This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Former President George W. Bush; President Barack H. Obama; Treasury Secretaries John W. Snow, Henry Merritt Paulson, Jr., Tim Geithner; SEC Chiefs William H. Donaldson, Christopher Cox; The governors of the following states or their current successors
AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO MS
Sara Palin Robert Riley Mike Dale Beebe Janet Napolitano Arnold Schwarzenegger Bill Ritter M. Jody Rell Ruth Ann Minner Charles J. Crist, Jr. Sonny Perdue Linda Lingle Chet Culver C.L. "Butch" Otter Rod Blagojevich Mitch Daniels Kathleen Sebelius Ernie Fletcher Kathleen Blanco Deval Patrick Martin O'Malley John Baldacci Jennifer Granholm Tim Pawlenty Matt Blunt Haley Barbour
MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY
Brian Schweitzer Michael Easley John Hoeven Dave Heineman John Lynch John Corzine Bill Richardson Jim Gibbons Eliot Spitzer Ted Strickland Brad Henry Ted Kulongoski Edward Rendell Don Carcieri Mark Sanford Mike Rounds Phil Bredesen Rick Perry John Huntsman Tim Kaine Jim Douglas Christine Gregoire Jim Doyle Joe Manchin, III Dave Freudenthal
CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR MORTGAGE FRAUD, VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL HOME OWNERSHIP & EQUITY PROTECTION ACT, VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRUTH IN LENDING ACT, VIOLATIONS OF THE RESPECTIVE STATES‟ PREDATORY LENDING LAWS, AND VIOLATION OF SECTION 1 AND SECTION 4 OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CIVIL CHARGES 1. Paul L. Muckle, pro se, the plaintiff in the above entitled action, respectfully files this complaint against the named defendants, accusing them jointly and severally of violating the follows laws: a. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. b. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. c. The Federal Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994, as amended, HOEPA. 15 U.S.C. ss. 1639, 12 C.F.R. ss.ss. 226.32 and 226.34 d. The Arkansas Home Loan Protection Act, Ark. Code Ann. ss.ss. High Cost Home Loan 23-53-101 et seq. e. The Cleveland Heights, OH Ordinance No. 72-2003 (PSH), Mun. Code ss.ss. 757.01 et Covered Loan seq. f. The Colorado Consumer Equity Protection, Colo. Stat. Ann. ss.ss. Covered Loan 5-3.5-101 et seq. g. The Connecticut Abusive Home Loan Lending Practices Act, High Cost Home Loan Conn. Gen. Stat. ss.ss. 36a-746 et seq. h. The District of Columbia Home Loan Protection Act, D.C. Code ss.ss. 261151.01 et seq. Covered Loan
i. The Florida Fair Lending Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. ss.ss. 494.0078 et seq. High Cost Home Loan j. The Georgia Fair Lending Act, Ga. Code Ann. ss.ss. 7-6A-1 et seq. High Cost Home Loan 6, 2003) et seq. Georgia as amended (Mar. 7, Georgia Fair Lending Act, Ga. Code Ann. ss.ss. 7-6A-1 et seq. High Cost Home Loan 2003 - current) k. The Illinois High Risk Home Loan Act, Ill. Comp. Stat. tit. 815, High Risk Home Loan ss.ss. 137/5 et seq. l. The Indiana Home Loan Practices Act, Ind. Code Ann. ss.ss. High Cost Home Loan. 24-9-1-1 et seq. m. The Kansas Consumer Credit Code, Kan. Stat. Ann. ss.ss. 16a-1-101 High Loan to Value Consumer Loan (id. et seq. ss. 16a-3-207), and Sections 16a1-301 and 16a-3-207 became effective High APR Consumer Loan (id. ss. Section 16a-3-308a became effective 16a-3-308a) n. The Kentucky 2003 KY H.B. 287 - High Cost Home Loan Act, Ky. Rev. High Cost Home Loan Stat. ss.ss. 360.100 et seq. o. The Maine Truth in Lending, Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 9-A, ss.ss. 8-101. High Rate High Fee Mortgage et seq. p. The Massachusetts Part 40 and Part 32, 209 C.M.R. ss.ss. 32.00 et seq. and High Cost Home Loan 209 C.M.R. ss.ss. 40.01 et seq. Massachusetts Predatory Home Loan Practices Act High Cost Home Mortgage Loan Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183C, ss.ss. 1 et seq.
q. The Nevada Assembly Bill No. 284, Nev. Rev. Stat. ss.ss. 598D.010 Home Loan et seq. r. The New Jersey New Jersey Home Ownership Security Act of 2002, N.J. High Cost Home Loan. Rev. Stat. ss.ss. 46:10B-22 et seq. s. The New Mexico Home Loan Protection Act, N.M. Rev. Stat. ss.ss. High Cost Home Loan 58-21A-1 et seq. t. The New York N.Y. Banking Law Article 6-l, High Cost Home Loan u. The North Carolina Restrictions and Limitations on High Cost Home High Cost Home Loan Loans, N.C. Gen. Stat. ss.ss. 24-1.1E et seq. v. The Ohio H.B. 386 (codified in various sections of the Ohio Covered Loan Code), Ohio Rev. Code Ann. ss.ss. 1349.25 et seq. w. The Oklahoma Consumer Credit Code (codified in various sections Subsection 10 Mortgage of Title 14A) x. The South Carolina South Carolina High Cost and Consumer Home Loans High Cost Home Loan Act, S.C. Code Ann. ss.ss. 37-23-10 et seq. y. The West Virginia Residential Mortgage Lender, Broker West Virginia Mortgage Loan Act Loan and Servicer Act, W. Va. Code Ann. ss.ss. 31-17-1 et seq.
2. The complaint also accuses the defendants of: a. Failure to protect the residents in each respective state and of every state in the Union from unlawful dispossession and financial rip-off.
b. Aiding and abetting in the dispossession of the residents of each respective state. c. Failure to protect the national and financial security of the people of the United States of America.
DEMANDS 3. This complaint does not seek monetary damages. 4. The complaint seeks “CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS” against all the defendants, jointly and severally, to: a. Cease and desist from granting any foreclosure ORDER that violates the “Due Process” clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. b. Cease and desist from violating the “Equal Protect” clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. c. Cease and desist from granting any foreclosure ORDERS that, under the federal HOEPA and each respective state‟s predatory lending laws are, “unconscionable and void.” d. Cease and Desist from violating Section 4 of the 14th Amendment by paying the debt, through federal bailouts, of foreign and domestic investment firms which were responsible for the fraud that‟s destroying the United States‟ economy.
e. The complaint states in no uncertain terms that all subprime loans in the country with adjustable rate interest have “Fraud in the Factum” in the origination of the promissory note. Therefore, under the Uniform Commercial Code Section 3-305, all such notes are null and void. f. The complaint seeks that after seeing the evidence, the Court must move to confiscate the deeds to an estimated 10 million subprime home mortgages in the entire United States of America from the foreign note owners and to transfer said deeds to the care and protection of the United States Treasury. g. The complaint also seeks that the Court order the United States Treasury to take immediate steps to go after all financial institutions which were actively involved in the gross mortgage and securities fraud that‟s wreaking havoc on the livelihood of the people, and the firms which got taxpayer‟s bailout money, and to demand that the bailout money they received be returned to the Treasury of the United States, forthwith, or face confiscation also.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS 5. The plaintiff respectfully files this complaint on the grounds of Sovereign Citizenship. 6. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein
they reside. The plaintiff is a legal derivative- citizen of the United States of America and a resident of the state of Massachusetts. 7. Sovereign Citizenship is the birthright of all Americans, who in turn extended this most important right to foreign-born persons through naturalization laws. With this status, my unalienable rights of life, liberty and property couldn't be infringed upon nor could they be transferred or sold by any other person. 8. The plaintiff‟s claims of sovereign citizenship, which is a right vested in him by the United States Declaration of Independence to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is absolute. 9. Each individual, at least so far as respects his unalienable rights, is his own sovereign, which means that wherever the rights of the people as a whole are being abridged, then any citizen is free to pursue claims on behalf of himself and the collective citizens of his state and of every state in the Union, in any federal court of law, against any enemy or entity, whether foreign or domestic, jointly and severally, to redress the violation of any law or the enforcement of any law which directly threatens his sovereign rights; whether that violation occurs in his respective state and/or in any other state in the Union. So long as it affects me as a sovereign, I have a right to sue. 10. “The word "sovereign" is defined in the sixth edition of Black's Law Dictionary, published in 1990, as being "A person, body, or state in which independent authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a king or other ruler in a monarchy.” Prior to the War for American Independence, the British king was
the sovereign and the American people were his subjects. The war's outcome changed all this; let us not go back down that road. 11. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before was a subject of the king is now a citizen of the State. State v. Manuel, North Carolina, Vol. 20, Page 121 (1838) 12. Thus, a citizen of a state is, by the federal Constitution, made a citizen of the United States. This means the following: A citizen of one state is to be considered as a citizen of every other state in the Union. Butler v. Farnsworth, Federal Cases, Vol. 4, Page 902 (1821) 13. Therefore, if any citizen of any state has evidence that any entity, whether foreign or domestic, is engaged in any adverse action which abridges the rights of the people, or that causes destruction to our nation‟s economy, then that citizen, as a sovereign, has the constitutional right and the patriotic duty to his country to intervene to stop it; whether through an act of war or through a court of law. 14. For purpose of elimination (because I know this will be the first line of defense for the court and the defendants), the Federal Court, Local Rule 83.5.3 (c), which states that a non attorney cannot act as the lawyer for anyone but himself, is a direct violation of my 14th Amendment rights. Let us explore this concept by focusing on “what are considered as being the rights inherent in citizenship in America: When men entered into a state, they yielded a part of their absolute rights, or natural liberty, for political or civil liberty, which is no
other than natural liberty restrained by human laws, so far as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public.” What this is clearly stating is that unless the action that I am taking adversely impacts or infringes upon the sovereign rights of another citizen in the Union, or unless my actions adversely threatens the public interest, then no court in the land has the right to deny my claim on the grounds of a local rule. 15. Federal Local Rule 83.5.3 (c) is a direct infringement of my constitutional right and duty to defend my country and my fellow citizens from a “clear and present danger” to our financial stability and to our national security. 16. My absolute sovereign rights to defend my country and my people in a federal court of law is an advantage, not a disadvantage, to the public, nor does it infringe on the rights of any other citizens if the citizens are being grossly harmed by the action for which I, as a sovereign citizen, seek to redress. 17. In America it is unlawful to kill, but if I had information that a group of terrorists, whether foreign or domestic, were plotting to harm the people, or to bring harm to the government of the United States of America, and I was to kill those terrorists, would they not pin labels on my shoulder and parade me across the airwaves? So then why is it that if I perform the same act, nonviolently, but in a civil action in a court of law, why do they say I have no standing to do so, and that I cannot defend anyone else? 18. This lawsuit does not seek monetary damages nor does the plaintiff require any compensation for any service rendered in this lawsuit. A license for the
right to practice law is an agreement to share the loot, e.g., “Collective Security for Surety.” For what will they tax me if I loot no man? So then why do I need a license to defend? This lawsuit simply seeks a CEASE AND DESIST ORDER against thievery and dispossession, and to seek the protection of our national security, and to protect the integrity of the overall U.S. economy. The defendants should be my co-plaintiffs. 19. It is for the benefit of all the people that I, as a sovereign citizen, wage this civil war against the foreign investment firms destroying our economy and threatening our national security from within. 20. For two years now, I have been trying to bring what I know to the attention of the appropriate authorizes, but the authorities have been derelict in their duty to the people; therefore, under the U.S. Constitution, if the government ceases to function effectively on behalf of the citizens, then I as a sovereign citizen have a patriotic duty to my country to wage war against any enemy of the people, whether that enemy be foreign or domestic. 21. You may consider this civil action an act of war on behalf of me and of all the people. Because the government won‟t go after the financial terrorists who are terrorizing the people and destroying our country from within, then I must sue the government to force them into action. Therefore, this action against the government is not an act of malfeasance, but rather a war of attrition (what I call my Jericho Wall Strategy). If the royals won‟t come down from off the
mountain, then I as a sovereign have no problem going up there to fetch them down. 22. We are a nation of laws. Any action to dismiss this complaint on the grounds of any Local Rule is an abridgement of my sovereign rights to liberty. Any enforcement of any Local Rule 83.5.3 (c) in this instant case is a violation of the 14th Amendment which states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States of America.” The federal government is NOT excluded, or immune from this provision of the Constitution. Just thought that I would save myself the two trips to the Appellate Courts. COMPLAINT 23. Between the year 2006, to the present year 2009, more than three million American families throughout all 50 states in the Union, have lost their homes through a foreclosure epidemic caused my mortgage and securities fraud perpetrated by foreign and domestic investments firms on Wall Street. 24. The above named defendants have all admitted that because of mortgage fraud perpetrated by investment bankers on Wall Street and the home mortgage industry, they are expecting many more (at least another seven million or so) American Family homes to be lost to foreclosure. 25. However, despite this foreknowledge, the defendants as protectors of their people, have failed to take the appropriate action in stopping this unlawful
dispossession and robbery of the people, but has instead engaged in acts which not only aid and abet the perpetrators, but which violate the 14th Amendment to the Constitutional of the United States of America and the federal and states‟ Predatory Lending Acts as mentioned in paragraph one of this complaint. 26. Under the terms of each individual mortgage contract originated in all 50 states in the United States of America within the last 5 years, the drafter of the contract (the mortgage lender) has inserted a provision which states words to this effect: „In the case of default on the mortgage terms, if the citizen does not cure the default within the prescribed time, the lender may use the applicable law to foreclose on the consumer‟s property and sell it, without further notice to consumer.‟ 27. Under this clause in the mortgage contract, American mortgage note holders, doing the tasks of their foreign bosses on Wall Street, are permitted by state law to walk into an American Court of Law (such as the housing court), and file an ex parte complaint to obtain, without any objection and/or knowing and intelligent assent thereof, “legal rights” to enter into, and to take possession of property, and to evict that America citizen out into the street like a dog, and to sell his/her property without first granting that citizen his/her constitutional rights to due process; these due process rights being the rights to contest the validity and/or fairness of the dispossession.
28. Under the terms of the mortgage contract, the consumer has no legal rights to contest the foreclosure of his/her property in the very same proceeding as the lender is allowed to go and argue for the rights to dispossess. 29. This complaint states, not alleges, that all four million-plus foreclosure orders which have been issued in any ex parte hearing in any American court of law throughout any of the 50 states within the past five years, are all unlawful and violate the due process rights of the citizens who are directly affected by said foreclosures. 30. Under federal consumer protection ordinance, each individual state must enact anti-predatory lending laws which must exceed or conform to the federal Home Ownership & Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) unless that state chooses to adopt the federal standards. 31. The federal Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act was enacted to fight predatory lending and equity stealing by unscrupulous lenders. One of the issues that the HOEPA dealt with was the slick way in which lenders were able to use the system to legally cheat unsuspecting homeowners out of their homes. 32. Under Regulation Z of HOEPA and each individual state‟s anti-predatory lending laws, one of the practices that falls within the definition of predatory lending happens when a lender hides words in the fine print that make it illegal for the homeowner to take legal action against the lender. The borrowers sign away their rights to sue the lender for any fraud, predatory
actions or illegal actions. The only right the borrowers have is to take their grievances to arbitration. The arbitration process is totally in the hands of the lenders, usually conducted in secret without the borrowers having adequate representation. Although the borrowers can usually have legal counsel, they find it difficult to find anyone who will represent them because the lawyers are not guaranteed payment of their fees in arbitration like they are in court. Many arbitration cases are handled over the phone and when a small individual is pitted against a large corporation and the proceedings are confidential with no stenographic or written record of the facts, the borrower is at a true disadvantage. Most arbitration decisions are binding and the borrowers cannot appeal them. 33. Each individual state‟s predatory lending law which is modeled after the federal HOEPA, specifically using the language of the Massachusetts General Laws 183C §13, states, “Without regard to whether a borrower is acting individually or on behalf of others similarly situated, any provision of a high cost home mortgage loan that allows a party to require a borrower to assert any claim or defense in a forum that is less convenient, more costly, or more dilatory for the resolution of a dispute than a judicial forum established in the commonwealth where the borrower may otherwise properly bring a claim or defense or limits in any way any claim or defense the borrower may have is unconscionable and void.”
34. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” 35. However, despite this forbiddance by the United States Constitution and the federal and state predatory lending laws, lenders are still permitted to deprive the people of their pursuit of liberty and property. Let‟s analyze the situation: The law already recognized that arbitration strips consumers of their rights, in fact this is how the law puts it: (a) “The arbitration process is totally in the hands of the lenders, (b) usually conducted in secret without the borrowers having adequate representation. (c) Proceedings are confidential. (d) Most arbitration decisions are binding and the borrowers cannot appeal them. 36. Now, with those recognitions by the government in mind, how is a foreign note holder allowed to walk into an American court of law, by themselves, without any notice to the citizen, and seek an American court order from an American judge empowered by an American state governor, for the dispossession of a citizen? 37. Am I the only one who sees that the lenders got slicker and bolder? Instead of forcing the citizen into arbitration to contest the foreclosure, the lender eliminated the whole process altogether. Instead of granting the citizen the right to dispute the validity of the foreclosure, the lender just goes straight to a
court of law, and demands that the American judge give them the legal rights to dispossess the people, without the people being able to tell their side of the story. The only time the citizen knows that they are being deprived of their property and their rights to due process, is when they receive their copy of that American court order granting legal rights to dispossession. By then it is already too late; the one-sided legal order has already been issued, the matter has already been recorded in the County‟s Registry of Deeds, and the notice of sale has already been placed in the local newspaper. The only thing that‟s left is for prospective buyers to come and begin the Great Humiliation. What a calamity! There is no appellate process, except that the citizen now has to hire an attorney and file a separate suit which in the end would be even more costly than arbitration. 38. What attorney will take a case where the foreclose order has already been issued? And on what grounds would he sue? Wasn‟t the Dispossession Order issued by a court of law established in the commonwealth or state, by that state‟s government? Had I not been too ignorant to accept defeat, I too would have been amongst the victims of this Great Disrespect. 39. But to add insult to injury, the foreclosure ORDERS that are signed by the Chief Justice of the housing court states, “If you are entitled to the benefits of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act as amended and you object to such foreclosure you or your attorney should file a written appearance and answer
in said court …or you may be forever barred from claiming that said foreclosure is invalid under said act.” (See Exhibit A.) 40. So right there, in plain English, if the homeowner is not a member of the military on active duty, then that homeowner is not entitled to contest the validity of the foreclosure. This is a blatant violation of the „equal protection‟ clause of the 14th Amendment.
41. There are parallels between what the lenders did before the predatory lending acts were enacted, and what they are doing after those laws were enacted, and they got even bolder. They eliminated the citizen‟s rights to contest the foreclosure altogether and just walk into court boldly, without notice, and demand legal rights to deprive a citizen of their most sacred rights to property without due process. 42. The people aren‟t even allowed to assert any defense because according to the ORDER written by the court and signed by the American judge, they have no such rights unless they are entitled to the Servicemenbers Civil Relief Act. 43. The rights to foreclose order granted by the court which allow only military servicemen the right to contest the validity of a foreclosure is a blatant violation of the „equal protection‟ clause of the 14th Amendment. 44. Should I keep back my opinion at such a time, through fear of giving offense or on the penalties of death? No; I should consider myself guilty of treason towards the people, and an act of disloyalty to the Majesty of Heaven who I revere above all earthy kings. 45. Didn‟t most of the defendants oppose the war for which the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act was amended? What is the difference between the soldier fighting in a war far away from the home front, the policeman fighting crime in our streets, the carpenter beautifying his neighborhood, or the garbage collector keeping our cities sanitary? Aren‟t we all serving the United States of America? Am I the only who saw the trick? While our attention was focused on the warfront over there, they snuck their Trojan horse in through the back door over here. Isn‟t that the true concept of open warfare? You distract the
enemy by keeping him focused on other things while you sneak in the back door and destroy the civilians within. It‟s not about the soldiers; war has never been, nor will it ever be about fighting the soldiers. A soldier will pick up arms in a heartbeat to defend the family, but kill the family and the soldier will lay down his arms. I mean, what more does he have to fight for? Ever since 9/11, the goal has been to destroy the American family. Which country can bring America to its knees militarily? But you destroy the family base, and America would crumble like a deck of cards. We got drawn into a false war which no one can ever win. But the real war was never about bombs and bullets; it was always about destroying the family and enslaving them through economics. Dead people can‟t spend money. The World Trade Center? Two times? It is all about trade. While we‟re on fool‟s errands overseas, the family is being destroyed at home. These subprime loans are the ultimate Trojan Horse. The war was all one big distraction; all part of the big scheme. Even the bailouts were planned. 46. Which American note holder got to keep the billions of bailout money they got? Let‟s tell the people the truth as to who really got the money. The American banks were not losing money because they were not funding the loans. The foreign investment firms were funding the loans; the American banks would originate the loans then transfer the title over to the foreign investor. Therefore, it is the foreign investor who suffers the loss, and so when they give bailouts the American banks hand the taxpayers‟ money right over to their
foreign bosses, and in return for treason, these CEOs are awarded their thirty pieces of silver which they like to call bonuses. If these banks are losing so many billions of dollars, how is it that they are still able to pay out such huge bonuses? It is because they are not suffering any losses; the mortgages are secured and bonded and it was not their investment to begin with. 47. If you cannot test an enemy militarily, you use greed to bring them down economically. Whose money has funded these subprime loans, and who holds the deeds to our properties? Whose money has financed America‟s woes? It is not ours; the war made us broke, remember? 48. That tactic reminds me of the Civil War; while the rebels went away to fight, they left their families behind unprotected. Didn‟t Savannah and all of Georgia burn as a result? And now, while they are distracted „over there,‟ the real terrorists are in our backyard stealing our property. What can be more terrifying than losing one‟s family home? They did not even have to fire a single shot or release a suitcase bomb. All they did was to march onto Wall Street, pin blinders on the mules and hold out a carrot on a stick. Those greedy CEOs followed that carrot to the precipice of, not theirs, but our own doom, then threw us over. 49. How much longer must the people lay down in the mud so others can safely cross over? How much longer must the people trod on the winepress of Capitalism? They're going to rebel! A great man once lamented, “Those who don‟t learn from history are bound to repeat it!” 50. And this brings to mind a previous case I filed on this very same matter in Paul L. Muckle, et. al., verses Fremont Investment & Loans, et. al. Civil action number 07-11437. In that case, I filed a motion for injunctive relief asking the court to issue a preliminary injunction
blocking all foreclosures in the country. The Court denied my motion. In his Memorandum and Order, the court ruled, “Moreover, the Court cannot enter an injunction without first providing the defendants an opportunity to respond because Muckle has not certified his efforts to give notice to the defendants of his emergency relief or explain why such notice should not be required.” To justify his ruling, the Court, appropriately following court‟s protocol, relied on the federal Rules of Civil Procedure 65 (a) (1), (b) On Friday, April 10, 2009, I again went into the federal court to apprise the court of some very damaging evidence of financial terrorism against our country, and the court told me that by law he is not permitted to even look at the evidence without first giving the defense the liberty of a response. And he was right; that is the law. The Honorable One was following the Constitution that tells us no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Then he honorably granted them their „equal protection‟ rights. However, in state court, the representatives of Capitalism (the representatives of those foreign investment firms on Wall Street) get the liberty of the right to due process, but the American people just get dumped on. What a tragedy! But I mean no disrespect. 51. Am I the only one who sees the gross disrespect and the dump on the Constitutional rights of the American people? This is a people robbed and plundered! What were these housing court judges thinking of by granting ex parte hearings for dispossession without granting citizens their due process rights to a respond? Didn‟t the lender have to file a complaint for foreclosure? The fact that I was allowed to discover the matter before the next 6 million orders go out is sweet to the mouth, but the enormity of the situation, the fact that three to four million hardworking Americans have already lost their home due to this gross
violation of the U.S Constitution is bitter to the stomach. The people are in immense danger! Over 10 million foreclosure notices expected; more than four million have already gone out, and no one so much as even bat an eye to the fact that all those foreclosure ORDERS violated the people‟s 14th Amendment rights. No one paid any attention. Wall Street was not the only one drinking the punch of “reckless exuberance.” 52. And to add insult to injury, the predatory lending laws in each respective state, state “Any provision of a high cost home mortgage loan that allows a party to require a borrower to assert any claim or defense in a forum that is less convenient, more costly, or more dilatory for the resolution of a dispute than a judicial forum established in the commonwealth where the borrower may otherwise properly bring a claim or defense or limits in any way any claim or defense the borrower may have is unconscionable and void.” 53. According to the state and federal predatory lending act, all 4 million or so COURT issued foreclosure orders that have been signed throughout the entire United States of America, are “unconscionable and void” because it does not even allow the homeowner the right to contest the foreclosure. So why are lenders still allowed to enforce them and why are American sheriffs pulling up to the homes of Americans residents with “unconscionable” and “void” eviction orders, forcing American residents out into the streets, packing up their belongings and, either placing them on the sidewalk, or putting them in storage that had already been “reserved”. 54. I have never been to law school, and I have no training in law, so maybe I‟m misinterpreting the laws. Is this gross abuse and great disrespect a figment of my imagination?
55. Because all 4 million plus court issued foreclosure ORDERS that were issued in the last years are unconscionable and void, it means that every American family who has lost their home to foreclosure on those ORDERS have been illegally deprived of their property and denied their due process rights under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. 56. It is not so much that the enforcement of the rights to foreclosure violates the people‟s rights, but rather that the lender has to seek a legal ORDER in an American Court of Law before he can enforce those rights to foreclose, that is where the Constitutional violation comes in, because American lawmakers have made, and the American courts of law are enforcing laws, abridging the due process rights of the people to challenge the validity of the foreign entities assertion of said legal rights to deprive of property, without due process. How can anyone presiding in a court of law not recognize the violations here? I mean, am I misinterpreting the laws, or am I just too dumb to realize that no one cares about what I think? 57. But it does not even end on this issue; it gets worse. Have any of the defendants asked themselves why is it that a subprime loan has an interest rate that increases 6 percent from the starting rate? If anyone in the government knew the reason but kept silent, then that‟s treason. 58. Under the federal Regulation Z and the states‟ predatory lending laws, a “high cost home mortgage loan” is defined as a home loan where the origination fees paid to third parties exceed a certain threshold set by law. Under Regulation Z, it was eight percent (later changed to five percent). Under the federal Consumer Protection Act, all states must have predatory lending laws that
conform to the federal standards; no state is allowed to set a higher threshold than the federal‟s, however, some are exempted, and allowed to supersede the federal law and set a lower threshold. Of the fifty states, only five sought exemption to depart from the weaker federal law and enacted tougher laws to protect their citizens. Massachusetts, which has the toughest predatory law in the land, is one of five states exempted and was allowed to supersede the federal law and set its threshold lower to five percent, making it harder for lenders to rob consumers. Furthermore, where federal law only covered refinanced loans, Massachusetts law covered any home loans. Massachusetts really cared about its citizens when it enacted those tough laws in 2004. 59. Massachusetts then turned around and dropped the ball in 2005, and failed to pick it back up in 2006. Should I keep silent for fear of giving offense? The truth is an offense, but I commit no sin against my brother. In fact, I am my two brother‟s keeper. You know the saying, “If one of us crashes the bus, they will accuse all of us of not knowing how to drive.” No one paid any attention when I whispered in private so do not be mad at me for calling you out in public. 60. Under federal and state predatory lending laws, a high cost home mortgage loan is normally an unlawful loan. However, it can be a lawful loan if the lender meets certain requirements. If the origination fees of the loan exceed the threshold set by law, the lender is required to send the consumer to counseling so that the consumer may fully understand the terms of the high
cost loan. All subprime loans in the nation where the interest rate is to be adjusted more than 5 percent constitute an unlawful high cost home mortgage loan. In this type of situation, by decree of federal and state lending laws, the lender must then send the consumer to counseling and get a letter of certification from the non-profit counselor stating that at the time of the closing of the loan, the consumer “fully understands the features of the mortgage loan.” Under that same law, if the lender cannot produce said certificate certifying that the consumer fully understands the terms of the high cost mortgage contract, then the terms of the contract are unenforceable. They are null and void. This means, under the TILA, if the lender cannot produce said certificate, then the lender cannot foreclose, nor can he collect any mortgage payment under those same terms. 61. But how can a citizen know if the origination fees have exceeded the 5% threshold, because the lender will undoubtedly hide the fact? Well, the answer is simple; it is in your very face: if any resident has an adjustable rate mortgage loan with a teaser rate, and the interest is to be adjusted at least 5% from the starting rate, then the loan is an unlawful high cost home mortgage loan. All subprime loans have an adjustable rate interest that will adjust to 6%. That 6% is added to the loan at origination and is to be adjusted by 3% in two years and 1.5% every six months thereafter. That 6% represents an additional 6% in fees which the thieves have stolen from the equity of the peoples‟ property than added on to the loan without the knowledge of the
borrower. That 6% represents hidden fees above and beyond the 4% or so that the borrower may be aware of, therefore most borrowers are charged at least 10% in origination fees, which is twice the amount allowed by law. 62. But how have the lenders done this and how have they been able to pull the wool over our eyes? It‟s simple. They stole it and hid their crime in plain sight. It all begins with the appraisal. For instant, on my adjustable rate mortgage loan, I borrowed $263,920; my starting interest rate is 8.690 % to be adjusted 6% more, for an interest rate cap of 14.690%. Somehow I knew that that 6% represented fraud, but I could not prove it until I demanded copies of my loan origination documents and got the proof. In those documents, I discovered a fact that made my stomach churn: The lenders were taking out secret loans, up to more than 6% of the loan amount from the equity in people‟s property. They did it to everybody. 63. This is how it was done: After the loan is originated, the lender has to transfer the loan to their bosses (the foreign investment firms on Wall Street). But before the loan is to be traded on the world market, it has to be securitized and bonded which means it has to have private mortgage insurance, bonded under a financial guaranty insurance policy, Bankruptcy Bond, letter of credit, and monitoring. Now it takes up to 6% of the loan amount to do all this, but neither Wall Street nor the lender wants to foot the bill for this, so they charge it to the borrower‟s account. Now, the premium for private mortgage insurance is so high that if you added the premium to the other legally charged fees, it
would carry the fees over the 5% threshold. In this situation, the lender would not be able to sell the loan because it would be unlawful, so they came up with an “in-your-face‟ solution; they decided to steal the money and hide the fee. 64. After the lender got the appraisal report on the property, they would send the appraisal to “Review.” Now, the word “Review” would seem normal in real estate transactions because the lender has to make sure that the appraisal value was supported. But this was not the case in these subprime loans because it was not normal business practice to give an adjustable rate loan to anyone making under $10,000 a month after taxes. I typed “Review Appraisal” on the Internet and up popped a comment in which a former real estate mortgage broker stated, “Lenders had forced brokers to pressure appraisers into reviewing appraisals to increase the value even if it was done fraudulently. If they did not cooperate, then they would not get any business.” So I set out to prove this, and I did. I found the proof in the lender‟s underwriting policy.
For SG Mortgage Assets Back Securities. Series 2006 Fre-2 and 2006-OPT-2 Underwriting Policies The level of review by the Affiliated Seller, if any, will vary depending on several factors. The depositor or the Affiliated Seller will typically arrange for a review of a sample of the mortgage loans for conformity with the applicable underwriting standards and to assess the likelihood of repayment of the mortgage loan from the various sources for such repayment, including the mortgagor, the mortgaged property, and primary mortgage insurance, if any. Such underwriting reviews will generally not be conducted with respect to any individual mortgage pool related to a series of securities. Such review, with respect to seasoned mortgage loans or mortgage loans that have been outstanding for more than 12 months, may also take into consideration the mortgagor‟s actual payment history in assessing a mortgagor‟s current ability to make payments on the mortgage loan. In addition, procedures may be conducted to assess the current value of the mortgaged properties. Those procedures may consist of drive-by appraisals, automated valuations and/or real estate broker’s price opinions. The depositor or the Affiliated Seller may also consider a specific area’s housing value trends. These alternative valuation methods may not be as reliable as the type of mortgagor financial information or appraisals that are typically obtained at origination.
In certain instances, the LTV ratio or CLTV ratio may have been based on the appraised value as indicated on a review appraisal conducted by the mortgage collateral seller or originator.
65. The appraisal value of my property was only the total loan amount of $329,900. I have an 80/20 subprime loan. Twenty percent, or $65,980, went to the piggy-back loan which means the lender can only consider the 80% or $263,920 value to which this loan corresponds. The lender could not steal anything out of the property, so what they did was send the appraisal to review. The reviewer would inflate the appraisal value based on a real estate broker‟s price opinions, and up to 6% above and beyond the loan amount would be added. The lender would then steal that phantom 6% equity from the property and turn it into cash. This cash is then used to securitized the loan and pay for private mortgage insurance. This very same 6% theft is then credited to the consumer‟s account. The only thing is that the consumer does not have to pay it right away since it would raise too many eyebrows, so the robbery is delayed for two years. 66. That is why we have adjustable rate mortgages that adjust 6% above the starting interest rate. I will prove it. Exhibit B, “Lender‟s closing contingencies,” is a page of my loan documents. On line number 5, it clearly states, “MAX SLR CREDIT 6%.” Line number 8 at the very bottom of the document, it again states, “Seller credit not to exceed 6% or closing cost.” Now, to anyone, “Seller” would seem to refer to the seller of the home giving the buyer up to 6% to help pay for closing costs, but what seller would give up 6% of his money to a buyer? Furthermore, we already know that the closing
cost cannot exceed 5%, so the 6% to which the interest rate would be adjusted should have been the dead giveaway to the regulators had they been doing their job. The “Seller” referred to here is not the seller of the property, but the “Seller” on Wall Street; the one who funds the loans and who is responsible for securitizing them for sale on the world‟s market. The investment firm is the “Seller.”
67. So there we have in plain English, the originator granting the 6% credit to the Seller on Wall Street, for the “Seller” to use to securitize the loan. There is more proof on the next document. 68. On line 5 at the very bottom of the next document, the “MAX SLR CREDIT 6%” is again mentioned as a closing condition. 69. At the very top, line 1, it tells of the appraisal being sent to review and states, “GAP Review Appraisal, Approved by lender, To support a value of $329,920.” Now a question that can be raised here is, if the appraisal is already picked and approved by the lender, why does it need to be “reviewed” again? 70. Line 10 of this document states, “n/a SEE ATTACHED APPRAISAL CONDITIONS.” Now I am no rocket scientist, but if I see this phrase in a document and the actual document it refers to is also attached, I would interpret that to mean that it is not the document itself that is “n/a” (not applicable), because it is attached. Rather it is „the conditions‟ that are stated on the document that are not applicable. To me, this is clearly stating that the $329,900 is not applicable; they had to increase the value. This looks like mortgage fraud. (See Exhibit C.)
71. Now to prove that the appraisal was inflated and that the “n/a” referred to on line 10 of the preceding document was meant to throw us off, I introduce the actual document that line 10 refers to. It states, “NO CONDITIONS OF REVIEW APPRAISAL.” Now the fact that I was charged $300 for the original appraisal and another $300 for the “review” appraisal would suggest some type of impropriety. Furthermore, why is the lender charging me an additional $300 for its own “review”? (See Exhibit D.)
72. I paid an additional $300 for that? But to sink the nail in the coffin of the issue that all lenders were inflating the appraisal value of properties in America so that they could fraudulently drive up the market, I will introduce documents from different lenders to different consumers. On Exhibit E, Robin Reed is charged $450 for appraisal fees (at the very top of this document at the second line). But the seventh line of this same document shows that Robin is again charged $175 for an “APPRAISAL REVIEW FEE.” So, like me, Robin Reed, who had a totally different lender and broker than I, is charged two appraisal fees. One is for “review.”
73. So now that we see different lenders with different brokers sending appraisals to “review” and charging borrowers twice, that should raise a lot of suspicion as to the integrity of the value of the property 74. Now I introduce a page from an appraisal from a totally different lender and broker. Here, Robert Brown had an appraisal done. According to this document, Robert Brown‟s house has three extra bedrooms and other rooms, but I‟ve been to see Mr. Brown‟s house; it is not outlined as the appraisal states. The appraisal also has three extra bedrooms in the back that did not exist; they were porches, and one of the apartments is drawn wrong to include an extra bedroom room that does not exist at all. (See Exhibit F.)
75. This evidence shows that different lenders were sending appraisals to “review” and charging the homeowner extra. Now I will show you how they did this and applied the fees. The evidence is on Exhibit G. 76. On Exhibit G, I discovered that the lender had secretly taken out a “New Loan” on my property without my mom, Irene Wood, or my consent or knowledge. The title of this document is “NEW LOAN DISBURSEMENT.” On this New Loan Disbursement sheet, it tells a horrible tale of mortgage fraud that will send shockwaves throughout the industry and will be felt all the way in London, because it affects their economy too. These worthless mortgages are attached to an index based on the London Libor; they were gambling with the U.S. and British economy to destroy them both. 77. On this document, at the very top, it clearly states that the loan amount is $263,920. However, if you look at the very bottom at the right side it states that the “TOTAL CREDIT” given to us is $279,134.10. 78. First of all, I paid all the closing cost out of my pocket in cash. It cost me $12,092.91 which I paid before the loan was even closed. 79. So now let‟s break down this $279,134.10 credit that was given us, even though we borrowed only $263,920. To get the accurate percentage you will need a mortgage calculator, but if you do not have one, then all you have to do is round off the percentage to the highest whole number; that‟s how it‟s done. Starting at the top of the New Loan Disbursement sheet, the FASB ORIG
LOAN FEES are $6,279.56. Adding the $55.50 for title insurance and other fees brings the total to $6,335.08. 80. Further down is “FASB COSTS.” FASB COST is the cost of securitizing the loan. When the investor on Wall Street purchases a loan from a lender, the investor must report the amount of money he paid for the loan and the amount of money it took to securitize the loan for sale on Wall Street. The FASB COST for securitization is $11,609.80. 81. “PREPAID INTEREST” is recorded as $1,696.41, and across from that that it says “INTEREST DUE BROKER PREMIUM PAID $3,958.” But the problem here is that I had already paid the broker $6,240 in upfront cash, so this additional $3,958.80 is an illegal kickback under the federal RESPA. This payment to the broker, which represents 1.5% of the loan amount, had already been added onto the interest rate of the loan. The original interest rate was 7.19%, but the broker‟s illegal kickback of $3,958.80 or 1.5% was added to give me a starting interest rate of 8.690%. This is what they did to everyone; they charged everyone a yield spread premium or YSP (illegal kickback) and pay it to the broker for the referral, then that 1.5% is added on to the starting interest rate of the loan. 82. The investor puts up the money and the lender hires the local mortgage brokers and offers them 1.5% of the loan to refer the borrower and to gather the necessary information. The lender, who is the master broker, then pays the local broker his cut of 1.5% ($3,958.80) and adds it to the interest rate of the
loan. So the original interest was 7.19%, then they add 1.5% and now I have a starting interest rate of 8.60%. (Remember I had already paid the broker over $6,200 in out of pocket cash). The master broker, who is the lender, then commits the mortgage fraud and transfers this fraud to the investor on Wall Street. In return for originating the loan, the investor then pays the lenders‟ loan officers their share of the illegal kickback, in my case $9,939.38, and the bank itself gets a cut from the interest of the loan after the investor securitizes them and sells them on the market. (These lenders are lying about losses and receiving bailouts, when they did not even use their own money to fund the loans. It is the investors who are suffering the losses, so when the banks apply for the bailout, they have to hand it over to the investors. That was a part of the deal. It was well planned. ) 83. I thought I should get that issue out of the way, so now, let‟s turn back to the issue at hand and start putting these figures together. On Exhibit G, in SECTION B at the left hand side, it tells us how much it cost the seller on Wall Street to acquire the loan from the lender; the amount is $9,939.38. This money is supposed to be the FNMA or Fannie May fee, cost for originating the loan, but this is a double charge so it cannot be counted as a FNMA fee, but how did they arrive at this figure if at the top it only says $6,279.58 plus $55.50, for a total of $6,335.08? I suspected that they had hidden these fees so I went searching and found that the local broker‟s illegal kickback of $3,958.80 is not even included; it would carry the amount over the $9,939.38, so that‟s
when I began to explore further. I added the $6,279.58 plus the $55.50 to the prepaid interest of $1,696.41 for a grand total of only $8,031.49. This did not justify the fee so I then subtracted the actual loan amount of $263,920 from the wired amount of $265,827.89, and I had a balance of $1,907.89. I took this balance of $1,907.89 and added it to the grand total of $8,031.49 and I got a grand total of $9,939.39. That is how they hide the fees; they stick them in unusual places. 84. So there we have so far, the stealing of $9,939.36, but further down they add the AQUISION COST of $9,939.38 to the FASB 91 Costs of $11,609.80 for a grand total of $21,549.18. Then at the bottom on the left it says TOTAL CREDIT = $279,134.10. But here is where they pulled the wool over the government‟s eyes because they have to file these figures with the government. If you add the $21,549.18 to the loan amount of $263,920, you will get a total $285,469.18; therefore, that is not how they did it. 85. The right side of this document states that the total amount wired to the closing attorney was $265,827.89. Add that amount to the securitization cost (FASB 91 COST of $11,609.80), and you get the total of $277,437.69, but the total credit is $279,134.10; therefore, there is some money unaccounted for. It took me a while but I finally found it hidden on another form, even though the lender had already charged me prepaid interest of $1,696.41 and added it to the acquisition cost, they still went and charged me the very same prepaid interest a second time. If you add that $277,437.10 on Section B, to another
prepaid interest amount of $1,696.41, you will get the total credit of $279,134.10. They had double charged me for everything. 86. So now we see how they came up with the total credit of $279,134.10, let‟s figure out how this factored into the 6% that would be attached to the interest rate of the loan to make it an Adjustable Rate Mortgage loan. If you take that $279,134.10 credit and subtract the actual loan amount of $263,920 from it, you will have a total of $15,214.10. 87. Now this is how you get the percentage of the loan amount: Using a mortgage calculator, divide $15,214.10 by the loan amount. $15,214.10 divided by $263,920, is 0.06. If you use a regular calculator, you will get 5.79%, but a mortgage calculator would round that off to the nearest whole number of 6%. 88. That 6% which the lender steals from the equity of the people‟s property by fraudulently inflating the appraisal, is used to securitize the loan for the benefit of the foreign investor. Then to add “in your face insult” to injury, they add that very same stolen equity as a 6% interest to the loan, and we have ourselves a beautiful cuddly mortgage loan I like to call Gizmo; some called it “The American Dream.” But Gizmo has to be fed. Little did we know that in two years our cute little Gizmos would spawn other tiny creatures which would turn our American Dreams into Nightmare Mortgages. 89. Americans were forced into financing our own downfall while at the same time protecting the foreign investors from loss. This is what‟s been going on in our country! (See Exhibit G.)
90. “We did not take out any new loan so why is there a “New Loan Disbursement”? The master broker (the lenders) illegal kickback of $9,939.38 plus the local broker illegal kickback of $3,958.80 is not even added in the $15,214.10 overage. If you add those figures you would get an additional $13,898.18, then add that figure to the 6% of $15,214.10 you will get a grand total of $29,112.28, the percentage of that figure compare to the loan amount of $263,920 is 11%, add that 11% to the 4% plus I was charged in upfront cash, and I was charged over 15% in origination fees. Three times above the legal permissible threshold, 6% of which was credited to the Seller then added to the loan. My property was negative $29,112.28 before I even moved in. This is what‟s happening in our country, and no one was paying any attention. I wonder who was drinking more of the rum punch, Wall Street or the regulators? 91. On the next document (Exhibit H) from Robin Reed, the closing attorney was instructed: “WE ARE TO BE AT NO EXPENSE IN THIS TRANSACTION” (See Exhibit H at the bottom of the document just above where it states, “Title Insurance Requirement.”) 92. They did not even want to pay to bond and securitize their own loans. Last time I checked with Robin she was having problems with her loan.
93. I have the files of some of the investment firms and I will discuss two. On one portfolio, the SG Mortgage 2006 Fre-2 Series, of which my own loan is a part, has 8,112 family homes, while the OPT-2 Series has 3,486 homes. The “appraisal type” of 95% of those loans is 2. That 2 stands for “Review.” They had to do this in order to keep track of which loan had an inflated appraisal. By trying to keep track, they gave themselves away. The two list total over 500 pages of account numbers and addresses spread across the country, as tempting as it is, I won‟t attach them, but I have attached two pages for demonstration and will present the rest at the hearing. A family home in every state of the Union is included in the lists.
loan_id MI Flag Index type Subsequent Adj Period Appraisal Type Actual Balance Next Due Date ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1000002145 426,421.67 1000002153 350,664.66 1000002154 205,081.61 1000002160 139,312.07 1000002167 1000314621 191,887.22 1000314622 93,444.41 1000314642 467,652.25 1000314650 258,573.32 1000314655 256,703.70 1000314659 302,835.10 1000314664 692,000.00 1000314667 415,322.72 1000314671 595,172.81
No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 8/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 8/1/2006 No MI Product No MI Product 8/1/2006 No MI Product 9/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006
6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor
6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 mo Libor
6 mo Libor
1000314674 305,765.50 1000314678 341,880.31 1000314690 1000314697 359,200.00 1000314708 279,692.33 1000314711 299,783.27 1000314714 208,852.79 1000314715 314,275.76 1000314721 90,670.61 1000314739 71,927.38 1000314743 254,400.00 1000314744 28,262.12 1000314749 141,696.35 1000314766 310,226.66 1000314769 88,956.50 1000314772 301,491.00 1000314776 64,739.92 1000314785 179,767.29 1000314809 242,879.23 1000314830 96,927.82 1000314839 258,000.00 1000314851 167,876.91 1000314854 167,890.10 1000314861 199,690.10 1000314863 185,110.62 1000314868 215,665.43 1000314870 77,532.60 1000314871 1000314882 8000087928 8000087938 109,946.46 8000087945 394,716.75 8000087949 254,233.60 8000087952 147,468.97 8000087955 157,398.53 8000087956 279,868.79 8000087962 429,378.69 8000087969 74,897.98 8000087985 168,303.38 8000088000 78,106.68
No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 8/1/2006 No MI Product 6/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 8/1/2006 No MI Product 8/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 8/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 8/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product No MI Product No MI Product No MI Product 8/1/2006 No MI Product 8/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006 No MI Product 7/1/2006
6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor
6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor
6 months 6 months
2 2 2
6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor
6 months 6 months
2 2 2
6 mo Libor
6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor
6 months 6 months
2 2 2
6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor
6 months 6 months
2 2 2 2
6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor
6 months 6 months
2 2 2
6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor 6 mo Libor
6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 months
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
94. The evidence shows that different lenders and property appraisers throughout the United States were fraudulently inflating the value of real estate; fraudulently raising the value and driving up the market, sending people scrambling to buy and refinance; weaving the people into this Great Web of Deceit, all the while stealing the nonexistent equity and holding out for future payments as compensation. 95. A question that can be asked here is, “If someone is fraudulently inflating the value of real estate, fraudulent inflating the market, and sucking out what little equity that is left in it, what would happen when it reaches a certain peak and there is really no equity in the properties to support it and allow for refinancing?” Of course, it‟s going to crash. The market will collapse because they filled it up with helium then sucked it out and replaced it with carbon monoxide. Every day the bucket goes to the well, one day the bottom will fall out. And that is what‟s happening now; the bottom has fallen out of the housing market and we now have upside down mortgages. 96. Investors had a 50-state strategy in each individual mortgage portfolio. Under normal business practices, it would be a normal thing for a mortgage portfolio to have properties in each state; however, if there is fraud on each mortgage loan, it means that all 50 states would suffer at once when they raise the interest rate. This portfolio of securities and mortgage fraud is comprised of 8,112 family homes totaling almost $2 Billion, and trillions of dollars in Securities. (See Exhibit I, 2 pages.)
Exhibit I, Page 1/2
SG Mortgage Series 2006 FRE-2 AGGREGATE MORTGAGE LOAN CHARACTERISTICS Geographic Distribution
Number of Mortgage Loans % of Principal Balance as of the Cut-off Date
Principal Balance as of the Cut-off Date
Weighted Average Mortgage Rates
Weighted Average FICO
Weighted Average Original CLTV
Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Ohio Oklahoma
3 213 4 1,444 141 148 45 52 1,518 299 90 27 460 39 3 8 4 11 547 222 143 143 49 4 114 33 479 21 592 110 90 9
522,705 42,014,353 898,906 463,193,432 20,737,389 32,445,739 7,239,430 16,131,464 287,257,635 40,535,257 31,122,341 4,563,098 76,746,757 3,363,880 201,549 739,067 332,144 2,027,625 127,356,226 52,316,066 16,834,636 22,915,250 6,809,215 312,159 28,271,566 5,483,798 122,800,314 3,498,769 181,102,284 12,545,251 11,263,931 1,201,562
0.03% 2.32 0.05 25.59 1.15 1.79 0.40 0.89 15.87 2.24 1.72 0.25 4.24 0.19 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.11 7.04 2.89 0.93 1.27 0.38 0.02 1.56 0.30 6.78 0.19 10.01 0.69 0.62 0.07
9.058% 8.588% 7.760% 8.181% 8.127% 8.760% 8.812% 8.556% 8.560% 8.574% 7.937% 8.414% 8.799% 8.885% 10.125% 8.750% 9.905% 8.671% 8.412% 8.465% 9.049% 8.467% 9.081% 9.357% 8.258% 8.707% 8.717% 8.657% 8.242% 8.775% 8.475% 8.859%
542 603 638 636 625 606 600 633 620 627 663 608 629 612 578 616 593 614 623 633 615 627 605 572 626 599 620 608 644 606 610 589
78.48% 80.06% 82.59% 81.33% 83.27% 78.80% 81.35% 80.97% 80.72% 83.96% 80.66% 81.50% 82.73% 85.45% 89.58% 86.52% 87.91% 80.68% 81.69% 81.14% 83.24% 83.49% 83.05% 88.12% 80.57% 78.52% 80.14% 83.16% 80.64% 82.28% 85.79% 82.61%
Exhibit I, Page 2/2
AGGREGATE MORTGAGE LOAN CHARACTERISTICS Geographic Distribution (continued)
Number of Mortgag e Loans % of Principal Balance as of the Cut-off Date
Geographic Distribution (cont’d)
Principal Balance a s of the Cut-off Date
Weighted Average Mortgage Rates
Weighted Average Weighted Average FICO Original CLTV
Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total/Weighted Average: 139
9,614,073 19,506,890 6,828,347 9,731,438 4,571,338 25,609,900 5,201,483 1,278,228 74,366,783 19,426,527 1,382,150 9,412,599 229,823
0.53% 1.08 0.38 0.54 0.25 1.41 0.29 0.07 4.11 1.07 0.08 0.52 0.01 100.00%
8.321% 9.131% 8.830% 8.470% 8.794% 8.545% 8.362% 8.805% 8.481% 8.307% 8.119% 8.839% 7.680% 8.432%
624 599 599 615 592 636 615 629 627 618 612 619 650 627
81.68% 80.64% 76.79% 82.15% 82.52% 82.19% 83.78% 83.60% 81.21% 82.20% 80.17% 86.21% 84.00% 81.27%
32 64 38 188 28 7 311 93 13 76 2 8,112
1,809,943,3 $ 74
97. It is indisputable that the financial crisis that the American people are suffering from is a direct result of the gross mortgage and securities fraud perpetrated by the investment firms on Wall Street against the people of the United States of America. 98. So to make the point clear: They tell homeowners not to worry about the interest rate being raised in two years because, „Oh, the market it so hot, you can refinance anytime before they raise your payment. This is a good deal man, low interest rate. Take it! Take it! You can just refinance before they raise your payment.‟ But they had already fraudulently inflated the value of millions of American homes, cashed out at the nonexistent equity and used it to protect themselves from loss. Then they had the audacity to attach the 6% to the interest rate of the loan and increase the monthly payments to compensate for the 6% theft because they are “not to be of any expense in this transaction.” The consumer cannot afford to make the increased monthly payments, so they run back to the broker for help to refinance out of that loan. 99. But those who had promised to help us get refinancing are nowhere to be found; they don‟t even return phone calls. It was a tragic day when millions of Americans learned that they really had upside down mortgages because their lenders had already cashed in their equity. 100. As if the stealing of our equity was not enough, they took it further; they did not even consider the borrower‟s ability to repay the loan when the interest rate is adjusted to the 6%. The federal Truth In Lending Laws Regulation Z
and all the states‟ predatory lending laws prohibits the use of the appraisal value of a property as the basis for repayment of the loan. Specifically, “A creditor extending mortgage credit subject to § 226.32 [high cost loans] shall not extend credit to a consumer based on the value of the consumer's collateral without regard to the consumer's repayment ability as of origination including the consumer's current and reasonably expected income, employment, assets other than the collateral, current obligations, and mortgage-related obligations.” 101. However, despite this stern forbiddance by both federal and state lending laws, investors on Wall Street were still granting homeowners loans based strictly on the inflated value of the property. Below is an excerpt from the SG Mortgage Fre-2 Series, which is identical to the language of the OPT-2 series. For the past two years, I have inspected about a hundred different portfolios with millions of American family homes, and they all have the very same underwriting policies. They had a central figure writing these portfolios. All the banks were doing the very same exact thing.
SG Mortgage series 2006 Fre-2 and series 2006 OPT-2 Underwriting Policies General Standards As described in the accompanying prospectus supplement, some mortgage loans may have been originated under “limited documentation,” “stated documentation” or “no documentation” programs that require less documentation and verification than do traditional “full documentation” programs. Under a limited documentation, stated documentation or no documentation program, minimal investigation into the mortgagor’s credit history and income profile is undertaken by the originator and the underwriting may
be based primarily or entirely on an appraisal of the mortgaged property and the LTV ratio at origination. The adequacy of a mortgaged property as security for repayment of the related mortgage loan will 54
typically have been determined by an appraisal or an automated valuation, as described above under “—Loan-toValue Ratio.”
So right there in plain sight for the entire world to see, these investors
were blatantly violating the laws and basing their decision to grant a loan entirely on the inflated value of the property. They were not concerned about the borrowers‟ income or their ability to repay, because they had the value of the property. But it does not end there. Below are more “in-your-face” violations.
Underwriting Policies General Standards -14-
. In certain instances, the LTV ratio or CLTV ratio may have been based on the appraised value as indicated on a review appraisal conducted by the mortgage collateral seller or originator. The underwriting standards applied by an originator typically require that the underwriting officers of the originator be satisfied that the value of the property being financed, as indicated by an appraisal or other acceptable valuation method as described below, currently supports and is anticipated to support in the future the outstanding loan balance. In fact, some states where the mortgaged properties may be located have “anti-deficiency” laws requiring, in general, that lenders providing credit on single family property look solely to the property for repayment in the event of foreclosure. See “Certain Legal Aspects of Mortgage Loans and Contracts.” Any of these factors could change nationwide or merely could affect a locality or region in which all or some of the mortgaged properties are located. However, declining values of real estate, as experienced periodically in certain regions, or increases in the principal balances of some mortgage loans, such as GPM Loans and negative amortization ARM loans, could cause the principal balance of some or all of these mortgage loans to exceed the value of the mortgaged properties. Based on the data provided in the application and certain verifications, if required, and the appraisal or other valuation of the mortgaged property, a determination will have been made by the original lender that the mortgagor‟s monthly income would be sufficient to enable the mortgagor to meet its monthly obligations on the mortgage loan and other expenses related to the property. Examples of other expenses include property taxes, utility costs, standard hazard and primary mortgage insurance, maintenance fees and other levies assessed by a Cooperative, if applicable, and other fixed obligations other than housing expenses including, in the case of junior mortgage loans, payments required to be made on any senior mortgage. The originator’s guidelines for mortgage loans will, in most cases, specify that scheduled payments on a mortgage loan during the first year of its term plus taxes and insurance, including primary mortgage insurance, and all scheduled payments on obligations that extend beyond one year, including those mentioned above and other fixed obligations, would equal no more than
specified percentages of the prospective mortgagor‟s gross income. The originator may also consider the amount of liquid assets available to the mortgagor after origination.
The lenders were not concerned about borrowers‟ ability to repay the
loan, but they had to make it look good just in case anyone in the government finally awoke from their sleepless slumber and started looking, so they created the borrowers‟ income. Contrary to the widely spread accusation by lenders that borrowers were falsifying their own income, I will dispel that notion right now and prove that it was the master brokers, the lenders themselves, who were doing the falsification behind the borrower‟s back. I will prove that lenders were inventing their very own perfect borrower. 104. At the time when I applied for my mortgage loan, I reported that my income was $4,000, but my credit scores were not high enough so they told me that I needed a co-signer. I asked my mom, Irene Wood, to be my co-signer. My mom was not employed; she was collecting social security benefits, but they said it was a no documentation loan so they did not need any income or anything from my mom, just her good credit; only my income would be used. 105. But after my loan went into default and I filed suit against my lender, I demanded that they turn over all the documents that were used in the origination of the loan. It was then that I was convinced that this had to be the largest financial rip-off scheme ever known to man. Every single document was a forgery.
106. It was after receiving those documents that I realized why they called subprime loans “No Documentation” Loans; the lenders were making up their own documents, including the income documents. I will prove it. 107. As stated before, my mom, Irene Wood, was my co-signer. She had no employment and she is collecting social Security benefits in the amount of around $458 per month. However, according to the “Fremont Investment & Loan Underwriting Summary” document which they sent me, my mom is employed and making $8,841, per month. It also states that my mom‟s total debt was $3,242, with a debt ratio of 32.670. The document is signed by the master brokers. (See Exhibit J.)
108. That document also clearly states that my mom‟s total debt is $3,242; however, the underwriter had my mom‟s credit report before them, and they sent it to me. At the top of this document it clearly states that the credit report was prepared for Fremont Investment & Loan. The credit report also clearly states that my mom‟s total debt was $22,175, not $3,242. (See Exhibit K.)
109. However, it does not end there. Fremont knew that my mom was unemployed and that she was collecting pension because they had her credit report right in front of them that clearly states that my mom was getting a pension and that her employment was unknown. This is page 4 of the actual credit report the underwriter used, again you will see Fremont name on there, and the checkmarks were made by them. Under where it says Employment Information it clearly states Pension SEG Social and Occupation Unknown. They sent me this credit report also, producing the proof against themselves. Playing smart but not being clever. (See Exhibit L.)
110. The underwriter had the credit report before them which shows that my mom was unemployed and collecting Social Security benefits. They also knew that her debt was $22,175, but to cover them in case someone started asking questions, they created an employment and gave her a position as office manager working at that position for 5 years. Then they made up an income verification form to show that my mom is employed. They then put that form in my mom‟s portfolio. Note that the form is not signed by any employer; therefore, it was not even verified. It was never even mailed out for the employer. (See Exhibit M.)
111. But it does not end there; they asked us to open an account and to deposit $6,000 in it as proof of two months reserve mortgage payments, then to call them with the account number so they could verify it. We opened a checking account with $7,000 then called and gave them the account number. They said they would verify the account. Exhibit N is the “Request for Verification of Deposit” that the lender attached to my mom‟s portfolio. A quarter of the way down on the left, it says that the account has a balance of $20,000. But in the middle, it says the current balance is $19,626 with an average balance of $18,500. On the same line it says that the account was opened on 4-1-05. The document was signed by a customer service representative at Citizen‟s Bank.
112. Keeping in mind that that their verification of deposit form states that the account was opened on 4-1-05 with a balance of $19,626 and that it was verified by a Susan Fernandez at Citizen Bank, Exhibit O tells a different story. Exhibit O, which is the true bank statement, clearly states that the account was opened on 5-2-06 not 4-1-05 as stated by the underwriter. This document also clearly states that on that day (5-1-06), we made a deposit of $7,000, and at the close of business the balance was $6,980. 113. Compare the two documents and you will see that the account numbers are the same. I went to Citizen Bank to investigate, and they said they never even got the document; it was a total fabrication. What they did was probably called, got the name of the customer service representative, and then signed her name to the form. (See Exhibit O.)
114. As is totally clear from those documents, it was the lenders, not the borrowers who were creating all these falsities to qualify borrowers for a loan. To cover themselves, during the closing lenders were slipping new loan applications with the fraud on it into the loan documents and tricking borrows into signing them, so if anyone asked, it would be the borrower‟s signature on the fraud and the lender would get away with fraud. 115. And it was not only us that they did this too; they did it to every single borrower who had a “No documentation” or “limited documentation” loan, and I will prove it. There are 8,112 family homes in the SG Mortgage Fr-2 series portfolio. Exhibit P clearly states that of that amount, 3,705 were “stated documentation” and 35 “limited documentation.” Both of these mean “No docs” loans. But look how many borrows on this single portfolio did not have to produce documents. Now a question to be asked is, if they did this to Muckle‟s loan, what did they do to the other 8,111 loans in this portfolio, and what did they do to the other 10 millions subprime loans? Despite the “full documentation” mentioned, all subprime loans were “no docs” loans. I have a list of over 12,000 borrowers including their account numbers and their addresses, in all 50 states, who had a “no docs” loans.
Exhibit P SG Mortgage series 2006-Fre-2
AGGREGATE MORTGAGE LOAN CHARACTERISTICS Documentation Type
Number of Mortgage Loans
Principal Balance as of the Cut-off Date
% of Principal Balance as of the Cut-off Date
Weighted Average Mortgage Rates
Weighted Average FICO
Weighted Average Original CLTV
Full Documentation Stated Documentation Limited Documentation Total/Weighted Average:
4,372 $ 3,705 35 8,112 $
905,281,033 893,588,200 11,074,140 1,809,943,374
50.02% 49.37 0.61 100.00%
8.078% 8.791% 8.460% 8.432%
619 636 605 627
82.27% 80.21% 84.51% 81.27%
116. I also have the actual loan applications of several different borrowers, originated by different lenders and all of the loan applications have the income falsified. The lenders were creating their own ideal borrowers and they were not worried about the borrower‟s ability to repay because they had already stolen the equity out to pay for private mortgage insurance to protect them against the loss which they knew was coming. They thought they had the greatest plan on earth. They might have gotten away with it, too, had they not chosen my mom as a victim. 117. On exhibit Q, like every other 10 million subprime borrowers, Robin Reed is tricked into signing a new loan application at the closing.
118. Like me, Robin was never aware that she had signed a loan application with the space for income left blank. If you notice at the bottom of the document, part lV “Employment Information,” Robin Reed has 3 years on the job. Then right under that, it again mentions her 3 years of employment. However, in the second space for employment history there is a space for the amount of monthly income. One space back up you can see where the fraud came in. Where they should have placed Robin‟s income, they filled it in with “yrs employed in this line of work/profession, then filled it in with 3. They left the amount of monthly income blank; therefore, Robin has no income. 119. If you notice this broker is Nationwide Equity, a totally different lender from mine. I had Fremont. They tricked their borrowers into signing loan applications with blank spaces so that they can go in and fix the income as needed. (See Exhibit Q.)
Exhibit R is from another borrower, Michael Lieb. Michael‟s loan
application is identical to Robin‟s. They were both tricked into signing loan applications were the space for the monthly income was filled in so that the income could not be placed there. Like Robin and me, they were not concerned with the ability to repay. 121. Michael‟s lender is also different. The broker is Mortgage Center of
America and the lender is New Century, and the investor is Deutsche Bank. So far I have shown three different lenders and three different mortgage brokers, with three different investors, all committing fraud with different borrowers. What did they do to the other 10 million borrowers? (See Exhibit R.)
122. By the time Michael found out that the attorney he had hired to represent him at the closing had been recommended to him by the broker and was in cahoots with the broker, it was too late; the sheriffs were escorting him and his belongings out into the streets. He was evicted by decree of an American judge presiding in an American Court of law set up in the Commonwealth to preside over these matters. 123. If the housing court had only given Michael his constitutional rights to due process, and had it adhered to the state‟s predatory lending laws instead of granting the vulture a one-sided hearing, maybe they would have found out that Michael‟s income had been falsified by the lender, and that his appraisal had been inflated. Then maybe an alarm bell would have gone off and 4 million families may not have lost their homes to this grossly “in-your-face” fraud. (See Exhibit S.)
124. Between December 31, 2009, and March 31, 2006, according to Fremont, they had 6,067 foreclosures and bankruptcies. I do not have the figures for between March 2006 and April 20, 2009, but it must be more than double that, as Fremont was named one of the top five subprime lenders in the country. How many more of the 114,929 loans originated by March 31 and the more than 16,000 originated by April 17, 2007, are in foreclosure or have been foreclosed on? I would bet that the numbers are more than 70, 0000.
Fremont Investment & Loan The information contained in this prospectus supplement with regard to Fremont Investment & Loan has been provided by Fremont Investment & Loan. Servicing Fremont has been servicing sub-prime mortgage loans since 1994 through its nationwide servicing operation, currently located in Ontario, California. As of March 31, 2006, Fremont was servicing 114,929 sub-prime residential mortgage loans with a total principal balance of approximately $23.178 billion. Fremont Mortgage Loan Servicing Portfolio (Combined Loans Held for Sale, Interim Serviced, Held for Investment and Securitized) Delinquencies and Foreclosures
As of March 31, 2006 Principal Balance (in thousands) Percent by Principal Balance
As of December 31, 2005 Principal Balance (in thousands) Percent by Principal Balance
Number of Loans
Number of Loans
Current Loans Period of Delinquency 30 to 59 days 60+ days Total Delinquencies Foreclosures/Forbearances Bankruptcies Total Foreclosures and Bankruptcies Real Estate Owned Total Portfolio
110,595 $22,388,444 96.59% 109,896 $ 1,165 $ 1,237 2,402 $ 1,251 $ 398 1,649 $ 251,992 143,309 395,301 279,595 64,336 344,931 1.09% 0.62% 1.71% 1.21% 0.28% 1.49% 1,407 $ 725 2,132 $ 1,310 $ 547 1,857 $
21,521,721 96.72% 268,612 85,171 353,783 264,469 83,521 347,990 1.21% 0.38 1.59% 1.18% 0.38 1.56%
283 49,660 0.21% 183 $ 114,929 $23,178,336 100.00% 114,068 $
28,841 0.13% 22,252,335 100.00%
125. Between the month of March 2008 and May 2008, SG Mortgage raised the interest rate on 5,876 family homes in the Trust Series 2006-fre-2. Fremont, and the top five predatory lenders originated all of these loans. All of these loans have 6% unlawful fees attached to them. How many have inflated income? 126. I have two documents showing the impact on family homes; one will be submitted with the compliant and one will be submitted at the hearing. On the document, the Series 2006 OPT-2, SG Mortgage also raised the interest rate on 3,189 family homes for a total of 9,065 family homes on just these two portfolios.
SG Mortgage Trust Series 2006 Fre-2 AGGREGATE MORTGAGE LOAN CHARACTERISTICS Next Rate Adjustment Date of the Adjustable-Rate Loans
Number of Mortgage Loans % of Principal Balance as of the Cut-off Date
Next Rate Adjustment Date of the Adjustable-Rate Loans
Principal Balance as of the Cut-off Date
Weighted Average Mortgage Rates
Weighted Average Weighted Average FICO Original CLTV
March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 Total/Weighted Average:
75 $ 21,875,845 1,534 425,589,205 3,537 910,553,898 730 186,096,713 16 4,537,874 37 7,129,746 8 1,936,761 9 2,082,254 8 2,077,300 2 720,750 5,956 $1,562,600,347
1.40% 27.24 58.27 11.91 0.29 0.46 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.05 100.00% A-I-19
8.230% 8.283% 8.317% 8.445% 7.890% 7.984% 7.413% 9.052% 8.308% 7.337% 8.318%
637 625 624 617 636 643 613 583 620 610 624
81.56% 80.51% 80.04% 80.07% 84.80% 78.54% 74.13% 79.15% 79.24% 76.35% 80.19%
127. If anyone is interested in knowing why the market collapsed on September 15, 2008, all they have to do is take a look at the following documents. This is the type of payments the investors were paying out on securities attached to worthless promissory notes. SG Mortgage, along with several different note holders raised the interest rates on several thousand American Family homes, knowing that borrowers could not afford to make the increased payment because they had falsified the income of their borrowers. From the evidence, we see that all the subprime loans with an adjustable rate interest are unlawful. Put those combinations together and we have a recipe for disaster.
The “Swap Notional Amount” with respect to each Distribution Date commencing in August 2006, is set forth below (which will be substantially the same schedule as set forth in the Interest Rate Swap Agreement). The Interest Rate Swap Agreement will terminate immediately following the Distribution Date in July 2011, unless terminated earlier upon the occurrence of a Swap Default, an Early Termination Event or an Additional Termination Event (each as defined below).
Swap Notional Distribution Date Amount ($)
August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008
1,776,458,000.00 1,760,006,643.84 1,750,946,077.95 1,744,913,946.73 1,718,677,124.78 1,689,604,141.72 1,657,701,561.88 1,621,248,861.42 1,582,211,157.25 1,535,804,145.69 1,486,588,080.95 1,436,965,685.50 1,388,354,070.01 1,340,369,635.29 1,293,848,910.86 1,250,108,970.24 1,203,473,143.32 1,155,211,328.98
February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011
1,086,817,200.23 1,022,652,186.11 962,459,123.44 905,973,035.45 852,933,042.75 803,203,916.10 453,917,305.59 427,629,086.18 402,949,541.45 379,753,147.03 357,889,459.48 345,522,433.47 333,593,841.50 322,082,794.74 310,974,355.83 300,254,140.30 289,908,376.41 279,924,235.92 270,288,203.53 260,987,905.07 252,026,328.29 243,434,072.86 235,135,853.39 227,121,909.53 219,382,098.54 211,907,005.75 204,687,541.28 197,714,928.56 190,980,693.70 184,476,847.50 178,195,284.59 172,128,377.42 166,268,761.48 160,609,325.89 155,143,205.04 149,863,903.32 144,764,876.49 139,839,943.98 135,083,138.04 130,488,696.32 126,050,987.49 121,759,382.31
128. But to make matters worse, over 10 million subprime garbage were attached to tradable securities tied directly to the performance of the U.S. dollar. With respect to the adjustable rate mortgage loans, the Index is the average of interbank offered rates for six-month U.S. dollar deposits in the London market based on quotations of major banks, and most recently available as of a day specified in the related note as published in the Western Edition of The Wall Street Journal (“Six-Month LIBOR”). If the Index becomes unpublished or is otherwise unavailable, the servicer will select an alternative index which is based upon comparable information. 129. There are over 10 million subprime loans with interest rates tied directly to the U.S. dollar. Now a question to be asked here is, if the lenders and investors were purposely falsifying the income of their borrowers, and if they were fraudulently inflating the value of property and cashing out the non-existent equity, what would happen when they raise the interest rate and borrowers cannot pay? There will be an avalanche of foreclosures and companies and individuals who were conned into buying up the worthless securities tied to those worthless promissory notes will take huge losses. 130. Illustration: I deposit a check for $100 in a checking account and I write someone a check for that $100. Before the person could cash the check, I went and withdrew $99. What would happen when that person tries to cash the check? The check is going to bounce. That is what happened on September 15, 2008. They raised the interest rate of several thousand family homes
throughout the U.S., knowing that the borrower could not pay, nor could they refinance out because of the negative equity. And so the payments on the tradable securities bounced and guess who had to step in to bail out the crooks? The very same people who they had defrauded. 131. It was all a great big plan to destroy the U.S. economy. These foreign investors were gambling with the U.S. economy, but they did not even give it a chance to play out, because they had made sure that the borrower could not pay, and they had made sure that they could not refinance out of the loan, and they had falsely inflated the value of the collateral. The U.S Dollar deposit in the London Libor did not stand a chance. Over 10 million fraudulent loans with an index based on the U.S. and British economy, and now we know why there‟s a global recession. They planted a Trojan Horse on the U.S. and British economy. This was not for profit; this was simply to destroy two nations economy so that others could control the world‟s market. 132. And then the bailouts. What a tragedy. That was all part of the plan. But it does not end there. Exhibit T should send chills down the spines of everyone. According to the next document, no one, not even the SEC who was supposed to be keeping watch, was paying attention nor did they approve of trillions of dollars of worthless securities attached to millions of American Family homes. The SEC did not even so much as bat an eye. And people are wondering how we got into this mess. (See last paragraph on Exhibit T.)
Prospectus Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates and Asset-Backed Notes
SG Mortgage Securities, LLC
SG Mortgage Finance Corp.
Sponsor The depositor may periodically form separate trusts to issue securities in series, secured by assets of that trust.
The securities in a series will consist of certificates or notes representing interests in a trust and will be paid only from the assets of that trust. The securities will not represent interests in or obligations of SG Mortgage Securities, LLC, SG Mortgage Finance Corp. or any of their affiliates. Each series may include multiple classes of securities with differing payment terms and priorities. Credit enhancement will be provided for all offered securities.
Mortgage Collateral Each trust will consist primarily of:
• mortgage loans, which may include home equity loans, or manufactured housing conditional sales contracts or installment loan agreements secured by first or junior liens on one- to four-family residential properties; and/or
• mortgage loans secured by first or junior liens on mixed-use properties, including cooperative loans; and/or
mortgage securities and whole or partial participations in mortgage loans.
Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities commission has approved or disapproved of these securities or determined that this prospectus is accurate or complete. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.
July 5, 2006
133. It is also indisputable that the American government, against the expressed views of the majority of the people, has knowingly and intentionally taken the money of the people of the United States of America and has used the people‟s money to pay out to the defendants, foreign and domestic, trillions of dollars in bailout so that they may not go bankrupt due to the very mortgage fraud that they themselves perpetrated against the people of the United States of America.
134. The plaintiffs allege that that is a gross violation of Section 4 of the 14 th Amendment rights of the U.S. Constitution because the plaintiffs, being taxpayers, are forced to pay for the loss of the very defendants who have knowingly and intentionally committed the very mortgage fraud from which they seek bailout. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment sates, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. However, neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void.”
135. Based on the irrefutable evidence and the fact that former President George W. Bush and current the President of the United States of America, Barak
Obama, and all the members of the United States Senate and Congress, and all the governors have all stated that the financial crisis that America is facing is a direct result of mortgage fraud committed by the defendants, then, under the 14th Amendment of the Unites States Constitution, Section 4, it is illegal for the government of the United States of America to give any bailout or monetary assistance, or to pay any debt, or to purchase any of the unlawful loans from the defendants, using taxpayers money. That is a violation of the U.S. Constitution; therefore, under the law, the court is compelled to block the defendant‟s from selling or transferring any of those fraudulent loans at the cost of the American taxpayer. The court is also compelled to block the government from violating the people‟s 14th Amendment rights by assuming or paying any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. 136. Is anyone willing to stand up and argue that this financial Armageddon we are facing is not a direct attack on the U.S. economy, perpetrated by foreign and/or domestic entities? 137. Under the U.S. Constitution, the bailouts are illegal, therefore the court is compelled to declare them void, to void the promissory notes and to confiscate the people‟s mortgages and return them to the treasury of the citizens of the United States as payment in kind for the bailout not returned, and for damages caused to the people‟s economy.
138. All 10 million subprime promissory notes are the product of fraud, because not only did lenders inflate the borrower‟s income, but they also falsified the value of the collaterals, stole the equity, charged the illegal fees to the borrowers, then forced borrowers to sign promissory notes agreeing to pay an additional 6% in interest rate without telling the consume what that 6% truly represented. Under section 3-305 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the promissory notes are null and void. Under the right to enforce the obligation of a party to pay an instrument is subject to the following: (1) a defense of the obligor based on (i) infancy of the obligor to the extent it is a defense to a simple contract, (ii) duress, lack of legal capacity, or illegality of the transaction which, under other law, nullifies the obligation of the obligor, (iii) fraud that induced the obligor to sign the instrument with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to learn of its character or its essential terms, or (iv) discharge of the obligor in insolvency proceedings; (b) The right of a holder in due course to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument is subject to defenses of the obligor stated in subsection (a)(1). 139. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the investors who were in cahoots with the lenders are not entitled to recovery; therefore, the court is compelled to confiscate all 10 million subprime adjustable mortgage loans and to transfer said loans to the care and protection of the United States Treasury. 140. If the court fails to confiscate all loans, I will share all the evidence I gave with all 10 million homeowners. I will splatter it across the Internet and give
the people instructions on how to file their own lawsuit for claim for mortgage fraud. We will cripple the entire federal court system and collapse it. It is illegal to make threats, that‟s why this is a promise. You can‟t prosecute me for making a promise I intend to keep. For two years now I have been begging the courts and the government to intervene on behalf of the people, I will not beg for relief anymore. The people are demanding it! 141. In the previous lawsuit in which the federal court denied my motion to sue all of the lenders and firms on Wall Street, the Court depended on Pagán to justify his ruling. The plaintiff states that the court‟s finding based on Pagán is in contravention of the issues in this instant case. Pagán involved a third party lawsuit, in which the plaintiff was not directly affected; “the complaint contains no allegation that Pagán suffered any nonderivative injury, he lacks standing to assert any of the section 1983 claims that are at issue here.” 142. A federal court must satisfy itself as to its jurisdiction, including a plaintiff's Article III standing to sue, before addressing his particular claims, regardless of whether the litigants have raised the issue of standing. See Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268, 271, 99 S.Ct. 1102, 59 L.Ed.2d 306 (1979); Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 331, 97 S.Ct. 1211, 51 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977); see also Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) (explaining that standing is a threshold issue in every federal case). The standing inquiry is both plaintiffspecific and claim-specific. Thus, a reviewing court must determine whether each particular plaintiff is entitled to have a federal court adjudicate each
particular claim that he asserts. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 752, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984); Donahue v. City of Boston, 304 F.3d 110, 116 (1st Cir.2002). Only if a particular plaintiff has standing to pursue a particular claim will the court proceed to assess the application of the qualified immunity doctrine to that claim. 143. Standing involves a collocation of constitutional requirements and prudential concerns. See Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United For Separation of
Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct, 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982).
The Constitution confines federal courts to the adjudication of actual cases and controversies. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; Allen, 468 U.S. at 750, 104 S.Ct. 3315. An actual case or controversy exists when the party seeking to invoke the court's jurisdiction (normally, the plaintiff) has a "personal stake in the outcome" of the claim asserted. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). To satisfy the personal stake requirement, the plaintiff must pass a tripartite test. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992); Ramírez v. Ramos, 438 F.3d 92, 97 (1st Cir.2006). 144. The first of these prerequisites deals with harm. The plaintiff must adequately allege that he “suffered or is threatened by [an] injury in fact to a cognizable interest.” Save our Heritage, Inc. v. FAA, 269 F.3d 49, 55 (1st Cir.2001). An injury in fact is one that is concrete and particularized, on the one hand, and actual or imminent (as opposed to conjectural or hypothetical),
on the other hand. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130. In turn, a particularized injury is one that "affect[s] the plaintiff in a personal and individual way." Id. at 560 n. 1. a. In this underlying case, the plaintiff states that the United States of America is currently awash in an economic tsunami that‟s wreaking havoc on the livelihood of all the people. b. The financial crisis is primarily a direct effect of subprime adjustable mortgage loan lending. c. All government officials, including the President of the United States, Barak Obama, and the vice president, and the treasurer and the SEC have acknowledged that the subprime loans that are wreaking havoc on our nation‟s economy are the direct result of mortgage fraud and predatory lending. d. It is also irrefutable that property values have sank to record lows as a direct result of said mortgage fraud and predatory lending. e. It is also indisputable that between 3 and 4 million American family homes, which the government has acknowledged, are the product of mortgage fraud, have been foreclosed on within the last year. f. It is undisputable that in March foreclosure rocketed to a 24% high. Never before in recorded history has this been seen. These subprime loans are going to sink our country.
g. It is indisputable that throughout the country, entire neighborhood blocks have boarded up buildings; all victims of what the government had acknowledged being mortgage fraud. h. It is undisputable that foreclosures of properties, which the government has acknowledged to be the product of mortgage fraud, are degrading our neighborhoods and bringing down the value of all properties, which in turn weakens our communities. i. It is also undisputable that even though the government knows and has admitted that the mortgage loans are the direct product of mortgage fraud, and that lenders have committed crimes to originate the loans, the government still had to bail out those lenders in an attempt to ebb the further hemorrhaging of the economy. j. It is also undisputable that I am an American resident who is also a taxpayer and that every time I buy something I am taxed. k. It is indisputable that it is the taxpayers of America, collectively, who are paying to bail out the perpetrators of fraud to prevent them from failing, due to the very fraud they themselves perpetrated against home owners. l. American residents have suffered all of the above effects as a direct result of the mortgage fraud that the government has admitted was perpetrated by the industry as a result of mortgage fraud.
m. Every time an American resident is foreclosed on, due to what the government has acknowledged to be mortgage fraud, then that specific foreclosure has a direct adverse effect on the entire country as a whole. n. All American residents, whether they own a subprime loan or not, are directly affected by any foreclosure of any subprime loan which are the product of mortgage fraud, as all foreclosures have a direct effect on the U.S. economy and cost the American taxpayer money both individually and as a whole. 145. The second prerequisite deals with causation (what some courts have called "traceability"). To meet this requirement, the plaintiff must adequately allege that the asserted injury is causally connected to the challenged conduct. Id. at 560. This causal connection must be demonstrable; in other words, it "cannot be overly attenuated.” Donahue, 304 F.3d at 115. a. The plaintiff has outlined the fact that mortgage and securities fraud perpetrated by investors on Wall Street has caused the destruction to the nation‟s economy. The plaintiff has also demonstrated that the defendants have engaged in acts that violate the U.S. Constitution and the predatory lending laws. b. Plaintiff Muckle is a carpenter by trade. It is indisputable that homebuilding and improvement suffered severely because of the fraud in the mortgage industry; if people cannot pay their mortgage how can they pay to improve their homes? Therefore, because mortgage fraud has
caused the plaintiff economic loss due to the downturn in business, then any/all foreclosure orders that are given in the country directly impacts plaintiff Muckle, thus giving Muckle rights to sue any/all persons and/or entities involved in the fraudulent origination, securitization, insuring, rating, and selling of any/all mortgage loans in the country. 146. The third prerequisite is redress ability. The plaintiff must adequately allege that a favorable result in the litigation is likely to redress the asserted injury. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130. 147. At the hearing on this motion, the evidence will speak for itself; there is no way the defendants can prevail if the evidence of mortgage fraud on a national scale affecting all residents collectively is proven. 148. In addition to these Article III prerequisites, prudential concerns ordinarily require a plaintiff to show that his claim is premised on his own legal rights (as opposed to those of a third party), that his claim is not merely a generalized grievance, and that it falls within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked. Ramírez, 438 F.3d at 98; N.H. Right to Life Political Action Comm. v.
Gardner, 99 F.3d 8, 15 (1st Cir.1996). These prudential considerations, though
important, are not as inexorable as their Article III counterparts. See, e.g.,
United States v. AVX Corp., 962 F.2d 108, 116 (1st Cir. 1992) (recognizing
associational standing exception). a. The plaintiff has demonstrated that, being American citizens living in American, where the American economy is suffering as a direct result of
the defendants giving out “unconscionable and void” foreclosure notices. All Americans who have an adjustable rate mortgage loan and all Americans whose tax money is being used to bail out the investors, are suffering collectively and individually as a direct result of mortgage fraud which the defendants have taken no steps in stopping. 149. In the underlying case in which the court used Pagán as an authority, the First Circuit Court found, “Pagán asserts injury in fact on the basis that Calderón's meddling with ARCAM's loan request was driven by political animus aimed squarely at him. This assertion is wide of the mark: the standing inquiry turns on the plaintiff's injury, not the defendant's motive. Thus, when a government actor discriminates against a corporation based on a protected trait of a corporate agent, it is the corporation — and only the corporation — that has standing to seek redress. See Guides, 295 F.3d at 1072-73 (holding that corporation alone had standing to pursue claim that lease sought by corporation was denied because of employee-shareholder's race); Potthoff, 245 F.3d at 717-18 (holding that employee lacked standing to assert section 1983 claim when government agency terminated corporation's lease because of employee's criticism of the mayor). In other words, the fact that animus toward the agent sparked mistreatment of the principal does not create an exception to the rule that an agent's section 1983 claim can flourish only if he alleges that he personally suffered a direct, nonderivative injury. 4
Potthoff, 245 F.3d at 717.
a. In this instant case, the plaintiff states that the evidence proves that the foreign investment firms and their American Judas counterpart‟s intent was not just to defraud the plaintiff or the government individually, but rather that the fraud was perpetrated against all American residents with an adjustable rate mortgage and to all American taxpayers, including the very defendants to this suit. 150. To be sure, there are exceptions to virtually every general rule — and the rule that a shareholder cannot sue in his own name for an injury sustained by the corporation is not ironclad. The case law also suggests that there may be room for an exception if it is inconceivable that the corporation itself would pursue a claim for the misconduct. See, e.g., Kavanaugh v. Ford Motor Co., 353 F.2d 710, 717 (7th Cir.1965) 151. The plaintiff Muckle states that this case is unique on the above issues based on the facts of the evidence he possesses. Muckle states that it is inconceivable that any other plaintiff would have the type of evidence that he has and that it is inconceivable that any other plaintiff has tied all the defendants together as the plaintiff has. 152. If all American residents with a subprime loan had this type of specific evidence, then the courts would have to contend with 10 million civil lawsuits, with everyone demanding that their mortgages be rescinded and they be granted the title to their home.
153. Because the government is already bailing out the investors and that the government is using taxpayer‟s money to buy up those fraudulent adjustable rate mortgage loans so that the investors won‟t fail, then it is inconceivable that the government will ever pursue a case against all of the perpetrators of the mortgage fraud; therefore, they would get away with committing mortgage fraud and robbery against the people. 154. The plaintiff does not know of any other American resident who will file such a lawsuit against the defendants to protect all American residents. Because it is inconceivable that the government would initiate suit to pursue claims of mortgage fraud against all defendants, and because it is inconceivable that any other American will initiate filing this suit, then the American people will continue to suffer for many, many years to come not only through the loss of about 10 million family homes, but also from the adverse impact the crisis in our economy can have on our national security and the trillions of dollars of hard earned taxpayer money that are being spent to compensate the criminals for the very fraud which they themselves perpetrated. 155. Because it is inconceivable that the government or any other individual resident would pursue a suit for relief for all American residents, without settling for him or herself, then the plaintiff will be uniquely affected if the court fails to take action. If the plaintiff cannot use this case to seek the same relief for all American residents as he seeks for himself, then even if he was to save his own home, the fact is my next door neighbor will lose his home due to
mortgage fraud, which will have an adverse impact on the value of my property and degrade my neighborhood and community, therefore causing economic loss to my city which will in turn bear a burden on my state, which must then seek federal aid at the cost of all taxpayers in the entire United States of America. We are all connected by an unbreakable umbilical cord. 156. Federal laws states that a criminal is not permitted to profit from his crimes, but because it is inconceivable that the government will take immediate and direct steps to file suit against the lenders and their foreign bosses, and because the lenders are actually benefitting from the taxpayer bailout, then the culprits are profiting from their crimes of mortgage fraud. 157. Because the government has not sued all of the defendants for the fraud perpetrated against the residents of the country, then the plaintiff, as an American resident, has a constitutional and a patriotic duty to file a citizen‟s complaint to redress the matter. 158. A Great Disrespect is being perpetrated against the people, Your Honor. Imagine this bitter pill: A man wakes up and goes to work. On payday, the government takes out income taxes, social security taxes and all kinds of other taxes. We are good with it because it is for the benefit of our community and country. Then on his way home, if he has to pass through a tollbooth, he is taxed. When he gets home, he puts away some money for the next week‟s work and he gives the balance to his woman to shop for the house. She goes to the supermarket, she is taxed, she buys him some shoes and clothes for work, and
she is taxed. At month‟s end, their property is taxed, and she pays water and sewer fees which is really a tax, along with the mortgage payment in which there is a hidden lender‟s tax. Let us not forget the hazard insurance. 159. However, even though they pay property tax and water and sewer treatment tax to the city, the city does nothing to maintain the property. If it snows, the people have to clean off the sidewalk or get charged a penalty, which is really a tax. The city does not come inside and clean or maintain the property even though the people pay property tax. If they do not themselves clean the property, the city can come in and clean it, or not clean it and charge a further tax or place a lien on the property. 160. As if this great wickedness to people was not enough, thieves on Wall Street and the home mortgage industry had to milk the cow some more, so they decided to take it a step further; why not take even that little which they have left? So they decided rob us of our homes too. What disrespect! 161. Your Honor, a great man once stood up and begged the question, “Should I keep back my opinion at such a time, through fears of giving offense? I should consider myself guilty of treason towards my country and an act of disloyalty to the Majesty of Heaven who I revere above all earthly kings.” What is going on in our country is an act of treason and destruction from within. I have the evidence to prove that these foreign investments firms are deliberately accelerating American family homes into foreclosure because if there are individual foreclosures then it would be tedious for the investor to make a
claim for private mortgage insurance. However, if there are blanketed foreclosures in a given county, then the investor can issue blanketed claims and are compensated in bulk, instead of having to submit claims for each individual default. The order to proceed with foreclosures is given by foreign entities, and American conspirators carry out the process. I have the proof in writing. 162. However, despite the plain evidence, which proves this the case, no one is doing anything to stop it. Instead, the thieves are given bailouts. I wrote to and called several government agencies to offer them the evidence, yet no one cares to see it. Like Chicken Little, everybody is crying, “the sky is falling, the sky is falling,” yet I don‟t see anyone issuing any orders to stop the robbery and the dispossession of the people. They are allowed to blatantly take us into our own American housing court and get our own American judges to issue decrees throwing us out into our own streets like mangy dogs. 163. Don‟t they call that animal cruelty? Isn‟t it unlawful to throw a dog out into the streets? Even dogs are rescued and taken to a warm shelter with a full belly and a warm place to sleep; but what of the people who lose their homes, and what of them who get laid off from their jobs and those who lost their investments through what the government knows to be mortgage and securities fraud? The poorest are left to wander the streets aimlessly until they get weary at night and have to hurry to be the first to get a bed in a homeless
shelter, or to fight with the bums for that choice spot under that bridge or in that abandoned car. 164. Lenders are allowed to unlawfully enter and dispossess, ripping up lives and tearing families apart. All a hard working man/woman can do is band their belly and watch helplessly as the local sheriff stands guard to protect the American agent of the foreign investor, as they slam the lock shut on our piece of the American Dream. 165. I have witnessed a great evil being wrought against the people, Sir, and under no circumstance will I remain silent for fear of giving offense. How much longer can the people accept this? How much longer are the courts willing to bet that the people will just sit and accept this Great Disrespect? 166. Must I call to mind the terrible occurrence in New York, or must I speak of that mother who shot herself after losing her home because of the mortgage fraud perpetrated by those who are receiving federal assistance? 167. Or must I invoke the memory of the AIG and Wells Fargo Bank, and the Bank of America lavishing million-dollar parties or their multi-million dollar bonuses after saying they would fail if they did not receive taxpayer‟s bailout? We are being destroyed from within and no one is even taking notice. “Sometimes we are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and to listen to the song of the siren.” To listen to the people crying out for justice and to watch them protest peacefully against the great robbery being committed against them, until the frustration of our government‟s inactions sets in and
transforms us into beasts. To make us take matters into our own hands and rebel against these foreign invaders who are robbing and dispossessing the people. To break bank windows like they did in London, or to burn down CEO‟s homes. We are a people robbed! 168. I make no violent threats, Your Honor. I speak only of the visible signs on the frustrated faces of the people. The people cannot take it much longer! But the failure to respond can only result in the people exploding like a powder keg; then Wall Street will burn! But is this the part of wise men engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty and justice? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not the things which so nearly concern our temporal salvation? 169. Is the court willing to continue to waive me off and be dismissive of me because I do not write according to court‟s protocol? Is the court willing to dismiss this motion without granting me the opportunity to present the evidence at a hearing, to prove that this financial crisis was a deliberate terror act against the people of the United States of America? For my part Sir, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it. 170. What is going on in our country is legalized slavery, Sir. A man can work all his life and buy and pay for all his liberties, yet he owns nothing in America. He buys his home and pay property taxes, yet he does not own the home nor does he earn the property. And as if that is not a great enough evil in itself,
foreign investments firms are allowed to come in and continue the robbery, then turn around and beg for bailout after they run the well dry. Every day the bucket goes to the well, one day the bottom will drop out! What a great evil! Capitalism is truly legalized slavery. 171. For almost two years now, I have been begging the courts to intercede and do something to stop this Great Disrespect and insult to the American people. It is in vain extenuating the matter any further, Sir. Gentlemen may cry, „give us more bailouts, give us more bailouts, we will fix the problem!‟ But every time they get bailouts, instead of modifying the loans, they just hand the taxpayers money over to their foreign bosses. 172. This suit does not seek monetary award nor does it seek ownership of the homes. All this petition seeks are the "Cease and Desist" orders as outlined at the beginning of this petition. If the court is then satisfied that I have made a strong showing that cannot be rebutted, then the court must stop the abuse and disrespect of the people, and ORDER the government to take all appropriate actions to remedy the matter. I would suggest confiscating them from the holders who are not entitled to recovery. If the court confiscates the mortgages for the protection of the people, then instead of bailing out the criminals, the government can legally confiscate the loans and give the homeowner a loan, as a way of attaching ownership to the property. It is either foreign thieves or the government. I believe that the people would
prefer to pay the interest into the nation‟s treasury, than to pay it into a bank in Japan, or China. 173. The government can take this unique opportunity to legally confiscate these loans and bail out the people, or it can “buy” the unlawful loans and continue the bailouts and aid and abet the destruction from within. In the end, I do have dual citizenship. I have a second home to run to, but I promised not to run until I have exhausted all remedies. After that I will just brush the dust off my feet and reserve my plane ticket. 174. For me to sit on this evidence and not try to help my country will be an act of treason. If the court does not grant this motion, I promise that I will blazon this evidence across the Internet with instruction to all 10 million subprime victims on how to file an individual claim for mortgage fraud. If everyone was to file an individual claim for mortgage fraud it will cause the total collapse of the mortgage industry because no one would be paying their mortgages. That is how powerful this evidence is. 175. The battle has already begun, Sir. The next gale that sweeps from the north here in Boston will bring to our ears the clashes of 10 million civil lawsuits. My brethren are already on the battlefields in New York, Florida, California, Texas, and 7 other states, all waiting for instruction from me to walk into their local federal court clerk‟s office and file their revised versions of this motion. We will flood the federal court in Boston with hundreds of thousands of claims for mortgage fraud, and when the court in Boston is overflowing, we will file in
New York and overflow that system also, then we will move on to California, then Texas. We will recruit consumers and taxpayers in all 50 states. We will overwhelm the system with 10 million claims for mortgage fraud and demands that our mortgages be rescinded and that our properties be returned to us free and clear of all incumbencies. 176. As I have been doing for the past two years, we will refuse to pay our mortgage, property tax or hazard insurance. We will cripple their systems and stop their incomes as they have crippled our economy, and caused millions of job losses. We will fight their 50-state strategies with our own 50-state strategies. We will fight their tsunami waves of foreclosures with our tsunami waves of civil actions. 177. The people have declared “financial Armageddon” against capitalism and the harder we have to fight for justice, the harder we will defeat them. Your Honor, with all due respect, you have known me for almost two years and you know that I am serious and will not give up. You have issued orders for my home to be foreclosed, yet despite that order, not even the defendant can carry it out. It has nothing to do with you, Sir, when I contend with you; I intend no disrespect but when you give me an order that I know violates my rights, how can I as a sovereign being obey such an order? It would be a gross disrespect to the Heavenly Judge who can take my house and still roast me in hell if I disobey and not fight for the people. So because I chose to follow the orders of my God and not settle and allow the defendants to go free, what man on earth
can take my home away from me legally and fairly? Is this the type of situation the court wishes to cause throughout the nation? We won‟t pay our mortgages , or taxes, or insurance. 178. I beg the court to think about the power of the evidence I have, and which I would be more than glad to share with over 10 million homeowners with a subprime loan. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, I bought my home for my children. I did not steal to buy it or to pay any of the fees; therefore, it will be a cold day down there before I allow anyone to take it from me unlawfully. 179. Give us liberty or we will give the systems death. We will cripple the systems with lawsuits and refusals to pay any mortgage. This is not a threat against the courts; neither do we wish the court to be collateral damage. This is a promise to foreign investment firms who have taken illegal actions against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil in violation of U.S. sovereign laws. 180. The court can choose to contend with 10 million claims for mortgage fraud, or it can do the American thing and grant the people relief in this one lawsuit. “Give us liberty and justice or we will give the system death!” That is the cry I hear ringing out across the land. Whether it is in Massachusetts, or whether it is in Texas, or whether it is in Florida, or California, or wherever homeowners are dispossessed and downtrodden, they shall rise with a vengeance that will shake the world. And no power not by might, no power not by force of will can still the wrath of the people‟s vengeance, only when justice overlay the land,
and men are free from fear and free of want. The spirit of revolution will never bow down to man. Only when liberty reigns, when justice reigns and the language of truth pours down like rain. When usury ceases, when corruption ceases, then there will be nothing to fear. But until then, there is no power in the world that can halt the people‟s quest for liberty and justice. No power in this world. None at all! 181. The plaintiff does not seek money or fame, because I have rejected offers of monetary settlements from the lenders. As the court even knows, I have told the court and the defendant “even if the lenders were to offer me $100 million to settle the case and sweep the evidence under the rug, I would not accept it.” Therefore, the plaintiff respectfully moves the court to consider the fact that this motion is a sincere gesture by the plaintiff to helps his fellow American residents. It is my patriotic call to duty, and I am ready to serve. Wherefore, the plaintiff respectfully files this civil action seeking redress on behalf of himself and the American people as it is my patriotic duty to defend the United States government and our fellow citizens from theft and financial terrorism. It is not heroism that I seek Your Honor; it is survival for me and my brethren, including you. Respectfully submitted, Paul L. Muckle, pro se ____________________________
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?