Denise Subramaniam 

Self-represented 

13865 SW Walker Rd 

Beaverton OR 97005 

503-764-5300 

FILED'.:'R. iAN •·1' (.. ·i c:;.·-· "1~:-nr._,"11'.\p i.__ -·... _1 .J.·-''L'+J·'.J ,,.,-iJf"" .. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

LNV CORPORATION Civil Case No. 3:14-cv-01836 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DENISE SUBRAMANIAM 

pro per 

Defendant 

RULE 60 MOTION FOR RELIEF 

FROM UNCONSTITUTIONAL 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER 

RULE 60 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM UNCONSTITUTIONAL VOID SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT ORDER 

Here comes Defendant, Denise Subramaniam, self represented, and hereby moves this Honorable 

Court for relief under Federal Rule 60 from Judge Mosman's OPINION AND ORDER 

[Document 111] Filed 10116115 Granting Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment[53]. 

Said ORDER is VOID. Defendant also moves the court to vacate this ORDER and the 

subsequent Judgment for Foreclosure entered on 11 /04/15 [Document 116-1]. 

Pursuant to Rule 60(b) On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal 

representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (3) fraud 

(whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an 

opposing party; and ... (4) the judgment is void; ... (6) any other reason thatjustiftes relief. 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 122 Filed 01/28/16 Page 1 of 11
It is well established in law that a party seeking to foreclose on Real Property must show good 

cause. If this party was not the originator of the mortgage, they must have been conveyed the 

debt (the "Note") as well as conveyance of the deed of trust through assignment. 

In the present case Plaintiff LNV had neither. 

Plaintiff LNV submitted as exhibits to its foreclosure complaint it claimed to be a true and 

accurate copy of the "original" note. Defendant examined this Note in the Perkins Coie law 

office. She determined that what she was shown was, in fact, not the "original" Note but a 

digitalized color enhancement of a photocopy. She took photographs of an endorsement 

purported to be made by Dana Lantry as Asst. Vice President of People's. 

To the left is a close-up of this questioned 

endorsement. Notice the "CANCELLED" stamp 

on the "Pay to the Order of' line. Defendant 

wrote a letter to JPMorgan Chase asking what 

what this stamp means. In September 2015 Denise 

Price from Chase's executive office phoned and 

told her Chase couldn't answer her question 

because they didn't have it in Chase's records. 

Notice on this endorsement Dana Lantry signed as "Asst. Vice President" of People's Choice 

Home Loan, Inc. On June 28, 2006 an assignment of deed of trust was recorded with 

Defendant's county also endorsed by Dana Lantry and conveys beneficial interest in the deed of 

trust from People's to Homecomings Financial Network, Inc. This assignment is included as 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 122 Filed 01/28/16 Page 2 of 11
Exhibit A hereto. Below is a close-up of this Dana Lantry endorsement as "Asst. Vice 

President" of People's Choice Home Loan, Inc., this endorsement was executed on 12/29/2005, 

and this fact is self-evident from the face of the instrument. Beside this endorsement is a closeup of another endorsement by on an undated allonge to the "original" Note Ms. Richards showed 

Defendant at her office. 

Dana Lantry 

Aast Vice P~aldent 

Close-up from the 2006 assignment of deed of 

trust with a 12/29/2005 execution date. 

Close-up from the endorsement on the allonge 

to the note - logically executed the same day, 

12/29/2005, as the assignment. 

Notice on the allonge, Dana Lantry is the "Vice President" of People's. Any reasonable person 

would conclude that if such a conveyance took place on 12/29/2005 then Dana Lantry's 

executive position with People's would have not changed between the times she endorsed each 

of these three instruments. 

More importantly, the assignment states the conveyance was to Homecomings Financial 

Network, Inc. while the questioned allonge to the questioned Note states the conveyance was to 

Residential Funding Company LLC. The photograph Defendant took of this allonge is 

included as Exhibit B hereto. 

Defendant had filed a complaint against Beal/LNV/MGC in 2012, (Subramaniam v. Beal et al. 

