Valerie Lopez (SPACE BELOW FOR FILE STAMP ONLY)

1 143 North Center Street

2 Orange California 92866
Telephone: (619) 343-9729
3
4 Defendant, In Pro Per
5
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE

9 CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
10
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE ) [UNLIMITED JURISDICTION]
11 CORPORATION )
) Case No.: RIC 190432
)
12 ) Assigned for all purposes to:
) Judge: CRAIG REIMER
13 Plaintiff, )
)
14 ) DEFENDANT’S NOTICE AND MOTION
vs.
) TO SET-ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT
15 )
) JUDGMENT, IF ENTERED:
16 VALERIE LOPEZ , )
)  CCP §473(b)
17 AND DOES 1-20, )  CCP §473.5
)  CCP §473(d)
18 )  AND QUASH SERVICE OF
Defendants. ) SUMMONS (CCP §418.10)
19 )  CCP 170.3(c ) (5)
)  VIOLATION 11 USC 524a2
20 )  SLANDER OF TITLE CLAIM
) IN FAVOR OF VALERIE
21 ) LOPEZ
)  CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL
22 ) CODE 3203(d);
) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
23 ) DECLARATION OF VALERIE LOPEZ
)
24 ) Date:
) Dept/Time:  Dept. 1____at _____ p.m.
25 )  Dept. _____ at ____ a.m.
)
26 ) [Specially Appearing, pursuant to Cal.
Const., Art. 1, 6 & 7 and CCP §418.10]
27
28 Trial Date: Not Set

1
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE AND MOTION TO SET-ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT
JUDGMENT, IF ENTERED
 1 TO EACH PARTY AND TO THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY:
2 \\\

3 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT at the above-captioned date and time and

4 department in the courthouse located at 4050, Riverside, California that Defendant will move

5 the court for an order requesting that the Judgment entered December 3, 2021, be set aside,

6 as well as an order quashing the service of the Summons due to lack of jurisdiction pursuant

7 to CCP § 418.10(a)(1) and VIOLATION 11 USC 524a2 . This motion is made on the

8 following grounds:

9  Inadvertence, surprise, mistake, or excusable neglect (CCP §473(b));

10  Service of the Summons did not result in actual notice (CCP §473.5);

11  The judgment and/or default is void (CCP §473(d));

 VIOLATION OF 11 USC 524a2
12
 VIOLATION OF CCP 170.3(c ) (5)
13
 Case is based on Slander of Title Actions of Plaintiff knowingly
14
 AND QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS (CCP §418.10)
15
This motion is brought under the authority of California Constitution Article 1, Section 1
16
& 7 and pursuant to the Statutory authority of Code of Civil Procedure §418.10(d). Upon its
17
review of the statutory authorities cited and relied upon by the Defendant’s memorandum of
18
points and authorities and Declaration herein, this Court will find unequivocally that the
19
complaint is a complete fraud upon the court, as predicated on a false judicial proceeding to
20
extort property from Defendant, in violation of the Policy governing contracting law, in asserting
21
false and fraudulent material facts, to procure a judgment by means of a fraud, to unlawfully
22
deprive Defendant of his Constitutional and Statutorily protected property in this action. Conduct
23
of the officers of the court in presenting this complaint before this court and the Judge in refusing
24
to dismiss this false proceeding demonstrating contempt for the laws of this State, has effectually
25
aid and abetted the fraud upon the court. May 2018 at that hearing held, Valerie Lopez filed a
26
STAY ON THE PROCEEDINGS with the court with its attachments – Lopez’ Bankruptcy
27
Schedule F and discharge Federal Injunction confirming the unsecured debt was listed on
28

2
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE AND MOTION TO SET-ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT
JUDGMENT, IF ENTERED
 1 Schedule F making the sum now zero. The discharge of the unsecured debt held at all times by a

2 Security Exchange Commission Trust and still trading since January 6, 2006. Federal Home

3 Loan Mortgage Corporation or the first assignee being the Security Exchange Trust still in

4 possession of the unsecured debt never had beneficial interest in the of a paper note or paper

5 deed of trust on January 6, 2006 (as evidenced by public land records on January 6, 2006). In

6 September 2009, Anglin Flewelling Rasmussen and Aldridge Pite Attorneys committed fraud on

7 the court claiming Wells Faro Bank owned a valid secured paper note and paper deed of trust.

8 The attorneys lied to the Federal Bankruptcy Court. The attorney knew that a Wall Street trust

9 held the unsecured debt without possession of the paper note and paper deed of trust. The

10 attorneys used a fraudulent Assignment of Deed of Trust ( signed for a dead State of California

11 foreign corporation GN Mortgage LLC) in the Bankruptcy court and received bankruptcy orders

12 under color of law as affirmed by Judge Robert Kwan. On 12/7/2011, the attorney did a re-do

13 Assignment of Deed of Trust to fix the fraud on the court document and failed to tell the BK

14 court of their fraud actions of 12/7/2011. Lopez discharged the debt as unsecured May 2012.

15 Lopez planned to settle with parties with no authority by filing a BK 20 as directed by Judge

16 Kwan in May 2014. Dean Rallis of Anglin Flewelling Rasmussen cried like a baby to the

17 substituted BK judge in May 2014 about the BK 20. The BK judge an ex- BofA judge who was

18 recently removed from her post dismissed my BK 20 without any just reason. Judge Reimer and

19 other Riverside Court administrators continue to violate the Federal Injunction pursuant to 11

20 USC 524 (a) (2) and now makes the Riverside at risk for claims.

21 JUDICIAL NOTICE

22 California Code of Civil Procedure §418.10(d), states, in pertinent part: No default may

23 be entered against the defendant before expiration of his or her time to plead, and no motion

24 under this section, or under Section 473 …, shall be deemed a general appearance by the

25 defendant. [Emphasis added]

26 OBJECTION

27
28

3
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE AND MOTION TO SET-ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT
JUDGMENT, IF ENTERED
 1 DEFENDANT HEREBY OBJECTS to Plaintiff’s attorney of record willful and

2 deliberate contempt for the laws of this State, for direct violations against Defendant, VALERIE

3 LOPEZ (herein “LOPEZ”), due process rights to unlawfully seek the default of Defendant for

4 failure to serve a summons upon the alleged Defendant, as in a deliberate attempt to circumvent

5 the rights of Defendant, in direct violation of California Constitution, Article 1, Section 7. The

6 mail house was never authorized to accept legal service. This is new found California law which

7 confirms my Motion to Quash was proper and I should not have been forced to answer when the

8 court never had jurisdiction.

