1

2
3
4

V1.6-8

Faith Lynn Brashear

1095 Lowry Ranch Road
Corona, California 92881
Tel: 951-268-4042
Fax: 855-204-0859
Plaintiff in pro se

5
6
7

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Historic Courthouse

9
10

FAITH LYNN BRASHEAR, an individual,

11

Plaintiff

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

vs.
HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING
CORPORATION DBA HSBC BANK USA,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee of the
Holders of the Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc.,
Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates Series 2007-OA4;
THE MORTGAGE LAW FIRM, PLC, as
Trustee and Agent of a Beneficiary; as agent
for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; RYAN
REMINGTON, an agent of The Mortgage Law
Firm, PLC; SPECIALIZED LOAN
SERVICING LLC, as servicer for HSBC Bank
USA, National Association, as Trustee for the
Holders of the Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc.,
Mortgage loan Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates Series 22007 OA4; AMI
MCKERNAN, an officer and agent of
Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, and All
persons and entities claiming any right to real
property located at 1095 Lowry Ranch Road,
Corona CA 92881 and Does 1-20, inclusively,
Defendants

Case No.: ___________________________

Assigned to Hon. ______________, presiding
Request for Immediate Stay Order
1st MEMORANDUM TO TRO AND THE
COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFFS DECLAIRATION IN
FAVOR OF TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION TO ENJOIN ILLEGAL
FORECLOSURE SALE
Supporting state, federal, community
property laws and exhibits.
24 hours Notice given: _______, 2015
Date: ___________, 2014
Time: ___________ AM/PM
Dept. ________
Filed with Verified Complaint (CCP 529, et al.)

26
27
- 1
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

V1.6-8

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD, Plaintiff Faith Lynn Brashear
hereby submits this Memorandum to TRO. This is a talking Memorandum in testimony by an
original source witness to both the TRO and the Complaint with supporting state, federal,
community property laws and exhibits.
PLAINTIFFS DECLAIRATION IN FAVOR OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO
ENJOIN ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE SALE
The purpose of this Memorandum is to outline the background justification of the TRO
request. It is not a mandatory requirement of the courts to establish standing with a
memorandum attachment that is for solely the purpose of judicial notice, as the TRO itself
focuses specifically on Immediate Core violations that enable these courts to grant the
immediate relief requested. Plaintiff would move these courts to a permanent injection and/or

10

immediate sanctions should it please these courts with the additional information provided

11

herein as a professional courtesy to these courts from which to draw upon should these courts

12
13

deem it fit.
Plaintiff will always respectfully ask these courts to look within their authority, as the
loan in question was a 2009 TILA rescinded loan where clear TILA and RESPA violation are

14

factually and historically evident. Under TILA, These courts have no discretion to deny

15

damages, once a violation of this nature has been discovered no matter how small. Since this

16

specific issue has not been properly tried, it is not barred from these humble requests for these

17
18

courts to take such notice as Plaintiff was within her 3 year rights, has rescinded and continues
to assert loan recession under TILA.
Officers of the court who many come in contact with the matter of Goodner versus

19

Disaster Services are noticed under authority of the supremacy and equal protection clauses of

20

the United States Constitution and the common law authorities of Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S.

21
22
23
24
25
26

519-421, Platsky v. C.I.A. 953 F.2d. 25, and Anastasoffv. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir.
2000). In re Haines: pro se litigants are held to less stringent pleading standards than bar
licensed attorneys. Plaintiff has striven to uphold a higher standard as try not to burden these
courts, but still remains a lowly layman.
Regardless of the deficiencies in Plaintiffs past pleadings, pro se litigants are entitled to
the opportunity to submit evidence in support of their claims. In re Platsky: court errs if court
dismisses the pro se litigant without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair
pleadings. In re Anastas off. litigants' constitutional rights are violated when courts depart from

27
- 2
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

1
2
3
4
5

V1.6-8

precedent where parties are similarly situated. Plaintiff was clearly denied remedy to this
continued problematic situation. It has taken plaintiff and additional two years of intense
studies and direct dealings with litigation advocates across this nation as well as a university
professor of law, to better understand the complexities of these courts in how to properly convey
these issues.
The merits of the underlying cases are not at issue before these courts in this complaint.

However it is clear to Plaintiff that a judge who acts in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction

may be held liable for his judicial act. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S. Ct. 1099, 55 L.

8
9

Ed. 2d 331 (1978) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 20 L. Ed. 646 (1872). A judge's
private, prior agreement to decide in favor of one party is not a judicial act. Rankin v. Howard,
633 F. 2d 844 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. Denied, 451 U.S. 939, 101 S. Ct. 2020, 68 L. Ed. 2d 326

10

(1981). Judge is deprived of immunity where the judge willfully accedes to fraud. Cite omitted.

11

These exhibits attached to this memorandum are respectfully submitted by Plaintiff who

12
13

is a past volunteer Federal witness of mortgage crimes in the inland empire whose wholesale
mortgage brokered Countrywide loans were called to grand jury See Exhibit #11. Plaintiff
brokered said loan to herself, and since it was not the intent for Plaintiff to breach fiduciary with

14

herself, she has come forth upon her discovery of these predicate crimes full scope of

15

underlying intent, as of March 2015. It simply would have been impossible to come forth any

16

sooner as information has been, and is still being, concealed from Plaintiff.

17
18

The loan in question has been identified as the same type of loan admitted by
Countrywide to our California State Attorney General in violation of state and federal laws.
Plaintiff obtained the additional forensic audits in 2009 submitted in this case exhibits, to try

19

and negotiate restructures upon the identified predicate in default loan. The TILA and RESPA

20

violations outlined within these professional reports and cross verified by myself, outline

21
22

violations that exceed the market value of the home.

Multiple unresolved novation attempts were made in attempts to work these issue out.
These attempts were ignored, or blatantly met with deliberate foreclosure attempts. This has

23

been a 7-year hostile, adverse and open dispute since 6/1/2008, as evidenced by the Exhibit #12

24

title recordings. At this point in time, Color of Title now applies and this loan has been

25

respectfully and undeniably voided by operation of law as summarized herein.

26

NOVATION ATTEMPS documenting ongoing hostile dispute.

