John Doe
Street address
Los Angeles, California
(213)555-1212

In Propria Persona

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

John Doe, and	           	) CASE NO. ____________________
		                 	)
						) ACTION FOR TRESPASS; QUIET TITLE
	Plaintiff,			)
						) (verified)
		vs.				) 
						)
Rico Bank, LLC,			) 
						)
	Defendant.			)
____________________________	)

1.  COMES NOW Plaintiff John Doe, a people of the United States, and in the above-entitled Court of Record complains of Defendant RICO BANK, LLC, a resident of Dallas County, Texas.

2.  Jurisdiction is because this Case is arising under the Constitution (Article III, § 2-1, in that it is a controversy between Citizens of different States [diversity of citizenship]), it is under the laws of the United States Federal Security and Exchange Commission (hereinafter SEC) via the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (hereinafter PSA) under said laws and via the PSA Supplement under said laws, and under Title 26 United States Code.

3.  The Defendant is not a real party in interest.  The Defendant is attempting, by threat of force, to foreclose the property located at 9999 Anystreet., Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, California.  The Property’s legal description is, “Parcel 1, Lot A of Parcel Map 12345, in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in book 1, pages 2 and 3 of Parcel maps, in the office of the county recorder of said County” (hereinafter Property).

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:  TRESPASS

IN ITS NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSING ACTION 
THE DEFENDANT CAN NOT BE THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST 
AND HAS NO STANDING TO FORECLOSE BECAUSE 
UNDER U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION RULES
AND TITLE 26 REMIC RULES
THE LOAN IS AN UNSECURED DEBT 
OWNED WITHOUT RECOURSE BY ANOTHER ENTITY, NAMELY
“RICO BANK, LLC SERIES 2007-A TRUST”

4.  Paragraphs 1 through 3 are included by reference as though fully stated herein.

5.  The PSA dated January 1, 2007 states in relevant parts to this case as follows:
PSA OPENING PARAGRAPH:  THIS POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT, DATED January 1, 2007, IS HEREBY EXECUTED BY AND AMONG 

     RICO BANK, LLC, AS DEPOSITOR, 

     U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (“U.S. BANK”), AS
       MASTER SERVICER AND CERTIFICATE ADMINISTRATOR,

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE.

PSA Section 2.01 Conveyance of Mortgage Loans. 
(a) The Depositor, concurrently with the execution and delivery hereof, hereby sells, transfers, assigns, sets over and otherwise conveys to the Trustee on behalf of the Trust for the benefit of the Certificateholders, without recourse, all the right, title and interest of the Depositor in and to the Mortgage Loans, including all interest and principal received on or with respect to the Mortgage Loans (other than payments of principal and interest due and payable on the Mortgage Loans on or before the Cut-Off Date), all accounts, chattel paper, deposit accounts, documents, general intangibles, goods, instruments, investment property, letter-of-credit rights, letters of credit, money, and oil, gas, and other minerals, consisting of, arising from, or relating to, any of the foregoing, and all proceeds of the foregoing. The foregoing sale, transfer, assignment and set over does not and is not intended to result in a creation of an assumption by the Trustee of any obligation of the Depositor or any other Person in connection with the Mortgage Loans or any agreement or instrument relating thereto, except as specifically set forth herein. In connection with the conveyance by the Depositor of the Mortgage Loans, the Depositor further agrees, at its own expense, on or prior to the Closing Date, to indicate on its books and records that the Mortgage Loans have been sold to the Trustee on behalf of the Trust pursuant to this Agreement, and to deliver to the Trustee the Mortgage Loan Schedule. The Mortgage Loan Schedule shall be marked as Exhibit D-1, Exhibit D-2, Exhibit D-3 and Exhibit D-4 to this Agreement and is hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement.  [emphasis added]

PSA Section 2.05(a). 
It is the express intent of the Depositor and the Trustee that the transfer of the Mortgage Loans by the Depositor to the Trustee pursuant to Section 2.01(a) be, and be construed as, an absolute sale of the Mortgage Loans. It is, further, not the intention of such parties that such transfer be deemed the grant of a security interest in the Mortgage Loans by the Depositor to the Trustee to secure a debt or other obligation of the Depositor. However, in the event that, notwithstanding the intent of the parties, the Mortgage Loans are held to be the property of the Depositor, or if for any other reason this Agreement is held or deemed to create a security interest in the Mortgage Loans, then: (1) this Agreement shall constitute a security agreement, and (2) the transfer of the Mortgage Loans provided for in Section 2.01(a) shall be deemed to be a grant by the Depositor to the Trustee of, and the Depositor hereby grants to the Trustee, to secure all of the Depositor's obligations hereunder, a security interest in all of the Depositor's right, title, and interest, whether now owned or hereafter acquired, in and to (i) the Mortgage Loans, (ii) all accounts, chattel paper, deposit accounts, documents, general intangibles, goods, instruments, investment property, letter-of-credit rights, letters of credit, money, and oil, gas, and other minerals, consisting of, arising from, or relating to, any of the foregoing; and (iii) all proceeds of the foregoing.  [emphasis added]

6.  The original Deed of Trust shows the original Trustee is Golden West Savings Association Service Co.; the Beneficiary is World Savings Bank, FSB.

