1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Peter C. Clark 1674 A Pleasant Hill Rd., Pleasant Hill, CA, 94523 (925) 954-8284 In pro per

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION Peter Clark, Plaintiff
) ) Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, ) ) Does 1-100 ) Defendants ) Related Bankruptcy Case # 10-41422 EDJ )
v.

Case # 10-04481 VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT JURY CLAIM AS TO ALL COUNTS EXCEPT DECLARATORY RELIEF
pg. 50 pg. 52 pg. 53 pg. 57 pg. 58 pg. 60 pg. 63 pg. 65 pg. 67 pg. 68 pg. 72

1st CAUSE OF ACTION – FRAUD 2nd CAUSE OF ACTION –VIOLATIONS OF BANKRUPTCY ACT 3rd CAUSE OF ACTION – DECLARATORY RELIEF 4th CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983: DUE PROCESS 5th CAUSE OF ACTION –VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983: UNLAWFUL TAKING 6th CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATIONS OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE §17200 7th CAUSE OF ACTION – MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 8th CAUSE OF ACTION – MALICIOUS ABUSE OF PROCESS 9th CAUSE OF ACTION – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 10th CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATIONS OF 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (c) - RICO ACT 11th CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATIONS OF 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) - RICO ACT

CONTENTS
FACTS Jurisdiction is Proper to this District Court This Case is not the Proper Jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine does Not Apply to This Action Parties and Agency Synopsis of Pre-Petition Events Leading to Post Petition Damaging Acts Post Petition Violations of Federal Authority (Bankruptcy Act) and Due Process Deutsche Refuses to Meet & Confer RE: Abandonment of Asset by Trustee VIOLATIONS OF (Non Bankruptcy) LAW Further Violations of Law The Sheriff Verifies that Service was Deficient Bad Faith Deception, Fraud, and 15 USC 1962e] Ex parte Young; § 28 U.S.C. § 2201/2202; and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Redress Plaintiff Acted In Good Faith And Defendants Have Not Deception and Undue Influence Deutsche’s Pattern of Fraud Constitutes Racketeering Contra Costa Courts and Bankruptcy Court Had No Jurisdiction for Deutsche SUMMATION INDEX OF EXHBITS -12 4 6 8 8 10 14 15 19 33 37 38 40 41 44 45 48 49 51

COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Comes now Plaintiff Peter Clark (herein also “Mr. Clark”) to allege and state the following Verified Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Post Bankruptcy Damages resulting from alleged violations of law that include violations of the Bankruptcy Act; the Fair Lending Act; the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act [15 USC 1962e,(12); (CCP 473(d)) (judgment was and is unwarranted and improper under applicable law, and is in fact void on its face; Business & Professions Code §17200 and BPC 17918; Protection of Tenants in Foreclosure Act of 2009; Bar Rules and Rules of Court); and the Civil Rights Act, Title 42 U.S.C § 1983 under the color of law but in violation thereof, in a pattern of racketeering in violation of the RICO Act by Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Does 1-100 (herein also “Deutsche”). This Verified Amended Complaint is allowed under Rule 15 (a) (1). This document amends the causes of action and updates the pleadings and EXHIBITS related to ongoing alleged violations. FACTS
1)

On or about March 5, 2010, attorneys that alleged they represented Deutsche Bank

National Trust Company (“Deutsche”) alleged without prior notice that Deutsche had foreclosed on Peter Clark’s home three months before, allegedly on November 4th, 2009. Deutsche’s announcement came in the form of Unlawful Detainer Case #CD10-0170 (Contra Costa County) against Mr. Clark and his frail and elderly tenant, Mary Bauer. Deutsche’s action contradicted the statements of IndyMac, the alleged loan servicer (¶¶ 29-49 and 75-96 herein, EXHIBIT B., and ¶¶ 10-11 of the declaration of Peter Clark).), and the evidence indicates was without foundation (¶¶55-67 herein) or the prior Notice required by California law and the Protection of Tenants in Foreclosure Act of 2009 (¶ 31 herein). Deutsche filed said unlawful detainer during the time of the automatic bankruptcy stay in Mr. Clark’s Bankruptcy (filed February 10, 2010) and thus in violation of the Bankruptcy Act (¶¶40-49 herein), as well as § 554 related to the jurisdiction of the case Trustee (¶¶44-45 herein), Deutsche had never before alleged to Mr. Clark that it held any interest in the Note upon which a foreclosure might be based, much less the right to foreclose, nor has it since provided evidence that it held the Note at the time of the alleged foreclosure, purchased the right to foreclose legally, or engaged in due process to take the home, office, and workshop. Deutsceh is then alleged to have prosecute their action in violation of law per CCP §473.
2)

Deutsche is alleged to lack standing to foreclose on or to evict Mr. Clark or his tenants,

or to act in Mr. Clark’s bankruptcy per Federal and State court rulings such as shown by In re
-2-

COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Kang Jin Hwang, 396 B.R. 757 (Bankr. C.D.Cal. 2008 Exhibit K),). (¶88, herein.) Rule 19 requires a joinder with the actual owner to proceed, however the evidence indicates that Mr. Clark is the only one with an actual claim to be the legal owner. Deutsche acted anyway in alleged violation of 11 USC §554 and due process by ex parte actions that were without notice to and outside of the presence of opposing counsel (¶¶ 42-44. herein).. Deutsche is also alleged to be acting in violation of the RICO Act, and the Civil Rights Act, Title 42 U.S.C § 1983 (Due Process- 14th Amendment) ((¶¶ 42-44. herein). resulting in an unlawful taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment as part of an extensive fraud in new and novel claims that began after Plaintiff’s bankruptcy filing, and which thus constitutes post bankruptcy petition claims (¶ ¶50 -104 herein)..
3)

The evidence shows that Defendant and/or agents have also violated the Fair Lending

Act; the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act [15 USC 1962e,(12); False or misleading representations] (¶ 31 and ¶¶113-119, herein).; Business & Professions Code §17200 (¶¶113119, herein).; and BPC 17918 (¶ 31 and ¶¶113-119, herein).; Bar Rules and Rules of Court (¶ 46-47, 62. 88. herein). in prosecuting the litigation that they filed against Mr. Clark and Mary Bauer for the alleged purpose of perpetrating fraud under the color of law in alleged violation of Title 42 U.S.C § 1983) (¶ ¶50 -104 herein). Deutsche is prevented from advancing by collateral estoppels per In Re Foreclosure Cases,” 521 F. Supp. 2d 650, 653 (S.D. Oh. 2007), by the continued federal authority, and for other reasons delineated in part herein as supported in part by EXHIBIT F (¶¶113-119, herein).; filed and attached herewith.
4)

Bank of America recently stopped foreclosures and evictions in all 50 States because of

problems similar to those delineated by the judgment that Deutsche received against them with In Re Foreclosure Cases regarding all fourteen of the foreclosures and evictions that Deutsche attempted in that case (¶¶52-56, herein.), A joint investigation by the attorneys general of every state and the District of Columbia is also affirming the allegations within this Complaint (See EXHIBIT J). Deutsche’s problems related to the Subject Property are many times what Bank of American faces, however.
5)

Deutsche’s actions are alleged to constitute vigilante acts of fraud by a foreign funding

pool that has no rights under California law even their alleged claims to title were true (which is denied) because Deutsche appears to have not complied with Business & Professions Code 17918 by filing a fictitious name statement (See EXHIBIT C, which shows some of the results
-3-

COMPLAINT

and arises under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction as set forth in United Mine Workers v. The Contra Costa Court lacked jurisdiction for Deutsche’s Unlawful Detainer (See ¶149. § 1334. the City of Pleasant Hill. and is alleged to not be operating legally in California per Business and Professions Code 17918.S. and 1988. EXHIBIT D shows that Deutsche may not have federal standing either. a funding pool that is not incorporated. and 1367(a).S. in Map Book 28.S. as shown on the map of Diablo View Gardens. 1985. or authority.R. District Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases arising under 6) Title 11 of the Bankruptcy Act. 1343(a). 1961-1968 (RICO Act) after the federal violations by Deutsche.” Pleasant Hill Road in Pleasant Hill.S.S. Gibbs. State of California. and thus that their larger prize may be tax evasion. Contra Costa County (“Subject Property”).Civ. Jurisdiction for the pendent claims is authorized by F. As said funding pool is alleged to be entirely owned by Deutsche Bank AG. 8) This court has personal jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s primary residence for all times relevant herein in this Federal District at 1674 Unit “A” or Unit “B. As such. 1983.S. without showing standing. 1986. filed 12. -4- COMPLAINT . Deutsche is thus alleged to be using vigilante means to take possession of Plaintiff’s home in violation of due process and federal authority per the Bankruptcy Act. herein). right. Pages 35 and 36. JURISDICTION is Proper to this District Court The U. in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Contra Costa.C.C. 18(a).1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of a diligent search) (¶¶113-119. 7) This case is also brought under State laws related to overlapping issues that form the same case or controversy. Why take such risks? It is alleged that by not incorporating they may avoid having to file tax returns. As Deutsche is not a corporation. its employees risk liability exposure by engaging in the allegedly illegal activities delineated herein. Jurisdiction of this court also arises under 28 U. Germany. 28 U. together with an office and business described as: Lot 2. 1337. there is complete diversity of jurisdiction. secs 1331. Deutsche holds property for Plaintiff in Constructive Trust. and 18 U. which prosecution has caused the federal violations.C. County of Contra Costa. 42 U. March 1946. herein).C. secs. 383 U. 715 (1966).P. an international bank with its headquarters in Frankfurt.

However any litigation related to the debtor that began prior to the involuntary Chapter 7 Conversion of Mr. As a result. Clark’s bankruptcy on or about May 6.S. 9) The case trustee stated a preference to abandon Deutsche’s unlawful detainer case against Mr. of Alan Kilpatrick filed and attached hereto (Attachment ii). said unlawful detainer litigation remains under the jurisdiction of the case trustee until it is removed by an order of the Bankruptcy Court under 11 U. Clark remained the real party at interest (outside of the bankruptcy).S. Federal Judge Jellin signed the Order Converting Chapter 13 Case to a case under Chapter 7 on May 12.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • Deutsche has tacitly admitted to violating 11 U. § 1962 (c) or (d) (RICO Act) after those alleged to be acting in an agency relationship with Deutsche engaged in (pre-petition) Fraud and Constructive Trust... all actions that they allege related to said Summary Judgment Action are void due to their prima facie violations of due process as well as the innumerable triable issues of fact shown by EXHIBIT A. each proof of service of theirs is alleged to constitute mail fraud in independent violations of 18 U. to a Chapter 7 liquidation. 2010 under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.C.S. Said litigation included the unlawful detainer Case NO: CS10-0170 in Contra Costa County and the Summary Judgment Motion that Deutsche filed related thereto. As Deutsche is alleged to have engaged in these acts as part of a larger pattern of fraud. and all acts to move that case taken without Notice and agreement with said Trustee are void by public policy. however the case law cited in ¶49 suggests that an award of damages is still warranted.C. including with their Summary Judgment Motion (See EXHIBIT H). Said Agents in the previous alleged fraud include the “IndyMac Parties” which includes “Indymac” Loan Services and/or “OneWest” Bank. §554 because they have prosecuted their Unlawful Detainer and scheduled numerous hearing without serving the Bankruptcy Trustee.3 Thus. Clark stipulated to allow the filing to continue without refilling because it is fatally flawed for other reasons. § 362 by filing their action against Peter Clark during the time of the automatic bankruptcy stay1.S. May 6. § 554. Deutsche is also alleged to have violated 11 U. but the court has not yet ordered such an action. technically removed the Subject Premises from the trust estate of Peter Clark. Clark’s bankruptcy 2 While the alleged foreclosure of Plaintiff’s home. There is currently no automatic bankruptcy stay in place in Mr. -5- COMPLAINT . 10-41422EJ. 2010 (¶¶40-49 herein). Office.C. Case No. Mr. ruled to convert a bankruptcy proceeding initiated by Peter Clark on February 10. 2010. and Workshop in October or November 2009 (depending on who alleges it).4 1 Mr. Clark from the trust estate to the debtor to defend on his own.C. Clark’s bankruptcy is considered part of the Trust Estate.2 Said Unlawful detainer was under the authority of the Case Trustee since the involuntary Chapter 7 conversion of Mr. which were not considered in the ex parte hearing that provided a poor substitute for due process as shown by the declar. 2010 in In re Peter Carson Clark. 3 The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California on Thursday. regardless of whether it relates to an asset that is part of the trust estate.

Clark’s bankruptcy trust estate. and thus not a “Core Issue” appropriate for an Adversarial Action in the bankruptcy/ In addition. the de facto party at interest. Williams (1936) 13 Cal. unlawful taking of Mr. and violations of due process). and could not even appear on his own behalf. In addition. CIR. Inc. 190. Clark’s home. 346 B.C.R.C. 2002) 10) Deutsche has ignored the authority of the Bankruptcy Trustee over the case by moving forward without notice to the Trustee as is shown by the proofs of service including as shown by EXHIBIT H filed herewith. -6- 25 COMPLAINT . BAP 2006). 194 (9th Cir. which is not part of the Bankruptcy estate.2d 198.2d 689. Catalano v. [Bankruptcy court can only conduct a jury trial in a core proceeding “with the express consent of all parties.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 4 An order lifting or modifying the automatic stay by itself does not constitute a de facto abandonment of the property of the estate. 2006). BAP 2006)Our courts have permitted collateral attacks on judgments based on factors other than the lack of subject matter jurisdiction or the lack of personal jurisdiction.) This Case is not the Proper Jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court 11) This court cannot refer this case to a bankruptcy court under 28 U. [citation]).N. violations of Mr. Oct. 346 B. 06-3658. 201 [court without power to award costs]. the bankruptcy court cannot conduct a jury trial in a non-core proceeding. Procedures under § 554 must be followed before property is legally abandoned.S. Thus Deutsche violated the Bankruptcy Act and Mt. was not a de jure party. it is likely that the current litigation would not be heard prior to the discharge of the bankruptcy. Swycaffer (1955) 44 Cal.R. these are Post Petition damages that did not exist in the time frame for which the Bankruptcy court has jurisdiction.3d 942. Michel v. Further. 2006 U. Bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to annul the stay and impose sanctions for its violation even after the case is dismissed. §157(e). Armstrong (1976) 15 Cal. 693 [default judgment in excess of relief demanded by prayer].” In re Chet Decker. Clark’s civil rights (taking without due process).” (Armstrong v.S.] 12) In addition. “Collateral attack is proper to contest lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction or the granting of relief which the court has no power to grant (Swycaffer v.. § 157(a) or § 157(d) despite violations of the Bankruptcy Act and authority of the Case Trustee because the quirks of the application of bankruptcy law cause the Subject Premises to be classified outside of Mr.3d 682 (9th Cir. however case law shows that this does not eliminate damages claims against the violators In re Johnson.J.S.” 28 U. By doing so they proceeded without opposition because Mr. at *7 (D. Clark’s post petition civil rights such as under the 5th and 14th Amendments. Clark. No. 190. In re Johnson. 194 (9th Cir. 279 F. 950. 23.App. an Before the Chapter 7 conversion Plaintiff stipulated to a removal of the automatic bankruptcy stay related to the Subject Premises. Dist. LEXIS 77091. and/or violations of the RICO Act related thereto are not proper issues for the bankruptcy court. as to do so would have violated the federal authority of the case Trustee.

Clark by posting an alleged Notice to Vacate or otherwise until AFTER Mr. 2010. Clark filed an action against the IndyMac Parties (including OneWest Bank. Mr. which was fatally flawed. 15) Deutsche is alleged to have engaged in the above violations in a pattern of racketeering activity in violation(s) of 18 U.App. 13) Because of the quirks of the law and the timing of actions. Mr. Clark’s home on October 20. would be litigated without the flaws being corrected by proper notice.) 14) In November. 2009. etc. Instead. but not all of the de jure interests of the debtor were. outside of the presence of opposing counsel. 950. Swycaffer (1955) 44 Cal.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 eventuality that eliminates adversarial claims made in the bankruptcy. § 1962 (c) or (d) (RICO Act) after those alleged to be acting in an agency relationship with Deutsche engaged in (pre-petition) Fraud and Constructive Trust. Clark receiving a redress of the breach of -7- COMPLAINT . 201 [court without power to award costs]. and Mr. who alleged that they foreclosed on Mr. and in a way that prevented Mr. [citation]). Williams (1936) 13 Cal.2d 689. However the Contra Costa Courts are alleged to have lacked jurisdiction to try the case as delineated herein: “Collateral attack is proper to contest lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction or the granting of relief which the court has no power to grant (Swycaffer v. Clark’s substantial defenses to be heard or from Mt. this action could not be an adversarial action of the bankruptcy. 693 [default judgment in excess of relief demanded by prayer]. 2009. For these reasons. Clark filed for (Chapter 13) Bankruptcy on February 10. That does not itself create a violation of due process and civil rights. Clark’s home without the due process of a hearing in which Mr.2d 198. Clark stipulated to remove the automatic bankruptcy stay related to the Subject Premises so that Deutsche’s unlawful detainer case against Mr. 16) Mr. it is Deutsche’s violation of the authority of the bankruptcy trustee and due process by their ex parte hearings with Judge Mills (Contra Costa) outside of the presence of opposing counsel to create an order that takes away Mr. Armstrong (1976) 15 Cal. Michel v.S.C.3d 942. Said Agents in the previous alleged fraud include the “IndyMac Parties” which include “Indymac” Loan Services and/or “OneWest” Bank. Clark can provide a defense or appeal which violates due process. Clark. Clark did not list Deutsche in that filing because Deutsche did not make their current claims known to Mr. all litigation involving the debtor was automatically brought within the bankruptcy.” (Armstrong v. Clark desires a jury trial. However Deutsche took advantage of the involuntary conversion of Plaintiff’s bankruptcy to a Chapter 7 liquidation by failing to give notice to the Trustee and thus caused their Summary Judgment to be heard ex parte.

Clark’s only possible redress is to this court. 2008) (¶88. Mr. United States of America. who purchased the Subject Property in or about 1980 and that has been his primary residence for all times relevant herein. particularly the attorneys.the case trustee is. However as the order was made without actual jurisdiction. B. the trustee would have no interest in pursuing an appeal even if he were given notice of the order. it is void.P.C. it is alleged that the liability for Deutsehc’s acts and omissions extends to any individual who has engaged in or facilitated the alleged violations and/or fraud delineated herein. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (herein also “Deutsche”) consists of individuals acting in an agency relationship but not as a corporation or other entity with limited liability. and AGENCY 19) Plaintiff Peter Clark ["Mr. both State and Federal civil procedure requires that said case could not move forward until the real parties at interest are the parties to the suit as is supported in part by In re Kang Jin Hwang.R. California. herein.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 justice by an appeal because Mr. despite the fact that Mr. Mr.).] 17) As Deutsche is alleged to not be the real party at interest as a Plaintiff in the unlawful detainer Case NO: CS10-0170 in Contra Costa County.A. 20) From information and belief. Because the asset is not part of the trust estate. Clark is the real party at interest in his actual ownership and possession of the property. Clark has no standing related to actions of which he is the real party at interest and which will deprive him of his home without due process in an unlawful taking. PARTIES.Cal. 1995) . thus the issues are new and novel. 396 B. Mr. [In re White. Because of the limitation on liability. This is where he raised his children. 186 B. 700 (9th Cir. nor are they being considered in any current case.R. The issues herein have not been adjudicated. Clark"] is a natural person residing at 1674 A Pleasant Hill Road. 757 (Bankr.D. which he has not because of the ongoing violations of notice requirements of due process. Pleasant Hill.Debtor is stayed from appealing an adverse judgment where the action was brought against him. Thus. The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine does Not Apply to This Action 18) As the unlawful detainer litigation is part of the trust estate. and -8- COMPLAINT . Clark is not an actual Party in the litigation. Clark lacks standing to appeal an order that takes his home.

as shown here.S. holds title to the Subject Property as a trustee." The effect of § 2201 is to permit the federal courts to declare the rights of a party suing a state official (or any other party. the liability for the damages extends to the ownership of the company as well. against any adverse party. After a diligent search shown in part by EXHIBIT C filed and attached herewith.C. As a result. Without showing actual evidence. and said courts lack jurisdiction to provide Deutsche with an unlawful detainer judgment for that reason as well as their lack of subject matter jurisdiction delineated elsewhere herein6. As a consequence of Ex parte Young. after reasonable notice and hearing. It is also alleged that because of the structure of German companies. § 2202 states that "Further necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted. where at least some of the liability resides for acts and omissions made in the name of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. for which violations there is no sovereign immunity as supported by Ex parte Young 209 U. a non-entity with no legal standing to sue in California. much less assigning the Note See EXHIBITS R and S regarding the ownership and management of Deutsche Bank AG. as a defacto agent of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. and thus. but for an undisclosed agreement of unknown nature. 123 (1908). not for a trust or entity. However. the evidence indicates that under Business and Professions Code (BPC) 17918. from information and belief without ever receiving. whose attorneys are acting as officers of the court in acts for which Bruce Mills. 22) Said attorneys who allege to represent Deutsche.S. allegedly. 6 The evidence indicates that attorneys who claim to represent Deutsche duped the Honorable Bruce Mills of the Superior Court of Contra Costa into violating due process and federal authority (Bankruptcy Act).1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 management. Deutsche has no standing or right to avail themselves of the courts in California. and * § 28 U.C. 21) Those claiming to represent Deutsche allege the approval of the Comptroller of Currency to operate as a bank in California. they are not protected by the state's sovereign immunity as supported by Ex parte Young. permitting the federal court to take action such as issuing an injunction and holding an official who violates that injunction in contempt -9- COMPLAINT . § 2201 gives federal courts the power "to declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party" and provides that "Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment". This was thought to be more respectful of the states. but this may not be the case. Congress passed two important statutes: * § 28 U. and for which said attorneys have no standing or capacity. he is treated as an individual. if the court declares a statute to be unconstitutional. and the state official still prosecutes someone for violating the statute. allege that Deutsche. nor under Section 1983. then § 2202 takes effect. 2) Because Judge Mills and said agents acted unconstitutionally and in violation of federal law. As Judge Mills Mills had no jurisdiction as a judge of the Superior Court of California and acted outside of his authority as a Judge.S. they allege that they made said Agreement with an entity that was liquidated. but they were created with state officials in mind) without issuing an injunction against the official. no entity of the name of Deutsche was found to be registered to operate under a fictitious name in California at the time of Deutsche’s filing for unlawful detainer. Germany.5 Deutsche is alleged to be wholly foreign owned by Deutsche Bank AG of Frankfurt.

did not obtain the original Note and/or Deed of Trust related to said sub-prime debt. Clark or his elderly tenant. much less transferred it to Deutsche. as delineated herein. from information and belief. Mr. to attain maximum windfall profits from property about which they have no actual. and thus without the right to collect rents or to foreclose. Plaintiff will allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. 26) From information and belief. for a concept related to an entity that does not exist. and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. and they allege that they did not in the EXHIBIT B letter from “Default Escalation Specialist” Claudia Mann to Peter Clark dated November 17. and without apparent legal standing or authority. Indymac FSB was engaged in the wholesale acquisition of sub-prime Notes and Deeds of Trust after 2004 to attain windfall profits during a time of lax enforcement of banking regulations. 2009. before 2008. each of the defendants sued herein was the agent and employee of each of the remaining defendants and was at all relevant times acting within the purpose and scope of such agency and employment to exert rights they have not possessed. but -10- COMPLAINT . They do so by vigilante acts under the color of law but in violation thereof. 24) Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that. 23) Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100. legal. using means that are not supported by law.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 upon which their claims are based. based upon agreements that are alleged to violate law and which should have been recorded but which. secured by a deed of trust. inclusive. from Allstate Lending. and because of the wholesale nature of their actions. claim. Synopsis of Pre-Petition Events Leading to Post Petition Damaging Acts 25) Plaintiff received a residential loan on the Subject Property in or about 2005. if they exist at all have been concealed. at all times herein mentioned. Thus said attorneys allege that Deutsche holds title to the Subject Property as a Trustee in a way that is not legally recognized. and which would have no rights related to the property even if it did. much less to evict. “Indymac FSB” (Federal Savings Bank) alleges that they received an assignment of the Note and Deed of Trust in 2005 but have not provided evidence that they ever receive the actual Note. and which lack of authority is allegedly being investigated by the Attorneys General of all 50 States.

brought in Deutsche as an alleged third party innocent buyer in violation of Title VIII. Said liquidation thus.” 30) It is alleged that OneWest. and any such alleged involvement by Deutsche is denied. 27) The website maintained by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporations (FDIC) states: “On July 11. but at the same time lacked the assets of the (properly assigned) Note and deed of trust. F. OneWest then formed Indymac Loan Services (in or about 2008). the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 15 USC 1962e] (12). FSB have been transferred to OneWest Bank. the new entity thus lacked the right to collect mortgage payments on Notes and Deeds of Trust that it did not legally hold. California. a group of investors created “OneWest” Bank as a holding company to purchase Indymac FSB from the FDIC at a heavy discount. CA "assuming institution") a newly chartered full-service FDIC-insured institution.B. IndyMac Bank. California. FSB. All of this was without notice to Mr. Pasadena.. a new entity that they might allege is free of the liabilities of the past. F. 807. and became unable to continue to make payments on his loan in or about the end of 2008. State law and the Protection of Tenants in Foreclosure Act of 2009 requires 90 Days Notice prior to any unlawful detainer -11- COMPLAINT . Plaintiff thereby attempted to engage in loan modification via the directives of the website that purported to be that of IndyMac FSB (the liquidated company). allegedly. OneWest then liquidated Indymac FSB without first transferring the Notes/Deeds to a new entity as evidenced by the fact that no such transfer was recorded with Contra Costa County. Pasadena. eliminated any alleged secured position that said investors might have alleged in the Subject Property. Clark received no response. Clark engaged the services of ACORN. the new company received the payments without actual right to do so.B.gov › Industry Analysis › Failed Banks) 28) From information and belief. All deposits of IndyMac Federal Bank. 2009. CA was closed by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and the FDIC was named Conservator. 29) Plaintiff was the victim of fraud by others. so Mr.S. realizing their blunder related to the liquidation of IndyMac. the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) completed the sale of IndyMac Federal Bank. who continued to make his mortgage payments in good faith. F.” “On March 19. From information and belief. have been transferred to IndyMac Federal Bank. to OneWest Bank. From information and belief. OneWest Bank. From information and belief. Pasadena.S. FSB. Clark. however Mr.S.” (www.B. who reported success with the (undisclosed) “new owners of IndyMac.. The new entity is also alleged to lack the right or ability to foreclose legally on their deeds of trust. as well as their ability to foreclose. Pasadena. F. 2008. All non-brokered insured deposit accounts and substantially all of the assets of IndyMac Bank. (IndyMac Federal Bank).fdic.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 instead acquired electronic representations thereof.S. FSB is a newly formed federal savings bank organized by IMB HoldCo LLC.B. At no time during the term of the loan was Deutsche involvement disclosed.

33) It is alleged that the reason why OneWest’s attorneys did not transfer the Notes in a way that would allow them to collect on the debt is because transferring the Notes to the new entity would have caused a taxable event proportional to the short term capital gain that resulted from their discounted purchase of the notes weeks before. which petition was involuntarily converted to a Chapter 7 liquidation on or about May 6. OneWest never legally transferred Indymac Bank’s alleged Deeds of Trust to the new entity. OneWest created IndyMac Loan Services for the purpose of servicing allegedly outstanding Notes that do not. (even if IndyMac FSB did previously. it is alleged that to evade federal and State tax liabilities on their alleged liability evasion scheme. ¶13 of Declaration of Peter Clark. 32) From information and belief. and thus did not have the legal standing to foreclose on said Note or to pass on rights that IndyMac did not possess to Deuteche. which does not appear to be the case (See ¶¶ 53-64 herein). however the evidence indicates that they did not do so. Clark’s bankruptcy. 2010 during the time of the automatic bankruptcy stay in Mr. 31) The Indymac Parties (OneWest and Indymac Loan Services) are Defendants in litigation in Contra Costa County (Case No CS09-03261 that must remain separate from the current litigation for the following reasons: A. is the fact that OneWest/ IndyMac continued to make “false or misleading representations” (in violation of Title 15. which is denied). however. and Plaintiff was not aware of this “bait-and-switch” until Deutsche filed an unlawful detainer action against Plaintiff on or about March 5. That litigation is thus the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Trustee.) IndyMac Party alleged fraud falls under the jurisdiction of the trustee of the U. 34) Of possibly equal merit. appear to be outstanding because the aforementioned evidence indicates that Indymac FSB never legally transferred the Note or Deed of Trust to Indymac Loan Services prior to OneWest Bank liquidating IndyMac FSB even if IndyMac FSB ever possessed the actual Note (rather than merely an electronic representation). Bankruptcy Court because it occurred prior to Plaintiff’s filing for Bankruptcy Protection. Indymac Loan Services. Chapter 41 Subchapter V §1692) -12- COMPLAINT . Defendants were required to provide a Notice to Quit that would have disclosed their identity. Attachment iii]. It is thus alleged that Indymac Loan Services never actually possessed the Note on the Subject Property. 2010. in fact.S.) The causes of action are different B. Thus.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 action against tenants such as Mary Bauer (60 Days under State Law.

This is the same Note and Deed of Trust that Deutsche is now claiming to have held at the same time. but which Deutsche later claimed was instead owned by Deutsche as trustee for an alleged agreement that they have failed to put into evidence in their unlawful detainer but which does not appear to constitute a trust. by their failure of notice related to an alleged Notice to Vacate. The secrecy was maintained. 17). 36) Instead. Attachments i and iii respectively). and/or to evade American taxes on a large portion of the gains of their enterprises. Their outlaw status risks the windfall profits that they are attaining by ignoring the loan modification required by California law (see press release of then Attorney General and now Governor Brown. and that is that name in which they alleged they provided notice of a foreclosure sale of the Subject Property (which Notice was allegedly never sent. Attachments ii. Pg. -13- COMPLAINT .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that they held the Note and Deed of Trust. which is denied. OneWest agents pretended to engage in loan modification while their “Default Escalation Specialists” facilitated foreclosure actions in secret as a key element of alleged fraud (See EXHIBIT B and ¶¶ 10-11 of the declaration of Peter Clark). filed and attached herewith. partnership. and as a result. corporation. and which has become the policy of all major American banks. and iii. to make it difficult for American Citizens to serve Deutsche with process. From information and belief they do so: a. and allegedly never sent. (footnote #10. b. 37) The evidence indicates that other OneWest Attorneys foresaw the problem of Indymac Loan Services foreclosing on a Note that they had been alleging was held by Indymac Federal Bank. 38) Deutsche is not a corporation or other limited liability entity and did not register their fictitious name statement as required by (BPC) 17918. as it was never received by the debtor or the Second Deed holder -see the Declaration of Alan Kilpatrick and Peter Clark.). in part. conspired with Deutsche to act as an alleged “Innocent Buyer” of the now valueless paper in what is alleged to be a form of money laundering in violation of the Fair Credit Practices Act. This act is alleged to have only compounded their alleged tax evasion and other fraud. or anything that could hold legal title to property even if it did legally exist. FSB. which was also never received. (See declarations of Mary Bauer and Peter Clark. 35) Deficient service of Notice is alleged to have additionally invalidated the alleged foreclosure that OneWest at first claimed as making the Subject Property “Real Estate Owned” of One West.

S. Trustee with the Motions and have otherwise violated due process and the authority of the Trustee and/or the Trust Estate and Mr. Section 323 makes the Chapter 7 Trustee the estate's representative. Bankruptcy Code Section 541. and Deutsche filed an unlawful detainer action against Plaintiff less than one month later. page #4. In other words. in prima facie violation of federal law (the Automatic Bankruptcy Stay). Plaintiff stipulated to a lifting of the stay related to the Subject Property.8 41) Deutsche and the Indymac Parties both attempted (independently) to move forward with motions on over a dozen occasions before a half a dozen judges in the Contra Costa Superior Court related to the Subject Property in actions that were now under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Trustee (See footnotes #2-4 and 7-8. however case law suggests that Plaintiff’s doing so did not relieve Deutsche of liability related to their violations of stay. Peter Clark’s Chapter 13 reorganization was involuntarily converted to a Chapter 7 liquidation.C. 40) On or about May 6th. Attachment iii. Attachment iii]. in the current situation. § 5411. which Deutsche greatly compounded by engaging in numerous violations of the authority of the Bankruptcy Trustee and court. Due process would require a delay in any proceedings as a result of this change of attorneys alone.] 7 8 See footnote #2. 2010. 2010. including for purposes of litigation. While the Bankruptcy Trustee has given notice that he would like to abandon the asset. an action that by federal civil procedure would not take effect until 10 days after the order for the Indymac or Deutsche Parties to even schedule a hearing regarding the cases during this period thus violates federal authority and due process. This act placed Mr. Section 704 vests in the Trustee the sole authority to collect and liquidate the estate's property. as delineated further below [Declaration of Peter Clark. This transferred all ongoing litigation to the authority of the case trustee and prevented Mr. on or about March 5th. Title 11 U. One of the immediate issues is the change in attorneys related to the case from Peer Clark to the attorney for the Trust estate. transfers Peter Clark's property to the trust estate. herein).1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Post Petition Violations of Federal Authority and Due Process 39) Plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy (reorganization) on February 10. [Declaration of Peter Clark. conversion of the bankruptcy proceeding to a Chapter 7 liquidation removes Peter Clark as the Defendant and makes the Trust estate the Defendant instead. Mr. Clark informed Deutsch of this. Clark’s right to his “day in court” at a time when he was prevented by federal law from acting on his own behalf. the case exists in a netherworld in which the case is still in federal jurisdiction because the Bankruptcy Court has not yet ordered the Bankruptcy Trustee to abandon the asset. -14- COMPLAINT . Clark from defending himself from the Deutsche’s legal assaults and the Indymac Parties actions. Clark’s recognized assets and pending lawsuits under the authority of the bankruptcy trustee by the authority of the Bankruptcy Act7.S. however the evidence indicates that Deutsche has still not recognized the federal authority of the U.

and willful violations require sanctions. A damages award against Deutshe is thus mandated as supported by extensive case law. or the Bankruptcy Judge must order the Trustee to release the action from the federal jurisdiction. Deutsche engaged in ex parte communication with Judge Mills. The Bankruptcy Court has not yet ordered the abandonment of the litigation. neither of which has occurred. Under 11 USC §554 the bankruptcy judge must order the abandonment of the asset by the case trustee back to Mr. and despite innumerable triable issues of fact. allegedly to confuse local judges. and the case. as is shown by the case law cited in ¶ 49 herein. 2002) [An order lifting or modifying the automatic stay by itself does not constitute a de facto abandonment of the property of the estate. [See declaration of Alan Kilpatrick filed and attached herewith as Attachment ii. the bankruptcy trustee must agree to litigate. Deutsche knew that the problem did not relate to the automatic stay because attorney Frank Ferris provided repeated Amicus Briefs which repeatedly informed them. in a hearing at which the counsel for the Trust Estate was not provided with notice (according to the Proofs of Service). Judge Mills is alleged to have violated federal authority and due process by granting Deutsche’s Summary Judgment motion despite a lack of jurisdiction because of lack of standing. (See footnote #s 2-4 and 7-8. filed and attached herewith). and scheduled a hearing without notice to the Trustee. herein). was under the authority of the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee and not the Debtor.] -15- COMPLAINT . Procedures under § 554 must be followed before property is legally abandoned.] Deutsche cannot claim that their violation of Federal jurisdiction or due process was innocent. of the true issues related to the required order by the bankruptcy court for the Trustee to abandon the litigation. not of the removal of the “automatic” stay. which had already occurred. Lisa Edgar-Dickman. but filed a motion to remove the automatic stay.9 43) Deutsche knew this. Clark had already stipulated to lift. Judge Mills made his alleged ruling after repeated ex parte lobbying by the Deutsche attorneys and then collusion that constituted ex parte communications with the judge outside of the presence of opposing counsel.3d 682 (9th Cir. Before litigation could proceed. Clark. and the courts. Deutsche Refuses to Meet & Confer RE: Abandonment of Asset by Trustee [11 USC §554] 44) Peter Clark’s then bankruptcy attorney. including the cases related thereto. from the trust estate (See Attachment iv. sent notice to all creditors of the intent of the debtor to request a Court Order for the Trustee to Abandon 9 Abandonment is not the same thing as the automatic stay. which Mr.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42) Deutsche’s counsel then admitted to the court in Department 29 that it could not proceed because the asset. See Catalano v. Clark was prevented by federal law from acting in his own defense. and in which Mr. CIR. 279 F.

2010 4:20 PM subject Re: Meet and confer Amy: I am disappointed that you continue to fail to respond to my attempts to meet and confer with you. to meet and confer regarding a stipulation for the Bankruptcy Court to order the case trustee to abandon the asset under 11 USC §554 Instead. an act that greatly irritated the Judge. 2002). An order lifting or modifying the automatic stay by itself does not constitute a de facto abandonment of the property of the estate. the proper action at this juncture is the motion for the Court to compel the Trustee to abandon the asset that my (former) attorney. Peter Clark asked for a meet-and-confer regarding the matter. and if no one objects you submit the order after 21 days. Dickman and I are acting at the request of the attorney for the Chapter 7 Trustee. and continue to refuse. So there is no court date scheduled … The notice was sent to every single creditor and I used the court matrix list. and thus outside of the knowledge.(excerpted from e-mail from Lisa Edgar Dickman to Peter Clark dated July 31. 45) Mr. a request that was moot because there was no stay in place at the time (See ¶9. CIR.com> date Aug 5. as follows: “The motion to abandon I prepared was with a 21 days Notice and Opportunity of Hearing known by BK attorney as a scream or die notice.3d 682 (9th Cir. Mrs.com> to Amy Starrett Deutsch<astarrett@jandalegal. filed and mailed to all of the creditors on my behalf. The following is a transcript of the two messages. Lisa Edgar Dickman. In doing this.hence the scream or die nickname. Procedures under § 554 must be followed before property is legally abandoned. -16- COMPLAINT . sent on August 5. . attempted to meet an confer with the counsel for the Moving Party via e- mail twice to reach an agreement that would relieve the Contra Costa Court.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 Asset10. As you are no doubt aware now. of the burden of a hearing what was improperly scheduled in alleged contempt for Federal authority and in violation of due process. and the Bankruptcy Court. Catalano v. 2010). starting with the most recent. The Trustee agreed to abandon the asset in or about the end of July. even if you were not previously. ¶¶ 41-22. ). and which you no doubt received last month. Please note that the August 13th hearing date that your agents scheduled with Judge Mills in an ex parte appearance before Judge Mills without notice to. much less The Notice was a “shout or die” notice that requires objectors to make their objections known or the asset will be abandoned. 279 F. Which means if someone objects you must call Judge Jellen's clerk and set a court date. however opposing counsel refused to respond. Mrs. Clark. however the Deutsche (and Indymac) Parties refused. The evidence indicates that they did so to confuse the courts. 2010: Peter Clark <2peterclark@gmail. 2010. and footnote #s 2-4. I am further disappointed in your instead attempting to move forward with a motion before the Bankruptcy Court to remove an alleged stay that did not exist. herein. Dickman also sent an e-mai to me explaining how things must proceed prior to further litigation between Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and myself. Deutsche moved the Bankruptcy court for an order to lift the automatic stay under 11 USC §362(a).

it appears. > thus complying with your meet-and-confer requirements. 10 days AFTER the Bankruptcy Court Judge signs the order. please withdraw the hearing scheduled for August 13th from the calendar immediately so that you do not place further unnecessary burdens on the court. > Peter Clark Instead. It was only after the recusal of two judges.com> wrote: > Amy: > I am concerned about your failure to follow legal procedure. Before the 21-day period elapsed. Because of those objections. Deutsche knew this. however the statutory 21-day period had not yet elapsed at the time. 47) In a subsequent hearing the Bankruptcy Judge offered to sign an order for the Trustee to abandon the asset. Deutsche moved the Bankruptcy court for an order to lift the automatic stay under 11 USC §362(a). is also prior to the first time that I could reasonably expect the Bankruptcy Court Judge (Jellin) to sign an order to abandon. > Your local counsel then suggested an approach which differs from what > the attorney for the Chapter 7 told me was the steps that he proposed > that I take. and which I do not believe to be viable for removing the > action from the Chapter 7 Trust Estate. and no new hearing date requested from the court until. Thus. 2010. they were required to at least attempt to settle by stipulation (of the actual issues) after a meet-and-confer. and instead proceeded > with the hearing on June 25 (with my being present solely as a > witness). preventing a stipulation on Deutsche’s (allegedly deceptive) motion. a request that was moot because no stay was in place at the time.com> to Amy Starrett Deutsche <astarrett@jandalegal.com> date Jun 28. 2010 11:03 AM subject Meet and confer On 6/28/10. but the judge did not make the order to abandon the asset because of the objections by the other creditors. which Judge Jellin did. Peter Clark from Peter Clark <2peterclark@gmail. three hours > later on their own that your local counsel finally agreed that your > attempting to move froward was in violation of federal law and > California Civlil Procedure. and because of the failure of the Deutsche and the Indymac Parties to stipulate to the abandonment -17- COMPLAINT . > Also. they angered Bankruptcy Judge Jellin by burdening that court with unnecessary appearances that. please advise me of when you propose to take this action. you have not responded to > my meet-and-confer letter of June 24.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 46) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 presence of opposing counsel. including > regarding the mandatory meet-and confer requirements of both Federal > and State civil procedure. two objections to the abandonment were filed with the court by third parties. by federal Rules of Court). or others that would be involved in your further transparent attempts to violate due process. and. the hearing scheduled for August 13th must be removed from the calendar. In particular. > Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. The evidence indicates that Judge Jellin is required by public policy to sign a “comfort letter” related to the removal of stay. As a result. from my understanding of Federal Rules. Peter Clark <2peterclark@gmail. I thus request that you > provide me with a copy of what you propose to file BEFORE you file it. Thank you in advance for your immediate attention to this matter.

537 (9th Cir. and because the attorney for the bankruptcy Trustee did not file an agreement to abandon with the court (according to the Clerk).3d 346 (9th Cir. The violations of §554 are alleged to be comparable to those related to § 362: In re Stainton. 884 F. one at a time. 988 (9th Cir. 974 F. failure of due process. 232 (9th Cir. Clark did not schedule the hearing yet is because.2d 478 (9th Cir.P. 875 F. Clark’s home at a time when the Attorneys General of all 50 states are now investigating the practice of banks complained about herein. to prevent them from further interference in the orderly administration of the trust estate. 1997) Municipal court judgment may be void for having been entered in violation of bankruptcy stay. 204 B.). VIOLATIONS OF NON-BANKRUPTCY LAW -18- COMPLAINT . In re Conejo Enterprises. Clark is now forced to schedule a hearing on the issue prior to the abandonment. Deutsche is alleged to have violated the Bankruptcy Act in several ways to deny due process to Mr. 139 B.R. 1989) damages for violation .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of the asset. and a breach of justice (See Amicus Brief of Frank Ferris. 117 B. he needs to deal with said objecting alleged creditors. Inc. In re Bloom. 1989) Standard. and at a time when Bank of America stopped ALL foreclosures for one of the reasons present in the current case. no sovereign immunity under 106(a). Deutche attorneys are alleged to have violated Federal Authority of the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee and due process under the color of law and thus in violation of 42 U. court must award debtor all reasonable fees In re Pinkstaff. 1992) IRS liable for damages under 362(h). in an action for which Deutsche had no standing and thus the Contra Costa Court had no actual jurisdiction and for which there was numerous failures of notice. even though he agreed to abandon. aff’d. B. filed and attached hereto as Attachment iv.A.R. 1992) When willful violation found.S. which hearing has not yet been held. B. Mr.2d 224 (9th Cir. In the current case.2d 1341 (9th Cir. Clark regarding Mr.A.damages and interest In re Taylor. 48) Deutsche’s counsel then engaged in ex parte communications with Judge Mills outside of the presence of the opposing counsel. § 1983 (See ¶91 and footnote #20.2d 113 (9th Cir.R. the trustee was never served with notice of any of the ½ dozen hearings. Dennis Davis.P. 1992) Award of atty fees to debtor for wilful violation by IRS of stay. 1990).. 974 F. 96 F. herein. See EXHIBIT J. for finding willful violation of stay . attorney for the Trustee.C. 1996) Bankruptcy court did not abuse discretion in failing to lift stay to allow remanded state court action to go forward where claimant filed a proof of claim. at least where IRS has filed a claim In re Bulson.362(h) In re Turner. In proceeding. Part of the reason that Mr. Based on the proofs of service. in the interests of justice.

