Eastern District New York Federal Court Complaint: Fraud Upon The Court

in the united states district court
eastern district of new york

__________________________________________ )
sage el, On Behalf of THE PAMELA TAYLOR FAMILY ) Case No.
TRUST, as Trustee )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) SUMMONS
V. ) AND COMPLAINT
)
ELEANOR PHILLIPS, JEFFREY MILLER, DEPUTY ) DEMAND FOR
SHERIFF JOSEPH FUSICTO, DEPUTY SHERIFF D. )
PRATT, MICHAEL J. FICCHI, IRA MILLER, ESQ, JURY TRIAL
)
Defendants. )
)
)
)
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED that an action is now pending in this Court upon the
Complaint of the Plaintiff against the Defendants to set aside a sale, transfer,
conveyance and recording of a deed recorded against the real property located at 246
Decatur Street, Brooklyn, New York 11233.
The property affected by this action is situate entirely within the County of Kings, is
known as Block 1680 Lot 17, known as 246 Decatur Street, Brooklyn, New York
described as follows:
All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, together with the buildings and
improvements is thereon erected situate, lying and being in the Borough of Brooklyn,
County of Kings, City and State of New York, bounded and described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the Northeasterly side of St Marks Avenue, distant 131 feet 1
½ inches Southeasterly from the corner formed by the intersection of the Northeasterly
side of St Marks Avenue with the Southeasterly side of Franklin Avenue;
1
RUNNING THENCE Northeasterly parallel with Franklin Avenue and part of the distance
through a party wall 128 feet 6inches;
THENCE Southeasterly parallel with St Marks Avenue 17 feet 9 ½ inches;
THENCE Southwesterly parallel with Franklin Avenue and part of the distance through a
party wall, 128 feet 6 inches to the Northeasterly side of St Marks Avenue;
THENCE Northwesterly along the Northwesterly side of St Marks Avenue, 17 feet 9 ½
inches to the point or place of BEGINNING.
Premises known as 551 St Marks Avenue, Brooklyn New York. Plaintiff a suri juris,
Trustee as and for his complainant herein, set forth and alleges;
This is an action pursuant to Real Property Law, to quiet title and discharge of a void,
voidable and otherwise improper sale, transfer, conveyance and recording hereby does,
move for relief from judgment under FRCP Rule 60(d)(3) and under the Court's inherent
power for fraud upon the Court. This motion is brought on the grounds that the
Defendant’s tortuously interfered with Plaintiff’s right to contract, violated Plaintiffs'
due process rights, and engaged in a scheme of fraud upon this as well as lower courts.
TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER BASED UPON FRAUD PERPETUATED UPON THE COURT
The misconduct is outlined more fully in the accompanying Affidavit of Plaintiff and
Memorandum of Points and Authorities and supporting declarations, but which included among
other things: that the Defendants presented false evidence to the Court and/or concealed
material evidence from the Court, advanced arguments to the Court premised on the fact that
they maintained and had standing to commence a proceeding against plaintiff, or for which
material evidence had been withheld from the Court which caused the Court to grant the relief
2
sought by plaintiff, and thereby obtained Court rulings based thereon; prepared key information
which deceived, mislead; in Bad faith, Fraud, Conspiracy, Undue Enrichment, Aiding and
Abetting, Willful and Wanton Irreparable Harm, with Malice and Forethought, Conversion,
Commercial War, Commercial Credit Slander and continuous torts resulting in the deceptive sale,
transfer and conveyance of deed and by failing to disclose the true facts and circumstances
associated with the Defendant’s financial interest in the subject property. The Officer’s of the
State Department’s Department of Banking, as Officers of the Court as licensed attorneys, the
paperwork presented, prepared, and affidavits in support; constituted intentional and malicious
misconduct which compromised the judicial process and amounts to an unconscionable scheme
designed to improperly influence the Court's decisions in this case.
Thus we seek that the Court set aside the lower Court judgment in this case, dismissing
any pending legal action; set aside any sale(s), transfers, conveyances and filings
entered; restoring title to plaintiff, punitive damages and award any other relief that the
Court deems just and proper.
3
TO:
THE CLERK OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT COURT
You are hereby directed to Index the within notice to the names of each of the following
parties:
US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

XXXXX
XXXXx
Attorneys
XXXXX
XXXXX
City Sheriff Joseph Fucicitto
Deputy City Sheriff D. Pratt

210 Joralemon Street Room 909
Brooklyn, New York 11201
The number of each block on the tax map of the County, which is affected hereby, is as
follow:
Block 1217 Lot 80
Dated: Brooklyn, New York

