On 13 May 2002, Alicia Kesler financed her house for $156,800 through Countrywide Home Loans, and trustee eTitle, a subsidiary operation of Scott Lundberg.
On September 25, 2017, Alicia's house was sold at public auction by her trustee, eTitle, a subsidiary of Scott Lundberg, to RM Associates, a casual associate of Scott Lundberg, for $241,700.
Alicia received $3,000 of the excess sale proceeds over the collateral value of 233,800.
This transaction locked in Alicia's loss in equity value of ~$107,000, which we have requested to be confirmed by a special master from the Mortgage Fraud Task Group, established in 2012. The RICO association has received an offsetting cash profit of ~$107,000, an interest payment flow that is unaccounted, and a house currently valued for tax purposes of $288,000, for a total enrichment greater than $475,000.
Alicia represents a CLASS of individuals who have been so victimized.
This is our story.
Here is the document (P129-xxx) that consummates all of the theft of
your property. This is the core of our RICO Action, with all
intermediate conspirators named. To condense the fifty three pages
and 9960 characters of our revised complaint FDC Utah
2:18-cv-469-RJS-BCW Kesler and USA v. Countrywide Home Loans (for the
movie):
eTitle, a subsidiary of Scott Lundberg firm was entered as substitute
trustee by MTGBLQ, a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs, and their designated
agent in Utah, New Penn Financial and their wholly owned subsidiary
Shellpoint. NOTE: Since this writing Shellpoint and New Penn have been acquired by New Residential Investments (NZR).
The trust deed referred to from First American Title (one of 6 on file
at Salt Lake County to pick from), referred to a fraudulent $42,000
balloon mortgage, entered on 12/22/04 with SLC recorder's entry
9256498 in book 1076, page 611, stamped by SLC County Recorder Gary
Ott, brother of Greg Ott, SPS Vice President. This was not the
$168,000 purported mortgage note attached to the property, or the
156,800 most original purported mortgage note, before the $10,000
error made in the bank's favor, or the $213,800 fraudulent note
generated at an unknown later time. The modification was originated
by Scott Lundberg Associates, and his wholly owned title company,
First American Title.
First Financial ceased operations in August 2007 and assets were held
by the federal bankruptcy trustee. Assets may have ultimately
transferred to National City Bank. These bankruptcy transfers are
sealed, but available for review in camera by District Court Judge
Robert J. Shelby.
National City Bank ceased operations in December 2008,and assets were
held by the federal bankruptcy trustee. Assets may have ultimately
transferred to PNC Financial. These bankruptcy transfers are sealed,
but available for review in camera by District Court Judge Robert J.
Shelby.
These assets were purchased at some time prior to September 2015 by
MTGBQ, a wholly owned private company by officers of Goldman Sachs.
On 15 September MTGLQ assigned New Penn Financial and their agent,
Charles Brown Associates, dba DocSolutions, of Pasadena Texas, to
fabricate from whole cloth a foreclosure chain-of-title title package,
including substitution of trustee in favor of eTitle in Salt Lake
City. DocSolutions chose the wrong purported mortgage note, using the
$42,000 balloon note rather than one of the others on file at SLC
County Recorder.
Scott Lundberg Associates, as eTitle, advertised the default and
executed the public sale on the afternoon of 25 September 2017.
In the morning of 25 September 2017, Alicia Kesler filed a bankruptcy
action in order to protect her property for 60 days while the dispute
of ownership was worked out. The attorney Scott Lundberg filed an
appearance in the federal bankruptcy action a few minutes later and received a verbal
release of stay from the federal trustee, and sold the property on the afternoon of the 25th.
eTitle executed the sale for $247,100 to RM Lifestyles.
On 26 September eTitle issued a trustee title in favor of RM
Lifestyles and recorded the attached document.
Excess proceeds were distributed to all, including to Wall & Wall,
attorneys of Alicia Kesler during opposition proceedings in Utah 3rd
District court, and First Franklin Financial, the company in Cleveland
which had by then ceased to exist. The post office returned the
distribution package stamped 'UNDELIVERABLE.' Plaintiff Exhibit
P14-xxx
There was no money inside.
On September 25, 2017, Alicia's house was sold at public auction by her trustee, eTitle, a subsidiary of Scott Lundberg, to RM Associates, a casual associate of Scott Lundberg, for $241,700.
Alicia received $3,000 of the excess sale proceeds over the collateral value of 233,800.
This transaction locked in Alicia's loss in equity value of ~$107,000, which we have requested to be confirmed by a special master from the Mortgage Fraud Task Group, established in 2012. The RICO association has received an offsetting cash profit of ~$107,000, an interest payment flow that is unaccounted, and a house currently valued for tax purposes of $288,000, for a total enrichment greater than $475,000.
Alicia represents a CLASS of individuals who have been so victimized.
This is our story.
Here is the document (P129-xxx) that consummates all of the theft of
your property. This is the core of our RICO Action, with all
intermediate conspirators named. To condense the fifty three pages
and 9960 characters of our revised complaint FDC Utah
2:18-cv-469-RJS-BCW Kesler and USA v. Countrywide Home Loans (for the
movie):
eTitle, a subsidiary of Scott Lundberg firm was entered as substitute
trustee by MTGBLQ, a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs, and their designated
agent in Utah, New Penn Financial and their wholly owned subsidiary
Shellpoint. NOTE: Since this writing Shellpoint and New Penn have been acquired by New Residential Investments (NZR).
The trust deed referred to from First American Title (one of 6 on file
at Salt Lake County to pick from), referred to a fraudulent $42,000
balloon mortgage, entered on 12/22/04 with SLC recorder's entry
9256498 in book 1076, page 611, stamped by SLC County Recorder Gary
Ott, brother of Greg Ott, SPS Vice President. This was not the
$168,000 purported mortgage note attached to the property, or the
156,800 most original purported mortgage note, before the $10,000
error made in the bank's favor, or the $213,800 fraudulent note
generated at an unknown later time. The modification was originated
by Scott Lundberg Associates, and his wholly owned title company,
First American Title.
First Financial ceased operations in August 2007 and assets were held
by the federal bankruptcy trustee. Assets may have ultimately
transferred to National City Bank. These bankruptcy transfers are
sealed, but available for review in camera by District Court Judge
Robert J. Shelby.
National City Bank ceased operations in December 2008,and assets were
held by the federal bankruptcy trustee. Assets may have ultimately
transferred to PNC Financial. These bankruptcy transfers are sealed,
but available for review in camera by District Court Judge Robert J.
Shelby.
These assets were purchased at some time prior to September 2015 by
MTGBQ, a wholly owned private company by officers of Goldman Sachs.
On 15 September MTGLQ assigned New Penn Financial and their agent,
Charles Brown Associates, dba DocSolutions, of Pasadena Texas, to
fabricate from whole cloth a foreclosure chain-of-title title package,
including substitution of trustee in favor of eTitle in Salt Lake
City. DocSolutions chose the wrong purported mortgage note, using the
$42,000 balloon note rather than one of the others on file at SLC
County Recorder.
Scott Lundberg Associates, as eTitle, advertised the default and
executed the public sale on the afternoon of 25 September 2017.
In the morning of 25 September 2017, Alicia Kesler filed a bankruptcy
action in order to protect her property for 60 days while the dispute
of ownership was worked out. The attorney Scott Lundberg filed an
appearance in the federal bankruptcy action a few minutes later and received a verbal
release of stay from the federal trustee, and sold the property on the afternoon of the 25th.
eTitle executed the sale for $247,100 to RM Lifestyles.
On 26 September eTitle issued a trustee title in favor of RM
Lifestyles and recorded the attached document.
Excess proceeds were distributed to all, including to Wall & Wall,
attorneys of Alicia Kesler during opposition proceedings in Utah 3rd
District court, and First Franklin Financial, the company in Cleveland
which had by then ceased to exist. The post office returned the
distribution package stamped 'UNDELIVERABLE.' Plaintiff Exhibit
P14-xxx
There was no money inside.
We're going to need to add some more defendants.
Criminal and Civil RICO Manual
Self Appraisal Test - Circle T for TRUE or F for FALSE
T F To obtain civil equitable relief under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a), the United States must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) a defendant committed or intended to commit a RICO violation by establishing the same elements as in a criminal RICO case,
except that criminal intent is not required; and (2) that there is a reasonable likelihood that the defendant will commit a violation in the future.
T F Civil RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a), authorizes potentially intrusive remedies,
including injunctive relief, reasonable restrictions on defendants’ future activities,
disgorgement of unlawful proceeds, divestiture, dissolution, reorganization, removal from
positions in an entity, and appointment of court officers to administer and supervise the
affairs and operations of defendants’ entities and to assist courts in monitoring
compliance with courts’ orders and in imposing sanctions for violations of courts’ orders.
In addition, Government attorneys should consider the following factors, among
others, in determining whether to bring a civil RICO lawsuit against an individual and/or
a collective entity:
T F (1) the nature and seriousness of the predicate racketeering offenses;
T F (2) whether the predicate racketeering offenses were committed over a
substantial period of time, and/or pose a threat of continuing
unlawful activity;
T F (3) whether an organized crime group participated in any of the
predicate racketeering offenses or exercised corrupt influence over
any proposed enterprise, defendant or related entity;
T F (4) whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the defendant will
commit unlawful activity in the future;
T F (5) the pervasiveness of wrongdoing within a collective entity that is a
proposed defendant, including the complicity in, or condonation of,
the wrongdoing by the collective entity’s officers and management;
T F (6) the defendant’s history of similar unlawful conduct, including prior
criminal, civil or regulatory enforcement actions against it;
T F (7) whether the defendant has derived unlawful proceeds from his
RICO violation that are subject to disgorgement;
T F (8) the defendant’s timely and voluntary disclosure of wrongdoing and
his/her or its willingness to cooperate with the authorities to
eliminate corruption involving the defendant or related entities;
T F (9) the existence and adequacy of a collective entity’s compliance
program and other remedial actions;
T F (10) collateral consequences, including harm, if any, to innocent third
parties, including a collective entity’s shareholders, employees, or
union members;
T F (11) whether and to what extent the sought remedies are likely to be
effective; and
T F (12) the availability and adequacy of other remedies.
T F No civil RICO complaint shall be settled or dismissed, in whole or
in part, without prior approval of OCRS.
T F Once a civil RICO complaint has been approved and filed, it is the duty of the Government’s attorney handling the matter to submit to OCRS a copy of the complaint,
8including all attachments, bearing the seal of the clerk of the district court. In addition, the Government’s attorney should send OCRS copies of the Government’s filings for pre-trial motions and should keep OCRS informed of adverse decisions as noted above and legal problems that arise in the course of the case to enable OCRS to provide assistance and carry out its supervisory functions.
T F Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution provides, in relevant part, that A[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties Made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.@ A[E]quity is that portion of the law which was developed by the English and American courts of chancery to remedy defects in the common law.
T F However, commencing in 1845, states began to abandon their separate equity
courts, and in 1938, federal courts adopted new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for all
civil matters, wherein a single form of civil action is provided for all civil suits.
T F Classification of a cause of action as to whether it seeks a remedy Aat law@ or Ain equity@ remains important for several reasons of general significance: (1) Aequitable remedies are generally enforceable by contempt while legal remedies are not”; (2) generally, litigants do not have a right to a jury trial to obtain equitable relief, whereas in many cases a right to a jury trial attaches to the suits Aat law”; and (3) Aequitable relief is discretionary.
T F Once a right and a violation have been shown, the scope of a district court’s equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies.
T F Moreover, the Supreme Court has pointedly ruled that where “the public interest is involved. . . those equitable powers assume an even broader and more flexible
character than when only a private controversy is at stake.”
T F For example, in Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 349 U.S. 294, 300-01 (1955), the
Supreme Court ruled that courts had very broad equitable powers to order structural
changes in school systems to desegregate schools, including “ordering the immediate
admission of plaintiffs to schools previously attended only by white children.”
T F The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to
prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 of this chapter by
issuing appropriate orders, including, but not limited to: ordering
any person to divest himself of any interest, direct or indirect, in
any enterprise; imposing reasonable restrictions on the future
activities or investments of any person, including, but not limited
to, prohibiting any person from engaging in the same type of
endeavor as the enterprise engaged in, the activities of which affect
interstate or foreign commerce; or ordering dissolution or
reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the
rights of innocent persons.
T F The Senate Report regarding RICO also quoted approvingly the Department of Justice's view that Athese equitable remedies would also seem to have a greater potential than that of the penal sanctions for actually removing the criminal figure from a particular organization and enjoining him from engaging in similar activity,@ and that Athese remedies are flexible, allowing of several alternate courses of action for dealing with a particular type of predatory activity, and they may also be effectively monitored by the court to insure that its decrees are not violated.
T F Both dissolution and divestiture serve to put “an end to the [unlawful] combination or conspiracy” and to “deprive . . . defendants of the benefits of their conspiracy.”
SCORING KEY
Of course all of these statements are TRUE. If you have other thoughts, then you should examine your errors and get with the program.
Self Appraisal Test - Circle T for TRUE or F for FALSE
T F To obtain civil equitable relief under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a), the United States must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) a defendant committed or intended to commit a RICO violation by establishing the same elements as in a criminal RICO case,
except that criminal intent is not required; and (2) that there is a reasonable likelihood that the defendant will commit a violation in the future.
T F Civil RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a), authorizes potentially intrusive remedies,
including injunctive relief, reasonable restrictions on defendants’ future activities,
disgorgement of unlawful proceeds, divestiture, dissolution, reorganization, removal from
positions in an entity, and appointment of court officers to administer and supervise the
affairs and operations of defendants’ entities and to assist courts in monitoring
compliance with courts’ orders and in imposing sanctions for violations of courts’ orders.
In addition, Government attorneys should consider the following factors, among
others, in determining whether to bring a civil RICO lawsuit against an individual and/or
a collective entity:
T F (1) the nature and seriousness of the predicate racketeering offenses;
T F (2) whether the predicate racketeering offenses were committed over a
substantial period of time, and/or pose a threat of continuing
unlawful activity;
T F (3) whether an organized crime group participated in any of the
predicate racketeering offenses or exercised corrupt influence over
any proposed enterprise, defendant or related entity;
T F (4) whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the defendant will
commit unlawful activity in the future;
T F (5) the pervasiveness of wrongdoing within a collective entity that is a
proposed defendant, including the complicity in, or condonation of,
the wrongdoing by the collective entity’s officers and management;
T F (6) the defendant’s history of similar unlawful conduct, including prior
criminal, civil or regulatory enforcement actions against it;
T F (7) whether the defendant has derived unlawful proceeds from his
RICO violation that are subject to disgorgement;
T F (8) the defendant’s timely and voluntary disclosure of wrongdoing and
his/her or its willingness to cooperate with the authorities to
eliminate corruption involving the defendant or related entities;
T F (9) the existence and adequacy of a collective entity’s compliance
program and other remedial actions;
T F (10) collateral consequences, including harm, if any, to innocent third
parties, including a collective entity’s shareholders, employees, or
union members;
T F (11) whether and to what extent the sought remedies are likely to be
effective; and
T F (12) the availability and adequacy of other remedies.
T F No civil RICO complaint shall be settled or dismissed, in whole or
in part, without prior approval of OCRS.
T F Once a civil RICO complaint has been approved and filed, it is the duty of the Government’s attorney handling the matter to submit to OCRS a copy of the complaint,
8including all attachments, bearing the seal of the clerk of the district court. In addition, the Government’s attorney should send OCRS copies of the Government’s filings for pre-trial motions and should keep OCRS informed of adverse decisions as noted above and legal problems that arise in the course of the case to enable OCRS to provide assistance and carry out its supervisory functions.
T F Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution provides, in relevant part, that A[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties Made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.@ A[E]quity is that portion of the law which was developed by the English and American courts of chancery to remedy defects in the common law.
T F However, commencing in 1845, states began to abandon their separate equity
courts, and in 1938, federal courts adopted new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for all
civil matters, wherein a single form of civil action is provided for all civil suits.
T F Classification of a cause of action as to whether it seeks a remedy Aat law@ or Ain equity@ remains important for several reasons of general significance: (1) Aequitable remedies are generally enforceable by contempt while legal remedies are not”; (2) generally, litigants do not have a right to a jury trial to obtain equitable relief, whereas in many cases a right to a jury trial attaches to the suits Aat law”; and (3) Aequitable relief is discretionary.
T F Once a right and a violation have been shown, the scope of a district court’s equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies.
T F Moreover, the Supreme Court has pointedly ruled that where “the public interest is involved. . . those equitable powers assume an even broader and more flexible
character than when only a private controversy is at stake.”