2003 and December 31. -19- COMPLAINT .ca. As a result." California law prohibits lenders from recording notices of default on mortgages made between January 1. Deutsche and IndyMac are alleged to have instigated measures that. 12 50) However Deutsche’s violations of law in their pretense to have received legal title to Mr. on the same day that Bank of America announced a halt to foreclosures in all fifty states. together will all attorneys that have played a role in the fraud. A notice of default must include a declaration of compliance with California law.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49) On October 08. while making more profits for them in the 11 Attorney General Jerry) Brown issued the following News Release related to other reasons why Deutsche’s alleged foreclosure is void and why Deutsche cannot prevail in their unlawful detainer (underlines added for emphasis): Brown Calls on Banks to Halt Foreclosures In California [http://ag. Contact: (510) 622-4500 [http://ag. the nation's third largest loan servicer. JP Morgan Chase. and IndyMac did not.php?id=2000] SAN FRANCISCO . Brown's office has been in discussions with Bank of America. California then Attorney General and now governor Edmond G. the lender contacts or tries diligently to contact the borrower to determine eligibility for a loan modification. those borrowers lost their homes based on affidavits the bank never confirmed were accurate. It is alleged herein that those associated with Deutsche have conspired to engage in an artifice opposite to the laws and public policies of both the State of California and this nation as part of a pattern of racketeering. In so doing. including the violations set forward in the opening paragraphs of this Complaint.ca. JP Morgan Chase. According to Attorney General Brown. and the other major lenders should follow its lead. state law requires that lending institutions not only engage in loan modification in good faith.Following his office's negotiations with the state's top loan servicers and today's announcement by Bank of America that it is temporarily halting foreclosures nationwide."All lenders should halt foreclosures until they clear up this mess and ensure that the process is fair and complies with California law. Wells Fargo and OneWest to ascertain whether they are complying with California law. Attorney General Edmund G. 2010. called on the state's other lenders to halt foreclosures until the banks demonstrate that they are in compliance with state law11.gov/newsalerts/release. subject to limited exceptions. Ally Financial and One West have admitted that employees approved and signed foreclosure documents without first fully reviewing the borrowers' loan files. "Bank of America has taken an important step. The Attorney General and now Governor Brown stated that lenders cannot foreclose if they have not complied." Brown said. the parent company and all officers can be held directly liable for any damages. 2007. Clark’s home are alleged to be far more extensive than that.php?id=2000] 12 Because Deutsche is not incorporated and thus mot granted limited liability. Brown Jr. unless. but also actively solicit such a service to their clients who are in need. today called on the state's other lenders to halt foreclosing on California homes until the banks can demonstrate that they are complying with state law.gov/newsalerts/release. The evidence indicates that IndyMac FSB and thus Deutsche Bank AG (the Frankfurt Germany parent company) and others began their violations approximately a decade ago with the “CIS” securitization of Notes (scanning them into computer memory and e-mailing rather than handling the physical document as required by law) by lenders that began the undoing of the checks and balances that once provided the foundation for the loan securitization that served this nation so well for decades. Brown's office has called on those banks to show they are complying with state law before continuing with foreclosures. Brown Jr. require a court order for foreclosures. In the past few weeks. Ally Financial and JP Morgan have suspended foreclosures in 23 other states that. unlike California. Ally Financial.

v. 331. If the debt is not transferred. Boyko and other judges since then have ruled that Deutsche and other banks lack standing to engage in foreclosure proceedings if they do not possess the original Note and Deed of Trust. In re DiSanto & Moore Associates. Deutsche is alleged to have attempted to further increase profits with a nation- wide eviction mill process by foreclosing on and evicting fourteen of their clients at the same time in Federal District Court in Cleveland Ohio (“In Re Foreclosure Cases. (see EXHIBIT F). A security interest cannot exist. 2007). the Ruling applies regarding the Subject Property by collateral estoppels15. the lending industry is alleged to have set up the situation that allowed them the free reign to engage in the fraud that they are since alleged to have engaged in. neither is the security interest. 30 P. as partially delineated herein. Boyko opined that. The note and mortgage are inseparable. 938 (C. Because the same chain-of-title and standing issues have been decided against Deutsch in14 out of 14 times. However by undoing the safeguards early in the 000 decade and arranging for bank regulators to turn their backs on their oversight of the finance industry after 2001. Id. have broken the chain of the Note transfers. 52) Specifically. 51) In 2007. Oh.D. With “In Re Foreclosure Cases. Judge Boyko’s decision has been echoed all over the country. Inc. 653 (S. 14 In that case. and for their unlawful detainer action to prevail legally. 1984). Deutsche kept this alleged bait-and-switch concealed by several further violations of notice requirements that would have had to be met for legal transfer of the ownership. Thus any of the Subject Property that Deutsche might hold is held in Constructive Trust.A. The security interest follows the debt. C. "[t]o show standing in a foreclosure action. 935.S. In Re Leisure Time Sports.R. As a result. Morris. 861 (9th. 41 B. -20- COMPLAINT . 13 This break in the chain of Note transfers is alleged to eliminate their equity and ability to foreclose legally as delineated further herein...A.” 521 F. 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Banks engaged in this process so that they could process Notes in bulk as a way to reduce costs and thus increase profits as delineated further in the ensuing paragraphs. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it. 2d 650.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 short term. 859. 220 Cal.R.” Judge. OneWest attempted to avoid the problem by engaging in an agency relationship with Deutsche to provide the illusion that Deutsche was a bona fide third party purchaser at a time when banks are known to not be buying the notes of other banks. .Cir. much less be transferred. 14 With In Re Foreclosure Cases. the former as essential.D. Union Supply Co. Judge Boyko ruled to dismiss Deutsche’s claims to take possession of ANY of the 14 homes that Deutsche claimed due to Deutsche’s lack of standing. 338-39. the plaintiff must show that it is the holder of the note and the mortgage at the time the complaint was filed…” A security interest cannot exist independent from the obligation that it secures. .A. . Judge.2d 394. thus inducing them to engage in the further violations of law complained about herein. Supp. Inc. 15 From information and belief. C. independent from the obligation which it secures. Boyko saw the consistent pattern of violations of law regarding the chain-of-transfer of trust deeds.Bap 1996). Federal District Court Judge Boyko overturned fourteen of fourteen attempted foreclosures and evictions attempted by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company for lack of standing under a condition substantially identical to one of the conditions present in the current case regarding Deutsche as Trustee’s misrepresentations of evidence as part of an alleged massive fraud against American citizens who are protected by the guarantee of due process provided by the United States Constitution. Id. the latter as an incident. 397 (1934). U. District Court Judge. C. 194 B.Cal.

In fact. Indeed. the evidence indicates that Deutsche Bank AG was not operating under the fictitious name of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company in 2005. the evidence seems to show that Deutsche AG has never had a de jure interest in the Subject Property under any assumed name (and never filed a fictitious name statement for any entity or had standing to sue or evict Mr. 504 U. Knowing this. 44-49. (2) a causal connection between the injury and the defendant's conduct. Instead. it appears that Deutsche has acted in contempt for American laws and the civil rights of Americans at every step of the way. and (3) a likelihood that a favorable outcome will redress the injury. Indymac FSB was the legal foreclosing entity. but which allegedly has Deutsche as a Trustee. or even that IndyMac ever received said Note from Allstate as they claim. It is no wonder that they refuse to provide any foundation for their claim. 560-61 (1992). 555. and with that dissolution. Defenders of Wildlife. the evidence indicates that they were operating under the name Deutsche Bank Americas. 271 (1872). Carpenter v. 55) From information and belief. It is well established that a plaintiff must prove standing by showing: (1) injury in fact.) Deutsche has shown no ACTUAL evidence that Indymac ever received the underlying promissory note in the first place. but IndyMac did not exist at the time of the foreclosure. In short. 2009 date that Deutsche -21- COMPLAINT . their ability to assign the note or legally foreclose. Deutsche did not have legal possession of the Note at the time of the alleged foreclosure.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53) while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity. when they now claim to have made an agreement that is not a trust agreement. two weeks after the November 4. See Lujan v.S. etc. Indeed. However OneWest Bank/Indymac Loan Services alleged that they foreclosed on their own behalf. 2009 letter from Default Escalation Specialist. much less assigned it to Deutsche prior to OneWest dissolving Indymac. 83 U. Clark or his elderly tenant for those reasons as well. One West is alleged to have engaged in an agency relationship with Deutsche to provide the illusion of a bona fide third party purchaser of the Notes and Deed of Trust on Plaintiff’s home of thirty years at a time of economic disruption of such unprecedented proportion that banks are known to not be buying the “junk paper” notes of other banks. American Banks were being tightly controlled to insure that they would not pick up more junk paper. It does NOT explain how Deutsche would have been able to do this while receiving $6 Billion dollars in TARP money despite the contrary stated intent of members of Congress in creating the legislation. 54) As previously delineated (¶¶33-34. This would explain why One West went to Deutsche to complete their (alleged) fraud.S. Longan. They did so as late as the November 17.

filed. Federal Office of Comptroller of Currency Regulations. -2216 COMPLAINT . may maintain any action upon or on account of any contract made.060. and in their Summary Judgment motion which they prosecuted in alleged violation of the authority of the case trustee and Mr. brought in Deutsche Bank as an alleged innocent buyer of the subject property in apparent direct violation of the letter and intent of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Title Business and Professions Code (BPC) 17918 fictitious name filing:17918. 60) In fact. If this current action does not succeed in sorting out the mess. This includes filing a Fictitious Business Name statement. realizing that Indymac could not legally act after it was liquidated. 58) Deutsche argues that these issues cannot be considered in an unlawful detainer case. and their actions with agents is alleged to violate both Federal banking laws and State laws. To the contrary. and published as required by this chapter. in the fictitious business name in any court of this state until the fictitious business name statement has been executed. however this is simply not the case. or his assignee. 56) No actual standing for unlawful detainer: Deutsche is not a Corporation or an entity that has complied with the Business and Professions Code (BPC) 17918 by filing a fictitious name statement and thus they cannot “maintain any action… in any court” in California 16 57) Deutsche thus has no actual rights to sue or move forward “any action in any court”. Clark’s civil rights. a Quiet Title action may be required per California Code of Civil Procedure § 760. the Office of the Comptroller of Currency has not approved Deutsche operating in Contra Costa County. EXHIBIT D shows that Federal Charter Banks are required to act as if they are state chartered banks and otherwise comply with all requirements to do business in a state. Clark’s position that the question of jurisdiction is always a matter that must be considered.10-760.Provided herewith as EXHIBIT D show that Deutsche Bank’s allegation that their federal charter exempts them from complying with state business laws is false. In addition. however case law supports Mr. Nor is the non-entity agreement with a liquidated former entity for which they allege to be Trustee.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 now claims that they foreclosed instead in their post-petition allegations in their unlawful detainer filing that violated the automatic bankruptcy stay. No person transacting business under a fictitious business name contrary to the provisions of this chapter. or transaction had. and that any judgment rendered without jurisdiction by a court is void. 61) The evidence indicates that OneWest. yet anther example of their bravado to violate state and federal law under the color of federal law. States are merely prohibited from adding any additional requirements to a federal charter bank that are not required of a state charter bank. 59) Deutsche argues that they are exempt from state laws by their federal charter.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VIII, 807). (15 USC 1962e] (12) The false representation or implication that accounts have been turned over to innocent purchasers for value. Their false pretense is verified by the alleged “Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale” (Plaintiff’s EXHIBIT A to Deutsche’s Summary Judgment Motion), which states as its first statement “The grantee herein (Deutsche) IS the foreclosing beneficiary.”
62)

The alleged title-holder (per an alleged Trustee’s Deed) is “Deutsche Bank National

Trust Company as Trustee for”...an agreement with a company that no longer exists. Yet Deutsche as Trustee has not placed into evidence the agreement that they allege owns the asset, or any documents related thereto, and the evidence indicates that they did not record it with the county, a necessary step if the alleged agreement is to have such a profound potential effect on the title to the property. As previously delineated, Deutsche is claiming title for an agreement with a liquidated entity in a way not legally recognized in California.
63)

The evidence thus indicates that Deutsche has engaged in their violations of unlawful

detainer law and due process in summary judgment by bringing forward their action against Mr. Clark without apparent standing because they knew that they could not win in their alleged fraud if they followed the law. Thus, Deutsche agents are alleged to have acted under the color of law in a conspiracy to violated the law, and thus in violation of Section 1983. 64) Deutsche would like that none of this be considered prior to an unlawful detainer action, in which they allege that the law assumes that their actions are without fault because they say so. To the extent that local courts have gone along, they are alleged to have violated the civil rights of American citizens related to their homes- the sort of thing that led to the American Revolution.
65)

At the time that Defendants now allege that Deutsche foreclosed on Plaintiff’s home,

Indymac Loan Services and “One West Bank” were alleging that Indymac /One West Bank took ownership of the Subject Property as “Real Estate Owned (REO)” by Indymac/One West Bank on October 20, 2009, as shown by the last paragraph of the EXHIBIT B1 letter that Mr. Clark received dated November 17. 2009 (one month after Defendants now allege that Deutsche Bank took the property in foreclosure. One West Bank repeated their claims in a letter dated December 13, 2010. ¶12 of the (revised) declaration of Peter Clark (EXHIBIT ). 66) Both of Defendant’s stories cannot be true, and thus one must be false. By the legal principle of “false in one, false in all, (Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus), the entire house of cards
-23-

COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

of these alleged transactions must be ruled to be fraudulent, as, indeed, it has been for Deutsche and IndyMac on numerous occasions across this country since 2007.
67)

Further, Deutsche has not shown any evidence that they have any actual rights under

State law, which requires them to file a fictitious name statement prior to :maintaining any action in any court.” Thus, it appears that Deutsche is an outlaw foreign money pool that received $6 Billion dollars in stimulus money despite the intent of Congress that such money should only go to American corporations, all while, the evidence suggests, refusing to incorporate or file a fictitious name statement as a means for evading U.S. taxes. In Re Foreclosure Cases shows that Deutsche had no right to foreclose or evict (¶¶52-56, herein.), and In re Kang Jin Hwang, 396 B.R. 757 (Bankr.C.D.Cal. 2008) shows that Deutsche would be without standing even if they were a corporation that paid taxes and adhered to the requirements of the State of California for doing business in this state (including filing a fictitious name statement) (¶88, herein.). No other Federal Charter Bank (such as Wells Fargo) alleges that their Federal Charter exempts them from such requirements, and such an assertion of Federal authority into the business of the State would violate the 11th Amendment, something the State of California would have never knowingly allowed. The fact that Deutsche has gotten away with it by their bravado in the past does not make their actions legal. 68) However, Mr. Clark would be injured if Deutsche’s unlawful detainer action were granted because Deutsche seeks to evict Mr. Clark from his home, office, and workshop at a time of tremendous economic disruption caused by Deutsche and their ilk by these and similar violations of law under the color of law. Instead, Mr. Clark needs to re-organize his business affairs after being driven into the current bankruptcy by a massive fraud in the tens of millions of dollars by the law offices and attorneys that he had hired to prevent such fraud.
69)

"[t]o show standing in a foreclosure action, . . . (Deutsche) must show that “it is the

holder of the note and the mortgage at the time the complaint was filed [and] . . . that the holder of the note and mortgage is harmed, usually by not having received payments on the note") In re Foreclosure Cases, 521 F. Supp. 2d 650, 653 (S.D. Oh. 2007). However Deutsche has never alleged that it was owed payments on the note, and the evidence indicates that they are not. Thus, Deutsche has an uphill battle to demonstrate in a way that they could not so far that Deutsche held the promissory note at the time of the alleged foreclosure. If Deutsche cannot
-24-

COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

show these things, it has no injury in fact, and they have not provided evidence that this is the case so far.
70)

A more recent court decision came down in California on May 20, 2010, in a bankruptcy

case in the Eastern District of California known as In re Walker, Case no. 10-21656-E–11. In that case, the court held that MERS, who alleged standing, could not foreclose because it was a mere nominee; and that as a result, plaintiff Citibank (C) could not collect on its claim. The judge opined:
Since no evidence of MERS’ ownership of the underlying note has been offered, and other courts have concluded that MERS does not own the underlying notes, this court is convinced that MERS had no interest it could transfer to Citibank. Since MERS did not own the underlying note, it could not transfer the beneficial interest of the Deed of Trust to another. Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under California law. In re Walker, Case no. 10-21656-E–11- in the Bankruptcy Court of the Eastern District of California (underline added). The text of the ruling is provided by EXHIBIT “L”. 71)

In support, the judge cited In Re Vargas (California Bankruptcy Court); Landmark v.

Kesler (Kansas Supreme Court); LaSalle Bank v. Lamy (a New York case); and In Re Foreclosure Cases (the “Boyko” decision from Ohio Federal Court). The court concluded:
Since the claimant, Citibank, has not established that it is the owner of the promissory note secured by the trust deed, Citibank is unable to assert a claim for payment in this case. (underline added). 72)

With In re Walker, MERS could not foreclose, in part, because it was a mere nominee- the

same net result of the allegedly illegal acts perpetrated by Deutsche. Such “nominee” status is verified by the fact that Deutsch claims to hold title “as Trustee”. However with In re Walker, MERS, and Citibank, could at least point to a separate, legitimate entity that was created for the sole purpose of serving in the role of an alleged nominee, In the case of Deutsche, no such rationalization theory has been offered. It is alleged that for an agent of Deutsche to concoct such a theory at this juncture would only make the concoctor an accessory after the fact in a situation where anyone involved in exacerbating the damages can be held personally responsible because of the absence of corporate limitations on liability in this case. 73) The broad impact the case could have on California foreclosures is suggested by attorney Jeff Barnes, who writes:
This opinion ... serves as a legal basis to challenge any foreclosure in California based on a MERS assignment; to seek to void any MERS assignment of the Deed of Trust or the note to a third party for purposes of foreclosure; and should be sufficient for a borrower to not only obtain a TRO [temporary restraining order] against a Trustee’s Sale, but also a Preliminary Injunction barring any sale pending any litigation filed by the borrower challenging a foreclosure based on a MERS assignment. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/221344homeowners-rebellion-could-62-million-homes-be-foreclosure-proof).
-25-

COMPLAINT

capricious. and are thus void for lack of standing and collateral estoppels as delineated previously and below (see ¶¶ 20-39) herein and reference In Re Foreclosure Cases.D.). 2010 letter. Indymac Escalation Specialist Brandi Levy reiterated what One West Bank “Default Escalation Specialist” Claudia Mann stated on Nov. not November 4. 76) Thus. which is supposed to be dictated by documented events. OneWest/IndyMac “Default Escalation Specialist” Claudia Mann reported that IndyMac foreclosed and held Mr. 2010. Clark and his elderly tenant that it was they who foreclosed. 2d 650. and that they actually held the Note since 2005. 75) Indymac has alleged since 2005 that it is they that bought the Note and Deed of Trust on the Subject Property from Allstate. Clark made mortgage payments to IndyMac for over three years.R. 2009 (filed herewith as EXHIBIT B). Mr. the alleged foreclosure and title transfer process. 2009. Deutsche’s actions to acquire alleged title and possession are without actual foundation or notice.D.17. A regular property transfer deed would have been required for these stories to be stretched to appear true. then attempted to engage in loan modification for a year with those claiming to be IndyMac. with the Trustee transferring the property directly to Deutsche-as-Trustee. However Deutsche alleges that they engaged in a foreclosure action on November 4. 757 (Bankr. Clark prior to his bankruptcy filing on February 10. 2010. was in fact so arbitrary. 396 B. 653 (S. and now. as Deutsche alleges.Cal. 2009. 2008) (¶88. not Indymac. Deutsche’s claims are alleged to be without standing or foundation on several other levels beyond what the Attorneys General of all fifty states might be investigating. With this December 13.” 521 F. 2010 that they engaged in a foreclosure action against the Subject Property on October 20.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 74) Indymac alleged as late as December 13. Deutsche clearly had no standing. Clearly.C. Deutsche’s (post petition) claims are contrary to the evidence available to Mr. But on March 5th. Supp. and false that different Deutsche associates claimed authority to -26- COMPLAINT . Clark’s home as “Real Estate Owned of IndyMac. 2009. Deutsche claimed in the unlawful detainer action that they filed against Mr. facts. In her letter dated November 17. 77) However IndyMac had at least a linear rationale for claiming that they had authority. Oh. 2007 and In re Kang Jin Hwang. Thus. and thus both must be ruled to be false. herein. all without showing any documentary evidence of such. as shown by the EXHIBIT B letter from Claudia Mann. who never mentioned Deutsche. not via IndyMac. and law. that IndyMac/OneWest foreclosed and took the property for themselves as an “REO” (Real Estate Owned).

2010 against Plaintiff and his elderly tenant.C. It also appears to violate Title VIII. 401 U. §§ 1962 (c) and 1962(d). 123 (1908).S. 91 S. 32 . 25 L.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 state contradictory things regarding who was alleged to hold title to the subject Property after the alleged foreclosures.Dt.Ed. 92 S.Ed. False or misleading representations]. Mary Bauer (Ms. 81) The proofs-of service show that Deutsche moved forward with their summary judgment in ex parte hearings without serving the opposing counsel. 100 U. clearly an impossibility under law. . Younger v. and there is no sovereign immunity granted even to state court judges who act under the color of law but in violation of Federal authority (the Bankruptcy Act). In fact. 2010. Bauer from their homes under the color of the unlawful detainer laws of the State of California and summary judgment thereto but in violation thereof. legislative. Deutsche then did so by filing an unlawful detainer action on or about March 5. 209 U.S. Due Process (14th Amendment). § 2283 (cf. 346.C. 27 L. Deutsche associates enjoyed the illusion of immunity from the legal consequences of their acts to exact windfall profits by violations of law under the color of law.2d 669).S. 37.Ct. Summary Judgments -27- COMPLAINT . to evict Plaintiff and Ms. However the evidence now indicates that Deutsche’s acts constitute a pattern of racketeering in violation of the RICO Act [18 U. the evidence indicates that the two teams of Deutsche associates made it up as they went along. 80) Deutsche and those acting in agency relationship knew of the violations. 676 (emphasis supplied). “It is clear from the legislative debates surrounding passage of § 1983's predecessor that the Act was intended to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment 'against State action. 407 U.C. Foster.S. 28 U.S. The evidence indicates that Deutsche did not enact their fraud until after Mr.S 225.Ed. Harris. much less in the presence of opposing counsel.' Ex parte Virginia. 79) Until the 2007 Boyko decision.2d 705 (1972). 746. or judicial. whether that action be executive. 78) Deutsche’s previously secret “bait-and-switch” of ownership interests to provide the illusion that they are an innocent buyer of the Note and/or Deed of Trust on the Subject Property is alleged to violate the letter and intent of 15 USC 1962e] (12) The false representation or implication that accounts have been turned over to innocent purchasers for value. (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act). .. . and thus civil rights as supported by Ex parte Young. Clark filed for bankruptcy on February 10.Justice Stewart for the Majority Opinion in Mitchum v. Bauer). and the clear intent of Congress in enacting 42 U. 807.S. §1983 to facilitate litigation as an exception to the federal antiinjunction statute. 339. and thus in violation of Rules of Court and Bar Rules.

‖ (437c. Deutsche’s alleged violations of Mr. c.]‖ (Molko v.) [2010 State Bar of California 83rd ANNUAL MEETING Page 3. 1107. Separate Statement Of Undisputed Facts of Peter Clark.) Page 1.) 82) However the Contra Costa County Sheriff refused to execute the writ from information and belief because of the violations of due process are prima facie.1350 et seq. Clark alleged in his Summary Judgment Opposition were incurable defects in the alleged Deutsche service and pleadings are.A of transcript cited below. b. Holy Spirit Assn. ignoring lack of jurisdiction. (1988) 46 Cal. Yet according to the sworn statement of observer Alan Kilpatrick. “The function of the trial court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment is merely to determine whether such issues of fact exist. A. 2010 © 2010 by Rick Sims] 84) This was not the end of the Deutsche violations of due process. Clark’s civil rights and due process by their alleged malicious prosecution in the Contra Costa Courts cia ex parte actions outside of the presence of opposing counsel resulted in a breach of justice that would have been tragic except for the fact that lawsuits filed under federal laws such as those cited herein have made the Sheriff’s Department sensitive to civil rights and due process issues. See declaration of Jamie Darlington. What Mr. 83) The Plaintiff submits that the Sheriff’s refusal to execute the writ is evidence that: a. Judge Mills acted as if in “collusion” with the Deutsche attorney. 33.3d 1092. ―A defendant or cross-defendant has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action. prima facie. a role that it appears the Contra Costa Superior Court is neglecting. herein) The evidence indicates that the fraud and other violations of law delineated herein are typical of the massive fraud that Deutsche is perpetrating against homeowners across the United States.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 requires that there be no “triable issues of fact” (California Rules of Court: Article 5. Some of the above violations are now being -28- COMPLAINT . all in the absence of opposing counsel.. 2010 4:15 PM . (See declaration of Alan Kilpatrick (Attachment ii). substantial defenses. Clark had previously pled. and ordered summary judgment. Attachment “v”. [Citation. subd. Triable issues of fact existed that precluded summary judgment even if the defects in the alleged Deutsche service and pleadings were curable (which is denied). as is shown in “Further 23 24 25 Violations of Law” (pg.5:15 PM Sponsored by Litigation Section DEFENSE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Justice Rick Sims March. (p)(2). § 3. September 24. cannot be established. in fact. and triable issues of fact that Mr.¶¶98-104. and not to decide the merits of the issues themselves. and EXHIBIT A. even if not separately pleaded.A of transcript of Program #80 “Summary Judgment: Recent Developments and the View From the Bench Friday. or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. and California Code of Civil Procedure §437c).

IV. Deutsche Agents have violated numerous State and Federal codes. 85) Deutsche’s violations of law and due process are alleged to fit the legal description of extortion as well as money laundering as defined by the Comptroller of Currency. Clark received a letter from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York dated Dec. Clark’s case against Deutsche: I. as follows: Dear Mr. This is now part of a criminal investigation according to the Washington Post (October 19. 2010) as shown by EXHIBIT G filed herewith. Therefore. II. The alleged Trustee’s Deed listing Deutsche as the foreclosing entity contains numerous factual errors and is void. as supported by Peter Clark’s declaration filed and attached herewith. Clark: I acknowledge receipt of your consumer complaint against Deutsche regarding issues with your home mortgage loan. -29- COMPLAINT . Senior Bank Examiner. The evidence indicates that by their filings. it has come to our attention that the institution servicing the loan in question is One West Bank. in this one paragraph. and thus has no standing to take any of the actions that they have attempted regarding Peter Clark or the Subject Premises. Sanders. Legal and Compliance Risk (underline added) Thus. 2010. as the foreclosing note holder. 14th. Yet Deutsche now claims that they were the foreclosing note holder. Deutsche’s claims are fraudulent. we are unable to investigate the issues you raise. Mr. Clark attempted to submit information regarding Deutsche actions through the office of the California Attorney General. Washington. and Constitutional provisions listed in ¶s 1-4. However. you should contact the agency at: OTS 1700 G Street. Clark’s Bankruptcy filed February 10. 2010. and NOT to Peter Clark. 17 The money laundering alone is alleged to void the note and deed of trust that attorneys that claim to represent Deutsche claim that Deutsche acquired without showing evidence that Deutsche did so prior to the alleged foreclosure. upon further investigation. Since this institution. unlawful taking under the color of law (extortion). and not Deutsche. statutes. On December 16. DC 20552 (See EXHIBIT R for a true copy) (Signed: Charles J. which was forwarded to this Reserve Bank by the Federal Reserve Consumer Help. III. One West Bank is subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of he Office of Thrift Supervision. This case also has elements of violation of the Bankruptcy Act and other federal statutes. Deutsche never had any rightful claim to the Subject Premises. is not the real party at interest. 2010. a necessary step under law as delineated herein. NW. Mr.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 investigated by the Attorneys General of all fifty states as announced on October 13th. but was referred to the Federal Reserve for the investigation. the Federal Reserve Examiner verified the fundamental premise of Mr. and NOT to both residential addresses on the subject property) listed Indymac. 86) The illegality of Deutsche’s artifice additionally invalidates the title that Deutsche claims on the subject property for the additional reason that the Notice that OneWest agents allege was served on Mary Bauer (at the wrong address. supra. and violations of due process during the time of the Automatic Bankruptcy Stay of Mr.

In doing so. taken as part of what now can be seen as a conspiracy to defraud by agents who claim to represent Deutsche.) did not follow legal procedures in an alleged assignment of a deed of trust or in foreclosing.C. Nor (D. B. Deutsche would also not be the real party in interest in their unlawful detainer action pursuant to Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as supported by In re Kang Jin Hwang. the evidence indicates that Deutsche: A).) did the Trustee comply with “all applicable statutory requirements of the State of California (or) perform all duties required by the Deed of Trust (by) sending a Notice of Default and Election to Sell within ten days after its recoding and a Notice of Sale…in compliance with California Civil Code 2924(b) as Deutsche Bank alleges in their unlawful detainer action to evict Plaintiff and his frail and elderly tenant from their home in further violation of The (federal) Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009. and not IndyMac.. These due process issues are additional legal principles that Deutsche is alleged to have violated. 757 (Bankr. Deutsche’s artifice is intended to provide the illusion that it was they. 88) In short. Deutsche’s attempts at eviction. 89) From information and belief. and additionally invalidating the foreclosure. requires the new owner to give ACTUAL notice to tenants at least 90 days before an eviction. and In re Kang Jin Hwang would give rise to uncertainty about who that owner is even without 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the uncertainty about the questionable legal status of Deutsche as Trustee for a non-existent Trust. the evidence indicates that neither Deutsche nor Indymac actually held the Note at the time. 2008). Clark made payments on in good faith for over three years.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 thus rendering the Notice void.) did not actually possess the right to foreclose. 396 B. A joinder with the actual owner is required by Rule 19 (ibid.Cal.).D. and C. is not a bona fide buyer of the Note or Deed of Trust on the Subject Property. in alleging that they hold title as a Trustee for an agreement with a company that no longer exists. In fact.R. an electronic recording -30- COMPLAINT . that purchased the Note and Deed of trust that Mr. 87) However even if Deutsche’s claims were true. and thus neither had actual standing to foreclose or to evict. containing a copy of In re Kang Jin Hwang). it appears that Deutsche is acting in a role similar to MERS (Mortgage Electronic Recording Service).. as previously delineated. (See also EXHIBIT J. are thus further void as a result.

2010.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 system devised by and for the convenience of the mortgage industry to save recording fees and other costs. That did not actually happen. After MERS.com/article/221344-homeowners-rebellion-could-62-millionhomes-be-foreclosure-proof] By Ellen Brown. Before MERS. 19 In State of California ex rel. and record[ing] false documents to initiate and pursue non-judicial foreclosures. and the entire scheme was predicated upon the fraudulent designation of MERS as the "beneficiary" under millions of deeds of trust. 18 90) MERS is. and Freddie Mac (FMCC. Executive Trustee Services. who developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. divest[ing] the borrowers of the right to know who owned the promissory note . The plaintiff sues for treble damages for all recording fees not paid -31- COMPLAINT . The process engaged in by MERS allowed a securitization of mortgages behind a veil of anonymity that allowed considerable shuffling of mortgages. allegedly illegally. Deutsche also appears to seek the freedom to act as the law anonymity from repercussions enjoyed by MERS.. the plaintiff qui tam sued on behalf of a long list of local governments in California against MERS and a number of lenders for “wrongfully bypass[ing] the counties’ recording requirements. the actual beneficiary of every Deed of Trust on every parcel in the United States and the State of Nevada could be readily ascertained by merely reviewing the public records at the local recorder’s office where documents reflecting any ownership interest in real property are kept. it would not have been possible for mortgages with no market value . but without the credibility that MERS has enjoyed until recently..” The complaint notes that “MERS claims to have ‘saved’ at least $2. [http://seekingalpha.OB). Created by the real estate finance industry.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money. according to its website: .: Before MERS. which was to guarantee purchasers clean title. either by the preyed-upon borrowers or by the investors seduced into buying bundles of worthless mortgages. Before MERS. Bates.. it would not have been possible for the Defendant banks and AIG to conceal from government regulators the extent of risk of financial losses those entities faced from the predatory origination of residential loans and the fraudulent re-sale and securitization of those otherwise non-marketable loans. Fannie Mae (FNMA. As alleged in a Nevada class action called Lopez vs. Countrywide (CFC). The result cheated local MERS was developed in the early 1990s by a number of financial entities. Worse.. the servicing rights were transferred after the origination of the loan to an entity so large that communication with the servicer became difficult if not impossible. and to otherwise decrease or avoid payment of fees to the Counties and the Cities where the real estate is located.” meaning it has helped avoid billions of dollars in fees otherwise accruing to local governments. In Web of Debt. The servicer was interested in only one thing – making a profit from the foreclosure of the borrower’s residence – so that the entire predatory cycle of fraudulent origination. MERS facilitated an explosion of predatory lending in which lenders could not be held to account because they could not be identified. Barrett R.. This is the legacy of MERS. to be sold at a profit or collateralized and sold as mortgage-backed securities. and thus eliminate the fees taken by both. an innovative process that simplifies the way mortgage ownership and servicing rights are originated. but what MERS did allow was the securitization and shuffling around of mortgages behind a veil of anonymity. allegedly to allow consumers to pay less for mortgage loans. she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust. MERS eliminates the need to prepare and record assignments when trading residential and commercial mortgage loans Or as Karl Denninger puts it: MERS’ own website claims that it exists for the purpose of circumventing assignments and documenting ownership! http://seekingalpha. her latest book.. sold and tracked. By not filing a fictitious name statement. .. The result was not only to cheat local governments out of their recording fees but to defeat the purpose of the recording laws.. and allowing the abuses alleged herein19.OB).4 billion dollars in recording costs. and securitization of yet another predatory loan could occur again. filed May 10. resale. including Bank of America.com/article/221344-homeowners-rebellion-could-62million-homes-be-foreclosure-proof 91) The evidence thus indicates that the banks that created MERS did so to replace the recording functions provided by California County Clerks as well as title insurance companies.. et al..

-32- COMPLAINT . which was to provide an unbiased third-party verification in the public record of real estate transactions and thus a clean title guarantee to purchasers20. where Deutsche behaves as if they are above the law on the apparent theory that clients have no redress. The conflict-of-interest of these financial institutions taking on an oversight role regarding properties in which they are attempting to grab an interest is glaring. but which in the current situation became an instant feeding frenzy that invited the other alleged illegal acts.000 and $10. However the attempts by financial industry to privatize the document recording (and public disclosure) function of the county recorders via MERS (and Deutsche as Trustee) removes all semblance to due process and thus constitutionality from the foreclosure process in non-judicial states such as California.com/article/221344-homeowners-rebellion-could62-million-homes-be-foreclosure-proof 20 It appears that there will be a cloud on the title to virtually all property that has been foreclosed on with mortgages made in the United States since approximately 2003. during the past ten years. while MERS (and Deutsche. and defeated the purpose of the recording laws. the alleged cut-rate MERS wanna-bes) have no such independence. relying on the public disclosure provided by document recording laws as well as the integrity of independent title insurance companies to provide at least a semblance of due process and thus constitutionality to the procedures used by banks in taking the property of their clients. http://seekingalpha. and invited the abuse complained of herein. which is also denied 92) California County Clerks are independent of the banks. This set up the alleged abuse via illegal acts under the color of law that is alleged herein. 94) In fact. 93) Foreclosure laws in California and other non-judicial foreclosure states have walked the razor’s edge regarding constitutionality.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 governments out of their recording fees (allegedly to the tune of billions of dollars). in a process of alleged corruption that in earlier times might have taken a decade or more to unfold. However Deutsche has not provided evidence that they have taken the steps necessary for the MERS-like assignments even if the MERS process were legal. the evidence provided herewith indicates that the banking industry abused the (allegedly illegal) rights that they asserted for themselves almost immediately.000 for each unpaid or underpaid recording fee and each false document recorded during that period. These civil rights have otherwise been protected ever since the 13 colonies rejected and ejected the authority of King George in 1776. and for civil penalties of between $5. potentially a hefty sum. Similar suits have been filed by the same plaintiff qui tam in Nevada and Tennessee.

. Clark. when Defendants knew from the loan modification and from their ongoing communications that the property was owner-occupied at a different address. Deutsche is also alleged to have engaged in the scheme depended on “artifice and the ability to generate any necessary ‘assignment’ which flowed from it. Clark did not see the alleged posting. The notice attached as Defendant’s Exhibit B to their unlawful detainer only lists Mary Bauer. 2010. Clark. specifically ‘mail or wire fraud.” however Deutsche has shown no actual evidence that it has actually acted in such a role. can never determine who or what was or is ultimately receiving the benefits of any mortgage payments. Further Violations of Law 97) Deficient Service: Contrary to Deutsche Bank’s allegations in their unlawful detainer. Mr. Clark or to his tenant. 2010. which is denied. or even legal professional. the trustee for the Deed of Trust did not provide the required Notice of Sale {See declaration of Alan Kilpatrick. as shown by their declarations. 96) In allegedly attempting to assert that Deutsche holds a position similar to that which MERS holds but without providing any evidence that they do. In addition. tenant. a class action was filed in Florida seeking relief against MERS and an associated legal firm for racketeering and mail fraud.” that the scheme depended on “the MERS artifice and the ability to generate any necessary ‘assignment’ which flowed from it.. upon information and belief no notice to vacate was mailed to Mt. when Mr. -33- COMPLAINT .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 95) On July 26. nor did the tenant. MERS was and is used in a way so that the average consumer. Clark was NOT served with Notice to Quit (nor was his tenant. In 21 Mr. with an improper address. Clark received a notification from the Contra Costa Courts that Deutsche Bank had filed an Unlawful Detainer case against him and his frail and elderly tenant in which Deutsche allege that they had provided notice 90 days before. Clark denies that a notice to vacate was posted on the Property on 11/25/2009. nor was Mr.21 98) Deficient Notice: Contrary to Deutsche Bank’s claim in their unlawful detainer Summary Judgment Motion against Mr. even if such a role were legal. The suit alleges that the defendants used “the artifice of MERS to sabotage the judicial process to the detriment of borrowers.’ the Defendants . Mr. Mr. participated in a criminal enterprise affecting interstate commerce. Clark did not learn that Deutsche Bank alleged that they were the new owner of his home until after March 5. In addition. Declarations of Mary Bauer and Peter Clark both state they never received notice. Mary Bauer. filed and attached herewith).” and that “by engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity.” Such claims apply doubly against Deutsche.” that “to perpetuate the scheme.

Deutsche tacitly admitted to the existence of those triable issues of fact and lack of in personam jurisdiction or jurisdiction to render the verdict that Plaintiff seeks. and whose primary issue (of standing) has been decided against Deutsche in said numerous referenced cases. and thus Deutsche is estopped from arguing these issues again. after March 5. and that Deutsche has meticulously adhered to all of the notice and other due process requirements. filed and attached herewith). By ignoring these serious and consistent violations of notice. (See declarations of Peter Clark and Mary Bauer. the only reason that Deutsche could have known the identity of Mary Bauer is because Mr. or the reasons why that court does not have in personam jurisdiction or jurisdiction to render the verdict that Deutsche seeks. and iii). law. Clark provided a copy of her lease to IndyMac in the loan modification. when Mr. Deutsche has tacitly admitted that the primary issues of fact related to the current ownership of the Subject Property have already been adjudicated adverse to Deutsche. and other violations of due process that they had to adhere to for -34- COMPLAINT . much less address. Deutsche’s response to Mr. the vast majority of the triable issues of fact that Mr. 99) As a result of the lack of service. Clark brought forward as a defense to the Summary Judgment Motion. In so doing.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fact. Clark provided a separate statement of Undisputed Facts that showed considerable triable issues of fact (See EXHIBIT A. Deutsche spent most of its argument (the first 11 pages). 2010. These and other issues precluded a ruling in summary judgment. As such. and said lease shows her address as in Unit B. Clark received notification from the Contra Costa Court that Deutsche Bank had filed an Unlawful Detainer case against him and his frail and elderly tenant in which Deutsche allege that they had provided notice 90 days before. 100) Mr. 101) Deutsche has the burden of proof to show that they have in personam standing to act regarding the unlawful detainer. none of which are true in this case. Clark did not learn that Deutsche Bank alleged that they owned his home until more than 3 months later. Clark’s Answer failed to even mention. In addition. Clark listed. Deutsche has not addressed and thus tacitly admits to the numerous adverse rulings by other courts of competent jurisdiction against Deutsche on the same issue of standing that Mr. that the Contra Costa court has jurisdiction to render the verdict that Deutsche Bank seeks. Mr. trying to un-ring the bell of rulings adverse to Deutsche regarding standing by arguing Quiet Title issues that the unlawful detainer court lacks jurisdiction to decide. Attachments i.

in part. Mr. 103) There were thus considerable triable issues of fact. to allow the issues to be addressed point-bypoint. 102) As a convenience to Deutsche. Mr. which is filed and attached herewith (declaration of Alan Kilpatrick). Deutsche failed to do so. in the accelerated time frames of an unlawful detainer summary judgment action. Deutsche must comply with both Federal and state law in the way that Wells Fargo Bank N. to make it easy for Deutsche to address the issues brought forward by Defendants. Alan Kilpatrick. The Judge granted Deutsche’s Summary Judgment Motion in their unlawful detainer despite the aforementioned violations of due process and lack of standing and jurisdiction. Clark could not speak because the case was in the jurisdiction of the Case Trustee. Mr. the bankruptcy trustee. Is it any wonder that they decided to shortcircuit the administration of justice by their vigilante acts in violation of the authority of the bankruptcy Trustee and Mr. Clark asked that Deutsche return the favor. and thus sent an observer. Mr. again. point-by-point. apparently because it had no answers to most of Defendants’ points. however Mr. Clark’s civil rights by conducting their proceedings in violation of BPC 17918 and in the absence of notice to. Clark could not act for his own defense during the time of the hearing by federal law.A. Peter Clark provided Deutsche with MS Word ’97 compatible versions of Defendant’s Answer and Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Facts prior to the first hearing of that case (after faxing the document) in keeping with the notice requirements of unlawful detainer summary judgment. but where Mr. Clark did this. To use the state courts. that the unlawful detainer Court would be wowed by Deutsche’s international stature and thereby ignore their violations of law such as 15 USC 1962e] (12) The false representation or implication that accounts have been turned over to innocent purchasers for value. much less the approval of. Clark has no recourse in the California Courts because of the -35- COMPLAINT . as shown by EXHIBIT C. Clark’s Opposition to Summary judgment and the existence of the substantial triable issues of fact and substantial defenses in. Kilpatrick describes as “collusion” during the ex parte communications outside of the presence of opposing counsel during deliberations in which the judge ignored Mr. as a witness to the events.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 them to prevail in an Unlawful Detainer case. has. on the apparent hope that by arguing some of the issues of the Quiet Title case against Indymac in that court rather than the unlawful detainer. in part. Said declaration describes what Mr. Kilpatrick provided a declaration.