February 23, 2017
4
In the united states district court
Eastern district of new york
__________________________________________ )
sage el, On Behalf of THE pamela taylor FAMILY TRUST,) Case No.
as Trustee )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) VERIFIED COMPLAINT
V. ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
)
)
)
ELEANOR PHILLIPS, JEFFREY MILLER, DEPUTY SHERIFF
JOSEPH FUSICTO, DEPUTY SHERIFF D. PRATT, )
MICHAEL J. FICCHI, IRA MILLER, ESQ, )
)
Defendants. )
)
COMES NOW, ALVIN CANTEY, On Behalf of THE MATHA CANTEY FAMILY TRUST, as
Trustee, and individually, the PLAINTIFF, as and for his complaint herein, sets forth and
alleges as follows:
I. NATURE OF ACTION
1. This is an action pursuant to Article 15 of the Real Property Actions and
Proceedings Law (“FEDERAL) to quiet title through the discharge of a
fraudulent, void, voidable, and otherwise improper deed recorded against
the real property located at 551 Saint Mark’s Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.
Herein after referred to as the “Subject Property.”
2. Damages in tort are also claimed arising from, the use of fictitious personnel
to submit false affidavits, in furtherance of SCIENTER ACTS (omitting
knowledge) in Bad Faith, Fraud Conspiracy, Undue Enrichment, Aiding and
5
Abetting, Willful and Wanton, Irreparable Harm, with Malice and
Forethought, Conversion, Commercial War, Commercial Credit Slander and
continuous torts resulting in the deceptive sale, transfer and conveyance of
deed, which purports to divest the plaintiff of his interest to his real property
in that the Defendants presented false evidence to the Court and/or
concealed material evidence from the Court, advanced arguments to the
Court premised on the fact that they maintained and had standing to
commence a proceeding against plaintiff, or for which material evidence had
been withheld from the Court which caused the Court to grant the relief
sought by plaintiff, and thereby obtained Court rulings based thereon;
prepared key information which deceived, mislead ; and by failing to disclose
the true facts and circumstances associated with the Defendant’s financial
interest in the subject property.
3. The Officer’s of the State Department’s Department of Banking, as Officers of
the Court as licensed attorneys, the paperwork presented, prepared, and
affidavits in support; constituted intentional and malicious misconduct which
compromised the judicial process and amounts to an unconscionable and
egregious act of tort.
4. II. BASIS FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION
5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “[e] except as otherwise expressly provided
by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the
6
district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed
by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States
for the district and division embracing the place where such action is
pending.”
6. As set forth below, this Court has original jurisdiction over this action based
on diversity of citizenship.
7. III. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
8. This Court has original jurisdiction over this civil action under 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a) because the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75,000 and the matter is between citizens of different states.
9. Plaintiff prays for actual as well as punitive damages in the amount of Four
Million ($4,000,000) dollars pursuant to 28. U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2).
10. Plaintiff prays for punitive damages in the amount of 2 Million ($2,000,000)
dollars pursuant to 28. U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2).
11. Plaintiff ALVIN CANTEY is a member of the Armed Forces who resides, Psc
Box 432035, Camp Pendleton CA, 92055.
12. Plaintiff is therefore a citizen of California.
13. Plaintiff Cantey presently resides at the subject property and as a member of
the armed forces was entitled .
14. MATHA CANTEY FAMILY TRUST is a foreign Corporation acknowledgment by
the Department of Internal Revenue Services. The filings of these documents
7
are proprietary and available for disclosure as it relates to IRS Law and
therefore is submitted under those regulatory provisions.
15. Plaintiff therefore is a foreign citizen. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2).
16. City Marshall Edward F Guida JR #14, 47-26 104th STREET, Corona NY 11368
17. Therefore Marshall Guda is a citizen of the State of New York.
18. Defendant US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR
ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR FIRST FRANKLYN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST
C/O Home Loan Services Inc., 150 Allegney Center Mall, Pittsburgh, PA 15212
19. As such, Plaintiff and Defendants are thus citizens of different states,
complete diversity exists less than 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
20. IV. VENUE AND PROCEDRUAL REQUIREMENTS
21. The property is located within the Eastern District. Accordingly, venue in this
Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
22. In the alternative, the Plaintiff seeks an order allowing him to pay off the
note and mortgage for Fifty Million Dollars as complete settlement of the
defects that exist within the present mortgage action.
23. This foreclosure action pertains to the property located at 551 St. Marks
Avenue, Brooklyn New York, 11216. Based upon the record before this court,
defendants, Matha Cantey, entered into a mortgage with First Franklin Trust
Company on July 7th 2006, for a loan in the principal amount of $600,000.00
six hundred thousand dollars.
8
24. Plaintiff was never served with the predicate 90 Day notice pursuant to
RPAPL § 1304 and asserts several general denials, several affirmative
defenses and counterclaims including but not limited to the statute of frauds;
failure to state a cause of action; the use of fictitious personnel to submit
false affidavits, in furtherance of SCIENTER ACTS (omitting knowledge) in Bad
Faith, Fraud Conspiracy, Undue Enrichment, Aiding and Abetting, Willful and
Wanton, Irreparable Harm, with Malice and Forethought, Conversion,
Commercial War, Commercial Credit Slander and continuous torts resulting
in the deceptive sale, transfer and conveyance of deed, which purports to
divest the plaintiff of his interest to his real property in that the Defendants
presented false evidence to the Court and/or concealed material evidence
from the Court, advanced arguments to the Court premised on the fact that
they maintained and had standing to commence a proceeding against
plaintiff, or for which material evidence had been withheld from the Court
which caused the Court to grant the relief sought by plaintiff, and thereby
obtained Court rulings based thereon; prepared key information which
deceived, mislead ; and by failing to disclose the true facts and circumstances
associated with the Defendant’s financial interest in the subject property
usury; lack of personal jurisdiction; lack of subject matter jurisdiction;
violation of RESPA rules and regulations.
Based upon the evidence submitted in the underlying lower court action, the
Supreme Court never obtained subject matter or personal jurisdiction.
9
Accordingly to the Supreme Court minutes this action was commenced in
2007 and withdrawn in 2008. However, the matter then continued through
2016, without any of the statutory requirements being met by US NATIONAL.
Moreover, US National, prior to judgment
Further, there were and continues to be several chain of title defects, based
upon the numerous assignments.
Further US National knew that they lacked complete standing to even
commence said action and nevertheless unjustly moved for judgment in this
matter.
In addition, Defendant knew that it was not entitled to a judgment of
foreclosure and sale because as Trustee they had personal knowledge of the
underlying fraud which existed with their beneficiary “First Franklyn National
Bank’s” loan process. Such processes resulted in a class action lawsuit for
their deceptive practices.
t is well settled that the moving party in a mortgage foreclosure action
establishes a prima facie case of entitlement to summary judgment through
submission of proof of the existence of the underlying note, mortgage and
default in payment after due demand (see Witelson v Jamaica Estates
Holding Corp. I, 40 AD3d 284 [1st Dept. 2007]; Marculescu v Ouanez, 27
AD3d 701 [2d Dept. 2006]; US. Bank Trust National Assoc. v Butti, 16 AD3d
408 [2d Dept. 2005); Layden v Boccio, 253 AD2d 540 [2d Dept. 1998); State
Mortgage Agency v Lang, 250 AD2d 595[2d Dept. 1998]). I believe the
10
Defendants DO NOT have lawful Proof of their Claim and there is no evidence
to the contrary. This is Dishonor in commerce, Theft, Fraud, Conspiracy, and
Racketeering.
US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR ASSOCIATION AS
TRUSTEE FOR FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006 FF14.
MORTGAGE PASS – THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006 – FF14its agents
and co-parties are committing SCIENTER ACTS (omitting knowledge) in Bad
Faith, Fraud Conspiracy, Undue Enrichment, Aiding and Abetting, Willful and
Commercial War, Commercial Credit Slander and continuous torts. I believe
there is no evidence to the contrary. Where US National Bank had personal
knowledge of the underlying fraud which existed with their beneficiary “First
Franklyn National Bank’s” loan process. Such processes resulted in a class
action lawsuit for their deceptive practices. This is Dishonor in commerce,
Theft, Fraud, Conspiracy, and Racketeering.
MORTGAGE PASS – THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006 – FF14 has never
disclosed the nature and cause and conditions of the contracts in commerce
that were executed. Where US National Bank had personal knowledge of the
11
their deceptive practices. I believe there is no evidence to the contrary. This
is Dishonor in commerce, Theft, Fraud, Conspiracy, and Racketeering.
By and through this commercial notice US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS
TRUSTEE FOR ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE
LOAN TRUST 2006 FF14. MORTGAGE PASS – THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES
2006 – FF14 and its co-partners and the Public, that by mistake, I am moving
in good faith to comprehend and remedy a mistake caused by her misplaced
trust and inability to comprehend the motives of those attempting to
contract with Matha Cantey. Where US National Bank had personal
action lawsuit for their deceptive practices I believe there is no evidence to
the contrary.
All contracts and agreements and presentments by any and all US BANK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR
FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006 FF14. MORTGAGE PASS –
THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006 – FF14(s) and Employees, are expressly
induced by Fraud, Coercion, Extortion and non-disclosure contracts upon the
Plaintiff. This was a recurring scheme of and practice brought on by First
Franklin Bank in which US National Bank is their Trustee. Where US National
Bank had personal knowledge and was complicit in the underlying fraud
which existed with their beneficiary “First Franklyn National Bank’s” loan
12
process. Such processes resulted in a class action lawsuit for their deceptive
practices believe there is no evidence to the contrary. This is Dishonor in
commerce, Theft, Fraud, Conspiracy, and Racketeering.
MORTGAGE PASS – THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006 – FF14 Officers
have created unsupported commercial documents that were relied upon by
third parties to deprive Plaintiff of property, in that defendants had a non
corporate officer (assistant secretary) execute corporate documents without
authority given within the Article of Incorporation. Said execution, were
