COMES NOW DEFENDANT, Heidi Amaya pro se, and claims that the Debtor in possession is not a renter and therefore does not conform or apply to 11 U.S.C. § 362(l). The Debtor acquired the subject property by Grant Deed see exhibit XX. The Debtor has no contractual relation with the Movant, no rental contract exist between the Movant and the Debtor, in so stating the Debtor can never conform within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 362(l). The Plaintiff is a mortgage sub-servicer, the loan is in a trust and it is registered with the SEC, the Defendant is in possession of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The Defendant has sufficient claims and has the ability to prove by evidence and exhibits which proves, almost, all of her allegations within her answer to oppose remand to the civil court, and the Defendant in possession of the property begs the court for judicial notice and the courts continued cooperation to find justice. 1. The name of the “pretend lender” was Provident Savings Bank FSB, but the Defendant will prove that said Bank was a middle man to the Deed of Trust and at the signing of such Deed the “lender of record” loaned the money of the Investors and not its own funds. 2. Then as in present comes The Movant a totally alien entity to the contract riding on the back of MERS, with action which defrauds the court and the Defendants. The name of the Trust is Lehman SX Trust 2006-3, this is a New York statuary Trust governed by New York Trust law, the cut off and closing dates are Febuary 1, 2006 and February 28, 2006 respectively, the subject loan was Originated on December 20, 2005, the sub- servicer who is the Movant and is not the servicer for all of the Lehman SX Trust 2006-3 series of Trusts to date in that series. At this link is the Pooling and Servicing Agreement

""For decades before that. and liquidity enhancement. the Plaintiffs simply made up the paperwork to file with the court to facilitate foreclosure based on nothing. to a specially-created entity.htm under the SEC Federal Rules. Bank/Trustee's assertions that it is the owner of the promissory note and mortgage. Securitization began to be used as a financing technique with mortgages in 1971. this plan was carried out by the Plaintiffs who held and hold no constitutional or prudential standing in the first instant. There are numerous reasons why financial institutions engage in securitization. 2006 and yet the substitution of trustee occurred on April 13. or Collateralized mortgage obligation (CMOs) to investors. which it then uses to make regular payments to investors on their debt securities. the importance of this in this instant matter is that the date the 15D was filed on January 1. relief from regulatory capital requirements. Securitization is the practice of pooling and selling contractual debt obligations ("receivables") such as residential mortgages. how could a non-entity buy or sell anything?.1 Securitization. the cut off date of the trust is January 1. typically a trust. commercial mortgages. Ultimately.htm the copy is attached herein as Exhibit A 3. but because the plan to pool the mortgages in one bundle did not work. including the management of credit and interest rate risk. of which this court has jurisdiction. filed a Prospectus under Oath with the Securities and Exchange Commission the 425B5 located at http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1352797/000135193007000027/lxs20063nrpt15d. 2006 and the closing date of the trust is February 28. also filed under Oath with the Securities and Exchange Commission the form 15D located at the SEC website at http://sec. The trust pays for the receivables by issuing debt securities (variously referred to as bonds. additionally. The trust collects payments of principal and interest on the receivables. The Trust Lehman SX Trust 2006-3. 2009 see exhibit B and the Deed Upon trustee sale was recorded on June 18. thus links consumer and commercial borrowers with financing from securities markets. they held loans until they matured or were paid off. 4. and in this instant case at bar.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1352797/000114420406010064/v037654_ex4-1. the concoction of lawless and fraudulent filings at the county recorders` office has caused a cloud on the Defendant title.http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/808851/000089109206000507/e23475_424b5. This Motion and the crux of-this case is about the validity of the transfers of mortgage promissory notes in the Wall Street financing process known as "securitization" and the resulting issues regarding the ability of the securitization trust in this case to foreclose. 5. pass-through securities. banks were essentially portfolio lenders. These loans were funded principally by . the outcome of this case hinges upon the Court's ruling regarding the validity or not of the U. 2009. auto loans or credit card debt.S. by the federal rules and banking laws. the Trust after having filed such form 15D is considered an unregistered securities trader. and violates the property rights and due process rights of the Defendants.txt The Statuary new York Lehman SX Trust 2006-3. 2007.

3 Second. Rescuing U. To accomplish this. This involves ensuring that the transfer of the receivables to the trust is a "true sale" and not a financing transaction. 7. the bank conveys receivables to a trust for the benefit of certificate holders. meaning that the securitization trust is not taxed on its own income when it is paid on the receivables. Banks. To attract investors. 2003). and structured the cash flows from the underlying loans.S. The result must be the inability to enforce the mortgage loan as currently constituted by a Party. ideally through the securitization trust having "pass thu" tax status. Bank from its own lack of due diligence and cavalier adherence to the dictates of California law and New York trust law would be a manifest injustice countenancing U. securitization enables investors to invest based solely on the quality of the receivables and not have to worry about the bank's other business activities.treas. First. By insulating the receivables placed in the trust from the claims of the bank's creditors. i. U. who claims to possess and own a loan on behalf of a commercial Securitized trust but cared less about details of the transfer. Bank." 6. The various partisipants involved in the multiple transfers of this loan rushed to profit on the sale and resale of the subject loan without regard to basic legal principles involving mortgage law. http://www. Press. motion.S. which was a direct obligation of the bank (rather than a claim on specific assets). THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURED SECURITIES 103 (Oxford Univ.gov/handbook/assetsec." meaning that they are insulated from the claims of the bank's creditors.pdf. Banks use a variety of structures for securitization trusts depending on the type of asset being securitized. is ensuring that the trust's assets are 'bankruptcy remote. . SYLVA1N RAYNES & ANN RUTLEDGE. the securitization trust. U. sought ways of increasing the sources of mortgage funding.occ. In the eyes of the law details matter. is ensuring favorable tax treatment of the bank. November 1997. segmented the credit risk.S.S.deposits. trust law and contract principles as set forth in the instant Asset Seciiritization: Comptroller's Handbook. but all securitization structures are based on two overriding concerns. depository institutions simply could not keep pace with the rising demand for housing credit. Bankruptcy remoteness is critical for making the economics of securitization work.e. and perhaps more critical. But after World War II. as well as other financial intermediaries sensing a market opportunity.. and the investors. Bank's and Wall Street's loan flipping debacle which has been exposed in the instant matter. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. investment bankers eventually developed an investment vehicle that isolated defined mortgage pools. and sometimes by debt. Bank has been an active and willing participant in the "securiization" of the subject loan and must suffer the consequences of its slipshod business practices as partaking to the attempted transfer of the subject loan.

the Original Lender. the Trustee or a custodian appointed thereby (with a copy to the Master Servicer and Special Servicer1). and hereby represents and warrants that it has directed. the Mortgage Loan Sellers pursuant to their respective Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreements to deliver to and deposit with. Section 2. The Special Servicer may request the Master Servicer to deliver a copy of the Servicing File for any Trust Mortgage Loan (other than a Specially Serviced Mortgage Loan) if the Master Servicer shall not have granted the Special Servicer electronic access to such Servicing Files. on or before the Closing Date. Bank does not possess standing to enforce the subject loan necessitating the dismissal of this matter. 9. MUST TRANSFER OR DEPOSIT ALL LOANS INTO THE TRUST AS SET FORTH IN THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT. Structured Asset Securities. Section 1. including the subject Joan into the. [emphasis addedl (ii) THE ORIGINAL ASSIGNMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE WRONG PARTY IN THAT PURSUANT TO THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT THE DEPOSITOR Structured Asset Securities. NOT MERS.. The Pooling and Servicing Agreement is crystal clear that it is the Depositor Structured Asset Securities. (b) The Depositor.01 Conveyance of Trust Mortgage Loans. any Fiscal Agent. or cause to be delivered to and deposited with. Bank either intentionally or negligently turns a blind eye to small and large details alike. Courts make parties dot "i"s and cross "t"s and when a sophisticated corporation like a U. and Structured Asset Securities. Trust.Ql(a) above the Depositor shall direct. Structured Asset Securities.S. concurrently with the execution and delivery hereof. Pursuant to the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement. the Mortgage File for each Trust Mortgage Loan so assigned. was obligated to transfer the mortgage loans. Section 2. designated as " Lehman SX Trust 2006-3 1" and consisting of the Trust Fund.01 Conveyance of Trust Mortgage Loans. INC. any Custodian. In conformance with the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement and more importantly the Pooling and Servicing Agreement the Depositor and only the Depositor. and does hereby . U.0 l(b).. II. had an agreement to sell the mortgage loans to the Depositor.8.S. 2006. Upon review of the undisputed flaws and defects as pertaining to the attempted transfer of the subject loan. this Court must not tolerate or permit such conduct even if a dismissal of a flawed action temporally or permanently benefits the homeowner. who was duty bound to transfer the loans to the Trustee on behalf of the Trust.01 (a) of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement reads as follows: Section 2.. The instant case and the subject loan cannot be a better prototypical example of mortgage loan transfer defects in an effort to securitize the subject loan. Article.01 Defined Terms * "Closing Date": March 30. (a) In connection with the Depositor's assignment pursuant to Section 2. None of the Trustee. the Master Servicer or the Special Servicer shall be liable for any failure by any Mortgage Loan Seller or the Depositor to comply with the document delivery requirements of the related Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement and this Section 2. does hereby establish a common law trust under the laws of the State of New York.