9 California Code of Civil Procedure §410.10, states: A court of this state may exercise

10 jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this State or of the United States.

11 California Code of Civil Procedure §418.10(d), Supra, clearly states that “ No default may

12 be entered against the defendant before expiration of his or her time to plead.”

13 Plaintiff’s Counsel is still assuming that the Court has personal and subject-matter

14 jurisdiction over Defendant. A default judgment cannot be entered where jurisdiction is in

15 question for due process reasons that are inconsistent with the Constitution.

16 Therefore, the submission of Plaintiff counsel’s request for a judgment is a direct

17 violation of law mentioned herein on objection and should be dismissed accordingly. The

18 Plaintiff’s attorney is requesting the State of California Superior Court to violate a 11 USC 524

19 (a) (2). California Commercial Code makes clear the ramifications in case Plaintiff, et al did not

20 comply with the statutory laws applicable to tangible instruments when the note still evidenced

21 the debt, The transferee obtains no rights under this division and has only the rights of a partial assignee. If a

22 transferor purports to transfer less than the entire instrument, negotiation of the instrument does not occur.  Ca

23 Commercial Code 3203(d). The transferee obtains no rights under this division and has only the rights of a partial

24 assignee. The reason it was required to discharge Schedule F on Bankruptcy filings. The
25 acts of opposing attorneys have at all times been Unfair, Deceptive, Abusive or practices
26 prohibited pursuant to Dodd Frank Act. Lopez tried to work with the opposing
27
28

4
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE AND MOTION TO SET-ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT
JUDGMENT, IF ENTERED
 1 attorneys by filing BK 20 to settle matter to stop the abuse, but the opposing attorney
2 chose to initiate a taxable issue and create a Punitive Damage claim for Lopez’s benefit.
3 Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Defendant and Plaintiff is not entitled to

4 having standing to sue, as a matter of law, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP)

5 §473(d), nor a claim, pursuant to Civil Code (CC) §1550 et seq., as a matter of law, for the

6 reasons herein stated and submits the following memorandum of points and authorities, and

7 supporting declaration thereto.

8 WHEREFORE, this moving defendant prays:

9 1. For an order sustaining the within motion;

10 2. For costs of suit and attorney fees;

11 3. For such other relief as the court deems proper.

12 Dated: December 12, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

13
14 _________________________________
Valerie Anne Lopez, Defendant, In Suis Juris
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE AND MOTION TO SET-ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT
JUDGMENT, IF ENTERED
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Page
2
I. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1
3
II. Background.....................................................................................................................1
4
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT....................................................................................................2
5
A. THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES INALIENABLE
6
RIGHTS.................................................................................................................2
7
1. Declaration of Rights – Article 1, Section 1, states in pertinent part, as
8 follows:..............................................................................................................2
9 2. Declaration of Rights – Article 1, Section 7, states in pertinent part, as
follows:..............................................................................................................2
10
11 B. THE STANDARDS GOVERNING VOID ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS........2

12 1. Legal Definition: Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1574:..............2

13 1. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent of the parties................................3

14 2. Case Authority for void judgments and orders..................................................3
15
C. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §473(b), the Court Should
16 Set Aside this Default and any Adverse Judgment or Ruling Based on
Inadvertence, Surprise, or Excusable Neglect........................................................3
17
3. Grounds for Relief.............................................................................................4
18
4. Policy of Law Favors Trial on Merits................................................................4
19
20 5. Court Has Wide Discretion in Granting Relief..................................................4

21 6. Liberal Construction of Statute..........................................................................4

22 D. The Court should grant defendant’s motion for relief pursuant to CCP
§473.5 because he/she received no actual notice of the action in time to
23 defend, he/she has filed a timely motion for relief, and the default and
24 default judgment was not caused by the plaintiff’s avoidance of service or
inexcusable neglect................................................................................................4
25
1. Motion for Relief From Default for Lack of Actual Notice..............................4
26
2. Court May Grant Relief on Timely Motion if Defendant Not at Fault..............5
27
28 3. Granting of Relief Within Discretion of Trial Court.........................................5

i
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE AND MOTION TO SET-ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT
JUDGMENT, IF ENTERED
 4. Policy Favors Application for Relief.................................................................5
1
2 E. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET
ASIDE THE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT, IF ENTERED ON
3 THE GROUND THAT IT IS VOID BECAUSE, ALTHOUGH ITS
INVALIDITY MAY NOT APPEAR FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THE
4 JUDGMENT ROLL, IT IS NONETHELESS VOID IN FACT IN THAT
5 THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WERE NEVER VALIDLY
SERVED ON THE DEFENDANT, AND THE DEFENDANT LACKED
6 ACTUAL NOTICE OF THIS LAWSUIT.............................................................5
7 1. Statutory Power to Set Aside Void Judgment....................................................5
8 2. Inherent Power to Set Aside Judgment Not Void on Its Face but Void in
9 Fact.....................................................................................................................6

10 3. Court Has Duty to Set Aside Judgment.............................................................6

11 F. THE COURT SHOULD SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT AND, IF

ENTERED, DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS ACTION AS VOID ON ITS
12 FACE BECAUSE  NO PROOF OF SERVICE WAS FILED  THIS IS
13 A CONSUMER CREDIT DEBT, HOWEVER NO DECLARATION OF
VENUE HAS BEEN FILED AND THE COMPLAINT IS NOT VERIFIED......6
14
1. Relief From Void Judgment or Order................................................................6
15
2. Inherent Power to Set Aside Judgment Void on Its Face..................................6
16
17 3. Test for Establishing That Judgment Is Void on Its Face..................................7

18 4. Judgment Roll When Complaint Not Answered...............................................7

19 G. THE COURT SHOULD QUASH SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS DUE TO

LACK OF JURISDICTION...................................................................................7
20
1. Motion to Quash Service of Summons..............................................................7
21
22 2. Strict Compliance Necessary for Substituted or Constructive Service..............7

23 3. General Appearance After Default Judgment Does Not Validate Defective

Service................................................................................................................8
24
II. CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................8
25
26
27
28

ii
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE AND MOTION TO SET-ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT
JUDGMENT, IF ENTERED
 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 Plaintiff, FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION (herein after
4 referred to as the "FHLMC") lacks standing to sue and has falsely filed an illegal
5 summons and complaint for breach of contract and common counts under an agreement in
6 which the debt is in dispute between the FHLMC and Valerie Ann Lopez, Defendant.
7 William M. Tezak (herein after referred to as “LOPEZ''), disputes the alleged right and
8 possession that FHLMC claims to have to my home based on underlying principles and
9 procedures for property ownership under Generally Accepted Auditing Standards.  The
10 summons and complaint purports to assert California State Court jurisdiction over
11 Defendant LOPEZ and venue within Riverside. However, Defendant LOPEZ did not accept
12 or consent to the violation of the Federal Injunction. Plaintiff does not have standing sue
13 without expressed consent, pursuant to California Civil Code §1565. In addition, the
14 attorneys have violated CA Business and Profession Code 668 by suing individuals who are
15 related to Mortgage Enterprises Investments and relating the bad seed individuals to my
16 initial trustee Mortgage Enterprise Investments as a way put my deed in bad shade and gain
17 favor with the court. The subject deed is a valid deed and was reviewed by County of Orange
18 District Attorney, County Counsel and Orange and Riverside Recorders Office. My deed was
19 recommended by a respected Forensic Accountant and author . The Contract
20 Clause prohibits state governments from specifically legislating to interfere with (or
21 usurp) private contract rights. The complaint and rulings of this court have allowed the
22 perpetuation of a fraud upon the court and entry of void orders. Pursuant to Defendants
23 Constitutional rights to due process and statutory laws, as to California Code of Civil
24 Procedure §473(d), Defendant can bring at anytime a motion to vacate a default or void
25 order(s) where a violation of rights and law result in void decrees, as a matter of law.
26
27
28

1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
NOTICE AND MOTION TO VACATE VOID ORDERS
 1 II. Background

2 December 3, 2021 Plaintiff and the court proceeded with prove uphearing knowing
3 that a 170.1 was filed with the court in the morning of December 3, 2021 by Valerie Lopez.

4 Lopez called the clerk’s office. Lopez was assisted by the staff due to the urgency related to

5 170.1 recusal and confirmed that Judge Riemer’s office would be notified of the170.1.

6 Lopez was confined to work at home and employer will confirm that Lopez called in sick on

7 11/28/2021 showing symptoms of COVID. For this reason, Lopez was not able to serve the

8 170.1 upon Judge Riemer on December 3, 2021. Lopez filed the 170.1 due to Riemer’s

9 continued favor with the opposing attorneys.

10 On 12/2/2021 at 6 a.m. and then again at approx. 2 p.m.( to correct items at the clerks

11 request), Lopez filed a motion to continue the prove up hearing until Lopez’s Motion to

12 Vacate Judgment was heard. Lopez motion is based 473d fraud on the court and violation of
11 USC 524 (a) (2). I related in my motion that I would have a forensic accountant to present
13
accounting records of the discharged the unsecured debt. On December 2, 2021 at 2:34 PM,
14
Judge Riemer’s clerk called and informed me that Judge Riemer had vacated my ex-parte
15
motion which was to be on 12/3/2021 at8:30. My request was reasonable based on violation
16
of 11USC 524(a) (2).
17
At the 12/3/2021 1:30 PM, Judge Riemer told Lopez that she should violate COVID
18
state rules and deliver the170 regardless of COVID quarantine status of Lopez. Judge Riemer
19
stated “the court is now open”. Lopez informed Judge Riemer that the clerk staff devoted
20
close to 15 minutes finding 170.1 document, and the clerk staff expedited the 170.1 to Judge
21
Riemer. Judge Riemer stated that he would proceed with the prove up hearing and strike his
22
own 170.1 in violation CCP§170.3 (c ) (3). The court appears to have entered a judgment,
23
against the Defendant. The moving defendants is now asking for a set aside and vacate that
24
judgement and, if entered, default judgment, as well as an order quashing service of the
25
Summons for lack of jurisdiction. Any order granted to Plaintiff on 12/3/2021 is void. The
26
defendant moved expedient following dismissal of her Ex-Parte Motionon12/2/2021. The
27
170.1 was filed in the morning of 12/3/2021 and the clerk’s verified receipt and transport of
28

2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
NOTICE AND MOTION TO VACATE VOID ORDERS
 1 170.1 at approximately 12:30 p.m. Judge Riemer is aware of the Stay of Proceedings to
2 Enforce a judgment based on 11 USC 524 ( a) ( 2) and should have been amendable to the

3 170.1. The opposing attorneys’ attempt to create a taxable action for Lopez has created a

4 punitive damage claim for me. The fraudulent1099 Abandonment filings are also support for

5 punitive damages in Lopez’s favor. The court is now joining up with the opposing attorneys

6 in getting penalized for creating a taxable action after the discharge of the unsecured debt.

