Reply #105: RICO Case in Kentucky ( Class Action)

[flyarm]

RICO Case in Kentucky

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2196166

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/RICOClassActionComplaint.pdf


MERS/MBS/Foreclosure Goes RICO - MarketTicker Forums

MERS/MBS/Foreclosure Goes RICO
The Market Ticker ® - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Posted 2010-10-03 23:10
by Karl Denninger
in Corruption
MERS/MBS/Foreclosure Goes RICO

snip:

See, without standing they can't foreclose, but then we get back to "who can?" And what we find is that the originator was paid, and thus they can't either. Worse, for those originators that are bankrupt, their "assets", such as they are, can't go anywhere without a bankruptcy trustee's signature, and further, even if someone was to acquire that, which nobody has, THE REMICs CAN'T TAKE THE PAPER ANYWAY AS THEIR CLOSING DATE HAS EXPIRED.

So we have a bankrupt originator who was paid in full and can't foreclose, and we have a note that can't be transferred into the REMIC without destroying its tax preference (retroactively, incidentally), which instantaneously trashes the value of the MBS - probably by more than they could hope to recover if they were going to take the note anyway.

In all cases, the lack of acquisition of the Class Members' mortgage loans violates the prospectus presented to the investors and the IRS REMIC requirements.

If an MBS Trust was audited by the IRS and was found to have violated any of the REMIC requirements, it would lose its REMIC status and all back taxes would be due and owing to the IRS as well as the state of Kentucky. As previously stated, one hundred percent (100%) of the income will be taxed.

As the Class Members are identified and the identity of the MBS REMICs revealed through this action, the individual "Trusts"/ MBS REMICs will be turned over to the IRS for auditing



snip:
REMICS were newly invented in 1987 as a tax avoidance measure by Investment Banks. To file as a REMIC, and in order to avoid one hundred percent (100%) taxation by the IRS and the Kentucky Revenue Cabinet, an MBS REMIC could not engage in any prohibited action. The "Trustee" can not own the assets of the REMIC. A REMIC Trustee could never claim it owned a mortgage loan. Hence, it can never be the owner of a mortgage loan.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Portion of Class Action in Kentucky:

57. Additionally, and important to the issues presented with this particular action, is the fact that in order to keep its tax status and to fund the "Trust" and legally collect money from investors, who bought into the REMIC, the "Trustee" or the more properly named, Custodian of the REMIC, had to have possession of ALL the original blue ink Promissory Notes and original allonges and assignments of the Notes, showing a complete paper chain of title.

58. Most importantly for this action, the "Trustee"/Custodian MUST have the mortgages recorded in the investors name as the beneficiaries of a MBS in the year the MBS "closed." Every mortgage in the MBS should have been publicly recorded in the Kentucky County where the property was located with a mortgage in the name similar to "2006 ABC REMIC Trust on behalf of the beneficiaries of the 2006 ABC REMIC Trust." The mortgages in the referenced example would all have had to been publicly recorded in the year 2006.

59. As previously pointed out, the ¡°Trusts¡± were never set up or registered as Trusts. The Promissory Notes were never obtained and the mortgages never obtained or recorded.

60. The "Trust" engaged in a plethora of "prohibited activities" and sold the investors certificates and Bonds with phantom mortgage backed assets. There are now nationwide, numerous Class actions filed by the beneficiaries (the owners/investors) of the "Trusts" against the entities who sold the investments as REMICS based on a bogus prospectus.

61. In the above scenario, even if the attorney for the servicer who is foreclosing on behalf of the Trustee (who is in turn acting for the securitized trust) produces a copy of a note, or even an alleged original, the mortgage loan was not conveyed into the trust under the requirements of the prospectus for the trust or the REMIC requirements of the IRS.

62. As applied to the Class Members in this action, the end result would be that the required MBS asset, or any part thereof (mortgage note or security interest), would not have been legally transferred to the trust to allow the trust to ever even be considered a "holder" of a mortgage loan. Neither the "Trust" or the Servicer would ever be entitled to bring a foreclosure or declaratory action. The Trust will never have standing or be a real party in interest. They will never be the proper party to appear before the Court.

