UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: 12-bk-11715-CB CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY D/B/A CENTRAL MORTGAGE LOAN SERVICING COMPANY. Movant, vs. HEIDI AMAYA, Debtor, DEBTORS NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO MOTION AND OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY and FOR OBJECTION TO ORDER CONFIRMING THAT THE AUTOMATIC STAY DOES NOT APPLY UNDER 11 U.S.C. 362(l)

COMES NOW DEFENDANT, Heidi Amaya pro se, and claims that the Debtor in possession is not a renter and therefore does not conform or apply to 11 U.S.C. 362(l). The Debtor acquired the subject property by Grant Deed see exhibit XX. The Debtor has no contractual relation with the Movant, no rental contract exist between the Movant and the Debtor, in so stating the Debtor can never conform within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. 362(l). The Plaintiff is a mortgage sub-servicer, the loan is in a trust and it is registered with the SEC, the Defendant is in possession of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The Defendant has sufficient claims and has the ability to prove by evidence and exhibits which proves, almost, all of her allegations within her answer to oppose remand to the civil court, and the Defendant in possession of the property begs the court for judicial notice and the courts continued cooperation to find justice. 1. The name of the pretend lender was Provident Savings Bank FSB, but the Defendant will prove that said Bank was a middle man to the Deed of Trust and at the signing of such Deed the lender of record loaned the money of the Investors and not its own funds. 2. Then as in present comes The Movant a totally alien entity to the contract riding on the back of MERS, with action which defrauds the court and the Defendants. The name of the Trust is Lehman SX Trust 2006-3, this is a New York statuary Trust governed by New York Trust law, the cut off and closing dates are Febuary 1, 2006 and February 28, 2006 respectively, the subject loan was Originated on December 20, 2005, the sub- servicer who is the Movant and is not the servicer for all of the Lehman SX Trust 2006-3 series of Trusts to date in that series. At this link is the Pooling and Servicing Agreement

http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1352797/000114420406010064/v037654_ex4-1.htm the copy is attached herein as Exhibit A 3. The Trust Lehman SX Trust 2006-3, filed a Prospectus under Oath with the Securities and Exchange Commission the 425B5 located at http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/808851/000089109206000507/e23475_424b5.txt The Statuary new York Lehman SX Trust 2006-3, also filed under Oath with the Securities and Exchange Commission the form 15D located at the SEC website at http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1352797/000135193007000027/lxs20063nrpt15d.htm under the SEC Federal Rules, of which this court has jurisdiction, the Trust after having filed such form 15D is considered an unregistered securities trader, by the federal rules and banking laws, the importance of this in this instant matter is that the date the 15D was filed on January 1, 2007, the cut off date of the trust is January 1, 2006 and the closing date of the trust is February 28, 2006 and yet the substitution of trustee occurred on April 13, 2009 see exhibit B and the Deed Upon trustee sale was recorded on June 18, 2009, how could a non-entity buy or sell anything?, additionally, but because the plan to pool the mortgages in one bundle did not work, the Plaintiffs simply made up the paperwork to file with the court to facilitate foreclosure based on nothing, the concoction of lawless and fraudulent filings at the county recorders` office has caused a cloud on the Defendant title, and violates the property rights and due process rights of the Defendants, this plan was carried out by the Plaintiffs who held and hold no constitutional or prudential standing in the first instant, and in this instant case at bar. 4. This Motion and the crux of-this case is about the validity of the transfers of mortgage promissory notes in the Wall Street financing process known as "securitization" and the resulting issues regarding the ability of the securitization trust in this case to foreclose. Ultimately, the outcome of this case hinges upon the Court's ruling regarding the validity or not of the U.S. Bank/Trustee's assertions that it is the owner of the promissory note and mortgage. Securitization is the practice of pooling and selling contractual debt obligations ("receivables") such as residential mortgages, commercial mortgages, auto loans or credit card debt, to a specially-created entity, typically a trust. The trust pays for the receivables by issuing debt securities (variously referred to as bonds, pass-through securities, or Collateralized mortgage obligation (CMOs) to investors. The trust collects payments of principal and interest on the receivables, which it then uses to make regular payments to investors on their debt securities.1 Securitization, thus links consumer and commercial borrowers with financing from securities markets. 5. There are numerous reasons why financial institutions engage in securitization, including the management of credit and interest rate risk, relief from regulatory capital requirements, and liquidity enhancement. Securitization began to be used as a financing technique with mortgages in 1971. ""For decades before that, banks were essentially portfolio lenders; they held loans until they matured or were paid off. These loans were funded principally by

