Ben Michael Mayberry, Shelly Denise Mayberry 9210 s Lakewood Ave Tulsa, Oklahoma 918-734-3422

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

J. MARK OGLE,and ) MARI-JEAN OGLE ) ) Plaintiff's ) CJ-2012-05947

Vs. ) ) JUDGE SELLERS Ben Michael Mayberry,and ) Shelly Denise Mayberry ) ) Defendants, )

EMERGENCY MOTION/APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER TO STAY SHERIFFS SALE CONFIRMATION,OBJECTION TO SHERIFFS SALE

CONFIRMATIONAnd

EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PENDING DEFENDANTS EQUITABLE COMPLAINT TO QUIET TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY

_______________MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

COMES NOW For and on the Record, Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry and

hereby files this EMERGENCY APPLICATION for a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

to stay confirmation of sheriffs sale, Objection to Sheriffs Sale Confirmation and, EMERGENCY

APPLICATION for a TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, Pending Defendants Equitable Complaint to

Quiet Title filed 3-27-2013 and Memorandum of Law and moves this Honorable Court for an Order

staying the Confirmation of Sheriffs Sale and as grounds therefore, pending his prosecution of their

Equitable Complaint to Quiet Title, and would show:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunctive

Relief which is brought pursuant to applicable law as this matter arises out of Plaintiffs’ inequitable

and wrongful conduct with respect to the defrauding the State of Oklahoma and the Defendants by

conducting the felonious act of unlawful conversion of Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly

Denise Mayberry’s Real Property, and Plaintiffs Fraudulent business practices.

2. Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry now bring the instant

action for emergency Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunctive Relief Pursuant to

O.S. TITLE 12, §121384.1.

2. Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry have a clear legal right to

seek temporary and permanent injunctive relief as they are individuals living peacefully on the real

property of the subject matter herein, and the Plaintiffs Mark Ogle and Mary Jean Ogle are seeking,

without satisfying the necessary legal standing requirements and without any alleged Mortgage

securing any alleged unprovrn alleged Debt to institute a “foreclosure and Sheriffs Sale” to take

possession, custody and control of Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise

Mayberrys home and ultimately remove Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise

Mayberry from their home.

3. Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry no adequate remedy at law

to redress the harm complained of, and the sale of Defendants property, under the circumstances of

record, is contrary to equity and good conscience in that such sale is being instituted by parties

who have no legal standing whatsoever and are apparently alleging a Mortgage that does not exist

to institute or maintain the foreclosure and Sheriffs Sale, ab initio.

4. Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry moves for a temporary

restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent Plaintiffs Mark Ogle and Mary Jean Ogle

from conducting the felonious act of unlawful conversion of Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry

and Shelly Denise Mayberry’s real Property through the unlawful Sheriffs on April 23, 2013 and

Plaintifs Motion for Confirmation of Sheriffs Sale.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry reaffirms and realleges the

preceding paragraphs as if forth fully set forth hereinbelow.

5. As a result of these Plaintiffs past and continuing wrongful conduct, the legally protected

property rights of Defendants have been and continue to be severally violated. Because Plaintiffs

wrongful conduct has resulted and continues to result in immediate and irreparable harm to

Defendants for which there is no adequate remedy at law.

6. A Equitable Complaint to Quiet Title CV-2013-00396 action was filed on 3-27-2013, with a

Notice of Lis Pendens in the case CV-2013-00396 served by summons on Plaintiffs on

3/28/2013.

Because the recording of a lis pendens is specifically authorized by statute and has no existence separate and apart from the litigation of which it gives notice, we hold that the filing of a notice of lis pendens in this action is a part of the "judicial proceeding." In Am.Jur.2d, Lis Pendens, Sec. 22, it stated that: "A notice of lis pendens, filed under the authority of a statute, is, it has been held, as much entitled to the benefit of privilege, within contemplation of libel laws, as are the pleadings in the action to which the notice relates." 526 S.W.2d at 287. The opinion went on to cite out-of-state cases which recognize such a privilege, including some California jurisprudence to which we shall return later. Two salient points emerge from Kropp. First, lis pendens is specifically authorized by statute. Second, like other devices authorized by statute (such as pleadings, affidavits, briefs, or testimony) the lis pendens is part of a judicial proceeding and therefore privileged. (emphasis added )

In Griffin the court also found the privilege to be absolute. There the opinion agreed with Kropp, but also rested on the open courts policy recognized by the supreme court in Sakowitz, Inc. v. Steck,669 S.W.2d 105, 107 (Tex.1984) ("good faith litigants should be assured access to the judicial system"). Griffin went on to cite Woodcourt II, Ltd. v. McDonald Co.,119 Cal.App.3d 245, 173 Cal.Rptr. 836 (1981) for the same proposition:

“Our courts have concluded that the privilege accorded by section 47, Civil Code, and the policy of affording litigants the utmost freedom of access to the courts to secure their rights and defend without fear of being harassed by defamation actions underlying recognition of this privilege outweigh any public policy which might support appellant's position.” 702 S.W.2d at 695, citing 119 Cal.App.3d at 249, 173 Cal.Rptr. at 838 (emphasis added in Griffin and citations omitted). Although the Griffin opinion did not refer directly to the Texas constitution's open courts provision, art. I, § 13, that legal policy was implicit in the tribunal's decision. See Albertson v. Raboff, 46 Cal.2d 375, 295 P.2d 405 (1956) (absolute privilege exists for lis pendens because recordation of the notice is in effect a republication of pleadings). (emphasis added )

7. Attached as Exhibits are as follows:

a. A copy of the court docket, Exhibit “A”,

b. Defendants notice of intent to sue/ notice to defend along with a notice to defendants to

execute and deliver the curative instrument “Quit Claim Deed” in conveyance, along with enclosed

postal $10.00 money order sent to defendants by plaintiff as an act of good faith, and for Plaintiffs

to execute/deliver a curative instrument the purpose of which is to remove an apparent cloud on the

title of the subject parcel, and for defendant to demonstrate clean hands and good faith, as summons

served on defendants by private process server on 3-10-2013, see Exhibit “B”,

c. Defendants Equitable Complaint to Quiet Title CV-2013-00396 filed on 3-27-2013 as

Exhibit “C”,

d. Notice of Lis Pendens/ Brief and Support with Certificate of Service, see Exhibit “D”,

e. Defendants Warranty deed granted by Plaintiffs Mark Ogle and Mary Jean Ogle ( Grantors,

Warrantors ) on May 5, 2004. See Exhibit “E”,

f. Defendants Demand for verification and validation of purported Debt and default of

Defendants alleged Obligation by Qualified Written Requests to the Plaintiffs sent by return receipt

mail, notary presentmen t on November 14 , 2012 , which the said Plaintiffs have failed and refused

to answer despite acknowledging receipt thereof and despite continuous demands from Defendants,

a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit “F”, and

g. Affidavit of Service on Plaintiffs by Process Server on 3-27-13 attached hereto as Exhibit

“G”

h. On 4-4-2013 Plaintiffs Counsel filed an Entry of Appearance asking the court in the Quiet

Title Action for an Extension of Time in which to respond to Defendants Equitable Complaint to

Quiet Title without citation to authority, which again demonstrates Plaintiffs failure to comply with

the requirements of subsection (A) of 12 O.S. 2001 §2012 which requires that a party seeking an

extension of time in which to answer must file a "Reservation of Time" rather than an entry of

appearance. In addition Plaintiffs counsel failed to inform this court as to the reason why they

request an extension of time to file a response. See Exhibit “E”

The Court of Civil Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, Division III has held:

An entry of appearance and a reservation of time to answer, are two different things. The reservation of time, if filed on or before the answer date, extends the answer date for up to twenty days and also waives certain defenses. 12 O.S. Supp. 2004 §2012(A). The entry of appearance, however, does not affect the answer date. See KEITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. v.

GLENN 2011 OK Civ App 119

Defendants are apparently trying to extend Plaintiffs Quiet Title Action after the sheriffs sale,

causing further damage to defendants in a continuous display of defendants bad faith, inequitable

conduct, in committing wrongful acts described herein, acted with malice, fraud, and oppression

toward Plaintiffs, in a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' rights.

I. On April-18th -2013 Defendants filed an Objection to Defendants Request for Extension of

Time and Motion to Strike said Request, as once again the Plaintiffs here are apparently trying to

extend Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberrys Quiet Title Action after

the sheriffs sale, causing further damage to defendants in a continuous display of defendants bad

faith, inequitable conduct, in committing wrongful acts described herein, acting with malice, fraud,

and oppression toward Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry, in a

conscious disregard of Defendants rights. See Exhibit”F”

8. As a result of Plaintiffs improper request Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly

Denise Mayberry will be additionally damaged as a result of Plaintiffs reckless negligence, utter

carelessness and blatant fraud. This continuous conduct and inequitable behavior on the part of the

Plaintiffs clearly demonstrate that said Plaintiffs have no meritorious defense to Defendants Ben

Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberrys Quiet TitleComplaint, as shown once again by the

lack of reasoning for the improper request for time to answer Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry

and Shelly Denise Mayberrys Quiet Tile Action as these Plaintiffs have had Prior NOTICE OF

INTENT TO SUE/ NOTICE TO DEFEND by private process server on 3-10-2013, and had ample

time to get their act together.

9. These Plaintiffs herein apparently seek to avoid presentation of factual ownership and Proof

of claim of alleged debt and purported default, and to avoid presentation that no Mortgage exists

securing Defendants home on any bogus un verified alleged debt default at trial, thus avoid scrutiny

of judgment , thereby rushing to further obfuscate title by the administration of said Sheriffs Sale on

April 23, 2013. and Motion for Confirmation of Sheriffs Sale and unlawful conversion of

Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry’s real Property.

10. At no time, has any of These Plaintiffs produced any documentation of any lawful and valid

claim Defendant’s real property. which is why Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly

Denise Mayberry has filed an equitable action quieting Title with clean hands and good faith.

11. The Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry recently discovered

numerous discrepancies on The Plaintiffs alleged claims.

12. To establish a prima facie authority in an action to foreclose an alleged mortgage, the

Defendants must establish the existence of the alleged mortgage, and that Plaintiffs Defaulted on

an Obligation secured by a Mortgage and the Promissory Note, and must also provide the original

signature Note when demanded. Such Note, verification and validation of purported default of

Plaintiffs alleged Obligation has been previously demanded and the demand was ignored.

13. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs had no lawful right to enforce any debt alleged in

default that they claim they were enforcing, as there is no evidence on the record that they

possessed any alleged mortgage on the Defendats house or that there was any outstanding balance

owed to the Plaintiffs and that Defendats were in default of such alleged balance owed and due.

Plaintiffs, its agents and attorneys had no legal justification to bring an claim upon Defendants Ben

Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry, and said Defendants were injured as a result of

the actions these Plaintiffs.

14. In Oklahoma, a Quiet Title action is an Equitable Action. It allows a party in peaceful

possession of real property to compel others who assert a hostile claim to assert that claim and

submit it to judicial determination. Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry

are asserting the Right to Demand Plaintiffs Mark Ogle and Mary Jean Ogle to produce any and all

original documentation to verify and validate the alleged claim of debt owed secured by a

Mortgage, prove the alleged amount of purported claim allegedly defaulted on and alleged Due,

and prove their claimed rights to foreclose on the property exist. which is why Defendants Ben

Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry has filed an E quitable A ction Q uieting Title with

clean hands and good faith.

15. The main basis of Plaintiff s interest in title is the Warranty deed granted by Mark Ogle and ‟

Mary Jean Ogle ( Grantors, Warrantors ) on May 5, 2004. See Exhibit E.

16. Said Warranty deed Granted to Defendants (Grantees, warrantees) by Plaintiffs ( Grantors,

Warantors ) grants bargain sells, and conveys to Defendants, to take the entire fee simple title, to

have and to hold the same with fee simple title and with all tenements hereditaments and

appurtenances thereto belongings or in anywise appertaining forever and that Plaintiffs ( Grantors,

Warrantors ) is lawfully siezed in its own right of an absolute and indefeasible estate of

inheritance in fee simple of and in all singular of said granted property and that it is free clear

and discharged and unencumbered from all and other grants, titles, charges. Estates, judgments

taxes assessments, mortgages and encumbrances of whatsoever kind, and that Plaintiffs ( Grantors,

Warrantors ) will forever defend the same unto Defendants (Grantees warrantees) their heirs,

executors, administrators against Plaintiffs ( Grantors, Warrantors ) their successors or assigns

and all and every person or persons whomsoever, lawfully claiming or to claim the same.

17. Because the Warranty deed Granted to Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly

Denise Mayberry (Grantees, warrantees) by Plaintiffs Mark Ogle and Mary Jean Ogle ( Grantors,

Warantors ) acknowledged and executed Dated 5/5/2004, any alleged claim against Defendants Ben

Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry arising from the same transaction is a nullity and a

violation of 2010 Oklahoma Code Title 16. Conveyances -§1619, §1622, §1623, §1624, and §1625.

O.C Title 16- §1619. Warranty deed conveys what Implied terms. A warranty deed made in substantial compliance with the provisions of this chapter, shall convey to the grantee, his heirs or assigns, the whole interest of the grantor in the premises described, and shall be deemed a covenant on the part of the grantor, that at the time of making the deed he is legally seized of an indefeasible estate in fee simple of the premises and has good right and full power to convey the same; that the same is clear of all encumbrances and liens, and that he warrants to the grantee, his heirs and assigns, the quiet and peaceable possession thereof, and will defend the title thereto against all persons who may lawfully claim the same, and the covenants and warranty shall be obligatory and binding upon any such grantor, his heirs and personal representatives as if written at length in such deed.

§1624. Defense by warrantor Recovery by warrantee. Where any grantor appears in any action to defend his warranty or fails to appear after due notice, the court shall determine all the rights of all the parties, and in case the recovery is adverse to the warranty, the

warrantee shall recover of the warrantor the price of the land paid for the conveyance at the time of the warranty, the value of all improvements lost, if any, and all sums necessarily expended, including a reasonable attorney fee, and interest at the rate of

ten percent (10%) per annum on all sums so paid from the time of payment.

§1625. Failure to defend Recovery. If a warrantor or other person bound by a warranty shall fail to appear and defend after due notice as above provided the warrantee may defend the action and recover in a separate suit all sums expended the same as he might do in the same suit, as provided in this act.

18. Plaintiffs have no rights, title, interest, or estate in the Subject Property, Pursuant to

Warranty Deed signed, acknowledged and executed by Plaintiffs and Defendants interest is adverse

to Plaintiffs un verified, un validated and un proven claims and Plaintiffs are in violation of 2010

Oklahoma Code Title 16. Conveyances -§1619, §1622, §1623, §1624, and §1625 and Breach of

Fiduciary Duty persuant to O.S 12 (a) § 3-307 and 947 -fiduciary duty.

19. Despite the fiduciary and statutory duties owed to the Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry

and Shelly Denise Mayberry by Plaintiffs Mark Ogle and Mary Jean Ogle, the Plaintiffs engaged in

deliberate actions and conduct in violation of those fiduciary and for the purpose of taking

advantage of their relationship with the Defendants by making false, fraudulent, and deceitful

representations alleging a Mortgage that does not exist securing an alleged debt.

20. The Plaintiffs are not permitted to declare an alleged unproven default as the Plaintiffs have

no lawful right to enforce an unproven bogus debt default and Mortgage that does not exist.

21. As direct and proximate result of the unfair, inequitable, fraudulent, and deceptive conduct

describe above, as well as the result of their unlawful and unfair business practices and felonious act

of unlawful conversion of Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry’s real

Property and breach of fiduciary duties committed by Plaintiffs described above, Plaintiffs will be

unjustly enriched.

22. The fase of the record clearly shows there is no evidence that Plaintiffs are or were ever the

Holder in Due Course of any valid instrument or document secured by a Mortgage. These

Plaintiffs are not authorized to act in the capacity of a beneficiary, as the fase of the record clearly

shows there is no evidence that Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry

have any alleged unpaid or undischarged obligation currently due Plaintiffs they have an interest in,

or has defaulted on any alleged obligation secured by a Mortgage or Holders in Due Course on any

unpaid or undischarged note. This practice fails the requirement that the true beneficiary be

recorded in the county of record. Courts around the nation have held time and again that this

fraudulent claim is empty and not enforceable.

23. Plaintiffs had no authority to foreclose on and auction the Defendants Ben Michael

Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry home, as they Breached the Trust of Their Warranty Deed.

"and the alleged note has been paid in full and there is not and never has been any alleged

Mortgage securing any alleged debt.

24. Thus since Plaintiffs never “held any Mortgage/Perfected Security Agreement then Plaintiffs

are not a lawful beneficiary and cannot foreclose on Defendants Property. Plaintiffs violated the

statutory language of the Warranty Deed, the law of Negotiable Instruments and the common law

principals of real property. They therefore Breached the Warranty Deed .

25. This deception was used in this case to defraud the Defendants and as a means for Plaintiffs

to unlawfully obtain and/or convert, to their financial advantage, the Defendants Ben Michael

Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberrys property.

26. These Plaintiffs have deceived this court into believing that they were entitled to foreclose

on Defendants, but they were not legally entitled to, as there is no evidence that there is an alleged

Mortgage securing any false alleged and un verified, un validated and un proven debt due

Plaintiffs, and that Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry have defaulted

on and that they are allegedly collecting on. Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise

Mayberry have demanded that these Plaintiffs verify and validate the alleged debt default any

alleged amount owed produce the original instrument, and their authority to collect but neither

production nor authority has been forthcoming.

27. Plaintiffs threatened to foreclose on Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise

Mayberry s Home if the un proven un validated and un verified demand for payment was not

forthcoming and have carried out their threats. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there

is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally

misleading.” U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297 (1977). and by proximate cause apparently clouded

Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry's title by Plaintiffs actions in deceit

and that same deceit sounds in fraud. Plaintiffs inequitable actions are premeditated, tortious and

designed and prosecuted for the sole purpose of avoiding liability and gaining unjust enrich-

ment to Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry's detriment by prosecuting

fraudulent foreclosure against Defendants, and without proper authority or standing.

28. The false, fraudulent and/or deceitful representations previously alleged were knowingly

false, fraudulent and/or deceitful when made by Plaintiffs and thier agent with the intent that

Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry would rely on such

representations.

29. Such false, fraudulent and/or deceitful representations made by said Plaintiffs were made

and performed in a wanton, malicious and oppressive manner and in knowingly disregard of the

rights of the Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry, and such false,

fraudulent and/or deceitful representations were performed, authorized or ratified by an officer,

director or managing agent of said Plaintiffs.

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

30. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference all facts set forth in Defendants' Complaint

and Defendants' Motion, including all defined terms contained therein.

31. Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry request the Court issue an

order immediately restraining Plaintiffs from selling, assigning, transferring, or conveying

Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry's real property

30. This action for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunctive Relief

has been brought to halt the unlawful conversion of Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly

Denise Mayberry's real property through the unlawful Sheriffs on April 23, 2013 and Plaintifs

Motion for Confirmation of Sheriffs Sale by these Plaintiffs who do not have the lawful right or

authority to do so.

31. A Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction are necessary to permit and

require these Plaintiffs to produce evidence that they have the lawful right to proceed with statutory

or equitable remedies available only to the valid lawful beneficiary and/or successor trustee of a

Mortgage securing a valid Verified Oblidation of an unpaid debt.

32. It is probable that Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry will

prevail over Plaintiffs after Defendants prosecution of thier pending Equitable Complaint to Quiet

Title Attached and Incorporated herein by Exhibit “C” , because Plaintiffs unclean hands,

fraudulent and inequitable conduct is clearly evidenced by the facts and circumstances alleged

herein: specifically, Plaintiffs complete and utter failure and refusal to provide Proof of Claim or to

be the Creditor and Holder in Due Course as there is no evidence that there is an alleged Mortgage

securing any false alleged and un verified, un validated and un proven debt due Plaintiffs, that said

Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry have defaulted on.

33. Moreover, if Defendants are not granted immediate relief, then harm to said Defendants is

imminent, as Defendants have discovered facts indicating that Although Defendants have a pending

Equitable Complaint to Quiet Title-CV-2013-00396 and a correctly filed Notice of Lis Pendens in

case CV-2013-00396 served by summons on Plaintiffs on 3/28/2013, Plaintiffs will continue to

wrongfully foreclose on said real property and deny Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly

Denise Mayberry right of due process,

34. Given Plaintiffs misrepresentations and omissions regarding the documents, Defendants Ben

Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry are under reasonable apprehension that these

Plaintiffs will sell, assign, transfer, or convey Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly

Denise Mayberry’ assets before the trial of this action and before the adjudication of Defendants

pending Equitable Complaint to Quiet Title, and without immediate intervention by the Court.

Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry will suffer irreparable injury if the

temporary injunction does not issue.

35. Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry have no adequate remedy

at law because the damages that these Plaintiffs have caused, and will continue to cause in the

absence of a temporary restraining order, are nonrecoverable.

