Plaintiff Reply To Theft of Title and Home by Oregon Sheriff PDF

1
2
3
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 DISTRICT OF OREGON
7 PORTLAND DIVISION
9 LEROI ESPIRIQUETZAL, An Individual, ) Case No: 18-cv-00157-YY

)
10 Plaintiff,)
vs. )
11 )
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE ) PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT
12
CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON, et al., ) BROWN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
13 ) OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND
) RECOMMENDATION
14 )
15
Plaintiff submits his Reply to Defendant Governor Katherine Brown's Response as
16
17 follows:
18 Once again, Defendant Governor Katherine Brown fails to provide the Court with any
19 meaningful argument to support her motion to dismiss, ECF No. 22 and her Response to
20
Plaintiffs Objections To Findings and Recommendations, ECF No. 65.
21
Arguably, Oregon's liability begins with the principles of constitutional law and the limits
22
of Federal statutory liability announced in Adickes v. S.H Kress & Co., 398 US 144 (1970),
23
24
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1948); Sniadach v. Family Fin, Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 338-
25 39 (1959); Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 70-71 (1972); North Georgia Finishing, Incorporated
26 v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601 (1975); Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Company, 467 U.S. 922,934,
27
28 LeRoi Espiriquetzal
1 c/o 400 W McLoughlin Blvd Apt 5
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
pdxbrownboy@yahoo.com
1 940-42 (1980); and Edmondson v. Leesville Concrete Company, 500 U.S. 614 (1991). See FAC
2 paragraphs 6 and 97 at 3 and 24, respectively.

3
Defendant Governor Katherine Brown is the State's Chief Executive Officer as provided
4
in Oregon Constitution Article V. Defendant Sheriff Reese is designated a constitutional "officer"
5
within the "Judicial Department" in Oregon Constitution Article VII, section 16.
6
7 Defendant Governor Katherine Brown and the other Defendants have also failed to deny
8 the State of Oregon's role in the seizure of Plaintiffs home on July 3, 2018 through the agency of
9 Defendant Sheriff Reese by using ex parte default proceedings which were held to be a "nullity."
10
See ECF No. 53 at 3 and ECF No. 64 at 17.
11
In Adickes v. S.H Kress & Co., 398 US 144, 152 (1970), the Supreme Court held that the
12
involvement of a state official in a conspiracy with a private person:
13
"[P]lainly provides the state action essential to show a direct violation of
14
petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights, whether or not the
15 actions of the police were officially authorized, or lawful. (Citations omitted.)
Moreover, a private party involved in such a conspiracy, even though not an
16 official of the State, can be liable under § 1983. 'Private persons, jointly engaged
with state officials in the prohibited action, are acting "'under color'" of law for
17 purposes ofthe statute. To act "'under color'" of law does not require that the
accused be an officer of the State. It is enough that he is a willful participant in
18
joint activity with the State or its agents." (Citation omitted.)
19
The First Amended Complaint ("F AC"), properly understood, involves wealth, poverty,
20
fundamental interests and the intersection of constitutional due process, equal protection and
21
"state action."
22
23 On February 15,2018, Defendant Governor Katherine Brown filed her Motion To
24 Dismiss, ECF No. 22. Plaintiff filed a Response on March 1,2018, ECF No. 31.
25 Plaintiffs original complaint was filed and amended in State Court and subsequently
26
removed to this Court by the Defendants. In Ascon Properties v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149,
27
2 Clo 400 W McLoughlin Blvd Apt 5
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 1160 (9th Cir. 1989), the Court "stressed Rule 15' s policy of favoring amendments, and we have
2 applied this policy with liberality."

3
On April 17, 2018, the Oregon Court of Appeals in Deutsche Bank National Trust
4
Company v. Leroi Espiriquetzal, aka Leroy Espiricueta, et al., Case No. AI67237, ECF No. 64 at
5
16-17, informed all Defendants that the Multnomah Circuit Court had engaged in judicial conduct
6
7 that had rendered its ex parte Order of Default and Judgment of Default a nullity: "[b ]ecause the
8 trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the General Judgment .... " See ECF No. 53 at 3 and ECF
9 No. 64 at 17.
10
On July 3, 2018, the State of Oregon, knowingly, intentionally and without lawful
11
authority, seized possession of Plaintiffs home and delivered possession to Defendant Deutsch
12
Bank, a private actor. After sending Plaintiff a notice to remove his personal and business
13
property from his home, Defendant Deutsch Bank has steadfastly refused to give Plaintiff access
14
15 to his belongings as of the date of this Response.
16 Defendant Governor Katherine Brown argues that she is without power to prevent the
17 State's theft of Plaintiffs home through an unlawful conspiracy with private persons. This
18
reasoning was foreclosed in Adickes v. S.H Kress & Co., 398 US 144 (1970). This argument is
19
also odd given the fact that the State of Oregon declared a "foreclosure moratoria" during the
20
Great Depression in 1933 and 1934. See ECF No. 39 at 13-14.
21
Defendant Governor Katherine Brown can no longer rely on or "reincorporate her
22
23 arguments in support of her motion to dismiss," ECF No. 65 at 1, because it is undeniable that the
24 State of Oregon, through Defendant Governor Katherine Brown and Defendant Sheriff Reese,
25 rendered Plaintiff homeless on July 3, 2018, after Defendant Governor Katherine Brown filed her
26
motion to dismiss. This is a blatant affront to this Court's power and authority.
27
Vancouver, W A 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 Defendant Governor Katherine Brown's further insistence that this Court adopt the
2 Magistrate's Findings and Recommendations, ECF No. 65 at 2, cannot be heard or entertained

