DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, CO.

100 Jefferson County Parkway

Golden, Colorado 80401

Plaintiffs:

LANCE CASSINO, BETTY CASSINO, LYNN

CASSINO, MARCUS JORDAN, LEIGH ANN
JORDAN, JOHN MCSWEENEY, REBECCA
MCSWEENEY, CRAIG MARKS,

v.

Defendants:

J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; FEDERAL

DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION; CYNTHIA
LOWERY-GRABER; LISA CANCANNON AND;
ALL UNKNOWN PERSONS, JOHN AND JANE
DOES WHO MAY HAVE INVOLVEMENT WITH
THIS CASE.

COURT USE ONLY

Lance Cassino
Pro Se until attorney retained Case Number: 17CV332
POB 1050
Conifer, CO 8043 Division/Courtroom: 3
303-838-0221
lancecassino@msn.com

COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY BY WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE

COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, Lance Cassino (Cassino), Betty Cassino, Lynn
Cassino, Marcus Jordan, Leigh Ann Jordan, John McSweeney, Rebecca McSweeney, and
Craig Marks and they institute this action for actual damages, statutory damages, treble and
compensatory damages including Cassinos costs for this action against all the Defendants.
.
FOR HIS COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND, CASSINO STATES AS
FOLLOWS:

P a g e 1 | 24
 I. JURISDICTION & VENUE

1. Jurisdiction in this Court is proper pursuant to C.R.S. 13-1-124(1)(c).

2. All the real property which is the subject of this matter is located in Jefferson
County, Colorado making venue proper under C.R.C.P. Rule 98.

II. BACKGROUND

3. This is an action for personal injury from a wrongful foreclosure attempt for
substantial damages. The concept of this personal injury lawsuit for damages is that
Mortgage Malpractice injuries are very much equivalent to Medical Malpractice injuries
like physical, mental, emotional, financial, even spiritually (shattering belief systems about
bankers just like doctors that can do no wrong) see Exhibit 1 - Medical Malpractice is
equivalent to Mortgage Malpractice 6/28/2017. J.P. Morgan Chase, N.A.s (hereafter
Chase) financial terrorism has also caused collateral financial and other damages to
Plaintiff Lance Cassinos 92 year old mother and 66 year old wheel chair bound brother,
financial and other damages to Cassinos neighbors, Marc and Leigh Ann Jordan needing to
close on a .4 acre purchase from Cassino to solve their home encroachment lawsuit,
financial and other damages to Cassinos buyers of his 4.7 acre home site, John and Rebecca
McSweeney and financial and other damages to Keller Williams broker Craig Marks
handling of the sale of both the .4 acre and 4.7 acre properties that should have closed by
June 9. 2017 if not for Chase (or attorneys or law firms representing Chase) committing a
felony by recording September 28, 2011 a false instrument in the Jefferson County
Colorado land records - Statute for 18 5 114 Offering A False Instrument For
Recording (First Degree). On October 19, 2015 Cassino filed with the Jefferson County
Sheriff Office a criminal complaint on white collar crime by fraud, report number 15-22789,
asking for a criminal investigation by the District Attorney with the fraudulent assignment
and the Colorado law violated Statute 18 5 114 both attached see Exhibit 16 -
Jefferson County Sheriff criminal complaint on white collar crime by fraud, report number
15-22789 dated 10-19-2015. Also see Exhibit 17 FBI.gov Tip online reported 9-24-2017
Cassino v Chase regarding fraud by bank. This action ordered by Chase or its
representatives is the primary cause for both Jefferson County District Court case number
17CV231 COMPLAINT FOR QUIET TITLE UNDER RULE 105 and this instant case for
damages.

III. THE PARTIES

The Legal Owner and family members.

4. Cassino, an individual, is the legal owner of two parcels in Jefferson County more
specifically identified as:

Northeast Quarter Northwest Quarter (NE ) of Section 10,

Township 7 South Range 71 West of the 6th Principal Meridian,
Jefferson County, Colorado, [containing approximately 40 acres
(Parcel 1 recorded 7/19/99 at Reception No.F0910679)], and;

P a g e 2 | 24
 East Half Southeast Quarter Northwest Quarter Northwest Quarter
(E SE NW NW ) of Section 10, Township 7 South, Range
71 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Jefferson County, Colorado,
[containing approximately 5 acres (Parcel 2 recorded 12/16/99 at
Reception No. F0992014)].

5. The parcels abut each other and will collectively be referred to herein as Parcels I &
II or as the Parcels.

6. All improvements including Plaintiffs two-story residence, and a detached garage

are located on Parcel I with a street address of: 13883 South Wamblee Valley Road, Conifer
Colorado, 80433.

7. Cassinos mother Betty Cassino and Cassinos brother Lynn Cassino are also
Plaintiffs due to collateral damages of Chases financial terrorism effecting their health and
well being too. A portion of this land was gifted to Cassino by a family member.

The Pretender Lender (The (putative) Mortgagee)

8. J.P. Morgan Chase, N.A. (hereafter Chase); as an independent financial institution

or; as successor in interest or; as a servicer, and/or; as a trustee on behalf of a Real Estate
Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC) trust has in the past and may still wrongfully
claim to be a holder, qualified holder, holder in due course or may assert some other
claim or interest in Parcels I or II. Chase and the law firms and attorneys representing Chase
claims of having standing as person entitled to enforce (hereafter PETE) uses fraudulent
foreclosing documents (counterfeits) served upon the court, served the trustee, recorded in
the land records falsely and served Cassino. Cassino and his planned expert witnesses will
prove that Chase in fact is a Pretender Lender that has committed white collar crimes that
are felonies or its agents and vendors. Those expert witnesses are Robert Janes retired
attorney, former CPA and author of ShellGame-MERS: Contrived Confusion and
FIGHTING THE FORECLOSURE MACHINE
http://www.fightingtheforeclosuremachine.com/, Neil Garfield on Securitization and
TILA and Forensic Document Examiner Gary Michaels.

9. Defendant Chases claims, if any, in any capacity are without foundation or right.

The Encroaching Parties

10. In 2012, a minor encroachment from a neighboring property onto Parcel II was
discovered. The encroaching property, 29310 South Sunset Trail, is owned by individuals
Mark and Leigh Ann Jordan. Amongst themselves Cassino, the Jordans and the Jordans
contractors, Cedar View Homes reached agreement and settlement to reconfigure the lot
lines to accommodate the Jordans existing structure/encroachment at 29310 South Sunset
Trail subject to approval of the county and the mortgagee (Chase wrongly claims to be the
mortgagee of parcels I & II). As between Cassino and the Jordans, the parties have agreed
that Cassino will sell 0.40 acres from Parcel II subject to county approval of the Minor
Variation Request. Exhibit 2. The county approved the Minor Variation Request on 3/9/17

P a g e 3 | 24
(pursuant to 1.P of the Jefferson County Zoning Resolution) allowing for lot sizes of 5.51
acres (Jordans) and 4.71 acres (Cassino Parcel II) Exhibit 3. To date, the transaction to
purchase .4 acres for $11,600 is unable to consummate because of the false mortgagee
interest claimed by Chase and possibly others.

Purchasing Parties

11. John T. and Rebecca S. McSweeney are parties who entered a mutually accepted
contract with Cassino for purchase of a 4.7-acre portion of the described parcels. This
transaction to purchase the home site for $145,000 has been unable to proceed because of
the false mortgagee interest claimed by Chase and possibly others.

