9-1 lnv's objection to denise's emergency writ of mandamus

8/17/2019 9-1 LNV's Objection to Denise's Emergency Writ of Mandamus

1/107

No. 15-35963

IN THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LNV CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DENISE SUBRAMANIAM,

Defendant-Appellant.

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon, 14-CV-01836-MO

District Judge Michael Mosman

LNV CORPORATION’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT’S

EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

GABRIELLE D. R ICHARDS ERICK J. HAYNIE MARTIN & R ICHARDS, LLP JEFFREY M. PETERSON 111 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 3150 PERKINS COIE LLP503.444.3449 Portland, OR [email protected] 503.727.2000

[email protected] for Plaintiff-Appellee [email protected]

LNV Corporation

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee April 13, 2016 LNV Corporation

Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 1 of 22

(1 of 1


2/107

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

i

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 4

III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ............................................................... 4

A. U.S. District Court, District of Oregon,

Case No. 3:14-cv-01836-MO .............................................................. 5

B. Washington County (Oregon) Circuit Court,

Case No. C155181CV ......................................................................... 7

IV. LEGAL STANDARD FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT ................................... 10

V. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................... 11

A. The District Court’s Order Granting Summary Judgment to

LNV Was Not Clearly Erroneous as a Matter of Law ...................... 12

1. LNV is the indisputable holder of the Note ............................ 12

2. LNV is the indisputable beneficiary of the Deed of Trust ...... 13

3. District Court correctly concluded that LNV could

foreclose .................................................................................. 14

B. Petitioner Has Another Adequate Means to Obtain Relief ............... 14

C. This Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction to Grant the Desired

Relief ................................................................................................. 16

1. This Court cannot grant relief for actions taken in state

court ........................................................................................ 16

2. This Court cannot impose sanctions or award damages ......... 17

VI. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 18


(2 of 1


3/107

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

ii

Cases

Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court , 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977) .................................... 11

Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court , 542 U.S. 367 (2004) ................................................... 10

Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Court , 586 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2009) ....................................... 12

Confederated Salish v. Simonich, 29 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994) ............................ 15

James v. ReconTrust Co., 845 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (D. Or. 2012) ............................. 13

Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) ......... 15

Perry v. Schwarzenegger , 591 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) ...................................... 11

U.S. Nat’l Bank of Oregon v. Chavez , 281 Or. 329, 574 P.2d 647 (1978) ............. 17

Statutes

28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) ................................................................................................ 16

28 U.S.C. § 1291 ..................................................................................................... 16

ORS 24.125(2) .......................................................................................................... 7

ORS 90.110(5) ........................................................................................................ 17


(3 of 1


4/107

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Plaintiff-Appellee LNV Corporation is a Nevada corporation and a wholly

owned subsidiary of Beal Bank USA, a Nevada thrift. Beal Bank USA is wholly

owned by Beal Financial Corporation, a Texas corporation. Beal Bank USA and

Beal Financial Corporation are not publicly traded corporations.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is (and always has been) a straightforward judicial foreclosure.

Plaintiff-Appellee LNV Corporation (“LNV”), as the holder of a Note and

beneficiary of a Deed of Trust duly executed by Defendant-Appellant Denise

Subramaniam (the “Petitioner”), was entitled to the remedy it sought and

ultimately received in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in

October 2015. The Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus (the “Petition”)

seeks to distort these basic facts by grossly misstating the record, contorting the

law, alleging unsubstantiated criminal acts and improprieties, and accusing the

Chief Judge for the District of Oregon of judicial misconduct. The Petition

perpetuates a fiction that has failed to gain any traction for Petitioner in four

1


(4 of 1


5/107

2

federal cases, the last of which resulted in the District Court imposing a pre-

filing restriction for all cases in which Petitioner is (or may become) a litigant.1

LNV is not unsympathetic to Petitioner’s health issues and has, on

numerous occasions, attempted to accommodate her situation while also

pursuing the legal remedies to which it is entitled. To be clear, however,

Petitioner was able to fully participate in the District Court and was afforded

every opportunity to prove her theory of the case, i.e. that certain of her

mortgage documents are forgeries. For example, Petitioner was twice given an

extension of time to file her Answer, was granted a three-month medical

continuance, and was given two months of additional discovery specifically to

1 Petitioner filed suit against LNV and more than 50 other defendants in September 2012,

alleging various tort claims relating to her loan documents. (Subramaniam v. Beal, et al., Case

No. 3:12-cv-01681-MO). The Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in September2013, noting in its Opinion and Order that despite being given an opportunity to amend her

complaint with the assistance of pro bono counsel, Petitioner “failed to allege the facts necessary… even under the liberal construction I have applied to this pro se complaint.” ( Id., Dkt. 138.)

Petitioner then filed suit against D. Andrew Beal, an executive at LNV, in September 2014,alleging (among other things) that Mr. Beal had placed Petitioner under surveillance and was

stalking her. (Subramaniam v. Beal , Case No. 3:14-cv-01482-SI). The Court dismissed the case sua sponte one month later pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), noting that “any appeal from this

Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith.” ( Id., Dkt. 5.)

Petitioner filed a third suit in October 2015 after the Court rendered its opinion in the foreclosure

case, naming Mr. Beal, LNV and MGC Mortgage as defendants. (Subramaniam v. Beal , Case No. 3:15-cv-02002-mo). The Court dismissed the case sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2), noting that the complaint “states either claims that already have been decided or

claims that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” ( Id., Dkt. 17.) Petitionerfiled a Notice of Appeal on December 3, 2015, but the appeal was dismissed on January 11, 2016

for failure to prosecute. (U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 15-35941.) It was in thisthird frivolous case that the District Court imposed the broad pre-filing restriction.


(5 of 1


6/107

3

gather evidence of fraud. Despite these accommodations, however, Petitioner

failed to put forward any evidence to substantiate her claims sufficient to

withstand LNV’s summary judgment motion. Petitioner’s suggestion that she

has been discriminated against on the basis of disability and that her disability

has been exploited by LNV is simply untrue and inconsistent with the record.

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, non-

parties and corporations – has become Petitioner’s 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 Petitioner’s 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.

Aside from her baseless allegations, this Petition is nothing more than a

tired restatement of discredited arguments Petitioner first began making in

2012. These arguments are utterly bereft of any factually or legal merit. As a

result, the writ of mandamus sought here is an inappropriate remedy. For this

reason, and those set forth below, the Petition should be denied.


(6 of 1


7/107

4

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts were presented in LNV’s Motion for Summary

Judgment and supporting declaration in District Court Case No. 3:14-cv-01836-

MO, Dkt. 53 and 54. They are repeated here for ease of reference.

Petitioner refinanced her home in 2004 through People’s Choice Home

Loan, Inc. (“People’s Choice”). The loan is evidenced by an Adjustable Rate Note

dated February 10, 2004. Petitioner’s performance under the Note was secured by

a Deed of Trust, which also was dated February 10, 2004.

People’s Choice transferred the Note to Residential Funding Company, LLC

(“RFC”) by endorsing the Note to RFC with an allonge and delivering the Note

and allonge to RFC. RFC transferred the Note to LNV by endorsing it to LNV

with an allonge and delivering the Note and allonges to LNV. RFC assigned its

beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust to LNV on March 10, 2008. This

assignment was recorded in county land records on August 27, 2008.

Through these allonges and assignments, LNV became holder of the Note

and beneficiary of the Deed of Trust.

III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

An overview of the procedural background of this case provides context to

the Petition and is intended to be incorporated into the arguments outlined in


(7 of 1


8/107

5

Section V. Although the foreclosure took place in federal court, the proceedings to

return possession of the property to LNV took place in Oregon state court.

A. U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, Case No. 3:14-cv-01836-MO

LNV filed its Complaint on November 18, 2014 and its Amended Complaint

on November 21. (Case No. 3:14-cv-01836, Dkt. 1, 5.) LNV twice stipulated to

extensions of time for Petitioner to appear; Petitioner filed her Answer on January

26, 2015. ( Id ., Dkt. 13, 17, 18.) Although the District Court originally set March

18, 2015 as the deadline for discovery, pretrial motions and dispositive motions,

LNV stipulated to an extension of this deadline to April 21, 2015. ( Id ., Dkt. 23.)

The Court stayed the case on March 12, 2015 so that Petitioner could

recover from spinal surgery. ( Id ., Dkt. 33.) The Court twice extended the stay on

Petitioner’s motion, first until May 4 and then until June 8. ( Id ., Dkt. 42, 51.) On

May 11, in its order extending the stay, the Court also set June 8 as the new

deadline for LNV’s response to Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss, the completion of

discovery, and dispositive motions. ( Id ., Dkt. 51.) LNV filed its response to the

Motion to Dismiss and its Motion for Summary Judgment on June 8. ( Id ., Dkt. 52,

53.) Prior to the case being stayed on March 12, Petitioner served no discovery

requests on LNV but did file several pleadings, including the Motion to Dismiss.

