UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

WESTERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER JOY ]

Plaintiff ]

V. ]

THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, ] Case Number 5:10-cv-218

INC., a Delaware Corporation; ]

CWABS, Inc.; LITTON LOAN ]

SERVICING, LP; PROMMIS ]

SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Georgia ]

Corporation; JOHNSON & ]

FREEDMAN, LLC, a Georgia ]

Corporation; NATIONWIDE ]

TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC, a ]

Tennessee corporation; MONICA ]

WALKER, individually; CHRIS ]

MEYER, individually; MATRESSA ]

MORRIS, individually; MICHELE ]

YOUNG, individually; JANUARY ]

N. TAYLOR, individually; DOES ]

1-10, inclusive ]

Defendants ]

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys Lucas and Nowak, LLP, and

complains of the Defendants and alleges the following:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is an adult resident of North Carolina whose address is 5721 Clarks Fork

Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616.

2. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., MERSCORP (hereinafter referred to

as “MERS”) is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 1818

Library Street, Reston, VA 20190, and does business in the State of North Carolina

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 1 of 48and was created in or about 1995
in order to undermine and attempt to eviscerate

long-standing principles of real property law, such as the requirement that any person

or entity who seeks to foreclose upon a parcel of real property: 1) be in possession of

the original note, 2) have a publicly recorded mortgage in the name of the party for

whom the underlying debt is actually owed and who is the holder of the original

Promissory Note with legally binding assignments, and 3) possess a written

assignment giving he, she or its actual rights to the payments due from the borrower

pursuant to both the mortgage and note.

3. Defendant Johnson and Freedman (hereinafter referred to as "JF") is a law firm with

its principal place of business at 1587 Northeast Expressway, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

Johnson and Freedman does business in the State of North Carolina.

4. MERS, Prommis and Nationwide are the RICO enterprises and are the primary

innovations through which the conspirators, including the Defendants, have

accomplished their illegal objectives as detailed throughout this Complaint.

5. Defendant Johnson and Freedman joined with Defendants Merscorp, Inc.,

Nationwide, Litton, Prommis and other conspirators in its fraudulent scheme and

RICO enterprise herein complained.

6. The employees of the Defendant law firm Johnson and Freedman, including many
licensed attorneys, have become skilled in using the artifice of MERS to sabotage the

judicial process to the detriment of Plaintiff and other borrowers, and over the past

several years have routinely relied upon MERS to accomplish these illegal acts.

7. Defendant Prommis Solutions (hereinafter referred to as "Prommis") is a document

processing company, with a principal place of business at 1587 Northeast

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 2 of 48Expressway, Atlanta, Georgia

30329, that generates loan and mortgage documents.

Prommis Solutions does business in the State of North Carolina.

8. Defendant Nationwide Trustee Services (hereinafter referred to as "Nationwide") is a

document processing company, with a principal place of business at 1587 Northeast

Expressway, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, that generates loan and mortgage documents

and does business in the State of North Carolina.

9. Defendants Prommis Solutions and Nationwide facilitated the conspiratorial acts of

the Defendants, creating fraudulent Promissory Notes, Note Assignments, Affidavits

and Mortgage Assignments and other Court documents.

10. Prommis Solutions, Nationwide and Johnson and Freedman engaged in policies,

patterns and practices of drafting forged missing mortgages and loan documents and

executing them by signatures and rubber stamps by their own employees and

employees of Johnson and Freedman.

11. Defendant Litton Loan Servicing, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "Litton") is a Texas

corporation with a principal place of business at 4828 Loop Central Drive, Houston,

Texas 77081, and is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs, which

according to the MERS internet web site of www.mersinc.org, is a "member" or

shareholder in MERS. Litton, also a member of MERS, serves as a servicer on tens

of thousands of Mortgage loans, including the loan of the herein Plaintiff. Litton

Loan Services does business and has a registered agent in the State of North Carolina.

12. Defendant Goldman Sachs (hereinafter referred to as "Goldman") is a Delaware

corporation with a principal place of business at 100 Wall Street, New York, New

York, which according to the MERS internet web site, www.mersinc.org, is a

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 3 of 48"member" or shareholder in

MERS. Through Defendant Litton, Goldman does

business in the State of North Carolina.

13. Defendant CWABS Inc., is a Trust held by the Bank of New York-Mellon, a

certificate holder of a pool of mortgages which fraudulently claimed the Note of the

Plaintiff.

14. At all relevant times, Defendant Monica Walker ("Walker") participated or operated

in the scheme as an employee or agent, as team leader or supervisor, of defendants

Nationwide Trustee Services, Inc., Prommis Solutions and Johnson and Freedman.

15. At all relevant times, Defendant Chris Meyer ("Meyer") participated or operated in

the scheme as an employee or agent of defendants Nationwide Trustee Services, Inc.,

Prommis Solutions and Johnson and Freedman.

16. At all relevant times, Defendant Matressa Morris ("Morris") participated or operated

in the scheme as an employee or agent of defendants Nationwide Trustee Services,

Inc., Prommis Solutions and Johnson and Freedman.

17. At all relevant times, Defendant Michele Young ("Young") participated or operated

in the scheme as an employee or agent as a title manager of Defendants Nationwide

Trustee Services, Inc., Prommis Solutions and Johnson and Freedman.

18. At all relevant times, Defendant January N. Taylor ("Taylor") operated and

participated in the scheme as an employee, partner or agent of Defendants Prommis,

Nationwide Trustee Services, Inc. and Johnson and Freedman.

19. Plaintiff is not aware of the true names and capacities of the defendants sued as

DOES 1-10, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names.

Each of these fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the
Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 4 of 48activities alleged in this
Complaint. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to add the

true names of the fictitiously named defendants once they are discovered.

20. Any allegations about acts of any corporate or other business defendants means that

the corporation or other business did the alleged acts through its officers, directors,

employees, agents and/or representatives while they were acting within the actual or

ostensible scope of their authority.

21. At all relevant times, each defendant committed acts, caused or directed others to

commit the acts, or permitted others to commit the acts alleged in this Complaint.

Additionally, some or all of the defendants acted as the agent of the other defendants,

and all of the defendants acted within the scope of their agency if acting as the agent

of another.

22. At all relevant times, each defendant knew or realized that the other defendants were

engaging in or planned to engage in the violations of law alleged in this Complaint.

23. At all relevant times, each defendant knew or realized that the other defendants were

engaging in or planned to engage in the violations of law alleged in this Complaint.

Knowing or realizing that other defendants were engaging in or planning to engage in

unlawful conduct, each defendant nevertheless facilitated the commission of those

unlawful acts. Each defendant intended to and did encourage, facilitate or assist in

the commission of the unlawful acts, and thereby aided and abetted the other

defendants in the unlawful conduct.

24. Knowing or realizing that other defendants were engaging in or planning to engage in

unlawful conduct, each defendant nevertheless facilitated the commission of those

unlawful acts.

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 5 of 4825. All Defendants engaged in
continuous and multiple unfair and deceptive trade

practices, fraud and misrepresentations that affected interstate commerce and

proximately caused the herein injuries to the Plaintiff.

26. At all relevant times, defendants engaged in a conspiracy, common enterprise, and

common course of conduct, the purpose of which was to engage in the violations of

law alleged in this Complaint. This conspiracy, common enterprise and common

course of conduct continues to the present.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

27. The Court has original and subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332, 18

U.S.C. § 1961–1968, and over the statutory and common law violations of North

Carolina and common law.

28. Venue is proper in this Judicial District as the Plaintiff's property is located in Wake

County North Carolina. All Defendants have conducted business in this State by

filing fabricated, illegal and unenforceable transfers of Deeds of Trust, Promissory

Notes, Assignments of Promissory Notes and Affidavits as to loan ownership of

Plaintiff's Note and Deed of Trust and Status of Accounts, Mortgages and

Assignments of Mortgages and other court documents.

III. INTRODUCTION

29. For purposes of this action the term “Mortgage” shall include the term “Deed of

Trust.”

30. For purposes of this action, the words “Trust” and "MBS" are interchangeable.

31. For purposes of this action, Litton, Prommis and Nationwide shall collectively be

called "Servicers".

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 6 of 4832. For purposes of this action
"foreclosing Defendants" shall mean Goldman, Litton,

Nationwide, Prommis and Johnson and Freedman.

MERS

33. On or about October 29, 2004, Plaintiff executed a Note and Deed of Trust with

Decision One Mortgage Company and MERS. A copy of the Note is attached hereto
and incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "A". A copy of the Deed of Trust is

attached hereto and incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "B".

34. Plaintiff's mortgage and the unlawful foreclosures that followed were, and are, based

upon a Deed of Trust and a Note in the mortgage that are not held by the same entity

or party and are based upon a mortgage that was flawed from the date of origination

of the loan because MERS was named as the beneficiary or nominee of the lender on

the Deed of Trust and was done for the purpose of deception, fraud, harming the

Plaintiff and the theft of revenue from the local county government through the illegal

avoidance of mortgage recording fees.

35. MERS is not the original lender for the Plaintiff's subject Deed of Trust and Note

herein.

36. MERS is not the creditor or beneficiary of the underlying debt nor an assignee under

the terms of the Deed of Trust or Note of the Plaintiff and does not hold the original

of the Deed of Trust nor has it ever held the Note of the Plaintiff.

37. MERSCORP is owned by a group of Wall Street investment Banks.

38. MERS is unregistered and unlicensed to conduct mortgage lending or any other type

of business in the State of North Carolina and has been and continues to knowingly,

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 7 of 48intentionally, illegally and

fraudulently record mortgages and conduct business in

North Carolina on a large scale and systematic fashion.

39. No Note or other evidence exists which could ever make the Plaintiff indebted to

MERS in any way.

40. MERS never had nor will it ever have the authority to assign the Mortgage to any

entity.

41. MERS has never had any right to collect on the Note or enforce the Deed of Trust or

Mortgage, nor has it ever had a right to hold, enforce or collect upon Plaintiff's Note.

42. At the time Plaintiff signed the Note and Deed of Trust, he was unknowingly
converting his property into an asset of a MBS and was deliberately induced into

signing a Negotiable Instrument which was never intended as such, but was intended

by Decision One Mortgage Company as collateral for a MBS.

COUNT I. FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD AND

MISREPRESENTATION and ABUSE OF PROCESS

ALL DEFENDANTS

43. Plaintiff re-alleges and affirms each and every preceding paragraph of this Complaint

and incorporate such as if alleged anew.

44. Purporting to act on behalf of the Bank of New York-Mellon, as Trustee for the

Certificate holders, CWABS, Inc., Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-BC1

(hereinafter referred to as "CWAB, Inc.", or "MBS"), and without a lawful

Assignment of the Note or Deed of Trust, Servicers-Defendants Goldman, Litton

Loan Servicing, Nationwide Trustee Services, Prommis Solutions and Johnson and

Freedman filed numerous foreclosure actions against Plaintiff beginning in or about

September 2008, in Wake County North Carolina.

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 8 of 4845. The foreclosing Defendants
Goldman, Litton, Nationwide, Prommis and JF conspired

to create and did create and file with the Wake County Court false, phony and

fictitious Appointments of Substitute Trustee, from The Bank of New York as

Trustee for the Certificate Holders, CWABS, Inc. Asset-backed Certificates Series

2005-BCI, to Defendant Monica Walker, Amy L. Walker and Defendant Nationwide

Trustee Services, Inc.. A copy of said Assignment is attached hereto and

incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "C".

46. At the time of the foregoing false Appointment, the foreclosing Defendants

(Goldman, Litton, Nationwide, Prommis and Johnson and Freedman) did not possess

a lawful and valid Assignment of Deed and Trust from Decision One Mortgage

Company, LLC and therefore lacked standing and the capacity to foreclose.
47. The foreclosing Defendants had no first-hand knowledge of the loan, no authority to

testify or file affidavits as to the validity of the loan documents or of the existence of

the loan.

48. On or about September 9, 2008, defendant Nationwide notified Plaintiff that a hearing

would be held on October 16, 2008 pursuant to a Notice of Hearing, on whether

Plaintiff's Note and Deed of Trust ("DOT") would be foreclosed. A copy of the letter

of notice is attached hereto and incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "D".

49. On October 16, 2008, Plaintiff went to the Clerk of Court's office in Wake County

North Carolina and was told by an agent or employee of either defendants Litton, JF,

Nationwide and Prommis that a hearing would not be held that day and would be

continued until a later date.

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 9 of 4850. On or about November 18,
2008, Defendants Nationwide, Prommis and JF caused to

be filed a Motion for Continuance with the Wake County Clerk requesting a

continuance until January 8, 2009, citing the reason as a "Missing Lender's

Affidavit." A copy of the letter of notice is attached hereto and incorporated herein

and marked Exhibit "D-1".

51. The foreclosing Defendants Litton, Nationwide, Prommis and JF failed to notify

Plaintiff of the continuance.

52. On January 8, 2009, at 11:11 am, without any notice to the Plaintiff, an agent or

employee of either foreclosing Defendants Litton, Nationwide, Prommis and JF

intentionally caused to be filed an signed Order that they prepared stating that "the

debtors have shown no valid legal reason why foreclosure should not commerce."

Defendants also caused to be filed a Notice of Default and Acceleration from

Countrywide Home Loans. A copy of the Order is attached hereto and incorporated

herein and marked Exhibit "E". A copy of the letter of notice is attached hereto and

incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "F".

53. The foreclosing Defendants knew that Countrywide Home Loans, Litton or CWABS,

Inc., was not a holder in due course of the subject Note.

54. Defendants knew that they had not given statutory notice of the hearing to the

Plaintiff at the time such Order was submitted to the Clerk and that no Order of

Continuance had been noticed to Plaintiff. A copy of the unissued, blank and

unsigned Order of Continuance is attached hereto and incorporated herein and

marked Exhibit "G"

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 10 of 48COUNT II. CONVERSION

55. Plaintiff re-alleges and affirms each and every preceding paragraph of this Complaint

and incorporate such as if alleged anew.

56. On January 29, 2009, at 10:30 am, the foreclosing Defendants unlawfully sold

Plaintiff's home.

57. On February 12, 2009, Defendant Matressa Morris, on behalf of Defendants

Nationwide and JF, purported to execute a Substitute Trustee's Deed from

Nationwide back to CWABS, which they filed with the Court and the Register of

Deeds. A copy of the Substitute Trustee's Deed is attached hereto and incorporated

herein and marked Exhibit "H".

58. Defendants JF, Nationwide and Morris knew that the Substitute Trustee's Deed was

void and a legal nullity when they caused such to be executed and filed with the

Court.

59. Also on February 12, 2009, the foreclosing Defendants sent The Clerk of Court a

rubber-stamped letter attaching what purported to be a Final Report and Accounting

of Sale. A copy of the foregoing letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein and

marked Exhibit "I". A copy of the Final Report and Accounting of Sale is attached

hereto and incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "J".

60. On February 24, 2009, the Clerk refused the Final Accounting Checklist (Exhibit "J")
because the Notice of Hearing was missing. The Clerk notated "need amended notice

of hearing or continuance 1/8/09."

61. On March 9, 2009, Defendants JF and Prommis intentionally sent Plaintiff a letter

stating that a foreclosure sale of Plaintiff's property had been conducted on January

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 11 of 4829, 2009 and demanded
possession of the property. Defendants intentionally

attempted to get the Plaintiff to consensually surrender possession although

defendants knew that the purported sale was illegal. Notably, this letter is signed by

Christina Fairchild who signs for Defendant Prommis and as a paralegal for

Defendant Johnson and Freedman. A copy of such letter is attached hereto,

incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "K".

62. At 11:47 am on March 31, 2009, Defendants JF, Prommis and Nationwide

intentionally engaged in a myriad of filings attempting to obscure their illegal acts

and unlawful sale of Plaintiff's home, to wit, defendants attempted to file with Clerk

"SP" another Accounting Checklist for Foreclosure supported by what Defendants

knew to be an unsigned Order of Continuance for a hearing that was scheduled for

January 8, 2009. The Clerk refused filing because of the unsigned or 'missing' Notice

of Continuance. A copy of the Accounting Checklist for the morning of March 31,

2009 is incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "L".

63. The foreclosing Defendants' intentional lack of notice to the Plaintiff and his resulting

failure to appear at a hearing to which he had no knowledge is the basis for the

previous Order of January 8, 2009 giving Defendants the right to proceed on

foreclosure and Sale of Plaintiff's property on January 29, 2009. In other words, the

foreclosing Defendants intentionally and actively misled the Clerk to believe that a

signed lawful Notice of Continuance had in fact been filed and served upon Plaintiff.

A copy of the unsigned Order of Continuance is attached hereto, incorporated herein

and marked Exhibit "M".

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 12 of 4864. On March 31, 2009, at 3:30
pm, the foreclosing Defendants intentionally

compounded their abuse of process by returning to the Clerk's office, going to a

different clerk ("BG") and submitting an Affidavit of Missing Continuance along

with a new Final Accounting Checklist that states they were missing a filed copy of a

'continuance package' submitted "back in November 2008" and that the package is

hereby submitted with the Affidavit. No signed Order was Continuance was

included. A copy of said Affidavit is attached hereto, incorporated herein and marked

Exhibit "N" A copy of the new Final Accounting Checklist is attached hereto,

incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "O".

65. On March 31, 2009, defendants NTS and Monica Walker intentionally and

paradoxically caused to be filed a rubber-stamped Notice of Continuance indicating a

new hearing date of January 8, 2009. A copy of the rubber-stamped Notice is

attached hereto, incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "P".

66. The foreclosing Defendants intentionally or with gross negligence failed to serve

Plaintiff in any manner with a copy of the Order of Sale, Notice of Sale, Report of

Sale or anything else, all in violation of the General Statutes of North Carolina.

67. On or about May 1, 2009, without any notice from the foreclosing Defendants, the

Sheriff of Wake County notified Plaintiff that he had to vacate his home.

68. When Plaintiff received the Notice of Eviction, and the Sheriff placed an eviction

notice upon the dwelling, he was required to move within 2 days. The home was

cleaned out and padlocked. A copy of the Sheriff's Return of Service is attached

hereto, incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "Q".

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 13 of 4869. This move cost the Plaintiff
considerable expense, including the loss monies to move

many of his personal belongings quickly and the total and complete loss of his home

and his home-based business, a limousine service.

70. Plaintiff hired an attorney, at considerable expense, and after approximately two

months after the eviction, successfully got a court order to return the keys to his

dwelling and the return of the Deed of Trust. A copy of said Order is attached hereto,

incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "R".

COUNT III. FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION

Second Foreclosure

71. Plaintiff re-alleges and affirms each and every preceding paragraph of this Complaint

and incorporate such as if alleged anew.

72. On or about July 29, 2009, in an attempt to again foreclose on Plaintiff's home,

Defendant Litton mailed a notice to Plaintiff falsely alleging a past due balance on the

Note. A copy of said notice is attached hereto, incorporated herein and marked

Exhibit "S".

73. On or about August 12, 2009, over a year after the first foreclosure, Defendants

Goldman Sachs, Litton, Nationwide, Prommis and JF conspired to create and did

create and file with the Wake County Court a false, phony and fictitious Assignment

of Deed of Trust, dated August 12, 2009, purporting to be from Decision One

Mortgage Company, LLC to The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificate

Holders, CWABS, Inc. Asset-backed Certificates Series 2005-BCI. A copy of said

Assignment is attached hereto and incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "T".

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 14 of 4874. Upon information and belief,
at the time of the alleged Assignment, Decision One

Mortgage Company was defunct and out of business and no longer licensed to do

business in the State of North Carolina.

75. Upon information and belief the signator of the Assignment, Michael Sisley, was

never an Assistant Vice-President of Decision One Mortgage Company and the

Public Notary misrepresented the facts contained in the testament to the document.

76. On August 3, 2009, and prior to the purported Assignment of the Deed of Trust,
Defendants Goldman Sachs, Litton, Nationwide, Prommis and JF caused a purported

Appointment of Substitute Trustee from The Bank of New York-Mellon to Matressa

Morris and Nationwide for the subject Note and Deed of Trust, almost 2 weeks

before the purported Assignment of Deed.

77. The Appointment and Assignment were both false, fictitious and legally null and void

and were signed by a purported Vice-President of some financial institution,

including the Bank of New York-Mellon. A copy of said Assignment is attached

hereto and incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "U".

78. Upon information and belief, the Appointment was falsely signed by Kimberly

Dawson, who has never been a Vice-President of the Bank of New York-Mellon, or

was signed by someone other than Kimberly Dawson. A copy of said Appointment is

attached hereto and incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "V".

79. On or about August 5, 2009, Defendant Litton sent a mailing to Defendant JF

purporting to show a false Payoff Statement regarding Plaintiff's Note. A copy of

said mailing is attached hereto and incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "V-1".

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 15 of 4880. On August 14, 2009, Denise
Bailey, an alleged Assistant Secretary of Litton

purported to execute a Lender's Affidavit on behalf of Litton, stating that Plaintiff

was indebted to Bank of New York-Mellon. The affidavit is false and legally null

and void. A copy of said Appointment is attached hereto and incorporated herein and

marked Exhibit "W".

81. On August 14, 2009, Defendant Nationwide again rubber-stamped Defendant Monica

Walker's name to an Amended Notice of Hearing and caused such to be fraudulently

filed with the Clerk of Court. A copy of said Amended Notice of Hearing is attached

hereto and incorporated herein and marked Exhibit "X".

82. Defendants Goldman, Litton, Nationwide and JF voluntarily dismissed this

foreclosure action on May 25, 2010.

COUNT IV DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

Third Foreclosure

83. Plaintiff re-alleges and affirms each and every preceding paragraph of this Complaint

and incorporate such as if alleged anew.

84. In 2010, Defendants Goldman, Litton, Prommis, Nationwide and JF intentionally

instituted another foreclosure against Plaintiff based upon fraudulent documents in

the Wake County Court.

85. The scheme employed by Defendants intentionally had the capacity and tendency to

deceive Plaintiff, and did deceive Plaintiff, and others similarly situated.

86. The acts of the Defendants violated standards of fair trade practices.

87. As a result of the Defendants unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiff was

proximately injured in his business and his person.

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 16 of 4888. This foreclosure has been
continued with no date set for a hearing.

COUNT V. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION

JOHNSON AND FREEDMAN, LLP

PROMMIS AND GOLDMAN SACHS

89. Plaintiff re-alleges and affirms each and every preceding paragraph of this Complaint

and incorporate such as if alleged anew.

90. Defendants had a duty of care to supervise the actions of their employees and agents

91. Defendants employees' and/or agents' actions, as alleged previously, were unlawful

and violated Plaintiff's property rights.

92. Defendants knew or should have known that their employees and/or agents were

acting unlawfully.

93. As a result of the Defendants' negligent supervision, Plaintiff was proximately injured

by the unlawful acts of their employees and/or agents.

COUNT VI. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

94. Plaintiff re-alleges and affirms each and every preceding paragraph of this Complaint

and incorporate such as if alleged anew.

95. An agency relationship exists between the individual defendants and the corporate

defendants.

96. The actions of the individual defendants were done on behalf of and at the direction

of the corporate defendants and within the scope of their agency relationship.

97. As a result of the actions of the individual defendants, the Plaintiff was injured.

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 17 of 48COUNT VII--RICO

98. Plaintiff re-alleges and affirms each and every preceding paragraph of this Complaint

and incorporate such as if alleged anew.

99. The RICO enterprises are MERS, Prommis and Nationwide, the foreclosing

Defendants. JF, Nationwide, Prommis, Goldman and Litton knew that they had no

legal authority to draft mortgage assignments relating to Plaintiff's loan.

100.The foreclosing Defendants and their agents regularly and routinely committed

perjury in relation to their statements to the Court and Plaintiff.

101.Each and every Defendant signatory committed a predicate act and knowingly

affixed their name to fraudulent documents.

102.The “lender” on the original Note and Deed of Trust was Decision One Mortgage

Company, LLC, a defunct corporation in 2008.

103.Decision One, the originator of the Note and Deed, immediately and simultaneously

securitized the note.

104.MERS, acting as the mortgagee or mortgage assignee, was never intended to be the

lender nor did it represent the true lender of the funds for the mortgage.

105.The true owner of the mortgage Note has not declared a default and no longer has an

interest in the note.

106.The Servicers, Litton, Nationwide, Prommis Solutions and Johnson and Freedman,
were not in privity with the lender nor did they have the lawful permission of the

beneficial owners of the Note to file suit on their behalf.

107.The obligations reflected by the note allegedly secured by the MERS mortgage have

been satisfied in whole or in part because the investors who furnished the funding for

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 18 of 48these loans have been paid to the
degree that extinguishment of the debts has occurred

with the result that there exists no obligations on which to base any foreclosure on the

property owned by the Plaintiff.

108.Defendants have clouded the title and illegally collected payment and is presently

attempting to foreclose upon the property of the Plaintiff when they do not have the

lawful right to foreclose and are not the holders in due course of the Note.

109.Only parties entitled to collect on the unsecured debt would be the holders in due

course and beneficial owners of the original Note.

110.The Defendants lacked standing as a real party in interest to the underlying Note

existing in the form of a negotiable instrument.

111.The Defendants committed violations of law pertaining to the improper and illegal

drafting, execution, possession and public recording of Affidavits, Mortgages and

Assignment of Mortgages and illegally divested, and continues illegal attempts to

divest, Plaintiff of title to his property.

112.The patterns, policies and practices of the servicers, the document processing

companies and JF was to procure fraudulent and forged documents for the sole

purpose of creating a fraud in the public record in order to illegally take Plaintiff's

property in foreclosure.

113.At the direction, management and instruction of the management, employees of the

Servicers, document processing companies and even the employees of the law firms

executed and notarized forged documents as to the ownership of the loan. The

Defendant affiants committed fraud, perjury and forgery and have been referred in the
press with the vernacular term “robo-signers.”

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 19 of 48114.Plaintiff's property was

foreclosed, sold without his knowledge and transferred

without any real party in interest appearing in Court. The Servicers fraudulently kept

some proceeds of the foreclosure sale under the terms of a Pooling and Servicing

Agreement as the “Trust” no longer exists or had not paid off. The Court and the

Plaintiff never knew that the property was literally stolen.

115.CWAB, Inc. was actually a Mortgage Backed Security (hereinafter referred to as

“MBS”).

116.The MBS registered with Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC,”) and the

Internal Revenue Service (“IRS,”) as a mortgage asset “pass through” entity wherein

it could never own mortgage loan assets in the MBS. This allowed it to qualify as a

Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (“REMIC”) rather than an ordinary Real

Estate Investment Trust (“REIT”).

117.The “Trustee”/Custodian did not have Plaintiff's mortgage recorded in the investors

name as the beneficiaries of a MBS in the year the MBS “closed".

118. In order to keep its tax status and to fund the “Trust” and legally collect money from

investors who bought into the REMIC, the “Trustee” or the more properly named,

Custodian of the REMIC, had to have possession of all the original blue ink Deeds of

Trust, Notes and originals and assignments of the Notes, showing a complete paper

chain of title.

119.To file as a REMIC, and in order to avoid one hundred percent (100%) taxation by

the IRS and the North Carolina Department of Revenue, an MBS REMIC shall not

engage in any prohibited action. The “Trustee” cannot own the assets of the REMIC.

A REMIC Trustee can never claim it owned a mortgage loan.

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 20 of 48120.As long as the MBS was a
qualified REMIC, no income tax could be charged to the
MBS.

121.Although the Defendants attempting to foreclose referred to themselves as

“Trustees” of a “Trust,” the entities were neither “Trustees” nor “Trusts” as defined

by North Carolina law.

122.None of the Defendants were registered as Business Trusts or Business Trustees as

required by North Carolina law. When the MBS came to the North Carolina Court, it

lacked capacity to file suit in the State of North Carolina. There is no “Trust

Agreement” in existence and the MBS utilized a North Carolina legal term it had no

right to use for the sole purpose of misleading the Court.

123.Although the MBS may be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission

(“SEC”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) as a Real Estate Mortgage

Investment Conduit (“REMIC”), it is not properly registered in North Carolina as a

Corporation, Business Trust or any other type of corporate entity.

124.Even if the attorneys (Johnson and Freeman) for the servicers (Litton, Nationwide

and Prommis) who foreclosed on behalf of the Trustee (Bank of New York) who is in

turn acting for the securitized trust, produces a copy of a note, or even an alleged

original, the mortgage loan was not conveyed into the trust under the requirements of

the prospectus for the trust or the REMIC requirements of the IRS.

125.The required MBS asset, or any part thereof, was not legally transferred to the trust

to allow the trust to ever be considered a "holder" of a mortgage loan.

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 21 of 48126.Neither the “Trust” nor the
Servicers was ever titled to bring a foreclosure or

declaratory action because they never had standing or were a real party in interest and

therefore not a proper party to appear before the Court.

Securitization and Standing:

127.To the Clerk of Court for Wake County and to the Plaintiff, the foreclosing

Defendants servicing companies or “Trust” entity appeard to be a bank or lender. This

falsity was due to its name in the style of the case. They were not banks or lenders to

the loan. They were not beneficiaries under the loan. They did not possess a Mortgage

in the property. The never had a right to possess the mortgage in the property. It

would have been a more honest representation for the foreclosing entities to have

called themselves something like “Billy Bob’s Bill Collectors,”

128.The “trustee” filing the foreclosure complaint was not known to the Plaintiff.

129.The first time the Plaintiff learned that his home was put up as collateral for a

publicly traded and sold home loan REMIC (a federally regulated Security) is at the

time he was served with a foreclosure complaint.

130.CWABS, Inc., is an investment vehicle, defined and regulated as “Security” by the

Security and Exchange Commission (SEC.)

131.That Plaintiff's loan was meant to fund a MBS was a “material disclosure” which

was deliberately and intentionally undisclosed. The failure to disclose the identity of

the true lender at closing was a “material disclosure” which would make the contract

voidable under North Carolina contract law.

132.The MBS Trust created for itself a situation wherein it had no legally recognizable

interest in the loans for the benefit of the investor because the investors invested in

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 22 of 48nothing. The MBS possessed
nothing on the date the REMIC closed and perpetrated a

fraud on the Plaintiff and the taxpayers through its fraudulent qualification as a

REMIC with the SEC.

133.No bank, lending institution or “Trustee” ever pledged or put up the money for the

Plaintiff's loan.

134.Litton, Nationwide, Prommis and Johnson and Freedman

135.The Plaintiff of his home, Litton, Nationwide, Prommis and Johnson and Freedman

mislead the Courts as to their standing in foreclosure. They created, forged and

fabricated phony documents in order to obtain an Order of Sale in Foreclosure.

136.The Creation and Use of Fraudulent Affidavits and Mortgage Assignments:

137.The MBS/Trustee Bank of New York-Mellon, claimed to be acting on behalf of the

MBS/Trust and claimed that it had acquired the loan from the originator.

138.The multiple transfers of title of the mortgage loan in between the originator and the

MBS/Trust was simply ignored and never proven or shown to the Court.

139.The Servicers were not the mortgagee of record under a Mortgage Assignment and

has absolutely no legal tie to the investors in the MBS. The “Trust” or Servicers

could never hold or transfer a Mortgage in the property on behalf of the investors.

140.The originator (Decision One Mortgage Company) is no longer in business but the

MBS/Trustee never mentioned the intervening transfers to the Court because they

could not prove that such transfers lawfully occurred.

141.When the Servicers showed up in Court, it was even one more step removed from

the ownership of the underlying debt and Mortgage and could never have an

ownership claim.

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 23 of 48142.The Plaintiff had no idea that
he was making payments to, corresponding with and

applying for a modification with a mortgage loan servicer instead of a mortgage loan

owner or that the Servicer was keeping part or all of proceeds of the mortgage

payments without the knowledge or permission of the investors.

143.The Plaintiff's Note and Mortgage (Deed of Trust) was severed or bifurcated at the

closing table with the Mortgage being recorded in the name of MERS as “nominee”

for Decision One Mortgage Company. However, Decision One never actually loaned

any money to the Plaintiff.

144.The Mortgage sat for years in the name of an entity, MERS, for which the Plaintiff

owed no money and which would never be beneficiary under the Note. There was no

party legally able to assign the Mortgage on behalf of the dissolved lender.

145.An Assignment from MERS was a legal nullity. MERS never had an interest in the
Note or Mortgage.

146.Defendants have repeatedly filed and continue to file foreclosure actions against

Plaintiff as a Trustee for a SEC registered MBS/trust where the chain of title has not

and cannot be established by Defendants.

147.The Defendants’ contempt for due process is compounded by their specific intention

to obviate the requirement that documents prepared for legal use be truthful,

authentic, and legitimate.

148.The whole purpose of MERS is to allow “servicers” to pretend as if they are

someone else: the “owners” of the mortgage, or the real parties in interest. In fact they

are not.

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 24 of 48149.A mortgage is not a

conveyance of property by operation of North Carolina law. It is

merely the public evidence of a lien in property. Furthermore since an entity cannot

assign something it had no rights to in the first place, any and all Mortgage

assignments from MERS to a third party are null and void.

150.The preparation, filing, and prosecution of the complaints to Foreclose and to

Enforce the Deed of Trust and Notes without any documents evidencing ownership

were each predicate acts in the pattern of racketeering activity

151. In furtherance of the MERS enterprise. The actions could not have been brought by

the Defendants without the MERS artifice and the ability to generate any necessary

affidavits or “assignment” which flowed from it

152.As with MERS model itself, the affidavits and “assignments” were meaningless

shells designed to pull the wool over the eyes of the judiciary and ease the burden

upon the unknown real parties in interest. The practice of “non-documentation” can

be seen as a common thread weaving all of the complained-of conduct into a tapestry

of a criminal enterprise proscribed by RICO.

COUNT VIII - INDICTABLE STATE CRIMINAL ACTIONS

ACTION I: EMBEZZLEMENT (G.S. 14-254)

153.Plaintiff re-alleges and affirms each and every preceding paragraph of this

Complaint and incorporate such as if alleged anew.

154.The Defendants were in control and/or possession of a copy of the Note due to their

fiduciary relationship with (original or true holder of the note)

155.The Defendants used the Note to pursue an unlawful and wrongful foreclosure action

against Plaintiff's property.

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 25 of 48156.The Defendants did not have
authority to commence a foreclosure action on the

Plaintiff's property.

157.Defendants intended to defraud, deceive, and injure the Plaintiff and (original or

true holder of the note).

ACTION II: EXTORTION (G.S. 14-118.4)

158.Plaintiff re-alleges and affirms each and every preceding paragraph of this

Complaint and incorporate such as if alleged anew.

159.The Defendants threatened to take the Plaintiff's property and foreclose on the

Plaintiff's property with the intention of converting Plaintiff's property.

160.The Defendants' knew that they were not entitled to obtain Plaintiff's property

through a foreclosure action and knew that they were not the holder of the Note.

161.Plaintiff was injured as a result of the Defendants' actions.

ACTION III: FORGERY OF NOTES, CHECKS, AND OTHER SECURITIES (G.S.

14-119)

162.Plaintiff re-alleges and affirms each and every preceding paragraph of this

Complaint and incorporate such as if alleged anew.

163.The Defendants falsely forged, altered, duplicated, and/or copied a signature on the

original Note.

164.The signed Note and any subsequent assignments were not genuine because it had
been falsely forged, altered, duplicated, and/or copied.

165.The Defendants intended to defraud the Plaintiff and the Wake County Court.

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 26 of 48ACTION IV: PERJURY (G.S.
14-209)

166.Plaintiff re-alleges and affirms each and every preceding paragraph of this

Complaint and incorporate such as if alleged anew.

167.Defendants submitted and filed sworn affidavits to the court in support of their

action to foreclose.

168.Several statements made in the affidavit were false.

169.The statements were material in relation to significant issues of facts.

170.The statements were made in order to mislead the Court.

171.The Defendants' actions were done willfully and corruptly and were made knowing

they were false.

COUNT IX. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT NORTH CAROLINA LAW AND

THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

172.Plaintiff re-alleges and affirms each and every preceding paragraph of this

Complaint and incorporate such as if alleged anew.

173.The alleged Note in question started its life as a negotiable instrument, similar to a

check. The negotiation and enforceability of the Note is governed by Article Three

(3) of the Uniform Commercial Code.

174.Defendant Bank of New York-Mellon is the alleged holder of the note.

175.Defendants/Servicers are not the “holder” or “owner” of the Note nor will they ever

be a person in possession of a negotiable instrument, document of title, or certificated

security that is payable to a bearer or indorsed in blank.

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 27 of 48176.The Defendants are not in
possession of the original negotiable instrument with any

legally binding original endorsement.

177.There is no assignment of the Note to any of the foreclosing Parties/Defendants. The

endorsement stamped on the copy of the Note as Exhibit “A” to the Complaint, bears

no signature and is blank and invalid.

178. Johnson and Freedman and the Defendants have conspired with each other and their

other agents and principals to file false and fraudulent Foreclosure Actions against

Plaintiff. It is asserted that such action is part of Johnson and Freedman's regular

practices and procedures of systemic fraud across the State of North Carolina in

conspiracy with its clients.

179.The proper parties would be the investors as the only parties to whom any obligation

arose after the loan was securitized, but these parties have no recorded interest in the

mortgage or deed of trust, which was never delivered to the Trustee for the mortgage

backed security pool and, therefore, the note itself, is at best unsecured rights to

payment.

180.The note, that had been executed with the deed of trust, became part of a pool of

mortgages losing its individual identity as a note between a lender and a borrower. It

merged with other unknown notes as a total obligation due to the investor or

investors. It is no longer a negotiable instrument; rather, collateral for a federally

regulated Security under the confines of the SEC.

181.MERS was created by its owners to work with investment banks and “lenders” as

co-conspirators in relation to the MERS system with the specific intent that MERS

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 28 of 48would be named the beneficiary
and/or as the nominee of the lender on the mortgages

and deeds of trust which borrowers, including Plaintiff, were induced into signing.

182.Contrarily, MERS was not the “nominee” for the lenders, but was the agent for the

servicers. The true lenders were investors who had provided the funds for the loans

through mortgage backed security pools which were held as trusts. This fact was

known to MERS and the Servicers and the subsequent assignees of any and all rights
purported to have been assigned by MERS at the time the note and deed of trust was

signed by Plaintiff and at the time of each and every later purported assignment by

MERS, or others, of any interest in the note and deed of trust.

183.All Defendants knew that Plaintiff's loan was securitized and intended to be

securitized prior to the preparation of the note and mortgage reflecting the loan.

184.The Servicers profited by foreclosing because of the standard Prospectus and

Pooling and Service Agreements, allowing Servicers to keep proceeds of the

foreclosures when the MBS has been closed or the investors paid off.

COUNT X. A. Violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962 [c] The Law Offices and the Document

Processing Companies

185.Plaintiff re-alleges and affirms each and every preceding paragraph of this

Complaint and incorporate such as if alleged anew.

186.By engaging in a pattern of racketeering activities, the Defendants participated in a

criminal enterprise affecting interstate commerce.

187.By sending the fraudulent affidavits, assignments and pleadings to the clerks of

court, judges, and the Plaintiff in foreclosure cases, these Defendants intentionally

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 29 of 48participated in a scheme to

defraud others, including the Plaintiff, and they utilized

the telephones, U.S. Mail and the internet to do so.

188.The criminal enterprise affects interstate commerce in numerous ways and is used to

conceal the true ownership of mortgage loans from the Plaintiff, the general public,

investors, borrowers, the SEC, the IRS and the Courts.

189.The “predicate acts” of fraud, which were accomplished through the telephone, U.S.

Mail, and the internet, and which are specifically attributable to the Defendants are a)

bringing suit on behalf of entities which were not the real parties in interest, and

which had no standing to sue; b) actively concealing the Defendants' lack of standing

in the complaints for foreclosure and c) drafting of the fraudulent affidavits and
documents and the subsequent execution of the documents by Johnson and Freedman,

Nationwide and Prommis Solutions robo-signers and employees of the document

company, servicer or JF (the notarized affidavit of Kashara Lewis, a former employee

of some of the Foreclosing Defendants, is attached hereto and made a part hereof and

marked Exhibit Y)

190. Johnson and Freedman alleged that the Defendant Servicers and CWABS, Inc., were

the “owner and holder” of the note and mortgage.”

191.These predicate acts are related in that they share the common purpose of defrauding

the Plaintiff of his money and property. They share the common themes of “non-

documentation” and concealment of the real parties in interest.

192.The predicate acts satisfy the RICO continuity requirement in that they extend from

in or beginning in 2008 and continued unabated, and meets the definition of “openCase 5:10-cv-00218-
FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 30 of 48ended” continuity. The threat of continued criminal
activity as part of this enterprise

is still looming over the Plaintiff.

193.As the result of the RICO enterprise the Plaintiff suffered damages in that he lost this

home once, and is presently threatened again to unlawfully lose his home.

194.Plaintiff re-alleges and affirms each and every preceding paragraph of this

Complaint and incorporate such as if alleged anew.

195.Merscorp, Inc.'s, overt acts include creating the MERS artifice, planning, designing,

and enacting the MERS criminal enterprise of which Plaintiff complains herein. also

arranging the use of the MERS as “mortgagee” in Plaintiff's Deed of Trust at issue,

drafting the standard MERS language included in Plaintiff's mortgage, entering into

one or more “agreements for signing authority” which purported to allow employees

of the other conspirators to execute assignments in which the “assignor” and

“assignee” are straw men not possessed of the capacity stated, creating and

maintaining an acceptable public image for MERS, owning and maintaining the
registration and licensure of MERS with the necessary state agencies, other

ministerial acts designed to maintain the corporate shield, mimicing the actions

expected of normal corporations so as to fraudulently disguise its true nature, and; h)

facilitating the use of the MERS artifice by other participants in the conspirators’

scheme.

196.These predicate acts are related in that they share the common purpose of defrauding

the Plaintiff and other borrowers of their money and property. They share the

common themes of “non-documentation” and concealment of the real parties in

interest.

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 31 of 48197.The predicate acts satisfy the
RICO continuity requirement in that they extend from

or about 1995 and continue unabated to the present time, which meets the definition

of “open-ended” continuity. In the alternative, the participants in the RICO enterprise

engaged in a pattern of racketeering activities continuously for a period of time

exceeding three years in duration, which establishes “closed- ended” continuity.

198.As the result of the RICO enterprise the Plaintiff has suffered damages, in that he

lost his home.

199.Plaintiff re-allege and affirm each and every preceding paragraph of this Complaint

and incorporate such as if alleged anew.

200.The Defendants conspired together to violate 18 U.S.C. §1962(c) and (d) by

committed fraud and utilized telephones, US Mail and the internet. The Defendants

agreed on the same criminal objective, to wit: the theft of real property through illegal

foreclosures. Each conspirator is responsible for the actions of the others and the

results of the conspiracy as a whole.

201.Those that provide support for an illegal enterprise are liable for the actions of those

who commit the criminal acts, regardless of whether they participated in that

particular criminal act.

202.Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each and every paragraph of his Complaint

as if set forth fully herein. Introduction of the Claim:

203.At all times relevant hereto, agreements were made by and between the foreclosure

Defendants and MERS to deceive the Plaintiff and to break North Carolina and

Federal law. The entities colluded together to achieve unlawful aims by unlawful

means. The entities, as co-conspirators, took overt steps to accomplish their illegal

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 32 of 48acts and have demonstrated their
intention to break the law, thereby “breathing

together” in their fraudulent and illegal acts.

204.The Defendants' and MERS’ conduct constitutes a pattern of corrupt activity. They

have maintained more than two and perhaps thousands of foreclosures in North

Carolina under the fraudulent and misleading circumstances as fully outlined in this

Complaint.

205.Through the filing of foreclosure under false pretenses in violation of North Carolina

and Federal law, the Defendants, with the assistance of their co-conspirators and

MERS, injured the Plaintiff through the improper loss of title to his property, loss of

the equity in his property, penalties, court costs and attorneys fees charged against his

accounts on lawsuits filed under false and misleading circumstances and from other

incidental and consequential costs and expenses attendant to being disposed of the

property illegally.

206.MERS is the enterprise and is the primary innovation through which the

conspirators, including the Defendants, have accomplished their illegal objectives as

detailed throughout this Complaint.

207.By changing constantly “servicers” on these loans, and by sending out notices of

such changes drafted also in intentionally ambiguous verbiage, the Defendants

cooperated in obscuring the truth to Plaintiff as to who had the right to receive the

proceeds of the loans, and to foreclose in the event of non-payment.

208.Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each and every paragraph of this Complaint

as if set forth fully herein

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 33 of 48209.A person is guilty of filing an
illegal lien when he files a document or lien that he

knows or should have known was forged, groundless, contained a material

misstatement, or was a false claim.

210.The Defendants filed an illegal lien in the way of an Assignment of Mortgage

against the Plaintiff’s property.

211.All parties taking part in or who conspired with those who participated in the acts or

practices in question are jointly and severally liable to the Class Members.

COUNT XI. Common Law Fraud and Injurious Falsehood

212.Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each and every paragraph of this Complaint

as if set forth fully herein.

213.The forged and publicly filed “false” mortgage assignments enabled the Defendants

to perpetrate the fraudulent foreclosure. The Defendants conspired together and

“knew” the “material representations were “false.” The material representations to the

Court and to the Plaintiff were made so that the Court and the Plaintiff would believe

that the Defendants had legitimate claims in the property. The Plaintiff and County

Clerk relied on such and the Plaintiff was injured as a result with the entering of a

judgment and the facing of foreclosure litigation.

COUNT XII.

Fraud by Misrepresentation

UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

214.Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each and every paragraph of this Complaint

as if set forth fully herein.

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 34 of 48215.The deceptive acts of the
original Lender, MERS, Johnson and Freedman and the
Servicers resulted in a multitude of misrepresentations, including but not limited to

the true identity of the Lender, and the fraudulent misrepresentation as to the

Mortgagee.

216.MERS induced the Plaintiff to enter into the transaction when there existed in the

inducement and execution material representations which were false and were known

to be false or were made recklessly, which inducement was reasonably acted upon by

Plaintiff and acted upon in reliance thereon and Plaintiff has suffered injury

proximately due to such.

217.The deceptive acts of the Lender, the Defendants and MERS, constitute fraudulent

misrepresentation and the parties in question are jointly and severally liable for their

acts of fraud by their misrepresentation and all damages stemming from such,

including punitive damages and attorney’s fees.

COUNT XIII. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD BY OMISSION AND

INDUCEMENT

218.Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each and every paragraph of this Complaint

as if set forth fully herein

219.The Lender conspired to fraudulently conceal the “True Lender” at closing, and the

Note was unlawfully securitized and converted into an investment vehicle. The

Lender, the Plaintiff and MERS had a duty to disclose material facts, failed to

disclose those facts; and that failure induced the Plaintiff to act, and he has suffered

actual damages due to the fraudulent omissions.

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 35 of 48220.The parties had a duty to
disclose the true nature of their relationship and the fact

that the Lender was merely a “Pretender Lender” and thus, the agent for the

Concealed and Unknown Lender.

221.The Defendants and MERS are jointly and severally liable for their acts of Fraud by

Omission and all damages stemming from such.

COUNT XIV. Conspiracy to Commit Fraud by the Creation, Operation and Use of

MERS System

222.Plaintiff incorporates by this reference and re-alleges the allegations contained in all

the paragraphs above as if set forth fully herein.

223.Upon information and belief, Defendants and each of them, did knowingly and

willfully conspire and agree among themselves to engage in a conspiracy to promote,

encourage, facilitate and actively engage in fraudulent and predatory lending

practices perpetrated on Plaintiff as alleged herein and the actions of the Defendant

conspirators were taken as part of the business policies and practices of each

Defendant conspirator in participating in the MERS system.

224.Upon information and belief, the Defendant conspirators Goldman Sachs and Litton

are members of and participants in the MERS system, and, through their employees

and agents, served as members of MERSCORP, Inc. and/or MERS, Inc., and

participated in the design and coordination of the MERS system described in this

complaint.

225.Defendants’ participation as shareholders, directors, operators, or members of

MERSCORP, Inc. and/or MERS, Inc. are as follows:

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 36 of 48226.Whenever this Complaint

refers to any corporation's act, deed, or transaction, it

means that such corporation engaged in the act, deed, or transaction by or through its

members, officers, directors, agents, employees, or other representatives while they

actively were engaged in the management, direction, control, organization or

transaction of its business and affairs.

227. MERS, Inc. and/or MERSCORP, Inc. arranged for bilateral and multilateral

meetings, bilateral and multilateral teleconferences, and bilateral internet

communications with potential Shareholders, actual Shareholders, candidates for

Membership, and Members.

228.Upon information and belief, the Defendant conspirators Goldman Sachs and Litton

conspired among themselves and with other unknown parties to: a) Develop a system

of earning profits from the origination and securitization of residential loans without

regard for the rights of Plaintiff; and b) In furtherance of the system referred to

immediately above, the Defendant conspirators Goldman Sachs and Litton

intentionally utilized, created, managed, operated and controlled the Defendants

MERSCORP, Inc. and MERS, Inc. for the specific purpose of MERS, Inc. being

designated as a sham “beneficiary” in the original deeds of trust securing those loans,

including the loans made to Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals by the

“lenders”; and c) Defendant conspirators Goldman Sachs and Litton intentionally

organized, created, managed, operated and controlled the MERS system with the

unlawful intent and for the unlawful purpose of making it difficult or impossible for

Plaintiff and other victims of such industry-wide predatory policies and practices to

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 37 of 48identify and hold responsible the
persons and entities responsible for the unlawful

actions of Defendants and their co-conspirators.

229.MERSCORP, Inc. informed its co-conspirators that using the MERS system would

remove transaction records from the public record.

230.MERSCORP, Inc. and MERS, Inc. have publicly stated the following:

231. “MERS eliminates the need to prepare and record assignments when trading

residential and commercial mortgage loans.” 1) “With the recording of the security

instrument(s), MERS becomes the mortgagee in the county land records and no

assignments are required during a subsequent sale and transfer of the loan between

MERS members.” and 2) “There is no dependency on the corporate name you use on

closing documents and the corresponding corporate name on the MERS System

because the MERS System is not the legal system of record of ownership of mortgage

loans.”
232.MERSCORP, Inc.’s marketing materials also promises Members with assistance

with foreclosures. MERSCORP, Inc. and/or MERS, Inc. have publicly stated “MERS

has assembled a Foreclosure Manual to provide a state-by-state guideline for our

Members to follow when foreclosing a mortgage loan in the name of MERS.”

233.MERSCORP, Inc. and/or MERS, Inc. offered Members increased profits.

234.MERSCORP, Inc. has publicly stated: 1) “The MERS web site enables you to target

directly your MERS® Ready products and services to MERS members.” 2)

“Commercial originators and issuers save hundreds to thousands of dollars (in the

case of cross-collateralized loans) in preparing and recording assignments. Where the

originator has not recorded a MERS as Original Mortgagee (MOM) security

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 38 of 48instrument, the issuer saves the
costs of assigning to the Trust by having the

originator assign to MERS.” and 3) “It will reduce risk and generate more profits for

lenders because the Notes registered on it will be in electronic format. It shortens the

timeframe between the closing and the securitization of the loan, enabling the Note to

move instantly, creating faster funding.”

235.When the Plaintiff's Note was split from the deed of trust, the note became

unsecured.

236.Utilizing the MERS system, Servicers and JF were able to hide profits and fees that

were not disclosed to the Plaintiff or to the investor in the note.

237.CWABS, Inc., violated state and Federal securities laws through its descriptions of

the financial derivatives created by the conspiracy and demonstrated its fraudulent

intent by its pattern of business practices;

238.The Servicer-conspirators agreed to unlawfully foreclose on loans despite the

separation of the loan from the unsecured deed of trust.

239.All of the conspirators agreed to the participation of the other conspirators in their

individual roles in the conspiracy.

240.The Servicers agreed to foreclose despite full knowledge of the loan file of the

Plaintiff. .

241.Defendants has acted as players in the conspiracy, and as Securitizers or the agents

of securitizers in the conspiracy.

242.The Defendants-Securitizers knowingly, and by agreement, serviced the unlawfully

obtained mortgage;

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 39 of 48243.Defendants named herein as

co-conspirators profited from their respective roles in

originating loans, selling them, and pooling their MERS registered home loans

together in large bundles which were sold and turned into financial derivative

instruments;

244.The mortgage securitization process became known in financial industry parlance as

“slicing and dicing.” The slicing and dicing resulted in a pool of mortgages, including

Plaintiff's, which had lost its individual characteristic but had a high value to those

who created them;

245.The Defendant-Servicers have and will attempt to unlawfully foreclose on the

Plaintiff's property. The Servicers have, and will continue to misrepresent the legal

right to foreclose, when they have no such right and they do, and attempt to, deprive

the Plaintiff of the legal title to his home.

246.All Defendants named as MERS members agreed to promote and to utilize MERS in

an unlawful manner in order to deprive Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, of

property.

247. As a result of Defendant conspirators’ conspiracy described herein, Plaintiff

suffered injuries which include mental anguish, emotional distress, embarrassment,

humiliation, loss of reputation and a decreased credit rating which has, or will, impair

Plaintiff’s ability to obtain credit at a more favorable rate than before the decrease in

credit rating, the loss and anticipated loss of his Residence and other financial losses
according to proof, and Plaintiff has incurred attorneys’ fees and costs in this matter.

248.Defendant conspirators’ actions were wanton, willful and reckless, and justify an

award of punitive damages against each of them.

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 40 of 48COUNT XV: Forgery

249.Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each and every paragraph of this Complaint

as if set forth fully herein.

250.A person is guilty of forgery when, with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another,

he falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument which is or purports to be

or which is calculated to become or to represent when completed: (a) A deed, will,

codicil, contract, assignment, commercial instrument, credit card or other instrument

which does or may evidence, create, transfer, terminate or otherwise affect a legal

right, interest, obligation or status; or (b) A public record or an instrument filed or

required or authorized by law to be filed in or with a public office or public

employee. The forgery on the Assignment was an “Unauthorized Signature” under

North Carolina’s Uniform Commercial Code, meaning “a signature made without

actual, implied, or apparent authority.” Nor is the Assignment “Genuine” meaning

“free of forgery or counterfeiting. The Assignment is null and void and is

unenforceable.

251.The acts of the Defendants, in forging the mortgage assignments and the subsequent

filing of such with the Wake County Clerk, violated state law. Each mortgage

assignment executed and filed since 2008 constituted separate violations, illustrating

a systematic pattern and partnership.

COUNT XVI. Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument

252.Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each and every paragraph of this Complaint

as if set forth fully herein.

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 41 of 48253. (1) A person is guilty of
criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second
degree when, with knowledge that it is forged and with intent to defraud, deceive or

injure another, he utters or possesses any forged instrument of a kind specified in (2).

Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree is a Class D felony.

254.Each mortgage assignment executed and filed constitutes a separate violation of the

Act.

255.The Defendants worked together to create the forged Mortgage Assignments.

Therefore knowledge of the forgery is irrefutable. The Defendants both possessed

and uttered the forgeries into the land records of Wake County. All parties taking

part in or who conspired with those who participated in the acts or practices in

question are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff.

COUNT XVII Fraudulent Conveyance

256.Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each and every paragraph of this Complaint

as if set forth fully herein.

257.The Defendants knowingly engaged in fraudulent conveyances.

258.The Plaintiff was aggrieved by the transfer of mortgage of his real property and this

action serves as a Petition in Equity against the Defendants.

259.All parties taking part in or who conspired with those who participated in the acts or

practices in question are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff.

COUNT XVIII - VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTIONS

PRACTICES ACT ("FDCPA") 15 USC § 1692

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 42 of 48260.Plaintiff re-alleges and

affirms each and every preceding paragraph of this

Complaint and incorporate such as if alleged anew.

261.Defendants are debt collectors as defined by 15 USC 1692(a)(6).

262.Defendants filed false, deceptive, misleading, and perjured affidavits in connection

with the collections of debts in violation of 15 USC 1692(e).

263.Plaintiff suffered actual damages from these violations.

264.Pursuant to 15 USC 1692(k), Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, statutory

damages as set forth herein, and reasonable attorney fees and costs.

265.Because the conduct of the defendants was frequent and persistent, because the

nature of the violations of the FDCPA were so egregious, because the FDCPA

violations were a part of a deliberate scheme, Plaintiff is entitled to the maximum

possible relief permitted under 15 USC 1692k(a).

COUNT XIX: Reformation

266.Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each and every paragraph of this Complaint

as if set forth fully herein.

267.Based on this Petition in Equity, the Plaintiff is entitled to have clear title restored

and the Court should Order the Clerk of the County to release the mortgage and strike

all mortgage assignments filed in the name of the Defendants as to the Plaintiff.

COUNT XX: Slander of Title

268.Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each and every paragraph of this Complaint

as if set forth fully herein.

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 43 of 48269.The Defendants have

knowingly and maliciously communicated, in writing, a false

statement which has the effect of disparaging the plaintiff’s title to property. The

Plaintiff has incurred special damage as a result.

270.The Post-Foreclosure Mortgage Assignment was drafted by an employee or partner

of Defendants Litton, Nationwide, Prommis and Johnson and Freedman. The

Assignment was signed by an employee of the Defendants and the signature notarized

by an employee, agent or partner of the Defendants. The Post-Foreclosure

Assignments from MERS to the Defendants are a legal nullity and when placed in the

public record constituted fraud and is subject to prosecution.

271.MERS has no legally enforceable claim, interest or standing to sue as to the Note or

Mortgage in question and the claim is a cloud on the Defendants’ title and should be
quieted as against MERS under North Carolina law.

272.Plaintiff is the rightful owner of the subject property.

273.Plaintiff is the legal title holder of his property.

274.MERS has knowingly and unlawfully caused a cloud to be recorded against the title

of the Plaintiff's property and cause to be sent notices of default, foreclosures and

served and filed mortgage documents that claim an interest in the property of the

Plaintiff.

275.Any purported transfer of any interest in the Plaintiff’s real estate was wrongful and

invalid because the mortgages, foreclosures or purported foreclosures were invalid

and were not conducted in accordance with the laws of North Carolina. MERS knew

or should have known that such transfers were wrongful and invalid. Any publication

of an ownership interest in any of the Plaintiff’s properties is, therefore false.

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 44 of 48276.The recording of the

mortgages published the information to third parties.

277.As a result of said wrongful publication of an ownership interest in the Plaintiff’s

property, Plaintiff has incurred damages and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees and

costs related to this litigation, in an amount to be proven at trial.

278.Defendants have filed mortgages, threatened foreclosure and have foreclosed against

Plaintiff for which Defendants were not owed any payments, had no lawful right to

foreclose and have unlawfully deprived and attempted to deprive Plaintiff of his home

and failed to notify the Plaintiff of the discharge of their obligations on the notes

associated with their mortgage.

279.Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment against Defendants stating that Defendants

have violated Plaintiff’s rights and that the Defendants had and have no right to hold

mortgages in the name of MERS and/or foreclose on the Plaintiff’s property and that

the Defendants are entitled to no further payments from the Plaintiff or recognition in

Plaintiff's Title to his property.

280.Plaintiff has been intentionally misled about the terms and conditions of the

agreements entered into with the Defendants, MERS and all others who have

attempted to foreclose on the Plaintiff.

281.The Plaintiff is entitled to a reformation of these notes as unsecured notes or as

partially or wholly discharged notes and a right to reformation of the contracts with

the persons or entities who are owed obligations because of funding of the loans of

the Plaintiff.

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 45 of 48COUNT XXI: Quiet Title

282.Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each and every paragraph of this Complaint

as if set forth fully herein.

283.The Plaintiff is entitled to have his property as referred to herein quieted in

Defendants' names until and unless some party comes forward in this litigation who

has a right to enforce the loans upon his house free and clear of all encumbrances.

284.The originator of the loan was a broker of loans and intended to place the loans and

never be the “lenders” that they purported to be.

285.The originator of the loan employed a means by which MERS and the Defendants

could insulate themselves from liability for the breach of contract, the violation of

lending and recording laws and for all the reasons stated in the allegations of this

Complaint.

286.The Defendants have not loaned any money to the Plaintiff.

287.The Defendants have no contractual relationship with the Plaintiff.

288.The Defendants are not the holders in due course of the notes on the Plaintiff’s

property.

289.No one who has an legal interest in the Plaintiff’s properties has made any claim of

that interest.

290.Plaintiff has been required to retain counsel in this matter to protect his rights and
seeks these remedies and has incurred attorneys’ fees and costs in this matterCount

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 46 of 48CONCLUSION

291.Upon information and belief, the Defendants, did not and cannot legally obtain

foreclosures and/or file an Assignment of the Notes or Mortgages of the Plaintiff.

292.The Plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief.

293.MERS should be enjoined from this day forward from drafting, executing and filing

Mortgages and Mortgage Assignments and should be further enjoined from filing

Complaints in Foreclosure based in fraud and further be enjoined from prosecuting all

pending cases.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as follows:

1. Judgment against Defendants as Jointly and Severally Liable for all issues.

2. Threefold damages caused by violations of RICO pursuant to 18 USC § 1964(c);

3. Costs and attorneys fees pursuant to 18 USC § 1964(c) and relevant North Carolina

law;

4. Actual and statutory damages for violations of FDCPA pursuant to 15 USC § 1692(k)

and relevant North Carolina law;

5. Costs and Attorneys Fees pursuant to 15 USC § 1692(k) and relevant North Carolina

law;

6. Pre-Judgment and post judgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law;

7. Compensatory damages;

8. Punitive damages as allowed by law;

9. Such other and further relief available under all applicable under state and federal

laws and any relief the court deems just and appropriate;

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL pursuant to rule 38(a) of the F.R.C.P.

Plaintiff demands a jury trial as to all issues triable by a jury.

Case 5:10-cv-00218-FL Document 85 Filed 12/03/10 Page 47 of 48

Respectfully submitted this the 3rd day of December, 2010.

/s/ Jeffrey Nowak /s/ H.E. Luke Lucas

Jeffrey Nowak, Esquire H.E. Luke Lucas, Esquire

NC BAR # 40625 PA BAR # 61124

LUCAS & NOWAK, LLP

2631 E. GEER ST.

DURHAM, NC 27704

919-237-1934

[email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Christopher Joy