First Amended Complaint Doc 13

VERIFIED FAC
ANTHONY COLEMAN
1 6136 BENCHMARK WAY
NORTH LAS VEGAS, NV 89031
2 TEL: 310-686-1643
3 [email protected]
PLAINTIFF PRO SE
4
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8 LLOYD D. GEORGE U.S. COURTHOUSE
9
10
ANTHONY COLEMAN Case No. 2:16-cv-01339-RFB-GWF
11
Plaintiff
12 VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED
vs. COMPLAINT FOR:
13 1. DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNTS
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA
14 BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR 1-12 [28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202];
AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE 2. FRAUD AND DECEIT;
15 INVESTMENT TRUST 2004-4 MORTGAGE- 3. PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL;
BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2004-4;
16 AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE 4. VIOLATION OF NEW YORK
INVESTMENT TRUST 2004-4 MORTGAGE- GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 349
17 BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2004-4; (DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACT);
AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE
SECURITIES, LLC; OCWEN LOAN 5. VIOLATION OF NEVADA
18
SERVICING, LLC; MORTGAGE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL
19 ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, CODE, ET SEQ.;
INC.; ROES 1-10 and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 6. VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1692 ET
20 representing a class of unknown persons who SEQ.;
claim or have the right to claim an interest in
21 certain real property located in Las Vegas, 7. VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g);
Nevada, 8. CANCELLATION OF
22 INSTRUMENTS;
Defendants.
23 9. STATUTORILY DEFECTIVE
FORECLOSURE
24
(JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)
25
26
27
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PAGE
2 JURIDICTION AND VENUE .................................................................................. 4
3
THE PARTIES .......................................................................................................... 5
4
5 NATURE AND SUMMARY OF THE ACTION ..................................................... 8
6
PROCEDURAL HISTORY ...................................................................................... 9
7
8 GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS .............................................................. 13
9 BOTCHED SECURITIZATION ............................................................................. 27

10
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION,
11 DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 1 “TO DETERMINE STATUS OF
12 DEFENDANTS’ CLAIMS [28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202] ...................................... 32
6136 Benchmark Way, Las Vegas, NV 89031
Email: [email protected]
13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION,

ANTHONY COLEMAN
DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 2 “DOES THE LOAN BEING IN

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
DEFAULT AT THE TIME OF THE ASSIGNMENT, CONFLICT WITH 26
15 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G?” ...................................................................................... 36
16
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION,
17 DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 3 “DID THE VALUE OF
18 PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF THE ASSIGNMENTS,
COMPLY WITH THE “80% VALUE-TO-LOAN RATIO” OF 26 U.S.C. §§
19 860A-860G? ......................................................................................................... 38
20
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION,
21 DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 4 “DOES THE ASSIGNMENT,
22 COMPLY WITH THE “TIMING REQUIREMENT” OF 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-
860G?” ................................................................................................................. 41
23
24 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION,

DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 5 “DOES THE ASSIGNMENT,
25 CONVEY A NOTE AND DEED OF TRUST THAT IS A “QUALIFIED
26 LOAN” as defined by 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G?”............................................. 43
27
28
i
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION,
1 DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 6 “IS THE ASSIGNMENT, A
“DEFECTIVE OBLIGATION” PURSUANT TO 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-
2
860G?” ................................................................................................................. 45
3
4
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION,
DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 7 “DOES THE ASSIGNMENT,
5 VIOLATE THE “BANKRUPTCY REMOTE” REQUIREMENT
6
PURSUANT TO 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G?” .................................................... 47
8 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION,

9
DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 8 “DOES THE DELIVERY AND/OR
TRANSFER OF THE PLAINTIFF’S NOTE YEARS AFTER THE
10 TRUST'S CLOSING DATE RENDER THE REMIC STATUS OF THE
11 TRUST VOID PURSUANT TO 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G?”............................ 50
12 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION,

13 DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 9 “IS THE DELIVERY AND/OR

ANTHONY COLEMAN
TRANSFER OF THE PLAINTIFF’S NOTE YEARS AFTER THE

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14 TRUST'S CLOSING DATE A VIOLATION OF SEC LAW?”......................... 51

15
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION,
16 DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 10 “IS THE DELIVERY AND/OR
17 TRANSFER OF THE PLAINTIFF’S NOTE YEARS AFTER THE
TRUST'S CLOSING DATE A VIOLATION OF NEW YORK'S ESTATES,
18 POWERS & TRUSTS LAW?”............................................................................ 52
19
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION,
20 DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 11 “DOES THE ASSIGNMENTS,
21 IDENTIFIED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBERS 200904080002148 &
20121105-0000603 COMPLY WITH THE “TIMING REQUIREMENT” OF
22 THE PROSPECTUS?” ........................................................................................ 53
23
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION,
24 DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 12 “DOES THE ASSIGNMENTS,
25 IDENTIFIED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBERS 200904080002148 &
20121105-0000603 CONVEY A “QUALIFIED LOAN” PURSUANT TO
26 THE PROSPECTUS?” ........................................................................................ 54
27
28
ii
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION,
1 “DOES THE ASSIGNMENTS, IDENTIFIED AS INSTRUMENT
NUMBERS 200904080002148 & 20121105-0000603 CONVEY A
2
“DEFECTIVE OBLIGATION” PURSUANT TO THE PROSPECTUS?” ....... 55
3
4
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION,
CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS ........................................................... 56
5
6
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION,
FRAUD AND DECEIT ....................................................................................... 59
7
8
SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION,
VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 349 (THE
9 “Deceptive Practices Act”) .................................................................................. 61
10
SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION,
11 VIOLATION OF NEVADA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL CODE
12 NRS 90.600. ........................................................................................................ 63
13 EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION,

ANTHONY COLEMAN
FOR VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1692e .......................................................... 66

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15 NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION,

16 FOR VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) ....................................................... 69
17
TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION,
18 FOR VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) ....................................................... 73
19
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 78
20
21 PRAYER FOR RELIEF .......................................................................................... 80
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
iii
Pursuant to Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure Rule 15(a)(1)(B) Plaintiff takes this opportunity to
1
amend/correct his Complaint as a matter of course.
2
FRCP 15(a)(1)(B) states:
3
(a) Amendments Before Trial.
4
(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of
5
course within:
6
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
7
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days
8
after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under
9
Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. (emphasis added)
10
11
Although Plaintiff asserts that not only the Defendants but more specifically their counsel Dana Jonathon,
12
Nitz, Esq. should have very strong grasp of the allegations Plaintiff brought forth in the instant action.
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Plaintiff further asserts that Nitz’s renewed assertions in his filing of a 12(b)6 stating that Plaintiff lacks
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
standing to assert the Void assignments and attempting to misdirect the Court asserting that Plaintiff’s
15
claims are barred by res judicata borderlines on actions that should be brought to the attention of the
16
Nevada Bar Association.
17
18
The Honorable Judge Navarro stated in Order (Doc. #77) in the matter of Coleman v. Homeward
19
Residential, Inc. et al 2:11-cv-00178-GMN-VCF dated January 2, 2013:
20
21
“As of September 2, 2008, when the Notice of Default was recorded in Clark County, the
22
Nevada foreclosure statutes provided that a sale made pursuant to section 107.080 may
23
be declared void if the trustee or other person authorized to make the sale does not
24
substantially comply with the provisions of section 107.080 or any applicable provision
25
of sections 107.086 and 107.087. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 107.080(5)(a). This statute also
26
provides that a power of sale must not be exercised until the beneficiary, the successor in
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
2
interest of the beneficiary or the trustee first executes and causes to be recorded a notice
1
of the breach and of the election to sell the property or cause it to be sold. Nev. Rev. Stat.
2
§ 107.080(2)(c).
3
4
The matter of Coleman v. Homeward Residential, Inc. et al 2:11-cv-00178-GMN-VCF was dismissed
5
only because the remedy for Plaintiff’s claim of Statutorily Defective Foreclosure was that the Trustee’s
6
Sale was to be rescinded, which Defendants did just before trial. Incomplete defiance of the Honorable
7
Judge Navarro assertions to the Defendants that the Court finds that Plaintiff had plead facts showing
8
that a violation is plausible, not just possible, and that Plaintiff would most likely prevail at trial,
9
Defendants for over three years wasted this Court’s time and precious judicial resources repeatedly by
10
attempting to misdirect the Court’s attention through pleading inaccurate and misleading legal
11
interpretations pertaining to Wrongful Foreclosure that are inappropriate and immaterial.
12
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Based upon the ridiculous assertions of res judicata and lack of standing that Dana Jonathon, Nitz, Esq.
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
made in his recent 12(b)6 filing Plaintiff hereby amends his complaint for Mr. Nitz’s clarity. Although
15
Mr. Nitz’s should have very strong grasp of the fact the very same VOID assignments that Plaintiff
16
identified in the matter of Coleman v. Homeward Residential, Inc. et al 2:11-cv-00178-GMN-VCF are
17
present in the instant matter and the only reason the matter 2:11-cv-00178-GMN-VCF was dismissed
18
was because the Defendants ended the Statutorily Defective Foreclosure by rescinding the NOT and
19
Trustee’s Sale. The inexplicable assertion that Plaintiff is barred by res judicata is beyond unfathomable,
20
the current Notice of Default pursuant to phantom beneficial interest asserted by the VOID assignments
21
that required Defendants to rescind the previous unlawful Trustee’s Sale is the only thing that is or should
22
be barred by res judicata.
23
24
As the situation has not changed in the fact that the current Notice of Default YET AGAIN was not
25
recorded by the beneficiary, successor in interest of the beneficiary, or the trustee at the time of the
26
recording as the Assignment of the Deed of Trust purporting to assign beneficial interest to Defendants
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
3
that was VOID in the matter of Coleman v. Homeward Residential, Inc. et al 2:11-cv-00178-GMN-VCF
1
is still VOID and beneficial interest has yet to ever been transferred to the Defendants rendering this
2
foreclosure just as Statutorily Defective as it was in the matter of Coleman v. Homeward Residential,
3
Inc. et al 2:11-cv-00178-GMN-VCF.
4
5
For all of the aforementioned reason Plaintiff will had specificity to his complaint in attempt to enhance
6
Mr. Nitz’s clarity that water is wet, snow is cold and Non-Judicial Foreclosures attempted by parties
7
lacking beneficial interest or agents of parties lacking beneficial interest are statutorily defective and in
8
direct violation of Nevada Revised Statutes.
9
10
Plaintiff Anthony Coleman, by and for his Verified First Amended Complaint against Defendants, The
11
Bank of New York Mellon fka Bank of New York as Trustee for American Home Mortgage Investment
12
Trust 2004-4 Mortgage-Backed Notes, Series 2004-4; American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2004-
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
4 Mortgage-Backed Notes, Series 2004-4; American Home Mortgage Securities, LLC; Ocwen Loan
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
Servicing, LLC; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; ROES 1-10 and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
15
representing a class of unknown persons who claim or have the right to claim an interest in certain real
16
property located in Las Vegas, Nevada (collectively, “Defendants”), avers as follows:
17
18
19
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
20
21 1. This Court has original jurisdiction over the claims in this action based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343,
22 15 U.S.C. § 1692, 15 U.S.C. § 1641, 12 U.S.C. § 2605 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which confers original
23 jurisdiction on federal district courts in suits to address the deprivation of rights secured by federal
24 law.
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
4
2. This Court has original jurisdiction over the claims in this action based on 18 U.S.C. §§1964-et
1
seq., §§1962 (a-d); See also 17 CFR 10(b)-5.
2
3 3. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the pendant state law claims because they form
4 a part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution, pursuant
5 to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
6
7 4. This Court has original jurisdiction over the claims in this action based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 which
8 confers original jurisdiction on federal district courts in suits between diverse citizens that involve
9 an amount in controversy in excess of $250,000.
10
11 5. The unlawful conduct, illegal practices, and acts complained of and alleged in this Complaint were
12 all committed in the Southern District of New York and the District of Nevada. Therefore, venue
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
properly lies in this District, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15 6. This Court has original jurisdiction over the claims in this action based on and/or in connection to
16 Revised regulations and Title 26 §§860(A-G) et., seq.
17
18 7. This Court has original jurisdiction over the claims in this action based on federal questions
19 pursuant to and governed under the Securities Act of 1933 [as amended through P.L. 112-106,
20 approved April 5, 2012].
21
22 THE PARTIES
23
8. Plaintiff is now, and at all times mentioned herein, individuals residing in the Clark County, in the
24
State of Nevada. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff has owned the real property commonly
25 known as 6136 Benchmark Way North Las Vegas, NV 89031 (hereinafter the “Property”).
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
5
9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that at all times
1
relevant to this Complaint, Defendant The Bank of New York Mellon fka Bank of New York as
2
Trustee for American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2004-4 Mortgage-Backed Notes, Series
3
2004-4; (hereinafter “BNYM”) is based in New York, New York with corporate headquarters
4
located at 1 Wall St., New York, New York 10286.
5
6
7
relevant to this Complaint, Defendant American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2004-4
8
Mortgage-Backed Notes, Series 2004-4 (hereinafter “AHMI2004-4”) is a common law trust formed
9
under the laws of the state of New York as evidenced by declarations made by and recorded for
10
public record with the Securities Exchange Commission and is administered by Defendant BNYM
11
is based in New York, New York with corporate headquarters located at 1 Wall St., New York,
12
New York 10286.

13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15 relevant to this Complaint, Defendant American Home Mortgage Securities, LLC, (hereinafter
16 “AHMSLLC”) as Depositor of the American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2004-4 Mortgage-
17 Backed Notes, Series 2004-4 is a corporation that maintains its principal office at 538 Broadhollow
Road, Melville, New York 11747.
18
19
20 relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, (hereinafter “OCWEN”) as is
21 a Florida corporation that maintains its principal office at 1661 Worthington Rd Ste 100. West Palm
22 Beach, FL 33409.
23
13. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that , that at all
24
times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (hereinafter
25
“MERS”) is a private electronic database that tracks the transfer of ownership interests in mortgage
26
loans and does not hold any actual beneficial loans in its portfolio and is organized and existing
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
6
under the Laws of Delaware, and maintains its address at P. O. Box 2026 Flint, Michigan 48501-
1
2026.
2
3
14. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true identity and capacity of Defendants designated as Roes 1-10 and
4
Does 1-10, inclusive, representing a class of unknown persons who claim or have the right to claim
5
an interest in certain real property located in Las Vegas, Nevada but will amend the Complaint
6
when their identities have been ascertained according to proof within the time permitted. However,
7
Plaintiff alleges on information and belief, that each and every Doe Defendant is in some manner
8
responsible for the acts and conduct of the other Defendants, and were, and are, responsible for the
9
injuries, damages and harm incurred by Plaintiff. Plaintiff further alleges on information and belief
10
that each such designated Defendant acted, and acts, as the authorized agent, representative and
11
associate of the other Defendants in doing the things alleged herein.
12
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
15. Whenever reference is made in this Complaint to any act of any Defendant(s), that allegation shall
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
mean that each Defendant acted individually and jointly with the other Defendants.
15
16
16. Any allegation about acts of any corporate or other business Defendant(s) means that the
17
corporation or other business performed the acts alleged through its officers, directors, employees,
18
agents and/or representatives while they were acting within the actual or ostensible scope of their
19
authority.
20
21
17. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that, at all
22 relevant times, each Defendant committed the acts, caused or directed others to commit the acts,
23 or permitted others to commit the acts alleged in this Complaint. Additionally, some or all of the
24 Defendants acted as the agent of the other Defendants, and all of the Defendants acted within the
scope of their agency if acting as an agent of the other.
25
///
26
///
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
7
NATURE AND SUMMARY OF THE ACTION
1
2 18. Although Plaintiff will diligently attempt to state the facts of this case in an abbreviated manner as
3 is customary in a complaint, the complexity and diversity of the rules and statutes of the involved
4 Internal Revenue Codes, Securities and Exchange Commission Statutes, Uniform Commercial
5 Code, and Nevada Revised Statutes, all residing under the umbrella of the securitization process
6 renders brevity difficult. Each of these bodies contain specialized laws with their own unique terms,
7 nomenclature, and vocabulary which require specificity to establish the undisputed facts so that the
8 application of law may be applied to this case in the most expeditious manner.
9
10 19. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that
11 Defendants have recorded or caused to be recorded Assignments of the Deed of Trust on
12 Plaintiff’s loan to be recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office containing known false
information.
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that
15 Defendants have used the aforementioned assignments in a veiled attempt to appear that they are
16 incompliance with Nevada Revised Statutes pertaining to Non-Judicial Foreclosures when they
17 are in fact strangers to Plaintiff’s Note and Deed of Trust.
18
21. Plaintiff Anthony Coleman. Plaintiff gave lender, American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.
19
(“AHMAI”), a $311,250.00 promissory note secured by the property located at 6136 Benchmark
20 Way, North Las Vegas, NV 89031 (the “Subject Property”).
21
22. Defendants then forged documents a recorded Void assignments of the Deed of Trust in the Clark
22
County Recorder’s Office.
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
8
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1
2 23. This action arises out of foreclosure proceedings initiated against the property of pro se Plaintiff
3 Anthony Coleman. It is nonsensical and beyond belief that this second statutorily defective
4 foreclosure attempt by Defendant BNYM without correcting or addressing the aforementioned

VOID assignments referenced as instruments #20080930-0002777 and #20091204-0001999.
5
Plaintiff gave lender, American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc. (“AHMAI”), a $311,250.00
6
promissory note secured by the property located at 6136 Benchmark Way, North Las Vegas, NV
7 89031 (the “Subject Property”). (Deed of Trust, 2:11-cv-00178-GMN-LRL ECF No. 53-1.) The
8 Deed of Trust named Fidelity National Title (“Fidelity”), as the Trustee, and Mortgage Electronic
9 Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), as the lender’s “nominee.” (Id.) On September 25, 2008,
MERS, as nominee, assigned AHMAI’s interest in the Deed of Trust to American Home Mortgage
10
Servicing, Inc. (“AHMSI”). (Assignment of Deed of Trust, 2:11-cv-00178-GMN-LRL ECF No.
11
53-2.) In addition, the Court has taken judicial notice of an additional assignment in which MERS,
12 as nominee for AHMSI, purported to assign AHMSI’s interest in the Deed of Trust to Bank of New
13 York (“BONY”). (Assignment of Deed of Trust, 2:11-cv-00178-GMN-LRL ECF No. 53-5.)

ANTHONY COLEMAN
Although this document states that it was executed on November 25, 2009, it also states that this
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
assignment was effective on October 27, 2004, despite the fact that the AHMSI did not become the
15
beneficiary until September 25, 2008. (Compare Assignment of Deed of Trust, ECF No. 53-5 with
16 Assignment of Deed of Trust, 2:11-cv-00178-GMN-LRL ECF No. 53-2.) Thereafter, on September
17 2, 2008, BONY, the purported beneficial interest holder, executed a substitution of trustee in which
18 BONY attempted to substitute AHMSI Default Services, Inc., in place of Fidelity, as trustee.
(Substitution of Trustee, 2:11-cv-00178-GMN-LRL ECF No. 53-3.) Also on September 2, 2008,
19
AHMSI Default Services, “as duly appointed Trustee,” recorded a Notice of Default and Election
20
to Sell on behalf of “the present Beneficiary.” (Notice of Default, 2:11-cv-00178-GMN-LRL ECF
21 No. 53-4.)
22
23 24. In response to these foreclosure proceedings, Plaintiff initiated this action on February 1, 2011, by
filing a Complaint before this Court alleging various causes of action. (Compl., 2:11-cv-00178-
24
GMN-LRL ECF No. 1.) After granting Defendants’ first Motion to Dismiss, the Court gave Plaintiff
25
leave to amend his Complaint by January 3, 2012. (Order, Dec. 8, 2011, 2:11-cv-00178-GMN-LRL
26 ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint on February 13, 2012 in which Plaintiff
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
9
alleged two causes of action: (1) Statutorily Defective Foreclosure under section 170.080 of the
1 Nevada Revised Statutes; and (2) Quiet Title. (ECF No. 49.) The Court later dismissed Plaintiff’s
2 cause of action for Quiet Title, but found that Plaintiff had sufficiently stated a cause of action for
3 Statutorily Defective Foreclosure. (Order, Jan. 2, 2013, 2:11-cv-00178-GMN-LRL ECF No. 77.)
Specifically, the Court determined that Plaintiff had adequately alleged that Defendants failed to
4
satisfy the requirements of section 107.080 when Defendants recorded the Notice of Default. (Id. at
5
6:6–20.) Specifically, the Court concluded that the publicly recorded documents appeared to indicate
6 that “the Notice of Default was not recorded by the beneficiary, successor in interest of the
7 beneficiary, or the trustee at the time of the recording.” (Id. at 6:16–18.) Thus, Plaintiff’s cause of
8 action for Statutorily Defective Foreclosure survived Defendants’ second motion to dismiss, for
which the statutory remedy is voiding the trustee’s sale. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 107.080(5)
9
10
25. Thereafter, on April 11, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion Authorizing Recordation of Rescission of
11 Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale, (2:11-cv-00178-GMN-LRL ECF No. 95), which the Court granted at the
12 April 23, 2013 hearing. Specifically, Defendants stated that “[o]nce the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale
has been rescinded, Defendants intend to record and serve a new Substitution of Trustee and Notice
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
of Trustee’s Sale, which will resolve the issues identified in various orders entered by this Court.”
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
(Mot. 5:18–20, 2:11-cv-00178-GMN-LRL ECF No. 95.) Defendants further represented that after
15 the rescission was recorded, they “intend[ed] to file a motion requesting an order dismissing this
16 action as moot and expunging the Notice of Lis Pendens recorded by Plaintiff.” (Id. at 5:20–22.)
17 Defendant T.D. Service filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (2:11-cv-00178-GMN-LRL ECF
No. 108.)
18
19
26. On March 14, 2014 a hearing was held for oral arguments on Defendant T.D. Service’s Motion for
20 Summary Judgment. (2:11-cv-00178-GMN-LRL ECF No. 108) In its motion, T.D. Service asserts
21 that summary judgment is appropriate for two reasons. First, T.D. Service asserts that the fact that
22 Plaintiff was in default precludes Plaintiff from recovering money damages for his statutorily
defective foreclosure claim. (Mot. for Summ. J. 6:6–9:5, 2:11-cv-00178-GMN-LRL ECF No. 108.)
23
Second, T.D. Service argues that the Notice of Default was properly recorded because the current
24
beneficiary under the deed of trust later ratified the foreclosure proceedings. (Id. at 9:6–10:12.) For
25 the reasons discussed at the March 14, 2014 hearing and for the reasons discussed in the ORDER
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
10
dated July 17, 2014 (2:11-cv-00178-GMN-LRL ECF No. 135.), the Court rejected these arguments
1 and DENIED T.D. Service’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
2
3 27. On August 1, 2014 Plaintiff filed a Motion In Limine requesting that the Court preclude Defendants
from arguing inaccurate and misleading legal interpretations to the jury (2:11-cv-00178-GMN-LRL
4
ECF No. 137.) On August 4, 2014 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant
5
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) mistakenly mistitled as “Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment”.
6
7 28. Thereafter, on August 18, 2014 the law offices of Wright Finlay & Zak, LLP, and counsel for the
8 Defendants, Homeward Residential, Inc., Power Default Services, Inc., and Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc. recorded a Notice of Rescission of Notice of Default and Election to Sell
9
Under Deed of Trust and a Notice of Rescission of Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale, recorded in the Clark
10
County Recorder’s Office as instruments 20140818-0001737 and 20140818-0001738 respectively.
11 Subsequently, on August 25, 2014, the law offices of Wright Finlay & Zak, LLP, counsel for the
12 Defendants, Homeward Residential, Inc., Power Default Services, Inc., and Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 145) asserting that the
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
aforementioned Rescissions rendered Plaintiff’s Complaint moot.

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15 29. On 2-3-2016 Defendant BNYM by and thru its purported agent Defendant OCWEN claiming to be
16 the Loan Servicer for the American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2004-4 Mortgage-Backed
17 Notes, Series 2004-4 recorded a Substitution of Trustee recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s
Office as instrument #20160203-0001488.
18
19
30. On 3-11-2016 the new purported Trustee under the Deed of Trust recorded in the Clark County
20 Recorder’s Office as instrument #20160203-0001488 records a Notice of Default and Election to
21 Sell recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office as instrument #201603110000732.
22
31. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that, both the
23
Substitution of Trustee recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office as instrument #20160203-
24
0001488 and the Notice of Default and Election to Sell recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s
25 Office as instrument #201603110000732 are Void Ab Initio as in the previous case 2:11-cv-00178-
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
11
GMN-LRL with the assignments referenced as instruments #20080930-0002777 and #20091204-
1 0001999 are void.
2
3 32. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that, this Court
should conclude as it concluded before that the publicly recorded documents appeared to indicate
4
that “the Notice of Default was not recorded by the beneficiary, successor in interest of the
5
beneficiary, or the trustee at the time of the recording.”
6
7 33. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that the
8 Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as
9 instrument #20091204-0001999 purporting to have an “Effective Date” of 10-27-2004 is fraudulent
10 for numerous reasons.
11
12 a. The date 10-27-2004 was the very next day after the Deed of Trust was recorded in the Clark
13 County Recorder’s Office on 10-26-2004 as instrument # 20041026-0003675. Plaintiff is

ANTHONY COLEMAN
informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that this was done in a
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15 poorly veiled attempt to correct all of the fraudulent and deceptive acts performed by the
16 defendants between 9-2-2008 and 12-4-2009.
17
18 b. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that
19 “Effective Date” of 10-27-2004 is a factual impossibility as the first filing with the Securities
20 Exchange Commission for the American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2004-4 Mortgage-
21 Backed Notes, Series 2004-4 was filed on December 22, 2004 and dated December 17, 2004.
22 This would be akin to a child asserting that their date of birth predated that of their parents.
23
c. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that
24
“Effective Date” of 10-27-2004 though used to correct all of the fraudulent and deceptive acts
25
performed by the defendants between 9-2-2008 and 12-4-2009 was poorly thought out as it
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
12
predates the formation of the American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2004-4 Mortgage-
1
Backed Notes, Series 2004-4 by nearly two months.
2
3
GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
4
5
34. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that, at all
6
relevant times, each Defendant knew or realized that the other Defendants were engaging in or
7
planned to engage in the violations of law alleged in this Complaint. Knowing or realizing that the
8
other Defendants were engaging in or planning to engage in unlawful conduct, each Defendant
9
nevertheless facilitated the commission of those unlawful acts. Each Defendant intended to and did
10
encourage, facilitate, or assist in the commission of the unlawful acts, and thereby aided and abetted
11
the other Defendants in the unlawful conduct.
12
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
35. A “Prospectus” is among the documents recorded with the Securities and Exchange Commission
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
(hereinafter “SEC”) in conjunction with the American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2004-4
15
Mortgage-Backed Notes, Series 2004-4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such
16
information and belief, avers that the Prospectus is not a contract to which they are not a party, but
17
a formal legal document which is required by and filed with the SEC that provides information
18
about the investment offering for sale to the public detailing the investments’ objectives, strategies,
19
risks, performance, distribution policy, tax considerations, fees and expenses, and management.
20
22 Prospectus for the American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2004-4 Mortgage-Backed Notes,
23 Series 2004-4 was filed with the SEC as Form 424B5. Contained within this Prospectus and its
24 related documents the following information was declared about the investment offering for sale to
25 the public:
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
13
a) That the Issuer was American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2004-4.
1
b) That the Depositor was American Home Mortgage Securities, LLC.
2 c) That the Seller was American Home Mortgage Acceptance Inc.
3 d) That the Master Servicer was American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.
4 e) That the Trustee was The Bank of New York.

f) That the anticipated material federal income tax consequences
5
were based on REMIC Regulations.
6
g) That the Cut-off Date was December 1, 2004.
7 h) That the Closing Date was on or about December 21, 2004.
8
9 37. The aforementioned information pertaining to management and tax considerations pursuant to the
10 Prospectus was declared about the investment offering for sale to the public, Plaintiff is informed
11 and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that this information was proclaimed
12 to the world via the Prospectus for the American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2004-4
13 Mortgage-Backed Notes, Series 2004-4.

ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
16 Prospectus is required by the SEC and that the Prospectus is a disclosure document and that
17 although it is not a contract, barring amendment or alteration to the Prospectus, strict compliance is
18 required.
19
20 39. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that actions in
21 direct conflict with the Prospectus or Amended Prospectus would be a securities violation and that
22 actions that intentionally circumvented policies and procedures stated in the Prospectus expose the
23 investor to losses and/or tax liabilities, and that the circumvention of the policies and procedures
24 quantified in the Prospectus would be securities fraud.
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
14
40. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that although
1
they do not have the authority to prosecute the enforcement of securities violations, they are entitled
2
to potential monies for the identification of actions to the SEC, that result it fines or penalties as a
3
direct result of Plaintiff’s assistance.
4
5
41. Plaintiff executed a promissory note (hereinafter “Note”) in favor of American Home Mortgage
6
Acceptance, Inc. secured by a Deed of Trust (hereinafter “Deed of Trust”) for the finance of the
7
real property located at 6136 Benchmark Way North Las Vegas, NV 89031.
8
9
42. Plaintiff avers that an assignment of the Note and Deed of Trust (hereinafter “ADOT”), was
10
recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999.
11
A certified copy of the ADOT was requested from the Clark County Recorder’s Office.
12
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
43. Plaintiff assert that the prima facie evidence of the assignment being executed on September 25,
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
2008 shows that Plaintiff’s claims establish the plausibility that the ADOT is either VOID or that
15
Defendants have engaged in tax evasion or avoidance and therefore there is a very true and real
16
CONTROVERSY that can be determined simply by the Court answering Plaintiff’s Declaratory
17
Relief Claims.
18
19
44. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that the ADOT
20
identified as Instrument No. 20080930-0002777 in the Clark County Recorder’s Office purports to
21
have been executed on September 25, 2008 as evidenced by it stating it was “Dated:” on “September
22
25, 2008”.
23
24 45. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that the ADOT
25 identified as Instrument No. 20080930-0002777 in the Clark County Recorder’s Office purports to
26 transfer the subject Deed of Trust “TOGETHER WITH THE NOTE(S) THEREIN DESCRIBED
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
15
OR REFERRED TO, THE MONEY DUE AND TO BECOME DUE THEREON WITH
1
INTEREST, AND ALL RIGHTS ACCRUED OR TO ACCRUE UNDER THE SAID DEED OF
2
TRUST…” and as such Plaintiff assert that prior to September 25, 2008 neither the subject Deed
3
of Trust or the associated Note were ever granted, assigned or transferred to the AHMI2004-4 Trust.
4
6 AHMI2004-4 Trust Prospectus and its related documents state that all loans will be transferred into
7 the trust no later than December 21, 2004
8
10 identified as Instrument No. 20080930-0002777 is prima facie evidence that on September 25, 2008
11 Plaintiff’s loan was transferred to the trust more than five (5) years after December 21, 2004 as
12 stated in the Prospectus and its related documents.
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15 is in direct conflict with the Prospectus and is therefore a securities violation.
16
18 identified as Instrument No. 20080930-0002777 is prima facie evidence that the assignment
19 purports to have been executed by MERS in beneficiary capacity and not as nominee.
20
21 50. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that, the Courts
22 have repeatedly ruled, regardless of language contained in the Deed of Trust, MERS is not in fact
23 a beneficiary, but a nominee of the lender-beneficiary, i.e., a limited agent for the purpose of
24 administering the Deed of Trust, for example to substitute Trustees.
25
26
identified as Instrument No. 20080930-0002777 is prima facie evidence that the assignment fails
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
16
to be executed by ‘Attorney in Fact” and as such it was not executed in the manner required and is
1
therefore VOID.
2
3 52. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that for execution
4 by an attorney in fact, requiring only that "[w]hen an attorney in fact executes an instrument
5 transferring an estate in real property, he must subscribe the name of his principal to it, and his own
6 name as attorney in fact."
7
9 did not subscribe the name of his principal to it, and his own name as attorney in fact as required
10 and is therefore VOID.
11
13 identified as Instrument No. 20080930-0002777 is prima facie evidence that the assignment
ANTHONY COLEMAN
transferred the beneficial interest of Plaintiff’s loan to Defendant BNYM, as Trustee for American
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15 Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2004-4 Mortgage-Backed Notes, Series 2004-4.
16
55. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that the
17
assignment transferring Plaintiff’s loan to Defendant BNYM, as Trustee for American Home
18
Mortgage Investment Trust 2004-4 Mortgage-Backed Notes, Series 2004-4 is in direct conflict with
19
the Prospectus and its related documents and is therefore a securities violation.
20
21
22
Prospectus states that the loans transferred to the AHMI2004-4 Trust will first be transferred to
23
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc. as the trust’s Depositor and then onto Defendant BNYM,
24
as Trustee and therefore is in direct conflict with the Prospectus and is consequently a securities
25
violation.
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
17
1
Prospectus required the loans to first be transferred to a designated “Depositor” as part of making
2
the trust “Bankruptcy Remote”, a requirement of 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G that requires an asset
3
that is to be purchased by a REMIC Trust to be “Bankruptcy Remote” via two “True Sale”
4
transactions in between the loan originator and the Trust.
5
6 58. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that the failure
7 to transfer the loans to the designated “Depositor” prior the transfer to the Trustee was in direct
8 conflict with the Prospectus and is therefore a securities violation and a violation of the requirement
9 of 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G, that an asset that is to be purchased by a REMIC Trust must be
10 “Bankruptcy Remote” and was therefore not only a securities violation, but also exposed the
11 investors to massive tax liabilities.
12
13 59. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that the alleged
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14 deceptive, fraudulent, and possibly felonious acts set forth herein were performed by the Defendants
15 to circumvent Nevada Revised Statutes and create an unfair business advantage over the Plaintiffs.
16
17 60. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that genuine
18 controversies exist as to whether or not that the purported transfer of Plaintiff’s Promissory Note
19 and/or the assignment of the corresponding Deed of Trust were in direct conflict with the Prospectus
20 and Public Policy and as such created multiple taxable events that Plaintiff assert have never been
21 paid.
22
23 61. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that genuine
24 controversies also exist as to whether or not that the purported transfer of Plaintiff’s Promissory
25 Note and/or the assignment of the corresponding Deed of Trust were in direct conflict with the
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
18
Prospectus as a matter of law and as such clouded the title to Plaintiff’s property and impaired their
1
ability to identify and negotiate with the true and correct beneficiary of his loan.
2
3
62. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that the Deed of
4
Trust that Plaintiff signed as a security instrument of Plaintiff’s Note states that “Borrower warrants
5
and will defend generally the title to the Property against all claims and demands, subject to any
6
encumbrances of record.” and as such Plaintiff assert that they are contractually required to defend
7
the title to the Property from the Defendants, as Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on
8
such information and belief, avers that the Defendants’ alleged violations of the aforementioned
9
public policies and recordation of false documents attempt to erroneously encumber title to
10
Plaintiff’s Property that they are contractually required to defend.
11
12 63. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that Defendant
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
BNYM, is a Trustee for over one-thousand residential mortgage-backed securities (hereinafter

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14 “RMBS”) trusts originally securitized by more than $1 trillion dollars of residential mortgage loans,
15 including the AHMI2004-4 Trust. Defendant BNYM, as Trustee, is the sole gatekeeper for the
16 protection of the Trusts and their beneficial Certificateholders and must at all times, in addition to
17 acting in the best interests of the Trusts, adhere to all statutes and relevant laws pertaining to the
18 pooling and servicing of those loans securitized into the Trusts for which they are Trustee.
19
20 64. As alleged herein, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief,
21 avers that Defendant BNYM wholly failed to discharge its duties and obligations to protect the
22 Trusts and comply with public policy and statutory law. Instead, to protect its own business
23 interests, BNYM ignored pervasive and systemic deficiencies in the underlying loan pools and the
24 servicing of those loans and unreasonably refused to take any action. In addition to causing billions
25 of dollars in damages to the Trusts for which Defendant BNYM is the Trustee, collateral damage
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
19
and prejudice to borrowers have occurred as a result of Defendant BNYM’s abdication of
1
responsibility.
2
3
65. Subsequently, Defendants attempted but failed to assign or transfer Plaintiff’s Note to the
4
AHMI2004-4 Trust. As such, Defendants have no authority to collect on the Note and enforce the
5
Deed of Trust. Despite Defendants’ failure to perfect a security interest, Defendants and their
6
agents have collected and attempted to collect on this Note and enforce the Deed of Trust with the
7
knowledge that they have no legal right to do so. In addition to violating the Fair Debt collection
8
Practices Act (hereinafter “FDCPA”), the Truth in Lending Act (hereinafter “TILA”) and the
9
Consent Judgment commonly known as the “National Mortgage Settlement”, Defendants
10
knowingly concealed their lack of an enforceable security interest by fabricating and recording false
11
documents in the Clark County Recorder’s Office. Defendants’ conduct is not only unfair and
12
fraudulent, but also constitutes a violation of New York Penal Code § 187 et seq. Through this
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
action, Plaintiff seek damages resulting from Defendants’ unlawful conduct and a declaratory
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
judgment establishing that Defendants have failed to substantiate a perfected security interest in the
15
Note and Deed of Trust (collectively hereinafter “Loan”). Simply put, Defendants have no real,
16
equitable, or pecuniary interest in the Note and Deed of Trust.
17
18
66. Additionally, if the Court finds that any of the Defendants, including Defendant BNYM, as Trustee
19
for the AHMI2004-4 Trust have an enforceable security interest by virtue of the assignment of the
20
Note and Deed of Trust, recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as
21
instrument #20091204-0001999, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information
22
and belief, avers that , maintain that Defendants violated the tax status of the REMIC statute set
23
forth in the IRC. As such, Defendants have failed to pay taxes in an amount on information and
24
belief in excess of $100 million dollars, and Plaintiff is third party beneficiaries as whistleblowers
25
pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7801 (1982 as amended) for the purpose of reporting potential violations
26
of Internal Revenue laws.
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
20
1
67. Additionally, if the Court finds that any of the Defendants, including Defendant BNYM as Trustee
2
for the AHMI2004-4 Trust, have an enforceable security interest by virtue of the assignment of the
3
Note and Deed of Trust recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument
4
#20091204-0001999, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief,
5
avers that , maintain that Defendants have made material misrepresentations as to the value of the
6
Trust and certificates issued thereunder to its investors and Certificateholders and have violated
7
SEC laws including, among others, SEC Rule 10b-5, codified at 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5. As such,
8
Plaintiff is third party beneficiaries (whistleblowers) pursuant to SEC laws and the Dodd Frank
9
Whistle Blower Program for the purpose of reporting such violations.
10
11 68. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that , that
12 Defendants have unlawfully attempted transfers, assignments and endorsements of the Note and
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Deed of Trust to which the Defendants claim the beneficial rights and interests. As discussed
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14 below, the Defendants’ claimed interest is false.

15
16 69. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that , allege that
17 Defendant MERS has no authority to transfer the interest in Plaintiff’s Note and as the ADOT is a
18 document that purports to assign Plaintiff’s Note and that is a factual impossibility as a matter of
19 law.
20
21 70. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that any language
22 in the ADOT which claimed to assign the note could not do so, as notes do not move through
23 assignments in the land records.
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
21
71. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that MERS is
1
only able to transfer what it actually holds and cannot transfer a negotiable instrument by virtue of
2
a transfer of real property.
3
4 72. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that Merrill
5 Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc. is the “Depositor” of record for the AHMI2004-4 Trust as
6 evidenced by declarations made by the Prospectus and recorded for public record with the Securities
7 Exchange Commission.
8
9 73. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that Merrill
10 Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc. never was transferred the Plaintiff’s Note nor assigned the
11 Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust, and as such Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc.’s ability to have
12 deposited Plaintiff’s loan (Note and Deed of Trust) into the AHMI2004-4 Trust is a factual
13 impossibility.
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15 74. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that , allege
16 Defendants directly or indirectly through agents authorized or unauthorized are prejudicing Plaintiff
17 in the following areas but not limited to:
18
19 a) Impairing Plaintiff’s ability to negotiate a loan modification with the true and correct
20 beneficiary of Plaintiff’s loan.
21
22 b) Impairing Plaintiff’s ability to negotiate a short sale with the true and correct beneficiary of
23 Plaintiff’s loan.
24
25 c) Impairing Plaintiff’s ability to obtain new financing.
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
22
d) Impairing Plaintiff’s ability to provide a clear and correct title to a potential buyer of Plaintiff’s
1
home.
2
3
e) Most importantly, Plaintiff avers that the ADOT, as AHMI2004-4 is not the true and correct
4
beneficiary of Plaintiff’s loan, and exposes him to multiple judgments and/or demands for
5
payment on Plaintiff’s loan.
6
7
75. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that the following
8
facts pertaining to REMIC Trusts are Public Policy and governed by 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G and
9
that the following should be judicially noticed:
10
11
a) The “Closing Date” of the Trust is the “Startup Date” for the REMIC status of the Trust as
12
defined by 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G.

13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
b) That 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G requires the asset to be purchased by the Trust within the 3-
15
month period beginning on the startup date of the Trust.
16
17
c) That the 3-month period beginning on the startup date of the Trust ended on or about August
18
30, 2006 pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G.
19
20
d) That 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G requires an asset that is to be purchased by a REMIC Trust to
21
be “Bankruptcy Remote” via two “True Sale” transactions in between the loan originator and
22
the Trust.
23
24
e) That 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G requires an asset that is to be purchased by a REMIC Trust
25
must be a “Qualified Loan”.
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
23
f) That 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G requires an asset that is to be purchased by a REMIC Trust
1
must not be a “Defective Obligation”.
2
3
g) That 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G requires an asset that is to be purchased by a REMIC Trust
4
must be a “True Sale”.
5
6
h) That 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G requires an asset that is to be purchased by a REMIC Trust must
7
have a Value-To-Loan ratio of 80% or higher.
8
9
10
aforementioned information (items a-h) pertaining to REMIC Trusts, are referenced in the
11
Prospectus, and are Public Policy and governed by 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G, and as such require
12
no standing requirements for Plaintiff to assert the violations of Public Policy and 26 U.S.C. §§
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
860A-860G of the ADOT identified as instrument number 20080930-0002777.

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15
16
identified as instrument number 20080930-0002777 are violations of Public Policy and 26 U.S.C.
17
§§ 860A-860G for the following reasons:
18
19
a) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that the
20
ADOT identified as instrument number 20080930-0002777 recorded on September 30, 2008 is
21
in direct violation of the REMIC requirements, as required by the IRC 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-
22
860G, as the loan must have been transferred to AHMI2004-4 Trust by August 30, 2006.
23
24
b) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that the
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
24
in direct violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G’s requirement that the asset to be purchased by
1
the Trust within the 3-month period beginning on the startup date of the Trust.
2
3
c) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that the
4
5
in direct violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G’s timing requirement that ended on or about
6
August 30, 2006.
7
8
d) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that the
9
ADOT identified as instrument number 20080930-0002777 recorded on September 30, 2008
10
purports to assign Plaintiff’s loan directly from WILMINGTON FINANCE, INC. to Defendant
11
BNYM as Trustee for the American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2004-4 Mortgage-
12
Backed Notes, Series 2004-4 in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G’s requirement that an

13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
asset that is to be purchased by a REMIC Trust to be “Bankruptcy Remote” via two “True Sale”
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
transactions in between the loan originator and the Trust.
15
16
e) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that the
17
18
violates 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G requirement that an asset that is to be purchased by a REMIC
19
Trust must be a “Qualified Loan” as Plaintiff avers that the loan was in default at the time of
20
the ADOT identified as instrument number 20080930-0002777 recorded on September 30,
21
2008 and as such could not have been a “Qualified Loan”.
22
23
f) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that the
24
25
26
Trust must not be a “Defective Obligation” as Plaintiff avers that the loan was in default at the
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
25
time of the ADOT identified as instrument number 20080930-0002777 recorded on September
1
30, 2008.
2
3
g) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that the
4
5
6
Trust must be a “True Sale” as Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information
7
and belief, avers that, that a True Sale never took place.
8
9
78. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that these defects
10
are incurable and render any assignments void, not merely voidable, as the violations would leave
11
the Certificateholders exposed to massive tax consequences and the Trustee cannot cure their ultra-
12
vires acts by causing the Certificateholders to incur a catastrophic taxable event as a result of
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Defendant BNYM’s abdication of responsibility.

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15
79. In the event Plaintiff is precluded from asserting these issues, Plaintiff contend that by virtue of
16
accepting the transfer and assignment of non-qualified investments (i.e., loans in default, non-
17
performing loans and loans with below 80% Value-To-Loan ratios, loans assigned to the Trust after
18
the Trust’s closing date), Defendants have violated the tax status of the REMIC and have now
19
subjected the entire Trust, valued at $380,200,100 to tax liabilities which, on information and belief,
20
has not been paid. In addition to his own loan, Plaintiff have discovered and identified at least
21
twenty (20) other loans with similar defects and are therefore whistleblowers and claim rights to a
22
percentage of benefits the IRS will ultimately receive for the Defendant’s AHMI2004-4 tax
23
liabilities.
24
25
80. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that the more
26
than twenty (20) additional Assignments of Deed of Trust or Mortgages that appear to also be Void
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
26
and executed after the Closing Date of AHMI2004-4 Trust constitute a pattern and practice of non-
1
compliance and total disregard for State, Federal and Securities Laws.
2
3
81. Similarly, by accepting the transfer and assignment, Defendants have made material
4
misrepresentations as to the value of the Trust and its performance to its investors/Certificateholders
5
and have violated SEC laws, among others. Plaintiff is therefore whistleblowers to SEC § 10b and
6
the Dodd-Frank whistleblower program. As such, Plaintiff is third party beneficiaries pursuant to
7
the above laws for the purpose of reporting such violations.
8
9
BOTCHED SECURITIZATION
10
11
82. Securitization is a financing method whereby loans are made by loan originators, and the notes
12
evidencing the debt are sold to a series of parties, the last of which is generally a Securitization
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Trust. The Trust pays for the notes with the proceeds of bonds or bond like instruments issued by
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
the Trust. The notes themselves are typically owned by the Trust, for the benefit of investors, who
15
are sometimes called Certificateholders. The Investors are entitled to payment from the proceeds
16
of the note repayments. Since the bonds are secured by the proceeds of the notes, the bonds are
17
known as “mortgage backed” securities.
18
19
83. The AHMI2004-4 Trust is a New York Trust formed to act as a Real Estate Mortgage Investment
20
Conduit, or “REMIC”. In order for a Mortgage Backed Securities Trust (“MBS”) to qualify for the
21
federal tax REMIC status, one of the many very specific rules that must be followed is that trust
22
assets must be “Bankruptcy Remote”. Issuers of the REMIC Trusts have signed themselves up
23
under oath with the SEC and the IRS as mortgage pass-through assets, qualifying as REMICs rather
24
than an ordinary Real Estate Investment Trust (“REIT”). As long as the MBS is a qualified REMIC,
25
no income tax will be charged to the MBS. REMICS were newly invented in 1987 as a tax
26
minimizing measure by Investment Banks. When filing as a REMIC, MBS’s are forbidden from
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
27
engaging in any prohibited action that would jeopardize the REMIC tax status as the penalty would
1
result in a one hundred percent (100%) taxation by the IRS.
2
3
84. Most importantly, an assignment of the “Note” to the “Trust” after the closing date is a “Prohibited
4
Transaction” which jeopardizes the favorable tax status accorded a “REMIC”. This transaction
5
would be in contradiction to the TRUST Laws” and is therefore “VOID”.
6
7
85. Taxation on contributions after startup are governed by 26 U.S.C. §§ 860G(d)(1) which states:
8
“Except as provided in paragraph (2), if any amount is
9 contributed to a REMIC after the startup day, there is hereby
10 imposed a tax for the taxable year of the REMIC in which the
11 contribution is received equal to 100 percent of the amount of
12 such contribution.”
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
86. Taxation on “Prohibited Transactions” are governed by 26 U.S.C. §§ 860F(a)(1) which states:
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
“There is hereby imposed for each taxable year of a REMIC a
15
tax equal to 100 percent of the net income derived from
16 prohibited transactions.”
17
18 87. Pursuant to the IRC, REMICs are treated as pass-through vehicles for tax purposes and enjoy tax-
19 free exemptions and bankruptcy remote protection. Generally, non-compliance with REMIC
20 requirements subjects a REMIC to loss of its tax-free status and bankruptcy-remote privileges. The
21 Prospectus, together with applicable New York Trust Law, forbid and void any action which might
22 jeopardize the tax status of any REMIC and/or impose any tax upon the Trust for prohibited
23 contributions of transactions. A copy of the Prospectus was filed under oath with the SEC and is
24 available online at: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1364482/000095012306007158/0000950123-06-
25 007158-index.htm
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
28
88. Plaintiff’s initial investigation has confirmed that the Defendants were involved in an attempt to
1
securitize the mortgage. These parties likely intended to assign and transfer the mortgage into the
2
AHMI2004-4 Trust. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief,
3
avers that, allege that the void assignment and the attempted transfer to securitize the mortgage
4
failed to comply with statutory law, the Prospectus for the Trust, or applicable state and federal law.
5
Plaintiff further allege the mortgage was not properly securitized and that his Note and Deed were
6
never assigned and transferred to the AHMI2004-4 Trust. Based on either scenario, Defendants
7
have no right or beneficial interest in the collateral and have improperly and fraudulently utilized
8
the foreclosure statutes against Plaintiff and as such created an unfair business advantage over
9
Plaintiffs.
10
11
89. Typically, the owners of the mortgage backed securities are investors in large investment pools
12
comprised of pension funds, insurance companies and sovereign wealth funds.