More than a week after the discovery deadline lapsed, Petitioner filed a

motion to extend the discovery deadline to September 1, 2015. ( Id ., Dkt. 56.) The


(8 of 1


9/107

6

Court addressed Petitioner’s motion during a status conference on July 8, 2015 and

asked Petitioner to specify which documents, and whose depositions, she was

seeking. Petitioner’s response was wide-ranging and included purchase

agreements, employment records and generally available public documents. The

only arguably relevant request was to photograph the original Note so that she

could have a document expert examine the signatures on the allonges for

authenticity. (Declaration of Gabrielle D. Richards (“Richards Decl.”), Ex. A, Tr.

of Proceedings, 8:13-20, 17:25-18:4.) The Court thereafter limited the scope of

discovery Petitioner could pursue, allowing her to subpoena certain employment

records from a third party and ordering LNV to make the Note available to

Petitioner for a physical inspection and photographing. ( Id ., Ex. A, 17:5-24.) The

Court then issued an order extending the discovery deadline to September 8,

2015. (Case No. 3:14-cv-01836, Dkt. 82.) Petitioner examined the Note at length

at counsel’s offices and took any photograph she desired on August 21, 2015.2

Petitioner filed her response to LNV’s Motion for Summary Judgment on

September 8, 2015. ( Id ., Dkt. 94.) LNV filed a reply memorandum in support of

its summary judgment motion on September 11, 2015. ( Id ., Dkt. 98.) On October

16, 2015, the Court granted LNV’s summary judgment motion and on November

2 LNV began attempting to make the Note available to Petitioner on July 14, but Petitioner was

unresponsive to numerous letters, emails sent and phone calls made by counsel. LNV does notknow if Petitioner ever issued a subpoena to obtain employment records from a third party.


(9 of 1


10/107

7

4, 2015 the Court entered the Judgment of Foreclosure. ( Id ., Dkt. 111, 116.)

Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on December 3, 2015. ( Id ., Dkt. 119.) The

appeal is currently pending; no briefs have been filed.

B. Washington County (Oregon) Circuit Court, Case No. C155181CV

LNV filed the Judgment of Foreclosure in Washington County (Oregon)

Circuit Court as a foreign judgment on or about November 19, 2015. (Richards

Decl. ¶ 4.) LNV mailed notice of the filing of the foreign judgment to Petitioner

on or about November 23, 2015 pursuant to ORS 24.125(2) (“[p]romptly after

filing the foreign judgment and the affidavit, the judgment creditor must mail

notice of the filing of the foreign judgment to the judgment debtor”). ( Id . at ¶ 5.)

LNV obtained a Writ of Execution in the Washington County case on

December 9, 2015 that commanded the Sheriff to sell the foreclosed property. ( Id .

at ¶ 6.) The Writ of Execution was then delivered to the Sheriff’s office, which on

December 16 sent copies of the Notice of Sheriff’s Sale, Notice of Levy, and the

Writ of Execution to Petitioner via Certified Mail and First-Class Mail. ( Id . at ¶ 7.)

The Sheriff posted a copy of the Notice of Sheriff’s Sale at the foreclosed property

on December 17. ( Id .) The Sheriff’s sale took place on January 29, 2016, and the

foreclosed property was sold to LNV. ( Id . at ¶ 8.) The Sheriff posted a Notice of

Completed Sale at the foreclosed property later that same day. ( Id .)


(10 of 1


11/107

8

Petitioner attempted to stop the sale by filing an emergency motion for

injunctive relief in the federal court case. (Case No. 3:14-cv-01836, Dkt. 120.)

Petitioner also filed a Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment and a motion to

disqualify Chief Judge Mosman. ( Id ., Dkt. 122, 124.) The District Court,

construing the emergency motion as a motion to stay proceedings pending appeal,

denied the motion, noting that Petitioner “has shown no likelihood of success on

the merits.” ( Id ., Dkt. 126.) The Court also denied the Rule 60 motion and the

motion to disqualify Chief Judge Mosman. ( Id ., Dkt. 125, 127.)

LNV, as purchaser of the foreclosed property at the Sheriff’s Sale, had an

immediate right to possession pursuant to ORS 18.946(1) (“the purchaser of real

property at an execution sale is entitled to possession of the property from the date

of sale until a redemption of the property, if any”). LNV demanded possession of

the foreclosed property on February 1, 2016 by posting a Notice to Quit on the

front door and mailing a copy to Petitioner via First-Class Mail. (Richards Decl.

¶ 9.) The Notice to Quit required Petitioner to vacate the foreclosed property by

11:59 p.m. on February 8, 2016. ( Id .) Petitioner failed to do so and remained in

possession of the foreclosed property. ( Id . at ¶ 10.) At no time did Petitioner

contact counsel for LNV to request additional time. ( Id .)

The Judgment of Foreclosure specifically authorized the issuance of a Writ

of Assistance if Petitioner failed to surrender possession to the purchaser at sale:


(11 of 1


12/107

9

[T]he purchaser is entitled to exclusive possession of the

Real Property from and after the date of sale and is

entitled to such remedies as are available at law to secure

possession, including without limitation a writ of

assistance, if Defendant or any other party or person

refuses to surrender possession to the purchaser

immediately on the purchaser’s demand for possession.

(Case No. 3:14-cv-01836, Dkt. 116.) Pursuant to Supplementary Local Rule

5.061(3), counsel for LNV notified Petitioner via email on February 8, 2016 that

she intended to appear ex parte the following day to move the Court for a Writ of

Assistance.3

(Richards Decl. ¶ 10.) LNV obtained an Order for Writ of Assistance

on February 9 and delivered the Writ to the Sheriff’s office that morning. ( Id . at

¶ 11.) Later that same day, the Sheriff’s office enforced the Writ and delivered

possession of the foreclosed property to LNV as allowed by law. ( Id . at ¶ 12.)

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 Petitioner’s personal effects, including medications, clothes, computers,

and documents. ( Id .) Petitioner was then allowed to participate in the removal of

3 Petitioner alleges that LNV and its attorney have “exploited” her disabilities by communicatingwith her by email rather than by phone. The email address used to communicate with Petitioneris the same address she uses to receive electronic notifications from both the District Court and

Ninth Circuit and the same address she uses to contact counsel for LNV. Moreover, Petitioner’svoicemail inbox is frequently full, making phone messages impossible. LNV also notes that

Petitioner has stated on numerous occasions, including in her Petition, that she “does poorly inverbal communications.” No method of communication seems to satisfy Petitioner.


(12 of 1


13/107

10

items from the home over a two-day period when her remaining personal property

was transferred to storage. ( Id .) 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.) Petitioner never expressed a concern about the

“toxicity” of the boxes being used to pack her belongings. ( Id . at ¶ 13.) Petitioner

has made no attempts in more than two months to contact the real estate agent to

arrange for the removal of the remaining items at the property, including the trailer.

(Declaration of Brenda Hereth ¶ 6.) LNV went above and beyond the duties

imposed by Oregon law by providing pre-paid storage lockers and additional

access to the foreclosed property after possession was restored to LNV.

IV. LEGAL STANDARD FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT

A writ of mandamus “is a drastic and extraordinary remedy reserved for

really extraordinary causes.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court , 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004)

(internal quotations marks omitted). “As the writ is one of the most potent

weapons in the judicial arsenal,” three conditions must be satisfied before it may

issue. Id . First, “the party seeking issuance of the writ [must] have no other

adequate means to attain the relief he desires.” Id . Second, the petitioner’s right to

issuance of the writ must be “clear and indisputable.” Id . at 381. Third, even if the

first two prerequisites have been met, the issuing court “must be satisfied that the


(13 of 1


14/107

11

writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Id . The Court considers five factors

in determining whether mandamus relief is appropriate:

(1) whether the petitioner has no other means, such as a

direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the

petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in any way not

correctable on appeal; (3) whether the district court’s

order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) whether

the district court’s order is an oft repeated error or

manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules; and

(5) whether the district court’s order raises new andimportant problems or issues of first impression.

Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court , 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977). The absence of

clear error is dispositive. Perry v. Schwarzenegger , 591 F.3d 1147, 1156 (9th Cir.

2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The petitioning party has the

“burden of showing that [her] right to the issuance of the writ is clear and

indisputable.” Bauman, 557 F.2d at 656 (internal quotation marks omitted).

V.

ARGUMENT

Petitioner seeks the following relief: (1) an order restoring possession of

the foreclosed property to her; (2) an order vacating the District Court’s

summary judgment order in the foreclosure case; (3) an order disqualifying

Chief Judge Mosman and vacating orders dismissing Petitioner’s three prior

cases; (4) an order imposing sanctions on LNV’s attorney; (5) an order

directing the Washington County recorder to purge trust deeds associated with

Petitioner’s loan documents; and (6) an order requiring LNV to pay Petitioner


(14 of 1


15/107

12

damages. The Petition, like so many of the conspiracy theories concocted by

Petitioner, is frivolous and for the reasons set forth below, should be denied.

A. The District Court’s Order Granting Summary Judgment to LNV Was

Not Clearly Erroneous as a Matter of Law

A writ of mandamus is inappropriate because the District Court’s order

granting summary judgment to LNV was not clearly erroneous as a matter of law.4

“The clear error standard is significantly deferential and is not met unless the

reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

committed.” Cohen v. U.S. Dist. Court , 586 F.3d 703, 708 (9th Cir. 2009).

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because the absence of clear error

is dispositive, Petitioner’s petition should be denied.

1. LNV is the indisputable holder of the Note

Petitioner continues to offer nothing but speculation and conjecture to

support her theory that the allonges to the Note are forgeries. Even though she was

given additional discovery time to examine the Note and allonges and take photos,

Petitioner did not have the photos examined by a document expert as she told the

4 LNV notes that Petitioner is seeking mandamus relief based on a wide range of court orders

and actions taken by Chief Judge Mosman and LNV, including: (1) the District Court’s dismissal

of cases Petitioner filed in 2012, 2014 and 2015; (2) the District Court’s denial of Petitioner’s

Motion to Dismiss in the foreclosure case; (3) the District Court’s requirement that Petitioner provide a physician affidavit to substantiate the need for a medical continuance; and (4) theDistrict Court’s denial of several “notices” that were not relevant to the foreclosure. LNV will

focus its response in this section of its argument on the only order relevant to mandamus: the onein which the District Court granted summary judgment against Petitioner in the foreclosure case.

