2016 Recall of Washington Governor Jay Inslee, Bob Ferguson, Tony Golik and Sheriff Chuck E. Atkins (Electronic)

RECALL OF
JAY INSLEE, Governor, State of Washington;

BOB FERGUSON, Attorney General, State of Washington;
TONY GOLIK, Prosecuting Attorney, Clark County Washington;
and
CHUCK E. ATKINS, Sheriff, Clark County Washington
With Supporting Declarations and Exhibits
May 30, 2016
EMANUEL MCCRAY
400 W McLoughlin Blvd., #5
Vancouver, WA 98660
(858) 876-4833
Email: emanuel.mccray@hotmail.com
Twitter: @trumpgenius
Petitioner
1|
GREG KIMSEY
Responsible Elected Official
C/o Cathie Garber
Elections Supervisor
1408 Franklin Street
Vancouver, WA 98660-2879
Tel: (360) 397-2345; Fax: (360) 397-2394
RE:
Filing of Statement of Charges in Favor of the Recall of Washington Governor Jay

Inslee; Clark County Prosecuting Attorney Tony Golik and Clark County Sheriff
Chuck E. Atkins
May 30, 2016

Dear Supervisor Garber:
This letter shall constitute the statement of the charges in support of the Recall of
Washington Governor Jay Inslee; Attorney General Bob Ferguson; Clark County Prosecuting
Attorney Tony Golik and Clark County Sheriff Chuck E. Atkins pursuant to Wash. Const. Art. I
33 and 34 (Amend. 8) and RCW 29A.56.110, et seq.
I.
INTRODUCTION TO THE STATEMENT OF CHARGES.
1.
In 1934, pursuant to the wisdom and guidance of President Roosevelt, the Congress of
the United States nationalized a secondary market for mortgages.

2.
In 1965 the Legislature enacted the Deeds of Trust Act, Chapter 61.24 RCW, to facilitate
the States participation in Our Nations tax-payer financed national mortgage market (NMM).
3.
This is a conspiracythe concept of which had its earliest roots in fourteenth century
English common law. At that time, it saw limited use as a legal theory. It became more broadly
applied in the United States in the nineteenth century.
4.
Today, conspiracy is a far-reaching legal principle, embracing antitrust actions, an
enormous number of more traditional criminal cases, and even tort lawsuits. It is the basis of
prosecutions dealing with, among other crimes, drug violations, securities fraud, murder for hire,
bank robbery, and extortion.
5.
The basic criminal conspiracy principle is simple to state, but often difficult to apply.
Conspiracy is an agreement by two or more people to commit a crime. In practice, many

complex matters are often raised. One is the manner in which the crime is proved at trial.
2|
Agreement among conspirators is central to the offense, yet rarely is there clear and direct
evidence of an agreement, such as a written statement, a videotaped meeting, or a tape-recorded
conversation. As one judge has put it, A conspiracy is seldom born of open covenants openly
arrived at. Courts normally allow circumstantial evidence to be offered at trial so that the trier
of fact can infer from particular facts (e.g., the presence of the parties, their relationship, later
activities, profits received) the existence of a criminal agreement, even among a large group of
individuals.
6.
Another difficult issue concerns the type of evidence which will be admissible against
specific defendants in proving their intentional membership in the agreement. Questions are
raised, in particular, with respect to out-of-court statements made by coconspirators that are used
against all members of the conspiracy, and also as to whether activities before the conspiracy
was formed demonstrate a purpose or motive to enter into the later agreement.
7.
Constitutional challenges to conspiracy law are often made, but rarely succeed. Instead,
throughout the United States, in state and federal courts, conspiracy is broadly used in a diverse
pool of cases often with quite severe punishments imposed for both the conspiracy and any
attempted or completed crimes. See also: Philip E. Johnson, The Unnecessary Crime of
Conspiracy, California Law Review 61(1973): 11-88; Paul Marcus, The Prosecution and
Defense of Criminal Conspiracy Cases (1978 and supp. 2000); Paul Marcus, Conspiracy: The
Criminal Agreement in Theory and in Practice, Geo. L. J. 65 (1977): 925-67; Paul Marcus,
Conspiracy Law: Time to Turn Back From an Ever Expanding, Ever More Troubling Area, W.
& Mary Bill of Rights Law Journal 1 (1992): 1-45.
8.
There is clear, direct, circumstantial and convincing evidence of an unlawful
conspiratorial agreement to use MERS, Inc. as a special purpose vehicle to facilitate the theft of
homes for personal profit and private gain within the State of Washington and across the United
States, at the public expense of all American taxpayers, in the form of a written statement
appearing on every Deed of Trust prepared on Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac UNIFORM
INSTRUMENT Form 3048 (Washington).
9.
Fraud, on the other hand, has been variously defined. No all inclusive definition can be
framed owing to the multiform character of fraud and the great variety of attendant
circumstances. Each case must be determined on its particular and peculiar facts.
3|
10.
Fraud in its generic sense, especially as the word is used in courts of equity, comprises all
acts, omissions, and concealments involving a breach of legal or equitable duty and resulting in
damage to another. Fraud has also been defined as any cunning or artifice used to cheat or
deceive another. Further it is frequently stated that owing to the multiform character of fraud and
the great variety of attendant circumstances no definition which is all inclusive can be framed,
but each case must be determined on its particular facts. It has been held that fraud is
synonymous with false swearing. Cole v. Utley, 188 Wash. 667, 63 P.2d 473 (1936); Dent v.
Adkisson, 184 Ark. 869; 43 S.W.2d 739 (1931); Coppo v. Coppo, 163 Misc. 249, 1937 N.Y.
Misc. LEXIS 1414 (N.Y. Misc., April 29, 1937).
11.
The Washington Supreme Court in Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 175 Wn.2d 83
(2012) made known to Washington Governor Jay Inslee; Attorney General Bob Ferguson; Clark
County Prosecuting Attorney Tony Golik, Clark County Sheriff Chuck E. Atkins and all judges
in the State of Washington that naming MERS, Inc. as beneficiary was deceptive and that it
would be unlawful for MERS, Inc. to take any actions in its named capacity as beneficiary if
it never owned or held the Notes executed by Washington homeowners.
12.
There is clear, direct, circumstantial and convincing evidence that Washington Governor
Jay Inslee; Attorney General Bob Ferguson; Clark County Prosecuting Attorney Tony Golik and
Clark County Sheriff Chuck E. Atkins have objectively manifested an agreement to participate,
directly or indirectly in the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy Enterprise made apparent from: (1) the
unabated recordation of Deeds of Trust; Assignments of Deeds of Trust; Appointments of
Successor Trustees; Notices of Trustee Sales; nonjudicial foreclosure sale Trustee Deeds and
other instruments; (2) the wrongful actions commenced for unlawful detainer in the Superior
Courts; and (3) the wrongful eviction of homeowners by law enforcement personnel, all set in
motion by the members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy Enterprise.
13.
Moreover, the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy Enterprise would have been both harder to detect
and harder to prove had the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT for deeds of
trust been amended to remove all references to MERS, Inc. as the beneficiary.
14.
The fact that members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy Enterprise have entered courts
across the United States and have told lies for each other with impunity is a serious matter which
rips the fibers right out of our judicial systems.
4|
15.
A cycle of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy to wrongfully foreclose and evict the homeowner
is completed with the issuance of IRS Form 1099-A, pursuant to Title 26 U.S.C. 6050J.
Washington Homeowner Pamela Owen and others could not with due diligence discover this
evidence in sufficient time to enjoin the sale of their homes because Federal law, Title 26 U.S.C.
6050J(e), does not require IRS Form 1099-A to be issued until on or before January 31 of the
year following the calendar year for which the return under subsection (a) was made.
16.
Tax information reporting requirements for IRS Form 1099-A was enacted by Congress
as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, P.L. 98-369. Congress explained the reason for the
change was primarily to curb income tax evasions:
Under present law, there is no reporting requirement designed to encourage
consistent treatment by the lender and the borrower on a foreclosure,
abandonment or other disposition of property which is security for indebtedness
There is no reporting requirement: to encourage the correct treatment of discharge
of indebtedness income in recourse debt cases. Thus, gain on foreclosure and
other disposition events and discharge of indebtedness income may go
unreported. In addition, these events are difficult to detect on audit.
17.
IRS Form 1099-A is never available for use as evidence to support the homeowners
lawsuit to enjoin the nonjudicial foreclosure sale of their home. The members of the MERS, Inc.
Conspiracy Enterprise are well aware of this fact and have used it to their advantage when
committing perjury in State and Federal courts to criminally thwart the claims of the
homeowners.
18.
Further, an action for unlawful detainer brought pursuant to Chapter 59.12 RCW is
confined to the issue of the right of possession and its statutory incidents. The court may do one
of two thingseither enter a judgment in favor of the Defendant by dismissing the action with
prejudice or render judgment in favor of Plaintiff pursuant to RCW 59.12.120 or 59.12.170.
Sundholm v. Patch, 62 Wn.2d 244, 245-246, 382 P.2d 262 (1963); Snuffin v. Mayo, 6 Wn. App.
525, 528, 494 P.2d 497 (Div. Two, 1972).
19.
In 2009, the Legislature amended Chapter 59.12 RCW by adding RCW 59.12.032 to
require that an unlawful detainer action commenced as a result of a trustees sale under chapter
61.24 RCW comply with the requirements of RCW 61.24.040 and 61.24.060.
20.
Article IV of the Washington Constitution establishes courts and invests them with the
power to hear and determine every justiciable cause and proceeding. Any discussion of state
court jurisdiction proceeds from this fundamental premise. State v. Werner, 129 Wash.2d 485,
5|
492, 918 P.2d 916 (1996); State v. Pritchard, 79 Wash.App. 14, 19-20, 900 P.2d 560 (Div. Two,
1995), (citing State ex rel. New York Casualty Co. v. Superior Court for King County, 31 Wn.2d
834, 839, 199 P.2d 581 (1948).
21.
Complete jurisdiction has three components: (1) Jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2)
jurisdiction over the parties;and (3) power to render the particular judgment. Werner, 129
Wash.2d at 493, 918 P.2d 916.
22.
The Superior Courts unlawful detainer subject matter jurisdiction flows from the
constitutional mandate provided in Wash. Const. art. IV, 6. Tacoma Rescue Mission v. Stewart,
155 Wn. App. 250, 254 n.9, 228 P.3d 1289 (Div. Two, 2010). This judicial power is inherent,
even in the absence of a statute, and may not be abrogated or restricted by the Legislature. State
v. Werner, 129 Wash.2d at 494.
23.
Therefore, every nonjudicial foreclosure commenced in this State pursuant to actions
taken by MERS, Inc. in its capacity as beneficiary deprived the Superior Court of unlawful
detainer subject matter jurisdiction. Because Washington Governor Jay Inslee; Attorney General
Bob Ferguson; Clark County Prosecuting Attorney Tony Golik and Clark County Sheriff Chuck
E. Atkins have been unwilling to defeat the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy Enterprise, judges of the
Superior Court have exercised jurisdiction with impunity when none has existed, resulting in
homeowners being wrongfully evicted from their homes.
24.
All Writs of Restitution directed to Sheriffs on behalf of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy
Enterprise have been issued in the name of the STATE OF WASHINGTON. Such a
consequence is sufficient to invoke the 14th Amendment and 42 U.S.C. 1983 prohibiting
unconstitutional deprivation of federal rights.
25.
Washington Governor Jay Inslee; Attorney General Bob Ferguson; Clark County
Prosecuting Attorney Tony Golik and Clark County Sheriff Chuck E. Atkins each had
independent power to defeat the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy. Instead, each agreed to aid and abet
and or form and associate with the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy through actions and inactions in
furtherance of and in connection with the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy Enterprise.
26.
Further, Washington Governor Jay Inslee; Attorney General Bob Ferguson; Clark County
Prosecuting Attorney Tony Golik and Clark County Sheriff Chuck E. Atkins each knew the
conspiracys goals and agreed to facilitate them.
6|
27.
In fact, former Attorney General McKenna presented a brief on behalf of the State of
Washington wherein he presented the States legal understanding that MERS, Inc. was an
unlawful beneficiary:
See also Exhibit I attached hereto.

28.
The chain linking Governor Inslee to Sheriff Atkins is of constitutional and statutory
design. The Supreme Executive Power of the State is vested in a Governor. Wash. Const. Art III,
2; State ex rel. Hartley v. Clausen, 146 Wash. 588 (1928); City of Seattle v. McKenna, 172
Wn.2d 551, 259 P.3d 1087 (2011).
29.
Blacks Law Dictionary (7th ed.), defines supreme power as: The highest authority in
the state, all other powers in it being inferior thereto. This means that the governor, under our
constitution, is the highest executive authority. State ex rel. Hartley v. Clausen, 146 Wash. 588
(1928); City of Seattle v. McKenna, 172 Wn.2d 551, 259 P.3d 1087 (2011).
30.
It is the right and duty of the Executive Department to see that the laws as interpreted by
our Supreme Court are properly enforced. As the final right to determine the true intent and
7|
purpose of all laws is lodged in the supreme court of this state, so is the final determination as to
their enforcement and execution lodged in the governor. State ex rel. Hartley v. Clausen, 146
Wash. 588 (1928); City of Seattle v. McKenna, 172 Wn.2d 551, 259 P.3d 1087 (2011).
31.
The States Executive Department consists, among others, of the Attorney General, who
shall be the legal advisor of the state officers. Wash. Const. Art III, 21. The Office of the
Attorney General is further subject to Chapter 43.10 RCW.
32.
RCW 43.10.010 provides, in relevant part, that

Before entering upon the duties of his or her office, any person elected or
appointed attorney general shall take, subscribe, and file the oath of office as
required by law; take, subscribe, and file with the secretary of state an oath to
comply with the provisions of RCW 43.10.115; and execute and file with the
secretary of state, a bond to the state, in the sum of five thousand dollars, with
sureties to be approved by the governor, conditioned for the faithful performance
of his or her duties and the paying over of all moneys, as provided by law.
33.
Under RCW 43.10.030, the attorney general shall, among other mandatory duties: (4)
Consult with and advise the several prosecuting attorneys in matters relating to the duties of their
office. Additionally, the Attorney General may properly be substituted as counsel on appeal
in a case which was tried and appealed by a prosecuting attorney. State v. Conifer Enters., Inc.,
82 Wn.2d 94, 508 P.2d 149 (1973).
34.
In the event a prosecuting attorney defaults, the Attorney General is authorized to act
pursuant to RCW 43.10.090:

