IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

AT MEMPHIS

BERNARD COLEMAN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: ________________
)
LIME FINANCIAL SERVICES, LTD )
Lender; )
ASSURED ESCROW AND TITLE )
Trustee; )
OCWEN LOANSERVICING, LLC )
subsequent assignee; )
DEUTSCH BANK NATIONAL TRUST )
subsequent assignee; ) JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON.
SHAPIRO AND KIRSCH, LLP )
Trustee; )
JOE M KIRSCH )
Substitute Trustee; )
“JOHN DOE, ADDRESS UNKNOWN] )

Defendants. )
)
)
)

_____________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT – ACTION INVOLVING REAL PROPERTY

_____________________________________________________________________________

COMES NOW, Bernard Coleman, PLAINTIFF, untrained in the ways of law and asks for

Complaint to Set Aside Foreclosure for Damages and Demand for Trail and seeks an order of the
Court setting aside Foreclosure and award damages. In support of this Complaint, the

PLAINTIFF would show unto the Court the follows:

That his home had been sold at a foreclosure sale and he learned of violations in his loan

documents. The first time he learned that a foreclosure had even been planned was when

Defendant SHAPIRO AND KIRSCH, LLP notified PLAINTIFF via First Class Mail dated

March 29, 2011 that DEUTSCHE BANK demanded possession of the property. PLAINTIFF

was completely unaware that the sale had even taken place. Defendants never provided any of

the notices required by law. As such, he seeks a set aside of the sale and an injunction from

Defendant DEUTSCH BANK preventing him (1) from entering the property and (2) making any

efforts to take possession of the property.

THE PARTIES

1. PLAINTIFF, purchased the property located at 4017 CLUBVIEW DRIVE, MEMPHIS,

TENNESSEE 38125.

2. Defendant LIME FINANCIAL SERVICES, LTD, herein after “Lender” is a

CORPORATION organized and existing under the laws of OREGON. Lender’s address

is 5885 SW MEADOWS ROAD, STE 600, LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97035 was

both the loan originator under the Deed of Trust and the mortgage broker for the real

estate transaction.

3. Defendant ASSURED ESCROW AND TITLE, herein after “Trustee” is a resident of

SHELBY, Tennessee whose address is 6373 Quail Hollow Ste. 101.

4. Defendant MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC. “MERS” is

a separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s

successors and assigns. MERS is beneficiary under the Security Instrument. MERS is

Page 2 of 20
 organized and existing under the laws of DELAWARE, and has an address of P.O. Box

2026, Flint, MI 48501.

5. Defendant OCWEN LOAN SERVICING (“OCWEN”) is a subsequent assignee and/or

successor to Defendants LIME FINANCIAL SERVICES, LTD and MERS.

6. Defendant DEUTSCH BANK NATIONAL TRUST (“DEUTSCH BANK”) is a

subsequent assignee and/or successor to Defendants OCWEN LOAN SERVICING

(“OCWEN”) and MERS.

7. Defendant SHAPIRO AND KIRSCH, LLP is the agent of, DEUTSCH BANK

NATIONAL TRUST and the Substitute Trustee under the Deed of Trust.

8. Defendant JOE M KIRSCH (“Attorney”) is the agent of, DEUTSCH BANK

NATIONAL TRUST and the Substitute Trustee under the Deed of Trust.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee has jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. §1331. Venue is appropriate in this Western District of Tennessee under

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (b)(2), and (c).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. The borrower under the Deed of Trust was designated as Bernard Coleman.

11. Bernard Coleman is now the sole borrower under the Deed of Trust.

12. Under the Deed of Trust, the original beneficiary and nominee was designated as

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS).

13. On or about 2010, MERS assigned its rights under the Deed of Trust to OCWEN.

14. The trustee under the Deed of Trust was designated as ASSURED ESCROW AND

TITLE.
Page 3 of 20
15. The lender under both the Deed of Trust and the Note was LIME FINANCIAL

SERVICES, LTD.

16. On or about 2010, MERS purported to assign its interest in the Deed of Trust to

OCWEN.

17. MERS attempted this transfer via an affidavit signed by Jeffrey Stephan (“MERS

Affidavit”).

