Better Quest
1 FAITH XXXXXXX
Attorney Pro Se – Home Save Advocate
2 Faith@
(888) 541-9168
3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, HISTORICAL COURTHOUSE
4
FAITH XXXXXXXXXXXX CASE NO.
5 __________________________
Plaintiff,
6 vs.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., CAUSE OF ACTION
7 a Delaware corporation and as
successor in interest to 1. FRAUD;
8 COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL 2. NEGLIGENCE;
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, 3. BREACH OF CONTRACT;
9 dba, BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING; 4. PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., 5. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
10 a New York corporation; BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., CODE §1700 ET SEQ
11 California entity of unknown status; 6. VIOLATION OF THE
DEUTSCH ALT A SECURITIES COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH
12 MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-OA4 AND FAIR DEALING
DEUTSCHE BANK AG; 7. QUIET TITLE
13 DB STRUCTURED PRODUCTS, 8. VIOLATION OF THE
INC.; DEUTSCHE BANK TRUTH IN LENDING ACT
14 SECURITIES INC.; ACE SECURITIES 129C(c)(2)[108]
CORP.; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; 9. VIOLATIONS OF 4TH
15 CLAYTON FIXED INCOME AMMENDMENT
SERVICES INC; 10. VIOLATIONS OF 5TH
16 US BANK,NA;MERS (MERSCORP); AMMENDMENT
INDYMAC BANK FSB 11. PROTECTION UNDER THE
17 a division of One West Bank. SOX ACT SECTION 1107
ONE WEST BANK FSB; 12. VIOLATION OF THE
18 FREDDIE MAC or FANNIE MAE; SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
IRS (US DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY); ACT OF 1934 SECTION C
19 FDIC(FEDERAL DEPOSIT OF INSURANCE SUBPARAGRAPH (B)
CORPORATION;
20 and JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED
THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION
21 BUREAU
22 Defendants.
/
23
24 REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION; REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT, REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS REQUEST FOR
25 PROOF OF HOLDER IN DUE COURSE VIA PERFECT CHAIN OF TITLE; PROOF OF PERFECT CHAIN OF ENDORSEMENTS; VERIFICATION OF TRUE PARTY OF
26 INTEREST, VERIFICATION OF RECORDATIONS THROUGH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONS IN COMPLIANCE WITH TIMELINES ALLOTED.
27 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACTS, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGE; EQUITABLE RELIEF; PROOF
28 OF RECORDS; AND PROOF OF TAXES PAID.
1 VENUE AND JURISDICTION
Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 395 (a)
2 because Defendants reside and do business in this County in California, which is also where they
committed the unlawful acts alleged herein that affected Plaintiff. This Court has jurisdiction over
3 this action under the California Constitution, Article V, Section 10 because this case is not a cause
given by statute to other trial courts. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because
4 Defendants are authorized to do business in California, Defendants have sufficient minimum
contacts with California, and/ or otherwise intentionally avail themselves of the markets in
5 California through promotion and marketing and distribution and the wrongdoings by Defendants
that are alleged in this complaint substantially took place in California. This court has subject
6 matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Business and Professions Code §17204
and California Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10 which enables the California Superior Court to
7 adjudicate the wrongful exercise of real property rights, and foreclosure rights with respect to
property located in California. The Court pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 24 Request for
8 production of Documents and Civil Procedure Rule 36 Request for Admission and Civil Procedure
Rule 17 Real party of interest. Plaintiff cannot separate these request as they are interwoven and
9 could be taken out of context if filed separately. This court is renowned for community outreach.
10 Under California Code of Civil Procedure: 525. An injunction is a writ or order requiring a person to refrain from a particular act. It may be granted by the court in which the action is brought, or by
11 a judge thereof; and when granted by a judge, it may be enforced as an order of the court.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 36 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, (3) Time to
12 Respond; Effect of Not Responding. A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served,
the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or
13 objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney. Should no contest be
presented in regards to the above or below RECITALS specifically outlining these requests to
14 proof their claim that they are in fact a TRUE PARTY OF INTEREST to the requested agencies
for review, will constitute Admissions to all RECITALS as truth herein, Plaintiff is asking these
15 companies to further provide proof that any one of these RECITALS are false in any way, in a
court of law, and through the Attorney General Office specifically set up to address this mortgage
16 crisis. Plaintiff is now hereby invoking her rights under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 17.
(a) Real Party in of Interest. (1) Designation in General. An action must be prosecuted in the name
17 of the real party in interest. The following may sue in their own names without joining the person
for whose benefit the action is brought: (A) an executor; (B) an administrator; (C) a guardian; (D)
18 a bailee; (E) a trustee of an express trust; (F) aparty with whom or in whose name a contract has
been made for another's benefit; and (G) a party authorized by statute.
19
First Cause of Action
20 Plaintiff desired a judicial determination and declares that plaintiff did not breach the terms and conditions of the promissory note or deed of trust, that in Fact Defendants breached not only the
21 terms and conditions, but also the fiduciary trust of Plaintiff and that an actual controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendants.
22
Second Cause of Action
23 Defendant Bank of America and HSBC through Recon Trust are acting and intend to sell, unless restrained, will sell the Property located at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX on 1/25/12
24 at 9am. Further, that the trustee failed to comply with State non-judicial foreclosure procedures. Such a judicial determination is appropriate at this time so that the Plaintiff may determine her
25 rights and duties before the Property is sold at a Trustee Sale.
26 The trustee’s sale is wrongful and should be enjoined. Plaintiff has no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy, and the injunctive relief requested for this Complaint is necessary and
27 appropriate at this time to prevent irreparable injury and loss to Plaintiff’s Property. Plaintiff has enclosed Prima Facia Exhibits for the courts review attached hereto. “Exhibits Summary”
28
1 Third Cause of Action
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates contained within the First and Second Cause of Action. A
2 controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendants with respects to moneys owed, however Defendants refuses to provide accurate accounting or allow Plaintiff to audit the books and records
3 as they relate to Plaintiff’s loan. As a result, the correct amount of moneys owed cannot be determined. Further because of all the different transfers validity of the security needs to be
4 verified.
5 Wherefore Plaintiff demands judgment as follows:
A. That the Court issue a declaration to the rights and duties to the trustee’s sale because the
6. trustee failed to properly follow the foreclosure procedures under CALIFORNIA CIVIL
CODE § 2924 and that the validity of this loan is currently in dispute.
7
B. That the court issue a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent
8 injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, attorneys and representatives, and all
persons acting in concernt to be sold Property either under the power of sale clause contained 9 in the deed of trust of by a judicial foreclosure action.
10 C. That the court order Defendants, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. a Delaware corporation and
as successor in interest to COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Delaware
11 corporation, dba, BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING; COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., a New York corporation; RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.,a California entity of
12 unknown status; DEUTSCH ALT A SECURITIES MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-OA4 DEUTSCHE BANK AG; DB STRUCTURED PRODUCTS, INC.; DEUTSCHE
13 BANK SECURITIES INC.; ACE SECURITIES CORP.; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; CLAYTON FIXED INCOME SERVICES INC; HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL
14 ASSOCIATION; US BANK,NAMERS (MERSCORP) FREDDIE MAC or FANNIE MAE; INDYMAC BANK a division of One West Bank, ONE WEST BANK; FSB IRS (US
15 DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY);and FDIC(FEDERAL DEPOSIT OF INSURANCE CORPORATION with regards to their claim XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
16 under Federal rule 1002 the original Promissory Note signed by Plaintiff on MAY 3RD, 2007.
17
D. That the court order proof of a perfect chain of title, a perfect chain of endorsements with no 18 blank endorsements, proof of transfers of “true sales” via proof of purchase of the note from
the DEPOSITOR via delivery the endorsed note to show transfer of legal ownership of the
19 negotiable instrument from COUNTRYWIDE BANK, FSB to DB STRUCTURED
PRODUCTS, INC from DB STRUCTRUED PRODUCTS INC to ACE SECURITIES
20 CORP and again from ACE SECURITIES CORP to US BANK NA as trustees for the
certificate holders of DUETSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST
21 2007-OA4 clearly evidenced as receipt thereof to all recipients in turn, the DEPOSITOR
will have to further show proof of ownership of the note prior to its resale, fully disclosed
22 and intact terms on said note, and unequivocal proof that any of the above listed Defendants
are the holder in due course or party of interest authorizing Recon Trust to foreclose on the
23 property located at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
24 E. That the Court Request for HSBC BANK, USA, NA to verify their position as “Substitute
Trustee” for the DEUTSCHE ALT-A SERIES MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-OA4 as
25 the PSA (Pooling and Servicing Agreement) clearly designate US BANK USA, NA is the
designated Trustee. At this point a copy of the Note is requested via a QWR and made
26 available for review, as contractual warranties were made to having good and transferable
title to the Securities and Exchanges Commission.
27
F. That the Court order Proof that these parties or that REMIC (Real Estate Mortgage
28 Investment Conduits) offered out by Freddie Mac or FANNIE MAE ever paid taxes on this
note.
1 G. That the Court order Proof that Time Statutes for the “Pool Servicing” did not expire on this
note. Proof that this loan has not in fact been offset as a bad debt, and that Bank of America did
2 not purchase this loan at a substantial discount by providing accounting records of the chain of
action leading to this event to determine the amount, if any is actually owed by Plaintiff.
3
H. That the Court order Proof the Bank of America did not use TARP funds (Troubled Asset
4 Relief Program) to acquire Countrywide’s assets or equity.
5 I. That the Court order Proof that MERS invested monetary compensation entitling them to be the
Beneficiary of said note and Proof that this note was NOT paid through the pass through in the
6 secondary market by MERS, refinanced and again paid through the pass through of MERS a
second time, nor again when Bank of America used TARP funds in the acquisition of
7 Countrywide.
8 J. That the Court order proof that RECON TRUST is an arms length third party properly licensed
to do business in the State of California.
9
K. That the Court Request of admissions of FDIC they “In Fact” had Andrew S. Bently (Attorney)
10 sign an Assignment of Deed and that they were aware of the deed transfer to DEUTSCHE
ALT-A SERIES MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-OA4 by HSBC on Behalf of BANK OF
11 AMERICA and in fact consented to the transfer of the Deed of Trust thereto.
12 L. That the Court order proof that the CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU had
Specific Facts Under The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 65 (b) (A) to shut down a line
13 of defense for the consumer insinuating in court only the suspicion of US Muslim Citizen, Case
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX that nearly shut down Plaintiffs access to the enclosed evidence.
14
M. That the Court order US BANK to provide a list of authorized signers on behalf of MERS from
15 US Bank on and before 3/20/12; and in kind MERS to provides a list of authorized signers on
their behalf from US BANK on and before 3/20/12.