(LNV further notes that the Petition was filed in the appeal of the foreclosure case; grantingrelief in any other case, as Petitioner requests this Court to do, would be inappropriate.)


(15 of 1


16/107

13

Court she would do when she requested extra time during the July 2015 status

conference. Instead, Petitioner continues to cast herself as an expert in document

authenticity by discussing iridescence and “suspicious” marks. As the District

Court noted in its Opinion: “[Petitioner’s] own efforts as a handwriting analyst are

insufficient.” (Dkt. 111.) Moreover, Petitioner’s “evidence” consists of photos of

a “Dana Lantry” signature on a canceled allonge that has no bearing on this case.

Petitioner offers no evidence of forgery of the Lantry allonge from People’s

Choice to RFC. See Exhibit G to the Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

2. LNV is the indisputable beneficiary of the Deed of Trust

Petitioner focuses much energy on three assignments of the Deed of Trust

that predated the deed assignment from RFC to LNV on March 10, 2008.

Petitioner alleges that two of these “other” assignments were recorded and one was

not. Petitioner continues to misunderstand (or disregard) the law on this point.

When “the trust deed secures a promissory note, the beneficiary of the trust deed is

the noteholder.” James v. ReconTrust Co., 845 F. Supp. 2d 1145, 1156 (D. Or.

2012). As the District Court noted in its Opinion, “even if there were issues in the

chain of title for the deed of trust, because LNV has shown that it is the holder of

the note, it is entitled to foreclosure.” (Dkt. 111.)5

5 Petitioner now disputes that the original Note and Deed of Trust bear her authentic

signatures. The Petition is the first time she has made such an argument. Petitioner has


(16 of 1


17/107

14

3. District Court correctly concluded that LNV could foreclose

The District Court reached the legally correct conclusion when it determined

that LNV was entitled to foreclosure. Given the “evidence” Petitioner put forth in

opposition to LNV’s summary judgment motion, and the arguments presented in

her Petition, the Court’s decision was not “clearly erroneous” such that mandamus

is warranted. LNV notes that Petitioner has provided this Court with an extended

and detailed discussion of her various health conditions. Without trivializing the

effect of these conditions on Petitioner’s ability to function, LNV respectfully

submits that Petitioner’s health conditions do not justify the wholesale disregard of

the rules of procedure and evidence or the abandonment of pleading requirements

and burden of proof. Similarly, Petitioner’s health conditions do not suspend her

obligations under contract law or entitle her to remain in a home mortgage-free

solely because it accommodates her disabilities. These arguments should not

detract from the foundational facts of this case that entitled LNV to foreclose.

B. Petitioner Has Another Adequate Means to Obtain Relief

A writ of mandamus is inappropriate because Petitioner can obtain a reversal

of the District Order’s summary judgment ruling by direct appeal. Petitioner

argues that a writ of mandamus is necessary because the appeal process “can take a

year or longer” and she “cannot continue to survive the conditions [she has] been

admitted to refinancing her home and making payments through 2007 (and possibly one in2008). Questioning the authenticity at this stage is disingenuous and should be disregarded.


(17 of 1


18/107

15

forced to endure” since she was removed from her home after it was sold. This

argument has no legal merit and the relief sought should be denied.

Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on December 5, 2016. The appeal is

currently pending before the Ninth Circuit. “A court of appeals has no occasion to

engage in extraordinary review by mandamus … when it can exercise the same

review by a contemporaneous ordinary appeal.” Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp.

v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 8 n. 6 (1983). See also Confederated Salish

v. Simonich, 29 F.3d 1398, 1404-05 (9th Cir. 1994) (declining to issue writ where

petitioner had “an adequate means to obtain the relief he desires by direct appeal”).

Petitioner has adequate means to obtain the relief requested through direct appeal.

Moreover, the situation in which Petitioner now finds herself does not justify

an end-around of the appellate process. Petitioner knew in November 2015, when

the Judgment of Foreclosure was entered, that her home would be sold and that the

purchaser would be entitled to immediate possession. Petitioner was made aware

of the sale date in December 2015 and was given notice that LNV intended to

enforce its immediate right to possession. Petitioner, however, took no steps to

vacate the property or plan for her needs – not a single item was packed for

moving when LNV took possession of the property in February 2016, nor did

Petitioner contact counsel for LNV to request additional time. Petitioner’s situation

is of her own making and does not justify mandamus relief.


(18 of 1


19/107

16

C. This Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction to Grant the Desired Relief

1. This Court cannot grant relief for actions taken in state court

This Court does not have jurisdiction over actions taken in the state courts of

Oregon. Title 28 of the U.S. Code, section 1291 sets forth the jurisdictional

boundaries of the federal appellate courts:

The courts of appeals … shall have jurisdiction of

appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of

the United States, the United States District Court for the

District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam,

and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, except where

a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.

The power to issue a writ of mandamus comes from 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), which

provides that “[t]he Supreme Court and all courts established by Congress may

issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions.”

The sale of the foreclosed property and the issuance of the Writ of Assistance took

place in the Oregon state court system after the Judgment of Foreclosure was

properly localized in Washington County. Respectfully, the Ninth Circuit does not

have jurisdiction to “restore possession” of the foreclosed property to Petitioner,

nor does it have jurisdiction to “direct the Washington County recorder” to purge

trust deeds associated with Petitioner’s mortgage documents.

LNV submits that even if the Ninth Circuit did have jurisdiction to grant the

aforementioned relief, the actions taken by LNV in the state court case were

procedurally and legally proper. Petitioner argues that she was never served with a


(19 of 1


20/107

17

summons and complaint to evict her from the foreclosed property. This is true.

Petitioner’s argument, however, is based on the mistaken belief that an unlawful

detainer action was required to remove Petitioner from the property. As discussed

above, the Judgment of Foreclosure authorized issuance of a Writ of Assistance to

effectuate possession to the purchaser at sale. The court’s power to issue such a

Writ stems from its need to enforce court-rendered decrees independently of

statute. U.S. Nat’l Bank of Oregon v. Chavez , 281 Or. 329, 333, 574 P.2d 647

(1978). The Writ was issued in the state court case, notice of which was mailed to

Petitioner and posted on her front door as required by law. Petitioner’s suggestion

that her eviction materialized out of thin air, without notice of any kind, is

inconsistent with the facts. Moreover, she is simply wrong on the law.6

2. This Court cannot impose sanctions or award damages

This Court does not have the power to impose sanctions against Chief Judge

Mosman or LNV’s attorney, both of whom Petitioner named as additional

respondents in her petition. Neither Chief Judge Mosman nor LNV’s attorney

were parties to the proceedings below, making their inclusion in the mandamus

petition as respondents and the request for sanctions against them inappropriate

6 ORS Chapter 90, the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, likely would not even apply to a

foreclosure situation, where there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the purchaser at saleand a person in possession of property. Petitioner and the other occupant of the foreclosed

property would best be described as squatters, i.e. persons with no legal right to possession.Squatters are specifically excluded from coverage by Chapter 90. ORS 90.110(5).


(20 of 1


21/107

18

and far outside the scope of relief this honorable Court may grant. Similarly, this

Court does not have the power to award damages for mental anguish as Petitioner

requests. Such an award is outside the scope of a mandamus proceeding and is a

clear attempt to sidestep Petitioner’s previous losses in District Court.

VI. CONCLUSION

Petitioner has failed to satisfy the three requisite conditions for issuance of a

writ of mandamus because (1) Petitioner has an “adequate means to attain the

relief” she desires through direct appeal, (2) Petitioner has not shown that her right

to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable,” and (3) Petitioner has not shown

that “the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” For the reasons set forth

above, LNV respectfully requests that the Court deny the Petition.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13th day of April, 2016.

/s/ Gabrielle D. Richards /s/ Erick J. Haynie

GABRIELLE D. R ICHARDS ERICK J. HAYNIEMARTIN & R ICHARDS, LLP JEFFREY M. PETERSON 111 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 3150 PERKINS COIE LLPPortland, OR 97204 1120 NW Couch St., 10th Floor503.444.3449 Portland, OR [email protected] 503.727.2000

[email protected]@perkinscoie.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee

LNV Corporation


(21 of 1


22/107

19

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I served the foregoing LNV CORPORATION’S RESPONSE

IN OPPOSITION TO THE EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF

MANDAMUS on Defendant-Appellant Denise Subramaniam at the address listed

in her Petition: c/o 1905 SE 24th Avenue, Portland, OR 97214 by depositing a

copy in the U.S. Mail in a sealed postage-prepaid envelope at Portland, Oregon on

the date set forth below.

DATED: April 13, 2016 /s/ Gabrielle D. RichardsGabrielle D. Richards

[email protected]


(22 of 1


23/107

1- DECLARATION OF GABRIELLE D. RICHARDS Martin & Richards, LL P 111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3150

Portland, Oregon 97204

Phone: 503.444.3449

Fax: 503.296.5834

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LNV CORPORATION, a Nevadacorporation,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DENISE SUBRAMANIAM,

Defendant-Appellant.

C.A. Case No. 15-35963

DECLARATION OFGABRIELLE D. RICHARDSIN SUPPORT OF LNVCORPORATION’S RESPONSEIN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT’SEMERGENCY PETITIONFOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

I, Gabrielle D. Richards, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney with Martin & Richards, LLP, counsel for plaintiff-

appellee LNV Corporation (“LNV”) in the above-captioned matter.

2. I am over the age of 18 and have personal knowledge of the facts

contained in this declaration and am competent to testify thereto.

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the

transcript from the District Court status conference held on July 8, 2015, during

which the scope of discovery was discussed.


(23 of 1


24/107

2- DECLARATION OF GABRIELLE D. RICHARDS Martin & Richards, LLP 111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3150


Phone: 503.444.3449

Fax: 503.296.5834

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Notice

of Filing of Foreign Judgment, which localized the federal court Judgment of

Foreclosure in Oregon state court on or about November 19, 2015. The Notice of

Filing of Foreign Judgment was accompanied by my affidavit and a money

judgment as required by ORS 24.125(1).

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the

Certificate of Service and Proof of Mailing, indicating that on or about November

23, 2015 I mailed the pleadings associated with the filing of the foreign judgment

in Washington County to Ms. Subramaniam as required by ORS 24.125(2).

6.

Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Writ of

Execution I obtained in the Oregon state court case on or about December 9, 2015

that commanded the Sheriff to sell the foreclosed property. I hand-delivered the

Writ of Execution to the Sheriff the same day.

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the Sheriff’s

Return of Writ of Execution – Real Property, indicating that on December 16,

2015, the Sheriff sent copies of the Notice of Sheriff’s Sale, Notice of Levy and theWrit of Execution to Ms. Subramaniam by Certified Mail and U.S. Mail. Exhibit

E also indicates that the Sheriff posted the Notice of Sale in a conspicuous place at

the foreclosed property on December 17, 2015.

8. The Sheriff’s sale took place on January 29, 2016 and LNV was the

purchaser. Exhibit E indicates that the Sheriff mailed the Notice of Completed

Sale to Ms. Subramaniam and also posted a copy in a conspicuous place at the

foreclosed property on January 29, 2016.

9. I had a process server post a Notice to Quit on the front door of the

foreclosed property on February 1, 2016. The Notice to Quit demanded possession

of the property and required Ms. Subramaniam to vacate by 11:59 p.m. on


(24 of 1


25/107



Phone: 503.444.3449

Fax: 503.296.5834

February 8, 2016. I also mailed a copy of the Notice to Quit to Ms. Subramaniam

via First-Class U.S. Mail. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy

of the Notice to Quit, the process server’s Declaration of Service and my letter.

10. Pursuant to Supplementary Local Rule 5.061(3), I notified Petitioner

by email on February 8, 2016 that I intended to appear ex parte the following day

to move the Court for a Writ of Assistance if she failed to vacate by the deadline.

Ms. Subramaniam failed to vacate by 11:59 p.m. on February 8, 2016. She did not

respond to my email or contact me to request additional time to leave the property.

Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of my email.

11.

Pursuant to the terms of the Judgment of Foreclosure, I appeared ex

parte in Washington County on February 9, 2016 to obtain a Writ of Assistance, a

true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit H. I hand-delivered

the Writ of Assistance to the Sheriff later that morning.

12. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true a correct copy of the Sheriff’s

Return on Writ of Assistance, indicating that the Sheriff enforced the Writ of

Assistance on the afternoon of February 9, 2016 by placing LNV in possession ofthe foreclosed property.

13. I was contacted on February 10, 2016 by an attorney who Ms.

Subramaniam retained on a pro bono basis to assist her with removing personal

items from the foreclosed home. I gave counsel complete access to the home for

more than an hour on February 11, 2016 to remove six large containers of personal

items, including medications, clothes, computers, documents, food, medical

equipment and blankets. Ms. Subramaniam was then allowed to participate in the

removal of items from the home on February 13 and 14 when her remaining

personal items were packed and placed into storage. Ms. Subramaniam was

allowed to remove several carloads of items, which she hauled away in her own


(25 of 1


26/107



Phone: 503.444.3449

Fax: 503.296.5834

vehicle. Ms. Subramaniam never expressed any concerns to me regarding the

“toxicity” of the boxes used to pack her belongings.

14. LNV prepaid three storage units and placed them into Ms.

Subramaniam’s name to provide her with unfettered access. She also was given

access to the foreclosed property, through the real estate agent, to remove a trailer

and other remaining personal property.

I hereby declare that the above statement is true to thee best of my

knowledge and belief, and that I understand it is made for use as evidence in court

and is subject to penalty for perjury.

DATED: April 12, 2016

/s/ Gabrielle D. Richards__________

Gabrielle D. Richards


(26 of 1


27/107

1

1 E ED AE DC C

2 F E DC F E

3 CA, ), )

4 ), ) C . 3:1401836

5 ). )

6 )DEE BAAA, ) 8, 2015

7 )D. ) ,

8 )

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 AC F CEED

17 BEFE E ABE CAE . A

18 ED AE DC C DE

19

20

2122

23

24

25

ExhPage 1 o

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 92-1 Filed 09/03/15 Page 1 of 29 Case: 15-35963, 04/13/2016, ID: 9937669, DktEntry: 9-2, Page 5 of 82

(27 of 1


28/107

2

1

2 AEAACE

3

4 F E AFF: . D. . C .

5 C, 1120 .. C , 10 F

6 , 97209

7

8

9 F E DEFEDA: . D ,

13685 .. 10 B, 97005

11

12

13

14 C EE: B . , C, , C D C

15 1000 .. A., 301

, 9720416 (503) 3268188

17

18

19

20

2122

23

24

25

ExhPage 2 o


(28 of 1


29/107

3

1 ( C E E D )

2 E CE: ,

3 C . 3:141836,

4 C . D .

5 C ,

6 .

7 . CAD: , .

8 . .

9 . E: , . C ,

10 .

11 . BAAA: , . '

12 D , .

13 E C: A .

14 . . F,

15 . ,

16 . ' ,

17 ' .

18 A

19 . '

20

21 ' 22 .

23 .

24 . , '

25 .

ExhPage 3 o


(29 of 1


30/107

4

1 . BAAA: ' .

2 E C: A ?

3 . BAAA: , .

4 ,

5 ,

6 ,

7 , .

8 A 8,

9 , '

10 , '

11 , '

12

13 . B ' .

14 A

15 ,

16 , '

17 ' . ' .

18 . '

19 . ' , ' .

20

21 .22 A '

23 "" , ",

24 ." ' . B

25

ExhPage 4 o


(30 of 1


31/107

5

1 ' .

2 A . A

3 , , ,

4

5 , :

6 . . A

7 ' ,

8 .

9

10 C ' , ,

11 , ' C

12 ,

13 ' . '

14 ,

15 ,

16 .

17

18

19 '

20

21 ' 22

23 .

24 E C: A . .

25

ExhPage 5 o


(31 of 1


32/107

6

1 . '

2 ' ?

3 . BAAA:

4 E C: ,

5

6 . BAAA: .

7 E C: . '

8 .

9 . BAAA: .

10 E C: , ,

11

12

13 .

14 . BAAA: , , .

15 , , .

16 E C:

17

18 ?

19 . BAAA: . , , ,

20 2012,

21 C 22 .

23

24 C,

25 C ,

ExhPage 6 o


(32 of 1


33/107

7

1 , '

2 E C: , '

3 '

4 . BAAA: ,

5 E C: . '

6 ' .

7

8 ? ' ,

9

10 ?

11 . BAAA: .

12 ,

13 ' C F, C,

14 F ,

15 C, AC,

16 ,

17 , ,

18

19

20 E C: A . . '

21 .22 ' .

23

24 , .

25 ' , " ,

ExhPage 7 o


(33 of 1


34/107

8

1 ."

2 .

3 . BAAA: .

4 A A, ' . ,

5 (),

6 ,

7 , , .

8 .

9 A

10 ,

11 . .

12 E C: A .

13 . BAAA: ,

14 C. ,

15

16 D E E,

17

18

19 . ,

20 ,

21 E C: ' . D' .22 . BAAA: . '

23 E C: ?

24 . BAAA:

25 '

ExhPage 8 o


(34 of 1


35/107

9

1 ' ' .

2 E C: A . ?

3 . BAAA: .

4 C , C

5 B .

6 C.

7 E C: ?

8 . BAAA: B

9 C,

10 .

11 E C: ?

12

13 ,

14

15 ' . B .

16 , ,

17 .

18 . BAAA: . .

19 E C: ' .

20 , ' .

21 . BAAA: B . 22 .

23 E C: ?

24 . BAAA: .

25 E C: ?

ExhPage 9 o


(35 of 1


36/107

10

1 . BAAA:

2 C

3 ACFC,

4 ,

5 . A

6 ,

7 ,

8 . A

9 10,

10 2008, .

11 A D ,

12 ,

13 .

14 E C: A . ?

15 . BAAA: . '

16 ' ' ,

17 E C: , ' .

18 . BAAA:

19 C .

20 E C: ?

21 . BAAA: B 22 ' . '

23 . A

24

25 E C: ?

ExhPage 10 o


(36 of 1


37/107

11

1 ' . ? ?

2 (C .)

3 . BAAA: ' , '

4 . . ' . '

5 . ' , .

6 . . C

7 E C: .

8 ' . ' '

9 ' . ?

10 . BAAA: , ' '

11 . ' '

12 , A B,

13 , , '

14

15 . A

16 E C: ,

17 ? , .

18 ' .

19 . BAAA: , .

20 E C: , '

21 , , 22 .

23 .

24 . BAAA: . , C

25

ExhPage 11 o


(37 of 1


38/107

12

1 C, ' . A

2

3 ,

4 . A

5 .

6 ' .

7 E C: A . .

8 ?

9 . CAD: , .

10 C

11

12 C , .

13 . B .

14 ,

15 C, B

16 .

17 E C: '

18

19 . ?

20 . CAD: , . ' .

21 E C: A .22 . CAD: A . '

23 '

24 , .

25

ExhPage 12 o


(38 of 1


39/107

13

1 .

2 E C:

3 ' . '

4 ?

5 . CAD: B

6 ,

7 ' .

8 E C: A .

9 ?

10 . CAD: '

11 .

12

13 ,

14 ' .

15 .

16 A

17 , '

18

19 .

20 .

21 E C: ' 22 ? ' .

23 . CAD: ' , .

24

25

ExhPage 13 o


(39 of 1


40/107

14

1 . ' .

2 A '

3 ,

4 .

5 ,

6 C

7 ,

8 .

9 A

10

11

12

13 .

14 E C: , ,

15 , ,

16 ?

17 . CAD: ' .

18 E C: , ,

19 ,

20 , ?

21 . CAD: ' 22 E C: ,

23 , ' ?

24 . CAD: '

25 ,

ExhPage 14 o


(40 of 1


41/107

15

1

2 .

3 E C: ' .

4 ,

5 , ' ?

6 . CAD:

7 .

8 .

9 E C: ' '

10 ,

11 ' . '

12 . '

13 ' .

14

15 ,

16 , . '

17 '

18 , '

19 , , ,

20 , ' ?

21 . E: , ?22 E C: . ' . '

23 ,

24 ?

25 . CAD: ' , .

ExhPage 15 o


(41 of 1


42/107

16

1 E C: ?

2 . CAD:

3 ,

4 .

5 , '

6 .

7 E C: , '

8 ' , '

9 , ?

10 , ' ? '

11 ?

12 . CAD:

13 , '

14 . , ,

15 C

16 ,

17 .

18 E C: D ?

19 . CAD: , .

20 E C: A . , ,

21 22 ?

23 . CAD: , . '

24 . .

25 E C:

ExhPage 16 o


(42 of 1


43/107

17

1 ?

2 . CAD: '

3 .

4 E C: A . .

5 . , '

6 .

7 F,

8 . '

9 .

10 . '

11 . ' '

12 , .

13 ' ,

14 , '

15 .

16 . BAAA: ' ?

17 E C: ' .

18 . BAAA: .

19 E C: ,

20 .

21 . ' , ' 22 ' ,

23

24 .

25 . BAAA: ,

ExhPage 17 o


(43 of 1


44/107

18

1

2

3

4 .

5 E C:

6 ' .

7 . BAAA: .

8 E C:

9 . . .

10 . BAAA: , ' .

11 .

12 E C: , , '

13 . . '

14 '

15 , '

16 , ' , '

17 . ' .

18 . BAAA: C,

19 C,

20 ,

21 A 1, 2007, 22 . A

23 C

24

25

ExhPage 18 o


(44 of 1


45/107

19

1 A 24, 2008,

2 .

3 E C: A . , '

4 . ' '

5 ' .

6 ' ,

7 '

8 .

9 , '

10 . .

11 A ' ' .

12 ' 60

13 .

14 , '

15 , '

16 .

17 . BAAA: ,

18 ?

19 E C: .

20 . BAAA:

21 ?22 E C: .

23 . BAAA: . . .

24

25 E C:

ExhPage 19 o


(45 of 1


46/107

20

1 .

2 ' ,

3 ' , '

4 ' ; ' .

5 '

6

7 ' .

8 ' . E

9 ' , ' ,

10 ' .

11 ' '

12

13 ' . E

14 ' . ' .

15 '

16

17 . ' , .

18 , ,

19 , '

20 ' '

21 .22 ?

23 . BAAA: .

24 ,

25 ,

ExhPage 20 o


(46 of 1


47/107

21

1 .

2 E C: '

3 . E

4 .

5 . BAAA: .

6 E C:

7 , ?

8 ?

9 . BAAA: , . A

10

11 ?

12 E C: D .

13 , ' .

14 ' , ' .

15 . BAAA: .

16 E C: A ?

17 . BAAA: .

18 E C: . ,

19 60 .

20 E CE: . 6.

21 E C: , 22 , , 6.

23 ' , ' 7

24 8.

25 . BAAA: .

ExhPage 21 o


(47 of 1


48/107

22

1 .

2 6, ?

3 E C:

4

5 ' 6.

6 . BAAA: , . B

7 6.

8 E C: , ' .

9 . BAAA: , . .

10 E C:

11 6, . A '

12 , '

13 .

14 . BAAA: . A

15 ' ,

16 . '

17 . ' . A

18 ,

19 '

20

21 .22 A

23 , ,

24 ' .

25 A '

ExhPage 22 o


(48 of 1


49/107

23

1 , .

2 E C: .

3 . BAAA: ? . '

4 .

5 E C: .

6 . BAAA: . A

7 ' , ,

8 ?

9 E C: .

10 . BAAA: , .

11 E C: . ' .

12 . BAAA: D '

13 ?

14 E C: , .

15 .

16 . BAAA: . B ' ?

17 E C: ' .

18 . BAAA: , .

19 E CE: .

20 ( .)

2122

23

24

25

ExhPage 23 o


(49 of 1


50/107

24

1

2 0

3

4 , ,

5

6 . A

7 .

8

9

10 BA . A, C, , C DAE

11 C

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2122

23

24

25

ExhPage 24 o


(50 of 1


51/107

---o0o [1] 24/2

//s/Bonita [1] 24/9

11000 [1] 2/1510th [2] 2/5 10/91120 [1] 2/513685 [1] 2/91st [1] 18/21

2

2007 [1] 18/212008 [2] 10/10 19/12012 [1] 6/202015 [2] 1/6 24/924th [1] 19/1

3301 [1] 2/15326-8188 [1] 2/163:14-cv-01836-MO [1] 1/43:14-cv-1836-MO [1] 3/3

5503 [1] 2/16

660 [2] 19/12 21/196th [6] 21/20 21/22 22/2 22/5 22/7 22/11

77th [1] 21/23

88188 [1] 2/168th [2] 4/8 21/24

99/2/2015 [1] 24/997005 [1] 2/1097204 [1] 2/1597209 [1] 2/6

Aabeyance [1] 3/20ability [1] 22/24able [3] 5/16 16/12 20/25about [10] 7/2 7/6 9/19 11/21 15/12 20/12 20/14 20/17 21/19 23/3

above [1] 24/6above-entitled [1] 24/6absolutely [1] 13/18accomplish [1] 19/7accurate [1] 17/22acknowledged [1] 11/13acquired [1] 10/3activity [1] 13/13actually [8] 4/10 6/3 7/17 10/22 14/13

15/11 18/22 18/24additional [2] 12/24 14/9address [3] 12/11 14/3 22/15addresses [1] 13/15adjourned [2] 23/19 23/20admit [1] 9/14advise [1] 18/14after [3] 4/6 11/22 19/1afterwards [1] 22/21again [2] 5/3 18/12agreement [1] 10/2ahead [1] 17/7Aid [2] 8/4 8/4

all [24] 3/13 3/13 5/21 5/24 6/19 7/20 8/12 9/2 10/8 10/13 10/14 11/16 11/18

12/7 12/21 13/8 14/4 17/4 19/3 20/11

20/17 21/13 21/16 22/3

allegations [1] 14/25allegedly [2] 7/12 10/6allonge [3] 8/18 8/19 15/1allow [2] 17/5 19/6allowing [2] 14/9 14/10almost [1] 19/1along [2] 4/25 20/10already [5] 8/17 8/25 10/11 12/14 14/6also [8] 3/10 5/21 6/1 10/7 10/23 14/6 16/3 19/15

am [2] 4/7 17/19

amend [1] 4/5amount [1] 18/25Andy [1] 11/12answer [12] 5/25 6/2 6/5 6/12 7/21 7/24 11/7 12/18 13/2 15/10 21/23 22/12

answered [1] 12/25answers [2] 6/7 6/8any [11] 3/20 12/18 14/14 14/18 14/25 16/16 16/21 16/25 17/2 21/14 22/24

anybody [1] 18/9anything [4] 4/13 4/19 5/1 13/3APPEARANCES [1] 2/2application [1] 22/15appropriate [1] 6/15April [2] 18/21 19/1April 1st [1] 18/21

April 24th [1] 19/1are [12] 3/14 4/2 7/7 7/15 9/11 11/21 11/22 12/11 14/13 14/13 15/2 16/4

argue [4] 8/21 12/13 13/23 19/4arguing [1] 8/21argument [5] 7/6 7/8 7/22 13/4 13/15arguments [1] 16/5as [5] 6/21 6/21 14/12 18/2 18/11aside [1] 14/25ask [1] 7/22asked [3] 3/24 4/15 22/22asking [4] 9/19 15/11 15/11 15/12assignment [2] 7/11 7/12assignments [2] 8/6 10/9associated [1] 16/25

assuming [1]15/4

at [9] 3/16 4/16 4/17 7/17 11/18 13/6 13/22 18/13 20/11

attorneys [1] 4/16authentic [1] 16/9authenticity [2] 8/16 14/19available [1] 17/20Ave [1] 2/15away [1] 17/23

Bback [5] 5/21 16/2 20/24 23/7 23/13bad [4] 11/21 20/12 20/13 20/13bank [8] 10/22 10/23 11/1 11/8 11/9 11/11 18/23 18/24

basic [3] 13/23 16/11 20/2

basically [1] 21/25be [25]Beal [1] 11/12Beaverton [1] 2/10became [1] 4/11because [13] 4/5 4/6 4/18 4/21 5/1 5/15 5/20 7/1 8/14 8/24 9/8 10/21 18/1

because when [1] 7/1bed [1] 22/20been [12] 3/17 4/10 4/14 5/19 6/20 7/18 8/25 12/14 13/25 14/8 16/4 22/24

before [8] 1/17 6/17 12/11 13/5 16/15 17/6 20/24 22/7

being [2] 3/13 15/17believe [8] 9/12 9/16 15/7 15/8 15/12 15/25 16/12 19/9

believes [1] 14/13below [1] 24/4beneficial [1] 10/7beneficiary [1] 13/24besides [1] 23/15between [1] 10/2blanks [1] 8/2bogus [1] 20/9Bonita [3] 2/14 24/9 24/10both [2] 7/15 14/7Brett [1] 9/5brief [1] 19/25

brilliant [1] 9/14Brown [1] 12/15but [21] 4/13 4/23 4/24 4/25 5/7 6/8 7/9 9/15 9/21 10/7 10/16 12/13 14/6 15/18

16/3 17/12 18/3 18/15 20/19 22/6 23/16

Ccall [2] 17/9 18/11called [2] 7/12 18/2can [19] 3/5 5/18 5/18 6/17 15/15 16/17 17/7 17/11 17/12 17/22 18/5 18/9 18/13

19/10 19/15 20/3 21/18 22/1 22/6

can't [1] 10/16capacity [1] 5/1care [3] 12/17 20/14 20/17case [23] 1/4 3/3 3/18 5/21 6/15 6/20 6/22 10/8 10/25 11/17 11/23 13/1 13/19

13/20 14/1 14/5 14/11 15/5 15/18 16/3

16/6 16/9 21/7

cases [3] 8/20 14/7 16/4cause [2] 9/14 24/6Cell [1] 11/2certified [1] 24/7certify [1] 24/4challenge [1] 14/18chance [2] 3/16 7/8change [1] 16/5charge [1] 8/9choice [2] 4/25 7/13claim [6] 10/3 10/4 10/21 10/22 12/23 19/1

claim they [1]10/3

claiming [1] 8/6claims [9] 6/24 6/25 7/18 8/14 9/4 9/10 11/6 18/18 18/19

cleared [2] 18/24 18/25clearly [1] 7/1clerk [1] 22/22clerk's [1] 23/7client [2] 16/19 16/25Cody [2] 2/4 3/9Coie [1] 2/5collected [1] 22/4come [3] 20/18 22/16 22/18coming [1] 23/12companies [2] 11/13 20/13company [1] 20/12

complaint [2] 4/15 19/18complete [1] 6/12conclusory [1] 14/25condition [3] 5/15 5/20 5/23conduct [1] 13/6conference [3] 1/15 3/3 12/10confirmed [1] 10/12conformed [1] 24/7Conner [3] 6/24 9/6 18/18constitutional [1] 5/13contained [1] 14/3contends [1] 15/14continue [1] 14/11

ExhPage 25 o


(51 of 1


52/107

Ccontrary [1] 9/16control [1] 18/13Corp [1] 8/14corporation [9] 1/3 1/3 3/4 10/2 10/19 11/6 11/11 11/12 11/24

corporations [1] 11/14correct [1] 24/5Couch [1] 2/5could [2] 16/16 16/21couldn't [5] 4/13 4/18 4/19 4/19 13/3Counsel [1] 3/5couple [5] 3/14 3/15 17/6 22/12 22/20course [1] 16/3

court [15] 1/1 1/18 2/14 5/10 5/11 9/9 12/1 12/10 12/12 12/15 14/6 16/15

18/23 23/19 24/11

courthouse [2] 2/14 22/18created [1] 11/14credibility [1] 12/5cross [3] 9/5 9/6 9/14cross-examination [1] 9/14cross-examine [2] 9/5 9/6CRR [2] 2/14 24/10CSR [2] 2/14 24/10currently [1] 16/15cut [1] 6/8cv [2] 1/4 3/3

Ddate [3] 17/16 21/19 24/10day [4] 4/8 19/14 19/15 19/15days [4] 19/12 21/19 22/13 22/21dec [1] 6/23decide [1] 22/25decision [2] 22/24 23/1declaration [3] 6/23 9/8 18/20deed [9] 7/11 7/12 8/5 10/8 13/12 13/13 13/14 13/25 15/1

default [9] 13/25 16/6 16/7 16/8 16/10 18/22 20/2 20/4 20/20

defendant [8] 1/7 2/9 13/11 13/25 14/12 14/24 16/6 16/17

defendant's [1] 14/2denied [3] 5/19 12/14 14/6

DENISE [4]1/6 2/9 3/4 3/12

Depends [1] 21/12depose [1] 18/11deposition [1] 18/15depositions [1] 14/10Diane [1] 10/11did [5] 4/1 4/4 4/22 5/9 14/3didn't [15] 4/9 4/10 4/16 4/17 5/1 5/10 5/11 5/21 11/3 11/4 13/7 15/9 20/10

22/8 23/3

disability [1] 22/20discover [1] 12/4discovered [1] 4/12discovery [15] 5/10 5/12 5/18 5/20 5/22 6/11 6/17 12/23 12/24 13/6 13/7 14/9

15/15 19/13 19/15

discs [1] 4/12dismiss [1] 20/23dismissed [2] 14/8 16/4dispute [1] 13/11DISTRICT [4] 1/1 1/2 1/18 2/14do [27]document [1] 14/10Documentation [1] 8/16documents [17] 7/7 7/10 7/16 8/1 8/18 9/24 9/25 10/1 10/5 10/18 10/23 12/2

12/2 12/3 12/16 13/17 13/18

does [4] 9/9 11/16 14/18 23/12doesn't [6] 7/1 11/18 13/14 14/23 16/5

20/7

don't [28]done [5] 4/6 8/17 22/1 23/16 23/17down [3] 15/17 22/17 22/18due [2] 5/14 5/18during [2] 4/13 16/3

Eeither [2] 16/15 20/8electronically [2] 22/16 22/24elements [1] 18/1else [3] 9/2 10/14 23/1employed [1] 8/8employee [2] 9/4 9/5employment [5] 8/3 8/10 14/15 17/8

17/8end [3] 5/12 19/14 22/20endeavor [1] 15/19ended [1] 5/12engage [1] 15/14enhance [1] 10/25enough [1] 22/1entire [1] 19/1entitled [4] 12/1 20/8 20/20 24/6equal [2] 5/14 5/19evaluated [1] 17/23evasion [1] 11/15even [4] 4/16 14/11 15/17 20/13eventually [2] 4/12 5/3every [2] 21/3 22/17everything [3] 22/1 22/2 22/22

evidence [5] 9/17 15/23 16/15 16/16 19/4

examination [2] 8/15 9/14Examinations [1] 8/16examine [2] 9/5 9/6examined [1] 8/24Examiners [1] 8/16executed [1] 10/9exemption [3] 11/25 12/1 12/5exist [1] 20/7expedition [2] 13/18 14/12explanation [1] 20/1extension [1] 3/24extensions [2] 4/20 5/2

Ffact [4] 8/7 11/14 14/3 15/19facts [2] 13/19 16/5factual [3] 7/10 7/23 13/11fail [1] 17/14failed [2] 18/21 19/2fear [1] 14/9file [8] 4/4 6/17 19/13 19/16 22/15 22/17 22/18 22/24

filed [13] 3/15 3/17 3/23 4/8 5/25 6/23 7/17 12/13 20/23 21/3 22/2 22/5 22/6

fill [1] 8/2financial [2] 7/14 8/7fine [2] 12/20 19/5finish [1] 6/4first [4] 3/14 3/19 6/19 17/7

fishing [2] 13/17 14/12Floor [1] 2/5following [3] 7/25 8/1 22/11follows [1] 13/13foreclose [5] 20/7 20/8 20/13 20/17 20/21

foreclosure [2] 13/20 16/11foregoing [1] 24/4forged [7] 15/7 15/8 15/12 15/16 15/23 16/8 16/13

forgeries [1] 15/2forgery [1] 18/2forward [3] 3/18 5/7 16/17

foundation [1] 16/11free [1] 18/16fully [2] 4/7 5/7function [1] 4/19Funding [1] 7/13further [5] 6/11 6/17 17/6 19/12 19/13

GGabrielle [2] 2/4 3/8gave [3] 5/16 9/8 15/10general [1] 12/5get [21] 4/6 5/4 6/10 7/8 8/3 8/10 9/22 10/5 10/18 11/4 12/18 17/7 17/11 20/13

20/18 21/23 21/25 22/2 22/3 22/12 23/7

give [8] 6/12 15/9 17/13 17/14 19/11

19/12 19/25 21/18GMAC [2] 7/15 10/3GMAC-RFC [1] 10/3go [8] 4/25 5/4 14/12 15/17 17/7 18/9 19/10 23/6

goal [1] 3/18goes [2] 14/23 16/2going [23] 3/19 4/25 5/12 6/8 7/21 7/22 7/24 7/25 9/11 10/17 13/17 14/11 15/16

17/5 17/13 17/19 18/14 18/16 19/11

19/12 21/2 21/4 22/25

good [5] 3/7 3/9 3/11 5/5 9/20got [1] 10/4granted [1] 23/2guess [1] 6/1

Hhad [26]happen [1] 20/10happened [2] 4/6 20/25happens [3] 9/15 11/1 11/9hardship [1] 22/16has [14] 3/15 3/23 8/17 9/13 11/13 11/14 11/24 11/25 12/13 12/14 13/9

13/25 14/24 16/19

hasn't [2] 12/23 22/24have [53]haven't [3] 3/16 13/22 17/17having [3] 10/23 12/4 22/20he [6] 8/7 8/7 11/14 16/25 17/2 22/23he's [4] 18/13 18/16 18/16 18/17

head [1]10/16

hear [5] 7/2 7/3 7/5 7/6 7/7hearing [11] 21/1 21/10 21/13 21/14 21/22 21/23 22/1 22/7 22/10 22/11

22/12

heat [1] 22/18help [7] 4/11 11/17 11/18 12/3 15/17 19/9 20/11

her [11] 9/9 13/2 13/16 13/25 14/4 14/25 14/25 15/18 15/18 16/10 18/20

here [6] 3/13 11/20 11/21 13/11 17/9 18/15

Here's [1] 7/20herniated [1] 4/12him [3] 16/20 18/11 18/11history [1] 11/13

hold [8] 3/20 21/13 21/14 21/22 21/23 22/1 22/11 22/12

holder [2] 13/24 15/6Homecomings [1] 7/14honestly [1] 14/17Honor [16] 3/2 3/7 3/9 3/11 6/14 7/25 11/5 12/9 12/20 13/23 15/21 15/25

16/23 17/25 23/10 23/18

HONORABLE [1] 1/17how [5] 9/11 9/23 10/25 11/16 22/6HR [1] 8/10

II'd [2] 15/9 22/15

ExhPage 26 o


(52 of 1


53/107

II'll [4] 18/15 19/6 20/11 21/13I'm [18] 3/11 3/19 5/7 6/7 8/4 8/22 11/3 11/4 11/5 15/11 15/11 15/12 15/18 17/5

17/13 18/14 19/11 19/12

I've [2] 5/19 12/17idea [1] 20/25identical [1] 10/8identically [1] 8/19identify [1] 18/2if [26]ignore [1] 20/11immediately [1] 22/10impact [1] 12/5

impression [1] 15/18in [53]inauthentic [3] 14/22 15/4 15/16incapacitated [1] 4/10include [1] 22/23included [2] 8/17 22/22incorporation [2] 10/19 12/2indicates [1] 8/25information [6] 7/7 7/10 7/24 15/15 20/12 22/3

inquiry [1] 15/5instances [2] 18/14 18/16instead [1] 18/6institution [1] 8/7intention [1] 12/12interest [1] 10/7

interested [1] 18/17interject [1] 15/21interview [4] 8/1 9/4 18/8 18/9interviewing [2] 10/23 16/20into [1] 13/5introduce [1] 3/5involve [1] 19/8involved [1] 6/22IRS [1] 11/17is [61]isn't [3] 5/13 13/10 16/10issues [3] 13/12 20/17 20/18it [38]it's [12] 7/22 11/10 11/13 12/1 13/23 14/1 15/22 16/13 20/9 22/5 22/16 22/19

JJason [1] 8/19JUDGE [1] 1/18judgment [15] 3/19 3/21 3/23 6/1 6/13 6/18 12/19 13/22 14/3 14/4 17/6 19/20

19/22 21/3 21/7

judicial [2] 12/15 13/20judicially [1] 11/13July [1] 1/6jump [1] 5/4just [27]

Kkept [1] 4/23kind [1] 9/16

know [22] 3/17 4/6 4/9 4/16 4/17 4/22 4/24 5/9 5/10 5/11 6/19 6/20 7/9 10/16

11/3 11/4 14/17 16/23 17/11 17/22

22/25 23/3

knowledge [4] 6/25 9/10 17/2 18/20

Llack [2] 7/9 9/19last [1] 19/15Later [1] 20/18law [4] 5/14 5/19 13/13 18/14lawyers [2] 17/9 19/8least [1] 13/6

led [1] 4/12left [1] 11/5let [5] 5/24 6/4 7/20 11/4 19/25let's [2] 11/8 19/11liberty [1] 18/13lied [1] 9/13lifted [1] 4/9like [8] 6/2 7/21 7/22 7/24 9/21 12/4 18/6 22/15

Litton [1] 18/24LLC [2] 7/13 7/15LLP [1] 2/5LNV [10] 1/3 3/3 6/21 8/14 10/2 10/19 11/6 11/24 13/24 15/6

loan [1] 14/1

Loans [1] 18/24look [2] 3/16 4/17looked [1] 13/22Lorraine [1] 12/15lose [2] 21/6 21/7lot [4] 5/4 5/4 11/21 15/19lying [1] 9/15

Mmade [1] 20/4main [1] 3/18Majesey [1] 8/5major [1] 22/19make [6] 7/8 13/8 17/20 18/21 19/2 22/7Maloney [4] 9/5 16/20 16/24 18/9many [1] 14/5

March [1] 10/9March 10th [1] 10/9matches [1] 8/19material [1] 13/11materials [2] 13/18 14/13matters [2] 11/23 16/8may [4] 11/17 15/21 19/6 20/18me [14] 5/24 5/25 6/4 7/20 8/2 11/4 11/22 19/25 20/5 20/7 20/15 20/19

22/12 22/16

mean [6] 9/5 11/17 11/20 18/10 18/10 23/12

means [3] 4/23 4/24 23/14medical [18] 4/9 4/11 4/15 4/18 4/21 4/21 5/3 5/5 5/5 5/12 5/15 5/15 5/16

5/20 5/22 13/3 13/5 20/24

Meistad [1] 10/11Meyer [1] 10/24MGC [5] 6/21 6/25 9/4 9/4 18/19MICHAEL [1] 1/17Michelle [3] 6/24 9/6 18/18might [1] 23/1misunderstood [1] 22/9MO [2] 1/4 3/3months [3] 12/25 13/6 14/11more [5] 6/11 6/12 9/21 9/22 23/14morning [4] 3/7 3/9 3/11 3/16mortgage [5] 6/25 7/1 10/4 10/7 18/25MOSMAN [1] 1/17most [3] 4/3 18/14 18/15motion [19] 3/19 3/22 3/25 4/4 6/1 12/15

13/21 14/2 14/4 14/16 14/20 15/20 15/24 19/21 19/22 20/23 21/2 21/3 21/6

motions [5] 3/15 3/20 4/20 12/11 12/14move [1] 5/7moving [1] 3/18Mr [1] 2/4Mr. [3] 16/20 16/24 18/9Mr. Maloney [3] 16/20 16/24 18/9Ms [2] 2/4 2/9Ms. [8] 3/15 3/24 12/13 12/22 12/24 17/5 17/20 21/18

Ms. Richards [1] 17/20Ms. Stephens [1] 21/18

Ms. Subramaniam [5] 3/15 3/24 12/13 12/24 17/5

Ms. Subramaniam's [1] 12/22much [2] 4/5 23/10my [30]myself [2] 3/12 5/1

NN.W [1] 2/5name [1] 3/7named [1] 9/5Natalie [1] 10/24need [26]needed [1] 5/6needs [1] 12/24

Network [1] 7/14Nevada [2] 1/3 10/19never [1] 9/15new [2] 16/4 19/14no [16] 1/4 3/3 4/18 4/24 5/17 5/17 5/18 5/18 12/20 15/7 15/22 18/16 19/19

20/25 22/8 23/14

nor [1] 16/16not [54]note [31]nothing [3] 13/19 17/10 19/9notice [2] 6/23 12/15notices [1] 18/15now [13] 5/17 6/7 6/8 6/19 8/21 9/19 19/4 19/17 19/24 19/25 20/19 23/5 23/6

number [1] 12/14

Oo0o [1] 24/2objection [1] 4/4obvious [1] 20/3obviously [1] 12/12October [1] 4/10Odyssey [1] 8/5off [3] 6/8 10/16 11/4office [1] 23/7Official [1] 24/11Oh [3] 17/18 22/6 22/9okay [27]OMNI [1] 8/16on [37]

once [1]18/12

one [7] 10/12 10/13 12/6 12/14 20/3 21/4 22/14

only [4] 10/6 12/11 14/5 16/3opponent [1] 15/10opportunity [4] 5/17 6/11 12/23 15/14option [1] 4/18or [19] 2/6 2/10 2/15 4/17 5/19 7/7 7/13 15/16 17/3 17/8 17/12 18/14 19/20 20/9

20/13 20/15 21/10 21/23 24/7

OREGON [4] 1/2 1/7 11/25 13/13original [13] 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/23 9/1 14/19 14/22 16/18 16/19 17/21 18/2

19/8 24/6

other [15] 3/20 4/18 5/11 6/21 8/20 12/3 13/16 13/17 14/7 19/7 19/8 20/5 20/18

21/3 22/14otherwise [1] 15/16our [3] 14/2 14/3 16/9out [3] 5/10 5/21 21/19over [1] 7/20owe [1] 11/17owner [1] 11/12

Ppain [1] 4/11part [2] 10/13 22/19particular [1] 7/16parties [4] 3/5 6/21 10/7 10/10

ExhPage 27 o


(53 of 1


54/107

Pparty [5] 7/18 10/3 10/4 17/9 18/17past [3] 7/2 7/6 20/18pause [1] 5/24pay [1] 20/14paying [1] 20/15payment [4] 18/21 18/24 18/25 19/2payments [1] 20/4pending [1] 12/11people [6] 8/1 9/12 9/12 11/22 20/13 20/14

People's [1] 7/13perhaps [1] 14/11period [3] 5/6 5/10 5/12

perjured [1] 9/9Perkins [1] 2/5person [1] 8/9personal [3] 6/25 9/10 18/19pertaining [1] 8/5ph [1] 8/5phone [2] 10/11 11/2photocopies [1] 18/1photocopy [4] 17/21 17/22 17/23 18/6photocopying [2] 17/20 18/4photograph [2] 18/5 19/9photographs [2] 18/1 18/3pieces [1] 7/7place [2] 3/2 13/6plaintiff [5] 1/4 2/4 3/8 3/10 3/23planning [1] 21/21

pleadings [3] 4/3 14/5 14/6Portland [3] 1/7 2/6 2/15position [1] 16/14positive [1] 23/1possible [2] 15/12 16/13possibly [1] 16/16potential [1] 18/2potentially [2] 9/1 16/21prejudice [1] 14/8preliminary [2] 8/17 8/25president [4] 6/24 7/19 8/6 18/19pressure [1] 4/5previous [1] 14/5previously [2] 14/7 16/4primary [1] 12/9

printer [1]22/17

prior [2] 6/20 22/2pro [1] 2/9probably [1] 10/15problem [6] 5/9 5/17 10/17 12/19 17/15 22/19

problems [1] 4/21proceedings [3] 1/16 23/20 24/5process [2] 5/14 5/19produced [2] 8/15 18/23proof [1] 14/25protection [2] 5/14 5/19prove [11] 5/16 9/11 11/1 11/8 11/9 11/16 11/21 11/22 12/3 12/4 16/12

purchase [1] 10/2purpose [1] 12/10

purposes [2] 11/15 21/21push [1] 5/10put [6] 5/20 9/13 13/5 16/17 19/4 20/24puts [1] 12/5

Qquestion [6] 7/21 11/7 15/3 15/3 15/11 15/22

questions [3] 6/5 21/13 21/14quick [1] 4/6quite [1] 22/16

Rraises [1] 13/12

read [1] 21/13ready [1] 4/2really [8] 9/16 12/1 13/10 20/7 20/9 20/10 20/16 22/19

reason [2] 5/5 15/7reasons [3] 4/9 12/6 20/24recently [2] 3/23 12/13recess [2] 23/11 23/12record [5] 3/6 16/16 18/20 21/11 24/5recordation [2] 13/12 13/14records [7] 4/15 4/18 8/4 8/11 14/15 17/8 17/11

recovered [2] 4/7 5/7recovery [1] 5/6referenced [1] 14/7

referred [1] 14/4regard [2] 12/22 13/16regarding [1] 13/12related [3] 6/21 8/20 10/8relevance [3] 14/14 14/18 15/13relevant [6] 14/13 15/4 15/23 16/14 16/22 17/11

relying [1] 4/20report [1] 8/25REPORTER [2] 2/14 24/11represent [1] 3/8representing [2] 3/10 3/12request [2] 6/12 13/7requested [2] 13/9 15/13requesting [1] 12/10requests [3] 6/18 13/16 14/10

require [3] 3/20 13/14 17/19required [1] 5/15requiring [1] 12/18reserved [1] 4/4Residential [2] 7/13 7/15resolution [1] 14/15resolve [2] 3/19 21/4resolved [2] 3/21 21/4respond [5] 3/25 4/2 17/6 19/10 20/1response [9] 3/21 6/17 12/8 13/3 14/2 19/13 19/16 19/17 22/4

reveal [1] 15/15RFC [1] 10/3Richards [3] 2/4 3/8 17/20right [23] 3/13 4/5 5/13 5/24 5/24 7/20 7/21 7/24 8/12 9/2 10/14 12/7 12/21

13/8 15/23 16/9 17/4 19/3 20/6 20/16

21/16 22/2 23/9

rights [1] 5/14rings [1] 11/2Rite [2] 8/4 8/4RiteWay [5] 8/4 8/8 14/14 17/8 17/8RMR [2] 2/14 24/10Road [1] 2/9Room [1] 2/15ropes [1] 5/4route [1] 15/17rule [1] 21/10

SS.W [2] 2/9 2/15

said [4] 18/8 22/7 22/10 22/23same [6] 6/22 6/22 7/17 10/10 15/10 21/22

say [7] 7/25 11/7 11/8 11/21 18/16 20/20 22/8

saying [2] 4/23 6/1says [1] 18/20se [1] 2/9second [2] 7/5 17/19see [3] 17/21 19/11 21/12seek [1] 4/10senior [4] 6/24 7/18 8/6 18/19sent [2] 4/15 4/17

September [7] 21/20 21/22 21/23 22/2 22/5 22/7 22/11

September 6th [6] 21/20 21/22 22/2 22/5 22/7 22/11

September 7th [1] 21/23serve [2] 13/7 17/7served [1] 4/14set [2] 3/3 17/17several [3] 3/15 8/20 12/25sham [2] 11/11 11/14she [19] 7/1 9/8 9/9 9/10 10/12 12/23 12/25 13/2 13/6 13/6 13/9 14/3 14/4

14/7 15/14 15/15 15/18 16/12 18/20

she's [4] 15/13 15/22 16/7 16/8shell [2] 11/11 11/14

short [2] 6/7 6/8show [7] 8/18 16/17 18/3 18/3 20/3 20/6 20/19

showing [1] 18/23shown [1] 11/25shred [1] 16/15Shumway [3] 2/14 24/9 24/10shut [1] 11/4signature [2] 24/7 24/7signed [3] 7/18 8/5 8/18signers [1] 10/12signing [1] 24/4simple [1] 15/22simply [1] 5/20single [2] 13/7 14/3sixtieth [1] 19/14

so [46]so-called [2] 7/12 18/2solution [1] 12/19some [9] 5/2 6/11 9/16 9/18 9/18 9/21 9/22 12/3 20/9

somebody [1] 9/4somehow [1] 20/7someone [2] 9/12 18/12something [2] 10/21 11/22somewhere [2] 14/23 20/10sorry [4] 8/4 11/3 11/4 11/5sort [1] 16/10sound [3] 7/21 7/22 7/24specific [3] 10/2 10/5 10/18spoke [1] 10/11

spoken [1]8/9

stand [1] 9/13standing [1] 8/18start [2] 7/20 21/2state [1] 11/25statement [1] 18/23statements [1] 15/1STATES [3] 1/1 1/18 2/14status [3] 1/15 3/3 12/10stay [11] 4/9 5/3 5/5 5/12 5/15 5/16 5/20 13/3 13/5 20/24 22/20

stayed [1] 13/1Stephens [1] 21/18still [3] 4/7 5/7 7/8stipulated [3] 4/23 4/23 4/24stop [1] 7/5

straightforward [2] 13/20 14/1Street [1] 2/5stuff [1] 23/7subpoena [5] 8/10 9/24 10/1 17/7 17/9subpoenas [1] 14/10SUBRAMANIAM [9] 1/6 2/9 3/4 3/12 3/15 3/24 12/13 12/24 17/5

Subramaniam's [1] 12/22subsidiaries [1] 7/15substance [1] 12/12substitution [1] 7/16successful [3] 11/8 15/17 15/19sued [1] 6/21

ExhPage 28 o


(54 of 1


55/107

Ssuggestion [1] 15/10summary [15] 3/19 3/21 3/23 6/1 6/12 6/18 12/18 13/22 14/2 14/4 17/6 19/20

19/22 21/3 21/7

supplement [1] 6/2supplemental [3] 19/16 19/17 22/4supposed [1] 22/23surgery [5] 4/7 4/7 4/13 5/6 5/6

Ttake [4] 3/14 6/10 17/23 18/5taken [1] 12/17tax [1] 11/15

taxes [1] 11/17tell [4] 5/25 18/15 20/7 20/15telling [1] 20/5testimony [2] 9/9 9/9than [1] 19/8Thank [8] 3/13 12/7 12/9 17/4 19/23 23/10 23/11 23/18

that [154]that's [17] 4/11 5/13 9/20 10/17 12/6 12/20 16/8 17/8 17/10 17/14 18/12 19/4

19/5 19/14 19/15 20/3 20/17

their [12] 5/25 6/12 6/17 8/10 8/18 12/4 12/5 18/13 19/18 19/20 20/1 20/6

them [10] 3/16 3/21 4/17 4/20 9/13 9/14 10/8 12/13 12/18 21/3

then [15] 5/2 6/4 6/10 7/14 9/13 9/20 11/1 11/9 16/8 16/13 17/14 17/22 21/7

21/13 23/6

theory [2] 13/21 20/2there [15] 3/14 5/2 5/3 5/18 5/18 5/24 6/20 12/19 13/10 16/14 16/16 18/22

19/6 21/10 22/23

there's [4] 8/25 10/15 19/9 20/3these [4] 11/12 16/4 17/9 19/8they [23] 4/8 4/12 4/16 4/23 4/25 6/23 8/14 8/17 8/18 10/3 10/3

9-1 lnv's objection to denise's emergency writ of mandamus

Documents