AMENDED ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS: Denial of Due Process, Alteration of the Factual Allegations in favor of Big-Bank Defendants

On May 1, 2017 I filed three documents with the U.S. District Court - Western District of Tennessee.  These documents are a matter of public record and can be accessed by anyone at:  Most people will not go there to find these cases or pay the money to do so.  In the interest of the public welfare I am posting these filings on my blog.  

...the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil.  For everyone who does evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed (John 3: 19, 20).  

I previously posted the MOTION FOR RECUSAL. Judge Vescovo, who has a blatant conflict of interest with the major banking defendants has aggressively held onto my case obstructing it from ever seeing the light of a courtroom.  To put my statement in context please read the MOTION FOR RECUSAL.  



It is very clear that there is a bias against Pro Se Litigants.  Given the failure to correct errors, in my case, even hostile.  The banking defendants include: J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, aka, BANA, MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., Evolve Bank & Trust, Bank of New York Mellon etc.  A property flip scheme which launders title to stolen property on  a massive scale through various financial transactions casts a wide net to include banks, title companies, lawyers, third party mortgage servicer companies, appraisers etc...  

I filed these three Motions because: 

The United States Court of Appeals at the Sixth Circuit wrote per the ruling of February 24, 2017: “This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal.  No final or appealable order terminating all of the issues presented in the litigation has been entered by the district court.”  --- “The Amended Complaint remains pending.”  Pending as of February 24, 2017; the date that Clair is first made aware that a ruling at the District Court remains “Pending.”  
I am now posting, as promised, the second of these three filings. This is the AMENDED ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS. There is an introductory statement and then underlined as a heading is the Title and Date of the Ruling/Order from which the errors are noted.  I am not an attorney. I cannot write like an attorney and I'm sure failed to format this the way a skilled attorney would do.  However, if you read this and want to share your own story, feel free to call me.  (901) 504-9704  

Because untold numbers of people have been defrauded by our nations largest banks, I want there to be a clear record of what happened to me.  I want to arm people to fight back.  Therefore I cannot allow a slanderous rewriting of my complaint by an out of control judge to stand.  That a federal court judge can be influenced by big-banks, with no apparent oversight of a superior, is dangerous to the due process and civil rights of every person who rightfully is entitled to equal justice under the rule of law.  This is long... only because the slanderous rewriting of content is pervasive, toxic, and consistent.  

For those who want to understand these types of property theft schemes, operating with little public records footprint, reading the content here may help to expand an understanding of what happened.  


Alexandra Clair, et al.,                                )
Plaintiff                                                         )
                                                                       )           CASE NO. 16-02263-SHL-dvk
v.                                                                    )          
       )       U.S. 6th Circuit CASE NO. 16-6672
Bank of America, N.A., et al,                        )
Defendants                                                   )

Opening Statement
It was noted by Judge Vescovo that Alexandra Clair (Clair) failed to supply an ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS document with the MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION filed on October 25, 2016.  This statement renders those fourteen errors noted in the OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed by Clair on 8/2/2016 invisible. Untrue declaratory statements that overtly contradict the Factual Allegations pepper the dismissal and subsequent rulings, and thus slander Clair’s Civil RICO Complaint.  Judge Vescovo follows a pattern of rewriting content in favor of the fraud narrative.  Convinced that given the huge imbalance of power, no one will actually read what Clair alleges as true denying Clair a meaningful opportunity to be heard and to have the Factual Allegations believed.   
            Addressed in the MOTION FOR RECUSAL Judge Vescovo’s family members represent same Defendants in this case returning profit, job security, and influence to these four respective law firms.  These shared clients and named Defendants in the Civil RICO Private Right of Action include in part:  JP Morgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, N.A., MERSCORP Holdings, LLC, Bank of New York Mellon, First American Title Insurance Company, and Core Logic Services.  Conflict of interest informs the reckless disregard for the Factual Allegations and the bias to dismiss Clair’s case in favor of these same Defendants. Judge Vescovo exceeds screening, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) Screening, to rule on the case itself, acting like a prosecutor whose clients are the named Defendants with whom she has a conflict of interest.  Filed with this document: MOTION TO REVERSE JUDGMENT OF DECEMBER 28, 2016…  and MOTION FOR RECUSAL.

Amended Report And Recommendation For Sua Sponte Dismissal 6/27/2016; 20 pages; Judge Diane K. Vescovo

1.) Page-3 Per the dismissal Judge Vescovo wrote in a recapping of the “factual background.” On December 21, 2011, Stancil transferred his interest in the property to Clair via a quitclaim deed in compliance with their divorce agreement.  Clair addressed this significant error which serves to alter the timeline and therefore obscures the theft sequence.  Despite being notified of this error, the wrong date is repeated by Judge Lipman absent any fraud informing context. The insidious impact of error codified into official records is a theme throughout the chain of theft emblematic of this type of Property Flip-Equity Skimming Scheme. 
From OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; 8/2/2016, page-7, page-8, which cites content from the Original Compliant of 4/20/2016.  
Clair wrote:  “Paragraph 43 actually states: Brett Stancil quit claimed the Subject Property to Ms. Clair 12/21/2010 in compliance with their divorce agreement; divorce final March 2, 2011.  The fraud sequence of events required forward dating a rendition of events which included a decoy quitclaim deed. This 2011 substitute, decoy quitclaim deed, was demanded by the fraud crew working out of the AMS Servicing, LLC location in Depew, New York who were conspiring to displace the earlier quitclaim deed accepted by the Judge in Ms. Clair’s divorce proceeding.  Alteration of the record per the Judge’s statement substantially confuses an already complex case and disturbingly mirrors the fraud narrative corrupting BANA records; protecting the Enterprise conspirators. 
From the Original Compliant of 4/20/2016, toward end of Paragraph 44 and see also: Heading 11. Quit Claim Deeds, page 87 paragraph No. 168, 169, 170.  Explains the lynchpin role that a second quitclaim deed, which forward dated the chain of events, how and why Ms. Clair was manipulated to obtain this fraud device.  And the danger Ms. Clair was placed in due to the urgent insistence conveyed by AMS Servicing, LLC employee, Sherri Rupp, masquerading as the MHA department within BANA, that they must have it notarized before December 2011 or her HAMP application might not be approved; Paragraph No. 171.” 

2.)  Page-2: “…frequently digresses into sweeping allegations about the ‘Wall Street market,’ the validity of MERS, and various fraud schemes perpetrated by the Fayette County Register of Deeds Office. 
          Clair addresses each of these three prosecution-like dismissive statements separately.  Each exceeds Screening to undermine substantive content relevant to the Civil RICO Complaint. 
            a.) From OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8/2/2016 page-4, page-5. “Sweeping allegations” about “The Wall Street market.” 
            Clair wrote: “Ms. Clair cites 32 other residential homes as pattern examples with features that mirror what happened with the Subject Property.  All 32 properties undervalued.  All located in Fayette County, TN.  All identified victims deemed unlikely to recognize abuse of power and, or, to defend their interests. Prior assigns and sales (flips) not filed at the Fayette County Register of Deeds Office.   All emerge, still under-valued, into the public record via Warranty Deed.  Prior assigns, sales, transfers concealed in the MERS System resulting in broken chain of title.  Use of straw buyers.  Minimal public records footprint. All loans serviced by BANA, all REO owned, each never genuinely offered for sale to the public.  All rented for a period of time in order to establish distance, reward the REO Investors, before transfer to Pretium Partners, LLC.  Pretium Partners, LLC is a Wall Street firm located in the heart of the New York financial district.  They operate under different names in different states.  In the state of Tennessee, “FREO Tennessee, LLC.”  They function to bundle rental properties as securities for trade and investment as a Wall Street product/commodity.  Upon logical deduction, careful research supported by public record Ms. Clair arrived at the conclusion that BANA was feeding this market and networking with the REO industry to do so.” 
            b.) From OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8/2/2016, page-5, page 6.  “Sweeping allegations” about… “The validity of MERS.”
Clair wrote: “The role played by MERS in the chain of theft is absolutely crucial to understanding how the multiple fraud schemes transpired as they did and then went unrecognized by Ms. Clair, as they do by other similarly victimized targets of property theft.   MERS does not require that instruments be filed in the public land records unless that disclosure is initiated by the MERS Member-Note-Owner, the MERS-Member-Note-Holder (different from the Note-Owner) and, or, the MERS Member-Servicer.   Secret communications among the parties are enabled via the MERS Mail and MERS Urgent Mail System.  Many attorneys do not think to subpoena these records.  Secreting the transfer history in conjunction with these communications served to place layers of distance between BANA, the concealed Note Owner and the Servicer identity.  BANA Vendors and Servicers named in this case are all MERS-Members.  All have access to utilize the MERS system with little threat of disclosure and immune from oversight in detrimental consequence to the public welfare.  MERS is a passive-facilitator purveyor of fraud postured as neutral and benign.  In part they exist to supplant the public land records which practice placed the transfer history of the Subject Property beyond Ms. Clair’s reach.  They played a direct part in theft of Ms. Clair’s property per the strategically designed MERS Assign, Appoint, Re-Convey business model and thus concealing the true parties in all transactions.  After she left her home April 25, 2012 repeated attempts by Ms. Clair to obtain the transfer history of the Subject Property were met with a wall of resistance.  The same wall that is encountered by all homeowners attempting to understand how and why they were ambushed by theft of their property and, or, attempting to fill in questionable gaps in chain of title, and, or, defending liens placed against properties and thus impeding ability to sell residential property.  Exhibit #: 104 and 104-A thru 104-P.”    
            c.)  From OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; 8/2/2016, page-6, page-7 That Clair alleges  “…various fraud schemes perpetrated by the Fayette County Register of Deeds Office.  This inflammatory statement is not true, but paints Clair as a foolish extremist, lodging ridiculous accusations.  
Clair wrote: “The Fayette County Register of Deeds Office is not a perpetrator, but a victim.  The word “Perpetrator” does not appear in the complaint in connection to them.  Nor are they named as a Defendant; nor is any other agency of TN government.  Ms. Clair makes the point that Fayette County, like other Register of Deeds Offices, newly confronted with sophisticated and creative types of property theft, can no longer function as mere custodians of documents blindly filed because they appear legitimate.  Examination of five instruments on file at the Registry of Deeds Office in Fayette County, TN, selectively filed, constructed to function as fraud devices is entirely pertinent and appropriate as evidence and does not follow that Ms. Clair considers Fayette County as anything other than another victim of white collar criminals.”

3.)  Page 3; Judge Vescovo wrote:  “On March 19, 2012, ReconTrust Company, BANA’s foreclosure Trustee, conducted a foreclosure of the Property.” 
There was NO FORECLOSURE SALE of the Subject Property.  This was the third of five “flips” of the title amongst same bad actors laundering the chain of title in a Property Flip-Equity Skimming Scheme.  At this time BANA was no longer the Servicer of the loan as of 5/19/2011.  Bank of New York Mellon had been paid off by the secret REO Private Investors September 2011.  This charade of foreclosure was set-up for the Illegal Eviction Fraud Scheme and illegal seizure of the Subject Property on 4/25/2012.  All relevant context, informing the Property Flip-Equity Skimming Scheme, is selectively omitted by Judge Vescovo. Two falsified filing instruments are not cited by her.  This serves to protect two Memphis Title Companies from recognition of the part they played in executing this step process via document fraud.  The second, Clair’s exhibit #4, forward dates when ReconTrust Company was appointed Trustee from 8/15/2011 to 10/10/2011.  This protects BANA from the part they played in theft of Clair’s home; paying off the investors in the CWALT Securitized Trust in September 2011 at a loss and which constitutes Bank Fraud and additionally Securities Fraud.
Clair wrote: “On 3/19/2012 there was no auction on the court house steps or anywhere else.  This was a transfer “flip” of a property that was already owned by REO Private Investor Group.”  By Document fraud the REO Note-Owners hid their identity behind that of Bank of America and, or, Bank of New York Mellon long after both banks had divested themselves of all authority in the Subject Property. 

4.)  Page-3; Judge Vescovo wrote: “On March 23, 2012 Clair received notice that an eviction had been ordered.” Clair addressed this untrue statement OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; 8/2/2016, Page-7. 
Clair wrote:  “No ‘notice’ was provided to Ms. Clair on March 23, 2012.  This statement misconstrues the events of that day and is not true.”    From the Original Compliant of 4/20/2012: Paragraph No.  192(e), 192(f), 277.  Also Heading 25. The Illegal Eviction Fraud Scheme / Criminal Enterprise Muscle.   Paragraph No. 289, 290, 291.  Continuous fraud sequence by same players extending beyond 3/19/2012, Paragraph No. 292; 294.     Paragraph No. 295, 296, 299, 300, 302. 
In no description of what transpired on March 23, 2012, or the days after, does Ms. Clair state that Hattie Brawley (Brawley) and ERA Chamberwood Realty Group (Chamberwood) provided her with the Sheriff’s notice of eviction, the Judge’s order/notice of eviction, or any order of eviction. Why?  Because, despite what Judge Vescovo repeatedly states as “fact,” repeatedly contradicting the Factional Allegations so as to slant in favor of dismissal, no such legally issued order(s) ever existed.  Judge Vescovo is inserting her opinion, ruling on the Case, not screening the Case to any level of fairness. 
Additionally, since it interferes with the bias to dismiss nowhere does Judge Vescovo cite the fraud perfecting Core Logic, Equator Work Order (Exhibit #: 49); pertinent to understanding the events of March 23, 2012 thru April 25, 2012.  This Exhibit documents same defendants operating in collusion, premised on the phony foreclosure of 3/19/2012, after the illegal seizure on 4/25/2012, and up to the last flip of the Property Title per the Evolve Bank & Trust Loan of 8/20/2012.  Demonstrating RICO – Continuity-Plus-Relationship at each stage of the Property Flip Scheme and therefore omitted by Judge Vescovo.      
Clair did not know she should file the exhibits with her case.  She believed that what she did write would be accepted; not knowing that “screening” went beyond that description. Judge Vescovo did have the exhibits that Clair filed with the OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and within the context of this filing/document she had a partial list of her own errors.  She could have easily seen that her, rendition of events were contradicted by some of these exhibits.  It made no difference.
In documenting her conclusions Judge Vescovo omits mention of MLS#3249765, Exhibit #24.  The corrupted Exhibit #24 as Exhibit #24-A served to conceal from lender Evolve Bank & Trust that REO Private Investors are “flipping” a property they already own. She omits all evidence of Defendants Keller Williams-MEM 2, LLC colluding with ERA Chamberwood Realty Group to function as the decoy realtor.  This evidences the chain of theft transpiring up to illegal seizure on 4/25/2012 and beyond per the fraud riddled HUD1 of 8/20/2012.  Thus she is able to conceal and not mention the core allegation of conflict of interest per same REO Private Investors, same Note-Owner, same Note-Holder, same buyer, same listing agent, same listing office; use of Keller Williams straw buyers etc. 
Judge Vescovo willfully avoids tying in evidence that support the factual allegation of a Property Flip-Equity Skimming Scheme with operational features lifted from the Reverse Mortgage Theft Scheme and fitted precisely to the theft sequence of events. 
Exhibit #:24 viewed in conjunction with Exhibit #:49, the Equator Work Order, clearly document collusion among the perpetrators extending to the illegal seizure of the Subject Property, the obvious goal of the Criminal Enterprise.  And which event occurred on 4/25/2012. Clair filed the Original Compliant on 4/20/2012 within the four year RICO statute of limitations.   

5.) Judge Vescovo writes, Page-13.  These schemes included a fraudulent mortgage assignment, a fraudulent Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) scheme, a fraudulent loan modification scheme, and a foreclosure action.            
THERE WAS NO FORECLOSURE ACTION. Judge Vescovo repeatedly drops random contradictory statements into the Dismissal, untruths that distort the substance of Clair’s complaint, proposing the Defendant fraud narrative as fact while at the same time denying Clair a meaningful opportunity to be heard.  This is an abuse of judicial power. 
a.) Absent all context the “fraudulent assignment” functioned as the Breeder Document.  Nowhere does Judge Vescovo use the label “Breeder Document,” described in detail in the Original Compliant of 4/20/2016.  Exhibit #:2; Instrument No. 11003921.
b.) Again… THERE WAS NO “foreclosure action.”  Premised on a forged Certificate of Abandonment Bank of America had secretly sold Clair’s home outright to the REO Private Investor Group functioning as the Association-In-Fact Criminal Enterprise on 5/16/2011.  Three days later, on 4/19/2011 BANA transferred serving rights, with no disclosure to Clair, to AMS Servicing, LLC; hired by the secret Note Owners, the REO Private Investor Group to masquerade as BANA in all communication with Clair.  Ten months later the REO Note Owners contrived the phony foreclosure charade (Document Fraud).  Every document that claims Bank of America or Bank of New York Mellon as initiating a “foreclosure action” is a fraud device and Document Fraud.  The success of the Property Flip Scheme required Clair to believe there was a foreclosure as set-up for the illegal seizure of her home at the MIDPOINT of the flipping scam on 4/25/2012.  Clair filed her Civil RICO Case on 4/20/2012 within the four year RICO Statute of Limitations. 

6.)  Page-4.  Judge Vescovo writes:  It appears that the fraud alleged by Clair relates to BANA’s refusal to approve Clair for HAMP.
From OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, filed 8/2/2016, page 9, Clair addressed this blatant alteration of content intended to undermine her case and with the expectation that if Clair objects no one will listen.   
Clair wrote:  “This statement is disturbing and patently untrue.   In paragraph 12 of the complaint Ms. Clair clearly states, “Ms. Clair is not naming Bank of America, their Servicers and Investors or any defendant named in this Civil RICO Private Right of Action for failure to modify her loan under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP).”  As finally acknowledged by BANA Clair’s HAMP Application was not submitted to the MHA Department within BANA.  BANA was forced to acknowledge this after Clair’s HAMP File was “escalated” for review of possible fraud per Money Management International.  And that BANA had no expectation that Clair would ever have possession of the relevant call notes which Clair did not acquire until August 2012.  All HAMP applications were waylaid by AMS Servicing, LLC under direction of the Note Owner, Jones, Kelley, Boyd Perpetrator Nexus, aka, REO Private Investment Group so as to sabotage HAMP; see Paragraph No. 151; confirmed by Exhibit #:85.” 
From paragraph 12 of the Original Compliant; page 8, 9, additionally ignored by Judge Vescovo, Clair went on to write: “Whatever the outcome of numerous, properly submitted HAMP Applications, if they had ever been submitted to standard HAMP protocols and vetting, which they were not pales in comparison to the chain of fraud per an organized and fully operational Criminal Cohort Enterprise that boldly interfered with a federal program and sabotaged Clair’s efforts to apply for HAMP.  Failure to accord Ms. Clair her legal right to apply for HAMP and obstruction of that right to equitably and lawfully participate in a federal program is among the charges within this complaint.” 

7.)  Page-4.  Judge Vescovo writes:  It appears that the fraud alleged by Clair relates to BANA’s refusal to approve Clair for HAMP and instead considering her for the BANA In-House Modification Loan for which she never applied. 
    (a) Contradicting the Factual Allegations, as previously stated, Clair’s HAMP Application(s) were not submitted to the MHA Department within BANA.
(b) …and instead considering her for the BANA In-House Modification Loan for which she never applied.  Judge Vescovo omits content and distills a significant fraud scheme to a meaningless reference. This application was substituted for HAMP, forged in Clair’s name and that of her ex-husband when he no longer held any legal interest in the Subject Property; thus the need to forward date the quitclaim deed acquiring a later version under false pretenses.
The In House Modification Loan Scheme (substituted for HAMP) is described in the Original Compliant: Paragraph No. 85, 93, 95, 145, 179, 198, 246, and 251.  And in the Amended Compliant – Civil RICO Private Right of Action filed 11/15/2016 paragraph No. 108 and Paragraph No. 109.    

8.) Page-4, top of Page-5.  At some point during the time she applied for HAMP, BANA told Clair that she no longer owned the Property, that the Property has already been sold, and that she could not stop the foreclosure. 
Clair wrote: “The May 2011 disclosure per a Bank of America auto-dialer-system operator, a statement disavowed by BANA as not true, is described in paragraph 77, 79, and 80 of the Complaint. A low level employee reading off a computer screen in no way qualifies for the legal disclosures that Ms. Clair was entitled to under 12 U.S. Code § 2605.”  
“…could not stop the foreclosure.”   THERE WAS NO FORECLSOURE.  This verbal assertion mentioned here by Judge Vescovo was a separate event occurring four months later.  It is lumped with a prior event to strengthen the misleading conclusion that Clair recognized the intricate, sophisticated chain of fraud at the time it occurred.  Judge Vescovo omits all relevant context of BANA’s continual insistence to both Clair and to Money Management International via conference calls, that Clair’s HAMP application was under “active review” when it was not.  BANA failed to disclose change of Servicer from BANA to AMS; a fraud ploy to keep Clair in the dark as to whom she was actually communicating with at any given time.  BANA employees, reading off the shared vendor computer platform could easily read that the Subject Property was sold.  They could read the fictional fraud narrative which was the premise upon which the Subject Property was forced into default, devalued by $134,000, and secretly conveyed over the MERS System to REO Private Investors.  Therefore Clair “could not stop the foreclosure;” a reasonable assertion by an unknown BANA representative. At the same time it was crystal-clear to everyone whom Clair communicated with in many attempts to gain clarity and understanding related to contradictory BANA mailings, that she was wrongfully conned into believing she was validly engaged in a HAMP Application process. 
Judge Vescovo’s repeated omissions and rewriting of content, both subtle and overt, form a pattern that misleads any reader.  These distortions of content violate Clair’s civil rights.          

9.)  Page-5.  Judge Vescovo wrote: Clair states that she believed BANA ultimately rejected her application for HAMP on February 10, 2012.
Omitting context this statement invites the reader to conclude that there was a valid HAMP Application which, at some point, was rejected. Slanting all conclusions toward dismissal Judge Vescovo utterly fails to accurately quote or describe the HAMP Fraud Scheme.  This scheme alleged by Clair and independently confirmed by the Money Management International call-notes.  Money Management International escalated Clair’s HAMP case to Treasury for possible fraud not once, but on three separate occasions; entirely omitted by Judge Vescovo.   
Clair precisely stated that unknown to her she was communicating with the third party mortgage servicer company, AMS Servicing, LLC, pretending to be the MHA department within BANA.  BANA records show that the Subject Property servicing rights had been transferred to AMS Servicing, LLC on 5/19/2011, 3-days after the illegal, secret sale, of Clair’s home on 5/16/2011 to the REO Private Investor Group.  This while she still resided in her home and had it listed for sale and before start of the HAMP Fraud Scheme 8/15/2011; also totally and utterly sabotaged.  It was the job of AMS Servicing, LLC, under the direction of the REO Private Investors, to facilitate the illegal eviction.   
AMS Servicing, LLC, pretending to be the MHA Department within BANA informed Clair that she was rejected for HAMP on 2/10/2012.  The delay of notification from 1/13/2012 to 2/10/2012, so as to deprive Clair of an opportunity to object was described in the body of the complaint but entirely ignored by Judge Vescovo.   HAMP sabotaged on the front end: Abandoned and Derelict Property sold to REO Investors on 5/16/2011. 
The letter informing Clair of the actual date she was turned down 1/13/2012 was withheld until 5/6/2014. At which time it was dropped into the deposition mix.  Judge Vescovo omits any mention of those legally required federal and state disclosures; none of which were provided to Clair.
Example: Original Compliant of 4/20/2016; Paragraph No. 216 reads: “Under section 3.3. 1 of Chapter 1 of the MHA handbook the servicer (BANA) must provide written acknowledgement of the escalated case to the homeowner.” 
This single, legally required disclosure, would have informed Clair of the “escalation” of her HAMP case for review of fraud, by Money Management International, Inc., a HUD nonprofit operating under the purview of the United States Department of the Treasury.  Clair would have recognized the fraud concealing lengths that BANA went to, to shut down this investigation (Obstruction of Justice a RICO Violation.)   Any significant piece that supports Clair’s description
of the fraud perfecting events in execution of a Property Flip-Equity Skimming Scheme is selectively distilled, condensed, omitted, marginalized and, or, misstated by Judge Vescovo.   

10.)  Page-5. Judge Vescovo writes: According to Clair the “Cooperative Short Sale Confidence Scheme” transpired from February 10, 2012 through March 23, 2012.”  And… “Clair alleges that after being turned down for HAMP on February 10, 2012, Clair contacted BANA in an attempt to short sell the property.” 
Page-15, page 16.  Judge Vescovo then wove this blatantly inaccurate misquote and slanderous alteration of content into the record once more, because once is not enough. Contradicting the Factual Allegations:  Although it is not clear when Clair found out that BANA did not approve a short sale of the Property… 
Just as there never was a Foreclosure Event, CLAIR NEVER APPLIED FOR A SHORT-SALE.  BANA, who had sold her home to white collar criminals on 5/16/2011, was not even legally in the picture and therefore not in the position to approve anything.  A fact completely omitted from Judge Vescovo’s altered rendition of events protecting her banking conflict of interest defendants.  Due to the significant equity, not upside down on her loan, Clair knew and the REO Private Investor-secret Note-Owners knew that she did not qualify for a Short-Sale. 
“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it”    
Nazi Propaganda Minister: Joseph Goebbels
Clair addressed Judge Vescovo’s slanderous rewriting of content in the OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, page 2, filed August 2, 2012. 
Clair wrote: “The undisclosed Servicer alternately masqueraded as the MHA Department within BANA and the Short Sale Department within BANA.  AMS Servicing, LLC employees lied when they claimed to launch a “new” BANA program tailored to Senior Citizens with Equity in their homes.”  This confidence scheme is described in the body of the complaint; Heading 24 – Cooperative Short Sale Confidence Scheme, page 139 and encompasses paragraphs 263 thru 279. 
Judge Vescovo’s statement: “Clair contacted BANA in an attempt to short sell the property” is to alter and thus slander the content of the complaint.  Ms. Clair knew she did not qualify for a short sale due to the significant equity.  Ms. Clair agreed to the con-artist description of the “special program for seniors” “with equity in their homes” that did not exist only after it was pushed “sold” by the fraudsters in order to forestall Clair from filing Chapter Thirteen Bankruptcy; asking a judge to allow her to sell her own home and pay off debt absent the continual threat of foreclosure (December 2011).”  It must be clarified that the pretense of foreclosure regarding a property that had been sold outright months before was used as a bullying tactic to have Clair give up her fight to protect the equity in her home. 
Here Clair must also elaborate on the insidious impact of Judge Vescovo’s rewriting of content regarding the Short Sale ruse intended to raise doubt.  Most courts would understand that “short sales” are an alternative for people who are upside down on their mortgages.  Loss of property or cash, via robbery, committed by an Association-In-Fact Criminal Enterprise has a monetary RICO threshold.  Writing as she does, Judge Vescovo, imbues Clair’s monetary losses with doubt.  She poses that she believes there was a short-sale of the property in direct contradiction of factual allegations.  Not the job of a fair arbiter, screening a Civil RICO case. 
Clair had placed 84K and 6K for a total of 90K in cash on the property so as to reduce the monthly house-payment by under $1,000 per month.  The outstanding mortgage was under $150,000 in September 2011 when Bank of America paid off Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee for the CWALT investors at a loss (securities fraud.) 
The only listing of the Subject Property that was NOT a fraud device was MLS No: 3223195; Exhibit #: 23 which valued the Subject Property in the depressed market of the day at $234,000 on 5/5/2011. The sale to REO Private Investors, who had targeted Clair as unlikely to fight back due to recent tragedy and the property for its Equity Skimming potential, eleven days later, on 5/16/2011, purchased Clair’s home for $100,000 per the JP Morgan Chase Bank Loan (flip #1). This is day-glow evidence of fraudulent devaluation (Bank Fraud); never once alluded to anywhere by Judge Vescovo.  Though not a matter of conjecture, but proven by Exhibits.  This is factual evidence that Clair’s contract with Crye Lieke Realty Company was utterly and completely sabotaged by collusion between BANA, JP Morgan Chase Bank, the REO Private Investors, and the undisclosed third party mortgage servicer, AMS Servicing, LLC.  None of this was ever alluded to, even obliquely, by Judge Vescovo.  By willful insertion of fraud serving substitutions Judge Vescovo refocuses the case away from the Factual Allegations and the RICO Conspiracy.  Unacceptable to her that anyone read Clair’s complaint and recognize criminal theft of residential property by our nation’s largest banks operating with a national footprint and impacting countless other victims. 
Unknown to Clair, after 5/19/2011 Clair’s home was shown on industry only websites as already REO Owned.  This sabotaged and interfered with the Crye Leike Realty Listing.  Due to this contractual interference Clair had no more than two showings of her home during the six months that it was listed.  And due to this listing, what Judge Vescovo, in service to the Defendants, does not want to see documented in any court record, the investors in the CWALT Trust were paid off at a loss.  While this loss may not have been much so as to slide under the radar of the Securities and Exchange Commission, multiply that “Realized Loss:” $5,530.66, Exhibit #36, by thousands upon thousands of properties sliding into the Wall Street pipeline.  Much of it stolen property bundled and sold as commodities, returning long term substantial profit back to the complicit banks while defrauding investors in those securitized trusts.  What we have is a huge theft-number beyond Clair’s ability to estimate but begging for investigation by the SEC. 
Judge Vescovo is an officer of the Court.  It is not her job to rewrite content of Clair’s compliant with the impact that these crimes are hidden from recognition.  

11.)  Page-16.  Judge Vescovo writes:  Therefore, even assuming that BANA’s rejection of the short sale constituted a property injury, Clair knew of such injury more than four years prior to filing her complaint. 
THERE WAS NO SHORT SALE.  Therefore there was no “rejection of the short sale.”   Judge Vescovo is not screening Clair’s case, but is telling the reader what to think impugning and slandering the Factual Allegations.  Coming from a district court judge, juxtaposed against a pro se litigant who is additionally poor and a senior citizen this is evidence of judicial abuse. 
Judge Vescovo avoids accurately describing or alluding to the Cooperative Short Sale Confidence Scheme; Heading 24 – Cooperative Short Sale Confidence Scheme, page 139, Paragraph No. 263 thru Paragraph No. 279 of the Original Complaint filed 4/20/2012. Judge Vescovo is biased to affirm the fraud narrative rendering Clair voiceless.  In 2011 and 2012 there was nothing on line about what a true Cooperative Short Sale was; a program devised by BANA to bypass the HAFA short sale requirements and not remotely what was misrepresented to Clair by the REO Private Investors and third party mortgage servicer employees masquerading as BANA.  Granted discovery and subpoena power, it may be found that as one of the five illegal flips of the Property Title amongst same bad actors, laundering the chain of title and skimming equity, that a short sale might have concealed one of those five flips.   This may be the reason why Judge Vescovo, in service to the Defendants, might have wanted any reader to think that Clair had contacted BANA to short sell her home; a complete unmitigated lie. 

12.  Judge Vescovo fails to repeat the label: “The Jones, Kelley Boyd Perpetrator Nexus” aka the REO Private Investor Group described as the RICO Association-In-Fact Criminal Enterprise; Heading 2, page 4.  This label used one-hundred-thirteen (113) times throughout the body of the Civil RICO Complaint.  This omission of context, as well as no mention of the 32 RICO Property Pattern examples, evidences the bias to dismiss the RICO claims without alluding to them.
Judge Vescovo additionally deprives her conclusions of other labels used by Clair by which the RICO claims are understood.  Common labels associated with these types of property crime, “Property Flip-Equity Skimming Scheme” and “Breeder Document.” 

13.)  Page-6.  Judge Vescovo wrote:  Clair received a “Notice to Vacate” letter from Weiss, Spicer, Cash PLLC informing her that there was an order to evict Clair from the Property. 
Just as there was no foreclosure action and there was no Short Sale applied for by Clair, THERE WAS NO NOTICE TO VACATE; letter or otherwise.  A necessary component of the fraud schemes, replicated in the 32 RICO Pattern Examples, required that Clair, as the targeted victim, believe there was a valid foreclosure.  She must be conned to believe there was an eviction order.  Otherwise the fraudsters could not execute the brutal ouster of Clair from her home.  By which they physically were finally able to seize the theft asset – Clair’s home – on 4/25/2012 at the midpoint of the flipping scam.  The successful accomplishment of this scheme meant that there must be the smallest possible public records footprint.  The step process must by-pass threat of all judicial oversight under which the bones of the Property Flip – Equity Skimming Scheme could be recognized.  So as to deprive the carefully selected victims from any opportunity to defend their property rights. 
What part of this is so complicated that Judge Vescovo must repeatedly detour from the truth, slandering the Factual Allegations with the impact that Clair’s case is prevented from ever seeing the light of day?   
      Clair addresses each of these fraud serving dismissive statements of Judge Vescovo separately.
a.)  “…order to evict.”  There was no order to evict.  Hattie Brawley, acting for the decoy real estate firm, ERA Chamberwood Realty Group, under direction of the secret Note-Owners; Keller Williams-MEM 2, LLC (Exhibit #:24); REO ID#00906148; told Clair that a Fayette County Judge had ordered her eviction. 
This was a lie. No such legally issued order ever existed.  It was the Brawley/Chamberwood role to act as the Criminal Enterprise muscle, forcing Clair from her home per misrepresentations of authority, threats, and harassment.  Heading: #25.  The Illegal Eviction Fraud Scheme / Criminal Enterprise Muscle, beginning at paragraph 289. 
As elsewhere, Judge Vescovo applies no relevant context; maligning the complaint.  Here, local attorneys, Weiss, Spicer, Cash PLLC, are cleverly protected by Judge Vescovo from recognition of the key role they played, hired by Keller Williams, REO ID #00906148, to perfect the illegal seizure of the Subject Property on 4/25/2012. 
b.)  The “Notice to Vacate” letter (Clair’s exhibit #: 51), is a fraud tool tailored to a renter/occupant maintaining the fiction that Clair has abandoned her home as of 5/16/2011.  Weiss, Spicer, Cash, PLLC, with knowing intent, deflects from the Keller Williams Note Owner to Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) as the authorizing party long after BANA has secretly sold Clair’s home, devalued by $134,000, and transferred servicing rights 5/19/2011.  Content of the factual allegations is perverted per this cursory statement.  Notice to Vacate addressed to renters required by TN Law.  It transpired in collusion with BANA, Core Logic, and the REO Private Investors aka the Jones, Kelley, Boyd Perpetrator Nexus. 
The second AMENDED COMPLAINT – CIVIL RICO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION filed on 11/15/2016; Paragraph No. 89, 90; quoted here from Paragraph 90, chosen for it brevity. 
Clair wrote: “Task assignments were directed over the Core Logic Equator Platform (wire fraud).  As a fraud sequence these steps were carried out per collusion of Weiss, Spicer, Keller Williams Note Owner REO ID#:00906148, and Brawley the decoy listing agent for Keller Williams.  They were managed, “monitored,” by Core Logic Asset Manager, Paige Richardson implying an unbiased third party.” (Paige Richardson is a Keller Williams Realtor). “Weiss, Spicer failed to verify that the Wooldridge rental agreement was a bona fide contract (likely because it doesn’t exist)” And if it does exist it will never be produced.

14.) Page-16.  Judge Vescovo wrote:  Lastly Clair knew of the ‘Illegal Eviction Fraud Scheme’ more than four years prior to filing her complaint.
Only a Judge who failed to read the compliant and, or, a Judge who is biased to protect the Conflict of Interest Banks named in the complaint could construe such meaning from the content of Clair’s complaint.  Four years later, fighting tooth and nail for evidence, writing about the chain of theft four years later, after the events, does not equate to recognizing the chain of theft as it transpired from 5/16/2011 thru 8/20/2012.
If Clair knew even a fraction of what she knows today she would never have left her home under threats, lies, harassment, and misrepresentations of authority on 4/25/2012.   The Illegal Eviction Fraud Scheme was not complete until the illegal Seizure of the Subject Property and brutal eviction of Clair had taken place premised upon paperwork that was passed off as a Fayette County Judges “order of eviction” that did not exist.  The illegal seizure and brutal ouster of Clair from her home, at which point the Jones, Kelley, Boyd Perpetrator Nexus finally had physical possession of Clair’s home, was accomplished at the midpoint of the flipping scam on 4/25/2012.  Clair filed her complaint on 4/20/2016 within the four year statute of limitations. Additionally the documents which first raise red flags were not filed in the public land records until 9/4/2012, after the Evolve Bank and Trust Loan closing on 8/20/2012. 

15.)  Page-16; end of page.  Judge Vescovo wrote: She also alleges that on March 28, 2012, she became aware that there was an order of eviction.  The Order of Eviction is a total, unmitigated fiction.  Even more damaging is the insidious implication that a District Court Judge does not believe the Factual Allegations as written, but chooses to believe the fraud narrative. 
If Judge Vescovo could search public record for an out of context reference that supports the fraud narrative (page 3, footnote, AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL) she could have done the same here.  Clair being told by the fraudsters that there was an order of eviction (a lie and fraud ploy) does not equate to Clair having knowledge that she was being lied to. 
Not until Kathryn Maceri, on or within days after 7/22/2014, suggested that Clair verify the Judge’s Order of Eviction, did Clair find that no such order existed.  Gross divergence from content, “…March 28, 2012, she became aware that there was an order of eviction,” is to blame shift to the victim, affirming a lie, a lawyerly defense ploy, not the role of a fair arbiter screening a Civil RICO Case to any level of fairness or accuracy.  It was actually on 3/23/2012 and not 3/28/2012 as asserted by Judge Vescovo, that the decoy realtor Brawley/Chamberwood presented at Clair’s door to tell her there had been a foreclosure; posturing phony paperwork as the forged Fayette County Judge’s order of eviction (that did not exist). 

16.  On Page-15 Judge Vescovo wrote:  All the fraudulent schemes alleged by Clair occurred prior to April 20, 2012, and therefore, Clair cannot recover for injuries based on acts outside the limitations period. 
This statement stretches common sense.  Judge Vescovo conveys the absolute belief that her power weighed against a pro se litigant will cement the fraud narrative and swallow the truth in favor to the Defendants with whom she has a conflict of interest.  The obvious, primary goal of the Criminal Enterprise was to take physical possession of Clair’s home; the theft asset.  Someone that robs a bank cannot be charged until they have accomplished the goal of robbing the bank.  The same holds true here.  Clair did not begin her search for answers, with a huge learning curve, until after she’d been physically robbed of her home on 4/25/2012.  
In OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Clair addresses Time Barred.  The label: Property Flip-Cash Out Equity Skimming Scheme is cited 26-times in the body of the Original Complaint.  Property Flip – Equity Skimming Scheme is used 12-times in the much shorter second AMENED COMPLIANT – CIVIL RICO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION filed 11/15/2016.  Omitting these labels obscures the fraud sequence of events following a specific step-process known to federal prosecutors and investigators.  This step process very much informs the time line extending from 5/16/2011 thru 8/20/2012.  Understanding what happened in the context of a flipping scam makes time barred before the 4/25/2012 illegal seizure far more difficult to sell.  Thus, Judge Vescovo omits the label altogether.   
Judge Vescovo writes in her dismissal:  Public records also indicate that the Property was sold on March 19, 2012.  “public records show that the property was sold again via warranty Deed on June 29, 2012 to Vernon and Sherry Boyd.” 
“Vernon Boyd and Sherry Boyd are the Keller Williams straw buyers.  June 29, 2012 is the fourth of five flips of the subject property; same people buying and selling the property amongst themselves so as to bring up the last selling price to be less a red flag denoting fraud.  And taking place after 4/20/2012.   
Judge Vescovo avoids all mention of the conflict of interest, arm in arm, collusion by same bad actors extending from when Clair was first targeted by Max Jones, CPA, gaining access to Clair’s private financial data and extending to the last fraud perfecting flip of the Subject Property per the FHA Evolve Bank & Trust Loan to Keller Williams straw buyers on 8/20/2012.  She cherry picks out of context details obscuring recognition of the Property Flip Scheme.  Same REO Investors buying, “flipping” a property they already own and laundering the title in the same way that illegally gotten drug money is laundered.
            Page-8, page-9.  From the OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 8/2/2016.  
Clair wrote:  “The recommendations for dismissal entirely miss that this is a Property Flip-Equity Skimming Scheme that did not end with Ms. Clair forced from her home under false pretenses and threats on 4/25/2012.  The goals of the Criminal Enterprise to steal Ms. Clair’s home by robbery were not complete until after the 8/20/2012 Evolve Bank & Trust Deed was filed in the public land records on 9/4/2012.  Ms. Clair did not begin the arduous process, with a huge learning curve, to recognize how she lost her home until August 2012.  She believed Brawley up to and beyond 4/25/2012 that a Fayette County Judge had ordered her eviction.”  Not until July 2014 did Clair finally learn that this order did not exist.  This is clearly stated, but omitted by Judge Vescovo. Paragraph 322. 
Sadly, because Judge Vescovo is not screening this case, but ruling on it Clair must defend the following significant error introduced into the record.   
Special Warranty Deed, Exhibit #:5, as it is cited singularly by the Judge to support the conclusions for dismissal played a significant role in the Property Flip-Equity Skimming Scheme as described in the Complaint.  See Paragraph No. 184 & 186.  See Paragraph No.’s 192, 192-a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, I, j, k.  Exhibit #:5 and Exhibit #:6 must be viewed together and then in conjunction with fraud tool, MLS #: 3249765, Exhibit #:24 and Exhibit #:24-A.  Attempt at cover-up, false statements in a legal instrument described in paragraph 336 as Clair’s Exhibit #:7 and titled by Evolve Bank & Trust as Exhibit “A”.  This Exhibit “A” is attached to Exhibit #:6.
Viewed singularly is to entirely undermine recognition of the chain of theft functioning as a Property Flip-Equity Skimming Scheme.  Clear specific evidence of Document Fraud, greasing the chain of theft not once mentioned by Judge Vescovo.  

17.) Page-6.  Judge Vescovo wrote: It appears that Clair’s lawsuit filed in state court was also a Civil RICO lawsuit. 
Page-10 from the OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 8/2/2016 Clair addressed this error.  
Clair wrote:  “That this statement is not true and is again a reframing of the content of the complaint as written by Ms. Clair is evidenced by Paragraph 409 and Paragraph 410.  The state court case filed on Ms. Clair’s behalf by Webb Brewer (Brewer), and which he was colluding to move toward dismissal, was not a Civil RICO lawsuit.  Ms. Clair withdrew this case upon advice of Kathryn Maceri (Maceri) who promised to then file a Civil RICO Case.  The actions of Brewer and Maceri in part do comprise the Cover-Up and Containment Phase of the fraud schemes.  Further, the Federal District Court is not being asked to re-litigate a case already adjudicated in a lower court as falsely claimed by Judge Vescovo.  This case was withdrawn upon manipulation of Ms. Clair, in service to the Criminal Enterprise cohort.” 

18.)  Page-6.  The Judge writes: Clair states in her complaint that discovery was conducted in 2014 as part of the state court proceeding.
As written this statement leads the reader to assume that the six-hour deposition, initiated by three Defendant Attorneys on 5/6/2014 may have been initiated by Clair’s attorney, Webb Brewer on her behalf, which it was not. After overhearing a certain conversation in the hallway, Clair realized that Brewer lied to her when he claimed to have mailed the Chamberwood Interrogatories. Although not the intent of the Defendant attorneys, Clair left that deposition far better informed than she had been during the entire period that Brewer represented her from 2/15/2013 thru 6/10/2014. From what she learned Clair was afterwards prompted to acquire key pieces of evidence including one of two fraud-riddled HUD1 under a FOIA request and Clair’s exhibit #:24; MLS #3249765 (later corrupted version Exhibit 24-A from the state of Tennessee) which Brewer alternately claimed did not exist or was not obtainable.

19.)  Page-6. It appears from the minimal allegations in her complaint that three law firms represented Clair at various points in her state court proceeding: Farris, Bobango, Brannan PLC, Brewer & Barlow PLC, and Kathryn Maceri, Esq. 
Clair wrote: “Again an untrue statement of what is actually written in the complaint.  Farris, Bobango, Brannan, PLC did not represent Ms. Clair in the state court proceeding as clearly stated in the compliant.  Brewer represented Ms. Clair in this case that never went to trial.  Ms. Clair fired him after events following the 5/6/2014 deposition initiated by the defendants, and the startling statement directed to Brewer by John Phillip: “You have done nothing.”  Upon which time Ms. Clair sought clarity of what had and had not been accomplished. These so called “minimal allegations” and the role played by these three law firms are described beginning at, page 189, paragraph 368, of the compliant and extending through page 213, paragraph 412 of the compliant.”     

20.)  Page-6.  Clair alleges that Farris, Bobango, Brannan PLC “dropped Clair as a client,” after March 28, 2012 because they had a conflict of interest. 
Judge Vescovo provides no explanation of the “conflict of interest” which turned out to be: Collins Maury, Inc., d/b/a Prudential Collins-Maury, Inc. Realtors, Plaintiff v. MEM 2, LLC d/b/a Keller Williams Realty Memphis East, Defendant.  This Case was filed on 11/10/2011 as Docket Number: CH-11-1860; the same period as the HAMP Fraud Scheme and before the illegal seizure of Clair’s home on 4/25/2012. Farris, Bobango, Brannan PLC filed this case representing Doug Collins of Collins-Maury Realty, the victim of internet hacking and corporate espionage over an extended period of time.  This is the same Criminal Enterprise defendant, Keller Williams-MEM 2, LLC; Clair’s Exhibit #: 64 that targeted Clair and her property. Why they and later Webb Brewer did not reveal this case, one of these parties redacting Weiss, Spicer, Cash PLLC information from the Equator Work Order, informs the collusion of attorney’s in the Cover-Up and Containment Phase of the Fraud Schemes.  These attorneys were managing Clair rather than providing her the representation they were ethically and legally mandated to provide. 
Once again Judge Vescovo omits all context, so as to validate her misquotes of content.  This case confirms the culture of criminality operating at Keller Williams – MEM 2, LLC; lending credence to the RICO prior bad acts; pattern and practice.  Free access to corrupt official bank records so as to trail the fraud narrative over the shared computer platforms of Core Logic, AMS Servicing, LLC, Equator, and Bank of America via the Keller Williams Data Center so as to perfect the chain of theft.  No defendant could have accomplished this chain of theft alone.  The system was designed for theft and theft it facilitated allowing the HAMP Application to be squashed on the front end; occupancy a prerequisite for HAMP. 
This access per the shared internet platforms among co-conspirators is confirmed by testimony, under oath, of former Bank of America employees in HAMP Contract Litigation. Judge Vescovo’s selected omissions of content intentionally marginalize Clair’s RICO charges while protecting the conflict of interest Defendants. 
Clair addresses the significance of this case in the Original Complaint filed 4/20/212 under the heading: PATTERN OF RACKEERING, paragraph No. 26, paragraph No. 27 and 27(a) thru 27(e).   In the AMENDED COMPLAINT – CIVIL RICO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION filed 11/15/2016; Paragraph No. 93, 95, 170.     

21.)  Page-7. Judge Vescovo wrote: Clair maintains that Brewer failed to properly and timely pursue her case and that she fired him on June 10, 2014.  Once more Judge Vescovo alters the content of Clair’s complaint by omission when she fails to add the salient fact; MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 11 OF TENNESSEE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEEDURE; Docket #16122 (Clair Exhibit #:77) Sanction, Rule 11 was filed against Brewer by John B. Philip on June 2, 2014.  John B. Philip is the attorney for First American Title Insurance Company and Keller Williams straw buyers, Vernon Wayne Boyd and Sherry White Boyd.  States in part: no reasonable basis, nor has a proper investigation nor reasonable investigation been made by the Plaintiff.  Judge Vescovo omits Clair’s claim, supported by evidence, that Brewer was intentionally moving her case toward dismissal; failing to follow-up on evidence provided by Clair, filing no discovery, no interrogatories, not one subpoena for documents; nothing, nada.  

22.)  Page-9 Judge Vescovo writes: Without some factual allegations in the compliant, it is hard to see how a claimant could satisfy the requirement of providing not only ‘fair notice’ of the nature of the claim, but also ‘ground’ on which the claim rests.  Page-7; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) Screening.
By no reasonable standard of measure was this case fairly screened.  Judge Vescovo repeatedly omits and misquotes content of the Compliant.  Clair refers any subsequent arbiter to:  MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION filed October 25, 2016. OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed August 2, 2016.  THE AMENDED COMPLAINT – CIVIL RICO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION filed November 15, 2016 and not forwarded to the higher court so as to obstruct its entry into the record; protecting JP Morgan Chase Bank (new evidence).   

23.)  Page-15 Judge Vescovo writes: “As to the fraudulent mortgage assignment scheme, Clair alleges that the Deed of Trust was transferred from MERS to the Bank of New York Mellon on July 20, 2011.”   Judge Vescovo references what Clair took from the filing document, not what Clair alleged was true.  In this instance she draws attention from the important fraud perfecting role of the Assignment of the Deed of Trust; Instrument No.11003921 (Exhibit #:2).  This document functioned as a fraud tool known to courts as the illegal “Breeder Document.” As a fraud device the Breeder Document is utilized to sever a victim’s property rights so as to re-title stolen property in the name of the thieves.  This piece of the step process was fitted to the Property Flip-Equity Skimming Scheme as it impacted Clair; once again context entirely omitted by Judge Vescovo and yet described in detail by Clair.  From the Original Complaint filed 4/20/2012, under the Heading: BREEDER DOCUMENT.  See Paragraph No. 104 thru paragraph No. 116. Just as the term Property Flip-Equity Skimming Scheme is selectively omitted from Judge Vescovo’s fraud serving, out of context descriptions of the case, so is the term BREEDER DOCUMENT, absent for the same reason.

24.)  Page-15.  As to the HAMP Fraud Scheme, Clair alleges that on August 25, 2011, BANA told Clair that she was turned down for both the In-House Modification Loan and HAMP and that the foreclosure date was set for November 10, 2011. 
Absent all fraud-informing content this statement serves to strengthen Defendants claims while marginalizing the content of Clair’s complaint.  Judge Vescovo lumps together three separate events providing no context.   
(a.)  The In-House Modification Loan was forged in Clair’s name and that of her ex-husband after he had quitclaimed the subject Property to Clair December 21, 2010.  Keeping Clair in the dark the fraud crew forwarded mail to Clair’s ex-husband in another state.  Forging and substituting In-House BANA Loans for HAMP was modus operandi; described by former BANA employee, under oath, and quoted in Clair’s Original Compliant of 4/20/2016, Paragraph No: 153.  
b.) HAMP Fraud Scheme; Clair’s HAMP application never submitted to HAMP Protocols… BANA had already sold her home (5/16/2011) per the JP Morgan Chase Bank Loan based on the Forged Certificate of Abandonment, a fraud serving appraisal that devalued her home by $134,000, and the fraud narrative corrupting Bank of America records; trailing over to slander other records, of an abandoned and derelict property.    
c.) Foreclosure date… THERE WAS NO FORECLSOURE.  This was the third of five flips of the Subject Property in keeping with the operative Property Flip-Equity Skimming Scheme. BANA was no longer the servicer of the loan as of 5/19/2011 and Bank of New York Mellon was paid off by the REO Investors as of September 2011 at an unnecessary loss.  This because Clair had enough equity in her home that she could have sold her home and paid all debt; equity the reason her home was targeted by white collar criminals.   
Clair’s HAMP Applications and private financial documents derailed by Stewart Lender Services, Inc. per their subsidiary Home Retention Group masquerading as the BANA mail clearing center; concealing the presale of the Property to REO Private Investors whose sole intent was theft.  Billing statement: “bill third party.”  Third party the secret Note Owners, the Jones, Kelley, Boyd Perpetrator Nexus.

25.)  Page-16.  Judge Vescovo writes:  Although Clair ultimately left her home on April 25, 2012, her injury occurred when the Property was sold on March 19, 2012. 
            The Subject Property was not sold on 3/19/2012.  It was sold on 5/16/2011.  Judge Vescovo initially does her best to hang Time Barred on the foreclosure event alleged to have taken place (Document Fraud) on 3/19/2011.  Every so called “sale” is in fact a flip of the Property Title amongst same bad actors.  These criminals are laundering the chain of title through five financial transactions for the same reason that drug money is laundered.  Every filing, including the fraud riddled HUD1 and the decoy HUD1 that claim Bank of America and, or, Bank of New York as the authorizing entity is a lie.  The bank identity is used to conceal the identity of the REO Private Investor group, the Jones, Kelley, Boyd Perpetrator Nexus operating as a RICO Association-In-Fact Criminal Enterprise.   

26.) Page-19 Footnote #6. Further slandering content of the Original Compliant Judge Vescovo writes:  Clair’s instant RICO Claims may also be barred under the doctrine of res judicata.  Clair states in the complaint that she initiated a civil RICO lawsuit against BANA in Chancery Court of Fayette County, TN.  
This is a flagrant lie.  Judge Vescovo knows it is a lie.  The case filed by Webb Brewer was not a Civil RICO Case. Judge Vescovo makes a mockery of her claim that she provided “careful analysis” of Clair’s compliant.  She did so only to the extent that she could rewrite content so as to stop this case at the Screening juncture in service to the Bank-Defendants with whom she has a conflict of interest.   

Order Denying In Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Disqualification, 11/8/2016; 6 pages; Judge Diane K. Vescovo

1.)  Page 2:  On July 18, 2016 Clair filed a letter in which she stated that she never received any emails from the court regarding the status of her case. 
The word “never” is inflammatory.  Clair actually wrote.  “I am missing four crucial emails which I have not yet read.  I understand the court is mailing these emails, apparently dated 5/23/2016; 5/31/2016; 6/27/2016; 7/11/2016.”  The word “never” is assigned to convey a perception of Clair as an unreliable pro se litigant, a poor witness to the crimes that resulted in loss of her home, loss of equity, interference with her ability to sell her own home, and obstruction of justice by Bank of America who lied to the U. S. Department of the Treasury so as to derail the investigation. 
Clair refers the reader to a reading of her letter of July 18, 2016, entered into the record and which resulted in a reversal of the decision to dismiss, allowing Clair to file OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS.   

2.)  Page 5:  I thoroughly analyzed Clair’s 227-page complaint and recommended dismissal based on applicable law.  This cannot possibly be true.  Fourteen misquotes that materially altered the substance of the factual allegations, while supporting the predetermined rush to dismiss are cited in the OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 8/2/2016, page-4 Clair addressed this. 
Clair wrote: “The factual background as stated in the Amended Report and Recommendations for SUA SPONTE Dismissal, do not accurately reflect the claims, descriptions, and charges made by Ms. Clair in her Complaint of April 20, 2016.  It is upon these conclusions that dismissal and failure to state a claim is based.  Therefore they must be addressed.”

3.)  Page 3 footnote, “Clair also seeks to recuse every judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. (Motion for Disqualification 7, ECP No. 21). 
This is another inflammatory characterization of Clair.  Judge Vescovo introduces this personally abusive conception into the record so as to derail Clair’s RICO Case at the pre-screening juncture; that others will agree with her dismissal. I would not presume to comment on other District Court Judges. I have, however, commented on Judge Vescovo who has a significant conflict of interest which is addressed in: MOTION FOR RECUSAL filed with this AMENDED ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.   
Clair wrote: “After what has happened Clair is doubtful that she can receive a fair hearing of her case in Memphis, TN.  To this day, Clair believes that her email, at least from her end, was interfered with in keeping with the pattern of practice evidenced in the Collins-Maury case.”  No return read receipt seems odd.  Evidenced by the prior behavior of the Keller Williams – MEM 2, LLC Defendants who skillfully hacked a rival’s computer system; “past behavior the best indicator of future behavior,” not outside the realm of possibility that Clair’s email was interfered with. 
Clair wrote: “Blame-shifting to Clair, citing the www.-prefix, something any entry level computer technician employed at the responsible level of a Federal District Court would recognize as a clerical error, ignoring the recent previous first two emails that had been sent to Clair with no problem of delivery.  Clair has not been informed if the District Court conducted an internal investigation of the interim failed electronic notifications which selected absence and timing precisely served to deny Clair the right to file an objection within the required time field.” 
This failure also served to obstruct and, or, delay Clair reading the AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL filed 6/27/2016 alerting her to the very disturbing numbers of misquotes and slanderous reframing of the content of Clair’s CIVIL RICO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION filed 4/20/2016. 
The assumption follows that the bar would be too high that Clair could reasonably meet the time and skill requirement that she could effectively appeal the District Courts “Dismissed with Prejudice” decision to a higher court. 

4.)  Page 5.  Judge Vescovo wrote: To the extent that Clair asserts that I erred in applying the law and the facts, she should have included her assignment of errors in the objection to my amended Report and Recommendations which she filed on August 2, 2016. 
Judge Vescovo is deflecting from the list Clair did provide in OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, filed 8/2/2016. 

5.)  Page 4.  Clair asserts that these misquotes demonstrate “concerted, improper, and reckless partiality to both the fraud narrative and the defendants.”  Yes.  This is exactly what Clair asserts.  From MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION page-7,    filed 10/25/2016. 
Clair wrote:  “Any one of these slandered distortions of what Clair wrote (and other blatant and subtle alterations of content) which did substantially and materially alter the collective substance of Clair’s 4/20/2016 complaint served only to substantiate the District Courts predetermined decision to dismiss Clair’s case without ever validly considering it; whether it met standards that it could move forward and be heard.  The work required to slander the content of Clair’s compliant raises certain broader issues.  Judge Vescovo has demonstrated concerted, improper, and reckless partiality to both the fraud narrative and the defendants before they ever showed up in court to defend their positions.” 

Order Denying In Part Motion for Disqualfication, 11/10/2016; 2 pages; Judge Sheryl H. Lipman

1.) Page 2.  Ms. Clair argues that the Courts impartiality and bias require the Court’s recusal.  However, other than disagreement with the Courts Analysis of the case, which does not constitute ground for recusal, she has pointed to no bias. 

This statement muzzles the fourteen errors cited in the OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and dismisses the MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION rendering Clair voiceless. By these actions and others, Clair is disenfranchised from due process. 
Judge Vescovo and by extension Judge Lipman evidence the expectation that what is improperly stated, even outright lies, will be believed because it is not in the repertoire of perception that, given the huge imbalance of power, anyone will go back and read what Clair did assert as true, factual allegations supported by hard evidence.  Clair is not an attorney.  She had never heard the phrase “Assignment of Errors.”  Clair has not received a “liberal construction of the case;” not met when the District Court buried, as if it did not exist, those errors cited in the OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 8/2/2016. 
Clair wrote per: Motion for Disqualification. Page 2 of 7.  “Judge Lipman then did compound the level of bias and impropriety per her later review and subsequent ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 10/19/2016 again slandering the content of Clair’s Complaint.  The de novo, standard impossible to achieve since the court is already prejudiced to defend and, or, bury or draw attention away from the slanderous and multiple misquotes of Judge Vescovo in her: AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUPA SPONTE DISMISSAL, document No. 8, 6/27/2016 which, given the failed email communication from the court, the presumption follows that Clair would accept her fate and never read.  Judge Lipman writes: the district court need not review findings that are not objected to under de novo or any other standard.  Taking advantage of Clair’s inability to hire an attorney Judge Lipman excuses her failure to act in accordance with the Code of Ethics of her position… When the impartiality of a judge is in doubt, the appropriate remedy is to disqualify that judge from rehearing further proceedings in the matter.  Judge Lipman and Judge Vescovo’s compromised position and continued control and sway over outcome has denied Clair her due process rights under the fourteenth amendment and that “under circumstances in which judicial bias was probable, due process, required disqualification.” (Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. and Code of Conduct for United States Judges.)      

Order Dismissing Case and Striking Plaintiff's Second Amended Compliant; 12/28/2016, 3 pages; Judge Sheryl Lipman

Within this order there are multiple slanderous inerrancies which alter and slant the Factual Allegations toward dismissal.  Additionally an entirely new date is proposed that the case is Time Barred which, with no explanation obliterates the previous date and renders Clair’s previous objections to Time Barred appear unreliable.  Further, this new date that the case is Time Barred is proposed after the period that it is assumed Clair can rightfully object.  This gamesmanship is the strategy of a Defense Team and not the role of a District Court Judge screening a Civil RICO complaint to any degree of fairness. 

            a.)  Page 2: “The court previously found that a date no later than March 28, 2012, prior to Ms. Clair leaving her home…” 
In the entirety of what Judge Lipman and Judge Vescovo assert, nowhere are the factual allegations surrounding the brutal ouster of Clair from her home and the illegal misrepresentations of authority at the midpoint of the flipping scam on 4/25/2012 described. Clair did not “leave” her home.  Clair was “forced” from her home.  Between 3/23/2012 and 4/25/2012 Clair was harassed, lied to, and bullied.  Clair described this traumatic treatment perpetrated by the “Criminal Enterprise Muscle.” Described in the Original Compliant of 4/20/2016 and repeated in the SECOND AMENDED COMPLIANT of 11/15/2016, under the heading: ILLEGAL SIEZURE / CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE MUSCLE; paragraph No. 160 thru paragraph No. 169. 
            Clair takes particular exception to the brutal experience surrounding the illegal seizure of her home, usage of the words: “leaving her home” to indicate a voluntary decision.  It is as if, Judge Vescovo and Judge Lipman cannot conceive of such abuse by America’s largest banks networked to the REO Industry and thus they malign the complaint as written in biased service to the Defendants. 
            (b) Clair previously addressed the errors in the 12/28/2016: ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT.  She did so within the AMENDED VERSION OF THIS LETTER / MOTION of 3/7/2017.  Per this 3/7/2017 filing Clair wrote to the District Court requesting clarity regarding the Sixth Circuit 2/24/2017 ruling that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals lack jurisdiction to hear Clair’s appeal because: No final or appealable order terminating all the issues in the litigation has been entered by district court…  The amended complaint remains pending. (No: 16-6672) / remains pending as of 2/27/2017 and not as of 12/28/2016.
The Amended Complaint that remains pending is the SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT of 11/15/2015 which to date has not been ruled on. 
So as not to be redundant Clair quotes from: AMENDED VERSION OF THIS LETTER / MOTION of 3/7/2017.  Under the heading: SECOND DATE THAT IT IS PROPOSED THAT THIS CIVIL RICO CASE IS TIME BARRED ADDRESSED – Paragraph No. 13 thru Paragraph No. 27.  Repeated here in its entirety. 
13.)  It was not the job of prescreening to weigh, rewrite, and omit evidence so as to end the RICO Clock at two separately asserted dates.  The second date proposed at the last hour which effectively disenfranchised Clair of her right to defend Time Barred as of the newly and suddenly proposed second date of 3/28/2012.  It is perhaps the case that the District Court Judge finally realized they could not hang Time Barred on the 3/19/2012 foreclosure charade that never took place, but was in every respect a fraud ploy to accomplish the illegal seizure.    
14.)  The first proposed date that the case was TIME BARRED was 3/19/2012.  From AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL, page 16.  Reads: “Injury occurred when the property was sold on 3/19/2012.”  The foreclosure charade of 3/19/2012 and phony “Fayette County Judge’s Order of Eviction” were fraud tools, without which Clair could not be convinced to leave her home, under threat and harassment on 4/25/2012. 
15.)  In the ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, dated 12/28/2016, page 2, it is wrongly asserted: “The Court previously found that a date no later than March 28, 2012, prior to Ms. Clair leaving her home, she retained counsel to contact BANA, showing that she was aware of her injury prior to the date she physically left her home”  The footnote reads: “The date that Ms. Clair should have known of her injury remains unchanged, and, thus, she alleges no new allegations which could form the basis for a claim upon which relief may be granted.”  Does the District Court Judge(s) forget the earlier date of 3/19/2012?  Did they fail to read that (unknown to Clair at the time) at this juncture BANA was no longer the Servicer of the mortgage; had not been the Servicer since 5/19/2011?  That AMS Servicing, LLC were masquerading as the MHA Department within BANA?  Or, that Bank of New York Mellon had been paid off by funds illegally obtained (at a loss to the CWALT Investors) September 2011.  It is true that Clair asked her attorney to contact BANA.  Clair was totally and completely deceived into believing that BANA was servicing her mortgage.  Out of context, misrepresentation of facts to serve a point that is not valid is a criminal defense ploy. This slick defense maneuver, not the behavior one expects from an unbiased federal judge. 
16.)  In the rush to dismiss the District Court deprives Clair of her right to have the factual allegations believed.  Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6), all factual allegations of the plaintiff are to be believed and the claims must not be dismissed unless it appears that the plaintive can prove no set of facts pursuant to his or her allegations which would entitle the plaintiff to relief.[1] 
17.)  Having proposed an entirely different date that the case is Time Barred requires that Clair address an entirely different set of circumstances. Circumstances not addressed when she wrote the OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS which addressed the former date of 3/19/2012, i.e. the phony foreclosure. 
18.)  When Clair wrote that the Cooperative Short Sale Confidence Scheme extended from 2/10/2012 thru 3/23/2012 she referred to the criminal step-actions of the Jones, Kelley, Boyd Perpetrator Nexus.   This sophisticated chain of theft was only seen by her over a lengthy period of investigation that did not begin as a process until August 2012, after the illegal seizure on 4/25/2012.  These perpetrators periodically executed one con-artist scheme after another, each tailored to Clair’s efforts to save her home, the perpetrators discarding the former scheme only after the intended purpose was accomplished.  Thus, what Clair meant to communicate, and in fact did communicate, is that the perpetrator-requirement for this particular scheme ended on the day that Hattie Brawley showed up at Clair’s door on 3/23/2012 claiming that Clair’s home was sold in a foreclosure sale, that a Fayette County Judge had ordered her eviction, and the Sheriff was poised to execute that order (all lies).  Not that Clair recognized any of this.  Given her pursuit of justice with a huge learning curve from August 2012 thru today, with multiple obstacles, vague suspicion uninformed by facts is not the same as knowing. (Knowing a hard won battle.  Even if I had known a fraction of what I know today, desperate to either sell my home or achieve a HAMP Modification, I would never have left my home 4/25/2012.) It is a fact that the Property Flip Scheme could not be recognized until the last fraud perfecting instruments were filed in the public land records.  For reasons described in the compliant(s) this did not take place until after the 8/20/2012 Evolve Bank and Trust FHA Loan had safely closed; filed 9/4/2012; Exhibit #5, Exhibit #6, Exhibit #7.  Document fraud also omitted from any mention in the Dismissal.       
19.)  The District Court proposed that because Clair had legal representation on 3/28/2012 she should have recognized the Property Flip – Equity Skimming Scheme.  Counsel retained by Clair represented her for one day.  Malcolm Futhey (Futhey) of Farris, Bobango, Branan PLC, knew only what Clair told him; that the foreclosure was a “mistake” because she had been entered into this new program that did not actually exist.[2] Just as Clair believed that there had been a valid HAMP Application Process up to and after 4/25/2012, she believed in the validity of what had been aggressively “sold” to her as the Cooperative Short Sale option.
20.)  Clair wrote in her complaint of 4/20/2016, Paragraph #:227; starting mid-paragraph: “The following month Christopher Kohl “voluntarily” postponed the February foreclosure upon assertions that because Ms. Clair was under this new and special BANA program for seniors with equity in their homes i.e., the Cooperative Short Sale Confidence Scheme, convincing Ms. Clair that foreclosure was no longer a threat and framing this carrot in typical white collar con artist fashion… that she could accomplish the same goal while saving expense associated with Chapter 13.  She could sell her home and pay all outstanding debt under the terms of this “new” and “special program” designed specifically by BANA for “seniors with equity in their homes.” 
21.) In the ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of 10/19/2016, Judge Lipman summarizes (page 9) “(1) she was aware that she was being evicted from the property well before her actual move-out date of April 25, 2012.”  This is NOT true.  On 3/28/2012 Clair was successfully conned to believe that foreclosure was no longer a threat and that she was communicating with Bank of America.  Thus Clair concluded that the foreclosure she learned of from Chamberwood/Brawley on 3/23/2012 was a mistake.  And thus Clair wrongly surmised that, upon realizing this “mistake” BANA would reverse the (bogus) foreclosure.  Clair’s ignorance of what was actually going on is evidenced by what she told her attorney on 3/28/2012.  Reflected in what Malcolm Futhey, in turn, emailed to Christopher Kohl on 3/28/2012, which indicates that Futhey, along with Clair, trusted that Kohl was a BANA employee; which he was not.  Reads in part:  “all I need to know at this point is (1) whether Bank of America’s foreclosure was a mistake; (2) if the foreclosure was a mistake, whether the foreclosure will be corrected; and (3) the amount for which the home sold at foreclosure, (Exhibit #53.) 
22.)  Chamberwood/Brawley communicated with Futhey by both phone and fax; Fax: Exhibit #:54.  Chamberwood/Brawley faxed Futhey 21 pages which included the Keller Williams, REO ID#:00906148, the 2-page Equator Work Order, and additional documents that Brawley was aggressively, in blitz like attacks, harassing Clair to sign, in particular, the “cash for keys” agreement.  Clair did not sign any of these documents.
23.)   At this time Clair had no knowledge of a Property Flip Scheme, that term not in her vocabulary.  She had no idea of the significance of the REO ID#, or even what REO meant.  However, Futhey had enough information in hand by end of day on 3/28/2012 to realize that Clair’s home was owned, not by Bank of America, but by REO Private Investors.  And that the Keller Williams Private Investors, along with the local eviction company, Weiss, Spicer, Cash PLLC were claiming to evict a “renter” (James Wooldridge) and not a homeowner (Clair).  The pretense of evicting a “renter” maintained the ongoing fraud narrative that enabled the first illegal devaluation by $134,000 and sale 5/16/2011 (Bank Fraud).   Based on the forged Certificate of Abandonment, the fraudsters needed to sustain the originating fraud narrative of an abandoned and derelict property.  This fraud perfecting fiction asserted in other trailing documents, including the IRS 1099’s; lying to the Internal Revenue Service.  
24.)  It follows that Futhey realized, on 3/28/2012, that what Clair believed was not true.  There could not possibly be in play the special program for seniors with equity in their homes; that did not in fact exist.  Clair could not sell what, at least on paper per Document Fraud, she did not own.  At this point Clair’s home had already been flipped amongst same Note Owners three times and which did not include the cash realized from a bogus Home Improvement Loan.  Reading the Equator Work Order, noting the REO ID#, and after speaking to Weiss, Spicer, Cash PLLC. Futhey recognized Keller Williams as the secret Note Owner and immediately connected this to his own Collins Maury Case, Exhibit #64.  Filed on 11/10/2011 against Defendant: “MEM 2, LLC d/b/a Keller Williams Realty….  Franchise owner David Osborn (corporate espionage and internet hacking). At this point Futhey was aware that this was the same Keller Williams REO Investment Group that had targeted Clair’s home, having a history of operating in the shadows amid a culture of criminality.  Futhey made no warning to Clair who at this point, had no recognition that Keller Williams was the real listing company and that Vernon Wayne Boyd, who along with his wife, would emerge into the public records as straw buyers per Exhibit #:5; withheld from public filing until after the Evolve Bank & Trust Loan Closing of 8/20/2012. The 2nd page patched in from an entirely different and earlier filing instrument which of course is Document Fraud; totally ignored by the District Court. 
25.)  Clair’s ongoing belief, under the sway of skilled con-artists that she had been entered into this new and special BANA program for seniors with equity in their homes, therefore foreclosure and pending eviction a mistake is additionally evidenced in what she communicated to her Crye Leike Realtor, Carole Ann Burns (Burns).  Seeking clarity, Burns emailed Kohl twice on 4/16/2012.  This was after Futhey had abruptly dropped Clair as a client on 3/28/2012.  Having represented Clair for one day, claiming a conflict of interest when in truth, the two cases, informed the same culture of criminality.  With no disclosure or warming to Clair it is mystery why this decision was made.  Perhaps the decision itself may be informed by the Weiss Spicer information redacted from the copy of the Equator Work Order faxed to Webb Brewer’s office per request of Futhey three years later.        
26.)  To clarify…  During the earlier conference call of 2/13/2012 Kohl was precise to tell Clair to give his contact information to Burns. This was to control the flow of information, a feature throughout the chain of theft.  If Burns doubted this “new” BANA program she was unlikely to call BANA herself, learning that the program did not exist.  Seeking clarity, reflecting Clair’s wrong understanding of what is really taking place, Burns emailed Kohl 4/16/2012.  Reads in part: “Is this house in foreclosure?  Do want to sell it for her but not if there is no house available in her name to sell;” (Exhibit #58).  In the second email, also dated 4/16/2012, Burns again emailed Kohl that she had a buy-offer on Clair’s home.  Missing are any return emails from Kohl to Burns. Missing are any return emails from Kohl to Futhey.
27.  Clair did not see this email regarding a buy offer until two years later on 5/6/2014.  Exhibit #:59, dropped into the deposition mix as Disclosure #:16, by the BANA attorney.  Burns wrote: “Above is authorization release – on above referenced property – owner is Alexandra Clair – she wants to list the property at a very reasonable list price.  Is this permissible???  Is it in foreclosure presently?  Please advise as we do to have an offer with no house to sell;” Exhibit #:59.  Obviously Kohl never fielded this offer to BANA or anyone else since he was working for the Jones, Kelley, Boyd Perpetrator Nexus – REO Private Investor Group who had owned Clair’s home since 5/16/2011 forward.  This was price fixing per a flipping scam.  This was stolen property never intended to be offered to the general public at fair market value until every bit of equity had been siphoned off; standard operating procedure for this version of the Property Flip – Equity Skimming Scheme.   

That the Banking Industry can influence this case via the cooperating bias of a Federal Judge; rubber stamped by another Federal Judge is troublesome to say the least. 

This Document submitted with the expectation that these serious, slanderous errors will be addressed.  That an unbiased federal judge would be assigned to pre-screen the Civil RICO – Second Amended Complaint of November 15, 2016 which the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals claims is pending as of February 24, 2017.   And will do so within the limits of screening; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) Screening.   

Submitted this 1st day of May, 2017.

Alexandra Clair: __________________________________

[1] Windsor v. The Tennessean, 719 F.2d 155, 158 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 826, 105 S.CT. 105, 83 L.ED.2d 50 (1984); Chartrand v. Chrysler Corp., 785 F. Supp. 666, 669 (E.D. Mich. 1992).
[2] The Cooperative Short Sale Confidence Scheme; Heading No.24, Paragraph #.263 thru Paragraph #.302 from the Original Compliant of 4/20/2016.  The Cooperative Short Sale Confidence Scheme was also detailed, with new information related to possible securities fraud; Amended Complaint of 8/23/2016 and Second Amended Compliant of 11/15/2016.    







IS WATER THE SPECIAL DOMAIN OF EVIL SPIRITS? I was asked this question / read my answer below and ask: What does an alarmist concept steal?


SLANDER: A Personal Perspective


Popular posts from this blog