Depew v. D. Andrew Beal et al

COMPLAINT of 22 Revised: July 20, 2010

Defendant No. 3 Name: _________________________________________________________

Street Address: _____________________________________________

City, State & Zip Code: _______________________________________

Telephone No. ______________________________________________


Street Address: _____________________________________________


Telephone No. ______________________________________________


Street Address: ______________________________________________

City, State & Zip Code: ________________________________________

Telephone No. ______________________________________________


Street Address: ______________________________________________


Telephone No. _______________________________________________


Street Address: ______________________________________________


Telephone No. _______________________________________________


Street Address: _____________________________________________


Telephone No. ______________________________________________

3815 South West Temple

Salt Lake City, UT 84115-4412

904-722-7009

Lake Zurich, IL 60047

1 Corporate Drive, Suite 360

847-550-7550

LNV Corporation, et al

Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc., et al

1 Corporate Drive, Suite 360

Lake Zurich, IL 60047

847-550-7300

Select Portfolio Servicing Inc.

DLJ Mortgage Capital Inc.

11 Madison Ave, Bsmt 1B

212-325-2000

New York, New York 10010

Credit Suisse

11 Madison Ave, Bsmt 1B


212-325-2000

U.S. Bank

800 Nicollet Mall

612-303-0783

Minneapolis, MN 55402


Defendant No. 9 Name: _____________________________________________________

Street Address: ______________________________________________


Telephone No. ______________________________________________

Defendant No. 10 Name: _________________________________________________________ Street Address: _____________________________________________


Telephone No. ______________________________________________

Defendant No. 11 Name: _________________________________________________________ Street Address: _____________________________________________


Telephone No. ______________________________________________

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Only two types of cases can be heard in federal

court: cases involving a federal question and cases involving diversity of citizenship of the parties. A case involving the United States Constitution or federal laws or treaties is a federal question case. A case in which a citizen of one state sues a citizen of another state and the amount in damages claimed is more than $75,000 is a diversity of citizenship case.

Venue is proper in the Middle District of Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 1965 (a) because defendant reside, are found, have an agent, and / or transact their affairs in this District and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim have occurred in this District. A. What is the basis for federal court jurisdiction (check all that apply)

Federal Question Diversity of Citizenship

1595 Spring Hill Road, Suite 310

Vienna, Virginia 2218

800-646-6377

MERSCORP Holdings Inc.

11 Madison Ave.


(619) 590-9200

Lime Financial Services, LLC

X X

1505 North 9th St.

Monroe, LA 71207-2867

318-388-1440

Dean Morris, L.L.P. Attorneys at Law.


B. If the basis for jurisdiction is Federal Question, what federal Constitutional, statutory, or treaty right is at issue?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

C. If the basis for jurisdiction is Diversity of Citizenship, what is the state of citizenship of each party?

Plaintiff(s) state of citizenship ___________________________________________

Defendant(s) state(s) of citizenship _______________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

18 USC 63 et seq., (Mail Fraud and Other Fraud Offenses); 18 USC § 1961 et seq., (Racketeer

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); 12 U.S.C. 27 et seq., (Real Estate Settlement Procedures

Act); 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., (Consumer Credit Protection and Truth in Lending Acts); 18 USC 47 et

seq. (Fraud and False Statements); 18 USC § 1348 et seq. (Securities and Commodities Fraud); 15

U.S.C. § 77a, et seq., (Securities Act of 1933); 18 USC Chapter 11, et seq., (Bribery, Graft, and Conflicts

of Interest); 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., (Fair Housing Act); 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq., (Equal Credit

Opportunity Act ); Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; LA CC Art

2003 (Obligee In Bad Faith); LA RS 14:123 (Perjury); LA RS 9:5646 (Sale of immovable property by

domestic or foreign corporation or unincorporated association)

Louisiana

New York, Illinois, Texas, Minnesota, Utah, Virgina

The court has jurisdiction over all defendants and Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1332, 1338, and 1367. Defendants conduct business and can be found in this district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in this district. This case primarily involves a federal question, complete diversity of citizenship exists, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.


III. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 1

COUNT I 2

Defendants: D. Andrew Beal, et al; Dean Morris Trustee Services, Inc.; 3

LNV Corporation; Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc.; MGC Mortgage Inc. 4

Foreclosure Fraud 5

On or about February, 20, 2010 Plaintiff received from Defendant Dean Morris, 6

L.L.P. Attorneys at Law, (hereafter referred to as “Dean Morris”) a “Notice” mailed 7

Plaintiff’s home dated February, 16, 2010. The contents of this notice stated: 8

“Notice Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: We have been 9

engaged by LNV Corporation to institute and prosecute legal proceedings to 10

enforce the security interest (“Mortgage”) pertaining to the above referenced 11

account (“Foreclosure”). To the extent that existing or future laws, regulations, 12

judicial decisions, or interpretations thereof, might be subject such proceedings 13

to the provisions of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, you are hereby 14

notified as follows: 15

1. This is an attempt to collect debt, and any information obtained will be used 16

for that purpose. 17

2. The amount of the debt you owe is principal of $61,193.82 with interest, late 18

charges, pre-payment penalties, attorneys fees, amount advanced and for taxes, 19

assessments, and maintenance of the property, for the protection, preservation, 20

repair and recovery of the property, for the protection and preservation of the 21

lien of the mortgage, and for the protection and preservation of the mortgagee’s 22

interest there under, if/as included in the mortgage, and costs. 23


3. The name of the creditor is LNV CORPORATION. 1

4. Unless you, within 30 days of receipt of this notice, dispute the validity of the 2

debt, or any portion thereof, we will assume that the debt is valid. 3

5. If you notify us in writing within 30 days of receipt of this notice, that the 4

debt or any portion thereof is disputed, we will obtain and provide you with 5

verification of the debt by mail. 6

6. If LNV CORPORATION is not the original creditor, we will provide you 7

with the name and address of the original creditor, by mail, if you make written 8

request for this information within 30 days after receipt of this notice.” 9

Immediately after receipt of this notice Plaintiff phoned Dean Morris and was told all 10

correspondences must be sent to MGC Mortgage Inc., (hereafter referred to as MGC). MGC 11

and LNV Corporation (hereafter referred to as LNV) are both ultimately owned by defendant 12

D. Andrew Beal, (hereafter referred to as Beal). 13

Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff mailed a letter to MGC disputing the debt and requesting 14

information about LNV Corporation because she had never heard of this company before. 15

Additionally she request information about how LNV acquired her mortgage. 16

MGC told Plaintiff that her loan had been transferred to Dean Morris and to contact 17

them. Plaintiff did so and was told by Dean Morris that they did not know why MGC told her 18

that because they had no documents for the loan. Plaintiff then phoned MGC at which time 19

she was led to believe she needed to do a loan modification; HOWEVER she was never in 20


default of her own accord but because MGC alleged she was in default due to their own 1

misappropriation of her payments beginning on or around Sept. 1, 2008. 2

COUNT II 3

Conspiracy to Defraud in Mortgage Foreclosure; Mail and Wire Fraud 4

Beal, LNV, Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc., (hereafter referred to as Dovenmuehle) and MGC 5

along with SPS, MERSCORP Holdings Inc., (hereafter referred to as MERS), Credit Suisse, 6

DLJ Mortgage Capital Inc. (hereafter referred to as DLJ), U.S. Bank, Lime Financial 7

Services, LLC, (hereafter referred to as Lime), and Dean Morris did knowingly and willfully 8

combine, conspire, confederate and agree with themselves and with others yet unknown or 9

un-named, to commit certain offenses and acts of fraud to execute and attempt to execute a 10

scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of material false 11

and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, by utilizing the United States mail 12

and private and commercial interstate carriers, for the purpose of executing such scheme and 13

artifice, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341. The defendants’ acts of 14

fraud include, but are not limited to, the following: 15

a) Beginning in or about 2005, the defendants began forging and falsifying signatures on 16

mortgage-related documents and/or conspired with others to do so as their agents in order 17

to prepare and file with property recorders' offices throughout the United States; and 18

specifically with Louisiana’s Ascension Parish recorder’s office where defendant’s filed 19

various mortgage related documents specific to Plaintiff’s property. 20

b) Defendant’s or their agents and/or cohorts hired temporary workers to sign as Authorized 21