16
N. That the Court request to produce these requests, within thirty (30) days of the service hereof
17 at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX , To the State Attorney General Kamala
Devi Harris, andKatherine Porter the CA Monitor for the National Mortgage Settlement care of
18 the Attorney General’s Office, and at California Department of Justice P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 AND directly to this Historic Courthouse 4050 Main Street,
19 Riverside, Ca. 92501, CA 92701-4516
20 INTRODUCTION OF PARTIES INVOLVED
This case concerns a home loan that Originated by COUNTRYWIDE BANK, FSB 3/06/2006. The
21 loan was Assigned to MER’s Inc as a beneficiary and to Recon Trust as a Trustee. That was
refinanced and again Originated by COUNTRYWIDE BANK, FSB 5/14/2007. The loan was
22 Assigned to MERS Inc as a beneficiary and to Recon Trust as a Trustee. Reconvened on
5/31/2007 by COUNTRYWIDE BANK listing MER’s Inc as a beneficiary and to Recon Trust as
23 a Trustee. INDYMAC BANK FSB Secondary Lien Home Equity Line recorded on 9/11/2007,
then 12/11/2009 Assignment of deed of trust crossing out a title stating “ASSIGNMENT AND
24 TRANSFER OF NOTE AND SECURITY INSTRUMENT” to the FEDERAL DEPOSIT
INSURANCE CORPORATION again crossing out the after recording section which listed “ONE
25 WEST BANK, FSBC attn. Trailing Docs 7700 PARMEL LANE AUSTIN TX 78729 loan number
127677685/ 8800779889” Mers as nominee for lender and it assigns on 9/16/2011, to Bank of
26 America where MERS recognized the assignment, on 3/20/2012 the assignment of the Deed of
Trust was from to Bank ofAmerica transferred to HSBC BANK USA, NA as trustee for the
27 holders of DEUTSCHE ALT-A SERCURITES INC MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST MORTGAGE
PASSTHOUGH CERTIFICIES SERIES 2007-OA4 the same day 3/20/2012 RECON TRUST, a
28 subsidiary of BANK OF AMERICA filed a Notice of Default referencing HSBC BANK USA,
cont…
1 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF DEUTSCH ALT-A
SERIES,INC MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES
2 SERIES 2007-OA4 C/O BANK OF AMERICA; 6/27/2012 RECON TRUST filed a notice of
Trustee Sale. That further this instrument was sold to DB STRUCTURED PRODUCTS, Inc
3 further sold to ACE SECURITIES CORP further sold to DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES
MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-OA4. The formation of DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES
4 MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-OA4 was subject to the Pooling and Servicing Agreements
(PSA) cut off dates, dated June 1st 2007. FREDDIE MAC OR FANNIE MAE as listed upon the
5 recorded documents. IRS for verification of IRS Code 860 as applicable to Defendants and
suspicious timing of audits. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for outside interference
6 in uncovering truths.
7 RECITALS
Whereas Plaintiff, was a loan broker who brokered to Countrywide and briefly worked with Bank
8 of America, who has in depth understanding of the mortgage industry and can better act as an
EXPERT WITNESS in this matter than the normal Layman or Attorney for the purpose of future
9 case studies pertaining to matters of this nature.
10 Whereas Plaintiff was considered a Volunteer Federal Witness in a criminal investigation of
lending fraud within the Riverside and surrounding areas by the US Department of Justice.
11 “Exhibit F”
12 Whereas Plaintiff, through her rights under the US Constitution is acting as an “Attorney Pro Se.”
on principle. An Attorney Pro Se cannot be de-barred and is the most powerful defense the
13 Layman has left against the banking industry under the passing of the Freedom of Information Act.
This act further allows under section (a) (4) (E) awards as a matter of law.
14
Whereas Plaintiffs previous written request under her rights via USC Title 15 Section 1692 retuned
15 no clear documentation provided to support Bank of America’s or Recon Trusts rights to foreclose.
16 Whereas the provided Securitization Audits that clearly show the Pooling Service Agreements, the
Securitization Purchase Agreements, the Mortgage Pool and the Prospectus provided herein as
17 “Exhibit A” do not evidence a perfect chain of title as the note and the deed clearly did not follow
each other up front, nor via the timelines outlined in the introduction, nor was there proper
18 recordation of title or endorsements of title. The note and deed were clearly bifurcated.
19 Whereas Plaintiff has been acting as a home save advocate for the last several years and has
witnessed these events taking place to people across the nation in addition to her own foreclosure
20 of her previous primary residence in Washington State prior to her relocation back into California
as well as the current wrongful foreclosure tactics being used on the above referenced property.
21
Whereas the real party of interest was not proven to Plaintiff via her repeated request for this
22 information and her additional REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS to Bank of America below, nor to
her dispute of debt the dispute of the Notice of Default and her dispute of Foreclosure proceedings
23 to show proof that any parties were a Holder in Due Course. The following Request was made.
24 “1) You admit that you are a servicer of the promissory note.”
“2) You admit that the loan has been securitized.”
25 “3) You admit that you are not a real party of interest in this controversy.”
“4) You admit that you are a debt collector and not the original creditor.”
26
Whereas requests are now additionally being made, via this CIVIL Request, to show proof that
27 both the Deed of Trust (Mortgage) and the Promissory note, have in fact always pointed to the
same party at ALL times and that Bank of America or Recon Trust has the authority or ability to
28 exercise the “Due on Sale” Clause, or that any of the above listed Defendants are a true party of
interest in this note after fully reviewing the Recitals here within.
1 Whereas the Massachusetts Supreme Court issued a decision in US BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION vs ANTONIO IBANEZ in which all the Justices unanimously agreed. In order 2 for a bank to be able to foreclose they MUST show a perfection of chain of title, both in the Deed of Trust/Mortgage and the Promissory note. It was also ruled that a blank assignment was not 3 acceptable proof of perfection of title for the promissory note.
4 Whereas under FEDERAL Rule 2003 states, The Bank must show a Perfection of the Chain of
Title for the Deed of Trust (Mortgage). This means that any assignment of the Promissory note 5 must also be reflected at the county recorder’s office (and not with MERS). If an assignment of the Promissory note is not recorded on the County Records, then perfection is not achieved.
6
Whereas the enclosed securitization audit clearly outlines what is currently on title today for the 7 review of this court to ensure the documents, if any, to the contrary are in fact legitimate. All Plaintiffs Prima Facia documentation supports Breach of Contract, Imperfect Chain of Title, Fraud, 8 Willful intent to do harm, premeditated intent to do harm wrongful foreclosure actions AND Securities Fraud. “Exhibit E” 9 Whereas Bank of America and Recon Trust both withheld the documentation for the corporation 10 transfer of the note from Bank of America to HSBC from Plaintiff upon her requests to provide proof of the Holder in Due Course and that they are a legitimate original owner of the debt U.C.C.- 11 ARTICLE 3 §3-302 t.
12 Whereas Bank of America is acting as a servicer, for a Countrywide debt that has already been paid through the MERS pass-through, refinanced and again paid through a second MERS pass- 13 through, then further paid a percentage through the REMIC stock conversion under a previous performing “stock” each time, and again paid off through the use of TARP funds by Bank of 14 America to acquire Countrywide sold back to Bank of America by the REMIC when the Asset was no longer performing. Further that this debt has in fact been discharged under Federal 15 Bankruptcy filing XXXXXXXXXXX. “Exhibit D”
16 Whereas Plaintiff has been forced to file XXXXXXXX “Exhibit D cont.” as a result of wrongful
foreclosure and wrongful collection activities where Plaintiff again informed the Trustee and Judge
17 that Plaintiff was requesting protection under Section 1107 of the SOX (The Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002). The transcripts will show this court the length HSBC went to restrict Plaintiffs
18 liberties and have been ordered for further review by this court.
19 WHAT COURTS ALREADY MAY KNOW
Whereas when Countrywide securitized this loan via the use of MERS (the Mortgage Electronic 20 Registration System) the bank (Countrywide) was automatically paid 1.05 to 1.5 times the actual lent amount within days after the closing of the home.
21
Whereas MERS - Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc., found in thousands (or hundreds
22 of thousands) of mortgages and deeds of trust was suspended from doing business in California
and the Agent for Service of Process resigned March 25, 2009. A corporation is a fiction of the
23 state that remains alive and draws its lifeblood from the state, and once the state pulls the plug, it
dies. Making all MERS transactions “Voidable” in the State of California.
24
Whereas to be a beneficiary, one has to put up the money to fund the loan. MERS never fronted a
25 single dime for the loans they electronically passed. They were there solely for the purpose of
tracking transfers. MERS recordation is not official. They only legally recognize that the
26 recordation on public record is with the county. MERS is never a Holder in Due Course. No
promissory note was EVER assigned to them. Only a real and beneficiary party in interest may
27 assign a promissory note, appoint a substitution of trustee or assign a Deed of Trust.
28 Whereas Countrywide and Mers committed Breach of Contract under section 23 Reconveyance of
the original contract and committed Bifurcation. The exact terminology under the contract reads
cont…
1 as follows “Upon payment of all sums secured by this Security Instrument. Lender shall request
Trustee to reconvey the Property and shall surrender the Security Instrument and all notes
2 evidencing debt secured by this security agreement to trustee”. This was not done either time.
3 Whereas there is no legal protection in the contract pertaining to borrowers protection of Interest in
the Property only that of the lender under section 9. Therefore Plaintiffs ownership interests have
4 been compromised and this misconduct and bifurcated recordings have created a cloud on title.
5 Whereas when Mers transferred this loan and Bank of America took over Countrywide the note
became unsecured and the deed of trust became worthless as it created bifurcation which is a
6 violation of State law. Further the issue of a Defective Instrument must be acknowledged. No loan assignment was properly done. A lender simply cannot reverse engineer the title of the Deed of 7 Trust or Promissory note converted into a stock to correct these issues.
8 Whereas MERS passed through this loan to REMIC offered by FREDDIE MAC and this loan was
paid by REMIC in full and converted to an “Asset” through the Securities and Exchange
9 Commissions where these REMIC’s placed this loan into a SPVs (special purpose vehicle) in
order to avoid double taxation under IRS Code 860, thereby taxing only the shareholders.
10
Whereas the “Real party of interest” has to pay taxes on their interest earnings. Meaning only the
11 Shareholder’s who paid taxes on their earnings are the true party of interest. Explained further
below.
12
Whereas a promissory note is ONLY enforceable in its whole entity. Therefore Bank of America
13 is trying to enforce and wrongful foreclosure on the above listed property. NONE OF THE
DEFENDENTS are a party of interest in this note, NONE OF THE DEFENDENTS are a Holder
14 in Due Course, NONE OF THE DEFENDENTS can provide a Perfect Chain of Title to this
property and NONE OF THE DEFENDENTS can legally foreclose on this property.
15
Whereas when a REMIC is formed, its assets (the Plaintiffs note plus thousands of other notes) are
16 declared a permanent fixture to the REMIC. Which means that once an asset is registered and
traded as part of the security it can not be “switched out” or “switched back” to a note because it
17 has become a permanent fixture to a traded asset. Plaintiff refinanced an original Countrywide
negative Amortization, Mers transferred REMIC note in attempts to defer the triggering of the
18 amortization payments which created additional unforeseen hardships to the Plaintiff. Under the
rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission as the converted “Asset (Note)” has the above
19 listed property clearly outlined and is named in the “Asset (Note)” itself. No other option was
available to Plaintiff as she could not qualify in any other capacity for any other program. Further
20 detailed below.
21 Whereas when a loan goes into default, the REMIC writes it off. Once an asset is written off, the
shareholders receive a tax credit from the IRS. This means the debt is settled and the note is gone,
22 PERIOD. The shareholders, (being the ONLY true party of interest) have been paid and this debt
along with millions of others, have been settled by the IRS themselves.
23
UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING PLAINTIFF
24 Whereas Plaintiff was notified of an IRS Audit in October of 2012 after her repeated requests for
information from Recon Trust and Bank of America, where her attendance was demanded to take
25 place in the State of Washington after the Plaintiffs relocation to California in which the Plaintiff
was not allowed to transfer the audit into the State of California upon Plaintiffs request for proper
26 review with her tax preparer, for a total imposed sum of $19,618. The standard Attorney Retainer
for case of this nature is $20,000 and this imposed debt was included under the Chapter 13
27 bankruptcy filing listed herein as the IRS preparer acted sue sponte and violated Plaintiffs rights
under 15-1-222 Taxpayer bill of rights to be allowed representation and proper consideration after
28 Plaintiff requested transfer of the audit to California for proper review.
1 Whereas a temporary retraining order was issued on the Order of the Consumer Financial
Protection Agencies request, on behalf an undisclosed source after Plaintiff relayed comments to
2 BANK OF AMERICA of Plaintiffs intent to file Litigation against them. The compliant was
directed at the very place help was being offered to Plaintiff in the outline of her suit being filed in
3 this court further impacting Plaintiffs liberties in the uncovering of specific truths in the
compilation of this suit for the purpose of due process. These actions will again potentially enable
4 wrongful foreclosures against other innocents by the banking industry. Plaintiffs Social Security
card was on site, and Plaintiffs BK-case was dismissed for not being able to produce the Social
5 Security card along with the inability to have filed this suit in a timely manner per the Temporary
ex parte injunction filed. The HSBC bank attorney, was throwing everything at the Bankruptcy
6 Judge to dismiss this case, INCLUDING going so far as to tell the judge that the loan number was
incorrect on the filing. Enclosed is the Schedule “F” showing the correct loan number per the
7 enclosed Bank of America mortgage statement. Plaintiff referenced an additional number that
was attached to the loan through one of the documents also provided to her by the banks to make
8 sure there was no error in the filing. Your honor, if these banks are willing to outright lie “On
Record” in a Court of Law and go to such extreme lengths to restrict Plaintiffs liberties as to lay
9 claims as a last resort that the loan number is not properly reflected in the filing, is this not
in fact outright evidence of their willful and deliberate attempts to do harm to Plaintiff?
10
Whereas Plaintiff was acting in an Advocacy and training capacity on verification that the same
11 underwriting of HAMP loans arising from declined loan modification complaints made by
consumers, were in fact approvable so that they could be properly submitted through the US
12 Department of Treasury along with the very same audits presented here today to show merit and
standing. These audits are the ONLY defense the Laymen have against these wrongful
13 foreclosures and unethical conduct of the banking industry, they show forgeries, fraud, bifurcation
and disintegration of Mortgages. This Civil Suit is an WAKE UP CALL to show others how to
14 actually stand up in their rights, because this is what it has come down to. The burden to prove the
consumers innocence has fallen to the consumer themselves.
15
Whereas Plaintiff witnessed the Ascertaining of Specific facts that pertained to the operation of
16 this business “ON SITE” during the Raid, as the Consumer Financial Protection Agency issued
an ex parte blanket order referencing loan modifications and loan companies under the Consumer
17 Financial Protection Act (CFPA) upon a small business owner. This owner did not specifically do
loan modifications, but offered out audits for profit, as the one presented here today to allow the
18 consumer a fighting chance against the banks, with a further option to help file civil complaints
with the US Department of Treasury to help restructure their loans. From there she would work
19 with the banks to ensure delivery of documentation on behalf of the clients as the banks often
would lay claims of non-delivery of consumers information. Your Honor, what are the odds, of a
20 full blown Sheriffs raid by the National Consumer Protection Agency after a person who was
considered a volunteer Federal Witness tells the Banks Attorney whom she had conveyed this
21 information to, that the Plaintiff was going to bring a lawsuit against them? Further, what are the
odds, that the Plaintiff would also be hit with an audit she was not allowed to defend or participate
22 in? Plaintiff is aware that these actions are based in circumstance, but again, what are the ODDS,
one is an eyebrow raised, they other is just to much of a coincidence to ignore. Liberties are being
23 violated and these Federal Agencies are being played.
24 Whereas the specific comment made by the judge was, “this was much to do about nothing”.
Who ever did this to this agency, made this agency look like fools in from of that judge.
25 While Plaintiff understands the need for consumers rights to be protected, Plaintiff also knows that
removing any line of defense enables Defendants to continue the perpetuation of their activities
26 and stands firm in her belief that a line of defense to the consumer is absolutely necessary in the
financial and economic environment we are currently in. Plaintiffs inclusions of their actions in
27 this suit is just, if nothing else but to remind them of who they are and what they stand for under
advisement. They are in charge of Protecting this Plaintiff per their title and their cause allowed to
28 them under the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, where the SOX act again is clearly
listed under this act as plaintiff was building a viable case that would help them with their efforts.
1 Whereas upon further inquiry to the US Department of Treasury, they too are acting as a
Modification Agency on behalf of the banks. Plaintiff reiterates, in Plaintiffs professional opinion
2 after witnessing the history of this Mortgage Crisis, LOAN MODIFICATIONS DO NOT WORK.
They are a temporary solution to a much deeper problem, that create a false sense of security.
3
4 DEFENDANTS DELIBERATE WITHHOLDING
Whereas It is clearly being evidenced via their current withholding of what appears to be back-
5 dated pass through to 2007 directed to HSBC and record in 2012 filed concurrently with a NOD
from RECON TRUST where it seems that the FDIC transfered title in between, this filing
6 named HSBC acting ON BEHALF OF BANK OF AMERICA again showing this clearly on title,
evidencing collaboration, to try and correct and position this lien to sell off to collect the insurance
7 of 70%-80% of the value of the note to the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). For
clarity and to reiterate, it would appear that when INDYMAC Aka ONE WEST BANK seemingly
8 recording a document on behalf of the FDIC on their internal banks form that transfered title to the
FDIC. Then BANK OF AMERICA in an attempt to correct their paperwork to un-bifurcate the
9 note to override the recorded document Recorded the Deed of Trust back dating it to the
DEUTCH ALT A SECURITIES INC MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE PASS
10 THOUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2003-OA4 over FIVE YEARS beyond the Pooling and
Servicing agreements. This would position the property to initiate a payout worth
11 1.2-1.4 million dollars to them by the FDIC, when the homes true value is $606,200 via
EQUATOR, the company acting as a service to expedite short sales as a “Show” of good faith per
12 their mandated requirements under current law. EQUATOR has since removed all email records
of the enclosed valuation of this home and BANK OF AMERICA is currently attempting to re
13 valuate the property to a higher amount.
14 Whereas it does not take a rocket scientist to see that a corporation pass through of a deed of trust
recorded 3/20/12 , that was Supposed to follow the note attached to asset listed in DEUTCH ALT
15 A SECURITIES INC MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH
CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007- OA4 recorded on title five years after the fact, pretty much
16 Exceeds the Pooling and Servicing Agreements (PSA) cut off dates, dated June 1st 2007. When
Exactly were the pooling agreements going to be honored? Because the last Plaintiff looked, 60-
17 90-120 days were the norm. It is these winks and nods that have gotten us in this financial debacle
in the first place.
18
Whereas Recon Trust is acting as a beneficiary under HSBC blessing in care of Behalf of Bank of
19 America through the (Notice of Default) on said property with the same filing date as the
backdated 2007 pass-through to HSBC recorded in 2012 exceeding proper timelines for recording
20 their instrument 0n 3/30/2012 FIVE YEARS LATER to do what? Claim “race-notice”
recordation? Not likely. Sirs, right now judges are allowing these deed transfers that breach the
21 pooling agreements to stand based upon Defendants mutual agreements to accept the deed back
into the trust. This needs to stop now and here is why…
22 Whereas on 9/11/2007 a “Home Equity Line of Credit Deed of Trust” was recorded on title by INDYMAC BANK
23
Whereas On March 19, 2009, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) completed the
24 sale of IndyMac Federal Bank to One West purchased many assets from the Independent National
Mortgage Corporation, after it filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
25
Whereas on December 11, 2009 an altered ONE WEST bank form crossed out the words
26 “Assignment and Transfer of Note and Security Instrument” and replaced it with the verbiage
“Assignment of Deed of Trust”. Honorable Judge, this document recorded on title acts as a
27 transfer of a full deed, and not an “Equity line of credit Deed of Trust”. Further it bifurcates the
second. Sirs, Andrew Bently Attorney in Fact, is not listed in the California State Bar of
28 Attorneys. Yet he is acting on behalf of the FDIC to take priority placement on this property.
This means that the FDIC must also agree to the transfer of the deed into the DEUTCH ALT A
cont…
1 SECURITIES INC MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH
CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007- OA4 on a wink and a nod. IF they did so, then that are acting
2 with the knowledge that a 1.2 million dollar pay out is being positioned in full awareness that the
properties worth is only $606,200. If they are not aware or did not give their permission, then
3 BANK OF AMERICA, ONE WEST BANK, HSBC, COUNTRYWIDE, and the affiliates
assigned to DEUTCH ALTA SECURITIES INC MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE
4 PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007- OA4 are in collaboration to commit insurance
fraud. Sirs, it is Plaintiffs belief that HSBC, BANK OF AMERICA who acquired
5 COUNTRYWIDE, and ONE WEST who acquired INDYMAC waited close to three years, banking on the statue of limitations for fraud so that they could not be prosecuted by the FDIC for
6 fraud committed, as the FDIC is currently trying to prosecute Countrywide for the same types of fraud already committed to collect the insurance on bad loans. So if the FDIC was not a party to
7 this, then let this be their testimony of a FRAUD uncovered in action to allow this to stand in their other suit. Honorable judge, this act is at Felony fraud levels either way it stands regardless of
8 Plaintiffs Federal volunteer efforts interfering, as she simply could not come forward any sooner for her own safety. Even if you hold to the three year statue, a volunteer Federal Witness is pretty
9 much an allowable detainment for evidence to be brought forward in cases concerning fraud sir and it allows this to stand if it is in fact a forged document on behalf of the FDIC.
10
Whereas Even if you blindly overlook this blatant act, the only evidence of the debts security is
11 through the endorsements or a receipt to take possession of the note. Without a proper chain of
endorsements, there is nothing more here than a promissory note.
12
Whereas there is absolutely no Deed of Trust filed with the first Original Countrywide loan. There
13 are no exact matches that can be brought forward to show that this was a valid note on a valid
Mortgage backed security. The pressures of the adjustable to the predatory under-disclosed rate of
14 8.675 forced a refinance on an invalid security instrument. Immediately again breaching contract
upon inception.
15
Whereas if this trust that was created through a MERS pass-through, that owns your loan was
16 selling MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, how exactly was it selling these securities if it
didn’t own the MORTGAGE?! The certificates are not called “unsecured promissory note”
17 securities – they’re called MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES. That’s how they got a AAA
rating, by being secured and protected by the property to which the note was secured. Without the
18 mortgages, the entire Trust and it’s multi-billion dollars of assets become unsecured and high risk. So by THEIR definition of the Trust alone, these MBS Trusts have to own the mortgage on which
19 it relies to sell a AAA Certificate. And if it owns the note, then it had to have acquired the mortgage in order to make the note secured and in turn, to legitimately call their issued certificates
20 “Mortgage backed securities.” In “Exhibit A” you can clearly see under the excel column AD or if you flip through the pages provided, you will see that the majority of the Assets listed in this
21 particular trust have the classification of “foreclosoure””Bankruptcy””REO”
22 Whereas Taking that to the next step .. .why did the banks create MERS if they didn’t need to have
the security interest tracked and transferred? This is why MERS is “solely a nominee of the lender
23 and its assigns” because it can’t actually retain the security interest in the mortgage – it can only be
an agent for the entity that actually does have the interest in the mortgage! If it wasn’t merely an
24 agent, you would have the same problem, where the mortgage is separated from the note and the
collateral becomes unsecured.” This demonstrates Securities Fraud your honor.
25
Whereas the ONLY defendant with Plausible Deniability of awareness of these types of activities
26 is the FDIC but is highly suspect under these circumstances or the IRS for the complexities these
acts would not necessarily be known and of course the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau who
27 does not apparently have the time to look at the details of a Situation Prima Facia.
28 Whereas a forensic audit “Exhibit B” was performed on the above referenced refinanced note, and
cont…
1 the following findings were uncovered. The Annual Percentage Rate (APR) was under disclosed
by 1.48900, the finance charge was under disclosed $662,502.47, the amount financed was under
2 disclosed $6,586.16 for a total of $669,088.63, an amount of fraud that exceeds the current market
value of the home and evidences damage to the Plaintiff.
3
4 Whereas neither the first or the second have the proper signed documentation of the Plaintiffs right
to cancel on either the first or the second, violating Regulation Z 226.5(a)(1) and 226.17 (a) (1), 15
5 USC 226.15 (b) and 226.23 (b)
6 Whereas In the Event of a foreclosure, the consumer may exercise the right of recession if the
disclosed finance charge is understated by more than $35. Plaintiff hereby and additionally once
7 more rescinds and rejects these notes as valid under these regulations via this Civil filing and via
the additional proof of Breach of Contract and Willful direct and indirect actions causing harm to
8 the Plaintiff by the majority of these Defendants.