false, misreprentations to the Court that such assistant secretary was
authorized to convey title. This was a recurring scheme of and practice
brought on by First Franklyn Bank in which US National is their Trustee. I
believe there is no evidence to the contrary. This is Dishonor in commerce,
have used the US Postal Service and commercial electronic media to send
fraudulent unsupported commercial documents that were relied upon by
third parties to deprive Plaintiff of property by a fraudulent presumption of
pledge. Moreover, an administrative proceeding was commenced on or
13
about, May 2012 etc., were challenged. It was also asserted within said
administrative proceeding that failure to answer, any and all questions would
be an admission and thereby an acceptance of a contract. Where US
National Bank had personal knowledge of the underlying fraud which existed
with their beneficiary “First Franklyn National Bank’s” loan process. Such
processes resulted in a class action lawsuit for their deceptive practices.
Defendants failed to respond, answer or object to anything presented
therein, and thereby are in default. We believe there is no evidence to the
contrary. This is Dishonor in commerce, Theft, Fraud, Conspiracy, and
Racketeering.
have used fictitious names on commercial documents to deprive the Plaintiff
of property. We believe there is no evidence to the contrary. This is Dishonor
in commerce, Theft, Fraud, Conspiracy, and Racketeering.
have made false and fraudulent entries into specially coded files such as
Customer Transaction that courts of fiction rely upon as undisputed
evidence. Defendant’s did with malice aforethought deceive the lower court
14
and thereby received a judgment of sale. We believe there is no evidence to
the contrary. This is Dishonor in commerce, Theft, Fraud, Conspiracy, and
Racketeering.
have purchased the subject property at an alleged court auction. With
plaintiff being the only bidder, did thereby with malice aforethought deceive
the lower court and thereby received a judgment of sale, which caused them
to be unjustly enriched. We believe there is no evidence to the contrary. This
is Dishonor in commerce, Theft, Fraud, Conspiracy, and Racketeering
(Attached Proof regarding Bank).
Plaintiff is not an agent of the IRS; as such any and all information as it
pertains to the trust’s IRS status, must be obtained through reasonable
discovery.
MORTGAGE PASS – THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006 – FF14 deposited
Plaintiff’s Promissory Note into a customer transaction account. We believe
there is no evidence to the contrary. This is Dishonor in commerce, Theft,
Fraud, Conspiracy, and Racketeering.
15
The deposited promissory note increased the assets of US BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR FIRST
FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006 FF14. MORTGAGE PASS –
THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006 – FF14 thus; they were unjustly
enriched at the expense of Plaintiff. We believe there is no evidence to the
contrary.
MORTGAGE PASS – THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006 – FF14 is indebted
to Plaintiff in the amount of the promissory note. We believe there is no
evidence to the contrary. This is Dishonor in commerce, Theft, Fraud,
Conspiracy, and Racketeering.
MORTGAGE PASS – THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006 – FF14, never
disclosed this fact and did not issue a receipt to Plaintiff for the promissory
note. We believe there is no evidence to the contrary. This is Dishonor in
commerce, Theft, Fraud, Conspiracy, and Racketeering.
MORTGAGE PASS – THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006 – FF14 used
16
Plaintiff’s Promissory Note to fund the purported loan. We believe there is
no evidence to the contrary.
MORTGAGE PASS – THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006 – FF14 demand
specific currency for payment of debt. Violation HJR 192. . We believe there
is no evidence to the contrary.
MORTGAGE PASS – THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006 – FF14 refuse to
credit accounts with payment. Violation UCC3-603. . We believe there is no
evidence to the contrary.
MORTGAGE PASS – THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006 – FF14 violate the
“Fair Debt Collection Act” 15 USC 1692a-m. . We believe there is no evidence
to the contrary. This is Dishonor in commerce, Theft, Fraud, Conspiracy, and
Racketeering.
MORTGAGE PASS – THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006 – FF14 have setup
“fictitious Corporations” to lend money, charge interest and give credit for
17
their profits. This conduct is prohibited; Banks have but one purpose to
secure the deposits of their depositors. Any bank affiliates or Mortgage
Companies & Lending Institutions may not lawfully risk these funds. We
Plaintiff has requested a forensic accounting regarding the aforementioned
property, which is the subject of this action and has undertaken an intensive
forensic investigation into the primary residential property owned by the
Borrower, Matha Cantey, after executing a Mortgage and Adjustable Rate
Note for the subject property located at 551 St. Marks Place, Brooklyn, New
York 11216.
Upon reviewing and researching the underlying documents/instruments
(Promissory Note, Mortgage, Assignments of Mortgage, Adjustable Rate
Note Rider(s) and other, relevant records), the instant investigation and
mortgage securitization audit many red flags appears which evidences
18
mortgage securitization audit many red flags appears which evidences unjust
enrichment.
The forensic securitization audit is based upon; inter alia, a search of public
records and documents, public (Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Ginny Mae),
quasi-public (MERS, SEC EDGAR) and proprietary database searches
(identified ‘loan level’ characteristics, etc.) Relevant documents/exhibits are
annexed below and are referenced throughout this document.
The searches performed are matched and cross-referenced with the
individual loan characteristics from the securitized loan-level pool data, using
19
highly reliable sources for asset pool loan information on securitized
mortgage backed transactions (Loan Tapes from Servicers, Trustees and
Lenders, Secondary Mortgage Market Entities). Ultimately, a positive match
to the securitized loan pool is indicated as a majority of available distinct loan
characteristics from public data are the same or similar to loan
characteristics from asset pool.
The following fields are being examined by our forensic team to include but
not limit: Loan ID numbers, Loan Originator, Origination Date, Maturity Date,
First Payment Date, Principle and Securitized Amount of Loan, Term of the
Loan / Interest Rate / Type of the Loan, GEO Location / County / Zip Code,
Servicer / Trustee.
In this securitized mortgage loan transaction, only a proper chain of
endorsements and assignments as prescribed by the applicable Pooling and
Servicing Agreement and Prospectus may take place and, absent a proper
chain of endorsements/assignments, claims of valid ownership are often
tenuous. In this case, the original Promissory Note must show a complete
chain of endorsements and assignments from the Originator (or Issuing
entity) to the Sponsor/Seller; from the Sponsor/Seller to the Depositor and
from the Depositor to the Trustee and/or the Servicer.
After an initial investigation, we’ve uncovered that multiple violations of the
Trust’s operative documents/agreements are present and, clearly, a proper
20
chain of endorsements/assignments is not found with respect to this subject
asset.
Pursuant to the Article II of the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement,
a complete chain-of-endorsement/assignment is a requisite component in
any transfer/conveyance/assignment of assets belongs to the Trust.
Specifically with respect to the required notations, endorsements, etc. and
the method of transfer, Article II, Conveyance of Mortgage Loans; Section
2.01, Conveyance of Mortgage Loans states, in pertinent part:
“The Depositor, concurrently with the execution and delivery hereof, does hereby transfer,
assign, set over and otherwise convey to the Trustee without recourse, for the benefit of the
Certificate holders, all the right, title and interest of the Depositor, including any security
interest therein for the benefit of the Depositor.
In connection with such transfer and assignment, the Depositor does hereby deliver to, and
deposit with, the Custodian (on behalf of the Trustee), with respect the related Mortgage Loans,
the following documents or instruments with respect to each Mortgage Loan so transferred and
assigned (a “Mortgage File”):
(i) The original Mortgage Note, endorsed in blank or in the following form: “Pay to the order of
Franklyn National Bank, as Trustee under the applicable agreement, without recourse,” with all prior
and intervening endorsements showing a complete chain of endorsement from the Originator to the
Person so endorsing to the Trustee;
(iv) The original recorded Assignment or Assignments showing a complete chain of assignment
from the Originator to the Person assigning the Mortgage to the Trustee (or to MERS, if the
Mortgage Loan is registered on the MERS® System and noting the presence of the MIN) as
contemplated by the immediately preceding clause (iii);
The Depositor shall deliver or cause the Originator, the Trustee or the Custodian on behalf of the
Trustee to deliver to the Servicer copies of all trailing documents required to be included in the
servicing file at the same time the originals or certified copies thereof are delivered to the
21
Trustee or the Custodian, such documents including but not limited to the mortgagee policy of
title insurance and any mortgage loan documents upon return from the recording office.
All original documents relating to the Mortgage Loans that are not delivered to the Trustee (or
the Custodian on behalf of the Trustee) are and shall be held by or on behalf of the Originator,
the Seller, the Depositor or the Servicer, as the case may be, in trust for the benefit of the
Trustee on behalf of the Certificate-holders. In the event that any such original document is
required pursuant to the terms of this Section 2.01 to be a part of a Mortgage File, such
document shall be delivered promptly to the Trustee (or the Custodian on behalf of the Trustee).
Any such original document delivered to or held by the Depositor that is not required pursuant to
the terms of this Section to be a part of a Mortgage File, shall be delivered promptly to the
Servicer. “Furthermore, the Form 424B5 Prospectus (and accompanying Supplements)
respectively, further details:
“The certificates will be issued pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The trust
created under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement will consist of (i) all of the depositor’s right,
title and interest in the Mortgage Loans, the related mortgage notes, Mortgages and other
related documents. On the closing date, the depositor will transfer to the trust all of its right, title
and interest in and to each Mortgage Loan, the related mortgage note, Mortgage, assignment of
mortgage in recordable form in blank or to the trustee and other related documents, including all
scheduled payments with respect to each such Mortgage Loan due after the Cut-off Date. The
trust administrator, concurrently with such transfer, will deliver the certificates to the depositor.
The Pooling and Servicing Agreement will require that, within the time period specified therein,
the depositor will deliver or cause to be delivered to the trustee (or a custodian, as the trustee’s
agent for such purpose) the mortgage notes endorsed in blank or to the trustee on behalf of the
certificate holders and the other related documents.”
A complete chain of endorsements, each being sufficient to transfer all rights,