Signers and thereby misrepresent their signatures as those of the Authorized Signers. 22


These mortgage-related documents were fraudulently notarized by defendants’ 1

employees and/or employees of their agents who knew the Authorized Signer did not 2

actually sign the documents. 3

c) These unauthorized signing and notarization practices allowed defendants, and others to 4

generate greater profit and make more money at the expense of their victims, including 5

the Plaintiff. 6

d) After these false documents were signed and notarized, defendants filed them through the 7

mails or by electronic methods with local county property records offices, including the 8

Plaintiff’s county. Many of these documents, particularly mortgage assignments and lost 9

note or assignment affidavits, including those pertaining to Plaintiff’s property, were later 10

relied upon in non-judicial foreclosure proceedings and court proceedings, including 11

property foreclosures and in federal bankruptcy court. Defendants knew that these 12

property recorders, as well as those who received the documents such as courts, title 13

insurers, and homeowners/borrowers, relied on these documents as genuine. 14

e) Defendants their agents and cohorts and others also took various steps to conceal their 15

actions from detection from consumers/borrowers/homeowners (including the Plaintiff), 16

courts, law enforcement authorities, our government and others. 17

18

f) On or about January 28, 2009, MERS, DLJ, Loan Acquisition Corporation (another Beal 19

company, LNV and MGC and/or their agents caused to be delivered to Gonzales, 20

Louisiana, by United States Postal Service or by commercial interstate carrier from 21

MGC, DLJ or LNV or Beal an Assignment of Mortgage filed with the Parish Recorder 22


for Ascension Parish Louisiana, with false and fraudulent signatures of Authorized 1

Signers and which bore a false and fraudulent notarization attestation and which 2

contained other false representations. 3

g) Defendants knew that these documents would be relied on and considered as genuine by 4

attorneys, courts and law enforcement officials to the detriment of the Plaintiff. Such 5

false representations were made willfully by defendants with intent to unjustly deprive 6

Plaintiff of her property. 7

h) In fact defendants used these fraudulent documents to initiate foreclosure and sheriff sale 8

on Plaintiff’s home scheduled for September 28, 2013, when they knew they in fact did 9

not have legal standing to do so. 10

Plaintiff suffered significant pecuniary loss, personal injury, inconvenience, discomfort, and 11

substantial mental distress as a result of the defendants’ acts of intentional and willful fraud 12

perpetrated toward her with intent of defrauding her of her money and property. 13

14

COUNT III 15

Conspiracy to Defraud in Mortgage Origination, Securitization and Servicing 16

Beal, LNV, Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc., (hereafter referred to as Dovenmuehle) and MGC 17

along with SPS, MERSCORP Holdings Inc., (hereafter referred to as MERS), Credit Suisse, DLJ 18

Mortgage Capital Inc. (hereafter referred to as DLJ), U.S. Bank, Lime Financial Services, LLC, 19

(hereafter referred to as Lime), and Dean Morris did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, 20

confederate and agree with themselves and with others yet unknown or un-named, to commit 21

certain offenses and acts of fraud to execute and attempt to execute a scheme and artifice to 22


defraud Plaintiff and target her for a loan that they knew would never be legally securitized and 1

that they intended would default causing injury to Plaintiff. Plaintiff was specifically targeted for 2

this fraud because she was a female head-of-household and the sole signer on her mortgage. 3

This criterion was used by defendants to target minorities and other vulnerable consumer 4

groups (including seniors and female head of households) for highly predatory mortgage loans 5

and for financial fraud. 6

Plaintiff relied on the material misrepresentations made by named Defendants to her 7

detriment. Defendants did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate and agree 8

with themselves and with others to commit certain offenses and acts of fraud to execute and 9

attempt to execute a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means 10

of material false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises for the purpose of 11

executing such scheme and artifice which directly caused Plaintiff to suffer significant pecuniary 12

loss, personal injury, inconvenience, discomfort, and substantial mental distress as a result. 13

Shortly after origination, evidence shows that Plaintiff’s mortgage was sold to “CSMC 14

2007-CF1” or “the Trust”. However, there are no admissions or evidence by way of assignments 15

filed with Plaintiff’s parish recorder’s office that this ever happened. 16

The entire sale of the Plaintiff’s loan, and its presence within the Trust, were intentionally 17

glossed over and hidden in the loan’s chain of title history; this was done with intent to defraud. 18

The goal in this scheme was / is to expedite or manufacture a so-called default by the borrowers 19

of the underlying loans in order to trigger the insurance clauses in the Trust’s Prospectus. 20


No assignment was ever recorded evidencing a sale from Lime Financial Services, 1

LTD to any other Trust entity or the Trust itself. THIS REPRESENTS A NON-CURABLE 2

BREAK IN THE CHAIN OF TITLE. 3

Loans that made up “pools” in the Trust were essentially converted into stock certificates. 4

Investors in the Trust purchased certificates that did not provide them with an undivided interest 5

in any one particular loan/mortgage. Thus the original terms and conditions of the mortgages and 6

deeds of trust were changed without the borrowers’ (i.e. Plaintiff’s) consent. This constitutes 7

breach of contract, and violates the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and RESPA. 8

Plaintiff’s property after this point was no longer collateral for the loan. 9

Because the Plaintiff’s loan has been paid off, a deed of reconveyance should have been issued 10

in the plaintiff’s parish extinguishing the Assignment of Mortgage. No other party can now have 11

standing to attempt a foreclosure. 12

Constitutional standing under Article III requires, at a minimum, that a party must have suffered 13

some actual or threatened injury as a result of the Plaintiff’s conduct, that the injury be traced to 14

the challenged action, and that it is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Valley Forge 15

Christian Coll. V. Am. United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982); 16

United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group, Inc. 517 U.S. 544, 551, 17

(1996). 18

Standing requires that a party, in this case LNV , MGC or Dovenmuehle will suffer financial loss 19

derived from non-performance (i.e., nonpayment) of the Plaintiffs contract with Lime Financial 20

Services, LTD. 21


The “Seller” of the loans into the Trust, DLJ, purchased Plaintiff’s loan / mortgage from Lime 1

Financial Services, Ltd on April 2, 2007. Lime Financial Services was paid for Plaintiff’s non-2

performance after April 2, 2007. 3

DLJ received payment for Plaintiff’s loan from the Depositor when her loan was sold into the 4

Trust. The Depositor sold certificates to investors and used the proceeds to purchase the loans. 5

The Certificate holders/ investors were made “whole” and were not harmed as a result of any 6

borrower’s failure to make monthly payments. DLJ therefor was not harmed by any alleged non-7

performance by Plaintiff. (Note: Plaintiff remained current on her loan while it was in the Trust,) 8

None of the sale transactions were documented or recorded in Plaintiff’s public land records. 9

Although Plaintiff has evidence that the loan went into Trust “CSMC 2007-CF1” upon Plaintiff’s 10

request for the PSA from the Securities Exchange Commission, she learned that the said Trust 11

was never filed which is suggestive of further securitization fraud. Furthermore, a key step in the 12

securitization process is the physical delivery and endorsement of the promissory note and 13

mortgage. LNV Corp. provided a copy of the original note in the request for foreclosure and 14

MGC provided a copy upon request and there are no signatures on that copy indicating that the 15

note and mortgage was never physically delivered to the trust. It also indicates that Beal, LNV, 16

MGC and Dovenmuehle should have known of the fraud upon obtaining a copy of a blank note. 17

In addition, they should have known that any transfer / sale from DLJ was not valid being that 18

DLJ had no rights to sale / transfer from a trust with no signatures transferring the note into the 19

trust. Failure to physically deliver the note and mortgage to the trust and failure to record the 20

assignments and sales of the trust entities, and the failure to disclose the Trust’s interest in the 21