3: l 2-c-1681-MO US District Court Oregon Portland Division). In early 2013 a securitization 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 122 Filed 01/28/16 Page 3 of 11
audit and title search was completed by William J. Paatalo of BP Investigations. His sworn 

declaration was entered into court record on April 3, 2013 and was entered into court record in 

the present case as an exhibit. 

Paatalo's audit determined the Subramaniam loan with People's Choice Home Loans was 

securitized into the Bear Steams "BSAB 2004-HE4 Trust." The Paatalo audit identified EMC as 

the "seller" and "master servicer" for the BSAB 2004-HE4 Trust. 

The 2013 Paatalo audit as per his sworn declaration found: 

1. The Trust's Prospectus states "EMC Mortgage Corporation purchased the mortgage loans 

directly in privately negotiated transactions." 

2. The Trust's Pooling and Servicing Agreement ("PSA") states: "It is the express intent of 

the parties hereto that the conveyance of the Mortgage Notes, Mortgages, assignments of 

Mortgages, title insurance policies and any modifications and/or assumption agreements 

and private mortgage insurance policies relating to the Mortgage Loans by the Seller to 

the Depositor, and by the Depositor to the Trustee be construed as, an absolute sale 

thereof to the Depositor or the Trustee, as applicable." 

3. The Subramaniam loan was "paid off' in the BSAB 2004-HE4 Trust in December 2005; 

and it was current. 

4. The Subramaniam loan was registered in the MERS system, but no record of this was 

recorded by assignment. 

5. "The trust entities never perfected their security interests for the following reasons: 

a. There have been three assignments of the DOT recorded in the county land 

records. Assignment #I was recorded on 06/28/06 as document No. 2006-077542. 

This assignment was allegedly executed on 12/29/05 whereby People's sells, 

assigns, transfers, and conveys the subject Note and DOT to "Homecomings 

Financial Network, Inc." (hereinafter "HFN") This assignment circumvents the 

entire sale to EMC that was to have occurred in 05/01/04. 

This assignment also occurs within the same month that the subject loan was 

"paid off' within the BSAB 2004-HE4 Trust." 

6. "The first "Notice of Default" which was recorded against the property on 06/28/06 as 

Doc. No. 2006-077544 states in paragraph 3, 'CAL-WESTERN RECONVEY ANCE 

CORPORATION as Trustee, hereby certifies that no assignments of the trust deed by the 

trustee or by the beneficiary and no appointments of a successor trustee have been made 

except as recorded in the mortgage records of the county or counties in which the above 

described property is situate[ d]' This statement confirms that no assignment was ever 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 122 Filed 01/28/16 Page 4 of 11
recorded evidencing a sale from People's to any other Trust entity or the Trust itself. This 

represents a fatal break in the chain of title." 

The conclusion of the 2013 Paatalo audit as per his sworn declaration: 

"The failure to record the assignments and sales to the Trust entities, and the failure to 

disclose the Trust's interest in the subject Note and DOT and subsequent payoff of such, 

creates a fatal defect in the chain of title. Because the loan was sold to the BSAB 2004-

HE4 Trust, as evidenced by the Bloomberg exhibits, and the fact that the subject loan was 

subsequently "paid off' within the trust, the parties now seeking to foreclose the 

Subramaniam DOT have no standing to seek such relief." 

The facts, as stated on the face of the instruments submitted into court record by Plaintiff LNV 

support Defendant's claim that Plaintiff LNV manufactured what it submitted to the court as the 

"original" Note and its allonges after May 2013 and before November 2014 with intent to 

deceive and falsely imply a "cure" of the fatal break in Defendant's chain of title pointed out in 

the Paatalo declaration. 

Ms. Richards and Judge Mosman, both being trained in law knew or should have known that 

these facts evidenced on the face of these three instruments defeated LNV's claim of standing to 

foreclose. In fact the court record as evidences this to be true. 

Quoting from the "Status Conference TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE 

HONORABLE MICHAEL W. MOSMAN ... " Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 

09103115 beginning on Page 14 line 18 through to Page 16 line 17: 

THE COURT: What relevance, if any, does a challenge to the authenticity of the 

original note have to do, in your view, with your motion? 

MS. RICHARDS: I don't think that -- well --

THE COURT: If the original note is inauthentic, that goes somewhere, doesn't it? 

MS. RICHARDS: I don't think that the defendant has any proof, aside from her 

allegations and her conclusory statements that the note and the 

allonge and the deed of trust are forgeries. 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 122 Filed 01/28/16 Page 5 of 11
THE COURT: That wasn't my question. My question was assuming that it is 

inauthentic, that would be relevant to the inquiry in this case, 

wouldn't it? 

MS. RICHARDS: I think that LNV is the holder of the note and I do not believe the 

note is forged. I have no reason to believe that the note is forged. 

THE COURT: So I didn't think I'd have to give you the same suggestion I gave your 

opponent, which is to answer that question I'm actually asking. I'm 

not asking whether you believe the note is forged. I'm asking 

about the possible relevance of the things she's requested. 

So she contends that with an opportunity to engage in discovery, she 

can uncover information that would reveal that the note is 

inauthentic, forged or otherwise. We're not going to go down that 

route if even being successful wouldn't help her in her case, but I'm 

under the impression that if she were successful in that endeavor, it 

would, in fact, have a lot to do with your motion, wouldn't it? 

MR. WESTON: Your Honor, may I interject? 

THE COURT: No. It's a simple question. If she's right that the note is forged, is 

that relevant evidence to your motion? 

MS. RICHARDS: I don't believe it is, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Why not? 

MS. RICHARDS: I think that -- I think it goes back to during the course not only of 

this case, but also in the cases that have been previously dismissed. 

These are not new arguments, and it doesn't change the underlying 

facts of the case that defendant is in default. 

THE COURT: Well, if she's in default on a note that's forged, then she's not in 

default in a way that matters for our case, right? You have to 

have an authentic note for her to be in default on it, don't you? 

Isn't that sort of the basic foundation of foreclosure? 

MS. RICHARDS: I believe that if she is able to prove the note is forged, then it's 

possible that that would be relevant. I think that my position, though, 

is that there is not a shred of evidence either currently before the 

Court and in the record, nor could there possibly be any evidence 

that defendant can put forward to show that. 

Defendant knows the Note she was shown is in fact a forgery, but her problem was how to prove 

it. She asked the court to allow an expert in computer generated forgeries to examine this Note, 

but this was not permitted. Defendant only in the past few days discovered the evidence 

presented here. She did so while working with other Beal victims to prepare a formal criminal 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 122 Filed 01/28/16 Page 6 of 11
complaint for the FBI. One of the other victims wanted her to place red boxes on the material we 

were pointing out to the FBI and in doing this she realized the allonge purports to convey to to 

Residential Funding Company LLC while the assignment purports to convey to 

Homecomings Financial Network, Inc. an impossibility. 

Judge Mosman is named as a co-conspirator, along with three other federal judges and four state 

judges in the criminal complaint filed by Defendant and the other Beal victims. His behavior 

towards Defendant in this case has been egregiously biased to the point that any reasonable 

person would conclude he willfully conspired to derive Defendant of her civil rights under color 

of law. 

Judge Mosman's ORDER is.VOID because it was granted in opposition to established law, and 

contrary to the facts in court record. Summary judgment favoring LNV in this case was an 

egregious miscarriage of justice; and in violation of the United States Constitution. 

THEREFORE Defendant moves this court to vacate Judge Mosman's ORDER and the 

Judgment for Foreclosure pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3), (4) and (6). 

Denise Subramaniam, Pro per 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 122 Filed 01/28/16 Page 7 of 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was 

served upon all counsel of record, pro-se parties and the United States Attorney General and the 

Attorney General of the State of Oregon via the Court's CM/ECF system, email, and/or regular 

mail, and/or certified mail with return receipt requested. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Loretta Lynch, 

U. S. Attorney General 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20530-0001 

202-514-2000 

Gabrielle D. Richards I Perkins Coie LLP 

1120 NW Couch Street 

10th Floor 

Portland, Oregon 97209-4128 

D. +1.503.727.2255 

F. + 1.503.346.2255 

grichards@perkinscoie.com 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Denise Subramaniam 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 122 Filed 01/28/16 Page 8 of 11
Notice the 6/28/2006 recording date, and the conveyance is to HOMECOMINGS not GMAC-RFC. 

. 

-

,..RECORD AND RETURN TO--...., 

GMAC-RFC 

Ouc Meridian Crossing, Suite #100 

Minneapolis, MN 55423 

RECORD CENTER AND DOCUMENT 

ROUTING 03-03-40 

L \'ttO'-' ,_ \loC\ q ""'3 

~==~~1::-' 20os-0n542 

!WM Cnl•1 lm•22 lltDO 

ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST !onsirn 

For Value Received, PEOPLE'S CHOICE HOME LOAN, INC •• a WYOMING CORPORATION 

, bolder of a Deed of Trust (herein •Assignor") whose address is 

7515 IRVINE CENTER DR., IRVlNE, CA 92618 

, does hen:by grant, sell, 

assign, transfer and convey, unto I llalllalll9Bml,.., & 

, a corporation 

organiml and existing UDder the laws of (herein •Assignee"), 

whose address is oNG "'Q('9\iac\ ~M>allas .~"'.._ ioo. 'IW\lAJ111&"•'•, !\'\Al S&q 23 , a certain Deed ofTrust. dated 02/10/2004 , made and executed by 

DENISE SUBRAMANIAM 

to Paul S. Cosgrove. L1ndsay Harte, Law Off 

following described property situated in WASHINGTON 

of Oregon: 

(A.P.N. #: R29757) 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 

Trustee, upon the 

, State 

LOT 4, BLOCK 2, DEVONSHIRE, IN THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON AND STATE OF OREGON. 

SllCh Deed of Trust having been given to secure payment of ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-SIX THOUSAND 

AND 00/100 (S 176,000.00 

(Include the Original Principal Amount) 

which Deed of Trust is of record in Book, Volwnc; or Liber No. , at page (or 

as No.~•6a~l'1 ) of the Records of WASHINGTON 

County, State of Oregon, together with the notc:(s) and obligatiOllS therein described, the money due and to 

become due thereon with interest, and all rights accrued or to accrue under such Deed ofTrusl 

Oregan A1atgnment al Deed al TNlt 

wKh Ackn-leclgment 

41Dt;H&W(OR) (t711).ot 11197 

l'IGl1 •12 

VMP MORTGAGE FOAMS· (910)521·1211 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 122 Filed 01/28/16 Page 9 of 11
Notice Dana Lantry signed as ASST. VICE PRESIDENT of People's 

TO HA VE AND TO HOLD, the same unto Assignee, its successor and assigns, forever, subject only to 

the terms and conditions of the above-described Deed of Trust. 

IN WITNE~ WHEREOF, the: undersigned Assignor has executed this Assignment of Deed of Trust on 

1z.·z?,4~ 

PEOPLE'S CHOICE HOME LOAN, INC., a 

&~fr~ By: 

Wimeu Clf.t"1~lr >'JfuJ.L/iJ .J 

Seal: 

This Instrument Prepared By: F 1 rs t Amer 1 can T1 t 1 e 

Market. #150, Portland, OR 97201 

State or &t. ,;t:~.c..lll'•+- County or t::?;tt,.~'i I!? 

as 

-·HSW(OR) (1111~04 Pogo 2 ol 2 

Dana Lantry 

Ant. Vice PreWI I 

of 

Sergio Lomea 

~············~ SERGIO LOMELI fl Commission#1372949 i • Notary Publk: • Callfomla I ~ Orange County l 

u e u !'2':':.e!rn.5:1;,,20: 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 122 Filed 01/28/16 Page 10 of 11
Notice conveyance on questioned Dana Lantry endorsed allonge is to GMAC-RFC not HOMECOMINGS 

and Dana Lantry is now the Vice President instead of Asst. Vice President of Peoples. 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 122 Filed 01/28/16 Page 11 of 11