1 FAITH LYNN BRASHEAR 1ST REVISION Attorney Pro Se – Home Save Advocate 2 Faith@Betterquest.com (888) 541-9168 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, HISTORICAL COURTHOUSE 4 FAITH LYNN BRASHEAR CASE NO. RIC 1218862

5 __________________________ Plaintiff,

6 vs.

20 HSBC BANK OF USA 14. CIVIL CONSPIRACY and

21 THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED BUREAU

22 Defendants. /

23 24 REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION; REQUEST FOR

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT, REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS REQUEST FOR 25 PROOF OF HOLDER IN DUE COURSE VIA PERFECT CHAIN OF TITLE; PROOF OF

PERFECT CHAIN OF ENDORSEMENTS; VERIFICATION OF TRUE PARTY OF 26 INTEREST, VERIFICATION OF RECORDATIONS THROUGH THE SECURITIES

AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONS IN COMPLIANCE WITH TIMELINES ALLOTED. 27 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF UNDER THE CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACTS, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGE; EQUITABLE RELIEF; PROOF 28 OF RECORDS; AND PROOF OF TAXES PAID.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., CAUSE OF ACTION 7 a Delaware corporation and as

successor in interest to 1. FRAUD; 8 COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL 2. NEGLIGENCE;

CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, 3. BREACH OF CONTRACT; 9 dba, BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING; 4. PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., 5. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA 10 a New York corporation; BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS

RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., CODE §1700 ET SEQ 11 California entity of unknown status; 6. VIOLATION OF THE

DEUTSCH ALT A SECURITIES COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH 12 MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-OA4 AND FAIR DEALING

DEUTSCHE BANK AG; 7. QUIET TITLE 13 DB STRUCTURED PRODUCTS, 8. VIOLATION OF THE

INC.; DEUTSCHE BANK TRUTH IN LENDING ACT 14 SECURITIES INC.; ACE SECURITIES 129C(c)(2)[108]

CORP.; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; 9. VIOLATIONS OF 4TH 15 CLAYTON FIXED INCOME AMMENDMENT

SERVICES INC; 10. VIOLATIONS OF 5TH 16 US BANK,NA;MERS (MERSCORP); AMMENDMENT

INDYMAC BANK FSB 11. PROTECTION UNDER THE 17 a division of One West Bank. SOX ACT SECTION 1107

ONE WEST BANK FSB; 12. VIOLATION OF THE 18 FREDDIE MAC or FANNIE MAE; SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

IRS (US DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY); ACT OF 1934 SECTION C 19 FDIC(FEDERAL DEPOSIT OF INSURANCE SUBPARAGRAPH (B)

CORPORATION; 13. UNJUST ENRICHMENT

2

1 VENUE AND JURISDICTION Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 395 (a) 2 because Defendants reside and do business in this County in California, which is also where they committed the unlawful acts alleged herein that affected Plaintiff. This Court has jurisdiction over 3 this action under the California Constitution, Article V, Section 10 because this case is not a cause given by statute to other trial courts. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because 4 Defendants are authorized to do business in California, Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with California, and/ or otherwise intentionally avail themselves of the markets in 5 California through promotion and marketing and distribution and the wrongdoings by Defendants that are alleged in this complaint substantially took place in California. This court has subject 6 matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Business and Professions Code §17204 and California Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10 which enables the California Superior Court to 7 adjudicate the wrongful exercise of real property rights, and foreclosure rights with respect to property located in California. The Court pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 24 Request for 8 production of Documents and Civil Procedure Rule 36 Request for Admission and Civil Procedure Rule 17 Real party of interest. Plaintiff cannot separate these request as they are interwoven and 9 could be taken out of context if filed separately. This court is renowned for community outreach.

10 Under California Code of Civil Procedure: 525. An injunction is a writ or order requiring a person to refrain from a particular act. It may be granted by the court in which the action is brought, or by

11 a judge thereof; and when granted by a judge, it may be enforced as an order of the court. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 36 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, (3) Time to 12 Respond; Effect of Not Responding. A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or 13 objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney. Should no contest be presented in regards to the above or below RECITALS specifically outlining these requests to 14 proof their claim that they are in fact a TRUE PARTY OF INTEREST to the requested agencies

for review, will constitute Admissions to all RECITALS as truth herein, Plaintiff is asking these 15 companies to further provide proof that any one of these RECITALS are false in any way, in a court of law, and through the Attorney General Office specifically set up to address this mortgage 16 crisis. Plaintiff is now hereby invoking her rights under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 17. (a) Real Party in of Interest. (1) Designation in General. An action must be prosecuted in the name 17 of the real party in interest. The following may sue in their own names without joining the person for whose benefit the action is brought: (A) an executor; (B) an administrator; (C) a guardian; (D) 18 a bailee; (E) a trustee of an express trust; (F) aparty with whom or in whose name a contract has been made for another's benefit; and (G) a party authorized by statute.

19 First Cause of Action 20 Plaintiff desired a judicial determination and declares that plaintiff did not breach the terms and

conditions of the promissory note or deed of trust, that in Fact Defendants breached not only the 21 terms and conditions, but also the fiduciary trust of Plaintiff and that an actual controversy exists

between Plaintiff and Defendants. 22 Second Cause of Action 23 Defendant Bank of America and HSBC through Recon Trust are acting and intend to sell, unless

restrained, will sell the Property located at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX on 1/25/12 24 at 9am. Further, that the trustee failed to comply with State non-judicial foreclosure procedures.

Such a judicial determination is appropriate at this time so that the Plaintiff may determine her 25 rights and duties before the Property is sold at a Trustee Sale. 26 The trustee’s sale is wrongful and should be enjoined. Plaintiff has no other plain, speedy, or

adequate remedy, and the injunctive relief requested for this Complaint is necessary and 27 appropriate at this time to prevent irreparable injury and loss to Plaintiff’s Property. Plaintiff has

enclosed Prima Facia Exhibits for the courts review attached hereto. “Exhibits Summary” 28

3

1 Third Cause of Action Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates contained within the First and Second Cause of Action. A

2 controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendants with respects to moneys owed, however Defendants refuses to provide accurate accounting or allow Plaintiff to audit the books and records

3 as they relate to Plaintiff’s loan. As a result, the correct amount of moneys owed cannot be determined. Further because of all the different transfers validity of the security needs to be

4 verified. 5 Wherefore Plaintiff demands judgment as follows:

1. That the Court issue a declaration to the rights and duties to the trustee’s sale because the 6 trustee failed to properly follow the foreclosure procedures under CALIFORNIA CIVIL

CODE § 2924 and that the validity of this loan is currently in dispute. 7

2. That the court issue a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent 8 injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, attorneys and representatives, and all persons acting in concernt to be sold Property either under the power of sale clause contained 9 in the deed of trust of by a judicial foreclosure action. 10 3. That the court order Defendants, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. a Delaware corporation and

as successor in interest to COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Delaware 11 corporation, dba, BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING; COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS,

INC., a New York corporation; RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.,a California entity of 12 unknown status; DEUTSCH ALT A SECURITIES MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-

OA4 DEUTSCHE BANK AG; DB STRUCTURED PRODUCTS, INC.; DEUTSCHE 13 BANK SECURITIES INC.; ACE SECURITIES CORP.; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.;

CLAYTON FIXED INCOME SERVICES INC; HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL 14 ASSOCIATION; US BANK,NAMERS (MERSCORP) FREDDIE MAC or FANNIE MAE;

INDYMAC BANK a division of One West Bank, ONE WEST BANK; FSB ;and 15 FDIC(FEDERAL DEPOSIT OF INSURANCE CORPORATION with regards to their claim

on XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX under Federal rule 1002 the 16 original Promissory Note signed by Plaintiff on MAY 3RD, 2007 or the original Promissory

Note recorded September 11th, 2007 for the second as no signature was presented on title. 17

4. The the court order proof of a perfect chain of title, a perfect chain of endorsements with no 18 blank endorsements, proof of transfers of “true sales” via proof of purchase of the note from the DEPOSITOR via delivery the endorsed note to show transfer of legal ownership of the 19 negotiable instrument from COUNTRYWIDE BANK, FSB to DB STRUCTURED PRODUCTS, INC from DB STRUCTRUED PRODUCTS INC to ACE SECURITIES 20 CORP and again from ACE SECURITIES CORP to US BANK NA as trustees for the certificate holders of DUETSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 21 2007-OA4 clearly evidenced as receipt thereof to all recipients in turn, the DEPOSITOR

will have to further show proof of ownership of the note prior to its resale, fully disclosed 22 and intact terms on said note, and unequivocal proof that any of the above listed Defendants are the holder in due course or party of interest authorizing Recon Trust to foreclose on the 23 property located at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. 24 5. That the Court Request for HSBC BANK, USA, NA to verify their position as “Substitute Trustee” for the DEUTSCHE ALT-A SERIES MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-OA4 as 25 the PSA (Pooling and Servicing Agreement) clearly designate US BANK USA, NA is the designated Trustee. At this point a copy of the Note is requested via a QWR and made 26 available for review, as contractual warranties were made to having good and transferable

title to the Securities and Exchanges Commission. 27

6. That the Court order Proof that these parties or that REMIC (Real Estate Mortgage 28 Investment Conduits) offered out by FREDDIE MAC or FANNIE MAE or the DEUTSCHE

ALT-A SERIES MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-OA4 ever paid taxes on cont…

4

1 this note. Further that FREDDIE MAC or FANNIE MAE provide a list of trust established specifically for pay option arms from 2002-2009 when Plaintiff was a mortgage broker.

2 7. That the Court order Proof that Time Statutes for the “Pool Servicing” did not expire on this 3 note. Proof that this loan has not in fact been offset as a bad debt, and that any Defendant

purchase this loan at a substantial discount by providing accounting records of the chain of 4 action leading to this event to determine the amount, if any is actually owed by Plaintiff.

5 8. That the Court order Proof the Bank of America did not use TARP funds (Troubled Asset Relief Program) to acquire Countrywide’s assets or equity.

6 9. That the Court order Proof that MERS invested monetary compensation entitling them to be the 7 Beneficiary of said note and Proof that this note was NOT paid through the pass through in the secondary market by MERS, refinanced and again paid through the pass through of MERS a

8 second time, nor again when Bank of America used TARP funds in the acquisition of Countrywide.

9 10.That the Court order proof that RECON TRUST is an arms length third party properly licensed

10 to do business in the State of California.

11 11.That the Court Request of admissions of FDIC they “In Fact” had Andrew S. Bently (Attorney) sign an Assignment of Deed and that they were aware of the deed transfer to DEUTSCHE 12 ALT-A SERIES MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-OA4 by HSBC on Behalf of BANK OF AMERICA and in fact consented to the transfer of the Deed of Trust thereto. 13 12.That the Court order proof that the CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU had 14 Specific Facts Under The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 65 (b) (A) to shut down a line of defense for the consumer insinuating in court only the suspicion of US Muslim Citizen, Case

15 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX that nearly shut down Plaintiffs access to the enclosed evidence. 15 13.That the Court order US BANK to provide a list of authorized signers on behalf of MERS from US Bank on and before 3/20/12; and in kind MERS to provides a list of authorized signers on 16 their behalf from US BANK on and before 3/20/12. 17 14.The Court order INDYMAC BANK FSB a division of One West Bank; ONE WEST BANK

FSB; FDIC(FEDERAL DEPOSIT OF INSURANCE CORPORATION; under Federal rule 18 1002 produce for inspection the original Promissory Note signed by Plaintiff recorded on

September 11th 2007 as no proof of signature is provided on title for this recording. 19 15.The Court order INDYMAC BANK FSB a division of One West Bank; ONE WEST BANK 20 FSB; FDIC(FEDERAL DEPOSIT OF INSURANCE CORPORATION; Provide proof that the Home Equity Line of Credit Deed of Trust recorded on September 11th 2007 was NOT included 21 in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy filed September 2008 by INDYMAC BANK FSB.

22 16.The Court order US Department of Treasury (IRS) under Federal Rule 36 request for admissions if it is possible for an audit to be triggered by an outside source, for proof of taxes 23 paid by the DEUTSCHE ALT-A SERCURITES INC MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST MORTGAGE PASSTHOUGH CERTIFICIES SERIES 2007-OA4 IRS or verification of IRS 24 Code 860 that these trusts were converted to SPV (Special Purpose Vehicles) to avoid taxation and further admit that a tax credit was issued to investors on defaulted loans under this trust

25 17.That the Court request to produce these requests, within thirty (30) days of the service hereof

26 at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, To the State Attorney General Kamala Devi Harris, andKatherine Porter the CA Monitor for the National Mortgage Settlement care of 27 the Attorney General’s Office, and at California Department of Justice P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 AND directly to this Historic Courthouse 4050 Main Street, 28 Riverside, Ca. 92501, CA 92701-4516

5

1 INTRODUCTION OF PARTIES INVOLVED 2 This case concerns a home loan that Originated by COUNTRYWIDE BANK, FSB 3/06/2006. The loan was Assigned to MER’s Inc as a beneficiary and to Recon Trust as a Trustee. That was 3 refinanced and again Originated by COUNTRYWIDE BANK, FSB 5/14/2007. The loan was Assigned to MERS Inc as a beneficiary and to Recon Trust as a Trustee. Reconvened on 4 5/31/2007 by COUNTRYWIDE BANK listing MER’s Inc as a beneficiary and to Recon Trust as a Trustee. INDYMAC BANK FSB Secondary Lien Home Equity Line recorded on 9/11/2007, 5 then 12/11/2009 Assignment of deed of trust crossing out a title stating “ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER OF NOTE AND SECURITY INSTRUMENT” to the FEDERAL DEPOSIT 6 INSURANCE CORPORATION again crossing out the after recording section which listed “ONE WEST BANK, FSBC attn. Trailing Docs 7700 PARMEL LANE AUSTIN TX 78729 loan number 7 127677685/ 8800779889” Mers as nominee for lender and it assigns on 9/16/2011, to Bank of America where MERS recognized the assignment, on 3/20/2012 the assignment of the Deed of 8 Trust was from to Bank ofAmerica transferred to HSBC BANK USA, NA as trustee for the holders of DEUTSCHE ALT-A SERCURITES INC MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST MORTGAGE 9 PASSTHOUGH CERTIFICIES SERIES 2007-OA4 the same day 3/20/2012 RECON TRUST, a subsidiary of BANK OF AMERICA filed a Notice of Default referencing HSBC BANK USA, 10 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF DEUTSCH ALT-A SERIES,INC MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES 11 SERIES 2007-OA4 C/O BANK OF AMERICA; 6/27/2012 RECON TRUST filed a notice of Trustee Sale. That further this instrument was sold to DB STRUCTURED PRODUCTS, Inc 12 further sold to ACE SECURITIES CORP further sold to DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-OA4. The formation of DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES 13 MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-OA4 was subject to the Pooling and Servicing Agreements (PSA) cut off dates, dated June 1st 2007. FREDDIE MAC OR FANNIE MAE as listed upon the 14 recorded documents and trusts created during Plaintiffs Mortgage Broker service from 2002-2009 on behalf of Plaintiffs clients. IRS for verification of IRS Code 860 as applicable to Defendants 15 and suspicious timing of audits. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for restriction of trade. 16 RECITALS 17 Whereas Plaintiff, was a loan broker who brokered to COUNTRYWIDE worked at BANK OF AMERICA, and was a loan officer at WELLS FARGO who has in depth understanding of the 18 mortgage industry and can better act as an EXPERT WITNESS in this matter than the normal Layman or Attorney for the purpose of future case studies pertaining to matters of this nature. 19 Whereas Plaintiff was considered a Volunteer Federal Witness in a criminal investigation of 20 lending fraud within the Riverside and surrounding areas by the US Department of Justice. 21 Whereas Plaintiff, through her rights under the US Constitution is acting as an “Attorney Pro Se.” on principle. An Attorney Pro Se cannot be de-barred and is the most powerful defense the 22 Layman has left against the banking industry under the passing of the Freedom of Information Act. This act further allows under section (a) (4) (E) awards as a matter of law. 23 Whereas Plaintiffs previous written request under her rights via USC Title 15 Section 1692 retuned 24 no clear documentation provided to support Bank of America’s or Recon Trusts rights to foreclose. 25 Whereas the provided Securitization Audits that clearly show the Pooling Service Agreements, the Securitization Purchase Agreements, the Mortgage Pool or the prospectus provided herein as 26 “Exhibit A” do not evidence a perfect chain of title as the note and the deed clearly did not follow each other up front, nor via the timelines outlined in the introduction, nor was there proper 27 recordation of title or endorsements of title. The note and deed were clearly bifurcated. 28

6

1 Whereas Plaintiff has been acting as a home save advocate for the last several years and has witnessed these events taking place to people across the nation in addition to her own foreclosure 2 of her previous primary residence in Washington State prior to her relocation back into California as well as the current wrongful foreclosure tactics being used on the above referenced property. 3 Whereas the real party of interest was not proven to Plaintiff via her repeated request for this 4 information and her additional REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS to Bank of America below, nor to her dispute of debt the dispute of the Notice of Default and her dispute of Foreclosure proceedings 5 to show proof that any parties were a Holder in Due Course. The following Request was made. 6 “1) You admit that you are a servicer of the promissory note.” “2) You admit that the loan has been securitized.” 7 “3) You admit that you are not a real party of interest in this controversy.” “4) You admit that you are a debt collector and not the original creditor.” 8 Whereas requests are now additionally being made, via this CIVIL Request, to show proof that 9 both the Deed of Trust (Mortgage) and the Promissory note, have in fact always pointed to the same party at ALL times and that Bank of America or Recon Trust has the authority or ability to 10 exercise the “Due on Sale” Clause, or that any of the above listed Defendants are a true party of interest in this note after fully reviewing the Recitals here within. 11 Whereas the Massachusetts Supreme Court issued a decision in US BANK NATIONAL 12 ASSOCIATION vs ANTONIO IBANEZ in which all the Justices unanimously agreed. In order for a bank to be able to foreclose they MUST show a perfection of chain of title, both in the Deed 13 of Trust/Mortgage and the Promissory note. It was also ruled that a blank assignment was not acceptable proof of perfection of title for the promissory note. 14 Whereas under FEDERAL Rule 2003 states, The Bank must show a Perfection of the Chain of 15 Title for the Deed of Trust (Mortgage). This means that any assignment of the Promissory note must also be reflected at the county recorder’s office (and not with MERS). If an assignment of the 16 Promissory note is not recorded on the County Records, then perfection is not achieved.

17 Whereas the enclosed securitization audit clearly outlines what is currently on title today for the review of this court to ensure the documents, if any, to the contrary are in fact legitimate. All 18 Plaintiffs Prima Facia documentation supports Breach of Contract, Imperfect Chain of Title, Fraud, Willful intent to do harm, premeditated intent to do harm wrongful foreclosure actions AND 19 Securities Fraud. “Exhibit E” 20 Whereas Bank of America and Recon Trust both withheld the documentation for the corporation transfer of the note from Bank of America to HSBC from Plaintiff upon her requests to provide 21 proof of the Holder in Due Course and that they are a legitimate original owner of the debt U.C.C.- ARTICLE 3 §3-302 t. 22 Whereas Bank of America is acting as a servicer, for a Countrywide debt that has already been 23 paid through the MERS pass-through, refinanced and again paid through a second MERS pass- through, then further paid a percentage through the REMIC stock conversion under a previous 24 performing “stock” each time, and again paid off through the use of TARP funds by Bank of America to acquire Countrywide sold back to Bank of America when the Asset was no longer 25 performing. Further that this debt has in fact been discharged under Federal Bankruptcy filing XXXXXXXXXX. “Exhibit D” 26 Whereas Plaintiff has been forced to file XXXX “Exhibit D cont.” as a result of wrongful foreclosure and wrongful collection activities where Plaintiff again informed the Trustee and Judge 27 Whereas Plaintiff has been forced to file XXXXXXXX “Exhibit D cont.” as a result of wrongful 28 foreclosure and wrongful collection activities where Plaintiff again informed the Trustee and Judge that Plaintiff was requesting protection under Section 1107 of the SOX (The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002). The transcripts will show this court the length HSBC went to restrict Plaintiffs liberties.

7

1 WHAT COURTS ALREADY MAY KNOW 2 Whereas when Countrywide securitized this loan via the use of MERS (the Mortgage Electronic Registration System) the bank (Countrywide) was automatically paid 1.05 to 1.5 times the actual 3 lent amount within days after the closing of the home. 4 Whereas MERS - Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc., found in thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of mortgages and deeds of trust was suspended from doing business in California 5 and the Agent for Service of Process resigned March 25, 2009. A corporation is a fiction of the state that remains alive and draws its lifeblood from the state, and once the state pulls the plug, it 6 dies. Making all MERS transactions “Voidable” 7 Whereas to be a beneficiary, one has to put up the money to fund the loan. MERS never fronted a single dime for the loans they electronically passed. They were there solely for the purpose of 8 tracking transfers. MERS recordation is not official. They only legally recognize that the recordation on public record is with the county. MERS is never a Holder in Due Course. No 9 promissory note was EVER assigned to them. Only a real and beneficiary party in interest may assign a promissory note, appoint a substitution of trustee or assign a Deed of Trust. 10 Whereas Countrywide and Mers committed Breach of Contract under section 23 Reconveyance of 11 the original contract and committed Bifurcation. The exact terminology under the contract reads as follows “Upon payment of all sums secured by this Security Instrument. Lender shall request 12 Trustee to reconvey the Property and shall surrender the Security Instrument and all notes evidencing debt secured by this security agreement to trustee”. This was not done either time. 13 Whereas there is no legal protection in the contract pertaining to borrowers protection of Interest in 14 the Property only that of the lender under section 9. Therefore Plaintiffs ownership interests have been compromised and this misconduct and bifurcated recordings have created a cloud on title. 15 Whereas when Mers transferred this loan and Bank of America took over Countrywide the note 16 became unsecured and the deed of trust became worthless as it created bifurcation which is a violation of State law. Further the issue of a Defective Instrument must be acknowledged. No loan 17 assignment was properly done. A lender simply cannot reverse engineer the title of the Deed of Trust or Promissory note converted into a stock to correct these issues. 18 Whereas MERS passed through this loan to REMIC offered by FREDDIE MAC and this loan was 19 paid by REMIC in full and converted to an “Asset” through the Securities and Exchange Commissions and where these REMIC’s placed this loan into a SPVs (special purpose vehicle) in 20 order to avoid double taxation under IRS Code 860, thereby taxing only the shareholders. 21 Whereas the “Real party of interest” has to pay taxes on their interest earnings. Meaning only the Shareholder’s who paid taxes on their earnings are the true party of interest. Explained further 22 below. 23 Whereas a promissory note is ONLY enforceable in its whole entity. Therefore Bank of America is trying to enforce and wrongful foreclosure on the above listed property. NONE OF THE 24 DEFENDENTS are a party of interest in this note, NONE OF THE DEFENDENTS are a Holder in Due Course, NONE OF THE DEFENDENTS can provide a Perfect Chain of Title to this 25 property and NONE OF THE DEFENDENTS can legally foreclose on this property. 26 Whereas when a REMIC is formed, its assets (the Plaintiffs note plus thousands of other notes) are declared a permanent fixture to the REMIC. Which means that once an asset is registered and 27 traded as part of the security it cannot be “switched out” or “switched back” to a note because it has become a permanent fixture to a traded asset. Plaintiff refinanced an original Countrywide 28 negative Amortization, Mers transferred REMIC note in attempts to defer the triggering of the amortization payments which created additional unforeseen hardships to the Plaintiff. Under the cont…

8

1 rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission as the converted “Asset (Note)” has the above listed property clearly outlined and is named in the “Asset (Note)” itself. No other option was 2 available to Plaintiff as she could not qualify in any other capacity for any other program. Further detailed below. 3 Whereas when a loan goes into default, the REMIC writes it off. Once an asset is written off, the 4 shareholders receive a tax credit from the IRS. This means the debt is settled and the note is gone, PERIOD. The shareholders, (being the ONLY true party of interest) have been paid and this debt 5 along with millions of others, have been settled by the IRS themselves.