deposits, and sometimes by debt, which was a direct obligation of the bank (rather than a claim on specific assets). But after World War II, depository institutions simply could not keep pace with the rising demand for housing credit. Banks, as well as other financial intermediaries sensing a market opportunity, SYLVA1N RAYNES & ANN RUTLEDGE, THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURED SECURITIES 103 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2003). sought ways of increasing the sources of mortgage funding. To attract investors, investment bankers eventually developed an investment vehicle that isolated defined mortgage pools, segmented the credit risk, and structured the cash flows from the underlying loans," 6. Banks use a variety of structures for securitization trusts depending on the type of asset being securitized, but all securitization structures are based on two overriding concerns. First, is ensuring favorable tax treatment of the bank, the securitization trust, and the investors, ideally through the securitization trust having "pass thu" tax status, meaning that the securitization trust is not taxed on its own income when it is paid on the receivables.3 Second, and perhaps more critical, is ensuring that the trust's assets are 'bankruptcy remote," meaning that they are insulated from the claims of the bank's creditors. This involves ensuring that the transfer of the receivables to the trust is a "true sale" and not a financing transaction. Bankruptcy remoteness is critical for making the economics of securitization work. By insulating the receivables placed in the trust from the claims of the bank's creditors, securitization enables investors to invest based solely on the quality of the receivables and not have to worry about the bank's other business activities. To accomplish this, the bank conveys receivables to a trust for the benefit of certificate holders. 7. U.S. Bank has been an active and willing participant in the "securiization" of the subject loan and must suffer the consequences of its slipshod business practices as partaking to the attempted transfer of the subject loan. The various partisipants involved in the multiple transfers of this loan rushed to profit on the sale and resale of the subject loan without regard to basic legal principles involving mortgage law, trust law and contract principles as set forth in the instant Asset Seciiritization: Comptroller's Handbook, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, November 1997, http://www.occ.treas.gov/handbook/assetsec.pdf. motion. Rescuing U.S. Bank from its own lack of due diligence and cavalier adherence to the dictates of California law and New York trust law would be a manifest injustice countenancing U.S. Bank's and Wall Street's loan flipping debacle which has been exposed in the instant matter. The result must be the inability to enforce the mortgage loan as currently constituted by a Party, i.e., U.S. Bank, who claims to possess and own a loan on behalf of a commercial Securitized trust but cared less about details of the transfer. In the eyes of the law details matter.

8. The instant case and the subject loan cannot be a better prototypical example of mortgage loan transfer defects in an effort to securitize the subject loan. Courts make parties dot "i"s and cross "t"s and when a sophisticated corporation like a U.S. Bank either intentionally or negligently turns a blind eye to small and large details alike, this Court must not tolerate or permit such conduct even if a dismissal of a flawed action temporally or permanently benefits the homeowner. Upon review of the undisputed flaws and defects as pertaining to the attempted transfer of the subject loan, U.S. Bank does not possess standing to enforce the subject loan necessitating the dismissal of this matter. Section 1.01 Defined Terms * "Closing Date": March 30, 2006. Section 2.01 Conveyance of Trust Mortgage Loans. (a) In connection with the Depositor's assignment pursuant to Section 2.Ql(a) above the Depositor shall direct, and hereby represents and warrants that it has directed, the Mortgage Loan Sellers pursuant to their respective Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreements to deliver to and deposit with, or cause to be delivered to and deposited with, the Trustee or a custodian appointed thereby (with a copy to the Master Servicer and Special Servicer1). on or before the Closing Date, the Mortgage File for each Trust Mortgage Loan so assigned. The Special Servicer may request the Master Servicer to deliver a copy of the Servicing File for any Trust Mortgage Loan (other than a Specially Serviced Mortgage Loan) if the Master Servicer shall not have granted the Special Servicer electronic access to such Servicing Files. None of the Trustee, any Fiscal Agent, any Custodian, the Master Servicer or the Special Servicer shall be liable for any failure by any Mortgage Loan Seller or the Depositor to comply with the document delivery requirements of the related Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement and this Section 2.0 l(b). [emphasis addedl

(ii) THE ORIGINAL ASSIGNMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE WRONG PARTY IN THAT PURSUANT TO THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT THE DEPOSITOR Structured Asset Securities. NOT MERS, INC. MUST TRANSFER OR DEPOSIT ALL LOANS INTO THE TRUST AS SET FORTH IN THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT. 9. The Pooling and Servicing Agreement is crystal clear that it is the Depositor Structured Asset Securities., who was duty bound to transfer the loans to the Trustee on behalf of the Trust. Pursuant to the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, the Original Lender, and Structured Asset Securities., had an agreement to sell the mortgage loans to the Depositor, Structured Asset Securities. In conformance with the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement and more importantly the Pooling and Servicing Agreement the Depositor and only the Depositor, Structured Asset Securities. was obligated to transfer the mortgage loans, including the subject Joan into the. Trust. Article. II,. Section 2.01 (a) of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement reads as follows: Section 2.01 Conveyance of Trust Mortgage Loans. (b) The Depositor, concurrently with the execution and delivery hereof, does hereby establish a common law trust under the laws of the State of New York, designated as " Lehman SX Trust 2006-3 1" and consisting of the Trust Fund, and does hereby

assign, sell, transfer, set over and otherwise convey to the Trustee, in trust, without recourse, for the benefit of the Certificateholders (and for the benefit of the other parties to this Agreement as their respective interests may appear) all the right, title and interest of the Depositor, in, to and under (i) the Trust Mortgage Loans and all documents included in the related Mortgage Files and Servicing Files, (i) the rights of the depositor under Sections 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 of each Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, (iii) the rights of the Depositor under each Loan Combination Intel-creditor Agreement and (iv) all other assets included or to be included in the Trust Fund. Such assignment includes all interest and principal received or receivable on or with respect to the Trust Mortgage Loans and due after the Cut-off Date and, in the case of each Trust Mortgage Loan that is part of a Loan Combination, is subject to the provisions of the corresponding Loan Combination Intel-creditor Agreement. The Trustee, on behalf of the Trust, assumes the obligations of the related "A Note Holder" or "Lead Lender", as the case may be, under the related Loan Combination Intercreditor Agreement; provided that the Master Servicer shall, as further set forth in Article III, perform the servicing obligations and exercise the related rights of the related "A Note Holder" or "Lead Lender", as the case may be, under each Loan Combination Intercreditor Agreement, The transfer of the Trust Mortgage Loans and the related rights and property accomplished hereby is absolute and, notwithstanding Section 11.07, is intended by the parties to constitute a sale. SECTION 8.08 Successor Trustee (a) Any successor trustee appointed as provided in Section 8.07 shall execute, acknowledge and deliver to the Depositor, the Master Servicer, the Special Servicer and to its predecessor trustee, an instrument accepting such appointment hereunder, and thereupon the resignation or removal of the predecessor trustee shall become effective and such successor trustee, without any further act, deed or conveyance, shall become fully vested with all the rights, powers, duties and obligations of its predecessor hereunder, with the like effect as if originally named as trustee herein, EX-4.1 10. The predecessor trustee shall deliver to the successor trustee all Mortgage Files and related documents and statements held by it hereunder (other than any Mortgage Files at the time held on its behalf by a third-party Custodian, which Custodian shall become the agent of the successor trustee), and the Depositor, the Master Servicer, the Special Servicer and the predecessor trustee shall execute and deliver such instruments and do such other things as may reasonably be required to more fully and certainly vest and confirm in the successor trustee all such rights, powers, duties and obligations, and to enable the successor trustee to perform its obligations hereunder. Any and all costs and expenses associated with transferring the duties of a Trustee that has resigned or been removed or terminated, as contemplated by Section 8.07, to a successor Trustee, including those associated with transfer of the Mortgage Files and other documents and statements held by the predecessor Trustee to the successor Trustee, as contemplated by Section 8.08(a), shall be paid by : (i) the predecessor Trustee, if such predecessor Trustee has resigned in accordance with Section 8.07(a), has been removed in accordance with Section 8,07(b) or has been removed with cause in accordance with Section 8.07(c); (ii) the Certificate holders that effected the removal, if the predecessor Trustee has been removed without cause in accordance with Section 8.07 (c); and (iii) the Trust, if such costs and expenses are not paid by the predecessor Trustee or the subject Certificate holders, as contemplated

by the immediately preceding clauses (i) and (ii), within 90 days after they are incurred (provided that such predecessor Trustee or such subject Certificate holders, as applicable, shall remain liable to the Trust for such costs and expenses). 11. The Defendant will demonstrate compellingly, in conclusive manner, and prove the allegations of the Defendant, being that; the seizing of the Defendant property was nothing short of a sham and could be a crime, the act was done with information that was not authentic, devoid of constructive law and devoid of any parity between the homeowner Amaya and the foreclosing party, the foreclosing party should have been the Original lender, the original lender as stated in the Deed Of Trust, * if the original lender could prove holder in due course]. 12. The Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff is bound, and it must prove it did not commit unlawful acts with intent to deprive the Defendant of her property rights and her constitutional rights, because the Defendant is presenting sufficient information by way of exhibits and allurement to fact which paints criminal and or other unlawful or improper behavioral conduct, rife with lawless intent which has caused the Defendant to be harmed and has caused the illicit seizure of Defendant property. The plaintiff does not possess the Original Promissory and as such has not shown this document in open court to state its claim. 13. The Defendant has no shortage of merit in her claims. The Defendant can offer and is offering proof positive that the Plaintiff acted with malicious intent to deceive the Defendant and the courts and to improperly seize the Defendant property.

14. The Pooling and Servicing agreement, the PSA spells an opposite and different picture than is stated to the court and to the Defendant, and nothing about a RMBS is mentioned in the deed of trust, the fraudulent actions of the defendant for instance, made and exposed the plaintiff into a third party investment swindle where the deed of trust made no mention of any facts relating to a Pooling and Servicing agreement or a New York Statuary Trust or any sort of Residential Mortgage Backed Security (RMBS), the defendants violated every right of the Defendant, the Plaintiff passed all the risks of the deed of trust at signing such, to another entity and the loan was sold in parts to many different new owners, yet the Plaintiffs foreclosed the home of the Defendants, in a very cunning, constructive demonstration of fraud and deceit, the Universal Commercial Code was totally violated in the transfer of the promissory note and the seizure of the Defendants title and home may be associated with crime. The encumbrance was first sold in a pool of mortgages, the promissory note becomes null and void by operation of law, and the transaction is contrary to the settled rules of filing in lawful manner with the county recorders office and as again, it is widely known and settled that the UCC controls the transfer and ownership and negotiable instruments which play a huge part in this instant matter, the court also has jurisdiction on matters and claims arising out of the rules of the Universal Commercial Code. The Unlawful Detainer Court,* a renters

court +, was not the correct venue for a Lender/bank and borrower/homeowner, as a civil matter, as is this instant case. The plaintiff and the trial court presided over and or was systemically planned to violate and did violate the due process rights of the plaintiff and this court has jurisdiction over claims arising out of the Amendment XIV and also the court has jurisdiction as per Article III of the US Constitution being in short, the minimal standing requirements as to the concerned parties and defendants at bar. JURISDICTION AND VENUE The Court has original and subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs statutory and common law violations of RICO, California`s common law. This court has jurisdiction under U.S Consti Article III. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. The venue is proper as the subject property is situated in the locality of this court. This court has jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1331 & 1337, this court has personal Jurisdiction and in rem jurisdiction, this Court also has jurisdiction over the common law claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and aiding and abetting fraud pursuant to this Court's supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367(3).

