‌
UNITED‌‌STATES‌‌DISTRICT‌‌COURT‌‌    ‌
OF‌‌THE‌‌DISTRICT‌‌O F‌‌COLUMBIA‌‌    ‌
 ‌
UNITED‌‌STATES‌‌O F‌‌AMERICA‌‌‌(USA)‌   ‌ ‌
℅‌‌Department‌‌o f‌‌Justice‌ ‌CASE‌‌No.‌   ‌ ‌
AG‌‌William‌‌Barr‌ ‌(formerly‌‌Circuit‌‌Court‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌City‌‌o f‌‌Alexandria,‌‌
 
VA‌  ‌
950‌‌Pennsylvania‌‌Avenue‌‌NW,‌ ‌Case‌‌No.‌‌CL‌‌1 9002675‌‌)‌ 
Washington,‌‌DC‌‌2 0530‌‌ ‌J URY‌‌TRIAL‌‌DEMAND‌  ‌
 ‌
SECURITIES‌‌AND‌‌EXCHANGE‌‌COMMISSION‌‌(SEC)‌   ‌ ‌
SECURITIES‌‌AND‌‌COMMODITIES‌‌e t‌‌a l‌  ‌
100‌‌F‌‌St‌‌NE‌   ‌ ‌
‌Washington,‌‌DC‌‌2 0549‌  ‌
(800)‌‌7 32-0330‌  ‌
 ‌
CONSUMER‌‌FINANCIAL‌‌PROTECTION‌‌BUREAU‌‌(CFPB)‌  ‌
1700‌‌G‌‌St‌‌NW‌  ‌
Washington,‌‌DC‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
U.S.‌‌DEPARTMENT‌‌O F‌‌THE‌‌TREASURY‌‌for‌‌O VERSITE‌  ‌
Of‌‌The‌‌Federal‌‌Insurance‌‌O ffice‌‌(FIO)‌‌w as‌‌established‌‌under‌‌    ‌
Title‌‌V‌‌of‌‌the‌‌Dodd-Frank‌‌Wall‌‌Street‌‌Reform‌‌and‌‌Consumer‌‌Protection‌‌Act‌  ‌
1500‌‌Pennsylvania‌‌Ave.,‌‌N.W.‌  ‌
Washington,‌‌D.C.‌‌2 0220‌  ‌
General‌‌Information:‌‌(202)‌‌6 22-2000‌  ‌
Fax:‌‌(202)‌‌6 22-6415‌  ‌
 ‌
FEDERAL‌‌H OUSING‌‌FINANCE‌‌AGENCY,‌‌(‌FHFA)‌  ‌
AS‌‌CONSERVATOR‌‌FOR‌‌THE‌‌FEDERAL‌‌NATIONAL‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌    ‌
ASSOCIATION‌‌AND‌‌THE‌‌FEDERAL‌‌H OME‌‌LOAN‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌    ‌
CORPORATION‌  ‌
400‌‌7 th‌‌St‌‌SW,‌‌   ‌
Washington,‌‌DC‌‌2 0024‌  ‌
‌(202)‌‌6 49-3800‌  ‌
 ‌
MOVENT:‌  ‌
JANICE‌‌WOLK‌‌G RENADIER‌‌(JWG)‌  ‌
StockHolder‌‌OCWEN,‌‌NEW‌‌REZ‌‌a ka‌‌    ‌
New‌‌Residential‌‌Investment‌‌Corp,‌‌    ‌
Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌  ‌
15‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌Street‌  ‌
Alexandria,‌‌VA‌‌2 2301‌  ‌
202-368-7178‌     ‌ ‌
jwgrenadier@gmail.com‌  ‌
‌Plaintiff‌‌/‌‌Pro‌‌Se‌  ‌
 ‌
JOHN‌‌o r‌‌J ANE‌‌DOE‌  ‌
 ‌

1‌  ‌
 ‌
Past‌‌e mployees‌‌o f‌‌O CWEN‌‌    ‌
 ‌
V.‌   ‌ ‌
   ‌ ‌
WELLS‌‌FARGO‌‌BANK‌ ‌NATIONAL‌‌(WFB)‌  ‌
ASSOCIATION,‌‌‌a s‌ ‌Trustee‌‌for‌‌Option‌‌OneMortgage‌‌Loan‌‌Trust‌‌2 005-2,‌ ‌Asset-‌‌Backed‌‌Certificates,‌‌Series‌‌
 
2005-2‌‌    ‌
420‌‌Montgomery‌‌Street‌  ‌
San‌‌Francisco,‌‌CA‌‌9 4104‌  ‌
888-878-5865‌  ‌
 ‌
CEO‌‌CHARLES‌‌W.‌‌SCHARF‌‌    ‌
WELLS‌‌FARGO‌‌N.A.‌  ‌
420‌‌Montgomery‌‌Street,‌‌    ‌
San‌‌Francisco,‌‌CA‌‌9 4104‌‌    ‌
 ‌
BANK‌‌OF‌‌AMERICA,‌‌f/k/a‌‌-as‌‌successor-in-interest‌‌to‌‌LaSALLE‌‌BANK,‌  ‌
100‌‌North‌‌Tryon‌‌Street,‌‌   ‌
Charlotte,‌‌NC‌‌2 8255.‌  ‌
704-386-5681‌  ‌
 ‌
OCWEN‌‌LOAN‌‌SERVICING‌‌LLC‌ ‌a ka‌‌PHH‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌(NMLS#‌‌2 726)‌  ‌
‌a ka‌‌OCWEN‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌SERVICING,‌‌INC.‌‌(OCWEN/PHH)‌   ‌ ‌
Ocwen‌‌F inancial‌‌Corporation,‌‌NMLS#:‌‌1849337‌‌Ocwen‌‌USVI‌‌Services,‌‌L LC,‌  ‌
1661‌‌Worthington‌‌Road‌‌# 100‌  ‌
West‌‌Palm‌‌Beach,‌‌Fl‌ ‌2 2409‌  ‌
(877)‌‌2 26-2936‌  ‌
 ‌
GLENN‌‌MESSINA‌‌    ‌
CEO‌ ‌OCWEN‌‌e t‌‌a l‌‌a ka‌‌PHH‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌    ‌
1661‌‌Worthington‌‌Road‌‌# 100‌ ‌West‌‌Palm‌‌Beach,‌‌Fl‌ ‌2 2409‌  ‌
3000‌‌Leadenhall‌‌Rd,‌‌Mt.‌‌Laurel,‌‌Township,‌‌NJ‌ ‌0 8054‌  ‌
(877)‌‌2 26-2936‌  ‌
 ‌
NEW‌‌RESIDENTIAL‌‌INVESTMENTS‌‌CORP‌  ‌
1345‌‌Ave‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Americas‌‌4 5th‌‌Fl‌  ‌
New‌‌York,‌‌NY‌‌1 0105‌  ‌
Tel:‌‌2 12-479-3150‌  ‌
ir@newresi.com‌  ‌
 ‌
MICHAEL‌‌NIERENBERG‌   ‌ ‌
Chairman,‌‌President‌‌& ‌‌CEO‌‌a t‌‌New‌‌Residential‌‌Investment‌‌Corp.‌  ‌
1345‌‌Ave‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Americas‌‌4 5th‌‌Fl‌  ‌
New‌‌York,‌‌NY‌‌1 0105‌  ‌
Tel:‌‌2 12-479-3150‌  ‌
ir@newresi.com‌  ‌
 ‌
NEWREZ‌‌LLC‌  ‌
1100‌‌Virginia‌‌Dr,‌‌Suite‌‌1 25‌  ‌

2‌  ‌
 ‌
Fort‌‌Washington,‌‌PA‌ ‌1 9034‌  ‌
(888)‌‌6 73-5521‌  ‌
 ‌
BARON‌‌SILVERSTEIN‌  ‌
President‌‌NewRez‌‌LLC‌  ‌
1100‌‌Virginia‌‌Dr,‌‌Suite‌‌1 25‌  ‌
Fort‌‌Washington,‌‌PA‌ ‌1 9034‌  ‌
(888)‌‌6 73-5521‌  ‌
 ‌
BRUCE‌‌J OHN‌‌WILLIAMS‌‌    ‌
CEO‌‌NewRez‌‌LLC‌  ‌
1100‌‌Virginia‌‌Dr,‌‌Suite‌‌1 25‌  ‌
Fort‌‌Washington,‌‌PA‌ ‌1 9034‌  ‌
(888)‌‌6 73-5521‌  ‌
 ‌
KEVIN‌‌H ARRIGAN‌‌    ‌
President;‌‌CEO‌‌New‌‌Rez‌‌LLC‌  ‌
1100‌‌Virginia‌‌Dr,‌‌Suite‌‌1 25‌  ‌
Fort‌‌Washington,‌‌PA‌ ‌1 9034‌  ‌
(888)‌‌6 73-5521‌  ‌
 ‌
TROUTMAN‌‌PEPPER‌‌H AMILTON‌‌SANDERS‌‌LLP‌  ‌
401‌‌9 th‌‌Street,‌‌N.W.‌ ‌Ste‌‌1 000‌  ‌
Washington‌‌DC‌ ‌2 0004‌  ‌
 ‌
S.‌‌MOHSIN‌‌REZA‌‌    ‌
TROUTMAN‌‌SANDERS‌‌LLP‌  ‌
401‌‌9 th‌‌Street,‌‌N.‌‌W.‌‌ste‌‌1 000‌  ‌
Washington,‌‌D.C.‌‌2 0004‌  ‌
mohsin.reza@troutman.com‌  ‌
202-274-1927‌  ‌
 ‌
TRUSTEE‌‌SERVICES‌‌O F‌‌VIRGINIA‌‌LLC‌‌    ‌
484‌‌Viking‌‌Drive,‌‌Suite‌‌# 203‌  ‌
Virginia‌‌Beach,‌‌Virginia‌‌2 3452‌  ‌
 ‌
BROCK‌‌& ‌‌SCOTT‌‌PLLC‌‌    ‌
484‌‌Viking‌‌Drive,‌‌Suite‌‌3  ‌ ‌
Virginia‌‌Beach‌‌VA‌‌2 3452‌  ‌
 ‌
BRIAN‌‌CAMPBELL‌‌    ‌
Brock‌‌& ‌‌Scott,‌‌PLLC‌‌    ‌
5431‌‌Oleander‌‌Drive‌‌    ‌
Wilmington,‌‌NC‌‌2 8403‌‌    ‌
Ph‌‌:‌‌9 10‌-392-4988‌‌x 1206‌‌    ‌
Brian.Campbell@brockandscott.com‌‌    ‌
 ‌
BWW‌‌LAW‌‌G roup‌ ‌a ka‌‌BIERMAN,‌‌(BWW)‌‌G EESING,‌‌WARD‌‌& ‌‌Wood,‌‌LLC.‌   ‌ ‌
2101‌‌Wilson‌‌Boulevard‌‌4 02‌  ‌
Arlington,‌‌VA‌‌2 2201‌‌    ‌
3‌  ‌
 ‌
Phone:‌‌(703)‌‌2 43-5903‌‌    ‌
howie.bierman@bww-law.com‌  ‌
 ‌
EQUITY‌‌TRUSTEES,‌‌LLC‌  ‌
2101‌‌Wilson‌‌Boulevard‌‌4 02‌  ‌
Arlington,‌‌VA‌‌2 2201‌‌
   ‌
Phone:‌‌(703)‌‌2 43-5903‌‌    ‌
 ‌
HOWARD‌‌NORMAN‌‌BIERMAN‌  ‌
Partner‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌G roup‌ ‌Equity‌‌Trustees,‌‌LLC‌  ‌
2101‌‌Wilson‌‌Boulevard‌‌4 02‌  ‌
Arlington,‌‌VA‌‌2 2201‌‌
   ‌
Phone:‌‌(703)‌‌2 43-5903‌‌    ‌
 ‌
McCABE‌‌WEISBERG‌‌CONWAY‌‌LLC‌ ‌(MWC)‌‌a ka‌‌‌Surety‌‌Trustees‌‌LLC‌  ‌
1727‌‌KING‌‌STREET,‌‌SUITE‌‌3 18,‌‌    ‌
ALEXANDRIA,‌‌VA,‌‌2 2314‌‌    ‌
571-449-9350‌  ‌
 ‌
SURETY‌‌TRUSTEES‌‌LLC‌‌a ka‌‌McCabe‌‌Weisberg‌‌Conway‌‌LLC‌  ‌
1727‌‌KING‌‌STREET,‌‌SUITE‌‌3 18,‌‌    ‌
ALEXANDRIA,‌‌VA,‌‌2 2314‌‌    ‌
 ‌
ABBY‌‌MOYNIHAN‌   ‌ ‌
McCabe‌‌Weisberg‌‌Conway‌‌LLC‌ ‌a ka‌‌‌Surety‌‌Trustees‌‌LLC‌  ‌
1727‌‌KING‌‌STREET,‌‌SUITE‌‌3 18,‌‌    ‌
ALEXANDRIA,‌‌VA,‌‌2 2314‌‌    ‌
amoynihan@mwc-law.com‌  ‌
 ‌
AG‌‌MARK‌‌H ERRING‌‌    ‌
Attorney‌‌General's‌‌Office‌  ‌
202‌‌North‌‌Ninth‌‌Street‌  ‌
Richmond,‌‌Virginia‌‌2 3219‌  ‌
Phone:‌‌(804)‌‌7 86-2071‌  ‌
 ‌
‌Defendants‌‌   ‌
 ‌
USDC‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌DISTRICT‌‌O F‌‌COLUMBIA‌‌AMENDED‌‌VERIFIED‌‌COMPLAINT‌‌    ‌
FOR‌‌MOVED‌‌CASE‌‌FROM‌‌THE‌ ‌CITY‌‌O F‌‌ALEXANDRIA‌‌CASE‌‌NO.‌ ‌CL‌‌1 900‌‌-‌‌2 675‌  ‌
 ‌
THIS‌‌VERIFIED‌‌COMPLAINT‌‌IS‌‌BEING‌‌WRITTEN‌‌AS‌‌AN‌‌AFFIDAVIT‌‌O F‌‌TRUTH‌‌    ‌
BY‌‌J ANICE‌‌WOLK‌‌G RENADIER‌‌    ‌
for‌‌Applicable‌‌Relief‌‌a nd‌‌J ury‌‌Trial‌‌o n‌‌a ll‌‌Counts‌  ‌
 ‌
THE‌‌COMPLAINT‌‌WILL‌‌SHOW‌‌THE‌‌ILLEGAL‌‌AND‌‌CRIMINAL‌‌COLLUSION‌‌O F‌‌    ‌
THE‌‌H EADS‌‌o f‌ ‌BANKS‌‌OF‌‌2 008‌‌WHO‌‌H AVE‌‌NOW‌‌MOVED‌‌TO‌‌THE‌‌H EADS‌‌SERVICERS‌‌    ‌
TO‌‌CONTINUE‌‌THE‌‌SCHEME‌‌O F‌‌THEFT‌‌O F‌‌H OMES‌‌FROM‌‌THE‌‌AMERICAN‌‌PEOPLE‌‌WITH‌‌  
NO‌‌STANDING‌‌AND‌‌NO‌‌ABILITY‌‌TO‌‌SHOW‌‌STANDING‌‌EXCEPT‌‌WITH‌‌MADE‌‌UP‌‌  

4‌  ‌
 ‌
DOCUMENTS‌‌(INSIDERS‌‌O F‌‌O CWEN/PHH‌‌H AVE‌‌CONFIRMED‌‌THIS),‌‌FORGED‌‌DOCUMENTS,‌‌  
USE‌‌O F‌‌FAKE‌‌LAWYER‌‌NUMBERS‌‌O N‌‌ASSIGNMENTS,‌‌Made‌‌UP‌‌ASSIGNMENTS,‌‌FALSE‌‌a nd‌‌  
MISLEADING‌‌ADVERTISING,‌‌the‌‌SALE‌‌O F‌‌SERVICING‌‌O F‌‌FORECLOSED‌‌LOANS‌‌FOR‌‌  
FINANCIAL‌‌G AIN,‌‌THAT‌‌O NCE‌‌A‌‌LOAN‌‌IS‌‌FORECLOSED‌‌O N‌‌THE‌‌LOAN‌‌IS‌‌NOT‌‌TAKEN‌‌O FF‌‌  
THE‌‌BOOKS‌‌-‌‌IT‌‌IS‌‌SOLD‌‌TO‌‌ANOTHER‌‌SERVICER,‌‌ET‌‌AL‌  ‌
 ‌
THAT‌‌THE‌‌BANKS‌‌CO-MINGLED‌‌LOANS‌‌O N‌‌FINANCIAL‌‌STATEMENTS‌‌by‌‌a ll‌‌a ppearance‌‌a nd‌‌  
now‌ ‌this‌‌a ccounting‌‌is‌‌being‌‌done‌‌by‌‌the‌‌SERVICERS‌‌a s‌‌seen‌‌between‌‌O CWEN/PHH‌‌a nd‌‌NEWREZ‌‌  
LLC‌‌    ‌
 ‌
THAT‌‌THE‌‌ABOVE‌‌FEDERAL‌‌PLAINTIFFS‌‌CAN‌‌VERIFY‌‌THROUGH‌‌THEIR‌‌O WN‌ ‌WEBSITES,‌‌  
PAST‌‌SUITS,‌‌THE‌‌US‌‌G OVERNMENT‌‌ACCOUNTABILITY‌‌O FFICE‌‌(GAO)‌‌REPORT‌‌TO‌‌  
CONGRESSIONAL‌‌REQUESTERS‌ ‌2 011‌‌FINANCIAL‌‌CRISIS‌‌‌REVIEW‌‌OF‌‌FEDERAL‌‌RESERVE‌‌  
SYSTEM‌‌FINANCIAL‌‌ASSISTANCE‌‌TO‌‌AMERICAN‌‌INTERNATIONAL‌‌GROUP‌‌INC.‌1‌ ‌‌(GAO),‌ ‌The‌‌  
2010‌ ‌CONGRESSIONAL‌‌O VERSIGHT‌‌PANEL‌‌J UNE‌‌O VERSIGHT‌‌REPORT‌‌* ‌‌THE‌‌AIG‌‌RESCUE,‌‌  
2
ITS‌‌IMPACT‌‌ON‌‌MARKETS,‌‌AND‌‌THE‌‌GOVERNMENT’S‌‌EXIT‌‌STRATEGY‌   ‌
3
and‌ ‌THE‌‌2 011‌‌The‌‌FINANCIAL‌‌CRISIS‌‌INQUIRY‌‌REPORT‌‌ ‌WHICH‌‌REUTERS‌‌Reported:‌  ‌
 ‌
4
SEC‌‌o rder‌‌helps‌‌m aintain‌‌AIG‌‌bailout‌‌m ystery‌:‌  ‌
 ‌
● SEC‌‌Agreed‌‌with‌‌AIG‌ ‌to‌‌k eep‌‌some‌‌b ailout‌‌terms‌‌sealed‌  ‌
● SEC‌‌g ranted‌‌“ confidential‌‌treatment”‌  ‌
● SECrecy‌‌o rder‌‌stays‌‌in‌‌p lace‌‌u ntil‌‌November‌‌2 018‌‌    ‌
 ‌
BY‌‌ALL‌‌APPEARANCE‌‌WHERE‌‌SOME‌‌O F‌‌THE‌‌“ SECRET”‌ ‌AIG‌‌MONIES‌‌WENT‌‌    ‌
Government‌‌Bailout‌‌Money‌‌Received‌  ‌
 ‌
Banks‌‌Receiving‌‌Bailout‌‌funds‌‌9 ‌‌Banks‌‌g ave‌‌5 ,000‌‌bonuses‌‌o f‌‌a t‌‌least‌‌$ 1‌‌Million‌‌
   ‌
Citi‌‌g ave‌‌7 38‌‌bonuses‌‌o f‌‌$ 1‌‌Million‌‌with‌‌Reported‌‌loss‌‌o f‌‌$ 18‌‌Billion‌  ‌
Banks‌‌Receiving‌‌Bailout‌‌Funds:‌ ‌6 ‌‌Banks‌‌paid‌‌m ore‌‌in‌‌bonuses‌‌than‌‌they‌‌e arned‌‌in‌‌Profits‌5   ‌
 ‌

Banks‌  ‌ $‌ ‌Amount‌  ‌

Bank‌‌of‌‌America‌  ‌ ‌$‌‌1,535,002,662,031‌  ‌

Citi‌  ‌ ‌$‌‌2,920,896,888,595‌  ‌

Goldman‌‌Sachs‌  ‌ ‌$‌ ‌874,552,426,455‌  ‌

JP‌‌M organ‌‌Chase‌  ‌ ‌$‌ ‌460,982,382,326‌  ‌

1
‌https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11616.pdf‌  ‌
2
‌ ttps://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/historical/fct/cop_report_20100610.pdf‌  ‌
h
3
‌https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf‌  ‌
4
‌https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSN1116982020100111‌  ‌
5
‌From‌‌The‌‌Con‌‌    ‌
5‌  ‌
 ‌

Morgan‌‌Stanley‌  ‌ $‌‌2,287,966,932,941‌  ‌

Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌  ‌ ‌$‌ ‌198,712,559,776‌  ‌

 ‌
THAT‌‌the‌‌$ 251‌‌BILLION‌ ‌the‌‌banks‌‌paid‌‌a s‌‌r eported‌‌by‌‌Forbes‌‌to‌‌the‌‌G overnment‌‌to‌‌not‌‌g o‌‌to‌‌jail‌‌
 
looks‌‌like‌‌pocket‌‌c hange‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
THAT‌‌THE‌‌APPEARANCE‌‌IS‌‌THE‌‌FORECLOSURE‌‌LAWYERS‌‌FOR‌‌BUSINESS‌‌a nd‌‌PERSONAL‌‌  
FINANCIAL‌‌G AIN‌ ‌H AVE‌‌COLLUDED‌‌TO‌‌“ COVER-UP”‌‌THE‌‌LACK‌‌O F‌‌STANDING‌  ‌
 ‌
How‌‌Much‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a bove‌‌m oney‌‌went‌‌to‌‌these‌‌bonuses‌‌the‌‌Executives‌‌/‌‌CEO’s‌‌included‌‌in‌‌this‌‌c omplaint?‌  ‌
Why‌‌wouldn’t‌‌the‌‌Execurtives‌‌m ove‌‌to‌‌a ‌‌r egulated‌‌business‌‌by.‌ ‌Recuters‌  ‌
 ‌

 ‌
The‌‌CFPB‌‌has‌‌o n‌‌its‌‌site:‌  ‌
 ‌
COMPLAINTS:‌  ‌
 ‌
Option‌‌One‌ ‌Showing‌‌2 7,176‌‌‌m atches‌‌o ut‌‌o f‌‌1 ,744,719‌‌total‌‌c omplaints‌  ‌
American‌‌Home‌‌Mortgage‌‌Servicing‌‌Showing‌‌1 8,754‌‌m atches‌‌o ut‌‌o f‌‌1 ,744,719‌‌total‌‌c omplaints‌  ‌
PHH‌‌Mortgage‌‌Showing‌‌3 ,261‌‌m atches‌‌o ut‌‌o f‌‌1 ,744,719‌‌total‌‌c omplaints‌  ‌
OCWEN‌‌Mortgage‌‌Showing‌‌3 ‌‌0 ,219‌‌‌m atches‌‌o ut‌‌o f‌‌1 ,744,719‌‌total‌‌c omplaints‌  ‌
Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌Showing‌ ‌‌8 0,785‌‌‌m atches‌‌o ut‌‌o f‌‌1 ,744,719‌‌total‌‌c omplaints‌  ‌
6‌  ‌
 ‌
Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌ ‌Showing‌‌119,746‌‌‌m atches‌‌o ut‌‌o f‌‌1 ,744,719‌‌total‌‌c omplaints‌  ‌

12‌‌U.S.‌‌Code‌‌§  265‌‌Insured‌‌b anks‌‌a s‌‌d epositaries‌‌o f‌‌p ublic‌‌m oney;‌‌d uties;‌‌security;‌‌d iscrimination‌‌b etween‌‌
 
banks‌‌p rohibited;‌‌repeal‌‌o f‌‌inconsistent‌‌laws‌  ‌

12‌‌U.S.‌‌Code‌‌§  2605‌‌ ‌Servicing‌‌o f‌‌m ortgage‌‌loans‌‌a nd‌‌a dministration‌‌o f‌‌e scrow‌‌a ccounts‌  ‌

15‌‌U.S.‌‌Code‌‌§  77q.‌‌‌Fraudulent‌‌interstate‌‌transactions‌  ‌
15‌‌U.S.‌‌Code‌‌Subchapter‌‌V‌‌-‌‌DEBT‌‌COLLECTION‌‌PRACTICES,‌‌§ ‌‌1 692d‌‌-‌‌Harassment‌‌o r‌‌a buse,‌‌§ ‌‌  
1692e‌‌-False‌‌o r‌‌m isleading‌‌representations,‌ ‌§ ‌‌1 692f‌‌-‌‌Unfair‌‌p ractices,‌‌§ ‌‌1 692g‌‌-‌‌Validation‌‌o f‌‌d ebt,‌ ‌§ ‌‌
 
1692j‌‌-Furnishing‌‌c ertain‌‌d eceptive‌‌form‌Fair‌‌Debt.‌‌Collection‌‌Act‌‌(FDCPA),‌‌§ ‌‌8 06‌‌Harassment,‌‌§ ‌‌8 07‌‌  
False‌‌a nd‌‌m isleading,‌‌§ ‌‌8 08‌‌Unfair‌‌p ractices,‌‌   ‌
§‌‌8 09‌‌Validation‌‌o f‌‌d ebts,‌‌§ ‌‌8 12‌‌Furnishing‌‌d eceptive‌‌forms,‌‌e t‌‌a l‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
18‌‌USC‌‌§ ‌‌3 71‌‌Conspiracy‌‌    ‌
18‌‌USC‌‌§ ‌‌1 341‌‌Frauds‌‌a nd‌‌Swindles‌‌    ‌
18‌‌USC‌‌§ ‌‌1 343‌‌Fraud‌‌by‌‌Wire,‌‌    ‌
18‌‌USC‌‌§ 1344‌‌Bank‌‌Fraud‌‌    ‌
18‌‌USC‌‌§ 1346‌‌H onest‌‌Services‌‌    ‌
18‌‌USC‌‌§ ‌‌1 348‌‌Securities‌‌a nd‌‌c ommodities‌‌fraud‌‌    ‌
18‌‌USC‌‌§ 1349‌‌Attempt‌‌a nd‌‌Conspiracy‌‌Sarbanes‌‌– ‌‌O xley‌‌Act‌‌    ‌
18‌‌U.S.‌‌Code‌‌§ ‌‌6 66‌‌-‌‌Theft‌‌o r‌‌bribery‌‌c oncerning‌‌programs‌‌r eceiving‌‌Federal‌‌funds‌‌    ‌
 ‌
26‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌Section‌‌6 1‌‌A‌‌(1)‌  ‌
26‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌Section‌‌1 08‌‌(i)‌  ‌
26‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌Section‌‌4 51‌  ‌
26‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌Section‌‌1 033‌  ‌
U.S.C‌‌Section‌‌1 .751,‌‌CFR‌‌1 .752‌  ‌
SEC‌‌Rule‌‌1122‌‌AB‌‌    ‌
Regs.‌‌Sec.‌‌1 .707-3(b)(2)‌‌Disguised‌‌sales‌‌‌o f‌‌property‌‌to‌‌partnership‌  ‌
 ‌
Virginia‌‌Fraud‌‌Against‌‌Taxpayers‌‌Act.‌‌CODE‌‌O F‌‌VIRGINIA‌‌FALSE‌‌CLAIMS;‌‌CIVIL‌‌PENALTY‌  ‌
Virginia‌‌Code‌‌Ann.‌‌§ ‌‌8 .01-216.3‌‌(A)(1)-(A-4),‌‌8 .01-216.3‌‌(A)(7)‌  ‌
 ‌
31‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌3 729‌‌Federal‌‌False‌‌Claims‌‌Act‌‌Violation‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Consent‌‌O rder‌‌in‌‌2 014‌‌with‌‌the‌‌DOJ‌‌a nd‌‌4 8‌‌  
states‌‌including‌‌Virginia.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌when‌‌OCWEN‌‌issued‌‌the‌‌1 099-A‌‌it‌‌d id‌‌n ot‌‌u se‌‌a ‌‌c ompany‌‌it‌‌would‌‌h ave‌‌a nd‌‌d id‌‌u se‌‌a ‌‌n ame‌‌that‌‌c ould‌‌
 
be‌‌a ‌‌“ Payer‌‌Agent”‌‌? ‌ ‌ALL‌‌FDCPA‌‌“ debt‌‌c ollections”‌‌o f‌‌JWG‌‌were‌‌d enied.‌‌   ‌
 ‌
This‌‌is‌‌the‌‌ENRON‌‌g ame‌‌with‌‌a ‌‌twist:‌  ‌
 ‌
1. ‌Take‌‌Bad‌‌Assets‌‌written‌‌d own‌‌to‌‌1 0%‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌o riginal‌‌a ppraised‌‌v alue‌  ‌
2. ‌Recap‌‌them‌‌b y‌‌p ulling‌‌them‌‌into‌‌CMBS‌  ‌

7‌  ‌
 ‌
3. ‌Originate‌‌loans‌‌to‌‌a nyone‌‌b y‌‌taking‌‌the‌‌title‌‌u p‌‌front‌‌-‌ ‌u nder‌‌the‌‌IRS‌‌Rules‌‌for‌‌installment‌‌sale‌  ‌
4. ‌Now‌‌the‌‌p ool‌‌o f‌‌c rap‌‌is‌‌p roperly‌‌c apitalized‌  ‌
5. ‌Now‌‌a mortize‌‌the‌‌b ad‌‌Bank‌‌OREO‌‌b y‌‌1 0%‌‌a nnually‌‌to‌‌k eep‌‌within‌‌range‌‌o f‌‌a ‌‌q ualified‌‌investment‌  ‌
6. ‌Assign‌‌the‌‌a mortized‌‌a mount‌‌a nnually‌‌to‌‌Consumers‌‌a s‌‌p ass-through‌‌investors‌  ‌
7. ‌a nd‌‌then‌‌issue‌‌a ‌‌1 099‌‌A‌‌to‌‌c lose‌‌o ut‌‌these‌‌like-kind‌‌e xchanges‌‌in‌‌the‌‌y ear‌‌o f‌‌d isposition‌  ‌
8. ‌Where‌‌the‌‌title‌‌h eld‌‌b y‌‌a ‌‌BANK‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌A‌‌is‌‌released‌‌to‌‌the‌‌p ayees‌‌a gent‌‌OCWEN‌  ‌
9. For‌‌the‌‌LLC‌‌to‌‌recast‌‌Itself‌‌b y‌‌p aying‌‌y our‌‌withholding‌‌taxes‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌Phantom‌‌e arnings‌  ‌
 ‌
‌The‌‌IRS‌‌c alls‌‌these‌‌tax‌‌p romoters‌‌a nd‌‌liquidation‌‌schemes‌‌“ genius”‌‌intended‌‌to‌‌b eat‌‌the‌‌b est‌‌intent‌‌o f‌‌  
Congress‌‌who‌‌is‌‌the‌‌a uthoritative‌‌g uidance‌‌u nder‌‌Title‌‌2 6.‌ ‌These‌‌a re‌‌p assed‌‌through‌‌Investments.‌ ‌JWG‌‌d id‌‌  
not‌‌a gree‌‌to‌‌a ‌‌p ass‌‌through‌‌Investment.‌  ‌
 ‌
That‌‌JWG‌‌c laims‌‌a gainst‌‌OCWEN‌‌e t‌‌a l‌‌for‌‌ABUSE‌‌AND‌‌FRAUDULENT‌‌PROCESS‌‌b y‌‌Officers‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Court‌‌  
acting‌‌to‌‌wrongly‌‌take‌‌real‌‌e state‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Petitioner‌‌located‌‌a t‌‌1 5‌‌Spring‌‌Street,‌‌Alexandria,‌‌Virginia‌‌(22301)‌‌  
under‌‌c olor‌‌o f‌‌law‌‌a nd‌‌fraudulent‌‌trustee‌‌p rocess,‌‌to‌‌intimidate‌‌a nd‌‌c ause‌‌a ‌‌wrongful‌‌a uction‌‌o n‌‌August‌‌1 7,‌‌  
2017‌‌a nd‌‌n ow‌‌October‌‌5 ,‌‌2 017‌‌(stating‌‌information‌‌requested‌‌in‌‌2 012‌‌will‌‌b e‌‌g iven‌‌to‌‌JWG‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌  
October‌‌2 ,‌‌2 017)‌‌,‌‌to‌‌wrongfully‌‌take‌‌JWG’s‌‌real‌‌e state‌‌without‌‌right‌‌e stablished‌‌b y‌‌AUTHENTIC‌‌  
DOCUMENTS‌‌a s‌‌REQUIRED‌‌BY‌‌LAW.‌  ‌
 ‌
‌Theft‌‌by‌‌deceptive‌‌taking‌‌taking:‌‌the‌‌a ttorney‌‌a nd‌‌trustee‌‌a cts,‌‌u nder‌‌c olor‌‌o f‌‌law,‌‌a re‌‌intentionally‌‌
 
designed‌‌to‌‌h arass‌‌a nd‌‌intimidate‌‌p laintiff‌‌to‌‌wrongfully‌‌d eprive‌‌h er‌‌o f‌‌h er‌‌lawful‌‌rights‌‌o f‌‌o wnership,‌‌b y‌‌  
Brock‌‌& ‌‌Scott‌‌PLLC‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌March‌‌3 0,‌‌2 018,‌  ‌
 ‌
NEW‌‌EVIDENCE‌‌SHOWS‌‌SECURITY‌‌& ‌‌COMMODITIES‌‌FRAUD,‌‌THE‌‌LACK‌‌O F‌‌STANDING‌‌& ‌‌  
FRAUD‌‌O N‌‌THE‌‌COURT‌‌BY‌‌LAWYERS‌‌    ‌
 ‌
THAT‌‌ALL‌‌ACROSS‌‌AMERICA‌‌“ WE‌‌THE‌‌PEOPLE”‌‌a re‌‌paying‌‌o n‌‌“ FAKE”‌‌MORTGAGES‌  ‌
THAT‌‌THE‌‌BANKERS‌‌o f‌‌2 008‌‌a re‌‌now‌‌THE‌‌SERVICERS‌‌o f‌‌2 020‌  ‌
 ‌
THAT‌‌These‌‌“ FAKE”‌‌Mortgages‌‌have‌‌been‌‌in‌‌the‌‌Public‌‌since‌‌the‌‌MULTI-STATE‌‌settlement‌‌with‌  ‌
Lynn‌‌Szmoniak,‌‌Esq.,‌‌December‌‌1 2,‌‌2 012‌‌(Exhibit‌‌2 ‌‌)   ‌‌ ‌
In‌‌the‌‌USDC‌‌District‌‌o f‌‌South‌‌Carolina‌‌(Rock‌‌Hill)‌‌C.A.‌‌No.‌ ‌1 0-cv-01465-JFA‌‌    ‌
THAT‌‌THIS‌‌SHOWS‌‌NOTHING‌‌H AS‌‌CHANGED‌‌e xcept‌  ‌
THE‌‌BANKS‌‌have‌‌turned‌‌it‌‌o ver‌‌to‌‌the‌ ‌SERVICERS‌‌to‌‌do‌‌the‌ ‌DIRTY‌‌WORK‌‌- ‌ ‌
INCLUDING‌‌& ‌‌NOT‌‌LIMITING‌‌it‌‌to‌‌the‌‌EXECUTIVES‌ ‌o f‌‌the‌ ‌BANKS‌  ‌
‌now‌‌being‌‌the‌‌EXECUTIVES‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌SERVICERS‌  ‌
 ‌
THE‌‌Q UESTIONS‌‌FOR‌‌ALL‌‌AMERICANS:‌ ‌Are‌‌y ou‌‌paying‌‌o n‌‌a ‌‌“ FAKE”‌‌loan?‌  ‌
Where‌‌is‌‌the‌‌a ccounting‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌“ TARP”‌‌MONEY‌  ‌
 ‌
NEW‌‌EVIDENCE‌‌SHOWS‌‌    ‌
VIOLATIONS‌‌O F‌‌United‌‌States‌ ‌CONSTITUTION‌‌& ‌‌VIRGINIA‌‌STATE‌‌CONSTITUTION‌‌    ‌
VIOLATION‌‌O F‌‌AMERICANS‌‌4 ‌‌FREEDOMS‌‌o f‌‌Speech,‌‌Worship,‌‌Want‌‌& ‌‌FEAR‌  ‌
 ‌
FRAUDULENT‌‌CONVEYANCE‌‌with‌‌FRAUD‌‌O N‌‌THE‌‌COURT‌‌    ‌
8‌  ‌
 ‌
/‌‌IDENTITY‌‌THEFT‌‌/‌‌DOCUMENTS‌‌K NOWINGLY‌‌FILED‌‌IN‌‌THE‌‌CITY‌‌O F‌‌ALEXANDRIA‌‌  
FORGED‌‌/‌‌MISLEADING‌‌a nd‌‌DAMAGES,‌‌FRAUD‌‌O N‌‌THE‌‌COURT‌‌A‌‌PATTERN‌‌& ‌‌PRACTICE‌  ‌
‌with‌‌DEFENDANTS‌ ‌LAWYERS‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌the‌‌Attorney’s‌‌Duty‌‌to‌‌the‌‌Court‌‌Against‌‌Concealment,‌‌Nondisclosure‌‌a nd‌‌Suppression‌‌o f‌‌
 
Information‌‌a s‌‌Coextensive‌‌with‌‌the‌‌Duty‌‌Not‌‌to‌‌Allow‌‌Fraud‌‌To‌‌Be‌‌Committed‌‌upon‌‌the‌‌Court‌6‌   ‌
 ‌
For‌‌ABUSE‌‌AND‌‌FRAUDULENT‌‌PROCESS‌‌‌b y‌‌Officers‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Court‌‌a cting‌‌to‌‌wrongly‌‌take‌‌real‌‌e state‌‌b y‌‌  
theft‌‌o f‌‌JWG‌ ‌located‌‌a t‌‌1 5‌‌Spring‌‌Street,‌‌Alexandria,‌‌Virginia‌‌(22301)‌‌u nder‌‌c olor‌‌o f‌‌law‌‌a nd‌‌fraudulent‌‌  
trustee‌‌p rocess,‌‌to‌‌intimidate‌‌a nd‌‌c ause‌‌a ‌‌wrongful‌‌a uction‌‌o n‌‌August‌‌1 7,‌‌2 017‌‌a nd‌‌n ow‌‌October‌‌5 ,‌‌2 017‌‌  
(stating‌‌information‌‌requested‌‌in‌‌2 012‌‌will‌‌b e‌‌g iven‌‌to‌‌Plaintiff‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌October‌‌2 ,‌‌2 017)‌‌,‌‌to‌‌
 
wrongfully‌‌take‌‌p etitioner’s‌‌real‌‌e state‌‌without‌‌right‌‌e stablished‌‌b y‌‌AUTHENTIC‌‌DOCUMENTS‌‌a s‌‌  
REQUIRED‌‌BY‌‌LAW.‌ ‌FOR‌‌THE‌‌taking‌‌o n‌‌March‌‌3 0,‌‌2 018‌‌with‌‌a n‌‌illegal‌‌a nd‌‌fraudulent‌‌FORECLOSURE.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
THEFT‌‌BY‌‌DECEPTIVE‌‌taking‌:‌‌the‌‌a ttorney‌‌a nd‌‌trustee‌‌a cts,‌‌u nder‌‌c olor‌‌o f‌‌law,‌‌a re‌‌intentionally‌‌  
designed‌‌to‌‌h arass‌‌a nd‌‌intimidate‌‌p laintiff‌‌to‌‌wrongfully‌‌d eprive‌‌h er‌‌o f‌‌h er‌‌lawful‌‌rights‌‌o f‌‌o wnership,‌‌    ‌
 ‌
THAT‌‌the‌‌Defendants,‌‌individually‌‌a nd‌‌jointly‌‌‌a re‌‌a cting‌‌in‌‌b ad‌‌faith,‌‌for‌‌their‌‌o wn‌‌financial‌‌interests‌‌(and‌‌  
not‌‌that‌‌o f‌‌a ny‌‌c lient)‌‌to‌‌p erpetuate‌‌a ‌‌financial‌‌law-scam‌‌for‌‌their‌‌o wn‌‌a dvantage‌‌a gainst‌‌the‌‌Plaintiff‌‌u nder‌‌  
color‌‌o f‌‌law,‌‌including‌‌b reach‌‌o f‌‌fiduciary‌‌d uty‌‌to‌‌this‌‌p laintiff/homeowner‌‌indicating‌‌a ‌‌LACK‌‌OF‌‌DUTY‌‌  
OF‌‌CARE,‌‌FAIR‌‌DEALING‌‌AND‌‌GOOD‌‌FAITH‌‌that‌‌is‌‌A‌‌PATTERN‌‌AND‌‌PRACTICE‌‌OF‌‌DEFENDANTs‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Co-Defendant‌‌c onspiracy‌‌to‌‌e nrich‌‌themselves:‌‌‌SERVICER‌‌OCWEN‌‌AND‌‌FORECLOSURE‌‌LAWYERS‌‌  
BWW‌‌Law‌‌GROUP,‌ ‌MCCABE‌‌WEISBERG‌‌& ‌‌CONWAY,‌‌BROCK‌‌& ‌‌SCOTT‌ ‌a nd‌‌TROUTMAN‌‌PEPPER‌‌  
HAMILTON‌‌SANDERS‌ ‌(AND‌‌OTHERS)‌‌APPEAR‌‌to‌‌h ave‌‌d esigned‌‌a ‌‌fraudulent‌‌‘foreclosure’‌‌scam‌‌that‌‌  
takes‌‌p ersonal‌‌financial‌‌ADVANTAGE‌‌o f‌‌h omeowners‌‌b y‌‌FRAUD‌‌u nder‌‌c olor‌‌o f‌‌law,‌‌without‌‌a ‌‌b onafide‌‌  
client‌‌(in‌‌this‌‌c ase,‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Mortgage‌‌Co.)‌‌THE‌‌Defendant’s‌‌a cts‌‌seek‌‌to‌‌BENEFIT‌‌themselves,‌‌a s‌‌  
officers‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌c ourt,‌‌b y‌‌m anipulating‌‌the‌‌“ trustee”‌‌system,‌‌to‌‌illegally‌‌m ove‌‌h omeowner‌‌p roperty‌‌into‌‌  
foreclosure‌‌a uction,‌‌where‌‌the‌‌o fficers‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌c ourt‌‌a re‌‌the‌‌sole-beneficiaries.‌‌This‌‌FRAUDULENT‌‌  
SCHEME,‌‌u ses‌‌illegal‌‌intimidation‌‌a nd‌‌improper‌‌a uction‌‌p rocess‌‌(of‌‌Virginia‌‌real‌‌e state)‌‌TO‌‌g enerate‌‌  
excessive‌‌p rofits‌‌for‌‌their‌‌o wn‌‌law-corporate/trustee‌‌POCKETS‌‌    ‌
 ‌
In‌‌this‌‌c ase,‌‌p ursuant‌‌to‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌CEO‌‌o ffice‌‌statements‌‌to‌‌Plaintiff‌‌/‌‌JWG‌‌a nd‌‌CRPB‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌  
August‌‌11,‌‌2 017,‌‌there‌‌is‌‌n o‌‌Plaintiff‌‌/‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌loan‌‌u nderlying‌‌the‌‌OCWEN‌‌a nd‌‌c o-defendant's‌‌a ctions.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Servicer-Company,‌‌‌OCWEN/PHH‌ ‌fraudulently‌‌stated,‌‌“ ‌‌we‌‌h ave‌‌a ‌‌c opy‌‌o f‌‌a ‌‌n ote‌‌we‌‌g et‌‌to‌‌c ollect‌‌o n.”‌‌For‌‌  
reasons‌‌d emonstrated‌‌h erein,‌‌that‌‌statement‌‌is‌‌u ntrue,‌‌a nd‌‌a ll‌‌d efendants‌‌h ave‌‌refused‌‌to‌‌p roduce‌‌a ny‌‌such‌‌  
instrument.‌‌Under‌‌c olor‌‌o f‌‌law,‌‌the‌‌Defendants‌‌fraudulently‌‌a cted‌‌to‌‌‘collect’‌‌a ‌‌n on-existent‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌  
“loan”‌‌b y‌‌h iring‌‌Foreclosure‌‌Lawyers/Defendants/BWW/MCW‌‌a nd‌‌Brock‌‌& ‌‌Scott,”‌‌who‌‌ignored‌‌the‌‌Fourth‌‌  
Circuit‌‌stay‌‌o n‌‌said‌‌p roperty‌‌which‌‌p ut‌‌JWG‌‌in‌‌Bankruptcy‌‌to‌‌stop‌‌foreclosure,‌‌then‌‌the‌‌request/‌‌d emand‌ ‌o f‌‌  
OCWEN‌‌n ot‌‌to‌‌Foreclose‌‌to‌‌Brock‌‌& ‌‌Scott‌‌(conversation‌‌is‌‌taped‌‌a nd‌‌c an‌‌b e‌‌h eard‌‌  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gWnLp11vI)‌‌ ‌– ‌‌b y‌‌improperly‌‌implementing‌‌foreclosure‌‌a nd‌‌a uction‌‌  
proceedings‌‌for‌‌their‌‌joint-profit,‌‌b y‌‌a cts‌‌a nd‌‌o missions‌‌that‌‌a re‌‌illegal‌‌a nd‌‌u nethical‌‌u nder‌‌the‌‌laws‌‌o f‌‌ 
Virginia.‌‌    ‌
 ‌

6
‌The‌‌extent‌‌to‌‌which‌‌it‌‌is‌‌regarded‌‌as‌‌council's‌‌duty‌‌to‌‌advise‌‌the‌‌court‌‌as‌‌to‌‌matters‌‌relevant‌‌to‌‌the‌‌proper‌‌decision‌‌
 
of‌‌the‌‌case‌‌of‌‌which‌‌opposing‌‌counsel‌‌is‌‌ignorant‌‌or‌‌which‌‌he‌‌has‌‌overlooked‌‌turns‌‌on‌‌the‌‌degree‌‌to‌‌which‌‌the‌‌old‌‌  
idea‌‌that‌‌litigation‌‌is‌‌a‌‌game‌‌between‌‌the‌‌lawyers‌‌has‌‌been‌‌supplanted‌‌by‌‌the‌‌more‌‌modern‌‌view‌‌that‌‌the‌‌lawyer‌‌is‌‌a‌‌  
Minister‌‌of‌‌Justice.‌‌H.‌‌Drinker,‌‌legal‌‌ethics‌‌76‌‌(1953)‌  ‌
9‌  ‌
 ‌
OCWEN‌‌WITH‌‌O CWEN‌‌LAWYERS‌‌MALICIOUSLY‌‌INTERFERED‌‌WITH‌‌‌the‌‌rights‌‌a nd‌‌real‌‌  
property‌‌interests‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Plaintiff,‌‌a nd‌‌h ave‌‌c ause‌‌e xtensive‌‌d amage‌‌a nd‌‌irreparable‌‌h arm‌‌a s‌‌a ‌‌result,‌‌for‌‌  
which‌‌the‌‌p laintiff‌‌seeks‌‌c ompensatory‌‌a nd‌‌p unitive‌‌d amages‌‌for‌‌the‌‌Defendant’s‌‌joint‌‌illegal‌‌a cts‌‌o f‌‌p retext,‌‌  
by‌‌lawyers‌‌a nd‌‌trustees,‌‌u nder‌‌c olor‌‌o f‌‌law.‌‌That‌‌OCWEN‌‌u sed‌‌its‌‌o wn‌‌e mployees‌‌to‌‌impersonate‌‌that‌‌they‌‌  
had‌‌Power‌‌o f‌‌Attorney‌‌for‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
COMES‌‌NOW‌‌Plaintiff‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌‌(JWG)‌‌a nd‌‌o r‌‌the‌ ‌UNITED‌‌STATES‌‌O F‌‌AMERICA‌‌ ‌℅ ‌‌  
Department‌‌o f‌‌Justice‌‌/‌‌AG‌‌William‌‌Barr,‌‌SECURITIES‌‌AND‌‌EXCHANGE‌‌COMMISSION,‌‌  
CONSUMER‌‌FINANCIAL‌‌PROTECTION‌‌BUREAU‌‌(CFPB)‌ ‌e t‌‌a l‌‌reserves‌‌the‌‌right‌‌to‌‌a mend‌‌this‌‌  
Complaint‌‌a nd‌‌to‌‌a dd‌‌a dditional‌‌Parties‌‌p er‌‌FRCP‌‌Rule‌‌1 5.‌‌That‌‌Amended‌‌Verified‌‌Complaint‌‌c orresponds‌‌  
with‌‌a ttached‌‌Exhibits‌‌filed‌‌a nd‌‌should‌‌b e‌‌u sed‌‌a s‌‌with‌‌the‌‌Verified‌‌Complaint.‌‌Plaintiff‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌  
Grenadier‌‌c omplains‌‌a gainst‌‌the‌‌c aptioned‌‌Defendants‌‌a s‌‌follows:‌  ‌
 ‌
‌INTRODUCTION‌  ‌
 ‌
That‌‌the‌‌American‌‌Citizens‌‌h ave‌‌h ad‌‌their‌‌rights‌‌v iolated‌‌b y‌‌a ‌‌g overnment‌‌that‌‌is‌‌supposed‌‌to‌‌p rotect‌‌them‌‌  
from‌‌schemes‌‌that‌‌a re‌‌o bvious‌‌FRAUD‌‌b y‌‌BANKS,‌‌SERVICERS‌‌& ‌‌LAWYERS.‌ ‌That‌‌the‌‌c ourts‌‌/‌‌judges‌‌  
have‌‌a ‌‌financial‌‌interest‌‌if‌‌they‌‌h ave‌‌a ‌‌Vanguard‌‌o r‌‌o ther‌‌m oney‌‌m arket‌‌a ccount.‌  ‌
 ‌
OCWEN/PHH‌‌Mortgage:‌  ‌
 ‌
● Ocwen‌‌failed‌‌to‌‌p rovide‌‌a ny‌‌a ccounting‌‌o r‌‌p roof‌‌o f‌‌JWG‌‌p rior‌‌p ayments‌‌h ad‌‌b een‌‌p roperly‌‌  
credited,‌‌a nd‌‌refused‌‌to‌‌a ccept‌‌JWG‌‌p ayments‌‌o r‌‌o therwise‌‌c ommunicate‌‌with‌‌JWG.‌  ‌
● OCWEN‌‌c aused‌‌d amages‌‌including‌‌the‌‌imposition‌‌o f‌‌late‌‌c harges‌‌for‌‌JWG‌‌p urported‌‌  
nonpayment,‌‌c harges‌‌for‌‌"forced‌‌insurance‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌p roperty,"‌‌a nd‌‌interest‌‌a nd‌‌c osts‌‌related‌‌to‌‌  
untimely‌‌p roperty‌‌tax‌‌p ayments‌‌a nd‌‌p roperty‌‌inspections.‌  ‌
● OCWEN‌‌e mployees‌‌h ave‌‌stated‌‌the‌‌following‌‌o f‌‌OCWEN’s‌‌a cts‌‌a nd‌‌a ctions‌‌in‌‌c ollusion‌‌with‌‌  
lawyers‌‌to‌‌h arass‌‌a nd‌‌further‌‌m entally‌‌a buse‌‌h omeowners:‌ ‌Do‌‌n ot‌‌a nswer‌‌p hones,‌‌Turn‌‌o ff‌‌  
Fax‌‌m achines‌‌e tc.‌ ‌That‌‌the‌‌lawyers‌‌d id‌‌n ot‌‌respond‌‌to‌‌the‌‌OCWEN‌‌e mployees‌‌q uestions‌‌a nd‌‌  
requests.‌   ‌ ‌
● OCWEN‌‌p ast‌‌e mployees‌‌state‌‌c learly:‌ ‌a fter‌‌the‌‌p urchase‌‌o f‌‌PHH‌‌that‌‌OCWEN‌‌was‌‌g oing‌‌to‌‌  
be‌‌g oing‌‌into‌‌Bankruptcy‌‌a nd‌‌o r‌‌Closing‌‌its‌‌d oors.‌   ‌ ‌
● The‌‌a ppearance‌‌is‌‌that‌‌OCWEN‌‌is‌‌m oving‌‌its‌‌a ssets‌‌into‌‌NewRez,‌‌a ‌‌subsidiary‌‌o f‌‌New‌‌  
Residential‌‌Investments‌‌Corp.‌‌y ou‌‌then‌‌h ave‌‌,‌‌Mr.‌‌Cooper‌‌/‌‌COOP‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌Stock‌‌Market,‌‌a nd‌‌  
Brookfield‌‌BAM‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌stock‌‌m arket.‌ ‌After‌‌PHH‌‌took‌‌o ver‌‌it‌‌m oved‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌St.‌‌a s‌‌a n‌‌  
alleged‌‌loan‌‌to‌‌NewRez.‌ ‌This‌‌loan‌‌should‌‌n ot‌‌e xist,‌‌a s‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌N.A.‌‌a ccording‌‌to‌‌  
the‌‌Foreclosure‌‌a nd‌‌their‌‌lawyer‌‌Troutman‌‌Sanders,‌‌Syed‌‌Mohsin‌‌Reza‌‌was‌‌the‌‌o wner‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌  
loan‌‌a lleged‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌p roperty‌  ‌
● WELLS‌‌FARGO‌‌BANK‌‌in‌‌a ‌‌n otarized‌‌statement‌‌states‌‌n o‌‌o wnership‌‌a nd‌‌o r‌‌a ny‌‌record‌‌o f‌‌  
any‌‌loan‌‌o r‌‌interest‌‌in‌‌Spring‌‌St.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌the‌‌a ppearance‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌facts‌‌that‌‌insiders‌‌have‌‌shared‌‌with‌‌J WG‌‌a nd‌‌with‌‌the‌‌a cts‌‌a nd‌‌a ctions‌‌o f‌‌  
OCWEN‌‌/‌‌PHH‌‌is‌‌m oving‌‌its‌‌a ssets‌‌to‌‌NewRez‌‌that‌‌was‌‌o nce‌‌o wned‌‌b y‌‌PHH.‌ ‌That‌‌further‌‌shows‌‌that‌‌  
investors,‌‌shareholders‌‌o f‌‌o wner‌‌The‌‌Residential‌‌Investment‌‌Corp‌‌m ay‌‌n ot‌‌k now‌‌loans‌‌that‌‌d o‌‌n ot‌‌e xist‌‌a nd‌‌  
or‌‌should‌‌n ot‌‌e xist‌‌a re‌‌b eing‌‌m oved‌‌a nd‌‌o r‌‌c ounted‌‌a s‌‌a ssets‌‌o n‌‌OCWEN‌‌/‌‌PHH‌‌a s‌‌well‌‌a s‌‌New‌‌Rez‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌  
question‌‌b ecomes:‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
10‌  ‌
 ‌
How‌‌m any‌‌d o‌‌n on‌‌e xisting‌‌a ssets‌‌a ccounted‌‌for‌‌-‌‌for‌‌which‌‌c ompanies‌‌e tc.‌‌is‌‌a ‌‌Question‌‌a ll‌‌Plaintiffs‌‌should‌‌ 
be‌‌c oncerned‌‌with‌‌a s‌‌they‌‌a re‌‌supposed‌‌to‌‌p rotect‌‌the‌‌p ublic‌‌from‌‌these‌‌Schemes.‌  ‌
 ‌
The‌‌d ocuments‌‌filed‌‌a gainst‌‌the‌‌h ome‌‌a t‌‌Spring‌‌St.‌ ‌a lso‌‌shows‌‌it‌‌b eing‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌b alance‌‌sheet‌‌o f‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌/‌‌
 
Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌a ka‌‌LaSalle‌‌Bank.‌  ‌
 ‌
Stay‌‌g ranted‌‌a nd‌‌v iolated.‌‌‌That‌‌o n‌‌August‌‌8 ,‌‌2 017‌‌a ‌‌“ STAY”‌‌in‌‌Appeal‌‌No.‌‌1 6-‌‌2 459‌‌in‌‌the‌‌Fourth‌‌Circuit‌‌  
Court‌‌o f‌‌Appeals‌‌which‌‌Defendant‌‌OCWEN‌‌Loan‌‌Servicing‌‌LLC‌‌a long‌‌with‌‌BWW‌‌LAW‌‌GROUP,‌‌a /k/a‌‌  
BIERMAN,‌‌GEESING,‌‌WARD‌‌& ‌‌Wood,‌‌LLC.‌‌HOWARD‌‌N.‌‌BIERMAN‌‌,‌‌EQUITY‌‌TRUSTEES,‌‌LLC.‌‌  
MARK‌‌R.‌‌GALBRAITH‌‌,‌‌WELLS‌‌FARGO,‌‌BANK‌‌OF‌‌AMERICA,‌‌f/k/a‌‌-‌‌a s‌‌successor-in-interest‌‌to‌‌  
LaSALLE‌‌BANK,‌‌a re‌‌Defendants.‌‌With‌‌a ‌‌Claim‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌is‌‌the‌‌Note‌‌H older‌‌while‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌  
informs‌‌CFPB‌‌they‌‌have‌‌nothing‌‌to‌‌do‌‌with‌‌a ‌‌loan‌‌a t‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌St.,‌‌Alexandria‌‌VA‌‌2 2301‌‌a nd‌‌o r‌‌  
with‌‌J anice‌‌Wolk‌‌G renadier.‌ ‌That‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌went‌‌a s‌‌far‌‌a s‌‌to‌‌file‌‌a ‌‌such‌‌a ‌‌statement‌‌in‌‌the‌‌  
Circuit‌‌Court‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌City‌‌o f‌‌Alexandria,‌‌a nd‌‌then‌‌to‌‌O VERNIGHT‌‌prior‌‌to‌‌c ourt‌‌to‌‌J WG‌‌a ‌‌  
STATEMENT‌‌THAT‌‌WELLS‌‌FARGO‌‌BANK‌‌H AD‌‌NO‌‌SUCH‌‌DOCUMENTS‌  ‌
 ‌
WELLS‌‌FARGO‌‌BANK‌‌e mployee‌‌went‌‌so‌‌far‌‌a s‌‌to‌‌investigate‌‌including‌‌with‌‌Mers‌‌a nd‌‌o ther‌‌sites‌‌a nd‌‌  
stated‌‌v ery‌‌c learly‌‌to‌‌J WG‌‌“ NO‌‌SUCH‌‌LOAN‌‌EXISTS,‌‌DO‌‌NOT‌‌G IVE‌‌UP‌‌YOUR‌‌FIGHT”.‌  ‌
 ‌
That‌‌OCWEN‌‌foreclosed‌‌o n‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadiers‌‌h ome‌‌o f‌‌n ow‌‌2 9‌‌y ears‌‌with‌‌Forged,‌‌Fake‌‌Fraudulent‌‌  
Documents.‌ ‌The‌‌foreclosure‌‌took‌‌p lace‌ ‌On‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌March‌‌3 0,‌‌2 018‌‌(JWG‌‌is‌‌still‌‌in‌‌the‌‌h ome)‌‌then‌‌sent‌‌a ‌‌  
Fraudulent‌ ‌IRS‌‌1 099-A,‌‌(February‌‌2 019).‌ ‌The‌‌lawyers‌‌for‌‌OCWEN‌‌-‌‌TROUTMAN‌‌SANDERS‌‌    ‌
have‌‌u sed‌‌a n‌‌a gent‌‌Micheal‌‌Martinez‌‌to‌‌h arass‌‌a nd‌‌try‌‌to‌‌g et‌‌JWG‌‌to‌‌d o‌‌a ‌‌short‌‌sale‌‌a fter‌‌the‌‌Foreclosure‌‌  
with‌‌a ll‌ ‌a ppearances‌‌for‌‌p ersonal‌‌g ain‌‌for‌‌lawyers‌‌a t‌‌Troutman‌‌Sanders‌‌a ka‌‌Mays‌‌& ‌‌Valentine‌‌(Lawyer‌‌Syed‌‌  
Mohsin‌‌Reza.‌ ‌The‌‌a lleged‌ ‌loan‌‌has‌ ‌now‌‌b een‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌NewRez‌‌LLC‌‌b y‌‌OCWEN‌‌/PHH‌‌a s‌‌o f‌ ‌o n‌‌o r‌‌  
around‌ ‌August‌‌2 6,‌‌2 019,‌‌remember‌‌this‌‌loan‌‌was‌‌foreclosed‌‌o n‌‌b y‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌ ‌N.A.‌ ‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌  
March‌‌3 1,‌‌2 018.‌‌ ‌That‌‌lawyer‌‌Syed‌‌Mohsin‌‌Reza‌‌o n‌ ‌February‌ ‌2 7,‌‌2 020‌‌sent‌‌JWG‌‌a ‌‌m alicious,‌‌threatening‌‌  
letter,‌‌a fter‌‌h aving‌‌stated‌‌in‌‌c ourt‌‌o n‌‌o r‌ ‌a round‌‌August‌‌o f‌‌2 019‌‌that‌‌“ ‌‌WELLS‌‌FARGO‌‌BANK‌‌N.A.”‌ ‌o wned‌‌  
the‌‌a lleged‌‌loan.‌ ‌On‌‌December‌‌7 ,‌ ‌2 018‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌N.A.‌‌filed‌‌in‌‌the‌‌City‌‌o f‌‌Alexandria‌‌Court‌‌that‌ ‌it‌‌  
was‌‌u nable‌‌to‌‌locate‌‌a ny‌‌Information‌‌o n‌‌such‌‌loan‌‌a nd‌‌o r‌‌h ome.‌ ‌On‌‌August‌‌7 ,‌‌2 019‌ ‌in‌‌a ‌‌notarized‌‌letter‌‌  
Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌N.A.‌ ‌No‌‌d ocuments,‌‌records,‌‌o r‌‌o ther‌‌m aterials‌‌e xist‌ ‌for‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌‌a nd‌‌o r‌‌the‌‌  
property‌‌a t‌ ‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌Street,‌‌Alexandria,‌‌VA‌ ‌2 2301.‌‌That‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌ ‌o wns‌‌stock‌‌in‌  ‌
OCWEN‌‌/‌‌PHH‌‌m erge‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌‌October‌‌4 ,‌‌2 018‌,‌‌NewRez‌‌LLC‌‌(OCWEN‌‌is‌‌m oving‌‌its‌‌Assists‌‌which‌‌  
includes‌‌a nd‌‌n ot‌‌limited‌‌to‌‌loans‌‌that‌‌d o‌‌n ot‌‌EXIST‌‌o r‌‌should‌‌n ot‌ ‌such‌‌a s‌‌Spring‌‌St.)‌‌a ka‌‌New‌‌Residential‌‌    ‌
Investments‌‌Corp,‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌a nd‌‌Mr.‌‌Cooper.‌‌JWG‌‌filed‌‌4 2‌‌Complaints‌ ‌b etween‌‌2 017‌‌-‌‌2 019‌‌  
Ignored‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌CFPB.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
 ‌
Defendant‌‌lack‌‌o f‌‌standing‌.‌‌That‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌2 013,‌‌Defendant‌‌OCWEN‌‌(only‌‌h as‌‌Servicing‌‌Rights‌‌n ot‌‌the‌‌  
Right‌‌to‌‌a ssign)‌‌b ecame‌‌a ware‌‌o f‌‌its‌‌lack‌‌o f‌‌standing‌‌to‌‌p ursue‌‌a ny‌‌type‌‌o f‌‌foreclosure‌‌a ction‌‌o n‌‌Plaintiff’s‌‌  
home,‌‌located‌‌a t‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌Street,‌‌Alexandria‌‌VA‌‌2 230,‌‌b ut‌‌they‌‌n evertheless,‌‌for‌‌their‌‌o wn‌‌financial‌‌  
profit‌‌a nd‌‌g ain,‌‌p ursued‌‌illegal‌‌c ollection‌‌remedies‌‌that‌‌h ave‌‌wrongfully‌‌h armed‌‌this‌‌Plaintiff.‌‌That‌‌Evette‌‌  
Morales‌‌who‌‌signed‌‌a s‌‌a ttorney‌‌in‌‌Fact‌‌for‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌is‌‌a n‌‌e mployee‌‌o f‌‌O CWEN.‌‌‌The‌‌p erson‌‌  
who‌‌n otarized‌‌the‌‌d ocument‌‌that‌‌g ave‌‌Surety‌‌Trustee‌‌a ka‌‌McCabe‌‌Weisberg‌‌a nd‌‌Conway‌‌the‌‌right‌‌to‌‌  
Foreclose‌‌h as‌‌the‌‌same‌‌title‌‌a s‌‌Evette‌‌Morales‌‌a nd‌‌seems‌‌to‌‌b e‌‌o ffice‌‌m ates.‌‌‌Further‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌  
11‌  ‌
 ‌
denies‌‌e very‌‌g iving‌‌Evette‌‌Morales‌‌a ny‌‌type‌‌o f‌‌POWER‌‌O F‌‌ATTORNEY‌‌‌to‌‌d ecide‌‌who‌‌h as‌‌foreclosure‌‌  
POWER.‌‌Evette‌‌is‌‌a ‌‌Contract‌‌Management‌‌Coordinator‌‌a t‌‌OCWEN‌‌Financial‌‌Corporation.‌‌This‌‌job‌‌  
advertises‌‌for‌‌a ‌‌salary‌‌o f‌‌$ 30,000‌‌-‌‌$ 36,000‌‌a pprox.‌ ‌That‌‌O CWEN/PHH‌‌e mployee‌‌stated‌‌c learly‌‌that‌‌  
OCWEN‌‌e mployee’s‌‌jobs‌‌were‌‌g aged‌‌o n‌‌how‌‌m any‌‌documents‌‌were‌‌done‌‌in‌‌a n‌‌hour.‌ ‌That‌‌the‌‌working‌‌  
conditions‌‌were‌‌like‌‌a ‌‌sweatshop.‌ ‌Employees‌‌let‌‌g o‌‌were‌‌r eplaced‌‌with‌‌e mployees‌‌in‌‌India.‌ ‌The‌‌  
employees‌‌were‌‌told‌‌by‌‌Lawyers‌‌to‌‌leave‌‌c ustomers‌‌o n‌‌hold,‌‌turn‌‌o ff‌‌FAX‌‌m achine’s‌‌so‌‌they‌‌c ould‌‌not‌‌  
receive‌‌documents,‌‌not‌‌to‌‌a nswer‌‌the‌‌phones.‌‌The‌‌foreclosure‌‌lawyers‌‌depended‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌e mployees‌‌to‌‌  
create‌‌“ FAKE‌‌a nd‌‌FRAUDULENT”‌‌documents‌‌for‌‌them‌‌to‌‌put‌‌their‌‌names‌‌o n‌‌a s‌‌r eviewing‌‌them.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌in‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌2 014,‌‌OCWEN‌‌to‌‌a void‌‌a ny‌‌c riminal‌‌c harges‌‌– ‌‌n o‌‌d ifferent‌‌then‌‌in‌‌the‌‌p ast‌‌with‌‌Wells‌‌  
Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌a nd‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌d id‌‌a ‌‌c onsent‌‌ORDER‌‌to‌‌c ease‌‌a nd‌‌d esist‌‌the‌‌c riminal‌‌a ctivity.‌‌The‌‌  
Securities‌‌a nd‌‌Exchange‌‌Commission‌‌(“Commission”)‌‌d eems‌‌it‌‌a ppropriate‌‌that‌‌c ease-and-desist‌‌  
proceedings‌‌b e,‌‌a nd‌‌h ereby‌‌a re,‌‌instituted‌‌p ursuant‌‌to‌‌S ection‌‌2 1C‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌S ecurities‌‌Exchange‌‌Act‌‌o f‌‌1 934‌‌  
(“Exchange‌‌Act”)‌‌a gainst‌‌Ocwen‌‌Financial‌‌Corp.‌‌(“Ocwen”‌‌o r‌‌“Respondent”).‌7   ‌
 ‌
That‌‌OCWEN‌‌h as‌‌v iolated‌‌the‌‌Consent‌‌ORDER‌‌that‌‌was‌‌a lso‌‌signed‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌Attorney‌‌General‌‌o f‌‌Virginia.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌the‌‌CFPB‌‌h as‌‌filed‌‌a ‌‌n ew‌‌Complaint‌‌a gainst‌‌OCWEN‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌April‌‌2 0,‌‌2 017:‌‌in‌‌the‌‌USDC‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌  
Southern‌‌District‌‌o f‌‌Florida‌‌West‌‌Palm‌‌Beach‌‌Division‌‌Case‌‌No.‌‌9 :17‌‌– cv-‌‌8 0495‌‌-‌‌CFPB‌‌v.‌‌OCWEN‌‌  
FINANCIAL‌‌CORPORATION‌‌a ‌‌Florida‌‌Corporation‌‌,‌‌OCWEN‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌SERVING,‌‌INC,‌‌a ‌‌US‌‌Virgin‌‌  
Islands‌‌c orporation‌‌AND‌‌OCWEN‌‌LOAN‌‌SERVICING‌‌LLC‌‌a ‌‌Delaware‌‌Corporation‌‌Page‌‌2 ‌‌Paragraph‌‌2 ‌‌  
States:‌‌‌The‌‌b ureau‌‌b rings‌‌this‌‌a ction‌‌a gainst‌‌the‌‌Defendants‌‌u nder:‌‌(1)Sections‌‌1 031‌‌a nd‌‌1 036‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌CFPA‌‌,‌‌  
12‌‌USC‌‌§ §‌‌5 531,‌‌5 536;‌‌(2)‌‌Sections‌‌8 07‌‌(2)(a),‌‌8 07(10),‌‌a nd‌‌8 08‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Fair‌‌Debt‌‌Collection‌‌Practices‌‌Act,‌‌  
15‌‌USC‌‌§ §‌‌1 692e(2)(a),‌‌1 692e(10),‌‌a nd‌‌1 692f‌‌(the‌‌“ FDCPA”);‌‌(3)‌‌Section‌‌6 ‌‌a nd‌‌1 9‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Real‌‌Estate‌‌  
Settlement‌‌Procedures‌‌Act‌‌(RESPA),‌‌1 2‌‌USC‌‌§ §‌‌2 605,‌‌2 617,‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌regulations,‌‌p romulgated‌‌thereunder‌‌a t‌‌  
Regulation‌‌X,‌‌1 2‌‌C.F.R.‌‌p art‌‌1 024‌‌(“Regulation‌‌X”);‌‌(4)‌‌Section‌‌1 05(a)‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Truth‌‌a nd‌‌Lending‌‌Act‌‌  
(“TILA”),‌‌1 5‌‌USC‌‌§ ‌‌1 604(a),‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌regulations‌‌p romulgated‌‌thereunder‌‌a ct‌‌Regulation‌‌Z,‌‌1 2‌‌C.F.R.‌‌p art‌‌  
1026‌‌(“Regulation‌‌Z”):‌‌a nd‌‌(5)‌‌Section‌‌3 (b)‌‌o f‌‌Homeowners‌‌Protection‌‌Act‌‌o f‌‌1 998,‌‌1 2‌‌USC‌‌§ ‌‌4 902(b)(the‌‌  
“HPA”).‌‌PLAINTIFF‌‌INCORPORATES‌‌THIS‌‌COMPLAINT‌‌into‌‌THIS‌‌COMPLAINT‌‌that‌‌shows‌‌the‌‌  
UNCLEAN‌‌HANDS‌‌OF‌‌OCWEN‌‌AND‌‌DEFENDANTS‌‌TO‌‌COVER‌‌UP‌‌c riminal‌‌a ctivity.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
This‌‌G overnment‌‌a nd‌‌this‌‌Court‌‌is‌‌a ware‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌UNCLEAN‌‌hands‌‌a nd‌‌have‌‌supported‌‌the‌‌Banks‌‌a nd‌‌
 
Servicers‌‌c riminal‌‌a ctivity‌‌ignoring‌‌the‌‌American‌‌Citizen.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
The‌‌scheme‌‌a nd‌‌a rtifice‌‌b etween‌‌the‌‌Defendants‌‌who‌‌intentionally‌‌a nd‌‌willfully‌‌scheme‌‌to‌‌d efraud‌‌Plaintiff,‌‌
 
was‌‌for‌‌the‌‌p urpose‌‌o f‌‌u sing‌‌c olor‌‌o f‌‌law‌‌a nd‌‌m isuse‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Trustee‌‌function,‌‌to‌‌o btain‌‌m oney,‌‌a ttorney‌‌fees,‌‌
 
and‌‌p laintiffs‌‌p roperty‌‌for‌‌their‌‌o wn‌‌b enefit‌‌b y‌‌m aterially‌‌false‌‌a nd‌‌fraudulent‌‌p retense,‌‌representations‌‌a nd‌‌
 
promises,‌‌b y‌‌intentionally‌‌d efrauding‌‌b oth‌‌the‌‌Plaintiff‌‌a nd‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌b y‌‌c ollecting‌‌o n‌‌a ‌‌n on-existent‌‌
 
loan,‌‌which‌‌they‌‌k new‌‌was‌‌n ot‌‌c ollectible,‌‌was‌‌written‌‌o ff‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌b ank,‌‌a nd‌‌which‌‌they‌‌interfered‌‌with‌‌
 
refinancing‌‌to‌‌c ause‌‌h arm‌‌to‌‌Plaintiff‌‌a nd‌‌o pportunity‌‌for‌‌themselves.‌  ‌

7
‌Https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2016/34-76938.pdf‌  ‌
12‌  ‌
 ‌
 ‌
Manner‌‌a nd‌‌m eans.‌‌During‌‌the‌‌relevant‌‌p eriod,‌‌Defendants‌‌schemed‌‌to‌‌foreclose‌‌o n‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌St,‌‌
 
Alexandria‌‌VA‌‌2 2301‌‌with‌‌k nowledge‌‌a forethought‌‌a nd‌‌d espite‌‌q uestions‌‌raised‌‌in‌‌c ourt‌‌that‌‌there‌‌is‌‌n o‌‌
 
valid‌‌loan‌‌d ocumentation‌‌in‌‌e xistence‌‌a s‌‌required‌‌for‌‌foreclosure‌‌u nder‌‌law.‌ ‌Through‌‌d eceptive‌‌p ractices‌‌
 
foreclosed‌‌o n‌‌March‌‌3 0,‌‌2 018.‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
The‌‌k nowing‌‌a cts‌‌a nd‌‌o missions‌‌o f‌‌BWW,‌ ‌MWC,‌‌Brock‌‌& ‌‌Scott,‌‌Troutman,‌‌AG‌‌Herring‌‌e t‌‌a l‌‌show‌‌a ‌‌
 
pattern‌‌a nd‌‌p ractice‌‌o f‌‌law‌‌firms,‌‌g overnment‌‌e nabling‌‌a nd‌‌c overing‌‌u p‌‌for‌‌e ach‌‌o ther‌‌for‌‌their‌‌o wn‌‌
 
self-profit.‌‌The‌‌d efendants‌‌represent‌‌Foreclosure‌‌Mills‌‌a cross‌‌America‌‌– ‌‌when‌‌law‌‌firms‌‌a nd‌‌trustees‌‌o perate‌‌
 
fraudulently‌‌to‌‌c ause‌‌a nd‌‌c reate‌‌u nnecessary‌‌foreclosures‌‌– ‌‌a s‌‌in‌‌this‌‌c ase,‌‌solely‌‌for‌‌their‌‌o wn‌‌financial‌‌
 
gain.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
The‌‌knowledgeable‌‌a cts‌‌a nd‌‌a ctions‌‌d escribed‌‌h erein‌‌v iolate‌‌Rules‌‌o f‌‌c ourt,‌‌federal‌‌law,‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌United‌‌
 
States‌‌Constitution,‌‌b y‌‌d enying‌‌Plaintiff's/‌‌JWG‌‌fundamental‌‌right‌‌to‌‌Due‌‌Process‌‌a nd‌‌o wnership‌‌o f‌‌p roperty.‌‌
 
Under‌‌a ‌‌p attern‌‌o f‌‌‘legal‌‌m ortgage‌‌fraud’‌‌in‌‌a dministration/collection.‌  ‌
 ‌
Here,‌‌so-called‌‌lawyer‌‌“ Trustees”‌‌a re‌‌a ttorneys‌‌who‌‌o perate‌‌a s‌‌joint‌‌lawyers‌‌in‌‌the‌‌same‌‌shared‌‌o ffice‌‌space,‌‌
 
who‌‌d ouble‌‌d ip‌‌b y‌‌c hurning‌‌illegitimate‌‌c ollection,‌‌sale,‌‌a ttorney,‌‌a nd‌‌trustee‌‌fees‌‌in‌‌v iolation‌‌o f‌‌Rules‌‌o f‌‌
 
Ethics‌‌a nd‌‌self-dealing,‌‌b y‌‌c hurning‌‌c losed‌‌a nd‌‌settled‌‌c ollection‌‌a ccounts‌‌into‌‌their‌‌o wn‌‌p rofit.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
Here,‌‌the‌‌involved‌‌lawyers‌‌failed‌‌to‌‌d isclose‌‌they‌‌o perate‌‌b oth‌‌a s‌‌c ollection‌‌lawyers,‌‌trustee,‌‌a nd‌‌foreclosure‌‌
 
lawyers,‌‌without‌‌d isclosure‌‌a nd‌‌in‌‌v iolation‌‌o f‌‌fiduciary‌‌a nd‌‌e thical‌‌d uties.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
The‌‌“ ‌‌Servicer”,‌‌the‌‌lawyer‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌trustee‌‌a ll‌‌worked‌‌in‌‌c ollusion‌‌to‌‌p rovide‌‌false‌‌a nd‌‌m isleading‌‌
 
information‌‌to‌‌d efraud‌‌the‌‌Plaintiff.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
Wire‌‌Fraud‌.‌‌The‌‌scheme‌‌was‌‌transmitted‌‌b y‌‌interstate‌‌wire‌‌c ommunications‌‌in‌‌writings,‌‌e mails,‌‌telephone‌‌
 
calls,‌‌facsimiles‌‌a ll‌‌in‌‌v iolation‌‌o f‌‌Section‌‌1 343‌‌o f‌‌Title‌‌1 8‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌United‌‌States‌‌Code.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
This‌‌a ction’s‌‌for‌‌a ppropriate‌‌for‌‌r elief‌‌p ursuant‌‌to‌‌the‌‌c ommon‌‌law,‌‌statute‌‌a nd/or‌‌Constitution‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌
 
United‌‌States‌‌o f‌‌America,‌‌for‌‌impermissible‌‌restraints‌‌u pon‌‌the‌‌Plaintiff’s‌‌c onstitutionally‌‌p rotected‌‌p roperty,‌‌
 
in‌‌Violation‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Fair‌‌Debt‌‌Collection‌‌Practices‌‌Act‌‌(FDCPA)‌‌(15‌‌U.S.C‌‌1 692,‌‌ET‌‌SEQ.),‌‌a lso‌‌for‌‌Breach‌‌o f‌‌
 
Contract,‌‌Honest‌‌Service‌‌u nder‌‌1 8‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌1 346‌‌for‌‌the‌‌Breach‌‌o f‌‌Fiduciary‌‌d uty‌‌to‌‌d efraud‌‌a ‌‌h omebuyer‌‌/‌‌
 
owner‌‌a nd‌‌d eprive‌‌h er‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌right‌‌to‌‌h onest‌‌services‌‌without‌‌fraud.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
13‌  ‌
 ‌
Pursuant‌‌to‌‌the‌‌Federal‌‌Civil‌‌False‌‌Claims‌‌Act,‌‌3 1‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌3 729‌‌e t‌‌seq.(to‌‌p reserve‌‌the‌‌right‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌
 
Government‌‌to‌‌b ecome‌‌a ‌‌p arty‌‌to‌‌the‌‌suit‌‌a s‌‌a ‌‌Relator‌‌in‌‌the‌‌p rotection‌‌o f‌‌m any‌‌o thers)‌‌That‌‌the‌‌Defendants‌‌
 
pursued‌‌a nd‌‌c ontinue‌‌to‌‌p ursue‌‌foreclosure‌‌a ctions‌‌u sing‌‌false‌‌a nd‌‌fabricated‌‌d ocuments,‌‌p articularly‌‌
 
mortgage‌‌a ssignments‌‌to‌‌c onceal‌‌that‌‌they‌‌a re‌‌m issing‌‌c ritical‌‌d ocuments,‌‌n amely,‌‌the‌‌m ortgage‌‌
 
assignments.‌‌Without‌‌lawfully‌‌e xecuted‌‌m ortgage‌‌a ssignments,‌‌the‌‌v alue‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌m ortgages‌‌a nd‌‌n otes‌‌h eld‌‌b y‌‌
 
the‌‌trusts‌‌is‌‌impaired‌‌b ecause‌‌e ffective‌‌a ssignments‌‌a re‌‌n ecessary‌‌for‌‌the‌‌trust‌‌to‌‌foreclose‌‌o n‌‌its‌‌a ssets‌‌in‌‌the‌‌
 
event‌‌o f‌‌m ortgage‌‌d efaults.‌‌When‌‌the‌‌trustee‌‌b anks‌‌d iscovered‌‌that‌‌the‌‌m ortgage‌‌a ssignments‌‌were‌‌m issing,‌‌
 
the‌‌trustee‌‌b anks,‌‌together‌‌with‌‌a n‌‌a ssociated‌‌servicing‌‌c ompany,‌‌d efault‌‌Management‌‌Company‌‌a nd/or‌‌
 
mortgage‌‌loan‌‌d ocumentation‌‌c ompany‌‌(OCWEN),‌‌d evised‌‌a nd‌‌o perated‌‌a ‌‌scheme‌‌a nd‌‌a rtifice‌‌to‌‌replace‌‌
 
the‌‌m issing‌‌a ssignments‌‌with‌‌fraudulent,‌‌fabricated‌‌a ssignments.‌‌The‌‌p urpose‌‌o f‌‌this‌‌scheme‌‌was‌‌to‌‌m eet‌‌the‌‌
 
evidentiary‌‌requirements‌‌imposed‌‌b y‌‌c ourts‌‌in‌‌the‌‌foreclosure‌‌c ases‌‌a nd‌‌to‌‌c onceal‌‌from‌‌trust‌‌shareholders‌‌
 
the‌‌true,‌‌impaired‌‌v alue‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a ssets‌‌o f‌‌e ach‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a lleged‌‌trusts,‌‌c rippled‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌m issing‌‌a ssignments‌‌a nd‌‌
 
related‌‌d ocuments,‌‌c reating‌‌illegal‌‌foreclosure.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
That‌‌a ll‌‌this‌‌was‌‌d isclosed‌‌in‌‌2 010‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌b ad‌‌b ehavior‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌b anks‌‌is‌‌n ow‌‌the‌‌b ad‌‌b ehavior‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌
 
Servicers.‌‌The‌‌Servicers‌‌h ave‌‌a ‌‌front‌‌d oor‌‌a nd‌‌b y‌‌a ll‌‌a ppearance‌‌o ne‌‌set‌‌o f‌‌b ooks‌‌for‌‌the‌‌SEC‌‌e t‌‌a l‌‌a nd‌‌o ne‌‌
 
for‌‌the‌‌b ack‌‌d oor‌‌o f‌‌fraudulent‌‌fake‌‌m ortgages.‌ ‌That‌‌p ast‌‌e mployee‌‌stated‌‌they‌‌were‌‌instructed‌‌to‌‌c reate‌‌
 
“FAKE”‌‌a ssignments‌‌that‌‌c onsisted‌‌o f‌‌“ FAKE”‌‌b ar‌‌n umbers‌‌a s‌‌the‌‌o ne‌‌Spring‌‌St.‌ ‌Exhibit‌‌2 .‌  ‌
 ‌
Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌a nd‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌f/k/a‌‌LaSalle‌‌Bank‌‌presently‌‌c laim‌‌‌they‌‌h ave‌‌n o‌‌loan‌‌(including‌‌the‌‌
 
loan‌‌n umber‌‌c laimed‌‌b y‌‌OCWEN),‌‌o r‌‌a ny‌‌o ther‌‌loan‌‌u nder‌‌the‌‌n ame‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk-Grenadier‌‌a ka‌‌Janice‌‌
 
Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌‌o r‌‌u nder‌‌h er‌‌Social‌‌Security‌‌n umber.‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌stated‌‌such‌‌to‌‌the‌‌CFPB.‌ ‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌
 
bank‌‌h as‌‌filed‌‌in‌‌the‌‌City‌‌o f‌‌Alexandria‌‌a nd‌‌Notarize‌ ‌letter‌‌stating‌‌it‌‌h as‌‌n o‌‌loan.‌‌Exhibit‌‌5  ‌ ‌
 ‌
Through‌‌the‌‌a ttached‌‌d ocumentation,‌‌Plaintiff‌‌shows‌‌the‌‌shoddy‌‌u nlawful‌‌a nd‌‌u nethical‌‌p ractices‌‌o f‌‌this‌‌
 
server,‌‌the‌‌a ttorneys‌‌a nd‌‌their‌‌representatives,‌‌including‌‌the‌‌n onproduction‌‌o f‌‌a ny‌‌o riginal‌‌n ote‌‌d ocuments.‌‌
 
Defendants‌‌a nd‌‌their‌‌representatives‌‌e ither‌‌g enerated‌‌o r‌‌rely‌‌o n‌‌loan‌‌d ocuments‌‌that‌‌a re‌‌forged,‌‌robo-signed,‌‌
 
or‌‌reversed-engineered.,‌‌a nd‌‌in‌‌a ‌‌m anner‌‌that‌‌is‌‌a rbitrary‌‌a nd‌‌c apricious‌‌in‌‌d ealing‌‌with‌‌the‌‌Plaintiff.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
The‌‌Fraud‌‌c arried‌‌o ut‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌Defendants‌‌in‌‌this‌‌c ase‌‌includes,‌‌inter‌‌a lia:‌‌
   ‌
● Mortgage‌‌a ssignments‌‌with‌‌forged‌‌signatures‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌individuals‌‌signing‌‌o n‌‌b ehalf‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌g rantors,‌‌
 
and‌‌forged‌‌signatures‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌witnesses‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌n otaries‌‌b y‌‌a ll‌‌a ppearance;‌‌
   ‌
● Mortgage‌‌a ssignments‌‌with‌‌signatures‌‌o f‌‌individuals‌‌signing‌‌a s‌‌c orporate‌‌o fficers‌‌for‌‌b anks‌‌a nd‌‌
 
mortgage‌‌c ompanies‌‌that‌‌n ever‌‌e mployed‌‌them‌‌b y‌‌a ll‌‌a ppearance;‌‌
   ‌

14‌  ‌
 ‌
● Mortgage‌‌a ssignments‌‌p repared‌‌o n‌‌b ehalf‌‌o f‌‌g rantors‌‌who‌‌h ad‌‌n ever‌‌themselves‌‌a cquired‌‌o wnership‌‌
 
of‌‌the‌‌m ortgage‌‌a nd‌‌n otes‌‌b y‌‌a ‌‌v alid‌‌transfer,‌‌including‌‌a ssignments‌‌where‌‌the‌‌g rantor‌‌was‌‌identified‌‌
 
as‌‌“ Bogus‌‌Assignee‌‌for‌‌Intervening‌‌Assignments”‌‌a nd‌‌
   ‌
● Mortgage‌‌a ssignments‌‌n otarized‌‌b y‌‌n otaries‌‌who‌‌n ever‌‌witnessed‌‌the‌‌signatures‌‌that‌‌they‌‌n otarized.‌‌
   ‌
● 1099‌‌to‌‌the‌‌IRS‌‌that‌‌the‌‌IRS‌‌h as‌‌d eemed‌‌a ‌‌Fraud‌ ‌Exhibit‌‌6  ‌ ‌
● SEC‌‌a s‌‌a ‌‌stockholder‌‌the‌‌p laying‌‌o f‌‌d ouble‌‌a ccounting‌‌to‌‌e nhance‌‌e ach‌‌financial‌‌statements‌‌b y‌‌a ll‌‌
 
appearance‌‌
   ‌
● False‌‌Advertising‌‌the‌‌h ome‌‌with‌‌the‌‌wrong‌‌a ddress‌‌for‌‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌a nd‌‌c laiming‌‌Wells‌‌
 
Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌was‌‌the‌‌o wner‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌home‌‌o n‌‌H udForeclosed.‌ ‌Stated‌‌c ontact‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌a t‌‌
 
800‌‌S‌‌Broad‌‌St.‌‌Meriden,‌‌CT‌‌6 450‌ ‌Tel‌‌8 60-368-3400‌‌o r‌‌8 60-368-3400‌‌a ll‌‌Fraudulent‌‌Nos.‌ ‌The‌‌
 
principle‌‌a ‌‌California‌‌Lawyer‌‌not‌‌practicing‌‌stated‌‌the‌‌information‌‌c ame‌‌from‌‌the‌‌Bank.‌ ‌the‌‌
 
Bank‌‌denies‌‌a ny‌‌knowledge‌‌o f‌‌such‌‌a ‌‌listing‌‌e specially‌‌since‌‌they‌‌don’t‌‌o wn‌‌such‌‌home.‌ ‌O n‌‌
 
around‌‌May‌‌/‌‌J une‌‌o f‌‌2 020‌‌
   ‌
● Troutman‌‌Pepper‌‌Hamiltons‌‌Sanders‌‌lawyer‌‌S.‌‌Mohsin‌‌Reza‌‌r equested‌‌I‌‌do‌‌a ‌‌“ SHORT‌‌SALE”‌‌
 
a‌fter‌‌the‌‌h ome‌‌was‌‌foreclosed‌‌with‌‌h is‌‌p artner‌‌Micheal‌‌Marteniz.‌ ‌Mr.‌‌Reza‌‌e ven‌‌g ave‌‌h im‌‌m y‌‌
 
daughter's‌‌p hone‌‌n umber‌‌to‌‌h arass‌‌h er.‌   ‌ ‌
● Troutman‌‌Pepper‌‌Hamiltons‌‌Sanders‌‌lawyer‌‌S.‌‌Mohsin‌‌Reza‌‌interfered‌‌with‌‌the‌‌a nswers‌‌that‌‌Wells‌‌
 
Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌supplied‌‌to‌ ‌the‌‌CFPB‌  ‌
● Troutman‌‌Pepper‌‌Hamiltons‌‌Sanders‌‌lawyer‌‌S.‌‌Mohsin‌‌Reza‌‌d id‌‌the‌‌a ccounting‌‌I‌‌requested‌‌a nd‌‌
 
never‌‌g ot‌‌from‌‌OCWEN‌‌it‌‌is‌‌n ot‌‌readable‌‌a nd‌‌d oes‌‌n ot‌‌m ake‌‌n ote‌‌o f‌‌m onies‌‌sent‌‌to‌‌the‌‌c ompany‌  ‌
● Troutman‌‌Pepper‌‌Hamiltons‌‌Sanders‌‌lawyer‌‌S.‌‌Mohsin‌‌Reza‌‌lied‌‌in‌‌the‌‌City‌‌o f‌‌Alexandria‌‌Circuit‌‌
 
Court‌‌when‌‌h e‌‌stated‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌o wned‌‌this‌‌loan.‌ ‌Or‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌is‌‌lying.‌  ‌
 ‌
There‌‌is‌‌n owhere‌‌for‌‌a ‌‌h omeowner‌‌to‌‌g o‌‌for‌‌“ REAL‌‌HELP”.‌ ‌The‌‌a ppearance‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌facts‌‌show‌‌the‌‌
 
Government‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌c ourts‌‌h ave‌‌d isenfranchised‌‌h omeowners‌‌o f‌‌a ll‌‌rights.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
JURISDICTION‌‌AND‌‌VENUE‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
This‌‌c ourt‌‌h as‌‌o riginal‌‌jurisdiction‌‌o f‌‌federal‌‌q uestions‌‌p ursuant‌‌to‌‌2 8‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌1 331‌‌– ‌‌1 332.‌ ‌The‌‌c ourt‌‌h as‌‌
 
supplemental‌‌jurisdiction‌‌o f‌‌state‌‌c laims‌‌p ursuant‌‌to‌‌2 8‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌1 367.‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
Venue‌‌is‌‌p roper‌‌in‌‌this‌‌c ourt‌‌p ursuant‌‌to‌‌2 8‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌1 391(b)(2).‌‌That‌‌b oth‌‌OCWEN‌‌a nd‌‌MWC,‌‌Brook‌‌& ‌‌
 
Scott,‌‌Troutman‌‌Pepper‌‌Harmilton‌‌Sanders‌ ‌a re‌‌Corporations‌‌licensed‌‌to‌‌d o‌‌Business‌‌in‌‌Virginia‌‌a nd‌‌o ther‌‌
 
states.‌‌MCW,‌‌Troutman‌‌Pepper‌‌Hamilton‌‌Sanders‌ ‌transacts‌‌b usiness‌‌in‌‌Maryland,‌‌Virginia,‌‌District‌‌o f‌‌
 
Columbia,‌‌Florida,‌‌Pennsylvania,‌‌New‌‌York,‌‌Florida‌‌a nd‌‌surrounding‌‌states‌‌m aking‌‌this‌‌a ‌‌
 
15‌  ‌
 ‌
multi-jurisdictional‌‌m atter‌‌which‌‌this‌‌c ourt‌‌h as‌‌jurisdiction‌‌a nd‌‌a uthority.‌‌Defendants‌‌h ave‌‌intentionally‌‌
 
interfered‌‌with‌‌Plaintiffs‌‌rights‌‌u nder‌‌the‌‌Interstate‌‌Commerce‌‌Act‌‌which‌‌rights‌‌a re‌‌p rotected‌‌u nder‌‌Title‌‌1 5‌‌
 
U.S.C.‌‌This‌‌c ourt‌‌h as‌‌jurisdiction‌‌u nder‌‌FRCP‌‌Rule‌‌1 ,‌‌2 ,‌‌& ‌‌3 ‌‌a nd‌‌2 8‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌4 5.‌‌That‌‌the‌‌Property‌‌is‌‌
 
located‌‌in‌‌the‌‌City‌‌o f‌‌Alexandria,‌‌Virginia.‌ ‌That‌‌Government‌‌Plaintiff’s‌‌a re‌‌located‌‌in‌‌the‌‌District‌‌o f‌‌
 
Columbia.‌  ‌
PARTIES‌  ‌

 ‌
UNITED‌‌STATES‌‌O F‌‌AMERICA‌ ‌℅ ‌‌‌Department‌‌o f‌‌Justice‌‌/‌‌AG‌‌William‌‌Barr‌ ‌o bligated‌‌u nder‌‌the‌‌  
United‌‌States‌‌Constitution‌‌to‌‌p rotect‌‌the‌‌p ublic‌‌from‌‌these‌‌types‌‌o f‌‌Schemes.‌ ‌Responsible‌‌to‌‌e nsure‌‌fairness‌‌  
in‌‌the‌‌c ourts‌‌to‌‌American‌‌Citizens‌‌which‌‌a re‌‌b eing‌‌d enied‌‌such‌‌Due‌‌Process‌‌in‌‌this‌‌scheme‌ 
 ‌
SECURITIES‌‌AND‌‌EXCHANGE‌‌COMMISSION‌ ‌SECURITIES‌‌AND‌‌COMMODITIES‌‌-‌ ‌That‌‌the‌‌  
appearance‌‌is‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌d ocuments‌‌will‌‌show‌‌the‌‌treating‌‌o f‌‌a ssets‌‌b etween‌‌OCWEN‌‌a nd‌‌NewRez‌‌LLC.‌ ‌That‌‌  
employees‌‌from‌‌OCWEN‌‌were‌‌told‌‌when‌‌PHH‌‌was‌‌p urchased‌‌that‌‌Ron‌‌Faris‌‌was‌‌leaving‌‌they‌‌b elieved‌‌h e‌‌  
was‌‌b eing‌‌p ushed‌‌o ut.‌ ‌That‌‌the‌‌fraudulent‌‌d ocuments‌‌e mployees‌‌were‌‌forced‌‌to‌‌d o,‌‌is‌‌a ‌‌fraud‌‌to‌‌a ll‌‌ 
investors‌‌a nd‌‌to‌‌the‌‌h ome‌‌o wners.‌  ‌
 ‌
CONSUMER‌‌FINANCIAL‌‌PROTECTION‌‌BUREAU‌‌(CFPB)‌‌The‌‌Federal‌‌Government‌‌h as‌‌g iven‌‌  
oversight‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Foreclosure‌‌Schemes‌‌a nd‌‌Scams‌‌to‌‌the‌‌CFPB.‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
U.S.‌‌DEPARTMENT‌‌O F‌‌THE‌‌TREASURY‌‌for‌‌O VERSITE‌‌O f‌‌The‌‌Federal‌‌Insurance‌‌O ffice‌‌(FIO)‌‌  
was‌‌established‌‌under‌‌Title‌‌V‌‌of‌‌the‌‌Dodd-Frank‌‌Wall‌‌Street‌‌Reform‌‌and‌‌Consumer‌‌Protection‌‌  
Act‌  ‌
 ‌
FEDERAL‌‌H OUSING‌‌FINANCE‌‌AGENCY,‌‌(‌FHFA)‌‌‌AS‌‌CONSERVATOR‌‌FOR‌‌THE‌‌FEDERAL‌‌  
NATIONAL‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌ASSOCIATION‌‌AND‌‌THE‌‌FEDERAL‌‌H OME‌‌LOAN‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌    ‌
CORPORATION‌  ‌
 ‌
JANICE‌‌WOLK‌‌G RENADIER‌‌(JWG)‌ ‌StockHolder‌‌OCWEN,‌‌NEW‌‌REZ‌‌a ka‌ ‌New‌‌Residential‌‌  
Investment‌‌Corp,‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌/‌ ‌Plaintiff‌‌/‌‌Pro‌‌Se‌  ‌
 ‌
JOHN‌‌a nd‌‌J ANE‌ ‌DOE‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Past‌‌e mployees‌‌o f‌‌O CWEN‌‌-   ‌‌ ‌
 ‌
WELLS‌‌FARGO‌‌NATIONAL‌‌ASSOCIATION,‌‌‌a s‌‌Trustee‌‌for‌‌Option‌‌One‌‌Mortgage‌‌Loan‌‌Trust‌‌2 005-2,‌  ‌
Asset-‌‌Backed‌‌Certificates,‌‌Series‌‌2 005-2‌ ‌Has‌‌stated‌‌c learly‌‌a nd‌‌h as‌‌filed‌‌in‌‌the‌‌c ourt‌‌they‌‌h ave‌‌n o‌‌
 
information‌‌regarding‌‌a ny‌‌loan.‌ ‌They‌‌further‌‌researched‌‌it‌‌in‌‌Mers‌‌which‌‌shows‌‌n o‌‌d ocumentation‌‌u nder‌‌  
JWG‌‌SS#,‌‌a ddress‌‌o r‌‌n ame.‌  ‌
 ‌
CEO‌‌Charles‌‌W.‌‌Scharf‌ ‌WELLS‌‌FARGO‌‌N.A.,‌ ‌h as‌‌the‌‌responsibility‌‌o f‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌to‌‌e nsure‌‌integrity‌‌
 
and‌‌to‌‌p rotect‌‌the‌‌n ame‌‌o f‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌N.‌‌A.‌‌e t‌‌a l‌‌That‌‌“ FAKE”‌‌
   ‌
 ‌

16‌  ‌
 ‌
BANK‌‌OF‌‌AMERICA,‌‌f/k/a‌‌-‌‌a s‌‌successor-in-interest‌‌to‌‌LaSALLE‌‌BANK,‌‌State‌‌n o‌‌k nowledge‌‌o f‌‌such‌‌loan,‌‌  
yet‌‌d ocuments‌‌filed‌‌a gainst‌‌h ome‌‌a nd‌‌letter‌‌through‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌Group‌‌a ppears‌‌that‌‌the‌‌a lleged‌‌loan‌‌was‌‌in‌‌  
the‌‌National‌ ‌Foreclosure‌‌Settlement‌  ‌
 ‌
OCWEN‌‌LOAN‌‌SERVICING‌‌LLC‌ ‌a ka‌‌PHH‌‌a ka‌‌OCWEN‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌SERVICING,‌‌INC.‌‌a ka‌‌Ocwen‌‌  
Financial‌‌Corporation,‌‌NMLS#:‌‌1 849337‌‌Ocwen‌‌USVI‌‌Services,‌‌LLC,‌‌NMLS#:‌‌2 726‌‌PHH‌‌Mortgage‌‌  
Corporation‌Foreclosed‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌March‌‌3 0,‌‌2 018‌‌stated‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌is‌‌the‌‌o wner‌‌o f‌‌such‌‌loan‌‌in‌‌  
court‌‌-‌‌in‌‌p hone‌‌c alls.‌ ‌Stated‌‌to‌‌Broke‌‌a nd‌‌Scott‌‌n ot‌‌to‌‌Foreclose.‌ ‌Has‌‌n ever‌‌p rovided‌‌a ccounting‌‌that‌‌was‌‌  
readable.‌ ‌That‌‌m oved‌‌such‌‌loan‌‌to‌‌NewRez‌‌LLC‌‌in‌‌Plaintiffs‌‌Name,‌‌SS#‌‌a nd‌‌a ddress‌‌NewRez‌‌a round‌‌  
September‌‌o f‌‌2 019‌‌a fter‌‌foreclosing‌‌o n‌‌March‌‌3 0,‌‌2 018.‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
● OCWEN‌‌LOAN‌‌SERVICING,‌‌LLC,‌‌a ka‌‌PHH‌‌a ‌‌Delaware‌‌limited‌‌liability‌‌c ompany,‌‌o n‌‌  
December‌‌3 1,‌‌2 012‌‌p urchased‌‌Homeward‌‌Residential‌‌Service‌‌(f/k/a‌‌n ame‌‌c hanged‌‌from‌‌American‌‌  
Home‌‌Mortgage‌‌Servicing‌‌Inc‌‌February‌‌1 7,‌‌2 012).‌‌American‌‌Home‌‌Mortgage‌‌Servicing‌‌Inc‌‌was‌‌  
purchased‌‌b y‌‌Option‌‌One‌‌Mortgage‌‌servicing‌‌May‌‌1 7,‌‌2 008)‌‌Option‌‌One‌‌lost‌‌their‌‌right‌‌d o‌‌to‌‌  
business‌‌in‌‌December‌‌o f‌‌2 008.‌‌Has‌‌suites‌‌a gainst‌‌it‌‌a ll‌‌a cross‌‌America,‌‌including‌‌a ‌‌suit‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌CFPB‌‌  
in‌‌Florida‌‌for‌‌the‌‌same‌‌c riminal‌‌a ctivity‌‌a gainst‌‌JWG.‌ ‌Foreclosed‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌March‌‌3 0,‌‌2 018‌‌  
stated‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌is‌‌the‌‌o wner‌‌o f‌‌such‌‌loan‌‌in‌‌c ourt‌‌-‌‌in‌‌p hone‌‌c alls.‌ ‌Stated‌‌to‌‌Broke‌‌a nd‌‌  
Scott‌‌n ot‌‌to‌‌Foreclose.‌ ‌Has‌‌n ever‌‌p rovided‌‌a ccounts‌‌that‌‌were‌‌readable.‌ ‌That‌‌m oved‌‌such‌‌loan‌‌to‌‌  
NewRez‌‌LLC‌‌in‌‌Plaintiffs‌‌Name,‌‌SS#‌‌a nd‌‌a ddress.‌ ‌OCWEN‌‌LOAN‌‌SERVICING‌‌LLC‌ ‌a ka‌‌PHH‌‌  
aka‌‌OCWEN‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌SERVICING,‌‌INC.‌‌Foreclosed‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌March‌‌3 0,‌‌2 018‌‌stated‌‌  
Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌is‌‌the‌‌o wner‌‌o f‌‌such‌‌loan‌‌in‌‌c ourt‌‌-‌‌in‌‌p hone‌‌c alls.‌ ‌Stated‌‌to‌‌Broke‌‌a nd‌‌Scott‌‌n ot‌‌  
to‌‌Foreclose.‌ ‌Has‌‌n ever‌‌p rovided‌‌a ccounts‌‌that‌‌were‌‌readable.‌ ‌That‌‌m oved‌‌such‌‌loan‌‌to‌‌NewRez‌‌  
LLC‌‌in‌‌Plaintiffs‌‌Name,‌‌SS#‌‌a nd‌‌a ddress.‌  ‌
OCWEN’s‌‌Known‌‌Issues;‌  ‌
 ‌
Zimmerman‌ ‌Reed‌ ‌Lawyers‌‌https://www.zimmreed.com/case/ocwen-mortgage-errors-illegal-foreclosures/‌‌   ‌
States:‌  ‌

OCWEN‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌FORECLOSURES‌‌&‌‌PAYMENT‌‌PROBLEM‌‌RealServicing‌‌is‌‌a‌‌proprietary‌‌loan‌‌servicing‌‌  
platform‌‌Ocwen‌‌used‌‌to‌‌process‌‌and‌‌apply‌‌payments‌‌and‌‌communicate‌‌information‌‌to‌‌borrowers‌‌–‌‌and‌‌it’s‌‌alleged‌‌  
they‌‌loaded‌‌inaccurate‌‌information‌‌into‌‌the‌‌system‌‌resulting‌‌in‌‌the‌‌platform‌‌generating‌‌scores‌‌of‌‌errors.‌ ‌Using‌‌this‌‌
 
inaccurate‌‌information,‌‌Ocwen‌‌did‌‌not‌‌accurately‌‌account‌‌for‌‌homeowners‌‌payments‌‌or‌‌the‌‌amounts‌‌due‌‌under‌‌the‌‌  
home‌‌loans‌‌they‌‌serviced,‌‌failed‌‌to‌‌correctly‌‌process‌‌and‌‌provide‌‌for‌‌required‌‌foreclosure‌‌mitigation‌‌protection‌‌to‌‌ 
homeowners,‌‌failed‌‌to‌‌timely‌‌and‌‌properly‌‌respond‌‌to‌‌homeowners’‌‌requests‌‌for‌‌information‌‌in‌‌regards‌‌to‌‌their‌‌loans,‌‌  
and‌‌in‌‌many‌‌instances‌‌wrongfully‌‌and‌‌improperly‌‌instituted‌‌foreclosure‌‌proceedings‌‌against‌‌them.‌  ‌

The‌‌following‌‌include‌‌common‌‌complaints‌‌from‌‌homeowners:‌  ‌

● Disputes‌‌concerning‌‌the‌‌amounts‌‌due‌‌and‌‌owing‌‌on‌‌the‌‌loan‌‌after‌‌a‌‌transfer‌‌to‌‌Ocwen‌  ‌
● Account‌‌disputes‌‌and‌‌inaccuracies‌‌provided‌‌by‌‌Ocwen‌‌through‌‌its‌‌customer‌‌website‌  ‌
● Payment‌‌application‌‌issues‌  ‌
● Escrow‌‌accounting‌‌issues‌  ‌
● Loan‌‌modification‌‌process‌‌issues,‌‌including,‌‌issues‌‌related‌‌to‌‌Ocwen’s‌‌failure‌‌to‌‌properly‌‌document‌‌loan‌‌
 
modification‌‌terms‌  ‌
● Wrongful‌‌foreclosure‌‌(e.g.,‌‌authority‌‌to‌‌foreclose,‌‌amounts‌‌alleged‌‌to‌‌be‌‌due‌‌and‌‌owing)‌  ‌

17‌  ‌
 ‌
● Failure‌‌by‌‌Ocwen‌‌to‌‌adequately‌‌respond‌‌to‌‌customer‌‌inquiries‌  ‌
● Backdating‌‌of‌‌homeowner‌‌correspondence‌  ‌

MAHANY‌‌LAW‌‌ ‌https://www.mahanyertl.com/2019/ocwen-fraud-investigations/‌  ‌

States:‌  ‌
 ‌
MahanyLaw‌‌is‌‌investigating‌‌Ocwen‌‌and‌‌hopes‌‌to‌‌file‌‌one‌‌or‌‌more‌‌national‌‌class‌‌action‌‌complaints‌‌against‌‌the‌‌
 
company‌‌within‌‌coming‌‌weeks.‌  ‌

Specifically,‌‌we‌‌are‌‌investigating‌‌the‌‌following‌‌allegations‌‌of‌‌wrongdoing:‌  ‌

1. Use‌‌of‌‌a‌‌proprietary‌‌software‌‌known‌‌to‌‌trigger‌‌unsupported‌‌fees‌‌and‌‌speed‌‌foreclosures‌‌(REAL‌‌
 
Servicing);‌  ‌
2. Knowing‌‌use‌‌of‌‌infirm‌‌loan‌‌data,‌  ‌
3. Illegal‌‌foreclosures,‌  ‌
4. Failure‌‌to‌‌credit‌‌borrowers’‌‌payments,‌  ‌
5. Mismanagement‌‌of‌‌escrow‌‌accounts,‌  ‌
6. Manufactured‌‌force-placed‌‌insurance,‌  ‌
7. Delayed‌‌termination‌‌of‌‌private‌‌mortgage‌‌insurance,‌  ‌
8. Charges‌‌for‌‌additional‌‌products‌‌without‌‌consent,‌  ‌
9. Mishandling‌‌accounts‌‌for‌‌deceased‌‌borrowers,‌‌and‌  ‌
10. Failure‌‌to‌‌correct‌‌errors‌‌identified‌‌by‌‌the‌‌borrower.‌  ‌

We‌‌agree.‌‌In‌‌our‌‌opinion,‌‌Ocwen‌‌has‌‌taken‌‌fraud‌‌and‌‌abuse‌‌to‌‌a‌‌new‌‌level.‌  ‌

We‌‌hoped‌‌that‌‌Ocwen‌‌had‌‌finally‌‌met‌‌its‌‌demise‌‌in‌‌2015.‌‌That‌‌year‌‌investors‌‌sold‌‌off‌‌their‌‌stock‌‌in‌‌the‌‌company‌‌
 
causing‌‌the‌‌company’s‌‌value‌‌to‌‌plummet.‌‌Over‌‌one‌‌hundred‌‌trusts‌‌holding‌‌$82‌‌billion‌‌of‌‌mortgages‌‌gave‌‌Ocwen‌‌the‌‌  
boot.‌‌Their‌‌reasons?‌  ‌

● Using‌‌trust‌‌funds‌‌to‌‌pay‌‌off‌‌Ocwen’s‌‌obligations‌‌owed‌‌under‌‌a‌‌regulatory‌‌settlement.‌‌Instead‌‌of‌‌paying‌‌
 
what‌‌they‌‌owe,‌‌the‌‌trusts‌‌say‌‌that‌‌Ocwen‌‌pushed‌‌the‌‌payments‌‌onto‌‌them;Gross‌‌conflicts‌‌of‌‌  
interests.‌‌Ocwen‌‌used‌‌corporate‌‌affiliates‌‌such‌‌as‌‌Altisource‌‌and‌‌Home‌‌Loan‌‌Servicing‌‌Corporation‌‌to‌‌  
further‌‌enrich‌‌itself‌‌and‌‌hurt‌‌borrowers‌‌and‌‌the‌‌trusts;‌  ‌
● Failing‌‌to‌‌comply‌‌with‌‌foreclosure‌‌and‌‌consumer‌‌protection‌‌laws;‌  ‌
● Engaging‌‌in‌‌illegal‌‌and‌‌improper‌‌loan‌‌modification‌‌and‌‌advance‌‌recovery‌‌practices;‌  ‌
● Improper‌‌records‌‌practices;‌  ‌
● Failing‌‌to‌‌properly‌‌communicate‌‌with‌‌borrowers;‌‌and‌  ‌
● Failing‌‌to‌‌properly‌‌pay‌‌the‌‌trusts.‌  ‌

In‌‌other‌‌words,‌‌it‌‌isn’t‌‌just‌‌homeowners‌‌who‌‌claimed‌‌they‌‌were‌‌the‌‌victims‌‌of‌‌Ocwen‌‌fraud.‌‌It‌‌is‌‌the‌‌investors‌‌who‌‌
 
own‌‌the‌‌loans‌‌too.‌  ‌

 ‌
NEW‌‌RESIDENTIAL‌‌INVESTMENTS‌‌CORP‌ ‌Traded‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌Stock‌‌Market‌‌a s‌‌NRZ.‌ ‌NewRez‌‌LLC‌‌is‌‌a ‌‌
 
subsidiary‌‌
   ‌
 ‌

18‌  ‌
 ‌
MICHAEL‌‌NIERENBERG‌‌Chairman‌‌of‌‌the‌‌Board,‌‌Chief‌‌Executive‌‌Officer‌‌&‌‌President‌‌‌a t‌‌New‌‌Residential‌‌  
Investment‌‌Corp.‌‌Formerly‌‌Chairman‌‌of‌‌the‌‌Board,‌‌Chief‌‌Executive‌‌Officer‌‌&‌‌President‌‌/‌‌Bank‌‌of‌‌America‌‌  
Corp.‌  ‌
Former‌‌Global‌‌Head‌‌of‌‌Mortgages‌‌&‌‌Securitized‌‌Products,‌‌F ortress‌‌Investment‌‌Group‌‌LLC‌  ‌
Former‌‌Managing‌‌Director‌  ‌
 ‌
 ‌
NewRez‌‌LLC‌ ‌As‌‌o f‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌August‌‌2 6,‌‌2 019‌‌Servicer‌‌for‌‌Loan‌‌No.‌‌7 143312465‌‌a ‌‌loan‌‌c reated‌‌b y‌‌
 
OCWEN‌‌Fraudulently‌‌for‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌‌without‌‌h er‌‌p ermission‌‌d one‌‌with‌‌a ‌‌lost‌‌Assignment‌‌with‌‌a ‌‌  
Att‌‌BarCode‌‌b elonging‌‌to‌‌Judge‌‌Donald‌‌Alexandra‌‌o f‌‌Tallahassee‌‌Florida.‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
BARON‌‌SILVERSTEIN‌ ‌President‌‌o f‌‌NewRez‌‌LLC‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
BRUCE‌‌J OHN‌‌WILLIAMS‌‌CEO‌‌NewRez‌‌LLC‌‌    ‌
 ‌
KEVIN‌‌H ARRIGAN‌‌Past‌‌President;‌‌CEO‌‌NewRez‌‌LLC‌  ‌
 ‌
How‌‌They‌‌Connect:‌  ‌
 ‌
NAME‌  ‌ NOW‌  ‌ HISTORY‌  ‌

 ‌  ‌  ‌

Charles‌‌W.‌‌Scharf‌‌
   ‌ 2019‌‌CEO‌‌& ‌‌President‌ ‌Wells‌‌
  2017‌‌-‌‌2 019‌‌The‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌New‌‌York‌‌Mellon‌‌Corp‌  ‌
Fargo‌‌Bank‌  ‌ Chairman‌‌& ‌‌CEO‌  ‌
2012‌‌-‌‌2 016‌‌Visa‌‌Inc‌‌
   ‌
2004‌‌-‌‌2 011‌‌J PMorgan‌‌Chase‌‌& ‌‌Co‌ ‌CEO‌  ‌
2000‌‌-‌‌2 004‌‌Bank‌‌One‌‌Corp‌ ‌CFO‌  ‌
One‌‌Equity‌‌Partners‌‌LLC‌   ‌ ‌
1999‌‌-‌‌2 000‌ ‌Citigroup‌‌Inc‌‌CFO‌‌Global‌‌Corporate‌‌& ‌‌
 
Investment‌‌Bank‌‌Division‌  ‌
1995‌‌-‌‌1 999‌‌Salomon‌‌Smith‌‌Barney,‌‌Inc‌ ‌CFO‌  ‌
Primerica,‌‌Inc‌  ‌
Commercial‌‌Credit‌‌Corp‌‌    ‌

Brian‌‌Thomas‌‌  CEO‌‌/President‌ ‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌  ‌ 2008‌‌Merrill‌‌Lynch‌‌& ‌‌Co.‌ ‌CEO‌   ‌ ‌

Moynihan‌  ‌ US‌ ‌Trust,‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌
 
Private‌‌Wealth‌‌Management‌‌  
Chairman‌‌& ‌‌CEO‌  ‌
Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌Private‌‌Bank‌‌
 
President‌‌   ‌
2008‌‌-‌‌2 009‌ ‌QuaiSec‌  ‌
-2014‌‌US‌‌Trust‌‌Co.,‌‌N.A.‌ ‌Director‌‌& ‌‌President‌‌
   ‌
1993‌‌-‌‌2 004‌‌FleetBoston‌‌Financial‌‌Corp‌ ‌Deputy‌‌  
General‌‌Counsel,‌‌Executive‌‌VP‌  ‌
Countrywide‌‌Bank‌‌‌President‌‌Global‌‌Corporate‌  ‌
FIA‌‌Card‌‌Services‌‌President‌  ‌
Edwards‌‌& ‌‌Angell‌‌LLP‌ ‌Professional‌  ‌
Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌London‌‌Branch‌‌President‌‌& ‌‌CEO‌‌    ‌
LaSalle‌‌Bank‌‌Midwest‌‌NA‌ ‌President‌  ‌
Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌NA‌‌Troonto‌‌Branch‌‌Director‌‌& ‌‌  
President‌‌Global‌‌Wealth‌‌    ‌

Glenn‌‌A.‌‌Messina‌  ‌ CEO‌‌OCWEN/PHH‌  ‌ 2011‌‌PHH‌‌Corp.‌ ‌President‌‌/‌‌CEO‌‌/‌‌Consultant‌‌& ‌‌

 
Megallen‌‌Advisors‌‌LLC‌‌Principal‌‌
   COO‌  ‌

19‌  ‌
 ‌

 ‌ 2002‌‌-‌‌2 011‌ ‌General‌‌Electric‌‌Company‌ ‌CEO‌‌/‌‌CFO‌‌

   ‌
 ‌
1996‌‌-‌‌1 998‌‌GE‌‌Capital‌‌Mortgage‌‌Services,‌‌Inc‌ ‌CFO‌‌  

MICHAEL‌‌
  New‌‌Residential‌‌Investment‌‌Corp‌  ‌ 2013‌ ‌Fortess‌‌Investment‌‌Group‌‌LLC‌‌Managing‌‌  
NIERENBERG‌  ‌ Director‌  ‌
2013‌ ‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌Corp‌‌Global‌‌Head‌‌o f‌‌  
Mortgages‌‌& ‌‌Securitized‌‌Products‌‌    ‌
2008‌‌-‌‌Merrill‌‌Lynch‌‌MD‌‌& ‌‌Head-Global‌‌Mortgages‌‌  
&‌‌Securitized‌‌Products‌‌    ‌
2006‌‌-‌‌2 008‌ ‌Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌& ‌‌Co‌‌Inc.‌ ‌Director‌‌
   ‌

Baron‌‌Silverstein‌  ‌ 2020‌‌President‌‌o f‌‌NewRez‌‌LLC‌  ‌ 2008‌‌Merrill‌‌Lynch‌‌Managing‌‌Director,‌‌Global‌‌

 
Mortgages‌‌& ‌‌Securitized‌‌Products‌‌Group‌  ‌
2008‌ ‌JPMorgan‌‌Chase‌ ‌& ‌‌Co‌ ‌Co-Head,‌‌US‌‌RMBS‌‌
 
Mortgage‌‌Finance‌‌Department‌‌    ‌
2008‌‌Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌& ‌‌Co.,‌‌Inc‌‌
   ‌

Bruce‌‌John‌‌  2020‌‌CEO‌‌NewRez‌‌LLC‌  ‌ C-‌‌Bass‌‌Investment‌‌Management‌‌LLC‌ ‌Co-Chief‌‌  

Williams‌  ‌ 1996‌‌-‌‌Current‌‌Credit-Based‌‌  Executive‌‌Officer‌‌    ‌
Asset‌‌Servicing‌‌& ‌‌Securitization‌‌
  Shellpoint‌‌Partners‌‌LLC‌ ‌Co-‌‌CEO‌ ‌& ‌‌Director‌‌
   ‌
LLC‌‌CEO‌‌    ‌ 2016‌‌Shellpoint‌‌Advisors‌‌LLC‌‌Co-CEO‌  ‌
1995‌‌-‌‌1 996‌‌Citicorp‌‌Securities‌‌Managing‌‌Director‌‌
   ‌

Kevin‌‌Harrigan‌  ‌ Member,‌‌Executive‌‌Management‌‌of‌‌  2013‌‌NewRez‌‌LLC‌‌President,‌‌CEO‌‌   ‌

NewRez‌‌LLC‌  ‌

 ‌  ‌  ‌
 ‌
 ‌
TROUTMAN‌‌PEPPER‌‌H AMILTON‌‌SANDERS‌‌AKA‌‌TROUTMAN‌‌SANDERS‌ ‌a ka‌‌Mays‌‌& ‌‌Valentine‌  ‌
Represents‌‌OCWEN‌‌a nd‌‌in‌‌p ast‌‌c reated‌‌a ‌‌FRAUD‌‌ON‌‌THE‌‌COURT‌‌in‌‌representing‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌a nd‌‌  
claiming‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌o wned‌‌a ‌‌loan‌‌in‌‌the‌‌n ame‌‌o f‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌‌which‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌h as‌‌  
denied‌‌to‌‌JWG‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌CFPB.‌‌That‌‌this‌‌law‌‌firm‌‌“ Swindled”‌‌$ 30,000‌‌in‌‌a ‌‌Cover‌‌Up‌‌o f‌‌m onies‌‌stolen‌‌  
through‌‌a ‌‌trust‌‌a ccount‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌worked‌‌in‌‌c ollusion‌‌to‌‌c over‌‌u p‌‌with‌‌Divorce‌‌Lawyer‌‌Ilona‌‌Grenadier‌‌  
Heckman‌‌a nd‌‌Ben‌‌DiMuro‌‌h er‌‌lawyer.‌ ‌Involved‌‌in‌‌the‌‌theft‌‌o f‌‌Trust‌‌Accounts‌‌with‌‌Divorce‌‌Lawyer‌‌ilona‌‌  
Grenadier‌‌Heckman‌‌c olluding‌‌to‌‌insure‌‌n o‌‌justice‌‌for‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌  ‌
 ‌
 ‌
S.‌‌Mohsin‌‌Reza‌‌‌TROUTMAN‌‌PEPPER‌‌H AMILTON‌ ‌SANDERS‌‌Lawyer‌‌who‌‌with‌‌h is‌‌a pparent‌‌Agent‌‌  
Micheal‌‌Martinez‌‌a fter‌‌a ‌‌foreclosure‌‌with‌‌a ‌‌h ome‌‌that‌‌is‌‌n ot‌‌in‌‌h er‌‌n ame‌‌c olludes‌‌for‌‌a ‌‌short‌‌sale.‌‌Lied‌‌in‌‌ 
Court‌‌in‌‌the‌‌City‌‌o f‌‌Alexandria.‌ ‌Has‌‌u nclean‌‌h ands‌‌h as‌‌v iolated‌‌the‌‌Professional‌‌Code‌‌o f‌‌Ethics‌‌3 .3‌‌Candor‌‌  
of‌‌with‌‌the‌‌c ourt,‌‌8 .0‌‌– ‌‌8 .5‌‌Responsibility‌‌to‌‌report‌‌the‌‌c riminal‌‌a ctivity‌‌o f‌‌Judges‌‌a nd‌‌o ther‌‌lawyers.‌‌Mr.‌‌  
Reza‌‌h as‌‌c olluded‌‌a nd‌‌c onspired‌‌with‌‌o thers‌‌to‌‌h arm‌‌Plaintiff.‌‌He‌‌is‌‌g uilty‌‌o f‌‌USC‌‌§ ‌‌4 ‌‌Misprision‌‌o f‌‌a ‌‌
 
Felony‌‌with‌‌h is‌‌e -mail‌‌where‌‌h e‌‌c onspires‌‌with‌‌o ther‌‌lawyers.‌‌Lawyer‌‌who‌‌with‌‌h is‌‌a pparent‌‌Agent‌‌Micheal‌‌  
Martinez‌‌a fter‌‌a ‌‌foreclosure‌‌with‌‌a ‌‌h ome‌‌that‌‌is‌‌n ot‌‌in‌‌h er‌‌n ame‌‌c olludes‌‌for‌‌a ‌‌short‌‌sale.‌  ‌
 ‌
 ‌
Judge‌ ‌Donald‌‌R‌‌Alexander‌ ‌Lawyer‌‌whom‌‌Att‌‌BarCode‌‌is‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌“ FAKE”‌ ‌Lost‌‌Assignment.‌ ‌Through‌‌the‌‌  
Judicial‌‌Canons‌‌h e‌‌h as‌‌a nd‌‌h ad‌‌a n‌‌o bligation‌‌to‌‌report‌‌the‌‌c rime‌‌to‌‌the‌‌a ppropriate‌‌a uthorities.‌   ‌ ‌

20‌  ‌
 ‌
 ‌
Trustee‌‌Services‌‌O f‌‌Virginia,‌‌LLC.‌‌-‌ ‌Filed‌‌for‌‌a ‌‌False‌‌a nd‌‌illegal‌‌Foreclosure‌‌k nowingly‌‌with‌‌c ollusion‌‌o f‌‌  
Troutman‌‌Sanders‌‌a nd‌‌Brock‌‌& ‌‌Scott‌‌b y‌‌a ll‌‌a ppearance‌  ‌
 ‌
Brock‌‌& ‌‌Scott,‌‌PLLC‌ ‌Law‌‌firm‌‌o versight‌‌for‌‌Trustee‌‌Service‌‌o f‌‌Virginia‌‌LLC.‌ ‌Had‌‌k nowledge‌‌Wells‌‌  
Fargo‌‌N.A.‌‌h ad‌‌n o‌‌k nowledge‌‌o f‌‌such‌‌loan‌‌a s‌‌stated‌‌b y‌‌d ocuments‌‌filed‌‌in‌‌the‌‌c ourt.‌  ‌
 ‌
Brian‌‌Campbell‌‌ ‌Lawyer‌‌Brock‌‌& ‌‌Scott,‌‌PLLC‌‌Had‌‌k nowledge‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌N.A.‌‌h ad‌‌n o‌‌k nowledge‌‌o f‌‌such‌‌  
loan‌‌a s‌‌stated‌‌b y‌‌d ocuments‌‌filed‌‌in‌‌the‌‌c ourt.‌  ‌
 ‌
BWW‌‌Law‌‌G roup‌ ‌a ka‌‌BIERMAN,‌‌G EESING,‌‌WARD‌‌& ‌‌Wood,‌‌LLC.‌ ‌Had‌‌k nowledge‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌  
N.A.‌‌h ad‌‌n o‌‌k nowledge‌‌o f‌‌such‌‌loan‌‌a s‌‌stated‌‌b y‌‌d ocuments‌‌filed‌‌in‌‌the‌‌c ourt.‌ ‌Sent‌‌letter‌‌that‌‌Spring‌‌Street‌‌  
was‌‌p art‌‌o f‌‌National‌‌Foreclosure‌‌Settlement‌‌through‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌  ‌
   ‌ ‌
EQUITY‌‌TRUSTEES,‌‌LLC‌‌a ‌‌subsidiary‌‌o f‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌Group‌‌filed‌‌d ocuments‌‌that‌‌it‌‌a ppears‌‌Lawyer‌‌  
Howard‌‌Bierman’s‌‌n ame‌‌h ad‌‌b een‌‌forged‌  ‌
 ‌
Howard‌‌Norman‌‌Bierman‌ ‌Partner‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌G roup‌‌Equity‌‌Trustees,‌‌LLC‌ ‌Had‌‌k nowledge‌‌Wells‌‌  
Fargo‌‌N.A.‌‌h ad‌‌n o‌‌k nowledge‌‌o f‌‌such‌‌loan‌‌a s‌‌stated‌‌b y‌‌d ocuments‌‌filed‌‌in‌‌the‌‌c ourt.‌ ‌Sent‌‌letter‌‌that‌‌Spring‌‌  
Street‌‌was‌‌p art‌‌o f‌‌National‌‌Foreclosure‌‌Settlement‌‌through‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America.‌ ‌Appears‌‌to‌‌h ave‌‌with‌‌  
knowledge‌‌a llowed‌‌d ocuments‌‌filed‌‌a gainst‌‌Spring‌‌St.‌‌to‌‌b e‌‌foreclosed‌‌forged‌‌with‌‌h is‌‌n ame.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
 ‌
McCabe‌‌Weisberg‌‌Conway‌‌LLC‌ ‌a ka‌‌‌Surety‌‌Trustees‌‌LLC‌‌Knowing‌‌tried‌‌to‌‌foreclose‌‌illegally‌‌o n‌‌Spring‌‌  
St.‌ ‌a ka‌‌McCabe‌‌Weisberg‌‌Conway‌‌LLC‌‌a ppears‌‌to‌‌b e‌‌h ired‌‌b y‌‌OCWEN‌‌a nd‌‌o nly‌‌OCWEN‌‌e ven‌‌though‌‌  
they‌‌falsely‌‌a dvertised‌‌h ome‌‌for‌‌sale‌‌b y‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌who‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌CEO‌‌o ffice‌‌c laimed/stated‌‌that‌‌  
no‌‌loan‌‌e xisted‌‌a t‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank,‌‌in‌‌a ‌‌taped‌‌p hone‌‌c all‌‌o n‌‌August‌‌11,‌‌2 017‌‌(taped‌‌b y‌‌b oth‌‌sides).‌‌
 
Knowingly‌‌tried‌‌to‌‌foreclose‌‌illegally‌‌o n‌‌Spring‌‌St.‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
 ‌
Surety‌‌Trustees‌‌LLC‌ ‌a ka‌‌McCabe‌‌Weisberg‌‌Conway‌‌LLC‌‌k nowingly‌‌tried‌‌to‌‌foreclose‌‌illegally‌‌o n‌‌  
Spring‌‌St.‌ ‌which‌‌shares‌‌o ffice‌‌space‌‌with‌‌lawyers‌‌MCC‌‌a nd‌‌which‌‌is‌‌o wned‌‌b y‌‌lawyers‌‌o f‌‌MCC‌‌-‌‌with‌‌the‌‌  
City‌‌o f‌‌Alexandria.‌‌They‌‌p urport‌‌to‌‌b e‌‌the‌‌“ substitute‌‌Trustee”‌‌for‌‌a ‌‌Note‌‌they‌‌refuse‌‌to‌‌p roduce‌‌regarding‌‌  
15‌‌West‌‌Spring‌‌Street,‌‌Alexandria,‌‌VA.‌‌They‌‌ignored‌‌JWG‌‌requests‌‌to‌‌p roduce‌‌the‌‌o riginal‌‌n ote‌‌a nd‌‌o ther‌‌  
documentation,‌‌in‌‌v iolation‌‌o f‌‌State‌‌a nd‌‌Federal‌‌Law.‌ ‌Knowingly‌‌tried‌‌to‌‌foreclose‌‌illegally‌‌o n‌‌Spring‌‌St‌  ‌
 ‌
Abby‌‌Moynihan‌ ‌McCabe‌‌Weisberg‌‌Conway‌‌LLC‌‌a ka‌‌‌Surety‌‌Trustees‌‌LLC‌ ‌Knowingly‌‌tried‌‌to‌‌  
foreclose‌‌illegally‌‌o n‌‌Spring‌‌St.‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
AG‌‌Mark‌‌H erring‌ ‌Attorney‌‌General's‌‌Office‌‌h as‌‌a n‌‌o bligation‌‌u nder‌‌the‌‌law‌‌to‌‌p rotect‌‌c itizens‌‌from‌‌  
Foreclosure‌‌Schemes‌‌a nd‌‌Scams‌‌a nd‌‌instead‌‌h is‌‌o ffice‌‌h as‌‌refused‌‌a ll‌‌m eetings.‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
The‌‌shoddy‌‌u nlawful‌‌a nd‌‌u nethical‌‌b ehavior‌‌from‌‌these‌‌b anks,‌‌a ttorneys,‌‌a gents,‌‌e mployees,‌‌a nd‌‌  
representatives,‌‌a ll‌‌who‌‌willfully‌‌refused‌‌to‌‌p roduce‌‌the‌‌n ote‌‌b ecause‌‌the‌‌a lleged‌‌d ocuments‌‌they‌‌rely‌‌u pon‌‌  
for‌‌their‌‌a ctions‌‌a re‌‌forged,‌‌robo-signed,‌‌o r‌‌reversed‌‌e ngineered.‌  ‌
 ‌
 ‌
BACKGROUND‌‌AFTER‌‌FORECLOSURE‌‌O n‌‌MARCH‌‌3 1,‌‌2 018‌‌    ‌
 ‌

21‌  ‌
 ‌
Complainant‌‌is‌‌e ntitled‌‌to‌‌the‌‌relief‌‌for‌‌the‌‌following‌‌reasons:‌  ‌

1. That‌‌Plaintiff‌‌c an‌‌show‌‌that‌‌the‌‌Defendant‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌N.‌‌A.‌‌h ad‌‌n o‌‌standing‌‌to‌‌foreclose‌‌a nd‌‌

 
OCWEN‌‌u sing‌‌Identity‌‌Theft,‌‌Money‌‌Laundering,‌‌Insurance‌‌Fraud‌‌a nd‌‌m any‌‌o ther‌‌c riminal‌‌a cts‌‌
 
foreclosed‌‌o n‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌St.,‌‌Alexandria,‌‌VA‌‌2 2301‌‌
   ‌
2. That‌‌y ou‌‌c an‌‌h ear‌‌OCWEN‌‌telling‌‌Brock‌‌& ‌‌Scott‌‌n ot‌‌to‌‌Foreclose‌‌o n‌‌Spring‌‌St.‌‌@ ‌ ‌Brock‌‌a nd‌‌Scott‌‌/‌‌
 
OCWEN‌‌c onversation‌ ‌March‌‌2 019‌‌Admits‌‌OCWEN‌‌had‌‌told‌‌them‌‌to‌‌not‌‌Foreclose‌ ‌c onv‌‌starts‌‌a t‌‌
 
about‌ ‌6 ‌‌m in‌‌a nd‌‌4 0‌‌sec‌‌h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gWnLp11vI&t=1127s‌  ‌

3. That‌‌y ou‌‌c an‌‌then‌‌see‌‌the‌‌Foreclosure‌ ‌taped:‌‌ ‌The‌‌Foreclosure‌‌b y‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌ ‌NOT‌‌OCWEN‌‌a ‌‌

 
total‌‌SCAM‌‌March‌‌2 018‌ ‌h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82tllotwvW0‌   ‌ ‌
4. The‌‌Deed‌‌a ttached‌‌shows‌‌the‌‌p roperty‌‌in‌‌the‌‌n ame‌‌o f‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌N.A.‌‌e t‌‌a l‌‌with‌‌a n‌‌o dd‌‌c aveat‌‌for‌‌
 
OCWEN.‌  ‌
5. That‌‌Troutman‌‌Sanders‌‌then‌‌a pproached‌‌JWG‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌April‌‌4 ,‌‌2 019‌‌Troutman‌‌Sanders‌‌Lawyer‌‌
 
S.‌‌Moshin‌‌Reza‌‌a sking‌‌JWG‌‌to‌‌d o‌‌a ‌‌short‌‌sale‌‌o n‌‌a ‌‌h ome‌‌that‌‌h ad‌‌b een‌‌foreclosed.‌‌That‌‌Micheal‌‌
 
Martinez‌‌a ppears‌‌to‌‌b e‌‌a n‌‌a gent‌‌o f‌‌Troutman‌‌Sanders‌‌whose‌‌investors‌‌in‌‌the‌‌Foreclosure‌‌p roperties‌‌
 
are‌‌located‌‌in‌‌Florida‌‌a nd‌‌New‌‌Jersey.‌ ‌Further‌‌Mr.‌‌Martinez‌‌stated‌‌“ Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌will‌‌is‌‌e asy‌‌to‌‌d eal‌‌
 
with‌‌a nd‌‌will‌‌d o‌‌a lmost‌‌a nything‌‌we‌‌want”‌‌p araphrase.‌   ‌ ‌
6. That‌‌in‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌November‌‌o f‌‌2 018‌‌b oth‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌a nd‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌responded‌‌to‌‌
 
subpoenas‌‌that‌‌n either‌‌h ad‌‌a ny‌‌d ocumentation‌‌to‌‌b eing‌‌a ‌‌p arty‌‌to‌‌a ‌‌loan‌‌o n‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌Street,‌‌
 
Alexandria,‌‌VA‌‌2 2301‌ ‌Exhibit‌‌
   ‌
7. That‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌August‌‌8 ,‌‌2 019‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌d id‌‌a ‌‌n otarized‌‌d ocument‌‌that‌‌they‌‌h ad‌‌n o‌‌
 
documentation.‌ ‌Exhibit‌‌
   ‌
8. That‌‌OCWEN‌‌‌the‌‌loan‌‌servicer‌‌did‌‌a‌‌fraudulent‌‌1099‌‌to‌‌the‌‌IRS‌‌that‌‌is‌‌under‌‌investigation.‌‌Exhibit‌‌   ‌
9. That‌‌PHH‌‌‌on‌‌or‌‌around‌‌August‌‌26,‌‌2019‌‌Sent‌‌Letter‌‌stating‌‌Loan‌‌Servicing‌‌Moved‌‌to‌‌
 
NewRezLLC.‌ ‌NewRez‌‌LLC‌‌‌was‌‌created‌‌by‌‌PHH‌‌in‌‌or‌‌around‌‌2008‌‌and‌‌sold‌‌prior‌‌to‌‌PHH‌‌ 
moving‌‌to‌‌OCWEN‌‌in‌‌2018‌‌to‌‌New‌‌Ressidential‌‌Investment‌‌Corp‌‌‌traded‌‌as‌‌NRZ.‌ ‌Investors‌‌can‌‌ 
be‌‌seen‌‌Exhibit‌‌   ‌
10. According‌‌to‌‌insiders‌‌of‌‌OCWEN:‌ ‌OCWEN‌‌is‌‌going‌‌out‌‌of‌‌business‌‌or‌‌into‌‌Bankruptcy‌‌and‌‌is‌‌ 
moving‌‌any‌‌and‌‌all‌‌assets.‌ ‌The‌‌top‌‌10‌ ‌investors‌‌by‌‌CNN‌‌on‌‌or‌‌around‌‌Jan‌‌30,‌‌2020‌ ‌of‌‌Wells‌‌ 
Fargo‌‌Bank,‌‌Bank‌‌of‌‌America,‌‌OCWEN‌‌and‌‌New‌‌Residential‌‌Investment‌‌Corp.‌  ‌
11. On‌‌January‌‌5,‌‌2020‌‌in‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo’s‌‌research‌‌they‌‌looked‌‌towards‌‌Mers‌‌to‌‌show‌‌the‌‌loan‌‌history‌‌-‌‌ 
they‌‌did‌‌not‌‌believe‌‌me‌‌at‌‌first‌‌this‌‌alleged‌‌loan‌‌is‌‌nowhere‌‌to‌‌be‌‌found‌‌in‌‌Mers‌‌(even‌‌though‌‌they‌‌ 
have‌‌filed‌‌documents‌‌against‌‌the‌‌home‌‌putting‌‌it‌‌in‌‌a‌‌Mtg‌‌Back‌‌Sec‌‌that‌‌it‌‌did‌‌not‌‌meet‌‌the‌‌criteria),‌‌
 

22‌  ‌
 ‌
FNMA,‌‌Freddie‌‌Mac,‌‌my‌‌personal‌‌credit‌‌report‌‌since‌‌around‌‌2012‌‌show‌‌no‌‌none‌‌ownership‌‌of‌‌any‌‌ 
loan.‌ ‌Exhibit‌‌# ‌ ‌
12. The‌‌CFPB‌‌/‌‌JWG‌‌have‌‌requested‌‌documentation‌‌that‌‌shows‌‌OCWEN‌‌/‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌/‌‌Bank‌‌of‌‌
 
America‌‌to‌‌give‌‌some‌‌type‌‌of‌‌document‌‌and‌‌all‌‌have‌‌been‌‌denied.‌ ‌The‌‌documents‌‌provided‌‌have‌‌ 
had‌‌no‌‌substance.‌   ‌ ‌
13. On‌‌or‌‌around‌‌April‌‌29,‌‌2019‌8 ‌a‌‌motion‌‌and‌‌a‌‌letter‌‌to‌‌the‌‌COA‌‌Clerk‌‌of‌‌Court‌‌of‌‌the‌‌Fraud‌‌was‌‌
 
filed‌‌in‌‌this‌‌court‌‌with‌‌the‌‌Clerk‌‌of‌‌Court‌‌Clerk.‌‌Hon.‌‌Edward‌‌Semonian‌‌Jr.,‌‌City‌‌o f‌‌Alexandria‌‌ 
Circuit‌‌Court‌‌-‌‌5 10‌‌King‌‌Street‌‌3 rd‌‌Floor,‌ ‌Alexandria,‌‌VA‌‌2 2314‌‌e d‌.‌semonian‌@ alexandriava.gov‌  ‌
(703)‌‌7 46-4044‌  ‌
 ‌
RE:‌ ‌DEMAND‌‌to‌‌remove‌‌the‌ ‌“ ILLEGAL,‌‌FRAUDULENT‌‌FILING”‌‌TO‌‌MISLEAD‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌o wnership‌‌o f‌‌a ‌‌  
alleged‌‌loan‌‌o n‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌St.,‌‌Alexandria,‌‌VA‌‌2 2301‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌law‌‌is‌‌c lear‌‌a nd‌‌included‌‌in‌‌this‌‌letter‌‌that‌‌three‌‌(3)‌‌a ssignments‌‌were‌‌filed‌‌illegally‌‌a gainst‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌  
Street,‌‌Alexandria,‌‌VA‌‌2 2301‌ ‌d ue‌‌to‌‌n ot‌‌b eing‌‌p repared‌‌p roperly‌‌b y‌‌a ‌‌lawyer,‌‌b ut‌‌b y‌‌a ‌‌lay‌‌p erson‌‌a cting‌‌a s‌‌  
a‌‌lawyer‌‌a nd‌‌u sing‌‌a nother's‌‌Florida‌‌State‌‌Bar‌‌No.‌ ‌This‌‌includes‌‌the‌‌VA‌‌Code‌‌that‌‌rules‌‌the‌‌Clerk's‌‌Office,‌‌  
as‌‌well‌‌a s‌‌stated‌‌in‌‌the‌‌Virginia‌‌State‌‌Bars‌‌c ode‌‌o f‌‌Professional‌‌Conduct‌‌for‌‌Practicing‌‌Law‌‌without‌‌a ‌‌license.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
HISTORY‌‌O F‌‌FRAUDULENT‌‌DOCUMENTS‌‌AGAINST‌‌SPRING‌‌ST‌  ‌
 ‌
1. Filed‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌February‌‌4 ,‌‌2 009‌‌‌a gainst‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌Street,‌‌Alexandria,‌‌VA‌‌2 2301‌‌  
Document‌‌No.‌ ‌1 90003603‌ ‌0 00551‌ ‌0 00075‌ ‌“ Notice‌‌o f‌‌Assignment‌‌o f‌‌Deed‌‌o f‌‌Trust”‌ ‌Virginia‌‌  
fraud‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌c ourt‌ ‌with‌‌the‌‌b asics‌‌o f‌‌Virginia‌‌fraud‌‌c laim‌‌requires‌‌p roof‌‌o f:‌  ‌
 ‌
(1)‌‌a ‌‌false‌‌‌representation,‌‌that‌‌the‌‌loan‌‌went‌‌to‌‌a ‌‌Mtg‌‌Back‌‌Security‌‌that‌‌was‌‌c losed‌‌p rior‌‌to‌‌the‌‌loan‌‌  
being‌‌c reated‌‌    ‌
‌(2)‌‌o f‌‌a ‌‌p resent,‌‌m aterial‌‌fact,‌‌the‌‌Assignment‌‌was‌‌d one‌‌b y‌‌a ‌‌n on-lawyer‌‌Rob‌‌Meharg‌  ‌
(3)‌‌m ade‌‌intentionally‌‌a nd‌‌k nowingly,‌‌That‌‌Docx‌‌p erson‌‌Lorraine‌‌Brown‌‌went‌‌to‌‌jail‌‌for‌‌the‌‌“ Black‌‌  
Market”‌‌Back‌‌Door‌‌loans‌  ‌
(4)‌‌with‌‌intent‌‌to‌‌m islead,‌‌the‌‌letter‌‌b y‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌through‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌Group‌‌shows‌‌the‌‌intend‌‌  
in‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌December‌‌o f‌‌2 012‌  ‌
(5)‌‌reasonable‌‌reliance‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌p arty‌‌m isled,‌‌a nd‌ ‌the‌‌Facts‌‌that‌‌Lorraine‌‌Brown‌‌went‌‌to‌‌jail‌‌the‌‌fact‌‌  
the‌‌Mtg‌‌Back‌‌Security‌‌was‌‌c losed‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌July‌‌1 ,‌‌2 003‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌a lleged‌‌loan‌‌is‌‌d ated‌‌February‌‌  
of‌‌4 ,‌‌2 005‌  ‌
(6)‌‌resulting‌‌d amage.‌‌Illegal‌‌Foreclosure‌‌o n‌‌March‌‌3 0,‌‌2 019‌‌    ‌
 ‌
2. Filed‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌J une‌‌1 8,‌‌2 009‌‌‌a gainst‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌Street,‌‌Alexandria,‌‌VA‌‌2 2301‌ ‌Document‌‌  
NO.‌ ‌0 90012907‌ ‌0 00253‌ ‌0 00076‌ ‌“ Notice‌‌o f‌‌Assignment‌‌o f‌‌Deed‌‌o f‌‌Trust”‌ ‌Virginia‌‌fraud‌‌o n‌‌  
the‌‌c ourt‌ ‌with‌‌the‌‌b asics‌‌o f‌‌Virginia‌‌fraud‌‌c laim‌‌requires‌‌p roof‌‌o f:‌  ‌
 ‌

8
‌The‌‌full‌‌letter‌‌can‌‌be‌‌found‌ ‌attached‌‌in‌‌the‌‌1st‌‌Amended‌‌Complaint‌ ‌Exhibit‌‌2‌‌pages‌‌4‌‌-‌‌9 ‌ ‌
23‌  ‌
 ‌
(1)‌‌a ‌‌false‌‌‌representation,‌‌that‌‌the‌‌loan‌‌went‌‌to‌‌a ‌‌Mtg‌‌Back‌‌Security‌‌that‌‌was‌‌c losed‌‌p rior‌‌to‌‌the‌‌loan‌‌  
being‌‌c reated‌‌    ‌
‌(2)‌‌o f‌‌a ‌‌p resent,‌‌m aterial‌‌fact,‌‌the‌‌Assignment‌‌was‌‌d one‌‌b y‌‌a ‌‌n on-lawyer‌‌Rob‌‌Meharg‌  ‌
(3)‌‌m ade‌‌intentionally‌‌a nd‌‌k nowingly,‌‌That‌‌Docx‌‌p erson‌‌Lorraine‌‌Brown‌‌went‌‌to‌‌jail‌‌for‌‌the‌‌“ Black‌‌  
Market”‌‌Back‌‌Door‌‌Mortgage‌‌Back‌‌Securities‌‌for‌‌the‌‌“ Back‌‌Room”‌‌for‌‌financial‌‌g ains‌‌o f‌‌Banks‌‌a nd‌‌  
Servicers‌  ‌
(4)‌‌with‌‌intent‌‌to‌‌m islead,‌‌the‌‌letter‌‌b y‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌through‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌Group‌‌shows‌‌the‌‌intend‌‌  
in‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌December‌‌o f‌‌2 012‌  ‌
(5)‌‌reasonable‌‌reliance‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌p arty‌‌m isled,‌‌a nd‌ ‌the‌‌Facts‌‌that‌‌Lorraine‌‌Brown‌‌went‌‌to‌‌jail‌‌the‌‌fact‌‌  
the‌‌Mtg‌‌Back‌‌Security‌‌was‌‌c losed‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌July‌‌1 ,‌‌2 003‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌a lleged‌‌loan‌‌is‌‌d ated‌‌February‌‌  
of‌‌4 ,‌‌2 005‌  ‌
(6)‌‌resulting‌‌d amage.‌‌Illegal‌‌Foreclosure‌‌o n‌‌March‌‌3 0,‌‌2 019‌‌    ‌
 ‌
3.‌ ‌Filed‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌April‌‌2 2,‌‌2 013‌‌ ‌a gainst‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌Street,‌‌Alexandria,‌‌VA‌‌2 2301‌‌  
Document‌‌No.‌ ‌1 30014851‌ ‌0 00586,‌ ‌0 00587‌ ‌0 00071‌ ‌“ Affidavit‌‌o f‌‌Lost‌‌Assignment”‌ ‌Virginia‌‌  
fraud‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌c ourt‌‌with‌‌the‌‌b asics‌‌o f‌‌Virginia‌‌fraud‌‌c laim‌‌requires‌‌p roof‌‌o f:‌  ‌
 ‌
Sister‌‌Nora‌‌Nash‌‌states:‌‌ ‌OCWEN‌‌a nd‌‌Altisource,‌‌through‌‌a ‌‌systematically‌‌d esigned‌‌p rocess,‌‌  
induce‌‌foreclosures‌‌a nd‌‌then‌‌sell‌‌these‌‌foreclosed‌‌homes‌‌o n‌‌H UBZU.com‌‌so‌‌they‌‌c an‌‌e arn‌‌listing‌‌  
commissions,‌‌Buyer's‌‌Premium,‌‌Escrow‌‌Fees,‌‌Web‌‌Technology‌‌Fee,‌‌Property‌‌Preservation‌‌Fees,‌‌  
Title‌‌Insurance‌‌Fees,‌‌Closing‌‌Coordination‌‌Fees‌‌a nd‌‌m ore!‌  ‌
 ‌
(1)‌‌a ‌‌false‌‌‌representation,‌‌After‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌Group‌‌failed‌‌a t‌‌foreclosure‌‌a nd‌‌q uestions‌‌a sked,‌‌a nd‌‌  
evidence‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌fraud‌‌p resented‌‌to‌‌Servicer‌‌a nd‌‌Lawyers‌‌they‌‌c reated‌‌b y‌‌a ‌‌n on-lawyer‌‌a ‌‌“ Affidavit‌‌o f‌‌  
Lost‌‌Assignment”‌‌u sing‌‌a ‌‌Judge‌‌Donald‌ ‌Alexander‌ ‌in‌‌Florida‌‌Bar‌‌n umber‌  ‌
‌(2)‌‌o f‌‌a ‌‌p resent,‌‌m aterial‌‌fact,‌ ‌That‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌in‌‌p hone‌‌c alls‌‌a nd‌‌written‌‌to‌‌CRPB‌‌a nd‌‌this‌‌
 
court‌‌n o‌‌o wnership‌‌o r‌‌a ny‌‌involvement‌‌in‌‌a ny‌‌loan‌‌with‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌St.‌‌Alexandria,‌‌VA‌‌2 2301‌  ‌
(3)‌‌m ade‌‌intentionally‌‌a nd‌‌k nowingly,‌ ‌the‌‌Facts‌‌a re‌‌c lear‌‌JWG‌‌h ad‌‌d isclosed‌‌to‌‌Howard‌‌Bierman‌‌o f‌‌  
BWW‌‌Law‌‌Group‌‌the‌‌Fraud‌  ‌
(4)‌‌with‌‌intent‌‌to‌‌m islead,‌ ‌The‌‌filing‌‌with‌‌the‌‌Commissioner,‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌foreclosure‌‌itself‌‌showed‌‌  
OCWEN‌‌e t‌‌a l‌‌b elieve‌‌they‌‌a re‌‌a bove‌‌the‌‌law‌‌a s‌‌long‌‌a s‌‌there‌‌is‌‌financial‌‌g ain‌‌for‌‌lawyers‌  ‌
(5)‌‌reasonable‌‌reliance‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌p arty‌‌m isled,‌‌a nd‌‌The‌‌foreclosure‌‌o n‌‌March‌‌3 0,‌‌2 018‌‌    ‌
 ‌
April‌‌4,‌‌2019‌‌at‌‌Prince‌‌Georges‌‌MD‌‌-‌ ‌Courthouse‌‌Mohsin‌‌Reza‌‌of‌‌Troutman‌‌Sanders‌‌asks‌‌JWG‌‌“Are‌‌you‌‌ 
interested‌‌in‌‌a‌‌short‌‌sale”‌‌‌JWG‌‌stated‌‌clearly‌‌“NO”‌‌and‌‌then‌ ‌asked‌‌by‌‌Mr.‌‌Reza‌‌‌“if‌‌I‌‌had‌‌gotten‌‌a‌‌recent‌‌call‌‌about‌‌ 
selling‌‌the‌‌home”‌‌you‌‌will‌‌notice‌‌this‌‌TEXT‌‌sent‌‌March‌‌23,‌‌2019.‌ ‌Michael‌‌as‌‌he‌‌states‌‌has‌‌contacted‌‌me‌‌in‌‌the‌‌past‌‌ 
and‌‌even‌‌had‌‌been‌‌given‌‌my‌‌daughters‌‌phone‌‌number‌‌in‌‌the‌‌past.‌ ‌The‌‌Question‌‌Becomes:‌ ‌“BLACK‌‌MARKET”‌‌ 
by‌‌lawyers‌‌and‌‌WHO‌‌ELSE‌‌harassing‌‌and‌‌forcing‌‌short‌‌sales‌‌on‌‌illegal‌‌foreclosures‌  ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
March‌‌29,‌‌2018‌‌Phone‌‌call‌‌between‌‌OCWEN,‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌‌ 
and‌‌Brock‌‌&‌‌Scott‌‌aka‌‌Trustee‌‌Services‌‌Of‌‌Virginia,‌‌LLC.,‌‌ ‌where‌‌ 
24‌  ‌
 ‌
OCWEN‌‌informs‌‌Brock‌‌&‌‌Scott‌‌and‌‌Brock‌‌&‌‌Scott‌‌acknowledge‌‌that‌‌on‌‌or‌‌around‌‌March‌‌22,‌‌2018‌‌they‌‌had‌‌received‌‌notice‌‌ 
from‌‌OCWEN‌‌not‌‌to‌‌foreclose.‌ ‌They‌‌then‌‌received‌‌from‌‌the‌‌Investor‌‌that‌‌no‌‌matter‌‌what‌‌they‌‌were‌‌to‌‌foreclose‌‌-‌‌ignoring‌‌ 
whatever‌‌OCWEN‌‌said.‌ ‌https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gWnLp11vI&t=562s‌  ‌
 ‌
On‌‌March‌‌30,‌‌2018‌‌OCWEN‌‌Loan‌‌Servicing‌‌held‌‌an‌‌illegal‌‌foreclosure‌‌on‌‌15‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌St.,‌‌Alexandria‌‌VA‌‌22301.‌ ‌The‌‌ 
property‌‌owner‌‌then‌‌and‌‌legally‌‌still‌‌today‌‌is‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier.‌ ‌Video‌‌March‌‌30,‌‌2018‌‌‌The‌‌foreclosure‌‌ 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82tllotwvW0‌‌   ‌
 ‌
On‌‌or‌‌around‌‌April‌‌6,‌‌2018‌‌a‌‌Trustee‌‌Deed‌‌was‌‌filed‌‌on‌‌the‌‌property‌‌that‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌National‌‌Association,‌‌as‌‌ 
Trustee‌‌for‌‌Option‌‌One‌‌Mortgage‌‌Loan‌‌Trust‌‌2005-2,‌‌Asset‌‌Backed‌‌Certificates,‌‌Series‌‌2005-2‌‌Trustee‌‌for‌‌Option‌‌One‌‌(Mtg‌‌ 
Back‌‌Security‌‌does‌‌not‌‌exist)‌‌see‌‌attached‌  ‌
 ‌
On‌‌or‌‌around‌‌December‌‌8,‌‌2018‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌N.‌‌A.‌‌would‌‌file‌‌in‌‌the‌‌courthouse‌‌of‌‌the‌‌City‌‌of‌‌Alexandria‌‌in‌‌response‌‌ 
to‌‌a‌‌Subpoena‌‌by‌‌JWG‌‌that‌‌they‌‌had‌‌no‌‌interest‌‌in‌‌this‌‌foreclosure‌‌or‌‌this‌‌home‌‌-‌‌see‌‌attached‌‌   ‌
 ‌
On‌‌or‌‌around‌‌February‌‌3,‌‌2019‌‌Janice‌‌received‌‌from‌‌OCWEN‌‌a‌‌Fraudulent‌‌1099-A‌ ‌Acquisition‌‌or‌‌Abandonment‌‌of‌‌ 
Secured‌‌Property‌‌‌Information‌‌Returns‌‌‌that‌‌stated‌‌they‌‌“OCWEN”‌‌not‌‌Servicing,‌‌not‌‌LLC‌‌only‌‌OCWEN‌‌is‌‌/‌‌was‌‌the‌‌lender‌‌ 
on‌‌the‌‌loan‌‌(OCWEN‌‌on‌‌its‌‌own‌‌does‌‌not‌‌exist‌‌as‌‌an‌‌entity)‌.‌ ‌The‌‌IRS‌‌has‌‌deemed‌‌this‌‌1099‌‌from‌‌evidence‌‌presented‌‌to‌‌be‌‌ 
“FRAUDULENT”‌‌and‌‌has‌‌told‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌‌to‌‌ignore‌‌such‌‌1099‌‌while‌‌Criminal‌‌Investigation‌‌is‌‌starting.‌ ‌See‌‌ 
attached‌‌-‌ ‌It‌‌should‌‌be‌‌noted‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌‌is‌‌still‌‌in‌‌home.‌  ‌
 ‌
OCWEN‌‌Entities‌‌found:‌ ‌Ocwen‌‌Loan‌‌Servicing,‌‌which‌‌is‌‌licensed‌‌to‌‌service‌‌mortgages‌‌in‌‌the‌‌state,‌‌used‌‌unlicensed‌‌ 
affiliate‌‌offshore‌‌companies‌‌to‌‌“perform‌‌activities‌‌considered‌‌residential‌‌mortgage‌‌loan‌‌servicing.”‌ ‌Ocwen‌‌Financial‌‌ 
Solutions‌‌Private‌‌Limited‌,‌‌operating‌‌out‌‌of‌‌a‌‌location‌‌in‌‌India,‌‌and‌‌Ocwen‌‌Business‌‌Solutions‌,‌‌operating‌‌out‌‌of‌‌a‌‌location‌‌in‌‌ 
the‌‌Philippines,‌‌to‌‌conduct‌‌“servicing”‌‌activities‌‌on‌‌residential‌‌mortgage‌‌loans.‌ ‌VA‌‌SCC‌‌states‌‌OCWEN‌‌is‌ ‌Licensed‌‌as:‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
F1991993‌  ‌ OCWEN‌‌BUSINESS‌‌SOLUTIONS,‌‌INC.‌  ‌ Foreign‌‌Corporation‌  ‌ Active‌  ‌

 ‌
F1995820‌  ‌ OCWEN‌‌FINANCIAL‌‌INSURANCE‌‌SERVICES,‌‌INC.‌  ‌ Foreign‌‌Corporation‌  ‌ Active‌  ‌
 ‌
F1564386‌  ‌ OCWEN‌‌FINANCIAL‌‌SOLUTIONS‌‌PRIVATE‌‌LIMITED‌  ‌ Foreign‌‌Corporation‌  ‌ Active‌  ‌
 ‌
T0206161‌  ‌ OCWEN‌‌LOAN‌‌SERVICING,‌‌LLC‌  ‌ Foreign‌‌Limited‌‌Liability‌‌Company‌  ‌ Active‌  ‌
 ‌
OCWEN‌ ‌filed‌‌a ‌‌1 099-A‌‌Acquisition‌‌o r‌‌Abandonment‌‌o f‌‌Secured‌‌Property‌‌with‌‌the‌‌IRS‌‌where‌‌Ocwen‌ ‌was‌‌  
not‌‌a ‌‌secured‌‌c reditor.‌  ‌
 ‌
Ocwen‌‌Financial‌‌Corporation‌‌is‌‌a ‌‌p rovider‌‌o f‌‌residential‌‌a nd‌‌c ommercial‌‌m ortgage‌‌‌loan‌‌servicing‌,‌‌special‌‌  
servicing,‌‌a nd‌‌a sset‌‌m anagement‌‌‌services,‌‌which‌‌h as‌‌b een‌‌d escribed‌‌a s‌‌"essentially‌‌d ebt‌‌c ollectors‌,‌‌ 
collecting‌‌m onthly‌‌p rincipal‌‌a nd‌‌interest‌‌from‌‌h omeowners".‌‌Ocwen‌‌is‌‌h eadquartered‌‌in‌‌West‌‌Palm‌‌Beach,‌‌  
Florida‌,‌‌with‌‌a dditional‌‌o ffices‌‌in‌‌Addison,‌‌Texas‌,‌‌Orlando,‌‌Florida‌,‌‌Houston,‌‌Texas‌,‌‌Rancho‌‌Cordova,‌‌  
California‌,‌‌St.‌‌Croix,‌‌U.S.‌‌Virgin‌‌Islands‌,‌‌a nd‌‌Washington,‌‌D.C.‌‌‌It‌‌a lso‌‌h as‌‌support‌‌o perations‌‌in‌‌the‌‌
 
Philippines‌‌‌a nd‌‌India‌. ‌ ‌
 ‌
Ocwen‌‌under‌‌2 6‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌7 434‌ ‌willfully‌‌filed‌‌fraudulent‌‌1 099‌‌information‌‌returns‌‌with‌‌the‌‌IRS‌ ‌2 6‌‌U.S.C.‌‌  
9
§‌‌7 434.‌‌Civil‌‌d amages‌‌for‌‌fraudulent‌‌filing‌‌o f‌‌information‌‌returns‌.‌ ‌That‌‌OCWEN‌‌n ever‌‌lent‌‌a ny‌‌m oney‌‌to‌‌  

9
‌26‌‌USC‌‌§‌‌7434.‌‌Civil‌‌damages‌‌for‌‌fraudulent‌‌filing‌‌of‌‌information‌‌r eturns‌( a)‌ ‌In‌ ‌g eneral‌ ‌I f‌ ‌any‌ ‌p erson‌ ‌willfully‌ ‌f iles‌ ‌a‌ ‌f raudulent‌ ‌information‌‌  
return‌ ‌with‌ ‌r espect‌ ‌to‌ ‌p ayments‌ ‌p urported‌ ‌to‌ ‌b e‌ ‌m ade‌ ‌to‌ ‌any‌ ‌o ther‌ ‌p erson,‌ ‌such‌ ‌o ther‌ ‌p erson‌ ‌m ay‌ ‌b ring‌ ‌a‌ ‌civil‌ ‌action‌ ‌f or‌ ‌d amages‌ ‌against‌ ‌the‌‌  
person‌ ‌so‌ ‌f iling‌ ‌such‌ ‌r eturn.‌( b)‌ ‌Damages‌ ‌I n‌ ‌any‌ ‌action‌ ‌b rought‌ ‌u nder‌ ‌subsection‌ ‌( a),‌ ‌u pon‌ ‌a‌ ‌f inding‌ ‌o f‌ ‌liability‌ ‌o n‌ ‌the‌ ‌p art‌ ‌o f‌ ‌the‌ ‌d efendant,‌ ‌the‌‌
 
defendant‌ ‌shall‌ ‌b e‌ ‌liable‌ ‌to‌ ‌the‌ ‌p laintiff‌ ‌in‌ ‌an‌ ‌amount‌ ‌equal‌ ‌to‌ ‌the‌ ‌g reater‌ ‌o f‌ ‌$ 5,000‌ ‌o r‌ ‌the‌ ‌sum‌ ‌o f—‌( 1)‌ ‌any‌ ‌actual‌ ‌d amages‌ ‌sustained‌ ‌b y‌ ‌the‌‌
 
25‌  ‌
 ‌
Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌‌thus‌‌suffered‌‌n o‌‌financial‌‌loss‌‌a nd‌‌was‌‌n ot‌‌a ‌‌secured‌‌c reditor‌‌u nder‌‌a ny‌‌state‌‌  
property‌‌laws.‌ ‌That‌‌the‌‌Trustee‌‌Deed‌‌a nd‌‌OCWEN‌‌a cting‌‌a s‌‌the‌‌Servicer‌‌a t‌‌a ll‌‌times‌‌stated‌‌c learly‌‌that‌‌Wells‌‌  
Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌was‌‌the‌‌lender‌‌a nd‌‌o r‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌National‌‌Association,‌‌a s‌‌Trustee‌‌for‌‌Option‌‌One‌‌  
Mortgage‌‌Loan‌‌Trust‌‌2 005-2,‌‌Asset‌‌Backed‌‌Certificates,‌‌Series‌‌2 005-2‌‌Trustee‌‌for‌‌Option‌‌One‌‌(Mtg‌‌Back‌‌  
Security‌‌d oes‌‌n ot‌‌e xist)‌‌see‌‌a ttached.‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
Banks:‌ ‌All‌‌Banks‌‌state‌‌in‌‌writing‌‌to‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌CFPB‌‌they‌‌h ave‌‌n o‌‌k nowledge,‌‌n o‌‌  
information‌‌a nd‌‌n o‌‌involvement‌‌in‌‌o r‌‌o n‌‌a ‌‌loan‌‌a gainst‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌‌a nd‌‌o r‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌St.,‌‌  
Alexandria‌‌VA‌‌2 2301‌‌    ‌
 ‌
● Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌a ka‌‌LaSalle‌‌Bank‌  ‌
● Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌April‌‌3 ,‌‌2 019‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌N.‌‌A.‌ ‌m ade‌‌it‌‌c lear‌‌they‌‌a re‌‌c ooperating‌‌a nd‌‌m ost‌‌likely‌‌  
working‌‌with‌‌OCWEN‌‌a nd‌‌supporting‌‌the‌‌“ Black‌‌Market”‌‌Mortgage‌‌Back‌‌Securities‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌“ FRAUD”‌  ‌
 ‌
(6)‌‌r esulting‌‌damage‌.‌‌The‌‌foreclosure‌‌o n‌‌March‌‌3 0,‌‌2 019‌‌was‌‌a nd‌‌is‌‌Common‌‌law‌‌theories‌‌o f‌‌  
negligence,‌‌g ross‌‌n egligence,‌‌p ayment‌‌b y‌‌m istake,‌‌u njust‌‌e nrichment,‌‌m oney‌‌h ad‌‌a nd‌‌received,‌‌  
breach‌‌o f‌‌fiduciary‌‌d uty,‌‌b reach‌‌o f‌‌c ontract,‌‌m isrepresentation,‌‌d eceit,‌‌fraud,‌‌a nd‌‌a iding‌‌a nd‌‌  
abetting,‌‌Retaliation‌‌a nd‌‌Retribution,‌‌RICO‌‌& ‌‌Racketeering,‌ ‌the‌‌c ruelty‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a cts‌‌a nd‌‌a ctions‌‌a re‌‌  
and‌‌where‌‌willful‌‌a cts‌‌were‌‌m alicious,‌‌v iolent,‌‌o ppressive,‌‌fraudulent,‌‌wanton‌‌o r‌‌g rossly‌‌r eckless,‌‌  
any‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌foregoing‌‌a ll‌‌a cts‌‌a nd‌‌a ctions‌‌have‌‌been‌‌knowledgeable‌‌by‌‌lawyers,‌‌banks‌‌a nd‌‌  
Servicers‌‌e t‌‌a l‌‌; ‌ ‌
 ‌
The‌‌VSB:‌ ‌h ttps://www.vsb.org/pro-guidelines/index.php/unauthorized-practice-rules/rule-6/‌  ‌
Violating‌‌Unauthorized‌‌Practice‌‌o f‌‌Law‌‌Rule‌‌6 ‌‌Real‌‌Estate‌‌Practice‌ ‌6 -1010‌‌(B)‌‌(C),UPR‌‌6 -102‌‌(A),‌ ‌UPR‌‌  
6-103‌‌(A)‌‌(B)‌ ‌UPR‌‌6 -106‌ ‌UPC‌‌6 -1‌ ‌UPC‌‌6 -2‌ ‌UPC‌‌6 -4‌ ‌UPC‌‌6 -8‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
I‌‌a sked‌‌for‌‌a ‌‌response‌‌p rior‌‌to‌‌May‌‌1 ,‌‌2 019‌‌d ue‌‌to‌‌a ‌‌c ourt‌‌h earing‌‌o n‌‌May‌‌6 ,‌‌2 019‌‌in‌‌regard‌‌to‌‌the‌‌
 
Commissioners‌‌Case‌ ‌CASE‌‌NO.‌ ‌CW‌‌1 800‌‌1 465‌ ‌where‌‌I‌‌h ave‌‌filed‌‌a ‌‌Motion‌‌for‌‌the‌‌Judge‌‌to‌‌remove‌‌the‌‌  
Assignments‌‌a nd‌‌I‌‌would‌‌a ppreciate‌‌y our‌‌support‌‌o f‌‌such‌‌a ctions.‌ ‌I‌‌WAS‌‌IGNORED.‌  ‌
 ‌
14. That‌‌in‌‌May‌‌June‌‌o f‌‌2 020‌‌the‌‌h ome‌‌was‌‌listed‌‌for‌‌Sale‌‌the‌‌h ome‌‌with‌‌the‌‌wrong‌‌a ddress‌‌for‌‌‌Wells‌‌  
Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌a nd‌‌c laiming‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌was‌‌the‌‌o wner‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌h ome‌‌o n‌‌HudForeclosed.‌ ‌Stated‌‌
 
contact‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌a t‌‌8 00‌‌S‌‌Broad‌‌St.‌‌Meriden,‌‌CT‌‌6 450‌ ‌Tel‌‌8 60-368-3400‌‌o r‌‌8 60-368-3400‌‌
 
all‌‌Fraudulent‌‌Nos.‌ ‌The‌‌p rinciple‌‌a ‌‌California‌‌Lawyer‌‌n ot‌‌p racticing‌‌stated‌‌the‌‌information‌‌c ame‌‌
 

plaintiff‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌p roximate‌ ‌r esult‌ ‌o f‌ ‌the‌ ‌f iling‌ ‌o f‌ ‌the‌ ‌f raudulent‌ ‌information‌ ‌r eturn‌ ‌( including‌ ‌any‌ ‌costs‌ ‌attributable‌ ‌to‌ ‌r esolving‌ ‌d eficiencies‌ ‌asserted‌ ‌as‌‌  
a‌ ‌r esult‌ ‌o f‌ ‌such‌ ‌f iling),‌( 2)‌ ‌the‌ ‌costs‌ ‌o f‌ ‌the‌ ‌action,‌ ‌and‌( 3)‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌court’s‌ ‌d iscretion,‌ ‌r easonable‌ ‌attorneys’‌ ‌f ees.‌( c)‌ ‌P eriod‌ ‌f or‌ ‌bringing‌ ‌a ction‌‌
 
