SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

STATE OF WASHINGTONSTEVENS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

SAMUEL SALMON AND ROXY SALMON

PLAINTIFF

VS

BANK OF AMERICA RECONTRUST

MERS AND MERSCORP INC

DEFENDANT

))))))))))

CASE NO 10-2-00596-8

COMPLAINT FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PERMANENT INJUCTION FORGERY AND REMUNERATION

SUMMARY OF THE ACTION

Plaintiff Samuel and Roxy Salmon are commencing this action

against Defendant BANK OF AMERICA RECONTRUST and MERS for

illegally representing them selves as lender trustee and

beneficiary of the NOTE signed by plaintiff Samuel Salmon

referenced by Deeds of Trust exhibits (AB and D) filed at

Stevens County Assessors office The Plaintiff alleges the

defendant Bank of America FKA Countrywide illegally collected

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NOTE remuneration from the Plaintiff on the Note referenced by

said deeds of trust and are fraudulently claiming to be the

lender trustee and or beneficiary of the NOTE Plaintiff will

in the pleading show the Defendant blatantly violated Washington

State Codes (RCWrsquos) Plaintiff has also listed several court

cases showing the Defendant MERS or their banking partners

inability to produce the Notes in question or proper

endorsements showing clear chain of title proving ownership of

the Note thereby loosing standing in their claim The original

Notes have not been simply produced to show standing in their

claims Plaintiff alleges the Defendant has sold the Note

thereby already receiving remuneration on the Note evidencing

the huge derivatives debacle as securities have been sold and no

one seems to know where the NOTE is Plaintiff alleges the copy

of the NOTE produced by the trustee Recontrust is in fact a

forgery Plaintiff will show evidence of all that the Plaintiff

alleges so Court may relieve the Plaintiff of injury from

Defendantrsquos claims on Plaintiffrsquos personal real property and

Defendantrsquos intent to fraudulently sell Plaintiffs personal real

property thereby pleading with Court to issue a temporary

restraining order preliminary injunction and permanent

injunction based on the following Revised Code of Washington

(RCW) blatant violations and Court case evidence Plaintiff will

show reason for requesting a full remuneration of all illegally

collected payments and fees

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Stevens County Superior Court has jurisdiction pursuant to

RCW 740010 Restraining orders and injunctions may be granted by

the superior court or by any judge thereof

Venue is correct pursuant to

RCW 412010 Actions to be commenced where subject is situated

Also RCW 740040 RCW 740020 RCW 6404010 RCW 6404020

RCW 6124005 RCW 6124010 RCW 6124030 RCW 6124020 RCW

6404020 RCW 6508070 RCW 9A60020 RCW 9A56320 RCW

1037080 RCW 62A5-109 RCW 6512750

EXHIBITS

Exhibit (AampB) Deeds of Trust on file at Stevens County Recorders

Office Auditors File 2007 0012467 2007 0012468

Exhibit (C) ldquoNotice of Defaultrdquo was issued by Bank of America on

property located at 917 A PHILPOTT ROAD COLVILLE WA 99114 post

marked September 02 2010

Exhibit (D) The ldquoCorporation Assignment of Deed of Trust at

Stevens County Recorders Office Auditors File 2010 0007023rdquo

recorded September 23 2010

Exhibit (E) ldquoNotice to Resident of property subject to

foreclosure salerdquo was issued by Bank of America on property

located at 917 A PHILPOTT ROAD COLVILLE WA 99114 on October 21

2010

Exhibit (F) Forgery of alleged Note dated October 19 2007

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

PARTIES

Plaintiff Samuel and Roxy Salmon owners and residents of real

property description LOT(S) 3 OF SHORT PLAT NO SP 33-96

LOCATED IN THE SW14 OF SECTION 21 TOWNSHIP 34 NORTH RANGE 39

EAST WM IN STEVENS COUNTY WASHINGTON ACCORDING TO PLAT

RECORDED NOVEMBER 14 1996 UNDER AUDITORS FILE NO9612321 or

known as 917C Philpott Rd Colville WA 99114

Defendant Bank Of America Corporation listed as beneficiary on

Exhibit (D) with principal executive offices located at 100 North

Tryon Street Charlotte North Carolina BOA is traded on the

NYSE under the symbol ldquoBACrdquo Summons will be served at Bank of

Americarsquos local branch located at 225 E 1St Ave Colville WA

99114 (509) 684-2551

Individual Defendants

Brian Thomas Moynihan Bank of America CEO since Jan 2010

Kenneth D Lewis Bank of America CEO from April 2001 to Jan

2010

Defendant ReconTrust Company NA listed trustee on Exhibit (D)

is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America NA and has no

known physical street address or phone number in the State of

Washington

Defendant MERS Mortgage Electronic Registration System listed

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

as beneficiary on Exhibits (AB and D) is a wholly owned

subsidiary of MERSCorp Inc MersCorp was created in the early

1990rsquos by the former CEOrsquos of Fannie Mae Freddie Mac Indy

Mac Countrywide Stewart Title Insurance and the American Land

Title Association MERSrsquo principal place of business at 1595

Spring Hill Road Suite 310 Vienna Virginia 22182 MERSrsquo

national data center is located in Plano Texas

Individual Defendants

R K Arnold President and CEO Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems Inc

FACT I

On October 19 2007 Plaintiffs Samuel Salmon and Roxy E Salmon

executed a promissory note in the original principal amount of

$40942253 for the purchase of their home The Note was made

payable to Countrywide Bank The Note was secured by a Deed of

Trust on the home The Deed of Trust identifies the beneficiary

as ldquoMortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc (lsquoMERSrsquo)rdquo and

states that ldquoMERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely

as nominee for Lender and Lenderrsquos successors and assignsrdquo The

ldquoLenderrdquo is identified as Countrywide Bank The Trustee is

identified as ldquoLandsafe Title of Washingtonrdquo

Landsafe Title of Washington was a subsidiary of Countrywide

Bank as stated on Securities Information website from the SEC

EDGAR database httpwwwsecinfocomdxj8536htm1stPage

which makes Landsafe Title of Washington the original Trustee

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NOTE remuneration from the Plaintiff on the Note referenced by

said deeds of trust and are fraudulently claiming to be the

lender trustee and or beneficiary of the NOTE Plaintiff will

in the pleading show the Defendant blatantly violated Washington

State Codes (RCWrsquos) Plaintiff has also listed several court

cases showing the Defendant MERS or their banking partners

inability to produce the Notes in question or proper

endorsements showing clear chain of title proving ownership of

the Note thereby loosing standing in their claim The original

Notes have not been simply produced to show standing in their

claims Plaintiff alleges the Defendant has sold the Note

thereby already receiving remuneration on the Note evidencing

the huge derivatives debacle as securities have been sold and no

one seems to know where the NOTE is Plaintiff alleges the copy

of the NOTE produced by the trustee Recontrust is in fact a

forgery Plaintiff will show evidence of all that the Plaintiff

alleges so Court may relieve the Plaintiff of injury from

Defendantrsquos claims on Plaintiffrsquos personal real property and

Defendantrsquos intent to fraudulently sell Plaintiffs personal real

property thereby pleading with Court to issue a temporary

restraining order preliminary injunction and permanent

injunction based on the following Revised Code of Washington

(RCW) blatant violations and Court case evidence Plaintiff will

show reason for requesting a full remuneration of all illegally

collected payments and fees

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Stevens County Superior Court has jurisdiction pursuant to