36. Due to the Plaintiffs' recent conduct, along with the looming deadlines, there is not enough

time to serve notice on the Plaintiffs and to hold a hearing on this Application Defendants Ben

Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry have a well founded and significant fear that if

Defendants are given the time required for the notice and hearing, Plaintiffs will fraudulently

proceed with the Confirmation of Sheriffs Sale and the felonious act of unlawful conversion of

Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry’s real Property causing irreparable

harm by the Plaintiffs' continued actions.

37. Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry requests this Court to set

their Application for Temporary Restraining Order for a hearing and after the hearing, issue a

temporary restraining order against Plaintiffs.

ALL ELEMENTS HAVE BEEN MET

38. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference all facts set forth in Defendants' Complaint

and Defendants' Motion, including all defined terms contained therein.

39. All four elements required for granting a Temporary Restraining Order and Injunctive Relief

have been met by These Plaintiffs’ numerous criminal and/or fraudulent acts.

40. First Element (likelihood of success on the merits of Defendants claims): It is well settled

that Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry must establish a reasonable

probability of success on the merits, and not a certainty of success. Oburn v. Shapp, 521 F. 2d 142

(3rd Cir. 1975), In the instant case, Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise

Mayberry legally protected property rights are clear and unambiguous. It is also clearly evident the

said Plaintiffs' conduct set forth in Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry

Complaint, Responses, and Replies is wrongful and violates Defendants legally protected property

rights. Accordingly, Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry’ Complaint,

Responses and Replies, and their Applications clearly establish a reasonable likelihood of success on

the merits of their claims.

41. Second Element (the denial of injunctive relief will result in irreparable harm to

Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry): It has been held that "in order to

demonstrate irreparable harm, Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry must

demonstrate potential harm which cannot be addressed by a legal or equitable remedy following a

trial." Instant Air Freight Co. v. CF. Airfreight, Inc., 882 F.2d 797 (3rd Cir. 1989). It is well settled

that a deprivation of a person's legally protected property right will result in irreparable harm. In the

instant case, Plaintiffs' wrongful conduct has severally invaded Defendants legally protected property

rights. Moreover, the harm resulting from Plaintiffs' inequitable and wrongful conduct is continuing,

making any assessment of monetary damages even more uncertain and difficult. Accordingly,

Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberrys’ Complaint clearly establishes that

a denial of injunctive relief will result in immediate and continuing irreparable harm to them.

42, The third and fourth elements necessary for injunctive relief — that the granting of injunctive

relief will not result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party, and that the grant of injunctive

relief is in the public interest — are also clearly established in Defendants' Complaint. No harm will

result to Plaintiffs should injunctive relief be granted. Conversely, immediate and irreparable harm

will result to Defendants should injunctive relief be denied. Accordingly, Defendants has clearly

satisfied the third element. The same is also true with respect to the fourth element in that it is

clearly within the public interest that in light of there being no Mortgage on Defendants property

securing any alleged unpaid Obligationn owed to Plaintiffs, and the record shows absolutly no

proof/documentation demonstrating Defendants purported default on any alleged Obligation of debt

owed to Plaintiffs , the legally protected property rights of Defendants be protected.

43. Fourth Element the grant of injunctive relief is in the public interest: This, too, is clearly

established in Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberrys’ Complaint, and

Responses and Replies. Plaintiffs, jointly and separately, have committed felonious acts, including

without limitation, those to be considered as “Felonious Act of Unlawful Conversion” and “ Scham

Legal Process.” In fact, the very documents Defendants have filed into the public record are prima

facie evidence of Defendants’ felonious and inequitable actions which are premeditated, tortious and

designed and prosecuted for the sole purpose of avoiding liability and gaining unjust enrichment .

BOND REQUIREMENTS

44. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference all facts set forth in Defendants' Complaint

and Defendants' Motion, including all defined terms contained therein.

45. Although Oklahoma Rules of Civil Procedure require a bond, in this instant case no bond

should be required as the face of the record shows Plaintiffs have no interest in Defendants Ben

Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberrys property and have no right to property. Bonds are

to secure and/or indemnify a party from loss, yet a party that has no interest and no right to a property

cannot possible incur a loss.

46. If this Court decides to require a bond, Defendants hereby request a de minimus bond as they

are now indigent due to Plaintiffs’ numerous criminal, fraudulent and inequitable acts against them.

47. The preceding notwithstanding, this Court should recognize that property is itself the bond in

this case. Whoever succeeds in the litigation is indemnified and protected by the value of property.

Accordingly, requirement of a bond would be little more than punishment on Defendants Ben

Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry with bias and prejudice for Plaintiffs.

SUMMARY

48. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference all facts set forth in Defendants' Complaint

and Defendants' Motion, including all defined terms contained therein.

49. Plaintiffs have committed numerous criminal and/or fraudulent anf inequitable acts against

the State of Oklahoma, the Body Politic, this Court and Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and

Shelly Denise Mayberry in an attempt to steal their property.

50. It is also in the public’s interest that the TRO be granted to allow Defendants to properly

prepare for and prosecute Defendants pending Equitable Complaint to Quiet Title as Plaintiff has

spent several months studying and collecting evidence that will prove conclusively that:

39. Plaintiffs never “held any Mortgage/Perfected Security Agreement and Plaintiffs are not a

lawful beneficiary and cannot foreclose on Defendants Property, that Plaintiffs are in Commercial

dishonor and in breach of fiduciary duties owed to Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly

Denise Mayberry, Plaintiffs Breached the Trust of Their Warranty Deed and Plaintiffs violated the

statutory language of the Warranty Deed, the law of Negotiable Instruments, the Maxins of Equity

Jurisprudence and the common law principals of real property.

40. Granting the EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER/PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION pending litigation of a Quiet Title Action conserves the

property no matter who prevails. Denial of the preliminary injunction pending the outcome of

litigation directly affects the property and right of the property owners in way that cannot easily be

undone, when the final merits of the case are heard. “Entry of a preliminary injunction is

appropriate where the party seeking the injunction establishes: (a) the injunction is necessary to

prevent irreparable harm, and (b) either (i) likelihood of success on the merits, or (ii) sufficiently

serious questions going to the merits of the claim as to make it fair ground for litigation, and that a

balance of the hardships tips decidedly in favor of the movant. See, e.g., Able v. United States,44

F.3d 128, 130 (2d Cir.1995); Polymer Technology Corp. v. Mimran, 37 F.3d 74, 77_78 (2d

Cir.1994); Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H.P. Hood & Sons, 596 F.2d 70, 72 (2d Cir. 1979).”

CONCLUSION

41. The Court received this Verified Motion as an Affidavit.

WHEREFORE, Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry respectfully

request that Plaintiffs be cited to answer and appear in this case. And this Court grant the following

Relief:

42. Issue a Temporary Restraining Order immediately that will remain active until final

adjudication of Defendants Ben Michael Mayberry and Shelly Denise Mayberry's Pending

Equitable Complaint to Quiet Title CV-2013-00396 his matter, restraining Plaintiffs from:

(1) Selling, assigning, transferring, or conveying real property in this instance;

(2) Grant a Temporary Injunction (after notice to Defendants) and an evidentiary hearing

restraining Defendants or anyone working in concert with, under the direction of, or on

behalf of the Defendants, jointly and/or separately, from:

(1) Selling, assigning, transferring or conveying any of the documents and/or

real property in this instance;

(2) Grant a Temporary Injunction after notice to Defendants, jointly and/or separately,

and an evidentiary hearing, restraining Defendants, or anyone working in

concert with, under the direction of, or on behalf of the Defendants, jointly and/or

separately, from selling, assigning, transferring or conveying any of the documents

and/or real property in this matter.

(3) For such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: This__day of April, in the year, of our Lord, 2013.

BY: ____________________________, agent Ben Michael Mayberry, Sui Juris

Signed reserving all my rights at UCC 1-308

BY: ____________________________, agent Shelly Denise Mayberry, Sui Juris

Signed reserving all my rights at UCC 1-308

VERIFICATION

I have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters, which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the People of the state of Oklahoma that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed at Tulsa, Oklahoma.

By:______________________________________ Ben Michael Mayberry, 9210 s Lakewood Ave

Tulsa, Oklahoma 918-734-3422

Dated: This__day of April, in the year, of our Lord, 2013.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

ORIGINAL and ONE COPY delivered to DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTYthis ___ day of April, 2013.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above MOTION has been furnished by certified U.S. Mail on this ___ day of April, 2013 to:

DWIGHT L. SMITH. 1636 SOUTH CINCINNATI AVE. Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119

OGLE PROPERTIES c/o Mark Ogle 9936 S. 99th E. Ave Tulsa, Oklahoma,74133

BY: _________________________________, agent Ben Michael Mayberry, Sui Juris

Signed reserving all my rights at UCC 1-308