Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED that an action is now pending in this Court upon the
Complaint of the Plaintiff against the Defendants to set aside a sale, transfer,
conveyance and recording of a deed recorded against the real property located at 246
The property affected by this action is situate entirely within the County of Kings, is
known as Block 1680 Lot 17, known as 246 Decatur Street, Brooklyn, New York
described as follows:
All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, together with the buildings and
improvements is thereon erected situate, lying and being in the Borough of Brooklyn,
County of Kings, City and State of New York, bounded and described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the Northeasterly side of St Marks Avenue, distant 131 feet 1
½ inches Southeasterly from the corner formed by the intersection of the Northeasterly
1
RUNNING THENCE Northeasterly parallel with Franklin Avenue and part of the distance
THENCE Southwesterly parallel with Franklin Avenue and part of the distance through a
party wall, 128 feet 6 inches to the Northeasterly side of St Marks Avenue;
Premises known as 551 St Marks Avenue, Brooklyn New York. Plaintiff a suri juris,
Trustee as and for his complainant herein, set forth and alleges;
This is an action pursuant to Real Property Law, to quiet title and discharge of a void,
voidable and otherwise improper sale, transfer, conveyance and recording hereby does,
move for relief from judgment under FRCP Rule 60(d)(3) and under the Court's inherent
power for fraud upon the Court. This motion is brought on the grounds that the
due process rights, and engaged in a scheme of fraud upon this as well as lower courts.
TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER BASED UPON FRAUD PERPETUATED UPON THE COURT
The misconduct is outlined more fully in the accompanying Affidavit of Plaintiff and
Memorandum of Points and Authorities and supporting declarations, but which included among
other things: that the Defendants presented false evidence to the Court and/or concealed
material evidence from the Court, advanced arguments to the Court premised on the fact that
they maintained and had standing to commence a proceeding against plaintiff, or for which
material evidence had been withheld from the Court which caused the Court to grant the relief
2
sought by plaintiff, and thereby obtained Court rulings based thereon; prepared key information
which deceived, mislead; in Bad faith, Fraud, Conspiracy, Undue Enrichment, Aiding and
Abetting, Willful and Wanton Irreparable Harm, with Malice and Forethought, Conversion,
Commercial War, Commercial Credit Slander and continuous torts resulting in the deceptive sale,
transfer and conveyance of deed and by failing to disclose the true facts and circumstances
associated with the Defendant’s financial interest in the subject property. The Officer’s of the
State Department’s Department of Banking, as Officers of the Court as licensed attorneys, the
paperwork presented, prepared, and affidavits in support; constituted intentional and malicious
misconduct which compromised the judicial process and amounts to an unconscionable scheme
Thus we seek that the Court set aside the lower Court judgment in this case, dismissing
any pending legal action; set aside any sale(s), transfers, conveyances and filings
entered; restoring title to plaintiff, punitive damages and award any other relief that the
3
TO:
THE CLERK OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT COURT
You are hereby directed to Index the within notice to the names of each of the following
parties:
Attorneys
XXXXX
XXXXX
The number of each block on the tax map of the County, which is affected hereby, is as
follow:
4
In the united states district court
Eastern district of new york
__________________________________________ )
sage el, On Behalf of THE pamela taylor FAMILY TRUST,) Case No.
as Trustee )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) VERIFIED COMPLAINT
V. ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
)
)
)
ELEANOR PHILLIPS, JEFFREY MILLER, DEPUTY SHERIFF
JOSEPH FUSICTO, DEPUTY SHERIFF D. PRATT, )
MICHAEL J. FICCHI, IRA MILLER, ESQ, )
)
Defendants. )
)
COMES NOW, ALVIN CANTEY, On Behalf of THE MATHA CANTEY FAMILY TRUST, as
Trustee, and individually, the PLAINTIFF, as and for his complaint herein, sets forth and
alleges as follows:
I. NATURE OF ACTION
the real property located at 551 Saint Mark’s Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.
2. Damages in tort are also claimed arising from, the use of fictitious personnel
5
Abetting, Willful and Wanton, Irreparable Harm, with Malice and
deed, which purports to divest the plaintiff of his interest to his real property
Court premised on the fact that they maintained and had standing to
been withheld from the Court which caused the Court to grant the relief
the true facts and circumstances associated with the Defendant’s financial
by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the
6
district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed
by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States
for the district and division embracing the place where such action is
pending.”
6. As set forth below, this Court has original jurisdiction over this action based
on diversity of citizenship.