7.  The public record reported in the Securitization Audit Report based upon papers filed under oath at the United States Securities and Exchange Commission shows that the loan was sold without recourse to “RICO BANK, LLC SERIES 2007-A TRUST”.  Further, according  to the agreement (PSA) between the original lender and its assigns/seller and buyer, it is “not the intention of such parties that such transfer be deemed the grant of a security interest in the Mortgage Loans by the Depositor to the Trustee to secure a debt or other obligation of the Depositor.”

8.  In other words, the ultimate seller in the chain of title and the buyer intend that the loan be separated “without recourse” from the Deed of Trust.  The Loan is now no longer secured by the Deed of Trust or the Property.  The Loan is now itself a security for investors under the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) promulgated law.   By doing that there are certain tax advantages granted by Title 26 United States Code relating to REMICs.

9.  Because the Note and the Deed of Trust are irrevocably (without recourse) separated, the present owner  of the Loan can not foreclose on the property, nor may the present owner delegate a power greater than what it possesses.  

10.  Defendant and its unidentified principal have no standing to foreclose on the loan in which it has no ownership interest.

11.  The PSA confirms that the Loan has been securitized.  The real and only party to have standing is the actual investor(s) of the certificates.  The Deed of Trust and Note have been separated:  the Note has been turned into a “share” and divided into parts equivalent to investors.  To maximize value and lower risks of pooling payments on fixed assets allows for increased liquidity and thus aids the total market.  But, in so doing, there is no actual individual beneficial Note owner.  Because the Deed of Trust is divided from the Note, the foreclosure action has no force as noted in Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 284 S.W.3d 619, 623, 2009 WL 531057 (Mo. App., 2009) 

12.  For those reasons Defendant has no right to foreclose on the Property.  The original lender cited in the original Deed of Trust by defendant sold the loan, either directly or through a chain of sales, without recourse, to Wachovia Mortgage Loan Trust, LLC Series 2007-A Trust (hereinafter Series 2007-A), which is the present owner of the Note.  The Securitization Analysis Report (Exhibit 1) is based upon the records of the Federal Securities and Exchange Commission.  Defendant does not own the Property or the Note or the Deed of Trust.  The Note and the Deed of Trust are each separately owned without recourse by Series 2007-A.  Article II, § 2.01 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (hereinafter PSA) specifically designates that Series 2007-A is the trust into which the Note is converted into a stock or equivalent without recourse.  

13.  Once the Note is sold without recourse as a stock or equivalent, it is no longer a secured note.  When securitized under U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules, the Note forever loses its security component (Deed of Trust), and the right to foreclose the Deed of Trust is forever lost.   To foreclose without said right is an injury to the Plaintiff.  If both the Note and the stock or equivalent exist at the same time, that is known as “double dipping”, a form of securities fraud by the Defendant and its principal.  That is because the lender sold the loan, is paid, and now the ex-owners are attempting to collect on the loan a second time [“Double Dipping”].

14.  The lending practices show fraud, because the borrower had neither knowledge nor inclination of these practices being performed by all entities and their agents. The foreclosing trustee should exercise a close review of the facts in this case, before moving forward with foreclosure proceedings.

15.  Defendants and others acting in concert with defendants have publicly clouded the title to the Property and libeled our standing and good name in the credit community.

DOUBLE DIPPING

16.  Because the loan was sold, pooled and converted into a security, stock or equivalent, the alleged holder can no longer claim that it is a real party in interest for purposes of foreclosure.  Further, once the Note is converted into a stock, or stock equivalent, it is no longer a note.  If both the Note and the stock, or stock equivalent, were to exist at the same time, that is known as double dipping.  Double dipping is a form of securities fraud because more than one entity is attempting to claim the full face value.

PRAYER

17.  Wherefore, Plaintiff demands that the court find Plaintiff has the right to own the Property, and without encumbrance as security for the loan.

18.  Further, Plaintiff demands that the court issue an enforceable order requiring ceasing of all foreclosure proceedings against the Property, now and in the future.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
QUIET TITLE

19.  Paragraphs 1 through 3 are included by reference as though fully stated herein.

20.  Plaintiff is domiciled at the Property and seeks a determination that he is the allodial owner, i.e. Title Holder of the Property based upon the determination of the First Cause of Action above against the Defendant named above who is making adverse claims to the title.  

21.  Plaintiff knows of no other person required to be named as a defendant.  Plaintiff asserts this claim against other defendants “styled as all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the Property described in the complaint adverse to plaintiff’s title, or any cloud upon plaintiff’s title thereto.”  Further, Plaintiff knows of no validity of any adverse claim.  The State is not a party to this action.

22.  Plaintiff has diligently attempted to locate the proper address of service for each of the defendants as well as any persons unknown.  This was done by making inquiries with the California Secretary of State, contacting corporate headquarters, and consulting with professional process servicers who are familiar with the normal methods for serving those Defendants.  Plaintiff requests that if said addresses are found to be insufficient, that the Court order service by publication.

23.  There is no known or unknown defendant who is in open and actual possession of the Property.  Plaintiff is in open and actual possession of the Property.

24.  Defendant RICO BANK, LLC is, and at all times herein mentioned is, a resident at 15000 Surveyor Blvd. in the City of Addison, County of Dallas, State of Texas.

25.  Plaintiff, on information and belief, alleges that Defendant RICO BANK, LLC at all times herein mentioned, is organized and exists under the laws of the State of Texas with principle offices located at 15000 Surveyor Blvd., in the City of Addison, County of Dallas, Texas.

26.  Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of any other defendants and, when ascertained, will amend this action to allege their true names and capacities, and that, at all times herein mentioned, each of said other defendants is the agent and employee of each of the remaining defendants and is at all times acting within the purpose and scope of such agency and employment.

27.  Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendant claims an interest in the property adverse to Plaintiff herein.  However, the claim of said Defendant is without any right whatsoever, and said Defendant has no lawful, legal or equitable right, claim, or interest in said property.

28.  The effective date of Title sought is January 1, 2004, the closing date of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA).  That date is the date on which the Note is split from the Deed of Trust without recourse in accordance with the terms of the PSA and the Title 26 United States Code concerned with REMICs. 

29.  Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that, at all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants sued herein is the agent and employee of each of the remaining defendants and is at all times acting within the purpose and scope of such agency and employment.

30.  Plaintiff is at all times herein mentioned the owner and/or entitled to possession of the Property.  Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendant claims an interest in the Property adverse to Plaintiff’s herein. However, said claim of said Defendant is without any right whatsoever, and said Defendant has not lawful right, equitable right, title, estate, lien, nor interest in said Property.  Defendant’s said claim constitutes a cloud upon the title of the Property.  The reasons for the allegation are fully stated in the above First Cause of Action, of which the Court’s opinion is incorporated by reference as though fully stated herein.

31.  After the Court settles the First Cause of Action above Plaintiff requests that the above-entitled Court resolve the issue of quieting the title to the Property in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure, Title 10, Chapter 4 Quiet Title, § 760.10 through § 765.060.

32.  Plaintiff therefore demands a declaration that the title to the subject property is vested in Plaintiff alone and that the Defendant be declared to have no estate, right, title or interest in the subject Property and that said Defendant be forever enjoined from asserting any estate, right, title or interest in the subject property adverse to Plaintiff herein.

33.  For that cause of action therefore Plaintiff brings his suit. 

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays for and demands relief and judgment against defendant, as follows:

34.  That the title to the subject Property is vested in Plaintiff alone against the adverse claims to the Title of the Property by the Defendant, and that the Defendant herein and other unknown claimants, be declared to have no estate, right, title or interest in the subject Property and that said Defendant, and each of other unknown claimants, be forever enjoined from asserting any estate, right, title or interest in the subject Property adverse to Plaintiff.
 
35.  For a declaration and determination that Plaintiff is the rightful holder of allodial title to the Property;

36.  For an order compelling said Defendant to transfer legal title and possession of the subject Property to Plaintiffs herein;

37.  For a declaratory judgment that Defendant has acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and has abused its discretion, and has acted ultra vires not in accordance with law, but under color of law, which resulted in injury to Plaintiffs’ right to a good name and community status;

38.  For general damages equal to the claimed balance of the debt, namely $123,000; or as determined by the Court;

39.  For punitive damages equal to two times the general damages for fraud and extortion accompanied by the threat of use of force (i.e. trespass).

40.  For costs of suit herein incurred;

41.  For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.

___________, 2012
Los Angeles County	    	__________________________
California			John Doe

				

VERIFICATION

42.  I, the undersigned, am a Plaintiff in the above-entitled action.  I have read the foregoing causes of action and know the contents thereof, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true.  I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration is executed at Los Angeles, California.
 
__________, 2012
Los Angeles County  	__________________________
California			John Doe