plaintiff's objection to joint judicial notice in subramaniam v beal
DESCRIPTION
Plaintiff Objects to Joint Judicial Notice of a recension of default document filed in Plaintiff's county by Northwest Trustee Services and MGC Mortgage in support of MGC's Motion to Dismiss in Subramaniam v Beal. Attorney Christopher Wright for Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP represents MGC Mortgage, a sham company for Texas multi-billionaire D. Andrew Beal, and requests the court to take judicial notice of false deed assignments that include forgeries and misrepresentations of material fact. He has presented such documents to the court as genuine when he knew or should have known the authenticity of the documents were in dispute. This is fraud upon the court.These attorneys attempt to minimize MGC's and Beal's culpability in civil action brought against them for fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, wire and mail fraud, fraudulent foreclosures brought about through false claims of missed payments and supported with false deed assignments that include forgeries and misrepresentations of material fact, .Andrew Beal is an infamous gambler who thinks nothing of losing upwards of $16 Million in high stakes poker games; now he targets the elderly, the disabled, single moms and minorities and attempts to steal their homes.TRANSCRIPT
Case 3:12-cv-01681-MO Subramaniam v Beal et al
COMPLAINT Page 1 of 2 Revised: July 20, 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
Denise Subramaniam, pro se Civil Case No. ____________ Plaintiff,
v. Plaintiff’s Objection to Joint D. Andrew Beal et al Request for Judicial Notice in
Defendants Support of Northwest Trustee Services, Inc’s and MGC’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff objects to NWTS’s and MGC’s joint request to take Judicial Notice of Facts 1
in 1 Exhibits attached to it. Plaintiff does not object to noticing they were recorded, the date 2
of recording and names of parties. The court may not notice the truth of its content (disputed 3
facts) (hearsay) Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App. 4th, 1366, 4
1375. 5
Taking judicial notice of a document is not the same as accepting the truth of its 6
contents or accepting a particular interpretation of its meaning.' [Citation] While 7
courts take judicial notice of public records, they do not take notice of the truth of 8
matters stated therein. [Citation] `When judicial notice is taken of a document, . . . the 9
truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable.' [Citation]" 10
(Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375.) 11
Accordingly, we take judicial notice of the existence of these court documents (Evid. 12
Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a)), but do not take notice of the disputed facts in 13
the documents. Heritage Pac. Fin. v. Monroy No.A135274, A136043 (Dist 1-Div 2 - 14
3/29/13) 15
3:12 – CV – 1681 MO
Case 3:12-cv-01681-MO Subramaniam v Beal et al
COMPLAINT Page 2 of 2 Revised: July 20, 2010
Plaintiff clearly disputes the validity and the negotiability of these documents filed in 1
her county in her Amended Complaint. 2
_______________________________________ 3
Denise Subramaniam 4
_______________________________________ 5
Date 6