18. Upon information and belief, LIME FINANCIAL pre-sold PLAINTIFF’s mortgage to

OCWEN.

19. Even before the time of the closing, OCWEN was the ultimate recipient of PLAINTIFF’s

mortgage.

20. During the time period between closing and OCWEN’s assumption of the mortgage,

LIME FINANCIAL acted as the loan holder.

21. At the time that Your Name applied for the loan, Your Name’s income was

approximately $87,000 per year.

22. OCWEN paid fees to LIME FINANCIAL, in its capacity as the loan originator, for acting

as the loan holder.

23. This fee arrangement was not disclosed to PLAINTIFF.

24. PLAINTIFF received no benefit from this undisclosed financial arrangement between

LIME FINANCIAL and OCWEN.

25. At no point did PLAINTIFF receive any foreclosure notices from OCWEN Mortgage.

26. At no point did PLAINTIFF receive any foreclosure notices from SHAPIRO AND

KIRSCH, LLP

Page 4 of 20
27. The Deed of Trust contains at Paragraph 22 a clause named “Acceleration; Remdies.”

This clause states that upon the Borrower’s breach of any term of the Deed of Trust, the

Lender must send to the Borrower a notice prior to acceleration (“pre-acceleration

notice”).

28. This clause also stated the form in which the notices were to be sent.

29. OCWEN never sent any such notice to PLAINTIFF.

30. SHAPIRO AND KIRSCH, LLP never sent any such notice to PLAINTIFF.

31. PLAINTIFF never received any such notice.

32. Paragraph 22 also called for a notice to be sent to the Borrower in the event that the

Lender elected to accelerate the amounts due under the Note.

33. OCWEN never sent any such notice to PLAINTIFF.

34. SHAPIRO AND KIRSCH, LLP never sent any such notice to PLAINTIFF.

35. PLAINTIFF never received any such notice.

36. The foreclosure proceeded notwithstanding the lack of these notices. DEUTSCH BANK

purchased the property thereafter.

COUNT I – BREACH OF CONTRACT

37. PLAINTIFF incorporates fully the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 45 as if fully re-

written herein.

38. PLAINTIFF’s Deed of Trust is a binding contract to which all Defendants, except

DEUTSCH BANK, are a party.

39. Defendants LIME FINANCIAL, OCWEN and DEUTSCH BANK failed to provide the

Pre-Acceleration Notice under the Deed of Trust.

Page 5 of 20
40. Defendants failed to send any and all acceleration, default, and foreclosure notices to

PLAINTIFF in the manner required by the Deed of Trust.

41. These failures constitute breaches of the Deed of Trust.

42. The foreclosure of PLAINTIFF’s property at 4017 Clubview Drive, Memphis, Tennessee

38125 proximately resulted from these breaches.

COUNT II – GROSS NEGLIGENCE

43. PLAINTIFF fully incorporates paragraphs 1 through 42 as if fully re-written herein.

44. In carrying out the obligations under the Deed of Trust, Defendants LIME FINANCIAL,

OCWEN and DEUTSCH BANK owed PLAINTIFF a duty to act in good faith and fair

dealing.

45. Defendants LIME FINANCIAL, OCWEN and DEUTSCH BANK knew of their

obligations to provide a Pre-Acceleration Notice.

46. Defendants LIME FINANCIAL, OCWEN and DEUTSCH BANK failed to send any

other foreclosure, acceleration, and default notices designated per Paragraph 22 of the

Deed of Trust.

47. Defendants LIME FINANCIAL, OCWEN and DEUTSCH BANK knew of their

obligations pursuant to the Deed of Trust.

48. The purported assignments conducted by TRUSTEE were void on the grounds that he

had no authority to sign affidavits on behalf of both MERS and OCWEN.

49. As the assignments conducted by TRUSTEE were invalid, the foreclosure was wrongful.

50. Defendants LIME FINANCIAL, OCWEN and DEUTSCH BANK intentionally failed to

perform their duties to act in good faith and fair dealing.

51. This intentional failure was made with reckless disregard of PLAINTIFF’s property.

Page 6 of 20
 52. PLAINTIFF lost his property at foreclosure as a result of the Defendants LIME

FINANCIAL, OCWEN and DEUTSCH BANK’s gross negligence.

COUNT III – INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH

53. PLAINTIFF incorporates fully the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 61 as if fully re-

written herein.

54. Defendants LIME FINANCIAL, OCWEN and DEUTSCH BANK had obligations to

carry out their duties under the Deed of Trust in good faith and to deal fairly with

PLAINTIFF.

55. Defendants LIME FINANCIAL, OCWEN and DEUTSCH BANK’s conduct in

foreclosing on the property was in bad faith.

56. The purported assignments conducted by TRUSTEE were void on the grounds that they

had no authority to sign affidavits on behalf of both MERS and OCWEN.

57. As the assignments conducted by TRUSTEE were invalid, the foreclosure was wrongful.

58. Defendants LIME FINANCIAL, OCWEN and DEUTSCH BANK’s improper conduct

was carried out for their own pecuniary gain.

COUNT IV – WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE FOR FAILING TO ADHERE TO POWER

OF SALE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

59. PLAINTIFF incorporates fully the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 58 as if fully re-

written herein.

60. Tennessee law required that notice of the pending foreclosure sale be sent to

PLAINTIFF’s address at least 20 days before the sale.

61. Defendants LIME FINANCIAL, OCWEN and DEUTSCH BANK failed to submit the

statutorily requisite notice to PLAINTIFF’s address, yet conducted the foreclosure sale

anyway.

Page 7 of 20
COUNTS VI and VII – ABUSE OF PROCESS AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

62. PLAINTIFF incorporates fully the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 61 as if fully re-

written herein.

63. Defendants LIME FINANCIAL, OCWEN and DEUTSCH BANK intentionally and

wrongfully instituted the foreclosure action knowing that they failed to follow the

requirements in the Deed of Trust and the foreclosure law of Tennessee and knowing that

the assignments conducted were void.

64. Defendants knew that such an action would result in a wrongful foreclosure.

65. Defendants instituted the foreclosure proceedings for their pecuniary gain.

COUNT VIII – VIOLATIONS OF THE TRUTH IN LENDING ACT

66. PLAINTIFF incorporates fully the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 74 as if fully re-

written herein.

67. In violation of the federal Truth In Lending Act, LIME FINANCIAL extended credit to

PLAINTIFF without regard to the consumer’s repayment ability as of the time of the loan

consummation.

68. LIME FINANCIAL concealed this overstatement from PLAINTIFF.

69. LIME FINANCIAL failed to disclose certain finance charges on the HUD-1 statement

that were to be imposed as a part of the extension of credit in the form of the mortgage

and/or failed to explain how those charges were to be determined.

70. Neither LIME FINANCIAL, OCWEN nor DEUTSCH BANK disclosed the payments

made to and received by LIME FINANCIAL and OCWEN for its pre-selling and holding

the mortgage for OCWEN.

Page 8 of 20
 71. This fee arrangement was paid in the form of an unlawful yield spread premium,

undisclosed to the borrower, but paid for by his in the form of higher payments or interest

over the life of the loan.

72. Defendants OCWEN and LIME FINANCIAL concealed these facts from PLAINTIFF.

73. This concealment prevented PLAINTIFF from readily discovering the undisclosed acts.

74. PLAINTIFF was duly diligent in ascertaining these violations.

COUNT IX – VIOLATIONS OF THE REAL ESTATE AND SETTLEMENT

PROCEDURES ACT

75. PLAINTIFF incorporates fully the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 87 as if fully re-

written herein.

76. Defendant LIME FINANCIAL failed to provide a Good Faith Estimate in the time and

manner as required by the Real Estate and Settlement Procedures Act.

77. Defendant LIME FINANCIAL’s conduct as holding the pre-sold loan for OCWEN

amounts to acting as a straw man for which the borrower received no value.

78. Defendants’ misconduct was concealed from PLAINTIFF, which prevented his from

readily discovering the misconduct, which he was duly diligent in attempting to ascertain.

