1 BRIAN W DAVIES’

43277 SENTIERO DRIVE

2 INDIO, CA 92203
B.DAVIESMD@GMAIL.COM
3 ATTORNEY IN PRO SE
4 760-904-4928 FAX 760-406-9865 OR 760-673-7097
5
6 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
7 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
8 LARSEN JUSTICE CENTER
9
10
BRIAN W DAVIES CASE NO. INC 090697
11
PLAINTIFF FIRST VERIFIED
12 AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR DAMAGES
13 UNLIMITED CIVIL
IN EXCESS OF
14 $25,000
VS.
15 ____________________
16 NDEX WEST LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK PLAINTIFF’s OBJECTION
NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE
17 OF THE RESIDENTIAL ASSET TO APPENDIX IN SUPPORT
SECURITIZATION TRUST 2007-A5, MORTGAGE
18 PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES OF NDEX WEST LLC AND
2007-E UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING
19 AGREEMENT DATED 3-1-07 ONEWEST BANK, FBS
20 INDYMAC MORTGAGE SERVICING, DEMURRERS TO PLAINTIFF’S
A DIVISION OF ONEWEST BANK, OPTEUM,
21 UNIVERSAL AMERICAN MORTGAGE COMPANY FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
22 OF CALIFORNIA, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., UAMC LLC,
23 DOES 1-20
24
25 TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
26 Plaintiff, Brian W Davies does hereby object to all documents IN APPENDIX
27 establishing unproven facts and conclusions. Exhibits are not authenticated and consist
28 of irrelevant and/or here say information that is inadmissible pursuant to
 1 Rules 401 et seq. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
2 substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues,
3 or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless
4 presentation of cumulative evidence”. .And 801 et seq. “Here say”. These documents
5 lay a foundation that is unproven. The requirements to record a document does not
6 demonstrate that it is authentic.
7 The purpose of the entire complaint is to search for honest facts that are
8 legitimate and proven. This maneuver is another attempt to manipulate the system and
9 abuse homeowners. Defendants NDEX WEST LLC, and INDYMAC MORTGAGE
10 SERVICES, A DIVISION OF ONEWEST BANK FSB. is represented as one and the
11 same.
12 Neither of these are creditors (owners of the promissary note with its
13 security interest of the property in which the Plaintiff resides). Plaintiff is looking to
14 find the true creditor he may owe. This is another attempt to avoid allowing the debtor to
15 directly deal with the creditor. The only people making any money are these
16 intermediaries that block direct dealings.
17 Furthermore, the two cases sited to support Judicial Notice are rare events
18 using evidence code 452 (g) and should not be construed to be used without concerns
19 for innocent homeowners. California Court search of Judicial Notice using Evidence
20 Code 452 (g), is a rare find and should not be allowed as routine. For these records to
21 be legitimate legislative acts are a stretch of reason.
22 Additionally, In Evans v.California Trailer Court Inc, 28 App. 4th 540, 549,33 Cal.
23 Rptr. 2nd 646 (1994) the case is not on point. In Evans there was no objection when the
24 request for judicial notice was given. In the case at bar, Plaintiff objects and further asks
25 the Court to prove up the ownership with actual documents.
26 These same authentic original documents have already been submitted to
27
28 2
 1 defendants as production of documents. These documents have been served and are
2 nearly due for review. To block the judicial process now would not shorten the courts
3 time, for the truth is the truth and original documents are needed to view.
4 The second case sited: Cal-American Income Property II v. County of Los
5 Angeles., 208 Cal. App 3rd 109. 112. 256 Cal. Rptr. 21 (1989) was dealing with property
6 taxes and ownership as outlined below, and not a complicated mortgage back
7 securitization in which the third seller of the Mortgage–Indymac Bank FSB–was taken
8 over by the FDIC as it went bankrupt. Many articles published by the government
9 suggest fraud and mishandling of Mortgages in forming $16 billion in Mortgage Backed
10 Securities. In Cal-American Income Property II:
11 “The sole shareholder of Cal-American Management Inc. was a general partner
of Cal-American. County Counsel has formally requested this court to take
12 judicial notice of the Los Angeles County Recorder's recordation of these trust
deeds as being official acts of the executive department. (Evid.Code § 452, subd.
13 ©.)
14 Cal-American has opposed the request because these documents were introduced in
neither the administrative proceedings nor the superior court action.
15
Judicial notice is permissible even if the matter has not heretofore been judicially noticed
16 as long as each party is afforded a reasonable opportunity to present information
relevant to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter to be
17 noticed. (Evid.Code, § 459; People v. Terry (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 432, 439, 113
Cal.Rptr. 233 and cases cited therein.)
18
19 At bench, such opportunity has been afforded. Cal-American does not question
the authenticity of the documents subject to the request. Moreover, in the
20 proceedings below, references were made to the trust deeds, the foreclosure
proceedings initiated thereon and the subsequent settlement of said litigation. In
21 view of these factors, the request for judicial notice is granted. In December
1983, entries were made in Cal-American's records reversing that decision and
22 reinstating its claim of ownership of the building.
23
24 The Appendix is the way to avoid view the original documents and are

25 submitted to build a foundation which concludes with bias. Plaintiff argues that to

26 use recording documents for Judicial Notice is abusive to an equitable process of

27 litigation and examination of the documents. This is a fundamental right of due process.

28 3
 1 Plaintiff respectfully requests that this court deny Judicial Notice of such
2 unauthenticated and self serving document for they are the center of the debtor-creditor
3 issue. Plaintiff wishes to directly deal with the owner of his property to come to a
4 resolution. Plaintiffs property value is now $208,000 well under the $560,000 appraisal
5 and sale in 2006.
6
7
INDYMAC MORTGAGE SERVICES, A DIVISION OF ONEWEST BANK, FSB HAS
8
RECEIVED $626,000,000 OF GOVERNMENT MONIES TO HELP HOMEOWNERS.
9
10
11
12 Plaintiff, Brian W Davies verifies that this is true and factual written with his pen.
13
14
15
16
17 February 4, 2010

18 _______________________
19
BRIAN W DAVIES IN PROSE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 4