16-8 exhibit e to denise's reply to lnv's objection to emergency writ of mandamus:...
Post on 06-Jul-2018
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 1/227
I, Lauren Paulson Declare the following under the penalties of perjury to
be a true and accurate statement in support of the emergency pleadings
attached hereto and in support of the same.
I have determined that the entire Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
including the U.S. District Court of Oregon is NOT following the
Mandatory Conflict of Interest Screening requirement of the Judicial
Conference of the United States. Moreover, as the following facts
demonstrate, judges in the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. District Court of
Oregon are not following the law with respect to Standing and the
failure of lenders to prove standing in foreclosure cases throughout the
entire jurisdiction.
IMPORTANT
Because of the failure of this jurisdiction to follow the law and the
mandatory conflict of interest screening procedures it is highly likely
that ALL foreclosure cases in Oregon will have to be vacated unless
and until such time as it is determined whether judges in this jurisdiction are in violation of The Rule of Law and these
mandatory U.S. procedures.
Page of1 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 1 of 227
(80 of 3
Declaration of Lauren Paulson
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 2/227
A FINANCIAL PLAGUE
A plague has visited this country for which these
citizens were totally unprepared. It is curious that
they were so unprepared because a similar plague
visited this benign country just one decade earlier, but
nothing was learned by the leaders, including their
elected leaders: who become blind through a virulent
virus known as Corporatism/‘Metooism' for which
there is no known antidote nor cure. It is all the more
curious that leaders permitted this plague since there
was nothing wrong with their auditory canals and the
Oracle of Delphi has been whispering solutions in
their ears for years.....as we shall see. ]!
Warning -- This tale is true in all respects; actually
happened, so should not be read by those faint of
heart. There will be no further warnings. It is of a
plague that is a tragedy of earthly proportions that
was avoidable. An avoidable plague. An insidious
financial plague infecting every corner of the United
States. This financial plague is enabled by a national
judiciary and an attorney general who is unable to
Page of2 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 2 of 227
(81 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 3/227
stand up to the Wall Street financial cabal which rules
this country.
This Class Action is brought on behalf of over 100
million American citizens of the United States
including all those whom suffered from predatory
loans and predatory financial tactics around the world
who suffered from the LIBOR fraud and similar
fraudulent artifices found in the U.S.A. financial world
as chronicled below.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
(Some of this information is adapted from information
found in Wikipedia and other sources terrestrial and
otherwise.)
1938 — The Federal National Mortgage Association
(FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, was founded in1938 during the Great Depression as part of the New Deal. It
is a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), though it has
been a publicly traded company since 1968 through and
including the financial meltdown of 2008. The corporation's
purpose is to expand the secondary mortgage market by
securitizing mortgages in the form of mortgage-backed
securities (MBS), allowing lenders to reinvest their assets
into more lending and in effect increasing the number of
lenders in the mortgage market by reducing the reliance on
Page of3 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 3 of 227
(82 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 4/227
locally-based savings and loan associations (aka “thrifts”).
!
1968 -- President Johnson sells Fannie Mae, making it a
shareholder owned organization instead of a government
agency to help finance the Vietnam War. By privatizing it, he
removes the liability of paying these mortgages through a
government guarantee from the government balance sheet
to privatize it.
SETTING THE STAGE (1971-1995)
(The Judiciary and the Law)
1970’s -- It can be positively determined exactly when
the worm turned; when a perversion of power began in the
judiciary and the law.
In 1971 in California, a financial Chisler had beenselling office equipment, but decided there was more money
to be made in real estate, so he took his used car salesmen
friends and opened Alliance (an acronym), a mom-and-pop
consumer finance company while high and volatile interest
rates battered the savings and loan industry. Then there
was a:
Perversion of Power in the Judiciary and the Law:
THE LEWIS POWELL MEMO OF 1971
In 1971, Lewis F. Powell, then a corporate lawyer (and later
Page of4 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 4 of 227
(83 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 5/227
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 6/227
Association is an NCSC partner. Some of their meetings are
secret. NCSC is now involved in funding almost every
organization involved in this right-turn of America’s judiciary.
American Inns of Court -- The concept began in the 1970‘s in
Utah through the School of Law at Brigham Young
University.
• American Inns of Court -- Formed in 1983 by Chief
Justice Warren Burger. Its mission is to foster excellence in
professionalism, ethics, civility and legal skills. They give
out three awards named after Republicans: The Lewis F.
Powell, Jr. Award for Professionalism, the Sandra Day
O’Connor Award for Professional Service and the Warren
E. Burger Prize. There are no awards at the Inns of Court
named after Democrats. This is where ‘Wally” got his 2006
award.ALEC began in 1973. ALEC coordinates the legislative
agenda of the conservative right across the United States.
ALEC’s role is discussed in detail below.
1977 -- The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA)
sought to address discrimination in loans made to individuals
and businesses from low and moderate-income
neighborhoods. The Act mandates that all banking
institutions that receive Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC) insurance be evaluated by Federal
Page of6 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 6 of 227
(85 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 7/227
banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a
manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per
Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in
which they are chartered to do business. The law does not
list specific criteria for evaluating the performance of
financial institutions. Rather, it directs that the evaluation
process should accommodate the situation and context of
each individual institution. Federal regulations dictate agency
conduct in evaluating a bank's compliance in five
performance areas, comprising twelve assessment factors.
This examination culminates in a rating and a written report
that becomes part of the supervisory record for that bank.
The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA
activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner,
and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans thatmay bring losses to the institution's CRA compliance record
is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies
when the institution seeks to expand through merger,
acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any
other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA.
WHEN DID LAW TURN ON THE POOR in Oregon
and elsewhere?
SETTING THE STAGE.
Oregon and the Lewis Powell Memo
Page of7 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 7 of 227
(86 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 8/227
The Oregon link to this crucial year is manifest in the
lamentable Wallace ‘Wally’ Carson, the Chief Justice of the
Oregon Supreme Court from 1991 to 2005. In 2006 he was
awarded the Lewis F. Powell award by the Inns of Court
organization.
Remember that Lewis F. Powell was twice selected by
Richard Nixon to be on the U.S. Supreme Court. Twice,
because he turned it down the first time because he was
making too much money as a corporate lawyer.
In 1971 Lewis F. Powell wrote the aforementioned
‘Powell Memo’ to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The
Powell Memo was a confidential memorandum that
described a strategy for the corporate takeover of the
dominant public institutions of American society.
Not coincidentally, a now-important legal organizationwas also formed in 1971 as well. Nixon’s Chief Judge of the
U.S. Supreme Court, Warren Burger, formed the National
Center for State Courts [NCSC]. Their self-described mission
is to improve judicial administration in American courts.
Soon, the National Center for State Courts became the
sanctioning body for everything from how the poor are
treated in court to how much the next judge’s raise shall be.
As we shall see.
In November 2011, former Oregon Chief Justice De
Page of8 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 8 of 227
(87 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 9/227
Muniz was inducted into the National Center for State
Courts' Warren E. Burger Society.
• The Federalist Society -- Formed in 1982, its mission
is to reform the current legal order. U.S. Supreme Court
Justices Scalia and Thomas attended the November 9,
2011 Federalist Society Fundraising dinner. There is an
active branch at every law school near you.
• State Justice Institute -- Formed in 1984, its mission
is to ensure access to a fair and effective justice system. It
serves to finance the activities of the National Center for
State Courts. The State Justice Institute has a Koch
Brother’s employee on the governing board.
• As discussed above, the State Justice Institute came out
with a manual for Judges to handle and silence the
unsuspecting public in 1999. It is called the Anti-Government Guidebook. It does away with due process.
LAWYERS LOVE AWARDS but do not love the poor.
There is no more self-congratulatory group in the world
than lawyers. There are so many lawyer awards out there
waiting for a recipient that the Oregon State Bar has a full
committee devoted to the project. And this brings us back to
the good Chief Justices of the Oregon Supreme Court. Note
they get awards named after a Republican. So, it goes.
There are no awards named after a Democrat in any of
Page of9 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 9 of 227
(88 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 10/227
these organizations. Because they are devoted to the 1%,
not anyone else. Lewis F. Powell’s endeavor in 1971 was a
success.
SETTING THE STAGE IN THE FINANCIAL ARENA
There is no due process in Oregon courts for the poor.
The Oregon State Bar is an Oligarchy that serves the
corporate cliental. The system is rigged by Bank of America,
Exxon-Mobil and WalMart. And the Koch Brothers. Even
pro bono.net a phony front-website is sponsored by Bank of
America. The entire system from Oregon’s Legal Aid/Legal
Services Corporation to the U.S. Supreme Court is safely in
the hands of the 1%. discussed in more detail below.
The 1980’s
1980’s -- The Federalist Society -- Formed in 1982, it is a
group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated toreforming the current legal order. It now has chapters in 196
law schools. But, yet more:
The American Inns of Court mentioned above was f inally and
formally formed in 1983 by Chief Justice Warren Burger to
be an amalgam of judges, lawyers, law professors and law
students. Its mission is to foster excellence in
professionalism, ethics, civility and legal skills. It has
chapters throughout the United States.
State Justice Institute -- Formed in 1984, Its mission is to
Page of10 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 10 of 227
(89 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 11/227
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 12/227
1982 -- The U.S economy bottomed out following the
run-away inflation of the Carter presidency. Unemployment
was the highest since the depression.
1980’s -- Roland Arnall , a real estate developer, also
owned Long Beach Savings and Loan and channeled his
institutions deposits into his and friend’s real estate projects.
At the dawn of the Reagan era, S&L’s provided home loans,
savings accounts, but not checking accounts. In theory these
were the community based organizations immortalized in
Jimmy Stewart’s movie, It’s a Wonderful Life. Because
inflation was outstripping the interest Savings and Loans
could pay their customers, President Carter’s era began the
era of deregulation. Reagan’s election gained speed to
deregulation when he signed the 1982 deregulation bill.
These new rules allowed S&L’s to invest heavily in shoppingmalls, high rises and real estate deals that did not require
down payments from the borrowers. Deregulation also
meant that noncash assets could be used to capitalize new
S&L’s. This meant that intrepid capitalists could use
undeveloped land and other gimmicks to demonstrate capital
and thus, to obtain a bank charter.
1984 -- Lehman Bros. was absorbed into Shearson, a
retail brokerage firm acquired in 1981 by American Express
for $360 million. Shearson was the second-largest retail
Page of12 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 12 of 227
(91 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 13/227
sales force in the country, run by Sanford I (Sandy) Weill.
This merger was made by James D. Robinson III to create
the first financial supermarket. American Express was the
credit card business, Shearson was the brokerage house to
sell it, and now Mr. Weill had an investment bank to stake his
ground on Wall St.
This merger caused the most senior partners to leave the
firm including Robert Rubin. Peregrine (Perry) Moncreiffe
ran the mortgage-backed securities trading desk.
In the 1980’s the primary fear of investors in mortgage bonds
was that the loans would be paid off too soon. Typically a
homeowner would refinance when interest rates got better.
This meant that lenders would get their money exactly when
they didn’t want it -- during times the interest rates were
going down. A lender at the ground floor tranche would get ahigher interest rate because that lender would get paid off
first when interest rates got better and consumers
refinanced. A lender at the second highest interest rate
would get paid off next, and so on. The investor in the
floor tranche would get the lowest rate of interest but had the
greatest assurance that the investment wouldn’t end before
the investor wanted it to.
The key is that these loans conformed to the standards, size
and credit quality set by Freddie Mac, Ginny Mae and
Page of13 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 13 of 227
(92 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 14/227
Fannie Mae.
The new Specialty Finance world was brought about by the
broad spread of mortgage backed securities which were
made out of the broad range of loans across the United
States which did not qualify for government guarantees. The
purpose of the new Specialty Finance world was to extend
credit to less and less creditworthy homeowners. This was
not to extend credit to buy a house, but to extend credit for
them to pay off credit cards or other consumer finance
purposes. Here Usury laws would have helped the multiple
frauds perpetrated on consumers through the trickery of
confusing charges and fees, particularly if a payment was
late or not of the exact required amount.
1985 -- Salomon invents the mortgage backed bond.
This is a bond secured by a mortgage on one or moreassets. These bonds are typically backed by real estate
holdings or capital equipment. In a default situation,
mortgage bondholders have a claim to the underlying
property and could sell it off to compensate for the default.
Following this innovation Wall St. started “making even
bigger money” in the bond market than the stock market by
“…packaging and selling and shuffling around America’s
growing debt”.
1985 — AIG approaches Wall Street insurance
Page of14 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 14 of 227
(93 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 15/227
companies to fraudulently sell reserves to hide income. The
regulator is the insurance commissioner which turns a blind
eye.
1986 -- In 1986, THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD
decides that banks can have up to five (5%) percent of their
gross revenues from investment banking business, thus
blurring the firewall set up by the Glass-Steagall Act between
commercial (lending) banks and investment (securities)
banks. This decision also allows banks to “do a small
amount of underwriting”. Paul Volcker, the chairman of the
Federal Reserve Board voted against these changes and
expressed a fear that lenders will recklessly lower loan
standards in pursuit of lucrative securities offerings and
market bad loans to the public. It boiled down to a culture of
risk which was the securities business and a culture of protection of deposits which was the culture of banking.
1986 -- The 1986 Tax Reform Act withdrew tax laws
that benefited commercial real estate investments as part of
the overall rewrite of the Tax Code.
1986 -- The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance
(FSLIC) Corporation, determined that because over 296
savings and loan companies with total assets of $125 billion
had failed that the FSLIC, the insurance company to protect
savings and loan depositor’s funds, was insolvent.
Page of15 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 15 of 227
(94 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 16/227
1987 -- The so-called ‘mezzanine’ tranche CDO
(Collateralized Debt Obligation) is invented by Michael
Milken’s junk bond department at Drexel Burnham. (tranche
means segment)
A Credit Default Swap is an unregulated financial instrument
that acts as ‘insurance’ against these bond defaults. AIG
conspires with banks to cede off risk through CDS’s.
Collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) are a type of
structured asset-backed security (ABS) whose value and
payments are derived from a portfolio of fixed-income
underlying assets. CDOs securities are split into different risk
classes, or tranches, whereby "senior" tranches are
considered the safest securities. Interest and principal
payments are made in order of seniority, so that junior
tranches offer higher coupon payments (and interest rates)or lower prices to compensate for additional default risk .
A few academics, analysts and investors such as Warren
Buffett and the IMF's former chief economist Raghuram
Rajan warned that CDOs, other ABSs and other derivatives
spread risk and uncertainty about the value of the underlying
assets more widely, rather than reduce risk through
diversification. Following the onset of the 2007-2008 credit
crunch, this view has gained substantial credibility. Credit
rating agencies failed to adequately account for large risks
Page of16 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 16 of 227
(95 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 17/227
(like a nationwide collapse of housing values) when rating
CDOs and other ABSs.
Many CDOs are valued on a mark to market basis and thus
have experienced substantial write-downs on the balance
sheet as their market value has collapsed.
American Insurance Group (AIG) became the largest seller
of CDS’s
1987 -- In May of 1987 the Howie Rubin scandal
occurred when this 36 year old head of Merrill Lynch’s
trading desk for mortgage-backed securities is caught
gambling that interest rates would turn around leading to a
$250 million dollar loss, the largest single trading deficit in
Wall Street history up to that time.
Howard (not to be confused with Robert) Rubin was dealing
in one of the tricky, relatively untested new types ofsecurities. The bonds that tripped up Merrill Lynch are
interest-only/principal-only securities, known as IOPOs.
Investment houses create them by buying mortgage-backed
bonds -- typically those issued by the Government National
Mortgage Association, or Ginnie Mae -- and then splitting the
securities into two parts, one that pays interest and another
whose price rises or falls with the resale value of the bond.
Rubin was selling the interest-paying bonds and hanging on
to the principal securities, which lost value rapidly as interest
Page of17 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 17 of 227
(96 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 18/227
rates rose.
1987 -- Alan Greenspan, former director of J.P. Morgan
bank, becomes chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. In
October, 19, 1987 there is a financial panic on Wall St.
setting off the biggest one-day percentage decline in stock
market history. This panic can be compared to Black
Thursday, October 24, 1929. The Federal Reserve pumped
in cash to avoid a further decline once the computer systems
of the day caught up with trading orders. This is during
Reagan’s presidency.
1988 -- First Alliance had cornered 32% of the home
equity loan market in Southern California and had opened
lending offices in seven communities. (And see below)
Silverado Savings and Loan collapsed costing taxpayers 1.3
billion dollars. Neil Bush, George’s brother, was found tohave breached his fiduciary duties to the bank as one its
directors.
1989 -- As outlined above, Fannie Mae was privatized
in 1968 and Fannie Mae issues stock in 1989.
S & L FAILURES -- Studies have shown that a primary
cause of the failure of the savings and loan companies,
which began in the early 1980's was “state and federal
deregulation of depository institutions which allowed thrifts to
enter new but riskier loan markets”. This study confirms that
Page of18 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 18 of 227
(97 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 19/227
the savings and loan industry was in much worse shape than
most observers anticipated during the rescue.
This marks the first time in history that taxpayer funds
were used to resolve a banking crisis in this country.
1989 --The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery
and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) was
enacted by the 101st Congress and signed into
law by President George H. W. Bush in the wake
of the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. As part
of the subsequent general reform of the banking
industry, FIRREA added section 807 (12. U.S.C.
§ 2906) to the existing CRA statutes in an effort to
improve the area concerning insured depository
institution examinations.
1989 -- Alan Greenspan and the Federal ReserveBoard further break down the Glass-Steagall
firewall by allowing commercial banks including
J.P. Morgan and Citibank to engage in debt and
equity securities along with other commercial
(investment) paper.
1989 -- The sale of bonds backed by packages of
lower-quality morgage loans began and with
professional investors hungry for higher-yielding
investments, major Wall Street investment banks
Page of19 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 19 of 227
(98 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 20/227
entered the field and sold the bonds to pension
funds and other institutions. J.P. Morgan becomes
the first bank to receive permission from the
Federal Reserve Board to deal in securities.
First Alliance is accused by the FTC of using
fraud to secure high interest loans for
unsuspecting debtors with harsh terms to minority
recipients.
1989 The savings and loan crisis created the
Resolution Trust Corporation which was the
government agency created to consolidate the
assets and resolve the liabilities. From 1989 until
1992, RTC sold insolvent savings and loan
institutions ultimately costing citizens over $152.9
billion dollars. The peak of the savings and loancrisis was 1991.
1990’s -- The National Center for State Courts and the State
Justice Institute authored The Anti-Government Movement
Guidebook. This Guidebook was financed by the State
Justice Institute mentioned above. This Guidebook is a
tutorial for judges on how neutralize Pro Se litigants as your
Plaintiff here and citizens who are:
“...disaffected and often dispossessed (and) who are seeking
a better way….” In short, this 200 page guidebook instructs
Page of20 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 20 of 227
(99 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 21/227
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 22/227
pass through".
When one invests in a mortgage-backed security one is
essentially lending money to a home buyer or business. An
MBS is a way for a smaller regional bank to lend mortgages
to its customers without having to worry about whether the
customers have the assets to cover the loan. Instead,
the bank acts as a middleman between the home buyer and
the investment markets.
This type of security is also commonly used to redirect the
interest and principal payments from the pool of mortgages
to shareholders. These payments can be further broken
down into different classes of securities, depending on the
riskiness of different mortgages as they are classified under
the MBS.
A mortgage bond is a claim on the cash flows from a pool ofthousands of individual home mortgages.
1990 Drexel Burnham Lambert liquidated. Their stock
went from $110 to zero virtually overnight.
1991 Salomon Brothers begins a fraudulent acquisition
scheme of U.S. bonds enabling Salomon to
purchase more than their allotted share of bonds.
This resulted in John Meriwether’s resignation and
Warren Buffet’s sacking of Salomon Brothers
CEO, John Gutfreund partially because Gutfreund
Page of22 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 22 of 227
(101 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 23/227
was not going to fire the broker who was
fraudulently purchasing these bonds.
1992 Matt Burk begins his emulation of all these
predatory loan practices and commences in the
unregulated Oregon financial market.
Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corp
Fairway began as a residential and commercial
mortgage broker. Focused strictly on commercial beginning
in 1998, Fairway launched First Fund in 2000. Fairway
became the leading private commercial real estate mortgage
lender and pooled mortgage Fund manager in Portland OR
area.
1992 Congress enacted the Federal Housing
Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act to
protect taxpayers from potential losses if Fannie orFreddie got into trouble with the mortgages they
financed.
1992 Office of Federal Housing Oversight Enterprise
was created to regulate Fannie Mae. This was an
office created within HUD. This regulator should
have been financed by fees charged to Fannie
and Freddie, but that did not happen. One of this
regulator’s jobs was to ensure sufficient capital
requirements. The safety and soundness stress
Page of23 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 23 of 227
(102 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 24/227
tests were completed in 1994.
1993 Companies began going to Wall Street to raise
money by selling bundles of loans to investment
banks.
1994 The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and
Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, which repealed
restrictions on interstate banking, listed the
Community Reinvestment Act ratings received by
the out-of-state bank as a consideration when
determining whether to allow interstate branches.
J.P Morgan employees gather at Boca Raton
Florida at a conference and come up with the CDS
in order to provide security letter of credit which
creates credit risk to them on the Exxon oil spill.
This requires them to hold certain capital to pay onthe letter of credit if they went broke. The
european bank for reconstruction and
development took on this risk. JP Morgan wanted
to skirt capital requirements. They could make
more loans. This enables them to shed the risk
they don’t really want and frees up capital for risks
they do want. JP Morgan was asked to make
swaps on a portfolio of entities. They were highly
rated and they were to make tranches available to
Page of24 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 24 of 227
(103 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 25/227
over 300 corporate firms. In effect, those
corporations are investing in J.P Morgan. United
States financial institutions commence the high
flying lending ‘Casino’:
A synthetic CDO is a bet in other companies
portfolios that the bettor didn’t own. This was a
creation of an entire new marketplace. This is the
‘casino’.
This is a dark market, so nobody else knew what
was going on. This would make a spread of about
10 times more than an IPO for example.
This scam doesn't eliminate risk. Risk is just
moved around. It is an insurance product not to
be regulated by anybody. See AIG’s role in this
unregulated market above.1994 Congress passed the Home Ownership and
Equity Protection Act of 1994 which amends the
Truth In Lending Act (TILA) by requiring additional
disclosures and specific protections for a narrow
group of certain high-interest loans. The TILA law
produces the four little boxes in the loan document
that intends to educated consumers on what
interest rate is charged and how that interest rate
is jacked up through multiple transaction (title
Page of25 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 25 of 227
(104 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 26/227
examination fees, broker fees, etc., etc.) costs and
fees.
1994 First Alliance settled their second predatory
lending lawsuit for $6.85 million in a class-action
lawsuit arising out of his California lending
practices. Congress began its first round of
hearings that established that many companies
were taking advantage of unsophisticated
mortgage customers.
1994 Fairway, a lending group, forms an Oregon
limited partnership to emulate California loan
practices in Oregon.
1994 The amount of money raised on Wall Street for
subprime lenders skyrocketed, going from $35
billion in 1994 to $332 billion in 2003. With WallStreet’s demand unslaked, lenders and mortgage
brokers scoured the countryside for fresh
prospects for subprime loans. Lenders were
paying about 6% interest to Wall Street, but getting
about 14% from subprime suckers.
1994 -- Long Term Capital Management is founded by
John Meriwether, former vice-chairman and head
of bond trading at Salomon Brothers. LTCM is a
hedge fund using financial models and
Page of26 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 26 of 227
(105 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 27/227
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 28/227
experience recounted below that fraud is O.K. with
U.S. top financial regulators.
Brooksley Born was warning that unchecked
trading in the credit market could lead to
disaster, but power brokers in Washington
ignored her. Now we're all paying the price.
1996 SHORTLY AFTER she was named to head the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission in 1996, Brooksley
E. Born was invited to lunch by Federal Reserve chairman
Alan Greenspan.
The influential Greenspan was an ardent proponent of
unfettered markets. Born was a powerful Washington lawyer
with a track record for activist causes. Over lunch, in his
private dining room at the stately headquarters of the Fed in
Washington, Greenspan probed their differences.“Well, Brooksley, I guess you and I will never agree about
fraud,” Born, in a recent interview, remembers Greenspan
saying.
“What is there not to agree on?” Born says she replied.
“Well, you probably will always believe there should be laws
against fraud, and I don’t think there is any need for a law
against fraud,” she recalls. Greenspan, Born says, believed
the market would take care of itself.
Page of28 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 28 of 227
(107 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 29/227
For the incoming regulator, the meeting was a wake-up call.
“That underscored to me how absolutist Alan was in his
opposition to any regulation,” she said in the interview
reported by Rick Schmitt of Stanford Magazine.
THEIR PROFIT AND OUR LOSS --
1999 to 2003 — In significant litigation in California, the
Federal Trade Commission and some gritty lawyers were
poised to put a twist in the tail of First Alliance Mortgage
Company (FAMCO) and Lehman Brothers. The Chair of the
Federal Reserve (Brenneke) can hardly say, with a straight
face, that they didn’t know what was happening in these
unregulated financial markets. In 2003, a California jury,
after a two month trial, held FAMCO and Lehman brothers
guilty of fraud and awarded the plaintiffs 50.9 million dollars
in a class action suit. (This is the same sort of lawsuit thatmight now be barred by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent
decision requiring arbitration instead of a class action.)
OUTTAKE
In February, 2011, Bank of America’s lawyers looked Oregon
Federal Magistrate Judge Paul Papak in the eye in
Natache’s case and said something like this:
“Gee, your honor, sir, Gee.....well, it is sorta like
this......” “Remember that promissory note we gave you last
year with our name on it??” “Well, Gee, we really didn’t
Page of29 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 29 of 227
(108 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 30/227
mean THAT one was the true, original.” “Yes, I know, I TOLD
you that was a true copy of the original promissory note
WITH BANK OF AMERICA’S name on it.”
“But, I LIED to you, Magistrate Judge Papak.” “That
was NOT a true and correct copy of the ORIGINAL.” “This
one is......”, a nervous Lake Oswego, lawyer Ian Kyle meekly
told Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. The only problem is THE
TRUE ORIGINAL copy of the true promissory note DOES
NOT have Bank of America’s name on it.
Now, one would think that Magistrate Judge Paul Papak
would look at Bank of America’s young lawyer, Ian Kyle, with
such fierceness, with such a look of disgust, with such
revulsion that an esteemed member of the Oregon State Bar
would LIE to a Magistrate Judge about whose name was
truly on the REAL debt document filed in his court.Ah, but such a day, a day much like when Mighty Casey
Struck Out, did not visit young B of A lawyer Ian Kyle that
day. Or any other day. Indeed, Magistrate Judge Paul
Papak has uttered nary a word to Bank of American lawyer,
Mr. Kyle, nor the Oregon State Bar about this FRAUD on the
court or any other. You see in our courts, merchants get a
special chance. A special dance. A special pass. In the
Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse (built in 1996) in Case
No.# 1065 PK (PK stands for Magistrate Judge Paul Papak--
Page of30 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 30 of 227
(109 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 31/227
it is his case, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak’s case. It is also
Natache’s case. And all is mute.
You see, as recounted above, imperial wizard Alan
Greenspan said to Brooksley Born, in financial matters, fraud
is O.K. by him. Greenspan was the boss of all things
financial in the U.S. just then. And fraud by Bank of America
is O.K. by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak in Natache’s case.
BACK
1996 Bear Sterns is fined $38 million for being one of
the engines of the mortgage securities business
and the originator of sub prime mortgages. Bear
Sterns ‘head of clearing’ is fired over the matter.
1996 By 1996, most of the big investment banks on
Wall Street had plunged into the subprime
business. First Alliance went public with avaluation of over $135 million dollars.
1996 By 1996, the RTC had resolved most of the
outstanding insolvencies of the savings and loan
crisis accounting for over 1,000 savings and loan
banks which failed along with total assets of over
$500 billion which disappeared during the period.
The savings and loan crisis of the 1980's and early
1990's produced the greatest collapse of the U.S.
financial institutions since the Great Depression
Page of31 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 31 of 227
(110 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 32/227
until now.