CLAIMS ASSERTED The Court held in Asuncion v Superior Court (1980) 108 CA3d 141, 145-146, 166 CR 306 (eviction of homeowners following foreclosure raises due process issues and must be heard in superior court). Plaintiff -homeowner has been denied due process by defendant defiant pursuit to adjudicate an unlawful detainer action despite the jurisdictional challenge based upon the express limited scope restriction imposed upon the trial court when the parties are a plaintiff-lender and defendant- homeowner and title is at issue. Defendant-homeowner has been denied due process by Plaintiffs defiant endeavor to deny Defendant access to the courts of proper and competent jurisdiction by granting summary judgment in an improper court of limited jurisdiction in order to persuade Defendant from pursuing the issues of title and the inherent due process issues that must be heard in a court of civil unlimited jurisdiction. The actions of defendant resulted in the compound denial of plaintiffs right to due process of law.

Trustee is a generic term for an entity not incorporated or registered to do business in any of the United States in order to facilitate illegal property foreclosures. Other loan Servicers and MBS Trustee Defendants shall be named as their identities are revealed. The underwriters and originators of the MBS Trusts shall be named as their identities are revealed. It is anticipated that they will include, Wells Fargo Bank NA but not limited to it.

In this case where the foreclosure has been filed, the entity filing the foreclosure has no pecuniary in the mortgage loan. The foreclosing entity is a third party. The entity lacks standing, and the capacity to foreclose. The entity has no first-hand knowledge of the loan, no authority to testify or file affidavits as to the validity of the loan documents or the existence of the loan. The entity has no legal authority to draft mortgage assignments relating to the loan, and the entity cannot satisfy the loan in a legal manner. The foreclosing entity and its agents regularly commit perjury in relation to their testimony. The lender, on the original Promissory Note was not the lender. The originators of the loan immediately and simultaneously securitized the note. The beneficial interest in the note was never in the lender. MERS, acting as the mortgagee or mortgage assignee, was never intended to be the lender nor did it represent the true lender of the funds for the mortgage. The true owner or beneficiary of the mortgage loan has not declared a default and usually no longer have an interest in the note. The Servicer is not in privity nor does it have the permission of the beneficial owners of the Note to file suit on their behalf. The obligations reflected by the note allegedly secured by the MERS mortgage have been satisfied in whole or in part because the investors who furnished the funding for these loans have been paid to the degree that extinguishment of the debts has occurred with the result that there exists no obligations on which to base any foreclosure on the property owned by Defendant Heidi Amaya Movant have clouded the title and illegally collected payments and foreclosed upon the property of the Plaintiffs when they do not have lawful rights to foreclose, are not holders in due course of the note. Any mortgage loan with a Mortgage recorded in the name of MERS, is at most, an unsecured debt. The only parties entitled to collect on the unsecured debt would be the holders in due course and beneficial owners of the original Promissory Note. The loan agreements were predatory and the Defendants made false representations to the Plaintiff which induced the Plaintiffs to enter into the loan and the Defendants knew the representations were false when they were made. Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC): 15. Although the defendants who foreclosed refer to themselves as Trustees of a Trust, the entities are not Trustees nor Trusts as defined by California law. Neither is the entities registered as Business Trusts or Business Trustees as required by California law. In this case, where one of these MBS have come to a California Court the entity foreclosing lacked capacity to sue and to file suit in the State of California. There is no Trust Agreement in existence. The entity filing has utilized a California legal term it has no right to use for the sole purpose of misleading the Court.

Although the Trust listed may be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC), more often than it is not properly registered in any state of the union as a Corporation, Business Trust, or any other type of corporate entity. Therefore, the REMIC does not legally exist for purposes of capacity for filing a law suit in California. 16. REMICS were newly invented in 1987 as a tax avoidance measure by Investment Banks, to file as a REMIC, and in order to avoid one hundred percent (100%) taxation by the IRS and the MBS REMIC could not engage in any prohibited action. The Trustee can not own the assets of the REMIC. A REMIC Trustee could never claim it owned a mortgage loan. Hence, it can never be the owner of a mortgage loan. Additionally, and important to the issues presented with this particular action, is the fact that in order to keep its tax status and to fund the Trust and legally collect money from investors, who bought into the REMIC, the Trustee or the more properly named, Custodian of the REMIC, had to have possession of ALL the original blue ink Promissory Notes and original allonges and assignments of the Notes, showing a complete paper chain of title. Most importantly for this action, the Trustee/Custodian MUST have the mortgages recorded in the investors name as the beneficiaries of a MBS in the year the MBS closed. The Promissory Notes were never obtained and the mortgages never obtained or recorded. The Trust engaged in a plethora of prohibited activities and sold the investors certificates and Bonds with phantom mortgage backed assets. 17. In the above scenario, even if the attorney for the servicer who is foreclosing on behalf of the Trustee (who is in turn acting for the securitized trust) produces a copy of a note, or even an alleged original, the mortgage loan was not conveyed into the trust under the requirements of the prospectus for the trust or the REMIC requirements of the IRS. As applied to the plaintiff in this action, the end result would be that the required MBS asset, or any part thereof (mortgage note or security interest), would not have been legally transferred to the trust to allow the trust to ever even be considered a "holder" of a mortgage loan. Neither the Trust nor the Servicer would ever be entitled to bring a foreclosure or declaratory action. The Trust will never have standing or be a real party in interest. They will never be the proper party to appear before the Court. The transfer of mortgage loans into the trust after the cut off date (in the example 2007), destroys the trust's REMIC tax exempt status, and these Trusts (and potentially the financial entities who created them) would owe millions of dollars to the IRS and the California recorders office. Subsequent to the "cut off date" listed in the prospectus, whereby the mortgage notes and security for these notes had to be identified, and Note and Mortgages transferred, and thereafter, the pool is permanently closed to future transfers of mortgage assets. If an MBS Trust was audited by the IRS and was found to have violated any of the REMIC requirements, it would lose its REMIC status and all back taxes would be due and owing to the IRS. As previously stated, one hundred percent (100%) of the income will be taxed.

Upon information and belief, it is asserted that the IRS is aware that a list of alleged unqualified REMICs is forthcoming through the identity of the plaintiffs mortgage loan Trusts in this action. Securitization and Standing: 18. To the homeowner, the foreclosing Plaintiff, a servicing company or Trust entity appears to be a bank or lender. This falsity is due to its name in the style of the case. They are not banks or lenders to the loan. They are not beneficiaries under the loan. They do not possess a Mortgage in the property. They will never have a right to posses a mortgage in the property. The very first time the homeowner learns that their home was put up as collateral for a publicly traded and sold home loan REMIC (a federally regulated Security) is at the time they are served with a foreclosure complaint. This trusts are actually Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS). An MBS is an investment vehicle, defined and regulated as Security by the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC.) At the time the homeowner signed a Promissory Note and Mortgage, they were unknowingly converting their property into an asset of a MBS. The homeowner was never informed of the nature of the scheme. Plaintiff was deliberately induced into signing a Negotiable Instrument which was never intended as such, but was intended as collateral for a MBS. 19. The fact that the loan was meant to fund a MBS was a material disclosure which was deliberately and intentionally undisclosed. The failure to disclose the identity of the true lender at closing was also a material disclosure; the nature of which would make the contract voidable under California contract law. From the time of the Great Depression up and until 1999, the conversion of loans into MBS was illegal. The Banking Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and introduced banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation of the exact nature of what has taken place with plaintiff home loan. The prospectus was created, the MBS rated and the investors money was pledged and collected long before the homeowner ever even applied for a loan. In other words, the MBS was created first. The loans fitting the description of those found in the prospectus had to then be created and originated. Each MBS/Trust was required to keep a list of the individual loans they had allegedly recruited for the MBS. This list has to be publicly recorded with the SEC. However, the SEC did not require any proof that the loans actually existed or were possessed by the MBS. For the tax man and in order to qualify as a REMIC, the Notes and mortgages listed with the SEC had to be held, and mortgages recorded ON THE DATE THE MBS CLOSED. 20. Each such MBS bundle was given a name, such as Lehman SX Trust 2006-3 The name indicates information about the particular trust, such as the year it was created and closed and its reference name and number for the SEC and IRS.

As required by the SEC, each MBS/Trust has a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) which must be publicly filed. The only purpose for the PSA is for the administration and distribution of funds to the investors and the obligation of the so called Trustee in administering the MBS. The investors who put up the money for the MBS and who received the MBS Certificates or Bonds, are not parties to the PSA. The PSA merely sets forth what happens after the mortgages are bundled together. However, the PSA also sets forth a Cut Off Date. The Cut Off Date is the date on which all mortgage loans in the MBS/Trust must be identified and set out in the SEC required list of mortgage loans. Often, these loans were identified and listed for the SEC and the investors, regardless of whether the loan existed or had been closed. 21. Some loans were listed in SEC filings in multiple MBS. Like the Cut Off Date, each MBS/Trust had a Closing Date. The Closing Date is the date that the individual identified mortgages were to be transferred through the Custodian for the benefit of the investors. The Trust Custodian must certify that for each mortgage loan, the Trust Custodian has possession of the original Promissory Note, all original endorsements and assignments transferring the Note and proof that the ownership of the Note has been transferred for the benefit of the shareholder/investors. Further proof of the ownership of a mortgage loan is required by a public recording of the Mortgage or Assignment of the Mortgage itself. This MUST have occurred by the closing date. The Servicer worked to collect money for the MBS from the plaintiff loan and collected and distributed escrow funds. The Trustees were Custodians, akin to administrators. Typically, and contrary to California law, the Trust would include equivalent language regarding the handling of these required Assignments: Assignments of the Mortgage Loans to the Trustee (or its nominee) will not be recorded in any jurisdiction, but will be delivered to the Trustee in recordable form, so that they can be recorded in the event recordation is necessary in connection with the servicing of a Mortgage Loan. This publicly recorded provision to deliberately keep the transfers out of the public record violates the Mortgage recording Statute of almost every State of the Union. 22. While attempting to circumvent California recording Statutes, the MBS Trust created for itself a situation wherein it had no legally recognizable interest in the loans for the benefit of the investors. The investors were invested in nothing. The MBS possessed nothing on the date the REMIC closed and perpetrated a fraud on the investors and the American taxpayer through its fraudulent qualification as a REMIC with the SEC. No bank, lending institution or Trustee ever pledged or put up the money for the Homeowners loan. The foreclosing entity had or have no pecuniary, ownership stake or beneficial interest in the homeowners loans. The foreclosure filed by the Servicers and Trusts states that the Trustee is the Holder of the homeowners Note. The Complaint in foreclosure never states that the Trustee is the owner of the homeowners Note.