9
THE “SCHEME”
10 Whereas under page 14 of the Securitization audit under “Exhibit A” what happens behind the scenes is finally revealed. The issuing entity DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES MORTGAGE
11 LOAN TRUST 2007-OA4 converts the pass through from Countrywide by Mers and converts the note into a Mortgage Backed Security (MBS) via the use of an underwriter, in this case
12 CLAYTON FIXED INCOME SERVICES INC. The Underwriter endorses the note as acceptable under the Securities and Exchanges into an Asset Class and permanently attached the newly
13 transformed “Asset” into the Trust or REMIC. A new trustee is named on behalf of the new trust created, in this case US BANK,NA creating a conflict of Trustees. From there a Depositor is set up
14 to take the now tradable stock for the investors to purchase, in this case ACE SECURITIES CORP and a custodian is appointed who is responsible for safeguarding the Trusts Assets. A master
15 Servicer in this case WELLS FARGO BANK, NA issues the payouts and take in’s on the performing “Asset” a Seller is appointed to offer out the “Asset” to a variety of investors in this
16 case DB STRUCTURED who essentially offers the “Asset” out to a multitude of investors which dissolves the note in its entirety. The Trust or REMIC further to avoid double taxation that arises
17 from the income as a result of the interest on the “mortgage payments” from the performing “Asset” they convert these Assets into Special Purpose Vehicles, and pass the taxes to the
18 Shareholders of the “Asset”. Now here is where it gets interesting, the seller DB STURCTURED PRODUCTS INC will then offer the product out through a Pass through RATE which is not of the
19 original note, but of a One Month Libor, if the Asset Product is a pay-option Asset it is offered out on a Rigged Libor. The Banks had control of the Payouts allotted to their investors. The proof is in
20 the Prospectus under “Exhibit A” on the very first page.
21 THE POTENTIAL SOX RECTILES
Whereas Section 1107 of the SOX (The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) provides legal protection for
22 those who report situations that may involve securities fraud. It states: Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the
23 lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any
truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any federal offense,
24 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. Plaintiff’s livelihood has definitely been affected. Honorable judge, Plaintiff had to endure a RAID by the CFPA by an
25 “unknown” source in an attempt to quite this Plaintiff. Plaintiff hereby invokes this now as she believes what she has witnessed may involve an unconsidered securities fraud issue and Plaintiff
26 feels duty bound to bring this issue into light for reasonable questioning. Plaintiff did in fact work as an employee of both COUNTRYWIDE and through the merger BANK OF AMERICA. Both
27 of these agencies are publically traded. Plaintiff also brokered mortgages to Countrywide prior to her employment with these agencies. Plaintiffs suspicions are correct to bring this information
28 forward in this manner for consideration under these extreme circumstances.
1 Plaintiff Faith Lynn Brashear hereby formally and earnestly request the full legal protection of the this court and/or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau including but not limited
2 WHISTLEBLOWER INCENTIVES AND PROTECTION. ``(1) Covered judicial or administrative action.--The term`covered judicial or administrative action' means any judicial or
3 administrative action brought by the Commission under this Act that results in monetary sanctions exceeding $1,000,000. Should they feel this warrant Merit and accept Plaintiffs request, plaintiff
4 will move to strike them from list of defendants. Plaintiff, while on site of this raid, "Clearly" conveyed to the receiver, that per her rights under SOX she was going to blow a whistle.
5 Honorable sirs, if a laymen is quoting and invoking rights under a specific act, in the knowledge that the Consumer Financial Protection Agency has jurisdiction over said act during a RAID would
6 it not be a safe assumption that the laymen actually read and understood the act? Plaintiff was not questioned as to why she would this or what it pertained to. Further Plaintiff did convey and
7 provide copies of the drafts of the Civil Suit directly to the Attorneys of the CFPA who filed the Ex Parte order with no response. So again the question is, who’s behalf is this agency exactly
8 protecting? A witness to lender fraud, a witness to consumers being denied loan modifications, a witness to lender abuse to elderly and disabled, certainly could be of great aid to this
9 agency. Here is the Testimony of a past volunteer witness in filing with reason to believe it warrants merit, if it is enough concern to the Banks that this testimony not brought to light then
10 why are such great lengths being taken.
11 Whereas Plaintiff received a phone call that day after the RAID asking specifically where Plaintiff lived, when Plaintiff inquired as to what this pertained to, the caller (unidentified) hung up.
12
Whereas Countrywide representatives approached Plaintiff to sell to the public these very loans
13 that are outlined as Exhibits Summary and attached here within that have with increased margins
to the consumer for a higher payout fee to the Plaintiff as an incentive to sell these products to the
14 consumers to help “Front End” the MERS boom explained below.
15 Whereas Sec. 3 SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 (A) ASSET CLASSES.—The regulations prescribed under subsection (b) shall establish asset classes with separate rules for
16 securitizers of different classes of assets, including residential mortgages, commercial mortgages,
commercial loans, auto loans, and any other class of assets that the Federal banking agencies and
17 the Commission deem appropriate. (B) CONTENTS.—For each asset class established under
subparagraph (A), the regulations prescribed under subsection (b) shall include underwriting
18 standards established by the Federal banking agencies that specify the terms, conditions, and characteristics of a loan within the asset class that indicate a low credit risk with respect to the
19 loan. (C) LIMITATION ON DEFINITION.—The Federal banking agencies, the Commission, the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Director of the Federal Housing Finance
20 Agency in defining the term ‘‘qualified residential mortgage’’, as required by subparagraph (B),
shall define that term to be no broader than the definition ‘‘qualified mortgage’’ as the term is
21 defined under section 129C(c)(2) [108] of the Truth in Lending Act, as amended by the Consumer
Financial Protection Act of 2010, and regulations adopted thereunder. An asset declared in the
22 SEC filing is permanently attached to the corporation and separated out to shareholders, thereby
completely dissolving the note in its entirety. Should this “Asset” get passed through again, or
23 another bank attempts to securitized and pass through the “Asset” again, IT COMMITS
SECURITIES FRAUD. But in the cases of the Banks, a refinance is considered a new note with
24 new terms. HOWEVER… In cases of EXTREME MEANING the following can be considered.
25 Whereas when qualifying a candidate for a loan, programs are offered out at different rates for the
product they are under. For example a fixed rate at par pricing (meaning there are no costs or
26 rebates for the pricing offered) is at 3.5%, there are options to buy down the rate for points, for
example 1 point pays the interest rate down to 3.25%. There are also options to rebate off a higher
27 rate, for example a 3.75% interest would give back a rebate of 1%. This is known as a yield spread
premium. The brokers would then have the option of paying the buyers costs with these yield
28 spreads or taking to premium. Arm Products are offered in much of the same way, only they are
broken apart to different indexes, IE COFI (Cost of Funds Index) MTA usually 12 month
cont…
1 (Treasury Average Index) LIBOR (London Interbank offered Rate) 1 month, 3 month 6 month 12
month, meaning what the average and adjustment periods on these index’s were tied to. These
2 offerings worked pretty much the same way, you knew the product, you knew the margin, you
knew the rate offering. These rates were most often below fix rate offerings. Further Cap rates
3 were placed on the amount an arm product could adjust per a term, so if you have a 12 month
product with a 1% cap that means if the index all of the sudden jumped to 5% and you bought a
4 3.5% rate at par, then your rate would adjust no more than 4.5%. Margins were added to
these Arms products to increase the capture of the rate when a rate adjusts, so for example those
5 who purchased ARM products with a 2% margins and the index did not adjust, the margin is added
to the offered rate, 3.5%+2% = 5.5% there for adjusting the rate to 4.5% because even though the
6 index may not have increased, the margin adjustment allows the lender to recap the rate at a later
time, usually in terms of 3 years, 5 years and 7 years down the line.
7
Whereas on a pay option arm, or negative amortization arm you offered a product tied to an index,
8 with the option to modify the offering by making adjustments to the margin for additional profit.
The margin is the amount that an arm product can adjust to reach a higher interest rate. So for
9 example if a pay option arm is offered, it has a start rate offering below the rate being offered
(usually 1%) . The rate being offered is tied usually to one of the above listed index, so you are
10 essentially taking the interest difference from the reduced payment and adding it to the back of the
loan. You are offered a par rate, only this time the brokers are allowed to modify the margin for a
11 rebate (incentive) that is not of the normal offering to other products on the market. So how this
works is you buy a rate ie 3.5 and you buy a product (pay option arm), the broker or loan officer
12 chooses a margin based upon what they want to make. The majority of these products offered an
automatic 1% rebate up front, and up to 2% more for raising the margin higher, up to potentially
13 3% on the margin. So at the time of the note, you are signing an Adjustable Rate Rider
“Exhibit C” that reflects both the interest rate plus the margin, which is not the true rate being
14 offered out or properly disclosed.
15 Whereas you cannot claim the same asset or an asset deriving from and absorbing the original
“Asset” (switch out) to the same company who already has this “Asset” registered previously in
16 its Entity, with the same loan program attached to the same index with the same underwriting
standards, with the same collateralization with the only difference being the loan amount and
17 minor adjustments that are included from tacked on under disclosed fees for the privilege of paying
off the note to avoid a rate adjustment and further incentivize a hidden margin in a note based in
18 Securities Fraud to do so for the purpose of enable perpetuating illegal activities on a rigged Libor
Index to control greater gains to the banks. This is not a new note, it is a extension of the same
19 program with similar terms and similar conditions on an unqualified mortgage, with TIL & Respa
violations upon their inception being offered out on a 1 month Libor THAT IS RIGGED. Because
20 the consumer cannot meet any other underwriting criteria of another Asset Class. This is
evidenced under Section AG under the excel version of the Mortgage Pool under “Exhibit A”
21 where the majority of these loans with in this trust say “Refinanced” and “Equity Take-out” with
scattered “Purchase” . So if people were not being forced into these programs, then why is this
22 trust laden with them?
23 Whereas Since the enclosed documentation clearly shows collaboration of the banks with the
potential collaboration of the FDIC, why would it not be entertained that on a wink and a nod that
24 these Fixed Asset Classes would not jump from Trust to Trust. After all, a rigged Libor with
mimicking Assets specifically designed to absorb the same product gives OPPORTUNITY for
25 better gains and higher equity capture.
26 Whereas self employed borrowers rely on cash flow as income, but are qualified on traditional
loans with their business debts reducing their actual income, or cash flow, making it difficult to
27 near impossible to qualify on a normal loan under traditional underwriting guidelines, not that they
can not afford the payments, but cannot show that with their business expenses that are needed to
28 keep their business running that they meet the cookie cutter guidelines of a Traditional loan. Many
self employed borrowers turned to Stated income loans to help offset these ratio issues. Stating
cont…
1 income in itself is not committing fraud, it is stating gross income, without the need for adding the
business expenses to skew the ratios out of proportion to enable a self employed client to qualify.
2 Many brokers stepped beyond common sense on these loans to gain profit. Plaintiff does not
believe she knowingly acted in this manner as she did her best to convey understanding as she is
3 doing here today.
4
WHAT THE BANKS DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW
5 Whereas on the enclosed Adjustable rate rider from the refinance, you can see that in a market
where offerings were around 6%– 7% with 1% margin at par on an MTA index, was written as an
6 8.375% rate which also through the forensics audit showed an undisclosed difference of 1.489
margin “Exhibit B” meaning the terms were breached up front, from the agreement understood.
7 This was the same ARM product refinance from the previous ARM 6%– 7% with 1% margin at
par on an index upon the adjustment period to the higher interest rate, above market rates and
8 offered out at lower performing rates to the investors. Further while it makes reference to the
margin in calculating the interest rate, NO WHERE under the Adjustable rate rider does it outline
9 what EXACTLY a margin is. The rider explains the Interest, it explains the Index and the
calculation of the interest rate, but nowhere in the rider is it disclosed to the consumer what a
10 MARGIN actually is and nowhere is it disclosed exactly what that yield spread premium is
ACTUALLY paid for. Thereby further concealing the incentives offered out to raise the margins
11 that altered the product offering that increased the payments through equity capture to the banks.
THIS IS PROOF IN EXHIBITS AND IN TESTIMONY. It is within this Margin of Error that
12 cannot be ignored.