RCW 740010 Restraining orders and injunctions may be granted by

the superior court or by any judge thereof

Venue is correct pursuant to

RCW 412010 Actions to be commenced where subject is situated

Also RCW 740040 RCW 740020 RCW 6404010 RCW 6404020

RCW 6124005 RCW 6124010 RCW 6124030 RCW 6124020 RCW

6404020 RCW 6508070 RCW 9A60020 RCW 9A56320 RCW

1037080 RCW 62A5-109 RCW 6512750

EXHIBITS

Exhibit (AampB) Deeds of Trust on file at Stevens County Recorders

Office Auditors File 2007 0012467 2007 0012468

Exhibit (C) ldquoNotice of Defaultrdquo was issued by Bank of America on

property located at 917 A PHILPOTT ROAD COLVILLE WA 99114 post

marked September 02 2010

Exhibit (D) The ldquoCorporation Assignment of Deed of Trust at

Stevens County Recorders Office Auditors File 2010 0007023rdquo

recorded September 23 2010

Exhibit (E) ldquoNotice to Resident of property subject to

foreclosure salerdquo was issued by Bank of America on property

located at 917 A PHILPOTT ROAD COLVILLE WA 99114 on October 21

2010

Exhibit (F) Forgery of alleged Note dated October 19 2007

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

PARTIES

Plaintiff Samuel and Roxy Salmon owners and residents of real

property description LOT(S) 3 OF SHORT PLAT NO SP 33-96

LOCATED IN THE SW14 OF SECTION 21 TOWNSHIP 34 NORTH RANGE 39

EAST WM IN STEVENS COUNTY WASHINGTON ACCORDING TO PLAT

RECORDED NOVEMBER 14 1996 UNDER AUDITORS FILE NO9612321 or

known as 917C Philpott Rd Colville WA 99114

Defendant Bank Of America Corporation listed as beneficiary on

Exhibit (D) with principal executive offices located at 100 North

Tryon Street Charlotte North Carolina BOA is traded on the

NYSE under the symbol ldquoBACrdquo Summons will be served at Bank of

Americarsquos local branch located at 225 E 1St Ave Colville WA

99114 (509) 684-2551

Individual Defendants

Brian Thomas Moynihan Bank of America CEO since Jan 2010

Kenneth D Lewis Bank of America CEO from April 2001 to Jan

2010

Defendant ReconTrust Company NA listed trustee on Exhibit (D)

is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America NA and has no

known physical street address or phone number in the State of

Washington

Defendant MERS Mortgage Electronic Registration System listed

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

as beneficiary on Exhibits (AB and D) is a wholly owned

subsidiary of MERSCorp Inc MersCorp was created in the early

1990rsquos by the former CEOrsquos of Fannie Mae Freddie Mac Indy

Mac Countrywide Stewart Title Insurance and the American Land

Title Association MERSrsquo principal place of business at 1595

Spring Hill Road Suite 310 Vienna Virginia 22182 MERSrsquo

national data center is located in Plano Texas

Individual Defendants

R K Arnold President and CEO Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems Inc

FACT I

On October 19 2007 Plaintiffs Samuel Salmon and Roxy E Salmon

executed a promissory note in the original principal amount of

$40942253 for the purchase of their home The Note was made

payable to Countrywide Bank The Note was secured by a Deed of

Trust on the home The Deed of Trust identifies the beneficiary

as ldquoMortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc (lsquoMERSrsquo)rdquo and

states that ldquoMERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely

as nominee for Lender and Lenderrsquos successors and assignsrdquo The

ldquoLenderrdquo is identified as Countrywide Bank The Trustee is

identified as ldquoLandsafe Title of Washingtonrdquo

Landsafe Title of Washington was a subsidiary of Countrywide

Bank as stated on Securities Information website from the SEC

EDGAR database httpwwwsecinfocomdxj8536htm1stPage

which makes Landsafe Title of Washington the original Trustee

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Stevens County Superior Court has jurisdiction pursuant to

RCW 740010 Restraining orders and injunctions may be granted by

the superior court or by any judge thereof

Venue is correct pursuant to

RCW 412010 Actions to be commenced where subject is situated

Also RCW 740040 RCW 740020 RCW 6404010 RCW 6404020

RCW 6124005 RCW 6124010 RCW 6124030 RCW 6124020 RCW

6404020 RCW 6508070 RCW 9A60020 RCW 9A56320 RCW

1037080 RCW 62A5-109 RCW 6512750

EXHIBITS

Exhibit (AampB) Deeds of Trust on file at Stevens County Recorders

Office Auditors File 2007 0012467 2007 0012468

Exhibit (C) ldquoNotice of Defaultrdquo was issued by Bank of America on

property located at 917 A PHILPOTT ROAD COLVILLE WA 99114 post

marked September 02 2010

Exhibit (D) The ldquoCorporation Assignment of Deed of Trust at

Stevens County Recorders Office Auditors File 2010 0007023rdquo

recorded September 23 2010

Exhibit (E) ldquoNotice to Resident of property subject to

foreclosure salerdquo was issued by Bank of America on property

located at 917 A PHILPOTT ROAD COLVILLE WA 99114 on October 21

2010

Exhibit (F) Forgery of alleged Note dated October 19 2007

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

PARTIES

Plaintiff Samuel and Roxy Salmon owners and residents of real

property description LOT(S) 3 OF SHORT PLAT NO SP 33-96

LOCATED IN THE SW14 OF SECTION 21 TOWNSHIP 34 NORTH RANGE 39

EAST WM IN STEVENS COUNTY WASHINGTON ACCORDING TO PLAT

RECORDED NOVEMBER 14 1996 UNDER AUDITORS FILE NO9612321 or

known as 917C Philpott Rd Colville WA 99114

Defendant Bank Of America Corporation listed as beneficiary on

Exhibit (D) with principal executive offices located at 100 North

Tryon Street Charlotte North Carolina BOA is traded on the

NYSE under the symbol ldquoBACrdquo Summons will be served at Bank of

Americarsquos local branch located at 225 E 1St Ave Colville WA

99114 (509) 684-2551

Individual Defendants

Brian Thomas Moynihan Bank of America CEO since Jan 2010

Kenneth D Lewis Bank of America CEO from April 2001 to Jan

2010

Defendant ReconTrust Company NA listed trustee on Exhibit (D)

is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America NA and has no

known physical street address or phone number in the State of

Washington

Defendant MERS Mortgage Electronic Registration System listed

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

as beneficiary on Exhibits (AB and D) is a wholly owned

subsidiary of MERSCorp Inc MersCorp was created in the early

1990rsquos by the former CEOrsquos of Fannie Mae Freddie Mac Indy

Mac Countrywide Stewart Title Insurance and the American Land

Title Association MERSrsquo principal place of business at 1595

Spring Hill Road Suite 310 Vienna Virginia 22182 MERSrsquo

national data center is located in Plano Texas

Individual Defendants

R K Arnold President and CEO Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems Inc