3
given the State's alleged unconstitutional seizure of Plaintiffs home through Defendant Governor
4
Katherine Brown and Defendant Sheriff Reese.
5
The conduct of Defendant Governor Katherine Brown in refusing to address the
6
7 Magistrate's Report given the State's participation in an alleged conspiracy to steal Plaintiffs
8 home is reprehensible.
9 Moreover, it was essential that the State prove the existence of a valid debt before
10
participating in the unlawful conspiracy to seize Plaintiffs home and deliver possession to
11
Defendant Deutsche Bank. As the Supreme Court explained in Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271,
12
274 (1872): "The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an
13
incident." The Oregon Legislature did not "split" the deed of trust from the note/debt owed. See
14
15 Plaintiffs Objection No.3 in ECF No. 62 at 16-19.
16 Ifit was the object and intent ofthe conspiracy to seize Plaintiffs home and thereby
17 render "moot" the FAC and Plaintiffs motions, as stated by Magistrate Judge You, Ninth Circuit
18
precedents have held that certain exceptions should be applied, where, as here, legal violations are
19
capable of repetition.
20
Based on Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 110 n.11 (1975), the Ninth Circuit has held that
21
plaintiffs with mooted individual claims can maintain claims for injunctive relief where they "are
22
23 challenging an ongoing government policy." United States v. Howard, 480 F.3d 1005, 1010 (9th
24 Cir. 2007) ("Howard") (The case does not become moot ifthe policy is ongoing. The continued
25 and uncontested existence of the policy that gave rise to the legal challenges forecloses the
26
mootness argument), citing Oregon Advocacy Ctr. v. Mink, 322 F.3d 11 01, 1118 (9th Cir.2003).
27
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
pdxbrownboy@Vahoo.com
1 The Magistrate Judge ruled as follows:
2 "For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motions to dismiss (ECF ##1-6,8, 14,
22,28,33,34,56) should be GRANTED, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
3
(ECF #25) should be DENIED as moot, and this action should be DISMISSED
4 WITH PREJUDICE." ECF No. 60 at 3.
5 On April 20, 2018, Plaintiff notified this Court that the State Court of Appeals had issued a
6 ruling finding the Multnomah Circuit Court to have conducted ex parte default proceedings
7
without jurisdiction and that its rulings were a "nullity." See ECF No. 53.
8
No Defendant objected to the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendations before the
9
August 20, 2018 deadline, notwithstanding having actual notice that certain Defendants were
10
11 engaged in unlawful conduct aimed at seizing Plaintiff's home.
12 On July 3,2018, the State of Oregon, without lawful authority and pursuant to a
13 conspiracy, forcibly seized Plaintiff's home and delivered possession to its coconspirators. This
14
seizure arguably violated Amendments Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth. Defendants Brown and
15
Reese made no effort to notify this Court of the State's unlawful seizure of Plaintiff's home and
16
the profound effect it would have on their motions to dismiss and the Magistrate's deliberations.
17
As will be further shown, this was fraud, which needs no definition. United States v. Milovanovic,
18
19 678 F.3d 713, 727 (9th Cir. 2012).
20 On June 28, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in
21 Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, Case No. 17-1307, reported in Obduskey v. Wells Fargo,
22
879 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2018), which the Court linked to Greer v. Green Tree Servicing LLC,
23
Case No. 17-1351. The issue in both cases is: "Whether the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
24
applies to non-judicial foreclosure proceedings."
25
The Federal trial court granted the motions to dismiss in Obduskey v. Wells Fargo, No. 15-
26
27 cv-01734-RBJ, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103281 (D. Colo. July 19,2016). The court determined the
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 mortgage servicer was not a "debt collector" under the FDCP A because the loan was not in
2 default when it began servicing the loan. The court also found the law firm's foreclosure
3
activities were "outside the scope of the FDCP A," relying upon what it described as the majority
4
view. Additionally, the borrower's claim against the law firm was determined insufficient to state
5
a claim under the FDCP A because it failed to allege the law firm "took any action to obtain
6
7 payment on a debt."
8 The borrower appealed. On January 19,2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
9 Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. Obduskey v. Fargo, 879 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir.
10
2018). The court first agreed that the mortgage servicer was not a debt collector for essentially the
11
same reasons stated by the trial court.
12
The Court of Appeals next determined that non-judicial foreclosure proceedings are not
13
covered by the FDCPA, despite findings to the contrary by three other Circuits (the Fourth, Fifth,
14
15 and Sixth) and the Colorado Supreme Court. The borrower argued that the "ultimate purpose" of
16 any foreclosure action, including non-judicial, is repayment of money, relying on a decision from
17 the Sixth Circuit. Disagreeing, the Tenth Circuit explained that a non-judicial foreclosure is not an
18
attempt to collect money since it "does not preserve to the trustee the right to collect any
19
deficiency in the loan amount personally against the mortgagor," as distinguished from a judicial
20
foreclosure. However, any deficiency is waived by the creditor when electing to pursue
21
foreclosure without judicial assistance. The law is the same in Oregon.
22
23 It is further axiomatic that: "The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as
24 essential, the latter as an incident." Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 274 (1872). In Sovereign v.
25 Deutsche Bank, 856 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1214 (D. Or. Portland Div. 2012), this Court held that:
26
"Simply put, the security interest embodied in the trust deed follows any transfer of
27 the note in favor of the lender and its successors, such that the trust deed does not
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 become split or separated from the note." See Plaintiffs Objection No.3 in ECF
No. 62 at 16-19; FAC paragraphs 52-56 at 13.
2
3 Under both Carpenter v. Longan and Sovereign v. Deutsche Bank, the existence of a valid
4 "debt" necessarily controls the security instrument/mortgage/deed of trust and any rights the
5 holder of the original note might have, including standing to sue on the note or foreclose on the
6
deed of trust.
7
Such was the case in Beckhuson v. Frank, 97 Or.App. 347, 775 P2d 923 (1989), an action
8
which was brought on a promissory note in Multnomah County Circuit Court. On appeal, the
9
Court held that the trust deed securing the note did not limit remedies on default of the note and
10
11 that ORS 86.735(4), since renumbered ORS 86.752(7), permits a trust deed beneficiary to sue on
12 the note and thereby waive his priority and security, or he may foreclose on the deed of trust and
13 waive his right to collect a deficiency. "The statute precludes an action on the debt only after a
14
trustee's sale or a judicial foreclosure," Beckhuson at 351, citing Siuslaw Valley Bank v. Canfield
15
Assoc. Ore. Ltd., 640r.App. 198,202,667 P.2d 1035 (1983). See Plaintiffs Objection No.3 in
16
ECF No. 62 at 16-17.
17
18 In the State of Oregon, mortgages, debts and negotiable instruments are "choses in action."
19 3 3 Op. Atty Gen. Ore. 160 (1967) (The purchase of a conditional sales contract is a sale of a chose
20 in action and does not involve a loan of money.); Coultas v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 3: 15-cv-
21
0237-PK, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64354 *; 2015 WL 2376003 (D.Or. 2015), citing Nichols v.
22
Jackson Cty. Bank, 136 Or. 302, 307-08, 298 P. 908 (1931); Eade v. First Nat'l Bank, 117 Ore.
23
47,242 P. 833 (1926); South Trust Bank v. Donely, 925 So.2d 934, 940 n.9 (2005); Joe Hand
24
Promotions, Inc. v. Jacobson, 874 F. Supp. 2d 1010, 1016 (D. Or. 2012); Kremen v. Cohen, 337
25
26 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2003); Lyden v. Nike, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151434,2013 WL
27
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 5729727 at *4 (D. Or. Oct. 22,2013); Belding v. Turner, 3 F. Cas, 84, 85, F. Cas. No. 1243 (D.
2 Conn. 1871) and Carr v. Rice, 5 F. Cas. 140, 145, F. Cas. No. 2440 (S.D.N.Y. 1856).
3
Beckhuson v. Frank and the above cases make clear that a mortgage loan secured by a
4
deed of trust creates an election between two causes of action, both of which are subject to
5
unlawful conversion and are further governed by ORS §§ 80.010 and .020. Community Bank v.
6
7 Ell, 278 Or 417,564 P2d 685 (1977). See also, ORS § 73.0420(1), which states in part that:
8 "The law applicable to conversion of personal property applies to instruments. An

instrument is also converted if it is taken by transfer, other than a negotiation, from
9 a person not entitled to enforce the instrument or a bank makes or obtains payment
with respect to the instrument for a person not entitled to enforce the instrument or
10 receive payment .... "
11
However, notwithstanding the availability of the two causes of action, the cause of action
12
on the debt does not rely on the validity ofthe deed oftrust, which must always rely on the
13
validity of the debt and the right of the personlbeneficiary entitled to foreclose. See, ORS §§
14
15 73.0301 (person entitled to enforce instrument) and .0302 (holder in due course); ORS §
16 86.705(2) (defining "beneficiary"); Fannie Mae v. Goodrich, 275 Ore. App. 77, 364 P.3d 696
17 (2015) ("beneficiary" under the OTDA must be the lender); Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co., 353
18
Ore. 668, 303 P3d 301 (2013) (same) and Niday v. GMAC Mortgage, LLe, 353 Ore. 648,302 P3d
19
444 (2013) (same). See also, FAC paragraphs 48-49 at 11-12.
20
Moreover, no admissible evidence exists in the record to prove the Trust purchased
21
Plaintiffs loan on, before, or within 60 days of the June 30, 2006 closing date of the Trust to
22
23 become entitled to assert a cause of action on the original note or the original deed of trust.
24 Article I of the June 1, 2006 Pooling and Servicing Agreement ("2006 PSA"), which is
25 filed with the Federal Defendants stated: "The AIG Purchase Agreement and the AIG Assignment
26
Agreement, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit S."
27
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 Article I of the 2006 PSA further defined the "AIG Assignment Agreement" as "The
2 Assignment and Recognition Agreement, dated as of the Closing Date, among MSMC, the
3
Depositor and AIG;" the "AIG Mortgage Loans" as "The Mortgage Loans purchased by MSMC
4
pursuant to the AIG Purchase Agreement for which AIG is identified as Originator on the
5
Mortgage Loan Schedule;" and the "AIG Purchase Agreement" as "The Third Amended and
6
7 Restated Mortgage Loan Purchase and Warranties Agreement, dated as of December 1, 2005,
8 between AIG and MSMC."
9 Article I of the 2006 PSA further defined the "Mortgage Loan Schedule" as being:
10
A schedule of Mortgage Loans delivered to the Master Servicer and referred to on
11 Schedule I, such schedule setting forth the following information with respect to
each Mortgage Loan: (1) the Mortgage Loan number; (2) the city, state and zip
12 code of the Mortgaged Property; (3) the number and type of residential units
constituting the Mortgaged Property; (4) the current Mortgage Rate; (5) the current
13 net Mortgage Rate; (6) the current Scheduled Payment; (7) with respect to each
Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan, the Gross Margin; (8) the original term to
14
maturity; (9) the scheduled maturity date; (10) the principal balance of the
15 Mortgage Loan as of the Cut-off Date after deduction of payments of principal due
on or before the Cut-off Date whether or not collected; (11) with respect to each
16 Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan, the next Interest Rate Adjustment Date; (12) with
respect to each Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan, the lifetime Mortgage Interest
17 Rate Cap; (13) whether the Mortgage Loan is convertible or not; (14) the Servicing
Fee; (15) the applicable Originator's name; (16) the date such Mortgage Loan was
18
sold by the applicable Originator to the applicable Sponsor; (17) whether such
19 Mortgage Loan provides for a Prepayment Charge as well as the term and amount
of such Prepayment Charge, if any; (18) with respect to each First-Lien Mortgage
20 Loan, the LTV at origination, and with respect to each Second-Lien Mortgage
Loan, the CL TV at origination; (19) the applicable Servicer's name; (20) the date
21 on which servicing of the Mortgage Loan was transferred to the applicable
Servicer; (21) the applicable Sponsor's name; and (22) with respect to each CHL
22
Mortgage Loan, the Servicing Fee Rate. The Master Servicer, upon request, shall
23 provide a copy of the Mortgage Loan Schedule, and any amendments, supplements
or modifications thereto to the Trustee promptly upon receipt thereof.
24 https://www.sec.gov/ Archives/edgar/data/1365336/0000914121 06002439/ms909983-ex4.txt
25 Plaintiff and the other borrowers who may have had their loans sold to the Trust are not
26
considered parties to the 2006 PSA. However, the 2006 PSA does provide that:
27
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
pdxbrownboy@vahoo.com
1 "The Master Servicer, upon request, shall provide a copy of the Mortgage Loan
Schedule, and any amendments, supplements or modifications thereto to the
2 Trustee promptly upon receipt thereof."
3
The securitization of Plaintiff s loan and the loans of other borrowers nationwide has a
4
profound impact on federal monetary and securities laws in the care ofthe Federal Defendants and
5
the commercial, consumer, mortgage and police laws in the care of Defendant Governor Brown
6
7 and Defendant Sheriff Reese.
8 Additionally, securitization directly impacts a lawsuit proceeding under a cause of action
9 on the original note or a judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure of the original deed of trust/mortgage.
10
The Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, Case No. 17-
11
1307, reported in Obduskey v. Wells Fargo, 879 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2018), raises additional
12
issues whether the sale of Plaintiffs horne and Plaintiffs eviction after this lawsuit was filed were
13
designed to carry out undisclosed nefarious conspiratorial conduct.
14
15 In her motion to dismiss, ECF No. 22, Governor Brown asserted numerous claims of
16 immunity described as: "Tenth Amendment;" "state sovereignty;" "discretionary immunity;" and
17 "qualified immunity." These immunities, if available, were made problematic and potentially
18
untenable when Defendant Governor Brown and Defendant Sheriff Reese were provided copies of
19
the State Court of Appeals ruling that the Circuit Court default proceedings were a "nullity" and
20
without jurisdiction.
21
Defendant Governor Brown's immunity defenses are also inconsistent with her official
22
23 conduct and actions alleged in Finicum et al v. United States of America et al, U.S. District Court
24 District of Oregon (Pendleton (2), Case No. 2:18-cv-00160-SU; Oregon's unique prerogatives
25 under the parens patriae doctrine and FRCP Rule 13(g) and (h).
26
27
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 Oregon's sovereign interests under the Tenth Amendment and its prerogatives under the
2 parens patriae doctrine were discussed by the Ninth Circuit in Oregon v. Legal Services Corp.,
3
552 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2009) (The Tenth Amendment reserves any power not expressly delegated
4
to the federal government to the States. To bring a claim under the Tenth Amendment, a state
5
must first allege facts relating to a relevant injury.).
6
7 Plaintiff s real property was directly affected by the FED and the F AC. Upon the filing of
8 the FED by Deutsche Bank, Oregon, through Defendants Brown and Reese, acquired a right to
9 directly file a crossclaim against the other Defendants pursuant to FRCP Rule l3(g) and (h).
10
In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) the U.S. Supreme Court resolved an issued left
11
open in Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and established a new
12
pleading standard under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The F AC contains enough facts to
13
survive dismissal under Ashcroft and Twombly. The reentry of void ex parte judgment and the
14
15 recent seizure of Plaintiff s horne by State of Oregon on July 3, 2018 are enough to entitle
16 Plaintiff to amend his F AC to assert additional causes of actions ripened after reentry of judgment
17 and seizure of his horne.

18
Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Obduskey v. McCarthy &
19
Holthus LLP, this Court need not stay its proceedings until the outcome of the Supreme Court's
20
review and may permit Plaintiff to amend his complaint within a reasonable time to conform to
21
FRCP Rule 15(a) and (b). The Court may also order limited discovery to permit the Defendants to
22
23 produce the original note and original deed of trust; the Purchase Agreement; the Mortgage Loan
24 Schedule, and any other documents the Court deems are essential to deciding the issues of the
25 Trust's standing to sell Plaintiffs horne and participate in the seizure of Plaintiffs horne while
26
this lawsuit was pending.
27
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
pdxbrownboy@vahoo.com
1
2
3
7 PORTLAND DIVISION
9 LEROI ESPIRIQUETZAL, An Individual,) Case No: 18-cv-00 157 - YY

)
10 Plaintiff,)
vs. )
11 )
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE ) PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO FEDERAL
12
CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON, et al., ) DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO
13 ) PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO
) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
14 )
15 ----------------------------)
Plaintiff submits his Reply to the Federal Defendants' Response as follows:
16
17 Plaintiff incorporates ECF No. 62 (Plaintiffs Objections to Findings & Recommendation)
18 and ECF No. _ (Plaintiff's Reply To Defendant Brown's Response To Plaintiffs Objections To
19 Findings And Recommendation) as though fully set forth herein.

20
This Court should be unwilling to believe or be persuaded by the arguments of the Federal
21
Defendants. First, no objection to the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation was filed
22
before the August 20,2018 deadline and these Defendants do not now object to the Findings and
23
Recommendation in their papers.
24
25 Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to "take Care that the Laws
26 be faithfully executed." Article V, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution requires that the State's
27 Governor "shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 Known as the "Take Care Clause," President Trump is to enforce all constitutionally valid
2 Acts of Congress, regardless of his own Administration's view of their wisdom or policy. The
3
Clause does not confer a discretionary power. Rather, it imposes a duty on the President.
4
Circuit Judge Brett Michael Kavanaugh, in In re Aiken County, 725 F.3d 255 (D.C. Cir.
5
2013), performed a detailed analysis of the role of the President and the Take Care Clause and
6
7 Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution:
8 "Our analysis begins with settled, bedrock principles of constitutional law. Under
Article II of the Constitution and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the President
9 must follow statutory mandates so long as there is appropriated money available
and the President has no constitutional objection to the statute .... Those basic
10
constitutional principles apply to the President and subordinate executive
11 agencies." Id, at 259.
12 Citing Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Pierce, 786 F.2d 1199, 1201
13 (D.C.Cir.1986), Judge Cavanaugh noted that: "The power to decide when to investigate, and when
14
to prosecute, lies at the core of the Executive's duty to see to the faithful execution of the laws."
15
Id, at 263.
16
On May 20,2009, President Obama signed into law "The Helping Families Save Their
17
Homes Act of 2009", Pub. L. 111-22, 123 Stat. 1632, which included the Homeless Emergency
18
19 Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act under Division B.
20 The stated purpose of the Act was to help families save their homes and to authorize the
21 State and Federal Defendants to coordinate a moratorium on foreclosures until certain conditions,
22
as established by the Treasury Secretary, in consultation with other State and Federal officials,
23
were met. Relevant portions of this law were set forth in paragraphs 21, 22, 28, 32, 38, 39,81,95,
24
99, 105, 106, 108, 116 and 117 and Section VII, Prayer for Relief. The entire statute was attached
25
as Exhibit 7 to the F AC. Under Division A and relevant here, Congress provided guidance and
26
27 financial support for:
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 Title I--Prevention of Mortgage Foreclosures
Title II--Foreclosure Mitigation and Credit Availability
2 Title III--Mortgage Fraud Task Force
Title IV --Foreclosure Moratorium Provisions
3
4 Under Section 30 1 (c) of Title III, Congress envisioned a "mandatory" "nationwide"
5 Federal and State task force led by the President and his Department of Justice capable of
6 enforcing "State mortgage fraud laws and other related Federal and State laws .... " Congress
7
provided in Section 401(a) of Title IV that a foreclosure moratorium be enforced:
8
"It is the sense of the Congress that mortgage holders, institutions, and mortgage
9 servicers should not initiate a foreclosure proceeding or a foreclosure sale on any
homeowner until the foreclosure mitigation provisions, like the Hope for
10
Homeowners program, as required under title II, and the President's "Homeowner
11 Affordability and Stability Plan" have been implemented and determined to be
operational by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Secretary
12 of the Treasury."
13 It is implicit in Pub. L. 111-22 that Congress intended the Federal and State Defendants to
14
engage in a concerted effort to prevent mortgage fraud and homelessness. This Court need look no
15
further than this case to find a glaring failure of the Federal and State Defendants to faithfully
16
execute this law. On July 3, 2018, the Defendants watched while the State of Oregon seized
17
possession of Plaintiff's horne and rendered Plaintiff homeless, more than six months AFTER
18
19 Plaintiff had commenced this lawsuit pursuant to the contractual provisions set forth in the
20 original deed oftrust. It is fair to conclude that most foreclosures are violative of this Federal law
21 and the sense of Congress expressed therein.

22
The Federal Defendants argue, as do the State Defendants, that they are helpless and
23
without any power, and as such, Plaintiff cannot state a cause of action or seek any relief against
24
them. This theory was rejected by Judge Kavanaugh in In re Aiken County, 725 F.3d 255 (D.C.
25
Cir.2013).
26
27
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 Moreover, President Trump has publicly touted numerous accomplishments during his
2 Presidency, either by signing laws, enforcing laws or issuing Executive policies. In "Q" Drop No.
3
1926, President Trump touted his Executive actions blocking the property of persons engaged in
4
human trafficking; "45,000 sealed indictments" and amendments to the Military Justice Act
5
("MJA") to support expanded prosecutions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba:
6
Q !1rnG7VJ'xZr-fC1 No_~[!7 1926
7 Aug 19 2018 14:05:47 (EST)
[Cause]
Define ·SubVersion'.
8 The act of subverting: the state of' being subverted; especially: a
systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or
political system by persons working secretly rr o rn within?
[Effect]
9 httpS:J/wvorIN.\'Vhitehouse.gov/presidential actionsJexecutive-
order-blocking-property-persons-involved-serious-human-
riahts abuse-corruption/~
10 -rhe United
consequences
States seeks to impose
on those
tangible and significant
who commit serious human rights
abuse or engage in corruption. as well as to protect the financial
system of the United States from abuse by these same
11 persons.~
-I therefore determine that serious human rights abuse and
corruption around the world constitute an unusual and
extraordinary threat to the national security. foreign policy. and
12 economy of the United States. and I hereby declare a national
emergency to deal with that threat.-
NATIONAL Er,,'ERGENCY
13 .!::!J!Qs:/lvYvvw.whitehollse.govlpresidential-actions/2018-
amendnlents-manual-courts-martial-united-states/~
January 1. 2019
-Sec. 12. In accordance with Article 33 of the UCMJ, as
14 amended by section 5204 of the MJA. the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, will
issue nonbinding guidance regarding factors that commanaers,
15 convening
advocates
authorities, staff judge advocates.
should take into account
and judge
when exercising their duties
with respect to the disposition of charges and speCifications in
the interest of justice and discipline under ArtiCles 30 and 34 of
16 the UCMJ. That guidance will take into account, with appropriate
consideration of military reqUirements, the principles contain eo
in official guidance of the Attorney General to attorneys for the
Federal Government with respect to the disposition of Federal
17 criminal cases in accordance with the principle of fair and
evenhanded administration of Federal criminal law.-
.•.. FBI personnel removal
.•. DOJ personnel removal
18 +- C A personnel removal
.•. State personnel removal
.•. WH personnel removal
19 .•. House personnel
-+ Senate personnel
removal
rem.oval
.•. Chair/CEONP removal
.•. r lJL budget (largest in our history).
20 .•. MIL presence around POTUS
.•. 45,000 sealed indictments
httns'/lwww military !;omldajly-n"'wN2Q18tQ3128twhe.n.=.it::.c.~
guantanamo trump-truly-builder-chief hlml~
21 https :Ifwww.theguaraian.com/u s-n eVlls/20 1 7/fe b/23Jtru mp--
revives-pr;vate-prison-program-d'oi-obama-administration endB'
22 http'{twww brejtbart comtbjQ-QQverompoV2018/Q3!31/turleY-

sessions-using-utah-federal-prosecutor-much-better-trump-
2nd-special-counseIJc,::
Nothing to See Here.
23 Q
24 After learning that President Obama had been stealing profits from Freddie Mac to fund
25
Obamacare insurance subsidies, President Trump used his Executive powers to end this
26
unconstitutional policy, See FAC paragraphs 34-39 at 8-10,
27
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 A "Compilation of Presidential Documents" ("CPD") is released daily by the White House
2 Press Secretary and published by the Office of the Federal Register (OFR), National Archives and
3
Records Administration (NARA) on its website:
4
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=CPD
5
Since his inauguration, President Trump has caused more than 100 indictments to be filed
6
under seal in the Federal District of Oregon. Through Federal and State court filings, the Federal
7
8 Defendants and the U.S. Attorney's office representing them, became aware the Multnomah
9 County Circuit Court had engaged in ex parte judicial proceedings which led to the State of
10 Oregon seizing possession of Plaintiff's home under "color of law" and after the State Court of
11
Appeals had ruled the same proceedings were a "nullity."
12
The Federal Defendants make no effort to explain to this Honorable Court how this
13
alleged unlawful conspiracy to steal Plaintiff's title and real property does not ripen into a cause
14
15 of action redressable under the constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Oregon.
16 It is indisputable, and the Defendants do not dispute, that the sale of Plaintiff's home after
17 this lawsuit was commenced and the seizure of Plaintiff's home by the State of Oregon on July 3,
18
2018, deprived Plaintiff of rights under the Deed of Trust and the Federal Civil Rights statutes set
19
forth in Subchapter I of Chapter 21, Title 42 U.S. Code. Justice was obstructed in this Court and
20
the State Court of Appeal. The obstruction and deprivation were intentional and not justified by
21
any law, statute or constitutional provision, State or Federal.
22
23 Title 42 U.S.C. § 1985 addresses conspiracies to interfere with civil rights that prevents an
24 officer from performing her or his duties; obstructing justice; and depriving persons of rights or
25 privileges, among other things.

26
27
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 Under 42 U.S.C. §1986, Congress expressly provided for an action against any "person"
2 who fails to prevent a violation of § 1985:

3
Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done,
4 and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having
power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or
5 refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party
injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act,
6 which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such
damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons
7
guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the
8 action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and
neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor,
9 and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the
widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the
10 benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this
11 section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause
of action has accrued.
12
"Officers are elected ... for the benefit of the community ... ," said the Supreme Court of
13
Washington in State ex reI. Zempel v. Twitchell, 59 Wn.2d 419,367 P.2d 985 (1962). In State v.
14
15 Twitchell, 61 Wn.2d 403,378 P.2d 444 (1963), the Supreme Court of Washington confirmed the
16 conviction of Snohomish County Sheriff Robert Twitchell for "wilful neglect of duty" in that he
17 knowingly, without making a complaint and without making an arrest, permitted the keeping of a
18
house of prostitution and the practice of prostitution within the county.
19
As a Defendant named in this action, Defendant Sheriff Reese was aware Plaintiff had
20
commenced a lawsuit in December 2017 to prevent Sheriff Reese from using his powers as
21
Multnomah County Sheriff to seize possession of Plaintiff's home. Sheriff Reese does not deny he
22
23 permitted his Office to seize Plaintiff's home and obstruct justice.
24 The Federal Defendants repeat their argument that nothing, "Constitutional, statutory, or
25 regulatory", required the "Federal Defendants to bring a case against Oregon or to otherwise
26
reform Oregon's foreclosure laws." ECF No. 66 at 3.
27
6 C/o 400 W McLoughlin Blvd Apt 5
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 But this is a false narrative and a false argument. Congress determined that "mortgage
2 fraud" was an underlying reason Americans were losing their homes. Many sections of Pub. L.
3
111-22 are codified under the Troubled Assets Relief Program ("TARP"), Subchapter I of Chapter
4
52, Title 12 U.S.C., which was created by Congress under The Emergency Economic Stabilization
5
Act of2008, Public Law 110-343. This law was signed by President George W. Bush on October
6
7 3,2008. Treasury's TARP website! makes the following public disclosure:
8 Home !rlltiatjves :" Fmancial Stability ;'f rARP Programs
TARP Programs
9
Treasury established several
programs under TARP to help
10 stabilize the U.S. financial
system, restart economic
11 growth, and prevent avoidable
foreclosures.
12 Although Congress initially

aulhorized S700 billion for TARP
in October 2008, that authority
13 was reduced to S475 billion by
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer
14 Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act}.Of that, the following amounts were committed through
TARP's five program areas:
15 • Approximately S250 billion was committed in programs to stabilize banking institutions

($5 billion of which was ultimately cancelled).
• Approximately ,,27 billion was committed through programs to restart credit markets.
16 • Approximately 582 billion was committed to stabilize the U.S. auto industry (S2 billion of
which was ultimately cancelled).
17 • Approximately 570 billion was committed to stabilize American International Group
(AIG) (S2 billion of which was ultimately cancelled).
• Approximately $46 billion was committed for programs to help struggling families avoid
18 foreclosure. with these expenditures being made over time.
The authority to make new financial commitments under TARP ended on

19 October 3,2010. As of October 31,2016, cumulative collections under TARP, together with
Treasury's additional proceeds from the sale of non-TARP shares of AlG, exceed total
disbursements by more than S7.9 billion. Treasury is now winding down its remaining TARP
20 investments and is also continuing to implement TARP initiatives to help struggling
homeowners avoid foreclosure.
21 https:llwww,treasury.govlinitiatives/financial-stability/TARP-Programs/Pages/default.aspx#
22 The following entities participated in the TARP bailout program and received the largest
23
proceeds from the Treasury Department:
24
25
26
27
I https:llwww.treasury.gov/initiatives/fmancial-stability/T ARP-Programs/Pages/default.aspx#
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 Bailout Recipients
Last update: .4ug. 28, 2018
2 we're tracking where taxpayer money has gone in the ongoing bailout of the financial system. Our database accounts for both the broader $700 billion bill and the
separate bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
3 For each entity, we provide a ~<Net Outstanding" amount. which shows how deep taxpayers are in the hole after accounting for any revenue the government has
received (usually through interest or dividends).
Companies that failed to repay the government and resulted in a loss are shaded red. You can see a list of those Investments here. All other Investments either returned
4 a profit to the government or might still be repaid. Recipients of aid through TARP's housing programs (such as mortgage servicers and state housing orgs) received
subsidies that were never intended to be repaid, so we don't mark those as losses ..
5 Note: Subsidies are listed separately from the investment programs. So. for instance, Bank of America is listed twice - both as a mortgageseruicer and as a bank.
'want just the numbers all in one place? See the detailed view here.
6
Search for a recipient 979 $6278 $3908 $3238 $86.18
Recipients Totaldisbursement Total returned Total revenues from dIVIdends, jnterest. and other fees Total net to date
7
___ . ...JI
8
Profit!
9
Name ~ Type ~ State ~ Total
Disbursed ~ Net ~
Outstanding
Fannie Mae Government-Sponsored DC S116,149,000,000 546,437,000,000
Enterprrse
10 Freddie Mac Govemrnent-Spcuscred Va 571,336,000,000 536,821,000,000
Enterpnse
AIG InsuranceCompany
11 Receivedotner federal aid. Click to see details.
NY S67,835,000,000 S5,025,967,492
General Motors Auto Company t.1lch S50,744,648,329 ...$'1,380,769,404
12 Bank of America
Receivedomer federalaid. Click to see details.
Bank NC 545,000,000,000 54,566,857,694
Citigroup Bank NY $45,000,000,000 $13,448,572,616

Receivedother federafaid. Click to see details.
13 JPMorgan Chase Bank NY S25,000,000,000 $1,731,202,357
Wells F~rgo Bank Calrf. $25,000,000,000 52,281,347,113
14 GMAC (now Ally Financial) FinancialServicesCompany lArch 516,290,000,000 S3,057,502,589
Chrysler Auto Company Mich 510,748,284,222 ·51,212,849,005
15 Goldman Sachs Bank NY 510,000,000,000 51,418,055,555

Morgan Stanley Bank NY 510,000,000,000 51,268,055,555
PNC Financial servtces Bank Pa 57,579,200,000 5741,344,650
16 U,S. Bancorp Bank Ltmn. 56,599,000,000 $334,220,416
5unTrust Bank Ga $4,850,000,000 5527,323,605
17 Ocwen Lean Servicing, LLC r.tortgageServrcer Fla. $4,254,500,108 ·54,254,500,108
Capital One Financial Corp. Bank Va S3,555,199,000 5251,674,702
18 Regions Financial Corp. Bank Ala S3.5OO.000.000 5638,055,555

