1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Jane Doe 7512 Happy Valley View Avenue Pleasantville, California


Case no. MxxxxxXXX

Jane Doe Counter-Plaintiff vs. US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Et.Al. Counter-Defendant

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Counter Claim or Cross Complaint Trespass Trespass on the Case


35 In the Common Law and For the Record, Know all Men By These Presents: 36 Comes now, one Jane Doe, one of the people of California and in this Court of Record, does complain 37 that: SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SONOMA has exceeded it’s 38 jurisdiction and that US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION has not proven it has a claim for which 39 relief can be granted, by failing to prove [it’s] right of possession, in it’s complaint for unlawful 40 detainer, and has committed Trespass and Trespass on the Case against me and I have been injured 41 by their fraudulent attempt to unlawfully take valuable assets in excess of $500,000 from me, I seek

1 treble the damages they seek to take from me, or One and One-half million ($1,500,000) dollars in 2 damages. 3 The documents sent to the Principals, including but not limited to the alleged Lender [RESIDENTIAL 4 MORTGAGE CAPITAL and it’s assign INDY MAC BANK], and attorney Cisneros (representing the 5 alleged current ‘Lender’) the alleged Trustee [CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY], and the alleged 6 Beneficiary [“MERS”] included: copies of all documents that were recorded under Recorder’s 7 number 2009.XXXXXXXXX, and exhibits A, B, and C all of which are attached as evidence in this 8 CounterClaim. These documents were sent Registered or Certified Mail to the Principals with ‘proof of 9 service’. Also attached in this Counterclaim are Exhibits ‘E’,’F’,‘G’, and copies of the original 10 Promissory Note, and Deed of Trust. 11 12 I, one Jane Doe decree the requirements for a lawful contract are: 1. a “meeting of the minds” must be 13 in effect, a full disclosure by each party to the contract of all it’s aspects, 2. an exchange of “valuable 14 consideration” must take place, and 3. two or more wet-ink signatures must be signed by flesh and 15 blood people (either directly or as agents) under the full commercial liability of each party. 16 17 The Principals involved in the Promissory Note and Deed of Trust had no authority to claim Jane Doe 18 owed them a debt as no proof of claim was ever shown to exist. Fraud by a corporation vitiates and 19 makes ultra vires any contract in touches. The Law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. 20 “There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, 21 and even judgments.” US vs Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61. 22 23 NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPAL, AND VICE-VERSA 24 25 1. US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION has committed fraud by claiming to the SONOMA 26 COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT that they are the “TRUSTEE” of record for the Mortgage Deed 27 described in the documentation attached as “Notice of [Cancellation], [Revocation of Power of 28 Attorney], and [Removal of Trustee and Beneficiary]” when they are not named as such in the original 29 Deed of Trust and no required ‘Notice’ was ever received by Jane Doe of their being appointed to the 30 position. 31 2. The Trustor, Jane Doe has removed the original Trustee and or any assigns as noted in the 32 amendment to the Mortgage Deed of Trust, signed and Notarized on September 28th, 2009.

1 3. 3 4. 4 5.

The instruments were recorded into the Public Record in Texas on 10/05/2009 and can be seen The Sonoma County Recorder had refused to Record the documents as outlined in Affidavit ‘R’. All Principals have received the document package sent Registered Mail or Certified Mail with

2 online at National Republic Registry.com as Recorders’ # ZZZZZZZZZZZ @ 14:19:36.

5 ‘proof of service’, and neither rebuttal, nor objection has been received. The Trustee of record on the 6 original Deed of Trust received the documents on 10/01/09 and the attorneys claiming to represent the 7 assigned ‘Lender’ (INDYMAC/ONE WEST BANK) received the documents on 10/05/09. 8 6. The entity known as US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION is trying to fraudulently take 9 possession of real property (which is part of the valuable assets created by the energy of Jane Doe 10 worth in excess of $500,000) as can easily be proven by a complete forensic accounting of the 11 documents involved in the Mortgage Deed of Trust and Promissory Note associated with it. Forms 12 provided by RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE CAPITAL the original alleged “Lender” should include a 13 FR2046 (showing the original balance sheet), an IRS form 1099OID which will identify who the 14 principal funds originated from, which capital and interest was taken and who the recipient of the funds 15 is, and who is holding the account in escrow, unadjusted. Form S3-A (registration) to show if, when 16 and where the Promissory Note was sold. The 424 B-5 prospectus (security filing), RC-S and RC-B 17 call schedules, and FAS 125, 133, 140, 5, and 95 forms are required. 18 7. The alleged “Lender”, “Trustee”, and “Beneficiary” have neither produced any evidence that 19 they are the ‘holder in due course’ of the original ‘wet-ink’ signed Promissory Note, and Deed of Trust 20 documents nor shown they actually have a proof of claim to a debt owed to them. 21 Attachments are: 1.All Recorded ‘Notices’,’addendums’, etc. (6 pages), 2. copies of ‘Proof of Service’, 22 and Registered or Certified mail numbers, 3.Exhibits ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, originally mailed to the Principals, 23 4. Original Loan Documents, and Points and Authorities of Jane Doe. 24 The Plaintiff’s remedy is to: prove authority to act as Trustee and that the alleged ‘loan’ was a lawful 25 contract, or pay the Damages requested. 26 Further more I say not, this day _________, in the month of ___________, 2009. 27 Witness my hand and seal: 28 29 30 31 32 Without Prejudice, By:___________________ Trustor/authorized representative Seal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Notes: This is not to be construed as legal advice. A COUNTERCLAIM has to have a challenge to JURISDICTION to gain sovereign/common law superior position into place. Watch Bill Thornton’s videos. This counterclaim came about by filing the Foreclosure Docs and getting a default/Estoppel first. This process takes about 30 days so if you are up against a ‘trustee’ sale file bankruptcy to give yourself the 30 days and then back out of the Bankruptcy. Once you file for bankruptcy you give the Judge authority to do, as he will with your property and assets. An unlawful detainer was filed against the homeowner. An “answer” was put in to the unlawful detainer wherein the accusations were mostly “denied”. The “answer” has to be filed within 21 days of the original complaint being file stamped, (Federal rules of Civil Procedure). Then we entered this counterclaim into the court. At the time the homeowner did not realize the home had been “sold” at an auction (trustee sale) that she had not been made aware of. It didn’t really matter as it still stands in the accusations that the original lender had no authority to require a ‘sale’ in the first place and you can’t sell what you don’t own. Trespass is where the other side is using some physical force to relieve you of some possession. Trespass on the case is where no physical force is used. The sheriff evicting you would be the force. This is designed to be a common law action by “one of the People” in other words (Sovereign) and in this “court of record” (a common law court) declares…or Decrees (makes law)… The Banks Trustees have issued a “MOTION TO STRIKE” the counterclaim. We put in an opposition to the Motion. The hearing was held and the judge ruled against us (what a shock) saying he ‘read all the paperwork’ we had submitted, denied me the opportunity to ‘speak’ as counsel for the ‘victim’ and stated under California law the counterclaim was ‘inappropriate’. He looked for 5 minutes trying to find our “answer” to the Unlawful Detainer and if we hadn’t had filed it, he would have issued a default and ruled then and there for the Bank-eviction ordered. We had filed an answer so he set trial. We filed a ‘WRIT OF ERROR’ outlining the defects in the hearing. We filed a demand for a Jury trial also if one would be necessary. The judge wasn’t fair and impartial, stated in court it was “his court”, refused to address the issues the defendant/counter-Plaintiff brought up in the “opposition” to the motion to strike. One of the points we brought up in the ‘opposition’ was the judge had no ‘jurisdiction’ to remove our complaint (COUNTERCLAIM) as we are sovereign. The “WRIT OF ERROR” has to address the defects and issues an “order” to vacate the rulings of that day in regards to this case, it gives a time period to “show cause” to our court a brief suggesting any modifications and why.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful