6, 14, 38, 58, 63, 64

PETITION FOR TRANSFER

COURT OF APPEALS

The petitioners, Gabriel Benavidez and Juliet Lalonne , respectfully

petition this Court of appeals for a transfer to review De Novo; the judgment and

opinions of the California Superior Court county of Los Angeles Torrance

Courthouse, and the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, downtown. For the decision

granting the motion for writ of possession on October 1, 2018.

Petitioners assert the judgement was granted premised on errors of law,

prejudice that can be readily proven by evidence herein presented, which has

affected the outcome of the case and caused petitioners, to be given an adverse

summary judgement over their right of possession of the dwelling house of

Gabriel Benavidez’s for 20 years having paid much more than the original

purchase price of the dwelling in 1997 of $150,000.00, and having invested much

of his income to increase its value by considerable improvements, including two

adjoining parcels which were never financed, but instead paid for up front, and

having the petitioner is holding the title to those parcels, the respondents intend

to use “Any means” and/or “lethal force” with their unconscionable judgement

just rendered in this case. As the Petitioner alone holds the uncontested exclusive
title to those whole areas, and the additional structures that make up a significant

portion of the property and lands, Respondents in bad faith with unclean hands

exhibit their intent to steal and defraud by any means necessary, to steal a

dwelling for excessive unfair profits, cheating petitioner out of 80% of his equity,

having no irreparable harm threatened to the respondents to be suffered as they

boast 500 other local properties in the area. Petitioners showed evidence that not

only lacked due diligence, for a sophisticated developer with likely connections

to the secret interests that have a defective interest by assignment that wrote

itself into the court record having no assignment by the original lender and the

MERS nominee who allegedly had the right to convey the interests was found in

other litigation to be a CHASE employee, “Kelly McWilliams” not a MERS

executive as was a forgery and void self assignment done by CHASE to CHASE

in 2013, 4 years AFTER the original Accommodating party “Lender” went

bankrupt in 2009 likely accepting the FDIC promise to pay up to $250,000.00 on

behalf of the petitioner using the promissory note and converting it into a

negotiable instrument “draft” with a stamp placed after signing on original note

“pay to the order of” in blank. Finding was made by the petitioner of a bank

statement in November of 2013 around the time of the self assignment made by

chase. It was an escrow company wiring $153,000 in and then wiring it out in the

same day Without having had any notice any transactions were taking place

back then, in fact the petitioner hadn't even noticed it until accidentally finding
 the bank record recently while going through his old paperwork. 2 suggestions

our proposed 1 being that chase who was evidence to have started additional

accounts when the transfer to their company took place according to the credit

report received by petitioner and perhaps that was a New obligation assigned I

chase using the teschner's credit possibly with the Federal Reserve to create new

debt in his name and was not provided to the petition are or informed at all of

this transaction as chase had mentioned in there monthly payment demands it

maddingly Stated in the fine print the payments he was making were voluntary

and several documents received from the mortgage servicing company that was

immediately assigned after the petition are had gone 90 days in arrears on

instructions from chase as the only method to get a refinance that he had been

promised when he had originally signed with amtrust bank as his credit was

much better and deserved a better interest rate than he received and he had been

deceived into a non amortising interest only loan which was doubtful if the

payment on maturity was intended to actually be within his means as it would

be a balloon payment and as the likelihood of his loan being not based on his

credit worthiness but on his suretie and his maintenance of a mortgage insurance

policyWhich was actually a surety bond that was overcharged monthly for a

suretie who had never been disclosed the nature of the agreement and had been

intentionally deceived to sign his profitable equity without understanding the

agreement; detrimental reliance, malicious intent, unjust enrichment, fraud in

 factum, conversion, unintentional trust, illegal consideration, forgery,

counterfeiting, RICO, Sherman antitrust violations, fraudulent inducement, false

advertising, etc. The second potential scenario was a potential of the FDIC

paying the bankrupt lender in exchange for the promissory note/draft. As the

wet ink note cannot be produced as it would be easy for the holder in due course,

but after so many demands to do so have been made. A questionable photocopy

given to the petitioners by the trustee, prior to proceeding to illegally sell, rights

they did not possess, in violation of the administrative procedures act. Without

the inspection of the endorsements which are always signed on the back of the

document (draft), We cannot determine which parties are liable for the violations

being alleged. Refusal to coduct themselves within the law should not be

tolerated and certainly not rewarded. The sale was supposed to be postponed.

At the time the petitioners bank showed him his having $40,000 in his bank

account and he was attempting to negotiate with the trustee but they had

charged him $37,000 in fees without any accounting to show there was any work

done or services performed to warrant the excessive fees being tacked on to the

principle obligation in quTitle paper stion. As the yearly mortgage payment

would be $17,000 and the original intent by the petitioner had been to get a

refinance when the service are suddenly dropped him after 90 days and a likely

claim was being paid to the chase who had been acting as the servicer and then

had instead of refinanced him with the federal program as promised he was
transferred shell point mortgage servicing Who has an address that is 8200 while

Freddie Mac is 8100 And the firenze clone audit goes into detail about Freddie

Mac having been the trustee 2 the securitisation which also was generating

capital gains using the chatel paper that was negotiated for multiple potential

transactions without having been properly aware of this intention 2 use the loan

documents investment contract Donating the petitioners collateral for capital

gains without any intent to disclose or to share any of the proceeds and then

losing the documentation required to secure their interest. As the respondents

have unequally profited in this transaction and the petitioner has unilaterally

suffered and has not been able to enjoy the position that he has been working for

while feeling there was impending doom, and Rightfully so as the courts have

not protected any of the rights of the homeowners in this case and his

apprehension to have to deal with this bad feeling was going to be impartial and

in our case even a jury trial was waived money was levied from our account to

prevent us from defending ourselves prior to the trial and we were told to do

things that we did and then we were subjected to a trial by ambush suddenly

without being aware that our previous instructions. From the court, might be to

collude against us as it is became apparently so, and the distraction was

intentional and anticipated to fail, not succeed. Which make the venue and

sudden rush to trial make more sense unfortunately. Our Unlimited Case

Fraud/Quiet Title Lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court is scheduled to meet

 and confer on 10/29/18. We wanted nothing more than at least a fair trial by

jury, As we feel it is necessary to compel discovery such as producing a wet ink

note for examination, because a different prior recorded grant deed had an

identical signature and the forged document has a different aspect ratio to the

original. A CHASE logo is on the front of the alleged forged document as well,

not an AMTRUST BANK logo. A holders responsibility to keep the note in a safe

and have it at presentment is not our negligence. The fact that it was never done

and properly placed in the evidence in the case is just further proof we believe of

the negligence and the unwillingness to question the legality of the sale which

was done in violation of the exemption in 704.740 of the California Civil Code

which states, “no dwelling house can be sold without a court order” No

assignment after the bankruptcy should have any lawful claim to have duly

perfected title without a fraud or forgery, and we should be really making sure

any assignment after that time be checked very carefully. So criminals aren’t

getting incentive for more crime and to increase public trust again as the erosion

of property rights has detrimentally affected faith in the government nationwide.

Respondents having never provided evidence Or statements on the record to

show any due diligence in regards to the alleged cash price paid which does not

seem likely as a person making a payment themselves like that would be much

more prepared 2 defend their assertion and wanting to show evidence of due
diligence or any thing that might show such a sophisticated real estate developer

did not exercise gross negligence instead of due diligence for somebody to be so

grossly negligent of all procedure, knowledge, and due diligence but yet to put

up such an unOrthodox fight Willing to kill the former homeowner to secure a

dwelling that is one out of allegedly 500 investment properties in the

neighborhood it doesn't make sense I think that is more likely that their boss

gave them the money Freddie Mac or the FDIC or the FHA Freddie Mac is one of

the minions of the government sponsored federally sponsored surety bond

payors who would Possibly commingled with the secretary of the Treasury

according to the research I did in USC TITLE 12 1710

A carelessness in following procedure for the respondents and the impenetrable

remedy for defendants, brought for what felt like a mock trial, 2 validate their

theft of our dwelling and preventing any defense no matter how valid 2 parties

that could have easily walked off the street and been totale strangers and filed

some document into the County clerks office saying that they are the trustee

without any other other proof and without the truck the County clerk checking

their authority prior to the recording there is absolutely a huge possibility for

fraud and counterfeiting of photo copies of loan documents with a little bit of

research and there's also the potential for a very big criminal ring of brokers in

dealers that are in on this and possibly defrauding thousands of california's in

the city and beyond there's also the chance that it is worldwide by these federal

agencies who are absolutely murderess Lee intent on holding everybody hostage

with all of the property rights worse than in old England when we had tried to

revolt and declare our independence from it seems to be a dissent without the

protections that we had intended to be afforded being applicable or observed in

the court the government and every Americans detriment.

I believe the opposing counsel was showing off to the petitioners they were

capable of winning without any evidence, granted waiver when the same word

for word authority and was denied to the petitioners, when their case was not

even ripe when serving notice and filing the complaint. Our motion To vacate

avoid judgment was because they had never recorded the deed of sale as they

had been required within a time window and further failed to recorded for 20

days late and several preme court Holdings 2924 H send recent appellate

decisions and Salazar stated that was The meaning of this statement made in the

complaint that they had dorcely perfected title and if they didn't have Julie

perfected title at the time they made the statement that they are making a

misrepresentation to the court and they are already using non judicial

procedures which are supposed to be strictly adhered to end they are post to be

very strict punishment for Perju ring the authority to use these extremely harsh

and inhumane methods against anybody but the most strict profile otherwise it
 was and irreparable harm that was done wrongly and it could be abused and

used in the wrong hands and nobody would be safe which I feel that we are

already to that point because there is no willingness to see any of the defendants

are argument in our case they actually did not want to make sure that the right

person one they wanted to make sure that we lost they wanted to cover up the

truth that we were raising and that was not justice that was just not right end it

should be corrected to prevent the abuse of discretion and to prevent further all

the damage and hardship we have had to endure was pointing out the known

was blatantly deniedso insulting if they rescinded the illegal purchasehaving

absolutely no right to be seized, as the original obligation only secured the back

house and its parcel, not the two parcels making up the majority of the grounds

enclosed therein. for the hope to be able to have some chance to have value if

needed in retirement, and/or to will to his daughter. Instead without any facts

proving any standing as a holder in due course with a valid contract in violation

of The California Constitution Sec; 1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6, 7(a), 7(b), 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19,

20, 26,and 31taking property trial by jury property CCP Sec. 704.740 and UCC 1-

305 making no obligation validly securing any interest in it without employing

tactics meant to deprive and steal the fruit of his life’s work, by use of counterfeit

documents, forgery, multiple undisclosed additional obligations taken in his

name, illegal use of county recorders without authority in this case, non

disclosure of nature and purpose of the very fundamentals of the agreement to

the monthly bill, as well as concealing that insurance claims would be treated as

surety bonds demanding returns in excess of 4 times the payoff, while forcing the

petitoner to pay for this policy for 10 years unaware of the true nature of the

terms as the deed of trust #5 states any excess of the original obligation and

agreed reasonable fees was to be paid to him, which was violated several times

without any disclosure done at all of this fact as required. recordings that his

limited power of attorney did not consent to. 20that violates several governing

statutes, ucc, US Code, both the state and federal constitutions, with exemptions

they are entitled to receive, and has case law that would contraindicate such a

ruling. Besides just that is as well as case lawto years suffer irreparable harm

that continues to worsen and deprive them and has threatened use of lethal force

for the defending of their dwelling and homestead from unlawful seizure. of the

avoiding the questioned jurisdiction, abuses of discretion such as moving the

trial venue, A day before it was then held, waiving a right to a jury trial, denial

of the request to consolidate a concurrent unlimited Civil case. that was done as

instructed,to a venue virtually impossible for both petitioners to readily reach, to

resolve the unproven authority of the trustee, who had no secured interest rights

to the petitioners dwelling house and land; having only sold the respondents an

unsecured obligation that was one of several unconsented obligation

fraudulently made after the original obligation was paid in full. But instead of

disclose the insurance FDIC potential reimbursement of the secured instrument

as it is customary, the bankruptcy of the lender Amtrust Bank in little over a year

after the original obligation, was anticipated and securitization was a way of

hiding assets and being reimbursed for credit extended by the Treasurer on

behalf of the petitioner who then was deceived to believe he would have

mortgage insurance not a surety bond, which was never explained as the true

nature of the policy, and which he paid very large monthly payments for 10

years in this refinance, to maintain this mandatory policy he was forced to keep

under false pretenses, as the petitioner learns it held him as surety much more

like a bond. As he was not explained this properly, it is also likely it was not a

real estate loan refinance as he was lead to believe either as stated in (please see

) due to the qualifications to get the refinance were not based on ability to pay

(please see Exhibit forensic loan audit, page ) as he was more likely to qualify by

the holding of the “mortgage insurance policy” and therefore making this more

akin to a “ “ (please see exhibit ). As the deed of trust #5 stated insurance

payment was to be applied to balance owed and then the excess was to be paid

to the petitioner. Such failure to disclose insurance disbursements to him is in

violation of the terms of the original agreement having consented only to a

limited power of attorney until closing of the original obligation.

The FDIC might have been treating the petitioner as a surety, for any

reimbursement paid on his behalf as well, as he was never informed of the

bankruptcy and acquisition. Searches by friends who work in real estate stated to

him, his original obligation appears “paid” according to title research done.. As

the promissory note was converted into a bearer bond (Negotiable Instrument) in

concealment and deception, the FDIC is quoted in the AMTRUST BANK

Purchasing and Assumption Agreement ( see ) of the receivership with the

Accommodating “lender” AMTRUST BANK would pay up to $250,000.00 in

exchange for a Promissory/bearer/negotiable instrument. New York

Community Bank was given receivership by the FDIC and discusses the

acquisition and it’s risky mortgage debt holdings in its subsequent prospectus

(please see ) received for “book value” “balancing” of assets and debts,

likely to 0 {please see, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)

(Modern Money Mechanics, Federal Reserve )} and they even mention

possible sale to Freddie Mac who has a large portfolio of this low grade kind of

loan (hearing testimony/discovery preparing to commence in our current

unlimited case pending BC707310). Ironically it has been found in this case the

ownership or beneficial Holder disclosure on the deed of trusts was not recorded

or preserved by recording the facts on the record at the county clerks offices. All

likely paths of the alleged obligation do not correspond with the recorded

evidence. was not done in good faith after the monthly to keep at a later time

instead of preparing to try the case in the “Unlawful Detainer” division

preventand proven prejudice

 Opinions and Orders Below

Jurisdiction

The decision of the California Court of Appeal sought to be reviewed was filed

on

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved

A. Federal Constitutional Provisions

I. ERRORS AND/OR QUESTIONS OF LAW

A. Errors Of Interpretation Of Applicable Law/Statutes Made By Trial Court.

Requesting Review De Novo As A Likely Proper Standard For Review In This

Case, By The Court Of Appeals (904.1, 425.16) As The Court Sees Fit.

1. Was a Summary judgement proper? Did the court follow the

procedure set out in the governing statutes to entitle the remedy of

Unlawful Detainer to the opposing party in this case? Awarding possession

with a summary judgement (as uncontested right of possession), if evidence

that it WAS contested, but denied due process; on review of the record,

with affidavits, and a rescission filed- prior to recording of the title (too late

to be duly perfected).

2. Was interpretation of law incorrect when jurisdiction was contested

with a notice of special appearance (requested-waived), were there

questions that merited a jury trial (requested-waived despite fee waiver), or

complex issues warranting a motion to consolidate (requested- denied); but

sent for trial unexpectedly, the very next day, in Torrance 1 ½ hours drive

away (our court reporter could not go that far), in an authentic ‘trial by

ambush’ we contend.
 a) If a contested issue of fact warranted a denial of a Summary

Judgement was it willfully being ignored, gross negligence, or

corruption?

B. Unlawful detainer remedies were intended for landlord tenant situations

where ownership was not contested, as we understand. As used in foreclosure

situations, there is supposed to be strict adherence to governing statutes, as

otherwise being unconstitutional, to our belief.

C. Certification of the constitutionality of any of the governing statutes

not already positive law in Unlawful Detainer (UD) authority. As property

and right to own land was intended to be the major corner stone of our

constitutional rights and the government requires constant supervision by the

people as it’s creators (not just self-governance) as God governs man as being

his creator; man governs government as its creator. When government (and

its parts) is unruly our forefathers intended for common man to step in when

needed for correction. Discipline from a member of the unincorporated

people to fix abuses of power. This is an extremely important right (property

rights and certification of statutes) and redress of it’s malalignment should

concern anyone dwelling in an abode on and within the California Republic

State territory and beyond. If property is constitutionally protected, how

must the statute, in the case of non-judicial foreclosure and UD’s conform to

the constitution? Evidence of severe abuse of this remedy, was very sadly

witnessed in Los Angeles proceedings, as well as what I witnessed, I feel it is

having a significant local impact, and it is worsening, needing very badly to

be remedied.

D. In our case was the burden of the statutory conditions met? Is there
another yet concealed set of authorities, that allows for nonadherence to the
known statutes, largely still undisclosed? Was the court in error, as presumptions
(guilty before innocent), remained unrebutted on the record when judgement
was rendered, despite potential evidence to the contrary?
E. We were instructed to prepare a request to consolidate our UD action in
the unlimited civil department by filing a quiet title cause of action (a complex
lawsuit in less than a month without a law degree). At this time $25,000 of an
insurance payout for a severe disabling work injury of Gabriel Benavidez, as a
loss, it is exempt, the funds were still levied, on suspiciously short notice. As the
return is likely, during that particular time; it precluded our ability to seek
assistance of counsel, and it made me (Juliet) wonder if the court had any hand in
this act, at such a critical time. Despite our considerable noble effort (I thought)
our motion to consolidate was denied, then unexpectedly the very next day we
were forced under duress to partake in an involuntary “trial by ambush”
admitting none of our voluminous evidence on the record and denying us any
discovery . Our request for review de novo and/or motion for new trial and
remand for consolidation with unlimited civil case with a request for extension to
amend our pleadings as we have been forced into a high stress fear state and
would appreciate the ability to carefully seek and prepare evidence and
discovery as our opponents are at an extremely advantaged position and have
sophisticated legal teams. As I don’t think we are completely without potential to
overcome this, it will take a little more time to make it airtight. Our unlimited civil
case meet and confer is scheduled for October 29, 2018 at LOS ANGELES
SUPERIOR COURT STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE Case No.: BC707310
F. Is such to order the use of ‘lethal force’ or ‘any means necessary’ in

removing the mortgagor in a UD action from their dwelling and/or land? Should

UD Summary proceedings, and the contractual waiver of rights be unlimited, use

of extraordinary force to remove homeowners, especially when questions of the

contract have been raised and not allowed a fair, impartial, trial, by jury of your

peers, prior to the taking or seizure of your dwelling and land, as such activity the

constitution was intended to prevent.

G. As the Sheriff’s refused to execute and levy further on the first writ of

execution, due to errors and omissions made by the respondents, out of their own

negligence, sending it back to the courts unsatisfied. Then have the respondents

thereby exhausted their secured interests, any assumed secured interests, and/or

any and all rights to continue to pursue property belonging to the petitioner to

which they claim entitlement to, pursuant to the California CCP 726 “one action

rule”, and then the CCP 580b statute evoked which states in part, “(a) Except as

provided in subdivision (c), no deficiency shall be owed or collected, and no

deficiency judgment shall lie, for any of the following: (1) After a sale of real

property or an estate for years therein for failure of the purchaser to

complete his or her contract of sale.”

H. Did the court abuse its discretion by engaging in an unconstitutional

conspiracy against the petitioners rights under, Title 18 USC chapt.13 Sec. 241,

Conspiracy against rights; Sec. 242, deprivation of rights under color of law; Sec.

245, federally protected activities; and Sec. 246 deprivation of relief benefits?
 I. Did the court abuse its discretion by the concealment of any additional

governing authority that renders the available and/or commonly known UD

statutes ineffective? As deviation from the statutes might preclude judgement, but

would not be effective if violated and means to within short time constraints might

preclude learning undisclosed authority operative and really governing. As this

denies access to relief to homeowners who using ineffective statutes violations to

explain possibly valid claims of injustice Such a tactic if the operative law is not

revealed to bring the attempts to claim relief might be Perfidy as specifically

prohibited under the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12

August 1949, which states:

Article 37. – Prohibition of perfidy

1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting

the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to

accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with

intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples

of perfidy:

(a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;

(b) The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;

(c) The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and

(d) The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of

the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
1776, Thomas Jefferson, United States Declaration of Independence:

He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat

the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances

of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages

J. Was the trial court avoiding recorded uncontested affidavits in the case and

statements therein on the record not limited to; the intent to claim of rightful

ownership?

K. Was waiver of our jury trial request just when we could’ve been entitled

having deducted the jury fees from our fee waiver

L. Was transfer of venue at the 11th hour for trial the next day to an infamously

impartial judge in Torrance (an hour and a half drive away) proper?

M. Was the court in error interpreting our uncontested affidavit of facts on the

record including a Cal Civ 1691 rescission for fraud, filed with our answer, prior

to the respondents even recording the deed of sale in violation of 2924 (h)?

N. Was the notice of sale guaranteeing a right of possession when the notice of

sale stated it did not make such guarantee, and further disclosed the fact multiple

loans on the same property would be evident on examination and cautioned

purchasers to proceed at their own risk?

O. Did the court err granting it’s summary judgment in opposition to these

facts, after having denied a demurrer and a motion to quash, without cause when;
1. When evidence indicates personal service of the notice was not

given to the owner, and person who filed complaint (not real party in

interest, who in error allegedly served the petitioner’s tenants, had also been

the one who filed the complaint) and could be found to have perjured

testimony on the stand during the ‘trial by ambush’ stating service to the

owner was done, despite 3 witnesses denying this on the record.

2. When a three day notice to tenants (not in arrears of rent) of a

foreclosed home 1161 b could have reasonably been deemed improper

perhaps, (ie not personally served notice, when names were in respondents

possession, providing tenants no right to cure, and/or to continue in their

lease, asking for no amounts of money having been requested and/or

overdue, providing no address or method to make any such payment

mentioned, and the proper allowed time limit provided for tenants in a

foreclosed home, prior to filing a UD complaint, having been observed).

 3. Should the court have denied multiple attempts to request judicial notice,

judgement not withstanding verdict, and/or motions to vacate the judgement as

‘void’ because the complaint was in violation of 2924 H, due to the claimed status

of ‘duly perfected’ title having been a misrepresentation, which caused harm to

the petitioners. Possibly finding it could be construed to have been maliciously

done with knowledge, and as showing having made no attempt to correct their

error in good faith, thereby on the record, indicating a potential that it was

intending with knowledge to use an extraordinary remedy based on a false claim

by a bar licensed attorney, improperly enlisting judicial powers, while aware of

being void of jurisdiction.

II. Abuse of discretion.

A. Was the backdating of orders and proof of service in the caselog a abuse
of discretion, as if orders was entered later could it be construed without view of
the merits, and without cause. As we cannot see all of the record, we respectfully
request judicial review, as several denials were unjustified we contend. And
backdating of service for opposing counsel while denying almost all of our
attempts to bring the facts before the court for correction were denied, despite
having emailed the attorney who refused to take papers on 2 occasions in
person, and who only affected personal service properly on a party to the case
for one hearing, the advance of the demurrer, and after that did not hand any
document to us prior to a hearing, and only gave us one copy of his exparte
motion post judgement in front of the judge (Hon. DeFranco) when we appeared
at a hearing, having been there on other business, and discovered his motion on
calendar.
 As the petitioner had $41,000.00 in his the bank account at the time of the

trustee sale, and had paid $1,700.00 to an intermediary Employee at Shellpoint

Mortgage Servicing, Winston Wallace who we employed to negotiate a potential

mutually fair stipulation as the fees added to the principle for the trustee sale being

~$37,000.00 without any accounting, far in excess of the $17,000.00 yearly

mortgage payments. Winston Wallace assured us he was able to forbear the trustee

sale an additional 3 months (he had done this for the prior 3 months as well

without a problem). But this time he notified us after the sale that it went ahead

anyways, and has since retained the $1,700.00

 Were the actions of the parties claiming a secured interest in the Petitioners

dwelling and land, in enforcement of a valid secured interest of an obligation that

was clear and (address is nearly identical potentially neighboring and/or a front

company of the hidden GSE Freddie Mac interest who is the preparer of the

offerings to investors of mortgage backed securities as the funds originate with the

conversion of the promissory note into a draft by stamping the paid to the order of

in blank after the signing altering the terms of the unilateral adhesion contract

signed with so many documents under financial duress, the ability to be in

complete understanding of the complex conditions and the full nature of the

document are not clear even to sophisticated real estate business people much less

a layman who has a vision problem making reading without a magnifying glass

extremely difficult. As the closing was done in a hurry and several days later than

originally expected. Approval was not based on ability to pay but on the surety

bond intentionally misrepresented as mortgage insurance and explained as

protecting the lender if the homeowner defaults. What was never explained was

the fact that since the loan was not based on his ability to pay but instead based

upon the surety bond/mortgage insurance he was eligible for based on the home

value and as the GSE was backing the loan the bank/lender no intention on

‘lending’ any provable asset but accommodating the transfer of the public funds

from the Treasury, which is made out in the lengthy USC titles in several different

subheadings. I have a pile of code I have read and I am still compiling it and

request leave to amend or to prepare the complete citations from the code and
statutes that evidence the likely channels of the funding, securitization of the

fungible documents of legal title rights (technically invalidating secured rights at

closing and making the tax remote special purpose vehicle tax liable ab initio on

the ill prepared REMIC’s and unquestionably in our loan) as the securitization of

home loans was stopped with Glass steagle to get the country out of the

depression, its reinstatement is a testament to the internal deprication of banking

standards and the slippery slope of eventual collapse as they were engineered as a

method of hiding assets in bankruptcy (see SECURITIZATION IS ILLEGAL.

AUTHOR: MICHAEL NWOGUGU, Certified Public Accountant (Maryland,

USA); B.Arch. (City College Of New York). MBA (Columbia University).

Attended Suffolk Law School (Boston, USA). Address: P. O. Box 170002,

Brooklyn, NY 11217, USA. Phone/Fax: 1-718-6386270. Email:

[email protected]; [email protected].–exhibit---) and the chief risk

officer for WaMu James Vasanek disclosed in a hearing the the glass steagle act

allowed these risky depression era securities to mix with regular bank loans again

even hinting at the reinstatement of the act (https://askmikebutler.com/fbi-reports-

80-of-mortgage-fraud-committed-by-lenders/ ). As the bank “lender” is only an

accommodating party for the actual funding for this type of real estate investment

contract transaction disguised as a real estate loan, the intended outcome for the

transaction is to trigger default and payoff by the surety bond disguised as a

mortgage insurance policy (bond is funded by mortgagor, but mortgagor is

concealed as to the nature of the contract, claims, and intent to seek complete legal
and equitable title of the property with high likelihood of success by design). The

loan structured for the petitioners to default, with high interest only repayment,

non-amortizing, and undisclosed balloon payments prior to maturity. It could be

likely one could reasonably state, this intent to take a mans dwelling scheme,

intends to cause infliction of severe emotional distress and financial hardship as

well. As this type of investment contract/ guaranty financial (usc ) disguised as a

real estate loan, the payment of the negotiable instrument up to $250,000 by FDIC

if they are forced into bankruptcy (see amtrust bank pand a ---exhibit----) or a

payment of the principle plus interest and fees for alleged duties performed, in

exchange for the negotiable instrument and/or (if note is prior paid elsewhere)

whatever alleged ownership rights evidenced by whatever documents available to

the secretary of HUD (see title 12 USC sec.1710 (g)). I must say that statute gives

HUD a far different character for a would be American homeowner, and a

potential UCL and false advertising claim seem viable, in my humble opinion after

reading the statute. A request to certify this for constitionality is formerly noticed

at this time in regards to title 12 USC sec.1710.

B.
 C. UCC 3-305 (c), An obligor is not obliged to pay the instrument if the

person seeking enforcement of the instrument does not have rights of a holder in

due course and the obligor proves that the instrument is a lost or stolen

instrument). Fraud in factum, UCC 3-305 goes on to say (a)(1) (ii) duress, lack of

legal capacity, or illegality of the transaction which, under other law, nullifies the

obligation of the obligor, (iii) fraud that induced the obligor to sign the instrument

with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to learn of its character or its

essential terms.

Standard for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56

Summary judgment is appropriate when there exists no genuine issue as to any material

fact. Such circumstances entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970); Secor

Ltd. v. Cetus Corp., 51 F.3d 848, 853 (9th Cir. 1995). Under summary judgment

practice, the moving party always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district

court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of “the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

affidavits, if any,” which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of

material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c)). If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the

opposing party to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Matsushita

Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-86 (1986); see also First Nat’l

Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968); Secor Ltd., 51 F.3d at

853. In doing so, the opposing party may not rely upon the denials of its pleadings, but

must tender evidence of specific facts in the form of affidavits and/or other admissible

materials in support of its contention that the dispute exists. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); see

also First Nat’l Bank, 391 U.S. at 289. In evaluating the evidence, the court draws all

reasonable inferences from the facts before it in favor of th

Petitioners are allege multiple violations and a transfer to The Court of Appeals is

desperately needed, to ensure proper administration of justice, to remedy important

public concerns, and to stop an imminent irreparable harm being wrongly carried out

against us for doing no more than defend our home from fraudulent seizure by

Department 97 (Limited Civil-Unlawful Detainer Department) of the Los Angeles

Superior Court Stanley Mosk Courthouse, honorable Deborah Christian presiding

(telephone number- ). We were forced into a trial without consent ab initio under threat,

duress and cohersion. A Summary Judgement was granted despite clear controversy,

while our evidence was suppressed, including an affidavit containing an uncontested Cal.

Civ. 1691 rescission ignored. We were sent to a distant Courthouse after our motion to
udge without a jury when one was requested and we should have been able to use the fee

waiver to pay as being carried out without just cause, and to clarify pressing questions of

law. Evidence of severe prejudice, and life-threatening abuses of discretion are evident

and present in the record on it’s face, made by the trial court in the case herein;

unchecked widespread errors, which exhibit such an avoidance of evidence, lack of

adherence to the governing statutes and procedures to constitute it not as gross negligence

but instead, most likely, corruption -subverting the current judicial system. Our liberty

does rest in your hands as the triers of facts, and at this time under considerable pressure

and limited resources. As deadlines short, we respectfully request discretion, as we

endeavor as concise as possible, with access to limited facts from which to draw our

conclusions from concealed facts currently only certain individuals know or could know.

As we are not attorney’s, to our profound disadvantage our futile attempt to protect our

rights has failed unfortunately. As our opponents flagrantly, without notice, have been

granted further unconstitutional judgements against us (use of deadly force to remove us

from our home) while the exact same word for word page from the plaintiffs pleading

was inserted into our motion, the authority to go unnoticed- (as the opposing counsel has

refused his usual channel of service, ie email, which was sent nonetheless) and on several

attempts we were denied when email evidence of service by email was provided, and his

absolute failure to serve notice whatsoever was granted, and granted an extraordinary

remedy, that we feel is in no way is constitutional or even a statutorily correct. As we

used their exact page of authority in our pleadings to as clearly as possible prove the at

times evasive allegation of prejudice in this case, to be without much doubt. was given
for our motions to vacate the judgement that is clearly , after sheriff’s refused to execute

the writ of possession, in observance of our intent under constitutional right, to bear arms

in defense of our home, from the unjust wrongful seizure, after we had been denied due

process and a fair trial by jury, another Constitutional right we were also denied as. The

Sheriff’s have themselves observed their own stay while in communication with us, from

the court orders, and the intentional errors on their orders caused by the opposing counsel

trying to deny us our right to claim the right of possession for the tenants (not in arrears),

who had not appeared, and were not served any personal notice or summons and

complaint, (the homeowner was not personally served at all as well). Knowledge of the

tenants existence as well as names were provided to the alleged agent of the purchaser

(an LLC owned by another party who did not provide consent to be represented in the

case) who had unsuccessfully served a tenant notice meant for one of the petitioner’s, and

at that time, was provided the names of the tenants. The respondent/agent of the

purchaser who signed the complaint and attempted to serve the petitioner at the trustee

sale who has not displayed any bona fide intent, but instead inhumane methods of

expulsion, willful acts of fraud, and I personally witnessed her perjure facts on the stand

without hesitation. so refusing the orders at that point, as the constitutional guard who

have actually been the sole protectors of our rights during our ordeal. when the fraud was

disclosed to them in our case, and our constitutional right to defend our home

gatekeeping what remedy or relief could be had. a special appearance to question

jurisdiction Filing unlimited Civil case for fraud, foia requests, claims of exemptions,

federal civil rights violations, as there's been no proof of the right to a secured interest in
this property, the opposing counsel is proceeding with knowledge of this fact and with

knowledge of their case being justly void of jurisdiction from the start as it was not in any

respect filed properly. They are in complete violation of the statutes that give them

jurisdiction they did a trial by Ambush on us this attorney is totally in violation of his

duty to protect the public. I use the same Authority as him to not file notice because I

have no car and I'm trapped here up on the hill and I've been emailing him notice but he

doesn't even serve notice whatsoever and we were denied only for not serving him notice

when I had emailed him and he was granted this order because they moved our case all

the way down to Torrance and I can't get down to Torrance and the judge down in

Torrance was known to have caused a veteran to die in court of a heart attack after he was

found to actually be a head in his payments and the eviction that he was given was

supposed to be for his neighbor but this judge still sided with the bank and granted them

the foreclosure that's the same judge who the opposing counsel went to Torrance and got

a judgement without even ever serving us notice and I used his exact same Authority for

the service I dripped out his page from his document exactly the same Authority and I

was denied on the grounds I failed to have proof of service when I had proof of the email

and he was granted without even ever serving us and I just saw that there is a writ of

possession that was granted on October 1st and I'm trying to finish this appeal court

transfer request petition and I'm like I can't miss that window before my statute of

limitations runs up I'll be like out on the street with no car if I don't get the stuff done I

don't know if you know anybody that could help but there are criminal violations here

there is in Criminal Intent to defraud, the original lender was using  the  loan as one of
their methods of  evading  assets  from being disclosed in a force bankruptcy  that they

were forced into not even a year after  the loan  was  made , the whole debt was paid off

by the FDIC and then Chase  posed as mers  and self-assigned  a new debt  and evidence

of several new debts  being paid off  buy insurance and then assigning new debt to the

mortgagor buy use of forged counterfeit documents being filed with the court,

deprivation of Rights  and  preventing federally protected activities  such as redress of

grievances and causing irreparable harm. I really need help if you know what I could do

to help me please Deanne let me know. I hope I can make it tomorrow no problem , but

I'm living on eggshells here trying to get all of this somehow done and trying to teach

myself how to be an attorney before this total despicable fraudulent seizure