1996 With Alan Greenspan’s support, the Federal
Reserve Board expands permission to the banks
to create holding companies to own investment
(securities) bank affiliates which renders the
firewall of Glass-Steagall obsolete.
1996 From 1996 until 2005 subprime lending grew
489% -- from $90 billion to $530 billion.
1997 Bankers Trust purchases an investment bank,
becoming the first commercial bank to own a
securities firm since the depression. First Alliance
is sued by a number of elderly customers for
charging the same high fees to customers with
good credit as to those with bad credit.
!1997 Bear Stearns and Wells Fargo underwrite the first
securitization of subprime loans for a total of $385.
Freddie Mac guaranteed the payments on the
securities.
!
1997 -- Steve Eisman publishes his report trashing all
the sub prime originators. Accounting rules
allowed them to book as profit the expected future
Page of32 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 32 of 227
(111 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 33/227
value of these loans without regard to whether
they got paid off early nor whether they became
delinquent. This renders credit rating evaluations
meaningless.
1997 Roland Arnall morphs off his first subprime lender,
Long Beach Mortgage Company and keeps a
portion of the company which he rechristened
Ameriquest.
1998
In 1998, the United States was in the seventh year
of an economic boom. Inflation was low. Alan
Greenspan, touting technology and the Japanese
style of ‘just-in-time’ inventory said productivity
was the key.
Brooksley Born, as head of the CommodityFutures Trading Commission (CFTC) was worried
about the fast-growing derivative market that was
not transparent nor regulated . In 1998 derivatives
were the hottest frontier of the financial services
industry.
The derivatives industry had grown from a 70
trillion dollar industry from 2.5 billion a year earlier.
1998 Lehman Bros. became First Alliance’s primary
source of financing through the mortgage backed
Page of33 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 33 of 227
(112 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 34/227
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 35/227
joined the Clinton administration as his Treasury
Secretary.
!
Citigroup and Travelers quietly lobby government
officials for their support which includes Federal
Reserve Board Chairman Greenspan and
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Even though
this merger is PATENTLY ILLEGAL, no one gets in
the way of the financial juggernaut. The Rule of
Law goes out the window. Finance prevails.
Fraud prevails.
1998 Long Term Capital Management suffers severe
losses following the Russian financial crises in
August. They lost $500 million in one day. They
have to reveal their positions if they wanted morecapital. Once they revealed their positions, other
firms began dumping those (trades) companies.
They are bailed out by a FED orchestrated plan by
major Wall St. companies. Warren Buffet’s plan is
ignored.
1998 Between 1993 and 1998 Goldman Sachs had
pretax profits of $12.2 billion.
1999 Citigroup hires Robert Rubin as the chief
lieutenant to Sandy Weill, the head of Citigroup.
Page of35 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 35 of 227
(114 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 36/227
1999 After lobbyists spend $300 million on campaign
contributions, Congress repeals the Glass Steagall
Act which was set up during the Great Depression
in 1933 and established the United States Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation separated
investment banks from commercial banks. It was
bank speculation that caused the Great
Depression. The idea was to prohibit large private
banks, whose chief business is the investment
business from receiving deposits. The Financial
Services Modernization Act was signed into law by
Democratic President Bill Clinton on November
12, 1999.
In 1999 the Congress enacted and President
Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-BlileyAct, also known as the Financial Services
Modernization Act. This law formally repealed the
part of the Glass–Steagall Act that had prohibited
a bank from offering a full range of investment.
commercial banking, and insurance services since
its enactment in 1933. A similar bill was introduced
in 1998 by Senator Phil Gramm but it was unable
to complete the legislative process into law.
Resistance to enacting the 1998 bill, as well as the
Page of36 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 36 of 227
(115 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 37/227
subsequent 1999 bill, centered around the
legislation's language which would expand the
types of banking institutions of the time into other
areas of service but would not be subject to CRA
compliance in order to do so. The Senator also
demanded full disclosure of any financial "deals"
which community groups had with banks, accusing
such groups of "extortion".
In the fall of 1999, Senators Christopher Dodd and
Charles E. Schumer prevented another impasse by securing
a compromise between Sen. Gramm and the Clinton
Administration by agreeing to amend the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. ch.16) to allow banks to merge or
expand into other types of financial institutions. The new
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's FDIC related provisions, alongwith the addition of sub-section § 2903(c) directly to Title 12,
insured any bank holding institution wishing to be redesignated
as a financial holding institution by the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System would also have
to follow Community Reinvestment Act compliance
guidelines before any merger or expansion could take effect.
At the same time the G-L-B Act's changes to the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act would now allow for bank expansions
into new lines of business, non-affiliated groups entering into
Page of37 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 37 of 227
(116 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 38/227
agreements with these bank or financial institutions would
also have to be reported as outlined under the newly added
section to Title 12, § 1831y. (CRA Sunshine Requirements),
satisfying Sen. Gramm's concerns.
In conjunction with the above Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
changes, smaller banks would be reviewed less frequently
for CRA compliance by the addition of §2908. (Small Bank
Regulatory Relief) directly to Chapter 30, (the existing CRA
laws), itself. The 1999 Act also mandated two studies to be
conducted in connection with the "Community Reinvestment
Act”:
! the first report by the Federal Reserve, to be delivered
to Congress by March 15, 2000, is a comprehensive
study of CRA to focus on default and delinquency rates,
and the profitability of loans made in connection withCRA.
! the second report to be conducted by the Treasury
Department over the next two years, is intended to
determine the impact of the Act on the provision of
services to low- and moderate-income neighborhoods
and people, as intended by CRA.
On signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, President Clinton
said that it, "establishes the principles that, as we expand the
powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the
Page of38 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 38 of 227
(117 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 39/227
[Community Reinvestment] Act”
1999 — Lehman Bros. becomes Alliance’s chief Wall Street
financial backer providing a $150 million dollar line of credit.
Lehman Bros. bundled Alliance loans every quarter and sold
them as securities. A Lehman executive admitted in 1999
that Alliance loans did not live up to the spirit of the federal
Truth in Lending Act.
2000 -- The U.S. Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore
which explicitly dispenses with The Rule of Law. Whereas,
before, the role of the U.S. Supreme Court is to establish
precedent, Bush v. Gore is the first time in history that the
U.S. Supreme Court specifically states that their decision is
NOT precedent. This decision along with the Anti-
Government Guidebook frees the judiciary from following
The Rule of Law and frees the judiciary from providingcitizens with The Due Process of Law. In other words, judges
can now do what they want when they want unfettered by
having to follow The Rule of Law.
2000 — Lehman Bros. purchases a stake in BNC Mortgage
Co., an Orange County subprime lender just down the road
from Ameriquest and a similar track.
2000 — The first mortgage-backed CDO was created at
Credit Suisse by a trader who had spent his formative years,
in the 1980’s and 1990’s in the Salomon Bros mortgage
Page of39 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 39 of 227
(118 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 40/227
department, Andy Stone. He was Greg Lippmann’s first
boss on Wall St.
2000 THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION sues
Alliance for predatory lending practices. Alliance
had a sales manual their sales mortgage brokers
used on how to rip people off. Alliance files for
bankruptcy.
2001 The Fed lowers the threshold on upstream
bank’s liability. That year financial institutions
gave more than 2.1 billion to finance state and
federal politicians’ election campaigns.
2001 A Senate Banking Committee was told that
unscrupulous lenders are cheating home owners
out of an estimated $9.1 billion dollars every year.
2001 The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency,the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation and the Office of Thrift
Supervision have proposed new regulations to
oversee subprime lending and distinguish such
loans from predatory financing. If the guidelines
are approved, lenders that then engaged in
predatory practices could be punished under
regulatory sanctions and in some cases even put
out of business.
Page of40 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 40 of 227
(119 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 41/227
2002 Between 1999 and 2002 Oregon consumers
filed 287 complaints alleging mortgage lending
abuses with the Department of Consumer and
Business Services. Household International, Inc.
entered into a settlement with Oregon consumers
among others for various claims for unfair and
deceptive claims practices for over $484 million
dollars.
2002 The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
(OCC) increasingly began pre-empting state
prosecutions of predatory lending exactly at the
time subprime and nontraditional lending
increased from a $267 billion dollar industry to a
one trillion dollar industry by 2005 and peaked in
2006.2002 The FTC settles their class action against
Alliance for $60 million identifying as many as
18,000 people who were ripped off by Alliance for
predatory lending practices. The settlement
liquidates Alliance and requires owner to
contribute $20 million of his own funds to the
settlement.
2002 State investigators led by Washington state led
to settlements on predatory lending practices
Page of41 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 41 of 227
(120 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 42/227
against Household Finance for $484 million.
2003 A federal jury in California held Lehman Bros
liable for knowingly assisting Alliance in
committing fraud in their loan practices.
2003 Under the preemption concept of federal
supremacy over state laws, the OCC stopped
state investigators in Washington state when state
bank examiners believed National City Mortgage
was violating the state’s Consumer Loan Act by
charging extra fees on mortgages. The federal
agency went no further because they had no
authority to enforce state consumer protection
laws.
2003 Subprime was on the rise and Ameriquest was
leading the way. The company’s owner, RolandArnall, had in many ways been the founding father
of subprime. He had pioneered this risky segment
amid the wreckage of the savings and loan
disaster and made Orange County the hub.
Michael W. Hudson, The Monster, Henry Holt and
Company (2010) Page 1-2. Every closing was
bait and switch because if you were honest you
would never get the customers to sign.
2004 Roland Arnall’s profit at Ameriquest is 1.3 billion.
Page of42 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 42 of 227
(121 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 43/227
With a ‘B’
2004 Lehman Bros. purchases the remaining portion of
BNC Mortgage Co. believing it could make more
money by cutting out the middle man.
2005 Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass wrote to
OCC’s leader John Dugan that “National banks
and their operating subsidiaries function without
meaningful law or enforcement,” by shoving aside
state regulators without filling the regulatory void
through federal enforcement of predatory lending
laws.
2006 Oregon receives about $1.5 million from the
class settlement against Ameriquest, the nation’s
largest subprime lender and based in California,
for $325 for predatory lending practices. Thedeceased owner of Ameriquest, Roland Arnall was
a multimillion dollar contributor to the 2004
President Bush campaign.
2006 Subprime lending shatters all previous records at
more than $1 trillion.
2007 In 2007, Ben Bernanke suggested further
increasing the presence of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac in the affordable housing market to
help banks fulfill their CRA obligations by providing
Page of43 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 43 of 227
(122 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 44/227
them with more opportunities to securitize CRArelated
loans.
February 28, 2007 Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the
Federal Reserve, testified on Capitol Hill that he
did not believe a “housing downturn” was a “broad
financial concern or a major factor in assessing
the state of the economy”. (Cohan at 323)
June 21, 2007 -- “I continue to believe that the
subprime issue is largely contained. It doesn’t
pose a significant risk to the economy overall.”
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson remarking
about Bear Stearns Hedge fund failure.
September 30, 2007 -- Stan O’Neal, CEO of Merrill
Lynch met with Ken Lewis, CEO of Bank of
America. Lewis was prepared to purchase ML for77 Billion. There was a hole in ML’s balance
sheet. The real estate bubble had burst in 2007.
This mortally wounded ML due to the wipeout of
the subprime mortgage market. Greg Farrell
Crash of the Titans, Crown Business, Page 4
(2010)
2007 October 31, 2007 Meredith Whitney an analyst
of financial firms for Oppenheimer and Co.
predicted that Citigroup was so mismanaged that it
Page of44 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 44 of 227
(123 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 45/227
was in a financial mess. Two weeks later,
Citigroup CEO Chuck Prince resigned.
Oregon’s Department of Consumer and
Business Services ordered Morgan Financial,
Fairlane Mortgage and Gibraltar Funding to
cease violating Oregon’s mortgage lending laws
and issued a fine to Fairlane for obtaining a
mortgage without having an Oregon license.
March 6, 2008 Tim Geithner, the ninth president and
CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York gave a
speech at the Council on Foreign Relations on the
looming crisis
March, 2008 The Fed decides to open its discount
window to investment banks in addition to commercial
banks. This program to begin March 26, 2008.March, 2008 -- As part of the merger agreement
between J.P.Morgan and Bear Stearns the New York
Fed through Tim Geitner agrees to “provide up to $30
Billion of supplemental funding secured by a pool ofr
collateral consisting primarily of Bear Stearns
mortgage-related securities and other mortgage-related
assets and related hedges. This if the first time the Fed
loaned money to an investment bank since the
Depression. (Cohan pg. 109)
Page of45 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 45 of 227
(124 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 46/227
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 47/227
Regulators, Investors. Everybody.”
2008 Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York
Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s
encouraged a loosening of lending standards
throughout the banking industry. He also charges the
Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of
the CRA. In a commentary for CNN, Congressman Ron
Paul, who serves on the United States House
Committee on Financial Services, charged the CRA
with "forcing banks to lend to people who normally
would be rejected as bad credit risks."[105] In a Wall
Street Journal opinion piece, Austrian school economist
Russell Roberts wrote that the CRA subsidized lowincome
housing by pressuring banks to serve poor
borrowers and poor regions of the country.However, many others dispute that the CRA was a
significant cause of the subprime crisis. Nobel laureate Paul
Krugman noted in November 2009 that 55% of commercial
real estate loans were currently underwater, despite being
completely unaffected by the CRA. According to Federal
Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner , the claim that "the law
pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage
lending" was contrary to their experience, and that no
empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim.
Page of47 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 47 of 227
(126 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 48/227
In a Bank for International Settlements (BIS) working paper,
economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence
that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for
encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent
housing bust", relying partly on evidence that the housing
bust has been a largely exurban event. Others have also
concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the financial
crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, Comptroller
of the Currency John C. Dugan,Tim Westrich of the Center
for American Progress, Robert Gordon of the American
Prospect, Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation,
Daniel Gross of Slate, and Aaron Pressman from
BusinessWeek .
Legal and financial experts have noted that CRA regulated
loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprimeexcesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the
CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor
Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under
President Clinton, stated that a Federal Reserve survey
showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans
profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately
50% of the subprime loans were made by independent
mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA,
and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA
Page of48 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 48 of 227
(127 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 49/227
regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that
institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in
four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most
widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least
federal oversight”. According to Janet L. Yellen, then-
President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco,
now, Head of the Fed, independent mortgage companies
made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of
the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly
made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have
contributed to the current crisis. A 2008 study by Traiger &
Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions
on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions
were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did
the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half aslikely to resell the loans. Emre Ergungor of the Federal
Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no
statistical difference in foreclosure rates between regulated
and less-regulated banks, although a local bank presence
resulted in fewer foreclosures.
During a 2008 House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform hearing on the role of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac in the financial crisis, including in relation to the
Community Reinvestment Act, asked if the CRA provided the
Page of49 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 49 of 227
(128 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 50/227
"fuel" for increasing subprime loans, former Fannie Mae
CEO Franklin Raines said it might have been a catalyst
encouraging bad behavior, but it was difficult to know. Raines
also cited information that only a small percentage of risky
loans originated as a result of the CRA.
APPENDIX
! THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION(FTC) --
Its principal mission is the promotion of “consumer
protection” with a mandate to protect consumers
against unfair or deceptive acts or practices in
commerce and was established in 1914.
THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD (THE FED) --
Has regulatory jurisdiction over banking.
GLASS-STEAGALL ACT OF 1933 -- Following
the Great Crash of 1929 politicians regardedmarket speculation by banks as the cause. The
Act forced banks to chose between being a simple
lender or being an underwriter for investors.
(Officially, this is the Banking Act of 1933)
THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION
(FHA) -- The banking crisis of the 1930's resulted
in the same loan paralysis that has occurred in
2007-2008. Banks had little faith in the backing of
Page of50 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 50 of 227
(129 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 51/227
the U.S. government, so few loans were issued
and few new homes were purchased. The FHA
was set up during the Depression in 1934 to
regulate the rate of interest and the terms of the
mortgages that it insured.
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) absorbed the FHA in
1965. An FHA loan requires that the borrower pay
for the insurance securing the loan over a five year
period.
THE OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE
CURRENCY (OCC) -- Serves to charter, regulate
and supervise all national banks. This is the
agency responsible for investigating and
prosecuting acts of misconduct committed byaffiliated parties of national banks.
THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION(FDIC) -- The regulator and
insurer of commercial banks.
THE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN
INSURANCE CORPORATION (FSLIC) -- The
insurance company for savings and loan deposits.! OFFICE OF THRIFT
SUPERVISION (OTS) -- The
agency that replaced FSLIC and is the cousin to
Page of51 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 51 of 227
(130 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 52/227
the OCC. Most big depository and lending
institutions -- like Wells Fargo and Washington
Mutual (WaMu) are chartered by either the OCC or
OTS.
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION(SEC)
THE BANK HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1956 --
Provided further restrictions on banks by
prohibiting banks owning two or more banks from
engaging in non-banking activity or buying banks
across state lines. This regulation prevented
banks from being too big to fail.
THE TRUTH IN LENDING ACT (TILA) --
Confluence passes TILA in 1968 to protect
consumers in home loan transactions by requiringcertain disclosures of key terms such as the actual
interest rate charged (after including the various
hidden fees and commissions into the cost of the
loan.
THE REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT
PROCEDURES ACT (RESPA)--Confluence enacts
(RESPA) of 1974 to require more effective
advance disclosure to home buyers of the loan
costs and fees. This new law was intended to
Page of52 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 52 of 227
(131 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 53/227
supplement TILA by eliminating certain kickbacks
and referral fees that unnecessarily increased the
cost of certain real estate transactions pertaining
to certain settlement services along with other real
estate lending improvements.
THE DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS
DEREGULATION AND MONETARY CONTROL
ACT OF 1980. This act effectively began the
erosion of the difference between a savings and
loan bank and a commercial bank.
In order to wring inflation out of the economy, The
Fed, under Paul Volker began a series of rises in
short term interest rates that eventually went up to
21% interest rates on mortgage loans in the early
1980's.Congress passed a law in 1981 that allowed S&L’s
to sell their mortgage loans and use the case
generated to seek better returns.
The buyers - major Wall Street firms -- were
quick to take advantage of the S&L’s lack of
expertise by buying 60-90% of the value and then
transforming the loans by bundling them as,
effectively, government-backed bonds (Ginnie
Mae, Freddie Mac, or Fannie Mae. S&L’s held
Page of53 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 53 of 227
(132 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 54/227
$150 billion of these bonds by 1986 and were
charged substantial fees for the transactions.
THE GARN-ST. GERMAIN DEPOSITARY
INSTITUTIONS ACT OF 1982 -- This act allowed
S&L’s to pay higher market rates for deposits,
borrow money from The Fed, make commercial
loans and issue credit cards. This was a radical
departure from their orIginal mission of providing
savings and mortgages. This new legislation
allowed them to enter new lending businesses
with very little oversight. L. William Seidman,
former chairman of both the FDIC and the RTC
was of the opinion that the banking problems of
the 1980's and 1990's came primarily from
unsound real estate lending.THE TAX REFORM ACT OF 1986 -- Removal of
real estate tax shelters precipitated the S&L crisis
because these properties were being held by
investors for their tax-advantage rather than their
inherent profitability. Tax deductions for losses on
these passive investments by real estate
syndicates were no longer allowed. Owners of
these properties then began to unload them
furthering the problem of sinking real estate
Page of54 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 54 of 227
(133 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 55/227
values.
THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REFORM,
RECOVERY, AND ENFORCEMENT ACT of
1989(FIRREA) -- Created to replace the FSLIC
and deal with the savings and loan crises.
RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION of
1989(RTC) -- Set up by Congress to resolve all
troubled savings and loan banks placed into
conservatorships between 1989 and 1992. It
ceased operation in 1995 and transferred its
assets and liabilities to the FSLIC.
THE HOME OWNERSHIP EQUITY
PROTECTION ACT OF 1994 (HOEPA)--
Confluence passes further protections to TILA by
requiring more disclosures and prohibiting certainhigh-interest loans.
THE FINANCIAL SERVICES MODERNIZATION
ACT OF 1999 -- Repeals Glass-Stegall Act of
1933, the latter of which set up the firewall
between securities (speculation) investment
banking and commercial (non speculation)
banking. This act effectively stopped effective
regulation of investment banking while also
allowing investment banks to own commercial
Page of55 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 55 of 227
(134 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 56/227
banks, insurance companies and other financial
institutions including mortgage banking and
brokers.
THE FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF OREGON --
Provides state resources to citizens regarding
predatory loans.
BANKING INDUSTRY LOBBYISTS
§ MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICA (MBBA)
§ NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MORTGAGE
BROKERS (NAMB)
CONSUMER LOBBYISTS, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
RETIRED
PEOPLE (AARP)
CENTER FOR RESPONSIBLE LENDINGASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM NOW (ACORN)
AMERICANS FOR FAIRNESS IN LENDING
(AFFIL)
CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA
(CFOA)
HOPE NOW ALLIANCE
FOR FEE CONSUMER SOURCES
Page of56 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 56 of 227
(135 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 57/227
¢ MORTGAGE ADVISORY
¢ NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MORTGAGE
PLANNERS
FAITHLESS IN FORECLOSURE
HOW 22 JUDGES TOOK MY HOME
Paulson had been the proud owner of the M.E. Blanton
House, on the National Register of Historic Places, for over
twenty (20) years and is located in Aloha, Oregon where he
grew up. Paulson’s parents are Swedish immigrants.
Paulson is a veteran, a former paratrooper with graduations
hanging on the wall. Paulson purchased The Historic M.E.
Blanton House in 1989.
IV. FACTS
2005--Fairway and Paulson entered into the subjectloans through the facilities of a loan broker referred to as
Joan Doe.
2005-2008--Payments on the loan were made until
February, 2008. The property had been put up for sale in
2005.
February, 2008-to-
August, 2008 --The parties engaged in various
resolution negotiations including a forbearance agreement
upon which the Plaintiff began making monthly payments.
Page of57 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 57 of 227
(136 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 58/227
Fairway then reneged on that agreement, but did not return
Paulson’s first payment. Now, Paulson realizes all these
negotiations were a sham. Fairway and its subsidiaries have
always intended to flim-flam themselves into ownership of
these historic properties.
August 21, 2008--The negotiations broke down and
Paulson filed this class action predatory loan lawsuit.
Lauren Paulson v. Fairway Commercial Mortgage
Corporation, et al., U.S. District Court of Oregon, Case No.
08-cv-00982. Paulson paid the District Court filing fee when
this case was filed in 2008. (Docket #1 in District Court Case
# 08-cv-00982) This is Paulson’s original lawsuit against
Fairway, FHLF, LLC and Wells Fargo among other
defendants, for predatory lending.
November 25, 2008--Fairway/FHLF, LLC issued their Notice of Default and Election to sell the subject properties
with the nonjudicial foreclosure sale scheduled on April 10,
2009.
March 9, 2009--This Court issued its order Designating
this Case for Mediation. Paulson made a preliminary contact
with the Ninth Circuit and Judge John Jelderks as a
mediator/settlement conference judges. Judge Jelderks
would have been available in May. The Defendants refused
to participate.
Page of58 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 58 of 227
(137 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 59/227
April 9, 2009--To prevent the threatened foreclosure,
Paulson filed his Chapter 11 Bankruptcy (Case No.
09-32439-rld 11) and conveyed the subject properties to
himself as an individual and the Real Party at Interest --
without Creditor objection.
June, 2009--Pursuant to a stipulated agreement in the
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceedings, the subject properties
were put up for sale through a licensed real estate agent.
The Subject Property -- The major asset in the
bankruptcy proceedings, other than the District Court
predatory loan case, is the real estate owned by Paulson for
over twenty years. Half the real estate is the M.E. Blanton
House which is on the National Register of Historic places.
This property is approximately .68 of an acre holding a High
Style Craftsman Bungalow structure where Paulsonmaintained his law office for over twenty years. (Paulson
was elected to the Board of Governors of the Oregon State
Bar in 2002. Paulson became a whistle blower at the
Oregon State Bar in 2004. He was unceremoniously quitted
from his practice for his activism in 2006). The M.E. Blanton
House is 3,500 square feet of original fir wainscoting and
oak wood floors done in high style. The other half of the real
property, of about the same size, adjoins the M.E. Blanton
House to make a square. This other half is three lots,
Page of59 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 59 of 227
(138 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 60/227
affectionately known as “The Three Sisters”. There are three
structures on the center lot of these three lots which are
erstwhile rentals. So, picture a square cut down the middle
with the M.E. Blanton Home on one half and three buildings
(one not habitable, yclept ‘The Barn’) on the other half, all
called ‘The Three Sisters’.
The formal appraised value of The M.E. Blanton House
obtained during the sale negotiations of August and
September, 2009 is $425,000. The sale price offered by a
local investor on The Three Sisters on August 5, 2009 was
$230,000 without conditions precedent other than to convey
marketable title. This means the combined value of the entire
real estate involved here is $655,000. The putative loan
amount claimed by Fairway/FHLF is $400,000. Thus,
Paulson’s property IS NOT underwater. To the contrary,Paulson has more than $250,000 equity.
The putative illegal nonjudicial foreclosure sale for
which Defendant FHLF, LLC made their credit bid (meaning
no cash is paid) of $375,000 for The Blanton House and
$175,000 for Three Sisters occurred on September 25, 2009.
‘Sale’ of Half of The Properties in 2009: -- The Three
Sisters property (three of the four parcels) did receive,
on August 5, 2009; an unconditional written cash offer
from a local investor of $230,000 to purchase said three
Page of60 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 60 of 227
(139 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 61/227
parcels. In September of 2009 the Plaintiff Paulson
found out he was eligible for a reverse mortgage on the
fourth parcel of over $250,000 net to him and available
to resolve the subject loan along with the
aforementioned purchase offer on the three other
parcels. Both transactions were made known to the
defendants and escrow was ordered with Candace
Brown at First American Title Insurance Company of
Oregon.
Both transactions were nullified by the illegal nonjudicial
foreclosure sale held by defendants Fairway/FHLF, LLC,
Parker and Russillo on September 25, 2009; done without
notice to the plaintiff, without giving Paulson his Right to
Cure as required by state law and otherwise done without
regard to the danger notice requirement of state law.Schwabe lawyer Craig Russillo admitted on the record that
the required ‘danger’ notice was not provided to Paulson.
This new law applicable at this time is:
--Oregon law ORS 86.737 requires that a specified
(‘danger’) notice be provided to an owner such as Paulson
prior to a nonjudicial foreclosure. That statute provides:
“86.737 Notice to grantor; requirements; additional
forms; rules. (1) If a notice of default is recorded for property
that is subject to a residential trust deed, the sender of a
Page of61 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 61 of 227
(140 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 62/227
notice of sale under ORS 86.740 shall, on or before the date
the notice of sale is served or mailed, give notice under this
section to the grantor by both first class and certified mail
with return receipt requested. Subject to any rules adopted
under subsection (2) of this section, the notice must be in
substantially the following form and printed in at least 14-
point type:.......”
Under Oregon law this notice must be provided
regarding property that is subject to residential trust deed
foreclosure. Under ORS 86.705 a residential trust deed
means a trust deed on property upon which are situated four
or fewer residential units and one of the residential units is
occupied as the principal residence of the grantor at the time
a trust deed foreclosure is commenced. This trust deed
foreclosure was commenced on November 28, 2008. At thattime and at all times pertinent here, the trust deed
foreclosure was upon property which are situated three
residential units and Paulson, the grantor, has occupied one
of the residential units as his principal residence. It is
undisputed that Fairway/FHLF, LLC, the beneficiary and his
successors and assigns failed to provide these statutory
notices to the grantors as required by law.
Mr. Joel Parker, a defendant in this federal court case
(Case No. 08-CV-00982-ST) and a Schwabe lawyer,
Page of62 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 62 of 227
(141 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 63/227
engaged in this illegal foreclosure sale of September 25,
2009 as the successor trustee of the loan without having
legal or what is called Constitutional Standing in any of the
legal proceedings. (Case No 09-32439-rid11).]
November 5, 2009--The Chapter 11 case was
converted to a Chapter 7.
January 13, 2010--FHLF, LLC illegally obtained relief
from the automatic stay in the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
proceeding to file their FED actions for possession of the
subject properties. FHLF, LLC filed their FED proceedings in
Washington County Circuit Court under Case Nos.C100084-86
January 15, 2010--Paulson removed the state court
FED proceedings to Federal District Court under the number
of the original instant proceeding and filed his Third-Party
Complaint. The removal proceeding was assigned toJudge Michael Mosman under Case No. 10-cv-48-MO.
[Note, keep in mind there is duplicate litigation over the
same property in the same federal court in Case No. 08-
cv-00982]. What should have happened here was a
consolidation of the two cases.
February 25, 2010--The Trustee of the Chapter 7
proceeding, Amy Mitchell, subverted Paulson’s Class Action
for predatory lending to a proposal to settle the instant
lawsuit for $5,000 through negotiations with Craig Russillo.
Page of63 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 63 of 227
(142 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 64/227
Paulson objected and a hearing was held discussed below.
March 4, 2010--In a scheduled court proceeding in
Case No. 3:10-CV-48-MO for a “status conference” filed by
the attorneys for Franki Keefe, Judge Michael Mosman orally
remanded this federal court case to the state court FED
proceedings. This ruling was contrary to established law
which states that if the property is initially subject to federal
court jurisdiction as here, then state courts may not
commence their own proceeding over the same property.
(Since the State Court proceedings are not part of
these allegations of judicial misconduct by federal judges,
they are left out of the timeline here. Paulson’s lawsuit
against these Fairway Defendants is still pending in
Washington County Circuit Court. Subsequent timelines
follow below, integrated into the specific acts of judicialmisconduct by each judge in those extended timelines):
WHERE IT ALL REALLY BEGAN
Paulson’s ‘Troubles’ started ten years ago when he tried to
save the M.E. Blanton House from the wrecking ball. You
see, the County wanted part of it for a street widening
program. He fell onto hard times in the two-year struggle
against ‘county-hall’ of which he was only partially
Page of64 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 64 of 227
(143 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 65/227
successful.
Then Paulson decided to become a whistleblower. That set
Paulson at odds with another governmental agency, a local
federal judge and put him deeper in debt. This venture
eventually took away his constitutional right to earn a living.
Paulson is an educated consumer. That did not prevent
Paulson from succumbing to a predatory loan in 2005.
Happily, he is not ‘underwater’. The siren song of retirement
whispered that this loan was O.K. because Paulson was
going to sell the historic property anyway in a year or two,
then pay off this horrible 12.5% loan. (The closing costs
were over $25,000.) It didn’t happen that way. Paulson put
the property up for sale in 2006, but asked too much. In
2007 Paulson had a failed sale.
This lender is not regulated by any state or federal agency.So, then the predatory loan came due at the inopportune
time that Paulson became unemployed due to the
machinations of the Oregon State Bar. That matter is
presently being litigated in U.S. District Court of Oregon and
in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
THE DEFAULT
Paulson went directly to his lender in February 2008 and
worked on a “forbearance agreement” where the price of
‘forbearance he would have to give up all legal rights and the
Page of65 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 65 of 227
(144 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 66/227
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 67/227
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 68/227
• Fannie Mae Home Affordable Refinance
Page "105 of "410
"106
• Freddie Mac Relief Refinance Mortgage and Home
Affordable Modification
• Obama Mortgage Modification Conversion Drive
Office of Homeownership Preservation
• State Historic Preservation League
• Acorn Housing Corporation
• National Community Reinvestment Coalition
• African American Alliance for Homeownership
• Local Banks
• Other Financial Institutions
• Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America
• Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP)• Citizens for Responsible Lending
Beginning in January 2009, Paulson went to them all either
in person, by computer, by telephone or by gosh and by
golly. It is possible to summarize the results of this effort
with these metaphors. The State of Oregon Veteran’s Home
Loan program advised him that since Paulson had been a
veteran for more than thirty years, he was not eligible for
their home loan programs. (Did anybody know one could
lose their veteran status?) Acorn’s office was closed on
Page of68 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 68 of 227
(147 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 69/227
Good Friday. All the banks said that their programs weren’t
fully developed yet. The federal websites put one in a
screen tree that is fireproof from ever getting to a human
being. That is when Paulson went straight to the local HUD
office in person where they told Paulson he was not eligible
for ANY program. “BUT”, they asked, “HAD HE TRIED
COUNSELING??”
THE BANKRUPTCY
On to bankruptcy, the rescue club! At first blush, one would
think that this is where debtors like Paulson achieve succor
of some sort. Stay the course.
It was now about a year after Paulson missed his first
payment. Paulson had also made a payment on that
forbearance agreement where the lender wanted Paulson to
give up all of his other rights--even if they committed fraud!For a debtor in bankruptcy court there are some startling
realities:
• Counseling -- Many of us may feel we are too good for
this, but Paulson has found, now having undergone
three counseling sessions, that they are all worthwhile.
Unfortunately, there is no tie between all the good
counseling information and a rescue loan.
• Up Front Money -- Paulson had to pay for the
counseling, pay a huge retainer to his bankruptcy
Page of69 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 69 of 227
(148 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 70/227
attorney, pay for the U.S. Trustee’s fee, prove his taxes
were current (they were), and so on. Wait a minute,
one thought it was the debtor who sought
PROTECTION for the limited funds the debtor had
left?!?
• There is no succor in bankruptcy -- What is striking is
the bankruptcy court actually serves to strip the debtor
of any of his liquid funds, any of his equity, any of his
personal property, then the bankruptcy trustee Amy
Mitchell seeks to her own purse, funds owing to the
debtor. The illegal deal was that Ms. Mitchell, under the
supposed watchful eye of the U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee
was to strip Paulson of his equity in his real estate AND
nullify Paulson’s $17 million dollar lawsuit against
predatory lenders for the illegal practices recited above.• Once again, fate had brought Paulson’s way a cash
buyer on half the property with no conditions. Now, we
are getting somewhere.
Those counseling sessions had disclosed a significant
ADDITIONAL rescue vehicle for Paulson because he is
a SENIOR. However, no one but Paulson figured it out.
Paulson is ELIGIBLE FOR A REVERSE MORTGAGE.
Paulson did due diligence on reverse mortgages. But
more than anything, Open Door Counseling gave
Page of70 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 70 of 227
(149 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 71/227
almost four (4) hours of sophisticated knowledge to an
attentive customer. THERE IS NO DOWN SIDE TO
REVERSE MORTGAGES, even in dire circumstances
like here.
PROBLEM SOLVED?
All problems solved? Yep. The money from the cash buyer
(of three of the four lots of the property), combined with the
funds from the reverse mortgage would more than pay off
the underlying predatory loan in question.
Unbeknownst to Paulson, while we put together the cash/
reverse mortgage deal in Bankruptcy Court, the lender had
illegally foreclosed the property out from underneath
Paulson, outside the Bankruptcy proceedings, without the
required statutory notice to Paulson. Suddenly, Paulson
didn’t own these properties anymore according to the predatory lender and he promptly advised the buyers and my
reverse mortgage agent of this fact. The buyers went away
as did the reverse mortgage broker.
So, each day, Paulson gazed out of his window (a wavy
historic frosted window) and wondered if the foreclosure
swat team is going to show up on his driveway to put his
stuff out into the street. They did with draconian purpose.
Eventually, they came on May 24, 2010 without prior notice
and by means of AN ILLEGAL ex parte (one sided) court
Page of71 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 71 of 227
(150 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 72/227
proceeding of which Paulson was not given prior notice,
locked Paulson’s doors and threw Paulson out into the
street. And they took all his stuff. At age 66, after working 58
years, if you count picking strawberries at age 8 and
thereafter; he became homeless.
Is there no True Rescue Vehicle (TRV) out there? Who is
Paulson? Paulson is Everyman.
DEFINITIONS for further reading
The Law
COMMON LAW -- Law developed by judicial decisions.
This is the Anglo-American legal tradition which adheres to
the principle of stare decisis (“let the decision stand”). This
doctrine holds that judges must look to past judicial
decisions or Man-made legislated laws to answer the case
before them presenting identical or similar questions. KermitL. Hall, ed., The Oxford Guide to the Supreme Court, Page
197 (2005)
NATURAL LAW -- This is the philosophical doctrine holding
that there is a certain order in nature that provides norms for
human conduct. It proposes that people can grasp certain
principles through practical reason divined by nature and
God. If a judge makes decisions based on instincts and
subjective reasoning then the philosopher George
Santayana would call that Man’s imitation of divinity. Will
Page of72 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 72 of 227
(151 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 73/227
Durant, The Story of Philosophy, Page 493 (1926-1961)
Judge Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit and Justice Clarence
Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court both are adherents to
Natural Law instead of Common Law.
Real Estate Concepts
Necessary legal real estate concepts of the whole:
The Front Load: Here is what is really going on. The
lawyers and the bankers have front loaded a simple
residential loan and sale with so much complicated
paperwork that even a sophisticated consumer does not
understand what is happening. Nor does anybody read
these documents.
The Back Load Dump: On the other hand, lawyers
and bankers have simplified their ability to get your home
through nonjudicial foreclosure to the point of denyingconsumers basic constitutional due process. Let me explain.
Here are the real estate concepts you MUST understand.
1. The Sheepskin -- The ‘Sheepskin’ is what can be
called ‘legal title’. When a seller conveys a residential
home to the buyer the former usually transfers the
‘Sheepskin’ to the latter. The bank gets a lien usually
called a mortgage.
2. The Complication -- There are ‘lien theory’ states and
there are ‘title theory’ states. In lien theory states the
Page of73 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 73 of 227
(152 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 74/227
buyer (consumer) holds the ‘Sheepskin’. The bank
simply has a lien. In title theory states the bank gets
the ‘Sheepskin’ and the consumer simply has an
‘equity’ interest in their home subject to what they owe.
In lien theory states usually the consumer gets due
process, at least in theory, because a bank has to go
through the courts to foreclose. In title theory states
nonjudicial foreclosure is the norm. There are few due
process protections in nonjudicial foreclosures.
3. Trust Deeds -- This is where they slipped the
consumers a ‘Mickey Finn’. A Trust Deed is NOT a deed at
all. It is a mortgage. It is a security interest. It is NOT
the ‘Sheepskin’. The theory behind a trust deed is that a
straw person (not to be confused with the ‘nominee‘ concept
developed in MERS issues), called a trustee is anunknown fictitious person out there that can slip and slide to
the courthouse steps and sell your home in a nonjudicial
foreclosure sale without you getting due process. In short,
the banks have devised a scheme where you, the
consumer, have given the banks a ‘power of sale‘ to this
unknown (trustee) person so they don’t have to do the right
thing by you nor have a judge looking over their shoulder
while they are placing you in the foreclosure shaft to
homelessness.
Page of74 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 74 of 227
(153 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 75/227
THE FIERCE STORMS OF LITIGATION Arrive Along
With 22 JUDGES
The laws of nature. The Laws of Nature are different from
Man-made laws such as statutes and case law. Judges are
required to follow the latter not the former. Judges are
required to follow Man-made laws which are known as The
Rules of Law. We are supposed to be a country subject to
The Rules of Law. Laws of Nature are different. When
judges follow the Laws of Nature they are being “free
agents”. They are not applying nor following the Laws of
Man. Therefore, they are not following Common Law. They
are not following the Law of Precedents otherwise known as
stare decisis. STARE DECISIS Lat. "to stand by that which
is decided." The principal is that the precedent (previous)
decisions are to be followed by the courts. It is only throughthis predictability can lawyers knowledgeably advise their
clients. Stare Decisis is missing in action in our present
legal system. We are not a country subject to The Rule of
Law when judges follow the laws of nature or do whatever
they want when they want.
Laws of Nature should be left to those who discovered
them in the first place: scientists. Laws of Nature should be
left to those who discovered them in the first place:
philosophers. Laws of human conduct i.e.., Man-made laws
Page of75 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 75 of 227
(154 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 76/227
or statutory laws are made by legislatures. Laws of Nature
are discovered by scientists and philosophers. Man-made
Laws are supposed to be discovered and applied by judges
based on decisions in previous cases. Once so discovered
and applied, these laws are supposed to be followed by
subsequent judicial rulings as precedent. The public cannot
possibly know how to conduct themselves in the field of
human affairs unless they can rely on judge-made law or
Common Law from previous judicial decisions. This is also
known as Case Law. Case law is the law enunciated by
cases decided by judges in our highest courts.
“Aquinas conceives the Laws of Nature which the
scientist discovers as laws implanted in the very nature of
things at their creation by God.” Mortimer Adler, Great
Ideas, The Lexicon of Western Thought, MacmillanPublishing Company, Page 417(1952, 1992)
The problem is that the judiciary has decided that it is
free to follow the Laws of Nature; that is the laws divined by
God, rather than the Common Law. In a word, judges have
decided they are Gods and may follow their own instincts
and do not have to follow Man-made law. This is a case in
point. It is why 22 different judges have fallen into a black
hole of decision making.
All the while, the Common Law is clear under the facts
Page of76 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 76 of 227
(155 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 77/227
found here. First, a lender may not assign a security
instrument (a mortgage or deed of trust) without also
assigning the debt instrument (the Promissory Note).
Second, banks (and all lenders) must maintain a clear chain
of title. It is just like ownership of a car. If banks assign the
security instrument without also assigning the Promissory
Note they make a fatal mistake. This is what has been
happening all around the United States. The media loves
the concept of ‘robo signatures’, but that is not the new
tsunami already sweeping across the Country. Lenders’
failure to properly assign the Promissory Note is a much
more fundamental problem for the banks, yet this concept is
little understood by the media.
Once these two documents (the deed of trust and the
Promissory Note) are separated in subsequent transfers onthe way to the securitization process, each controlled as they
are by two separate areas of the law; the lender cannot
enforce the security instrument. Humpty Dumpty, once fallen
and broken cannot be put back together again. Simple eh?
None of the 22 judges, in five (5) years of litigation have
taken notice of these simple principles of Man-made law in
existence for about two hundred (200) years in the United
States. Why have they not had a refresher course in this
problem at ‘Judge Camp’? Judge camps are the lavish
Page of77 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 77 of 227
(156 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 78/227
‘conferences’ judges have all over town, all over the state, all
over the world all the time. The Ninth Circuit had theirs in
Maui, Hawaii in 2010. Judge College is in Reno, Nevada
and subject to leadership by Nevada casinos.
The New York State courts recognized the problem of
lender’s lack of ‘Standing’ as early as 2004. Where has
everybody else been all this time?
None of the 22 judges here have taken notice of this
aspect of Common Law even though Paulson has
repeatedly raised the issue formally in his motions and
pleadings. The judges here have just ignored this issue; this
articulated legal standard under the Common Law. Not a
word have they said about this area of the Common Law.
Rather, they, all 22 of them, have divined themselves free to
make any decision they want to make eschewing clear Manmadelaw; eschewing the federal Common Law, eschewing
Oregon statutes and state Common Law all over the United
States. The problem is the judges are not Gods, therefore
they are constrained not to follow their biases and their own
personal view of Natural Law. In other words, judges may
not make any decision they want, motivated as to how they
feel that day. They may not make any decision they want
whether they like the merchant class party in front of them
nor whether they like or dislike the lonely unrepresented and
Page of78 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 78 of 227
(157 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 79/227
unwashed single digit party in front of them; in a word, they
may not like Paulson. It is manifest that they must follow
statutes and Case (or Common) Law anyway. They must
follow precedent. See, Appendix for specifics how each
judge has assiduously diverted from the Common Law to the
Natural Law in their considerations of this case.
UNFAIR FORECLOSURES IN THE REAL WORLD
(Or How Paulson Learned to Love his 22 judges in a
Simple, Single-Asset Bankruptcy)
Morton J. Horwitz, (sic) in his book, Transformation of
American Law, 1870 to (Present), tells us that early law was
chiefly for the benefit of the merchants. So, it is now. It was
chilling in Bankruptcy Court to learn that the overriding
standard for the entire bankruptcy process is “...for the
paramount interests of the creditors”.Thus admonished, Paulson now sees the process as it
really is. There is no one out there speaking up against the
wrongs and fraud being perpetrated by the financial industry.
It is essential that debtors, know what banks have
been doing wrong. This knowledge is the ultimate effective
power in the hands of debtors. It is the end of the world for
the financial institutions (banks and mortgage brokers) who
have been doing it wrong. It has to do with
CONSTITUTIONAL STANDING. **WARNING** ---
Page of79 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 79 of 227
(158 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 80/227
Hundreds of thousands of foreclosures must be
reexamined to determine if nonjudicial or judicial
foreclosures have occurred illegally because the Promissory
Note had been separated from the mortgage, but the debtor
was not aware of the issue. In Oregon alone this means that
ALL of the thousands of foreclosures that occurred that have
occurred since 2006 must be reexamined carefully, whether
the foreclosure is completed or not. Across the United
States it means over four million foreclosures need to be
reviewed to see if all parties made the same mistake as in
Natache’s case (see below) and here.
More probably, this means that this class action will call
for all foreclosures in the last ten (10) years be reexamined
to determine if the lender made this fatal mistake that will
cost them legal standing.LEGAL STANDING
Judges have a remarkably full tool kit to dispatch
disfavored debtors to the dust bin. In some states that is
exactly what judges have been doing since at least 2004.
However, now that this tsunami is about to engulf the
financial industry, there is nothing the judges can do to
improperly favor the merchants. That is because of the
formidable legal concept of Constitutional Standing. There is
nothing judges can do about it except rule in favor of the
Page of80 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 80 of 227
(159 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 81/227
debtors. Creditors either have Standing and they win, or
they don’t and they lose. There are few areas of the law that
are this black or white. This is one of them. You will have to
read further to see how powerful the concept of Standing is
for debtors. You will have to read Paulson’s story. It is a sad
tale of predatory practices, judicial incompetence and fraud.
Outright fraud. That is what those 50 state attorney generals
and U.S. Attorneys must be examining on behalf of innocent
(homeless) consumers.
Natache’s Case
It became known to Paulson, by virtue of Federal Judge
Garr King’s October 6, 2010 ruling in Natache Rinegard-
Guirma’s case, cited below, that FHLF, LLC has no standing
before any of the forums mentioned below. The issue of
whether a party has standing cannot be waived.‘Constitutional Standing’ is a “threshold jurisdictional
requirement, and cannot be waived”. Pershing Park Villas
Homeowners Assoc. v. Unified Pac. Ins. Co., 219 F3d 895,
899-900 (9th Cir 2000).
Bankruptcy—
The Plaintiff, Lauren Paulson, was represented by
Attorney Matt Arbaugh during the bankruptcy proceedings
from April 2009 until May 2010 and throughout, from Chapter
11, Chapter 7 until the bankruptcy appeal. Notwithstanding
Page of81 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 81 of 227
(160 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 82/227
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 83/227
have no legal standing to file any pleadings in any court.
This matter has been before twenty-two (22) judges in
six (6) separate judicial forums involving eight (8) lawyers
not to mention a filing by Paulson with the Oregon Attorney
General’s Office (that has been completely ignored. All the
media hype about the state attorney general’s activity is just
that).
It began in August 2008. It presently pends in the
Washington County Circuit Court, the Oregon Court of
Appeals, the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth
Circuit, the Oregon Federal District Court, Portland Division
and the U.S Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit as follows:
1. Oregon Bankruptcy Case No. 09-32439rd11/7
2.Washington County Circuit Court Case No. C 100084
3.Washington County Circuit Court Case No. C 1000854.Washington County Circuit Court Case No. C 100086
5.Oregon Court of Appeals Case No. A14569
6.Oregon Court of Appeals Case No. A14570
7.Oregon Court of Appeals Case No A14671
8.United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Case No.
BAP OR-10-1173
9.Oregon District Court Case No. 3:10-cv-00048-MO
Page "128 of "410
"129
Page of83 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 83 of 227
(162 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 84/227
10.United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit Case
No. 10-35745 (multiple#)
11.Oregon District Court Case No. cv-08982-ST/PK
ISSUE
Does FHLF, LLC have legal standing before any of the
forums on any of the pending matters?
ANSWER
No. State law requires that when mortgages (here
deeds of trust) are assigned that the Promissory Note be
transferred to or endorsed to the assignee, FHLF, LLC. That
wasn’t done. This means that the security instruments were
separated from the Promissory Notes between two
companies. Fairway held the Promissory Notes and FHLF,
LLC held the deeds of trust. The Rinegard (Natache’s) case
in Oregon and the law across the United States says thatwhen the security instruments (deeds of trust or the
mortgage) are separated from the debt obligation, (the
Promissory Notes) by such a defective assignment, the
security instruments become ineffective. The debt
obligations (the Promissory Notes) are no longer secured.
(See cases below)
This means that FHLF, LLC, which was only assigned
the security instruments, not the Promissory Notes, had no
standing in these forums nor had a right to foreclose
Page of84 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 84 of 227
(163 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 85/227
because they did not possess nor have an interest in the
debt instruments—i.e., the Promissory Notes.
THE FACTS
At issue here are two 2005 trust deed transactions with
two Promissory Notes between Paulson and Fairway
Commercial Mortgage Corporation (Fairway). Fairway
Commercial Mortgage Corporation subsequently morphed
into variously described new organizations such as one
yclept “Fairway America”, or one nka (now known as)
Skylands Investment Corporation, or one called Fairway
America, LLC or one called Fairway Commercial Corporation
and so on. Matthew (Matt) W. Burk is apparently involved in
all the creditor entities (Fairway Commercial Mortgage
Corporation, Fairway Commercial Mortgage, Fairway
America, Fairway America, LLC, FHLF, LLC, and SkylandsInvestment Corporation, Manager of FHLF, LLC) mentioned
here. The 2005 loan transaction with Paulson only involved
Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation. The 2005
transaction involved none of the other entities.
Huber-Wheeler Crossing, LLC (with Paulson as the
sole member) is the borrower on one Note and Lauren
Paulson, Trustee of his testamentary (will) trust is the
borrower on the other Note. Paulson was represented by
attorney Matt Arbaugh for the bankruptcy proceedings. On
Page of85 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 85 of 227
(164 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 86/227
Mr. Arbaugh’s instructions and without objection by Fairway
Commercial Mortgage Corporation, the four land parcels
(lots) were quitclaimed to Lauren Paulson as an individual to
facilitate the bankruptcy reorganization. Paulson had gone
out of business as a lawyer in 2006 and Huber-Wheeler
Crossing, LLC had become inactive the same year.
The original lender, Fairway Commercial Mortgage
Corporation, assigned their deeds of trust to FHLF, LLC on
February 6, 2006, but failed to assign, endorse nor deliver
the underlying Promissory Notes to FHLF, LLC. Fairway
Commercial Mortgage Corporation remained the lender and
‘Holder’ on the Promissory Notes following this ineffective
assignment. It should be noted that neither Fairway nor
FHLF, LLC gave the debtor notice of the 2006 deed of trust
assignment.FHLF, LLC’s current attorney, Craig Russillo, also
represents Fairway America, Fairway American LLC,
Fairway Commercial Mortgage and Fairway Commercial
Mortgage Corporation, Matt Burk and Wells Fargo Foothills.
Mr. Russillo was the attorney for FHLF, LLC in the FED
eviction state court cases and was the attorney for FHLF,
LLC in the bankruptcy proceedings. In addition, Mr. Russillo
was formally designated as the agent for Joel Parker, the
successor trustee at the nonjudicial foreclosure sale. In this
Page of86 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 86 of 227
(165 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 87/227
agency capacity, Mr. Russillo conducted the nonjudicial
foreclosure sale of September, 25, 2010 with Fairway’s
corporate attorney, Greg Blair, in tow.
FHLF, LLC, through Schwabe attorney Joel Parker, as
successor trustee, and Schwabe attorney Craig Russillo, as
his agent; conducted that nonjudicial foreclosure on
September 25, 2009 at the courthouse steps. This
nonjudicial foreclosure sale was done on that date without
notice to Paulson. This foreclosure was defective due to
multiple other mistakes made by FHLF, LLC and their
counsel, but those defects are addressed elsewhere.
THE LAW
Absolute Assignment
FHLF, LLC’s attorney, Mr. Russillo, has asserted the
notion that the ‘Absolute Assignment’ in 2006 of the deeds oftrust does the job for them. They say this because there is
general ‘Note’ transfer language found in that document. In
other words, FHLF, LLC would say that the language in the
deeds of trust assignment is enough to include the
Promissory Notes in that assignment. This notion is refuted
by the Rinegard (Natache’s) case discussed below among
all the other judicial decisions that have ruled on this issue
across the country. An attempt to assert a general transfer
of a Promissory Note in the mortgage (deeds of trust)
Page of87 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 87 of 227
(166 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 88/227
assignment was an issue in Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC 284 SW 3rd 619, 623 (Mo Ct App 2009). The
court found as it did in Rinegard, that ‘blanket mortgage
assignment language’ in an attempt to include the
Promissory Note is of no force because no actual transfer of
possession of the Promissory Note occurs as required by the
law.
But, even if such an assignment were enough (which it
is not because how the Promissory Note is transferred is
governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), as is
discussed below; NOT by the law of assignments) there are
specific requirements under the law of absolute assignments
which must be followed:
• The entire debt must be assigned. That did not
happen here.• The assignment must be in writing.
• The intention of the parties must be clear.
• Written notice of the assignment must be given to
the debtor. That did not happen here. Failure to
provide Paulson with notice of the alleged
Promissory Note assignment renders it void under
the law of assignments. Condor Asset
Management Ltd v. Excelsior Eastern Ltd.,
NSWSC 1139, (2005)
Page of88 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 88 of 227
(167 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 89/227
• Then, under an ‘absolute assignment’ the
assignor, Fairway, must be joined in any
foreclosure and that was not done here.
The Uniform Commercial Code
Before one can legally own a car, a person must
physically come into title. One may not legally transfer
ownership of a car to another without signing off on the title
first. One cannot expect money from the transfer of car
ownership without having first been in title and then legally
transferring one’s interest in that legal instrument. In other
words, one cannot legally enforce a car sale if that person
didn’t legally own the car in the first place. FHLF, LLC can’t
enforce the debt alleged to be owed to them by Paulson
without legally owning the Promissory Notes first. One
cannot refer to ‘other documents’; the endorsements(signatures) must be on the title document itself or
permanently attached. Fairway never signed over the
Promissory Notes nor delivered possession of the
Promissory Notes to FHLF, LLC as required by law. Thus,
FHLF, LLC has no skin in the game because not only do
they not have a penny involved in the alleged assignment,
Fairway never transferred possession of the Promissory
Notes to FHLF, LLC.
1. Negotiation and Transfer of Promissory Notes: --
Page of89 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 89 of 227
(168 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 90/227
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), with state-specific
variations, has been adopted as law by all 50 states and
governs a major portion of the law regarding deeds of trust
and accompanying Promissory Notes. Article 3 applies to
the negotiation and transfer of Promissory Notes as they are
‘negotiable instruments’ as defined in that section of the
UCC. Article 9 of the UCC governs the sale of Promissory
Notes. Oregon’s UCC law is identical to all UCC references
here.
2. Enforcement of Promissory Notes Requires
Delivery: -- A negotiable Promissory Note is transferred
when it is “delivered” for the purpose of giving the transferee
(the receiving entity) the right to enforce the note. [See UCC
Section 3-203(a), ORS 73.0203(1)] Fairway never
‘delivered’ the Promissory Notes to FHLF, LLC. Under theUCC if an entity never came into possession of the Note
then they are not entitled to enforce the Promissory Note.
[UCC Section 3-301] Because FHLF, LLC never came into
possession of Paulson’s Promissory Notes, they are not
entitled to enforce the Promissory Notes. [ORS 73.0301]
Therefore, FHLF, LLC had no Constitutional Standing to
appear in the bankruptcy proceedings, nor to file a proof of
claim, nor to obtain a relief from stay, nor to file motions, nor
to foreclose. (See the Kemp case cited and discussed
Page of90 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 90 of 227
(169 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 91/227
below)
3. Delivery Requires Endorsement: -- Moreover,
‘delivery’ requires endorsement on the Promissory Note or
on an ‘allonge’ (a separate paper permanently attached to
the Promissory Note, used in case all the other endorsement
spaces are taken up) by the ‘Holder’, Fairway, to FHLF, LLC.
Actual endorsement on the Promissory Note document is
required so FHLF, LLC can prove it didn’t just come into
possession -- by stealing the negotiable instrument (the
Promissory Note), to use an extreme example. Here, there
was no endorsement of Paulson’s Promissory Notes by
Fairway to FHLF, LLC which is a complete obstacle to FHLF,
LLC becoming a ‘Holder’ of the Promissory Notes.
4. Thus, FHLF, LLC is not the ‘Holder’ of the
Promissory Notes: -- Toenforce a Promissory Note against the borrower, a person
must prove that one is a “Holder” or it is a transferee with the
rights of a ‘Holder’. [ORS 73-0301] Fairway Commercial
Mortgage Corporation is the only ‘Holder’ of these
Promissory Notes. FHLF, LLC has never been the Holder of
the Promissory Notes, therefore, any claim asserted by
FHLF, LLC in these matters is unenforceable against
Paulson and his property under Oregon law.
The underlying Promissory Notes are negotiable
Page of91 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 91 of 227
(170 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 92/227
instruments under Oregon’s version of the Uniform
Commercial Code [ORS 73.0104] and according to the
specific language of these loan documents. A party is
Page "139 of "410
"140
entitled to enforce a negotiable instrument if they are (A) the
‘Holder’ of the Note or (B) under certain circumstances when
they are a ‘nonholder’ in possession with the rights of a
‘Holder’, or (C) a person not in possession, but who is
entitled to enforce the note when it is, for example, lost or
stolen.
A. Holder—This is the person in possession of the
note if payable to that identified person. Since FHLF,
LLC was never in physical possession of the note, it
cannot qualify as the ‘Holder’ of the note.B.Nonholder in possession -- FHLF, LLC could
otherwise qualify under the UCC under certain
circumstances if it had ever come in possession of
the Note before foreclosure. Since FHLF, LLC never
came into possession of the Promissory Notes, it
cannot qualify under this rule.
C.Nonholder not in possession -- This applies, among
other things, to lost or stolen Promissory Notes and
is inapplicable here. [See ORS 73.0301]
Page of92 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 92 of 227
(171 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 93/227
Thus, clearly FHLF, LLC was never the ‘Holder’ of
Plaintiff’s
Promissory Notes under the Uniform Commercial Code
(UCC) applicable here.
Attorney Craig Russillo has written a recent E-mail that
purports to anoint ‘Holder’ status for both Fairway
Commercial Mortgage Corporation and FHLF,LLC
simultaneously. That is impossible under the law of physics,
under statutory law (the UCC) and the Common Law. Mr.
Russillo states:
• “FHLF, LLC appointed Fairway Commercial
Mortgage Corporation as its servicer and held the
note and trust deeds on behalf of FHLF, LLC”.
(emphasis supplied)
• “Bottom line, FHLF held both the trust deeds andthe indebtedness…” (emphasis supplied)
• “Here, there was no separation of those estates,
as FHLF holds both the note and trust
deeds.” (emphasis supplied)
!
Under Mr. Russillo’s representations he would have
BOTH Fairway and FHLF, LLC be a ‘Holder’ at the same
time. There was no negotiation. There was no transfer.
There was no delivery. There was no endorsement. FHLF,
Page of93 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 93 of 227
(172 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 94/227
LLC has no Promissory Notes in their possession on this
matter. The proof is in the pudding.
A check of the recorded chain of title found in
Washington County reflects an assignment of the mortgage,
but not an assignment of the Promissory Notes. Attorney
Russillo provides no proof of his assertions of who is the
‘Holder’ and Mr. Russillo has said specifically he will not
allow inspection of his original documents. Proof is essential
to establish a chain of title. Proof is essential here to
establish Constitutional Standing.
All lender billings for payments due have been by
Fairway. Only Fairway has sent income tax information to
Paulson. Only Fairway has to account for the monthly
payments sent to them by Paulson which clearly reflects that
as of 2008 Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation callsitself the ‘lender’ on the transaction. Moreover, Fairway
America (or more properly Fairway America, LLC) as
successor in interest to Fairway Commercial Mortgage
Corporation is being actively represented as the servicer and
lender in these forums by their General Counsel, Greg Blair
through and including April 2010. Therefore, Fairway
Commercial Mortgage Corporation cum Fairway America,
LLC are the lender and the servicer of Paulson’s loan to this
date, not FHLF, LLC who has no role in the debt aspect of
Page of94 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 94 of 227
(173 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 95/227
this matter at all.
5.The Deeds of Trust follow the Promissory Notes, Not
the Other Way Around:
-- The law across the United States and the common law for
centuries is: “The mortgage (here deeds of trust) follows the
Promissory Note.” This means that if a Promissory Note is
assigned, that the security interest (deeds of trust) follows
the Promissory Note. The converse is NOT true. The
Promissory Note DOES NOT follow the mortgage (here
deeds of trust). Thus, an assignment of the mortgage
without the concomitant assignment of the Promissory Notes
is a nonevent. One can enforce the bare Promissory Notes,
but one cannot enforce the bare security interests.
There is a purpose behind these stringent requirements
in the UCC. A debtor is only required to pay money to the‘Holder’ of the Note, so he/she does not have to worry about
multiple and conflicting claims against the debtor.
Conflicting Creditor Claims
At least four or five of Matt Burk’s corporations have
variously and inconsistently asserted a creditor’s interest in
this matter:
A.Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation: -- This
is the only company that Paulson dealt with in the
2005 loan transactions and with whom Paulson
Page of95 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 95 of 227
(174 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 96/227
‘contracted’. (Even this part of the transaction has
been bungled by Fairway. Apparently, there does
not exist a ‘loan agreement’, that has been signed by
Fairway. Mr. Seidenwurm for whom there is a
signature space, is no longer with the company and
did not sign in the signature space for Fairway on
the loan agreement. Thus, there is no loan
agreement signed by both parties.)
It is only Fairway Commercial Mortgage
Corporation that
issued the 11/25/2008 “Notice of Default and Election
to Sell”. FHLF, LLC is not mentioned in this
recorded document. The inconsistency is obvious.
Why would Fairway Commercial Mortgage
Corporation be issuing a 2008 ‘Notice’ in this matterif they assigned their financial interest to FHLF,LLC in
2006? Why would Fairway Commercial Mortgage
Corporation be doing anything in 2008 when Fairway
America, LLC or Skylands Investment Corporation is
the replacement corporation as variously asserted by
Matt Burk’s entities and as variously asserted by
Craig Russillo, their variously asserted attorney and
agent?
B.FHLF, LLC: -- Following Paulson’s filing of Chapter
Page of96 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 96 of 227
(175 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 97/227
11 bankruptcy in April 2009 the next pleading filed in
the bankruptcy matter is by FHLF, LLC through their
attorney, Craig Russillo on April 22, 2009.
C.Fairway America: -- There is an undated
memorandum on ‘Fairway America’ letterhead
signed by Matthew W. Burk as President of Skylands
Investment Corporation assigning “the rights and
interest in the Assignment of Leases and Rents …to
FHLF, an Oregon limited liability company” This
undated memo states: “Fairway America, LLC
successor in interest to Fairway Commercial
Mortgage Corporation.”(sic) If Fairway America or
Fairway America, LLC became a successor in
interest to Fairway Commercial Mortgage
Corporation sometime in 2006 why is FairwayCommercial Mortgage Corporation still filing
documents in this case in 2008, 2009 and 2010?
The initial ‘demand to cure’ letter to the Plaintiff
came on August 12, 2008, from Attorney Joel
Parker representing “Fairway America”. On April 27,
2010, Attorney Craig Russillo acting on behalf of
“Fairway America” filed FHLF, LLC’s Memorandum in
bankruptcy court in support of the Trustee’s alleged
intent to settle the Paulson’s federal court predatory
Page of97 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 97 of 227
(176 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 98/227
lending lawsuit against the various Fairway entities.
The April 27, 2010 Memorandum is supported by a
declaration signed by Fairway America’s General
Counsel Greg Blair.
Yet in a pleading filed by Attorney Craig Russillo in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit on January 5, 2011, Mr. Russillo states:
“(Paulson) incorrectly names Fairway
America Corporation as a defendant/respondent
in this appeal. No such entity
exists to the best of defendants-respondents’
knowledge. The entity that Plaintiff
presumably intended to name is Fairway
Commercial Mortgage Corporation, nka
Skylands Investment Corporation.”However, in the same pleading he provides
another Declaration by Greg Blair as “…general
counsel for Fairway America, successor in interest to
the business of Fairway Commercial Mortgage
Corporation (Fairway).”
D.Skylands, Who?: -- Throughout the debtor’s 2005
loan transactions with Fairway, there was no mention
of Skyland’s Investment Corporation. Skylands is
first mentioned in 2008 when a curious document is
Page of98 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 98 of 227
(177 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 99/227
found in the “chain of title” recorded in Washington
County’s Taxation and Assessment Department. In
this 2008 document, “Fairway Commercial Mortgage
Corporation” is listed as “Grantor” (the debtor entity
‘granting’ a security interest to another) of the deed
of trust assignment. They probably meant to put
Huber-Wheeler Crossing, LLC as the actual Grantor
of the deeds of trust. This document appoints a
successor trustee, Joel Parker, who is an attorney
for Schwabe law firm. This document is signed by
“Matthew W. Burk, President” of “Skylands
Investment Corporation, an Oregon corporation,
Manager”. To this day, the Paulson has no idea who
Skylands Investment Corporation is nor what role
they have in any of the transactions encompassedhere. Yet, Skylands signs as Manager of FHLF,
LLC, another entity that Paulson has never dealt
with in any of the loan proceedings???
E. Fairway America, LLC -- This is the entity that
registered with Oregon’s Corporation Division on
December 6, 2007. It is the entity that should have
been identified as the successor corporation to
Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation instead
of the entity that does not exist --- ‘Fairway
Page of99 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 99 of 227
(178 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 100/227
America’----, referred to often as the successor. It is
not known nor explained anywhere how Fairway
America, LLC fits in with Fairway Commercial
Mortgage Corporation and Skylands Investment
Corporation. Nor is it explained anywhere where
these three entities fit in with FHLF, LLC other than
the deed of trust assignment by Fairway Commercial
Mortgage Corporation to them. That assignment
does not explain the relationship between these
entities as they bear on the original loan.
However, Paulson previously provided the Court
with a signature page by Mr. Russillo dated March
20th, 2009 where he signs himself as the attorney for
“Fairway America Corporation”. There is no such
company. However, Matthew W. Burk does own“Fairway Commercial Mortgage”. Then as recently
as April 10, 2010, Mr. Russillo signs himself as the
attorney for “Fairway America, the entity that also
does not exist as pointed out above. Confused? In
summary, along with the contracting Fairway entity:
-- Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation, the
actual lender has variously used the names Fairway
America LLC, Fairway America Corporation, Fairway
Commercial Mortgage and just plain Fairway
Page of100 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 100 of 227
(179 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 101/227
America. The Oregon Business Registry identifies
the probable proper successor entity as “Fairway
America, LLC”.
Causing further confusion is the fact that in the
same current pleading Craig Russillo states that,
“Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation” is now
known as “Skylands Investment Corporation”. On the
other hand, Greg Blair states in his declaration that
“Fairway America, LLC” is the successor in interest to
the “…business of Fairway Commercial Mortgage
Corporation” to this current day.
Finally, “Fairway America” (not “Fairway America,
LLC” which is the actual entity registered with the
State of Oregon”. “Fairway America” is NOT
registered with the State of Oregon) is the only entitydesignation on all of Fairway’s ‘letterhead’
communications.
On the Motion for Summary Judgment filed in the
instant case, Mr. Russillo signed as the attorney for
“Fairway America Corporation”. There was testimony
in a court proceeding by Attorney Joel Parker that
there are individual investors on Paulson’s loan.
These investors lent funds to Fairway to finance
Paulson’s loan and to whom Fairway may owe about
Page of101 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 101 of 227
(180 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 102/227
$200,000. These individuals may have an additional
interest in these matters.
Thus, there are at least four to five creditors who
are asserting claims against the Plaintiff since 2005;
Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation, Fairway
Commercial Mortgage, Fairway America, FHLF, LLC
and Skylands Investment Corporation. Even the
bankruptcy judge, Judge Dunn, was confused. He
thought the dispute in the bankruptcy proceedings
was between Paulson and “Fairway” when in truth
and in fact, the only matters before Judge Dunn in
the bankruptcy proceeding were the claims of FHLF,
LLC.
Cases Across The United States
The current economic meltdown has disclosed thatfinancial institutions across the country have made the same
mistake Fairway and FHLF, LLC made here:
• Kemp v. Countrywide, USDC of New Jersey, Case No
08-18700- JHW (11/16/10) {The debtor successfully
expunged the proof of claim in bankruptcy adversary
proceeding because the Note was neither endorsed to
transferee nor put in transferee’s possession.}
• Schwend v. US Bank, N.A, et al., USDC of Missouri,
Case No 4:10 CV 1590 CDP (12/3/10) {A debtor
Page of102 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 102 of 227
(181 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 103/227
successfully resisted a Motion to Dismiss her claim for
wrongful foreclosure citing Missouri law that a
foreclosure is invalid if the person causing the
foreclosure does not actually hold title to the Note.}
• Cogswell v. CitiFinancial Mortgage Company,
Incorporated, US Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, No
08-2153 (10/5/10) {Debtor successfully avoided
foreclosure when CitiFinancial assigned its interest in a
mortgage but never delivered the Note to the
assignees. Citing Illinois law, the Court stated that only
the ‘Holder’ of the Note may foreclose.}
• Servido v. US Bank N.A. et al., District Court of Appeal
for State of Florida, Fourth District, Case No
4DE10-1898 (10/27/10) {Holding that the party seeking
foreclosure must present evidence that it owns andholds the note and mortgage in question.}
• BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP fka Countrywide v.
White, Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Case No
108,736, (12/3/10) {Court holds that a mortgage is
merely an incident and accessory to the Note. Under
Oklahoma law an assignment of the mortgage to one
other than the holder of the note is of no effect.}
Page "155 of "410
"156
Page of103 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 103 of 227
(182 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 104/227
• Fawn Ridge Partners, LP v. BAC Home Loans
Servicing, LP, U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the
Ninth Circuit, Bk. No 09-15088-TD, BAP No.
CC-09-1396-HPDu , before Dunn and Perris,
Bankruptcy Judges, (3/29/10) {Countrywide, the lender,
has a practice of retaining the original Promissory
Notes. Because Countrywide did not endorse and
transfer the Note to BAC, the latter had no standing to
request a relief from stay. 11 USC Section 362(d)
Court holds that Constitutional standing is a ‘threshold
jurisdictional requirement, and cannot be waived (citing
cases)’” Under California law, to qualify as a ‘Holder’,
one must be in possession of the instrument, and the
instrument must be properly endorsed.}
• LNV CORP v, Madison Real Estate, Supreme Court of New York, Index No. 103576/2010, (12/09/2010)
{Under New York law a party foreclosing must show
that they are the owner of the Note as well as the
mortgage at the time the action is commenced. Absent
an effective transfer of the debt as well as the note, the
assignment of the mortgage is void and the party may
not foreclose. That party has no standing.}
• HSBC v. Thompson, et al., Court of Appeals of Ohio,
Trial Court Case No. 07-CV-9439, 2010-4158
Page of104 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 104 of 227
(183 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 105/227
(9/3/2010) {Trial Court decision affirmed granting
debtor summary judgment and dismissing foreclosure
action because HSBC failed to establish that it was the
‘Holder’ of the Promissory Note. Without that showing
HSBC has no standing to bring the foreclosure.
Standing is a threshold issue for the courts to decide for
it to proceed to adjudicate the action. In a foreclosure
action the real party in interest is the current holder of
the note and mortgage. Financial institutions, noted for
insisting on their customers’ compliance with numerous
ritualistic formalities, are not sympathetic petitioners in
urging relaxation of an elementary business practice.
“For nearly a century, Ohio courts have held that
whenever a Promissory note is secured by a mortgage,
the note constitutes the evidence of the debt and themortgage is mere incident to the obligation. Edgar v.
Haines, 109 Ohio St. 159, 164, 141 NE 837 (1923)
Moreover, a financial institution cannot cure its lack of
standing by subsequently obtaining an interest in the
mortgage or Note. Accord Bank of New York v.
Gindele, Hamilton App. No. C-C090251, 2010-
Ohio-542.}
• Country Place Community Association, Inc. J.P. Morgan
Mortgage Acquisition Corp, District Court of Appeal of
Page of105 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 105 of 227
(184 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 106/227
Florida, Case No. 2D10-569, (12/29/10) {Country Place
sued J.P. Morgan for attorney fee after the circuit court
dismissed J.P. Morgan’s mortgage foreclosure action.
J.P. Morgan never produced any evidence that it owned
the note and mortgage that were subject to the previous
proceeding. Thus, Country Place successfully
dismissed the case on summary judgment and now
seeks their attorney fees. The court agreed that without
proof that it owned the note, J.P. Morgan had no
standing. The court holds that if a ruling of a trial court
is not worthy of support then J.P. Morgan should
confess error.}
The common law rule that ‘the mortgage follows the
note’ is codified in Article 9 of the UCC, Section 9-203(g)
which states: “The attachment of a security interest in a rightto payment or performance secured by a security interest or
other lien on…real property is also attachment of a security
interest in the security interest, mortgage, or other
lien.” [ORS 79.0203(7)]
As the following cases demonstrate, the mortgage note
does not follow the mortgage if there is an attempted
assignment of the mortgage alone or if there is an
assignment separate from the mortgage note as happened
here. Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 284 SW 3rd
Page of106 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 106 of 227
(185 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 107/227
619, 623 (Mo Ct App 2009) An assignment of the deed of
trust separate from the note has no ‘force’. Saxon Mortgage
Serf. Inc v. Hillery, No C-08-4357 EMC, 2008 WL5170180, at
4-5(ND Cal Dec 9 2008). For there to be a valid assignment,
there must be more than just an assignment of the deed of
trust alone; the Promissory Note must also be assigned. In
re Wilhelm, 407 BR 392, 400-05 (Bankr D Idaho 2009).
Oregon cases support the concept that the security, here the
Deed of Trust, is ‘merely an incident to the debt.’ West v.
White, 307 Or 296, 300, 766 P2d 383 (1988)
Where, as here, the Promissory Note and the trust
deed are split, the transfer of the trust deed is ineffective.
Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 284 SW 3rd 619,
623-24 (Mo Ct App 2009) A putative transfer of the
Promissory Note in the trust deed assignment is ineffective because the UCC governs the transfer of a Promissory Note.
Because Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation never
physically transferred the Promissory Notes to FHLF, LLC,
Joel Parker as successor trustee on the security interests did
not have a legally cognizable interest in the property.
Therefore, Parker had no standing to foreclose on FHLF,
LLC’s behalf. Saxon Mortg. Serv., Inc v. Hillery, No
C-08-4357 EMC, 2008 WL 5170180. That Fairway
Commercial Mortgage Corporation remained the lender on
Page of107 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 107 of 227
(186 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 108/227
the transaction is evidenced by the fact that only Fairway
Commercial Mortgage Corporation, as lender, continued to
collect on and enforce the debt following the putative
execution of the Promissory Notes in 2005. Further, only
Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation, as beneficiary,
issued the 2008 Notice of Default and Election to Sell. This
is a clear break in the ‘chain of title’. Fairway had supposedly
assigned their interests to FHLF, LLC in 2006 according to
the official records. Yet in 2008 Fairway is representing itself
as the real party at interest in the trust deeds while two years
earlier Fairway had assigned their trust deed interests to
FHLF, LLC. This ‘Notice’ contains no mention of FHLF,LLC.
Then, as discussed above, Fairway then morphed into
Fairway America and participated variously in these
proceedings as described.It is clear that FHLF, LLC did not have Constitutional
Standing in this Court, nor standing to either seek relief from
the bankruptcy stay, seek an FED, nor move forward with
foreclosure because FHLF, LLC was never in possession of
the Promissory Notes. The other Fairway entities were just
hopelessly confused.
As stated above, Judge Garr King in Natache’s Case --
Rinegard-Guirma v. Bank of America, et al U.S. District
Court, District of Oregon, Portland Division Civil Case No
Page of108 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 108 of 227
(187 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 109/227
10-1065-PK decision dated October 6, 2010, Held: that
when the lender splits the trust deed from the Promissory
Notes, any foreclosure is ineffective. That is exactly what
happened here. In short:
In Rinegard the lender, Mortgage Lenders Network (MLN)
assigned the deed of trust to LaSalle who appointed the
successor trustee
In Paulson, the lender, Fairway Commercial Mortgage
Corporation (FCMC) assigned the deed of trust to FHLF who
appointed the successor trustee
In Rinegard the lender, MLN, physically retained the
Promissory Notes as well as the servicing rights to the
mortgages.
In Paulson, the lender FCMC physically retained the
Promissory Notes as well as the servicing rights to themortgages.
In Rinegard payments were to be made to the lender,
Mortgage Lenders Network, USA
In Paulson, payments were to be made to the lender,
Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation.
Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation split the
trust deeds from the Promissory Notes when they made the
2006 assignments of the trust deeds to FHLF, LLC, but did
not assign nor transfer possession of the Promissory Notes
Page of109 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 109 of 227
(188 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 110/227
to FHLF, LLC. Therefore, all proceedings with them as a
party or participant in any forum including the foreclosure
leading to the FED action was defective and void because
FHLF, LLC had no standing in any judicial forum.
Constitutional Standing
The issue of standing involves both “constitutional
limitations on federal court jurisdiction and prudential
limitations on its exercise”. Warth v. Seldin, 422 US 490,
498 (1975). To have constitutional standing FHLF, LLC must
show that it suffered an actual concrete and particularized
injury in fact, caused by the debtor which would result in
likely redress. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US 555,
559-560 (1992). Here, FHLF, LLC can show no interest in
the underlying debt instrument nor that it paid anything for
this transaction. FHLF, LLC cannot show that it was eitherthe transferee or assignee of the Note. Therefore, FHLF,
LLC cannot demonstrate that it has been injured by the
debtor’s putative default on the loan. As such, FHLF, LLC
did not have constitutional standing to file anything,
foreclose, much less for a relief from Stay or to participate in
these proceedings at all.
Prudential standing requires that FHLF, LLC assert its
own claims rather than the claims of another. Dunmore v.
United States, 358 F3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2004). Clearly
Page of110 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 110 of 227
(189 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 111/227
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 112/227
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 113/227
Master (judge) appointed to administer the return of his
personal property. In August 2010 when the Defendants
were threatening to remove and destroy all of Paulson’s
personal property, Paulson again moved for an emergency
stay. None of the Courts were willing to have a hearing on
these emergency motions. This is a clear denial of Due
Process. Now, that removal and destruction of Paulson’s
property and personal property may have already occurred.
Paulson has no idea where that property has been taken nor
whether that property has been destroyed. Considering the
current issue of constitutional standing, Paulson is again
asking the courts to issue a preliminary injunction and stay
requiring the Defendants to return Paulson to the premises
and requiring the Defendants to return Paulson’s personal
property.This is probably the only case in history where the
Court has allowed one party to litigation to confiscate all the other
party’s litigation materials, including the computer hard drive
which is in the hands of the adversary, the Portland, Oregon
Cosgrave law firm, while the litigation was pending. The
Defendants not only have all of Paulson’s personal property,
they also have his family irreplaceable heirlooms dating back
over 100 years. That’s not all. The Defendant’s also have
over 2,000 client files and the client list of Paulson’s for over
Page of113 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 113 of 227
(192 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 114/227
300 clients. In theory, one would suppose one business
would not be allowed the customer lists of another business,
but that is allowed here. It shouldn’t have been allowed.
The Defendants also have confiscated three of
Paulson’s vehicles including a classic motor home.
And then, as mentioned above, there is the other
computer hard drive belonging to Paulson in the custody of
Attorney Paul Berg’s paralegal who is defending Craig
Russillo by the Professional Liability Fund, Oregon’s lawyer
malpractice insurance carrier. This hard drive contains
confidential client information and confidential financial
information belonging to Paulson.
All the courts have been asked to stay these
proceedings and have been asked to schedule an
evidentiary hearing to determine chain of title and todetermine if the putative creditor, FHLF, LLC has
constitutional standing. It doesn’t. No judge out of the 22
and no court out of the 6 have addressed this issue.
NATURAL LAW v. THE COMMON LAW —
22 Judges Used Natural Law
So far, this case is much like the recently maligned
mortgage market: This case has been sliced and diced,
vertically and horizontally. There are mezzanine tranches,
there are state court tranches, there are federal court
Page of114 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 114 of 227
(193 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 115/227
tranches, there are trial courts, there are appellate courts,
there are bankruptcy courts, there are non-judicial tranches,
and the list goes on.
In 1788, Alexander Hamilton suspected that some
judges might not do their duty. Thus, he stated in THE
FEDERALIST PAPERS:
“It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety,
that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences
necessarily connected with the advantages of a free
government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it
is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict
rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out
their duty in every particular case that comes before them;
and it will readily be conceived from the variety of
controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness ofmankind, that the records of those precedents must
unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must
demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent
knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few
men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to
qualify them for the stations of judges.” (Emphasis supplied)
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78, (1788)
MY SIX OTHER COURTS (JUDICIAL NOTICE)
1. U.S. Federal District Court: -- Paulson first filed his
Page of115 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 115 of 227
(194 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 116/227
predatory loan case against Fairway, et al., in Oregon
Federal District Court on August 21, 2008 under Case
No. CV 08982 ST. The case was assigned to
Honorable Magistrate Judge Janice Stewart.
Common Law -- Judge Stewart followed The Common Law
and the Rules of the Court. Then she removed herself from
the case for unknown reasons and the case was assigned to
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak.
Natural Law -- Judge Papak neither followed the Common
Law nor the Rules of the Court when he refused to schedule
nor hear Paulson’s emergency motions. Paulson appealed
Judge Papak’s rulings and the case was assigned to
federal court Judge Ancer Haggerty. Judge Haggerty
followed Natural Law. Judge Haggerty generally followed
the Rules of the Court, but not the Common Law as he sawmade short work of Paulson’s case. Judge Haggerty also
refused to hear Paulson’s multiple filed Motions that are
required to be heard by simple due process and by his own
court rules. Judge Haggerty refused Paulson Discovery
that is allowed under court rules. Finally, he failed to read
Paulson’s Motion to Compel Discovery which pointed out the
issue of constitutional standing recently discussed by his
brother Honorable Judge Garr King in the same building.
Paulson appealed Judge Haggerty’s decision to United
Page of116 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 116 of 227
(195 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 117/227
States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit Case No. 10-35745
where it remains.
2. U.S. Federal Bankruptcy Court: -- Paulson filed his
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy case on April 8, 2009 under
Case No. 09-32439 rdl 11 after he was formally
threatened with non judicial foreclosure by the creditor
Fairway. The case was assigned to Honorable Judge
Randall Dunn. Judge Dunn neither followed the Rules
of the Court nor the Common Law. This is where the
wheels fell off.
Common Law -- Bankruptcy law is Man-made law. Chapter
7 is liquidation. Chapter 11 is reorganization so the debtor
can reemerge as a healthy organization after satisfying the
debt obligations. Paulson filed for Chapter 11
reorganization. The debt is restructured so the debtor maycontinue to pursue a living. This case was perfect for that
since the single asset was worth $655,000 and the creditors
were only owed, if at all, $400,000 or thereabouts. Thus, the
case was not ‘underwater’.
Natural Law -- No reorganization plan was made as called
for by the Chapter 11 statutory scheme. The judge allowed
an unnecessary lawsuit for eviction in State Court times
three. (Three unnecessary State Court lawsuits were filed
by a substitute creditor, FHLF, LLC who did not have
Page of117 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 117 of 227
(196 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 118/227
constitutional standing.) The judge allowed a nonjudicial
foreclosure without the required statutory notices to the
debtor. Then for good measure, the judge allowed the false
creditor to settle the debtor’s lawsuit against the creditors for
predatory loan practices against established law. The
bankruptcy trustee sided with the creditors and even sat with
them during the hearing. She was supposed to be neutral.
The good judge ignored the fact that the parties had a
settlement that worked out for everybody.
3. Washington County Circuit Court, State of Oregon: --
Fairway filed three state FED (eviction) cases on
January 25, 2011 in Washington County Circuit Court
under Case Nos. C10084,85,86 EV.
Common Law -- The Oregon Constitution requires that
Paulson be allowed a Jury. Judge Erwin in eviction courtsuddenly decided he would render a verdict on the case
himself and took the case away from the jury’s decision.
Court rules require that Judge Erwin hold a hearing upon
Paulson’s Motion for a New Trial, but Judge Erwin decided
that was not necessary. Further, under Oregon statutes,
Paulson is entitled to a stay of Judge Erwin’s decision upon
a Motion for a New Trial, but Judge Erwin decided that
Paulson didn’t need that either nor the required hearing on
the matter. Paulson requested the judge to make written
Page of118 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 118 of 227
(197 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 119/227
finding of facts and conclusions of law as allowed by the
Man-made law. Judge Erwin decided he didn’t have to do
that either. The purpose of this rule is so consumers can
know why a judge ruled as they did. No luck here either.
Natural Law -- (Paulson filed to Remand the FED cases in
Oregon District Federal Court under No. cv 08982 ST, but
was assigned a new Case No. 3:10-cv-00048-MO and a new
judge, Honorable Mosberg. Judge Mosberg followed Natural
Law. He followed neither the Rules of the Court nor the
Common Law. He made his Ruling at a “Status Conference”
instead of a formal hearing.) Neither lawyers nor the parties
are prepared to argue the facts and the law nor expect a
substantive ruling by the court at a ‘status conference’. So,
while under the Common Law, any litigation involving real
estate is supposed to remain in the jurisdiction that firstacquired jurisdiction (here Oregon Federal District Court)
Judge Mosman allowed the jurisdiction to shift to State
Court.
This case was then assigned to Honorable Steve Price
in State Court for the Eviction proceedings as discussed
above. There are certain time lines allowed under the Court
Rules for a response. Judge Price decided Paulson did not
need that time nor did Judge Price allow Paulson’s response
to the creditor’s filings. The trial was assigned to Honorable
Page of119 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 119 of 227
(198 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 120/227
Andrew Erwin. Both judges followed Natural Law. Neither
followed the Rules of the Court nor the Common Law.
4. Oregon State Court of Appeals: -- Paulson timely
appealed the eviction decisions to the Oregon Court of
Appeals. Oregon Court of Appeals Case No. A14569,
Oregon Court of Appeals Case No. A14570, Oregon
Court of Appeals Case No A14671 Paulson timely filed
to be allowed to stay in his home during the pendency
of these proceedings and the appeal.
Common Law -- As allowed by Oregon Statutes and Rules
of Civil Procedure, Paulson filed a sixteen page (16) Motion
to Return Paulson to his home based on a Constitutional
issue of Standing. In support of that motion Paulson asked
that new Judge Andrew Erwin be disqualified based on a
U.S. Supreme Court (Litkey v. United States) case amongother legal authorities.
Natural Law -- Referring to none of Paulson’s arguments,
authorities nor even the U.S. Supreme Court case, Judge
Erwin denied the motion. The problem is that Paulson wrote
an article on judicial elections in his blog that Judge Erwin
could have taken as negative to him. Subsequently, Judge
Erwin denied Paulson his statutory right to stay in his home
without a hearing even though a hearing is required by
written statutory law. No matter to Judge Erwin.
Page of120 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 120 of 227
(199 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 121/227
The Oregon Court of Appeals followed neither their
Court Rules nor the Common Law in denying Paulson the
right to stay in his own home while these proceedings were
pending. Further, they assigned the case to Commissioner
Nass who has never been a judge, never elected, appointed,
nor anything judicial, yet decided Paulson could not stay in
his house pending the appeal even though that is allowed by
Oregon law. He not only followed Natural Law, but made up
laws that nowhere exist, then lied.
5. U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit :
-- Paulson timely filed his Notice of Appeal of Judge
Randall Dunn’s Order in the Oregon Bankruptcy Court
on May 17, 2010 to the United States Bankruptcy
Appellate Court Panel which assigned Case No. BAP
No. OR-10-1173.Common Law -- On December 19, 2010 Paulson filed his
twenty-two (22) page Motion to Expunge FHLF, LLC’s Proof
of Claim in bankruptcy court. Paulson’s Motion cited five (5)
distinct legal basis for his motion. The motion cited over
twenty (20) cases and seven (7) statutory rules in support of
his position. The motion contained twenty-seven (27) pages
of supporting documents as exhibits.
Natural Law -- On January 18, 2011 Bankruptcy Appellate
Panel Judges Pappas and Markell denied Paulson’s motion
Page of121 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 121 of 227
(200 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 122/227
in a six (6) line, quarter page ORDER. The Court’s Order
cites no cases, no statutes, refers to none of Paulson’s five
legal arguments nor refers to any of his legal briefs nor any
of his 27 pages of supporting materials.
6. U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: --
Because Magistrate Judge Papak wouldn’t afford
Paulson a hearing on any of the matters (six of them)
that he filed, he asked Chief Judge Ann Aiken to look
into the matter because that refusal seemed so
unusual. She wouldn’t look into the matter either, so
Paulson asked the Ninth Circuit to forbid Fairway’s
threatened confiscation of Paulson’s personal property
and to disqualify Judge Papak.
Common Law -- The law allows for a time-out if one party
may suffer irreparable harm and that party has a colorablecase on the merits. It is now August of 2010. Paulson had
been asking the courts to save his irreplaceable family
heirlooms since May 2010 without a hearing. Paulson also
briefed the Ninth Circuit on the law of disqualification and
pointed out how case law across the land and in Oregon is
the opposite of Chief Judge Ann Aiken’s ruling on the issue
of Judge Papak’s bias. Paulson’s brief is fifteen (15) pages
long and cites eight cases and court rules. In addition,
Paulson supplies twenty-eight (28) additional pages of
Page of122 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 122 of 227
(201 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 123/227
supporting materials.
Natural Law -- Without referring to any of the law nor the
facts recited by Paulson, the Court denies Paulson’s motion
in a one page Order. The court does not even mention the
issue of Judge Papak’s disqualification. Either Judge Aiken
is right on the law of disqualification or Paulson is right.
Paulson has analyzed the issue under the U.S. Supreme
Court case of Litkey v. Supreme Court case, and no judge
has analyzed this case in terms of why or how Paulson is
wrong. (Clifton, Bybee and Ikuta) Yes, that Bybee!
The Playing Field Changes —
The Playing Field Changed in Oregon on October 6,
2010 when Ms. Natache Rinegard-Guirma bravely, and by
herself, took on the Bank of America. The issue is described
above in detail.Common Law -- With Natache’s case folded firmly under
his arm, Paulson supplied the new precedent to the Ninth
Circuit. They were not interested.
Natural Law -- This time Paulson provided the Ninth Circuit
with a brand new brief of twenty-six (26) pages citing thirtyfour
(34) case or statutory rules as precedent. Paulson also
provided fifteen (15) additional new exhibits. Without
referring to a single issue nor page of Paulson’s documents
nor arguments, the Ninth Circuit said Paulson’s appeal “...is
Page of123 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 123 of 227
(202 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 124/227
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 125/227
At the Federal Court level, Judge Janice Stewart is the
only judge to follow Common Law. Judges Dunn, Papak,
Haggerty, Aiken, and Mosberg have only followed Natural
Law. None of these judges have followed their own Court
Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor have they
followed The Rule of Law. Indeed, none, except Judge
Haggerty have even cited case law.
At the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals it is no better as
summarized above.
The Roiling Seas of Litigation Roil On.
THERE IS NO HOPE FOR HOMEOWNERS
There is no hope for homeowners and here is why. But, first
let me define the problem.
THE PROBLEM
A homeowner who is in present financial distress is caught ina hopeless tautology. Here are the essential elements:
• Citizens in a financial pickle are demoralized and
ashamed. Therefore, the consumer is reluctant to
reach out or deal with new or redundant paperwork.
• Government has encumbered their rescue vehicles with
so much bureaucracy that they sink of their own weight.
There is no one agency or nonprofit in charge. No one
is in charge.
Reality -- All the lame programs purportedly providing hope
Page of125 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 125 of 227
(204 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 126/227
for homeowners ignore two realities about creditors and
servicing agencies. The first reality is that servicing agencies
hold debtors in contempt. There will be few friendly
workouts because of how creditors view debtors. The
second reality is that lenders look to situations like these as
an opportunity to make a second profit from the
unsuspecting public. Just look at the new mortgage
advertisements!
The Tautology -- The tautology works like this. All programs
require the debtor to start with counseling somewhere. Fine.
The problem is that none of the counselors have any clout
with lenders. I have been through three sophisticated
counseling sessions, all of which were worthwhile and none
got me any closer to resolution of my loan default. In other
words, there is no hand-off or linchpin between thecounseling and a loan workout with the lender.
Further, if a consumer starts from scratch with lenders after
being stymied with their present servicer here is what
happens. The consumer is already behind the financial eight
ball, so no quality lender will touch them. On the other hand,
all the original shell games continue unabated in the crisis
lending situation where the troubled debtor is likely to get
ripped off again.
THE SOLUTION
Page of126 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 126 of 227
(205 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 127/227
The solutions are easy and have been much discussed.
Our leaders are simply too afraid (or too beholden) to
confront bankers and their lobbyists to do what everybody
knows has to get done:
2.The workouts have to be mandatory requiring certain
minimum standards with Treasury, HUD and Elizabeth
Warren in charge.
3.Local Mediation programs have to be given authority to
engage in friendly, forceful, but binding efforts to
restructure loans with the clout of a court mediation
program or a settlement judge behind the process.
Principle reduction has to be on the table. If mediation
fails then the matter should go directly to a settlement
judge who is trained and committed. There are many
judicial pretenders out there. If you look closely at theagenda of judicial conferences as I have, you’ll fined
they are wining and dining in Hawaii as usual.
Consumers need the ‘support’ of judicial surroundings.
Judicial surroundings is the only thing that will get the
attention of reluctant lenders.
Moreover, resolution in a forced settlement forum under
judicial supervision will deny lenders what they lust for --
that second profit.
DRILLING DOWN: -- ON HOW BANK
Page of127 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 127 of 227
(206 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 128/227
OF AMERICA PLAYS ALL SIDES OF THE BET ON THEIR
FORECLOSURE CASES IN THE STATE OF OREGON.
COMPLETING THE CIRCLE -- The inside story on how
Bank of America plays all sides of the bet in Natache’s case
-- a ‘routine’ Oregon foreclosure case pending in Federal
District Court of Oregon.
(Natache D. Rinegard-Guirma v. Bank of America, et al.,
U.S. District of Oregon Civil Case No. 10-1065- PK )
OH, WHAT A WEB WE WEAVE.........................
Natache’s case starts with Lake Oswego Oregon Attorney
Ian Kyle. Mr. Kyle represents Bank of America in Natache’s
case. Ian Kyle is but a bit player in the Law-Corporation
Conglomerate from Seattle known as Routh, Crabtree,
Olsen. Stephen Routh is the CEO. You will choke when you
see how far and wide Routh’s tentacles have taken hold intheir foreclosure machine begun in the 1970’s.
Here is where you are going to get your surprise. Surprise
because Bank of America has it’s own financial tentacles
throughout and all the way back to Natache and her
lawyers.. BANK OF AMERICAN TENTACLES WILL TAKE
US RIGHT TO THE FUNDING PIPELINE of NATACHE’S
LAWYERS AS FOLL0WS — Routh, Crabtree and Olsen, The
Full Service “FORECLOUSURE -
MAN” Company
Page of128 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 128 of 227
(207 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 129/227
Bank of America hired Routh,
Crabtree and Olsen (RCO) to boot
African American/Native American
Natache Rinegard-Guirma out of
her Portland, Oregon home. Their
attorney Ian Kyle went to work.
When a homeowner defaults on
their loan, there are a number of
‘T’s that must be crossed and ‘I’s
that must be dotted by the lender
BEFORE a foreclosure can take
place. Normally, the bank would
arrange for that ‘straw person’ to
be identified, ie., the Trustee who
will conduct the foreclosure sale onthe courthouse steps. RCO has all
these companies under their
corporate umbrella (AND more as
we shall see). Then they secure a
title report to ensure their interests
are protected--from their own
company.
It used to be said of sausage
makers that they used all parts of
Page of129 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 129 of 227
(208 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 130/227
the pig in making that product
“....except the squeal.” Well, give
RCO credit where credit is due.
They have every single base of the
foreclosure field covered except
your choice of a mover to pick up
the family heirlooms from the curb.
They own Oregon Legal Journal
where notice of foreclosure sales
are made. They own a process
service company. They even own
USA.foreclosure which advertises
REO opportunities far and wide
nationally and by state.
FULL SERVICE LAW FIRM FULL SERVICE TITLECOMPANY
FULL SERVICE FORECLOSURE
MACHINE
These interlocking circles will demonstrate how Bank of
America has deftly played all sides of the foreclosure bet.
A. Bank of America -- Bank of America has every right to
hire the best attorneys available to represent them in the
courts: here, Routh, Crabtree and Olsen.
• The complication occurs, as most of you know by now,
Page of130 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 130 of 227
(209 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 131/227
when the original lender, Bank of America in Natache’s
case, fails to properly transfer the DEED, what I call THE
SHEEPSKIN, to those up the securitization food chain.
Most lenders, like Bank of America, did not do it legally nor
correctly. This puts attorneys like Ian Kyle in the position of
lying to the courts on behalf of their lender-clients; here,
Bank of America. This lying is occurring all across the
United States. So, the question becomes: why aren’t
judges, like federal magistrate judge Paul Papak in
Natache’s case, ---DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THE
LENDER’S ATTORNEY LYING TO THE COURT? This
takes us to B in the interlocking circles above.
B. Bank of America -- Bank of America has every right to
sponsor judges, their elections, their conferences, their
associations, their meetings and their ‘Society’• Bank of America has deftly observed the array of judicial
‘doings’ out there and has taken pains to sponsor or
support the applicable judicial organization of their
choice. There are many more “secret judicial societies”
than you might imagine. The American Judicature
Society for example. The American Judicature Society’s
mission is to: “...secure and promote an independent
and qualified judiciary and fair system of justice.”
• THE STRING -- It is a complex thread, but here it is in
Page of131 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 131 of 227
(210 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 132/227
the simplest form: Beginning from the national level to
the local level, here is how the deck is stacked by Bank
of America against Natache;-----AND neither her
attorneys nor she knows it even though she is in the fight
of her life---for her home in Oregon.
• THE JUDICIAL CONNECTION:
1. The American Judicature Society is formally supported by
Bank of America. The American Judicature Society is
partners with the American Judges Association.
2. The American Judges Association is partners with the
National Center for State Courts.
3. The National Center for State Courts is funded by the
State Justice Institute.
4. The State Justice Institute is partially run by the Koch
brother’s Counsel.5. The State Justice Institute has Oregon judges David
Brewer and Gayle Nachtigal on their Board of Directors.
6. The State Justice Institute is partners with the National
Judicial College in Reno .
7. The National Judicial College is partially run by Wynn and
Eldorado Gambling Casino personnel.
8. Outgoing Oregon Supreme Court Justice Paul De Muniz
is on the Board of Visitors for the National Judicial
College.
Page of132 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 132 of 227
(211 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 133/227
9. Justice Paul De Muniz was recently given a lunch by the
Multnomah County Bar Association formally sponsored by
Merrill Lynch Wealth Management which is a subsidiary of
Bank of America. On the same program Legal Aid
Services of Oregon announces a foreclosure legal
assistance project.
!
C. Bank of America -- Bank of America completes the
circle. Bank of America finances probono.net and thus
financially supports Natache’s lawyers.
• In a complicated thread which completes the circle, here
is how Bank of America is funding Natache’s lawyers.
Maybe they don’t even know it. No one does -- except
Bank of America.
• So, picture that lonely unrepresented foreclosure victim like Natache who has been defrauded by Bank of America.
They need legal help. Here is where they MAY start their
search for free or ‘modest means’ legal help:
! Oregon State Bar -- Opps, not much help there. Their
‘Finding Legal Assistance” page is directed at telling
lawyers where they can volunteer.
! SRLN.org -- “Welcome to the Self-Represented
Litigation Network” they say. Opps, it isn’t what you
think. This is the network of organizations below. It
Page of133 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 133 of 227
(212 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 134/227
isn’t for poor folks.
! selfhelpsupport.org -- Opps, this is the network for
judges, staff and others who are dealing with selfrepresented
litigation issues.
! lawhelp.org -- Now, we are getting someplace. This is
a state-by-state website for free legal aid referrals.
(Be careful who is sponsoring these outfits. This one is
sponsored by George Soros. Are they wolves in sheep’s
apparel? Nobody supports something without a measure of
self-interest.)
! OregonAdvocates.org--This is another website to help
Oregon lawyers find volunteer opportunities. Again be
careful about the sponsors.
! Center for NonProfit Legal Services -- Opps, this is
just for Medford.Ah, at least there is an umbrella outfit watching over all these
websites; ---for the public to get hooked up with a volunteer
lawyer who wants to do good, so we can help the lonely
citizen in foreclosure:
! probono.net -- Welcome to Bank of America
Corporation’s Managing Director & Associate General
Counsel, who is a Board of Director of probono.net
along with partners in major law firms around the United
States. Oh, yeah, Bank of America is a major financial
Page of134 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 134 of 227
(213 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 135/227
donor to probono.net as well. Along with the State
Justice Institute and other funding devices mentioned
above, around the United States.
probono.net has a “select group” of corporate sponsors.
In addition, probono.net has, as official “Participating
Organizations”:
1. American Judicature Society (....isn’t this where we came
in.......?)
2. Legal Services Corporation
3. National Association for Court Management
4. National Center for State Courts
5. State Justice Institute
Don’t gloss over #2. Legal Services Corporation funds,
among other entities, the Legal Aid Services of Oregon and
the Oregon Law Center. Their lawyers are representing Natache. All are ‘partners’ with Bank of America.
Finally, the President-elect of the Oregon State Bar during
this period, worked for Legal Aid Services of Oregon. She
must note her conflict of interest as she conducts the
business of the legal profession, the Bar’s formal
‘partnership’ with Oregon’s judiciary and the status of the
poor in Oregon. A very delicate balancing act which is on no
one’s intellectual horizon.
Elizabeth Warren’s new consumer agency is a good
Page of135 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 135 of 227
(214 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 136/227
start. We need to clean house in the Bankruptcy Courts.
IN U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT IN OREGON IS
CORRUPT
````It is a Closed System and You Ain’t a
MemberBANKRUPTCY 101 REPORT
A FULL REPORT ON ILLEGAL ACTIVITY IN YOUR LOCAL
BANKRUPTCY COURT --
‘Vulnerable You‘ ..... are Facing Foreclosure and
Bankruptcy:
You have just been given notice of potential foreclosure
of your home and hearth. Is U.S. Bankruptcy Court a safe
harbor, a time out; does it offer refuge and succor? No, it
offers criminal enterprise enabled by bankruptcy judges and
an elaborate U.S. Trustees Office who is supposed to protect
you. It doesn’t. It enables the criminal enterprise. Sadly.Whenever a debtor files for bankruptcy, the United States
Bankruptcy Court appoints a trustee to administer the case/
estate for the Court. Whether a debtor files a Chapter 13 or
Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, there is always a case trustee.
And overseeing the case trustees, on behalf of the United
States government, specifically the Department of Justice; is
the United States Trustee Program.
(Notice we said that the Trustee is there to ‘administer the
case/estate for the Court’.)
Page of136 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 136 of 227
(215 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 137/227
The Question Before the House --- Well, which is
it...?????? Is the trustee (sounds good) there for YOU or
FOR THE COURT??
U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee -- The job of the USBT is to review
bankruptcy cases and to identify problematic areas.
There is also a ‘baby trustee’ who has the grinding job of
sitting in on “No Asset” cases. To Them: it is a “No Asset”
case because you don’t have attractive GOODS for them to
be interested in to go to the trouble of selling. This is what
happened to my GOODS as we shall See.
1. There are also many Assistant United States Trustees that
directly oversee each state or division within a particular
state.
2. And added into that mix, are the attorneys for the
Assistant United States Trustee, or the United StatesTrustee. We shall see more about them too.
3. The trustees all review the documents provided and
analyze whether the debtor should be repaying some of
his/her debts or some higher percentage of the debts.
4. Specific responsibilities of the United States Trustees
include:
• Appointing and supervising private trustees who
administer Chapter 7, 12, and 13 bankruptcy estates
(and serving as trustees in such cases where private
Page of137 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 137 of 227
(216 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 138/227
trustees are unable or unwilling to serve);
• Taking legal action to enforce the requirements of the
Bankruptcy Code and to prevent fraud and abuse;
• Referring matters for investigation and criminal
prosecution when appropriate;
• Ensuring that bankruptcy estates are administered
promptly and efficiently, and that professional fees are
reasonable;
• Appointing and convening creditors' committees in
Chapter 11 business reorganization cases;
• Reviewing disclosure statements and applications for
the retention of professionals; and
• Advocating matters relating to the Bankruptcy Code
and rules of procedure in court.
In Sum -- The primary role of the U.S. Trustee Program isto serve as the "watchdog over the bankruptcy process."1/
The mission of the United States Trustee Program is to
promote the integrity and efficiency of the bankruptcy system
for the benefit of all stakeholders – debtors, creditors, and
the public.
So With All This -- What Could Go Wrong??
A VIEW FROM 40,000 FEET
The Players -- It is useful to observe at this point:
“Who are These People Anyway?” Paulson goes into this
Page of138 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 138 of 227
(217 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 139/227
bankruptcy process worth about $700,000 with a debt
purporting to be owing of about $400,000: And comes out
with nothing. Nada!
• Attorneys Craig Russillo and Joel Parker,
experienced-creditor mavens. These are the two
attorneys for my Creditors.
• Randall Dunn is an experienced bankruptcy judge
• Matt Arbaugh, is Paulson’s bankruptcy lawyer
• Amy Mitchell, is Paulson’s ‘Baby Trustee’ (see
above) -- sort of like your local bank manager. A
person that has charge of your money and assets:
(called--creepily---‘your estate’).
• M. Vivienne Popperl -- Acting Assistant United
States Trustee -- sort of like your local bank
manager’s regulator.• GAIL B. GEIGER -- Regional U.S. Attorney--
Vivienne ’s boss.
Just the Facts Please, Preceding The Wheels ‘Falling Off’!
O.K, O.K, Paulson WAS STUPID
Naive, even. He Admits it. But, it was 2005. Here is
reality. Obtaining a loan from a “hard money” (think
predatory) lender means only one thing. Their goal is NOT
to have the loan paid back.
Oh, no! Their goal is to get your property. Why do you think
Page of139 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 139 of 227
(218 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 140/227
all these banks aren’t going for a principle reduction. They
want your home and your stuff. And with me---they got both.
That bunch named above are supposed to protect that lonely
debtor. But think about it for a minute. Who, in that bunch
does not work with them every day, all year long. Only me.
Only the debtor is the ODD person out.
But, Paulson trusted his lawyer, Mr. Arbaugh. That was
a big mistake.
And he assumed Judge Dunn would be a neutral arbiter
of fairness and justice. A bigger mistake, but not something
he had a reason to be concerned about until:
May 7, 2010 -- Judge Randall Dunn decides that Paulson
has an “empty head” (yes he said that to Paulson.....on the
record.) Before he then committed outright illegal acts. All
on the record. All for subsequent investigators (which theU.S. Trustee’s office is SUPPOSED TO BE, BUT THEY ARE
MISSING IN ACTION--COMPLETELY.) Judge Dunn goes
on to decide that my major predatory lawsuit against the
‘hard money’ lender is of no value. He then allows the
trustee to settle Paulson’s $17 million dollar lawsuit against
the predatory lender, Fairway, FHLF, LLC’s predecessor,
and other banks for a paltry$5,000. Paulson never sees any
of that settlement money. It all goes, like everything else to
your ‘Baby Trustee’, Amy Mitchell.
Page of140 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 140 of 227
(219 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 141/227
Consider for a moment all the mega settlements that state
attorney generals have made with predatory lenders for NOT
millions of dollars, But BILLIONS of dollars since 2008 when
I filed my predatory lending lawsuit. But, Judge Dunn,
without looking at the Court file decides to stab Paulson in
the back and let Amy Mitchell have her way with my
ESTATE??
Judge Randall Dunn later admits, on the record, he never
looked at the U.S. District Court file and the $17 million
predatory lawsuit documents before allowing the settlement.
May 24, 2010 -- Mr. Russillo changed locks and illegally
evicted Paulson into the night without notice and without his
stuff. The eviction was illegal because Mr. Russillo had
failed to issue the statutorily required ‘danger notice’ (ORS
86.737) to Paulson then failed to give Paulson the statutorilyrequired five (5) days notice before foreclosure (ORS
86.753).
Over 30% of all foreclosures are fraudulent.
June 04, 2010 -- Amy Mitchell formally abandoned
Paulson’s property without ever looking at any of the
property. Thus, she left all of the debtor’s stuff in the
possession of Mr. Russillo. All of it. Even his family heirlooms
dating back 100 years.
June 29, 2010 -- Paulson formally requests Amy Mitchell’s
Page of141 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 141 of 227
(220 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 142/227
removal for cause as the ‘baby trustee’ from Paulson’s
bankruptcy case. Nothing!
July 12, 2010 -- Amy Mitchell’s lawyer, Ball, Janik file a
blank document with the Court asking to be appointed to
also represent Trustee, Ken Eilers who represents a debtor
who owes money to Paulson. No order grants that
application for employment. (Docket # 119)
October 6. 2010 -- U.S. District Court Garr King rules on
the Natache Guirma-Rinegard case on facts similar to
Paulson’s that the alleged creditor had no legal ‘Standing’ to
foreclose. Re: Natache D. Rinegard-Guirma v. Bank of
America, et al., Civil Case No. 10-1065-PK,
December 27, 2010 -- Paulson files pleadings in U.S.
Bankruptcy Court to Expunge Attorney Russillo’s documents
filed on behalf of FHLF, LLC because FHLF, LLC had noLegal Standing. This pleading is based on the 10/6/10 ruling
in the Rinegard case which is still the law. (Docket # 122)
Entered 1/14/11
March 19, 2012 -- Paulson filed a Motion to ReOpen this
case. Judge Randall took the Motion to be just an Exhibit to
another Motion also filed, -- a Motion to Compel Mr.
Russillo to return my stuff taken on May 24, 2010. In reality,
this was a Motion for Judge Randall to examine the issue of
Standing which he refused to do. [ Notice the pattern of
Page of142 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 142 of 227
(221 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 143/227
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 144/227
documents are filed and O.K. with the Bankruptcy Court, but
Paulson’s objection to the stealing of $17,545.50 of
Paulson’s money to Amy Mitchell’s attorney is mysteriously
“untimely and inappropriately filed.” (Order Returning
Document(s) dated March 28, 2013.)
The Four Wheels Fall Off:
Wheel No. 1: Neither Judge Randall Dunn, Nor Baby U.S
Trustee Amy Mitchell looked at whether Paulson’s $17
million dollar predatory lawsuit had merit. No independent
analysis was done by an outside attorney---or by anybody.
Wheel No.2: Neither Dunn nor Mitchell determined
whether the foreclosure of Paulson’s $750,000 property was
legal inasmuch as there was no ‘danger’ notice nor the
required 5 day notice of foreclosure before the sale itself.
Wheel No.3: Nobody noticed that the creditor, FHLF, LLC(who was NOT the lender) had no legal standing to do
anything before any court including the bankruptcy court. It
is a basic, yet all these legal minds missed it as an issue.
Suspiciously no judge will address the issue.???????
Wheel No.4: All these files are still open and all of the
wheels could be put back on and this vehicle steered to the
proper location.
Where or where is that U.S. Trustee to do what they are
required to do above?
Page of144 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 144 of 227
(223 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 145/227
This bogus Bankruptcy system is run by the U.S.
Department of Justice. Methinks, everybody is assuming
that bankruptcy in United States is a salutary system for the
poor, the meek, and the downtrodden. It isn’t. It is a criminal
enterprise with some major law players milking the system at
the poor’s expense.
Where is the honesty and integrity?
The M.E. Blanton House is part of the property PAULSON
owned for twenty (20) years and lovingly restored. You can
see why Mr. Russillo wanted it for his predatory client.
How can these ‘professionals’ dealing in poor folk’s agony
look at themselves in the mirror???
Re: In re Lauren Paulson Debtor
U.S. Bankruptcy Case No.# 09-32439
Adv. Proc No.#11-03309IN SUMMARY, THE BANKRUPTCY CASE OF CRIMINAL
DISORDER:
The salient facts are these:
1. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Randall Dunn discloses that he
has not read the federal circuit file on Page 4 of the
transcript and admits on Page 66 stating on the record
that he had made up his mind on May 7, 2010 before the
hearing.
Page of145 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 145 of 227
(224 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 146/227
2. Trustee Amy Mitchell is guilty of the most egregious
dereliction of her duties and criminal favoritism of
creditors.
3. Acting Assistant U.S. Trustee Vivienne Popperl has
failed to oversee the fraudulent activities of Trustee Amy
Mitchell
4. Trustee Amy Mitchell and A.A. U.S. Trustee Vivienne
Popperl have failed to take legal action or actions at all
to protect the assets of the Estate.
5. Trustee Amy Mitchell and A.A. U.S. Trustee Popperl
failed to require the Debtor Plan under the Chapter 11
proceedings.
6. Trustee Amy Mitchell and A.A. Trustee Popperl have
allowed blank documents to be filed and failed to review
the disclosure documents and application for retention of professionals.
7. Trustee Amy Mitchell and A.A. U.S. Trustee Popperl
failed to convene a creditor’s committee in the chapter
11 proceedings.
8. Trustee Amy Mitchell, A.A. U.S. Trustee Popperl and
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Randall Dunn failed to require
that creditors have legal standing before the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court. Indeed, on the transcript of the May
7, 2010 at Page 65, Judge Dunn states this dispute is
Page of146 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 146 of 227
(225 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 147/227
between Mr. Paulson and Fairway, not between Mr.
Paulson and FHLF, LLC.
9. U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges Hollowell and
Markell failed to address the issue of legal standing
notwithstanding the pleading dated December 19, 2010
filed by Debtor Paulson that specifically outlined why the
ONLY creditor in litigation of the bankruptcy case, FHLF,
LLC, did not have legal standing. The issue of legal
standing IS NOT addressed in BAP decision of May 10,
2011.
10. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Randall Dunn failed to address
or rule on Debtor Paulson’s Motion to Reopen the
Chapter 7 Proceedings dated March 9, 2012 nor
recognize nor address the Adversary Proceedings filed
by Debtor Paulson.11. Fraud on the U.S. Bankruptcy Case No. 09-32439
Docket Record -- There are two important pleading
packages missing from the Docket of this proceeding
and both were submitted by the Debtor Lauren Paulson.
The first is Paulson’s Motion to ReOpen Case (5010)
dated March 9, 2012. This pleading package is 21
pages and was specifically filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Case
No. 09-32439. But there are no pleadings filed on the
official docket of Case No. 09-32439 in 2012.
Page of147 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 147 of 227
(226 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 148/227
12. The second pleading package of 8 pages plus four (4)
exhibits filed in Case No. 09-32439 by the Debtor Lauren
Paulson is entitled “Plaintiff’s Objection to Payment to
Trustee”. That was filed on March 27, 2013, but returned
to Paulson the same day and not listed on the docket. It
was returned by “pjk Deputy”. This means that all of the
Debtor’s efforts to petition the Court to address the issue
of FHLF, LLC’s lack of legal standing have never been
addressed anywhere in these four years of U.S.
Bankruptcy proceedings. Erased.
13. Now, the Court is attempting to erase the Debtor’s
objecting to payment to Amy Mitchell’s attorneys of
$17,545.50 out of $35,046.15 of the Debtor’s money
nobody told him he had until March 5, 2013.
Notwithstanding Paulson’s 3/27/13 objections, JudgeDunn approved said payment on April 10, 2013.
Without a hearing and on a document with handwritten
changes.
It is important to keep in mind that on October 6, 2010,
U.S. District Court Judge Garr King ruled in Natache’s case
that on facts exactly on all fours of Paulson’s case, that the
putative lender did not have legal standing once they have
separated the security instrument from the debt instrument.
This is fully briefed in Paulson’s documents on the subject
Page of148 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 148 of 227
(227 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 149/227
discussed above.
The extent of Judge Randall Dunn’s criminal enterprise
is further elucidate by Judge Randall Dunn’s ruling in the
Fawn Ridge case which is also on all fours with Paulson’s
case here. In short, the Rule of Law articulated in Fawn
Ridge was subject to total amnesia when Judge Dunn came
upon Paulson in Case No. 09--32439.
When Paulson learned of this amnesia, he formally
asked Judge Dunn to recuse himself for not following the
Rule of Law in Natache’s case and the Fawn Ridge matter:
He wouldn’t recuse himself.
In re: Fawn Ridge Partners, LP, Debtors
BAP No. CC-09-1396-HPDu (March 29, 2010)
Here is the Parallel View:
• Fawn Ridge filed their Chapter 11 on March 5, 2009.PAULSON filed his Chapter 11 bankruptcy on April 09,
2009.
• Fawn Ridge’s creditor, BAC, filed for relief from the
automatic stay. Paulson’s creditor, FHLF, LLC, filed for
relief from the automatic stay.
• In Fawn Ridge the creditor furnished no documentation
regarding endorsement, assignment, transfer, sale of the
Note and Deed of Trust, or servicing agreement with the
Page of149 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 149 of 227
(228 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 150/227
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 151/227
on the issue of FHLF, LLC’s lack of standing. Paulson was denied equal
protection of the law on the issue of standing.
De novo review requires that BAP consider a matter
anew, as if no decision had been previously rendered. (Page 7)
Judge Dunn should, along with judges Hollowell,
Markell and Jury, sua sponte, reverse all of the defective
rulings and take judicial notice now that FHLF, LLC did not
have legal standing in the Chapter 11/7 proceedings at all.
BAC did not provide evidence that it had
been injured by the debtor’s default on the
loan therefore BAC did not have constitutional
standing to file the Stay
Relief Motion. (Page
12)How can you judges look at yourself in the mirror? And there
are legions of these cases going in and out of these
courtrooms. How is it that you can look the public in the eye
anymore? The worst foreclosure tsunami in history and you
allow this tortured sort of thing to go on in your presence.
And enable it through blatant judicial misconduct. Then treat
me, your self-described empty headed debtor with contempt.
At the end of the May 7, 2010 proceeding you gave away the
fact that you had your mind made up before the ‘evidentiary’
Page of151 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 151 of 227
(230 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 152/227
hearing. You stated, referring to your ruling that day, “I said
what I planned to say on the record.”
Hence, I formally ask each judge to recuse yourself in this
matter as it proceeds forward and vacate your participation
in the Chapter 11/7 proceedings in toto.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massive Fraud by Clifford J. White on the National Mortgage
Settlement
The Plaintiff’s Criminal Fraud Report on the
proceedings in the Oregon jurisdiction from 2009 to present
is filed here. The 2012 report by Clifford J. White III, Director
following the National Mortgage Settlement of that yearstates the following:
In that report, Mr. White notes the 2012 settlement was
to address “mortgage servicing, foreclosure and bankruptcy
abuses.” There are such abuses in my case. All three
abuses are present in this case. Big time.
The settlement was to “...ensure the integrity of the
bankruptcy process.” That integrity is completely and starkly
missing in this case.
The settlement was for “...$25 billion in cash...”
Page of152 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 152 of 227
(231 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 153/227
Paulson hasn’t seen any of that money know does he know
of anybody that has seen any.
The settlement was to ensure “... financial relief to
homeowners.” Paulson has not had such relief. Paulson
continues to remain homeless where Mr. Russillo, Judge
Haggerty’s law partner happily put him.
There was supposed to be three and a half years of
compliance review by an independent monitor. The Plaintiff
seeks to know who is the independent monitor for his case
and what monitoring has been done now, a year later.
Attorney General Holder complimented Mr. White’s
office and the United States Attorney’s Offices. Paulson has
reported specific acts of fraud by local attorneys to Amanda
Marshall at the U.S. Attorney’s office and you with no result.
See Paulson’s letter to Amanda Marshall, Oregon U.S.Attorney, dated November 11, 2011 and December 21, 2011
to Special Agent Audrey Devinney also with no result.
Mr. White points out that reports to the Federal Trade
Commission brought this problem to the USTP’s attention in
2006. Paulson’s problems began in 2005. The FTC has
known about this problem since their prosecution of Alliance
in 2000. Paulson first reported on this problem to the
Federal Trade Commission in 2010 with no result. See FTC
Reference No.# 24122365 and my letter to the FTC dated
Page of153 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 153 of 227
(232 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 154/227
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 155/227
nonjudicial foreclosure was illegally done by Mr. Russillo
because he failed to provide the required statutory ‘danger’
notice (ORS 86.737) AND failed to provide notice of the sale
and thereby prevented my right to cure which I had the
power to do. (ORS 86.753) The Rule of Law requires
STRICT compliance with state law for foreclosures because
they are done without judicial supervision. That didn’t
happen here. In fact, Mr. Russillo admitted ON THE
RECORD that he failed to provide me with the required
‘danger’ notice. Where was the Trustee on that issue? The
judge? Anybody?
Settlement Agreement —
Under the National Mortgage Settlement agreement
“...servicers will adhere to special provisions relating to
bankruptcy conduct....to ensure the accuracy of ...motionsfrom stay”. Note here that is an issue since the entity
seeking relief from stay --- FHLF, LLC; has no legal standing
to even seek a stay!
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Randall Dunn ignored my
Motion to Expunge the Stay and Reopen this case to
reexamine whether this Relief from stay was valid. What
rule allows a judge to just ignore a party’s legal filing??!!Not
only is USTP not conforming with the purpose of this
settlement, but U.S. Bankruptcy judges are not either. Why is
Page of155 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 155 of 227
(234 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 156/227
the USTP not monitoring these bankruptcy deficiencies in
this time of highest need by the poor?
Servicer conduct will be reviewed for three and a half
years by an independent monitor who will oversee a series
of prescribed tests of compliance. Failure to meet
established metrics of compliance is subject to remedy by
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,
including through monetary penalties and non-monetary
equitable relief.
$35,000 suddenly and mysteriously appeared in my
column last month (after four years of bankruptcy
proceedings??!!) without any accounting or notice. ( By the
way, I never received my $35,000 homestead exemption and
advised Ms. Popperl personally of that problem and she
advised that was not her job.) Gee, how did the USTP fail tonotice that?
Instantly, the Trustee’s attorney sought $17,000 of
these funds for her attorneys fees. No audit, no notice, no
accounting. Just easy money to the Trustee’s attorney.
Again Judge Dunn approves it without a hearing, without
notice, without anything. Yet, he ignores my Motion to
Reopen altogether. And my Motion to Expunge the Stay to
address the issue of Legal Standing.
Mr. White noted: “The USTP must attack emerging
Page of156 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 156 of 227
(235 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 157/227
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 158/227
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT --
COMPLAINT OF
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
COMPLAINANT -- LAUREN PAULSON
I. ISSUES --PRELIMINARY
Twenty-two (22) Judges, fourteen (14) case
numbers and one simple Oregon Foreclosure Case -- that
should have been finished in 2010. Manifold judicial
misconduct has caused wasteful and protracted litigation
going nowhere. These judges will not address the simple
fact that foreclosure lenders do not have Constitutional
Standing to even be in Court---anywhere. Competent judges
are simply turning away.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT -- This is a Judicial
Misconduct Complaint versus the following Judges of theU.S. District Court of Oregon and the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals in the following cases:
!
OREGON FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT -- Case Nos.
08-00982, 10-00048, 12-00196
!
• Hon. Paul Papak
• Hon. Ancer Haggerty
• Hon Michael Mosman
Page of158 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 158 of 227
(237 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 159/227
• Hon. Anna Brown
• Hon Ann Aiken
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT -- Case Nos. 09-32439-rld,
BAP #10-1173, Adversary Case #11-03309
Page "238 of "410
"239
• Hon. Jim D. Pappas
• Hon. Bruce A. Markell
• Hon. Eileen W. Hollowell
• Hon. Judge Jury
• Hon. Randall Dunn
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT --
Case Nos.10-36178, 10-35745, 11-60038, 11-72697,
11-90185, 13-35077, 13-35160
• Hon. Richard R. Clifton• Hon. Sandra S. Ikuta
• Hon. Ed Leavy
• Hon William C. Canby Jr.
• Hon. Ronald M. Gould
• Hon Richard Tallman
• Hon. Jay Memo Bybee
• Hon. Alex Kozinski
• Hon. Wm. A. Fletcher
• Hon. C.M. Callahan
Page of159 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 159 of 227
(238 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 160/227
Page "239 of "410
"240
II. NINTH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COMPLAINT FORM
A. THIS COMPLAINT CONCERNS THE
PROCEEDINGS IN U.S. DISTRICT OF OREGON,
PORTLAND DIVISION, U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS AND
THE U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. The precise court and case numbers are identified
throughout this complaint. Paulson is a Pro Se party in
these matters.
B. Paulson has not filed lawsuits against any judge
here. The record should include any and all proceedings
(including all letters) in all Oregon courts and the Ninth
Circuit identified by their numbers here. The record should
be specifically identified as to what was examined by thechief judge or his/her surrogate with regard to the entire
judicial misconduct complaint.
1. Summary of Issues: The U.S. District Court of Oregon,
Portland, Division, and the Ninth Circuit Court under the
leadership of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge Ann
Aiken, other District Court judges and Ninth Circuit judges
named above are illegally truncating filed foreclosure
cases and appeals using the artifices outlined here and
discussed in detail below:
Page of160 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 160 of 227
(239 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 161/227
2. Ninth Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski --
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT of CHIEF JUDGE ALEX
KOZINSKI AND CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NINTH
CIRCUIT
Ninth Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski takes pride
in pointing out that when it comes to the issue of Judicial
Misconduct, he is the chief administrator in addition to being
the Chief Judge. Thus, it is Alex Kozinski, the public servant
who must be held responsible for the subversion of The Rule
of Law at the highest level of the Ninth Circuit. Judge
Kozinski has a record of his own in judicial misconduct in
many places, thus cannot be objective here and must be
recused.
Two cataclysmic events took place on the myriad of
cases pending in the Ninth Circuit on this simple foreclosurecase. It must be noted that Paulson filed many ‘Motions to
Consolidate’, to ameliorate the mess created by the manifold
proceedings at all levels on this one simple foreclosure case.
THE RECORD ON APPEAL: The First Catastrophe is
engendered by the contradictory administrative rulings by
the Ninth Circuit Clerk’s office in an inability to identify “The
Record” upon which these multiple rulings are made. No
judge ever identifies the record upon which their rulings are
made.......that refusal continues to this day notwithstanding
Page of161 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 161 of 227
(240 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 162/227
the repeated efforts by Paulson to mine the record, identify
the record and present the record to the judicial panel
involved. (Investigators of judicial misconduct will discover
that the problem of identifying the record permeates all
courts of Oregon and all proceedings in the Ninth Circuit.
Even at the highest level.)
Because no judge in the Ninth Circuit ever mentioned
any part of the Record in all these rulings, Paulson
specifically wrote to The Ninth Circuit Court Clerk on
December 5, 2011 and to each judge thereafter to
specifically identify upon what record these rulings are
made, without result.
JUDICIAL NOTICE - From the outset Paulson has
requested the identification of and judicial notice of the
extant cases particularly when there are so many of themand because they reside in different court buildings with
different numbers. Judicial Notice--Consolidation. Neither
taken. When courts do not take judicial notice of the other
cases (that should have been consolidated) then the litigant
is required to repeat, over and over, the facts and the law to
each new panel. Attrition of legitimate appeals, over issues
such as fees, is the intentional product and by product of the
legal situation in the U.S District Court of Oregon and of the
Ninth Circuit.
Page of162 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 162 of 227
(241 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 163/227
III. ISSUES -- DETAIL
A. IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS IS BEING DENIED:
First, Pro Se Appellant’s are being denied In Forma
Pauperis (IFP) status without following the IFP law.
Poor people in Oregon and the Ninth Circuit are
being refused poor litigant (Pro Se) status and are
being refused pro bono lawyer help. In short, judicial
legal leadership in the West is refusing selfrepresented
victims of foreclosure; due process in
Oregon and Ninth Circuit Courts.
B. OVERUSE OF ‘FRIVOLOUS’ DESIGNATION:
Second, these judges, deviously, are not following
the Ninth Circuit Standards nor the law by falsely
declaring appealed cases “frivolous” when those
cases are appealed from the U.S. District Courts.This is happening in foreclosure cases where an
appeal is hardly frivolous when the appellant is
homeless and we all know lenders are engaging in
massive fraud at all levels. These judges simply
declare a foreclosure case ‘frivolous’ without any
analysis of the law nor the facts, without any record
and without adhering to The Rule of Law. A mirror
image of lender fraud.
C. SPURIOUS APPEAL DISMISSALS BECAUSE
Page of163 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 163 of 227
(242 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 164/227
‘Fees not paid’: Third, those subject cases are then
dismissed because the putative appellate filing fee
has not been paid; even when it has been paid or IFP
status approved. In this devious way these judges
are getting rid of appeals on foreclosure cases
without addressing the merits of the foreclosure
defenses, which are manifold. Why else would
banks be paying these billion dollar fines????
pertaining to foreclosure cases.
D. MOTIONS FOR EN BANC HEARINGS GO INTO
A ‘BLACK HOLE’: When an En Banc filing is made,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unilaterally interprets
the filing as a Motion for Reconsideration then denies
the Motion as late and dismisses the appeal. This ploy
denies the Ninth Circuit judicial panel from anopportunity to review the case En Banc and prevents
the appellant from their day in court DUE TO JUDICIAL
PERVERSION of the rules and The Rule of Law.
F. PLEADINGS FILED ARE ILLEGALLY RETURNED
‘UN-FILED’ OR ‘LOST’: Court Clerks are unlawfully
being instructed to send lawfully filed pleadings back
to the filer in order to avoid lawful foreclosure cases
being litigated in local and Ninth Circuit cases. They
then attempt to cover-up the fact of the filing in those
Page of164 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 164 of 227
(243 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 165/227
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 166/227
foreclosure cases.
I. DISTRICT/NINTH CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES RULE
WITHOUT IDENTIFICATION OF ‘THE RECORD’ :
In the entire Judicial Misconduct area and in the
entire universe of Ninth Circuit Court rulings, it is
striking that judges never identify upon what record
they have ruled. Even when specifically asked.
Paulson has written a formal letter to each judge,
formally asking for an identification of the record.
Each of these judges refuses.
J. DISTRICT/NINTH CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES FAIL
TO MAKE THE REQUIRED DISCLOSURES UNDER
THE LAW: U.S. District Court Judge Haggerty and
U.S. District Court Chief Judge Ann Aiken failed to
make required disclosures. He was formally a partner in the law firm for which he has made
favorable rulings here for five years and she has
numerous professional affiliations with law firms
adverse to Paulson including Paulson’s former office
manager who has the computer hard drive for that
ten (10) year Paulson law-office tenure, and works at
the Cosgrave firm involved here; for which Judge
Aiken has a conflict requiring disclosure.
K.ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION TOOLS
Page of166 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 166 of 227
(245 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 167/227
ARE NOT USED IN THESE COURTS.
See Judge Papak’s parting remarks at the July 29,
2010 hearing in Case No. 08-00982 on this subject.
Also see Ninth Circuit Conference materials on the
purported ADR program charade.
L. U.S. Bankruptcy Courts are Engaging in CRIMINAL
ENTERPRISE on Behalf of Creditors in Denial of The
Equal Protection of the Laws to the Debtors. See extensive
discussion below and the machinations of Judge Randall
Dunn easily discerned in his written rulings.
3. Evidence -- The evidence is the entire record of
proceedings in the case numbers listed above including a
transcript of all those court proceedings-- of which Paulson
requests that the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council take
JUDICIAL NOTICE.V.ANALYSIS
or How Oregon/Ninth Circuit Judges Sanction Illegal
Foreclosures and Truncate Appeals:
A Kabuki Dance Like No Other
Let us start at the beginning of the litigation.
Remember that Paulson filed suit first against Fairway, a
loan broker, for predatory loan practices, among other things
in a class action case in 2008. Paulson had taken a default
Page of167 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 167 of 227
(246 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 168/227
against Fairway in that lawsuit (later set aside) and U.S.
District Court Magistrate Judge Janice Stewart had ordered
the case into settlement proceedings.
Then the wheels fell off. They took Paulson’s case
away from Judge Stewart and gave the case to Judge Ancer
Haggerty. What they didn’t tell Paulson is that Judge
Haggerty is a former law partner in the same law firm as
Attorney Craig Russillo, Fairway/FHLF, LLC’s attorney and
Paulson’s adversary here, in a Portland law office known as
‘Schwabe Williamson’. It is 2010 in this narrative and
Paulson has been in the foreclosure box for two years.
Since 2008, this case has been ‘the full employment act’ for
Judge Haggerty’s former law firm, Schwabe Williamson, a
major law firm in downtown Portland, Oregon. Paulson filed
an appeal to the Ninth Circuit in 2010 after receiving shoddytreatment in the U.S. District Court at Judge Haggerty’s,
Judge Aiken and Judge Papak’s hands.
PONDER FOR A MOMENT?
Who does it benefit if a litigant is required to adjudicate
a simple foreclosure case in multiple forums before 20
different judges?
SO WHERE HAVE WE BEEN AND WHERE ARE WE
NOW?
Paulson filed suit against Fairway in 2008. Paulson
Page of168 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 168 of 227
(247 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 169/227
filed bankruptcy in 2009 to prevent foreclosure. Fairway/
FHLF, LLC illegally foreclosed in a nonjudicial foreclosure in
2009. The bankruptcy court via Judge Dunn sold Paulson’s
2008 predatory loan lawsuit against Fairway (and FHLF,
LLC) to the Schwabe law firm’s Attorney Craig Russillo in
2010 over Paulson’s formal legal objection.
Therefore, as of 2010 there are three lawsuits in three
different court systems (Paulson’s predatory loan against
Fairway et al., in federal court, his bankruptcy case in
bankruptcy court and state court where Mr. Russillo filed
eviction proceedings.
The law of the land is simple. If one court acquires
jurisdiction over property first, no other court may take
jurisdiction for common sense reasons. Sexton v. NDEX
West, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 11-17432, D.C. No. 3:ll-cv-00440-LRH-VPC (2013) If it
were otherwise, then there would be multiple proceedings
leading to multiple and contradictory results. But, federal
U.S. District Court Judge Michael Mosman apparently didn’t
know about that rule because he sent this case back to
Washington County Circuit Court (state court) in blatant
violation of The Rule of Law in the Ninth Circuit as
enunciated in the Sexton case above and all precedent
everywhere. Remember, who gains-- with multiple
Page of169 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 169 of 227
(248 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 170/227
proceedings in multiple courts with the potential for multiple
contradictory results? There would be less incentive for
Judge Papak, Aiken and Judge Haggerty to fudge The Rule
of Law if they are held to account:
VI. JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
1. U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE ANCER HAGGERTY --
Conflict Of Interest, Lack of Disclosures and Delay:
Judge Haggerty was assigned to this case on or about
April 6, 2009. The case had been in litigation for eight
months with Schwabe Williamson (Schwabe) attorneys
Craig Russillo and Joel Parker already having allowed an
Order of Default taken against the Schwabe client,
Fairway Commercial Mortgage Company. The law
requires three things at this juncture that did not happen.
First, the Schwabe law firm should never have taken thiscase because the Schwabe law firm had represented
Paulson with respect to this same land in complex
litigation ten years earlier in condemnation proceedings on
a county road widening project. Second, Judge Haggerty
should have disclosed to Paulson that he had been a
partner at the Schwabe law firm. Judge Haggerty did not
make that required disclosure. He clearly has a potential
conflict of interest that required disclosure to Paulson
since the defendants are being represented by Judge
Page of170 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 170 of 227
(249 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 171/227
Haggerty’s former law firm. Third, Attorney Craig Russillo
is required to advise his clients of his legal malpractice by
allowing this case to go into default and for failing to
provide Paulson with the statutorily required ‘danger’
notice before taking an illegal nonjudicial foreclosure.
Finally, as noted in the chart below, Judge Haggerty
fails to rule on multiple matters in the underlying litigation for
over six months, all the while Paulson is not only homeless,
but unable to access his personal property in Attorney Craig
Russillo’s hands.
Incidentally, not one judge has deigned to examine the
raised, more difficult (than Standing) issues such as
Fairway’s failure to provide the ‘danger’ notice before the
nonjudicial disclosure nor their failure to provide the notice of
the final nonjudicial foreclosure date AT ALL. Why are allthese legal issues favorable to the consumer ignored?
U.S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE RANDALL DUNN’S JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT:
A BANKRUPTCY KABUKI DANCE (here)
A Dance Where Everybody Knows The Ending
Everything is different in Bankruptcy Court. Everybody
knows their assigned seats and assigned roles except the
victims aka ‘debtors’. There is a ‘judge’ but the fix is in. Our
Judge Randall Dunn knew his role, but forgot to watch what
Page of171 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 171 of 227
(250 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 172/227
he said. On May 7, 2010 Judge Dunn had already made up
his mind BEFORE the hearing where he sold all of the class
action’s interests in the predatory lending $11 million lawsuit,
filed by Paulson, to Judge Haggerty’s former law firm’s client
for $5,000. At the end of the proceeding Judge Dunn said:
Judge Dunn: “I said (in ruling) what I planned to say
on the record.” (Tr.66)
Judicial Misconduct Judge Dunn’s statement means
he had made up his mind BEFORE the hearing. But, Judge
Dunn’s misconduct far transcends that event.
Judicial Misconduct Keep in mind the May 7, 2010
hearing was to decide if Fairway and Cos. should escape
Paulson’s predatory loan lawsuit filed two years before. To
do that Judge Dunn outlined a criteria for making his
decision: There was no probability of success of Paulson’s predatory lending lawsuit according to Judge Dunn. Only
problem is Judge Dunn inadvertently admitted on November
29, 2011, on the record that he never looked at the two-year
old U.S. District Court file. (See transcript of proceedings in
Docket #9, Adv. Case# 11-03309-rld) So, how could he
judge the likelihood of success of the predatory loan class
action if he had never read the predatory loan court file?
(This is but one example of WHY it is so important that the
entire record be examined by any reviewing court.) This is
Page of172 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 172 of 227
(251 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 173/227
an important and startling admission by Judge Dunn.
Judicial Misconduct Judge Dunn’s judicial
misconduct becomes much more transparent and acute in
2011, 2012 and 2013 as is discussed below. (Just to pique
the reader’s interest -- Judge Dunn’s 2013 involvement
allows embezzlement of $17,000 of Paulson’s funds, held in
trust by the Ball Janik law firm.) Ah, yes -- another
downtown law firm.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL
PAPAK’S and JUDGE ANN AIKEN’S JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT
IN FORMA PAUPERIS (IFP)--Paulson is homeless
Delay --When Paulson was evicted without notice in May of2010, he filed a series of emergency pleadings in the
predatory lending lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court
case he had originally filed in 2008. These pleadings
including a TRO (emergency proceeding) to keep him in his
home in the predatory loan lawsuit and while he appealed
the FED matter to the Oregon Court of Appeals. (Docket #’s
74 thru 77, 91, 92, 104, 105, 112, 113, 114, 115 in Case #08-
cv-00982)
Judicial Misconduct -- -- Magistrate Judge Paul Papak did
Page of173 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 173 of 227
(252 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 174/227
not get around to these emergency pleadings for two months
(see below). (Docket #110) Meanwhile, Paulson is
homeless living in a tent at a state park.
The eviction caused Paulson to lose his rental income. The
eviction caused Paulson to be homeless and have to pay
rent for housing after living in a tent for two months.
Because Paulson had expended all of his liquid funds to pay
for the state court FED trial transcript for the state court
appeal, he filed for IFP status in U.S. District Court of
Oregon on July 27, 2010. (Case No. 08-00982, Docket #
107)
Moreover, Paulson appealed the rulings regarding Judge
Papak’s disqualification by Chief Judge Ann Aiken to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 23, 2010 because
she did not follow The Rule of Law on the applicablestandard enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case
of Liteky v. U.S. 510 US 540 (1994) (Case No. 08-00982,
Docket # 116)
Judicial Misconduct -- Magistrate Judge Paul Papak
denied Paulson’s IFP application/Motion on September 10,
2010 as Moot because the filing fee was paid at the time the
case was initiated two years earlier. (Docket # 121) That is
certainly not a basis to deny IFP status under The Rule of
Law. See Rule 72, Magistrate’s PreTrial Orders. A District
Page of174 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 174 of 227
(253 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 175/227
Court judge may not refer a decision on IFP status to a
Magistrate Judge without the consent of all parties. Judge
Papak did not have the consent of all parties. 28 USC
1915(d) - subject to 28 USC 636(b) which narrowly
mandates magistrates judge’s power.
Paulson filed his IFP application in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals on September 16, 2010 (Docket # 12 and 14 in the
Court of Appeals Case # 10-35745)
The Law: A magistrate judge like Hon. Paul Papak may
not enter a “final judgment”. Therefore, a magistrate judge
may not deny a motion to proceed in forma pauperis
because that is a final judgment. Rather, a magistrate judge
must make a recommendation of that decision regarding IFP
status to the Article III judge for a de novo review. Tripati v.
Rison, 847 F 2d 548, 548 (9th Cir 1988). That did nothappen here. The importance of that failure to Paulson will
become apparent below. Judicial Misconduct and Judicial
Incompetence.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF JUDGE ANN AIKEN
!
On May 24, 2010 Paulson became homeless. Paulson
is still homeless as of today, five years later due to the
plentiful judicial acts of misconduct recounted here. On May
24, 2010 Attorney Craig Russillo on behalf of Fairway and
Page of175 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 175 of 227
(254 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 176/227
FHLF, LLC came into possession of all of Paulson’s real
estate and all of Paulson’s personal property including the
litigation materials involved here.
As noted above, Fairway/FHLF, LLC.’s nonjudicial
foreclosure of September 25, 2009 was illegal. It is NOT a
close question. It was illegal because it was done without
the required statutory five day notice. It was illegal because
Mr. Russillo did not issue the statutory ‘danger’ notice. It
was illegal because Paulson has a Right to Cure. It was
illegal because the foreclosure was only in FHLF, LLC’s
name and FHLF, LLC had no Constitutional Standing before
any of the courts. None. All this has been raised in these
pleadings which the Ninth Circuit regards as frivolous.
There are two other important legal concepts escaping
these rulings: 1.) The law abhors a forfeiture. 2.) Statutory proceedings require strict adherence. No judge here has
applied either “Rule of Law”.
But, during the summer of 2010 Paulson had practical
problems. All of his stuff was behind lock and key. Thus,
when Paulson filed his Emergency pleadings on June 1,
2010 and thereafter, it was of paramount importance that a
Master (a neutral ) be appointed soon, so that the return of
his computer, his litigation materials for this litigation and his
office supplies be returned to him so he could defend himself
Page of176 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 176 of 227
(255 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 177/227
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 178/227
On August 23, 2010 Paulson filed a fifteen (15) page
Motion for Writ of Mandamus and Injunction pending the
appeal (Case No. 08-cv-00982 Docket # 117) because the
Defendants, by virtue of Paulson’s eviction (without prior
notice) came into possession of ALL of Paulson’s ‘stuff’
including his files on this litigation on May 24, 2010. Pointing
out to the Court that an Emergency Exists because the
Schwabe lawyers representing the creditors were
threatening to DESTROY Paulson’s stuff including his
litigation papers, his classic motor home and his 100 yearold
player piano, among other important personal
possessions. Paulson moved formally for a Master to
supervise the transfer of Paulson’s ‘stuff’ back to him.
(Docket #115 in U.S. District Court Case # 08-cv-00982 on
August 13, 2010 and again on September 14, 2011 in NinthCircuit Docket #1 in Case #11-72697.)
Judge Aiken denies Paulson’s Writ of Mandamus without
a hearing. While doing so she says: “the court (does not)
find any grounds to enter an “immediate injunction”. Case
No. 08-cv-00982 Docket #118 While at first glance that
ruling appears innocuous; it ignores Paulson’s reality. Had
Judge Aiken allowed oral argument, she might have found
the ‘grounds’ in what Paulson was living every day. Grinding
poverty.
Page of178 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 178 of 227
(257 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 179/227
Paulson filed his lawsuit against his Bankruptcy Attorney,
Arbaugh along with Craig Russillo and Amy Mitchell, the
trustee in bankruptcy. Once again Paulson sought his ‘stuff’
back from these actors who have control over Paulson’s
worldly goods. At the Bankruptcy Adversary hearing of
November 29, 2011 Judge Dunn appeared to be confused
about what was in the Creditor’s possession and what was
not. Since that issue (of who has Paulson’s worldly goods)
was raised in the predatory lending case (Case No. 08-
cv-00982) and because Judge Dunn supposedly had made
a studied abandonment of that litigation to Attorney Russillo
for $5,000; Paulson inquired as to whether he, Judge Dunn,
had read that (Case No. 08-cv-00982) file. He admitted as
recounted above: “No, I have not.” On the record in Case
No. 11-03309, Docket No. 9Judicial Misconduct -- Disclosure and Discovery are routine
in civil cases except here. Paulson has filed a Request for
Production in every case. When nothing was produced,
Paulson filed a Motion to Compel in every case. In every
case his Motion to Compel was denied. One of the issues in
every foreclosure case is whether the lender has the ‘blue
ink’ copies of the operative documents. Anybody seen them
here?? Paulson’s worldly goods were taken from him on
May 24, 2010. In a startling act of negligence, the Trustee,
Page of179 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 179 of 227
(258 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 180/227
Amy Mitchell abandoned Paulson’s personal property
without ever consulting Paulson or ever looking at what was
being abandoned. Paulson has unsuccessfully sought the
return of his stuff ever since. (See, for example the
transcript of proceedings on Adversary Case No. 11-03309,
Docket Nos. 51, 55, 56, the latter 124 pages on why and
what should be returned to Paulson) Important reading.
!
Again, on this subject came Judge Randall Dunn’s
subsequent admission again in the March 16, 2012 hearing
on Paulson’s Motion to Compel (which he denied) in the
bankruptcy adversary proceeding that he had never read the
predatory lending case that he purported to decide that
litigation’s worth at the May 7, 2010 hearing.
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE MICHAEL MOSMAN’S
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
U.S. District Court Judge Mosman Judicial Misconduct
-- Unfortunately, U.S. District Court Judge Mosman
committed two acts of judicial misconduct in one proceeding.
1.) The Res -- When a federal court obtains jurisdiction
over the Res (the real estate) FIRST, then a state court is
subsequently precluded from assuming jurisdiction over the
same Res. Sexton v. NDEX West, et al., U.S. Court of
Page of180 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 180 of 227
(259 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 181/227
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 11-17432, D.C. No.
3:ll-cv-00440-LRH-VPC (2013) The U.S. District Court of
Oregon first assumed jurisdiction over the Res when
Paulson filed his predatory lending case there in 2008 in
Case # 08-cv-00982. But, Judge Mosman and Attorney
Calliste Korach performed a Kabuki dance that was too cute
by half. Attorney Calliste filed a “Motion for Status
Conference” in Judge Mosman’s Case #10-cv-00048
(Docket # 5) It was a trap. No one knew what the status
conference of March 4, 2010 was for. At least Paulson
didn’t. Surprise, Judge Mosman used that hearing to
remand the FED case BACK to state court. 2.) So, Judge
Mosman’s second act of misconduct is scheduling a hearing
on one thing (status) and using that hearing for an
undisclosed purpose (remand). Then he denies a protectiveorder because he says he has no jurisdiction. A Kabuki act.
The gravity of the out-and-out judicial misconduct by
Judge Aiken, Judge Papak Judge Mosman and Judge
Haggerty in the period from June 1, 2010 to and including
the filing of Paulson’s Emergency Writ of Mandamus on
August 23, 2010 cannot be overstated. A reading of that
document, The Writ of Mandamus, states clearly why. See
Docket #117 in the District Court Case # 08-cv-00982 -
Page of181 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 181 of 227
(260 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 182/227
1. Paulson v. Fairway, FHLF, LLC, et al, Case No. 08-
cv-00982, Paulson’s predatory lending lawsuit has been
‘sold’ to Mr. Russillo of the Schwabe law firm for $5,000.
The damages to ‘the class’ are over $11 million.
2.In Re Paulson, Case # 09-32439-rld, Paulson’s bankruptcy
case is a disaster. Paulson has lost everything even
though his real estate was not underwater. Value of real
estate $655,000-$400,000 Fairway loan=$255,000 equity
for Paulson----all lost in the bankruptcy proceeding??
3.Mr. Russillo has evicted Paulson in the State court
proceedings, by means of Judge Mosman’s Judicial
Misconduct above and they have taken possession of ALL
of his personal property, which was abandoned by the
bankruptcy trustee who did not participate in these
proceedings.4.Because Oregon federal magistrate Judge Paul Papak
demonstrated objective BIAS in favor of Mr. Russillo by
allowing him a hearing on his only issue and would not
allow a hearing on Paulson’s seven (7) motions, Paulson
appealed this matter to the Ninth Circuit in Case #
10-35745 on August 24, 2010.
!
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF NINTH CIRCUIT JUDGES
RICHARD R. CLIFTON, JAY (MEMO) BYBEE AND
Page of182 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 182 of 227
(261 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 183/227
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 184/227
Case # 10-cv-1065, Natache Rinehard-Guirma v. Bank of
America, et al. on her TRO and Preliminary Injunction which
held that if a lender failed to assign the Note when assigning
the trust deed, then a foreclosure attempted by only the
holder of the trust deed was a nullity.
Paulson’s facts are exactly on ‘all fours’ with Natache’s case
and both of which are extensively briefed here. For this
reason, after learning of Natache’s case, Paulson
immediately moved the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Portland to
hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of ‘Standing’ and for
a Stay in the forums to do so. As pointed out below, on
December 19, 2010 Paulson rushed to point these facts out
to the judiciary in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, to the
Bankruptcy Court and to the District Court because they aredeterminative of all the pending cases. FHLF, LLC’s,
Paulson’s putative creditor here, lacked standing under
Judge King’s ruling (which still is the law in Oregon today).
FHLF, LLC like Natache’s case, only held the trust deed, not
the promissory note. Therefore, FHLF, LLC had no standing
to foreclose and no standing before any of these courts.
The first alert on the issue of FHLF, LLC’s lack of legal
standing following Judge King’s decision in Natache’s case
Page of184 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 184 of 227
(263 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 185/227
was in U.S. District Court of Oregon in Paulson’s Motion to
Compel. (Docket #136 in Case #08-cv-00982--See chart
above) Judge Haggerty denied it without a hearing. The
lack of ‘Standing’ issue was contained in that motion which
Judge Haggerty took no note.
DO THESE JUDGES KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG?
PAULSON’S FORECLOSURE WORLD SHOULD HAVE
‘RIGHTED’ ITSELF THEN AND THERE, WITH ‘NATACHE’S
CASE, BUT DIDN’T. FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS NOT
ONE OF THE TWENTY (20) JUDGES HAVE DEIGNED TO
ENTERTAIN THE RULE OF LAW AS IT PERTAINS TO THE
LENDER’S LACK OF STANDING------THROUGHOUT
OREGON.
In short, this is not just Paulson’s problem, it is happening
to every one of the thousands of Oregonians sufferingforeclosure in the state. Perhaps, throughout the West.
!
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT -- BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE
PANEL JUDGES PAPPAS HOLLOWELL JURY AND
MARKELL
!
On December 19, 2010 Paulson filed a 22 page Motion,
Legal Memorandum and Declaration with the U.S.
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel to Expunge all filings by FHLF,
Page of185 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 185 of 227
(264 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 186/227
LLC because of their lack of Standing. BAP Case #
10-1173, Docket #22. To be sure, Paulson also sent this
pleading to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Portland, Oregon
On January 18, 2011, Judges Pappas and Markell deny
Paulson’s filings above without discussing a single issue nor
case raised in those 22 pages of legal briefing on FHLF,
LLC’s lack of standing. Docket # 23 of BAP Case No.
10-1173 This begins three years of judicial, legislative and
executive branches of government turning away from
important foreclosure issues; one of thousands of
foreclosure cases pending in Oregon.
Paulson also filed his ninety-eight (98) page pleading
with all other courts including the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit on the issue of ‘standing’ on December 29,
2010. (Docket # 1 and 2 in Court of Appeals case #10-36178)
FEES -- The Ninth Circuit is using the issue of fees to
get rid of cases filed by regular citizens also known as Pro
Se filers.
!
Paulson paid the regular filing fee when he commenced
his predatory lending case in 2008. Paulson was neither a
pauper nor homeless until May 24, 2010 when, without
Page of186 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 186 of 227
(265 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 187/227
notice, Fairway evicted him and took possession of all of his
worldly goods on that day. As discussed herein, that
nonjudicial foreclosure was done illegally and without prior
notice to Paulson. Thus, Paulson found himself homeless
and destitute on May 24, 2010 due to the machinations of
the judiciary here and the lender here.
Accordingly, with chagrin, Paulson applied to the Court
for In Forma Pauperis (IFP) or pauper status on July 27,
2010.
making all these Emergency filings above, commencing on
June 1, 2010 in handwritten form, because he was without
his computer or any of his files on this very case. You will
note that no court mentions this sorry fact even though
Paulson laid it out in ‘four-part harmony’ in those pleadings.This is what makes these subsequent Ninth Circuit court
rulings so ridiculous in the face of the issue of FEES:
Judge Paul Papak denies Paulson’s application for IFP
status on September 10, 2010 “.....as Moot as the requisite
filing fee was paid at the time this case (the appeal) was
initiated.” Case No. 08-cv-00982, Docket #121 Paulson had
an ability to pay in 2008, but not in 2010. Things Changed!
Paulson filed his IFP application in the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals on September 16, 2010 (Docket # 12 and
Page of187 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 187 of 227
(266 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 188/227
#14 in the Court of Appeals Case # 10-35745)
On December 19, 2010 Paulson, having studied
Natache’s case, files a Motion for ALL these Courts to
reexamine the issue of whether or not FHLF, LLC had
‘Standing’. The issue of Standing is never waived and is
always subject to being contested.
On December 29, 2010 Paulson files one of the most
important pleadings with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
(Docket #’s 1 and 2 in case #10-36178). But, the 9th Circuit
Court Clerk notes there is a filing fee due on that same date
on the same docket entry.
Then twelve (12) days later, on January 10, 2011, the 9th
Circuit Court Clerk notes at Docket #8 in Case #10-36178: “
A review of the district court docket reflects that appellant
has not paid the docketing and filing fees for this appeal.”Thus commences standard language requiring Paulson to
file a motion for IFP status, the demand for $455 filing fee
and a requirement to otherwise show cause why the appeal
should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. A review of
the Pacer dockets will quickly disclose that this is knee-flex
NINTH CIRCUIT boilerplate language to illegally truncate
appeals to them. One wonders how many poor people are
turned away an the door to the Ninth Circuit while they are in
Hawaii having productive educational seminars.
Page of188 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 188 of 227
(267 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 189/227
Setting a pattern that continues to this day, Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel Judges Pappas and Markell denied
Paulson’s twenty-two (22) page Motion to Expunge on
January 18, 2011 without a mention of the law or the facts.
(Docket # 23, BAP case # 10-1173) The ORDER states:
“On December 27, 2010, appellant (Paulson) filed with
the BAP a motion to expunge appellee’s proof of claim and
vacate all orders granting relief from stay. The Panel has
received and considered the motion. All relief requested
in appellant’s motion is hereby ORDERED DENIED.”
Note that the Judges state they “considered” the
pleading. What they don’t say is whether or not they read
Paulson’s 22 page pleading. What they don’t say is anything
about Constitutional Standing. What they don’t say is
anything about the law nor the facts. Nor the cases. NorThe Rule of Law. Rather they say, without more, ‘Ordered
Denied’. This is why Natache’s case and Paulson’s case are
facilitating more legal expense in the foreclosure world than
any normal citizen knows about. When poor people have a
defense to illegal foreclosures. All due to Judicial
Misconduct.
And we countenance this sort of judicial arrogance. At
poor people’s expense---homeless people, vulnerable
people -- with no judicial empathy palpable anywhere. This
Page of189 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 189 of 227
(268 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 190/227
pattern characterizes the remainder of Ninth Circuit
decisions in Paulson’s case and in Natache’s case. To the
end of 2013---------with no end in sight.
On February 3, 2011 Paulson files his third IFP
application. (Docket #12 in Ninth Circuit Case # 10-36178)
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT LEAVY AND BYBEE
On March 16, 2011, Hon. Leavy and Bybee ordered
Paulson’s IFP denied because ‘we’ find that the appeal is
frivolous. (Docket #17 in case #10-36178) The Order goes
on to require Paulson to show cause why this appeal should
not be summarily affirmed (then what follows is the
‘boilerplate’ fee language the Court uses to truncate
appeals).
On March 16, 2011 there is oral argument on the Bankruptcy
proceeding (Case # 10-1173 # 26)before the BankruptcyAppellate Panel. (BAP)Paulson argues the issue of
Standing without comment by the Panel.
!
On April 4, 2011 Paulson pays the $455 filing fee and files a
fifteen (15) page legal brief in response to the show cause
order. #19 and #20 in Case No. 10-36178
On May 10, 2011 the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel rendered
their written decision without mentioning the issue of
Standing raised by Paulson in his 22 page pleading dated
Page of190 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 190 of 227
(269 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 191/227
December 19, 2010. Paulson argued the issue of Standing
at oral argument and in his pleadings submitted to the BAP.
On May 16, 2011 Paulson files his Notice of Appeal of the
BAP decision and a Motion to consolidate the two cases at
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Judicial Misconduct As stated above, On May 10, 2011
the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel rendered their written
decision without mentioning the issue of Standing. Paulson
appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit in his pleading
dated May 31, 2011. (Docket #27-33 in BAP Case #
10-1173) Paulson also moved to consolidate this appeal
with the extant case in the Ninth Circuit. (Docket #1 in Ninth
Circuit Case #11-60038) Paulson’s opening brief was not
due until September 12, 2011.
In that same ‘boilerplate’ language, on June 15, 2011 the Ninth Circuit again Orders that Paulson file a motion to
proceed as an IFP, pay that $455 filing fee within 21 days or
the appeal will be dismissed. (Docket # 3 Ninth Circuit Case
#11-60018) By Molly Dwyer Clerk of the Court.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF NINTH CIRCUIT COURT
JUDGES CANBY, GOULD AND TALLMAN
Judicial Misconduct In a one page ruling dated June 28,
Page of191 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 191 of 227
(270 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 192/227
2011, without a discussion of any of the one hundred thirteen
(113) pages of pleadings filed by Paulson, the Honorable
Judges of the Ninth Circuit, William C. Canby, Ronald M.
Gould and Richard C. Tallman decide, after examining the
record, that “... the questions raised in this appeal are so
insubstantial as not to require further argument.” (Docket #
24 in Ninth Circuit Case # 10-36178) No mention of the
issue of Standing. No mention of the arguments, issues nor
facts raised by Paulson.
A legal and logical conundrum -- How can the identical
issue of legal Standing warrant discussion and analysis
leading to a written opinion in Natache’s case and in the
Fawn Ridge case, but not in Paulson’s case on identical
facts?In the Ninth Circuit Court Case No. 10-36178, Paulson
referred to above as one of the most important cases of
Paulson’s life. It is the appeal of 12/29/10 following
Paulson’s learning about U.S. District Court Garr King’s
ruling in Natache’s case on the issue of Standing. Judges
Jay (Memo) Bybee, and Leavy decide Paulson does not get
IFP status because they find the appeal is frivolous. (Docket
#17) Later, on the same case, (10-36178) Judges Canby,
Gould and Tallman decide the questions raised in this appeal
Page of192 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 192 of 227
(271 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 193/227
(not briefed yet) are so ‘insubstantial’ as not to require further
argument. (Docket # 24)
But, here is another question -- These three judges also
decide that Paulson’s Motion to Consolidate this matter
(involving Standing) with Ninth Circuit Court Case No.
11-60038 (the BAP appeal, involving Standing and other
issues) is moot. (Case No. 10-36178, Docket #24)
The BAP appeal (Case No. 11-60038) is still pending in the
Ninth Circuit under the boilerplate language referred to
multiple times. This case received Paulson’s addendum to
his petition for a hearing En Banc on November 28, 2011
and should be still pending. No judge has ruled on the
merits of this BAP appeal and there is the new evidence of
Judge Dunn’s never having read the Portland District Court
file which bears directly on the BAP twenty (20) page writtenopinion. The consolidation is not moot.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF NINTH CIRCUIT COURT
JUDGES RAWLINSON, BEA AND MURGUIA
On September 14, 2011 Paulson files his 17 page Writ of
Mandamus and for a Declaratory proceeding in the Ninth
Circuit in Docket #1, Case # 11-72697 asking the Court to
address the issue of Standing and to Stay all other
proceedings. (Note-no judges entertain the Motions for a
Declaratory proceeding--a separate proceeding altogether.)
Page of193 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 193 of 227
(272 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 194/227
Judicial Misconduct - In Case No. 11-72697 Ninth Circuit
Court Judges Rawlinson, Bea and Murguia deny Paulson’s
Writ of Mandamus on October 18, 2011 (Docket # 3) without
a discussion of the law, facts nor cases presented by
Paulson’s pleading filed on September 14, 2011. No
discussion of the issue of Standing.
On October 19, 2011 PAULSON FILES A lawsuit in state
court Against Attorney Arbaugh, Russillo and Trustee
Mitchell AND IT IS REMOVED TO AN ADVERSARY
PROCEEDING IN FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY COURT BY
RUSSILLO ET AL. Adversary Case No. 11-03309
Paulson filed this lawsuit in state court instead of federal
court because after a year of trying, Paulson clearly could
not get any ruling on any rule of law on any matter in
Oregon’s federal court (Haggerty, Papak, Aiken et al., nor inthe Ninth Circuit.
JUDGE DUNN AGAIN-
On November 29, 2011, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dunn
holds an initial hearing on Paulson’s lawsuit and makes a
startling admission, recounted above, on the record in open
court. At the end of the proceeding, Judge Dunn admits he
never read the U.S. District Court file in Case No. # 08-
cv-00982. That matters and it is so startling. The whole
Kabuki dance of May 7, 2010 is based on the value of the
Page of194 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 194 of 227
(273 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 195/227
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 196/227
Judge Dunn knows this money, $35,000, belongs to
Paulson, but decides it should go to Amy Mitchell who
appears in his court often and sits on the Creditor side of the
courtroom even though in theory she is supposed to be a
trustee of Paulson’s ‘Estate’. Well, she hasn’t done a very
good job and Paulson formally pointed that out in 2010 and
asked that she be removed THEN.
The Judicial Council should look into why that was not
done. She is no longer ‘neutral’ since Paulson filed suit
against her. Yet, Judge Dunn and the legal apparatus at
bankruptcy court allow her to take Paulson’s hard earned
funds to pay her lawyer for defending her against her
negligence.
WHERE OR WHERE IS THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY
TRUSTEE THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE OVERSEEING ALLTHIS??
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT JUDGE DUNN
On December 7, 2011 Paulson filed his seven-page
formal judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Dunn.
See Case No. 11-90185 On December 24, 2011 Paulson
inquired as to whether the Ninth Circuit was going to obtain a
record of the November 29, 2011 hearing on this matter. The
Ninth Circuit never answers the letters of Paulson. They go
Page of196 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 196 of 227
(275 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 197/227
into the ethernet.
It is the end of 2011 and Things Get Stranger. While
Judges in the Ninth Circuit ignore The Rule of Law; their
Court Clerks make substantive decisions to throw Paulson
out of court. Transparent ones.
On December 5, 2011 the Ninth Circuit Court Clerks do
the same thing as Judge Dunn; namely, decide that the
headings on pleadings don’t mean what they say. Paulson’s
filing for an En Banc hearing is not only fraudulently diverted
from Ninth Circuit judges by Court staff; two appeals by
Paulson get tossed by Court Staff as well,I in the same
stroke of the pen. Viz.
THE CAPTIONS IN FILED PLEADINGS MEAN WHATTHEY SAY
Judge Dunn Decides a Pleading Caption doesn’t Mean
What it Says. The Ninth Circuit Court Clerk’s office does the
same thing.
On March 9, 2012 Paulson filed two sets of pleadings with
Judge Randall Dunn in the adversary case (the lawsuit
Paulson has filed against Attorney Russillo, among others) to
Page of197 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 197 of 227
(276 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 198/227
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 199/227
therein. Standing. Judge Dunn is a patent unrepentant liar.
On May 4, 2012 Paulson filed another formal judicial
complaint on all judges involved in this matter, calling on how
the courts handling of foreclosure cases in Oregon is
“Barbaric”. On May 11, 2012 the Ninth Circuit Clerk of the
Court advised “Ms Paulson” that “.......a review of the record
reflects no pending cases filed by you in this court”, and ‘unfiled’
that document. The document contains the Ninth
Circuit ‘filed‘ stamp which is dated. How could the Ninth
Circuit not find any cases filed by Paulson in the Ninth Circuit
when they have a sophisticated electronic file tracking
system. (This important part of the record, with file stamp,
will be provided by Paulson upon request. The title of this
document is “Barbaric”. If no request is made to Paulson
and the Judicial Council rules without requesting thatPaulson furnish this part of the record will prove that the
Ninth Circuit Judicial Council did not read this document.)
On May 17, 2012 Judge Papak “struck” Paulson’s
Motion to Consolidate, among other pleadings and returned
“(unidentified) documents” in U.S. District Court Case No 08-
cv-00982. Docket #190
PAULSON REDOUX
In 2011, Judge Haggerty denied Paulson’s Motion for a
Declaratory proceeding among other motions because the
Page of199 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 199 of 227
(278 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 200/227
case had been appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Case #08-
cv-00982 Docket #168 But, these denials were without
prejudice “....to (Paulson’s) right to refile after the appeal is
resolved. Docket # 169
Accordingly, all the previous pleadings, particularly with
respect to FHLF,LLC’s lack of Standing were properly refiled
in U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN August, 2012. Case No. 08-
cv-00982 Docket Nos. 193, 194, 195, 196, and 197. Why
then were documents ‘returned’ in May of 2012 by the
clerks’s office and ‘struck’ in 2012 by Judge Papak when
they were properly filed?
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF JUDGE ANNA BROWN
Keep in mind that to and including this date, August,
2012, not one judge had ever allowed the word ‘Standing’ to
emanate from their lips or drain from their ink pens. JudgeAnna Brown continued that perfect record in her rulings
dated October 15, 2012 (Case No. 08-cv-00982 Docket Nos.
205) and January 29, 2013 (Docket #217). Paulson wrote
her a simple letter asking why she ignored the issue of
Standing. (Docket # 227) She did not answer that question
or Paulson’s letter. Paulson wrote to Judge Brown and
Judge Mosman to identify upon what record they ruled.
Neither responded. Paulson wrote again to each of their
clerks. No answer.
Page of200 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 200 of 227
(279 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 201/227
!
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF JUDGE MICHAEL MOSMAN
Recall that Paulson had filed suit against Attorney
Russillo, Arbaugh and Trustee Amy Mitchell for their
misdeeds in connection with this issue of ‘Standing’ among
others. Judge Mosman thought FHLF, LLC could properly
remove the eviction proceedings to state court (even though
contrary to The Rule of Law over the Res as discussed
above). As recounted above, now Judge Mosman decides
that Paulson’s lawsuit against these folks in state court
properly belonged in federal court. What is good for the
goose (FHLF, LLC) is not good for the gander (Paulson).
When Fairway/FHLF, LLC wants to litigate a matter in state
court instead of federal court, that is fine with Judge
Mosman. When that same party wants to litigate the samecase in federal court, not state court, once again that is fine
with Judge Mosman. U.S. District Court Case No. 12-00196,
Docket Nos. 3 and 8 It is only Paulson that has NO say in
where his litigation will reside between federal or state court.
It is that nonsensical result that The Rule of Law over the
Res, (property) requiring which ever court first obtains
jurisdiction, keeps it makes common sense, ergo, why that is
The Rule of Law. Judge Mosman’s rulings to the contrary
Page of201 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 201 of 227
(280 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 202/227
amounts to judicial misconduct, not just incompetence.
These judges know The Rule of Law with respect Standing
and the Res. They are making a conscious decision to rule
for the banks and not the consumer in open defiance of The
Rule of Law.
Thus, Judge Mosman, as all the judges before hims,
once again fails to address the issue of Standing.
And both Judge Brown and Judge Mosman are
consistent in not discussing a single issue raised by
Paulson, a single case proffered by Paulson nor a single
legal theory proffered by Paulson.
Then in 2013 The Plot Thickens Once Again -- $35,000
dollars belonging to Paulson mysteriously shows up in
Trustee Amy Mitchell’s account for PAULSON at the end of
2012. Remember Paulson fired Ms. Mitchell as his ‘trustee’in the bankruptcy proceedings in 2010 when she abandoned
his “Estate” and Paulson sued her in 2012. In 2013, with
hubris without equal, she asks Judge Dunn to use some of
Paulson’s money ($17,000) to pay off HER lawyers for her
misdeeds here. Do they sleep well at night?
BANKRUPTCY COURT’S CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
!
Now, the Court is attempting to erase the Debtor’s objecting
to payment to Amy Mitchell’s attorneys of $17,545.50 out of
Page of202 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 202 of 227
(281 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 203/227
$35,046.15 of the Debtor’s money when nobody told him he
only had until Marcy 5, 2013. Notwithstanding Paulson’s
3/27/13 objections, Judge Dunn approved said payment on
April 10, 2013. Without a hearing and on a document with
handwritten changes. And Paulson’s pleadings returned and
left off the docket. (Attorney General Holder has not
responded) LP
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT JUDGE WILLIAM A.
FLETCHER AND CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN
On June 17, 2013 Paulson filed for a Hearing En Banc
and a Declaratory Judgment on the issue of Standing. That
pleading by Paulson was dismissed on July 5, 2013 by the
Ninth Circuit for failure to pay filing fees! THE BOILER
PLATE LANGUAGE AGAIN. This Order, citing the exactsame language used by the Court Clerks -- denies IFP
status, finds the appeal frivolous, asks the appellant to pay
$455 and so on. No mention of Standing, cases, etc., etc.
No mention of The Rule of Law nor why this case cannot be
submitted En Banc. Let’s face it, the Ninth Circuit will not let
poor people file nor perfect appeals in that court system.
SUMMARY
This case has been or is pending in six (6) distinct court
Page of203 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 203 of 227
(282 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 204/227
forums if one counts the District Court, the Bankruptcy
Courts, the Ninth Circuit and the state court (3) proceedings.
The issue of Constitutional Standing has been raised and
briefed in each of them by Paulson. Yet, each court has
failed to address that issue -- at all. In contrast, the Oregon
courts have addressed the issue of Constitutional Standing
in both Natache’s case and in Fawn Ridge discussed herein.
Either these Courts are biased against Lauren Paulson,
or they are shirking their duty, or are engaging in egregious
intentional judicial misconduct -- as follows:
1. U.S. District Court of Oregon: Lauren Paulson first
raised the issue of Constitutional Standing in U.S. District
Court of Oregon, Portland Division in his Motion to Compel
dated December 6, 2010. Paulson cited the then-recent
case of Natache Rinegard-Guirma v. Bank of America, etal., Civil Case No. 10-1065-PK (2010) where just two
months earlier, in a case factually on all fours with the
instant case, District Court Judge Garr King allowed the
homeowner a preliminary injunction because when the
promissory note and trust deed are split for collection, as
Page "312 of "410
"313
here, “...the transfer of the deed of trust is ineffective.”
Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 284 SW 3rd 619,
Page of204 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 204 of 227
(283 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 205/227
623-24 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) In those cases, as here, a
transfer of the trust deed, separate from the note, was
ineffective and the successor lender (FHLF, LLC) lacked a
legally cognizable interest in the property. Thus, FHLF,
LLC has no Constitutional Standing in any of these cases.
It is that simple:
A. This issue was raised and ignored by Judge Ancer
Haggerty in Paulson’s Motion to Compel dated
December 6, 2010.
B. This issue was raised and ignored by Judge Papak
and Judge Haggerty in Paulson’s Motion for
Declaratory Judgement and Stay dated March 9,
2011.
C. This issue was raised and ignored by Judge Papak
and Judge Haggerty in Paulson’s Motion for aVisiting Out-of-District Judge dated April 22, 2011.
2. U.S. Bankruptcy Court : Lauren Paulson raised the
issue of Constitutional Standing before the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court, not only at the trial court level, but also
at the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel by motion on
December 19, 2010. The Bankruptcy Court ruled on the
underlying issues of the bankruptcy proceeding. While
the issue of Constitutional Standing was formally raised by
Paulson in this forum, no bankruptcy court has addressed
Page of205 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 205 of 227
(284 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 206/227
the issue of whether or not FHLF, LLC has Constitutional
Standing before the bankruptcy courts.
What should make the reader pause is this. There is a
foreclosure tsunami occurring in Oregon and other states. In
theory, these bankruptcy people are supposed to be the
experts. Wouldn’t you think one of these ‘experts’ would
have noticed when a party has no legal right to be there?
Paulson’s Motion to Expunge FHLF, LLC’s Proof of
Claim and Vacate All Relief from Stays Issued in U.S
Bankruptcy Court was filed on December 19, 2010. It is
twenty-two (22) pages and extensively briefs the issue of
Constitutional Standing and why FHLF, LLC does not have it.
Without addressing the issue of Constitutional Standing, the
U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel only states “All relief
requested in appellant’s motion is hereby ORDEREDDENIED.” As in all of these courts, the BAP, on the issue
of Constitutional Standing, there is not a single case
discussed, not a single issue discussed; not anything
discussed on this issue. Just a denial without saying why.
Without saying the court has read anything. In fact, just for
reemphasis, there is not a single case nor issue discussed in
any of the six (6) forums on Constitutional Standing nor on
any issue raised by Paulson in his filings on the issue in
each court.
Page of206 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 206 of 227
(285 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 207/227
Notice that no court ever identifies that it read anything
supplied by Paulson. No court ever identifies that it read a
single case supplied by Paulson. No court ever identifies
that it examined a single issue raised by Paulson. No court
ever indicates that it ever took Judicial Notice of any of the
other pending court matters, even though Paulson has
requested that they do so.
JUDICIAL NOTICE
Paulson has requested in each forum that the court
take judicial notice of the cases pending in the other five (5)
forums on the identical issues in each case. Judicial Notice
of these other cases is necessary because the courts
refused Paulson’s motions to consolidate all these cases into
one.
Note in particular that in Natache’s case, Judge GarrKing explicitly states “The Court takes judicial notice of the
documents and notes that Rinegard-Guirma signed a
promissory note............”, (emphasis supplied) and then the
court summarizes that it is taking judicial notice and of what.
Natache Rinegard-Guirma v. Bank of America, et al., Civil
Case No. 10-1065-PK (2010) Nowhere in any of the
decisions in any of the forums in the instant case does any
judge mention judicial notice nor the taking (or refusing to
take) thereof.
Page of207 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 207 of 227
(286 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 208/227
And then there is the issue of whether or not any of
these courts examined any record AT ALL. Again, Judge
Garr King identifies what he has read in Natache’s case. He
also affirms what he knows about extant case law, then
analyzes the law and discusses the cases. No judge does
any of that here. None of the twenty (20) judges (sans state
court judges that have failed here as well, but that is a story
for that judicial complaint forum) assigned to do (due) justice
in this case have done so.
3. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: The issue of
Constitutional Standing has been raised more than three
times in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but never
addressed there either. Not a word. Paulson first raised
the issue of Constitutional Standing in the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals on December 24, 2010 in his Motion forPreliminary Injunction. Paulson’s Motion is twenty six
(26) pages long citing numerous cases. Moreover,
Paulson provided a comprehensive eight (8) page Reply to
FHLF, LLC’s Response dated January 13, 2011.
Paulson’s Preliminary Injunction Motion and Reply had
twenty (20) exhibits. Paulson’s Reply raised supplemental
issues that pertained to why Paulson will ultimately be
successful on the merits plus more analysis of the issue of
Constitutional Standing.
Page of208 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 208 of 227
(287 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 209/227
Paulson’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction followed on
the decision by Judge Garr King in Natache’s case where he
granted the Debtor the right to stay in her house on October
6, 2010 on facts virtually identical to the instant (Paulson’s)
case. Paulson foolishly thought the Ninth Circuit would be
interested in providing him with the same succor Judge King
gave Natache only two months earlier--to stay in his house.
It was even the Christmas Season.
The Ninth Circuit ruled on March 16, 2011, finding the
appeal frivolous. Once again Paulson’s quest to get one
judge, just one judge to address a single issue he has raised
in each one of these forums, the issue of Constitutional
Standing, is denied, viz., “Appellant’s motion for preliminary
injunction and stay is denied.” More, on Paulson’s thirtyfour
(34) pages of briefings the Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals sayeth naught.
Paulson briefed the issue of Constitutional Standing
further in his Response to an Order to Show Cause dated
March 30, 2011. That brief is ten (10) additional pages of
briefing on the issue of Constitutional Standing.
Finally, Paulson further briefed the subject of
Constitutional Standing in his Notice of Appeal of the
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel decision to the Ninth Circuit
dated May 31, 2011. Again, the only issue the Court Clerk
Page of209 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 209 of 227
(288 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 210/227
was interested in was fees. Who knows what a Ninth Circuit
judge might have done on this case because no Ninth Circuit
judge ever got to address the issues raised (and briefed) on
the BAP appeal to the Ninth Circuit, including Standing
because the case was dismissed in the Court Clerk’s
omnibus dismissal dated December 05, 2011. See Case No.
10-35745 and Case No. 11-600038
NATACHE’S CASE AND COINCIDENCES
It is important to keep in mind that on October 6, 2010,
U.S. District Court Judge Garr King ruled in Natache’s case
that on facts exactly on all fours of Paulson’s case, that the
putative lender did not have legal standing once they have
separated the security instrument from the debt instrument.
In Rinegard the lender, Mortgage Lenders Network (MLN)
assigned the deed of trust to LaSalle who appointed thesuccessor trustee
In Paulson, the lender, Fairway Commercial Mortgage
Corporation (FCMC) assigned the deed of trust to FHLF who
appointed the successor trustee
!
In Rinegard the lender, MLN, physically retained the
promissory notes as well as the servicing rights to the
mortgages.
In Paulson, the lender (FCMC) physically retained the
Page of210 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 210 of 227
(289 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 211/227
promissory notes as well as the servicing rights to the
mortgages.
In Rinegard payments were to be made to the lender,
Mortgage Lenders Network, USA
In Paulson payments were made to the lender, FCMC.
It is important to take Judicial Notice of the wayward
path both cases take in and out of the federal court systems,
the state court systems and bankruptcy court. Each case a
simple homeowner foreclosure case. Each instantly
disposable on the Standing issue alone. Natache’s effort at
getting the Ninth Circuit to take notice of her case in the
other forums that the bank lawyers and the judges have
required has been dumped on in her case as here. This is
fully briefed in Paulson’s documents on the subject
discussed above. Is it a coincidence that Natache andPaulson end up with Judge Papak and Trustee Amy Mitchell
as well? Is it a coincidence that bankruptcy court gives her
short shrift as well? Is it a coincidence that each case gets
sent to state court where each loses, then back to federal
court where no judge recuses? Or uses The Rule of Law?
If Paulson and Natache weather the hurricane forces of
foreclosure relief and continue to assert that which is
required for simple foreclosure relief in these court systems
while banks and lenders continue their wayward ways---then
Page of211 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 211 of 227
(290 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 212/227
what is happening to other consumers who get dumped at
first base and do not live to fight for justice again in these
other forums because they don’t know...........?
THE FAWN RIDGE CASE
The extent of Judge Randall Dunn’s and bankruptcy court’s
criminal enterprise is further elucidated by Judge Randall
Dunn’s ruling in the Fawn Ridge case which is also on all
fours with Paulson’s case here. In short, The Rule of Law
articulated in Fawn Ridge was subject to his total amnesia
when Judge Dunn came upon Paulson in Case No.
09--32439. Exactly, how did Paulson wind up before Judge
Dunn again in his separate lawsuit against Russillo and
Mitchell? Judge Dunn has given Trustee Mitchell everything
she wanted and then some. Nothing of what Paulsonwants. How does that happen?
Fawn Ridge Partners, LP v. BAC Home Loans
Servicing, LP, U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth
Circuit, Bk. No 09-15088-TD, BAP No. CC-09-1396-HPDu ,
before Hollowell, Dunn and Perris, Bankruptcy Judges,
(3/29/10) { Countrywide, the lender, has a practice of
retaining the original Notes. Because Countrywide did not
endorse and transfer the Note to BAC, the latter had no
standing to request a relief from stay. 11 USC Section
Page of212 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 212 of 227
(291 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 213/227
362(d) Court holds that Constitutional standing is a
‘threshold jurisdictional requirement, and cannot be waived
(citing cases)’” Under California law, to qualify as a ‘Holder’,
one must be in possession of the instrument, and the
instrument must be properly endorsed.}
When Paulson learned of Judge Dunn’s amnesia
following his decision in the Fawn Ridge case, he formally
asked Judge Dunn to recuse himself for not following the
Rule of Law in Natache’s case and the Fawn Ridge matter in
Paulson’s case: He wouldn’t recuse himself. But it is worse
than that. Judge Dunn continues to allow $17,000 of
Paulson’s money to be held in Amy Mitchell’s account while
Paulson lives as a pauper.
CONTROL FRAUD
Standing identifies who may bring claims in these judicial forums. In order to have Constitutional Standing,
FHLF, LLC must show that it suffered an actual injury-in-fact,
caused by Paulson which would result in the right to redress.
FHLF, LLC cannot show that because they have no financial
stake; they have no dog in the fight as is fully briefed in the
documents above-described. FHLF, LLC can show no
interest in the putative underlying debt nor that it paid
anything out in the underlying transaction. By saying it did,
through it’s attorney Craig Russillo; when it did not, means
Page of213 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 213 of 227
(292 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 214/227
that FHLF, LLC has defrauded these courts. And it has
defrauded Paulson. In Natache’s case Lake Oswego lawyer
Ian Kyle lied to Judge Papak and attempted a fraud on the
court there, yet nothing is done.
The Judicial Council should take a close look (aka
JUDICIAL NOTICE) at what Bank of America’s attorney Ian
Kyle did in Natache’s case. He filed a false note that
purports to give Bank of America an interest in the
underlying promissory note. That was a lie to the court. The
‘real’ original DID NOT give Bank of America an interest in
the underlying note. Attorney Kyle ‘fessed’ up only after
Natache got a hearing before Judge Garr King and only after
Judge King considered her arguments on the issue of
Constitutional Standing.
This is important because this is Judge Papak again.What is happening is that federal judges are ignoring
resplendent fraud when it comes to foreclosure cases, again
and again, and again. Judge Haggerty ignores the Standing
issue because he knows that issue is in favor of the other
side to his old law firm.
How is it that the downtown law firm of Ball Janik
represents Amy Mitchell against Paulson and the downtown
law firm of Ball Janik represents for Natache as a pro bono
matter in the same federal court? Conflict? How is it that
Page of214 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 214 of 227
(293 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 215/227
the Cosgrave law firm represents Paulson’s adversaries and
also employs Paulson’s former office manager, with him for
ten (10) years. And in possession of Paulson’s law office
computer hard drive. Is it a coincidence that Judge Haggerty
becomes assigned to this case his former law firm is
defending. And doesn’t say anything? And rules in every
instance for Mr. Russillo?
A lot of ‘coincidence’ going on here.....??? Nay, it is
blatant judicial misconduct and fraud going on here.
CONCLUSION -- NINTH CIRCUIT JUDGES ARE
TOP-‘SHEETING’
Paulson spent fifteen (15) years working for the
insurance industry across the entire United States.Eventually, Paulson became a senior officer with a Wall
Street insurance company, The Atlantic Insurance Company
that once insured The Titanic, Merrill Lynch and Nike.
Paulson eventually became aware of a management
practice known as ‘Top-Sheeting. When a Claim Manager
was confronted with a ‘box-car’ claim file, such as a maritime
disaster or superfund site claim, rather than sifting through
the file, the manager would read the ‘top-sheet’ and attempt
to decide what to do next on the matter. This is what Ninth
Page of215 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 215 of 227
(294 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 216/227
Circuit judges are doing. In every single one of these cases.
Paulson challenges any judge named here to swear an oath
as to what was read before the ruling ......and.......to identify
upon what record the decision was based. Paulson has
asked these judges that question many times in the last two
years without any response.
When one looks at each of the Ninth Circuit court
Orders, one cannot find a single instance where the judge
manifests that that judge has actually read the ‘record’.
Certainly not on the issue of Standing. In point of fact, it is
just the opposite. Without following any portion of Paulson’s
careful analysis of the facts and the law in his filed
pleadings, Ninth Circuit judges decide that all of Paulson’s
particular filings are ‘frivolous’.
A careful examination of extant law on JudicialMisconduct shows why. Identifying a case as ‘frivolous’ is a
safe harbor for all these judicial decisions. The particular
decision is not easily appealed, because identifying any
judicial error is impossible. And at the same time, the judge
doesn’t have to work very hard to arrive at that ‘safe harbor’.
That member of the judiciary does not have to read anything
submitted to arrive at that sort of sterile decision.
See, IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT
AND DISABILITY ACT OF 1980, A Report to the Chief
Page of216 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 216 of 227
(295 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 217/227
Justice. The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study
Committee, Justice Stephen Breyer, Chair, (2006) http://
www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/breyercommitteereport.pdf
This is barbaric. It is transparent, wholesale judicial
misconduct being perpetrated by the Ninth Circuit on a grand
scale.
Being homeless is never frivolous. Foreclosure is never
frivolous.
BIVENS
In addition to the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Plaintiffs
bring this action additionally against the judicial officers,
employees and members of the judiciary pursuant to Title 28
U.S. Code Section 1331 in claims arising from violation of
federal constitutional rights guaranteed in the OregonConstitution, the U.S. Constitution with amendments
redressable pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics
Agents 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and subsequent case decisions
locally and nationally. These members of the judiciary have
permitted ex part attachments and seizure of real estate and
personal property of the Plaintiffs without proper notice in
state court proceedings and federal court proceedings and
without due process in violation of the Fourth, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Page of217 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 217 of 227
(296 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 218/227
Said members of the judiciary have engaged in
egregious discrimination against self-represented
foreclosure litigants pursuant to a long standing pattern of
discrimination, partly pursuant to the machinations of the
State Justice Institute, the National State Court
COUNT ONE
(Fraud -- Civil Conspiracy -- The Predatory Loan)
1. These claims seek quiet title, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, equitable relief, compensatory damages,
statutory damages, punitive damages, costs, attorney fees
and other appropriate relief for, inter alia, Fraud, for violation
of the federal Truth in Lending Act, for violation of the statesUnfair Trade Practices Act and Conspiracy.
2. The Plaintiff was, at various times mentioned in this
complaint, a resident of Washington County, State of Oregon
and citizen of the United States. The Plaintiff, at all times
material hereto is the real party in interest to Huber-Wheeler
Crossing, LLC and as Trustee to the Paulson testamentary
trust and owner of four lots of real estate in Oregon subject
to predatory loans followed by fraud on the courts by these
Defendants. The Defendants transact business in all
Page of218 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 218 of 227
(297 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 219/227
counties of the State of Oregon including this county, and in
the United States.
3. These actions are properly in this Court, because
the Defendants do business in this judicial district and all
judicial circuits across the United State. The claims arose in
the State of Oregon including this judicial district along with
claims in all judicial districts in Oregon and because, inter
alia, the Fraud, violation of the Truth in Lending Act, Unfair
Trade Practices Act and Conspiracy were committed in this
judicial district and all judicial districts throughout the State of
Oregon and the United States.
4. In 2001, the Schwabe, Williamson and Wyatt law
firm ,(hereinafter “Law Firm”) now representing Fairway and
other Defendants, represented the Plaintiff with respect to
the very same property when Plaintiff’s property was beingcondemned by Washington County for a road widening
project. Defendant Law Firm and their Defendant
employees herein thus have a conflict of interest as to this
entire matter yet represent the lender, servicer and trustee.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
The Plaintiff is representative of a class as defined
under federal law and brings this action on behalf of the
entire class. The class is so numerous that joinder of all of
its hundreds and more of members is impracticable. There
Page of219 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 219 of 227
(298 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 220/227
are questions of law and fact common to the class, the
claims of the Plaintiff are typical of the claims or defenses of
the class, and the Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class. The representative parties or
others have complied with the prelitigation notice provisions
of or ascertained that the financial or banking Defendants
have received actual notice of the claims stated herein. A
class action is superior to other available methods for the fair
and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The class
consists of all the borrowers of these named financial or
banking Defendants and their subsidiaries or assigns from
1997 to present. The class, upon information and belief, has
a minimum of approximately one hundred and fifty (150)
such borrowers but this minimum number may actually be in
the thousands or even millions. The Plaintiff alleges acommon course of similar predatory loans and
misrepresentations by these Defendants amounting to fraud
by aiding and abetting predatory lending through
standardized centrally-orchestrated marketing techniques
resulting in a large class of borrowers entering into loan
agreements they would not have entered had they known
the true terms. Were it not for the Defendant banks and
financial institutions “warehouse” credit line loans and
securitization of said loans they would not have been able to
Page of220 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 220 of 227
(299 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 221/227
continue to fund its fraudulently obtained loans from the
class. These loans, predatory practices and illegal
foreclosures were further aided and abetted by , Defendants
Matt Burk, Craig Russillo, Amy Mitchell, Jane and James
Doe Defendants, Anne Helton and Joel Parker as further
described below.
4. The Fairway Defendants are described in relevant
documents variously as follows: Fairway Commercial
Mortgage Corporation, Fairway America, FHLF, LLC an
Oregon limited liability company, Skylands Investment
Corporation, an Oregon Corporation, Manager, by Matthew
W. Burk, President. All references to “Fairway” herein
include all of these entities plus any Fairway affiliated
company including Fairway Commercial Mortgage
Corporation and Fairway America Corporations, andsuccessors and assigns.
“Fairway”, “ John Doe Savings Bank”, “Wells Fargo
Foothills”, Bank of America, GMAC, U.S. Bank, Joan Doe,
James Doe, Jane Doe, JP Morgan Chase Ally Financial,
Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, CitiMortgage, HSBC, National
City, Deutsche Bank, Bank of New York, Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc., (MERS), Skylands Investment
Corporation, Craig Russillo, Joel Parker, Anna Helton, Amy
Mitchell, Rob Levy, Lanny Doe, and Greg Blair are
Page of221 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 221 of 227
(300 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 222/227
transacting business in the State of Oregon. At all times
material hereto the foregoing Defendants and Matt Burk,
Fairway’s president, Skylands Investment Corporation, and
as Manager of FHLF, LLC, operate together as part of a
common enterprise.
At all times material hereto, these Defendants and each
of them knowingly aided and abetted the fraudulent
contractual scheme engaged in by Fairway and other
Defendants giving substantial assistance or encouragement
to Fairway in these predatory lending practices and as such
are subject to third party liability for Fairway’s fraud under
state and federal law.
These Defendant’s business model was to originate
mortgages to consumer borrowers such as the Plaintiff then
pledge them to a secondary lender such as FHLF, LLC orother financial institution in return for a loan under a
revolving line of credit. Craig Russillo Anna Helton and Joel
Parker’s role was to design the model and draft or approve
the legal documents for Fairway designed to “dehorse” or
use fraudulent foreclosure and other legal procedures for
Fairway to obtain real property whose owner was rich in the
value of land, but poor in cash. Further, Fairway hired real
estate agents to feign an effort to sell the distressed real
estate in order to perfect the financial default so Fairway
Page of222 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 222 of 227
(301 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 223/227
would come into titled ownership of the consumer’s property.
Joel Parker’s further role in conjunction with Fairway’s
employee, Chris Cobb, was to secure a “Forbearance
Agreement”, drafted by Parker in 2008 which required
Paulson to give up any and all present or future legal rights
he may have in the putative Fairway contracts all so that
Fairway could come into legal title of the property of the
Plaintiff.
The law firm of Schwabe, Williamson and Wyatt
through their attorneys, trustees and employees conspire
with these Defendants and lenders to entice borrowers who
are either behind in their payments or who are being
threatened with foreclosure, or both, to give up their legal
rights by having the unsuspecting borrowers sign a
“forbearance agreement” without consideration, without theinnocent borrowers knowing their legal rights and without the
borrowers being advised of their rights before being forced to
sign said agreements.
The law firm of Schwabe, Williamson and Wyatt, PC
through their attorneys, trustees and employees then
conspire with the Defendant and lenders to withhold required
statutory notices, here known as the ‘danger notice’ required
by law to be delivered to borrowers which would advise
borrowers who are behind in their payments or who are
Page of223 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 223 of 227
(302 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 224/227
otherwise threatened with foreclosure. Then these innocent
borrowers do not know their legal rights as mandated by the
Oregon legislature and this concealment is done by the
Defendants and lenders in order to steal these borrower’s
real and personal property.
5. At all times material hereto, Defendants “Schwabe,
Williamson & Wyatt, PC” through their attorneys, trustees
and employees operate what is known as a “foreclosure mill”
conducting illegal foreclosures where their attorneys,
trustees, and other employees conduct non-judicial
foreclosures without providing the borrowers with legally
required notices, and in addition, engage in a practice of
postponing the sale dates of these non judicial foreclosures
multiple times in order to prevent borrowers from redeeming
their property or curing the putative default as allowed byOregon law. The Defendants and lenders engage in other
illegal foreclosure tactics described herein in order to
defraud the borrowers who are obtaining said loans.
Said Law Firm and the Defendants herein conspire in a
scheme of providing notices that are intentionally in error on
the postponed foreclosure sale date. They do this by not
giving accurate information in the statutorily required notices
under Oregon law. The Defendant’s scheme to postpone the
foreclosure sale date multiple times is to ensure that there
Page of224 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 224 of 227
(303 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 225/227
are no other purchasers than the Defendant’s herein. While
the Defendants and lenders are postponing said non judicial
foreclosure sales, they lull the borrowers into complacency
by conducting multiple and sham negotiations with said
buyers concealing their true purpose which is to come into
ownership of borrower’s real and personal property for their
own gain and profit.
In furtherance of this conspiracy by the Law Firm to
dehorse borrowers, the Law Firm has the lender assign the
trust deed to a “straw person” or in MERS, a “straw
nominee”, or in this case to FHLF, LLC, managed by a secret
corporation, Skylands Investment Corporation which
apparently has an affiliation with the Defendants, but does
not assign the promissory note that is the debt instrument
which remains with the lender. This is similar fraudulenttactic to MERS being assigned the trust deeds, but not
having rights in the promissory note all of which is intended
to dehorse borrowers from their homes by using illegal
tactics and procedures contrary to state law so consumers
cannot determine the real party in interest.
STANDING
The fraudulent tactics aforesaid mean that the
foreclosing party does not have legal, constitution nor
prudential STANDING to appear in any forum because they
Page of225 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 225 of 227
(304 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 226/227
are not the Real Party in Interest.
The Judiciary of the State of Oregon including the State
Court judiciary, the federal court judiciary of the U.S. District
Court of Oregon and the entire judiciary of the Ninth Circuit
refuse to address the issue of Standing notwithstanding legal
and legitimate pleadings asking for declaratory actions, en
banc proceedings, and injunctive relief so the consumers
may have their day in court on the issue of standing.
DISCLOSURE
Federal judges are required to make certain disclosures
under federal law. U.S. District Court Chief Judge Ann
Aiken, Presiding Judge Kirsten Thompson and U.S. Court of
Appeals Chief Judge Alex Kozinski refuse to make required
disclosures or require other members of the judiciary when
handling homeowner foreclosure cases as to whether theyhave their own loans through Bank of America, Countrywide
and the other Defendants , principals and assigns, thus are
not free of bias under the laws of the land. Moreover, judges in the
Ninth Circuit including the U.S. District Court of Oregon are required
Page of226 227
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 226 of 227
(305 of 3
8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 227/227
to have a plan and adhere to the Judicial Conference of the United
States Mandatory Policy on Financial Conflict Screening. The Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court of Oregon are not
following this required procedure to determine if there are real or
possible conflicts of interests and concomitant bias in foreclosure cases
in this jurisdiction.
Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 227 of 227
(306 of 3
top related