13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
90. The mortgage payments for the Plaintiff’s Loan are not collected by the loan owners themselves.
15
Rather, the tasks of payment processing, escrow maintenance, loss mitigation and instituting and
16
managing foreclosure are collectively known as “servicing” and carried out by a “Loan Servicer”.
17
18
91. When the Servicers collect loan payments from the borrowers, the Servicers transfer those
19
payments to the Trustee of the Trust (“Trustee”), which then distributes the payments to the Trust’s
20
beneficiaries, i.e., the Investors. Therefore, each Trust is primarily administered by two entities:
21
the Trustee, who is the “face” of each Trust with the Investors, and the Servicer (sometimes called
22
a Master Servicer), who is the “face” of each Trust with the borrowers. Because a Trustee holds
23
the Trust corpus for the beneficiaries, a Servicer will act in the name of the Trustee when taking
24
action against borrowers, which includes the Servicers in the name of a Trustee bringing foreclosure
25
actions against a borrower who is allegedly delinquent on his loan payments.
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
29
92. Plaintiff alleges that his Deed of Trust was not assigned, transferred, or granted to the AHMI2004-
1
4 Trust as required by the Prospectus, statutory law, or applicable state and federal law, including
2
but limited to the SEC and IRC. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information
3
and belief, avers that Defendants’ failure to adhere to all statutes and relevant laws pertaining to the
4
pooling and servicing of those loans securitized into the AHMI2004-4 Trust is a matter of public
5
policy and common law.
6
7
93. Plaintiff alleges that his Deed of Trust was not properly assigned to the AHMI2004-4 Trust, as set
8
forth in the Prospectus as well as statutes and relevant laws.
9
10
94. In further violation of the Prospectus, Defendants failed to deposit specific documents with the
11
Custodian of Records to complete the assignment and transfer of Plaintiff’s Note and Deed to the
12
AHMI2004-4 Trust.
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
95. Under New York Trust Law, an asset does not become trust property until the asset is delivered to
15
the Trustee. (“It has long been the law in New York that to subject an asset to the terms of a trust
16
that has an independent Trustee…, a grantor must have the intent to make a present gift to the trust
17
and must make sufficient delivery of the assets of the trust to the Trustee.”) Warren’s Heaton on
18
Surrogate’s Court Practice 13 App. 4-46 (Linda B. Hirschson et al. eds., 7th ed. 2006). Moreover,
19
NY Estates, Powers and Trusts Law § 7-2.4 states: “If the trust is expressed in the instrument
20
creating the estate of the Trustee, every sale, conveyance or other act of the Trustee in contravention
21
of the trust, except as authorized by this article and by any other provision of law is void.”
22
(Emphasis added)
23
24
96. On information and belief Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to follow the required
25
securitization process set forth in 26 U.S.C. §§ 860 - 860G. Plaintiff further allege that the failure
26
to follow the specific transfer and assignment requirements of the Prospectus are fatal to Defendant
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
30
BNYM’s claim to own the Note. Plaintiff further allege that under applicable New York Trust
1
Law, this defect may not now be remedied and may never be remedied in the future.
2
3
97. The issue of defective assignments in the securitization process has been the focus of state and
4
federal court case decisions, Attorneys General investigations, and Congressional reports. On each
5
level, state and federal entities have concluded that a failure in the securitization process results in
6
a break in the chain of title and the inability of the Securitized Trust to enforce the Note and Deed
7
of Trust.
8
9
98. Attorney General of Nevada, Catherine Cortez Masto, and Attorney General of California, Kamala
10
Harris, have recently agreed to launch a joint investigation of residential mortgage foreclosure
11
practices, including failed securitizations. Attorney General Masto has filed a complaint against
12
Bank of America in United States District Court in Reno, in which her office alleges:
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
“Bank of America misrepresented both in communications with Nevada consumers and in
15
documents they recorded and filed, that they had authority to foreclose upon consumers’ homes as
16
servicer for the trusts that held these mortgages. Defendants knew (and were on notice) that they
17
had never properly transferred [text redacted] these mortgages to those trusts, failing to deliver
18
properly endorsed or assigned mortgage notes as required by the relevant legal contracts and state
19
law. Because the trusts never became holders of these mortgages, Defendants lacked authority to
20
collect or foreclose on her behalf and never should have represented they could.”
21
22
99. Congress has recognized the importance of the Trust’s strict compliance with the PROSPECTUS
23
and New York Trust Law. Specifically, the congressional Oversight Panel, in its November 16,
24
2010 Oversight Report Examining the Consequences of Mortgage Irregularities for Financial
25
Stability and Foreclosure Mitigation determined “[I]f the transfer for the notes and mortgages did
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
31
not comply with the Prospectus, the transfer would be void, and the assets would not have been
1
transferred to the trust.”
2
3
100. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that the ultra-
4
vires acts alleged herein can be ratified with an “Opinion Letter of Counsel” stating that the
5
AHMI2004-4 Trust’s acceptance of Plaintiff’s loan on September 30, 2008 is not a violation of any
6
SEC, IRC, or NY EPTL. Plaintiff further assert that lacking the aforementioned Opinion Letter
7
rendering the ADOT voidable, the ADOT recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-
8
4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 is in fact VOID.
9
10
11 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
12 FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 1: TO DETERMINE STATUS OF

13 DEFENDANTS’ CLAIMS [28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202]

ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14 (against all Defendants, and Associates in Fact)

15
16 101. Plaintiff re-allege all preceding paragraphs 1-100 and incorporate them by reference as if fully set
17 forth herein.
18
19 102. § 2201(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code states: “[i]n a case of actual controversy within its
20 jurisdiction…any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare
21 the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not
22 further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final
23 judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.”
24
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
32
103. § 2202 of Title 28 of the United States Code states: “[f]urther necessary or proper relief based on a
1
declaratory judgment or decree may be granted, after reasonable notice and hearing, against any
2
adverse party whose rights have been determined by such judgment.”
3
4
104. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant BNYM does not have a secured or unsecured legal, equitable, or
5
pecuniary interest in the Plaintiff’s loan evidenced by the fact that the only lien assigned by
6
Wilmington Finance, Inc. was a non-existent mortgage and purported assignments thereafter by
7
Defendants are void and have no value since the Deed of Trust was never transferred and is wholly
8
unsecured.
9
10
105. On 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999, Defendants claimed they were assigned and
11
transferred a secured enforceable interest in, and a perfected lien against the Plaintiff’s Note, Deed
12
of Trust and property.

13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
106. Thus, the competing allegations made by Plaintiff and Defendants, above, establish that a real and
15
actual controversy exists as to the respective rights of the parties to this matter, including ownership
16
of the property.
17
18
107. In addition, the harm by Defendants is ongoing and includes the potential of Plaintiff’s home, being
19
at risk of a statutorily defective foreclosure. Therefore, as this claim relates to future harm,
20
Plaintiff’s declaratory relief claim is cognizable as an independent cause of action.
21
22
108. Accordingly, Plaintiff request that the Court make a finding and issue an appropriate order stating
23
that none of the named Defendants or Doe Defendants, have any right or interest in Plaintiff’s Note,
24
Deed of Trust, or the property which authorizes them, in fact or as a matter of law, to collect
25
Plaintiff’s mortgage payments or enforce the terms of the Note or Deed of Trust in any manner
26
whatsoever.
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
33
1
109. Plaintiff will suffer prejudice if the Court does not determine the rights and obligations of the parties
2
because: (1) Plaintiff will be denied the opportunity to identify their true and current creditor/lender
3
and negotiate with them; (2) they will be denied the right to conduct discovery and have
4
Defendants’ claims verified by a custodian of records who has personal knowledge of the loan and
5
all transactions related to it; and (3) they will be denied the opportunity to discover the true amount
6
still owing minus any illegal costs, fees and charges.
7
8
110. Due to the actual case and controversy regarding competing claims and allegations, it is necessary
9
that the Court declare the actual rights and obligations of the parties and make a determination as
10
to whether Defendants’ claims against Plaintiff is enforceable and whether they are secured or
11
unsecured by any right, title or interest in Plaintiff’s property.
12
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
111. Plaintiff avers that the Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
Office on 9-30-2008 as instrument #20080930-0002777 is void and not merely voidable and is in
15
fact Void Ab Initio.
16
17
112. Plaintiff avers that all subsequent acts leading from or based upon the Assignment of Deed of Trust
18
recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 9-30-2008 as instrument #20080930-000277
19
are also Void Ab Initio.
20
21 113. Plaintiff avers that the Assignment of Deed of Trust executed on 9-25-2008 and recorded in the
22 Clark County Recorder’s Office on 9-30-2008 as instrument #20080930-0002777 was purportedly
23 executed by “Linda Green” the name that was the most widely robo-signed name in the name in
24 the country.
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
34
1
Assignment of Deed of Trust executed on 9-25-2008 and recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s
2
Office on 9-30-2008 as instrument #20080930-0002777 contains false information and that the
3
recordation of documents in the Clark County Recorder’s Office containing know false information
4
constitutes fraud and deceptive business practices.
5
6
115. Plaintiff avers that the Assignment of Deed of Trust executed on 9-25-2008 and recorded in the
7
Clark County Recorder’s Office on 9-30-2008 as instrument #20080930-0002777 is in fact Void
8
Ab Initio, and is prima facia evidence that Plaintiff’s loan was transferred to an entity other than
9
that of the American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2004-4 Mortgage-Backed Notes, Series
10
2004-4 on 9-25-2008.
11
12
116. Plaintiff avers that this an epic issue as that American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2004-4
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Mortgage-Backed Notes, Series 2004-4 was closed to new contributions on December 21, 2004.
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15 117. Plaintiff avers that in an attempt to circumvent the defective Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded
16 in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 9-30-2008 as instrument #20080930-0002777,
17 Defendants then filed an Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s
18 Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999. This assignment though executed on 11-
19 25-2009 purports to have an “Effective Date” of 10-27-2004.
20
21 118. Furthermore, the conduct of Defendants and/or one or more of the Doe Defendants, and each of
22 them, as herein described, was so malicious and contemptible that it would be looked down upon
23 and despised by ordinary people. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount
24 appropriate to punish Defendants and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct.
25
26 119. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that if the issue
27 isn’t complex enough, the Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s
28 VERIFIED FAC
35
Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999, containing fraudulent statements and
1
misleading facts, were unbelievable deemed VALID, because of Defendants’ defense of
2
Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendants would then be admitting to securities fraud as the Assignment of
3
Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust and Note as evidenced by instrument #20091204-0001999 would be in
4
direct conflict with the Prospectus for the American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2004-4
5
Mortgage-Backed Notes, Series 2004-4 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. As
6
the Frank-Dodd Act has provisions for individuals to receive monies for alerting the Securities and
7
Exchange Commission to acts of securities fraud and/or violations, Plaintiff could stand to receive
8
millions of dollars. Similarly, the Internal Revenue Service financially rewards individuals for
9
alerting them to those whom have large unpaid tax liabilities and as such Plaintiff could stand to
10
receive millions of dollars for alerting the Internal Revenue Service as to Defendants’ activities.
11
12
13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 2 “DOES THE LOAN BEING IN
15
DEFAULT AT THE TIME OF THE ASSIGNMENT, IDENTIFIED AS
16
INSTRUMENT NUMBER 20080930-0002777 CONFLICT WITH
17
26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G?”
18
(against all Defendants, and Associates in Fact)
19
21 forth herein.
22
23 121. For his second and distinct cause of action Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such
24 information and belief, avers that a genuine controversy exists as to whether or not the Plaintiff’s
25 loan, being in default at the time of the ADOT recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on
26 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 conflicts with 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G.
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
36
1
122. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that if the court
2
finds that the ADOT, recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument
3
#20091204-0001999, is not “VOID” that the Defendants have violated the tax status of the REMIC
4
statute set forth in the IRC.
5
6
123. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that this Court
7
is the proper authority to interpret public policy, as SEC and IRC statutes, and to grant Declaratory
8
Relief in the form of a Court Order determining whether or not the Plaintiff’s loan was in default
9
at the time the ADOT, recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument
10
#20091204-0001999, was executed.
11
12
124. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that taxation on
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
prohibited transactions are governed by 26 U.S.C. § 860F(a)(1) which states:

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
“There is hereby imposed for each taxable year of a REMIC a tax equal
15 to 100 percent of the net income derived from prohibited transactions.
16
17 125. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that if this Court
18 determines that the ADOT, recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as
19 instrument #20091204-0001999, is a valid conveyance, it is a contribution of Plaintiff’s loan,
20 which was in default and therefore a prohibited transaction as governed by 26 U.S.C. § 860F(a)(1)
21 and as such created a taxable event equal to 100 percent of the amount of the Plaintiff’s loan.
22
23 126. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that none of the
24 Defendants have reported or paid the mandatory imposed tax equal to 100 percent of the amount
25 of the Plaintiff’s loan as a result of the conveyance purported by the ADOT, recorded in the Clark
26 County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999, and as such Plaintiff
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
37
is bringing this information forward and are entitled to monies from the IRS for identifying the
1
contribution of Plaintiff’s loan as well as other loans that were contributed to the AHMI2004-4
2
Trust that were prohibited transactions.
3
4
127. Wherefore, Plaintiff request that this court declare that the Plaintiff’s loan was in default, at time
5
of the ADOT recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument
6
#20091204-0001999, and was consequently a prohibited transaction and is therefore VOID. Or as
7
the alternative, demonstrate that contribution of Plaintiff’s loan as well as the loans identified by
8
Plaintiff that were transferred to the AHMI2004-4 REMIC Trust were not void by ordering
9
Defendants to produce the Opinion Letter authorizing the ADOT recorded in the Clark County
10
Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 is a true and valid transaction
11
and as such created a taxable event equal to 100 percent of the amount of the loans identified by
12
Plaintiff that were contributed to the AHMI2004-4 Trust involving prohibited transactions
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 860F(a)(1) and to require Defendants to provide the tax returns that
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
identified the taxable event(s) and that a tax equal to 100 percent of the amount of the loans
15
identified by Plaintiff was paid.
16
17
18 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
19
DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 3 “DID THE VALUE OF PLAINTIFF’S
20
PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF THE ASSIGNMENT IDENTIFIED AS
21
INSTRUMENT NUMBER 20080930-0002777 COMPLY WITH THE “80%
22
VALUE-TO-LOAN RATIO” OF 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G?
23
(against Defendants BNYM, AHMI2004-4, MERS and Associates in Fact)
24
26 forth herein.
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
38
1
129. For his third and distinct cause of action Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such
2
information and belief, avers that a genuine controversy exists as to whether or not the value of
3
the property, at the time of the ADOT recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-
4
2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999, complied with the Value-To-Loan ratio requirement of
5
26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G.
6
7
8
is the proper authority to interpret public policy, as SEC and IRC statutes, and Declaratory Relief
9
in the form of a Court Order as to whether or not the value of Plaintiff’s property was worth more
10
or less at the time the ADOT, recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as
11
instrument #20091204-0001999 was executed, than it was at the time the loan was originated.
12
Accordingly, Plaintiff avers that it did not comply with the Value-To-Loan ratio requirement of
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G.
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15
131. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that the Value-
16
To-Loan ratio requirement of 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G mandates the Value-To-Loan of a property
17
to be transferred into a REMIC trust must be that of 80% Value-To-Loan ratio or higher.
18
19
132. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that because
20
the value of Plaintiff’s property declined so dramatically after the loan origination that it cannot
21
possibly comply with the 80% Value-To-Loan ratio or higher, and is therefore a prohibited
22
transaction.
23
24
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
39
“There is hereby imposed for each taxable year of a REMIC a tax equal to 100
1 percent of the net income derived from prohibited transactions.
2
6 which was less than the Value-To-Loan ratio requirement of 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G and
7 therefore a prohibited transaction as governed by 26 U.S.C. § 860F(a)(1) and as such created a
8 taxable event equal to 100 percent of the amount of the Plaintiff’s loan.
9

ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14 is bringing this information forward and are entitled to monies from the IRS for identifying the
15 contribution of Plaintiff’s loan as well as other loans that were contributed to the AHMI2004-4
16 Trust involving prohibited transactions pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 860F(a)(1).
17
18 136. Wherefore, Plaintiff request that this court declare that the Plaintiff’s loan was less than the Value-
19 To-Loan ratio requirement, at time of the ADOT recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office
20 on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999, and was consequently a prohibited transaction
21 and is therefore VOID. Or as the alternative, demonstrate that contribution of Plaintiff’s loan as
22 well as the loans identified by Plaintiff that were transferred to the AHMI2004-4 Trust were not
23 void by ordering Defendants to produce the Opinion Letter authorizing the ADOT recorded in the
24 Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 is a true and
25 valid transaction and as such created a taxable event equal to 100 percent of the amount of the
26 loans identified by Plaintiff that were contributed to the AHMI2004-4 Trust involving prohibited
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
40
transactions pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 860F(a)(1) and to require Defendants to provide the tax returns
1
that identified the taxable event(s) and that a tax equal to 100 percent of the amount of the loans
2
3
4
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5
6 DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 4 “DOES THE ASSIGNMENT

7
IDENTIFIED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 20080930-0002777 COMPLY WITH
THE “TIMING REQUIREMENT” OF 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G?”
8
9
10
137. Plaintiff re-allege all preceding paragraphs 1-136 and incorporate them by reference as if fully set
11
forth herein.
12
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
138. For his fourth and distinct cause of action Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
information and belief, avers that a genuine controversy exists as to whether or not the ADOT
15
16
complies with the “Timing Requirement” of 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G.
17
18
19
20
in the form of a Court Order as to whether or not the Plaintiff’s loan complies with the “Timing
21
Requirement” of 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G at the time the ADOT, recorded in the Clark County
22
Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999, was executed.
23
24
25
contributions after startup are governed by 26 U.S.C. §§ 860G(d)(1) which states:
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
41
“Except as provided in paragraph (2), if any amount is contributed to a REMIC after the
1
startup day, there is hereby imposed a tax for the taxable year of the REMIC in which the
2
contribution is received equal to 100 percent of the amount of such contribution.”
3
4
141. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that if this Court
5
determines that the ADOT, recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as
6
instrument #20091204-0001999, is a valid conveyance, it is a contribution of Plaintiff’s loan to
7
the Trust after the startup as governed by 26 U.S.C. §§ 860G(d)(1) and as such created a taxable
8
event equal to 100 percent of the amount of the Plaintiff’s loan.
9
10
142. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that none of the
11
Defendants have reported or paid the mandatory imposed tax equal to 100 percent of the amount
12
of the Plaintiff’s loan as a result of the conveyance purported by the ADOT, recorded in the Clark
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999, and as such Plaintiff

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
is bringing this information forward and are entitled to monies from the IRS for identifying the
15
contribution of Plaintiff’s loan as well as other loans contributed to the AHMI2004-4 Trust after
16
the startup day.
17
18
143. Wherefore, Plaintiff request that this court declare that the ADOT recorded in the Clark County
19
Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 does not comply with the
20
“Timing Requirement” of 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G and is therefore VOID. Or as the alternative,
21
demonstrate that contribution of Plaintiff’s loan as well as the loans identified by Plaintiff that
22
were transferred to the AHMI2004-4 REMIC Trust were not void by ordering Defendants to
23
produce the Opinion Letter authorizing the ADOT recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office
24
on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 is a true and valid transaction and as such created
25
a taxable event equal to 100 percent of the amount of the loans identified by Plaintiff that were
26
contributed to the AHMI2004-4 Trust after the startup day as governed by 26 U.S.C. §§ 860G(d)(1)
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
42
and to require Defendants to provide the tax returns that identified the taxable event(s) and that a
1
tax equal to 100 percent of the amount of the loans identified by Plaintiff was paid.
2
4 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5
DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 5 “DOES THE ASSIGNMENT
6
IDENTIFIED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 20080930-0002777 CONVEY A
7
NOTE AND DEED OF TRUST THAT IS A “QUALIFIED LOAN” as defined by
8
26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G?”
9
10
11
12
forth herein.
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
145. For his fifth and distinct cause of action Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such
15
16
17
complies with the “Qualified Loan Requirement” of 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G.
18
19
20
21
in the form of a Court Order as to whether or not the Plaintiff’s loan complies with the “Qualified
22
Loan Requirement” of 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G at the time the ADOT, recorded in the Clark
23
County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999, was executed.
24
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
43
2
6 which was a violation the “Qualified Loan Requirement” of 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G and
7 therefore a prohibited transaction as governed by 26 U.S.C. § 860F(a)(1) and as such created a
8 taxable event equal to 100 percent of the amount of the Plaintiff’s loan.
9

ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14 is bringing this information forward and are entitled to monies from the IRS for identifying the
16 Trust that were prohibited transactions.
17
18 150. Wherefore, Plaintiff request that this court declare that the Plaintiff’s loan was a violation of the
19 “Qualified Loan” requirement, at time of the ADOT recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s
20 Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999, and was consequently a prohibited
21 transaction and is therefore VOID. Or as the alternative, demonstrate that contribution of
22 Plaintiff’s loan as well as the loans identified by Plaintiff that were transferred to the AHMI2004-
23 4 Trust were not void by ordering Defendants to produce the Opinion Letter authorizing the ADOT
24 recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999
25 is a true and valid transaction and as such created a taxable event equal to 100 percent of the
26 amount of the loans identified by Plaintiff that were contributed to the AHMI2004-4 Trust
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
44
involving prohibited transactions as governed by 26 U.S.C. § 860F(a)(1) and to require Defendants
1
to provide the tax returns that identified the taxable event(s) and that a tax equal to 100 percent of
2
the amount of the loans identified by Plaintiff was paid.
3
4 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5
DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 6 “IS THE ASSIGNMENT IDENTIFIED
6
AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 20080930-0002777 A “DEFECTIVE
7
OBLIGATION” PURSUANT TO 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G?”
8
9
10
11
forth herein.
12
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
152. For his sixth and distinct cause of action Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15
16
transfers a “Defective Obligation” pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G.
17
18
19
20
in the form of a Court Order as to whether or not the ADOT, recorded in the Clark County
21
Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 transfers a “Defective
22
Obligation” pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G.
23
24
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
45
2
6 which transfers a “Defective Obligation” pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G and therefore a
7 prohibited transaction as governed by 26 U.S.C. § 860F(a)(1) and as such created a taxable event
8 equal to 100 percent of the amount of the Plaintiff’s loan.
9

ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14 is bringing this information forward and are entitled monies from the IRS for identifying the
16 Trust that were prohibited transactions.
17
18 157. Wherefore, Plaintiff request that this court declare that the contribution of Plaintiff’s loan, transfers
19 a “Defective Obligation”, at the time the ADOT recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office
20 on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999, and was consequently a prohibited transaction
21 and is therefore VOID. Or as the alternative, demonstrate that contribution of Plaintiff’s loan as
22 well as the loans identified by Plaintiff that were transferred to the AHMI2004-4 Trust were not
23 void by ordering Defendants to produce the Opinion Letter authorizing the ADOT recorded in the
24 Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 is a true and
25 valid transaction and as such created a taxable event equal to 100 percent of the amount of the
26 loans identified by Plaintiff that were contributed to the AHMI2004-4 Trust involving prohibited
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
46
transactions as governed by 26 U.S.C. § 860F(a)(1) and to require Defendants to provide the tax
1
returns that identified the taxable event(s) and that a tax equal to 100 percent of the amount of the
2
loans identified by Plaintiff was paid.
3
5 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6
7
IDENTIFIED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 20080930-0002777 VIOLATE THE
8
“BANKRUPTCY REMOTE” REQUIREMENT PURSUANT TO 26 U.S.C. §§
9
860A-860G?”
10
11
12
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
forth herein.
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15
159. For his seventh and distinct cause of action Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such
16
17
18
violates the “Bankruptcy Remote” requirements pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G.
19
20
21
22
23
Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 violates the “Bankruptcy
24
Remote” requirements pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G.
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
47
161. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that 26 U.S.C.
1
§§ 860A-860G requires that assets being transferred into a REMIC trust must be “Bankruptcy
2
Remote” and that Bankruptcy Remoteness is obtained by having two separate “True Sale”
3
transactions separating the Loan Originator from the REMIC trust. One of the parties required to
4
participate in the two separate “True Sale” transactions is identified in the Prospectus as the
5
“Depositor”.
6
7
162. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that none of the
8
parties identified in the ADOT, recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as
9
instrument #20091204-0001999, were the “Depositor” for the AHMI2004-4 Trust and therefore a
10
prohibited transaction.
11
12
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
16
20 which was a violation the “Bankruptcy Remote” requirements pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-
21 860G and therefore a prohibited transaction as governed by 26 U.S.C. § 860F(a)(1) and as such
22 created a taxable event equal to 100 percent of the amount of the Plaintiff’s loan.
23
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
48
County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999, and as such Plaintiff
1
is bringing this information forward and are entitled monies from the IRS for identifying the
2
contribution of Plaintiff’s loan as well as other loans contributed to the AHMI2004-4 Trust that
3
were prohibited transactions.
4
5
166. Wherefore, Plaintiff request that this court declare that the contribution of Plaintiff’s loan was a
6
violation of the “Bankruptcy Remote” requirements pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G, at time
7
of the ADOT recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument
8
#20091204-0001999, and was consequently a prohibited transaction and is therefore VOID. Or as
9
the alternative, demonstrate that contribution of Plaintiff’s loan as well as the loans identified by
10
Plaintiff that were transferred to the AHMI2004-4 Trust were not void by ordering Defendants to
11
produce the Opinion Letter authorizing the ADOT recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office
12
on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 is a true and valid transaction and as such created
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
a taxable event equal to 100 percent of the amount of the loans identified by Plaintiff that were
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
contributed to the AHMI2004-4 Trust involving prohibited transactions pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §
15
860F(a)(1) and to require Defendants to provide the tax returns that identified the taxable event(s)
16
and that a tax equal to 100 percent of the amount of the loans identified by Plaintiff was paid.
17
///
18
///
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
49
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
1
2 DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 8 “DOES THE DELIVERY AND/OR
3 TRANSFER OF THE PLAINTIFF’S NOTE YEARS AFTER THE TRUST'S
4 CLOSING DATE RENDER THE REMIC STATUS OF THE TRUST VOID
5 PURSUANT TO 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G?”

6
9 forth herein.
10
11 168. For his eighth and distinct cause of action Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such
12 information and belief, avers that a genuine controversy exists as to whether or not the delivery
13 and/or transfer of the Plaintiff’s Note years after the Trust's closing date renders the REMIC status
ANTHONY COLEMAN
of the Trust void pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G.

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15
16 169. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that this Court
17 is the proper authority to interpret public policy, as SEC and IRC statutes, and Declaratory Relief
18 in the form of a Court Order as to whether or not the ADOT, recorded in the Clark County
19 Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 constitutes delivery and/or
20 transfer of the Plaintiff’s Note years after the Trust's closing date rendering the REMIC status of
21 the Trust void pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G.
22
23 170. Wherefore, Plaintiff request that this court declare that the ADOT recorded in the Clark County
24 Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 renders the REMIC status of
25 the Trust void pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G. Or as the alternative, demonstrate that
26 contribution of Plaintiff’s loan as well as the loans identified by Plaintiff that were transferred to
27 the AHMI2004-4 Trust were not void by ordering Defendants to produce the Opinion Letter
28 VERIFIED FAC
50
authorizing the ADOT recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument
1
#20091204-0001999 is a true and valid transaction and as such Plaintiff is bringing this
2
information forward and are entitled monies from the SEC for identifying the contribution of
3
Plaintiff’s loan as well as other loans contributed to the AHMI2004-4 Trust that were in direct
4
conflict with documents filed with the SEC.
5
7 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
8
DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 9 “IS THE DELIVERY AND/OR
9
TRANSFER OF THE PLAINTIFF’S NOTE YEARS AFTER THE TRUST'S
10
CLOSING DATE A VIOLATION OF SEC LAW?”
11
12
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
forth herein.
15
16
172. For his ninth and distinct cause of action Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such
17
18
19
is a violation of SEC law.
20
21
173. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that as it would
22
appear to be in direct conflict with documents recorded by AHMI2004-4 with the SEC, the ADOT
23
24
is either in violation of SEC law or is “VOID”.
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
51
1
2
3
Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 is a violation of SEC law or
4
is “VOID”.
5
6
7
Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 does not comply with
8
documents recorded by AHMI2004-4 with the SEC, and is therefore VOID. Or as the alternative,
9
demonstrate that contribution of Plaintiff’s loan as well as the loans identified by Plaintiff that
10
were transferred to the AHMI2004-4 Trust were not void by ordering Defendants to produce the
11
Opinion Letter authorizing the ADOT recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-
12
2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 is a true and valid transaction and as such Plaintiff is
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
bringing this information forward and are entitled monies from the SEC for identifying the
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
contribution of Plaintiff’s loan as well as other loans contributed to the AHMI2004-4 Trust that
15
were in direct conflict with documents filed with the SEC.
16
17
18 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19
DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 10 “IS THE DELIVERY AND/OR
20
TRANSFER OF THE PLAINTIFF’S NOTE YEARS AFTER THE TRUST'S
21
CLOSING DATE A VIOLATION OF NEW YORK'S ESTATES, POWERS &
22
TRUSTS LAW?”
23
24
25
26
forth herein.
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
52
1
177. For his tenth and distinct cause of action Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such
2
3
4
is either a violation of New York's Estates, Powers & Trusts Law or is “VOID”.
5
6
7
8
9
Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 is a violation of New York's
10
Estates, Powers & Trusts Law or is “VOID”.
11
12
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 does not comply with New
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
York's Estates, Powers & Trusts Law, and is therefore “VOID”.
15
16
17
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18

20 IDENTIFIED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 20080930-0002777 COMPLY WITH
21 THE “TIMING REQUIREMENT” OF THE PROSPECTUS?”
22 (against Defendants BNYM, AHMI2004-4, MERS and Associates in Fact)
23
25 forth herein.
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
53
181. For his eleventh and distinct cause of action Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such
1
2
3
complies with the “Timing Requirement” of the PROSPECTUS.
4
5
6
7
8
Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 complies with the “Timing
9
Requirement” of the PROSPECTUS or is “VOID”.
10
11
12
Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 does not comply with the
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
“Timing Requirement” of the PROSPECTUS and is “VOID”.

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15
16 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17
18
IDENTIFIED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 20080930-0002777 CONVEY A
19
“QUALIFIED LOAN” PURSUANT TO THE PROSPECTUS?”
20
21
22
23
forth herein.
24
25
185. For his twelfth and distinct cause of action Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
54
1
conveys a “Qualified Loan” pursuant to the PROSPECTUS.
2
3
4
5
6
Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 complies with the “Qualified
7
Loan Requirement” of the PROSPECTUS or is “VOID”.
8
9
10
Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 does not convey a “Qualified
11
Loan” pursuant to the PROSPECTUS and is “VOID”.
12
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14

16 IDENTIFIED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 20080930-0002777 CONVEY A
17 “DEFECTIVE OBLIGATION” PURSUANT TO THE PROSPECTUS?”
18 (against Defendants BNYM, AHMI2004-4, MERS and Associates in Fact)
19
21 forth herein.
22
23 189. For his thirteenth and distinct cause of action Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such
24 information and belief, avers that a genuine controversy exists as to whether or not the ADOT
25 recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999
26 conveys a “Defective Obligation” pursuant to the PROSPECTUS.
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
55
1
2
3
4
Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 conveys a “Defective
5
Obligation” in conflict with the PROSPECTUS or is “VOID”.
6
7
8
Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 does convey a “Defective
9
Obligation” in conflict with the PROSPECTUS or is “VOID”.
10
11 FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

12
13 CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS
ANTHONY COLEMAN

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15
192. Plaintiff re-allege all preceding paragraphs 1-191, and incorporate them by reference as if fully set
16
forth herein.
17
18
193. For his fourteenth and distinct cause of action Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such
19
20
21
should be cancelled.
22
23
194. When a homeowner obtains a loan to purchase a home, they are required to sign two documents: a
24
promissory note and a mortgage (or Deed of Trust). While a promissory note is basically an IOU
25
that contains the promise to repay the loan, the mortgage or Deed of Trust is the document that
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
56
pledges the property as security for the loan. It is the mortgage or Deed of Trust that permits a
1
lender to foreclose if a borrower fails to make the monthly payments.
2
3
195. Mortgage transfers between banks are common; however, when a mortgage is transferred from one
4
party to another, it must be documented and recorded in the county records. The document used to
5
transfer a mortgage from one mortgagee to another is called an assignment of mortgage. Like
6
mortgages, when a Deed of Trust is transferred from one party to another, it must be documented
7
and recorded in the county records. The document used to transfer a Deed of Trust from one
8
beneficiary to another is called an assignment of Deed of Trust.
9
10
196. Assignments and endorsements are the ways that these documents are transferred between banks.
11
An “assignment” is the document that is the legal record of this transfer from one mortgagee to
12
another. In a typical transaction, when the mortgagee sells the debt to another bank, an assignment
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
is recorded and the promissory note is endorsed (signed over) to the new bank. These documents
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
are separate and each has its own distinct set of rules that are governed by Article 3 and Article 9
15
of the New York Uniform Commercial Code.
16
17
197. When mortgages are transferred frequently, assignments are sometimes neglected. Defendant
18
MERS, a company created by the mortgage banking industry, was developed to track ownership of
19
mortgages. This eliminates the need for separate assignments when the loan is transferred. In some
20
mortgage transactions, the mortgage will designate MERS as the mortgagee (solely as a nominee
21
for the lender). These loans are referred to by MERS as Original Mortgagee (MOM) loans. In
22
other cases, the loan may be assigned to MERS (solely as a nominee for the lender) at some point
23
later in its life cycle after the loan closes. MERS then acts as an agent for the owner of the loan,
24
but it never owns the mortgage loan or services it.
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
57
1
WILMINGTON relinquished its rights, title, and interest to Plaintiff’s loan. An assignment
2
transfers all of the interest the original mortgagee had under the mortgage (or Deed of Trust) to the
3
new bank. Generally, the mortgage (or Deed of Trust) is recorded shortly after the mortgagors sign
4
it and, if the mortgage is subsequently transferred, each assignment is to be recorded in the county
5
land records.
6
7
199. Plaintiff further allege that Defendant MERS purportedly assigned Plaintiff’s Note and Deed of
8
Trust thru assignment of the Note and Deed of Trust recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office
9
on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999.
10
11
200. However, since the loan was neither properly transferred nor transferred in a timely manner to the
12
Trust, Defendants have no legal authority to foreclose and the assignments are void ab initio. Also
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Wilmington Finance, Inc. lacks any authority because it sold its ownership interest in Plaintiff’s
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
loan.
15
16
201. Plaintiff alleges that for the foregoing reasons, no Defendant in this action has a right to foreclose
17
and has no rights to assert against Plaintiff’s home.
18
19
202. As alleged above, although the assignment, substitutions and notice of Trustee sale appear valid on
20
their face, they are invalid and of no legal force and effect, for the reasons set forth above including,
21
inter alia, the Deed of Trust which purportedly secured the Note, which served as the basis for a
22
claim to have the right to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure which became void as a result of the
23
bungled securitization and the Defendants acting without any legal standing and authority from the
24
unknown beneficiary in the mortgage loan. Plaintiff is damaged by clouds on his title.
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
58
203. Nevada Revised Statutes provides in part: “[a] written instrument, in respect to which there is a
1
reasonable apprehension that if left outstanding it may cause serious injury to a person against
2
whom it is void or voidable, may, on that person’s application, be so adjudged and ordered to be
3
delivered up or canceled.” Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and
4
belief, avers that , and thereon allege that the above written instruments affecting Plaintiff’s real
5
property have become a nullity and that if left outstanding they could cause injury to Plaintiffs, or
6
may be used vexatiously against them. Plaintiff is further informed and believe that they are entitled
7
to equitable relief from this Court in the form of having the aforesaid written instruments delivered
8
up and canceled when the evidence to impeach or invalidate the aforesaid written instruments is
9
lost or may throw a cloud and/or suspicion over Plaintiff’s title.
10
11
204. By virtue of Defendants’ willful and wrongful conduct as herein alleged above, Plaintiff is entitled
12
to general and special damages according to proof at trial, but not less than $1,000,000.00, as well
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
as punitive and exemplary damages as determined by this Court.

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
16
17
FRAUD AND DECEIT
18
19
20
21
forth herein.
22
23
206. For his fifteenth and distinct cause of action Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such
24
information and belief, avers that a genuine controversy exists as to whether or not the Defendants
25
have engaged in fraud and deceit.
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
59
207. Plaintiff alleges that at the time that Plaintiff were induced to engage in the conduct alleged herein,
1
and continuing thereafter, Plaintiff were led to believe that the aforementioned documents recorded
2
by Defendants were true and valid.
3
4 208. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants recorded or caused to be recorded assignments of the Deed of
5 Trust, containing information known to be false.
6
7 209. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants then used these recorded assignments of the Deed of Trust,
8 containing information known to be false to unlawfully record a Notice of Default against Plaintiff.
9
10 210. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants then used these recorded Notice of Default, containing information
11 known to be false to unlawfully initiate an unlawful and statutorily defective foreclosure against
12 Plaintiff.
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
211. When Defendants made the above representations, they knew or should have known them to be
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15 false and made these representations with the intention to deceive and defraud Plaintiff and to
16 induce Plaintiff to act in reliance on these representations in the manner herein alleged, i.e., to make
17 payments on his loan. Defendants took affirmative steps to conceal the true facts from Plaintiffs:
18 namely that no Defendant in this action has the right to foreclose.
19
20 212. The aforementioned conduct was an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of
21 material facts known to Defendants with the intention on their part of thereby depriving Plaintiff of
22 property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury, and was despicable conduct that subjected
23 Plaintiff to a cruel and unjust hardship and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, so as to justify
24 an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
25 ///
26 ///
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
60
SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
1
2
VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 349
3
(THE “Deceptive Practices Act”)
4
5
6
7
forth herein.
8
9
214. For his sixteenth and distinct cause of action Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such
10
11
violated the N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 (the “Deceptive Practices Act”).
12
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
215. Defendants conducted a business or furnished a service as those terms are used in N.Y. Gen. Bus.
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
Law § 349 (the “Deceptive Practices Act”).
15
16
216. Defendants knowingly and willfully violated the Deceptive Practices Act by engaging in acts and
17
practices that were misleading in a material way, unfair, deceptive and contrary to public policy
18
and generally recognized standards of business.
19
20
217. These practices have included but are not limited to:
21
22
a) Defendants’ conduct, for the reasons stated herein, is in direct violation of 15 U.S.C.
23
§ 1692, et seq.
24
b) Defendants’ conduct, for the reasons stated herein, is in direct violation of 15 U.S.C.
25
§ 1641(g).
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
61
c) Defendants’ conduct, for the reasons stated herein, is in direct violation of Nevada
1
Revised Statutes.
2
d) Defendants engaged in unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices with
3
respect to mortgage loan servicing and related matters.
4
e) Defendants failed to disclose the principal for which documents were being executed
5
and recorded in violation of Nevada Revised Statutes.
6
f) Defendants demanded and accepted payments for debts that were non-existent.
7
g) Defendants reported payments as late to credit bureaus without the legal right or
8
authority to do so.
9
h) Defendants acted as a beneficiary without the legal authority to do so.
10
i) Defendants facilitated, aided and abetted the illegal, deceptive and unlawful
11
enforcement of Plaintiff’s Note and Deed of Trust and engaged in other illegal debt
12
collection activities.
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
j) Plaintiff allege, on information and belief, Defendant BNYM fraudulently enforced

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
a debt obligation in which they had no pecuniary, equitable or legal interest.
15
Defendants conduct is part of a fraudulent debt collection scheme.
16
17
218. Defendants’ deceptive scheme originated in New York, involved communications and statements
18
made in New York, and injured Plaintiff in transactions that occurred in New York.
19
20
219. Defendants’ practices have had and may continue to have a broad impact on consumers throughout
21
New York State and in other parts of the United States.
22
23
220. Defendants’ statements and actions described hereinabove entitle Plaintiff to actual or increased
24
damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(h).
25
///
26
///
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
62
SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
1
2
VIOLATION OF NEVADA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL CODE
3
4
5
6
forth herein.
7
8
222. For his seventeenth and distinct cause of action Plaintiff is informed and believe, and based on such
9 information and belief, avers that a genuine controversy exists as to whether or not the Defendants
10 have committed one or more acts of unfair competition within the meaning of Nevada Business and
11 Professional Code.
12
223. Defendants have engaged in unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices in the State of
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Nevada, as set forth above.

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15 224. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants’ engaged in a pattern and practice of deceptive conduct in
16 violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA"), Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 598 et seq.
17
18 225. By engaging in the above-described acts and practices, Defendants have committed one or more
acts of unfair competition within the meaning of Nevada Revised Statutes §§ 90.600 and 107, et
19
seq.
20
21 226. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and based on such information and belief, assert that Nevada
22 Revised Statutes §§ 90.600 and 107, et seq., prohibits acts of unfair competition, which means and
includes any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act and conduct that is likely to deceive and is
23
fraudulent in nature.
24
25 227. Defendants’ conduct, for the reasons stated herein, is in direct violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
63
228. Defendants’ conduct, for the reasons stated herein, is in direct violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g).
1
2 229. Defendants’ conduct, for the reasons stated herein, is in direct violation of Nevada Penal code.
3
230. Defendants engaged in unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices with respect to mortgage
4
loan servicing and related matters.
5
6 231. Defendants failed to disclose the principal for which documents were being executed and recorded
7 in violation of NRS §§ 90.600 and 107, et seq.
8
232. Defendants demanded and accepted payments for debts that were non-existent.
9
10
233. Defendants reported payments as late to credit bureaus without the legal right or authority to do so.
11
12 234. Defendants acted as a beneficiary without the legal authority to do so.

13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
235. Defendants facilitated, aided and abetted the illegal, deceptive and unlawful enforcement of
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
Plaintiff’s Note and Deed of Trust and engaged in other illegal debt collection activities.
15
16 236. As alleged herein, Plaintiff’s loan was not properly transferred to Defendant ALT 2005-56, who
17 seeks to cause their purported authorized agent(s) to collect mortgage payments and engage in other
unlawful collection practices.
18
19
237. On information and belief, Defendants do not have a perfected security interest in Plaintiff’s loan
20 such that they can enforce Plaintiff’s obligation and/or collect loan payments.
21
22 238. Plaintiff allege, on information and belief Defendants fraudulently enforced a debt obligation in
which they had no pecuniary, equitable or legal interest and conduct is part of a fraudulent debt
23
collection scheme.
24
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
64
239. The Defendants conduct as described above was malicious because Defendants knew that they were
1 not acting on behalf of the current pecuniary beneficiary of the Note and Deed of Trust. However,
2 despite such knowledge, Defendants continued to demand and collect Plaintiff’s loan payments.
3
240. As more fully described above, Defendants’ acts and practices are unlawful. This conduct is
4
ongoing and continues to this date.
5
6 241. As more fully described above, Defendants’ acts and practices are likely to deceive members of the
7 public. This conduct is ongoing and continues to this date.
8
242. As more fully described above, Defendants’ acts and practices are unfair and the harm caused by
9
their conduct outweighs any benefit that their conduct may have. This conduct is ongoing and
10
continues to this date.
11
12 243. Plaintiff alleges that by engaging in the above described acts and/or practices as alleged herein,
Defendants violated several laws including NRS §§ 90.600 and 107, et seq. and must be required
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
to disgorge all profits related to their unfair, unlawful and deceptive business practices.
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15 244. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ misconduct, as alleged herein, gave Defendants an unfair
16 competitive advantage over their competitors. The scheme implemented by Defendants is designed
17 to defraud consumers and enrich the Defendants.
18
245. The foregoing acts and practices have caused substantial harm to consumers, including Plaintiffs.
19
20 246. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have been unjustly enriched, by collecting payments that
21 they are not entitled to, and should be required to make restitution to Plaintiff and other consumers
22 who have been harmed, and/or be enjoined from continuing in such practices pursuant to NRS §§
90.600 and 107, et seq.
23
24
247. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, and each of them, stated above,
25 Plaintiff have been injured in that Defendants attempted to wrongfully foreclose and sell Plaintiff’s
26 property.
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
65
1 248. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of NRS §§ 90.600 and 107, et seq. by Defendants,
2 Plaintiff have suffered actual pecuniary damages, including, but not limited to civil liability,
3 restitution, injunctive relief preventing Defendants from continuing to collect mortgage payments,
and attorneys’ fees, in an amount to be proven at trial.
4
5
249. As a result of Defendants’ violations of NRS §§ 90.600 and 107, et seq., Plaintiff have been
6
damaged in the following ways: (1) multiple parties may seek to enforce his debt obligation against
7
them; (2) he have been paying the wrong party for an undetermined amount of time and have
8
overpaid in interest that was over calculated; (3) he are unable to determine whether he sent his
9
monthly mortgage payments to the right party; (4) his ability to negotiate a loan modification with
10
the true and correct owner has been prejudiced; (5) his credit and credit scores have been damaged;
11
(6) he have expended significant funds to cover the cost of attorneys’ fees and related costs.
12
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15
FOR VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1692e
16
17
18
19
forth herein.
20
21
251. For his eighteenth and distinct cause of action Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such
22
23
violated § 1692e of Title 15 of the United States Code.
24
25
252. Defendant BNYM as the Trustee of the AHMI2004-4 Trust is in the business where the principal
26
purpose is to collect debts on behalf of the investors in the AHMI2004-4 Trust. Defendants are
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
66
responsible for regularly collecting debts owed to AHMI2004-4 Trust. Defendants attempted to
1
collect Plaintiff’s debt obligation on behalf of the AHMI2004-4 Trust investors, rendering them a
2
debt collector, pursuant to the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). “The term ‘debt
3
collector’ means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in
4
any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects
5
or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due
6
another.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).
7
8
253. Federal law prohibits the use of “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in
9
connection with the collection of any debt… including the false representation of… the character,
10
amount, or legal status of any debt… and the threat to take any action that cannot legally be
11
taken…” 12 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A)-(B).
12
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
254. Defendants attempted to collect on the Note under false pretenses, namely that Defendant BNYM
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
was assigned Plaintiff’s debt when in fact they were not.
15
16
255. Defendants acted in a manner to mislead Plaintiff into believing they had the authority to demand
17
payments from them.
18
19
256. Defendants threatened to take action, namely engaging in collection and/or loan modification
20
activities that cannot legally be taken by them.
21
22
257. As alleged herein, Plaintiff’s loan was not properly transferred to BNYM, who seeks to cause their
23
purported authorized agent(s) to collect mortgage payments and engage in other unlawful collection
24
practices.
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
67
258. On information and belief Defendant BNYM does not have a perfected security interest in
1
Plaintiff’s Note such that they can enforce Plaintiff’s obligation and/or collect loan payments.
2
3
259. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants falsely represented the status of Plaintiff’s debt and Defendants’
4
ability to enforce and/or enter into a modification of Plaintiff’s debt obligation, occasioned from
5
the fact they have no pecuniary, equitable or legal interest.
6
7
260. The conduct by Defendants as described above, was malicious because Defendants knew that they
8
were not acting on behalf of the current pecuniary beneficiary of the Note and Deed of Trust.
9
However, despite such knowledge, Defendants continued to demand and collect Plaintiff’s
10
mortgage payments.
11
12
261. On information and belief, BNYM engaged and is engaging in a pattern and practice of defrauding
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Plaintiffs, in that during the entire life of the loan, Defendants failed to properly credit payments
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
made, incorrectly calculated interest on the account, and failed to accurately debit fees.
15
16
262. The foregoing acts and omissions of each and every Defendant and their agents constitute numerous
17
and multiple violations of the FDCPA including, but not limited to, each and every one of the
18
above-cited provisions of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., with respect to Plaintiffs.
19
20
263. Plaintiff could not have reasonably known of the existence of a claim for violation of 15 U.S.C. §
21
1692e because Defendants fraudulently concealed the fact that they were not entitled to enforce
22
Plaintiff’s debt obligation and that they were falsely representing the character and amount of
23
money still owing on the debt, and as such Plaintiff assert that they are not authorized to provide a
24
loan modification.
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
68
264. As a result of each and every Defendants’ violations of the FDCPA, Plaintiff is entitled to actual
1
damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1); Statutory damages in an amount up to $1,000.00
2
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A); reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
3
§ 1692k(a)(3); and (4) declaratory relief from each and every Defendant herein.
4
5
265. Plaintiff relied on BNYM’s misrepresentations and have been damaged in the following ways: (1)
6
multiple parties may seek to enforce his debt obligation against them; (2) he have paid the wrong
7
party for an undetermined amount of time and overpaid in interest that was over calculated; (3) he
8
is unable to determine whether he sent his monthly loan payments to the right party (4) his credit
9
and credit scores have been damaged; (5) he have expended significant funds to cover the cost of
10
attorneys’ fees and related costs.
11
12
NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
FOR VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g)
15
16
17
18
forth herein.
19
20
267. For his nineteenth and distinct cause of action Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such
21
22
violated § 1641(g) of Title 15 of the United States Code.
23
24
268. Plaintiff reside in the property and it is his principal residence.
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
69
269. The new subsection (g) added to Section 131 of TILA by Section 404 of The Helping Families Save
1
Their Homes Act of 2009 states:
2
3
“(g) NOTICE OF NEW CREDITOR-
4
(1) IN GENERAL. –In addition to other disclosures required by this title, not later than 30 days after
5
the date on which a mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred or assigned to a third party, the creditor
6
that is the new owner or assignee of the debt shall notify the borrower in writing of such transfer,
7
including-
8
(A) the identity, address, telephone number of the new creditor;
9
(B) the date of transfer;
10
(C) how to reach an agent or party having authority to act on behalf of the new creditor;
11
(D) the location of the place where transfer of ownership of the debt is recorded; and
12
(E) any other relevant information regarding the new creditor.”

13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
Failure to comply with the requirements of this new subsection 131(g) of TILA may result in civil liability
15
for actual damages, legal fees and statutory damages under Section 130(a) of TILA.
16
17
270. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant BNYM allegedly and purportedly acquired ownership of his Note
18
after May 2009.
19
20
271. “The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009” was expressly created by the legislature to
21
avoid the secretive and purported “assignment” that took place here. The Congressional intent of
22
the Act is clear – it was enacted to assist borrowers in identifying who his purported lender is, so
23
that they could contact them if they needed assistance saving his home. Here, Plaintiff did not get
24
that opportunity since they were not notified as required under TILA.
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
70
272. Section 1641(g) was specifically enacted to protect homeowners in the position Plaintiff now find
1
themselves.
2
3
273. BNYM, as Trustee and Assignee, is purporting to be Plaintiff’s new creditor, as they are acting
4
through their agents to enforce Plaintiff’s Note and Deed of Trust and can, therefore, be found to
5
have violated 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g).
6
7
274. Here, Plaintiff alleges that BNYM, as Trustee and Assignee, as the beneficial party and creditor
8
seeking to enforce this debt obligation, does not have any ownership claim in the mortgage and was
9
not entitled to collect payments, declare a default, or foreclose on Plaintiff’s home.
10
11
275. An Assignment was executed and an interest in Plaintiff’s Note and Deed of Trust was purportedly
12
transferred to Defendant BNYM. As the purported assignee of Plaintiff’s debt, Defendant BNYM
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
is liable under TILA’s notification guidelines. Although Plaintiff dispute the validity of BNYM’s
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
claim, for the reasons alleged herein, BNYM was still required to follow the provisions of TILA as
15
the purported new creditor.
16
17
276. Defendants purport to be a creditor under an alleged “assignment” and are alleged to have violated
18
15 U.S.C. § 1641(g).
19
20
277. Plaintiff alleges that § 131(g) of TILA applies to BNYM, as the purported and alleged assignee of
21
Plaintiff’s loan. As the purported assignee of the Note, BNYM would also be the creditor as they
22
would “stand in the shoes of the assignor”, i.e., the originating lender who was also the creditor.
23
24
278. Section 131(g) of TILA requires BNYM, as assignee and creditor, to perform and comply with the
25
requirements of the statute or otherwise face statutory and civil penalties and damages.
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
71
279. BNYM did not provide Plaintiff with written notice within 30 days after the date on which they
1
were allegedly assigned the mortgage.
2
3
280. Plaintiff never received any notice indicating the exact date of the purported assignment of the
4
interest in his Note, as required by § 131(g)(1)(B).
5
6
281. Plaintiff never received any notice indicating how to reach an agent or party having authority to act
7
on BNYM’s behalf, as required by § 131(g)(1)(c).
8
9
282. Plaintiff never received any notice indicating the location of the place where transfer of ownership
10
of the debt is recorded, as required by § 131(g)(1)(D).
11
12
283. Plaintiff never received any notice indicating any other relevant information regarding the new
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
creditor, purportedly BNYM, as required by § 131(g)(1)(E).

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15
284. Plaintiff could not have reasonably known of the existence of a TILA violation because Defendants
16
fraudulently concealed the fact that they were purportedly assigned the interest in Plaintiff’s Note
17
and Deed of Trust.
18
19
285. BNYM violated 15 U.S.C. § 1641 and is subject to statutory damages, civil liability, penalties,
20
attorneys’ fees, and actual damages. See 15 U.S.C. § 1640.
21
///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
///
25
///
26
///
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
72
TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION
1
2
STATUTORILY DEFECTIVE FORECLOSURE
3
4
6 forth herein.
7
8 287. For his twentieth and distinct cause of action Plaintiff is informed and believe, and based on such
9 information and belief, avers that a genuine controversy exists as to whether or not the non-judicial
10 foreclosure is a “Statutorily Defective Foreclosure” under Nevada Revised Statutes.
11
12 288. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and based on such information and belief, avers that in Nevada,
the deed of trust does not convey title so as to allow the beneficiary to obtain the property without
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
foreclosure and sale, but is considered merely a lien on the property as security for the debt, subject
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
to the laws on foreclosure and sale. (see Hamm v. Arrowcreek Homeowners' Ass'n, 124 Nev. 290,
15 298-99,183 P.3d 895, 901-02 (2008); Orr v. Ulyatt, 23 Nev. 134, 140, 43 P. 916, 917-18 (1896).
16
17 289. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and based on such information and belief, avers that to enforce
the obligation by non-judicial foreclosure and sale, "[t]he deed and note must be held together
18
because the holder of the note is only entitled to repayment, and does not have the right under the
19
deed to use the property as a means of satisfying repayment." (see Cervantes v. Countrywide Home
20 Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2011).
21
22 290. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and based on such information and belief, avers that "Conversely,
23 the holder of the deed alone does not have a right to repayment and, thus, does not have an interest
24 in foreclosing on the property to satisfy repayment." Id.; (see also Leyva v. National Default
25 Servicing Corp., 127 Nev. _, _, 255 P.3d 1275, 1279-80 (2011) (recognizing that the note and the
26 deed of trust must be held by the same person to foreclose under NRS Chapter 107).
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
73
1
291. Defendants have commenced foreclosure of Plaintiff’s property through the non-judicial statutory
2
scheme set forth in Nevada. Their action is improper because they own no beneficial interest in the
3
collateral (i.e., Deed of Trust) and have unlawfully commenced the foreclosure process based on
4
purported transfers, assignments and endorsements of the Note and Deed of Trust to which the
5
Defendants claim the beneficial rights and interests. As discussed below, Defendants’ claimed
6
interest is false.
7
8
292. As alleged above, the purported assignments have two (2) major defects which render any interests
9
assigned void ab inito as follows:
10
11
FIRST DEFECT
12
293. MERS cannot hold an interest in property. The ADOT also purportedly assigned Plaintiff’s Note.
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
MERS cannot legally receive a NOTE.

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15
294. By virtue of the above-referenced defects in the documents executed by the original lender, all of
16
the assignments, Notice of Default, Substitutions of Trustee, and Trustee’s Sale were and are void
17
and without any legal effect. Since the original Deed of Trust was never properly and lawfully
18
assigned and the Note has been sold, there has been a permanent separation of the Note and
19
collateral which as a matter of law renders the collateral void.
20
21
295. Defendant MERS executed an assignment of Deed of Trust purportedly transferring all beneficial
22
interest to Defendant BNYM as Trustee for AHMI2004-4, together with the Note.
23
24
SECOND DEFECT
25
296. As alleged herein, Defendant BNYM as Trustee for AHMI2004-4 had to comply with certain terms
26
and conditions, which are set forth in the Prospectus in accordance with certain New York State
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
74
laws regarding trusts and certain Federal Internal Revenue statutes concerning Real Estate
1
Investment Mortgage Conduit (“REMIC”). The PSA for Defendant BNYM as Trustee for
2
AHMI2004-4 had a closing date of the Trust on December 21, 2004. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 860
3
A-G, a mortgage backed security trust can only receive qualified investments. Defendants filed a
4
Notice of Default reflecting that Plaintiff’s Note was in default and as such, at the time of the
5
purported transfer to Defendant AHMI2004-4, Plaintiff’s loan was not a qualified investment and
6
could not be accepted into the trust pool.
7
8
297. Defendants’ purported transfer of Plaintiff’s loan to Defendant AHMI2004-4 was after December
9
21, 2004, the closing date for the Trust. Any transfers after the closing date, are void and a violation
10
of public policy and the IRC. Additionally, any transfer after the closing date is prohibited by the
11
REMIC statute in order to preserve the tax treatment provided to the Trust.
12
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
298. These defects are incurable and render any assignments void. Since the purported assignment was
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
the basis for the non-judicial foreclosure, finding them void provides no beneficial right or interest
15
and prevents the non-judicial foreclosure process from proceeding.
16
17
299. Upon information and belief, none of the Defendants were the purported foreclosing beneficiary
18
upon the property.
19
20
300. As set forth above, since Defendant BNYM’s status as beneficiary is void ab initio, Defendants did
21
not have the authority to exercise the power of sale clause within the Deed of Trust and therefore
22
lacked the authority to appoint a Substitute Trustee and/or initiate foreclosure based upon defaults
23
known to Defendants. Consequently, the entire foreclosure procedure is statutorily defective.
24
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
75
301. Plaintiff alleges that the foreclosure proceedings were initiated by Defendants without privilege and
1
with malice, as the Defendants knew that they were not the true beneficiary and/or creditor and thus
2
a “default” could never have occurred.
3
4
302. As stated above, Defendants were not owed any money; could not duly appoint a substituted
5
Trustee; and had no pecuniary interest in the loan nor was the beneficiary of the Note and Deed of
6
Trust. Therefore, despite the fact that said Defendants knew that they were not the true beneficiary
7
or creditor and thus no “default” had occurred, they proceeded with the foreclosure process.
8
9
303. Defendants falsely represented to Plaintiff that if they did not pay Defendants, Plaintiff’s home
10
would be sold at a public auction. Such actions are malicious and fraudulent.
11
12
304. Plaintiff alleges that the Notice of Default, Assignment of Deed of Trust, Substitution of Trustee
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
and Notice of Trustee Sale were false, void and without privilege, for the reasons stated and
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
discussed herein and in violation of Nevada Revised Statutes.
15
16
305. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges the Note and Deed of Trust, as the same described
17
above, were improperly pledged or sold to another party and such sale was not done in accordance
18
with Article 3 or Article 9 of the New York or Nevada Commercial Code, was contrary to the
19
documents filed with the SEC governing Defendants’ Trust and the REMIC statute, and was
20
therefore improper and failed to confer any legally cognizable rights in any party claiming to be a
21
pecuniary beneficiary of Plaintiff’s Note and Deed of Trust.
22
23
306. As such, Plaintiff alleges that no true sale of the Note and Deed of Trust, as required per
24
securitization documents, ever actually took place between any of the intermediaries in the
25
securitization chain. Thus, Plaintiff is open to double or triple financial jeopardy from unknown
26
claimants.
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
76
1
307. At no point in time did the purported original beneficiary of the Deed of Trust assign its interest in
2
the property to any purported holder in due course of the Note or mortgage.
3
4
308. Since Defendants had no interest that was assigned to them, they could not authorize to proceed
5
with a foreclosure.
6
7
309. On information and belief, at the time Defendants commenced the foreclosure proceedings, they
8
had no legal or equitable interest in the Note and Deed of Trust and thus no amount was owed from
9
Plaintiff to Defendants or the beneficiary of the Note and Deed of Trust.
10
11
310. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and based on such information and belief, avers that in light of all
12
of the aforementioned information, the non-judicial foreclosure is a “Statutorily Defective

13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Foreclosure” under Nevada Revised Statutes.

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15
311. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and based on such information and belief, avers that neither
16
Defendants nor their agents are/or possess the power or authority to invoke the “Power of Sale”
17
clause and perform a non-judicial foreclosure.
18
19
312. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and based on such information and belief, avers that neither
20
Defendants nor their agents are/or possess the power or authority to substitute the Trustee under the
21
Deed of Trust.
22
23
313. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and based on such information and belief, avers that Defendants
24
and/or their agents have recorded false information in the Clark County Recorder’s Office.
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
77
314. Wherefore, Plaintiff request that this court declare that the non-judicial foreclosure is a “Statutorily
1
Defective Foreclosure” under Nevada Revised Statutes.
2
3 THIRD DEFECT
5 identified as Instrument No. 20080930-0002777 is prima facie evidence that the assignment fails
6 to be executed by ‘Attorney in Fact” and as such it was not executed in the manner required and is
7 therefore VOID.
8
9 316. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that for execution
10 by an attorney in fact, requiring only that "[w]hen an attorney in fact executes an instrument
11 transferring an estate in real property, he must subscribe the name of his principal to it, and his own
12 name as attorney in fact."

13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
did not subscribe the name of his principal to it, and his own name as attorney in fact as required
15
and is therefore VOID.
16
17
18 CONCLUSION
19
318. The complexity in this case comes not from the theory pled, but rather from the fact that the broad
20
spectrum of law that this matter encompasses is complex and involved. Plaintiff is informed and
21
believes, and based on such information and belief, avers that if the Court declares that the ADOT
22
23
is a true and valid transaction and as such created a taxable event causing the Defendants to owe
24
tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, that Plaintiff assert that the Defendants have not
25
reported nor paid, making Plaintiff third party beneficiaries as whistleblowers pursuant to 26 U.S.C.
26
§ 7801 (1982 as amended) for the purpose of reporting potential violations of Internal Revenue
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
78
laws and Securities Laws. And if the Court declares that the ADOT is VOID, Defendants have
1
committed fraud and deceit violating New York General Business Law § 349; Nevada Business
2
and Professional Code, Et Seq.; 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Et Seq.; 15 U.S.C. § 1641(G); and Nevada
3
Revised Statutes requiring the cancellation of instruments and the ruling that the foreclosure is
4
Statutorily Defective. Plaintiff have relied on the representations made by Defendants that the
5
lender was his true creditor with the power to collect payments and modify his loan. Plaintiff need
6
the declaration of the Court to determine whether or not the Defendants have any legal or corporate
7
authority to engage in debt collection activities against them, and the authority to modify Plaintiff’s
8
loan.
9
10
11
12
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
79
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1
2 Wherefore Plaintiff request that this court declare: the parties have adverse legal interests, of sufficient
3 immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment finding or concluding that:
5 a. Plaintiff request punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and to
6 deter others from engaging in similar conduct.
8 b. Plaintiff request that this court declare that the Plaintiff’s loan was in default, at time of the
9 ADOT recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument
10 #20091204-0001999, and was consequently a prohibited transaction and is therefore VOID.
11 Or as the alternative, demonstrate that contribution of Plaintiff’s loan as well as the loans
12 identified by Plaintiff that were transferred to the AHMI2004-4 REMIC Trust were not void
13 by ordering Defendants to produce the Opinion Letter authorizing the ADOT recorded in the
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 is a true

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15 and valid transaction and as such created a taxable event equal to 100 percent of the amount
16 of the loans identified by Plaintiff that were contributed to the AHMI2004-4 REMIC Trust
17 involving prohibited transactions as governed by 26 U.S.C. § 860F(a)(1) and to require
18 Defendants to provide the tax returns that identified the taxable event(s) and that a tax equal
19 to 100 percent of the amount of the loans identified by Plaintiff was paid.
20
21 c. Plaintiff request that this court declare that the ADOT recorded in the Clark County
22 Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 does not comply with
23 the “Timing Requirement” of 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G as is therefore VOID. Or as the
24 alternative, demonstrate that contribution of Plaintiff’s loan as well as the loans identified
25 by Plaintiff that were transferred to the AHMI2004-4 REMIC Trust were not void by
26 ordering Defendants to produce the Opinion Letter authorizing the ADOT recorded in the
27 Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 is a true
28 VERIFIED FAC
80
and valid transaction and as such created a taxable event equal to 100 percent of the amount
1
of the loans identified by Plaintiff that were contributed to the AHMI2004-4 REMIC Trust
2
after the startup day and to require Defendants to provide the tax returns that identified the
3
taxable event(s) and that a tax equal to 100 percent of the amount of the loans identified by
4
Plaintiff was paid.
5
6
d. Plaintiff request that this court declare that the Plaintiff’s loan was a violation of the
7
“Qualified Loan” requirement, at time of the ADOT recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s
8
Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999, and was consequently a prohibited
9
transaction and is therefore VOID. Or as the alternative, demonstrate that contribution of
10
Plaintiff’s loan as well as the loans identified by Plaintiff that were transferred to the
11
AHMI2004-4 REMIC Trust were not void by ordering Defendants to produce the Opinion
12
Letter authorizing the ADOT recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
as instrument #20091204-0001999 is a true and valid transaction and as such created a

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
taxable event equal to 100 percent of the amount of the loans identified by Plaintiff that were
15
contributed to the AHMI2004-4 REMIC Trust involving prohibited transactions and to
16
require Defendants to provide the tax returns that identified the taxable event(s) and that a
17
18
19
e. Plaintiff request that this court declare that the contribution of Plaintiff’s loan, transfers a
20
“Defective Obligation”, at time of the ADOT recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office
21
on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999, and was consequently a prohibited
22
transaction and is therefore VOID. Or as the alternative, demonstrate that contribution of
23
Plaintiff’s loan as well as the loans identified by Plaintiff that were transferred to the
24
AHMI2004-4 REMIC Trust were not void by ordering Defendants to produce the Opinion
25
Letter authorizing the ADOT recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009
26
as instrument #20091204-0001999 is a true and valid transaction and as such created a
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
81
taxable event equal to 100 percent of the amount of the loans identified by Plaintiff that were
1
contributed to the AHMI2004-4 REMIC Trust involving prohibited transactions and to
2
require Defendants to provide the tax returns that identified the taxable event(s) and that a
3
4
5
f. Plaintiff request that this court declare that the contribution of Plaintiff’s loan was a violation
6
of the “Bankruptcy Remote” requirements pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G, at time of
7
the ADOT recorded in the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument
8
#20091204-0001999, and was consequently a prohibited transaction and is therefore VOID.
9
Or as the alternative, demonstrate that contribution of Plaintiff’s loan as well as the loans
10
identified by Plaintiff that were transferred to the AHMI2004-4 REMIC Trust were not void
11
by ordering Defendants to produce the Opinion Letter authorizing the ADOT recorded in the
12
Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 is a true

13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
and valid transaction and as such created a taxable event equal to 100 percent of the amount
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
of the loans identified by Plaintiff that were contributed to the AHMI2004-4 REMIC Trust
15
involving prohibited transactions and to require Defendants to provide the tax returns that
16
identified the taxable event(s) and that a tax equal to 100 percent of the amount of the loans
17
18
19
g. Plaintiff request that this court declare that the ADOT recorded in the Clark County
20
Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 renders the REMIC
21
status of the Trust void pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G. Or as the alternative,
22
demonstrate that contribution of Plaintiff’s loan as well as the loans identified by Plaintiff
23
that were transferred to the AHMI2004-4 REMIC Trust were not void by ordering
24
Defendants to produce the Opinion Letter authorizing the ADOT recorded in the Clark
25
County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 is a true and
26
valid transaction and as such Plaintiff is bringing this information forward and are entitled to
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
82
monies from the SEC for identifying the contribution of Plaintiff’s loan as well as other loans
1
contributed to the AHMI2004-4 REMIC Trust that were in direct conflict with documents
2
filed with the SEC.
3
4
h. Plaintiff request that this court declare that the ADOT recorded in the Clark County
5
6
documents recorded by AHMI2004-4 with the SEC, and is therefore VOID. Or as the
7
alternative, order Defendants produce the Opinion Letter authorizing the ADOT recorded in
8
the Clark County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 is a
9
true and valid transaction and as such Plaintiff is bringing this information forward and are
10
entitled to monies from the SEC for identifying the contribution of Plaintiff’s loan as well as
11
other loans contributed to the AHMI2004-4 REMIC Trust that were in direct conflict with
12
documents filed with the SEC.

13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
i. Wherefore, Plaintiff request that this court declare that the ADOT recorded in the Clark
15
County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 does not comply
16
New York's Estates, Powers & Trusts Law, and is therefore “VOID”.
17
18
j. Plaintiff request that this court declare that the ADOT recorded in the Clark County
19
20
the “Timing Requirement” of the Prospectus and is therefore “VOID”.
21
22
k. Plaintiff request that this court declare that the ADOT recorded in the Clark County
23
24
the “Qualified Loan” of the Prospectus and is therefore “VOID”.
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
83
l. Plaintiff request that this court declare that the ADOT recorded in the Clark County
1
Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999 does convey a
2
“Defective Obligation” pursuant the Prospectus and is therefore “VOID”.
3
4
m. Plaintiff request that this court declare that the Defendants have violated the Federal False
5
Claims Act.
6
7
n. Plaintiff request that this court declare that the Defendants have violated the Fair Debt
8
Collection Act.
9
10
o. Plaintiff request that this court declare that the Defendants have violated the Truth in Lending
11
Act.
12
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
p. Plaintiff request that this court declare that the Defendants have committed Civil Conspiracy.
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15
q. Plaintiff request that this court declare that the Defendants have violated Nevada Business
16
and Professional Code, et seq.
17
18 r. Plaintiff request that this court declare that the foreclosure is Statutorily Defective.
19
20 s. Plaintiff request that this court declare that there is no evidence of an effective delivery to
21 the American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2004-4 Mortgage-Backed Notes, Series
22 2004-4, and the ADOT identified as Instrument No. 20080930-0002777 dated September 25,
23 2008 is void ab initio;
24
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
84
t. Plaintiff request that this court declare that there is no actual Trust and no power of sale
1
properly transferred to Defendants because there is no actual Trust over the Plaintiff’s
2
property;
3
4
u. Plaintiff ask for any other and additional relief the court may find including but not limited
5
to injunctive or other interim relief in Plaintiff’s favor.
6
7
v. Actual Economic and Non-Economic damages.
8
9
w. General Damages in excess of the minimum unlimited jurisdiction of this court, but
10
according to proof at trial with such other and further relief as the court may deem reasonable
11
and just under the circumstances.
12
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
x. For a declaration of the rights and duties of the parties relative to the Plaintiff’s home to
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
determine the actual status of the Note and Deed of Trust.
15
16
y. For damages as provided by statutes.
17
18
z. For an order enjoining the Defendants from continuing to violate the statutes alleged.
19
20
aa. For general and special damages according to proof at trial, but not less than $1,000,000.00
21
against Defendants;
22
23
bb. For statutory penalties for each separate statutory violation where allowed by statute;
24
25
cc. For punitive damages against Defendants according to proof at trial and using the applicable
26
punitive damages standards from the involved statutes;
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
85
1
dd. For restitution;
2
3
ee. For injunctive relief enjoining Defendants, their agents or employees, from pursuing further
4
foreclosure proceedings against Plaintiff’s property;
5
6
ff. For a declaratory judgment finding that Defendants do not have any legal cognizable rights
7
as to Plaintiff’s property, Plaintiff’s Note, Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust, or any other documents
8
prepared by Defendants;
9
10
gg. For attorney’s fees where authorized by statute or law;
11
12
hh. For costs of suit;

13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14 ii. For such other relief as the court deems just and proper.
15
16
Dated this ______ day of _______________, 2016
17
18
19
X _________________________
20
ANTHONY COLEMAN
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
86
VERIFICATION
1
2
I, ANTHONY COLEMAN, in this matter have read the foregoing and know the contents to be true to
3
my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated upon information and belief and as to those matters
4
believe them to be true.
5
9 _________________________
10
ANTHONY COLEMAN
11
12
13
ANTHONY COLEMAN
Subscribed and Sworn before me ______________________ a Notary Public in and

Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
15
16 for Clark County Nevada, on this ______ day of _________2016,
17
18 by ANTHONY COLEMAN who appeared before me and executed the same.

19
20
21
Notary Signature ___________________________________
22
(seal)
23
24
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
87
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1
2
I hereby certify that on this 17th day of October, 2016, I caused to be served a copy of the foregoing
3
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the following person(s) in the manner indicated
4
below at the following address(es):
5
6 WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP

Dana Jonathon Nitz, Esq. - Nevada Bar No. 0050
7
Natalie C. Lehman, Esq. - Nevada Bar No. 12995
8 7785 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 200
Las Vegas, NV 89117
9
10 ___ by CM/ECF
11 ___ by Electronic Mail
___ by Facsimile Transmission
12 _X_ by First Class Mail
___ by Hand Delivery

13 ___ by Overnight Delivery

ANTHONY COLEMAN
Tel: (301) 686-1643
14
x_________________________________
15 ANTHONY COLEMAN
6136 BENCHMARK WAY
16 NORTH LAS VEGAS, NV 89031
Attorney Pro Se
17 Tel. 310-686-1643
[email protected]
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 VERIFIED FAC
88

First Amended Complaint Doc 13

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

First Amended Complaint Doc 13

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

First Amended Complaint Doc 13

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VERIFIED FAC

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NATURE AND SUMMARY OF THE ACTION ..................................................... 8

8 GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS .............................................................. 13

9 BOTCHED SECURITIZATION ............................................................................. 27

13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION,

DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 2 “DOES THE LOAN BEING IN

24 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION,

8 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION,

12 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION,

13 DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 9 “IS THE DELIVERY AND/OR

TRANSFER OF THE PLAINTIFF’S NOTE YEARS AFTER THE

14 TRUST'S CLOSING DATE A VIOLATION OF SEC LAW?”......................... 51

13 EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION,

FOR VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1692e .......................................................... 66

15 NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION,

21 PRAYER FOR RELIEF .......................................................................................... 80

properly lies in this District, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

20 approved April 5, 2012].

New York 10286.

17 are in fact strangers to Plaintiff’s Note and Deed of Trust.

4 foreclosure attempt by Defendant BNYM without correcting or addressing the aforementioned

13 York (“BONY”). (Assignment of Deed of Trust, 2:11-cv-00178-GMN-LRL ECF No. 53-5.)

aforementioned Rescissions rendered Plaintiff’s Complaint moot.

13 County Recorder’s Office on 10-26-2004 as instrument # 20041026-0003675. Plaintiff is

16 defendants between 9-2-2008 and 12-4-2009.

4 e) That the Trustee was The Bank of New York.

13 Mortgage-Backed Notes, Series 2004-4.

15 is in direct conflict with the Prospectus and is therefore a securities violation.

24 administering the Deed of Trust, for example to substitute Trustees.

15 Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2004-4 Mortgage-Backed Notes, Series 2004-4.

BNYM, is a Trustee for over one-thousand residential mortgage-backed securities (hereinafter

14 below, the Defendants’ claimed interest is false.

17 in the following areas but not limited to:

20 beneficiary of Plaintiff’s loan.

25 c) Impairing Plaintiff’s ability to obtain new financing.

defined by 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G.

860A-860G of the ADOT identified as instrument number 20080930-0002777.

Backed Notes, Series 2004-4 in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G’s requirement that an

Defendant BNYM’s abdication of responsibility.

24 available online at: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1364482/000095012306007158/0000950123-06-

comprised of pension funds, insurance companies and sovereign wealth funds.

11 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

12 FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 1: TO DETERMINE STATUS OF

13 DEFENDANTS’ CLAIMS [28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202]

14 (against all Defendants, and Associates in Fact)

of Trust and property.

13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

prohibited transactions are governed by 26 U.S.C. § 860F(a)(1) which states:

18 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

13 County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999, and as such Plaintiff

6 DECLARATORY RELIEF COUNT - 4 “DOES THE ASSIGNMENT

County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999, and as such Plaintiff

4 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

13 County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999, and as such Plaintiff

4 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

13 County Recorder’s Office on 12-4-2009 as instrument #20091204-0001999, and as such Plaintiff

5 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

prohibited transactions are governed by 26 U.S.C. § 860F(a)(1) which states:

16 for Clark County Nevada, on this day of ___2016,