Upon the written request of the governor, the attorney general shall investigate
violations of the criminal laws within this state.
If, after such investigation, the attorney general believes that the criminal laws are
improperly enforced in any county, and that the prosecuting attorney of the
county has failed or neglected to institute and prosecute violations of such
criminal laws, either generally or with regard to a specific offense or class of
offenses, the attorney general shall direct the prosecuting attorney to take such
action in connection with any prosecution as the attorney general determines to be
necessary and proper.
If any prosecuting attorney, after the receipt of such instructions from the attorney
general, fails or neglects to comply therewith within a reasonable time, the
attorney general may initiate and prosecute such criminal actions as he or she
shall determine. In connection therewith, the attorney general shall have the same
powers as would otherwise be vested in the prosecuting attorney.
8|
From the time the attorney general has initiated or taken over a criminal
prosecution, the prosecuting attorney shall not have power or authority to take any
legal steps relating to such prosecution, except as authorized or directed by the
attorney general.
35.
Prosecuting attorneys are subject to Chapter 36.27 RCW. Prosecuting attorneys are
attorneys authorized by law to appear for and represent the state and the counties thereof in
actions and proceedings before the courts and judicial officers. RCW 36.27.005.
36.
The prosecuting attorney, among other things, shall, pursuant to RCW 36.27.020:
Duties.
(2) Be legal adviser to all county and precinct officers and school directors in all
matters relating to their official business, and when required draw up all
instruments of an official nature for the use of said officers;
***
(4) Prosecute all criminal and civil actions in which the state or the county may be
a party, defend all suits brought against the state or the county, and prosecute
actions upon forfeited recognizances and bonds and actions for the recovery of
debts, fines, penalties, and forfeitures accruing to the state or the county;
****
(11) Seek to reform and improve the administration of criminal justice and
stimulate efforts to remedy inadequacies or injustice in substantive or procedural
law.
37.
County Sheriffs are subject to Chapter 36.28 RCW. The sheriff is the chief executive
officer and conservator of the peace of the county. RCW 36.28.010 provides that the County
Sheriff, in the execution of his or her office, he or she and his or her deputies, among other
things:
(1) Shall arrest and commit to prison all persons who break the peace, or attempt
to break it, and all persons guilty of public offenses;
(2) Shall defend the county against those who, by riot or otherwise, endanger the
public peace or safety;
(3) Shall execute the process and orders of the courts of justice or judicial
officers, when delivered for that purpose, according to law;
38.
RCW 36.28.011 imposes upon County Sheriffs a mandatory duty to make complaint:
In addition to the duties contained in RCW 36.28.010, it shall be the duty of all
sheriffs to make complaint of all violations of the criminal law, which shall come
to their knowledge, within their respective jurisdictions.
9|
39.
Under RCW 36.28.010, Sheriff Atkins must only execute the process and orders of the
courts of justice or judicial officers according to law. See, State v. Twitchell, 61 Wn.2d 403,
378 P.2d 444 (1963) (Officers are elected not for their benefit but for the benefit of the
community.); State v. Liewer, 65 Wn. App. 641; 829 P.2d 236 (Div. One, 1992) (RCW
42.20.100 is directed to the misconduct of a public officer.); State v. Torgeson, 19 Wn. App. 17;
573 P.2d 817 (Div. One, 1978) (The duty to investigate and prosecute crime is enjoined by law
upon the county sheriff.)
40.
Both the Writ of Restitution, which is issued in the name of the State of Washington and
the Declaration of Margie Johnson, attached hereto at Exhibit C, implicates Sheriff Atkins in the
knowing and intentional violation of his mandatory duties and services enjoined under RCW
36.28.010 and .011 and RCW 59.12.100, in direct violation of Wash. Rev. Code 9A.80.010;
40.16.010; 40.16.020; 40.16.030; 42.20.080 and 42.20.100.
41.
At the end of all mandatory duties and services imposed by law, it is the Washington
Governor who is vested with the Supreme Power of the State to intercept the MERS, Inc.
Conspiracy Enterprise and prevent any and all harms to all homeowners.
42.
Contained under the State and Federal social schemes for housing and the general welfare
are numerous alternatives to wrongful nonjudicial foreclosures and evictions involving

Washington Governor Jay Inslee; Attorney General Bob Ferguson; Clark County Prosecuting
Attorney Tony Golik and Clark County Sheriff Chuck E. Atkins, e.g.:
(1) homeowners who lost their jobs could be moved to the front of the line for
unemployment benefits, food stamps, retraining and home refinancing; (2)
Federal and State liens could be placed on the home to recover State expenses for
health care and job assistance; and (3) reports could be required of all lenders
having loans that are in default and or facing foreclosure to ensure the proper
lenders are involved with the default and foreclosure.
43.
The dichotomy of blame and responsibility created by the constitution and laws became
manifest when former Attorney General McKenna, through a Hilton Vancouver Washington,
informed the hotel employees that he could not investigate death threats because the Governor
refused to allow the investigation. See Exhibits W through Z attached hereto.
44.
The City of Vancouver Washington, which owns the Hilton Vancouver Washington, was
informed that the hotels union had allegedly falsified its pension plans for $341,012.00 in Tax
Year 2010:
10 |
45.
The City was further informed through the U.S. Department of Justice (Criminal
Division) that the whistleblowing was associated with an organized crime ring, Exhibit W at 1,
which had previously been found to be under the influence and control of the heirs of Al
Capone Chicago Outfit, Exhibit W at 2-6.
46.
Eric Walter, the Citys Hotel Manager, informed the City that its hotel was not
contributing twice the rate the organized crime ring claimed it was contributing on the unions
tax returns. Exhibit X at 8-10.
47.
The Citys hotel union informed the Federal Court in New Jersey that Petitioner lacked
standing to file any claims and causes of action because Petitioner was never a member of the
hotel union:
///
///
///
///
11 |
***
***
See Exhibit Y, 1-27 attached hereto.

48.
The unions admissions in federal court that Petitioner was not a member of the hotels
union established the crime of identity theft proscribed in Chapter 9.35 RCW, and necessitating
the requirement that Petitioner file a police report. See Exhibit Z at 1.
12 |
49.
In an apparent effort to distance itself from an organized crime ring, the U.S. DOJs
Criminal Division notified Petitioner to cease and desist from providing any further
whistleblowing materials to its office. See Exhibit Z at 2.
50.
As of the date of the filing of this Petition for Recall, no person from the State or Federal
Governments has investigated the death threats; pension fraud or identity theft.
II.
HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL MORTGAGE MARKET (NMM).
A.
Promotion of a National Mortgage Market.
51.
The federal governments role in the market for buying and selling residential mortgages
in the United States was established in response to the Great Depression when incomes and
housing prices fell sharply and foreclosure rates skyrocketed.
52.
As part of President Franklin Roosevelts New Deal, Congress enacted the National
Housing Act (NHA) of 1934, a taxpayer-financed system, to provide relief, recovery, and reform
after great depression; make housing and home mortgages more affordable and to protect lenders
from the risk of default.
53.
A simplified description of this new national market is shown in the following graphic:
53.
The NHA created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to: provide assistance in
the construction, acquisition, and or rehabilitation of residential properties; regulate rate of

13 |
interest and terms of mortgages; insure mortgages; increase the number of people who can afford
down payment and monthly mortgage payments; and increase the size of the market for single
family homes.
55.
In 1938, Congress created the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) as a
government agency with a mission to: establish a secondary mortgage market; purchase FHAinsured loans from private lenders; make lenders more inclined to extend mortgage credit; and
equalize supply and demand of funds in capital rich and capital poor areas.
56.
In 1954, Congress began the process of shifting Fannie Mae to private ownership. Each
lender selling mortgages to the agency was required to make a capital contribution to purchase
nonvoting common stock in Fannie Mae, which would gradually help retire the preferred stock
held by the Treasury. Under the Charter Act of 1968, Fannie Mae became a private government
sponsored enterprise (GSE)/public-private partnership.
57.
In 1970, Congress enacted the Emergency Home Finance Act which provided for the
creation of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation or Freddie Mac, a second private
GSE. Congress goal was to expand the secondary mortgage market and eliminate the perceived
monopoly of Fannie Mae.
58.
In 1972, Fannie Mae (OTCBB: FNMA) and Freddie Mac (OTCBB: FMCC), began
purchasing conventional mortgages, which are mortgages not guaranteed by the FHA or the
Veterans Administration. Structural features of the mortgage market at this time made it highly
susceptible to disruptions in the flow of funding.
59.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Fannie Mae suffered a series of deeply unprofitable
years that put its viability in doubt. Much like the savings and loan industry, it had financed its
mortgage investments by issuing shorter-term debt, seeking to take advantage of lower shortterm interest rates. That strategy exposed Fannie Mae to interest rate riskwhen interest rates
rose, its borrowing costs increased commensurately, while its income from existing mortgages
remained fixed.
60.
As interest rates declined after 1984 and Fannie Mae did a better job matching the
duration of its assets and liabilities, it returned to profitability. After this period, the business
strategies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began to converge.
61.
In 1989, Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement
Act (FIRREA), which authorized thrifts to sell their shares in Freddie Mac to the public as a way
14 |
of injecting more capital into the thrift industry during the savings and loan crisis. Shares in
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became more attractive for investors, which prompted the need for
the electronification of the mortgage process and the creation of the Mortgage Electronic
Registration System (MERS) and the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (MERS,
Inc.) in 1995.
62.
By 2001, the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac looked virtually the same, as
depicted in the following chart:
63.
In 2001, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issued standardized contractual language for the
role of MERS, Inc. and the Deed of Trust created in each State to appear on Fannie Mae/Freddie
Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT (MERS) Form 3048, as shown here for the State of
Washington:
///
///
///
///
15 |
64.
On September 6, 2008 the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) placed Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac into conservatorship in accordance with the Federal Housing Finance Regulatory
Reform Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-289) and the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and
Soundness Act of 1992.
65.
At that time and pursuant to the statutes, the FHFA set forth the purpose and goals of
conservatorship as follows:
The purpose of appointing the Conservator is to preserve and conserve the
Companys assets and property and to put the Company in a sound and solvent
condition. The goals of the conservatorship are to help restore confidence in the
16 |
Company, enhance its capacity to fulfill its mission, and mitigate the systemic risk
that has contributed directly to the instability in the current market.
66.
Critical to the establishment of the conservatorships were the actions taken at the same
time by the U.S. Treasury Department, consistent with its authority granted in the Housing and
Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), to establish three funding facilities. Two of these
the liquidity facility and the mortgage-backed securities purchase facilityexpired as scheduled
at the end of 2009.
67.
The third facilitythe Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (PSPAs)was
structured to provide ongoing financial support to the Enterprises to ensure they remain active
participants in the marketplace. The PSPAs work by ensuring that the Enterprises maintain a
positive net worth. The U.S. Treasurys initial financial commitment was up to $100 billion per
company. As explained at the time of the conservatorships by Treasury Secretary Paulson:
These agreements support market stability by providing additional security and
clarity to GSE debt holders - senior and subordinated - and support mortgage
availability by providing additional confidence to investors in GSE mortgage
backed securities. This commitment will eliminate any mandatory triggering of
receivership and will ensure that the conserved entities have the ability to fulfill
their financial obligations. It is more efficient than a one-time equity injection,
because it will be used only as needed and on terms that Treasury has set.
68.
As nearly all other non-governmental participants in housing finance abandoned the
market, the conservatorship of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, operating with the benefit of the
PSPAs, ensured that credit continued to flow to housing. As evidence of this, the share of
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in financing or guaranteeing new single-family mortgage
production rose from 54 percent in 2006 to 73 percent in 2008 and 78 percent in 2009 through
September.
69.
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, while under conservatorship, have played a significant role
in multifamily housing finance with their market share growing from 33 percent in 2006 to 79
percent in 2008 and 64 percent in 2009 through September.
70.
On March 31, 2011, Senator McCain, for himself and Senator Hatch, introduced
Senate Bill S.693, A Bill To establish a term certain for the conservatorships of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, to provide conditions for continued operation of such enterprises, and to provide
for the wind down of such operations and dissolution of such enterprises, GSE Bailout
Elimination and Taxpayer Protection Act.
17 |
71.
During a Senate banking hearing on November 18, 2014, South Dakota Senator Tim
Johnson (D) called on Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Melvin Watt to engage with the
Treasury Department in talks to end the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Johnson commented that the conservatorship cannot continue forever. However, if Congress
cannot agree on a smooth, more certain path forward, I urge you, Director Watt, to engage the
Treasury Department in talks to end the conservatorship. Source: The Federal Housing
Finance Agency: Balancing Stability, Growth, and Affordability in the Mortgage Market,
http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2014/11/johnson-holds-fhfa-oversight-hearing
[Last visited: May 22, 2016)
72.
On February 14, 2012, Attorney General Robert M. McKenna submitted his Brief of
Amicus Curiae Attorney General of State of Washington In Support of Petitioner in Bain v.

Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 175 Wn.2d 83 (2012), which was decided on August 16, 2012.
73.
Attorney General McKenna informed the Supreme Court that:

The State files this Amicus Petition to provide the Court with both statutory and
public policy reasons why the MERS system conceals the true owner of the
promissory note and why this is damaging to a free, fair and transparent mortgage
marketplace. MERS argues that...it only holds legal title to members
mortgages in a nominee capacity and is contractually prohibited from exercising
any rights with respect to the mortgages (i.e., foreclosure) without the
authorization of the members. Further, MERS argues that it does not own the
promissory notes secured by the mortgages and has no right to payments made on
the notes. MERS explains that it merely immobilizes the mortgage lien while
transfers of the promissory notes and servicing rights continue to occur.
Therefore, the very purpose of MERS is to hold onto the security interest while
ownership of the loan passes from party to party. This role is contrary to
Washingtons fundamental principle of real property finance law that the note is
considered the obligation, and the mortgage but an incident of the note which
passes with it. It is not just decades of case law that rely on the note and the
security instrument transferring together. The Deed of Trust Act (DTA) assumes
it throughout its provisions. (Footnote and citations omitted.) AG Br. at 3-4.
74.
The Supreme Courts relevant holdings in Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 175 Wn.2d
83 are as follows:
Simply put, if MERS does not hold the note, it is not a lawful beneficiary.
Since 1998, the deed of trust act has defined a beneficiary as the holder of the
instrument or document evidencing the obligations secured by the deed of trust,
excluding persons holding the same as security for a different obligation. Thus,
in the terms of the certified question, if MERS never held the promissory note,
then it is not a lawful 'beneficiary.
18 |
MERS also argues that it meets the statutory definition itself. In these particular
cases, MERS contends that it is a proper beneficiary because, in its view, it is
indisputably the holder of the Deed of Trust. It provides no authority for its
characterization of itself as indisputably the holder of the deeds of trust. We
agree that an interpretation of beneficiary that has the deed of trust securing
itself is untenable....
There is no evidence in the record or argument that suggests MERS has the power
to reach a resolution and avoid foreclosure on behalf of the noteholder, and there
is considerable reason to believe it does not. The legislature was attempting to
create a framework where the stakeholders could negotiate a deal in the face of
changing conditions.
The plaintiffs argue that our interpretation of the deed of trust act should be
guided by these UCC definitions, and thus a beneficiary must either actually
possess the promissory note or be the payee. We agree. This accords with the
way the term holder is used across the deed of trust act and the Washington
UCC. By contrast, MERSs approach would require us to give holder a
different meaning in different related statutes and construe the deed of trust act to
mean that a deed of trust may secure itself or that the note follows the security
instrument. Washingtons deed of trust act contemplates that the security
instrument will follow the note, not the other way around. MERS is not a holder
under the plain language of the statute.
In the alternative, MERS argues that the borrowers should be held to their
contracts, and since they agreed in the deeds of trust that MERS would be the
beneficiary, it should be deemed to be the beneficiary. The legislature has set
forth in great detail how nonjudicial foreclosures may proceed. We find no
indication the legislature intended to allow the parties to vary these procedures by
contract. We will not allow waiver of statutory protections lightly. MERS did not
become a beneficiary by contract or under agency principles.
75.
MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., the parent company of Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc. (MERS, Inc.), further admits on its website that MERS, Inc. and the MERS, Inc.
electronic recording System, never owns or holds the mortgage note, to wit:
///
///
///
///
///
///
19 |
Source: https://www.mersinc.org/join-mers-docman/1037-mers-system-marketing-brochure
[Last visited: May 22, 2016.]
III.
CONSPIRACY TO USE MERS, INC. TO GAME THE NMM, DEFRAUD THE
UNITED STATES AND THE SEVERAL STATES AND EXTORT HOMEOWNERS.
A.
INTRODUCTION TO CONSPIRACY LAW.
76.
Title 18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire
or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to
another Federal crime or offense. Under this law, a conspiracy is an agreement or a kind of
partnership in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every
other member.
20 |
77.
In order to establish a conspiracy offense it is not necessary for the Government to prove
that all of the people named in the indictment were members of the scheme; or that those who
were members had entered into any formal type of agreement; or that the members had planned
together all of the details of the scheme or the overt acts that the indictment charges would be
carried out in an effort to commit the intended crime.
78.
Because the essence of a conspiracy offense is the making of the agreement itself ,
followed by the commission of any overt act, it is not necessary for the Government to prove that
the conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful plan.
79.
A person may become a member of a conspiracy without knowing all of the details of the
unlawful scheme, and without knowing who all of the other members are. So, if a person has an
understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on
one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he did not participate
before, and even though he played only a minor part. United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.,
310 U.S. 150, 253 (1940); United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U.S. 78, 88 (1915); Pinkerton v.
United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946).
80.
On May 2, 2016, the United States Supreme Court decided Ocasio v. United States, 578
U.S. ___ (2016), 2016 U.S. LEXIS 2932. Therein, the Court held that a defendant may be
convicted of conspiring to violate the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951, based on proof that he
reached an agreement with the owner of the property in question to obtain that property under
color of official right.
B.
THE MERS, INC. CONSPIRACY.

THE CONSPIRACY
81.
From in or about January 2001, and continuing through the present, in the State of
Washington and elsewhere, Melvin L. Watt, Director of Federal Housing Finance Agency
(FHFA); Kurt Pfotenhauer, Chairman of the Board of Directors, MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. and
MERS, Inc.; Bill Beckmann; Timothy J. Mayopoulos, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Fannie Mae; Egbert L. J. Perry, Non-Executive Chairman of the Board, Fannie Mae; Donald H.
Layton, Chief Executive Officer, of Freddie Mac and over 5,000 other individuals affiliated with
members of MERS, Inc., did knowingly and unlawfully combine, conspire, confederate, and
agree together, with state law enforcement officers and homeowners across the United States to
21 |
obstruct, delay, and affect commerce and the movement of any article and commodity in
commerce by extortion, that is, to unlawfully obtain property from homeowners, with their
consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color
of official right, not due to any of them or their official positions, in violation of 18 U.S. Code,
Section 1951(a).
PURPOSE OF THE CONSPIRACY
82.
It was a purpose of the conspiracy for state and county law enforcement officers to enrich
Melvin L. Watt; Kurt Pfotenhauer; Bill Beckmann; Timothy J. Mayopoulos, Egbert L. J. Perry,
Donald H. Layton and over 5,000 other individuals by exercising their official positions and
influence to cause homeowners to relinquish possession of their home for delivery of possession
to a third party such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
MANNER AND MEANS
83.
It was part of the conspiracy that MERS, Inc. would use its unlawful authority as
beneficiary named on the Deed of Trust to assign the Note and Deed of Trust to a member of
MERS, Inc. when in fact MERS, Inc. never held or owned the Note and the assignee was aware
MERS, Inc. did not possess such authority at the time the assignment was made.
84.
Recorded document searches of the records of the Clark County Washington Auditors
Office revealed the conspiracy involving MERS, Inc.s unlawful assignments of the note and
deed of trust began operating in Clark County Washington in 2002:
1. Recorded Documents Search Results
Search Criteria:
Grantor
mortgage electronic registration system
Title
ADT
Start Date
01/01/2001
End Date
12/31/2001
No matching records found.
Search Criteria:
Grantor
Title
ADT
Start Date
01/01/2000
End Date
12/31/2000
Search Criteria:
22 |
Grantor
Title
ADT
Start Date
01/01/1999
End Date
12/31/1999
85.
It was further part of the conspiracy that Melvin L. Watt; Kurt Pfotenhauer; Bill
Beckmann; Timothy J. Mayopoulos; Egbert L. J. Perry, Donald H. Layton and over 5,000 other
individuals associated with members of MERS, Inc. agreed to use the power of the State to cause
homeowners to be wrongfully dispossessed of their homes pursuant to the following general
pattern:
(a)
MERS, Inc. would use its unlawful authority as beneficiary to cause an
Assignment of Deed of Trust to be recorded in the Clark County Auditor Office in violation of
RCW 40.16.030.
(b)
After receiving the assignment from MERS, Inc., the assignee purports to exercise
rights as the owner/holder of the promissory note, such as appointing a successor trustee or
directing the commencement of nonjudicial foreclosure procedures.
(c)
In some instances, after receiving the unlawful assignment, the assignee will
appear in Federal Bankruptcy Court and untruthfully represent itself to the Court as the
owner/holder of the promissory note which is provided by MERS, Inc. for the sole purpose of
thwarting the homeowners claim.
(d)
After becoming aware of the assignment from MERS, Inc., the Trustee would fail
to postpone the nonjudicial foreclosure sale after being further aware of the homeowners lawsuit
and the recordation of a lis pendens on the homeowners property.
(e)
After receiving the assignment from MERS, Inc., members of the conspiracy
would offer or pretend to offer loan modifications for which no authority existed.
(f)
would engage in practices designed to conceal the true owner/holder of the promissory note.
(g)
would invoke state action by unlawfully commencing a state court action for unlawful detainer
with a demand that the homeowner be taken out of possession using the power of the County
Sheriff or other law enforcement personnel.
23 |
(h)
would fail to voluntarily dismiss the action for unlawful detainer when presented with a copy of
IRS Form 1099-A which tended to demonstrate the assignment was unlawful and the notices of
default and foreclosure were null and void.
OVERT ACTS
86.
In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the purpose of the conspiracy, at least one
of the conspirators performed and or caused to be performed, at least one of the following overt
acts on or about the dates set forth below, in Clark County Washington, which consists of at least
171 recorded overt acts in 2015 and 11 recorded overt acts from January 1, 2016 to May 20,
2016:
1.
Recorded Documents Search Results
Search Criteria:
Grantor
Title
ADT
Start Date
01/01/2015
End Date
01/10/2015
Document Title (type) Parcel(s)
Excise
Date Recorded Grantor(s)
Grantee(s)
5136148
ADT
Jan 09, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5136083
ADT
Jan 09, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5136170
ADT
Jan 09, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5136201
ADT
Jan 09, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5136203
ADT
Jan 09, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5135742
ADT
Jan 08, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5135778
ADT
Jan 08, 2015
MORTGAGE
BANK OF
24 |
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
AMERICA NA,
5135780
ADT
Jan 08, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5135595
ADT
Jan 08, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5135676
ADT
Jan 08, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5135526
ADT
Jan 08, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5135587
ADT
Jan 08, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5135589
ADT
Jan 08, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5135813
ADT
Jan 08, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5135816
ADT
Jan 08, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5135679
ADT
Jan 08, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5135845
ADT
Jan 08, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5135143
ADT
186340005
Jan 07, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5135130
ADT
105832798
Jan 07, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
25 |
SYSTEMS,
5135318
ADT
5135362
178186004
Jan 07, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
FIRST MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
ADT
Jan 07, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5134633
ADT
Jan 06, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5134635
ADT
Jan 06, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5134637
ADT
Jan 06, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5134639
ADT
Jan 06, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5134651
ADT
Jan 06, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5134140
ADT
Jan 05, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5134142
ADT
Jan 05, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5134144
ADT
Jan 05, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5134146
ADT
Jan 05, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5134148
ADT
Jan 05, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5134062
ADT
Jan 02, 2015
MORTGAGE
BANK OF
26 |
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
AMERICA NA,
2.
Search Criteria:
Grantor
Title
ADT
Start Date
01/11/2015
End Date
01/20/2015
Grantee(s)
5138813
ADT
Excise
Jan 21, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5138815
ADT
Jan 21, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5138817
ADT
Jan 21, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5138830
ADT
Jan 21, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5138834
ADT
Jan 21, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5138832
ADT
Jan 21, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5138837
ADT
Jan 21, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5138470
ADT
256766000
Jan 20, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
WELLS FARGO
BANK NA,
5138458
ADT
92011516
Jan 20, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5137867
ADT
Jan 16, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5137852
ADT
Jan 16, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5137854
ADT
Jan 16, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5137857
ADT
Jan 16, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5138125
ADT
Jan 16, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5138127
ADT
Jan 16, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5138129
ADT
Jan 16, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5137739
ADT
Jan 16, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5137328
ADT
Jan 15, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
27 |
AMERICA NA,
5137330
ADT
Jan 15, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5137014
ADT
Jan 14, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5136992
ADT
Jan 13, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5136994
ADT
Jan 13, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5136996
ADT
Jan 13, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5136920
ADT
Jan 13, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5136998
ADT
Jan 13, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5136933
ADT
Jan 13, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5136935
ADT
Jan 13, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5136938
ADT
Jan 13, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5136922
ADT
Jan 13, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5136926
ADT
Jan 13, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5136931
ADT
Jan 13, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5136594
ADT
Jan 12, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5136598
ADT
Jan 12, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
3.
Search Criteria:
Grantor
Title
ADT
Start Date
01/21/2015
End Date
01/31/2015
Document
Title (type)
Parcel(s)
5141872
ADT
5141867
ADT
Excise
Date Recorded
Grantor(s)
Grantee(s)
108858316
Jan 30, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
FIDELITY
NATIONAL TITLE,
111033018
Jan 30, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
FIDELITY BANK,
28 |
SYSTEMS,
5141887
ADT
Jan 30, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5141889
ADT
Jan 30, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5141879
ADT
Jan 30, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5141884
ADT
Jan 30, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5141328
ADT
Jan 29, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5141667
ADT
Jan 29, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5140786
ADT
Jan 27, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
CITIMORTGAGE
INC,
5140646
ADT
Jan 27, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
CAROLINA
PREMIER BANK,
5140865
ADT
Jan 27, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5140852
ADT
Jan 27, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5140861
ADT
Jan 27, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5140418
ADT
Jan 26, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5140425
ADT
Jan 26, 2015
MORTGAGE
BANK OF
29276090
29 |
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
AMERICA NA,
5140428
ADT
Jan 26, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5140049
ADT
Jan 26, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5140051
ADT
Jan 26, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5140055
ADT
Jan 26, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5139435
ADT
Jan 22, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5139437
ADT
Jan 22, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5139439
ADT
Jan 22, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5139474
ADT
Jan 22, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5139428
ADT
Jan 22, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5139431
ADT
Jan 22, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5138813
ADT
Jan 21, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5138815
ADT
Jan 21, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
30 |
SYSTEMS,
5138817
ADT
Jan 21, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5138830
ADT
Jan 21, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5138834
ADT
Jan 21, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5138832
ADT
Jan 21, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5138837
ADT
Jan 21, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
Date Recorded
Grantor(s)
Grantee(s)
4.
Search Criteria:
Grantor
Title
ADT
Start Date
02/01/2015
End Date
02/28/2015
Document
Title (type)
Parcel(s)
Excise
5149710
ADT
150048050
Feb 26, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5148878
ADT
21310000
Feb 24, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5147202
ADT
153965000
Feb 20, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5146764
ADT
Feb 19, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5146835
ADT
Feb 19, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
31 |
5146487
ADT
Feb 18, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5146299
ADT
Feb 17, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5146058
ADT
Feb 17, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5146063
ADT
Feb 17, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5146139
ADT
Feb 17, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
WELLS FARGO
BANK NA,
5146311
ADT
Feb 17, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5145746
ADT
Feb 13, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5145444
ADT
Feb 13, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
FIRST
MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
5145441
ADT
Feb 13, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5145754
ADT
Feb 13, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5145756
ADT
Feb 13, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5145759
ADT
Feb 13, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5144951
ADT
Feb 11, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
PROVIDENT
FUNDING ASSOC,
118136586
37913324
114783570
32 |
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
5144533
ADT
Feb 10, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5144549
ADT
Feb 10, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5144551
ADT
Feb 10, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5144555
ADT
Feb 10, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5144522
ADT
Feb 10, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5144527
ADT
Feb 10, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5144529
ADT
Feb 10, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5144290
ADT
Feb 09, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5144288
ADT
Feb 09, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5144125
ADT
Feb 09, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5144127
ADT
Feb 09, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5144158
ADT
Feb 09, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
33 |
5144195
ADT
Feb 09, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5144197
ADT
Feb 09, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5143692
ADT
Feb 06, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5143651
ADT
Feb 06, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5143653
ADT
Feb 06, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5143649
ADT
Feb 06, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5143228
ADT
Feb 05, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5143346
ADT
Feb 05, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5143230
ADT
Feb 05, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5143233
ADT
Feb 05, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5143235
ADT
Feb 05, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5143047
ADT
Feb 04, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5143036
ADT
Feb 04, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
105832380
34 |
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
5142265
ADT
Feb 02, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5142267
ADT
Feb 02, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5142269
ADT
Feb 02, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5142259
ADT
Feb 02, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
Date Recorded
Grantor(s)
Grantee(s)
Mar 31, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
FIDELITY BANK,
5.
Search Criteria:
Grantor
Title
ADT
Start Date
03/01/2015
End Date
03/31/2015
Document
Title (type)
5159349
ADT
Parcel(s)
Excise
5157025
ADT
86975100
Mar 24, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5152103
ADT
986030183
Mar 05, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
ONE
PACIFICCOAST
BANK,
6.
Search Criteria:
Grantor
Title
ADT
Start Date
04/01/2015
End Date
04/30/2015

