I have file a lawsuit pro se in the Second District Court State of Utah in and for the County of Weber.

I filed in on the 10 th of September. Here it is as follows: JEFFREY L. SHURTLIFF, Complaint Plaintiff. V. Civil No. WELLS FARGO BANK NA 100906927CN and FREDDIE MAC CORPORATION Defendants. Judge : Jones ____________________________________________________ Comes now Jeffrey L. Shurtliff, complaining of the defendants, and alleges as follows: 1. Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Wells Fargo to service his mortgage on his house, located at 4180W. 2475S. Ogden, Utah, on April of 2008. The loan is a Freddie Mac loan. 2. Plaintiff notified the defendants of possible future default of loan payments to the defendants, on October 28, 2009. Plaintiff was current with the mortgage at the time of notifying the defendant of possible future default. The plaintiff requested; via a telephone conversation with a representative at Wells Fargo, entrance into the Making Your Home Affordable Program. 3. Plaintiff was told he qualified and received the paperwork for the Making Home Affordable Program and submitted it. The plaintiff was put on three trial payments of $1068.40. These trail payments were to be for December 09 , January 2010 and February of 2010. 4. Plaintiff made all of the required payments pursuant to the program, on time. 5. At the end of the final month of February, the Plaintiff began to call Wells Fargo, inquiring about when the Modification would be completed. The defendants representative told the plaintiff that more time was needed to complete the process. The Plaintiff was instructed to keep on making the $1068.40, payment. 6. On or about March 24th , 2010, the plaintiff received a telephone call from Jeri a representative from Wells Fargo. She told him the Loan Modification was moving forward and that the income looked good and no further documentation was required. She also told the plaintiff to continue with the trial period payment of $1068.40 for the month of April 2010. The plaintiff heard nothing and called back at the end of April. The plaintiff was told that he was still being considered for the Making Home Affordable modification ; that all was left was a drive by appraisal. Phone calls in May were made by the plaintiff to Wells Fargo, with representatives telling him he was still being considered for Making Home Affordable Modification. 7. On May 30, 2010 , Wells Fargo sent a letter of Default to the Plaintiff, stating foreclosure proceedings would start on June 29, 2010. The plaintiff was told via telephone to disregard letter. 8. On June 3, 2010 , the plaintiff received a letter from the Wells Fargo stating the plaintiff had been turned down

for the Making Home Affordable modification loan. The plaintiff called Wells Fargo and asked when he was turned down, because he had talked with a representative on June 4, 2010, who had told him all was well; and the representative said the plaintiff was turned down April 21, 2010. 9. During all of the phone calls made by the Plaintiff , representatives were asked by the plaintiff, about foreclosure and the delinquent amount left over by enrolling into the program. Each time the plaintiff was assured of no foreclosure and the amount that was delinquent, would be put on the back of the loan. 10. The plaintiff complains, the defendants intentionally made the Making Home Affordable process go on excessively; to inflate the delinquent balance and then foreclose on the plaintiffs house to enrich themselves. The defendants knew that the Plaintiff did not have the $12,000 plus dollars to keep the original loan. The Plaintiff complains the defendants have used predatory and misleading loan practices, to rid itself of the bad loan it made with the plaintiff and foreclose on his house. 11. The Plaintiff complains the Defendants have unjustly enriched themselves, by creating a balloon payment with all late charges and interest charges, that became due upon turn down of the modification. The plaintiff complains this was not disclosed to him when entering the program. 12. The Plaintiff complains he has been misled and entrapped; by the Defendants Wells Fargo and Freddie Mac, by the deceptive and predatory Loan Modification Process. The Defendants had no intention of approving a loan for the plaintiff, even though the plaintiff was current with the modified payment. The Plaintiff complains he was current on the loan with Wells Fargo and that Wells Fargo knew that and kept the plaintiff in the hamster wheel process, for over six months, to inflate the delinquent balance. The defendants knew the Plaintiff did not have the past due amount available to redeem his home and continued to put the plaintiff off, in an effort to make the delinquent amount excessive; until it was impossible for the plaintiff to come up with the balloon payment needed, to keep the current loan. 13. The plaintiff complains the defendants representatives knowingly misled the plaintiff at the beginning of the process into thinking he was approved as long as he made the payments on time and sent the required documents in. The plaintiff did everything he was told to do, but did not receive the modification Loan. The plaintiff sent six payments, on time to the defendants. 14. The plaintiff complains he was entrapped ,by the false advertising on the HAMP solicitation. Plaintiff s exhibit A. The plaintiff complains the Statement of eligibility on the solicitation and on the Defendants websites are fraudulent and Predatory and misleading. The plaintiff complains the Statement Helping you Stay in Your Home put him into a sense of security; that the defendants knew was false; is false advertising and fraudulent. IN SUMMARY WITH MOTIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------The plaintiff requested a Home Affordable Modification

Loan, from the defendant. The plaintiff was told he was qualified by telephone on October 28, 2009. The plaintiff was current with his payments at the time of request. The plaintiff was told as long as he complied with making on time payments and submitting required paperwork, that modification would become permanent in 30 to 90 days. (Referencing Freddie Mac solicitation, plaintiffs Exhibit A.) The plaintiff made all payments on time pursuant to the agreement, sent to him and dated October 28,2009. Plaintiffs Exhibit B. The plaintiff was disapproved and then notified of disapproval 42 days, after the fact. The plaintiff was told by representatives of the defendants, that he was still being considered for the Making Home Affordable loan, 40 days after he was turned down. The defendants through its representatives continued to mislead the plaintiff ; that he was still being considered for the Making Home Affordable Modification and that he was not going to be foreclosed on. The defendants had the foreclosure planned in advance of the disapproval for the Making Home Affordable Modification. The defendants fraudulently reassured the plaintiff he was not going to be foreclosed on and the delinquent amount accrued, because of the trial program; would go on the back of the loan, upon permanent Modification. The defendants have used misleading and predatory tactics in its dealings with the Plaintiff. The defendants did not inform the plaintiff of disposition of the Making Home Affordable Modification, within a reasonable time frame. The defendants have fraudulently misled the plaintiff. The defendants have created a breach of the verbal contract made with the plaintiff on 28 ,October 2009. The Plaintiff in good faith, contacted the Defendants and fulfilled his part of the agreement. The defendants have damaged the plaintiffs credit rating, disrupted his life and have caused stress and anxiety to come upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has had to seek medical attention for the stress. The defendants have used the making Home Affordable Program to unjustly enrich themselves from the plaintiff . The defendants have committed fraud on the plaintiff. Defendants are helping the plaintiff out of his home, instead of helping him stay in his home. Due to the defendants actions of foreclosure, the plaintiff will never be able to buy a house , on credit, in his lifetime. The defendant knew it made a bad loan to the plaintiff in 2008. The loan was a no document loan. Now the plaintiff is using the law to foreclose on the Plaintiffs property, using the delinquent balance of $20,000.00, that has inflated, since the Default Notice was sent to the plaintiff. 1. The plaintiff moves the court for an injunction against the defendants, to cease the foreclosure process, on his home. 2. The plaintiff moves the court to order the defendants to resume accepting the $1068.40 that was set as monthly payment by the defendants on October 28, 2009, and honor the contract. 3. The plaintiff moves the court for the Discovery Process, pursuant to rule 26. The plaintiff contends he brings just cause to this court, for suit against the defendants. The defendants are abusing a Federal program; designed to help people, for their own gain. The plaintiff contends the Discovery Process will show the court, a pattern of abuse of this program by the defendants. 4. The plaintiff moves the court to order the defendants to

supply the plaintiff with the original note of assignment and current note of assignment documents on the property located at 4180W. 2475S. Ogden, Utah. 5. The Plaintiff moves the court for a punitive damage judgment of Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars, ($450,000),and or any other relief set by the Court, to be paid to the plaintiff, by the defendants. The plaintiff has been held hostage by the defendants for almost a year. The process that was supposed to last only 3 months, has caused the plaintiff stress and anxiety. The defendants have caused depression to come upon the Plaintiff. It has negatively affected the performance of the plaintiffs business, which is the plaintiffs support for money to pay his bills. The plaintiff is a mobile electronic servicer and the work is very high tech. It requires much concentration and focus to accomplish the work and it takes a cheerful person to win the jobs from the public. The defendants have made the plaintiff feel insecure and uncomfortable in his home, by sending agents to observe and take pictures of the plaintiffs property. The defendants foreclosure action has caused embarrassment to the plaintiff. It has caused persons to call the plaintiff, at all hours from all over the country to short sale his house. 6. The plaintiff moves the court to order the defendant to delete the damaging foreclosure process from the plaintiffs credit rating. 7. The plaintiff moves the court for the defendant to pay the plaintiffs court costs. Dated this _______ day of __________, 2010. Jeffrey L. Shurtliff the Plaintiff ________________________