Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
FORECLOSURE
HOW 14 JUDGES
TOOK MY HOME
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
A. 14 Judges............................................................................ 10
B. Unfair Foreclosures............................................................ 13
C. Legal ................................................................................. 15
D. Issue................................................................................... 18
E. The Facts............................................................................. 19
F. The Law............................................................................... 21
I. Personal Property.............................................................. 43
J. Appendix............................................................................ 44
2
MY STORY--Faithless in Foreclosure
I have been the proud owner of the M.E. Blanton House, on the
National Register of Historic Places, for over twenty (20) years.
My parents are Swedish immigrants. Me? I am a veteran
paratrooper with graduations hanging on the wall.
My ‘Troubles’ started ten years ago when I 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. I fell onto hard
times in the two year struggle against ‘county-hall’ of which I was
only partially successful.
3
I have since found out that this lender is not regulated by any
state or federal agency. So, then the predatory loan came due at
the inopportune time that I became unemployed.
THE DEFAULT
A FALSE RESCUE
4
of internal fraud as to why they would not agree to a half million
dollar sale that would make everybody (?) happy.
……..in all the wrong places. The timing was ideal. Because of
the September 2008 financial meltdown there were all sorts of
new rescue vehicles for troubled homeowners like me:
5
summarize the results of this effort with these metaphors. The
State Veterans Home Loan program advised me that since I had
been a veteran for more than thirty years, I was not eligible for
their home loan programs. (Huh, I didn’t know one could lose
their veteran status.) Acorn’s office was closed on Good Friday.
All the banks said that their programs weren’t fully developed yet.
The federal websites put you in a screen tree that is fireproof
from ever getting to a human being. That is when I went straight
to the local HUD office in person where they told me I was not
eligible for ANY program. “BUT”, they asked, “HAD I TRIED
COUNSELING??”
THE BANKRUPTCY
6
again, grace had shown my way a cash buyer on half the
property with no conditions. Now, we are getting
somewhere.
PROBLEM SOLVED?
All problems solved? Yep. The money from the cash buyer (of
part of the property), combined with the funds from the reverse
mortgage would more than pay off the underlying predatory loan
in question.
7
Eventually, they came, locked my doors and threw me out into
the street. And they took all my stuff. At age 66, after working
58 years, if you count picking strawberries at age 8 and
thereafter; I am homeless.
Lauren Paulson
3980 SW 170th Ave
Aloha, Or 97007
laurenjpaulson@yahoo.com
bulletinsfromaloha.org
The Law
8
Later, I ask you to cry for those in this hellish foreclosure predicament.
Now, however I am just sick to my stomach. Sick because I have stepped back
from my personal situation; and even further back from others as I
contemplate explaining 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 denying consumers basic constitutional due process. Let me explain.
Here are the real estate concepts you MUST understand.
3. Trust Deeds -- This is where they slipped the consumers a ‘Mickey Finn’. I
maintain 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 confused with the ‘nominee‘ concept developed in
MERS issues), called a trustee is an unknown 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.
9
THE FIERCE STORMS OF LITIGATION Arrive Along With My
14 JUDGES
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
through this 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
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 ie., Man-made laws or
10
applied by judges based on decisions in previous cases. Once so discovered and
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
“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,
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 14 different
All the while, the Common Law is clear under the facts 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
11
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
Once these two documents (the deed of trust and the Promissory Note) are
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 14 judges, in three 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
‘conferences’ judges have all over town, all over the state, all over the world all the
The New York State courts recognized this problem as early as 2004. Where
None of the 14 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 14 of them, have divined themselves free to
12
make any decision they want to make eschewing clear Man-made law; 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 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
Bankruptcy)
to (Present), tells us that early law was chiefly for the benefit of the merchants. So,
the overriding standard for the entire bankruptcy process is “...for the paramount
interests of the creditors”. Because I did not know that, my Bankruptcy Judge,
13
Randall Dunn, told me at my last hearing before him that, “I had a pure heart, but
an empty head.”
Thus admonished, I now see the process as it really is. You, as the debtor,
are nothing more than a fly on the wall. The only way that the public will have a
My website search tells me that could happen, but is not happening now, but
there are some early signs it is beginning to happen (See, for example,
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
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
whether the foreclosure is completed or not. Across the United States it means
over one million foreclosures need to be reviewed to see if all parties made the
14
More probably, this means that a 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
nothing judges can do about it except rule in favor of the 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
LEGAL MEMORANDUM
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
15
party has standing cannot be waived. ‘Constitutional Standing’ is a “threshold
Homeowners Assoc. v. Unified Pac. Ins. Co., 219 F3d 895, 899-900 (9th Cir 2000).
PRELIMINARY
during the bankruptcy proceedings from April 2009 until May 2010 and
Notwithstanding that this is a simple, single asset case; apparently no one in any of
the antecedent proceedings considered this glaring defect: FHLF, LLC has no
standing before any of these forums because they were not the ‘Holder’ of the
Promissory Note. Thus, FHLF, LLC had no standing to file a proof of claim,
obtain relief from stay, appear as a party of interest in any forum, file any motions
herein, much less a motion for summary judgment, nor conduct a nonjudicial
foreclosure. This is because FHLF, LLC has no ‘skin’ in the game. It is as simple
as that.
FHLF, LLC as the assignee of the trust deeds from Fairway Commercial
Mortgage Corporation (Fairway), the lender, did not ever come into possession of
Corporation, did not assign, endorse nor transfer possession of the underlying
Promissory Notes to FHLF, LLC. Therefore, FHLF, LLC had no standing before
16
any of the courts including this court because it never held the debt instrument. It
litigation. It is fatal to their ability to assert the debt in the bankruptcy forum or
foreclose under the law in Oregon and under the law across the United States.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE
This matter has been before fourteen (14) 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).
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
17
7.Oregon Court of Appeals Case No A14671
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
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 that when the
security instruments (deeds of trust or the mortgage) are separated from the debt
instruments become ineffective. The debt obligations (the Promissory Notes) are
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
18
right to foreclose because they did not possess nor have an interest in the debt
THE FACTS
At issue here are two 2005 trust deed transactions with two Promissory
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)
FHLF, LLC) mentioned here. The 2005 loan transaction with Paulson only
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
19
parcels (lots) were quitclaimed to Lauren Paulson as an individual to facilitate the
and Huber-Wheeler Crossing, LLC had become inactive the same year.
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
neither Fairway nor FHLF, LLC gave the debtor notice of the 2006 deed of
trust assignment.
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 agency capacity, Mr. Russillo conducted
the nonjudicial foreclosure sale of September, 25, 2010 with Fairway’s corporate
FHLF, LLC, through Schwabe attorney Joel Parker, as successor trustee, and
20
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
THE LAW
Absolute Assignment
FHLF, LLC’s attorney, Mr. Russillo, has asserted the notion that the
‘Absolute Assignment’ in 2006 of the deeds of trust 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
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
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
But, even if such an assignment were enough (which it is not because how
21
(UCC), as is discussed below; NOT by the law of assignments) there are specific
• The entire debt must be assigned. That did not happen here.
That did not happen here. Failure to provide Paulson with notice of
the alleged Promissory Note assignment renders it void under the law
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
22
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
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
of the UCC. Article 9 of the UCC governs the sale of Promissory Notes. Oregon’s
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
FHLF, LLC. Under the UCC 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,
23
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 below)
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
prove it didn’t just come into possession -- by stealing the negotiable instrument
enforce a Promissory Note against the borrower, a person must prove that one is a
Promissory Notes. FHLF, LLC has never been the Holder of the Promissory
version of the Uniform Commercial Code [ORS 73.0104] and according to the
24
specific language of these loan documents. A party is entitled to enforce a
negotiable instrument if they are (A) the ‘Holder’ of the Note or (B) under certain
‘Holder’, or (C) a person not in possession, but who is entitled to enforce the note
the Note before foreclosure. Since FHLF, LLC never came into
73.0301]
Promissory Notes under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) applicable here.
Attorney Craig Russillo has written a recent E-mail that purports to anoint
statutory law (the UCC) and the Common Law. Mr. Russillo states:
25
• “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 and the
indebtedness…” (emphasis supplied)
• “Here, there was no separation of those estates, as FHLF holds both
the note and trust deeds.” (emphasis supplied)
FHLF, LLC be a ‘Holder’ at the same time. That is silly. There was no
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
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
26
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
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
can enforce the bare Promissory Notes, but one cannot enforce the bare security
interests.
is only required to pay money to the ‘Holder’ of the Note, so he/she does not have
27
Conflicting Creditor Claims
company that Paulson dealt with in the 2005 loan transactions and with
whom Paulson ‘contracted’. (Even this part of the transaction has been
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
28
as variously asserted by Craig Russillo, their variously asserted attorney
and agent?
April 2009 the next pleading filed in the bankruptcy matter is by FHLF,
Corporation still filing documents in this case in 2008, 2009 and 2010?
29
entities. The April 27, 2010 Memorandum is supported by a declaration
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on January 5, 2011, Mr.
Russillo states:
(Fairway).”
30
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.
what role they have in any of the transactions encompassed here. Yet,
not known nor explained anywhere how Fairway America, LLC fits in
entities fit in with FHLF, LLC other than the deed of trust assignment by
does not explain the relationship between these entities as they bear on
31
However, Paulson previously provided the Court with a
signature page by Mr. Russillo dated March 20th, 2009 where he signs
signs himself as the attorney for “Fairway America, the entity that also
does not exist as pointed out above. Confused? In summary, along with
Corporation, the actual lender has variously used the names Fairway
America, LLC”.
the other hand, Greg Blair states in his declaration that “Fairway
which is the actual entity registered with the State of Oregon”. “Fairway
32
America” is NOT registered with the State of Oregon) is the only entity
in these matters.
Thus, there are at least four to five creditors who are asserting
fact, the only matters before Judge Dunn in the bankruptcy proceeding
The current economic meltdown has disclosed that financial institutions across
the country have made the same mistake Fairway and FHLF, LLC made here:
33
• Kemp v. Countrywide, USDC of New Jersey, Case No 08-18700- JHW
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}
delivered the Note to the assignees. Citing Illinois law, the Court stated that
• Servido v. US Bank N.A. et al., District Court of Appeal for State of Florida,
seeking foreclosure must present evidence that it owns and holds the note
34
law an assignment of the mortgage to one other than the holder of the note is
of no effect}
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
• LNV CORP v, Madison Real Estate, Supreme Court of New York, Index No.
show that they are the owner of the Note as well as the mortgage at the time
the note, the assignment of the mortgage is void and the party may not
• HSBC v. Thompson, et al., Court of Appeals of Ohio, Trial Court Case No.
35
failed to establish that it was the ‘Holder’ of the Promissory Note. Without
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
practice. “For nearly a century, Ohio courts have held that whenever a
of the debt and the mortgage is mere incident to the obligation. Edgar v.
Haines, 109 Ohio St. 159, 164, 141 NE 837 (1923) Moreover, a financial
(12/29/10) Country Place sued J.P. Morgan for attorney fee after the circuit
never produced any evidence that it owned the note and mortgage that were
dismissed the case on summary judgment and now seeks their attorney fees.
36
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
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
As the following cases demonstrate, the mortgage note does not follow the
assignment separate from the mortgage note as happened here. Bellistri v. Ocwen
Loan Servicing, LLC 284 SW 3rd 619, 623 (Mo Ct App 2009) An assignment of
the deed of trust separate from the note has no ‘force’. Saxon Mortgage Serf. Inc
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.
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,
37
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
Corporation never physically transferred the Promissory Notes to FHLF, LLC, Joel
Parker as successor trustee on the security interests did not have a legally
on FHLF, LLC’s behalf. Saxon Mortg. Serv., Inc v. Hillery, No C-08-4357 EMC,
the lender on the transaction is evidenced by the fact that only Fairway
the debt following the putative execution of the Promissory Notes in 2005.
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
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
38
move forward with foreclosure because FHLF, LLC was never in possession
of the Promissory Notes. The other Fairway entities were just hopelessly
confused.
that when the lender splits the trust deed from the Promissory Notes, any
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 the
mortgages.
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 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
39
Constitutional Standing
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 either the 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 FHLF, LLC is nothing more than a shell company attempting to
assert the claims of Fairway. As such it has no financial interest and no standing
40
Attorney Fees
Defendant Franki Keefe has petitioned for attorney fees in this case. FHLF,
LLC, even though they do not have standing, had advised the Court that
bankruptcy trustee Amy Mitchell took control of Paulson’s estate regarding this
litigation “...out of (his) hands as debtor-in-possession and put it into those of Ms.
Mitchell, as the trustee.” This Court so held in it’s summary judgment ruling. The
fact that Paulson pointed out just from the billing that Defendant Keefe is claiming
attorney fees to which she is not entitled (billing for attorney services in another
forum) demonstrates the need for discovery which Paulson has requested and been
refused.
Paulson realizes that Judge Papak will not rule in Paulson’s favor on
anything, not even such a fundamental right as discovery nor due process (ie.
issues. For that reason, Paulson has asked that he be disqualified. Judge Aiken has
ruled on erroneous grounds and did not follow the U.S. Supreme Court standard
whether the judge ‘displayed deep seated and unequivocal antagonism that would
these Courts refusing Paulson access to his own property pertaining to this
41
litigation renders due process for him nugatory. The Oregon Supreme Court has
done the very same thing -- oddly. Why would courts allow one party to
confiscate the legal materials of the other party and not even give the latter an
opportunity to be heard?
DISCOVERY
A supreme irony in this case is that three judges have denied ALL of
Paulson’s Motion to Compel Discovery. The irony is that in order for a creditor to
foreclose they must prove that they have standing as discussed above. To do this
the creditor must prove ‘chain of title’ also discussed above. Paulson has formally
requested discovery in each forum and followed with a Motion to Compel. Judge
Erwin denied Paulson’s Motion to Compel in the State Court proceedings. Judge
Papak denied Paulson discovery twice. Judge Haggerty denied Paulson’s Motion
to Compel. Both Judge Papak and Judge Haggerty represent that they have read all
the stuff in their file. Yet neither mention the Judge Garr King’s ruling in the
short, the Defendants have not been required to provide a single piece of paper in
this case. Curious when the whole issue is whether they can prove that they have
42
PERSONAL PROPERTY
the 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. A clear denial of Due Process. Now, that removal and destruction of
Paulson’s property and personal property has occurred. Paulson has no idea where
that property has been taken nor whether that property has been destroyed.
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 of the adversary, 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 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
43
The Defendants also have confiscated three of Paulson’s vehicles
And then 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
All the courts have been asked to stay these proceedings and have been
doesn’t. No judge out of the 14 and no court out of the 6 have addressed this issue.
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 tranches, there are
trial courts, there are appellate courts, there are bankruptcy courts, there are non-
In 1788, Alexander Hamilton suspected that some judges might not do their
44
“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 of mankind, 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)
(JUDICIAL NOTICE)
1. U.S. Federal District Court: -- Paulson first filed his predatory loan case
2008 under Case No. CV 08982 ST. The case was assigned to Honorable
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
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.
45
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 saw
made 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
Bankruptcy case on April 8, 2009 under Case No. 09-32439 rdl 11 after he
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
after satisfying the debt obligations. Paulson filed for Chapter 11 reorganization.
The debt is restructured so the debtor may continue to pursue a living. This case
46
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 constitutional standing.) The
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.
Jury. Judge Erwin in eviction court suddenly 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,
47
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 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-
Natural Law. He followed neither the Rules of the Court nor the Common Law.
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 first acquired jurisdiction (here Oregon Federal District 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.
48
The trial was assigned to Honorable Andrew Erwin. Both judges followed Natural
Law. Neither followed the Rules of the Court nor the Common Law.
No. A14569, Oregon Court of Appeals Case No. A14570, Oregon Court of
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
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
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
49
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
filed his Notice of Appeal of Judge Randall Dunn’s Order in the Oregon
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 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
Natural Law -- On January 18, 2011 Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges Pappas
and Markell denied Paulson’s motion 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.
them) that he filed, he asked Chief Judge Ann Aiken to look into the matter
50
because that refusal seemed so unusual. She wouldn’t look into the matter
Common Law -- The law allows for a time-out if one party may suffer
irreparable harm and that party has a colorable case 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
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,
51
The Playing Field Changes
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 thirty-four (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 frivolous.” This Order is one and half a
page. It cites no case law. It cites no statutory law. It just doesn’t like Paulson.
(Leavy, Bybee)
The United States Supreme Court has recently reversed the Ninth Circuit for
the tenth (10) time since November 2010. The United States Supreme Court called
Ninth Circuit decisions: “inexplicable”. Long the problem child of the U.S.
Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has Paulson in their cross-hairs
of decision-making.
CASES PENDING
The Oregon Court of Appeals, The Oregon Supreme Court. This case is also
52
pending before the Oregon Bankruptcy Court, the Federal Bankruptcy Court of
Appeals, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In short, State Court Judges Knapp, Price and Erwin have only followed
Natural Law, not Man-made law. At the Oregon Court of Appeals, Commissioner
Nass and Chief Judge David Brewer have only followed Natural Law, not Court
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.
There is no hope for homeowners and here is why. But, first let me define the
problem.
THE PROBLEM
53
• 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 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 the counseling 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
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:
54
usual. Consumers need the ‘support’ of judicial surroundings. Judicial
surroundings is the only thing that will get the attention of reluctant lenders.
My story is the same as about three million Americans. Our story should
make you cry. Soldiers, rise up to do something beautiful.
Unite!
house in the Bankruptcy Courts then that forum would be a good place to
have miles to go before we sleep. Shills should be understood for just what they
Lauren Paulson
3980 SW 170th Ave.
Aloha, OR 97007
971 219 5859
bulletinsfromaloha.org
laurenjpaulson@yahoo.com
55