Notwithstanding‌ ‌any‌ ‌o ther‌ ‌p rovision‌ ‌o f‌ ‌law,‌ ‌an‌ ‌action‌ ‌to‌ ‌enforce‌ ‌the‌ ‌liability‌ ‌created‌ ‌u nder‌ ‌this‌ ‌section‌ ‌m ay‌ ‌b e‌ ‌b rought‌ ‌without‌ ‌r egard‌ ‌to‌ ‌the‌‌  
amount‌ ‌in‌ ‌controversy‌ ‌and‌ ‌m ay‌ ‌b e‌ ‌b rought‌ ‌o nly‌ ‌within‌ ‌the‌ ‌later‌ ‌o f—‌( 1)‌ ‌6 ‌ ‌y ears‌ ‌after‌ ‌the‌ ‌d ate‌ ‌o f‌ ‌the‌ ‌f iling‌ ‌o f‌ ‌the‌ ‌f raudulent‌ ‌information‌ ‌r eturn,‌‌  
or‌( 2)‌ ‌1 ‌ ‌y ear‌ ‌after‌ ‌the‌ ‌d ate‌ ‌such‌ ‌f raudulent‌ ‌information‌ ‌r eturn‌ ‌would‌ ‌h ave‌ ‌b een‌ ‌d iscovered‌ ‌b y‌ ‌exercise‌ ‌o f‌ ‌r easonable‌ ‌care.‌( d)‌ ‌Copy‌ ‌o f‌ ‌complaint‌‌  
filed‌ ‌with‌ ‌IRS‌ ‌Any‌ ‌p erson‌ ‌b ringing‌ ‌an‌ ‌action‌ ‌u nder‌ ‌subsection‌ ‌( a)‌ ‌shall‌ ‌p rovide‌ ‌a‌ ‌copy‌ ‌o f‌ ‌the‌ ‌complaint‌ ‌to‌ ‌the‌ ‌I nternal‌ ‌Revenue‌ ‌Service‌ ‌u pon‌ ‌the‌‌  
filing‌ ‌o f‌ ‌such‌ ‌complaint‌ ‌with‌ ‌the‌ ‌court.‌( e)‌ ‌F inding‌ ‌o f‌ ‌court‌ ‌t o‌ ‌include‌ ‌correct‌ ‌a mount‌ ‌o f‌ ‌payment‌ ‌T he‌ ‌d ecision‌ ‌o f‌ ‌the‌ ‌court‌ ‌awarding‌ ‌d amages‌‌  
in‌ ‌an‌ ‌action‌ ‌b rought‌ ‌u nder‌ ‌subsection‌ ‌( a)‌ ‌shall‌ ‌include‌ ‌a‌ ‌f inding‌ ‌o f‌ ‌the‌ ‌correct‌ ‌amount‌ ‌which‌ ‌should‌ ‌h ave‌ ‌b een‌ ‌r eported‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌information‌‌  
return.‌( f)‌ ‌Information‌ ‌return‌ ‌For‌ ‌p urposes‌ ‌o f‌ ‌this‌ ‌section,‌ ‌the‌ ‌term‌ ‌“information‌ ‌r eturn”‌ ‌m eans‌ ‌any‌ ‌statement‌ ‌d escribed‌ ‌in‌ ‌section‌‌  
6724(d)(1)(A).(Added‌ ‌Pub.‌ ‌L .‌ ‌1 04-168,‌ ‌title‌ ‌VI,‌ ‌§ ‌ ‌6 01(a),‌ ‌July‌ ‌3 0,‌ ‌1 996,‌ ‌1 10‌ ‌Stat.‌ ‌1 462;‌ ‌amended‌ ‌Pub.‌ ‌L .‌ ‌1 05-206,‌ ‌title‌ ‌VI,‌ ‌§ ‌ ‌6 023(29),‌ ‌July‌‌  
22,‌ ‌1 998,‌ ‌1 12‌ ‌Stat.‌ ‌8 26.)‌ ‌A‌ ‌p rior‌ ‌section‌ ‌7 434‌ ‌was‌ ‌r enumbered‌ ‌7 437‌ ‌o f‌ ‌this‌ ‌title.‌ ‌1 998—Subsec.‌ ‌( b)(3).‌ ‌Pub.‌ ‌L .‌ ‌1 05-206‌ ‌substituted‌ ‌“attorneys’‌‌  
fees”‌ ‌f or‌ ‌“attorneys‌ ‌f ees”.‌ ‌Pub.‌ ‌L .‌ ‌1 04-168,‌ ‌title‌ ‌VI,‌ ‌§ ‌ ‌6 01(c),‌ ‌July‌ ‌3 0,‌ ‌1 996,‌ ‌1 10‌ ‌Stat.‌ ‌1 462,‌ ‌p rovided‌ ‌that:‌ ‌“The‌ ‌amendments‌ ‌m ade‌ ‌b y‌ ‌this‌‌  
section‌ ‌[ enacting‌ ‌this‌ ‌section‌ ‌and‌ ‌r enumbering‌ ‌f ormer‌ ‌section‌ ‌7 434‌ ‌as‌ ‌7 435‌ ‌o f‌ ‌this‌ ‌title]‌ ‌shall‌ ‌apply‌ ‌to‌ ‌f raudulent‌ ‌information‌ ‌r eturns‌ ‌f iled‌ ‌after‌ ‌the‌‌  
date‌ ‌o f‌ ‌the‌ ‌enactment‌ ‌o f‌ ‌this‌ ‌Act‌ ‌[ July‌ ‌3 0,‌ ‌1 996].”‌  ‌
26‌  ‌
 ‌
from‌‌the‌‌Bank.‌ ‌the‌‌Bank‌‌d enies‌‌a ny‌‌k nowledge‌‌o f‌‌such‌‌a ‌‌listing‌‌e specially‌‌since‌‌they‌‌d on’t‌‌o wn‌‌
 
such‌‌a ‌‌h ome.‌ ‌On‌‌a round‌‌May‌‌/‌‌June‌‌o f‌‌2 020‌‌
   ‌
15. To‌‌h arass‌‌a nd‌‌try‌‌to‌‌e mbarrass‌‌Plaintiff‌‌the‌‌b eginning‌‌o f‌‌May‌‌2 020‌‌this‌‌MeMe‌‌was‌‌p ut‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌
 
internet‌‌-‌‌This‌‌is‌‌the‌‌p attern‌‌a nd‌‌p ractice‌‌to‌‌just‌‌k eep‌‌throwing‌ ‌things‌‌a t‌‌o ne‌‌p erson‌‌to‌‌see‌‌if‌‌y ou‌‌c an‌‌
 
break‌‌them‌‌a nd‌‌shut‌‌them‌‌u p?‌ ‌Or‌‌m aybe‌‌y our‌‌g oal‌‌a nd‌‌this‌‌“ GANG”‌ ‌is‌‌h oping‌‌I‌ ‌will‌‌c ommit‌‌
 
suicide.‌ ‌I‌‌will‌‌n ot.‌ ‌Or‌‌m aybe‌‌y ou‌‌think‌‌I‌‌will‌‌b ecome‌‌a fraid‌‌o f‌‌y ou‌‌-‌ ‌You‌‌c an‌‌g o‌‌to‌‌m y‌‌b log‌‌
 
VALaw2010.blogspot.com‌‌o r‌‌to‌‌the‌‌n ew‌‌website‌‌I‌‌h ave‌‌founded‌‌JudicialPedia.com‌‌to‌‌see‌‌I‌‌a m‌‌n ot‌‌
 
running.‌ ‌I‌‌a m‌‌Standing‌‌Up‌‌a nd‌‌Speaking‌‌Out‌‌a gainst‌‌the‌‌c orruption‌   ‌ ‌

 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
BACKGROUND‌‌PRIOR‌‌TO‌‌FORECLOSURE‌  ‌
 ‌
Plaintiff‌‌incorporates‌‌h erein‌‌b y‌‌reference‌‌a ll‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a llegations‌‌c ontained‌‌in‌‌the‌‌a bove‌‌Paragraphs‌‌o f‌‌this‌‌
 
Complaint‌‌    ‌
 ‌
On‌‌February‌‌4 ,‌‌2 005‌‌JWG‌‌took‌‌o ut‌‌a n‌‌a lleged‌‌loan‌‌from‌‌Mortgage‌‌a nd‌‌Equity‌‌Funding‌‌Corporation.‌‌The‌‌  
alleged‌‌loan‌‌in‌‌q uestion‌‌went‌‌immediately‌‌to‌‌Option‌‌One‌‌Mortgage‌‌Corporation‌‌for‌‌servicing.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Option‌‌One‌‌was‌‌p urchased‌‌b y‌‌American‌‌Home‌‌Mortgage‌‌Servicing‌‌Inc.‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌May‌‌9 ‌‌1 7,‌‌2 008‌‌    ‌
American‌‌Home‌‌Mortgage‌‌Servicing‌‌Inc.‌‌was‌‌p urchased‌‌b y‌‌Homeward‌‌Residential‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌February‌‌  
17,‌‌2 012.‌  ‌
 ‌

27‌  ‌
 ‌
Homeward‌‌Residential‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌OCWEN‌‌a nd‌‌Plaintiff’s‌‌a lleged‌‌loan‌‌was‌‌transferred‌‌Tuesday‌‌February‌‌  
19,‌‌2 013‌‌(the‌‌d ay‌‌p rior‌‌Monday‌‌February‌‌1 8,‌‌2 013‌‌was‌‌a ‌‌Federal‌‌Holiday‌‌for‌‌Presidents‌‌d ay‌‌with‌‌the‌‌  
Banking‌‌industry‌‌c losed.)‌  ‌
On‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌December‌‌1 8,‌‌2 012‌‌BWW-Law‌‌Group‌‌sent‌‌Plaintiff‌‌a ‌‌letter‌‌stating‌‌that‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌  
owned‌‌h er‌‌loan.‌‌BWW-Law‌‌was‌‌sending‌‌the‌‌letter‌‌u nder‌‌a n‌‌o bligation‌‌u nder‌‌Section‌‌IV.D.6‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌National‌‌  
Mortgage‌‌Settlement,‌‌which‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌was‌‌n ot‌‌a ‌‌p arty‌‌to.‌  ‌
 ‌
Robo-Signers.‌‌On‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌December‌‌2 8‌‌o f‌‌2 012‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌representatives‌‌d enied‌‌e ver‌‌o wning‌‌  
such‌‌a ‌‌loan.‌ ‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌p urchased‌‌LaSalle‌‌Bank‌‌October‌‌1 ,‌‌2 007.‌‌February‌‌2 4,‌‌2 009‌ ‌a nd‌‌February‌‌  
June‌‌1 8,‌‌2 009‌ ‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌f/k/a‌‌LaSalle‌‌Bank‌‌filing‌‌-‌‌Notice‌‌o f‌‌Assignment‌‌o f‌‌Deed‌‌o f‌‌Trust‌‌u sing‌‌  
nationally‌‌k nown‌‌Robo-signers‌‌Linda‌‌Green‌‌(VP)‌‌[Ex‌‌5 ],‌‌Tywannia‌‌Thomas‌‌(‌‌Asst.‌‌VP‌‌),‌‌a nd‌‌Korell‌‌Harp‌‌  
(VP).‌ ‌Exhibit‌‌2 ‌‌is‌‌b oth‌‌Assignments‌  ‌
 ‌
Linda‌‌G reen.‌‌‌It‌‌was‌‌p roven‌‌in‌‌the‌‌USA‌‌a nd‌‌Lynn‌‌E.‌‌Szymoniak‌‌v s.‌‌American‌‌Home‌‌Mtg‌‌e t‌‌a l‌‌that‌‌Linda‌‌  
Green‌‌was‌‌n ot‌‌e mployed‌‌b y‌‌American‌‌Home‌‌Serving,‌‌Inc.‌‌a nd‌‌d id‌‌n ot‌‌h ave‌‌a ny‌‌a uthority‌‌to‌‌sign.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Tywannia‌‌Thomas.‌‌‌She‌‌d id‌‌n ot‌‌sign‌‌a ll‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌d ocuments‌‌that‌‌h er‌‌n ame‌‌is‌‌a ffixed‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌DOCX‌‌– ‌‌p repared‌‌  
assignments.‌‌The‌‌u se‌‌o f‌‌several‌‌d ifferent‌‌c orporate‌‌titles‌‌e xists.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Korell‌‌H arp‌.‌‌Also‌‌d id‌‌n ot‌‌sign‌‌a ll‌‌the‌‌d ocuments‌‌to‌‌which‌‌h is‌‌n ame‌‌is‌‌a ffixed.‌‌   ‌
 ‌
Affixing‌‌o r‌‌submitting‌‌false‌‌signatures‌‌o n‌‌a ‌‌m ortgage‌‌document‌‌‌is‌‌a ‌‌v iolation‌‌o f‌‌federal‌‌a nd‌‌state‌‌law,‌‌a nd‌‌  
those‌‌signatures‌‌a re‌‌without‌‌a uthority‌‌to‌‌c omplete‌‌the‌‌transaction.‌‌According‌‌to‌‌a ‌‌m ortgage‌‌fraud‌‌n otice‌‌  
prepared‌‌jointly‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌Federal‌‌Bureau‌‌o f‌‌Investigation‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌Mortgage‌‌Bankers‌‌Association,‌‌submitting‌‌  
false‌‌m ortgage‌‌a ssignments‌‌a nd‌‌forging‌‌signatures‌‌v iolates‌‌p otentially‌‌e ight‌‌federal‌‌c riminal‌‌statutes.‌‌  
Specifically:‌‌(1)‌‌1 8‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ 1001‌‌– ‌‌Statements‌‌o r‌‌e ntries‌‌g enerally;‌‌(2)‌‌1 8‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌1 010‌‌-‌‌HUD‌‌a nd‌‌Federal‌‌  
Housing‌‌Administration‌‌transactions;‌‌(3)‌‌1 8‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌1 014‌‌– ‌‌Loan‌‌a nd‌‌c redit‌‌a pplications‌‌g enerally;‌‌(4)‌‌1 8‌‌  
U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌1 028‌‌– ‌‌Fraud‌‌a nd‌‌related‌‌a ctivity‌‌in‌‌c onnection‌‌with‌‌identification‌‌d ocuments;‌‌(5)‌‌1 8‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌1 341‌‌  
–‌‌Frauds‌‌a nd‌‌swindles‌‌b y‌‌m ail;‌‌(6)‌‌1 8‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌1 342‌‌– ‌‌Fictitious‌‌n ame‌‌o r‌‌a ddress;‌‌(7)‌‌1 8‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌1 343‌‌– ‌‌  
Fraud‌‌b y‌‌wire;‌‌a nd‌‌(8)‌‌1 8‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌1 344‌‌1 0‌‌– ‌‌Bank‌‌Fraud.‌‌See‌‌FBI‌‌Mortgage‌‌Fraud‌‌Notice‌‌(available‌‌a t‌‌  
http://www.mbaa.org/FBIMortgageFraudWarning.htm);‌‌see,‌‌a lso,‌‌Truth‌‌in‌‌Lending‌‌Act,‌‌title‌‌1 ‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌  
Consumer‌‌Credit‌‌Protection‌‌Act,‌‌a s‌‌a mended‌‌1 5‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌1 601‌‌e t‌‌seq.‌‌;‌‌Mortgage‌‌Fraud.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
False‌‌o r‌‌fraudulent‌‌n otary‌‌a cknowledgements‌‌a re‌‌a lso‌‌a ‌‌v iolation.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌signatures‌‌c ontained‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌a ssignments‌‌filed‌‌in‌‌Foreclosure‌‌a re‌‌fraudulent,‌‌in‌‌v iolation‌‌o f‌‌Federal‌‌a nd‌‌  
Virginia‌‌law,‌‌a nd‌‌therefore‌‌they‌‌d o‌‌n ot‌‌serve‌‌to‌‌a ssign‌‌the‌‌n ote‌‌a nd‌‌m ortgage‌‌p roperly,‌‌they‌‌lack‌‌the‌‌  
essential‌‌a uthority‌‌for‌‌Defendants‌‌to‌‌a ct‌‌o n‌‌n ote‌‌a nd‌‌m ortgage‌‌a nd‌‌Defendants‌‌c annot‌‌foreclose.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌p ractice‌‌o f‌‌fraudulent‌‌m ortgage‌‌a ssignments‌‌is‌‌widespread‌‌a cross‌‌the‌‌United‌‌States.‌‌Defendants‌‌h ave‌‌  
the‌‌k nowledge‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌serious‌‌p roblems‌‌o f‌‌their‌‌fraudulent‌‌a ctions‌‌to‌‌c over‌‌u p‌‌/‌‌c onceal‌‌this‌‌p roblem.‌ ‌That‌‌  
nothing‌‌h as‌‌c hanged‌‌since‌‌2 010.‌  ‌
 ‌
Defendants‌‌Use‌‌o f‌‌Fake‌‌Documents,‌‌False‌‌O fficer‌‌Titles‌‌a nd‌‌Forged‌‌Signatures‌‌‌v iolates‌‌Federal‌‌Lending‌‌  
Law,‌‌State‌‌Mortgage‌‌Fraud‌‌law‌‌a nd‌‌Notary‌‌Fraud‌‌law.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
28‌  ‌
 ‌
Title‌.‌‌On‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌December‌‌2 8‌‌/‌‌3 1,‌‌2 012‌‌JWG‌‌c alled‌‌BWWLaw‌‌Group‌‌a nd‌‌a sked‌‌who‌‌o wned‌‌the‌‌loan‌‌  
on‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌Street?‌‌According‌‌to‌‌a ‌‌letter‌‌o n‌‌December‌‌1 8,‌‌2 012,‌‌the‌‌o wner‌‌was‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌– but‌‌  
Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌d enied‌‌such‌‌o wnership.‌‌BWWLaw‌‌g roup‌‌referred‌‌Plaintiff‌‌b ack‌‌to‌‌the‌‌Homeward‌‌  
Residential‌‌that‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌Group‌‌h ad‌‌n o‌‌k nowledge‌‌who‌‌o wned‌‌the‌‌loan.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Plaintiff‌‌/‌‌JWG‌‌was‌‌in‌‌the‌‌p rocess‌‌o f‌‌a pplying‌‌for‌‌the‌‌Government‌‌Independent‌‌Foreclosure‌‌Review‌‌a nd‌‌  
learned‌‌a bout‌‌the‌‌p ossibility‌‌o f‌‌this‌‌b reak‌‌in‌‌the‌‌c hain‌‌o f‌‌title.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
The‌‌H AMP‌‌Program‌.‌‌In‌‌2 008‌‌a nd‌‌thereafter,‌‌Plaintiff‌‌Homeward‌‌o n‌‌a ‌‌Deed‌‌Mortification‌‌thru‌‌the‌‌  
programs‌‌o ffered‌‌b y‌‌Congress.‌‌The‌‌Servicers‌‌reaped‌‌e xcessive‌‌false‌‌rewards‌‌for‌‌losing/processing‌‌refinance‌‌  
documents‌‌b ecause‌‌o f‌‌a ‌‌flaw‌‌in‌‌a ‌‌financial‌‌incentive‌‌for‌‌servicers‌‌d ocument‌‌h andling,‌‌m otivating‌‌Servicers‌‌  
to‌‌d elay,‌‌loose‌‌p aperwork‌‌e tc.‌‌Servicers‌‌o f‌‌loans‌‌such‌‌a s‌‌the‌‌Plaintiffs,‌‌received‌‌m oney‌‌p er‌‌a pplication‌‌/and‌‌  
document/‌‌b ut‌‌n ot‌‌p er‌‌p erson,‌‌c reating‌‌a ‌‌reward‌‌for‌‌n egligent‌‌a nd‌‌fraudulent‌‌c orporate/organizational‌‌b ad‌‌  
behaviors‌‌that‌‌d eprived‌‌o r‌‌d eterred‌‌h omeowner‌‌refinancing,‌‌such‌‌a s‌‌o ccurred‌‌h ere.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Improper‌‌interference‌‌with‌‌Plaintiff's‌‌HAMP‌‌Application.‌‌On‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌January‌‌2 8,‌‌2 013,‌‌Homeward‌‌  
Mortgage‌‌sent‌‌Plaintiff‌‌a ‌‌Notice‌‌o f‌‌Servicing‌‌Transfer‌‌(RESPA)‌‌a nd‌‌Welcome‌‌to‌‌OCWEN‌‌Loan‌‌Servicing,‌‌  
LLC‌‌[‌‌Ex‌‌8 ‌‌] ‌  ‌ ‌
 ‌
Homeward‌‌Mortgage‌‌servicing‌‌was‌‌the‌‌servicer‌‌o f‌‌Plaintiff‌‌loan‌‌till‌‌February‌‌1 8,‌‌2 013.‌‌February‌‌1 9,‌‌2 013‌‌  
OCWEN‌‌b ecame‌‌the‌‌servicer.‌‌Homeward‌‌Mortgage‌‌supervisor‌‌h ad‌‌a dvised‌‌Plaintiff‌‌o n‌‌three‌‌d ifferent‌‌  
occasions‌‌that‌‌a ll‌‌d ocuments‌‌were‌‌in‌‌p lace‌‌for‌‌the‌‌HAMP‌‌Modification.‌‌Homeward‌‌then‌‌k ept‌‌c oming‌‌b ack‌‌  
with‌‌issues‌‌that‌‌Plaintiff‌‌h ad‌‌b een‌‌told‌‌b y‌‌Homeward‌‌that‌‌they‌‌were‌‌c leared‌‌u p.‌‌Homeward‌‌supervisor‌‌h ad‌‌  
left‌‌Plaintiff‌‌a ‌‌m essage‌‌that‌‌the‌‌foreclosure‌‌o f‌‌h er‌‌h ome‌‌h ad‌‌b een‌‌stayed.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
February‌‌1 9,‌‌2 013‌‌Plaintiff‌‌p honed‌‌OCWEN‌‌to‌‌c onfirm‌‌that‌‌there‌‌h ad‌‌n ot‌‌b een‌‌a ny‌‌issue‌‌that‌‌the‌‌foreclosure‌‌  
had‌‌b een‌‌stayed‌‌a s‌‌the‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌Group‌‌still‌‌showed‌‌it‌‌a ctive‌‌o n‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌website.‌‌OCWEN‌‌informed‌‌  
Plaintiff‌‌she‌‌would‌‌n eed‌‌to‌‌re-submit‌‌d ocuments‌‌for‌‌the‌‌HAMP‌‌Program‌‌– ‌‌b ut‌‌to‌‌“ ignore‌‌the‌‌foreclosure‌‌d ate‌‌  
because‌‌a ‌‌“ foreclosure‌‌sale‌‌c annot‌‌b e‌‌c onducted”‌‌u ntil‌‌a fter‌‌the‌‌e valuation‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌HAMP‌‌p rogram‌‌is‌‌  
complete‌‌a nd‌‌a ‌‌b orrower‌‌found‌‌ineligible.‌‌As‌‌long‌‌a s‌‌Plaintiff‌‌was‌‌b eing‌‌c onsidered‌‌for‌‌the‌‌HAMP‌‌the‌‌  
foreclosure‌‌c ould‌‌n ot‌‌g o‌‌forward”‌‌Plaintiff‌‌went‌‌o ver‌‌this‌‌statement‌‌three‌‌times‌‌with‌‌the‌‌a gent‌‌a t‌‌OCWEN.‌‌  
OCWEN‌‌c ould‌‌n ot‌‌h ave‌‌b een‌‌m ore‌‌h elpful‌‌a nd‌‌was‌‌reassuring‌‌a bout‌‌the‌‌foreclosure‌‌n ot‌‌g oing‌‌a head.‌‌The‌‌  
phone‌‌c onversation‌‌was‌‌c lose‌‌to‌‌a n‌‌h our‌‌g oing‌‌o ver‌‌e verything.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
February‌‌2 0,‌‌2 013‌‌Plaintiff‌‌p honed‌‌OCWEN‌‌a gain‌‌a nd‌‌went‌‌through‌‌the‌‌fact‌‌the‌‌foreclosure‌‌was‌‌still‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌  
website‌‌schedule‌‌o f‌‌BWWLaw‌‌Group,‌‌a nd‌‌would‌‌OCWEN‌‌p lease‌‌c ontact‌‌BWWLaw?‌‌OCWEN‌‌a gain‌‌  
reassured‌‌Plaintiff‌‌they‌‌c ould‌‌n ot‌‌foreclose‌‌a s‌‌the‌‌p rocess‌‌h ad‌‌b egun‌‌with‌‌OCWEN‌‌a nd‌‌it‌‌was‌‌illegal‌‌to‌‌  
foreclose.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
February‌‌2 0,‌‌2 013‌‌Plaintiff‌‌sent‌‌e mails‌‌to‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌Group‌‌a fter‌‌b eing‌‌u nable‌‌to‌‌reach‌‌BWWLaw‌‌g roup‌‌o n‌‌  
the‌‌p hone‌‌a bout‌‌the‌‌p ending‌‌foreclosure.‌‌BWWLaw‌‌Group‌‌informed‌‌Plaintiff‌‌that‌‌the‌‌a lleged‌‌o wner‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌  
loan‌‌(Equity‌‌Trustees)‌‌h ad‌‌m ade‌‌the‌‌d ecision‌‌a nd‌‌p lanned‌‌to‌‌m ove‌‌forward‌‌to‌‌foreclose‌‌o n‌‌Plaintiff's‌‌  
property.‌‌In‌‌December‌‌2 012‌‌(two‌‌m onths‌‌e arlier)‌‌BWWLaw‌‌Group‌‌h ad‌‌n o‌‌idea‌‌who‌‌o wned‌‌Plaintiff’s‌‌loan‌‌  
or‌‌who‌‌h ad‌‌the‌‌o riginal‌‌n ote.‌‌   ‌
 ‌

29‌  ‌
 ‌
Plaintiff‌‌c ontinued‌‌to‌‌try‌‌to‌‌c ontact‌‌BWWLaw‌‌Group‌‌through‌‌p hone‌‌c alls‌‌a nd‌‌e mails.‌‌through‌‌the‌‌e nd‌‌o f‌‌  
business‌‌February‌‌2 0,‌‌2 013.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
She‌‌m ade‌‌p hone‌‌c alls‌‌to‌‌OCWEN‌‌a nd‌‌supervisors‌‌a t‌‌OCWEN,‌‌who‌‌were‌‌a t‌‌a ‌‌loss‌‌a s‌‌to‌‌h ow‌‌to‌‌h elp‌‌Plaintiff.‌‌  
OCWEN‌‌c laimed‌‌to‌‌h ave‌‌n ever‌‌seen‌‌a ‌‌situation‌‌like‌‌this.‌‌OCWEN‌‌k ept‌‌informing‌‌Plaintiff‌‌that‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌  
group‌‌c ould‌‌n ot‌‌foreclose‌‌p rior‌‌to‌‌o r‌‌o n‌‌April‌‌1 7,‌‌2 013‌‌a nd‌‌o nly‌‌thereafter‌‌if‌‌Plaintiffs’‌‌d ocuments‌‌h ad‌‌n ot‌‌  
been‌‌received‌‌b y‌‌OCWEN.‌ ‌Phone‌‌c alls‌‌a re‌‌taped‌  ‌
 ‌
With‌‌n o‌‌o ther‌‌recourse,‌‌a nd‌‌b ased‌‌o n‌‌BWWLaw‌‌Group‌‌b ad‌‌faith,‌‌Plaintiff‌‌was‌‌forced‌‌to‌‌file‌‌involuntary‌‌  
Bankruptcy‌‌February‌‌2 1,‌‌2 013‌‌to‌‌p rotect‌‌h er‌‌interest‌‌in‌‌the‌‌p roperty.‌‌Video‌‌a vailable‌  ‌
 ‌
On‌‌February‌‌2 1,‌‌2 013‌‌‌Plaintiff/‌‌JWG‌‌c ould‌‌n ot‌‌g et‌‌through‌‌to‌‌a ‌‌v oice-mail‌‌o r‌‌a nyone‌‌a t‌‌BWWLaw‌‌g roup,‌‌  
which‌‌a t‌‌times‌‌b locked‌‌Plaintiffs‌‌c alls‌‌a nd‌‌e mails.‌‌Plaintiff‌‌took‌‌a ‌‌c opy‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌receipt‌‌for‌‌the‌‌b ankruptcy‌‌to‌‌  
the‌‌a ddress‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a lleged‌‌“ owner”‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌loan‌‌(according‌‌to‌‌lBWWLaw‌‌Group‌‌– ‌‌was‌‌“ Equity‌‌Trustees”‌‌with‌‌  
an‌‌a ddress‌‌o f‌‌2 020‌‌1 4th‌‌Street‌‌N.,‌‌Suite‌‌2 50‌‌Arlington‌‌Va‌‌2 2201.‌‌Plaintiff‌‌d elivered‌‌the‌‌b ankruptcy‌‌receipt‌‌  
in‌‌p erson,‌‌b ecause‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌website‌‌for‌‌BWWLaw,‌‌showed‌‌o nly‌‌a ddresses‌‌in‌‌Richmond,‌‌VA‌‌a nd‌‌Bethesda,‌‌  
Md.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
February‌‌2 1,‌‌2 013.‌‌‌Plaintiff‌‌/‌‌JWG‌‌was‌‌shocked‌‌to‌‌d iscover‌‌that‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌g roup‌‌a nd‌‌Equity‌‌Trustees‌‌LLC‌‌  
``shared”‌‌the‌‌same‌‌o ffice!‌‌The‌‌a ctions‌‌o f‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌(by‌‌refusing‌‌to‌‌turn‌‌o ver‌‌a ‌‌c opy‌‌o f‌‌Plaintiff’s‌‌o riginal‌‌  
note‌‌a nd‌‌o ther‌‌information)‌‌b ut/while‌‌c oncealing‌‌that‌‌they‌‌‘sharing’‌‌o ffices‌‌with‌‌the‌‌foreclosure‌‌trustee,‌‌  
indicates‌‌e gregious‌‌self-interest‌‌a nd‌‌m alicious‌‌intent‌‌to‌‌d efraud‌‌Plaintiff.‌‌Here,‌‌they‌‌a ctively‌‌(by‌‌o mission‌‌  
and‌‌a ffirmative‌‌a cts)‌‌intentionally‌‌interfered‌‌a nd‌‌v iolated‌‌Plaintiffs‌‌rights‌‌to‌‌p articipate‌‌a nd‌‌reap‌‌the‌‌rewards‌‌  
of‌‌the‌‌Government‌‌b acked‌‌HAMP‌‌p rogram,‌‌b y‌‌a ctively‌‌setting‌‌h er‌‌u p‌‌for‌‌foreclosure‌‌in‌‌v iolation‌‌o f‌‌law..‌‌  
These‌‌Actions‌‌o f‌‌Equity‌‌Trustees‌‌LLC,‌‌BWWLaw‌‌Group‌‌a nd‌‌o ther‌‌d efendants‌‌were‌‌a nd‌‌a re‌‌willful‌‌a cts‌‌that‌‌  
are‌‌self-interest,‌‌m alicious,‌‌v iolent,‌‌o ppressive,‌‌fraudulent,‌‌wanton,‌‌a nd‌‌g rossly‌‌reckless‌‌in‌‌light‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌  
fiduciary‌‌n ature‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌law/firm/trustee‌‌d uties.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
On‌‌February‌‌2 2,‌‌2 013‌‌‌Plaintiff‌‌e -mailed‌‌Allison‌‌Melton,‌‌a n‌‌a ssociate‌‌a t‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌requesting‌‌a ‌‌c opy‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌  
Spring‌‌Street‌‌o riginal‌‌n ote,‌‌a nd‌‌Allison‌‌(an‌‌a ssociate‌‌with‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌Group)‌‌d enied‌‌h er‌‌request‌  ‌
 ‌
On‌‌March‌‌1 ,‌‌2 013‌‌Plaintiff‌‌returned‌‌to‌‌the‌‌o ffices‌‌o f‌‌BWW-‌‌Law‌‌Group‌‌a nd‌‌Equity‌‌Trustees,‌‌LLC‌‌to‌‌h and‌‌  
deliver‌‌a ‌‌“ qualified‌‌written‌‌request”‌‌u nder‌‌the‌‌Federal‌‌Servicer‌‌Act,‌‌which‌‌is‌‌a ‌‌p art‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Real‌‌Estate‌‌  
Settlement‌‌Procedures‌‌Act,‌‌1 2‌‌U.S.C.‌‌2 605‌‌(e).‌‌Requesting‌‌b y‌‌law‌‌the‌‌information‌‌Plaintiff‌‌h ad‌‌b een‌‌d enied‌‌  
by‌‌Defendants.‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
The‌‌letter‌‌a t‌‌p age‌‌4 ,‌‌reminds‌‌Equity‌‌Trustees‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌m andatory‌‌d uty‌‌to‌‌a cknowledge‌‌receipt‌‌o f‌‌this‌‌q ualified‌‌  
written‌‌request‌‌within‌‌2 0‌‌b usiness‌‌d ays,‌‌p ursuant‌‌to‌‌1 2‌‌U.S.C.‌‌Section‌‌2 605‌‌(e)‌‌(1)(A)‌‌a nd‌‌Reg.‌‌X‌‌Section‌‌  
2500.21‌‌(e)(1).‌‌Equity‌‌Trustees‌‌LLC‌‌“ shares”‌‌o ffices‌‌with‌‌BWWLaw‌‌Group,‌‌a nd‌‌is‌‌o wned‌‌b y‌‌lawyers,‌‌who‌‌  
are‌‌e xpected‌‌to‌‌b e‌‌c ognizant‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌federal‌‌a nd‌‌state‌‌laws‌‌regarding‌‌their‌‌“ specialty.”‌‌Here‌‌self-interest‌‌a nd‌‌  
greed‌‌seem‌‌to‌‌1 3‌‌h ave‌‌m otivated‌‌the‌‌law‌‌firm/lawyers‌‌to‌‌v iolate‌‌federal‌‌law/rights‌‌a nd‌‌fiduciary‌‌d uties‌‌o wed‌‌  
to‌‌the‌‌Plaintiff‌‌b ecause‌‌they‌‌c ontrolled‌‌the‌‌d ocuments‌‌a nd‌‌intentionally‌‌k ept‌‌them‌‌from‌‌the‌‌Plaintiff.‌  ‌
 ‌
Plaintiff‌‌is‌‌a n‌‌Entrepreneur‌‌a nd‌‌a s‌‌a ‌‌result‌‌o f‌‌Defendant’s‌‌improper‌‌interference‌‌she‌‌lost‌‌funding‌‌b ecause‌‌  
BWW‌‌Law‌‌a dvertised‌‌h er‌‌h ome‌‌for‌‌foreclosure‌‌February‌‌7 ,‌‌2 013.‌‌Plaintiff‌‌worked‌‌d iligently‌‌with‌‌  
Homeward‌‌a nd‌‌OCWENt‌‌o ‌‌p revent‌‌foreclosure‌‌a nd‌‌b y‌‌filing‌‌for‌‌Bankruptcy.‌‌    ‌
30‌  ‌
 ‌
 ‌
BWW-Law‌‌g roup‌‌f/k/a‌‌Bierman,‌‌Geesing,‌‌Ward‌‌& ‌‌Wood,‌‌LLC‌‌a cted‌‌in‌‌its‌‌o wn‌‌b est‌‌interest‌‌b y‌‌p utting‌‌it’s‌‌  
own‌‌b est‌‌interests‌‌a nd‌‌that‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌o ther‌‌lawyers,‌‌b efore‌‌the‌‌b est‌‌interest‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Plaintiff.‌  ‌
 ‌
Robo-Signers.‌‌J acob‌‌G eesing‌‌‌is‌‌a ‌‌p artner‌‌o f‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌Group‌‌a nd‌‌since‌‌October‌‌1 3,‌‌2 010‌‌is‌‌p ublicly‌‌  
known‌‌a s‌‌“ The‌‌Robo‌‌Trustee.”‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Attorney‌‌H oward‌‌N.‌‌Bierman,‌‌‌a lso‌‌o f‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌Group‌‌is‌‌a lso‌‌p ublicly‌‌k nown‌‌a s‌‌a ‌‌Robo‌‌Signer‌‌includes‌‌  
in‌ ‌4 ‌‌d ifferent‌‌signatures‌‌o n‌‌Plaintiffs‌‌forged‌‌d ocuments‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌Group.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Documents‌‌filed‌‌a gainst‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌St.‌‌b y‌‌BWWLaw‌‌Group‌‌Deed‌‌o f‌‌Appointment‌‌o f‌‌substitute‌‌Trustee‌‌  
June‌‌2 ,‌‌2 006‌‌Deed‌‌o f‌‌a ppointment‌‌o f‌‌Substitute‌‌Trustee‌ ‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌BWW-‌‌Law‌‌Group‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌March‌‌  
23,‌‌2 012‌‌– ‌‌b ut,‌‌n ot‌‌signed‌‌b y‌‌BWW-Law‌‌Group‌‌– ‌‌Signed‌‌b y‌‌April‌‌King‌‌VP‌‌reading‌‌– ‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank,‌‌  
N.A.‌‌a s‌‌Trustee‌‌for‌‌Option‌‌One‌‌Mortgage‌‌Loans‌‌Trust‌‌2 005-2‌‌Asset‌‌Backed‌‌Certificates,‌‌Series‌‌2 005-2‌‌(‌‌  
Option‌‌One‌‌Mortgage‌‌shuts‌‌d own‌‌a nd‌‌is‌‌sold‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌May‌‌1 7,‌‌2 008‌‌to‌‌AHMSI)‌‌[Ex‌‌1 8‌‌]‌‌By:‌‌American‌‌  
Home‌‌Mortgage‌‌Servicing‌‌Inc.‌‌(AHMSI)‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌a bsence‌‌o f‌‌a ny‌‌v alid‌‌p romissory‌‌n ote(‌‌n ecessary‌‌for‌‌e nforcement‌‌o n‌‌a ‌‌secured‌‌interest),‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌recent‌‌  
Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌CEO/office‌‌representation‌‌that‌‌there‌‌is‌‌n o‌‌b ank‌‌interest,‌‌a nd‌‌that‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌is‌‌n ot‌‌involved‌‌in‌‌  
the‌‌lawyer‌‌c ollection/foreclosure/auction‌‌p rocess‌‌– ‌‌d emonstrate‌‌improper‌‌Defendant‌‌a ctions‌‌o n‌‌a ‌‌loan‌‌which‌‌  
is‌‌n o‌‌longer‌‌e nforceable‌‌o r‌‌supported‌‌in‌‌law.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
BWW-Law‌‌Group‌‌a nd‌‌Equity‌‌Trustees‌‌LLC‌‌a cted‌‌in‌‌b ad‌‌faith‌‌a nd‌‌a pparent‌‌self‌‌interest‌‌when‌‌b oth‌‌ignored‌‌  
all‌‌c orrespondence‌‌from‌‌Plaintiff.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
On‌‌o r‌‌Around‌‌May‌‌1 7,‌‌2 012‌‌Plaintiff‌‌learned‌‌Mark‌‌R.‌‌Galbraith‌‌was‌‌representing‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo.‌‌1 4‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Plaintiff‌‌reached‌‌o ut‌‌to‌‌Mr.‌‌Galbraith‌‌b y‌‌p hone‌‌a nd‌‌e -mail.‌‌Mr.‌‌Galbraith‌‌a lso‌‌refused‌‌to‌‌a nswer‌‌a ny‌‌  
questions‌‌in‌‌regard‌‌if‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌h ad‌‌the‌‌o riginal‌‌Note‌‌for‌‌1 5‌‌West‌‌Spring‌‌Street,‌‌Alexandria,‌‌Va.‌‌2 2301.‌  ‌
 ‌
Other‌‌Documents‌‌filed‌‌in‌‌Court--‌‌February‌‌4 ,‌‌2 005‌‌– ‌‌Deed‌‌o f‌‌Trust‌‌– ‌‌Mortgage‌‌Equity‌‌Funding‌‌Corp‌‌July‌‌9 ,‌‌  
2007‌‌-‌‌Corporation‌‌Assignment‌‌o f‌‌Deed‌‌o f‌‌Trust‌‌– ‌‌Prepared‌‌b y‌‌Option‌‌One‌‌Mortgage‌‌Corp‌ ‌December‌‌1 8,‌‌  
2007‌‌– ‌‌Loan‌‌Mortification‌‌Agreement‌‌– ‌‌Option‌‌One‌‌Mortgage‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Lawyer‌‌o vercompensation‌‌b ased‌‌o n‌‌u nacceptable‌‌a nd‌‌inappropriate‌‌p ractices.‌‌It‌‌h as‌‌b een‌‌well‌‌d ocumented‌‌  
in‌‌U.S.‌‌Congressional‌‌o versight‌‌that‌‌lawyer‌‌p ractices,‌‌such‌‌a s‌‌the‌‌lawyer/trustees‌‌in‌‌this‌‌c ase‌‌(‌‌who‌‌ignored‌‌  
the‌‌Servicing‌‌Companies‌‌c onversations‌‌with‌‌this‌‌h omeowner)‌‌– ‌‌a re‌‌u nethical‌‌p ractices‌‌lawyers‌‌e ngage‌‌in‌‌  
who‌‌a re‌‌a fraid‌‌o f‌‌losing‌‌foreclosure‌‌income‌‌a nd‌‌a ssets‌‌p ayable‌‌to‌‌their‌‌law‌‌firm‌‌-‌‌p ractices‌‌involving‌‌  
foreclosure,‌‌b anks,‌‌e viction‌‌o r‌‌c losing,‌‌including‌‌Robo-signing.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌U.S.‌‌House‌‌Committee‌‌o n‌‌Oversight‌‌a nd‌‌Government‌‌Relations,‌‌in‌‌response‌‌to‌‌inquiry‌‌from‌‌  
Congressman‌‌Elijah‌‌Cummings,‌‌wrote‌‌from‌‌theFederal‌‌Housing‌‌Finance‌‌Agency‌‌o n‌‌May‌‌1 3,‌‌2 01,‌‌a ‌‌letter‌‌  
which‌‌e stablishes‌‌(‌‌a s‌‌improper‌‌p ractices)‌‌the‌‌a cquisition‌‌o f‌‌real‌‌e state‌‌u sing‌‌illegitimate‌‌foreclosure‌‌  
practices‌‌-‌‌a ‌‌lawyer‌‌p ractice‌‌o f‌‌self-interest,‌‌such‌‌a s‌‌o ccurred‌‌in‌‌this‌‌c ase.‌ ‌Page‌‌3 ‌‌d escribes‌‌a s‌‌“ Attorney‌‌  
Misconduct”,‌‌self-dealing‌‌a nd‌‌inappropriate‌‌p ractices,‌‌which‌‌itemizes‌‌the‌‌p ractices‌‌in‌‌this‌‌c ase‌‌a s‌‌  
“unacceptable”‌‌a nd‌‌shows‌‌Forms‌‌1 04DC‌‌submitted‌‌to‌‌Freddie‌‌Mac‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌Servicers‌‌that‌‌S‌‌& ‌‌B‌‌(Shapiro‌‌& ‌‌  
31‌  ‌
 ‌
Burson‌‌LLP)‌‌were‌‌p aid‌‌to‌‌the‌‌lawyers‌‌-‌‌2 009‌‌-‌‌$ ‌‌3 ,369,146.14‌‌By‌‌– ‌‌FREDDIE‌‌MAC’S‌‌SERVICERS‌‌2 010‌‌-‌‌  
$‌‌6 ,342,051.30‌‌By‌‌-‌‌FdREDDIE‌‌MAC’S‌‌SERVICERS‌‌In‌‌the‌‌First‌‌q uarter‌‌o f‌‌2 011‌‌-‌‌$ ‌‌1 ,746,816.13‌‌By‌‌– ‌‌  
FREDDIE‌‌MAC’S‌‌SERVICERS‌‌The‌‌a mounts‌‌a re‌‌n ot‌‌b roken‌‌o ut‌‌into‌‌separate‌‌c ategories‌‌for‌‌the‌‌type‌‌o f‌‌  
matter‌‌h andled,‌‌b ut‌‌include‌‌p ayments‌‌for‌‌services‌‌p rovided‌‌for‌‌foreclosures,‌‌b ankruptcies,‌‌e viction,‌‌a nd‌‌  
closings‌‌in‌‌Maryland‌‌a nd‌‌Virginia.‌  ‌
 ‌
The‌‌Question‌‌then‌‌b ecomes‌‌what‌‌is‌‌the‌‌d ifference‌‌b etween‌‌BWW-Law‌‌Group‌‌f/k/a‌‌BIERMAN,‌‌GEESING,‌‌  
WARD‌‌& ‌‌Wood,‌‌LLC‌‌a nd‌‌Shapiro‌‌& ‌‌Burson‌‌LLP‌‌a nd‌‌n ow‌‌McCabe‌‌Weisberg‌‌a nd‌‌Conway?‌‌When‌‌y ou‌‌  
search‌‌the‌‌Internet‌‌for‌‌Maryland‌‌a nd‌‌Virginia‌‌y ou‌‌see‌‌n o‌‌d ifference‌‌in‌‌the‌‌c riminal‌‌a ctivities‌‌o f‌‌b oth‌‌law‌‌  
firms.‌‌The‌‌a nswer‌‌will‌‌c ome‌‌a fter‌‌a ‌‌FOIA‌‌request‌‌for‌‌the‌‌1 04DC‌‌will‌‌b e‌‌submitted‌‌to‌‌Freddie‌‌Mac.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
On‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌Judge‌‌James‌‌Clark‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌City‌‌o f‌‌Alexandria‌‌for‌‌“ Friendship”‌‌a nd‌‌o ther‌‌illegal‌‌reasons‌‌g ive‌‌  
Divorce‌‌lawyer‌‌Ilona‌‌Ely‌‌Freedman‌‌Grenadier‌‌the‌‌right‌‌to‌‌foreclose‌‌o n‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌St,‌‌Alexandria‌‌VA‌‌  
22301‌‌– ‌‌This‌‌Fraud‌‌included‌‌the‌‌h elp‌‌o f‌‌DiMuroGinsberg,‌‌Troutman‌‌Sanders‌‌a ka‌‌Mays‌‌& ‌‌Valentine‌‌(1990‌‌  
stole‌‌$ 30,000‌‌from‌‌p laintiff‌‌to‌‌h elp‌‌c over‌‌u p‌‌thefts‌‌o f‌‌lawyer‌‌Ilona‌‌Grenadier‌‌Heckman‌‌a nd‌‌James‌‌Arthur‌‌  
with‌‌false‌‌a nd‌‌fraudulent,‌‌m isleading‌‌information)‌‌a nd‌‌K   ‌‌ ‌
 ‌
Once‌‌a gain‌‌forcing‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌‌into‌‌Bankruptcy.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
What‌‌this‌‌d oes‌‌is‌‌show‌‌the‌‌FORECLOSURE‌‌MILLS‌‌/‌‌LAWYERS‌‌c ollusion‌‌to‌‌m ake‌‌it‌‌a ‌‌p attern‌‌a nd‌‌p ractice‌‌  
to‌‌e nsure‌‌the‌‌MURDER‌‌o f‌‌a nd‌‌o r‌‌the‌‌h omeless‌‌o f‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌‌who‌‌c ontinues‌‌to‌‌STAND‌‌UP‌‌a nd‌‌  
SPEAK‌‌OUT‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌c orruption‌‌with‌‌e ven‌‌illegally‌‌jailing‌‌h er‌‌a nd‌‌h olding‌‌h er‌‌in‌‌solitary‌‌c onfinement‌‌for‌‌1 4‌‌  
days.‌‌October‌‌2 2,‌‌2 014‌‌– ‌‌November‌‌1 2,‌‌2 014‌‌– ‌‌2 2‌‌d ays‌‌Janice‌‌illegally‌‌jailed‌‌a nd‌‌tortured‌‌in‌‌the‌‌City‌‌o f‌‌  
Alexandria,‌‌Solitary‌‌Confinement‌‌till‌‌5 pm‌‌o n‌‌Election‌‌d ay‌‌Tuesday,‌‌November‌‌4 ,‌‌2 014.‌‌Illegally‌‌Jailed‌‌to:‌‌    ‌
 ‌
1.‌‌Silence‌‌h er‌‌a nd‌‌stop‌‌e xposure‌‌o f‌‌e -mails‌‌b etween‌‌h erself‌‌a nd‌‌Mark‌‌Warner’s‌‌o ffice‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌  
corruption‌‌in‌‌the‌‌Judiciary.‌‌Janice‌‌went‌‌to‌‌Mark‌‌Warner‌‌for‌‌h elp‌‌instead‌‌h e‌‌h ad‌‌h er‌‌jailed,‌‌a t‌‌the‌‌  
same‌‌time‌‌it‌‌was‌‌e xposed‌‌h is‌‌“ Pay‌‌to‌‌Play‌‌''‌‌with‌‌a ‌‌Federal‌‌Judgeship‌‌for‌‌a ‌‌favor.‌‌Being‌‌ignored‌‌b y‌‌  
the‌‌Senate‌‌Ethics‌‌Committee.‌‌    ‌
2.‌‌To‌‌Bully‌‌/‌‌scare‌‌h er‌‌into‌‌e ither‌‌c ommitting‌‌Suicide‌‌o r‌‌to‌‌turning‌‌the‌‌o ther‌‌c heck‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌c orruption‌‌  
and‌‌n ot‌‌h olding‌‌Virginia‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌Federal‌‌Judiciary,‌‌the‌‌Government‌‌a nd‌‌Elected‌‌Officials‌‌  
accountable,‌‌a s‌‌well‌‌a s‌‌the‌‌c riminal‌‌a cts‌‌a nd‌‌a ctions‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Old‌‌Boys‌‌Network‌‌in‌‌Virginia‌‌That‌‌the‌‌  
law‌‌is‌‌v ery‌‌c lear:‌‌That‌‌Judge‌‌Clarks‌‌a ctions‌‌h ave‌‌turned‌‌b ack‌‌time.‌‌Giving‌‌m e‌‌less‌‌rights‌‌than‌‌a ‌‌  
slave.‌‌Taking‌‌someone‌‌u nder‌‌Title‌‌4 2‌‌US‌‌Code‌‌1 994‌‌a nd‌‌Title‌‌1 8‌‌US‌‌Code‌‌1 581(a):‌‌Whoever‌‌h olds‌‌  
or‌‌returns‌‌a ny‌‌p erson‌‌to‌‌a ‌‌c ondition‌‌o f‌‌PEONAGE,‌‌shall‌‌b e‌‌fined‌‌u nder‌‌this‌‌title‌‌for‌‌imprisoned‌‌n ot‌‌  
more‌‌than‌‌2 0‌‌y ears‌‌o r‌‌b oth.‌‌   ‌
 ‌
3.‌‌That‌‌o n‌‌October‌‌2 2,‌‌2 014‌‌I‌‌was‌‌p laced‌‌in‌‌jail‌‌for‌‌failure‌‌to‌‌p ay‌‌legal‌‌fees‌‌in‌‌3 0‌‌d ays‌‌which‌‌is‌‌a ‌‌
 
violation‌‌o f‌‌m y‌‌Thirteenth‌‌Amendment‌‌"Neither‌‌Slavery‌‌n ot‌‌involuntary‌‌servitude,‌‌e xcept‌‌a s‌‌  
punishment‌‌for‌‌a ‌‌c rime‌‌where‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌p arty‌‌shall‌‌h ave‌‌d uly‌‌c onvicted,‌‌shall‌‌e xist‌‌within‌‌the‌‌United‌‌  
States,‌‌o r‌‌a ny‌‌subject‌‌to‌‌their‌‌Jurisdiction".‌‌Furthermore‌‌the‌‌right‌‌b y‌‌p lacing‌‌m e‌‌1 6‌‌"under"‌‌a ‌‌state‌‌  
Peonage‌‌/‌‌Involuntary‌‌Servitude‌‌v iolating‌‌the‌‌Fourth‌‌Amendment‌‌right‌‌b y‌‌m alicious‌‌p rosecution,‌‌  
false‌‌imprisonment‌‌a nd‌‌u nconstitutional‌‌a rrest.‌‌This‌‌v iolation‌‌o f‌‌m y‌‌Eight‌‌Amendment‌‌Right‌‌a s‌‌to‌‌  
Excessive‌‌Bail‌‌which‌‌in‌‌this‌‌c ase‌‌c onstitutes‌‌"Restitution‌‌Bail"‌‌which‌‌further‌‌shows‌‌the‌‌  
knowledgeable‌‌m alicious‌‌intent‌‌to‌‌silence‌‌m e‌‌till‌‌the‌‌e lection‌‌was‌‌o ver‌‌o n‌‌November‌‌4 th.‌‌2 014.‌‌Bias,‌‌  
Retaliation‌‌a nd‌‌Retribution‌‌to‌‌further‌‌line‌‌the‌‌Lawyers‌‌p ockets‌‌b y‌‌Judge‌‌Clark.‌‌Further:‌‌The‌‌system‌‌  
32‌  ‌
 ‌
is‌‌o ne‌‌where‌‌the‌‌Lawyers‌‌a nd‌‌Judges‌‌h ave‌‌set‌‌it‌‌u p‌‌to‌‌p rotect‌‌e ach‌‌o ther‌‌a nd‌‌line‌‌e ach‌‌o thers‌‌p ockets‌‌
 
with‌‌Cash.‌‌   ‌
 ‌
That‌‌the‌‌lack‌‌o f‌‌d uty‌‌o f‌‌c are,‌‌fair‌‌d ealing‌‌a nd‌‌Good‌‌Faith‌‌when‌‌d ealing‌‌with‌‌h omeowners‌‌a s‌‌the‌‌Big‌‌Banks‌‌  
negotiated‌‌their‌‌way‌‌o ut‌‌o f‌‌Jail‌‌a nd‌‌p aid‌‌the‌‌United‌‌States‌‌Government‌‌$ 251‌‌Billion‌‌Dollars‌‌should‌‌n ot‌‌b e‌‌  
ignored.‌‌That‌‌the‌‌q uestions‌‌a re‌‌d oes‌‌the‌‌$ 251‌‌Billion‌‌c ompel‌‌improper‌‌for‌‌influence‌‌o r‌‌favor‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌  
Judiciary?‌‌Further‌‌that‌‌v ested‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌Constitution‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌Oath‌‌o f‌‌Office‌‌taken‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌Judiciary,‌‌the‌‌  
Government‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌Elected‌‌Officials‌‌a re‌‌b ound‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌u nique‌‌Oath‌‌o f‌‌Office‌‌that‌‌they‌‌take‌‌to‌‌“ preserve,‌‌  
protect‌‌a nd‌‌d efend‌‌the‌‌Constitution‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌United‌‌States‌‌o f‌‌America”‌‌a nd‌‌e nsure‌‌Due‌‌Process‌‌in‌‌o ur‌‌c ourts.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌d espite‌‌d isclaimers‌‌a nd‌‌legal‌‌a rguments,‌‌b anks‌‌c an’t‌‌walk‌‌a way‌‌from‌‌their‌‌d uty‌‌o f‌‌d ue‌‌c are‌‌a nd‌‌g ood‌‌  
faith.‌‌That‌‌the‌‌d ocuments‌‌filed‌‌a gainst‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌Street,‌‌h ave‌‌b een‌‌forged‌‌in‌‌c onflict‌‌with‌‌the‌‌law‌‌to‌‌  
enhance‌‌the‌‌b alance‌‌sheet‌‌o f‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌a ka‌‌LaSalle‌‌Bank,‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo,‌‌Option‌‌One‌‌a nd‌‌Equity‌‌  
Trustees‌‌that‌‌this‌‌a lone‌‌should‌‌b e‌‌a ‌‌c oncern‌‌o f‌‌a ll‌‌Judges.‌‌That‌‌it‌‌shows‌‌a n‌‌illegal‌‌c onversion‌‌o f‌‌loans‌‌to‌‌  
enhance‌‌the‌‌b alance‌‌sheet,‌‌while‌‌h arming‌‌the‌‌title‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌h ome‌‌a t‌‌the‌‌same‌‌time.‌‌A‌‌loss‌‌that‌‌o ccurred‌‌  
because‌‌o f‌‌their‌‌failure‌‌to‌‌p erform‌‌those‌‌d uties‌‌is‌‌a ‌‌loss‌‌to‌‌the‌‌b ank‌‌– ‌‌n ot‌‌the‌‌c ustomer‌‌/‌‌h omeowner‌‌who‌‌  
knew‌‌n othing‌‌a bout‌‌the‌‌“ problem”‌‌Hence‌‌the‌‌a rguments‌‌o f‌‌servicers‌‌(and‌‌the‌‌u ndisclosed‌‌p rincipals‌‌for‌‌  
whom‌‌they‌‌a ct),‌‌b anks‌‌a nd‌‌trustees‌‌o f‌‌REMIC‌‌Trusts‌‌a nd‌‌e ven‌‌trustees‌‌o n‌‌d eeds‌‌o f‌‌trust‌‌a nd‌‌self‌‌p roclaimed‌‌  
mortgagees‌‌a nd‌‌b eneficiaries‌‌o n‌‌d eeds‌‌o f‌‌trust‌‌should‌‌b e‌‌rejected‌‌if‌‌the‌‌h omeowner‌‌h as‌‌a lleged,‌‌b ased‌‌u pon‌‌  
ultimate‌‌facts‌‌u pon‌‌which‌‌relief‌‌c ould‌‌b e‌‌g ranted,‌‌that‌‌the‌‌e ntity‌‌failed‌‌to‌‌a ct‌‌in‌‌g ood‌‌faith‌‌a nd‌‌d ue‌‌c are.‌‌   ‌
 ‌
That‌‌the‌‌Exhibits‌‌filed‌‌with‌‌this‌‌c ase‌‌showed‌‌the‌‌lack‌‌o f‌‌c are‌‌taken‌‌in‌‌legal‌‌d ocuments‌‌filed‌‌a gainst‌‌the‌‌  
home.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌since‌‌this‌‌lawsuit‌‌was‌‌filed‌‌Defendant‌‌OCWEN‌‌in‌‌the‌‌o riginal‌‌suit‌‌h ave‌‌ignored‌‌the‌‌rules‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Fourth‌‌  
Circuit‌‌Court,‌‌a nd‌‌h ave‌‌n ever‌‌filed‌‌a ‌‌response‌‌o r‌‌p roperly‌‌p ut‌‌n otice‌‌into‌‌the‌‌Court‌‌a s‌‌to‌‌the‌‌a ppearance‌‌o f‌‌  
the‌‌lawyers‌‌without‌‌b adgering‌‌from‌‌the‌‌c ourt.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌c ourt‌‌h as‌‌a n‌‌o bligation‌‌to‌‌a ‌‌p ro‌‌se‌‌“ poor‌‌p erson”‌‌o f‌‌c are,‌‌fair‌‌d ealing‌‌a nd‌‌Good‌‌Faith.‌‌   ‌
 ‌
That‌‌the‌‌Banks‌‌a nd‌‌Lawyers‌‌a lso‌‌h ad‌‌a ‌‌d uty‌‌o f‌‌c are,‌‌fair‌‌d ealing‌‌a nd‌‌Good‌‌Faith.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Troutman‌‌Pepper‌‌Hamilton‌‌Sanders‌‌a ka‌‌Troutman‌‌Sanders‌‌a ka‌‌Mays‌‌& ‌‌Valentine‌‌swindled‌‌with‌‌the‌‌h elp‌‌o f‌‌  
Divorce‌‌Lawyer‌‌Ilona‌‌Grenadier‌‌Heckman‌‌$ 30,000.‌‌For‌‌m onies‌‌Divorce‌‌Lawyer‌‌Ilona‌‌a dmitted‌‌in‌‌2 008‌‌o f‌‌  
stealing‌‌o ut‌‌o f‌‌h er‌‌law‌‌firm‌‌from‌‌u sing‌‌a ‌‌forged‌‌Trust‌‌Addendum‌‌to‌‌the‌‌Sonia‌‌Grenadier‌‌Trust‌‌(mother‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌  
late‌‌Judge‌‌Albert‌‌Grenadier‌‌h er‌‌2 nd‌‌h usband‌‌a nd‌‌h er‌‌third‌‌h usband‌‌Judge‌‌Grenadier’s‌‌1 ‌‌st‌‌c ousin‌‌c .‌‌9 ‌‌  
months‌‌a fter‌‌h is‌‌d eath‌‌b y‌‌a ll‌‌a ppearance‌‌c olluded‌‌with‌‌h er).‌‌The‌‌Note‌‌for‌‌the‌‌m oney‌‌“ borrowed”‌‌is‌‌still‌‌with‌‌  
the‌‌Grenadier‌‌Starace‌‌Duffett‌‌& ‌‌Levi‌‌Law‌‌firm‌‌d ue‌‌a fter‌‌3 0‌‌y ears‌‌in‌‌2 020.‌‌The‌‌o nly‌‌c opy‌‌d emanded‌‌a s‌‌m y‌‌  
lawyer‌‌sits‌‌in‌‌Ilona’s‌‌safe‌‌a ccording‌‌to‌‌Ilona‌‌who‌‌stated‌‌a t‌‌the‌‌time‌‌“ Let‌‌m e‌‌k eep‌‌this‌‌for‌‌safe‌‌k eeping”‌‌who‌‌  
Janice‌‌/‌‌Plaintiff‌‌was‌‌n aive‌‌a nd‌‌trusted‌‌h er.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌a nd‌‌OCWEN‌‌lawyers‌‌c olluded‌‌with‌‌Divorce‌‌Lawyer‌‌Ilona‌‌Grenadier‌‌Heckman‌‌in‌‌the‌‌City‌‌  
of‌‌Alexandria‌‌Case‌‌No.‌‌CL1500‌‌– ‌‌3 661‌‌to‌‌e nsure‌‌a nd‌‌h elp‌‌Lawyer‌‌Ilona‌‌d eny‌‌Plaintiff,‌‌a ll‌‌Plaintiff‌‌rights‌‌  
and‌‌m onies‌‌o wed‌‌to‌‌Janice‌‌from‌‌b eing‌‌d ivorced‌‌without‌‌a ‌‌Property‌‌Settlement.‌‌The‌‌settlement‌‌would‌‌h ave‌‌  
resolved‌‌this‌‌c ase.‌‌That‌‌TroutmanSanders‌‌a ka‌‌Mays‌‌& ‌‌Valentine‌‌h as‌‌a ‌‌real‌‌fright‌‌o f‌‌b eing‌‌h eld‌‌a ccountable‌‌  
for‌‌c ollusion‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌thefts‌‌from‌‌Plaintiff‌‌/‌‌Janice.‌‌    ‌
33‌  ‌
 ‌
 ‌
The‌‌following‌‌e -mail‌‌states‌‌c learly‌‌h ow‌‌Troutman‌‌Sanders‌‌relationships‌‌with‌‌Judges‌‌a re‌‌h ow‌‌they‌‌ignore‌‌the‌‌
 
law.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌

 ‌
 ‌
Further‌‌Mohsin‌‌Reza‌‌p rofile‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌Troutman‌‌Sanders‌‌states‌‌h e‌‌is‌‌a n‌‌e xpert‌‌a t:‌‌Mohsin‌‌Reza’s‌‌p ractice‌‌  
focusing‌‌o n‌‌representing‌‌c orporate‌‌c lients‌‌in‌‌c omplex‌‌litigation‌‌in‌‌state‌‌a nd‌‌federal‌‌c ourts.‌‌Mohsin‌‌represents‌‌  
financial‌‌institutions‌‌in‌‌v arious‌‌c ommercial,‌‌c onsumer,‌‌a nd‌‌lender‌‌liability‌‌d isputes,‌‌including‌‌lawsuits‌‌  
involving‌‌c laims‌‌b rought‌‌u nder‌‌the‌‌Fair‌‌Credit‌‌Reporting‌‌Act,‌‌the‌‌Fair‌‌Debt‌‌Collection‌‌Practices‌‌Act,‌‌the‌‌  
Equal‌‌Credit‌‌Opportunity‌‌Act,‌‌the‌‌Truth-in-Lending‌‌Act,‌‌the‌‌Telephone‌‌Consumer‌‌Protection‌‌Act,‌‌the‌‌Real‌‌  
Estate‌‌Settlement‌‌Procedures‌‌Act,‌‌the‌‌Uniform‌‌Commercial‌‌Code,‌‌a nd‌‌state‌‌c onsumer‌‌p rotection‌‌statutes.‌‌  
Mohsin‌‌a lso‌‌represents‌‌small‌‌a nd‌‌large‌‌b usinesses‌‌in‌‌d efending‌‌a gainst‌‌a nd‌‌a sserting‌‌c laims‌‌o f‌‌n egligence,‌‌  
breach‌‌o f‌‌c ontract,‌‌fraud,‌‌c ivil‌‌c onspiracy,‌‌a nd‌‌b usiness‌‌torts.‌‌Furthermore,‌‌h e‌‌h as‌‌e xperience‌‌representing‌‌  
clients‌‌in‌‌e state‌‌litigation‌‌a nd‌‌p robate‌‌m atters.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
That‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo,‌‌Option‌‌One,‌‌Equity‌‌Trustees,‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌a ll‌‌in‌‌o ne‌‌way‌‌o r‌‌a nother‌‌h ave‌‌c laimed‌‌  
ownership‌‌o f‌‌a ‌‌loan.‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌Group,‌‌Howard‌‌Bierman‌‌a nd‌‌several‌‌b ad‌‌a ctors‌‌from‌‌McCabe‌‌Weisberg‌‌& ‌‌  
Conway,‌‌Michael‌‌Weiser‌‌ESQ,‌‌DiMuroGinsberg,‌‌Parker‌‌Simon‌‌& ‌‌Kokolis‌‌LLC,‌‌McQuireWoods,‌‌  
TroutmanSanders‌‌LLP,‌‌Grenadier‌‌Starace‌‌d uffett‌‌& ‌‌Levi‌‌PC,‌‌Hunoval‌‌Law,‌‌OCWEN‌‌h ave‌‌a ll‌‌a cted‌‌a s‌‌Debt‌‌  
collectors‌‌u nder‌‌the‌‌“ FDCPA”‌‌Fair‌‌Debt‌‌Collection‌‌Practices‌‌Act.‌‌And‌‌the‌‌“ CFPB”‌‌Consumer‌‌Financial‌‌  
Protection‌‌Act‌‌o f‌‌2 010‌‌which‌‌h as‌‌independent‌‌litigating‌‌a uthority‌‌to‌‌c ommence‌‌c ivil‌‌a ctions‌‌to‌‌a ddress‌‌  
violations‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌“ Federal‌‌Consumer‌‌Financial‌‌Laws”,‌‌with‌‌DOJ,‌‌FTC‌‌a nd‌‌o thers‌‌h aving‌‌a dditional‌‌o versight.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Violating:‌‌a ll‌‌the‌‌1 5‌‌U.S.‌‌Code‌‌Subchapter‌‌V‌‌-‌‌DEBT‌‌COLLECTION‌‌PRACTICES‌‌Current‌‌through‌‌Pub.‌‌L.‌‌  
114-38.‌‌(See‌‌Public‌‌Laws‌‌for‌‌the‌‌c urrent‌‌Congress.)‌‌1 5‌‌SC‌‌§ ‌‌1 692‌‌-‌‌§ ‌‌1 692d‌‌-‌‌Harassment‌‌o r‌‌a buse‌‌§ ‌‌1 692e‌‌  
-‌‌False‌‌o r‌‌m isleading‌‌representations‌‌§ ‌‌1 692f‌‌-‌‌Unfair‌‌p ractices‌‌§ ‌‌1 692g‌‌-‌‌Validation‌‌o f‌‌d ebts‌‌§ ‌‌1 692j‌‌-‌‌
 
Furnishing‌‌c ertain‌‌d eceptive‌‌forms‌‌    ‌
 ‌

34‌  ‌
 ‌
Further‌‌Violating‌‌with‌‌Knowledgeable‌‌intend:‌‌FDCPA‌‌Laws‌‌& ‌‌Guidelines‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Fair‌‌Debt‌‌Collection‌‌Act‌‌  
and‌‌d ebt‌‌c ollection‌‌services‌‌in‌‌y our‌‌a rea.‌‌Table‌‌o f‌‌Contents‌‌8 01‌‌Short‌‌title‌‌8 04‌‌Acquisition‌‌o f‌‌location‌‌  
information‌‌8 05‌‌Communication‌‌in‌‌c onnection‌‌with‌‌d ebt‌‌c ollection‌ ‌8 06‌‌Harassment‌‌o r‌‌a buse‌‌8 07‌‌False‌‌o r‌‌  
misleading‌‌representations‌‌8 08‌‌Unfair‌‌p ractices‌‌8 09‌‌Validation‌‌o f‌‌d ebts‌‌8 12‌‌Furnishing‌‌c ertain‌‌d eceptive‌‌  
forms‌‌8 01‌‌1 5‌‌USC‌‌1 601‌‌n ote‌‌8 01.‌‌Short‌‌Title‌‌This‌‌title‌‌m ay‌‌b e‌‌c ited‌‌a s‌‌the‌‌"Fair‌‌Debt‌‌Collection‌‌Practices‌‌  
Act."‌‌8 02.‌‌Congressional‌‌findings‌‌a nd‌‌d eclaration‌‌o f‌‌p urpose‌‌(a)‌‌There‌‌is‌‌a bundant‌‌e vidence‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌u se‌‌o f‌‌  
abusive,‌‌d eceptive,‌‌a nd‌‌u nfair‌‌d ebt‌‌c ollection‌‌p ractices‌‌b y‌‌m any‌‌d ebt‌‌c ollectors.‌‌Abusive‌‌d ebt‌‌c ollection‌‌  
practices‌‌c ontribute‌‌to‌‌the‌‌n umber‌‌o f‌‌p ersonal‌‌b ankruptcies,‌‌to‌‌m arital‌‌instability,‌‌to‌‌the‌‌loss‌‌o f‌‌jobs,‌‌a nd‌‌to‌‌  
invasions‌‌o f‌‌individual‌‌p rivacy.‌‌(b)‌‌Existing‌‌laws‌‌a nd‌‌p rocedures‌‌for‌‌redressing‌‌these‌‌injuries‌‌a re‌‌inadequate‌‌  
to‌‌p rotect‌‌c onsumers.‌‌As‌‌Lawyers‌‌the‌‌Defendants‌‌a nd‌‌o thers‌‌k now‌‌their‌‌wrong‌‌d oing.‌‌(c)‌‌Means‌‌o ther‌‌than‌‌  
misrepresentation‌‌o r‌‌o ther‌‌a busive‌‌d ebt‌‌c ollection‌‌p ractices‌‌a re‌‌a vailable‌‌for‌‌the‌‌e ffective‌‌c ollection‌‌o f‌‌d ebts.‌‌  
(d)‌‌Abusive‌‌d ebt‌‌c ollection‌‌p ractices‌‌a re‌‌c arried‌‌o n‌‌to‌‌a ‌‌substantial‌‌e xtent‌‌in‌‌interstate‌‌c ommerce‌‌a nd‌‌  
through‌‌m eans‌‌a nd‌‌instrumentalities‌‌o f‌‌such‌‌c ommerce.‌‌Even‌‌where‌‌a busive‌‌d ebt‌‌c ollection‌‌p ractices‌‌a re‌‌  
purely‌‌intrastate‌‌in‌‌c haracter,‌‌they‌‌n evertheless‌‌d irectly‌‌a ffect‌‌interstate‌‌c ommerce.‌‌(e)‌‌It‌‌is‌‌the‌‌p urpose‌‌o f‌‌  
this‌‌title‌‌to‌‌e liminate‌‌a busive‌‌d ebt‌‌c ollection‌‌p ractices‌‌b y‌‌d ebt‌‌c ollectors,‌‌to‌‌insure‌‌that‌‌those‌‌d ebt‌‌c ollectors‌‌  
who‌‌refrain‌‌from‌‌u sing‌‌a busive‌‌d ebt‌‌c ollection‌‌p ractices‌‌a re‌‌n ot‌‌c ompetitively‌‌d isadvantaged,‌‌a nd‌‌to‌‌  
promote‌‌c onsistent‌‌State‌‌a ction‌‌to‌‌p rotect‌‌c onsumers‌‌a gainst‌‌d ebt‌‌c ollection‌‌a buses.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌OCWEN‌‌u sing‌‌the‌‌n ame‌‌a nd‌‌Scheme‌‌a s‌‌WELLS‌‌FARGO‌‌BANK‌‌a s‌‌their‌‌e mployee‌‌h as‌‌shopped‌‌  
lawyers‌‌a nd‌‌n ow‌‌h ired‌‌McCabe‌‌Weisberg‌‌a nd‌‌Conway/‌‌Brock‌‌& ‌‌Scott‌ ‌to‌‌ignore‌ ‌suits‌‌a nd‌‌Foreclose.‌‌On‌‌o r‌‌  
around‌‌May‌‌1 7,‌‌2 017‌‌a ‌‌letter‌‌was‌‌received‌‌b y‌‌them‌‌that‌‌stated‌‌c learly‌‌that‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌h ad‌‌n o‌‌instruments‌‌  
that‌‌should‌‌h ave‌‌b een‌‌standing,‌‌which‌‌is‌‌what‌‌Plaintiff‌‌h as‌‌b een‌‌c laiming.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Which‌‌would‌‌b e‌‌followed‌‌with‌‌a ‌‌letter‌‌to‌‌Foreclose‌‌o n‌‌July‌‌2 0,‌‌2 017‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌July‌‌9 ,‌‌2 017‌‌a ‌‌Motion‌‌to‌‌Stay‌‌Foreclosure‌‌b y‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo,‌‌OCWEN‌‌b y‌‌McCabe‌‌Weisberg‌‌  
&‌‌Conway‌‌was‌‌filed‌‌b y‌‌Janice‌‌with‌‌this‌‌c ourt‌‌a s‌‌a n‌‌Emergency‌‌Stay‌‌d ue‌‌to‌‌the‌‌shopping‌‌o f‌‌a ‌‌law‌‌firm‌‌that‌‌  
would‌‌Foreclose‌‌while‌‌still‌‌in‌‌c ourt.‌‌The‌‌following‌‌Documents‌‌filed‌‌with‌‌it‌‌should‌‌b e‌‌incorporated‌‌h ere‌‌in.‌‌  
(That‌‌a ‌‌Reconsideration‌‌a nd‌‌EnBanc‌‌h as‌‌b een‌‌filed)‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌MCW‌‌letter‌‌d ated‌‌July‌‌1 8,‌‌2 017‌‌from‌‌McCabe‌‌Weisberg‌‌& ‌‌Conway‌‌LLC‌‌which‌‌was‌‌received‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌  
21st‌‌o f‌‌July‌‌2 017.‌‌   ‌
 ‌
The‌‌Letter‌‌seemed‌‌m isleading‌‌a nd‌‌with‌‌a ll‌‌the‌‌a bove‌‌h ad‌‌b een‌‌d one‌‌to‌‌d eny‌‌Janice‌‌a nd‌‌Janice’s‌‌  
Constitutional‌‌Rights‌‌Janice‌‌c reated‌‌a ‌‌Trust‌‌a nd‌‌o n‌‌July‌‌2 5,‌‌2 017‌‌d id‌‌a ‌‌Quick‌‌Claim‌‌Deed‌‌o f‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌  
Street,‌‌Alexandria‌‌VA‌‌2 2301‌‌into‌‌the‌‌Trust.‌‌Janice‌‌m ailed‌‌a ‌‌c opy‌‌to‌‌OCWEN.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
On‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌Friday‌‌J uly‌‌2 8,‌‌2 017‌‌‌Janice‌‌would‌‌receive‌‌Occupant;‌‌Homeowner‌‌a nd‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌  
Grenadier‌‌letters‌‌stop‌‌y our‌‌foreclosure.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
On‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌Tuesday‌‌August‌‌1 ,‌‌2 017‌‌Janice‌‌would‌‌receive‌‌a ‌‌letter‌‌from‌‌McCabe‌‌Weisberg‌‌& ‌‌Conway‌‌  
LLC‌‌that‌‌they‌‌were‌‌foreclosing‌‌o n‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌St.,‌‌Alexandria‌‌VA‌‌2 2301‌‌o n‌‌August‌‌1 7,‌‌2 017.‌  ‌
That‌‌with‌‌such‌‌a ‌‌m isleading‌‌letter‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌May‌‌2 1,‌‌2 017‌‌the‌‌research‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌m isleading‌‌a nd‌‌a ppearance‌‌  
of‌‌c riminal‌‌a cts‌‌a nd‌‌a ctions‌‌o f‌‌m any‌‌sent‌‌Janice‌‌to‌‌learn‌‌that‌‌the‌‌SEC‌‌which‌‌forwarded‌‌Janice‌‌to‌‌CRPB,‌‌the‌‌  
DOJ,‌‌the‌‌FTC,‌‌1 5‌‌USC‌‌1 692‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌FDCPA‌‌p rotected‌‌Janice‌‌from‌‌PREDATORY‌‌ACTS‌‌a nd‌‌ACTIONS‌‌o f‌‌  
Wells‌‌Fargo,‌‌Option‌‌One,‌‌Equity‌‌Trustees,‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌a ll‌‌in‌‌o ne‌‌way‌‌o r‌‌a nother‌‌h ave‌‌c laimed‌‌  
35‌  ‌
 ‌
ownership‌‌o f‌‌a ‌‌loan.‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌Group,‌‌Howard‌‌Bierman‌‌a nd‌‌several‌‌b ad‌‌a ctors‌‌from‌‌McCabe‌‌Weisberg‌‌& ‌‌  
Conway,‌‌Michael‌‌Weiser‌‌ESQ,‌‌DiMuroGinsberg,‌‌Parker‌‌Simon‌‌& ‌‌Kokolis‌‌LLC,‌‌McQuireWoods,‌‌  
TroutmanSanders‌‌LLP,‌‌Grenadier‌‌Starace‌‌d uffett‌‌& ‌‌Levi‌‌PC,‌‌Hunoval‌‌Law‌‌a nd‌‌OCWEN.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Virginia‌‌h as‌‌n o‌‌regulations‌‌for‌‌Deceptive‌‌a nd‌‌Abusive‌‌p ractices‌‌b y‌‌d ebt‌‌c ollectors‌‌so‌‌Janice‌‌is‌‌p rotected‌‌b y‌‌  
the‌‌Federal‌‌Fair‌‌Debt‌‌Collection‌‌Practices‌‌Act‌‌(FDCPA).‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌Statute‌‌o f‌‌Limitations‌‌to‌‌c ollect‌‌o n‌‌a ‌‌d ebt‌‌is‌‌3 ‌‌– ‌‌5 ‌‌y ears‌‌from‌‌the‌‌last‌‌p ayment‌‌a ccepted.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
According‌‌to‌‌O CWEN‌‌‌the‌‌last‌‌p ayment‌‌n ot‌‌returned‌‌was‌‌3 ,‌‌1 52‌‌d ays‌‌from‌‌June‌‌1 6,‌‌2 017,‌‌with‌‌the‌‌last‌‌  
payment‌‌in‌‌2 008‌‌that‌‌the‌‌Statute‌‌o f‌‌Limitations‌‌o n‌‌Collection‌‌h ad‌‌run‌‌o ut.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌Plaintiff‌‌o nly‌‌d id‌‌the‌‌Trust‌‌/‌‌Quick‌‌Claim‌‌Deed‌‌d ue‌‌to‌‌the‌‌Predatory‌‌a cts‌‌a nd‌‌a ctions‌‌o f‌‌Defendants,‌‌  
Defendants‌‌lawyers‌‌a nd‌‌o thers.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Janice‌‌/‌‌Plaintiff‌‌m oved‌‌the‌‌p roperty‌‌p rior‌‌to‌‌a ny‌‌n otification‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌n ew‌‌foreclosure‌‌d ate‌‌(which‌‌a ccording‌‌  
to‌‌the‌‌FDCPA‌‌a nd‌‌o thers‌‌the‌‌d ate‌‌is‌‌illegally‌‌d one)‌‌a nd‌‌o r‌‌a ‌‌Judgment‌‌that‌‌a ‌‌Re-Consideration‌‌with‌‌a n‌‌  
ENBANC,‌‌a nd‌‌Oral‌‌Arguments‌‌is‌‌filed.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌o n‌‌August‌‌9 ,‌‌2 017‌‌Janice‌‌would‌‌receive‌‌a ‌‌p hone‌‌c all‌‌from‌‌OCWEN‌‌that‌‌the‌‌Foreclosure‌‌h ad‌‌b een‌‌  
canceled‌‌a s‌‌o f‌‌August‌‌4 ,‌‌2 017‌‌– ‌‌Phone‌‌c onversations‌‌is‌‌taped‌‌a nd‌‌c an‌‌b e‌‌h eard‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌o n‌‌August‌‌11,‌‌2 017‌‌a fter‌‌sending‌‌e mail‌‌a nd‌‌several‌‌u nreturned‌‌p hone‌‌c alls‌‌from‌‌McCabe‌‌(Remember‌‌  
this‌‌scheme‌‌a nd‌‌a rtifice‌‌o f‌‌OCWEN‌‌to‌‌say‌‌o ne‌‌thing‌‌a nd‌‌d o‌‌a nother‌‌Janice‌‌was‌‌a nd‌‌still‌‌is‌‌a ‌‌VICTIM‌‌Of‌‌  
with‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌Group.‌‌The‌‌McCabe‌‌e t‌‌a l‌‌would‌‌n ot‌‌return‌‌c alls‌‌to‌‌c onfirm‌‌Foreclosure‌‌was‌‌removed‌‌from‌‌  
their‌‌schedule.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌o n‌‌August‌‌11,‌‌2 017‌‌‌from‌‌OCWEN‌‌she‌‌learned‌‌that‌‌the‌‌foreclosure‌‌was‌‌n ever‌‌removed,‌‌that‌‌OCWEN‌‌  
and‌‌McCabe‌‌h ad‌‌schemed‌‌n o‌‌d ifferently‌‌illegally‌‌a nd‌‌in‌‌c ollusion‌‌to‌‌try‌‌a nd‌‌d eceive‌‌Janice‌‌that‌‌the‌‌  
Foreclosure‌‌h ad‌‌b een‌‌removed‌‌from‌‌the‌‌schedule.‌‌That‌‌this‌‌illegal‌‌p ractice‌‌b y‌‌OCWEN‌‌a nd‌‌Lawyers‌‌a cting‌‌  
as‌‌Foreclosure‌‌Mills‌‌to‌‌further‌‌line‌‌their‌‌p ockets‌‌is‌‌a ‌‌p attern‌‌a nd‌‌p ractice‌‌a ll‌‌a cross‌‌America.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌o n‌‌August‌‌11,‌‌2 017‌‌Janice‌‌would‌‌c all‌‌the‌‌CEO‌‌o f‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo’s‌‌o ffice‌‌to‌‌e nsure‌‌h e‌‌was‌‌a ware‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌  
CRIMINAL‌‌ACTIVITY‌‌o f‌‌h is‌‌Servicer‌‌a nd‌‌Lawyers.‌‌Janice‌‌would‌‌learn‌‌in‌‌a ‌‌taped‌‌c onversation‌‌that‌‌Wells‌‌  
Fargo‌‌h as‌‌n o‌‌loan‌‌u nder‌‌the‌‌Loan‌‌No.‌‌g iven‌‌b y‌‌OCWEN,‌‌u nder‌‌h er‌‌n ame‌‌a s‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌‌o r‌‌  
Janice‌‌Wolk-Grenadier‌‌o r‌‌u nder‌‌h er‌‌Social‌‌Security‌‌No.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌Janice‌‌/‌‌Plaintiff‌‌o n‌‌several‌‌o ccasions‌‌o ffered‌‌to‌‌settle‌‌a nd‌‌why‌‌should‌‌o pposing‌‌sides‌‌settle‌‌o r‌‌c onsider‌‌  
a‌‌settlement‌‌when‌‌they‌‌k now‌‌with‌‌o r‌‌without‌‌the‌‌Truth‌‌the‌‌d uty‌‌o f‌‌c are,‌‌fair‌‌d ealing‌‌a nd‌‌Good‌‌Faith‌‌the‌‌  
Judges‌‌will‌‌ignore‌‌a ll‌‌c riminal‌‌a cts‌‌a nd‌‌a ctions‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌Banks‌‌a nd‌‌Lawyers‌‌a s‌‌shown‌‌in‌‌the‌‌a bove‌‌e -mail.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌Plaintiff‌‌/‌‌Janice‌‌is‌‌still‌‌willing‌‌to‌‌try‌‌a nd‌‌settle‌‌this‌‌m atter.‌‌At‌‌this‌‌p oint‌‌the‌‌h ome‌‌is‌‌in‌‌a ‌‌Trust‌‌a nd‌‌
 
protected‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌law‌‌/‌‌Statute‌‌o f‌‌Limitations‌‌o f‌‌Collections‌‌o n‌‌a ‌‌loan.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌o n‌‌August‌‌1 7,‌‌2 017‌‌a t‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌1 0:00‌‌a m‌‌Plaintiff‌‌would‌‌receive‌‌n otice‌‌from‌‌MWC‌‌that‌‌the‌‌FRAUD‌‌  
allegations‌‌h ave‌‌b een‌‌taken‌‌seriously‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌foreclosure‌‌p ut‌‌o n‌‌h old.‌‌    ‌
36‌  ‌
 ‌
 ‌
That‌‌immediately‌‌a ‌‌n ew‌‌foreclosure‌‌d ate‌‌o f‌‌October‌‌5 ,‌‌2 017‌‌would‌‌b e‌‌rescheduled‌‌with‌‌n o‌‌information‌‌  
requested‌‌o n‌‌who‌‌the‌‌e mployee‌‌o f‌‌OCWEN‌‌is.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
CAUSES‌‌O F‌‌ACTION‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Count‌‌1   
‌‌ ‌
18‌‌USC‌‌§ ‌‌3 71‌‌Conspiracy,‌‌Federal‌‌False‌‌Claims‌‌Act,‌‌3 1‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌3 729‌‌(a)(1)(A);‌‌3 1‌‌U.‌‌S.‌‌C.‌‌§ ‌‌3 729‌‌  
(a)1(B);‌‌3 1‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌(a)(1)(C)‌‌1 8‌‌USC‌‌§ 1349‌‌Attempt‌‌a nd‌‌Conspiracy‌‌forms‌‌Fair‌‌Debt.‌‌Collection‌‌Act‌‌  
(FDCPA)‌‌§ ‌‌8 06‌‌H arassment,‌‌§ ‌‌8 07‌‌False‌‌a nd‌‌m isleading,‌‌§ ‌‌8 08‌‌Unfair‌‌practices,‌‌§ ‌‌8 09‌‌Validation‌‌o f‌‌  
debts,‌‌§ ‌‌8 12‌‌Furnishing‌‌deceptive‌‌forms,‌‌e t‌‌a l‌‌    ‌
 ‌
JWG‌‌incorporates‌‌h erein‌‌b y‌‌reference‌‌a ll‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a llegations‌‌c ontained‌‌in‌‌the‌‌a bove‌‌Paragraphs‌‌o f‌‌this‌‌  
Complaint.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Defendants‌‌a nd‌‌o thers‌‌k nown‌‌a nd‌‌u nknown‌‌d id‌‌k nowingly‌‌a nd‌‌u nlawfully‌‌c ombine,‌‌c onspire,‌‌c onfederate,‌‌  
and‌‌a gree‌‌to‌‌c ommit‌‌the‌‌following‌‌o ffenses‌‌a gainst‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌‌a .‌‌to,‌‌d irectly‌‌a nd‌‌indirectly,‌‌  
corruptly‌‌g ive,‌‌o ffer,‌‌a nd‌‌p romise‌‌a ‌‌thing‌‌o f‌‌v alue,‌‌that‌‌is,‌‌a mong‌‌o ther‌‌things,‌‌c ash‌‌o r‌‌c ash‌‌e quivalents,‌‌with‌‌  
intent‌‌to‌‌influence‌‌illegal‌‌a cts,‌‌to‌‌c ommit‌‌a nd‌‌a id‌‌in‌‌c ommitting,‌‌a nd‌‌to‌‌c ollude‌‌in,‌‌a nd‌‌a llow‌‌fraud,‌‌a nd‌‌  
make‌‌o pportunity‌‌for‌‌the‌‌c ommission‌‌o f‌‌a ny‌‌fraud,‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌United‌‌States,‌‌    ‌
 ‌
PURPOSES‌‌O F‌‌THE‌‌CONSPIRACY‌‌‌to‌‌e nsure‌‌the‌‌COVER‌‌UP‌‌o f‌‌Divorce‌‌Lawyer‌‌Ilona‌‌Grenadier‌‌  
Hackman’s‌‌c rimes‌‌a s‌‌a ttached‌‌in‌‌Exhibit‌‌Criminal‌‌Complaint‌‌filed‌‌with‌‌the‌‌Department‌‌o f‌‌Justice‌‌e t‌‌a l.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Manner‌‌a nd‌‌Means‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Conspiracy‌:‌‌Includes‌‌Elected‌‌Officials,‌‌the‌‌Government‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌Judiciary‌‌to‌‌  
protect‌‌o ne‌‌o f‌‌their‌‌o wn.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
OVERT‌‌ACTS:‌‌That‌‌d ivorce‌‌lawyer‌‌Ilona‌‌Grenadier‌‌Heckman‌‌h as‌‌b een‌‌o n‌‌a ‌‌Criminal‌‌Spree‌‌stealing‌‌o ut‌‌o f‌‌  
her‌‌law‌‌firm‌‌that‌‌Janice‌‌c an‌‌d ocument‌‌starting‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌November‌‌o f‌‌1 983‌‌wit‌‌the‌‌forgery‌‌o f‌‌Sonia‌‌  
Grenadier‌‌Heckman.‌‌That‌‌the‌‌d efendants‌‌a re‌‌two‌‌o f‌‌m any‌‌USED‌‌to‌‌try‌‌a nd‌‌silence,‌‌m islead‌‌a nd‌‌a ct‌‌  
criminally‌‌to‌‌p rotect‌‌the‌‌a ccountable‌‌$ 30‌‌MILLION‌‌if‌‌n ot‌‌m ore‌‌that‌‌Ilona‌‌stole‌‌through‌‌h er‌‌law‌‌firm‌‌from‌‌  
Sonia‌‌Grenadier‌‌the‌‌m other‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌late‌‌Judge‌‌Albert‌‌Grenadier‌‌a nd‌‌then‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌‌which‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌  
Banks,‌‌the‌‌Servicers‌‌lawyers‌‌involvement‌‌h as‌‌c reated‌‌the‌‌scheme‌‌a nd‌‌a rtifice‌‌to‌‌p revent‌‌Janice‌‌a ny‌‌type‌‌o f‌‌  
financial‌‌where‌‌for‌‌a ll.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
This‌‌is‌‌a ‌‌c laim‌‌for‌‌treble‌‌d amages‌‌a nd‌‌forfeitures‌‌u nder‌‌the‌‌False‌‌Claims‌‌Act,‌‌3 1‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌3 729‌‌e t‌‌seq.‌‌2  ‌ ‌
 ‌
The‌‌Defendants‌‌c reated,‌‌sold‌‌o r‌‌p articipated‌‌in‌‌Mortgage‌‌b acked‌‌securities.‌‌The‌‌Mortgage‌‌b acked‌‌Securities‌‌  
were‌‌c omposed‌‌o f‌‌m ortgages‌‌b undled‌‌to‌‌c reate‌‌the‌‌securities‌‌in‌‌which‌‌the‌‌m ortgages‌‌lacked‌‌the‌‌requisites‌‌to‌‌  
create‌‌a ‌‌secured,‌‌real‌‌e state‌‌d ebt‌‌o bligation,‌‌n amely:‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌legally‌‌b inding‌‌a ssignments‌‌from‌‌the‌‌o riginating‌‌b ank‌‌to‌‌the‌‌securities‌‌trust‌‌a nd,‌‌a nd‌‌finally,‌‌to‌‌the‌‌  
foreclosure‌‌a gent‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Recording‌‌o f‌‌Title‌‌in‌‌the‌‌Cities‌‌Clerk's‌‌o ffice‌‌    ‌
 ‌
37‌  ‌
 ‌
Original‌‌Note‌‌a nd‌‌Mortgage,‌‌signed‌‌b y‌‌b oth‌‌b orrower‌‌a nd‌‌lender.‌‌The‌‌p rospectus‌‌for‌‌e ach‌‌m ortgage-backed‌‌  
securities‌‌trust,‌‌a nd‌‌o ther‌‌p ublic‌‌statements,‌‌falsely‌‌represented‌‌that‌‌the‌‌trust‌‌h eld‌‌g ood‌‌title‌‌to‌‌the‌‌m ortgages‌‌  
and‌‌n otes‌‌b undled‌‌in‌‌the‌‌securities.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
By‌‌Virtue‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌wrongful‌‌c onduct‌‌a lleged‌‌h ere‌‌including,‌‌b ut‌‌n ot‌‌limited‌‌to,‌‌the‌‌false‌‌signatures‌‌u sed‌‌in‌‌  
manufactured‌‌m ortgage‌‌a ssignments,‌‌o r‌‌stating‌‌the‌‌p erson‌‌h ad‌‌POWER‌‌OF‌‌ATTORNEY‌‌which‌‌d oes‌‌n ot‌‌  
exist‌‌e ach‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌m ortgage-backed‌‌securities‌‌sold‌‌to‌‌the‌‌Treasury,‌‌o r‌‌o ther‌‌e ntity‌‌funded‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌U.S.‌‌  
government,‌‌v iolated‌‌state‌‌a nd‌‌federal‌‌laws‌‌a nd‌‌furthered‌‌a n‌‌e ffort‌‌to‌‌transfer‌‌impaired‌‌securities‌‌to‌‌the‌‌  
Treasury,‌‌o r‌‌o ther‌‌g overnment‌‌funded‌‌e ntity.‌‌Defendants‌‌a nd‌‌their‌‌a gents‌‌a nd‌‌e mployees‌‌falsely‌‌represented‌‌  
that‌‌they‌‌h eld‌‌g ood‌‌title‌‌to‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌Street.‌‌Defendants‌‌received‌‌m illions‌‌o f‌‌d ollars‌‌in‌‌U.S.‌‌g overnment‌‌  
funds‌‌to‌‌p rovide‌‌services‌‌involving‌‌fraudulent‌‌m ortgage‌‌a ssignments.‌‌Accordingly,‌‌the‌‌Defendants‌‌a nd‌‌their‌‌  
agents‌‌a nd‌‌e mployees‌‌k nowingly‌‌p resented‌‌o r‌‌c aused‌‌to‌‌b e‌‌p resented‌‌a ‌‌false‌‌o r‌‌fraudulent‌‌c laim‌‌for‌‌  
payment‌‌o r‌‌a pproval‌‌from‌‌the‌‌g overnment‌‌e ntity‌‌p urchasing‌‌the‌‌m ortgage-backed‌‌securities.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Defendants‌‌a nd‌‌their‌‌a gents‌‌a nd‌‌e mployees‌‌falsely‌‌represented‌‌that‌‌they‌‌h ad‌‌g ood‌‌title‌‌to‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌  
Street.‌‌When‌‌in‌‌Fact‌‌they‌‌h ad‌‌in‌‌their‌‌k nowledgeable‌‌fraudulent‌‌a ctions‌‌c reated‌‌a ‌‌c loud‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌Title‌‌m aking‌‌  
the‌‌h ome‌‌u nsellable.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Defendants‌‌a cted‌‌in‌‌c oncert‌‌to‌‌c reate‌‌fraudulent‌‌legal‌‌d ocumentation‌‌to‌‌c onceal‌‌that‌‌the‌‌trust‌‌was‌‌m issing‌‌  
title‌‌to‌‌the‌‌a sset,‌‌thus‌‌impairing‌‌the‌‌v alue‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌security‌‌sold‌‌to‌‌the‌‌treasury,‌‌o r‌‌o ther‌‌g overnment‌‌funded‌‌  
entity.‌‌Each‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌m ortgage-backed‌‌securities‌‌sold‌‌to‌‌the‌‌Treasury,‌‌o r‌‌o ther‌‌g overnment‌‌funded‌‌e ntity,‌‌was‌‌  
in‌‌v iolation‌‌o f‌‌state‌‌a nd‌‌federal‌‌law.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
THE‌‌G OVERNMENT‌‌(AG‌‌Eric‌‌H older,‌‌Ben‌‌Bernanke‌‌& ‌‌)‌‌SELLS‌‌O UT‌‌THE‌‌AMERICAN‌‌PEOPLE‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌Financial‌‌Crisis‌‌Inquiry‌‌Report:‌ ‌Final‌‌report‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌National‌‌Commission‌‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌Causes‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌
 
Financial‌‌Economic‌‌Crisis‌‌in‌‌the‌‌United‌‌State‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌
 
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf‌‌ ‌-‌‌This‌‌link‌‌will‌‌take‌‌y ou‌‌to‌‌the‌‌Official‌‌  
Government‌‌Edition.‌  ‌
 ‌
Some‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Banks‌‌that‌‌received‌‌the‌‌SECRET‌‌Bail‌‌o ut‌‌through‌‌AIG‌  ‌
 ‌

Banks‌  ‌ $‌ ‌Amount‌  ‌ CEO‌‌2 008‌  ‌ Where‌‌h e‌‌is‌‌today‌  ‌

Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌  ‌ ‌$ ‌‌1 ,535,002,662,031‌  ‌ CEO,‌‌President‌‌& ‌‌Chairman‌‌    ‌ Currant‌‌Board‌‌ 

Kenneth‌‌D.‌‌Lewis‌‌    ‌ Member‌‌Emeritus‌‌  
Jan‌‌1 971‌‌-‌‌2 009‌  ‌ Member,‌‌Board‌‌o f‌‌
 
4.21M‌ ‌2 009‌  ‌ Trustees‌  ‌
9.86‌‌M‌ ‌2 008‌  ‌  ‌
23.6M‌ ‌2 007‌  ‌ 2013‌‌CEO‌‌  
27.9M‌ ‌2 006‌  ‌ Countrywide‌‌Bank‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌  ‌
LaSalle‌‌Bank‌‌Chairman,‌‌   2009‌‌Merrill‌‌lynch‌  ‌
President‌‌& ‌‌CEO‌‌    ‌

Citi‌  ‌ ‌$ ‌‌2 ,920,896,888,595‌  ‌ Vikram‌‌Pandit‌‌American‌‌‌b anker‌‌

  ‌CEO‌‌o f‌‌The‌‌
 

38‌  ‌
 ‌
and‌‌investor‌‌who‌‌was‌‌the‌‌CEO‌‌   Orogen‌‌Group‌‌  
of‌‌Citigroup‌‌‌from‌‌December‌‌   https://www.globen‌
2007‌‌to‌‌1 6‌‌October‌‌2 012‌‌‌and‌‌is‌‌
  ewswire.com/news-‌
the‌‌c urrent‌‌c hairman‌‌
   ‌ release/2018/10/02/‌
Citigroup‌‌Global‌‌2 1012‌  ‌
1588561/0/en/EXL-‌
Smith‌‌Barney‌‌Inc‌‌2 009‌  ‌
Announces-150-Mil‌
Citi‌‌Institutional‌‌2 007‌  ‌
1983-2005‌‌Morgan‌‌Stanley‌  ‌ lion-Strategic-Invest‌
President‌‌/‌‌CPP‌  ‌ ment-from-The-Oro‌
 ‌ gen-Group.html‌  ‌
9.55‌‌M‌‌2 012‌  ‌
14.9‌‌M‌ ‌2 011‌  ‌ EXL‌‌Announces‌‌  
$1‌‌M‌ ‌2 010‌  ‌ $150‌‌Million‌‌
 
129K‌ ‌2 009‌  ‌ Strategic‌‌
 
38.2M‌ ‌2 008‌  ‌ Investment‌‌from‌‌  
3.16‌‌M‌ ‌2 007‌  ‌ The‌‌O rogen‌‌G roup‌ 
Vikram‌‌S.‌‌Pandit,‌‌
 
Chairman‌‌a nd‌‌CEO‌‌  
of‌‌The‌‌Orogen‌‌
 
Group,‌‌a ppointed‌‌to‌‌ 
EXL’s‌‌Board‌‌o f‌‌
 
Directors‌  ‌

Goldman‌‌Sachs‌  ‌ ‌$ ‌ ‌8 74,552,426,455‌  ‌ The‌‌2 008‌‌financial‌‌c risis‌‌h it‌‌the‌‌  Senior‌‌Chairman‌  ‌

global‌‌e conomy‌‌h ard,‌‌a nd‌‌    ‌
Goldman‌‌Sachs‌‌Chairman‌‌a nd‌‌   Chief‌‌Executive‌‌  
CEO‌‌Lloyd‌‌Blankfein,‌‌who‌‌led‌‌   OfficerJun‌‌1 ,‌‌2 006‌‌-‌‌  
the‌‌c ompany‌‌through‌‌it,‌‌said‌‌it‌‌   Sep‌‌3 0,‌‌2 018‌  ‌
may‌‌still‌‌take‌‌institutions‌‌a ‌‌while‌‌   Vice‌‌Chairman,‌‌  
to‌‌recover.‌  ‌ Equities‌‌  
2007‌ ‌$ ‌‌5 4M‌  ‌ DivisionApr‌‌1 ,‌‌  
2008‌ ‌$ 40.9M‌  ‌ 2002‌‌-‌‌Jan‌‌1 ,‌‌2 004‌  ‌
2009‌ ‌$ 1.03‌‌M ‌ ‌
Co-Head‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌  
2010‌ ‌$ 14.1‌‌M ‌ ‌
Fixed‌‌Income,‌‌  
2011‌ ‌$ 16.2‌‌M ‌ ‌
Currency‌‌& ‌‌  
2012‌ ‌$ 13.3‌‌M ‌ ‌
Commodities‌‌  
2013‌ ‌$ 19.9‌‌M ‌ ‌
Division1997‌‌-‌‌Feb‌‌  
2014‌ ‌$ 22.2‌‌M ‌ ‌
1,‌‌2 002‌  ‌
2015‌ ‌$ ‌‌2 2.6‌‌M ‌ ‌
Head,‌‌Currency‌‌& ‌‌  
2016‌ ‌$ ‌‌2 0.2‌‌M ‌ ‌
Commodities‌‌  
2017‌ ‌$ ‌‌2 3.4‌‌M ‌ ‌
Division‌‌1 994‌‌-‌‌  
1997‌  ‌
President,‌‌Chief‌‌  
Operating‌‌Officer‌‌  
Director‌  ‌

JP‌‌Morgan‌‌Chase‌  ‌ ‌$ ‌ ‌4 60,982,382,326‌  ‌ Jamie‌‌Dimon‌  ‌ JPMorgan‌‌Chase‌‌& ‌‌

 
Co.‌  ‌

39‌  ‌
 ‌
He‌‌is‌‌c hairman‌‌‌a nd‌‌CEO‌‌‌o f‌‌  Current‌  ‌
JPMorgan‌‌Chase‌,‌‌the‌‌‌largest‌‌o f‌‌   Chairman‌‌& ‌‌Chief‌‌
 
the‌‌‌b ig‌‌four‌‌American‌‌b anks,‌‌   Executive‌‌Officer‌‌
 
and‌‌was‌‌p reviously‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌‌b oard‌‌
 
Dec‌‌3 1,‌‌2 006‌‌-‌‌
 
of‌‌d irectors‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌‌Federal‌‌
 
Reserve‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌New‌‌York.‌  ‌ Current‌  ‌
 ‌
2019‌ ‌$ 31.6‌‌M ‌ ‌
2018‌ ‌$ ‌‌3 0‌‌M ‌ ‌
2017‌ ‌$ ‌‌2 8.3‌‌M ‌ ‌
2016‌ ‌$ 27.2‌‌M ‌ ‌
2015‌ ‌$ ‌‌1 8.2‌‌M ‌ ‌
2014‌‌$ 27.7‌‌M ‌ ‌
2013‌ ‌$ 11.8‌‌M ‌ ‌
2012‌ ‌$ ‌‌1 8.7‌‌M ‌ ‌
2011‌ ‌$ 23.1‌‌M ‌ ‌
2010‌ ‌$ 20.8‌‌M ‌ ‌
2009‌ ‌$ ‌‌1 .32‌‌M ‌ ‌
2008‌ ‌$ 35.8‌‌M ‌ ‌
2007‌ ‌$ 28.9‌‌M ‌ ‌
2006‌ ‌$ 39.1‌‌M ‌ ‌

Morgan‌‌Stanley‌  ‌ $‌‌2 ,287,966,932,941‌  ‌ John‌‌J.‌‌Mack‌‌Chairman,‌‌Morgan‌‌    ‌

Stanley‌‌‌(Jun‌‌3 0,‌‌2 005‌‌-‌‌Jan‌‌1 ,‌‌
 
2012)‌  ‌
 ‌
2009‌‌$ 1.25‌‌M   ‌‌ ‌
2008‌ ‌$ 1.24‌‌M ‌ ‌
2007‌ ‌$ ‌‌4 1.8‌‌M ‌ ‌

Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌  ‌ ‌$ ‌ ‌1 98,712,559,776‌  ‌ John‌‌Stumpf‌‌b ecame‌‌CEO‌‌o f‌‌    ‌

Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌‌in‌‌June‌‌2 007‌‌a nd‌‌its‌‌  
chairman‌‌in‌‌January‌‌2 010.‌‌In‌‌  
2012,‌‌Stumpf's‌‌total‌‌  
compensation‌‌was‌‌$ 22.87‌‌  
million‌‌with‌‌a ‌‌b ase‌‌salary‌‌o f‌‌
 
$2.8‌‌m illion,‌‌$ 3,300,000‌‌in‌‌c ash‌‌  
bonuses,‌‌$ 12.5‌‌m illion‌‌in‌‌stock‌‌  
granted,‌‌a nd‌‌$ 15,000‌‌in‌‌o ther‌‌  
compensation‌  ‌
● $21.3M‌ ‌2 016‌  ‌
● $19.3M‌‌2 015‌  ‌
● $21.4M‌‌2 014‌  ‌
● $19.3M‌‌2 013‌  ‌
● $22.9M‌‌2 012‌  ‌
● $19.8M‌‌2 011‌  ‌
● $19M‌ ‌2 010‌  ‌
● $21.3M‌‌2 009‌  ‌

40‌  ‌
  ‌
● $9.04M‌ ‌2 008‌  ‌
● $14.8M‌ ‌2 007‌  ‌
● $11.8M‌ ‌2 006‌   ‌ ‌

 ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌
 ‌
Then‌‌5 ,000.‌ ‌o f‌‌the‌‌Executives‌‌r eceived‌‌a t‌‌least‌‌$ 1‌‌MILLION‌‌in‌‌bonus‌‌e ach‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
CASES‌‌YOU‌‌CAN’T‌‌IGNORE‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
 ‌
Other‌‌then‌‌the‌‌Two‌‌CFPB‌‌Cases‌‌Above:‌  ‌
 ‌

Case‌‌Link‌  ‌ Plaintiff‌‌
   ‌ Defendants‌‌
   ‌  ‌

 ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌

41‌  ‌
  ‌
https://judicialpedia.com/listing/b‌ Public‌‌Employees'‌‌Retirement‌‌System‌‌of‌  ‌ Structured‌‌Asset‌‌Mortgage‌‌Investments‌‌II,‌‌Inc.‌  ‌  ‌
ear-stearns-mortgage-pass-through‌ Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌Alt-A‌‌Trust‌‌2006-6‌  ‌
Mississippi‌  ‌  ‌
-certificates-litigation-850-securiti‌ Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌ARM‌‌Trust‌‌2006-4‌  ‌
es-commodities/‌  ‌ Pension‌‌Trust‌‌Fund‌‌For‌‌Operating‌  ‌ Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌Mortgage‌‌Funding‌‌Trust‌‌2006-AR2‌  ‌
 ‌ Structured‌‌Asset‌‌Mortgage‌‌Investments‌‌II‌  ‌
BEAR‌‌STEARNS‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌  Engineers‌‌individually‌  ‌ Trust‌‌2006-AR7‌  ‌
PASS-THROUGH‌‌   ‌
Pension‌‌Trust‌‌Fund‌‌For‌‌Operating‌  ‌ Structured‌‌Asset‌‌Mortgage‌‌Investments‌‌II‌  ‌
CERTIFICATES‌‌LITIGATION‌‌/ ‌‌
Trust‌‌2006-AR6‌  ‌
:‌‌850‌‌Securities/Commodities‌‌   ‌ Engineers‌  ‌
 ‌
Date‌  ‌ and‌‌on‌‌behalf‌‌of‌‌all‌‌others‌‌similarly‌‌  Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌Alt-A‌‌Trust‌‌2006-5‌  ‌
September‌‌18,‌‌2008‌  ‌ situated‌  ‌ Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌Mortgage‌‌Funding‌‌Trust‌  ‌
City/County‌  ‌ 2006-AR5‌  ‌
The‌‌State‌‌of‌‌Oregon,‌‌by‌‌and‌‌through‌‌the‌  ‌ Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌Alt-A‌‌Trust‌‌2006-8‌  ‌
New‌‌York‌  ‌
​  ‌ Oregon‌‌State‌‌Treasurer‌‌and‌‌the‌‌Oregon‌  ‌ Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌Mortgage‌‌Funding‌‌Trust‌  ‌
Type‌‌of‌‌Case‌‌  2006-AR4‌  ‌
Public‌‌Employee‌‌Retirement‌‌Board‌‌on‌  ‌
850Securities/Commodities‌‌Class‌‌  Structured‌‌Asset‌‌Mortgage‌‌Investments‌‌II‌  ‌
Action‌‌Complaint‌‌for‌‌Violation‌‌of‌‌  behalf‌‌of‌‌the‌‌Oregon‌‌Public‌‌Employee‌  ‌ Trust‌‌2006-AR8‌  ‌
the‌‌Securities‌‌Act‌‌of‌‌1933‌  ‌ Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌Mortgage‌‌Funding‌‌Trust‌  ‌
Retirement‌‌Fund‌  ‌ 2006-AR3‌  ‌
Case‌‌Number‌  ‌
Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌Alt-A‌‌Trust‌‌2006-7‌  ‌
1:09-cv-06172-LTS‌‌Lead‌‌case:‌‌  Iowa‌‌Public‌‌Employees'‌‌Retirement‌  ‌
Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌Alt-A‌‌Trust‌‌2007-I‌  ‌
1:08-cv-08093-LTS‌‌Member‌‌case:‌‌  Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌Mortgage‌‌Funding‌‌Trust‌  ‌
(View‌‌Member‌‌Case)‌‌Related‌‌  System‌  ‌
2007-AR1‌  ‌
Case:‌‌1:08-cv-08093-LTS‌‌Cause:‌‌  San‌‌Antonio‌‌Fire‌‌&‌‌Police‌‌Pension‌‌Fund‌  ‌ Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌Arm‌‌Trust‌‌2007-3‌  ‌
15:78m(a)‌‌Securities‌‌Exchange‌‌ 
Act‌  ‌ City‌‌of‌‌Fort‌‌Lauderdale‌‌Police‌‌&‌‌Fire‌  ‌ Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌Mortgage‌‌Funding‌‌Trust‌  ‌
Judges‌ ‌Judge‌‌Laura‌‌Taylor‌‌Swain‌  ‌ 2007-AR3‌  ‌
Retirement‌‌System‌  ‌ Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌Arm‌‌Trust‌  ‌
 ‌ Michael‌‌B.‌‌Nierenberg‌  ‌
Thomas‌‌F.‌‌Marano‌  ‌
The‌‌Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌Companies‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
Bear,‌‌Stearns‌‌&‌‌Co.‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌Arm‌‌Trust‌‌2007-1‌  ‌
Jeffrey‌‌L.‌‌Verschleiser‌  ‌
Jeffrey‌‌Mayer‌  ‌

https://judicialpedia.com/listing/c‌ Karen‌‌A.‌‌Carvelli‌  ‌ Ocwen‌‌Financial‌‌Corporation‌  ‌  ‌

arvelli-v-ocwen-financial-who-reg‌ University‌‌of‌‌Puerto‌‌Rico‌‌Retirement‌‌  Ronald‌‌M.‌‌Faris‌  ‌
ulates-whom-whos-regulating-the-‌ System‌  ‌ Michael‌‌R.‌‌Bourque‌‌Jr.‌  ‌
banks-servicers-foreclosure-compl‌ Ryan‌‌Huseman‌  ‌
aints-up-states-the-cfpb/‌  ‌
 ‌
Carvelli‌‌v‌‌OCWEN‌‌Financial‌‌Who‌‌ 
Regulates‌‌Whom?‌‌Who's‌‌ 
Regulating‌‌the‌‌BANKS‌‌&‌‌ 
SERVICER'S?‌‌FORECLOSURE‌‌ 

42‌  ‌
  ‌
COMPLAINTS‌‌UP‌‌STATES‌‌THE‌‌ 
CFPB‌‌   ‌
Date‌  ‌
April‌‌21,‌‌2017‌  ‌
 ‌
City/County‌  ‌
West‌‌Palm‌‌Beach‌  ‌
Type‌‌of‌‌Case‌  ‌
 ‌
Cause:‌‌15:0077‌‌Securities‌‌Fraud‌‌ 
Nature‌‌of‌‌Suit:‌‌850‌‌ 
Securities/Commodities‌  ‌

43‌  ‌
  ‌
https://judicialpedia.com/listing/f‌ Federal‌‌Housing‌‌Finance‌‌Agency‌‌as‌‌  JPMorgan‌‌Chase‌‌&‌‌Co.,‌‌JPMorgan‌‌Chase‌‌Bank‌‌   ‌
ederal-housing-finance-agency-v-j‌ Conservator‌‌for‌‌the‌‌Federal‌‌National‌‌  N.A.‌  ‌
pmorgan-chase-co-et-al-nature-of-‌ Mortgage‌‌Association‌‌and‌‌the‌‌Federal‌  ‌
suit-850-securities-commodities-w‌  ‌ J.P.‌‌Morgan‌‌Mortgage‌‌Acquisition‌‌Corporation‌  ‌
ere-you-told-to-not-make-payment‌ Home‌‌Loan‌‌Mortgage‌‌Corporation‌  ‌ J.P.‌‌Morgan‌‌Securities,‌‌LLC‌‌formerly‌‌known‌‌as,‌‌ 
s-by-your-servicer/‌  ‌  ‌ J.P.‌‌Morgan‌‌Securities‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
 ‌ FEDERAL‌‌HOUSING‌‌FINANCE‌‌  Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌&‌‌Co.,‌‌Inc.Structured‌‌Asset‌‌ 
Federal‌‌Housing‌‌Finance‌‌Agency‌‌  AGENCY,‌‌AS‌‌CONSERVATOR‌‌FOR‌  ‌ Mortgage‌‌Investments‌‌II‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
v.‌‌JPMorgan‌‌Chase‌‌&‌‌Co.‌‌et‌‌al‌‌  THE‌‌FEDERAL‌‌NATIONAL‌‌  Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌Asset‌‌Backed‌‌Securities‌‌I‌‌LLC‌  ‌
MORTGAGE‌‌ASSOCIATION‌‌AND‌‌THE‌‌  WAMU‌‌Asset‌‌Acceptance‌‌Corporation‌  ‌
Nature‌‌of‌‌Suit:‌‌850‌‌ 
FEDERAL‌‌HOME‌‌LOAN‌  ‌ WAMU‌‌Capital‌‌Corporation‌  ‌
Securities/Commodities‌‌Were‌‌ 
MORTGAGE‌‌CORPORATION‌  ‌ Washington‌‌Mutual‌‌Mortgage‌‌Securities‌‌ 
you‌‌told‌‌to‌‌not‌‌make‌‌payments‌‌  Corporation‌‌also‌‌known‌‌as‌‌Washington‌‌ 
by‌‌your‌‌Servicer?‌‌   ‌ MutualMortgage‌‌Securities‌‌Corporation‌  ‌
Date‌  ‌ Long‌‌Beach‌‌Securities‌‌Corporation‌  ‌
September‌‌2,‌‌2011‌  ‌ Citigroup‌‌Global‌‌Markets,‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
Credit‌‌Suisse‌‌Securities‌‌(USA)‌‌LLC‌  ‌
City/County‌  ‌
Goldman,‌‌Sachs‌‌&‌‌Co.‌  ‌
New‌‌York‌‌City‌  ‌
David‌‌M.‌‌Duzyk,‌‌Louis‌‌Schioppo,‌‌Jr.‌  ‌
Type‌‌of‌‌Case‌  ‌ Christine‌‌E.‌‌Cole,‌‌Edwin‌‌F.‌‌McMichael‌  ‌
 ‌ William‌‌A.‌‌King,‌‌Brian‌‌Bernard‌  ‌
Cause:‌‌15:77‌‌Securities‌‌Fraud‌‌/‌‌  Matthew‌‌E.‌‌Perkins,‌‌Joseph‌‌T.‌‌Jurkowski,‌‌Jr.,‌‌ 
850‌‌Securities/Commodities‌‌  Samuel‌‌L.‌‌Molinaro,‌‌Jr.‌‌Thomas‌‌F.‌‌Marano‌  ‌
Jurisdiction:‌‌U.S.‌‌Government‌‌  Kim‌‌Lutthans,‌‌Katherine‌‌Garniewski‌  ‌
Plaintiff‌  ‌ Jeffrey‌‌Mayer,‌‌Jeffrey‌‌L.‌‌Verschleiser‌  ‌
 ‌ Michael‌‌B.‌‌Nierenberg‌  ‌
Richard‌‌Careaga,‌‌David‌‌Beck,‌‌Diane‌‌Novak,‌‌ 
Thomas‌‌Green,‌‌Rolland‌‌Jurgens‌  ‌
Thomas‌‌G.‌‌Lehmann,‌‌Stephen‌‌Fortunato‌  ‌
Donald‌‌Wilhelm,‌‌Michael‌‌J.‌‌Kula‌  ‌
Craig‌‌S.‌‌Davis,‌‌Marc‌‌K.‌‌Malone‌  ‌
Michael‌‌L.‌‌Parker,‌‌Megan‌‌M.‌‌Davidson‌  ‌
David‌‌H.‌‌Zielke,‌‌Thomas‌‌W.‌‌Casey‌  ‌
John‌‌F.‌‌Robinson,‌‌Keith‌‌Johnson‌  ‌
Suzanne‌‌Krahling,‌‌Larry‌‌Breitbarth‌  ‌
Marangal‌‌I.‌‌Domingo,‌‌Troy‌‌A.‌‌Gotschall‌  ‌
Art‌‌Den‌‌Heyer,‌‌Stephen‌‌Lobo‌  ‌
J.P.‌‌Morgan‌‌Acceptance‌‌Corporation‌‌I ‌ ‌
EMC‌‌Mortgage‌‌LLC‌‌formerly‌‌known‌‌as‌  ‌
EMB‌‌Mortgage‌‌Corporation‌  ‌
RBS‌‌Securities‌‌Inc.‌‌(f/k/a‌‌Greenwich‌  ‌
Capital‌‌Markets‌‌Inc.)‌  ‌
The‌‌Clearing‌‌House‌‌Association‌‌L.L.C.‌  ‌
 ‌

44‌  ‌
  ‌
https://judicialpedia.com/listing/i‌ New‌‌Jersey‌‌Carpenters‌‌Health‌‌Fund‌‌on‌‌  Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌Mortgage‌‌Funding‌‌Trust‌  ‌  ‌
n-re-bear-stearns-mortgage-pass-th‌ behalf‌‌of‌‌itself‌‌and‌‌all‌‌others‌‌similarly‌‌  2006-AR1‌  ‌
rough-certificates-litigation-850-s‌
situated‌  ‌ Structured‌‌Asset‌‌Mortgage‌‌Investments‌  ‌
ecurities-commodities-jurisdiction‌
-federal-question/‌  ‌ Boilermaker‌‌Blacksmith‌‌National‌‌  II,‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
 ‌ Pension‌‌Trust‌  ‌ Jeffrey‌‌L.‌‌Verschleiser‌  ‌
In‌‌Re:‌‌BEAR‌‌STEARNS‌‌  Policemen's‌‌Annuity‌‌and‌‌Benefit‌‌Fund‌‌  Michael‌‌B.‌‌Nierenberg‌  ‌
MORTGAGE‌‌PASS-THROUGH‌‌  of‌‌the‌‌City‌‌of‌‌Chicago‌  ‌ Jeffrey‌‌Mayer‌  ‌
CERTIFICATES‌‌LITIGATION‌‌/‌‌ 
Public‌‌Employees'‌‌Retirement‌‌System‌‌of‌‌  Thomas‌‌F.‌‌Marano‌  ‌
850‌‌Securities/Commodities‌‌ 
Mississippi‌  ‌ Joseph‌‌T.‌‌Jurkowski‌  ‌
Jurisdiction:‌‌Federal‌‌Question‌‌/  ‌‌ ‌
New‌‌Jersey‌‌Carpenters‌‌Health‌‌Fund‌  ‌ Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌&‌‌Co.,‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
Date‌  ‌
Police‌‌and‌‌Fire‌‌Retirement‌‌System‌‌of‌‌the‌‌  JP‌‌Morgan‌‌Chase,‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
September‌‌18,‌‌2008‌  ‌
City‌‌of‌‌Detroit‌  ‌ Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌Asset‌‌Backed‌‌Securities‌‌I,‌  ‌
City/County‌  ‌
New‌‌York‌  ‌ Police‌‌and‌‌Fire‌‌Retirement‌‌System‌‌of‌‌the‌‌  LLC‌  ‌
Type‌‌of‌‌Case‌  ‌ City‌‌of‌‌Detroit‌  ‌
EMC‌‌Mortgage‌‌Corporation‌  ‌
850‌‌Securities‌‌/‌‌Commodities‌  ‌  ‌
Matthew‌‌E.‌‌Perkins‌  ‌
Case‌‌Number‌  ‌ The‌‌State‌‌of‌‌Oregon,‌‌by‌‌and‌‌through‌‌the‌‌ 
Samuel‌‌L.‌‌Molinaro,‌‌Jr.‌  ‌
1:08-cv-08093-LTS‌‌-‌‌Related‌‌  Oregon‌‌State‌‌Treasurer‌‌and‌‌the‌‌Oregon‌  ‌
Kim‌‌Lutthans‌  ‌
Case:‌‌1:09-cv-06172-LTS‌‌Related‌‌  Public‌‌Employee‌‌Retirement‌‌Board‌‌on‌‌ 
Katherine‌‌Garniewski‌  ‌
Case‌‌No.‌‌1:09-cv-06172-LTS‌‌Case‌‌  behalf‌‌of‌‌the‌‌Oregon‌‌Public‌‌Employee‌‌ 
The‌‌McGraw-Hill‌‌Companies,‌‌Inc‌  ‌
in‌‌other‌‌court:‌‌Supreme‌‌  Retirement‌‌Fund‌  ‌
Moody's‌‌Investors‌‌Service,‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
Court-County‌‌of‌‌New‌‌York,‌‌  Iowa‌‌Public‌‌Employees'‌‌Retirement‌‌ 
J.P.‌‌Morgan‌‌Securities,‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
602426-‌‌08‌  ‌ System‌  ‌
ADR‌‌Provider‌  ‌
Judges‌ ‌Judge‌‌Laura‌‌Taylor‌‌Swain‌  ‌ San‌‌Antonio‌‌Fire‌‌&‌‌Police‌‌Pension‌‌Fund‌‌  The‌‌State‌‌of‌‌Oregon,‌‌by‌‌and‌‌through‌‌the‌  ‌
City‌‌of‌‌Fort‌‌Lauderdale‌‌Police‌‌&‌‌Fire‌  ‌
 ‌ Oregon‌‌State‌‌Treasurer‌‌and‌‌the‌‌Oregon‌  ‌
Retirement‌‌System‌  ‌
 ‌ Public‌‌Employee‌‌Retirement‌‌Board‌‌on‌  ‌
 ‌
behalf‌‌of‌‌the‌‌Oregon‌‌Public‌‌Employee‌  ‌
Retirement‌‌Fund‌  ‌
 ‌

https://judicialpedia.com/listing/j‌ John‌‌Hancock‌‌Life‌‌Insurance‌‌Company‌‌  JP‌‌Morgan‌‌Chase‌‌&‌‌Co.‌  ‌  ‌

ohn-hancock-life-insurance-comp‌ (U.S.A.)‌  ‌ JPMorgan‌‌Chase‌‌Bank‌‌N.A‌  ‌
any-u-s-a-et-al-v-jp-morgan-chase-‌ J.P.‌‌Morgan‌‌Mortgage‌‌Acquisitions‌‌Corp.‌  ‌
co-850-securities-commodities/‌  ‌ John‌‌Hancock‌‌Life‌‌Insurance‌‌Company‌  ‌
J.P.‌‌Morgan‌‌Securities,‌‌LLC‌  ‌
 ‌ (U.S.A.)‌‌Separate‌‌Account‌‌6A‌  ‌ formerly‌‌known‌‌as‌  ‌
John‌‌Hancock‌‌Life‌‌Insurance‌‌ 
Company‌‌(U.S.A.)‌‌et‌‌al‌‌v.‌‌JP‌‌  J.P.‌‌Morgan‌‌Securities‌‌Inc‌  ‌
John‌‌Hancock‌‌Life‌‌Insurance‌‌Company‌  ‌
Morgan‌‌Chase‌‌&‌‌Co‌‌/‌‌850‌‌  J.P.‌‌Morgan‌‌Acceptance‌‌Corporation‌‌I ‌ ‌
Securities/Commodities‌‌   ‌ (U.S.A.)‌‌Separate‌‌Account‌‌131‌  ‌ Chase‌‌Mortgage‌‌Finance‌‌Corporation‌  ‌
Date‌  ‌ Chase‌‌Home‌‌Finance‌‌LLC‌  ‌
John‌‌Hancock‌‌Funds‌‌II‌  ‌
April‌‌23,‌‌2012‌  ‌ EMC‌‌Mortgage‌‌LLC‌‌formerly‌‌known‌‌as‌  ‌
​  ‌ John‌‌Hancock‌‌Variable‌‌Insurance‌‌Trust‌  ‌ EMC‌‌Mortgage‌‌Corporation‌  ‌
City/County‌  ‌ Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌and‌‌Co.,‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
John‌‌Hancock‌‌Sovereign‌‌Bond‌‌Fund‌  ‌
New‌‌York‌‌City‌  ‌ Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌Asset‌‌Backed‌‌Securities‌‌I‌‌LLC‌‌ 
John‌‌Hancock‌‌Bond‌‌Trust‌  ‌ Structured‌‌Asset‌‌Mortgage‌‌Investments‌‌II‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
Type‌‌of‌‌Case‌  ‌
850‌‌Securities/Commodities‌  ‌ WAMU‌‌Asset‌‌Acceptance‌‌Corp.,‌  ‌
John‌‌Hancock‌‌Strategic‌‌Series‌  ‌
Washington‌‌Mutual‌‌Mortgage‌‌Securities‌‌Corp.‌  ‌

45‌  ‌
  ‌
Case‌‌Number‌  ‌
1;12-cv-03184-‌‌RJS‌‌Case‌‌in‌‌other‌‌  Banc‌‌of‌‌America‌‌Securities‌‌LLC‌  ‌
court:‌‌Supreme‌‌Court-‌‌New‌‌York‌‌  CSE‌‌Mortgage,‌‌LLC‌  ‌
County,‌‌650195-12‌‌Cause:‌‌  Deutsche‌‌Bank‌‌Securities‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
28:1441nr‌‌Notice‌‌of‌‌Removal‌  ‌
Judges‌ ‌Judge‌‌Richard‌‌J.‌‌Sullivan‌  ‌
John‌‌Hancock‌‌Inco‌me‌‌Securities‌‌Trust‌  ‌ WAMU‌‌Capital‌‌Corp.,‌  ‌
Long‌‌Beach‌‌Securities‌‌Corp.‌  ‌
 ‌
John‌‌Barren,‌‌David‌‌Beck‌  ‌
Sara‌‌Bonesteel,‌‌Domenic‌‌A.‌‌Borriello‌  ‌
Richard‌‌Careaga,‌‌Jerome‌‌A.‌‌Cipponeri‌  ‌
Christine‌‌E.‌‌Cole,‌‌Craig‌‌S.‌‌Davis‌  ‌
Art‌‌Den-Heyer,‌‌Marangal‌‌I.‌‌Domingo‌  ‌
David‌‌M.‌‌Duzyk,‌‌Katherine‌‌Garniewski‌  ‌
Troy‌‌A.‌‌Gotschall,‌‌Patricia‌‌A.‌‌Jehle‌  ‌
Juliana‌‌C.‌‌Johnson,‌‌Rolland‌‌Jurgens‌  ‌
Joseph‌‌T.‌‌Jurkowski,‌‌Jr.,‌‌Michael‌‌D.‌‌Katz‌  ‌
William‌‌A.‌‌King,‌‌Marc‌‌R.‌‌Kittner‌  ‌
Michael‌‌J.‌‌Kula,‌‌Thomas‌‌G.‌‌Lehmann‌  ‌
Stephen‌‌Lobo,Richard‌‌D.‌‌Lodge‌  ‌
Kim‌‌Lutthans,‌‌Marc‌‌K.‌‌Malone‌  ‌
Thomas‌‌F.‌‌Marano,‌‌Jeffrey‌‌Mayer‌  ‌
Edwin‌‌F.‌‌McMichael,‌‌Samuel‌‌L.‌‌Molinaro,‌‌Jr.‌  ‌
Michael‌‌B.‌‌Nierenberg‌  ‌
Diane‌‌Novak,‌‌Michael‌‌L.‌‌Parker‌  ‌
Matthew‌‌E.‌‌Perkins,‌‌Louis‌‌Schioppo,‌‌Jr.‌  ‌
Jeffrey‌‌A.‌‌Sorense,‌‌Jeffrey‌‌L.‌‌Verschleiser,‌‌Thomas‌‌ 
L.‌‌Wind,‌‌David‌‌H.‌‌Zielke‌  ‌
Greenwich‌‌Capital‌‌Markets,‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
also‌‌known‌‌as‌‌RBS‌‌Greenwich‌‌Capital‌  ‌
Merrill‌‌Lynch‌‌&‌‌Co.‌  ‌
UBS‌‌Securities‌‌LLC‌‌formerly‌‌known‌‌as‌  ‌
UBS‌‌Warbug‌‌LLC‌  ‌
Brian‌‌Bernard,‌‌Megan‌‌M.‌‌Davidson‌  ‌
Eric‌‌Ferren,Stephen‌‌Fortunato‌  ‌
Donald‌‌Wilhem‌  ‌
Merrill‌‌Lynch,‌‌Pierce,‌‌Fenner‌‌&‌‌Smith‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
JP‌‌Morgan‌‌Chase‌‌Bank,‌‌N.A‌  ‌
ThirdParty‌‌Defendant‌  ‌
Federal‌‌Deposit‌‌Insurance‌‌Corporation‌  ‌
 ‌

https://judicialpedia.com/listing/l‌ USA‌‌Ex‌‌Rel‌ ‌Lynn‌‌E.‌‌Symoniak‌  ‌ Movant‌  ‌  ‌

ynn-e-szymoniak-hero-whistleblo‌ California,‌‌State‌‌of‌  ‌ Ocwen‌‌Loan‌‌Servicing,‌‌LLC‌  ‌
wer-illegal-foreclosure-still-happe‌ Delaware‌‌State‌‌of‌  ‌
Defendant‌  ‌
ning-with-fake-mortgage-back-sec‌ Florida‌‌State‌‌of‌  ‌
urities/‌  ‌ Hawaii‌‌State‌‌of‌  ‌ American‌‌Home‌‌Mortgage‌‌Servicing‌‌Inc‌  ‌
 ‌ Illinois‌‌State‌‌of‌  ‌ Saxon‌‌Mortgage‌‌Services‌‌Inc‌  ‌
LYNN‌‌E‌‌SZYMONIAK‌‌"HERO"‌‌  Indiana‌‌State‌‌of‌  ‌ Lender‌‌Processing‌‌Services‌‌Inc‌  ‌
Whistleblower‌‌ILLEGAL‌‌  Massachusetts‌‌State‌‌of‌  ‌
Docx‌‌LLC‌  ‌
Minnesota‌‌State‌‌of‌  ‌
FORECLOSURE‌‌STILL‌‌  CitiMortgage‌‌Inc‌  ‌
Montana‌‌State‌‌of‌  ‌
HAPPENING‌‌WITH‌‌"FAKE"‌‌  Nevada‌‌State‌‌of‌  ‌ formerly‌‌known‌‌as‌  ‌
MORTGAGE‌‌BACK‌‌  New‌‌Hampshire‌‌State‌‌of‌  ‌ Citi‌‌Residential‌‌Lending‌‌Inc‌  ‌

46‌  ‌
  ‌
SECURITIES‌‌   ‌ New‌‌Jersey‌‌State‌‌of‌  ‌ formerly‌‌known‌‌as‌  ‌
Date‌  ‌ New‌‌Mexico‌‌State‌‌of‌  ‌ AMC‌‌Mortgage‌‌Services‌‌Inc‌  ‌
June‌‌4,‌‌2010‌  ‌ New‌‌York‌‌State‌‌of‌  ‌
Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Home‌‌Mortgage‌  ‌
North‌‌Carolina‌‌State‌‌of‌  ‌
City/County‌  ‌ Formerly‌‌known‌‌as‌‌   ‌
Oklahoma‌‌State‌‌of‌  ‌
Rock‌‌Hill‌  ‌
Rhode‌‌Island‌‌State‌‌of‌  ‌ America's‌‌Servicing‌‌Company‌  ‌
Type‌‌of‌‌Case‌  ‌ Virginia‌‌State‌‌of‌  ‌ Bank‌‌of‌‌America‌‌Corporation‌  ‌
FORECLOSURE‌  ‌ District‌‌of‌‌Columbia‌  ‌
as‌‌successor‌‌in‌‌interest‌‌to‌‌Lasalle‌‌Bank‌  ‌
 ‌ Chicago‌‌City‌‌of‌  ‌
New‌‌York‌‌City‌‌of‌  ‌ Bank‌‌of‌‌New‌‌York‌‌Mellon‌‌Corporation‌  ‌
Case‌‌Number‌  ‌
0:10-cv-01465-JFA‌‌Related‌‌Cases‌‌  Citibank‌‌National‌‌Association‌  ‌
0:15-mc-000062-JFA‌‌  Deutsche‌‌Bank‌‌National‌‌Trust‌‌Company‌  ‌
0:13-cv-00464-JFA‌  ‌ Deutsche‌‌Bank‌‌Trust‌‌Company‌‌Americas‌  ‌
Judges‌ ‌Judge‌‌Joseph‌‌F.‌‌Anderson,‌‌  HSBC‌‌USA‌‌National‌‌Association‌  ‌
Jr‌  ‌
JP‌‌Morgan‌‌Chase‌‌Bank‌‌National‌  ‌
 ‌
Association‌  ‌
 ‌
US‌‌Bank‌‌National‌‌Association‌  ‌
Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌National‌‌Association‌  ‌
 ‌

https://judicialpedia.com/listing/s‌ Stichting‌‌Pensioenfonds‌‌ABP‌  ‌ JPMorgan‌‌Chase‌‌&‌‌Co.‌  ‌  ‌

tichting-pensioenfonds-abp-v-jpm‌ JPMorgan‌‌Chase‌‌Bank‌‌N.A.‌  ‌
organ-chase-co-et-al-850-securitie‌ ThirdParty‌P ‌ laintiff‌  ‌ J.P.‌‌Morgan‌‌Mortgage‌‌Acquisition‌‌Corp.‌  ‌
s-commodities/‌  ‌ J.P.‌‌Morgan‌‌Securities,‌‌LLC‌‌formerly‌‌known‌‌as‌‌ 
 ‌
JPMorgan‌‌Chase‌‌Bank‌‌N.A‌  ‌ J.P.‌‌Morgan‌‌Securities‌‌Inc‌  ‌
Stichting‌‌Pensioenfonds‌‌ABP‌‌v.‌‌ 
J.P.Morgan‌‌Acceptance‌‌Corporation‌‌I ‌ ‌
JPMorgan‌‌Chase‌‌&‌‌Co.‌‌et‌‌al‌‌/‌‌ 
 ‌ EMC‌‌Mortgage‌‌LLC‌‌formerly‌‌known‌‌as‌  ‌
850‌‌Securities/Commodities‌‌   ‌ EMC‌‌Mortgage‌‌Corporation‌  ‌
Date‌  ‌ Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌Asset‌‌Backed‌‌Securities‌‌I‌‌LLC‌  ‌
February‌‌24,‌‌2013‌  ‌ WAMU‌‌Asset‌‌Acceptance‌‌Corp.,‌  ‌
City/County‌  ‌ Washington‌‌Mutual‌‌Mortgage‌‌Securities‌‌Corp.‌  ‌
New‌‌York‌‌City‌  ‌ WAMU‌‌Capital‌‌Corp.,‌  ‌
Type‌‌of‌‌Case‌  ‌ Long‌‌Beach‌‌Securities‌‌Corp‌  ‌
:‌‌850‌‌Securities/Commodities‌‌case‌‌  Banc‌‌of‌‌America‌‌Securities‌‌Corp.‌  ‌
is‌‌hereby‌‌designated‌‌for‌‌inclusion‌‌  Banc‌‌of‌‌America‌‌Securities‌‌LLC‌  ‌
in‌‌the‌‌Pilot‌‌Project‌‌Regarding‌‌ 
Credit‌‌Suisse‌‌Securities‌‌LLC‌  ‌
Case‌‌Management‌‌Techniques‌‌for‌‌ 
Complex‌‌Civil‌‌Cases‌‌in‌‌the‌‌  Credit‌‌Suisse‌‌Securities‌‌(USA)‌‌LLC‌  ‌
Southern‌‌District‌‌of‌‌New‌‌York‌‌(the‌‌  David‌‌Beck,‌‌Brian‌‌Bernard‌  ‌
Pilot‌‌Project),‌  ‌ Richard‌‌Careaga,‌‌Thomas‌‌W.‌‌Casey‌  ‌
 ‌ Christine‌‌E.‌‌Cole,‌‌David‌‌M.‌‌Duzyk‌  ‌
Stephen‌‌Fortunato,‌‌Michael‌‌J.‌‌Giamapaolo,‌‌ 
Case‌‌Number‌  ‌
Rolland‌‌Jurgens‌  ‌
William‌‌A.‌‌King,‌‌Edwin‌‌F.‌‌McMichael‌  ‌
1:12-cv-01398-LAK‌‌Case‌‌in‌‌other‌‌  Louis‌‌Schioppo,‌‌Jr.,‌‌Katherine‌‌Garniewski‌  ‌
court:‌‌State‌‌Court-‌‌Supreme,‌‌ 
Thomas‌‌Green,‌‌Joseph‌‌T.‌‌Jurkowski,‌‌Jr‌  ‌
653383-11‌‌Cause:‌‌28:1441nr‌‌ 
Thomas‌‌Lehmann,‌‌Kim‌‌Lutthans‌  ‌
Notice‌‌of‌‌Removal‌  ‌
Thomas‌‌F.‌‌Marano,‌‌Jeffrey‌‌Mayer‌  ‌
Samuel‌‌L.‌‌Molinaro,‌‌Jr.,‌‌Michael‌‌B.‌‌Nierenberg,‌‌ 
Diane‌‌Novak‌  ‌
Matthew‌‌E.‌‌Perkins,‌‌John‌‌F.‌‌Robinson‌  ‌

47‌  ‌
  ‌
Judges‌  ‌ Jeffrey‌‌Verschleiser,‌‌Donald‌‌Wilhelm‌  ‌
David‌‌H.‌‌Zielke‌  ‌
Judge‌‌Lewis‌‌A.‌‌Kaplan‌  ‌ Structured‌‌Asset‌‌Mortgage‌‌Investments‌‌lI,‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌and‌‌Co.‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
Structured‌‌Asset‌‌Mortgage‌‌Investments‌‌II‌‌Inc‌  ‌
 ‌  ‌
 ‌ ThirdParty‌‌Defendant‌  ‌
Federal‌‌Deposit‌‌Insurance‌‌Corporation‌  ‌
as‌‌Receiver‌‌for‌‌Washington‌‌Mutual‌‌Bank‌  ‌
 ‌
ThirdParty‌‌Defendant‌  ‌
Federal‌‌Deposit‌‌Insurance‌‌Corporation‌  ‌
in‌‌its‌‌Corporate‌‌Capacity‌  ‌
 ‌

https://judicialpedia.com/listing/p‌ Ronald‌‌E.‌‌Powell‌‌as‌‌Trustee‌‌of‌‌The‌‌  Ocwen‌‌Financial‌‌Corporation‌  ‌  ‌

owell-et-al-v-ocwen-financial-corp‌ United‌‌Food‌‌&‌‌Commercial‌‌Workers‌‌  Ocwen‌‌Loan‌‌Servicing,‌‌LLC‌  ‌
oration-et-al-29-u-s-code-%c2%a7‌ Union‌‌&‌‌Employers‌  ‌ Ocwen‌‌Mortgage‌‌Servicing,‌‌Inc‌  ‌
%e2%80%af1109-liability-for-bre‌ Altisource‌‌Portfolio‌‌Solutions,‌‌S.A.‌  ‌
ach-of-fiduciary-duty/‌  ‌ Midwest‌‌Pension‌‌Fund‌  ‌ Altisource‌‌Residential‌‌Corporation‌  ‌
 ‌ Robert‌‌O'Toole‌  ‌ Altisource‌‌Asset‌‌Management‌‌Corporation‌  ‌
Powell‌‌et‌‌al‌‌v.‌‌Ocwen‌‌Financial‌‌  as‌‌Trustee‌‌of‌‌The‌‌United‌‌Food‌‌& ‌ ‌ Assurant,‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
Corporation‌‌et‌‌al‌‌29‌‌U.S.‌‌Code‌‌  Standard‌‌Guaranty‌‌Insurance‌‌Company‌  ‌
Commercial‌‌Workers‌‌Union‌‌&‌‌ 
American‌‌Security‌‌Insurance‌‌Company‌  ‌
§ 1109.Liability‌‌for‌‌breach‌‌of‌‌  Employers‌  ‌
Voyager‌‌Indemnity‌‌Insurance‌‌Company‌  ‌
fiduciary‌‌duty‌‌   ‌ Midwest‌‌Pension‌‌Fund‌  ‌ American‌‌Bankers‌‌Insurance‌‌Company‌‌of‌‌Florida‌  ‌
Date‌  ‌ Robert‌‌Wilson‌  ‌ HomeSure‌‌Services,‌‌Inc‌  ‌
March‌‌5,‌‌2018‌  ‌ as‌‌Trustee‌‌of‌‌The‌‌United‌‌Food‌‌& ‌ ‌ Cross‌‌Country‌‌Homes‌‌Services,‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
City/County‌  ‌ Commercial‌‌Workers‌‌Union‌‌&‌‌  HomeSure‌‌of‌‌America,‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
New‌‌York‌  ‌ Employers‌  ‌ Homesure‌‌Protection‌‌of‌‌Virginia‌‌Inc‌  ‌
Midwest‌‌Pension‌‌Fund‌  ‌ Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank,‌‌N.A.‌  ‌
Type‌‌of‌‌Case‌  ‌ Altisource‌‌Solutions,‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
Cause:‌‌29:1109‌‌Breach‌‌of‌‌  Brian‌‌Jordan‌  ‌
REALHome‌‌Services‌‌and‌‌Solutions,‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
Fiduciary‌‌Duties,‌‌Nature‌‌of‌‌Suit:‌‌  as‌‌Trustee‌‌of‌‌The‌‌United‌‌Food‌‌& ‌ ‌
Altisource‌‌Online‌‌Auctions,‌‌Inc.‌  ‌
791‌‌Labor:‌‌E.R.I.S.A,‌‌Jurisdiction:‌‌  Commercial‌‌Workers‌‌Union‌‌&‌‌  Southwest‌‌Business‌‌Corporation‌  ‌
Federal‌‌Question‌  ‌ Employers‌  ‌
 ‌ Midwest‌‌Pension‌‌Fund‌  ‌
Case‌‌Number‌  ‌ Donald‌‌G‌‌Schaper‌  ‌
as‌‌Trustee‌‌of‌‌The‌‌United‌‌Food‌‌& ‌ ‌
1:18-cv-01951-VSB-SDA‌  ‌
Commercial‌‌Workers‌‌Union‌‌&‌‌ 
Judges‌  ‌ Employers‌  ‌
Assigned‌‌to:‌‌Judge‌‌Vernon‌‌S.‌‌  Midwest‌‌Pension‌‌Fund‌  ‌
William‌‌R.‌‌Seehafer‌  ‌
Broderick‌  ‌ as‌‌Trustee‌‌of‌‌The‌‌United‌‌Food‌‌& ‌ ‌
Referred‌‌to:‌‌Magistrate‌‌Judge‌‌  Commercial‌‌Workers‌‌Union‌‌&‌‌ 
Employers‌  ‌
Stewart‌‌D.‌‌Aaron‌  ‌
Midwest‌‌Pension‌‌Fund‌  ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
48‌  ‌
 ‌
COUNT‌‌2    ‌‌ ‌
Breach‌‌o f‌‌Contract‌‌– ‌‌Implied‌‌Covenant‌‌o f‌‌G ood‌‌Faith‌‌a nd‌‌Fair‌‌Dealing‌‌–   
‌‌ ‌
Breach‌‌o f‌‌Contractual‌‌Duty‌‌o f‌‌G ood‌‌Faith‌‌a nd‌‌Fair‌‌Dealing‌‌H onest‌‌Services‌‌1 8‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌1 346‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
JWG‌‌incorporates‌‌h erein‌‌b y‌‌reference‌‌a ll‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a llegations‌‌c ontained‌‌in‌‌the‌‌a bove‌‌Paragraphs‌‌o f‌‌this‌‌  
Complaint‌‌    ‌
 ‌
By‌‌v irtue‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌facts‌‌stated‌‌a bove,‌‌d efendants‌‌h ave‌‌v iolated‌‌their‌‌c ontractual‌‌d uty‌‌o f‌‌g ood‌‌faith‌‌a nd‌‌fair‌‌  
dealing.‌‌Honest‌‌Service‌‌u nder‌‌1 8‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌1 346‌‌the‌‌Defendants‌‌schemed‌‌to‌‌foreclose‌‌o n‌‌Plaintiff’s‌‌h ome‌‌  
with‌‌forged‌‌d ocuments,‌‌with‌‌k nowledgeable‌‌intent‌‌o f‌‌Fraud.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌a bove‌‌d efendants‌‌a nd‌‌d efendant’s‌‌representatives‌‌b reached‌‌their‌‌c ontractual‌‌d uty‌‌o f‌‌g ood‌‌faith‌‌a nd‌‌fair‌‌  
dealing‌‌when‌‌they‌‌refused‌‌to‌‌p rovide‌‌the‌‌requested‌‌o riginal‌‌Note.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
‌The‌‌a bove‌‌d efendants‌‌Breach‌‌o f‌‌Contract‌‌includes‌‌n ot‌‌limited‌‌to‌‌their‌‌involvement‌‌with‌‌b reaking‌‌the‌‌c hain‌‌  
of‌‌title‌‌a nd‌‌c reating‌‌a ‌‌situation‌‌where‌‌JWG‌‌c ould‌‌n ot‌‌sell‌‌the‌‌h ome‌‌.‌‌The‌‌d ocuments‌‌speak‌‌for‌‌themselves‌‌  
the‌‌d efendants‌‌were‌‌a ware‌‌o f‌‌these‌‌b reaches.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
JWG‌‌through‌‌implied‌‌c ovenant‌‌o f‌‌g ood‌‌faith‌‌a nd‌‌Fair‌‌Dealing‌‌c ontinued‌‌to‌‌work‌‌with‌‌the‌‌d ifferent‌‌Servicing‌‌  
groups‌‌e ven‌‌a fter‌‌they‌‌c ontinued‌‌to‌‌lose‌‌p aperwork,‌‌a nd‌‌m ake‌‌false‌‌c laims,‌‌a nd‌‌a dvertise‌‌h er‌‌h ome‌‌for‌‌a ‌‌  
Foreclosure‌‌Sale.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌d efendant’s‌‌“ flagrantly‌‌v iolated”‌‌their‌‌Fiduciary‌‌responsibility‌‌to‌‌JWG‌ ‌to‌‌d eal‌‌in‌‌Good‌‌Faith‌‌while‌‌JWG‌‌  
continued‌‌to‌‌d eal‌‌in‌‌Good‌‌Faith.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌a ‌‌Breach‌‌o f‌‌Contract‌‌was‌‌c reated‌‌when‌‌the‌‌d ocuments‌‌b y‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo,‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌were‌‌forged,‌‌  
by‌‌k nown‌‌robo‌‌signers.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌n ow‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌a nd‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌c laim‌‌n o‌‌a lleged‌‌o wnership‌‌while‌‌a ‌‌Servicer‌‌n eeds‌‌a n‌‌  
employer‌‌to‌‌foreclose‌‌– ‌‌n eeds‌‌a ‌‌c ontract‌‌to‌‌show‌‌it‌‌h as‌‌a ny‌‌type‌‌o f‌‌STANDING.‌‌OCWEN‌‌h as‌‌u sed‌‌it’s‌‌o wn‌‌  
employees‌‌to‌‌fraudulently‌‌sign‌‌rights‌‌o ver‌‌to‌‌Surety‌‌Trustees‌‌who‌‌m ust‌‌k now‌‌a s‌‌it‌‌states‌‌right‌‌o n‌‌it‌‌– ‌‌  
OCWEN‌‌e mployees.‌‌AS‌‌Debt‌‌Collectors‌‌that‌‌they‌‌state‌‌c learly‌‌they‌‌a re,‌‌they‌‌n eed‌‌to‌‌e nsure‌‌that‌‌the‌‌d ebt‌‌  
they‌‌a re‌‌c ollecting‌‌is‌‌a ‌‌legitimate‌‌d ebt‌‌a nd‌‌o wned‌‌b y‌‌OCWEN.‌‌MCW‌‌was‌‌informed‌‌that‌‌it‌‌was‌‌n ot‌‌a ‌‌  
legitimate‌‌d ebt‌‌o wned‌‌b y‌‌OCWEN‌.   ‌‌ ‌
Count‌‌3   ‌‌ ‌
Violation‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Fair‌‌Debt‌‌Collection‌‌Practices‌‌Act‌‌(FDCPA)‌  ‌
‌(15‌‌U.S.C‌‌1 692,‌‌ET‌‌SEQ.)‌‌§ ‌‌1 692e‌‌-‌‌False‌‌o r‌‌m isleading‌‌r epresentations‌‌§ ‌‌1 692f‌‌-‌‌Unfair‌‌practices‌‌§ ‌‌  
1692g‌‌-‌‌Validation‌‌o f‌‌debt‌‌§ ‌‌1 692j‌‌-‌‌Furnishing‌‌c ertain‌‌deceptive‌‌forms‌‌forms‌‌Fair‌‌Debt.‌‌Collection‌‌Act‌‌  
(FDCPA)‌‌§ ‌‌8 06‌‌H arassment,‌‌§ ‌‌8 07‌‌False‌‌a nd‌‌m isleading,‌‌§ ‌‌8 08‌‌Unfair‌‌practices,‌‌§ ‌‌8 09‌‌Validation‌‌o f‌‌  
debts,‌‌§ ‌‌8 12‌‌Furnishing‌‌deceptive‌‌forms,‌‌e t‌‌a l‌‌    ‌
 ‌
JWG‌ ‌incorporates‌‌h erein‌‌b y‌‌reference‌‌a ll‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a llegations‌‌c ontained‌‌in‌‌the‌‌a bove‌‌Paragraphs‌‌o f‌‌this‌‌  
Complaint‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌there‌‌is‌‌n o‌‌d ebt‌‌a s‌‌the‌‌statute‌‌o f‌‌limitations‌‌for‌‌c ollection‌‌h as‌‌run‌‌o ut,‌‌the‌‌b anks‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌a nd‌‌Bank‌‌  
of‌‌America‌‌h ave‌‌stated‌‌they‌‌h ave‌‌n o‌‌loan‌‌that‌‌they‌‌c an‌‌a ccount‌‌for.‌‌    ‌
49‌  ‌
 ‌
 ‌
Defendants‌‌u sed‌‌u nfair/unconscionable‌‌m eans‌‌to‌‌try‌‌a nd‌‌foreclose‌‌illegally‌‌a nd‌‌u nethically‌‌o n‌‌1 5‌‌West‌‌  
Spring‌‌Street‌‌while‌‌Plaintiff‌‌was‌‌u nder‌‌the‌‌p roduction‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌HAMP‌‌p rogram‌‌a s‌‌d escribed‌‌in‌‌p aragraph‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌the‌‌statute‌‌o f‌‌limitations‌‌to‌‌c ollect‌‌o n‌‌a ny‌‌type‌‌o f‌‌d ebt‌‌h as‌‌p assed‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
That‌‌the‌‌d ocuments‌‌filed‌‌a gainst‌‌t‌‌the‌‌h ome‌‌b y‌‌OCWEN,‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌Group,‌‌Brock‌‌a nd‌‌Scott,‌‌MCW‌‌a re‌‌  
fraudulent‌‌a s‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌in‌‌a ‌‌taped‌‌c onversation‌‌o ut‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌CEO’s‌‌Executive‌‌o ffice‌‌states‌‌v ery‌‌c learly‌‌they‌‌  
have‌‌n o‌‌loan‌‌u nder‌‌the‌‌Loan‌‌No.‌‌o f‌‌OCWEN,‌‌u nder‌‌the‌‌n ame‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌‌o r‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌– ‌‌  
Grenadier‌‌o r‌‌u nder‌‌Janice’s‌‌social‌‌security‌‌No.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Further‌‌Stating‌‌that‌‌Evette‌‌Morales‌‌who‌‌signed‌‌a s‌‌Attorney‌‌in‌‌Fact‌‌for‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌d oes‌‌n ot‌‌h ave‌‌a ‌‌  
Power‌‌o f‌‌Attorney‌‌to‌‌d o‌‌such‌‌a ct‌‌for‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌St.‌‌Alexandria‌‌VA‌‌2 2301.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Further‌‌to‌‌ignore‌‌the‌‌STAY‌‌a s‌‌issued‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌4 th‌‌Circuit‌‌is‌‌in‌‌d irect‌‌c onflict‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌lawyers‌‌Professional‌‌Code‌‌  
of‌‌Ethics‌‌Cinder‌‌with‌‌the‌‌c ourt‌‌3 .3‌‌Further‌‌a ‌‌self‌‌reporting‌‌g roup‌‌Lawyers‌‌a nd‌‌Judges‌‌h ave‌‌a n‌‌o bligation‌‌to‌‌  
report‌‌c riminal‌‌a ctivity‌‌b y‌‌Servicers‌‌a nd‌‌Banks.‌‌The‌‌a ppearance‌‌is‌‌OCWEN,‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌Group,‌‌Brock‌‌a nd‌‌  
Scott‌‌a nd‌‌MCW‌‌is‌‌further‌‌lining‌‌their‌‌p ockets‌‌a s‌‌well‌‌a s‌‌b eing‌‌a ‌‌p arty‌‌to‌‌the‌‌Cover‌‌Up‌‌o f‌‌Divorce‌‌Lawyer‌‌  
Ilona‌‌Grenadier‌‌Heckman’s‌‌Criminal‌‌Spree.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Further‌‌e ven‌‌the‌‌Attorney‌‌General's‌‌Office‌‌h as‌‌stated‌‌to‌‌OCWEN‌‌this‌‌Foreclosure‌‌should‌‌n ot‌‌take‌‌p lace‌‌a s‌‌  
an‌‌investigation‌‌is‌‌u nderway‌.   ‌‌ ‌
 ‌
Count‌‌4   
‌‌ ‌
Wrongful‌‌Foreclosure‌‌Threat‌‌– ‌‌Failure‌‌to‌‌Comply‌‌with‌‌H AMP‌‌r ules‌‌    ‌
 ‌
JWG‌‌incorporates‌‌h erein‌‌b y‌‌reference‌‌a ll‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a llegations‌‌c ontained‌‌in‌‌the‌‌a bove‌‌a .‌‌Paragraphs‌‌o f‌‌this‌‌  
Complaint‌‌    ‌
 ‌
HAMP‌‌PROHIBITS‌‌A‌‌PARTICIPATING‌‌server‌‌from‌‌taking‌‌several‌‌a ctions‌‌including‌‌the‌‌following:‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Proceeding‌‌with‌‌a ‌‌foreclosure‌‌sale.‌‌Any‌‌foreclosure‌‌sale‌‌m ust‌‌b e‌‌suspended‌‌a nd‌‌n o‌‌n ew‌‌foreclosure‌‌a ction‌‌  
may‌‌b e‌‌initiated‌‌d uring‌‌the‌‌trial‌‌p eriod,‌‌a nd‌‌u ntil‌‌the‌‌b orrower‌‌h as‌‌b een‌‌c onsidered‌‌a nd‌‌found‌‌ineligible‌‌for‌‌  
other‌‌a vailable‌‌foreclosure‌‌p revention‌‌o ptions.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Requiring‌‌a ‌‌b orrower‌‌to‌‌m ake‌‌a n‌‌initial‌‌c ontribution‌‌p ayment‌‌p ending‌‌the‌‌p rocessing‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌trial‌‌p eriod‌‌p lan‌‌  
before‌‌the‌‌p lan‌‌starts.‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
Soliciting‌‌b orrowers‌‌to‌‌o pt‌‌o ut‌‌o f‌‌c onsideration‌‌for‌‌HAMP‌‌d uring‌‌the‌‌temporary‌‌review‌‌p eriod.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Reporting‌‌b orrowers‌‌a s‌‌d elinquent‌‌to‌‌c redit‌‌reporting‌‌b ureaus‌‌without‌‌e xplanation.‌‌For‌‌b orrowers‌‌who‌‌a re‌‌  
current‌‌when‌‌they‌‌e nter‌‌a ‌‌trial‌‌p eriod,‌‌the‌‌servicer‌‌should‌‌report‌‌the‌‌b orrower‌‌c urrent‌‌b ut‌‌o n‌‌m odified‌‌  
payment‌‌if‌‌the‌‌b orrower‌‌m akes‌‌timely‌‌p ayments‌‌d uring‌‌the‌‌trial‌‌p eriod.‌‌For‌‌b orrowers‌‌who‌‌a re‌‌d elinquent‌‌  
when‌‌they‌‌e nter‌‌the‌‌trial‌‌p eriod,‌‌the‌‌servicer‌‌should‌‌report‌‌in‌‌such‌‌a ‌‌m anner‌‌that‌‌a ccurately‌‌reflects‌‌the‌‌  
borrower’s‌‌c urrent‌‌workout‌‌status.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
50‌  ‌
 ‌
Assessing‌‌p repayment‌‌p enalties‌‌for‌‌full‌‌o r‌‌p artial‌‌p repayment‌‌a s‌‌p art‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌m odification.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌H AMP‌‌r ules‌‌were‌‌e xpressed‌‌to‌‌J WG‌‌several‌‌times‌‌by‌‌AHMSI,‌‌H omeward‌‌a nd‌‌O CWEN‌‌-‌‌that‌‌y ou‌‌  
could‌‌not‌‌be‌‌foreclosed‌‌o n‌‌while‌‌y ou‌‌were‌‌being‌‌c onsidered‌‌for‌‌the‌‌program.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
It‌‌is‌‌d ocumented‌‌that‌‌lawyers‌‌a re‌‌n ervous‌‌o f‌‌losing‌‌the‌‌financial‌‌g ain‌‌o f‌‌Foreclosures‌‌stopping‌‌d ue‌‌to‌‌their‌‌  
illegal‌‌a nd‌‌u nethical‌‌p ractices.‌‌That‌‌if‌‌the‌‌h omeowner‌‌g ets‌‌into‌‌the‌‌HAMP‌‌p rogram‌‌a nd‌‌a n‌‌a djustment‌‌is‌‌  
made‌‌to‌‌the‌‌loan‌‌– ‌‌the‌‌lawyer‌‌loses‌‌a n‌‌e xtra‌‌$ 50,000‌‌o r‌‌m ore.‌‌h e‌‌g ets‌‌from‌‌a ‌‌foreclosure.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
BWW‌‌Law‌‌g roup‌‌a nd‌‌n ow‌‌McCabe‌‌Weisberg‌‌a nd‌‌Conway,‌ ‌Brock‌‌a nd‌‌Scott‌‌Pllc‌‌h ad‌‌n o‌‌o ther‌‌m otivation‌‌to‌‌  
foreclose‌‌o n‌‌Plaintiff‌‌e xcept‌‌for‌‌p ersonal‌‌financial‌‌g ain,‌‌g reed‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌e xposure‌‌o f‌‌their‌‌illegal‌‌a nd‌‌u nethical‌‌  
practices‌‌a nd‌‌for‌‌COVER‌‌UP‌‌o f‌‌o thers‌‌c riminal‌‌a ctivity‌‌a s‌‌stated‌‌in‌‌the‌‌CFPB‌‌Complaint‌‌o f‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌a ttached‌‌e mails‌‌will‌ ‌back‌‌up‌‌these‌‌intentions‌‌being‌‌m alicious,‌‌v iolent,‌‌o ppressive,‌‌fraudulent,‌‌  
wanton,‌‌o r‌‌g rossly‌‌r eckless.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
JWG‌ ‌a fter‌‌Defendants‌‌lawyers‌‌Troutman‌‌Sanders‌‌a ka‌‌Mays‌‌& ‌‌Valentine‌‌a ttached‌‌themselves‌‌to‌‌the‌‌Cover‌‌  
Up‌‌o f‌‌Divorce‌‌Lawyer‌‌Ilona‌‌Grenadier‌‌Heckman’s‌‌Criminal‌‌Spree‌‌to‌‌h elp‌‌d eny‌‌Janice‌‌a ny‌‌a nd‌‌a ll‌‌Justice‌‌in‌‌  
the‌‌c ourts‌‌in‌‌c ollecting‌‌h er‌‌m onies‌‌o wed‌‌h er‌‌from‌‌the‌‌THEFT‌‌o f‌‌Ilona‌‌she‌‌is‌‌u nable‌‌to‌‌if‌‌there‌‌was‌‌a ‌‌loan‌‌  
qualify.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌the‌‌defendants‌‌have‌‌impeded‌‌with‌‌their‌‌lawyers‌‌the‌‌a bility‌‌for‌‌J anice‌‌to‌‌e arn‌‌a ‌‌living‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌G roup,‌‌the‌‌MCW,‌‌PARKER,‌ ‌SIMON‌‌& ‌‌K OKOLIS‌‌LLC,‌‌the‌‌Brock‌‌a nd‌‌Scott‌‌Lawyers‌‌  
attached‌‌e mails‌‌in‌‌the‌‌Exhibits‌‌back‌‌up‌‌their‌‌intentions‌‌being‌‌m alicious,‌‌v iolent,‌‌o ppressive,‌‌fraudulent,‌‌  
wanton,‌‌o r‌‌g rossly‌‌r eckless.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Count‌‌5   ‌‌ ‌
Consumer‌‌Protection‌‌Act‌‌    ‌
 ‌
JWG‌ ‌incorporates‌‌h erein‌‌b y‌‌reference‌‌a ll‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a llegations‌‌c ontained‌‌in‌‌the‌‌a bove‌‌Paragraphs‌‌o f‌‌this‌‌  
Complaint‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌a nd‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌u sed‌‌representatives‌‌to‌‌u se‌‌u nfair‌‌o r‌‌d eceptive‌‌a cts‌‌o r‌‌p ractices‌‌in‌‌forgery‌‌  
and‌‌robo‌‌signing‌‌/‌‌FORGERIES‌‌o f‌‌d ocuments‌‌were‌‌d eliberate‌‌with‌‌k nowledgeable‌‌a cts‌‌a nd‌‌a ctions‌‌to‌‌  
COVER‌‌UP‌‌c riminal‌‌b ehavior.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌d eceptive‌‌a cts‌‌o f‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌Group,‌‌MCW,‌‌Brock‌‌a nd‌‌Scott,‌‌PARKER,‌ ‌SIMON‌‌& ‌‌KOKOLIS‌‌LLC,‌‌‌a nd‌‌  
Troutman‌‌Sanders‌‌a ka‌‌Mays‌‌& ‌‌Valentine‌‌lawyers‌‌for‌‌OCWEN‌‌h ave‌‌c aused‌‌JWG‌‌the‌‌loss‌‌o f‌‌Funding‌‌for‌‌h er‌‌  
company,‌‌a nd‌‌m onies‌‌d ue‌‌h er‌‌from‌‌h er‌‌d ivorce‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌o pportunity‌‌to‌‌m eet‌‌the‌‌g uidelines‌‌n eeded‌‌for‌‌the‌‌  
Hamp‌‌Loan.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌the‌‌d efendants‌‌OCWEN‌‌is‌‌d irectly‌‌involved‌‌in‌‌h elping‌‌to‌‌c over‌‌u p‌‌the‌‌Criminal‌‌spree‌‌o f‌‌d ivorce‌‌lawyer‌‌  
Ilona‌‌Grenadier‌‌Heckman‌‌a nd‌‌n ow‌‌with‌‌the‌‌h elp‌‌o f‌‌MCW‌‌LLC,‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌Group‌‌a nd‌‌Brock‌‌a nd‌‌Scott‌‌  
PLLC‌‌    ‌
 ‌
51‌  ‌
 ‌
Count‌‌6   
‌‌ ‌
Breach‌‌o f‌‌Fiduciary‌‌Duty‌‌-‌‌Unjust‌‌Enrichment/Constructive‌‌Trust‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
JWG‌‌incorporates‌‌h erein‌‌b y‌‌reference‌‌a ll‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a llegations‌‌c ontained‌‌in‌‌the‌‌a bove‌‌a .‌‌Paragraphs‌‌o f‌‌this‌‌
 
Complaint‌‌    ‌
 ‌
BWW‌‌Law,‌‌MCW,‌‌PARKER,‌ ‌SIMON‌‌& ‌‌K OKOLIS‌‌LLC,‌‌‌a nd‌‌Brock‌‌& ‌‌Scott‌‌b reached‌‌its‌‌Fiduciary‌‌Duty‌‌  
when‌‌it‌‌p ut‌‌its‌‌financial‌‌g ain‌‌a bove‌‌the‌‌law‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌rights‌‌o f‌‌Plaintiff.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
BWW‌‌Law,‌‌MCW,‌‌PARKER,‌ ‌SIMON‌‌& ‌‌K OKOLIS‌‌LLC,‌‌ ‌a nd‌‌Brock‌‌& ‌‌Scott‌‌b reached‌‌its‌‌Fiduciary‌‌Duty‌‌  
when‌‌it‌‌ignored‌‌the‌‌HAMP‌‌rules‌‌for‌‌financial‌‌g ain‌‌a nd‌‌g reed.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌a nd‌‌its‌‌representatives‌‌b reached‌‌its‌‌Fiduciary‌‌Duty‌‌with‌‌the‌‌Robo‌‌Signing‌‌/‌‌forgery‌‌o f‌‌  
documents‌‌b reaking‌‌the‌‌c hain‌‌o f‌‌title‌‌o n‌‌1 5‌‌West‌‌Spring‌‌Street.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Well‌‌Fargo‌‌a nd‌‌its‌‌representative‌‌b reached‌‌its‌‌Fiduciary‌‌Duty‌‌with‌‌the‌‌Robo‌‌Signing‌‌/‌‌forgery‌‌o f‌‌d ocuments‌‌  
breaking‌‌the‌‌c hain‌‌o f‌‌title‌‌o n‌‌1 5‌‌West‌‌Spring‌‌Street.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
MCW‌‌LLP,‌‌PARKER‌‌SIMON‌‌& ‌‌K OKOLIS‌‌LLC,‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌Group,‌‌Howard‌‌Bierman,‌‌a nd‌‌Mark‌‌  
Galbraith,‌‌Brock‌‌& ‌‌Scott‌ ‌b reached‌‌their‌‌Fiduciary‌‌Duty‌‌with‌‌the‌‌refusal‌‌o f‌‌p roduction‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌o riginal‌‌Note‌‌  
or‌‌a ny‌‌p roof‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌right‌‌to‌‌Foreclose‌‌o n‌‌1 5‌‌West‌‌Spring‌‌Street.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
OCWEN‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌a bove‌‌a s‌‌well‌‌a s‌‌BWW‌‌Law,‌‌MCW,‌‌PARKER‌‌SIMON‌‌& ‌‌K OKOLIS‌‌LLC,‌‌‌a nd‌‌Brock‌‌& ‌‌  
Scott‌ ‌h ave‌‌a nd‌‌h ad‌‌a ‌‌responsibility‌‌o f‌‌g ood‌‌faith‌‌a nd‌‌fair‌‌d ealings‌‌that‌‌they‌‌h ave‌‌ignored.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
Further‌‌the‌‌d ouble‌‌d ipping‌‌a nd‌‌filing‌‌o f‌‌fraudulent‌‌d ocuments‌‌a gainst‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌St‌‌with‌‌their‌‌Trustee‌‌  
company‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
That‌‌d ocumentation‌‌from‌‌JWG‌ ‌since‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌2 010‌‌h as‌‌b een‌‌requested‌‌a nd‌‌ignored.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Stating‌‌that‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌is‌‌the‌‌Note‌‌Holder‌‌while‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌informs‌‌CFPB‌‌they‌‌h ave‌‌n othing‌‌to‌‌d o‌‌with‌‌a ‌‌  
loan‌‌a t‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌St.,‌‌Alexandria‌‌VA‌‌2 2301‌‌a nd‌‌o r‌‌with‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier.‌‌See‌‌Exhibits‌  ‌
 ‌
Defendant‌‌lack‌‌o f‌‌standing.‌‌That‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌2 013,‌‌Defendant‌‌OCWEN‌‌b ecame‌‌a ware‌‌o f‌‌its‌‌lack‌‌o f‌‌  
standing‌‌to‌‌p ursue‌‌a ny‌‌type‌‌o f‌‌foreclosure‌‌a ction‌‌o n‌‌JWG’s‌‌h ome,‌‌located‌‌a t‌‌1 5‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌Street,‌‌Alexandria‌‌  
VA‌‌2 230,‌‌b ut‌‌they‌‌n evertheless,‌‌for‌‌their‌‌o wn‌‌financial‌‌p rofit‌‌a nd‌‌g ain,‌‌p ursued‌‌illegal‌‌c ollection‌‌remedies‌‌  
that‌‌h ave‌‌wrongfully‌‌h armed‌‌this‌‌JWG.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌Evette‌‌Morales‌‌who‌‌signed‌‌a s‌‌a ttorney‌‌in‌‌Fact‌‌for‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌is‌‌a n‌‌e mployee‌‌o f‌‌OCWEN.‌‌The‌‌  
person‌‌who‌‌n otarized‌‌the‌‌d ocument‌‌that‌‌g ave‌‌Surety‌‌Trustee‌‌a ka‌‌McCabe‌‌Weisberg‌‌a nd‌‌Conway‌‌the‌‌right‌‌to‌‌  
Foreclose‌‌h as‌‌the‌‌same‌‌title‌‌a s‌‌Evette‌‌Morales‌‌a nd‌‌seems‌‌to‌‌b e‌‌o ffice‌‌m ates.‌‌Further‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌d enies‌‌  
every‌‌g iving‌‌Evette‌‌Morales‌‌a ny‌‌type‌‌o f‌‌POWER‌‌OF‌‌ATTORNEY‌‌to‌‌d ecide‌‌who‌‌h as‌‌foreclosure‌‌POWER.‌‌  
Evette‌‌is‌‌a ‌‌Contract‌‌Management‌‌Coordinator‌‌a t‌‌OCWEN‌‌Financial‌‌Corporation.‌‌This‌‌job‌‌a dvertises‌‌for‌‌a ‌‌  
salary‌‌o f‌‌$ 30,000‌‌-‌‌$ 36,000‌‌a pprox.‌‌    ‌
 ‌

52‌  ‌
 ‌
That‌‌in‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌December‌‌2 013‌‌-‌‌2 014‌‌OCWEN‌‌to‌‌a void‌‌a ny‌‌c riminal‌‌c harges‌‌– ‌‌n o‌‌d ifferent‌‌then‌‌in‌‌the‌‌  
past‌‌with‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌a nd‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌d id‌‌a ‌‌c onsent‌‌ORDER‌‌to‌‌c ease‌‌a nd‌‌d esist‌‌the‌‌c riminal‌‌  
activity.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
That‌‌OCWEN‌‌h as‌‌v iolated‌‌the‌‌CONSENT‌‌ORDER‌‌that‌‌was‌‌a lso‌‌signed‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌Attorney‌‌General‌‌o f‌‌Virginia.‌‌  
That‌‌the‌‌OAG’s‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌State‌‌o f‌‌Virginia’s‌‌o ffice‌‌h as‌‌requested‌‌this‌‌illegal‌‌Foreclosure‌‌b e‌‌p ut‌‌o n‌‌HOLD‌‌For‌‌  
further‌‌investigation.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌the‌‌CFPB‌‌filed‌‌this‌‌Complaint‌‌a gainst‌‌OCWEN‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌April‌‌2 0,‌‌2 017:‌‌in‌‌the‌‌USDC‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌  
Southern‌‌District‌‌o f‌‌Florida‌‌West‌‌Palm‌‌Beach‌‌Division‌‌Case‌‌No.‌‌9 :17‌‌– cv-‌‌8 0495‌‌-‌‌CFPB‌‌v.‌‌OCWEN‌‌  
FINANCIAL‌‌CORPORATION‌‌a ‌‌Florida‌‌Corporation‌‌,‌‌OCWEN‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌SERVING,‌‌INC,‌‌a ‌‌US‌‌Virgin‌‌  
Islands‌‌c orporation‌‌AND‌‌OCWEN‌‌LOAN‌‌SERVICING‌‌LLC‌‌a ‌‌Delaware‌‌Corporation‌‌-‌‌Defendants‌‌Page‌‌2 ‌‌  
Paragraph‌‌2 ‌‌States:‌‌The‌‌b ureau‌‌b rings‌‌this‌‌a ction‌‌a gainst‌‌the‌‌Defendants‌‌u nder:‌‌(1)Sections‌‌1 031‌‌a nd‌‌1 036‌‌  
of‌‌the‌‌CFPA‌‌,‌‌1 2‌‌USC‌‌§ §‌‌5 531,‌‌5 536;‌‌(2)‌‌Sections‌‌8 07‌‌(2)(a),‌‌8 07(10),‌‌a nd‌‌8 08‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Fair‌‌Debt‌‌Collection‌‌  
Practices‌‌Act,‌‌1 5‌‌USC‌‌§ §‌‌1 692e(2)(a),‌‌1 692e(10),‌‌a nd‌‌1 692f‌‌(the‌‌“ FDCPA”);‌‌(3)‌‌Section‌‌6 ‌‌a nd‌‌1 9‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌  
Real‌‌Estate‌‌Settlement‌‌Procedures‌‌Act‌‌(RESPA),‌‌1 2‌‌USC‌‌§ §‌‌2 605,‌‌2 617,‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌regulations,‌‌p romulgated‌‌  
29‌‌thereunder‌‌a t‌‌Regulation‌‌X,‌‌1 2‌‌C.F.R.‌‌p art‌‌1 024‌‌(“Regulation‌‌X”);‌‌(4)‌‌Section‌‌1 05(a)‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Truth‌‌a nd‌‌  
Lending‌‌Act‌‌(“TILA”),‌‌1 5‌‌USC‌‌§ ‌‌1 604(a),‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌regulations‌‌p romulgated‌‌thereunder‌‌a ct‌‌Regulation‌‌Z,‌‌1 2‌‌  
C.F.R.‌‌p art‌‌1 026‌‌(“Regulation‌‌Z”):‌‌a nd‌‌(5)‌‌Section‌‌3 (b)‌‌o f‌‌Homeowners‌‌Protection‌‌Act‌‌o f‌‌1 998,‌‌1 2‌‌USC‌‌§ ‌‌  
4902(b)(the‌‌“ HPA”).‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌this‌‌c omplaint‌‌shows‌‌that‌‌CFPB‌‌k new‌‌the‌‌a cts‌‌a nd‌‌a ctions‌‌o f‌‌OCWEN‌‌a nd‌‌that‌‌they‌‌h ad‌‌UNCLEAN‌‌  
HANDS‌‌a nd‌‌y et‌‌a llowed‌‌the‌‌foreclosure‌‌shows‌‌the‌ ‌COVER‌‌UP‌‌c riminal‌‌a ctivity.‌ ‌That‌‌JWG‌‌a s‌‌a n‌‌  
Intervener‌‌should‌‌b e‌‌a llowed.‌  ‌
 ‌
The‌‌Government‌‌a nd‌‌this‌‌Court‌‌is‌‌a ware‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌UNCLEAN‌‌h ands‌‌a nd‌‌h ave‌‌supported‌‌the‌‌Banks‌‌a nd‌‌  
Servicers‌‌c riminal‌‌a ctivity‌‌ignoring‌‌the‌‌American‌‌Citizen.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌scheme‌‌a nd‌‌a rtifice‌‌b etween‌‌the‌‌Defendants‌‌who‌‌intentionally‌‌a nd‌‌willfully‌‌scheme‌‌to‌‌d efraud‌‌Plaintiff,‌‌  
was‌‌for‌‌the‌‌p urpose‌‌o f‌‌u sing‌‌c olor‌‌o f‌‌law‌‌a nd‌‌m isuse‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Trustee‌‌function,‌‌to‌‌o btain‌‌m oney,‌‌a ttorney‌‌fees,‌‌  
and‌‌p laintiffs‌‌p roperty‌‌for‌‌their‌‌o wn‌‌b enefit‌‌b y‌‌m aterially‌‌false‌‌a nd‌‌fraudulent‌‌p retense,‌‌representations‌‌a nd‌‌  
promises,‌‌b y‌‌intentionally‌‌d efrauding‌‌b oth‌‌JwG‌‌a nd‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌b y‌‌c ollecting‌‌o n‌‌a ‌‌n onexistent‌‌loan,‌‌  
which‌‌they‌‌k new‌‌was‌‌n ot‌‌c ollectible,‌‌was‌‌written‌‌o ff‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌b ank,‌‌a nd‌‌which‌‌they‌‌interfered‌‌with‌‌refinancing‌‌  
to‌‌c ause‌‌h arm‌‌to‌‌Plaintiff‌‌a nd‌‌o pportunity‌‌for‌‌themselves..‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Count‌‌7    ‌‌ ‌
Injunctive‌‌/‌‌Declaratory‌‌Relief‌‌    ‌
 ‌
JWG‌‌incorporates‌‌h erein‌‌b y‌‌reference‌‌a ll‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a llegations‌‌c ontained‌‌in‌‌the‌‌a bove‌‌Paragraphs‌‌o f‌‌this‌‌  
Complaint‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌J WG‌‌now‌‌needs‌‌to‌‌pray‌‌this‌‌c ourt‌‌g rants‌‌temporary‌‌o r‌‌permanent‌‌injunctive‌‌r elief‌‌a s‌‌J WG‌‌  
resides‌‌in‌‌the‌‌property‌‌a nd‌‌a s‌‌Defendants‌‌a re‌‌seeking,‌‌through‌‌illegal‌‌a nd‌‌unlawful‌‌m eans‌‌a nd‌‌without‌‌  
satisfying‌‌the‌‌necessary‌‌legal‌‌standing‌‌r equirements‌‌to‌‌institute‌‌a ‌‌foreclosure,‌‌take‌‌possession,‌‌c ustody,‌‌  
and‌‌c ontrol‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Property.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
53‌  ‌
 ‌
Count‌‌8   
‌‌ ‌
Common‌‌Law‌‌Fraud12‌‌U.S.C‌‌1 972‌  ‌
 ‌
‌JWG‌‌incorporates‌‌h erein‌‌b y‌‌reference‌‌a ll‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a llegations‌‌c ontained‌‌in‌‌the‌‌a bove‌‌Paragraphs‌‌o f‌‌this‌‌  
Complaint.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
On‌‌several‌‌o ccasions‌‌JWG‌‌sent‌‌m oney‌‌to‌‌the‌‌Servicing‌‌a gency‌‌o f‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌a nd‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌to‌‌o nly‌‌  
have‌‌funds‌‌returned‌‌a nd‌‌a greement‌‌squashed.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
It‌‌is‌‌v ery‌‌well‌‌d ocumented‌‌that‌‌the‌‌Mortgage‌‌Servicer’s‌‌were‌‌instructed‌‌to‌‌n ot‌‌take‌‌a ny‌ ‌p ayments‌‌a nd‌‌to‌‌  
"work‌‌with‌‌y ou"‌‌o nly‌‌a fter‌‌b orrowers‌‌fall‌‌b ehind‌‌in‌‌p ayments.‌‌Once‌‌b orrowers‌‌fall‌‌b ehind‌‌o n‌‌p urpose‌‌a nd‌‌a t‌‌  
the‌‌lender's‌‌request,‌‌foreclosure‌‌p roceedings‌‌b egin‌‌in‌‌e arnest.‌‌The‌‌Foreclosure‌‌lawyers‌‌a nd‌‌their‌‌friends‌‌a re‌‌  
the‌‌b eneficiary‌‌in‌‌the‌‌g ame,‌‌a s‌‌is‌‌seen‌‌a bove‌‌with‌‌the‌‌a mount‌‌o f‌‌m oney‌‌Shapiro‌‌a nd‌‌Burson‌‌h ave‌‌reported‌‌  
making‌‌from‌‌b eing‌‌o ne‌‌o f‌‌Freddie‌‌Mac‌‌Servicers.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌d efendants‌‌o r‌‌their‌‌representatives‌‌o n‌‌several‌‌o ccasions‌‌m ade‌‌false‌‌statements‌‌o f‌‌m aterial‌‌facts.‌‌ie‌‌  
OCWEN‌‌– ‌‌“ Ignore‌‌the‌‌Foreclosure‌‌it‌‌is‌‌illegal‌‌for‌‌them‌‌to‌‌a s‌‌y ou‌‌a re‌‌in‌‌the‌‌HAMP‌‌p rogram‌‌p rocess”‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌d efendants‌‌a nd‌‌o r‌‌their‌‌representatives‌‌m aking‌‌these‌‌statements‌‌k new‌‌o r‌‌should‌‌h ave‌‌k nown‌‌it‌‌to‌‌b e‌‌  
untrue;‌‌    ‌
 ‌
JWG‌‌to‌‌whom‌‌the‌‌statement‌‌was‌‌m ade‌‌h ad‌‌a ‌‌right‌‌to‌‌rely‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌statement;‌‌b ut,‌‌fortunately‌‌k new‌‌h ow‌‌  
deceitful‌‌the‌‌d efendants‌‌h ad‌‌b een‌‌in‌‌the‌‌p ast.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
JWG‌‌relied‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌statement‌‌for‌‌a s‌‌long‌‌a s‌‌time‌‌p ermitted.‌‌   ‌
 ‌
JWG‌‌b elieves‌‌the‌‌statement‌‌was‌‌m ade‌‌for‌‌the‌‌p urpose‌‌o f‌‌inducing‌‌the‌‌o ther‌‌p arty‌‌to‌‌b e‌‌a ble‌‌to‌‌Foreclose‌‌o n‌‌  
JWG’s‌‌h ome‌‌a nd‌‌g ain‌‌financially.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
JWG‌‌relied‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌Banks‌‌a nd‌‌their‌‌representatives‌‌a t‌‌Homeward‌‌a nd‌‌OCWEN‌‌to‌‌n ot‌‌foreclose‌‌a nd‌‌to‌‌g ive‌‌  
JWG's‌‌legal‌‌right‌‌to‌‌the‌‌o pportunity‌‌to‌‌g et‌‌Funding‌‌for‌‌h er‌‌c ompany‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌o pportunity‌‌to‌‌k eep‌‌h er‌‌h ome.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
These‌‌statements‌‌m ade‌‌– ‌‌c reated‌‌a ‌‌situation‌‌that‌‌Plaintiff‌‌was‌‌n ot‌‌a ble‌‌to‌‌g et‌‌the‌‌funding‌‌n eeded‌‌for‌‌h er‌‌  
company,‌‌g iving‌‌h er‌‌the‌‌income‌‌to‌‌q ualify‌‌for‌‌a ‌‌loan‌.  ‌‌ ‌
 ‌
Count‌‌9   ‌‌ ‌
Negligence‌‌– ‌‌the‌‌negligent‌‌infliction‌‌o f‌‌e motional‌‌distress;‌‌    ‌
the‌‌intentional‌‌infliction‌‌o f‌‌e motional‌‌distress‌‌    ‌
 ‌
JWG‌‌incorporates‌‌h erein‌‌b y‌‌reference‌‌a ll‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a llegations‌‌c ontained‌‌in‌‌the‌‌a bove‌‌Paragraphs‌‌o f‌‌this‌‌  
Complaint‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌d efendant’s‌‌h ad‌‌a ‌‌legal‌‌d uty‌‌to‌‌u se‌‌reasonable‌‌c are‌‌to‌‌p rotect‌‌the‌‌Chain‌‌o f‌‌Title‌‌to‌‌the‌‌p roperty‌‌a t‌‌1 5‌‌ 
West‌‌Spring‌‌Street.‌‌By‌‌n ot‌‌d oing‌‌this‌‌simple‌‌a ct‌‌the‌‌d efendant’s‌‌m alicious‌‌a ctions‌‌c aused‌‌g reat‌‌e motional‌‌  
distress‌‌to‌‌Plaintiff.‌‌   ‌
 ‌
54‌  ‌
 ‌
That‌‌Evette‌‌Morales‌‌who‌‌c laims‌‌to‌‌h ave‌‌a ‌‌Power‌‌o f‌‌Attorney‌‌from‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌a nd‌‌signs‌‌a s‌‌Attorney‌‌  
in‌‌Fact,‌‌OCWEN‌‌a nd‌‌its‌‌a ttorneys‌‌h ave‌‌shown‌‌n o‌‌e mployee‌‌c ontract‌‌with‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌o n‌‌a lleged‌‌loan‌‌a s‌‌  
Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌a nd‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌h ave‌‌c laimed‌‌n o‌‌o wnership‌‌in‌‌a lleged‌‌loan‌‌a nd‌‌further‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌  
claims‌‌n ever‌‌to‌‌h ave‌‌g iven‌‌such‌‌Power‌‌o f‌‌Attorney.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌a ctions‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a ctors‌‌to‌‌c ause‌‌this‌‌e motional‌‌d istress‌‌were‌‌m alicious,‌‌v iolent,‌‌o ppressive,‌‌fraudulent,‌‌  
wanton,‌‌o r‌‌g rossly‌‌reckless.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌d efendants‌‌failed‌‌in‌‌their‌‌d uty‌‌a nd‌‌u nreasonably‌‌c aused‌‌e motional‌‌d istress‌‌to‌‌JWG‌ ‌with‌‌intentional‌‌  
infliction‌‌o f‌‌e motional‌‌d istress.‌‌The‌‌n egligence‌‌is‌‌sufficient‌‌to‌‌support‌‌this‌‌c ause‌‌o f‌‌a ction.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
The‌‌d efendants‌‌were‌‌n egligent‌‌in‌‌a ll‌‌a ctions‌‌a gainst‌‌JWG‌ ‌a nd‌‌1 5‌‌West‌‌Spring‌‌Street‌‌n ot‌‌following‌‌the‌‌law‌‌  
and‌‌the‌‌Rules‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌HAMP‌‌p rogram.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌d efendants‌‌h ad‌‌a ‌‌Fiduciary‌‌Duty‌‌to‌‌JWG,‌‌the‌‌p ublic‌ ‌a nd‌‌1 5‌‌West‌‌Spring‌‌Street.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Count‌‌1 0‌‌    ‌
Constructive‌‌Fraud,,18‌‌USC‌‌§ ‌‌1 341‌‌    ‌
Frauds‌‌a nd‌‌Swindles‌‌1 8‌‌USC‌‌§ ‌‌1 343‌‌Fraud‌‌by‌‌Wire,‌‌1 8‌‌USC‌‌§ 1344‌‌    ‌
Bank‌‌Fraud‌‌1 8‌‌USC‌‌§ 1346‌‌H onest‌‌Services‌‌1 8‌‌USC‌‌§ ‌‌1 348‌‌Securities‌‌a nd‌‌Commodities‌‌fraud‌‌    ‌
 ‌
JWG‌‌incorporates‌‌h erein‌‌b y‌‌reference‌‌a ll‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a llegations‌‌c ontained‌‌in‌‌the‌‌a bove‌‌Paragraphs‌‌o f‌‌this‌‌  
Complaint‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌d efendants‌‌were‌‌d eceptive‌‌o f‌‌m aterial‌‌m isrepresentations‌‌o f‌‌p ast‌‌a nd‌‌e xisting‌‌facts‌‌a nd‌‌remained‌‌silent‌‌  
when‌‌a ‌‌d uty‌‌to‌‌speak‌‌e xisted.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌in‌‌2 014‌‌OCWEN‌‌in‌‌a ‌‌c onsent‌‌ORDER‌‌was‌‌c ommanded‌‌to‌‌c ease‌‌a nd‌‌d esist‌‌a ll‌‌c riminal‌‌a ctivity‌‌a nd‌‌in‌‌  
return‌‌would‌‌n ot‌‌b e‌‌p ressed‌‌with‌‌c riminal‌‌c harges.‌‌OCWEN‌‌d id‌‌n ot‌‌follow‌‌the‌‌Consent‌‌Order‌‌a nd‌‌c ontinues‌‌  
illegal‌‌foreclosures.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
‌That‌‌o n‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌April‌‌2 0,‌‌2 017‌‌the‌‌CFPB‌‌filed‌‌a ‌‌n ew‌‌suit‌‌in‌‌the‌‌USDC‌‌o f‌‌Southern‌‌District‌‌o f‌‌Florida‌‌
 
West‌‌Palm‌‌Beach‌‌Division‌‌Case‌‌No.‌‌9 37-cv-‌‌8 0495‌‌which‌‌c laims‌‌it‌‌h as‌‌n ot‌‌stopped‌‌their‌‌c riminal‌‌a ctivities.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌CFPB‌‌has‌‌o n‌‌its‌‌site:‌  ‌
 ‌
COMPLAINTS:‌  ‌
 ‌
Option‌‌One‌ ‌Showing‌‌2 7,176‌‌‌m atches‌‌o ut‌‌o f‌‌1 ,744,719‌‌total‌‌c omplaints‌  ‌
American‌‌Home‌‌Mortgage‌‌Servicing‌‌Showing‌‌1 8,754‌‌m atches‌‌o ut‌‌o f‌‌1 ,744,719‌‌total‌‌c omplaints‌  ‌
PHH‌‌Mortgage‌‌Showing‌‌3 ,261‌‌m atches‌‌o ut‌‌o f‌‌1 ,744,719‌‌total‌‌c omplaints‌  ‌
OCWEN‌‌Mortgage‌‌Showing‌‌3 ‌‌0 ,219‌‌‌m atches‌‌o ut‌‌o f‌‌1 ,744,719‌‌total‌‌c omplaints‌  ‌
Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌Showing‌ ‌‌8 0,785‌‌‌m atches‌‌o ut‌‌o f‌‌1 ,744,719‌‌total‌‌c omplaints‌  ‌
Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌ ‌Showing‌‌119,746‌‌‌m atches‌‌o ut‌‌o f‌‌1 ,744,719‌‌total‌‌c omplaints‌  ‌
55‌  ‌
 ‌
 ‌
‌The‌‌CFPB‌‌further‌‌States:‌  ‌
 ‌
Mortgage‌‌Servicer’s‌‌Widespread‌‌Errors,‌‌Shortcuts,‌‌and‌‌Runarounds‌‌Cost‌‌Borrowers‌‌
 
Money,‌‌Homes‌  ‌
 ‌
APR‌ ‌20,‌ ‌2017‌  ‌
 ‌
WASHINGTON,‌‌D.C.‌‌—‌‌The‌‌Consumer‌‌Financial‌‌Protection‌‌Bureau‌‌(CFPB)‌‌today‌‌s ued‌‌one‌‌of‌‌the‌‌  
country’s‌‌largest‌‌nonbank‌‌m ortgage‌‌loan‌‌s ervicers,‌‌O cwen‌‌Financial‌‌Corporation,‌‌and‌‌its‌‌s ubsidiaries‌‌for‌‌  
failing‌‌borrowers‌‌at‌‌every‌‌s tage‌‌of‌‌the‌‌m ortgage‌‌s ervicing‌‌process.‌‌The‌‌Bureau‌‌alleges‌‌that‌‌O cwen’s‌‌  
years‌‌of‌‌widespread‌‌errors,‌‌s hortcuts,‌‌and‌‌runarounds‌‌c ost‌‌s ome‌‌borrowers‌‌m oney‌‌and‌‌others‌‌their‌‌  
homes.‌‌O cwen‌‌allegedly‌‌botched‌‌basic‌‌functions‌‌like‌‌s ending‌‌accurate‌‌m onthly‌‌s tatements,‌‌properly‌‌  
crediting‌‌payments,‌‌and‌‌handling‌‌taxes‌‌and‌‌insurance.‌‌Allegedly,‌‌O cwen‌‌also‌‌illegally‌‌foreclosed‌‌on‌‌  
struggling‌‌borrowers,‌‌ignored‌‌c ustomer‌‌c omplaints,‌‌and‌‌s old‌‌off‌‌the‌‌s ervicing‌‌rights‌‌to‌‌loans‌‌without‌‌fully‌‌
 
disclosing‌‌the‌‌m istakes‌‌it‌‌m ade‌‌in‌‌borrowers’‌‌records.‌‌The‌‌Florida‌‌Attorney‌‌G eneral‌‌took‌‌a‌‌s imilar‌‌action‌‌ 
against‌‌O cwen‌‌today‌‌in‌‌a‌‌s eparate‌‌lawsuit.‌‌M any‌‌s tate‌‌financial‌‌regulators‌‌are‌‌also‌‌independently‌‌ 
issuing‌‌c ease-and-desist‌‌and‌‌license‌‌revocation‌‌orders‌‌against‌‌O cwen‌‌for‌‌escrow‌‌m anagement‌‌and‌‌  
licensing‌‌issues‌‌today.‌  ‌
 ‌
"Ocwen‌‌has‌‌repeatedly‌‌m ade‌‌m istakes‌‌and‌‌taken‌‌s hortcuts‌‌at‌‌every‌‌s tage‌‌of‌‌the‌‌m ortgage‌‌s ervicing‌‌  
process,‌‌c osting‌‌s ome‌‌c onsumers‌‌m oney‌‌and‌‌others‌‌their‌‌homes,"‌‌s aid‌‌CFPB‌‌Director‌‌Richard‌‌  
Cordray.‌‌"Borrowers‌‌have‌‌no‌‌s ay‌‌over‌‌who‌‌s ervices‌‌their‌‌m ortgage,‌‌s o‌‌the‌‌Bureau‌‌will‌‌remain‌‌v igilant‌‌to‌‌
 
ensure‌‌they‌‌get‌‌fair‌‌treatment."‌  ‌
 ‌
Ocwen,‌‌headquartered‌‌in‌‌West‌‌Palm‌‌Beach,‌‌Fla.,‌‌is‌‌one‌‌of‌‌the‌‌nation’s‌‌largest‌‌nonbank‌‌m ortgage‌‌  
servicers.‌‌As‌‌of‌‌Dec.‌‌31,‌‌2016,‌‌O cwen‌‌s erviced‌‌almost‌‌1.4‌‌m illion‌‌loans‌‌with‌‌an‌‌aggregate‌‌unpaid‌‌  
principal‌‌balance‌‌of‌‌$209‌‌billion.‌‌It‌‌s ervices‌‌loans‌‌for‌‌borrowers‌‌in‌‌all‌‌50‌‌s tates‌‌and‌‌the‌‌District‌‌of‌‌
 
Columbia.‌‌A‌‌m ortgage‌‌s ervicer‌‌c ollects‌‌payments‌‌from‌‌the‌‌m ortgage‌‌borrower‌‌and‌‌forwards‌‌those‌‌  
payments‌‌to‌‌the‌‌owner‌‌of‌‌the‌‌loan.‌‌It‌‌handles‌‌c ustomer‌‌s ervice,‌‌c ollections,‌‌loan‌‌m odifications,‌‌and‌‌  
foreclosures.‌‌O cwen‌‌s pecializes‌‌in‌‌s ervicing‌‌s ubprime‌‌or‌‌delinquent‌‌loans.‌  ‌
 ‌
The‌‌CFPB‌‌uncovered‌‌s ubstantial‌‌evidence‌‌that‌‌O cwen‌‌has‌‌engaged‌‌in‌‌s ignificant‌‌and‌‌s ystemic‌‌  
misconduct‌‌at‌‌nearly‌‌every‌‌s tage‌‌of‌‌the‌‌m ortgage‌‌s ervicing‌‌process.‌‌The‌‌CFPB‌‌is‌‌c harged‌‌with‌‌  
enforcing‌‌the‌‌Dodd-Frank‌‌Wall‌‌Street‌‌Reform‌‌and‌‌Consumer‌‌Protection‌‌Act,‌‌which‌‌protects‌‌c onsumers‌‌  
from‌‌unfair,‌‌deceptive,‌‌or‌‌abusive‌‌acts‌‌or‌‌practices,‌‌and‌‌other‌‌federal‌‌c onsumer‌‌financial‌‌laws.‌‌In‌‌
 
addition,‌‌the‌‌Bureau‌‌adopted‌‌c ommon-sense‌‌rules‌‌for‌‌the‌‌m ortgage‌‌s ervicing‌‌m arket‌‌that‌‌first‌‌took‌‌effect‌‌
 
in‌‌J anuary‌‌2014.‌‌The‌‌CFPB’s‌‌m ortgage‌‌s ervicing‌‌rules‌‌require‌‌that‌‌s ervicers‌‌promptly‌‌c redit‌‌payments‌‌ 
and‌‌c orrect‌‌errors‌‌on‌‌request.‌‌The‌‌rules‌‌also‌‌include‌‌s trong‌‌protections‌‌for‌‌s truggling‌‌homeowners,‌‌ 
including‌‌those‌‌facing‌‌foreclosure.‌‌In‌‌its‌‌lawsuit,‌‌the‌‌CFPB‌‌alleges‌‌that‌‌O cwen:‌  ‌
 ‌
● Serviced‌‌loans‌‌using‌‌error-riddled‌‌information:‌‌O cwen‌‌uses‌‌a‌‌proprietary‌‌s ystem‌‌c alled‌‌
 
REALServicing‌‌to‌‌process‌‌and‌‌apply‌‌borrower‌‌payments,‌‌c ommunicate‌‌payment‌‌information‌‌to‌‌  
borrowers,‌‌and‌‌m aintain‌‌loan‌‌balance‌‌information.‌‌O cwen‌‌allegedly‌‌loaded‌‌inaccurate‌‌and‌‌  
56‌  ‌
 ‌
incomplete‌‌information‌‌into‌‌its‌‌REALServicing‌‌s ystem.‌‌And‌‌even‌‌when‌‌data‌‌was‌‌accurate,‌‌  
REALServicing‌‌generated‌‌errors‌‌because‌‌of‌‌s ystem‌‌failures‌‌and‌‌deficient‌‌programming.‌‌To‌‌  
manage‌‌this‌‌risk,‌‌O cwen‌‌tried‌‌m anual‌‌workarounds,‌‌but‌‌they‌‌often‌‌failed‌‌to‌‌c orrect‌‌inaccuracies‌‌  
and‌‌produced‌‌s till‌‌m ore‌‌errors.‌‌O cwen‌‌then‌‌used‌‌this‌‌faulty‌‌information‌‌to‌‌s ervice‌‌borrowers’‌‌  
loans.‌‌In‌‌2014,‌‌O cwen’s‌‌head‌‌of‌‌s ervicing‌‌described‌‌its‌‌s ystem‌‌as‌‌“ridiculous”‌‌and‌‌a‌‌“train‌‌
 
wreck.”‌  ‌
● ‌Illegally‌‌foreclosed‌‌on‌‌homeowners:‌‌O cwen‌‌has‌‌long‌‌touted‌‌its‌‌ability‌‌to‌‌s ervice‌‌and‌‌m odify‌‌  
loans‌‌for‌‌troubled‌‌borrowers.‌‌But‌‌allegedly,‌‌O cwen‌‌has‌‌failed‌‌to‌‌deliver‌‌required‌‌foreclosure‌‌  
protections.‌‌As‌‌a‌‌result,‌‌the‌‌Bureau‌‌alleges‌‌that‌‌O cwen‌‌has‌‌wrongfully‌‌initiated‌‌foreclosure‌‌  
proceedings‌‌on‌‌at‌‌least‌‌1,000‌‌people,‌‌and‌‌has‌‌wrongfully‌‌held‌‌foreclosure‌‌s ales.‌‌Among‌‌other‌‌  
illegal‌‌practices,‌‌O cwen‌‌has‌‌initiated‌‌the‌‌foreclosure‌‌process‌‌before‌‌c ompleting‌‌a‌‌review‌‌of‌‌  
borrowers’‌‌loss‌‌m itigation‌‌applications.‌‌In‌‌other‌‌instances,‌‌O cwen‌‌has‌‌asked‌‌borrowers‌‌to‌‌s ubmit‌‌  
additional‌‌information‌‌within‌‌30‌‌days,‌‌but‌‌foreclosed‌‌on‌‌the‌‌borrowers‌‌before‌‌the‌‌deadline.‌‌O cwen‌‌  
has‌‌also‌‌foreclosed‌‌on‌‌borrowers‌‌who‌‌were‌‌fulfilling‌‌their‌‌obligations‌‌under‌‌a‌‌loss‌‌m itigation‌‌  
agreement.‌  ‌
● Failed‌‌to‌‌c redit‌‌borrowers’‌‌payments:‌‌O cwen‌‌has‌‌allegedly‌‌failed‌‌to‌‌appropriately‌‌c redit‌‌payments‌‌  
made‌‌by‌‌numerous‌‌borrowers.‌‌O cwen‌‌has‌‌also‌‌failed‌‌to‌‌s end‌‌borrowers‌‌accurate‌‌periodic‌‌  
statements‌‌detailing‌‌the‌‌amount‌‌due,‌‌how‌‌payments‌‌were‌‌applied,‌‌total‌‌payments‌‌received,‌‌and‌‌  
other‌‌information.‌‌O cwen‌‌has‌‌also‌‌failed‌‌to‌‌c orrect‌‌billing‌‌and‌‌payment‌‌errors.‌  ‌
● Botched‌‌escrow‌‌accounts:‌‌O cwen‌‌m anages‌‌escrow‌‌accounts‌‌for‌‌over‌‌75‌‌percent‌‌of‌‌the‌‌loans‌‌it‌‌  
services.‌‌O cwen‌‌has‌‌allegedly‌‌botched‌‌basic‌‌tasks‌‌in‌‌m anaging‌‌these‌‌borrower‌‌accounts.‌‌  
Because‌‌of‌‌s ystem‌‌breakdowns‌‌and‌‌an‌‌over-reliance‌‌on‌‌m anually‌‌entering‌‌information,‌‌O cwen‌‌  
has‌‌allegedly‌‌failed‌‌to‌‌c onduct‌‌escrow‌‌analyses‌‌and‌‌s ent‌‌s ome‌‌borrowers’‌‌escrow‌‌s tatements‌‌  
late‌‌or‌‌not‌‌at‌‌all.‌‌O cwen‌‌also‌‌allegedly‌‌failed‌‌to‌‌properly‌‌account‌‌for‌‌and‌‌apply‌‌payments‌‌by‌‌ 
borrowers‌‌to‌‌address‌‌escrow‌‌s hortages,‌‌s uch‌‌as‌‌c hanges‌‌in‌‌the‌‌account‌‌when‌‌property‌‌taxes‌‌go‌‌  
up.‌‌O ne‌‌result‌‌of‌‌this‌‌failure‌‌has‌‌been‌‌that‌‌s ome‌‌borrowers‌‌have‌‌paid‌‌inaccurate‌‌amounts.‌  ‌
● Mishandled‌‌hazard‌‌insurance:‌‌If‌‌a‌‌s ervicer‌‌administers‌‌an‌‌escrow‌‌account‌‌for‌‌a‌‌borrower,‌‌a‌‌  
servicer‌‌m ust‌‌m ake‌‌timely‌‌insurance‌‌and/or‌‌tax‌‌payments‌‌on‌‌behalf‌‌of‌‌the‌‌borrower.‌‌O cwen,‌‌  
however,‌‌has‌‌allegedly‌‌failed‌‌to‌‌m ake‌‌timely‌‌insurance‌‌payments‌‌to‌‌pay‌‌for‌‌borrowers’‌‌home‌‌  
insurance‌‌premiums.‌‌O cwen’s‌‌failures‌‌led‌‌to‌‌the‌‌lapse‌‌of‌‌homeowners’‌‌insurance‌‌c overage‌‌for‌‌  
more‌‌than‌‌10,000‌‌borrowers.‌‌Some‌‌borrowers‌‌were‌‌pushed‌‌into‌‌force-placed‌‌insurance.‌  ‌
● Bungled‌‌borrowers’‌‌private‌‌m ortgage‌‌insurance:‌‌O cwen‌‌allegedly‌‌failed‌‌to‌‌c ancel‌‌borrowers’‌‌  
private‌‌m ortgage‌‌insurance,‌‌or‌‌PMI,‌‌in‌‌a‌‌timely‌‌way,‌‌c ausing‌‌c onsumers‌‌to‌‌overpay.‌‌G enerally,‌‌  
borrowers‌‌m ust‌‌purchase‌‌PMI‌‌when‌‌they‌‌obtain‌‌a‌‌m ortgage‌‌with‌‌a‌‌down‌‌payment‌‌of‌‌less‌‌than‌‌20‌‌  
percent,‌‌or‌‌when‌‌they‌‌refinance‌‌their‌‌m ortgage‌‌with‌‌less‌‌than‌‌20‌‌percent‌‌equity‌‌in‌‌their‌‌property.‌‌  
Servicers‌‌m ust‌‌end‌‌a‌‌borrower’s‌‌requirement‌‌to‌‌pay‌‌PMI‌‌when‌‌the‌‌principal‌‌balance‌‌of‌‌the‌‌  
mortgage‌‌reaches‌‌78‌‌percent‌‌of‌‌the‌‌property’s‌‌original‌‌v alue.‌‌Since‌‌2014,‌‌O cwen‌‌has‌‌failed‌‌to‌‌  
end‌‌borrowers’‌‌PMI‌‌on‌‌time‌‌after‌‌learning‌‌information‌‌in‌‌its‌‌REALServicing‌‌s ystem‌‌was‌‌unreliable‌‌  
or‌‌m issing‌‌altogether.‌‌O cwen‌‌ultimately‌‌overcharged‌‌borrowers‌‌about‌‌$1.2‌‌m illion‌‌for‌‌PMI‌‌  
premiums,‌‌and‌‌refunded‌‌this‌‌m oney‌‌only‌‌after‌‌the‌‌fact.‌  ‌
● Deceptively‌‌s igned‌‌up‌‌and‌‌c harged‌‌borrowers‌‌for‌‌add-on‌‌products:‌‌When‌‌s ervicing‌‌borrowers’‌‌  
mortgage‌‌loans,‌‌O cwen‌‌allegedly‌‌enrolled‌‌s ome‌‌c onsumers‌‌in‌‌add-on‌‌products‌‌through‌‌  
deceptive‌‌s olicitations‌‌and‌‌without‌‌their‌‌c onsent.‌‌O cwen‌‌then‌‌billed‌‌and‌‌c ollected‌‌payments‌‌from‌‌  
these‌‌c onsumers.‌  ‌

57‌  ‌
 ‌
● Failed‌‌to‌‌assist‌‌heirs‌‌s eeking‌‌foreclosure‌‌alternatives:‌‌O cwen‌‌allegedly‌‌m ishandled‌‌accounts‌‌for‌‌  
successors-in-interest,‌‌or‌‌heirs,‌‌to‌‌a‌‌deceased‌‌borrower.‌‌These‌‌c onsumers‌‌included‌‌widows,‌‌  
children,‌‌and‌‌other‌‌relatives.‌‌As‌‌a‌‌result,‌‌O cwen‌‌failed‌‌to‌‌properly‌‌recognize‌‌individuals‌‌as‌‌heirs,‌‌  
and‌‌thereby‌‌denied‌‌assistance‌‌to‌‌help‌‌avoid‌‌foreclosure.‌‌In‌‌s ome‌‌instances,‌‌O cwen‌‌foreclosed‌‌  
on‌‌individuals‌‌who‌‌m ay‌‌have‌‌been‌‌eligible‌‌to‌‌s ave‌‌these‌‌homes‌‌through‌‌a‌‌loan‌‌m odification‌‌or‌‌  
other‌‌loss‌‌m itigation‌‌option.‌  ‌
● ‌Failed‌‌to‌‌adequately‌‌investigate‌‌and‌‌respond‌‌to‌‌borrower‌‌c omplaints:‌‌If‌‌an‌‌error‌‌is‌‌m ade‌‌in‌‌the‌‌  
servicing‌‌of‌‌a‌‌m ortgage‌‌loan,‌‌a‌‌s ervicer‌‌m ust‌‌generally‌‌either‌‌c orrect‌‌the‌‌error‌‌identified‌‌by‌‌the‌‌  
borrower,‌‌c alled‌‌a‌‌notice‌‌of‌‌error,‌‌or‌‌investigate‌‌the‌‌alleged‌‌error.‌‌Since‌‌2014,‌‌O cwen‌‌has‌‌  
allegedly‌‌routinely‌‌failed‌‌to‌‌properly‌‌acknowledge‌‌and‌‌investigate‌‌c omplaints,‌‌or‌‌m ake‌‌necessary‌‌  
corrections.‌‌O cwen‌‌c hanged‌‌its‌‌policy‌‌in‌‌April‌‌2015‌‌to‌‌address‌‌the‌‌difficulty‌‌its‌‌c all‌‌c enter‌‌had‌‌in‌‌  
recognizing‌‌and‌‌escalating‌‌c omplaints,‌‌but‌‌these‌‌c hanges‌‌fell‌‌s hort.‌‌Under‌‌its‌‌new‌‌policy,‌‌  
borrowers‌‌s till‌‌have‌‌to‌‌c omplain‌‌at‌‌least‌‌five‌‌times‌‌in‌‌nine‌‌days‌‌before‌‌O cwen‌‌automatically‌‌  
escalates‌‌their‌‌c omplaint‌‌to‌‌be‌‌resolved.‌‌Since‌‌April‌‌2015,‌‌O cwen‌‌has‌‌received‌‌m ore‌‌than‌‌  
580,000‌‌notices‌‌of‌‌error‌‌and‌‌c omplaints‌‌from‌‌m ore‌‌than‌‌300,000‌‌different‌‌borrowers.‌  ‌
● ‌Failed‌‌to‌‌provide‌‌c omplete‌‌and‌‌accurate‌‌loan‌‌information‌‌to‌‌new‌‌s ervicers:‌‌O cwen‌‌has‌‌allegedly‌‌  
failed‌‌to‌‌include‌‌c omplete‌‌and‌‌accurate‌‌borrower‌‌information‌‌when‌‌it‌‌s old‌‌its‌‌rights‌‌to‌‌s ervice‌‌  
thousands‌‌of‌‌loans‌‌to‌‌new‌‌m ortgage‌‌s ervicers.‌‌This‌‌has‌‌hampered‌‌the‌‌new‌‌s ervicers’‌‌efforts‌‌to‌‌  
comply‌‌with‌‌laws‌‌and‌‌investor‌‌guidelines.‌  ‌
 ‌
The‌‌Bureau‌‌also‌‌alleges‌‌that‌‌O cwen‌‌has‌‌failed‌‌to‌‌remediate‌‌borrowers‌‌for‌‌the‌‌harm‌‌it‌‌has‌‌c aused,‌‌  
including‌‌the‌‌problems‌‌it‌‌has‌‌c reated‌‌for‌‌s truggling‌‌borrowers‌‌who‌‌were‌‌in‌‌default‌‌on‌‌their‌‌loans‌‌or‌‌who‌‌
 
had‌‌filed‌‌for‌‌bankruptcy.‌‌For‌‌these‌‌groups‌‌of‌‌borrowers,‌‌O cwen’s‌‌s ervicing‌‌errors‌‌have‌‌been‌‌particularly‌‌  
costly.‌  ‌
 ‌
Through‌‌its‌‌c omplaint,‌‌filed‌‌in‌‌federal‌‌district‌‌c ourt‌‌for‌‌the‌‌Southern‌‌District‌‌of‌‌Florida,‌‌the‌‌CFPB‌‌s eeks‌‌a‌‌
 
court‌‌order‌‌requiring‌‌O cwen‌‌to‌‌follow‌‌m ortgage‌‌s ervicing‌‌law,‌‌provide‌‌relief‌‌for‌‌c onsumers,‌‌and‌‌pay‌‌  
penalties.‌‌The‌‌c omplaint‌‌is‌‌not‌‌a‌‌finding‌‌or‌‌ruling‌‌that‌‌the‌‌defendants‌‌have‌‌actually‌‌v iolated‌‌the‌‌law.‌  ‌
The‌‌lawsuit‌‌is‌‌available‌‌at:‌‌
   ‌
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/20170420_cfpb_Ocwen-Complaint.pdf‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
The‌‌CFPB‌‌has‌‌ignored‌‌the‌‌c riminal‌‌activity‌‌of‌‌O CWEN‌‌/‌‌PHH‌‌M ortgage.‌ ‌That‌‌not‌‌only‌‌s hould‌‌a‌‌c ivil‌‌s uit‌‌
 
but‌‌a‌‌c riminal‌‌investigation‌‌from‌‌what‌‌the‌‌insiders‌‌have‌‌s tated‌‌s hould‌‌be‌‌immediately‌‌filed‌  ‌
 ‌
The‌‌d efendant’s‌‌a ctions‌‌were‌‌Arbitrary‌‌a nd‌‌Capricious‌‌a bsent‌‌a ‌‌rational‌‌c onnection‌‌b etween‌‌the‌‌facts‌‌found‌‌  
and‌‌the‌‌c hoice’s‌‌m ade,‌‌m ade‌‌c hoices‌‌that‌‌were‌‌n ot‌‌in‌‌a ccordance‌‌with‌‌the‌‌law.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Count‌‌11‌‌   ‌
Civil‌‌Conspiracy,‌‌Theft‌‌by‌‌deceptive‌‌taking‌‌Illegal‌‌Conversion‌‌o f‌‌Real‌‌Estate‌‌    ‌
 ‌
JWG‌ ‌incorporates‌‌h erein‌‌b y‌‌reference‌‌a ll‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a llegations‌‌c ontained‌‌in‌‌the‌‌a bove‌‌Paragraphs‌‌o f‌‌this‌‌
 
Complaint‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌Collusion‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Defendants‌‌to‌‌p revent‌‌JWG‌‌from‌‌the‌‌c hance‌‌a t‌‌the‌‌HAMP‌‌refinance,‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌loan‌‌for‌‌h er‌‌ 
company,‌‌was‌‌d one‌‌with‌‌m alicious,‌‌v iolent,‌‌o ppressive,‌‌fraudulent,‌‌wanton,‌‌o r‌‌g rossly‌‌reckless‌‌intentions.‌‌    ‌
58‌  ‌
 ‌
 ‌
Defendants‌‌Civil‌‌Conspiracy‌‌to‌‌Commit‌‌Tortious‌‌Interference‌‌with‌‌Contractual‌‌Relations‌‌a buse‌‌o f‌‌p rocess,‌‌  
intentional‌‌infliction‌‌o f‌‌e motional‌‌d istress,‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Civil‌‌c onspiracy‌‌to‌‌c ommit‌‌injurious‌‌falsehood‌‌b y‌‌a dvertising‌‌1 5‌‌West‌‌Spring‌‌St‌‌in‌‌the‌‌n ewspaper‌‌for‌‌a ‌‌  
Foreclosure‌‌Sale‌‌that‌‌v iolated‌‌the‌‌Law‌‌a nd‌‌Rules‌‌o f‌‌HAMP.‌‌That‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌h as‌‌a n‌‌a lleged‌‌loan‌‌that‌‌  
Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank‌‌d enies.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌the‌‌foreclosure‌‌n ow‌‌leaves‌‌a ‌‌c loud‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌title‌‌for‌‌life..‌‌One‌‌that‌‌was‌‌illegally,‌‌fraudulently‌‌o ffered‌‌for‌‌  
Sale‌‌b y‌‌BWW‌‌Law‌‌Group,‌‌MCW,‌‌PARKER,‌ ‌SIMON‌‌& ‌‌KOKOLIS‌‌LLC,‌‌‌AND‌‌AKA‌‌Surety‌‌Trustees,‌ ‌a nd‌‌  
OCWEN.‌‌That‌‌the‌‌title‌‌is‌‌riddled‌‌with‌‌d efects‌‌from‌‌Judges,‌‌lawyers‌‌a nd‌‌Banks.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
205.‌‌That‌‌the‌‌a pparent‌‌Conversion‌‌would‌‌b e‌‌for‌‌Personal‌‌Financial‌‌Gain‌‌o f‌‌lawyers,‌‌Servicers‌‌that‌‌h ad‌‌n o‌‌  
Bank‌‌Authority‌‌to‌‌sell‌‌such‌‌p roperty,‌‌a nd‌‌to‌‌COVER‌‌UP‌‌c riminal‌‌a ctivity‌‌a s‌‌e stablished‌‌in‌‌The‌‌2 013‌‌– ‌‌2 014‌‌  
Consent‌‌Order‌‌b y‌‌OCWEN‌‌where‌‌it‌‌is‌‌c alled‌‌to‌‌Cease‌‌a nd‌‌Desist‌‌from‌‌c riminal‌‌fraudulent‌‌v iolations‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌  
CFPB.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌a ll‌‌k nowledgeable‌‌ACTS‌‌a nd‌‌ACTIONS‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌Defendants‌‌a nd‌‌o thers‌‌were‌‌for‌‌d eceptive,‌‌m alicious‌‌  
acts‌‌for‌‌illegal‌‌taking‌‌o f‌‌Real‌‌Estate.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Defendants‌‌were‌‌in‌‌c ollusion‌‌o f‌‌c ivil‌‌c onspiracy‌‌to‌‌intentionally‌‌inflict‌‌e motional‌‌d istress.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Count‌‌1 2‌‌    ‌
18‌‌U.S.‌‌Code‌‌§ ‌‌6 66‌‌– ‌ ‌Theft‌‌o r‌‌bribery‌‌c oncerning‌‌programs‌‌r eceiving‌‌Federal‌‌funds‌‌    ‌
 ‌
JWG‌ ‌incorporates‌‌h erein‌‌b y‌‌reference‌‌a ll‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a llegations‌‌c ontained‌‌in‌‌the‌‌a bove‌‌Paragraphs‌‌o f‌‌this‌‌  
Complaint‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌c lients‌‌o f‌‌OCWEN‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌a ka‌‌LaSalle‌‌Bank,‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌a ll‌‌received‌‌b y‌‌a ppearance‌‌m onies‌‌  
in‌‌b ail‌‌o uts,‌‌while‌‌p aying‌‌in‌‌the‌‌Billions‌‌to‌‌the‌‌DOJ‌‌for‌‌e xecutives‌‌to‌‌n ot‌‌g o‌‌to‌‌jail.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
That‌‌indirectly‌‌o r‌‌d irectly‌‌through‌‌c lients‌‌h ave‌‌received‌‌Federal‌‌Funds‌‌b y‌‌a ll‌‌a ppearances.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
‌That‌‌p ayday’s‌‌to‌‌Lawyers‌‌a re‌‌e nsured‌‌p rior‌‌to‌‌a nyone‌‌e lse‌‌b eing‌‌p aid‌‌in‌‌the‌‌scheme‌‌a nd‌‌3 3‌‌a rtifice‌‌o f‌‌fraud‌‌  
on‌‌h omeowners‌‌a s‌‌Lawyers‌‌a nd‌‌a s‌‌Trustees‌‌    ‌
 ‌
‌Count‌‌1 3‌‌
   ‌
‌Sarbanes‌‌– ‌‌O xley‌‌Act‌‌    ‌
 ‌
JWG‌‌incorporates‌‌h erein‌‌b y‌‌reference‌‌a ll‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a llegations‌‌c ontained‌‌in‌‌the‌‌a bove‌‌Paragraphs‌‌o f‌‌this‌‌  
Complaint‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌OCWEN‌‌a nd‌‌their‌‌lawyers‌‌h ad‌‌a ‌‌responsibility‌‌to‌‌a ct‌‌in‌‌a ‌‌timely‌‌m anner‌‌that‌‌information‌‌that‌‌Plaintiff‌‌  
has‌‌requested‌‌since‌‌2 012‌‌Plaintiff‌‌h as‌‌still‌‌to‌‌this‌‌d ate‌‌n ot‌‌received.‌‌    ‌
 ‌

59‌  ‌
 ‌
The‌‌“ Corporate‌‌a nd‌‌Auditing‌‌Accountability,‌‌Responsibility,‌‌a nd‌‌Transparency‌‌Act:‌‌that‌‌set‌‌n ew‌‌United‌‌  
States‌‌Federal‌‌Law‌‌that‌‌e xpanded‌‌requirements‌‌for‌‌a ll‌‌U.S.‌‌Public‌‌c ompany‌‌b oards,‌‌m anagement‌‌a nd‌‌p ublic‌‌  
accounting‌‌firms.‌‌There‌‌a re‌‌a lso‌‌a ‌‌n umber‌‌o f‌‌p rovisions‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a ct‌‌that‌‌a lso‌‌a pply‌‌to‌‌p rivately‌‌h eld‌‌
 
companies.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌JWG‌ ‌b elieves‌‌u nder‌‌this‌‌a ct‌‌the‌‌a ccounting‌‌o f‌‌OCWEN,‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo,‌‌Bank‌‌o f‌‌America‌‌a nd‌‌o thers‌‌in‌‌  
this‌‌Complaint‌‌failed.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
That‌‌in‌‌o r‌‌a round‌‌Trust‌‌Assignment‌‌Fraud‌‌Letter‌‌to‌‌SEC‌‌,‌‌Posted‌‌o n‌‌July‌‌1 4,‌‌2 010‌‌Which‌‌y ou‌‌c an‌‌see‌‌  
nothing‌‌h as‌‌c hanged‌‌since‌‌h er‌‌suit‌‌was‌‌won.‌‌That‌‌the‌‌a llegations‌‌in‌‌this‌‌suit‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌facts‌‌a re‌‌n o‌‌d ifferent‌‌  
than‌‌what‌‌was‌‌h appening‌‌in‌‌2 010‌‌–    ‌‌ ‌
 ‌
1. OCWEN‌‌was‌‌Ordered‌‌to‌‌Cease‌‌a nd‌‌Desist‌‌in‌‌the‌‌2 014‌‌Consent‌‌Order‌‌b etween‌‌OCWEN‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌  
CFPB‌‌a nd‌‌4 8‌‌o ther‌‌States‌‌    ‌
2. CFPB‌‌in‌‌a ‌‌n ew‌‌Suit‌‌a gainst‌‌OCWEN‌‌a lleges‌‌the‌‌same‌‌c riminal‌‌b ehavior‌‌o f‌‌FRAUD‌‌-‌‌WHEN‌‌DO‌‌  
THE‌‌JUDGES‌‌STAND‌‌UP‌‌AND‌‌SPEAK‌‌OUT‌‌FOR‌‌THE‌‌AMERICAN‌‌CITIZEN?‌‌STOPPING‌‌THE‌‌  
ILLEGAL‌‌ACTS‌‌AND‌‌ACTIONS‌‌OF‌‌THE‌‌SERVICERS,‌‌THE‌‌BANKS‌‌AND‌‌THE‌‌LAWYERS‌‌    ‌
3. The‌‌Banks‌‌were‌‌g iven‌‌Bail‌‌o uts,‌‌the‌‌Servicers‌‌the‌‌o pportunity‌‌to‌‌follow‌‌the‌‌law‌‌a ll‌‌h ave‌‌instead‌‌  
continued‌‌the‌‌c riminal‌‌a ctivity,‌‌Frauds‌‌through‌‌today.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
LYNN‌‌E.‌‌SZYMONIAK,‌‌ESQ.‌‌    ‌
The‌‌Metropolitan,‌‌PH2-05‌‌    ‌
403‌‌South‌‌Sapodilla‌‌Avenue‌‌    ‌
West‌‌Palm‌‌Beach,‌‌Florida‌‌3 3401‌‌    ‌
 ‌
April‌‌1 5,‌‌2 010‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Mary‌‌L.‌‌Schapiro,‌‌Chairman‌‌    ‌
Robert‌‌S.‌‌Khuzami,‌‌Director,‌‌Division‌‌o f‌‌Enforcement‌‌    ‌
Securities‌‌& ‌‌Exchange‌‌Commission‌‌    ‌
100‌‌F‌‌Street,‌‌NE‌‌    ‌
Washington,‌‌D.C.‌‌2 0549‌‌    ‌
enforcement@sec.gov‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Re:‌‌Mortgage-Backed‌‌Trusts‌‌Missing‌‌Critical‌‌Documents‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
Dear‌‌Chairman‌‌Schapiro‌‌a nd‌‌Director‌‌Khuzami:‌‌    ‌
 ‌
This‌‌is‌‌a ‌‌r eport‌‌o f‌‌suspected‌‌fraud‌‌involving‌‌m ortgage-back‌‌securities.‌‌Certain‌‌m ortgage‌‌b acked‌‌trusts‌‌  
have‌‌b een‌‌u sing‌‌forged‌‌a nd‌‌fraudulent‌‌m ortgage‌‌a ssignments‌‌in‌‌foreclosure‌‌a ctions‌‌in‌‌Florida,‌‌a nd‌‌  
throughout‌‌the‌‌United‌‌States.‌‌‌These‌‌a ssignments‌‌a re‌‌m ost‌‌o ften‌‌p roduced‌‌b y‌‌e mployees‌‌o f‌‌Lender‌‌  
Processing‌‌Services,‌‌Inc.,‌‌(“LPS”),‌‌a ‌‌m ortgage‌‌d efault‌‌m anagement‌‌c ompany‌‌located‌‌in‌‌Jacksonville,‌‌FL.‌‌  
LPS‌‌p roduced‌‌several‌‌m illion‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments,‌‌u sing‌‌its‌‌o wn‌‌e mployees‌‌to‌‌sign‌‌a s‌‌if‌‌they‌‌were‌‌  
officers‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌o riginal‌‌lenders‌‌The‌‌fraud‌‌includes:‌‌    ‌
 ‌

60‌  ‌
 ‌
● Mortgage‌‌a ssignments‌‌with‌‌forged‌‌signatures‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌individuals‌‌signing‌‌o n‌‌behalf‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌g rantors,‌‌  
and‌‌forged‌‌signatures‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌witnesses‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌notaries;‌‌    ‌
● Mortgage‌‌a ssignments‌‌with‌‌signatures‌‌o f‌‌individuals‌‌signing‌‌a s‌‌c orporate‌‌o fficers‌‌for‌‌  
corporations‌‌that‌‌never‌‌e mployed‌‌them‌‌in‌‌a ny‌‌such‌‌c apacity;‌‌    ‌
● Mortgage‌‌a ssignments‌‌prepared‌‌a nd‌‌signed‌‌by‌‌individuals‌‌a s‌‌c orporate‌‌o fficers‌‌o f‌‌m ortgage‌‌  
companies‌‌that‌‌had‌‌been‌‌dissolved‌‌by‌‌bankruptcy‌‌y ears‌‌prior‌‌to‌‌the‌‌Assignment;‌‌    ‌
● Mortgage‌‌a ssignments‌‌prepared‌‌with‌‌purported‌‌e ffective‌‌dates‌‌unrelated‌‌to‌‌the‌‌date‌‌o f‌‌a ny‌‌  
actual‌‌o r‌‌a ttempted‌‌transfer‌‌(and‌‌in‌‌the‌‌c ase‌‌o f‌‌trusts,‌‌y ears‌‌a fter‌‌the‌‌c losing‌‌date‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌trusts);‌‌    ‌
● Mortgage‌‌a ssignments‌‌prepared‌‌o n‌‌behalf‌‌o f‌‌g rantors‌‌who‌‌had‌‌never‌‌themselves‌‌a cquired‌‌  
ownership‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌m ortgages‌‌a nd‌‌notes‌‌by‌‌a ‌‌v alid‌‌transfer,‌‌including‌‌numerous‌‌such‌‌a ssignments‌‌  
where‌‌the‌‌g rantor‌‌was‌‌identified‌‌a s‌‌“ Bogus‌‌Assignee‌‌for‌‌Intervening‌‌Assignments‌;”‌‌a nd‌‌    ‌
● Mortgage‌‌a ssignments‌‌notarized‌‌by‌‌notaries‌‌who‌‌never‌‌witnessed‌‌the‌‌signatures‌‌that‌‌they‌‌  
notarized.‌‌Trust‌‌o fficers‌‌used‌‌these‌‌fraudulent‌‌m ortgage‌‌a ssignments‌‌to‌‌c onceal‌‌the‌‌fact‌‌that‌‌the‌‌  
trusts‌‌a re‌‌m issing‌‌c ritical‌‌documents,‌‌namely,‌‌the‌‌m ortgage‌‌a ssignments‌‌that‌‌were‌‌supposed‌‌to‌‌  
have‌‌been‌‌delivered‌‌to‌‌the‌‌trusts‌‌a t‌‌the‌‌inception‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌trust.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
These‌‌trusts‌‌suffered‌‌the‌‌following‌‌e conomic‌‌harm:‌‌    ‌
 ‌
The‌‌Trusts‌‌p aid‌‌substantial‌‌fees‌‌to‌‌the‌‌Trustees‌‌for‌‌Document‌‌Custodial‌‌Services‌‌including‌‌fees‌‌for‌‌o btaining‌‌  
and‌‌retaining‌‌a ‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignment‌‌for‌‌e ach‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌p roperties‌‌in‌‌the‌‌trust.‌‌The‌‌Assignment‌‌was‌‌supposed‌‌  
to‌‌h ave‌‌b een‌‌“ in‌‌recordable‌‌form”‌‌– ‌‌that‌‌is,‌‌legally‌‌sufficient‌‌to‌‌a llow‌‌the‌‌Trustee‌‌to‌‌foreclose‌‌in‌‌the‌‌e vent‌‌o f‌‌  
default.‌‌These‌‌services‌‌were‌‌n ever‌‌p rovided.‌‌In‌‌e ach‌‌trust‌‌identified‌‌h erein,‌‌m any‌‌if‌‌n ot‌‌a ll‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Mortgage‌‌  
Assignments‌‌were‌‌n ever‌‌o btained,‌‌o r‌‌were‌‌o btained‌‌a nd‌‌lost.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Because‌‌the‌‌Assignments‌‌were‌‌n ot‌‌o btained‌‌a nd/or‌‌retained,‌‌the‌‌Trusts‌‌incurred‌‌significant‌‌a dditional‌‌  
expenses:‌‌    ‌
 ‌
i)‌‌‌e ach‌‌Trust‌‌p aid,‌‌a nd‌‌will‌‌c ontinue‌‌to‌‌p ay,‌‌h undreds‌‌o f‌‌thousands‌‌o f‌‌d ollars‌‌in‌‌fees‌‌to‌‌m ortgage‌‌servicers,‌‌  
document‌‌p reparation‌‌c ompanies‌‌a nd‌‌law‌‌firms‌‌to‌‌p repare‌‌a nd‌‌record‌‌“ Replacement‌‌Assignments”‌‌including‌‌  
Assignments‌‌that‌‌were‌‌p repared‌‌with‌‌false‌‌information‌‌regarding‌‌d ates‌‌a nd‌‌signers;‌  ‌
 ‌
‌ii)‌‌e ach‌‌Trust‌‌p aid,‌‌a nd‌‌will‌‌c ontinue‌‌to‌‌p ay,‌‌h undreds‌‌o f‌‌thousands‌‌o f‌‌d ollars‌‌in‌‌fees‌‌to‌‌the‌‌d efault‌‌
 
management‌‌c ompany‌‌a nd‌‌to‌‌law‌‌firms‌‌retained‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌m ortgage‌‌servicing‌‌c ompanies‌‌a nd/or‌‌d efault‌‌  
management‌‌c ompany‌‌(usually,‌‌Lender‌‌Processing‌‌Services)‌‌to‌‌litigate‌‌the‌‌issue‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌standing‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌trust‌‌  
to‌‌file‌‌the‌‌foreclosure‌‌a ction‌‌b ecause‌‌the‌‌Assignment‌‌to‌‌the‌‌Trust‌‌that‌‌e stablished‌‌standing‌‌was‌‌m issing‌‌o r‌‌  
never‌‌o btained.‌‌3 5‌‌In‌‌m any‌‌c ases,‌‌b ecause‌‌the‌‌Assignments‌‌were‌‌n ot‌‌o btained‌‌a nd/or‌‌retained,‌‌the‌‌Trust‌‌  
could‌‌n ot‌‌successfully‌‌foreclose‌‌when‌‌loans‌‌in‌‌the‌‌Trust‌‌d efaulted.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
In‌‌m any‌‌c ases,‌‌where‌‌the‌‌Trust‌‌h as‌‌successfully‌‌foreclosed,‌‌it‌‌h ad‌‌n o‌‌legal‌‌right‌‌to‌‌d o‌‌so‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌Trust‌‌h as‌‌  
been‌‌o r‌‌will‌‌b e‌‌e xposed‌‌to‌‌c laims‌‌for‌‌wrongful‌‌foreclosure‌‌b y‌‌former‌‌h omeowners‌‌a nd‌‌c laims‌‌o f‌‌fraud‌‌b y‌‌  
subsequent‌‌p urchasers.‌‌In‌‌m any‌‌c ases,‌‌where‌‌m ortgage‌‌servicing‌‌c ompanies‌‌o r‌‌law‌‌firms‌‌representing‌‌the‌‌  
Trust‌‌a ttempted‌‌to‌‌c ollect‌‌a mounts‌‌d ue‌‌from‌‌d efaulting‌‌h omeowners‌‌o f‌‌p roperties‌‌in‌‌the‌‌trust,‌‌the‌‌d ebt‌‌  
collection‌‌a ctivities‌‌v iolated‌‌the‌‌Federal‌‌Fair‌‌Debt‌‌Collection‌‌Practices‌‌Act‌‌b ecause‌‌the‌‌Trust‌‌h ad‌‌n o‌‌right‌‌to‌‌  
pursue‌‌c ollection‌‌o r‌‌foreclosure‌‌where‌‌it‌‌lacked‌‌a ‌‌v alid‌‌Assignment.‌‌    ‌
 ‌