title, and interest of the party endorsing each pooled, promissory note, is
required by the Trust’s formational and operational documents. In these
securitization transaction, the monies involved are laid bare - the loan originator
was paid upon selling the paper to an investment bank; the investment bank
paid upon pooling the subject loan with thousands of other, similar loans and
selling the shares to investors; the servicer paid upon taking investors’ payments,
22
servicing the asset and now processing a foreclosure and, ultimately, the
certificate-holders receiving a disbursement of funds according to their
certificate series.
56.Therefore, in order for the mortgage loan and promissory note to have been
properly conveyed into the Pool, the Borrower’s Promissory Note would have
had to have been properly endorsed by all intervening parties from the
Originator and/or its successors and assigns to the Sponsor/Seller, then from the
Sponsor/Seller to the Depositor and finally, from the Depositor to the Trustee
and/or to the Master Servicer on behalf of the Certificate-Holders.
57. The Promissory Note should reflect a minimum of three (3)
endorsements/assignments on or before the Trust ‘Closing Date’ of on or about
July 7, 2006 and much show clear-chain-of-title from the Originator to the
Sponsor/Seller to the Depositor to the Trustee and/or Servicer (or Trust); in this
case it does not. The Adjustable Rate Note instrument submitted to this auditor,
and its respective Rider, contains only one (1) undated endorsement-in-blank;
satisfying neither the requirements of the governing, operative Trust agreements
nor satisfactory to accept the Plaintiff’s contention that it, U.S. Bank, National
Association, is the proper-party-in-interest. However, considering the process of
securitization wherein which the asset was pooled and transferred to multiple,
legally independent entities (irrespective of their interlinking corporate
relationships) – the lack of endorsements present on the Promissory Note
presents and raises serious questions about ownerships, validity of
transfers/conveyances, status of the debt, obligation, etc.)
23
58. Specifically with regard to affixed endorsements on the Promissory Note (or
lack thereof), the following undated, endorsement-in-blank is present but, in any
case, plainly fail to meet the requirements of form and method as prescribed
and required by the governing, operative Pooling and Servicing Agreement,
Prospectus and Prospectus Supplements, to wit.
59. Additionally, the corresponding Assignments of Mortgage found in the
County Recorder’s Office indicate a break in the chain of title. The Kings County,
New York County Records Office (along with documents/instruments filed in the
subject foreclosure action) contain two (2) relevant Assignments of Mortgage
which, in addition to violating the plain meaning and intent of the Trust’s
operative, governing documents, serve only to confuse and muddy the chain of
title.
60. As referenced above, Article II of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
specifically requires the Depositor (and only the Depositor) to convey the
mortgage loans to the Trust (or Servicer/Custodian) and, simply put, allows for
absolutely no other form/method or chain of conveyance of mortgage loans to
the Trust. Putting aside other, ancillary issues with the above-referenced
assignments, none take the form prescribed by the Trust’s governing agreement
and, by logical extension: the Defendant’s claim to the assets is tenuous at best
and fatally flawed at worst.
61. An examination of the Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust and Promissory
Note positively indicates that the Mortgage, which secures the promissory note
24
and upon which any lawsuit is likely predicated, was entered in favor of
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. (“MERS”) and/or that a
MERS Identification Number was assigned to the Plaintiff’s Mortgage and search
of the MERS database yields relevant results.) Specifically, the MERS
website/database lists FIRST FRANKLIN and US NATIONAL BANK., as the current
and/or previous servicer or ‘investor.’ However, MERS’ own Terms and
Conditions of Membership published on MERS’ website at www.MERSINC.org,
states that “the MERS System is not a vehicle for creating or transferring
beneficial interests in mortgage loans.” MERS further indicates that it does not
ever have beneficial interest in mortgage notes, stating “that it has no rights
whatsoever for creating or transferring beneficial interest in the mortgage
loans”.
The MERS Milestone Report must be requested to verify the transfers of actual
Beneficial Interest in Plaintiff’s loan as opposed to transfers solely of Residential
Mortgage Servicing Rights (MSR). THE MERS MILESTONE REPORT MUST ALSO BE
REQUESTED TO VERIFY THE TRANSFERS OF ACTUAL BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN
BORROWERS’ LOAN AS OPPOSED TO TRANSFERS SOLELY OF RESIDENTIAL
MORTGAGE SERVICING RIGHTS (MSR).
63. In light of the issues related to the securitization of Plaintiff’s Note and
Mortgage there is no way to determine if the Defendant actual holds
ownership interest in Plaintiff’ loan. There are genuine issues of material fact
related to this case and it is unclear which party, if any, may prove standing
25
and injury in regards to Borrowers’ mortgage transaction. There is no way to
determine if the lender/plaintiff/trustees actual held and/or hold ownership
of borrowers’ loan at the time the foreclosure action commenced nor
presently and, taking into consideration the lack of endorsements and
assignments, to determine whether the plaintiff has the contractual and/or
legal right to foreclose upon borrower.
64. It is unclear whether the two (2) Assignments of Mortgage (and the one (1)
endorsement-in-blank found on the Adjustable Rate Note correspond to one
another. On its face, there is nothing in the evidentiary record which would
reasonably indicate a corresponding Assignments/Endorsement of the
subject asset; indeed, a simply of the dates assigned to the known
Assignments of Mortgage and likely date-range of the endorsement leads to
the reasonable conclusion that they are, plainly, conflicting.
65. Further discovery and/or deposition are required to make a final
determination of both the ‘effectiveness’ and authenticity of the above-
referenced Assignments/Endorsement. Given the issues of the securitization
of Borrowers’ Note and Deed of Trust there is no way to determine if the
Defendant actually holds ownership interest in Plaintiffs’ loan.
66. There are many, substantive issues of material fact related to this case and it
remains unclear if the Defendant can show standing/ownership and/or injury
with regard to the Plaintiffs mortgage transaction.
26
67. The Plaintiffs’ were never properly notified of any assignment, sale and/or
transfer of Beneficial Interest in their residential home loan; in any event,
any transfer is required to comport with the requirements of the governing,
operative documents of the Trust and with Internal Revenue Code, Section
860G which states, “all of a REMIC's loans must be acquired on the startup
day of the REMIC or within three months thereafter." A failure to abide by
the terms and conditions as set-forth in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
and Prospectus may subject the Trust to tax fraud and subjects this entire
Trust to a revocation of its REMIC tax status and possibly would subject all
cash flow received by this Trust to double taxation.
68. The Plaintiffs’ were never properly notified of any assignment, sale and/or
transfer of Beneficial Interest may subject the Trust to tax fraud and subjects
this entire Trust to a revocation of its REMIC tax status and possibly would
subject all cash flow received by this Trust to double taxation.
69. Further discovery and/or depositions would need to be conducted to make a
final determination of the authenticity of the endorsement. THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING NEITHER THAT THE LENDER VALIDLIY ASSIGNED
NOR THAT DEPOSITOR VALIDLY ASSUMED THE MORTGAGE AND/OR THE
PROSMISSORY NOTE TO SUBJECT PROPERTY.
70. Due to the history of Plaintiff’ loan and this report finds that nothing short of
producing the original note with the proper endorsements pursuant to the
27
Pooling and Servicing Agreement and Prospectus will suffice to clarify
ownership and proper legal standing.
71. The Plaintiff have been victims of unlawful origination practices and the
subsequent process of securitization underlined in this report show that
various parties may have been the beneficiaries of such practices. The
Plaintiff’ Note reflects an adjustable interest rate note for a 30 year term.
Any yield spread premium (YSP) or servicing release premium (SRP) paid to
the originator or ancillary entity originating the loan for the securitized
trust was not disclosed to the Borrower.
72. Setting aside the issues raised by the securitization of the Plaintiff’s
Promissory Note and Mortgage, the mergers and acquisitions which occurred
subsequent to the closing/origination of the Plaintiff’s loan puts into
question ownership of the underlying asset. In any event, discovery requests
and demand should be made for any and all merger and acquisition,
purchase and assumption and/or transfer agreements which, likely, would
tend to establish the true and lawful owner of the underlying asset,
Additionally, requests and demand should be made for any and all mortgage
loan schedules to each of the above-detailed mergers and acquisitions (to
include, by loan number, name and date) the Plaintiff’s loan. Absent this, it is
nearly impossible to determine one or more of the proper-parties-in-interest
with respect to the underlying asset.
28
73. The Prospectus and Prospectus Supplements outlines several means of
assuring prospective purchasers of the certificates that the risk of purchasing
these certificates is mitigated through the specific provision of each of these
‘insurances.’ ‘Cross-Collateralization’ is one such insurance and occurs when
payments made on the mortgage loan in the loan group are used to make
distributions on the classes of senior certificates that are unrelated to that
original group. In the event of default, one or more of these ‘insurances’
would have been to satisfy all debts to the certificate holders. No debt would
be owed to the certificate holders causing them to initiate a lawsuit against
Plaintiffs.
74. It is a crime to falsify the books or records of any lending institution
authorized or acting under the laws of the United States, with intent to
defraud such institution. 18 U.S.C. § 1006. US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
AS TRUSTEE FOR ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE
LOAN TRUST 2006 FF14. MORTGAGE PASS – THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES
2006 – FF14 violated the “Fair Debt Collection Act” 15 USC 1692a-m. We
75. Finally, it is a crime fraudulently to transfer property of a corporation, or to
falsify corporate documents, in contemplation of a bankruptcy proceeding or
with intent to defeat the bankruptcy law. 18 U.S.C. § 152. US BANK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR
29
FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006 FF14. MORTGAGE PASS –
THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006 – FF14 violate the “Fair Debt
Collection Act” 15 USC 1692a-m. . We believe there is no evidence to the
contrary. This is Dishonor in commerce, Theft, Fraud, Conspiracy, and
Racketeering.
76. Given the issues of the securitization of Borrower’s Adjustable Rate Note and
Mortgage there is no way to determine if the Lender/Plaintiff actually holds
ownership interest in Borrowers’ loan at the present. There are many
substantive issues of material fact related to this case and it remains unclear
if the Lender/Plaintiff can show standing/ownership and/or injury with
regard to the Borrowers mortgage transaction. There are substantive,
material impacts arising from the tow (2) Assignments of Mortgage and one
(1) endorsement discovered in the instant investigation for the reasons
stated above. Additionally, the fact that the identified Trust elected to be
designated a REMIC (“Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit”) raises
numerous issues, which may or may not fall within the purview of the local,
convening authority. However, in light of the REMIC election and the transfer
or possible transfer of the subject asset into trust after the ‘Closing Date,’
serious tax implications cannot be ruled out.
77. Lastly, the undated endorsement-in-blank found on Page 4 of 4 of Borrower’s
Adjustable Rate Note raises multiple concerns and issues with respect to its
authenticity and legal effective thereof.
30
78. Another entity is likely to be found to be the true and actual owner and
holder of the Note and Mortgage. Further discovery would need to be
conducted to make a final determination of exactly who at this point does
own the subject Note and Mortgage and to determine if the Note and
Mortgage have been bifurcated or not.
79. It is a crime to falsify the books or records of any lending institution
authorized or acting under the laws of the United States, with intent to
defraud such institution. 18 U.S.C. § 1006. Finally, it is a crime fraudulently to
transfer property of a corporation, or to falsify corporate documents, in
contemplation of a bankruptcy proceeding or with intent to defeat the
bankruptcy law. 18 U.S.C. § 152.
80. As a result of these general findings Defendant can establish a prima facie
case regarding meritorious defenses to this mortgage foreclosure action (see
Witelson v Jamaica Estates Holding Corp. I, 40 AD3d 284 [1st Dept. 2007];
Marculescu v Ouanez, 27 AD3d 701 [2d Dept. 2006]; US. Bank Trust National
Assoc. v Butti, 16 AD3d 408 [2d Dept. 2005); Layden v Boccio, 253 AD2d 540
[2d Dept. 1998); State Mortgage Agency v Lang, 250 AD2d 595[2d Dept.
1998]).
81. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
82. Upon information and belief, no defendant is or might be an infant or
incapacitated.
31
83. The judgment requested herein will not affect a person or persons not in
being or ascertained at the commencement of this action, who by any
contingency contained in a devise or grant otherwise, could afterward
become entitled to such estate or interest if such event happened
immediately before the commencement of the action. They all known are
named as parties herein.
POINT OF LAW
84. ["A deed obtained by false pretenses is void ab initio, and a mortgage based
on such a deed is likewise invalid"]; Jiles v Archer, 116 AD3d 664, 666 [2d
Dept. 2014] ["If a document purportedly conveying a property interest is
void, it conveys nothing, and a subsequent bona fide purchaser or bona fide
encumbrance for value receives nothing"]; 2-15 Warren's Weed New York
Real Property § 15.09 ["If the conveyance is void, the purchaser or
encumbrance will not enjoy any of the rights of a bona fide purchaser"]; 43A
NY Jur 2d Deeds § 218 ["a deed obtain through fraud is null and void, and
conveys nothing, and a purchaser or mortgagee from the grantee, even for
value and will not be protected"]).
85. "[i]t is legally impossible for any one [sic] to become a bona fide purchaser of
real estate, or a purchaser at all, from one who never had any title, and that
is this case" (id. at 56; see also Yin Wu v Wu, 288 AD2d 104, 105 [1st Dept.
2001] ["A forged deed is void and conveys no title"]; 2-15 Warren's Weed
New York Real Property § 15.01 ["A purchaser who takes title through a
32
fraudulent obtaining of a deed cannot be a bona fide purchaser, even if the
purchaser did not have knowledge of the fraud"]).
86. New York's rule reflects a general well-established principle of real property
law (see e.g. Harding v Ja Laura Corp., 20 Md App 209, 214 [Md Ct Spec App
1974] ["A forged deed . . . is void ab initio"]; Scott D. Erler, D.D.S. Profit
Sharing Plan v Creative Fin. & Investments, L.L.C., 349 Mont 207, 214 [2009]
["forged conveyances are void ab initio and do not transfer title"]; Brock v
Yale Mortg. Corp., 287 Ga 849, 852 [2010] ["we have also long recognized
that such a deed is a nullity and vests no title in a grantee"]; Akins v Vermast,
150 Or App 236 n 7 [Or Ct App 1997] "If fraud is 'in factum,' such as a
situation analogous to forgery, the deed is void ab initio and will not support
subsequent title in any person"]; First Nat. Bank in Albuquerque v Enriquez,