COUNTS X, XI, XII, XIII – FRAUD, FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT, FRAUDULENT

MISREPRESENTATION, NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

79. Defendant, OCWEN LOAN SERVICING through its agent or assigns violated T.C.A.

Title 47 and the Uniform Commercial Code section 3-305(a) 1, in that they materially

altered a contract without the consent of Bernard Coleman, committed Fraud in the

factum, rendering the transaction illegal, and thus this transaction stands as fraud which

Page 9 of 20
 induced Bernard Coleman to enter the contract upon terms and conditions other than

agreed upon. The Law is expressed as, Ҥ 3-305. Defense and claims in recoupment.

80. The note is specifically governed by federal law and Negotiable Instruments Law of this

State [T.C.A. Consolidated Statues title 47] as is the validity of the Mortgage Security

interest lien.

81. The law that Governs this note/bond/mortgage security interest lien is the Statues at

Large Public Law 13 of the 38th congress Stat 99-118, the National Currency Act which is

expressed as prima facie Law under the United States Code Title 12 Banks and Banking,

T.C.A. Title 47 Article 3 Negotiable Instruments and Article 8 Investments Securities.

82. The issues here are that the Plaintiff is asserting real defenses against the validity of the

original negotiable instrument ‘contract’ which is the alleged promissory note’.

83. The first issue is consideration. There has been no loan or consideration in this contract in

the amount of $170,681.89.

84. According to the above federal law Banks or Financial Institutions cannot, loan the

capital stock of their directors, nor can they loan the money of their depositors, and they

can only loan money pursuant to Public Law Volume 13 of the 39th Congress Stat 99-118.

They have not followed any of the provisions of this monetary law of the United States of

America.

85. Also Banks and Financial Institutions cannot enter into mortgage agreements beyond a 5

year period.

86. The note was for a 30 year mortgage which by operation of law is fraudulent.

Page 10 of 20
 87. The Banks or financial Institution directors cannot claim ignorance of this because each

Director has an Oath to Follow Public Law Volume 13 of the 38 th Congress Stat 99-118

which is recorded at the United States Office of the Comptroller of Currency.

88. Defendant LIME FINANCIAL made these misrepresentations knowing they were false,

with the purpose of inducing PLAINTIFF to obtain credit from LIME FINANCIAL.

89. Defendant LIME FINANCIAL had an obligation to disclose the truth.

90. PLAINTIFF relied on these misrepresentations and had the right to do so.

COUNT XIV – CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MORTGAGE FRAUD

91. PLAINTIFF incorporates fully the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 90 as if fully re-

written herein.

92. LIME FINANCIAL conspired with OCWEN to carry out the acts described in Counts X

through XIII.

93. OCWEN communicated, consulted, and cooperated with LIME FINANCIAL in carrying

out the acts described in Counts X through XIII.

94. These communications, consultations, and cooperation’s took place at the time when

LIME FINANCIAL negotiated the sale of PLAINTIFF’s mortgage to OCWEN.

95. At all times pertinent to these allegations, OCWEN intended (1) to enter the conspiracy

with LIME FINANCIAL and (2) that LIME FINANCIAL would carry out as a co-

conspirator the acts described in Counts X through XIII.

96. PLAINTIFF was injured by the conspiracy in that he was denied the opportunity to find

cheaper credit, that he was sold and made payments under a predatory loan, and that such

fraud and predatory lending practices were the proximate cause of his foreclosure.

COUNTS XV, XVI, XVII – CIVIL RICO, CIVIL CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MAIL
FRAUD, AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT WIRE FRAUD

Page 11 of 20
97. PLAINTIFF incorporates fully the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 96 as if fully re-

written herein.

98. Defendants OCWEN and LIME FINANCIAL engaged in a mortgage lending enterprise

to undertake the conduct described in Counts X through XIV.

99. This pattern of activities resulted in the loss of PLAINTIFF’s home and the financial

damages he suffered from fraud.

100. In furtherance of these acts, Defendants LIME FINANCIAL, OCWEN and

DUETSCH BANK used the interstate mail and wire system to communicate with one

another and to PLAINTIFF.

101. Defendants undertook such acts for their own pecuniary gain to the detriment of

PLAINTIFF as described in Counts X through XIV.