] In this case attorneys who claim to represent Deutsche have been in the position of being officers of the court. Loudermill 39]. Forsythe. Bishop v.S.3d 433. 38 See also.S. to prevent the development of (California beach-front property owned by the developer). rather than legal means.S. 327 (1986). Daniels v. 443 (10th Cir. Atkins. Edmondson Oil Co. 526 U. 487 U. filed herewith as Attachment v). 532. 167. 687 (1999). but which facts were not considered in the ex parte hearing outside of the presence of the counsel for the trust estate in the unlawful detainer summary judgment.3d 1205. 105) The Sheriff’s verification of what Mr. [40]. § 1983.S. 527. The traditional definition of acting under the color of state law requires that the defendant have exercised power "possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law. Clark has maintained all along.[Monroe v." [West v. 541 (1985). [42]. 1209-10 (9th Cir. 2002)] In City of Monterey v. Clark has alleged by refusing to execute the writ constitutes not just a verification of the existence of a triable issue of fact related to the The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that certain substantive rights-life. 408 U. Roth. 564.. 922.cannot be deprived except pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures [Schultz v.45 million in damages (upheld by the Supreme Court). Williams. v. -36- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMPLAINT . 470 U. 470 U. [41].3d 1338. Humane Society of Ventura County 294 F.S. Classic. Brunette v.S. Lee. City of Lamont. 42. liberty. 49 (1988)(quoting United States v. [Cleveland Bd.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 22 Federal jurisdiction. From information and belief. Handbook of Section 1983 Litigation 2009 By David W. 15 F.S. Connic. The lawsuit went to trial and the jury awarded the developer $1. This means that the service of Notices was deficient if only for this reason. 937 (1982). Loudermill.C. Board of Regents.S. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey. 365 U. and property.. at 576. A Guide To Civil Rights Liability Under 42 U. of Educ. 2006). 543-544 (1981).. 341.S. Taylor.S. 299.S.S. the reason that the Sheriff refused is because the Deputy that went to the site to post the writ learned that there is more than one living unit on the premises and neither had the address that Deutsche was awarded possession of and thus the writ was not to a proper address. This constitutes grounds for the current action under 42 U. [Lugar v. 326. A private actor may also act under color of state law under certain circumstances. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. § 1983: An Overview Of Supreme Court And Eleventh Circuit Precedent Ian D. 426 U. particularly where the private party is a “willful participant” in constitutional violations by a state player per Cinel v. 465 F. Wood. Ltd. 451 U. Parratt v. This is proof positive of one of the “triable issues of fact” that Mr. Thus.C. The City used bureaucracy. including in his Answer to Deutsche’s unlawful detainer summary judgment motion. so there was never a condemnation suit nor any compensation paid by the City for taking the property as required by the Fifth Amendment…Because state law provided no remedy. 408 U. 577 (1972).]. at 542.S. and such actions may result in liability even if the defendant abuses the position given to him by the state.22 The Sheriff Verifies that Service was Deficient 104) The Sheriff refused to execute the writ of possession (see declaration of Jamie Darlington.S. 313 U. the facts are as Mr. 457 U. Pape. Clark has stated and not as Deutsche has claimed. 172 (1961). 1343 (5th Cir. the developer was permitted to file a Section 1983 lawsuit. resulting in substantial violations of due process. 344 (1976). 1994. 474 U.

could then file a new unlawful detainer action. alleged attempt at service of documents that were not in fact delivered provides further evidence of the failure of previous alleged service related to a filing by Deutsche which is alleged to be fraudulent in several ways. however based upon what Deutsche has previously alleged. 108) This latest action was to amend the alleged fraudulent and void judgment to make it enforceable. This includes the Notice that the Trustee alleges was made to announce Indymac’s intent to sell the premises at a trustee’s sale (foreclosure). and after waiting the statutorily mandated time. It appears that Deutsche’s new motion might be -37- COMPLAINT . Clark denies that there has been any Posting or a reveipt of any mailing of any Notice to Quit. 111) Deutsche is attempting to force yet another action under the color of law but in violation thereof related to the subject premises. then the foreclosure sale itself is voidable for this reason as well. 2009. By taking this latest action. so the hearing may have already been concluded at the time that the Notice was received. but instead noted to a visitor to the premises that the address was improper as delineated in the declaration of Nicholas Kalinowski filed herewith as (Attachment vi). 109) The problem of the faulty service is not curable. If the Notice was deficient regarding the alleged foreclosure sale. a messenger actually delivered documents addressed to both Peter Clark and to Mary Bower at1674 Pleasant Hill Road rather than the actual addresses of the units. but is also a verification that ALL of the Services of Notice related to the Deed of Trust secured by Mr. On November 6. Clark that Deutsche was engaging in an ex parte hearing on that same day.1 2 3 4 5 unlawful detainer. a messenger had new document packages for Mary Bauer and 106) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Peter Clark. 110) It is anticipated that Deutsche will file a new unlawful detainer action and claim that there was effective service of a Notice to Quit at both of the actual residence addresses retroactive to three months before. However. 107) In the late morning of November 8. Mr. allegedly still without actual standing to do anything related to the subject premises. Clark’s home were deficient. they will act as if such Notice has occurred. 2010. Deutsche and their agents are alleged to be in further violations of law under the color of law. if Deutsche had actual standing they could post and serve proper notice to both addresses. However the messenger did not leave the documents. but without providing a time. The documents informed Mr.

115) The evidence indicates that Defendants are not the legal owners of the subject property: -38- COMPLAINT . Both are not possible. (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. which alleged Notice quoted the wrong address on the actual document. three weeks after Mr. The evidence indicates that this Post-Petition claim constitutes another violation: 15 USC 1962e] (12) The false representation or implication that accounts have been turned over to innocent purchasers for value. 114) The evidence indicates that Deutsche did not possess the underlying Note and/or trust agreement giving authority for Deutsche to act on their own behalf or on behalf of Indymac to foreclose on the real property commonly known as 1674 Pleasant Hill Rd. Bad Faith Deception. 807). or for Indymac/ OneWest or Quality Loan Services to act at all. Case # CD10-0170 in or about March 5. 2009. Fraud. Pleasant Hill. and which Deutsche claims was posted and mailed to both Mr. CA 94523 (herein “Subject Property). Clark and to Mary Bauer but which both Mary Bauer and Plaintiff deny was posted nor received at either premises. Deutsche has violated Federal authority so their unlawful detainer action will be heard prior to the issue of their (lack of) standing is heard. 113) Plaintiff did not know of the ruse until Plaintiff received a notification from the Contra Costa Courts that Deutsche Bank had filed an Unlawful Detainer case against Plaintiff and the tenant of Unit “B. 807 112) Indymac Party Defendants are alleged to have prefaced Deutsche’s fraud with bad faith Pre-Petition deceptive business practices that violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealings in an agency relationship with each other to gain windfall profits from their violation of legal procedures in violation of the Fair Credit Practices Act. Title VIII. and Violations of 15 USC 1962e] (12) Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In addition. 2009 AND November 10. so at least one must be fraudulent. Title VIII.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 based upon their previous allegedly non-existent posting and mailing of alleged Notice to Quit. and certainly not at both addresses.” Mary Bower. 2010.. the Business & Professions Code §17200 and (BPC) 17918. as would have been required by the laws of the State of California. there are major issues regarding the underlying alleged foreclosure(s) and events surrounding said alleged foreclosure(s) alleged on October 20. and other violations of alleging to foreclose on Plaintiff’s home and now to take possession without apparent actual standing and/or other fraud. Clark filed for bankruptcy protection. and in an agency relationship with Deutsche Bank to rid the property of the 30 year resident and his frail and elderly tenant.

. Federal Judge. 653 (S. 271.S.D. the former as essential. which is denied. -----------------In re Leisure Time Sports. NBRC (National Bankruptcy Review Commission) State Sovereign Immunity In Bankruptcy After Seminole Tribe Of Florida V. § 1983 Redress 119) “While a state may be immune under the Eleventh Amendment. . C.edu/nbrc/report/20semino. in order to claim the assets (“In Re Foreclosure Cases. and Plaintiff was damaged as a result. Thus. Boyko in Federal District Court in Cleveland Ohio strict proof that Defendants possessed and were properly assigned the Note at those times. Indymac insisted that they had foreclosed and taken the property for themselves on October 20. 274 (1872) stating that the note and mortgage are inseperable.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 “For an assignment to be valid there must be more than the assignment of the deed alone. and 42 U. which they now state was false. 2009. U. per Indymac’s agents.library. the note must also be assigned See Carpenter v. § 2201/2202. 861 (9th Circuit 1996) 116) Thus. An Ex parte Young injunction operates on the theory that an individual state official who is about to act or is acting in violation of federal law is not protected by the state's sovereign immunity. 2007) (stating that. said alleged foreclosure would have still been the product of fraud. individual state officials nonetheless may still be subject to federal injunctive relief from ongoing Bankruptcy Code violations.C. "[t]o show standing in a foreclosure action. Once again. the later incident adding that an assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it” as quoted from Saxon Mortgage Services. Inc. 83 U. and as late as their letter to Plaintiff dated November 17. § 28 U. 117) ruled to dismiss a claim by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company seeking to take possession of 14 homes from Cleveland residents living in them.S. Hillary et al Case No.S. Oh. Indymac fraudulently induced Plaintiff to remain out of Bankruptcy. 2d 650. Florida (http://govinfo. even if they did have the proper paperwork for the foreclosure. Inc vs Ruthie B. Ex parte Young. and all other acts are alleged to constitute acts of money laundering and/or other actions to complete the fraud. .R.unt. and Defendants are precluded by estopples from prevailing today. the plaintiff must show that it is the holder of the note and the mortgage at the time the complaint was filed…”). 2009 (filed and attached as EXHBIT “B”). . per Deutsche Bank’s current story. 194 B. in response to calls by Plaintiff. possibly so they could arrange their paperwork.html §B1)” -39- COMPLAINT . This ruling has been echoed all over the country. 859. it is the assignment of the note that carries the mortgage with it.S. Logan. 2009.C.” 521 F.C-084357 document 19. one week AFTER what Defendants are now alleging as the date of a foreclosure sale to Deutsche Bank on November 10.A. Plaintiff relied on the veracity of Indymac’s story. Supp. Plaintiff demands In 2008. 118) On October 22.

Peckham turned to the question of the circuit court's jurisdiction in Perkins in light of sovereign immunity. Peckham turned to another question raised by a request for an injunction: whether there was an adequate remedy at law. 200 B. Ga. First. had a series of issues to resolve. is a United States Supreme Court case that allows suits in federal courts against officials acting on behalf of states of the union to proceed despite the State's Sovereign immunity. because the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that the Constitution overrides all the laws of the states.S. § 2202 states that "Further necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted." Justice Peckham. Congress passed two important statutes: * § 28 U. The railroads' remedy at law. (24) -40- COMPLAINT .Ed. As a consequence of Ex parte Young. 123 (1908). and * § 28 U. Georgia (In re Headrick).' Ex parte Virginia.C.R. whether that action be executive. The Court disagreed. (23) on which Young had relied in drafting the Minnesota legislation. Georgia (22) and continuing through more recent cases like Fitts v. legislative. It has been suggested that the proper way to test the constitutionality of the act is to disobey it. Therefore. or judicial. and is thus not protected by the state's sovereign immunity. Deutsche has induced Judge Mills to act unconstitutionally and in violation of federal law. designed to inhibit challenge to the rates through a defensive proceeding. identifying a number of issues of federal law raised in the proceeding. after reasonable notice and hearing. 209 U. section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity in bankruptcy). after which the company might obey the act pending subsequent proceedings to test its validity. would be to assert a defense in an enforcement proceeding.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 It is clear from the legislative debates surrounding passage of § 1983's predecessor that the Act was intended to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment 'against State action. writing for the Supreme Court.” 23 121) In so doing.edu/nbrc/report/20semino. He conducted a lengthy review of the Court's cases. 209 B. were unconstitutional. writing for the Supreme Court.R. 25 L.S. 100 U. . the official cannot possibly be doing it in the name of the state. against any adverse party.library. 676 See In re Straight. Young contended that he was merely acting for the state of Minnesota when he sought to enforce its laws.S.C. (21) beginning with Chisholm v. when a state official attempts to enforce an unconstitutional law.unt.html 24 “Justice Peckham. holding that when a state official does something that is unconstitutional. S. the Court assumed. A copy of the Supreme Court Ruling in Ex parte Young is provided as “EXIHBIT D. http://govinfo. 540. It is further objected that there is a plain and adequate remedy at law open to the complainants and that a court of equity. 1996) (same) 120) The Declaration of Alan Kilpatrick filed and attached herewith appears to show that agents who claimed to represent Deutsche acted as Officers of the Court to induce the Honorable Judge Mills to violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the federal authority of the bankruptcy court. invalidating any contrary laws. He concluded that they were inconsistent with the requirements of due process because of the burden they placed on access to the courts.S. McGhee. that individual is stripped of his official character. Wyo. when the individual acted unconstitutionally. (19) He then turned to one of the merits questions: whether the penalties. at least once. has no jurisdiction in such case. 963. 339. he concluded that there was federal question jurisdiction in Perkins (the parties were not completely diverse).D. . 1997) (notwithstanding Seminole and Eleventh Amendment. He becomes merely another citizen who can constitutionally be brought before a court by a party seeking injunctive relief. (20) Having reached the merits first. *20 (D. After concluding that sovereign immunity did not block relief against Young. therefore. 967 (Bankr. in Perkins 24 Ex parte Young. . Headrick v. perhaps to make the opinion more persuasive. 346. § 2201 gives federal courts the power "to declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party" and provides that "Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment".

125) The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation took over Indymac in 2008.” 123) In or about September. of any State or Territory. (26) Concluding that Young was properly in custody because the circuit court's injunction was proper. would be hard to explain to a jury in defense in a prosecution. On of about July. and in any event the criminal penalties would make it hard to find anyone prepared to commit the violation (just as Young had intended). or causes to be subjected. Case # 74 194 Y 01440 07 JEMCO. any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights. permitting the federal court to take action such as issuing an injunction and holding an official who violates that injunction in contempt. 42 U. under color of any statute. . This was thought to be more respectful of the states. the Court denied relief on habeas. which became subject to the policies of the Executive Branch of the United States regarding the reduction of foreclosures as part of ongoing economic stabilization. Plaintiff applied to Indymac for loan modification and received a letter that he would receive a response in 30 days.html] -41- COMPLAINT . 2008.C.S. subjects. Much better to let the whole thing come to equity. But a single violation might or might not be punished. However. 2008. and the state official still prosecutes someone for violating the statute. § 1983. custom. then § 2202 takes effect.' ] Plaintiff Acted In Good Faith And Defendants Have Not (See Declaration of Peter Clark) 122) Plaintiff acquired a loan in exchange for a note and deed of trust in or about 2005.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The effect of § 2201 is to permit the federal courts to declare the rights of a party suing a state official (or any other party. expressly authorizes a 'suit in equity' to redress 'the deprivation. 124) In July. shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.highbeam. regulation.5 and 2923. the constitutional question. or other proper proceeding for redress. if the court declares a statute to be unconstitutional. Plaintiff has millions of dollars in assets which the Defendants in said arbitration case have tied up for the expressed goal of economic duress and the stated goal of Bankrupting Peter Clark so they can take his assets “for next to nothing. Plaintiff became unable to continue to make payments on his loan at the amount specified on the loan due to acts of third parties that are the subject of Binding Arbitration that is ongoing with the American Arbitration Association. In 2008. An Act of Congress. [http://www.com/doc/1G1-177871506. or usage.6.' under color of state law.'2 [The statute provides in full: 'Every person who. suit in equity. . or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. involving intricate facts of corporate accounting. 'of any rights. privileges. privileges. so the remedy at law was not adequate. or immunities secured by the Constitution . but they were created with state officials in mind) without issuing an injunction against the official. 2009 Plaintiff presented to Indymac through ACORN Housing. (25) Moreover. which created California Civil Code 2923. ordinance. a proposal for Defendants to act in accordance with this law. the Governor signed into law SB 1137. Plaintiff never received the promised response.

Plaintiff worked diligently to insure that the files on the retail side reflected the documents that Plaintiff had submitted through ACORN. 2008. with updates as required from time-to-time. Indymac assured Plaintiff that these files had been brought together. 128) In or about April.” regarding loan modification negotiations than Plaintiff would have as an individual. including regarding service of Notice of the foreclosure sale (and Deutsche for the unlawful detainer).5 and 2923. and believes. however Indymac did not stop the foreclosure date.6. and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealings. Plaintiff was told that the modification was being reviewed. 133) Plaintiff thus realized that loan modification was required prior to the Bankruptcy Court approving a plan. and by law could not resume said modification until -42- COMPLAINT . Plaintiff made sure that Indymac. but not Deutsche or Indymac. Plaintiff called Indymac directly. pre-loan modification rate that Plaintiff could not afford. and which needed to be modified. that Plaintiff could not afford to make any payments on other debts that are the direct and proximate result of acts by the Defendants of Plaintiff’s previously referenced Binding Arbitration. only to find that the retail side of Indymac was separate from the part that was in discussion with ACORN. As a result. Plaintiff called Indymac during the bankruptcy. ACORN assured Plaintiff that they have a higher level of access to the then secret “Indymac investors. the Foreclosure Prevention Act. Most major banks have adapted loan modification programs. 132) Plaintiff learned that during his bankruptcy he would be expected to continue to make payment on the loan at the higher. OneWest. but is alleged to have failed to follow the procedures proscribed by law. 130) Plaintiff became alarmed in the weeks leading up to the foreclosure date of August 4. became subject to said federal executive policies in addition to relevant California law such as California Civil Code 2923. and the trustee. 129) ACORN worked with Plaintiff to insure that Plaintiff supplied all materials necessary for Indymac to complete the loan modification process. 2008. the day prior to the scheduled foreclosure. Plaintiff engaged the services of ACORN Housing to pursue loan modification with Indymac. 127) Indymac antecedent OneWest alleged that they began foreclosure proceedings in the name of Indymac in or about December. Plaintiff believed that his bankruptcy plan would be rejected because such a high percentage of Plaintiff’s income would have to be dedicated to payments to Indymac. 2009. Plaintiff was informed that Indymac cancelled the foreclosure date. in purchasing Indymac from the FDIC. and Indymac reported that that they had ceased processing the loan modification. Plaintiff believed. that ACORN’s policies regarding loan modification are closest to those of President Obama of any other group. 2009. was aware of Plaintiff’s bankruptcy. Barak Obama was elected President of the United States and enacted executive policies to minimize foreclosures. 2009.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 126) In November. and Plaintiff has reason to believe that this is true. and such modification was never denied. 131) Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy on August 3. After filing.

together with a request that Indymac complete the loan modification process. 2009. Indymac representatives stated that they would. Indymac and OneWest deceived Plaintiff with promises to move Plaintiff’s loan modification forward. and has been damaged thereby. believed that he had to complete the loan modification and establish an affordable payment schedule prior to going back into bankruptcy to re-organize the remainder of his debts in the mutual interest of legitimate debtors. However Plaintiff did not know this at the time. Once again.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plaintiff was out of bankruptcy. Plaintiff thus relied on said false statement by Indymac to Plaintiff’s detriment. Defendants kept said foreclosure process secret not only from Plaintiff. Defendants exercised undue influence over Plaintiff to cause Plaintiff to come out of bankruptcy protection to complete the loan modification process. including. In said capacity as alleged Note Holder. Deception and Undue Influence 139) Those in Agency relationship with Deutsche used economic duress regarding the high payments required by Plaintiff’s unmodified loan to force Plaintiff to remain out of bankruptcy in order to fix the problem by the loan modification that it now appears Defendants had no intention of granting. who alleges that he never received any notice of foreclosure sale (See declaration of Alan Kilpatrick). 2009. Plaintiff has since learned that Indymac’s statement was false. in relying on Defendant’s false and self-serving statements regarding the need to be out of bankruptcy. 134) In September. and verified that in a phone call on October 13. because it could have been accomplished as part of a re-affirmation of the debt. Plaintiff supplied said proof by fax to Indymac. Plaintiff relied on Defendant’s statements to his detriment. however Plaintiff. and other deception. and that they would resume the loan modification process as soon as Plaintiff was out of bankruptcy. Defendants assured Plaintiff that no foreclosure was scheduled. 135) Plaintiff’s bankruptcy was dismissed on a technicality. Indymac. Indymac agreed to do so. Plaintiff alleges that Indymac has engaged in deceptive and unfair business practices to defraud Plaintiff of possession of his home during the time of Plaintiff’s business re-organization required as a direct and proximate result of malfeasant acts by the Defendants in the previously referenced Binding Arbitration. and allegedly completing. 137) Defendants blindsided Plaintiff by secretly re-scheduling. from his belief at the time. 138) Plaintiff acted in good faith at all times related to the loan modification. and Indymac did not. an alleged foreclosure of Plaintiff’s home one week later (October 20th). Defendants’ deception and apparent violations of -43- COMPLAINT . 140) In the capacity as alleged Note Holder. 136) Plaintiff thus asked Indymac if they would process the loan modification if he would remain out of bankruptcy to complete the loan modification process. and Plaintiff was free to re-file for bankruptcy because Plaintiff had fixed the technical problem within days of his filing for bankruptcy. but also from the holder of the second deed of trust. but needed proof that Plaintiff was out of bankruptcy.