96 NM 714, 716 [1981] ["a deed obtained by fraud is a void deed and
transfers no interest"]; Williams v Warren, 214 Ark 506, 511 [1949] ["No one
can claim that an estate in land should be divested by forgery"]).
87. Any and all subsequent deeds are all the products of fraud and are void and
voidable. In Marden v Dorthy, this Court held that a forged deed was void at
its inception, finding it to be a "spurious or fabricated paper" (160 NY 39, 47
[1899]), a forgery characterized by "the fraudulent making of a writing to the
prejudice of another's rights" (id. at 53). As Marden noted, a fraudently
obtained deed lacks the voluntariness of conveyance (see id. at 54).
Therefore, it holds a unique position in the law; a legal nullity at its creation
33
is never entitled to legal effect because "[v] oid things are as no things" (id. at
56).
88. A deed induced by a fraudulent signature is distinguished from a deed where
the signature and authority for conveyance are acquired by fraudulent
means. In such latter cases, the deed is voidable. The difference in the nature
of the two justifies this different legal status. A deed containing the title
holder's actual signature reflects "the assent of the will to the use of the
paper or the transfer," although it is assent "induced by fraud, mistake or
misplaced confidence" (Marden, 160 NY at 50; see also Rosen v Rosen, 243
AD2d 618, 619 [2d Dept. 1997]; 26A C.J.S. Deeds § 153 ["where the grantor
knowingly executes the very instrument intended, but is induced to do so by
some fraud in the treaty or by some fraudulent representation or pretense,
the deed is merely voidable"]). Unlike a forged deed, which is void initially, a
[*4] voidable deed, "until set aside, . . . has the effect of transferring the title
to the fraudulent grantee, and . . . being thus clothed with all the evidences
of good title, may encumber the property to a party who becomes a
purchaser in good faith" (Marden)
AS AND FOR THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: BAD FAITH
Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 88
89. US National commenced Supreme Court action Index No. 26315/07 knowing
that they lacked standing to do so. Where US National Bank had personal
34
action lawsuit for their deceptive practices and thousands of people
including Plaintiff had been deceived as well as injured.
90. US National commenced Civil Court Action Index No.: 78402/16, 78403/16,
78404/16, and 78405/16 to begin eviction proceedings, knowing that
Plaintiff had filed a UCC1 within the foreclosure case. Where US National
Bank had personal knowledge of the underlying fraud which existed with
their beneficiary “First Franklyn National Bank’s” loan process. Such
processes resulted in a class action lawsuit for their deceptive practices and
thousands of people including Plaintiff had been deceived as well as injured.
91. US National Bank alleged that Plaintiff was dead as an intentional means to
mislead the court that there was no plaintiff upon which to contest the
mortgage foreclosure action.
AS AND FOR THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: UNDUE ENRICHMENT
Repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 thruough 91
92. US National has been overly compensated for the alleged economic injuries
they allege. Where US National Bank had personal knowledge of the
their deceptive practices and thousands of people including Plaintiff had
been deceived as well as injured.
35
93. US National has been compensated for the alleged default of Plaintiff in that
received Mortgage Insurance. Where US National Bank had personal
94. US National has been further compensated in that they securitized the
Promissory Note upon belief at least 9 times. (Attached Exhibit)
95. US National has been unjustly enriched in that they repurchased the subject
property.
96. US National Bank cannot “buy” property since it is a bank, nonetheless, they
were the “successful bidder” at the Referee’s sale.
AS AND FOR THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: WILLFUL AND WANTON
IRREPARABLE HARM WITH MALACE AND FORETHOUGHT
Repeats and re-alleges paragraph 1 through 96
97. Where US National Bank had personal knowledge of the underlying malice
and forethought which existed with their beneficiary “First Franklyn National
their deceptive practices and thousands of people including Plaintiff had
been deceived as well as injured.
36
AS AND FOR THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: DECEPTIVE SALE, TRANSFER AND
CONVEYANCE
98. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1-97.
99. US National Bank caused the sale, transfer and conveyance of Plaintiff’s
property in complete disregard to her rights and interest. Where US National
Bank had personal knowledge of the underlying deceptive which existed with
their beneficiary “First Franklyn National Bank’s” loan process. Such
processes resulted in a class action lawsuit for their deceptive practices and
thousands of people including Plaintiff had been deceived as well as injured.
AS AND FOR THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: FRAUD
100. Where US National Bank had personal knowledge of the underlying fraud
which existed with their beneficiary “First Franklyn National Bank’s” loan
practices and thousands of people including Plaintiff had been deceived as
well as injured.
AS AND FOR THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: CONSPIRACY
101. Where as US National Bank had person(s) within their corporate “First
37
AS AND FOR THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: CONTINIOUS TORTS IN PENDING
EVICTION OF PLAINTIFF FROM SUBJECT PROPERTY
102. On or about , Plaintiff was served with a Notice of eviction from the Civil
Court of New York, 141 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York.
103. Such action was an intentional attempt to create an economic hardship
to Plaintiff in that has been unable to maintain appointments, which resulted
in loss of income.
104. Such action was an intentional attempt to create an emotional hardship
to Plaintiff in that has been unable to maintain appointments, which resulted
in a total mental break of shame, humiliation and public embarrassment
resulting from the public posting of Plaintiff’s name the door of the subject
property .
105. In that Where US National Bank had personal knowledge of the
underlying which existed with their beneficiary “WELLS FARGO” loan
practices and thousands of people including Plaintiff had been deceived as
well as injured emotionally.
106. AS AND FOR THE EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION: COPYRIGHT VIOLATION
107. On xxx, Sheriff Fusicitto was served with Notice of an Estoppel and
Injunction with a copy of my UCC1 Financing Statement, Authenticated
38
Birth Certificate, Copy Claim to publishing and usage of Plaintiff’s names;
Pamela taylor, taylor, pamela and The Pamela taylor Family Trust.
108. Such notice advised Fusicitto of all claims that were held by the
Plaintiff.
109. Such notice advised Fuscitto of the challenges made upon the Attorney
General Eric Schneider man.
110. Such notice advised Fuscitto of the claims made upon the Governor of
the State of New York.
111. Such notice to Principal was notice and thus advised Pratt of the claims
made upon the County Sheriff Joseph Fusicto.
112. Based upon those claims, Plaintiff made request that responses be
made as it related to the right of the State of New York to apply their
statutes and codes against Plaintiff.
113. All such claims remain uncontested.
114. All parties are in default.
115. As such, Deputy Sheriff Pratt was in violation of Plaintiff’s right to
remain a private citizen.
116. As such, plaintiff was in violation of plaintiff’s intellectual property
rights.
117. Thus Pratt is personally liable for the act(s) of property and personal
tort upon the commencement of his proceeding to enter upon the private
property of plaintiff.
39
118. Thus Pratt is personally liable for the act(s) of property and personal
tort upon the commencement of his proceeding against the vessel noticed
as plaintiff.
119. Thus Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against Defendant Guda in
the amount of Fifty Million Dollars.
W H E R E F O R E, Plaintiff demands as follows;

A. To inspect the ‘Name’ and ‘Address’ of the ‘Lender’s CPA and Auditor’,
for the period covering the Execution. If the Third Party Defendants have
the ‘Name’ and ‘Address’ of the ‘Lender’s CPA and Auditor’, for the
period covering the Execution let them bring it forth and offer their Proof
of Claim for our inspection.
B. Trial by Jury.
C. For punitive damage SCIENTER ACTS (omitting knowledge) in Bad Faith,
Fraud Conspiracy, Undue Enrichment, Aiding and Abetting, Willful and
Commercial War, Commercial Credit Slander and continuous torts
resulting in the deceptive sale, transfer and conveyance of deed
D. Court grants Plaintiff a Quiet Title to the subject property.
Dated: March 10, 2017
Brooklyn, New York
_________________________________X
Sage El
40
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK)

COUNTY OF KINGS )
Sage El, the undersigned hereby swears under the penalty of perjury and affirms the
following to be true. I have read the within Verified Complaint, know the contents
thereof to be true to my knowledge, except those matters made upon information and
belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. My belief as to those matters
therein not stated upon knowledge, is based upon conversations with my Beneficiary,
and my personal knowledge of the PAMELA TAYLOR Family Trust records I hold in my
possession. _____________________________
Sage El
Sworn to before me this ______
Day of March , 2017
_______________________________
NOTARY
41
in the untied states district court
eastern district of new york
__________________________________________ )
sage el, On Behalf of THE Pamela taylor FAMILY TRUST, ) Case No.
as Trustee )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) SUMMONS AND
V. ) COMPLAINT
)
)
)
ELEANOR PHILLIPS, JEFFREY MILLER, DEPUTY SHERIFF
JOSEPH FUSICTO, DEPUTY SHERIFF D. PRATT, MICHAEL)
J. FICCHI, IRA MILLER, ESQ, )
)
Defendants. )
)
SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

Sage El
Address:
Zip Code:
Phone:
42

Eastern District New York Federal Court Complaint: Fraud Upon The Court

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Eastern District New York Federal Court Complaint: Fraud Upon The Court

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

in the united states district court

eastern district of new york

Decatur Street, Brooklyn, New York 11233.

side of St Marks Avenue with the Southeasterly side of Franklin Avenue;

through a party wall 128 feet 6inches;

THENCE Southeasterly parallel with St Marks Avenue 17 feet 9 ½ inches;

THENCE Northwesterly along the Northwesterly side of St Marks Avenue, 17 feet 9 ½

inches to the point or place of BEGINNING.

Defendant’s tortuously interfered with Plaintiff’s right to contract, violated Plaintiffs'

designed to improperly influence the Court's decisions in this case.

Court deems just and proper.

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

City Sheriff Joseph Fucicitto

Deputy City Sheriff D. Pratt

Block 1217 Lot 80

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

1. This is an action pursuant to Article 15 of the Real Property Actions and

Proceedings Law (“FEDERAL) to quiet title through the discharge of a

fraudulent, void, voidable, and otherwise improper deed recorded against

Herein after referred to as the “Subject Property.”

to submit false affidavits, in furtherance of SCIENTER ACTS (omitting

knowledge) in Bad Faith, Fraud Conspiracy, Undue Enrichment, Aiding and

Forethought, Conversion, Commercial War, Commercial Credit Slander and

continuous torts resulting in the deceptive sale, transfer and conveyance of

in that the Defendants presented false evidence to the Court and/or

concealed material evidence from the Court, advanced arguments to the

commence a proceeding against plaintiff, or for which material evidence had

sought by plaintiff, and thereby obtained Court rulings based thereon;

prepared key information which deceived, mislead ; and by failing to disclose

interest in the subject property.

3. The Officer’s of the State Department’s Department of Banking, as Officers of

the Court as licensed attorneys, the paperwork presented, prepared, and

affidavits in support; constituted intentional and malicious misconduct which

compromised the judicial process and amounts to an unconscionable and

egregious act of tort.

4. II. BASIS FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION

5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “[e] except as otherwise expressly provided

7. III. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION

1332(a) because the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of

$75,000 and the matter is between citizens of different states.

Million ($4,000,000) dollars pursuant to 28. U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2).

dollars pursuant to 28. U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2).

Box 432035, Camp Pendleton CA, 92055.

12. Plaintiff is therefore a citizen of California.

the armed forces was entitled .

14. MATHA CANTEY FAMILY TRUST is a foreign Corporation acknowledgment by

the Department of Internal Revenue Services. The filings of these documents

therefore is submitted under those regulatory provisions.

15. Plaintiff therefore is a foreign citizen. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2).

17. Therefore Marshall Guda is a citizen of the State of New York.

18. Defendant US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR

ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR FIRST FRANKLYN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST

complete diversity exists less than 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

20. IV. VENUE AND PROCEDRUAL REQUIREMENTS

Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

defects that exist within the present mortgage action.

six hundred thousand dollars.

RPAPL § 1304 and asserts several general denials, several affirmative

failure to state a cause of action; the use of fictitious personnel to submit

false affidavits, in furtherance of SCIENTER ACTS (omitting knowledge) in Bad

Wanton, Irreparable Harm, with Malice and Forethought, Conversion,

Commercial War, Commercial Credit Slander and continuous torts resulting

in the deceptive sale, transfer and conveyance of deed, which purports to

presented false evidence to the Court and/or concealed material evidence

they maintained and had standing to commence a proceeding against

obtained Court rulings based thereon; prepared key information which