More often than not, the statement that the foreclosing entity holds the original Promissory Note is an untruth. The majority of the securitized Notes no longer exist, having been deliberately destroyed or disposed. At the time the feeding frenzy of securitization occurred (mostly between 2004 and 2008,) paperwork was of little consequence as the goal of the originators was to fill and securitize as many loans as possible in order to create the loan number list for the SEC. Likewise, whether or not the loans were ever repaid was of absolutely no consequence as the Servicers and Trusts had nothing to lose; the loans having been funded by the investors and were insured by multiple derivative contracts. 23. Contrary to California law, the Servicer had a provision in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement which would allow it to collect and keep the proceeds of any foreclosures it could accomplish after the MBS Trust was paid off by derivatives and closed. The defendant did show up in a California Court to foreclose on behalf of a Trustee who administers a MBS Trust which no longer exists. In addition, in order to make the Cut Off date to fill the SEC required loan number list, the appraisals for the loan were deliberately inflated as many of the investor Prospectus stated that all the loans in the bundle met certain criteria, including and most significantly specific loan to value ratios. When the scheme was originated and implemented en mass (mostly between the years 2004 and 2007), what was not planned for or counted upon was the immediate 2008 massive real estate market collapse and the thousands of voluntary and involuntary defaults and TILA loan rescissions of mortgage loans. At the same time, the fair market value of housing dropped by as much as fifty percent (50%) in the plaintiff home. No legal plan was in place for such a wide spread loss of the assets. No legal plan was ever in place to deal with the fact that the original Prospectus to the shareholder/investors was a myth. No legal plan was ever in place for the shareholder/investors to come to Court in an attempt to collect on the assets of the MBS they purchased. The Creation and Use of Fraudulent Affidavits and Mortgage Assignments: 24. In this foreclosure, the MBS/Trustee claims to be acting on behalf of the MBS/Trust and claims that it has acquired the loan from the originator. The multiple transfers of title of the mortgage loan in between the originator and the MBS/Trust is simply ignored as it can never be proved or shown to the Court. As previously stated, when a Servicer is foreclosing, an additional break in the chain occurs as the Servicer is often never the mortgagee of record under a Mortgage Assignment and has absolutely no legal tie to the investors in the MBS. The Trust or Servicer can never hold or transfer a Mortgage in the property on behalf of the investors. The MBS/Trustee never mentions the intervening transfers to the other parties or the shareholder/investors or to the Court. The MBS/Trustee never proved that such transfers lawfully occurred.

In the rush to create these trusts and sell shares to investors as fast and in as large a quantity as possible, the plaintiff loan, Mortgages and Assignments were never prepared, filed or recorded properly. This means that the entity seeking to foreclose can NEVER prove the chain of ownership. 25. When a Servicer or a Trust as in this case shows up in a California Circuit Court, it is even one more step removed from the ownership of the underlying debt and Mortgage and would NEVER have an ownership claim. The Homeowner had no idea that it is making payments to, corresponding with and applying for a modification with a mortgage loan servicer instead of a mortgage loan owner or that the Servicer is keeping part or all of proceeds of the mortgage payments without the knowledge or permission of the investors. Assignor purports to act on behalf of a non-existent or bankrupt entity. In lieu of valid Promissory Notes, Mortgages and Mortgage Assignments, MBS/Trusts relied and continue to rely on these fabricated documents produced and executed by their own law firms, Servicers and third-party default service companies. Although the greatest risk of fraud from the fraudulently produced assignments is imposed on the homeowners, this scheme poses a great risk in the exposure of the Title Companies that guaranteed the clear and correct transfer of ownership. Additional risk is imposed on both homeowner and the Title Company due to the fact that the loans were never owned by the MBS/Trust, making the clear and correct transfer of title impossible. The MBS/Trust or Servicer has come to the foreclosure asserting standing when it is neither the owner of the underlying debt or the valid Mortgagee. The MBS/Trustees have been on notice for several years that the faulty Assignments were likely to jeopardize the claims of ownership and the ability of any entity to foreclosure. They have continually failed to disclose this information to the share/holder investors and to the SEC.

The Double and Triple Dip and Derivative Contracts: 26. Many of the MBS/Trusts were covered by an insurance policy, commonly referred to as a Derivative or Collateral Contract. These Derivative Contracts are not recorded or regulated by the SEC. Upon information and belief, the Defendants have attempted to receive distribution, fees or proceeds or have received distributions from the liquidation of the Plaintiffs home, when the actual beneficiaries under the homeowners loan, the shareholder/investors have been made whole by a Derivative Contract. In other instances, the MBS has been closed months or years prior. Funds collected from the loans allegedly within the MBS, ar no longer being paid to the investors, but are an unearned windfall to the servicer and the law firm as in this case at bar. Additionally, there is no contract between the investors and the foreclosing entity which would allow them so act as a Plaintiff in a Foreclosure even when the MBS is not shut down.

Likewise, the MBS/Trusts themselves became parties to Derivative Contracts. Most times, the actual Derivative contract is for more, up to ten times (10x), the face value of the MBS. More often than not, multiple insurance policies were taken and traded on the MBS. The double dip or double compensation of the MBS/Trustee, or Sericer is improper in its own right. The offense is patently egregious when it is viewed in light of the fact that the MBS/Trustee or Servicer. The bogus entities have no standing to foreclose, yet they came and continue to come to the Courts with the fabricated and forged documents. Unjust Enrichment:

27. Plaintiff has filed foreclosures throughout the State of California knowing that they were not the owners or beneficiaries of the loan they filed foreclosure upon. They knowingly and intentionally set out to deceive the Courts as to this fact and had full knowledge of the fact that they lacked Constitutionally defined Standing and capacity to file suit; The Plaintiff and MERS have drafted, executed and filed, or caused to be filed, false and fabricated Promissory Note, Mortgage, and Assignment of Mortgages, which indicated another party other the originator owns the loan, prepared by employees or agents who are defendants in this case, and employees of the law firm involved in this case at the civil court level, in order to foreclose upon plaintiff property. Beginning soon after the ink on the new mortgages was dry, and in many cases prior to the loan even closing, the lenders promptly sold the loans, in secretive transactions, to investors for some percentage or fraction of what had been the alleged value of the mortgage and the property by which it was secured just days or weeks earlier. In most cases, the Lender did not advance any funds as to the loan, serving as a strawman, thereby negating the validity of each and every one of the required TILA disclosures. Another part of the scheme was the use of words in ways inconsistent with their traditional meanings, and the creation of new terms which could be used to blur important distinctions between parties and their interests. 28. The revolutionary ways in which words were utilized all shared one characteristic: they made it more difficult to determine who had the right to receive and utilize for their own purposes the payments made on the loan by the borrower. For example, mortgagee began to have a meaning other than lender. Servicer, which has no legal definition, arose to prominence and was and is used to further obscure important truths. Specifically, the servicer does not hold the true beneficial interest in the mortgage. The Defendants will not release any further information on the subject, whether it is requested in discovery in a foreclosure action or in any other context. Attorneys have been told in open Court by the counsel of record for the foreclosing Servicer, that it is none of the borrowers business who owns or in the case of a closed MBS, who owned their loan before the MBS REMIC became extinct.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT California LAW AND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE 29. The alleged Notes in question, started their life as negotiable instruments. They were similar to a check. The negotiation and enforceability of both notes and checks are governed by Article Three (3) of the Uniform Commercial Code. To enforce a negotiable instrument, a person must be a holder of the note. To meet the definition of a "holder," the person must possess the note, and the note must be issued or endorsed to him or to his order or to bearer or in blank. The record reflects that Plaintiff is not the holder or owner of the Note. Neither does it appear in the record of this case to be any evidence that the Plaintiff will ever be the Bearer of the Note, under wherein the Plaintiff could ever be a person in possession of a negotiable instrument, document of title, or certificated security that is payable to bearer or indorsed in blank. The Plaintiff is not in possession of the original negotiable instrument with any legally binding original endorsement. If the Party, at a later date, attempts to claim that the original documentation was somehow lost, the Note will never be enforceable, as made obvious by official comments to the UCC 355.3-203, that read as follows: X signs a document conveying all of X's right, title, and interest in the instrument to Y. Although the document may be effective to give Y a claim to ownership of the instrument, Y is not a person entitled to enforce the instrument until Y obtains possession of the instrument. 30. No transfer of the instrument occurs under Section 3-203(a) until it is delivered to Y. Based on the record in the Plaintiffs case, and the plaintiff loan, the Note and the Mortgage were bifurcated at inception and were and remain unenforceable as a Secured Transaction under the Uniform Commercial Code and California law. The most the Plaintiff could ever be is an unsecured creditor. Upon information and belief, the Note, the Note was securitized, was paid off in excess of the principal balance and is no longer enforceable as a Secured Negotiable Instrument. If an enforceable transaction can be proven, the Defendants were deceived into such transaction without notice that they were encumbering the property as a Security under the Rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Party does not hold, bear or own the original Note, is not a Mortgagee and has no legally enforceable interest in the loan or standing to file this action. 31. It is asserted that the Law Firm initiating this action and the Plaintiff, have conspired with each other and their other agents and principals to file a false and fraudulent Foreclosure Action and to later create a false and forged Mortgage Assignment. It is asserted that such action is part of the Law Firms regular practice and procedure, whereby it engages in systemic fraud across the State of California, in conspiracy with its clients.

The note, that had been executed with the mortgages or deed of trust were separated from the mortgages and deed of trust in that the note became part of a pool of mortgages; thereby losing its individual identity as a note between a lender and a borrower. The note instead merged with other unknown notes as a total obligation due to the investor or investors. The note is no longer a negotiable instrument, but collateral for a Federally regulated Security under the confines of the SEC. MERS was created by its owners to work with investment banks and lenders as co-conspirators in relation to the MERS system with the specific intent that MERS would be named the beneficiary and/or as the nominee of the lender on the mortgages and deeds of trust which borrowers nationwide were induced into signing. 32. All Defendants knew that prior to the time that the loan was taken out by the borrower, a loan which named MERS on the mortgage was securitized or intended to be securitized prior to the preparation of the note and mortgage reflecting the loan. Defendants also knew that the scheme employed by all Defendants involved in the origination, aggregation and securitization of mortgage-backed loans originated from 2003 through 2009 and secured by real property in the United States included financial incentives which were designed to result in the loans being written on terms which were likely or certain to result in foreclosure, and that the scheme described herein included financial incentives designed to motivate appraisers, mortgage brokers, lenders, aggregator banks and securitizing banks to steer borrowers into loans they could not afford and could not repay so that the loans would go into default and the Defendants involved in servicing, aggregating and securitizing those loans could make yet more profits from default, foreclosure and selling the properties after foreclosure. The financial incentives mentioned in the previous paragraph included without limitation the hiring of appraisers who had financial incentive to appraise properties at a value that would justify the loan requested, the payment to mortgage. 33. Pooling and Service Agreements, which allow the Servicers to keep the proceeds of the foreclosures when the MBS has been closed or the investors paid off In the case of many of the nations borrowers the loans were advanced based upon the value of the house itself and not the income of the borrower. Also, in this case, the equity in the house itself was used to secure more loans based upon the value of the home when that value was exaggerated by the market manipulated by the Defendants and which is clearly not in the interest of the borrowers for an initial purchase or refinancing of property. All Defendants who originated, serviced, aggregated and/or securitized the Plaintiffs loan knew or should have known at the time of those actions by Defendants that the more likely or certain the loans were to fail, the more likely that failure was to cause the entire mortgage-backed security pool, to fail, and the more profitable those events would be to Defendants. The borrower was entitled to information regarding all of the profits, payments, kick-backs, fees and insurance and credit default

swaps related to the transactions which included the identity of the investors providing the funds loaned to the borrowers, and the concealment of those facts by all the Defendants who originated, serviced, aggregated and/or securitized the loans was an intentional misrepresentation and/or intentional material omission of fact by those Defendants for the purpose of using the borrower signature on a note and deed of trust to defraud the investors and the borrower. 34. The lenders, servicers and investors in mortgage backed securities, have used those funds to repay investors who funded loans and/or to settle the lawsuits of those investors against the securitizing banks for fraud, with such use of those funds having extinguished the obligations reflected by the note that was executed by the borrowers and thus have no right to collect on the note, and had no right to initiate the foreclosure on all borrowers homes bearing a mortgage or deed of trust in the name of MERS. Defendants knew that the business practices in which they were engaged would result in driving the market for housing into unnaturally high demand which would cause the prices on home to escalate beyond their normal and reasonable value and further knew that lending money to persons who were not qualified in such large numbers would cause the market to eventually crash. CONCLUSION Upon information and belief, the Defendants, did not and cannot legally obtain foreclosures and/or file an Assignment of the Notes or Mortgages of the representative Plaintiffs. Neither the Plaintiffs nor MERS had capacity or standing to file suit or foreclose on property. In conspiracy with each other, the Movants, filed fraudulent mortgages, affidavits, and mortgage assignments, filed sham pleadings and committed and continue to commit fraud on the recording clerks and the Courts. These violations as aforementioned entitle the Debtor to recover the actual damages they have sustained as a result of the improper filing of foreclosure suits and the improper filing of the Mortgage Assignments; statutory damages as permitted by law; restitution under for the violations of the criminal acts, treble damages as allowed by the acts, punitive damages, and cost incurred. The Plaintiffs is entitled to equitable relief as to the clearing and quieting of the title to her property in relation to the filing of false papers with the county record as to the plaintiff. TRIAL AND DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Debtor on her own behalf, request the this Court enter judgment against the Plaintiff jointly and severally and award all damages, costs and any other relief the Court deems proper, demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for the total damages sustained by the Debtor, plus costs, and such additional relief as the Court or jury may deem just and proper, including imposition of liability on the members of the conspiracy not presently named as Plaintiffs in this action. An award of actual and compensatory damages, statutory damages as permitted by law; restitution under for the violations of the criminal acts, treble damages as allowed by the acts, punitive damages, and cost and other fees incurred and equitable relief as to the clearing

and quieting of the title to their properties in relation to the filing of false Note and Mortgage Assignments. JURY TRIAL AND DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Debtor on her own behalf pro se, request this Court enter judgment against the Movants award all damages, costs and any other relief the Court deems proper on behalf of the Debtor and such additional relief as the court or jury may deem just and proper, including imposition of liability on the members of the conspiracy not presently named as plaintiffs in this action. As follows: 1a). Such coordination and cooperation as may be appropriate between this court and the superior court that may exercise subject matter jurisdiction and Article III standing over the subject of this litigation, with the Debtor/ homeowner. 2b). A determination of common issues and claims in unitary with the superior court where the defendant has an open case and an award of actual and compensatory damages, statutory damages as permitted by law; restitution under for the violations of the criminal acts, treble damages as allowed by the acts, punitive damages, and cost and other fees incurred and equitable relief as to the clearing and quieting of the title to the defendant property in relation to the filing of a complaint devoid of the required standing with incurable violations with which and as the defendant stated them. An Injunction halting from this day forward, the filing of new foreclosure or declaratory Judgments, or the prosecution of existing law suits, and an Order which punishes severely and sanctions any violation of said Injunction by the Debtor or any of the Plaintiffs, by and through its attorneys. IN THE ALTERNATIVE WHEREFORE, and based on the law, and the above issues as stated herein and as put forth by the defendant. The defendant prays that the court denies the Movant all right to the title of the home of the Debtor and that all claims that Movant may have had are deemed null and void.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

_________________________________ Heidi Amaya, pro se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on 3rd day of Febuary 2012 a true and complete copy of the above and foregoing was served on the opposing counsel and all parties by depositing same in the United States Mail Addressed as follows;