T F For example, in Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 349 U.S. 294, 300-01 (1955), the
Supreme Court ruled that courts had very broad equitable powers to order structural
changes in school systems to desegregate schools, including “ordering the immediate
admission of plaintiffs to schools previously attended only by white children.”
T F The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to
prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 of this chapter by
issuing appropriate orders, including, but not limited to: ordering
any person to divest himself of any interest, direct or indirect, in
any enterprise; imposing reasonable restrictions on the future
activities or investments of any person, including, but not limited
to, prohibiting any person from engaging in the same type of
endeavor as the enterprise engaged in, the activities of which affect
interstate or foreign commerce; or ordering dissolution or
reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the
rights of innocent persons.
T F The Senate Report regarding RICO also quoted approvingly the Department of Justice's view that Athese equitable remedies would also seem to have a greater potential than that of the penal sanctions for actually removing the criminal figure from a particular organization and enjoining him from engaging in similar activity,@ and that Athese remedies are flexible, allowing of several alternate courses of action for dealing with a particular type of predatory activity, and they may also be effectively monitored by the court to insure that its decrees are not violated.
T F Both dissolution and divestiture serve to put “an end to the [unlawful] combination or conspiracy” and to “deprive . . . defendants of the benefits of their conspiracy.”
SCORING KEY
Of course all of these statements are TRUE. If you have other thoughts, then you should examine your errors and get with the program.
People keep getting confused that I'm practicing law. I don't practice law. I do law enforcement, for real.
Questions for Prosecution
Our Nature of Suit on JS440 is 470-Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization. How many NOS 470 cases are on the court docket today?
1 / 2 / More than 2
What is the Amount Under Dispute in our case, on the complaint?
$100 / $1,000 / More than $1,000
What is the court budget for this matter?
$400 / $800 / $1,000,000
If Alicia were to recover $8,300,000 from jury verdict and were to be awarded 15% of recovery, who would get how much money?
Alicia _____________
DOJ ________________
What is the current court cash expense position for this matter?
$________________ % of Budget ______________
In all NOS 470 RICO cases in the court's experience, what is the average prosecution expense per case?
$______________________
In all NOS 470 RICO cases in the court's experience, what is the average prosecution recovery per case?
$______________________
In all NOS 470 RICO cases in the court's experience, what is the average prosecution risk of loss per case?
$______________________
In your experience in the justice system, where are thieves most often found?
____ Employees
____ Non-Employees
In your experience in the justice system, what demographic steals the most money?
____ White Collar Crime
_____ Armed Robbery
At this moment in time, who is in possession of Alicia's house?
________________ [PARTY]
How much money has ____________ [PARTY] paid for it?
How much money has Alicia paid for it?
________________
Alicia has noticed the court of a prior CLASS action in progress in FDC New Jersey, which has since reached a private settlement. Has the court considered reassigning those resources to this matter?
Our Nature of Suit on JS440 is 470-Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization. How many NOS 470 cases are on the court docket today?
1 / 2 / More than 2
What is the Amount Under Dispute in our case, on the complaint?
$100 / $1,000 / More than $1,000
What is the court budget for this matter?
$400 / $800 / $1,000,000
If Alicia were to recover $8,300,000 from jury verdict and were to be awarded 15% of recovery, who would get how much money?
Alicia _____________
DOJ ________________
What is the current court cash expense position for this matter?
$________________ % of Budget ______________
In all NOS 470 RICO cases in the court's experience, what is the average prosecution expense per case?
$______________________
In all NOS 470 RICO cases in the court's experience, what is the average prosecution recovery per case?
$______________________
In all NOS 470 RICO cases in the court's experience, what is the average prosecution risk of loss per case?
$______________________
In your experience in the justice system, where are thieves most often found?
____ Employees
____ Non-Employees
In your experience in the justice system, what demographic steals the most money?
____ White Collar Crime
_____ Armed Robbery
At this moment in time, who is in possession of Alicia's house?
________________ [PARTY]
How much money has ____________ [PARTY] paid for it?
How much money has Alicia paid for it?
________________
Alicia has noticed the court of a prior CLASS action in progress in FDC New Jersey, which has since reached a private settlement. Has the court considered reassigning those resources to this matter?