6 UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING PLAINTIFF 7 Whereas Plaintiff was notified of an IRS Audit in October of 2012 after her repeated requests for information from Recon Trust and Bank of America, where her attendance was demanded to take 8 place in the State of Washington after the Plaintiffs relocation to California in which the Plaintiff was not allowed to transfer the audit into the State of California upon Plaintiffs request for proper 9 review with her tax preparer, for a total imposed sum of $19,618. The standard Attorney Retainer for case of this nature is $20,000 and this imposed debt is now included under the Chapter 13 10 bankruptcy filing listed herein as the IRS preparer acted sue sponte and violated Plaintiffs rights under 15-1-222 Taxpayer bill of rights to be allowed representation and proper consideration after 11 Plaintiff requested transfer of the audit to California for proper review. 12 Whereas a temporary retraining order was issued on the Order of the Consumer Financial Protection Agencies request, on behalf an undisclosed source after Plaintiff relayed comments to 13 BANK OF AMERICA of Plaintiffs intent to file Litigation against them. The compliant was directed at the very place help was being offered to Plaintiff in the outline of her suit being filed in 14 this court further impacting Plaintiffs liberties in the uncovering of specific truths in the compilation of this suit for the purpose of due process. These actions will again potentially enable 15 wrongful foreclosures against other innocents by the banking industry. Plaintiffs Social Security card was on site, and Plaintiffs BK-case was dismissed for not being able to produce the Social 16 Security card along with the inability to have filed this suit in a timely manner per the Temporary ex parte injunction filed. The representing bank attorney, was throwing everything at the Judge to 17 dismiss this case, INCLUDING going so far as to tell the judge that the loan number was incorrect on the filing. Enclosed is the Schedule “F” showing the correct loan number per the enclosed 18 Bank of America mortgage statement. Plaintiff referenced an additional number that was attached to the loan through one of the documents also provided to her by the banks to make sure there was 19 no error in the filing. Your honor, if these banks are willing to outright lie “On Record” in a Court of Law and go to such extreme lengths to restrict Plaintiffs liberties, is this not in fact outright 20 evidence of their willful and deliberate attempts to do harm to Plaintiff? 21 Whereas Plaintiff involvement with the company that this restraining order was filed upon, was that of an independent contractor offering out opinions and knowledge to assist the business owner 22 with training and staffing of a higher level of quality and integrity as the owner was having difficulty in structure and the demand for consumer protection is high. The last email Plaintiff sent 23 before the CFPB and the Sherrifs stormed the castle, was one to GMAC as a response to a request for a letter of authorization, where Plaintiff responded directly to the wrongful foreclosure via a 24 reference to the Plaintiffs complaint to the US State Attorney General for wrongful foreclosure proceedings on behalf of a US Disabled Veteran in the process of modification from a subsidiary 25 of GMAC who was not properly licensed to do business in the State of California, free of charge. 26 Whereas Plaintiff witnessed the Ascertaining of Specific facts that pertained to the operation of this business “ON SITE” during the Raid, as the Consumer Financial Protection Agency issued 27 an ex parte blanket order referencing loan modifications and loan companies under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) upon a small business owner. This owner did not specifically do 28 loan modifications, but offered out audits for profit, as the one presented here today to allow the consumer a fighting chance against the banks, with a further option to help file civil complaints cont…

9

1 with the US Department of Treasury to help restructure their loans. From there she would work with the banks to ensure delivery of documentation on behalf of the clients as the banks often 2 would lay claims of non-delivery of consumers information. Where did their “tip” come from? If it was a consumer, were they encouraged or directed by the banks in any way? 3 Whereas upon further inquiry to the US Department of Treasury, they too are acting as a 4 Modification Agency on behalf of the banks. Plaintiff reiterates, in Plaintiffs professional opinion after witnessing the history of this Mortgage Crisis, LOAN MODIFICATIONS DO NOT WORK. 5 They are a temporary solution to a much deeper problem, that create a false sense of security. 6 Whereas Plaintiff was acting in an Advocacy and training capacity on verification that the same underwriting of HAMP loans arising from declined loan modification complaints made by 7 consumers, were in fact approvable so that they could be properly submitted through the US Department of Treasury along with the very same audits presented here today to show merit and 8 standing. These audits are the ONLY defense the Laymen have against these wrongful foreclosures and unethical conduct of the banking industry, they show forgeries, fraud, bifurcation 9 and disintegration of Mortgages. This Civil Suit is an WAKE UP CALL to show others how to actually stand up in their rights, because this is what it has come down to. The burden to prove the 10 consumers innocence has fallen to the consumer themselves. This small business owners who’s place of business was raided has had her 4th Amendment rights violated as wall as her 5th 11 Amendment rights by restriction of trade and liberties. By removing a conceptually strong line of defense over evidence based in prejudice and pride the CFPB has restricted not only this Plaintiff 12 liberties as a field advocate fighting for consumers rights, but have placed innocents back on the streets to fight for themselves. This agency should know better than to cut and paste and order, 13 with crossed out lines arrows that miscount when listing facts, it was obvious that they were acting in haste without properly ascertaining facts. They destroyed lively hoods on many 14 levels that day. 911 is over, being a Muslim who changed to an American name is not a criminal offence. 15 Whereas the specific comment made by the judge was, “this was much to do about nothing”. 16 While Plaintiff understands the need for consumers rights to be protected, Plaintiff also knows that removing any line of defense enables Defendants to continue the perpetuation of their activities 17 and stands firm in her belief that a line of defense to the consumer is absolutely necessary in the financial and economic environment we are currently in. Plaintiffs inclusions of their actions in 18 this suit is just, if nothing else but to remind them of who they are and what they stand for under advisement. They are in charge of Protecting this Plaintiff per their title and their cause allowed to 19 them under the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, where the SOX act again is clearly listed under this ace as plaintiff was building a viable case that would help them with their efforts. 20 21 DEFENDANTS DELIBERATE WITHHOLDING 22 Whereas It is clearly being evidenced via their current withholding of what appears to be back- dated pass through to 2007 directed to HSBC and record in 2012 filed concurrently with a NOD 23 from RECON TRUST where it seems that the FDIC transfered title in between, this filing named HSBC acting ON BEHALF OF BANK OF AMERICA again showing this clearly on title, 24 evidencing collaboration, to try and correct and position this lien to sell off to collect the insurance of 70%-80% of the value of the note to the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). For 25 clarity and to reiterate, it would appear that when INDYMAC Aka ONE WEST BANK seemingly recording a document on behalf of the FDIC on their internal banks form that transfered title to the 26 FDIC. Then BANK OF AMERICA in an attempt to correct their paperwork to un-bifurcate the note to override the recorded document. This would position the property to initiate a payout worth 27 1.2-1.4 million dollars to them by the FDIC, when the homes true value is $606,200 via EQUATOR, the company acting as a service to expedite short sales as a “Show” of good faith per 28 their mandated requirements under current law.

10

1 Whereas it does not take a rocket scientist to see that a corporation pass through of a deed of trust recorded 3/20/12 , that was Supposed to follow the note attached to asset listed in DEUTCH ALT 2 A SECURITIES INC MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007- OA4 recorded on title five years after the fact, pretty much 3 Exceeds the Pooling and Servicing Agreements (PSA) cut off dates, dated June 1st 2007 and without question and beyond doubt, bifurcates the note and deed . When Exactly were the pooling 4 agreements going to be honored? Because the last Plaintiff looked, 60-90-120 days were the norm. A wink and a nod should not stand in a court of law sirs as things currently stand. 5 Whereas Recon Trust is acting as a beneficiary under HSBC blessing in care of Behalf of Bank of 6 America through the (Notice of Default) on said property with the same filing date as the backdated 2007 pass-through to HSBC recorded in 2012 exceeding proper timelines for recording 7 their instrument 0n 3/30/2012 FIVE YEARS LATER to do what? Claim “race-notice” recordation? Hardly, here is why they withheld this information sir. 8

Whereas on 9/11/2007 a “Home Equity Line of Credit Deed of Trust” was recorded on title by 9 INDYMAC BANK.

10 Whereas On March 19, 2009, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) completed the sale of IndyMac Federal Bank to One West purchased many assets from the Independent National 11 Mortgage Corporation, after it filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and this was Federally discharged.

12 Whereas on December 11, 2009 an altered ONE WEST bank form crossed out the words “Assignment and Transfer of Note and Security Instrument” and replaced it with the verbiage 13 “Assignment of Deed of Trust”. Honorable Judge, this document recorded on title acts as a

transfer of a full deed, and not an “Equity line of credit Deed of Trust”. Further it bifurcates the 14 second. Sirs, Andrew Bently Attorney in Fact, is not listed in the California State Bar of

Attorneys. Yet he is acting on behalf of the FDIC to take priority placement on this property. 15 This means that the FDIC must also agree to the transfer of the deed into the DEUTCH ALT A

SECURITIES INC MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH 16 CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007- OA4 on a wink and a nod. IF they did so, then that are acting

with the knowledge that a 1.2 million dollar pay out is being positioned in full awareness that the 17 properties worth is only $606,200. If they are not aware or did not give their permission, then BANK OF AMERICA, ONE WEST BANK, HSBC, COUNTRYWIDE, and the affiliates

18 assigned to DEUTCH ALTA SECURITIES INC MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007- OA4 are in collaboration to commit insurance

19 fraud. Sirs, they waited close to three years, banking on the statue of limitations for fraud Honorable judge, this act is at Felony fraud levels it stands regardless of Plaintiffs Federal

20 volunteer efforts interfering, as she simply could not come forward any sooner for her own safety. 21 Whereas Even if you blindly overlook this blatant act, the only evidence of the debts security is through the endorsements or a receipt to take possession of the note. Without a proper chain of 22 endorsements, there is nothing more here than a promissory note. 23 Whereas there is absolutely no Deed of Trust filed with the first Original Countrywide loan. There are no exact matches that can be brought forward to show that this was a valid note on a valid 24 Mortgage backed security. The pressures of the adjustable to the predatory under-disclosed rate of 8.675 forced a refinance on an invalid security instrument. Immediately again breaching contract 25 upon inception. 26 Whereas if this trust that was created through a MERS pass-through, that owns your loan was selling MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, how exactly was it selling these securities if it 27 didn’t own the MORTGAGE?! The certificates are not called “unsecured promissory note” securities – they’re called MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES. That’s how they got a AAA 28 rating, by being secured and protected by the property to which the note was secured. Without the mortgages, the Trust and it’s multi-billion dollars of assets become unsecured and high risk. So by cont…

11

1 THEIR definition of the Trust alone, these MBS Trusts have to own the mortgage on which it relies to sell a AAA Certificate. And if it owns the note, then it had to have acquired the mortgage 2 in order to make the note secured and in turn, to legitimately call their issued certificates “Mortgage backed securities.” 3 Whereas Taking that to the next step .. .why did the banks create MERS if they didn’t need to have 4 the security interest tracked and transferred? This is why MERS is “solely a nominee of the lender and its assigns” because it cannot actually retain the security interest in the mortgage – it can only 5 be an agent for the entity that actually does have the interest in the mortgage! If it wasn’t merely an agent, you would have the same problem, where the mortgage is separated from the note and the 6 collateral becomes unsecured.” This is Securities Fraud your honor. 7 Whereas the ONLY defendant with Plausible Deniability of awareness of these types of activities is the FDIC but is highly suspect under these circumstances or the IRS for the complexities these 8 acts would not necessarily be known and of course the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau who does not apparently have the time to look at the details of a Situation Prima Facia. 9 Whereas a forensic audit “Exhibit B” was performed on the above referenced refinanced note, and 10 the following findings were uncovered. The Annual Percentage Rate (APR) was under disclosed by 1.48900, the finance charge was under disclosed $662,502.47, the amount financed was under 11 disclosed $6,586.16 for a total of $669,088.63, an amount of fraud that exceeds the current market value of the home and evidences damage to the Plaintiff. 12 13 Whereas neither the first or the second have the proper signed documentation of the Plaintiffs right to cancel on either the first or the second, violating Regulation Z 226.5(a)(1) and 226.17 (a) (1), 15 14 USC 226.15 (b) and 226.23 (b) 15 Whereas In the Event of a foreclosure, the consumer may exercise the right of recession if the disclosed finance charge is understated by more than $35. Plaintiff hereby and additionally once 16 more rescinds and rejects these notes as valid under these regulations via this Civil filing and via the additional proof of Breach of Contract and Willful direct and indirect actions causing harm to 17 the Plaintiff by the majority of these Defendants. 18 THE “SCHEME” 19 Whereas under page 14 of the Securitization audit what happens behind the scenes is finally

20 revealed. The issuing entity DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-OA4 converts the pass through from Countrywide by Mers and converts the note into a 21 Mortgage Backed Security (MBS) via the use of an underwriter, in this case CLAYTON FIXED INCOME SERVICES INC. The Underwriter endorses the note as acceptable under the Securities 22 and Exchanges into an Asset Class and permanently attached the newly transformed “Asset” into the Trust or REMIC. A new trustee is named on behalf of the new trust created, in this case US 23 BANK,NA creating a conflict of Trustees. From there a Depositor is set up to take the now

tradable stock for the investors to purchase, in this case ACE SECURITIES CORP and a custodian 24 is appointed who is responsible for safeguarding the Trusts Assets. A master Servicer in this case WELLS FARGO BANK, NA issues the payouts and take in’s on the performing “Asset” a Seller 25 is appointed to offer out the “Asset” to a variety of investors in this case DB STRUCTURED who essentially offers the “Asset” out to a multitude of investors which dissolves the note in its entirety. 26 The Trust or REMIC further to avoid double taxation that arises from the income as a result of the interest on the “mortgage payments” from the performing “Asset” they convert these Assets into 27 Special Purpose Vehicles, and pass the taxes to the Shareholders of the “Asset”. Now here is where it gets interesting, the seller DB STURCTURED PRODUCTS INC will then offer the 28 product out through a Pass through RATE which is not of the original note, but of a One Month Libor, if the Asset Product is a pay-option Asset it is offered out on a Rigged Libor. The Banks had control of the Payouts allotted to their investors. The proof is in the audit.

12

1 THE POTENTIAL SOX RECTILES 2 Whereas Section 1107 of the SOX (The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) provides legal protection for those who report situations that may involve securities fraud. It states: Whoever knowingly, with 3 the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the

lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any 4 truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any federal offense, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. Plaintiff’s livelihood has 5 definitely been affected. Plaintiff hereby invokes this now as she believes what she has witnessed may involve an unconsidered securities fraud issue and Plaintiff feels duty bound to bring this 6 issue into light for reasonable questioning. Plaintiff did in fact work as an employee of both

COUNTRYWIDE and through the merger BANK OF AMERICA as well as WELLS FARGO. 7 These agencies are publically traded.

8 Plaintiff Faith Lynn Brashear hereby formally and earnestly request the full legal protection of the

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau including but not limited WHISTLEBLOWER 9 INCENTIVES AND PROTECTION. ``(1) Covered judicial or administrative action.--The term `covered judicial or administrative action' means any judicial or administrative action brought by 10 the Commission under this Act that results in monetary sanctions exceeding $1,000,000. Should they feel this warrant Merit and accept Plaintiffs request, plaintiff will move to strike them from 11 list of defendants. Plaintiff, while on site of this raid, "Clearly" conveyed to the receiver, that per her rights under SOX she was going to blow a whistle. Honorable sirs, if a laymen is quoting and 12 invoking rights under a specific act, in the knowledge that the Consumer Financial Protection Agency has jurisdiction over said act during a RAID would it not be a safe assumption that the 13 laymen actually read and understood the act? Plaintiff was not questioned as to why she would d this or what it pertained to. Further Plaintiff did convey and provide copies of the drafts of the

14 Civil Suit directly to the Attorneys of the CFPA who filed the Ex Parte order with no response. So again the question is, who behalf is this agency exactly protecting? A witness to lender fraud, a

15 witness to consumers being denied loan modifications, a witness to lender abuse to elderly and disabled, certainly could have been of great aid to this agency.

16 Whereas Countrywide representatives approached Plaintiff to sell to the public these very loans 17 that are outlined as Exhibits Summary and attached here within that have with increased margins to the consumer for a higher payout fee to the Plaintiff as an incentive to sell these products to the 18 consumers to help “Front End” the MERS boom explained below. 19 Whereas Sec. 3 SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 (A) ASSET CLASSES.—The regulations prescribed under subsection (b) shall establish asset classes with separate rules for

20 securitizers of different classes of assets, including residential mortgages, commercial mortgages, commercial loans, auto loans, and any other class of assets that the Federal banking agencies and

21 the Commission deem appropriate. (B) CONTENTS.—For each asset class established under subparagraph (A), the regulations prescribed under subsection (b) shall include underwriting

22 standards established by the Federal banking agencies that specify the terms, conditions, and characteristics of a loan within the asset class that indicate a low credit risk with respect to the

23 loan. (C) LIMITATION ON DEFINITION.—The Federal banking agencies, the Commission, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Director of the Federal Housing Finance 24 Agency in defining the term ‘‘qualified residential mortgage’’, as required by subparagraph (B), shall define that term to be no broader than the definition ‘‘qualified mortgage’’ as the term is 25 defined under section 129C(c)(2) [108] of the Truth in Lending Act, as amended by the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, and regulations adopted thereunder. An asset declared in the 26 SEC filing is permanently attached to the corporation and separated out to shareholders, thereby completely dissolving the note in its entirety. Should this “Asset” get passed through again, or 27 another bank attempts to securitized and pass through the “Asset” again, IT COMMITS SECURITIES FRAUD. But in the cases of the Banks, a refinance is considered a new note with 28 new terms. HOWEVER… In cases of EXTREME MEANING the following can be considered.

13

1 Whereas when qualifying a candidate for a loan, programs are offered out at different rates for the product they are under. For example a fixed rate at par pricing (meaning there are no costs or 2 rebates for the pricing offered) is at 3.5%, there are options to buy down the rate for points, for example 1 point pays the interest rate down to 3.25%. There are also options to rebate off a higher 3 rate, for example a 3.75% interest would give back a rebate of 1%. This is known as a yield spread premium. The brokers would then have the option of paying the buyers costs with these yield 4 spreads or taking to premium. Arm Products are offered in much of the same way, only they are broken apart to different indexes, IE COFI (Cost of Funds Index) MTA usually 12 month 5 (Treasury Average Index) LIBOR (London Interbank offered Rate) 1 month, 3 month 6 month 12 month, meaning what the average and adjustment periods on these index’s were tied to. These 6 offerings worked pretty much the same way, you knew the product, you knew the margin, you knew the rate offering. These rates were most often below fix rate offerings. Further Cap rates 7 were placed on the amount an arm product could adjust per a term, so if you have a 12 month product with a 1% cap that means if the index all of the sudden jumped to 5% and you bought a 8 3.5% rate at par, then your rate would adjust no more than 4.5%. Margins were added to these Arms products to increase the capture of the rate when a rate adjusts, so for example those 9 who purchased ARM products with a 2% margins and the index did not adjust, the margin is added to the offered rate, 3.5%+2% = 5.5% there for adjusting the rate to 4.5% because even though the 10 index may not have increased, the margin adjustment allows the lender to recap the rate at a later time, usually in terms of 3 years, 5 years and 7 years down the line. 11 Whereas on a pay option arm, or negative amortization arm you offered a product tied to an index, 12 with the option to modify the offering by making adjustments to the margin for additional profit. The margin is the amount that an arm product can adjust to reach a higher interest rate. So for 13 example if a pay option arm is offered, it has a start rate offering below the rate being offered (usually 1%) . The rate being offered is tied usually to one of the above listed index, so you are 14 essentially taking the interest difference from the reduced payment and adding it to the back of the loan. You are offered a par rate, only this time the brokers are allowed to modify the margin for a 15 rebate (incentive) that is not of the normal offering to other products on the market. So how this works is you buy a rate ie 3.5 and you buy a product (pay option arm), the broker or loan officer 16 chooses a margin based upon what they want to make. The majority of these products offered an automatic 1% rebate up front, and up to 2% more for raising the margin higher, up to potentially 17 3% on the margin. So at the time of the note, you are signing an Adjustable Rate Rider “Exhibit C” that reflects both the interest rate plus the margin, which is not the true rate being 18 offered out or properly disclosed. 19 Whereas you cannot claim the same asset or an asset deriving from and absorbing the original “Asset” (switch out) to the same company who already has this “Asset” registered previously in 20 its Entity, with the same loan program attached to the same index with the same underwriting standards, with the same collateralization with the only difference being the loan amount and 21 minor adjustments that are included from tacked on under disclosed fees for the privilege of paying off the note to avoid a rate adjustment and further incentivize a hidden margin in a note based in 22 Securities Fraud to do so for the purpose of enable perpetuating illegal activities on a rigged Libor Index to control greater gains to the banks. This is not a new note, it is a extension of the same 23 program with similar terms and similar conditions on an unqualified mortgage, with TIL & Respa violations upon their inception being offered out on a 1 month Libor THAT IS RIGGED. Because 24 the consumer cannot meet any other underwriting criteria of another Asset Class. 25 Whereas Since the enclosed documentation clearly shows collaboration of the banks with the potential collaboration of the FDIC, why would it not be entertained that on a wink and a nod that 26 these Fixed Asset Classes would not jump from Trust to Trust. After all, a rigged Libor with mimicking Assets specifically designed to absorb the same product gives OPPORTUNITY for 27 better gains and higher equity capture. 28