13 Whereas it could be better argued for the SEC definitions, that a new Asset is created by a new
note if the terms and conditions are different if this was an Arm to a Fixed, or a Neg Arm to an
14 Arm this argument would have less standing and unanimously agreed upon that the note was paid
off and a new note was created there by creating a new Asset, that is not the case here. The fact
15 remains that in cases where the refinance mimics the original note in its terms and conditions, and
the intent of the refinanced note is to absorb the original note (or Asset) by duplicating the same
16 program perimeters to perpetuate activities in fraud (under disclosing or non disclosure to offer out
on a rigged Libor index), It is simply is not actually creating anything new except a deeper debt
17 attached to the original collateral. A new note on the same property that mimics the original note
does not create a new asset. It simply is a new form of the SAME ASSET switched out again
18 turned into a SPVs to avoid double taxation and jumped these Assets from trust to trust. It lists the
address on the Note as a part of the “ASSET”, with no other alternative offerable.
19
Whereas any negative am product is in direct violation of 129C(c)(2) [108] of the Truth in Lending
20 Act Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Which under ‘‘(k) PROHIBITION ON STEERING
INCENTIVES of this act—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For any consumer credit transaction secured by
21 real property or a dwelling, no loan originator shall receive from any person and no person shall
pay to a loan originator, directly or indirectly, compensation that varies based on the terms of the
22 loan (other than the amount of the principal). A margin is technically not defined as a term of the
loan, it is only referenced as a calculation added as an adjustment to the loans offering to allow for
23 higher rates to ensue. You can not enforce a contract that does not have CLEAR TERMS AND
CLEAR CONDITIONS so In general this rule applies. The banking industry Steered brokers to
24 increase margins by offering incentives to increase margins not properly defined on any Negative
Arm transaction in its TERMS. This is about as grey as grey gets on this technicality with regards
25 to the payoff, the merit lays in the inability of the consumer to choose or qualify for a different
"Asset Class". Regardless by the incentivizing increase margins without disclosure or definition to
26 the terms on the ADJUSTABLE RATE RIDER other than a reference to a calculation is a
violation of this very act. When these notes adjust to above market rates it forces a restructure to
27 the same product because the consumer could not qualify traditionally and pushes the same
product on the same asset. This is what allows the concept of this collaborated “Switch out” to
28 be entertained, the Steering Prohibition to stand AND SECURITIES FRAUD under this section K
of this act to be fully acknowledged.
1 Whereas by these lending institutions offering out additional incentives to Brokers to
increase the Margins attached to these negative Amortization loans for greater financial
2 gain, further perpetuating “Under-disclosed finance charges” after taking profit on the Switched
out asset from the original “Un-Qualified asset” as outlined on the attached Forensic Audit clearly
3 showing Respa and Til Violations as and offerings under a Rigged index as outlined within the
Securitization Audit, where at the time of the rate adjustment perpetuated a need for refinancing
4 the “Asset” to create the “illusion” of a new “Asset” to a similar structured instrument that
encompasses and MIMICS the original note with similar terms and similar conditions of the
5 original note with no other alternatives is in fact “Switching the Asset”.
6 Whereas Plaintiff , who sold herself these loans and refinanced herself these loans in addition to
offering these loans to the public, was not aware of the under laying intent to do harm to the
7 American consumer by these incentivized loans until years later. These actions by the bank were
premeditated to set the consumer up to fail and to be able to sell these loans upon their default to
8 not only collect the equity in the home from negative amortization on higher margins, but to follow
the process of wrongful foreclosures in order to profit at the expense of the Public by the use of
9 Mortgage Brokers to distribute these incentivized loans across America to enable them to follow
these same tactics for further profit during the market boom and events outlined further below.
10
Whereas Countrywide breached fiduciary relationships with mortgage brokers in the willful
11 promotion of loan programs with the premeditated intent to withhold proper and necessary
disclosures to the brokers they used to present these loans and to the consumers they harmed by
12 these loans as evidenced in the enclosed audit and through every Neg Am loan processed between
2002-2010 ever brought to a forensic auditor for review securitized by MERS.
13
Whereas SEC charged Citigroup's principal U.S. broker-dealer subsidiary with misleading
14 investors about a $1 billion CDO (Collateralized debt obligations) tied to the housing market in
which Citigroup bet against investors as the housing market showed signs of distress. The
15 proposed settlement, a payment of $285 million by Citigroup that would be returned to harmed
investors. (10/19/11). SEC charged the firm with misleading investors in a complex mortgage
16 securities transaction just as the housing market was starting to plummet. J.P. Morgan agreed to
pay $153.6 million in a settlement to harmed investors. (6/21/11). SEC charged the firm with
17 misconduct in the sale of two CDOs tied to the performance of residential mortgage-backed
securities as the housing market was beginning to show signs of distress. Firm settled charges by
18 paying more than $11 million, mostly to harmed investors. (4/5/11) SEC charged Wells Fargo's
brokerage firm and a former vice president for selling investments tied to mortgage-backed
19 securities without fully understanding their complexity or disclosing the risks to investors. Wells
Fargo agreed to pay more than $6.5 million to settle the charges. (8/14/12).
20
Whereas Bank of America breached fiduciary relationships as they had no true intent of actually
21 cooperating in a short sale, and conveyed to Equator via verbal confirmation on a recorded
message by an Equator representative that the foreclosure proceedings to the property had been
22 placed on hold by Bank of America, when in fact Bank of America continued to instruct Recon
Trust to wrongfully foreclose on this above mentioned property, via a confirmation directly by the
23 Plaintiff to a Recon Trust Representative after receiving the “on hold” message from Equator.
This is being continually evidenced in though their contempt of Federal Bankruptcy Court
24 automatic stay, by continuing to set foreclosure sales dates month after month “Banking” on the
dismissal of the forced Chapter 13 filings automatic stay in place in order to “Profit” at the expense
25 of the Plaintiff. This is willful and deliberate attempts to do harm. “Exhibit G”
26 Whereas Bank of America has not shown proof of their ability to in fact collect or enforce note
under UCC § 9-301, the party enforcing the note must demonstrate that it has the position of the
27 Holder in Due Course or having the authority from the Holder. Courts have already ruled against
MERS having the authority to appoint Trustees and assign Deeds of Trust/Mortgages unless it is
28 officially registered at the County Hall of Records.
1 THE TRUTH RECITALS
Whereas upon prima facia review Bank of America is acting sua sponte to initiate a foreclosure.
2 Through RECON TRUST Company by further requesting HSBC to file documentation on their
behalf, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America which is not an arms-length 3rd party
3 neutral entity. This is further collaboration with the intent to do harm with the only interest here is
to profit off the Plaintiff by positioning the loan in which they Purchased at a substantial discount
4 back from REMIC to collect insurance through the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation)
by trying to enforce a wrongful foreclosure by a subsidiary of their own making on a bifurcated
5 note that committed securities fraud.
6 Whereas Recon Trust is not registered under the California State business registry. CA
Foreclosure Law - Civil Code 2924 in order to be named as a trustee in a foreclosure you must be
7 registered to do business in the state of California. There are over 18,000 foreclosures taking
placed by Recon Trust whom is not registeredto do business.
8
Whereas The case of Washington v. ReconTrust Co., 11-26867-5, Superior Court, King County
9 Washington (Seattle). Recon Trust is banned from the State of Washington for the very same
reasons listed within these Recitals. They withheld the pass through to HSBC to Plaintiff, they are
10 not an arms length to Bank of America, they are not registered to do business in the State of
California and are in violation of the very same case, won by WA’s Attorney General. How can
11 our California Attorney General not see this? WA’s AG won fines for $2000 per each offense, that
is $36,000,000 to the State of California just waiting there. Is there a reason the hardest hit State in
12 our nation would not want these funds? Plus these same offenses are happening with other
banking institutions that created their own foreclosure subsidiaries. California need jobs, builders
13 need permits, self employed need help to establish new business what is holding this back?
14 Whereas under U.C.C.- ARTICLE 3§3-301.Under Title 12§226.39 (reg Z) part (a), a servicer
doesn't have the rights of a holder in due course therefore doesn't have the right to foreclose.”
15
THE WHOLE TRUTH RECITALS
16 Whereas the securitization, undisclosed excessive Til and RESPA violations exceeding the actual
value of the home, the pass-through, and buy-outs creating Breach and Bifurcation along with
17 State violations Securities and Exchange violations and Federal violations in contempt of Federal
Bankruptcy rules of Automatic Stay, create a broken disintegrated and defective PAID Instrument,
18 hereby invalidating any actual Secured holding on the property located at 1095 Lowry Ranch
Road, Corona CA 92881 through securitization fraud of this loan has fraud and breach of contract
19 under the terms and conditions set forth therein. In fact turning this loan into an unsecure
uncollectible, settled debt with clouded title used for fraudulent gain from inside traders to outside
20 investors, and Bank of America into a glorified debt collector who bought a bad debt with the use
of Government Funding and is now using the Attorney General as a debt collector under the
21 illusion of “settlement” on their behalf through the National Mortgage Settlement Act.
22 Whereas A note that has been securitized through MERS and transferred into a REMIC as a
Mortgage backed security (MBS) traded on Wall Street, must follow the Regulations of the 23 Securities and Exchange Commissioners, not just the Uniform Commercial Codes. Meaning securitized loans dissolved the majority of UCC regulations and these “notes” must be ruled in 24 accordance to the SEC guidelines with the UCC best interest at hand. Meaning, that courts can allow these guidelines in their adjudications to protect their jurisdiction.
25
Whereas a valid note is an instrument that clearly outlines the terms and conditions of that note. 26 Fees that incur that do not follow a note, ie attorney fees for loans in default do not follow the note, therefore are not a part of the note. Undisclosed fees is withholding a material fact to the note 27 itself and does not “clearly” define the terms and condition’s of that note. It is a leading questions when judges ask “Did you sign a note” because this makes the assumptions that all notes are the 28 same. The notes that were offered as ARMS or Option Arms with the intent to “inside trade” on a cont…
1 Libor Product, were based in deceit with BREACH UPON INCEPTION. These notes have no more worth than a signature on a piece of blank paper or a blank endorsement. A note based in 2 misleading information to induce you to sign an interest in a property under false pretense is illegal. Playing off greed to perpetuate greed is of a criminal mind, and misleading the public for 3 relief by the legally signed assurance of restructure as a master servicer while the lower level servicer attempts wrongful foreclosure through contempt of court TO PUSH AN EXPERT
4 VOLUNEEER FEDERAL WITNESS OUT OF THE WAY, is called - COVERUP.
5 Whereas the DEFENDANTS, with the possible exception of the FDIC, the exception of the IRS and the exception of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, had Motive, Opportunity, and the 6 Means to execute and commit these frauds at a criminal level.
7 Whereas under the laws of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (USC Title 15 Section 1692) A debt collector is someone who (is not the original creditor) who buys a debt that has been offset. 8 Purchasing a debt after it has been declared it a loss. Once a debt has been written of, it is discharged. This note has been settled, the true parties of interest (the shareholders) have been 9 paid. Further Bifurcation of the note dissolved the note rendering it uncollectible, unenforceable and defective. Further MERS was shut down by the State of California, making this ‘Voidable”. 10 Plaintiff here within further proves the added fraud surrounding this note makes this note and the notes surrounding it in fact VOID. Further, Plaintiff discharged these notes under Federal
11 Bankruptcy Chapter 7 laws, under these actions and acts, it can never be collected again.
12 Whereas on the voice recordings of Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Ally/GMAC, JP Morgan Chase, Citi who are the biggest participants in these “transfers” it has been FEDERALLY
13 mandated that they disclose to the American Public that they are in fact a DEBT COLLECTOR.
Which means that the Federal Government is FULLY aware of this precise situation and know
14 EXACTLY what has happened in the Financial Debacle. Further that the recent “National Mortgage Settlement” agreement with these agencies are nothing more than an effort to collect
15 additional funds under the ruse of a settlement for these loans based in fraud, while still continuing foreclosure efforts across the nation for those who “don’t” apply or “Don’t Qualify”, further
16 enabling these activities for future generations. The fact that they are continuing to cover up this fraud perpetuates Fraud constitutes continued fraud. Sirs, plaintiff was unable to come forward in
17 these truths any sooner because Plaintiffs well being was in danger, her husband was fighting what was deemed an inoperable cancer and she knew she could not bring a suit until the banks further
18 exposed themselves in the continuance of these fraudulent actions to allow the suit to stand for full
consideration for all the frauds throughout this transaction. With the highly questionable
19 circumstances that are surrounding Plaintiff, this should show the courts that Plaintiff is without
doubt being denied civil liberties.Whereas Plaintiff spoke directly to a foreclosure department
20 representative whom informed Plaintiff that Bank of America was in the process of hiring 25 more
people in their foreclosure department in anticipation of a foreclosure frenzy in January/February.
21
Whereas Plaintiffs new wrongful foreclosure sales date is 1/25/13. The fact remains that the banks
22 have now turned the US Secretary of State into a debt collector on their behalves for notes they cannot legally collect on, on troubled assets that have been paid, by the Government to “qualified”
23 applicants meaning people who have MERS or electronically transferred notes with possibly a few true hardships thrown in for good PR in the name of “Justice”. Plaintiff is at least grateful this
24 settlement does not waive consumer’s rights to litigation, and recognizes that the majority of homeowners just want to restructure and move on, in that respect Plaintiff admires the efforts made
25 on behalf of the US Attorney General to try and
handle the mess dealt to her.
26
THE NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH RECITALS
27
Whereas any bank, acting as a servicer who tries to enforce security interest on a property from a 28 note that has been bifurcated, dissolved, breached, and resold back to the acting servicer is in fact cont…
1 acting in fraud to re-attach an unenforceable, voidable, dysfunctional, rescindable, void, instrument as a debt collector pretending to be a “party of interest” to the original transaction.
2 Whereas Bank of America is profiting at the expense of the innocents by violating their 4th
amendment rights using sheriffs to evict homeowners via wrongful foreclosure actions across the
3 states, and forcing wrongful evictions of rightful homeowners through the use of their subsidiary
Recon Trust as an accessary. A Debt Collector, A Servicer who bought a bad debt with
4 government issued funding, is not a party of interest and CANNOT legally FORECLOSE on any
home, PERIOD.
5
THE HISTORY BEHIND THE “RACKET”
6 After the last Depression, Congress enacted a law, Glass-Steagall, which forbid banks, insurance
companies, and investment houses to be in the same institution, to deter reckless speculation with
7 depositors' money, which was seen as a major contributor to the stock market instability of the
time. Then in 1999, at the height of the "Deregulation" phase, Citigroup and Travelers merged, a
8 clear violation of Glass-Steagall. But rather than enforce the law, Congress repealed the sections of
Glass-Steagall that prohibited insured banks from being affiliated with firms that engaged in
9 underwriting and dealing in securities, with the passage of the 1999 Financial Services Act.
10 This action opened the floodgates for runaway financial speculation. Wall Street was fully aware of the profit potential they were also aware that if their investments lost money, the US
11 Government would step in to offset the losses, which they in fact have done through IRS tax credits and TARP funding. The act of giving AAA ratings to subprime or high risk bifurcated non- 12 performing “Assets” in order to position these assets to collect Insurance funds through the FDIC is not only profiting at the expense of others, it has set the nations deficit further in the rears.
13 Starting about in 2005, Wall Street started bundling mortgages together into investment Bundles. So great was the demand for Mortgage-backed Securities (MBS, also called Collateralized Debt 14 Obligations) that Wall Street started running out of mortgages to front-load the System. This led to the creation of the "sub-prime" mortgage; granting mortgages to people who normally would not 15 qualify.
16 Congress, themselves invested in the Wall Street firms that were profiting from selling MBS, passed an $8000 first-time homebuyer tax credit (actually a loan repaid in future taxes) to lure
17 more buyers in which helped front-load the process even faster. This sudden surge in new homebuyers increased demand pushing inflated values on properties nationwide. With an opening 18 to more loans available this generated opportunities for lower level criminals to engage in lending fraud in order to ride this equity wave, which is what happened within this home’s community, 19 surrounding areas and nationwide. Meaning the banking industry along with our nations Congress enabled these activities by conducting unethical activities that perpetuated illegal activities to begin 20 with in removing these safeguards put in place to protect the innocents. These actions exposed innocents to criminals, enabled criminals into communities of innocents for the purpose and
21 intent to further inflate the values of homes and walk away with the profits. In other words, by the Governments actions to remove governing safeguards, it created a bubble. In the continuance of 22 these actions by both the Congress, the Banks and now the lower level Criminals, it allowed people to think they had equity, and who drew from this “false equity” under “false pretense”. As the
23 Plaintiff too fell under this illusion of false equity during this market boom and was abused for it.
24 Then TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) came into being as a program of the US Government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions with the intent to strengthen its financial 25 sector signed into law by George W. Bush on October 3,2008 to address the Subprime mortgage crisis. TARP now gave the banks MEANS.
26
EXPOSING THE TRUTH RECTILES
27 Whereas Plaintiffs conversations with Special IRS Agent assigned to this investigation conveyed
the scope, not the details, of these Criminal pump and dump communities across the Nation to
28 Plaintiff and Plaintiff conveyed the perception of a deeper threat to this Agent. The words used to
cont…
1 describe the above community and the Plaintiffs situation by this Agent was “Talk about being in
the Lions Den.” This is an ongoing criminal investigation that contains classified information.
2
Whereas the Plaintiff was forced to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy as the criminals under this
3 investigation were suspect to the identity theft incurred by Plaintiff. Further Plaintiff was not
allowed the issuance of new social security cards for her and her family and is still being denied
4 this, as this investigation is considered “on-going”. Further restricting Plaintiffs liberties.
5 Whereas Plaintiff has personally witnessed a multitude of qualified, eligible candidates under
HAMP, MAKING HOMES AFFORDABLE, NACA and other home save efforts though these
6 programs denied by a multitude of banking industries in order to continue these wrongful
foreclosures at the expense of others. Plaintiff was also denied restructure on the above listed
7 property as it was not her primary residence, and further forced out of her Washington Home going
through NACA as the bank continuously misplaced, lost or shredded her mortgage repayment
8 checks. The direct comment by the representative at Sun Trust Mortgage, was she didn’t care she
was going to get her insurance money from the foreclosure anyway. Who also suffered at the
9 hands of lender fraud on the purchase of a home that was destroyed by storms declared Federal
State of Emergencies and who was denied restructure under Chapter 11 from a judgment call by
10 the trustee who felt that since Plaintiffs husband was deemed
inoperable for a Cancerous tumor that Plaintiff should consider waiting until her circumstances had
11 settled. Shortly there after Plaintiff received a bill for over $5000 from the Washington
Bankruptcy Courts. This included a $4500 fee for a property that was sold during the Bankruptcy
12 that was not in Plaintiffs name, when Plaintiff complained, the bankruptcy was dismissed. This fee
was later deducted from Plaintiffs tax returns. Plaintiffs husband is in full remission.
13
Whereas once a loan goes into default it is sold back to the banks at a discount to the servicer (the
14 Bank), as the Mortgage Securitized Asset is not performing.
15 Whereas in todays market, these allowable Modifications or these non performing Assets are
Allowed on a limited basis to revise the Asset to a “performing” status. Once an Asset is
16 performing it is transferable to other banking institutions.
17 Whereas Plaintiff has witness the transfer of modified “Performing Assets” under the “Protection”
of these programs to other banks who do not honor or recognize these Modifications as the original
18 terms and conditions of the modified instrument.
19 Whereas Plaintiff has witnessed these transferred or modified assets are immediately issued denial
letters, for purpose of positioning the now “non-performing” asset for collection of the FDIC
20 insurance re-imbursement.
21 Whereas J.P. Morgan Chase is under a criminal probe by the U.S. Department of Justice related to
billions in trading losses on insured deposits in the FDIC insured part of the bank (the London
22 Whale mess); it is under investigation in both Canada and the U.S. for potential involvement in
the rigging of the global interest rate benchmark known as Libor; and a Federal regulator that
23 oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, has sued JPMorgan
Chase. JP Morgan Chase is the current servicer on the Plaintiffs Washington property that was
24 destroyed by storms that also has a pay option arm attached thereto.
25 Whereas the definition of Extreme Meaning – The utmost limit or degree that is supposable or
tolerable, hence furthest degree, any undue departure from the meaning.
26
Whereas any loan or note that was attached to a RIGGED Libor index was based in 27 PREMEDITATED fraud where it is impossible to know what the actual terms and conditions were actually based upon, and Departed from the Meaning of the integrity of the Note, the same is true 28 for the same “Asset Grouping” for the same product for the purpose to re-attaching it to a Rigged cont…
1 index. Further undisclosed charges, securitizations, Switching out the assets via refinancing and re-securitizing, raising the rates above the disclosed interest rate forcing the consumer to act under 2 pressure to refinance, placing blank endorsements to the note, and adding additional penalties ie attorney fees and penalties on the back end of modifications on these loans, falls into all of the 3 categories for Securities Fraud listed above rendering all Libor attached loans and all duplicated Mers transferred negative amortization loans unenforceable, thereby Null and Void and all other 4 loans voidable. How can you possibly enforce a note based upon a rigged index or one that has undefined, under disclosed, incentivized terms? How can the bank, who used our tax dollars via 5 TARP funds claim they even own these notes, when it is in fact the consumers tax dollars that paid for the privilege of this bail out, so that the banks could further perpetuate their activities and 6 misuse these funds for their intended purpose.
7
THE TRUTH THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH
8
Whereas, with the utmost respect your to you sir… Traditionally, the word racket is used to 9 describe a business (or syndicate) that is based on the example of the protection racket and indicates a belief that it is engaged in the sale of a solution to a problem that the institution itself 10 creates or perpetuates, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage for profit or gain.
11 Whereas by the very definition of what has been witnessed by this plaintiff, this is no longer capitalism, this, in the Plaintiffs Professional Business Opinion, is a form of racketeering, where 12 the banks have been paid and continued to be paid either through extortion tactics (Pay arrears or we foreclose), cover-up tactics (loan modifications with balloon payments or deferred loans on the 13 tail end to set the client up for the banks future payouts through transfers to other banks that do not honor the modifications) compromising restructures (Show of good faith while continuing to harm 14 others to placate government officials and the masses). Wrongful foreclosures for profit though non registered subsidiaries (MERS pass throughs and FDIC insurance payouts) evicting the
15 homeowners by Sherriff force if they can't pay up (Violation of the 4th Amendment) in order to sell the home for additional profit at the expense of the homeowner (FDIC insurance recapture for 16 70%-80% plus the liquidation of the collateral), and provide new loans for more people, to perpetuate this activity. Meanwhile taking a rigged profit from the people under their "protection" 17 (people who are paying their mortgages in good faith) and pocking the returns from unsuspecting investors for additional gain under the false pretense of a AAA “Asset” is clearly defined (A
18 pattern of illegal activity carried out as part of an enterprise that is owned or controlled by those who are engaged in the illegal activity otherwise traditionally known as Racketeering.) All done 19 with the governments awareness and blessing by the removal of safeguards to ensure that the great depression would never happen again to the generations that followed. (Misuse of Government 20 authority in the pursuit of profit) and a Violation of not only the Plaintiffs 5th Amendment rights (Depriving of liberty and property) but of homeowners across this great nation. This is exactly 21 why the banks cannot be allowed to govern themselves. Free enterprise comes at a price. This is loan sharking of a whole new nature, predatory actions to extort funds and inside trading at the 22 expense of others. This shark is not about higher interest rates, this shark is about higher “Foreclosure and Capture” through ILLEGAL foreclosures, controlling profits to our
23 foreign investors and insurance fraud to our own Government
24 Whereas Plaintiff has witnessed this lenders abuse first hand, and through conversations with families such as Elderly who have lost their spouse, families with children and pets thrown out 25 onto the streets. Disabled Veterans who fought for our country who grew up in the very homes they are being thrown out of. Men and Woman who have FOUGHT for our nation with their hearts 26 and their souls, being damaged at the mercy of these Banks who are preying on the weak and defenseless who can not afford simply luxuries, like transportation, clean clothing, computers, or 27 putting decent food on their tables for their children, things that most take for granted. BECAUSE they are TRAPPED within these mortgages. One of the phrases I have heard over and over again, 28 both directly and through others are these words that the banks pass along to the consumer. "We cont…
1 can not help you unless you are in default" . The banks love it when you are in default, because they are a member FDIC. Defiance is human nature, 9 out of 10 will default so that they can get 2 the help the banks are promising them only to be kicked out on the street when the bank decline this help. This Plaintiff has heard the cries from the pain and suffering inflicted upon these people 3 by DEFENDANTS, and other banking institutions first hand for over the last several years at the hands of these DEFENDENTS and by the Governments Actions that enabled them. The pain and
4 suffering from these emotional and physical hardships is beyond words. It is worse than dying, these DEFENDANTS have killed the hopes dreams and trust of those they inflicted with their
5 lender abuse, their premeditated and perpetual activities, and their profit at the expense of both our Nation's people and our government. They have stolen more than their homes, they have stolen
6 their pride and in some cases, their will.
7 Whereas Cases across America include the Federal Government suing Deutsch Bank, Federal
Government suing Countrywide, The New York Appelate Court says MERS can’t foreclose as
8 does Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Kansas, California, Idaho, and Michigan Supreme Courts
have all ruled in some form or another against MERS and their rights to foreclose. Arizona
9 Mayoral Candidate seizes homes from Freddie and Fannie fraudulent foreclosures, Taylor Been &
Whittaker CEO sentenced to 30 years in prison for Securities fraud, Homeowner beats Bank of
10 America in small claims court, and so on and so on… and while Plaintiff could go on for pages,
she grows tired of this mess, it is time for the truth to be fully known. Let the people decide if
11 they want to settle. From the many Plaintiff has personally spoken with, this is really all they
want. They should have the “REAL” choice, not force it under threat of foreclosure or false
12 pretense of urgency to act.
13 Whereas the Federal Housing Finance Agency, accused Bank of America and more than a dozen
other large lenders of selling bad mortgage securities to government-sponsored housing companies
14 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
15 Whereas Deutsch Alt-A Securities Mortage Loan Trust (Issuing Entity), Series 2006-OA1 v. DB
Structured Products Inc (The Sponsor) Sued for Diversity-Breach of Contract in their under
16 disclosures.
17 Where as an Assurance was signed by the Office of the Attorney General on behalf of the People of California Approved and consented by Michael J Heid which sets forth a framework though 18 which Wells Fargo (The Securities Administer and Master Servicer) would offer distressed Pick-a- payment mortgage loan borrowers affordable loan modifications that include a significant 19 principle forgiveness. No such arrangement was ever offered to Plaintiff.
20 THE HIDDEN AGENDA RECITALS
Whereas Bottom line, the majority of these DEFENDANTS stand to profit 1.2-1.4 if it forecloses
21 on top of what it has already been paid on this note, and a resell on the open market would yield
them an additional 600k. This is a profit of $2 million dollars in one transaction on a note they are
22 not a true party of interest, and use tax payers money to acquire, on an asset only worth 30% of
this. This is a 333% return on their “investment” of our tax payers funds, for the privilege of
23 enacting a wrongful foreclosure in contempt of Federal Bankruptcy Court through their own
internal subsidiarity (not licensed by the state) acting as an accessary to do so, thus by their own
24 aggressive actions, demonstrating MOTIVE in action. IT IS the Plaintiff belief that the Banks
who are “cooperating” in their settlement modifications have no intention of allowing “qualified”
25 candidates with higher loans on lower values allowed to “Settle” through these modifications, and
request proper monitoring by the US Department of Justice in these “forgiveness” actions until
26 proper safeguards can be restored. The highest “settlement” Plaintiff has seen has only been
roughly $200,000 on a modification with forgeries discovered in an audit.
27
28
1 PLAINTIFFS PRAYER FOR WORLD PEACE
2 Plaintiff does understand that the courts don't do that kind of thing in here, however In the
Plaintiffs professional opinion it must be so noted, the only way to resolve this crisis is to
3 Restructure these Asset-based Mortgages in a Nation wide relief through the oversight and
protection of the United StatesDepartment of Justice in joint effort with the Consumer Financial
4 Protection Bureau for the Citizens who were most affected by these actions above and beyond the
current settlement. That these settlements must be PERMINANT NON TRANSFERABLE
5 RESTRUCTURES and note Loan modifications. TARP funds have failed us by the mis-use and
abuse of the lending industry, thus is a point within the CPA revised 2010 act that refers to no
6 more Bail outs. Modifications are only a ruse to allow continued abuse by the lending institution
until they can sell off these “performing” assets to other banks who do not honor the agreements.
7 While Plaintiff appreciates the refinancing option at a reduced principle to non- delinquent
homeowners under the National Mortgage Settlement act, The US Attorney General should not be
8 used as a debt collector to further perpetuate these activities by allowing loan modifications to
continue at any level. The Settlement makes references from the participating banks to encourage
9 other banks to join in. So why would they want to do this? It is Plaintiffs belief that these banks
wish to not only transfer these “Settled notes” to other banks at a later time who do not have to
10 honor these modified notes, but that they wish for the other banks to “Play Ball” with them to
capture insurance payouts. The more banks to collaborate with, the more money to be made at the
11 expense of others. The term “Banksters of America” is now being used by many foreclosure
defense websites, foreign investors and home save advocacy sites in light of these unfolded events.
12
Government regulated foreclosure agencies need to be put into place and a “Restructure Asset
13 Mortgages (RAM)” relief act is needed to heal the crimes inflicted upon this nation at this nation’s
expense. It would help resolve the issues amicably with the banks and with the foreign investors
14 across seas by re-installing confidence in our Governments ability to resolve this situation as
opposed to just handling it. This along with the implementation new safeguards to prevent this
15 disaster for future generations should bring final healing to this crisis. Settlement, is not Relief.
16 In Plaintiffs opinion by creating brand new, non-transferable notes based upon the consumers
current qualification eligibility through traditional underwriting approaches in addition to the
17 reduction of the value of the home by a Government approved appraiser on a price opinion of the
home involved with the troubled Asset Mortgage notes, would completely resolve these issues and
18 re-install confidence in our foreign investors as a sign of good faith BY re-underwriting to a new
Asset Classification under the Securities and Exchange Commission called RAM Assets offered at
19 fixed returns and not fluctuating returns, further the FDIC could still grant issuance of insurance as
the troubled Asset would in fact be under government seizure and internally foreclose without
20 eviction with the permission of the homeowner and filed concurrently with the implementation of
the Restructured note. Further for those who filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy, or who had a “Switch
21 out” of their “Asset” or an incentivized margin replacement, and those who were attached to the
Rigged Libor in any capacity and whom suffered lender abuse, then the settlement should be what
22 is already is. The debt was discharged Federally and the home is theirs. A Debt collector has no
right to collect on a discharged debt. If the bank foreclosed, then they need to re-instate or replace
23 the home at equal or lesser value of the amount of the original note originally issued. Unless any
additional damage was done above and beyond these issues, then this will constitute a RELIEF
24 without further recourse. Not just a $250 to not prosecute to have further recourse currently being
witnessed as the current Bank policy in our Judicial states.where the Laymen is put on trial. These
25 hush money court ordered modifications under “AMMENDMENT A” need to end as the laymen is
baited into a a “trial modification”offer in which the bank can the place any “modification” they
26 deem fit after the consumer signs it. This witnessed event is one where they actually foreclosed
and had to re-instate the loan to “correct”their “errors”. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
27 now has this case. This layman has no defense or protection, CFPB please step up and do your
diligence, the Devil is in the details not the net you blindly cast because of what you have been
28 taught to see. See what is in front of you now. There is wisdom behind the eyes of these courts for
a reason. They will soon understand where my intents truly lie and they will find the right path.
cont…
1 Settlement means settlement for all not settlement for some, and certainly not settlement with
future lawsuits over the same issue. This is not healing the nation, it is pouring salt on the wounds
2 and burdening these courts with Class action and Tort litigations for years to come. If you want
bank’s to pay penance, then let the FDIC insurance funds given to the banks for the people who
3 were wrongfully foreclosed securitized loans who stepped forward be billed back to the banks as
an “overpayment” and redirected into the States for future commerce and the promotion of new
4 business and building permits.
5 Put a nationwide ban on law suits deeming them frivolous after this new agreement is reached.
Yes they have done us wrong, but when will enough be enough? Admit what was done, and FIX
6 it. Fix means FIX, not run behind the governments back to see what you can get away with next.
You are our leaders, our mentors, our hopes and our dreams, not children playing dodge ball in
7 outside the classroom until the principal catches you. GROW UP! You have tracked mud all over
the place, its time to clean up. The American People from what the Plaintiff has witnessed have
8 had quite enough and while she can not speak on their behalf, she can convey their sorrow.
RELIEF IS what needed NOW. There is no one who can deny this.
9
10 THE DAMAGE DONE
11 Whereas Plaintiff’s damage goes beyond these issues as these banks allowed, encouraged, and
incentivized the Plaintiff to unknowingly deliver these Rigged instruments to the public blindly,
12 this in fact aided and unknowingly abetting as did every broker across this nation, these
premeditated activities further perpetuating the current economic situation that these banks created.
13 Further it enabled criminal activity to ensue by playing on the greed and human nature of others
endangering Plaintiffs well being and the well being of Plaintiffs family. By these Federal
14 investigations of Lender Fraud within the Riverside area, Plaintiff was called to act as a volunteer
witness, it severely impacted Plaintiffs life, forcing Plaintiff to remove herself from her ability to
15 enjoy quit ownership privileges forcing a relocation for her safety, that severely impacted Plaintiffs
liberties. Further, by these wrongful foreclosure actions Bank of America is now attempting to
16 deprive Plaintiff of Plaintiffs property hereby blatantly attempting to violating her 5th Amendment
rights.
17
Whereas plaintiff prior to her relocation, had people coming to the above mentioned home in
18 groups begging for help, on their knees, to save their home and refinance their loans. Plaintiff has
witnessed eye to eye, the pain and suffering inflicted upon a multitude of people who were affected
19 by these events on many levels, including the innocents being persecuted for the wrongful actions
of others pursued in the name of justice by being guilty for no other reason than by association in
20 circumstance. Plaintiff is in disgust of these acts and imposed shake downs and has suffered great
emotional trauma from these acts of man. Plaintiff did not have the assistance, understanding, or
21 proper training at the time to handle the situation. Plaintiff did reach out to authorities on more
than one occasion at that time to no avail. Again further evidenced by the CFPA raid. Plaintiff is
22 still witnessing these wrongful acts being performed across the nation and is done with it.
23 WHEREAS DEFENDANTS cannot deny what has taken place in the biggest mortgage crisis ever
to hit our nation or the events in history that brought us to this point, it is posted all over the
24 internet and on the US Department of Justice web site, nor can DEFENDANTS ignore the
documented fraud that has taken place on this loan by trying to brush this Plaintiff out of the way
25 through wrongful foreclosure actions. THIS IS A VOILATION OF PLAINTIFFS CIVIL
RIGHTS. Turn your pointing fingers inward, we are all to blame at some level for what has taken
26 place in our Nations history knowingly or not. A Person is not defined by circumstance, it is within
their actions that define who they are.
27
28
1 NOW THEREFORE
Plaintiff invoke this Civil request via her rights of due process, the legal requirement that the state
2 must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person and not the Banks. Plaintiff further
invokes this Civil request under US Code TITLE 15 CHAPTER 41 SUBCHAPTER V § 1692g
3 part b and hereby formally declare under a court of law, that this debt is being challenged and is
not only formally in dispute through this court, but the Attorney General and the CA Monitor for
4 the National Mortgage Settlement care as a call to action to act on behalf of the American People
within her State of Jurisdiction from the Whistle blown in this Filing. In this moment of history it
5 should not be the burden of the layman to prove that the banks can’t foreclose on their homes as
innocents effected by the current state of affairs. The burden should be on the Banks and the
6 Government to prove that they have the legal right through ARM’s Length Government agencies
to actually foreclose on a home until this mess can be sorted out and those safeguards can be re-
7 instated in a stronger capacity.