is subject to the provisions of the corresponding Loan Combination Intel-creditor Agreement. 11. The transfer of the Trust Mortgage Loans and the related rights and property accomplished hereby is absolute and. 14. in. 13. with the like effect as if originally named as trustee herein. and to enable the successor trustee to perform its obligations hereunder. powers. under each Loan Combination Intercreditor Agreement.assign. powers. 12. as contemplated by Section 8. assumes the obligations of the related "A Note Holder" or "Lead Lender". transfer. shall become fully vested with all the rights. and thereupon the resignation or removal of the predecessor trustee shall become effective and such successor trustee. if the predecessor Trustee has been removed without cause in accordance with Section 8.07(a). title and interest of the Depositor. duties and obligations of its predecessor hereunder. as contemplated . as contemplated by Section 8. The predecessor trustee shall deliver to the successor trustee all Mortgage Files and related documents and statements held by it hereunder (other than any Mortgage Files at the time held on its behalf by a third-party Custodian. 8. the Special Servicer and to its predecessor trustee. shall be paid by : (i) the predecessor Trustee. if such costs and expenses are not paid by the predecessor Trustee or the subject Certificate holders. on behalf of the Trust. 16. sell.07. as the case may be. the Special Servicer and the predecessor trustee shall execute and deliver such instruments and do such other things as may reasonably be required to more fully and certainly vest and confirm in the successor trustee all such rights.07(c). 3.07 shall execute. (iii) the rights of the Depositor under each Loan Combination Intel-creditor Agreement and (iv) all other assets included or to be included in the Trust Fund. Such assignment includes all interest and principal received or receivable on or with respect to the Trust Mortgage Loans and due after the Cut-off Date and. has been removed in accordance with Section 8.08 Successor Trustee (a) Any successor trustee appointed as provided in Section 8.07(b) or has been removed with cause in accordance with Section 8.07. 10. under the related Loan Combination Intercreditor Agreement. duties and obligations. as the case may be. in the case of each Trust Mortgage Loan that is part of a Loan Combination. an instrument accepting such appointment hereunder.08(a). and (iii) the Trust. Any and all costs and expenses associated with transferring the duties of a Trustee that has resigned or been removed or terminated. provided that the Master Servicer shall. for the benefit of the Certificateholders (and for the benefit of the other parties to this Agreement as their respective interests may appear) all the right. (i) the rights of the depositor under Sections 2. is intended by the parties to constitute a sale.07 (c). in trust. to and under (i) the Trust Mortgage Loans and all documents included in the related Mortgage Files and Servicing Files. including those associated with transfer of the Mortgage Files and other documents and statements held by the predecessor Trustee to the successor Trustee. perform the servicing obligations and exercise the related rights of the related "A Note Holder" or "Lead Lender". (ii) the Certificate holders that effected the removal. 19 and 20 of each Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement. deed or conveyance. and the Depositor. notwithstanding Section 11. set over and otherwise convey to the Trustee. if such predecessor Trustee has resigned in accordance with Section 8. The Trustee. the Master Servicer. which Custodian shall become the agent of the successor trustee). 9. EX-4. the Master Servicer. as further set forth in Article III. to a successor Trustee. acknowledge and deliver to the Depositor. 17.1 10. without recourse. SECTION 8. without any further act.

and it must prove it did not commit unlawful acts with intent to deprive the Defendant of her property rights and her constitutional rights. the promissory note becomes null and void by operation of law. The Defendant has no shortage of merit in her claims. and prove the allegations of the Defendant. shall remain liable to the Trust for such costs and expenses). because the Defendant is presenting sufficient information by way of exhibits and allurement to fact which paints criminal and or other unlawful or improper behavioral conduct. rife with lawless intent which has caused the Defendant to be harmed and has caused the illicit seizure of Defendant property. the Universal Commercial Code was totally violated in the transfer of the promissory note and the seizure of the Defendants title and home may be associated with crime. the Plaintiff passed all the risks of the deed of trust at signing such. and nothing about a RMBS is mentioned in the deed of trust. it is widely known and settled that the UCC controls the transfer and ownership and negotiable instruments which play a huge part in this instant matter. constructive demonstration of fraud and deceit. the “original lender” as stated in the Deed Of Trust. in a very cunning. the defendants violated every right of the Defendant. 11. made and exposed the plaintiff into a third party investment swindle where the deed of trust made no mention of any facts relating to a Pooling and Servicing agreement or a New York Statuary Trust or any sort of Residential Mortgage Backed Security (RMBS). The Defendant will demonstrate compellingly. yet the Plaintiffs foreclosed the home of the Defendants.by the immediately preceding clauses (i) and (ii). 13. devoid of constructive law and devoid of any parity between the homeowner Amaya and the foreclosing party. The Unlawful Detainer Court. the court also has jurisdiction on matters and claims arising out of the rules of the Universal Commercial Code. 14. the fraudulent actions of the defendant for instance. 12. * if the original lender could prove holder in due course]. in conclusive manner. “the seizing of the Defendant property was nothing short of a sham and could be a crime”. the foreclosing party should have been the Original lender. to another entity and the loan was sold in parts to many different new owners. the PSA spells an opposite and different picture than is stated to the court and to the Defendant. The Defendant can offer and is offering proof positive that the Plaintiff acted with malicious intent to deceive the Defendant and the courts and to improperly seize the Defendant property. The plaintiff does not possess the Original Promissory and as such has not shown this document in open court to state its claim. The Pooling and Servicing agreement. and the transaction is contrary to the settled rules of filing in lawful manner with the county recorder’s office and as again. being that. The encumbrance was first sold in a pool of mortgages. as applicable. the act was done with information that was not authentic.* “a renter’s . The Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff is bound. within 90 days after they are incurred (provided that such predecessor Trustee or such subject Certificate holders.