5168078
ADT
20660000
260025000
Excise
Grantee(s)
Apr 30, 2015
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
35 |
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
5168139
ADT
Apr 30, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
US DEBT
VENTURES FUND
LP,
5165905
ADT
Apr 23, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
FIDELITY
NATIONAL TITLE,
5162368
ADT
Apr 10, 2015
FEDERAL DEPOSIT
INSURANCE, MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
COUNTRYWIDE BANK
NA,
SABADELL
UNITED BANK
NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,
90267014
7.
Search Criteria:
Grantor
Title
ADT
Start Date
05/01/2015
End Date
05/31/2015
Document
Title (type)
5172456
ADT
5171415
ADT
5171414
ADT
Parcel(s)
Excise
Date Recorded
Grantor(s)
Grantee(s)
May 14, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
UA BANK
NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,
126668076
May 11, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
PROVIDENT
FUNDING
ASSOC,
105521024
May 11, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
PROVIDENT
FUNDING
ASSOC,
8.
Search Criteria:
Grantor
Title
ADT
Start Date
06/01/2015
End Date
06/30/2015
Document Title (type) Parcel(s) Excise
Grantee(s)
5180382
Jun 08, 2015
CALLIBER HOME
LOANS INC,
ADT
37300100
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
36 |
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
5178414
ADT
Jun 02, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
DEUTSCHE BANK
TRUST COMPANY
AMERICAS,
9.
Search Criteria:
Grantor
Title
ADT
Start Date
07/01/2015
End Date
07/31/2015
Document
Title (type)
Parcel(s)
5197356
ADT
5195652
ADT
5195504
ADT
5192718
ADT
Excise
Date Recorded
Grantor(s)
Grantee(s)
105523034
Jul 28, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
PARAMOUNT
EQUITY
MORTGAGE
LLC,
213498034
Jul 23, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC., AS
DESIGNATED
NOMINEE FOR
AMERICA&APOS;S
WHOLESALE
LENDER,
NATIONSTAR
MORTGAGE
LLC,
Jul 22, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
US BANK NA,
Jul 15, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC., AS
DESIGNATED
NOMINEE FOR
LOANCITY.COM,
GREEN TREE
SERVICING
LLC,
114782072
10.
Search Criteria:
Grantor
Title
ADT
Start Date
08/01/2015
End Date
08/31/2015
Document Title (type) Parcel(s) Excise
Grantee(s)
5202198
Aug 11, 2015
OCWEN LOAN
ADT
MORTGAGE
37 |
5202211
ADT
Aug 11, 2015
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
SERVICING LLC,
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
PROVIDENT
FUNDING
ASSOCIATES LP,
11.
Search Criteria:
Grantor
Title
ADT
Start Date
10/01/2015
End Date
10/31/2015
Excise
Grantee(s)
5227790
ADT
Oct 30, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
URBAN FINANCIAL
OF AMERICA LLC,
5227310
ADT
Oct 29, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
FIDELITY BANK,
5226237
ADT
213266000
Oct 26, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
WELLS FARGO
BANK NA,
5224431
ADT
186423068
Oct 20, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
WELLS FARGO
BANK NA,
5220736
ADT
147996000
Oct 07, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
CITIMORTGAGE
INC,
12.
Search Criteria:
Grantor
Title
ADT
Start Date
11/01/2015
End Date
11/30/2015
Document
Title (type)
Parcel(s)
5235157
ADT
213808224
Excise
Date Recorded
Grantor(s)
Grantee(s)
Nov 24, 2015
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
PARAMOUNT
EQUITY
MORTGAGE
38 |
5230498
ADT
106511612
Nov 09, 2015
SYSTEMS,
LLC,
MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS,
WELLS FARGO
BANK NA,
13.
Search Criteria:
Grantor
Title
ADT
Start Date
12/01/2015
End Date
12/31/2015
Excise
Grantee(s)
5242761
ADT
62638000
Dec 22, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC WELLS FARGO

REGISTRATION
BANK NA,
SYSTEMS,
5241373
ADT
207841000
Dec 18, 2015
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC. AS
DESIGNATED NOMINEE
FOR FIRST INDEPENDENT
MORTGAGE CO.,
JPMORGAN
CHASE BANK,
NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,
14.
Search Criteria:
Grantor
Title
ADT
Start Date
01/01/2016
End Date
05/20/2016
Excise
Grantee(s)
5284759
ADT
May 18, 2016
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
US BANK
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS
NATIONAL
INC AS NOMINEE FOR
ASSOCIATION,
FAIRWAY INDEPENDENT
MORTGAGE CORPORATION
ITS SUCCESSORS AND
ASSIGNS, WEHRLY JOSHUA
M, WEHRLY CHELSEA A,
5282305
ADT
May 10, 2016
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
WELLS FARGO
BANK NA,
INC MERS AS DESIGNATED
NOMINEE FOR MT BANK
BENEFICIARY OF THE
SECURITY INSTRUMENT ITS
SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS,
ANDREICA FLOAREA,
5281148
ADT
May 06, 2016
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
WELLS FARGO
39 |
BANK NA,
INC MERS AS DESIGNATED
NOMINEE FOR EQUITY
HOME MORTGAGE LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY
BENEFICIARY OF THE
SECURITY INSTRUMENT ITS
SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS,
ROSS JOSEPH G, ROSS JULIA
R,
5278533
ADT
11917000
Apr 28, 2016
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5273464
ADT
173200005
Apr 12, 2016
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
WELLS FARGO
BANK NA,
5273033
ADT
Apr 11, 2016
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
PROVIDENT
FUNDING
ASSOCIATES
LP,
5266138
ADT
164498060
Mar 18, 2016
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
PROVIDENT
FUNDING
ASSOCIATES
LP,
5259686
ADT
206685054
Feb 25, 2016
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
QUICKEN LOANS INC,
CHARLES
SCHWAB
BANK,
5257788
ADT
Feb 18, 2016
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
FREEDOM
MORTGAGE
CORORATION,
5257083
ADT
Feb 16, 2016
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
5256056
ADT
Feb 11, 2016
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
FIDELITY
BANK,
OVERT ACT No. 183

87.
On October 17, 2011, the MERS, Inc. conspirators unlawfully assigned the note and deed
of trust executed by Pamela S. Owen to Bank of America National Association (N.A.), which is
associated with the real property commonly referred to as 3912 NE 57th Avenue, Vancouver,
WA 98661:
4799971
ADT
108669012
Oct 17, 2011
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
OVERT ACT No. 184

88.
On May 5, 2015, Sheriff Chuck E. Atkins caused a Writ of Restitution to be posted on the
Owen property.
OVERT ACT No. 185
40 |
89.
On May 25, 2016, Sheriff Chuck E. Atkins again caused a Writ of Restitution to be
posted on the Owen property.

OVERT ACT No. 186
90.
On August 3, 2011, the MERS, Inc. conspirators unlawfully assigned the note and deed
of trust executed by Jerzy Gruca to Bank of New York Mellon, which is associated with the real
property commonly known as 8413 NE 108th Avenue, Vancouver, WA 98662-2030:
4782796
ADT
104221012
Aug 03, 2011
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF NEW
YORK
MELLON,
OVERT ACT No. 187

91.
On May 20, 2016, the MERS, Inc. conspirators, through Trustee Benjamin Petiprin,
unlawfully used Washingtons Deed of Trust Act to sell Grucas real property, while being fully
aware that a lawsuit to quiet title had been commenced against certain members of the
conspiracy, Clark County Superior Court case number 16-2-00694-2 filed on April 1, 2016; and
while being further aware that a Lis Pendens had been recorded against the property, all having
been accomplished several weeks before the nonjudicial sale on May 20, 2015:
5273261
LIS
104221012
PENDENS
Apr 11, 2016
ZIEVE LES, PETIPRIN

BENJAMIN D, BANK OF
AMERICA NA, LANDSAFE
TITLE OF WASHINGTON,
AMERICAS WHOLESALE
LENDER, BANK OF NEW
YORK MELLON,
SPECIALIZED LOAN
SERVICING INC,
JERZY GRUCA
OVERT ACT No. 188

92.
of trust executed by Rodney E. Schultz to Bank of America N.A., which is associated with the
real property commonly known as 1206 Grand Avenue, Vancouver, WA 98661:
4854161
ADT
3703880
May 14, 2012 MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
OVERT ACT No. 189

93.
of trust executed by Ronald D. Steinmann and Kathleen T. Steinmann, Husband and Wife, to
41 |
OneWest Bank, FSB, which is associated with the real property commonly known as 16337 NE
50th Avenue, Vancouver, WA 98686:
4638468
ADT
195929000
January 29, 2010 MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

ONEWEST
BANK, FSB,
OVERT ACT No. 190

94.
On October, 29, 2014, Lisa M. McMahon-Myhran, acting on behalf of Bank of America,
National Association, filed a Declaration Motion for Relief from Stay, Real Property located at
3912 NE 57th Avenue, Vancouver, WA, in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of
Washington (Tacoma), Case name: In re Pamela Sue Johnson Owen, Bankruptcy Petition #: 1445542-BDL. Bank of America, N.A., through McMahon-Myhrans Declaration, untruthfully
represented to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court that Bank of America, N.A. was the owner/holder of
Owens promissory note.
95.
At the time of its alleged perjury, Bank of America was aware that another member of the
conspiracy, Freddie Mac, was the owner and holder of Owens Note. This fact was confirmed on
January 28, 2016 when Owen received a completed copy of U.S. Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 1099-A, which was dated January 21, 2016 and issued on
behalf of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation pursuant to Title 26 U.S.C. 6050J.
OVERT ACT No. 191
96.
On January 21, 2016, Freddie Mac caused to be issued to Owen a completed copy of IRS
Form 1099-A which indicated Freddie Mac was the Lender under Federal and State laws
which contradicted Bank of Americas statements made to the Federal Bankruptcy that it was the
owner/holder of Owners note and entitled to foreclose Owens interests. A true and correct copy
of this IRS Form is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
OVERT ACT No. 192
97.
On June 15, 2015, Sheriff Atkins caused to be filed in the U.S. District at Tacoma
DEFENDANT ATKINS ANSWER, wherein Sheriff Atkins admitted that a Writ of

Restitution was posted at Plaintiffs [Owens] alleged property on May 5, 2015. A true and
correct copy of Sheriff Atkins Answer is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
OVERT ACT No. 193
98.
On February 26, 2016, Sheriff Atkins caused to be filed in the U.S. District Court
DEFENDANT ATKINS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY

42 |
JUDGMENT and DEFENDANT ATKINS CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, wherein Sheriff Atkins untruthfully represented to the Honorable Benjamin H.
Settle, among other untruths, that: Owen fails to provide the Court with a copy of the alleged
incomplete writ or other evidence that might support her second claim. See attached Exhibit H
at 3, line 23.
99.
The aforementioned statement was untrue because on June 5, 2015, Sheriff Atkins filed a
copy of the unsigned and undated Writ of Restitution filed on April 3, 2015 in the Superior Court
as part of his materials when he removed the case to Federal Court. See Exhibit D attached
hereto.
OVERT ACT No. 194
100.
On February 26, 2016, Margie Johnson caused to be filed in the U.S. District Court under
penalty of perjury DECLARATION OF MARGIE JOHNSON in support of DEFENDANT

ATKINS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and
DEFENDANT ATKINS CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, wherein Johnson
declared that the Writ of Restitution was posted to the premises on May 5, 2015. See Exhibit C
at 2, line 14 and Exhibit E attached hereto.
101.
Johnson further disclosed in her Declaration in Exhibit 4a, now Exhibit C at 18 that
Sheriff Atkins has an official policy to post and run rather than attempt to personally serve the
Writ, which is in direct violation of RCW 59.12.100, which provides in pertinent part that:
The sheriff shall, upon receiving the writ of restitution, forthwith serve a copy
thereof upon the defendant, his or her agent or attorney, or a person in possession
of the premises, and shall not execute the same for three days thereafter, nor until
after the defendant has been served with summons in the action as hereinabove
provided.
102.
RCW 59.12.100 permitted Sheriff Atkins to serve the Writ by posting only under the
following conditions:
The writ may be served by the sheriff, in the event he or she shall be unable to
find the defendant, an agent or attorney, or a person in possession of the premises,
by affixing a copy of said writ in a conspicuous place upon the premises.
103.
Johnson further attached to her Declaration seven exhibitsthe first four were numbered
correctly; two were numbered incorrectly and a third, Exhibit 4a, was not mentioned at all.
Among them was a signed copy of a Writ of Restitution which indicated it was filed on April 3,
2015 and which Johnson declared to be true and correct.
43 |
104.
Owen alleged in her Civil Rights Complaint, Dkt. 2-3 at 4, paragraph 1.17, that the
original writ that was filed on April 3, 2015, Sub. 12, Plaintiffs Exhibit 9, Dkt. 2-3 at 60-61, was
never signed before it was filed. See Exhibit D attached hereto.
105.
Page 2 of Exhibit 4 to Decl. Johnson, now Exhibit C at 16, is materially different from
page 2 of Owens Exhibit 9, Dkt. 2-3 at 61, now Exhibit D at 2, in the following aspects:
(1)
Owens page 2 is not signed; Johnsons page 2 is signed using a rubber stamp;
(2)
Owens page 2 does not bear the seal of the Superior Court; Johnsons page 2
(3)
Owens page 2 contains marks where a staple had been removed; Johnsons page
does;
2 is missing these staple marks;

(4)
Owens page 2 does not contain a second vertical line on the upper right margin;
Johnsons page 2 does contain a second line.

106.
Thus, the signed and dated Writ presented by Johnson to the Federal Court on February
26, 2016 to support Sheriff Atkins untruthful statement is materially different from the unsigned
and undated Writ Sheriff Atkins filed with the Federal Court on June 5, 2015, and as such, is
prima facie evidence that the records of the Superior were injured in direct violation of RCW
40.16.010, which provides that:
Every person who shall willfully and unlawfully remove, alter, mutilate, destroy,
conceal, or obliterate a record, map, book, paper, document, or other thing filed or
deposited in a public office, or with any public officer, by authority of law, is
guilty of a Class C felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in a state
correctional facility for not more than five years, or by a fine of not more than one
thousand dollars, or by both.
107.
The Federal court filed on April 13, 2016 its Order granting Sheriff Atkins summary
judgment on the basis that because Sheriff Atkins and Freddie Mac allowed Owen to remain in
possession, Owen could not state a claim for a violation of her federal constitutional rights. See
Exhibit F attached hereto.
OVERT ACT No. 195
108.
On May 25, 2016, notwithstanding the Federal courts grant of summary judgment in his
favor for leaving Owen in possession of her real property, Sheriff Atkins again posted a Writ of
Restitution on Owens property in violation RCW 59.12.100 and the Federal courts Order
44 |
finding no constitutional violation as long as Owen remained in possession. See Exhibit G

attached hereto.
OVERT ACT No. 196
109.
On September 16, 2011, the MERS, Inc. conspirators unlawfully assigned the note and
deed of trust executed by Abderrahim Saddas to BAC Home Loan Servicing LLP, which is
associated with the real property commonly known as 11488 Turtleback Lane, San Diego, CA
92067:
2011-0516095
ADT
October 4,
2011
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BAC HOME
LOAN
SERVICING
LLP,
OVERT ACT No. 197

110.
On October 4, 2011, the MERS, Inc. conspirators unlawfully assigned the note and deed
of trust executed by Abderrahim Saddas to Bank of America N.A., which is associated with the
real property commonly known as 11488 Turtleback Lane, San Diego, CA 92067:
2011-0516095
ADT
October 4,
2011
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
BANK OF
AMERICA NA,
OVERT ACT No. 198

111.
On October 25, 2013, the members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy, through Bank of
America N.A. claiming to be the owner/holder of the Note executed by Abderrahim Saddas,
caused the home of Saddas to be sold at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale.
OVERT ACT No. 199
112.
On November 18, 2013, the members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy, through Sierra
Equity LLC, executed a deed of trust with McKinley Debt Fund I, LLC.
OVERT ACT No. 199
113.
On November 19, 2013, the members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy, through Sierra
Equity LLC, commenced a complaint for unlawful detainer in the Superior Court of San Diego
for the County of San Diego California. See Exhibit S attached hereto.
114.
On February 5, 2014, the San Diego Superior Court denied the Motion to Quash filed by
Saddas and shortened his response time to two days in direct violation of Californias Unlawful
Detainer statute, Cal. Code of Civ. Procedure (CCP) 1167.4. See Exhibit T.
45 |
OVERT ACT No. 200

115.
On February 10, 2014, the members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy, through Sierra Equity
LLC, under penalty of perjury, untruthfully caused the San Diego Superior Court to enter the
default of Saddas for having failed to file a response on or before February 7, 2014. See Exhibit
S at 2, Register of Action (ROA) Nos. 35, 36 and 37 and Exhibit U.
116.
The San Diego Superior Court did not enter Saddas February 7, 2014 until sometime
after February 25, 2014 and before March 14, 2014. This delay gave the appearance that Saddas
was in default when both the Superior Court and the members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy,
through Sierra Equity LLC, were in receipt of Saddas response on February 7, 2014, said receipt
being confirmed under ROA No. 46, Exhibit S at 3.
OVERT ACT No. 201
117.
On February 14, 2014, Saddas filed a timely Notice of Appeal. While the matter was
pending on appeal, the members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy, through Sierra Equity LLC,
caused the Clerk of the Superior Court to wrongfully use Californias Unlawful Detainer statute,
CCP 1169, to issue a Judgment of Default and a Writ of Possession. See Exhibit S at 3, ROA
Nos. 48, 49 and 50.
OVERT ACT No. 202
118.
Between March 19, 2014 and April 9, 2014, the members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy,
through Sierra Equity LLC and the San Diego County Sheriff, while the matter was on appeal,
wrongfully evicted Abderrahim Saddas and his young minor family members from the home
initially purchased in 1999. See Exhibit S at 3, ROA No. 53.
119.
This wrongful eviction, among other harms suffered, caused the Saddas family to enroll
their minor children in an entirely new school system.

120.
On September 26, 2014, the Honorable GALE E. KANESHIRO, Acting Presiding Judge,
Appellate Division, San Diego Superior Court, ruled that that:

///
///
///
///
///
///
46 |
See Exhibit V attached hereto.

OVERT ACT Nos. 203 through 112,778
121.
From January 01, 2002 and continuing through May 27, 2016, the members of the
MERS, Inc. Conspiracy recorded or caused to be recorded 112,578 assignments of deeds of trust
in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder.
C.
LEGAL INCONGRUENCES OF MERS CONSPIRACY IN WASHINGTON.
122.
On April 13, 2016, the United States District Court Western District of Washington at
Tacoma entered an Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment and Granting
Defendant [Sheriff Atkins]s Motion For Summary Judgment. The Court granted the Motion in
47 |
favor of Sheriff Atkins because it could find no constitutional violation as long as Owen
remained in possession of her home, to wit:
123.
The Federal Courts grant of summary judgment in favor of Sheriff Atkins because the
eviction was cancelled is inconsistent with Sheriff Atkins attempts to evict Owen and therefore
cause an unconstitutional violation of Owens Federal constitutional rights by wrongfully
evicting Owen.
124.
Likewise, the Federal Courts grant of summary judgment in favor of Sheriff Atkins
because the eviction was cancelled can only mean the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals
acted inappropriately and unconstitutionally in declaring Freddie Mac was entitled to possession
of Owens real property.
125.
On May 18, 2016, Kasey J. Curtis, REED SMITH LLP, attorney for Freddie Mac in the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, informed Owen that Freddie Mac desired to settle the Federal
case.
126.
On May 24, 2016, Kasey J. Curtis informed Owen that he was unaware of the Writ his
client, Freddie Mac, obtained on May 20, 2016 as part of his clients efforts to evict Owen and
further informed Owen that it was best that she contact his clients attorney handling the State
trial court litigation.
127.
Again on May 24, 2016 at 8:47p.m., Kasey J. Curtis informed Owen he did not represent
his client in the State court proceedings and that it was best not to keep him informed.
128.
The inconsistencies of the two attorneys representing the same client in two different
courts aptly demonstrates the U.S. Supreme Courts statement in Pinkerton v. United States, 328
U.S. 640, 644 (1946):
48 |
For two or more to confederate and combine together to commit or cause to be

committed a breach of the criminal laws, is an offense of the gravest character,
sometimes quite outweighing, in injury to the public, the mere commission of the
contemplated crime. It involves deliberate plotting to subvert the laws, educating
and preparing the conspirators for further and habitual criminal practices. And it
is characterized by secrecy, rendering it difficult of detection, requiring more time
for its discovery, and adding to the importance of punishing it when discovered.
129.
The seriousness of the evils associated with the MERS Conspiracy is best understood
when juxtaposed ruling case law and precedents and the comprehensive legislative scheme for
nonjudicial foreclosures and the eviction of homeowners under the New Deal legislation.
A.
Superior Court Jurisdiction.
130.
Nonjudicial foreclosures in Washington are governed by Chapter 61.24 RCW. Beal Bank,
SSB v. Sarich, 161 Wn.2d 544 at 548; Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 175 Wn.2d 83, 88, 285
P.3d 34 (2012).
131.
The procedural requirements for conducting a trustee sale are extensively spelled out in
RCW 61.24.030 and RCW 61.24.040. Procedural irregularities, such as those divesting a trustee
of its statutory authority to sell the property, can invalidate the sale. Albice v. Premier Mortg.
Servs. of Wash., Inc., 174 Wn.2d 560, 572, 276 P.3d 1277 (2012), citing Udall v. T.D. Escrow
Servs., Inc., 159 Wn.2d 903, 911, 154 P.3d 882 (2007).
132.
The trustees power of sale found in the deed of trust has been declared by this Court to
be a significant power which requires the DTA to be construed in favor of borrowers because
of the relative ease with which lenders can forfeit borrowers interests and the lack of judicial
oversight in conducting nonjudicial foreclosure sales. Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 175
Wn.2d at 93. The requisites to a trustees sale are set forth in RCW 61.24.010.
133.
To ensure trustees strictly comply with the requirements of the DTA, this Court held that
courts must be able to review postsale challenges. Albice v. Premier Mortg. Servs. of Wash.,
Inc., 174 Wn.2d at 572 (Enforcing statutory compliance encourages trustees to conduct
procedurally sound sales. When trustees strictly comply with their legal obligations under the
act, interested parties will have no claim for postsale relief, thereby promoting stable land titles
overall.) Albice v. Premier Mortg. Servs. of Wash., Inc., 174 Wn.2d at 572.
134.
An action for unlawful detainer brought pursuant to Chapter 59.12 RCW is confined to
the issue of the right of possession and its statutory incidents. The court may do one of two
thingseither enter a judgment in favor of the Defendant by dismissing the action with prejudice
49 |
or render judgment in favor of Plaintiff pursuant to RCW 59.12.120 or 59.12.170. Sundholm

v. Patch, 62 Wn.2d 244, 245-246, 382 P.2d 262 (1963); Snuffin v. Mayo, 6 Wn. App. 525, 528,
494 P.2d 497 (Div. Two, 1972).
135.
Article IV of the Washington Constitution establishes courts and invests them with the
power to hear and determine every justiciable cause and proceeding. Any discussion of state
court jurisdiction proceeds from this fundamental premise. State v. Werner, 129 Wash.2d 485,
492, 918 P.2d 916 (1996); State v. Pritchard, 79 Wash.App. 14, 19-20, 900 P.2d 560 (Div. Two,
1995), (citing State ex rel. New York Casualty Co. v. Superior Court for King County, 31 Wn.2d
834, 839, 199 P.2d 581 (1948).
136.
Complete jurisdiction has three components: (1) Jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2)
jurisdiction over the parties;and (3) power to render the particular judgment. Werner, 129
Wash.2d at 493, 918 P.2d 916.
137.
The Superior Courts unlawful detainer subject matter jurisdiction flows from the
constitutional mandate provided in Wash. Const. art. IV, 6. Tacoma Rescue Mission v. Stewart,
155 Wn. App. 250, 254 n.9, 228 P.3d 1289 (Div. Two, 2010). This judicial power is inherent,
even in the absence of a statute, and may not be abrogated or restricted by the Legislature. State
v. Werner, 129 Wash.2d at 494.
138.
RCW 59.12.050 further provides that a superior court has jurisdiction to determine
whether an unlawful detainer action may go forward. Tacoma Rescue Mission v. Stewart, 155
Wn.App. at 254 n.9.
139.
Under RCW 59.12.032:

An unlawful detainer action, commenced as a result of a trustees sale under
chapter 61.24 RCW, must comply with the requirements of RCW 61.24.040 and
61.24.060.
140.
When the MERS conspirators unlawfully assign the note and deed of trust using the
MERS, Inc. special purpose vehicle, a Superior Court lacks both constitutional and statutory
jurisdiction to order Sheriff Atkins to take possession of the homeowners home.
141.
Freddie Macs issuance of IRS Form 1099-A to Owen and other homeowners, further
demonstrates as a matter of law that the MERS conspirators acted without lawful authority under
both Federal and State laws.
B.
Theft of Homes Unlawful In Washington State.
50 |
142.
Our Supreme Court has made clear that: While the legislature has established a
mechanism for nonjudicial sales, neither due process nor equity will countenance a system that
permits the theft of a persons property by a lender or its beneficiary under the guise of a
statutory nonjudicial foreclosure. Klem v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 176 Wn.2d 771 at 790.
143.
Under Washington law, a cause of action is available when a trustee fails to exercise its
independent discretion to postpone a nonjudicial foreclosure. The paradigmatic case, cited by

Klem v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 176 Wn.2d 771, 295 P.3d 1179 (2013), is Cox v. Helenius, 103 Wn.2d
383, 389, 693 P.2d 683 (1985) ([A] trustee of a deed of trust is a fiduciary for both the
mortgagee and mortgagor and must act impartially between them.)
144.
Klem further held that:

Even if the statutory requisites to foreclosure had been satisfied and the Coxes
had failed to properly restrain the sale, this trustees actions, along with the
grossly inadequate purchase price, would result in a void sale. We had no
difficulty voiding the sale and quieting title in the homeowner. Id.; accord
Walcker v. Benson & McLaughlin, PS, 79 Wn. App. 739, 746, 904 P.2d 1176
(1995) (quieting title in homeowner after beneficiary sought to enforce a
promissory note after the statute of limitations had run); Albice v. Premier Mortg.
Servs. of Wash., Inc., 174 Wn.2d 560, 568, 276 P.3d 1277 (2012) (quieting title in
original owner after a foreclosure after trustee exceeded his powers).
145.
It was further observed by the Court that:

As a pragmatic matter, it is the lenders, the servicers, and their affiliates who
appoint trustees. Trustees have considerable financial incentive to keep those
appointing them happy and very little financial incentive to show the homeowners
the same solicitude. However, despite these pragmatic considerations and
incentives under our statutory system, a trustee is not merely an agent for the
lender or the lenders successors. Trustees have obligations to all of the parties to
the deed, including the homeowner. RCW 61.24.010(4) (The trustee or successor
trustee has a duty of good faith to the borrower, beneficiary, and grantor.).
While the legislature has established a mechanism for nonjudicial sales, neither
due process nor equity will countenance a system that permits the theft of a
persons property by a lender or its beneficiary under the guise of a statutory
nonjudicial foreclosure. An independent trustee who owes a duty to act in good
faith to exercise a fiduciary duty to act impartially to fairly respect the interests of
both the lender and the debtor is a minimum to satisfy the statute, the constitution,
and equity, at the risk of having the sale voided, having title quieted in the
original homeowner, and subjecting itself and the beneficiary to a CPA claim.
Klem v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 176 Wn.2d at 790.
51 |
146.
Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 175 Wn.2d 83, 285 P.3d 34 (2012) further held that
when an unlawful beneficiary appoints a successor trustee, the putative trustee lacks the legal
authority to record and serve a notice of the trustees sale. Bain held that MERS is an ineligible
beneficiary within the terms of the Washington Deed of Trust Act, if it never held the
promissory note or other debt instrument secured by the deed of trust. Bain, 175 Wn.2d at 110.
Instead, only the actual holder of the promissory note or other instrument evidencing the
obligation may be a beneficiary with the power to appoint a trustee to proceed with a nonjudicial
foreclosure on real property. Bain, 175 Wn.2d at 89.
147.
A person can become a member of a conspiracy when their inaction amounts to support.
Thus, when Governor Inslee, Attorney General Bob Ferguson and Prosecutor Golik allow Sheriff
Atkins to wrongfully seize possession of a home and deliver it to one of the members of the
MERS Conspiracy, they become an agent for the other conspirators in carrying out the [MERS]
conspiracy.
148.
On May 2, 2016, the United States Supreme Court decided Ocasio v. United States, 578
U.S. ___ (2016), 2016 U.S. LEXIS 2932, which helps in analyzing this Recall Petition. The
general federal conspiracy statute, which makes it a crime to conspire to commit any offense
against the United States is found in 18 U. S. C. 371.
149.
Section 371s use of the term conspire incorporates long-recognized principles of
conspiracy law. And under established case law, the fundamental characteristic of a conspiracy is
a joint commitment to an endeavor which, if completed, would satisfy all of the elements of [the
underlying substantive] criminal offense. Salinas v. United States, 522 U. S. 52, 65 (1997); see
2 J. Bishop, Commentaries on the Criminal Law 175, p. 100 (rev. 7th ed. 1882) (Conspiracy,
in the modern law, is generally defined as a confederacy of two or more persons to accomplish
some unlawful purpose); J. Hawley & M. McGregor, The Criminal Law 99100 (3d ed. 1899)
(similar); W. LaFave, Criminal Law 672 (5th ed. 2010) (similar).
150.
Although conspirators must pursue the same criminal objective, a conspirator [need]
not agree to commit or facilitate each and every part of the substantive offense. Salinas, supra,
at 63. A defendant must merely reach an agreement with the specific intent that the underlying
crime be committed by some member of the conspiracy. K. OMalley, J. Grenig, & W. Lee,
Federal Jury Practice 6 and Instructions: Criminal 31:03, p. 225 (6th ed. 2008) (emphasis
52 |
added); see also id., 31:02, at 220 (explaining that a defendant must intend to agree and must
intend that the substantive offense be committed.)
151.
The government does not have to prove that the defendant intended to commit the
underlying offense himself/herself. Id., 31:03, at 226. Instead, [i]f conspirators have a plan
which calls for some conspirators to perpetrate the crime and others to provide support, the
supporters are as guilty as the perpetrators. Salinas, supra, at 64; see Sand, supra, 19.01, at 1954 ([W]hen people enter into a conspiracy to accomplish an unlawful end, each and every
member becomes an agent for the other conspirators in carrying out the conspiracy).
152.
The MERS conspirators have recorded thousands of Assignments of the Deed of Trust in
the State of Washington and perhaps millions nationwide. Sheriff Atkins has directly caused the
theft of homes on behalf of the MERS Conspirators. Governor Inslee, Attorney General Bob
Ferguson; Prosecutor Golik and Sheriff Atkins are members of the MERS Conspiracy.
C.
Superior Court Lacked Authority To Reissue Writ of Restitution To Sheriff Atkins.
153.
By the authority of Hughes v. Crowley, 165 Wash. 580, 5 P.2d 982 (1931) and State ex
rel. Barnes v. Superior Court, 96 Wash. 581, 165 P. 493 (1917), the Superior Court had no
authority to re-issue a Writ that had never been cancelled or stayed and for which no bond was
given. Hughes v. Crowley expressly held that the writ, once issued pursuant to RCW
59.12.090, does not lose its force after 20 days:
It would seem from a reading of the statute that, for the purpose of obtaining a
writ of restitution, the action is to be deemed commenced when the complaint is
filed; otherwise the purpose for which such a writ is issued might be defeated.
Surely, the statute does not mean that the defendant must be served with process
before the writ can issue, or that thought would have been expressed; and if the
defendant need not be served, then there is no good purpose in requiring a
summons to be issued. Whether a valid summons be issued, or none at all, since it
need not be served in advance of the issuance of the writ, appears to be wholly
immaterial.
An application having been made to the court, and the court having determined
judicially that a writ should issue, it would seem unnecessary, when the issued
writ fails for some reason other than a change of conditions to accomplish its
purpose, that another application to the court, presenting the exact conditions
already passed upon, should necessarily be made. Of course, if there are changes
in the conditions, the matter should again be presented to the court, and he should
exercise his discretion in the light of the conditions then existing; but where, as
here, no possible change is suggested, it would seem to be an idle thing to ask the
court to pass a second time upon identically the same question. Hughes v.
53 |
Crowley, 165 Wash. at 584. Accord, State ex rel. Barnes v. Superior Court, 96
Wash. 581, 165 P. 493 (1917).
D.
Offering False Instrument for Filing or Record.
154.
RCW 9A.28.040(1) provides that [a] person is guilty of criminal conspiracy when, with
intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed, he or she agrees with one or more persons
to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct, and any one of them takes a substantial
step in pursuance of such agreement.
155.
RCW 9A.08.020(1) provides that [a] person is guilty of a crime if it is committed by the
conduct of another person for which he is legally accountable.

RCW 9A.08.020(2)(a) provides that [a] person is legally accountable for the conduct of another
person when [a]cting with the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of the
crime, he causes an innocent or irresponsible person to engage in such conduct.
156.
In a prosecution for theft under RCW 9A.56.020(1)(a), which defines theft as to
wrongfully obtain or exert unauthorized control over the property or services of another or the
value thereof, the State must prove that the property or services belonged to someone other than
the defendant.
157.
RCW 40.16.030 provides that a person can be convicted of a felony for filing or causing
to be filed a campaign finance report that he or she knows is false:

Every person who shall knowingly procure or offer any false or forged
instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded in any public office, which
instrument, if genuine, might be filed, registered or recorded in such office under
any law of this state or of the United States, is guilty of a class C felony and shall
be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not more than five
years, or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or by both.
158.
When a person knowingly causes the public to be provided with false information that
individual crosses the line into criminal accountability. RCW 40.16.030 contains a mens rea
requirement. Prosecution under the criminal statute will always effectuate the goal of another
statute or regulation. State v. Conte, 159 Wn.2d 797, 154 P.3d 194, cert. denied, 552 U.S. 992,
128 S. Ct. 512 (2007).
159.
In State v. Hampton, 143 Wn.2d 789, 793-94, 24 P.3d 1035 (2001), the Supreme Court
repeated the test for defining an instrument falling within the scope of the statute:
RCW 40.16.030 encompass[es] a document which is required or permitted by
statute or valid regulation to be filed, registered, or recorded in a public office if
54 |
(1) the claimed falsity relates to a material fact represented in the instrument; and
(2a) the information contained in the document is of such a nature that the
government is required or permitted by law, statute or valid regulation to act in
reliance thereon; or (2b) the information contained in the document materially
affects significant rights or duties of third persons, when this effect is reasonably
contemplated by the express or implied intent of the statute or valid regulation
which requires the filing, registration, or recording of the document. See also,
State v. Price, 94 Wn.2d 810, 819, 620 P.2d 994 (1980); State v. Conte, 159
Wn.2d 797, 154 P.3d 194 (2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 992, 128 S. Ct. 512
(2007).
160.
Further, RCW 40.16.030 clearly and unambiguously provides that a violation occurs if a
person simply offers any false or forged instrument to be filed or recorded in a public office. This
section does not require that the forged document be materially false. State v. Sanders, 86 Wn.
App. 466, 937 P.2d 193 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).
161.
The Supreme Court in Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 175 Wn.2d 83 (2012) made
known to Washington Governor Jay Inslee; Attorney General Bob Ferguson; Clark County
Prosecuting Attorney Tony Golik, Clark County Sheriff Chuck E. Atkins and all judges in the
State of Washington; Melvin L. Watt, Kurt Pfotenhauer, Bill Beckmann; Timothy J.
Mayopoulos; Egbert L. J. Perry; Donald H. Layton, and over 5,000 other individuals affiliated
with members of MERS, Inc. Conspiracy that naming MERS, Inc. as beneficiary was
deceptive and that it would be unlawful for MERS, Inc. to take any actions in its named
capacity as beneficiary if it never owned or held the Notes executed by Washington
homeowners.
162.
Likewise, Attorney General McKenna, in his Amicus Brief, made known to Washington
Governor Jay; Attorney General Bob Ferguson; Clark County Prosecuting Attorney Tony Golik,
Clark County Sheriff Chuck E. Atkins and all judges in the State of Washington; Melvin L.
Watt, Kurt Pfotenhauer, Bill Beckmann; Timothy J. Mayopoulos; Egbert L. J. Perry; Donald H.
Layton, and over 5,000 other individuals affiliated with members of MERS, Inc. Conspiracy that
the deceptive practices of MERS, Inc. Creates Havoc in the Market Place. See Exhibit I at 1426.
163.
An essential element of the crime of offering a false instrument for filing or recording
under RCW 40.16.030 is that the document offered for filing or recording is expressly required
or permitted to be filed or recorded by statute or regulation. The Supreme Court and Attorney
General McKenna made clear that deeds of trust and assignments of deeds of trust would be an
55 |
instrument which is required or permitted by statute or valid regulation to be filed, registered,

or recorded in a public office if: (1) the claimed falsity related to a material fact represented in
the instrument; and (2)(a) the information contained in the document is of such a nature that the
government is required or permitted by law, statute or valid regulation to act in reliance thereon;
or (b) the information contained in the document materially affects significant rights or duties of
third persons, when this effect is reasonably contemplated by the express or implied intent of the
statute or valid regulation which requires the filing, registration, or recording of the document.
State v. Price, 94 Wn.2d 810, 620 P.2d 994, 1980 Wash. LEXIS 1421 (Wash. 1980); State v.
Hampton, 143 Wn.2d 789, 24 P.3d 1035, 2001 Wash. LEXIS 389 (Wash. 2001).
164.
As stated by the Court in State v. Hampton, 143 Wn.2d 789, 24 P.3d 1035 (2001):
According to the plain language of Wash. Rev. Code 40.16.030, any offending
filing must occur under any law of the State of Washington or of the United
States. Section 40.16.030 requires that a document be required or permitted by
law, statute or valid regulation.
E.
Identity Theft.
165.
The crime of identity theft is codified in Chapter 9.35 RCW and based on a finding by the
legislature that: identity theft and the other types of fraud is a significant problem in the state of
Washington, costing our citizens and businesses millions each year. [2004 c 273 1.]
166.
RCW 9.35.020(1) proscribes that:

No person may knowingly obtain, possess, use, or transfer a means of
identification or financial information of another person, living or dead, with the
intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any crime.
167.
The elements of the offense include (1) knowing the information belonged to another and
(2) having the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any crime. State v. Zeferino-Lopez, 179 Wn.
App. 592, 319 P.3d 94 (2014); State v. Sells, 166 Wn. App. 918, 271 P.3d 952 (2012), review
denied, 176 Wn.2d 1001, 297 P.3d 67 (2013); State v. Allenbach, 136 Wn. App. 95, 147 P.3d
644 (2006); State v. Presba, 131 Wn. App. 47, 126 P.3d 1280 (2005), review denied, 158 Wn.2d
1008, 143 P.3d 829 (2006); State v. Berry, 129 Wn. App. 59, 117 P.3d 1162 (2005), review
denied, 158 Wn.2d 1006, 143 P.3d 829 (2006).
168.
Prosecuting Attorney Tony Golik, Clark County Sheriff Chuck E. Atkins and all judges in the
State of Washington; Melvin L. Watt, Kurt Pfotenhauer, Bill Beckmann; Timothy J.
56 |
Mayopoulos; Egbert L. J. Perry; Donald H. Layton, and over 5,000 other individuals affiliated
with members of MERS, Inc. Conspiracy knew that MERS lacked lawful authority to assign the
note and deed of trust and the homeowners financial information to another member of the
conspiracy to commit the crime of falsely recording deeds of trusts; assignments of deeds of
trust; trustees deeds, and other instruments.
169.
The UNITE HERE organized crime ring admitted in open court that the ring was aware
Petitioner was never a member of the hotels union and therefore the ring could not be in lawful
possession of Petitioners social security number and other financial information when
maintaining a secret pension fund in Petitioners name.
170.
The continuing harms to the residents of the State of Washington and across the Nation
should not be underestimated and cannot be overstated. The secondary mortgage market is
funded by all federal taxpayers, including those taxpayers residing in the State of Washington.
171.
In 2012, the State of Washington and several other States won a multi-billion settlement
against the MERS Conspirators. The State of Washington received over $600 million to remedy
the evils caused by the MERS Conspirators. It is clear from the continuing wrongful nonjudicial
foreclosures and evictions that nothing has been done to curtail these evils.
III.
FACTUAL AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY FOR RECALL OF JAY INSLEE, BOB
FERGUSON, TONY GOLIK AND CHUCK E. ATKINS.
A.
The Constitutional Right to Recall.
172.
Paragraphs 1-171 are incorporated herein as though fully stated.
173.
The right to recall elected officials is a fundamental right of the people guaranteed by
article 1, sections 33 and 34 (amend. 8) of the Washington Constitution. Chandler v. Otto, 103
Wn.2d 268, 270, 693 P.2d 71, 72 (1984). Section 33 contains the substantive right of recall and
provides that [e]very elective public officer of the state of Washingtonis subject to recall and
discharge by the legal voters of the state.... Section 34 permits the Legislature to pass the
necessary laws to carry out section 33 and to facilitate its operation and effect without delay.
174.
Pursuant to this authority, the Legislature adopted Chapter 29.82 RCW, which was
enacted to provide the substantive criteria and procedural framework for the recall process.
Matter of Pearsall-Stipek, 136 Wn.2d 255, 262-63, 961 P.2d 343, 347 (1998). Chapter 29.82
RCW has since been re-codified as Chapter 29A.56 RCW. Recall statutes are construed in favor
57 |
of the voter, not the elected official. In re Recall of Washam, 171 Wash. 2d 503, 510,257 P.3d
513, 516(2011).
175.
Elected officials in Washington may be recalled for malfeasance, misfeasance, and
violation of oath of office. Const. Art. 1, 33-34; RCW 29A.56.1 10. Courts act as a gateway
to ensure that only charges that are factually and legally sufficient are placed before the voters,
but we do not evaluate the truthfulness of those charges. RCW 29A.56.140. In re Recall of
Washam 171 Wash 2d 503, 510, 257 P.3d 513, 516 (2011).
B.
The requirement of factual sufficiency.
176.
Charges are factually sufficient if taken as a whole theystate sufficient facts to
identify to the electors and to the official being recalled acts or failures to act which without
justification would constitute a prima facie showing of misfeasance, malfeasance, or violation
of oath of office. Chandler v. Otto, 103 Wash.2d 268, 274, 693 P.2d 71 (1984). Voters may
draw reasonable inferences from the facts; the fact that conclusions have been drawn by the
petitioner is not fatal to the sufficiency of the allegations. In re Recall of West, 155 Wn.2d 659,
665, 121 P.3d 1190; In re Recall of Washam, 171 Wash. 2d 503, 514, 257 P.3d 513, 518 (2011).
177.
A charge is factually sufficient if the facts establish a prima facie case of misfeasance,
malfeasance or violation of the oath of office and are stated in concise language and provide a
detailed description in order to enable the electorate and a challenged official to make
informed decisions. In re Recall of Telford, 166 Wn.2d 148; 206 P.3d 1248 (2009); In re Recall
of Wasson, 149 Wn.2d 787, 791, 72 P.3d 170 (2003); Cole v. Webster, 103 Wn.2d 280, 285, 692
P.2d 799 (1984); Chandler v. Otto, 103 Wn.2d 268, 274, 693 P.2d 71 (1984). In this context,
prima face means that, accepting the allegations as true, the charge on its face supports the
conclusion that the official committed misfeasance, malfeasance, or a violation of the oath of
office. In re Recall of Wade, 115 Wn.2d 544, 548,799P.2d 1179, 1181 (1990).
178.
RCW 29A.56 .110 requires that the personmaking the charge ... have knowledge of
the alleged facts upon which the stated grounds for recall are based. There is no requirement
that the petitioner have firsthand knowledge of the facts. Rather, he or she must have some
knowledge of the facts underlying the charges. In re Recall of Wasson, 149 Wn.2d 787, 791, 72
P.3d 170, 172 (2003); In re Recall of Ackerson, 143 Wn.2d 366, 372, 20 P.3d 930, 933 (2001).
12.
When the charge is violation of law, the Supreme Court has repeated that the petitioner
58 |
must have knowledge of facts indicating that the official intended to commit an unlawful act.
Matter of Pearsall Stipek, 136 Wn.2d 255, 263, 961 P.2d 343, 347 (1998).
179.
The Court may use supplemental materials to determine whether there is a factual basis
for the charge, In re Recall of West, 155 Wn.2d 659, 665-66, 121 P.3d 1190, 1193-1194 (2005),
and may go outside the petition to determine whether there is a factual basis for the charge. In re
Recall of Anderson, 131 Wn.2d 92, 95, 929 P.2d 410,412 (1997).
C.
The Requirement of Legal Sufficiency.
180.
To be legally sufficient, the charges must specifically allege substantial conduct
amounting to misfeasance, malfeasance, or violation of the oath of office. In re Recall of

Washam, 171 Wn.2d 503, 514-15, 257 P.3d 513, 518 (2011). The legal sufficiency requirement
protects officials from being recalled for appropriately exercising the discretion granted him or
her by law. Chandler, 103 Wash.2d at 274, 693 P.2d 71. Officials may not be recalled for their
discretionary acts absent manifest abuse of discretion. In re Recall of Washam, 171 Wn.2d 503,
515, 257 P.3d 513 (2011).
D.
Grounds for Recall.
181.
The definitions of misfeasance, malfeasance and violation of the oath of office are found
in RCW 29A.56.110:
For the purposes of this chapter:
(1)
Misfeasance or malfeasance in office means any wrongful conduct
that affects, interrupts, or interferes with the performance of official duty;
(a)
Additionally, misfeasance in office means the performance of a
duty in an improper manner; and
(b)
Additionally, malfeasance in office-means the commission of an
unlawful act;
(2) Violation of the oath of office means the neglect or knowing failure by an
elective public officer to perform faithfully a duty imposed by law.
IV.
ACTS AND OMISSIONS CONSTITUTING THE STATEMENT OF THE
CHARGES.
182.
Paragraphs 172 through 181 are incorporated herein as though fully stated.
183.
The acts and omissions constituting the Statement of the Charges are best understood as
the intended consequences of Power and Authority.

59 |
184.
Prosecuting Attorney Tony Golik and Clark County Sheriff Chuck E. Atkins were each vested
with power and authority by the People of the State of Washington and the United States to act
independently or in combination and appropriately.
185.
In 1989, the Legislature enacted Chapter 23B.18 RCW [1989 c 165 191 et seq.] to
provide owners of notes secured by real estate mortgages a vehicle to conduct business in the
State regarding said notes without having to be admitted, commonly referred to as
nonadmitted organizations. Thus, no member of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy was beyond the
jurisdiction of the State of Washington.
186.
The Legislature provided in RCW 23B.18.040 that service of all legal process may be
had by serving the secretary of state of the state of Washington. [1989 c 165 194.]
187.
The Legislature further provided in RCW 23B.18.060 [1989 c 165 196] that venue in
the State would be proper in any [s]uit upon causes of action arising against the said
nonadmitted organizations.
188.
The Legislature did its job to protect homeowners. In 2012, the Supreme Court did its job
in Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 175 Wn.2d 83 (2012), and even elaborated in great detail the
mechanisms employed by the members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy, such as robo-signing,
to thwart the laws:
MERS contends that the plaintiffs can show no injury caused by its acts because
whether or not the noteholder is known to the borrower, the loan servicer is, and,
it suggests, that is all the homeowner needs to know. Resp. Br. of MERS at 48-49
(Bain); Resp. Br. of MERS at 41 (Selkowitz). But there are many different
scenarios, such as when homeowners need to deal with the holder of the note to
resolve disputes or to take advantage of legal protections, where the homeowner
does need to know more and can be injured by ignorance. Further, if there have
been misrepresentations, fraud, or irregularities in the proceedings, and if the
homeowner-borrower cannot locate the party accountable and with authority to
correct the irregularity, there certainly could be injury under the CPA. [Footnote
18]
[Footnote 18] Also, while not at issue in these cases, MERS's officers often issue
assignments without verifying the underlying information, which has resulted in
incorrect or fraudulent transfers. See Zacks, supra, at 580 & n. 163 (citing RoboSigning, Chain of Title, Loss Mitigation, and Other Issues in Mortgage Servicing:
Hearing Before Subcomm. on H. and Cmty. Opportunity H. Fin. Servs. Comm.,
111th Cong. 105 (2010) (statement of R.K. Arnold, President and Chief Executive
60 |
Officer of MERSCORP Inc.)). Actions like those could well be the basis of a
meritorious CPA claim.
Given the procedural posture of these cases, it is unclear whether the plaintiffs
can show any injury, and a categorical statement one way or another seems
inappropriate. Depending on the facts of a particular case, a borrower may or may
not be injured by the disposition of the note, the servicing contract, or many other
things, and MERS may or may not have a causal role. For example, in Bradford v.
HSBC Mortgage Corp., 799 F. Supp. 2d 625 (E.D. Va. 2011), three different
companies attempted to foreclose on Bradfords property after he attempted to
rescind a mortgage under the federal Truth in Lending Act. All three companies
claimed to hold the promissory note. Observing that [i]f a defendant transferred
the Note, or did not yet have possession or ownership of the Note at the time, but
nevertheless engaged in foreclosure efforts, that conduct could amount to an [Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692k,] violation, the court allowed
Bradfords claim to proceed. 799 F. Supp. 2d at 634-35. As amicus notes,
MERS concealment of loan transfers also could also deprive homeowners of
other rights, such as the ability to take advantage of the protections of the Truth
in Lending Act and other actions that require the homeowner to sue or negotiate
with the actual holder of the promissory note. AG Br. at 11 (citing 15 U.S.C.
1635(f); Miguel v. Country Funding Corp., 309 F.3d 1161, 1162-65 (9th Cir.
2002)). Further, while many defenses would not run against a holder in due
course, they could against a holder who was not in due course. AG Br. at 11-12
(citing RCW 62A.3-302, .3-305).
189.
Courts have further held that a borrower, as a third party to the transactions engaged in by
the members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy, lacks standing to challenge the Assignment of the
Deed of Trust and the Appointment of Successor Trustee. See Ukpoma v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn,
12-CV-0184-TOR, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66576, 2013 WL 1934172 (E.D. Wash. May 9, 2013)
(dismissing morgtagor's allegations of robo-signing for lack of standing to challenge the
transaction); Brodie v. Nw. Tr. Servs., Inc., 12-CV-0469-TOR, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176193,
2012 WL 6192723, at *2 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 12, 2012) (collecting cases dismissing borrowers
claims of robo-signing for lack of standing to challenge the transaction).
These rulings by the courts across the United States place all homeowners at the unfair mercy of
the members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy
189.
The egregiousness of the misconduct of the members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy
demanded that Washington Governor Jay Inslee; Attorney General Bob Ferguson; Clark County
Prosecuting Attorney Tony Golik and Clark County Sheriff Chuck E. Atkins extinguish the
Power of the State.
61 |
190.
IRS Form 1099-A is damaging evidence against the members of the MERS, Inc.
Conspiracy. No homeowner could, with any amount of due diligence, discover this evidence in
sufficient time to enjoin the sale of their home, because Federal law, Title 26 U.S.C. 6050J(e),
does not require IRS Form 1099-A to be issued until on or before January 31 of the year
following the calendar year for which the return under subsection (a) was made. Thus,
homeowners whose homes are sold in January 2015 would not learn of the true owner, if
truthfully claimed, until receipt of IRS Form 1099-A on or before January 31, 2016.
191.
Owens primary residence was sold on January 16, 2015 or during Tax Year 2015 and
Freddie Mac was not required to issue IRS Form 1099-A until on or before January 31, 2016.
192.
Superior Court Civil Rules (CR), Rule 11(a) and the courts inherent power authorizes
the Court to impose an appropriate sanction upon the person who signed the pleading, a
represented party, or both if the pleading, motion, or legal memorandum is signed in violation of
this rule.
193.
Had Washington Governor Jay Inslee; Attorney General Bob Ferguson; Clark County
Prosecuting Attorney Tony Golik and Clark County Sheriff Chuck E. Atkins used the Power of
the State vested in them, they would have learned of a deeper egregiousness of the misconduct of
the members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy reflected in the fact that in Section 8106.3 of
Freddie Mac Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide at pages 8106-2 and 8106-3, Freddie Mac
misrepresented the law embodied in Title 26 U.S.C. 6050J by omitting the conjunction and
and the requirement that it acted as a lender with regards to nonjudicial foreclosures.
194.
The egregiousness of this misconduct is further reflected in the fact that MERS, Inc.
was/is engaged in the furtherance of the misconduct of the members of the MERS, Inc.
Conspiracy to evade State and Federal taxes by transferring the servicing rights from one
entity to another entity on behalf of a straw beneficiary which is necessary to comply with
Title 12 U.S.C. 2605 and RCW 82.45.010(3)(i) and WAC 458-61A-208(4).
195.
The egregiousness of the misconduct of the members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy is
further reflected in the fact that on May 2, 2016, the United States Supreme Court decided
Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), 2016 U.S. LEXIS 2932, where the Court held that
a defendant may be convicted of conspiring to violate the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951, based on
proof that he reached an agreement with the owner of the property in question to obtain that
property under color of official right.
62 |
196.
When executing the Deed of Trust, the members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy require
the homeowner to agree to participate in the alleged criminal conspiracy naming MERS, Inc. as
beneficiary.
197.
Prosecuting Attorney Tony Golik and Clark County Sheriff Chuck E. Atkins could have caused
all members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy, except the homeowner, to be convicted of conspiring
to violate the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951 pursuant to the Supreme Courts ruling in Ocasio v.
United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), 2016 U.S. LEXIS 2932.
198.
Prosecuting Attorney Tony Golik and Clark County Sheriff Chuck E. Atkins have taken no
action against any member of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy.
199.
Currently, Sheriff Chuck E. Atkins is engaged in his second attempt to evict Washington
homeowner Pamela Owen, while knowing full well that the eviction would disrupt the status quo
of the matter pending in the Federal Court of Appeals.
200.
Because of their independent or joint actions and inactions, Washington Governor Jay
Inslee; Attorney General Bob Ferguson; Clark County Prosecuting Attorney Tony Golik and
Clark County Sheriff Chuck E. Atkins are hereby declared guilty of misfeasance, malfeasance
and or violation of her or his Oath of Office.
PETITIONER Charges that:
CHARGE ONE
(Membership in the MERS, Inc. Criminal Conspiracy)
201.
202.
Jay Inslee was elected as Governor in 2012 for the 2013-2016 Term. INSLEE maintains
an official business as follows: Office of the Governor, PO Box 40002, Olympia, WA 985040002; Tel: (360) 902-4111; Fax: (360) 753-4110. Bob Ferguson was elected as the State
Attorney General in 2012 for the 2013-2016 Term. FERGUSON maintains an official business
address as follows: 1125 Washington Street SE, P.O. Box 40100; Olympia, WA 98504-0100;
Tel: (360) 753-6200.
203.
Tony Golik was elected as Clark County Prosecuting Attorney in 2014 for the 2015-2018
Term. GOLIK maintains an official business as follows: 1013 Franklin Street, PO Box 5000,
Vancouver, WA 98666-5000; Tel: (360) 397-2261; Email: tony.golik@clark.wa.gov
63 |
204.
Chuck E. Atkins was elected as Clark County Sheriff in 2014 for the 2015-2018.
ATKINS maintains an official business address as follows: Law Enforcement Center, 707 West
13th Street, PO Box 410; Vancouver, WA 98666; Tel: (360) 397-2366; Email:
chuck.atkins@clark.wa.gov.
205.
Before entering the Office for which she or he was elected, INSLEE, FERGUSON,
GOLIK and ATKINS each took an Oath to support the Constitutions of the United States and the
State of Washington.
206.
After entering the Office for which she or he was elected, INSLEE, FERGUSON,
GOLIK and ATKINS did knowingly, willfully and intentionally became members of the MERS,
Inc. Conspiracy through actions and omissions designed to aid and abet and further the purpose,
goals and objectives of Melvin L. Watt, Director of Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA);
Kurt Pfotenhauer, Chairman of the Board of Directors, MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. and MERS,
Inc.; Bill Beckmann; Timothy J. Mayopoulos, President and Chief Executive Officer, Fannie
Mae; Egbert L. J. Perry, Non-Executive Chairman of the Board, Fannie Mae; Donald H. Layton,
Chief Executive Officer, of Freddie Mac and over 5,000 other individuals affiliated with
members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy by exercising their official positions and influence to
cause homeowners to relinquish possession of their home for delivery of possession to a third
party such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac,
all in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, 1951, 4, 3, and 2 and RCW 9A.08.020(1);
9A.08.020(2)(a); and 9A.28.040(1).
CHARGE TWO
(Conspiracy to Cause Injury To Public Records in Violation of RCW 40.16.010)
207.
208.
GOLIK and ATKINS did knowingly, willfully and intentionally become members of the MERS,
Inc. Conspiracy and in furtherance of said conspiracy, caused injury to the public records in that
the Writ of Restitution originally filed on April 3, 2015 in the unlawful detainer action
commenced against Pamela S. Owen has been destroyed or tampered with involving Page 2 of
Exhibit 4 to Declaration of Margie Johnson, now attached hereto as Exhibit C at 16, which is
materially different from page 2 of Owens Exhibit 9, Dkt. 2-3 at 61, now attached hereto as
Exhibit D at 2, in the following aspects:
64 |
(1)
Owens page 2 is not signed; Johnsons page 2 is signed using a rubber stamp;
(2)
Owens page 2 does not bear the seal of the Superior Court; Johnsons page 2
(3)
Owens page 2 contains marks where a staple had been removed; Johnsons page
does;
2 is missing these staple marks;

