IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA LINDA PATRICIA

ZIMMERMAN, individually; VELDORA ARTHUR, individually; MAGDALENA A. APOSTOLOVA, individually Case No.: 11and jointly with EMIL P. MILYAKOV, individually and jointly; THAXTER ARTERBERRY, individually and jointly with CATHERINE ARTERBERRY, individually and jointly; SIMONE BRAXTON, individually; MARK I. CONGRESS, individually and jointly With LORETTA R. CONGRESS, individually and jointly; LOUIS CORTI, individually; RENA E. JOHNSTON-FARRINGTON as agent of the Farrington Family Trust; RENITA Z. COMPLAINT FOR FRAUD, GORDON, individually; THOMAS P. VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA GUTIERREZ, individually; RUSSELL B. CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL HOBSON, individually and jointly with PRACTICES ACT (FLORIDA RICO JANE HOBSON, individually and jointly; ACT), TEMPORARY AND JEAN IMMESBERGER, individually and PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, jointly with RONALD IMMESBERGER, AND OTHER RELIEF, AND individually and jointly; CRAIG LIEBERMAN, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL individually; SOLANGE MCINTYRE individually and jointly with LEON MCINTYRE, individually and jointly; GREGORY MISSMAN, individually and jointly with NINA MISSMAN, individually and jointly; FRANK RAPP, individually and jointly with SUSAN NICHTER, individually and jointly; PAULA A. RENARD, individually; JEANNI ALICE SCHIPPER, individually; THERESA M. SCHOENBART, individually; MICHAEL D. SCOTT, individually; H. CHRISTOPHER STARKEY, individually and jointly with LOUISA H. STARKEY individually and jointly; and LAWRENCE WALSH, individually and jointly with MELANIE WALSH, individually and jointly; Plaintiffs, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC; Defendants. ___________________________________________/

1
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

Plaintiffs LINDA PATRICIA ZIMMERMAN, individually; VELDORA ARTHUR, individually; MAGDALENA APOSTOLOVA, individually and jointly with EMIL P. MILYAKOV, individually and jointly; THAXTER ARTERBERRY, individually and jointly with CATHERINE ARTERBERRY, individually and jointly; SIMONE BRAXTON, individually; MARK I. CONGRESS, individually and jointly with LORETTA R. CONGRESS; LOUIS CORTI, individually; RENA E. JOHNSTON-FARRINGTON as agent of the Farrington Family Trust; RENITA GORDON, individually; THOMAS P.

GUTIERREZ, individually; RUSSELL B. HOBSON, individually and jointly with JANE HOBSON, individually and jointly; JEAN IMMESBERGER, individually and jointly with RONALD IMMESBERGER, individually and jointly; CRAIG LIEBERMAN, individually; SOLANGE MCINTYRE individually and jointly with LEON MCINTYRE, individually and jointly; GREGORY MISSMAN, individually and jointly with NINA MISSMAN, individually and jointly; FRANK RAPP, individually and jointly with SUSAN NICHTER, individually and jointly; PAULA A. RENARD, individually; JEANNI ALICE SCHIPPER, individually; THERESA M. SCHOENBART, individually; MICHAEL D. SCOTT, individually; H. CHRISTOPHER STARKEY, individually and jointly with LOUISA H. STARKEY individually and jointly; and LAWRENCE WALSH, individually and jointly with MELANIE WALSH, individually and jointly, sue Defendants JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC for Fraud, Violations of the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act (Florida RICO Act) and for other relief and demand trial by jury, and state:

2
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

I. Jurisdiction, Venue, and Parties A. Jurisdiction and Venue 1. This is an action for damages which exceed the jurisdictional limit of this Court exclusive of interest, attorneys fees, and costs, which damages are recoverable under the claims set forth herein including the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act (Florida RICO Act), and which damages have been suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the actions and conduct of the Defendants as set forth hereinbelow; for temporary and permanent injunctive relief on a nationwide basis; and for other relief, and for trial by jury of all issues so triable as a matter of right. 2. Jurisdiction of this action is proper in this Court as Defendant JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A. maintains numerous offices for the conduct of regular and continuous business within the State of Florida including Palm Beach County, Florida, and as numerous of the acts set forth herein were committed by CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC during the time that it was registered to do business in Florida. 3. Venue of this action is proper in this Court as applicable Florida law provides that if venue is proper as to any one Defendant in multi-Defendant litigation that venue is proper as to all Defendants, and as venue is proper as to Defendant JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. B. Parties 4. Plaintiff LINDA PATRICIA ZIMMERMAN, individually is a resident of Palm

Beach County, Florida who is over the age of eighteen (18). 5. Plaintiff VELDORA ARTHUR, individually is a resident of Broward County,

Florida who is over the age of eighteen (18).