Craig Marks broker for Keller Williams

12. Craig Marks is the broker involved with both The Encroaching Parties purchase from
Cassino of .4 acres for $11,600 to solve their encroachment problem and Purchasing Parties
purchase of a 4.7 home site for $145,000 to build their planned home.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

12. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (hereafter MERS) is a recording

platform which never owns, nor is assigned, any beneficial interest in any of the properties it
records. MERS is never a custodian of any promissory note or any other mortgage
document of the properties it records including the parcels that are the subject of this suit.
MERS was never given a Power of Attorney on behalf of the true beneficial owner of these
parcels. MERS is a wholly owned subsidiary of MERSCORP Holdings. By knowledge or
belief, MERS has previously dis-claimed any beneficial interest (ownership) in Parcels I &
II by virtue of allowing entry of that certain document entitled Clerks Entry of Default
filed in Jefferson District Court Case No. 2011CV4858. Exhibit 4. If MERS claims any
interest in Parcels I or II, such claims are without foundation or right.

Community Mortgage Group, Inc.

13. Community Mortgage Group, Inc. (hereafter CMG) was a financial institution doing
business in Colorado and originated the mortgage on some of the land which is the subject
of this complaint. CMG closed its business in late 2005 early 2006. Successors of CMG,
the identity of whom is unclear, may claim an interest in Parcels I & II. CMGs claims and
any claims of its successors are without foundation or right. By knowledge or belief, CMG
has dis-claimed any beneficial interest (ownership) in Parcels I & II by virtue of allowing
entry of that certain document entitled Clerks Entry of Default filed in Jefferson District
Court Case No. 2011CV4858. Exhibit 4. If CMG claims any interest in Parcels I or II, such
claims are without foundation or right. CMG did not record an assignment of loan/note/deed
of trust in the land records to Washington Mutual Bank, F.A..

Washington Mutual Bank, F.A.

14. Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. (hereafter WAMU) was a financial institution doing
business in Colorado and appears to be one of two assignees of the Note on some of the land
which is subject of this suit which is the subject of the original mortgage originated by
CMG. WAMU collapsed in 2008. Successors of WAMU and the identities of the beneficial

P a g e 4 | 24
interests it held after its collapse are unclear. WAMU may claim an interest in Parcels I &
II. 34. WAMUs claims and any claims of its successors are without foundation or right.
WAMU did not record an assignment of loan/note/deed of trust in the land records to Chase.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

15. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (hereafter FDIC) is a United States
government institution providing insurance to depositors in U.S. banks. The FDIC does
business in Colorado and may have some claim on a portion of Parcels I or II by insuring
depositors of WAMU. Successors of WAMU and the identities of the beneficial interests
they hold after its collapse are unclear. The FDIC may claim an interest in Parcels I & II. If
the FDIC claims any interest in Parcels I or II, such claims are without foundation or right.
The FDIC from its record $13 billion dollar settlement in FDIC v. Chase on November
19, 2013 knows that Chase declared in one of its exhibits Exhibit D paragraph 13 that it is
not successor-in-interest to the WaMu loans which includes Cassinos yet has continued to
commit fraud on the court, fraud on the trustee besides fraud on the land records in
ongoing financial terrorism in contesting Cassino currently in case number 17CV231 for
Quiet Title.

Union Federal Bank of Indianapolis

16. Union Federal Bank of Indianapolis (hereafter (UFBI) was a financial institution
doing business in Colorado. By knowledge or belief, UFBI is no longer in business as it
merged with successor Sky Bank. UFBI and its successors may claim an interest in Parcels I
& II. Claims of UFBI and its successors are without foundation or right.

Sky Bank

17. Sky Bank (hereafter (Sky) was a financial institution doing business in Colorado.
By knowledge or belief, Sky was successor in interest to UFBI by merger. By knowledge
or belief, Sky is no longer in business as it may have merged with First National Bank of
Tennessee (FNBT). Sky and its successors may claim an interest in Parcels I & II. These
claims are without foundation or right.

First National Bank of Tennessee

18. FNBT was a financial institution doing business in Colorado. FNBT and its
successors, if any, may claim an interest in Parcels I & II. These claims are without
foundation or right.

The Public Trustee of Jefferson County

19. The Jefferson County Public Trustee (hereafter Trustee) operates as trustee for
real property located in Jefferson County Colorado. Both Parcels are in Jefferson County
Colorado. Any interest the Trustee asserts on behalf of any party other than Cassino are
without foundation of right. By its filing dd 11/29/11 in Jefferson District Court Case No.
2011cv4858, the Trustee has already disclaimed all right, title and interest under any deed of
trust which may encumber the parcels without waiving any right or power of sale otherwise

P a g e 5 | 24
in said property which any beneficiary or any other person may have. See Exhibit 5. If the
Trustee claims an interest in Parcels I & II, its claims are without foundation or right.

Lisa Cancannon attorney for Aronowitz & Mecklenburg

20. Ms. Cancannon signed and had recorded in the Jefferson County, CO land records a
false instrument on March 17, 2011 entitled Notice and Election For Demand Of Sale see
Exhibit 6 stating that Chase had rights to enforce a foreclosure that is wrongful. The proof
of this is Chase and MERS more than 6 months later had manufactured a Corporate
Assignment of Deed of Trust robo-signed and robo-notarized September 21, 2011 and
recorded in the Jefferson County, CO land records another false instrument and another
felony. Ms. Cancannon violated her Colorado BAR oath committed a felony. Those behind
ordering the counterfeiting of the Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust also may be guilty
of a felony or accessory to a felony.

Cynthia Lowery-Graber attorney for Bryan Cave LLC??

20. Ms. Lowery-Graber has been made fully aware of her client Chases false and/or
fraudulent foreclosing documents in phone calls, emails and Cassinos several private
websites documenting for judge and jury the last 6 years of white collar criminality by
Chase, the law firms representing Chase, the attorneys representing Chase and MERS.
Those documents are: false Notice and Election For Demand Of Sale; fraudulent Corporate
Assignment of Deed of Trust, fraudulent Affidavit of Lost Note, and fraudulent Affidavit of
Lost Instrument. The private for now websites are www.CassinovChase.weebly.com
www.CassinoTILAvChase.weebly.com www.CassinoAndCFPBvChase.weebly.com
www.CassinovChaseSettlementOptions.weebly.com Yet knowing these charges it seems
Ms. Lowery-Graber will be violating her Colorado BAR oath and risking committing a
felony by using those documents again in this instant case. Ms. Lowery-Graber knows I am
not imagining this as 2 of the 3 attorneys Ive retained over the last 6 years realized they
could be accessories to fraud and RICO crimes by their bank clients and flipped from their
law firms representing banks involved in mortgage fraud and began representing borrowers
in foreclosure defense and offense cases against the banks. They are for the record Mitchell
J Stein & Associates in CA and Keith Gantenbein in CO formerly of CO AG shutdown
Castle Law.

Other possible parties to be added as defendants??

Jeremy Peck of Kutak Rock LLP, Fred Gabler of Karsh Fulton Gabler Joseph PC,
Aronowitz Mecklenburg, Bryan Cave LLC, unknown paralegals from preceding law firms
involved in ordering or creating foreclosing documents for land records, the court, the trust
and the homeowner borrower.

IV. GENERAL AVERMENTS

20. In 2003 Cassino hired Evergreen Surveying, to survey the 5 acres of Parcel 1 with
home adjoining to the east of Parcel II vacant 5.1 acres for a legal description which would
encompass Parcel IIs vacant 5.1 acres together with the adjoining 5 acres with its home and
outbuildings within Parcel Is 40.9 acres. For a refinance in 2005 so just 10 acres and the
home of Cassinos total 45 acres are encumbered leaving 35 acres free and clear to
subdivide into 3-4 new home sites.

P a g e 6 | 24
21. In 2012, Chase also hired surveyor, Evergreen Surveying, to survey both parcels of
land, and to verify legal descriptions and for use in litigating Chase v Cassino in Jefferson
District Court Case No. 2011cv4858. It was then that Chase and Cassino learned of
Jordans home encroaching on Cassinos vacant 5.1-acre Parcel II, which until resolved
made the property unsellable by Cassino or Chase. But, Chase would not do anything about
it until Cassino decided to solve both his and Chases problem by filing a lawsuit against the
The Encroaching Parties in March 2016.

22. Cassinos survey in 2003 on Parcel 1 home and 5 acres adjoining Parcel II vacant
5.1 acres was done in anticipation that upon any refinance, this new legal description would
be used to encumber only 10 acres of ground, including Defendants home, and which
would provide adequate collateral for any new loan obtained.

23. In September 2005, Cassino executed a $200K Note in favor of CMG.

24. As security for the Note, Cassino executed a $200K Deed of Trust in favor of MERS
acting as nominee of CMG encumbering only the vacant 5.1 acres of Parcel II recorded
10/6/05 at Reception No. 2005094330. See Exhibit 7.

25. By belief or knowledge, the Promissory Note for the above transaction was
subsequently assigned to Washington Mutual Bank F.A. (hereafter WAMU) while its
allonge reflected a contradictory assignment by CMG to Washington Mutual Bank, F.A.
(hereafter WAMU) and UFBI. Exhibits 8 & 9.

26. At all times, up to and during the closing, Cassino believed and intended that the
new 10-acre legal description for home and property would be used instead of the 45-acre
legal descriptions for home and property - to provide the collateral for a future loan and this
would be reflected on the Deed of Trust.

27. In fact, the Deed of Trust securing the Promissory Note only encumbered the vacant
5.1-acre parcel Parcel II.

28. CMG went out of business 2-3 months or so after the closing on 9/26/2005.

29. Six years after CMG went out of business, Chase caused to have recorded in the
county records of Jefferson County that a patently false document entitled Corporate
Assignment of Deed of Trust alleging an assignment by MERS, as nominee of CMG, the
deed of trust for Parcel II dated 9/21/11. Exhibit 10. The WaMu certificates trust cut-off
date 12/1/2005 not 6 years later on 9/21/2011. It is against trust rules and IRS REMIC tax
rules to transfer property after a trust cut-off date.

30. Without producing the original note or providing any chain of title evidence, Chase
alleged itself to be ultimate successor in interest and beneficial interest owner of Cassinos
obligation to CMG (Parcel II).

31. Chase was servicing the account but refused to accept payments from Cassino after
12/15/2010 in retaliation due to Cassino retaining Mitchell J. Stein & Associates for a Quiet
Title.

P a g e 7 | 24
32. On November 16, 2011 Chase filed a complaint alleging default and to reform the
deed of trust.

33. Chase proceeded to foreclose Parcel II in Jefferson County District Court, Case No.
2011CV4858.

34. Chase was not the owner of the promissory note, could not produce the original and
could not demonstrate through chain of title that it was a Holder, Qualified Holder,
Holder in Due Course or beneficial owner of any note whether duly negotiated or
endorsed in blank for Parcels I or II.

35. During the course of these proceedings Chase:

a) miss-led the Court in Jefferson District Court case 2011CV4858 by falsely

asserting that they were the real party in interest and the sole owner and
beneficiary of the evidence of debt [Chases contention that it is the holder of the
evidence of debt is directly contradicted in sworn testimony on 5/9/12 during the
deposition of Lawrence Nardi, a Chase operations unit manager and officer. J.P.
Morgan Chas Bank, N.A. v. Waisome, Cir.Ct. 5th Cir. Lake County Florida,
Case No 2009CA005717] Exhibit 11.;

b) recorded a false Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust (to Chase) from

MERS as a nominee of CMG. This alleged assignment is dated 9/21/11 more
than five years after CMG went out of business. Upon examination of the
assignment by a Forensic Document Examiner, there is strong irrefutable
evidence of multiple editing, photocopying and creation of a composite image.
This document was recorded 9/28/11 at Reception No.: 2011087676. Exhibit 10.

36. On March 15, 2013 CHASE entered a Settlement Agreement paying Cassino
$10,000 for attorney fees and dismissing Jefferson District Court 11 CV 4858 case by
stipulation without quieting title to the Parcels and why Cassino filed a Complaint for Quiet
Title 6/28/2017 to complete what should have been done then by attorney Steve Navaro.

37. This action is one of a series of actions arising out of Cassino retaining Mitchell J.
Stein & Associates December 20, 2010 by joining his mass joinder lawsuit against Chase
for either a loan modification if Chase is holder in due course legally able to do so or if not
Quiet Title for Cassino. After the Crash of 2008-9 caused by mortgage fraud involving MBS
and toxic derivatives, Cassino being laid off by Quest Communications and hospitalization
in November 2009, Cassino retained Mr. Stein after being turned down 3 times by Chase in
2009-2010 for a HAMP or HARP loan mod that Cassino was qualified for.

38. Chase first retaliated for Cassino retaining Mr. Stein by refusing to accept his next
regular monthly payments starting 1/15/2011 literally forcing a wrongful foreclosure on
Cassino by filing a false Notice Of Election And Demand For Sale 3/17/2011 - exactly 3
months after accepting Cassinos last regular monthly payment 12/15/2010.

39. Then Chase further retaliated by manufacturing a fraudulent Corporate Assignment

of Deed of Trust a self-assignment with MERS no power of attorney from original
lender and no 1099?? For IRS REMIC purposes. See Expert Witness Forensic Document
Examiner Gary Michaels report that Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust is counterfeit -

P a g e 8 | 24
fraudulent see Exhibit 12. It was robo-signed and robo-notarized 9/21/2011 and then
recorded in the Jefferson County land records falsely 9/28/2011 more than 6 months after
attorney Lisa Cancannon falsely declared Chase having the rights to enforce per the Notice
Of Election And Demand For Sale 3/17/2011. Mr. Michaels also says the 2 Affidavits of
Chase Affidavit of Lost Note and Affidavit of Lost Instrument are also manufactured by
robo-signing and robo-notarizing See Expert Witness Forensic Document Examiner Gary
Michaels report that both Affidavits of Lost Note or Instrument are counterfeit - fraudulent
see Exhibit 13.