Indymac had previously indicated that all that remained to complete the loan modification was Plaintiff showing the increased income that he was able to prove prior to his having to step into bankruptcy to prevent the foreclosure in the interim. however Indymac has refused. and thus deceived Plaintiff to step out of bankruptcy protection rather than completing a loan modification as part of a re-affirmation of the debt in Plaintiff’s bankruptcy under the oversight of the bankruptcy trustee. shop. e. 142) Completing the loan modification was a high priority for the above stated and other reasons: including because Plaintiff’s office and shop area is in a detached garage on the same property. Plaintiff has numerous business opportunities. also in secret from Plaintiff. 143) Defendants were precluded from their foreclosure by the automatic stay in the bankruptcy. and has been vacant for months. and thereafter. No foreclosure was scheduled b. d. which process appeared to be nearly completed. which business has been placed on hold as a result of the acts of third parties that are in binding arbitration. and office. Plaintiff’s home is more value to Plaintiff than it would be to Defendants on the open market. Plaintiff relied on the false and/or misleading statements by Indymac to Plaintiff’s detriment. Plaintiff’s bankruptcy was dismissed without discharge for a technical reason that Plaintiff had already fixed. The house next door is for sale. including the telephone call on October 13th.) 141) Thus.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealings in their relations with Plaintiff is particularly egregious because Indymac had previously informed Plaintiff that: a. Plaintiff cannot focus on restarting his business while being distracted by the loss of his home. COMPLAINT . something that did not appear possible in the absence of loan modification. to do so. allowing Plaintiff to make a clean re-filing. Plaintiff had to get out of bankruptcy prior to completing the loan modification process begun with Indymac many months before. -44- a. and needs to concentrate on re-starting his business at this time. b. and a week before they completed the foreclosure. However Plaintiff chose not to do so specifically because of the representations by Indymac that would have allowed Plaintiff’s bankruptcy plan to succeed. Plaintiff informed Indymac of ways they could mitigate the damages. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of his reliance on Defendants’ misrepresentations. Plaintiff showed that income. as now appears to be federal policy in keeping with the stated executive goals of the Obama Administration in the absence of action by the United States Congress. and continues to refuse. Plaintiff was able to show twice as much income. c. Such representations by Indymac included a telephone call to Plaintiff on the 13th of October by a representative of Indymac requesting additional information that Plaintiff supplied the next day (one week after Indymac had secretly re-scheduled the foreclosure.

This is alleged because the evidence indicates that Indymac generally did not acquire. And now the Attorneys General of all fifty states are investigating what is alleged to constitute wholesale fraud on the part of numerous financial institutions. The evidence indicates that Deutsche is now acting contrary to public policy to exacerbate the problem that One West was supposed to resolve by its purchase of Indymac. 147) By purchasing Indymac and its portfolio of loans from the Federal Government at a steep discount that anticipated the loan modifications that would have to be enacted. 145) As a result. Bank of American has now halted foreclosures nationwide because f the problems as shown by EXHIBIT G. Deutsche’s Pattern of Fraud Constitutes Racketeering 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 146) Our society has placed lenders in a position of trust by providing them with special. According to rulings of State and Federal Judges since 2007. Defendants agents created a minefield of problems. while counting on the fact that the economic dress that Plaintiff faces will prevent him from protecting his rights and the public interest in reversing the foreclosure. actual legal rights related to said portfolio. and. However the evidence indicates that Indymac’s portfolio is. OneWest liquidated Indymac without transferring the assets in an apparent attempt to evade the taxes on the capital gain from their purchase of the discounted notes. or transfer. however it appears that said agents have succumbed to the same pressures as the overseers of undersea oil drilling in failing to act in keeping with the public trust.1 2 3 4 5 6 144) In failing to proceed with the loan modification as a re-affirmation in the bankruptcy and in proceeding in the foreclosure of the property of the Debtor. with IndyMac/OneWest and 25 While virtually all of the major banks in this state have recognized their responsibility and have created loan modification programs that have been approved by the commissioner in keeping with the intent of the Foreclosure Prevention Act. as now demonstrated by their violations of federal authority and due process. Deutsche and Indymac/OneWest are notable exceptions. as delineated further herein. and second by their “eviction mill” process to evict their clients from their homes without taking the actual legal steps for actual ownership. Defendants have engaged in a pattern of violations of that trust by engaging in numerous violations of state and federal law. first related to their sub-prime loans. In addition. an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the Plaintiff and the Defendants concerning their respective rights regarding Defendant’s secret foreclosure proceeding while stating to Plaintiff that they were actively engaged in loan modification. worthless. without complying with notice requirements. -45- COMPLAINT . expedited legal processes whenever their agents proclaim by fiat that they have complied with all legal requirements to take ownership of their client’s property. to a large extent. but merely the electronic representation of rights that they never possessed25. OneWest became the beneficiary of the profits that Deutsche is now attempting to extract by allegedly illegal means. filed and attached hereto.

November 17. of the $50 billion the Feds have given to AIG's counter-parties. both claims must be held to be false. If. Plaintiff relied on Deutsche’s agents misrepresentations in October and thereafter to his detriment. Plaintiff did not learn of this allegation until receiving a copy of an unlawful detainer action against him in or about March 11. with whom Mr. and that Indymac had taken possession of the property by nature of said foreclosure. 2009. 148) During the debate about bailing-out the banks. Congress decided that non-US banks should not be getting TARP funds. is two weeks AFTER Deutsche Defendants now allege that they had foreclosed on November 4th. Deutsche also infers that it made the switch five years ago. 153) Either OneWest’s previous representation that it foreclosed on the property/deed on October 20. From information and belief. Peter Clark of said visit and said alleged foreclosure. 149) The evidence indicates that those who claim to represent Deutsche and/or those acting in an agency relationship and/or in conspiracy to engage in the acts and omissions complained about herein. Mary Bauer then informed Plaintiff. Deutsche now infers that it purchased the Note and Deed of Trust from Indymac sometime after October 20th and before the end of November 4th. inferring that Indymac has engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation for the duration. and that Indymac had taken the property in a foreclosure action on October 20. Williams is alleged to have informed Mary Bauer that she had sixty days to vacate the premises. 85 and EXHIBIT J and at a time when Bank of America stopped ALL foreclosures for one of the reasons present in the current case. 154) The date of Correspondence from Indymac/One West. 152) For its alleged innocent purchaser status. 2009. 151) Upon hearing the allegation that a foreclosure had taken place. then the $6 Billion in Bailout money would appear to be doubly egregious. Clark was actively engaged in loan modification at the time. Peter Clark immediately called Indymac. false in all. Indymac confirmed that the property was an “REO” (real estate owned) of the bank. and the scope of this agency relationship and/or conspiracy will be delineated by reasonable discovery. Real Estate Broker/Agent Rebecca “Williams” came to the premises of Unit “B” and informed tenant Mary Bauer that a foreclosure had occurred on October 20th. contrary to the intent of Congress. 2009. 2009. Ms. 2009. Deutsche Bank is alleged to have received $6 billion. in fact. falsus in omnibus). 2009. By the legal principle of “false in one. and did not foreclose until said November 4th date. Indymac/OneWest repeatedly acknowledged to Plaintiff that they had received all -46- COMPLAINT . 150) From information and belief on October 22. or Deutsche’s representation that it foreclosed on November 4th constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Deutsche high on the list. and has been damaged thereby in an amount to be ascertained at trial. 2009. Indymac verified said alleged “fact” in a letter to Plaintiff dated November 17. Up until this November 17th letter. the reason that Deutsche never incorporated was to evade American taxes. when no third party came forward to purchase the property at the Trustee sale. 2010. (Falsus in uno. see ¶¶39. See.

False or misleading representations A debt collector may not use any false. 156) A further actual controversy has arisen related to the secretive dealings between the Indymac Parties and Deutsche Bank related to their now alleged foreclosure proceedings on November 10. Finally put to the test. acting in agency relationship with each other. including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 41 > SUBCHAPTER V > § 1692e § 1692e. Judge ordered Deutsche Bank to fix this. law. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing. On the current case there are added questions related to the two -47- COMPLAINT . In all cases there is a question of standing. Deutsche Bank could only argue that the banks had foreclosed on such cases for years without challenge. unchallenged. Judge Boyko ordered Deutsche Bank to prove they were the owners of the mortgages (or Notes). 2009. Regardless of such lack of standing. In Ohio.” the Judge concluded. or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. it appears that the question related solely to the arrogance and audacity of a lender telling a judge to ignore its sloppy paperwork and just get on with a foreclosure. The Judge then declared that the banks “seem to adopt the attitude that since they have been doing this for so long. deceptive. “their weak legal arguments compel the court to stop them at the gate.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of the necessary documentation for loan modification review. 157) As in the current case. but the copies of notes and mortgages Deutsche Bank included with its filings don't show ultimate endorsement/assignment to Deutsche Bank.” 158) With “in re Foreclosure Cases” there was never a question that the loans weren't legally sold or assigned to Deutsche Bank. they are alleged to have taken advantage of their position of trust by fraudulent misrepresentations in violation of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealings as a key element of their failure to act responsibly in keeping with banking regulations. and now hold the property of Plaintiff in Constructive Trust due to their deceptive business practices and violations of law. In re Foreclosure Cases Judge Boyko ordered Deutsche Bank to produce evidence of standing. (10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer. three weeks after Indymac’s previously alleged foreclosure proceedings on October 20. The Judge chose to act by law instead. this practice equates with legal compliance. It appears this angered Judge Boyko. and the intent of the California Legislature and the Obama Administration. the following conduct is a violation of this section: (5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken. and were actively pursuing said loan modification. and they could not. Deutsche Bank alleges that it was acting as “Trustee” for “securitization pools.” But the evidence indicates that the Trustee never got the legal document known as the mortgage. Deutsche Bank did so by having its attorneys draft after-the-fact assignments. 155) Deutsche and OneWest are both alleged to have lacked standing to engage in a foreclosure action. as in the current situation. undoubtedly because nobody could find the original assignments.

Most of the fatal flaws have never been fixed. Clark’s Chapter 13 reorganization to a Chapter 7 liquidation and thus while the case was under the authority of the federal authority of the Case Trustee. bankruptcy fraud. (See Peter Clark’s Attachment iii Declaration filed and attached herewith. Clark agreed to stipulate because the evidence. and thus Mr. however Deutsche had no actual standing to act in either court. Clark in the Contra Costa Superior Court after the conversion of Mr. and the numerous other violations of law delineated herein which is alleged to constitute racketeering under the RICO Act. 161) Deutsche then filed for summary judgment based upon said (fatally) flawed unlawful detainer pleadings.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 alleged foreclosure dates (October 20 and November 10. including Deutsche’s failure of service and continued failure to file a fictitious business name statement (making it illegal under California law for Deutsche to “maintain any action in any court). Mr. Mr. including a reasonable attorney’s fee. Clark believed.). Defendants are alleged to have engaged in such racketeering because they knew from their previous experience that they were precluded from collecting via legal means on their alleged extortion regarding Peter Clark’s home by collateral estoppels as a result of the rulings of In re Walker and “in re Foreclosure Cases. Civil remedies: Contra Costa Courts and Bankruptcy Court Had No Jurisdiction for Deutsche 160) Deutsche tacitly admitted to violations of the Bankruptcy Act and civil rights (due process) by their filing an Unlawful Detainer action against Mr. Clark was prevented from acting in his own defense. Clark’s Bankruptcy filed February 10. 2010.” 159) The penalty for violations of the RICO Act are provided under Title 18 PART I CHAPTER 96 (c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit. and believes. supported by subsequent events delineated herein. and while Mr.. 2009). Clark in the Contra Costa Superior Court on or about March 5. Clark’s Property or his trust estate as delineated herein. Clark stipulated to a relief from stay so that he could fight said action. and thus neither the Contra Costa Courts nor the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction to act on Motions made by those who claim to represent -48- COMPLAINT . without notice to said Case Trustee. indicates that Deutsche’s Complaint was fatally flawed for numerous reasons. However Deutsche never had a legitimate claim against either Mr. during the time of the Automatic Bankruptcy Stay of Mr. and attempted to prosecute said Unlawful Detainer action against Mr. § 1964.. that it was better to fight something that was doomed than something that might be perfected. 2010.

and thus at a time when Mr. 20. In the current case. 382 P2d 910. 91 US 503. 26. McVeigh. 357 US 235. and thus while the case was under the authority of the case trustee. Summation 163) Deutsche tacitly admitted to violations of the Bankruptcy Act. or after the Bankruptcy Court agreed to abandon the asset to the Debtor so that Mr. Hanson v Denckla.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Deutsche. any order made by either of these courts is alleged to be void. Clark could have his day in court as required for due process and to prevent an unlawful taking that is prohibited by the 5th and 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution as described in part by footnote #s3-4. As a result of these factors. 41-51. 7. 23 L Ed 398. 162) This Federal Court has jurisdiction because Deutsche is owned by Deutsche AG of Frankfurt Germany. Clark was prevented from protecting his own interests [see Peter Clark’s (Attachment iii) Declaration filed and attached herewith]. The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law extend to judicial as well as political branches of government. Deutsche has violated the Bankruptcy Act in several ways to create a situation where due process was denied to Mr. 2 L Ed 2d 1283. Clark’s home at a time when the Attorneys General of all 50 states are now investigating the practice of banks complained about herein. not voidable. Judgments ' 4(b). Clark’s Chapter 13 reorganization to a Chapter 7 liquidation. and civil rights (due process) by their prosecuting their Unlawful Detainer action against Mr. and Bank of America stopped ALL foreclosures for one of the reasons present in the current case. but the evidence indicates that Deutsche is counting on the fact that it is difficult to find the proper person to serve on Deutsche’s behalf because of Deutsche’s failure to file a fictitious name statement. herein. The validity of a judgment may be affected by a failure to give the constitutionally required due process notice and an opportunity to be heard. 86 Idaho 45. 78 S Ct 1228. See EXHIBIT J. an unincorporated association that may not be legally defined. and ¶149. for lack of jurisdiction. Clark regarding Mr. so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guarantees. and ¶¶s 10-15. Deutsche thus knew that the Contra Costa Courts lacked jurisdiction to act on Deutsche’s Unlawful Detainer until after the Bankruptcy Case Trustee agreed to litigate. Earle v. See also Restatements. Prather v Loyd. the authority of the bankruptcy Trustee. Supreme Court Decisions on Void Orders: A judgment may not be rendered in violation of constitutional protections. and 19. -49- COMPLAINT . Clark in the Contra Costa Superior Court after the conversion of Mr.

2007. liberty. Supp. “contractual arrangements between institutions and counsel” — “X” dollars. C. and the rights of Americans related to life. It is alleged that in making this statement. C. Boyko summed up the importance of his ruling with the following statement: The Court will illustrate in simple terms its decision: “Fluidity of the market” — “X” dollars. Clark lacks recourse in the State Courts for the remainder.” 521 F. -50- COMPLAINT . 653 (S. In his final statement prior to his conclusion in his ruling against the Defendant fourteen times in “In Re Foreclosure Cases. 2d 650. U. District Court Judge. and the pursuit of happiness of Americans within their homes.A.S. Boyko was proclaiming that he was breaking from the directives of money interests that some courts choose to follow instead of the United States Constitution and law related to financial instruments. Oh. some must be tried in this district Court.” Judge Boyko made this statement before the magnitude of the sub-prime lending/foreclosure crisis was known. and Mr. District Court Judge.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 164) The claims are federal in nature. “rush to file. filed and attached herewith as EXHIBIT “F”). or its detrimental fall-out.D. slow to record after judgment” — “X” dollars.S. “purchasing mortgages in bulk and securitizing” — “X” dollars.A. “the jurisdictional integrity of United States District Court” — “Priceless. U. due process.

the absence of triable issues of fact. and 42 U. and/or c. § 28 U. ¶¶ 45-49 -Deutsche Refuses to Meet & Confer RE: Abandonment of Asset by Trustee.False or misleading representations. ¶¶50-97.C. Defendants and or their agents knew these representations were false or made them recklessly without any knowledge of the truth or in callus disregard thereof. 2009 .S. including adequacy of service. standing. § 2201/2202. -51- COMPLAINT . the Bankruptcy Court and the Bankruptcy Act after Plaintiff ‘s bankruptcy was converted to a Chapter 7 liquidation. § 1983 Redress. ¶¶120-122 Ex parte Young. ¶¶98. Defendants or those acting in an agency relationship have caused damages to Peter Clark and to his tenants.The Sheriff Verifies that Service was Deficient. and/or d.Deception and Undue Influence ¶¶147-160 Deutsche’s Pattern of Fraud Constitutes Racketeering ¶161-Contra Costa Courts Had No Jurisdiction. ¶163. ¶¶123-139 Plaintiff Acted In Good Faith And Defendants Have Not ¶¶140-146.related to the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Trustee.C.Parties and Agency.104-Further Violations of Law. ¶¶40-44 Post Petition Violations of Federal Authority (Bankruptcy Act) and Due Process.their alleged standing and/or capacity to file an unlawful detainer. ¶¶20-25. ¶¶26-39 Synopsis of Pre-Petition Events Leading to Post Petition Damaging Act.VIOLATIONS OF (Non Bankruptcy) LAW. 167) 168) Defendants made the representation with the intent that Plaintiff should act upon them. including by filing during the automatic bankruptcy stay. Plaintiff in particular. and when said representations were made. an alleged foreclosure without standing or Notice and thus in violation of due process on October 20th or November 4. and/or b. and as a positive assertion. Fraud.S. and 15 USC 1962e].1 2 165) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PRAYER FOR RELIEF FIRST CAUSE OF ACTIONFRAUD Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 164 hereinabove and all other paragraphs hereinafter as though fully set forth herein. In so doing Deutsche and/or those acting in an agency relationship thereto are alleged to have violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. ¶¶113-119 Bad Faith Deception. Title 15 Chapter 41 Subchapter V § 1692 Subchapter V—Debt Collection Practices § 1692e. and due process issues. including the frail and elderly Mary Bauer. and/or by claiming: a. ¶¶105-112. reference this cause of action.Summation 166) By the acts set forth above. prosecuting without notice to the trustee. directs the parties to re-alleged Paragraphs: ¶¶1-5 FACTS.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (VIOLATIONS OF BANKRUPTCY ACT) 171) Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 170 hereinabove and all other paragraphs hereinafter as though fully set forth herein. § 1983 Redress. herein. Plaintiff prays for relief according to proof. and Violations of 15 USC 1962e] (12) ¶¶ 110-130. free and clear of encumbrances. Ex parte Young. Post Petition Violations of Federal Authority and Due Process. directs the parties to realleged Paragraphs: ¶¶ 26-39 Synopsis of Pre-Petition Events Leading to Post Petition Damaging Acts. and/or engaged in money laundering as has been defined by the Comptroller of Currency.C. ¶¶ 91-97. For an award to Plaintiff of costs of suit incurred herein on all causes of action. § 2201/2202. ¶¶131-141.44. and/or violated C.P. § 28 U. That this action be tried in front of a jury. Wherefore. and 42 U. d. Deutsche has Engaged in a Pattern of Fraud 172) By acts set forth above. Fraud. Bad Faith Deception.S. Plaintiff in particular. e. For an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and/or reimbursement for the time that Plaintiff has had to dedicate to protect his home and way of life. Plaintiff has been forced to act as his own attorney and/or to hire attorneys to protect his rights. ¶¶ 142-155.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and/or § 1692f. Defendants and/or those acting in an agency if not conspiratorial relationship have violated the Bankruptcy Act and other Federal law related to Peter Clark by: -52- COMPLAINT . and has incurred and continues to incur costs. 169) 170) Plaintiff acted in reliance on Defendant’s representation and thereby suffered injury in As a further proximate result of the common allegations set forth an amount to be ascertained at trial. and each of them. loss of income. a. 473. and/or attorneys' fees.S. to Peter Clark. For restitution and re-conveyance of all real and personal property held by defendants.C. ¶¶ 80-90 Further Violations of Law. Unfair practices. c. Such other and further relief as the court shall deem just and proper. reference this cause of action.C. and/or the Bankruptcy Act. Deception and Undue Influence. ¶¶ 40. b.

and real or personal property related thereto to Peter Clark. Pleasant Hill. free and clear of the encumbrances that Deutsche has claimed in the form of a Note and/or Deed of Trust which Defendants claim to have foreclosed upon. their filing an unlawful detainer action during the automatic Bankruptcy stay.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a. Plaintiff prays for relief according to proof. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – DECLARATORY RELIEF Peter Clark re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 175 hereinabove and all other paragraphs hereinafter as though fully set forth herein. As a further proximate result of the common allegations set forth contrary to law. workshops. and has incurred and continues to incur costs. related to 1674 Pleasant Hill Road. or should have known. herein. the Bankruptcy Court and the Bankruptcy Act after Plaintiff ‘s bankruptcy was converted to a Chapter 7 liquidation in violation of in alleged violation of 11 USC §554 and due process by ex parte actions that were without notice to and outside of the presence of opposing counsel. California and all living units. related to the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Trustee. directs the parties to re-alleged Paragraphs: ¶¶ 26-39 Synopsis of Pre-Petition Events Leading to Post Petition Damaging Acts. offices. b) For an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and/or reimbursement for the time that Plaintiff has had to dedicate to protect his home and way of life. f) For an award to Plaintiff of costs of suit incurred herein on all causes of action. a) That this action be tried in front of a jury. loss of income. Wherefore. that their actions were Plaintiff has suffered damages as a proximate result. c) For restitution and re-conveyance of all real and personal property held by defendants. 173) 174) 175) Defendants knew. Plaintiff in particular. e) For punitive damages. and each of them. reference this cause of action. and/or attorneys' fees. g) Such other and further relief as the court shall deem just and proper. 176) -53- COMPLAINT . Plaintiff has been forced to act as his own attorney and/or to hire attorneys to protect his rights. d) For general personal injury damages according to proof. and/or b.

Did Indymac FSB and the Trustee follow all of the provisions of California Law and due process necessary to engage in a foreclosure? -54- COMPLAINT .” an unincorporated association that is alleged to be wholly owned by Deutsche Bank AG of Frankfurt Germany. have acted in collusion if not conspiracy as officers of the court under the color of law but in violation thereof to induce the Honorable Bruce Mills of Contra Costa County to act in violation of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the federal authority of the bankruptcy court and the Bankruptcy Act to violate the Fifth Amendment. writing for the Supreme Court. and 42 U. ¶ 90.C. § 28 U. § 2201/2202. Clark’s home. § 28 U. Post Petition Violations of Federal Authority and Due Process. This controversy is centered upon the following questions: a.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ¶¶ 40.44. in Perkins). against any adverse party. 177) Those purporting to act as attorneys or other agency relationship of “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. and in so doing receive legal title to the home of Peter Clark by an act that Mr. § 2201 gives federal courts the power "to declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party" and provides that "Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment".S. ¶¶ 80-90 Further Violations of Law.C. ¶¶ 91-97. Fraud. Clark alleges is void by collateral estoppels [In re Foreclosure Cases]. and Violations of 15 USC 1962e] (12) ¶¶120-122 Ex parte Young. Did IndyMac FSB ever actually possess the Note that attorneys who allege they represent Deutsche alleged Deutsche acquired from Indymac FSB to provide them with the standing to foreclose on Mr.Unlawful taking. § 2202 states that "Further necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted. 178) § 28 U.S.C. Clark’s Note in default and thus subject to foreclosure? c. 179) An actual controversy has arisen and continues between Peter and Deutsche designated in this cause of action over Deutsche’s claim that they had the standing and capacity to foreclose on. and workshop? b.S. after reasonable notice and hearing. Deutsche’s Lack Of Standing and Violations of Due Process.C. and regarding Deutsche’s standing and authority. office.S.(Justice Peckham. Bad Faith Deception. Did Indymac FSB exist as a legal entity at the time that those who allege they represented Indymac FSB allege that Indymac FSB declared Mr. § 1983 Redress.

2009. was there a legal transfer from Indymac to Deutsche of the Note that said attorneys who allege they represent Deutsche allege provided Deutsche with the standing to foreclose? h. Clark’s home. the time that attorneys who allege they represent Deutsche allege that Deutsche foreclosed on Mr. the time that those who allege they represent Indymac allege that Indymac foreclosed on Mr. did Deutsche actually possesses the Note that said attorneys who allege they represent Deutsche allege provided Deutsche with the standing to foreclose? m. Prior to November 4. Is the taking of a home from a homeowner in possession constitutional if based on acts that are taken in secret and thus without review and/or without due process and/or under the color of law but in violation thereof? l. Clark that they possessed the Note that said attorneys who allege they represent Deutsche allege provided Deutsche with the standing to foreclose? g. 2009. contradictory to the statements of attorneys who claim to represent Deutsche in claiming to foreclose on November 4.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 d.C. Clark’s home. 2009? j. Clark’s home. 2009. Kilpatrick allege that they never received? e. 2008 Exhibit K). did Indymac actually possesses the Note that said individuals who allege they represent Indymac allege provided Indymac with the standing to foreclose? f. 2009. the time that attorneys who allege they represent Deutsche allege that Deutsche foreclosed. 757 (Bankr. On October 20.Cal. did those who allege that they represent Deutsche provide notice to Mr. 396 B. did Deutsche actually possesses the Note that said attorneys who allege they represent Deutsche allege provided Deutsche with the standing to foreclose? i.R. Are any of the statements of Indymac regarding their alleged foreclosure on October 20. Did Deutsche have standing to foreclose on or to evict Mr. 2009. Clark and Alan.) and the contrary claims of those that purport to represent -55- COMPLAINT .D. the time that attorneys who allege they represent Deutsche allege that Deutsche foreclosed on Mr. 2009. Did those who allege that they represent Indymac FSB have the legal authority to foreclose on Mr. Clark’s home on November 4. Clark per Federal and State court rulings as denied by in re Walker and In re Kang Jin Hwang. the time that attorneys who allege they represent Deutsche allege that Deutsche foreclosed on Mr. Clark’s home at the time that they allege that they provided a Notice of intended foreclosure sale that both Mr. On November 4. Clark’s home. Clark or tenants of Mr. Did Deutsche provide notice of AND record all of the steps that were allegedly taken to provide them with alleged authority to foreclose on Plaintiff’s home? k. Prior to the alleged foreclosure on Mr. On November 4.

C § 1983 (Due Process. Did Deutsche act legally and the Civil Rights Act. or other documents or declarations? n.)? x. Title 42 U. Clark is the only one with an actual claim to be the legal owner? o. and allegedly without ever receiving the original Note. 757 (Bankr. Clark or tenants of Mr.S. Was Mr. 2008 Exhibit K).Cal. 396 B. Was Mr.despite Rule 19.R.C. Title 42 U.C § 1983 (Due Process. which requires a joinder with the actual ownet.D. 757 (Bankr.D. 396 B.14th Amendment). and not as an unlawful taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment? y. 396 B. despite lack of standing (In re Kang Jin Foreclosure Cases)? s.Cal.R. which requires a joinder with the actual owner per In re Kang Jin Hwang.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 interests which also may never have received said Note. and not engage in an unlawful taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment as part of an extensive fraud? p.D. w.S. Does Deutsche have the authority and/or legal right to act in the place of a court of law and due process to make the ruling of law that they are a bona fide third party purchaser and/or rightful assignee of the Note and Deed of Trust on Peter Clark’s home of 30 years with the right to foreclose despite the evidence to the contrary? r. Has Deutsche shown that they are a bona fide third party purchaser and rightful assignee of the Note and Deed of Trust on Peter Clark’s home of 30 years with the right to foreclose despite the evidence to the contrary? q. while the evidence indicates that Mr. Did Deutsche act in compliance with Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Court in their action in the Bankruptcy Court. Clark’s home actually foreclosed upon on November 4.Cal. and by such alleged violation of the bankruptcy act violate the civil rights of a debtor? -56- COMPLAINT .14th Amendment). and all without providing foundation for their claim such as evidence of the consideration. Did Deutsche have standing and act legally per 11 USC §554 and due process to take ex parte actions that were without notice to and outside of the presence of opposing counsel.C. 2009? v.C. the contractual agreements. Did Deutsche engage in a legal foreclosure.R. Clark in Federal Court as denied by In re Kang Jin Hwang. Did Deutsche have standing per Federal and State court rulings to sue to evict Mr. 2008 Exhibit K). despite collateral estoppels (per In re Did Deutsche engage in a legal foreclosure. 2009? u. Does Deutsche have the right to decide issues that are within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court without due process. Hwang.)? t. Clark’s home actually foreclosed upon on October 20. 2008 Exhibit K). Did Deutsche also act legally regarding the Civil Rights Act. 757 (Bankr.).

and workshop. and Plaintiff’s constitutional right to due process? bb. These circumstances include the loss of Mr. Clark’s home. Clark’s way of life. despite Rules of Professional Conduct of the California Bar. 182) The declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time. Clark’s home. California on or about November 4. Without such declaration Mr. Clark will face the burden of loss of use of property and attendant benefits caused by the unsettled state of affairs resulting from different interpretations of agreements. office. Peter Clark without first receiving a relief from stay from the Bankruptcy Court in Peter Clark’s Bankruptcy? 180) If the answer to any of the above is “No. -57- COMPLAINT . Do Agents who allege to represent Deutsche have the authority and/or legal right to act in the place of the bankruptcy court by representing to the Contra Costa Superior Court that a bankruptcy trustee has the legal capacity to abandon an asset of trust. 181) Mr. Do attorney/agents who allege to represent Deutsche have the legal right to engage in ex parte communications with the Judge of the Contra Costa Superior Court that appears to a third party to constitute collusion. Clark 's and the defendants' respective rights and duties that might be imputed between the parties regarding the subject property. and other remedies are and would be inadequate. and the loss of Mr.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 z. The foreclosure alleged by those who claim to represent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company related to the Subject Premises at 1674 Pleasant Hill Road. Clark desires a judicial determination and declaration of Mr. Clark can determine his rights. Does Deutsche have the authority and/or legal right to act during the time of the automatic bankruptcy stay of Debtor. WHEREFORE. 2009. Plaintiff prays for relief according to proof as set forth hereinafter and for judgment against Defendants and each of them. or has abandoned an asset of a trust. Clark free and clear of the alleged encumbrance. without an order from the Bankruptcy Judge in keeping with 11 USC §554 despite the requirements of said federal law. and/or that a relief from stay alone releases an asset from the authority of the Bankruptcy Court? aa. and said title instead must be ordered reinstated to Mr. Pleasant Hill. obligations and duties under said agreements. is void.” then Deutsche does not possess legal title to Mr. so that Mr. as follows: A. all outside of the presence of opposing counsel. Rules of Court.

California is null and void.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 B. Pleasant Hill. Pleasant Hill. -58- COMPLAINT . Pleasant Hill. The Note and Deed of Trust upon which those who claim to represent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company allege that they foreclosed on the Subject Premises at 1674 Pleasant Hill Road. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company shall issue a grant deed back to Peter Clark for the Subject Premises at 1674 Pleasant Hill Road. Any judgment received by those who claim to represent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company related to the Subject Premises at 1674 Pleasant Hill Road. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company has no claim to the Subject Premises at 1674 Pleasant Hill Road. Pleasant Hill. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper. C. California or against Peter Clark related thereto. and are void in accordance with law and public policy. California was accomplished in violation of due process and/or without proper notice to opposing counsel for the Bankruptcy Trustee and without abandonment of the asset by the Trustee. E. D. California. E.

and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Lewis. Defendants worked a denial of Peter Clark's rights.S. ¶¶40-44 Post Petition Violations of Federal Authority (Bankruptcy Act) and Due Process. d. ¶¶ 98.Summation 184) At all times relevant herein. privileges.28 Soto v. 185) privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution or by Federal law26. secs.S.104-Further Violations of Law. by conspiring for the purpose of impeding and hindering the due course of justice. 1985. 343. ¶¶ 45-49 -Deutsche Refuses to Meet & Confer RE: Abandonment of Asset by Trustee. 441 -59- COMPLAINT . reference this cause of action. Romeo. by refusing or neglecting to prevent such deprivations and denials to plaintiff. 833 (1998). Youngberg v. to wit. Fifth. County of Sacramento v. a. the conduct of all Defendants were subject to 42 U. ¶¶50-97. ¶¶113-119 Bad Faith Deception.C. Plaintiff in particular.The Sheriff Verifies that Service was Deficient. and immunities as guaranteed by the Fourth. Clark of title and/or titular possession of his home without standing b. 103 F.VIOLATIONS OF (Non Bankruptcy) LAW. § 28 U. 315 (1982) 28 Miga v. ¶¶123-139 Plaintiff Acted In Good Faith And Defendants Have Not ¶¶140-146. 1983: DUE PROCESS 183) Peter Clark re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 182 hereinabove and all other paragraphs hereinafter with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.3d 1056. thereby depriving plaintiff of his rights. and 1988. 1986. and 15 USC 1962e].Deception and Undue Influence ¶¶147-160 Deutsche’s Pattern of Fraud Constitutes Racketeering ¶161-Contra Costa Courts Had No Jurisdiction. Bell v. by depriving Mr. § 1983 Redress. and 42 U. with intent to deny Mr. 398 Mass.S. Clark of title and/or titular possession of his home without due process of law 27 c. ¶¶120-122 Ex parte Young.C. ¶¶105-112. 457 U.C. 1061 (1st Cir. 1983. Fraud.S. 523 U. Holyoke.S. 307. 1997). Acting under the color of law. § 2201/2202.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATION OF 42 U. Flores. 349. ¶163. directs the parties to re-alleged Paragraphs: ¶¶ 26-39 Synopsis of Pre-Petition Events Leading to Post Petition Damaging Acts.C. by depriving Mr. Wolfish. 350 (1986) (deprivation of pretrial detainee's substantive due process rights where state seeks to impose punishment without a constitutional adjudication of guilt). Clark equal protection of laws.S.

¶¶ 45-49 -Deutsche Refuses to Meet & Confer RE: Abandonment of Asset by Trustee.S. as follows: A. § 1983 Redress. C. Prior to a relief from stay from the Bankruptcy Court. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATION OF 42 U.S. and D. -60- COMPLAINT .Summation U. reference this cause of action.S. § 2201/2202. 520. Fraud. ¶¶123-139 Plaintiff Acted In Good Faith And Defendants Have Not ¶¶140-146. n. B. and defense of suits incurred. ¶¶40-44 Post Petition Violations of Federal Authority (Bankruptcy Act) and Due Process. ¶¶120-122 Ex parte Young.S.104-Further Violations of Law. and 15 USC 1962e].Violations of (Non Bankruptcy) LAW. Plaintiff in particular.C. ¶¶105-112. ¶¶ 98. directs the parties to re-alleged Paragraphs: ¶¶ 26-39 Synopsis of Pre-Petition Events Leading to Post Petition Damaging Acts.The Sheriff Verifies that Service was Deficient. and 42 U. Plaintiff prays for relief according to proof as set forth hereinafter and for judgment against Defendants and each of them. ¶163.Deception and Undue Influence ¶¶147-160 Deutsche’s Pattern of Fraud Constitutes Racketeering ¶161-Contra Costa Courts Had No Jurisdiction. costs of suits. For a declaration that Deutsche has no standing related to Peter Clark’s Bankruptcy proceedings. ¶¶113-119 Bad Faith Deception. and/or prior to the abandonment of the asset and/or litigation by the Trustee are void in accordance with law and public policy. ¶¶50-97. § 28 U.C.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WHEREFORE.C. For damages. 535. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper. For an order that the acts of Deutsche that were accomplished after Peter Clark’s bankruptcy related to the Note and Deed of Trust secured by the Subject Premises without proper service to the Bankruptcy Trustee. 16 (1979). 1983: UNLAWFUL TAKING 186) Peter Clark re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 185 hereinabove and all other paragraphs hereinafter with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

secs. d. and 1988. with intent to deny Mr.” however Deutsche has shown no actual evidence that it has actually acted in such a role. even if such a role provided standing for Deutsche to sue Peter Clark for unlawful detainer. the conduct of all Defendants were subject to 42 U. 457 U. which it does not. WHEREFORE. by conspiring for the purpose of impeding and hindering the due course of justice. 1997). 343. Youngberg v. 103 F. 188) Defendants worked a denial of Peter Clark's rights. Lewis. Clark of title and/or titular possession of his home without due process of law 30 c. Holyoke. 16 (1979). 1983. to wit.3d 1056. and immunities as guaranteed by the Fourth.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 187) At all times relevant herein. 350 (1986) (deprivation of pretrial detainee's substantive due process rights where state seeks to impose punishment without a constitutional adjudication of guilt). 349. a. 833 (1998). 398 Mass.S. privileges.31 189) In attempting to assert that Deutsche held a position related in some way to the servicing of a loan for (the former) Indymac FSB and/or similar to that which MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System) holds with other banks but without providing any evidence that Deutsche has acted in such a capacity (and such a role would still not provide standing or capacity). 441 U. Clark of title and/or titular possession of his home without standing b. Acting under the color of law but in violation thereof and without standing. 520. n. 315 (1982) 31 Miga v.S. -6129 30 COMPLAINT . 307. 523 U. and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. 535. Bell v. County of Sacramento v. 1985.C. Fifth. as follows: A.S. Plaintiff prays for relief according to proof as set forth hereinafter and for judgment against Defendants and each of them.S. thereby depriving plaintiff of his rights. Romeo. Deutsche has engaged in a scheme depended on “artifice and the ability to generate any necessary ‘assignment’ which flowed from it. For an order that the acts of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company that were accomplished after Peter Clark’s bankruptcy related to the Note and Deed of Trust secured Soto v. 1986. 1061 (1st Cir. by refusing or neglecting to prevent such deprivations and denials to plaintiff. privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution or by Federal law29. Flores. Wolfish. Clark equal protection of laws. by depriving Mr. by depriving Mr.

§ 2201/2202. § 1983 Redress. and D.S. For a declaration that the Note and Deed of Trust upon which those who claim to represent Deutsche allege that they foreclosed on the Subject Property at 1674 Pleasant Hill Road.S. Fraud. Plaintiff in particular. there -62- COMPLAINT . California is void.VIOLATIONS OF (Non Bankruptcy) LAW. ¶¶105-112. and defense of suits incurred. reference this cause of action. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper. and 15 USC 1962e].Summation 191) By virtue of the terms of the loan agreement and position or trust 23 24 25 placed in lenders and Trustees to behave ethically and to follow the law and due process with meticulous attention to detail as required by law. ¶¶113-119 Bad Faith Deception. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATIONS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 190) Peter Clark re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 189 hereinabove and all other paragraphs hereinafter as though fully set forth herein.C. directs the parties to re-alleged Paragraphs: ¶¶ 26-39 Synopsis of Pre-Petition Events Leading to Post Petition Damaging Acts. some of which is set forth above in the incorporated paragraphs. and 42 U. B. ¶¶ 45-49 -Deutsche Refuses to Meet & Confer RE: Abandonment of Asset by Trustee. ¶¶120-122 Ex parte Young. Pleasant Hill. and a declaration that Deutsche has no standing related to Peter Clark’s Bankruptcy proceedings.Deception and Undue Influence ¶¶147-160 Deutsche’s Pattern of Fraud Constitutes Racketeering ¶161-Contra Costa Courts Had No Jurisdiction.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 by the Subject Premises without proper notice to the Bankruptcy Trustee a relief from stay from the Bankruptcy Court and abandonment of the asset by the Trustee are void in accordance with law and public policy.The Sheriff Verifies that Service was Deficient. ¶¶40-44 Post Petition Violations of Federal Authority (Bankruptcy Act) and Due Process. For damages. costs of suits. ¶¶123-139 Plaintiff Acted In Good Faith And Defendants Have Not ¶¶140-146.104-Further Violations of Law. ¶¶50-97.C. ¶163. § 28 U. ¶¶ 98. together with all collection efforts. C.

a relationship of trust and confidence giving rise to a fiduciary duty in each of the defendants in their capacity as lenders during an economic emergency. and for the lender to engage in Loan Modification in good faith. it was the clear intent of the Founding Fathers of our country to require good faith efforts by all to protect the civil rights of others in all human endeavors and governmental affairs. honesty and integrity. 194) By enacting the Constitution of the United States. on the one hand. it was the clear intent of the California Legislature to reduce the number of foreclosures in this state by requiring good faith efforts by the lenders to engage in loan modification. and where those placed in such trust exceeded their authority by law for expedience or to squeeze windfall profits. and the “Protecting Tenants in Foreclosure Act of 2009. the collection of debts.” it was the clear intent of Congress to require good faith efforts by all to protect human rights in all affairs.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 existed between Peter. 193) In enacting California Civil Code 2923. Title 15 Chapter 41 Subchapter V § 1692 Subchapter V—Debt Collection Practices § 1692eFalse or misleading representations. and/or the Bankruptcy Act. the balance is tipped past the point of violation of due process and thus civil rights or those at the receiving end of the summary proceedings. and/or money laundering laws as has been defined by the Comptroller of Currency. on the other hand.5. Unfair practices. unlawful detainer. Without honesty and integrity. and the Moving Party is not engaged in deceptive business practices. to deal with Peter Clark. 2923. as is alleged in this case). 195) By enacting the Civil Rights Act. and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and those acting in agency relationship which includes Indymac FSB and/or OneWest and/or their predecessors or successors of interest and each of them. summary proceedings which border on a violation of due process (even when the letter of the law is adhered to. with the utmost good faith. -63- COMPLAINT . and foreclosure. the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.6 and the Foreclosure Prevention Act. 192) The special trust placed by the American public and by Peter Clark in lenders is evidenced by laws and policies related to lending. and/or § 1692f.

Said violations of law have caused economic duress to Mr. and with the intent to injure Peter Clark in his financial and personal interests. unlawful. and fraudulent business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. Plaintiff acted in accordance with Defendant’s directives to Plaintiff’s detriment. however the court has not yet abandoned it. and each of them. and other deceptive practices and then violated bankruptcy laws and filed litigation against Mr. and fraudulent business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. 199) As a proximate result of these actions by defendant Deutsche Bank. and fully liable for the damages32. for the commission by each of them of this tort. Clark has been damaged as more fully described herein and which will be more fully delineated at trial in an amount that can be mitigated by actions of this court. -6432 COMPLAINT . and Mr. and thus which must be ascertained in a final accounting at trial. malice. fraud. Thus.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 196) The United State Congress did not take action to require Bankruptcy Judges to force loan modification. 197) By acting post-petition in an agency relationship with the One West Parties. reckless disregard of Peter Clark's rights and the consequences that they might suffer. and each of them. however. concealment. Clark's reliance thereon. unlawful. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche) and/or those who allege to represent Deutsche become a full Party to fraud. when those acting in agency relationship with Deutsche reported that they would complete the loan modification once the bankruptcy proceedings were halted. Clark’s bankruptcy as a key element of their damaging acts as described herein. however. 200) In doing the post petition actions herein alleged. Deutsche Bank acted with oppression. Clark during the time of the automatic stay of Mr. This constitutes unfair. Clark. Peter has been damaged as more fully described above in an amount to be ascertained at trial. and Mr. and Peter is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages from these defendants. As a proximate result of these actions by Respondents. 198) Deutsche engaged in misrepresentation. In inducing Plaintiff to take actions that have caused the damages at issue herein. Indymac’s and One West’s pre-petition conduct as described herein constitutes unfair. Clark’s reliance thereon. Mr.. Those acts by Indymac and One West’s were pre-petition. and the subject of pre-petition litigation which the case trustee has agreed to abandon.

