1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Alan Gjurovich; Star: Hills, temporary mailing location: CARE OF : [ PO BOX 71537, Bakersfield, California 93387] [non domestic without the U.S.]

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN

CASE#: S-1500-CV-271292-SPC Alan Gjurovich; Star: Hills, Plaintiffs, -VS& CEO BILL BECKMANN; GMAC MORTGAGE LLC; GMAC MORTGAGE LLC PRESIDENT NICK CANALE Jr.; GMAC MORTGAGE LLC VICE PRESIDENT & LOAN SERVICER, Charles R. Hoecker;GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC; ETS SERVICES LLC PRESIDENT JOHN DOE 2, ETS SERVICES LLC; ETS SERVICES LLC SALES TRUSTEE Omar Solorzano; ETS SERVICES LLC MANAGERS JOSEPH A. PENSABENA; MARK E. LAHIFF; Adam Leppo ETS SERVICES LLC TRUSTEE SALE OFFICER; John Does 3-99, Defendants. _________________________________ 1st AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF RESCISSION OF ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT; FRAUD; CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD DECEIT; CIVIL DAMAGES FOR CRIMINAL TORTS OF FRAUD FORGERY; PERJURY; FALSIFYING DOCUMENTS TRESPASSING; TERRORIST THREATS;BREACH OF FIDUCIARY INVOLUNTARY TRUST;BREACH OF TRUST; WRONGFUL CONVERSION OF REAL PROPERTY; EQUITABLE, DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; QUIET TITLE; ABUSE OF PROCESS; GENERAL NEGLIGENCE; INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE, ETC., OF Alan Gjurovich & Star: Hills.

17 MERS; MERS PRESIDENT

Page 1 of 77

COMES NOW Alan Gjurovich & Star: Hills (hereafter Alan & Star) WITH THEIR

2 VERIFIED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF RESCISSION OF 3 4 5

DECLARATORY RELIEF; FRAUD; PROMISSORY FRAUD; FRAUDULENT

ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT; QUIET TITLE; EQUITABLE, INJUNCTIVE, &

6 INDUCEMENT; CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD, DECEIT; NEGLIGENCE, CIVIL DAMAGES 7 FOR CRIMINAL TORTS OF FRAUD, FORGERY, PERJURY, FALSIFYING 8 DOCUMENTS, TRESPASSING, TERRORIST THREATS, BREACH OF TRUST; 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
& ASSUMED ONE HALF OF THE ALLEGED LIEN ON THE PROPERTY INVOLUNTARY TRUST, BREACH OF TRUST, GENERAL NEGLIGENCE &

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY; WRONGFUL CONVERSION OF REAL PROPERTY;

12 INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE, ETC., AS FOLLOWS:

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS

PARTIES & RELATIONSHIPS 1. Alan Gjurovich (hereafter Alan) is a sovereign man of God living on the land in the DeJure Country called California Republic, WHO OBTAINED A FIFTY (50 %) PERCENT OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS BEING LOCATED AT [3018 LINDEN AVENUE, BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIA] ON OCTOBER 5, 2009 BY WAY OF A QUIT CLAIM DEED EXECUTED BY THE OWNER OF THE SAID PROPERTY Star:Hills,THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SAID PROPERTY IS: ONE HALF OF Lot 17 in Block 26 of Skyline Park Subdivision No. 2 according to the map thereof filed on August 13, 1923, and recorded in Book 3, pages 88 to 93, inclusive, of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. APN: 123-330-06. COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS [ 3018 LINDEN AVENUE, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA] .

Page 2 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CLAIMED BY DEFENDANT GMAC MORTGAGE LLC VIA ALLEGED MORTGAGE RE FINANCE LOAN #: 40824789, WHICH IS RECORDED IN THE KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE, & THUS IS AN INTERESTED PARTY TO SAID ALLEGED LOAN, WHOSE RIGHTS IN SAID PROPERTY ARE PRESENTLY DETRIMENTALLY AFFECTED BY SAID ALLEGEDLY CLAIMED LIEN. SEE: CERTIFIED COPY OF ALLEGED QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED IN KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE, DOCUMENT NUMBER #: 0209147487, ATTACHED TO THE PRIOR COMPLAINT AS AN EXHIBIT & IS HEREBY INCORPORATED INTO THIS COMPLAINT BY REFERENCE AS IF FULLY SET FORTH & IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THIS COMPLAINT Alan Gjurovich IS SUING TO QUIET TITLE ON THE FOR MENTIONED PROPERTY FOR A COURT DETERMINATION THAT HE IS THE LAWFUL OWNER OF HALF RIGHTS & INTERESTS TO THE SAID PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE SAID QUIT CLAIM DEED EXECUTED BY Star: Hills IN October of 2009 as set forth herein, a copy of said quit claim deed is attached to the prior complaint as exhibit which is hereby incorporated into this complaint as if fully set forth and is made a part of this complaint, which Mandatory Judicial Notice is hereby Requested of the Court pursuant to the express provisions of California Evidence Code Section 451-453 Et Sequiter, AGAINST THE ADVERSE CLAIMS OF DEFENDANT GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, TO LEGAL TITLE BY WAY OF PURCHASE AT AN ALLEGED PUBLIC SALE OF THE SAID PROPERTY PURSUANT TO AN ALLEGED FORECLOSURE AGAINST Star: Hills WHO IS ALSO SUING DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION FOR QUIET TITLE ON HER HALF OWNERSHIP INTEREST AGAINST THE SAME

Page 3 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ADVERSE CLAIM OF THE SAME DEFENDANT GMAC MORTGAGE LLC. DEFENDANT. Alan Gjurovich ALSO SEEKS A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE ALLEGED MORTGAGE, PROMISSORY NOTE, & DEED OF TRUST CLAIMED BY SAID DEFENDANT WAS RESCINDED PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED PUBLIC SALE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION BY Star: Hills & THAT THE ALLEGED DEED UPON SALE CLAIMED BY THE SAID DEFENDANT WAS & IS VOID AB INITIO AS A MATTER OF CALIFORNIA LAW DUE TO SAID RESCISSION WHICH OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED SALE OF 11 / 13 / 2008, & ALSO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO THE OTHER CAUSES SET FORTH HEREIN THAT Alan CONTENDS RENDERED THE ALLEGED MORTGAGE & FORECLOSURE VOID AB INITIO AS A MATTER OF CALIFORNIA LAW AS SET FORTH HEREAFTER IN THIS COMPLAINT. THE SAID JUDGMENTS ARE REQUESTED AS TO THE DATE OF THE SERVICE OF THE SAID NOTICE OF RESCISSION ON 1 /7/2008, UP TO THE PRESENT DATE OF THE SUIT, & AS TO THE DATE OF ANY EVENT ALLEGED HEREIN THIS COMPLAINT AS VOIDING THE ALLEGED SALE & DEED UPON SALE, & AN ALLEGED JUDGMENT FOR POSSESSION IN CASE #:S-1500-CL-237061 KCT ON NOVEMBER 19, OF 2009. THESE QUIET TITLE DETERMINATIONS & DECLARATIONS ARE NEEDED DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE SAID DEFENDANT GMAC MORTGAGE LLC & ETS SERVICES LLC TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE OF RESCISSION SERVED ON THEM PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED SALE & PURCHASE OF THE HOME & PROPERTY IN QUESTION. IN CONJUNCTION WITH THESE ACTIONS Alan Gjurovich SEEKS A JUDGMENT FOR

Page 4 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EQUITABLE RELIEF TO SET ASIDE THE ALLEGED PUBLIC SALE OF SAID HOME & PROPERTY ON 11 /13/ 2008 BASED UPON THE PRIOR RESCISSION & THE ONGOING FRAUD OF THE SAID PLAINTIFF GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, AND SEEKS OTHER SPECIFIED RELIEF SET FORTH HEREAFTER. THESE ISSUES HAVE NEVER BEEN PREVIOUSLY LITIGATED IN ANY COURT PROCEEDING & CAN BE FULLY LITIGATED IN THIS ACTION. ALL DOCUMENTS & RECORDS IN EXHIBITS ATTACHED TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT ARE HEREBY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AS IF FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN & ARE MADE A PART OF THIS COMPLAINT. WHICH IS HEREBY INCORPORATED HEREIN THIS COMPLAINT AS IF FULLY SET FORTH, & IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THIS COMPLAINT WHICH THIS COURT IS HEREBY REQUESTED TO TAKE MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE OF PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE SECTIONS 451-453 ET SEQUITER. THERE IS PRESENTLY A DISPUTE & CONTROVERSY OVER THE LAWFUL TITLE TO SAID REAL PROPERTY FORMING THE BASIS FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT & QUIETING OF TITLE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY, AS WELL AS EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. 2. Star: Hills (hereafter referred to as Star) is a sovereign woman of God living on the land in the De-Jure Country called California Republic, WHO IS PRESENTLY HALF OWNER OF THE REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS BEING LOCATED AT OR NEAR [3018 Linden avenue, Bakersfield, California], WHOSE SAID PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE NOW PRESENTLY DETRIMENTALLY AFFECTED BY THE ALLEGED CLAIMED LIEN UNDER ALLEGED

Page 5 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MORTGAGE REFINANCE LOAN #: 40824789, WHICH IS DOCUMENT NUMBER #: 0207122159, ALLEGED DEED OF TRUST DATED MAY 17, 2007, RECORDED IN THE KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE. AND AN ALLEGED JUDGMENT IN AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION IN KERN COUNTY CIVIL LIMITED CASE #: S-1500-CL- 237061-LHB SAID ALLEGED DOCUMENTS WERE ALL LAWFULLY RESCINDED BY Star: Hills PRIOR TO THE DATE & TIME OF THE ALLEGED PUBLIC SALE OF THE SAID HOME & PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE AS: All of Lot 17 in Block 26 of Skyline Park Subdivision No. 2 according to the map thereof filed on August 13, 1923, and recorded in Book 3, pages 88 to 93, inclusive, of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. APN: 123-33006. WHICH LAWFUL RESCISSION WAS DUE TO PROMISSORY FRAUD, & FRAUD, AMONG OTHER CAUSES WHICH MAKE THE ALLEGED MORTGAGE REFINANCE TRANSACTION & ALL DOCUMENTS CONNECTED THERETO VOID AB INITIO, & RENDER THE ALLEGED SALE VOID AB INITIO SEE: QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED IN KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE DOCUMENT #: 0203014911, NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF ALLEGED MORTGAGE REFINANCE CONTRACT; ACCEPTANCE FOR VALUE NOVATION; NOTICE OF PUBLIC STATUS, DEFAULT; OFFER TO CURE; FINAL NOTICE;NOTICE & DEMAND;CLAIM OF RIGHT;NOTICE OF TITLE 18 USC VIOLATIONS,OF Star ATTACHED TO THE FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT IN EXHIBITS: 3,4,5 All of which are hereby incorporated hereinto this complaint by reference as if fully set forth, and are hereby made a part of this complaint, which Star hereby requests the above named Court to take Judicial Notice of pursuant to

Page 6 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

California Evidence Code Section 451-453, Et Sequiter. 3. Named Defendants are Licensed Corporate Entities, Artificial bodies ORGANIZED FOR PROFIT & WHO REGULARLY COMMIT FRAUD UPON THE PUBLIC, AS A MATTER OF POLICY, CUSTOM, HABIT, PATTERN & PRACTICE, & their Officers, & Employees, or Contractors, WHO FALSELY & FRAUDULENTLY CLAIM ( ETS SERVICES, LLC & ALLEGED TRUSTEE SALES OFFICER OMAR SOLORZANO ) TO HAVE SOLD & PURCHASED ( GMAC MORTGAGE LLC ) THE HOME & LAND OF Star & Alan UNDER A CERTAIN ALLEGED DEED OF TRUST CLAIMED AS A SECURITY INSTRUMENT FOR THE SAID ALLEGED MORTGAGE REFINANCE LOAN #: 40824789.

DEFENDANTS MERS; MERS PRESIDENT & CEO BILL BECKMANN;

THE ALLEGED DEED OF TRUST STATES THAT MERS (MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC.), WAS THE BENEFICIARY OF SAID DEED OF TRUST. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED CREATION OR EXECUTION OF THE ALLEGED DEED OF TRUST THE SAID MERS WAS NOT THE BENEFICIARY OF THE ALLEGED MORTGAGE REFINANCE LOAN. THE BENEFICIARY OF THE ALLEGED MORTGAGE REFINANCE LOAN WAS THE ALLEGED LENDER MORTGAGEIT INC., & NEITHER MERS OR THEIR PRESIDENT & CEO BILL BECKMANN WERE EVER AN AGENT AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE MORTGAGE PROVISIONS REGARDING THE SECURITY INSTRUMENT AGREEMENT IN THE DEED OF TRUST FOR SAID ALLEGED BENEFICIARY MORTGAGEIT INC. AS NEITHER SAID PARTY EVER RECORDED A POWER OF ATTORNEY

Page 7 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WITH KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE AS REQUIRED BY EXPRESS CALIFORNIA LAW UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 2933, WHICH MANDATES: A power of attorney to execute a mortgage must be in writing, subscribed, acknowledged or proved, certified, and recorded in like manner as powers of attorney for grants of real property. & AS REQUIRED BY THE DEED OF TRUST WHICH REQUIRES COMPLIANCE WITH ALL FEDERAL & LOCAL LAWS. CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 2933, WHICH MANDATES: A power of attorney to execute a mortgage must be in writing,subscribed, acknowledged or proved,certified,and recorded in like manner as powers of attorney for grants of real property. SEE DEED OF TRUST IN EXHIBIT #: 2 WHICH WAS ATTACHED TO THE FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT & IS HEREBY INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF FULLY SET FORTH & IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THIS COMPLAINT, WHICH THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO TAKE MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE OF UNDER CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 451-459. FURTHERMORE THE ALLEGED LENDER MORTGAGEIT INC. DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE ALLEGED LOAN OFFER OR NEGOTIATIONS, & THEREFOR COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A KNOWING CONTRACTOR WITH Star: Hills IN THE ALLEGED TRANSACTION WHICH RENDERS ALLEGED TRANSACTION VOID AB INITIO. THE SAID DEFENDANTS HAVE COMMITTED & ARE NOW COMMITTING ABUSE OF PROCESS; FRAUD; DECEIT; & OTHER TORTS & CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS IN THE COURTS AGAINST BOTH Star & Alan. Said Defendants are subject to

Page 8 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the laws of the De-Facto State of California, and the Jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Defendant NICK CANALE Jr WAS AT ALL TIMES MENTIONED IN THIS COMPLAINT the President of GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, WHO KNOWINGLY WILLINGLY PERPETRATED A FRAUD UPON THE PUBLIC, UPON Star, & UPON THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN, BY PURPORTING TO HOLD A PUBLIC SALE OF THE HOME & LAND IN QUESTION, AFTER HE RECEIVED NOTICE OF LAWFUL RESCISSION OF THE WHOLE ALLEGED TRANSACTION DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE PLANNED PUBLIC SALE OF THE SAID PROPERTY, WHICH ACT OF SALE AFTER LAWFUL RESCISSION WAS WRONGFUL CONVERSION OF REAL PROPERTY, THEFT OF REAL PROPERTY, FRAUD, CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD, DECEIT, ALL WITH THE INTENT TO CAUSE HARM, INJURY & DAMAGE TO Star. Said Defendant thereafter knowingly, willingly, intentionally FILED a Fraudulent Law suit against Star VIA THEIR AGENT THE David Endres Law firm for a Falsely & Fraudulently alleged Unlawful Detainer, KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE S-1500-CL-236547-SMK WHICH AMOUNTED TO ABUSE OF PROCESS, FRAUD UPON THE PUBLIC, FRAUD UPON THE COURT, FRAUD UPON Star, only after Star first filed & served on the said President of GMAC MORTGAGE LLC her own law suit to enforce the Rescission of the whole alleged Mortgage re-Finance Loan Contract, for Fraud, & for other causes. Said President, Vice President, & other Corporate Officers Acting on behalf of GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, REFUSED & FAILED to inform the Endres Law Firm, whom they hired & caused to file the Unlawful Detainer Action against Star in Case #: S-1500-CL-236547-SMK, that Star

Page 9 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

had filed a law suit against GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, to enforce the prior Rescission & for Fraud, Etc., which was at that time ongoing & affected the ability of GMAC MORTGAGE LLC TO PROSECUTE AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION WHILE THERE WAS AN ACTION OVER THE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY BEING PROSECUTED BY Star. The said failure to inform their Counsel the Endres Law Firm that they, GMAC MORTGAGE LLC WERE BEING SUED IN A PRIOR FILED LAW SUIT BY Star: Hills TO ENFORCE THE PRIOR RESCISSION OF THE WHOLE ALLEGED MORTGAGE TRANSACTION WAS A FRAUD BY GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, & THEIR OFFICERS PRESIDENT NICK CANALE Jr, & VICE PRESIDENT Charles R. Hoecker, & FURTHER ABUSE OF PROCESS. AFTER a copy of the law suit filed by Star against GMAC MORT. LLC, KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT #: S-1500-CV-265552 WDP was mailed to the Endres Law firm by Star, the Endres Law firm quickly Dismissed that Unlawful Detainer Law suit and Removed them selves as Counsel of Record. (there are published cases where Courts have Ruled that where there is litigation over the Title to real property an unlawful detainer action does not lie in the same Court, where the real issue before the Court is Title to the Property.) Shortly after the Dismissal of the first Unlawful Detainer Action said Defendant NICK CANALE Jr, President of GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, FILED yet another Unlawful Detainer against Star, this time VIA HIS AGENT Ruzicka & Wallace, LLP, Case #:S-1500-CL237061-LHB in March of 2009, though he had received the Notice of Rescission of the whole Transaction, & he also knew that a law suit had been filed prior to the alleged sale of the Property & Home of Star & prior to the unlawful detainer Action to enforce the Rescission and was ongoing at that time

Page 10 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WHICH PRECLUDED THE FILING OF THE SAID UNLAWFUL DETAINER UNDER C.C.P. SECTION 1161a AS NO TITLE COULD BE PERFECTED AS LONG AS THE PRIOR FILED ACTION OVER TITLE WAS ON GOING; A DULY PERFECTED TITLE IS AN EXPRESS PRE-REQUISITE THAT MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED BY ANY PLAINTIFF IN AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER SUIT PRIOR TO THE FILING OF SUCH AN ACTION IN COURT; THE FILING OF SAID UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION BY SAID DEFENDANT WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS by said President NICK CANALE Jr & GMAC MORT. LLC, as well as the Vice President Charles R. Hoecker who was the Man in Charge of Loan Servicing, & was the Servicer of the alleged Mortgage Refinance Loan. BOTH OF SAID DEFENDANTS had prior Personal Knowledge of the prior Rescission of the whole Transaction, & WERE PRIVY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRIOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, PROMISSORY FRAUD, DECIET, AND CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD, ETC., AGAINST Star WHICH ALSO CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF THE CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE, IN THAT THEY CAME INTO BOTH PROCEEDINGS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS DUE TO THEIR BEING PRIVY & COOPERATIVE IN THE SAID FRAUDULENT ACTIONS IN OBTAINING THE ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT; & whose silence about the Prior Lawful Rescission was Fraud as well. Said Defendant John Doe 1 & the ALLEGED Lender MORTGAGEIT INC. failed to Execute any POWER OF ATTORNEY TO EXECUTE THE PROVISIONS OF THE ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT & RECORD THE SAME WITH THE KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE AS EXPRESSLY REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA LAW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE, SECTIONS 23.2; 2400; 2933; 2295-2300; 2304-2326; 2330-2339; 2342-

Page 11 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2345; 2349-2351; & CALIFORNIA PROBATE CODE SECTION 4026, RENDERING ANY PURPORTED ACTIONS BY GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, THEIR PRESIDENT, JOHN DOE 1, ETS SERVICES LLC, & Vice President Charles R. Hoecker THE ALLEGED LOAN SERVICER & THEIR ALLEGED SALES TRUSTEE, NAMED DEFENDANT OMAR SOLORZANO ON BEHALF OF THE SAID ALLEGED LENDER MORTGAGEIT INC.,AS AN AGENT OF SAID ALLEGED LENDER VOID AB INITIO, ULTRA VIRES, & OF NO VALIDITY OR EFFECT UNDER THE LAW, & RENDERING ALL SAID DEFENDANTS LIABLE FOR ALL SAID ACTS WHICH WERE A FRAUD ON Star, ON THE PUBLIC & ON THE COURT, & AN ABUSE OF PROCESS IN THEIR SUBSEQUENTLY FILED LAW SUITS FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER. DEFENDANT JOHN DOE 1, BECAME PRIVY TO THE FRAUD, PROMISSORY FRAUD, & FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN THE ORIGINAL ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT WHEN THEY WERE SERVED BY Star: Hills WITH HER NOTICE OF RESCISSION ON NOVEMBER 7, 2008, PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED PUBLIC SALE OF THE SAID HOME & PROPERTY. The said Defendant NICK CANALE Jr OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFFS TO NOT ENGAGE IN THE SAID FRAUD, & HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, HE HAD A DUTY TO KNOW ,& DID KNOW THAT HE HAD A DUTY TO NOT ENGAGE IN THE SAID FRAUD AGAINST PLAINTIFFS, & SAID ACTS OF SAID DEFENDANT DIRECTLY & PROXIMATELY CAUSED THE INJURY & DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFFS HEREIN, FOR WHICH HE IS LIABLE TO PLAINTIFFS. ENGAGING IN SAID ACTS & ACTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS WAS GENERAL NEGLIGENCE & OR INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE FOR WHICH THEY ARE LIABLE TO PLAINTIFFS.

Page 12 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

5. Defendant John Doe 2 IS THE PRESIDENT OF DEFENDANT ETS SERVICES, LLC, WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF ETS SERVICES LLC, & ALL OFFICERS Agents, Employees of said Entity, INCLUDING MANAGERS JOSEPH A.PENSABENA; MARK E. LAHIFF; Adam Leppo ETS SERVICES LLC TRUSTEE SALE OFFICER; & including the named Sales Officer OMAR SOLORZANO WHO PURPORTED TO SELL THE PLAINTIFFS HOME & PROPERTY AT AN ALLEGED PUBLIC SALE AFTER ETS SERVICES LLC, & OMAR SOLORZANO WERE BOTH SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF THE WHOLE ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT BASED ON THE PRIOR PROMISSORY FRAUD, FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT & OTHER GROUNDS. DEFENDANT JOHN DOE 2 BECAME PRIVY TO THE FRAUD, PROMISSORY FRAUD, & FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN THE ORIGINAL ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT WHEN THEY WERE SERVED BY Star: Hills WITH HER NOTICE OF RESCISSION ON NOVEMBER 7, 2008. THE TRUSTEE UNDER THE ALLEGED DEED OF TRUST WAS OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY & THE ALLEGED SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE WAS NOT EXECUTED BY THE LENDER MORTGAGEIT INC., WHO IS THE ONLY ONE AUTHORIZED UNDER THE SAID DEED OF TRUST TO EXECUTE ANY SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE, WHICH AUTHORIZATION IS EXPRESSLY SET OUT UNDER ARTICLE PARAGRAPH 24 OF THE SAID DEED OF TRUST, & EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT SAID PROVISION SHALL GOVERN TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER PROVISIONS, AS FOLLOWS:

24. Lender, at its option, may from time to time appoint a successor trustee to any trustee appointed hereunder by an instrument executed and acknowledged by lender and recorded in the office of the Recorder
Page 13 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of the county in which the property is located. The instrument shall contain
the name of the original lender, trustee and Borrower, the book and page where this security instrument is recorded and the name and address of the successor trustee. Without conveyance of the property, the successor trustee shall succeed to all the title, powers and duties conferred upon the Trustee herein and by Applicable Law. This procedure for substitution of trustee shall govern to

the exclusion of all other provisions for substitution.

THIS PROVISION IS ALSO COVERED BY CALIFORNIA LAW UNDER AGENT AGENCY AT CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS : 2304 & 2305, WHICH EXPRESSLY MANDATE: 2304An agent may be authorized to do any acts which his principal might do,

except those to which the latter is bound to give his personal attention. 2305Every act which, according to this Code, may be done by or to any person, may be done by or to the agent of such person for that purpose, unless a contrary intention clearly appears.
THE ALLEGED SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN THE KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE ON 6/16/2008, DOC. #: 0208095769, WAS SIGNED ON 6/11/2008 BY SOMEONE IN THE NAME OF MERS NOT THE ALLEGED LENDER, MORTGAGEIT INC., WHICH WAS A DIRECT BREACH & VIOLATION OF SAID PARAGRAPH ARTICLE 24 OF THE DEED OF TRUST, & WHICH RENDERED THE DEED OF TRUST VOID. THEREAFTER A DOCUMENT TITLED NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND ELECTION TO SELL UNDER DEED OF TRUST WAS EXECUTED & SIGNED BY AN Adam Leppo TRUSTEE SALE OFFICER ON 6/11/2008, UNDER THE TITLE ETS Services, LLC AS AGENT FOR BENEFICIARY , A NAMED DEFENDANT HEREIN, WHO HAD NO AUTHORITY UNDER LAW TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENT AS A TRUSTEE OFFICER AS THE ALLEGED SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE WAS VOID AB INITIO, & SAID ACTION OF DEFENDANT ADAM LEPPO PURPORTING TO

Page 14 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ISSUE A NOTICE OF DEFAULT & ELECTION TO SELL AFTER THE RESCISISON WAS FRAUD, BREACH OF THE TRUST DEED, GENERAL NEGLIGENCE & OR INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE WHICH DIRECTLY & PROXIMATELY CAUSED THE INJURY & DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFFS AS SET FORTH HEREIN FOR WHICH HE IS LIABLE TO PLAINTIFFS. SAID DEFENDANT OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFFS TO NOT ENGAGE IN SAID FRAUD & NEGLIGENCE, & HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, HAD A DUTY TO KNOW & DID KNOW HE HAD SUCH A DUTY & FAILURE TO CARRY OUT SAID DUTY DIRECTLY & OR PROXIMATELY CAUSED THE DAMAGES TO PLAINTIFFS AS SET FORTH HEREIN. DEFENDANTS ETS SERVICES LLC MANAGERS JOSEPH A. PENSABENA; MARK E. LAHIFF HAD A DUTY AS MANAGERS FOR DEFENDANT ETS SERVICES LLC TO EXCERSISE DUE CARE ONCE THEY WERE PUT ON NOTICE OF THE PRIOR RESCISSION OF THE WHOLE ALLEGED MORTGAGE TRANSCTION TO REFRAIN FROM ANY SALE OF THE HOME & PROPERTY OF PLAINTIFFS, & TO PREVENT ANY OTHER EMPLOYEES FROM DOING SO, & THEIR FAILURE TO DO SO WAS GENERAL NEGLIGENCE & OR INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE WHICH DIRECTLY & OR PROXIMATELY CAUSED THE INJURY & HARM TO PLAINTIFFS AS SET FORTH HEREIN, FOR WHICH THEY ARE LIABLE TO PLAINTIFFS . 1708. Every person is bound, without contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights. 1714. (a) Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.

Page 15 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS CLEAR BY THE RECORD IN THE KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE NO POWER OF ATTORNEY HAS EVER BEEN EXECUTED BY ANY THESE ALLEGED AGENCIES, WHICH RECORDING OF POWER OF ATTORNEY IS REQUIRED UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW IN ORDER FOR ANY AGENT TO EXECUTE A MORTGAGE IN CALIFORNIA, UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 2933, WHICH MANDATES: A power of attorney to execute a mortgage must be in writing,subscribed, acknowledged or proved,certified,and recorded in like manner as powers of attorney for grants of real property. FURTHERMORE THE DOCUMENTED FACT THAT THE ALLEGED SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE DOCUMENT WAS SIGNED ON 6/11/2008, BUT NOT RECORDED UNTIL 6/16/2008, ESTABLISHES AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE ALLEGED NOTICE OF DEFAULT & ELECTION TO SELL SIGNED ON 6/11/2008 BY THE SAME ALLEGED TRUSTEE ETS SERVICES LLC, WAS VOID DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE HAD NOT YET TAKEN EFFECT, IF IT WAS VALID TO BEGIN WITH IN LIGHT OF THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH ARTICLE 24 OF THE ALLEGED DEED OF TRUST, & ETS SERVICES WAS NOT A TRUSTEE AT THE TIME THEY SIGNED THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT & ELECTION TO SELL, UNDER THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 2934a, Subd. (a)(4) WHICH MANDATES: (4) The substitution shall contain the date of recordation of the trust deed, the name of the trustor, the book and page or instrument number where the trust deed is recorded, and the name of the new trustee. From the time the substitution is filed for record, the new trustee shall succeed to all the powers, duties, authority, and title

Page 16 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

granted and delegated to the trustee named in the deed of trust. A substitution may be accomplished, with respect to multiple deeds of trust which are recorded in the same county in which the substitution is being recorded and which all have the same trustee and beneficiary or beneficiaries, by recording a single document, complying with the requirements of this section, substituting trustees for all those deeds of trust. ACCORDING TO THE RULING OF THE APPELLATE COURT IN THE CASE OF: Dimock v. Emerald Properties (2000) 81 Cal. App.4th 868, AT PAGE: 871, OPINION BY BENKE, Acting P. J.Under the governing statute the substitution is made by simply recording a document evidencing the substitution. (Civ. Code, fn. 1 2934a, subd. (a).) By its terms the statute provides that after such a substitution has been recorded, "the new trustee shall succeed to all the powers, duties, authority, and title granted and delegated to the trustee named in the deed of trust." ( 2934a, subd. (a)(4).) IN THIS CASE THE SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE WAS NOT RECORDED UNTIL JUNE 16, 2008, AND THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT & ELECTION TO SELL WAS SIGNED BY THE SAME ALLEGED TRUSTEE ON JUNE 11, 2008, WHEN THE POWERS OF TRUSTEE HAD NOT TAKEN EFFECT, THUS RENDERING THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT & ELECTION TO SELL VOID & OF NO EFFECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WHICH ALSO RENDERS THE ALLEGED SALE & DEED UPON SALE CLAIMED BY GMAC MORTGAGE LLC VOID AS A MATTER OF LAW, WHICH ALL MUST BE SET ASIDE BY THE COURT IN THE ACTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF SET FORTH HEREIN. AT THE TIME OF SAID SIGNING OF SAID DOCUMENTS ETS SERVICES WAS

Page 17 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

NOT AN AGENT FOR ANY OF HE OTHER AGENCIES NAMED HEREIN UNDER THE POWER OF ATTORNEY LAW OF CALIFORNIA, NOR UNDER THE AGENT AGENCY LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SET OUT UNDER THE CIVIL CODE & PROBATE CODE WHICH RENDERS ALL THEIR ALLEGED ACTIONS REGARDING THE DEED OF TRUST & ALLEGED MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE VOID AB INITIO & OF NO EFFECT UNDER THE LAW. 6. Defendant Charles R. Hoecker, Vice President of CUSTOMER CARE LOAN SERVICING FOR GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, presumed to undertake a Fiduciary Contractual Obligation as an Agent to Collect Mortgage Payments for the alleged Originator of the alleged Loan, MortgageIt Inc., alleged Lender,

without full authority under Law, as neither said Lender, who would be
the Principal in such a relationship, if said Principal had Executed a Proper Power of Attorney, nor did any other person or purported Party claiming to be an Encumbrancer or a Holder in due Course of the original alleged Promissory Note claimed as Security for the alleged loan, ever issue any Power of Attorney to Execute the Mortgage agreement, as required under Agent -Principal & Contract Law, under the California Civil Code Sections: 23.2; 2400; 2933; 2295-2300; 2304-2326; 2330-2339; 2342-2345; 2349-2351; & CALIFORNIA PROBATE CODE SECTION 4026, [UNDER THE CARDINAL RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, COURTS HAVE RULED THAT:[W]e interpret a statute in context, examining other legislation on the same subject, to determine the Legislatures probable intent. [Citations.] (California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of Rialto Unified School Dist., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 642.) [P]rovisions relating to the same subject

Page 18 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

matter must be harmonized to the extent possible. (Cooley v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 220, 248.) Where . . . two codes are to be construed, they must be regarded as blending into each other and forming a single statute. [Citation.] (Tripp v. Swoap (1976) 17 Cal.3d 671, SEE ALSO: Building Material & Construction Teamsters Union v. Farrell (1986) 41 Cal.3d 651, 665.] & Vice President Hoecker never had any Assignment of a power to collect payments for the alleged Lender MORTGAGEIT INC., AS EXPRESSLY REQUIRED UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 2932 & 2932.5 & thus all their Actions purporting to act as Loan Servicer under Federal Law for the alleged Lender Mortgageit Inc. were Void Ab Initio, and Fraud, Deciet, Etc., in Violation of USC TITLE 18, 1341, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1348, 1349, 1350, WITHOUT ANY WRITTEN EXPRESS POWER OF ATTORNEY DELEGATING THE POWER TO COLLECT PAYMENTS ON THE ALLEGED LOAN, & TO EXECUTE THE ALLEGED MORTGAGE, THERE WAS NO TRUE PRINCIPAL AGENT RELATIONSHIP AS A MATTER OF CALIFORNIA LAW, (SEE THE LAW OF PRINCIPAL & AGENT CITED PRIOR HEREIN) & IN ABSENCE OF ANY RIGHT OR POWER TO COLLECT PAYMENTS ON THE ALLEGED LOAN EXPRESSLY GRANTED IN THE ALLEGED DEED OF TRUST TO GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, OR ITS SAID OFFICER Vice President Charles R. Hoecker OR BY ANY WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT, THE LACK OF SAID REQUIRED RECORDING A POWER OF ATTORNEY IN KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE AS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 2295, 2400, 2933, & CALIFORNIA PROBATE CODE SECTION 4026, RENDERS THE ACTS OF GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, & VICE PRESIDENT HOECKER ULTRA VIRES & VOID AB INITIO. DEFENDANT

Page 19 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

VICE PRESIDENT HOECKER BECAME PRIVY TO THE FRAUD, PROMISSORY FRAUD, & FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN THE ORIGINAL ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT WHEN HE WAS SERVED BY Star: Hills WITH HER NOTICE OF RESCISSION ON NOVEMBER 7, 2008. 7. The Defendant GMAC MORTGAGE LLC Alleges they are a Contracting Party with alleged Lender MORTGAGEIT INC., whereby they allege that they became the "Servicer" of the Alleged Mortgage Refinance Loan on or before May 17, 2007, whereby they undertook a Fiduciary Trustee Obligation, to Collect Mortgage Payments for the Originator of the alleged Loan MortgageIt Inc. VIA Defendant Charles R. Hoecker, Vice President OF CUSTOMER CARE LOAN SERVICING FOR GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC to Collect Mortgage Payments for the Originator of the alleged Loan MortgageIt Inc., whereby a Trust Relationship was created between GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, & Star where Star Trusted them to properly collect & transfer payments to the alleged owner of the alleged loan & alleged Promissory Note, alleged Lender MORTGAGEIT INC. Defendant GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, Purported to Purchase the Home and Property of Star at an alleged Public Sale on 11/ 13/ 2008, which purported sale was a Fraud upon the Public, & was Wrongful & Fraudulent Conversion of real property, theft of real property, and they currently falsely & fraudulently Claim that they are the Owner of the Title to said Home & Property, which has Created an on going Controversy over the Lawful Title to the said Home & Land, making them a Proper and Necessary Party to this Action, as the Plaintiffs seek to Enforce a prior Rescission of the alleged Mortgage Contract, Loan #: 40824789 Recorded in the office of the Kern County Recorder, & further seek to Quiet Title Against them in this Action, and seek other specified

Page 20 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Relief & Damages against GMAC MORTGAGE LLC. Said Defendant never signed any Power of Attorney issued by the Original alleged Lender MortgageIt Inc., & therefore had no power under law to collect any payments for said alleged Lender, thus rendering all such alleged actions taken by them on behalf of said alleged Lender Void Ab Initio, & Ultra Vires, outside of their lawful powers under their Corporate Charter & the Law of the State of California & the united states of America which they were bound by Law to obey, & knowingly intentionally, willingly failed to obey to the detriment of Plaintiffs herein for which they are personally liable to said Plaintiffs. DEFENDANT GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, BECAME PRIVY TO THE FRAUD, PROMISSORY FRAUD, & FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN THE ORIGINAL ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT WHEN THEY WERE SERVED BY Star: Hills WITH HER NOTICE OF RESCISSION ON NOVEMBER 7, 2008. 8. DEFENDANT OMAR SOLORZANO IS THE ALLEGED SALES TRUSTEE EMPLOYED BY DEFENDANT ETS SERVICES LLC, WHO PRESUMED TO HAVE THE POWER TO SELL THE HOME & PROPERTY OF Star, & ALLEGED TO HAVE SOLD THE PROPERTY, HOME & LAND OF Star AT AN ALLEGED PUBLIC SALE ON NOVEMBER 13, 2008, AFTER HE WAS SERVED WITH A CLEAR NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF THE WHOLE ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED SALE, & HE IGNORED THE SAID RESCISSION OF THE WHOLE ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT WHICH RESCISSION WAS BASED ON PROMISSORY FRAUD, & FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, & HE THEREAFTER RECEIVING THE NOTICE OF THE SAID RESCISSION CONTINUED WITH THE PURPORTED SALE & COMMITTED A WILLING & KNOWING FRAUD ON THE PUBLIC, & ON

Page 21 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PLAINTIFFS HEREIN, WHEREIN ALL HIS ACTIONS WERE ULTRA VIRES, & VOID AB INITIO, WITHOUT AUTHORITY OR VALIDITY, & OF NO EFFECT OR VALIDITY WHATSOEVER UNDER LAW, FOR WHICH HE IS LIABLE FOR ANY & ALL DAMAGES INCURRED BY SAID ULTRA VIRES ACTS. SAID DEFENDANT NEVER EXECUTED ANY POWER OF ATTORNEY BY WHICH HE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE PRINCIPAL TO EXECUTE THE ALLEGED MORTGAGE FOR THE ALLEGED PRINCIPAL, MORTGAGEIT INC., AND THEREFORE HIS PURPORTED ACTIONS IN EXECUTING THE MORTGAGE BY PUBLIC SALE WERE VOID AB INITIO, AS HE WAS NEITHER THE PRINCIPAL NOR AN ASSIGNEE OF THE MORTGAGE CONTRACT, THE PROMISSORY NOTE, NOR WAS HE EVER ANY AGENT OF THE ALLEGED PRINCIPAL, MORTGAGEIT INC., WHICH MAKES HIM PERSONALLY LIABLE TO PLAINTIFFS FOR ALL DAMAGES DIRECTLY OR PROXIMATELY ARISING FROM SAID UNLAWFUL ULTRA VIRES ACTS OF SAID DEFENDANT OMAR SOLORZANO. DEFENDANT OMAR SOLORZANO BECAME PRIVY TO THE FRAUD, PROMISSORY FRAUD, & FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN THE ORIGINAL ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT WHEN HE WAS SERVED BY Star: Hills WITH HER NOTICE OF RESCISSION ON NOVEMBER 7, 2008. 9. DEFENDANT ETS SERVICES, LLC, is a Licensed Corporate Entity, Limited Liability Company, an Artificial body ORGANIZED FOR PROFIT & WHO REGULARLY COMMITS FRAUD UPON THE PUBLIC, AS A MATTER OF POLICY, CUSTOM, HABIT, PATTERN, & PRACTICE, THROUGH their Officers, & Employees, WHO FALSELY CLAIM TO HAVE LAWFULLY SOLD THE SAID REAL PROPERTY of Plaintiffs herein, UNDER A CERTAIN ALLEGED

Page 22 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DEED OF TRUST, WHICH THEY FALSELY CLAIM AS A FINANCING INSTRUMENT FOR THE SAID ALLEGED MORTGAGE REFINANCE LOAN #: 40824789. They presumed to undertake a Fiduciary Contractual Obligation as an Agent, Sale Trustee for the alleged Originator of the alleged Loan, MortgageIt Inc., alleged Lender, without full authority under Law, as neither said alleged Lender, (who would be the Principal in such a relationship), ever Executed a Proper Power of Attorney, as required under Agent -Principal & Contract Law, under the California Civil Code Sections: 23.2; 2400; 2933; 22952300; 2304-2326; 2330-2339; 2342-2345; 2349-2351; & UNDER CALIFORNIA PROBATE CODE SECTION 4026, WHICH OMISSION, BY SAID ALLEGED LENDER MORTGAGEIT INC., & its purported Agent Sale Trustee ETS SERVICES, LLC, OF RECORDING THE REQUIRED POWER OF ATTORNEY UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 2295, 2400, 2933, CALIFORNIA PROBATE CODE SECTION 4026, WITH THE KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE RENDERED ANY ALLEGED ACTIONS BY ETS SERVICES AS AN ALLEGED AGENT FOR THE ALLEGED LENDER MORTGAGEIT INC. VOID AB INITIO, & ULTRA VIRES, OF NO EFFECT OR VALIDITY UNDER THE LAW OF CALIFORNIA OR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ESTABLISHING INJURY, HARM & DAMAGE TO Star, & Alan DUE TO THE SAID FRAUDULENT SALE, WHICH WAS ALSO THEFT & WRONGFUL / FRAUDULENT CONVERSION OF REAL PROPERTY BY ETS LLC & GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, FOR WHICH SAID FRAUD, THEFT, ETC., THEY ARE LIABLE FOR TREBLE DAMAGES, & EXEMPLARY DAMAGES TO Star & Alan. SAID DEFENDANT ETS SERVICES LLC, TRESPASSED UPON & VIOLATED

Page 23 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

THE PROVISIONS OF THE DEED OF TRUST, DOCUMENT #: 0207122159 RECORDED IN THE KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE ON 6 / 8 / 2007, WHEN THEY FALSELY CLAIMED THAT THEY WERE THE SALE TRUSTEE FOR THE LENDER & PURPORTED TO SELL THE SAID PROPERTY AT A PUBLIC AUCTION ON NOVEMBER, 13, 2008, ACCORDING TO AN ALLEGED SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE WHICH IS DOCUMENT #: 0208095769 RECORDED BY THE KERN COUNTY RECORDER ON 6/16/08. SAID ALLEGED SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE DOCUMENT #: 0208095769 RECORDED IN KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE ON 6 / 16 / 2008 WAS INVALID AS A MATTER OF CALIFORNIA LAW AS IT WAS NOT CARRIED OUT & EXECUTED BY THE LENDER MORTGAGEIT INC., AS EXPRESSLY REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 24 OF THE DEED OF TRUST, DOCUMENT #: 0207122159 WHICH ARTICLE 24 EXPRESSLY REQUIRED THAT :

24. Lender, at its option, may from time to time appoint a successor trustee to any trustee appointed hereunder by an instrument executed and acknowledged by lender and recorded in the office of the Recorder of the county in which the property is located. The instrument shall contain
the name of the original lender, trustee and Borrower, the book and page where this security instrument is recorded and the name and address of the successor trustee. Without conveyance of the property, the successor trustee shall succeed to all the title, powers and duties conferred upon the Trustee herein and by Applicable Law. This procedure for substitution of trustee shall govern to

the exclusion of all other provisions for substitution.

THIS PROVISION IS ALSO COVERED BY CALIFORNIA LAW UNDER AGENT AGENCY AT CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS : 2304 & 2305, WHICH EXPRESSLY MANDATE: 2304 An agent may be authorized to do any acts which his principal might do, except those to which the latter is bound

Page 24 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

to give his personal attention.

2305 Every act which, according to this Code, may be done by or to any person, may be done by or to the agent of such person for that

purpose, unless a contrary intention clearly appears. The alleged Substitution of Trustee Document executed by MERS Employees is Void of the express Requirement that it be stated therein the book and page where this security instrument is recorded. The alleged Substitution of Trustee purporting to substitute ETS SERVICES LLC is Void Ab Initio as it is in Violation of the Express provisions of the alleged deed of trust, and bears no citation as to the Book and Page The alleged Deed of trust is Void Ab Initio as to any alleged Power of Sale or to collect payments relating to MERS, as MERS was never an Encumbrancer with ownership rights to the Property of Plaintiffs & has never had any financial interest or rights in the property, and thus could not have been lawfully empowered to collect payments or to sell the property, as is made clear by the provisions of California Civil Code Section 2932 & 2932.5. Said Defendants actions in purporting to sell the Home of Plaintiffs herein for an alleged Mortgage Debt based upon provisions of an alleged deed of trust, which is a private agreement, can not as a matter of law in doing so contravene a law established for a public reason as expressly stated in California Civil Code 3513. No provision in the deed of Trust can be used by said Defendants to avoid the requirements of California Civil Code Sections 2920 (definition of a Mortgage) 2932 & 2932.5 (power of sale requirements; assignment of the power to collect payments; etc. ) Civil Code Section 2933 (power of attorney must be recorded to execute the mortgage).
Under the foregoing laws MERS, GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, ETS SERVICES LLC, HAD NO POWER TO COLLECT PAYMENTS, OR SELL THE PROPERTY OF

Page 25 of 77

1 2 3 4

PLAINTIFFS UNLESS THEY FIRST COMPLIED WITH THE SAID EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF MANDATORY CALIFORNIA LAW UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 2932 & 2932.5, WHICH REQUIRES THAT: 2932. A power of sale may be conferred by a mortgage upon the mortgagee or any other

5 person, to be exercised after a breach of the obligation for which the mortgage is a security. 6 7 8 9

2932.5. Where a power to sell real property is given to a mortgagee, or other encumbrancer, in an instrument intended to secure the payment of money, the power is part of the security and vests in any person who by assignment becomes entitled to payment of the money secured by the instrument. The power of sale may be exercised by the assignee if the assignment is duly acknowledged and recorded.

10 OTHER APPLICABLE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS: 11 2933. A power of attorney to execute a mortgage must be in writing, 12 subscribed, acknowledged, or proved, certified, and recorded in like manner 13

as powers of attorney for grants of real property.

14 2934. Any assignment of a mortgage and any assignment of the beneficial interest under a 15 constructive notice of the contents thereof to all persons; and any instrument by which any 16 17 18 19 21
mortgage or deed of trust of, lien upon or interest in real property, (or by which any mortgage of, lien upon or interest in personal property a document evidencing or creating which is required or permitted by law to be recorded), is subordinated or waived as to priority may be recorded, and from the time the same is filed for record operates as constructive notice of the contents thereof, to all persons. deed of trust may be recorded, and from the time the same is filed for record operates as

1039. Transfer is an act of the parties, or of the law, by which the title to

20 property is conveyed from one living person to another.

1040. A voluntary transfer is an executed contract, subject to all rules of 22 law concerning contracts in general; except that a consideration is not 23 necessary to its validity.]
24 26 27 28
The alleged transfer of the property of Star in the alleged Deed of Trust was not

25 a VALID Transfer of the property in question as the alleged Trust was not a conveyance
from one living person to another as Expressly Required by California Law but was purportedly transferred from one living Woman Star: Hills to a Fictitious Person, a

Page 26 of 77

1 Corporate Entity named OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY, WHICH IS NOT A VALID 2 TRANSFER OR CONVEYANCE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW WHICH RENDERED 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 influence & was the result of an unconscionable Contract as a matter of California 11 & Federal Law, & was Void Ab Initio. ACCORDING TO THE FOREGOING SAID 12 13 14 15
PROVISION, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 1039 THE ALLEGED TRANSFER OF TITLE FROM ETS SERVICES LLC, ALLEGED SALE TRUSTEE UNDER THE ORIGINAL DEED OF TRUST, OF THE HOME & PROPERTY OF PLAINTIFFS ON NOVEMBER THE DEED OF TRUST & THE ALLEGED POWER OF SALE & SUBSEQUENT ALLEGED SALE OF THE PROPERTY & HOME OF Star: Hills VOID AB INITIO. The alleged transfer of the property of Star in the alleged Deed of Trust was not a

Voluntary transfer due to the Fraud, Promissory fraud, & Fraudulent inducement alleged herein this complaint, but was accomplished by undue

16 13, 2008 TO GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, WAS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE LAW 17 & IS VOID AB INITIO DUE TO THE FACTS IN THE PUBLIC RECORD IN THE 18 19 20 21
KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE THAT THE ALLEGED TRANSFER WAS NOT FROM ONE LIVING PERSON TO ANOTHER AS ETS SERVICES, LLC & GMAC MORTGAGE LLC ARE FICTITIOUS PERSONS UNDER THE LAW, NOT

22 LIVING PERSONS; THUS THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF TRANSFERRING REAL 23 PROPERTY UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 24 25 charge upon real property, or upon its rents or profits, made with intent to defraud prior or 26 subsequent purchasers thereof, or incumbrancers thereon, is void as against every purchaser or 27
incumbrancer, for value, of the same property, or the rents or profits thereof. 1227. Every instrument, other than a will, affecting an estate in real property, including every

28 incumbrancer having notice thereof at the time his purchase was made, or his lien acquired,

1228. No instrument is to be avoided under the last section, in favor of a subsequent purchaser or

Page 27 of 77

1 unless the person in whose favor the instrument was made was privy to the fraud intended. 2 1091. An estate in real property, other than an estate at will or for a term not exceeding one year, 3 can be transferred only by operation of law, or by an instrument in writing, subscribed by the 4 5 6 7 9 10 12
party disposing of the same, or by his agent thereunto authorized by writing.

1217. An unrecorded instrument is valid as between the parties thereto and those who have notice thereof. According to this provision, Civil Code Section 1217, the Notice of Rescission

8 served on the defendants prior to the sale, but not recorded, was valid & rendered

the alleged Sale & Purchase of the property of Star thereafter, Void Ab Initio.
writing by which any estate or interest in real property is created, aliened, mortgaged, or incumbered, or by which the title to any real property may be affected, except wills.

11 1215. The term "conveyance," as used in Sections 1213 and 1214, embraces every instrument in 13 2920. (a) A mortgage is a contract by which specific property, including an estate for years in 14 real property, is hypothecated for the performance of an act, without the necessity of a change of 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11. Said Defendants are subject to the laws of the De-Facto State of California, & the 26 27 28
Jurisdiction of this Court.

possession. (b) For purposes of Sections 2924 to 2924h, inclusive, "mortgage" also means any security device or instrument, other than a deed of trust, that confers a power of sale affecting real property or an estate for years therein, to be exercised after breach of the obligation so secured, including a real property sales contract, as defined in Section 2985, which contains such a provision. formalities required in the case of a grant of real property.]

18 2922. A mortgage can be created, renewed, or extended, only by writing, executed with the
DEFENDANT ETS SERVICES LLC, BECAME PRIVY TO THE FRAUD, THE PROMISSORY FRAUD, & FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN THE ORIGINAL ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT WHEN THEY WERE SERVED BY Star: Hills WITH HER NOTICE OF RESCISSION ON NOVEMBER 7, 2008.

12. Does are Licensed Corporate Entities, Artificial bodies, their Officers, & Employees, contractors, Agents, Successors heirs & assigns of named Defendants who helped,
Page 28 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

assisted or perpetrated the acts alleged in the complaint, whose true Names & identities are not known to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will amend the complaint with the true Names & Identities of said Doe Defendants when they are discovered by Plaintiffs.

JURISDICTION
13. The above named Court has Jurisdiction to issue Judgment against the Defendants in this Action pursuant to the provisions of California Constitution Article 6, Sections 1-22, and California Civil Code Sections 1688-1693, for Enforcement of Rescission & California Civil Code Sections: 1709-1710 for Deceit, Sections 1572-1573 for Fraud, & Constructive fraud, Section 1714 for Negligence, & in other provisions of the California Civil Code, & the Code of Civil Procedure for Wrongful Conversion, breach of Trust, Breach of Fiduciary, Breach of Contract & Quiet Title; Declaratory Judgment; Injunctive Relief, Etc., and pursuant to the facts that the home and property of Star & Alan is located on the land Commonly described as: 3018 Linden Avenue, near: [Bakersfield, California], on the De Jure Kern: county, California: the land, and the Defendants Perpetrated the Acts alleged in the Complaint within Kern: county, California: the land, and the Defendants conduct Business within the De-Facto County of Kern, State of California.

INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
Plaintiffs hereby Incorporate by Reference as if fully set forth herein all the contents of the previously served Novation Offer to MortgageIt Inc. of Star: Hills & the Notice of Status previously served to all State Federal & Local Government Agencies of Star: Hills, & the Rescission of the whole alleged Mortgage contract which WERE attached as Exhibits 3 & 4, TO THE FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT and are made a part hereof this complaint. Plaintiffs further hereby incorporate by reference as if fully

Page 29 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6

set forth the contents of all Exhibits attached hereto this complaint, which are hereby made a part of this Complaint, & further hereby Request that the Court take Mandatory Judicial Notice of the contents of said Exhibits pursuant to the Express provisions of California Evidence Code Section 451-459.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

7 14. In late February 2007, a person from United Vision Financial who was believed to be a 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Broker at the time, made a telephone call to Stars, by the First name of Baron, who made a verbal offer of a 1 % Per cent Interest Rate, and to cut her Mortgage Payments in half , waive any prepayment penalty, & stated that these terms would be fixed and would never change. Baron also stated that every five years there was a roll over period of some kind, but that these were fixed payment amounts and percentages and they would not increase, ever. At that time Stars payments had been about 1300-1400 a month for the previous year, (2006-2007), and about $800 the year before that (2005-2006), and in that previous year Star had paid an extra amount of about $132 per month principle only to bring the principle down; but the principle amount had barely changed in 2 years, after paying thousands of dollars in addition to fees and penalties.

15. When Star asked Baron what is the catch?, because she had never heard of such a low interest rate Baron, said that he could Pull Strings and he only talked about predatory lenders and how they scam people, but he was an honest man to warn her of these criminals and assured her that he was not one of them. Baron gave Star his private cell phone number and Star called it to make sure it was his, and it was. After Baron called Star about ten (10) more times, over a 2 & 1/2 month time period, he won the trust of Star. Baron, said he had appraisers and he would send over one who would appraise the house & said it had probably gone up in value and they would lend her up to the full
Page 30 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

amount of the appraisal which they sent and later told Star it was appraised at around 280,000 dollars. 16. The said Agent, Baron, said that he could Pull Strings when Star told him that She had no provable income and was not a taxpayer, AND FURTHER STATED THAT ALL SHE NEEDED WAS A Voucher, and that it could be anyone, even someone who works at a gas station with a tax I.D. Star provided Baron with two people that she had done free research and volunteer work for, but they did not qualify with the banks, however the third one did. Baron called Star on May 16th, 2007 and he told her that the credit check process was about to expire and would roll over to a new period, and that if she did provide a voucher, and if she did not sign an agreement before 5 pm on May 17th 2007, that she would have to start the entire credit check process over again, and that this process would take an additional month or two, and he informed her that 2 banks had already denied her and that this was the third bank and they had been talking for over two months already, and that she really needed to wrap this up because her credit score was lower than before and she may not qualify at all if it goes to another check period. Thereafter when Star asked Baron if She could cut her payments in half and get the 1 % and everything else he had offered if she decided not to take any more money Baron said she could, but then offered her an $ 11,000 loan, representing to her that it would not change her payments much, which influenced her into taking the loan. Baron rushed Star into signing a deal and took advantage of her vulnerable situation wherein he gathered that she was financially struggling to manage, care for and maintain two homes, a boat, two vehicles, including insurance property taxes, upkeep and maintenance, while suffering from bad health which caused her to lose an extreme amount of weight from 150 pounds down to 108 pounds on a 5 9

Page 31 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

frame. In the face of this he stated that he guaranteed that everything would reflect what he had stated including waiver of pre payment penalties, 1 % per cent Interest rate that was a fixed rate, and monthly payments to be cut in half, never to increase. 17. Baron sent a notary to Stars home who he said would explain the terms of the contract to her fully, but when the notary arrived at Stars home with the papers to sign, she was unable to explain anything contained in them. Star questioned the notary about the meaning of the contract & expressed to the notary that it did not appear to reflect the pre-payment waiver that Baron had promised, and asked her if the language contained in it meant what Baron claimed it meant, but the notary did not understand the meaning of the contract and could not explain it to her. Star called Baron immediately with the notary present and asked him to explain it to Star so that the notary could be a witness to the offer he was making and explain to both of them that the contract he gave the notary to have Star sign, reflected that offer correctly. Baron claimed that the papers he had sent with the notary were just a standard form and due to the roll over credit check period, that he didnt have time to type it all up correctly, and because Star took months to decide that time was now running out. But he assured Star that he would correct it to reflect the exact proposal he had made as fore-mentioned, before sending it to the bank, and that he would send the notary back for Star to sign off on the changes he would make later that day. Due to the time running out as asserted by Baron, Star could not read all of the papers brought to her by the Notary, which were approximately an inch thick with legal sized sheets. In addition there was no time to consult an attorney for advice, and Baron knew that there was no attorney present to assist Star with understanding the documents presented to her by the Notary sent by Baron to her home.

Believing that Baron was telling her the truth, Star signed these papers, and
later that day the Notary came back with a one page paper that appeared to correct the pre payment mistake, although Star did not fully understand the meaning of other language in the contract, she was coerced and rushed by the Notary.

Page 32 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Note: The Notary was about 8 months pregnant and when she came back with the alleged corrections for Star to sign off on, she had a small child left in her warm car and did not come inside Stars house but instead she rushed Star for a signature while also claiming that she was late for another appointment concerning her child, and again the notary could not explain the changes or the meaning of the language contained in the addendum. Star was never given any opportunity to have the alleged contract reviewed by Counsel or a lawyer, which Baron was aware of at the time. The said alleged contract Void ab Initio as an Unconscionable contract in fact, not what was actually represented to Star by Baron, though not understood as such by Star at the time she was pressured into signing it by Baron & the Notary he sent to her home.

11 18. United Vision Financial & Baron DiGiandomenico falsified the loan application form in 12 Violation of State and Federal Laws wherein they falsely, knowingly, willingly, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 19. The foregoing falsification of the loan application rendered the alleged Transaction of 25 26 27 28
May 17, 2007 void Ab Initio Rendering any alleged Foreclosure and Sale of home and property also Null and Void Ab Initio, of no effect and unenforceable as a matter of law. see Exhibit # 2 a copy of falsified Loan Application, attached hereto this Complaint, which is hereby Incorporated herein by reference and is made a part hereof of this fraudulently lied on the form where it requests the name of the person who interviewed the borrower and the date of the alleged interview. On the loan application it states that the interview was conducted on May 1, 2007, and further states that the person conducting the interview by telephone of Star was Dan Michaels when in fact they knew that Dan Michaels never once spoke to Star regarding the proposed Mortgage Refinance Loan, and that in fact there were many telephone calls over a two month period made by agent and loan consultant Baron DiGiandomenico to Star by whereby said defendant was attempting to convince Star to accept the proposed loan using tactics of undue influence and rushing her to sign at the last minute with the threat that if she did not sign she could lose the loan due to a lower credit rating.

Page 33 of 77

Complaint.

2 20. One month afterward Star received a call from GMAC bank, and during that call Star 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28
which Star had paid for. They promised to send it right away, but still to this day Star never received either document. Within 30 days Star also received a notice of Interest

requested a true signed copy of the contract by both parties and a copy of the appraisal

Rate Change which appeared to say the interest was going up higher than what she had ever paid in the past, and appeared to say her payments would triple. Star was outraged and called Baron immediately to ask him how this could change when he promised her it was fixed at one percent and the payments would never increase. Baron said to Star, "Oh they always do that, it means nothing, I will fix it, fax me the paper and ill take care of it, do not worry, don't panic, it's nothing" Star tried to fax the letter to Baron but the fax did not go through. Star called him again, and he said he was having trouble with his fax, and gave her a second fax number, which also failed. Star attempted to call Baron several more times over a period of the next two months but could not reach him, and she left messages on a voice mail and with the operator at United Vision Financial, but her calls were never returned. She finally came across Barons private cell phone number which she had misplaced, and a man answered and said that she had a wrong number. Star checked the number and it was the same one she had reached Baron on only a couple of months prior. Star called GMAC and told them the agreement was not what she had been promised as Baron had explained to her, but they just told her that she signed it and there was nothing they could do.

26 21. After making payments to GMAC throughout the next year, 2007-2008, Star kept
receiving higher interest rate change notices every month, and the principle owed kept going up every month. She saw that the principle was only going up, and she was only

Page 34 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20

paying interest and never making a dent in the principle. Since these events Star has received interest Rate changes up to nearly 9 % every single Month, and the loan amount kept going up every month from $ 211,000 Dollars $ 245, 141.53 which is the amount that was on the Notice of Sale taped to her door in October of 2008. The bills she received from GMAC reflected that she owed MORE than she had ever allegedly borrowed, even after faithfully paying thousands upon thousands for 3 years. Finally Star sent GMAC a letter offering to accept their claim upon proof of such claim, and to send her proof of the note signed by both parties. She sent a check with an offer that by cashing the check, GMAC had closed the old account number and agreed to make a new account number, and a new agreement that upon proof of claim Star would pay. GMAC cashed the check agreeing to the terms of her offer.

14 22. Based UPON THE FOREGOING INTENTIONAL Misrepresentation, Deceit, Fraud,

Promissory Fraud, fraudulent Inducement, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary, Intentional Concealment, undue influence, etc., Star Hills stopped payments on the alleged Mortgage debt, and thereafter demanded in writing proof of their claim against her, a copy of the Original Contract, Property Appraisal, and the Note which the Claim was based upon.

21 23. The demands for proof of claim, and a copy of the original Contract, Appraisal of the 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Property, and the Original Note have never been complied with by anyone. 24. Plaintiff only recently after the foregoing stated events, became aware of some facts and law which she was not aware of at the time she was approached over the telephone by the Defendants. Article I Section 10 of the Federal Constitution mandates that no state shall make anything other than Gold or Silver coin a tender in payment of Debts, and it says much more than that. Plaintiff incorporates all the federal constitutional

Page 35 of 77

provisions under said Article 1, Section 10 herein this complaint as if fully set forth.

2 25. Plaintiffs herein are Christians whose faith lies in the ancient Scriptures set out in the 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Holy Bible, and particular to these circumstances are the following scriptures: Leviticus 19: 37, and Deuteronomy 25:15, which Star hereby incorporates herein this Complaint by reference as if fully set forth herein and requests the court to take Judicial Notice of pursuant to California Evidence Code Section 451-453 Et Sequiter.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT GMAC MORTGAGE LLC; PRESIDENT NICK CANALE Jr; VICE PRESIDENT Charles R. Hoecker
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE THE FOREGOING FACTS & ALLEGATIONS ARE HEREBY INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF FULLY SET FORTH. ALL DEFENDANTS NAMED HEREIN BECAME PRIVY TO THE FRAUD, THE PROMISSORY FRAUD, & FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN THE ORIGINAL ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT WHEN THEY WERE SERVED BY Star: Hills WITH HER NOTICE OF RESCISSION ON NOVEMBER 7, 2008.

19 26. Defendant GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC A FOREIGN CORPORATION, THAT IS

INCORPORATED IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE, & named Defendants President NICK CANALE Jr & Vice President CHARLES HOECKER had a Prearranged Contract Agreement with the Lender MortgageIt Inc. of New York, prior to the May 17, 2007 Transaction & Signing of the alleged Mortgage Refinance Contract by Star: Hills, UNDER WHICH SAID SECRET AGREEMENT SAID PARTIES AGREED TO OPERATE UNDER PRIVATE POLICIES & BUSINESS PRACTICES BY WHICH THEY WOULD KNOWINGLY INTENTIONALLY & WILLINGLY VIOLATE & BREACH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA & OTHER STATES

Page 36 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

REGARDING THE LAWS OF PRINCIPAL & AGENT, AGENT & AGENCY, AS WELL AS BREACH & VIOLATE THE CALIFORNIA UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE SECTION 3309(b), WHICH MANDATES "(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subdivision (a) shall prove the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument." SAID DEFENDANTS VIOLATED CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE SECTION 3501. (a) , WHICH MANDATES: "Presentment" means a demand made by or on behalf of a person entitled to enforce an instrument (1) to pay the instrument made to the drawee or a party obliged to pay the instrument or, in the case of a note or accepted draft payable at a bank, to the bank, or (2) to accept a draft made to the drawee. AND VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS UNDER " (1) Presentment may be made at the place of payment of the instrument and shall be made at the place of payment if the instrument is payable at a bank in the United States; may be made by any commercially reasonable means, including an oral, written, or electronic communication; is effective when the demand for payment or acceptance is received by the person to whom presentment is made; and is effective if made to any one of two or more makers, acceptors, drawees, or other payors. (2) Upon demand of the person to whom presentment is made, the person making presentment shall (A) exhibit the instrument, (B) give reasonable identification and, if presentment is made on behalf of another person, reasonable evidence of authority to do so, and (C) sign a receipt on the instrument for any payment made or surrender the instrument if full payment is made. (3) Without dishonoring the instrument, the party to whom presentment is made may (A) return the instrument for lack of a necessary endorsement, or (B) refuse payment or acceptance for failure of the presentment

Page 37 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

to comply with the terms of the instrument, an agreement of the parties, or other applicable law or rule." ALL OF WHICH PROVISIONS THEY WERE BOUND TO OBEY AS A MATTER OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. The said Contractual Relationship was KNOWINGLY, WILLINGLY, INTENTIONALLY kept Secret and not Fully Disclosed to Star. Said Parties & named Defendants intentionally kept Plaintiffs in the dark concerning said Prior Arrangement & the said Secrecy was a Fraud, Breach of Trust, & Breach of Fiduciary from the start, with the intention of Violating & Breaching the alleged Mortgage Contract from the start. Said Secret arrangement was a Conspiracy from the start between said Parties, with the Motive, Design, Purpose & Intent to Breach the alleged Contract, Breach the Trust, Breach the Fiduciary Duty they owed to Star, Violate the express Laws of the State of California Regarding the Law of Principal & Agent, & Agency, & to Violate the Laws of Contracts, & to use Fraud, Deceit, and Constructive Fraud to steal her home and commit wrongful, Unlawful, fraudulent Conversion of her personal property, & the Title to her Home & Property. The said Baron DiGiandomenico & Defendant Charles R. Hoecker, Vice President CUSTOMER CARE LOAN SERVICING FOR GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC & other unknown Doe Defendants entered into the said Conspiracy prior to the Date of May 17, 2007 for said Purposes, & thereafter took specific overt steps to further the said Secret agreement & Conspiracy such as Concealing the truth of the agreement from Star, Intentionally misrepresenting the Article 10 waiver in the alleged original Promissory Note by knowingly, intentionally mis-defining the meaning of the terms therein the article 10 waiver, & intentionally failing to comply with the Laws of Agent-Agency, Principal-Agent in the California Civil Code

Page 38 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

& Probate Code, in Civil Code Sections 23.2; 2400; 2933; 2295-2300; 2304-2326; 23302339; 2342-2345; 2349-2351; CALIFORNIA PROBATE CODE SECTION 4026 ; as well as the Mortgage laws of California under Civil Code Sections 2932 & 2932.5; 3439; & express provisions of the California uniform commercial code Requiring presentment of the Original alleged Promissory Note the alleged debt was based upon, Etc., & other express provisions set out herein this Complaint. 27. Each of said Co Conspirators, Defendants GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, PRESIDENT NICK CANALE Jr & VICE PRESIDENT Charles R. Hoecker had a MORTGAGE BROKERS LICENSE & Owed a Fiduciary Duty to Star: Hills, their alleged Client, & Customer, from the time of their Entry into the Conspiracy to the present, and still Owe said Duty which includes the Duty of Full Disclosure of all facts & Knowledge in their Possession which Effect or Affect the Rights & Interests of Star relating to the alleged Transaction of May 17, 2007, & the Actual Transaction Prior to May 17, 2007, which secretly took place without her knowledge or Consent, to the present, and on going into the future, forward until full payment, compensation, Remedy, Judgment & Justice is obtained by Star. Since these events the following events have occurred by the willful actions of said Defendants which have added to the Injuries & Damages of Star & Alan herein: The SAID DEFENDANTS have committed a fraud upon this Court & upon Star: Hills IN A PREVIOUS ACTION KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION #: S-1500-CL-237061-LHB, wherein they falsely claimed to have posted a summons on the premises of Star on April 13, 2009, and falsified a proof of service which they presented to the Court Clerk for filing on May 1, 2009, in Violation of Local Rules of Court Rule 3.17.2(d) which required it to be filed within ten (10) days of issuance of the Order of April 9, 2009, which was April 19, 2009, committing fraud, forgery and perjury under the laws of the state of California and a Felony under California penal code sections 118, 115 ; which Caused the Said Court Clerk to enter

Page 39 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Clerks Default & Clerks Default Judgment, which Star did not become aware of until around May 12, 2009, which caught Star by Surprise, as no Summons was ever posted by said Defendants on her said premises, & Star never received any actual Notice from the alleged Service by Posting & Mailing, having not received it in the mail from the said Defendants either; any failure to file an answer to the alleged complaint, was Excusable Neglect as Star was never aware of any such Posting or Mailing having never actually received any such copy of a Summons & Complaint FROM SAID Plaintiff GMAC MORTGAGE LLC; SAID ILLEGAL UNLAWFUL ACTS OCCURRED AFTER SAID DEFENDANTS FILED TWO CONSECUTIVE LAW SUITS AGAINST Star: Hills IN KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT #s S-1500-CL-236547SMK; S-1500 CL-237061-LHB; THE SAID FRAUDULENT FILINGS & CRIMINAL ACTS WERE AN ABUSE OF PROCESS UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR WHICH SAID DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE TO Star: Hills HEREIN FOR ANY & ALL INJURIES & DAMAGES ARISING THERE FROM & FOR PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES FOR THE FRAUD WHICH WAS UNDERTAKEN WITH THE RECKLESS WONTON INTENT TO DO INJURY & DAMAGE TO Star; WHEN THEY KNEW, SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, AND HAD A DUTY TO KNOW THAT THEY HAD NO STANDING & NO RIGHT UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO FILE SAID ACTIONS BECAUSE

THEY DID NOT HAVE A PERFECTED TITLE AT THE TIME, AS THERE

WAS LITIGATION OVER THE TITLE IN QUESTION ALREADY FILED IN THE COURT #: S-1500-CV-265552-WDP, Star: Hills VS GMAC MORTGAGE, ET AL,

WHICH PRECLUDED ANY PERFECTING OF THEIR ALLEGED TITLE AS SET FORTH IN CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULINGS IN THE CASES OF:
SHEEHY VS MILES (1892) 93 CAL. 288,292; CITING TURNER VS McDONALD,76 CAL 177; HOCKING VS TITLE INS. &TRUST CO.(1951) 37 C.2d 644 AT PAGE 649 CITED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT IN THE CASE OF KESSLER VS BRIDGE (1958) 161 C.A. 2d Supp 837.

Page 40 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
The Foregoing express Statutory language was a Mandatory Pre Requisite, Express Pre Condition placed upon the statutory privilege of filing an Unlawful Detainer Action in Court, which is a Special Proceeding of a Civil Nature, & merely a Cumulative Remedy created by the State Legislature in 1934, in addition to the Judicial Remedy of a Judicial Foreclosure Suit which has existed in California since 1872, & which is Required without exception to be fulfilled prior to the filing of THE ALLEGED TITLE CLAIMED BY PLAINTIFF WAS NOT EVER PERFECTED AS REQUIRED BY C.C.P. SECTION 1161a WHICH EXPRESSLY STATES THAT:

1161a 3. Where the property has been duly sold in accordance with Section 2924 of the Civil Code, under a power of sale contained in a deed of trust executed by him, or a person under whom he claims,

and the title under the sale has been duly perfected.

any Complaint for Unlawful Detainer, which must be fulfilled prior to the
filing of any such Complaint in order to obtain the Required Standing & Right to File the Unlawful Detainer Action. Said DEFENDANTS ARE CHARGED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHERE THEY OPERATE THEREIN UNDER A CORPORATE LICENSE & PRIVILEGE, NOT BY SUPERIOR RIGHT, & ARE REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO THE RULINGS OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT INCLUDING THE RULINGS BY THE HIGH COURT REGARDING THE DEFINITION & MEANING OF PERFECTION OF TITLE IN: SHEEHY VS MILES (1892) 93 CAL. 288, 292; CITING TURNER VS McDONALD, 76 CAL 177; AS WELL AS HOCKING VS TITLE INS. & TRUST CO. (1951) 37 C. 2d 644 AT PAGE 649 CITED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT IN THE CASE OF KESSLER VS BRIDGE (1958) 161

Page 41 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
C.A. 2d Supp 837. A PERFECT TITLE MUST BE ONE THAT IS GOOD AND VALID BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT TITLE TO BE GOOD, SHOULD BE FREE FROM LITIGATION, PALPABLE DEFECTS, AND GRAVE DOUBTS, SHOULD CONSIST OF BOTH LEGAL AND EQUITABLE TITLES, AND SHOULD BE FAIRLY DEDUCIBLE OF RECORD. .. A TITLE TO BE GOOD MUST BE GOOD SHOULD BE FREE FROM LITIGATION, PALPABLE DEFECTS, AND GRAVE DOUBTS, SHOULD CONSIST OF BOTH LEGAL AND EQUITABLE TITLES, AND SHOULD BE FAIRLY DEDUCIBLE OF RECORD. SHEEHY VS MILES (1892) 93 CAL. 288,292; CITING TURNER VS McDONALD,76 CAL 177; HOCKING VS TITLE INS. &TRUST CO.(1951) 37 C.2d 644 AT PAGE 649 CITED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT IN THE CASE OF KESSLER VS BRIDGE (1958) 161 C.A. 2d Supp 837. THE TERM DULY IMPLIES THAT ALL THOSE ELEMENTS NECESSARY TO VALID SALE EXIST. KESSLER VS BRIDGE (1958) 161 C.A. 2d Supp 837, SUPRA. TITLE IS DULY PERFECTED WHEN ALL STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO MAKE IT PERFECT, THAT IS ,TO CONVEY TO PURCHASER THAT WHICH HE PURCHASED, VALID AND GOOD BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT. KESSLER VS BRIDGE (1958) 161 C.A. 2d Supp 837, SUPRA.

UNJUST ENRICHMENT
Said Defendants GMAC MORTGAGE LLC; PRESIDENT NICK CANALE Jr; VICE PRESIDENT CHARLES R. HOECKER, RECEIVED CASH COMPENSATION FROM THEIR INSURANCE POLICIES & INSURANCE CARRIER UPON THEIR FRAUDULENT DECLARATION OF DEFAULT ON THE ALLEGED MORTGAGE & OBTAINED FURTHER FINANCIAL COMPENSATION BY SELLING THE NOTE IN BINDLES ON THE OPEN MARKET IN CONCERT WITH THE ALLEGED LENDER MORTGAGEIT INC., IN ADDITION TO OBTAINING THE SAID PROPERTY BY FRAUD, CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD, DECEIT, ETC., WHICH

Page 42 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29. At the time of the alleged Mortgage Refinance Loan Transaction of May 17, 2007 said Defendant GMAC MORTGAGE LLC became a TRUSTEE & undertook a binding Fiduciary Obligation of full Disclosure & Fair Dealing with Star: Hills under the Laws of Contract under the Laws of the State of California, and they had previously agreed to do this with Mortgage Loan Contractor, Defendant United Vision Financial, and Lender MortgageIt Inc., having had an on going professional business Relationship with United Vision Financial. DEFENDANT GMAC Owed a Fiduciary Duty to Star: Hills upon entering into said alleged Contract. Defendant GMAC MORTGAGE Promised, by their Contracting with UNITED VISION FINANCIAL & Star: Hills that they would Comply with & Obey all laws of the State of California, and they never intended to do CONSTITUTES UNJUST ENRICHMENT FOR WHICH THEY ARE LIABLE TO Star: Hills. INVOLUNTARY TRUST 28. Based upon the foregoing said Conspiracy between the said Defendants & third parties there was an Involuntary Trust Created at the Inception of said Unlawful Illegal Conspiracy, under which Involuntary Trust said Parties were bound as Trustees of all Personal Property of Star: Hills which came into their possession after entering into said Conspiracy, including but not limited to Credits, Monies, Payments, including any late fees and Penalties, Prepayment Fees, Title or hazard Insurance fees, Service Fees, Processing Fees, Broker Fees, Servicing Fees, etc., and her Home & Land, as well as the Legal, Lawful, Equitable Title & Actual Title to said Home & Property, Pursuant to the Laws of the State of California, as expressly set forth under California Civil Code Section 2223 & 2224, and California Civil Code, Section 3439, under Title 1, California Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. All the said Personal Property are owed by all said Defendants to Star: Hills & Alan Gjurovich & payable by said Defendants under the said Involuntary Trust as a matter of Law under the Laws of the State of California.

Page 43 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

so, committing Fraud, Constructive Fraud, Deceit Breach of Trust & Breach of Fiduciary upon Star from the outset, Violating their Fiduciary Duty Owed to Star, & breaching the Contract between her, United Vision Financial, & the Lender Contracted by United Vision Financial, MortgageIt Inc. & GMAC MORTGAGE. GMAC MORTGAGE LLC Violated the laws of Interest and Usury of the State of California, and Violated the alleged Refinance Mortgage Loan Contract, which allows only the Holder of the Note to make any interest Rate changes or increases, and GMAC was never the Holder of the Note. See Exhibits 2 , Attached hereto this Complaint which is hereby Incorporated by Reference as if fully set forth herein, and is made a part of this complaint, which Plaintiff Requests the Court to take Judicial Notice of Pursuant to the Provisions of California Evidence Code Sections 451-453, Et Sequiter. The said Fraud was Premeditated, Intentional, Willing, & Knowing, with Intent to Cause Injury & Harm to Star, which makes them Liable to Star for Exemplary or Punitive Damages, as Determined by a Jury.

NO STANDING UNDER THE NOTE; BREACH OF THE TERMS OF THE NOTE; VOID DEED OF TRUST; NO ASSIGNMENT OF THE POWER TO COLLECT PAYMENTS OR THE POWER OF SALE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21 30. GMAC Mortgage LLC, & PRESIDENT JOHN DOE, VICE PRESIDENT CHARLES
HOECKER unlawfully changed and increased the interest Rate on the Note on numerous occasions based on their own Calculations. GMAC had no Lawful Standing, Right, or Authorization to Calculate Interest Rate Changes or Increases, under the terms of the note nor to bill Star for any Interest Rate increases or changes as they never held the note at the time they purported to make interest rate changes and increases, as only the "note holder" had the Right

under the terms of the alleged contract and promissory Note to Calculate

Page 44 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

any changes in the interest rate. See the said Mortgage Contract Deed of trust
and Note in Exhibits attached hereto which are hereby Incorporated into this complaint by reference as if fully set forth, & are made a part hereof this complaint which plaintiff hereby requests the Court take Judicial Notice of under the express provisions of California Evidence Code Section 451-453 Et Sequiter. Based upon the foregoing all the interest Rate increased and changes by GMAC Mortgage are Null and Void Ab Initio and unenforceable by GMAC Mortgage in this case, and also constitute a Breach of the terms of the Note by said Defendant GMAC MORTGAGE LLC & NAMED DEFENDANTS JOHN DOE PRESIDENT OF GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, & CHARLES HOECKER VICE PRESIDENT OF GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, FOR WHICH THEY ARE JOINTLY & SEVERALLY LIABLE TO Star. The clear fact in the Record in the Kern County Recorders Office that no Assignment of the Power to Collect Payments was ever executed by the Alleged Lender MORTGAGEIT INC., TO SAID DEFENDANTS GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, PRESIDENT JOHN DOE, VICE PRESIDENT CHARLES HOECKER, MERS, OR ORIGINAL TRUSTEE FREMONT RENDER THE SAID ALLEGED DEED OF TRUST PROVISIONS ALLEGING ANY POWER OF SALE TO ALLEGED NOMINAL BENEFICIARY MERS VOID AB INTIO, & ANY PURPORTED SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE BY MERS TO ETS SERVICES LLC ALSO VOID AB INITIO, WHICH RENDERED ANY ALLEGED SUBSEQUENT SALE & PURCHASE BY ETS SERVICES LLC & GMAC MORTGAGE LLC VOID AB INTIO, & THE ALLEGED DEED UPON SALE CLAIMED BY GMAC MORTGAGE LLC VOID AB INITIO, OF NO EFFECT OR FORCE UNDER LAW.

24 31. Defendant GMAC MORTGAGE had no Lawful Standing, Right, or Authorization to 25 Institute Foreclosure proceedings under the Note, they had no Right of Enforcement, and 26 27 28
as they were never the Lender or the Holder of the Note and only the "Holder of the Note" had any Right or Standing under the terms of the Contract and the Note and under the Law of the State of California to enforce the alleged Mortgage Refinance

Page 45 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Contract and the terms of the Note. Their Actions in purporting to do so were Fraud & unlawful and wrongful Conversion of the Title to Home and property of Star and theft of the same. All said Actions of GMAC MORTGAGE LLC are Void Ab Initio & have no validity or effect whatsoever under the Law. Star is Entitled to a Reconveyance of the Title to her home and Property and the Return of all Credit, Monies, Penalties, Fees, Interest, & Payments made or wrongfully taken under the Fraudulent alleged Refinanced Mortgage Contract.

UNDUE INFLUENCE; FRAUD; PROMISSORY FRAUD; FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT; UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACT CONCEALMENT OF TRUE TERMS; NO FULL DISCLOSURE & NO MEETING OF THE MINDS -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------32. None of Defendants GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, ET AL ; NOR UNITED VISION FINANCIAL; Baron DiGiandomenico; nor the Lender MORTGAGEIT INC., ever informed Star that this Contract was for a purchase of Credit, with Usury and Interest added to the price of the purchase. Star only recently discovered this after going through the papers left with her by UNITED VISION FINANCIAL via Baron's Notary Public. Star was previously under the false & mistaken Notion or Impression that she was being Loaned Cash Money by the Lender. Based upon all the foregoing the alleged Loan and Note is Void Ab Initio as there was never the full disclosure to Star of the true meaning and terms of the Contract by Baron or any of the Defendants when she asked for an explanation of the meaning of the papers she was signing, which signing was done under Undue Influence of Baron and the Notary as set forth previously, which undue influence was exerted upon Star BY Baron FOR THE ILLEGAL UNLAWFUL PURPOSES OF ENGAGING Star IN AN UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACT IN WHICH THE TRUE TERMS WERE NOT DISCLOSED TO HER, & BY FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT THROUGH PROMISSORY FRAUD, WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT Star HAD NO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL TO REVIEW

Page 46 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

THE LANGUAGE IN THE ALLEGED CONTRACT TO DETERMINE IF IT WAS WHAT SHE HAD AGREED TO PREVIOUSLY WITH Baron, WHICH WAS ABOUT AN INCH THICK LEGAL SIZED. Star WAS NOT GIVEN ANY TIME TO READ THE SAID PAPERS BEING TOLD BY Baron THAT IF She DID NOT SIGN THEN & THERE THAT She HAD A REAL CHANCE OF LOSING THE LOAN BASED ON A LOWER CREDIT RATING WHICH WAS A THREAT OF CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND HER POWER & CONTROL TO CHANGE, AVOID, OR PREVENT, AND HAD A COERCIVE EFFECT ON Star, WITHOUT WHICH SHE WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNED THE PAPERS & THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO ALLEGED CONTRACT AT THAT TIME ON MAY 17, 2007. UNDER THESE FACTS THE LACK OF FULL & HONEST DISCLOSURE BY THE PARTIES THERE WAS NEVER ANY MEETING OF THE MINDS REQUIRED FOR THEIR TO BE A VALID AND BINDING CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT, & ALL SUBSEQUENT ALLEGED ACTS OF THE DEFENDANTS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH THE VARIOUS NOTICES BY Star, CULMINATING WITH THE NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF THE WHOLE ALLEGED CONTRACT ON NOVEMBER 7, 2008 AGREEMENT.