8. This Court has original jurisdiction over this civil action under 28 U.S.C. §
9. Plaintiff prays for actual as well as punitive damages in the amount of Four
10. Plaintiff prays for punitive damages in the amount of 2 Million ($2,000,000)
11. Plaintiff ALVIN CANTEY is a member of the Armed Forces who resides, Psc
13. Plaintiff Cantey presently resides at the subject property and as a member of
7
are proprietary and available for disclosure as it relates to IRS Law and
16. City Marshall Edward F Guida JR #14, 47-26 104th STREET, Corona NY 11368
C/O Home Loan Services Inc., 150 Allegney Center Mall, Pittsburgh, PA 15212
19. As such, Plaintiff and Defendants are thus citizens of different states,
21. The property is located within the Eastern District. Accordingly, venue in this
22. In the alternative, the Plaintiff seeks an order allowing him to pay off the
note and mortgage for Fifty Million Dollars as complete settlement of the
23. This foreclosure action pertains to the property located at 551 St. Marks
Avenue, Brooklyn New York, 11216. Based upon the record before this court,
defendants, Matha Cantey, entered into a mortgage with First Franklin Trust
Company on July 7th 2006, for a loan in the principal amount of $600,000.00
8
24. Plaintiff was never served with the predicate 90 Day notice pursuant to
defenses and counterclaims including but not limited to the statute of frauds;
Faith, Fraud Conspiracy, Undue Enrichment, Aiding and Abetting, Willful and
divest the plaintiff of his interest to his real property in that the Defendants
from the Court, advanced arguments to the Court premised on the fact that
plaintiff, or for which material evidence had been withheld from the Court
which caused the Court to grant the relief sought by plaintiff, and thereby
deceived, mislead ; and by failing to disclose the true facts and circumstances
Based upon the evidence submitted in the underlying lower court action, the
9
Accordingly to the Supreme Court minutes this action was commenced in
2007 and withdrawn in 2008. However, the matter then continued through
Further, there were and continues to be several chain of title defects, based
commence said action and nevertheless unjustly moved for judgment in this
matter.
foreclosure and sale because as Trustee they had personal knowledge of the
underlying fraud which existed with their beneficiary “First Franklyn National
Bank’s” loan process. Such processes resulted in a class action lawsuit for
AD3d 701 [2d Dept. 2006]; US. Bank Trust National Assoc. v Butti, 16 AD3d
408 [2d Dept. 2005); Layden v Boccio, 253 AD2d 540 [2d Dept. 1998); State
Mortgage Agency v Lang, 250 AD2d 595[2d Dept. 1998]). I believe the
10
Defendants DO NOT have lawful Proof of their Claim and there is no evidence
Racketeering.
Faith, Fraud Conspiracy, Undue Enrichment, Aiding and Abetting, Willful and
knowledge of the underlying fraud which existed with their beneficiary “First
disclosed the nature and cause and conditions of the contracts in commerce
that were executed. Where US National Bank had personal knowledge of the
underlying fraud which existed with their beneficiary “First Franklyn National
Bank’s” loan process. Such processes resulted in a class action lawsuit for
11
their deceptive practices. I believe there is no evidence to the contrary. This
2006 – FF14 and its co-partners and the Public, that by mistake, I am moving
knowledge of the underlying fraud which existed with their beneficiary “First
the contrary.
All contracts and agreements and presentments by any and all US BANK
Bank had personal knowledge and was complicit in the underlying fraud
which existed with their beneficiary “First Franklyn National Bank’s” loan
12
process. Such processes resulted in a class action lawsuit for their deceptive
have used the US Postal Service and commercial electronic media to send
13
about, May 2012 etc., were challenged. It was also asserted within said
administrative proceeding that failure to answer, any and all questions would
National Bank had personal knowledge of the underlying fraud which existed
with their beneficiary “First Franklyn National Bank’s” loan process. Such
Racketeering.
have made false and fraudulent entries into specially coded files such as
evidence. Defendant’s did with malice aforethought deceive the lower court
14
and thereby received a judgment of sale. We believe there is no evidence to
Racketeering.
plaintiff being the only bidder, did thereby with malice aforethought deceive
the lower court and thereby received a judgment of sale, which caused them
Plaintiff is not an agent of the IRS; as such any and all information as it
discovery.
15
The deposited promissory note increased the assets of US BANK NATIONAL
contrary.
disclosed this fact and did not issue a receipt to Plaintiff for the promissory
16
Plaintiff’s Promissory Note to fund the purported loan. We believe there is
specific currency for payment of debt. Violation HJR 192. . We believe there
Racketeering.
“fictitious Corporations” to lend money, charge interest and give credit for
17
their profits. This conduct is prohibited; Banks have but one purpose to
Companies & Lending Institutions may not lawfully risk these funds. We
property, which is the subject of this action and has undertaken an intensive
Note for the subject property located at 551 St. Marks Place, Brooklyn, New
York 11216.
Note Rider(s) and other, relevant records), the instant investigation and
Note Rider(s) and other, relevant records), the instant investigation and
18
Upon reviewing and researching the underlying documents/instruments
Note Rider(s) and other, relevant records), the instant investigation and
mortgage securitization audit many red flags appears which evidences unjust
enrichment.
Note Rider(s) and other, relevant records), the instant investigation and
Note Rider(s) and other, relevant records), the instant investigation and
The forensic securitization audit is based upon; inter alia, a search of public
records and documents, public (Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Ginny Mae),
individual loan characteristics from the securitized loan-level pool data, using
19
highly reliable sources for asset pool loan information on securitized
The following fields are being examined by our forensic team to include but
not limit: Loan ID numbers, Loan Originator, Origination Date, Maturity Date,
First Payment Date, Principle and Securitized Amount of Loan, Term of the
Loan / Interest Rate / Type of the Loan, GEO Location / County / Zip Code,
Servicer / Trustee.
Servicing Agreement and Prospectus may take place and, absent a proper
tenuous. In this case, the original Promissory Note must show a complete
20
chain of endorsements/assignments is not found with respect to this subject
asset.
“The Depositor, concurrently with the execution and delivery hereof, does hereby transfer,
assign, set over and otherwise convey to the Trustee without recourse, for the benefit of the
Certificate holders, all the right, title and interest of the Depositor, including any security
In connection with such transfer and assignment, the Depositor does hereby deliver to, and
deposit with, the Custodian (on behalf of the Trustee), with respect the related Mortgage Loans,
the following documents or instruments with respect to each Mortgage Loan so transferred and
assigned (a “Mortgage File”):
(i) The original Mortgage Note, endorsed in blank or in the following form: “Pay to the order of
Franklyn National Bank, as Trustee under the applicable agreement, without recourse,” with all prior
and intervening endorsements showing a complete chain of endorsement from the Originator to the
Person so endorsing to the Trustee;
(iv) The original recorded Assignment or Assignments showing a complete chain of assignment
from the Originator to the Person assigning the Mortgage to the Trustee (or to MERS, if the
Mortgage Loan is registered on the MERS® System and noting the presence of the MIN) as
contemplated by the immediately preceding clause (iii);
The Depositor shall deliver or cause the Originator, the Trustee or the Custodian on behalf of the
Trustee to deliver to the Servicer copies of all trailing documents required to be included in the
servicing file at the same time the originals or certified copies thereof are delivered to the
21
Trustee or the Custodian, such documents including but not limited to the mortgagee policy of
title insurance and any mortgage loan documents upon return from the recording office.
All original documents relating to the Mortgage Loans that are not delivered to the Trustee (or
the Custodian on behalf of the Trustee) are and shall be held by or on behalf of the Originator,
the Seller, the Depositor or the Servicer, as the case may be, in trust for the benefit of the
Trustee on behalf of the Certificate-holders. In the event that any such original document is
required pursuant to the terms of this Section 2.01 to be a part of a Mortgage File, such
document shall be delivered promptly to the Trustee (or the Custodian on behalf of the Trustee).
Any such original document delivered to or held by the Depositor that is not required pursuant to
the terms of this Section to be a part of a Mortgage File, shall be delivered promptly to the
Servicer. “Furthermore, the Form 424B5 Prospectus (and accompanying Supplements)
respectively, further details:
“The certificates will be issued pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The trust
created under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement will consist of (i) all of the depositor’s right,
title and interest in the Mortgage Loans, the related mortgage notes, Mortgages and other
related documents. On the closing date, the depositor will transfer to the trust all of its right, title
and interest in and to each Mortgage Loan, the related mortgage note, Mortgage, assignment of
mortgage in recordable form in blank or to the trustee and other related documents, including all
scheduled payments with respect to each such Mortgage Loan due after the Cut-off Date. The
trust administrator, concurrently with such transfer, will deliver the certificates to the depositor.
The Pooling and Servicing Agreement will require that, within the time period specified therein,
the depositor will deliver or cause to be delivered to the trustee (or a custodian, as the trustee’s
agent for such purpose) the mortgage notes endorsed in blank or to the trustee on behalf of the
certificate holders and the other related documents.”
22
servicing the asset and now processing a foreclosure and, ultimately, the
certificate-holders receiving a disbursement of funds according to their
certificate series.
56.Therefore, in order for the mortgage loan and promissory note to have been
properly conveyed into the Pool, the Borrower’s Promissory Note would have
had to have been properly endorsed by all intervening parties from the
Originator and/or its successors and assigns to the Sponsor/Seller, then from the
Sponsor/Seller to the Depositor and finally, from the Depositor to the Trustee
July 7, 2006 and much show clear-chain-of-title from the Originator to the
Sponsor/Seller to the Depositor to the Trustee and/or Servicer (or Trust); in this
case it does not. The Adjustable Rate Note instrument submitted to this auditor,
and its respective Rider, contains only one (1) undated endorsement-in-blank;
nor satisfactory to accept the Plaintiff’s contention that it, U.S. Bank, National
securitization wherein which the asset was pooled and transferred to multiple,
23
58. Specifically with regard to affixed endorsements on the Promissory Note (or
case, plainly fail to meet the requirements of form and method as prescribed
County Recorder’s Office indicate a break in the chain of title. The Kings County,
New York County Records Office (along with documents/instruments filed in the
which, in addition to violating the plain meaning and intent of the Trust’s
operative, governing documents, serve only to confuse and muddy the chain of
title.
specifically requires the Depositor (and only the Depositor) to convey the
mortgage loans to the Trust (or Servicer/Custodian) and, simply put, allows for
the Trust. Putting aside other, ancillary issues with the above-referenced
assignments, none take the form prescribed by the Trust’s governing agreement
and, by logical extension: the Defendant’s claim to the assets is tenuous at best
Note positively indicates that the Mortgage, which secures the promissory note
24
and upon which any lawsuit is likely predicated, was entered in favor of
MERS Identification Number was assigned to the Plaintiff’s Mortgage and search
states that “the MERS System is not a vehicle for creating or transferring
beneficial interests in mortgage loans.” MERS further indicates that it does not
ever have beneficial interest in mortgage notes, stating “that it has no rights
loans”.
The MERS Milestone Report must be requested to verify the transfers of actual
Mortgage Servicing Rights (MSR). THE MERS MILESTONE REPORT MUST ALSO BE
63. In light of the issues related to the securitization of Plaintiff’s Note and
ownership interest in Plaintiff’ loan. There are genuine issues of material fact
related to this case and it is unclear which party, if any, may prove standing
25
and injury in regards to Borrowers’ mortgage transaction. There is no way to
64. It is unclear whether the two (2) Assignments of Mortgage (and the one (1)
another. On its face, there is nothing in the evidentiary record which would
66. There are many, substantive issues of material fact related to this case and it
26
67. The Plaintiffs’ were never properly notified of any assignment, sale and/or
operative documents of the Trust and with Internal Revenue Code, Section
860G which states, “all of a REMIC's loans must be acquired on the startup
the terms and conditions as set-forth in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
and Prospectus may subject the Trust to tax fraud and subjects this entire
Trust to a revocation of its REMIC tax status and possibly would subject all
68. The Plaintiffs’ were never properly notified of any assignment, sale and/or
transfer of Beneficial Interest may subject the Trust to tax fraud and subjects
this entire Trust to a revocation of its REMIC tax status and possibly would
70. Due to the history of Plaintiff’ loan and this report finds that nothing short of
producing the original note with the proper endorsements pursuant to the
27
Pooling and Servicing Agreement and Prospectus will suffice to clarify
71. The Plaintiff have been victims of unlawful origination practices and the
various parties may have been the beneficiaries of such practices. The
Plaintiff’ Note reflects an adjustable interest rate note for a 30 year term.
Any yield spread premium (YSP) or servicing release premium (SRP) paid to
the originator or ancillary entity originating the loan for the securitized
72. Setting aside the issues raised by the securitization of the Plaintiff’s
Promissory Note and Mortgage, the mergers and acquisitions which occurred
and demand should be made for any and all merger and acquisition,
tend to establish the true and lawful owner of the underlying asset,
Additionally, requests and demand should be made for any and all mortgage
include, by loan number, name and date) the Plaintiff’s loan. Absent this, it is
28
73. The Prospectus and Prospectus Supplements outlines several means of
payments made on the mortgage loan in the loan group are used to make
would have been to satisfy all debts to the certificate holders. No debt would
Plaintiffs.
authorized or acting under the laws of the United States, with intent to
2006 – FF14 violated the “Fair Debt Collection Act” 15 USC 1692a-m. We
29
FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006 FF14. MORTGAGE PASS –
Racketeering.
76. Given the issues of the securitization of Borrower’s Adjustable Rate Note and
substantive issues of material fact related to this case and it remains unclear
material impacts arising from the tow (2) Assignments of Mortgage and one
stated above. Additionally, the fact that the identified Trust elected to be
numerous issues, which may or may not fall within the purview of the local,
convening authority. However, in light of the REMIC election and the transfer
or possible transfer of the subject asset into trust after the ‘Closing Date,’
Adjustable Rate Note raises multiple concerns and issues with respect to its
30
78. Another entity is likely to be found to be the true and actual owner and
own the subject Note and Mortgage and to determine if the Note and
authorized or acting under the laws of the United States, with intent to
80. As a result of these general findings Defendant can establish a prima facie
Witelson v Jamaica Estates Holding Corp. I, 40 AD3d 284 [1st Dept. 2007];
Marculescu v Ouanez, 27 AD3d 701 [2d Dept. 2006]; US. Bank Trust National
Assoc. v Butti, 16 AD3d 408 [2d Dept. 2005); Layden v Boccio, 253 AD2d 540
[2d Dept. 1998); State Mortgage Agency v Lang, 250 AD2d 595[2d Dept.
1998]).
incapacitated.
31
83. The judgment requested herein will not affect a person or persons not in
immediately before the commencement of the action. They all known are
POINT OF LAW
84. ["A deed obtained by false pretenses is void ab initio, and a mortgage based
on such a deed is likewise invalid"]; Jiles v Archer, 116 AD3d 664, 666 [2d
void, it conveys nothing, and a subsequent bona fide purchaser or bona fide
encumbrance for value receives nothing"]; 2-15 Warren's Weed New York
encumbrance will not enjoy any of the rights of a bona fide purchaser"]; 43A
NY Jur 2d Deeds § 218 ["a deed obtain through fraud is null and void, and
conveys nothing, and a purchaser or mortgagee from the grantee, even for
85. "[i]t is legally impossible for any one [sic] to become a bona fide purchaser of
real estate, or a purchaser at all, from one who never had any title, and that
is this case" (id. at 56; see also Yin Wu v Wu, 288 AD2d 104, 105 [1st Dept.
2001] ["A forged deed is void and conveys no title"]; 2-15 Warren's Weed
New York Real Property § 15.01 ["A purchaser who takes title through a
32
fraudulent obtaining of a deed cannot be a bona fide purchaser, even if the
86. New York's rule reflects a general well-established principle of real property
law (see e.g. Harding v Ja Laura Corp., 20 Md App 209, 214 [Md Ct Spec App
1974] ["A forged deed . . . is void ab initio"]; Scott D. Erler, D.D.S. Profit
Sharing Plan v Creative Fin. & Investments, L.L.C., 349 Mont 207, 214 [2009]
["forged conveyances are void ab initio and do not transfer title"]; Brock v
Yale Mortg. Corp., 287 Ga 849, 852 [2010] ["we have also long recognized
that such a deed is a nullity and vests no title in a grantee"]; Akins v Vermast,
150 Or App 236 n 7 [Or Ct App 1997] "If fraud is 'in factum,' such as a
situation analogous to forgery, the deed is void ab initio and will not support
96 NM 714, 716 [1981] ["a deed obtained by fraud is a void deed and
transfers no interest"]; Williams v Warren, 214 Ark 506, 511 [1949] ["No one
87. Any and all subsequent deeds are all the products of fraud and are void and
voidable. In Marden v Dorthy, this Court held that a forged deed was void at
Therefore, it holds a unique position in the law; a legal nullity at its creation
33
is never entitled to legal effect because "[v] oid things are as no things" (id. at
56).
means. In such latter cases, the deed is voidable. The difference in the nature
of the two justifies this different legal status. A deed containing the title
holder's actual signature reflects "the assent of the will to the use of the
misplaced confidence" (Marden, 160 NY at 50; see also Rosen v Rosen, 243
AD2d 618, 619 [2d Dept. 1997]; 26A C.J.S. Deeds § 153 ["where the grantor
the deed is merely voidable"]). Unlike a forged deed, which is void initially, a
[*4] voidable deed, "until set aside, . . . has the effect of transferring the title
to the fraudulent grantee, and . . . being thus clothed with all the evidences
89. US National commenced Supreme Court action Index No. 26315/07 knowing
that they lacked standing to do so. Where US National Bank had personal
knowledge of the underlying fraud which existed with their beneficiary “First
34
Franklyn National Bank’s” loan process. Such processes resulted in a class
90. US National commenced Civil Court Action Index No.: 78402/16, 78403/16,
Plaintiff had filed a UCC1 within the foreclosure case. Where US National
Bank had personal knowledge of the underlying fraud which existed with
processes resulted in a class action lawsuit for their deceptive practices and
91. US National Bank alleged that Plaintiff was dead as an intentional means to
mislead the court that there was no plaintiff upon which to contest the
92. US National has been overly compensated for the alleged economic injuries
underlying fraud which existed with their beneficiary “First Franklyn National
Bank’s” loan process. Such processes resulted in a class action lawsuit for
35
93. US National has been compensated for the alleged default of Plaintiff in that
knowledge of the underlying fraud which existed with their beneficiary “First
94. US National has been further compensated in that they securitized the
95. US National has been unjustly enriched in that they repurchased the subject
property.
96. US National Bank cannot “buy” property since it is a bank, nonetheless, they
97. Where US National Bank had personal knowledge of the underlying malice
and forethought which existed with their beneficiary “First Franklyn National
Bank’s” loan process. Such processes resulted in a class action lawsuit for
36
AS AND FOR THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: DECEPTIVE SALE, TRANSFER AND
CONVEYANCE
99. US National Bank caused the sale, transfer and conveyance of Plaintiff’s
Bank had personal knowledge of the underlying deceptive which existed with
processes resulted in a class action lawsuit for their deceptive practices and
100. Where US National Bank had personal knowledge of the underlying fraud
which existed with their beneficiary “First Franklyn National Bank’s” loan
process. Such processes resulted in a class action lawsuit for their deceptive
well as injured.
101. Where as US National Bank had person(s) within their corporate “First
37
AS AND FOR THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: CONTINIOUS TORTS IN PENDING
102. On or about , Plaintiff was served with a Notice of eviction from the Civil
in loss of income.
resulting from the public posting of Plaintiff’s name the door of the subject
property .
process. Such processes resulted in a class action lawsuit for their deceptive
107. On xxx, Sheriff Fusicitto was served with Notice of an Estoppel and
38
Birth Certificate, Copy Claim to publishing and usage of Plaintiff’s names;
Pamela taylor, taylor, pamela and The Pamela taylor Family Trust.
108. Such notice advised Fusicitto of all claims that were held by the
Plaintiff.
109. Such notice advised Fuscitto of the challenges made upon the Attorney
110. Such notice advised Fuscitto of the claims made upon the Governor of
111. Such notice to Principal was notice and thus advised Pratt of the claims
112. Based upon those claims, Plaintiff made request that responses be
made as it related to the right of the State of New York to apply their
rights.
117. Thus Pratt is personally liable for the act(s) of property and personal
tort upon the commencement of his proceeding to enter upon the private
property of plaintiff.
39
118. Thus Pratt is personally liable for the act(s) of property and personal
tort upon the commencement of his proceeding against the vessel noticed
as plaintiff.
_________________________________X
Sage El
40
VERIFICATION
Sage El, the undersigned hereby swears under the penalty of perjury and affirms the
following to be true. I have read the within Verified Complaint, know the contents
thereof to be true to my knowledge, except those matters made upon information and
belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. My belief as to those matters
therein not stated upon knowledge, is based upon conversations with my Beneficiary,
and my personal knowledge of the PAMELA TAYLOR Family Trust records I hold in my
possession. _____________________________
Sage El
_______________________________
NOTARY
41
in the untied states district court
eastern district of new york
__________________________________________ )
sage el, On Behalf of THE Pamela taylor FAMILY TRUST, ) Case No.
as Trustee )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) SUMMONS AND
V. ) COMPLAINT
)
)
)
ELEANOR PHILLIPS, JEFFREY MILLER, DEPUTY SHERIFF
JOSEPH FUSICTO, DEPUTY SHERIFF D. PRATT, MICHAEL)
J. FICCHI, IRA MILLER, ESQ, )
)
Defendants. )
)
42