63. The transfer of mortgage loans into the trust after the "cut off date" (in the example 2006), destroys the trust's REMIC tax exempt status, and these "Trusts" (and potentially the financial entities who created them) would owe millions of dollars to the IRS and the Kentucky Revenue Cabinet as the income would be taxed at of one hundred percent (100%).


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Class Action in Kentucky ( partial)


http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/RICOClassActionComplaint.pdf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
CASE NO. ____________________
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
ELIZABETH FOSTER;
JOHN R. FOSTER; REPRESENTATIVE
CLASS PLAINTIFFS;
CONNIE WELLS;
ROYCE WELLS; on behalf of themselves
and others so situated
AUGUSTA MASON; as putative class members
BRIAN MASON;
SHERILL A. MOODY;
MARK MOODY, and;
CHARLOTTE A. WOODWARD
v.
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC. AND,
MERSCORP,
collectively as MERS;
GMAC MORTGAGE LLC,
RESIDENTIAL ACCREDIT LOANS, INC., AND
RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC
collectively as GMAC ;
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY;
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE;
AURORA LOAN SERVICES;
BAC LOAN SERVICES;
CITIMORTGAGE;
US BANK;


II.B. THE DEFENDANTS
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., MERSCORP, hereinafter
collectively (“MERS”) and the MERS Shareholders:

7. Defendant Merscorp, Inc., is a foreign corporation created in or about
1998 by conspirators from the largest banks in the United States in order to undermine
and eventually eviscerate long-standing principles of real property law, such as the
requirement that any person or entity who seeks to foreclose upon a parcel of real
property: 1) be in possession of the original note, 2) Have a publicly recorded mortage in
the name of the party for whom the underlying debt is actually owed and who is the
holder of the original Promissory Note with legally binding assignments, and 3) possess a
written assignment giving he, she or it actual rights to the payments due from the
borrower pursuant to both the mortgage and note.

8. Defendant Merscorp, Inc., claims to be the sole shareholder in an entity
by the name of Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc., (“MERS”). MERS is the

RICO enterprise and is the primary innovation through which the conspirators, including
the Defendants, have accomplished their illegal objectives as detailed throughout this
Complaint.

9. For the purposes of this action, MERS shall also refer to each and every
shareholder of MERSCORP, who will be named as their identities are revealed.

10. The Complaint names the entity, Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc., hereinafter, (“MERS”). MERS is the mortgage holder of record for the
Class Plaintiff’s second mortgage. The lender to the second mortgage is M & I Bank
FSB. It is this second mortgage, which is the subject of this action.

11. MERS is not the original lender for any of the class members loans.
MERS is not the creditor, beneficiary of the underlying debt or an assignee under the
terms of the Promissory Notes of the class members. MERS does not hold the original
of the Promissory Note, nor has it ever held the Promissory Notes of the class members.

12. The Mortgagee, MERS, is a owned by the company, MERSCORP,
which is in turn owned by a group of Wall Street investment Banks.

13. MERS is unregistered and unlicensed to conduct mortgage lending or
any other type of business in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and has been and continues
to knowingly and intentionally illegally and fraudulently record mortgages and conduct
business in Kentucky on a large scale and systematic fashion..

14. No promissory Note or other evidence exists which could ever make
the Plaintiffs and the class members indebted to MERS in any way.


15. MERS never had nor will it ever have standing to enforce the illegal
and fraudulent mortgage it filed against the properties in question. MERS never had nor
will it ever have the authority to assign the Mortgage to any entity.

16. MERS has never possessed a pecuniary or financial interest in the
Notes of the Plaintiffs and the class members.

17. MERS has never had any right to collect on the Note or enforce the
Mortgage, nor has it had a right to hold, enforce or collect upon any of the thousands of
Mortgages it has fraudulently recorded throughout the Commonwealth of Kentucky, in
the 50 states, the District of Columbia and all other US Territories.
The Law Firms:

18. In or about the last decade, the Defendant Firms joined with Defendant
Merscorp, Inc., and other conspirators in the fraudulent scheme and RICO enterprise
herein complained. . The employees of the Defendant Firms, including many licensed
attorneys, have become skilled in using the artifice of MERS to sabotage the judicial
process to the detriment of borrowers, and, over the past several years, have routinely
relied upon MERS to accomplish illegal acts.

