1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMES NOW Alan Gjurovich & Star: Hills (hereafter Alan & Star) WITH THEIR

VERIFIED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF RESCISSION OF

ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT; QUIET TITLE; EQUITABLE, INJUNCTIVE, &

DECLARATORY RELIEF; FRAUD; PROMISSORY FRAUD; FRAUDULENT

INDUCEMENT; CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD, DECEIT; NEGLIGENCE, CIVIL DAMAGES

FOR CRIMINAL TORTS OF FRAUD, FORGERY, PERJURY, FALSIFYING

DOCUMENTS, TRESPASSING, TERRORIST THREATS, BREACH OF TRUST;

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY; WRONGFUL CONVERSION OF REAL PROPERTY;

INVOLUNTARY TRUST, BREACH OF TRUST, GENERAL NEGLIGENCE &

INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE, ETC., AS FOLLOWS:

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS

PARTIES & RELATIONSHIPS

1. Alan Gjurovich (hereafter Alan) is a sovereign man of God living on the land in the De-

Jure Country called California Republic, WHO OBTAINED A FIFTY (50 %)

PERCENT OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE “REAL PROPERTY” COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS BEING LOCATED AT “ [3018 LINDEN AVENUE, BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIA] ” ON OCTOBER 5, 2009 BY WAY OF A QUIT CLAIM DEED EXECUTED BY THE OWNER OF THE SAID PROPERTY Star:Hills,THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SAID PROPERTY IS:

ONE HALF OF Lot 17 in Block 26 of Skyline Park Subdivision No. 2 according to the map thereof filed on August 13, 1923, and recorded in Book 3, pages 88 to 93, inclusive, of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. APN: 123-330-06.” COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS [ “3018 LINDEN

AVENUE, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA”] .

& ASSUMED ONE HALF OF THE ALLEGED LIEN ON THE PROPERTY

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CLAIMED BY DEFENDANT GMAC MORTGAGE LLC VIA ALLEGED

MORTGAGE RE FINANCE LOAN #: 40824789, WHICH IS RECORDED IN

THE KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE, & THUS IS AN INTERESTED

PARTY TO SAID ALLEGED LOAN, WHOSE RIGHTS IN SAID PROPERTY

ARE PRESENTLY DETRIMENTALLY AFFECTED BY SAID ALLEGEDLY

CLAIMED LIEN. SEE: CERTIFIED COPY OF ALLEGED QUIT CLAIM DEED

RECORDED IN KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE, DOCUMENT NUMBER

#: 0209147487, ATTACHED TO THE PRIOR COMPLAINT AS AN EXHIBIT &

IS HEREBY INCORPORATED INTO THIS COMPLAINT BY REFERENCE AS

IF FULLY SET FORTH & IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THIS COMPLAINT

Alan Gjurovich IS SUING TO QUIET TITLE ON THE FOR MENTIONED

PROPERTY FOR A COURT DETERMINATION THAT HE IS THE LAWFUL

OWNER OF HALF RIGHTS & INTERESTS TO THE SAID PROPERTY

PURSUANT TO THE SAID QUIT CLAIM DEED EXECUTED BY Star: Hills IN

October of 2009 as set forth herein, a copy of said quit claim deed is attached to

the prior complaint as exhibit which is hereby incorporated into this complaint as if

fully set forth and is made a part of this complaint, which Mandatory Judicial

Notice is hereby Requested of the Court pursuant to the express provisions of

California Evidence Code Section 451-453 Et Sequiter, AGAINST THE ADVERSE

CLAIMS OF DEFENDANT GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, TO LEGAL TITLE BY

WAY OF PURCHASE AT AN ALLEGED PUBLIC SALE OF THE SAID

PROPERTY PURSUANT TO AN ALLEGED FORECLOSURE AGAINST Star:

Hills WHO IS ALSO SUING DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION FOR QUIET

TITLE ON HER HALF OWNERSHIP INTEREST AGAINST THE SAME

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ADVERSE CLAIM OF THE SAME DEFENDANT GMAC MORTGAGE LLC.

DEFENDANT. Alan Gjurovich ALSO SEEKS A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

THAT THE ALLEGED MORTGAGE, PROMISSORY NOTE, & DEED OF TRUST

CLAIMED BY SAID DEFENDANT WAS RESCINDED PRIOR TO THE

ALLEGED PUBLIC SALE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION BY Star: Hills

& THAT THE ALLEGED DEED UPON SALE CLAIMED BY THE SAID

DEFENDANT WAS & IS VOID AB INITIO AS A MATTER OF CALIFORNIA

LAW DUE TO SAID RESCISSION WHICH OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE

ALLEGED SALE OF 11 / 13 / 2008, & ALSO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

AS TO THE OTHER CAUSES SET FORTH HEREIN THAT Alan CONTENDS

RENDERED THE ALLEGED MORTGAGE & FORECLOSURE VOID AB INITIO

AS A MATTER OF CALIFORNIA LAW AS SET FORTH HEREAFTER IN

THIS COMPLAINT. THE SAID JUDGMENTS ARE REQUESTED AS TO THE

DATE OF THE SERVICE OF THE SAID NOTICE OF RESCISSION ON 1 /7/2008,

UP TO THE PRESENT DATE OF THE SUIT, & AS TO THE DATE OF ANY

EVENT ALLEGED HEREIN THIS COMPLAINT AS VOIDING THE ALLEGED

SALE & DEED UPON SALE, & AN ALLEGED JUDGMENT FOR POSSESSION

IN CASE #:S-1500-CL-237061 KCT ON NOVEMBER 19, OF 2009. THESE QUIET

TITLE DETERMINATIONS & DECLARATIONS ARE NEEDED DUE TO THE

FAILURE OF THE SAID DEFENDANT GMAC MORTGAGE LLC & ETS

SERVICES LLC TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE

OF RESCISSION SERVED ON THEM PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED SALE &

PURCHASE OF THE HOME & PROPERTY IN QUESTION. IN CONJUNCTION

WITH THESE ACTIONS Alan Gjurovich SEEKS A JUDGMENT FOR

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EQUITABLE RELIEF TO SET ASIDE THE ALLEGED PUBLIC SALE OF

SAID HOME & PROPERTY ON 11 /13/ 2008 BASED UPON THE PRIOR

RESCISSION & THE ONGOING FRAUD OF THE SAID PLAINTIFF GMAC

MORTGAGE LLC, AND SEEKS OTHER SPECIFIED RELIEF SET FORTH

HEREAFTER. THESE ISSUES HAVE NEVER BEEN PREVIOUSLY

LITIGATED IN ANY COURT PROCEEDING & CAN BE FULLY LITIGATED

IN THIS ACTION. ALL DOCUMENTS & RECORDS IN EXHIBITS

ATTACHED TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT ARE HEREBY

INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AS IF FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN &

ARE MADE A PART OF THIS COMPLAINT. WHICH IS HEREBY

INCORPORATED HEREIN THIS COMPLAINT AS IF FULLY SET FORTH, &

IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THIS COMPLAINT WHICH THIS COURT

IS HEREBY REQUESTED TO TAKE MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE OF

PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE SECTIONS 451-453 ET

SEQUITER. THERE IS PRESENTLY A DISPUTE & CONTROVERSY OVER

THE LAWFUL TITLE TO SAID “REAL PROPERTY” FORMING THE BASIS

FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT & QUIETING OF TITLE OF SAID

“REAL PROPERTY”, AS WELL AS EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

2. Star: Hills (hereafter referred to as Star) is a sovereign woman of God living on the

land in the De-Jure Country called California Republic, WHO IS PRESENTLY HALF

OWNER OF “THE REAL PROPERTY” COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS BEING

LOCATED AT OR NEAR “[3018 Linden avenue, Bakersfield, California]”, WHOSE

SAID PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE NOW PRESENTLY DETRIMENTALLY

AFFECTED BY THE ALLEGED CLAIMED LIEN UNDER ALLEGED

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MORTGAGE REFINANCE LOAN #: 40824789, WHICH IS DOCUMENT

NUMBER #: 0207122159, ALLEGED “ DEED OF TRUST ” DATED MAY 17,

2007, RECORDED IN THE KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE. AND AN

ALLEGED JUDGMENT IN AN “UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION IN KERN

COUNTY CIVIL LIMITED CASE #: S-1500-CL- 237061-LHB SAID ALLEGED

“DOCUMENTS” WERE ALL LAWFULLY RESCINDED BY Star: Hills PRIOR

TO THE DATE & TIME OF THE ALLEGED PUBLIC SALE OF THE SAID

HOME & PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE KERN COUNTY RECORDERS

OFFICE AS: “All of Lot 17 in Block 26 of Skyline Park Subdivision No. 2 according

to the map thereof filed on August 13, 1923, and recorded in Book 3, pages 88 to 93,

inclusive, of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. APN: 123-330-

06.” WHICH LAWFUL RESCISSION WAS DUE TO PROMISSORY FRAUD, &

FRAUD, AMONG OTHER CAUSES WHICH MAKE THE ALLEGED MORTGAGE

REFINANCE TRANSACTION & ALL DOCUMENTS CONNECTED THERETO

VOID AB INITIO, & RENDER THE ALLEGED SALE VOID AB INITIO SEE:

QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED IN KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE

DOCUMENT #: 0203014911, NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF ALLEGED

MORTGAGE REFINANCE CONTRACT; ACCEPTANCE FOR VALUE

NOVATION; NOTICE OF PUBLIC STATUS, DEFAULT; OFFER TO CURE;

FINAL NOTICE;NOTICE & DEMAND;CLAIM OF RIGHT;NOTICE OF TITLE 18

USC VIOLATIONS,OF Star ATTACHED TO THE FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT

IN EXHIBITS: 3,4,5 All of which are hereby incorporated hereinto this complaint by

reference as if fully set forth, and are hereby made a part of this complaint, which Star

hereby requests the above named Court to take Judicial Notice of pursuant to

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

California Evidence Code Section 451-453, Et Sequiter.

3. Named Defendants are Licensed Corporate Entities, Artificial bodies ORGANIZED

FOR PROFIT & WHO REGULARLY COMMIT FRAUD UPON THE PUBLIC, AS

A MATTER OF POLICY, CUSTOM, HABIT, PATTERN & PRACTICE, & their

Officers, & Employees, or Contractors, WHO FALSELY & FRAUDULENTLY

CLAIM ( ETS SERVICES, LLC & ALLEGED “TRUSTEE SALES OFFICER”

OMAR SOLORZANO ) TO HAVE SOLD & PURCHASED ( GMAC MORTGAGE

LLC ) THE HOME & LAND OF Star & Alan UNDER A CERTAIN ALLEGED

“DEED OF TRUST” CLAIMED AS A SECURITY INSTRUMENT FOR THE

SAID ALLEGED MORTGAGE REFINANCE LOAN #: 40824789.

DEFENDANTS MERS; MERS PRESIDENT & CEO BILL BECKMANN;

THE ALLEGED DEED OF TRUST STATES THAT MERS (MORTGAGE

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC.), WAS THE “BENEFICIARY”

OF SAID DEED OF TRUST. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED

CREATION OR EXECUTION OF THE ALLEGED DEED OF TRUST THE SAID

“MERS” WAS NOT THE BENEFICIARY OF THE ALLEGED MORTGAGE

REFINANCE LOAN. THE BENEFICIARY OF THE ALLEGED MORTGAGE

REFINANCE LOAN WAS THE ALLEGED “LENDER” “MORTGAGEIT INC.”,

& NEITHER “MERS” OR THEIR PRESIDENT & CEO BILL BECKMANN

WERE EVER AN AGENT AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE MORTGAGE

PROVISIONS REGARDING THE SECURITY INSTRUMENT AGREEMENT IN

THE DEED OF TRUST FOR SAID ALLEGED BENEFICIARY “MORTGAGEIT

INC. AS NEITHER SAID PARTY EVER RECORDED A POWER OF ATTORNEY

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WITH KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE AS REQUIRED BY EXPRESS

CALIFORNIA LAW UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 2933, WHICH

MANDATES:

“A power of attorney to execute a mortgage must be in writing, subscribed, acknowledged or proved, certified, and recorded in like manner as powers of attorney for grants of real property.”

& AS REQUIRED BY THE DEED OF TRUST WHICH REQUIRES

COMPLIANCE WITH ALL FEDERAL & LOCAL LAWS. CALIFORNIA CIVIL

CODE SECTION 2933, WHICH MANDATES:

“A power of attorney to execute a mortgage must be in writing, subscribed, acknowledged or proved,certified,and recorded in like manner as powers of attorney for grants of real property.”

SEE DEED OF TRUST IN EXHIBIT #: 2 WHICH WAS ATTACHED TO THE

FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT & IS HEREBY INCORPORATED HEREIN BY

REFERENCE AS IF FULLY SET FORTH & IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF

THIS COMPLAINT, WHICH THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO TAKE

MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE OF UNDER CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE

CODE SECTION 451-459. FURTHERMORE THE ALLEGED LENDER

MORTGAGEIT INC. DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE ALLEGED LOAN

OFFER OR NEGOTIATIONS, & THEREFOR COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A

KNOWING CONTRACTOR WITH Star: Hills IN THE ALLEGED TRANSACTION

WHICH RENDERS ALLEGED TRANSACTION VOID AB INITIO. THE SAID

DEFENDANTS HAVE COMMITTED & ARE NOW COMMITTING ABUSE OF

PROCESS; FRAUD; DECEIT; & OTHER TORTS & CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS

IN THE COURTS AGAINST BOTH Star & Alan. Said Defendants are subject to

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the laws of the De-Facto State of California, and the Jurisdiction of this Court.

4. Defendant NICK CANALE Jr WAS AT ALL TIMES MENTIONED IN THIS

COMPLAINT the President of GMAC MORTGAGE LLC , WHO KNOWINGLY

WILLINGLY PERPETRATED A FRAUD UPON THE PUBLIC, UPON Star, &

UPON THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND

FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN, BY PURPORTING TO HOLD A PUBLIC SALE

OF THE HOME & LAND IN QUESTION, AFTER HE RECEIVED NOTICE OF

LAWFUL RESCISSION OF THE WHOLE ALLEGED TRANSACTION DAYS

PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE PLANNED “PUBLIC SALE” OF THE SAID

PROPERTY, WHICH ACT OF “SALE” AFTER LAWFUL RESCISSION WAS

WRONGFUL CONVERSION OF REAL PROPERTY, THEFT OF REAL

PROPERTY, FRAUD, CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD, DECEIT, ALL WITH THE

INTENT TO CAUS E HARM, INJURY & DAMAGE TO Star. Said Defendant

thereafter knowingly, willingly, intentionally FILED a Fraudulent Law suit against

Star VIA THEIR AGENT THE “David Endres Law firm” for a Falsely &

Fraudulently alleged Unlawful Detainer, KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE

S-1500-CL-236547-SMK WHICH AMOUNTED TO ABUSE OF PROCESS, FRAUD

UPON THE PUBLIC, FRAUD UPON THE COURT, FRAUD UPON Star, only after

Star first filed & served on the said President of GMAC MORTGAGE LLC her

own law suit to enforce the Rescission of the whole alleged Mortgage re-Finance

Loan Contract, for Fraud, & for other causes. Said President, Vice President, & other

Corporate Officers Acting on behalf of GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, REFUSED &

FAILED to inform the Endres Law Firm, whom they hired & caused to file the

Unlawful Detainer Action against Star in Case #: S-1500-CL-236547-SMK, that Star

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

had filed a law suit against GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, to enforce the prior

Rescission & for Fraud, Etc., which was at that time ongoing & affected the ability

of GMAC MORTGAGE LLC TO PROSECUTE AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER

ACTION WHILE THERE WAS AN ACTION OVER THE TITLE TO THE

PROPERTY BEING PROSECUTED BY Star. The said failure to inform their

Counsel the Endres Law Firm that they, GMAC MORTGAGE LLC WERE BEING

SUED IN A PRIOR FILED LAW SUIT BY Star: Hills TO ENFORCE THE

PRIOR RESCISSION OF THE WHOLE ALLEGED MORTGAGE TRANSACTION

WAS A FRAUD BY GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, & THEIR OFFICERS PRESIDENT

NICK CANALE Jr, & VICE PRESIDENT Charles R. Hoecker, & FURTHER ABUSE

OF PROCESS. AFTER a copy of the law suit filed by Star against GMAC MORT.

LLC, KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT #: S-1500-CV-265552 WDP was mailed

to the Endres Law firm by Star, the Endres Law firm quickly Dismissed that

Unlawful Detainer Law suit and Removed them selves as Counsel of Record . (there

are published cases where Courts have Ruled that where there is litigation over

the Title to real property an unlawful detainer action does not lie in the same

Court, where the real issue before the Court is Title to the Property.) Shortly

after the Dismissal of the first Unlawful Detainer Action said Defendant NICK

CANALE Jr, President of GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, FILED yet another Unlawful

Detainer against Star, this time VIA HIS AGENT Ruzicka & Wallace, LLP, Case

#:S-1500-CL237061-LHB in March of 2009, though he had received the Notice of

Rescission of the whole Transaction, & he also knew that a law suit had been

filed prior to the alleged sale of the Property & Home of Star & prior to the

unlawful detainer Action to enforce the Rescission and was ongoing at that time

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WHICH PRECLUDED THE FILING OF THE SAID UNLAWFUL DETAINER

UNDER C.C.P. SECTION 1161a AS NO TITLE COULD BE PERFECTED AS

LONG AS THE PRIOR FILED ACTION OVER TITLE WAS ON GOING; A DULY

PERFECTED TITLE IS AN EXPRESS PRE-REQUISITE THAT MUST BE

ACCOMPLISHED BY ANY PLAINTIFF IN AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER SUIT

PRIOR TO THE FILING OF SUCH AN ACTION IN COURT; THE FILING OF

SAID UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION BY SAID DEFENDANT WAS AN

ABUSE OF PROCESS by said President NICK CANALE Jr & GMAC MORT. LLC,

as well as the Vice President Charles R. Hoecker who was the Man in Charge of

Loan Servicing, & was the “Servicer” of the alleged Mortgage Refinance Loan.

BOTH OF SAID DEFENDANTS had prior Personal Knowledge of the prior

Rescission of the whole Transaction, & WERE PRIVY TO THE FACTS OF THE

PRIOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, PROMISSORY FRAUD, DECIET, AND

CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD, ETC., AGAINST Star WHICH ALSO CONSTITUTED

A VIOLATION OF THE CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE, IN THAT THEY CAME

INTO BOTH PROCEEDINGS WITH UNCLEAN HANDS DUE TO THEIR BEING

PRIVY & COOPERATIVE IN THE SAID FRAUDULENT ACTIONS IN OBTAINING

THE ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT; & whose silence about the Prior Lawful

Rescission was Fraud as well . Said Defendant John Doe 1 & the ALLEGED “Lender”

“MORTGAGEIT INC.” failed to Execute any “POWER OF ATTORNEY” TO

EXECUTE THE PROVISIONS OF THE ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT &

RECORD THE SAME WITH THE KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE AS

EXPRESSLY REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA LAW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA

CIVIL CODE, SECTIONS 23.2; 2400; 2933; 2295-2300; 2304-2326 ; 2330-2339; 2342-

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2345; 2349-2351; & CALIFORNIA PROBATE CODE SECTION 4026, RENDERING

ANY PURPORTED ACTIONS BY GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, THEIR PRESIDENT,

JOHN DOE 1, ETS SERVICES LLC, & Vice President Charles R. Hoecker THE

ALLEGED “LOAN SERVICER” & THEIR ALLEGED “SALES TRUSTEE, NAMED

DEFENDANT “OMAR SOLORZANO” ON BEHALF OF THE SAID ALLEGED

“LENDER” MORTGAGEIT INC.,AS AN “AGENT” OF SAID ALLEGED “LENDER”

VOID AB INITIO, ULTRA VIRES, & OF NO VALIDITY OR EFFECT UNDER THE

LAW, & RENDERING ALL SAID DEFENDANTS LIABLE FOR ALL SAID ACTS

WHICH WERE A FRAUD ON Star, ON THE “PUBLIC” & ON THE COURT,

& AN “ABUSE OF PROCESS” IN THEIR SUBSEQUENTLY FILED LAW SUITS

FOR “UNLAWFUL DETAINER”. DEFENDANT JOHN DOE 1, BECAME PRIVY

TO THE FRAUD, PROMISSORY FRAUD, & FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN

THE ORIGINAL ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT WHEN THEY WERE

SERVED BY Star: Hills WITH HER NOTICE OF RESCISSION ON NOVEMBER

7, 2008, PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED PUBLIC SALE OF THE SAID HOME &

PROPERTY. The said Defendant NICK CANALE Jr OWED A DUTY TO

PLAINTIFFS TO NOT ENGAGE IN THE SAID FRAUD, & HE SHOULD HAVE

KNOWN, HE HAD A DUTY TO KNOW ,& DID KNOW THAT HE HAD A DUTY

TO NOT ENGAGE IN THE SAID FRAUD AGAINST PLAINTIFFS, & SAID

ACTS OF SAID DEFENDANT DIRECTLY & PROXIMATELY CAUSED THE

INJURY & DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFFS HEREIN, FOR WHICH HE IS LIABLE

TO PLAINTIFFS. ENGAGING IN SAID ACTS & ACTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS

WAS GENERAL NEGLIGENCE & OR INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE FOR

WHICH THEY ARE LIABLE TO PLAINTIFFS.

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5. Defendant John Doe 2 IS THE PRESIDENT OF DEFENDANT ETS SERVICES, LLC, WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF ETS SERVICES LLC, & ALL OFFICERS Agents, Employees of said Entity, INCLUDING MANAGERS JOSEPH

A.PENSABENA; MARK E. LAHIFF; Adam Leppo ETS SERVICES LLC TRUSTEE

SALE OFFICER; & including the named Sales Officer OMAR SOLORZANO WHO

PURPORTED TO SELL THE PLAINTIFFS HOME & PROPERTY AT AN

ALLEGED PUBLIC SALE AFTER ETS SERVICES LLC, & OMAR SOLORZANO

WERE BOTH SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF THE WHOLE

ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT BASED ON THE PRIOR PROMISSORY

FRAUD, FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT & OTHER GROUNDS. DEFENDANT

JOHN DOE 2 BECAME PRIVY TO THE FRAUD, PROMISSORY FRAUD, &

FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN THE ORIGINAL ALLEGED MORTGAGE

CONTRACT WHEN THEY WERE SERVED BY Star: Hills WITH HER NOTICE

OF RESCISSION ON NOVEMBER 7, 2008. THE TRUSTEE UNDER THE

ALLEGED DEED OF TRUST WAS OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY &

THE ALLEGED SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE WAS NOT EXECUTED BY THE

“LENDER” “MORTGAGEIT INC.”, WHO IS THE ONLY ONE AUTHORIZED

UNDER THE SAID “DEED OF TRUST” TO EXECUTE ANY SUBSTITUTION

OF TRUSTEE, WHICH AUTHORIZATION IS EXPRESSLY SET OUT UNDER

ARTICLE PARAGRAPH 24 OF THE SAID DEED OF TRUST, & EXPRESSLY

PROVIDES THAT SAID PROVISION SHALL GOVERN TO THE EXCLUSION

OF ALL OTHER PROVISIONS, AS FOLLOWS:

“24. Lender, at its option, may from time to time appoint a successor trustee to any trustee appointed hereunder by an instrument executed

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and acknowledged by lender and recorded in the office of the Recorder of the county in which the property is located. The instrument shall contain the name of the original lender, trustee and Borrower, the book and page where this security instrument is recorded and the name and address of the successor trustee. Without conveyance of the property, the successor trustee shall succeed to

all the title, powers and duties conferred upon the Trustee herein and by Applicable Law. This procedure for substitution of trustee shall govern to the exclusion of all other provisions for substitution.”

THIS PROVISION IS ALSO COVERED BY CALIFORNIA LAW UNDER

AGENT AGENCY AT CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS : 2304 & 2305,

WHICH EXPRESSLY MANDATE: “2304”“An agent may be authorized to do any acts which his principal might do, except those to which the latter is bound to give his personal attention.” “2305”“Every act which, according to this Code, may be done by or to any person, may be done by or to the agent of such person for that purpose, unless a contrary intention clearly appears.”

THE ALLEGED “SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN

THE KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE ON 6/16/2008, DOC. #: 0208095769,

WAS SIGNED ON 6/11/2008 BY SOMEONE IN THE NAME OF “MERS” NOT THE

ALLEGED LENDER, MORTGAGEIT INC., WHICH WAS A DIRECT BREACH &

VIOLATION OF SAID PARAGRAPH ARTICLE 24 OF THE DEED OF TRUST,

& WHICH RENDERED THE DEED OF TRUST VOID. THEREAFTER A

DOCUMENT TITLED “NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND ELECTION TO SELL

UNDER DEED OF TRUST” WAS EXECUTED & SIGNED BY AN “Adam Leppo”

“TRUSTEE SALE OFFICER” ON 6/11/2008, UNDER THE TITLE “ETS Services,

LLC AS AGENT FOR BENEFICIARY ”, A NAMED DEFENDANT HEREIN, WHO

HAD NO AUTHORITY UNDER LAW TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENT AS A

TRUSTEE OFFICER AS THE ALLEGED SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE WAS VOID

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

AB INITIO, & SAID ACTION OF DEFENDANT “ADAM LEPPO” PURPORTING TO

ISSUE A NOTICE OF DEFAULT & ELECTION TO SELL AFTER THE

RESCISISON WAS FRAUD, BREACH OF THE TRUST DEED, GENERAL

NEGLIGENCE & OR INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE WHICH DIRECTLY &

PROXIMATELY CAUSED THE INJURY & DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFFS AS SET

FORTH HEREIN FOR WHICH HE IS LIABLE TO PLAINTIFFS. SAID

DEFENDANT OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFFS TO NOT ENGAGE IN SAID

FRAUD & NEGLIGENCE, & HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, HAD A DUTY TO

KNOW & DID KNOW HE HAD SUCH A DUTY & FAILURE TO CARRY OUT

SAID DUTY DIRECTLY & OR PROXIMATELY CAUSED THE DAMAGES TO

PLAINTIFFS AS SET FORTH HEREIN. DEFENDANTS ETS SERVICES LLC

MANAGERS JOSEPH A. PENSABENA; MARK E. LAHIFF HAD A DUTY AS

MANAGERS FOR DEFENDANT ETS SERVICES LLC TO EXCERSISE DUE

CARE ONCE THEY WERE PUT ON NOTICE OF THE PRIOR RESCISSION OF

THE WHOLE ALLEGED MORTGAGE TRANSCTION TO REFRAIN FROM ANY

SALE OF THE HOME & PROPERTY OF PLAINTIFFS, & TO PREVENT ANY

OTHER EMPLOYEES FROM DOING SO, & THEIR FAILURE TO DO SO WAS

GENERAL NEGLIGENCE & OR INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE WHICH

DIRECTLY & OR PROXIMATELY CAUSED THE INJURY & HARM TO

PLAINTIFFS AS SET FORTH HEREIN, FOR WHICH THEY ARE LIABLE TO

PLAINTIFFS .

1708. Every person is bound, without contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights. 1714. (a) Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has,

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.

IT IS CLEAR BY THE RECORD IN THE KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE

NO POWER OF ATTORNEY HAS EVER BEEN EXECUTED BY ANY THESE

ALLEGED AGENCIES, WHICH RECORDING OF POWER OF ATTORNEY IS

REQUIRED UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW IN ORDER FOR ANY AGENT TO

EXECUTE A MORTGAGE IN CALIFORNIA, UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE

SECTION 2933, WHICH MANDATES:

“A power of attorney to execute a mortgage must be in writing, subscribed, acknowledged or proved,certified,and recorded in like manner as powers of attorney for grants of real property.”

FURTHERMORE THE DOCUMENTED FACT THAT THE ALLEGED

SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE DOCUMENT WAS SIGNED ON 6/11/2008, BUT

NOT RECORDED UNTIL 6/16/2008, ESTABLISHES AS A MATTER OF LAW

THAT THE ALLEGED NOTICE OF DEFAULT & ELECTION TO SELL SIGNED

ON 6/11/2008 BY THE SAME ALLEGED TRUSTEE ETS SERVICES LLC, WAS

VOID DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE HAD

NOT YET TAKEN EFFECT, IF IT WAS VALID TO BEGIN WITH IN LIGHT OF

THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH ARTICLE 24 OF THE ALLEGED

DEED OF TRUST, & ETS SERVICES WAS NOT A TRUSTEE AT THE TIME

THEY SIGNED THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT & ELECTION TO SELL, UNDER

THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

SECTION § 2934a , Subd. (a)(4) WHICH MANDATES:

“(4) The substitution shall contain the date of recordation of the trust deed, the name of the trustor, the book and page or instrument number where the trust deed is recorded, and the name of the new

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

trustee. From the time the substitution is filed for record, the new trustee shall succeed to all the powers, duties, authority, and title granted and delegated to the trustee named in the deed of trust. A substitution may be accomplished, with respect to multiple deeds of trust which are recorded in the same county in which the substitution is being recorded and which all have the same trustee and beneficiary or beneficiaries, by recording a single document, complying with the requirements of this section, substituting trustees for all those deeds of trust.”

ACCORDING TO THE RULING OF THE APPELLATE COURT IN THE CASE

OF: Dimock v. Emerald Properties (2000) 81 Cal. App.4th 868, AT PAGE: 871,

OPINION BY BENKE, Acting P. J.-

“Under the governing statute the substitution is made by simply recording a document

evidencing the substitution. (Civ. Code, fn. 1 § 2934a, subd. (a).) By its terms the statute

provides that after such a substitution has been recorded, "the new trustee shall succeed

to all the powers, duties, authority, and title granted and delegated to the trustee named in

the deed of trust." (§ 2934a, subd. (a)(4).)”

IN THIS CASE THE SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE WAS NOT RECORDED UNTIL

JUNE 16, 2008, AND THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT & ELECTION TO SELL WAS

SIGNED BY THE SAME ALLEGED TRUSTEE ON JUNE 11, 2008, WHEN THE

POWERS OF TRUSTEE HAD NOT TAKEN EFFECT, THUS RENDERING THE

NOTICE OF DEFAULT & ELECTION TO SELL VOID & OF NO EFFECT UNDER

THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WHICH ALSO RENDERS THE

ALLEGED SALE & DEED UPON SALE CLAIMED BY GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

VOID AS A MATTER OF LAW, WHICH ALL MUST BE SET ASIDE BY THE

COURT IN THE ACTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF SET FORTH HEREIN.

of 78

http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/caapp4th/81/868.html#BFootnote0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

AT THE TIME OF SAID SIGNING OF SAID DOCUMENTS ETS SERVICES WAS

NOT AN AGENT FOR ANY OF HE OTHER AGENCIES NAMED HEREIN UNDER

THE POWER OF ATTORNEY LAW OF CALIFORNIA, NOR UNDER THE AGENT

AGENCY LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SET OUT UNDER THE

CIVIL CODE & PROBATE CODE WHICH RENDERS ALL THEIR ALLEGED

ACTIONS REGARDING THE DEED OF TRUST & ALLEGED MORTGAGE

FORECLOSURE VOID AB INITIO & OF NO EFFECT UNDER THE LAW .

6. Defendant Charles R. Hoecker, Vice President of CUSTOMER CARE LOAN

SERVICING FOR GMAC MORTGAGE LLC , presumed to undertake a Fiduciary

Contractual Obligation as an “Agent” to Collect Mortgage Payments for the

alleged “Originator” of the alleged “Loan”, MortgageIt Inc., alleged “Lender”,

without full authority under Law , as neither said “Lender”, who would be

the “Principal” in such a relationship, if said Principal had Executed a Proper

“Power of Attorney”, nor did any other person or purported “Party” claiming

to be an “Encumbrancer” or a “Holder in due Course” of the original alleged

Promissory “Note” claimed as Security for the alleged loan, ever issue any

Power of Attorney to Execute the Mortgage agreement, as required under Agent

-Principal & Contract Law, under the California Civil Code Sections: 23.2; 2400;

2933; 2295-2300; 2304 - 2326; 2330-2339; 2342-2345; 2349-2351; & CALIFORNIA

PROBATE CODE SECTION 4026 ,

[UNDER THE CARDINAL RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, COURTS HAVE RULED THAT:“[W]e interpret a statute in context, examining other legislation on the same subject, to determine the

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Legislature’s probable intent. [Citations.]” ( California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of Rialto Unified School Dist., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 642.) “ ‘ “[P]rovisions relating to the same subject matter must be harmonized to the extent possible.” ’ ” ( Cooley v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 220, 248.) “Where . . . two codes are to be construed, they ‘must be regarded as blending into each other and forming a single statute.’ [Citation.]” ( Tripp v. Swoap (1976) 17 Cal.3d 671,” SEE ALSO: Building Material & Construction Teamsters’ Union v. Farrell (1986) 41 Cal.3d 651, 665.]

& Vice President Hoecker never had any Assignment of a power to collect

payments for the alleged Lender MORTGAGEIT INC., AS EXPRESSLY

REQUIRED UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 2932 & 2932.5 &

thus all their Actions purporting to act as “Loan Servicer” under Federal Law

for the alleged Lender Mortgageit Inc. were Void Ab Initio, and Fraud, Deciet,

Etc., in Violation of USC TITLE 18, 1341, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1348, 1349, 1350,

WITHOUT ANY WRITTEN EXPRESS POWER OF ATTORNEY DELEGATING

THE POWER TO COLLECT PAYMENTS ON THE ALLEGED LOAN, & TO

EXECUTE THE ALLEGED MORTGAGE, THERE WAS NO TRUE PRINCIPAL

AGENT RELATIONSHIP AS A MATTER OF CALIFORNIA LAW, (SEE THE

LAW OF PRINCIPAL & AGENT CITED PRIOR HEREIN) & IN ABSENCE

OF ANY RIGHT OR POWER TO COLLECT PAYMENTS ON THE ALLEGED

LOAN EXPRESSLY GRANTED IN THE ALLEGED DEED OF TRUST TO

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, OR ITS SAID OFFICER Vice President Charles R.

Hoecker OR BY ANY WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT, THE LACK OF SAID

REQUIRED RECORDING A POWER OF ATTORNEY IN KERN COUNTY

RECORDERS OFFICE AS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN CALIFORNIA CIVIL

CODE SECTIONS 2295, 2400, 2933, & CALIFORNIA PROBATE CODE

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SECTION 4026, RENDERS THE ACTS OF GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, & VICE

PRESIDENT HOECKER ULTRA VIRES & VOID AB INITIO. DEFENDANT

VICE PRESIDENT HOECKER BECAME PRIVY TO THE FRAUD,

PROMISSORY FRAUD, & FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN THE ORIGINAL

ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT WHEN HE WAS SERVED BY Star:

Hills WITH HER NOTICE OF RESCISSION ON NOVEMBER 7, 2008.

7. The Defendant GMAC MORTGAGE LLC Alleges they are a Contracting Party

with alleged Lender MORTGAGEIT INC., whereby they allege that they became

the "Servicer" of the Alleged Mortgage Refinance Loan on or before May 17,

2007, whereby they undertook a Fiduciary Trustee Obligation, to Collect Mortgage

Payments for the Originator of the alleged Loan MortgageIt Inc. VIA Defendant

Charles R. Hoecker, Vice President OF CUSTOMER CARE LOAN SERVICING FOR

GMAC MORTGAGE , LLC to Collect Mortgage Payments for the Originator of

the alleged Loan MortgageIt Inc., whereby a Trust Relationship was created

between GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, & Star where Star “Trusted” them to properly

collect & transfer payments to the alleged owner of the alleged loan & alleged

Promissory Note, alleged Lender MORTGAGEIT INC. Defendant GMAC MORTGAGE

LLC, Purported to Purchase the Home and Property of Star at an alleged Public

Sale on 11/ 13/ 2008, which purported sale was a Fraud upon the Public, & was

Wrongful & Fraudulent Conversion of real property, theft of real property, and

they currently falsely & fraudulently Claim that they are the Owner of the Title to

said Home & Property, which has Created an on going Controversy over the Lawful

Title to the said Home & Land, making them a Proper and Necessary Party to this

Action, as the Plaintiffs seek to Enforce a prior Rescission of the alleged Mortgage

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Contract, Loan #: 40824789 Recorded in the office of the Kern County Recorder, &

further seek to Quiet Title Against them in this Action, and seek other specified

Relief & Damages against GMAC MORTGAGE LLC. Said Defendant never signed

any Power of Attorney issued by the Original alleged Lender MortgageIt Inc., &

therefore had no power under law to collect any payments for said alleged Lender,

thus rendering all such alleged actions taken by them on behalf of said alleged Lender

Void Ab Initio, & Ultra Vires, outside of their lawful powers under their Corporate

Charter & the Law of the State of California & the united states of America which they

were bound by Law to obey, & knowingly intentionally, willingly failed to obey to

the detriment of Plaintiffs herein for which they are personally liable to said

Plaintiffs. DEFENDANT GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, BECAME PRIVY TO THE

FRAUD, PROMISSORY FRAUD, & FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN THE

ORIGINAL ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT WHEN THEY WERE SERVED

BY Star: Hills WITH HER NOTICE OF RESCISSION ON NOVEMBER 7, 2008.

8. DEFENDANT OMAR SOLORZANO IS THE ALLEGED SALES TRUSTEE

EMPLOYED BY DEFENDANT ETS SERVICES LLC, WHO PRESUMED TO

HAVE THE POWER TO SELL THE HOME & PROPERTY OF Star, &

ALLEGED TO HAVE SOLD THE PROPERTY, HOME & LAND OF Star AT

AN ALLEGED PUBLIC SALE ON NOVEMBER 13, 2008, AFTER HE WAS

SERVED WITH A CLEAR NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF THE WHOLE ALLEGED

MORTGAGE CONTRACT PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED SALE, &

HE IGNORED THE SAID RESCISSION OF THE WHOLE ALLEGED MORTGAGE

CONTRACT WHICH RESCISSION WAS BASED ON PROMISSORY FRAUD, &

FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, & HE THEREAFTER RECEIVING THE NOTICE

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

OF THE SAID RESCISSION CONTINUED WITH THE PURPORTED SALE &

COMMITTED A WILLING & KNOWING FRAUD ON THE PUBLIC, & ON

PLAINTIFFS HEREIN, WHEREIN ALL HIS ACTIONS WERE ULTRA VIRES, &

VOID AB INITIO, WITHOUT AUTHORITY OR VALIDITY, & OF NO EFFECT

OR VALIDITY WHATSOEVER UNDER LAW, FOR WHICH HE IS LIABLE FOR

ANY & ALL DAMAGES INCURRED BY SAID ULTRA VIRES ACTS. SAID

DEFENDANT NEVER EXECUTED ANY POWER OF ATTORNEY BY WHICH

HE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE PRINCIPAL TO EXECUTE THE ALLEGED

MORTGAGE FOR THE ALLEGED PRINCIPAL, MORTGAGEIT INC., AND

THEREFORE HIS PURPORTED ACTIONS IN EXECUTING THE MORTGAGE

BY PUBLIC SALE WERE VOID AB INITIO, AS HE WAS NEITHER THE

PRINCIPAL NOR AN ASSIGNEE OF THE MORTGAGE CONTRACT, THE

PROMISSORY NOTE, NOR WAS HE EVER ANY AGENT OF THE ALLEGED

PRINCIPAL, MORTGAGEIT INC., WHICH MAKES HIM PERSONALLY LIABLE

TO PLAINTIFFS FOR ALL DAMAGES DIRECTLY OR PROXIMATELY ARISING

FROM SAID UNLAWFUL ULTRA VIRES ACTS OF SAID DEFENDANT OMAR

SOLORZANO. DEFENDANT OMAR SOLORZANO BECAME PRIVY TO THE

FRAUD, PROMISSORY FRAUD, & FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN THE

ORIGINAL ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT WHEN HE WAS SERVED

BY Star: Hills WITH HER NOTICE OF RESCISSION ON NOVEMBER 7, 2008.

9. DEFENDANT ETS SERVICES, LLC, is a Licensed Corporate Entity, “Limited

Liability Company”, an Artificial body ORGANIZED FOR PROFIT & WHO

REGULARLY COMMITS FRAUD UPON THE PUBLIC, AS A MATTER OF

POLICY, CUSTOM, HABIT, PATTERN, & PRACTICE, THROUGH their Officers,

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

& Employees, WHO FALSELY CLAIM TO HAVE LAWFULLY SOLD THE

SAID “REAL PROPERTY” of Plaintiffs herein, UNDER A CERTAIN ALLEGED

“DEED OF TRUST”, WHICH THEY FALSELY CLAIM AS A FINANCING

INSTRUMENT FOR THE SAID ALLEGED MORTGAGE REFINANCE LOAN #:

40824789 . They presumed to undertake a Fiduciary Contractual Obligation as an

“Agent”, Sale “Trustee” for the alleged Originator of the alleged “Loan”, MortgageIt

Inc., alleged “Lender”, without full authority under Law , as neither said

alleged “Lender”, (who would be the “Principal” in such a relationship), ever

Executed a Proper “Power of Attorney”, as required under Agent -Principal &

Contract Law, under the California Civil Code Sections: 23.2; 2400; 2933; 2295-

2300; 2304-2326; 2330-2339; 2342-2345; 2349-2351; & UNDER CALIFORNIA

PROBATE CODE SECTION 4026 , WHICH OMISSION, BY SAID ALLEGED

“LENDER” MORTGAGEIT INC., & its purported “Agent” “Sale Trustee” “ETS

SERVICES, LLC”, OF RECORDING THE REQUIRED “POWER OF ATTORNEY”

UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 2295, 2400, 2933, CALIFORNIA

PROBATE CODE SECTION 4026, WITH THE KERN COUNTY RECORDERS

OFFICE RENDERED ANY ALLEGED ACTIONS BY ETS SERVICES AS AN

ALLEGED “AGENT” FOR THE ALLEGED “LENDER ” “MORTGAGEIT INC. ”

VOID AB INITIO, & ULTRA VIRES, OF NO EFFECT OR VALIDITY UNDER

THE LAW OF CALIFORNIA OR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

ESTABLISHING INJURY, HARM & DAMAGE TO Star, & Alan DUE TO THE

SAID FRAUDULENT “SALE”, WHICH WAS ALSO THEFT & WRONGFUL /

FRAUDULENT CONVERSION OF “REAL PROPERTY” BY “ETS” LLC & “GMAC

MORTGAGE LLC”, FOR WHICH SAID FRAUD, THEFT, ETC., THEY ARE

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LIABLE FOR TREBLE DAMAGES, & EXEMPLARY DAMAGES TO Star & Alan.

SAID DEFENDANT ETS SERVICES LLC, TRESPASSED UPON & VIOLATED

THE PROVISIONS OF THE “DEED OF TRUST”, DOCUMENT #: 0207122159

RECORDED IN THE KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE ON 6 / 8 / 2007,

WHEN THEY FALSELY CLAIMED THAT THEY WERE THE SALE TRUSTEE

FOR THE LENDER & PURPORTED TO SELL THE SAID PROPERTY AT A

PUBLIC AUCTION ON NOVEMBER, 13, 2008, ACCORDING TO AN ALLEGED

“ SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE ” WHICH IS DOCUMENT #: 0208095769

RECORDED BY THE KERN COUNTY RECORDER ON 6/16/08. SAID ALLEGED

“SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE” DOCUMENT #: 0208095769 RECORDED IN

KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE ON 6 / 16 / 2008 WAS INVALID AS A

MATTER OF CALIFORNIA LAW AS IT WAS NOT CARRIED OUT &

EXECUTED BY THE LENDER MORTGAGEIT INC., AS EXPRESSLY REQUIRED

BY ARTICLE 24 OF THE DEED OF TRUST, DOCUMENT #: 0207122159 WHICH

ARTICLE 24 EXPRESSLY REQUIRED THAT :

“24. Lender, at its option, may from time to time appoint a successor trustee to any trustee appointed hereunder by an instrument executed and acknowledged by lender and recorded in the office of the Recorder of the county in which the property is located. The instrument shall contain the name of the original lender, trustee and Borrower, the book and page where this security instrument is recorded and the name and address of the successor trustee. Without conveyance of the property, the successor trustee shall succeed to

all the title, powers and duties conferred upon the Trustee herein and by Applicable Law. This procedure for substitution of trustee shall govern to the exclusion of all other provisions for substitution.”

THIS PROVISION IS ALSO COVERED BY CALIFORNIA LAW UNDER

AGENT AGENCY AT CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS : 2304 & 2305,

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WHICH EXPRESSLY MANDATE: “2304” “ An agent may be authorized to do any

acts which his principal might do, except those to which the latter is bound

to give his personal attention.”

“2305” “Every act which, according to this Code, may be done by or to any

person, may be done by or to the agent of such person for that

purpose, unless a contrary intention clearly appears.”

The alleged Substitution of Trustee Document executed by MERS

Employees is Void of the express Requirement that it be stated therein

the book and page where this security instrument is recorded”. The

“alleged “Substitution of Trustee” purporting to substitute ETS SERVICES

LLC is Void Ab Initio as it is in Violation of the Express provisions of the

alleged deed of trust, and bears no citation as to the “Book and Page”

The alleged Deed of trust is Void Ab Initio as to any alleged Power of

Sale or to collect payments relating to MERS, as MERS was never an

Encumbrancer with ownership rights to the Property of Plaintiffs & has

never had any financial interest or rights in the property, and thus

could not have been lawfully empowered to collect payments or to sell

the property, as is made clear by the provisions of California Civil

Code Section 2932 & 2932.5.

Said Defendants actions in purporting to sell the Home of Plaintiffs herein

for an alleged Mortgage Debt based upon provisions of an alleged deed of

trust, which is a private agreement, can not as a matter of law in

doing so contravene a law established for a public reason as expressly

stated in California Civil Code 3513. No provision in the deed of Trust can be

used by said Defendants to avoid the requirements of California Civil Code

Sections 2920 (definition of a Mortgage) 2932 & 2932.5 (power of sale

requirements; assignment of the power to collect payments; etc. ) Civil Code

Section 2933 (power of attorney must be recorded to execute the mortgage).

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Under the foregoing laws MERS, GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, ETS SERVICES LLC,

HAD NO POWER TO COLLECT PAYMENTS, OR SELL THE PROPERTY OF

PLAINTIFFS UNLESS THEY FIRST COMPLIED WITH THE SAID EXPRESS

PROVISIONS OF MANDATORY CALIFORNIA LAW UNDER CALIFORNIA

CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 2932 & 2932.5, WHICH REQUIRES THAT:

“2932. A power of sale may be conferred by a mortgage upon the mortgagee or any other person, to be exercised after a breach of the obligation for which the mortgage is a security.”

“2932.5. Where a power to sell real property is given to a mortgagee, or other encumbrancer, in an instrument intended to secure the payment of money, the power is part of the security and vests in any person who by assignment becomes entitled to payment of the money secured by the instrument. The power of sale may be exercised by the assignee if the assignment is duly acknowledged and recorded. ”

OTHER APPLICABLE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS:

2933. A power of attorney to execute a mortgage must be in writing, subscribed, acknowledged, or proved, certified, and recorded in like manner as powers of attorney for grants of real property.

2934. Any assignment of a mortgage and any assignment of the beneficial interest under a deed of trust may be recorded, and from the time the same is filed for record operates as constructive notice of the contents thereof to all persons; and any instrument by which any mortgage or deed of trust of, lien upon or interest in real property, (or by which any mortgage of, lien upon or interest in personal property a document evidencing or creating which is required or permitted by law to be recorded), is subordinated or waived as to priority may be recorded, and from the time the same is filed for record operates as constructive notice of the contents thereof, to all persons.

1039. Transfer is an act of the parties, or of the law, by which the title to property is conveyed from one living person to another.

1040. A voluntary transfer is an executed contract, subject to all rules of law concerning contracts in general; except that a consideration is not necessary to its validity .]

The alleged “transfer” of the property of Star in the alleged “Deed of Trust” was not

a VALID Transfer of the property in question as the alleged “Trust” was not a “conveyance”

“from one living person to another” as Expressly Required by California Law but was

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

purportedly transferred from one living Woman Star: Hills to a Fictitious Person, a

Corporate Entity named “OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY”, WHICH IS NOT A VALID

TRANSFER OR CONVEYANCE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW WHICH RENDERED

THE DEED OF TRUST & THE ALLEGED POWER OF SALE & SUBSEQUENT

ALLEGED SALE OF THE PROPERTY & HOME OF Star: Hills VOID AB INITIO.

The alleged “transfer” of the property of Star in the alleged “Deed of Trust” was not a

“Voluntary transfer” due to the Fraud, Promissory fraud, & Fraudulent

inducement alleged herein this complaint, but was accomplished by undue

influence & was the result of an unconscionable Contract as a matter of California

& Federal Law, & was Void Ab Initio. ACCORDING TO THE FOREGOING SAID

PROVISION, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 1039 THE ALLEGED TRANSFER OF TITLE

FROM ETS SERVICES LLC, ALLEGED SALE TRUSTEE UNDER THE ORIGINAL

DEED OF TRUST, OF THE HOME & PROPERTY OF PLAINTIFFS ON NOVEMBER

13, 2008 TO GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, WAS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE LAW

& IS VOID AB INITIO DUE TO THE FACTS IN THE PUBLIC RECORD IN THE

KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE THAT THE ALLEGED TRANSFER WAS NOT

FROM ONE “LIVING PERSON” TO “ANOTHER” AS “ETS SERVICES, LLC” &

“GMAC MORTGAGE LLC” ARE FICTITIOUS PERSONS UNDER THE LAW, NOT

“LIVING PERSONS”; THUS THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF TRANSFERRING REAL

PROPERTY UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

1227. Every instrument, other than a will, affecting an estate in real property, including every charge upon real property, or upon its rents or profits, made with intent to defraud prior or subsequent purchasers thereof, or incumbrancers thereon, is void as against every purchaser or incumbrancer, for value, of the same property, or the rents or profits thereof.

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1228. No instrument is to be avoided under the last section, in favor of a subsequent purchaser or incumbrancer having notice thereof at the time his purchase was made, or his lien acquired, unless the person in whose favor the instrument was made was privy to the fraud intended.

1091. An estate in real property, other than an estate at will or for a term not exceeding one year, can be transferred only by operation of law, or by an instrument in writing, subscribed by the party disposing of the same, or by his agent thereunto authorized by writing.

1217. An unrecorded instrument is valid as between the parties thereto and those who have notice thereof.

According to this provision, Civil Code Section 1217, the Notice of Rescission

served on the defendants prior to the sale, but not recorded, was valid & rendered

the alleged Sale & Purchase of the property of Star thereafter, Void Ab Initio.

1215. The term "conveyance," as used in Sections 1213 and 1214, embraces every instrument in writing by which any estate or interest in real property is created, aliened, mortgaged, or incumbered, or by which the title to any real property may be affected, except wills.

2920. (a) A mortgage is a contract by which specific property, including an estate for years in real property, is hypothecated for the performance of an act, without the necessity of a change of possession. (b) For purposes of Sections 2924 to 2924h, inclusive, "mortgage" also means any security device or instrument, other than a deed of trust, that confers a power of sale affecting real property or an estate for years therein, to be exercised after breach of the obligation so secured, including a real property sales contract, as defined in Section 2985, which contains such a provision.

2922. A mortgage can be created, renewed, or extended, only by writing, executed with the formalities required in the case of a grant of real property.]

DEFENDANT ETS SERVICES LLC, BECAME PRIVY TO THE FRAUD, THE


ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT WHEN THEY WERE SERVED BY Star: Hills

WITH HER NOTICE OF RESCISSION ON NOVEMBER 7, 2008.

11. Said Defendants are subject to the laws of the De-Facto State of California, & the

Jurisdiction of this Court.

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12. Does are Licensed Corporate Entities, Artificial bodies, their Officers, & Employees,

contractors, Agents, Successors heirs & assigns of named Defendants who helped,

assisted or perpetrated the acts alleged in the complaint, whose true Names &

identities are not known to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will amend the complaint with the

true Names & Identities of said Doe Defendants when they are discovered by Plaintiffs.

JURISDICTION13. The above named Court has Jurisdiction to issue Judgment against the Defendants

in this Action pursuant to the provisions of California Constitution Article 6,

Sections 1-22, and California Civil Code Sections 1688-1693, for Enforcement of

Rescission & California Civil Code Sections: 1709-1710 for Deceit, Sections 1572-1573

for Fraud, & Constructive fraud, Section 1714 for Negligence, & in other provisions of

the California Civil Code, & the Code of Civil Procedure for Wrongful Conversion,

breach of Trust, Breach of Fiduciary, Breach of Contract & Quiet Title; Declaratory

Judgment; Injunctive Relief, Etc., and pursuant to the facts that the home and

property of Star & Alan is located on the land Commonly described as: “ 3018

Linden Avenue, near: [Bakersfield, California], on the De Jure Kern: county,

California: the land, and the Defendants Perpetrated the Acts alleged in the

Complaint within Kern: county, California: the land, and the Defendants conduct

Business within the De-Facto County of Kern, State of California.

INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

Plaintiffs hereby Incorporate by Reference as if fully set forth herein all the contents

of the previously served Novation Offer to MortgageIt Inc. of Star: Hills & the Notice of

Status previously served to all State Federal & Local Government Agencies of Star: Hills,

& the Rescission of the whole alleged Mortgage contract which WERE attached

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

as Exhibits 3 & 4, TO THE FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT and are made a part

hereof this complaint. Plaintiffs further hereby incorporate by reference as if fully

set forth the contents of all Exhibits attached hereto this complaint, which are

hereby made a part of this Complaint, & further hereby Request that the Court

take Mandatory Judicial Notice of the contents of said Exhibits pursuant to the

Express provisions of California Evidence Code Section 451-459.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

14. In late February 2007, a person from United Vision Financial who was believed to be a

Broker at the time, made a telephone call to Stars, by the First name of Baron, who

made a verbal offer of a 1 % Per cent Interest Rate, and to cut her Mortgage Payments

in half , waive any prepayment penalty, & stated that these terms would be fixed and would

never change. Baron also stated that every five years there was a ‘roll over period’ of some

kind, but that these were fixed payment amounts and percentages and they would

not increase, ever. At that time Star’s payments had been about 1300-1400 a month

for the previous year, (2006-2007), and about $800 the year before that (2005-2006),

and in that previous year Star had paid an extra amount of about $132 per month

‘principle only’ to bring the principle down; but the principle amount had barely

changed in 2 years, after paying thousands of dollars in addition to fees and penalties.

15. When Star asked Baron “what is the catch?”, because she had never heard of such a

low interest rate Baron, said that he could “Pull Strings” and he only talked about

predatory lenders and how they scam people, but he was an honest man to warn her of

these criminals and assured her that he was not one of them. Baron gave Star his private

cell phone number and Star called it to make sure it was his, and it was. After Baron

called Star about ten (10) more times, over a 2 & 1/2 month time period, he won the trust

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of Star. Baron, said he had appraisers and he would send over one who would appraise

the house & said it had probably gone up in value and they would lend her up to the full

amount of the appraisal which they sent and later told Star it was appraised at around

280,000 dollars.

16. The said Agent, Baron, said that he could “Pull Strings” when Star told him that She

had no provable income and was not a ‘taxpayer’, AND FURTHER STATED THAT

ALL SHE NEEDED WAS A “Voucher”, and that it could be anyone, even someone who

works at a gas station with a tax I.D. Star provided Baron with two people that she had

done ‘free’ research and volunteer work for, but they did not qualify with the banks,

however the third one did. Baron called Star on May 16 th , 2007 and he told her that the

credit check process was about to expire and would roll over to a new period, and that if

she did provide a voucher, and if she did not sign an agreement before 5 pm on May

17 th 2007, that she would have to start the entire credit check process over again, and

that this process would take an additional month or two, and he informed her that 2

banks had already denied her and that this was the third bank and they had been

talking for over two months already, and that she really needed to wrap this up because

her credit score was lower than before and she may not qualify at all if it goes to

another check period. Thereafter when Star asked Baron if She could cut her

payments in half and get the 1 % and everything else he had offered if she decided not

to take any more money Baron said she could, but then offered her an $ 11,000 loan,

representing to her that it would not change her payments much, which influenced her

into taking the loan. Baron rushed Star into signing a deal and took advantage of her

vulnerable situation wherein he gathered that she was financially struggling to manage,

care for and maintain two homes, a boat, two vehicles, including insurance property

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

taxes, upkeep and maintenance, while suffering from bad health which caused her to

lose an extreme amount of weight from 150 pounds down to 108 pounds on a 5’ 9’

frame. In the face of this he stated that he guaranteed that everything would reflect

what he had stated including waiver of pre payment penalties, 1 % per cent Interest

rate that was a fixed rate, and monthly payments to be cut in half, never to increase.

17. Baron sent a notary to Star’s home who he said would explain the terms of the contract

to her fully, but when the notary arrived at Star’s home with the papers to sign, she was

unable to explain anything contained in them. Star questioned the notary about the

meaning of the contract & expressed to the notary that it did not appear to reflect the

pre-payment waiver that Baron had promised, and asked her if the language contained

in it meant what Baron claimed it meant, but the notary did not understand the meaning

of the contract and could not explain it to her. Star called Baron immediately with the

notary present and asked him to explain it to Star so that the notary could be a witness

to the offer he was making and explain to both of them that the contract he gave the

notary to have Star sign, reflected that offer correctly. Baron claimed that the papers he

had sent with the notary were just a standard form and due to the roll over credit check

period, that he didn’t have time to type it all up correctly, and because Star took months

to decide that time was now running out. But he assured Star that he would correct it to

reflect the exact proposal he had made as fore-mentioned, before sending it to the bank,

and that he would send the notary back for Star to sign off on the changes he would

make later that day. Due to the time running out as asserted by Baron, Star could

not read all of the papers brought to her by the Notary, which were approximately an

inch thick with legal sized sheets. In addition there was no time to consult an attorney

for advice, and Baron knew that there was no attorney present to assist Star with

understanding the documents presented to her by the Notary sent by Baron to her home.

Believing that Baron was telling her the truth, Star signed these papers, and

later that day the Notary came back with a one page paper that ‘appeared’ to correct the

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

pre payment mistake, although Star did not fully understand the meaning of other

language in the contract, she was coerced and rushed by the Notary.

Note: The Notary was about 8 months pregnant and when she came back with the

alleged corrections for Star to sign off on, she had a small child left in her warm car and

did not come inside Star’s house but instead she rushed Star for a signature while also

claiming that she was late for another appointment concerning her child, and again the

notary could not explain the changes or the meaning of the language contained in the

addendum. Star was never given any opportunity to have the alleged contract reviewed

by Counsel or a lawyer, which Baron was aware of at the time. The said alleged contract

Void ab Initio as an Unconscionable contract in fact, not what was actually represented

to Star by Baron, though not understood as such by Star at the time she was pressured

into signing it by Baron & the Notary he sent to her home.

18. United Vision Financial & Baron DiGiandomenico falsified the loan application form in

Violation of State and Federal Laws wherein they falsely, knowingly, willingly,

fraudulently lied on the form where it requests the name of the person who interviewed

the borrower and the date of the alleged interview. On the loan application it states that

the interview was conducted on May 1, 2007, and further states that the person

conducting the interview by telephone of Star was Dan Michaels when in fact

they knew that Dan Michaels never once spoke to Star regarding the proposed

Mortgage Refinance Loan, and that in fact there were many telephone calls over a two

month period made by agent and loan consultant Baron DiGiandomenico to Star

by whereby said defendant was attempting to convince Star to accept the proposed

loan using tactics of undue influence and rushing her to sign at the last minute

with the threat that if she did not sign she could lose the loan due to a lower credit rating.

19. The foregoing falsification of the loan application rendered the alleged Transaction of

May 17, 2007 void Ab Initio Rendering any alleged Foreclosure and Sale of home and

property also Null and Void Ab Initio, of no effect and unenforceable as a matter of law.

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

see Exhibit # 2 a copy of falsified Loan Application, attached hereto this Complaint,

which is hereby Incorporated herein by reference and is made a part hereof of this

Complaint.

20. One month afterward Star received a call from GMAC bank, and during that call Star

requested a true signed copy of the contract by both parties and a copy of the appraisal

which Star had paid for. They promised to send it right away, but still to this day Star

never received either document. Within 30 days Star also received a notice of Interest

Rate Change which appeared to say the interest was going up higher than what she had

ever paid in the past, and appeared to say her payments would triple. Star was outraged

and called Baron immediately to ask him how this could change when he promised her

it was fixed at one percent and the payments would never increase. Baron said to Star,

"Oh they always do that, it means nothing, I will fix it, fax me the paper and ill take

care of it, do not worry, don't panic, it's nothing" Star tried to fax the letter to Baron

but the fax did not go through. Star called him again, and he said he was having trouble

with his fax, and gave her a second fax number, which also failed. Star attempted to call

Baron several more times over a period of the next two months but could not reach him,

and she left messages on a voice mail and with the operator at United Vision Financial,

but her calls were never returned. She finally came across Barons private cell phone

number which she had misplaced, and a man answered and said that she had a wrong

number. Star checked the number and it was the same one she had reached Baron on

only a couple of months prior. Star called GMAC and told them the agreement was not

what she had been promised as Baron had explained to her, but they just told her that

she signed it and there was nothing they could do.

21. After making payments to GMAC throughout the next year, 2007-2008, Star kept

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

receiving higher interest rate change notices every month, and the principle owed kept

going up every month. She saw that the principle was only going up, and she was only

paying interest and never making a dent in the principle. Since these events Star has

received interest Rate changes up to nearly 9 % every single Month, and the loan

amount kept going up every month from $ 211,000 Dollars $ 245, 141.53 which is the

amount that was on the Notice of Sale taped to her door in October of 2008.

The bills she received from GMAC reflected that she owed MORE than she had ever

allegedly borrowed, even after faithfully paying thousands upon thousands for 3 years.

Finally Star sent GMAC a letter offering to accept their claim upon proof of such claim,

and to send her proof of the note signed by both parties. She sent a check with an offer

that by cashing the check, GMAC had closed the old account number and agreed to make

a new account number, and a new agreement that upon proof of claim Star would pay.

GMAC cashed the check agreeing to the terms of her offer.

22. Based UPON THE FOREGOING INTENTIONAL Misrepresentation, Deceit, Fraud,

Promissory Fraud, fraudulent Inducement, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary,

Intentional Concealment, undue influence, etc., Star Hills stopped payments on the

alleged Mortgage debt, and thereafter demanded in writing proof of their claim against

her, a copy of the Original Contract, Property Appraisal, and the Note which the

Claim was based upon.

23. The demands for proof of claim, and a copy of the original Contract, Appraisal of the

Property, and the Original Note have never been complied with by anyone.

24. Plaintiff only recently after the foregoing stated events, became aware of some facts and

law which she was not aware of at the time she was approached over the telephone by the

Defendants. Article I Section 10 of the Federal Constitution mandates that no state

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

shall make anything other than Gold or Silver coin a tender in payment of Debts, and it

says much more than that. Plaintiff incorporates all the federal constitutional

provisions under said Article 1, Section 10 herein this complaint as if fully set forth.

25. Plaintiffs herein are Christians whose faith lies in the ancient Scriptures set out in the

Holy Bible, and particular to these circumstances are the following scriptures: Leviticus

19: 37, and Deuteronomy 25:15, which Star hereby incorporates herein this Complaint by

reference as if fully set forth herein and requests the court to take Judicial Notice of

pursuant to California Evidence Code Section 451-453 Et Sequiter.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT GMAC MORTGAGE LLC; PRESIDENT NICK CANALE Jr; VICE PRESIDENT Charles R. Hoecker

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

THE FOREGOING FACTS & ALLEGATIONS ARE HEREBY INCORPORATED

HEREIN BY REFERENCE AS IF FULLY SET FORTH.

ALL DEFENDANTS NAMED HEREIN BECAME PRIVY TO THE FRAUD, THE


ALLEGED MORTGAGE CONTRACT WHEN THEY WERE SERVED BY Star: Hills

WITH HER NOTICE OF RESCISSION ON NOVEMBER 7, 2008.

26. Defendant GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC A FOREIGN CORPORATION, THAT IS

INCORPORATED IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE, & named Defendants President

NICK CANALE Jr & Vice President CHARLES HOECKER had a Prearranged Contract

Agreement with the Lender MortgageIt Inc. of New York, prior to the May 17, 2007

Transaction & Signing of the alleged Mortgage Refinance Contract by Star: Hills,

UNDER WHICH SAID SECRET AGREEMENT SAID PARTIES AGREED TO

OPERATE UNDER PRIVATE POLICIES & BUSINESS PRACTICES BY WHICH

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THEY WOULD KNOWINGLY INTENTIONALLY & WILLINGLY VIOLATE &

BREACH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA & OTHER STATES

REGARDING THE LAWS OF PRINCIPAL & AGENT, AGENT & AGENCY, AS

WELL AS BREACH & VIOLATE THE CALIFORNIA UNIFORM COMMERCIAL

CODE SECTION 3309(b), WHICH MANDATES "(b) A person seeking enforcement of

an instrument under subdivision (a) shall prove the terms of the instrument and the

person's right to enforce the instrument."

SAID DEFENDANTS VIOLATED CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE SECTION

3501. (a) , WHICH MANDATES: "Presentment" means a demand made by or on

behalf of a person entitled to enforce an instrument (1) to pay the instrument

made to the drawee or a party obliged to pay the instrument or, in the case of a

note or accepted draft payable at a bank, to the bank, or (2) to accept a draft made

to the drawee.” AND VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS UNDER " (1) Presentment may

be made at the place of payment of the instrument and shall be made at the place

of payment if the instrument is payable at a bank in the United States; may be

made by any commercially reasonable means, including an oral, written, or electronic

communication; is effective when the demand for payment or acceptance is received

by the person to whom presentment is made; and is effective if made to any one

of two or more makers, acceptors, drawees, or other payors. (2) Upon demand of the

person to whom presentment is made, the person making presentment shall (A) exhibit

the instrument, (B) give reasonable identification and, if presentment is made on

behalf of another person, reasonable evidence of authority to do so, and (C) sign a

receipt on the instrument for any payment made or surrender the instrument if full

payment is made. (3) Without dishonoring the instrument, the party to whom

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

presentment is made may (A) return the instrument for lack of a necessary

endorsement, or (B) refuse payment or acceptance for failure of the presentment

to comply with the terms of the instrument, an agreement of the parties, or other

applicable law or rule."

ALL OF WHICH PROVISIONS THEY WERE BOUND TO OBEY AS A

MATTER OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

The said Contractual Relationship was KNOWINGLY, WILLINGLY, INTENTIONALLY

kept Secret and not Fully Disclosed to Star. Said Parties & named Defendants

intentionally kept Plaintiffs in the dark concerning said Prior Arrangement & the said

Secrecy was a Fraud, Breach of Trust, & Breach of Fiduciary from the start, with the

intention of Violating & Breaching the alleged “Mortgage Contract” from the start.

Said Secret arrangement was a Conspiracy from the start between said Parties, with

the Motive, Design, Purpose & Intent to Breach the alleged Contract, Breach the Trust,

Breach the Fiduciary Duty they owed to Star, Violate the express Laws of the State

of California Regarding the Law of Principal & Agent, & Agency, & to Violate the

Laws of Contracts, & to use Fraud, Deceit, and Constructive Fraud to steal her home

and commit wrongful, Unlawful, fraudulent Conversion of her personal property, &

the Title to her Home & Property. The said Baron DiGiandomenico & Defendant

Charles R. Hoecker, Vice President CUSTOMER CARE LOAN SERVICING FOR

GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC & other unknown Doe Defendants entered into the said

Conspiracy prior to the Date of May 17, 2007 for said Purposes, & thereafter took

specific overt steps to further the said Secret agreement & Conspiracy such as

Concealing the truth of the agreement from Star, Intentionally misrepresenting the

Article 10 waiver in the alleged original Promissory Note by knowingly, intentionally

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

mis-defining the meaning of the terms therein the article 10 waiver, & intentionally failing

to comply with the Laws of Agent-Agency, Principal-Agent in the California Civil Code

& Probate Code, in Civil Code Sections 23.2; 2400; 2933; 2295-2300; 2304-2326 ; 2330-

2339; 2342-2345; 2349-2351; CALIFORNIA PROBATE CODE SECTION 4026 ; as well

as the Mortgage laws of California under Civil Code Sections 2932 & 2932.5; 3439;

& express provisions of the California uniform commercial code Requiring presentment of

the Original alleged Promissory Note the alleged debt was based upon, Etc., & other express

provisions set out herein this Complaint.

27. Each of said Co Conspirators, Defendants GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, PRESIDENT

NICK CANALE Jr & VICE PRESIDENT Charles R. Hoecker had a MORTGAGE

BROKERS LICENSE & Owed a Fiduciary Duty to Star: Hills, their alleged Client,

& Customer, from the time of their Entry into the Conspiracy to the present, and still Owe

said Duty which includes the Duty of Full Disclosure of all facts & Knowledge in their

Possession which Effect or Affect the Rights & Interests of Star relating to the alleged

Transaction of May 17, 2007, & the Actual Transaction Prior to May 17, 2007, which

secretly took place without her knowledge or Consent, to the present, and on going into

the future, forward until full payment, compensation, Remedy, Judgment & Justice is

obtained by Star. Since these events the following events have occurred by the willful

actions of said Defendants which have added to the Injuries & Damages of Star & Alan

herein:

The SAID DEFENDANTS have committed a fraud upon this Court & upon Star: Hills

IN A PREVIOUS ACTION KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION #:

S-1500-CL -237061-LHB, wherein they falsely claimed to have posted a summons on

the premises of Star on April 13, 2009, and falsified a proof of service which they

presented to the Court Clerk for filing on May 1, 2009, in Violation of Local Rules of

Court Rule 3.17.2(d ) which required it to be filed within ten (10) days of

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

issuance of the Order of April 9, 2009, which was April 19, 2009, committing fraud,

forgery and perjury under the laws of the state of California and a Felony under

California penal code sections 118, 115 ; which Caused the Said Court Clerk to enter

Clerks Default & Clerks Default Judgment, which Star did not become aware of until

around May 12, 2009, which caught Star by Surprise, as no Summons was ever posted

by said Defendants on her said premises, & Star never received any actual Notice

from the alleged Service by Posting & Mailing, having not received it in the mail

from the said Defendants either; any failure to file an answer to the alleged

complaint, was Excusable Neglect as Star was never aware of any such Posting or

Mailing having never actually received any such copy of a Summons & Complaint

FROM SAID Plaintiff GMAC MORTGAGE LLC; SAID ILLEGAL UNLAWFUL ACTS

OCCURRED AFTER SAID DEFENDANTS FILED TWO CONSECUTIVE LAW SUITS

AGAINST Star: Hills IN KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT #’s S-1500-CL-236547-

SMK; S-1500 –CL-237061-LHB; THE SAID FRAUDULENT FILINGS & CRIMINAL

ACTS WERE AN ABUSE OF PROCESS UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA FOR WHICH SAID DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE TO Star: Hills

HEREIN FOR ANY & ALL INJURIES & DAMAGES ARISING THERE FROM &

FOR PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES FOR THE FRAUD WHICH WAS

UNDERTAKEN WITH THE RECKLESS WONTON INTENT TO DO INJURY &

DAMAGE TO Star; WHEN THEY KNEW, SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, AND HAD A

DUTY TO KNOW THAT THEY HAD NO STANDING & NO RIGHT UNDER THE

LAW OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO FILE SAID ACTIONS BECAUSE

THEY DID NOT HAVE A PERFECTED TITLE AT THE TIME, AS THERE

WAS LITIGATION OVER THE TITLE IN QUESTION ALREADY FILED IN

THE COURT #: S-1500-CV-265552-WDP, Star: Hills VS GMAC MORTGAGE, ET AL,

WHICH PRECLUDED ANY PERFECTING OF THEIR ALLEGED

TITLE AS SET FORTH IN CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULINGS

IN THE CASES OF:

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SHEEHY VS MILES (1892) 93 CAL. 288,292; CITING TURNER VS McDONALD,76 CAL 177; HOCKING VS TITLE INS. &TRUST CO.(1951) 37 C.2d 644 AT PAGE 649 CITED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT IN THE CASE OF KESSLER VS BRIDGE (1958) 161 C.A. 2d Supp 837.

THE ALLEGED TITLE CLAIMED BY PLAINTIFF WAS NOT EVER PERFECTED

AS REQUIRED BY C.C.P. SECTION 1161a WHICH EXPRESSLY STATES THAT:

“1161a” “3. Where the property has been duly sold in accordance with Section 2924 of the Civil Code, under a power of sale contained in a deed of trust executed by him, or a person under whom he claims , and the title under the sale has been duly perfected. ”

The Foregoing express Statutory language was a Mandatory Pre Requisite, Express

Pre Condition placed upon the statutory privilege of filing an “Unlawful Detainer”

Action in Court, which is a Special Proceeding of a Civil Nature, & merely a

“Cumulative Remedy” created by the State Legislature in 1934, in addition to the

Judicial Remedy of a Judicial Foreclosure Suit which has existed in California since

1872, & which is Required without exception to be fulfilled prior to the filing of

any Complaint for Unlawful Detainer , which must be fulfilled prior to the filing of any such Complaint in order to obtain the Required Standing & Right to File the Unlawful Detainer Action.

Said DEFENDANTS ARE CHARGED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW OF

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHERE THEY OPERATE THEREIN UNDER

A CORPORATE LICENSE & PRIVILEGE, NOT BY SUPERIOR RIGHT, & ARE

REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO THE RULINGS OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME

COURT INCLUDING THE RULINGS BY THE HIGH COURT REGARDING THE

DEFINITION & MEANING OF PERFECTION OF TITLE IN: SHEEHY VS MILES

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(1892) 93 CAL. 288, 292; CITING TURNER VS McDONALD, 76 CAL 177; AS WELL AS

HOCKING VS TITLE INS. & TRUST CO. (1951) 37 C. 2d 644 AT PAGE 649 CITED

BY THE SUPERIOR COURT IN THE CASE OF KESSLER VS BRIDGE (1958) 161

C.A. 2d Supp 837. “A PERFECT TITLE MUST BE ONE THAT IS GOOD AND VALID BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT” “TITLE TO BE GOOD, SHOULD BE FREE FROM LITIGATION, PALPABLE DEFECTS, AND GRAVE DOUBTS, SHOULD CONSIST OF BOTH LEGAL AND EQUITABLE TITLES, AND SHOULD BE FAIRLY DEDUCIBLE OF RECORD.” ..”” “A TITLE TO BE GOOD MUST BE GOOD SHOULD BE FREE FROM LITIGATION, PALPABLE DEFECTS, AND GRAVE DOUBTS, SHOULD CONSIST OF BOTH LEGAL AND EQUITABLE TITLES, AND SHOULD BE FAIRLY DEDUCIBLE OF RECORD.”

SHEEHY VS MILES (1892) 93 CAL. 288,292; CITING TURNER VS McDONALD,76 CAL 177; HOCKING VS TITLE INS. &TRUST CO.(1951) 37 C.2d 644 AT PAGE 649 CITED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT IN THE CASE OF KESSLER VS BRIDGE (1958) 161 C.A. 2d Supp 837.

THE TERM “DULY” “IMPLIES THAT ALL THOSE ELEMENTS NECESSARY TO VALID SALE EXIST.” KESSLER VS BRIDGE (1958) 161 C.A. 2d Supp 837, SUPRA.

“TITLE IS DULY PERFECTED WHEN ALL STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO MAKE IT PERFECT, THAT IS ,TO CONVEY TO PURCHASER THAT WHICH HE PURCHASED, VALID AND GOOD BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.” KESSLER VS BRIDGE (1958) 161 C.A. 2d Supp 837, SUPRA.

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Said Defendants GMAC MORTGAGE LLC; PRESIDENT NICK CANALE Jr; VICE

PRESIDENT CHARLES R. HOECKER, RECEIVED CASH COMPENSATION FROM

THEIR INSURANCE POLICIES & INSURANCE CARRIER UPON THEIR

FRAUDULENT DECLARATION OF DEFAULT ON THE ALLEGED MORTGAGE

& OBTAINED FURTHER FINANCIAL COMPENSATION BY SELLING THE NOTE

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN BINDLES ON THE OPEN MARKET IN CONCERT WITH THE ALLEGED

LENDER MORTGAGEIT INC., IN ADDITION TO OBTAINING THE SAID

PROPERTY BY FRAUD, CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD, DECEIT, ETC., WHICH

CONSTITUTES UNJUST ENRICHMENT FOR WHICH THEY ARE LIABLE TO

Star: Hills.

INVOLUNTARY TRUST

28. Based upon the foregoing said Conspiracy between the said Defendants & third parties

there was an Involuntary Trust Created at the Inception of said Unlawful Illegal

Conspiracy, under which Involuntary Trust said Parties were bound as Trustees of all

Personal Property of Star: Hills which came into their possession after entering into said

Conspiracy, including but not limited to Credits, Monies, Payments, including any

late fees and Penalties, Prepayment Fees, Title or hazard Insurance fees, Service Fees,

Processing Fees, Broker Fees, Servicing Fees, etc., and her Home & Land, as well as the

Legal, Lawful, Equitable Title & Actual Title to said Home & Property, Pursuant to

the Laws of the State of California, as expressly set forth under California Civil

Code Section 2223 & 2224, and California Civil Code, Section 3439, under Title 1,

California Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. All the said Personal Property are owed

by all said Defendants to Star: Hills & Alan Gjurovich & payable by said Defendants

under the said Involuntary Trust as a matter of Law under the Laws of the State of

California.

29. At the time of the alleged Mortgage Refinance Loan Transaction of May 17, 2007

said Defendant GMAC MORTGAGE LLC became a TRUSTEE & undertook a binding

Fiduciary Obligation of full Disclosure & Fair Dealing with Star: Hills under the Laws

of Contract under the Laws of the State of California, and they had previously agreed

to do this with Mortgage Loan Contractor, Defendant United Vision Financial, and

Lender MortgageIt Inc., having had an on going professional business Relationship with

United Vision Financial. DEFENDANT GMAC Owed a Fiduciary Duty to Star: Hills

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

upon entering into said alleged Contract. Defendant GMAC MORTGAGE Promised,

by their Contracting with UNITED VISION FINANCIAL & Star: Hills that they would

Comply with & Obey all laws of the State of California, and they never intended to do

so, committing Fraud, Constructive Fraud, Deceit Breach of Trust & Breach of Fiduciary

upon Star from the outset, Violating their Fiduciary Duty Owed to Star, & breaching the

Contract between her, United Vision Financial, & the Lender Contracted by United

Vision Financial, MortgageIt Inc. & GMAC MORTGAGE.

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC Violated the laws of Interest and Usury of the State of

California, and Violated the alleged Refinance Mortgage Loan Contract, which allows

only the “Holder of the Note” to make any interest Rate changes or increases, and

GMAC was never the “Holder of the Note”. See Exhibits 2 , Attached hereto this

Complaint which is hereby Incorporated by Reference as if fully set forth herein, and

is made a part of this complaint, which Plaintiff Requests the Court to take Judicial

Notice of Pursuant to the Provisions of California Evidence Code Sections 451-453,

Et Sequiter. The said Fraud was Premeditated, Intentional, Willing, & Knowing, with

Intent to Cause Injury & Harm to Star, which makes them Liable to Star for

Exemplary or Punitive Damages, as Determined by a Jury.

NO STANDING UNDER THE NOTE; BREACH OF THE TERMS OF THE NOTE;

VOID DEED OF TRUST; NO ASSIGNMENT OF THE POWER TO COLLECT PAYMENTS

OR THE POWER OF SALE--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30. GMAC Mortgage LLC, & PRESIDENT JOHN DOE, VICE PRESIDENT CHARLES

HOECKER unlawfully changed and increased the interest Rate on the Note

on numerous occasions based on their own Calculations. GMAC had no Lawful

Standing, Right, or Authorization to Calculate Interest Rate Changes or Increases,

under the terms of the note nor to bill Star for any Interest Rate increases or

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

changes as they never held the note at the time they purported to make

interest rate changes and increases, as only the "note holder" had the Right

under the terms of the alleged contract and promissory Note to Calculate

any changes in the interest rate. See the said Mortgage Contract Deed of trust

and Note in Exhibits attached hereto which are hereby Incorporated into this complaint

by reference as if fully set forth, & are made a part hereof this complaint which

plaintiff hereby requests the Court take Judicial Notice of under the express

provisions of California Evidence Code Section 451-453 Et Sequiter. Based upon the

foregoing all the interest Rate increased and changes by GMAC Mortgage are Null

and Void Ab Initio and unenforceable by GMAC Mortgage in this case, and also

constitute a Breach of the terms of the Note by said Defendant GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

& NAMED DEFENDANTS JOHN DOE PRESIDENT OF GMAC MORTGAGE LLC,

& CHARLES HOECKER VICE PRESIDENT OF GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, FOR

WHICH THEY ARE JOINTLY & SEVERALLY LIABLE TO Star. The clear fact in

the Record in the Kern County Recorders Office that no Assignment of the Power to

Collect Payments was ever executed by the Alleged Lender MORTGAGEIT INC.,

TO SAID DEFENDANTS GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, PRESIDENT JOHN DOE, VICE

PRESIDENT CHARLES HOECKER, MERS, OR ORIGINAL TRUSTEE FREMONT

RENDER THE SAID ALLEGED DEED OF TRUST PROVISIONS ALLEGING ANY

POWER OF SALE TO ALLEGED “NOMINAL BENEFICIARY MERS VOID AB

INTIO, & ANY PURPORTED SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE BY MERS TO ETS

SERVICES LLC ALSO VOID AB INITIO, WHICH RENDERED ANY ALLEGED

SUBSEQUENT SALE & PURCHASE BY ETS SERVICES LLC & GMAC

MORTGAGE LLC VOID AB INTIO, & THE ALLEGED DEED UPON SALE

CLAIMED BY GMAC MORTGAGE LLC VOID AB INITIO, OF NO EFFECT OR

FORCE UNDER LAW.

31. Defendant GMAC MORTGAGE had no Lawful Standing, Right, or Authorization to

Institute Foreclosure proceedings under the Note, they had no Right of Enforcement, and

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

as they were never the Lender or the Holder of the Note and only the "Holder of the

Note" had any Right or Standing under the terms of the Contract and the Note and

under the Law of the State of California to enforce the alleged Mortgage Refinance

Contract and the terms of the Note. Their Actions in purporting to do so were Fraud

& unlawful and wrongful Conversion of the Title to Home and property of Star and

theft of the same. All said Actions of GMAC MORTGAGE LLC are Void Ab Initio &

have no validity or effect whatsoever under the Law. Star is Entitled to a

Reconveyance of the Title to her home and Property and the Return of all Credit,

Monies, Penalties, Fees, Interest, & Payments made or wrongfully taken under the

Fraudulent alleged Refinanced Mortgage Contract.

UNDUE INFLUENCE; FRAUD; PROMISSORY FRAUD;FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT; UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACT

CONCEALMENT OF TRUE TERMS; NO FULL DISCLOSURE& NO MEETING OF THE MINDS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

32. None of Defendants GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, ET AL ; NOR UNITED VISION

FINANCIAL; Baron DiGiandomenico; nor the Lender MORTGAGEIT INC., ever

informed Star that this Contract was for a purchase of Credit, with Usury and

Interest added to the price of the purchase. Star only recently discovered this after going

through the papers left with her by UNITED VISION FINANCIAL via Baron's Notary

Public. Star was previously under the false & mistaken Notion or Impression that she

was being Loaned Cash Money by the Lender. Based upon all the foregoing the alleged

Loan and Note is Void Ab Initio as there was never the full disclosure to Star of the

true meaning and terms of the Contract by Baron or any of the Defendants when she

asked for an explanation of the meaning of the papers she was signing, which signing

was done under Undue Influence of Baron and the Notary as set forth previously,

which undue influence was exerted upon Star BY Baron FOR THE ILLEGAL

UNLAWFUL PURPOSES OF ENGAGING Star IN AN UNCONSCIONABLE

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONTRACT IN WHICH THE TRUE TERMS WERE NOT DISCLOSED TO HER,

& BY FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT THROUGH PROMISSORY FRAUD, WITH

KNOWLEDGE THAT Star HAD NO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL TO REVIEW

THE LANGUAGE IN THE ALLEGED CONTRACT TO DETERMINE IF IT WAS

WHAT SHE HAD AGREED TO PREVIOUSLY WITH Baron, WHICH WAS ABOUT

AN INCH THICK LEGAL SIZED. Star WAS NOT GIVEN ANY TIME TO READ

THE SAID PAPERS BEING TOLD BY Baron THAT IF She DID NOT SIGN THEN

& THERE THAT She HAD A REAL CHANCE OF LOSING THE LOAN BASED

ON A LOWER CREDIT RATING WHICH WAS A THREAT OF CIRCUMSTANCES

BEYOND HER POWER & CONTROL TO CHANGE, AVOID, OR PREVENT, AND

HAD A COERCIVE EFFECT ON Star, WITHOUT WHICH SHE WOULD NOT

HAVE SIGNED THE PAPERS & THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO ALLEGED

CONTRACT AT THAT TIME ON MAY 17, 2007. UNDER THESE FACTS THE

LACK OF FULL & HONEST DISCLOSURE BY THE PARTIES THERE WAS

NEVER ANY MEETING OF THE MINDS REQUIRED FOR THEIR TO BE A

VALID AND BINDING CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT, & ALL SUBSEQUENT

ALLEGED ACTS OF THE DEFENDANTS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH THE

VARIOUS NOTICES BY Star, CULMINATING WITH THE NOTICE OF

RESCISSION OF THE WHOLE ALLEGED CONTRACT ON NOVEMBER 7, 2008

AGREEMENT.

WAIVER PROVISIONS UNDER ARTICLE 10 OF NOTE

33. The "waiver provision" under Article 10 of the Note was Unlawful & Unconstitutional

in Violation of the State and Federal Laws Requiring Due Process of Law, Notice and

opportunity to be heard and to defend rights and interest, including under State & the

5th Amendment to the Federal Constitutions, the California Civil Code, California

Commercial Code, and the maxims of jurisprudence. Said article did not constitute a

knowing, fully informed, voluntary waiver of any right of notice of dishonor, or right to

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

presentment of the original note, the instrument the demand for payment was based on,

since it was not the lender who was making demand for payment on the note. The denial

of due process is inherent in the fact that since only the lender or holder of the note had

any right under the alleged contract to enforce the terms of the alleged contract, there is

no way for the borrower to determine if the party (GMAC in this case), demanding

payment has any right to do so under the alleged contract if they are not the original

lender, (in this case GMAC MORTGAGE was not the lender) unless there is an inherent

right outside statutory or written law to demand presentment of the original instrument

the alleged obligation or debt is based upon. In the case of a woman unlearned in the law

such as Star was, without counsel requesting her to sign such a waiver without any

explanation or understanding on her part is the intent to commit Fraud and theft by

deception as is fully set out herein prior. It is further clear that any such Right of Notice

of Dishonor & Presentment, & a request by the Lender & the Trustees, assigns,

Contractors, Servicers, etc., for Waiver of such a Right without explanation,

understanding, or knowledege of the meaning or purpose of such a waiver, amounts to

an unknowing waiver, and a waiver without real consent, which also elicits Prima Facia

Evidence of intent & prior knowledge of the party requesting the unknowing Waiver

that neither the original lender nor the Servicer GMAC MORTGAGE would be Holder

of the Note at the time of Foreclosure, and would not be able to produce it on Demand

nor prove that they had any Right to enforce the terms of the alleged Contract or

Note. This is Prima Facia Evidence supporting a Premeditated Conspiracy to Defraud

the "borrower" out of her home and property.

The alleged “Waiver" of Presentment under "10" of the Note, is further Void Ab Initio

based upon the fact that it Intentionally Misinforms and Omits from its Explanation of

the Meaning of the Term "Right" of "Presentment" the fact that the Meaning of the

said Term under the Law, and under the California UCC Code is the Right to Demand

that the alleged Creditor Present the Original Instrument, in this Case the Original

Promissory Note, which the alleged Debt is based upon, which gives the alleged Creditor

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the Right demand payment and to Enforce the Note as a matter of Law. If GMAC

MORTGAGE WAS IN FACT "HOLDER OF THE NOTE" AT THE TIME OF THE

ALLEGED FORECLOSURE THEY HAD A DUTY UNDER THE LAW OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO PRESENT THE ORIGINAL NOTE TO Star UPON

HER WRITTEN DEMAND FOR PROOF THAT THEY HELD THE NOTE AND HAD

THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE THE TERMS OF THE NOTE AND TO COLLECT THE

ALLEGED DEBT. THEIR FAILURE TO DO SO CAUSED THE ALLEGED DEBT TO

BE DISCHARGED AS A MATTER OF CALIFORNIA LAW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE CITED HEREAFTER WHICH NOW

REQUIRES A TOTAL RECONVEYANCE OF THE TITLE BACK TO Star. If GMAC

MORTGAGE WAS NOT HOLDER OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME OF ALLEGED

FORECLOSURE THEN THE LENDER MORTGAGEIT INC., WAS REQUIRED TO

PRESENT THE ORIGINAL NOTE TO Star PRIOR TO THE INSTITUTION OF ANY

ALLEGED FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS SERVE A NOTICE OF

DISHONOR TO Star, PER THE TERMS OF THE NOTE AND AGREEMENT, AS

ONLY THE LENDER AND HOLDER OF THE NOTE HAD ANY RIGHT TO

ENFORCE THE SAID TERMS OF THE NOTE AND ALLEGED AGREEMENT.

SAID DEFENDANTS ACTIONS VIOLATED CALIFORNIA LAW UNDER

COMMERCIAL CODE SECTION 1304, WHICH MANDATES:" Every contract or

duty within this code imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance and

enforcement." AS WELL AS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 3309(b), WHICH

MANDATES "(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subdivision (a)

shall prove the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument."

SAID DEFENDANTS VIOLATED CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE SECTION

3501. (a) , WHICH MANDATES: "Presentment" means a demand made by or on

behalf of a person entitled to enforce an instrument (1) to pay the instrument made to

the drawee or a party obliged to pay the instrument or, in the case of a note or accepted

draft payable at a bank, to the bank, or (2) to accept a draft made to the drawee. AND

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS UNDER " (1) Presentment may be made at the place of

payment of the instrument and shall be made at the place of payment if the instrument is payable at a

bank in the United States; may be made by any commercially reasonable means, including an oral, written,

or electronic communication; is effective when the demand for payment or acceptance is received by the

person to whom presentment is made; and is effective if made to any one of two or more

makers, acceptors, drawees, or other payors. (2) Upon demand of the person to whom

presentment is made, the person making presentment shall (A) exhibit the instrument,

(B) give reasonable identification and, if presentment is made on behalf of another

person, reasonable evidence of authority to do so, and (C) sign a receipt on the

instrument for any payment made or surrender the instrument if full payment is made.

(3) Without dishonoring the instrument, the party to whom presentment is made may

(A) return the instrument for lack of a necessary endorsement, or (B) refuse payment or

acceptance for failure of the presentment to comply with the terms of the instrument, an

agreement of the parties, or other applicable law or rule."

" 3502. (a) Dishonor of a note is governed by the following rules: (1) If the note is

payable on demand, the note is dishonored if presentment is duly made to the maker and

the note is not paid on the day of presentment.

(2) If the note is not payable on demand and is payable at or through a bank or the terms

of the note require presentment, the note is dishonored if presentment is duly made and

the note is not paid on the day it becomes payable or the day of presentment, whichever is

later. (3) If the note is not payable on demand and paragraph (2) does not apply, the note

is dishonored if it is not paid on the day it becomes payable."

EQUITABLE & COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL

34. PURSUANT TO ALL THE FOREGOING FACTS & THE LAW OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA GMAC MORTGAGE LLC IS Equitably and Collaterally Estopped from

asserting any Defense of Waiver of Notice of Dishonor and Presentment of the Original

Promissory Note prior to the Instituting Foreclosure proceedings, based upon their

Illegal, Intentional, Willing, Knowing & Premeditated Concealment of the fact that

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

they knew they would Institute Foreclosure proceedings without being in Possession of

the Note, which possession of the Note was a Mandatory Prerequisite of the alleged

Mortgage Refinance Contract that only the "Note Holder" can Institute Foreclosure

proceedings, and only the "Note Holder" had the Right to Enforce the alleged Contract.

There was no waiver, nor could there be of the statutory requirement under

California Commercial Code CITED PRIOR that the "Holder of the Note" serve

a Notice of Dishonor, and thereafter make a presentment of the Original Promissory

Note, due to the fact the said parties failed and refused to explain the meaning of the

alleged contract, and the alleged Waiver when they were asked and requested by Star

via her conversations, Interviews, and Negotiations with their Loan Agent Baron

DiGiamdomenico. Based upon these facts there was no knowing Voluntary Waiver of

any alleged Rights of Star: Hills including any Right of Notice of Dishonor and

Presentment of the Original Note. Based on all the foregoing facts, the said Parties

failure to give Notice of Dishonor & Presentment of the Note Caused the alleged debt

to be Discharged, as a Matter of Law under the Express Provisions of California

Commercial Code & GMAC MORTGAGE, their Successors, Agents, Assigns, & Officers

are Estopped & Barred as a Matter of Law of the State of California from enforcing

any alleged Foreclosure or Sale of the home & property of Star: Hills & any such

alleged Foreclosure and Sale are Null and Void Ab Initio.

VOID SALE OF STAR'S HOME AND PROPERTY

35. Defendant GMAC MORTGAGE LLC ( OTHERWISE REFERRED TO AS GMAC OR

GMAC MORTGAGE ) purported to purchase the property and home of Star at an

alleged Public Auction on November 13, 2008, for a price of 80,000+ dollars, a price well

below the announced sales price Valuation of $280,000. Said alleged purchase by GMAC

was well below the fair market value of the house. Said Defendant GMAC has admitted

in papers filed with this Court that they Received the Notice of Rescission of the alleged

Mortgage Contract and signature on the Promissory Note prior to the date of the alleged

Public Auction / Sale of the home and property of Star. GMAC Sale Trustee Omar

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Solorzano was also served with a Notice of the Rescission prior to the alleged Sale

& had full knowledge that the alleged Contract & Note the alleged Sale was based on

were Null and Void Ab Intio, & the alleged Sale was Void Ab Initio, and they had no

Right or Authority under Law of the State of California to hold such a Sale. They were

also served with a Notice at the location of the said Sale outside the Bakersfield City

Hall, in writing, as were all persons present, which Notice was also posted at several

places in and around the Sale location, which stated "Caveat Emptor" "Caveat

Actor", the purported Public Auction / Sale of the Property and home of Star located

at "3018 Linden Avenue, Bakersfield, California", is Fraud upon the Public, and is

Void Ab Initio. Though fully informed of the fact that the alleged Sale was Void Ab

Initio because the Contract it was based on was Void Ab Initio, said Defendants ETS

SERVICES and Omar Solorzano proceeded with the alleged Public Sale of the

Home and Property of Star, and when no one from the Public bid on the home, the Sale

Trustee and the Auctioneer purported to sell the home to GMAC MORTGAGE at far

below the Fair Market Value, committing a knowing Fraud upon the Public and

committing Slander of Title against Star as well as a Trespass on the Title to her

home and Property, which now has created a Controversy over the Title and Property

of the said home, which is a Cause of Action herein for Quiet Title against GMAC

MORTGAGE, as GMAC MORTGAGE is now a third party Trespasser on said

Title. GMAC MORTGAGE, along with Baron DiGiandomenico, & Lender

MORTGAGEIT INC, Violated the Laws of California, Forbidding Fraud,

Constructive Fraud, Deceit, Wrongful and Unlawful Conversion etc. and are Liable to

Star for said Violations.

36. The alleged Sale of the Home & Property of Star on 11 / 13 / 2008 by Defendant ETS

SERVICES, LLC & TRUSTEE OMAR SOLORZANO, was Void Ab Initio and of no

effect and unenforceable under the law, as the Right of Foreclosure and of Sale of

said Property was previously ALLEGEDLY Transferred by the Lender to MERS in the

DEED OF TRUST DATED MAY 17, 2007 AND HAD NEVER BEEN REVOKED OR

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

REASSIGNED BY THE LENDER OR THE HOLDER OF THE NOTE. Any alleged

Assignment or Appointment by Defendant GMAC MORTGAGE of the Power of Sale

to Defendant ETS SERVICE, LLC, & ALLEGED SALE TRUSTEE OFFICER OMAR

SOLORZANO WAS VOID AB INITIO WITHOUT ANY RIGHT UNDER THE

CONTRACT OR THE NOTE, AS GMAC MORTGAGE WAS NEVER THE

LENDER OR THE "NOTE HOLDER" AS EXPRESSLY REQUIRED BY THE TERMS

OF THE NOTE & ALLEGED CONTRACT. SEE PAGE 3 & 13 OF DEED OF

TRUST DATED MAY 17, 2007, A TRUE & CORRECT COPY OF WHICH IS

ATTACHED HERE TO IN EXHIBIT NUMBER #: 2 , WHICH IS HEREBY

INCORPORATED INTO THIS COMPLAINT BY REFERENCE AS IF FULLY

SET FORTH HEREIN & WHICH Star & Alan REQUEST THE COURT TO

TAKE MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE ORIGINAL OF IN THE

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE KERN COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE,

PURSUANT TO THE EXPRESS MANDATORY PROVISIONS SET OUT UNDER

CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 451-453, ET SEQUITER.

37. Defendants ETS SERVICES, LLC, AND SALE TRUSTEE OFFICER OMAR

SOLORZANO had a prior agreement and Contractual Relationship with Defendant

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC & NAMED DEFENDANTS . Said Defendants ETS

SERVICES, LLC & OMAR SOLORZANO entered into the Conspiracy to Fraudulently

steal & Convert the Home & Property of Star by an agreement to pose as Sale Trustee

for GMAC MORTGAGE , when they knew GMAC MORTGAGE had no authority

under law to appoint them or assign them as a Sale Trustee to sell the said Property

because GMAC MORTGAGE was not the Lender nor the Note Holder, and had no Right

to institute Foreclosure proceedings or Enforce the terms of the Note. Thereafter they

were served with the Notice of Rescission by Star, and ignored the fact that the

Foreclosure and Sale was Void Ab Initio knowing they were committing a Fraud

upon the Public by going ahead with the purported public Sale.

ETS SERVICES & OMAR SOLORZANO TOOK THE OVERT STEP IN

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FURTHERANCE OF THE SAID CONSPIRACY, after they knew the proposed Sale was

Void, offering the Home & Property of Star for sale to the Public. They took another

Overt step in furtherance of the conspiracy when they purported to sell the said Home &

Property of Star to their Employer Contractor GMAC MORTGAGE LLC for a price

well below the Fair Market Value of the Property, some $80,000 + dollars, which was the

completion of the said Conspiracy. DEFENDANT GMAC MORTGAGE LLC took the

Overt Step in furtherance of the said Conspiracy of purporting to Foreclose on the said

Property when they knew they had no Right to enforce the terms of the Note or Contract

because they were never the Lender or Holder of the Note, and never had the Right of

Foreclosure or Sale, which was previously granted to MERS IN THE DEED, & never

revoked, or Assigned or Granted to anyone else by the lender MORTGAGEIT INC.

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC took the further Overt Step in furtherance of the Conspiracy

when they purported to exercise a Right to Sell the said Home & Property, and appoint

ETS SERVICES AS THE SALE TRUSTEE AND OMAR SOLORZANO AS THE

SALE OFFICER, WITHOUT ANY LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO DO SO. GMAC

MORTGAGE TOOK THE FINAL STEP IN FURTHERANCE OF THE

CONSPIRACY WHEN THEY PURPORTED TO PURCHASE THE SAID HOME &

PROPERTY AT THE ALLEGED PUBLIC AUCTION ON NOVEMBER 13, 2008.

38. One month afterward Star received a call from GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, & during

that call Star Requested a true signed copy of the contract by both parties and a copy of

the Appraisal which Star had paid for. They promised to send it right away, but still to

this day Star never received either document. Within 30 days Star also received a Notice

of Interest Rate Change FROM DEFENDANT GMAC which appeared to say the

interest was going up higher than what she had ever paid in the past, and appeared to

say her payments would triple. Star was outraged and called Baron immediately to ask

him how this could change when he promised her it was fixed at one percent and the

payments would never increase. Baron said to Star, “Oh they always do that, it means

nothing, I will fix it, fax me the paper and ill take care of it, do not worry, don’t panic,

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

it’s nothing” Star tried to fax the letter to Baron but the fax did not go through. Star

called him again, and he said he was having trouble with his fax, and gave her a second

fax number, which also failed.

39. Star attempted to call Baron several more times over a period of the next two months

but could not reach him, and she left messages on a voice mail and with the operator at

United Vision Financial, but her calls were never returned. She finally came across

Barons private cell phone number which she had misplaced, and a man answered and

said that she had a wrong number. Star checked the number and it was the same one

she had reached Baron on only a couple of months prior. Star called GMAC and told

them the agreement was not what she had been promised as Baron had explained to

her, but they just told her that she signed it and there was nothing they could do.

GMAC violated the Original Contract agreement with Baron & United Vision Financial

which they were bound by as a Trustee & Fiduciary for Mortgage It Inc., the

40. After making payments to GMAC throughout the next year, 2007-2008, Star kept

receiving higher interest rate change Notices every month, and the principle owed kept

going up every month. She saw that the principle was only going up, and she was only

paying interest and never making a dent in the principle. Since these events Star has

received interest Rate changes up to nearly 9 % every single Month, and the loan

amount kept going up every month from $ 211,000 Dollars $ 245, 141.53 which is

the amount that was on the Notice of Sale taped to her door in October of 2008.

The bills she received from GMAC reflected that she owed MORE than she had ever

borrowed, even after faithfully paying thousands upon thousands for 3 years. Finally

Star sent GMAC a letter offering to accept their claim upon proof of such claim, and to

send her proof of the note signed by both parties. She sent a check with a Novation offer

under the conditions that if they cashed the check they would accept the offer of a new

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

contract & close the old account number and would make a new account number, and a

new agreement that upon proof of claim Star would pay. GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

cashed the check agreeing to the terms of her offer. They subsequently failed to live up

to that agreement which was a breach of contract, for which they are now liable

to Star.

41. Based UPON THE FOREGOING INTENTIONAL Misrepresentation, Deceit, Fraud,

breach of contract, breach of fiduciary, intentional concealment, undue influence, etc.,

Star Hills stopped payments on the alleged Mortgage debt, & thereafter demanded

in writing proof of their claim against her, a copy of the Original Contract,

Property Appraisal, & the Promissory Note which the Claim was based upon.

42. The demands for proof of claim, and a copy of the original Contract, Appraisal of

the Property, and the Original Note have never been complied with by anyone,

INCLUDING Defendant GMAC MORTGAGE LLC which was a Breach of the alleged

Contract by the SAID PARTIES INCLUDING GMAC MORTGAGE LLC.

43. Based upon the foregoing Star served a Notice of Rescission of the whole alleged

Mortgage Contract, Note, Etc., on Defendants GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, ETS

SERVICES LLC, THEIR OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS HEIRS & ASSIGNS,

( NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO THE AGENT; NOTICE TO THE AGENT

IS NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPAL) WHICH WAS SERVED ON THEM ON

NOVEMBER 7, 2008, SIX (6) DAYS PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED PUBLIC SALE OF

NOVEMBER 13, 2008, WHICH RENDERED THE ALLEGED SALE OF NOVEMBER

13, 2008 VOID AB INITIO AS A MATTER OF LAW, ALSO RENDERING THE

ALLEGED DEED AFTER SALE VOID AB INITIO, & OF NO EFFECT OR VALIDITY

UNDER THE LAW, & THUS RENDERING NO RIGHT OR AUTHORITY TO SAID

DEFENDANT GMAC MORTGAGE LLC REGARDING THE HOME & PROPERTY

OF COMPLAINANTS HEREIN.

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

44. Star FULLY INFORMED THE DEFENDANTS GMAC MORTGAGE LLC & ETS

SERVICES LLC, IN HER NOTICES INCLUDING HER DEMAND TO PROVE THE

NOTE WHICH INCLUDES A NOTICE OF HER FEE SCHEDULE, OF THE LACK

OF AUTHORITY & JURISDICTION OVER HER TO TRESPASS UPON HER

PROPERTY & AGAINST HER HOME. THEIR SUBSEQUENT ATTEMPTS TO

DO SO THROUGH CONTRACTOR AGENTS INCLUDING JASON THEOLE

WHO TRESPASSED & THREATENED IN WRITING TO BREAK & ENTER &

VANDALIZE THE SAID HOME BY “TRASHING” THE PERSONAL PROPERTY

INSIDE, WAS A TERRORIST THREAT, CRIMINAL TORT FOR WHICH THEY

ARE LIABLE TO Star. BECAUSE THERE WAS A CONTROVERSY & DISPUTE

OVER THE TITLE IN THE COURT WHICH HAD NOT BEEN SETTLED,

WHICH PRECLUDED THE FILING OF THE SAID UNLAWFUL DETAINER

ACTIONS, AND THE FILING OF WHICH WAS ABUSE OF PROCESS

AGAINST Star: Hills, REGARDING WHICH THEY ARE LIABLE TO Star: Hills

FOR ALL INJURIES & DAMAGES ARISING THERE FROM. THE ALLEGED

TITLE AFTER SALE WAS FURTHER DEFECTIVE IN THAT IT ONLY

ALLEGED TO TRANSFER LEGAL TITLE, AND NOT EQUITABLE TITLE AS

WELL AS IS REQUIRED BY LAW AS SET FORTH BY THE SUPREME

COURT RULINGS CITED HEREIN .

45. DEFENDANTS PROMISES TO PLAINTIFFS & DUTIES OWED ;

Defendants MERS; MERS PRESIDENT & CEO BILL BECKMANN; GMAC MORT.

LLC; GMAC MORT. LLC PRES. NICK CANALE Jr.; GMAC MORT. LLC VICE PRES.

& LOAN SERVICER, Charles R. Hoecker; GMAC MORT., LLC; ETS SERVICES LLC

PRESIDENT JOHN DOE 2, ETS SERVICES LLC; ETS SERVICES LLC SALES

TRUSTEE Omar Solorzano; ETS SERVICES LLC MANAGERS JOSEPH A.

PENSABENA; MARK E. LAHIFF; Adam Leppo ETS SERVICES LLC TRUSTEE

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SALE OFFICER; all Impliedly by their Conduct in assuming their Positions as Agents

Officers, & Employees of the said Corporate Entities MERS, GMAC MORT. LLC,

& ETS Services LLC, Promised Star: Hills that they would at all times ENGAGE

ONLY IN HONEST & FAIR DEALING REGARDING ANY & ALL MATTERS

RELATED TO THE PURPORTED MORTGAGE LOAN , DEED OF TRUST, &

THEIR STATUTORY & LAWFUL DUTIES UNDER STATE & FEDERAL LAW, &

FURTHER EXPRESSLY PROMISED IN THE DEED OF TRUST THAT THEY

WOULD COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABBLE PROVISIONS OF STATE &

FEDERAL LAW REGARDING THE PURPORTED MORTGAGE LOAN & DEED

OF TRUST. INCLUDED IN THESE EXPRESS & IMPLIED PROMISES OF SAID

DEFENDANTS IN THE IMPLIED PROMISE THAT SAID DEFENDANTS WOULD

REFRAIN FROM ENGAGING IN ANY FRAUD, CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD, DECEIT,

INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE, NEGLECT, MISFEASANCE, MAL FEASANCE, OR

NON FEASANCE REGARDING ANY OF SAID DUTIES UNDER LAW, EXPRSS &

IMPLIED PROMISES SET FORTH HEREIN. SAID DEFENDANTS OWED THE

DUTY TO PLAINTIFFS HEREIN TO COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE SAID

STATE & FEDERAL LAWS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE LAWS OF

CONTRACTS, & OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFFS TO COMPLY WITH THE

SAID EXPRESS & IMPLIED PROMISES MADE TO PLAINTIFFS. PLAINTIFFS

HEREIN RELIED UPON THE SAID PROMISES OF SAID DEFENDANTS. SAID

DEFENDANTS BREACHED THEIR SAID PROMISES WHEN THEY FAILED TO

DISCLOSE THEIR PRIOR SECRET PRIVATE AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER

THRID PARTIES WHO WERE NEVER NAMED IN THE MORTGAGE

DOCUMENTS PRESENTED BY SAID DEFENDANTS. THE SAID THIRD PARTIES

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

INCLUDED UNNAMED SECURITIES INVESTORS WHO ALL FINANCIALLY

BENEFITED FROM THE SAID CONCEALMENT & BREACH OF PROMISES

RESCISSION;TENDER REQUIREMENT;VOID SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE;VOID DEED OF TRUST; VOID TRUSTEES DEED UPON SALE;

OFF SET-SET OFF-CLAIM

46. UPON SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF RESCISISON ON DEFENDANTS THERE

WAS NO REQUIREMENT UPON PLAINTIFFS TO OFFER TO TENDER

PAYMENT OF ANY ALLEGED AMOUNTS DUE AS THE DEED OF TRUST &

THE DEED UPON SALE WERE BOTH RENDERED VOID UPON THE SERVICE

& RECORDING OF THE ALLEGED “SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE” BY

DEFENDANTS MERS; MERS PRESIDENT BILL BECKMANN, & MERS EMPLOYEE

WHO WERE NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE DEED OF TRUST TO EXECUTE

A SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE PURSUANT TO EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF

ARTICLE-PARAGRAPH 24 OF SAID DEED OF TRUST WHICH BREACH OF

THE DEED OF TRUST RENDERED THE DEED OF TRUST VOID & RENDERED

THE ALLEGED SUBSEQUENT SALE & DEED UPON SALE VOID AS A MATTER

OF LAW, WHICH NEGATED ANY REQUIREMENT TO TENDER ANYTHING TO

DEFENDANTS, WHICH “TENDER” REQUIREMENT ONLY APPLIES TO ANY

EQUITY REMEDIES SOUGHT BY THE ADVERSE PARTIES, NOT WHERE THE

DEED OF TRUST & TRUSTEES DEED UPON SALE IS VOID AS A MATTER

OF LAW, AS IS CLEAR IN THE COURT RULING IN : Dimock v. Emerald

Properties (2000) 81 C.A. 4th 868, AT PAGE 876 WHERE THE COURT STATED:

[“[3a] As Dimock points out, because Commonwealth had no power to convey his property its deed to Emerald was void as opposed to merely voidable. That is, the

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Commonwealth deed was a complete nullity with no force or effect as opposed to one which may be set aside but only through the intervention of equity. (See Little v. CFS Service Corp. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1354 , 1358-1359 [233 Cal.Rptr. 923].) ”

AND AT PAGE 878, WHERE THE Dimock COURT STATED:

[“Because Dimock was not required to rely upon equity in attacking the deed, he was not required to meet any of the burdens imposed when, as a matter of equity, a party wishes to set aside a voidable deed. (See Little v. CFS Service Corp., supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 1359.) In particular, contrary to the defendants' argument, he was not required to tender any of the amounts due under the note.”]

47. FURTHER PLAINTIFFS OWED & OWE NOTHING TO THE ALLEGED

LENDER DUE TO THE OFF SET CLAIMS AGAINST THE LENDER & OTHER

DEFENDANTS ACTING AS LENDERS AGENTS, WHICH FACTS RENDER THE

“TENDER” REQUIREMENT INAPPLICABBLE IN THIS CASE.

DEFENDANTS KNOWLEDGE OF FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT & PROMISSORY FRAUD BEFORE THE ALLEGED SALE &

ALLEGED PURCHASE; LIABILITY FOR SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS

48. Upon Service of the Notice of Rescission upon GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, ET AL,

ALL PARTIES HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRIOR FRAUD IN THE

INDUCEMENT & PROMISSORY FRAUD COMMITTED BY United Vision

Financial & Baron DiGiandomenico. Due to said Prior Knowledge all said Defendants

their Agents, Agencies, Privies, Successors, were liable for any and all subsequent

Actions taken against the Rights & Interests of Plaintiffs herein including the

alleged Sale of the Home & Property & the alleged Purchase of the Home &

Property in question, & Due to said Personal Knowledge all said Defendants are

liable for Punitive & or Exemplary Damages .

of 78

http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp3d/188/1354.html

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DEFENDANTS KNOWLEDGE & DUTY UNDER THE NOTICE OF RESCISISON & UNDER ARTICLE 24 OF THE DEED OF TRUST ; & THE PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPAL & NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPLE IS

NOTICE TO THE AGENT

________________________________________________________________

49. ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS WERE SERVED WITH & HAD ACTUAL NOTICE

& CONTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE NOTICE OF RESCISSION UNDER THE

PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO THE

AGENT & NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPAL;

UPON THEIR RECEPTION OF THE NOTICE OF RESCISISON PRIOR TO THE

ALLEGED PUBLIC SALE OF PLAINTIFFS HOME & PROPERTY NAMED

DEFENDANTS HAD A DUTY OF ORDINARY CARE OWD TO PLAINTIFFS

TO NOT PROCEED WITH ANY PURPORTED SALE AS A RESCISSION VOIDS

AB INITIO FROM THE BEGINING & RENDERED ANY ALLEGED MORTGAGE

CONTRACT, DEED OF TRUST AGREEMENT, PROMISE TO PAY, & ANY

ALLEGED SALE THEREAFTER VOID AB INITIO & UNENFORCABLE UNDER

THE LAW, & ALSO VOIDED ANY PURPORTED DUTY TO TENDER PAYMENT

BEFORE SEEKING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE REMEDY AS THERE IS NO

DUTY TO TENDER AN ALLEGED DEBT WHEN THE PURPORTED CONTRACT

CREATING THE DEBT HAS BEEN RESCINDED REMOVING ANY ALLEGED

DEBT UNDER THE PURPORTED PRIOR CONTRACT. UPON THEIR

RECEPTION OF THE NOTICE OF RESCISISON DEFENDANTS, AND ALL OF

THEM GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, & THEIR OFFICERS & EMPLOYEES, MERS &

THEIR OFFICERS & EMPLOYEES KNEW THAT THERE NO LONGER WAS A

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONTRACT WITH Star: Hills, & THERE NO LONGER WAS AN OBLIGATION TO

PAY OR TO TENDER, & THERE NO LONGER WAS ANY ENFORCEABLE

CONTRACT, DEED OF TRUST, OR PROMISE TO PAY, AND ANY FURTHER

CLAIMS OF ANY DEBT OWED TO THE PURPORTED LENDER WAS ONLY

ENFORCEABLE BY THE LENDER IN A SEPARATE ACTION AGAINST Star:

Hills REGARDING WHICH THEY HAD NO RIGHT OF ENFORCEMENT OR

CLAIM OF ACTION; NAMED DEFENDANTS KNEW UPON RECEPTION OF

THE NOTICE OF RESCISISON THAT THEY NO LONGER HAD ANY

AUHTORITY IN ANY AGENT CAPACITY TO ACT FOR THE LENDER AND

WERE NOT AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED WITH ANY FURTHER ACTION

REGARDING THE ALLEGED MORTGAGE PROMISE TO PAY,

EXCLUSION IN ARTICLE 24 OF THE DEED OF TRUST OF ANY POWER OF SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE TO MERS

49. ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS HAD A DUTY TO KNOW, SHOULD HAVE

KNOWN & DID KNOW THAT THEY HAD A DUTY, OWED TO PLAINTIFFS,

TO COMPLY WITH ALL EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF THE DEED OF TRUST

INCLUDING ARTICLE 24 WHICH EXPRESSLY RESERVED ANY RIGHT OF

SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE TO THE LENDER ALONE, & EXCLUDED ANY

GENERAL AUTHORITY OF ANY AGENT OF LENDER INCLUDING MERS &

THEIR AGENTS & EMPLOYEES UNDER THE DEED OF TRUST FROM

EXECUTING ANY SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE. THE ACTIONS OF MERS,

THEIR PRESIDENT & CEO BILL BECKMANN & THEIR EMPLOYEES &

AGENTS IN IGNORING THE EXPRESS PROVI SIONS OF ARTICLE 24 OF

THE DEED OF TRUST WHICH EXPRESSLY RESERVED THE RIGHT TO ONLY

LENDER TO EXECUTE A SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE TO THE EXCLUSION

OF ALL OTHER PROVISONS, INCLUDING THE GENERAL PROVISIONS

GRANTING GENERAL AUTHORITY TO MERS TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LENDER, WAS INTENTIONAL KNOWING FRAUD BY MERS, IT'S PRESDIENT &

CEO BILL BECKMANN , & THEIR EMPLOYEES & AGENTS FOR WHICH SAID

MERS, & BILL BECKMAN ARE LIABLE TO PLAINTIFFS HEREIN FOR

TREBLE DAMAGES INCLUDING ANY FRAUDULENT ACTIONS CARRIED OUT

ON THEIR BEHALF BY EMPLOYEES & AGENTS OF MERS & BILL BECKMAN

REGARDING THE SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE & NOTICE OF DEFAULT &

ELECTION TO SELL; SAID DEFENDANTS HAD A DUTY TO KNOW THAT THE

EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF A DEED OF TRUST GOVERN OVER ANY GENERAL

PROVISIONS TO THE CONTRARY & GOVERN OVER ANY CONFLICTING

GENERAL PROVISIONS IN THE DEED OF TRUST OR ANY OTHER WRITTEN

DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE PURPORTED TRANSACTION BETWEEN

DEFENDANTS & PLAINTIFFS. IF SAID DEFENDANTS WERE ACTUALLY

IGNORENT OF THESE DUTIES & ACTUALLY IGNORENT OF THE LAW OF

CONTRACTS & LAW OF CONSTRUCTION & INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS

THEN SAID DEFENDANTS WERE NEGLIGENT & SUCH IGNORANCE DIRECTLY

OR PROXIMATELY CAUSED THE INJURY & DAMAGES TO PLAINTIFF IN

THE FRAUDULENT OR NEGLIGENT LOSS OF HOME & PROPERTY WHICH

AMOUNTS TO GENERAL NEGLIGENCE, AND OR INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE ,

& WONTON WRECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE RIGHTS & INTERESTS &

PROPERTY OF PLAINTIFFS WITH THE INTENT TO CAUSE HARM & INJURY

TO PLAINTIFFS PERSON & TO THEIR SAID RIGHTS, FOR WHICH SAID

DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE TO PLAINTIFFS FOR PUNITIVE & OR

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES .

INTENTIONAL CONCEALMENT EQUITABLE ESTOPPAL

50. In committing the said acts of Conspiracy & Fraud Defendants and all of them

intentionally concealed the essential facts constituting the causes of Action set forth

herein DEPRIVING Plaintiffs of their Right to full Disclosure of the true terms &

conditions, effect & consequences of said purported Contract , Mortgage, Deed of trust,

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Promise to pay, Article 10 Waivers, & therefor are Equitably & Collaterally Estopped

“in Pais” from Alleging any Statute of Limitations as any Defense to any of the

Causes of Actions in this Complaint.

CAUSES OF ACTION

IFRAUD

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

Complainants hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts & allegations herein by

reference as if fully set forth. The foregoing Actions of the Defendants including

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC amounted to Fraud for which Defendants are Jointly &

Severally Liable to Star & Alan.

IICONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD


Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts & allegations herein by reference

as if fully set forth. The foregoing Actions of the said Defendants amounted to

Constructive Fraud for which Defendants are Jointly & Severally Liable to Star & Alan.

IIIDECEIT


Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by reference as

if fully set forth. The foregoing Actions of the Defendants amounted to Deceit for

which all said Defendants are Jointly & Severally Liable to Star & Alan.

IVEQUITABLE & COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL


of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by reference as

if fully set forth. Based upon the foregoing Actions all the Defendants are Equitably & Collaterally Estopped from Alleging any Statute of Limitations as any Defenses to any of the Causes of Actions in this Complaint.

VABUSE OF PROCESS


Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by reference as if fully set forth. The foregoing Actions of the Defendants amounted

to ABUSE OF PROCESS for which DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE Jointly & Severally to Star.

VIBREACH OF FIDUCIARY

AGAINST GMAC MORTGAGE LLC;PRESIDENT JOHN DOE 1;

VICE PRESIDENT CHARLES R. HOECKER

Plaintiffs hereby incorporates all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by reference

as if fully set forth. The foregoing Actions of the Defendants GMAC MORTGAGE

LLC; PRESIDENT JOHN DOE 1; VICE PRESIDENT CHARLES R. HOECKER

amounted to Breach of Fiduciary for which Defendants are Liable to Star.

VIIENFORCEMENT OF RESCISSION


Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by reference

as if fully set forth. The foregoing actions of the said Defendants Entitles Star & Alan

to Enforcement of the Rescission of the Alleged Mortgage Refinance Contract of May

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17, 2007, including a Permanent Restraining Order Enjoining GMAC MORTGAGE

LLC & ANY OTHER PERSON, OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, SUCCESSORS, HEIRS ,

ASSIGNS, OR CONTRACTORS OF GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, from taking any

further Actions against Star: Hills, & Alan Gjurovich, based upon said alleged

Mortgage, Deed of Trust, Sale & Purchase, etc., & a Total Reconveyance of

the Title to said Property & home.

VIIIQUIET TITLE

AGAINST GMAC MORTGAGE LLC;AGAINST GMAC MORTGAGE LLC;

PRESIDENT JOHN DOE 1;VICE PRESIDENT CHARLES R. HOECKER


as if fully set forth. The foregoing Actions of the said Defendants Entitle Star & Alan

to Quiet Title on the said Property & home commonly referred to as being located

at [ 3018 Linden Avenue, Bakersfield California, Kern County ].

IXUNLAWFUL & FRAUDULENT CONVERSION

& TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTYAGAINST GMAC MORTGAGE LLC;

MAC MORTGAGE LLC PRESIDENT JOHN DOE 1;VICE PRESIDENT CHARLES R. HOECKER;

ETS SERVICES LLC; ETS SERVICE LLC PRESIDENTJOHN DOE 2; ETS SERVICES SALES TRUSTEE Omar Solorzano


as if fully set forth. The foregoing Actions of the said Defendants amounted to

UNLAWFUL AND FRAUDULENT TRANSFER & OBLIGATION FOR WRONGFUL GAIN, in Violation of California Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, At Title 1, of

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

California Civil Code, Section 3439, for which said Defendants are Jointly & Severally

Liable to Star & Alan.

XCONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by reference as

if fully set forth. The foregoing Actions of the said Defendants amounted to a

Conspiracy to commit Fraud for which said Defendants are Jointly & Severally

Liable to Star & Alan.

XICONSPIRACY TO COMMIT UNLAWFUL

& FRAUDULENT CONVERSION & TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY


Plaintiffs hereby incorporates all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by

reference as if fully set forth. The foregoing Actions of the said Defendants

amounted to Conspiracy to Commit Unlawful & or Fraudulent Conversion of Title, for which said Defendants are Jointly & Severally liable to Star & Alan.

XIISLANDER OF TITLE


Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by reference as if fully set forth. The foregoing Actions of said Defendants amounted to SLANDER

OF TITLE of Plaintiffs Property & home, for which said Defendants are personally

liable to Star & Alan Jointly & Severally.

XIIIINVOLUNTARY TRUST

California Civil Code Section 2223 & 2224AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by reference as if fully set forth. Under the foregoing facts Plaintiffs are Entitled to Relief against all

DEFENDANTS under the involuntary Trust including all the personal property now in

possession of any of said Defendants, as set forth in the complaint, & compensation for

any damage or loss of said property, including Legal & Lawful Title to the Home &

Property in question commonly referred to as located at [ 3018 Linden Avenue,

Bakersfield, California].

XIVEQUITABLE RELIEF

INCLUDING EQUITABLE INDEMNIFICATION,DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF


Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all the foregoing facts and allegations herein by

reference as if fully set forth. Based upon the foregoing Actions of the Defendants against Star & Alan, Star & Alan are Entitled to Equitable Relief from the alleged

Judgment Entered on November 19, 2009 after Trial on November 5, 2009 in Case #: S- 1500-CL- including Equitable Indemnification, Declaratory & Injunctive Relief against

said Defendants, including a Declaration by the Court that the alleged Mortgage

Contract, alleged Deed of Trust & alleged Mortgage Foreclosure sale of the home & property of Star: Hills in November of 2008 were Null & Void Ab Initio; & they

are Entitled to a FULL RECONVEYANCE OF THE LEGAL, LAWFUL, &

EQUITABLE TITLE, & A Permanent Restraining Order enjoining all defendants

from any future action against Star & Alan relating to the said Home & Property

& the alleged Mortgage, Foreclosure, sale & purchase of the Property & Home in

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

question.

XVGENERAL NEGLIGENCE

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS---------------------------------------------------------


as if fully set forth. The foregoing actions of all named Defendants amounted to

GENERAL NEGLIGENCE for which said defendants are jointly & Severally Liable to

Plaintiffs for Damages as Determined by a trier of Fact.

XVIINTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS----------------------------------------------------------


reference as if fully set forth. The foregoing actions of all named Defendants

amounted to INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE for which said defendants are jointly &

Severally Liable to Plaintiffs for Damages as Determined by a trier of Fact.

XVIIMISFEASANCE; MALFEASANCE; NON FEASANCE

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


reference as if fully set forth. The foregoing actions of all named Defendants

amounted to MISFEASANCE; MALFEASANCE; NON FEASANCE for which said

defendants are jointly & Severally Liable to Plaintiffs for Damages as Determined by a

trier of Fact.

-DAMAGES-

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The foregoing Actions of said Defendants Caused the following Damages to Star:

Hills & Alan Gjurovich:I. Loss to Star of approximately $ 72,000 dollars of lawful money and or credit

(subject to future amendment) due to the conspiracy, Fraudulent Inducement,

Promissory Fraud, etc. ;

II. Fraudulent, Unlawful Loss of Title to Home & Property due to the Conspiracy &

Fraud; Slander of Title Damage to & loss of Credit & false Credit & Tax Reporting

due to Slander of Title; Fraud; Deceit; Constructive Fraud; Etc.

III. Mental & Emotional Distress & Anguish due to the Conspiracy & Fraud, Abuse

of Process, Trespassing, harassment, terrorist threats & threats of vandalism to the

Home & Property of Star & Alan.

IV. Breach of Novation Contract;

V. Breach of THE DEED OF TRUST;

VI. Breach of Fiduciary;

VII. Cost of Suit & out of pocket expenses.

PRAYER

Alan Gjurovich & Star: Hills hereby pray to God Almighty the Creator of the

Universe for the following Relief :

I. Judgment in Treble Damages for each Count of Fraud of GMAC MORTGAGE

LLC, & all named Defendants Jointly & Severally, FOR $5,000,000 DOLLARS, OR

AN AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY A JURY;

II. THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF LOSS OF Star: Hills & Alan Gjurovich in the

FRAUDULENT LOSS OF HOME & PROPERTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $245,000 x 3,

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

OR $ 735,000 DOLLARS; or as Determined by a Jury.

III. Judgment in Treble Damages for the Fraud of ETS SERVICES, LLC, & their

EMPLOYEES , ETS SERVICES LLC SALES TRUSTEE Omar Solorzano; ETS

SERVICES LLC MANAGERS JOSEPH A. PENSABENA; MARK E. LAHIFF; ETS SERVICES LLC TRUSTEE SALE OFFICER Adam Leppo; FOR

THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF LOSS OF Star: Hills & Alan Gjurovich in

the FRAUDULENT LOSS OF HOME & PROPERTY IN THE AMOUNT

OF $245,000 x 3, OR $735,000 DOLLARS; or as Determined by a Jury.

IV. COMPENSATION FOR GENERAL NEGLIGENCE OF NAMED DEFENDANTS

FOR THE OMISSIONS OF DUTY OF ORDINARY CARE OWED TO

PLAINTIFFS IN PERPETRATING THE ACTS SET FORTH IN THE

COMPLAINT INCLUDING THE ACTS OF FRAUD & BREACHES OF THE

EXPRESS PROVISONS OF THE TRUST DEED, & BREACH OF ARTICLE 24

OF THE DEED OF TRUST IN THE AMOUNT OF 250,000 FOR EACH COUNT

AGAINST EACH DEFENDANT OR AS DETERMINED BY A JURY.

V. COMPENSATION FROM ALL DEFENDANTS FOR INTENTIONAL

NEGLIGENCE & BREACH OF THEIR DUTY OF CARE OWED TO

PLAINTIFFS UPON RECEPTION OF THE NOTICE OF RESCISISON OF

THE WHOLE MORTGAGE TRANSACTION PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED

PUBLIC AUCTION OF PLAINTIFFS HOME & PROPERTY, IN THE AMOUNT

OF 250,000 FOR EACH COUNT AGAINST EACH DEFENDANT OR AS DETERMINED BY A JURY.

VI. COMPENSATION FROM ALL DEFENDANTS FOR INTENTIONAL

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NEGLIGENCE & BREACH OF THEIR DUTY OF CARE OWED TO PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR KNOWING & INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF

EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF THE DEED OF TRUST UNDER ARTICLE 24

IN THE AMOUNT OF 250,000 FOR EACH COUNT AGAINST EACH

DEFENDANT OR AS DETERMINED BY A JURY.

VII. COMPENSATION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY OF VICE PRESIDENT

& LOAN SERVICER CHARLES HOACKER IN VIOLATING THE ORIGINAL

PAYMENT REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO Star: Hills IN THE ORIGINAL

LOAN NEGOTIATIONS WHICH HE HAD A DUTY TO COMPLY WITH &

ENFORCE, & FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY INFORM Star: Hills OF ANY

PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE ORIGINAL REPRESENTATIONS THAT THE

INTEREST RATE WOULD BE FIXED AT 1% IN THE AMOUNT OF 1,000,000,

DOLLARS FOR EACH COUNT OR AS DETERMINED BY A JURY.

VIII. Compensation for Mental & Emotional Distress & Anguish due to the Conspiracy;

Fraud; Constructive Fraud; Deceit; Abuse of Process; Terrorist Threats; Trespassing;

Vandalism; Falsifying of Documents; Perjury; IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 1,000,000

Dollars FOR EACH DEFENDANT, or as determined by a Jury

XI. Compensation to Star: Hills pursuant to the Novation Agreement entered into by

Defendants pursuant to the agreement & Notice of Status in attached Exhibits for

18,000,000 Dollars, or as determined by a Jury;

X. Compensation for Court fees and Costs, Cost of suit.

XI. Equitable Relief including an Order Enforcing Rescission of the alleged Mortgage

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Contract & Note, a Declaratory Judgment that the Alleged Foreclosure and Sale of the Home & Property were Void Ab Initio, based upon a lawful prior Rescission of the

whole alleged Mortgage contract, & all other causes set forth in the complaint; & an

Order Setting Aside the alleged Judgment for Unlawful Detainer & Writ of

Possession of November 19, 2009, in Limited Civil Case #: S-1500-CL-237061-KCT;

Injunctive Relief and a Permanent Restraining Order Enjoining GMAC

MORTGAGE LLC & ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS, HEIRS, SUCCESSORS

ASSIGNS, EMPLOYEES, OFFICERS, AGENTS, CONTRACTORS from taking

any further actions against Star or Alan based upon the alleged Foreclosure &

Sale of said Home & Property, including an Order for Total Reconveyance of Title

to said Home & Property, & Order Quieting the Title to said Property & home in favor of Star & Alan.

XII. A Declaratory Judgment Against Defendants that The Deed of Trust was Rendered

Void Ab Initio upon the Breach of Article 24 by MERS & ITS OFFICERS

& EMPLOYEES; & A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE “NOTICE OF

DEFAULT & ELECTION TO SELL”, THE ALLEGED “SALE” OF THE HOME &

PROPERTY OF PLAINTIFFS, & THE ALLEGED “TRUSTEES DEED UPON SALE”

ISSUED BY DEFENDANTS MERS THEIR OFFICERS & EMPLOYEES, ETS

SERVICES LLC TO GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, WERE ALL RENDERED VOID

DUE TO THE PRIOR BREACH OF ARTICLE 24 OF THE DEED OF TRUST

BY DEFENDANT MERS & THEIR OFFICERS & EMPLOYEES; & THAT THE

ALLEGED SUBSTITUTED TRUSTEE ETS SERVICE LLC HAD NO POWER OR

AUTHORITY UNDER THE DEED OF TRUST TO ISSUE ANY NOTICES OR TO

SELL OR CONVEY TITLE TO ANY PROPERTY, RENDERING THE PURPORTED

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NOTICE OF DEFAULT & ELECTION TO SELL VOID, & THE PURPORTED

SALE OF THE PLAINTIFFS HOME & PROPERTY VOID, & THE PURPORTED

TRUSTEES DEED UPON SALE VOID & UNENFORCEABLE AS A MATTER

OF LAW; & A Declaratory Judgment Against Defendants that any & all Actions &

Acts taken by them as alleged Agents of Lender to Execute the Mortgage & Deed

of Trust, including MERS & THEIR OFFICERS & EMPLOYEES, GMAC MORT.

LLC, & THEIR OFFICERS & EMPLOYEES, ETS SERVICES LLC, & ALL THEIR

OFFICERS & EMPLOYEES WERE VOID AB INITIO & ULTRA VIRES FOR

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH EXPRESS PROVISIONS IN THE DEED OF

TRUST THAT THEY WOULD COMPLY WITH ALL STATE & LOCAL LAWS,

& SPECIFICALLY FOR VIOLATING THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 2933 MANDATING THAT: A po wer of

attorney to execute a mortgage must be in writing, subscribed,

acknowledged, or proved, certified, and recorded in like manner as powers

of attorney for grants of real property.

XIII. A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ENJOINING THE NAMED

DEFENDANTS FROM TAKING ANY ACTION AGAINST THE SAID HOME &

PROPERTY OF Star & Alan, from entering on said property, from trespassing upon said property, from Vandalizing or damaging said Property in any way,

shape, form, or regard until final Adjudication of this Action;

XIV. Punitive or Exemplary Damages IN THE AMOUNT OF 2,000,000 DOLLARS

FOR EACH NAMED DEFENDANT OR AS Determined by a Jury, for Fraud

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

with Malice Reckless Wanton Disregard for the Rights & Property of Star & Alan,

with Intent to do Injury and harm to Star: Hills & Alan Gjurovich.

IVX. Any other Relief the Court Deems Right and Proper under the facts & Law of

the Case.

On this day, the-Seventh-day-of-the-eleventh-month-of-Two-Thousand-and-Eleven,

____________________ Star: Hills, all Rights Reserved,

______________________ Alan Gjurovich,

all Rights reserved.

VERIFICATIO N Alan Gjurovich & Star: Hills hereby affirm under the Penalty of Perjury under

the laws of the State of California that we executed the foregoing Amended

Verified Complaint and that the contents of the same are true and correct, Except

as to those matters based upon information and belief, and as to those matters we

believe them to be true. Executed on this 7th day of November, Two Thousand and

Eleven in the Republic of California, County of Kern, City of Bakersfield,

_____________________ Star: Hills, all Rights Reserved.

__________________ Alan Gjurovich

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

all Rights Reserved.

INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE & JUDICIAL NOTICE

------------------------------------------------------ PLAINTIFFS HEREBY INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE AS IF FULLY SET

FORTH THE EXHIBITS SET FORTH BELOW HEREIN BY REFERENCE WHICH

ARE ATTACHED TO THE FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE. THEY ARE

NOT ATTACHED DUE TO THE COST IN DUPLICATING WHAT IS ALREADY

PRODUECED IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, & THEREFORE THEY ARE HEREBY

MADE A PART OF THIS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY REFERENCE, WHICH

THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO TAKE MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE OF

UNDER CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 450-459.

EXHIBIT PAGEINDEX OF EXHIBITS

------------------------------------------------------------

#1: QUIT CLAIM DEED OF Star: Hills RECORDED 1/27/2003, DOCUMENT #: 0203014911;

#2: ALLEGED UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL LOAN APPLICATION OF MAY 17, 2007; ALLEGED PROMISSORY NOTE OF MAY 17, 2007 RELATED TO ALLEGED REFINANCE MORTGAGE LOAN #: 40824789; TRUTH IN LENDING STATEMENT; ALLEGED DEED OF TRUST OF MAY 17, 2007 RELATED TO ALLEGED REFINANCE MORTGAGE LOAN #: 40824789;

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

#3: ACCEPTANCE FOR VALUE; NOVATION CONTRACT; NOTICE OF PUBLIC STATUS; NOTICE OF FINAL DEFAULT & OFFER TO CURE OF Star: Hills

#4: NOTICE OF DEFAULT & ELECTION TO SELL; NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE; NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF Star: Hills SERVED ON GMAC MORTGAGE LLC & ETS SERVICES LLC PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED PUBLIC SALE OF 11/13/2008; NOTICE OF TITLE USC 18 VIOLATIONS OF Star: Hills;

#5: QUIT CLAIM DEED OF OCTOBER 5, 2009 OF Star: Hills TRANSFERRING ONE HALF OR 50 % PERCENT OF OWNERSHIP INTEREST TO LAWFUL, LEGAL, EQUITABLE, TITLE TO Alan Gjurovich OF THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: “All of Lot 17 in Block 26 of Skyline Park Subdivision No. 2 according to the map thereof filed on August 13, 1923, and recorded in Book 3, pages 88 to 93, inclusive, of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. APN: 123-330-06” TRANSFERRED PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED JUDGMENT OF NOVEMBER 18, 2009 IN S-1500-CL-237061-LHB-KCT;

#6: ALLEGED “JUDGMENT– UNLAWFUL DETAINER” IN CASE #: S-1500-CL-237061 ALLEGEDLY ENTERED ON NOVEMBER 19, 2009 BY JUDGE KENNETH TWISSELMAN II;

#7: AFFIDAVIT OF Joseph: William REGARDING ALLEGED TRIAL TESTIMONY FOR PLAINTIFF GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, ON NOVEMBER 5, 2009 IN DEPARTMENT 8 OF THE METROPOLITAN DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN & FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN; & AFFIDAVIT OF Joseph: William REGARDING DVD OF SECURITY CAMERA VIDEO OF MOTION DETECTION ENTRIES FROM APRIL 8, 2009 TO MAY 11, 2009 SHOWING NO ONE POSTED ANYTHING ON THE PREMISES OR DOOR OF Star: Hills AS FALSELY CLAIMED BY DEFENDANT GMAC MORTGAGE LLC;

of 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of 78

star & alans corrected 1st amended complaint law suit

Documents