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution. the minimal standing requirements as to the concerned parties and defendants at bar.homeowner and “title is at issue”. Plaintiff -homeowner has been denied due process by defendant defiant pursuit to adjudicate an unlawful detainer action despite the jurisdictional challenge based upon the express limited scope restriction imposed upon the trial court when the parties are a plaintiff-lender and defendant. pursuant to 28 U.C. as a civil matter. § 1367(3). This court has jurisdiction.court” +. The venue is proper as the subject property is situated in the locality of this court. JURISDICTION AND VENUE The Court has original and subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ statutory and common law violations of RICO. this Court also has jurisdiction over the common law claims of negligent misrepresentation. CLAIMS ASSERTED The Court held in Asuncion v Superior Court (1980) 108 CA3d 141. The actions of defendant resulted in the compound denial of plaintiff’s right to due process of law.C § 1331 & §1337. The plaintiff and the trial court presided over and or was systemically planned to violate and did violate the due process rights of the plaintiff and this court has jurisdiction over claims arising out of the Amendment XIV and also the court has jurisdiction as per Article III of the US Constitution being in short. Wells Fargo Bank NA but not limited to it. Defendant-homeowner has been denied due process by Plaintiff’s defiant endeavor to deny Defendant access to the courts of proper and competent jurisdiction by granting summary judgment in an improper court of limited jurisdiction in order to persuade Defendant from pursuing the issues of title and the inherent due process issues that “must be heard” in a court of civil unlimited jurisdiction. was not the correct venue for a Lender/bank and borrower/homeowner. Other loan Servicers and MBS “Trustee” Defendants shall be named as their identities are revealed. . this court has personal Jurisdiction and in rem jurisdiction. “Trustee” is a generic term for an entity not incorporated or registered to do business in any of the United States in order to facilitate illegal property foreclosures. It is anticipated that they will include. as is this instant case.S.S Consti Article III. This court has jurisdiction under U. The underwriters and originators of the MBS “Trusts” shall be named as their identities are revealed. 166 CR 306 (eviction of homeowners following foreclosure raises due process issues and must be heard in superior court)”. fraud. laws. or treaties of the United States.S. and aiding and abetting fraud pursuant to this Court's supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U. 145-146. California`s common law.

The Servicer is not in privity nor does it have the permission of the beneficial owners of the Note to file suit on their behalf. The beneficial interest in the note was never in the lender. . is at most.” on the original Promissory Note was not the lender. The entity lacks standing. The foreclosing entity is a third party. The entity filing has utilized a California legal term it has no right to use for the sole purpose of misleading the Court. The true owner or beneficiary of the mortgage loan has not declared a default and usually no longer have an interest in the note.In this case where the foreclosure has been filed. and the capacity to foreclose. In this case. The loan agreements were predatory and the Defendants made false representations to the Plaintiff which induced the Plaintiffs to enter into the loan and the Defendants knew the representations were false when they were made. The originators of the loan immediately and simultaneously securitized the note. Any mortgage loan with a Mortgage recorded in the name of MERS. There is no “Trust Agreement” in existence. MERS. and the entity cannot satisfy the loan in a legal manner. was never intended to be the lender nor did it represent the true lender of the funds for the mortgage. The “lender. The entity has no legal authority to draft mortgage assignments relating to the loan. an unsecured debt. The foreclosing entity and its agents regularly commit perjury in relation to their testimony. acting as the mortgagee or mortgage assignee. The only parties entitled to collect on the unsecured debt would be the holders in due course and beneficial owners of the original Promissory Note. where one of these MBS have come to a California Court the entity foreclosing lacked capacity to sue and to file suit in the State of California. The entity has no first-hand knowledge of the loan. Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC): 15. the entity filing the foreclosure has no pecuniary in the mortgage loan.” the entities are not “Trustees” nor “Trusts” as defined by California law. are not holders in due course of the note. The obligations reflected by the note allegedly secured by the MERS mortgage have been satisfied in whole or in part because the investors who furnished the funding for these loans have been paid to the degree that extinguishment of the debts has occurred with the result that there exists no obligations on which to base any foreclosure on the property owned by Defendant Heidi Amaya Movant have clouded the title and illegally collected payments and foreclosed upon the property of the Plaintiffs when they do not have lawful rights to foreclose. Although the defendants who foreclosed refer to themselves as “Trustees” of a “Trust. Neither is the entities registered as Business Trusts or Business Trustees as required by California law. no authority to testify or file affidavits as to the validity of the loan documents or the existence of the loan.

Hence. the REMIC does not legally exist for purposes of capacity for filing a law suit in California. and important to the issues presented with this particular action. The “Trustee” can not own the assets of the REMIC. had to have possession of ALL the original blue ink Promissory Notes and original allonges and assignments of the Notes. or any part thereof (mortgage note or security interest). If an MBS Trust was audited by the IRS and was found to have violated any of the REMIC requirements. and Note and Mortgages transferred. destroys the trust's REMIC tax exempt status.Although the “Trust” listed may be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) as a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (“REMIC”). . The Trust will never have standing or be a real party in interest. is the fact that in order to keep its tax status and to fund the “Trust” and legally collect money from investors. Custodian of the REMIC. the pool is permanently closed to future transfers of mortgage assets. Subsequent to the "cut off date" listed in the prospectus. 17. Additionally. and in order to avoid one hundred percent (100%) taxation by the IRS and the MBS REMIC could not engage in any prohibited action. Neither the “Trust” nor the Servicer would ever be entitled to bring a foreclosure or declaratory action. A REMIC Trustee could never claim it owned a mortgage loan. to file as a REMIC. Therefore. the “Trustee” or the more properly named. The transfer of mortgage loans into the trust after the “cut off date” (in the example 2007).” The Promissory Notes were never obtained and the mortgages never obtained or recorded. The “Trust” engaged in a plethora of “prohibited activities” and sold the investors certificates and Bonds with phantom mortgage backed assets. it can never be the owner of a mortgage loan. it would lose its REMIC status and all back taxes would be due and owing to the IRS. or even an alleged original. As applied to the plaintiff in this action. and thereafter. who bought into the REMIC. the mortgage loan was not conveyed into the trust under the requirements of the prospectus for the trust or the REMIC requirements of the IRS. 16. even if the attorney for the servicer who is foreclosing on behalf of the Trustee (who is in turn acting for the securitized trust) produces a copy of a note. Business Trust. one hundred percent (100%) of the income will be taxed. would not have been legally transferred to the trust to allow the trust to ever even be considered a "holder" of a mortgage loan. the “Trustee”/Custodian MUST have the mortgages recorded in the investors name as the beneficiaries of a MBS in the year the MBS “closed. whereby the mortgage notes and security for these notes had to be identified. the end result would be that the required MBS asset. As previously stated. more often than it is not properly registered in any state of the union as a Corporation. showing a complete paper chain of title. REMICS were newly invented in 1987 as a tax avoidance measure by Investment Banks. They will never be the proper party to appear before the Court. In the above scenario. and these “Trusts” (and potentially the financial entities who created them) would owe millions of dollars to the IRS and the California recorders office. Most importantly for this action. or any other type of corporate entity.

