Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Landrith v Bank of New York Mellon RICO Complaint

Landrith v Bank of New York Mellon RICO Complaint

Ratings:
(0)
|Views: 124|Likes:
Published by Bret Landrith

More info:

Published by: Bret Landrith on Jun 09, 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

11/14/2012

pdf

text

original

 
In the United States District Courtfor the District of Kansasat Kansas City, Kansas
BRET D. LANDRITH )
 Plaintiff 
)) Case No.
v.
))
 
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON )
Jury Trial Demanded
CATHERINE A. REIN )BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION )COUNTRYWIDE HOMELOAN, INC. )CWALT, INC. )ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2007-OA7 )BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP )COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL )COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS )KPMG LLP )STEPHEN E. SUMMERS )REALTY EXECUTIVES OF KANSAS CITY )SOUTH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. )BRYAN CAVE LLP )
 
COMPLAINT UNDER RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1961,
et seq.
 
Bret D. LandrithPlaintiff appearing
 Pro se
Apartment 209,5308 SW Tenth St.Topeka, KS 66604Cell 913-951-1715 bret@bretlandrith.com
12-2352-EFM-DJW
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/08/2012
INDEX NO. 653154/2011NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41-1RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/08/2012
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPLAINT 1I. NATURE OF THE CASE 1II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1(1) Subject Matter Jurisdiction 1(2) Venue 1III. PARTIES 2IV. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 3V. STATEMENT OF FACTS 4HOW ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2007-OA7WAS CREATED WITH OTHER CWALT, INC.TRUSTS TO CONTROL THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLONAS AN ENTERPISE FOR BANKING FRAUD IN A RACKETEERING CONSPIRACY 4CWALT, Inc. and ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2007-OA7’s FRAUDS ONTHE BANK OF NEW YORK THAT LEAD TO THE PLAINTIFF’S INJURY 9ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2007-OA7’s FRAUDSDIRECTED AT LOT 330, LEAWOOD ESTATES TO INJURE THE PLAINTIFF 12COUNT IRACKETEERING IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) 14(1) conduct 14(a) defendants have participated in the operation or management of the enterprise itself 15(b) defendants have a nexus of conduct participating in the enterprise’s affairs 16(i) 'by means of, by consequence of, by reason of, by the agency of, or by theinstrumentality of' 16(ii) a pattern of racketeering activity 17(2) of an enterprise 17(1) [an] ongoing organization with a decision-making framework or mechanism for controlling thegroup, 17(2) that the various associates function as a continuing unit, 20(3) that the enterprise exists separate and apart from the pattern of racketeering activity. 21(4) through a pattern 23(a) defendants committed more than two predicate acts of racketeering activity within ten years 23
 
ii
(b) the racketeering predicates are both related and continuous 23(4) of racketeering activity 24(a) the existence of “an enterprise,” 24(b) which was “engaged in activities affecting interstate or foreign commerce,” 24(c) which the defendants are “associated with or employed by,” 25(d) that the defendants “ knowingly ... conduct[ed] ... a pattern of racketeering activity,” 25(e) the defendants “knowingly conducted, or participated directly or indirectly in the conduct of,the enterprise through that pattern of racketeering activity. 25I. Mail And Wire Fraud On The Johnson County, Kansas District Court 26(1) the defendants' misrepresentation to the Johnson County District Court 27(2) the impact on the motion as a consequence of that misrepresentation; 28(3) the lack of an opportunity to discover the misrepresentation and either bring it to the court'sattention or bring an appropriate corrective proceeding; 28(4) the benefit the defendants derived by inducing the erroneous decision 29II. Facts Related To The Wanton Conduct Of The Defendants 29III. Related to the Fraud on Johnson County District Court Regarding Standing 31(5) the Johnson County District Court’s justified reliance on the defendant’s frauds andmisrepresentations 31IV. Related to the Fraud on Johnson County District Court To Strike K.S.A. 60-255(b) Motion 33V. Absence of Petition Clause Immunity For the Defendant Law Firms’ Conduct 341. Law Firm defendants took part in directing the enterprise's affairs 342. Law Firm defendants substantially involved in the affairs of the enterprise 353. The foreclosure lawsuits are objectively baseless and shams 35(i) no reasonable litigant could realistically expect success on the merits 35(ii) the lack of merit is concealed from the court 36

You're Reading a Free Preview

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