102. As set forth in Count VIII, Defendants OCWEN and LIME FINANCIAL

concealed these acts from PLAINTIFF, which prevented his from discovering them,

despite his diligence in attempting to ascertain the truth.

SUPPORTING CASE LAW

Case Law for Statutes at Large – Law of the Land

The official source of the United States Law is Statutes at Large and the United States Code
is only primae facie evidence of such laws
Royers Inc. vs. United States 1959CA3Pa 265 F. 2d 615, 59-USTC 9371, 3AFTR 2d 1137

Statutes at Large are ‘legal; evidence’ of laws contained therein and are accepted as proof of
those laws in any court of the United States.
Bear vs. United States (1985 DC Neb) 611 supp 589, affd (1987) (Cas Neb) 810F 2d 153

Unless Congress affirmatively enacts title of United States Code into law, title is only primae
facie evidence of law
Preston vs. Heckler (1984 CA9 Alaska) 734 F2d 1359 34 CCH EPD 34433 later
proceeding (1984 DC Alaska) 586 F. supp 1158

Page 12 of 20
Where the Title has not been enacted into positive law, title is only primae facie or rebuttable
evidence of law, and if construction is necessary, recourse may be had to original statutes
themselves
United States vs. Zuger (1984) DC Conn 602 F supp 889 affd

Even codification into positive law will not give code precedence where there is conflict
between codification and Statutes at Large
Warner vs. Goltra (1934)293 US 155, 79 L ED 254 55 S Ct 46 Stephens vs. United States
(1943) 319 US 423, 87L Ed 1490, 63 S Ct 1135 United States vs. Weldon (1964) 377 US 95,
12L 2d 152, 84 S Ct 1082

United States Code does not prevail over Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent
Stephens vs. United States (1943) 319 US 423, 87 L Ed 1490, 635 Ct 1135 Peart vs. The
Motor Vessel Bering Explorer 1974, DC Alaska 373 F. supp 927

Although United States Code establishes primae facie what laws of the United States are to
the extent that provisions of the United States Code are inconsistent with Statutes at Large,
Statutes at Large will prevail. Best Food Inc. v United States (1965) 37 Cust Ct. 1, 147 F
Supp. 749.

Where there is conflict between codification and Statutes at Large, Statutes at Large must
prevail. American Export Lines Inc. v United States (1961) 153 Ct Cl 201, 290 F 2d 925
Abell vs. United States (1975) 207 Ct Cl 207, 518 F 2d 1369, cert den (1976) 929, US 817,
50L Ed 2d 76, 97 S Ct. 59

Case law Supporting Statutes at Large as holding lawful and legal precedence over United
States Code is found in all Circuits and the Supreme Court of the United States

United States Supreme Court

Warner vs Goltra (1934) 293 US 155, 79 L Ed 254 55 S Ct. 46
Stephens vs United States (1943) 319 US 423 87 L Ed. 1490, 63 S Ct. 1135
Nashville Milk Co. vs. Carnation Co. (1958) 355 US 373, 2 L Ed 2d 340 785 Ct 352
United States vs. Weldon (1964) 377 US 95, 12 L. Ed 2d 152 845 Ct. 1082
United States vs. Neifert-White Co. (1968) 390 US 228, 19 L Ed. 2d 106 1, 88 S Ct. 959
Goldstein vs. Cox (1970) 396 US 471, 24 L, Ed 2d 663, 90 S Ct. 671
United States vs. Bornstein (1976) 423 US 303, 46 L. Ed 2d 514, 96 S Ct. 523
American Bank & Trust Co. vs. Dallas County (1983) 463 US 855 77L. Ed 2d 1072 103 S
Ct 3369

It is important at this point to detail a Summary of Legal Guidelines of Public Laws

Volume 13 of the 38th Congress Stat 99-118 National Banking Act which are the de jure
laws on Banking and Financial Institutions in the United States of America. These are
the standing laws that will prove the color of authority actions carried out by the listed
respondents.
Notes on National Bank/Currency Act STATUTUTES AT LARGE Public Law 13 Stat
99-118 of the 38th Congress

Page 13 of 20
LAWS GOVERNING FORMING OF NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATIONS
“And be it further enacted That Associations for carrying on the Business of Banking may be
formed by any number of persons, not less in any case than five, who shall enter into articles
of association, which shall specify in general terms the object for which the association is
formed, and may contain any other provisions, not inconsistent with the provisions of this
act.” Section 5 page 100 of the 38th Congress

OATH OF THE DIRECTORS FILED WITH THE COMPTROLLER OF CURRENCY

“Each Director when appointed or Elected, shall take an oath that he will, so far as the duty
devolves on him, diligently and honestly administer the affairs of such association, and will
not knowingly violate, or willingly permit to be violated any provisions of this act, and that
he is the bona fide owner, in his own right, of the number of shares of stock required by this
act, subscribed by him, or standing in his name on the books of the association, and that the
same is not hypothecated, or in any way pledged, as security for a loan or debt; which oath
subscribed by himself, and certified by the officer before whom it is taken, shall be
immediately transmitted to the comptroller of currency, and by him filed and preserved in his
office.” Section 9 page 102 of the 38th Congress

RULES GOVERNING HOLDING OF REAL ESTATE

And be it further enacted, such associations shall not purchase or hold real estate in any other
case or for any other purpose than as specified in this section. Nor shall it hold the possession
of any real estate under mortgage, or hold the title and possession of any real estate
purchased to secure debts due to it for a longer period than five years
Section 28 page 108 of the 38th Congress

NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION CANNOT MAKE LOANS ON THE SECURITY

OF THE SHARES OF ITS STOCK
“And be it further enacted That no association shall make any loan or discount on the
security of the shares of its own capital stock” Section 35 Page 110 of the 38th Congress

SOLE METHOD FOR MAKING LOANS

“Such Association shall have power to…exercise under this act all such incidental powers as
shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking by discounting and negotiating
promissory notes, drafts, bills of exchange, and other evidences of debt; by loaning money on
personal security

BANKS CANNOT USE ITS NOTES IT CIRCULATES TO CREATE OR INREASE ITS

CAPITAL STOCK
“And be it further enacted That no association shall, either directly or indirectly, pledge or
hypothecate any of its notes of circulation, for the purpose of procuring money to be paid in
on its capital stock, or to be used in its banking operations, or otherwise; nor shall any

Page 14 of 20
association use its circulating notes, or any part thereof, in any manner or form, to create or
increase its capital stock” Section 37 page 110 of the 38th Congress

PENALTY UPON DIRECTORS FOR VIOLATION OF THIS ACT

And be it further enacted That every president, director, cashier, teller, clerk, or agent of any
association, who shall embezzle, abstract, or willfully misapply any of the moneys, funds, or
credits of the association, or shall, without authority from the directors, issue or put in
circulation any of the notes of the association, or shall, without such authority issue or put
forth any certificate of deposit, draw any order or bill of exchange, make any acceptance,
assign any note, bond, draft, bill of exchange, mortgage, judgment, or decree, or shall make
any false entry in any book, report, or statement of the association, with intent, in either case,
to injure or defraud the association or any other company, body politic or corporate, or
individual person, or to deceive any officer of the association, or any agent appointed to
examine the affairs of any such association, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and
upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment not less than five nor more
than ten years.
Section 55 page 116 of the 38th Congress volume 13

PENALTY UPON DIRECTORS FOR VIOLATION OF THIS ACT

And be it further enacted that if the directors of any association shall knowingly violate, or
knowingly permit any of the officers, agents, or servants of the association to violate any of
the provisions of this act, all the right, privileges, and franchises of the association derived
from this act shall thereby be forfeited… And in cases of such violation, every director who
participated in or assented to the same shall be held liable in his personal and individual
capacity for all damages which the association, its shareholders, or any other person, shall
have sustained in consequence of such violation.
Section 53 page 116 of the 38th Congress Volume 13

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF CURRENCY

“That there shall be established in the treasury Department a separate Bureau, which shall be
charged with the execution of this and all other laws that may be passed by Congress
respecting the issue and regulation of a national currency secured by United States Bonds –
page 99 section 1 of the 38th Congress
OATH OF THE COMPTROLLER
“Within fifteen days from the time of notice of his appointment the comptroller shall take
and subscribe the oath of office prescribed by the Constitution and laws of the United States
– Section 1 page 100 of the 38th Congress

UNITED STATES BONDS DEFINED

“And it shall further be enacted, That the term United States Bonds as used n this act, shall be
construed to mean all registered bonds now issued, or that hereafter be issued, on the faith of
the United States by the Secretary of the Treasury in pursuance of Law.” – Section 4 page
100 of the 38th Congress

Page 15 of 20
BANKS BY LAWS MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THIS ACT
“Its Board of Directors shall also have power to define and regulate by by-laws, not
inconsistent with the provisions of this act” Section 8 Page 101-102 of the 38th Congress

SHUTDOWN OF BANK FOR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY OF SHAREHOLDERS

“The comptroller shall have authority to withhold from an association his certificate
authorizing the commencement of business, whenever he shall have reason to suppose that
the shareholders thereof have formed the same for any other than the legitimate objects
contemplated by this act. Section 12 page 103 of the 38th Congress

BONDS REGITERED WITH COMPTROLLER

“And be it further enacted that it shall be the duty of the comptroller of the currency to
countersign and enter in the book, in the manner aforesaid, every transfer or assignment of
any bonds held by the treasurer presented for his signature; and the comptroller shall have at
all times during office hours access to the books of the treasurer for the purpose of
ascertaining the correctness of the transfer or assignment presented to him to countersign;
and the treasurer shall have the like access to the book above mentioned, kept by the
comptroller, during office hours, to ascertain the correctness of the entries in the same; and
the comptroller shall also at all times have access to the bonds on deposit with the treasurer,
to ascertain their amount and condition.” Section 20 page of the 105 38th Congress

AMOUNT OF NOTES NOT TO EXCEED THREE HUNDERED MILLION

“And be it further enacted That the entire amount of notes for circulation to be issued under
this act shall not exceed three hundred millions of dollars” Section 22 Pages 105-106 of the
38th Congress
FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES ARE NOT MONEY BY LAW
“ And no such association shall issue post notes or any other notes to circulate as
money than such as are authorized by the forgoing provisions of this act” Section 23
page 106 of the 38th Congress

BANKS NOT HOLDING LAWFUL MONEY MAY BE SHUTDOWN

And it shall be competent for the comptroller of the currency to notify and association, whose
lawful money reserve as aforesaid, to make good such reserve; and if such association shall
fail for thirty days thereafter so to make good its reserve of lawful money of the United
States, the comptroller may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Treasury appoint a
receiver to wind up the business of such association as provided in this act.
See Section 31 of the National Currency Act page 109 of the 38th Congress

BANKS MUST REDEEM NOTES AT APPOINTED NATIONAL BANKING

ASSOCIATION OR BE SHUTDOWN
And be it further enacted, If any association shall fail either to make the selection or to
redeem its notes as aforesaid, the comptroller of the currency may, upon receiving
satisfactory evidence thereof, appoint a receiver, in the manner provided for in this act, to

Page 16 of 20
wind up its affairs: Provided, That nothing in this section shall relieve any association from
its liability to redeem its circulating notes at its own counter, at par, in lawful money, on
demand: And provided further, That every association formed or existing under the
provisions of this act shall take and receive at par, for any debt or liability to said association,
any and all notes or bills issued by any association existing under and by virtue of this act.
Section 32 National Currency Act page 109 of the 38th Congress

BANKS CANNOT CIRCULATE NOTES THAT ARE NOT REDEEMABLE IN LAWFUL

UNITED STATES MONEY
“And be it further enacted, That no association shall at any time…knowingly pay out or put
in circulation any notes issued by any bank or banking association which at the time of such
paying out or putting in circulation is not redeeming its circulating notes in lawful money of
the United States.

NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCATIONS FINANCIAL AGENTS OF THE

GOVERNMENT
“And be it further enacted That all associations under this act, when designated for that
purpose by the Secretary of the Treasury, shall be depositories of public money; and they
may be employed as financial agents of the government…, and they shall perform all such
reasonable duties, as depositories of public moneys and financial agents of the government,
as may be required of them… And the Secretary of the Treasury shall require of the
associations this designated satisfactory security, by the deposit of United States Bonds and
otherwise, for the safe-keeping and prompt payment of the public money deposited with
them, and for the faithful performance of their duties as financial agents of the government

IF NOTES ARE NOT REDEEMED BANK CAN BE SHUTDOWN AND LAW HOLDERS
PAID IN LAWFUL UNITED STATES MONEY
And be I further enacted That on receiving notice that an association has failed to redeem any
of its circulating notes, as specified in the next preceding section, the comptroller of the
currency, with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Treasury, may appoint a special agent
(of whose appointment immediate notice shall be given to such association) who shall
immediately proceed to ascertain whether such association has refused to pay its circulating
notes in the lawful money of the United States, when demanded as aforesaid, and report to
the comptroller the fact so ascertained; and if from such protest or the report so made, the
comptroller shall be satisfied that such association has refused to pay its circulating notes as
aforesaid and is in default, he shall within thirty days after he shall have received notice of
such failure, declare the United States bonds and securities pledged by such association
forfeited to the United States, and the same shall thereupon be forfeited accordingly. And
thereupon the comptroller shall immediately give notice in such manner as the Secretary of
the Treasury shall, by general rules or otherwise, direct, to the holders of the circulating notes
of such association to present them for payment at the Treasury of the United States, and the
same shall be paid as presented in lawful money of the United States; whereupon said
comptroller may, in his discretion, cancel an amount of bonds pledged by such association
equal at current market rates, not exceeding par, to the notes paid Section 46 page 113-114 of
the 38th Congress

Page 17 of 20
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF demands judgment against Defendants for the following relief:

A. An injunction preventing DEUTSCH BANK from entering the property or attempting to take

any action to take possession of the property, including, but not limited to, enjoining any eviction

proceedings, pending the resolution of the matters raised in this Complaint;

B. A set-aside of the foreclosure sale as an equitable remedy or, alternatively, damages to

PLAINTIFF resulting from the wrongful foreclosure or breach of contract as a remedy at law;

C. Compensation to PLAINTIFF for Defendants’ Gross Negligence, violations of the Duty of

Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Abuse of Process and/or Malicious Prosecution, Fraud, Fraudulent

Concealment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Conspiracy to

Commit Mortgage Fraud, Civil RICO, Civil Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, and Civil

Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud;

D. Punitive damages against LIME FINANCIAL, OCWEN, DEUTSCH BANK, and SHAPIRO

AND KIRSCH.

E. Statutory damages for violations of the Truth In Lending Act and the Real Estate and

Settlement Procedures Act; and

F. Compensation to PLAINTIFF for attorney fees, court costs, and such other relief as this Court

may deem appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________ Date: ___________

Bernard Coleman
c/o 4017 Clubview Drive
Cordova, Tennessee 38125

Page 18 of 20
 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED—WITHOUT PREJUDICE—WAIVING NONE

JURY DEMAND

PLAINTIFFs request a trial by jury with respect to all matters and issues properly triable

by a jury.

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

STATE OF TENNESSEE

COUNTY OF SHELBY

Bernard Coleman, plaintiff herein, makes oath that the facts stated in the above petition are true

to the best of his knowledge and belief.

_____________________
Bernard Coleman

STATE OF TENNESSEE

COUNTY OF SHELBY

On this______ day of ______, 2011 Personally appeared before me, Bernard Coleman, who on
oath, sates that the contents of the foregoing are true to the best of his knowledge, information
and belief.

WITNESS my hand and seal at Memphis, Tennessee this date.

_____________________
Notary Public

Page 19 of 20
TO: CLERK OF COURT

Issue the Temporary Restraining order enjoining Defendants from proceeding with any action to
evict Plaintiff from the real property located at c/o 4017 Clubview Drive Cordova, Tennessee
38125 has prayed for in this complaint and issue notice setting this matter for hearing on this
_____ day of_________, 2011, at ________ a.m./

___________________________________
Chancellor

Date: _____________

Page 20 of 20