(a) That this action be tried before a jury.C. unlawful activities in violation of Business and Profession Code Section 17200. directs the parties to re-alleged Paragraphs: ¶¶ 26-39 Synopsis of Pre-Petition Events Leading to Post Petition Damaging Acts. and 15 USC 1962e]. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 203) Peter Clark re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 202 hereinabove and all other paragraphs hereinafter as though fully set forth herein. § 2201/2202. § 28 U. ¶¶ 45-49 -Deutsche Refuses to Meet & Confer RE: Abandonment of Asset by Trustee.S. fees and monies obtained by Defendants from the wrongful conduct alleged above in an amount according to proof. (g)For an award of reasonable attorneys' fees. ¶¶113-119 Bad Faith Deception. reference this cause of action. (e) For double damages as allowed by law (f) For punitive damages. Peter Clark has incurred and continues to incur substantial time dedicated to these cases and/or attorneys' fees. ¶¶40-44 Post Petition Violations of Federal Authority (Bankruptcy Act) and Due Process. (c) For general personal injury damages according to proof. ¶¶ 98.C.VIOLATIONS OF (Non Bankruptcy) LAW. ¶¶50-97.The Sheriff Verifies that Service was Deficient. Plaintiff in particular. § 1983 Redress. ¶¶105-112. 202) Peter Clark is entitled to restitution of all gains. Wherefore. -65- COMPLAINT . Peter prays for relief according to proof as set forth hereinafter. (d) For damages for loss of income and business advantage that could reasonably be imputed. and 42 U. (h) For an award to Peter Clark of costs of suit incurred herein on all causes of action.104-Further Violations of Law. Fraud. (b)For general property damages according to proof.S. benefits. (i) Such other and further relief as the court shall deem just and proper.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 201) As a further proximate result of the activities set forth herein related to Deutsche Bank’s. ¶¶120-122 Ex parte Young.

207) Alleged Deutsche agents acted with oppression and malice in prosecuting litigation against Mr. Clark's rights and the consequences that they might suffer. and/or probable cause to take possession of Mr. or should have known that they lacked standing. and Peter is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages from these defendants. concealment. acting in collusion if not conspiracy as officers of the court under the color of law used the artifice of an alleged assignment of the Note on the Subject Property to sabotage due process and the rights of Mr. Said scheme relied on the Deutsche artifice to generate a story to rationalize the alleged ‘assignment’ that they knew to be false. and each of them. for the commission by each of them of this tort. Clark during the time of the automatic stay of Mr. and other deceptive practices. Clark’s home to provide the pretense that Deutsche was an innocent third party purchaser. and that their actions were in violation of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and other law to violate Mr.Summation 204) Those purporting to act as agents of “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. ¶163.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ¶¶123-139 Plaintiff Acted In Good Faith And Defendants Have Not ¶¶140-146. alleged Deutsche agents conjured a story related to a Note secured by a deed of trust against Mr. knew. authority. Clark’s home. 206) Alleged agents of “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. and to other residents to the detriment of said residents. his frail and elderly tenant. Clark. Said alleged Deutsche agents acts were in reckless disregard of Mr. violation of bankruptcy laws COMPLAINT . an unincorporated association that is alleged to be wholly owned by Deutsche Bank AG of Frankfurt Germany. 205) To perpetuate their scheme. Clark in his financial and personal interests. Clark’s Fifth Amendment rights by Unlawful Taking.Deception and Undue Influence ¶¶147-160 Deutsche’s Pattern of Fraud Constitutes Racketeering ¶161-Contra Costa Courts Had No Jurisdiction. and with the intent to injure Mr. 208) Alleged Deutsche agents acted with further oppression and malice in their -66- misrepresentation. Clark’s bankruptcy as a key element of their damaging acts as described herein.

The Sheriff Verifies that Service was Deficient. a. Clark has been damaged as more fully described above in an amount to be ascertained at trial.Summation -67- COMPLAINT . ¶¶40-44 Post Petition Violations of Federal Authority (Bankruptcy Act) and Due Process. ¶¶ 98.104-Further Violations of Law. Fraud. ¶¶ 45-49 -Deutsche Refuses to Meet & Confer RE: Abandonment of Asset by Trustee. ¶¶123-139 Plaintiff Acted In Good Faith And Defendants Have Not ¶¶140-146.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 including Section 554.S. f. 8th CAUSE OF ACTION – MALICIOUS ABUSE OF PROCESS 209) Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 208 hereinabove and all other paragraphs hereinafter as though fully set forth herein. § 1983 Redress. and 15 USC 1962e]. As a proximate result of these actions by alleged Deutsche agents. For an award of reasonable attorneys' fees. § 28 U. c. b. For punitive damages. Mr. reference this cause of action. ¶¶105-112.VIOLATIONS OF (Non Bankruptcy) LAW. and unfair. ¶¶113-119 Bad Faith Deception. ¶163. For an award to Plaintiff of costs of suit incurred herein on all causes of action. ¶¶120-122 Ex parte Young. Such other and further relief as the court shall deem just and proper. For general personal injury damages according to proof. e. That this action be tried before a jury. Plaintiff in particular. Wherefore.. and each of them. For general property damages according to proof. Said violations of law have caused economic duress to Mr. and 42 U.C. § 2201/2202.C.S. d. Plaintiff prays for relief according to proof as set forth hereinafter. unlawful.Deception and Undue Influence ¶¶147-160 Deutsche’s Pattern of Fraud Constitutes Racketeering ¶161-Contra Costa Courts Had No Jurisdiction. and fraudulent business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. Clark and has caused pain and suffering. directs the parties to re-alleged Paragraphs: ¶¶ 26-39 Synopsis of Pre-Petition Events Leading to Post Petition Damaging Acts. g. ¶¶50-97.

and/or probable cause to take Mr. Clark’s home.S. or should have known that they lacked standing. 213) Those purporting to act as agents of “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company knew. authority. Clark’s Fifth Amendment rights by Unlawful Taking. an unincorporated association that is alleged to be wholly owned by Deutsche Bank AG of Frankfurt Germany.C. Clark during the time of the automatic stay of Mr."§ 212) To perpetuate their scheme. Clark in his financial and personal interests.Unlawful taking. alleged Deutsche agents conjured stories to provide the pretense that Deutsche was an innocent third party purchaser of the Note secured by Mr. and that their actions were in violation of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the federal authority of the bankruptcy court and the Bankruptcy Act and other law to violate Mr. and such agents are subject as individuals to the various remedies delineated herein. Said scheme relied on the Deutsche artifice to generate a story to rationalize the alleged ‘assignment’ that they knew to be false.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 210) Those purporting to act as agents of “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. 211) Said alleged Deutsche agents caused the Honorable Bruce Mills to act unconstitutionally and in violation of federal law as an individual outside of his capacity as a judge of the Superior Court of California. Clark is therefore -68- COMPLAINT . and with the intent to injure Mr. Clark's rights and the consequences that they might suffer. § 28 U. § 2202 states that "Further necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted. No such agent is protected by the state's sovereign immunity. against any adverse party. have acted in collusion as officers of the court under the color of law to induce the Honorable Bruce Mills to act in violation of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the federal authority of the bankruptcy court and the Bankruptcy Act to violate the Fifth Amendment. for which Bruce Mills had no jurisdiction as a judge of the Superior Court. Clark’s home. and/or as a defacto agent of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. Clark’s bankruptcy as a key element of their damaging acts as described herein. Said alleged Deutsche agents acts were in reckless disregard of Mr. after reasonable notice and hearing. and Mr. 214) Alleged Deutsche agents acted with oppression and malice in abusing civil process in litigation against Mr.

¶¶ 45-49 -Deutsche Refuses to Meet & Confer RE: Abandonment of Asset by Trustee. and unfair.104-Further Violations of Law. ¶¶123-139 Plaintiff Acted In Good Faith And Defendants Have Not -69- COMPLAINT .S. Fraud. ¶¶105-112. For an award to Plaintiff of costs of suit incurred herein on all causes of action. and other deceptive practices. For an award of reasonable attorneys' fees. Such other and further relief as the court shall deem just and proper. ¶¶113-119 Bad Faith Deception.C. n. and fraudulent business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. For general personal injury damages according to proof. Clark and has caused pain and suffering.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 entitled to recover punitive damages from these defendants. and 15 USC 1962e]. Clark has been damaged as more fully described above in an amount to be ascertained at trial. Plaintiff prays for relief according to proof as set forth hereinafter. Said violations of law have caused economic duress to Mr.VIOLATIONS OF (Non Bankruptcy) LAW. Mr. § 1983 Redress. § 2201/2202. As a proximate result of these actions by alleged Deutsche agents. j. violation of bankruptcy laws. l. for the commission by each of them of this tort. k. For punitive damages. i. and 42 U. unlawful. m. ¶¶120-122 Ex parte Young. ¶¶50-97.C. 215) Alleged Deutsche agents acted with further oppression and malice in their misrepresentation. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 216) Peter Clark re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 215 hereinabove and all other paragraphs hereinafter with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. For general property damages according to proof.S. and each of them. Plaintiff in particular.The Sheriff Verifies that Service was Deficient. directs the parties to re-alleged Paragraphs: ¶¶ 26-39 Synopsis of Pre-Petition Events Leading to Post Petition Damaging Acts. § 28 U. and each of them. reference this cause of action. Wherefore. That this action be tried before a jury. h. concealment. ¶¶ 98. ¶¶40-44 Post Petition Violations of Federal Authority (Bankruptcy Act) and Due Process.

and/or CCP 473.Summation 217) Acting under the color of law.34 219) By refusing or neglecting to prevent such deprivations and denials to Plaintiff. Holyoke. 218) By acting in violation of Section 554 of the Bankruptcy Code and thus while Mr.3d 1056. 103 F. Unfair practices. Clark of title and/or titular possession of the home of he last thirty years. Clark of due process of law. Fifth. where Mr. and immunities as guaranteed by the Fourth. Title 15 Chapter 41 Subchapter V § 1692 Subchapter V—Debt Collection Practices § 1692e.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ¶¶140-146.S. 833 (1998). 349. 535. 523 U. Clark equal protection of laws. Defendants worked a denial of Peter Clark's rights. privileges. 350 (1986) (deprivation of pretrial detainee's substantive due process rights where state seeks to impose punishment without a constitutional adjudication of guilt). and/or § 1692f. alleged Deutsche agents conspired for the purpose of impeding and hindering the due course of justice. Soto v.False or misleading representations. to deprive Mr. 457 U. County of Sacramento v. and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Bell v. with intent to deny Mr. Clark was prevented from defending himself and his home and without notice to the Trustee. n.Deception and Undue Influence ¶¶147-160 Deutsche’s Pattern of Fraud Constitutes Racketeering ¶161-Contra Costa Courts Had No Jurisdiction. privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution or by Federal law33. Clark to question the impartiality and integrity of the legal system of the United States in general and California specifically which Mr. Romeo. and did so without standing and in a way that would deprive Mr. ¶163.S. and/or the Bankruptcy Act.S. 16 (1979). Clark once thought was exemplary. 315 (1982) 35 Miga v. Youngberg v.35 and has caused Mr. Flores. 220) In so doing Deutsche and/or those acting in an agency relationship thereto are alleged to have violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 307. 1061 (1st Cir. 343. Clark raised his children. Lewis. alleged Deutsche agents depriving Plaintiff of his rights. and/or engaged in money laundering as has been defined by the Comptroller of Currency. Wolfish. and the peer of none. 1997). 520. 398 Mass. 441 U. the envy of all. -7033 34 COMPLAINT . and even refusing to meet-and-confer.

¶¶ 45-49 -Deutsche Refuses to Meet & Confer RE: Abandonment of Asset by Trustee.C.S. and 15 USC 1962e]. and did cause. ¶163. § 2201/2202. ¶¶120-122 Ex parte Young.The Sheriff Verifies that Service was Deficient.VIOLATIONS OF (Non Bankruptcy) LAW.C. Clark’s home. § 28 U.Deception and Undue Influence ¶¶147-160 Deutsche’s Pattern of Fraud Constitutes Racketeering ¶161-Contra Costa Courts Had No Jurisdiction. ¶¶40-44 Post Petition Violations of Federal Authority (Bankruptcy Act) and Due Process.C.104-Further Violations of Law. ¶¶123-139 Plaintiff Acted In Good Faith And Defendants Have Not ¶¶140-146.104-Further Violations of Law. reference this cause of action. Clark re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 221 hereinabove and all other paragraphs hereinafter as though fully set forth herein. and others who have acted in -71- COMPLAINT .Summation At all relevant times. § 28 U. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche”). suffering.C. ¶¶105-112.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 221) Said agents knew. immense pain. ¶¶ 45-49 -Deutsche Refuses to Meet & Confer RE: Abandonment of Asset by Trustee.Summation RICO CLAIMS TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT18 U. and due process in which they were engaged. § 2201/2202. ¶¶113-119 Bad Faith Deception. ¶¶50-97.The Sheriff Verifies that Service was Deficient. ¶¶120-122 Ex parte Young. § 1962(c) 222) Mr.S. ¶¶40-44 Post Petition Violations of Federal Authority (Bankruptcy Act) and Due Process. those who allege to represent Deutsche in a legal capacity who knew.C. or should have known. ¶¶ 98. § 1983 Redress. § 1983 Redress. and 15 USC 1962e]. and emotional distress and an alienation of affection to Mr. ¶¶ 26-39 Synopsis of Pre-Petition Events Leading to Post Petition Damaging Acts. and 42 U. ¶¶ 98. that their acts would cause. Fraud. directs the parties to re-alleged Paragraphs: ¶¶ 26-39 Synopsis of Pre-Petition Events Leading to Post Petition Damaging Acts. ¶¶113-119 Bad Faith Deception.S. ¶¶105-112.VIOLATIONS OF (Non Bankruptcy) LAW.Deception and Undue Influence ¶¶147-160 Deutsche’s Pattern of Fraud Constitutes Racketeering ¶161-Contra Costa Courts Had No Jurisdiction. ¶163. Plaintiff in particular. Fraud. or should have known about the violations of law. Clark out of proportion to the monetary values of Mr. and 42 U.S. ¶¶50-97.S. ¶¶123-139 Plaintiff Acted In Good Faith And Defendants Have Not ¶¶140-146.

including in filing and mailing pleadings related to litigation against Peter Clark during the time of Peter Clark’s Bankruptcy for the purpose of causing violation of 18 U. or carry on a scheme to extort. and 18 U.C. and thereafter performed or attempted to perform said acts.S. or promises. who associated with and/or participated in the conduct of said enterprise’s affairs. with intent to influence. matter that furthered the scheme to defraud. Defendants pattern of racketeering activity consisted of: (i) Use of extortion under the color of law provided by their malicious prosecution and/or abuse of process. or attempts to do so. or prevent Peter Clark from acting in keeping with his lawful rights (iii) a scheme to defraud facilitated by litigation filed during the time of the automatic stay in Peter Clark bankruptcy and prosecuted in violation of federal law and the authority of the Bankruptcy Trustee to obtain Peter Clark’s money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses. conspired to engage in.C.C.C. manage. including but not limited to pleadings and other papers related to their litigation.S.” within the meaning of 18 U. or engage in misleading conduct toward Peter Clark.C. or color of law and violation of 18 U. as memorialized by the proofsof-service as a key element of their fraud. and. including under the Deutsche’s agents conducted. office. § 1344.” within the meaning of 18 U.S. or authorized depository for mail.C § 1341. 223) Defendant’s filings and failure to perform also constitutes extortion.S. §§ 1961(3) and 1962(c). Deutsche’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity within the meaning of 18 U. Clark for the demonstrated goal of taking his home.S. placed or foreseeably caused to be placed in a post office. dissuade.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 an agency relationship constituted an “enterprise. 225) Deutsche’ and/or their agents committed mail fraud in violation of 18 U. §894. 1961(5) and 1962(c).C. -72- COMPLAINT . engaged in. § 1951. 224) aided and abetted. §§ 1961(1). In so dong Deutsche has used the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce with intent to distribute the proceeds of extortion or otherwise promote.S. Deutsche’s agents are individual “persons. participated in. §§ 1961(4) and 1962(c). and workshop and for the larger alleged goal of economic duress described throughout these pleadings. representations. Said acts of extortion were in violation of 18 U. establish. for the purpose of executing such scheme. § 1952. (ii) intimidation and threatens to corruptly persuade Peter Clark. each time they used or foreseeably caused the mails to be used to distribute Deutsche’s mailings of their filings with the Superior Court of California related to lawsuits and motions that Deutsche has prosecuted against Mr.S. whether or not filed with the Superior court with allegation that they knew to be false. delay.C.S.

These acts are prohibited under the RICO Act: TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 96 § 1962.VIOLATIONS OF (Non Bankruptcy) LAW.S. ¶¶ 98. and 42 U. Peter Clark has been injured in his businesses. directs the parties to re-alleged Paragraphs: ¶¶ 26-39 Synopsis of Pre-Petition Events Leading to Post Petition Damaging Acts.S. ¶¶123-139 Plaintiff Acted In Good Faith And Defendants Have Not ¶¶140-146. in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. § 1983 Redress. those who allege to represent Deutsche. Plaintiff in particular. to conduct or participate. §§ 1961(4) and 1962(c). and by reason of.S.The Sheriff Verifies that Service was Deficient. Fraud. Deutsche’s agents -73- COMPLAINT . and/or property within the meaning of 18 U. ¶¶ 45-49 -Deutsche Refuses to Meet & Confer RE: Abandonment of Asset by Trustee. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche”). (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a). ¶163.Summation 228) 229) At all relevant times. including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees and costs. §§ 1962(d). 227) As a direct and proximate result of. (b).C. ¶¶50-97. Mr.S. Prohibited Activities: (c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in. reference this cause of action. Clark re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 227 hereinabove and all other paragraphs hereinafter as though fully set forth herein.S. ¶¶40-44 Post Petition Violations of Federal Authority (Bankruptcy Act) and Due Process.C. interstate or foreign commerce.C. ¶¶105-112. Clark prays to recover threefold the damages he has sustained together with the cost of the suit. § 2201/2202. § 1962(d) (Conspiracy)Mr. and 15 USC 1962e]. or (c) of this section.S. person. directly or indirectly. § 28 U. Wherefore. ¶¶120-122 Ex parte Young.C. the activities of the Respondents and their conduct in violation of 18 U. (in alternative) ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act 18 U. § 1964(c).104-Further Violations of Law. ¶¶113-119 Bad Faith Deception.C.Deception and Undue Influence ¶¶147-160 Deutsche’s Pattern of Fraud Constitutes Racketeering ¶161-Contra Costa Courts Had No Jurisdiction. or the activities of which affect.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 226) These acts all occurred after the effective date of RICO and more than two such acts occurred within ten years of one another.C.” within the meaning of 18 U. and others who have acted in an agency relationship constituted an “enterprise.

Deutsche and their agents/clients/ co- conspirators conspired to conduct or participate. and threats to and actual disclosure of attorney-client privileged documents during a time when Petitioner was unable to enjoin or otherwise restrain Deutsche from their damaging acts because of Plaintiff’s bankruptcy and the automatic stay and jurisdiction of the trustee thereto. 232) and their conduct in violation of 18 U. including As a direct and proximate result of.C.S. 233) These acts all occurred after the effective date of RICO and more than two such acts TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 96 § 1962. person. and/or property within the meaning of 18 U. and 18 U.S. if completed. Defendant’s filings with the Superior Court became the primary vehicle for their fraud. or promises. §§ 1962(d). Defendants intended to further their endeavor that. Prohibited Activities: -74- occurred within ten years of one another.C. § 1344. and by reason of. 230) In the alternative to the tenth Cause of Action.C. representations.S.S. §894. These acts are prohibited under the RICO Act: COMPLAINT . Peter Clark has been injured in his businesses. §§ 1961(3) and 1962(d). (b) Defendant’s filings and failure to perform also constitutes extortion. and. the activities of the Respondents under the color of law and violation of 18 U. would satisfy all of the elements of a substantive RICO criminal offense adopted the goal of furthering or facilitating the criminal endeavor. who associated with and/or participated in the conduct of said enterprise’s affairs.C.S.C. Thus. in said enterprise. § 1964(c). all of the “service-by-mail” which are recorded by the innumerable “proofs-of-service “ that Defendant’s have caused to be filed with the Court Clerk constitute sworn statements of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are individual “persons. or authorized depository for mail. 231) Peter Clark and others were injured by Defendant’s overt acts in furtherance of their illegal scheme and said overt acts were acts of racketeering or otherwise unlawful under the RICO statute: (a) A scheme to defraud (see supra ¶¶ 31-119) that was knowingly and intentionally devised to defraud Peter Clark by means of false or fraudulent pretenses. matter that furthered the scheme to defraud (including but not limited to all pleadings in the their case in Contra Costa County filed in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay.” within the meaning of 18 U.S. for the purpose of executing such scheme. Defendants and/or their agents have placed or foreseeably caused to be placed in a post office. directly or indirectly.C § 1341.

directly or indirectly. ___________________________ s/Peter Clark -75- COMPLAINT .S. Peter Clark has been injured in his businesses. 2011 s/Peter Clark. including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees and costs. or (c) of this section. §§ 1962(d). person. or the activities of which affect. state that I have read the foregoing and know its contents. to conduct or participate.S. Wherefore. Mr. ___________________________ January 19. (b). 234) As a direct and proximate result of. and by reason of.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in. (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a).C. § 1964(c).C. interstate or foreign commerce. and as to those matters. The same is true of my own knowledge. in pro per Date VERIFICATION I. in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. except as to those matters that are stated on information and belief. and/or property within the meaning of 18 U. Executed this 19th day of January. Clark is entitled to recover threefold the damages he has sustained together with the cost of the suit. California. I believe them to be true. Respectively Submitted. the activities of the Respondents and their conduct in violation of 18 U. Peter Clark. in Pleasant Hill. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 2011.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful