Case 3:22-cv-00478-SDD-RLB Document 28 11/29/22 Page 1 of 25
`
`Murphy-Jermaine: Wilson
`In care of: 3282 Meadow Grove Avenue
`Zachary, Louisiana [70791]
`
`IN THE FEDERAL MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT OF EAST BATON ROUGE,
`EAST Baton Rouge PARISH
`STATE OF LOUISIANA
`777 FLORIDA STREET, SUITE 139
`BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70801
`
`Murphy-Jermaine: Wilson
`In Care Of: 3282 Meadow Grove Avenue
`Zachary, Louisiana [70791]
`
`CFVIL ACTION NO.
`
`3:22"cv-00478-SDD-RLB
`
`PLAINTIFF, (Claimant)
`
`FIRST AME1MDED COMPLAINT
`
`Judge
`ShellyD.Dick
`
`vs.
`
`1 .)GINGER MAE FmANCIAL SERVICES
`now known as GMFS, LLC (GMFS) whose
`CEO is John Terrell Brown Junior acting as
`JOHN TERRELL BROWN JUNIOR,
`PRESroENT and Agent for GMFS, LLC and
`/ or assigns in care of 7389 FLORIDA BLVD.
`SUITE 200A, BATON ROUGE,
`LOUISIANA 70806 (home office address)
`and;
`
`2.)SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC
`(SLS) whose CEO is Tom Millon acting as
`TOM MILLON, CEO and Agent for SLS and
`/ or assigns in care of 6200 SOUTH
`QUEBEC STREET, GREENWOOD
`VILLAGE, COLORADO 80111-4720 (home
`office address) and;
`
`3.)Tom Millon acting as TOMMILLON,
`CEO and Agent for SLS, and / or assigns in
`care of; 408 Coco Beach Blvd Apt 502, Rio
`Grande, PR 00745 and;
`
`4.)Ben Thompson acting as BEN
`THOMPSON, SENIOR VP, OPERATIONS
`MANAGER and Agent for GMFS, LLC and /
`or assigns in care of 7389 FLORIDABLVD.
`SUITE 200A, BATON ROUGE,
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00478-SDD-RLB Document 28 11/29/22 Page 2 of 25
`
`LOUISIANA 70806 (home office address)
`and;
`
`5.)Will Eglin acting as WILLEGLIN, CHmF
`FmANCIAL OFFICER and Agent for
`GMFS, LLC and / or assigns in care of 7389
`FLORIDA BLVD. SUITE 200A, BATON
`ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70806 (home office
`address), and;
`
`6.)BUly Maxwell acting as BELLY
`MAXWELL, DISTRICT DIRECTOR and
`Agent for GMFS, LLC and / or assigns in
`care of 7389 FLORIDA BOULEVARD,
`SUITE 200a, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA
`70806 and;
`
`7.)John Terrell Brown Junior acting as JOHN
`TERRELL BROWN JUNIOR, PRESIDENT
`and Agent for GMFS, LLC and / or assigns in
`care of 7389 FLORIDA BOULEVARD,
`SUITE 200a, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA
`70806 and;
`
`8.)Jeffrey Weston acting as JEFFREY
`WBSTON, SVP RETAIL OPERATIONS and
`Agent for GMFS, LLC and / or assigns in
`care of 7389 FLORIDA BOULEVARD,
`SUITE 200a, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA
`70806 and;
`
`9.)Molly Wills acting as MOLLY WILLS,
`SVP and Agent for GMFS, LLC and / or
`assigns in care of 7389 FLORIDA
`BOULEVARD, SUITE 200a, BATON
`ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70806 and;
`
`10.)Tom D' Armond acting as TOM
`D(ARMOND, MANAGER and Agent for
`GMFS, LLC and / or assigns in care of 7389
`FLORIDA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200a,
`BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70806 and;
`
`11 .)TRANSUNION CREDIT UNION and
`Christopher A. Cartwright acting as
`CHRISTOPHER A. CARTWRIGHT, CEO
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00478-SDD-RLB Document 28 11/29/22 Page 3 of 25
`
`and Agent for TRANSUNION CREDIT
`UNION and GMFS, LLC and / or assigns, in
`care of 555 WEST ADAMS STRBET,
`CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60661 and;
`
`12.)EQUIFAX CREDIT UNION and Mark
`Begor acting as MARK BEGOR, CEO and
`Agent for EQUIFAX CREDIT UNION and
`GMFS, LLC and / or assigns, in care of
`CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY, 2
`SUN COURT, SUITE 400, PEACH TREB
`CORNERS, GEORGIA, 30092 and;
`
`13.)EXPERIAN CREDTT UNION and Brian
`Cassin acting as BRIAN CASSIN, CEO and
`Agent for EXPERIAN CREDIT UNION and
`GMFS, LLC and / or assigns, in care of 475
`ANTON BOULEVARD, COSTA MESA,
`CALIFORNIA 92626 and;
`
`14.)COMPVTERSHARE LIMTmD who
`merged with SPECIALIZED LOAN
`SERVICING, LLC and Stewart Irving acting
`as STEWART IRVING, CEO and agent for
`COMPUTERSHARE LIMTTED (CL) and/or
`assigns, in care of 6200 SOUTH QUEBEC
`STREET, GREENWOOD VILLAGE,
`COLORADO 80111-4720 (home office
`address), and;
`
`15.) Stewartlrving acting as STEWART
`IRVING, CEO and Agent for
`COMPUTERSHARE LIMITED, and / or
`assigns in care of 6200 SOUTH QUEBEC
`STREET, GREENWOOD VILLAGE,
`COLORADO 80111-4720 (home office
`address) and;
`
`16.) GINGER MAE FINANCIAL
`SBRVICES now known as GMFS,LLC,
`purchased by ZAIS FINANCIAL
`SERVICES, and Christian Zugal acting as
`CHRISTIAN ZUGAL CEO and Agent for
`ZAIS FINANCIAL SERVICBS and/or
`assigns in care of, 101 Crawfords Comer
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00478-SDD-RLB Document 28 11/29/22 Page 4 of 25
`
`Road, Suite #1206, Holmdel, New Jersey,
`07733 (home office address) and:
`
`17.) ZAIS FINANCIAL SERVICES then
`MERGED into SUTHERLAND ASSET
`MANAGEMENT, who then changed their
`name to READY CAPITAL
`CORPORATION, and Thomas E. Capasse,
`acting as THOMAS E CAPASSE, CEO and
`agent for SUTHERLAND ASSET
`MANAGEMENT AND READY CAPITAL
`CORPORATION and/or assigns in care of
`Avenue of the Americas, Floor 7 and 50, New
`York, New York, 10021-1122 (home office
`address) and;
`
`18.) READY CAPITAL CORPORATION is
`managed and advised by WATERFALL
`ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC (who is a
`Hedge Fund—Pooled investments manager)
`and Thomas E Capasse, acting as THOMAS
`E CAPASSE, PARTNER and agent and/or
`assigns for WATERFALL ASSET
`MANAGEMENT, LLC, and Jack Ross acting
`as JACK ROSS, PARTNER and agent and /or
`assigns for WATERFALL ASSET
`MANAGBMENT, LLC, in care of; Avenue of
`the Americas, Floor 7 and 50, New York, New
`York, 10021-1122 (home office address) and;
`
`19.) FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
`CORPORATION and Michael J DeVito
`acting as MICHAEL J DEVITO, CEO and
`agent and /or assigns for FEDERAL HOME
`LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, in
`care of; 8200 Jones Branch Drive, McLean,
`Virginia, 22102
`
`20.)Michael J. DeVito acting as MICHAEL J
`DEVITO, CEO and Agent for FEDERAL
`HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
`CORPORATION, and / or assigns in care of
`8200 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, Virginia,
`22102 and;
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00478-SDD-RLB Document 28 11/29/22 Page 5 of 25
`
`21.)JOHNDOES 1 THROUGH 100. Jointly
`and Severally, Coqiorately and Personally.
`
`DEFENDANTS, (Respondents)
`
`5 COMES now the Plaintiff (Claimant) Murphy-Jermaine: Wilson to declare his right to a
`
`Complaint that will result in a Summary / Default Judgment from this court due to Plaintiff
`
`(Claimant)'s Claim in Special Assumpsit pre-existeat Private Contract. TMs contract has been
`
`agreed to by the Defendants (Respondents) due to their silence on the matter (tacit procreation).
`
`Plaintiff (Claimant) will show how this situation came into existence, still exists and therefore is
`
`10 ripe for this complaint to result in a Summary /Default Judgment from this court.
`
`ALL DEFENDANTS (RESPONDENTS) ASSOCIATED WITH THE CLAIMS OF
`
`PLAINTIFF (CLAIMANT) AND JURISDICTION THEREOF
`
`1. GINGER MAE FINANCIAL SERVICES now known as GWS, LLC (GMFS) whose
`
`CEO is John Terrell Brown Junior acting as JOHN TERRELL BROWN JUNIOR, PRESIDENT
`
`15 and Agent for GMFS, LLC and / or assigns in care of 7389 FLORIDABLVD. SUITE 200A,
`
`BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70806 (home office address). GMFS, LLC was formed as a
`
`DELAWARE LLC and qualifies under the diversity rules for Federal Court jurisdiction. This
`
`company allegedly gave the Plaintiff (Claimant) a mortgage loan in the state of LOUISIANA.
`
`The closing of the alleged loan was performed within the state of LOUISIANA.
`
`20 2. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICmG, LLC (SLS) whose CEO is Tom Millon acting as
`
`TOM MILLON, CEO and Agent for SLS and / or assigns in care of 6200 SOUTH QUEBEC
`
`STREET, GREENWOOD VILLAGE, COLORADO 80111-4720 (home office address). SLS
`
`was formed as a DELAWARE LLC and qualifies under the diversity rules for Federal Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00478-SDD-RLB Document 28 11/29/22 Page 6 of 25
`
`Jurisdiction. This company was / is the loan servicer for the alleged loan given to Plaintiff
`
`25 (Claimant) in the state of LOUISIANA. The servicing for the alleged loan was performed via
`
`USPS mail to Plaintiff (Claimant) in the state of LOUISIANA.
`
`3. Tom Millon acting as TOM MDLLON, CEO and Agent for SLS, and / or assigns in care
`
`of 408 Coco Beach Blvd Apt 502, Rio Grande, PR 00745. Tom Millon and / or his predecessor
`
`designed and facilitated the alleged loan servicing for Plaintiff (Claimant). As Tom Millon is
`
`30 located in PUERTO RICO and facilitates business with Plaintiff (Claimant) within the state of
`
`LOUISIANA, he qualifies under the diversity rules for Federal Court jurisdiction.
`
`4. Ben Thompson acting as BEN THOMPSON, SENIOR VP, OPERATIONS MANAGBR
`
`and Agent for GMFS, LLC and/or assigns in care of 7389 FLORIDABLVD. SUITE 200A,
`
`BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70806 (home office address). Ben Thompson and/or his
`
`35 successor designed and/or facilitated the alleged loan origination for Plaintiff (Claimant) and this
`
`qualifies under the diversity rules of the Federal Court.
`
`5.) Will Eglin acting as WILL EGLIN, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER and Agent for
`
`GMFS, LLC and/or assigns in care of 7389 FLORIDABLVD. SUITE 200A, BATON ROUGE,
`
`LOUISIANA 70806 (home office address). Will Eglin and/or his successor designed and/or
`
`40 facilitated the alleged loan origination and accounted or should have accounted for payments
`
`paid by Plaintiff (Claimant) upon the alleged loan and thus qualifies under the diversity rules of
`
`the Federal Court.
`
`6.) Billy Maxwell acting as BILLY MAXWELL, DISTRICT DIRECTOR and Agent for
`
`GMPS, LLC and/or assigns in care of 7389 FLORIDA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200a, BATON
`
`45 ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70806. Billy Maxwell and/or successor designed and/or facilitated the
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00478-SDD-RLB Document 28 11/29/22 Page 7 of 25
`
`alleged loan origination in LOUISIANA obtained by Plaintiff (Claimant) and thus qualifies
`
`under the diversity rules of the Federal Court.
`
`7.) John Terrell Brown Junior acting as JOHN TERRBLL BROWN JUNIOR, PRESIDENT
`
`and Agent for GMFS, LLC and/or assigns in care of 7389 FLORIDA BOULEVARD, SUITE
`
`50 200a, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70806. John Terrell Brown Junior designed and
`
`facilitated the alleged loan to Plaintiff (Claimant) in LOUISIANA and thus qualifies under the
`
`diversity rules of the Federal Court.
`
`8.) Jeffrey Weston acting as JEFFREY WESTON, SVP RETAIL OPERATIONS and Agent
`
`for GMFS, LLC and/or assigns in care of 7389 FLORIDA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200a, BATON
`
`55 ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70806. Jeffrey Weston designed and/or facilitated the alleged loan to
`
`Plaintiff (Claimant) in LOUISIANA and therefore qualifies under the diversity mles of the
`
`Federal Court.
`
`9.) Molly Wills acting as MOLLY WILLS, SVP and Agent for GMFS, LLC and/or assigns in
`
`care of 7389 FLORIDA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200a, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70806.
`
`60 Molly Wills designed and/or facilitated the alleged loan to Plaintiff (Claimant) in LOUISIANA
`
`and therefore qualifies under the diversity rules of the Federal Court.
`
`10.) Tom D' Armond acting as TOM D'ARMOND, MANAGER and Agent for GMFS, LLC
`
`and / or assigns in care of 7389 FLORIDA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200a, BATON ROUGE,
`
`LOUISIANA 70806. Tom D'Armond facilitated the alleged loan origination process for the
`
`65 Plaintiff (Claimant) in LOUISIANA and this qualifies under the diversity rules of the Federal
`
`Court.
`
`11.) TRANSUNION CREDIT UNION and Christopher A. Cartwright acting as
`
`CHRISTOPHER A. CARTWRIGHT, CEO and Agent for T8ANSUNION CREDFT UNION and
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00478-SDD-RLB Document 28 11/29/22 Page 8 of 25
`
`GMFS, LLC and/or assigns, in care of 555 WEST ADAMS STREET, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
`
`70 60661. TRANSUNION CREDIT UNION is registered in Delaware. TRANSUNION CREDIT
`
`UNION and its CEO Christopher A. Cartwright facilitated, without question, the reporting of
`
`false bad credit concerning the alleged loan to Plaintiff (Claimant) and thus qualifies under the
`
`diversity rules of the Federal Court.
`
`12.) EQUIFAX CREDIT UNION and Mark Begor acting as MARK BEGOR, CEO and Agent
`
`75 for EQUIFAX CREDFT UNION and GMFS, LLC and/or assigns, in care of CORPORATION
`
`SERVICE COMPANY, 2 SUN COURT, SUITE 400, PEACH TREE CORNERS, GEORGIA,
`
`30092. EQUIFAX CREDIT UNION is a UK company based m the REPUBLIC OF IRELAND.
`
`EQUIFAX CREDTT UNION and Mark Begor facilitated, without question, the reporting of false
`
`bad credit concerning the alleged loan to Plaintiff (Claimant) and thus qualifies under the
`
`80 diversity rules of the Federal Court.
`
`13.) EXPERIAN CREDIT UNION and Brian Cassin acting as BRIAN CASSBM, CEO and
`
`Agent for EXPERIAN CREDIT UNION and GMFS, LLC and/or assigns, in care of 475
`
`ANTON BOULEVARD, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626. EXPERIAN CREDIT UNION
`
`is a GEORGIA Corporation. EXPERIAN CREDIT UNION and Brian Cassin facilitated, without
`
`85 question, the reporting of false bad credit concerning the alleged loan to Plaintiff (Claimant) and
`
`thus qualifies under the diversity rules of the Federal Court.
`
`14.) COMPUTERSHARE UMFTED who meiged with SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING,
`
`LLC and Stewart Irving acting as STEWART IRVING, CEO and agent for COMPUTERSHARE
`
`LIMITED (CL) and/or assigns, in care of 6200 SOUTH QUEBEC STREET, GREENWOOD
`
`90 VILLAGE, COLORADO 80111-4720 (home office address). COMPUTERSHARE LIMITED
`
`merged with SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC and assumed the assets and liabilities of
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00478-SDD-RLB Document 28 11/29/22 Page 9 of 25
`
`SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC. Since COMPUTERSHARE LIMITED is an
`
`Australian Limited Company concerning the alleged loan to Plaintiff ( Claimant) and therefore
`
`this company qualifies under the diversity rules of the Federal Court.
`
`95 15.) Stewart Irving acting as STEWART IRVmG, CEO and Agent for COMPUTERSHARE
`
`LIMITED, and / or assigns in care of 6200 SOUTH QUEBEC STREET, GREENWOOD
`
`VILLAGE, COLORADO 80111-4720 (home office address). As CEO of a foreign company, he
`
`qualifies under the diversity rules of the Federal Court.
`
`16.) GINGER MAE FINANCIAL SERVICES now known as GMFS, purchased by ZAIS
`
`100 FINANCIAL SERVICES, and Christian Zugal acting as CHRISTIAN ZUGAL CEO and Agent
`
`for ZAIS FINANCIAL SERVICES and/or assigns in care of, 101 Crawfords Comer Road, Suite
`
`#1206, Holmdel, New Jersey, 07733 (home office address). Since ZAIS FmANCIAL
`
`SERVICES is an Irish Limited Company concerning the alleged loan to Plaintiff ( Claimant) and
`
`therefore this company qualifies under the diversity rules of the Federal Court.
`
`105 17.) ZAIS FINANCIAL SERVICES MERGED into SUTHERLAND ASSET
`
`MANAGEMENT, who then changed their name to READY CAPITAL CORPORATION, and
`
`Thomas E. Capasse, acting as THOMAS E CAPASSE, CEO and agent for SUTHERLAND
`
`ASSET MANAGEMENT AND READY CAPITAL CORPORATION and/or assigns in care of
`
`Avenue oftheAmericas, Floor 7 and 50, New York, New York, 10021-1122 (home office
`
`110 address). Since SUTHERLAND ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC and READY CAPITAL
`
`CORPORATION are located within the state of NEW YORK concerning the alleged loan to
`
`Plaintiff ( Claimant) and therefore this company qualifies under the diversity rules of the Federal
`
`Court.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00478-SDD-RLB Document 28 11/29/22 Page 10 of 25
`
`18.) READY CAPITAL CORPORATION is managed and advised by WATERFALL ASSET
`
`115 MANAGEMENT, LLC (who is a Hedge Fund—Pooled investments manager) and Thomas E
`
`Capasse, acting as THOMAS E CAPASSE, PARTNER and agent and/or assigns for
`
`WATERFALL ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, and Jack Ross acting as JACK ROSS,
`
`PARTNER and agent and /or assigns for WATERFALL ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, in care
`
`of; Avenue of the Amencas, Floor 7 and 50, New York, New York, 10021-1122 (home office
`
`120 address). WATHRFALL ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC is located within the state of NEW
`
`YORK concerning the alleged loan to Plaintiff ( Claimant) and therefore this company qualifies
`
`under the diversity rules of the Federal Court.
`
`19.) FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION and Michael J DeVito acting
`
`as MICHAEL J DBVTTO, CEO and agent and /or assigns for FEDERAL HOME LOAN
`
`125 MORTGAGE CORPORATION, in care of; 8200 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, Virginia, 22102.
`
`FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGB CORPORATION is located in VIRGINIA and is
`
`registered in the State of Delaware, concerning the alleged loan to Plaintiff ( Claimant) and
`
`therefore this company qualifies under the diversity rules of the Federal Court. SLS disclosed, in
`
`a letter to Plaintiff (Claimant) that FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION is
`
`130 the current holder in due course.
`
`20.) Michael J. DeVito acting as MICHAEL J DEVITO, CEO and agent for FEDERAL
`
`HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION and /or assigns, in care of 8200 Jones Branch
`
`Drive, McLean, Virginia, 22102. As CEO of FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
`
`CORPORATION in Virginia, he qualifies under the diversity rules of the Federal Court.
`
`135 21.) JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 10 AO. Plaintiff (Claimant) believes there may be additional
`
`persons that have or will interfere with the Private Contract and the collection of the wrongs
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00478-SDD-RLB Document 28 11/29/22 Page 11 of 25
`
`thereof. Plaintiff (Claimant) reserves the right to add additional person(s) to the claim at any
`
`time. And that it qualifies under the diversity rules of the Federal Court.
`
`OTHER JUmsmCTION ISSUES
`
`140 22.) As the Plaintiff (Claimant), Murphy-Jermaine: Wilson, who sojourns in ZACHARY,
`
`EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOUISIANA and interacted with the Defendants
`
`(Respondents) in ZACHARY, EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOUISIANA, concerning the
`
`alleged Loan Origination and implementation and therefore qualifies under fhe diversity rules of
`
`the Federal Court.
`
`145 23.) Further, the property that the alleged loan holder was/is using for collateral is located in
`
`ZACHARY CITY, EAST BATON ROUGE PARRISH, LOUISIANA and qualifies under the
`
`diversity rules of the Federal Court The legal property description is:
`
`ONE (1) CERTAIN LOT OR PARCEL OF GROUND, together with all the
`buildings and component parts thereon and all the rights, ways, privileges,
`150 servitudes, appurtenances and advantages thereunto belonging or in
`anywlse appertaining situated in the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
`in that subdivision known as COPPER MILL GOLF COMMUNITY,
`SEVENTH FILING (part 2), being shown on the plat entitled "final plat of
`Copper Mill Golf Community, Seventh Filing (part 2), Lots 360-384
`155 (Inclusive) Formerly being a Subdivision of Tracts CMTH-l-A & CMTH-4-
`A-l of the Remaining Portion of the Marshall M. Hughes Property Located
`in Section 58, T5S-R1W, Greeasburg Land District, Parish of East Baton
`Rouge, State of Louisiana, for The Meadows of Copper Mill, L.L.C." made a
`prepared by Mickey L. Robertson, Registered Professional Land Surveyor,
`160 dated September 23,2014 and recorded at original 313, bundled 12608 of
`the official records of the Clerk and Recorder for the Parish of East Baton
`Rouge Parish^ Louisiana, as being designated as LOT NUMBER 378, as
`Copper Mill Golf Community, Seventh Filing (Part 2), said lot having such
`measurements and dimensions and being subject to those servitudes and
`165 building set back lines as shown on said map, and subject to all restrictions
`of record.
`
`Municiple address: 3282 Meadow Grove Avenue, Zachary, LA 70791
`
`170
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00478-SDD-RLB Document 28 11/29/22 Page 12 of 25
`
`24.) Furthermore, this property is worth more than $100,000.00 and also satisfies the
`
`requirement for jurisdiction for the Federal Court Case.
`
`25.) In addition, the following Federal Claims are being asserted in this case, which also
`
`satisfies the jurisdictional standards to be heard in Federal Court: a.) Peonage Abolition Act of
`
`175 1867. ch 187. <? 1. 14 Stat. 546 and as codified at USC. Title 42. ChaDter 21. SubcMvter I S
`
`1994_b.) 18 USC 1343 Elements of Wire Fraud, c. Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment of
`
`the Constitution of the United States of America.
`
`THE PRESUMPTION OF A LOAN TO Plaintiff (Claimant)
`
`26.) On July 31, 2017, a Promissory Note (See Exhibit B) and a Mortgage Lien Document
`
`180 Lien (See Exhibit 0. was presented to Plaintiff (Claimant) to attach his signatures upon, with the
`
`assertion that Plaintiff (Claimant) was to receive money in exchange for signing the Note and
`
`Mortgage Lien Document for a loan. However, he never received any money. In doing follow up
`
`research, he discovered that the Promissory Note was used by the lender or lender's agent, as
`
`money equivalent that was deposited into a transaction account at a bank. In today's market,
`
`185 banks commonly use Promissory Notes as money equivalents for all sorts of purposes such as
`
`selling of the instmments, trading them or vaulting them for enhancing their assets on the books.
`
`However, in this case, the note was used as money equivalent to instantly enhance their deposits
`
`on the books and later was sold to a new holder in due course. Upon selling the Promissory Note,
`
`Defendants (Respondents) were paid for approximately 60% of the value of the Promissory Note
`
`190 at maturity (principle and interest for 30 years). Plaintiff (Claimant) was never informed of the
`
`nature of the after signing transactions with their Promissory Note. This is unjust enrichment on
`
`the part of the Bank. The Plaintiff (Claimant) Rebuts the Presumption he was in collusion nor
`
`was informed the note was to be used in such a manner
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00478-SDD-RLB Document 28 11/29/22 Page 13 of 25
`
`27.) Then the bank forwarded funds via a wire transfer to the Title Company to effect the
`
`195 dispersal of funds for the alleged loan. Only a bank could pull this off. The bank did not give any
`
`consideration for the loan. Therefore, Plaintiff (Claimant) Rebuts the Presumption that
`
`consideration was given to Plaintiff (Claimant) by the Lender that would prompt an obligation to
`
`make payments on this alleged loan.
`
`28.) Since the funds were forwarded from the transaction account via a wire transfer, we
`
`200 understand that that constitutes wire fraud with intent to defraud Plaintiff (Claimant) over the
`
`next 30 years Defendants (Respondents) validity of the Promissory Note and the Mortgage Lien
`
`Document Lien Document.
`
`29.) By using the Promissory Note, as a debt instrument, and covertly utilizing the Mortgage
`
`Lien Document over the next 30 years with interest without providing actual consideration for a
`
`205 loan to effect interest upon, effectively put Plaintiff (Claimant) under peonage, as no
`
`consideration was given to him by any Holder of the note. Peonage was outlawed by the US
`
`Congress on March 211d, 1 867 by the passage of the Peona^e Abolition Act of 1867 ch. 187. ^ 1.
`
`14 Stat 546 and as codified at USC. Title 42. Chapter 21. Subchapter 1 $ 1994 . Peonage is
`
`defined as a condition of servitude (prohibited by the 13th Amendment of the Constitution of the
`
`210 United States of America) compelling persons to perform labor in order to pay off a debt
`
`(includes alleged debts) (as defined in Blacks Law Dictionary). This situation enriches the
`
`Defendants (Respondents) unjusdy using Plaintiff (Claimant) to get gain and enrichment on the
`
`backs of Plaintiff (Claimant) and others like him. Plaintiff (Claimant) Rebuts any Presumption
`
`that the Defendants (Respondents) have any exemption from this Act.
`
`215 30.) Additionally, the charters of all the holders in due course prevents them from lending
`
`credit (by using the note as money equivalent). Under their charters they can only lend actual
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00478-SDD-RLB Document 28 11/29/22 Page 14 of 25
`
`money. Plaintiff (Claimant) Rebuts the Presumption that supposed Mortgage Lenders are
`
`exempted from their charter obligations.
`
`31.) Again, the Plaintiff (Claimant) Rebuts the Presumption that he received consideration
`
`220 for his Promissory Note and therefore Rebuts the Presumption the Defendants (Respondents)
`
`have a claim to a Mortgage Lien Document.
`
`LEGISLATIVE (ADMMISTRATIVE) CONTRACTS/REMEDIES.
`
`32.) The Notice of Tender for Set ofFPresentment (Legislative process) is outlined in the LA
`
`Rev Stat $ 10-3-501, 502. 503. 504. 504. 505 and other sections of the UCC codes in LA Rev
`
`225 Stat. These sections of the code, which are also in most States* codes, outlines the process of a
`
`preseatment, properly executed and properly served upon the Defendants (Respondents). This Is
`
`followed with a Notice of Default—Opportunity to Cure, properly executed and properly served
`
`upon the Defendants (Respondents). This is then followed with a Final Notice of Default and an
`
`Invoice for damages, properly executed and properly served upon the Defendants (Respondents).
`
`230 Usually, a second Invoice for damages is properly executed and properly served upon the
`
`Defendants (Respondents). This legislative (administrative) remedy saves the court process a lot
`
`of time. If properly executed and properly served, shows that the Defendants (Respondents) have
`
`either setded the matter before coming to court or have agreed to a summary/default Judgment
`
`from the very beginning of the court process. That is the Plaintiff (Claimant) assertion due to the
`
`235 completed process at Exhibit C Plaintiff (Claimant) Rebuts any Presumption that the
`
`Defendants (Respondents) are exempt from this process.
`
`33.) The Notice of Tender for Set offPresentment (Legislative process), in this case has been
`
`entered as a contract. Within that contract, the Defendants (Respondents) agree to answer point
`
`by point the allegations in the contract in affidavit form under pains and penaldes of perjury. Will
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00478-SDD-RLB Document 28 11/29/22 Page 15 of 25
`
`240 Eglin CFO, accepted this Notice of Tender for Set OffPresentment and did not answer point by
`
`point any allegations within the Notice of Tender for Set offPresentment. His silence in the
`
`matter is agreement by tacit procreation to accept the payment and set the account at zero.
`
`Plaintiff (Claimant) rebuts any presumption that his silence does not settle the matter of
`
`payment acceptance and the obligation to set the account at zero.
`
`245 34.) The Notice of Tender for Set offPresentment (Legislative process), as a contract shows
`
`that Defendants (Respondents) agree that if they do not answer to the Plaintiff (Claimant) point
`
`by point, in affidavit form under pains and penalties of perjury, they agree to the terms of the
`
`contract by their acquiescence. In this case, the Defendants (Respondents)) did not answer point
`
`by point, in affidavit form under pains and penalties of perjury the Notice of Tender for Set off
`
`250 Presentment. Therefore, by their silence, they have agreed to all the points of the contract.
`
`Defendants (Respondents) are now bound by the private legislative contract. See Exhibit A for
`
`the complete Legislative Private Contract. Plaintiff (Claimant) Rebuts any Presumption that the
`
`Defendants (Respondents) are not bound to the contract terms.
`
`DOCTRINE OF ACQUIESCENCE
`
`255 35.) Under the Doctrine of Acquiescence as well as the Maxim in Law which states that
`
`"silence shows consent" 6 Barb. [N.Y.J 2B. 35. Qui non negat, fatetur and "He who does not
`
`(timely) deny, agrees," CTrayner. Maxim 503)^ the "Appellee^s silence constituted their agreement
`
`with the Appellants' arbitration proposal terms and conditions under the legal Doctrine of Tacit
`
`Procuration."
`
`260 36.) The common law doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence is applied when one party gives
`
`legal notice to a second party of a fact or claim, and the second party fails to properly challenge
`
`or refute that claim within a reasonable time. The second party is said to have acquiesced to the
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00478-SDD-RLB Document 28 11/29/22 Page 16 of 25
`
`Notice of Tender for Set offPresentment, and is estopped from later challenging it, or making a
`
`counterclaim. The doctrine is similar to, and often applied with, estoppel by laches.
`
`265 37.) This occurred in the second Georgia v. South Carolina 497 U.S. 376 0 990^ case before
`
`the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990, when it was ruled that Georgia could no longer make any claim
`
`to an island in the Savannah River, despite the 1787 Treaty ofBeaufort's assignment to the
`
`contrary. The court said that the state had knowingly allowed South Carolina to join the island as
`
`a peninsula to its own coast by dumping sand from dredging, and to then levy property taxes on
`
`270 it for decades. Georgia thereby lost the island-tumed-peninsula by its own acquiescence, even
`
`though the treaty had given it all of the islands in the river.
`
`38.) The doctrine of acquiescence although typically not found in law, is found a lot in
`
`precedent. As seen in a search of US Supreme Court Rulings the doctrine of acquiescence has
`
`been mentioned over a thousand times.
`
`275 39) Silence is acquiescence(aka. silent acquiescence and acquiescence by silence) is a
`
`related doctrine that can mean, and have the legal effect, that when confronted with a wrong or
`
`an act that can be considered a tortuous act, where one's silence may mean that one accepts or
`
`permits such acts without protest or claim thereby loses rights to a claim of any loss or damage.
`
`U.S. Supreme Court Central Pacific Railway Co. v. Alameda County, 284 U.S. 463 f 1932}.
`
`280 40.)
`
`https:/Avw\^ffOogle.com/search?bl=en&safe=off<&q^acqmesc€nce+site%3Asuprente.just
`
`ia.com United States Supreme Court rulmgs that mention acgwescence. This site has over 300
`
`cases in the United States Supreme Court that use the Doctrine of Acquiescence in their rulings.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00478-SDD-RLB Document 28 11/29/22 Page 17 of 25
`
`Over a dozen of which originated in Louisiana. The case law is overwhelming in support of the
`
`285 Doctrine of Acquiescence.
`
`41.) Therefore, since there is no controversy left in the Complaint that the Defendants
`
`(Respondents) can rely on because of their acquiescence to the Notice of Tender for Set off
`
`Presentment, PlamtifF (Claimant) requests judgment in Plaintiffs (Claimants') favor.
`
`42.) Under threat, duress, and coercion, if they had not paid payments. Plaintiff (Claimant)
`
`290 tendered the Payment Instalment that Defendants (Respondents) did not object to through their
`
`silence (acquiescence). Therefore, Plaintiff (Claimant) Rebuts any Presumption that
`
`Defendants (Respondents) were not paid for the alleged loan.
`
`THE LAW OF TENDER OF PAYMENT
`
`43.) Under the LA Rev Stat $ 10~3~603(b) : "If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an
`
`295 instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there
`
`is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or
`
`accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the
`
`tender relates." Further, the obligation to the payments on the Promissory Note is satisfied in full,
`
`with the tender of payment to the Holder of the Note. Plaintiff (Claimant) Rebuts any
`
`300 Presumption to the contrary.
`
`44.) Since the tender instrument submitted to Defendants (Respondents) was a tender of
`
`payment for an obligation to pay by the Plaintiff (Claimant), the alleged debt is paid in the
`
`amount of Three Hundred Thirty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-Three Dollars and
`
`Forty-One Cents ($339,373.41 US) Via Money Order #MJW-70183090000076457328-A on
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00478-SDD-RLB Document 28 11/29/22 Page 18 of 25
`
`305 January 13,2022. Plaintiff (Claimant) Rebuts any Presumption that this does not satisfy any
`
`alleged obligation left on our part.
`
`45.) It is obvious that the payment was accepted since a CUSIP number was issued for the
`
`tender instrument. And accounts show that there is approximately $8,000,000.00 generated from
`
`that CUSH* number. Plaintiff (Claimant) requests an accounting of this CUSIP account.
`
`310 46.) After the tender instrument was sent to the alleged mortgagee. Defendants (Respondents)
`
`decided to not credit the alleged loan account with proceeds from the tender instrument.
`
`47.) Crediting of the proceeds of the tender instrument is required by the Plaintiff (Claimant)
`
`to be credited to the alleged loan account. Plaintiff (Claimant) Rebuts any Presumption that the
`
`Defendants (Respondents) are not obligated to credit the tender of payment and zero out the
`
`315 account.
`
`48.) Technically, the provisions that brought us into having no money of substance exist. We
`
`aren't using "real money" (gold/silver); and therefore, the maxim of "whoever brings the
`
`obligation must bring the remedy" applies. So, the government still has the fiduciary duty to
`
`discharge and settle our debts, because we don't have access to money of real substance, AND
`
`320 because the USA is also in bankruptcy mode. So, the Secretary of the Treasury is the "Received
`
`in the Bankruptcy. Your birth certificate is a bond and your debts are prepaid by your current and
`
`future labor, property, and taxes that they are Processing as the Administration of the Office of
`
`the Executor of the ESTATE of the ALL CAPS JOHN H DOE name. They still hypothecated the
`
`Birth Certificate and make Billions of the birth (or Naturalization) of every new citizen. In fact,
`
`325 in every court case over $7,000, there are new bonds created and traded on our BC ESTATE by
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00478-SDD-RLB Document 28 11/29/22 Page 19 of 25
`
`the courts. Plaintiff (Claimant) Rebuts any Presumption the De