14

1 Whereas self employed borrowers rely on cash flow as income, but are qualified on traditional loans with their business debts reducing their actual income, or cash flow, making it difficult to 2 near impossible to qualify on a normal loan under traditional underwriting guidelines, not that they cannot afford the payments, but cannot show that with their business expenses that are needed to 3 keep their business running that they meet the cookie cutter guidelines of a Traditional loan. Many self employed borrowers turned to Stated income loans to help offset these ratio issues. Stating 4 income in itself is not committing fraud, it is stating gross income, without the need for adding the business expenses to skew the ratios out of proportion to enable a self employed client to qualify. 5 Many brokers stepped beyond common sense on these loans to gain profit. Plaintiff does not believe she knowingly acted in this manner as she did her best to convey understanding as she is 6 doing here today. 7 WHAT THE BANKS DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW 8 Whereas on the enclosed Adjustable rate rider from the refinance, you can see that in a market 9 where offerings were around 6%– 7% with 1% margin at par on an MTA index, was written as an 8.375% rate which also through the forensics audit showed an undisclosed difference of 1.489 10 margin meaning the terms were breached up front, from the agreement understood. This was the same ARM product refinance from the previous ARM 6%– 7% with 1% margin at par on an index 11 upon the adjustment period to the higher interest rate, above market rates and offered out at lower performing rates to the investors. Further while it makes reference to the margin in calculating the 12 interest rate, NO WHERE under the Adjustable rate rider does it outline what EXACTLY a margin is. The rider explains the Interest, it explains the Index and the calculation of the interest rate, but 13 nowhere in the rider is it disclosed to the consumer what a MARGIN actually is and nowhere is it disclosed exactly what that yield spread premium is ACTUALLY paid for. Thereby further 14 concealing the incentives offered out to raise the margins that altered the product offering that increased the payments through equity capture to the banks. THIS IS PROOF IN EXHIBITS 15 AND IN TESTIMONY. 16 Whereas it could be better argued for the SEC definitions, that a new Asset is created by a new note if the terms and conditions are different if this was an Arm to a Fixed, or a Neg Arm to an 17 Arm this argument would have less standing and unanimously agreed upon that the note was paid off and a new note was created there by creating a new Asset, that is not the case here. The fact 18 remains that in cases where the refinance mimics the original note in its terms and conditions, and the intent of the refinanced note is to absorb the original note (or Asset) by duplicating the same 19 program perimeters to perpetuate activities in fraud (under disclosing or non disclosure to offer out on a rigged Libor index), It is simply is not actually creating anything new except a deeper debt 20 attached to the original collateral. A new note on the same property that mimics the original note does not create a new asset. It simply is a new form of the SAME ASSET switched out again 21 turned into a SPVs to avoid double taxation. It lists the address on the Note as a part of the “ASSET”, with no other alternative offerable. 22 Whereas any negative am product is in direct violation of 129C(c)(2) [108] of the Truth in Lending 23 Act Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Which under ‘‘(k) PROHIBITION ON STEERING INCENTIVES of this act—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For any consumer credit transaction secured by 24 real property or a dwelling, no loan originator shall receive from any person and no person shall pay to a loan originator, directly or indirectly, compensation that varies based on the terms of the 25 loan (other than the amount of the principal). A margin is technically not defined as a term of the loan, it is only referenced as a calculation added as an adjustment to the loans offering to allow for 26 higher rates to ensue. You cannot enforce a contract that does not have CLEAR TERMS AND CLEAR CONDITIONS so In general this rule applies. The banking industry Steered brokers to 27 increase margins by offering incentives to increase margins not properly defined on any Negative Arm transaction in its TERMS. This is about as grey as grey gets on this technicality with regards 28 to the payoff, the merit lays in the inability of the consumer to choose or qualify for a different "Asset Class". Regardless by the incentivizing increase margins without disclosure or definition to cont…

15

1 the terms on the ADJUSTABLE RATE RIDER other than a reference to a calculation is a violation of this very act. When these notes adjust to above market rates it forces a restructure to 2 the same product because the consumer could not qualify traditionally and pushes the same product on the same asset. This is what allows the concept of this collaborated “Switch out” to 3 stand AND SECURITIES FRAUD be fully acknowledged. 4 Whereas by these lending institutions offering out additional incentives to Brokers to increase the Margins attached to these negative Amortization loans for greater financial gain, further 5 perpetuating “Under-disclosed finance charges” after taking profit on the Switched out asset from the original “Un-Qualified asset” as outlined on the attached Forensic Audit clearly showing Respa 6 and Til Violations and offerings under a Rigged index, where at the time of the rate adjustment perpetuated a need for refinancing the “Asset” to create the “illusion” of a new “Asset” to a similar 7 structured instrument that encompasses and MIMICS the original note with similar terms and similar conditions of the original note with no other alternatives is in fact “Switching the Asset”, it 8 is a DIRECT violation of this act PERIOD and commits Securities Fraud PERIOD. You do not need New York for this, Plaintiff is handing this to you as testimony in this Civil Filing on a silver 9 platter with enclosed evidence. 10 Whereas Plaintiff , who sold herself these loans and refinanced herself these loans in addition to offering these loans to the public, was not aware of the under laying intent to do harm to the 11 American consumer by these incentivized loans until years later. These actions by the bank were premeditated to set the consumer up to fail and to be able to sell these loans upon their default to 12 not only collect the equity in the home from negative amortization on higher margins, but to follow the process of wrongful foreclosures in order to profit at the expense of the Public by the use of 13 Mortgage Brokers to distribute these incentivized loans across America to enable them to follow these same tactics for further profit during the market boom and events outlined further below. 14 Whereas Countrywide breached fiduciary relationships with mortgage brokers in the willful 15 promotion of loan programs with the premeditated intent to withhold proper and necessary disclosures to the brokers they used to present these loans and to the consumers they harmed by 16 these loans as evidenced in the enclosed audit and through every Neg Am loan processed between 2002-2010 ever brought to a forensic auditor for review securitized by MERS. 17 Whereas SEC charged Citigroup's principal U.S. broker-dealer subsidiary with misleading 18 investors about a $1 billion CDO (Collateralized debt obligations) tied to the housing market in which Citigroup bet against investors as the housing market showed signs of distress. The 19 proposed settlement, a payment of $285 million by Citigroup that would be returned to harmed investors. (10/19/11). SEC charged the firm with misleading investors in a complex mortgage 20 securities transaction just as the housing market was starting to plummet. J.P. Morgan agreed to pay $153.6 million in a settlement to harmed investors. (6/21/11). SEC charged the firm with 21 misconduct in the sale of two CDOs tied to the performance of residential mortgage-backed securities as the housing market was beginning to show signs of distress. Firm settled charges by 22 paying more than $11 million, mostly to harmed investors. (4/5/11) SEC charged Wells Fargo's brokerage firm and a former vice president for selling investments tied to mortgage-backed 23 securities without fully understanding their complexity or disclosing the risks to investors. Wells Fargo agreed to pay more than $6.5 million to settle the charges. (8/14/12). 24 Whereas Bank of America breached fiduciary relationships as they had no true intent of actually 25 cooperating in a short sale, and conveyed to Equator via verbal confirmation on a recorded message by an Equator representative that the foreclosure proceedings to the property had been 26 placed on hold by Bank of America, when in fact Bank of America continued to instruct Recon Trust to wrongfully foreclose on this above mentioned property, via a confirmation directly by the 27 Plaintiff to a Recon Trust Representative after receiving the “on hold” message from Equator. This is being continually evidenced in though their contempt of Federal Bankruptcy Court 28 automatic stay, by continuing to set foreclosure sales dates month after month “Banking” on the dismissal of the forced Chapter 13 filings automatic stay in place in order to “Profit” at the expense of the Plaintiff. This is willful and deliberate attempts to do harm. “Exhibit G”

16

1 Whereas Bank of America has not shown proof of their ability to in fact collect or enforce note under UCC § 9-301, the party enforcing the note must demonstrate that it has the position of the 2 Holder in Due Course or having the authority from the Holder. Courts have already ruled against MERS having the authority to appoint Trustees and assign Deeds of Trust/Mortgages unless it is 3 officially registered at the County Hall of Records. 4 THE TRUTH RECITALS 5 Whereas upon prima facia review Bank of America is acting sua sponte to initiate a foreclosure. Through RECON TRUST Company by further requesting HSBC to file documentation on their 6 behalf, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America which is not an arms-length 3rd party neutral entity. This is further collaboration with the intent to do harm with the only interest here is 7 to profit off the Plaintiff by positioning the loan in which they Purchased at a substantial discount back from REMIC to collect insurance through the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) 8 by trying to enforce a wrongful foreclosure by a subsidiary of their own making on a bifurcated note that committed securities fraud. 9 Whereas Recon Trust is not registered under the California State business registry. CA 10 Foreclosure Law - Civil Code 2924 in order to be named as a trustee in a foreclosure you must be registered to do business in the state of California. There are over 18,000 foreclosures taking 11 placed by Recon Trust whom is not registeredto do business. 12 Whereas The case of Washington v. ReconTrust Co., 11-26867-5, Superior Court, King County Washington (Seattle). Recon Trust is banned from the State of Washington for the very same 13 reasons listed within these Recitals. They withheld the pass through to HSBC to Plaintiff, they are not an arms length to Bank of America, they are not registered to do business in the State of 14 California and are in violation of the very same case, won by WA’s Attorney General. How can our California Attorney General not see this? WA’s AG won fines for $2000 per each offense, that 15 is $36,000,000 to the State of California just waiting there. Is there a reason the hardest hit State in our nation would not want these funds? Plus these same offenses are happening with other 16 banking institutions that created their own foreclosure subsidiaries. California need jobs, builders need permits, self employed need help to establish new business what is holding this back? 17 Whereas under U.C.C.- ARTICLE 3§3-301.Under Title 12§226.39 (reg Z) part (a), a servicer 18 doesn't have the rights of a holder in due course therefore doesn't have the right to foreclose.” 19 THE WHOLE TRUTH RECITALS 20 Whereas the securitization, undisclosed excessive Til and RESPA violations exceeding the actual 21 value of the home, the pass-through, and buy-outs creating Breach and Bifurcation along with State violations Securities and Exchange violations and Federal violations in contempt of Federal 22 Bankruptcy rules of Automatic Stay, create a broken disintegrated and defective PAID Instrument, hereby invalidating any actual Secured holding on the property located at XXXXXXXXXXX 23 XXXXXXXXX through securitization fraud of this loan has fraud and breach of contract under the terms and conditions set forth therein. In fact turning this loan into an unsecure 24 uncollectible, settled debt with clouded title used for fraudulent gain from inside traders to outside investors, and Bank of America into a glorified debt collector who bought a bad debt with the use 25 of Government Funding and is now using the Attorney General as a debt collector under the illusion of “settlement” on their behalf through the National Mortgage Settlement Act. 26 Whereas A note that has been securitized through MERS and transferred into a REMIC as a 27 Mortgage backed security (MBS) traded on Wall Street, must follow the Regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commissioners, not just the Uniform Commercial Codes. Meaning 28 securitized loans dissolved the majority of UCC regulations and these “notes” must be ruled in accordance to the SEC guidelines with the UCC best interest at hand. Meaning, that courts can allow these guidelines in their adjudications to protect their jurisdiction.

17

1 Whereas a valid note is an instrument that clearly outlines the terms and conditions of that note. Fees that incur that do not follow a note, ie attorney fees for loans in default do not follow the note, 2 therefore are not a part of the note. Undisclosed fees is withholding a material fact to the note itself and does not “clearly” define the terms and condition’s of that note. It is a leading questions 3 when judges ask “Did you sign a note” because this makes the assumptions that all notes are the same. The notes that were offered as ARMS or Option Arms with the intent to “inside trade” on a 4 Libor Product, were based in deceit with BREACH UPON INCEPTION. These notes have no more worth than a signature on a piece of blank paper or a blank endorsement. A note based in 5 misleading information to induce you to sign an interest in a property under false pretense is Illegal. Playing off greed to perpetuate greed is of a criminal mind, and misleading the public for 6 relief by the legally signed assurance of restructure as a master servicer while the lower level servicer attempts wrongful foreclosure through contempt of court TO PUSH AN EXPERT 7 VOLUNEEER FEDERAL WITNESS OUT OF THE WAY, is called - COVERUP. 8 Whereas the DEFENDANTS, with the possible exception of the FDIC, the exception of the IRS and the exception of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, had Motive, Opportunity, and the 9 Means to execute and commit these frauds at a criminal level. 10 Whereas under the laws of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (USC Title 15 Section 1692) A debt collector is someone who (is not the original creditor) who buys a debt that has been offset. 11 Purchasing a debt after it has been declared it a loss. Once a debt has been written of, it is discharged. This note has been settled, the true parties of interest (the shareholders) have been 12 paid. Further Bifurcation of the note dissolved the note rendering it uncollectible, unenforceable and defective. Further MERS was shut down by the State of California, making this ‘Voidable”. 13 Plaintiff here within further proves the added fraud surrounding this note makes this note and the notes surrounding it in fact VOID. Further, Plaintiff discharged these notes under Federal 14 Bankruptcy Chapter 7 laws, under these actions and acts, it can never be collected again. 15 Whereas on the voice recordings of Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Ally/GMAC, JP Morgan Chase, Citi who are the biggest participants in these “transfers” it has been FEDERALLY

16 mandated that they disclose to the American Public that they are in fact a DEBT COLLECTOR. Which means that the Federal Government is FULLY aware of this precise situation and know 17 EXACTLY what has happened in the Financial Debacle. Further that the recent “National Mortgage Settlement” agreement with these agencies are nothing more than an effort to collect 18 additional funds under the ruse of a settlement for these loans based in fraud, while still continuing foreclosure efforts across the nation for those who “don’t” apply or “Don’t Qualify”, further 19 enabling these activities for future generations. The fact that they are continuing to cover up this

fraud perpetuates Fraud constitutes continued fraud. Sirs, plaintiff was unable to come forward in 20 these truths any sooner because Plaintiffs well being was in danger, her husband was fighting what

was deemed an inoperable cancer and she knew she could not bring a suit until the banks further 21 exposed themselves in the continuance of these fraudulent actions to allow the suit to stand for full consideration for all the frauds throughout this transaction. With the highly questionable 22 circumstances that are surrounding Plaintiff, this should show the courts that Plaintiff is without doubt being denied civil liberties.Whereas Plaintiff spoke directly to a foreclosure department 23 representative whom informed Plaintiff that Bank of America was in the process of hiring 25 more

people in their foreclosure department in anticipation of a foreclosure frenzy in January/February. 24

Whereas Plaintiffs new wrongful foreclosure sales date is 1/25/13. Plaintiff received a call 25 moments before the RAID from the US Secretary of State in an effort to attempt to “Settle”

Plaintiffs debt as a part of this relief on the Banks behalf out of the blue. Plaintiff informed the 26 representative that she was going to be filing this suit. The timing of this action Plaintiff is

questionable, the fact remains that the banks have now turned the US Secretary of State into a debt 27 collector on their behalves for notes they cannot legally collect on, on troubled assets that have

been paid, by the Government to “qualified” applicants meaning people who have MERS or 28 electronically transferred notes with possibly a few true hardships thrown in for good PR in the

name of “Justice”. Plaintiff is at least grateful this settlement does not waive consumer’s rights to cont…

18

1 litigation, and recognizes that the majority of homeowners just want to restructure and move on, in that respect Plaintiff admires the efforts made on behalf of the US Attorney General to try and

2 handle the mess dealt to her. 3 THE NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH RECITALS

4 Whereas any bank, acting as a servicer who tries to enforce security interest on a property from a note that has been bifurcated, dissolved, breached, and resold back to the acting servicer is in fact 5 acting in fraud to re-attach an unenforceable, voidable, dysfunctional, rescindable, void, instrument as a debt collector pretending to be a “party of interest” to the original transaction. 6 Whereas Bank of America is profiting at the expense of the innocents by violating their 4th amendment rights using sheriffs to evict homeowners via wrongful foreclosure actions across the 7 states, and forcing wrongful evictions of rightful homeowners through the use of their subsidiary Recon Trust as an accessary. A Debt Collector, A Servicer who bought a bad debt with 8 government issued funding, is not a party of interest and CANNOT legally FORECLOSE on any home, PERIOD. 9 10 THE HISTORY BEHIND THE “RACKET” 11 After the last Depression, Congress enacted a law, Glass-Steagall, which forbid banks, insurance companies, and investment houses to be in the same institution, to deter reckless speculation with 12 depositors' money, which was seen as a major contributor to the stock market instability of the time. Then in 1999, at the height of the "Deregulation" phase, Citigroup and Travelers merged, a 13 clear violation of Glass-Steagall. But rather than enforce the law, Congress repealed the sections of Glass-Steagall that prohibited insured banks from being affiliated with firms that engaged in 14 underwriting and dealing in securities, with the passage of the 1999 Financial Services Act. 15 This action opened the floodgates for runaway financial speculation. Wall Street was fully aware of the profit potential they were also aware that if their investments lost money, the US 16 Government would step in to offset the losses, which they in fact have done through IRS tax credits and TARP funding. The act of giving AAA ratings to subprime or high risk bifurcated non- 17 performing “Assets” in order to position these assets to collect Insurance funds through the FDIC is not only profiting at the expense of others, it has set the nations deficit further in the rears. 18 Starting about in 2005, Wall Street started bundling mortgages together into investment Bundles. So great was the demand for Mortgage-backed Securities (MBS, also called Collateralized Debt 19 Obligations) that Wall Street started running out of mortgages to front-load the System. This led to the creation of the "sub-prime" mortgage; granting mortgages to people who normally would not 20 qualify. 21 Congress, themselves invested in the Wall Street firms that were profiting from selling MBS, passed an $8000 first-time homebuyer tax credit (actually a loan repaid in future taxes) to lure 22 more buyers in which helped front-load the process even faster. This sudden surge in new homebuyers increased demand pushing inflated values on properties nationwide. With an opening 23 to more loans available this generated opportunities for lower level criminals to engage in lending fraud in order to ride this equity wave, which is what happened within this home’s community, 24 surrounding areas and nationwide. Meaning the banking industry along with our nations Congress enabled these activities by conducting unethical activities that perpetuated illegal activities to begin 25 with in removing these safeguards put in place to protect the innocents. These actions exposed innocents to criminals, enabled criminals into communities of innocents for the purpose and 26 intent to further inflate the values of homes and walk away with the profits. In other words, by the Governments actions to remove governing safeguards, it created a bubble. In the continuance of 27 these actions by both the Congress, the Banks and now the lower level Criminals, it allowed people to think they had equity, and who drew from this “false equity” under “false pretense”. As the 28 Plaintiff too fell under this illusion of false equity during this market boom and was abused for it. cont…

19

1 Then TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) came into being as a program of the US Government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions with the intent to strengthen its financial 2 sector signed into law by George W. Bush on October 3,2008 to address the Subprime mortgage crisis. TARP now gave the banks MEANS. 3 EXPOSING THE TRUTH RECTILES 4 Whereas Plaintiffs conversations with Special IRS Agent assigned to this investigation conveyed 5 the scope, not the details, of these Criminal pump and dump communities across the Nation to Plaintiff and Plaintiff conveyed the perception of a deeper threat to this Agent. The words used to 6 describe the above community and the Plaintiffs situation by this Agent was “Talk about being in the Lions Den.” This is an ongoing criminal investigation that contains classified information. 7 Whereas the Plaintiff was forced to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy as the criminals under this 8 investigation were suspect to the identity theft incurred by Plaintiff. Further Plaintiff was not allowed the issuance of new social security cards for her and her family and is still being denied 9 this, as this investigation is considered “on-going”. Further restricting Plaintiffs liberties. 10 Whereas Plaintiff has personally witnessed a multitude of qualified, eligible candidates under HAMP, MAKING HOMES AFFORDABLE, NACA and other home save efforts though these 11 programs denied by a multitude of banking industries in order to continue these wrongful foreclosures at the expense of others. Plaintiff was also denied restructure on the above listed 12 property as it was not her primary residence, and further forced out of her Washington Home going through NACA as the bank continuously misplaced, lost or shredded her mortgage repayment 13 checks. The direct comment by the representative at Sun Trust Mortgage, was she didn’t care she was going to get her insurance money from the foreclosure anyway. Who also suffered at the 14 hands of lender fraud on the purchase of a home that was destroyed by storms declared Federal

State of Emergencies and who was denied restructure under Chapter 11 from a judgment call by 15 the trustee who felt that since Plaintiffs husband was deemed

inoperable for a Cancerous tumor that Plaintiff should consider waiting until her circumstances had 16 settled. Shortly there after Plaintiff received a bill for over $5000 from the Washington

Bankruptcy Courts. This included a $4500 fee for a property that was sold during the Bankruptcy 17 that was not in Plaintiffs name, when Plaintiff complained, the bankruptcy was dismissed. This fee

was later deducted from Plaintiffs tax returns. Plaintiffs husband is in full remission. 18 Whereas once a loan goes into default it is sold back to the banks at a discount to the servicer (the 19 Bank), as the Mortgage Securitized Asset is not performing. 20 Whereas in todays market, these allowable Modifications or these non performing Assets are Allowed on a limited basis to revise the Asset to a “performing” status. Once an Asset is 21 performing it is transferable to other banking institutions. 22 Whereas Plaintiff has witness the transfer of modified “Performing Assets” under the “Protection” of these programs to other banks who do not honor or recognize these Modifications as the original 23 terms and conditions of the modified instrument. 24 Whereas Plaintiff has witnessed these transferred or modified assets are immediately issued denial letters, for purpose of positioning the now “non-performing” asset for collection of the FDIC 25 insurance re-imbursement. 26 Whereas J.P. Morgan Chase is under a criminal probe by the U.S. Department of Justice related to billions in trading losses on insured deposits in the FDIC insured part of the bank (the London 27 Whale mess); it is under investigation in both Canada and the U.S. for potential involvement in the rigging of the global interest rate benchmark known as Libor; and a Federal regulator that 28 oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, has sued JPMorgan

20

1 Whereas the definition of Extreme Meaning – The utmost limit or degree that is supposable or tolerable, hence furthest degree, any undue departure from the meaning. 2 Whereas any loan or note that was attached to a RIGGED Libor index was based in 3 PREMEDITATED fraud where it is impossible to know what the actual terms and conditions were actually based upon, and Departed from the Meaning of the integrity of the Note, the same is true 4 for the same “Asset Grouping” for the same product for the purpose to re-attaching it to a Rigged index. Further undisclosed charges, securitizations, Switching out the assets via refinancing and 5 re-securitizing, raising the rates above the disclosed interest rate forcing the consumer to act under pressure to refinance, placing blank endorsements to the note, and adding additional penalties ie 6 attorney fees and penalties on the back end of modifications on these loans, falls into all of the categories for Securities Fraud listed above rendering all Libor attached loans and all duplicated 7 Mers transferred negative amortization loans unenforceable, thereby Null and Void and all other loans voidable. How can you possibly enforce a note based upon a rigged index or one that has 8 undefined, under disclosed, incentivized terms? How can the bank, who used our tax dollars via TARP funds claim they even own these notes, when it is in fact the consumers tax dollars that paid 9 for the privilege of this bail out, so that the banks could further perpetuate their activities and misuse these funds for their intended purpose. 10 11 THE TRUTH THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH 12 Whereas, Plaintiff is sorry, but she is not the only one who thinks this, she is simply they only one with enough hootspa to actually come forward and outright say it in a court of law by using the 13 definition itself. So with the utmost respect your honor… Traditionally, the word racket is used to describe a business (or syndicate) that is based on the example of the protection racket and 14 indicates a belief that it is engaged in the sale of a solution to a problem that the institution itself creates or perpetuates, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage for profit or gain. 15 Whereas by the very definition of what has been witnessed by this plaintiff, this is no longer 16 capitalism, this, in the Plaintiffs Professional Business Opinion, is a form of racketeering, where the banks have been paid and continued to be paid either through extortion tactics (Pay arrears or 17 we foreclose), cover-up tactics (loan modifications with balloon payments or deferred loans on the tail end to set the client up for the banks future payouts through transfers to other banks that do not 18 honor the modifications) compromising restructures (Show of good faith while continuing to harm others to placate government officials and the masses). Wrongful foreclosures for profit though 19 non registered subsidiaries (MERS pass throughs and FDIC insurance payouts) evicting the homeowners by Sherriff force if they cannot pay up (Violation of the 4th Amendment) in order to 20 sell the home for additional profit at the expense of the homeowner (FDIC insurance recapture for 70%-80% plus the liquidation of the collateral), and provide new loans for more people, to 21 perpetuate this activity. Meanwhile taking a rigged profit from the people under their "protection" (people who are paying their mortgages in good faith) and pocking the returns from unsuspecting 22 investors for additional gain under the false pretense of a AAA “Asset” is clearly defined (A pattern of illegal activity carried out as part of an enterprise that is owned or controlled by those 23 who are engaged in the illegal activity otherwise traditionally known as Racketeering.) All done with the governments awareness and blessing by the removal of safeguards to ensure that the great 24 depression would never happen again to the generations that followed. (Misuse of Government authority in the pursuit of profit) and a Violation of not only the Plaintiffs 5th Amendment rights 25 (Depriving of liberty and property) but of homeowners across this great nation. This is exactly why the banks cannot be allowed to govern themselves. Free enterprise comes at a price. This is 26 loan sharking of a whole new nature, predatory actions to extort funds and inside trading at the expense of others. This shark is not about higher interest rates, this shark is about higher 27 “Foreclosure and Capture” through ILLEGAL foreclosures, controlling profits to our foreign investors and insurance fraud to our own Government 28

21

1 Whereas Plaintiff has witnessed this lenders abuse first hand, and through conversations with families such as Elderly who have lost their spouse, families with children and pets thrown out 2 onto the streets. Disabled Veterans who fought for our country who grew up in the very homes they are being thrown out of. Men and Woman who have FOUGHT for our nation with their hearts 3 and their souls, being damaged at the mercy of these Banks who are preying on the weak and defenseless who cannot afford simply luxuries, like transportation, clean clothing, computers, or 4 putting decent food on their tables for their children, things that most take for granted. BECAUSE they are TRAPPED within these mortgages. One of the phrases I have heard over and over again, 5 both directly and through others are these words that the banks pass along to the consumer. "We cannot help you unless you are in default" . The banks love it when you are in default, because 6 they are a member FDIC. Defiance is human nature, 9 out of 10 will default so that they can get the help the banks are promising them only to be kicked out on the street when the bank decline 7 this help. This Plaintiff has heard the cries from the pain and suffering inflicted upon these people by DEFENDANTS, and other banking institutions first hand for over the last several years at the 8 hands of these DEFENDENTS and by the Government that enabled them. The pain and suffering from these emotional and physical hardships is beyond words. It is worse than dying, these 9 DEFENDANTS have killed the hopes dreams and trust of those they inflicted with their lender abuse, their premeditated and perpetual activities, and their profit at the expense of both our 10 Nation's people and our government. They have stolen more than their homes, they have stolen their pride and in some cases, their will. 11 Whereas Cases across America include the Federal Government suing Deutsch Bank, Federal 12 Government suing Countrywide, The New York Appelate Court says MERS cannot foreclose as does Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Kansas, California, Idaho, and Michigan Supreme Courts 13 have all ruled in some form or another against MERS and their rights to foreclose. Arizona Mayoral Candidate seizes homes from Freddie and Fannie fraudulent foreclosures, Taylor Been & 14 Whittaker CEO sentenced to 30 years in prison for Securities fraud, Homeowner beats Bank of America in small claims court, and so on and so on… and while Plaintiff could go on for pages, 15 she grows tired of this mess, it is time for the truth to be fully known. Let the people decide if they want to settle. From the many Plaintiff has personally spoken with, this is really all they 16 want. They should have the “REAL” choice, not force it under threat of foreclosure or false pretense of urgency to act. 17 Whereas the Federal Housing Finance Agency, accused Bank of America and more than a dozen 18 other large lenders of selling bad mortgage securities to government-sponsored housing companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 19 Whereas Deutsch Alt-A Securities Mortage Loan Trust (Issuing Entity), Series 2006-OA1 v. DB 20 Structured Products Inc (The Sponsor) Sued for Diversity-Breach of Contract in their under disclosures. 21 Where as an Assurance was signed by the Office of the Attorney General on behalf of the People 22 of California Approved and consented by Michael J Heid which sets forth a framework though which Wells Fargo (The Securities Administer and Master Servicer) would offer distressed Pick-a- 23 payment mortgage loan borrowers affordable loan modifications that include a significant principle forgiveness. No such arrangement was ever offered to Plaintiff. 24 THE HIDDEN AGENDA RECITALS 25 Whereas Bottom line, the majority of these DEFENDANTS stand to profit 1.2-1.4 if it forecloses on top of what it has already been paid on this note, and a resell on the open market would yield 26 them an additional 600k. This is a profit of $2 million dollars in one transaction on a note they are not a true party of interest, and use tax payers money to acquire, on an asset only worth 30% of 27 this. This is a 333% return on their “investment” of our tax payers funds, for the privilege of enacting a wrongful foreclosure in contempt of Federal Bankruptcy Court through their own 28 internal subsidiarity (not licensed by the state) acting as an accessary to do so, thus by their own aggressive actions, demonstrating MOTIVE in action. IT IS the Plaintiff belief that the Banks cont…

22

1 who are “cooperating” in their settlement modifications have no intention of allowing “qualified” candidates with higher loans on lower values allowed to “Settle” through these modifications, and 2 request proper monitoring by the US Department of Justice in these “forgiveness” actions until proper safeguards can be restored. The highest “settlement” Plaintiff has seen has only been 3 roughly $200,000 on a modification with forgeries discovered in an audit. 4 Whereas if you take aside the fraud, the under disclosed charges, the bifurcations, questionable endorsements and the breaches, and look at just the sale back to the servicer at a discount, the use 5 of Tarp funding, the discharge of the debts Federally by Plaintiff and by Indymac, it can be agreed by common sense that the equitable scales are in balance prior to any foreclosure action. 6 Even through the technicality of the Tarp funds, the banks have acquired “Something for Nothing” in the use of these funds in their acquisitions. By attempting to foreclose on the property, any

7 property after these series of events, then to acquire additional insurance funds and to sell the property for additional gain at the expense of others is the very definition of Unjust Enrichment

8 “A cause of action in equity to prevent one party from gaining an unfair advantage (unjust enrichment) at the expense of another party without some reasonable benefit being returned.”

9 There is no reasonable benefit to Plaintiff for the potential loss of her property for the Defendants gain of over $2,000,000 on a property only worth 1/3 of this on a debt that never

10 existed in value or equity out the gate. This is common sense old school principles in law, the scales must balance in equity.

11 PLAINTIFFS PRAYER FOR WORLD PEACE 12 Plaintiff does understand that the courts don't do that kind of thing in here, however In the Plaintiffs professional opinion it must be so noted, the only way to resolve this crisis is to 13 Restructure these Asset-based Mortgages in a Nation wide relief through the oversight and protection of the United StatesDepartment of Justice in joint effort with the Consumer Financial 14 Protection Bureau for the Citizens who were most affected by these actions above and beyond the current settlement. That these settlements must be PERMINANT NON TRANSFERABLE 15 RESTRUCTURES and note Loan modifications. TARP funds have failed us by the mis-use and abuse of the lending industry, thus is a point within the CPA revised 2010 act that refers to no 16 more Bail outs. Modifications are only a ruse to allow continued abuse by the lending institution until they can sell off these “performing” assets to other banks who do not honor the agreements. 17 While Plaintiff appreciates the refinancing option at a reduced principle to non- delinquent homeowners under the National Mortgage Settlement act, The US Attorney General should not be 18 used as a debt collector to further perpetuate these activities by allowing loan modifications to continue at any level. The Settlement makes references from the participating banks to encourage 19 other banks to join in. So why would they want to do this? It is Plaintiffs belief that these banks wish to not only transfer these “Settled notes” to other banks at a later time who do not have to 20 honor these modified notes, but that they wish for the other banks to “Play Ball” with them to capture insurance payouts. The more banks to collaborate with, the more money to be made at the 21 expense of others. The term “Banksters of America” is now being used by many foreclosure defense websites, foreign investors and home save advocacy sites in light of these unfolded events. 22 Government regulated foreclosure agencies need to be put into place and a “Restructure Asset 23 Mortgages (RAM)” relief act is needed to heal the crimes inflicted upon this nation at this nation’s expense. It would help resolve the issues amicably with the banks and with the foreign investors 24 across seas by re-installing confidence in our Governments ability to resolve this situation as opposed to just handling it. This along with the implementation new safeguards to prevent this 25 disaster for future generations should bring final healing to this crisis. Settlement, is not Relief. 26 In Plaintiffs opinion by creating brand new, non-transferable notes based upon the consumers current qualification eligibility through traditional underwriting approaches in addition to the 27 reduction of the value of the home by a Government approved appraiser on a price opinion of the home involved with the troubled Asset Mortgage notes, would completely resolve these issues and 28 re-install confidence in our foreign investors as a sign of good faith BY re-underwriting to a new Asset Classification under the Securities and Exchange Commission called RAM Assets offered at cont…

23

1 fixed returns and not fluctuating returns, further the FDIC could still grant issuance of insurance as the troubled Asset would in fact be under government seizure and internally foreclose without 2 eviction with the permission of the homeowner and filed concurrently with the implementation of the Restructured note. Further for those who filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy, or who had a “Switch 3 out” of their “Asset” or an incentivized margin replacement, and those who were attached to the Rigged Libor in any capacity and whom suffered lender abuse, then the settlement should be what 4 is already is. The debt was discharged Federally and the home is theirs. A Debt collector has no right to collect on a discharged debt. If the bank foreclosed, then they need to re-instate or replace 5 the home at equal or lesser value of the amount of the original note originally issued. Unless any additional damage was done above and beyond these issues, then this will constitute a RELIEF 6 without further recourse. Not just a $250 to not prosecute to have further recourse currently being witnessed as the current Bank policy in our Judicial states.where the Laymen is put on trial. These 7 hush money court ordered modifications under “AMMENDMENT A” need to end as the laymen is baited into a a “trial modification”offer in which the bank can the place any “modification” they 8 deem fit after the consumer signs it. This witnessed event is one where they actually foreclosed and had to re-instate the loan to “correct”their “errors”. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 9 now has this case. This layman has no defense or protection, CFPB please step up and do your diligence, the Devil is in the details not the net you blindly cast because of what you have been 10 taught to see. See what is in front of you now. There is wisdom behind the eyes of these courts for a reason. They will soon understand where my intents truly lie and they will find the right path. 11 Settlement means settlement for all not settlement for some, and certainly not settlement with future lawsuits over the same issue. This is not healing the nation, it is pouring salt on the wounds 12 and burdening these courts with Class action and Tort litigations for years to come. If you want bank’s to pay penance, then let the FDIC insurance funds given to the banks for the people who 13 were wrongfully foreclosed securitized loans who stepped forward be billed back to the banks as an “overpayment” and redirected into the States for future commerce and the promotion of new 14 business and building permits. 15 Put a nationwide ban on law suits deeming them frivolous after this new agreement is reached. Yes they have done us wrong, but when will enough be enough? Admit what was done, and FIX 16 it. Fix means FIX, not run behind the governments back to see what you can get away with next. You are our leaders, our mentors, our hopes and our dreams, not children playing dodge ball in 17 outside the classroom until the principal catches you. GROW UP! You have tracked mud all over the place, its time to clean up. The American People from what the Plaintiff has witnessed have 18 had quite enough and while she cannot speak on their behalf, she can convey their sorrow. RELIEF IS what needed NOW. There is no one who can deny this. 19 THE DAMAGE DONE 20 Whereas Plaintiff’s damage goes beyond these issues as these banks allowed, encouraged, and 21 incentivized the Plaintiff to unknowingly deliver these Rigged instruments to the public blindly, this in fact aided and unknowingly abetting as did every broker across this nation, these 22 premeditated activities further perpetuating the current economic situation that these banks created. Further it enabled criminal activity to ensue by playing on the greed and human nature of others 23 endangering Plaintiffs well being and the well being of Plaintiffs family. By these Federal investigations of Lender Fraud within the Riverside area, Plaintiff was called to act as a volunteer 24 witness, it severely impacted Plaintiffs life, forcing Plaintiff to remove herself from her ability to enjoy quit ownership privileges forcing a relocation for her safety, that severely impacted Plaintiffs 25 liberties. Further, by these wrongful foreclosure actions Bank of America is now attempting to deprive Plaintiff of Plaintiffs property hereby blatantly attempting to violating her 5th Amendment 26 rights. 27 Whereas plaintiff prior to her relocation, had people coming to the above mentioned home in groups begging for help, on their knees, to save their home and refinance their loans. Plaintiff has 28 witnessed eye to eye, the pain and suffering inflicted upon a multitude of people who were affected by these events on many levels, including the innocents being persecuted for the wrongful actions cont..

24

1 of others pursued in the name of justice by being guilty for no other reason than by association in circumstance. Plaintiff is in disgust of these acts and imposed shake downs and has suffered great 2 emotional trauma from these acts of man. Plaintiff did not have the assistance, understanding, or proper training at the time to handle the situation. Plaintiff did reach out to authorities on more 3 than one occasion at that time to no avail. Again further evidenced by the CFPA raid. Plaintiff is still witnessing these wrongful acts being performed across the nation and is done with it. 4 WHEREAS DEFENDANTS cannot deny what has taken place in the biggest mortgage crisis ever 5 to hit our nation or the events in history that brought us to this point, it is posted all over the internet and on the US Department of Justice web site, nor can DEFENDANTS ignore the 6 documented fraud that has taken place on this loan by trying to brush this Plaintiff out of the way through wrongful foreclosure actions. THIS IS A VOILATION OF PLAINTIFFS CIVIL 7 RIGHTS. Turn your pointing fingers inward, we are all to blame at some level for what has taken place in our Nations history knowingly or not. A Person is not defined by circumstance, it is within 8 their actions that define who they are. 9 NOW THEREFORE 10 Plaintiff invoke this Civil request via her rights of due process, the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person and not the Banks. Plaintiff further 11 invokes this Civil request under US Code TITLE 15 CHAPTER 41 SUBCHAPTER V § 1692g part b and hereby formally declare under a court of law, that this debt is being challenged and is 12 not only formally in dispute through this court, but the Attorney General and the CA Monitor for the National Mortgage Settlement care as a call to action to act on behalf of the American People 13 within her State of Jurisdiction from the Whistle blown in this Filing. In this moment of history it should not be the burden of the layman to prove that the banks cannot foreclose on their homes as 14 innocents effected by the current state of affairs. The burden should be on the Banks and the Government to prove that they have the legal right through ARM’s Length Government agencies 15 to actually foreclose on a home until this mess can be sorted out and those safeguards can be re- instated in a stronger capacity. 16 This Civil filing is a heartfelt prayer to this court to see the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 17 the truth. Too many judges and too many attorneys do not fully understand the scope of what exactly has taken place or if they do, they have stepped down for unknown reasons. The very rare 18 ones who truly understand what has taken place, are not available to the average Laymen as their fees are unrealistic to afford. The Plaintiff stands in Faith as a child of God under a torn nation 19 shouting out to our Honorable Judges and our elected officials to look within and remember who they are, and what they stand for. The time for winks and nods is over, the people need you. 20

21 Throwing this mess back upon the Public after January 18th, 2013 (The deadline for the Settlement) is like throwing innocents into the deepest section of the ocean without a life raft, with the Banks 22 on a boat offering paid passage, and investment sharks circling. The strong will swim until they can swim no more while the rest will drown or concede to the demands for passage, or make a deal 23 with the Sharks for their lively hood. This Plaintiff will by her last breath if necessary, show this Court and those who can find this Civil Complaint how to part or how to walk on these waters and 24 will do so by example. Beat a person long enough and they will believe they are beaten. But show a person how to fight back, and they will know they can. You simply cannot beat down Faith, Sirs. 25 Plaintiff is truly sorry for these events, but they are not of her making. Nor can Plaintiff be held 26 responsible for the actions of others in the events that uncurled as just another a tool of the banking industry. This has been an incredulous burden to bear, but Plaintiff was played, just as every 27 broker across America, every loan officer, every underwriter or processor was played who participated in the offering of ANY Libor products or was directed to Libor charts as a valid 28 illustration to their clients.

25

1 These Recital’s from a past Volunteer Federal Witness and past industry professional with inner knowledge of both Countrywide and Bank of America and through the research additionally done

2 through her years of volunteer service as an advocate in review of the information provided by our government under the Freedom of Information Acts, plus her case reviews of Bank of America

3 return arguments to others who were affected with by these same or similar actions, and her recent introduction to securitization audits and their true meaning, will stand strong in Court. We need to 4 HEAL as one Nation Under God, not One Nation under the illusion of God’ Mercy through deceitful practices. 5

Whereas the creation of such a Civil suit for a laymen is near impossible. Plaintiff is doing the best 6 she can under the circumstances to convey this in a manner appropriate to this court. Plaintiff

prays you will see what she see's and give it merit to stand as it is conveyed in laymen, mortgage, 7 and legal ease, filed appropriated, served appropriately and conveyed appropriately under these

extreme circumstances. HSBC was just slapped with a record $1.9bn (£1.2bn) fine by US 8 regulators for money laundering and sanctions busting, the first arrests were made in the Libor-

rigging investigation, and nationalised Northern Rock handed the taxpayer a £270m bill to 9 compensate customers affected by a mistake in its paperwork. Plaintiff is showing you where they

were controlling the payout through the LIBOR to the investors in the enclosed documentations. 10

Honorable Judge, the US department of justice detailed how HSBC, Britain's biggest bank, 11 allowed drug traffickers to launder billions of dollars in the US and billions more to be moved

across borders to countries facing sanctions, such as Burma, Cuba and Libya. When the US 12 Department of Justice makes declarations that they are sparing a criminal prosecution because

HSBC is to big to prosecute, then how can the consumers have any protection from these criminal 13 acts if they cannot turn to the courts for justice. Plaintif’s name is FAITH by CHOICE your

Honor “Exhibit F” and PLAINTIFF is actually PRAYING to this court as the laws meant it to be 14 spoken herewithin.

15 PLIANTIFFS PRAYER DAMAGE AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 16 Plaintiff Faith Lynn Brashear prays for relief as follows: 17 A. That the Court adjudge and decree that Defendants has engaged in the conduct complained 18 herein 19 B. That the Court adjudge and decree that the conduct complained of constitutes unfair and deceptive acts and practices and an unfair method of competition and is unlawful in Violation 20 of the California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 21 C. That the Court issues a permanent injunction and on the above listed property, enjoining and retraining these Defendants, and it representatives, successors, assigns, officers, agents, 22 servants, employees and all other persons acting or claiming to act for, on behalf of, or in active concert or participation with these Defendants, from continuing or engaging in the unlawful 23 conduct complained of herein. 24 D. That the Court assesses Civil Penalties pursuant to the Section 1107 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) per the concealed violation of suspected Racketeering, Extreme Meaning 25 encompassing and Asset through, proven under disclosed Til and Respa Violations, proven breach of contract, proven undisclosed definitions properly outlining the Terms and Conditions 26 of the margin used as a calculation to the interest rate in a note, acknowledgement of incentivizing margins in violations of the Securities and exchange commission and breach of 27 Fiduciary Trust, be issued in an amount of $250,000, as Plaintiff is blowing the whistle on this for one of the largest over due “time outs” in history of man and showing this court exactly 28 where it is and where to find it. Non taxable to Plaintiff and Legal Protection under this act to resolve these issues.

26

1 E. That the Court assesses Punitive Damages in the amount of $2,000,000 equal to the amount of intended fraud from each and every one of these Defendants with the possible exception of the 2 FDIC, IRS and The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for having their hand in the Plaintiffs proverbial cookie jar without the plaintiffs consent or offering. The first $2,000,000 3 to be paid to Plaintiffs company otherwise known as BetterQuest to allow her to rebuild and bring further healing to this nation in a different venue. The rest 100% of which to be placed 4 into a created profit or non-profit entity under the US Department of Justice and properly

monitored by the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA) as a receiver 5 until proper implementation of this agency can be determined, for the purpose of assisting in the

restructure of troubled Asset Mortgages and to further aid the US Attorney Generals with 6 “ineligible” candidates through the National Mortgage Settlement, in their efforts to heal their

States, all nontaxable to Plaintiff. "In the interest of World Peace" for the perpetuation of 7 illegal activities through Plaintiff under a Rigged Libor product.

8 F. That the Court assess compensatory damages in the amount of $669,088.63 equal to the amount of under disclosed Til and Respa Violations. Non-taxable to Plaintiff to be paid towards her 9 bankruptcy filing should it be allowed to ensue. 10 G. That the Court acknowledges the dysfunctional, and unenforceable aspects to this note through Extreme Meaning, Breach, Bifurcation and exceeding of the Pooling and Servicing Agreements 11 (PSA) cut off dates, dated June 1st 2007 by a pass through recorded in 2012 with lack of

endorsements and broken chain of title, fraud with intent to defraud as not more than a 12 promissory note that has been discharged through Federal Bankruptcy. 13 H. That the Court acknowledges the rules under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 section129C(c)(2) [108] of the Truth in Lending Act apply in situations where a loan has been 14 securitized as it pertains to the notes attachment to the deed, and that the evidence provided shows a potential conflict of the Asset associated thereto. 15 I. That the Court acknowledges this issue is not of a fair business practice or procedure and has 16 thus clouded title to this property and that ownership has been compromised and needs to be cleared through Quit Title and that Plaintiff has every right to full ownership of said property 17 with no other interest of party attached thereto other than Plaintiff. 18 J. That this Court acknowledges that Bank of America is a debt collector and that this debt is discharged under Federal Bankruptcy laws. 19 K. That the Court acknowledges the timing of the IRS audit, and the dollar amount sited in its 20 relation to this situation is highly coincidental as is the Injunction filed on the company Plaintiffs was receiving help as it pertains to Plaintiff situation as an expert witness. It may or 21 may not be circumstantial and that the reasons why Plaintiffs rights under section 15-1-222 of the Taxpayers bill of rights (2) were violated need to be further addressed outside of this case. 22 L. That the Court acknowledges that damage has been done on a broader scope and that the 4th and 23 5th Amendment rights across our nation may be in jeopardy. 24 M. For the costs of the suit incurred by the Plaintiff, or for any Attorney fees incurred on Plaintiffs Behalf as Plaintiff retains the right to additional legal counsel. 25 N. That the court allow this case to remain without prejudice to ensure that the hands stay 26 clean outside this courtroom. 27 O. For other reliefs as the court deem just and proper applied accordingly. 28

27

1 CONCLUSION 2 Plaintiff respectfully asserts that Defendants have incurred a duty to Plaintiffs in which they have breached through fiduciary, fraud, negligence and greed as Plaintiff has alleged. Plaintiff requests 3 the court leave to amend their complaint, should the Court deem it necessary to perfect these claims. Plaintiff seek the damages and equitable relief that she is reasonably entitled to as a result 4 of Defendants’ fraud, deception pain, suffering and breach of fiduciary trust. Plaintiff respectfully thanks you for your time, understanding and patience in her deliberations. This case is being 5 released to the press for public awareness no sealing is required. 6 Yes it is a lot to ask of you, Plaintiff is sorry, but there is no price that can be named for the pain and suffering of nation, or the pain and suffering she has personally endured. It is the best 7 Plaintiff can do at the extremes she feels the court could entertain with the case currently being presented. Plaintiff is answering to a higher authority through these adversities and complexities 8 with one simple message to convey to all of you. 9 "It is time for all of us to heal." 10 God Bless us in these prayers here within. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 X________________________________ 27 Dated ________________________________ FAITH LYNN BRASHEAR 28 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX