16-1 denise's reply to lnv's objection to emergency writ of mandamus

PETITIONERS REPLY TO LNVS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR EMERGENCY WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Case No. 15-35963

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN RE: DENISE SUBRAMANIAM

DENISE SUBRAMANIAM Defendant Petitioner

v. LNV CORPORATION Plaintiff Respondent

Gabrielle D. Richards

Respondent

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the District of Oregon Portland Division

Respondent

Judge Michael W. Mosman Respondent

From the United States District Court District of Oregon Portland Division Judge Michael W. Mosman Presiding

Case No. 3:14-cv-01836

PETITIONERS REPLY TO LNVS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR EMERGENCY WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Denise Subramaniam c/o 1905 SE 24th Ave Portland OR 97214 503-764-5300 Pro se Petitioner

Gabrielle D. Richards Martin & Richards, LLP 111 SW Fifth Ave, Suite 3150 Portland, OR 97204 503-444-3449 Fax: 503-296-5834 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Counsel for LNV Corporation

Case: 15-35963, 04/18/2016, ID: 9944557, DktEntry: 16-1, Page 1 of 22(1 of 306)

Erick J. Haynie Perkins Coie, LLP 1120 NW Couch Street 10th Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 503-727-2017 Fax: 503-727-2222 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Counsel for LNV Corporation Jeffrey M. Peterson Perkins Coie, LLP 1120 NW Couch Street 10th Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 503-727-2075 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Counsel for LNV Corporation

PETITIONERS REPLY TO LNVS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION OF PETITIONERS

EMERGENCY WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Comes now Petitioner and replies to Respondent LNV Corporations (LNV) response in

opposition to her Emergency Writ of Mandamus and states the following:

1. Respondent LNV does not provide any argument to address the question of how LNV

could be the holder of Petitioners mortgage note when the instruments that purport to

convey the note and the deed of trust to LNV were executed on March 10, 2008 before

Respondent LNV ever existed. (i.e The allonge bearing a questioned signature of Jason J.

Vecchio and an assignment of deed of trust recorded in Washington County as instrument

2008-073972 on August 27, 2008.)


2. Respondent LNV does not provide any argument to address the question of whether

Respondent LNV has operated outside in violation of Nevada law by transacting business

before it obtained a business license and whether the Doctrine of Unclean hands should bar

LNV from obtaining equitable relief. LNVs Corporate disclosure states that LNV is a

wholly owned subsidiary of Beal Bank USA. Attached as Exhibit AA is a screen print of

the Nevada SOS websites information about Beal Bank USA. Note that D. Andrew Beal is

the President, the Director and the Secretary of Beal Bank USA. Beal Bank USA is just

another corporate fiction alter ego for D. Andrew Beal.

3. Petitioner has obtained certified copies of the signature of Jason J. Vecchio on his own

mortgage. They are attached hereto as Exhibit A. She has already provided this Honorable

Court and Respondent District Court with a certified copy of his authentic notary signature

and the court information about his name change in 2010 to show that on March 10, 2008

when he purportedly signed the questioned allonge he would have signed as Jason J.

Vecchio-Smith, his legal name at the time. Petitioner submitted the OMNI preliminary

report [Doc # 101-3] to dispute the authenticity of the Jason J. Vecchio signature on an

allonge that purports to convey Petitioners note to LNV, and on nearly identical allonges

to notes of the Swifts, Catherine Gebhardt, Tuli Molina-Wohl, Robynne A. Fauley, and

Rhonda Hardwick.

4. Robin D. Williams B.S.A.J., M.F.S., M.S., D-BFDE a Board Certified Forensic Document

Examiner since 2008 who was mentored under the direction of Clarence Bohn retired FBI

Crime Laboratory and Professor at George Washington University, Washington D.C.

determined these Jason J. Vecchio signatures are copies of each other. Petitioner attaches


herein as Exhibit B accurate color copies of the OMNI signature comparison chart that was

sent to Petitioner by the Swifts to better show how he arrived at such a determination.

Certainly this fact when coupled with the fact that these Jason J. Vecchio copied signatures

on these questionable allonges do not match his known authentic signatures raises a

genuine question about whether these instruments were forged. A forged instrument

conveys nothing.

5. Respondent LNV does not provide any argument to address the question of how LNV

could be the holder of Petitioners mortgage note when the allonge that purports to convey

the note to LNV appears to an expert in determining the authenticity of documents, and to

any reasonable objective person to be a forgery manufactured by digital means using a

copied signature.

6. The first assignment of deed of trust recorded with Petitioners county on June 28, 2006 as

instrument number 2006-077542 endorsed by Dana Lantry executed on December 29, 2005

conveys the deed of trust to Homecomings Financial Network, Inc. (Homecomings)

while the undated and suspect allonge also endorsed by Dana Lantry conveys the mortgage

note to Residential Funding LLC. No evidence exists of the mortgage note ever being

conveyed to or from Homecomings. Bifurcation of the mortgage note from the deed of

trust therefore occurred on or around December 29, 2005 and raises genuine questions of

fact and law specific to LNVs claims that it is the holder of the note.

7. Again Respondent LNV provides no argument in its response to address the genuine issues

of law specific to whether LNV can be the holder of Petitioners mortgage note with

standing to foreclose on Petitioners property after bifurcation occurred in 2005.


8. These aforementioned contradictive allonge and assignment also raise questions about the

authenticity of the allonge; and suggest as Petitioner has claimed that the allonge is a

forged instrument. LNV cant be the holder of the note via a forged allonge. A forged

instrument conveys nothing.

9. Respondent LNV does not provide any argument to address the questions raised by

Petitioner about the authenticity of what Respondent LNV claims is the genuine original

mortgage note and deed of trust. Specifically as to why Petitioners initials on [Doc # 5-2]

are black except on pages where other blue ink signatures appear. This is indicative of

digital alteration of a black and white copy with color enhancement of signatures to

deceptively make the copy appear to be a genuine wet ink document when it is not.

10. Nor does Respondent LNV address in its response why Petitioners initials on the

purported original note shown to her by Respondent Gabrielle Richards has a black

outline surrounding the blue color inside the initials. This can easily be observed in the high

resolution photographs; which also indicates digital alteration.

11. Nor does Respondent LNV address in its response why the shade of blue used in

Petitioners initials doesnt match the shade of blue used on other signatures on this

purported original note.

12. Nor does Respondent LNV address in its response the question of why the same shade of

blue used for signatures on Petitioners purported original note was also used on what

LNV claims to be the original mortgage notes in the cases of Becky Gentry-Youngblood

and Robynne A. Fauley. The probability of these three homeowners miles apart with notes


being executed years apart all using pens with the same unusual shade of blue is

exceptionally low. This warrants a forensic examination of these documents for

authenticity and NOT a summary judgment order favoring LNV. These issues constitute

genuine questions of fact in dispute that cant be determined by a judge who is not trained

in the procedures and methods used by qualified experts in forensic document examination

like Robin D. Williams B.S.A.J., M.F.S., M.S., D-BFDE and Dr. James M. Kelley PhD.

[Doc # 101-4].

13. Furthermore if LNV aka Andy Beal believed these notes were in fact genuine then hed

have no problem allowing them to be examined for authenticity. Instead he vigorously

fights any attempt to have this done; this is because he KNOWS they are forgeries.

14. Respondent Judge Mosman did not merely err in the issuance of his summary judgment

order he denied Petitioner due process, equal protection of law and a jury trial before he

deprived her of her life, liberty and/or property without a jury trial in violation of her civil

rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. As an unrepresented layperson

Petitioner is like a sitting duck against a powerful and exceptionally wealthy advisory such

as Andy Beal aka LNV. Federal district courts and federal judges have a fiduciary duty to

uphold the United States Constitution bestowed upon them by the United States

Constitution and by a constitutionally mandated oath of office. Federal judges are

fiduciaries to the public. Federal judges are obligated to protect the constitutionally derived

civil rights of all citizens and particularly members of disadvantaged classes that come

before them unrepresented. Public interest demands federal judges to be defenders of

constitutional rights, not willful violators of constitutional rights.


15. Petitioner doesnt deserve the trashing LNVs Counsel Gabrielle Richards directed towards

her in LNVs response to Petitioners Emergency Writ of Mandamus. She merely has done

everything possible to protect her property rights and retain the home that accommodates

her specific disabilities. Ms. Richards blames Petitioner for burdening the courts when the

real culprits are Respondents LNV, Ms. Richards and Judge Mosman.

16. Respondent Judge Mosman violated his fiduciary duties, his oath of office and the code of

conduct for United States judges; any reasonable objective person would conclude he was

biased against Petitioner. He exhibits the same discriminatory and inflammatory attitude

against Petitioner that is reflected throughout LNVs Counsels response to Petitioners

Emergency Writ of Mandamus.

17. Respondent LNV does not provide any argument in its response to address how the Dana

Lantry endorsement on the back of LNVs purported original note can be authentic when

Denise Price from the JP Morgan Chase executive offices told Petitioner this endorsement

does not exist in Chases records. This is another fact that undermines the authenticity of

LNVs purported original note and its claim to be the holder of the note with standing to

foreclose on Petitioners property. A forged note conveys nothing. Judge Mosman

acknowledged this as per the transcript of the status conference hearing [Doc # 92-1]. It

appears that Respondent Judge Mosman never read most of Petitioners pro se pleadings.

This substantiates Petitioners and the other LNV/Beal victims challenge to the

constitutionality of summary judgments because they result in a negative disparate

discriminatory impact on pro se litigants whose pleadings appear to be routinely

disregarded by judges as not being worthy of their attention.


18. Petitioner filed several motions for judicial notice of adjudicative fact pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 201 [Doc # 19], [Doc # 59], [Doc # 60], [Doc # 64], [Doc # 81].

FRCP 201(b)(2) - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts states:

Kinds of Facts That May Be Judicially Noticed. The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

19. FRCP 201(c) states:

Taking Notice. The court: must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.

20. Petitioner requested judicial notice and supplied Respondent District Court with the

necessary information yet Respondent Judge Mosman denied her motions for judicial

notice of adjudicative fact in violation of the FRCP 201(c). FRCP 201(c) does not permit

judicial discretion to deny motions for judicial notices of adjudicative facts. Petitioner

requested judicial notice of adjudicative fact in Beal Bank, SSB v. Sarich, No. 05-2-11440-

1SEA (King County Super. Ct. Sept. 8, 2006) [Doc # 59] because as stated in her motion:

it was judicially determined that: The second page of the Term Note, dated September 24, 2002, attached as Exhibit 2 to Beal Bank's Complaint for Judicial Foreclosure of Deeds of Trust, appears to be signed by Kay Sarich. CP 20. However, a copy of the actual September 24, 2002 Term Note obtained from the original lender (U.S. Bank) shows that Kay Sarich did not sign the note. CP 105. Beal Bank subsequently admitted switching the signature pages. The adjudicative facts in Beal Bank, SSB v. Sarich are relevant to Defendants case because it shows a propensity for corporations owned by Daniel Andrew Beal aka D. Andrew Beal to alter Notes; Adjudicative fact in Beal Bank, SSB v. Sarich further shows Beals propensity to prey on the most vulnerable in our society, the elderly, without any sense of humanity or compassion for the destruction his actions cause to the lives of his victims Furthermore the adjudicative facts in Beal Bank, SSB v. Sarich demonstrates how Defendant and the other LNV/MGC/Beal victims and the Sarichs are being denied due process and equal protection of the law. Had any of us had been found by a court to have altered a note to make it appear that someone signed it when they did not we would likely be arrested


WHEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 201 DEFENDANT moves this Court to take Judicial Notice without hearing of adjudicative facts pertaining to the regular business practices of D. Andrew Beal owned business entities, including Beal Bank and LNV Corporation and their propensity to misrepresent and falsify facts pertaining to mortgage Notes and Deeds of Trust.

Petitioner requested judicial notice of adjudicative fact in United States of America v.

Lorraine Brown; Case No. 3:12-cr-198-J-25 MCR. (MD. Fla.) [Doc #s 19 and 64] because

as stated in her motions:

Lorraine Brown was indicted and convicted of for "Conspiracy to Commit Mail and Wire Fraud" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 18 1341 and 18 U.S.C. 18 1343 Defendant is a victim of the crimes of Lorraine Brown and her co-conspirators Adjudicative facts in the criminal conviction of Lorraine Brown include:

a. Lorraine Brown had co-conspirators. b. Lorraine Brown's co-conspirators have not yet been prosecuted for their

crimes. c. Lorraine Brown committed her crimes through Lender Processing Services,

("LPS") [LNV aka Beal uses LPS affiliated service providers and attorneys] d. At the direction of Brown and other co-conspirators employees of LPS began

forging and falsifying signatures of mortgage-related documents and filed them with property recorders offices across the country.

e. Lorraine Brown's co-conspirators used other unauthorized employees to sign mortgage-related documents on their behalf knowing that the documents would be notarized as if the co-conspirator has signed the document, when he/she had not.

f. Between 2003 and 2009 it is estimated that over I million fraudulently signed and notarized mortgage-related documents were produced through the crimes of Lorraine Brown and her co-conspirators and filed with property recorders' offices across the country.

Federal Rule 301 Presumptions in Civil Cases states: "... unless a federal statute or these rules provide otherwise, the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption. But this rule does not shift the burden of persuasion, which remains on the party who had it originally."

LNV as the plaintiff had the burden of proof or persuasion in the present case. LNV submitted to the court various mortgage related documents that included deed assignments, the deed of trust the note with endorsements and allonges to the note as evidence of its standing to foreclose on Defendant's property. Defendant challenges the authenticity of these documents. However deed assignments, since they are filed with the property recorders' office carry a presumptive burden. Presumptions governed by Rule 301 are given the effect of placing upon the opposing party


(Defendant in the present case the burden of establishing the nonexistence of the presumed fact, once the party invoking the presumption establishes the basic facts giving rise to it... Adjudicative fact in the criminal indictment and conviction of Lorraine Brown for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud defeats the burden of presumption that deed assignments and other documents filed with a property recorders' office must be genuine. Adjudicative fact in this noticed criminal conviction establishes that over 1 million fraudulently signed and notarized mortgage-related documents were produced through the crimes of Lorraine Brown and her co-conspirators and these false and forged documents were filed enmass with property recorders' offices across the country; THEREFORE courts cannot assume the genuineness of such records.

21. It appears that Respondent Judge Mosman did not simply err but abused his judicial

discretion. Furthermore Petitioner and several other LNV/Beal victims filed Notices of

Constitutional Questions [Doc # 69] and Revised Notices of Constitutional Questions in an

attempt to simplify and more narrowly construe our constitutional challenges to summary

judgments [Doc # 123] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2403 and FRCP 5.1(a)(1) which states:

(a) Notice by a Party. A party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute must promptly: (1) file a notice of constitutional question stating the question and identifying the

paper that raises it, if: (A) a federal statute is questioned and the parties do not include the United

States, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity; or

(B) a state statute is questioned and the parties do not include the state, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity; and

(2) serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a federal statute is questionedor on the state attorney general if a state statute is questionedeither by certified or registered mail or by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose.

(b) Certification by the Court. The court must, under 28 U.S.C. 2403, certify to the appropriate attorney general that a statute has been questioned.

(c) Intervention; Final Decision on the Merits. Unless the court sets a later time, the attorney general may intervene within 60 days after the notice is filed or after the court certifies the challenge, whichever is earlier. Before the time to intervene expires, the court may reject the constitutional challenge, but may not enter a final judgment holding the statute unconstitutional.


(d) No Forfeiture. A party's failure to file and serve the notice, or the court's failure to certify, does not forfeit a constitutional claim or defense that is otherwise timely asserted.

22. Neither the United States nor any state, nor any federal or state agency, nor any federal or

state officer or employee in an official capacity is a party to the actions that give rise to the

constitutional questions expressed by Petitioner and the other LNV/Beal victims who did

each file a notice of constitutional question stating the question and identifying the paper

that raises it; i.e summary judgments. Quoting from [Doc # 123] Petitioner and the other

LNV/Beal victims claim that summary judgments deny them due process and equal

protection of the law in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution and unconstitutionally deprive of their property and right to a jury trial

under the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution because they:

result in a discriminatory disparate impact on non-criminal homeowner pro se litigants fighting wrongful foreclosure actions result in a discriminatory disparate impact on non-criminal pro se litigants involved in other civil rights related litigation, such as employment discrimination, and divorce and child custody litigation, where, like with homeowners in foreclosure related litigation, a significant number of litigants cannot afford legal representation and are left with few choices but to represent themselves pro se result in an arbitrary, capricious, abuse of judicial discretion resulting in rulings that are not in accordance with law and/or made without the observance of procedure required by law Most of these summary dismissals and summary judgments rendered against homeowner pro se litigants are due to procedural defects in pro se pleadings and due to pro se litigants inexperience with obtaining evidence through discovery. More often than not, these pro se litigants are deprived of any meaningful opportunity for discovery by over use of Rule 56 and Rule 12 by judges who want to quickly end these pro se foreclosure cases with rulings favoring the foreclosing parties which are based on their own personal biases rather than on any sense of justice A primary strength of the jury trial is that it acts as a check to unfettered prosecutorial power. If judges decided every case, it could raise a number of concerns about fairness in the judicial process pro se homeowners litigants are in fact experiencing such unconstitutional unfairness in the courts as a result of Rule 56 and Rule 12 which have eroded our judiciary into an oppressive mechanism for imposing the undemocratic will of an elite corporate oligarchy on the masses thorough civil litigation that often results in an unconstitutional deprivation of their life, liberty and property


D. Brock Hornby a District Judge on the United States District Court for the District of Maine in SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT ILLUSIONS writes on page 7:

Summary judgment motions change litigation stakes. By filing them, defendants delay recovery and increase Defendant legal expenses (or Defendants lawyers expenses in contingent fee cases). They also increase Defendants risk because, if Defendants lose, all is over except for an expensive, delayed, and uncertain appeal. Therefore, Defendants case value decreases for settlement purposes.

The jury trial is a vital part of Americas system of checks and balances. Appointed judges might be beholden to politics and the people who appointed them. Elected judges could be swayed by public opinion in a given case. Jurors, on the other hand, are not appointed and instead serve on a jury as part of their civic duties A jury trial, guaranteed by the United States Constitution, is the first major check on the discretion of judges. A judge, holding office over the course of multiple cases, and selected by appointment or election, is susceptible to undue influence. A jury, chosen by sortition, or lot, for a single case, just before the case, is less likely to be corrupted, and having multiple jurors render verdicts collectively provides a check by each on the others. What they might lack in knowledge of the law is offset by their connection to the non-legal environment in which most people subject to the law must operate. I consider trial by jury the greatest anchor ever yet devised by humankind for holding a government to the principles of its constitution. Thomas Jefferson, 1792.

23. Respondent Judge Mosman and judges presiding in other LNV/Beal victims cases (Judge

Thomas A. Varlan and Judge Jane Boyle) have each ignored these notices of constitutional

questions. As they have done through their denials of these pro se litigants motions for

judicial notice of adjudicative fact, it appears that Respondent Judge Mosman and these

other judges have abused judicial discretion. As pro se litigants untrained in law Petitioner

and the others attempt to follow the rules; yet time and again we observe judges trained in

law failing to follow the rules. Judges are public servants but perhaps some of them have

forgotten this.

24. On page 6 of LNVs response to Petitioners Emergency Writ LNVs Counsel Respondent

Gabrielle Richards states:

Petitioner has repeatedly demonstrated a profound disregard for the law and a disturbing lack of respect for the Court. In fact, nearly every person or entity that has


been involved in this case including judges, attorneys, nonparties and corporations has become Petitioners target in pleadings, Bar complaints and letters to the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation. Having grown weary from the avalanche of frivolous pleadings and the toxicity of Petitioners theories, the District Court sua sponte imposed the blanket pre-filing restriction. Now, having lost in every other forum, Petitioner seeks refuge with the Ninth Circuit to provide further cover for her wild tales of conspiracy and malevolent machinations.

This is nothing more than a despicable personal attack on Petitioner; and addresses none of

the genuine issues specific to Respondent LNVs standing to foreclose that is before this

Honorable Court of Appeals for review. As a pro se litigant Petitioner does not always

understand the law. Her lack of knowledge appears to be interpreted by Ms. Richards as a

profound disregard for the law however from Petitioners and the other LNV/Beal

victims perspective it is Respondent LNV and its owner Andy Beal and his attorneys who

have a profound disregard for the law. As average hard working taxpaying God-fearing

Americans who have been thrust into the civil court system though the misfortune of being

targets for highly predatory mortgages; fraudulent securitizations of those mortgages,

misappropriation of mortgage payments, false claims of default, false and forged mortgage

related instruments, and fraudulent foreclosures Petitioner and the other LNV/Beal victims

along with millions of other homeowners in similar circumstances have become appalled

and outraged by the injustices and deprivation of their civil rights they have experienced in

the very courts they turn to for relief. As a group the pro se LNV/Beal victims do as much

as possible to help each other because they find themselves at such a disadvantage. They

have no access to the databases attorneys use for finding case law. When they ask court

clerks for information about procedures they are brushed off with we cant give legal

advice. As a result it takes pro se litigants many more hours, days and weeks to write

their legal pleadings than it would take a trained attorney; just to have those pleadings


ignored and not read by judges. Their outrage at what they perceive is a breakdown of our

civil justice system and a general denial of access to justice for an ever growing segment of

our population is justified.

25. Along the line of how pro se litigants are unjustly treated by the courts at all levels, after

Petitioner filed her motion for relief under Rule 60 and Respondent Judge Mosman denied

it; the other LNV/Beal victims told her that a sheriff is a county agent so maybe she needed

to file something in her county court to stop the sheriffs sale. They looked online and

found information about challenging a garnishment that looked like it might be appropriate.

Petitioner prepared a pleading based on this information (a copy is attached as Exhibit C)

and went to the Washington County Courthouse early in the morning of January 29, 2016

the day of the sheriffs sale. She thought she could file the document and then take it over

to the Sheriffs building to stop the sale. Petitioner was unable to file her challenge because

the clerk at the Washington County Courthouse told her she needed a case number. She

explained that she didnt have a case number. She thought she had to file a case in order to

get a case number; so she hand wrote a petition but when she tried to file that the clerk told

her she needed to pay the $252 filing fee. (Petitioners only copy of this handwritten

petition is buried in the storage units.) Petitioner didnt have the $252 dollars. She

explained that she was unable to pay; she was low income and should qualify to file in

forma pauperis but the clerk said they would not allow her to file in forma pauperis unless

she had all the paperwork they needed (which of course she didnt have because she didnt

know she needed it ahead of time and the Washington County Courthouse was a long

distance from her home so she couldnt run back home to get the paperwork and get back

before the sheriffs sale.) She phoned everyone she knew to try to find someone would pay


the fee for her to no avail; and by this time the sale had already taken place. That court

clerk had to have known that the case number Petitioner needed was for a case someone

else had filed against her. Had the court clerk just asked Petitioner if she was trying to file

her challenge against someone who was trying to enforce a garnishment against her then

Petitioner would have realized that LNV had filed a case already against her and told the

clerk to look for such a case. This is how pro se litigants are deprived of their civil rights

by courts.

26. Respondent LNV and its Counsel Respondent Gabriel Richards most certainly knew that

Petitioner would defend her property rights as vigorously in the Washington County Court

as she did in federal court and the ONLY reason she did not was because she was never

given service of summons. This was an intentional act meant to deprive Petitioner of any

opportunity to present a case in her defense. Respondent Gabriel Richards knew that when

Petitioner is suffering from health problems and the symptoms of her disabilities she is

unable to check her emails and because she receives hundreds of emails a day important

emails get lost in the barrage; and that often her physical mail gets displaced under periods

when Petitioner is unable to function due to the symptoms of her disabilities. Petitioner has

specifically told Respondent Gabriel Richard this and asked her to phone when she has sent

something important. This is a reasonable accommodation for Petitioners disability. Ms.

Richard never once phoned Petitioner to let her know she had filed a case in the

Washington County Court in behalf of her client Respondent LNV.

27. A few days ago Petitioner learned she could have filed for a stay in the court of appeals.

This is also how pro se litigants are denied due process because they are always learning as


they go by the seat of their pants; and they learn what they should have done after it is too

late. Of course in Petitioners case her appeal was terminated through no fault of her own

and she didnt even know she still had an active appeal until a former attorney went into

Pacer, reviewed the docket and told her it looked like her appeal was still active.

28. LNVs Counsel Respondent Gabrielle Richards attempts to minimize Petitioners

disabilities and make gross errs in the interpretation of her pleadings with statements like:

Petitioner never expressed a concern about the toxicity of the boxes being used to pack her belongings. (Id. at 13.) [Page 6 of Dkt#9]

Petitioner never made any claims about the toxicity of the boxes; she said the storage units

were toxic to her because they were made with pressboard and the glues and solvents used

to make pressboard off gases chemicals from these glues and solvents into the air;

especially in the heat. This then causes Petitioner to have asthma attacks, burning skin and

burning and dry eyes, headaches, etc. A long enough exposure could cause cognitive

dysfunction. Ms. Richards attitude expressed in her response exudes exactly the kind of

discrimination against Petitioners hidden disabilities that she expressed in her Writ.

29. LNVs Counsel Respondent Gabrielle Richards grossly misstates facts specific to what

Petitioner was and was not permitted to do; and particularly egregious is her attempt to

mislead this Honorable Court of Appeals into believing Petitioner had a pro-bono

counsel when in fact she did not; and Ms. Richards knows she did not:

She was given the keys to three prepaid storage units and allowed access to the garage and yard areas to remove a trailer and other personal effects. (Id. at 14.) [Page 6 of Dkt#9]


Petitioner was not permitted to choose the storage units. She was not permitted to be

present when her personal property was being put into boxes or into the storage units. She

was merely permitted to go with Jonathan who came from Texas to the units and was

shown the units. She was present with Jonathan who told the storage management that she

would be the party renting the units and they were then put into her name. She could not

know how toxic they were to her until after she received the keys and spent time inside

them trying to organize her personal property and consolidate the huge boxes packed by

others in a very haphazard way. Petitioner was permitted only very limited access to her

garage and only after most of the things of importance to her had already been packed.

She was limited to lumber and other building materials and items outside the house; items

of this nature were brought outside so she and friends who had come to get their personal

property stored at Petitioners home were permitted to load the items onto a utility trailer

and onto the top of Petitioners vehicle. (Note: Ms. Richards had originally told these

friends they would not be permitted to get their property but relented when they threatened

to sue.) Petitioner was NOT permitted to get her travel trailer because the ground was too

water logged. Ms. Richards was not there so does know. Petitioner had called AAA to

remove a car on the property stored for someone else and take it to her storage unit and

asked the AAA driver if he could remove the travel trailer too, but the driver said he

couldnt. The Realtor, Brenda Hereth of Coldwell Banker Seal, in front of Jonathan told

Petitioner she could arrange to have it towed out of the backyard, but then when Petitioner

followed up a couple days later Brenda told her she wasnt able to have the travel trailer

moved after all. (Petitioner was only asking to have the travel trailer brought from the

backyard to the front yard so she could access it with her vehicle and tow it herself.) They


put a lock on the only gate to the backyard wide enough for the travel trailer to pass

through. A considerable amount of Petitioners personal property remains inside the

garage. Again she was told to coordinate with Realtor Brenda to pickup this property but

Realtor Brenda has not cooperated; and Petitioners personal property still remains inside

the garage.

Petitioner obtained the assistance of pro bono counsel shortly after LNV took possession of the foreclosed home. (Id. at 13.) LNV gave pro bono counsel complete access to the home for more than an hour on February 11, 2016 to remove Petitioners personal effects, including medications, clothes, computers, and documents. (Id.) [Page 6 of Dkt#9]

This is completely untrue. Petitioners former bankruptcy attorney was not representing

her, pro bono or otherwise. Since Petitioner was not permitted to enter the house and

because she was locked out with only the clothes she was wearing and a few things that

she always carries with her; and because Petitioner was fearful of speaking with Ms.

Richards since she had history of being hostile and intimidating towards Petitioner her

former attorney volunteered to phone Ms. Richards on Petitioners behalf. He was able to

arrange for a couple assistants from his office to go over to the house to remove personal

items; they were NOT given more than an hour. Although Petitioner emailed a list of

items and where to find them when the assistants arrived at Petitioners home they did not

have the list. Petitioner talked with them by phone but was so traumatized she was

shaking and could not remember what was on the list or where things she needed were

located; which is the reason she sent a list. The assistants failed to get Petitioners

medications (they got her nebulizer for her asthma but not the albuterol). They said they

had her computer but they actually brought a television monitor and DVD player. They

got one sheet and a blanket; but didnt get her special pillow for her neck. They got her


neck stretching device but in Petitioners current situation she has had little opportunity to

use it because she has no place to lay completely flat. They did not bring the clothes

Petitioner typically wears; they brought only two pair of jeans and two tee-shirts that she

could actually wear. Petitioner STILL has not located her clothing packed by LNVs

movers.

Jonathan from Texas told Petitioner he had instructed the movers to treat her property as if

it were his mothers property. Either Jonathan lied or he hates his mother. Many of

Petitioners antiques have been damaged. Fragile glass and carving were thrown into

boxes without any wrapping; and as a result several items were broken. Photos and framed

artwork apparently go wet in the rain before they were packed and had mold on them. An

oil painting done by Petitioners mother had a huge slash in the canvas because it was

packed with sharp pieces of wood and not wrapped. One or two dirty dishes have been

found in several boxes as if the movers purposely scattered dirty dishes randomly in as

many boxes as possible. Petitioner has been sickened by what has been done to her

personal property; she has no time to mourn because she has to get everything moved by

April 30th and has to keep working.

30. Petitioners former bankruptcy attorney did tell her he would try to find an attorney who

might take her case on contingency experienced in both bankruptcy law and real estate law

to enforce the 2011 discharge of the debt and to get damages for her, but he was unable to

find one that didnt want a retainer fee upfront. Petitioner has no financial resources to pay

a retainer fee. She should not be denied access to justice because she is poor and disabled;

but the truth is she has been denied access to justice


31. Although Respondents Counsel Ms. Richards filed numerous affidavits and declarations in

the Washington County Court claiming to have sent service to Petitioner she has not

provided a shred of evidence that Petitioner actually received any of the items she claims

she sent to Petitioner; and this is because Petitioner never received any notification.

Although Petitioner eventually found out about the notice of sheriffs sale that had been

posted on her door it was not until shortly before the sale. Due to her hospitalization in

December and her other health problems throughout December and January she didnt

actually know about the notice because someone temporarily staying at her home brought it

inside, set it someplace and forgot to tell Petitioner about it.

32. The Judgment of Foreclosure signed by Respondent Judge Mosman and most likely

prepared by Respondent Gabriel Richards, [Doc # 116-1] specifically granted LNV a

monetary award on the notes debt: LNV is awarded a money judgment against Defendant

for the principal note indebtedness in the amount of $171,450.72 However Petitioners

former bankruptcy attorney told her sometime before the sheriffs sale that the debt on the

note was discharged in a 2011 Chapter 7 bankruptcy; see attached Exhibit D. Petitioner

does not understand bankruptcy law but if this is true then it appears collection on a debt

discharged in bankruptcy is a violation of 11 U.S.C. 524(a)(2)

33. 11 U.S. Code 524(a) (1) states:

A discharge in a case under this title voids any judgment at any time obtained, to the extent that such judgment is a determination of the personal liability of the debtor with respect to any debt discharged under section 727, 944, 1141, 1228, or 1328 of this title, whether or not discharge of such debt is waived;

34. The Judgment of Foreclosure signed by Respondent Judge Mosman may be void and if so

must be vacated as a matter of law; and since the sheriffs sale of Plaintiffs property to


LNV and the illegal eviction of Petitioner from her home was based squarely on this

judgment so if this is true then possession of Petitioners property should be immediately

returned to her as a matter of law. 11 U.S. Code 524(a)(3) states:

A discharge in a case under this title operates as an injunction against the commencement or continuation of an action, the employment of process, or an act, to collect or recover from, or offset against, property of the debtor of the kind specified in section 541(a)(2) of this title that is acquired after the commencement of the case

35. And 11 U.S. Code 541(a)(1) & (5) states:

The commencement of a case under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title creates an estate. Such estate is comprised of all the following property, wherever located and by whomever held: Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c)(2) of this section, all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case Any interest in property that would have been property of the estate if such interest had been an interest of the debtor on the date of the filing of the petition, and that the debtor acquires or becomes entitled to acquire within 180 days after such date

36. Petitioner recently downloaded the bankruptcy files from Pacer and the documents show

Petitioners bankruptcy case was brought under 11 U.S. Code 301. Her property located

at 13865 SW Walker Rd. Beaverton Oregon 97005 and the debt secured by her property

were disclosed on the Debtors Statement of Indebtedness and Quality Loan Servicing and

Cal-Western Reconveyance, the parties attempting to collect on the debt through a non-

judicial foreclosure action in 2011 and apparently acting as debt collectors for Respondent

LNV were duly notified about the bankruptcy. Neither Respondent LNV nor its debt

collectors Quality Loan Servicing (Quality ) and Cal-Western Reconveyance (Cal-

Western) made a claim against Petitioners estate for the debt.

37. Respondent Gabrielle Richards comments below are unconscionable and disgraceful for an

officer of the court:


Now, having lost in every other forum, Petitioner seeks refuge with the Ninth Circuit to provide further cover for her wild tales of conspiracy and malevolent machinations The Petition, like so many of the conspiracy theories concocted by Petitioner, is frivolous and for the reasons set forth below, should be denied.

Petitioner doesnt think Ms. Richards would state anything so outrageous about another

attorney in a response, but apparently a stupid insignificant pro se litigant doesnt deserve

any respect. Appeal is a right and Petitioner is simply exercising that right. And the United

States convicted Lorraine Brown of Conspiracy to Commit Mail and Wire Fraud

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 18 1341 and 18 U.S.C. 18 1343 for doing the same thing Andy

Beal is doing.

Petitioner has established a prima facie case showing that the note and deed of trust submitted to

the district court by Respondent LNV are likely digital forgeries and not genuine original

instruments. Petitioner has established a prima facie case showing that Respondent LNV cannot

be the holder of the note when the instruments purporting to convey the note and deed of trust to

LNV were executed before LNV existed. Petitioner has established a prima facie case showing

that Respondent LNV should have been denied the equitable relief it sought through foreclosure

because it operated outside the law invoking the Doctrine of Unclean Hands.

Therefore this Honorable Court of Appeals should grant her Emergency Writ of Mandamus and

immediately return possession of her property to her pending appeal; and if this Honorable Court

of Appeals has enough evidence to do so she prays it reverse the district courts summary

judgment order of foreclosure.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Denise Subramaniam


1: Q-2 Allonge Signature of Jason J. Vecchio Compared to the Signature(s) of Jason J. Vecchioon the Allonges of 3 Separate Parties

Questioned Document -Allonge for Chris Swift and Marcia Swift

Comparison Allonges from 3 other Parties

C-1Gebhardt Allonge

C-2Hardwick Allonge

C-3Wohl Allonge

Q-2Swift Allonge


2: Q-2 Allonge Signature of Jason J. Vecchio Compared to the Signature(s) of Jason J. Vecchioon the Allonges of 3 Separate Parties - COLORIZED

Q-2 Swift Allonge = GREENC-1 Gebhardt Allonge = REDC-2 Hardwick Allonge = BLUEC-3 Wohl Allonge = ORANGE Q-2 Swift Allonge = GREEN

C-1 Gebhardt Allonge = RED

C-2 Hardwick Allonge = BLUE

C-3 Wohl Allonge = ORANGE


3: Q-2 Allonge Overlaid by the Allonges of 3 Separate Parties - with Slight Separations for Illustrative Purposes

Q-2 Swift Allonge = GREEN





4: Q-2 Allonge Overlaid by the Allonges of 3 Separate Parties - ALIGNED

Q-2 Swift Allonge = GREEN





IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON

DENISE SUBRAMANIAM ) Civil Case No. ______________

Plaintiff/Petitioner Pro Per ) v. ) CHALLENGE TO LNV CORPORATION ) GARNISHMENT

Defendant/Respondent ) ORS 18.700

CHALLENGE TO GARNISHMENT PURSUANT TO ORS 18.700

Here comes Plaintiff/Petitioner, Denise Subramaniam, self represented, and hereby asserts

pursuant to ORS 18.700 the following:

1. The amount specified in the writ of garnishment as being subject to garnishment is greater

than the total amount owed by the debtor to the creditor. The debt was discharged by a

Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2011. Defendant/Respondent LNV Corporation (LNV) was

notified of the bankruptcy through its servicer MGC Mortgage Inc. (MGC) but failed to

file a claim. (Both LNV and MGC are privately owned and fully controlled by D. Andrew

Beal.) The discharge is a permanent order prohibiting creditors from taking any form of

collection action on discharged debts, including legal action and communications with the

debtor, such as telephone calls, letters, and personal contacts. THEREFORE the amount

owed to by Plaintiff/Petitioner to Defendant/Respondent LNV is $0.00.

2. Defendant/Respondent LNV obtained a Judgment for Foreclosure from the United States

District Court Oregon District, Portland Division in LNV Corporation v Subramaniam, Case:

3:14-cv-01836 to foreclose on Plaintiff/Petitioners property based on fraud upon the court.


Defendant/Respondent LNV willfully submitted a counterfeit Note into court record knowing

the judge would accept it as genuine. The Note can be shown to be counterfeit on its face.

3. Defendant/Respondent LNV is not the holder of the Note, and no conveyance of the deed of

trust by way of assignment occurred to LNV. LNV has no beneficial or equity interest in

either the Note or the Deed of Trust to Plaintiff/Petitioners property.

4. THEREFORE the property is not subject to garnishment pursuant to ORS 18.618.

5. Plaintiff/Petitioner holds sole legal title and equitable title to her property.

Defendant/Respondent LNV attempts to infringe upon Plaintiff/Petitioners ownership rights

through fraud. Defendant/Respondent LNV is attempting to exploit a break in the chain of

title to Plaintiff/Petitioners property by manufacturing a counterfeit Note and knowingly

willfully presenting it to courts as genuine, when it knows it is not genuine.

6. Defendant/Respondent LNV attempts to exploit Plaintiff/Petitioners vulnerability as an

elderly disabled person knowing she has poor health and few resources to defend herself

against LNVs repeated attempts of theft by deception of Plaintiff/Petitioners real property

in violation of ORS 164.085, and to defend against LNVs first degree felony forgery in

violation of ORS 165.013 where LNV has falsely manufactured a digitally altered

photocopy of a promissory mortgage Note and has recorded a false assignments of deed of

trust purporting a conveyance to itself with intent to injure and defraud Plaintiff/Petitioner.

________________________________________ Denise Subramaniam, Pro per


Below is an order of the Court.

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTDISTRICT OF OREGON

F I L E D December 21, 2011

Clerk, U.S. Bankruptcy Court

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

DN7 (12/6/07) UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTDistrict of Oregon

In re ))))))))

Case No. 1138010tmb7

CHAPTER 7 ORDER RE:DISCHARGE OF DEBTOR(S)

Denise Mardene Subramaniam, xxxxx8909Debtor(s)

It appearing that on 9/15/11 a bankruptcy petition was filed by the debtor(s); timely complaints filedpursuant to 11 USC 523(a) could be pending and the court could still order that any affected debt isnondischargeable, however no complaint objecting to the debtor's discharge pursuant to 11 USC 727 wastimely filed (or such complaint was filed, and after due notice and hearing, was not sustained); each timelyfiled written reaffirmation agreement was either rescinded or not approved by the court; and therefore,

IT IS ORDERED the debtor(s) shall be granted a discharge under 727 of Title 11, United States Code (theBankruptcy Code).

EXPLANATION OF BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE IN A CHAPTER 7 CASE

This court order grants a discharge to the person(s) named as a debtor. It is not a dismissal of the case andit does not determine how much money, if any, the trustee will pay to creditors.

Collection of Discharged Debts Prohibited. The discharge prohibits any attempt to collect from a debtor adebt that has been discharged. For example, a creditor is not permitted to contact a debtor by mail, phone,or otherwise, to file or continue a lawsuit, to attach wages or other property, or to take any other action tocollect a discharged debt from the debtor. (If applicable there are also special rules that protect certaincommunity property owned by the debtor's spouse, even if that spouse did not file a bankruptcy case.) Acreditor who violates this order can be required to pay damages and attorney's fees to the debtor.

However, a creditor may have the right to enforce a valid lien, such as a mortgage or security interest,against the debtor's property after the bankruptcy, if that lien was not avoided or eliminated in thebankruptcy case. Also, a debtor may voluntarily pay any debt that has been discharged.

Page 1 of 2 IMPORTANT: Debtors MUST READ BOTH SIDES of this document!

28Case 11-38010-tmb7 Doc 28 Filed 12/21/11


Debts that are Discharged. The Chapter 7 discharge order eliminates a debtor's legal obligation to pay adebt that is discharged. Most, but not all, types of debts are discharged if the debt existed on the date thebankruptcy case was filed. (If this case was begun under a different chapter of the Bankruptcy Code andconverted to Chapter 7, the discharge applies to debts owed when the bankruptcy case was converted.)Debts that are Not Discharged. Some of the common types of debts which are not discharged in a Chapter7 bankruptcy case are:

a. Debts for most taxes;b. Debts incurred to pay nondischargeable taxes;c. Debts that are for domestic support obligations, or debts to a spouse or former spouse for property

settlement;d. Debts for most student loans;e. Debts for most fines, penalties, forfeitures, or criminal restitution obligations;f. Debts for personal injuries or death caused by the debtor's operation of a motor vehicle, vessel, or

aircraft while intoxicated;g. Some debts which were not properly listed by the debtor;h. Debts the bankruptcy court specifically has decided or will decide in this case are not discharged;i. Debts for which the debtor has given up the discharge protections by signing a reaffirmation

agreement in compliance with the Bankruptcy Code requirements for reaffirmation of debts; andj. Debts owed to certain pension, profit sharing, stock bonus, other retirement plans, or to the Thrift

Savings Plan for federal employees for certain types of loans from these plans.

This information is only a general summary of the bankruptcy discharge. There are exceptions tothese general rules. Because the law is complicated, you may want to consult an attorney todetermine the exact effect of the discharge in this case.

Page 2 of 2 IMPORTANT: Debtors MUST READ BOTH SIDES of this document!

###

28Case 11-38010-tmb7 Doc 28 Filed 12/21/11


UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTDISTRICT OF OREGON-CH.7

In re ) Case No. 11-38010-tmb7 (If Known)Denise Mardene Subramaniam )

) CHAPTER 7 INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR'S*STATEMENT OF INTENTION(S)PER 11 U.S.C. 521(a)

)Debtor(s) )

*IMPORTANT NOTICES TO DEBTOR(S):(1) SIGN AND FILE this form even if you show "NONE," AND, if creditors are listed, have the service certificate COMPLETED; AND(2) Failure to perform the intentions as to property stated below within 30 days after the first date set for the Meeting of Creditors under 11 U.S.C. 341(a)may result in relief for the creditor from the Automatic Stay protecting such property.PART A - Debts secured by property of the estate. (Part A must be FULLY COMPLETED for EACH debt which is secured by property of the estate. Attachadditional pages if necessary.)

Property No. 1Creditor's Name:Litton Loan Servicing LP

Describe Property Securing Debt:13865 SW Walker RdBeaverton, OR 97005 (estimate on owed)

Property will be (check one): SURRENDERED RETAINED

If retaining the property, I intend to (check at least one): Redeem the property Reaffirm the debt Other. Explain (for example, avoid lien using 11 USC 522(f)

Property is (check one): CLAIMED AS EXEMPT NOT CLAIMED AS EXEMPT

PART B - Personal property subject to unexpired leases. (All three columns of Part B must be completed for each unexpired lease. Attach additional pages ifnecessary.)

Property No. 1Lessor's Name:-NONE-

Describe Leased Property: Lease will be assumed pursuant to 11 USC365(p)(2)

YES NO

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE ABOVEINDICATES INTENTION AS TO ANY PROPERTY OF MY ESTATESECURING A DEBT AND/OR PERSONAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TOAN UNEXPIRED LEASE.

I/WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF BOTH THISDOCUMENT AND LOCAL FORM #715 WERE SERVED ON ANY CREDITORNAMED ABOVE.

DATE: 10/7/11 DATE: 10/11/11

/s/ Denise Mardene Subramaniam /s/ Todd Trierweiler OSB# 85348DEBTOR'S SIGNATURE DEBTOR OR ATTORNEY'S SIGNATURE OSB# (if attorney)

JOINT DEBTOR'S SIGNATURE (If applicable) JOINT DEBTOR'S SIGNATURE (If applicable and no attorney)Todd Trierweiler OSB# 85348 503-253-7777PRINT OR TYPE SIGNER'S NAME & PHONE NO.4721 NE 102nd Ave.Portland, OR 97220SIGNER'S ADDRESS (if attorney)

NON-JUDICIAL REMEDY WHEN CONSUMER DEBTOR FAILS TO TIMELY PERFORM STATED INTENTIONSCreditors, see Local Form #715 [attached if this document was served on paper] if you wish information on how to obtain NON-JUDICIALrelief from the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. 362(a) as to your collateral.

QUESTIONS????Call an attorney with questions about these procedures or the law. However, only call the debtor's attorney if you have questionsabout the debtor's intent as to your collateral.

521.05 (12/1/08) Page 1 of 2

Software Copyright (c) 1996-2009 CCH INCORPORATED - www.bestcase.com Best Case Bankruptcy

Case 11-38010-tmb7 Doc 11 Filed 10/11/11


PROCEDURES CREATED BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT CONCERNING REQUESTS FOR NON-JUDICIAL RELIEFFROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY AS TO SECURED COLLATERAL IN CHAPTER 7 CASES

If you are interested in expediting relief from the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. 362(a) as to property in which you hold a securityinterest, YOU MUST FURNISH the trustee a statement of the balance due and estimated property value. ALSO ATTACH a copy ofyour security agreement and other documents required for perfection (e.g., if the security is an automobile, a copy of the certificate oftitle showing your security interest). YOU MUST ALSO ATTACH a completely filled out (except for signatures) copy of LBF #750.

DO NOT FILE THE REQUEST NOR ANY COPIES THEREOF WITH THE COURT! ALSO, YOU ARE NOT REQUIREDTO FILE THE COMPLETED LBF #750 WITH THE COURT TO MAKE THIS RELIEF EFFECTIVE!

Under 522(f) of the Bankruptcy Code the debtor may request a judicial lien or a non-possessory, non purchase-money securityinterest on certain exempt property be voided to the extent the exemption is impaired by the lien or security interest. Under 722 thedebtor may request the court determine the value of certain personal property and permit the debtor to redeem the property from anylien against it by paying that value to the lien holder. Because of these two sections, the consent of both the trustee and debtor isrequired to permit a repossession or foreclosure without court order.

IF YOUR REQUEST TO RECEIVE NON-JUDICIAL RELIEF FROM STAY WILL BE MADE AT THE MEETING OFCREDITORS (OR IS SERVED WITHIN 15 DAYS PRIOR TO SUCH MEETING and therefore will be considered at the meeting), itmust be in writing and contain all the information required in paragraph one. Copies of all documents must be submitted to the debtorand any debtor's attorney prior to that meeting.

IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE NON-JUDICIAL RELIEF FROM STAY PRIOR TO THE MEETING OF CREDITORS, OR IFYOUR REQUEST IS MADE AFTER THE MEETING OF CREDITORS, IT MUST BE IN WRITING and contain all theinformation required in paragraph one. If the request includes a signed debtor stipulation, nothing further is required and the trusteemay immediately process the request. However if the request does not include a signed debtor stipulation, then it MUST BOTH: (1)certify copies of all documents were simultaneously served on (e.g., mailed to) the debtor and any debtor's attorney, AND (2) clearlyset out the following notice:

"By way of this letter the debtor is informed that the trustee may grant non-judicial relief from the automatic stay as to theproperty UNLESS THE TRUSTEE IS NOTIFIED IN WRITING WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE SERVICE OF THISREQUEST THAT THE DEBTOR OBJECTS TO SUCH RELIEF. Such relief shall constitute a termination of the stayprovided by 11 U.S.C. 362(a) and will permit this creditor to foreclose his lien or security interest by repossession or asotherwise provided by law."

Objections to non-judicial relief from the automatic stay, unless made at the meeting of creditors, must be in writing, with a copysimultaneously served on the debtor, requesting creditor, trustee, and their respective attorneys of record. The objection must bepost-marked by the 15th day after the request was served, and received by the trustee within 20 days, or the trustee may grant therequest.

If the trustee receives a timely objection from the debtor, the trustee shall not grant non-judicial relief or consider repetitive requests bythe same creditor unless the debtor withdraws such objection in writing.

The trustee will grant non-judicial relief from the automatic stay if the above requirements are met, the debtor either does not timelyobject or stipulates in writing to such relief, and there appears to be no equity in the property for the benefit of creditors.

Signing of LBF #750 by the trustee, granting non-judicial relief, shall constitute a termination of the stay of an act against suchproperty under 11 U.S.C. 362(a). The trustee, however, shall not be deemed to have abandoned his/her interest in the property, norhave waived any other rights as to the property. Any non-exempt equity in the property remaining after disposition shall beimmediately returned to the trustee.

If either the trustee or debtor(s) will not agree to such relief for any reason, you must file a motion for relief from stay under 362(d).Instructions and forms may be obtained from the Clerk's office.

IMPORTANT. All requests to the trustee MUST be accompanied by a self-addressed and stamped envelope, or the trustee need notrespond.

***SEE REVERSE/ATTACHED***

521.05 (12/1/08) Page 2 of 2

Software Copyright (c) 1996-2009 CCH INCORPORATED - www.bestcase.com Best Case Bankruptcy



}bk1{Form 6. Summary of Schedules}bk{

United States Bankruptcy CourtDistrict of Oregon-Ch.7

In re ,Debtor

Case No.

Chapter

11-38010-tmb7

7

Denise Mardene Subramaniam

B6 Summary (Official Form 6 - Summary) (12/07)

Indicate as to each schedule whether that schedule is attached and state the number of pages in each. Report the totals from Schedules A,B, D, E, F, I, and J in the boxes provided. Add the amounts from Schedules A and B to determine the total amount of the debtors assets.Add the amounts of all claims from Schedules D, E, and F to determine the total amount of the debtors liabilities. Individual debtors mustalso complete the "Statistical Summary of Certain Liabilities and Related Data" if they file a case under chapter 7, 11, or 13.

SUMMARY OF SCHEDULES

ATTACHED NO. OFNAME OF SCHEDULE ASSETS LIABILITIES OTHER(YES/NO) SHEETS

A - Real Property

B - Personal Property

C - Property Claimed as Exempt

D - Creditors Holding Secured Claims

E - Creditors Holding UnsecuredPriority Claims

F - Creditors Holding UnsecuredNonpriority Claims

G - Executory Contracts andUnexpired Leases

H - Codebtors

I - Current Income of IndividualDebtor(s)

J - Current Expenditures of IndividualDebtor(s)

Total Number of Sheets of ALL Schedules

Total Assets

Total Liabilities

(Total of Claims on Schedule E)

Software Copyright (c) 1996-2011 - CCH INCORPORATED - www.bestcase.com Best Case Bankruptcy

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

1 225,600.00

4 9,280.00

1

250,000.001

0.002

57,430.003

1

1

1 800.00

1 2,177.00

16

234,880.00

307,430.00



}bk1{Form 6. Statistical Summary of Certain Liabilities and Related Data}bk{

United States Bankruptcy CourtDistrict of Oregon-Ch.7

In re ,Debtor

Case No.

Chapter

11-38010-tmb7

7

Denise Mardene Subramaniam

Form 6 - Statistical Summary (12/07)

STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF CERTAIN LIABILITIES AND RELATED DATA (28 U.S.C. 159)If you are an individual debtor whose debts are primarily consumer debts, as defined in 101(8) of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. 101(8)), filinga case under chapter 7, 11 or 13, you must report all information requested below.

Check this box if you are an individual debtor whose debts are NOT primarily consumer debts. You are not required toreport any information here.

This information is for statistical purposes only under 28 U.S.C. 159.Summarize the following types of liabilities, as reported in the Schedules, and total them.

Type of Liability Amount

Domestic Support Obligations (from Schedule E)

Taxes and Certain Other Debts Owed to Governmental Units(from Schedule E)

Claims for Death or Personal Injury While Debtor Was Intoxicated(from Schedule E) (whether disputed or undisputed)

Student Loan Obligations (from Schedule F)

Domestic Support, Separation Agreement, and Divorce DecreeObligations Not Reported on Schedule E

Obligations to Pension or Profit-Sharing, and Other Similar Obligations(from Schedule F)

TOTAL

State the following:

Average Income (from Schedule I, Line 16)

Average Expenses (from Schedule J, Line 18)

Current Monthly Income (from Form 22A Line 12; OR,Form 22B Line 11; OR, Form 22C Line 20 )

State the following:

1. Total from Schedule D, "UNSECURED PORTION, IF ANY"column

2. Total from Schedule E, "AMOUNT ENTITLED TO PRIORITY"column

3. Total from Schedule E, "AMOUNT NOT ENTITLED TOPRIORITY, IF ANY" column

4. Total from Schedule F

5. Total of non-priority unsecured debt (sum of 1, 3, and 4)


0.00

0.00

0.00

33,000.00

0.00

0.00

33,000.00

800.00

2,177.00

720.00

24,400.00

0.00

0.00

57,430.00

81,830.00



}bk1{Schedule A - Real Property}bk{

In re ,Debtor

Case No. 11-38010-tmb7Denise Mardene Subramaniam

B6A (Official Form 6A) (12/07)

Except as directed below, list all real property in which the debtor has any legal, equitable, or future interest, including all property owned as acotenant, community property, or in which the debtor has a life estate. Include any property in which the debtor holds rights and powers exercisable forthe debtor's own benefit. If the debtor is married, state whether husband, wife, both, or the marital community own the property by placing an "H," "W,""J," or "C" in the column labeled "Husband, Wife, Joint, or Community." If the debtor holds no interest in real property, write "None" under"Description and Location of Property."

Do not include interests in executory contracts and unexpired leases on this schedule. List them in Schedule G - Executory Contracts andUnexpired Leases.

If an entity claims to have a lien or hold a secured interest in any property, state the amount of the secured claim. See Schedule D. If no entityclaims to hold a secured interest in the property, write "None" in the column labeled "Amount of Secured Claim." If the debtor is an individual orif a joint petition is filed, state the amount of any exemption claimed in the property only in Schedule C - Property Claimed as Exempt.

Description and Location of Property Nature of Debtor'sInterest in Property

Husband,Wife,Joint, or

Community

Current Value ofDebtor's Interest inProperty, without

Deducting any SecuredClaim or Exemption

Amount ofSecured Claim

continuation sheets attached to the Schedule of Real Property

SCHEDULE A - REAL PROPERTY


0

13865 SW Walker RdBeaverton, OR 97005 (estimate on owed)

homestead - 225,600.00 250,000.00

Sub-Total > (Total of this page)225,600.00

Total >

(Report also on Summary of Schedules)

225,600.00



}bk1{Schedule B - Personal Property}bk{

In re ,Debtor


B6B (Official Form 6B) (12/07)

Except as directed below, list all personal property of the debtor of whatever kind. If the debtor has no property in one or more of the categories, placean "x" in the appropriate position in the column labeled "None." If additional space is needed in any category, attach a separate sheet properly identifiedwith the case name, case number, and the number of the category. If the debtor is married, state whether husband, wife, both, or the marital communityown the property by placing an "H," "W," "J," or "C" in the column labeled "Husband, Wife, Joint, or Community." If the debtor is an individual or a jointpetition is filed, state the amount of any exemptions claimed only in Schedule C - Property Claimed as Exempt.

Do not list interests in executory contracts and unexpired leases on this schedule. List them in Schedule G - Executory Contracts andUnexpired Leases.If the property is being held for the debtor by someone else, state that person's name and address under "Description and Location of Property."If the property is being held for a minor child, simply state the child's initials and the name and address of the child's parent or guardian, such as"A.B., a minor child, by John Doe, guardian." Do not disclose the child's name. See, 11 U.S.C. 112 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(m).

Type of PropertyNONE

Description and Location of PropertyHusband,

Wife,Joint, or

Community

Current Value ofDebtor's Interest in Property,

without Deducting anySecured Claim or Exemption

continuation sheets attached to the Schedule of Personal Property

SCHEDULE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY


3

1. Cash on hand Cash - 5.00

2. Checking, savings or other financialaccounts, certificates of deposit, orshares in banks, savings and loan,thrift, building and loan, andhomestead associations, or creditunions, brokerage houses, orcooperatives.

Checking with Bank of America $25Savings with OnPoint CU $0

- 25.00

3. Security deposits with publicutilities, telephone companies,landlords, and others.

X

4. Household goods and furnishings,including audio, video, andcomputer equipment.

Household goods - 2,800.00

5. Books, pictures and other artobjects, antiques, stamp, coin,record, tape, compact disc, andother collections or collectibles.

Books - 500.00

Vintage Barbies - 100.00

6. Wearing apparel. Clothing - 100.00

7. Furs and jewelry. Jewelry - 500.00

8. Firearms and sports, photographic,and other hobby equipment.

X

9. Interests in insurance policies.Name insurance company of eachpolicy and itemize surrender orrefund value of each.

X

10. Annuities. Itemize and name eachissuer.

X

Sub-Total >(Total of this page)

4,030.00



B6B (Official Form 6B) (12/07) - Cont.



Wife,Joint, or

Community



Sheet of continuation sheets attachedto the Schedule of Personal Property

SCHEDULE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY(Continuation Sheet)


In re ,Debtor


11. Interests in an education IRA asdefined in 26 U.S.C. 530(b)(1) orunder a qualified State tuition planas defined in 26 U.S.C. 529(b)(1).Give particulars. (File separately therecord(s) of any such interest(s).11 U.S.C. 521(c).)

X

12. Interests in IRA, ERISA, Keogh, orother pension or profit sharingplans. Give particulars.

X

13. Stock and interests in incorporatedand unincorporated businesses.Itemize.

100% owner of SAI Database Experts LLC =(assets= checking with Bank of America $20; officeequipment $200; 1/2 int. in 2006 Hyundai Accent(fmv $4750)(business and friend on vehicle title) ;liabilities= $3112 (car loan by Chase))

TOTAL ASSETS= $2595; TOTAL LIABILITIES=$3112= VALUE=$0

- 0.00

14. Interests in partnerships or jointventures. Itemize.

X

15. Government and corporate bondsand other negotiable andnonnegotiable instruments.

X

16. Accounts receivable. X

17. Alimony, maintenance, support, andproperty settlements to which thedebtor is or may be entitled. Giveparticulars.

X

18. Other liquidated debts owed to debtorincluding tax refunds. Give particulars.

X

19. Equitable or future interests, lifeestates, and rights or powersexercisable for the benefit of thedebtor other than those listed inSchedule A - Real Property.

X

20. Contingent and noncontingentinterests in estate of a decedent,death benefit plan, life insurancepolicy, or trust.

X


0.00

1 3






Wife,Joint, or

Community






In re ,Debtor


21. Other contingent and unliquidatedclaims of every nature, includingtax refunds, counterclaims of thedebtor, and rights to setoff claims.Give estimated value of each.

Judgment against former tenant (uncollectable) - 0.00

Potential Claim against mortgage company forRESPA violation and other potential mortgagecompany malfeasance.

- Unknown

Potential claim for social security - Unknown

22. Patents, copyrights, and otherintellectual property. Giveparticulars.

X

23. Licenses, franchises, and othergeneral intangibles. Giveparticulars.

X

24. Customer lists or other compilationscontaining personally identifiableinformation (as defined in 11 U.S.C. 101(41A)) provided to the debtorby individuals in connection withobtaining a product or service fromthe debtor primarily for personal,family, or household purposes.

X

25. Automobiles, trucks, trailers, andother vehicles and accessories.

Equitable interest in 2006 Hyundai Accent (loan for$3112 by Chase)

- 4,750.00

26. Boats, motors, and accessories. X

27. Aircraft and accessories. X

28. Office equipment, furnishings, andsupplies.

X

29. Machinery, fixtures, equipment, andsupplies used in business.

Office equipment - 500.00

30. Inventory. X

31. Animals. Dog (no value) - 0.00

32. Crops - growing or harvested. Giveparticulars.

X

33. Farming equipment andimplements.

X

34. Farm supplies, chemicals, and feed. X


5,250.00

2 3






Wife,Joint, or

Community






In re ,Debtor


35. Other personal property of any kindnot already listed. Itemize.

X


0.00

3 3Total >

(Report also on Summary of Schedules)

9,280.00



}bk1{Schedule C - Property Claimed as Exempt}bk{

In re ,Debtor


B6C (Official Form 6C) (4/10)

Debtor claims the exemptions to which debtor is entitled under: Check if debtor claims a homestead exemption that exceeds(Check one box) $146,450. (Amount subject to adjustment on 4/1/13, and every three years thereafter

with respect to cases commenced on or after the date of adjustment.)11 U.S.C. 522(b)(2)11 U.S.C. 522(b)(3)

Description of Property Specify Law ProvidingEach ExemptionValue ofClaimed

Exemption

Current Value ofProperty Without

Deducting Exemption

continuation sheets attached to Schedule of Property Claimed as Exempt

SCHEDULE C - PROPERTY CLAIMED AS EXEMPT


0

Real Property13865 SW Walker RdBeaverton, OR 97005 (estimate on owed)

225,600.00ORS 18.395, 18.402 30,000.00

Cash on HandCash 5.00ORS 18.345(1)(o) 5.00

Checking, Savings, or Other Financial Accounts, Certificates of DepositChecking with Bank of America $25Savings with OnPoint CU $0

25.00ORS 18.345(1)(o) 25.00

Household Goods and FurnishingsHousehold goods 2,800.00ORS 18.345(1)(f) 3,000.00

Books, Pictures and Other Art Objects; CollectiblesBooks 500.00ORS 18.345(1)(a) 600.00

Vintage Barbies 100.00ORS 18.345(1)(o) 100.00

Wearing ApparelClothing 100.00ORS 18.345(1)(b) 900.00

Furs and JewelryJewelry 500.00ORS 18.345(1)(b) 900.00

Stock and Interests in Businesses100% owner of SAI Database Experts LLC =(assets= checking with Bank of America $20;office equipment $200; 1/2 int. in 2006 HyundaiAccent (fmv $4750)(business and friend onvehicle title) ; liabilities= $3112 (car loan byChase))

TOTAL ASSETS= $2595; TOTAL LIABILITIES=$3112= VALUE=$0

0.00ORS 18.345(1)(o) 95.00

Other Contingent and Unliquidated Claims of Every NaturePotential claim for social security Unknown42 U.S.C.A. 407 100%

Automobiles, Trucks, Trailers, and Other VehiclesEquitable interest in 2006 Hyundai Accent (loanfor $3112 by Chase)

4,750.00ORS 18.345(1)(d) 3,000.00

Machinery, Fixtures, Equipment and Supplies Used in BusinessOffice equipment 500.00ORS 18.345(1)(c) 3,000.00

AnimalsDog (no value) 0.00ORS 18.345(1)(e) 1,000.00

Total: 42,625.00 234,880.00



}bk1{Schedule D - Creditors Holding Secured Claims}bk{

AMOUNT OFCLAIM

WITHOUTDEDUCTINGVALUE OF

COLLATERAL

DATE CLAIM WAS INCURRED,NATURE OF LIEN, AND

DESCRIPTION AND VALUEOF PROPERTY

SUBJECT TO LIEN

CODEBTOR

CONTINGENT

UNLIQUIDATED

DISPUTED

Husband, Wife, Joint, or Community

HWJC

CREDITOR'S NAMEAND MAILING ADDRESS

INCLUDING ZIP CODE,AND ACCOUNT NUMBER

(See instructions above.)

Account No.

Value $Account No.

Value $Account No.

Value $Account No.

Value $Subtotal

_____ continuation sheets attached (Total of this page)

UNSECUREDPORTION, IF

ANY

B6D (Official Form 6D) (12/07)

State the name, mailing address, including zip code, and last four digits of any account number of all entities holding claims secured by property of the debtor as ofthe date of filing of the petition. The complete account number of any account the debtor has with the creditor is useful to the trustee and the creditor and may be providedif the debtor chooses to do so. List creditors holding all types of secured interests such as judgment liens, garnishments, statutory liens, mortgages, deeds of trust, andother security interests.

List creditors in alphabetical order to the extent practicable. If a minor child is a creditor, the child's initials and the name and address of the child's parent orguardian, such as "A.B., a minor child, by John Doe, guardian." Do not disclose the child's name. See, 11 U.S.C. 112 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(m). If all securedcreditors will not fit on this page, use the continuation sheet provided.

If any entity other than a spouse in a joint case may be jointly liable on a claim, place an "X" in the column labeled "Codebtor" ,include the entity on the appropriateschedule of creditors, and complete Schedule H - Codebtors. If a joint petition is filed, state whether the husband, wife, both of them, or the marital community may beliable on each claim by placing an "H", "W", "J", or "C" in the column labeled "Husband, Wife, Joint, or Community".

If the claim is contingent, place an "X" in the column labeled "Contingent". If the claim is unliquidated, place an "X" in the column labeled "Unliquidated". If theclaim is disputed, place an "X" in the column labeled "Disputed". (You may need to place an "X" in more than one of these three columns.)

Total the columns labeled "Amount of Claim Without Deducting Value of Collateral" and "Unsecured Portion, if Any" in the boxes labeled "Total(s)" on the lastsheet of the completed schedule. Report the total from the column labeled "Amount of Claim" also on the Summary of Schedules and, if the debtor is an individual withprimarily consumer debts, report the total from the column labeled "Unsecured Portion" on the Statistical Summary of Certain Liabilities and Related Data.

Check this box if debtor has no creditors holding secured claims to report on this Schedule D.

SCHEDULE D - CREDITORS HOLDING SECURED CLAIMS


In re ,Debtor


0

First Mortgage

13865 SW Walker RdBeaverton, OR 97005 (estimate on owed)

Litton Loan Servicing LP5373 W Alabama #600Houston, TX 77056 -

250,000.00 24,400.00225,600.00

250,000.00 24,400.00

250,000.00 24,400.00Total(Report on Summary of Schedules)



}bk1{Schedule E - Creditors Holding Unsecured Priority Claims}bk{

B6E (Official Form 6E) (4/10)

A complete list of claims entitled to priority, listed separately by type of priority, is to be set for

16-1 denise's reply to lnv's objection to emergency writ of mandamus

Documents