(4)
Owens page 2 does not contain a second vertical line on the upper right margin;
Johnsons page 2 does contain a second line,

9A.08.020(2)(a); 9A.28.040(1) and 40.16.010.
CHARGE THREE
(Conspiracy to Cause Injury to Public Records in Violation of RCW 40.16.020)
209.
210.
RCW 40.16.020 penalizes [e]very officer who shall mutilate, destroy, conceal, erase,
obliterate, or falsify any record or paper appertaining to the officers office among other
things.
211.
Writs of Restitution issued by the Clerk of the Superior Court pursuant to Chapter 59.12
RCW are records or papers appertaining to the office of the Court Clerk.
212.
Inc. Conspiracy and in furtherance of said conspiracy, caused injury to the public records in that
the Writ of Restitution originally filed on April 3, 2015 in the unlawful detainer action
commenced against Pamela S. Owen has been mutilated, destroyed, concealed, erased,
obliterated, or otherwise falsified,
9A.08.020(2)(a); 9A.28.040(1) and 40.16.020.
CHARGE FOUR
(Conspiracy to Record or Cause False Instruments To Be Recorded in a Public Office in
Violation of RCW 40.16.030)
213.
214.
RCW 40.16.030 penalizes, in relevant part: Every person who shall knowingly
procure or offer any false or forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded in any public
65 |
office, which instrument, if genuine, might be filed, registered or recorded in such office under
any law of this state or of the United States.
215.
Commencing in or about 2001, the members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy have caused
to be recorded in the State of Washington and elsewhere, over 200,000 Deeds of Trust;
Assignments of Deeds of Trust; Assignments of Successor Trustee; Real Estate Excise Tax
Affidavits (REETA) and Trustees Deed, among other instruments required to be filed,
registered, or recorded in any public office.
216.
Inc. Conspiracy and in furtherance of said conspiracy, caused injury to the public records by
engaging in acts and omissions which facilitated the filing or recordation of the aforementioned
instruments,
9A.08.020(2)(a); 9A.28.040(1) and 40.16.030.
CHARGE FIVE
(Conspiracy to Engage in Theft of Property in Violation of RCW 9A.56.020(1)(a) and .020(1)(b))
217.
218.
Inc. Conspiracy and in furtherance of said conspiracy, engaged in acts and omissions which
facilitated the theft of real property through the wrongful use of the statutory procedures for
nonjudicial foreclosures set forth in Chapters 59.12 and 61.24 RCW which resulted in
homeowners being wrongfully evicted from their homes.
219.
INSLEE, FERGUSON, GOLIK and ATKINS and the other members of the MERS, Inc.
Conspiracy knew they each lacked authorization to conduct nonjudicial foreclosure sales and
evict homeowners following said sales. State v. Evans, 57 Wn.2d 288, 356 P.2d 589, 1960 Wash.
LEXIS 476 (Wash. 1960); State v. Richards, 27 Wn. App. 703, 621 P.2d 165 (Wash. Ct. App.
1980)(When proof is presented that one possessing stolen property also stole it, he may be
convicted of the initial theft or the unlawful possession, but not both.); State v. Mehrabian, 175
Wn. App. 678, 308 P.3d 660 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013)(Evidence was sufficient to convict
defendant of five counts of first degree theft by color or aid of deception because he purchased
66 |
property himself, invoiced the city through another company at a substantial markup, invented
price quotes, forged invoices, delivered an inferior product or failed altogether to deliver the
purchased property, and enriched himself through the transactions; he created the impression that
he was legitimately engaging in business with another company for the purchase and delivery of
computer products; and that false impression caused the city to engage in business it would not
otherwise have undertaken.)
220.
Every homeowner and the State and Federal Governments relied upon the
representations, acts and omissions of INSLEE, FERGUSON, GOLIK and ATKINS and the
other members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy and suffered injury thereby,
9A.08.020(2)(a); 9A.28.040(1) and 9A.56.020(1)(a) and .020(1)(b).
CHARGE SIX
(Conspiracy to Commit Identity Theft in Violation of Chapter 9.35 RCW)
221.
222.
The Legislature has provided in RCW 9.35.020(1) (Identity Theft), that: No person
may knowingly obtain, possess, use, or transfer a means of identification or financial information
of another person, living or dead, with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any crime.
223.
Inc. Conspiracy and in furtherance of said conspiracy, knowingly engaged in acts and omissions
which facilitated the identity theft of owners of real property as a result of the wrongful use of
the statutory procedures for filing and recording instruments in the land title office and
nonjudicial foreclosures set forth in Chapters 59.12 and 61.24 RCW which resulted in other
members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy obtaining, possessing, using, or transferring a means of
identification or financial information of another person, living or dead, with the intent to
commit, or to aid or abet, the aforementioned crimes,
9A.08.020(2)(a); 9A.28.040(1) and RCW 9.35.020(1).
CHARGE SEVEN
(Conspiracy to Evade Federal Income Taxes in Violation of 26 U.S.C. 6050J)
224.
67 |
225.
In 1984, Congress enacted 26 U.S.C. 6050J for the purpose of curbing abuses of the tax
codes. 26 U.S.C. 6050J(a) provides that:

Any person who, in connection with a trade or business conducted by such
person, lends money secured by property and who
(1)in full or partial satisfaction of any indebtedness, acquires an interest in any
property which is security for such indebtedness, or
(2)has reason to know that the property in which such person has a security
interest has been abandoned,
shall make a return described in subsection (c) with respect to each of such
acquisitions or abandonments, at such time as the Secretary may by regulations
prescribe.
226.
As mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, the members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy
have often entered Federal and State courts and lied or otherwise concealed the identity of the
person or entity required to comply with 26 U.S.C. 6050J.
227.
which facilitated the concealment of the identity of the person or entity required to comply with
26 U.S.C. 6050J,
9A.08.020(2)(a); 9A.28.040(1) and 26 U.S.C. 6050J.
CHARGE EIGHT
(Conspiracy to Evade State Excise Taxes in Violation of Chapter 82.45 RCW)
228.
229.
Any conveyance, assignment, or transfer of ownership of title to real property is subject
to a real estate excise tax, Chapter 82.45 RCW. RCW 82.45.010(3)(j) excludes a transfer or
conveyance made pursuant to a deed of trust or an order of sale by the court in any mortgage,
deed of trust, or lien foreclosure proceeding or upon execution of a judgment.
230.
INSLEE, FERGUSON, GOLIK and ATKINS knew that actions taken by members of the
MERS, Inc. Conspiracy pursuant MERS, Inc. being named an unlawful beneficiary were null
and void.
231.
68 |
which facilitated the other members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy avoiding the payment of State
mandated excise taxes,
9A.08.020(2)(a); 9A.28.040(1) and RCW 82.45.010(3)(j).
CHARGE NINE
(Conspiracy to Violate 12 U.S.C. 2605)
232.
233.
It has been previously noted in paragraph 188 supra at 60, that the Supreme Court in
Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 175 Wn.2d 83 (2012) and former Attorney General McKenna
elaborated in great detail the mechanisms employed by the members of the MERS, Inc.
Conspiracy, such as robo-signing and concealing information from the borrower to thwart the
laws.
234.
Under Federal law, a loan servicer must provide certain information upon written request
for information relating to the servicing of such a loan. 12 U.S.C. 2605(e)(1)(A). A

servicer is defined as the person responsible for the servicing of a loan (including the person
who makes or holds a loan if such person also services the loan). Id. 2605(i)(2). Servicing is
defined as receiving any scheduled periodic payments from a borrower pursuant to the terms of
any loanand making the payments of principal and interest and such other payments with
respect to the amounts received from the borrower as may be required pursuant to the terms of
the loan. Id. 2605(i)(3).
235.
The Court in Bain made clear that there are many different scenarios, such as when
homeowners need to deal with the holder of the note to resolve disputes or to take advantage of
legal protections, where the homeowner does need to know more and can be injured by
ignorance. Further, if there have been misrepresentations, fraud, or irregularities in the
proceedings, and if the homeowner-borrower cannot locate the party accountable and with
authority to correct the irregularity, there certainly could be injury under the CPA.
236.
INSLEE, FERGUSON, GOLIK and ATKINS knew that actions taken by members of the
MERS, Inc. Conspiracy pursuant MERS, Inc. being named an unlawful beneficiary were null
and void and were further designed to conceal information from borrowers.
231.
69 |
which facilitated the other members of the MERS, Inc. Conspiracy concealing and or
withholding information from borrowers,
9A.08.020(2)(a); 9A.28.040(1) and 12 U.S.C. 2605.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, that the foregoing is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and that I have sufficient knowledge of the alleged
facts upon which the stated grounds for recall are based.
Dated this 30th day of May, 2016
By: ______________________________
/s/Emanuel McCray
Petitioner
70 |

2016 Recall of Washington Governor Jay Inslee, Bob Ferguson, Tony Golik and Sheriff Chuck E. Atkins (Electronic)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

2016 Recall of Washington Governor Jay Inslee, Bob Ferguson, Tony Golik and Sheriff Chuck E. Atkins (Electronic)

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

RECALL OF

JAY INSLEE, Governor, State of Washington;

Filing of Statement of Charges in Favor of the Recall of Washington Governor Jay

May 30, 2016

INTRODUCTION TO THE STATEMENT OF CHARGES.

the United States nationalized a secondary market for mortgages.

Today, conspiracy is a far-reaching legal principle, embracing antitrust actions, an

Conspiracy is an agreement by two or more people to commit a crime. In practice, many

There is clear, direct, circumstantial and convincing evidence of an unlawful

Therefore, every nonjudicial foreclosure commenced in this State pursuant to actions

See also Exhibit I attached hereto.

RCW 43.10.010 provides, in relevant part, that

pursuant to RCW 43.10.090:

are numerous alternatives to wrongful nonjudicial foreclosures and evictions involving

See Exhibit Y, 1-27 attached hereto.

HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL MORTGAGE MARKET (NMM).

Promotion of a National Mortgage Market.

the construction, acquisition, and or rehabilitation of residential properties; regulate rate of

depicted in the following chart:

The third facilitythe Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (PSPAs)was

As nearly all other non-governmental participants in housing finance abandoned the

Amicus Curiae Attorney General of State of Washington In Support of Petitioner in Bain v.

Attorney General McKenna informed the Supreme Court that:

MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., the parent company of Mortgage Electronic Registration

INTRODUCTION TO CONSPIRACY LAW.

THE MERS, INC. CONSPIRACY.

mortgage electronic registration system

mortgage electronic registration system

mortgage electronic registration system

MERS, Inc. would use its unlawful authority as beneficiary to cause an

mortgage electronic registration system

Document Title (type) Parcel(s)

Date Recorded Grantor(s)

Jan 09, 2015

Jan 09, 2015

Jan 09, 2015

Jan 09, 2015

Jan 09, 2015

Jan 08, 2015

Jan 08, 2015

Jan 08, 2015

Jan 08, 2015

Jan 08, 2015

Jan 08, 2015

Jan 08, 2015

Jan 08, 2015

Jan 08, 2015

Jan 08, 2015

Jan 08, 2015

Jan 08, 2015

Jan 07, 2015

Jan 07, 2015

Jan 07, 2015

Jan 07, 2015

Jan 06, 2015

Jan 06, 2015

Jan 06, 2015

Jan 06, 2015

Jan 06, 2015

Jan 05, 2015

Jan 05, 2015

Jan 05, 2015

Jan 05, 2015

Jan 05, 2015