Plaintiff’s note and mortgage and subsequent payoff of such, creates a fatal defect in the chain of 22


title and chain of trustee that cannot be re-engineered. Any party attempting to claim ownership 1

of the Plaintiff’s note and mortgage after April 2, 2007 has “unclean hands” 2

Beal, LNV, MGC and Dovenmuehle acquired Plaintiff’s loan as stolen good from DLJ. The Jan. 3

5, 2009 Assignment whereby DLJ attempts to assign, sell, convey, and deliver the note and 4

mortgage to “LNV Corporation”, in which it had no authority, and should have known of the 5

fraud. 6

The assignment of Mortgage filed with Plaintiff’s Clerk of Court, public land records contain 7

false information and forgeries. The “robo-signed” signatures and other material 8

misrepresentations in an attempt to obfuscate the truth. This legal instrument was fabricated to 9

steal Plaintiff’s home through fraud. If these defendants in truth had lagal standing to foreclose 10

they would not have needed to fabricate this fraudulent instrument to give the appearance of such 11

standing. 12

Plaintiff suffered significant pecuniary loss, personal injury, inconvenience, discomfort, and 13 14 substantial mental distress as a result of the defendants’ acts of intentional and willful fraud 15 16 perpetrated toward her with intent of defrauding her of her money and her property. 17

18

COUNT IV 19

Conspiracy to Defraud in Mortgage Servicing: Fabricated Default 20 21 Plaintiff received a letter dated August 15, 2008 from Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, 22

(hereafter referred to as SPS), stating that the servicing of the loan would be transferred effective 23

Sept. 1, 2008 to MGC Mortgage. A few days later Plaintiff phoned MGC to ask where to and 24

how to make payments since her Sept. 1st payment was coming due and MGC failed to send any 25

welcome letter or payment information. 26


MGC’s customer service told Plaintiff that the transfer had not taken place yet and 1

her loan was not in their system. MGC told Plaintiff as soon as the transfer was final they 2

would send her a welcome letter and payment information. After many weeks this still had 3

not happened. Plaintiff phoned MGC periodically and was always told the same thing and 4

reassured that all fees and penalties would be waived because their company caused the 5

delay. 6

On or around Nov. 4, 2008 Plaintiff received a letter dated Oct. 27, 2008 stating that 7

SPS would again become the servicer of her loan effective Oct. 30, 2008. Plaintiff 8

immediately phoned SPS and was informed the servicing transfer to MGC Mortgage had 9

failed to finalize; they were again was the servicer, but the loan number had changed. 10

Plaintiff attempted to make her Sept., Oct. and Nov. payments by phone (she had been 11

unable to do so due to MGC’s failure to service her loan and held the funds until the time she 12

could make these payments) but SPS told her that since the loan was in default late fees, 13

penalties and a two transfer fee’s had been added. These added fees were unexpected and 14

exorbitant. SPS refused to accept a partial payment and Plaintiff did not have the extra funds 15

to cover them. Plaintiff has continuously disputed these extra fees to no avail. 16

According to the Servicing Disclosure Statement Plaintiff received and signed at 17

closing this is a violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act [12 U.S.C. 27 et seq.] 18

(“RESPA”) 19

This conduct is also a violation of LA CC Art 2003; Obligee in bad faith which states: 20

“An obligee may not recover damages when his own bad faith has caused the obligor's 21

failure to perform or when, at the time of the contract, he has concealed from the obligor 22

facts that he knew or should have known would cause a failure. If the obligee's negligence 23


contributes to the obligor's failure to perform, the damages are reduced in proportion to that 1

negligence. 2

This is also a violation of Federal Trade Commission Acts (15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., 3

(Consumer Credit Protection, Fair Debt Collection and Truth in Lending Acts). 4

Thinking she had no choice but to pay the excessive fees, Plaintiff eventually agreed 5

to a forbearance plan with SPS. Then on or about Aug 17, 2009 Plaintiff received another 6

letter from SPS dated Aug. 13, 2009 stating that servicing was again transferring to MGC 7

Mortgage effective Sept. 1, 2009. 8

After what happened with the first transfer Plaintiff was very distressed that a repeat 9

of 2008 ordeal might occur. The transfer to MGC actually occurred this time and Plaintiff 10

sent $400.00 every two weeks as per the forbearance plan she had with SPS. HOWEVER 11

MGC returned every check she sent them. Plaintiff set up automatic payments to MGC 12

through her bank so she would have indisputable evidence she attempted to make her 13

payments. 14

Plaintiff consistently disputed the ongoing misappropriation of her payments, MGC’s 15

refusal to accept her payments and the excessive fees that MGC continually added to her 16

account to no avail. Some MGC employees told her they would honor her forbearance 17

agreement with SPS, while others said they would not because they had no record of the 18

agreement. All this caused the Plaintiff considerable mental anguish and despair. 19

Automatic checks were sent from Plaintiff’s account every two weeks with the first 20

check dated Oct. 16, 2009 until Feb. 12, 2010 when Plaintiff had the checks stopped because 21

of the letter she received from Dean Morris’s office dated Feb. 16, 2010 about foreclosure. 22


This has been a deliberate scheme to place Plaintiff’s loan in default and extort excess 1

fees from her and steal her home. SPS and MGC knowingly misrepresented material fact 2

with intent to deceive Plaintiff. Plaintiff relied on their misinformation to her detriment has 3

suffered injury as a result. 4

MGC and LNV threatened foreclosure with intent to force Plainitff into agreeing to 5

an exceptionally unfair “loan modification” that would have increased the principal balance 6

on her loan from $61,070.05 to $83,861.12. MGC wanted Plaintiff to sign an agreement to 7

waive all her rights to seek redress. The content of this waiver is quoted below: 8

WAIVER 9

“As a material inducement to lender to enter into this agreement, each borrower, on behalf of 10

himself and herself and his and her successors, assigns, heirs, legal representatives and 11

constituents (whether or not a party hereto)(borrower and such successors, assigns, heirs, 12

legal representatives and constituents being referred to herein collectively and individually, 13

as “obligors, et al.”). hereby fully, finally and completely release and forever discharge 14

original lender, lender and their respective successors, assigns, affiliates, subsidiaries, 15

parents, officers, shareholders, directors, employees, attorneys and agents, past, present and 16

future, and their respective heirs, predecessors, successors and assigns (collectively and 17

individually, “lender, et al.”) of and from any and all claims, controversies, disputes, 18

liabilities, obligations, demands, damages, expenses (including, without limitation, 19

reasonable attorneys’ fees), debts, liens, actions and causes of action of any and every nature 20

whatsoever including, without limitation any thereof relating to the loan, and waive and 21

release any defense right of counterclaim, right of set off or deduction to the payment of the 22

indebtedness evidenced by the note and/or mortgage or any other loan document which 23


obligors, et al. now have or may claim to have against lender, et al., or any thereof, arising 1

out of, connected with or relating to any and all acts, omissions or events occurring prior to 2

the execution of this agreement.” 3

Plaintiff refused to sign MGC’s waiver. She instead reached out to other victims of 4

MGC, LNV and D. Andrew Beal; and learned that between June or July 2008 until 2010 5

MGC used the same pattern of fraud with other homeowners. 6

Plaintiff learned about deed assignments and the legal requirements pertaining to 7

chain of title in land records. She discovered that land records filed in her Parish allegedly 8

assigning her Assignment of Mortgage to LNV had been forged. She learned about 9

securitization and that her loan had been securitized into a Credit Suisse Trust, 10

LNV has no standing to foreclose on Plaintiff’s loan. 11

Defendant Beal is the President/Director of LNV. Beal is the primary beneficiary of profits 12

derived from LNV’s and MGC’s fraudulent business activities. Beal has established 13

hundreds to thousands of companies, including LNV and MGC for purposes of fraud, money 14

laundering and tax evasion. 15

COUNT V 16

Pattern of Criminal Activity Prohibited Under 18 USC Chapter 96 17

This action is brought pursuant to the provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 18

Organizations Act (“RICO”) 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. This Court has subject matter 19

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 18 USC 1341, 18 USC 1343, 20


In January 2009 defendants used mail or by other commercial interstate carrier to file a 1

fraudulent assignment of mortgage in the Parish of Ascension, State of Louisiana’s public 2

land records located at the Clerk Of Courts Office in Ascension against the property owned 3

by Plaintiff. The RICO statutes provides that a private cause of action to any person who has 4

been injured in their business or property by reason of a qualifying enterprise's affairs 5

through a pattern of acts indictable as mail or wire fraud 18 USC 1964(c). The named 6

defendants above has devised schemes to defraud the plaintiff in such ways that is irreparable, 7

ranging from mailing fraudulent servicing transfers, fraudulent assignments filed with the 8

public land records against Plaintiffs property, false information about Plaintiffs Trustee and 9

Servicer on MERS website, and false information by telephone in communications with the 10

Plaintiff. 11

Plaintiff received correspondence stating that the servicer had transferred to a new servicer 12

when in fact it had not. With three months of constant telephone calls to the servicer that the 13

correspondence indicated was the new servicer and being told that the servicing had not yet 14

transferred, Plaintiff was mislead to believe that as soon as the transfer had finalized she 15

could make the payments without any negative effects. The servicing transferred right back to 16

the original servicer then putting Plaintiff into default. Plaintiff relied on both the 17

correspondences and telephone conversations and was harmed in the process by the default 18

and a large amount of fees. 19

A person commits mail fraud whenever that person, having devised any scheme to defraud, 20

uses the mail or any private or commercial carrier while executing that scheme satisfies the 18 21

USC 1341. Thus being done when correspondences were sent to Plaintiff with a bogus 22

servicing transfer. 23


A person commits wire fraud whenever that person, having devised any scheme to defraud, 1

transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio or television communication in 2

interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures or sounds for the purpose 3

of executing the scheme 18 USC 1343. Thus being done through telephone communications 4

to which MGC stated that they would soon be sending a welcome letter and that there would 5

be no ill effects harming the Plaintiff for their delays. 6

MERS is also in violation to the later. When Plaintiff received letters sating LNV 7

Corporation was the lender she turned to MERS website to see if such transfer had occurred. 8

MERS website indicated that while SPS was servicer, U.S. Bank was Trustee and still 9

showing active as long as May 13, 2012 (which Plaintiff did not check again until April 1, 10

2013). Plaintiff contacted MERS via telephone inquiring on this information and was told 11

that they could not give her any information other than what was showing on their website. 12

MERS purports to show to the homeowner and the public as to the true identity of the 13

Trustee and servicer at all times being that do not think it is necessary to record mortgage 14

assignment transfers in public land records as long as they are named mortgagee. 15

The above named defendants committed fraud upon the courts and the Plaintiff for filing 16

falsified documents, false statements to the Plaintiff and the public on their website, false 17

statements in communications with the Plaintiff and false statements in correspondences. 18

19

FURTHERMORE; 20

Plaintiff is filing this complaint pro-se because she has no choice. She is doing so at a horrific 21

disadvantage, but is helpless to do otherwise. Due to the named Defendant’s criminal actions 22 23


and the impact of their criminal activities on the general economy which in turn impacts the 1

resources available to government agencies appointed with the duty of protecting consumers 2

against fraud, no funding exists to provide effective legal assistance to homeowners 3

victimized by the Defendants’ crimes or to provide them with recourse to seek effective legal 4

remedy. 5

6

VI PRAYER FOR RELIEF 7

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows: 8

1. That the Court determines that it has jurisdiction over this action; 9

2. That a judgment be entered against defendants in favor of Plaintiff for 10

injunctive relief and declaratory relief, and for equitable monetary 11

relief in the nature of disgorgement, in amounts to be determined at 12

trial; 13

3. That the Court award damages for tortuous injury and personal injury 14

and other equitable relief to Plaintiff, in amounts to be determined at 15

trial; 16

4. That the Court award actual damages to Plaintiff, in amounts to be 17

determined at trial; 18

5. That the Court awards threefold actual damages to Plaintiff, as per the 19

RICO Statutes. 20

6. That the court appoint a pro-bono counsel(s) to assist Plaintiff in 21

discovery and at trial; 22

Depew v. D. Andrew Beal et al

Documents

Transcript of Depew v. D. Andrew Beal et al