WellIngton Management Legacy Securities PPIF Master Fund, LP Investment Fund Del 53,448,461,000 5702,530,334
Fifth Third Bancorp Bank Ohio S3,40B,000,000 5593,372,603
19 Hartford Financial Services Insurance Company Conn 53,400,000,000 5814,403,447
American Express Financrat ServicesCompany NY S3,388,890,000 5414,367,308
20 AG GECC PPIF Master Fund. L.P, InvestmentFund Del S3,352,197,510 5926,471,357
Allianc.eBernstein Legacy Securities Master Fund, L.P. Investment Fund Del 53,192,141,738 5562,685,420
BB&T
21 Bank N.C 53,133,640,000 S159.713,918
Wells. Fargo Bank, NA 1.lortgage Servicer Iowa 53.098,829,100 ·53,098,829,100
JPMorgan Chase subsidiaries r,1ortgage Servrcer N.J. 53,030,109,080 ·53,030,109.080
22 Bank of NeVI York Mellon Bank NY 53,000,000,000 5231.416,666
KeyCorp Bank 01110 52,500,000,000 5367,222,222
23 CalHFAMortgage Assistance Corporation Slate HOUSing Orgs Calif 52,334,275,483 ·S2,334,275,483
CIT Group Bank NY S2.330,OOO.000 ·52,286,312,500
Comerica Incorporate.d
24 Bank Texas 52,250,000,000 S322,039,543
Bank of America subsidiaries (incl. Countrywide) t,10119age
Servrcer Calif 52,158,304,838 .52,158,304,838
State Street Bank r.tess 52,000,000,000 S123,611,111
25
26 Source: ProPublica; 155 Avenue of the Americas, 13th Floor; New York, NY 10013
Phone: (212) 514-5250; Fax: (212) 785-2634, https:llprojects.propublica.org/bailout/list.
27
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 The Treasury Department provides the following disclosure of its bailout assistance to
2 AIG, which should have sold Plaintiffs loan to the Trust on, before or within 60 days of the
3
Trust's June 30, 2006 closing date:
4
Max Cornbirieo Repayments, Positive Return
Commitment
5 Canceled/Reduced
Commitments,
6 Interest/Fees/Gains
Federal Reserve $112.5 billion $130.2 billion +$17.7 billion

7 Fed Loans to AlG' 535.0 billion $41.8 billion +$6.8 billion
AlAfAlICO SPV, $25.0 billion 526.4 billion +$1.4 billion

8 Preferred Interes1s
Maiden Lane II & III 552.5 billion &32.0 billion +$9.5 billion
9
Treasury $69.8 billion $74.8 billion +$5.0 billion
10 Common Stock 547.5 billion 551.6 billion +$4.1 billion
Preferred Stock $22.3 billion 523.2 billion +$0.9 billion

11
Total $182.3 billion $205.0 billion +$22.7 billion
12
Numerous questions are raised regarding the TARP bailout and the Trust's seizure of
13
14 Plaintiffs home after this lawsuit was commenced and the Federal Defendants' arguments.
15 Moreover, Pub. L. 111-22, primarily codified under Title 12 U.S.c., enacted or amended the
16 following sections:
17
§ 170Ix, Assistance with respect to housing for low- and moderate-income families
18
§ 1710. Payment of insurance
19
§ 1715u. Authority to assist mortgagors in default
20
§1715z-20. Insurance of home equity conversion mortgages for elderly
21
homeowners
22
§1715z-23. HOPE for Homeowners Program
23
§1715z-24. Pilot program for automated process for borrowers without sufficient
24 credit history
25
§ 1715z-25. Mortgage modification data collecting and reporting
26
§1735f-10. Change of mortgagee status
27
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 § 1735f-14. Civil money penalties against mortgagees, lenders, and other
participants in FHA programs
2
§ 1782. Administration of insurance fund
3
4 §1783. National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund
5 § 1790e. Temporary Corporate Credit Union Stabilization Fund
6 § 1817. Assessments
7
§ 1823. Corporation monies
8
§ 1824. Borrowing authority
9
§ 5201. Purposes. Emergency Economic Stabilization
10
11 §5220. Assistance to homeowners
12 §5220a. Application of GSE conforming loan limit to mortgages assisted with

TARP funds
13
§5241. Temporary increase in deposit and share insurance coverage
14
15 The congressional purpose in enacting "Emergency Economic Stabilization" was set forth
16 in 12 U.S.C. §5201:
17 The purposes of this chapter are-

18
(1) to immediately provide authority and facilities that the Secretary of the
19 Treasury can use to restore liquidity and stability to the financial system of the
United States; and
20
(2) to ensure that such authority and such facilities are used in a manner that-
21 (A) protects home values, college funds, retirement accounts, and life savings;
(B) preserves homeownership and promotes jobs and economic growth; .
22
(C) maximizes overall returns to the taxpayers of the United States; and
23 (D) provides public accountability for the exercise of such authority.
24 The Short Title of the 2009 Amendment to 12 U.S.C. §5201 indicated the following
25 sweeping provisions of this legislation:

26
Pub. L. 111-22, div. A, §1(a), May 20, 2009, 123 Stat. 1632, provided that: "This
27 division [enacting sections 1715z-25, 1735f-l0, 1790e, 5220a, and 5231a of this
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 title, amending sections 1708, 1710, 1715u, 1715z-20, 1715z-23, 1715z-24,
1735f-14, 1782, 1783, 1817, 1823, 1824,5221,5225,5226,5233, and 5241 of this
2 title, sections 1639a, 1640, and 1641 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade, section 714
3 of Title 31, Money and Finance, section 3703 of Title 38, Veterans' Benefits, and
sections 143 7f and 1472 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, repealing
4 section 1735f-10 ofthis title, enacting provisions set out as notes under this
section, sections 1708, 1715u, and 5220 of this title, section 1639a of Title 15,
5 section 3703 of Title 38, and sections 1437f, 1472, and 5301 of Title 42, amending
provisions set out as a note under section 5301 of Title 42, and repealing provisions
6 set out as notes under this section and section 5220 of this title] may be cited as the
7 'Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of2009'."
8 Pub. L. 111-22, div. A, title VII, §701, May 20,2009, 123 Stat. 1660, which
provided that title VII of Pub. L. 111-22, amending section 1437f of Title 42, The
9 Public Health and Welfare, enacting provisions set out as notes under section 5220
ofthis title and section 1437f of Title 42, and repealing provisions set out as notes
10
under this section and section 5220 ofthis title, could be cited as the "Protecting
11 Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009", was repealed by Pub. L. 111-22, div. A, title
VII, §704, May 20,2009, 123 Stat. 1662, as amended by Pub. L. 111-203, title
12 XIV, §1484(2), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2204, set out as a Termination Date of
2009 Amendment note under section 1437f of Title 42, effective Dec. 31, 2014.
13 Pub. L. 111-15, §1, Apr. 24, 2009, 123 Stat. 1603, provided that: "This Act
[amending section 5231 of this title and enacting provisions set out as a note under
14
section 11 of the Inspector General Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-452, set out in the
15 Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees] may be cited as the
'Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program Act of2009'."
16
The implementation of Pub. L. 111-22 fell primarily in the lap of Defendant Steven Terner
17
18
Mnuchin. Section 301 of Pub. L. 111-22 required Defendant Mnuchin to coordinate with the
19 Department of Justice ("DOJ") to establish a Nationwide Mortgage Fraud Task Force to address
20 mortgage fraud in the United States. According to the U.S. for Nevada, the DOJ created a "Task
21 Force" that included mortgage fraud in November 2009 involving more than 20 federal agencies,
22
94 U.S. Attorneys' offices and state and local partners:
23
III
24
III
25
III
26
27 III
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
. , ,-. ~
1 I ~'lo l mrr-d ~'If.lrco; I )cr.U'tfnt nr oflucricc
2 THE l'l'OlTED ST/\TES A'rTOIU,EY OI'FIc'E
DISTRICT/NEVADA
3
I HOME ABOUT NEWS MEETTHE U.S. ATIORNEY DIVISIONS PROG
4 U.S. Attorneys» District of Nevada » Programs
Mortgage Fraud
5
The Department of Justice's Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force was created in November 2009 to
",-age an aggressive. coordinated and proactive. effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. with
6 more than 20 federal agencies, 94 U.S. Attorneys' offices and state and local partners, it is the broadest
coalition of law enforcement, investigatory and regulatory agencies ever assembled to combat fraud. Since
its formation, the task force has made great strides in facilitating increased investigation and prosecution
7 of financial crimes; enhancing coordination and cooperation among federal, state and local authorities;
addressing discrimination in the lending and financial markets and conducting outreach to the public,
victims, financial Institutions and other organizations.
8
In the mid- to late 2000'S, Nevada suffered from an overwhelming surge of fraudulent residential
mortgage transactions which created life-altering financial hardships for many innocent homeowners and
9 caused hundreds of millions of dollars of loss to financial institutions and investors. In 2008, the U.S.
Attorney's Office responded by making mortgage fraud prosecutions a priority. By 2009, the FBI had
identified hundreds of potential targets responsible for the fraud. The District made full use of additional
10 resources provided by DOJ Headquarters in Washington D.C. Since the inception of our mortgage fraud
program in the spring of 2008 and through the end of 2012, over 200 persons have been charged with
federal mortgage fraud crimes in Nevada. Most of those individuals were convicted and are in prison, For
11 the first several years of this program, most of the investigations and prosecutions centered around Joan
origination fraud. Over the last several years, because of the residential housing and mortgage loan crisis,
the fraudsters have moved into other areas, such as refinance and foreclosure rescue fraud, and we are
12 now prosecuting some of those cases.
Updated Janu31Y 5. 2018
13
https:llwww.justice.gov/usao-nv/mortgage-fraud
14
Also established within the DOl's Criminal Division is the Securities and Financial Fraud
15
Unit ("SFF") which "focuses on the prosecution of complex and sophisticated securities,
16
commodities, and other financial fraud cases" including "mortgage fraud":
17
18
19
20
e HOME
~
.
ABOUT
TtlI'.
DEPARTMENTs/" JUSTICE
UNITED
AGENCIES
STATES
Home» Criminal Division »About The Criminal Division » Sections/Offices»

RESOURCES NEWS
Fraud Section (FRD)

CAREERS
21
Fraud Section Home
SECURITIES AND FINANCIAL FRAUD UNIT
• Foreign Corrupt
22 Practices At'! (1TPA)
An Overview
• Health Care Fraud
23 T Securities and The Securities and Financial Fraud Unit ("SFF"') focuses on the prosecution of complex and
Financial Fraud sophisticated securities, conunodities, and other financial fraud cases. Working closely with
regulatory partners at the SEC, CFTC, and other agencies, SFF has tackled some of the largest
24 Accounting Fraud frauds in the financial services industry and a "ide mix of market manipulation and insider
Commodities Fraud trading cases. The SFF Unit also focuses on a broader array of financial fraud, including
25 mortgage fraud, bank fraud, and government procurement fraud.
26 The Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") includes "mortgage fraud" within its
27
"financial institution fraud" (FIF) investigations:
28 LeRoi EspiriquetzaJ
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 Financial Institution Fraud (FIF)
FinanclallnsHtutJon lr3ud (FIF) is the cress ofoiminal schemes targetmg traditional retail cants, credit unions. and otner reaerans-msureo flnandal institutions, Many RF schemes
2 tfWolve the compromise of customers' accounts or personal identJt;ing information (PUl: when identities are stolen. both the financat institution and customers are considered
v;dims..
FIF can be categomed as either extemal-when perpetrators have no affiliation with the \;dim institutiofl-Or internal-when banK employees use their access to accounts and
3 systems and mowredge of ccscee to commit fraud. Commonly investIgated external FIF schemes indud~ stcren or counterfeit checks. account holder Impersonation, access
device fraud rmtsuseamaomonzao use of debii cards), credil card scams. and email hadjngleadino to loss. Unfortunately. as t~chnOlocy creates inaeasedconvenience and
accessibility for customers, it also creates opportunitj for criminal actors.
4 Em!)eZZlement and misapplication aftunes are tva ctthe most common internal FIF schemes encountered in FB! investigations. AM when tM fr3ud is eqreelcus enouQh.1t can
lead to the complete tallute of the rederanj-lnsureo finanCial institution.
5 Mortgage Fraud
Mortgage fraud is a sutrcateoorj 01 FIF.1t is ctme cnaraeenzec oy some t}·pe 01 material misstatement msreoresentanon or omission tn reteucn to a mortgage toan','Jhich is
then relied upon by a lender,Alie that influences a banK's decsicn-eabcut whether. for example, to approve a loan. accent a reduced payoff amount or aeree to certain repayment
6 terms-is mortgage fraud, The FBt ano other entities charged WIth investigating mortgage fraud, particularly in the wake afthe nousing marxet collapse. have broadened the
cenrercn 10 include frauds targeting distressed homeowners.
7 There are two distinct areas of mortgage fraud-fraud lor profit anc fraud lor housing .
• Fraud for profit Those 'h'ho commit this type 01 mortgage fraud are cnen industry insiders USIOQ their speCializ.ed kno'}lfedge or authority 10 ccmrrut cr racutate the fraUd.
Current investigations ancwcespreac rencrtme tnolcate a high percentage of mOr1gage fraud involves collusion oyincustr'l insiders, such as banK Officers, appraisers,
8 mortgage brokers, ancmes.rcen originators, and other protesstcnats engaged in tile Industry. Fraud for cron anns not to secure ncustnc, but rather to misuse the
mortgage lending process 10 staat cash and equlti rrcm lenders or homeowners. The FBI priofltlzes fraud for prOfit cases .
• fraud for housing: This type ornauo Is tipicallj represented Of iUegal actions taken "0,a borrower mcnvetec to acquire or malntaln ownerstup of a neuse. The borrower may.
for example, misrepresent income and asset rntormaucn on a loan application or entice an appraiser to mampulate a property's epprerseovatoe.
9 The F81 seeks to maximize Its impact on the mortgage trauc and financial institution fraud as a wnote thorough collaborancn.
For example. the Bureau operates Financial Crimes Task Forces 'hiihln several field olfic~s throughout the counlry that ad as force mumpners in aocressfnc large scale financtat
10 fraud schemes. Comprised of federal, stale. and local regulalorf and law enforcement aeenoes whoworr. together on a dail,' basts. these tasks forces have been an effectiVe way
to merge valuable resources of partidpahng agencies.
The FBI also participates in both formal and ad hoc interagencywor;-Jng groups that address F1F and mortgage fraud matters. These task forces and WOr~Jn9 creucs-cccmorrseo
11 of federal. state. and recar regulatory and law enforcement acenoes nationwide. along with private mduSlfy10 IOdude ban~ security investigators-meet routinely to share
Intelligence. de-conflld cases, and imtiate Joint invesbgatlons.
12 By leveraging the suns. knowledge, and resources Of various government agencies and private industry, the FBI and lts partners are able to tiring more perpetrators of fraud to
justice.
13 https:llwww.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/mortgage-fraud
14 Congress provided the Federal and State Defendants with both legislation and funding
15 necessary to prevent Plaintiff s horne from being unlawfully seized by the State of Oregon which
16
is a participant in the Federal Government's mortgage fraud crime prevention programs. There is
17
a gaping disconnect between the laws on the books and the arguments of the Defendants.
18
De novo review is particularly warranted here. United States v. Raddatz, 417 U.S. 667
19
(1980); Mitchell v. Valenzuela, 791 F.3d 1166, 1168 (2015) (9th Cir. 2015) and Bastidas v.
20
21 Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1157 (9th Cir. 2015). All Defendants permitted Plaintiffs horne to be
22 seized by the State of Oregon without lawful authority to aid and abet an alleged conspiracy.
23 Respectfully submitted,
24
Dated this 2nd day ofSe tember, 2018.
25
26
27
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1
2
3
4
7 PORTLAND DIVISION

)
10 Plaintiff,)
vs. ) PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT
11 ) DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE ) COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR MORGAN
12
CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON, et al., ) STANLEY IXIS REAL ESTATE CAPITAL
13 ) TRUST 2006-1'S RESPONSES TO
) PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO
14 ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
15 ----------------------------)
Plaintiff submits his Reply to Defendant Deutsche Bank's Response as follows:
16
17 Plaintiff incorporates ECF No. 62 (Plaintiffs Objections to Findings & Recommendation);
18 ECF No. _ (Plaintiffs Reply To Defendant Brown's Response To Plaintiffs Objections To
19 Findings And Recommendation) and ECF No._ (Plaintiffs Reply To Federal Defendants'
20
Response To Plaintiffs Objections to Findings and Recommendation as though fully set forth
21
herein.
22
This Court should first note that no objection to the Magistrate's Findings and
23
Recommendation was filed before the August 20, 2018 deadline by Deutsche Bank and no effort
24
25 was made by this Defendant to inform this Honorable Court that it engaged in ex parte
26 proceedings with the Multnomah County Circuit Court which were ruled a "nullity" by the State
27 Court of Appeals.
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 Nor does this Defendant inform this Court that it again engaged in ex parte proceedings
2 with the Multnomah County Circuit Court which resulted in the use of the agency of Defendant
3
Sheriff to seize Plaintiffs home on July 3, 2018.
4
Without mentioning the fact that it sold Plaintiffs home after this lawsuit was
5
commenced and on July 3, 2018 rendered Plaintiff homeless using ex parte judicial proceedings,
6
7 Defendant Deutsche Bank argues to this Court that nothing said in any of the papers submitted by
8 Plaintiff and no events "support modification or reversal of the F &Rs in any respect." This is a
9 profound argument which lacks evidentiary support.
10
What was omitted to permit Deutsche Bank to make this argument was a lack of candor
11
and the following evidentiary documents: original note and original deed of trust; the Purchase
12
Agreement; the Mortgage Loan Schedule; the Trustee's authority to foreclose issued by the Trust;
13
and the mortgage and pooling insurance policies, among other documentary evidence-the same
14
15 which was omitted to obtain the 2016 judgment and the 2018 ex parte default Judgment.
16 Deutsche Bank insists its motion to dismiss remains valid and Plaintiff s cannot amend the
17 complaint under any circumstance to plead a cause of action. This argument, like the others, rely
18
on sleight of hand litigation skills to conceal the fact that Plaintiff commenced his lawsuit before
19
the nonjudicial sale of his home and before Defendant Sheriff Reese seize possession. As such,
20
this litigation is not a "post-sale challenge to the completed nonjudicial foreclosure that is barred
21
by Or. Rev. Stat. § 86.797(1)" as argued by Defendant Deutsche Bank in ECF No. 67 at 5.
22
23 Rather, properly understood, the sale and seizure of Plaintiffs home after this lawsuit was
24 commenced was a conspiratorial scheme to obstruct justice; breach the contractual provisions of
25 the note and deed of trust and pursue a lack of candor before this Honorable Court.
26
27
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 This then raises the question as to why Defendant Deutsche Bank and its attorneys insist
2 on refraining from telling this Court the truth regarding any right it had to sell Plaintiff s home
3
and cause Defendant Sheriff Reese to seize Plaintiff s home after Plaintiff commenced this
4
lawsuit. A possible answer is provided by the Supreme Court of Washington in State v. Twitchell,
5
61 Wn.2d 403,378 P.2d 444 (1963), involving the conviction of Snohomish County Sheriff
6
Robert Twitchell:
7
8 "The court depends a great deal upon lawyers as a class, if not always as
individuals, and is naturally inclined to take a protective attitude toward them, so
9 long as the public is not harmed thereby. The right to practice law is a valuable
right, even if it is only a privilege, and it will not be assumed that an attorney will
10
abandon it lightly. There appears no valid reason why an attorney, in the pursuit of
11 his profession, which is an honorable one, should be subjected to the feeling of
insecurity which would most undoubtedly follow from the knowledge that he can
12 be "disbarred" at any moment by a sheriff who may happen to have a grudge
against him, and even without his awareness that the "disbarment" has taken
13 place."
14
The arguments of Defendant Deutsche Bank and its attorneys generate an
15
appearance of complacency within the judicial system where lawyers are comfortable with
16
obstructing justice and depriving pro se litigants of their day in court such as what
17
happened in this case and the cases involving borrowers Abderrahim Saddas, Pamela
18
19 Owen and Jerzy Gruca.
20 The filing of a lawsuit is the assertion of a federal right which cannot be defeated
21 by local matters in a State court. "The principle is general and necessary. (Citation
22
omitted.). If the Constitution and laws of the United States are to be enforced, this Court
23
cannot accept as [mal the decision of the state tribunal as to what are the facts alleged to
24
give rise to the right or to bar the assertion of it, even upon local grounds." Davis v.
25
Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24 (1923). Yet, this is the outcome Defendant Deutsche Bank and
26
27 its attorneys argue-a type of mootness.
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 This case is unique and distinguishable in that while a Federal Court and a State
2 court are proceeding along parallel paths regarding the same piece of real estate,
3
Defendant Deutsche Bank has decided to frustrate the jurisdictions of both Courts by
4
selling the real estate and then using the agency of Defendant Sheriff Reese to complete
5
the obstruction of justice by seizing Plaintiff s home, thus creating a gaping disconnect
6
7 between the laws on the books and the arguments of the Defendants.
8 De novo review is particularly warranted here. All Defendants permitted Plaintiff s horne
9 to be seized by the State of Oregon without lawful authority to aid and abet an alleged conspiracy.
10
Respectfully submitted,
11
Dated this 2nd day of September, 2018.
12
13
14
(£~
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1
2
3
7 PORTLAND DIVISION
9 LEROI ESPIRIQUETZAL, An Individual, ) Case No: 18-cv-00 157 - YY

)
10 Plaintiff,)
vs. ) PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT
11 ) MICHAEL REESE'S RESPONSE TO
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE ) PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO
12
CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON, et al., ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
13 )
)
14 )
15
Plaintiff submits his Reply to Defendant Sheriff Michael Reese's Response as follows:
16
18 ECF No. _ (Plaintiff's Reply To Defendant Brown's Response To Plaintiff's Objections To
19 Findings And Recommendation); ECF No._ (Plaintiffs Reply To Federal Defendants'

20
Response To Plaintiffs Objections to Findings and Recommendation; and ECF No._
21
(Plaintiffs Reply To Defendant Deutsche Bank's Response To Plaintiffs Objections to Findings
22
and Recommendation as though fully set forth herein.
23
No objection to the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation was filed before the
24
25 August 20,2018 deadline by Defendant Sheriff Reese and no effort was made by this Defendant
26 to inform this Honorable Court that it engaged in ex parte proceedings with the Multnomah
27 County Circuit Court which were ruled a "nullity" by the State Court of Appeals.
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 Nor does this Defendant inform this Court that the participation of his Sheriffs Office in
2 ex parte proceedings which resulted in the alleged unlawful use of force seize Plaintiff s home on
3
July 3, 2018 and render Plaintiff homeless pursuant to a broader conspiracy involving what
4
President Trump refers to as the "Deep State" "Puppet Masters" involving the "triangle" of
5
George Soros and certain members of Rothschild and Saudi Families, shown here in "Q" Drops
6
133, 134 and 140:
7
8 Q !ITPb.qot'.oo 10: gOlUntOB

Nov 11201723:33'51 (ESn
No 1,:,cQe.')l·~4~ Ai 140 Q !ITPb.qbhqo 10: gOillntOa No.~e 134 Q !ITPb qbhc;Oc 10: gOlUntOS No.~~ 133
Nov 11 2017 23:29:58 iEST) Nov 11 201723:29:35 (ESn
Wealth (over generations) buys power. V'/hywere the events in SA extraordinary? Hard to swallow.
Power {over generations} buys more wealth/control. Who was arrested?
9 More wealthlcontrol buys countries and its people. What will bank records provide?
Importantto progress.
Who are the puppet masters?
Families combined (TRI) = NWO. List names. famUyhlstory. investment/ownership slakes. and House Of Saud (6+++)- S4 Trillion+
InnerTRI families will collapse .. poim-to-potnt contacts. Rothschild (6++) - S2 Trillion+
What is the keystone? EX: Alwaleed HUM'; BO Citigroup US Conlrol Soros (6+) - 51 Trillion+
10 lNhat Nation dominates all others? Why is this refevart? Focus on above (3).
What Nation has influence over most others? House of sauc. Public wealth disdosures - False.
WI'lat is the keystone? House of Saud US Control Many governments of the world feed the 'Eye'.
Relum 10 SA. Follow the money. • Think slush funds (feeder).
11 Strings cut (+++),
Puppets ( ••.•) in shadows.
What power shift recently occurred? ThinK war (feeder).
Was a new King appointed? Think environmental pads (feeder).
Each side afthe ~ controls a certain suosect of power Coincidence? ilim'lB has (3) sides.
brckers. Dark 10 LIGHT. Eye of Providence.
12 Power brcxers are also labeled as the puppets/servants. Why is this relevant? Follow the bloodlines.
Whal is the New World Order? One side of the !DIG removed (1sllime in history). What is the keystone?
Why did POTUS receive a sword dance when visiting SA? Other sides falling. Does Satan exist?
What does this mean curlurall~"? Does the 'thought' of Satan exist?
13 Why is this relevant?
What occurred in SA?
Who worships Satan?
What is a cult?
How did porus remove one side of the pyramid? Q Epstein Island.
What did porus recefvewhile visiting China? What;s a temple?
ANSWERS
14 Where did POTUS dine?
What is the significance?
What occurs in a temple?
Worship?
What if China. Russia, and others are coordinating wi porus to Why is the temple on lop of a mountain?
eliminate the NWO? How many levels might exist below?
Who controls NK?
15 Who really conlrols NK?
What is the Significance of the colors, design and symbol above
the dome?
Who controls several agencies withtn the US, EU. and abroad? V'/hy is this relevant?
Why Is No Such Agency so vilal? wno are the puppet maslers?
Enormous scale of events currentty ongoing. Have the puppet masters traveled to this island?
16 Why is Russia helping 10 ItiIiISIS? W"hen?How often? Why?
This is no! easy to accept nor believe. ~Vladimir Pulin: The New World Order Worships Satan'
Crumbs make bread. o
Operations active.
17 Joint missions underway. ANSWERS
The world is fighting back.
Refer back to graphic.
The Great Awakening.
18 Snow White.
Iron Eagle.
Jason Boume (2016XDreamlCIA).
Q
19 ANSWERS
20
Without mentioning the fact that his Office seized Plaintiff s home after this lawsuit was
21
22 commenced and on July 3, 2018 rendered Plaintiff homeless using ex parte judicial proceedings,
23 Defendant Sheriff Reese argues to this Court that he has a constitutional and a statutory duty to
24 blindly use "force" to "return possession of the premises to plaintiff' "as ordered by the state
25
courts"; that "ORS 30.265(6)(f) provides that public actors are immune from liability if they act
26
27
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 without bad faith or malice ... "; and that "any person acting in his same official capacity, is
2 immune to liability under ORS 30.265(6)(f)." ECF No. 68 at 4-5.

3
This is a profound argument which lacks evidentiary support and overlooks the Civil
4
Rights Act of 1964 and this Court's case law.
5
What was omitted to permit Defendant Sheriff Reese to make this argument was his
6
7 knowledge of the State Court of Appeals Order ruling the ex parte proceedings a "nullity", ECF
8 No. 53 and the role of his Office in executing the ex parte Writ on July 3,2018, copies of which
9 were within his personal knowledge and or possession.