1. Chapter 11 restructure attempt (03/2009) Case Number: 0920772TTG

27
- 3
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

1
2
3
4

V1.6-8

2. Chapter 13 2012 6:12-bk-34738 - and NACA submitted modification, with evidence of

duel tracking and additional illegal foreclosure attempts.
OPEN ACTIVE HOSTIL DISPUTE DOCUMENTATIONS SLS
3. Exhibit # 9
4. Documented demands for compliance under 2923.55 outlining the refusal of SLS and

BofA to provide an accurate QWR, show ligitimate transfer, or prived alternatives to

foreclosure .See In re Parsley, No. 05-90374 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2007 and Jones

v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage.) Referenced as CFBP Case numbers: 140221-002071,

8
9

Case number: 140508-001150, 140515-000623, 140515-000636, 140509-000318,

140515-000623, 140930-000635, 140508-001150, 140606-001215, 140609-000800,
140922-000297, 140922-000193, 140922-000207, 140922-000191, 140922-000211,

10

140922-000208, 141001-000235, 141001-000324, 141001-000306, 141001-000286,

11

141001-000356, 140922-000043, 141001-000379, 141215-000178, 141215-000144,

12
13

150102-000468, 150105-000714, 150102-000468, 150312-000857, 150318-000451,

150318-001551, 150318-001601, 150318-001560, 150318-001536, 150318-001585,
150324-000657, 150324-001726, 150318-001536, 150401-001922, and 150331-001704.

14

Including but not limited to

15

CONTINUED FALSE ASSURANCES AND DECIETFUL COLLECTION

16

ACTIVITIE Most egregious displays of contempt.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

5. Exhibit #8 - Assurances that no foreclosure action would come forth until after the
appeal hearing of Plaintiffs State case surrounding the issues with the prior servicer. See
Attorney email of Bank of Americas Assurance. redacted
6. Transfer of the 100% predicate in default loan while Bank of America was under a
Ginnie mae ban not to transfer these Countywide loans. Article -3 203 transfers cannot
be made if the transferee engaged in fraud or illegality affecting the instrument. See:
Mortgage Servicing News Ginnie Mae Nixes Bank of America Mortgage Servicing
Transfer Once a Nunc Pro Tunct loan is transferred it turns any voidable portion of the
contract void by operation of law.

24

7. (Plaintiff personal favorite); Laying false claims the non-bank servicer had the wrong

25

address when the last known address was attached to the 2nd Amended complaint

26

directly served to Bank of America and recorded at this same State Supreme Court when
service notice rights were challenged.

27
- 4
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

1
2
3
4

V1.6-8

8. Failure to produce a substitution of trustee.

9. Failure to explain how, when the nunc pro tunc loans acceleration date clearly outlined
in the first HSBC / Recon Trust Notice of Default that identified the loans DUE DATE
aka its acceleration date as 6/1/2008, would not be breach of statue limitations. Doc
2012-0129568 3/20/12.

U.C.C. - ARTICLE 3 - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS (2002) 3-118.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. (a) Except as provided in subsection (e), an action

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

to enforce the obligation of a party to pay a note payable at a definite time

must

be commenced within six years after the due date or dates stated in the note

or, if

a due date is accelerated, within six years after the accelerated due

date.

10. Failure to explain how Defendant HSBC legitimately come forth to act upon a January
2008 SUSPENDED/ TERMINATED trusts behalf, that failed to securitize the DOT?
HSBC cannot lay claims they were unaware of this as the 5-year old DOT
(questionably) transfers to the holders of the REMIC conduit trust, and not the trust
itself. Defendants simply do not hold the note as the REMIC conduit trust was swapped
out into another undisclosed investment conduit before consummation of the security
instrument took place.
11. Intengan v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 214 Cal. App. 4th 1047 (2013): A court
may take judicial notice of the existence of a declaration from a servicer asserting
compliance with the notice requirements in former CC 2923.5, but cannot take judicial
notice of the contents of that declaration. If disputed by the borrower, it is a matter of
fact to be determined at trial whether or not a servicer actually attempted to make

19

contact with the borrower 30 days prior to recording a notice of default. Plaintiff

20

absolutely disputes this.

21
22

12. No legal standing to foreclose exists making the recording of a Notice of Trustee Sale,
in violation of PENAL CODE SECTIONS 470-483.5
13. NOTE: The complexities of Plaintiffs State case were difficult to convey and even

23

more difficult to understand at the time. The case was dismissed for failure to properly

24

state a cliam without a ruling upon the merits. CONLEY VS. GIBSON (1957), 355 U.S.

25

41, 45, 46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2LEd 2d 80; SEYMOUR VS. UNION NEWS COMPANY, 7

26

Cir., 1954, 217 F.2d 168; and see rule 54c, demand for judgment, FEDERAL RULES
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 28 USCA: **every final judgment shall grant the relief to

27
- 5
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

1
2
3
4

V1.6-8

which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not
demanded such relief in his pleadings. U.S. V. WHITE COUNTY BRIDGE
COMMISSION (1960), 2 Fr Serv 2d 107, 275 F2d 529, 535.
14. The TILA rescission was not properly pleaded in the complaint, and these courts did not
look within themselves to enforce the operation of state and federal laws in which relief

should have been granted because, at the time, Jeneski was still on the fence. Regardless,

The full scope of these predicate crimes were not fully discovered until March 2015 by

Plaintiff therefore it would have been impossible to either plead or to properly rule at

8
9

that time, nor could these courts rule until the Supreme law was set.
15. Plaintiffs earlier complaint is currently in appeal D067442, which means that it would
be inequitable to require tender where the circustances are being litigated for fraud

10

claims not only of the validity of the note, but for failure to enter a substance for

11

substance agreement at any level. Pfeifer v. Countrywide Home Loans, 211 Cal. App.

12
13

4th 1250 (2012) and Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2014 WL 4809205 (N.D.
Cal. Sept. 25, 2014) for attempts to further collect in penalties in interest exceeding
the fair market value of the home going beyond mere breach of contract. Plaintiff

14

believes here discoveries are are the reason behind why CalPERs retirements are not

15

being properly paid. Plaintiff has found over 500 pass-through securities trusts that

16

follow this same pattern on the SEC.

17
18

16. It is the assertion of the Plaintiff that the above described Deed of Trust and all
obligations have been satisfied per operation of law, as no evidence of security can be
brought forth to substantiate a claim against said property. See Exhibit #8 - SEC Trust

19

Termination and/or suspended. CCP 1688. RECINDED PER OPERATION OF LAW

20

TILA1635 (f) (3). The first recession of Plaintiffs mortgage loans took place in 2009 as

21
22

evidenced in Exhibit # 6.
17. CC 2924(g)(d) prevents foreclosure sales from happening following a dismissal of an
action brought by the borrower. There is a private right of action implied in CC

23

2924(g)(d), as it would be rendered useless without one. Plaintiff hereby asserts per the

24

power granted to her through Congress, loans that are automatically voided by law,

25

cannot be foreclosed upon.

26

18. No recorded assignment of trustee can legally exist under (ii) 2934a(1)(A) assigning The
Mortgage Law Firm PLC, or HSBC to act as a legitimate trustee by MERS. Further,

27
- 6
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

1
2
3
4
5

V1.6-8

beneficiary assignments recorded by Bank of America to Bank of America would call

into question the authenticity of a Robo signed document transferring all beneficiary
interests of State suspended beneficiary MERS of alleged security instrument, with no
For valuable consideration to Bank of America upon an invalid Trust Deed
Assignment. No secure obligation in favor of MERS currently can exist under these
circumstances. MERS could not act as beneficiary on the NOD.

19. Therefore let this hereby serve as notice - a public recorded declaration, reasonably

asserted, has been made and said trustee sale is INVALID therefore dismissed,

8
9

rescinded, null and void. See U.S. Bank v. Cantartzoglou, 2013 WL 443771 (Cal. App.
Div. Super. Ct. Feb. 1, 2013) See Tang v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2012 WL 960373 (C.D.
Cal.Mar. 19, 2012) Patel v. U.S. Bank, 2013 WL 3770836 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2013)

10

Points and Authorities in Support of Complaint and TRO

11

The following operations of law that have already extinguished this loan.

12
13
14

WHEARAS, Faith Brashear (FNA Donna Beltz) as the Original Trustor, the original
lender as Countrywide Bank FSB, the original Trustee ReconTrust and Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems Inc (MERS) as the Original beneficiary, under that certain Deed of Trust
and recorded Dated: 5/14/2007 as Instrument No as Docket No. 2007-0319880 Dated:

15

5/2/2007, inclusive of the Legal Description .84 Acres M/L in Lot 47 MB 365/084 TR 29617

16

Official Records of the County of Riverside, State of California

17
18
19

And
WHEREAS, MERS as beneficiary was suspended by the CA Secretary of State and the
Franchise Tax Board (2002-2010). Both the lender Countrywide Bank FSB and Recon Trust are
dissolved.

20

And

21

WHERAS, Faith Lynn Brashear rescinded her mortgage loans in March 2009 after

22
23

forensic audits positively identified her loan as a 100% predicate in default loan. The Bifurcated
Countrywide Promissory Note was fully discharged on 03/09/09 filing 6:08-bk-25762-PC and
no evidence of proper securitization can be brought forth to substantiate a claim.

24

And

25

WHERAS, The Countrywide loan has been identified as the same 100% predicate in

26

default negative amortization loan (stated income pay option arm) admitted to the California

27

Attorney General to be in violation of State and Federal laws. See People of the State of
- 7
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

1
2
3
4
5

V1.6-8

California v. COUNTRYWIDE Financial Corporations, et al Stipulated Judgment and

Injunction Complaint No. LC083076, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, Northwest District (2008) (COUNTRYWIDE Stipulated Judgment). Sarkar v.
World Savings FSB, 2014 WL 457901 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2014)
And
WHEREAS Countrywide as the originator of the Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc

Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass-though Certificates Series 2007-OA4. Countrywide

irrevocably sold all right, title and interest in Plaintiffs mortgage loan, for value received (as

8
9

further evidenced upon the DOT via the MERS Member Identification Number), to the
Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass-though Certificates Series
2007-OA4 a private label mortgage-backed securities trust with a Real Estate Mortgage

10

Investment Conduit election and continuing qualification. See BURKE v .JPMORGAN CHASE

11

BANK, NA;

12
13

And
WHEREAS, (ii) 2934a(1)(A) says all beneficiaries must execute the Substitution of
Trustee (the applicable California law when a lender seeks to substitute the trustee and

14

pursue a foreclosure sale), and the substitution of trustee document must be RECORDED to

15

be effective, if not, the resulting sale is VOID. No such document exists on county record to

16

assign; Sage Point Lender Services, LLC, or The Mortgage Law Firm PLC, or HSBC trustee on

17
18

behalf of the Trust as Substitute Trustee by the beneficiary MERS on the DOT
And
WHEREAS Bank of America prepared an assignment of Deed with a known robo

19

signer acting on behalf of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. recorded DOC#2011-

20

0411709 with all beneficial interests and NO for value consideration as the loan was not

21
22

attached ie no value. A legal beneficiary would have transferred an abandoned Deed the
security trust, however this transfer evidences a transfer to Bank of America the servicer with
ALL beneficiary interest thereby transferring to Bank of America prepared by Bank of

23

America naming themselves as the new Beneficiary under a regular Deed of Trust transfer with

24

no For Valuable Consideration.

25
26

And
WHEREAS Bank of America, the servicer altered a Corporation Assignment of Deed
of Trust/Mortgage and recorded a Corporation Deed Transfer to HSBC Bank USA, National

27
- 8
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

1
2
3
4

V1.6-8

Association, as Trustee for the Holders of the Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc Mortgage Loan
Trust, Mortgage Pass-though Certificates Series 2007-OA4. Doc# 2012-0129567.
And
WHEREAS No Actual transfer into above trust to securitize the loan exists. It is not
only beyond the 90 day pooling and servicing agreements of a legitimate security trust to be

able to do so, said was terminated/suspended swapped out in 2008 rendering it nunc pro tunc,

extinguished null and void to the point where it can no longer be placed into the trust which in

turn extinguishes all beneficiary interests to the trust. Cheung v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 987 F.

8
9
10
11
12
13

Supp. 2d 972 (N.D. Cal. 2013). Further Said Trust was utilized for the purpose of issuing pass
through certificates attached to the manipulated LIBOR Index.
And
WHEREAS said trust became the property of unknown holders having non-claimable
beneficiary desires of interest. These recorded Documents evidencing these events, renders
any sale action against this property void therefore tender is no longer required. Aniel v. Aurora
Loan Servs., LLC, 550 F. Appx 416 (9th Cir. 2013), Engler v. ReconTrust Co., 2013 WL
6815013 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013)CC 2934a(a)(1)

14

And

15

WHERAS, In 2010 Dodd-Frank Act was enacted to bar traders from intentionally

16
17
18

interfering with the orderly execution of transactions that determine settlement prices. 7
U.S.C. 9 (2012) Prohibition regarding manipulation and false information. Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), Pub. L. No. 111-203, tit.VII (2010)
Title 17 : 240.3a67-8 (c).

19

And

20

WHERAS, Evidence of a 10k report filed for larger entities over 300 persons existed

21
22

after the termination or suspension recorded Exhibit #13.- This is a recordation of a

Termination of Registration under Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, per 17
CFR 240.12g-4 (b) If the suspension resulted from the issuer's merger into, or

23

consolidation with, another issuer or issuers, the certification shall be filed by the

24

successor issuer. This swap out intents are identified in the P&S agreement as the Certificate

25

Swap Out Agreement Schedule and Floor Agreement schedules. Note the swaps finalize in

26

August 2008 outlined in the P&S under the Floor Agreement schedules. The Certificate
Swap Agreement, dated as of June 29, 2007,was between HSBC Bank USA, National

27
- 9
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

1
2
3
4

V1.6-8

Association, as trustee, as trustee on behalf of the Supplemental Interest Trust, and the
Certificate Swap Provider.
And
WHEREAS, The MERS Member Identification number referenced herein as MIN NO:
1001337-0002108190-9 documents the MERS member 1001337 as Countrywide Bank, FSB

and further documents an unidentified pass-through loan number 0002108190 tendering loan

number 00016536826405007 as recorded on DOC # 2007-0319880. Recession was exercised

under 2941 sub (b)(1)(A-C) upon discovery of the un-securitized instrument and additional

8
9
10
11
12
13

verification of its lack of legality upon inception. It would be Inequitable to demand additional
tender. Moya v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2014 WL 1344677 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2014):Rigali v.
OneWest Bank, No. CV10-0083 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Luis Obispo Co. Feb. 14, 2013) See
Exhibit P - details on how the Mers system works.
And
WHEREAS, The nunc pro tunc loans acceleration date is clearly outlined in the first
HSBC / Recon Trust Notice of Default which identified the loans DUE DATE aka acceleration
date as 6/1/2008. Doc 2012-0129568 3/20/12,. U.C.C. - ARTICLE 3 - NEGOTIABLE

14

INSTRUMENTS (2002) 3-118. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. (a) Except as provided in

15

subsection (e), an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay a note payable at a definite

16

time must be commenced within six years after the due date or dates stated in the note or, if a

17
18

due date is accelerated, within six years after the accelerated due date. No legal standing
to foreclose exists making the recording of a Notice of Trustee Sale, in violation of PENAL
CODE SECTIONS 470-483.5

19

And

20

WHEREAS CC 2923.5 Claim Unavailable if Servicer Rescinds NOD Doc#2014-

21
22

0188942. Thereby nullifying Doc#2014-0488544. And since this issue is currently in

litigation Pfeifer v. Countrywide Home Loans, 211 Cal. App. 4th 1250 (2012) it would be
inequitable to require tender where the circumstances being litigated for fraud claims of not

23

only the validity of the note and lack of securitization, but for potential RICO claims still within

24

statue to bring forth. Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2014 WL 4809205 (N.D. Cal. Sept.

25

25, 2014) for attempts to further collect in penalties in interest matching the fair market value of

26

the home going beyond mere breach of contract.

And

27
- 10
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

1
2
3
4

V1.6-8

WHEREAS, under TILA Section 131(f)(2) evidence of a securitized trust does not
exists. The SEC Trust the Nunc Pro Tunc Pre-Bifurcated loan was placed into attached
Terminated/Suspended REMIC trust without the deed. Said REMIC trust was used to commit
securities fraud prior to being swapped out in a trust refinance attached to the manipulated
ISDAfix index, fully extinguishing the security instrument prior to deed transfer after said

REMIC distributed certificates attached to the manipulated LIBOR index. Operation of Law

violations: Civil code 1689.2, Civil code 1689 (b)(5), and Civil Code 1962(a). Termination

and or/suspended REMIC in 2008 (attached Certification and Notice of Termination of

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Registration under Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Operation of Law
extinguishment the Deed CCP 1688.
And
WHEREAS A terminated/swapped out trust nullifies the transaction, extinguished the
note, and forever disables the ability to fully consummate a legal transaction. Thus the SEC
cannot enforce the tender Rule pursuant to 14d-10 under the Securities Exchange Act 1934.
See: Lerro v. Quaker Oats Co., 84 F. 3d 239(7th Cir. 1996).
And
WHEREAS, 9-315. SECURED PARTY'S RIGHTS ON DISPOSITION OF

15

COLLATERAL AND IN PROCEEDS.(e) [When perfected security interest in proceeds

16

becomes unperfected.] If a filed financing statement covers the original collateral, a security

17
18

interest in proceeds which remains perfected under subsection (d)(1) becomes unperfected at the
later of: (1) when the effectiveness of the filed financing statement lapses under Section 9-515
or is terminated under Section 9-513; 9-513. TERMINATION STATEMENT. (d) [Effect of

19

filing termination statement.] or (2) the 21st day after the security interest attaches to the

20

proceeds.

21
22

Except as otherwise provided in Section 9-510, upon the filing of a termination

statement with the filing office, the financing statement to which the termination statement
relates ceases to be effective. Except as otherwise provided in Section 9-510, for purposes of

23

Sections 9-519(g), 9-522(a), and 9-523(c), the filing with the filing office of a termination

24

statement relating to a financing statement that indicates that the debtor is a transmitting utility

25

also causes the effectiveness of the financing statement to lapse. Since the instrument was never

26

perfected, once terminated it can never be perfected.

And

27
- 11
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

1
2
3
4
5

V1.6-8

WHEREAS, under TILA1635 (f) (3) consummation never took place thereby
extinguishing the seven-year rescinded instrument by OPERATION OF FEDERAL LAW.
Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc 729 F. 3d 1092 - Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, 2013
LAW OF THE LAND RULING. Matter of State Law. 12 C.F.R. pt. 226,. 2(a)(13).
And
WHEREAS, Article -3 203 transfers cannot be made if the transferee engaged in

fraud or illegality affecting the instrument. Once a Nunc Pro Tunct loan is transferred it turns

any voidable portion of the contract void by operation of law. Transfers of predicate loans used

8
9
10
11
12
13

to perpetuate frauds to any non-bank servicer violates CALIFORNIA ROSENTHAL FDCPA

section 1788.17 (a) 1- 4.
And
WHEREAS, A Trademark System is not a beneficiary. MERS does not exist as a legal
company in the State of California. MERSCORP holds the MERS trademark system only
and is not listed as a beneficiary upon the aforementioned contract. Non-response is an
Acquiesce of Silence through 7 years of continued demands, 3 years of unanswered court
ordered subpoenas, and one year of documented demands through the CFPB upon a transfer of

14

the loan while under restrictions to do so by the Federal Government, thereby creating an

15

inability to be able to state a claim in recoupment. Rule 12(b)(6) FRCP.

16
17
18

And
WHEREAS If a borrower contends the validity of the foreclosure sale itself and can act
with reasonable assertion of that fact to prevent undue harm, no tender is required. Tamburri v.
Sunset Mortg., 2012 WL 2367881 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2012). The DOT does not contain

19

language providing for a conclusive presumption of the regularity of sale, and therefore is

20

defective notice, the sale is considered void. Little v. C.F.S. Serv. Corp., 188 Cal. App. 3d 1354,

21
22

1359 (1987).
See also: Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Group, Inc., et al., 175 Wn.2d 83, 285 P.3d 34 (2012).
Glasky v. Bank of America (2013), San Francisco Supreme CRT.

23

Subramani v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 WL 5913789 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2013

24

Cheung v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 987 F. Supp. 2d 972 (N.D. Cal. 2013)

25

Rotella v. Wood 528, 549, 560-61,120 S. Ct. 1075, 145 L. Ed. 2d 1047(2000).

26

15 U. S. C. 1601(a) - 1635(a) (2006 ed.) - 1635(g)

Kemp v Countrywide Case 08-02448-JHW Doc 25

27
- 12
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

1
2
3
4

V1.6-8

NOTE: Countrywide is outlined within both the Prospectus and the Pooling and
Servicing Agreements as a party to the REMIC conduit trusts. Plaintiff is proximity to
REMIC conduit pass through Trust as she originated her own loan on behalf of
Countrywide, who was the Originator of the Trust itself. This would make her proximity
to the REMIC conduit trust through granted privilege. Plaintiff has the right to challenge

assignments per her wholesale mortgage agreements as both a defrauded consumer and a

defrauded wholesale mortgage broker.

7
8
9

These illegal actions breached all mortgage brokers ability to provide a fiduciary
duty to all consumers under 2923.1 to their consumers, as the banking industry placed
their own economic interest above that of the consumer. As an originator for a pass
through trust utilized to perpetuate frauds on the SEC, a fiduciary duty was owed

10

Plaintiff at all levels. It was not Plaintiffs intent to defraud herself or her clients. These

11

actions turned Plaintiff into an unlicensed securities dealer on behalf of a Securities

12
13

REMIC Pass Through Conduit Trust.

Case on Point - See: YVANOVA vs NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION
APPELLANTS REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS and BRIEF OF THE CONSUMER

14

ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT OF REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST AS AMICUS

15

CURIAE.

16
17
18

To establish a prima facie case in an action to foreclose a mortgage, the bank must
establish the existence of the mortgage and mortgage note, ownership of the mortgage and
note, and the Defendants default in payment. Campaign v. Barba, 23 AD3d 327 (2nd Dept.
2005). The PSA is the insurance existing specifically to protect the banks from homeowners

19

default, which by its terms always pays any defaulting mortgage and other fees, including real

20

estate taxes. Logically, if the bank is paid then there is no default or damage to the bank. How

21
22
23

can a loan be in default if the servicer advanced every payment to cover any alleged default?
Bearing in mind that the fund utilized for the transaction itself were pass-through investors
funds and not the banks own funds to begin with.
The PSA for the OA4 trust, names not one but two servicers as Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

24

(the master servicer and securities administrator) and Countrywide. The master servicers is

25

responsible to advance payments to protect all mortgaged property in the trust in the event a

26

homeowner defaults in payment (at Pooling and Servicing Agreement Section 4.4 Advances.)
as follows:

27
- 13
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

1
2
3

V1.6-8

Advances. If the Monthly Payment on a Mortgage Loan that

was due on a related Due Date and is Delinquent other than as a

result of application of the Relief Act and for which the
applicable Servicer was required to make an advance pursuant to

this Agreement exceeds the amount deposited in the Master

Servicer Collection Account that will be used for a Advance with

respect to such Mortgage Loan, the Master Servicer will deposit

7
8
9

in the Master Servicer Collection Account not later than the

Distribution Account Deposit Date immediately preceding the
related Distribution Date an amount equal to such deficiency,
Defendants and the TRUST are not holders or holders in due course of the NOTE and

10

Defendants and the TRUST are not beneficiaries under the DOT. More importantly, the

11

certificate holders of the TRUST have not suffered any financial harm, as follows:

12
13

a) The TRUSTs Master Servicer is required to make payments to the TRUST

when loan payments are not made;
b) The Master Servicer is not a party with legal or equitable interest in the DOT;

14

c) TRUST passes payments made by the Master Servicer through to the

15

certificate holders;

16

d) These payments are received as interest and not as a loan;

17

e) 1009 forms issued by the Trustee to each investor, through belief, treats each
advance as a payment of interest and not as a loan which must be repaid by the

18

investor;

19

f) The Master Servicers claim is not secured;

20

g) The requirement for the Master Servicer to make payments is a concession

21
22
23

given by the Master Servicer as an inducement to convince the Trustee to use its
service;
h) The payments were not made for the benefit of the borrower.
Plaintiff has not directly damaged defendants and the original creditor has in fact

24

been paid as evidenced herein, a default simply does not exist under these circumstances.

25

Plaintiff asserts REMIC stands for Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit as the name

26

implies. Security is not in the title or else it would be RESIC. REMICs are used for the pooling
of mortgage loans and issuance of mortgage-backed securities, they were not purposed for

27
- 14
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

1
2
3
4

V1.6-8

direct foreclosure action. The fact that this REMIC conduit trust offered un-backed certificates
attached to the manipulated LIBOR index means the REMIC conduit trust and the MERS
members assigned within them, acted beyond the REMIC conduits scope and their own scope.
The Holder of a Terminated REMIC conduit Trust cannot enforce a judicial foreclosure
on behalf of a NY trust whose internal structure in its very setup, has already been closed out

and settled. This would be nothing less than grand theft initiated by HSBC, which does not in

fact hold the note. HSBC merely holds a terminated trust that held at one point prior to 2008,

held an un-backed note. Plaintiff asserts, this REMIC conduit trust has nothing to do with her

or her property, nor is it her fault that such egregious illegal activities have been perpetuated
through these REMIC conduits with the use of a fraudulent loan.

9
10

Plaintiff asserts there can be no doubt that the pass through Transaction Summary chart
is nothing more than structured money laundering flowchart.
Plaintiff not only has the right to challenge the Pooling and Servicing Agreements

11
12
13

through granted privilege of the Originator of the Trust that allowed Plaintiff to broker this loan
to herself, but as a defrauded consumer whos signature was used as a promise to an undisclosed
pass through funding source for the purpose of offering certificates against the manipulated

14

LIBOR index (Page 1 of the supplemental Prospectus) back to these investors of these broken

15

trusts.

16
17
18

Plaintiff has the absolute right to challenge the Deed Transfers, inappropriately recorded
on title 5 years after the fact and demand retribution for the banks failure to correct their records
back in 2009 upon Plaintiffs initial discovery of the TILA violations upon this identified
predatory loan used to perpetuate frauds at both a national and international level.

Since

19

consummation of a substance for substance contract did not take place on any level, this

20

contract can never meet its 3-day right to rescind, let alone its 3 years so the actual notice in

21
22
23

2009 to the banks further the exhibited forensic audits where performed and delivered directly
to the servicer within the perceived 3 years, this audits note that proper recession notices were
not delivered to Plaintiff nor were they acknowledged by Plaintiff.
TILA is clear. Section 1635 gives consumers the right to rescind a loan until midnight

24

of the third business day following (1) consummation (closing) of the transaction FAILED, (2)

25

delivery of the required rescission forms FAILED, and (3) delivery of the material TILA

26

disclosures FAILED, whichever is later. Banks who ignore the law by pushing SOLs upon
the consumer in ignorance, are acting in contempt of the law. Jeneski ruling stands.

27
- 15
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

1
2
3
4

V1.6-8

Cases to support Ultra Virus activities through the use of the REMIC Passthrough Conduit Trusts.
Article I, Section 10 of the United State Constitution, gives us the unlimited right to
contract, as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty or property of someone else.
Defendants participation in these recent historical events are forever forged into the minds of

every American across this Nation recognized on an international scale as the Mortgage

Crisis.

7
8
9

Defendants actions were enabled by the repeal of specific portions of the Glass-Steagall
Act by the 1999 GrammLeachBliley Act, which allowed the bypassing of the secondary
security market by using promissory notes as un-backed bearer notes through privileged
membership through a ill conceived system.

10

These historical events succeeded in turning any contractual duty owned utilized by this

11

system, unenforceable, null and void under UCC 3-305(b)(1)(ii)(iii). Illegality based in fraud

12
13

that induced the obligor to sign the instrument with neither knowledge nor reasonable
opportunity to learn of its character or its essential terms.

14

UNTRA VIRES CASE LAW

15

Howard & Foster Co. vs. Citizens National Bank of Union, 133 S.C.202; 130 SE 758,

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

(1927), it was stated, It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under Federal
law, being limited in its power and capacity, cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing the debt of
another. All such contracts being entered into by its officers are ultra vires and not binding upon
the corporation. An activity constitutes an incidental power if it is closely related to an express
power and is useful in carrying out the business of banking.
A National banks charter requires that they protect customers money first, and make
money second. National banks are only allowed to make money in order to protect peoples
money so one serves the other, but the priority is to protect. In Central Transp. Co. v. Pullman,
139 U.S. 60, 11 S. Ct. 478, 35 L. Ed. 55, the court said: A contract ultra vires being unlawful

23

and void, not because it is in itself immoral, but because the corporation, by the law of its

24

creation, is incapable of making it, the courts, while refusing to maintain any action upon the

25

unlawful contract, have always striven to do justice between the parties, so far as could be done

26

consistently with adherence to law, by permitting a property or money, parted with on the faith
of the unlawful contract, to be recovered back, or compensation to be made for it. In such case,

27
- 16
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

1
2
3
4

V1.6-8

however, the action is not maintained upon the unlawful contract, nor according to its terms; but
on an implied contract of the defendant to return, or failing to do that, to make compensation
for, property or money which it has no right to retain. To maintain such an action is not to
affirm, but to disaffirm, the unlawful contract. a. When a contract is once declared ultra vires,
the fact that it is executed does not validate it, nor can it be ratified, so as to make it the basis of

suitor action, nor does the doctrine of estoppel apply. Fand PR v. Richmond b. A national

bank cannot lend its credit to another by becoming surety, endorser, or guarantor for him, such

an act; is ultra vires Merchants Bank v. Baird 160 F 642.

8
9

Mr. Justice Marshall said: The doctrine of ultra vires is a most powerful weapon to
keep private corporations within their legitimate spheres and to punish them for violations of
their corporate charters, and it probably is not invoked too often. Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First

10

National Bank, 103 Wis 125, 79 NW 229. American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW

11

430.A bank may not lend its credit to another even though such a transaction turns out to have

12
13

been a benefit to the bank, and in support of this a list of cases might be cited, which-would like
a catalog of ships. [Emphasis added] Norton Grocery Co. v. Peoples Nat. Bank, 144 SE 505.
151 Va 195.It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under federal Law

14

being limited in its powers and capacity, cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing the debts of

15

another. All such contracts entered into by its officers are ultra vires Howard and Foster Co.

16

v. Citizens Natl Bank of Union, 133 SC 202, 130 SE 759 (1926).

17
18
19

COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAWS

20

JOHN E. DROEGER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FRIEDMAN, SLOAN & ROSS, Defendant

21

and Respondent.(Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, No. 877550, Alex

22

Saldamando, Judge.fn. * )

23
24
25
26

Both spouses must join in executing any conveyance or encumbrance on community property.
Thus a creditor who holds a DOT on community property that contains only one signature has
no enforceable security interest. Plaintiff asserts that her husband signature is not on any of

27
- 17
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

1
2

V1.6-8

these loans. Plaintiff further asserts plaintiffs husband would not have given consent in
knowing the underlying terms and conditions of these loans.

3
4

1102. (a) Except as provided in Sections 761 and 1103, either spouse has the

management and control of the community real property, whether acquired prior to or on

or after January 1, 1975, but both spouses, either personally or by a duly authorized

agent, must join in executing any instrument by which that community real property or

any interest therein is leased for a longer period than one year, or is sold, conveyed, or

encumbered. II. Section 5127

10
11
12
13
14
15

Section 5127, which applies to the managementandcontrolofcommunityrealproperty,

statesinpart,"eitherspousehasthemanagementandcontrolofthecommunityreal
property...,butbothspouseseitherpersonallyorbydulyauthorizedagent,mustjoinin
executinganyinstrumentbywhichsuchcommunityrealpropertyoranyinteresttherein
isleasedforalongerperiodthanoneyear,orissold,conveyed,orencumbered

16

[No.A029755.CourtofAppealsofCalifornia,FirstAppellateDistrict,DivisionThree.July24,

17

1987.]JOANCLARetal.,PlaintiffsandAppellants,v.THOMASCACCIOLAetal.,

18

DefendantsandAppellants.

19
20
21

Thirdpartycreditorsofamarriedcouplelackstandingtochallengethevalidityofamortgage
executedbyonlyonespouse.

22

(Harrisv.Harris(1962)57Cal.2d367,369370[19Cal.Rptr.793,369P.2d481];Headv.

23

Crawford(1984)156Cal.App.3d11,1718[202Cal.Rptr.534];AndradeDevelopmentCo.v.

24

Martin(1982)138Cal.App.3d330,333335andfn.2[187Cal.Rptr.863];Mitchellv.

25

AmericanReserveIns.Co.(1980)110Cal.App.3d220,223[167Cal.Rptr.760];Gantnerv.

26
27
- 18
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

1
2

V1.6-8

Johnson(1969)274Cal.App.2d869,876877[79Cal.Rptr.381];Hortonv.Horton(1953)115
Cal.App.2d360,364[252P.2d397].)

3
4
5

California Cases
Adler v. Newell (1895) 109 Cal. 42

Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell, 10 Cal.4th1226 (1995)

Angell v. Superior Court, 73 Cal.App.4th 691 (1999)

8
9

Atkinson v. Golden Gate Tile Co.,(1913) 21 Cal.App. 168

Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist., 2 Cal.4th962 (1992)
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court,(1962) 57 Cal.2d 450

10

Biakanja v. Irving, 49 Cal.2d 647 (1958)

11

City of Stockton v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th730 (2007)

12

Cockerell v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 42 Cal.2d 284 (1954)

13
14

Common Wealth Insurance Systems, Inc. v. Kersten, 40 Cal.App.3d 1014 (1974)

Connerly v. State of California, 229 Cal.App.4th457 (2014)
Connor v. Great Western Savings & Loan Association, 69 Cal.2d 850 (1968)

15

Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co., 70 Cal.2d 627 (1969)

16

Dunn v. Warden,(1915) 28 Cal.App. 202

17
18

Evans v. City of Berkeley, 38 Cal.4th1 (2006)

Fleet v. Bank of America, 229 Cal.App.4th1403 (2014)
Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 198 Cal.App.4th256 (2011)

19

Glaski v. Bank of America, 218 Cal.App.4th1079 (2013)

20

Globe Indemnity Co. v. Larkin,(1944) 62 Cal.App.2d 891

21

Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,(2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1149

22

Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 196 Cal.App.4th 1366 (2011)
Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 216 Cal.Ap.4th497 (2013)

23

Joslin v. H.A.S. Insurance Brokerage, 184 Cal.App.3d 369 (1986)

24

Latham v. Santa Clara County Hospital,(1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 336

25

Lo v. Jensen, 88 Cal.App.4th1093 (2001)

26

Loshonkohl v. Kinder,(2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 510

27

Martinez v. Socoma Cos., 11 Cal.3d 395 (1974)

- 19
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

1
2
3
4

V1.6-8

Mata v. Citimortgage,(C.D. Cal. 2011) 2011 WL 4542723

Mirkin v. Wasseman, 5 Cal.4th 1082 (1993)
Moeller v. Lien, 25 Cal.App.4th 822 (1994)
Munger v. Moore, 11 Cal.App.4th1 (1970)
Naranjo v. SBMC Mortgage,(S.D. Cal. 2012) 2012 WL 3030370

Neptune Society Corp. v. Longanecker, 194 Cal.App.3d 1233 (1987)

Ord v. McKee,(1855) 5 Cal. 515

People v. McGuire,(1872) 45 Cal. 56

8
9

People v. Perez,(2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 231

Powerine Oil Co. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th377 (2005)
Priceline.com Inc. v. City of Anaheim,(2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1130

10

Pro Value Properties, Inc. v. Quality Loan service Corp., 170 Cal.App.4th579 (2009)

11

Ram v. OneWest Bank, 223 Cal.App.4th1 (2015)

12
13

Reichert v. General Ins. Co., 68 Cal.2d 822 (1968)

Seidell v. Tuxedo Land Co., 216 Cal. 165 (1932)
StorMedia, Inc. v.

14

Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th449 (1999)

15

United Steelworkers of America v. Board of Education,(1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 823

16

Vielehr v. State Personnel Bd.,(1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 187

17
18
19

Wall v. Sonora Union High Sch. Dist.,(1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 870

Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.4th906 (2001)
WSS Indus. Const., Inc. v. Great West Contractors, Inc., (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 581
Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corporation,(2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 495

20
21
22

Federal Cases
Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271 (1873)
Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 757 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2014)

23

California Statutes

24

Civil Code section 1646

25

Civil Code section 2923.4

26

Civil Code section 2924 (a) (6)

Civil Code section 2924.17 (b)

27
- 20
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

1
2
3
4

V1.6-8

Code of Civil Procedure section 472c

California Rules of Court rule 8.504(d)
Federal Statutes
29 U.S.C. 860A (a)
29 U.S.C. 860D (a)

Law Review Article

Oppenheim, et al., Deconstructing the Black Magic of Securitized Trusts, 41

Stetson.L.Rev. 745

8
9

(2012)

Supporting Cases
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Maraj,(2008), 18 Misc.3d 1123(A), 856
N.Y.S.2d 497

10

In re Foreclosure Cases,(N.D.Ohio, Oct. 31, 2007) 2007 WL 3232430

11

In re Veal,(9th Cir. B.A.P. 2011) 450 B.R. 897

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

TREATISES
Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, Financial Crisis Inquiry Committee (January 2011)
(FCIC) at

p. 25, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-

FCIC.pdf.) .
Adam J. Levitin, Robo Signing, Chain or Title, Loss Mitigation, and Other Issues in
Mortgage Servicing, Testimony before the House Financial Services Committee Subcommittee
on Housing and Community Opportunity (November 18, 2010), Executive Summary .
Adam J. Levitin , The Paper Case: Securitization, Foreclosure, and the Uncertainty of
Mortgage Title," Duke Law Journal, 63 Duke L.J. 637 .

19

5 Witkin, Cal.Proc., Pleadings, 675, 676

20

FEDERAL EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF DECLAIRATION

21
22

Exhibit A - pg 17-47
Wall Street and the Financial Crisis Anatomy of a Financial Collapse US Senate Staff
report. Exhibit A Pages 17-47 April 13 2011

23

Exhibit B

24

Public Policy Issues Raised by the Report of the Lehman Bankruptcy Examiner: Hearing

25
26

before the Committee on Financial Services, United States House of Representatives, (April 20,
2010). Statement of William K. Black, Associate Professor of Economics and Law)
Exhibit C -

27
- 21
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

1
2

V1.6-8

Testimony before the Financial Crisis Commission, Miami Florida, (September 21st,
2010) - Statement of William K. Black, Associate Professor of Economics and Law)
Exhibit D -

3
4
5

William K. Black, Neo-classical Economic Theories, Methodology and Praxis Optimize

Criminogenic Environments and Produce Recurrent, Intensifying Crisis, Creighton Law Review
(2010)

Exhibit E -

William K. Black, Lenders Put the Lies in Liars Loans and Bear the Principal Moral

8
9
10
11
12
13

Culpability, New Economic Perspectives (October 2011)

Exhibit F Adam B. Ashcroft & Til Schermann Understanding The Securitization of Subprime
Mortgage Credit, Federal Reserve Bank of New York (2007)
Exhibit Gmers-membership list
Exhibit HUnited States of America Department of the Treasury Comptroller of the Currency//

14

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System/ Federal Deposit Insurance

15

Corporation/ Office of the Thrift Supervision/Federal Housing Financial Agency In the

16

Matter of MERSCORP, Inc and the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc.

17
18

Order to Cease and Desist. MERS MERSCORP and MERS MEMBERS April 12,2011
Exhibit IHVCC Mandates Decrease Market Competition and Increased Pricing, (diagram)

19

Exhibit J-

20

Securitized Total Consumer Loans, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

21
22

(graph),
Exhibit KS&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, McGraw-Hill Financial (January 2012).

23

Exhibit L-

24

Yvanova v New Century et al 2d Div 1 case B247188 Appellants reply brief on the

25

MERITS.

26

Amicus Brief of the Attorney General In Support of appellant Tsetana Yvanova

27
- 22
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

1
2
3
4

V1.6-8

Exhibit M Structured Money laundering chart THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A

SECURITIES INC MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATE SERIES 2007-OA4.
Exhibit N Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Foreclosure Attorney Procedure Manual, Version 1
Exhibit O -

2014.ULC.ForeclosureProceduresAct

Exhibit P -

Whistleblower Jurat Affidavit of Gregory C. Morse, Affiant In Support of Department

8
9

of the Treasury - Internal Revenue Service and United States Securities and Exchange
Commission
Exhibit Q -

10

The Expert Report of the Questioned Bausch Loan Documents and Affidavit by Dr.

11

James Madison Kelly March, 2015

12
13

Exhibit R
United States of America vs Bank of America et al - Broken assurances
EXHIBIT S

14

over 500 suspended/terminated un-backed Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series

15

REMIC conduit trusts used to perpetuate the mortgage crisis.

16
17

Dated:_______________________

______________________________

18

Faith Lynn Brashear, in pro se

19
20
21

Verification of Memorandum to TRO and Complaint by Plaintiff

I, Faith Lynn Brashear, am the plaintiff in this action and have read the content of the

22

facts as alleged herein and verify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts, apart from

23

any arguments, are true and correct. I hereby certifies under penalty of perjury as a professional

24
25
26

witness to these frauds that I was granted privilege as agent of Countrywide to unknowingly
perpetuate further frauds by these very loan instruments, which contributed in part to the
mortgage crisis. Had I known then what I now know, I would have never done business with
any of them.

27
- 23
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

V1.6-8

2
3

2. Signed in Riverside, California on __________________, 20___.

________________________________
Faith Lynn Brashear, Plaintiff in pro se

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
- 24
Ex parte application for TRO, et al.

BASHEAR V. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.