WAIVER PROVISIONS UNDER ARTICLE 10 OF NOTE

20 33. The "waiver provision" under Article 10 of the Note was Unlawful & Unconstitutional 21 in Violation of the State and Federal Laws Requiring Due Process of Law, Notice and 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
opportunity to be heard and to defend rights and interest, including under State & the 5th Amendment to the Federal Constitutions, the California Civil Code, California Commercial Code, and the maxims of jurisprudence. Said article did not constitute a knowing, fully informed, voluntary waiver of any right of notice of dishonor, or right to presentment of the original note, the instrument the demand for payment was based on, since it was not the lender who was making demand for payment on the note. The denial of due process is inherent in the fact that since only the lender or holder of the note had

Page 47 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

any right under the alleged contract to enforce the terms of the alleged contract, there is no way for the borrower to determine if the party (GMAC in this case), demanding payment has any right to do so under the alleged contract if they are not the original lender, (in this case GMAC MORTGAGE was not the lender) unless there is an inherent right outside statutory or written law to demand presentment of the original instrument the alleged obligation or debt is based upon. In the case of a woman unlearned in the law such as Star was, without counsel requesting her to sign such a waiver without any explanation or understanding on her part is the intent to commit Fraud and theft by deception as is fully set out herein prior. It is further clear that any such Right of Notice of Dishonor & Presentment, & a request by the Lender & the Trustees, assigns, Contractors, Servicers, etc., for Waiver of such a Right without explanation, understanding, or knowledege of the meaning or purpose of such a waiver, amounts to an unknowing waiver, and a waiver without real consent, which also elicits Prima Facia Evidence of intent & prior knowledge of the party requesting the unknowing Waiver that neither the original lender nor the Servicer GMAC MORTGAGE would be Holder of the Note at the time of Foreclosure, and would not be able to produce it on Demand nor prove that they had any Right to enforce the terms of the alleged Contract or Note. This is Prima Facia Evidence supporting a Premeditated Conspiracy to Defraud the "borrower" out of her home and property. The alleged Waiver" of Presentment under "10" of the Note, is further Void Ab Initio based upon the fact that it Intentionally Misinforms and Omits from its Explanation of the Meaning of the Term "Right" of "Presentment" the fact that the Meaning of the said Term under the Law, and under the California UCC Code is the Right to Demand that the alleged Creditor Present the Original Instrument, in this Case the Original Promissory Note, which the alleged Debt is based upon, which gives the alleged Creditor the Right demand payment and to Enforce the Note as a matter of Law. If GMAC MORTGAGE WAS IN FACT "HOLDER OF THE NOTE" AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED FORECLOSURE THEY HAD A DUTY UNDER THE LAW OF THE

Page 48 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO PRESENT THE ORIGINAL NOTE TO Star UPON HER WRITTEN DEMAND FOR PROOF THAT THEY HELD THE NOTE AND HAD THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE THE TERMS OF THE NOTE AND TO COLLECT THE ALLEGED DEBT. THEIR FAILURE TO DO SO CAUSED THE ALLEGED DEBT TO BE DISCHARGED AS A MATTER OF CALIFORNIA LAW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE CITED HEREAFTER WHICH NOW REQUIRES A TOTAL RECONVEYANCE OF THE TITLE BACK TO Star. If GMAC MORTGAGE WAS NOT HOLDER OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME OF ALLEGED FORECLOSURE THEN THE LENDER MORTGAGEIT INC., WAS REQUIRED TO PRESENT THE ORIGINAL NOTE TO Star PRIOR TO THE INSTITUTION OF ANY ALLEGED FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS SERVE A NOTICE OF DISHONOR TO Star, PER THE TERMS OF THE NOTE AND AGREEMENT, AS ONLY THE LENDER AND HOLDER OF THE NOTE HAD ANY RIGHT TO ENFORCE THE SAID TERMS OF THE NOTE AND ALLEGED AGREEMENT. SAID DEFENDANTS ACTIONS VIOLATED CALIFORNIA LAW UNDER COMMERCIAL CODE SECTION 1304, WHICH MANDATES:" Every contract or duty within this code imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance and enforcement." AS WELL AS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 3309(b), WHICH MANDATES "(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subdivision (a) shall prove the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument." SAID DEFENDANTS VIOLATED CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE SECTION 3501. (a) , WHICH MANDATES: "Presentment" means a demand made by or on behalf of a person entitled to enforce an instrument (1) to pay the instrument made to the drawee or a party obliged to pay the instrument or, in the case of a note or accepted draft payable at a bank, to the bank, or (2) to accept a draft made to the drawee. AND VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS UNDER " (1) Presentment may be made at the place of payment of the instrument and shall be made at the place of payment if the instrument is payable at a
bank in the United States; may be made by any commercially reasonable means, including an oral, written,

Page 49 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

or electronic communication; is effective when the demand for payment or acceptance is received by the person to whom presentment is made;

and is effective if made to any one of two or more

makers, acceptors, drawees, or other payors. (2) Upon demand of the person to whom presentment is made, the person making presentment shall (A) exhibit the instrument, (B) give reasonable identification and, if presentment is made on behalf of another person, reasonable evidence of authority to do so, and (C) sign a receipt on the instrument for any payment made or surrender the instrument if full payment is made. (3) Without dishonoring the instrument, the party to whom presentment is made may (A) return the instrument for lack of a necessary endorsement, or (B) refuse payment or acceptance for failure of the presentment to comply with the terms of the instrument, an agreement of the parties, or other applicable law or rule." " 3502. (a) Dishonor of a note is governed by the following rules: (1) If the note is payable on demand, the note is dishonored if presentment is duly made to the maker and the note is not paid on the day of presentment. (2) If the note is not payable on demand and is payable at or through a bank or the terms of the note require presentment, the note is dishonored if presentment is duly made and the note is not paid on the day it becomes payable or the day of presentment, whichever is later. (3) If the note is not payable on demand and paragraph (2) does not apply, the note is dishonored if it is not paid on the day it becomes payable."

EQUITABLE & COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL

21 34. PURSUANT TO ALL THE FOREGOING FACTS & THE LAW OF THE STATE OF 22 CALIFORNIA GMAC MORTGAGE LLC IS Equitably and Collaterally Estopped from 23 24 25 26 27 28
asserting any Defense of Waiver of Notice of Dishonor and Presentment of the Original Promissory Note prior to the Instituting Foreclosure proceedings, based upon their Illegal, Intentional, Willing, Knowing & Premeditated Concealment of the fact that they knew they would Institute Foreclosure proceedings without being in Possession of the Note, which possession of the Note was a Mandatory Prerequisite of the alleged Mortgage Refinance Contract that only the "Note Holder" can Institute Foreclosure

Page 50 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

proceedings, and only the "Note Holder" had the Right to Enforce the alleged Contract. There was no waiver, nor could there be of the statutory requirement under California Commercial Code CITED PRIOR that the "Holder of the Note" serve a Notice of Dishonor, and thereafter make a presentment of the Original Promissory Note, due to the fact the said parties failed and refused to explain the meaning of the alleged contract, and the alleged Waiver when they were asked and requested by Star via her conversations, Interviews, and Negotiations with their Loan Agent Baron DiGiamdomenico. Based upon these facts there was no knowing Voluntary Waiver of any alleged Rights of Star: Hills including any Right of Notice of Dishonor and Presentment of the Original Note. Based on all the foregoing facts, the said Parties failure to give Notice of Dishonor & Presentment of the Note Caused the alleged debt to be Discharged, as a Matter of Law under the Express Provisions of California Commercial Code & GMAC MORTGAGE, their Successors, Agents, Assigns, & Officers are Estopped & Barred as a Matter of Law of the State of California from enforcing any alleged Foreclosure or Sale of the home & property of Star: Hills & any such alleged Foreclosure and Sale are Null and Void Ab Initio.

VOID SALE OF STAR'S HOME AND PROPERTY

18 35. Defendant GMAC MORTGAGE LLC ( OTHERWISE REFERRED TO AS GMAC OR 19 GMAC MORTGAGE ) purported to purchase the property and home of Star at an 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
alleged Public Auction on November 13, 2008, for a price of 80,000+ dollars, a price well below the announced sales price Valuation of $280,000. Said alleged purchase by GMAC was well below the fair market value of the house. Said Defendant GMAC has admitted in papers filed with this Court that they Received the Notice of Rescission of the alleged Mortgage Contract and signature on the Promissory Note prior to the date of the alleged Public Auction / Sale of the home and property of Star. GMAC Sale Trustee Omar Solorzano was also served with a Notice of the Rescission prior to the alleged Sale & had full knowledge that the alleged Contract & Note the alleged Sale was based on were Null and Void Ab Intio, & the alleged Sale was Void Ab Initio, and they had no

Page 51 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Right or Authority under Law of the State of California to hold such a Sale. They were also served with a Notice at the location of the said Sale outside the Bakersfield City Hall, in writing, as were all persons present, which Notice was also posted at several places in and around the Sale location, which stated "Caveat Emptor" "Caveat Actor", the purported Public Auction / Sale of the Property and home of Star located at "3018 Linden Avenue, Bakersfield, California", is Fraud upon the Public, and is Void Ab Initio. Though fully informed of the fact that the alleged Sale was Void Ab Initio because the Contract it was based on was Void Ab Initio, said Defendants ETS SERVICES and Omar Solorzano proceeded with the alleged Public Sale of the Home and Property of Star, and when no one from the Public bid on the home, the Sale Trustee and the Auctioneer purported to sell the home to GMAC MORTGAGE at far below the Fair Market Value, committing a knowing Fraud upon the Public and committing Slander of Title against Star as well as a Trespass on the Title to her home and Property, which now has created a Controversy over the Title and Property of the said home, which is a Cause of Action herein for Quiet Title against GMAC MORTGAGE, as GMAC MORTGAGE is now a third party Trespasser on said Title. GMAC MORTGAGE, along with Baron DiGiandomenico, & Lender MORTGAGEIT INC, Violated the Laws of California, Forbidding Fraud, Constructive Fraud, Deceit, Wrongful and Unlawful Conversion etc. and are Liable to Star for said Violations.

21 36. The alleged Sale of the Home & Property of Star on 11 / 13 / 2008 by Defendant ETS 22 SERVICES, LLC & TRUSTEE OMAR SOLORZANO, was Void Ab Initio and of no 23 24 25 26 27 28
effect and unenforceable under the law, as the Right of Foreclosure and of Sale of said Property was previously ALLEGEDLY Transferred by the Lender to MERS in the DEED OF TRUST DATED MAY 17, 2007 AND HAD NEVER BEEN REVOKED OR REASSIGNED BY THE LENDER OR THE HOLDER OF THE NOTE. Any alleged Assignment or Appointment by Defendant GMAC MORTGAGE of the Power of Sale to Defendant ETS SERVICE, LLC, & ALLEGED SALE TRUSTEE OFFICER OMAR

Page 52 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

SOLORZANO WAS VOID AB INITIO WITHOUT ANY RIGHT UNDER THE CONTRACT OR THE NOTE, AS GMAC MORTGAGE WAS NEVER THE LENDER OR THE "NOTE HOLDER" AS EXPRESSLY REQUIRED BY THE TERMS OF THE NOTE & ALLEGED CONTRACT. SEE PAGE 3 & 13 OF DEED OF TRUST DATED MAY 17, 2007, A TRUE & CORRECT COPY OF WHICH IS ATTACHED HERE TO IN EXHIBIT NUMBER #: 2 , WHICH IS HEREBY INCORPORATED INTO THIS COMPLAINT BY REFERENCE AS IF FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN & WHICH Star & Alan REQUEST THE COURT TO TAKE MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE ORIGINAL OF IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE, PURSUANT TO THE EXPRESS MANDATORY PROVISIONS SET OUT UNDER CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 451-453, ET SEQUITER.

13 37. Defendants ETS SERVICES, LLC, AND SALE TRUSTEE OFFICER OMAR 14 SOLORZANO had a prior agreement and Contractual Relationship with Defendant 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
GMAC MORTGAGE LLC & NAMED DEFENDANTS . Said Defendants ETS SERVICES, LLC & OMAR SOLORZANO entered into the Conspiracy to Fraudulently steal & Convert the Home & Property of Star by an agreement to pose as Sale Trustee for GMAC MORTGAGE , when they knew GMAC MORTGAGE had no authority under law to appoint them or assign them as a Sale Trustee to sell the said Property because GMAC MORTGAGE was not the Lender nor the Note Holder, and had no Right to institute Foreclosure proceedings or Enforce the terms of the Note. Thereafter they were served with the Notice of Rescission by Star, and ignored the fact that the Foreclosure and Sale was Void Ab Initio knowing they were committing a Fraud upon the Public by going ahead with the purported public Sale. ETS SERVICES & OMAR SOLORZANO TOOK THE OVERT STEP IN FURTHERANCE OF THE SAID CONSPIRACY, after they knew the proposed Sale was Void, offering the Home & Property of Star for sale to the Public. They took another Overt step in furtherance of the conspiracy when they purported to sell the said Home &

Page 53 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Property of Star to their Employer Contractor GMAC MORTGAGE LLC for a price well below the Fair Market Value of the Property, some $80,000 + dollars, which was the completion of the said Conspiracy. DEFENDANT GMAC MORTGAGE LLC took the Overt Step in furtherance of the said Conspiracy of purporting to Foreclose on the said Property when they knew they had no Right to enforce the terms of the Note or Contract because they were never the Lender or Holder of the Note, and never had the Right of Foreclosure or Sale, which was previously granted to MERS IN THE DEED, & never revoked, or Assigned or Granted to anyone else by the lender MORTGAGEIT INC. GMAC MORTGAGE LLC took the further Overt Step in furtherance of the Conspiracy when they purported to exercise a Right to Sell the said Home & Property, and appoint ETS SERVICES AS THE SALE TRUSTEE AND OMAR SOLORZANO AS THE SALE OFFICER, WITHOUT ANY LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO DO SO. GMAC MORTGAGE TOOK THE FINAL STEP IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY WHEN THEY PURPORTED TO PURCHASE THE SAID HOME & PROPERTY AT THE ALLEGED PUBLIC AUCTION ON NOVEMBER 13, 2008.

16 38. One month afterward Star received a call from GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, & during 17 that call Star Requested a true signed copy of the contract by both parties and a copy of 18 the Appraisal which Star had paid for. They promised to send it right away, but still to 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
this day Star never received either document. Within 30 days Star also received a Notice of Interest Rate Change FROM DEFENDANT GMAC which appeared to say the interest was going up higher than what she had ever paid in the past, and appeared to say her payments would triple. Star was outraged and called Baron immediately to ask him how this could change when he promised her it was fixed at one percent and the payments would never increase. Baron said to Star, Oh they always do that, it means nothing, I will fix it, fax me the paper and ill take care of it, do not worry, dont panic, its nothing Star tried to fax the letter to Baron but the fax did not go through. Star called him again, and he said he was having trouble with his fax, and gave her a second fax number, which also failed.

Page 54 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

39. Star attempted to call Baron several more times over a period of the next two months but could not reach him, and she left messages on a voice mail and with the operator at United Vision Financial, but her calls were never returned. She finally came across Barons private cell phone number which she had misplaced, and a man answered and said that she had a wrong number. Star checked the number and it was the same one she had reached Baron on only a couple of months prior. Star called GMAC and told them the agreement was not what she had been promised as Baron had explained to her, but they just told her that she signed it and there was nothing they could do. GMAC violated the Original Contract agreement with Baron & United Vision Financial which they were bound by as a Trustee & Fiduciary for Mortgage It Inc., the

12 40. After making payments to GMAC throughout the next year, 2007-2008, Star kept 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
receiving higher interest rate change Notices every month, and the principle owed kept going up every month. She saw that the principle was only going up, and she was only paying interest and never making a dent in the principle. Since these events Star has received interest Rate changes up to nearly 9 % every single Month, and the loan amount kept going up every month from $ 211,000 Dollars $ 245, 141.53 which is the amount that was on the Notice of Sale taped to her door in October of 2008. The bills she received from GMAC reflected that she owed MORE than she had ever borrowed, even after faithfully paying thousands upon thousands for 3 years. Finally Star sent GMAC a letter offering to accept their claim upon proof of such claim, and to send her proof of the note signed by both parties. She sent a check with a Novation offer under the conditions that if they cashed the check they would accept the offer of a new contract & close the old account number and would make a new account number, and a new agreement that upon proof of claim Star would pay. GMAC MORTGAGE LLC cashed the check agreeing to the terms of her offer. They subsequently failed to live up

Page 55 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

to that agreement which was a breach of contract, for which they are now liable to Star. 41. Based UPON THE FOREGOING INTENTIONAL Misrepresentation, Deceit, Fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary, intentional concealment, undue influence, etc., Star Hills stopped payments on the alleged Mortgage debt, & thereafter demanded in writing proof of their claim against her, a copy of the Original Contract, Property Appraisal, & the Promissory Note which the Claim was based upon. 42. The demands for proof of claim, and a copy of the original Contract, Appraisal of the Property, and the Original Note have never been complied with by anyone, INCLUDING Defendant GMAC MORTGAGE LLC which was a Breach of the alleged Contract by the SAID PARTIES INCLUDING GMAC MORTGAGE LLC.

13 43. Based upon the foregoing Star served a Notice of Rescission of the whole alleged 14 Mortgage Contract, Note, Etc., on Defendants GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, ETS 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
SERVICES LLC, THEIR OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS HEIRS & ASSIGNS, ( NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO THE AGENT; NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPAL) WHICH WAS SERVED ON THEM ON NOVEMBER 7, 2008, SIX (6) DAYS PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED PUBLIC SALE OF NOVEMBER 13, 2008, WHICH RENDERED THE ALLEGED SALE OF NOVEMBER 13, 2008 VOID AB INITIO AS A MATTER OF LAW, ALSO RENDERING THE ALLEGED DEED AFTER SALE VOID AB INITIO, & OF NO EFFECT OR VALIDITY UNDER THE LAW, & THUS RENDERING NO RIGHT OR AUTHORITY TO SAID DEFENDANT GMAC MORTGAGE LLC REGARDING THE HOME & PROPERTY OF COMPLAINANTS HEREIN.

25 44. Star FULLY INFORMED THE DEFENDANTS GMAC MORTGAGE LLC & ETS 26 SERVICES LLC, IN HER NOTICES INCLUDING HER DEMAND TO PROVE THE 27 NOTE WHICH INCLUDES A NOTICE OF HER FEE SCHEDULE, OF THE LACK 28
OF AUTHORITY & JURISDICTION OVER HER TO TRESPASS UPON HER

Page 56 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

PROPERTY & AGAINST HER HOME. THEIR SUBSEQUENT ATTEMPTS TO DO SO THROUGH CONTRACTOR AGENTS INCLUDING JASON THEOLE WHO TRESPASSED & THREATENED IN WRITING TO BREAK & ENTER & VANDALIZE THE SAID HOME BY TRASHING THE PERSONAL PROPERTY INSIDE, WAS A TERRORIST THREAT, CRIMINAL TORT FOR WHICH THEY ARE LIABLE TO Star. BECAUSE THERE WAS A CONTROVERSY & DISPUTE OVER THE TITLE IN THE COURT WHICH HAD NOT BEEN SETTLED, WHICH PRECLUDED THE FILING OF THE SAID UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTIONS, AND THE FILING OF WHICH WAS ABUSE OF PROCESS AGAINST Star: Hills, REGARDING WHICH THEY ARE LIABLE TO Star: Hills FOR ALL INJURIES & DAMAGES ARISING THERE FROM. THE ALLEGED TITLE AFTER SALE WAS FURTHER DEFECTIVE IN THAT IT ONLY ALLEGED TO TRANSFER LEGAL TITLE, AND NOT EQUITABLE TITLE AS WELL AS IS REQUIRED BY LAW AS SET FORTH BY THE SUPREME COURT RULINGS CITED HEREIN .

17 45. DEFENDANTS PROMISES TO PLAINTIFFS & DUTIES OWED ; 18 19 20 21 22

Defendants MERS; MERS PRESIDENT & CEO BILL BECKMANN; GMAC MORT. LLC; GMAC MORT. LLC PRES. NICK CANALE Jr.; GMAC MORT. LLC VICE PRES. & LOAN SERVICER, Charles R. Hoecker; GMAC MORT., LLC; ETS SERVICES LLC PRESIDENT JOHN DOE 2, ETS SERVICES LLC; ETS SERVICES LLC SALES

23 TRUSTEE Omar Solorzano; ETS SERVICES LLC MANAGERS JOSEPH A. 24 PENSABENA; MARK E. LAHIFF; Adam Leppo ETS SERVICES LLC TRUSTEE 25 26 27
Officers, & Employees of the said Corporate Entities MERS, GMAC MORT. LLC,

SALE OFFICER; all Impliedly by their Conduct in assuming their Positions as Agents

28 & ETS Services LLC, Promised Star: Hills that they would at all times ENGAGE

Page 57 of 77

1 ONLY IN HONEST & FAIR DEALING REGARDING ANY & ALL MATTERS 2 RELATED TO THE PURPORTED MORTGAGE LOAN , DEED OF TRUST, & 3 4 5
FURTHER EXPRESSLY PROMISED IN THE DEED OF TRUST THAT THEY

THEIR STATUTORY & LAWFUL DUTIES UNDER STATE & FEDERAL LAW, &

6 WOULD COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABBLE PROVISIONS OF STATE & 7 FEDERAL LAW REGARDING THE PURPORTED MORTGAGE LOAN & DEED 8 OF TRUST. INCLUDED IN THESE EXPRESS & IMPLIED PROMISES OF SAID 9 10 11

DEFENDANTS IN THE IMPLIED PROMISE THAT SAID DEFENDANTS WOULD REFRAIN FROM ENGAGING IN ANY FRAUD, CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD, DECEIT,

12 INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE, NEGLECT, MISFEASANCE, MAL FEASANCE, OR 13 NON FEASANCE REGARDING ANY OF SAID DUTIES UNDER LAW, EXPRSS & 14 IMPLIED PROMISES SET FORTH HEREIN. SAID DEFENDANTS OWED THE 15 16 17 18 19
DUTY TO PLAINTIFFS HEREIN TO COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE SAID STATE & FEDERAL LAWS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE LAWS OF CONTRACTS, & OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFFS TO COMPLY WITH THE SAID EXPRESS & IMPLIED PROMISES MADE TO PLAINTIFFS. PLAINTIFFS

20 HEREIN RELIED UPON THE SAID PROMISES OF SAID DEFENDANTS. SAID 21 DEFENDANTS BREACHED THEIR SAID PROMISES WHEN THEY FAILED TO 22 23 24
DISCLOSE THEIR PRIOR SECRET PRIVATE AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER THRID PARTIES WHO WERE NEVER NAMED IN THE MORTGAGE

25 DOCUMENTS PRESENTED BY SAID DEFENDANTS. THE SAID THIRD PARTIES 26 INCLUDED UNNAMED SECURITIES INVESTORS WHO ALL FINANCIALLY 27 BENEFITED FROM THE SAID CONCEALMENT & BREACH OF PROMISES 28

Page 58 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

RESCISSION;TENDER REQUIREMENT;VOID SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE;

VOID DEED OF TRUST; VOID TRUSTEES DEED UPON SALE; OFF SET-SET OFF-CLAIM 46. UPON SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF RESCISISON ON DEFENDANTS THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT UPON PLAINTIFFS TO OFFER TO TENDER PAYMENT OF ANY ALLEGED AMOUNTS DUE AS THE DEED OF TRUST & THE DEED UPON SALE WERE BOTH RENDERED VOID UPON THE SERVICE & RECORDING OF THE ALLEGED SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE BY DEFENDANTS MERS; MERS PRESIDENT BILL BECKMANN, & MERS EMPLOYEE WHO WERE NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE DEED OF TRUST TO EXECUTE A SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE PURSUANT TO EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE-PARAGRAPH 24 OF SAID DEED OF TRUST WHICH BREACH OF THE DEED OF TRUST RENDERED THE DEED OF TRUST VOID & RENDERED THE ALLEGED SUBSEQUENT SALE & DEED UPON SALE VOID AS A MATTER OF LAW, WHICH NEGATED ANY REQUIREMENT TO TENDER ANYTHING TO DEFENDANTS, WHICH TENDER REQUIREMENT ONLY APPLIES TO ANY EQUITY REMEDIES SOUGHT BY THE ADVERSE PARTIES, NOT WHERE THE DEED OF TRUST & TRUSTEES DEED UPON SALE IS VOID AS A MATTER OF LAW, AS IS CLEAR IN THE COURT RULING IN : Dimock v. Emerald Properties (2000) 81 C.A. 4th 868, AT PAGE 876 WHERE THE COURT STATED:

24 [[3a] As Dimock points out, because Commonwealth had no power to convey his 25 Commonwealth deed was a complete nullity with no force or effect as opposed to 26 one which may be set aside but only through the intervention of equity. (See Little 27 923].) 28 AND AT PAGE 878, WHERE THE Dimock COURT STATED:

property its deed to Emerald was void as opposed to merely voidable. That is, the v. CFS Service Corp. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1354, 1358-1359 [233 Cal.Rptr.

Page 59 of 77

1 [Because Dimock was not required to rely upon equity in attacking the deed, he 2 was not required to meet any of the burdens imposed when, as a matter of equity, a 3 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 1359.) In particular, contrary to the defendants' argument, 4 he was not required to tender any of the amounts due under the note.] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 48. Upon Service of the Notice of Rescission upon GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, ET AL, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALL PARTIES HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRIOR FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT & PROMISSORY FRAUD COMMITTED BY United Vision Financial & Baron DiGiandomenico. Due to said Prior Knowledge all said Defendants their Agents, Agencies, Privies, Successors, were liable for any and all subsequent Actions taken against the Rights & Interests of Plaintiffs herein including the alleged Sale of the Home & Property & the alleged Purchase of the Home & Property in question, & Due to said Personal Knowledge all said Defendants are liable for Punitive & or Exemplary Damages . TENDER REQUIREMENT INAPPLICABBLE IN THIS CASE. 47. FURTHER PLAINTIFFS OWED & OWE NOTHING TO THE ALLEGED LENDER DUE TO THE OFF SET CLAIMS AGAINST THE LENDER & OTHER DEFENDANTS ACTING AS LENDERS AGENTS, WHICH FACTS RENDER THE

party wishes to set aside a voidable deed. (See Little v. CFS Service Corp., supra,

DEFENDANTS KNOWLEDGE OF FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT & PROMISSORY FRAUD BEFORE THE ALLEGED SALE & ALLEGED PURCHASE; LIABILITY FOR SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS

DEFENDANTS KNOWLEDGE & DUTY UNDER THE NOTICE OF

Page 60 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

RESCISISON & UNDER ARTICLE 24 OF THE DEED OF TRUST ; & THE PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPAL & NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPLE IS NOTICE TO THE AGENT ________________________________________________________________
49. ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS WERE SERVED WITH & HAD ACTUAL NOTICE & CONTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE NOTICE OF RESCISSION UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO THE AGENT & NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPAL; UPON THEIR RECEPTION OF THE NOTICE OF RESCISISON PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED PUBLIC SALE OF PLAINTIFFS HOME & PROPERTY NAMED DEFENDANTS HAD A DUTY OF ORDINARY CARE OWD TO PLAINTIFFS TO NOT PROCEED WITH ANY PURPORTED SALE AS A RESCISSION VOIDS AB INITIO FROM THE BEGINING & RENDERED ANY ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT, DEED OF TRUST AGREEMENT, PROMISE TO PAY, & ANY ALLEGED SALE THEREAFTER VOID AB INITIO & UNENFORCABLE UNDER THE LAW, & ALSO VOIDED ANY PURPORTED DUTY TO TENDER PAYMENT BEFORE SEEKING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE REMEDY AS THERE IS NO DUTY TO TENDER AN ALLEGED DEBT WHEN THE PURPORTED CONTRACT CREATING THE DEBT HAS BEEN RESCINDED REMOVING ANY ALLEGED DEBT UNDER THE PURPORTED PRIOR CONTRACT. UPON THEIR RECEPTION OF THE NOTICE OF RESCISISON DEFENDANTS, AND ALL OF THEM GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, & THEIR OFFICERS & EMPLOYEES, MERS & THEIR OFFICERS & EMPLOYEES KNEW THAT THERE NO LONGER WAS A CONTRACT WITH Star: Hills, & THERE NO LONGER WAS AN OBLIGATION TO PAY OR TO TENDER, & THERE NO LONGER WAS ANY ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT, DEED OF TRUST, OR PROMISE TO PAY, AND ANY FURTHER CLAIMS OF ANY DEBT OWED TO THE PURPORTED LENDER WAS ONLY

Page 61 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ENFORCEABLE BY THE LENDER IN A SEPARATE ACTION AGAINST Star: Hills REGARDING WHICH THEY HAD NO RIGHT OF ENFORCEMENT OR CLAIM OF ACTION; NAMED DEFENDANTS KNEW UPON RECEPTION OF THE NOTICE OF RESCISISON THAT THEY NO LONGER HAD ANY AUHTORITY IN ANY AGENT CAPACITY TO ACT FOR THE LENDER AND WERE NOT AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED WITH ANY FURTHER ACTION REGARDING THE ALLEGED MORTGAGE PROMISE TO PAY,

EXCLUSION IN ARTICLE 24 OF THE DEED OF TRUST OF ANY POWER OF SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE TO MERS
49. ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS HAD A DUTY TO KNOW, SHOULD HAVE KNOWN & DID KNOW THAT THEY HAD A DUTY, OWED TO PLAINTIFFS, TO COMPLY WITH ALL EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF THE DEED OF TRUST INCLUDING ARTICLE 24 WHICH EXPRESSLY RESERVED ANY RIGHT OF SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE TO THE LENDER ALONE, & EXCLUDED ANY GENERAL AUTHORITY OF ANY AGENT OF LENDER INCLUDING MERS & THEIR AGENTS & EMPLOYEES UNDER THE DEED OF TRUST FROM EXECUTING ANY SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE. THE ACTIONS OF MERS, THEIR PRESIDENT & CEO BILL BECKMANN & THEIR EMPLOYEES & AGENTS IN IGNORING THE EXPRESS PROVI SIONS OF ARTICLE 24 OF THE DEED OF TRUST WHICH EXPRESSLY RESERVED THE RIGHT TO ONLY LENDER TO EXECUTE A SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER PROVISONS, INCLUDING THE GENERAL PROVISIONS GRANTING GENERAL AUTHORITY TO MERS TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE LENDER, WAS INTENTIONAL KNOWING FRAUD BY MERS, IT'S PRESDIENT & CEO BILL BECKMANN, & THEIR EMPLOYEES & AGENTS FOR WHICH SAID MERS, & BILL BECKMAN ARE LIABLE TO PLAINTIFFS HEREIN FOR TREBLE DAMAGES INCLUDING ANY FRAUDULENT ACTIONS CARRIED OUT

Page 62 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

ON THEIR BEHALF BY EMPLOYEES & AGENTS OF MERS & BILL BECKMAN REGARDING THE SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE & NOTICE OF DEFAULT & ELECTION TO SELL; SAID DEFENDANTS HAD A DUTY TO KNOW THAT THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF A DEED OF TRUST GOVERN OVER ANY GENERAL PROVISIONS TO THE CONTRARY & GOVERN OVER ANY CONFLICTING GENERAL PROVISIONS IN THE DEED OF TRUST OR ANY OTHER WRITTEN DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE PURPORTED TRANSACTION BETWEEN DEFENDANTS & PLAINTIFFS. IF SAID DEFENDANTS WERE ACTUALLY IGNORENT OF THESE DUTIES & ACTUALLY IGNORENT OF THE LAW OF CONTRACTS & LAW OF CONSTRUCTION & INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS THEN SAID DEFENDANTS WERE NEGLIGENT & SUCH IGNORANCE DIRECTLY OR PROXIMATELY CAUSED THE INJURY & DAMAGES TO PLAINTIFF IN THE FRAUDULENT OR NEGLIGENT LOSS OF HOME & PROPERTY WHICH AMOUNTS TO GENERAL NEGLIGENCE, AND OR INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE , & WONTON WRECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE RIGHTS & INTERESTS & PROPERTY OF PLAINTIFFS WITH THE INTENT TO CAUSE HARM & INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS PERSON & TO THEIR SAID RIGHTS, FOR WHICH SAID DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE TO PLAINTIFFS FOR PUNITIVE & OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES .

INTENTIONAL CONCEALMENT EQUITABLE ESTOPPAL

21 50. In committing the said acts of Conspiracy & Fraud Defendants and all of them 22 intentionally concealed the essential facts constituting the causes of Action set forth 23 24 25 26 27 28
herein DEPRIVING Plaintiffs of their Right to full Disclosure of the true terms & conditions, effect & consequences of said purported Contract , Mortgage, Deed of trust, Promise to pay, Article 10 Waivers, & therefor are Equitably & Collaterally Estopped in Pais from Alleging any Statute of Limitations as any Defense to any of the Causes of Actions in this Complaint.

CAUSES OF ACTION

Page 63 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I FRAUD
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Complainants hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts & allegations herein by reference as if fully set forth. The foregoing Actions of the Defendants including GMAC MORTGAGE LLC amounted to Fraud for which Defendants are Jointly & Severally Liable to Star & Alan.

II CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts & allegations herein by reference as if fully set forth. The foregoing Actions of the said Defendants amounted to Constructive Fraud for which Defendants are Jointly & Severally Liable to Star & Alan.

III DECEIT
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by reference as if fully set forth. The foregoing Actions of the Defendants amounted to Deceit for which all said Defendants are Jointly & Severally Liable to Star & Alan.

IV EQUITABLE & COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by reference as if fully set forth. Based upon the foregoing Actions all the Defendants are Equitably & Collaterally Estopped from Alleging any Statute of Limitations as any Defenses to any of the Causes of Actions in this Complaint.

Page 64 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

V
ABUSE OF PROCESS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by reference as if fully set forth. The foregoing Actions of the Defendants amounted to ABUSE OF PROCESS for which DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE Jointly & Severally to Star.

VI
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY
AGAINST GMAC MORTGAGE LLC; PRESIDENT JOHN DOE 1; VICE PRESIDENT CHARLES R. HOECKER Plaintiffs hereby incorporates all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by reference as if fully set forth. The foregoing Actions of the Defendants GMAC MORTGAGE LLC; PRESIDENT JOHN DOE 1; VICE PRESIDENT CHARLES R. HOECKER amounted to Breach of Fiduciary for which Defendants are Liable to Star.

VII
ENFORCEMENT OF RESCISSION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by reference as if fully set forth. The foregoing actions of the said Defendants Entitles Star & Alan to Enforcement of the Rescission of the Alleged Mortgage Refinance Contract of May 17, 2007, including a Permanent Restraining Order Enjoining GMAC MORTGAGE LLC & ANY OTHER PERSON, OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, SUCCESSORS, HEIRS , ASSIGNS, OR CONTRACTORS OF GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, from taking any

Page 65 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

further Actions against Star: Hills, & Alan Gjurovich, based upon said alleged Mortgage, Deed of Trust, Sale & Purchase, etc., & a Total Reconveyance of the Title to said Property & home.

VIII
QUIET TITLE AGAINST GMAC MORTGAGE LLC;
AGAINST GMAC MORTGAGE LLC; PRESIDENT JOHN DOE 1; VICE PRESIDENT CHARLES R. HOECKER Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by reference as if fully set forth. The foregoing Actions of the said Defendants Entitle Star & Alan to Quiet Title on the said Property & home commonly referred to as being located at [ 3018 Linden Avenue, Bakersfield California, Kern County ].

IX
UNLAWFUL & FRAUDULENT CONVERSION & TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY AGAINST GMAC MORTGAGE LLC;
MAC MORTGAGE LLC PRESIDENT JOHN DOE 1; VICE PRESIDENT CHARLES R. HOECKER; ETS SERVICES LLC; ETS SERVICE LLC PRESIDENT JOHN DOE 2; ETS SERVICES SALES TRUSTEE Omar Solorzano Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by reference as if fully set forth. The foregoing Actions of the said Defendants amounted to UNLAWFUL AND FRAUDULENT TRANSFER & OBLIGATION FOR WRONGFUL GAIN, in Violation of California Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, At Title 1, of California Civil Code, Section 3439, for which said Defendants are Jointly & Severally Liable to Star & Alan.

X
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD
Page 66 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by reference as if fully set forth. The foregoing Actions of the said Defendants amounted to a Conspiracy to commit Fraud for which said Defendants are Jointly & Severally Liable to Star & Alan.

XI
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT UNLAWFUL & FRAUDULENT CONVERSION & TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs hereby incorporates all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by reference as if fully set forth. The foregoing Actions of the said Defendants amounted to Conspiracy to Commit Unlawful & or Fraudulent Conversion of Title, for which said Defendants are Jointly & Severally liable to Star & Alan.

XII
SLANDER OF TITLE
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by reference as if fully set forth. The foregoing Actions of said Defendants amounted to SLANDER OF TITLE of Plaintiffs Property & home, for which said Defendants are personally liable to Star & Alan Jointly & Severally.

XIII
INVOLUNTARY TRUST
California Civil Code Section 2223 & 2224 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by reference as if fully set forth. Under the foregoing facts Plaintiffs are Entitled to Relief against all

Page 67 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DEFENDANTS under the involuntary Trust including all the personal property now in possession of any of said Defendants, as set forth in the complaint, & compensation for any damage or loss of said property, including Legal & Lawful Title to the Home & Property in question commonly referred to as located at [ 3018 Linden Avenue, Bakersfield, California].

XIV
EQUITABLE RELIEF INCLUDING EQUITABLE INDEMNIFICATION, DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by reference as if fully set forth. Based upon the foregoing Actions of the Defendants against Star & Alan, Star & Alan are Entitled to Equitable Relief from the alleged Judgment Entered on November 19, 2009 after Trial on November 5, 2009 in Case #: S1500-CL- including Equitable Indemnification, Declaratory & Injunctive Relief against said Defendants, including a Declaration by the Court that the alleged Mortgage Contract, alleged Deed of Trust & alleged Mortgage Foreclosure sale of the home & property of Star: Hills in November of 2008 were Null & Void Ab Initio; & they are Entitled to a FULL RECONVEYANCE OF THE LEGAL, LAWFUL, & EQUITABLE TITLE, & A Permanent Restraining Order enjoining all defendants from any future action against Star & Alan relating to the said Home & Property & the alleged Mortgage, Foreclosure, sale & purchase of the Property & Home in question.

XV
GENERAL NEGLIGENCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

Page 68 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11

--------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by reference as if fully set forth. The foregoing actions of all named Defendants amounted to GENERAL NEGLIGENCE for which said defendants are jointly & Severally Liable to

6 Plaintiffs for Damages as Determined by a trier of Fact.

XVI
INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS ---------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by

12 reference as if fully set forth. The foregoing actions of all named Defendants 13 amounted to INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE for which said defendants are jointly & 14 15 16 17 18 19
Severally Liable to Plaintiffs for Damages as Determined by a trier of Fact.

XVII
MISFEASANCE; MALFEASANCE; NON FEASANCE
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by

20 reference as if fully set forth. The foregoing actions of all named Defendants 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 I.

amounted to MISFEASANCE; MALFEASANCE; NON FEASANCE for which said defendants are jointly & Severally Liable to Plaintiffs for Damages as Determined by a

24 trier of Fact.

-DAMAGESThe foregoing Actions of said Defendants Caused the following Damages to Star: Hills & Alan Gjurovich: Loss to Star of approximately $ 72,000 dollars of lawful money and or credit

Page 69 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11

(subject to future amendment) due to the conspiracy, Fraudulent Inducement, Promissory Fraud, etc. ; II. Fraudulent, Unlawful Loss of Title to Home & Property due to the Conspiracy & Fraud; Slander of Title Damage to & loss of Credit & false Credit & Tax Reporting due to Slander of Title; Fraud; Deceit; Constructive Fraud; Etc.

7 III. Mental & Emotional Distress & Anguish due to the Conspiracy & Fraud, Abuse
of Process, Trespassing, harassment, terrorist threats & threats of vandalism to the Home & Property of Star & Alan. IV. Breach of Novation Contract;

12 V. Breach of THE DEED OF TRUST; 13 VI. Breach of Fiduciary; 14 VII. Cost of Suit & out of pocket expenses. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
I. Judgment in Treble Damages for each Count of Fraud of GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, & all named Defendants Jointly & Severally, FOR $5,000,000 DOLLARS, OR AN AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY A JURY; Universe for the following Relief :

PRAYER
Alan Gjurovich & Star: Hills hereby pray to God Almighty the Creator of the

23 II. THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF LOSS OF Star: Hills & Alan Gjurovich in the 24 25 26 28
OR $ 735,000 DOLLARS; or as Determined by a Jury.

FRAUDULENT LOSS OF HOME & PROPERTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $245,000 x 3,

27 III. Judgment in Treble Damages for the Fraud of ETS SERVICES, LLC, & their
EMPLOYEES , ETS SERVICES LLC SALES TRUSTEE Omar Solorzano; ETS

Page 70 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 V. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 VI. 25 26 27 28
IV.

SERVICES LLC MANAGERS JOSEPH A. PENSABENA; MARK E. LAHIFF; ETS SERVICES LLC TRUSTEE SALE OFFICER Adam Leppo; FOR THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF LOSS OF Star: Hills & Alan Gjurovich in the FRAUDULENT LOSS OF HOME & PROPERTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $245,000 x 3, OR $735,000 DOLLARS; or as Determined by a Jury. COMPENSATION FOR GENERAL NEGLIGENCE OF NAMED DEFENDANTS FOR THE OMISSIONS OF DUTY OF ORDINARY CARE OWED TO PLAINTIFFS IN PERPETRATING THE ACTS SET FORTH IN THE COMPLAINT INCLUDING THE ACTS OF FRAUD & BREACHES OF THE EXPRESS PROVISONS OF THE TRUST DEED, & BREACH OF ARTICLE 24 OF THE DEED OF TRUST IN THE AMOUNT OF 250,000 FOR EACH COUNT AGAINST EACH DEFENDANT OR AS DETERMINED BY A JURY. COMPENSATION FROM ALL DEFENDANTS FOR INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE & BREACH OF THEIR DUTY OF CARE OWED TO PLAINTIFFS UPON RECEPTION OF THE NOTICE OF RESCISISON OF THE WHOLE MORTGAGE TRANSACTION PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED PUBLIC AUCTION OF PLAINTIFFS HOME & PROPERTY, IN THE AMOUNT OF 250,000 FOR EACH COUNT AGAINST EACH DEFENDANT OR AS DETERMINED BY A JURY. COMPENSATION FROM ALL DEFENDANTS FOR INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE & BREACH OF THEIR DUTY OF CARE OWED TO PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR KNOWING & INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF THE DEED OF TRUST UNDER ARTICLE 24

Page 71 of 77

1 2 3

IN THE AMOUNT OF 250,000 FOR EACH COUNT AGAINST EACH DEFENDANT OR AS DETERMINED BY A JURY.

4 VII. COMPENSATION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY OF VICE PRESIDENT 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 VIII. Compensation for Mental & Emotional Distress & Anguish due to the Conspiracy; 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Fraud; Constructive Fraud; Deceit; Abuse of Process; Terrorist Threats; Trespassing; Vandalism; Falsifying of Documents; Perjury; IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 1,000,000 Dollars FOR EACH DEFENDANT, or as determined by a Jury & LOAN SERVICER CHARLES HOACKER IN VIOLATING THE ORIGINAL PAYMENT REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO Star: Hills IN THE ORIGINAL LOAN NEGOTIATIONS WHICH HE HAD A DUTY TO COMPLY WITH & ENFORCE, & FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY INFORM Star: Hills OF ANY PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE ORIGINAL REPRESENTATIONS THAT THE INTEREST RATE WOULD BE FIXED AT 1% IN THE AMOUNT OF 1,000,000, DOLLARS FOR EACH COUNT OR AS DETERMINED BY A JURY.

19 XI. Compensation to Star: Hills pursuant to the Novation Agreement entered into by
Defendants pursuant to the agreement & Notice of Status in attached Exhibits for 18,000,000 Dollars, or as determined by a Jury; X. Compensation for Court fees and Costs, Cost of suit. XI. Equitable Relief including an Order Enforcing Rescission of the alleged Mortgage Contract & Note, a Declaratory Judgment that the Alleged Foreclosure and Sale of the Home & Property were Void Ab Initio, based upon a lawful prior Rescission of the whole alleged Mortgage contract, & all other causes set forth in the complaint; & an Order Setting Aside the alleged Judgment for Unlawful Detainer & Writ of

Page 72 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Possession of November 19, 2009, in Limited Civil Case #: S-1500-CL-237061-KCT; Injunctive Relief and a Permanent Restraining Order Enjoining GMAC MORTGAGE LLC & ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS, HEIRS, SUCCESSORS ASSIGNS, EMPLOYEES, OFFICERS, AGENTS, CONTRACTORS from taking any further actions against Star or Alan based upon the alleged Foreclosure & Sale of said Home & Property, including an Order for Total Reconveyance of Title to said Home & Property, & Order Quieting the Title to said Property & home in favor of Star & Alan.

11 XII. A Declaratory Judgment Against Defendants that The Deed of Trust was Rendered
Void Ab Initio upon the Breach of Article 24 by MERS & ITS OFFICERS & EMPLOYEES; & A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT & ELECTION TO SELL, THE ALLEGED SALE OF THE HOME & PROPERTY OF PLAINTIFFS, & THE ALLEGED TRUSTEES DEED UPON SALE ISSUED BY DEFENDANTS MERS THEIR OFFICERS & EMPLOYEES, ETS SERVICES LLC TO GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, WERE ALL RENDERED VOID DUE TO THE PRIOR BREACH OF ARTICLE 24 OF THE DEED OF TRUST BY DEFENDANT MERS & THEIR OFFICERS & EMPLOYEES; & THAT THE ALLEGED SUBSTITUTED TRUSTEE ETS SERVICE LLC HAD NO POWER OR AUTHORITY UNDER THE DEED OF TRUST TO ISSUE ANY NOTICES OR TO SELL OR CONVEY TITLE TO ANY PROPERTY, RENDERING THE PURPORTED NOTICE OF DEFAULT & ELECTION TO SELL VOID, & THE PURPORTED SALE OF THE PLAINTIFFS HOME & PROPERTY VOID, & THE PURPORTED TRUSTEES DEED UPON SALE VOID & UNENFORCEABLE AS A MATTER

Page 73 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

OF LAW; & A Declaratory Judgment Against Defendants that any & all Actions & Acts taken by them as alleged Agents of Lender to Execute the Mortgage & Deed of Trust, including MERS & THEIR OFFICERS & EMPLOYEES, GMAC MORT. LLC, & THEIR OFFICERS & EMPLOYEES, ETS SERVICES LLC, & ALL THEIR OFFICERS & EMPLOYEES WERE VOID AB INITIO & ULTRA VIRES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH EXPRESS PROVISIONS IN THE DEED OF TRUST THAT THEY WOULD COMPLY WITH ALL STATE & LOCAL LAWS, & SPECIFICALLY FOR VIOLATING THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 2933 MANDATING THAT: A power of

attorney to execute a mortgage must be in writing, subscribed, acknowledged, or proved, certified, and recorded in like manner as powers of attorney for grants of real property.

16 XIII. A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ENJOINING THE NAMED 17 18 19 20 21 22

DEFENDANTS FROM TAKING ANY ACTION AGAINST THE SAID HOME & PROPERTY OF Star & Alan, from entering on said property, from trespassing upon said property, from Vandalizing or damaging said Property in any way, shape, form, or regard until final Adjudication of this Action;

23 XIV. Punitive or Exemplary Damages IN THE AMOUNT OF 2,000,000 DOLLARS 24 25 26 27 28 IVX. Any other Relief the Court Deems Right and Proper under the facts & Law of
FOR EACH NAMED DEFENDANT OR AS Determined by a Jury, for Fraud with Malice Reckless Wanton Disregard for the Rights & Property of Star & Alan, with Intent to do Injury and harm to Star: Hills & Alan Gjurovich.

Page 74 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
______________________ Alan Gjurovich, all Rights reserved. ____________________ Star: Hills, all Rights Reserved, the Case. On this day, the-Seventh-day-of-the-eleventh-month-of-Two-Thousand-and-Eleven,

VERIFICATION
Alan Gjurovich & Star: Hills hereby affirm under the Penalty of Perjury under the laws of the State of California that we executed the foregoing Amended Verified Complaint and that the contents of the same are true and correct, Except as to those matters based upon information and belief, and as to those matters we believe them to be true. Executed on this 7th day of November, Two Thousand and Eleven in the Republic of California, County of Kern, City of Bakersfield, _____________________ Star: Hills, all Rights Reserved. __________________ Alan Gjurovich all Rights Reserved.

Page 75 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE & JUDICIAL NOTICE -----------------------------------------------------PLAINTIFFS HEREBY INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE AS IF FULLY SET FORTH THE EXHIBITS SET FORTH BELOW HEREIN BY REFERENCE WHICH ARE ATTACHED TO THE FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE. THEY ARE NOT ATTACHED DUE TO THE COST IN DUPLICATING WHAT IS ALREADY

8 PRODUECED IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, & THEREFORE THEY ARE HEREBY 9 MADE A PART OF THIS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY REFERENCE, WHICH 10 THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO TAKE MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE OF 11 UNDER CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 450-459. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBIT PAGE INDEX OF EXHIBITS

------------------------------------------------------------

#1: QUIT CLAIM DEED OF Star: Hills RECORDED 1/27/2003,

DOCUMENT #: 0203014911;

#2: ALLEGED UNIFORM

RESIDENTIAL LOAN APPLICATION OF MAY 17, 2007; ALLEGED PROMISSORY NOTE OF MAY 17, 2007 RELATED TO ALLEGED REFINANCE MORTGAGE LOAN #: 40824789; TRUTH IN LENDING STATEMENT; ALLEGED DEED OF TRUST OF MAY 17, 2007 RELATED TO ALLEGED REFINANCE MORTGAGE LOAN #: 40824789;

#3: ACCEPTANCE FOR VALUE; NOVATION CONTRACT; NOTICE

OF PUBLIC STATUS; NOTICE OF FINAL DEFAULT & OFFER TO CURE OF Star: Hills

#4: NOTICE

OF DEFAULT & ELECTION TO SELL; NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE; NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF

Page 76 of 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Star: Hills SERVED ON GMAC MORTGAGE LLC & ETS SERVICES LLC PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED PUBLIC SALE OF 11/13/2008; NOTICE OF TITLE USC 18 VIOLATIONS OF Star: Hills;

#5: QUIT CLAIM DEED OF OCTOBER 5, 2009 OF Star: Hills

TRANSFERRING ONE HALF OR 50 % PERCENT OF OWNERSHIP INTEREST TO LAWFUL, LEGAL, EQUITABLE, TITLE TO Alan Gjurovich OF THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: All of Lot 17 in Block 26 of Skyline Park Subdivision No. 2 according to the map thereof filed on August 13, 1923, and recorded in Book 3, pages 88 to 93, inclusive, of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. APN: 123-330-06 TRANSFERRED PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED JUDGMENT OF NOVEMBER 18, 2009 IN S-1500-CL-237061-LHB-KCT;

#6: ALLEGED

JUDGMENT UNLAWFUL DETAINER IN CASE #: S-1500-CL-237061 ALLEGEDLY ENTERED ON NOVEMBER 19, 2009 BY JUDGE KENNETH TWISSELMAN II;

#7: AFFIDAVIT OF Joseph: William REGARDING ALLEGED TRIAL

TESTIMONY FOR PLAINTIFF GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, ON NOVEMBER 5, 2009 IN DEPARTMENT 8 OF THE METROPOLITAN DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN & FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN; & AFFIDAVIT OF Joseph: William REGARDING DVD OF SECURITY CAMERA VIDEO OF MOTION DETECTION ENTRIES FROM APRIL 8, 2009 TO MAY 11, 2009 SHOWING NO ONE POSTED ANYTHING ON THE PREMISES OR DOOR OF Star: Hills AS FALSELY CLAIMED BY DEFENDANT GMAC MORTGAGE LLC;

Page 77 of 77