Name 1 Address Tel # 2 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, (In Pro Per) 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 4 FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 5 xxxxxxxxxxxxx, (In Pro Per) 6 Plaintiff

7 First Franklin Financial Mortgage; Wells Fargo 8 Bank, N.A. as Trustee for National City Mortgage Loan Corp, 9 (Subsidiary of National City Bank of Indiana); National City 10 Trust 2005-1, Mortgage – 11 Backed Certificates Series2005-1; Home Loan Services, Inc. 12 ) Fraud, Racketeering, Damages, 13 ) Conspiracy to Commit Theft and ) Robbery, and Numerous Other 14 ) Violations of Federal and State ) Laws, Enforement of my Certified 15 ) Extended Right of Rescission ) dated July 21, 2009, and 16 ) Numerous Other Violations of 17 ) Law, Action at Law Trial ) by Jury Demand 18

19 CASE NO______20 Action of Quiet Title, Complaint Of Private and Public Nuisance, 21 Fraud, Racketeering, Damages, Conspiracy to Commit Theft and 22 Robbery, and Numerous Other 23 Violations of Law, Enforcement My Extended Right of Rescission 24 Dated 7-21-09, and Numerous Other Violations of Law, Action at Law 25 Trial by Jury Demanded

Summary of Pleading - 1 NATURE OF ACTION 1 1. This case arises of Defendants’ egregious and ongoing and far 2 reaching fraudulent schemes for improper use of Plaintiff’s identity 3

4 negligent and/or intentional misrepresentation of appraised fair

5 market value upon which Plaintiff was contractually bound to rely and factually entitled to rely, fraud in the inducement, fraud 6 in the execution, usury, and breaches of contractual and fiduciary 7 obligations as “Trustee” on the Deed of Trust,” Mortgage Brokers,” 8 “Loan Originators,” “Loan Seller” , “Mortgage Aggregator,”, “Trustee” 9 of Pooled Assets”, “Trustee of officers of Structured Investment

10 Vehicle”, Investment Banker”, “Trustee of Special Purpose Vehicle/ Issuer of Certificates of Asset-back Certificates”, “Seller of 11 “Seller of Asset-Backed Certificates (shares or bonds)”, “Special 12 Servicer” and Trustee, respectively, of certain mortgages pooled 13 Together in a trust fund.

14 2. The participants in the securitization scheme described herein have 15 devised business plans to reap millions of dollars in profits at the 16 expense of Plaintiff and other investors in certain trust funds. 17

18 3. In addition to seeking compensatory, consequential and other damages,

19 Plaintiff sees declaratory relief as to what (if any) party, entity 20 Or individual or group thereof is the owner of the Promissory Note

21 Executed at the time of the alleged loan closing, and whether the Deed of Trust secures any obligation of the Plaintiff, and A 22 Mandatory Injunction requiring reconveyance of the subject property to 23 The Plaintiff or, in the alternative, a Final Judgment granting 24 Plaintiff Quiet Title in the subject property (41899 Corte Valentine, Temecula, Ca.

25 92592)

Summary of Pleading - 2

1 FACTS 2

3 4. Plaintiff is the nominal payor on the subject Promissory Note. The

4 Loan Seller is a financial institution that was paid a fee to pose As a residential mortgage lender, when in fact the source of loan 5 Funds and the actual lender (Investors in Certificates) and under- 6 Writer (Mortgage Aggregator and Investment Banker) were other parties 7 Whose identities and receipt of fees and profits were withheld from

8 Plaintiff at Closing and despite numerous requests continue to be with- held from Plaintiff by the Defendants contrary to the requirements 9 of Federal Law and applicable State Law. 10

11 5. The Loan Seller posed as a conventional mortgage lender thus 12 leading Plaintiff to reasonably believe that the Loan Seller,

13 the Mortgage Broker, and the loan originator had an interest in the success (repayment of the loan) of the transaction that the 14 Plaintiff was induced to believe was being executed at the time of 15 “closing” of the subject loan transaction. At closing on 16 10-25-04 the Original Promissory Note that was only signed

17 by Plaintiff, states “that the loan had already been made” this was fraudulent, as Plaintiff had not received the 18 loan prior to the signing of said Promissory Note dated 19 10-25-04. 20

21 6. In fact, the Loan Seller, Mortgage Broker, Appraiser, Loan

22 Originator , Title Agent, Escrow Agent and Trustee of the Deed Of Trust, had no financial stake (i.e., liability) in the 23 transaction and no interest other than obtaining Plaintiff’s 24 signature on a “loan” that could never be repaid, contrary to 25 representations and assurances from the conspiring participants

Summary of Pleading - 3 in this fraudulent scheme. In fact, the “Appraisal” was 1 intentionally and knowingly inflated along with other loan 2 data to justify the closing of the “loan transaction”. 3

4 7. Plaintiff relied upon the due diligence of the apparent “Lender” (i.e., actually the Loan Seller) in executing the and accepting 5 the closing documents. In fact, no “lender” was involved in 6 the closing in the sense of an entity performing due diligence 7 and evaluation pursuant to national standards for underwriting and

8 evaluating risk of loaning money in a residential refinance loan closing. 9

10 8. Thus, no bank or other financial institution actually performing 11 under the standards, rules and regulations governing such 12 institutions was the “lender” which is the basis for Plaintiff’s

13 cause of action for usury, to wit: that the inflated appraisal added an undisclosed cost in the loan which when added to other 14 terms, disclosed and undisclosed, and amortized over the real 15 expected life of the “loan” exceeds the limits set by the State 16 legislature of California for usury and is not subject to ex-

17 emption because the presence of a financial institution in the transaction was a “Ruse” in which the form of the transaction 18 covered over and mislead the Plaintiff as to the real parties 19 in interest and the fees generated by the production of the 20 subject “loan transaction.”

21

22 9. Their purpose was solely to collect fees, rebates, kickbacks and profits that were never disclosed to Plaintiff and have only 23 recently been discovered by Plaintiff through defending the 24 illegal foreclosure and diligent research including filings 25 of some parties and research with experts in the process

Summary of Pleading - 4 of securitization of residential loans and how pooled 1 Deeds and Notes are bundled and sold to investors using 2 Methods not disclosed properly through the Securities and 3 Exchange Commission which disclose the normal manner of

4 Operating this fraudulent scheme.

5 10. Plaintiff has repeatedly requested and demanded compliance 6 with Certified Mailed Qualified Written Requests under 7 RESPA, the TILA, and other applicable state and Federal

8 Statutes which the Defendants have either completely Ignored, or only answered selected portions of my 9 Qualified Written Requests, and have completely unanswered 10 my October 3, 2009 Certified Letter requesting Cease 11 and Desist Collection Activities until they completely 12 answered every question in the Proof of Alleged Purported

13 Debt involved in my predatory alleged loan originally made with First Franklin Financial Corp. on 10-25-04, 14 under their loan number 4000196025. The true ledger 15 accounting on all ledger books involved in the alleged 16 loans was not provided, nor was the original chain of

17 title, assignments recorded or made that were not re- corded, and the current owner of my Original Deed of 18 Trust and Promissory Note who would be beneficial 19 Party(s) of interest and would be the only entity that 20 could file a foreclosure on my property. Attached to

21 this complaint are copies of the above Certified letters.

22 11. The Loan Seller was named as the Payee of the subject 23 Promissory Note and the beneficiary under the Trust terms 24 Allegedly securing the performance under the subject Note. 25 The “Trustee” was named as the Trustee on the Deed of Trust

Summary of Pleading - 5 executed at the time of the alleged “closing” of the 1 “loan Transaction.” In accordance with State law, the Deed 2 and terms of the security were recorded in Riverside County 3 Records.

4 12. Notwithstanding the above, and without the knowledge of the 5 Plaintiff, the Loan Seller had entered into Assignment and 6 Assumption Agreements with one or more parties and Pooling 7 and Service Agreements with one or more parties including but

8 not limited to the mortgage aggregator prior to or contemp- oraneously with the “Closing” of the subject “loan transaction” 9

10 12.1 Under the terms of these agreements, the Loan Seller 11 received a sum of money, usually on receiving an 12 application for a loan equal to the gross amount of the

13 loan sought by Plaintiff plus a fee of 2.5% or more which was allocated to the subject loan transaction. 14

15 13. Contrary to the documents presented before and during the 16 “closing” of the “loan transaction” the Loan Seller was

17 neither the source of funding nor the “Lender”. 13.1 Thus at the time of recording, the source of funding 18 and the “Lender” was a different entity than the 19 nominal mortgagee or beneficiary under the Deed of 20 Trust and was neither named nor disclosed in any

21 Fashion.

22 13.2 The security for the “loan” this secured an obligation 23 that has been paid in full by a “third party”. Said 24 third party(ies) was acting as a financial institution 25 or “Lender” without even having been chartered or

Summary of Pleading - 6 registered to do so despite regulations to the 1 contrary from laws and rules of State and Federal 2 authorities and/or agencies. 3

4 14. Some form of documentation represent by the Loan Seller to the Mortgage Aggregator was presented before or con- 5 temporaneously with the “closing” of the loan transaction. In 6 some cases the documentation included actual copies of the 7 documents presented at “Closing”.

8 14.1 In most cases it consisted of either forged blank notes or vague descriptions of the content of the notes that were 9 placed into the pool of assets that would be “securitized”. 10

11 15. Plaintiff does not know what version of documentation was pre- 12 sented to the Mortgage Aggregator and the Mortgage Aggregator

13 took one or more varying descriptions of the alleged ?loan documents” into more than one pool of assets which was 14 eventually sold for the purpose of securitizing the assets 15 of the pool which included the subject loan transaction either 16 once or more than once. Plaintiff has requested such

17 information numerous times only to be met with complete silence and defiance or obfuscation from the Defendants. 18

19 16. There is no assignment of the subject mortgage in the county 20 records, but there is a non-recorded Pooling and Services”

21 Agreement which appears to substitute the Trustee over the

22 Pooled assets for the nominal Trustee in the Deed of Trust. 16.1 The powers of this second Trustee were in turn transferred 23 to either a Trustee for a Special Investment Vehicle (which 24 performed the accounting & reporting of the pooled assets. 25

Summary of Pleading - 7 1

2 16.2 The reporting of the pool assets consisted principally of 3 descriptions of the notes “signed” by borrowers and limited

4 descriptions of the general terms of the note such that the note appeared to be more valuable than the initial terms 5 of payment by the “borrower”. 6

7 17. The note from the subject “loan transaction” was eventually

8 allocated into a new corporation (Special Purpose Vehicle) formed for the express purpose of holding the pooled assets under certain 9 terms. 10

11 17.1 The terms included the allocation of payments from one note 12 to pay any deficiency in payment of another note in unrelated

13 “loan transactions” contrary to the terms of each such note which required payments to be allocated to the principal, 14 interest, escrow and fees associated with only that specific 15 “loan transaction.” 16

17 17.2 Whether such “deficiency” was caused by the difference between the higher general terms of description of the Note or the 18 lower actual payment requirements from the “borrower” is not 19 known, despite numerous requests for accounting and the re- 20 fusal of the Defendants to provide any such information.

21

22 18. The Investment Banking firm arranged through payment for a false inflated appraisal of the certificates and/or issuer of the 23 of the certificates that would be sold to investors in much the 24 same way as it had procured the false appraisal of the property 25 that “secured” the “loan transaction.” In addition, insurance

Summary of Pleading - 8 was purchased from proceeds of this transaction credit default 1 swaps were purchased from proceeds of this transaction, the 2 investors investments were “oversold” to create a reserve pool from 3 which the SPV could pay deficiencies in payments, and the SPV

4 created cross-collateralization agreements and overcollateralization of the pool assets to assure payment to the investors, thus 5 creating co-obligors on the payment stream due from the Plaintiff on 6 the subject “loan transaction.” 7

8 19. The pool assets, including the Plaintiff’s subject “loan transaction” were pledged completely to the owners of the “asset-backed securities.” 9 All the certificates were then transferred to a Seller who in turn 10 Sold the certificates in varying denominations, each of which had 11 Slightly different terms depending upon which segment of the pool 12 (tranche) secured the investment.

13 20. If there is a holder in due course of the Plaintiff’s Note arising 14 from the subject “loan transaction” it is the investors who purchased 15 said securities (certificates). Some of said securities are held by 16 the original purchaser thereof, others were sold at weekly auction

17 markets, others were paid by re-sales of property that was “secured”, others were paid from prepayments, others were paid by sale at full 18

19 or partial price to the investment bank that originated the entire 20 transaction, some of which might be held by the Federal Reserve as

21 non-recourse collateral, and others might have been paid by one or

22 more of the insurance, credit default swaps, cross guarantees or cross guarantees or cross collateralization of the segment of 23 the pool that secured the relevant investor who owned certificates 24 backed by a pool of assets that included the subject “loan 25 transaction.”

Summary of Pleading - 9 1 21. It is doubtful that any of the Defendants have any knowledge or 2 have made any effort to determine whether the putative holders 3 in due course have been paid in whole or in part. It can only

4 be said with certainty that these Defendants seek to enforce loan documents for which they have already been paid in full plus 5 illegal fees for participating in an illegal scheme. These 6 Defendants seek to add insult to injury by demanding ownership 7 of the property in addition to receipt of payment in full.

8 22. In order for these Defendants to maintain legal standing in 9 connection with the subject loan transaction they are required to 10 the entire chain of title of the Deed of Trust. They have 11 refused to do this despite numerous requests, leading Plaintiff 12 to conclude that the Defendants cannot produce such evidence of

13 a complete chain of title or are intentionally withholding the information that would show breaks in such chain. 14

15 23. Plaintiff is left in the position of being in an adversary proceeding 16 with “ghosts”. While these Defendants have informally offered or

17 considered providing indemnification for any third party claims, the fact remains that any relief awarded these Defendants, any 18 standing allowed to these Defendants, would expose the Plaintiff 19 to multiple claims and suits from an unknown number of parties and 20 entities that all claim, possibly correctly, to the holders in due

21 course. Any grant of a certificate of title to an entity other than

22 Plaintiff or the nominal mortgagee creates an incurable defect in title. 23

24 24. There is no recording of any document in the county records which 25 predates the Defendants’ attempt to initiate foreclosure and/ or

Summary of Pleading - 10 eviction or which would authorize them to proceed. The foreclosure 1 was filed by First American Loanstar Trustee Services at the 2 Riverside County Recorders Office on 12-11-08. The Corporation 3 Assignment of Deed of Trust (copy attached) was signed by Krystal

4 Hall, Assistant Secretary for Assignments for First Franklin Financial Corp., subsidiary of National City Bank of Indiana, 5 Signed over my alleged original Deed of Trust on 12-12-08 , 6 one day after the above foreclosure was illegally filed. It was 7 endorsed at Bonneville, Idaho and notarized by an Idaho notary,

8 which is not appropriate and should have been signed and notarized in California. Said assignment was requested by Wells Fargo 9 Bank, N.A. as Trustee for National City Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-1, 10 Mortgage-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-1. Said substitute of 11 Trustee was originally filed by Bryan G. Kusich, V.P. of Default 12 Operations for Home Loan Services, Inc. as servicer and was

13 recorded on 12-15-08 at the Recording Office at Pittsburgh, Pa., county of Allegheny. It was then later and untimely refilled on 14 12/30/08 Doc. No. 2008-0675815 at the Riverside County Recorder’s 15 Office located at Riverside, California. 16

17 25. Mortgage backed Securities (MBS) Certificates are “pass through Certificates,” where the Trust has elected to be treated as a 18 Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (“REMIC”) to enjoy the 19 Tax exempt status allowed under 15 U.S.C. 806A-G. 20 25.1 REMIC regulations impose very strict limitations as to the

21 nature of the investments a REMIC trust may make (i.e. “permitted

22 investments”) and transactions which it may not undertake (i.e. “prohibited transactions”) 23 25.2 Any violation of REMIC regulations has significant tax 24 implications for the Trust, as well as all Certificate holders. 25 For example, any income realized by the Trust from a “prohibited

Summary of Pleading - 11 Transaction” is taxed at 100%. 1 25.2.1 The REMIC regulations also provide that any entity that 2 causes the REMIC regulations to be violated is liable to 3 the Trust and the Certificate holders for the entire amount

4 of the tax.

5 25.3 Only income from “qualified mortgages” and “permitted invest- 6 ments” may enter a REMIC trust. 7 25.4 A “qualified mortgage” is an obligation (i.e. mortgage)

8 which is principally secured by an interest in real property which (1) was transferred to the Trust on the startup date, 9 (2) was purchased by the REMIC Trust within 3 months after the 10 startup date or (3) any qualified replacement mortgage. 11 25.5 Permitted investments are limited to: 12 25.5.1 Cash Flow Investments (i.e. temporary investment where

13 Trust holds money it has received from qualified Mortgages pending distribution to the Certificate 14 Holders); 15 25.5.2 Qualified Reserve Assets (i.e. any intangible property 16 which is held for investment and is part of a reasonably

17 required reserve to provide for full payment of expenses of the REMIC or the REMIC or amounts due on regular 18 interests in the event of defaults on qualified mortgages 19 or lower than expected returns on cash flow investments. 20

21 25.5.2.1. These investments are for very defined purposes

22 and are to be passive in nature. They must be “reasonably required.” 23 25.5.3 Liquidation Proceeds for “foreclosed property” which is 24 acquired in connection with the default or imminent de- 25 fault of a “qualified mortgage” held by the Trust.

Summary of Pleading - 12 1 26. In order to maintain the REMIC status, the Trustee and the Servicers 2 must ensure that the REMIC receives no income from any asset that is 3 not a “Qualified Mortgage” or a “Permitted Investment.” 26 U.S.C.

4 806F(a)(2)(B). 26.1 Prohibited Transactions include the disposition of a 5 qualified mortgage (except where the disposition is “incident 6 to” the foreclosure, default, or imminent default of the 7 mortgage); or the receipt of any income from an asset that is

8 not a Qualified Mortgage or a Permitted Investment. 26 U.S.C. 860F(a)(2)(B). 9

10 26.2 Prohibited Transaction are taxed in an amount 100% of the 11 REMIC’s net income from such prohibited transaction 26 U.S.C. 12 860F (a)(1).

13 26.3 Contributions of any “property” – e.g., cash, mortgages, etc. – 14 made to the REMIC are taxed at 100% of the contribution, except 15 for the four following exceptions: 16 26.3.1. Contributions to facilitate a “clean up call” (i.e. the

17 redemption of a class of 26.3.2. regular interest, when by reason of prior payments 18 with respect to those interests 19 26.3.2.3 the administrative costs associated with servicing that 20 class outweigh the benefits

21 26.3.2.4.of maintaining the class). Reg. 1.860G-2(j)(1).

22 26.3.2.5.Any cash payment in the nature of a guarantee, such as payments to the REMIC . Any violation of REMIC 23 regulations will defeat the privileged tax status and 24 will subject the REMIC to 100% taxation, plus penalties 25 and interest. These taxes and penalties are ultimately

Summary of Pleading - 13 borne by the Certificate holders, under a surety bond, 1 letter of credit or insurance policy. 2 26.3. 6 Any cash contribution during the three month period 3 after the start-up day; and any cash contribution to

4 a qualified reserve fund made by a holder of a residual interest. 5

6 27. On a monthly basis, the Investment Banking firm and/or its agents, 7 servants or employees compiled, individually and in concert, over-

8 saw and approved all the information contained in the Distribution Reports and electronically sent same to certain parties. 9 27.1 Based upon research performed by experts, the data 10 regarding the number of bankruptcies, aggregate Special 11 Servicing Fees, and aggregate Trust Fund Expenses was 12 Routinely incomplete, false, and/or misleading.

13 27.2 Further said report intentionally obfuscated the illegal allocation of payments, the failure to disclose payments, 14 and the effect on the alleged obligation of the Plaintiff, 15 to wit: despite numerous insurance products, credit 16 default swaps, cross collateralizations, over collaterali-

17 zation and pooling at multiple levels, money received by some or all of these Defendants under the pretense of it 18 being a “Mortgage Payment” was in fact retained, reserved, 19 applied to non-performing loans to make them appear as 20 though they were performing loans, or paid as fees to

21 the enterprise Defendants described in this complaint.

22 27.3 Based upon the failure of the Defendants to respond, Plaintiff has every reason to believe that the party 23 Receiving the past payments (First Franklin Financial 24 Corp. collected by Home Loan Services, Inc., is 25 Neither the holder in due course of the Note nor the

Summary of Pleading - 14 Owner of any rights under the mortgage provisions of 1 the Deed of Trust Plaintiff signed on 10-25-04. 2 27.3.1. Further, Plaintiff has every reason to believe that 3 his payments are not being forwarded to the holder in

4 due course of the Note nor to any other authorized party. 5 27.3.2. Accordingly Plaintiff is in jeopardy to wit: the true 6 holder in due course and potentially dozens or even 7 thousand of third parties could come forward claiming

8 an unsatisfied interest in the Promissory Note and may or may not be subject to Plaintiff’s various 9 affirmative defenses and counterclaims. 10 27.3.3. In fact, research has revealed that in various states, 11 such security interests are being purchased by 12 speculators who then seek to enforce said liability,

13 preventing the Plaintiff from claiming the most basic defense, to wit: payment exactly as required by 14 the terms of the Note which was cashed by the 15 receiving party (First Franklin Financial Corp.) 16 apparently without authority to do so.

17 27.3.4. Defendants have failed and refused to reveal the true source of funds for the alleged loan trans- 18 action, further preventing Plaintiff’s right of 19 three-day rescission under the Truth in Lending Act 20 because the real lender has not been revealed and

21 therefore the Notice of Rescission by the Plaintiff

22 has no authorized addressee. Plaintiff was given two unsigned originals of the above Notice to 23 Rescind , o dates covering the dates 24 Plaintiff could official rescind the alleged 25 Loan were typed on the Originals. Subsequently,

Summary of Pleading - 15 sometime after said closing, an unknown person 1 handwrote in the dates of 11-25-04 and 2 11-28-04. This was fraudulently done without 3 Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent.

4 27.3.5 The fact that the “loan” was table-funded without a disclosed source of funds and without disclosing 5 tens of thousand of dollars in fees all contrary 6 to the requirements of state and federal law was 7 withheld from plaintiff by Defendants and continues

8 to be withheld by them. But for the expenditure of time, money and effort on research, Plaintiff would 9 not have discovered the various deceptions of the 10 Defendants at the alleged loan closing. 11

12 27.3.6 Plaintiff alleges the closing was an “alleged loan

13 closing” because in fact it was part of an un- disclosed hidden illegal scheme to issue un- 14 regulated securities (mortgage backed securities) 15 based upon the negotiation of non-negotiable notes, 16 the terms of which had been changed, altered,

17 amended or modified AFTER the execution by the Plaintiff. 18 27.3.7 Defendants then purported to “negotiate” the note 19 by adding terms which allowed the proceeds of the 20 notes of other borrowers and adding co-obligors as

21 aforesaid through insurance, guarantees, additional

22 collateralization and reserves all of which were undisclosed, as aforesaid. 23 27.3.7.1. The note was not negotiable because it was no 24 longer an unconditional promise to pay by the 25 original borrower. The terms had changed,

Summary of Pleading - 16 adding conditions to payment that were in- 1 herent in the “securitizations process” that 2 Defendants fraudulently promoted. 3 27.3.8.Said “negotiation” of Plaintiff’s note was in

4 actuality the theft of his identity to hide the vast number of “toxic waste mortgages, notes and 5 obligations that the enterprise Defendants were 6 selling up through their “securitization” chain. 7 27.3.8.1 The result of this was that notes from other

8 borrowers wherein there was virtually no possibility of performance were disguised as 9 being of the same class as Plaintiff’s Note. 10 27.3.8.2 These disguised notes carried interest rates 11 sometimes as high as 16.5% which under 12 disguise were then sold to unsuspecting

13 investors as triple AAA investments providing the investor with approximately 6-8% return. 14 27.3.8.3 By selling virtually worthless “negotiable” 15 paper at par or in the case of toxic waste 16 paper, 2-5 times par, the enterprise de-

17 fendants reaped profits in the hundreds of thousands of dollars on each such “transaction” 18 for example, if the toxic waste paper sold 19 under cover of Plaintiff’s credit rating and 20 identity was sold at an investment return of

21 6% and the mortgage note carried a principal

22 balance of $300,000, the enterprise Defendants sold the “investment” certificates on that 23 “loan” for approximately $740,000 and thus 24 received $440,000 in illegal, fraudulent and 25 undisclosed “profits” of “fees” in a $300,000

Summary of Pleading - 17 mortgage transaction. 1 27.3.8.4 Thus the economics of mortgage origination 2 changed, to wit: the worse the loan, the 3 more money the enterprise defendants made as

4 long as there were enough people, like Plaintiff, whose identity was used to hide 5 the high volume (and high profit) of toxic 6 waste loans. 7 27.3.8.5 It was thus in the financial interest of the

8 enterprise Defendants to create unrealistic and false market expectations, deceiving the 9 public as a whole in specified geographical 10 areas of the country that were identified by 11 these enterprise Defendants as targets. 12 27.3.8.6 Since these illegal profits were not dis-

13 closed, the Plaintiff is entitled to an accounting and a pro rate share of the 14 profits obtained by the illegal, improper 15 and undisclosed use of his name, credit 16 rating and identity.

17 27.3.8.7 Based upon the opinion of Plaintiff’s experts, Plaintiff’s share of said profits would be in 18 Excess of $1 million dollars. 19 28. The Distribution Reports are supposed to accurately reflect the the 20 “financial health of the trust,” and provide Certificate holders, with

21 important data such as the number of loans in bankruptcy, the

22 aggregate amounts of special servicing fees, and the aggregate amounts of trust fund expenses. Each and every one of these categories is 23 essential for to assess its profit and loss potential in the REMIC 24 entity. Furthermore, this data is used by bond rating agencies to 25 assess the value of the Certificates.

Summary of Pleading - 18 1 29. Based upon the filings and information of the Plaintiff, it appears 2 that no accurate accounting has ever been presented to anyone and 3 therefore the identity and status of putative holder in due course

4 is completely shrouded in secrecy enforced by these Defendants, their agents, servants and employees. 5

6 29.1 Unreported repurchases of certificates or classes of 7 certificates would and did result in a profit to the REMIC

8 that went unreported, and which was not credited to Borrowers where the repurchase was, as was usually the case, the far less 9 than the original investment. 10 29.2 While the Plaintiff would never have entered into a transaction 11 in which the true nature of this scheme was revealed, any 12 profits, refunds, rebates, fees, points, costs or other income

13 or gain should be credited on some basis to said borrower including Plaintiff herein. 14 30. Attached to this suit as an exhibit , is a copy of my Certified 15 Extended Right of Rescission to alleged original lender First Franklin 16 Financial Corporation (subsidiary of National City Bank of Indiana)

17 dated 7-21-09 and received by the above on 7-23-09. Said parties are in Default of Rescission as they did not properly respond to 18 or file a suit against me within the 20 days following receipt of 19 same as required by Federal Laws. I am therefore demanding that 20 the Court enforces this said Rescission and that I immediately

21 collect all damages and reimbursements of funds I have paid

22 surrounding the alleged loan that was allegedly funded by Defendants. 23 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 24

25 31. The end result of the false and misleading representations and

Summary of Pleading - 19 material omissions of Defendants as to the true nature of the 1 mortgage loan actually being processed, which said Defendants had 2 actual knowledge was in direct conflict with the original Uniform 3 Residential Loan Application, early TIL, and Plaintiff’ stated

4 intentions and directions to said Defendants at the time of original application for the loan, fraudulently caused Plaintiff 5 to execute predatory loan documents. 6

7 32. At no time whatsoever did Defendants ever advise Plaintiff(not,

8 as far as Plaintiff can determine, any “investor” in certificates of mortgage-backed securities) that: 9 32.1 the mortgage loan being processed was not in his best interest; 10 32.2 that the mortgage loan was an inter-temporal transaction 11 (transaction where terms, risks, or provisions at the 12 commencement of the transaction differ at a later time) on

13 which Plaintiff was providing cover for Defendants’ illegal activities. 14 32.3 that Plaintiff would likely be placed in a position of default, 15 foreclosure, and deficiency judgment regardless of whether he met 16 his loan obligations once the true lender or true holder(s)

17 in due course appeared; 32.4 that the originating “lender”, that being Defendant First 18 Franklin Financial Corporation and/or undisclosed third parties, 19 had no intention of retaining ownership interest in the 20 mortgage loan or fully servicing same and in fact may have

21 and probably had already pre-sold the loan, prior to alleged

22 closing, to a third party mortgage aggregator pursuant to previously executed documentation (Assumption and assignment 23 Agreement, Pooling Services Agreement, etc. all executed 24 Prior to Plaintiff’s “alleged loan closing.” 25 32.5 that the mortgage loan was actually intended to be repeatedly

Summary of Pleading - 20 sold and assigned to multiple third parties, including one or more 1 mortgage aggregators and investment bankers (including but not 2 limited to Defendants DOES 1-10), for the ultimate purpose of 3 bundling the Plaintiff’ mortgage (Deed and Note) with hundreds

4 or perhaps thousand of others as part of a companion, support, or other tranche in connection with the creation of a REMIC 5 security known as a Collateralized Mortgage Obligation (“CMO”), 6 also known as a mortgage-backed security” to be sold by a 7 securities firm (and which in fact ended up as collateral for

8 Asset-Backed Securities Certificates, created shortly after the alleged loan closing. 9 32.6 that in connection with the multiple downline resale and 10 assignment of the Trust Deed and Promissory Note that 11 assignees or purchasers of the Note may make “pay-downs” 12 against the Note which may effect the true amount owed by

13 Plaintiff on the Note.

14 33. As a result of the closing and in connection therewith, Defendants 15 placed the Plaintiff into a pool of a sub-prime adjustable rate 16 mortgage program, with Defendants intentionally misleading Plaintiff

17 and the other borrowers and engaging in material omissions by failing to disclose to Plaintiff and other borrowers the fact 18 that the nature of the mortgage loan applications had been 19 materially changed without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent , and 20 that Plaintiff was being placed into a pool where the usual loan

21 was an adjustable rate mortgage program despite borrowers not being

22 qualified for such a program.

23 34. Prior to the closing, Defendant First Franklin Financial Corp. 24 and or undisclosed third parties failed to provide Plaintiff the 25 preliminary disclosures required by the Truth-In-Lending Act

Summary of Pleading - 21 pursuant to 12 CFR (also known as and referred to herein as 1 “Regulation Z) sec. 226.17 and 18, and failed to provide the 2 preliminary disclosures required by the Real Estate Settlement 3 Procedures Act (‘RESPA’) pursuant to 24 FR sec. 3500.6 and 3500.7,

4 Otherwise known as the GFE. 35. Defenant First Franklin Financial Corp. or undisclosed third parties 5 also intentionally failed and/or refused to provide Plaintiff with 6 various disclosures which would indicate to the Plaintiff and the 7 consumer credit contract entered into was void, illegal, and

8 predatory in nature due in part to the fact that the final TIL showed a “fixed rate” schedule of payments, but did not provide the proper 9 disclosures of the actual contractually-due amounts and rates. 10

11 36. Defendants failed and/or refused to provide an accurate HUD-1 12 Settlement Statement at the closing which reflected the True

13 cost of the consumer credit transaction. Defendants failed to provide an accurate GFE or Itemization of Amount Financed (“IOAF”), 14 There was no disclosure of a Yield Spread Premium (“YPS”, which is 15 required to be disclosed by the Truth-In-Lending Act), I was not 16 given prorated “credits” of unused taxes, interest, title

17 insurance, homeowners insurance, etc. and the type of loan in Box B was also fraudulently completed, and thus the above 18 fraudulent and inaccurate information on the HUD-1 failed to 19 properly disclose the true cost of the loan. 20

21 37. As a direct and proximate result of these failures to disclose

22 as required by the Truth-In-Lending Act, Defendants paid a YSP in a substantial amount of without preliminary disclosure 23 to Guild Mortgage Corp. who acted as my loan broker, which 24 is a per se violation of 12 CFR sec. 226.4(a), 226.17 and 18(d) 25 and (c)(1)(iii). The SP raised the interest rate which was

Summary of Pleading - 22 completely unknown to or approved by the Plaintiff, as he did 1 not receive the required GFE or IOAF. 2

3 38. In addition, the completely undisclosed YSP was not disclosed by

4 Defendant in their broker contract, which contract was blank in The area as to fees to be paid to my broker (Guild Mortgage Corp). 5 This is an illegal kickback in violation of 12 USC sec. 2607 as 6 well as State law which gives rise to all damages claims for all 7 combined broker fees, costs, and attorney; fees.

8 39. The Amount Financed within the TIL is also understated which is a 9 material violation of 12 CFR sec. 226.17 and 18, in addition to 10 15 USC sec. 1602(u), as the Amount Financed must be completely 11 accurate with no tolerance. 12

13 40. Defendants were under numerous legal obligations as fiduciaries and had the responsibility for overseeing the purported loan 14 consummation to insure that the consummation was legal, proper, 15 and that Plaintiff received all legally required disclosures 16 pursuant to the Truth-In-Lending Act and RESPA both before and

17 after the closing.

18 41. Plaintiff, not being in the consumer lending, mortgage broker, or 19 residential loan business, reasonably relied upon the Defendants to 20 insure that the consumer credit transaction was legal, proper, and

21 complied with all applicable laws, rules, and Regulations.

22 42. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants regularly extended or 23 offered to extend consumer credit for which a finance charge is or may 24 be imposed or which, by written agreement, is payable in more than 25 four (4) installments and was initially payable to the person

Summary of Pleading - 23 the subject of the transaction, rendering Defendants “creditors” 1 within the meaning of the Truth-In-Lending Act, 15 U>S>C. sec. 2 1602(f) and Regulation Z sec. 226.2(a)(17). 3

4 43. At the closing of the alleged subject “loan transaction” , Plaintiff executed Promissory Notes and Security Agreements in favor of 5 Defendants as aforesaid. These transactions, designated by 6 Defendants as a Loan, extended consumer credit which was subject 7 to a finance charge and which was initially payable to the

8 Defendants.

9 44. As part of the consumer credit transaction the subject of the 10 closing, Defendants retained a security interest in the subject 11 property which was and is still Plaintiff’ principal residential 12 dwelling.

13 45. Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of defrauding 14 Plaintiff in that, during the entire life of the mortgage loan, 15 Defendants failed to properly credit payments made; incorrectly 16 Calculated interest on the accounts; and have failed to accurately

17 Debit fees. At all times material,

18 46. Defendants had actual knowledge that the Plaintiff’ accounts were 19 not accurate but that Plaintiff would make further payments based 20 on Defendants’ inaccurate accounts.

21

22 47. Plaintiff made payments based on the improper, inaccurate, and fraudulent representations as to Plaintiff’ account. 23

24 48. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants 25 set forth above, Plaintiff overpaid in interest.

Summary of Pleading - 24 1 49. Defendants also utilized amounts known to the Defendants to be 2 inaccurate to determine the amount allegedly due and owing for 3 purposes of foreclosure.

4 50. Defendants; violations were all material in nature under the 5 Truth-In-Lending Act. 6

7 51. Said violations, in addition to the fact that Plaintiff did not

8 properly receive Notices of Right to Cancel, constitute violations of 15USC sec. 1635(a) and (b) and 12 CFR sec. 226.23(b), 9 and are thus a legal basis for and legally extend Plaintiff’ right to 10 exercise the remedy of rescission. 11

12 52. Defendants assigned or attempted to assign the Note and Deed to

13 parties who did not take these instruments in good faith or without notice that the instruments were invalid or that 14 Plaintiff had a claim in recoupment. Pursuant to ORC sec. 1303.32 15 (A)(2)(b)(c) and (f), Defendants are not a holder in due course and 16 is thus liable to Plaintiff, individually, jointly and severally.

17 53. On information and belief and given that the consumer credit 18 transaction was an inter-temporal transaction with multiple 19 assignments as part of an aggregation and creation of a REMIC 20 tranche itself a part of a predetermined and identifiable CMO

21 all Defendants shared in the illegal proceeds of the transaction;

22 conspired with each other to defraud the Plaintiff out of proceeds of the loan; acted in concert to wrongfully deprive the Plaintiff of 23 his residence; acted in concert and conspiracy to essentially steal 24 the Plaintiff’ home and/or convert the Plaintiff’ home without 25 providing Plaintiff reasonably equivalent value in exchange; and

Summary of Pleading - 25 conducted an illegal enterprise within the meaning of the RICO 1 statute. 2

3 54. On information and belief and given the volume of residential loan

4 transactions solicited and processed by the Defendants, the Defendants have engaged in two or more instances of racketeering 5 Activity involving different victims but utilizing the same method, 6 Means, mode, operation, and enterprise with the same intended result. 7

8 55. Defendants have failed to fully and truthfully answer all questions in various Certified Mailed QWR’s they have 9 received involving my alleged loan and the illegally filed 10 foreclosure on my Temecula, home. They have also ignored 11 and failed to properly answer and provide all requested 12 documents they have received in my October 3, 2009

13 Certified Letter requesting to Cease and Desist their collection activities, until Validation of Purported Debt 14 which is required under the Fair Debt Collection Practices 15 Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601, 1692, et seq. They are in Default of 16 this proper request. I have also demanded that the Defendants

17 provide a True Ledger Accounting of my original Deed and Note, including a true certified chain of title involving my 18 Deed and Note, names of all present owners of my original 19 Deed and Note and who are or could be the real beneficiaries 20 of due course to my original Deed and Note. Copies attached.

21

22 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

23 COUNT 1: VIOLATIONS OF HOME OWNERSHIP EQUITY PROTECTION ACT 24 56. Plaintiff reaffirm and reallege the above paragraphs 1-55 25 hereinabove as is set forth more fully herein below.

Summary of Pleading - 26 1 57. In 1994, Congress enacted the Home Ownership Equity Protection 2 Act (“HOEPA’) which is codified at 15 USC sec. 1639 et seq. 3 With the intention of protecting homeowners from predatory

4 Lending practices targeted at vulnerable consumers, HOPEA requires lenders to make certain defined disclosures and 5 prohibits certain terms from being included in home loans. 6 In the event of noncompliance, HOEPA imposes civil liability 7 For rescission and statutory and actual damages.

8 58. Plaintiff are “consumers” and each Defendant is a “creditor” as 9 defined by HOEPA. In the mortgage loan transaction at issue here, 10 Plaintiff were required to pay excessive fees, expenses and costs 11 in the refinance loan closed on 10-25-04, 12

13 59. In the transaction at issue, Defendants were required to make the following disclosure to the Plaintiff by no later than three 14 (3) days prior to said closing: 15 59.1 “You are not required to complete this agreement merely 16 because you have received these disclosures or have

17 signed a loan application. If you obtain this loan, the lender will have a mortgage on your home. You could 18 lose your home and any money you have put into it, if 19 you do not meet your obligation under the loan.” 20

21 60. Defendants violated HOEPA by numerous acts and material omissions,

22 including but not limited to: 60.1 (a) failing to make the foregoing disclosure in a 23 conspicuous fashion; 24 60.2 (b) engaging in a pattern and practice of extending credit 25 to Plaintiff without regard to his ability to repay

Summary of Pleading - 27 in violation of 15 USC sec. 1639(h). 1 61. By virtue of the Defendants’ multiple violations of HOEPA, 2 Plaintiff have a legal right to rescind the consumer credit 3 Transaction the subject of this action pursuant to 15 USC sec.

4 1635. This Complaint is to be construed, for these purposes, as formal and public notice of Plaintiff’s Rescission of Deed 5 and Note. 6

7 62. Defendants further violated HOEPA by failing to make additional

8 disclosures, including but not limited to Plaintiff not receiving the required and fully completed disclosure of the 9 Right to Rescind the transaction: 10

11 63. the failure of Defendants to provide an accurate TIL disclosure; 12 and the amount financed being understated.

13 64. As a direct consequence of and in connection with Plaintiff; legal 14 and lawful exercise of their right of rescission, the true “lender” 15 is required, within twenty (20) days of this Notice of Rescission 16 to:

17 64.1 (a) desist from making any claims for finance charges 18 in the transaction; 19 64.2 (b) return all monies paid by Plaintiff in connection 20 with the transaction to the Plaintiff;

21 65.3 (c) satisfy all security interests, including mortgages,

22 which were acquired in the transaction.

23 65. Upon the true “lenders” full performance of its obligations 24 under HOPEA, Plaintiff shall tender all sums to which the true 25 lender is entitled.

Summary of Pleading - 28 1 66. Based on Defendants’ HOEPA violations, each of the Defendants 2 is liable to the Plaintiff for the following, which Plaintiff 3 demands as relief:

4 66.1 (a) rescission of the mortgage loan transactions; 66.2 (b) termination of the mortgage and security interest 5 in the property, the subject of the mortgage loan 6 documents created in the transaction; 7 66.3 (c) return of any money or property paid by the Plaintiff

8 including all payments made in connection with the transactions; 9 66.4 (d) an amount of money equal to twice the finance charge 10 in connection with the transactions; 11 66.5 (e) relinquishment of the right to retain any proceeds; and 12 66.6 (f) actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial,

13 including 66/7 (g) attorneys’ fees. 14

15 COUNT II; VIOLATIONS OF REAL ESTATE SETTELEMENT PROCEDURES 16 ACT

17 67. Plaintiff reaffirm and reallege paragraphs 1-52 above herein as if 18 specifically set forth more fully herein below. 19 68. As mortgage lenders, Defendants are subject to the provisions of 20 the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 USC

21 sec. 2601 et seq.

22 69. In violation of 12 USC sec. 2607 and in connection with the mortgage loan to Plaintiff, Defendants accepted charges for the 23 rendering of real estate services which were in fact charges for 24 other than services actually performed. 25 70. As a result of the Defendant’ violations of RESPA, Defendants

Summary of Pleading - 29 are liable to Plaintiff in an amount equal to three (3) times the 1 amount of charges paid by Plaintiff for “settlement services” 2 pursuant to 12 USC sec. 2607 (d)(2). 3

4 COUNT III: VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL TRUTH-IN-LENDING ACT

5 71. Plaintiff reaffirm and reallege paragraphs 1-52 above herein 6 above as is set forth more fully herein below. 7 72. Defendants failed to include and disclose certain charges in

8 the finance charge shown on the TIL statement, which charges were imposed on Plaintiff incident to the extension of credit 9 to the Plaintiff and were required to be disclosed pursuant to 10 15 USC sec. 1605 and Regulation Z. 11 73. sec. 226.4, thus resulting in an improper disclosure of finance 12 charges in violation of 15 USC sec. 1601 et seq., Regulation

13 Z sec. 226.18(d). Such undisclosed charges include a sum identified on the Settlement Statement listing the amount 14 financed which is different from the sum listed on the 15 original Note. 16

17 74. By calculating the annual percentage rate (“APR”) based upon improperly calculated disclosed amount, Defendants are in violation 18 of 15 USC sec. 1601 et seq., Regulation Z sec. 226.18©, 18(d), 19 and 22. 20

21 75. Defendant’ failure to provide the required disclosures provides

22 Plaintiff with the right to rescind the transaction,& Plaintiff, through this public Complaint which is intended to be construed 23 for the purposes of this claim, as a formal NOTICE OF RESCISSION, 24 hereby elect to rescind the entire transaction. 25

Summary of Pleading - 30 COUNT IV: VIOLATION OF FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT 1

2 76. Plaintiff reaffirm and reallege paragraphs 1-52 above as if 3 set forth more fully herein below,

4 77. At all times material, Defendants qualified as a provider of information to the Credit Reporting Agencies, including but not 5 limited to Experian, Equifax and TransUnion, under the Federal 6 Fair Credit Reporting Act. 65. Defendants wrongfully, im- 7 properly, and illegally reported negative information as to

8 the Plaintiff to one or more Credit Reporting Agencies, re- sulting in Plaintiff having negative information on his credit 9 reports and the lowering of his FICO scores. 10 77.1 The negative information included but was not limited to an 11 excessive amount of debt into which Plaintiff was tricked 12 and deceived into signing.

13 78. Pursuant to 15 USC sec. 1681(s)(2)(b), Plaintiff is entitled to maintain a private cause of action against Defendants for an award 14 of damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial for all 15 violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act which caused actual 16 damages to Plaintiff, including emotional distress and humiliation.

17 79. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from Defendants for negligent non-compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act 18 pursuant to 15 USC sec. 1681(n)(a)(2) in an amount to be proven 19 at time of trial. 20 80. Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of punitive damages against

21 Defendants for their willful noncompliance with the Fair Credit

22 Reporting Act pursuant to 15 USC sec. 1681(n)(a)(2) in an amount To be proven at time of trial. 23 COUNT V: FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION 24

25 81. Plaintiff reaffirm and reallege paragraphs 1-52 above as set

Summary of Pleading - 31 forth more fully herein below. 1 82. Defendants knowingly and intentionally concealed material infor- 2 mation from Plaintiff which is required by Federal Statutes and 3 Regulations to be disclosed to the Plaintiff both before and at

4 the closing. 83. Defendants also materially misrepresented material information 5 to the Plaintiff with full knowledge by Defendants that their 6 affirmative representations were false, fraudulent, and 7 misrepresented the truth at the time said representations were

8 made. 84. Under the circumstances, the material omissions and material 9 misrepresentations of the Defendants were malicious. 10 85. Plaintiff, not being an investment banker, securities dealer, 11 mortgage broker, or mortgage lender, reasonably relied upon 12 the representations of the Defendants in agreeing to execute

13 the mortgage loan documents. 86. Had Plaintiff known of the falsity of Defendants’ representations, 14 Plaintiff would not have entered into the transactions , the 15 subject of this action. 16 87. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendants’ material omissions

17 and material misrepresentations, Plaintiff has suffered damages.

18 COUNT VI: BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 19

20 88. Plaintiff reallege and reaffirm paragraphs 1-52 above as if set

21 forth more fully herein below.

22 89. Defendants, by their actions in contracting to provide mortgage loan services and a loan program to Plaintiff which was not only to 23 be best suited to the Plaintiff given his income and expenses but 24 by which Plaintiff would also be able to satisfy his obligations 25 without risk of losing his home, where “fiduciaries” in which

Summary of Pleading - 32 Plaintiff reposed trust and confidence, especially given that 1 Plaintiff is not an investment banker, securities dealer, 2 Mortgage lender, mortgage broker, or mortgage lender. 3 90. Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Plaintiff by

4 fraudulently inducing Plaintiff to enter into a mortgage transaction which was contrary to the Plaintiff’s stated in- 5 tentions; contrary to the Plaintiff’s interests and contrary 6 preservation of his home. 7 91. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ breaches

8 of their fiduciary duties, Plaintiff has suffered damages. 92. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Defendants’ actions 9 were willful, wanton, intentional, and with a callous and 10 reckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff justifying 11 an award of not only actual compensatory but also exemplary 12 punitive damages to serve as a deterrent not only as to future

13 conduct of Defendants herein, but also to other persons or entities with similar inclinations. 14

15 COUNT VII: UNJUST ENRICHMENT 16

17 93. Plaintiff reallege and reaffirm paragraphs 1-52 above as if set forth more fully herein below. 18 94. Defendants had an implied contract with Plaintiff to ensure that 19 Plaintiff understood all fees which would be paid to the Defendants 20 to obtain credit on Plaintiff’s behalf and to not charge any fees

21 which were not related to the settlement of the loan and without

22 full disclosure to Plaintiff. 95. Defendants cannot, in good conscience and equity, retain the 23 benefits from their actions of charging a higher interest rate, fees, 24 rebates, kickbacks, profits (including but not limited to from 25 resale of Deeds and Notes using Plaintiff’s identity, credit

Summary of Pleading - 33 score and reputation without consent, right, justification or 1 excuse as part of an illegal enterprise scheme) and gains and 2 USP fee unrelated to the settlement services provided at closing. 3 96. Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of the

4 Plaintiff, and maintenance of the enrichment would be contrary to the rules and principles of equity. 5 96.1 Defendants have also been additionally enriched through 6 the receipt of PAYMENT from third parties including but 7 not limited to investors, insurers, other borrowers,

8 the United States Department of Treasury, the United States Federal Reserve, and other unknown entities 9 surrounding the implementation of this undisclosed, 10 fraudulent scheme or trick by Defendants involving 11 said loans. 12 97. Plaintiff thus demands restitution from the Defendants in the

13 form of actual damages, exemplary damages, and attorneys’ fees. COUNT VIII: CIVIL CONSPIRACY 14 98. Plaintiff reaffirm and reallege paragraphs 1-52 above as if set 15 forth more fully herein below. 16 99. In connection with the application for and the consummation of

17 the mortgage loan (refinance) the subject of this action, Defendants agreed, between and among themselves, to engage in 18 in actions and a course of conduct designed to further an illegal 19 act or accomplish a legal act by unlawful means, and to commit one 20 or more overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud

21 the Plaintiff.

22 100. Defendants agreed between and among themselves to engage in the conspiracy to defraud for the common purpose of accruing economic 23 gains for themselves at the expense of and detriment to Plaintiff. 24 101. The actions of the Defendants were committed intentionally, 25 willfully, wantonly, and with reckless disregard for the rights

Summary of Pleading - 34 of the Plaintiff. 1 102. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants 2 in combination resulting in fraud and breaches of fiduciary duties, 3 Plaintiff has suffered damages.

4 103. Plaintiff thus demand an award of actual, compensatory, and punitive damages. 5

6 COUNT IX: CIVIL RICO 7

8 104. Plaintiff reaffirm and reallege paragraphs 1-52 above as set forth more fully herein below. 9 105. Defendants are “persons” as defined by ORC sec. 2923.31(G). 10 106. The conspiracy, the subject of this action, has existed from the 11 date of application of said loans to the present, with injuries 12 and damages resulting therefrom being continuing.

13 107. Defendants’ actions and use of multiple corporate entities, multiple parties , and concerted and predetermined acts and conduct 14 specifically designed to defraud Plaintiff constitutes an 15 “enterprise”, with the aim and objective of the enterprise being to 16 perpetrate a fraud upon Plaintiff through the use of intentional

17 nondisclosure, material misrepresentation, and creation of fraudulent loan documents. 18 108. Each of the Defendants is an “enterprise Defendant”. 19 109 As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants, 20 Plaintiff has and continues to suffer damages.

21

22 COMPLAINT TO QUIET TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY

23 110. Plaintiff reaffirm and reallege paragraphs 1-52 above as set 24 forth more fully herein below. 25 111. Plaintiff has sent or has caused to be sent authorized, by

Summary of Pleading - 35 Certified Mail Return Receipt, a number of Qualified Written 1 Requests to the only known Defendants which the said Defendants have 2 failed to answer, or only partially answered after receipt of 3 same. They also denied to answer all questions and produce the

4 requested documents in my Certified Letter dated October 3, 2009 which was a Demand To Cease And Desist Collection Activities 5 Prior To Validation Of Purported Debt. The said Defendants have 6 Failed and refused to answer despite acknowledging receipt 7 of the Certified Main, copies of the above attached hereto and

8 made a part hereof as specifically as if set forth at length hereat. 9 112. Plaintiff has sent by Certified Return Receipt Mail to Defendants 10 an Extended Right of Rescission Letter dated July 21, 2009, 11 and received by Defendants on July 23, 2009. This Rescission 12 Letter was sent to rescind the subject loan by Plaintiff, and

13 Defendants did not respond to the above within the 20 day timeframe that is allowed under the law, nor did they filed 14 a suit against me to object to the said Rescission. Hence 15 without this action, neither the rescission nor the reconveyance 16 which the Plaintiff is entitled to , is asking the Court to

17 rule on this issue, giving Plaintiff full and clear title to the property in question, 41899 Corte Valentine, 18 Temecula, California, 92592. 19 113. The real party in interest on the lender side may be the owner 20 of the asset backed security issued by the SPV, the insurer

21 through some claim of equitable interest, or the Federal

22 government through the United States Department of the Treasury or the Federal Reserve. The security is a “securitized” bond 23 deriving its value from the underlying mortgages of which the 24 Plaintiff’s mortgage (Deed and Note) of which the subject mortgage 25 is one. Thus Plaintiff is entitled to quiet title against

Summary of Pleading - 36 Defendants, clearing title of the purported subject mortgage 1 encumbrance. 2 114. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants 3 sued herein as Does inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants

4 by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. 5 115. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, 6 at all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants sued 7 herein was the agent and employee of each of the remaining

8 defendants and was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of such agency and employment. 9 116. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each 10 of the Defendants claim or might claim an interest in the property 11 adverse to Plaintiff herein. However, the claim of said 12 Defendants is without any right whatsoever, and said Defendants

13 have no legal or equitable right, claim or interest in said property. 14 117. WHEREFORE, in this Count, Plaintiff prays this Court will enter 15 Judgment against Defendants and each of them, as follows: 16 117.1 For an order compelling said Defendant, and each of them, to

17 transfer or release legal title and alleged encumbrances thereon and possession of the subject property to Plaintiff 18 herein; 19 117.2 For a declaration and determination that Plaintiff is the 20 rightful holder of title to the property and that Defendant

21 herein, and each of them, be declared to have no estate,

22 right, title or interest in said property; 117.3 For a Judgment forever enjoining said Defendants, and each 23 of them, from claiming any estate, right, title or interest 24 in the subject property; 25 117.4 For costs of suit herein incurred, including attorneys fees;

Summary of Pleading - 37 117.5 For such other and further relief as the Court may deem 1 proper. 2

3 USURY AND FRAUD

4 117.6 Plaintiff reaffirm and reallege the above paragraphs 5 1-52 herein above as if set forth more fully herein 6 below. The subject loan, note, deed of trust, and 7 mortgage was structured so as to create the appearance

8 of a higher value of the real property than the actual fair market value. 9 117.7 Plaintiff is informed and believes and hereon alleges that, 10 at all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants 11 sued herein was the agent and employee of each of the 12 remaining Defendants and was at all times active within

13 the purpose and scope of such agency and employment. 117.8 Defendants disguised the transaction to create the 14 appearance of the lender being a properly chartered and 15 registered financial institution authorized to do 16 business and to enter into the subject transaction when in

17 the real party in interest was not disclosed to Plaintiff, as aforesaid, and neither were the various fees, rebates, 18 refunds, kickbacks, profits and gains of the various parties 19 who participated in the unlawful scheme. 20 117.9 Said real party in interest, i.e., the source of funding for

21 loan and the person to whom the Note was transmitted or

22 eventually “assigned” was neither a financial institution nor an entity or person authorized , chartered or 23 registered to do business in this State nor to act as 24 banking, lending or other financial institution anywhere 25 else.

Summary of Pleading - 38 117.10 As such, this fraudulent scheme, (which was in actuality a 1 plain to trick the Plaintiff into signing what would 2 become a negotiable security used to sell unregulated 3 securities under fraudulent and changed terms from the

4 original Note) was in fact a sham to use Plaintiff’s interest in the real property to collect interest in 5 excess of the legal rate. 6

7 117.11 The transaction involved a loan of money pursuant to a

8 written agreement, and as such, subject to the rate limitation set forth under state and federal law. The 9 “formula rate” referenced in those laws was exceed by a 10 factor in excel of 5 contrary to the applicable law and 11 contrary to the requirements for disclosure under TILA 12 and HOEPA.

13 117.12 Under Applicable law, the interest charged on this usurious mortgage prevents any collection or enforcement of principal 14 or interest of the Note, voids and security interest thereon, 15 and entitles the Plaintiff to recovery of all money or 16 value paid to Defendants, plus treble damages, interest,

17 and attorney fees. 117.13 Under Applicable Law Plaintiff is also entitled and demands 18 a Permanent Injunction be entered against the Defendants 19 (a) preventing them from taking any action or making any 20 report in furtherance of collection on this alleged debt

21 which was usurious, as aforesaid (b) requiring the records

22 custodian of the county in which the alleged mortgage, the filed foreclosure, and other instruments are recorded 23 to remove same from the record,(c) allowing the filing 24 of said order in the office of the clerk of the property 25 records where the subject property, “Loan transaction” and

Summary of Pleading - 39 any other documents relating to this transaction are located 1 and any other documents relating to this transaction are 2 located and (d) dissolving any lis pendens or notice of 3 pendency relating to the Defendants purported claim.

4 RELIEF SOUGHT 5

6 WHEREFORE, having set forth numerous legally sufficient 7 Causes of actions against the Defendants, Plaintiff pray

8 For entry of Final judgment against all Defendants jointly and severally in an amount not yet quantified but to be 9 proven at trial, and for costs and attorneys’ fees; that 10 the Court find that the transactions the subject of this 11 action are illegal and are deemed Void; that the foreclosure 12 which was instituted be deemed and declared Illegal and

13 Void and that further proceedings in connection with the Foreclosure be enjoined; and for any other further relief 14 Which is just and proper. 15

16 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

17 Plaintiff demands trial by jury of all matters so triable As a matter of right. 18

19

20

21 Respectfully submitted,

22 ______23 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Plaintiff Pro Se 24 Insert Address here 25 Telephone: xxx-xxx-xxxx

Summary of Pleading - 40 1

2

3 VERIFICATION

4 I,______am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled 5 Action. I have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof. The same 6 Is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matter which are therein 7 alleged on information and belief, and as to those matter, I believe it

8 to be true.

9 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct 10 And that this declaration was executed at Riverside, California. 11

12

13 DATED:______

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Summary of Pleading - 41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11

12

13

14

15

16 17

18

19

20

21

22 23

24

25

Summary of Pleading - 42 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Summary of Pleading - 43