FACT I

On October 19 2007 Plaintiffs Samuel Salmon and Roxy E Salmon

executed a promissory note in the original principal amount of

$40942253 for the purchase of their home The Note was made

payable to Countrywide Bank The Note was secured by a Deed of

Trust on the home The Deed of Trust identifies the beneficiary

as ldquoMortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc (lsquoMERSrsquo)rdquo and

states that ldquoMERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely

as nominee for Lender and Lenderrsquos successors and assignsrdquo The

ldquoLenderrdquo is identified as Countrywide Bank The Trustee is

identified as ldquoLandsafe Title of Washingtonrdquo

Landsafe Title of Washington was a subsidiary of Countrywide

Bank as stated on Securities Information website from the SEC

EDGAR database httpwwwsecinfocomdxj8536htm1stPage

which makes Landsafe Title of Washington the original Trustee

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

PARTIES

Plaintiff Samuel and Roxy Salmon owners and residents of real

property description LOT(S) 3 OF SHORT PLAT NO SP 33-96

LOCATED IN THE SW14 OF SECTION 21 TOWNSHIP 34 NORTH RANGE 39

EAST WM IN STEVENS COUNTY WASHINGTON ACCORDING TO PLAT

RECORDED NOVEMBER 14 1996 UNDER AUDITORS FILE NO9612321 or

known as 917C Philpott Rd Colville WA 99114

Defendant Bank Of America Corporation listed as beneficiary on

Exhibit (D) with principal executive offices located at 100 North

Tryon Street Charlotte North Carolina BOA is traded on the

NYSE under the symbol ldquoBACrdquo Summons will be served at Bank of

Americarsquos local branch located at 225 E 1St Ave Colville WA

99114 (509) 684-2551

Individual Defendants

Brian Thomas Moynihan Bank of America CEO since Jan 2010

Kenneth D Lewis Bank of America CEO from April 2001 to Jan

2010

Defendant ReconTrust Company NA listed trustee on Exhibit (D)

is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America NA and has no

known physical street address or phone number in the State of

Washington

Defendant MERS Mortgage Electronic Registration System listed

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

as beneficiary on Exhibits (AB and D) is a wholly owned

subsidiary of MERSCorp Inc MersCorp was created in the early

1990rsquos by the former CEOrsquos of Fannie Mae Freddie Mac Indy

Mac Countrywide Stewart Title Insurance and the American Land

Title Association MERSrsquo principal place of business at 1595

Spring Hill Road Suite 310 Vienna Virginia 22182 MERSrsquo

national data center is located in Plano Texas

Individual Defendants

R K Arnold President and CEO Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems Inc

FACT I

On October 19 2007 Plaintiffs Samuel Salmon and Roxy E Salmon

executed a promissory note in the original principal amount of

$40942253 for the purchase of their home The Note was made

payable to Countrywide Bank The Note was secured by a Deed of

Trust on the home The Deed of Trust identifies the beneficiary

as ldquoMortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc (lsquoMERSrsquo)rdquo and

states that ldquoMERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely

as nominee for Lender and Lenderrsquos successors and assignsrdquo The

ldquoLenderrdquo is identified as Countrywide Bank The Trustee is

identified as ldquoLandsafe Title of Washingtonrdquo

Landsafe Title of Washington was a subsidiary of Countrywide

Bank as stated on Securities Information website from the SEC

EDGAR database httpwwwsecinfocomdxj8536htm1stPage

which makes Landsafe Title of Washington the original Trustee

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

as beneficiary on Exhibits (AB and D) is a wholly owned

subsidiary of MERSCorp Inc MersCorp was created in the early

1990rsquos by the former CEOrsquos of Fannie Mae Freddie Mac Indy

Mac Countrywide Stewart Title Insurance and the American Land

Title Association MERSrsquo principal place of business at 1595

Spring Hill Road Suite 310 Vienna Virginia 22182 MERSrsquo

national data center is located in Plano Texas

Individual Defendants

R K Arnold President and CEO Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems Inc

FACT I

On October 19 2007 Plaintiffs Samuel Salmon and Roxy E Salmon

executed a promissory note in the original principal amount of

$40942253 for the purchase of their home The Note was made

payable to Countrywide Bank The Note was secured by a Deed of

Trust on the home The Deed of Trust identifies the beneficiary

as ldquoMortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc (lsquoMERSrsquo)rdquo and

states that ldquoMERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely

as nominee for Lender and Lenderrsquos successors and assignsrdquo The

ldquoLenderrdquo is identified as Countrywide Bank The Trustee is

identified as ldquoLandsafe Title of Washingtonrdquo

Landsafe Title of Washington was a subsidiary of Countrywide

Bank as stated on Securities Information website from the SEC

EDGAR database httpwwwsecinfocomdxj8536htm1stPage

which makes Landsafe Title of Washington the original Trustee

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

fiducially responsible to and or an associate of Countrywide

Bank which nullifies this Deed of Trust Exhibits (AampB) as a

binding legal document pursuant to

RCW 6124010 (3) and RCW 6124020

RCW 6124010 (3) The trustee or successor trustee shall have no

fiduciary duty or fiduciary obligation to the grantor or other

persons having an interest in the property subject to the deed of

trust

RCW 6124020 ldquoNo person corporation or association may be both

trustee and beneficiary under the same deed of trustrdquo

FACT II

When Countrywide Bank went out of business for predatory lending

the beneficiary MERS or the trustee Landsafe Title of Washington

never did record the trustee resignation violating RCW 6124010

(2)

Trustee qualifications mdash Successor trustee

(2) The trustee may resign at its own election or be replaced by

the beneficiary The trustee shall give prompt written notice of

its resignation to the beneficiary The resignation of the

trustee shall become effective upon the recording of the notice

of resignation in each county in which the deed of trust is

recorded If a trustee is not appointed in the deed of trust or

upon the resignation incapacity disability absence or death

of the trustee or the election of the beneficiary to replace the

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

trustee the beneficiary shall appoint a trustee or a successor

trustee Only upon recording the appointment of a successor

trustee in each county in which the deed of trust is recorded

the successor trustee shall be vested with all powers of an

original trustee

FACT III

On or about April 1 2009 Bank of America declared itself to be

the new Lender by billing the Plaintiffs for the mortgage

payments Bank of America assumed the position of Lender on the

Deed of Trust Exhibits (AampB) although they failed to file the

conveyance promptly with the local Countyrsquos Auditor again

violating RCW 6124010 (2) and also violating 6404010 RCW

6404020 RCW 6508070 thereby nullifying Notice of Default

Exhibit (C) and The ldquoCorporation Assignment of Deed of Trust at

Stevens County Recorders Office Auditors File 2010 0007023rdquo

recorded September 23 2010 Exhibit (D) This alleged assignment

has the same signer for both MERS and Bank of America How does

this work

RCW 6508070

Real property conveyances to be recorded

A conveyance of real property when acknowledged by the person

executing the same (the acknowledgment being certified as

required by law) may be recorded in the office of the recording

officer of the county where the property is situated Every such

conveyance not so recorded is void as against any subsequent

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

trustee the beneficiary shall appoint a trustee or a successor

trustee Only upon recording the appointment of a successor

trustee in each county in which the deed of trust is recorded

the successor trustee shall be vested with all powers of an

original trustee

FACT III

On or about April 1 2009 Bank of America declared itself to be

the new Lender by billing the Plaintiffs for the mortgage

payments Bank of America assumed the position of Lender on the

Deed of Trust Exhibits (AampB) although they failed to file the

conveyance promptly with the local Countyrsquos Auditor again

violating RCW 6124010 (2) and also violating 6404010 RCW

6404020 RCW 6508070 thereby nullifying Notice of Default

Exhibit (C) and The ldquoCorporation Assignment of Deed of Trust at

Stevens County Recorders Office Auditors File 2010 0007023rdquo

recorded September 23 2010 Exhibit (D) This alleged assignment

has the same signer for both MERS and Bank of America How does

this work

RCW 6508070

Real property conveyances to be recorded

A conveyance of real property when acknowledged by the person

executing the same (the acknowledgment being certified as

required by law) may be recorded in the office of the recording

officer of the county where the property is situated Every such

conveyance not so recorded is void as against any subsequent

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

purchaser or mortgagee in good faith and for a valuable

consideration from the same vendor his heirs or devisees of the

same real property or any portion thereof whose conveyance is

first duly recorded An instrument is deemed recorded the minute

it is filed for record

FACT IV

Before a conveyance was ever assigned by the Defendants a

ldquoNotice of Defaultrdquo was issued by Bank of America on the

Plaintiffs real property located at 917 A PHILPOTT ROAD COLVILLE

WA 99114 post marked September 02 2010 Exhibit (C) At a later

date Exhibit (D) the ldquoCorporation Assignment of Deed of Trust

was filed at Stevens County Recorders Office Auditors File 2010

0007023rdquo recorded September 23 2010 This filing of Exhibit (D)

was filed over a year after the Defendant Bank of America

falsely identified their self as owner of the loan on April 1

2009 and fraudulently collected payments on said promissory note

which is in violation of again stated RCW 6124010 (2) and also

violating 6404010 RCW 6404020RCW 6508070

RCW 6404010

Conveyances and encumbrances to be by deed

Every conveyance of real estate or any interest therein and

every contract creating or evidencing any encumbrance upon real

estate shall be by deed PROVIDED That when real estate or any

interest therein is held in trust the terms and conditions of

which trust are of record and the instrument creating such trust

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

authorizes the issuance of certificates or written evidence of

any interest in said real estate under said trust and authorizes

the transfer of such certificates or evidence of interest by

assignment by the holder thereof by a simple writing or by

endorsement on the back of such certificate or evidence of

interest or delivery thereof to the vendee such transfer shall

be valid and all such assignments or transfers hereby authorized

and heretofore made in accordance with the provisions of this

section are hereby declared to be legal and valid

RCW 6404020

Requisites of a deed

Every deed shall be in writing signed by the party bound

thereby and acknowledged by the party before some person

authorized by this act to take acknowledgments of deeds

FACT V

Plaintiff affirms that According to (Exhibit D) the Corporation

Assignment of Deed of Trust on filed under the authority of

Stevens County Auditor in Stevens County WA that MERS Bank of

America and Recontrust are not legally qualified as a Lender or

Trustee and or the Beneficiary pursuant to RCW 6124010 (3)

(4) and RCW 6124020 as the Trustee ldquoRecontrust Company NA

is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of Americardquo (this statement

is found on the Recontrust web site home page) Therefore

Recontrust is associated with and is fiducially responsible

entirely to the alleged Lender Bank of America

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

RCW 6124010 (3) (4)

Trustee qualifications mdash Successor trustee

(3) The trustee or successor trustee shall have no fiduciary

duty or fiduciary obligation to the grantor or other persons

having an interest in the property subject to the deed of trust

(4) The trustee or successor trustee has a duty of good

faith to the borrower beneficiary and grantor

RCW 6124020

ldquoNo person corporation or association may be both trustee and

beneficiary under the same deed of trustrdquo

FACT VI

The Plaintiff asserts that the Note and Deed of Trust were not

properly assigned to the defendant Bank of America and therefore

has not proven its self as the Legal holder of the Note and Deed

of Trust therefore it lacks standing to enforce any claim on

said property For the reasons that follow the Plaintiff finds

that the Defendant has not proven that it is the holder of the

original Note pursuant to RCW 6124030(7)(aampb) and RCW

6124010 (4)

RCW 6124030

(7) (a) That for residential real property before the notice

of trustees sale is recorded transmitted or served the

trustee shall have proof that the beneficiary is the owner of any

promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

RCW 6124010 (3) (4)

Trustee qualifications mdash Successor trustee

(3) The trustee or successor trustee shall have no fiduciary

duty or fiduciary obligation to the grantor or other persons

having an interest in the property subject to the deed of trust

(4) The trustee or successor trustee has a duty of good

faith to the borrower beneficiary and grantor

RCW 6124020

ldquoNo person corporation or association may be both trustee and

beneficiary under the same deed of trustrdquo

FACT VI

The Plaintiff asserts that the Note and Deed of Trust were not

properly assigned to the defendant Bank of America and therefore

has not proven its self as the Legal holder of the Note and Deed

of Trust therefore it lacks standing to enforce any claim on

said property For the reasons that follow the Plaintiff finds

that the Defendant has not proven that it is the holder of the

original Note pursuant to RCW 6124030(7)(aampb) and RCW

6124010 (4)

RCW 6124030

(7) (a) That for residential real property before the notice

of trustees sale is recorded transmitted or served the

trustee shall have proof that the beneficiary is the owner of any

promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A declaration by the beneficiary made under the penalty of

perjury stating that the beneficiary is the actual holder of the

promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust

shall be sufficient proof as required under this subsection

(7) (b) Unless the trustee has violated his or her duty under

RCW 6124010(4) the trustee is entitled to rely on the

beneficiarys declaration as evidence of proof required under

this subsection

6124010 (4) The trustee or successor trustee has a duty of good

faith to the borrower beneficiary and grantor

Statement

Any proof of Note possession offered by the trustee or

beneficiary other than the production of the actual original Note

is not acceptable due to said Trustee Lender and Beneficiary

violations of stated RCWrsquos therefore it lacks standing to issue

any claim on Plaintiffs property

FACT VII

The Plaintiff affirms that according to the alleged trusteersquos

records and Plaintiffs phone Conversation with Recontrust it

does not have a physical street address in the state of

Washington which is in violation of RCW 6124030 (6)

RCW 6124030 (6)

(6) That prior to the date of the notice of trustees sale and

continuing thereafter through the date of the trustees sale the

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

trustee must maintain a street address in this state where

personal service of process may be made and the trustee must

maintain a physical presence and have telephone service at such

address

FACT VIII

The Deed of Trust contains false representation on its face when

it represented that MERS was a beneficiary under the Deed of

Trust which states that ldquoMERS is a separate corporation that is

acting solely as a Nominee for Lender and Lenderrsquos successors and

assigns MERS as the beneficiary under this Security Instrumentrdquo

MERS is NOT the beneficiary under the Deed of Trust it never had

ownership or possession of the Promissory Note which is the

obligation which is secured by the Deed of Trust and MERS has

never been entitled to receive one cent of remuneration from the

Plaintiffrsquos loan proceeds The statement that MERS is the nominee

is nonsensical language which means nothing in a real estate

transaction and most certainly MERS has never been nor is it now

the beneficiary under the Deed of Trust The language is a sham

MERS is a wholly owned subsidiary of MersCorp Inc MERS has no

interest in the NOTE the LOAN or the REAL PROPERTY therefore

has no authority to transfer the NOTE as a nominee pursuant to

RCW 6124005 (2)

(2) Beneficiary means the holder of the instrument or document

evidencing the obligations secured by the deed of trust

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

excluding persons holding the same as security for a different

obligation

FACT IX

Plaintiff has proven the Trustee Lender and Beneficiary are

illegal in this entire loan process Plaintiff does not recognize

any authority the alleged Claimants or Defendants are making on

Plaintiffs real property as the Deed of Trust is in itself

entirely invalid and the only security for the Note Plaintiff

demands the Defendant produce the original Note with the proper

endorsements for all transfers required by law pursuant RCW

62A3-203 to be submitted for inspection and verification by a

court appointed expert pursuant to RCW 6124030 (6) and (7) (a)

