Source: https://es.scribd.com/document/99805150/Quiet-Title-Complaint-Arizona-Superior-Court-showmetheloan-net-070512
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:34:42+00:00

Document:
Will Courts Fraudulent Documents to Prevail? Declaration in Support of Opposition - Actual Fraudulent Documents upon which foreclsure is based are attached.
Your name here, pro se 123456 N. 10th Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85666 623-222-2222 <email@email.com> SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF TULARE LUIS RAMIREZ Plaintiff, vs. Case No.
1. Plaintiff admits to some technical missteps attributable to the learning curve.
However, none of which is fatal to his claim as will be demonstrated below. The Plaintiff is proceeding without the benefit of legal counsel. Additionally, he is not a practicing attorney nor has he been trained in the complex study of law. As such, Plaintiff's pro se papers are to be construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519-20, (1972). “A pro se litigant should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy defects in his pleadings if the factual allegations are close to stating a claim for relief.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Accordingly such pleadings should be held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by licensed, practicing attorneys.
and requested that Defendants execute such grant deed / quit claim deed (a true and correct copy of the grant deed / quit claim deed tendered to Defendants is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”).000. IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs of suit and attorney‟s fees incurred herein. Rule 201. IN THE CITY OF TULARE. 6. § 12-1103 (B). COUNTY OF TULARE. The amount in controversy exceeds $25. PAGE 26 OF MAPS. thus this Court‟s the appropriate venue in which these proceedings may be commenced. Plaintiff. AS PER MAP RECORDED IN VOLUME 42. 8.S. as a result.E. together with the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10. Defendants have refused or neglected to execute the grant deed / quit claim deed and. 1. 2. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5.R.00) for execution and delivery thereof. 2 of 14 . pursuant to A. 7. At least twenty (20) days prior to the institution of this action Plaintiff tendered and delivered to Defendants a grant deed / quit claim deed with respect to the legal property described herein above. Plaintiff Luis Ramirez. 4. Defendant DUMBASSSCUMBAG BANKSTER SHYSTERS Inc.R. is a California Corporation organized under the laws of the State of California. a single man.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Plaintiff moves the court to take JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACTS pursuant to A. of the relevant documents as if fully set forth herein. is an California consumer and resident of Tulare County. hereby files this Complaint against the Defendants to Quiet Title with respect to a certain parcel of real estate and in support thereof avers as follows: PARTIES 3. Because the nature and cause of these proceedings involves matters and disputes in controversy surrounding the subject property LOT 99 OF PALM RANCH NO.
Upon information and belief. entity or individual or group thereof is the owner of the promissory Note executed at the time of the loan closing. 13. for violations of Arizona's foreclosure by advertisement statute. and under other theories described herein. Plaintiff holds title to and is the TRUE OWNER its subject property at 123456 N. Plaintiff allegedly entered into a promissory Note ("Note") with the alleged original lender DUMBASSSCUMBAG BANKSTER SHYSTERS Inc. 10th AVE. A. a Superfund. § 12-1101 et.S.. relative to any or all known or unknown claimants who may claim to have an interest in these proceedings. 85666. 16. 10. Plaintiff acquired the subject property by warranty deed on September 11. §§12-521 & 12-526.R. 2001. 15.. 11. 12.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 9. is the subject Property in this matter (“the property”). 2001. GLENDALE AZ. that commingled the money of all investors without regard to REMICS. Said alleged creditor did not advance Plaintiff money through the securitization chain but instead allegedly advanced Plaintiff money directly from an escrow account. Plaintiff made payments to an alleged creditor that allegedly advanced Plaintiff money. Plaintiff brings suit under Arizona law for Quiet Title Action under A.R. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. ("DBSI") on September 11. seq. trusts or any other entity to whom the alleged Note was allegedly made payable and for which the alleged Deed of Trust allegedly secured an interest in the property never consummated any 3 of 14 . SECURITIZATION 14.S.S. § 12- 1103(B) and A. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief as to what (if any) party.R. and whether the Deed of Trust (Mortgage) secures any obligation of the Plaintiff and in the alternative a Final Judgment granting Plaintiff Quiet Title in the subject property.
which is undocumented and unsecured --. Leaving an alleged new debt replacing the alleged old debt. 18. After sending several certified QWR‟s to DBSI and the alleged servicer. would be correspondingly reduced or eliminated. Plaintiff hired The examinerer. If any payments were made to the alleged creditor(s) THEN the money received by the agents of the those alleged investors should have been credited against the money allegedly owed to those alleged creditors.1 2 3 4 5 financial transaction with Plaintiff. Accordingly. evidencing the alleged loan balance. the alleged obligation that originally gave rise to the alleged secured debt has been satisfied either in part or more likely entirely. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 19. The relevant part of that alleged allocation should have been applied against the 6 alleged balance due on the alleged Deed of Trust. because they were obviously a co-obligor if the allegations were true. 20. 22. Any claim by the aforementioned party(ies) that the PSA doesn't apply evidences they are not the alleged authorized the servicer or whoever they are pretending to be because there was not an actual securitization process. 23 24 24. to audit her alleged loan documents. THE EXMAINER has verified the location of Plaintiff‟s alleged loan was in ASSET BACKED PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2001 DBSI created in 2007 with a 25 26 27 4 of 14 . 21. a banking and lending expert. 7 unsecured.and an alleged creditor with an action for contribution ONLY. 22 (THE EXAMINER‟S AFFIDAVIT entered as Exhibit A as if fully set forth herein). If Defendant or any other party relevant to any claim by Defendant and/or claim to the alleged Note and/or alleged Deed of Trust claim they are not the co-obligor then they are alleging the PSA doesn't apply. 23. 17.
31. 27. THE EXAMINER has identified a number of legal issues relating to the alleged loan and is prepared to testify under oath as to the. and ii) that the Defendants do not fall into that group. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. Arizona law only allows a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE to foreclose on real property. Arizona law prohibits a HOLDER from foreclosing on real property. Defendant has alleged to have assigned and/or been assigned the alleged Deed of Trust to another party and/or from another party. The alleged trustee had at all times relevant a fiduciary responsibility to prevent any and all qualified indorsement(s) being added to the alleged Note. 5 of 14 . 32. 30.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 closing date of June 29. 29. ASSIGNMENT 26. 2007 which completely contradicts the purported Recorded Assignment from MERS. following factual allegations regarding the recorded documents relating to Plaintiff‟s loan: a. Further. i) as a result of the securitization there is only a select group of entities that could be a holder in due course of the Note / purported loan. When Defendant indorsed the alleged Note with the qualified indorsement the alleged assignee was then by law only a HOLDER and NOT a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE. 28. 25. Plaintiff‟s alleged loan was securitized. b. Defendant has alleged to have indorsed the alleged Note with the „qualified indorsement “without recourse. including without limitations. Plaintiff‟s alleged loan TRUST was formed under the trust laws of New York.
becomes Functus officio. 47. i. in law and in commerce). was assigned the alleged Note and the alleged debt has been extinguished. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 40. 34. The alleged assignment amounts to payment and consequently the evidence of that debt. 24 25 26 27 46. the alleged assignment of the alleged Note precludes any further action on the alleged Note itself.” 38. In the instant case.. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 45. the alleged Note or judgment. 6 of 14 . then a co-obligor 36. 39.1 2 3 4 5 33. Plaintiff NEVER accepted. 37. but rather one for contribution. 44. Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae are co-obligors. even if the alleged assignment is seen to be valid. Even In the Event the Court Finds the alleged "Assignment" Valid. The alleged servicer is a co-obligor. 43. The fraud committed and/or perpetrated by the alleged trustee for the benefit of Defendant vitiates all assignments and contractual relationships relevant to Plaintiff. The alleged trustee failed in the fiduciary duties to protect the parties by allowing the qualified indorsement to be added to the alleged Note. Any action would not be on the alleged Note itself. The alleged trustee has a business relationship with Defendant. Plaintiff NEVER signed a Note for and/or to Defendant. Allegedly then Fannie Mae. the Assigning of the Note to a Co-Obligor Makes it Functus Officio: “(of no further effect. The alleged trustee has committed fraud upon all parties by allowing a qualified indorsement to deprive the parties of their rights. The alleged trustee of the securitized trust is a co-obligor.e. 42. 35. By law. offered or transferred any thing of value and/or made any 41. Plaintiff NEVER took a loan from Defendant.
Payments by the alleged servicer and alleged assignments to the alleged servicer or to 7 of 14 . If Defendant desires to plead and prove otherwise. the alleged Deed of Trust. let them. Plaintiff contends and alleges Defendant does not possess the books. 51. let them. Plaintiff denies all alleged signatures and alleges any and all signatures may be forgeries and/or “photoshopped. 53. with true and original documents exclusive of any and all copies. documents exclusive of any and all copies. the debt. to see all books and records relevant to Defendant‟s claims. 57.” 52. deceit and fraud. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 55. The alleged Deed of Trust was never properly assigned or delivered within the 90 day cutoff period. Plaintiff has the right and has been deprived of the right by Defendant. with true and original 17 50. 56.1 2 3 4 5 deal of any type with Defendant. let them. 49. Plaintiff denies the loan. the default. Plaintiff contends all alleged signatures relevant in any way to any alleged assignments if true signatures were obtained through trickery. Defendant‟s right to collection or enforcement of the alleged Note or alleged Deed of Trust because Plaintiff never did any business with Defendant. If Defendant desires to plead and prove otherwise. with true and original documents exclusive of any and all copies. the alleged Note. If Defendant desires to plead and prove otherwise. records and/or documents Defendant claims to possess. 58. If Defendant desires to plead and prove otherwise. let them. with true and original 6 documents exclusive of any and all copies. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 54. 48.
alleged lender and alleged beneficiary were all naked nominees who neither control the finances nor were their finances involved in the alleged financial transaction between Plaintiff and the alleged actual source of funds. BY LAW: since the originator of the alleged Note did not actually consummate a financial transaction with Plaintiff. even if in proper form and the alleged trustee or alleged manager of the "pool" has 25 no authority to accept it. BY LAW: a partial payment by a co-obligor would extinguish the old obligation to the extent of the payment. 60. 26 27 8 of 14 . Payments by Plaintiff on the alleged original Note did not "ratify" the terms expressed in the alleged original Note because Plaintiff was the only party who did not know the alleged payee. If Defendant wants to rely on the alleged PSA to foreclose. Ergo. any and all alleged new obligation(s) that may arise between Plaintiff and the alleged Assignee or between Plaintiff and the alleged payee (where the servicer continued to make payments) but only if the alleged contributor could establish that portion of the alleged claim to which they were entitled. which means that a loan in default does not qualify to be 24 assigned. 64. 63. BY LAW: an assignment of the entire obligation to a co-obligor would extinguish the 10 entire obligation. BY LAW: the new debt could not possibly be recorded. 62. then Defendant must 23 61. the alleged Note is void for lack of consideration. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 65. accept the alleged WHOLE PSA. 59.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 the alleged REMIC would in fact extinguish the alleged old debt and thereby Defendant and/or other party(ies) conspiring with Defendant then must have originated an alleged new obligation that was neither memorialized by a promissory Note from Plaintiff (because it had been extinguished) nor a Deed of Trust that secured the extinguished Note.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 66. 9 of 14 . 71. thereby simultaneously: terminating the alleged PSA investor contracts and all other relevant contractual agreements between other parties and enforcing the alleged terminated contracts. Accordingly. any decision by this Court to accept Defendant‟s claims to the alleged Note and/or alleged Deed of Trust would be adverse to the alleged investors in the alleged pools relevant to the alleged PSA by forcing them to accept an alleged loan that they obviously wanted to avoid. Plaintiff has discovered NO EVIDENCE OF SEPARATE ACCOUNTS for the alleged individual REMICS. The co-mingling of funds in the accounts held by parties conspiring with Defendant might make all of the alleged investors general partners in a common law general partnership. and tax law. Such a mandate. Since the actual handling of the money involved an escrow Superfund. 68. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 69. on the part of the court and all parties. Title 26. To force the alleged trustee or alleged manager MUST to accept the alleged WHOLE PSA then the court is adjudicating the rights of alleged investors who are not a party to this action and who explicitly agreed to advance money for alleged performing loans that would be put in a pool within 90 days to satisfy the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and the provisions of the alleged PSA which merely recite the REMIC provisions of the IRC. 70. and the acceptance of which would violate the terms under which they allegedly loaned the money. adjudication and/or order would require purposeful and willful criminal acts in violation of IRS rules concerning REMICS. The source of alleged funds was a stranger to the documentation that Plaintiff signed. Plaintiff and this Court do not know if the alleged "lender" is or could be identified from the larger group of alleged investors whose money was intermingled and combined into an alleged single escrow account. 67. 72.
CRIMINAL ACTS 74. If you went after the notary‟s surety bond list that also. A. If any one of the notaries or officers are on the national robo-signer list make sure you list them. 80. FRAUDULENT ACTS 76. 78. that order would constitute a judicial determination of the rights of alleged investors who did not receive any notice of the proceeding nor any opportunity to be represented or heard before such an order could be entered.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 73. and in violation of. the 10 of 14 . MERS FAILED TO RECORD whatever thereby breaking the chain of title. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 75. This would mean a judicial order declaring in effect that the alleged loan became part of the alleged pool and therefore the alleged entity representing the alleged pool had a right to foreclosure. ADD EVERYTHING -ONE BY ONE -ON 3949A. 77. It‟s the complaint that counts. Explain that the document is invalid because it was never notarized and/or robo-signed AND that if the document was filed it was a false document filed into a public office. Defendant(s) unlawfully commenced a fraudulent and unlawful conveyance of real property on the criminal act of filing a false and/or forged document into a public office. Put the documents as exhibits.ON NOTARY COMPLAINTS even if no answer yet. inter alia. irrespective of whether or not they were responded to. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though 8 fully set forth herein.S. § 39-161 and others.R. 79. It the documents you filed that count. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. ADD EVERYYTHING – ONE BY ONE. BLAH BLAH IS A ROBO-SIGNER. a felony under Arizona law. <the public record is sacrosanct> and MERS conspired with Defendant to defraud this Court.
COUNT I . purposefully. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. one or more times and Defendant(s) knowingly. 81. The alleged Deed of Trust is null. § 12-1101. Plaintiff is credibly informed and believes that these non-real party(ies) in interest 14 Defendants make some claim adverse to Plaintiff. MERS conspired with Defendant to defraud the county recorder by purposefully failing to record alleged assignments. Defendants‟ Decoupling Separation violates the long-standing precedence of Carpenter v. et seq. Plaintiff‟s title in the property by warranty deed is superior to that of DBSI. alleged substitutions of trustees. 84. taxes and/or the like lawfully due the county records office.S. A. The Alleged Deed of Trust was indeed separated from the alleged Note. or 11 of 14 . Quiet Title is the only remaining option. 83 U. 18 19 87. costs.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 body politic and Plaintiff by purposefully failing to record alleged assignments. 82. and/or illegal due to the fact one of the following MUST be true as evidenced by the past and current locations of the alleged Deed of Trust and Note: a. 83. A null security agreement is unenforceable for foreclosure or cloud on title in 16 Arizona. alleged substitutions of trustees. 15 85.S. deficient. 17 86. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 88.R. payments. 271. Longan. willfully with malum in se intent concealed said fact from Plaintiff. and/or other documents thereby conspiring to destroy and purposefully destroying the integrity of the public record for Defendant‟s and MERS‟ financial gain.QUIET TITLE. and/or other documents in a conspiracy to evade fees.
CONCLUSION 90. Judgment barring and forever estopping Defendants. and each of them. GLENDALE AZ.. from claiming any estate. F. Plaintiff. 2012. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 b. B. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. and enter a judgment ordering the Recorder of Deeds for Maricopa County to convey the property located at: 123456 N. Judgment barring and forever estopping Defendants and each of them. 85666 to the Plaintiff. C. in the year of Our Lord. 89. title or interest in said property. and each of them. title or interest in said property. and granting such other relief as follows: A. Judgment for Plaintiff‟s cost of suit and fees incurred. D. be declared to have no estate. 12 of 14 . right. Respectfully submitted this _____ day of June. For a declaration and determination that Plaintiff is the rightful owner of title to the property and that Defendants herein. 91. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court find in her favor and against the Defendants. Said nullity evidences Defendant(s) claim is false and an improper cloud on title. 10th AVE. WHEREFORE. The alleged Deed of Trust and were never conjoined and Defendant(s) purposefully. willfully with malum in se intent concealed said fact from knowingly. right. from having or claiming any right or title adverse to Plaintiff to the premises. upon presentment of an order stating the same. Judgment establishing Plaintiff‟s estate as described above. E.
3. agent 13 of 14 . under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States of America. agent Your name here. Your name here. Your name here. BY: _______________________________________. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy has been delivered on this ______ day of June 2012 to: DUMBASSSCUMBAG BANKSTER SHYSTERS. pro per Signed reserving all my rights at UCC 1-308 VERIFICATION OF Your name here I. HELL 666666 BY: ________________________________________.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 BY:___________________________. A SATNIC Corporation 666 Avenue of Satan Devil‟s Playground. I have read the foregoing pleading and know the facts therein stated to be true and correct. pro per Signed reserving all my rights at UCC 1-308 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ORIGINAL and ONE COPY delivered to: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA. declare as follows: 1. I declare. Inc. I am named as the Plaintiff in the above-entitled matter. 2. that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 2012. this ______ day of June.
pro per Signed reserving all my rights at UCC 1-308 14 of 14 .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Your name here.
Microbilt Corp. vs. Chex Systems, Inc.
N.Y./Florida Investigator Bob Nygaard's Criminal Complaint Crimes reported to Captain Ronald Curtis Jr.,of Organized Scheme To Defraud and Mortgage Fraud Conspiracy Crimes committed by Miriam Pacheco, Real Estate Agent Blanca Rosa Sachtouras, Maria T. Torres, Marvin Torres, attorney Thomas S. Heidkamp, Mortgage Broker David Cooksey, Owner of Key Mortgage Brokers, Inc., Barbara M. Petrowitz, aka Mortgage Barb, Intervenor/Defendant Robert O' Siller, attorney Frank Alioa Jr., and attorney Micheal David Randolph.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 12
 § 12
 § 12
 § 39
 § 12
 v.