3
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

6. Plaintiff MAGDALENA APOSTOLOVA, individually is a resident of the state of California who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff EMIL MILYAKOV, who is her husband. 7. Plaintiff EMIL P. MILYAKOV, individually is a resident of the State of California who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff MAGDALENA APOSTOLOVA, who is his wife. 8. Plaintiff THAXTER ARTERBERRY, individually is a resident of the State of California who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff CATHERINE ARTERBERRY, his wife. 9. Plaintiff CATHERINE ARTERBERRY, individually is a resident of the State of California who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff THAXTER ARTERBERRY, her husband. 10. Plaintiff SIMONE BRAXTON, individually is a resident of the State of

California who is over the age of eighteen (18). 11. Plaintiff MARK I. CONGRESS, individually is a resident of the State of California who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff LORETTA R. CONGRESS, his wife. 12. Plaintiff LORETTA R. CONGRESS. CONGRESS, individually is a resident of the State of California who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff MARK I. CONGRESS, her husband. 13. Plaintiff LOUIS CORTI, individually is a resident of the State of New York who is over the age of eighteen (18).

4
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

14. Plaintiff RENA E. JOHNSTON-FARRINGTON is an authorized agent of the Farrington Family Trust who resides in the State of California and is over the age of eighteen (18). 15. Plaintiff RENITA Z. GORDON, individually is a resident of the State of Tennessee who is over the age of eighteen (18). 16. Plaintiff THOMAS P. GUTIERREZ, individually is a resident of the State of California who is over the age of eighteen (18). 17. Plaintiff RUSSELL B. HOBSON, individually is a resident of the State of New Jersey who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff JANE HOBSON, who is his wife. 18. Plaintiff JANE HOBSON individually is a resident of the State of New Jersey who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff RUSSELL B. HOBSON, who is her husband. 19. Plaintiff JEAN IMMESBERGER, individually is a resident of the State of New Jersey who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff RONALD IMMESBERGER, who is her son. 20. Plaintiff RONALD IMMESBERGER, individually is a resident of the State of New Jersey who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff JEAN IMMESBERGER, who is his mother. 21. Plaintiff CRAIG LIEBERMAN, individually is a resident of the State of

California who is over the age of eighteen (18).

5
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

22.

Plaintiff SOLANGE MCINTYRE, individually is a resident of the State of

Washington who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff LEON MCINTYRE, who is her husband. 23. Plaintiff LEON MCINTYRE, individually is a resident of the State of

Washington who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff SOLANGE MCINTYRE, who is his wife. 24. Plaintiff GREGORY MISSMAN, individually is a resident of the State of

California who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff NINA MISSMAN, who is his wife. 25. Plaintiff NINA MISSMAN, individually is a resident of the State of California who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff GREGORY MISSMAN, who is her husband. 26. Plaintiff FRANK RAPP, individually is a resident of the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts and is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff SUSAN NICHTER, his wife. 27. Plaintiff SUSAN NICHTER, individually is a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff FRANK RAPP, her husband. 28. Plaintiff PAULA A. RENARD, individually is a resident of the State of

California who is over the age of eighteen (18). 29. Plaintiff JEANNI SCHIPPER, individually is a resident of the State of California who is over the age of eighteen (18).

6
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

30. Plaintiff THERESA M. SCHOENBART, individually is a resident of the State of California who is over the age of eighteen (18). 31. Plaintiff MICHAEL D. SCOTT, individually is a resident of the State of

California who is over the age of eighteen (18). 32. Plaintiff H. CHRISTOPHER STARKEY, individually is a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff LOUISA H. STARKEY, who is his wife. 33. Plaintiff LOUISA H. STARKEY, individually is a resident of the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff H. CHRISTOPHER STARKEY, who is her husband. 34. Plaintiff LAWRENCE WALSH, individually is a resident of the State of Wisconsin who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff MELANIE WALSH, who is his wife. 35. Plaintiff MELANIE WALSH, individually is a resident of the State of

Wisconsin who is over the age of eighteen (18), and is also a Plaintiff in joint capacity with Plaintiff LAWRENCE WALSH, who is her husband. 36. Defendant JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. (hereafter JPM) is and was at all times material hereto a foreign (non-Florida incorporated) corporation which engaged in a regular and systematic course of conduct in Florida including Palm Beach County, Florida and the other jurisdictions identified herein, which conduct included but was and is not limited to false claims of the acquisition of mortgage loans relating to real property; the institution of fraudulent threats of foreclosure and fraudulent foreclosure

7
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

proceedings based on false and fraudulent misrepresentations; the fraudulent collection, through one or more agents including but not limited to Defendant CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC, of monies allegedly owed on secured promissory notes as to mortgage loans through false and fraudulent misrepresentations; and the perpetration of frauds upon the Courts of the United States, including this Court, through false and fraudulent misrepresentations in connection with the filing of foreclosure actions and the prosecution of non-judicial foreclosure actions which conduct, in the aggregate and in the manner executed, constituted a pattern of criminal activity. 37. Defendant CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC (hereafter CHF) is and was at all times material hereto a foreign (non-Florida incorporated) corporation which engaged in a regular and systematic course of conduct in Florida including Palm Beach County, Florida and the other jurisdictions identified herein, which conduct included but was and is not limited to false claims of the acquisition of mortgage loans relating to real property; the institution of fraudulent threats of foreclosure and fraudulent foreclosure proceedings based on false and fraudulent misrepresentations; the fraudulent collection of monies allegedly owed on secured promissory notes as to mortgage loans through false and fraudulent misrepresentations; and the perpetration of frauds upon the Courts of the United States through false and fraudulent misrepresentations in connection with the filing of foreclosure actions and the prosecution of non-judicial foreclosure actions, which conduct, in the aggregate and in the manner executed, constituted a pattern of criminal activity. 38. The actions and course of conduct of the Defendants were executed, as to all Plaintiffs, in the same manner and means (fraudulent misrepresentations in

8
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

documents filed in courts, public records, and through the mails); with the same motive (to institute fraudulent foreclosure proceedings) and the same intended class of victims (owners of real property) and the same intended consequences (wrongfully foreclosing on real property), pursuant to a well-planned and orchestrated scheme to defraud which was executed on a national scale throughout the United States through the institution of fraudulent foreclosure actions and regular and systematic violations of foreclosure laws in both judicial and non-judicial foreclosure jurisdictions, resulting in a nationalized fraud which has resulted in damages to the Plaintiffs. II. The Judicial and Non-Judicial Foreclosure Processes 39. The foreclosure process is instituted, depending on the jurisdiction, by either a judicial or non-judicial process. 40. In judicial foreclosure states, the foreclosing party initiates the foreclosure process by the filing of a civil action for foreclosure, which normally consists of a Summons and Complaint. The Complaint may contain attachments, but all judicial states require that the foreclosing party plead and prove that it is the holder or person entitled to enforce the Note which is secured by the Mortgage in order to seek the remedy of foreclosure. 41. Defendants JPM and CHF were thus required, pursuant to applicable law and rules of court, to plead, in good faith, and prove, by the requisite evidentiary standards, legal entitlement to foreclose in order to seek the remedy of foreclosure in the judicial states of Florida, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin, which are the states where the Zimmerman (FL), Arthur (FL), Hobson (NJ),

9
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

Immesberger (NJ), Corti (NY), Rapp (MA), Starkey (MA), and Walsh (WI) Plaintiffs reside. 42. In the non-judicial foreclosure states, the operative mortgage instrument is termed a Deed of Trust (DOT) which vests title to the real property encumbered by the DOT in a trustee (usually the title company at closing). As title companies do not normally institute or further the foreclosure process, the original trustee is substituted with a trustee sale company after the foreclosure process is initiated. 43. The non-judicial foreclosure is instituted and carried forth by a process

whereby the party seeking to foreclose files a series of documents in the public records which consist of a Notice of Default (NOD), Notice of Substitution of Trustee (Substitution), and Notice of Trustees Sale (NOS) and, in some instances, an Assignment of the DOT to the foreclosing party, copies of which are provided to the property owner through the mails. 44. As in the judicial states, the foreclosing party in a non-judicial foreclosure proceeding is required to prove that it is the holder or person entitled to enforce the Note and DOT in order to seek the remedy of foreclosure. 45. Defendants JPM and CHF were thus legally obligated to accurately and

truthfully set forth, in documents filed in the public records, and to prove, for purposes of seeking the remedy of foreclosure, legal entitlement to foreclose in the non-judicial states of California, Tennessee, and Washington, which are the states where the Apostolova (CA), Milyakov (CA), Arterberry (CA), Braxton (CA), Congress (CA), Farrington (CA), Gordon (TN), Gutierrez (CA), Lieberman (CA), McIntyre (WA),

10
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

Missman (CA), Renard (CA), Schipper (CA), Schoenbart (CA), and Scott (CA) Plaintiffs reside. III. Material Facts As To Fraudulent Practices of Defendants A. The Successor In Interest to WaMu Material Misrepresentation 46. Prior to September 25, 2008, non-party Washington Mutual Bank (hereafter WaMu) was a banking institution which, among other things, originated mortgage loans throughout the United States, and originated mortgage loans of the Plaintiffs herein. 47. On or about September 25, 2008, WaMu failed and was subjected to Receivership by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). 48. On the same day, that being September 25, 2008, the FDIC sold defined assets of WaMu to Defendant JPM which were set forth within a Purchase & Assumption Agreement (P&A) between Defendant JPM and the FDIC. 49. Defendant JPM has admitted, in filings by its counsel in the Federal matter of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association et al, Case No. 1:09-cv-1656 (RMC) that: Under the plain terms of that agreement [the P&A], JPMC (Defendant JPM herein] did not become WMBs [WaMu] successor in interest. Since its closure, the FDIC as receiver has controlled WMB. [emphasis in original] 50. Despite this record admission which is binding upon Defendant JPM, Defendant JPM, both directly and indirectly through its alleged servicer (that being Defendant CHF) has instituted foreclosure proceedings throughout the United States in

11
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

both judicial and non-judicial jurisdictions where it claims, in official court filings and documents filed in the public records and sent to the Plaintiffs herein through the mails, to be the successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank for purposes of attempting to justify legal entitlement to institute foreclosure proceedings, doing so based upon nothing more than either (a) unsworn allegation unsupported by any evidence, or (b) a one page Affidavit of the FDIC which is qualified as to what the FDIC sold to Defendant JPM incident to the WaMu Receivership and which Affidavit does not contain, as part of said Affidavit, any recitation or proof that the specific loan sought to be foreclosed was in fact sold by the FDIC to Defendant JPM or that the interest therein was otherwise legally acquired by Defendant JPM. 51. In no instance, whether judicial or non-judicial foreclosure effort, has Defendant JPM or its servicer, Defendant CHF, supported the allegation of successor in interest to Washington Mutual with any Schedule of Assets purchased from the FDIC showing that the specific loan sought to be foreclosed was in fact part of the alleged purchase of assets by Defendant JPM from the FDIC or other proof that Defendant JPM or Defendant CHF legally acquired the full and unencumbered interest in either the Note or the mortgage instrument (Mortgage or DOT). B. Misrepresentations and Fraudulent Use of MERS 52. In both judicial and non-judicial foreclosure proceedings, Defendant JPM has also falsely alleged, in civil foreclosure actions and in non-judicial public records filings which have been served on the Plaintiffs herein through the mails, that non-party Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (hereafter MERS) was somehow vested with some interest in the mortgage, either as the mortgagee or that the

12
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

mortgage was executed in favor of MERS or to secure obligations in favor of MERS (in judicial foreclosures), or that MERS was the beneficiary of the DOT or that the DOT was executed to secure obligations in favor of MERS (in nonjudicial proceedings), when Defendant JPM had actual knowledge that MERS was not and could not be either the mortgagee or the beneficiary as (a) MERS own Terms and Conditions expressly preclude the use of the MERS system to either create or transfer beneficial interests in mortgage loans and (b) as MERS did not lend money or extend any credit and was never owed any money. 53. Despite such actual knowledge as to MERS limitations and preclusions,

Defendants JPM and CHF intentionally and willfully uttered, in writing throughout foreclosure proceedings across the United States, the false and fraudulent misrepresentations as to MERS for the sole and specific purpose of manufacturing bogus Assignments of mortgages and DOTs in order to institute and further fraudulent foreclosure proceedings in both judicial and non-judicial states, with the intent of said Defendants being the same across all jurisdictions: to wit, the theft of real property from the owners thereof. C. Deliberate Noncompliance With Foreclosure Laws 54. In furtherance of its well-entrenched and established scheme to defraud homeowners and to perpetrate fraudulent foreclosure proceedings for the purpose of wrongfully and illegally acquiring real property, Defendants JPM and CHF also willfully and intentionally ignored and deliberately failed to comply with applicable laws and rules pertaining to the foreclosure process, such as providing the required Certifications for New Jersey foreclosures and complying with CA Civil Code sec. 2923.5 for California

13
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

foreclosures (which requires a good-faith attempt to contact the borrower to resolve matters pertaining to the mortgage loan prior to instituting foreclosure), and in fact said Defendants have consistently filed false and fraudulent 2923.5 Compliance Declarations in the public records in California foreclosures as said Defendants never, at any time, made the required pre-foreclosure resolution effort. 55. This pattern of filing false Declarations in California foreclosures; failing to file the proper Certifications in New Jersey foreclosures; and failure to provide proof of legal ownership of the full and unencumbered interest in the Note and Mortgage in Florida and other jurisdictions is consistent with Defendant JPMs and CHFs pattern of falsely misrepresenting the legal scope and effect of the FDIC Affidavit in both judicial and non-judicial foreclosures for purposes of manufacturing legal standing; falsely swearing to foreclosure Complaints in Florida foreclosures; and causing the execution of false and fraudulent Assignments of mortgages and DOTs to further fraudulent foreclosures nationwide. D. Specific Material Facts as to Named Plaintiffs 56. The specific pattern of criminal activity of Defendants JPM and CHF, which

has been perpetrated upon each of the Plaintiffs herein through fraudulent practices and the use of the mails and, in certain instances, actions involving perjury, is demonstrated by the specific instances of conduct set forth below, which conduct was executed with the same intent and in the same manner and means and with the same intended class of victims and intended results. 57. As to Plaintiff Zimmerman: Defendant JPM instituted an action to foreclose on a loan which had been originated by non-party WaMu, doing so without and Assignment

14
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

and with no evidence that Defendant JPM legally acquired an ownership or holder interest in the loan. The first copy of Note filed with the foreclosure Complaint contained no endorsement; the second version of the Note contained a robo-signer stamp on the endorsement with no signature. 58. As to Plaintiffs Apostolova and Milyakov: the Substitution [of Trustee] and the Assignment [of Deed of Trust] were executed by one Colleen Irby, whose name appears on a multitude of foreclosure documents and who, on the same day as to Plaintiffs Apostolova and Milyakov, was purportedly an Assistant Secretary of both Defendant MERS and Defendant JPM. On the Substitution and NOS, MERS is fraudulently listed as the original beneficiary. There is no evidence of any authority of Defendant JPM to execute the Substitution. The MERS assignment of the DOT to Defendant JPM is bogus and shows intent of fraudulent conveyance to Defendant JPM. There was no pre-foreclosure contact as required by CA Civ. Code sec. 2923.5. 59. As to the Arterberry Plaintiffs: There is no identification on the NOD of the person who signed the document; there no agency agreement between the trustee sale company and LSI Title Company; and no identification of who the alleged beneficiary is. The Substitution, which lists WaMu as the original Beneficiary and which substitution was by Defendant JPM, is without authority as Defendant JPM is not the successor in interest to WaMu by Defendant JPMs own admission. There is also no Assignment of either the Note or the DOT to Defendant JPM. There was no pre-foreclosure contact as required by CA Civil Code sec. 2923.5. 60. As to Plaintiff Arthur: there is a fraudulent conveyance of the mortgage loan to a private securitization with Defendant CHF allegedly being the servicer.

15
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

61. As to Plaintiff Braxton: Robo-signing by Colleen Irby, this time for a different company conducting the Trustees Sale; the Substitution by MERS is illegal; the Assignment [of the DOT] which says JPM as successor in interest to WaMu is fraudulent and thus there is a fraudulent transfer which assigns to LaSalle Bank as Trustee for a WaMu securitization, on 02/09/09. NOS dated 03/30/11 says WaMu Bank FA is the beneficiary, which a legal impossibility in view of the securitization assignment. 62. As to the Congress Plaintiffs: No Assignment of the DOT. NOS says WaMu as the Beneficiary, which is fraudulent as FDIC took over WaMu in 2008; no indication that name is being used for FDIC. No pre-foreclosure contact as required by CA Civil Code sec. 2923.5. 63. As to Plaintiff Corti: No assignment of mortgage. Allegation that JPM as purchaser of the loans and other assets of WaMu without specific proof that this particular mortgage loan was so purchased by Defendant JPM is fraudulent, constituting a fraud on the court and institution of fraudulent foreclosure litigation. 64. As to Plaintiff Johnston-Farrington: NOD by Colleen Irby again. Two NOS signed by known robo-signer Beborah Brignac with non-matching signatures. No Substitution, no Assignment of the DOT. NOS has WaMu as Beneficiary. Affidavit submitted in Bankruptcy by known robo-signer Wanda Chapman. No pre-foreclosure contact as required by CA Civil Code sec. 2923.5. 65. As to Plaintiff Gordon: Defendant JPM accepted the mod then reneged,

although JPM had no authority to enter into loan mod negotiations ab initio. Substitutions by known robo-signers has the JPM as purchaser of the loans and other

16
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

assets of WaMu, without any proof that this specific mortgage loan was in fact purchased by or legally transferred to Defendant JPM. 66. As to Plaintiff Gutierrez: Defendant JPM is listed as the contact on the NOD for a WaMu loan. No evidence that Defendant JPM owns the loan. No Assignment. No pre-foreclosure contact as required by CA Civil Code sec. 2923.5. 67. As to the Hobson Plaintiffs: fraudulent allegation of assumption of loan in paragraph 4 of the foreclosure Complaint as purchaser of the loans and other assets of WaMu. No Assignment. Fraud upon the Court and fraudulent foreclosure filing. 68. As to the Immesberger Plaintiffs: Defendant CHF is the claimed servicer of a securitized mortgage loan trust which closed in 2005, with no evidence that the loan was transferred properly or timely into the trust for which Defendant CHF claims to be the servicer. 69. As to Plaintiff Lieberman: Defendant JPM filed NOD without authority which was signed by Colleen Irby; Assignment of DOT is fraudulent as it recites JPM as successor in interest to WaMu, and assigns it on 02/06/09 to Deutsche Bank as Trustee for a WaMu securitization which closed in 2005, yet the NOS of 05/14/09 says WaMu is the beneficiary. Signer is not an officer of JPM; is an alleged Assistant Secretary of the Trustee sale company. NOS signed by known robo-signer Deborah Brignac. No Substitution. No pre-foreclosure contact as required by CA Civ. Code se. 2923.5. 70. As to the McIntyre Plaintiffs: Payments being made to Defendant CHF by demand therefrom without evidence that any Chase entity owns the loan.

17
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

71. As to the Missman Plaintiffs: Defendant JPM is listed as the contact for a loan which originated with WaMu without any evidence that Defendant JPM owns the loan or that the loan was legally transferred to Defendant JPM. No Substitution. No preforeclosure contact as required by CA Civil Code sec. 2923.5. 72. As to Plaintiffs Rapp and Nichter: Notice of Intent to Foreclose from

Defendant JPM without evidence of ownership of the loan and where there is evidence that the loan was (allegedly) transferred to a Deutsche Bank securitization trust. 73. As to Plaintiff Renard: Robo-signer Colleen Irby, now for MERS, on an

Assignment of the DOT which fails to name WaMu to Defendant JPM which is listed as the contact on the NOD without evidence that the loan was acquired by any Chase entity. 74. As to Plaintiff Schipper: Defendant JPM is listed as the contact on the NOD; fraudulent assignment states JPM as successor in interest to WaMu, assigns in 2009 to Wells Fargo as Trustee for Freddie Mac securitization (REMIC trust) which closed in 2005, which is fraudulent. No Substitution. Of the 4 NOS, two are signed by robosigner Deborah Brignac, who also signed the Assignment. No pre-foreclosure contact as required by CA Civil Code 2923.5. 75. As to Plaintiff Schoenbart: Defendant JPM is the listed contact on the NOD (which was signed by Colleen Irby) which identifies WaMu loan; no Substitution and no Assignment; two NOS, one of which signed by robo-signed Deborah Brignac. NOS also identifies WaMu as beneficiary. 76. As to Plaintiff Scott: fraudulent Substitution by Defendant JPM as successor in interest to WaMu. NOD signed by known robo-signer Collen Irby as Assistant

18
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

Secretary for Trustees sale company. No pre-foreclosure contact as required by CA Civil Code sec. 2923.5. 77. As to the Starkey Plaintiffs: fraudulent assignment to Deutsche Bank

securitization by JPM as successor in interest to WaMu and purports to assign, in 2009, the loan to a trust which closed in 2006, which is fraudulent and illegal. 78. As to the Walsh Plaintiffs. Illegal court proceeding instituted by LaSalle as Trustee for a WaMu securitization which closed in 2007; fraudulent assignment to the WaMu securitization in August 2008 to Trust which closed in 2007. III. Claims for Relief COUNT I: COMMON LAW FRAUD 79. Plaintiffs reaffirm and reallege paragraphs 1 through 78 hereinabove as if set forth more fully hereinbelow. 80. At all times material hereto, Defendants JPM and CHF had actual knowledge that their written statements as to alleged ownership of the Plaintiffs mortgage loans and the legal entitlement to demand monies from Plaintiffs and institute foreclosure proceedings were false statements of material fact which were false when made and known by said Defendants to be false when made. 81. Defendants JPM and CHF made the subject false statements with the

specific intent that Plaintiffs rely thereon and with the separate specific intent, which separate specific intent was unknown to the Plaintiffs at the time, to defraud the Plaintiffs. 82. Plaintiffs, not being in the mortgage lending or mortgage loan acquisition

businesses, reasonably relied upon the written statements of Defendants JPM and CHF

19
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

and acted thereon, including but not limited to paying monies to said Defendants when demanded thereby. 83. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and course of conduct of Defendants JPM and CHF, Plaintiffs have suffered damages. 84. The fraudulent conduct engaged in by the Defendants constitutes a separate and independent tort separate and apart from any breach of any contract. 85. The deliberate and concerted actions engaged in by the Defendants as set forth above and under the circumstances set forth above constitutes the type of fraud for which attorneys fees are awarded, and as such, Plaintiffs demand the assessment of their attorneys fees against the Defendants. Baya v. Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, 184 So.2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966) WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand the entry of Final Judgment against the Defendants for compensatory damages, interest, costs, attorneys fees, and any other and further relief which is just and proper under the totality of the circumstances. COUNT II: CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD 86. Plaintiffs reaffirm and reallege paragraphs 1 through 78 hereinabove as if set forth more fully hereinbelow. 87. At all times material hereto, Defendants JPM and CHF agreed, between and among themselves and in combination with each other and various agents identified hereinbelow, as to each overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy and enterprise, to engage in unlawful actions for a common purpose, to wit: to perpetrate a fraud upon Plaintiffs through fraudulent threats of foreclosure and fraudulent foreclosure filings whereby the Defendants would obtain the use and benefit, under fraudulent pretenses,

20
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

of the Plaintiffs real property at the expense of the Plaintiffs and without compensating the Plaintiffs therefor; to unlawfully convert the Plaintiffs real property and permanently deprive the Plaintiffs thereof; and to cause all deleterious consequences of the Defendants actions to be saddled upon the Plaintiffs, which consequences include but are not limited to the loss of real property; the incurring of expenses; and the adverse effects of claimed defaults and foreclosures placed on the Plaintiffs credit reports by the Defendants. 88. Defendants agreed to engage in these unlawful actions with various agents including but not limited to California Reconveyance Corporation and Quality Loan Service for purposes of instituting and furthering fraudulent foreclosures in non-judicial jurisdictions, which Defendants and their agents being involved in the various transactions and with the Defendants participating in each overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud and convert, and did so in order to accomplish the objective of defrauding Plaintiffs and misappropriating monies and real property from the Plaintiffs. 89. As a direct and proximate result of the overt, concerted, and conspiratorial actions of the Defendants through and with their agents, Plaintiffs have suffered significant damages well in excess of the jurisdictional limit of this Court. 90. The conspiracy to defraud and convert engaged in by the Defendants constitutes a separate and distinct independent tort which is separate and apart from any breach of any contract. 91. The deliberate and concerted actions engaged in by the Defendants as set forth above and under the circumstances set forth above constitutes the type of fraud for which attorneys fees are awarded, and as such, Plaintiffs demand the assessment