(b) Until then the copy or forgery of the NOTE which was

included with Notice of Trustee sale is not sufficient to

validate any claim Made by the Defendant on the Plaintiffs

possessions and is in violation of Washington forgery laws

pursuant RCW 62A5-109 RCW 1037080 RCW 9A56320 and RCW

9A60020

RCW 9A60020

(1) A person is guilty of forgery if with intent to injure or

defraud

(a) He falsely makes completes or alters a written

instrument or

(b) He possesses utters offers disposes of or puts off

as true a written instrument which he knows to be forged

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

(2) In a proceeding under this section that is related to an

identity theft under RCW 935020 the crime will be considered

to have been committed in any locality where the person whose

means of identification or financial information was appropriated

resides or in which any part of the offense took place

regardless of whether the defendant was ever actually in that

locality

(3) Forgery is a class C felony

CASE EVIDENCE FOR FACT VIII AND FACT IX

MERS important case reference and commentary

MERS v Nebraska Dept of Banking and Finance ndash State Appellate

MERS demands to be recognized as having no actionable interest in

title 2005 Cite as 270 Neb 529

Merscorp Inc et al Respondents v Edward P Romaine amp c

et al Appellants et al Defendant the fact that the Mortgage

and Deed of Trust are separated is recognized (concurring

opinion) While affirming MERS could enter in the records as

ldquonomineerdquo the court recognized many inherent problems Rather

than resolve them they sloughed them off to the legislature

2006

The Boyko Decision -Federal District Judge Christopher Boyko of

the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Ohio Federal

Court overturns 14 foreclosure actions with a well reasoned

opinion outlining the failure of the foreclosing party to prove

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

excluding persons holding the same as security for a different

obligation

FACT IX

Plaintiff has proven the Trustee Lender and Beneficiary are

illegal in this entire loan process Plaintiff does not recognize

any authority the alleged Claimants or Defendants are making on

Plaintiffs real property as the Deed of Trust is in itself

entirely invalid and the only security for the Note Plaintiff

demands the Defendant produce the original Note with the proper

endorsements for all transfers required by law pursuant RCW

62A3-203 to be submitted for inspection and verification by a

court appointed expert pursuant to RCW 6124030 (6) and (7) (a)

(b) Until then the copy or forgery of the NOTE which was

included with Notice of Trustee sale is not sufficient to

validate any claim Made by the Defendant on the Plaintiffs

possessions and is in violation of Washington forgery laws

pursuant RCW 62A5-109 RCW 1037080 RCW 9A56320 and RCW

9A60020

RCW 9A60020

(1) A person is guilty of forgery if with intent to injure or

defraud

(a) He falsely makes completes or alters a written

instrument or

(b) He possesses utters offers disposes of or puts off

as true a written instrument which he knows to be forged

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

(2) In a proceeding under this section that is related to an

identity theft under RCW 935020 the crime will be considered

to have been committed in any locality where the person whose

means of identification or financial information was appropriated

resides or in which any part of the offense took place

regardless of whether the defendant was ever actually in that

locality

(3) Forgery is a class C felony

CASE EVIDENCE FOR FACT VIII AND FACT IX

MERS important case reference and commentary

MERS v Nebraska Dept of Banking and Finance ndash State Appellate

MERS demands to be recognized as having no actionable interest in

title 2005 Cite as 270 Neb 529

Merscorp Inc et al Respondents v Edward P Romaine amp c

et al Appellants et al Defendant the fact that the Mortgage

and Deed of Trust are separated is recognized (concurring

opinion) While affirming MERS could enter in the records as

ldquonomineerdquo the court recognized many inherent problems Rather

than resolve them they sloughed them off to the legislature

2006

The Boyko Decision -Federal District Judge Christopher Boyko of

the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Ohio Federal

Court overturns 14 foreclosure actions with a well reasoned

opinion outlining the failure of the foreclosing party to prove

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

(2) In a proceeding under this section that is related to an

identity theft under RCW 935020 the crime will be considered

to have been committed in any locality where the person whose

means of identification or financial information was appropriated

resides or in which any part of the offense took place

regardless of whether the defendant was ever actually in that

locality

(3) Forgery is a class C felony

CASE EVIDENCE FOR FACT VIII AND FACT IX

MERS important case reference and commentary

MERS v Nebraska Dept of Banking and Finance ndash State Appellate

MERS demands to be recognized as having no actionable interest in

title 2005 Cite as 270 Neb 529

Merscorp Inc et al Respondents v Edward P Romaine amp c

et al Appellants et al Defendant the fact that the Mortgage

and Deed of Trust are separated is recognized (concurring

opinion) While affirming MERS could enter in the records as

ldquonomineerdquo the court recognized many inherent problems Rather

than resolve them they sloughed them off to the legislature

2006

The Boyko Decision -Federal District Judge Christopher Boyko of

the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Ohio Federal

Court overturns 14 foreclosure actions with a well reasoned

opinion outlining the failure of the foreclosing party to prove

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

standing This decision started the movement of challenging the

standing of the foreclosing party Oct 2007

Landmark National Bank v Kesler ndash KS State Supreme Court ndash MERS

has no standing to foreclose and is in fact a straw man Oct

2009

The importance of the findings of the Supreme Court of Kansas

cannot be overemphasized It is generally the law in all states

that if the law of one state has not specifically addressed a

specific legal issue that the court may look to the law of states

which have The Kansas Court acknowledged that the case was one

of ldquofirst impression in Kansasrdquo which is why the Kansas Court

looked to legal decisions from California Idaho New York

Missouri and other states for guidance and to support its

decision As we have previously reported the Ohio Courts have

looked to the legal decisions of New York to resolve issues in

foreclosure defense most notably issues of standing to institute

a foreclosure

It is practically certain that this decision will be the subject

of review by various courts MERS has already threatened a

ldquosecond appealrdquo (by requesting ldquoreconsiderationrdquo by the Supreme

Court of Kansas of its decision by the entire panel of Judges in

that Court) However for now the decision stands which

decision is of monumental importance for borrowers It thus

appears that the tide is finally starting to turn and that the

courts are beginning to recognize the extent of the wrongful

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

practices and fraud perpetrated by ldquolendersrdquo and MERS upon

borrowers which conduct was engaged in for the sole purpose of

greed and profit for the ldquolendersrdquo and their ilk at the expense

of borrowers

MERS Inc Appellant v Southwest Homes of Arkansas Appellee The

second State Supreme Court ruling ndash AR 2009

BAC v US Bank ndash FL Appellate court upholds the concept of

determining the standing of the foreclosing party before allowing

summary judgement All cases in FL must now go through this

process 2007

Wells Fargo NAS v Farmer Motion to vacate in Supreme Court Kings

County NY 2009

In Re Joshua amp Stephanie Mitchell ndash US Federal Bankruptcy Court

NV 2009

In Re Wilhelm et al Case No 08-20577-TLM (opinion of Hon

Terry L Myers Chief US Bankruptcy Judge July 9 2009) ndash

Chief US Bankruptcy Judge ID ndash MERS by its construction

separates the Deed from the Mortgage

MERS v Johnston ndash Vermont Superior Court Decision

Wells Fargo v Jordon ndash OH Appellate Court

Weingartner et al v Chase Home Finance et al ndash US District Court

Schneider et al v Deutsche Bank et al (FL) Class action suit

(the filing) seeking to recover actual and statutory damages for

violations of the foreclosure process Provides an excellent

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

description of the securitization process and the problems with

assignments

JP Morgan Chase v New Millenial et al ndash FL Appellate which

clearly demonstrates the chaos which can ensue when there is a

failure to register changes of ownership at the county recorderrsquos

office Everyone operates in good faith then out of nowhere

someone shows up waving a piece of paper The MERS system while

not explicitly named is clearly the culprit of the chaos 2009

In Re Walker Case No 10-21656-E-11 ndash Eastern District of CA

Bankruptcy court rules MERS has NO actionable interest in title

ldquoAny attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed

without ownership of the underlying note is void under California

lawrdquo ldquoMERS could not as a matter of law have transferred the

note to Citibank from the original lender Bayrock Mortgage

Corprdquo The Courtrsquos opinion is headlined stating that MERS and

Citibank are not the real parties in interest

In re Vargas 396 BR at 517-19 Judge Bufford made a finding

that the witness called to testify as to debt and default was

incompetent All the witness could testify was that he had looked

at the MERS computerized records The witness was unable to

satisfy the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence

particularly Rule 803 as applied to computerized records in the

Ninth Circuit See id at 517-20 The low level employee could

really only testify that the MERS screen shot he reviewed

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

practices and fraud perpetrated by ldquolendersrdquo and MERS upon

borrowers which conduct was engaged in for the sole purpose of

greed and profit for the ldquolendersrdquo and their ilk at the expense

of borrowers

MERS Inc Appellant v Southwest Homes of Arkansas Appellee The

second State Supreme Court ruling ndash AR 2009

BAC v US Bank ndash FL Appellate court upholds the concept of

determining the standing of the foreclosing party before allowing

summary judgement All cases in FL must now go through this

process 2007

Wells Fargo NAS v Farmer Motion to vacate in Supreme Court Kings

County NY 2009

In Re Joshua amp Stephanie Mitchell ndash US Federal Bankruptcy Court

NV 2009

In Re Wilhelm et al Case No 08-20577-TLM (opinion of Hon

Terry L Myers Chief US Bankruptcy Judge July 9 2009) ndash

Chief US Bankruptcy Judge ID ndash MERS by its construction

separates the Deed from the Mortgage

MERS v Johnston ndash Vermont Superior Court Decision

Wells Fargo v Jordon ndash OH Appellate Court

Weingartner et al v Chase Home Finance et al ndash US District Court

Schneider et al v Deutsche Bank et al (FL) Class action suit

(the filing) seeking to recover actual and statutory damages for

violations of the foreclosure process Provides an excellent

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

description of the securitization process and the problems with

assignments

JP Morgan Chase v New Millenial et al ndash FL Appellate which

clearly demonstrates the chaos which can ensue when there is a

failure to register changes of ownership at the county recorderrsquos

office Everyone operates in good faith then out of nowhere

someone shows up waving a piece of paper The MERS system while

not explicitly named is clearly the culprit of the chaos 2009

In Re Walker Case No 10-21656-E-11 ndash Eastern District of CA

Bankruptcy court rules MERS has NO actionable interest in title

ldquoAny attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed

without ownership of the underlying note is void under California

lawrdquo ldquoMERS could not as a matter of law have transferred the

note to Citibank from the original lender Bayrock Mortgage

Corprdquo The Courtrsquos opinion is headlined stating that MERS and

Citibank are not the real parties in interest

In re Vargas 396 BR at 517-19 Judge Bufford made a finding

that the witness called to testify as to debt and default was

incompetent All the witness could testify was that he had looked

at the MERS computerized records The witness was unable to

satisfy the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence

particularly Rule 803 as applied to computerized records in the

Ninth Circuit See id at 517-20 The low level employee could

really only testify that the MERS screen shot he reviewed

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

description of the securitization process and the problems with

assignments

JP Morgan Chase v New Millenial et al ndash FL Appellate which

clearly demonstrates the chaos which can ensue when there is a

failure to register changes of ownership at the county recorderrsquos

office Everyone operates in good faith then out of nowhere

someone shows up waving a piece of paper The MERS system while

not explicitly named is clearly the culprit of the chaos 2009

In Re Walker Case No 10-21656-E-11 ndash Eastern District of CA

Bankruptcy court rules MERS has NO actionable interest in title

ldquoAny attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed

without ownership of the underlying note is void under California

lawrdquo ldquoMERS could not as a matter of law have transferred the

note to Citibank from the original lender Bayrock Mortgage

Corprdquo The Courtrsquos opinion is headlined stating that MERS and

Citibank are not the real parties in interest

In re Vargas 396 BR at 517-19 Judge Bufford made a finding

that the witness called to testify as to debt and default was

incompetent All the witness could testify was that he had looked

at the MERS computerized records The witness was unable to

satisfy the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence

particularly Rule 803 as applied to computerized records in the

Ninth Circuit See id at 517-20 The low level employee could

really only testify that the MERS screen shot he reviewed

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

reflected a default That really is not much in the way of

evidence and not nearly enough to get around the hearsay rule

In Re Joshua and Stephanie Mitchell Case No BK-S-07-16226-

LBR [US Bankruptcy Court District of Nevada Memorandum

Opinion of August 19 2008] Federal Court in Nevada attacked

MERSrsquo purported ldquoauthorityrdquo finding that there was no evidence

that MERS was the agent of the notersquos holder

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc v Girdvainis

Sumter County South Carolina Court of Common Pleas Case No

2005-CP-43-0278 (Order dated January 19 2006 citing to the

representations of MERS and court findings in Mortgage Electronic

Registration Systems Inc v Nebraska Dept of Banking and

Finance 270 Neb 529 704 NW 2d 784) As such ALL MERS

assignments are suspect at best and may in fact be fraudulent

The Court of Common Pleas of Sumter County South Carolina also

found that MERSrsquo rights were not as they were represented to be

that MERS had no rights to collect on any debt because it did not

extend any credit none of the borrowers owe MERS any money that

MERS does not own the promissory notes secured by the mortgages

and that MERS does not acquire any loan or extension of credit

secured by a lien on real property

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC v SAUNDERS 2010

ME 79 Docket Cum-09-640Supreme Judicial Court of

Maine | Ordered dated August 12 2010 We conclude that although

MERS is not in fact a ldquomortgageerdquo within the meaning of our

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

foreclosure statute 14 MRS sectsect 6321-6325 and therefore had no

standing to institute foreclosure proceedings the real party in

interest was the Bank and the court did not abuse its discretion

by substituting the Bank for MERS Because however the Bank was

not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law we vacate

the judgment and remand for further proceedings

MERS lsquoAGENTrsquo PREVIOUS MTG FRAUD SCHEME| Mortgage Electronic

Registration Systems Inc v Folkes 2010 NY Slip Op 32007 ndash NY

Supreme Court The settlement agent on all of the MERS documents

was listed as Peter Port Esq undeniably plaintiffs agent

According to an affidavit with documents attached from Ms

Nichole M Orr identified as an Assistant Vice President and

Senior Operational Risk Specialist for Bank of America Home

Loans the successor-in-interest to plaintiff Americarsquos Wholesale

Lender (April 1 2010)[1] certain wire transfers were made on

November 23 2004 to Mr Port The money appears to have come

from an account with JP Morgan but one of the documents also

shows inexplicably that Mr Port then sent $43506773 of this

money to Cheron A Ramphal at 14917 Motley Road Silver Springs

MD It should also be noted as it was in the decision of

February 5 2008 by Judge Payne that Mr Port pled guilty in

March 2006 in Federal District Court in New Jersey to providing

false documents in a scheme to commit mortgage fraud

lsquoNO PROOFrsquo MERS assigned BOTH Mortgage and NOTE to HSBC|HSBC

Bank etc v Miller et al The ldquoAssignment of Mortgagerdquo which

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

is attached as exhibit E to the opposition papers makes no

reference to the note and only makes reference to the mortgage

being assigned The Assignment has a vague reference to note

wherein it states that ldquothe said assignor hereby grants and

conveys unto the said assignee the assignorrsquos beneficial

interest under the mortgage ldquobut this is the only language in

the Assignment which could possibly be found to refer to the

note

Contrary to the affirmation of Ms Szeliga in which she

represented in paragraph 17 that there was language in the

assignment which specifically referred to the note the

assignment in this case does not contain dega specific reference to

the Note

In light of the foregoing the Court is satisfied that there is

insufficient proof to establish that both the note and the

mortgage have been assigned to the Plaintiff and therefore it

is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff has no standing to maintain

the foreclosure action and it is further ORDERED that the

application of Defendant Jeffrey F Miller to dismiss is

granted without prejudice to renew upon proof of a valid

assignment of the note

UNION BANK CO v NORTH CAROLINA FURNITURE EXPRESS LLC MERS

lsquoGETS FORECLOSEDrsquo| ASSIGNS NADA TO BAC fka COUNTRYWIDE OHIO COURT

OF APPEAL While an assignment typically transfers the lien of

the mortgage on the property described in the mortgage as BAC

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

acknowledged in its reply brief an assignee can only take and

the assignor can only give the interest currently held by the

assignor RC 530131 With that stated it is clear under the

facts of this case that BAC never obtained an interest in the

property thus it could not have been substituted as a party-

defendant in the 2008 foreclosure action Here with respect to

the 2008 foreclosure action the date the last party was served

with notice was on January 28 2009 which was almost six

months before the purported assignment from MERS to BAC Next on

March 11 2009 the trial court issued a judgment entry of

default against MERS foreclosing on its interest in the property

Once again this default judgment was entered against MERS almost

three months before the purported assignment from MERS to BAC

occurred The effect of this default judgment against MERS

resulted in MERS having ldquono interest in and to said premises and

the equity of redemption of said Defendants in the real estate

described in Plaintiffrsquos Complaint shall be forever cut off

barred and foreclosedrdquo (2008 CV 0267 Mar 10 2009 JE)

Nevertheless according to the documents filed by BAC to evidence

its assignment from MERS MERS assigned its interest to BAC on

June 1 2009 (2009 CV 312 Oct 7 2009 JE Ex A)

Consequently as a result of the already entered default judgment

against MERS when BAC was assigned MERSrsquo interest in the

property on June 1 2009 BAC did not receive a viable interest

in the property See Quill v Maddox (May 31 2002) 2nd Dist

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

No 19052 at 2 (mortgageersquos assignee failed to establish that

it had an interest in the property as mortgageersquos interest was

foreclosed by the court before mortgagee assigned its interest to

assignee which could acquire no more interest than mortgagee

held) Thus we find that it was reasonable for the trial court

to have denied the motion to substitute BAC as a party-defendant

for MERS given its lack of interest in the property

HSBC v Thompson HSBCrsquos Irregularities Mortgage Documentation

and Corporate Relationships with Ocwen MERS and Delta Even if

HSBC had provided support for the proposition that ownership of

the note is not required the evidence about the assignment is

not properly before us The alleged mortgage assignment is

attached to the rejected affidavits of Neil Furthermore even if

we were to consider this ldquoevidencerdquo the mortgage assignment from

MERS to HSBC indicates that the assignment was prepared by Ocwen

for MERS and that Ocwen is located at the same Palm Beach

Florida address mentioned in Charlevagne and Antrobus See

Exhibit 3 attached to the affidavit of Chomie Neil In addition

Scott Anderson who signed the assignment as Vice-President of

MERS appears to be the same individual who claimed to be both

Vice-President of MERS and Vice-President of

Ocwen See Antrobus 2008 WL 2928553 4 and Charlevagne 2008

WL 2954767 1

MERS v TORR NY JUDGE SPINNER DENIES Deutsche amp MERS for NOT

Recording Mortgage Make up Affidavit and Assignment MERS lsquoQUIET

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

No 19052 at 2 (mortgageersquos assignee failed to establish that

it had an interest in the property as mortgageersquos interest was

foreclosed by the court before mortgagee assigned its interest to

assignee which could acquire no more interest than mortgagee

held) Thus we find that it was reasonable for the trial court

to have denied the motion to substitute BAC as a party-defendant

for MERS given its lack of interest in the property

HSBC v Thompson HSBCrsquos Irregularities Mortgage Documentation

and Corporate Relationships with Ocwen MERS and Delta Even if

HSBC had provided support for the proposition that ownership of

the note is not required the evidence about the assignment is

not properly before us The alleged mortgage assignment is

attached to the rejected affidavits of Neil Furthermore even if

we were to consider this ldquoevidencerdquo the mortgage assignment from

MERS to HSBC indicates that the assignment was prepared by Ocwen

for MERS and that Ocwen is located at the same Palm Beach

Florida address mentioned in Charlevagne and Antrobus See

Exhibit 3 attached to the affidavit of Chomie Neil In addition

Scott Anderson who signed the assignment as Vice-President of

MERS appears to be the same individual who claimed to be both

Vice-President of MERS and Vice-President of

Ocwen See Antrobus 2008 WL 2928553 4 and Charlevagne 2008

WL 2954767 1

MERS v TORR NY JUDGE SPINNER DENIES Deutsche amp MERS for NOT

Recording Mortgage Make up Affidavit and Assignment MERS lsquoQUIET

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

TITLErsquo FAIL To establish a claim of lien by a lost mortgage

there must be certain evidence (es) demonstrating that the

mortgage was properly executed with all the formalities required

by law andproof of the contents (es) of such instrument hellip Here

Burnettrsquos affidavit simply states that the original mortgage is

not in Deutsch Bankrsquos files and that he is advised (es) that

the title company is out of business Burnett gives no specifics

as to what efforts were made to locate the lost mortgagehellip More

importantly there is no affidavit from MLN by an individual with

personal knowledge of the facts that the complete file concerning

this mortgage was transferred to Deutsch Bank and that the copy

of the mortgage submitted to the court is an authentic copy of

Torrrsquos Mortgagerdquo (es)

LPP MORTGAGE v SABINE PROPERTIES FINAL DISPOSITION| NO Evidence

lsquoMERSrsquo Owned The NOTE Could NOT ASSIGN IT NY SUPREME COURT

FINAL DISPOSITION

Here there are no allegations or evidence that MERS was the

owner of the note such that it could assign it to LPP Thus the

assignment from MERS was insufficient to confer ownership of the

note to LPP and it has no standing to bring this action Kluge v

F umz ~1 45 AD2d at 538 (holding that the assignment of a

mortgage without transfer of the debt is a nullity) Johnson v

Melnikoff 20 Misc3d 1142(A) ldquo2 (Sup Ct Kings Co 2008) n 2

afr 65 AD3d 519 (2d Dept 20 1 Oj(noting that assignments by MERS

which did not include the underlying debt were a legal nullity)

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

m e Elect ro pic Registration Svstem v Coakley 41 AD3d 674 (2d

Dept 2007)(holding that MERS had standing to bring foreclosure

proceeding based on evidence that MERS was the lawful holder of

the promissory note and the mortgage)

Thus even assuming arguendo that the language of the assignment

from MERS to LPP could be interpreted as purporting to assign not

only the mortgage but also the note such assignment is invalid

since based on the record MERS lacked an ownership interest in

the note $ee LaSalle Bank Nat Assrsquon v Lamv 12 Misc3d 1191(A)

ldquo3 (Sup Ct Suffolk Co 2006) (noting that ldquothe mortgage is merely

an incident of and collateral security for the debt and an

assignment of the mortgage does not pass ownership of the debt

itself rsquo)

WACHOVIA BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION against ndashSTUART BRENNER et

aI Defendantrsquo s answer contains a defense of ldquolack of

standingrdquo Plaintiff has failed to establish it was the holder of

the note and the mortgage securing it when the action was

commenced In that regard plaintiff relies on an undated

assignment of the mortgage by MERS as nominee acknowledged by a

Texas notary on July 18 2009 The note sued on does not contain

an indication it has been negotiated The undated assignment by

MERS contains a provision at the assignment of the mortgage is

ldquoTOGETHER with the notes described in said mortgagerdquo The record

before me is devoid of proof that MERS as nominee for purposes of

recording had authority to assign the mortgage However assuming

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

it had such authority since it is a party to the mortgage and

such authority might be implied there has been a complete

failure to establish MERS as a non-party to the note to

negotiate its transfer A transfer of the note effects a transfer

of the mortgage MERS vs Coakley 41 AD3 674) the assignment of

a mortgage without a valid transfer of the mortgage note is a

nullity(Kluge vs Fugazv 145 AD2 537)

Following are more cases from THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURThellip

JUDGE SCHACK BLOWS lsquoMERSrsquo and Bank Of New York (BNY) OUT THE

DOOR

WM SPECIALTY MORTGAGE v JORGE RAMIREZ NO PROOF MERS OWNED THE

MORTGAGE AND NOTE

MERS v MAHENDRA RAMDOOLAR MERS IN NOT THE OWNER OF SUBJECT

MORTGAGE AND NOTE

HOLY COW MERS v MERS NO EVIDENCE IT HAD THE MORTGAGE AND NOTE

MERS V THOMAS STANDFORD MERS DOES NOT OWN MORTGAGE AND NOTE

MERS V GAIL PALMORE-ARCHER MERS DOES NOT OWN MORTGAGE AND NOTE

In the Matter of the Foreclosure of Tax Liens MERS GETS CHEWED

UP

BANK OF NEW YORK V JOSEPH CERULLO MERS NOT OWNER AND HOLDER OF

NOTE MORTGAGE

HSBC V HENRY FELD MERS NOT HOLDER OWNER OF NOTE

THE BANK OF NY MELLON V RICHARD BUSTRUC MERS IS NOT OWNER HOLDER

OF MORTGAGE AND NOTE

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ONEWEST BANK GETS THE BOOT MERS ASSIGNMENT MAKES NO REFERENCE TO

NOTE

NY SUPREME COURT WELLS FARGO MERS amp STEVEN J BAUM ldquoFATAL

DEFECTrdquo

FDN attorneys Jeff Barnes Esq and Elizabeth Lemoine Esq have

achieved a significant victory in Federal Court in Oregon against

MERS On Tuesday September 28 2010 Mr Barnes and Ms Lemoine

defended and argued Motions to Dismiss the borrowersrsquo lawsuit

challenging a nonjudicial foreclosure The Motions were filed by

the Defendants OneWest Bank and MERS The action was originally

filed in state court where a temporary restraining order was

entered stopping the sale On the eve of the scheduled hearing on

the borrowersrsquo Motion for Preliminary Injunction Defendants

OneWest Bank MERS and Regional Trustee Services removed the

case to Federal Court in an obvious attempt to circumvent the

state court injunction hearing The Federal Court entered an

Injunction and scheduled a hearing on the Motions filed by the

Defendants

During the course of the hearing the Court repeatedly raised the

ldquoMERS as nomineerdquo issues to counsel for the Defendants with said

counsel finally admitting upon repeated inquiry by the Court

that MERS cannot transfer promissory notes The Court denied the

Motions to Dismiss and has by Order commanded the injunction

against the sale to remain in place through the duration of the

borrowersrsquo lawsuit

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

Because of the nature of the findings of the listed FACTS I

through FACT VII and lack of truthful evidence leading to these

illegal foreclosure proceedings Plaintiff prays for the Court to

issue a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction

against Defendant for any and all claims the Defendants are

pursuing against Plaintiff and Plaintiffrsquos property via Exhibits

(A B C D E and F) thereby causing harm to the Plaintiff

REQUEST FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND REMUNERATION

Because of all of the FACTS and Court case evidence listed in

this complaint Plaintiff demands the Defendants produce the

original NOTE in question to avoid forgery and fraud charges If

NOTE is not produced within 30 days from the delivery and receipt

of the summons upon the Defendant Plaintiff will press forgery

charges pursuant RCW 9A60020 Plaintiff thereby will demand

remuneration of fraudulently collected monies paid to illegally

represented lenders Bank of America FKA Countrywide and interest

at 675 with the total amount of $8775636 + case fees or

Eighty Seven Thousand Seven hundred and fifty six dollars and 36

cents plus case fees to the Defendant who deceived the Plaintiff

by fraudulently claiming to be the legitimate lender trustee

and beneficiary while falsely claiming to hold the NOTE assuming

all assets and liabilities of Countrywide

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

RCW 740020

Grounds for issuance

When it appears by the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled

to the relief demanded and the relief or any part thereof

consists in restraining the commission or continuance of some

act the commission or continuance of which during the litigation

would produce great injury to the plaintiff or when during the

litigation it appears that the defendant is doing

or threatened or is about to do or is procuring or is suffering some act to

be done in violation of the plaintiffs rights respecting the subject of the

action tending to render the judgment ineffectual or where such relief or

any part thereof consists in restraining proceedings upon any final order or

judgment an injunction may be granted to restrain such act or proceedings

until the further order of the court which may afterwards be dissolved or

modified upon motion And where it appears in the complaint at the

commencement of the action or during the pendency thereof by affidavit that

the defendant threatens or is about to remove or dispose of his property with

intent to defraud his creditors a temporary injunction may be granted to

restrain the removal or disposition of his property

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

BySamuel Salmon 917C Philpott Rd Colville WA 99114

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

RCW 740020

Grounds for issuance

When it appears by the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled

to the relief demanded and the relief or any part thereof

consists in restraining the commission or continuance of some

act the commission or continuance of which during the litigation

would produce great injury to the plaintiff or when during the

litigation it appears that the defendant is doing

or threatened or is about to do or is procuring or is suffering some act to

be done in violation of the plaintiffs rights respecting the subject of the

action tending to render the judgment ineffectual or where such relief or

any part thereof consists in restraining proceedings upon any final order or

judgment an injunction may be granted to restrain such act or proceedings

until the further order of the court which may afterwards be dissolved or

modified upon motion And where it appears in the complaint at the

commencement of the action or during the pendency thereof by affidavit that

the defendant threatens or is about to remove or dispose of his property with

intent to defraud his creditors a temporary injunction may be granted to

restrain the removal or disposition of his property

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

BySamuel Salmon 917C Philpott Rd Colville WA 99114

SAMUEL SALMON917C PHILPOTT RDCOLVILLE WA 99114

Summary of Pleading - 29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

BySamuel Salmon 917C Philpott Rd Colville WA 99114