19. Manley Deas Kochalski PLLC, is a law firm with its principal place of
business in the state of Ohio. Herein after (“MDK”,) the firm is one of the regional
foreclosure mills.

20. Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, is a law firm with its principal place of
business in the state of Ohio. Herein after (“D&S”,) the firm is one of the regional
foreclosure mills, and the regional corporate counsel for GMAC.


21. Lerner Sampson & Rothfuss, is a law firm with its principal place of
business in the state of Ohio. Herein after (“LSR”,) the firm is one of the regional
foreclosure mills, and the Kentucky counterpart to Florida’s Stern Law Group in that the
partners of LSR own their own document processing company, LSR Processing LLC, to
generate loan and mortgage documents. LSR has a pattern and practice on drafting
missing mortgage and loan documents and in turn, having them executed by their own
employees.

22. Jerry R. Howard Reisenfeld & Associates, LPA, is a law firm with its
principal place of business in the state of Ohio. Herein after (“R&A” ,) the firm is one of
the regional foreclosure mills.

23. Middleton & Reutlinger, is a Kentucky based law firm and serves as
MERS regional counsel.
The Document Processing Defendants:

24. LSR Processing LLC, is a document processing company, based in the
state of Ohio to generate loan and mortgage documents. Upon information and belief it
is owned by one or more of the partners of LSR law firm. LSR Processing was created
in order to facilitate the conspiratorial acts of the Defendants in relation to the creation of
fraudulent Promissory Notes, Note Assignments, Affidavits and Mortgage Assignments
LSR Processing has a pattern and practice of drafting missing mortgage and loan
documents and in turn, having them executed by their own employees.


]25. DOCX LLC, hereinafter (“DOCX”.) Defendant, DOCX, is a Georgia
Corporation with its principal place of business in Irvine, California. Although DOCX is
doing business in the state of Kentucky, it is not registered to engage in business in the
state of Kentucky.

26. Defendant Lender Processing Services, Inc. (“LPS”) is a Delaware
Corporation, with its principal place of business in Jacksonville, Florida. Although LPS
is doing business in the state of Kentucky, it is not registered to engage in business in the
state of Kentucky. At all times relevant hereto, LPS was the parent company of DOCX.
Together they are referred to as (“LPS/DOCX.”)
The Servicers and MBS “Trusts”2:

27. GMAC Mortgage and GMAC Residential Funding Corporation,
collectively hereinafter (“GMAC”,) is a foreign business entity, which according to the
MERS internet web site, www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS. GMAC serves
as a servicer on tens of thousands of Mortgage loans.

28. The Deutsche Bank as “Trustee” is a generic term for an entity not
incorporated or registered to do business in any of the United States in order to facilitate
illegal property foreclosures.

29. CitiMortgage is a foreign business entity, which according to the
MERS internet web site, www.mersinc.org, is a shareholder in MERS.

30. Aurora Loan Services is thought to be a foreign corporation, but is not
registered to conduct business in the state of Kentucky.

31. Nationstar Mortgage is thought to be a foreign corporation, but is not
registered to conduct business in the state of Kentucky.

Other loan Servicers and MBS “Trustee” Defendants shall be named as their identities are revealed. The
underwriters and originators of the MBS “Trusts” shall be named as their identities are revealed. It is
anticipated that they will include, but in no way be limited to Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, RFC
Financial and Goldman Sachs.
Class Action vs Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Gmac, Deutsche Bank, Nation Star, Aurora, Bac, Ci...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38654717/Class-Action-vs-Mortgage-Electronic-Registration-Systems-Gmac-Deutsche-Bank-Nation-Star-Aurora-Bac-Citi-Us-Bank-Lps-Et-A