7 The sum of the tangible note is now zero. The opposing attorneys attempt to reconnect the

8 tangible note with a sum of zero to the debt is in violation of US Treasury Regulations and

9 Securities and Exchange Act of 1933. If you bake a cake and you realize that you forgot to

10 put the eggs in, it is too late. The non payment of taxes paid on funds collected from Lopez is

11 another US Treasury regulation violation based on underlying principles and procedures for

12 property ownership under Generally Accepted Auditing Standards. This judgment must be
vacated for the protection of the State of California and County of Riverside.
13
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
14
15 A. THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES INALIENABLE
RIGHTS.
16
1. Declaration of Rights – Article 1, Section 1, states in pertinent part, as
17
follows:
18
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.
19 Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing,
and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and
20 privacy.
21
2. Declaration of Rights – Article 1, Section 7, states in pertinent part, as
22 follows:
23 (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process
of law or denied equal protection of the laws; provided, that nothing contained
24
herein or elsewhere in this Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any
25 public entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which exceed
those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14 th Amendment to the United
26 States Constitution …
27
28

3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
NOTICE AND MOTION TO VACATE VOID ORDERS
 1 The Default and any Default Judgment of this court clearly were made to deprive

2 Defendant of her right to equal protection of the law on the merits and issues before the court

3 under applicable statutes and the Judge of this Court is ignoring these rights, privileges and

4 immunities by asserting jurisdiction over Defendant where jurisdiction does not exist, as a matter

5 of law. Any orders of this court obtained by deceit are clearly made to aid and abet a fraud upon

6 the court and allow Plaintiff and its attorney of record to perpetuate illegal conduct as a result in

7 continued crimes against Defendant where Plaintiff lacks standing to sue.

8
There is no record of any transfer of title, deed, lien, mortgage, or note recorded with
9
the Riverside County, California that show that the plaintiff has any valid claim to be of a
10
beneficial interest in the tangible instruments on the day it received the debt on 1/6/2006 to
11
be of standing in this matter. GN Mortgage LLC, Wells Fargo and Federal Home Loan
12
Corporation are in violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933 in regards to the
13
matter of securitizing mortgages in non compliance statutory laws applicable to tangible
14
instruments as executed on January 6, 2021 pursuant to Forensic Accounting. On 1/6/2006,
15
no assignment, transfer or other contractual document was ever recorded with the Riverside
16
County, California documenting that the plaintiff had any claim to the mortgage. FHLMC, et
17
al pleaded to the securitization of the mortgage in the matter with the Federal Housing
18
Financing Agency and additionally to the fact that the securities had no link or value to the
19
tangible mortgages and/or tangible notes themselves. GN Mortgage LLC original lender, et
20
al pleaded in the matter with the Federal Housing Finance Agency that they were fully
21
compensation monetarily by FHLMC at the time of securitization and therefore has suffered
22
no damages. SEC Trust where the unsecured debt was assigned is no longer a going concern
23
and has been removed from its list of subsidiaries, controlled interests, etc. since 2009. The
24
loan on the property in question is not listed in any required filings of the assets of the
25
FHLMC nor any other FLMC, et al other trusts of similar nature. Based upon court and other
26
public records, the forensic accounting would establish that there is no current valid holder of
27
the tangible mortgage and or tangible note at this time, and as such neither the plaintiff nor
28

4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
NOTICE AND MOTION TO VACATE VOID ORDERS
 1 any other related party has any standing in this matter.  In effect the mortgage/note is null and
2 void as there is no beneficial owner in existence. After verifying the SEC trust records and
3 recognizing the fraudulent documents created by the opposing attorneys, I used my head and
4 I listed the debt as unsecured debt. The BK trustee released the claim on my home and the
5 debt was discharged as unsecured debt. Plaintiffs are in violation of 11 USC 524 (a ) 2 and
6 have slandered the tile to the home of Valerie Lopez – Plaintiff and others have made false
7 claims to the public.
8 3. B&P Code § 17538.5, governs how a CMRA must operate. It sets forth requirements and
obligations.
9
It imparts several duties on a CMRA, and upon receipt of service, it shields them from
10 liability to the box holder. As a condition to accept mail for a mail receiving customer, the
11 CMRA must accept 2 forms of ID before renting the customer a box. The mail receiving
customer must sign an agreement affirmatively appointing the CMRA as its agent for service.
12 That form, or any amendment or correction to the form, contains a home or personal address.
Lopez never agreed to permit the commercial mail house accept service for her.
13
Because of this affirmative appointment of the CMRA as its agent for service, it could be
14 argued that service on the CMRA is a personal service, not a substituted service.  Service
15 under B&P Code § 17538.5(d) could be construed as a form of personal service, akin to CCP
§ 416.90 wherein a defendant authorizes another to accept service on their behalf.  This can
16 only be valid if – and only if – the 3d party, here, the CMRA, fully complies with the B&P §
17538.5(d).
17
Under B&P Code § 17538.5(d), the CMRA is required to
18
 accept any service of process for the mail receiving customer for up to 2 years after
19 the customer terminates the agreement;
20  Within 48 hours after receiving process the CMRA must place a copy of the process
in the box of the mail receiving customer (unless the agreement has been terminated);
21  Within 5 days, the CMRA must mail a copy of the served documents to the mail
receiving customer to their last known home or personal address;
22  The CMRA must purchase a Certificate of Mailing  (PS Form 3817) for $1.35 which
23
24
25
26
27
can only be  obtained by standing in line
28 and mailing the documents at a US Postal Service office;

5
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
NOTICE AND MOTION TO VACATE VOID ORDERS
  If the CMRA has complied with these requirements, the CMRA must provide any
1
involved party a declaration under penalty of perjury of the mailing and attach a copy of
2 the Certificate of Mailing, stamped by the USPS.

3 Service under the new CCP § 415.20(c) is deemed effected 10 days after the CMRA mails
the copy to the defendant at the last known home or personal address on the agreement form.
4
The latter never occurred and it was a failed service. Consequently, the court lacked
5 jurisdiction to order Valerie Lopez to ANSWER and comply with a defective service.
6 CCP Section 415.20 Mathew Pero claims that he mailed the law suit to the mail house,but
failed to document the 3 to 4 attempts required of 415.20 before permitted to mailing
7 complaint to me.
8 The service was defective as I explained in my initial Motion to Quash.
9 4. A judge whose impartiality has been challenged and who refuses recusal may not rule on
10 either the disqualification or the sufficiency in law or fact of the statement of disqualification.
CCP§170.3(c ) (5 ); Garcia v Superior Court(1984) 156 CA 3d 670, 680, 203 CR 290. The
11 question disqualification must be determined by another judge who has been agreed on by
all parties who have appeared, or if they cannot agree, by a judge who was selected by the
12 Chairperson of the Judicial Council. This is the2nd time that Judge Riemer has striked his
13 own 170.1 regardless of knowing that he is administering a case that violates 11 USC 524 (a)
2.
14  

15
16
17 B. THE STANDARDS GOVERNING VOID ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS.
18
19 Motions to vacate void judgments may be made at any time after judgment. (County
20 of Ventura v. Tillett, (1982) 133 Cal. App. 3d 105, 110.).
21
1. Legal Definition: Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1574:
22
23 Void judgment.  One which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may
be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place
24 directly or collaterally.  Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80
S.W.2d 1087, 1092.  One which from its inception is and forever continues to be
25 absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right,
of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or
26 enforcement in any manner or to any degree.  Judgment is a "void judgment" if
27 court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the
parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process.  Klugh v. U.S.,
28 D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901.

6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
NOTICE AND MOTION TO VACATE VOID ORDERS
 1 1. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent of the parties.

2 Jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a trial court by the consent of the parties.

(Summers v. Superior Court (1959) 53 Cal. 2d 295, 298 [1 Cal. Rptr. 324, 347 P.2d
3 668]; Roberts v. Roberts (1966) 241 Cal. App. 2d 93, 101 [50 Cal. Rptr. 408].)
4
2. Case Authority for void judgments and orders.
5
Void judgments and orders are those rendered by a court which lacked jurisdiction,
6
either of the subject matter or the parties.  See:
7
A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks
8 jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter
9 the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time,
in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly
10 before the court.  See Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A.
7 Ill. 1999)
11
A judgment shown by evidence to be invalid for want of jurisdiction is a void
12 judgment or at all events has all attributes of a void judgment, City of Los Angeles
13 v. Morgan, 234 P.2d 319 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1951). 

14
The interest of justice requires that the equal protection question be answered now, as
15
it forms a Federal question to be instituted and answered later.
16
C. PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §473(B),
17 THE COURT SHOULD SET ASIDE THIS DEFAULT AND ANY ADVERSE
JUDGMENT OR RULING BASED ON INADVERTENCE, SURPRISE, OR
18 EXCUSABLE NEGLECT.
19
Assuming arguendo that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction and an adverse
20
judgment has been entered, Defendant is entitled to plead his defense for any Inadvertence,
21
Surprise, or Excusable Neglect, Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §473(b).
22
23 3. Grounds for Relief.

24 On application, the court may, on any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or
25 her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against
26 him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect ( Code
27
28

7
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
NOTICE AND MOTION TO VACATE VOID ORDERS
 1 Civ. Proc. § 473(b). This motion is filed within a reasonable period of time, not exceeding six
2 months after entry of the default.

3 4. Policy of Law Favors Trial on Merits.

4
The policy of the law is that controversies should be heard and disposed of on their
5
merits (Fasuyi v. Permatex, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 681, 694–703, 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d
6
351; Berman v. Klassman (1971) 17 Cal. App. 3d 900, 909, 95 Cal. Rptr. 417).
7
8 5. Court Has Wide Discretion in Granting Relief.

9
A trial court has wide discretion to grant relief under Code of Civil Procedure Section
10
473 (Berman v. Klassman (1971) 17 Cal. App. 3d 900, 909, 95 Cal. Rptr. 417).
11
6. Liberal Construction of Statute.
12
13 Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b) is a remedial measure to be liberally
14 construed, and any doubts existing as to the propriety of setting aside a default thereunder
15 will be resolved in favor of a hearing on the merits (Berman v. Klassman (1971) 17 Cal. App.
16 3d 900, 910, 95 Cal. Rptr. 417).

17 D. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF

PURSUANT TO CCP §473.5 BECAUSE HE/SHE RECEIVED NO ACTUAL
18
NOTICE OF THE ACTION IN TIME TO DEFEND, HE/SHE HAS FILED A
19 TIMELY MOTION FOR RELIEF, AND THE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT
JUDGMENT WAS NOT CAUSED BY THE PLAINTIFF’S AVOIDANCE OF
20 SERVICE OR INEXCUSABLE NEGLECT.

21
1. Motion for Relief From Default for Lack of Actual Notice.
22
23 When service of a summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to
24 defend the action and a default or default judgment has been entered against him or her in the
25 action, the party may serve and file a notice of motion to set aside the default or default
26 judgment and for leave to defend the action ( Code Civ. Proc. § 473.5(a)).
27
2. Court May Grant Relief on Timely Motion if Defendant Not at Fault.
28

8
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
NOTICE AND MOTION TO VACATE VOID ORDERS
 1 On a finding by the court that the motion was made within the two year time period
2 permitted by Code of Civil Procedure Section 473.5(a) and that his or her lack of actual

3 notice in time to defend the action was not caused by his or her avoidance of service or

4 inexcusable neglect, it may set aside the default or default judgment on whatever terms as

5 may be just and allow the party to defend the action ( Code Civ. Proc. § 473.5(c); Goya v.

6 P.E.R.U. Enterprises (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 886, 890–891, 151 Cal. Rptr. 258).

7 3. Granting of Relief Within Discretion of Trial Court.

8
Whether or not relief should be granted under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473.5
9
is a matter within the discretion of the trial court (Brockman v. Wagenbach (1957) 152 Cal.
10
App. 2d 603, 611, 313 P.2d 659).
11
12 4. Policy Favors Application for Relief.

13 Unless inexcusable neglect is clear, the policy favoring trial on the merits prevails
14 over the general rule of deference to the trial court’s exercise of discretion, and doubts are
15 resolved in favor of the application for relief from default (Tunis v. Barrow (1986) 184 Cal.
16 App. 3d 1069, 1079, 229 Cal. Rptr. 389).
17
E. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE
18 THE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT, IF ENTERED ON THE
GROUND THAT IT IS VOID BECAUSE, ALTHOUGH ITS INVALIDITY
19 MAY NOT APPEAR FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THE JUDGMENT
ROLL, IT IS NONETHELESS VOID IN FACT IN THAT THE SUMMONS
20 AND COMPLAINT WERE NEVER VALIDLY SERVED ON THE
21 DEFENDANT, AND THE DEFENDANT LACKED ACTUAL NOTICE OF
THIS LAWSUIT.
22
1. Statutory Power to Set Aside Void Judgment.
23
24 The court may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any
25 void judgment or order ( Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d)).

26 2. Inherent Power to Set Aside Judgment Not Void on Its Face but Void in
27 Fact.

28

9
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
NOTICE AND MOTION TO VACATE VOID ORDERS
 1 The law is settled that courts of record have inherent power to set aside a void
2 judgment whether or not it is void on its face (Rogers v. Silverman (1989) 216 Cal. App. 3d

3 1114, 1122, 265 Cal. Rptr. 286). As described in the attached Declaration, the service of the

4 Summons was improper, depriving the court of jurisdiction as to the defendant. Furthermore,

5 the defendant is filing this motion within a reasonable period of time within six months of

6 learning of the existence of this lawsuit.

7 3. Court Has Duty to Set Aside Judgment.

8
It is well settled that when an application to vacate and set aside a judgment that is
9
not void on its face but void in fact is made within a reasonable time after its rendition and is
10
based on a sufficient showing, it is within the power of the court, and its duty, to set it aside
11
(Smith v. Bratman (1917) 174 Cal. 518, 520, 163 P. 892).
12
F. THE COURT SHOULD SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF 12/3/2021.
13
DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS ACTION AS VOID ON ITS FACE
14 BECAUSE  NO LAWFUL INITIAL SERVICE  VIOLATION OF CCP
SECTION170.3(C ) (5)  VIOLATION OF 15USC524 (A) (2)
15 CONSEQUENTLY,SLANDER OF TITLE BY PARTIES OF NO AUTHORITY
WHO VIOLATE US TREASURY REGULATIONS BY CREATING
16 TAXABLE ACTION AND VIOLATE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1933
17
18 1. Relief From Void Judgment or Order.

19
The court may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any
20
void judgment or order ( Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d)).
21
2. Inherent Power to Set Aside Judgment Void on Its Face.
22
23 A court has inherent power, independent of statute, to set aside a judgment or order
24 that is void on its face (People v. Greene (1887) 74 Cal. 400, 405–406, 16 P. 197; Hendrix v.
25 Hendrix (1955) 130 Cal. App. 2d 379, 383, 279 P.2d 58).

26 3. Test for Establishing That Judgment Is Void on Its Face.

27
28

10
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
NOTICE AND MOTION TO VACATE VOID ORDERS
 1 A judgment or order is void on its face when its invalidity appears from an
2 examination of the judgment roll (People v. Davis (1904) 143 Cal. 673, 676, 77 P. 651;

3 Carrasco v. Craft (1985) 164 Cal. App. 3d 796, 808, 210 Cal. Rptr. 599).

4 4. Judgment Roll When Complaint Not Answered.

5
If the complaint is not answered by any defendant, the following papers, without
6
being attached together, constitute the judgment roll: the summons, with the affidavit or
7
proof of service; the complaint; the request for entry of default with a memorandum endorsed
8
thereon that the default of the defendant in not answering was entered, and a copy of the
9
judgment; if defendant has appeared by demurrer, and the demurrer has been overruled, then
10
notice of the overruling thereof served on defendant’s attorney, together with proof of the
11
service; and in case the service is made by publication, the affidavit for publication of
12
summons, and the order directing the publication of summons ( Code Civ. Proc. § 670(a)).
13
G. THE COURT SHOULD QUASH SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS DUE TO
14 LACK OF JURISDICTION.
15
1. Motion to Quash Service of Summons.
16
17 Compliance With Statutory Provisions Governing Service of Process Is Required.

18 Service of summons in conformance with the mode prescribed by statute is deemed

19 jurisdictional, and, absent such service, no jurisdiction is acquired by the court in the

20 particular action (Renoir v. Redstar Corp. (2004) 123 Cal. App. 4th 1145, 1150, 20 Cal. Rptr.

21 3d 603; Schering Corp. v. Superior Court (1975) 52 Cal. App. 3d 737, 741, 125 Cal. Rptr.

22 337; Sternbeck v. Buck (1957) 148 Cal. App. 2d 829, 832, 307 P.2d 970).

23 2. Strict Compliance Necessary for Substituted or Constructive Service.

24
A court has no authority to render judgment on the basis of substituted or constructive
25
service of the summons when statutory requirements have not been strictly complied with
26
(Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal. App. 4th 403, 412, 44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 338 (improper
27
service on personal manager); Zirbes v. Stratton (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 1407, 1416, 232
28

11
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
NOTICE AND MOTION TO VACATE VOID ORDERS
 1 Cal. Rptr. 653 (substituted service); Eagle Electric Mfg. Co. v. Keener (1966) 247 Cal. App.
2 2d 246, 251, 55 Cal. Rptr. 444 (same); Bank of America v. Carr (1956) 138 Cal. App. 2d

3 727, 737, 292 P.2d 587 (constructive service)).

4 3. General Appearance After Default Judgment Does Not Validate Defective

5 Service.

6
The general appearance after entry of a default judgment by a defendant who was
7
defectively served with summons does not make the defective service retroactively valid (In
8
re Marriage of Smith (1982) 135 Cal. App. 3d 543, 545, 547–552, 185 Cal. Rptr. 411).
9
10 4. where service of process was not made pursuant to statute and Supreme Court
Rules, Janove v Bacon , 6 III.2d 245, 249, 218 N.E.2d 207( 1st Dist. 1994)
11
From the commencement of this case, defective service has existed. The
12
prejudice of the court has ignored Lopez’ exposure to the defective service.
13
All rulings and orders are VOID.
14
15 5. Violation of 15 USC 524 (a ) (2 ) makes the court and the opposing both
16 complicit in making a taxable issue on a debt that is zero as confirmed by the
17 Stay of the Proceedings which was accompanied by Lopez’s Federal
18 Injunction listing debt held by Federal Home Mortgage Corporation since
19 January 6,2021 but lacked actual possession of the tangible instruments on
20 January 6,2021. FHLMC failed to appear in the bankruptcy court in fear of
21 being exposed of not having actual possession of tangible instruments and
22 never negotiation and having actual possession of the tangible instruments as
23 required by statutory laws. Wells Fargo and the opposing attorneys then
24 perjured saying that Wells Fargo held the debt with the still note of value
25 when this was a false presentation and sanctionable. The sum of the note is

26 now zero due to violation of US Treasury regulations and Securities and

27 Exchange Act of 1933. Ca Commercial Code 3203d makes clear that all

28 rights were lost by Plaintiff. (D) The transferee obtains no rights under this division and

12
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
NOTICE AND MOTION TO VACATE VOID ORDERS
 1 has only the rights of a partial assignee. If a transferor purports to transfer less than the entire

2 instrument, negotiation of the instrument does not occur.   Affirming again, that Plaintiff in bad

3 faith with opposing attorneys never had standing. All orders and Rulings from the onset of case

4 are VOID.

5
6. Case must be vacated due to attorneys suing people unrelated to deed filed on
6
30160 Merrell Ave Nuevo California. The people sued are related to a case
7
involving Mortgage Enterprises Investments. There are negative court
8
findings related to Mortgage Enterprises Investments. The initial Trustee
9
assigned to the deed filed on subject property is Mortgage Enterprise
10
Investments. The opposing attorneys objective was to confuse the court and
11
label Lopez enemy of the State. The new trustee is now unincorporated
12
association. This deed content and model was reviewed by County of Orange
13 District Attorneys Office and County County Counsel. Opposing attorneys
14 have violated California Business and Profession Code 668. Fraud upon the
15 court In re: Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill. App.3d 393 (1962)
16
17
II. CONCLUSION
18
19 WHEREFORE, Defendant has cited many points and authorities relative to these

20 proceedings that show equal protection of the law has been compromised in a number of ways,
ones which constitute either great prejudice to him or which are patently unlawful, or both.
21
For the aforementioned reasons, Defendant requests to set aside the default, and if
22
applicable, default judgment entered against him and requests that the Service of the Summons
23 be set aside for lack of jurisdiction.
24
25 Dated: December 10, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
26
27 _________________________________
Valerie Anne Lopez, Plaintiff, In Pro per
28

13
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
NOTICE AND MOTION TO VACATE VOID ORDERS
 DECLARATION OF VALERIE LOPEZ
1
2 I, VALERIE ANNE LOPEZ, am the named Defendant in this matter, and I declare the
3 following in support of my motion to set aside the default in my case. The following facts are
4 matters of my own personal knowledge and, if sworn, I could testify competently to them in
5 court:
6 1. I have been named the Defendant in this action of FEDERAL HOME LOAN
7 MORTGAGE CORPORATION vs. Valerie Anne Lopez, pending before this Superior Court
8 for the Riverside Judicial District.
9 2. I have never been served either a summons or complaint by Plaintiff to this action
10 properly. I had a mail box a business. At no time did I agree to permit the mail box
11 employees accept legal service on my behalf.
12 3. My initial motion to quash was denied and the court forced me to answer to Plaintiff
13 who had no standing and in violation of 11 USC 524 a 2.

14 4. On this date, I was compelled to file this motion specially due to the illegal abuse of

15 process by Plaintiff to deprive Declarant of his property without due process of law.

16 5. I stand witness to the fact that Mathew Pero, Blanca Oliver alleged Treasurer claiming

17 that Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and appointed Federal Housing Finance

18 Agency has illegally conducted an legal proceeding in contempt of the laws of this State and has
19 moved to deprive Defendant of his property without due process, as a matter of law.

20 6. I confirm that I was not able to come to the court on 12/3/2021 to serve the judge based

21 on COVID issues. I called in sick for work which can be verified due to symptoms of COVID. I

22 was assigned to work from home on 12/3/2021. Strict state guidelines must be followed related

23 to COVID by my employers. Non compliance may have caused employment termination. I was

24 not able to serve the 170.1 as Judge Riemer suggested.

25 7. Judge Riemer knows about the Federal Injunction which confirms that the Plaintiff et al

26 have committed fraud on the court and has illegally formed taxable issue. Regardless, of 11 USC

27 524(a ) (2) Judge Riemer helps the opposing counsel violate US Treasury Regulations and

28

1
DECLARATION
 1 Securities and Exchange Act of 1933. At the May 2021 hearing, Judge Riemer gave the

2 attorneys a point by point directions to help the attorneys illegally seize my home.

3
4 CONTENTS OF THE PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

5 8. I have reviewed the court file, and  there is  there is not a Proof of Service of

6 Summons filed in this case. (If there is not a Proof of Service of Summons filed, paragraphs 2-7

7 below are not asserted as part of this declaration).

8 9. The Plaintiff’s Proof of Service of Summons states that  I was personally served  I

9 was served by substituted service.

10 10. Service allegedly took place on (date) at (time) at

11 (address).

12 11. The Proof of Service of Summons describes the person served as being Scooter

13 employee located at 360 E. 1st Street Tustin California 92780, and having the following

14 physical description: No authorization was given to Scooters to accept service on my behalf.

15 Scooter’s records show and US postal records show non compliance to CCP Section 415.20

16 and B&P § 17538.5. Opposing Counsel never received authorization to post and mail. Opposing Counsel never met CCP

17 Section 415.20.Nor,did opposing counsel report to the court the 3 to 4 attempts to serve me prior to mailing to the 360 1 st

18 Street Tustin California address. Service at all times has been defective. No serve no case.

19  There was no physical description provided.

20 12. The Proof of Service of Summons identifies the server as  a registered process

21 server.

22  a Sheriff’s Department employee  a private individual.

23 13. As to the service of the Summons: (check only one):

24  I do not contest the manner of service. I was served as described in

25 the Proof of Service of Summons. (If checked, paragraph 7, below, is not asserted

26 or claimed.)

27
28

2
DECLARATION
 1  Although the Proof of Service of Summons claims that I was
2 personally served, I was not served with the Summons and Complaint for the

3 reasons described in the following paragraphs.

4  Although the Proof of Service of Summons claims that I was served

5 by substituted service, I did not live or work at the address I where substituted

6 service allegedly took place, as described in the following paragraphs.

7  Service of the Summons was invalid because:

8
9
10
11 14. The following facts support my contention in paragraph __ above:

12
13
ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAWSUIT
14
15. I first learned about this lawsuit on or around (date).
15
16. The way I first learned about this lawsuit was as follows: When Scooter’s staff let
16
me in person that I had received an envelope in my mail box from a process server in 2019.
17
18
19
20 17. I was not evading service, so my lack of actual notice of this case is not the result of

21 evasion of service.

22
23 INADVERTANCE, SURPRISE, MISTAKE, EXCUSABLE NEGLECT

24 OR LACK OF NOTICE

25 18. I contend that my failure to respond was the result of inadvertence, surprise, mistake,

26 or excusable neglect or lack of notice for the following reasons:

27
28

3
DECLARATION
 1
2
3
4
5
6
19. But for the above facts, I would have filed the Proposed Answer, attached as Exhibit
7
A.
8
20.  I additionally wish the court to consider the following when evaluating my request
9
to set aside the default:
10
11
12
21.  I have attached the following exhibits to this declaration in support of my motion
13
to set aside the default:
14
b.  Exhibit A: AFFIDAVIT OF Joe Esquivel – notarized confirming
15
Illegal creation of Taxable event after May2012 discharge of debt,
16
c.  Exhibit B: (describe): Letter from GN Mortgage LLC confirming debt
17
solely was sent to FHLMC on 1-6-2006/
18
d.  Exhibit C: (describe): Authenticated Web Site showing FHLMC held debt
19
On 1-6-2006
20
e.  Exhibit D: (describe) Tampered Note not showing FHLMC but tampered
21
by Wells Fargo staff forging appearance of having tangible note given to
22
Wells Fargo which is false.
23
f.  Exhibit E: (describe) Forged Assignment of Deed of Trust Wells Fargo
24
staff attempting to connect the tangible note to the debt held FHLMC since 1-
25
6-2006.
26
27
28

4
DECLARATION
 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
1
2 true and correct.

3 Executed on this 7 day of December, 2013 at Santa Ana, California.

4
_____________________________
5 WILLIAM TEZAK
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
DECLARATION
 PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)ss.
3 COUNTY OF ORANGE )
4 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Orange, State of California. I
am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action; my business address
5
is __________________________________________________________, California 92708.
6
On December __, 2013, I caused to be served the following document(s): DEFENDANT’S
7
NOTICE AND MOTION TO SET-ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT, IF
8 ENTERED; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND
9 DECLARATION OF WILLIAM M. TEZAK IN SUPPORT THEREOF.

10 James T. Reed, Jr. Attorney for Plaintiff WHITE, Et al.

Law Offices of Hood & Reed
11 18141 Beach Blvd., Suite 390
Huntington Beach, California 92648 Office (714) 842-6837 FAX (714) 841-6216
12
13 (X) (MAIL) I caused such document, in a sealed addressed envelope, with postage thereon
fully prepaid, to be placed in the United States mail.
14
( ) (BY PERSONAL DELIVERY) I personally delivered a copy of the document, in a sealed
15 addressed envelope, by hand to the offices of the addressee.
16 ( ) (BY FAX) I served such document by facsimile transmission from ____________________
_________________________________________ , California 9_______ on ______________to
17 the above listed individuals.
18 ( ) (EXPRESS DELIVERY) I caused such document, in a sealed addressed envelope, with
postage thereon fully prepaid, to be delivered by overnight delivery by __________________,
19 at Fountain Valley, California.
20
I am "readily familiar” with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for
21 mailing. It is deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary
course of business. I am aware that on motion of a party served, service is presumed invalid if
22
postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one (1) day after date of deposit for
23 mailing in affidavit.

24 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
and correct and that their declaration was executed on December ___ , 2013, at ____________,
25 California.
26
27
_______________________________
28

1
PROOF OF SERVICE