morgan-Chase, which par-79. That same day, the Attorney General of California (which has80. That same day, the Attorney General of Connecticut opened a81. On October 5, 2010, the Attorney General of Texas called for a82. On October 7, 2010, the Attorney General of Iowa requested all83. On October 13, 2010, the National Association of Attorneys Gener-85. Defendant Codilis & Assocs. is no stranger to controversy. This86. Defendant Select Portfolio Services, Inc., likewise is no stranger to87. On April 23, 2008, Reuters reported that a high-level Credit Suisse88. Defendant Credit Suisse is no stranger to hiding identities and to89. Defendants‟ actions in illegally seizing and converting Plaintiffs‟90. The Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding91. The Plaintiffs assert these claims on behalf of themselves and92. Defendant Banks, their servicing agents, and their document-93. The actions of Defendant financial institutions meet all of the94. The Defendants have intentionally and knowingly submitted false95. Mail Fraud. The Defendants have devised or intended to devise a96. Wire Fraud. The Defendants have devised or intended to devise a97. Bank Fraud. The Defendants have knowingly executed or98. Extortion. The Defendants have obstructed, delayed, or affected99. Racketeering. The Defendants have traveled in interstate100. Money Laundering. The Defendants, knowing that the property101. Transportation of Stolen Goods. The Defendants transported,102. Receipt of Stolen Goods. The Defendants have received, pos-103. Upon information and belief, one of the purposes of the104. The Defendants used these false pleadings to attempt to take the105. In every case where a property has been foreclosed using a106. The Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding107. The Plaintiffs assert these claims on behalf of themselves and108. The Defendants‟ scheme alleged herein constitutes unjust enrich-109. The Defendants‟ scheme alleged herein intentionally caused110. The Defendants combined and conspired with one another to111. The Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all112. The Plaintiffs assert these claims on behalf of themselves and113. Defendant DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., claims to have bought the114. Defendants Select Portfolio, Inc.; Ernest J. Codilis, Jr.; Codilis &115. The Defendants have intentionally submitted false pleadings in116. The Defendants are attempting to use these false pleadings to117. Defendant Codilis & Assocs. is a “foreclosure mill” that processes118. The Defendants‟ intentionally and knowingly filing of false docu-119. The Defendants‟ fraudulent pleadings in federal courts and in120. The Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding121. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all122. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides in123. Property is a privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution124. Defendants‟ seizing and converting of Plaintiffs‟ property125. The purposes of the Ku Klux Klan Act include: (1) to provide a126. None of the Plaintiffs could have raised issues of collateral127. The Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding128. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all129. Defendants process thousands of fraudulent cases through the130. The Class is defined as follows:131. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all132. The named Plaintiffs‟ claims are typical of the claims of the133. The Defendants include numerous persons acting as one134. This dispute raises questions of law and fact that are common to135. The named Plaintiffs, as representative parties, will fairly and136. One of the attorneys for the named Plaintiffs has many years of137. The nature of this action and the nature of the laws available to138. Prosecution of separate lawsuits by the individual Class139. The Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding140. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all141. The United States‟ R.I.C.O. statute provides, in relevant part, as142. At all relevant times, each of the Plaintiffs was a “person” for the143. At all relevant times, each of the Defendants was a “person” for144. At all relevant times, all of the Defendants formed an association-145. At all relevant times, all of the Defendants were engaged in, and146. At all relevant times, all of the Defendants were engaged in147. The acts alleged were related to each other by virtue of common148. The Defendants each committed and/or aided and abetted the149. At all relevant times, the Defendants received income derived150. At all relevant times, the Defendants, through a pattern of151. At all relevant times, the Defendants were employed by or152. As a result of the Defendants‟ violation of the R.I.C.O. Act, the153. As a result of their misconduct, the Defendants are liable to the154. Pursuant to R.I.C.O., 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), the Plaintiffs and the155. The Plaintiffs re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preced-156. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all157. At all relevant times, the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class158. At all relevant times, each of the Defendants was a “person”159. At all relevant times, the Defendants formed an association-in-160. At all relevant times, this association-in-fact was an enterprise161. The Defendants conspired to associate in fact and to combine or162. At all relevant times, the Defendants (“the Conspirators”) each163. The Conspirators committed and caused to be committed a series164. As a result of the Conspirators‟ violation of the R.I.C.O. Act, 18165. Pursuant to the R.I.C.O. Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), the Class is0 of .Results for: No results containing your search query{{& result_text }}
P. 1Class Action IL Amended Complaint FinalClass Action IL Amended Complaint FinalRatings: (0)|Views: 1,109|Likes: 11Published by rodclassteamMore info:Categories:Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: rodclassteam on Apr 08, 2011Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/52570747/Class-Action-IL-Amended-Complaint-Final02/20/2015pdftextoriginal - 1 -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION
CYNTHIA A. STONE, PATRICIA )MARTINEZ, JOSÉ A. CRUZ, JR., ) Case No. 10 C 6410ELEDIA TORRES, RONDELL MUHAM- )MAD, SHARON MUHAMMAD, JAMES M. )AMI, SHARON K. AMI, BETTYE JEAN )BROWN, MOHSIN M. DHANJI, WAHIDA )M. DHANJI, DONNA R. LOVE, EDWARD )REVIS, and EXIQUIO CAMACHO, individ- )ually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly )Situated, ) Hon. Matthew F. KennellyPlaintiffs, ) Mag. Judge Finneganv. ))WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK; J.P. MOR- )GAN-CHASE & CO.; DLJ MORTGAGE CAPI- )TAL, INC.; DLJ CAPITAL CORP.; CREDIT )SUISSE; CREDIT SUISSE (USA), INC.; ) Class ActionCREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG; DOUGLAS )ROSEMAN; PATRICK A. REMMERT; ) For DamagesANDREW KIMURA; LORI M. RUSSO; ) and Equitable Relief BRUCE KAISERMAN; ANGELO BULONE; ) under the RacketeerMICHAEL CRISCITO; JAMES D. CRISCITO; ) Influenced and CorruptLUBOMIR PENEV; TERENCE DOLCE; ) Organizations ActSELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.; )
TIMOTHY J. O‟BRIEN,
DIANE WEINBER- )GER; CODILIS & ASSOCIATES, P.C.; )ERNEST J. CODILIS, JR.; JEANELLE )GRAY; CHRISTINA ALLEN; KLUEVER & )PLATT LLC; JASON D. ALTMAN; CITI- )BANK N.A.; WELLS FARGO BANK ; ALLY )FINANCIAL, INC. (a.k.a. GMAC MORT- )GAGE); BANK OF AMERICA N.A.; PNC )BANK N.A.; U.S. BANK N.A., HSBC BANK )(USA) N.A., ) Plaintiffs Demand) Trial by JuryDefendants. )
AMENDED VERIFIED CLASS-ACTION COMPLAINT
Now come the above-listed Plaintiffs, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331(Federal Questions), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367 (Supplemental Jurisdiction), 15U.S.C. § 1692
. (the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
“FDCPA”),
42U.S.C. § 1983 (the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871), Fed.R.Civ. Pro. Rule 23 (ClassActions), and 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1961-1968 (Racketeer Influence and CorruptOrganizations Act), by their attorney, Robert L. Stone & Assocs., P.C., andand complain against the Defendants as follows:
1. Defendants are Credit Suisse and its association-in-fact of banks;its servicing agent, Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.; its professionaldocument producers and signers; its shell corporations; and its lawyers thatthe association-in-fact uses in mortgage-foreclosure cases. Defendants havecombined or confederated among themselves to form an association-in-fact forthe purpose, by their joint efforts, of filing false and deceptive documentswith State and federal courts in tens of thousands of mortgage-foreclosurecases nationwide for the purpose of illegally seizing and converting homesusing straw-man mortgage-foreclosure plaintiffs (that have no interest in thetaken properties) and fraudulent documents. The Defendants are therebydefrauding federal and State courts and injuring the owners of the affectedproperties, the junior mortgagees of the affected properties, the purchasers of the affected properties, the title companies that insure those purchasers, andthe United States
—all of which have been injured by Defendants‟ scheme.
2. The Defendants are engaged in this scheme for two reasons. First,it permits Defendant banks to collect repayments of mortgage loans multipletimes for each mortgage: once when they sell the mortgage Note to investorsimmediately after the Note is signed by the borrower, and a second timewhen Defendant banks foreclose and sell the collateral. Second, for reasonsof tax avoidance, the Defendants have securitized most home mortgage insuch a way as to separate ownership of the mortgages from ownership of their mortgage Notes. (All mortgages have two documents. There is amortgage promissory Note, which is a negotiable instrument signed by theborrower and which spells out the obligations of the borrower. And there isthe
parallel, reciprocal “
which is an agreement by the lenderabout what it has to do before it can collect the collateral in case of defaultunder the Note. The two documents are supposed to remain together.) Oncelegal ownership of the two documents is separated,
or if the “chain of title” tothe mortgage Note is “broken,” the loans are said to be “bifurcated” and
become unsecured debt. Defendants do not want to accept this legalconsequence of their tax avoidance and have chosen instead to file fraudulentforeclosures
. The Defendants are reaping enormous profits fromthis scheme.3. Plaintiffs are the homeowners in the United States who have been
injured by Defendants‟ scheme.
Plaintiff No. 1 is Cynthia A. Stone. On July5, 2005, Defendants Washington Mutual Bank and Codilis & Associates,P.C.---later joined by Defendant DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., and Defendants
Activity (16)FiltersAdd to collectionReview Add NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and likeplaw15 liked this1 thousand reads1 hundred readssacasagroup liked thisnikki613 liked thisReplyLucinda Marie Stotelmyer added this noteSELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING,SCAM CO.Andy Szaf liked thischunga85 liked thisLucinda Marie Stotelmyer liked thisLoad more
Similar to Class Action IL Amended Complaint Final45894095 Amicus Curiae NJ R2 Lr1rodclassteamALC- Orignal Petition for Wrongful Foreclosure-wFilestamp...j mcguireTheft by DeceptionA. CampbellWells Fargo California Foreclosure Fraud Assurance AgreementForeclosure FraudFull Deposition of Alden Berner of Wells FargoForeclosure FraudNdex West Foreclosure FraudMark AnayaBill Newland Fidelity Lender Processing ServicesForeclosure FraudMassachusetts Register of Deeds John O'Brien and Forensic...Foreclosure FraudMotion for Sanction of Dismissal With Prejudice or Dismis...Foreclosure Fraud38654717 Class Action vs Mortgage Electronic Registration...John SugdenBasic Foreclosure Litigation Defense ManualAllen WoodardWells Fargo MERS Consent Orderchunga85foreclosure_crisis_in_chicago_areaJoeHomeSaverWells Fargo vs DKMCsimon lForeclosure Notesjoycej2003Lender Processing Services' DOCX Document Fabrication Pri...Foreclosure FraudIn re VEALForeclosure FraudPN_ILLevonn WarnerLAW NOTES including Mortgage, Foreclosure Notes & Unlawfu...CarrieonicForeclosure ReportForeclosure Fraudre misdated Wells assignmentacfield13080616 Bayview Loan Servicing v Nelson 5th Dist IL Appell...3201kfgWells Fargo Loses Appeal Regarding AssignmentsForeclosure FraudForeclosure Chicagoaburnham1392FIS Foreclosure Solutions LPS Lender Processing Services ...KitteeKattee
More From This UserIRS Affidavit of Revocation Steve Chamberlain Federal CaserodclassteamPart 3 Tenth CircuitrodclassteamPart 2 Tenth CircuitrodclassteamPart 1 Tenth CircuitrodclassteamPAGE_3ArodclassteamPage 3rodclassteamPAGE_2ArodclassteamPage 2rodclassteamPAGE_1ArodclassteamPage 1rodclassteamOrder Agency RulingrodclassteamMark Becker Caserodclassteam11th Amendment Filing by Lawyer VA.rodclassteam11th Amendment Document Ohio AGrodclassteamRecusalrodclassteamImagerodclassteamImage (2)rodclassteamRod's Dismissal Notice 09202011 Page 1rodclassteamRod's Dismissal Notice 09202011 Page 2rodclassteamAre We a Democracy or a Republicrodclassteam3467104-tm-200025rodclassteamTM2000-25rodclassteam8.19.11 Obstruction of Admin Justice NC Traffic Caserodclassteam8.14.11 Rod Class Response to Routson IRS Response ..POIN...rodclassteamJudge Manning Recusalrodclassteam
Recommended45894095 Amicus Curiae NJ R2 Lr1rodclassteamALC- Orignal Petition for Wrongful Fo...j mcguireGMAC affidavits is only the tip of the iceberg.Theft by DeceptionA. CampbellThe debt collectors are taking our homes.Another article in the series of Alv...Wells Fargo California Foreclosure Fr...Foreclosure Fraud4closureFraud.orgFull Deposition of Alden Berner of We...Foreclosure Fraud4closurefraud.orgNdex West Foreclosure FraudMark AnayaWELLS FARGO FORECLOSURE FRAUD, NDEX WEST TEXAS FORECLOSURE MILLBill Newland Fidelity Lender Processi...Foreclosure Fraud4closureFraud.orgMassachusetts Register of Deeds John ...Foreclosure Fraud4closureFraud.orgMotion for Sanction of Dismissal With...Foreclosure Fraud4closurefraud.org38654717 Class Action vs Mortgage Ele...John SugdenBasic Foreclosure Litigation Defense ...Allen WoodardWells Fargo MERS Consent Orderchunga85Wells Fargo MERS Consent Orderforeclosure_crisis_in_chicago_areaJoeHomeSaverWells Fargo vs DKMCsimon lWells Fargo vs Draper and Kramer repurchase lawsuitForeclosure Notesjoycej2003Lender Processing Services' DOCX Docu...Foreclosure Fraud4closureFraud.orgIn re VEALForeclosure Fraud4closureFraud.orgPN_ILLevonn WarnerLAW NOTES including Mortgage, Foreclo...CarrieonicForeclosure ReportForeclosure Fraudre misdated Wells assignmentacfield13this filing discusses in part (see page 10 of pdf, paragraph 13) the fact tha...080616 Bayview Loan Servicing v Nelso...3201kfgWells Fargo Loses Appeal Regarding As...Foreclosure FraudForeclosure FraudForeclosure Chicagoaburnham1392FIS Foreclosure Solutions LPS Lender ...KitteeKattee"The Summit" - A publication of FIS Foreclosure Solutions, Inc. Volume 3, Iss...Previous|NextPage 1 of 7