16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson

8/17/2019 16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/16-8-exhibit-e-to-denises-reply-to-lnvs-objection-to-emergency-writ 1/227

I, Lauren Paulson Declare the following under the penalties of perjury to

be a true and accurate statement in support of the emergency pleadings

attached hereto and in support of the same.

I have determined that the entire Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

including the U.S. District Court of Oregon is NOT following the

Mandatory Conflict of Interest Screening requirement of the Judicial

Conference of the United States. Moreover, as the following facts

demonstrate, judges in the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. District Court of

Oregon are not following the law with respect to Standing and the

failure of lenders to prove standing in foreclosure cases throughout the

entire jurisdiction.

IMPORTANT

Because of the failure of this jurisdiction to follow the law and the

mandatory conflict of interest screening procedures it is highly likely

that ALL foreclosure cases in Oregon will have to be vacated unless

and until such time as it is determined whether judges in this jurisdiction are in violation of The Rule of Law and these

mandatory U.S. procedures.

Page of1 227

Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-8, Page 1 of 227

(80 of 3

Declaration of Lauren Paulson



A FINANCIAL PLAGUE

A plague has visited this country for which these

citizens were totally unprepared. It is curious that

they were so unprepared because a similar plague

visited this benign country just one decade earlier, but

nothing was learned by the leaders, including their

elected leaders: who become blind through a virulent

virus known as Corporatism/‘Metooism' for which

there is no known antidote nor cure. It is all the more

curious that leaders permitted this plague since there

was nothing wrong with their auditory canals and the

Oracle of Delphi has been whispering solutions in

their ears for years.....as we shall see. ]!

Warning -- This tale is true in all respects; actually

happened, so should not be read by those faint of

heart. There will be no further warnings. It is of a

plague that is a tragedy of earthly proportions that

was avoidable. An avoidable plague. An insidious

financial plague infecting every corner of the United

States. This financial plague is enabled by a national

judiciary and an attorney general who is unable to

Page of2 227


(81 of 3



stand up to the Wall Street financial cabal which rules

this country.

This Class Action is brought on behalf of over 100

million American citizens of the United States

including all those whom suffered from predatory

loans and predatory financial tactics around the world

who suffered from the LIBOR fraud and similar

fraudulent artifices found in the U.S.A. financial world

as chronicled below.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

(Some of this information is adapted from information

found in Wikipedia and other sources terrestrial and

otherwise.)

1938 — The Federal National Mortgage Association

(FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, was founded in1938 during the Great Depression as part of the New Deal. It

is a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), though it has

been a publicly traded company since 1968 through and

including the financial meltdown of 2008. The corporation's

purpose is to expand the secondary mortgage market by

securitizing mortgages in the form of mortgage-backed

securities (MBS), allowing lenders to reinvest their assets

into more lending and in effect increasing the number of

lenders in the mortgage market by reducing the reliance on

Page of3 227


(82 of 3



locally-based savings and loan associations (aka “thrifts”).

!

1968 -- President Johnson sells Fannie Mae, making it a

shareholder owned organization instead of a government

agency to help finance the Vietnam War. By privatizing it, he

removes the liability of paying these mortgages through a

government guarantee from the government balance sheet

to privatize it.

SETTING THE STAGE (1971-1995)

(The Judiciary and the Law)

1970’s -- It can be positively determined exactly when

the worm turned; when a perversion of power began in the

judiciary and the law.

In 1971 in California, a financial Chisler had beenselling office equipment, but decided there was more money

to be made in real estate, so he took his used car salesmen

friends and opened Alliance (an acronym), a mom-and-pop

consumer finance company while high and volatile interest

rates battered the savings and loan industry. Then there

was a:

Perversion of Power in the Judiciary and the Law:

THE LEWIS POWELL MEMO OF 1971

In 1971, Lewis F. Powell, then a corporate lawyer (and later

Page of4 227


(83 of 3





Association is an NCSC partner. Some of their meetings are

secret. NCSC is now involved in funding almost every

organization involved in this right-turn of America’s judiciary.

American Inns of Court -- The concept began in the 1970‘s in

Utah through the School of Law at Brigham Young

University.

• American Inns of Court -- Formed in 1983 by Chief

Justice Warren Burger. Its mission is to foster excellence in

professionalism, ethics, civility and legal skills. They give

out three awards named after Republicans: The Lewis F.

Powell, Jr. Award for Professionalism, the Sandra Day

O’Connor Award for Professional Service and the Warren

E. Burger Prize. There are no awards at the Inns of Court

named after Democrats. This is where ‘Wally” got his 2006

award.ALEC began in 1973. ALEC coordinates the legislative

agenda of the conservative right across the United States.

ALEC’s role is discussed in detail below.

1977 -- The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA)

sought to address discrimination in loans made to individuals

and businesses from low and moderate-income

neighborhoods. The Act mandates that all banking

institutions that receive Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (FDIC) insurance be evaluated by Federal

Page of6 227


(85 of 3



banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a

manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per

Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in

which they are chartered to do business. The law does not

list specific criteria for evaluating the performance of

financial institutions. Rather, it directs that the evaluation

process should accommodate the situation and context of

each individual institution. Federal regulations dictate agency

conduct in evaluating a bank's compliance in five

performance areas, comprising twelve assessment factors.

This examination culminates in a rating and a written report

that becomes part of the supervisory record for that bank.

The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA

activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner,

and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans thatmay bring losses to the institution's CRA compliance record

is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies

when the institution seeks to expand through merger,

acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any

other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA.

WHEN DID LAW TURN ON THE POOR in Oregon

and elsewhere?

SETTING THE STAGE.

Oregon and the Lewis Powell Memo

Page of7 227


(86 of 3



The Oregon link to this crucial year is manifest in the

lamentable Wallace ‘Wally’ Carson, the Chief Justice of the

Oregon Supreme Court from 1991 to 2005. In 2006 he was

awarded the Lewis F. Powell award by the Inns of Court

organization.

Remember that Lewis F. Powell was twice selected by

Richard Nixon to be on the U.S. Supreme Court. Twice,

because he turned it down the first time because he was

making too much money as a corporate lawyer.

In 1971 Lewis F. Powell wrote the aforementioned

‘Powell Memo’ to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The

Powell Memo was a confidential memorandum that

described a strategy for the corporate takeover of the

dominant public institutions of American society.

Not coincidentally, a now-important legal organizationwas also formed in 1971 as well. Nixon’s Chief Judge of the

U.S. Supreme Court, Warren Burger, formed the National

Center for State Courts [NCSC]. Their self-described mission

is to improve judicial administration in American courts.

Soon, the National Center for State Courts became the

sanctioning body for everything from how the poor are

treated in court to how much the next judge’s raise shall be.

As we shall see.

In November 2011, former Oregon Chief Justice De

Page of8 227


(87 of 3



Muniz was inducted into the National Center for State

Courts' Warren E. Burger Society.

• The Federalist Society -- Formed in 1982, its mission

is to reform the current legal order. U.S. Supreme Court

Justices Scalia and Thomas attended the November 9,

2011 Federalist Society Fundraising dinner. There is an

active branch at every law school near you.

• State Justice Institute -- Formed in 1984, its mission

is to ensure access to a fair and effective justice system. It

serves to finance the activities of the National Center for

State Courts. The State Justice Institute has a Koch

Brother’s employee on the governing board.

• As discussed above, the State Justice Institute came out

with a manual for Judges to handle and silence the

unsuspecting public in 1999. It is called the Anti-Government Guidebook. It does away with due process.

LAWYERS LOVE AWARDS but do not love the poor.

There is no more self-congratulatory group in the world

than lawyers. There are so many lawyer awards out there

waiting for a recipient that the Oregon State Bar has a full

committee devoted to the project. And this brings us back to

the good Chief Justices of the Oregon Supreme Court. Note

they get awards named after a Republican. So, it goes.

There are no awards named after a Democrat in any of

Page of9 227


(88 of 3



these organizations. Because they are devoted to the 1%,

not anyone else. Lewis F. Powell’s endeavor in 1971 was a

success.

SETTING THE STAGE IN THE FINANCIAL ARENA

There is no due process in Oregon courts for the poor.

The Oregon State Bar is an Oligarchy that serves the

corporate cliental. The system is rigged by Bank of America,

Exxon-Mobil and WalMart. And the Koch Brothers. Even

pro bono.net a phony front-website is sponsored by Bank of

America. The entire system from Oregon’s Legal Aid/Legal

Services Corporation to the U.S. Supreme Court is safely in

the hands of the 1%. discussed in more detail below.

The 1980’s

1980’s -- The Federalist Society -- Formed in 1982, it is a

group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated toreforming the current legal order. It now has chapters in 196

law schools. But, yet more:

The American Inns of Court mentioned above was f inally and

formally formed in 1983 by Chief Justice Warren Burger to

be an amalgam of judges, lawyers, law professors and law

students. Its mission is to foster excellence in

professionalism, ethics, civility and legal skills. It has

chapters throughout the United States.

State Justice Institute -- Formed in 1984, Its mission is to

Page of10 227


(89 of 3





1982 -- The U.S economy bottomed out following the

run-away inflation of the Carter presidency. Unemployment

was the highest since the depression.

1980’s -- Roland Arnall , a real estate developer, also

owned Long Beach Savings and Loan and channeled his

institutions deposits into his and friend’s real estate projects.

At the dawn of the Reagan era, S&L’s provided home loans,

savings accounts, but not checking accounts. In theory these

were the community based organizations immortalized in

Jimmy Stewart’s movie, It’s a Wonderful Life. Because

inflation was outstripping the interest Savings and Loans

could pay their customers, President Carter’s era began the

era of deregulation. Reagan’s election gained speed to

deregulation when he signed the 1982 deregulation bill.

These new rules allowed S&L’s to invest heavily in shoppingmalls, high rises and real estate deals that did not require

down payments from the borrowers. Deregulation also

meant that noncash assets could be used to capitalize new

S&L’s. This meant that intrepid capitalists could use

undeveloped land and other gimmicks to demonstrate capital

and thus, to obtain a bank charter.

1984 -- Lehman Bros. was absorbed into Shearson, a

retail brokerage firm acquired in 1981 by American Express

for $360 million. Shearson was the second-largest retail

Page of12 227


(91 of 3



sales force in the country, run by Sanford I (Sandy) Weill.

This merger was made by James D. Robinson III to create

the first financial supermarket. American Express was the

credit card business, Shearson was the brokerage house to

sell it, and now Mr. Weill had an investment bank to stake his

ground on Wall St.

This merger caused the most senior partners to leave the

firm including Robert Rubin. Peregrine (Perry) Moncreiffe

ran the mortgage-backed securities trading desk.

In the 1980’s the primary fear of investors in mortgage bonds

was that the loans would be paid off too soon. Typically a

homeowner would refinance when interest rates got better.

This meant that lenders would get their money exactly when

they didn’t want it -- during times the interest rates were

going down. A lender at the ground floor tranche would get ahigher interest rate because that lender would get paid off

first when interest rates got better and consumers

refinanced. A lender at the second highest interest rate

would get paid off next, and so on. The investor in the

floor tranche would get the lowest rate of interest but had the

greatest assurance that the investment wouldn’t end before

the investor wanted it to.

The key is that these loans conformed to the standards, size

and credit quality set by Freddie Mac, Ginny Mae and

Page of13 227


(92 of 3



Fannie Mae.

The new Specialty Finance world was brought about by the

broad spread of mortgage backed securities which were

made out of the broad range of loans across the United

States which did not qualify for government guarantees. The

purpose of the new Specialty Finance world was to extend

credit to less and less creditworthy homeowners. This was

not to extend credit to buy a house, but to extend credit for

them to pay off credit cards or other consumer finance

purposes. Here Usury laws would have helped the multiple

frauds perpetrated on consumers through the trickery of

confusing charges and fees, particularly if a payment was

late or not of the exact required amount.

1985 -- Salomon invents the mortgage backed bond.

This is a bond secured by a mortgage on one or moreassets. These bonds are typically backed by real estate

holdings or capital equipment. In a default situation,

mortgage bondholders have a claim to the underlying

property and could sell it off to compensate for the default.

Following this innovation Wall St. started “making even

bigger money” in the bond market than the stock market by

“…packaging and selling and shuffling around America’s

growing debt”.

1985 — AIG approaches Wall Street insurance

Page of14 227


(93 of 3



companies to fraudulently sell reserves to hide income. The

regulator is the insurance commissioner which turns a blind

eye.

1986 -- In 1986, THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD

decides that banks can have up to five (5%) percent of their

gross revenues from investment banking business, thus

blurring the firewall set up by the Glass-Steagall Act between

commercial (lending) banks and investment (securities)

banks. This decision also allows banks to “do a small

amount of underwriting”. Paul Volcker, the chairman of the

Federal Reserve Board voted against these changes and

expressed a fear that lenders will recklessly lower loan

standards in pursuit of lucrative securities offerings and

market bad loans to the public. It boiled down to a culture of

risk which was the securities business and a culture of protection of deposits which was the culture of banking.

1986 -- The 1986 Tax Reform Act withdrew tax laws

that benefited commercial real estate investments as part of

the overall rewrite of the Tax Code.

1986 -- The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance

(FSLIC) Corporation, determined that because over 296

savings and loan companies with total assets of $125 billion

had failed that the FSLIC, the insurance company to protect

savings and loan depositor’s funds, was insolvent.

Page of15 227


(94 of 3



1987 -- The so-called ‘mezzanine’ tranche CDO

(Collateralized Debt Obligation) is invented by Michael

Milken’s junk bond department at Drexel Burnham. (tranche

means segment)

A Credit Default Swap is an unregulated financial instrument

that acts as ‘insurance’ against these bond defaults. AIG

conspires with banks to cede off risk through CDS’s.

Collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) are a type of

structured asset-backed security (ABS) whose value and

payments are derived from a portfolio of fixed-income

underlying assets. CDOs securities are split into different risk

classes, or tranches, whereby "senior" tranches are

considered the safest securities. Interest and principal

payments are made in order of seniority, so that junior

tranches offer higher coupon payments (and interest rates)or lower prices to compensate for additional default risk .

A few academics, analysts and investors such as Warren

Buffett and the IMF's former chief economist Raghuram

Rajan warned that CDOs, other ABSs and other derivatives

spread risk and uncertainty about the value of the underlying

assets more widely, rather than reduce risk through

diversification. Following the onset of the 2007-2008 credit

crunch, this view has gained substantial credibility. Credit

rating agencies failed to adequately account for large risks

Page of16 227


(95 of 3



(like a nationwide collapse of housing values) when rating

CDOs and other ABSs.

Many CDOs are valued on a mark to market basis and thus

have experienced substantial write-downs on the balance

sheet as their market value has collapsed.

American Insurance Group (AIG) became the largest seller

of CDS’s

1987 -- In May of 1987 the Howie Rubin scandal

occurred when this 36 year old head of Merrill Lynch’s

trading desk for mortgage-backed securities is caught

gambling that interest rates would turn around leading to a

$250 million dollar loss, the largest single trading deficit in

Wall Street history up to that time.

Howard (not to be confused with Robert) Rubin was dealing

in one of the tricky, relatively untested new types ofsecurities. The bonds that tripped up Merrill Lynch are

interest-only/principal-only securities, known as IOPOs.

Investment houses create them by buying mortgage-backed

bonds -- typically those issued by the Government National

Mortgage Association, or Ginnie Mae -- and then splitting the

securities into two parts, one that pays interest and another

whose price rises or falls with the resale value of the bond.

Rubin was selling the interest-paying bonds and hanging on

to the principal securities, which lost value rapidly as interest

Page of17 227


(96 of 3



rates rose.

1987 -- Alan Greenspan, former director of J.P. Morgan

bank, becomes chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. In

October, 19, 1987 there is a financial panic on Wall St.

setting off the biggest one-day percentage decline in stock

market history. This panic can be compared to Black

Thursday, October 24, 1929. The Federal Reserve pumped

in cash to avoid a further decline once the computer systems

of the day caught up with trading orders. This is during

Reagan’s presidency.

1988 -- First Alliance had cornered 32% of the home

equity loan market in Southern California and had opened

lending offices in seven communities. (And see below)

Silverado Savings and Loan collapsed costing taxpayers 1.3

billion dollars. Neil Bush, George’s brother, was found tohave breached his fiduciary duties to the bank as one its

directors.

1989 -- As outlined above, Fannie Mae was privatized

in 1968 and Fannie Mae issues stock in 1989.

S & L FAILURES -- Studies have shown that a primary

cause of the failure of the savings and loan companies,

which began in the early 1980's was “state and federal

deregulation of depository institutions which allowed thrifts to

enter new but riskier loan markets”. This study confirms that

Page of18 227


(97 of 3



the savings and loan industry was in much worse shape than

most observers anticipated during the rescue.

This marks the first time in history that taxpayer funds

were used to resolve a banking crisis in this country.

1989 --The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery

and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) was

enacted by the 101st Congress and signed into

law by President George H. W. Bush in the wake

of the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. As part

of the subsequent general reform of the banking

industry, FIRREA added section 807 (12. U.S.C.

§ 2906) to the existing CRA statutes in an effort to

improve the area concerning insured depository

institution examinations.

1989 -- Alan Greenspan and the Federal ReserveBoard further break down the Glass-Steagall

firewall by allowing commercial banks including

J.P. Morgan and Citibank to engage in debt and

equity securities along with other commercial

(investment) paper.

1989 -- The sale of bonds backed by packages of

lower-quality morgage loans began and with

professional investors hungry for higher-yielding

investments, major Wall Street investment banks

Page of19 227


(98 of 3



entered the field and sold the bonds to pension

funds and other institutions. J.P. Morgan becomes

the first bank to receive permission from the

Federal Reserve Board to deal in securities.

First Alliance is accused by the FTC of using

fraud to secure high interest loans for

unsuspecting debtors with harsh terms to minority

recipients.

1989 The savings and loan crisis created the

Resolution Trust Corporation which was the

government agency created to consolidate the

assets and resolve the liabilities. From 1989 until

1992, RTC sold insolvent savings and loan

institutions ultimately costing citizens over $152.9

billion dollars. The peak of the savings and loancrisis was 1991.

1990’s -- The National Center for State Courts and the State

Justice Institute authored The Anti-Government Movement

Guidebook. This Guidebook was financed by the State

Justice Institute mentioned above. This Guidebook is a

tutorial for judges on how neutralize Pro Se litigants as your

Plaintiff here and citizens who are:

“...disaffected and often dispossessed (and) who are seeking

a better way….” In short, this 200 page guidebook instructs

Page of20 227


(99 of 3





pass through".

When one invests in a mortgage-backed security one is

essentially lending money to a home buyer or business. An

MBS is a way for a smaller regional bank to lend mortgages

to its customers without having to worry about whether the

customers have the assets to cover the loan. Instead,

the bank acts as a middleman between the home buyer and

the investment markets.

This type of security is also commonly used to redirect the

interest and principal payments from the pool of mortgages

to shareholders. These payments can be further broken

down into different classes of securities, depending on the

riskiness of different mortgages as they are classified under

the MBS.

A mortgage bond is a claim on the cash flows from a pool ofthousands of individual home mortgages.

1990 Drexel Burnham Lambert liquidated. Their stock

went from $110 to zero virtually overnight.

1991 Salomon Brothers begins a fraudulent acquisition

scheme of U.S. bonds enabling Salomon to

purchase more than their allotted share of bonds.

This resulted in John Meriwether’s resignation and

Warren Buffet’s sacking of Salomon Brothers

CEO, John Gutfreund partially because Gutfreund

Page of22 227


(101 of 3



was not going to fire the broker who was

fraudulently purchasing these bonds.

1992 Matt Burk begins his emulation of all these

predatory loan practices and commences in the

unregulated Oregon financial market.

Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corp

Fairway began as a residential and commercial

mortgage broker. Focused strictly on commercial beginning

in 1998, Fairway launched First Fund in 2000. Fairway

became the leading private commercial real estate mortgage

lender and pooled mortgage Fund manager in Portland OR

area.

1992 Congress enacted the Federal Housing

Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act to

protect taxpayers from potential losses if Fannie orFreddie got into trouble with the mortgages they

financed.

1992 Office of Federal Housing Oversight Enterprise

was created to regulate Fannie Mae. This was an

office created within HUD. This regulator should

have been financed by fees charged to Fannie

and Freddie, but that did not happen. One of this

regulator’s jobs was to ensure sufficient capital

requirements. The safety and soundness stress

Page of23 227


(102 of 3



tests were completed in 1994.

1993 Companies began going to Wall Street to raise

money by selling bundles of loans to investment

banks.

1994 The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and

Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, which repealed

restrictions on interstate banking, listed the

Community Reinvestment Act ratings received by

the out-of-state bank as a consideration when

determining whether to allow interstate branches.

J.P Morgan employees gather at Boca Raton

Florida at a conference and come up with the CDS

in order to provide security letter of credit which

creates credit risk to them on the Exxon oil spill.

This requires them to hold certain capital to pay onthe letter of credit if they went broke. The

european bank for reconstruction and

development took on this risk. JP Morgan wanted

to skirt capital requirements. They could make

more loans. This enables them to shed the risk

they don’t really want and frees up capital for risks

they do want. JP Morgan was asked to make

swaps on a portfolio of entities. They were highly

rated and they were to make tranches available to

Page of24 227


(103 of 3



over 300 corporate firms. In effect, those

corporations are investing in J.P Morgan. United

States financial institutions commence the high

flying lending ‘Casino’:

A synthetic CDO is a bet in other companies

portfolios that the bettor didn’t own. This was a

creation of an entire new marketplace. This is the

‘casino’.

This is a dark market, so nobody else knew what

was going on. This would make a spread of about

10 times more than an IPO for example.

This scam doesn't eliminate risk. Risk is just

moved around. It is an insurance product not to

be regulated by anybody. See AIG’s role in this

unregulated market above.1994 Congress passed the Home Ownership and

Equity Protection Act of 1994 which amends the

Truth In Lending Act (TILA) by requiring additional

disclosures and specific protections for a narrow

group of certain high-interest loans. The TILA law

produces the four little boxes in the loan document

that intends to educated consumers on what

interest rate is charged and how that interest rate

is jacked up through multiple transaction (title

Page of25 227


(104 of 3



examination fees, broker fees, etc., etc.) costs and

fees.

1994 First Alliance settled their second predatory

lending lawsuit for $6.85 million in a class-action

lawsuit arising out of his California lending

practices. Congress began its first round of

hearings that established that many companies

were taking advantage of unsophisticated

mortgage customers.

1994 Fairway, a lending group, forms an Oregon

limited partnership to emulate California loan

practices in Oregon.

1994 The amount of money raised on Wall Street for

subprime lenders skyrocketed, going from $35

billion in 1994 to $332 billion in 2003. With WallStreet’s demand unslaked, lenders and mortgage

brokers scoured the countryside for fresh

prospects for subprime loans. Lenders were

paying about 6% interest to Wall Street, but getting

about 14% from subprime suckers.

1994 -- Long Term Capital Management is founded by

John Meriwether, former vice-chairman and head

of bond trading at Salomon Brothers. LTCM is a

hedge fund using financial models and

Page of26 227


(105 of 3





experience recounted below that fraud is O.K. with

U.S. top financial regulators.

Brooksley Born was warning that unchecked

trading in the credit market could lead to

disaster, but power brokers in Washington

ignored her. Now we're all paying the price.

1996 SHORTLY AFTER she was named to head the

Commodity Futures Trading Commission in 1996, Brooksley

E. Born was invited to lunch by Federal Reserve chairman

Alan Greenspan.

The influential Greenspan was an ardent proponent of

unfettered markets. Born was a powerful Washington lawyer

with a track record for activist causes. Over lunch, in his

private dining room at the stately headquarters of the Fed in

Washington, Greenspan probed their differences.“Well, Brooksley, I guess you and I will never agree about

fraud,” Born, in a recent interview, remembers Greenspan

saying.

“What is there not to agree on?” Born says she replied.

“Well, you probably will always believe there should be laws

against fraud, and I don’t think there is any need for a law

against fraud,” she recalls. Greenspan, Born says, believed

the market would take care of itself.

Page of28 227


(107 of 3



For the incoming regulator, the meeting was a wake-up call.

“That underscored to me how absolutist Alan was in his

opposition to any regulation,” she said in the interview

reported by Rick Schmitt of Stanford Magazine.

THEIR PROFIT AND OUR LOSS --

1999 to 2003 — In significant litigation in California, the

Federal Trade Commission and some gritty lawyers were

poised to put a twist in the tail of First Alliance Mortgage

Company (FAMCO) and Lehman Brothers. The Chair of the

Federal Reserve (Brenneke) can hardly say, with a straight

face, that they didn’t know what was happening in these

unregulated financial markets. In 2003, a California jury,

after a two month trial, held FAMCO and Lehman brothers

guilty of fraud and awarded the plaintiffs 50.9 million dollars

in a class action suit. (This is the same sort of lawsuit thatmight now be barred by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent

decision requiring arbitration instead of a class action.)

OUTTAKE

In February, 2011, Bank of America’s lawyers looked Oregon

Federal Magistrate Judge Paul Papak in the eye in

Natache’s case and said something like this:

“Gee, your honor, sir, Gee.....well, it is sorta like

this......” “Remember that promissory note we gave you last

year with our name on it??” “Well, Gee, we really didn’t

Page of29 227


(108 of 3



mean THAT one was the true, original.” “Yes, I know, I TOLD

you that was a true copy of the original promissory note

WITH BANK OF AMERICA’S name on it.”

“But, I LIED to you, Magistrate Judge Papak.” “That

was NOT a true and correct copy of the ORIGINAL.” “This

one is......”, a nervous Lake Oswego, lawyer Ian Kyle meekly

told Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. The only problem is THE

TRUE ORIGINAL copy of the true promissory note DOES

NOT have Bank of America’s name on it.

Now, one would think that Magistrate Judge Paul Papak

would look at Bank of America’s young lawyer, Ian Kyle, with

such fierceness, with such a look of disgust, with such

revulsion that an esteemed member of the Oregon State Bar

would LIE to a Magistrate Judge about whose name was

truly on the REAL debt document filed in his court.Ah, but such a day, a day much like when Mighty Casey

Struck Out, did not visit young B of A lawyer Ian Kyle that

day. Or any other day. Indeed, Magistrate Judge Paul

Papak has uttered nary a word to Bank of American lawyer,

Mr. Kyle, nor the Oregon State Bar about this FRAUD on the

court or any other. You see in our courts, merchants get a

special chance. A special dance. A special pass. In the

Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse (built in 1996) in Case

No.# 1065 PK (PK stands for Magistrate Judge Paul Papak--

Page of30 227


(109 of 3



it is his case, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak’s case. It is also

Natache’s case. And all is mute.

You see, as recounted above, imperial wizard Alan

Greenspan said to Brooksley Born, in financial matters, fraud

is O.K. by him. Greenspan was the boss of all things

financial in the U.S. just then. And fraud by Bank of America

is O.K. by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak in Natache’s case.

BACK

1996 Bear Sterns is fined $38 million for being one of

the engines of the mortgage securities business

and the originator of sub prime mortgages. Bear

Sterns ‘head of clearing’ is fired over the matter.

1996 By 1996, most of the big investment banks on

Wall Street had plunged into the subprime

business. First Alliance went public with avaluation of over $135 million dollars.

1996 By 1996, the RTC had resolved most of the

outstanding insolvencies of the savings and loan

crisis accounting for over 1,000 savings and loan

banks which failed along with total assets of over

$500 billion which disappeared during the period.

The savings and loan crisis of the 1980's and early

1990's produced the greatest collapse of the U.S.

financial institutions since the Great Depression

Page of31 227


(110 of 3



until now.

1996 With Alan Greenspan’s support, the Federal

Reserve Board expands permission to the banks

to create holding companies to own investment

(securities) bank affiliates which renders the

firewall of Glass-Steagall obsolete.

1996 From 1996 until 2005 subprime lending grew

489% -- from $90 billion to $530 billion.

1997 Bankers Trust purchases an investment bank,

becoming the first commercial bank to own a

securities firm since the depression. First Alliance

is sued by a number of elderly customers for

charging the same high fees to customers with

good credit as to those with bad credit.

!1997 Bear Stearns and Wells Fargo underwrite the first

securitization of subprime loans for a total of $385.

Freddie Mac guaranteed the payments on the

securities.

!

1997 -- Steve Eisman publishes his report trashing all

the sub prime originators. Accounting rules

allowed them to book as profit the expected future

Page of32 227


(111 of 3



value of these loans without regard to whether

they got paid off early nor whether they became

delinquent. This renders credit rating evaluations

meaningless.

1997 Roland Arnall morphs off his first subprime lender,

Long Beach Mortgage Company and keeps a

portion of the company which he rechristened

Ameriquest.

1998

In 1998, the United States was in the seventh year

of an economic boom. Inflation was low. Alan

Greenspan, touting technology and the Japanese

style of ‘just-in-time’ inventory said productivity

was the key.

Brooksley Born, as head of the CommodityFutures Trading Commission (CFTC) was worried

about the fast-growing derivative market that was

not transparent nor regulated . In 1998 derivatives

were the hottest frontier of the financial services

industry.

The derivatives industry had grown from a 70

trillion dollar industry from 2.5 billion a year earlier.

1998 Lehman Bros. became First Alliance’s primary

source of financing through the mortgage backed

Page of33 227


(112 of 3





joined the Clinton administration as his Treasury

Secretary.

!

Citigroup and Travelers quietly lobby government

officials for their support which includes Federal

Reserve Board Chairman Greenspan and

Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Even though

this merger is PATENTLY ILLEGAL, no one gets in

the way of the financial juggernaut. The Rule of

Law goes out the window. Finance prevails.

Fraud prevails.

1998 Long Term Capital Management suffers severe

losses following the Russian financial crises in

August. They lost $500 million in one day. They

have to reveal their positions if they wanted morecapital. Once they revealed their positions, other

firms began dumping those (trades) companies.

They are bailed out by a FED orchestrated plan by

major Wall St. companies. Warren Buffet’s plan is

ignored.

1998 Between 1993 and 1998 Goldman Sachs had

pretax profits of $12.2 billion.

1999 Citigroup hires Robert Rubin as the chief

lieutenant to Sandy Weill, the head of Citigroup.

Page of35 227


(114 of 3



1999 After lobbyists spend $300 million on campaign

contributions, Congress repeals the Glass Steagall

Act which was set up during the Great Depression

in 1933 and established the United States Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation separated

investment banks from commercial banks. It was

bank speculation that caused the Great

Depression. The idea was to prohibit large private

banks, whose chief business is the investment

business from receiving deposits. The Financial

Services Modernization Act was signed into law by

Democratic President Bill Clinton on November

12, 1999.

In 1999 the Congress enacted and President

Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-BlileyAct, also known as the Financial Services

Modernization Act. This law formally repealed the

part of the Glass–Steagall Act that had prohibited

a bank from offering a full range of investment.

commercial banking, and insurance services since

its enactment in 1933. A similar bill was introduced

in 1998 by Senator Phil Gramm but it was unable

to complete the legislative process into law.

Resistance to enacting the 1998 bill, as well as the

Page of36 227


(115 of 3



subsequent 1999 bill, centered around the

legislation's language which would expand the

types of banking institutions of the time into other

areas of service but would not be subject to CRA

compliance in order to do so. The Senator also

demanded full disclosure of any financial "deals"

which community groups had with banks, accusing

such groups of "extortion".

In the fall of 1999, Senators Christopher Dodd and

Charles E. Schumer prevented another impasse by securing

a compromise between Sen. Gramm and the Clinton

Administration by agreeing to amend the Federal Deposit

Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. ch.16) to allow banks to merge or

expand into other types of financial institutions. The new

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's FDIC related provisions, alongwith the addition of sub-section § 2903(c) directly to Title 12,

insured any bank holding institution wishing to be redesignated

as a financial holding institution by the Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve System would also have

to follow Community Reinvestment Act compliance

guidelines before any merger or expansion could take effect.

At the same time the G-L-B Act's changes to the Federal

Deposit Insurance Act would now allow for bank expansions

into new lines of business, non-affiliated groups entering into

Page of37 227


(116 of 3



agreements with these bank or financial institutions would

also have to be reported as outlined under the newly added

section to Title 12, § 1831y. (CRA Sunshine Requirements),

satisfying Sen. Gramm's concerns.

In conjunction with the above Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

changes, smaller banks would be reviewed less frequently

for CRA compliance by the addition of §2908. (Small Bank

Regulatory Relief) directly to Chapter 30, (the existing CRA

laws), itself. The 1999 Act also mandated two studies to be

conducted in connection with the "Community Reinvestment

Act”:

! the first report by the Federal Reserve, to be delivered

to Congress by March 15, 2000, is a comprehensive

study of CRA to focus on default and delinquency rates,

and the profitability of loans made in connection withCRA.

! the second report to be conducted by the Treasury

Department over the next two years, is intended to

determine the impact of the Act on the provision of

services to low- and moderate-income neighborhoods

and people, as intended by CRA.

On signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, President Clinton

said that it, "establishes the principles that, as we expand the

powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the

Page of38 227


(117 of 3



[Community Reinvestment] Act”

1999 — Lehman Bros. becomes Alliance’s chief Wall Street

financial backer providing a $150 million dollar line of credit.

Lehman Bros. bundled Alliance loans every quarter and sold

them as securities. A Lehman executive admitted in 1999

that Alliance loans did not live up to the spirit of the federal

Truth in Lending Act.

2000 -- The U.S. Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore

which explicitly dispenses with The Rule of Law. Whereas,

before, the role of the U.S. Supreme Court is to establish

precedent, Bush v. Gore is the first time in history that the

U.S. Supreme Court specifically states that their decision is

NOT precedent. This decision along with the Anti-

Government Guidebook frees the judiciary from following

The Rule of Law and frees the judiciary from providingcitizens with The Due Process of Law. In other words, judges

can now do what they want when they want unfettered by

having to follow The Rule of Law.

2000 — Lehman Bros. purchases a stake in BNC Mortgage

Co., an Orange County subprime lender just down the road

from Ameriquest and a similar track.

2000 — The first mortgage-backed CDO was created at

Credit Suisse by a trader who had spent his formative years,

in the 1980’s and 1990’s in the Salomon Bros mortgage

Page of39 227


(118 of 3



department, Andy Stone. He was Greg Lippmann’s first

boss on Wall St.

2000 THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION sues

Alliance for predatory lending practices. Alliance

had a sales manual their sales mortgage brokers

used on how to rip people off. Alliance files for

bankruptcy.

2001 The Fed lowers the threshold on upstream

bank’s liability. That year financial institutions

gave more than 2.1 billion to finance state and

federal politicians’ election campaigns.

2001 A Senate Banking Committee was told that

unscrupulous lenders are cheating home owners

out of an estimated $9.1 billion dollars every year.

2001 The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency,the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation and the Office of Thrift

Supervision have proposed new regulations to

oversee subprime lending and distinguish such

loans from predatory financing. If the guidelines

are approved, lenders that then engaged in

predatory practices could be punished under

regulatory sanctions and in some cases even put

out of business.

Page of40 227


(119 of 3



2002 Between 1999 and 2002 Oregon consumers

filed 287 complaints alleging mortgage lending

abuses with the Department of Consumer and

Business Services. Household International, Inc.

entered into a settlement with Oregon consumers

among others for various claims for unfair and

deceptive claims practices for over $484 million

dollars.

2002 The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

(OCC) increasingly began pre-empting state

prosecutions of predatory lending exactly at the

time subprime and nontraditional lending

increased from a $267 billion dollar industry to a

one trillion dollar industry by 2005 and peaked in

2006.2002 The FTC settles their class action against

Alliance for $60 million identifying as many as

18,000 people who were ripped off by Alliance for

predatory lending practices. The settlement

liquidates Alliance and requires owner to

contribute $20 million of his own funds to the

settlement.

2002 State investigators led by Washington state led

to settlements on predatory lending practices

Page of41 227


(120 of 3



against Household Finance for $484 million.

2003 A federal jury in California held Lehman Bros

liable for knowingly assisting Alliance in

committing fraud in their loan practices.

2003 Under the preemption concept of federal

supremacy over state laws, the OCC stopped

state investigators in Washington state when state

bank examiners believed National City Mortgage

was violating the state’s Consumer Loan Act by

charging extra fees on mortgages. The federal

agency went no further because they had no

authority to enforce state consumer protection

laws.

2003 Subprime was on the rise and Ameriquest was

leading the way. The company’s owner, RolandArnall, had in many ways been the founding father

of subprime. He had pioneered this risky segment

amid the wreckage of the savings and loan

disaster and made Orange County the hub.

Michael W. Hudson, The Monster, Henry Holt and

Company (2010) Page 1-2. Every closing was

bait and switch because if you were honest you

would never get the customers to sign.

2004 Roland Arnall’s profit at Ameriquest is 1.3 billion.

Page of42 227


(121 of 3



With a ‘B’

2004 Lehman Bros. purchases the remaining portion of

BNC Mortgage Co. believing it could make more

money by cutting out the middle man.

2005 Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass wrote to

OCC’s leader John Dugan that “National banks

and their operating subsidiaries function without

meaningful law or enforcement,” by shoving aside

state regulators without filling the regulatory void

through federal enforcement of predatory lending

laws.

2006 Oregon receives about $1.5 million from the

class settlement against Ameriquest, the nation’s

largest subprime lender and based in California,

for $325 for predatory lending practices. Thedeceased owner of Ameriquest, Roland Arnall was

a multimillion dollar contributor to the 2004

President Bush campaign.

2006 Subprime lending shatters all previous records at

more than $1 trillion.

2007 In 2007, Ben Bernanke suggested further

increasing the presence of Fannie Mae and

Freddie Mac in the affordable housing market to

help banks fulfill their CRA obligations by providing

Page of43 227


(122 of 3



them with more opportunities to securitize CRArelated

loans.

February 28, 2007 Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the

Federal Reserve, testified on Capitol Hill that he

did not believe a “housing downturn” was a “broad

financial concern or a major factor in assessing

the state of the economy”. (Cohan at 323)

June 21, 2007 -- “I continue to believe that the

subprime issue is largely contained. It doesn’t

pose a significant risk to the economy overall.”

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson remarking

about Bear Stearns Hedge fund failure.

September 30, 2007 -- Stan O’Neal, CEO of Merrill

Lynch met with Ken Lewis, CEO of Bank of

America. Lewis was prepared to purchase ML for77 Billion. There was a hole in ML’s balance

sheet. The real estate bubble had burst in 2007.

This mortally wounded ML due to the wipeout of

the subprime mortgage market. Greg Farrell

Crash of the Titans, Crown Business, Page 4

(2010)

2007 October 31, 2007 Meredith Whitney an analyst

of financial firms for Oppenheimer and Co.

predicted that Citigroup was so mismanaged that it

Page of44 227


(123 of 3



was in a financial mess. Two weeks later,

Citigroup CEO Chuck Prince resigned.

Oregon’s Department of Consumer and

Business Services ordered Morgan Financial,

Fairlane Mortgage and Gibraltar Funding to

cease violating Oregon’s mortgage lending laws

and issued a fine to Fairlane for obtaining a

mortgage without having an Oregon license.

March 6, 2008 Tim Geithner, the ninth president and

CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York gave a

speech at the Council on Foreign Relations on the

looming crisis

March, 2008 The Fed decides to open its discount

window to investment banks in addition to commercial

banks. This program to begin March 26, 2008.March, 2008 -- As part of the merger agreement

between J.P.Morgan and Bear Stearns the New York

Fed through Tim Geitner agrees to “provide up to $30

Billion of supplemental funding secured by a pool ofr

collateral consisting primarily of Bear Stearns

mortgage-related securities and other mortgage-related

assets and related hedges. This if the first time the Fed

loaned money to an investment bank since the

Depression. (Cohan pg. 109)

Page of45 227


(124 of 3





Regulators, Investors. Everybody.”

2008 Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York

Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s

encouraged a loosening of lending standards

throughout the banking industry. He also charges the

Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of

the CRA. In a commentary for CNN, Congressman Ron

Paul, who serves on the United States House

Committee on Financial Services, charged the CRA

with "forcing banks to lend to people who normally

would be rejected as bad credit risks."[105] In a Wall

Street Journal opinion piece, Austrian school economist

Russell Roberts wrote that the CRA subsidized lowincome

housing by pressuring banks to serve poor

borrowers and poor regions of the country.However, many others dispute that the CRA was a

significant cause of the subprime crisis. Nobel laureate Paul

Krugman noted in November 2009 that 55% of commercial

real estate loans were currently underwater, despite being

completely unaffected by the CRA. According to Federal

Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner , the claim that "the law

pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage

lending" was contrary to their experience, and that no

empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim.

Page of47 227


(126 of 3



In a Bank for International Settlements (BIS) working paper,

economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence

that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for

encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent

housing bust", relying partly on evidence that the housing

bust has been a largely exurban event. Others have also

concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the financial

crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, Comptroller

of the Currency John C. Dugan,Tim Westrich of the Center

for American Progress, Robert Gordon of the American

Prospect, Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation,

Daniel Gross of Slate, and Aaron Pressman from

BusinessWeek .

Legal and financial experts have noted that CRA regulated

loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprimeexcesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the

CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor

Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under

President Clinton, stated that a Federal Reserve survey

showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans

profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately

50% of the subprime loans were made by independent

mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA,

and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA

Page of48 227


(127 of 3



regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that

institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in

four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most

widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least

federal oversight”. According to Janet L. Yellen, then-

President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco,

now, Head of the Fed, independent mortgage companies

made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of

the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly

made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have

contributed to the current crisis. A 2008 study by Traiger &

Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions

on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions

were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did

the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half aslikely to resell the loans. Emre Ergungor of the Federal

Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no

statistical difference in foreclosure rates between regulated

and less-regulated banks, although a local bank presence

resulted in fewer foreclosures.

During a 2008 House Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform hearing on the role of Fannie Mae and

Freddie Mac in the financial crisis, including in relation to the

Community Reinvestment Act, asked if the CRA provided the

Page of49 227


(128 of 3



"fuel" for increasing subprime loans, former Fannie Mae

CEO Franklin Raines said it might have been a catalyst

encouraging bad behavior, but it was difficult to know. Raines

also cited information that only a small percentage of risky

loans originated as a result of the CRA.

APPENDIX

! THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION(FTC) --

Its principal mission is the promotion of “consumer

protection” with a mandate to protect consumers

against unfair or deceptive acts or practices in

commerce and was established in 1914.

THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD (THE FED) --

Has regulatory jurisdiction over banking.

GLASS-STEAGALL ACT OF 1933 -- Following

the Great Crash of 1929 politicians regardedmarket speculation by banks as the cause. The

Act forced banks to chose between being a simple

lender or being an underwriter for investors.

(Officially, this is the Banking Act of 1933)

THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

(FHA) -- The banking crisis of the 1930's resulted

in the same loan paralysis that has occurred in

2007-2008. Banks had little faith in the backing of

Page of50 227


(129 of 3



the U.S. government, so few loans were issued

and few new homes were purchased. The FHA

was set up during the Depression in 1934 to

regulate the rate of interest and the terms of the

mortgages that it insured.

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT (HUD) absorbed the FHA in

1965. An FHA loan requires that the borrower pay

for the insurance securing the loan over a five year

period.

THE OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE

CURRENCY (OCC) -- Serves to charter, regulate

and supervise all national banks. This is the

agency responsible for investigating and

prosecuting acts of misconduct committed byaffiliated parties of national banks.

THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION(FDIC) -- The regulator and

insurer of commercial banks.

THE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN

INSURANCE CORPORATION (FSLIC) -- The

insurance company for savings and loan deposits.! OFFICE OF THRIFT

SUPERVISION (OTS) -- The

agency that replaced FSLIC and is the cousin to

Page of51 227


(130 of 3



the OCC. Most big depository and lending

institutions -- like Wells Fargo and Washington

Mutual (WaMu) are chartered by either the OCC or

OTS.

THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION(SEC)

THE BANK HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1956 --

Provided further restrictions on banks by

prohibiting banks owning two or more banks from

engaging in non-banking activity or buying banks

across state lines. This regulation prevented

banks from being too big to fail.

THE TRUTH IN LENDING ACT (TILA) --

Confluence passes TILA in 1968 to protect

consumers in home loan transactions by requiringcertain disclosures of key terms such as the actual

interest rate charged (after including the various

hidden fees and commissions into the cost of the

loan.

THE REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT

PROCEDURES ACT (RESPA)--Confluence enacts

(RESPA) of 1974 to require more effective

advance disclosure to home buyers of the loan

costs and fees. This new law was intended to

Page of52 227


(131 of 3



supplement TILA by eliminating certain kickbacks

and referral fees that unnecessarily increased the

cost of certain real estate transactions pertaining

to certain settlement services along with other real

estate lending improvements.

THE DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS

DEREGULATION AND MONETARY CONTROL

ACT OF 1980. This act effectively began the

erosion of the difference between a savings and

loan bank and a commercial bank.

In order to wring inflation out of the economy, The

Fed, under Paul Volker began a series of rises in

short term interest rates that eventually went up to

21% interest rates on mortgage loans in the early

1980's.Congress passed a law in 1981 that allowed S&L’s

to sell their mortgage loans and use the case

generated to seek better returns.

The buyers - major Wall Street firms -- were

quick to take advantage of the S&L’s lack of

expertise by buying 60-90% of the value and then

transforming the loans by bundling them as,

effectively, government-backed bonds (Ginnie

Mae, Freddie Mac, or Fannie Mae. S&L’s held

Page of53 227


(132 of 3



$150 billion of these bonds by 1986 and were

charged substantial fees for the transactions.

THE GARN-ST. GERMAIN DEPOSITARY

INSTITUTIONS ACT OF 1982 -- This act allowed

S&L’s to pay higher market rates for deposits,

borrow money from The Fed, make commercial

loans and issue credit cards. This was a radical

departure from their orIginal mission of providing

savings and mortgages. This new legislation

allowed them to enter new lending businesses

with very little oversight. L. William Seidman,

former chairman of both the FDIC and the RTC

was of the opinion that the banking problems of

the 1980's and 1990's came primarily from

unsound real estate lending.THE TAX REFORM ACT OF 1986 -- Removal of

real estate tax shelters precipitated the S&L crisis

because these properties were being held by

investors for their tax-advantage rather than their

inherent profitability. Tax deductions for losses on

these passive investments by real estate

syndicates were no longer allowed. Owners of

these properties then began to unload them

furthering the problem of sinking real estate

Page of54 227


(133 of 3



values.

THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REFORM,

RECOVERY, AND ENFORCEMENT ACT of

1989(FIRREA) -- Created to replace the FSLIC

and deal with the savings and loan crises.

RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION of

1989(RTC) -- Set up by Congress to resolve all

troubled savings and loan banks placed into

conservatorships between 1989 and 1992. It

ceased operation in 1995 and transferred its

assets and liabilities to the FSLIC.

THE HOME OWNERSHIP EQUITY

PROTECTION ACT OF 1994 (HOEPA)--

Confluence passes further protections to TILA by

requiring more disclosures and prohibiting certainhigh-interest loans.

THE FINANCIAL SERVICES MODERNIZATION

ACT OF 1999 -- Repeals Glass-Stegall Act of

1933, the latter of which set up the firewall

between securities (speculation) investment

banking and commercial (non speculation)

banking. This act effectively stopped effective

regulation of investment banking while also

allowing investment banks to own commercial

Page of55 227


(134 of 3



banks, insurance companies and other financial

institutions including mortgage banking and

brokers.

THE FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF OREGON --

Provides state resources to citizens regarding

predatory loans.

BANKING INDUSTRY LOBBYISTS

§ MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION OF

AMERICA (MBBA)

§ NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MORTGAGE

BROKERS (NAMB)

CONSUMER LOBBYISTS, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF

RETIRED

PEOPLE (AARP)

CENTER FOR RESPONSIBLE LENDINGASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY

ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM NOW (ACORN)

AMERICANS FOR FAIRNESS IN LENDING

(AFFIL)

CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA

(CFOA)

HOPE NOW ALLIANCE

FOR FEE CONSUMER SOURCES

Page of56 227


(135 of 3



¢ MORTGAGE ADVISORY

¢ NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MORTGAGE

PLANNERS

FAITHLESS IN FORECLOSURE

HOW 22 JUDGES TOOK MY HOME

Paulson had been the proud owner of the M.E. Blanton

House, on the National Register of Historic Places, for over

twenty (20) years and is located in Aloha, Oregon where he

grew up. Paulson’s parents are Swedish immigrants.

Paulson is a veteran, a former paratrooper with graduations

hanging on the wall. Paulson purchased The Historic M.E.

Blanton House in 1989.

IV. FACTS

2005--Fairway and Paulson entered into the subjectloans through the facilities of a loan broker referred to as

Joan Doe.

2005-2008--Payments on the loan were made until

February, 2008. The property had been put up for sale in

2005.

February, 2008-to-

August, 2008 --The parties engaged in various

resolution negotiations including a forbearance agreement

upon which the Plaintiff began making monthly payments.

Page of57 227


(136 of 3



Fairway then reneged on that agreement, but did not return

Paulson’s first payment. Now, Paulson realizes all these

negotiations were a sham. Fairway and its subsidiaries have

always intended to flim-flam themselves into ownership of

these historic properties.

August 21, 2008--The negotiations broke down and

Paulson filed this class action predatory loan lawsuit.

Lauren Paulson v. Fairway Commercial Mortgage

Corporation, et al., U.S. District Court of Oregon, Case No.

08-cv-00982. Paulson paid the District Court filing fee when

this case was filed in 2008. (Docket #1 in District Court Case

# 08-cv-00982) This is Paulson’s original lawsuit against

Fairway, FHLF, LLC and Wells Fargo among other

defendants, for predatory lending.

November 25, 2008--Fairway/FHLF, LLC issued their Notice of Default and Election to sell the subject properties

with the nonjudicial foreclosure sale scheduled on April 10,

2009.

March 9, 2009--This Court issued its order Designating

this Case for Mediation. Paulson made a preliminary contact

with the Ninth Circuit and Judge John Jelderks as a

mediator/settlement conference judges. Judge Jelderks

would have been available in May. The Defendants refused

to participate.

Page of58 227


(137 of 3



April 9, 2009--To prevent the threatened foreclosure,

Paulson filed his Chapter 11 Bankruptcy (Case No.

09-32439-rld 11) and conveyed the subject properties to

himself as an individual and the Real Party at Interest --

without Creditor objection.

June, 2009--Pursuant to a stipulated agreement in the

Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceedings, the subject properties

were put up for sale through a licensed real estate agent.

The Subject Property -- The major asset in the

bankruptcy proceedings, other than the District Court

predatory loan case, is the real estate owned by Paulson for

over twenty years. Half the real estate is the M.E. Blanton

House which is on the National Register of Historic places.

This property is approximately .68 of an acre holding a High

Style Craftsman Bungalow structure where Paulsonmaintained his law office for over twenty years. (Paulson

was elected to the Board of Governors of the Oregon State

Bar in 2002. Paulson became a whistle blower at the

Oregon State Bar in 2004. He was unceremoniously quitted

from his practice for his activism in 2006). The M.E. Blanton

House is 3,500 square feet of original fir wainscoting and

oak wood floors done in high style. The other half of the real

property, of about the same size, adjoins the M.E. Blanton

House to make a square. This other half is three lots,

Page of59 227


(138 of 3



affectionately known as “The Three Sisters”. There are three

structures on the center lot of these three lots which are

erstwhile rentals. So, picture a square cut down the middle

with the M.E. Blanton Home on one half and three buildings

(one not habitable, yclept ‘The Barn’) on the other half, all

called ‘The Three Sisters’.

The formal appraised value of The M.E. Blanton House

obtained during the sale negotiations of August and

September, 2009 is $425,000. The sale price offered by a

local investor on The Three Sisters on August 5, 2009 was

$230,000 without conditions precedent other than to convey

marketable title. This means the combined value of the entire

real estate involved here is $655,000. The putative loan

amount claimed by Fairway/FHLF is $400,000. Thus,

Paulson’s property IS NOT underwater. To the contrary,Paulson has more than $250,000 equity.

The putative illegal nonjudicial foreclosure sale for

which Defendant FHLF, LLC made their credit bid (meaning

no cash is paid) of $375,000 for The Blanton House and

$175,000 for Three Sisters occurred on September 25, 2009.

‘Sale’ of Half of The Properties in 2009: -- The Three

Sisters property (three of the four parcels) did receive,

on August 5, 2009; an unconditional written cash offer

from a local investor of $230,000 to purchase said three

Page of60 227


(139 of 3



parcels. In September of 2009 the Plaintiff Paulson

found out he was eligible for a reverse mortgage on the

fourth parcel of over $250,000 net to him and available

to resolve the subject loan along with the

aforementioned purchase offer on the three other

parcels. Both transactions were made known to the

defendants and escrow was ordered with Candace

Brown at First American Title Insurance Company of

Oregon.

Both transactions were nullified by the illegal nonjudicial

foreclosure sale held by defendants Fairway/FHLF, LLC,

Parker and Russillo on September 25, 2009; done without

notice to the plaintiff, without giving Paulson his Right to

Cure as required by state law and otherwise done without

regard to the danger notice requirement of state law.Schwabe lawyer Craig Russillo admitted on the record that

the required ‘danger’ notice was not provided to Paulson.

This new law applicable at this time is:

--Oregon law ORS 86.737 requires that a specified

(‘danger’) notice be provided to an owner such as Paulson

prior to a nonjudicial foreclosure. That statute provides:

“86.737 Notice to grantor; requirements; additional

forms; rules. (1) If a notice of default is recorded for property

that is subject to a residential trust deed, the sender of a

Page of61 227


(140 of 3



notice of sale under ORS 86.740 shall, on or before the date

the notice of sale is served or mailed, give notice under this

section to the grantor by both first class and certified mail

with return receipt requested. Subject to any rules adopted

under subsection (2) of this section, the notice must be in

substantially the following form and printed in at least 14-

point type:.......”

Under Oregon law this notice must be provided

regarding property that is subject to residential trust deed

foreclosure. Under ORS 86.705 a residential trust deed

means a trust deed on property upon which are situated four

or fewer residential units and one of the residential units is

occupied as the principal residence of the grantor at the time

a trust deed foreclosure is commenced. This trust deed

foreclosure was commenced on November 28, 2008. At thattime and at all times pertinent here, the trust deed

foreclosure was upon property which are situated three

residential units and Paulson, the grantor, has occupied one

of the residential units as his principal residence. It is

undisputed that Fairway/FHLF, LLC, the beneficiary and his

successors and assigns failed to provide these statutory

notices to the grantors as required by law.

Mr. Joel Parker, a defendant in this federal court case

(Case No. 08-CV-00982-ST) and a Schwabe lawyer,

Page of62 227


(141 of 3



engaged in this illegal foreclosure sale of September 25,

2009 as the successor trustee of the loan without having

legal or what is called Constitutional Standing in any of the

legal proceedings. (Case No 09-32439-rid11).]

November 5, 2009--The Chapter 11 case was

converted to a Chapter 7.

January 13, 2010--FHLF, LLC illegally obtained relief

from the automatic stay in the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

proceeding to file their FED actions for possession of the

subject properties. FHLF, LLC filed their FED proceedings in

Washington County Circuit Court under Case Nos.C100084-86

January 15, 2010--Paulson removed the state court

FED proceedings to Federal District Court under the number

of the original instant proceeding and filed his Third-Party

Complaint. The removal proceeding was assigned toJudge Michael Mosman under Case No. 10-cv-48-MO.

[Note, keep in mind there is duplicate litigation over the

same property in the same federal court in Case No. 08-

cv-00982]. What should have happened here was a

consolidation of the two cases.

February 25, 2010--The Trustee of the Chapter 7

proceeding, Amy Mitchell, subverted Paulson’s Class Action

for predatory lending to a proposal to settle the instant

lawsuit for $5,000 through negotiations with Craig Russillo.

Page of63 227


(142 of 3



Paulson objected and a hearing was held discussed below.

March 4, 2010--In a scheduled court proceeding in

Case No. 3:10-CV-48-MO for a “status conference” filed by

the attorneys for Franki Keefe, Judge Michael Mosman orally

remanded this federal court case to the state court FED

proceedings. This ruling was contrary to established law

which states that if the property is initially subject to federal

court jurisdiction as here, then state courts may not

commence their own proceeding over the same property.

(Since the State Court proceedings are not part of

these allegations of judicial misconduct by federal judges,

they are left out of the timeline here. Paulson’s lawsuit

against these Fairway Defendants is still pending in

Washington County Circuit Court. Subsequent timelines

follow below, integrated into the specific acts of judicialmisconduct by each judge in those extended timelines):

WHERE IT ALL REALLY BEGAN

Paulson’s ‘Troubles’ started ten years ago when he tried to

save the M.E. Blanton House from the wrecking ball. You

see, the County wanted part of it for a street widening

program. He fell onto hard times in the two-year struggle

against ‘county-hall’ of which he was only partially

Page of64 227


(143 of 3



successful.

Then Paulson decided to become a whistleblower. That set

Paulson at odds with another governmental agency, a local

federal judge and put him deeper in debt. This venture

eventually took away his constitutional right to earn a living.

Paulson is an educated consumer. That did not prevent

Paulson from succumbing to a predatory loan in 2005.

Happily, he is not ‘underwater’. The siren song of retirement

whispered that this loan was O.K. because Paulson was

going to sell the historic property anyway in a year or two,

then pay off this horrible 12.5% loan. (The closing costs

were over $25,000.) It didn’t happen that way. Paulson put

the property up for sale in 2006, but asked too much. In

2007 Paulson had a failed sale.

This lender is not regulated by any state or federal agency.So, then the predatory loan came due at the inopportune

time that Paulson became unemployed due to the

machinations of the Oregon State Bar. That matter is

presently being litigated in U.S. District Court of Oregon and

in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

THE DEFAULT

Paulson went directly to his lender in February 2008 and

worked on a “forbearance agreement” where the price of

‘forbearance he would have to give up all legal rights and the

Page of65 227


(144 of 3







• Fannie Mae Home Affordable Refinance

Page "105 of "410

"106

• Freddie Mac Relief Refinance Mortgage and Home

Affordable Modification

• Obama Mortgage Modification Conversion Drive

Office of Homeownership Preservation

• State Historic Preservation League

• Acorn Housing Corporation

• National Community Reinvestment Coalition

• African American Alliance for Homeownership

• Local Banks

• Other Financial Institutions

• Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America

• Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP)• Citizens for Responsible Lending

Beginning in January 2009, Paulson went to them all either

in person, by computer, by telephone or by gosh and by

golly. It is possible to summarize the results of this effort

with these metaphors. The State of Oregon Veteran’s Home

Loan program advised him that since Paulson had been a

veteran for more than thirty years, he was not eligible for

their home loan programs. (Did anybody know one could

lose their veteran status?) Acorn’s office was closed on

Page of68 227


(147 of 3



Good Friday. All the banks said that their programs weren’t

fully developed yet. The federal websites put one in a

screen tree that is fireproof from ever getting to a human

being. That is when Paulson went straight to the local HUD

office in person where they told Paulson he was not eligible

for ANY program. “BUT”, they asked, “HAD HE TRIED

COUNSELING??”

THE BANKRUPTCY

On to bankruptcy, the rescue club! At first blush, one would

think that this is where debtors like Paulson achieve succor

of some sort. Stay the course.

It was now about a year after Paulson missed his first

payment. Paulson had also made a payment on that

forbearance agreement where the lender wanted Paulson to

give up all of his other rights--even if they committed fraud!For a debtor in bankruptcy court there are some startling

realities:

• Counseling -- Many of us may feel we are too good for

this, but Paulson has found, now having undergone

three counseling sessions, that they are all worthwhile.

Unfortunately, there is no tie between all the good

counseling information and a rescue loan.

• Up Front Money -- Paulson had to pay for the

counseling, pay a huge retainer to his bankruptcy

Page of69 227


(148 of 3



attorney, pay for the U.S. Trustee’s fee, prove his taxes

were current (they were), and so on. Wait a minute,

one thought it was the debtor who sought

PROTECTION for the limited funds the debtor had

left?!?

• There is no succor in bankruptcy -- What is striking is

the bankruptcy court actually serves to strip the debtor

of any of his liquid funds, any of his equity, any of his

personal property, then the bankruptcy trustee Amy

Mitchell seeks to her own purse, funds owing to the

debtor. The illegal deal was that Ms. Mitchell, under the

supposed watchful eye of the U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee

was to strip Paulson of his equity in his real estate AND

nullify Paulson’s $17 million dollar lawsuit against

predatory lenders for the illegal practices recited above.• Once again, fate had brought Paulson’s way a cash

buyer on half the property with no conditions. Now, we

are getting somewhere.

Those counseling sessions had disclosed a significant

ADDITIONAL rescue vehicle for Paulson because he is

a SENIOR. However, no one but Paulson figured it out.

Paulson is ELIGIBLE FOR A REVERSE MORTGAGE.

Paulson did due diligence on reverse mortgages. But

more than anything, Open Door Counseling gave

Page of70 227


(149 of 3



almost four (4) hours of sophisticated knowledge to an

attentive customer. THERE IS NO DOWN SIDE TO

REVERSE MORTGAGES, even in dire circumstances

like here.

PROBLEM SOLVED?

All problems solved? Yep. The money from the cash buyer

(of three of the four lots of the property), combined with the

funds from the reverse mortgage would more than pay off

the underlying predatory loan in question.

Unbeknownst to Paulson, while we put together the cash/

reverse mortgage deal in Bankruptcy Court, the lender had

illegally foreclosed the property out from underneath

Paulson, outside the Bankruptcy proceedings, without the

required statutory notice to Paulson. Suddenly, Paulson

didn’t own these properties anymore according to the predatory lender and he promptly advised the buyers and my

reverse mortgage agent of this fact. The buyers went away

as did the reverse mortgage broker.

So, each day, Paulson gazed out of his window (a wavy

historic frosted window) and wondered if the foreclosure

swat team is going to show up on his driveway to put his

stuff out into the street. They did with draconian purpose.

Eventually, they came on May 24, 2010 without prior notice

and by means of AN ILLEGAL ex parte (one sided) court

Page of71 227


(150 of 3



proceeding of which Paulson was not given prior notice,

locked Paulson’s doors and threw Paulson out into the

street. And they took all his stuff. At age 66, after working 58

years, if you count picking strawberries at age 8 and

thereafter; he became homeless.

Is there no True Rescue Vehicle (TRV) out there? Who is

Paulson? Paulson is Everyman.

DEFINITIONS for further reading

The Law

COMMON LAW -- Law developed by judicial decisions.

This is the Anglo-American legal tradition which adheres to

the principle of stare decisis (“let the decision stand”). This

doctrine holds that judges must look to past judicial

decisions or Man-made legislated laws to answer the case

before them presenting identical or similar questions. KermitL. Hall, ed., The Oxford Guide to the Supreme Court, Page

197 (2005)

NATURAL LAW -- This is the philosophical doctrine holding

that there is a certain order in nature that provides norms for

human conduct. It proposes that people can grasp certain

principles through practical reason divined by nature and

God. If a judge makes decisions based on instincts and

subjective reasoning then the philosopher George

Santayana would call that Man’s imitation of divinity. Will

Page of72 227


(151 of 3



Durant, The Story of Philosophy, Page 493 (1926-1961)

Judge Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit and Justice Clarence

Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court both are adherents to

Natural Law instead of Common Law.

Real Estate Concepts

Necessary legal real estate concepts of the whole:

The Front Load: Here is what is really going on. The

lawyers and the bankers have front loaded a simple

residential loan and sale with so much complicated

paperwork that even a sophisticated consumer does not

understand what is happening. Nor does anybody read

these documents.

The Back Load Dump: On the other hand, lawyers

and bankers have simplified their ability to get your home

through nonjudicial foreclosure to the point of denyingconsumers basic constitutional due process. Let me explain.

Here are the real estate concepts you MUST understand.

1. The Sheepskin -- The ‘Sheepskin’ is what can be

called ‘legal title’. When a seller conveys a residential

home to the buyer the former usually transfers the

‘Sheepskin’ to the latter. The bank gets a lien usually

called a mortgage.

2. The Complication -- There are ‘lien theory’ states and

there are ‘title theory’ states. In lien theory states the

Page of73 227


(152 of 3



buyer (consumer) holds the ‘Sheepskin’. The bank

simply has a lien. In title theory states the bank gets

the ‘Sheepskin’ and the consumer simply has an

‘equity’ interest in their home subject to what they owe.

In lien theory states usually the consumer gets due

process, at least in theory, because a bank has to go

through the courts to foreclose. In title theory states

nonjudicial foreclosure is the norm. There are few due

process protections in nonjudicial foreclosures.

3. Trust Deeds -- This is where they slipped the

consumers a ‘Mickey Finn’. A Trust Deed is NOT a deed at

all. It is a mortgage. It is a security interest. It is NOT

the ‘Sheepskin’. The theory behind a trust deed is that a

straw person (not to be confused with the ‘nominee‘ concept

developed in MERS issues), called a trustee is anunknown fictitious person out there that can slip and slide to

the courthouse steps and sell your home in a nonjudicial

foreclosure sale without you getting due process. In short,

the banks have devised a scheme where you, the

consumer, have given the banks a ‘power of sale‘ to this

unknown (trustee) person so they don’t have to do the right

thing by you nor have a judge looking over their shoulder

while they are placing you in the foreclosure shaft to

homelessness.

Page of74 227


(153 of 3



THE FIERCE STORMS OF LITIGATION Arrive Along

With 22 JUDGES

The laws of nature. The Laws of Nature are different from

Man-made laws such as statutes and case law. Judges are

required to follow the latter not the former. Judges are

required to follow Man-made laws which are known as The

Rules of Law. We are supposed to be a country subject to

The Rules of Law. Laws of Nature are different. When

judges follow the Laws of Nature they are being “free

agents”. They are not applying nor following the Laws of

Man. Therefore, they are not following Common Law. They

are not following the Law of Precedents otherwise known as

stare decisis. STARE DECISIS Lat. "to stand by that which

is decided." The principal is that the precedent (previous)

decisions are to be followed by the courts. It is only throughthis predictability can lawyers knowledgeably advise their

clients. Stare Decisis is missing in action in our present

legal system. We are not a country subject to The Rule of

Law when judges follow the laws of nature or do whatever

they want when they want.

Laws of Nature should be left to those who discovered

them in the first place: scientists. Laws of Nature should be

left to those who discovered them in the first place:

philosophers. Laws of human conduct i.e.., Man-made laws

Page of75 227


(154 of 3



or statutory laws are made by legislatures. Laws of Nature

are discovered by scientists and philosophers. Man-made

Laws are supposed to be discovered and applied by judges

based on decisions in previous cases. Once so discovered

and applied, these laws are supposed to be followed by

subsequent judicial rulings as precedent. The public cannot

possibly know how to conduct themselves in the field of

human affairs unless they can rely on judge-made law or

Common Law from previous judicial decisions. This is also

known as Case Law. Case law is the law enunciated by

cases decided by judges in our highest courts.

“Aquinas conceives the Laws of Nature which the

scientist discovers as laws implanted in the very nature of

things at their creation by God.” Mortimer Adler, Great

Ideas, The Lexicon of Western Thought, MacmillanPublishing Company, Page 417(1952, 1992)

The problem is that the judiciary has decided that it is

free to follow the Laws of Nature; that is the laws divined by

God, rather than the Common Law. In a word, judges have

decided they are Gods and may follow their own instincts

and do not have to follow Man-made law. This is a case in

point. It is why 22 different judges have fallen into a black

hole of decision making.

All the while, the Common Law is clear under the facts

Page of76 227


(155 of 3



found here. First, a lender may not assign a security

instrument (a mortgage or deed of trust) without also

assigning the debt instrument (the Promissory Note).

Second, banks (and all lenders) must maintain a clear chain

of title. It is just like ownership of a car. If banks assign the

security instrument without also assigning the Promissory

Note they make a fatal mistake. This is what has been

happening all around the United States. The media loves

the concept of ‘robo signatures’, but that is not the new

tsunami already sweeping across the Country. Lenders’

failure to properly assign the Promissory Note is a much

more fundamental problem for the banks, yet this concept is

little understood by the media.

Once these two documents (the deed of trust and the

Promissory Note) are separated in subsequent transfers onthe way to the securitization process, each controlled as they

are by two separate areas of the law; the lender cannot

enforce the security instrument. Humpty Dumpty, once fallen

and broken cannot be put back together again. Simple eh?

None of the 22 judges, in five (5) years of litigation have

taken notice of these simple principles of Man-made law in

existence for about two hundred (200) years in the United

States. Why have they not had a refresher course in this

problem at ‘Judge Camp’? Judge camps are the lavish

Page of77 227


(156 of 3



‘conferences’ judges have all over town, all over the state, all

over the world all the time. The Ninth Circuit had theirs in

Maui, Hawaii in 2010. Judge College is in Reno, Nevada

and subject to leadership by Nevada casinos.

The New York State courts recognized the problem of

lender’s lack of ‘Standing’ as early as 2004. Where has

everybody else been all this time?

None of the 22 judges here have taken notice of this

aspect of Common Law even though Paulson has

repeatedly raised the issue formally in his motions and

pleadings. The judges here have just ignored this issue; this

articulated legal standard under the Common Law. Not a

word have they said about this area of the Common Law.

Rather, they, all 22 of them, have divined themselves free to

make any decision they want to make eschewing clear Manmadelaw; eschewing the federal Common Law, eschewing

Oregon statutes and state Common Law all over the United

States. The problem is the judges are not Gods, therefore

they are constrained not to follow their biases and their own

personal view of Natural Law. In other words, judges may

not make any decision they want, motivated as to how they

feel that day. They may not make any decision they want

whether they like the merchant class party in front of them

nor whether they like or dislike the lonely unrepresented and

Page of78 227


(157 of 3



unwashed single digit party in front of them; in a word, they

may not like Paulson. It is manifest that they must follow

statutes and Case (or Common) Law anyway. They must

follow precedent. See, Appendix for specifics how each

judge has assiduously diverted from the Common Law to the

Natural Law in their considerations of this case.

UNFAIR FORECLOSURES IN THE REAL WORLD

(Or How Paulson Learned to Love his 22 judges in a

Simple, Single-Asset Bankruptcy)

Morton J. Horwitz, (sic) in his book, Transformation of

American Law, 1870 to (Present), tells us that early law was

chiefly for the benefit of the merchants. So, it is now. It was

chilling in Bankruptcy Court to learn that the overriding

standard for the entire bankruptcy process is “...for the

paramount interests of the creditors”.Thus admonished, Paulson now sees the process as it

really is. There is no one out there speaking up against the

wrongs and fraud being perpetrated by the financial industry.

It is essential that debtors, know what banks have

been doing wrong. This knowledge is the ultimate effective

power in the hands of debtors. It is the end of the world for

the financial institutions (banks and mortgage brokers) who

have been doing it wrong. It has to do with

CONSTITUTIONAL STANDING. **WARNING** ---

Page of79 227


(158 of 3



Hundreds of thousands of foreclosures must be

reexamined to determine if nonjudicial or judicial

foreclosures have occurred illegally because the Promissory

Note had been separated from the mortgage, but the debtor

was not aware of the issue. In Oregon alone this means that

ALL of the thousands of foreclosures that occurred that have

occurred since 2006 must be reexamined carefully, whether

the foreclosure is completed or not. Across the United

States it means over four million foreclosures need to be

reviewed to see if all parties made the same mistake as in

Natache’s case (see below) and here.

More probably, this means that this class action will call

for all foreclosures in the last ten (10) years be reexamined

to determine if the lender made this fatal mistake that will

cost them legal standing.LEGAL STANDING

Judges have a remarkably full tool kit to dispatch

disfavored debtors to the dust bin. In some states that is

exactly what judges have been doing since at least 2004.

However, now that this tsunami is about to engulf the

financial industry, there is nothing the judges can do to

improperly favor the merchants. That is because of the

formidable legal concept of Constitutional Standing. There is

nothing judges can do about it except rule in favor of the

Page of80 227


(159 of 3



debtors. Creditors either have Standing and they win, or

they don’t and they lose. There are few areas of the law that

are this black or white. This is one of them. You will have to

read further to see how powerful the concept of Standing is

for debtors. You will have to read Paulson’s story. It is a sad

tale of predatory practices, judicial incompetence and fraud.

Outright fraud. That is what those 50 state attorney generals

and U.S. Attorneys must be examining on behalf of innocent

(homeless) consumers.

Natache’s Case

It became known to Paulson, by virtue of Federal Judge

Garr King’s October 6, 2010 ruling in Natache Rinegard-

Guirma’s case, cited below, that FHLF, LLC has no standing

before any of the forums mentioned below. The issue of

whether a party has standing cannot be waived.‘Constitutional Standing’ is a “threshold jurisdictional

requirement, and cannot be waived”. Pershing Park Villas

Homeowners Assoc. v. Unified Pac. Ins. Co., 219 F3d 895,

899-900 (9th Cir 2000).

Bankruptcy—

The Plaintiff, Lauren Paulson, was represented by

Attorney Matt Arbaugh during the bankruptcy proceedings

from April 2009 until May 2010 and throughout, from Chapter

11, Chapter 7 until the bankruptcy appeal. Notwithstanding

Page of81 227


(160 of 3





have no legal standing to file any pleadings in any court.

This matter has been before twenty-two (22) judges in

six (6) separate judicial forums involving eight (8) lawyers

not to mention a filing by Paulson with the Oregon Attorney

General’s Office (that has been completely ignored. All the

media hype about the state attorney general’s activity is just

that).

It began in August 2008. It presently pends in the

Washington County Circuit Court, the Oregon Court of

Appeals, the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth

Circuit, the Oregon Federal District Court, Portland Division

and the U.S Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit as follows:

1. Oregon Bankruptcy Case No. 09-32439rd11/7

2.Washington County Circuit Court Case No. C 100084

3.Washington County Circuit Court Case No. C 1000854.Washington County Circuit Court Case No. C 100086

5.Oregon Court of Appeals Case No. A14569

6.Oregon Court of Appeals Case No. A14570

7.Oregon Court of Appeals Case No A14671

8.United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Case No.

BAP OR-10-1173

9.Oregon District Court Case No. 3:10-cv-00048-MO

Page "128 of "410

"129

Page of83 227


(162 of 3



10.United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit Case

No. 10-35745 (multiple#)

11.Oregon District Court Case No. cv-08982-ST/PK

ISSUE

Does FHLF, LLC have legal standing before any of the

forums on any of the pending matters?

ANSWER

No. State law requires that when mortgages (here

deeds of trust) are assigned that the Promissory Note be

transferred to or endorsed to the assignee, FHLF, LLC. That

wasn’t done. This means that the security instruments were

separated from the Promissory Notes between two

companies. Fairway held the Promissory Notes and FHLF,

LLC held the deeds of trust. The Rinegard (Natache’s) case

in Oregon and the law across the United States says thatwhen the security instruments (deeds of trust or the

mortgage) are separated from the debt obligation, (the

Promissory Notes) by such a defective assignment, the

security instruments become ineffective. The debt

obligations (the Promissory Notes) are no longer secured.

(See cases below)

This means that FHLF, LLC, which was only assigned

the security instruments, not the Promissory Notes, had no

standing in these forums nor had a right to foreclose

Page of84 227


(163 of 3



because they did not possess nor have an interest in the

debt instruments—i.e., the Promissory Notes.

THE FACTS

At issue here are two 2005 trust deed transactions with

two Promissory Notes between Paulson and Fairway

Commercial Mortgage Corporation (Fairway). Fairway

Commercial Mortgage Corporation subsequently morphed

into variously described new organizations such as one

yclept “Fairway America”, or one nka (now known as)

Skylands Investment Corporation, or one called Fairway

America, LLC or one called Fairway Commercial Corporation

and so on. Matthew (Matt) W. Burk is apparently involved in

all the creditor entities (Fairway Commercial Mortgage

Corporation, Fairway Commercial Mortgage, Fairway

America, Fairway America, LLC, FHLF, LLC, and SkylandsInvestment Corporation, Manager of FHLF, LLC) mentioned

here. The 2005 loan transaction with Paulson only involved

Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation. The 2005

transaction involved none of the other entities.

Huber-Wheeler Crossing, LLC (with Paulson as the

sole member) is the borrower on one Note and Lauren

Paulson, Trustee of his testamentary (will) trust is the

borrower on the other Note. Paulson was represented by

attorney Matt Arbaugh for the bankruptcy proceedings. On

Page of85 227


(164 of 3



Mr. Arbaugh’s instructions and without objection by Fairway

Commercial Mortgage Corporation, the four land parcels

(lots) were quitclaimed to Lauren Paulson as an individual to

facilitate the bankruptcy reorganization. Paulson had gone

out of business as a lawyer in 2006 and Huber-Wheeler

Crossing, LLC had become inactive the same year.

The original lender, Fairway Commercial Mortgage

Corporation, assigned their deeds of trust to FHLF, LLC on

February 6, 2006, but failed to assign, endorse nor deliver

the underlying Promissory Notes to FHLF, LLC. Fairway

Commercial Mortgage Corporation remained the lender and

‘Holder’ on the Promissory Notes following this ineffective

assignment. It should be noted that neither Fairway nor

FHLF, LLC gave the debtor notice of the 2006 deed of trust

assignment.FHLF, LLC’s current attorney, Craig Russillo, also

represents Fairway America, Fairway American LLC,

Fairway Commercial Mortgage and Fairway Commercial

Mortgage Corporation, Matt Burk and Wells Fargo Foothills.

Mr. Russillo was the attorney for FHLF, LLC in the FED

eviction state court cases and was the attorney for FHLF,

LLC in the bankruptcy proceedings. In addition, Mr. Russillo

was formally designated as the agent for Joel Parker, the

successor trustee at the nonjudicial foreclosure sale. In this

Page of86 227


(165 of 3



agency capacity, Mr. Russillo conducted the nonjudicial

foreclosure sale of September, 25, 2010 with Fairway’s

corporate attorney, Greg Blair, in tow.

FHLF, LLC, through Schwabe attorney Joel Parker, as

successor trustee, and Schwabe attorney Craig Russillo, as

his agent; conducted that nonjudicial foreclosure on

September 25, 2009 at the courthouse steps. This

nonjudicial foreclosure sale was done on that date without

notice to Paulson. This foreclosure was defective due to

multiple other mistakes made by FHLF, LLC and their

counsel, but those defects are addressed elsewhere.

THE LAW

Absolute Assignment

FHLF, LLC’s attorney, Mr. Russillo, has asserted the

notion that the ‘Absolute Assignment’ in 2006 of the deeds oftrust does the job for them. They say this because there is

general ‘Note’ transfer language found in that document. In

other words, FHLF, LLC would say that the language in the

deeds of trust assignment is enough to include the

Promissory Notes in that assignment. This notion is refuted

by the Rinegard (Natache’s) case discussed below among

all the other judicial decisions that have ruled on this issue

across the country. An attempt to assert a general transfer

of a Promissory Note in the mortgage (deeds of trust)

Page of87 227


(166 of 3



assignment was an issue in Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan

Servicing, LLC 284 SW 3rd 619, 623 (Mo Ct App 2009). The

court found as it did in Rinegard, that ‘blanket mortgage

assignment language’ in an attempt to include the

Promissory Note is of no force because no actual transfer of

possession of the Promissory Note occurs as required by the

law.

But, even if such an assignment were enough (which it

is not because how the Promissory Note is transferred is

governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), as is

discussed below; NOT by the law of assignments) there are

specific requirements under the law of absolute assignments

which must be followed:

• The entire debt must be assigned. That did not

happen here.• The assignment must be in writing.

• The intention of the parties must be clear.

• Written notice of the assignment must be given to

the debtor. That did not happen here. Failure to

provide Paulson with notice of the alleged

Promissory Note assignment renders it void under

the law of assignments. Condor Asset

Management Ltd v. Excelsior Eastern Ltd.,

NSWSC 1139, (2005)

Page of88 227


(167 of 3



• Then, under an ‘absolute assignment’ the

assignor, Fairway, must be joined in any

foreclosure and that was not done here.

The Uniform Commercial Code

Before one can legally own a car, a person must

physically come into title. One may not legally transfer

ownership of a car to another without signing off on the title

first. One cannot expect money from the transfer of car

ownership without having first been in title and then legally

transferring one’s interest in that legal instrument. In other

words, one cannot legally enforce a car sale if that person

didn’t legally own the car in the first place. FHLF, LLC can’t

enforce the debt alleged to be owed to them by Paulson

without legally owning the Promissory Notes first. One

cannot refer to ‘other documents’; the endorsements(signatures) must be on the title document itself or

permanently attached. Fairway never signed over the

Promissory Notes nor delivered possession of the

Promissory Notes to FHLF, LLC as required by law. Thus,

FHLF, LLC has no skin in the game because not only do

they not have a penny involved in the alleged assignment,

Fairway never transferred possession of the Promissory

Notes to FHLF, LLC.

1. Negotiation and Transfer of Promissory Notes: --

Page of89 227


(168 of 3



The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), with state-specific

variations, has been adopted as law by all 50 states and

governs a major portion of the law regarding deeds of trust

and accompanying Promissory Notes. Article 3 applies to

the negotiation and transfer of Promissory Notes as they are

‘negotiable instruments’ as defined in that section of the

UCC. Article 9 of the UCC governs the sale of Promissory

Notes. Oregon’s UCC law is identical to all UCC references

here.

2. Enforcement of Promissory Notes Requires

Delivery: -- A negotiable Promissory Note is transferred

when it is “delivered” for the purpose of giving the transferee

(the receiving entity) the right to enforce the note. [See UCC

Section 3-203(a), ORS 73.0203(1)] Fairway never

‘delivered’ the Promissory Notes to FHLF, LLC. Under theUCC if an entity never came into possession of the Note

then they are not entitled to enforce the Promissory Note.

[UCC Section 3-301] Because FHLF, LLC never came into

possession of Paulson’s Promissory Notes, they are not

entitled to enforce the Promissory Notes. [ORS 73.0301]

Therefore, FHLF, LLC had no Constitutional Standing to

appear in the bankruptcy proceedings, nor to file a proof of

claim, nor to obtain a relief from stay, nor to file motions, nor

to foreclose. (See the Kemp case cited and discussed

Page of90 227


(169 of 3



below)

3. Delivery Requires Endorsement: -- Moreover,

‘delivery’ requires endorsement on the Promissory Note or

on an ‘allonge’ (a separate paper permanently attached to

the Promissory Note, used in case all the other endorsement

spaces are taken up) by the ‘Holder’, Fairway, to FHLF, LLC.

Actual endorsement on the Promissory Note document is

required so FHLF, LLC can prove it didn’t just come into

possession -- by stealing the negotiable instrument (the

Promissory Note), to use an extreme example. Here, there

was no endorsement of Paulson’s Promissory Notes by

Fairway to FHLF, LLC which is a complete obstacle to FHLF,

LLC becoming a ‘Holder’ of the Promissory Notes.

4. Thus, FHLF, LLC is not the ‘Holder’ of the

Promissory Notes: -- Toenforce a Promissory Note against the borrower, a person

must prove that one is a “Holder” or it is a transferee with the

rights of a ‘Holder’. [ORS 73-0301] Fairway Commercial

Mortgage Corporation is the only ‘Holder’ of these

Promissory Notes. FHLF, LLC has never been the Holder of

the Promissory Notes, therefore, any claim asserted by

FHLF, LLC in these matters is unenforceable against

Paulson and his property under Oregon law.

The underlying Promissory Notes are negotiable

Page of91 227


(170 of 3



instruments under Oregon’s version of the Uniform

Commercial Code [ORS 73.0104] and according to the

specific language of these loan documents. A party is

Page "139 of "410

"140

entitled to enforce a negotiable instrument if they are (A) the

‘Holder’ of the Note or (B) under certain circumstances when

they are a ‘nonholder’ in possession with the rights of a

‘Holder’, or (C) a person not in possession, but who is

entitled to enforce the note when it is, for example, lost or

stolen.

A. Holder—This is the person in possession of the

note if payable to that identified person. Since FHLF,

LLC was never in physical possession of the note, it

cannot qualify as the ‘Holder’ of the note.B.Nonholder in possession -- FHLF, LLC could

otherwise qualify under the UCC under certain

circumstances if it had ever come in possession of

the Note before foreclosure. Since FHLF, LLC never

came into possession of the Promissory Notes, it

cannot qualify under this rule.

C.Nonholder not in possession -- This applies, among

other things, to lost or stolen Promissory Notes and

is inapplicable here. [See ORS 73.0301]

Page of92 227


(171 of 3



Thus, clearly FHLF, LLC was never the ‘Holder’ of

Plaintiff’s

Promissory Notes under the Uniform Commercial Code

(UCC) applicable here.

Attorney Craig Russillo has written a recent E-mail that

purports to anoint ‘Holder’ status for both Fairway

Commercial Mortgage Corporation and FHLF,LLC

simultaneously. That is impossible under the law of physics,

under statutory law (the UCC) and the Common Law. Mr.

Russillo states:

• “FHLF, LLC appointed Fairway Commercial

Mortgage Corporation as its servicer and held the

note and trust deeds on behalf of FHLF, LLC”.

(emphasis supplied)

• “Bottom line, FHLF held both the trust deeds andthe indebtedness…” (emphasis supplied)

• “Here, there was no separation of those estates,

as FHLF holds both the note and trust

deeds.” (emphasis supplied)

!

Under Mr. Russillo’s representations he would have

BOTH Fairway and FHLF, LLC be a ‘Holder’ at the same

time. There was no negotiation. There was no transfer.

There was no delivery. There was no endorsement. FHLF,

Page of93 227


(172 of 3



LLC has no Promissory Notes in their possession on this

matter. The proof is in the pudding.

A check of the recorded chain of title found in

Washington County reflects an assignment of the mortgage,

but not an assignment of the Promissory Notes. Attorney

Russillo provides no proof of his assertions of who is the

‘Holder’ and Mr. Russillo has said specifically he will not

allow inspection of his original documents. Proof is essential

to establish a chain of title. Proof is essential here to

establish Constitutional Standing.

All lender billings for payments due have been by

Fairway. Only Fairway has sent income tax information to

Paulson. Only Fairway has to account for the monthly

payments sent to them by Paulson which clearly reflects that

as of 2008 Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation callsitself the ‘lender’ on the transaction. Moreover, Fairway

America (or more properly Fairway America, LLC) as

successor in interest to Fairway Commercial Mortgage

Corporation is being actively represented as the servicer and

lender in these forums by their General Counsel, Greg Blair

through and including April 2010. Therefore, Fairway

Commercial Mortgage Corporation cum Fairway America,

LLC are the lender and the servicer of Paulson’s loan to this

date, not FHLF, LLC who has no role in the debt aspect of

Page of94 227


(173 of 3



this matter at all.

5.The Deeds of Trust follow the Promissory Notes, Not

the Other Way Around:

-- The law across the United States and the common law for

centuries is: “The mortgage (here deeds of trust) follows the

Promissory Note.” This means that if a Promissory Note is

assigned, that the security interest (deeds of trust) follows

the Promissory Note. The converse is NOT true. The

Promissory Note DOES NOT follow the mortgage (here

deeds of trust). Thus, an assignment of the mortgage

without the concomitant assignment of the Promissory Notes

is a nonevent. One can enforce the bare Promissory Notes,

but one cannot enforce the bare security interests.

There is a purpose behind these stringent requirements

in the UCC. A debtor is only required to pay money to the‘Holder’ of the Note, so he/she does not have to worry about

multiple and conflicting claims against the debtor.

Conflicting Creditor Claims

At least four or five of Matt Burk’s corporations have

variously and inconsistently asserted a creditor’s interest in

this matter:

A.Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation: -- This

is the only company that Paulson dealt with in the

2005 loan transactions and with whom Paulson

Page of95 227


(174 of 3



‘contracted’. (Even this part of the transaction has

been bungled by Fairway. Apparently, there does

not exist a ‘loan agreement’, that has been signed by

Fairway. Mr. Seidenwurm for whom there is a

signature space, is no longer with the company and

did not sign in the signature space for Fairway on

the loan agreement. Thus, there is no loan

agreement signed by both parties.)

It is only Fairway Commercial Mortgage

Corporation that

issued the 11/25/2008 “Notice of Default and Election

to Sell”. FHLF, LLC is not mentioned in this

recorded document. The inconsistency is obvious.

Why would Fairway Commercial Mortgage

Corporation be issuing a 2008 ‘Notice’ in this matterif they assigned their financial interest to FHLF,LLC in

2006? Why would Fairway Commercial Mortgage

Corporation be doing anything in 2008 when Fairway

America, LLC or Skylands Investment Corporation is

the replacement corporation as variously asserted by

Matt Burk’s entities and as variously asserted by

Craig Russillo, their variously asserted attorney and

agent?

B.FHLF, LLC: -- Following Paulson’s filing of Chapter

Page of96 227


(175 of 3



11 bankruptcy in April 2009 the next pleading filed in

the bankruptcy matter is by FHLF, LLC through their

attorney, Craig Russillo on April 22, 2009.

C.Fairway America: -- There is an undated

memorandum on ‘Fairway America’ letterhead

signed by Matthew W. Burk as President of Skylands

Investment Corporation assigning “the rights and

interest in the Assignment of Leases and Rents …to

FHLF, an Oregon limited liability company” This

undated memo states: “Fairway America, LLC

successor in interest to Fairway Commercial

Mortgage Corporation.”(sic) If Fairway America or

Fairway America, LLC became a successor in

interest to Fairway Commercial Mortgage

Corporation sometime in 2006 why is FairwayCommercial Mortgage Corporation still filing

documents in this case in 2008, 2009 and 2010?

The initial ‘demand to cure’ letter to the Plaintiff

came on August 12, 2008, from Attorney Joel

Parker representing “Fairway America”. On April 27,

2010, Attorney Craig Russillo acting on behalf of

“Fairway America” filed FHLF, LLC’s Memorandum in

bankruptcy court in support of the Trustee’s alleged

intent to settle the Paulson’s federal court predatory

Page of97 227


(176 of 3



lending lawsuit against the various Fairway entities.

The April 27, 2010 Memorandum is supported by a

declaration signed by Fairway America’s General

Counsel Greg Blair.

Yet in a pleading filed by Attorney Craig Russillo in

the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit on January 5, 2011, Mr. Russillo states:

“(Paulson) incorrectly names Fairway

America Corporation as a defendant/respondent

in this appeal. No such entity

exists to the best of defendants-respondents’

knowledge. The entity that Plaintiff

presumably intended to name is Fairway

Commercial Mortgage Corporation, nka

Skylands Investment Corporation.”However, in the same pleading he provides

another Declaration by Greg Blair as “…general

counsel for Fairway America, successor in interest to

the business of Fairway Commercial Mortgage

Corporation (Fairway).”

D.Skylands, Who?: -- Throughout the debtor’s 2005

loan transactions with Fairway, there was no mention

of Skyland’s Investment Corporation. Skylands is

first mentioned in 2008 when a curious document is

Page of98 227


(177 of 3



found in the “chain of title” recorded in Washington

County’s Taxation and Assessment Department. In

this 2008 document, “Fairway Commercial Mortgage

Corporation” is listed as “Grantor” (the debtor entity

‘granting’ a security interest to another) of the deed

of trust assignment. They probably meant to put

Huber-Wheeler Crossing, LLC as the actual Grantor

of the deeds of trust. This document appoints a

successor trustee, Joel Parker, who is an attorney

for Schwabe law firm. This document is signed by

“Matthew W. Burk, President” of “Skylands

Investment Corporation, an Oregon corporation,

Manager”. To this day, the Paulson has no idea who

Skylands Investment Corporation is nor what role

they have in any of the transactions encompassedhere. Yet, Skylands signs as Manager of FHLF,

LLC, another entity that Paulson has never dealt

with in any of the loan proceedings???

E. Fairway America, LLC -- This is the entity that

registered with Oregon’s Corporation Division on

December 6, 2007. It is the entity that should have

been identified as the successor corporation to

Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation instead

of the entity that does not exist --- ‘Fairway

Page of99 227


(178 of 3



America’----, referred to often as the successor. It is

not known nor explained anywhere how Fairway

America, LLC fits in with Fairway Commercial

Mortgage Corporation and Skylands Investment

Corporation. Nor is it explained anywhere where

these three entities fit in with FHLF, LLC other than

the deed of trust assignment by Fairway Commercial

Mortgage Corporation to them. That assignment

does not explain the relationship between these

entities as they bear on the original loan.

However, Paulson previously provided the Court

with a signature page by Mr. Russillo dated March

20th, 2009 where he signs himself as the attorney for

“Fairway America Corporation”. There is no such

company. However, Matthew W. Burk does own“Fairway Commercial Mortgage”. Then as recently

as April 10, 2010, Mr. Russillo signs himself as the

attorney for “Fairway America, the entity that also

does not exist as pointed out above. Confused? In

summary, along with the contracting Fairway entity:

-- Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation, the

actual lender has variously used the names Fairway

America LLC, Fairway America Corporation, Fairway

Commercial Mortgage and just plain Fairway

Page of100 227


(179 of 3



America. The Oregon Business Registry identifies

the probable proper successor entity as “Fairway

America, LLC”.

Causing further confusion is the fact that in the

same current pleading Craig Russillo states that,

“Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation” is now

known as “Skylands Investment Corporation”. On the

other hand, Greg Blair states in his declaration that

“Fairway America, LLC” is the successor in interest to

the “…business of Fairway Commercial Mortgage

Corporation” to this current day.

Finally, “Fairway America” (not “Fairway America,

LLC” which is the actual entity registered with the

State of Oregon”. “Fairway America” is NOT

registered with the State of Oregon) is the only entitydesignation on all of Fairway’s ‘letterhead’

communications.

On the Motion for Summary Judgment filed in the

instant case, Mr. Russillo signed as the attorney for

“Fairway America Corporation”. There was testimony

in a court proceeding by Attorney Joel Parker that

there are individual investors on Paulson’s loan.

These investors lent funds to Fairway to finance

Paulson’s loan and to whom Fairway may owe about

Page of101 227


(180 of 3



$200,000. These individuals may have an additional

interest in these matters.

Thus, there are at least four to five creditors who

are asserting claims against the Plaintiff since 2005;

Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation, Fairway

Commercial Mortgage, Fairway America, FHLF, LLC

and Skylands Investment Corporation. Even the

bankruptcy judge, Judge Dunn, was confused. He

thought the dispute in the bankruptcy proceedings

was between Paulson and “Fairway” when in truth

and in fact, the only matters before Judge Dunn in

the bankruptcy proceeding were the claims of FHLF,

LLC.

Cases Across The United States

The current economic meltdown has disclosed thatfinancial institutions across the country have made the same

mistake Fairway and FHLF, LLC made here:

• Kemp v. Countrywide, USDC of New Jersey, Case No

08-18700- JHW (11/16/10) {The debtor successfully

expunged the proof of claim in bankruptcy adversary

proceeding because the Note was neither endorsed to

transferee nor put in transferee’s possession.}

• Schwend v. US Bank, N.A, et al., USDC of Missouri,

Case No 4:10 CV 1590 CDP (12/3/10) {A debtor

Page of102 227


(181 of 3



successfully resisted a Motion to Dismiss her claim for

wrongful foreclosure citing Missouri law that a

foreclosure is invalid if the person causing the

foreclosure does not actually hold title to the Note.}

• Cogswell v. CitiFinancial Mortgage Company,

Incorporated, US Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, No

08-2153 (10/5/10) {Debtor successfully avoided

foreclosure when CitiFinancial assigned its interest in a

mortgage but never delivered the Note to the

assignees. Citing Illinois law, the Court stated that only

the ‘Holder’ of the Note may foreclose.}

• Servido v. US Bank N.A. et al., District Court of Appeal

for State of Florida, Fourth District, Case No

4DE10-1898 (10/27/10) {Holding that the party seeking

foreclosure must present evidence that it owns andholds the note and mortgage in question.}

• BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP fka Countrywide v.

White, Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Case No

108,736, (12/3/10) {Court holds that a mortgage is

merely an incident and accessory to the Note. Under

Oklahoma law an assignment of the mortgage to one

other than the holder of the note is of no effect.}

Page "155 of "410

"156

Page of103 227


(182 of 3



• Fawn Ridge Partners, LP v. BAC Home Loans

Servicing, LP, U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the

Ninth Circuit, Bk. No 09-15088-TD, BAP No.

CC-09-1396-HPDu , before Dunn and Perris,

Bankruptcy Judges, (3/29/10) {Countrywide, the lender,

has a practice of retaining the original Promissory

Notes. Because Countrywide did not endorse and

transfer the Note to BAC, the latter had no standing to

request a relief from stay. 11 USC Section 362(d)

Court holds that Constitutional standing is a ‘threshold

jurisdictional requirement, and cannot be waived (citing

cases)’” Under California law, to qualify as a ‘Holder’,

one must be in possession of the instrument, and the

instrument must be properly endorsed.}

• LNV CORP v, Madison Real Estate, Supreme Court of New York, Index No. 103576/2010, (12/09/2010)

{Under New York law a party foreclosing must show

that they are the owner of the Note as well as the

mortgage at the time the action is commenced. Absent

an effective transfer of the debt as well as the note, the

assignment of the mortgage is void and the party may

not foreclose. That party has no standing.}

• HSBC v. Thompson, et al., Court of Appeals of Ohio,

Trial Court Case No. 07-CV-9439, 2010-4158

Page of104 227


(183 of 3



(9/3/2010) {Trial Court decision affirmed granting

debtor summary judgment and dismissing foreclosure

action because HSBC failed to establish that it was the

‘Holder’ of the Promissory Note. Without that showing

HSBC has no standing to bring the foreclosure.

Standing is a threshold issue for the courts to decide for

it to proceed to adjudicate the action. In a foreclosure

action the real party in interest is the current holder of

the note and mortgage. Financial institutions, noted for

insisting on their customers’ compliance with numerous

ritualistic formalities, are not sympathetic petitioners in

urging relaxation of an elementary business practice.

“For nearly a century, Ohio courts have held that

whenever a Promissory note is secured by a mortgage,

the note constitutes the evidence of the debt and themortgage is mere incident to the obligation. Edgar v.

Haines, 109 Ohio St. 159, 164, 141 NE 837 (1923)

Moreover, a financial institution cannot cure its lack of

standing by subsequently obtaining an interest in the

mortgage or Note. Accord Bank of New York v.

Gindele, Hamilton App. No. C-C090251, 2010-

Ohio-542.}

• Country Place Community Association, Inc. J.P. Morgan

Mortgage Acquisition Corp, District Court of Appeal of

Page of105 227


(184 of 3



Florida, Case No. 2D10-569, (12/29/10) {Country Place

sued J.P. Morgan for attorney fee after the circuit court

dismissed J.P. Morgan’s mortgage foreclosure action.

J.P. Morgan never produced any evidence that it owned

the note and mortgage that were subject to the previous

proceeding. Thus, Country Place successfully

dismissed the case on summary judgment and now

seeks their attorney fees. The court agreed that without

proof that it owned the note, J.P. Morgan had no

standing. The court holds that if a ruling of a trial court

is not worthy of support then J.P. Morgan should

confess error.}

The common law rule that ‘the mortgage follows the

note’ is codified in Article 9 of the UCC, Section 9-203(g)

which states: “The attachment of a security interest in a rightto payment or performance secured by a security interest or

other lien on…real property is also attachment of a security

interest in the security interest, mortgage, or other

lien.” [ORS 79.0203(7)]

As the following cases demonstrate, the mortgage note

does not follow the mortgage if there is an attempted

assignment of the mortgage alone or if there is an

assignment separate from the mortgage note as happened

here. Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC 284 SW 3rd

Page of106 227


(185 of 3



619, 623 (Mo Ct App 2009) An assignment of the deed of

trust separate from the note has no ‘force’. Saxon Mortgage

Serf. Inc v. Hillery, No C-08-4357 EMC, 2008 WL5170180, at

4-5(ND Cal Dec 9 2008). For there to be a valid assignment,

there must be more than just an assignment of the deed of

trust alone; the Promissory Note must also be assigned. In

re Wilhelm, 407 BR 392, 400-05 (Bankr D Idaho 2009).

Oregon cases support the concept that the security, here the

Deed of Trust, is ‘merely an incident to the debt.’ West v.

White, 307 Or 296, 300, 766 P2d 383 (1988)

Where, as here, the Promissory Note and the trust

deed are split, the transfer of the trust deed is ineffective.

Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 284 SW 3rd 619,

623-24 (Mo Ct App 2009) A putative transfer of the

Promissory Note in the trust deed assignment is ineffective because the UCC governs the transfer of a Promissory Note.

Because Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation never

physically transferred the Promissory Notes to FHLF, LLC,

Joel Parker as successor trustee on the security interests did

not have a legally cognizable interest in the property.

Therefore, Parker had no standing to foreclose on FHLF,

LLC’s behalf. Saxon Mortg. Serv., Inc v. Hillery, No

C-08-4357 EMC, 2008 WL 5170180. That Fairway

Commercial Mortgage Corporation remained the lender on

Page of107 227


(186 of 3



the transaction is evidenced by the fact that only Fairway

Commercial Mortgage Corporation, as lender, continued to

collect on and enforce the debt following the putative

execution of the Promissory Notes in 2005. Further, only

Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation, as beneficiary,

issued the 2008 Notice of Default and Election to Sell. This

is a clear break in the ‘chain of title’. Fairway had supposedly

assigned their interests to FHLF, LLC in 2006 according to

the official records. Yet in 2008 Fairway is representing itself

as the real party at interest in the trust deeds while two years

earlier Fairway had assigned their trust deed interests to

FHLF, LLC. This ‘Notice’ contains no mention of FHLF,LLC.

Then, as discussed above, Fairway then morphed into

Fairway America and participated variously in these

proceedings as described.It is clear that FHLF, LLC did not have Constitutional

Standing in this Court, nor standing to either seek relief from

the bankruptcy stay, seek an FED, nor move forward with

foreclosure because FHLF, LLC was never in possession of

the Promissory Notes. The other Fairway entities were just

hopelessly confused.

As stated above, Judge Garr King in Natache’s Case --

Rinegard-Guirma v. Bank of America, et al U.S. District

Court, District of Oregon, Portland Division Civil Case No

Page of108 227


(187 of 3



10-1065-PK decision dated October 6, 2010, Held: that

when the lender splits the trust deed from the Promissory

Notes, any foreclosure is ineffective. That is exactly what

happened here. In short:

In Rinegard the lender, Mortgage Lenders Network (MLN)

assigned the deed of trust to LaSalle who appointed the

successor trustee

In Paulson, the lender, Fairway Commercial Mortgage

Corporation (FCMC) assigned the deed of trust to FHLF who

appointed the successor trustee

In Rinegard the lender, MLN, physically retained the

Promissory Notes as well as the servicing rights to the

mortgages.

In Paulson, the lender FCMC physically retained the

Promissory Notes as well as the servicing rights to themortgages.

In Rinegard payments were to be made to the lender,

Mortgage Lenders Network, USA

In Paulson, payments were to be made to the lender,

Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation.

Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation split the

trust deeds from the Promissory Notes when they made the

2006 assignments of the trust deeds to FHLF, LLC, but did

not assign nor transfer possession of the Promissory Notes

Page of109 227


(188 of 3



to FHLF, LLC. Therefore, all proceedings with them as a

party or participant in any forum including the foreclosure

leading to the FED action was defective and void because

FHLF, LLC had no standing in any judicial forum.

Constitutional Standing

The issue of standing involves both “constitutional

limitations on federal court jurisdiction and prudential

limitations on its exercise”. Warth v. Seldin, 422 US 490,

498 (1975). To have constitutional standing FHLF, LLC must

show that it suffered an actual concrete and particularized

injury in fact, caused by the debtor which would result in

likely redress. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US 555,

559-560 (1992). Here, FHLF, LLC can show no interest in

the underlying debt instrument nor that it paid anything for

this transaction. FHLF, LLC cannot show that it was eitherthe transferee or assignee of the Note. Therefore, FHLF,

LLC cannot demonstrate that it has been injured by the

debtor’s putative default on the loan. As such, FHLF, LLC

did not have constitutional standing to file anything,

foreclose, much less for a relief from Stay or to participate in

these proceedings at all.

Prudential standing requires that FHLF, LLC assert its

own claims rather than the claims of another. Dunmore v.

United States, 358 F3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2004). Clearly

Page of110 227


(189 of 3







Master (judge) appointed to administer the return of his

personal property. In August 2010 when the Defendants

were threatening to remove and destroy all of Paulson’s

personal property, Paulson again moved for an emergency

stay. None of the Courts were willing to have a hearing on

these emergency motions. This is a clear denial of Due

Process. Now, that removal and destruction of Paulson’s

property and personal property may have already occurred.

Paulson has no idea where that property has been taken nor

whether that property has been destroyed. Considering the

current issue of constitutional standing, Paulson is again

asking the courts to issue a preliminary injunction and stay

requiring the Defendants to return Paulson to the premises

and requiring the Defendants to return Paulson’s personal

property.This is probably the only case in history where the

Court has allowed one party to litigation to confiscate all the other

party’s litigation materials, including the computer hard drive

which is in the hands of the adversary, the Portland, Oregon

Cosgrave law firm, while the litigation was pending. The

Defendants not only have all of Paulson’s personal property,

they also have his family irreplaceable heirlooms dating back

over 100 years. That’s not all. The Defendant’s also have

over 2,000 client files and the client list of Paulson’s for over

Page of113 227


(192 of 3



300 clients. In theory, one would suppose one business

would not be allowed the customer lists of another business,

but that is allowed here. It shouldn’t have been allowed.

The Defendants also have confiscated three of

Paulson’s vehicles including a classic motor home.

And then, as mentioned above, there is the other

computer hard drive belonging to Paulson in the custody of

Attorney Paul Berg’s paralegal who is defending Craig

Russillo by the Professional Liability Fund, Oregon’s lawyer

malpractice insurance carrier. This hard drive contains

confidential client information and confidential financial

information belonging to Paulson.

All the courts have been asked to stay these

proceedings and have been asked to schedule an

evidentiary hearing to determine chain of title and todetermine if the putative creditor, FHLF, LLC has

constitutional standing. It doesn’t. No judge out of the 22

and no court out of the 6 have addressed this issue.

NATURAL LAW v. THE COMMON LAW —

22 Judges Used Natural Law

So far, this case is much like the recently maligned

mortgage market: This case has been sliced and diced,

vertically and horizontally. There are mezzanine tranches,

there are state court tranches, there are federal court

Page of114 227


(193 of 3



tranches, there are trial courts, there are appellate courts,

there are bankruptcy courts, there are non-judicial tranches,

and the list goes on.

In 1788, Alexander Hamilton suspected that some

judges might not do their duty. Thus, he stated in THE

FEDERALIST PAPERS:

“It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety,

that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences

necessarily connected with the advantages of a free

government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it

is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict

rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out

their duty in every particular case that comes before them;

and it will readily be conceived from the variety of

controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness ofmankind, that the records of those precedents must

unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must

demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent

knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few

men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to

qualify them for the stations of judges.” (Emphasis supplied)

Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78, (1788)

MY SIX OTHER COURTS (JUDICIAL NOTICE)

1. U.S. Federal District Court: -- Paulson first filed his

Page of115 227


(194 of 3



predatory loan case against Fairway, et al., in Oregon

Federal District Court on August 21, 2008 under Case

No. CV 08982 ST. The case was assigned to

Honorable Magistrate Judge Janice Stewart.

Common Law -- Judge Stewart followed The Common Law

and the Rules of the Court. Then she removed herself from

the case for unknown reasons and the case was assigned to

Magistrate Judge Paul Papak.

Natural Law -- Judge Papak neither followed the Common

Law nor the Rules of the Court when he refused to schedule

nor hear Paulson’s emergency motions. Paulson appealed

Judge Papak’s rulings and the case was assigned to

federal court Judge Ancer Haggerty. Judge Haggerty

followed Natural Law. Judge Haggerty generally followed

the Rules of the Court, but not the Common Law as he sawmade short work of Paulson’s case. Judge Haggerty also

refused to hear Paulson’s multiple filed Motions that are

required to be heard by simple due process and by his own

court rules. Judge Haggerty refused Paulson Discovery

that is allowed under court rules. Finally, he failed to read

Paulson’s Motion to Compel Discovery which pointed out the

issue of constitutional standing recently discussed by his

brother Honorable Judge Garr King in the same building.

Paulson appealed Judge Haggerty’s decision to United

Page of116 227


(195 of 3



States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit Case No. 10-35745

where it remains.

2. U.S. Federal Bankruptcy Court: -- Paulson filed his

Chapter 11 Bankruptcy case on April 8, 2009 under

Case No. 09-32439 rdl 11 after he was formally

threatened with non judicial foreclosure by the creditor

Fairway. The case was assigned to Honorable Judge

Randall Dunn. Judge Dunn neither followed the Rules

of the Court nor the Common Law. This is where the

wheels fell off.

Common Law -- Bankruptcy law is Man-made law. Chapter

7 is liquidation. Chapter 11 is reorganization so the debtor

can reemerge as a healthy organization after satisfying the

debt obligations. Paulson filed for Chapter 11

reorganization. The debt is restructured so the debtor maycontinue to pursue a living. This case was perfect for that

since the single asset was worth $655,000 and the creditors

were only owed, if at all, $400,000 or thereabouts. Thus, the

case was not ‘underwater’.

Natural Law -- No reorganization plan was made as called

for by the Chapter 11 statutory scheme. The judge allowed

an unnecessary lawsuit for eviction in State Court times

three. (Three unnecessary State Court lawsuits were filed

by a substitute creditor, FHLF, LLC who did not have

Page of117 227


(196 of 3



constitutional standing.) The judge allowed a nonjudicial

foreclosure without the required statutory notices to the

debtor. Then for good measure, the judge allowed the false

creditor to settle the debtor’s lawsuit against the creditors for

predatory loan practices against established law. The

bankruptcy trustee sided with the creditors and even sat with

them during the hearing. She was supposed to be neutral.

The good judge ignored the fact that the parties had a

settlement that worked out for everybody.

3. Washington County Circuit Court, State of Oregon: --

Fairway filed three state FED (eviction) cases on

January 25, 2011 in Washington County Circuit Court

under Case Nos. C10084,85,86 EV.

Common Law -- The Oregon Constitution requires that

Paulson be allowed a Jury. Judge Erwin in eviction courtsuddenly decided he would render a verdict on the case

himself and took the case away from the jury’s decision.

Court rules require that Judge Erwin hold a hearing upon

Paulson’s Motion for a New Trial, but Judge Erwin decided

that was not necessary. Further, under Oregon statutes,

Paulson is entitled to a stay of Judge Erwin’s decision upon

a Motion for a New Trial, but Judge Erwin decided that

Paulson didn’t need that either nor the required hearing on

the matter. Paulson requested the judge to make written

Page of118 227


(197 of 3



finding of facts and conclusions of law as allowed by the

Man-made law. Judge Erwin decided he didn’t have to do

that either. The purpose of this rule is so consumers can

know why a judge ruled as they did. No luck here either.

Natural Law -- (Paulson filed to Remand the FED cases in

Oregon District Federal Court under No. cv 08982 ST, but

was assigned a new Case No. 3:10-cv-00048-MO and a new

judge, Honorable Mosberg. Judge Mosberg followed Natural

Law. He followed neither the Rules of the Court nor the

Common Law. He made his Ruling at a “Status Conference”

instead of a formal hearing.) Neither lawyers nor the parties

are prepared to argue the facts and the law nor expect a

substantive ruling by the court at a ‘status conference’. So,

while under the Common Law, any litigation involving real

estate is supposed to remain in the jurisdiction that firstacquired jurisdiction (here Oregon Federal District Court)

Judge Mosman allowed the jurisdiction to shift to State

Court.

This case was then assigned to Honorable Steve Price

in State Court for the Eviction proceedings as discussed

above. There are certain time lines allowed under the Court

Rules for a response. Judge Price decided Paulson did not

need that time nor did Judge Price allow Paulson’s response

to the creditor’s filings. The trial was assigned to Honorable

Page of119 227


(198 of 3



Andrew Erwin. Both judges followed Natural Law. Neither

followed the Rules of the Court nor the Common Law.

4. Oregon State Court of Appeals: -- Paulson timely

appealed the eviction decisions to the Oregon Court of

Appeals. Oregon Court of Appeals Case No. A14569,

Oregon Court of Appeals Case No. A14570, Oregon

Court of Appeals Case No A14671 Paulson timely filed

to be allowed to stay in his home during the pendency

of these proceedings and the appeal.

Common Law -- As allowed by Oregon Statutes and Rules

of Civil Procedure, Paulson filed a sixteen page (16) Motion

to Return Paulson to his home based on a Constitutional

issue of Standing. In support of that motion Paulson asked

that new Judge Andrew Erwin be disqualified based on a

U.S. Supreme Court (Litkey v. United States) case amongother legal authorities.

Natural Law -- Referring to none of Paulson’s arguments,

authorities nor even the U.S. Supreme Court case, Judge

Erwin denied the motion. The problem is that Paulson wrote

an article on judicial elections in his blog that Judge Erwin

could have taken as negative to him. Subsequently, Judge

Erwin denied Paulson his statutory right to stay in his home

without a hearing even though a hearing is required by

written statutory law. No matter to Judge Erwin.

Page of120 227


(199 of 3



The Oregon Court of Appeals followed neither their

Court Rules nor the Common Law in denying Paulson the

right to stay in his own home while these proceedings were

pending. Further, they assigned the case to Commissioner

Nass who has never been a judge, never elected, appointed,

nor anything judicial, yet decided Paulson could not stay in

his house pending the appeal even though that is allowed by

Oregon law. He not only followed Natural Law, but made up

laws that nowhere exist, then lied.

5. U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit :

-- Paulson timely filed his Notice of Appeal of Judge

Randall Dunn’s Order in the Oregon Bankruptcy Court

on May 17, 2010 to the United States Bankruptcy

Appellate Court Panel which assigned Case No. BAP

No. OR-10-1173.Common Law -- On December 19, 2010 Paulson filed his

twenty-two (22) page Motion to Expunge FHLF, LLC’s Proof

of Claim in bankruptcy court. Paulson’s Motion cited five (5)

distinct legal basis for his motion. The motion cited over

twenty (20) cases and seven (7) statutory rules in support of

his position. The motion contained twenty-seven (27) pages

of supporting documents as exhibits.

Natural Law -- On January 18, 2011 Bankruptcy Appellate

Panel Judges Pappas and Markell denied Paulson’s motion

Page of121 227


(200 of 3



in a six (6) line, quarter page ORDER. The Court’s Order

cites no cases, no statutes, refers to none of Paulson’s five

legal arguments nor refers to any of his legal briefs nor any

of his 27 pages of supporting materials.

6. U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: --

Because Magistrate Judge Papak wouldn’t afford

Paulson a hearing on any of the matters (six of them)

that he filed, he asked Chief Judge Ann Aiken to look

into the matter because that refusal seemed so

unusual. She wouldn’t look into the matter either, so

Paulson asked the Ninth Circuit to forbid Fairway’s

threatened confiscation of Paulson’s personal property

and to disqualify Judge Papak.

Common Law -- The law allows for a time-out if one party

may suffer irreparable harm and that party has a colorablecase on the merits. It is now August of 2010. Paulson had

been asking the courts to save his irreplaceable family

heirlooms since May 2010 without a hearing. Paulson also

briefed the Ninth Circuit on the law of disqualification and

pointed out how case law across the land and in Oregon is

the opposite of Chief Judge Ann Aiken’s ruling on the issue

of Judge Papak’s bias. Paulson’s brief is fifteen (15) pages

long and cites eight cases and court rules. In addition,

Paulson supplies twenty-eight (28) additional pages of

Page of122 227


(201 of 3



supporting materials.

Natural Law -- Without referring to any of the law nor the

facts recited by Paulson, the Court denies Paulson’s motion

in a one page Order. The court does not even mention the

issue of Judge Papak’s disqualification. Either Judge Aiken

is right on the law of disqualification or Paulson is right.

Paulson has analyzed the issue under the U.S. Supreme

Court case of Litkey v. Supreme Court case, and no judge

has analyzed this case in terms of why or how Paulson is

wrong. (Clifton, Bybee and Ikuta) Yes, that Bybee!

The Playing Field Changes —

The Playing Field Changed in Oregon on October 6,

2010 when Ms. Natache Rinegard-Guirma bravely, and by

herself, took on the Bank of America. The issue is described

above in detail.Common Law -- With Natache’s case folded firmly under

his arm, Paulson supplied the new precedent to the Ninth

Circuit. They were not interested.

Natural Law -- This time Paulson provided the Ninth Circuit

with a brand new brief of twenty-six (26) pages citing thirtyfour

(34) case or statutory rules as precedent. Paulson also

provided fifteen (15) additional new exhibits. Without

referring to a single issue nor page of Paulson’s documents

nor arguments, the Ninth Circuit said Paulson’s appeal “...is

Page of123 227


(202 of 3





At the Federal Court level, Judge Janice Stewart is the

only judge to follow Common Law. Judges Dunn, Papak,

Haggerty, Aiken, and Mosberg have only followed Natural

Law. None of these judges have followed their own Court

Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor have they

followed The Rule of Law. Indeed, none, except Judge

Haggerty have even cited case law.

At the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals it is no better as

summarized above.

The Roiling Seas of Litigation Roil On.

THERE IS NO HOPE FOR HOMEOWNERS

There is no hope for homeowners and here is why. But, first

let me define the problem.

THE PROBLEM

A homeowner who is in present financial distress is caught ina hopeless tautology. Here are the essential elements:

• Citizens in a financial pickle are demoralized and

ashamed. Therefore, the consumer is reluctant to

reach out or deal with new or redundant paperwork.

• Government has encumbered their rescue vehicles with

so much bureaucracy that they sink of their own weight.

There is no one agency or nonprofit in charge. No one

is in charge.

Reality -- All the lame programs purportedly providing hope

Page of125 227


(204 of 3



for homeowners ignore two realities about creditors and

servicing agencies. The first reality is that servicing agencies

hold debtors in contempt. There will be few friendly

workouts because of how creditors view debtors. The

second reality is that lenders look to situations like these as

an opportunity to make a second profit from the

unsuspecting public. Just look at the new mortgage

advertisements!

The Tautology -- The tautology works like this. All programs

require the debtor to start with counseling somewhere. Fine.

The problem is that none of the counselors have any clout

with lenders. I have been through three sophisticated

counseling sessions, all of which were worthwhile and none

got me any closer to resolution of my loan default. In other

words, there is no hand-off or linchpin between thecounseling and a loan workout with the lender.

Further, if a consumer starts from scratch with lenders after

being stymied with their present servicer here is what

happens. The consumer is already behind the financial eight

ball, so no quality lender will touch them. On the other hand,

all the original shell games continue unabated in the crisis

lending situation where the troubled debtor is likely to get

ripped off again.

THE SOLUTION

Page of126 227


(205 of 3



The solutions are easy and have been much discussed.

Our leaders are simply too afraid (or too beholden) to

confront bankers and their lobbyists to do what everybody

knows has to get done:

2.The workouts have to be mandatory requiring certain

minimum standards with Treasury, HUD and Elizabeth

Warren in charge.

3.Local Mediation programs have to be given authority to

engage in friendly, forceful, but binding efforts to

restructure loans with the clout of a court mediation

program or a settlement judge behind the process.

Principle reduction has to be on the table. If mediation

fails then the matter should go directly to a settlement

judge who is trained and committed. There are many

judicial pretenders out there. If you look closely at theagenda of judicial conferences as I have, you’ll fined

they are wining and dining in Hawaii as usual.

Consumers need the ‘support’ of judicial surroundings.

Judicial surroundings is the only thing that will get the

attention of reluctant lenders.

Moreover, resolution in a forced settlement forum under

judicial supervision will deny lenders what they lust for --

that second profit.

DRILLING DOWN: -- ON HOW BANK

Page of127 227


(206 of 3



OF AMERICA PLAYS ALL SIDES OF THE BET ON THEIR

FORECLOSURE CASES IN THE STATE OF OREGON.

COMPLETING THE CIRCLE -- The inside story on how

Bank of America plays all sides of the bet in Natache’s case

-- a ‘routine’ Oregon foreclosure case pending in Federal

District Court of Oregon.

(Natache D. Rinegard-Guirma v. Bank of America, et al.,

U.S. District of Oregon Civil Case No. 10-1065- PK )

OH, WHAT A WEB WE WEAVE.........................

Natache’s case starts with Lake Oswego Oregon Attorney

Ian Kyle. Mr. Kyle represents Bank of America in Natache’s

case. Ian Kyle is but a bit player in the Law-Corporation

Conglomerate from Seattle known as Routh, Crabtree,

Olsen. Stephen Routh is the CEO. You will choke when you

see how far and wide Routh’s tentacles have taken hold intheir foreclosure machine begun in the 1970’s.

Here is where you are going to get your surprise. Surprise

because Bank of America has it’s own financial tentacles

throughout and all the way back to Natache and her

lawyers.. BANK OF AMERICAN TENTACLES WILL TAKE

US RIGHT TO THE FUNDING PIPELINE of NATACHE’S

LAWYERS AS FOLL0WS — Routh, Crabtree and Olsen, The

Full Service “FORECLOUSURE -

MAN” Company

Page of128 227


(207 of 3



Bank of America hired Routh,

Crabtree and Olsen (RCO) to boot

African American/Native American

Natache Rinegard-Guirma out of

her Portland, Oregon home. Their

attorney Ian Kyle went to work.

When a homeowner defaults on

their loan, there are a number of

‘T’s that must be crossed and ‘I’s

that must be dotted by the lender

BEFORE a foreclosure can take

place. Normally, the bank would

arrange for that ‘straw person’ to

be identified, ie., the Trustee who

will conduct the foreclosure sale onthe courthouse steps. RCO has all

these companies under their

corporate umbrella (AND more as

we shall see). Then they secure a

title report to ensure their interests

are protected--from their own

company.

It used to be said of sausage

makers that they used all parts of

Page of129 227


(208 of 3



the pig in making that product

“....except the squeal.” Well, give

RCO credit where credit is due.

They have every single base of the

foreclosure field covered except

your choice of a mover to pick up

the family heirlooms from the curb.

They own Oregon Legal Journal

where notice of foreclosure sales

are made. They own a process

service company. They even own

USA.foreclosure which advertises

REO opportunities far and wide

nationally and by state.

FULL SERVICE LAW FIRM FULL SERVICE TITLECOMPANY

FULL SERVICE FORECLOSURE

MACHINE

These interlocking circles will demonstrate how Bank of

America has deftly played all sides of the foreclosure bet.

A. Bank of America -- Bank of America has every right to

hire the best attorneys available to represent them in the

courts: here, Routh, Crabtree and Olsen.

• The complication occurs, as most of you know by now,

Page of130 227


(209 of 3



when the original lender, Bank of America in Natache’s

case, fails to properly transfer the DEED, what I call THE

SHEEPSKIN, to those up the securitization food chain.

Most lenders, like Bank of America, did not do it legally nor

correctly. This puts attorneys like Ian Kyle in the position of

lying to the courts on behalf of their lender-clients; here,

Bank of America. This lying is occurring all across the

United States. So, the question becomes: why aren’t

judges, like federal magistrate judge Paul Papak in

Natache’s case, ---DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THE

LENDER’S ATTORNEY LYING TO THE COURT? This

takes us to B in the interlocking circles above.

B. Bank of America -- Bank of America has every right to

sponsor judges, their elections, their conferences, their

associations, their meetings and their ‘Society’• Bank of America has deftly observed the array of judicial

‘doings’ out there and has taken pains to sponsor or

support the applicable judicial organization of their

choice. There are many more “secret judicial societies”

than you might imagine. The American Judicature

Society for example. The American Judicature Society’s

mission is to: “...secure and promote an independent

and qualified judiciary and fair system of justice.”

• THE STRING -- It is a complex thread, but here it is in

Page of131 227


(210 of 3



the simplest form: Beginning from the national level to

the local level, here is how the deck is stacked by Bank

of America against Natache;-----AND neither her

attorneys nor she knows it even though she is in the fight

of her life---for her home in Oregon.

• THE JUDICIAL CONNECTION:

1. The American Judicature Society is formally supported by

Bank of America. The American Judicature Society is

partners with the American Judges Association.

2. The American Judges Association is partners with the

National Center for State Courts.

3. The National Center for State Courts is funded by the

State Justice Institute.

4. The State Justice Institute is partially run by the Koch

brother’s Counsel.5. The State Justice Institute has Oregon judges David

Brewer and Gayle Nachtigal on their Board of Directors.

6. The State Justice Institute is partners with the National

Judicial College in Reno .

7. The National Judicial College is partially run by Wynn and

Eldorado Gambling Casino personnel.

8. Outgoing Oregon Supreme Court Justice Paul De Muniz

is on the Board of Visitors for the National Judicial

College.

Page of132 227


(211 of 3



9. Justice Paul De Muniz was recently given a lunch by the

Multnomah County Bar Association formally sponsored by

Merrill Lynch Wealth Management which is a subsidiary of

Bank of America. On the same program Legal Aid

Services of Oregon announces a foreclosure legal

assistance project.

!

C. Bank of America -- Bank of America completes the

circle. Bank of America finances probono.net and thus

financially supports Natache’s lawyers.

• In a complicated thread which completes the circle, here

is how Bank of America is funding Natache’s lawyers.

Maybe they don’t even know it. No one does -- except

Bank of America.

• So, picture that lonely unrepresented foreclosure victim like Natache who has been defrauded by Bank of America.

They need legal help. Here is where they MAY start their

search for free or ‘modest means’ legal help:

! Oregon State Bar -- Opps, not much help there. Their

‘Finding Legal Assistance” page is directed at telling

lawyers where they can volunteer.

! SRLN.org -- “Welcome to the Self-Represented

Litigation Network” they say. Opps, it isn’t what you

think. This is the network of organizations below. It

Page of133 227


(212 of 3



isn’t for poor folks.

! selfhelpsupport.org -- Opps, this is the network for

judges, staff and others who are dealing with selfrepresented

litigation issues.

! lawhelp.org -- Now, we are getting someplace. This is

a state-by-state website for free legal aid referrals.

(Be careful who is sponsoring these outfits. This one is

sponsored by George Soros. Are they wolves in sheep’s

apparel? Nobody supports something without a measure of

self-interest.)

! OregonAdvocates.org--This is another website to help

Oregon lawyers find volunteer opportunities. Again be

careful about the sponsors.

! Center for NonProfit Legal Services -- Opps, this is

just for Medford.Ah, at least there is an umbrella outfit watching over all these

websites; ---for the public to get hooked up with a volunteer

lawyer who wants to do good, so we can help the lonely

citizen in foreclosure:

! probono.net -- Welcome to Bank of America

Corporation’s Managing Director & Associate General

Counsel, who is a Board of Director of probono.net

along with partners in major law firms around the United

States. Oh, yeah, Bank of America is a major financial

Page of134 227


(213 of 3



donor to probono.net as well. Along with the State

Justice Institute and other funding devices mentioned

above, around the United States.

probono.net has a “select group” of corporate sponsors.

In addition, probono.net has, as official “Participating

Organizations”:

1. American Judicature Society (....isn’t this where we came

in.......?)

2. Legal Services Corporation

3. National Association for Court Management

4. National Center for State Courts

5. State Justice Institute

Don’t gloss over #2. Legal Services Corporation funds,

among other entities, the Legal Aid Services of Oregon and

the Oregon Law Center. Their lawyers are representing Natache. All are ‘partners’ with Bank of America.

Finally, the President-elect of the Oregon State Bar during

this period, worked for Legal Aid Services of Oregon. She

must note her conflict of interest as she conducts the

business of the legal profession, the Bar’s formal

‘partnership’ with Oregon’s judiciary and the status of the

poor in Oregon. A very delicate balancing act which is on no

one’s intellectual horizon.

Elizabeth Warren’s new consumer agency is a good

Page of135 227


(214 of 3



start. We need to clean house in the Bankruptcy Courts.

IN U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT IN OREGON IS

CORRUPT

````It is a Closed System and You Ain’t a

MemberBANKRUPTCY 101 REPORT

A FULL REPORT ON ILLEGAL ACTIVITY IN YOUR LOCAL

BANKRUPTCY COURT --

‘Vulnerable You‘ ..... are Facing Foreclosure and

Bankruptcy:

You have just been given notice of potential foreclosure

of your home and hearth. Is U.S. Bankruptcy Court a safe

harbor, a time out; does it offer refuge and succor? No, it

offers criminal enterprise enabled by bankruptcy judges and

an elaborate U.S. Trustees Office who is supposed to protect

you. It doesn’t. It enables the criminal enterprise. Sadly.Whenever a debtor files for bankruptcy, the United States

Bankruptcy Court appoints a trustee to administer the case/

estate for the Court. Whether a debtor files a Chapter 13 or

Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, there is always a case trustee.

And overseeing the case trustees, on behalf of the United

States government, specifically the Department of Justice; is

the United States Trustee Program.

(Notice we said that the Trustee is there to ‘administer the

case/estate for the Court’.)

Page of136 227


(215 of 3



The Question Before the House --- Well, which is

it...?????? Is the trustee (sounds good) there for YOU or

FOR THE COURT??

U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee -- The job of the USBT is to review

bankruptcy cases and to identify problematic areas.

There is also a ‘baby trustee’ who has the grinding job of

sitting in on “No Asset” cases. To Them: it is a “No Asset”

case because you don’t have attractive GOODS for them to

be interested in to go to the trouble of selling. This is what

happened to my GOODS as we shall See.

1. There are also many Assistant United States Trustees that

directly oversee each state or division within a particular

state.

2. And added into that mix, are the attorneys for the

Assistant United States Trustee, or the United StatesTrustee. We shall see more about them too.

3. The trustees all review the documents provided and

analyze whether the debtor should be repaying some of

his/her debts or some higher percentage of the debts.

4. Specific responsibilities of the United States Trustees

include:

• Appointing and supervising private trustees who

administer Chapter 7, 12, and 13 bankruptcy estates

(and serving as trustees in such cases where private

Page of137 227


(216 of 3



trustees are unable or unwilling to serve);

• Taking legal action to enforce the requirements of the

Bankruptcy Code and to prevent fraud and abuse;

• Referring matters for investigation and criminal

prosecution when appropriate;

• Ensuring that bankruptcy estates are administered

promptly and efficiently, and that professional fees are

reasonable;

• Appointing and convening creditors' committees in

Chapter 11 business reorganization cases;

• Reviewing disclosure statements and applications for

the retention of professionals; and

• Advocating matters relating to the Bankruptcy Code

and rules of procedure in court.

In Sum -- The primary role of the U.S. Trustee Program isto serve as the "watchdog over the bankruptcy process."1/

The mission of the United States Trustee Program is to

promote the integrity and efficiency of the bankruptcy system

for the benefit of all stakeholders – debtors, creditors, and

the public.

So With All This -- What Could Go Wrong??

A VIEW FROM 40,000 FEET

The Players -- It is useful to observe at this point:

“Who are These People Anyway?” Paulson goes into this

Page of138 227


(217 of 3



bankruptcy process worth about $700,000 with a debt

purporting to be owing of about $400,000: And comes out

with nothing. Nada!

• Attorneys Craig Russillo and Joel Parker,

experienced-creditor mavens. These are the two

attorneys for my Creditors.

• Randall Dunn is an experienced bankruptcy judge

• Matt Arbaugh, is Paulson’s bankruptcy lawyer

• Amy Mitchell, is Paulson’s ‘Baby Trustee’ (see

above) -- sort of like your local bank manager. A

person that has charge of your money and assets:

(called--creepily---‘your estate’).

• M. Vivienne Popperl -- Acting Assistant United

States Trustee -- sort of like your local bank

manager’s regulator.• GAIL B. GEIGER -- Regional U.S. Attorney--

Vivienne ’s boss.

Just the Facts Please, Preceding The Wheels ‘Falling Off’!

O.K, O.K, Paulson WAS STUPID

Naive, even. He Admits it. But, it was 2005. Here is

reality. Obtaining a loan from a “hard money” (think

predatory) lender means only one thing. Their goal is NOT

to have the loan paid back.

Oh, no! Their goal is to get your property. Why do you think

Page of139 227


(218 of 3



all these banks aren’t going for a principle reduction. They

want your home and your stuff. And with me---they got both.

That bunch named above are supposed to protect that lonely

debtor. But think about it for a minute. Who, in that bunch

does not work with them every day, all year long. Only me.

Only the debtor is the ODD person out.

But, Paulson trusted his lawyer, Mr. Arbaugh. That was

a big mistake.

And he assumed Judge Dunn would be a neutral arbiter

of fairness and justice. A bigger mistake, but not something

he had a reason to be concerned about until:

May 7, 2010 -- Judge Randall Dunn decides that Paulson

has an “empty head” (yes he said that to Paulson.....on the

record.) Before he then committed outright illegal acts. All

on the record. All for subsequent investigators (which theU.S. Trustee’s office is SUPPOSED TO BE, BUT THEY ARE

MISSING IN ACTION--COMPLETELY.) Judge Dunn goes

on to decide that my major predatory lawsuit against the

‘hard money’ lender is of no value. He then allows the

trustee to settle Paulson’s $17 million dollar lawsuit against

the predatory lender, Fairway, FHLF, LLC’s predecessor,

and other banks for a paltry$5,000. Paulson never sees any

of that settlement money. It all goes, like everything else to

your ‘Baby Trustee’, Amy Mitchell.

Page of140 227


(219 of 3



Consider for a moment all the mega settlements that state

attorney generals have made with predatory lenders for NOT

millions of dollars, But BILLIONS of dollars since 2008 when

I filed my predatory lending lawsuit. But, Judge Dunn,

without looking at the Court file decides to stab Paulson in

the back and let Amy Mitchell have her way with my

ESTATE??

Judge Randall Dunn later admits, on the record, he never

looked at the U.S. District Court file and the $17 million

predatory lawsuit documents before allowing the settlement.

May 24, 2010 -- Mr. Russillo changed locks and illegally

evicted Paulson into the night without notice and without his

stuff. The eviction was illegal because Mr. Russillo had

failed to issue the statutorily required ‘danger notice’ (ORS

86.737) to Paulson then failed to give Paulson the statutorilyrequired five (5) days notice before foreclosure (ORS

86.753).

Over 30% of all foreclosures are fraudulent.

June 04, 2010 -- Amy Mitchell formally abandoned

Paulson’s property without ever looking at any of the

property. Thus, she left all of the debtor’s stuff in the

possession of Mr. Russillo. All of it. Even his family heirlooms

dating back 100 years.

June 29, 2010 -- Paulson formally requests Amy Mitchell’s

Page of141 227


(220 of 3



removal for cause as the ‘baby trustee’ from Paulson’s

bankruptcy case. Nothing!

July 12, 2010 -- Amy Mitchell’s lawyer, Ball, Janik file a

blank document with the Court asking to be appointed to

also represent Trustee, Ken Eilers who represents a debtor

who owes money to Paulson. No order grants that

application for employment. (Docket # 119)

October 6. 2010 -- U.S. District Court Garr King rules on

the Natache Guirma-Rinegard case on facts similar to

Paulson’s that the alleged creditor had no legal ‘Standing’ to

foreclose. Re: Natache D. Rinegard-Guirma v. Bank of

America, et al., Civil Case No. 10-1065-PK,

December 27, 2010 -- Paulson files pleadings in U.S.

Bankruptcy Court to Expunge Attorney Russillo’s documents

filed on behalf of FHLF, LLC because FHLF, LLC had noLegal Standing. This pleading is based on the 10/6/10 ruling

in the Rinegard case which is still the law. (Docket # 122)

Entered 1/14/11

March 19, 2012 -- Paulson filed a Motion to ReOpen this

case. Judge Randall took the Motion to be just an Exhibit to

another Motion also filed, -- a Motion to Compel Mr.

Russillo to return my stuff taken on May 24, 2010. In reality,

this was a Motion for Judge Randall to examine the issue of

Standing which he refused to do. [ Notice the pattern of

Page of142 227


(221 of 3





documents are filed and O.K. with the Bankruptcy Court, but

Paulson’s objection to the stealing of $17,545.50 of

Paulson’s money to Amy Mitchell’s attorney is mysteriously

“untimely and inappropriately filed.” (Order Returning

Document(s) dated March 28, 2013.)

The Four Wheels Fall Off:

Wheel No. 1: Neither Judge Randall Dunn, Nor Baby U.S

Trustee Amy Mitchell looked at whether Paulson’s $17

million dollar predatory lawsuit had merit. No independent

analysis was done by an outside attorney---or by anybody.

Wheel No.2: Neither Dunn nor Mitchell determined

whether the foreclosure of Paulson’s $750,000 property was

legal inasmuch as there was no ‘danger’ notice nor the

required 5 day notice of foreclosure before the sale itself.

Wheel No.3: Nobody noticed that the creditor, FHLF, LLC(who was NOT the lender) had no legal standing to do

anything before any court including the bankruptcy court. It

is a basic, yet all these legal minds missed it as an issue.

Suspiciously no judge will address the issue.???????

Wheel No.4: All these files are still open and all of the

wheels could be put back on and this vehicle steered to the

proper location.

Where or where is that U.S. Trustee to do what they are

required to do above?

Page of144 227


(223 of 3



This bogus Bankruptcy system is run by the U.S.

Department of Justice. Methinks, everybody is assuming

that bankruptcy in United States is a salutary system for the

poor, the meek, and the downtrodden. It isn’t. It is a criminal

enterprise with some major law players milking the system at

the poor’s expense.

Where is the honesty and integrity?

The M.E. Blanton House is part of the property PAULSON

owned for twenty (20) years and lovingly restored. You can

see why Mr. Russillo wanted it for his predatory client.

How can these ‘professionals’ dealing in poor folk’s agony

look at themselves in the mirror???

Re: In re Lauren Paulson Debtor

U.S. Bankruptcy Case No.# 09-32439

Adv. Proc No.#11-03309IN SUMMARY, THE BANKRUPTCY CASE OF CRIMINAL

DISORDER:

The salient facts are these:

1. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Randall Dunn discloses that he

has not read the federal circuit file on Page 4 of the

transcript and admits on Page 66 stating on the record

that he had made up his mind on May 7, 2010 before the

hearing.

Page of145 227


(224 of 3



2. Trustee Amy Mitchell is guilty of the most egregious

dereliction of her duties and criminal favoritism of

creditors.

3. Acting Assistant U.S. Trustee Vivienne Popperl has

failed to oversee the fraudulent activities of Trustee Amy

Mitchell

4. Trustee Amy Mitchell and A.A. U.S. Trustee Vivienne

Popperl have failed to take legal action or actions at all

to protect the assets of the Estate.

5. Trustee Amy Mitchell and A.A. U.S. Trustee Popperl

failed to require the Debtor Plan under the Chapter 11

proceedings.

6. Trustee Amy Mitchell and A.A. Trustee Popperl have

allowed blank documents to be filed and failed to review

the disclosure documents and application for retention of professionals.

7. Trustee Amy Mitchell and A.A. U.S. Trustee Popperl

failed to convene a creditor’s committee in the chapter

11 proceedings.

8. Trustee Amy Mitchell, A.A. U.S. Trustee Popperl and

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Randall Dunn failed to require

that creditors have legal standing before the U.S.

Bankruptcy Court. Indeed, on the transcript of the May

7, 2010 at Page 65, Judge Dunn states this dispute is

Page of146 227


(225 of 3



between Mr. Paulson and Fairway, not between Mr.

Paulson and FHLF, LLC.

9. U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges Hollowell and

Markell failed to address the issue of legal standing

notwithstanding the pleading dated December 19, 2010

filed by Debtor Paulson that specifically outlined why the

ONLY creditor in litigation of the bankruptcy case, FHLF,

LLC, did not have legal standing. The issue of legal

standing IS NOT addressed in BAP decision of May 10,

2011.

10. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Randall Dunn failed to address

or rule on Debtor Paulson’s Motion to Reopen the

Chapter 7 Proceedings dated March 9, 2012 nor

recognize nor address the Adversary Proceedings filed

by Debtor Paulson.11. Fraud on the U.S. Bankruptcy Case No. 09-32439

Docket Record -- There are two important pleading

packages missing from the Docket of this proceeding

and both were submitted by the Debtor Lauren Paulson.

The first is Paulson’s Motion to ReOpen Case (5010)

dated March 9, 2012. This pleading package is 21

pages and was specifically filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Case

No. 09-32439. But there are no pleadings filed on the

official docket of Case No. 09-32439 in 2012.

Page of147 227


(226 of 3



12. The second pleading package of 8 pages plus four (4)

exhibits filed in Case No. 09-32439 by the Debtor Lauren

Paulson is entitled “Plaintiff’s Objection to Payment to

Trustee”. That was filed on March 27, 2013, but returned

to Paulson the same day and not listed on the docket. It

was returned by “pjk Deputy”. This means that all of the

Debtor’s efforts to petition the Court to address the issue

of FHLF, LLC’s lack of legal standing have never been

addressed anywhere in these four years of U.S.

Bankruptcy proceedings. Erased.

13. Now, the Court is attempting to erase the Debtor’s

objecting to payment to Amy Mitchell’s attorneys of

$17,545.50 out of $35,046.15 of the Debtor’s money

nobody told him he had until March 5, 2013.

Notwithstanding Paulson’s 3/27/13 objections, JudgeDunn approved said payment on April 10, 2013.

Without a hearing and on a document with handwritten

changes.

It is important to keep in mind that on October 6, 2010,

U.S. District Court Judge Garr King ruled in Natache’s case

that on facts exactly on all fours of Paulson’s case, that the

putative lender did not have legal standing once they have

separated the security instrument from the debt instrument.

This is fully briefed in Paulson’s documents on the subject

Page of148 227


(227 of 3



discussed above.

The extent of Judge Randall Dunn’s criminal enterprise

is further elucidate by Judge Randall Dunn’s ruling in the

Fawn Ridge case which is also on all fours with Paulson’s

case here. In short, the Rule of Law articulated in Fawn

Ridge was subject to total amnesia when Judge Dunn came

upon Paulson in Case No. 09--32439.

When Paulson learned of this amnesia, he formally

asked Judge Dunn to recuse himself for not following the

Rule of Law in Natache’s case and the Fawn Ridge matter:

He wouldn’t recuse himself.

In re: Fawn Ridge Partners, LP, Debtors

BAP No. CC-09-1396-HPDu (March 29, 2010)

Here is the Parallel View:

• Fawn Ridge filed their Chapter 11 on March 5, 2009.PAULSON filed his Chapter 11 bankruptcy on April 09,

2009.

• Fawn Ridge’s creditor, BAC, filed for relief from the

automatic stay. Paulson’s creditor, FHLF, LLC, filed for

relief from the automatic stay.

• In Fawn Ridge the creditor furnished no documentation

regarding endorsement, assignment, transfer, sale of the

Note and Deed of Trust, or servicing agreement with the

Page of149 227


(228 of 3





on the issue of FHLF, LLC’s lack of standing. Paulson was denied equal

protection of the law on the issue of standing.

De novo review requires that BAP consider a matter

anew, as if no decision had been previously rendered. (Page 7)

Judge Dunn should, along with judges Hollowell,

Markell and Jury, sua sponte, reverse all of the defective

rulings and take judicial notice now that FHLF, LLC did not

have legal standing in the Chapter 11/7 proceedings at all.

BAC did not provide evidence that it had

been injured by the debtor’s default on the

loan therefore BAC did not have constitutional

standing to file the Stay

Relief Motion. (Page

12)How can you judges look at yourself in the mirror? And there

are legions of these cases going in and out of these

courtrooms. How is it that you can look the public in the eye

anymore? The worst foreclosure tsunami in history and you

allow this tortured sort of thing to go on in your presence.

And enable it through blatant judicial misconduct. Then treat

me, your self-described empty headed debtor with contempt.

At the end of the May 7, 2010 proceeding you gave away the

fact that you had your mind made up before the ‘evidentiary’

Page of151 227


(230 of 3



hearing. You stated, referring to your ruling that day, “I said

what I planned to say on the record.”

Hence, I formally ask each judge to recuse yourself in this

matter as it proceeds forward and vacate your participation

in the Chapter 11/7 proceedings in toto.

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

Massive Fraud by Clifford J. White on the National Mortgage

Settlement

The Plaintiff’s Criminal Fraud Report on the

proceedings in the Oregon jurisdiction from 2009 to present

is filed here. The 2012 report by Clifford J. White III, Director

following the National Mortgage Settlement of that yearstates the following:

In that report, Mr. White notes the 2012 settlement was

to address “mortgage servicing, foreclosure and bankruptcy

abuses.” There are such abuses in my case. All three

abuses are present in this case. Big time.

The settlement was to “...ensure the integrity of the

bankruptcy process.” That integrity is completely and starkly

missing in this case.

The settlement was for “...$25 billion in cash...”

Page of152 227


(231 of 3



Paulson hasn’t seen any of that money know does he know

of anybody that has seen any.

The settlement was to ensure “... financial relief to

homeowners.” Paulson has not had such relief. Paulson

continues to remain homeless where Mr. Russillo, Judge

Haggerty’s law partner happily put him.

There was supposed to be three and a half years of

compliance review by an independent monitor. The Plaintiff

seeks to know who is the independent monitor for his case

and what monitoring has been done now, a year later.

Attorney General Holder complimented Mr. White’s

office and the United States Attorney’s Offices. Paulson has

reported specific acts of fraud by local attorneys to Amanda

Marshall at the U.S. Attorney’s office and you with no result.

See Paulson’s letter to Amanda Marshall, Oregon U.S.Attorney, dated November 11, 2011 and December 21, 2011

to Special Agent Audrey Devinney also with no result.

Mr. White points out that reports to the Federal Trade

Commission brought this problem to the USTP’s attention in

2006. Paulson’s problems began in 2005. The FTC has

known about this problem since their prosecution of Alliance

in 2000. Paulson first reported on this problem to the

Federal Trade Commission in 2010 with no result. See FTC

Reference No.# 24122365 and my letter to the FTC dated

Page of153 227


(232 of 3





nonjudicial foreclosure was illegally done by Mr. Russillo

because he failed to provide the required statutory ‘danger’

notice (ORS 86.737) AND failed to provide notice of the sale

and thereby prevented my right to cure which I had the

power to do. (ORS 86.753) The Rule of Law requires

STRICT compliance with state law for foreclosures because

they are done without judicial supervision. That didn’t

happen here. In fact, Mr. Russillo admitted ON THE

RECORD that he failed to provide me with the required

‘danger’ notice. Where was the Trustee on that issue? The

judge? Anybody?

Settlement Agreement —

Under the National Mortgage Settlement agreement

“...servicers will adhere to special provisions relating to

bankruptcy conduct....to ensure the accuracy of ...motionsfrom stay”. Note here that is an issue since the entity

seeking relief from stay --- FHLF, LLC; has no legal standing

to even seek a stay!

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Randall Dunn ignored my

Motion to Expunge the Stay and Reopen this case to

reexamine whether this Relief from stay was valid. What

rule allows a judge to just ignore a party’s legal filing??!!Not

only is USTP not conforming with the purpose of this

settlement, but U.S. Bankruptcy judges are not either. Why is

Page of155 227


(234 of 3



the USTP not monitoring these bankruptcy deficiencies in

this time of highest need by the poor?

Servicer conduct will be reviewed for three and a half

years by an independent monitor who will oversee a series

of prescribed tests of compliance. Failure to meet

established metrics of compliance is subject to remedy by

the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,

including through monetary penalties and non-monetary

equitable relief.

$35,000 suddenly and mysteriously appeared in my

column last month (after four years of bankruptcy

proceedings??!!) without any accounting or notice. ( By the

way, I never received my $35,000 homestead exemption and

advised Ms. Popperl personally of that problem and she

advised that was not her job.) Gee, how did the USTP fail tonotice that?

Instantly, the Trustee’s attorney sought $17,000 of

these funds for her attorneys fees. No audit, no notice, no

accounting. Just easy money to the Trustee’s attorney.

Again Judge Dunn approves it without a hearing, without

notice, without anything. Yet, he ignores my Motion to

Reopen altogether. And my Motion to Expunge the Stay to

address the issue of Legal Standing.

Mr. White noted: “The USTP must attack emerging

Page of156 227


(235 of 3





JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT --

COMPLAINT OF

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

COMPLAINANT -- LAUREN PAULSON

I. ISSUES --PRELIMINARY

Twenty-two (22) Judges, fourteen (14) case

numbers and one simple Oregon Foreclosure Case -- that

should have been finished in 2010. Manifold judicial

misconduct has caused wasteful and protracted litigation

going nowhere. These judges will not address the simple

fact that foreclosure lenders do not have Constitutional

Standing to even be in Court---anywhere. Competent judges

are simply turning away.

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT -- This is a Judicial

Misconduct Complaint versus the following Judges of theU.S. District Court of Oregon and the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals in the following cases:

!

OREGON FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT -- Case Nos.

08-00982, 10-00048, 12-00196

!

• Hon. Paul Papak

• Hon. Ancer Haggerty

• Hon Michael Mosman

Page of158 227


(237 of 3



• Hon. Anna Brown

• Hon Ann Aiken

U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT -- Case Nos. 09-32439-rld,

BAP #10-1173, Adversary Case #11-03309

Page "238 of "410

"239

• Hon. Jim D. Pappas

• Hon. Bruce A. Markell

• Hon. Eileen W. Hollowell

• Hon. Judge Jury

• Hon. Randall Dunn

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT --

Case Nos.10-36178, 10-35745, 11-60038, 11-72697,

11-90185, 13-35077, 13-35160

• Hon. Richard R. Clifton• Hon. Sandra S. Ikuta

• Hon. Ed Leavy

• Hon William C. Canby Jr.

• Hon. Ronald M. Gould

• Hon Richard Tallman

• Hon. Jay Memo Bybee

• Hon. Alex Kozinski

• Hon. Wm. A. Fletcher

• Hon. C.M. Callahan

Page of159 227


(238 of 3



Page "239 of "410

"240

II. NINTH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COMPLAINT FORM

A. THIS COMPLAINT CONCERNS THE

PROCEEDINGS IN U.S. DISTRICT OF OREGON,

PORTLAND DIVISION, U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS AND

THE U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH

CIRCUIT. The precise court and case numbers are identified

throughout this complaint. Paulson is a Pro Se party in

these matters.

B. Paulson has not filed lawsuits against any judge

here. The record should include any and all proceedings

(including all letters) in all Oregon courts and the Ninth

Circuit identified by their numbers here. The record should

be specifically identified as to what was examined by thechief judge or his/her surrogate with regard to the entire

judicial misconduct complaint.

1. Summary of Issues: The U.S. District Court of Oregon,

Portland, Division, and the Ninth Circuit Court under the

leadership of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge Ann

Aiken, other District Court judges and Ninth Circuit judges

named above are illegally truncating filed foreclosure

cases and appeals using the artifices outlined here and

discussed in detail below:

Page of160 227


(239 of 3



2. Ninth Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski --

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT of CHIEF JUDGE ALEX

KOZINSKI AND CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NINTH

CIRCUIT

Ninth Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski takes pride

in pointing out that when it comes to the issue of Judicial

Misconduct, he is the chief administrator in addition to being

the Chief Judge. Thus, it is Alex Kozinski, the public servant

who must be held responsible for the subversion of The Rule

of Law at the highest level of the Ninth Circuit. Judge

Kozinski has a record of his own in judicial misconduct in

many places, thus cannot be objective here and must be

recused.

Two cataclysmic events took place on the myriad of

cases pending in the Ninth Circuit on this simple foreclosurecase. It must be noted that Paulson filed many ‘Motions to

Consolidate’, to ameliorate the mess created by the manifold

proceedings at all levels on this one simple foreclosure case.

THE RECORD ON APPEAL: The First Catastrophe is

engendered by the contradictory administrative rulings by

the Ninth Circuit Clerk’s office in an inability to identify “The

Record” upon which these multiple rulings are made. No

judge ever identifies the record upon which their rulings are

made.......that refusal continues to this day notwithstanding

Page of161 227


(240 of 3



the repeated efforts by Paulson to mine the record, identify

the record and present the record to the judicial panel

involved. (Investigators of judicial misconduct will discover

that the problem of identifying the record permeates all

courts of Oregon and all proceedings in the Ninth Circuit.

Even at the highest level.)

Because no judge in the Ninth Circuit ever mentioned

any part of the Record in all these rulings, Paulson

specifically wrote to The Ninth Circuit Court Clerk on

December 5, 2011 and to each judge thereafter to

specifically identify upon what record these rulings are

made, without result.

JUDICIAL NOTICE - From the outset Paulson has

requested the identification of and judicial notice of the

extant cases particularly when there are so many of themand because they reside in different court buildings with

different numbers. Judicial Notice--Consolidation. Neither

taken. When courts do not take judicial notice of the other

cases (that should have been consolidated) then the litigant

is required to repeat, over and over, the facts and the law to

each new panel. Attrition of legitimate appeals, over issues

such as fees, is the intentional product and by product of the

legal situation in the U.S District Court of Oregon and of the

Ninth Circuit.

Page of162 227


(241 of 3



III. ISSUES -- DETAIL

A. IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS IS BEING DENIED:

First, Pro Se Appellant’s are being denied In Forma

Pauperis (IFP) status without following the IFP law.

Poor people in Oregon and the Ninth Circuit are

being refused poor litigant (Pro Se) status and are

being refused pro bono lawyer help. In short, judicial

legal leadership in the West is refusing selfrepresented

victims of foreclosure; due process in

Oregon and Ninth Circuit Courts.

B. OVERUSE OF ‘FRIVOLOUS’ DESIGNATION:

Second, these judges, deviously, are not following

the Ninth Circuit Standards nor the law by falsely

declaring appealed cases “frivolous” when those

cases are appealed from the U.S. District Courts.This is happening in foreclosure cases where an

appeal is hardly frivolous when the appellant is

homeless and we all know lenders are engaging in

massive fraud at all levels. These judges simply

declare a foreclosure case ‘frivolous’ without any

analysis of the law nor the facts, without any record

and without adhering to The Rule of Law. A mirror

image of lender fraud.

C. SPURIOUS APPEAL DISMISSALS BECAUSE

Page of163 227


(242 of 3



‘Fees not paid’: Third, those subject cases are then

dismissed because the putative appellate filing fee

has not been paid; even when it has been paid or IFP

status approved. In this devious way these judges

are getting rid of appeals on foreclosure cases

without addressing the merits of the foreclosure

defenses, which are manifold. Why else would

banks be paying these billion dollar fines????

pertaining to foreclosure cases.

D. MOTIONS FOR EN BANC HEARINGS GO INTO

A ‘BLACK HOLE’: When an En Banc filing is made,

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unilaterally interprets

the filing as a Motion for Reconsideration then denies

the Motion as late and dismisses the appeal. This ploy

denies the Ninth Circuit judicial panel from anopportunity to review the case En Banc and prevents

the appellant from their day in court DUE TO JUDICIAL

PERVERSION of the rules and The Rule of Law.

F. PLEADINGS FILED ARE ILLEGALLY RETURNED

‘UN-FILED’ OR ‘LOST’: Court Clerks are unlawfully

being instructed to send lawfully filed pleadings back

to the filer in order to avoid lawful foreclosure cases

being litigated in local and Ninth Circuit cases. They

then attempt to cover-up the fact of the filing in those

Page of164 227


(243 of 3





foreclosure cases.

I. DISTRICT/NINTH CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES RULE

WITHOUT IDENTIFICATION OF ‘THE RECORD’ :

In the entire Judicial Misconduct area and in the

entire universe of Ninth Circuit Court rulings, it is

striking that judges never identify upon what record

they have ruled. Even when specifically asked.

Paulson has written a formal letter to each judge,

formally asking for an identification of the record.

Each of these judges refuses.

J. DISTRICT/NINTH CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES FAIL

TO MAKE THE REQUIRED DISCLOSURES UNDER

THE LAW: U.S. District Court Judge Haggerty and

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Ann Aiken failed to

make required disclosures. He was formally a partner in the law firm for which he has made

favorable rulings here for five years and she has

numerous professional affiliations with law firms

adverse to Paulson including Paulson’s former office

manager who has the computer hard drive for that

ten (10) year Paulson law-office tenure, and works at

the Cosgrave firm involved here; for which Judge

Aiken has a conflict requiring disclosure.

K.ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION TOOLS

Page of166 227


(245 of 3



ARE NOT USED IN THESE COURTS.

See Judge Papak’s parting remarks at the July 29,

2010 hearing in Case No. 08-00982 on this subject.

Also see Ninth Circuit Conference materials on the

purported ADR program charade.

L. U.S. Bankruptcy Courts are Engaging in CRIMINAL

ENTERPRISE on Behalf of Creditors in Denial of The

Equal Protection of the Laws to the Debtors. See extensive

discussion below and the machinations of Judge Randall

Dunn easily discerned in his written rulings.

3. Evidence -- The evidence is the entire record of

proceedings in the case numbers listed above including a

transcript of all those court proceedings-- of which Paulson

requests that the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council take

JUDICIAL NOTICE.V.ANALYSIS

or How Oregon/Ninth Circuit Judges Sanction Illegal

Foreclosures and Truncate Appeals:

A Kabuki Dance Like No Other

Let us start at the beginning of the litigation.

Remember that Paulson filed suit first against Fairway, a

loan broker, for predatory loan practices, among other things

in a class action case in 2008. Paulson had taken a default

Page of167 227


(246 of 3



against Fairway in that lawsuit (later set aside) and U.S.

District Court Magistrate Judge Janice Stewart had ordered

the case into settlement proceedings.

Then the wheels fell off. They took Paulson’s case

away from Judge Stewart and gave the case to Judge Ancer

Haggerty. What they didn’t tell Paulson is that Judge

Haggerty is a former law partner in the same law firm as

Attorney Craig Russillo, Fairway/FHLF, LLC’s attorney and

Paulson’s adversary here, in a Portland law office known as

‘Schwabe Williamson’. It is 2010 in this narrative and

Paulson has been in the foreclosure box for two years.

Since 2008, this case has been ‘the full employment act’ for

Judge Haggerty’s former law firm, Schwabe Williamson, a

major law firm in downtown Portland, Oregon. Paulson filed

an appeal to the Ninth Circuit in 2010 after receiving shoddytreatment in the U.S. District Court at Judge Haggerty’s,

Judge Aiken and Judge Papak’s hands.

PONDER FOR A MOMENT?

Who does it benefit if a litigant is required to adjudicate

a simple foreclosure case in multiple forums before 20

different judges?

SO WHERE HAVE WE BEEN AND WHERE ARE WE

NOW?

Paulson filed suit against Fairway in 2008. Paulson

Page of168 227


(247 of 3



filed bankruptcy in 2009 to prevent foreclosure. Fairway/

FHLF, LLC illegally foreclosed in a nonjudicial foreclosure in

2009. The bankruptcy court via Judge Dunn sold Paulson’s

2008 predatory loan lawsuit against Fairway (and FHLF,

LLC) to the Schwabe law firm’s Attorney Craig Russillo in

2010 over Paulson’s formal legal objection.

Therefore, as of 2010 there are three lawsuits in three

different court systems (Paulson’s predatory loan against

Fairway et al., in federal court, his bankruptcy case in

bankruptcy court and state court where Mr. Russillo filed

eviction proceedings.

The law of the land is simple. If one court acquires

jurisdiction over property first, no other court may take

jurisdiction for common sense reasons. Sexton v. NDEX

West, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 11-17432, D.C. No. 3:ll-cv-00440-LRH-VPC (2013) If it

were otherwise, then there would be multiple proceedings

leading to multiple and contradictory results. But, federal

U.S. District Court Judge Michael Mosman apparently didn’t

know about that rule because he sent this case back to

Washington County Circuit Court (state court) in blatant

violation of The Rule of Law in the Ninth Circuit as

enunciated in the Sexton case above and all precedent

everywhere. Remember, who gains-- with multiple

Page of169 227


(248 of 3



proceedings in multiple courts with the potential for multiple

contradictory results? There would be less incentive for

Judge Papak, Aiken and Judge Haggerty to fudge The Rule

of Law if they are held to account:

VI. JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

1. U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE ANCER HAGGERTY --

Conflict Of Interest, Lack of Disclosures and Delay:

Judge Haggerty was assigned to this case on or about

April 6, 2009. The case had been in litigation for eight

months with Schwabe Williamson (Schwabe) attorneys

Craig Russillo and Joel Parker already having allowed an

Order of Default taken against the Schwabe client,

Fairway Commercial Mortgage Company. The law

requires three things at this juncture that did not happen.

First, the Schwabe law firm should never have taken thiscase because the Schwabe law firm had represented

Paulson with respect to this same land in complex

litigation ten years earlier in condemnation proceedings on

a county road widening project. Second, Judge Haggerty

should have disclosed to Paulson that he had been a

partner at the Schwabe law firm. Judge Haggerty did not

make that required disclosure. He clearly has a potential

conflict of interest that required disclosure to Paulson

since the defendants are being represented by Judge

Page of170 227


(249 of 3



Haggerty’s former law firm. Third, Attorney Craig Russillo

is required to advise his clients of his legal malpractice by

allowing this case to go into default and for failing to

provide Paulson with the statutorily required ‘danger’

notice before taking an illegal nonjudicial foreclosure.

Finally, as noted in the chart below, Judge Haggerty

fails to rule on multiple matters in the underlying litigation for

over six months, all the while Paulson is not only homeless,

but unable to access his personal property in Attorney Craig

Russillo’s hands.

Incidentally, not one judge has deigned to examine the

raised, more difficult (than Standing) issues such as

Fairway’s failure to provide the ‘danger’ notice before the

nonjudicial disclosure nor their failure to provide the notice of

the final nonjudicial foreclosure date AT ALL. Why are allthese legal issues favorable to the consumer ignored?

U.S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE RANDALL DUNN’S JUDICIAL

MISCONDUCT:

A BANKRUPTCY KABUKI DANCE (here)

A Dance Where Everybody Knows The Ending

Everything is different in Bankruptcy Court. Everybody

knows their assigned seats and assigned roles except the

victims aka ‘debtors’. There is a ‘judge’ but the fix is in. Our

Judge Randall Dunn knew his role, but forgot to watch what

Page of171 227


(250 of 3



he said. On May 7, 2010 Judge Dunn had already made up

his mind BEFORE the hearing where he sold all of the class

action’s interests in the predatory lending $11 million lawsuit,

filed by Paulson, to Judge Haggerty’s former law firm’s client

for $5,000. At the end of the proceeding Judge Dunn said:

Judge Dunn: “I said (in ruling) what I planned to say

on the record.” (Tr.66)

Judicial Misconduct Judge Dunn’s statement means

he had made up his mind BEFORE the hearing. But, Judge

Dunn’s misconduct far transcends that event.

Judicial Misconduct Keep in mind the May 7, 2010

hearing was to decide if Fairway and Cos. should escape

Paulson’s predatory loan lawsuit filed two years before. To

do that Judge Dunn outlined a criteria for making his

decision: There was no probability of success of Paulson’s predatory lending lawsuit according to Judge Dunn. Only

problem is Judge Dunn inadvertently admitted on November

29, 2011, on the record that he never looked at the two-year

old U.S. District Court file. (See transcript of proceedings in

Docket #9, Adv. Case# 11-03309-rld) So, how could he

judge the likelihood of success of the predatory loan class

action if he had never read the predatory loan court file?

(This is but one example of WHY it is so important that the

entire record be examined by any reviewing court.) This is

Page of172 227


(251 of 3



an important and startling admission by Judge Dunn.

Judicial Misconduct Judge Dunn’s judicial

misconduct becomes much more transparent and acute in

2011, 2012 and 2013 as is discussed below. (Just to pique

the reader’s interest -- Judge Dunn’s 2013 involvement

allows embezzlement of $17,000 of Paulson’s funds, held in

trust by the Ball Janik law firm.) Ah, yes -- another

downtown law firm.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL

PAPAK’S and JUDGE ANN AIKEN’S JUDICIAL

MISCONDUCT

IN FORMA PAUPERIS (IFP)--Paulson is homeless

Delay --When Paulson was evicted without notice in May of2010, he filed a series of emergency pleadings in the

predatory lending lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court

case he had originally filed in 2008. These pleadings

including a TRO (emergency proceeding) to keep him in his

home in the predatory loan lawsuit and while he appealed

the FED matter to the Oregon Court of Appeals. (Docket #’s

74 thru 77, 91, 92, 104, 105, 112, 113, 114, 115 in Case #08-

cv-00982)

Judicial Misconduct -- -- Magistrate Judge Paul Papak did

Page of173 227


(252 of 3



not get around to these emergency pleadings for two months

(see below). (Docket #110) Meanwhile, Paulson is

homeless living in a tent at a state park.

The eviction caused Paulson to lose his rental income. The

eviction caused Paulson to be homeless and have to pay

rent for housing after living in a tent for two months.

Because Paulson had expended all of his liquid funds to pay

for the state court FED trial transcript for the state court

appeal, he filed for IFP status in U.S. District Court of

Oregon on July 27, 2010. (Case No. 08-00982, Docket #

107)

Moreover, Paulson appealed the rulings regarding Judge

Papak’s disqualification by Chief Judge Ann Aiken to the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 23, 2010 because

she did not follow The Rule of Law on the applicablestandard enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case

of Liteky v. U.S. 510 US 540 (1994) (Case No. 08-00982,

Docket # 116)

Judicial Misconduct -- Magistrate Judge Paul Papak

denied Paulson’s IFP application/Motion on September 10,

2010 as Moot because the filing fee was paid at the time the

case was initiated two years earlier. (Docket # 121) That is

certainly not a basis to deny IFP status under The Rule of

Law. See Rule 72, Magistrate’s PreTrial Orders. A District

Page of174 227


(253 of 3



Court judge may not refer a decision on IFP status to a

Magistrate Judge without the consent of all parties. Judge

Papak did not have the consent of all parties. 28 USC

1915(d) - subject to 28 USC 636(b) which narrowly

mandates magistrates judge’s power.

Paulson filed his IFP application in the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals on September 16, 2010 (Docket # 12 and 14 in the

Court of Appeals Case # 10-35745)

The Law: A magistrate judge like Hon. Paul Papak may

not enter a “final judgment”. Therefore, a magistrate judge

may not deny a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

because that is a final judgment. Rather, a magistrate judge

must make a recommendation of that decision regarding IFP

status to the Article III judge for a de novo review. Tripati v.

Rison, 847 F 2d 548, 548 (9th Cir 1988). That did nothappen here. The importance of that failure to Paulson will

become apparent below. Judicial Misconduct and Judicial

Incompetence.

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF JUDGE ANN AIKEN

!

On May 24, 2010 Paulson became homeless. Paulson

is still homeless as of today, five years later due to the

plentiful judicial acts of misconduct recounted here. On May

24, 2010 Attorney Craig Russillo on behalf of Fairway and

Page of175 227


(254 of 3



FHLF, LLC came into possession of all of Paulson’s real

estate and all of Paulson’s personal property including the

litigation materials involved here.

As noted above, Fairway/FHLF, LLC.’s nonjudicial

foreclosure of September 25, 2009 was illegal. It is NOT a

close question. It was illegal because it was done without

the required statutory five day notice. It was illegal because

Mr. Russillo did not issue the statutory ‘danger’ notice. It

was illegal because Paulson has a Right to Cure. It was

illegal because the foreclosure was only in FHLF, LLC’s

name and FHLF, LLC had no Constitutional Standing before

any of the courts. None. All this has been raised in these

pleadings which the Ninth Circuit regards as frivolous.

There are two other important legal concepts escaping

these rulings: 1.) The law abhors a forfeiture. 2.) Statutory proceedings require strict adherence. No judge here has

applied either “Rule of Law”.

But, during the summer of 2010 Paulson had practical

problems. All of his stuff was behind lock and key. Thus,

when Paulson filed his Emergency pleadings on June 1,

2010 and thereafter, it was of paramount importance that a

Master (a neutral ) be appointed soon, so that the return of

his computer, his litigation materials for this litigation and his

office supplies be returned to him so he could defend himself

Page of176 227


(255 of 3





On August 23, 2010 Paulson filed a fifteen (15) page

Motion for Writ of Mandamus and Injunction pending the

appeal (Case No. 08-cv-00982 Docket # 117) because the

Defendants, by virtue of Paulson’s eviction (without prior

notice) came into possession of ALL of Paulson’s ‘stuff’

including his files on this litigation on May 24, 2010. Pointing

out to the Court that an Emergency Exists because the

Schwabe lawyers representing the creditors were

threatening to DESTROY Paulson’s stuff including his

litigation papers, his classic motor home and his 100 yearold

player piano, among other important personal

possessions. Paulson moved formally for a Master to

supervise the transfer of Paulson’s ‘stuff’ back to him.

(Docket #115 in U.S. District Court Case # 08-cv-00982 on

August 13, 2010 and again on September 14, 2011 in NinthCircuit Docket #1 in Case #11-72697.)

Judge Aiken denies Paulson’s Writ of Mandamus without

a hearing. While doing so she says: “the court (does not)

find any grounds to enter an “immediate injunction”. Case

No. 08-cv-00982 Docket #118 While at first glance that

ruling appears innocuous; it ignores Paulson’s reality. Had

Judge Aiken allowed oral argument, she might have found

the ‘grounds’ in what Paulson was living every day. Grinding

poverty.

Page of178 227


(257 of 3



Paulson filed his lawsuit against his Bankruptcy Attorney,

Arbaugh along with Craig Russillo and Amy Mitchell, the

trustee in bankruptcy. Once again Paulson sought his ‘stuff’

back from these actors who have control over Paulson’s

worldly goods. At the Bankruptcy Adversary hearing of

November 29, 2011 Judge Dunn appeared to be confused

about what was in the Creditor’s possession and what was

not. Since that issue (of who has Paulson’s worldly goods)

was raised in the predatory lending case (Case No. 08-

cv-00982) and because Judge Dunn supposedly had made

a studied abandonment of that litigation to Attorney Russillo

for $5,000; Paulson inquired as to whether he, Judge Dunn,

had read that (Case No. 08-cv-00982) file. He admitted as

recounted above: “No, I have not.” On the record in Case

No. 11-03309, Docket No. 9Judicial Misconduct -- Disclosure and Discovery are routine

in civil cases except here. Paulson has filed a Request for

Production in every case. When nothing was produced,

Paulson filed a Motion to Compel in every case. In every

case his Motion to Compel was denied. One of the issues in

every foreclosure case is whether the lender has the ‘blue

ink’ copies of the operative documents. Anybody seen them

here?? Paulson’s worldly goods were taken from him on

May 24, 2010. In a startling act of negligence, the Trustee,

Page of179 227


(258 of 3



Amy Mitchell abandoned Paulson’s personal property

without ever consulting Paulson or ever looking at what was

being abandoned. Paulson has unsuccessfully sought the

return of his stuff ever since. (See, for example the

transcript of proceedings on Adversary Case No. 11-03309,

Docket Nos. 51, 55, 56, the latter 124 pages on why and

what should be returned to Paulson) Important reading.

!

Again, on this subject came Judge Randall Dunn’s

subsequent admission again in the March 16, 2012 hearing

on Paulson’s Motion to Compel (which he denied) in the

bankruptcy adversary proceeding that he had never read the

predatory lending case that he purported to decide that

litigation’s worth at the May 7, 2010 hearing.

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE MICHAEL MOSMAN’S

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

U.S. District Court Judge Mosman Judicial Misconduct

-- Unfortunately, U.S. District Court Judge Mosman

committed two acts of judicial misconduct in one proceeding.

1.) The Res -- When a federal court obtains jurisdiction

over the Res (the real estate) FIRST, then a state court is

subsequently precluded from assuming jurisdiction over the

same Res. Sexton v. NDEX West, et al., U.S. Court of

Page of180 227


(259 of 3



Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 11-17432, D.C. No.

3:ll-cv-00440-LRH-VPC (2013) The U.S. District Court of

Oregon first assumed jurisdiction over the Res when

Paulson filed his predatory lending case there in 2008 in

Case # 08-cv-00982. But, Judge Mosman and Attorney

Calliste Korach performed a Kabuki dance that was too cute

by half. Attorney Calliste filed a “Motion for Status

Conference” in Judge Mosman’s Case #10-cv-00048

(Docket # 5) It was a trap. No one knew what the status

conference of March 4, 2010 was for. At least Paulson

didn’t. Surprise, Judge Mosman used that hearing to

remand the FED case BACK to state court. 2.) So, Judge

Mosman’s second act of misconduct is scheduling a hearing

on one thing (status) and using that hearing for an

undisclosed purpose (remand). Then he denies a protectiveorder because he says he has no jurisdiction. A Kabuki act.

The gravity of the out-and-out judicial misconduct by

Judge Aiken, Judge Papak Judge Mosman and Judge

Haggerty in the period from June 1, 2010 to and including

the filing of Paulson’s Emergency Writ of Mandamus on

August 23, 2010 cannot be overstated. A reading of that

document, The Writ of Mandamus, states clearly why. See

Docket #117 in the District Court Case # 08-cv-00982 -

Page of181 227


(260 of 3



1. Paulson v. Fairway, FHLF, LLC, et al, Case No. 08-

cv-00982, Paulson’s predatory lending lawsuit has been

‘sold’ to Mr. Russillo of the Schwabe law firm for $5,000.

The damages to ‘the class’ are over $11 million.

2.In Re Paulson, Case # 09-32439-rld, Paulson’s bankruptcy

case is a disaster. Paulson has lost everything even

though his real estate was not underwater. Value of real

estate $655,000-$400,000 Fairway loan=$255,000 equity

for Paulson----all lost in the bankruptcy proceeding??

3.Mr. Russillo has evicted Paulson in the State court

proceedings, by means of Judge Mosman’s Judicial

Misconduct above and they have taken possession of ALL

of his personal property, which was abandoned by the

bankruptcy trustee who did not participate in these

proceedings.4.Because Oregon federal magistrate Judge Paul Papak

demonstrated objective BIAS in favor of Mr. Russillo by

allowing him a hearing on his only issue and would not

allow a hearing on Paulson’s seven (7) motions, Paulson

appealed this matter to the Ninth Circuit in Case #

10-35745 on August 24, 2010.

!

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF NINTH CIRCUIT JUDGES

RICHARD R. CLIFTON, JAY (MEMO) BYBEE AND

Page of182 227


(261 of 3





Case # 10-cv-1065, Natache Rinehard-Guirma v. Bank of

America, et al. on her TRO and Preliminary Injunction which

held that if a lender failed to assign the Note when assigning

the trust deed, then a foreclosure attempted by only the

holder of the trust deed was a nullity.

Paulson’s facts are exactly on ‘all fours’ with Natache’s case

and both of which are extensively briefed here. For this

reason, after learning of Natache’s case, Paulson

immediately moved the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Portland to

hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of ‘Standing’ and for

a Stay in the forums to do so. As pointed out below, on

December 19, 2010 Paulson rushed to point these facts out

to the judiciary in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, to the

Bankruptcy Court and to the District Court because they aredeterminative of all the pending cases. FHLF, LLC’s,

Paulson’s putative creditor here, lacked standing under

Judge King’s ruling (which still is the law in Oregon today).

FHLF, LLC like Natache’s case, only held the trust deed, not

the promissory note. Therefore, FHLF, LLC had no standing

to foreclose and no standing before any of these courts.

The first alert on the issue of FHLF, LLC’s lack of legal

standing following Judge King’s decision in Natache’s case

Page of184 227


(263 of 3



was in U.S. District Court of Oregon in Paulson’s Motion to

Compel. (Docket #136 in Case #08-cv-00982--See chart

above) Judge Haggerty denied it without a hearing. The

lack of ‘Standing’ issue was contained in that motion which

Judge Haggerty took no note.

DO THESE JUDGES KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG?

PAULSON’S FORECLOSURE WORLD SHOULD HAVE

‘RIGHTED’ ITSELF THEN AND THERE, WITH ‘NATACHE’S

CASE, BUT DIDN’T. FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS NOT

ONE OF THE TWENTY (20) JUDGES HAVE DEIGNED TO

ENTERTAIN THE RULE OF LAW AS IT PERTAINS TO THE

LENDER’S LACK OF STANDING------THROUGHOUT

OREGON.

In short, this is not just Paulson’s problem, it is happening

to every one of the thousands of Oregonians sufferingforeclosure in the state. Perhaps, throughout the West.

!

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT -- BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE

PANEL JUDGES PAPPAS HOLLOWELL JURY AND

MARKELL

!

On December 19, 2010 Paulson filed a 22 page Motion,

Legal Memorandum and Declaration with the U.S.

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel to Expunge all filings by FHLF,

Page of185 227


(264 of 3



LLC because of their lack of Standing. BAP Case #

10-1173, Docket #22. To be sure, Paulson also sent this

pleading to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Portland, Oregon

On January 18, 2011, Judges Pappas and Markell deny

Paulson’s filings above without discussing a single issue nor

case raised in those 22 pages of legal briefing on FHLF,

LLC’s lack of standing. Docket # 23 of BAP Case No.

10-1173 This begins three years of judicial, legislative and

executive branches of government turning away from

important foreclosure issues; one of thousands of

foreclosure cases pending in Oregon.

Paulson also filed his ninety-eight (98) page pleading

with all other courts including the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit on the issue of ‘standing’ on December 29,

2010. (Docket # 1 and 2 in Court of Appeals case #10-36178)

FEES -- The Ninth Circuit is using the issue of fees to

get rid of cases filed by regular citizens also known as Pro

Se filers.

!

Paulson paid the regular filing fee when he commenced

his predatory lending case in 2008. Paulson was neither a

pauper nor homeless until May 24, 2010 when, without

Page of186 227


(265 of 3



notice, Fairway evicted him and took possession of all of his

worldly goods on that day. As discussed herein, that

nonjudicial foreclosure was done illegally and without prior

notice to Paulson. Thus, Paulson found himself homeless

and destitute on May 24, 2010 due to the machinations of

the judiciary here and the lender here.

Accordingly, with chagrin, Paulson applied to the Court

for In Forma Pauperis (IFP) or pauper status on July 27,

2010.

making all these Emergency filings above, commencing on

June 1, 2010 in handwritten form, because he was without

his computer or any of his files on this very case. You will

note that no court mentions this sorry fact even though

Paulson laid it out in ‘four-part harmony’ in those pleadings.This is what makes these subsequent Ninth Circuit court

rulings so ridiculous in the face of the issue of FEES:

Judge Paul Papak denies Paulson’s application for IFP

status on September 10, 2010 “.....as Moot as the requisite

filing fee was paid at the time this case (the appeal) was

initiated.” Case No. 08-cv-00982, Docket #121 Paulson had

an ability to pay in 2008, but not in 2010. Things Changed!

Paulson filed his IFP application in the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals on September 16, 2010 (Docket # 12 and

Page of187 227


(266 of 3



#14 in the Court of Appeals Case # 10-35745)

On December 19, 2010 Paulson, having studied

Natache’s case, files a Motion for ALL these Courts to

reexamine the issue of whether or not FHLF, LLC had

‘Standing’. The issue of Standing is never waived and is

always subject to being contested.

On December 29, 2010 Paulson files one of the most

important pleadings with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

(Docket #’s 1 and 2 in case #10-36178). But, the 9th Circuit

Court Clerk notes there is a filing fee due on that same date

on the same docket entry.

Then twelve (12) days later, on January 10, 2011, the 9th

Circuit Court Clerk notes at Docket #8 in Case #10-36178: “

A review of the district court docket reflects that appellant

has not paid the docketing and filing fees for this appeal.”Thus commences standard language requiring Paulson to

file a motion for IFP status, the demand for $455 filing fee

and a requirement to otherwise show cause why the appeal

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. A review of

the Pacer dockets will quickly disclose that this is knee-flex

NINTH CIRCUIT boilerplate language to illegally truncate

appeals to them. One wonders how many poor people are

turned away an the door to the Ninth Circuit while they are in

Hawaii having productive educational seminars.

Page of188 227


(267 of 3



Setting a pattern that continues to this day, Bankruptcy

Appellate Panel Judges Pappas and Markell denied

Paulson’s twenty-two (22) page Motion to Expunge on

January 18, 2011 without a mention of the law or the facts.

(Docket # 23, BAP case # 10-1173) The ORDER states:

“On December 27, 2010, appellant (Paulson) filed with

the BAP a motion to expunge appellee’s proof of claim and

vacate all orders granting relief from stay. The Panel has

received and considered the motion. All relief requested

in appellant’s motion is hereby ORDERED DENIED.”

Note that the Judges state they “considered” the

pleading. What they don’t say is whether or not they read

Paulson’s 22 page pleading. What they don’t say is anything

about Constitutional Standing. What they don’t say is

anything about the law nor the facts. Nor the cases. NorThe Rule of Law. Rather they say, without more, ‘Ordered

Denied’. This is why Natache’s case and Paulson’s case are

facilitating more legal expense in the foreclosure world than

any normal citizen knows about. When poor people have a

defense to illegal foreclosures. All due to Judicial

Misconduct.

And we countenance this sort of judicial arrogance. At

poor people’s expense---homeless people, vulnerable

people -- with no judicial empathy palpable anywhere. This

Page of189 227


(268 of 3



pattern characterizes the remainder of Ninth Circuit

decisions in Paulson’s case and in Natache’s case. To the

end of 2013---------with no end in sight.

On February 3, 2011 Paulson files his third IFP

application. (Docket #12 in Ninth Circuit Case # 10-36178)

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT LEAVY AND BYBEE

On March 16, 2011, Hon. Leavy and Bybee ordered

Paulson’s IFP denied because ‘we’ find that the appeal is

frivolous. (Docket #17 in case #10-36178) The Order goes

on to require Paulson to show cause why this appeal should

not be summarily affirmed (then what follows is the

‘boilerplate’ fee language the Court uses to truncate

appeals).

On March 16, 2011 there is oral argument on the Bankruptcy

proceeding (Case # 10-1173 # 26)before the BankruptcyAppellate Panel. (BAP)Paulson argues the issue of

Standing without comment by the Panel.

!

On April 4, 2011 Paulson pays the $455 filing fee and files a

fifteen (15) page legal brief in response to the show cause

order. #19 and #20 in Case No. 10-36178

On May 10, 2011 the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel rendered

their written decision without mentioning the issue of

Standing raised by Paulson in his 22 page pleading dated

Page of190 227


(269 of 3



December 19, 2010. Paulson argued the issue of Standing

at oral argument and in his pleadings submitted to the BAP.

On May 16, 2011 Paulson files his Notice of Appeal of the

BAP decision and a Motion to consolidate the two cases at

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Judicial Misconduct As stated above, On May 10, 2011

the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel rendered their written

decision without mentioning the issue of Standing. Paulson

appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit in his pleading

dated May 31, 2011. (Docket #27-33 in BAP Case #

10-1173) Paulson also moved to consolidate this appeal

with the extant case in the Ninth Circuit. (Docket #1 in Ninth

Circuit Case #11-60038) Paulson’s opening brief was not

due until September 12, 2011.

In that same ‘boilerplate’ language, on June 15, 2011 the Ninth Circuit again Orders that Paulson file a motion to

proceed as an IFP, pay that $455 filing fee within 21 days or

the appeal will be dismissed. (Docket # 3 Ninth Circuit Case

#11-60018) By Molly Dwyer Clerk of the Court.

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF NINTH CIRCUIT COURT

JUDGES CANBY, GOULD AND TALLMAN

Judicial Misconduct In a one page ruling dated June 28,

Page of191 227


(270 of 3



2011, without a discussion of any of the one hundred thirteen

(113) pages of pleadings filed by Paulson, the Honorable

Judges of the Ninth Circuit, William C. Canby, Ronald M.

Gould and Richard C. Tallman decide, after examining the

record, that “... the questions raised in this appeal are so

insubstantial as not to require further argument.” (Docket #

24 in Ninth Circuit Case # 10-36178) No mention of the

issue of Standing. No mention of the arguments, issues nor

facts raised by Paulson.

A legal and logical conundrum -- How can the identical

issue of legal Standing warrant discussion and analysis

leading to a written opinion in Natache’s case and in the

Fawn Ridge case, but not in Paulson’s case on identical

facts?In the Ninth Circuit Court Case No. 10-36178, Paulson

referred to above as one of the most important cases of

Paulson’s life. It is the appeal of 12/29/10 following

Paulson’s learning about U.S. District Court Garr King’s

ruling in Natache’s case on the issue of Standing. Judges

Jay (Memo) Bybee, and Leavy decide Paulson does not get

IFP status because they find the appeal is frivolous. (Docket

#17) Later, on the same case, (10-36178) Judges Canby,

Gould and Tallman decide the questions raised in this appeal

Page of192 227


(271 of 3



(not briefed yet) are so ‘insubstantial’ as not to require further

argument. (Docket # 24)

But, here is another question -- These three judges also

decide that Paulson’s Motion to Consolidate this matter

(involving Standing) with Ninth Circuit Court Case No.

11-60038 (the BAP appeal, involving Standing and other

issues) is moot. (Case No. 10-36178, Docket #24)

The BAP appeal (Case No. 11-60038) is still pending in the

Ninth Circuit under the boilerplate language referred to

multiple times. This case received Paulson’s addendum to

his petition for a hearing En Banc on November 28, 2011

and should be still pending. No judge has ruled on the

merits of this BAP appeal and there is the new evidence of

Judge Dunn’s never having read the Portland District Court

file which bears directly on the BAP twenty (20) page writtenopinion. The consolidation is not moot.

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF NINTH CIRCUIT COURT

JUDGES RAWLINSON, BEA AND MURGUIA

On September 14, 2011 Paulson files his 17 page Writ of

Mandamus and for a Declaratory proceeding in the Ninth

Circuit in Docket #1, Case # 11-72697 asking the Court to

address the issue of Standing and to Stay all other

proceedings. (Note-no judges entertain the Motions for a

Declaratory proceeding--a separate proceeding altogether.)

Page of193 227


(272 of 3



Judicial Misconduct - In Case No. 11-72697 Ninth Circuit

Court Judges Rawlinson, Bea and Murguia deny Paulson’s

Writ of Mandamus on October 18, 2011 (Docket # 3) without

a discussion of the law, facts nor cases presented by

Paulson’s pleading filed on September 14, 2011. No

discussion of the issue of Standing.

On October 19, 2011 PAULSON FILES A lawsuit in state

court Against Attorney Arbaugh, Russillo and Trustee

Mitchell AND IT IS REMOVED TO AN ADVERSARY

PROCEEDING IN FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY COURT BY

RUSSILLO ET AL. Adversary Case No. 11-03309

Paulson filed this lawsuit in state court instead of federal

court because after a year of trying, Paulson clearly could

not get any ruling on any rule of law on any matter in

Oregon’s federal court (Haggerty, Papak, Aiken et al., nor inthe Ninth Circuit.

JUDGE DUNN AGAIN-

On November 29, 2011, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dunn

holds an initial hearing on Paulson’s lawsuit and makes a

startling admission, recounted above, on the record in open

court. At the end of the proceeding, Judge Dunn admits he

never read the U.S. District Court file in Case No. # 08-

cv-00982. That matters and it is so startling. The whole

Kabuki dance of May 7, 2010 is based on the value of the

Page of194 227


(273 of 3





Judge Dunn knows this money, $35,000, belongs to

Paulson, but decides it should go to Amy Mitchell who

appears in his court often and sits on the Creditor side of the

courtroom even though in theory she is supposed to be a

trustee of Paulson’s ‘Estate’. Well, she hasn’t done a very

good job and Paulson formally pointed that out in 2010 and

asked that she be removed THEN.

The Judicial Council should look into why that was not

done. She is no longer ‘neutral’ since Paulson filed suit

against her. Yet, Judge Dunn and the legal apparatus at

bankruptcy court allow her to take Paulson’s hard earned

funds to pay her lawyer for defending her against her

negligence.

WHERE OR WHERE IS THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY

TRUSTEE THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE OVERSEEING ALLTHIS??

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT JUDGE DUNN

On December 7, 2011 Paulson filed his seven-page

formal judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Dunn.

See Case No. 11-90185 On December 24, 2011 Paulson

inquired as to whether the Ninth Circuit was going to obtain a

record of the November 29, 2011 hearing on this matter. The

Ninth Circuit never answers the letters of Paulson. They go

Page of196 227


(275 of 3



into the ethernet.

It is the end of 2011 and Things Get Stranger. While

Judges in the Ninth Circuit ignore The Rule of Law; their

Court Clerks make substantive decisions to throw Paulson

out of court. Transparent ones.

On December 5, 2011 the Ninth Circuit Court Clerks do

the same thing as Judge Dunn; namely, decide that the

headings on pleadings don’t mean what they say. Paulson’s

filing for an En Banc hearing is not only fraudulently diverted

from Ninth Circuit judges by Court staff; two appeals by

Paulson get tossed by Court Staff as well,I in the same

stroke of the pen. Viz.

THE CAPTIONS IN FILED PLEADINGS MEAN WHATTHEY SAY

Judge Dunn Decides a Pleading Caption doesn’t Mean

What it Says. The Ninth Circuit Court Clerk’s office does the

same thing.

On March 9, 2012 Paulson filed two sets of pleadings with

Judge Randall Dunn in the adversary case (the lawsuit

Paulson has filed against Attorney Russillo, among others) to

Page of197 227


(276 of 3





therein. Standing. Judge Dunn is a patent unrepentant liar.

On May 4, 2012 Paulson filed another formal judicial

complaint on all judges involved in this matter, calling on how

the courts handling of foreclosure cases in Oregon is

“Barbaric”. On May 11, 2012 the Ninth Circuit Clerk of the

Court advised “Ms Paulson” that “.......a review of the record

reflects no pending cases filed by you in this court”, and ‘unfiled’

that document. The document contains the Ninth

Circuit ‘filed‘ stamp which is dated. How could the Ninth

Circuit not find any cases filed by Paulson in the Ninth Circuit

when they have a sophisticated electronic file tracking

system. (This important part of the record, with file stamp,

will be provided by Paulson upon request. The title of this

document is “Barbaric”. If no request is made to Paulson

and the Judicial Council rules without requesting thatPaulson furnish this part of the record will prove that the

Ninth Circuit Judicial Council did not read this document.)

On May 17, 2012 Judge Papak “struck” Paulson’s

Motion to Consolidate, among other pleadings and returned

“(unidentified) documents” in U.S. District Court Case No 08-

cv-00982. Docket #190

PAULSON REDOUX

In 2011, Judge Haggerty denied Paulson’s Motion for a

Declaratory proceeding among other motions because the

Page of199 227


(278 of 3



case had been appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Case #08-

cv-00982 Docket #168 But, these denials were without

prejudice “....to (Paulson’s) right to refile after the appeal is

resolved. Docket # 169

Accordingly, all the previous pleadings, particularly with

respect to FHLF,LLC’s lack of Standing were properly refiled

in U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN August, 2012. Case No. 08-

cv-00982 Docket Nos. 193, 194, 195, 196, and 197. Why

then were documents ‘returned’ in May of 2012 by the

clerks’s office and ‘struck’ in 2012 by Judge Papak when

they were properly filed?

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF JUDGE ANNA BROWN

Keep in mind that to and including this date, August,

2012, not one judge had ever allowed the word ‘Standing’ to

emanate from their lips or drain from their ink pens. JudgeAnna Brown continued that perfect record in her rulings

dated October 15, 2012 (Case No. 08-cv-00982 Docket Nos.

205) and January 29, 2013 (Docket #217). Paulson wrote

her a simple letter asking why she ignored the issue of

Standing. (Docket # 227) She did not answer that question

or Paulson’s letter. Paulson wrote to Judge Brown and

Judge Mosman to identify upon what record they ruled.

Neither responded. Paulson wrote again to each of their

clerks. No answer.

Page of200 227


(279 of 3



!

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF JUDGE MICHAEL MOSMAN

Recall that Paulson had filed suit against Attorney

Russillo, Arbaugh and Trustee Amy Mitchell for their

misdeeds in connection with this issue of ‘Standing’ among

others. Judge Mosman thought FHLF, LLC could properly

remove the eviction proceedings to state court (even though

contrary to The Rule of Law over the Res as discussed

above). As recounted above, now Judge Mosman decides

that Paulson’s lawsuit against these folks in state court

properly belonged in federal court. What is good for the

goose (FHLF, LLC) is not good for the gander (Paulson).

When Fairway/FHLF, LLC wants to litigate a matter in state

court instead of federal court, that is fine with Judge

Mosman. When that same party wants to litigate the samecase in federal court, not state court, once again that is fine

with Judge Mosman. U.S. District Court Case No. 12-00196,

Docket Nos. 3 and 8 It is only Paulson that has NO say in

where his litigation will reside between federal or state court.

It is that nonsensical result that The Rule of Law over the

Res, (property) requiring which ever court first obtains

jurisdiction, keeps it makes common sense, ergo, why that is

The Rule of Law. Judge Mosman’s rulings to the contrary

Page of201 227


(280 of 3



amounts to judicial misconduct, not just incompetence.

These judges know The Rule of Law with respect Standing

and the Res. They are making a conscious decision to rule

for the banks and not the consumer in open defiance of The

Rule of Law.

Thus, Judge Mosman, as all the judges before hims,

once again fails to address the issue of Standing.

And both Judge Brown and Judge Mosman are

consistent in not discussing a single issue raised by

Paulson, a single case proffered by Paulson nor a single

legal theory proffered by Paulson.

Then in 2013 The Plot Thickens Once Again -- $35,000

dollars belonging to Paulson mysteriously shows up in

Trustee Amy Mitchell’s account for PAULSON at the end of

2012. Remember Paulson fired Ms. Mitchell as his ‘trustee’in the bankruptcy proceedings in 2010 when she abandoned

his “Estate” and Paulson sued her in 2012. In 2013, with

hubris without equal, she asks Judge Dunn to use some of

Paulson’s money ($17,000) to pay off HER lawyers for her

misdeeds here. Do they sleep well at night?

BANKRUPTCY COURT’S CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE

!

Now, the Court is attempting to erase the Debtor’s objecting

to payment to Amy Mitchell’s attorneys of $17,545.50 out of

Page of202 227


(281 of 3



$35,046.15 of the Debtor’s money when nobody told him he

only had until Marcy 5, 2013. Notwithstanding Paulson’s

3/27/13 objections, Judge Dunn approved said payment on

April 10, 2013. Without a hearing and on a document with

handwritten changes. And Paulson’s pleadings returned and

left off the docket. (Attorney General Holder has not

responded) LP

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT JUDGE WILLIAM A.

FLETCHER AND CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN

On June 17, 2013 Paulson filed for a Hearing En Banc

and a Declaratory Judgment on the issue of Standing. That

pleading by Paulson was dismissed on July 5, 2013 by the

Ninth Circuit for failure to pay filing fees! THE BOILER

PLATE LANGUAGE AGAIN. This Order, citing the exactsame language used by the Court Clerks -- denies IFP

status, finds the appeal frivolous, asks the appellant to pay

$455 and so on. No mention of Standing, cases, etc., etc.

No mention of The Rule of Law nor why this case cannot be

submitted En Banc. Let’s face it, the Ninth Circuit will not let

poor people file nor perfect appeals in that court system.

SUMMARY

This case has been or is pending in six (6) distinct court

Page of203 227


(282 of 3



forums if one counts the District Court, the Bankruptcy

Courts, the Ninth Circuit and the state court (3) proceedings.

The issue of Constitutional Standing has been raised and

briefed in each of them by Paulson. Yet, each court has

failed to address that issue -- at all. In contrast, the Oregon

courts have addressed the issue of Constitutional Standing

in both Natache’s case and in Fawn Ridge discussed herein.

Either these Courts are biased against Lauren Paulson,

or they are shirking their duty, or are engaging in egregious

intentional judicial misconduct -- as follows:

1. U.S. District Court of Oregon: Lauren Paulson first

raised the issue of Constitutional Standing in U.S. District

Court of Oregon, Portland Division in his Motion to Compel

dated December 6, 2010. Paulson cited the then-recent

case of Natache Rinegard-Guirma v. Bank of America, etal., Civil Case No. 10-1065-PK (2010) where just two

months earlier, in a case factually on all fours with the

instant case, District Court Judge Garr King allowed the

homeowner a preliminary injunction because when the

promissory note and trust deed are split for collection, as

Page "312 of "410

"313

here, “...the transfer of the deed of trust is ineffective.”

Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 284 SW 3rd 619,

Page of204 227


(283 of 3



623-24 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) In those cases, as here, a

transfer of the trust deed, separate from the note, was

ineffective and the successor lender (FHLF, LLC) lacked a

legally cognizable interest in the property. Thus, FHLF,

LLC has no Constitutional Standing in any of these cases.

It is that simple:

A. This issue was raised and ignored by Judge Ancer

Haggerty in Paulson’s Motion to Compel dated

December 6, 2010.

B. This issue was raised and ignored by Judge Papak

and Judge Haggerty in Paulson’s Motion for

Declaratory Judgement and Stay dated March 9,

2011.

C. This issue was raised and ignored by Judge Papak

and Judge Haggerty in Paulson’s Motion for aVisiting Out-of-District Judge dated April 22, 2011.

2. U.S. Bankruptcy Court : Lauren Paulson raised the

issue of Constitutional Standing before the U.S.

Bankruptcy Court, not only at the trial court level, but also

at the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel by motion on

December 19, 2010. The Bankruptcy Court ruled on the

underlying issues of the bankruptcy proceeding. While

the issue of Constitutional Standing was formally raised by

Paulson in this forum, no bankruptcy court has addressed

Page of205 227


(284 of 3



the issue of whether or not FHLF, LLC has Constitutional

Standing before the bankruptcy courts.

What should make the reader pause is this. There is a

foreclosure tsunami occurring in Oregon and other states. In

theory, these bankruptcy people are supposed to be the

experts. Wouldn’t you think one of these ‘experts’ would

have noticed when a party has no legal right to be there?

Paulson’s Motion to Expunge FHLF, LLC’s Proof of

Claim and Vacate All Relief from Stays Issued in U.S

Bankruptcy Court was filed on December 19, 2010. It is

twenty-two (22) pages and extensively briefs the issue of

Constitutional Standing and why FHLF, LLC does not have it.

Without addressing the issue of Constitutional Standing, the

U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel only states “All relief

requested in appellant’s motion is hereby ORDEREDDENIED.” As in all of these courts, the BAP, on the issue

of Constitutional Standing, there is not a single case

discussed, not a single issue discussed; not anything

discussed on this issue. Just a denial without saying why.

Without saying the court has read anything. In fact, just for

reemphasis, there is not a single case nor issue discussed in

any of the six (6) forums on Constitutional Standing nor on

any issue raised by Paulson in his filings on the issue in

each court.

Page of206 227


(285 of 3



Notice that no court ever identifies that it read anything

supplied by Paulson. No court ever identifies that it read a

single case supplied by Paulson. No court ever identifies

that it examined a single issue raised by Paulson. No court

ever indicates that it ever took Judicial Notice of any of the

other pending court matters, even though Paulson has

requested that they do so.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

Paulson has requested in each forum that the court

take judicial notice of the cases pending in the other five (5)

forums on the identical issues in each case. Judicial Notice

of these other cases is necessary because the courts

refused Paulson’s motions to consolidate all these cases into

one.

Note in particular that in Natache’s case, Judge GarrKing explicitly states “The Court takes judicial notice of the

documents and notes that Rinegard-Guirma signed a

promissory note............”, (emphasis supplied) and then the

court summarizes that it is taking judicial notice and of what.

Natache Rinegard-Guirma v. Bank of America, et al., Civil

Case No. 10-1065-PK (2010) Nowhere in any of the

decisions in any of the forums in the instant case does any

judge mention judicial notice nor the taking (or refusing to

take) thereof.

Page of207 227


(286 of 3



And then there is the issue of whether or not any of

these courts examined any record AT ALL. Again, Judge

Garr King identifies what he has read in Natache’s case. He

also affirms what he knows about extant case law, then

analyzes the law and discusses the cases. No judge does

any of that here. None of the twenty (20) judges (sans state

court judges that have failed here as well, but that is a story

for that judicial complaint forum) assigned to do (due) justice

in this case have done so.

3. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: The issue of

Constitutional Standing has been raised more than three

times in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but never

addressed there either. Not a word. Paulson first raised

the issue of Constitutional Standing in the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals on December 24, 2010 in his Motion forPreliminary Injunction. Paulson’s Motion is twenty six

(26) pages long citing numerous cases. Moreover,

Paulson provided a comprehensive eight (8) page Reply to

FHLF, LLC’s Response dated January 13, 2011.

Paulson’s Preliminary Injunction Motion and Reply had

twenty (20) exhibits. Paulson’s Reply raised supplemental

issues that pertained to why Paulson will ultimately be

successful on the merits plus more analysis of the issue of

Constitutional Standing.

Page of208 227


(287 of 3



Paulson’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction followed on

the decision by Judge Garr King in Natache’s case where he

granted the Debtor the right to stay in her house on October

6, 2010 on facts virtually identical to the instant (Paulson’s)

case. Paulson foolishly thought the Ninth Circuit would be

interested in providing him with the same succor Judge King

gave Natache only two months earlier--to stay in his house.

It was even the Christmas Season.

The Ninth Circuit ruled on March 16, 2011, finding the

appeal frivolous. Once again Paulson’s quest to get one

judge, just one judge to address a single issue he has raised

in each one of these forums, the issue of Constitutional

Standing, is denied, viz., “Appellant’s motion for preliminary

injunction and stay is denied.” More, on Paulson’s thirtyfour

(34) pages of briefings the Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals sayeth naught.

Paulson briefed the issue of Constitutional Standing

further in his Response to an Order to Show Cause dated

March 30, 2011. That brief is ten (10) additional pages of

briefing on the issue of Constitutional Standing.

Finally, Paulson further briefed the subject of

Constitutional Standing in his Notice of Appeal of the

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel decision to the Ninth Circuit

dated May 31, 2011. Again, the only issue the Court Clerk

Page of209 227


(288 of 3



was interested in was fees. Who knows what a Ninth Circuit

judge might have done on this case because no Ninth Circuit

judge ever got to address the issues raised (and briefed) on

the BAP appeal to the Ninth Circuit, including Standing

because the case was dismissed in the Court Clerk’s

omnibus dismissal dated December 05, 2011. See Case No.

10-35745 and Case No. 11-600038

NATACHE’S CASE AND COINCIDENCES

It is important to keep in mind that on October 6, 2010,

U.S. District Court Judge Garr King ruled in Natache’s case

that on facts exactly on all fours of Paulson’s case, that the

putative lender did not have legal standing once they have

separated the security instrument from the debt instrument.

In Rinegard the lender, Mortgage Lenders Network (MLN)

assigned the deed of trust to LaSalle who appointed thesuccessor trustee

In Paulson, the lender, Fairway Commercial Mortgage

Corporation (FCMC) assigned the deed of trust to FHLF who

appointed the successor trustee

!

In Rinegard the lender, MLN, physically retained the

promissory notes as well as the servicing rights to the

mortgages.

In Paulson, the lender (FCMC) physically retained the

Page of210 227


(289 of 3



promissory notes as well as the servicing rights to the

mortgages.

In Rinegard payments were to be made to the lender,

Mortgage Lenders Network, USA

In Paulson payments were made to the lender, FCMC.

It is important to take Judicial Notice of the wayward

path both cases take in and out of the federal court systems,

the state court systems and bankruptcy court. Each case a

simple homeowner foreclosure case. Each instantly

disposable on the Standing issue alone. Natache’s effort at

getting the Ninth Circuit to take notice of her case in the

other forums that the bank lawyers and the judges have

required has been dumped on in her case as here. This is

fully briefed in Paulson’s documents on the subject

discussed above. Is it a coincidence that Natache andPaulson end up with Judge Papak and Trustee Amy Mitchell

as well? Is it a coincidence that bankruptcy court gives her

short shrift as well? Is it a coincidence that each case gets

sent to state court where each loses, then back to federal

court where no judge recuses? Or uses The Rule of Law?

If Paulson and Natache weather the hurricane forces of

foreclosure relief and continue to assert that which is

required for simple foreclosure relief in these court systems

while banks and lenders continue their wayward ways---then

Page of211 227


(290 of 3



what is happening to other consumers who get dumped at

first base and do not live to fight for justice again in these

other forums because they don’t know...........?

THE FAWN RIDGE CASE

The extent of Judge Randall Dunn’s and bankruptcy court’s

criminal enterprise is further elucidated by Judge Randall

Dunn’s ruling in the Fawn Ridge case which is also on all

fours with Paulson’s case here. In short, The Rule of Law

articulated in Fawn Ridge was subject to his total amnesia

when Judge Dunn came upon Paulson in Case No.

09--32439. Exactly, how did Paulson wind up before Judge

Dunn again in his separate lawsuit against Russillo and

Mitchell? Judge Dunn has given Trustee Mitchell everything

she wanted and then some. Nothing of what Paulsonwants. How does that happen?

Fawn Ridge Partners, LP v. BAC Home Loans

Servicing, LP, U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth

Circuit, Bk. No 09-15088-TD, BAP No. CC-09-1396-HPDu ,

before Hollowell, Dunn and Perris, Bankruptcy Judges,

(3/29/10) { Countrywide, the lender, has a practice of

retaining the original Notes. Because Countrywide did not

endorse and transfer the Note to BAC, the latter had no

standing to request a relief from stay. 11 USC Section

Page of212 227


(291 of 3



362(d) Court holds that Constitutional standing is a

‘threshold jurisdictional requirement, and cannot be waived

(citing cases)’” Under California law, to qualify as a ‘Holder’,

one must be in possession of the instrument, and the

instrument must be properly endorsed.}

When Paulson learned of Judge Dunn’s amnesia

following his decision in the Fawn Ridge case, he formally

asked Judge Dunn to recuse himself for not following the

Rule of Law in Natache’s case and the Fawn Ridge matter in

Paulson’s case: He wouldn’t recuse himself. But it is worse

than that. Judge Dunn continues to allow $17,000 of

Paulson’s money to be held in Amy Mitchell’s account while

Paulson lives as a pauper.

CONTROL FRAUD

Standing identifies who may bring claims in these judicial forums. In order to have Constitutional Standing,

FHLF, LLC must show that it suffered an actual injury-in-fact,

caused by Paulson which would result in the right to redress.

FHLF, LLC cannot show that because they have no financial

stake; they have no dog in the fight as is fully briefed in the

documents above-described. FHLF, LLC can show no

interest in the putative underlying debt nor that it paid

anything out in the underlying transaction. By saying it did,

through it’s attorney Craig Russillo; when it did not, means

Page of213 227


(292 of 3



that FHLF, LLC has defrauded these courts. And it has

defrauded Paulson. In Natache’s case Lake Oswego lawyer

Ian Kyle lied to Judge Papak and attempted a fraud on the

court there, yet nothing is done.

The Judicial Council should take a close look (aka

JUDICIAL NOTICE) at what Bank of America’s attorney Ian

Kyle did in Natache’s case. He filed a false note that

purports to give Bank of America an interest in the

underlying promissory note. That was a lie to the court. The

‘real’ original DID NOT give Bank of America an interest in

the underlying note. Attorney Kyle ‘fessed’ up only after

Natache got a hearing before Judge Garr King and only after

Judge King considered her arguments on the issue of

Constitutional Standing.

This is important because this is Judge Papak again.What is happening is that federal judges are ignoring

resplendent fraud when it comes to foreclosure cases, again

and again, and again. Judge Haggerty ignores the Standing

issue because he knows that issue is in favor of the other

side to his old law firm.

How is it that the downtown law firm of Ball Janik

represents Amy Mitchell against Paulson and the downtown

law firm of Ball Janik represents for Natache as a pro bono

matter in the same federal court? Conflict? How is it that

Page of214 227


(293 of 3



the Cosgrave law firm represents Paulson’s adversaries and

also employs Paulson’s former office manager, with him for

ten (10) years. And in possession of Paulson’s law office

computer hard drive. Is it a coincidence that Judge Haggerty

becomes assigned to this case his former law firm is

defending. And doesn’t say anything? And rules in every

instance for Mr. Russillo?

A lot of ‘coincidence’ going on here.....??? Nay, it is

blatant judicial misconduct and fraud going on here.

CONCLUSION -- NINTH CIRCUIT JUDGES ARE

TOP-‘SHEETING’

Paulson spent fifteen (15) years working for the

insurance industry across the entire United States.Eventually, Paulson became a senior officer with a Wall

Street insurance company, The Atlantic Insurance Company

that once insured The Titanic, Merrill Lynch and Nike.

Paulson eventually became aware of a management

practice known as ‘Top-Sheeting. When a Claim Manager

was confronted with a ‘box-car’ claim file, such as a maritime

disaster or superfund site claim, rather than sifting through

the file, the manager would read the ‘top-sheet’ and attempt

to decide what to do next on the matter. This is what Ninth

Page of215 227


(294 of 3



Circuit judges are doing. In every single one of these cases.

Paulson challenges any judge named here to swear an oath

as to what was read before the ruling ......and.......to identify

upon what record the decision was based. Paulson has

asked these judges that question many times in the last two

years without any response.

When one looks at each of the Ninth Circuit court

Orders, one cannot find a single instance where the judge

manifests that that judge has actually read the ‘record’.

Certainly not on the issue of Standing. In point of fact, it is

just the opposite. Without following any portion of Paulson’s

careful analysis of the facts and the law in his filed

pleadings, Ninth Circuit judges decide that all of Paulson’s

particular filings are ‘frivolous’.

A careful examination of extant law on JudicialMisconduct shows why. Identifying a case as ‘frivolous’ is a

safe harbor for all these judicial decisions. The particular

decision is not easily appealed, because identifying any

judicial error is impossible. And at the same time, the judge

doesn’t have to work very hard to arrive at that ‘safe harbor’.

That member of the judiciary does not have to read anything

submitted to arrive at that sort of sterile decision.

See, IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT

AND DISABILITY ACT OF 1980, A Report to the Chief

Page of216 227


(295 of 3



Justice. The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study

Committee, Justice Stephen Breyer, Chair, (2006) http://

www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/breyercommitteereport.pdf

This is barbaric. It is transparent, wholesale judicial

misconduct being perpetrated by the Ninth Circuit on a grand

scale.

Being homeless is never frivolous. Foreclosure is never

frivolous.

BIVENS

In addition to the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Plaintiffs

bring this action additionally against the judicial officers,

employees and members of the judiciary pursuant to Title 28

U.S. Code Section 1331 in claims arising from violation of

federal constitutional rights guaranteed in the OregonConstitution, the U.S. Constitution with amendments

redressable pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics

Agents 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and subsequent case decisions

locally and nationally. These members of the judiciary have

permitted ex part attachments and seizure of real estate and

personal property of the Plaintiffs without proper notice in

state court proceedings and federal court proceedings and

without due process in violation of the Fourth, Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Page of217 227


(296 of 3



Said members of the judiciary have engaged in

egregious discrimination against self-represented

foreclosure litigants pursuant to a long standing pattern of

discrimination, partly pursuant to the machinations of the

State Justice Institute, the National State Court

COUNT ONE

(Fraud -- Civil Conspiracy -- The Predatory Loan)

1. These claims seek quiet title, declaratory relief,

injunctive relief, equitable relief, compensatory damages,

statutory damages, punitive damages, costs, attorney fees

and other appropriate relief for, inter alia, Fraud, for violation

of the federal Truth in Lending Act, for violation of the statesUnfair Trade Practices Act and Conspiracy.

2. The Plaintiff was, at various times mentioned in this

complaint, a resident of Washington County, State of Oregon

and citizen of the United States. The Plaintiff, at all times

material hereto is the real party in interest to Huber-Wheeler

Crossing, LLC and as Trustee to the Paulson testamentary

trust and owner of four lots of real estate in Oregon subject

to predatory loans followed by fraud on the courts by these

Defendants. The Defendants transact business in all

Page of218 227


(297 of 3



counties of the State of Oregon including this county, and in

the United States.

3. These actions are properly in this Court, because

the Defendants do business in this judicial district and all

judicial circuits across the United State. The claims arose in

the State of Oregon including this judicial district along with

claims in all judicial districts in Oregon and because, inter

alia, the Fraud, violation of the Truth in Lending Act, Unfair

Trade Practices Act and Conspiracy were committed in this

judicial district and all judicial districts throughout the State of

Oregon and the United States.

4. In 2001, the Schwabe, Williamson and Wyatt law

firm ,(hereinafter “Law Firm”) now representing Fairway and

other Defendants, represented the Plaintiff with respect to

the very same property when Plaintiff’s property was beingcondemned by Washington County for a road widening

project. Defendant Law Firm and their Defendant

employees herein thus have a conflict of interest as to this

entire matter yet represent the lender, servicer and trustee.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

The Plaintiff is representative of a class as defined

under federal law and brings this action on behalf of the

entire class. The class is so numerous that joinder of all of

its hundreds and more of members is impracticable. There

Page of219 227


(298 of 3



are questions of law and fact common to the class, the

claims of the Plaintiff are typical of the claims or defenses of

the class, and the Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect

the interests of the class. The representative parties or

others have complied with the prelitigation notice provisions

of or ascertained that the financial or banking Defendants

have received actual notice of the claims stated herein. A

class action is superior to other available methods for the fair

and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The class

consists of all the borrowers of these named financial or

banking Defendants and their subsidiaries or assigns from

1997 to present. The class, upon information and belief, has

a minimum of approximately one hundred and fifty (150)

such borrowers but this minimum number may actually be in

the thousands or even millions. The Plaintiff alleges acommon course of similar predatory loans and

misrepresentations by these Defendants amounting to fraud

by aiding and abetting predatory lending through

standardized centrally-orchestrated marketing techniques

resulting in a large class of borrowers entering into loan

agreements they would not have entered had they known

the true terms. Were it not for the Defendant banks and

financial institutions “warehouse” credit line loans and

securitization of said loans they would not have been able to

Page of220 227


(299 of 3



continue to fund its fraudulently obtained loans from the

class. These loans, predatory practices and illegal

foreclosures were further aided and abetted by , Defendants

Matt Burk, Craig Russillo, Amy Mitchell, Jane and James

Doe Defendants, Anne Helton and Joel Parker as further

described below.

4. The Fairway Defendants are described in relevant

documents variously as follows: Fairway Commercial

Mortgage Corporation, Fairway America, FHLF, LLC an

Oregon limited liability company, Skylands Investment

Corporation, an Oregon Corporation, Manager, by Matthew

W. Burk, President. All references to “Fairway” herein

include all of these entities plus any Fairway affiliated

company including Fairway Commercial Mortgage

Corporation and Fairway America Corporations, andsuccessors and assigns.

“Fairway”, “ John Doe Savings Bank”, “Wells Fargo

Foothills”, Bank of America, GMAC, U.S. Bank, Joan Doe,

James Doe, Jane Doe, JP Morgan Chase Ally Financial,

Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, CitiMortgage, HSBC, National

City, Deutsche Bank, Bank of New York, Mortgage Electronic

Registration Systems, Inc., (MERS), Skylands Investment

Corporation, Craig Russillo, Joel Parker, Anna Helton, Amy

Mitchell, Rob Levy, Lanny Doe, and Greg Blair are

Page of221 227


(300 of 3



transacting business in the State of Oregon. At all times

material hereto the foregoing Defendants and Matt Burk,

Fairway’s president, Skylands Investment Corporation, and

as Manager of FHLF, LLC, operate together as part of a

common enterprise.

At all times material hereto, these Defendants and each

of them knowingly aided and abetted the fraudulent

contractual scheme engaged in by Fairway and other

Defendants giving substantial assistance or encouragement

to Fairway in these predatory lending practices and as such

are subject to third party liability for Fairway’s fraud under

state and federal law.

These Defendant’s business model was to originate

mortgages to consumer borrowers such as the Plaintiff then

pledge them to a secondary lender such as FHLF, LLC orother financial institution in return for a loan under a

revolving line of credit. Craig Russillo Anna Helton and Joel

Parker’s role was to design the model and draft or approve

the legal documents for Fairway designed to “dehorse” or

use fraudulent foreclosure and other legal procedures for

Fairway to obtain real property whose owner was rich in the

value of land, but poor in cash. Further, Fairway hired real

estate agents to feign an effort to sell the distressed real

estate in order to perfect the financial default so Fairway

Page of222 227


(301 of 3



would come into titled ownership of the consumer’s property.

Joel Parker’s further role in conjunction with Fairway’s

employee, Chris Cobb, was to secure a “Forbearance

Agreement”, drafted by Parker in 2008 which required

Paulson to give up any and all present or future legal rights

he may have in the putative Fairway contracts all so that

Fairway could come into legal title of the property of the

Plaintiff.

The law firm of Schwabe, Williamson and Wyatt

through their attorneys, trustees and employees conspire

with these Defendants and lenders to entice borrowers who

are either behind in their payments or who are being

threatened with foreclosure, or both, to give up their legal

rights by having the unsuspecting borrowers sign a

“forbearance agreement” without consideration, without theinnocent borrowers knowing their legal rights and without the

borrowers being advised of their rights before being forced to

sign said agreements.

The law firm of Schwabe, Williamson and Wyatt, PC

through their attorneys, trustees and employees then

conspire with the Defendant and lenders to withhold required

statutory notices, here known as the ‘danger notice’ required

by law to be delivered to borrowers which would advise

borrowers who are behind in their payments or who are

Page of223 227


(302 of 3



otherwise threatened with foreclosure. Then these innocent

borrowers do not know their legal rights as mandated by the

Oregon legislature and this concealment is done by the

Defendants and lenders in order to steal these borrower’s

real and personal property.

5. At all times material hereto, Defendants “Schwabe,

Williamson & Wyatt, PC” through their attorneys, trustees

and employees operate what is known as a “foreclosure mill”

conducting illegal foreclosures where their attorneys,

trustees, and other employees conduct non-judicial

foreclosures without providing the borrowers with legally

required notices, and in addition, engage in a practice of

postponing the sale dates of these non judicial foreclosures

multiple times in order to prevent borrowers from redeeming

their property or curing the putative default as allowed byOregon law. The Defendants and lenders engage in other

illegal foreclosure tactics described herein in order to

defraud the borrowers who are obtaining said loans.

Said Law Firm and the Defendants herein conspire in a

scheme of providing notices that are intentionally in error on

the postponed foreclosure sale date. They do this by not

giving accurate information in the statutorily required notices

under Oregon law. The Defendant’s scheme to postpone the

foreclosure sale date multiple times is to ensure that there

Page of224 227


(303 of 3



are no other purchasers than the Defendant’s herein. While

the Defendants and lenders are postponing said non judicial

foreclosure sales, they lull the borrowers into complacency

by conducting multiple and sham negotiations with said

buyers concealing their true purpose which is to come into

ownership of borrower’s real and personal property for their

own gain and profit.

In furtherance of this conspiracy by the Law Firm to

dehorse borrowers, the Law Firm has the lender assign the

trust deed to a “straw person” or in MERS, a “straw

nominee”, or in this case to FHLF, LLC, managed by a secret

corporation, Skylands Investment Corporation which

apparently has an affiliation with the Defendants, but does

not assign the promissory note that is the debt instrument

which remains with the lender. This is similar fraudulenttactic to MERS being assigned the trust deeds, but not

having rights in the promissory note all of which is intended

to dehorse borrowers from their homes by using illegal

tactics and procedures contrary to state law so consumers

cannot determine the real party in interest.

STANDING

The fraudulent tactics aforesaid mean that the

foreclosing party does not have legal, constitution nor

prudential STANDING to appear in any forum because they

Page of225 227


(304 of 3



are not the Real Party in Interest.

The Judiciary of the State of Oregon including the State

Court judiciary, the federal court judiciary of the U.S. District

Court of Oregon and the entire judiciary of the Ninth Circuit

refuse to address the issue of Standing notwithstanding legal

and legitimate pleadings asking for declaratory actions, en

banc proceedings, and injunctive relief so the consumers

may have their day in court on the issue of standing.

DISCLOSURE

Federal judges are required to make certain disclosures

under federal law. U.S. District Court Chief Judge Ann

Aiken, Presiding Judge Kirsten Thompson and U.S. Court of

Appeals Chief Judge Alex Kozinski refuse to make required

disclosures or require other members of the judiciary when

handling homeowner foreclosure cases as to whether theyhave their own loans through Bank of America, Countrywide

and the other Defendants , principals and assigns, thus are

not free of bias under the laws of the land. Moreover, judges in the

Ninth Circuit including the U.S. District Court of Oregon are required

Page of226 227


(305 of 3



to have a plan and adhere to the Judicial Conference of the United

States Mandatory Policy on Financial Conflict Screening. The Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court of Oregon are not

following this required procedure to determine if there are real or

possible conflicts of interests and concomitant bias in foreclosure cases

in this jurisdiction.


(306 of 3

Documents

16-8 Exhibit E to Denise's Reply to LNV's Objection to Emergency Writ of Mandamus: Declaration Lauren Paulson