Each such MBS bundle was given a name. 19. Plaintiff was deliberately induced into signing a Negotiable Instrument which was never intended as such. it is asserted that the IRS is aware that a list of alleged “unqualified” REMICs is forthcoming through the identity of the plaintiffs’ mortgage loan “Trusts” in this action. The loans fitting the description of those found in the prospectus had to then be created and originated. The fact that the loan was meant to fund a MBS was a “material disclosure” which was deliberately and intentionally undisclosed. The very first time the homeowner learns that their home was put up as collateral for a publicly traded and sold home loan REMIC (a federally regulated Security) is at the time they are served with a foreclosure complaint. they were unknowingly converting their property into an asset of a MBS.Upon information and belief. To the homeowner. such as “Lehman SX Trust 2006-3” The name indicates information about the particular trust. For the tax man and in order to qualify as a REMIC. a servicing company or “Trust” entity appears to be a bank or lender. some of which were designed to control speculation of the exact nature of what has taken place with plaintiff home loan. the MBS was created first. In other words. . Securitization and Standing: 18. This “trusts” are actually Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS). and mortgages recorded ON THE DATE THE MBS CLOSED. The failure to disclose the identity of the true lender at closing was also a “material disclosure.) At the time the homeowner signed a Promissory Note and Mortgage. Each MBS/Trust was required to keep a list of the individual loans they had allegedly recruited for the MBS. 20. the SEC did not require any proof that the loans actually existed or were possessed by the MBS. but was intended as collateral for a MBS. This falsity is due to its name in the style of the case. This list has to be publicly recorded with the SEC. The homeowner was never informed of the nature of the scheme. the foreclosing Plaintiff. An MBS is an investment vehicle. They are not beneficiaries under the loan. the conversion of loans into MBS was illegal. The Banking Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and introduced banking reforms. the MBS rated and the investors money was pledged and collected long before the homeowner ever even applied for a loan. defined and regulated as “Security” by the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC. such as the year it was created and closed and its reference name and number for the SEC and IRS. They are not banks or lenders to the loan. They will never have a right to posses a mortgage in the property. the Notes and mortgages listed with the SEC had to be held. The prospectus was created. From the time of the Great Depression up and until 1999. They do not possess a Mortgage in the property.” the nature of which would make the contract voidable under California contract law. However.

are not parties to the PSA. Some loans were listed in SEC filings in multiple MBS. However. The investors who put up the money for the MBS and who received the MBS Certificates or Bonds. and contrary to California law. 22. This MUST have occurred by the closing date. each MBS/Trust had a Closing Date. The Trust Custodian must certify that for each mortgage loan. . but will be delivered to the Trustee in recordable form. regardless of whether the loan existed or had been closed. ownership stake or beneficial interest in the homeowners’ loans. The investors were invested in nothing. The Closing Date is the date that the individual identified mortgages were to be transferred through the Custodian for the benefit of the investors.As required by the SEC. Further proof of the ownership of a mortgage loan is required by a public recording of the Mortgage or Assignment of the Mortgage itself. The foreclosure filed by the Servicers and “Trusts” states that the “Trustee” is the “Holder” of the homeowners’ Note. so that they can be recorded in the event recordation is necessary in connection with the servicing of a Mortgage Loan. the Trust would include equivalent language regarding the handling of these required Assignments: “Assignments of the Mortgage Loans to the Trustee (or its nominee) will not be recorded in any jurisdiction. The PSA merely sets forth what happens after the mortgages are bundled together. No bank. Like the Cut Off Date. akin to administrators. The Servicer worked to collect money for the MBS from the plaintiff loan and collected and distributed escrow funds. lending institution or “Trustee” ever pledged or put up the money for the Homeowners’ loan. these loans were identified and listed for the SEC and the investors. The “Trustees” were Custodians. the PSA also sets forth a Cut Off Date. While attempting to circumvent California recording Statutes. The only purpose for the PSA is for the administration and distribution of funds to the investors and the obligation of the so called Trustee in administering the MBS. the Trust Custodian has possession of the original Promissory Note. Often. the MBS Trust created for itself a situation wherein it had no legally recognizable interest in the loans for the benefit of the investors. The Complaint in foreclosure never states that the “Trustee is the owner of the homeowners’ Note. all original endorsements and assignments transferring the Note and proof that the ownership of the Note has been transferred for the benefit of the shareholder/investors. The Cut Off Date is the date on which all mortgage loans in the MBS/Trust must be identified and set out in the SEC required list of mortgage loans. Typically. The foreclosing entity had or have no pecuniary. each MBS/Trust has a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”) which must be publicly filed. 21.” This publicly recorded provision to deliberately keep the transfers out of the public record violates the Mortgage recording Statute of almost every State of the Union. The MBS possessed nothing on the date the REMIC closed and perpetrated a fraud on the investors and the American taxpayer through its fraudulent qualification as a REMIC with the SEC.

the loans having been funded by the investors and were insured by multiple derivative contracts. 23. No legal plan was in place for such a wide spread loss of the assets. including and most significantly specific loan to value ratios. The Creation and Use of Fraudulent Affidavits and Mortgage Assignments: 24. At the time the feeding frenzy of securitization occurred (mostly between 2004 and 2008. the Servicer had a provision in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement which would allow it to collect and keep the proceeds of any foreclosures it could accomplish after the MBS Trust was paid off by derivatives and closed. In addition. As previously stated. No legal plan was ever in place to deal with the fact that the original Prospectus to the shareholder/investors was a myth. Likewise. When the scheme was originated and implemented en mass (mostly between the years 2004 and 2007). what was not planned for or counted upon was the immediate 2008 massive real estate market collapse and the thousands of voluntary and involuntary defaults and TILA loan rescissions of mortgage loans. The MBS/Trustee never proved that such transfers lawfully occurred.) paperwork was of little consequence as the goal of the originators was to fill and securitize as many loans as possible in order to create the loan number list for the SEC. At the same time. No legal plan was ever in place for the shareholder/investors to come to Court in an attempt to collect on the assets of the MBS they purchased.More often than not. whether or not the loans were ever repaid was of absolutely no consequence as the Servicers and “Trusts” had nothing to lose. when a Servicer is foreclosing. the appraisals for the loan were deliberately inflated as many of the investor Prospectus stated that all the loans in the bundle met certain criteria. The MBS/Trustee never mentions the intervening transfers to the other parties or the shareholder/investors or to the Court. . The “Trust” or Servicer can never hold or transfer a Mortgage in the property on behalf of the investors. having been deliberately destroyed or disposed. an additional break in the chain occurs as the Servicer is often never the mortgagee of record under a Mortgage Assignment and has absolutely no legal tie to the investors in the MBS. Contrary to California law. the MBS/Trustee claims to be acting on behalf of the MBS/Trust and claims that it has acquired the loan from the originator. in order to make the Cut Off date to fill the SEC required loan number list. The defendant did show up in a California Court to foreclose on behalf of a Trustee who administers a MBS Trust which no longer exists. the statement that the foreclosing entity “holds” the original Promissory Note is an untruth. The multiple transfers of title of the mortgage loan in between the originator and the MBS/Trust is simply ignored as it can never be proved or shown to the Court. the fair market value of housing dropped by as much as fifty percent (50%) in the plaintiff home. The majority of the securitized Notes no longer exist. In this foreclosure.

commonly referred to as a Derivative or Collateral Contract. the Defendants have attempted to receive distribution. 25. The Homeowner had no idea that it is making payments to. it is even one more step removed from the ownership of the underlying debt and Mortgage and would NEVER have an ownership claim. Assignor purports to act on behalf of a non-existent or bankrupt entity. filed or recorded properly.In the rush to create these trusts and sell shares to investors as fast and in as large a quantity as possible. when the actual beneficiaries under the homeowners’ loan. The MBS/Trust or Servicer has come to the foreclosure asserting standing when it is neither the owner of the underlying debt or the valid Mortgagee. MBS/Trusts relied and continue to rely on these fabricated documents produced and executed by their own law firms. the plaintiff loan. In other instances. Upon information and belief. but are an unearned windfall to the servicer and the law firm as in this case at bar. Servicers and third-party default service companies. Additional risk is imposed on both homeowner and the Title Company due to the fact that the loans were never owned by the MBS/Trust. The MBS/Trustees have been on notice for several years that the faulty Assignments were likely to jeopardize the claims of ownership and the ability of any entity to foreclosure. The Double and Triple Dip and Derivative Contracts: 26. In lieu of valid Promissory Notes. the MBS has been “closed” months or years prior. Funds collected from the loans allegedly within the MBS. making the clear and correct transfer of title impossible. Although the greatest risk of fraud from the fraudulently produced assignments is imposed on the homeowners. Mortgages and Mortgage Assignments. fees or proceeds or have received distributions from the liquidation of the Plaintiffs home. They have continually failed to disclose this information to the share/holder investors and to the SEC. corresponding with and applying for a modification with a mortgage loan servicer instead of a mortgage loan owner or that the Servicer is keeping part or all of proceeds of the mortgage payments without the knowledge or permission of the investors. This means that the entity seeking to foreclose can NEVER prove the chain of ownership. there is no contract between the investors and the foreclosing entity which would allow them so act as a Plaintiff in a Foreclosure even when the MBS is not shut down. the shareholder/investors have been made whole by a Derivative Contract. Mortgages and Assignments were never prepared. Additionally. ar no longer being paid to the investors. When a Servicer or a Trust as in this case shows up in a California Circuit Court. Many of the MBS/Trusts were covered by an insurance policy. These Derivative Contracts are not recorded or regulated by the SEC. this scheme poses a great risk in the exposure of the Title Companies that guaranteed the clear and correct transfer of ownership. .

Beginning soon after the “ink” on the new mortgages was “dry. arose to prominence and was and is used to further obscure important truths. the face value of the MBS. and Assignment of Mortgages. The Plaintiff and MERS have drafted. “mortgagee” began to have a meaning other than “lender. and employees of the law firm involved in this case at the civil court level.” and in many cases prior to the loan even closing. thereby negating the validity of each and every one of the required TILA disclosures. Another part of the scheme was the use of words in ways inconsistent with their traditional meanings. false and fabricated Promissory Note. and the creation of new terms which could be used to blur important distinctions between parties and their interests. yet they came and continue to come to the Courts with the fabricated and forged documents. up to ten times (10x). the lenders promptly sold the loans. Attorneys have been told in open Court by the counsel of record for the foreclosing Servicer. the MBS/Trusts themselves became parties to Derivative Contracts. The bogus entities have no standing to foreclose. to “investors” for some percentage or fraction of what had been the alleged value of the mortgage and the property by which it was secured just days or weeks earlier. in order to foreclose upon plaintiff property. in secretive transactions.Likewise. serving as a strawman. the “servicer” does not hold the true beneficial interest in the mortgage. the Lender did not advance any funds as to the loan. the actual Derivative contract is for more. Specifically.” which has no legal definition. The offense is patently egregious when it is viewed in light of the fact that the MBS/Trustee or Servicer. that “it is none of the borrowers business” who owns or in the case of a closed MBS. 28. or caused to be filed. In most cases. which indicated another party other the originator owns the loan. . Unjust Enrichment: 27. More often than not.” “Servicer. Plaintiff has filed foreclosures throughout the State of California knowing that they were not the “owners” or beneficiaries of the loan they filed foreclosure upon. prepared by employees or agents who are defendants in this case. who owned their loan before the MBS REMIC became extinct. multiple insurance policies were taken and traded on the MBS. Most times. The “double dip” or double compensation of the MBS/Trustee. The Defendants will not release any further information on the subject. They knowingly and intentionally set out to deceive the Courts as to this fact and had full knowledge of the fact that they lacked Constitutionally defined “Standing” and capacity to file suit. The revolutionary ways in which words were utilized all shared one characteristic: they made it more difficult to determine who had the right to receive and utilize for their own purposes the payments made on the loan by the borrower. Mortgage. executed and filed. or Sericer is improper in its own right. For example. whether it is requested in discovery in a foreclosure action or in any other context.

title.” The Plaintiff is not in possession of the original negotiable instrument with any legally binding original endorsement. is not a Mortgagee and has no legally enforceable interest in the loan or standing to file this action. under wherein the Plaintiff could ever be “a person in possession of a negotiable instrument. The Party does not hold. If the Party. that read as follows: “ X signs a document conveying all of X's right. Although the document may be effective to give Y a claim to ownership of the instrument. 30.STATEMENT OF RELEVANT California LAW AND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE 29.3-203. The record reflects that Plaintiff is not the “holder” or “owner” of the Note. To meet the definition of a "holder. the Note was “securitized. The negotiation and enforceability of both notes and checks are governed by Article Three (3) of the Uniform Commercial Code. The most the Plaintiff could ever be is an unsecured creditor. bear or own the original Note. attempts to claim that the original documentation was somehow “lost. and the plaintiff loan. Upon information and belief.” Based on the record in the Plaintiffs’ case. a person must be a holder of the note. the Note. started their life as negotiable instruments. as made obvious by official comments to the UCC § 355. To enforce a negotiable instrument. No transfer of the instrument occurs under Section 3-203(a) until it is delivered to Y. It is asserted that the Law Firm initiating this action and the Plaintiff. document of title. whereby it engages in systemic fraud across the State of California. the Note and the Mortgage were bifurcated at inception and were and remain unenforceable as a Secured Transaction under the Uniform Commercial Code and California law. or certificated security that is payable to bearer or indorsed in blank. They were similar to a check. Y is not a person entitled to enforce the instrument until Y obtains possession of the instrument. 31. Neither does it appear in the record of this case to be any evidence that the Plaintiff will ever be the “Bearer” of the Note.” was paid off in excess of the principal balance and is no longer enforceable as a Secured Negotiable Instrument. at a later date. the Defendants were deceived into such transaction without notice that they were encumbering the property as a “Security” under the Rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission.” the Note will never be enforceable. and the note must be issued or endorsed to him or to his order or to bearer or in blank. The alleged Notes in question. ." the person must possess the note. in conspiracy with its clients. and interest in the instrument to Y. If an enforceable transaction can be proven. It is asserted that such action is part of the Law Firm’s regular practice and procedure. have conspired with each other and their other agents and principals to file a false and fraudulent Foreclosure Action and to later create a false and forged Mortgage Assignment.

33. in this case. All Defendants knew that prior to the time that the loan was taken out by the borrower. The borrower was entitled to information regarding all of the profits. the more likely that failure was to cause the entire mortgage-backed security pool. 32. All Defendants who originated. a loan which named MERS on the mortgage was securitized or intended to be securitized prior to the preparation of the note and mortgage reflecting the loan. Pooling and Service Agreements. foreclosure and selling the properties after foreclosure. payments. aggregated and/or securitized the Plaintiff’s loan knew or should have known at the time of those actions by Defendants that the more likely or certain the loans were to fail. aggregation and securitization of mortgage-backed loans originated from 2003 through 2009 and secured by real property in the United States included financial incentives which were designed to result in the loans being written on terms which were likely or certain to result in foreclosure. which allow the Servicers to keep the proceeds of the foreclosures when the MBS has been closed or the investors paid off In the case of many of the nation’s borrowers the loans were advanced based upon the value of the house itself and not the income of the borrower. The note instead merged with other unknown notes as a total obligation due to the investor or investors. mortgage brokers. Also. and that the scheme described herein included financial incentives designed to motivate appraisers. The financial incentives mentioned in the previous paragraph included without limitation the hiring of appraisers who had financial incentive to appraise properties at a value that would justify the loan requested. serviced. MERS was created by its owners to work with investment banks and “lenders” as co-conspirators in relation to the MERS system with the specific intent that MERS would be named the beneficiary and/or as the nominee of the lender on the mortgages and deeds of trust which borrowers nationwide were induced into signing. kick-backs. The note is no longer a negotiable instrument.The note. the payment to mortgage. Defendants also knew that the scheme employed by all Defendants involved in the origination. thereby losing its individual identity as a note between a lender and a borrower. but collateral for a Federally regulated Security under the confines of the SEC. aggregator banks and securitizing banks to steer borrowers into loans they could not afford and could not repay so that the loans would go into default and the Defendants involved in servicing. fees and insurance and credit default . and the more profitable those events would be to Defendants. the equity in the house itself was used to secure more loans based upon the value of the home when that value was exaggerated by the market manipulated by the Defendants and which is clearly not in the interest of the borrowers for an initial purchase or refinancing of property. that had been executed with the mortgages or deed of trust were separated from the mortgages and deed of trust in that the note became part of a pool of mortgages. to fail. aggregating and securitizing those loans could make yet more profits from default. lenders.

swaps related to the transactions which included the identity of the investors providing the funds loaned to the borrowers. The Plaintiffs is entitled to equitable relief as to the clearing and quieting of the title to her property in relation to the filing of false papers with the county record as to the plaintiff. punitive damages. Defendants knew that the business practices in which they were engaged would result in driving the market for housing into unnaturally high demand which would cause the prices on home to escalate beyond their normal and reasonable value and further knew that lending money to persons who were not qualified in such large numbers would cause the market to eventually crash. statutory damages as permitted by law. TRIAL AND DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE. These violations as aforementioned entitle the Debtor to recover the actual damages they have sustained as a result of the improper filing of foreclosure suits and the improper filing of the Mortgage Assignments. aggregated and/or securitized the loans was an intentional misrepresentation and/or intentional material omission of fact by those Defendants for the purpose of using the borrower’ signature on a note and deed of trust to defraud the investors and the borrower. did not and cannot legally obtain foreclosures and/or file an Assignment of the Notes or Mortgages of the representative Plaintiffs. In conspiracy with each other. and such additional relief as the Court or jury may deem just and proper. statutory damages as permitted by law. Neither the Plaintiffs nor MERS had capacity or standing to file suit or foreclose on property. affidavits. including imposition of liability on the members of the conspiracy not presently named as Plaintiffs in this action. serviced. The lenders. treble damages as allowed by the acts. servicers and investors in mortgage backed securities. and the concealment of those facts by all the Defendants who originated. treble damages as allowed by the acts. and mortgage assignments. request the this Court enter judgment against the Plaintiff jointly and severally and award all damages. costs and any other relief the Court deems proper. punitive damages. 34. CONCLUSION Upon information and belief. for the total damages sustained by the Debtor. the Defendants. and had no right to initiate the foreclosure on all borrower’s homes bearing a mortgage or deed of trust in the name of MERS. the Movants. restitution under for the violations of the criminal acts. An award of actual and compensatory damages. demands judgment against the Defendants. jointly and severally. the Debtor on her own behalf. with such use of those funds having extinguished the obligations reflected by the note that was executed by the borrowers and thus have no right to collect on the note. and cost and other fees incurred and equitable relief as to the clearing . and cost incurred. restitution under for the violations of the criminal acts. have used those funds to repay investors who funded loans and/or to settle the lawsuits of those investors against the securitizing banks for fraud. filed fraudulent mortgages. plus costs. filed sham pleadings and committed and continue to commit fraud on the recording clerks and the Courts.

The defendant prays that the court denies the Movant all right to the title of the home of the Debtor and that all claims that Movant may have had are deemed null and void. and an Order which punishes severely and sanctions any violation of said Injunction by the Debtor or any of the Plaintiffs. including imposition of liability on the members of the conspiracy not presently named as plaintiffs in this action. IN THE ALTERNATIVE WHEREFORE. the Debtor on her own behalf pro se. pro se . A determination of common issues and claims in unitary with the superior court where the defendant has an open case and an award of actual and compensatory damages. statutory damages as permitted by law. treble damages as allowed by the acts. by and through its attorneys. and cost and other fees incurred and equitable relief as to the clearing and quieting of the title to the defendant property in relation to the filing of a complaint devoid of the required standing with incurable violations with which and as the defendant stated them.and quieting of the title to their properties in relation to the filing of false Note and Mortgage Assignments. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. the filing of new foreclosure or declaratory Judgments. _________________________________ Heidi Amaya. As follows: 1a). restitution under for the violations of the criminal acts. Such coordination and cooperation as may be appropriate between this court and the superior court that may exercise subject matter jurisdiction and Article III standing over the subject of this litigation. punitive damages. 2b). request this Court enter judgment against the Movants award all damages. An Injunction halting from this day forward. or the prosecution of existing law suits. and the above issues as stated herein and as put forth by the defendant. and based on the law. JURY TRIAL AND DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE. with the Debtor/ homeowner. costs and any other relief the Court deems proper on behalf of the Debtor and such additional relief as the court or jury may deem just and proper.

.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on 3rd day of Febuary 2012 a true and complete copy of the above and foregoing was served on the opposing counsel and all parties by depositing same in the United States Mail Addressed as follows.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful