Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
21Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Robert P. Marley v. Bank of America, N.A., Bank of New York Mellon, MERS, et al

Robert P. Marley v. Bank of America, N.A., Bank of New York Mellon, MERS, et al

Ratings: (0)|Views: 998 |Likes:
Published by chunga85
This is a very big problem. We (actually they, since they created this mess - unless of course we let them get away with the loot) are left in a predicament where no one has legal standing to foreclose; attempts at “refilling” the trusts are legal gutter balls as their closing dates have expired. Further, doing so retroactively would result in such a negative tax liability the “value” of this REMIC innovation would be practically nil.
This is a very big problem. We (actually they, since they created this mess - unless of course we let them get away with the loot) are left in a predicament where no one has legal standing to foreclose; attempts at “refilling” the trusts are legal gutter balls as their closing dates have expired. Further, doing so retroactively would result in such a negative tax liability the “value” of this REMIC innovation would be practically nil.

More info:

Published by: chunga85 on May 31, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/05/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTSCIVIL ACTION NO: 1:10-CV-10885- GAOFIRST VERIFIED SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
The plaintiff, Robert P. Marley, respectfully submits this Supplemental Complaint inaccord with F.R.Civ.P. Rule 15(d) to supplement the First Verified Amended Complaint filed onJune 6, 2011. On reason for the supplement is to introduce the
 Affidavit
 
of John O’Brien, the
Southern Essex County Registrar of Deeds as it relates to the False Assignment filed on July 13,2011, marked as
 Exhibit “36” 
incorporated by reference herein, bringing to the attention of thisHonorable Court, the Defendants Deceptive Acts.
Robert P. Marley
,
Plaintiff 
,V.
Bank of America, N.A.,BAC Home Loans Servicing LP
, f/k/aCountrywide,
 
now merged into Bank of America, N.A.(
BANA
)
Bank of New York Mellon
, Trustee of CWMBS CHL Mortgage PassThrough Certificate 2004-29,
Mortgage Electronic Registration SystemsInc., Merscorp Inc
.,
as
Grantee
John and Jane Doe’s
1-1000 UnknownAgents, Employees, Purported, Putative
Grantee’s, Owners of Security Interest In
Plaintiff 
’s Property, et al, Individually,
Jointly and Severally,
 Defendants
.
 
2
INTRODUCTION
1)
 
Plaintiff avers that the Defendants, all of them, have knowingly acted in concerttogether and continually conspired
to take Plaintiff’s property
in a continuing securitizationscheme based on Deceptive Acts and Practices, Forgery, False and Misleading Documents andFalse and Misleading Statements since this action was initiated and subsequent to the filing of the First Verified Amended Complaint.2)
 
Plaintiff is supplementing certain
Counts
in the First Verified AmendedComplaint to include the False and Misleading assignment filed in the Registry of Deeds on July13, 2011. Plaintiff brings additional
Counts
against all Defendants. Furthermore, Plaintiff claimsthe purported Mortgage Contract is Void or Voidable. The Plaintiff has discovered theDefendants intentionally concealed Material Facts that were germane to the subject matter of theMortgage contract and the decision making process (Meeting of the Minds) prior to entering thepurported Mortgage Contract which material facts Plaintiff needed to make an informed choiceswhether or not he would enter into said Contract.3)
 
The violations alleged herein arise from the same case in controversy and becameknown, actionable and verifiable beginning in February 2011. Moreover, the contract claims arenot and would not be barred pursuant to the
 Limitation of Actions, M.G.L. c. 260 § 12
provides:
If a person liable to a personal action fraudulently conceals the cause of such action from the knowledge of the person entitled to bring it, the periodprior to the discovery of his cause of action by the person so entitled shall beexcluded in determining the time limited for the commencement of the
action”.
 
4)
 
This Supplemental Pleading brings claims for violations that BANA intentionallyconcealed from Plaintiff prior to, during, and after the consummation of the purported MortgageLoan Contract and claims that arose subsequent to the commencement of this action and thus far
 
3
completes the complaint until formal discovery is ordered. Whereas,
the Defendant’s in this case
have refused to resolve this matter and continue on a path of skullduggery, albeit in light of theprima facia evidence submitted by Plaintiff, he now files this Supplemental Pleading.5)
 
There are various controlling documents that make up the securitized pools; theyare, inter alia: The POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT (PSA)
1
filed under oath withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); The REGISTRATION STATEMENT (RS)filed under oath with the SEC; The PROSPECTUS SUPPLEMENT (PS) filed under oath withthe SEC; The FREE WRITING PROSPECTUS (FWP) filed under oath with the SEC; TheISDA(R)International Swap Dealers Association, Inc. MASTER AGREEMENT (MA); TheMORTGAGE LOAN PURCHASE AND ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT (MLPAA); The SALEAND SERVICING AGREEMENT (SSA); The INDENTURE for the Trust Administrator andthe Indentured Trustee (IND); The AMENDED AND RESTATED TRUST AGREEMENT(ARTA); The INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT (ICA) and TheUNDERWRITING AGREEMENT (UA).
Plaintiff is in possession of all documents
.6)
 
Above are the basic controlling TRUST documents created and governed underNew York Law that mandates how, the TRUST is structured and controlled, and mandates theduties and obligations for the Players of the TRUST.7)
 
Throughout these TRUST documents Plaintiffs purported Mortgage Loan (Noteand Mortgage), among others, are the target of assets at issue and discussed at length albeit,without
Plaintiff’s
consent or knowledge or any disclosure in the lending process whatsoever asit relates to the Defendants scheme to glean a profit therefrom.8)
 
Whereas the Defendants did not have the Plaintiff’s consent, o
ne cannot logicallyargue that the Plaintiff does not have an interest or right to marshal out the violations of the
1

Activity (21)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Robert Bonito liked this
Larry Guzman liked this
Larry Guzman liked this
genajones liked this
Rob Harrington liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->