61‌  ‌
 ‌
In‌‌m any‌‌c ases,‌‌p articularly‌‌where‌‌the‌‌loan‌‌o riginator‌‌is‌‌a ‌‌m ortgage‌‌c ompany‌‌that‌‌is‌‌n o‌‌longer‌‌in‌‌e xistence,‌‌it‌‌  
may‌‌n ot‌‌b e‌‌p ossible‌‌to‌‌e ver‌‌o btain‌‌a ‌‌v alid‌‌Assignment‌‌to‌‌the‌‌Trust.‌‌Long‌‌a fter‌‌the‌‌Trustees‌‌a nd‌‌Servicers‌‌  
became‌‌a ware‌‌that‌‌c ritical‌‌d ocuments,‌‌the‌‌Assignments,‌‌were‌‌m issing,‌‌the‌‌Trustees‌‌a nd‌‌Servicers‌‌failed‌‌to‌‌  
disclose‌‌that‌‌information‌‌to‌‌the‌‌Certificate‌‌Holders‌‌a nd‌‌to‌‌the‌‌SEC.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Attached‌‌hereto‌‌a re‌‌e xamples‌‌o f‌‌fraudulent‌‌Assignments.‌‌Many‌‌(over‌‌1 00,000)‌‌o f‌‌these‌‌a re‌‌signed‌‌by‌‌  
Linda‌‌G reen.‌‌From‌‌a n‌‌e xamination‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌signatures,‌‌it‌‌is‌‌a pparent‌‌that‌‌m any‌‌different‌‌e mployees‌‌  
signed‌‌the‌‌name‌‌Linda‌‌G reen.‌‌J ob‌‌Titles‌‌a ttributed‌‌to‌‌G reen‌‌include‌‌the‌‌following:‌‌    ‌
 ‌
•‌‌Vice‌‌President,‌‌Loan‌‌Documentation,‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Bank,‌‌N.A.,‌‌successor‌‌b y‌‌m erger‌‌to‌‌Wells‌‌Fargo‌‌Home‌‌  
Mortgage,‌‌Inc.;‌‌    ‌
•‌‌Vice‌‌President,‌‌Mortgage‌‌Electronic‌‌Registration‌‌Systems,‌‌Inc.,‌‌a s‌‌n ominee‌‌for‌‌American‌‌Home‌‌Mortgage‌‌  
Acceptance,‌‌Inc.;‌‌    ‌
•‌‌Vice‌‌President,‌‌American‌‌Home‌‌Mortgage‌‌Servicing‌‌a s‌‌successor-in‌‌interest‌‌to‌‌Option‌‌One‌‌Mortgage‌‌  
Corporation;‌‌•‌‌Vice‌‌President,‌‌Mortgage‌‌Electronic‌‌Registration‌‌Systems,‌‌Inc.,‌‌a s‌‌n ominee‌‌for‌‌American‌‌  
Brokers‌‌Conduit;‌‌    ‌
•‌‌Vice‌‌President‌‌& ‌‌Asst.‌‌Secretary,‌‌American‌‌Home‌‌Mortgage‌‌Servicing,‌‌Inc.,‌‌a s‌‌servicer‌‌for‌‌Ameriquest‌‌  
Mortgage‌‌Corporation;‌‌•‌‌Vice‌‌President,‌‌Option‌‌One‌‌Mortgage‌‌Corporation;‌‌    ‌
•‌‌Vice‌‌President,‌‌Mortgage‌‌Electronic‌‌Registration‌‌Systems,‌‌Inc.,‌‌a s‌‌n ominee‌‌for‌‌HLB‌‌Mortgage;‌‌    ‌
•‌‌Vice‌‌President,‌‌American‌‌Home‌‌Mortgage‌‌Servicing,‌‌Inc.;‌‌    ‌
•‌‌Vice‌‌President,‌‌Mortgage‌‌Electronic‌‌Registration‌‌Systems,‌‌Inc.,‌‌a s‌‌n ominee‌‌for‌‌Family‌‌Lending‌‌Services,‌‌  
Inc.;‌‌
   ‌
•‌‌Vice‌‌President,‌‌American‌‌Home‌‌Mortgage‌‌Servicing,‌‌Inc.‌‌a s‌‌successor-in-interest‌‌to‌‌Option‌‌One‌‌Mortgage‌‌  
Corporation;‌‌    ‌
•‌‌Vice‌‌President,‌‌Argent‌‌Mortgage‌‌Company,‌‌LLC‌‌b y‌‌Citi‌‌Residential‌‌Lending‌‌Inc.,‌‌a ttorney-in-fact;‌‌•‌‌Vice‌‌  
President,‌‌Sand‌‌Canyon‌‌Corporation‌‌f/k/a‌‌Option‌‌One‌‌Mortgage‌‌Corporation;‌‌    ‌
•‌‌Vice‌‌President,‌‌Amtrust‌‌Funsing‌‌(sic)‌‌Services,‌‌Inc.,‌‌b y‌‌American‌‌Home‌‌Mortgage‌‌Servicing,‌‌Inc.‌‌a s‌‌  
Attorney-in‌‌fact;‌‌a nd‌‌    ‌
•‌‌Vice‌‌President,‌‌Seattle‌‌Mortgage‌‌Company.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Other‌‌LPS‌‌e mployees‌‌similarly‌‌u sed‌‌job‌‌m any‌‌d ifferent‌‌job‌‌titles‌‌a nd‌‌c laimed‌‌to‌‌b e‌‌o fficers‌‌o f‌‌m any‌‌  
different‌‌m ortgage‌‌c ompanies‌‌o n‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments.‌‌K orell‌‌H arp‌‌a nd‌‌Tywanna‌‌Thomas‌‌u sed‌‌a ‌‌  
variety‌‌o f‌‌c onflicting‌‌job‌‌titles‌‌o n‌‌Assignments‌‌o f‌‌Mortgages‌‌in‌‌2 008‌‌a nd‌‌2 009,‌‌h olding‌‌themselves‌‌o ut‌‌to‌‌  
be‌‌o fficers‌‌o f‌‌n umerous‌‌d ifferent‌‌b anks‌‌a nd‌‌m ortgage-related‌‌e ntities,‌‌o ften‌‌u sing‌‌n umerous‌‌c onflicting‌‌titles‌‌  
in‌‌the‌‌same‌‌week.‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
Titles‌‌a ttributed‌‌to‌‌K orell‌‌H arp‌‌include‌‌Vice‌‌President‌‌o f‌‌American‌‌H ome‌‌Mortgage‌‌Servicing,‌‌Inc.‌‌a s‌‌  
successor-in-interest‌‌to‌‌Option‌‌One‌‌Mortgage‌‌Corporation;‌‌Vice‌‌President‌‌o f‌‌American‌‌Brokers‌‌Conduit;‌‌  
Vice‌‌President‌‌o f‌‌Argent‌‌Mortgage‌‌Company,‌‌LLC;‌‌a nd‌‌Vice‌‌President‌‌o f‌‌Mortgage‌‌Electronic‌‌Registration‌‌  
Systems,‌‌Inc.‌‌‌Titles‌‌a ttributed‌‌to‌‌Tywanna‌‌Thomas‌‌include‌‌Assistant‌‌Vice‌‌President‌‌o f‌‌O ption‌‌O ne‌‌  
Mortgage‌‌Corporation,‌‌Assistant‌‌Vice‌‌President‌‌o f‌‌American‌‌Home‌‌Mortgage‌‌Servicing,‌‌‌Assistant‌‌Vice‌‌  
President‌‌o f‌‌Mortgage‌‌Electronic‌‌Registration‌‌Systems,‌‌Assistant‌‌v ice‌‌President‌‌o f‌‌Argent‌‌Mortgage‌‌  
Company,‌‌LLC,‌‌Assistant‌‌Vice‌‌President‌‌o f‌‌Deutsche‌‌Bank‌‌National‌‌Trust‌‌Company,‌‌Assistant‌‌Vice‌‌  
President‌‌o f‌‌Sand‌‌Canyon‌‌Corporation‌‌a nd‌‌Assistant‌‌Vice‌‌President‌‌o f‌‌American‌‌Home‌‌Mortgage‌‌  
Acceptance.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
62‌  ‌
 ‌
Regarding‌‌the‌‌Attachments‌‌-‌‌Not‌‌a ttached‌‌for‌‌reference‌‌o nly‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌O NE‌‌– ‌‌DEUTSCHE‌‌BANK‌‌NATIONAL‌‌TRUST‌‌COMPANY‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌AMERICAN‌‌  
HOME‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌ASSETS‌‌TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌One‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌  
EMPLOYEES‌‌p urporting‌‌to‌‌showing‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌American‌‌Home‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assets‌‌Trusts‌‌    ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌TWO‌‌– ‌‌DEUTSCHE‌‌BANK‌‌NATIONAL‌‌TRUST‌‌COMPANY‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌AMERICAN‌‌  
HOME‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌INVESTMENT‌‌TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌Two‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌  
LPS‌‌EMPLOYEES‌‌p urporting‌‌to‌‌showing‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌American‌‌Home‌‌Mortgage‌‌Investment‌‌  
Trusts‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌THREE‌‌– ‌‌DEUTSCHE‌‌BANK‌‌NATIONAL‌‌TRUST‌‌COMPANY‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌HARBORVIEW‌‌  
MORTGAGE‌‌LOAN‌‌TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌Three‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌  
EMPLOYEES‌‌p urporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌HarborView‌‌Mortgage‌‌Loan‌‌Trusts‌‌    ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌FOUR‌‌– ‌‌DEUTSCHE‌‌BANK‌‌NATIONAL‌‌TRUST‌‌COMPANY‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌SOUNDVIEW‌‌  
HOME‌‌LOAN‌‌TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌Four‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌EMPLOYEES‌‌  
purporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌Soundview‌‌Home‌‌Loan‌‌Trusts‌‌    ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌FIVE‌‌– ‌‌DEUTSCHE‌‌BANK‌‌NATIONAL‌‌TRUST‌‌COMPANY‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌AMERIQUEST‌‌  
MORTGAGE‌‌SECURITIES‌‌TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌Five‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌  
EMPLOYEES‌‌p urporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌Ameriquest‌‌Mortgage‌‌Securities‌‌Trusts‌‌    ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌SIX‌‌– ‌‌DEUTSCHE‌‌BANK‌‌NATIONAL‌‌TRUST‌‌COMPANY‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌ARGENT‌‌  
SECURITIES‌‌TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌Six‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌EMPLOYEES‌‌  
purporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌Argent‌‌Securities‌‌Trusts‌‌   ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌SEVEN‌‌– ‌‌DEUTSCHE‌‌BANK‌‌NATIONAL‌‌TRUST‌‌COMPANY‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌GSAA‌‌HOME‌‌  
EQUITY‌‌TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌Seven‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌EMPLOYEES‌‌p urporting‌‌  
to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌GSAA‌‌Home‌‌Equity‌‌Loan‌‌Trusts‌‌    ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌EIGHT‌‌– ‌‌DEUTSCHE‌‌BANK‌‌NATIONAL‌‌TRUST‌‌COMPANY‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌HS1‌‌ASSET‌‌  
SECURITIZATION‌‌TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌Eight‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌EMPLOYEES‌‌  
purporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌HS1‌‌Asset‌‌Securitization‌‌Trusts‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌NINE‌‌– ‌‌DEUTSCHE‌‌BANK‌‌NATIONAL‌‌TRUST‌‌COMPANY‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌IXIS‌‌REAL‌‌  
ESTATE‌‌TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌Nine‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌EMPLOYEES‌‌p urporting‌‌  
to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌Ixis‌‌Real‌‌Estate‌‌Trusts‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌1 0‌‌– ‌‌DEUTSCHE‌‌BANK‌‌NATIONAL‌‌TRUST‌‌COMPANY‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌LONG‌‌BEACH‌‌  
MORTGAGE‌‌TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌Ten‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌EMPLOYEES‌‌  
purporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌Ameriquest‌‌Long‌‌Beach‌‌Mortgage‌‌Trusts‌‌    ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌11‌‌– ‌‌DEUTSCHE‌‌BANK‌‌NATIONAL‌‌TRUST‌‌COMPANY‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌MORGAN‌‌STANLEY‌‌  
ABS‌‌CAPITAL‌‌1 ‌‌TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌Eleven‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌EMPLOYEES‌‌  
purporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌Morgan‌‌Stanley‌‌ABS‌‌Capital‌‌1 ‌‌Trusts‌‌
   ‌
63‌  ‌
 ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌1 2‌‌– ‌‌DEUTSCHE‌‌BANK‌‌NATIONAL‌‌TRUST‌‌COMPANY‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌NOVASTAR‌‌  
MORTGAGE‌‌FUNDING‌‌TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌Twelve‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌  
EMPLOYEES‌‌p urporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌Novastar‌‌Mortgage‌‌Funding‌‌Trusts‌‌    ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌1 3‌‌– ‌‌DEUTSCHE‌‌BANK‌‌NATIONAL‌‌TRUST‌‌CO.‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌SAXON‌‌ASSETS‌‌  
SECURITIES‌‌TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌Thirteen‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌EMPLOYEES‌‌  
purporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌Saxon‌‌Assets‌‌Securities‌‌Trusts‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌1 4‌‌– ‌‌DEUTSCHE‌‌BANK‌‌NATIONAL‌‌TRUST‌‌CO.‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌OTHER‌‌TRUSTS‌‌WITH‌‌  
MISSING‌‌ASSIGNMENTS‌‌Section‌‌Fourteen‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌EMPLOYEES‌‌  
purporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌WAMU‌‌2 005-AR2,‌‌QUEST‌‌2 005-X1‌‌    ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌1 5‌‌– ‌‌DEUTSCHE‌‌BANK‌‌TRUST‌‌CO.‌‌AMERICAS‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌MISCELLANEOUS‌‌TRUSTS‌‌  
Section‌‌Fifteen‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌EMPLOYEES‌‌p urporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌  
mortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to:‌‌MSIX‌‌2 006-1,‌‌MORGAN‌‌STANLEY,‌‌MSAC,‌‌2 007-NC3,‌‌MSHEL‌‌2 007-1,‌‌MSHEL‌‌  
2007-2,‌‌2 007-3,‌‌MERITAGE‌‌2 005-2,‌‌JP‌‌MORGAN‌‌ACQUISITION‌‌TRUST,‌‌IMAC‌‌SECURED‌‌ASSETS‌‌  
CORP,‌‌GSR‌‌MORT.‌‌LOAN‌‌TRUST,‌‌BCAP‌‌LLC‌‌TRUST,‌‌CARRINGTON,‌‌SERIES‌‌2 005‌‌OPT2‌‌    ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌1 6‌‌– ‌‌BANK‌‌OF‌‌NEW‌‌YORK‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌AMERICAN‌‌HOME‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌INVESTMENT‌‌  
TRUST‌‌2 004-4‌‌Section‌‌Sixteen‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌EMPLOYEES‌‌p urporting‌‌  
to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌American‌‌Home‌‌Mortgage‌‌Investment‌‌Trust‌‌2 004-4.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌1 7‌‌– ‌‌CITIBANK,‌‌N.A.‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌AMERICAN‌‌HOME‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌ASSETS‌‌TRUSTS‌‌& ‌‌  
INVESTMENT‌‌TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌Seventeen‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌EMPLOYEES‌‌  
purporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌American‌‌Home‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assets‌‌Trusts.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌1 8‌‌– ‌‌CITIBANK,‌‌N.A.‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌BEAR‌‌STEARNS‌‌ALT-A‌‌TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌Eighteen‌‌  
includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌EMPLOYEES‌‌p urporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌  
Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌ALT-A‌‌Trusts‌‌   ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌1 9‌‌– ‌‌CITIBANK,‌‌N.A.‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌STRUCTURED‌‌ASSET‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌INVESTMENT‌‌  
TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌Nineteen‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌Employees‌‌p urporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌  
mortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌Structured‌‌Asset‌‌Mortgage‌‌Investment‌‌Trusts‌‌    ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌2 0‌‌– ‌‌CITIBANK,‌‌N.A.‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌WAMU‌‌TRUSTS‌‌& ‌‌BNC‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌LOAN‌‌TRUST‌‌  
Section‌‌Twenty‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌Employees‌‌p urporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌  
transferred‌‌to‌‌WAMU‌‌Trusts‌‌a nd‌‌BNC‌‌Mortgage‌‌Loan‌‌Trusts‌‌    ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌2 1‌‌– ‌‌HSBC‌‌BANK,‌‌N.A.‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌DEUTSCHE‌‌ALT-A‌‌& ‌‌ALT-B‌‌SECURITIES‌‌TRUSTS‌‌  
Section‌‌Twenty-One‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌EMPLOYEES‌‌p urporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌  
mortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌Deutsche‌‌Alt-B‌‌Securities‌‌Mortgage‌‌Loan‌‌Trust,‌‌Series‌‌2 006-‌‌AB3;‌‌Deutsche‌‌Alt-A‌‌  
Securities‌‌Mortgage‌‌Loan‌‌Trust,‌‌Series‌‌2 006-AR5‌‌   ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌2 2‌‌– ‌‌HSBC‌‌BANK,‌‌N.A.‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌ACE‌‌SECURITIES‌‌CORP.‌‌HOME‌‌EQUITY‌‌LOAN‌‌  
TRUST;‌‌SG‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌SECURITIES‌‌TRUST,‌‌OPTION‌‌ONE‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌LOAN‌‌TRUST‌‌Section‌‌  
64‌  ‌
 ‌
Twenty-Two‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌EMPLOYEES‌‌p urporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌  
transferred‌‌to‌‌ACE‌‌Securities‌‌Corp.‌‌Home‌‌Equity‌‌Loan‌‌Trust,‌‌Series‌‌2 006-‌‌OP1;‌‌a nd‌‌SG‌‌Mortgage‌‌Securities‌‌  
Trust‌‌Series‌‌2 006‌‌OPT2;‌‌a nd‌‌Option‌‌One‌‌Mortgage‌‌Loan‌‌Trust‌‌Series‌‌2 007-HL1‌‌    ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌2 3‌‌– ‌‌JPMORGAN‌‌CHASE‌‌BANK,‌‌N.A.‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌STRUCTURED‌‌ASSET‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌  
INVESTMENTS‌‌TRUST‌‌Section‌‌Twenty-Three‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌  
EMPLOYEES‌‌p urporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌Structured‌‌Asset‌‌Mortgage‌‌Investments‌‌II,‌‌Inc.,‌‌  
Series‌‌2 006-AR5.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌2 4‌‌– ‌‌LASALLE‌‌BANK,‌‌N.A.‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌MORGAN‌‌STANLEY‌‌& ‌‌BEAR‌‌STEARNS‌‌  
MORTGAGE‌‌LOAN‌‌TRUSTS‌‌& ‌‌OTHERS‌‌Section‌‌Twenty-Four‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌  
by‌‌LPS‌‌Employees‌‌p urporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌Morgan‌‌Stanley‌‌Mortgage‌‌Loan‌‌Trust‌‌  
2006-6AR;‌‌Morgan‌‌Stanley‌‌ABS‌‌Capital‌‌MSAC‌‌2 007-HE6;‌‌Bear‌‌Stearns‌‌Asset-Backed‌‌Securities‌‌1 ,‌‌LLC,‌‌  
Series‌‌2 004-FR3;‌‌Series‌‌2 004-HE;‌‌2 005-‌‌HE9;‌‌2 006-HE2;‌‌2 006-HE7;‌‌2 007-HE1;‌‌Series‌‌2 007-HE5;‌‌Bear‌‌  
Stearns‌‌Asset-Backed‌‌Securities‌‌Trust‌‌2 005-4;‌‌Securitized‌‌Asset‌‌Investment‌‌Loan‌‌Trust,‌‌Series‌‌2 004-7.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌2 5‌‌– ‌‌U.S.‌‌BANK,‌‌N.A.‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌MASTER‌‌TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌Twenty-Five‌‌includes‌‌  
Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌Employees‌‌p urporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌MASTR‌‌  
Adjustable‌‌Rate‌‌Mortgages‌‌Trust‌‌2 006-OA1;‌‌MASTR‌‌Adjustable‌‌Rate‌‌Mortgages‌‌Trust‌‌2 007-1;‌‌MASTR‌‌  
Asset-Backed‌‌Securities‌‌Trust‌‌2 007-HE2‌‌    ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌2 6‌‌– ‌‌U.S.‌‌BANK,‌‌N.A.‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌STRUCTURED‌‌ASSET‌‌INVESTMENT‌‌& ‌‌STRUCTURED‌‌  
ASSET‌‌SECURITIES‌‌TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌Twenty-Six‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌  
Employees‌‌p urporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌Structured‌‌Asset‌‌Investment‌‌& ‌‌Structured‌‌Asset‌‌  
Securities‌‌Trusts,‌‌including‌‌Series‌‌2 005-3,‌‌2 005-10,‌‌2 006‌‌BNC2,‌‌2 006‌‌BNC3‌‌a nd‌‌2 006‌‌BNC6‌‌    ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌2 7‌‌– ‌‌U.S.‌‌BANK,‌‌N.A.‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌MISC.‌‌OTHER‌‌TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌Twenty-Seven‌‌includes‌‌  
Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌Employees‌‌p urporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌American‌‌  
Home‌‌Mortgage‌‌Investment‌‌Trust‌‌2 005-4;‌‌a nd‌‌6 ‌‌GSAA‌‌Home‌‌Equity‌‌Trust‌‌2 006-9‌.   ‌‌ ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌2 8‌‌– ‌‌WELLS‌‌FARGO‌‌BANK‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌ABFC‌‌TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌Twenty-Eight‌‌includes‌‌  
Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌Employees‌‌p urporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌several‌‌  
ABFC‌‌Trusts‌‌    ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌2 9‌‌– ‌‌WELLS‌‌FARGO‌‌BANK‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌MASTR‌‌ASSET-BACKED‌‌SECURITIES‌‌TRUSTS‌‌  
Section‌‌Twenty-Nine‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌Employees‌‌p urporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌  
mortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌MASTR‌‌Asset-Backed‌‌Securities‌‌Trust‌‌2 003-OPT2‌‌a nd‌‌2 005-‌‌OPT1‌‌    ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌3 0‌‌– ‌‌WELLS‌‌FARGO‌‌BANK‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌OPTION‌‌ONE‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌LOAN‌‌TRUSTS‌‌  
Section‌‌Thirty‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌Employees‌‌p urporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌  
transferred‌‌to‌‌o ver‌‌2 5‌‌Option‌‌One‌‌Mortgage‌‌Loan‌‌Trusts‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌3 1‌‌– ‌‌WELLS‌‌FARGO‌‌BANK‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌SECURITIZED‌‌ASSET-BACK‌‌SECURITIES‌‌a nd/or‌‌  
RECEIVABLES‌‌TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌Thirty-One‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌Employees‌‌  
purporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌six‌‌Securitized‌‌Asset-Backed‌‌Receivables‌‌Trusts‌‌   ‌
 ‌
65‌  ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌3 2‌‌– ‌‌WELLS‌‌FARGO‌‌BANK‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌SOUNDVIEW‌‌HOME‌‌LOAN‌‌TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌  
ThirtyTwo‌‌includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌Employees‌‌p urporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌  
transferred‌‌to‌‌four‌‌SoundView‌‌Home‌‌Loan‌‌Trusts‌‌    ‌
 ‌
SECTION‌‌3 3‌‌– ‌‌WELLS‌‌FARGO‌‌BANK‌‌AS‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌MISC.‌‌OTHER‌‌TRUSTS‌‌Section‌‌Thirty-Three‌‌  
includes‌‌Mortgage‌‌Assignments‌‌p repared‌‌b y‌‌LPS‌‌Employees‌‌p urporting‌‌to‌‌show‌‌m ortgages‌‌transferred‌‌to‌‌  
other‌‌trusts‌‌that‌‌u se‌‌U.S.‌‌Bank‌‌a t‌‌Trustee.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Thank‌‌y ou‌‌for‌‌y our‌‌a ttention‌‌to‌‌this‌‌m atter.‌‌While‌‌I‌‌a m‌‌c oncerned‌‌a bout‌‌the‌‌d efrauded‌‌investors,‌‌p articularly‌‌  
the‌‌p ension‌‌funds‌‌that‌‌h ave‌‌invested‌‌in‌‌these‌‌trusts,‌‌I‌‌a m‌‌a lso‌‌c oncerned‌‌a bout‌‌the‌‌h omeowners‌‌who‌‌a re‌‌  
losing‌‌their‌‌h omes‌‌to‌‌b ank/trustees‌‌who‌‌u se‌‌these‌‌Assignments‌‌without‌‌d isclosing‌‌the‌‌issue‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌m issing‌‌  
Trust‌‌d ocuments.‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Yours‌‌truly,‌‌    ‌
 ‌
Lynn‌‌E.‌‌Szymoniak,‌‌Esq.‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
That‌‌the‌‌a bove‌‌letter‌‌further‌‌points‌‌o ut‌‌a nd‌‌shows‌‌that‌‌this‌‌c riminal‌‌a ctivity‌‌has‌‌been‌‌g oing‌‌o n‌‌for‌‌a ‌‌  
long‌‌time.‌‌That‌‌Banks,‌‌the‌‌Servicers‌‌a nd‌‌the‌‌Lawyers‌‌h ave‌‌b een‌‌g iven‌‌c hance‌‌a fter‌‌c hance‌‌to‌‌c lean‌‌u p‌‌their‌‌  
act,‌‌b ut,‌‌find‌‌it‌‌c heaper‌‌to‌‌p ay‌‌o ff‌‌the‌‌Government,‌‌Government‌‌a gencies‌‌who‌‌b y‌‌a ll‌‌a ppearance‌‌take‌‌the‌‌  
money‌‌a nd‌‌p ocket‌‌it‌‌for‌‌p ersonal‌‌u se.‌‌    ‌
‌Count‌‌1 4‌‌
   ‌
‌Title‌‌2 6,‌‌U.S.‌‌Code.‌‌The‌‌Internal‌‌Revenue‌‌Code‌‌(IRC)‌‌    ‌
is‌‌the‌‌body‌‌o f‌‌law‌‌that‌‌c odifies‌‌a ll‌‌federal‌‌tax‌‌laws,‌‌including‌‌income,‌‌e state,‌‌g ift,‌‌e xcise,‌‌a lcohol,‌‌  
tobacco,‌‌a nd‌‌e mployment‌‌taxes.‌‌U.S.‌‌tax‌‌laws‌‌began‌‌to‌‌be‌‌c odified‌‌in‌‌1 874,‌‌but‌‌there‌‌was‌‌no‌‌c entral,‌‌  
comprehensive‌‌source‌‌for‌‌them‌‌a t‌‌that‌‌time‌  ‌

Material‌‌false‌‌c laims‌‌under‌‌SEC‌‌e nforced‌‌1122‌‌AB‌  ‌

26‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌Section‌‌6 1‌‌A‌‌(1),‌‌2 6‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌Section‌‌1 08‌‌(i),‌‌2 6‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌Section‌‌4 51,‌‌2 6‌‌U.S.C.‌‌§ ‌‌Section‌‌
 
1033,‌‌U.S.C‌‌Section‌‌1 .751,‌‌CFR‌‌1 .752,‌‌SEC‌‌Rule‌‌1122‌‌AB‌‌    ‌
Regs.‌‌Sec.‌‌1 .707-3(b)(2)‌‌Disguised‌‌sales‌‌‌o f‌‌property‌‌to‌‌partnership‌  ‌
 ‌
JWG‌‌incorporates‌‌h erein‌‌b y‌‌reference‌‌a ll‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a llegations‌‌c ontained‌‌in‌‌the‌‌a bove‌‌Paragraphs‌‌o f‌‌this‌‌
 
Complaint.‌  ‌
 ‌

CAUSES:‌  ‌

[1]‌‌Disguised‌ ‌Sale‌‌Rule‌‌u nder‌‌the‌‌IRC‌ ‌title‌‌2 6‌ ‌u sed‌‌in‌‌m anipulative‌‌m ethod‌‌a nd‌‌m eans‌‌for‌‌ill‌‌g otten‌‌g ains‌  ‌

[2]‌‌Violations‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Federal‌ ‌rules‌‌o n‌‌p artnerships‌‌a nd‌‌p ass‌‌through‌‌taxable‌‌income‌‌in‌‌a ‌‌c onstructive‌‌

 
liquidation‌  ‌

● where‌‌d enying‌‌the‌‌p ass‌‌through‌‌investor‌‌a ‌‌p roration‌‌d istribution‌ ‌c redited‌‌a s‌‌a ‌‌e arn‌‌o ut‌‌o ver‌‌a ‌‌
 
set‌‌term‌  ‌
● The‌‌m ortgagor‌‌is‌‌a ‌‌p ass‌‌through‌‌for‌‌the‌‌a mounts‌‌b ooked‌‌a t‌‌settlement‌‌a nd‌‌n ot‌‌d isbursement‌  ‌

66‌  ‌
 ‌
● Resulting‌‌in‌‌the‌‌a ttribution‌‌o f‌‌o rdinary‌‌a nd‌‌c ausal‌‌to‌‌c ompelled‌‌a bandonment‌‌u nder‌‌tax‌‌p ayer‌‌
 
form‌‌1 099‌‌A ‌ ‌

[3]‌‌Deceptive‌‌Practices‌ ‌that‌‌succeed‌‌b y‌‌failing‌‌to‌‌p roperly‌‌d isclose‌‌the‌ ‌c orrect‌‌c haracter‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌subject‌‌

 
matter‌‌transaction.‌  ‌

● Whereas‌‌p arties‌‌a re‌‌foreclosing‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌g ood‌‌faith‌‌u nderstanding‌‌o f‌‌d efault‌‌b y‌‌m ortgagor‌‌in‌‌
 
default‌  ‌
● Wherefore‌‌the‌‌g ood‌‌faith‌ ‌u nderstanding‌‌is‌‌lost‌‌u nder‌‌the‌‌d octrine‌‌o f‌‌e xtinguishment‌  ‌
● Where‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌instruments‌‌a re‌‌c ancelled‌‌for‌‌ORDINARY‌‌INCOME‌‌a nd‌‌title‌‌transferred‌‌u nder‌‌  
the‌‌the‌‌instruments‌‌TRANSFER‌‌RIGHTS‌‌IN‌‌THE‌‌PROPERTY‌  ‌
● TRANSFER‌‌IS‌‌AFFIRMED‌‌a t‌‌the‌‌o rigination‌‌the‌‌TRUSTEE‌‌sale‌‌whereby‌‌GRANTEE‌‌p aid‌‌to‌‌  
TRUSTEE‌‌CONSIDERATION‌  ‌
● The‌‌Consideration‌‌is‌‌for‌‌a ‌‌c redit‌‌b ack‌‌from‌‌d ate‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌reversion‌‌[fictitious‌‌foreclosure‌‌]‌‌
 
backdating‌‌o t‌‌the‌‌d ate‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌o rginal‌‌loans‌‌settlement‌  ‌

[4]‌‌For‌‌m aterial‌‌v iolations‌‌b y‌‌way‌‌o f‌‌willful‌‌a voidance‌‌o f‌‌a ‌‌p ass‌‌through‌‌right‌‌a nd‌‌e ntitlement‌‌to‌‌d isclosures‌‌
 
mandated‌‌b y‌‌a ssignment‌‌Pro‌‌Tanto‌  ‌

● Including‌‌life‌‌e state‌ ‌c ontracted‌‌b y‌‌irrevocable‌‌transfers‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌title‌‌for‌‌which‌‌the‌‌m ortgagor‌‌is‌‌

 
TRANSFEROR‌‌u nder‌‌a ‌‌QUALIFIED‌‌INVESTMENT‌  ‌
● Whereas‌‌the‌‌Qualified‌‌Property‌‌is‌‌b y‌‌Transferors‌ ‌h olding‌‌the‌‌reversion‌‌u pon‌‌a ll‌‌p roperties‌‌  
having‌‌b een‌‌a rgued‌‌a nd‌‌a mortized‌‌to‌‌a ‌‌b asis‌‌in‌‌a sset‌‌o f‌‌z ero‌‌
   ‌
● A‌‌sale‌‌for‌‌a ssets‌‌h eld‌‌in‌‌a ‌‌c onstructive‌‌liquidation‌‌a t‌‌z ero‌‌is‌‌taxable‌‌to‌‌the‌‌a ttribution‌‌a s‌‌1 099‌‌
 
A‌‌recipient‌‌treated‌‌a s‌‌o rdinary‌‌a t‌‌time‌‌o f‌‌d isposition‌‌. ‌ ‌

[5]‌‌Material‌‌false‌‌c laims‌‌u nder‌‌SEC‌‌e nforced‌‌1122‌‌AB‌  ‌

● Government‌‌a ctor‌‌withheld‌‌a s‌‌indispensable‌‌p arties‌‌u nder‌‌the‌‌v endors‌‌u nderstanding‌‌h olding‌‌  

in‌‌1122‌‌AB‌  ‌
● Material‌‌false‌‌c laims‌‌m ade‌‌u nder‌‌the‌‌FDCPA‌‌Federal‌‌d ebt‌‌c ollections‌‌p ractices‌‌a ct‌‌u sed‌‌for‌‌
 
assessing‌‌c onsumers‌‌in‌‌c onventional‌‌foreclosures‌  ‌
● Using‌‌the‌‌state‌‌in‌‌the‌‌role‌‌o f‌‌tax‌‌g ather‌‌for‌‌the‌‌IRS‌ ‌to‌‌satisfy‌ ‌state‌‌b udget‌‌liabilities‌  ‌

[6]‌‌Public‌‌sector‌‌e ntering‌‌the‌‌p rivate‌‌side‌‌a nd‌‌v iolating‌‌the‌‌the‌‌taking‌‌p rovisions‌‌a nd‌‌"no‌‌c apitation"‌‌

 
guarantees‌‌a fforded‌‌o n‌‌the‌‌fifth‌‌a nd‌‌fourteenth‌‌a mendments‌  ‌

● DUE‌‌PROCESS‌‌d enied‌‌where‌‌the‌‌trier‌‌o f‌‌fact‌‌is‌‌a ‌‌b eneficial‌‌interest‌‌u nder‌‌a ‌‌NOMINEE‌  ‌

● Whereas‌‌MERS‌ ‌c onceals‌‌the‌‌g overnment‌‌o bligations‌‌o wed‌‌to‌‌its‌‌d epositors‌‌a s‌‌Qualified‌‌  
Investments‌  ‌
● Wherefore‌‌the‌‌title‌‌secured‌‌Qualified‌‌d eposits‌‌levered‌‌a gainst‌‌the‌‌b enefits‌‌p ayable‌‌to‌‌its‌‌state‌‌
 
Municipal‌‌Employees‌‌Retirement‌‌System.‌‌    ‌

[7]‌ ‌Violations‌‌o f‌‌GAAP‌‌a nd‌‌Non‌‌Recognition‌‌Rules‌‌for‌‌final‌‌sale‌‌a ccounting‌‌rule‌‌b arring‌‌a ‌‌subsequent‌‌

 
recovery‌‌o n‌‌a ‌‌d efault‌‌u sing‌‌the‌‌a ccrual‌‌m ethod‌‌o f‌‌a ccounting.‌  ‌

● Whereas‌‌the‌‌c onsumer‌‌is‌‌a ‌‌Mortgagor‌‌for‌‌a ‌‌d ebt‌‌c onverted‌‌into‌‌a ‌‌reversionary‌‌interest‌‌a s‌‌

 
equity‌ ‌a nd‌  ‌

67‌  ‌
 ‌
● Lender‌‌,‌‌lender's‌‌successors‌‌a nd‌‌successor‌‌o f‌‌lender‌‌a re‌‌the‌‌seller‌‌for‌‌title‌‌transferred‌‌into‌‌trust‌‌
 
to‌‌a ‌‌third‌‌p arty‌‌a s‌‌trustee‌ ‌u nder‌‌the‌‌installment‌‌m ethod.‌  ‌
● In‌‌v iolation‌‌o f‌‌IRC‌‌Title‌‌2 6‌‌b y‌‌tax‌‌m atter‌‌p artnerships‌‌to‌‌satisfy‌ ‌third‌‌p arty‌‌a ntecedent‌‌d ebt‌‌
 
assigned‌‌to‌ ‌m ortgagors‌‌p rorated‌‌shares‌‌o f‌‌third‌‌p arty‌ ‌c ommercial‌ ‌o bligations‌‌o wed‌‌a s‌‌  
"receivables‌‌to‌‌o ffshore‌‌financial‌‌institutions.‌  ‌

That‌‌when‌‌O CWEN‌‌Fraudulently‌‌did‌‌the‌‌1 099,‌‌then‌‌sold‌‌the‌‌loan‌‌to‌‌NEWREZ‌‌LLC‌‌it‌‌v iolated‌‌§ ‌‌

 
1.707-3‌‌Disguised‌‌sales‌‌‌o f‌‌property‌‌‌to‌‌partnership‌;‌‌g eneral‌‌r ules‌. ‌ ‌

 ‌
‌Count‌‌1 5‌  ‌
‌2 6‌‌CFR‌‌§ ‌‌1 .707-3‌‌-‌‌Disguised‌‌sales‌‌o f‌‌property‌‌to‌‌partnership;‌‌g eneral‌‌r ules.‌  ‌
‌A‌‌d isguised‌‌sale‌‌Regs.‌‌Sec.‌‌1 .707-3(b)(2)‌  ‌
JWG‌‌incorporates‌‌h erein‌‌b y‌‌reference‌‌a ll‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌a llegations‌‌c ontained‌‌in‌‌the‌‌a bove‌‌Paragraphs‌‌o f‌‌this‌‌  
Complaint.‌  ‌
 ‌
The‌‌p artnership‌‌h as‌‌incurred‌‌o r‌‌is‌‌o bligated‌‌to‌‌incur‌‌d ebt‌‌to‌‌a cquire‌‌the‌‌m oney‌‌o r‌‌o ther‌‌c onsideration‌‌  
necessary‌‌to‌‌p ermit‌‌it‌‌to‌‌m ake‌‌the‌‌transfer,‌‌taking‌‌into‌‌a ccount‌‌the‌‌likelihood‌‌that‌‌the‌‌p artnership‌‌will‌‌b e‌‌a ble‌‌  
to‌‌incur‌‌the‌‌d ebt‌‌(considering‌‌such‌‌factors‌‌a s‌‌whether‌‌a ny‌‌p erson‌‌h as‌‌a greed‌‌to‌‌g uarantee‌‌o r‌‌o therwise‌‌  
assume‌‌p ersonal‌‌responsibility‌‌for‌‌the‌‌d ebt);‌  ‌
 ‌
The‌‌p artnership‌‌h olds‌‌m oney‌‌o r‌‌o ther‌‌liquid‌‌a ssets,‌‌b eyond‌‌the‌‌reasonable‌‌n eeds‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌b usiness,‌‌which‌‌a re‌‌  
expected‌‌to‌‌b e‌‌a vailable‌‌to‌‌m ake‌‌the‌‌transfer‌‌(taking‌‌into‌‌a ccount‌‌the‌‌income‌‌that‌‌will‌‌b e‌‌e arned‌‌from‌‌those‌‌  
assets);‌  ‌
 ‌
Partnership‌‌d istributions,‌‌p artnership‌‌a llocations,‌‌o r‌‌c ontrol‌‌o f‌‌p artnership‌‌o perations‌‌is‌‌d esigned‌‌to‌‌e ffect‌‌a n‌‌  
exchange‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌b urdens‌‌a nd‌‌b enefits‌‌o f‌‌p roperty‌‌o wnership;‌  ‌
 ‌
The‌‌transfer‌‌o f‌‌m oney‌‌o r‌‌o ther‌‌c onsideration‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌p artnership‌‌to‌‌the‌‌p artner‌‌is‌‌d isproportionately‌‌large‌‌in‌‌  
relationship‌‌to‌‌the‌‌p artner's‌‌g eneral‌‌a nd‌‌c ontinuing‌‌interest‌‌in‌‌p artnership‌‌p rofits;or‌  ‌
 ‌
The‌‌p artner‌‌h as‌‌n o‌‌o bligation‌‌to‌‌return‌‌o r‌‌repay‌‌the‌‌m oney‌‌o r‌‌o ther‌‌c onsideration‌‌to‌‌the‌‌p artnership‌‌o r‌‌h as‌‌  
such‌‌a n‌‌o bligation‌‌b ut‌‌it‌‌is‌‌likely‌‌to‌‌b ecome‌‌d ue‌‌a t‌‌such‌‌a ‌‌d istant‌‌p oint‌‌in‌‌the‌‌future‌‌that‌‌the‌‌p resent‌‌v alue‌‌o f‌‌ 
that‌‌o bligation‌‌is‌‌small‌‌in‌‌relation‌‌to‌‌the‌‌a mount‌‌o f‌‌m oney‌‌o r‌‌o ther‌‌c onsideration‌‌transferred‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌  
partnership‌‌to‌‌the‌‌p artner.‌  ‌
 ‌
Caution:‌‌Note‌‌that‌‌the‌‌d isguised‌‌sale‌‌regulations‌‌a pply‌‌to‌‌d eemed‌‌sales‌‌from‌‌the‌‌p artner‌‌to‌‌the‌‌p artnership,‌‌  
from‌‌the‌‌p artnership‌‌to‌‌a ‌‌p artner,‌‌a nd‌‌a mong‌‌the‌‌p artners.‌  ‌
 ‌
KNOW‌‌A‌‌MORTGAGE‌‌FROM‌‌A‌‌DISGUISED‌‌SALE‌  ‌
 ‌
The‌‌p artnership‌‌h as‌‌incurred‌‌o r‌‌is‌‌o bligated‌‌to‌‌incur‌‌d ebt‌‌to‌‌a cquire‌‌the‌‌m oney‌‌o r‌‌o ther‌‌c onsideration‌‌  
necessary‌‌to‌‌p ermit‌‌it‌‌to‌‌m ake‌‌the‌‌transfer,‌‌taking‌‌into‌‌a ccount‌‌the‌‌likelihood‌‌that‌‌the‌‌p artnership‌‌will‌‌b e‌‌a ble‌‌  
to‌‌incur‌‌the‌‌d ebt‌‌(considering‌‌such‌‌factors‌‌a s‌‌whether‌‌a ny‌‌p erson‌‌h as‌‌a greed‌‌to‌‌g uarantee‌‌o r‌‌o therwise‌‌  
assume‌‌p ersonal‌‌responsibility‌‌for‌‌the‌‌d ebt);‌  ‌
 ‌
68‌  ‌
 ‌
The‌‌p artnership‌‌h olds‌‌m oney‌‌o r‌‌o ther‌‌liquid‌‌a ssets,‌‌b eyond‌‌the‌‌reasonable‌‌n eeds‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌b usiness,‌‌which‌‌a re‌‌  
expected‌‌to‌‌b e‌‌a vailable‌‌to‌‌m ake‌‌the‌‌transfer‌‌(taking‌‌into‌‌a ccount‌‌the‌‌income‌‌that‌‌will‌‌b e‌‌e arned‌‌from‌‌those‌‌  
assets);‌  ‌
 ‌
Partnership‌‌d istributions,‌‌p artnership‌‌a llocations,‌‌o r‌‌c ontrol‌‌o f‌‌p artnership‌‌o perations‌‌is‌‌d esigned‌‌to‌‌e ffect‌‌a n‌‌  
exchange‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌b urdens‌‌a nd‌‌b enefits‌‌o f‌‌p roperty‌‌o wnership;‌  ‌
 ‌
The‌‌transfer‌‌o f‌‌m oney‌‌o r‌‌o ther‌‌c onsideration‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌p artnership‌‌to‌‌the‌‌p artner‌‌is‌‌d isproportionately‌‌large‌‌in‌‌  
relationship‌‌to‌‌the‌‌p artner's‌‌g eneral‌‌a nd‌‌c ontinuing‌‌interest‌‌in‌‌p artnership‌‌p rofits;or‌  ‌
The‌‌p artner‌‌h as‌‌n o‌‌o bligation‌‌to‌‌return‌‌o r‌‌repay‌‌the‌‌m oney‌‌o r‌‌o ther‌‌c onsideration‌‌to‌‌the‌‌p artnership‌‌o r‌‌h as‌‌  
such‌‌a n‌‌o bligation‌‌b ut‌‌it‌‌is‌‌likely‌‌to‌‌b ecome‌‌d ue‌‌a t‌‌such‌‌a ‌‌d istant‌‌p oint‌‌in‌‌the‌‌future‌‌that‌‌the‌‌p resent‌‌v alue‌‌o f‌‌  
that‌‌o bligation‌‌is‌‌small‌‌in‌‌relation‌‌to‌‌the‌‌a mount‌‌o f‌‌m oney‌‌o r‌‌o ther‌‌c onsideration‌‌transferred‌‌b y‌‌the‌‌  
partnership‌‌to‌‌the‌‌p artner.‌  ‌
 ‌
Caution:‌‌Note‌‌that‌‌the‌‌d isguised‌‌sale‌‌regulations‌‌a pply‌‌to‌‌d eemed‌‌sales‌‌from‌‌the‌‌p artner‌‌to‌‌the‌‌p artnership,‌‌  
from‌‌the‌‌p artnership‌‌to‌‌a ‌‌p artner,‌‌a nd‌‌a mong‌‌the‌‌p artners.‌  ‌
 ‌
The‌‌following‌‌facts‌‌a nd‌‌c ircumstances‌‌m ay‌‌p rove‌‌the‌‌e xistence‌‌o f‌‌a ‌‌d isguised‌‌sale‌‌(Regs.‌‌Sec.‌‌  
1.707-3(b)(2)):‌  ‌
 ‌
● The‌‌timing‌‌a nd‌‌a mount‌‌o f‌‌a ‌‌subsequent‌‌transfer‌‌a re‌‌d eterminable‌‌with‌‌reasonable‌‌c ertainty‌‌a t‌‌the‌‌  
time‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌e arlier‌‌transfer;‌  ‌
● The‌‌transferor‌‌h as‌‌a ‌‌legally‌‌e nforceable‌‌right‌‌to‌‌the‌‌subsequent‌‌transfer;‌  ‌
● The‌‌p artner's‌‌right‌‌to‌‌receive‌‌the‌‌transfer‌‌o f‌‌m oney‌‌o r‌‌o ther‌‌c onsideration‌‌is‌‌secured‌‌in‌‌a ny‌‌m anner‌‌  
(taking‌‌into‌‌a ccount‌‌the‌‌p eriod‌‌d uring‌‌which‌‌it‌‌is‌‌secured);‌  ‌
● Any‌‌p erson‌‌h as‌‌m ade‌‌o r‌‌is‌‌legally‌‌o bligated‌‌to‌‌m ake‌‌c ontributions‌‌to‌‌the‌‌p artnership‌‌to‌‌p ermit‌‌the‌‌  
partnership‌‌to‌‌m ake‌‌the‌‌transfer‌‌o f‌‌m oney‌‌o r‌‌o ther‌‌c onsideration;‌  ‌
● Any‌‌p erson‌‌h as‌‌loaned‌‌o r‌‌h as‌‌a greed‌‌to‌‌loan‌‌the‌‌p artnership‌‌the‌‌m oney‌‌o r‌‌o ther‌‌c onsideration‌‌  
necessary‌‌to‌‌p ermit‌‌it‌‌to‌‌m ake‌‌the‌‌transfers,‌‌taking‌‌into‌‌a ccount‌‌whether‌‌a ny‌‌such‌‌lending‌‌o bligation‌‌  
is‌‌subject‌‌to‌‌c ontingencies‌‌related‌‌to‌‌the‌‌results‌‌o f‌‌p artnership‌‌o perations;‌  ‌
 ‌
A‌‌Pro‌‌Se‌‌Litigant‌  ‌
 ‌
The‌‌law‌‌is‌‌v ery‌‌c lear‌‌a ‌‌p ro‌‌se‌‌litigant‌‌is‌‌to‌‌b e‌‌g iven‌‌e qual‌‌treatment‌‌if‌‌n ot‌‌special‌‌treatment,‌‌e specially‌‌in‌‌a ‌‌
 
case‌‌where‌‌the‌‌intervening‌‌Person‌‌is‌‌a ‌‌lawyer‌‌a nd‌‌h as‌‌the‌‌financial‌‌a bility‌‌to‌‌b ring‌‌in‌‌a s‌‌m any‌‌p owerful‌‌  
unscrupulous‌‌lawyers‌‌to‌‌d efend‌‌h er‌‌c riminal‌‌a ctions.‌‌    ‌

"Pro‌‌se‌‌p laintiffs‌‌a re‌‌o ften‌‌u nfamiliar‌‌with‌‌the‌‌formalities‌‌o f‌‌p leading‌‌requirements.‌‌Recognizing‌‌this,‌‌the‌‌  

Supreme‌‌Court‌‌h as‌‌instructed‌‌the‌‌d istrict‌‌c ourts‌‌to‌‌c onstrue‌‌p ro‌‌se‌‌c omplaints‌‌liberally‌‌a nd‌‌to‌‌a pply‌‌a ‌‌more‌‌  
flexible‌‌standard‌‌in‌‌d etermining‌‌the‌‌sufficiency‌‌o f‌‌a ‌‌p ro‌‌se‌‌c omplaint‌‌than‌‌they‌‌would‌‌in‌‌reviewing‌‌a ‌‌  
pleading‌‌submitted‌‌b y‌‌c ounsel.‌‌S ee‌‌e .g.,‌‌Hughes‌‌v.‌‌Rowe,‌‌‌4 49‌‌U.S.‌‌5 ,‌‌9 ‌-10,‌‌1 01‌‌S .Ct.‌‌1 73,‌‌1 75-76,‌‌6 6‌‌  
L.Ed.2d‌‌1 63‌‌(1980)‌‌(per‌‌c uriam);‌‌Haines‌‌v.‌‌Kerner,‌‌‌4 04‌‌U.S.‌‌5 19,‌‌5 20‌-21,‌‌9 2‌‌S .Ct.‌‌5 94,‌‌5 95-96,‌‌3 0‌‌L.Ed.2d‌‌  
652‌‌(1972)‌‌(per‌‌c uriam);‌‌see‌‌a lso‌‌Elliott‌‌v.‌‌Bronson,‌‌‌8 72‌‌F.2d‌‌2 0‌,‌‌2 1‌‌(2d‌‌Cir.1989)‌‌(per‌‌c uriam).‌‌In‌‌o rder‌‌to‌‌  
justify‌‌the‌‌d ismissal‌‌o f‌‌a ‌‌p ro‌‌se‌‌c omplaint,‌‌it‌‌must‌‌b e‌‌"‌‌'beyond‌‌d oubt‌‌that‌‌the‌‌p laintiff‌‌c an‌‌p rove‌‌n o‌‌set‌‌o f‌‌
 

69‌  ‌
 ‌
facts‌‌in‌‌support‌‌o f‌‌h is‌‌c laim‌‌which‌‌would‌‌e ntitle‌‌h im‌‌to‌‌relief.'‌‌"‌‌Haines‌‌v.‌‌Kerner,‌‌‌4 04‌‌U.S.‌‌a t‌‌5 21‌,‌‌9 2‌‌S .Ct.‌‌
 
at‌‌5 94‌‌(quoting‌‌Conley‌‌v.‌‌Gibson,‌‌‌3 55‌‌U.S.‌‌4 1,‌‌4 5‌-46,‌‌7 8‌‌S .Ct.‌‌9 9,‌‌1 02,‌‌2 ‌‌L.Ed.2d‌‌8 0‌‌(1957)).‌  ‌
“Fairness‌‌o f‌‌c ourse‌‌requires‌‌a n‌‌a bsence‌‌o f‌‌a ctual‌‌b ias‌‌in‌‌the‌‌trial‌‌o f‌‌c ases.‌‌But‌‌o ur‌‌system‌‌o f‌‌law‌‌has‌‌
 
always‌‌e ndeavored‌‌to‌‌p revent‌‌e ven‌‌the‌‌p robability‌‌o f‌‌unfairness.‌‌“ In‌‌re‌‌Murchinson‌,‌‌3 49‌‌U.S.‌‌1 33,‌‌1 36‌‌  
(1955)”‌  ‌
No‌‌o fficer‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌law‌‌may‌‌set‌‌that‌‌law‌‌a t‌‌d efiance‌‌with‌‌impunity.‌‌All‌‌the‌‌o fficers‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌g overnment‌‌from‌‌the‌‌  
highest‌‌to‌‌the‌‌lowest,‌‌a re‌‌c reatures‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌law,‌‌a nd‌‌a re‌‌b ound‌‌to‌‌o bey‌‌it.”‌‌Butz‌‌v.‌‌Economou‌,‌‌9 8‌‌S .Ct.‌‌2 894‌‌  
(1978);‌‌United‌‌S tates‌‌v.‌‌Lee,‌‌1 06‌‌U.S.‌‌a t‌‌2 20,‌‌1 ‌‌S .Ct.‌‌a t‌‌2 61‌‌(1882)”‌‌“Further‌‌it‌‌is‌‌the‌‌o bligation‌‌o f‌‌e very‌‌
 
Judge‌‌to‌‌h onor,‌‌a bide‌‌b y,‌‌a nd‌‌u phold‌‌n ot‌‌o nly‌‌the‌‌Constitution‌‌a nd‌‌laws‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌S tate,‌‌b ut‌‌they‌‌a re‌‌b ound‌‌b y‌‌ 
the‌‌laws‌‌a nd‌‌Constitution‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌United‌‌S tates‌‌a s‌‌well.”‌‌S tate‌‌c ourts,‌‌like‌‌federal‌‌c ourts,‌‌h ave‌‌a ‌‌ 
constitutional‌‌o bligation‌‌to‌‌safeguard‌‌p ersonal‌‌liberties‌‌a nd‌‌to‌‌u phold‌‌federal‌‌law.”‌‌S tone‌‌v ‌‌Powell,‌‌4 28‌‌US‌‌  
465,‌‌4 83‌‌n ‌‌3 5,‌‌9 6‌‌S .‌‌Ct‌‌3 037,‌‌4 9‌‌L‌‌Ed.‌‌2 d‌‌1 067‌‌(1976)”‌  ‌
 ‌
  ‌ ‌
PRAYER‌‌FOR‌‌RELIEF‌  ‌
 ‌
WHEREFORE,‌‌JWG‌‌requests‌‌that‌‌this‌‌Court:‌  ‌
1. ‌Enter‌‌a n‌‌o rder‌‌o f‌‌e nforcement‌‌o f‌‌stay‌‌o n‌‌a ny‌‌o ther‌‌p roceedings‌‌a gainst‌‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌‌a t‌‌1 5‌‌
 
West‌‌Spring‌‌Street,‌‌Alexandria‌‌Virginia‌‌2 2301‌‌u ntil‌‌further‌‌o rder‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Court.‌  ‌
2. ‌Stay‌‌to‌‌b e‌‌in‌‌e ffect‌‌u ntil‌‌c ompletion‌‌o f‌‌CFPB,‌‌SEC,‌‌FTC,‌‌a nd‌‌o r‌‌DOJ‌‌a nd‌‌FBI‌‌investigation‌‌o f‌‌
 
criminal‌‌a cts‌‌involving‌‌d efendants‌‌in‌‌this‌‌m atter‌‌o r‌‌further‌‌o rder‌‌o f‌‌the‌‌Court,‌  ‌
3. ‌Award‌‌p laintiff‌‌c ompensatory,‌‌p unitive,‌‌x plorie‌‌d amages‌‌a gainst‌‌d efendants‌‌jointly‌‌o f‌‌3 9‌‌m illion‌‌
 
dollars‌‌to‌‌send‌‌a ‌‌strong‌‌m essage‌‌o f‌‌d eterrence‌‌for‌‌this‌‌type‌‌o f‌‌a ttorney‌‌/‌‌trustee‌‌/‌‌b anks‌‌/‌‌servicers‌‌
 
behavior.‌  ‌
4. ‌Award‌‌p laintiff‌‌reasonable‌‌a ttorney‌‌fees‌‌a nd‌‌c osts‌  ‌
5. ‌Grant‌‌to‌‌Plaintiff‌‌such‌‌o ther‌‌a nd‌‌further‌‌relief‌‌a s‌‌The‌‌Honorable‌‌Court‌‌m aking‌‌Justin‌‌Park‌‌p roper‌‌
 
under‌‌the‌‌c ircumstances,‌‌including‌‌b ut‌‌n ot‌‌limited‌‌to‌‌a ppropriate‌‌injunctive‌‌relief‌  ‌
6. ‌Grant‌‌to‌‌o ther‌‌Plaintiffs‌‌All‌‌Rights‌‌they‌‌d esire‌‌to‌‌investigate‌‌for‌‌c ompensation‌‌for‌‌o ther‌‌v ictims‌  ‌
 ‌
JURY‌‌TRIAL‌‌DEMAND‌‌p ursuant‌‌to‌‌the‌‌Seventh‌‌Amendment‌‌to‌‌the‌‌United‌‌States‌‌Constitution‌  ‌
Date‌‌September‌‌11,‌‌2 020‌  ‌
 ‌
Respectfully‌‌submitted‌  ‌
 ‌
Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌  ‌
15‌‌W.‌‌Spring‌‌St.‌‌
   ‌
Alexandria,‌‌VA‌‌2 2301‌  ‌
202-368-7178‌  ‌
70‌  ‌
 ‌
jwgrenadier@gmail.com‌  ‌
 ‌
CERTIFICATION:‌ ‌I‌‌d eclare‌‌u nder‌‌p enalty‌‌a nd‌‌p erjury;‌‌that‌‌NO‌‌a ttorney‌‌h as‌‌p repared‌‌o r‌‌a ssisted‌‌in‌‌the‌‌
 
preparation‌‌o f‌‌this‌‌d ocument.‌ ‌Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌ ‌-‌ ‌Name‌‌o f‌‌Pro‌‌Se‌‌Party‌‌
   ‌
 ‌
Janice‌‌Wolk‌‌Grenadier‌  ‌
September‌‌11,‌‌2 020‌  ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌

71‌  ‌