10
Defendant Sheriff Reese further take extraordinary pains to argue the Magistrate's F &Rs
11
are correct, while failing to point out that the alleged unconstitutional seizure of Plaintiff's home
12
on July 3, 2018 by his Sheriff's Office occurred before the Magistrate rendered her Decision and
13
after Defendant Sheriff Reese intentionally failed to inform this Court that the execution of the ex
14
15 parte Writ had a profound impact on his motion to dismiss with prejudice and indeed, on the
16 motions to dismiss with prejudice filed by the other Defendants. See ECF No. 68 at 6 (Dismissal
17 with prejudice is warranted because F AC cannot be amended to allege a "cognizable legal theory
18
of recovery.").
19
Because the State trial court proceedings were ex parte, Plaintiff was not allowed an
20
opportunity to participate in the hearings and never received a copy of the ex parte Writ from the
21
State trial Court or Defendant Sheriff Reese.
22
23 Defendant Sheriff Reese, as a Defendant in this Federal action and after making a timely
24 appearance through his attorney, had actual knowledge that this lawsuit was pending in this
25 Federal Court. His conduct in failing to bring the ex parte Writ to this Court's attention was
26
willful. At no time did he seek guidance from this Court as to the Federal law applicable to his
27
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 execution of the ex parte Writ delivered to him by the State of Oregon. Nor did Sheriff Reese seek
2 guidance from the State Court of Appeals as to the State law applicable to his execution of the ex
3
parte Writ.
4
Defendant Sheriff Reese took the Oath of Office on August 16, 2016. In a public speech,
5
he promised to focus on restoring public trust in the office and that: "Transparency and
6
7 accountability are the core values that will guide the Multnomah County sheriff s office. We have
8 to be willing to hold ourselves accountable if we are to be trusted to hold others accountable."
9 Defendant Sheriff Reese did not live up to his speech when he failed to notify this Court
10
that he was being ordered by the State trial court to obstruct justice on this Federal Court.
11
De novo review is particularly warranted, when, as here, a State County Sheriff and his
12
Office intentionally takes official and personal action pursuant to an alleged conspiracy to obstruct
13
justice in a Federal Court and deny the Plaintiff litigant his day in court.
14
15 Respectfully submitted,
16 Dated this 2nd day of September, 2018.
17
18
~
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1
2
3
4
7 PORTLAND DIVISION

)
10 Plaintiff,)
vs. ) PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS
11 ) QUALITY LOAN SERVICES
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE ) CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON AND
12
CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON, et al., ) MCCARTHY HOLTHUS, LLP'S
13 ) RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
) OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND
14 ) RECOMMENDATIONS
15 --------------------------)
Plaintiff submits his Reply to Defendants Quality Loan's and McCarthy Holthus'
16
17 Response as follows:
19 ECF No. _ (Plaintiffs Reply To Defendant Brown's Response To Plaintiffs Objections To

20
Findings and Recommendation); ECF No._ (Plaintiffs Reply To Federal Defendants' Response
21
To Plaintiffs Objections to Findings and Recommendation); ECF No._ (Plaintiffs Reply To
22
Defendant Deutsche Bank's Response To Plaintiffs Objections to Findings and
23
Recommendation); and ECF No._ (Plaintiffs Reply To Defendant Michael Reese's Response
24
25 To Plaintiffs Objections to Findings and Recommendation) as though fully set forth herein.
26 No objection to the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation was filed before the
27 August 20,2018 deadline by Defendants Quality Loan and McCarthy Holthus. Nor was an effort
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 made by these Defendants to inform this Honorable Court that, pursuant to an unlawful
2 conspiracy, they were able, together with other coconspirators, to cause Multnomah County
3
Circuit Judge Mark A. Peterson to engage in ex parte proceedings which resulted in Defendant
4
Sheriff Reese's alleged unconstitutional seizure of Plaintiffs home and delivering the same to
5
Deutsche Bank and the Trust, alleged coconspirators.
6
7 On June 28, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in
8 Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, Case No. 17-1307, reported in Obduskey v. Wells Fargo,
9 879 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2018), which the Court linked to Greer v. Green Tree Servicing LLC,
10
Case No. 17-1351. The issue in both cases is: "Whether the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
11
applies to non-judicial foreclosure proceedings."
12
These Defendants do not inform this Court of the impact this Supreme Court petition
13
could have on the precedents of the Ninth Circuit; their motions to dismiss with prejudice and
14
15 their alleged attorney-client conspiracy and their coconspirators.
16 Instead, Defendants Quality Loan and McCarthy Holthus rely on the responses filed by
17 Defendant Deutsche Bank, ECF No. 67, and urge this Court to dismiss this action against them
18
with prejudice. See ECF No. 69 at 2.
19
This request is quite profound. After this lawsuit was commenced, these Defendants sold
20
Plaintiff home to Defendant Deutsche Bank at the behest/direction of Defendant Deutsche Bank.
21
These Defendants never sought approval from a court of competent jurisdiction before the sale.
22
23 Nor is any evidence provided to any Court to support a right to conduct the nonjudicial
24 foreclosure sale and the ex parte seizure of Plaintiff home by Sheriff Reese while this case is
25 pending before this Court.

26
27
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917
1 Plaintiff's deed of trust provided he be allowed to bring a lawsuit. The sale of Plaintiff's
2 home by these Defendants after Plaintiff commenced this lawsuit violated the terms of the
3
contract so completely as to render the note and deed of trust void ab initio.
4
This must so because this Court held in Sovereign v. Deutsche Bank, 856 F. Supp. 2d
5
1203, 1214 (D. Or. 2012), that the "trust deed does not become split or separated from the note."
6
7 See also, Plaintiff's Objection No.3 in ECF No. 62 at 16-19.; FAC paragraphs 52-56 at 13.
8 Sovereign v. Deutsche Bank provides that by logical deduction, the debt is the heart of the
9 judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure process and the sale and seizure ofthe home. While a demand
10
for payment of the debt appears to be the first step in the foreclosure process, a mortgage
11
insurance claim is usually made the debt is accelerated.
12
Defendants Quality Loan and McCarthy Holthus did not live up to their part of the note
13
and deed of trust and they failed to inform this Honorable Court why their motions to dismiss with
14
15 prejudice remain viable after this Court has been obstructed in rendering a final judgment by the
16 seizure of Plaintiff's home on July 3,2018.
17 De novo review is particularly warranted, where, as here, attorneys allegedly conspire with
18
their clients to obstruct justice in this Court and deny Plaintiff his constitutional and civil rights to
19
seek redress.
20
Respectfully submitted,
21
Dated this 2nd day of September, 2018.
22
23
24
25
~a
26
27
3 C/o 400 W McLoughlin Blvd Apt 5
Vancouver, WA 98660
(971) 512-2917

Plaintiff Reply To Theft of Title and Home by Oregon Sheriff PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaintiff Reply To Theft of Title and Home by Oregon Sheriff PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 LEROI ESPIRIQUETZAL, An Individual, ) Case No: 18-cv-00157-YY

2 paragraphs 6 and 97 at 3 and 24, respectively.

23 On February 15,2018, Defendant Governor Katherine Brown filed her Motion To

2 applied this policy with liberality."

15 to his belongings as of the date of this Response.

2 Magistrate's Findings and Recommendations, ECF No. 65 at 2, cannot be heard or entertained

15 Plaintiffs Objection No.3 in ECF No. 62 at 16-19.

11 engaged in unlawful conduct aimed at seizing Plaintiff's home.

19 678 F.3d 713, 727 (9th Cir. 2012).

8 "The law applicable to conversion of personal property applies to instruments. An

8 between AIG and MSMC."

7 and Defendant Sheriff Reese.

8 Additionally, securitization directly impacts a lawsuit proceeding under a cause of action

17 and seizure of his horne.

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 LEROI ESPIRIQUETZAL, An Individual,) Case No: 18-cv-00 157 - YY

17 Plaintiff incorporates ECF No. 62 (Plaintiffs Objections to Findings & Recommendation)

19 Findings And Recommendation) as though fully set forth herein.

27 Governor "shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

7 Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution:

19 Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act under Division B.

27 financial support for:

21 and the sense of Congress expressed therein.

22 http'{twww brejtbart comtbjQ-QQverompoV2018/Q3!31/turleY-

25 privileges, among other things.

2 who fails to prevent a violation of § 1985:

7 3,2008. Treasury's TARP website! makes the following public disclosure:

8 Home !rlltiatjves :" Fmancial Stability ;'f rARP Programs

12 Although Congress initially

15 • Approximately S250 billion was committed in programs to stabilize banking institutions

The authority to make new financial commitments under TARP ended on

General Motors Auto Company t.1lch S50,744,648,329 ...$'1,380,769,404

Citigroup Bank NY $45,000,000,000 $13,448,572,616

15 Goldman Sachs Bank NY 510,000,000,000 51,418,055,555

18 Regions Financial Corp. Bank Ala S3.5OO.000.000 5638,055,555

Federal Reserve $112.5 billion $130.2 billion +$17.7 billion

AlAfAlICO SPV, $25.0 billion 526.4 billion +$1.4 billion

10 Common Stock 547.5 billion 551.6 billion +$4.1 billion

Preferred Stock $22.3 billion 523.2 billion +$0.9 billion

4 §1783. National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund

5 § 1790e. Temporary Corporate Credit Union Stabilization Fund

11 §5220. Assistance to homeowners

12 §5220a. Application of GSE conforming loan limit to mortgages assisted with

17 The purposes of this chapter are-

25 sweeping provisions of this legislation:

2 THE l'l'OlTED ST/\TES A'rTOIU,EY OI'FIc'E

4 U.S. Attorneys» District of Nevada » Programs

Updated Janu31Y 5. 2018

Home» Criminal Division »About The Criminal Division » Sections/Offices»

Fraud Section (FRD)

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 LEROI ESPIRIQUETZAL, An Individual, ) Case No: 18-cv-00157-YY

17 Plaintiff incorporates ECF No. 62 (Plaintiffs Objections to Findings & Recommendation);

18 ECF No. _ (Plaintiffs Reply To Defendant Brown's Response To Plaintiffs Objections To

9 profound argument which lacks evidentiary support.

19 Owen and Jerzy Gruca.

27 its attorneys argue-a type of mootness.

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 LEROI ESPIRIQUETZAL, An Individual, ) Case No: 18-cv-00 157 - YY

17 Plaintiff incorporates ECF No. 62 (Plaintiffs Objections to Findings & Recommendation);

18 ECF No. _ (Plaintiff's Reply To Defendant Brown's Response To Plaintiff's Objections To