40. On November 16, 2011 Chase filed a complaint alleging default and to reform the deed
of trust. Chase proceeded to foreclose Parcel II in Jefferson County District Court, Case No.
2011CV4858. Cassino answered the complaint with a counter claim for Quiet Title. Chase
was not the owner of the promissory note, could not produce the original and could not
demonstrate through chain of title that it was a Holder, Qualified Holder, Holder in Due
Course or beneficial owner of any note whether duly negotiated or endorsed in blank for
Parcels I or II. During the course of these proceedings Chase and/or attorneys for law firms
representing Chase:

a) miss-led the Court in Jefferson District Court case 2011CV4858 by falsely asserting that
they were the real party in interest and the sole owner and beneficiary of the evidence of
debt [Chases contention that it is the holder of the evidence of debt is directly contradicted
in sworn testimony on 5/9/12 during the deposition of Lawrence Nardi, a Chase operations
unit manager and officer. J.P. Morgan Chas Bank, N.A. v. Waisome, Cir.Ct. 5th Cir. Lake
County Florida, Case No 2009CA005717] Exhibit 11. (And the explosive admission by JP
Morgan Chase Bank N.A. in their 13 billion settlement with the FDIC made 11/19/2013
from Chase Exhibit D 13. Claims resolved by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation):
13. No Acknowledgment or Admission. Nothing in either this agreement or the D.O.J.
agreement shall constitute an admission or imply that JP Morgan Chase Bank National
Association or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates became successor in interest to
Washington Mutual Bank, WaMu Capital Corp., Long Beach Securities Corp. and WaMu
Asset Acceptance Corp. or assumed any particular liability of Washington Mutual Bank,
WaMu Capital Corp., Long Beach Securities Corp. and WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp.
when JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. purchased the assets and assumed certain liabilities of
Washington Mutual Bank pursuant to the Purchase and Assumption Agreement dated
September 25, 2008 between JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporate in its corporate capacity and its capacity as Receiver for Washington
Mutual Bank.);

b) committed fraud upon the court, fraud upon the trustee, fraud upon the land records and
fraud upon Cassino by presenting the false Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust (to
Chase) from MERS as a nominee of CMG. This alleged assignment is dated 9/21/11 more
than five years after CMG went out of business and after the trust involved cut-off date of
12/1/2005 (Prospective Trust dated 10/21/2005 for WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2005-AR19 with cut-off date 12/1/2005). Upon examination of the
assignment by an Expert Witness Forensic Document Examiner Gary Michaels see
Exhibit 12, there is strong irrefutable evidence of multiple editing, photocopying and
creation of a composite image. This document was recorded 9/28/11 at Reception No.:
2011087676. Exhibit 11.

P a g e 9 | 24
41. On March 15, 2013 Chase entered a Settlement Agreement paying Cassino $10,000
for some of his attorney fees, asking Cassino to apply for the 4th or 5th time for loan
modification and to work on reforming the deed of trust by minor adjustment or subdivision
to have the home and 10 acres on it and then dismissing Jefferson District Court 11 CV
4858 case by stipulation without quieting title to the Parcels.

42. However, the Settlement Agreement was void ab initio as Chase had no capacity,
interest, jurisdiction, standing to enter into the agreement and both Cassino and his attorney
knew it at the time. It was Chases desperate effort to avoid going to trial 12/22/2012 trying
to defend their fraudulent Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust against Cassinos
counterclaim for Quiet Title. Cassino relied upon Mr. Navaro recommendation to accept the
settlement offer for the time because it was worthless as Chase was sandbagging us - which
we could use to our advantage so we could get into discovery in a new quiet title only
lawsuit in a year or two to prevent Chase from getting a free 5.1 vacant acre parcel that
they had zero consideration in the loan/note/deed of trust - thus no injury and no standing.

43. Both law firms in 2014-2015 - Karsh Fulton Gabler Joseph PC (represented by attorney
Fred Gabler) and Kutack Rock LLP (represented by attorney Jeremy Peck) - withdrew from
representing Chase making it impossible for Cassino to abide by the void Settlement
Agreement even if was a valid agreement as Chase was to pay half the cost of minor
adjustment or subdivision to reform the deed of trust.

44., Cassino and Chase were in a stalemate from the March 2013 Settlement Agreement
until June 28, 2017 when Cassino filed in Jefferson County District Court a complaint to
quiet title.

45. On January 30, 2015 Cassino after recently learning of concealment, fraud,
nondisclosure and maybe non-consummation - because the lender was not the lender
funding the loan - at the alleged closing 9/26/2005, per his TILA rescission option, mailed
certified his rescission letter.

46. In early 2015 Cassino applied for a loan on his 40-acre Parcel 1 with home on it to
restructure his finances to allow helping pay for his 92-year-old mother and wheel chair
bound 66-year-old handicapped brother in home nursing care. The loan was turned down by
the title insurance company due to Chases fraudulent Corporate Assignment of Deed of
Trust on the vacant 5.1-acre Parcel II and credit report reflecting the wrongful foreclosure
attempt.

47. On March 18, 2017, the 6-year statute of limitations was reached for Chase
regarding their wrongful foreclosure attempt started March 17, 2011 with the filing of the
false and fraudulent Notice of Election and Default For Sale by Defendant attorney Lisa
Cancannon.

48. On June 28, 2017 Cassino filed in Jefferson County District Court a complaint for
Quiet Title in rem case number 17CV231.

49. Cassino will notify Ms. Lowery-Graber before Monday 9/18/2017 in a courtesy
email of his intention to file a second lawsuit this lawsuit for personal injury from
wrongful foreclosure one week later - Monday 9/25/2017 - if Chase does not release the lien
on the vacant 5.1-acre Parcel II so that the title insurance company can provide policies on

P a g e 10 | 24
the contracts to sell the .4 acres to the Jordans and the 4.7 acres to the McSweeneys where
both can close on or before Friday 9/29/2017.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURY

FROM WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE

As and for the first cause of action for Personal Injury from Wrongful Foreclosure by
Chase, John and Jane Does, inclusive; by Cassino, and Cassinos fellow Plaintiffs. Cassino
alleges as follows:

50. Cassino incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-49 of this Complaint as though

fully contained herein, and so far as they may be applicable.

51. In addition to the avernments enumerated previously finding that Chase was not
the real party in interest and without standing to foreclose, Cassino also asserts he
was never in default on his loan until Chase refused taking his payment 1/15/2011
in retaliation after Cassino retained Mitchell J. Stein & Associates for a quiet title
in a mass joinder lawsuit.

52. In addition to failing to provide any evidence it had possession of an original evidence
of debt, Chase failed to provide any evidence it was the current beneficiary of the Deed
of Trust (DOT) with authority to exercise the power of sale contained therein.
53. No other documentation was attached, mailed, or delivered to Cassino that
demonstrated that the NOTE and/or DOT had been legally transferred, endorsed,
sold, assigned or conveyed from CMG in 11/2005 to WaMu and 10/2008 to
Chase.

54. The copy of a copy of the Note was the same copy of a copy Chase submitted to the
Jefferson County Public Trustee and this Court when it initiated the foreclosure action
against Cassino in Jefferson District Court Case No. 2011CV4858, certifying it to be a
true and correct copy of the original. It is clearly a copy of a certified copy. It is not a
copy of an original document and bears no endorsement evidencing negotiation. This
was prima facie evidence that Chase was not in possession of an original Note. Which
Chase further admits with 2 different fraudulent robo-signed and robo-notarized
Affidavit of Lost Note and Affidavit of Lost Instrument.

55. Cassino was not in default pursuant to C.R.S. 4-3-501 (2) & (3).

56. The amount Chase claimed to be due and owing at the time it initiated
foreclosure actions against Cassino is disputed as well.

57. The original loan amount Cassino executed with CMG was $200,000.

58. Chase invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by having law firm Aronowitz &
Mecklenburg have attorney Lisa Cancannon record a sworn Notice Of Election And
Default For Sale 3/17/2011 that was entirely false as Chase had no rights at all at that
time. The proof being Chase tried to correct their fraud with some more fraud the 6
months later 9/28/2011 recording of the Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust.

P a g e 11 | 24
 59. Further Chase was not the holder of the original evidence of debt when it initiated the
foreclosure evidenced by the fact that the copy of the Note it certified to be a true and
correct copy of the original was clearly a copy of a copy. This was prima facie
evidence that Chase was not in possession of an original evidence of debt.

60. The copy of the Note Chase certified to be true and correct was not endorsed, nor was
the copy of an alleged original Chase produce in the foreclosure.

61. The Note was not a bearer instrument.

62. In addition, Chase provided no affidavit by someone with actual personal knowledge
of the transaction to certify the copy was an original.

63. Chase was not the beneficiary of the DOT because it never held any legal title or
interest in the Note and no evidence was ever proffered that it was made beneficiary by
any legal assignment.

64. No other party other than Chase made a claim against Cassino.

65. Chase never made any representation that it was acting on behalf of any other party
and did not give notice to any other party of the foreclosure action that the record
shows it knew or should have known had an interest.
66. Chase maintained throughout the foreclosure that it was the successor in interest
to CMG and denied Cassino access to records necessary for Cassino to defend
himself while at the same time asserting to this Court that there is nothing to
Cassinos claims because he does not have the records he needs to substantiate
any of them.

67. Chase was trying to obtain an Order Authorizing Sale through fraudulent
representations and by exploiting the deference routinely afforded banks. It is now
common knowledge that the banks have abused and continue to abuse this
undeserved deference. An Interagency Review on Foreclosure Policies and
Practices published in April 2011 by the Federal Reserve System, Office of
Comptroller of the Currency and Office of Thrift Supervision substantiated
serious systemic problems with the vast majority of foreclosures prosecuted by
the top 13 mortgage banks, Chase being one of them See Exhibit 14.

68. Chase had no right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court on the basis
fraudulent representations and because it was not an actual damaged party.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays following his final cause of action:

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUD

As and for the second cause of action for Fraud by Chase, John and Jane Does against
Cassino, Plaintiff, Cassino, alleges as follows:

P a g e 12 | 24
69. Cassino incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-68 of this Complaint as though fully
contained herein, and so far as they may be applicable.

70. A plaintiff seeking to prevail on a claim of fraud must establish: (1) that the
defendant made a false representation of material fact; (2) that the one making the
representation knew that it was false; (3) that the person to whom the representation
was made was ignorant of the falsity; (4) that the representation was made with the
intention that it be acted upon; and (5) that the reliance resulted in damage to the
plaintiff. Coors v. Sec. Life of Denver Ins. Co., 112 P.3d 59, 66 (Colo. 2005); Brody v.
Bock,897 P.2d 769, 775-76 (Colo. 1995); Concord Realty Co. v. Contl Funding
Corp.,776 P.2d 1114, 1117-18 (Colo. 1989); Kinsey v. Preeson, 746 P.2d 542, 550
(Colo. 1987); see also CJI-Civ. 19:1 (CLE ed. 2011).

71. The primary false representation of material fact that Chase made was that the
transaction Cassino entered into with CMG was nothing more than a simple,
straightforward mortgage loan that only involved a negotiable instrument, the Note,
and a DOT, and that the only relevant terms and laws at play in the foreclosure action
were the terms in the Note and DOT and the laws governing negotiable instruments.

72. Chase knew that this representation was false by omission of other material
existing facts.

73. According to Chase, it knew that the negotiable instrument had been converted
into a security and as such was then also governed by UCC 8 and UCC 9 as well
as a Prospectus and Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

74. Chase knew or should have known that the transaction Cassino entered into
with CMG was only the first portion of a much more complex mortgage-backed
security transaction that involved several other undisclosed intermediary parties
and that the true Lenders of the loan he entered with CMG were the investors of
the MBS bonds issued by WaMu.

75. Chase knew it was not successor-in-interest to WaMu loans including Cassinos
and admitted so in Exhibit D 13 of the $13 billion settlement in FDCI v Chase in
2013. In all of the Chase billions 100 plus? in lawsuit settlements with
investors, insurance companies, regulators and home owner borrowers Chase is
notorious for absolute inconsistency in case to case whether it claims interest and
rights to WaMu loans.

76. Upon information and belief, CMG and or WaMu created and controlled all the
intermediary entities in the securitization process (which involved transactions
that should have been arms-length transactions from CMG) the securitization
trusts and sold certificates to investors to generate the money it needed to fund
mortgages.

77. Upon information and belief, Chase knew or should have known that the Note did not
actually describe the real transaction which occurred, that CMG was not the Lender,
did not fund the loan but rather the loan was table-funded by the investors of the MBS
certificates that CMG/Wamu was selling.

P a g e 13 | 24
78. At all material times, relevant to this case Cassino was completely unaware of these
facts and relied on the representations by Chase that the only relevant issues were in
relationship to the Note and DOT and the laws governing negotiable instruments.

79. Chase made false representations with the intent to deceive Cassino into believing
that no matter how many times the Note may have been sold or to whom, the he was
still just dealing with nothing but a simple, straightforward mortgage loan transaction
in which Cassino was the debtor and now, according to Chases false representations,
Chase was now the creditor.

80. Chase made false representations because it intended that Cassino act upon the
presumption that the amount claimed by Chase to be due and owing was completely
and solely determined by the payments that Cassino made or didnt make.

81. Cassino learned however, that he was made party to an investment transaction in
which he held certain entitlement and possessory rights because Cassino was the
originator of the first funds transfer necessary for the rest of the investment transaction
to run its course.

82. CMG and WaMu concealed the fact that the intent behind CMG and WaMus
participation was to fuel the MBS market with the mortgages necessary to back
up the MBS certificates it was selling.

83. Cassino learned that what banks contend to be totally separate intermediary
transactions unrelated to the original mortgage transaction is not the case. All the
intermediary transactions were a necessary part of the intended transaction of
certificate sales to investors.

84. Upon information and belief, the Note does not describe the actual transaction or the
real parties and as such should be declared null and void. For the Note to be valid, the
Lender should have been a Trust that represented the Investors who funded the loan.

85. The real transaction was between Cassino and the Investor/Lenders, not between
Cassino and CMG and WaMu. CMG was a pretender lender, a straw man necessary
to hide the true nature of the transaction.

86. Cassino also learned that there have been other sources of payment, such as insurance
policies or Federal bailout money, which should have been accounted for in
relationship to amount due and owing on the Note. By applying those payments, the
original basis for the transaction would have been reduced or eliminated by the receipt
of those payments.

87. Upon information and belief, these third-party insurance policies were secured to
mitigate any losses claimed on a loan and included language in the policies that include
references to the borrower which would mean an acknowledgment that Cassino is a
party to the securitization transactions. This would give rise to Cassino having rights
which could include restitution and recoupment of any funds that may be due Cassino
as a party to the transaction.

88. It has become common knowledge that Notes have been pledged multiple times to
different trusts. In 2010 even Bank of America asserted this claim against Tailor Bean
P a g e 14 | 24
 and Whittaker. Because of the fraudulent representations by Chase, Cassino has been
damaged.

89. Because of the Chase/MERS fraudulent Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust

recorded 9/28/2011, the title to Cassinos property is now totally clouded making it
impossible to sell any part, parcel or portion of Cassinos 45 acres unless Chase does
the right thing and releases the fraudulent lien by expunging the assignment. Note:
Cassino started 8/15/2017 with Jefferson County Planning & Zoning a subdivision of
Parcel 1s 40.9 acres into 4 ten-acre home sites. It is Cassinos belief and
understanding that this was the real motivation for Chase to stop taking Cassinos
regular monthly payments 1/15/2011 to force a default to foreclose on Cassino in
retaliation for him having the nerve to retain Mitchell J. Stein & Associates 12/20/2010
in their mass joinder lawsuit with Chase the Defendant for either a real legal loan
modification if Chase was note holder in due course and if not then Quiet Title. The 6
mass joinders Mr. Stein had against the 6 major banks for their mortgage fraud
resulting in millions of foreclosures had to be stopped and Chase in their cheating way
decided to go after Cassinos lucrative properties and make him an example to other
home owners dealing with foreclosure to not sue the banks for their mortgage fraud,
MBS, and derivatives that was the primary cause of the financial CRASH of 2008-9.

90. Because of Chases fraudulent actions, which continue unabated to this day,
Cassino has lost income, customers and opportunities because fighting Chase has
dominated his time for over 6 full years now. In fact, Cassino had to invest even
more time and money to become a certified paralegal in 2012 to better understand
mortgage fraud, MBS, securitization, trusts, derivatives, foreclosure, forensic
document examiners, expert witnesses of all kinds, consumer protection laws like
RESPA and TILA and to be able to talk to prospective foreclosure defense
attorneys of which there are very few.

91. Because Chase would not stop its fraudulent actions, Cassino had to make
preventing Chase from dispossessing him of his property a full-time job starting in
early 2012 in studying new cases and researching statutes.

92. Cassino has had to spend an enormous amount of time working to dispel the
uncertainty created by Chases deceptive conduct.

93. In addition, upon information and belief, Cassino has been damaged by being denied
any benefits he is would be entitled to as a party to the entire MBS transaction
something that can only be determined with a full loan level audit from origination of
the loan(s) to the present day. The General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report
in mid 2011that revealed the original $700 billion-dollar banker bailout had grown to
16 trillion! The vast majority of that enormous amount of money is reported to have
gone to banks to mitigate claimed loses.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2012/09/trillions-of-dollars-in-bank-b.html
Bank of America alleged in a court filing this June: It appears many loans and other
mortgage-related assets have been double and even triple-pledged to various
constituencies. http://www.zerohedge.com/article/mortgages-were-fraudulently-
pledged-multiple-buyers-same-time

P a g e 15 | 24
 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays following his final cause of action.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF COLORADO CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

As and for the third cause of action for violating the Colorado Consumer
Protection Act, against Defendants, Chase, John and Jane Does inclusive. Plaintiff,
Cassino, alleges as follows:

94. Cassino incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-93 of this Complaint as though

fully contained herein, and so far as they may be applicable x

95. Chase is a person as defined by C.R.S 6-1-102(6).

96. Chase is a federally chartered corporation. A primary part of the business of Chase is
the servicing of mortgage loans. Cassino was an actual consumer of Chasess mortgage
servicing business.

97. At all material times, Chase has engaged in and continues to engage in willful and
wanton bad faith conduct, malice and fraud. Cassino called Chase to inquire as to who
it was, Chase represented itself as the lender on his loan. Defined by the Note and
DOT, Chase has never been the Lender.

98. Chase in letters to Cassino defined itself as the current creditor. One said letter also
states in pertinent part: Your mortgage loan with the above-referenced creditor, has
been referred to the law firm of Aronowitz & Mecklenburg, L.L.P. for institution of
foreclosure proceedings . . . Chase encouraged the perception that it was the Lender
of Cassinos loan, as defined by the Note and DOT.

99. Chase created the perception that it was the Lender, as defined by the Note and
DOT to deceive Cassino, so he would continue making payments to Chase without
realizing it was not an institution that had lent him any money. Chase encouraged the
perception that it had far more authority and rights than it in fact had to gain an unfair
advantage over Cassino.

100. This unfair advantage eventually led to Chase attempting to seize title to Cassinos
property, to which it had no right or interest to claim under the terms of the Note and
DOT. Chase never lent McDonald any money. Chase did not purchase title to the Note.
Chase was not, and has never been the beneficiary of the DOT.

101. Chases actions have significant public impact. Chase has foreclosed on well over
one thousand properties in the State of Colorado alone. All the consumers of Chases
mortgage services are potential victims of Chases illegal foreclosure practices.

102. OTS, the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
participated in an interagency review entitled Interagency Review of Foreclosure
Policies and Practices that was released in April 2011. A brief summary of the
review states:
The reviews found critical weaknesses in foreclosure governance processes,
foreclosure document preparation processes, and oversight and monitoring of
third-party law firms and other vendors. These weaknesses involve unsafe and
P a g e 16 | 24
 unsound practices and violations of applicable federal and state laws and
requirements, and they have had an adverse effect on the functioning of the
mortgage markets. By emphasizing speed and cost efficiency over quality and
accuracy, examined servicers fostered an operational environment contrary to safe
and sound banking practices. (emphasis added).

103. Said agencies found that Chase had violated applicable federal and state laws and
requirements, and ordered Chase to change its procedures.

104. Chase had agreed to a Consent Order with the OTS as well to cease and desist
such practices yet continues to this day to commit the violations it was told to
cease and desist. Despite the Consent Order, Chase has taken no action to correct
the improper foreclosure attempt action it prosecuted against Cassino. Chase, to
date, is still engaged in trying to divest Cassino of the Property.

105. With regard to how Chases business practices impacted borrows, said OTS
Consent Order review states: IMPACT ON BORROWERS:
Weaknesses in foreclosure processes and controls present the risk of foreclosing
with inaccurate documentation, or foreclosing when another intervening
circumstance should intercede. Even if a foreclosure action can be completed
properly, deficiencies can result (and have resulted) in violations of state
foreclosure laws designed to protect consumers. Such weaknesses may also result
in inaccurate fees and charges assessed against the borrower or property, which
may make it more difficult for borrowers to bring their loans current. In addition,
borrowers can find their loss-mitigation options curtailed because of dual-track
processes that result in foreclosures even when a borrower has been approved for
a loan modification. The risks presented by weaknesses in foreclosure processes
are more acute when those processes are aimed at speed and quantity instead of
quality and accuracy. (emphasis added).

106. Chase falsely conveyed that it was the new lender to whom Cassino now owed
his mortgage payment to induce him to continue making his payments as he did to
the original lender, CMG.

107. As a direct and proximate cause of Chase's deceptive trade practices, Cassino has
suffered, and continues to suffer considerable economic and non-economic damages in
an amount provable at trial including but not limited to the potential loss of title to his
property, loss of income and his business opportunities due to the amount of time
required to fight Chase and suffering considerable physical and emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays following his final cause of action.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION SLANDER OF TITLE

Interference with Contractual Relations

As and for the fourth cause of action for Slander of Title against Defendant, Chase, John
and Jane Does, inclusive; Plaintiff, Cassino, alleges as follows.

P a g e 17 | 24
108. Cassino incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-107 of this Complaint as though
fully contained herein, and so far as they may be applicable.

109. Chase published a notice of foreclosure actions against Cassino and Cassinos
property without any legal standing to do so.

110. Chase tried to acquire title to Cassinos property through fraudulent representations
to this Court permanently clouding Cassinos property regarding contractual relations
with two current buyers wanting to close their purchase of some of Cassinos property
by F 9/29/2017. Chases interference and claims are improper in that Chase has no
beneficial or enforceable interest in the Parcels. Chases interference has caused, and
continues to cause, Cassino, the Jordans and the McSweeneys damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays following his final cause of action.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNJUST ENRICHMENT

As and for the fifth cause of action for Unjust Enrichment against Defendant, Chase, John
and Jane Does, inclusive; Plaintiff, Cassino, alleges as follows.

111. Cassino incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-110 of this Complaint as though

fully contained herein, and so far as they may be applicable.

112. To recover under an unjust enrichment theory, the plaintiff must establish that: (1) at
plaintiffs expense, (2) defendant received a benefit (3) under circumstances that would
make it unjust for defendant to retain the benefit without paying.

113. In October 2009, the National Consumer Law Center published a report that was
written about in the Huffington Post Business section. The article stated:
While homeowners, lenders and investors typically lose money on a foreclosure,
mortgage servicers do not, says report author Diane E. Thompson, of counsel at the
National Consumer Law Center. Servicers are the companies that manage the
mortgages and collect payments.

"Servicers may even make money on a foreclosure," she writes. "And, usually, a loan
modification will cost the servicer something. A servicer deciding between a
foreclosure and a loan modification faces the prospect of near certain loss if the loan is
modified and no penalty, but potential profit, if the home is foreclosed."

114. Upon information and belief, some of the assets Chase allegedly acquired in the
purchase of CMG loans acquired by WaMu were insurance policies that paid a
handsome benefit if Chase could declare a mortgage in default or a foreclosure was
successfully prosecuted.

115. At Cassinos expense, Chase falsely and wrongfully declared a default,

accomplished an attempted wrongful foreclosure and tried to obtain title to his property
with a fraudulent assignment, all the elements required to cash in on any policies Chase
obtained against Cassinos property.

P a g e 18 | 24
116. Until a full audit and discovery occurs, it cannot be determined exactly how much
money Chase has made at the expense of Cassino.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays following his final cause of action.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

As and for the sixth cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
against Defendant, Chase, John and Jane Does, inclusive; Plaintiff, Cassino, alleges
as follows.

117. Cassino incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-116 of this Complaint as though

fully contained herein, and so far as they may be applicable.

118. If a parties conduct is egregious or extreme, emotional distress is expected to

occur.

119. When Chase first claimed to be the new lender Cassino now owed his mortgage
payment to Cassino asked them to substantiate it. There was nothing unreasonable
about such a request.

120. Cassino had to face the disparity between the financial resources Chase could
bring to bear, their sophistication with litigation and the overwhelming deference
Colorado law gives to banks in non-judicial foreclosure actions which created an
enormous amount emotional distress for Cassino.

121. Cassino had to seek the aid from his local clinic for medication to control his high
blood pressure from the stress he was experiencing from Chase foreclosure
retaliation actions and threat for retaining Mitchell J. Stein for a Quiet Title
12/20/2010.

122. Cassino could not sleep well any longer and still resorts to sleeping aids. Cassino
began drinking wine at night because he simply could not relax to sleep any more.

123. Prior to this, Cassino rarely drank alcohol. This has led to a habit that has
compromised his health in many ways. To this day, Cassino simply cannot relax. He
feels under constant tension akin to posttraumatic stress disorder.

124. As already stated, Chase is still trying to divest Cassino of his property as Chase
is contesting Cassinos current Quiet Title case number 2017CV231, even though it
is fully aware that it prosecuted an attempted wrongful foreclosure action against
Cassino previously. Chase is using its wealth and power to force Cassino to
continue fighting Chase in court a blatant attempt to out resource those that
challenge their white-collar criminality in their mortgage fraud.

125. Chase has shown an absolute callous disregard for its actions and for the health
and wellbeing of Cassino.
P a g e 19 | 24
126. Chase has demonstrated a reckless and wanton disregard for the truth or falsity of
its representations to this Court going so far as to forge 3 blatantly fraudulent
documents 1 assignment and 2 Affidavits of Lost Note and Instrument in an
ongoing effort to divest Cassino of his property which has now persisted for over 6
years and 5 months so far.

127. As a direct and proximate cause of the actions and conduct of Chase, Cassino
suffered/suffers daily anxiety.

128. As a direct and proximate cause of the actions and conduct of Chase, Cassino is
financially vulnerable and has suffered economic harm.

129. The conduct of Chase in concert with the other entities as described above, both
known and unknown, is likely to cause harm to any homeowner in the same or
similar position of Cassino. Chases attitude has been and remains to be one of total
contempt and disregard for the harm it has done and continues to do to Cassino and
for Cassinos health and wellbeing.

130. This is not a case where Chase simply mistakenly prosecuted a judicial
foreclosure action and once it realized its errors, changed its behavior and
conducted itself properly or that this is the first time Chase has done this to
homeowners.

131. Chase has staunchly maintained a host of misrepresentations of material existing

facts for well over 6 years, concealed information from this Court, committed fraud
on the court, trustee and land records, prevented Cassino from obtaining evidence
he needed to defend himself and in a final egregious act even manufactured
fraudulent evidence and tampered with evidence rather than act in good faith.

132. Chase intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon Cassino, as a strategy to

get Cassino to give-up.

133. As a direct and proximate cause of the actions and conduct of Chase, Cassino
has suffered, and continues to suffer, considerable economic and non-economic
damages in an amount provable at trial including, but not limited to, the potential
loss of title to his property, loss of income and opportunities due to the amount of
time required to fight Chase and has suffered considerable physical and emotional
distress.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUD ON THE COURT

As and for the seventh cause of action for Fraud on the Court against Chase, and John and
Jane Does 1-5 inclusive; Plaintiff, Cassino, alleges as follows:

135. Cassino incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-133 of this Complaint as

though fully contained herein, and so far as they may be applicable.

136. First this is not just Fraud On The Court which should be the FIRST
CAUSE OF ACTION not the SEVENTH of this instant case. It also is Fraud
on the Trustee, Fraud on the Land Records (a felony) let alone Fraud on
P a g e 20 | 24
 Cassino. This fraud warrants a possible EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
WHITE COLLAR CRIME CREATING FRAUDLENT FORECLOSING
DOCUMENTS that should be investigated by the Jefferson County Clerk &
Recorder, Jefferson County Attorney, Colorado BAR, and the Colorado
Attorney General as these violations are both civil and criminal someone is
accountable and responsible. This is an example of what another State had
done about this nationwide problem with clouded titles in our land records. See
Exhibit 15 Congressman Alan Grayson letter to US AG Loretta Lynch dated
10/6/2015 on this same problem of Cassino in his state regarding recording of
false instruments in Jefferson County land records.

137. Fraud on the court requires a showing that one has acted with an intent to
deceive or defraud the court. The deception must go to the heart of the judicial
proceeding, creating an impression about the core, operative facts that is relied on
by the court, and is false.

138. CHASE knew or should have known that it did not own Cassinos NOTE and
was not the beneficiary of the DOT when it attempted foreclosure March 17,
2011 by attorney Lisa Cancannon of foreclosure mill ARONOWITZ &
MECKLENBURG which the Colorado Attorney General shutdown for
foreclosure related violations.

139. The question of ownership was raised by Cassino on or about January 2012 in
Cassinos Answer to Chases Complaint for Foreclosure Jefferson District Court Case
No. 2011cv4858 by his attorney Keith Gantenbein formerly of CASTLE MEINHOLD
& STAWIARSKI, LLC another former foreclosure mill the Colorado Attorney
General also shut down for foreclosure related violations. .

140. Cassino continued to challenge the standing of CHASE as the real party in
interest in the foreclosure case in the State District Court. CHASE had every
opportunity to check its records and proceed in good faith.

141. CHASE chose to withhold and conceal the truth from Cassino, the Public
Trustee and the State District Court. CHASE submitted pleading after pleading to
the State District Courts that falsely claim that Colorado foreclosure statutes do
not require CHASE to prove ownership.

142. Chase has not met the burden of going forward. Chase has no evidence to
suggest that Cassino lacks standing or is not the real party in interest. Chase
has no basis in law or in fact for proceeding again with a frivolous,
groundless or vexatious defense.

143. Cassino accuses Chase, the law firms representing Chase and the attorneys
representing Chase of operating in bad faith and that likely with serious discovery
includes civil and criminal violations that need to be investigated. Whenever any
officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is
engaged in "fraud upon the court". Fraud upon the court is fraud which is
directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or
fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury.

P a g e 21 | 24
144. Fraud on the court is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced,
or influence is attempted. Fraud on the court where the impartial functions of the
court have been directly corrupted. Fraud upon the court embraces that species
of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud
perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot
perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are
presented for adjudication.

145. The State District Court consistently acknowledged the issue in dispute was
whether CHASE owned the subject NOTE, evidenced by the Court request for
CHASE to produce the original NOTE and DOT not the 2 Affidavits of Lost
Note or Instrument.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

a) With Regards to the first cause of action for Wrongful Foreclosure:

That Cassino be awarded the cost of defending against the attempted

wrongful foreclosure causing personal injury and the costs for having to
bring Quiet Title case number 2017CV231 and this case including reasonable
attorneys fees in the amount of $50,000.

b) That Cassino be awarded damages in the amount of $50,000 as compensation

for the extraordinary amount of time Cassino has had to put into research and
c) writing pleadings and his private web sites to find attorneys necessary to
defend against Chases actions. It has literally become a full time job that has
resulted in lost income, damage to his business relationships and lost business.

d) With Regards to the second cause of action for Fraud:

Because the nature of the MBS transactions are so complex normal discovery
procedures would not be capable of the accounting necessary to every
transaction that has occurred in relationship the loan memorialized in the Note.
Therefore, Cassino asks that a full accounting be provided to Cassino so he
may conduct a thorough forensic audit of all the transactions related to his
mortgage loan from origination to the present day, which should include a
complete securitization audit, so a completely accurate balance due on the
accounts can be established and whether or not any credit balances may exist.
e) If it turns out an actual credit balance exists due to funds that were paid with
the intent of mitigating losses, or generated by something like pledging the Note
multiple times, Cassino asks that any credit balance or monies due Cassino as a
beneficiary and/or entitlement holder to the MBS transaction consider this to be the
monetary damages that Cassino is entitled to recoup as a result of Chases fraud and
award treble damages of that amount to Cassino.

f) Cassino also asks that a substantial punitive damage award be levied in the amount
of 6 million dollars against Chase because only an award of this size will have any
meaning and deterrent effect on forcing Chase to live up to the Consent Order it was given and
signed in 2011 and yet continues to violate with even more serious violations of massive fraud.

P a g e 22 | 24
 g) With Regards to the third cause of action for Violations of the Colorado
Consumer Protection Act: Cassino asks that the same damages be awarded in this
cause of action as that for the fraud cause of action.
h) With Regards to the fourth cause of action for Slander of Title:

Cassino asks that this Court grant title be quieted against all parties because the
title has been irreparably clouded to the point that it would be virtually impossible
for Cassino to sell his property - as he desires to do so in selling .4 acres and 4.7
acres of his 45 acres closing by Friday 9/25/2017.

i) With Regards to the fifth cause of action for Unjust Enrichment:

Because the nature of the MBS transactions are so complex normal discovery
procedures would not be capable of the accounted necessary to every transaction
that has occurred in relationship the loan memorialized in the Note, therefore, Cassino
asks that this Court to order a full and complete accounting of every transaction that has
occurred in relationship to the loan on Cassinos mortgage so an accurate figure can be
determined as to the unjust enrichment that was obtained.

i) With Regards to the sixth cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress: Cassino asks for $250,000 in compensation for intentional infliction of the
emotional distress he has had to endure for the 6 years and 5 months so far that Chase has
tried to divest him of his property.

j) With Regards to the seventh cause of action for Fraud On The Court, that the court
sanctions any law firms, attorney/s, paralegals involved in this instant case and related
previous cases that are likely guilty of what is Cassinos belief and understanding from
expert witnesses and attorneys familiar with his case/s and cases just like this across the
nation.

k) With regards to damages suffered by Betty Cassino, Lynn Cassino, Marc and Leigh
Ann Jordan, John and Rebecca McSweeney and Craig Marks they will be calculated and
detailed when in discovery.

And such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Jury Trial Demand

Plaintiff requests a jury trial for all claims a jury trial is available.

Dated this 25th day of September 2017

Lance Cassino
POB 1050
Conifer, Colorado 80433
303-838-0221

P a g e 23 | 24
List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1 Medical Malpractice is equivalent to Mortgage Malpractice 6/28/2017

Exhibit 2 Minor Variation Request
Exhibit 3 County approved the Minor Variation Request on 3/9/17
Exhibit 4 Clerks Entry of Default on Community Mortgage Group, Inc. and Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
Exhibit 5 Trustee filing dd 11/29/11 in Jefferson District Court Case No. 2011cv4858
Exhibit 6 Notice and Election For Demand Of Sale by Lisa Cancannon
Exhibit 7 Deed of Trust
Exhibit 8 Promissory Note
Exhibit 9 Allonge
Exhibit 10 Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust
Exhibit 11 Deposition of Lawrence Nardi, a Chase operations unit manager and officer
Exhibit 12 Expert Witness Forensic Document Examiner Gary Michaels report that
Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust is counterfeit fraudulent. Just pages 1-7 of 19.
Exhibit 13 Expert Witness Forensic Document Examiner Gary Michaels report that 2
Affidavits of Lost Note or Instrument are counterfeit fraudulent. Just page 1 of 29.
Exhibit 14 OCC Takes Enforcement Action Against Eight Servicers for Unsafe and
Unsound Foreclosure Practices April 13, 2011
Exhibit 15 Congressman Alan Grayson letter to US AG Loretta Lynch dated 10/6/2015
on this same problem Cassino has in Colorado regarding recording of false instruments in
Jefferson County land records.
Exhibit 16 Jefferson County Sheriff criminal complaint on white collar crime by fraud,
report number 15-22789 dated 10-19-2015
Exhibit 17 FBI.gov Tip online reported 9-24-2017 Cassino v Chase regarding fraud by
bank

The detail pages for Exhibits are following in the same order as above - as pages 1 - 71

P a g e 24 | 24