8 This Civil filing is a heartfelt prayer to this court to see the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Too many judges and too many attorneys do not fully understand the scope of what
9 exactly has taken place or if they do, they have stepped down for unknown reasons. The very rare ones who truly understand what has taken place, are not available to the average Laymen as their 10 fees are unrealistic to afford. The Plaintiff stands in Faith as a child of God under a torn nation shouting out to our Honorable Judges and our elected officials to look within and remember who 11 they are, and what they stand for. The time for winks and nods is over, the people need you.
12
Throwing this mess back upon the Public after January 18th, 2013 (The deadline for the Settlement) 13 is like throwing innocents into the deepest section of the ocean without a life raft, with the Banks on a boat offering paid passage, and investment sharks circling. The strong will swim until they 14 can swim no more while the rest will drown or concede to the demands for passage, or make a deal with the Sharks for their lively hood. This Plaintiff will by her last breath if necessary, show this 15 Court and those who can find this Civil Complaint how to part or how to walk on these waters and will do so by example. Beat a person long enough and they will believe they are beaten. But show 16 a person how to fight back, and they will know they can. You simply cannot beat down Faith, Sirs.
17 Plaintiff is truly sorry for these events, but they are not of her making. Nor can Plaintiff be held
responsible for the actions of others in the events that uncurled as just another a tool of the banking
18 industry. This has been an incredulous burden to bear, but Plaintiff was played, just as every
broker across America, every loan officer, every underwriter or processor was played who
19 participated in the offering of ANY Libor products or was directed to Libor charts as a valid
illustration to their clients.
20
These Recital’s from a past Federal Witness and past industry professional with inner knowledge
21 of both Countrywide and Bank of America and through the research additionally done through her
years of volunteer service as an advocate in review of the information provided by our government
22 under the Freedom of Information Acts, plus her case reviews of Bank of America return
arguments to others who were affected with by these same or similar actions, and her recent
23 introduction to securitization audits and their true meaning, will stand strong in Court. We need to
HEAL as one Nation Under God, not One Nation under the illusion of God’ Mercy through
24 deceitful practices.
25 Whereas the creation of such a Civil suit for a laymen is near impossible. Plaintiff is doing the best she can under the circumstances to convey this in a manner appropriate to this court. Plaintiff
26 prays you will see what she see's and give it merit to stand as it is conveyed in laymen, mortgage,
and legal ease, filed appropriated, served appropriately and conveyed appropriately under these
27 extreme circumstances. HSBC was just slapped with a record $1.9bn (£1.2bn) fine by US
regulators for money laundering and sanctions busting, the first arrests were made in the Libor
28 rigging investigation, and nationalised Northern Rock handed the taxpayer a £270m bill to
compensate customers affected by a mistake in its paperwork. Plaintiff is showing you where they
were controlling the payout through the LIBOR to the investors in the enclosed documentations.
1 Honorable Judge, the US department of justice detailed how HSBC, Britain's biggest bank,
allowed drug traffickers to launder billions of dollars in the US and billions more to be moved
2 across borders to countries facing sanctions, such as Burma, Cuba and Libya. When the US
Department of Justice makes declarations that they are sparing a criminal prosecution because
3 HSBC is to big to prosecute, then how can the consumers have any protection from these criminal
acts if they can not turn to the courts for justice. Plaintif’s name is FAITH by CHOICE your
4 Honor “Exhibit F” and PLAINTIFF is actually PRAYING to this court as the laws meant it to be
spoken herewithin.
5
PLIANTIFFS PRAYER DAMAGE AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
6 Plaintiff Faith Lynn Brashear prays for relief as follows:
7 A. That the Court adjudge and decree that Defendants has engaged in the conduct complained herein
8
B. That the Court adjudge and decree that the conduct complained of constitutes unfair and 9 deceptive acts and practices and an unfair method of competition and is unlawful in Violation of the California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200
10
11
C. That the Court issues a permanent injunction and on the above listed property, enjoining and 12 retraining these Defendants, and it representatives, successors, assigns, officers, agents,
servants, employees and all other persons acting or claiming to act for, on behalf of, or in active 13 concert or participation with these Defendants, from continuing or engaging in the unlawful conduct complained of herein.
14
D. That the Court assesses Civil Penalties pursuant to the Section 1107 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 15 of 2002 (SOX) per the concealed violation of suspected Racketeering, Extreme Meaning encompassing and Asset through, proven under disclosed Til and Respa Violations, proven 16 breach of contract, proven undisclosed definitions properly outlining the Terms and Conditions of the margin used as a calculation to the interest rate in a note, acknowledgement of 17 incentivizing margins in violations of the Securities and exchange commission and breach of Fiduciary Trust, be issued in an amount of $250,000, as Plaintiff is blowing the whistle on this 18 for one of the largest over due “time outs” in history of man and showing this court exactly where it is and where to find it. Non taxable to Plaintiff and Legal Protection under this act to 19 resolve these issues.
20 E. That the Court assesses Punitive Damages in the amount of $2,000,000 equal to the amount of intended fraud from each and every one of these Defendants with the possible exception of the 21 FDIC, IRS and The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for having their hand in the
Plaintiffs proverbial cookie jar without the plaintiffs consent or offering. The first $2,000,000 22 to be paid to Plaintiffs company otherwise known as BetterQuest to allow her to rebuild and bring further healing to this nation in a different venue. The rest 100% of which to be placed 23 into a created profit or non-profit entity under the US Department of Justice and properly
monitored by Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as a receiver until proper implementation 24 of this agency can be determined, for the purpose of assisting in the restructure of troubled
Asset Mortgages and to further aid the US Attorney Generals with “ineligible” candidates 25 through the National Mortgage Settlement, in their efforts to heal their States, all nontaxable to Plaintiff. "In the interest of World Peace"
26
F. That the Court assess compensatory damages in the amount of $669,088.63 equal to the amount
27 of under disclosed Til and Respa Violations. Non-taxable to Plaintiff to be paid towards her
bankruptcy filing should it be allowed to ensue.
28
1 G. That the Court acknowledges the dysfunctional, and unenforceable aspects to this note through Extreme Meaning, Breach, Bifurcation and exceeding of the Pooling and Servicing Agreements 2 (PSA) cut off dates, dated June 1st 2007 by a pass through recorded in 2012.
3 H. That the Court acknowledges the rules under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
section129C(c)(2) [108] of the Truth in Lending Act apply in situations where a loan has been
4 securitized as it pertains to the notes attachment to the deed, and that the evidence provided
shows a potential conflict of the Asset associated thereto.
5
I. That the Court acknowledges this issue is not of a fair business practice or procedure and has 6 thus clouded title to this property and that ownership has been compromised and needs to be cleared through Quit Title and that Plaintiff has every right to full ownership of said property 7 with no other interest of party attached thereto other than Plaintiff.
8
J. That this Court acknowledges that Bank of America is a debt collector and that this debt is 9 discharged under Federal Bankruptcy laws.
10 K. That the Court acknowledges the timing of the IRS audit, and the dollar amount sited in its
relation to this situation is highly coincidental as is the Injunction filed on the company 11 Plaintiffs was receiving help as it pertains to Plaintiff situation as an expert witness. It may or may not be circumstantial.
12
13 L. That the Court acknowledges that damage has been done on a broader scope and that the 4th and 5th Amendment rights across our nation are in jeopardy.
14
M. For the costs of the suit incurred by the Plaintiff, or for any Attorney fees incurred on Plaintiffs
15 Behalf as Plaintiff retains the right to legal counsel.
16 N. For other reliefs as the court deem just and proper applied accordingly.
17 CONCLUSION
Plaintiff respectfully asserts that Defendants have incurred a duty to Plaintiffs in which they have
18 breached through fiduciary, fraud, negligence and greed as Plaintiff has alleged. Plaintiff requests
the court leave to amend their complaint, should the Court deem it necessary to perfect these
19 claims. Plaintiff seek the damages and equitable relief that she is reasonably entitled to as a result
of Defendants’ fraud, deception pain, suffering and breach of fiduciary trust. Plaintiff respectfully
20 thanks you for your time, understanding and patience in her deliberations. This case is being
released to the press for public awareness no sealing is required.
21
Yes it is a lot to ask of you, Plaintiff is sorry, but there is no price that can be named for the pain 22 and suffering of nation, or the pain and suffering she has personally endured. It is the best Plaintiff can do at the extremes she feels the court could entertain with the case currently being 23 presented. Plaintiff is answering to a higher authority through these adversities and complexities with one simple message to convey to all of you.
24
"It is time." God Bless us in these prayers here within.
25
26 X________________________________
27 Dated ________________________________
FAITH XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to the Address’ listed below , this ______ day of , 2012
REVIEW
Faith XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
State Attorney General Kamala Devi Harris,
and Katherine Porter the CA Monitor for the
National Mortgage Settlement C/O
The Attorney General’s Office,
and at California Department of Justice
P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
RIVERSIDE HISTORICAL COURTHOUSE,
4050 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92051
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
a Delaware corporation and as
successor in interest to
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
dba, BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING;
Bank of America Corporate Center
100 N. Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28255
Bank of America
400 National Way
Simi Valley, CA 93065
Foreclosure Department
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.,
a New York corporation;
Countrywide Bank FSB
1199 North Fairfax Street Suite 500
Alexandriana, VA 22314
RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.,
California entity of unknown status;
Recontrust Company
1800 Tapo Canyon Road, X________________________________
Simi Valley, CA 93063. Print Name of Process Server
INDYMAC BANK FSB
a division on One West Bank
Indymac Bank a division of
OneWest Bank, FSB
P.O. Box 7056
Pasadena, CA 91109-9699
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to the Address’ listed below , this ______ day of , 2012
DB STRUCTURED PRODUCTS, INC.;
DB Structured Products, Inc
60 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005
DEUTSCH ALT A SECURITIES
MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-OA4
DEUTSCHE BANK AG;
Deutsche Bank AG
60 Wall Street
NEW YORK, NY 10005
DEUTSCHE BANK
SECURITIES INC.;
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc
60 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.;
Corporate Offices Wells Fargo
420 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 X______________________________________
Print Name of Process Server
CLAYTON FIXED INCOME SERVICES INC;
Clayton Fixed Income Services Inc
1700 Lincoln Street
Suite 1600
Denver, CO 80203
HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION;
HSBC BANK USA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
9201 3RD AVE, BROOKLYN,
NY, 112096811
US BANK, NA;
U.S. Bancorp U.S. Bancorp Center
800 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55402
MERS (MERSCORP);
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC. (MERS)
2216 16th Street
Sacramento, CA 95818
Mers Inc
999 N Pacific Street D312
Oceanside, CA 92504
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to the Address’ listed below , this ______ day of , 2012
ONE WEST BANK
One West Bank
7700 Parmer Lane
Austin TX 78729
OneWest Bank
888 East Walnut Street
Pasadena, CA 91101
FREDDIE MAC or FANNIE MAE;
Freddie Mac
8200 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, VA 22102-3110
FREDDIE MAC or FANNIE MAE;
Fannie Mae
135 North Los Robles Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
1700 G. Street NW
Washington, DC 20552
IRS (US DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY);
The IRS headquarters IRS,
10th St and Pennsylvania ave,
NW Washington, DC 20004
FDIC (FEDERAL DEPOSIT OF INSURANCE
CORPORATION
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation X ____________________________________
Consumer Response Center
1100 Walnut St, Box #11
Kansas City, MO 6410 ______________________________________ Print Name of Process Server
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- better than i or better than me
- better then or better than
- better you better you bet
- better than vs better then
- better than me or better than i
- better then vs better than
- better ber better marketing
- better than or better then
- think better live better 2019
- think better live better joel
- think better live better book
- is it better than or better then