1 

Denise Subramaniam 

Se If-represented 

13865 SW Walker Rd 

Beaverton OR 97005 

503-764-5300 

FILED29 JlJ.l '1515:23..LSDC~P 

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 

DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF 

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS 

DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS 

2 Here comes Defendant Denise Subramaniam, representing herself, and incorporates 

3 herein all her prior pleadings in these two noticed related cases Subramaniam v. Beal et al, Case 

4 No. 3:12-cv-01681-MO and Subramaniam v. Beal Case No: 3:2014cv01482 and all her 

5 pleadings in the present case; she also incorporates herein the Notice of Constitutional Questions 

6 filed by the other pro-se litigants opposing LNV Corporation ("LNV") in the noticed related 

7 cases; and Pursuant to Federal Rules 28 U.S.C. § 2403 and 5. l(a)(l) she hereby makes notice of 

8 the following constitution questions: 

9 Defendant challenges the constitutionality Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 which states: 

10 "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a 

11 court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the 

12 same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United 

13 States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 1 of 38
14 In other noticed related cases specifically in LNV Corporation v. Gebhardt. Case No. 

15 3:12-CV-468-TAV-HBG and LNVv. Breitlings: Case No. DC-14-04053 in the Dallas Civil 

16 District Court of Texas and Breitlings v. LNV; Case No. 314-cv-03322 the MGC/LNV/Beal 

17 victims as pro-se litigants opposing LNV in foreclosure related cases filed motions for judicial 

18 notice of the criminal indictment and conviction of Lorraine Brown by the United States for 

19 "Conspiracy to Commit Mail and Wire Fraud". United States o[America v. Lorraine Brown, 

20 Case No. 3:12-cr-198-J-25 MCR, (MD. Fla.) In each case these pro-se litigants in the noticed 

21 related cases attached to their motions the necessary information to be noticed. Their motions 

22 were pursuant to Federal Rule 201(c)(2) which states: 

23 "The court must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied 

24 with the necessary information." 

25 

26 In each of these cases the presiding judge either ignored or denied these motions for 

27 judicial notice of adjudicative fac. The statue seems clear in its language that judges do not 

28 have discretion but MUST take judicial notice of such adjudicative fact; THEREFORE these 

29 judges appear to have abused their discretion in these cases. In noticed related case for debtors 

30 Christopher and Marcia Swift In the United States Bankruptcy Court (or the Northern District 

31 oflllinios. Eastern Division; Case No. 12-35690; presiding judge Donald R. Cassling told the 

32 Swifts at a pre-trial hearing on April 28, 2015: 

33 "THE COURT: No, I do not want to take judicial notice of those cases." 

34 

35 (See Exhibit A attached hereto which is page 100 of 163 pages of the transcript for this hearing -

36 for brevity only this page and the cover page of the transcript is provided but the entire transcript 

37 is available for inspection by the court if requested.) 

Page 2 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 2 of 38
38 In LNV Corporation v. Gebhardt, Case No. 3: 12-CV-468-TAV-HBG, U.S. District Court 

39 Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville, Judge Thomas A. Varian appears to have violated 

40 this federal rule by denying Appellant's motion for judicial notice of adjudicative fact. 

41 Defendant, Gebhardt, the Breitlings, Rhonda Hardwick, the Swifts, Tuli Molina, Kelly Randle, 

42 Cammy Depew, Rebekah Gentry-Youngblood, David Gates, Robynne A. Fauley and dozens of 

43 other Beal victims too fearful of Beal' s retaliation to be publically named herein are also victims 

44 of the crimes of Lorraine Brown and her co-conspirators. 

4S Daniel Andrew "Andy" Beal, owner of PlaintiffLNV, his attorneys, his employees and 

46 his agents and their employees commit the same crimes for which Lorraine Brown was convicted 

47 and incarcerated. In the court cases of many of the aforementioned Beal victims and in the 

48 noticed related cases motions for judicial notice of the adjudicative facts in the criminal 

49 indictment and conviction of Lorraine Brown for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud were 

so filed pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 3 71 and which are relevant to facts specific to standing where 

Sl LNV is attempting to deprive or has already unconstitutionally deprived Defendant and the other 

S2 pro-se litigants opposing LNV in the noticed related cases of their property; and in many these 

S3 cases the judges whether state or federal abused judicial discretion and ignored or denied these 

S4 motions for judicial notice of the criminal conviction of Lorraine Brown. Such abuse of judicial 

SS discretion may cause, or has caused, a deprivation of these pro-se litigant's constitutional rights 

S6 to due process and equal protection of law under the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the 

S7 United States Constitution. 

S8 Adjudicative facts in the criminal conviction of Lorraine Brown include: 

S9 a. Lorraine Brown had co-conspirators. 

60 b. Lorraine Brown's co-conspirators have not yet been prosecuted for their crimes. 

Page 3 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 3 of 38
61 c. Lorraine Brown committed her crimes through Lender Processing Services, 

62 ("LPS") 

63 d. At the direction of Brown and other co-conspirators employees of LPS began 

64 forging and falsifying signatures of mortgage-related documents and filed them 

65 with property recorders offices across the country. 

66 e. Lorraine Brown's co-conspirators used other unauthorized employees to sign 

67 mortgage-related documents on their behalf knowing that the documents would be 

68 notarized as if the co-conspirator has signed the document, when he/she had not. 

69 f. Between 2003 and 2009 it is estimated that over 1 million fraudulently signed and 

70 notarized mortgage-related documents were produced through the crimes of 

71 Lorraine Brown and her co-conspirators and filed with property recorders' offices 

72 across the country. 

73 Adjudicative facts from the Lorraine Brown criminal conviction are relevant to the 

74 present case and to litigation between LNV (and other business entities controlled by D. Andrew 

75 Beal) and the other pro-se litigants in the noticed related cases and many other "Beal victims" for 

76 the following reasons: 

77 a. LNV and MOC (both owned and controlled by Andy Beal) and their agents (LPS 

78 Service Providers Nortwest Trustee Services, RCO Legal, Codilis & Stawairski, 

79 Dovenmuhlhe and others) have forged and falsified mortgage-related documents 

80 and filed them with property recorders' offices across the country; and/or have 

81 knowingly used such forged documents in foreclosure cases with intent to deceive 

82 courts. 

83 b. Defendant in the present case, and the other Beal victims claim that their 

84 mortgage related records are the products of the crimes of Lorraine Brown and 

85 her co-conspirators; and have provided the courts with evidence to substantiate 

86 their claims. 

87 c. The courts continue to accept these forged and falsified mortgage-related 

88 documents as genuine (ignoring adjudicative fact to the contrary) and routinely 

89 grant summary judgments or dismissals in favor of LNV and parties like it. 

90 d. The United States Attorney General has determined that parties who forge and 

91 falsify mortgage-related documents and file them with property recorders' offices 

92 across the country are guilty of the federal criminal offence of mail and wire 

93 fraud. (Lorraine Brown was convicted by the United States.) 

94 e. The United States has already proven the criminal conspiracy exists. 

95 f. The United States has already proven Lorraine Brown had co-conspirators; and 

96 since those co-conspirators haven't yet been indicted or convicted it stands to 

97 reason they may still be committing crimes consistent with her criminal 

98 conspiracy. 

Page 4 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 4 of 38
99 g. Defendant in the present case, and the other Beal victims claim that Daniel 

100 Andrew "Andy" Beal is one of Lorraine Brown's co-conspirators and that he 

101 knowingly uses the products of Brown's crimes stored in the LPS Desktop 

102 computer software with intent to deceive courts and thereby wrongfully deprive 

103 Defendant and others of their property. Beal's employee, Bret Maloney, admitted 

104 in a deposition the Beal enterprise entities and their agents use the LPS Desktop. 

105 h. A Beal employee, Jim Chambless, admitted in an email to he sent to WF AA 

106 investigative reporter, Brett Shipp, to fabricating mortgage-related documents to 

107 "cure" a break in the chain oftitle to Breitlings' property. This email was 

108 forwarded to the Breitlings for their comment. 

109 

110 In each of the noticed related cases the pro-se litigants opposing LNV detailed how deed 

111 assignments, affidavits, purported allonges to their Notes and even the Notes themselves had 

112 been robo-signed, forged and falsified in a manner consistent with the crimes of Lorraine Brown, 

113 and how LNV and it owner, D. Andrew Beal, knew these deed assignments, purported allonges 

114 to their Notes and even the Notes themselves had been forged and falsified; and he admitted to 

115 investigative reporter Brett Shipp through his employee Jim Chambless, Senior Marketing 

116 Communications Specialist at Beal Bank, that he not only uses such falsely fabricated documents 

117 but that he creates them to cure breaks in the chain of title and he alleges it is legal to do this. 

118 No matter what LNV and its owner, Daniel Andrew "Andy" Beal, claim publically the 

119 evidence shows he knows foreclosing on properties using robo-signed, forged and falsified 

120 mortgage related documents such as deed assignments, affidavits, purported allonges to Notes 

121 and forged Notes is a crime. He knows this because in a letter dated October 4, 2010 sent by the 

122 Texas Attorney General to MGC Mortgage Inc. ("MGC") also owned by Daniel Andrew "Andy" 

123 Beal. (See Exhibit B attached hereto.) In this letter the Texas Attorney General makes it clear to 

124 MGC that foreclosing using "robosigned" (i.e. forged documents with false signatures and false 

125 statements pertaining to the grantor/grantee or assignor/assignee). mortgage related documents 

126 was a violation of a host of Texas civil statutes and Texas penal code. Attorney Peter G. 

Page 5 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 5 of 38
127 Weinstock of Hunton & Williams LLP in a letter dated October 31, 2010 stated: "MGC does not 

128 use 'robosigners' in its foreclosure process." (See Page 2, number 1 of this letter in Defendant's 

129 Exhibit B.) If this is/was true then why do we now have so many LNV/MGC/LPP/Beal victims 

130 claiming otherwise and showing evidence to courts that indicates otherwise? In the same 

131 paragraph of his letter, Weinstock also states: "MGC has reached out to virtually all the law 

132 firms it employs for such purposes. The vast majority have responded. They have indicated that 

133 they also do not use such practices either." 

134 If this is/was true then why has Defendant, the Breitlings, the Swifts, Gebhardt and the 

135 other Beal victims in the noticed related cases shown to their respective courts evidence that 

136 mortgage related documents submitted to these courts by Beal' s LNV or LPP Mortgage Ltd. 

137 ("LPP") or MGC and/or by Beal's LPS agent Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc. ("DMI") and/or 

138 Beal's LPS affiliated attorneys are indeed "robosigned" and/or falsified and otherwise forged? 

139 Defendant's prior related case, Subramaniam v. Beal et al, Case No. 3:12-cv-01681-MO, 

140 resulted from a non-judicial foreclosure action brought against her with a trustee sale of her 

141 property scheduled in September 2012 by Defendant LNV, its LPS affiliated attorney RCO 

142 Legal PS fka Routh Crabtree Olsen PS ("RCO") and its "trustee" counterpart LPS affiliated 

143 Northwest Trustee Services ("NWTS"). (Note both RCO and NWTS are owned by attorney 

144 Stephen Routh, who like Beal knows he is using robosigned and forged documents in 

145 foreclosures.) 

146 LPS affiliated RCO and NWTS were hired by LNV /Beal in the noticed related cases LNV 

147 v. Fauley; Case No. CV15040532 and Fauley v. Washington Mutual et al (LNV), Case No. 3:13-

148 cv-00581-AC. RCO attorney John Thomas personally showed Defendant and Beal victim 

Page 6 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 6 of 38
149 Robynne A. Pauley what he purported was the "original" Pauley Note which Defendant and Ms. 

150 Pauley determined by their observation of certain characteristics on the document that is was not 

151 the "original" Note but a forgery. Other Beal victims have observed similar characteristics on 

152 alleged "original" Notes shown to them by LNV, attorneys hired by Beal/LNV, and/or other Beal 

153 employees. Whether or not these purported "original" Notes are forgeries is not only material as 

154 to whether or not LNV has standing to foreclose, but is material as to whether or not the owner 

155 ofLNV, Daniel Andrew Beal, and the attorneys he hires and the owners and employees ofDMI 

156 are committing first degree felony crimes of forgery of financial instruments with intent to 

157 defraud for personal gain. 

158 On page 2, number 2 of attorney Weinstock's letter he states: "DMI advised MGC that 

159 DMI does not conduct foreclosures with affidavits with such characteristics." (The 

160 characteristics referred to are those characteristics consistent with "robosigning" as specified in 

161 the Texas Attorney General's October 4, 2010 letter to MGC which are also the characteristics 

162 defined by the United States in the criminal conviction of Lorraine Brown as being the products 

163 of her crimes.) If this is/was true then why have the Beal victims in the noticed related cases 

164 articulated instances where DMI (and MGC/LNV /Beal) have in fact submitted affidavits 

165 produced by robosigners? In the Breitling case LNV submitted to the court an affidavit of 

166 Edward J. Bagdon to support its motion for summary judgment in LNV v. Breitlings; Case No. 

167 DC-14-0405. The Beal victims collectively researched Edward J. Bagdon and located more than 

168 100 mortgage related documents signed by him. A comparison of 5 7 of these signatures show a 

169 high probability that at least five different individuals made these signatures. Additionally 

170 Edward J. Bagdon signed these documents as a top executive officer of numerous different 

171 financial institutions when he was in fact not employed by any of them, but was an employee of 

Page 7 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 7 of 38
172 DMI. (Interestingly in his affidavit submitted to the court by the LPS affiliated law firm, Codilis 

173 & Stawiarski, in the Breitling case he fails to identify any employer.) This behavior by Edward 

174 J. Bagdon is consistent with the manner and means used by Lorraine Brown in the commission 

175 of her crimes where the United States claimed and the judges of the U.S. District Court for the 

176 Middle District of Florida determined Brown and her co-conspirators allowed other individuals 

177 to mimic their signatures and sign mortgage related documents without the requisite authority to 

178 do so. This collection of signatures consistent with "robosigning" purportedly made by Edward 

179 J. Bagdon, an employee ofDMI, also disputes Beal/MGC attorney Weinstock's statement on 

180 page 2, number 2 of his letter: "DMI advised MGC that DMI does not conduct foreclosures with 

181 affidavits with such characteristics." 

182 Edward J. Bagdon's affidavit in the Breitlings' case is dated June 17, 2014. (See LNV v. 

183 Breitlings: Case No. DC-14-0405.) This affidavit is included in Defendant's Exhibit C attached 

184 hereto. This exhibit also includes a comparison of the 57 Edward J. Bagdon signatures on 

185 mortgage related documents made between 1993 and 2014. The Breitlings had included this 

186 comparison in their own exhibits to show Edward J. Bagdon is in fact a "robosigner" whose 

187 activities are consistent with the activities identified as being criminal in the October 4, 2010 

188 letter sent to MGC by the Texas Attorney General's office; and by the United States as being an 

189 act of conspiracy in a scheme and artifice to defraud in its criminal conviction of Lorraine 

190 Brown. 

191 Lorraine Brown was incarcerated for her crimes in June 2012. So this Edward J. Bagdon 

192 affidavit produced in June 2014 along with the magically appearing Jason J. Vecchio and Dana 

193 Lantry endorsed allonges produced and submitted to this court in November 2014 by 

194 LNV/Beal's Perkins Coie attorneys in the present case and the noticed related Pauley case could 

Page 8 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 8 of 38
195 only have been produced by Brown's co-conspirators. (The United States identified unknown 

196 co-conspirators in their conviction of Brown.) 

197 Daniel Andrew "Andy" Beal stands to gain the most personally from the use ofthis 

198 Edward J. Bagdon "robosigned" affidavit in the Breitlings' case; and the false and forged Jason 

199 J. Vecchio and Dana Lantry endorsed allonges in the present case; and the false and forged Jason 

200 J. Vecchio allonges and forged Notes in the other noticed related cases. He is the sole owner of 

201 Beal Bank SSB, Beal Bank USA, Beal Financial Services, Beal Service Corporation and the 

202 many subsidiaries of these entities including but not limited to LNV, MGC, LPP, CLMG 

203 Corporation ("CLMG"), CXA Corporation ("CXA") and its many clones (i.e. CXA Corp. CXA204 1 to CXA-32 Corp. etc); BRE Inc, ("BRE") its many clones (i.e. BRE-1 to BRE-20 Inc. etc); 

205 Southgate Master Fund LLC ("Southgate"); Bemont Investments LLC ("Bemont"); BPB 

206 Investments LC, and hundreds of other shell corporations. 

207 Daniel Andrew "Andy" Beal is the sole beneficiary of the gains from the foreclosures he 

208 perfects using these false and forged documents. His crimes go beyond those of Lorraine Brown 

209 in that he not only knowingly uses the products of her crimes; he falsely produces his own forged 

210 documents consistent with the conspiracy acts and intentionally uses them to deceive courts and 

211 to thereby intentionally deprive Defendant and the other Beal/LNV victims in the noticed related 

212 cases of their property without due process. 

213 The United States convicted Lorraine Brown of a felony cognizable by a court of the 

214 United States (i.e. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida). Defendant 

215 and the Beal/LNV victims in the other noticed related cases have told the various courts (i.e. 

216 judges) that they are victims of the crimes of Lorraine Brown and that the assignments of deed of 

Page 9 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 9 of 38
217 trust or mortgage, the Mortgage Notes, the allonges and the affidavits produced by LNV are 

218 forgeries consistent with the crimes of Lorraine Brown and her co-conspirators and that the 

219 owner of LNV, Daniel Andrew Beal, as well as the LPS attorneys and agents he hires are 

220 Brown's co-conspirators. 

221 Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 states: 

222 "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a 

223 court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the 

224 same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United 

225 States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." 

226 Defendant and the Beal/LNV victims in the other noticed related cases have been telling 

227 persons with civil authority including judges, their local police, their district attorneys, their state 

228 attorneys, and the FBI about these crimes since 2012 and they have been consistently 

229 IGNORED! 

230 Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 is unconstitutional in that it doesn't mandate a judge to take any 

231 specific action once they become aware of"the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a 

232 court of the United States." The statute instructs all citizens they MUST tell a judge about the 

233 crime or they will be guilty of a crime themselves and "shall be fined under this title or 

234 imprisoned not more than three years, or both." 

235 Defendant and the Beal/LNV victims in the other noticed related cases are certain that if 

236 any of them were to forge a negotiable instrument with intent to defraud for personal gain, the 

237 same judges who tum a deaf ear and blind eye to LNV /Beal doing so, would most definitely 

238 report their crimes to the FBI or local law enforcement for investigation and prosecution. 

239 Because Title 18 U.S. C. § 4 permits judicial discretion this statue results in arbitrary and biased 

Page 10 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 10 of 38
240 enforcement that violates the constitutional rights of Defendant and the Beal/LNV victims in the 

241 other noticed related cases. Defendant and the other LNV /Beal victims are deprived of their 

242 right to equal protection of the law under the fourteenth amendment to the United States 

243 Constitution; and because these crimes can and do result in deprivation of the Beal/LNV victims' 

244 property and their liberty to fully enjoy their property often for many years; it also deprives them 

245 of their right to due process under the fifth and the fourteenth amendments to the United States 

246 Constitution. 

247 Constitutional Question 1 

248 Is it an unconstitutional deprivation of due process and equal protection of law for a state 

249 or federal judge to ignore the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United 

250 States (because Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 apparently gives them discretion to do so); and is it 

251 unconstitutional for judges to fail to take action to ensure a criminal investigation by law 

252 enforcement is initiated; when a judge's failure to do so can and does result in deprivation oflife, 

253 liberty and property for the victims of the unreported crime? 

254 Constitutional Question 2 

255 When a state or federal judge becomes aware of an actual commission of a felony 

256 cognizable by a court of the United States and fails to take action to ensure that a criminal 

257 investigation by appropriate law enforcement is initiated could/should that judge be fined or 

258 imprisoned under Title 18 U.S.C. § 4; and if not wouldn't this then be unconstitutional because it 

259 would create an unequal application of the law (i.e. citizens suffer consequences for violating 

260 Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, but judges who violate Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 and thereby commit a crime 

Page 11of37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 11 of 38
261 would not be punished; (it is well established that judicial immunity does not extend to 

262 prosecution for a crime); and if that judge's failure to act pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 

263 deprived victims of these unreported crimes of their constitutional rights to due process and 

264 equal protection oflaw wouldn't this then also violate that judge's constitutionally mandated 

265 oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States? 

266 Constitutional Question 3 

267 In the situation portrayed by Constitutional Question 2 when a judge fails to take action 

268 to ensure that a criminal investigation by law enforcement is initiated pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. 

269 SJ:; and that judge becomes aware of the crime through litigation in a civil action where a victim 

270 of that crime is a party to the litigation and asserts he/she is such a victim and pursuant to rules of 

271 evidence shows evidence of such to the court; and these crimes involve the forging of mortgage 

272 related instruments intended to deceive a court as to the title interests of real property; but that 

273 judge ignores such evidence of the crime and ultimately summarily rules against the interests of 

274 the crime victim without a trial on the merits; and the result of that summary ruling deprives that 

275 crime victim of their property and their financial liberty and greatly diminishes that crime 

276 victim's quality of life; would this judicial decision be unconstitutional; and would this judge's 

277 order therefore be void because it was derived from an unconstitutional deprivation of the crime 

278 victim's rights to due process and equal protection oflaw? 

279 If a court's decision is plainly contrary to a statute or the constitution, the court will be 

280 held to have acted without power or jurisdiction, making the judgment void. United States v. 

281 Indoor Cultivation Equip., 55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir. 1995). 

Page 12 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 12 of 38
282 A judgment may not be rendered in violation of constitutional protections. The validity 

283 of a judgment may be affected by a failure to give the constitutionally required due process 

284 notice and an opportunity to be heard. Earle v. McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398; See also 

285 Prather v Loyd, 86 Idaho 45, 382 P2d 910. 

286 The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process and equal protection of the 

287 law extend to judicial as well as political branches of government, so that a judgment may not be 

288 rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guarantees. Hanson v. Denckla. 357 

289 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283, 78 S Ct 1228. 

290 Every person is entitled to an opportunity to be heard in a court of law upon every 

291 question involving his rights or interests, before he is affected by any judicial decision on the 

292 question. Earle v McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. 

293 A judgment of a court without hearing the party or giving him an opportunity to be heard 

294 is not a judicial determination of his rights. Sabariego v Maverick. 124 US 261, 31LEd430, 8 S 

295 Ct 461, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. 

296 Defendant and the other BeaVLNV victims in the other noticed related cases are 

297 instructed via Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 that they must report crimes to their local law enforcement, 

298 and they have done so. But their local law enforcement told them they need to go to the FBI, and 

299 again they have done so. Because the Beal/LNV victims live in so many different states and 

300 cities their individual reports fail to give local FBI offices an understanding of the magnitude of 

301 the Beal enterprise crimes. Also because the crimes are "foreclosure related" local police and 

302 sheriffs departments don't take the reports seriously and have told Defendant and the other 

Page 13 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 13 of 38
303 Beal/LNV victims or that this is a civil matter for the courts (i.e. they put the onus on judges to 

304 do the right thing); and then judges in turn routinely fail to take these crimes seriously. 

305 This is a serious matter of public interest. Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 mandates citizens with 

306 knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States (Beal 

307 is doing exactly the same thing Lorraine Brown was convicted and imprisoned for doing and 

308 worse) yet when citizens do as Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 mandates and make the crime known to fil!!!!£ 

309 judge or other person(s) in civil or military authority under the United States, nothing is done 

310 investigate or put a stop to the crimes consistent with this criminal conspiracy (already identified 

311 as a criminal conspiracy in United States o[America v. Lorraine Brown). The lives of the 

312 victims of these crimes are destroyed; their credit is wrongfully damaged; their shelter is 

313 wrongfully taken from them, their entire life work effort and financial security is stolen from 

314 them at the very point in their lives when they are most vulnerable and least likely to recover 

315 from such a horrendous loss - often when they can no longer work and must live on a limited 

316 retirement or disability income. Had they had not become victims of this horrifying crime they 

317 . would have had the liberty to sell their property and use their equity to buy a smaller less 

318 expensive property and live their retirement debt free; but their liberty to make such choices was 

319 stolen from them by Beal/LNV. Daniel Andrew Beal perpetrates his crimes with intent to steal 

320 homes from some of our most vulnerable citizens, the elderly, the disabled, minorities, single 

321 mothers; he destroys lives and displaces families so he can gamble away millions of dollars a 

322 year. (See Defendant's Exhibit D attached hereto.) 

323 Beal also uses his ill-gotten wealth earned from his corrupt organization's criminal 

324 activities to pay thousands of attorneys to obstruct justice and/or thwart justice and/or commit 

325 fraud upon the court in Defendant's case and the cases of the other LNV /Beal victims in the 

Page 14 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 14 of 38
326 noticed related cases. Brown was not convicted of criminal forgery because she herself did not 

327 use the false and forged instruments she produced with intent to personally enforce such 

328 instruments for her own personal gain. (In law if one forges a signature of otherwise alters an 

329 instrument the act is not considered felony forgery until someone with knowledge that the 

330 instrument is forged attempts to enforce the instrument for his/her personal gain. Daniel Andrew 

331 Beal has such knowledge and intentionally seeks to enforce such forged instruments, as he has in 

332 Defendant's case, and in the other noticed related cases. 

333 Pertinent sections of ORS§ 165.013(] )(a) (Forgery in the first degree) state: 

334 "A person commits the crime of forgery in the first degree if the person violates 

335 ORS 165.007 (Forgery in the second degree) the written instrument is or purports 

336 to be any of the following: 

337 (B) Part of an issue of stock, bonds or other instruments representing 

338 interests in or claims against any property or person; 

339 (C) A deed, will, codicil, contract or assignment; 

340 (E) A public record; 

341 Pertinent sections of§ 165.007(l)(a) & (b) (Forgery in the second degree) state: 

342 "A person commits the crime of forgery in the second degree if, with intent to 

343 injure or defraud, the person falsely makes, completes or alters a written 

344 instrument; or utters a written instrument which the person knows to be forged." 

345 ORS§ 165.013(3) (Forgery in the first degree) states: 

346 "Forgery in the first degree is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §153; 1993 c.680 

347 §25; 2005 c.761 §1]" 

348 Pertinent sections of 18 US. Code§ 495 (COUNTERFEITING AND FORGERY 

349 specific to contracts, deeds, and powers of attorney states: 

350 "Whoever falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits any deed, power of 

351 attorney, order, certificate, receipt, contract, or other writing, for the purpose of 

352 obtaining or receiving, or of enabling any other person, either directly or 

Page 15 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 15 of 38
353 indirectly, to obtain or receive from the United States or any officers or agents 

354 thereof, any sum of money; or 

355 Whoever utters or publishes as true any such false, forged, altered, or 

356 counterfeited writing, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing the same 

357 to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited; or 

358 Whoever transmits to, or presents at any office or officer of the United States, any 

359 such writing in support of, or in relation to, any account or claim, with intent to 

360 defraud the United States, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or 

361 counterfeited362 Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." 

363 Both Oregon and U.S. code is clear about the definition of forgery and that it is a crime. 

364 Courts are offices of the United States. Judges are officers of the United States. As such when 

365 courts are defrauded the United States is defrauded. LNV/Beal has in Defendant's case and in 

366 the other noticed related cases presented to judges, as officers of the United States, false, altered 

367 and forged assignments of deed or mortgage; Mortgage Notes, allonges to Mortgage Notes and 

368 affidavits. He does this with intent to defraud these judges knowing they would rely on these 

369 false, altered and forged instruments as being genuine; and that through this predictable judicial 

370 reliance the probability is high that these judges will grant LNV /Beal summary judgment rulings 

371 that directly harms Defendant and the other LNV/Beal victims who are also prose litigants in the 

372 other noticed related cases by unjustly and unconstitutionally depriving them of their property. 

373 The United States is also harmed the because it erodes the public's confidence in our judiciary as 

374 a branch of the United States; which in tum undermines public confidence in the government of 

375 the United States as a whole. The individual judges who were deceived are also harmed because 

376 fraud makes their judgments void; and too many void judgments tarnish a judge's reputation. 

377 Whenever mass incidents of judicial abuse of discretion and blatant violations of due 

378 process and equal protection of law are rampant, with judges who ignore evidence and statute 

Page 16 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 16 of 38
379 and grant summary judgments favoring very wealthy financial institutions (and wealthy parties 

380 like LNV and Beal who pretend to be financial institutions and use fraud to gain the bulk of their 

381 wealth), the public loses faith in our judiciary's impartiality and its willingness to perform its 

382 constitutionally dictated duty to uphold the United States Constitution. The United States also 

383 loses credibility among foreign governments and the public of foreign countries. For centuries 

384 the United States has been the shining example of what a democratic form of government should 

385 be; a beacon of hope to the oppressed everywhere and a form of government that inspires those 

386 living in non-democratic nations to fight for their own human rights and to establish a 

387 democratic form of government in their own countries that mimics our form of government. 

388 This shining image the United States has enjoyed for centuries is tarnished when the United 

389 States government appears to allow wealthy parties like LNV /Beal to violate laws, commit 

390 cognizable crimes and to thereby steal property from citizens with government sanction through 

391 what appears to be a corrupt and biased judiciary. 

392 Defendant wishes to make it clear that she does not believe all or even most judges are 

393 corrupt, although she and the other LNV /Beal victims have good cause to believe that at least 

394 some judges in the noticed related cases (specifically in the LNV v. Breitlings and the LNV v. 

395 Gebhardt cases) may be corrupt and that the obvious appearance of such impropriety warrants an 

396 investigation by the FBI; however many factors, not the least of which is a lack of funding, 

397 coupled with a surge of non-criminal pro-se litigants defending their property title rights in 

398 courts has overwhelmed the judicial system. However this is not an excuse to unconstitutionally 

399 deprive those pro se masses flooding the courts of their property without due process and equal 

400 protection of law. Throwing these cases out of our courts as quickly as possible with summary 

401 judgments is not the solution to the problem, and has the potential to exponentially increase court 

Page 17 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 17 of 38
402 costs when these cases are re-opened and judgments vacated as being void due to their 

403 unconstitutional basis. 

404 At least one federal judge recognizes the constitutional problems inherent in abuse of 

405 summary judgments by his federal judge colleagues. The Honorable Mark W. Bennett in his 

406 essay: "From the 'No Spittin', No Cussin' and No Summary Judgment' Days of Employment 

407 Discrimination Litigation to the 'Defendant's Summary Judgment Affirmed Without Comment' 

408 Days: One Judge's Four-Decade Perspective" 57 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 685 (2012-2013) writes: 

409 "Nearly seventy-five years after its birth, the time has come to bury summary judgment. 

410 The funeral should be swift, dignified, and joyous. The autopsy would reveal that the 

411 cause of death was abuse and overuse by my federal judge colleagues. Summary 

412 judgment abuse and overuse occurs in all types of cases, but is especially magnified in 

413 employment discrimination cases ... Unfortunately, my colleagues have become 

414 increasingly unfriendly to plaintiffs' employment discrimination claims. I believe there 

415 are six primary reasons for this "unfriendliness" or what many scholars have observed 

416 as "hostility": 1) too many frivolous employment discrimination lawsuits; 2) an 

417 overworked federal judiciary; 3) increased sophistication of employers; 4) increasingly 

418 subtle discrimination; 5) implicit bias in judicial decisions; and 6) a shift among judges 

419 from trial judging to case managing ... The time has come to recognize that summary 

420 judgment has become too expensive, too time-consuming for the parties and the 

421 judiciary, and too likely to unfairly deprive parties-usually plaintiffs---of their 

422 constitutional and statutory rights to trial by jury. I am willing to throw out the baby 

423 with the bathwater because the culture of unjustly granting summary judgment is far 

424 too ingrained in the federal judiciary to reverse course. There is simply no empirical 

425 evidence that summary judgment is efficient or fair. Failing elimination of summary 

426 judgment, dramatic modifications to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil 1 Procedure 

427 should be made to help eliminate its disparate and unfair impact." 

428 Apparently the same "unfriendliness" observed by the Honorable Mark W. Bennett and 

429 what and scholars call "hostility" of judges towards plaintiffs' in employment discrimination 

430 claims is also reflected toward homeowners fighting off fraudulent foreclosures on their homes. 

431 In fact Ms. Gebhardt pointed out in a motion she filed to recuse Judge V arlan because he 

432 appeared to be biased against her that his record showed he had not even once ruled in favor of a 

Page 18 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 18 of 38
433 homeowner and that he had a tendency to rule unfavorably in other civil rights cases, mostly 

434 employment discrimination cases. When the judiciary shows blatant bias and discrimination 

435 against crime victims in danger of losing their homes to fraud the emotional damage further 

436 inflicted these victims is severe; the crime victims are being treated by the courts as if they are 

437 the criminals. Actually, criminals have more access to the courts that these crime victims. This 

438 is not supposed to happen in the United States. The public interest is served by protecting our 

439 constitutional rights to due process and assuring equal and fair justice, quoting from "Access to 

440 the Courts: An Essay (or the Georgetown University Law Center Conference on the 

441 Independence ofthe Courts" by David S. Udell and Rebekah Diller, respectively, Director and 

442 Counsel of the Justice Program of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University 

443 School of Law: 

444 "In this Essay, we argue that the gap between America's promise of equal justice and 

445 the reality of justice on the ground is substantial, and growing. Meaningful access to the 

446 courts--consisting of representation by counsel, the ability to physically enter court and 

447 understand and participate in the proceedings, and the opportunity to have claims heard 

448 is increasingly out of reach for many Americans. First, there are not enough lawyers 

449 available to represent low-income people in civil legal matters, resulting in four-fifths 

450 of the civil legal needs of low-income individuals going unmet. Second, in the criminal 

451 justice system, where the right to counsel for the indigent is constitutionally guaranteed, 

452 attorneys are commonly underpaid, under-supervised, under-resourced and, ultimately, 

453 unable to provide effective representation. Third, for people with physical or 

454 psychiatric disabilities, court buildings and court procedures pose obstacles that may be 

455 insurmountable. Fourth, for people with limited English proficiency, the lack of 

456 translation and interpreting services in many of the nation's courts also poses barriers 

457 that are often overwhelming. Fifth, the role of the courts is increasingly circumscribed 

458 by laws and by court decisions that eliminate whole categories of claims from the 

459 courts' jurisdiction. Sixth, increased and often mandatory reliance on alternative 

460 dispute resolution has placed judicial review out of reach for an increasing number of 

461 people. These six factors, we argue, daily threaten the ability of our courts to perform 

462 their essential functions: providing predictable and fair dispute resolution, acting as a 

463 check on the legislative and executive branches, protecting the most vulnerable from 

464 the excesses of majoritarianism, and reaffirming the citizenry's faith in the legitimacy 

465 of the courts and of government in general. Finally, we conclude by offering a set of 

466 policy solutions aimed at stabilizing our courts, promoting their independence, and 

467 fulfilling the promise of equal justice." 

Page 19 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 19 of 38
468 If federal judges were not left to their own devices (which has proved in at least these 

469 seven noticed related cases to have had an unconstitutional disparate and biased impact) and 

470 were instead mandated by Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 to report the crimes of Daniel Andrew "Andy" 

471 Beal that are consistent with the crimes identified by the United States as being acts of a criminal 

472 conspiracy in United States ofAmerica v. Lorraine Brown to their local FBI offices as Title 18 

473 U.S.C. § 4 implies but does not explicitly mandate; then the FBI would respect the authority of 

474 these judges and immediately investigate these criminal activities; whereas local FBI field 

475 offices have apparently ignored the many reports made to them by LNV/Beal victims who reside 

476 in multiple states because these local FBI field offices are unable to connect each local report to 

477 Daniel Andrew "Andy" Beal and his corrupt organization and to a larger pattern of such crimes 

478 occurring across the country. Also like the local police and sheriffs' offices, local FBI field 

479 offices are likely to consider these reports as civil and not criminal because they involve 

480 foreclosures and refer these crime victims, as they have in fact done, back to the courts where 

481 these crime victims have experienced a vicious catch-22 cycle in attempting to and being barred 

482 from access the courts to voice their complaints. 

483 This unconstitutional failure of Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 to mandate judicial action by judges to 

484 report crimes has a disparate and unfair impact on the victims of such crimes already traumatized 

485 and financially damaged by the crimes perpetrated against them; and who are then further 

486 traumatized and victimized by the very judiciary they trusted to give them justice. 

487 Were the FBI to investigate Daniel Andrew "Andy" Beal and his corrupt organization 

488 they would discover that Beal's criminal conspiracy expands Brown's criminal conspiracy to 

489 include falsified claims of mortgage default and subsequent theft of property for his own 

Page 20 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 20 of 38
490 personal gain via intentional use the products of Brown's crimes (i.e. forged mortgage related 

491 documents) and new forged mortgage related documents created as a result of Beal's personal 

492 instruction. Beal intentionally used these forged mortgage related documents to wrongfully 

493 foreclose on properties. He submitted such forged mortgage related documents to courts in 

494 foreclosure complaints he initiated against Beal victims in the noticed related cases and against 

49S other Beal victims not yet named. Beal had first caused these forged mortgage related documents 

496 to be filed via his MGC and other Beal enterprise entities into county land recorders offices 

497 across the county through the mail and through wire transmissions, with intent to deceive judges 

498 knowing that courts would then rely on these forged mortgage related documents as being 

499 genuine. Beal did this with intent to wrongfully foreclose on properties, while denying his 

SOO victims their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of law, and to thereby steal 

SOl these properties for his own personal gain through his deception, i.e. fraud upon the courts and at 

S02 the expense of Defendant and the other Beal/LNV victims in the noticed related cases. 

S03 Defendant never in defaulted on her mortgage. Litton wrongfully attempted to 

S04 foreclose on Defendant's property in 2006/2007. Litton's attorneys told Defendant's attorney 

SOS that their client had no financial incentive to call off the trustee sale. In a letter dated October 25, 

S06 2006 from my attorney, Elizabeth Lamoine, to Litton's Mr. Gallardo she wrote: 

S07 " ... when we proposed a settlement with your company on August 30, 2006, Mr. 

S08 Benny Hibler informed me that your company had no 'incentive' to settle, as the 

S09 equity our client possessed in the residence was 'more than adequate' to satisfy 

S 10 the amount you sought in the sale." 

Sll (See the 2nd paragraph of Defendant's Exhibit E.) Ms. Lemoine had proved to Litton that 

S12 Defendant had not missed a single payment that EMC Mortgage Inc, ("EMC") claimed she had 

S13 missed; i.e. there was never a genuine default. 

Page 21of37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 21 of 38
514 Unknown to Defendant and her attorney in 2006/2007 Litton and/or GMAC-RFC 

515 (Residential Funding Company LLC fka Residential Funding Corporation, subsidiaries of 

516 GMAC) had filed a substitution of trustee document and an assignment of Defendant's deed of 

517 trust falsely purporting to transfer beneficial interest to GMAC-RFC from People's Choice 

518 Home Loans in 2006. This is a legal impossibility because People's Choice had no beneficial 

519 interest in Defendant's deed of trust in 2006, because based on expert testimony available to the 

520 court People's Choice had sold all beneficial interest in Defendant's deed of trust to the BSABS 

521 2004-HE4 Bear Steams Asset Backed Securities Trust (the "BSABS 2004-HE4 Trust" or "Trust" 

522 prior to May 1, 2004. Defendant discovered these false and forged documents that Litton and 

523 GMAC-RFC caused to be filed with Washington County Recorder's office via wire transmission 

524 only in 2012; and she discovered that her loan was sold into the BSABS 2004-HE4 Trust in 

525 November 2012. 

526 Defendant attached as "Exhibit F" to her objection to MGC's motion to dismiss in her 

527 related case Subramaniam v. Beal et al, Case No. 3:12-cv-01681-MO a copy ofthis assignment 

528 of deed of trust filed on June 28, 2006 and pointed out several reasons why this document was a 

529 forgery consistent with the crimes of Lorraine Brown. Defendant attached as Exhibit G a copy 

530 of the information specific to the criminal indictment and plea agreement of Lorraine Brown (at 

531 that time Defendant, a pro-se litigant, did not know in 2012 she could/should have filed a motion 

532 for judicial notice.) It didn't matter because apparently judges think they have discretion to 

533 ignore or deny motions for judicial notice of adjudicative fact pursuant to Federal Rule 201 ( c )(2) 

534 in spite of the language of the rule: "The court must take judicial notice ... " 

Page 22 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 22 of 38
535 Judge Michael Wise Mosman summarily dismissed Defendant's claims in Subramaniam 

536 v. Beal with prejudice without ever adjudicating any of her claims. Like with the other Beal 

537 victims, Defendant's claims have never been heard by any court. 

538 From US v. One Star Class Sloop, No. 08-1152 (1st Cir. 2008): 

539 "[A]n abuse of discretion occurs when a material factor deserving significant 

540 weight is ignored, when an improper factor is relied upon, or when all proper and 

541 no improper factors are assessed, but the court makes a serious mistake in weighing 

542 them." Coutin v. Young & Rubicam P.R., Inc., 124 F.3d 331, 336 (1st Cir. 1997) 

543 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Within this rubric, "an error of law 

544 is always tantamount to an abuse of discretion." Torres-Rivera, 524 F.3d at 336. 

545 "An abuse of discretion occurs when a material factor deserving significant 

546 weight is ignored, when an improper factor is relied upon, or when all proper and 

547 no improper factors are assessed, but the court makes a serious mistake in weighing 

548 them .... 

549 Certainly whether or not an assignment of deed of trust is genuine or a forgery is material 

550 to the standing of a party seeking to foreclosure on property via that instrument. Subramaniam v. 

551 Beal arose from an attempt to foreclose and sell Defendant's property in September 2012. The 

552 present case (LNV v. Subramaniam) arises from the same party "LNV" now attempting a judicial 

553 foreclosure using the same forged instruments with the addition of newly forged instruments; 

554 and claims that rejudicata bars Defendant from relief she would have had in 2012 and that her 

555 fraud claims discovered in 2012 are now time barred because Judge Mosman dismissed her 

556 claims with prejudice. 

557 This type of legal maneuvering is a pattern in LNV foreclosure related cases specific to 

558 the LNV /Beal victims in the noticed related cases; and it is designed to obstruct justice and to 

559 deprive the LNV /Beal victims of their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of 

560 law. 

Page 23 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 23 of 38
561 Judge Mosman made no reference in his written order that addressed any of Defendant's 

562 claims in her pro se pleadings in Subramaniam v. Beal; the primary thrust behind Judge 

563 Mosman's decision seems to have come from MGC and Northwest Trustee Services ("NWTS") 

564 arguments along the line of "we didn't get away with it (i.e. the non-judicial foreclosure wasn't 

565 perfected) so no harm done and case should be dismissed." 

566 Material factors deserving significant weight were ignored by Judge Mosman who made 

567 no determination specific to title of Defendant's property which was a central issue in dispute 

568 between the parties in Subramaniam v. Beal in 2012; and is now in 2015 the central issue in 

569 dispute between the parties in LNV v. Subramaniam. 

570 Constitutional Question 4 

571 Is Federal Rule 56 as it is written and used unconstitutional in that it has become an over572 used method for federal judges to clear their dockets; making it a breeding ground for judicial 

573 bias, discrimination and judicial abuse of discretion that denies far too many citizens meaningful 

574 access to the courts and violates their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of 

575 law as it has the for the Defendant in the present case, and the other LNV /Beal victims in the 

576 noticed related cases? 

577 "These phrases [due process] in the constitution do not mean the general body of the law, 

578 common and statute, as it was at the time the constitution took effect; for that would seem to 

579 deny the right of the legislature to amend or repeal the law. They refer to certain fundamental 

580 rights, which that system of jurisprudence, of which ours is a derivative, has always recognized." 

Page 24 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 24 of 38
581 Brown v. Levee Com'rs, 50 Miss. 468. "Due process oflaw, as used in the constitution, cannot 

582 mean less than a prosecution or suit instituted and conducted according to the prescribed forms 

583 and solemnities for ascertaining guilt, or determining the title to property." Embury v. Conner, 3 

584 N.Y. 511, 517, 53 Am.Dec. 325. And see, generally, Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 104, 24 

585 L.Ed. 616. 

586 "A judgment is a void judgment if the court that rendered the judgment acted in a manner 

587 inconsistent with due process." Klugh v. US., D.C.S.C., 610 F. Supp. 892, 901. 

588 "Res judicata consequences will not be applied to a void judgment which is one which, 

589 from its inception, is a complete nullity and without legal effect," Allcock v. Allcock, 437 N.E.2d 

590 392 (Ill.App.3 Dist. 1982). 

591 Pro se litigants, as well as those represented by counsel, are entitled to meaningful access 

592 to the courts.' Sufficient access to the courts, a right protected by the due process clause of the 

593 fourteenth amendment6 and the first amendment, guarantees to all persons use of the judicial 

594 process to redress alleged grievances. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 825 (1977); Wolffv. 

595 McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 579 (1974); Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 488 (1969). 

596 A judgment may not be rendered in violation of constitutional protections. The validity 

597 of a judgment may be affected by a failure to give the constitutionally required due process 

598 notice and an opportunity to be heard. Earle v. McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. See also 

599 Restatements, Judgments 4(b). Prather vLoyd, 86 Idaho 45, 382 P2d 910. 

Page 25 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 25 of 38
600 Meaningful access to the courts is a fundamental constitutional right. See Bounds v. 

601 Smith. 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977); Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 485 (1969). The importance 

602 of the right of access has long been recognized by the Supreme Court. See, e.g., Chambers v. 

603 Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907). The right of access protects a litigant's 

604 interest in using the judicial process to attain redress of grievances. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 

605 U.S. 817, 825 (1977); Wolff, 418 U.S. at 579; Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 485 (1969). For 

606 pro se litigants, the right guarantees all the means necessary to ensure an adequate hearing on all 

607 alleged grievances. See Gilmore v. Lynch, 319 F. Supp. 105, 110 (N.D. Cal. 1970) (per curiam), 

608 affd sub nom. Younger v. Gilmore, 404 U.S. 15 (1971) (per curiam). In Rabin v. Dep't of State, 

609 No. 95-4310, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15718 the court noted that prose plaintiffs should be 

610 afforded "special solicitude." One commentator has submitted that no judicial effort is too great 

611 if it tends toward just resolution of all pro se claims. See Flannery & Robbins. The 

612 Misunderstood Pro Se Litigant: More than a Pawn in the Game, 41 Bklyn. L. Rev. 769, 772 

613 (1975). 

614 The present case and the noticed related cases before this court and other courts involve 

615 civil litigation stemming from criminal activities. In each of the noticed related cases LNV /Beal 

616 and Beal's attorneys have demonstrated a pattern of legal maneuvering designed to prevent 

617 discovery and have these cases summarily dismissed or decided in favor ofLNV/Beal without 

618 any discovery or judicial fact finding because if Defendant and the other LNV/Beal victims were 

619 permitted discovery (a necessary ingredient for due process to occur) and judges actually paid 

620 attention to the facts uncovered during discovery there would be no question about the criminal 

Page 26 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 26 of 38
621 nature of LNV/Beal's activities in regard to Beal's claims against properties belonging to 

622 Defendant and the other LNV /Beal victims in the noticed related cases. 

623 As in Defendant's case a self-serving false claim of default started the ball rolling toward 

624 foreclosure in the noticed related case of LNV Corporation v. Gebhardt. Catherine Gebhardt 

625 sent a cashier's check for $6,000 made payable to MGC Mortgage Inc. at the address GMAC 

626 gave her (i.e. 7195 Dallas Parkway, Plano, TX 75024) after GMAC told her MGC would be 

627 taking over the servicing of her mortgage. This $6,000 payment represented three months of 

628 payments of Gebhardt's mortgage. MGC claimed they never received this check. Yet in late 

629 2013 Gebhardt finally obtained a copy of the paid check from her bank; and it shows 

630 conclusively that the money was indeed paid on October 29, 2008 to Beal Bank SSB. (Beal 

631 Bank SSB and LNV and MGC are all solely owned by Daniel Andrew "Andy" Beal.) In a letter 

632 dated June 23, 2011 sent to Gebhardt's Congressman Roe's office written by attorney Erica 

633 Thomas who doesn't disclose in the letter she is an attorney (her Texas Bar Card Number is 

634 24042027), but who misrepresents herself as a Vice President ofMGC makes numerous false 

635 claims about the Gebhardt loan. Specific to this $6,000 payment that cleared on October 29, 

636 2008 as was conclusively paid to Beal Bank SSB; Erica Thomas on page 2 paragraph 1 of this 

637 letter states: 

638 "MGC has received no payments since we acquired servicing of loan form GMAC on 

639 or around July 1, 2009." 

640 So what happened to Gebhardt's $6,000? That is a question certainly worthy of an 

641 answer through fact finding, i.e. discovery. After all LNV sued Gebhardt for "breach of 

642 contract" in LNV v. Gebhardt and the breach claimed by LNV was that Gebhardt's defaulted on 

Page 27 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 27 of 38
643 the mortgage contract. This evidence indicates that it was actually LNV /MGC/Beal that 

644 breached the contract in October 2008 and not Gebhardt. 

645 The returned cashier's check conclusively shows the $6,000 was paid to Beal Bank SSB. 

646 MGC made other false claims of missed payments in addition to this one in the Gebhardt case. 

647 That MGC misappropriated this payment is conclusive based on the evidence. That MGC used 

648 this misappropriated payment to claim Gebhardt defaulted on her mortgage when she in fact had 

649 not, is conclusive based on the evidence. It can be inferred that MGC/Beal did this with intent so 

650 it could initiate a non-judicial foreclosure sale of Gebhardt's property because the LPS affiliated 

651 law firm of McCurdy & Candler served a foreclosure notice on Gebhardt on or around May 16, 

652 2009. Gebhardt thwarted this attempt of fraudulent foreclosure on her property by filing a 

653 lawsuit in August 2009: Gebhardt v GMAC Mortgage et al case 2009-059-I, in the Circuit Court 

654 for Sevier County Tennessee. Like so many victims, in 2009 Gebhardt had no idea about the 

655 level of fraud being perpetrated on her; she only knew that she had made payments to MGC that 

656 were never credited to her loan; that GMAC told her to make payments to MGC in October 2008 

657 then a few months later GMAC told her the servicing transfer to MGC did not succeed and she 

658 was to make payments to GMAC again; but GMAC then claimed she was in default because 

659 MGC claimed she had never paid them. 

660 Even though Gebhardt didn't understand why this was happening, Daniel Andrew 

661 "Andy" Beal, owner of MGC and LNV, knew exactly what he was doing. He intended to steal 

662 Gebhardt's property and get a federal court to sanction his theft. To do this he had to first create 

663 a default so he could deceive a court into believing Gebhardt had failed to make payments on her 

664 mortgage so LNV/Beal could then unconstitutionally confiscate her property. MGC in behalf of 

Page 28 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 28 of 38
665 LNV (.i.e. Daniel Andrew "Andy" Beal) knowingly made false claims of default with intent to 

666 deprive Gebhardt of her property without due process or equal protection of the law by 

667 intentionally deceiving the court so Beal could unconstitutionally confiscate her property for his 

668 own personal gain and to the detriment of Gebhardt. (See Defendant's Exhibit F for a copy of 

669 Gebhardt's $6,000 check and Erika Thomas' letter.) (Note: It is highly unlikely that attorney 

670 Erica Thomas was actually on MGC's payroll as an employee. Attorney Erica Thomas was most 

671 likely working as an independent contractor paid by Beal Bank as such and not as an employee 

672 paid with a W2 form.) 

673 Unfortunately Gebhardt's case is not an isolated incident. The same pattern of 

674 misappropriated payments, false claims of default, then threats of foreclosure, sham modification 

675 offers and eventual foreclosure actions or breach of contract complaints by Beal's MGC and/or 

676 LNV and/or LPP has and is repeated with the noticed related cases and with numerous other 

677 MGC/LNV/Beal victims across the country. 

678 Were the FBI to investigate Daniel Andrew "Andy" Beal and his corrupt business 

679 organization it is highly probable they will discover Beal, his agents or his attorneys have bribed 

680 judges as well as attorneys who were hired to represent Beal victims; and that Beal is falsely 

681 reporting his earnings to the IRS and to the FDIC then laundering his ill-gotten proceeds 

682 overseas. (LNV /Beal victims have evidence to show Beal is laundering money as defined by 18 

683 US. Code§ 1956.) Facts in the noticed related cases Breitlings v. LNV, Case No. 3:15-CV684 00703; LNV Corporation v. Gebhardt, and the Swift bankruptcy case is indicative of bribery or 

685 improper influence of counsel representing Beal/LNV victims (i.e. attorneys Douglas Taylor, 

686 J.D. Milks and Paul Bach); and facts in the Breitlings v. LNV case is indicative that Beal/LNV 

Page 29 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 29 of 38
687 attorneys Jeffrey Hardaway with Codilis & Stawiarski PC and Luke Madole of Buckley Madole, 

688 PC had secret conversations with at least two judges, Texas state judge Dale Tillery and Dallas 

689 county judge Jerry Cooper, respectively, for purposes of influencing the decisions of these 

690 judges to favor LNV. 

691 The crimes described herein committed by D. Andrew Beal and his agents and his 

692 attorneys and others involved in his corrupt organization qualify as "racketeering activity" as 

693 defined by 18 US. Code§ 1961 et al. (i.e. 18 US. Code Chapter 96 - RACKETEER 

694 INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS). 

695 18 U.S. Code § l 964(a) states: 

696 "The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and 

697 restrain violations of section 1962 of this chapter by issuing appropriate orders, 

698 including, but not limited to: ordering any person to divest himself of any interest, 

699 direct or indirect, in any enterprise; imposing reasonable restrictions on the future 

700 activities or investments of any person, including, but not limited to, prohibiting 

701 any person from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise engaged 

702 in, the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or ordering 

703 dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the 

704 rights of innocent persons." 

705 18 U.S. Code§ 1964(a) states: 

706 "The Attorney General may institute proceedings under this section. Pending final 

707 determination thereof, the court may at any time enter such restraining orders or 

708 prohibitions, or take such other actions, including the acceptance of satisfactory 

709 performance bonds, as it shall deem proper." 

710 Defendant and the other LNV /Beal victims in the noticed related cases have been seeking 

711 protection from the recognizable crimes being perpetrated against them for many years; and the 

712 district courts of the United States are failing to restrain violations of 18 U.S. Code§ 1961 et seq. 

713 by LNV/LPP/Beal (i.e. the Beal organization and its numerous corporate entities) and failing to 

Page 30 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 30 of 38
714 make due provision for the rights of innocent persons. Instead of protecting the rights of 

715 innocent persons who are victims of cognizable crimes, (specifically those crimes for which the 

716 United States convicted Lorraine Brown for pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 371 in United States of 

717 America v. Lorraine Brown. Case No. 3:12-cr-198-J-25 MCR. (MD. Fla.); and for altering and 

718 forging deeds, assignments of deeds, mortgage contracts, allonges mortgage contracts and utters 

719 or publishes as true any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, with intent to 

720 defraud the United States, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited 

721 pursuant to 18 U.S. Code§ 495; and for committing first degree forgery, i.e. with intent to injure 

722 or defraud, makes, completes or alters a written instrument representing interests in or claims 

723 against any property or person, deed, contract or assignment, public record, or utters a written 

724 instruments which the person knows to be forged pursuant to ORS§ 165.013(1)(a); and for 

725 engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity pursuant 

726 to 18 U.S. Code§ 1957 which are "racketeering activity" pursuant to 18 U.S. Code§ 1961(1)), 

727 these courts are further victimizing these crime victims by unconstitutionally granting 

728 LNV/LPP/Beal summary judgments without ever adjudicating genuine questions of title raised 

729 by all the LNV /Beal victims in the noticed related cases. 

730 Furthermore, violations of 18 U.S. Code§ 371; 18 U.S. Code§ 495; and 18 U.S. Code§ 

731 1957 should be cognizable to any federal court judge as "racketeering activity" pursuant to _ll 

732 U.S. Code§ 1961(1) regardless of whether a prose litigant specifies these violations in their 

733 pleadings or not. A federal judge especially has an obligation under the United States 

734 Constitution to protect the public from crime and to protect the constitutional rights of pro se 

735 litigants; particularly when they are victims of a crime. 

Page 31of37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 31 of 38
736 Constitutional Question 5 

737 Does a judge who abuses his/her judicial discretion (i.e. Judge Mosman in the present 

738 case and in the noticed related case Fauley v. Washington Mutual et al (LNV), Case No. 3:13-cv739 00581-AC also before his court where Judge Mosman similarly ordered a summary dismissal, 

740 Judge Thomas A. Varlan in the noticed related case LNV Corporation v. Gebhardt, Case No. 

741 3:12-CV-468-TAV-HBG who granted summary judgment to LNV against the preponderance of 

742 the evidence and against the law and where he states in his own orders that title is UNCLEAR; 

743 and where he has repeatedly denied Gebhardt's many motions for relief from his summary 

744 judgment due to fraud upon the court and tampering with evidence by both LNV and court 

745 employees; Judge Donald R. Cassling in the noticed related case Switt Chapter 13 bankruptcy, 

746 Case No. 12-35690 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

747 Eastern Division who denied the Swifts an adequate continuance to find a new attorney then 

748 dismissed their bankruptcy without allowing the Swifts to be heard (i.e. in violation to their 

749 constitutional due process and equal protection of law rights) and Judge Dale Tillery who did the 

750 same to the Breitlings in the noticed related case LNVv. Breitlings, Case No. DC-14-04053 in 

751 the 134th Dallas District Court of Texas leaving both of these LNV/Beal victims ill prepared to 

752 represent themselves in such complex cases involving title to their properties and where LNV's 

753 owner Daniel Andrew Beal has billions of dollars at his disposal to hire an army of attorneys 

754 against them to prevent discovery, to obstruct justice, to intentionally derive these pro se 

755 LNV /Beal victims of their constitutionally guaranteed rights to due process and equal protection 

756 of the law, to commit fraud upon the court by submitting forged instruments, which these 

757 officers of the court knew or should have know are forged instruments, as evidence of debt and 

758 their client's standing to foreclose on the properties of these LNV /Beal victims to collect LNV' s 

Page 32 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 32 of 38
759 claimed debt which all these LNV/Beal victims have steadfastly denied is not a valid debt, and 

760 then to secure summary judgments favoring LNV by improperly influencing the court; Judges 

761 both federal and state in the noticed related cases; and Commissioner Judge Michael L. Barth of 

762 the Maricopa County Superior Court of Arizona who likewise granted LNV a summary 

763 judgment in the noticed related case LNV Corporation v. Tuli Molina Wohl. Case No. 1 CA-CV 

764 11-0603, in the Court of Appeals, State of Arizona Division One originating from Cause No. 

765 CV2011-009999 in the Superior Court in Maricopa County Arizona which resulted in the 

766 unconstitutional derivation of LNV /Beal victim Tuli Molina's property and a substantial loss of 

767 her quality of life and her liberty as a result), in such cases knowingly and willfully participate in 

768 a criminal conspiracy to defraud when they are presented with instruments in their court that are 

769 purported by LNV/Beal to be evidence of a valid debt and evidence ofLNV/Beal's standing to 

770 foreclose on property to collect such debt, which may in fact be forged instruments, and that 

771 these forged instruments are likely the products of a convicted felon or her co-conspirators 

772 judicially determined to have committed the offense of mail and wire fraud pursuant to 18 U.S. 

773 Code§ 371, United States v. Lorraine Brown, and was criminally convicted of such in favor of 

774 the United States; and when the pleadings of these prose crime victims and the exhibits they 

775 attach to their pleadings should be cognizable to any federal judge as acts consistent with the 

776 crimes of Lorraine Brown and her co-conspirators; and that these pleadings and exhibits give 

777 evidence of further criminal acts of forgery along with acts consistent with engaging in monetary 

778 transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 

779 1957 and which any federal judge should recognize as "racketeering activity" pursuant to ll 

780 U.S. Code § 1961(1); and yet that federal judge fails to_report these racketeering crimes and 

781 instead awards the perpetrators with an unconstitutional summary judgment without ever 

Page 33 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 33 of 38
782 adjudicating facts specific to title of the property; and that summary judgment has the effect of 

783 depriving these crime victims of their property, their liberty to enjoy the financial rewards of 

784 their life-long earnings they invested into their properties or their good credit; and such summary 

785 judgment has the effect of greatly diminishing the quality of life enjoyed by these crime victims, 

786 is that judge then a culpable criminal co-conspirator with LNV /Beal and devoid of judicial 

787 immunity and liable for restitution to the victims of these crimes? 

788 As every effective parent knows, the way to rear a child to become a conscientious adult 

789 who respects rules and the rights of others is to foster a sense of personal accountability within a 

790 child and to establish fair rules and to enforce those rules with uniform, fair and consistent 

791 consequences for violations of those rules. 

792 The financial incentive (consequences) for violating the rules in these cases is upside 

793 down. As shown when Litton's Mr. Benny Hibler told Defendant's attorney in 2006, Elizabeth 

794 Lamoine, that Litton:" ... had no 'incentive' to settle, as the equity our client (Defendant in the 

795 present case) possessed in the residence was 'more than adequate' to satisfy the amount you 

796 sought in the sale." 

797 The criminals in these cases have no financial incentive to stop their crimes because they 

798 the can and do get away with their crimes most of the time; specifically because judges allow 

799 them to get away with their crimes most of the time; and even when they are caught the penalties 

800 awarded to individual consumers are so minute and insignificant in comparison to the $Billions 

801 in undue rewards they reap from continuing their crimes that they constitute no deterrent, i.e. no 

802 financial incentive to do the right thing rather than the wrong thing. 

Page 34 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 34 of 38
803 A major factor behind federal judges' motivation to as quickly as possible grant summary 

804 judgments in these cases (besides possible personal bias and improper influence) is the desire to 

805 clear their dockets to cut court costs. This perception by federal judges is misplaced and in the 

806 end has the potential to dramatically increase court costs and open the floodgates to future re807 hearings of all the old cases where they unconstitutionally ordered summary judgments without 

808 any determination as to title of the property. Unconstitutional judgments are void judgments and 

809 judgments secured through fraud upon the court are also void. No statute of limitation exists on 

810 vacating such void judgments. 

811 Judges are public servants. They have a duty not only to uphold the Constitution of the 

812 United States but to make wise fiscal decisions. Instead of attempting to cut comers in ways that 

813 deny average citizens access to the courts; deprive them of their constitutionally guaranteed 

814 rights to due process and equal protection of the law; and that violate their constitutionally 

815 mandated oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States; and that erodes public 

816 confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary these judges would be better government servants 

817 stewards of our great Constitution were they to acknowledge the upside down financial 

818 incentives inherent in these cases. 

819 Defendant and the other LNV/Beal victims have all suffered unimaginable damages as 

820 result of being victimized by the crimes of LNV /Beal and the other Beal organization criminal 

821 entities. Most of them have suffered irreparable damage to their credit, (average cost= 

822 $500,000); irreparable damage to their health and loss of income as a result; (Defendant's actual 

823 cost>= $3,000,000; cost for other victims varies); extreme and prolonged emotional distress 

824 (average cost= $1,000,000); prolonged deprivation of their liberty to not only enjoy their 

Page 35 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 35 of 38
825 property but their lives because as pro se litigants nearly every waking moment is spent doing 

826 legal research and writing to defend themselves in courts where most judges don't even read 

827 their pleadings and this causes them to miss out on family events and most of the simple 

828 pleasures one enjoys in life (computing a cost on this deprivation is something a professional 

829 must calculate to provide adequate restitution.) The list goes on. Yet the courts and judges have 

830 routinely denied these victims restitution; and this contributes to the inability for Defendant and 

831 the other LNV /Beal victims in the noticed related cases to find counsel - attorneys willing to 

832 take on their cases know they cannot without funds adequate to sustain the onslaught of 

833 summary judgment motions that history tells them will be filed by LNV/Beal attorneys to delay 

834 discovery and a thwart a trial on the merits. LNV /Beal by its own wrongdoing creates an unfair 

835 and biased judicial environment where the financial incentive is for continuing the crimes. 

836 The United States Supreme Court (Defendant and the other LNV /Beal victims in the 

837 noticed related cases are committed to taking our grievances to the United States Supreme Court 

838 if we must to get justice) and the United States Attorney General have a fiduciary and 

839 Constitutional duty to examine the Constitutional abuses rampant with the biased, arbitrary and 

840 punitive affects of the over use of federal Rule 56 by federal judges and attorneys who represent 

841 excessively wealthy clients like LNV /Beal against pro se parties like Defendant and the other 

842 LNV /Beal victims in the noticed related cases who are in jeopardy of unconstitutionally losing 

843 their properties, their liberty to enjoy their properties and their quality of life or have already lost 

844 such as a result of the disparate and unfair impact caused by Rule 56. 

845 The United States Supreme Court and the United States Attorney General have a 

846 fiduciary and Constitutional duty to examine the constitutionality of Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 when 

Page 36 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 36 of 38
847 

848 

849 

850 

851 

852 

853 

854 

855 

856 

857 

858 

859 

860 

861 

862 

863 

864 

865 

866 

867 

crime victims like Defendant and the other LNV /Beal victims in the noticed related cases are 

caught in a perpetual catch-22 situation because Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 mandates they report the 

crimes to a judge, yet the judges fail to report the crimes to law enforcement and law 

enforcement claims their cases are civil and sends them back to the courts; while the crimes 

continues; their damages as a result of the crimes increase; and the public loses faith in the 

judiciary and views the judges as participants in the crimes. 

As parents of sorts, the United States Supreme Court and the United States Attorney 

General has the challenge of reining in wayward judges and bring a sense of fairness back to the 

judiciary; which is vested by the public and where the public is dependent on federal judges 

especially to honor their constitutionally mandated oath of office to uphold the Constitution of 

the United States; and too many of these judges are instead violating the constitution rights of 

due process and equal protection of law. 

Defendant never defaulted on her mortgage. Gebhardt and most of the other LNV /Beal 

victims in the noticed related cases never defaulted on their mortgages. The horrors that have 

happened to them; through no fault of their own, can happen to any American homeowner at any 

time if the judiciary doesn't tum around the "financial incentive" and call a crime what it is: 

"CRIME" and hold those perpetrating these crimes accountable for restitution to the victims of 

their crimes and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. 

Respectfully, 

Denise Subramaniam 

Page 37 of 37 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 37 of 38
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 A venue, 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 

e:richards(amerkinscoie.com 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Denise Subramaniam 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 69 Filed 06/29/15 Page 38 of 38