21
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

of their attorneys fees against the Defendants. Baya v. Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, 184 So.2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966) WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand the entry of Final Judgment against the Defendants for compensatory damages, interest, costs, attorneys fees, and any other and further relief which is just and proper under the totality of the circumstances. COUNT III: VIOLATIONS OF FLORIDA CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES ACT (FLORIDA RICO ACT) 92. Plaintiffs reaffirm paragraphs 1 through 78, 87, and 88 hereinabove as if set forth more fully hereinbelow. 93. This is an action for violations of the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, Fla.Stat. sec. 772.101 et seq., also known as the Florida RICO Act. 94. Fla.Stat. sec. 772.104 provides that any person who has been injured by reason of the provisions of sec. 772.103 shall have a [civil] cause of action for threefold actual damages and also for reasonable attorneys fees and court costs through the trial and appellate courts. 95. Fla.Stat. sec. 772.103 provides, in pertinent part, that it is unlawful for any person: (1) who has with criminal intent received any proceeds derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of criminal activity to use or invest, whether directly or indirectly, any part of such proceeds, or the proceeds derived from the investment or use thereof, in the acquisition of any title to, or any right, interest, or equity in, real property or in the establishment or operation of any enterprise; (2) through a pattern of criminal activity, acquired or maintained, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise or real property;

22
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

(3) employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity; (4) to conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsections (1), (2), or (3). 96. Fla.Stat. sec. 772.102(1)(a) defines criminal activity as, in pertinent part, committing, attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or soliciting to commit any crime that is chargeable by indictment or information under, inter alia: (b) Chapter 812, Florida Statutes, relating to theft; (1)(a)(22.) Chapter 817, Florida Statutes, relating to fraudulent practices, false pretenses, and fraud generally; (1)(a)(27.) Chapter 837, relating to perjury. 97. As set forth above, the Defendants intentionally manufactured a scheme to defraud homeowners on a nationalized level whereby the Defendants, through the use of the mails, the public records, and the Courts, intentionally devised false and fraudulent documents relating to the claimed and alleged ownership and holder status of mortgage loans when the Defendants had actual knowledge that they had no such status, doing so through perjured documents and material misrepresentations with the specific intent to commit theft of residential real property. 98. As set forth above, the Plaintiffs relied upon the Defendants representations (as any reasonably and similarly-situated homeowner would), which directly and proximately caused the Plaintiffs to suffer specific damages. 99. The actions of the Defendants were specifically directed to each of the named Plaintiffs herein.

23
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

100. In order to accomplish their objective, Defendants developed and were part of an enterprise, which consisted of the Defendants and their agents including but not limited to various law Firms and Trustee Sale companies, which worked together and in concert at the direction of the Defendants for the specific purpose of furthering the pattern of criminal activity set forth herein, including notary fraud and a regular pattern and practice of filing false and perjured documents in the public records to institute and further fraudulent foreclosures and steal residential real property from its owners. 101. Fla.Stat. sec. 772.103(3) defines enterprise as, inter alia, any individual, corporation, or other legal entity or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity. 102. Fla.Stat. sec. 772.103(4) defines pattern of criminal activity as engaging in at least two incidents of criminal activity that have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims, or methods of commission or that otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents and that the last of such incidents occurred within 5 years after a prior incident of criminal activity. As set forth hereinbelow, the pattern of criminal activity engaged in by the Defendants did not arise out of a single contract or transaction, and in fact involved numerous contracts and transactions which spread across the United States, including those states identified herein. 103. Fla.Stat. sec. 772.103(5) defines real property and includes within this definition any direct or indirect interest therein, including an interest in a mortgage upon real property.

24
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

104. As set forth hereinbelow, the Defendants, through their predicate acts and pattern of criminal activity which the Defendants engaged in throughout the United States on a regular and continuous basis and with a defined and intentional purpose, conducted a nationalized fraud, the victims of which were the American homeowner including the Plaintiffs herein. 105. As set forth hereinabove and further hereinbelow, Defendant JPM, as the controlling RICO and controlling enterprise Defendant, together with the active aid, assistance, and agreement of additional RICO and enterprise Defendant CHF and their respective agents, repeatedly, deliberately, intentionally, conspiratorially and with criminal intent received proceeds both directly and indirectly from a pattern of criminal activity through theft, fraudulent practices, false pretenses, fraud, and perjury in the acquisition of title to and claimed rights, interest, and equity in real property. 106. As further set forth herein, the RICO Defendants who were employed by and associated with the enterprise conducted and participated in such enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity including but not limited to a nationalized pattern of filing false and perjured documents in the public records; instituting false and fraudulent foreclosure proceedings; and deliberately ignoring and failing to comply with applicable foreclosure laws. 107. As set forth hereinabove and hereinbelow, the RICO Defendants also

conspired and endeavored to violate the activities prohibited by Fla.Stat. sec. 772.103(1), (2), and (3). 108. The RICO Defendants specifically engaged in their pattern of criminal

activity at the expense of the Plaintiffs and for their own benefit.

25
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

109. The RICO Defendants engaged in their pattern of criminal activity through and arising out of a series of transactions and acts in at least eight separate states identified above (including Florida), which transactions and acts included the fraudulent foreclosure filings, wrongful misrepresentations as to MERS, perjured documents, and intentional failure to comply with foreclosure laws as set forth above. 110. As such, the RICO Defendants have violated Fla.Stat. sec. 772.103(1), (2), (3), and (4), with said Defendants actions: (a) having the same intent (that being to obtain, through a pattern of theft, fraud, fraudulent activity, and false pretenses, monies and real property from innocent and unknowing homeowners and rightfully the property thereof); (b) having the same results (that being the wrongful foreclosure of the Plaintiffs real property to further the enterprise of the RICO Defendants); (c) having the same victims (homeowners with mortgage loans); and (d) having the same methods of commission (that being theft, fraud, false pretenses, perjury, and mail fraud). 111. The actions of the RICO Defendants are interrelated by the distinguishing characteristic of the fact that RICO Defendant JPM was a related person as to all of the RICO Defendants by the fact that RICO Defendant CHF and their respective agents were substantially under the direction, ownership, or control, either directly or indirectly, of RICO Defendant JPM. 112. As set forth above, Plaintiffs have been injured and have suffered significant damages by reason of the RICO Defendants numerous violations of Fla.Stat. sec. 772.103.

26
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

113.

Plaintiffs are thus entitled to demand and do demand threefold actual

damages against the RICO Defendants in addition to attorneys fees and costs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand the entry of Final Judgment against the Defendants for compensatory damages, interest, costs, attorneys fees, and any other and further relief which is just and proper under the totality of the circumstances. COUNT IV: TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 114. Plaintiffs reaffirm and reallege paragraphs 1 through 78, 87, 88, 97-100, 104-106, and 109-111 hereinabove as if set forth more fully hereinbelow. 115. This is an action for temporary and permanent injunctive relief to cease and halt all foreclosure activity by the Defendants nationwide; for temporary/preliminary injunctive relief during the pendency of this litigation and, upon prevailing on the merits, for permanent injunctive relief. 116. Plaintiffs have a clear legal right to seek temporary and permanent injunctive relief as their interest in monies and real property is being jeopardized by the actions of the Defendants through their concerted and well-entrenched pattern of criminal activity specifically engaged in to wrongfully and through fraudulent means take possession, custody, and control of certain monies and real property of the Plaintiffs. 117. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the harm arising out of the loss of their unique residential real property caused by the actions and conduct of the Defendants as set forth and identified hereinabove, and no adequate remedy at law to compel the turnover of the Plaintiffs property wrongfully misappropriated by the Defendants as identified hereinabove.

27
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

118. Unless temporary and permanent injunctive relief is immediately granted, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm including the loss of their unique residential real property. 119. There is no harm to the Defendants with the granting of this relief, as the Defendants never legally or lawfully acquired any interest in any of the promissory Notes or mortgage instruments related to the Plaintiffs residential real property, and allegedly acquired such interests solely through false, fraudulent, and criminal means. 120. Denial of the requested relief would be tantamount for rewarding the RICO Defendants for their nationwide pattern of criminal activity. 121. Any alleged harm to the Defendants, which consist of one of the largest investment banks in the world and its related servicing entity, with the granting of this relief is greatly and substantially outweighed by the actual and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs in the event that the relief requested herein is not granted. 122. The granting of the relief requested herein is in the public interest, as the consuming public of homeowners, including the Plaintiffs, has been, is being, and will continue to be harmed by the fraudulent and wrongful conduct of the Defendants. 123. Thus and under the totality of the circumstances, no bond should be

required as a prerequisite to the granting of the relief requested herein as there are no costs or other damages which could be contemplated on the part of the Defendants with the granting of the relief requested herein for which a bond would otherwise be necessary. 124. At least one other court in the United States which has been confronted with wrongful foreclosure practices of an entity conducting such practices on a national

28
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org

level has previously issued an order staying all foreclosures instituted or prosecuted by that entity pending litigation involving that entity. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests that this Court immediately grant the relief requested herein and immediately enter an Order for Temporary Injunctive Relief which commands that all foreclosure activity being engaged in by the Defendants nationwide be immediately enjoined for the pendency of this litigation through trial and any appeal(s), and that permanent injunctive forever barring the Defendants from engaging in any illegal or unlawful foreclosure activity be entered thereafter. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs demand trial by jury of all matters so triable as a matter of right pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.430 (a) and (b). Dated this 23rd day of August, 2011. Please direct all responses to this Complaint to the California office address below. California office: W. J. Barnes, P.A. Counsel for Plaintiffs 1515 North Federal Highway Suite 300 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Tel: (561) 864-1067 Fax: (949) 270-7414 e-mail: jeff@wjbarneslaw.com

2901 West Coast Highway Suite 350 Newport Beach, California 92663 Tel: (949) 270-7413 Fax: (949) 270-7414 By: _________________________ Jeff Barnes, Esq. FBN 746479

29
Downloaded from www.4closureFraud.org