Now CASE # 2013 20103 CA 01

Cf. Case # 2009 21868 CA 01

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11th
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-
DADE COUNTY, FLA

CASE NO.: 2013-20103-CA-01

U.S. BANK, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION AS SUCCESSOR
TRUSTEE TO BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A., AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER
TO LASALLE BANK, N.A., AS
TRUSTEE FOR WASHINGTON
MUTUAL PASS THROUGH
CERTIFICATES WMALT SERIES 2007-
0A2, Plaintiff,
v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
RICHARD PLUMER, II, et al. Defendant(s). e-Filing Ref. #:

Defendants Request for the Court to Take Judicial Notice of Important Facts

Your Honor, as I was preparing for Mediation, I was reminded of some important
things of which I hope the Court would take Judicial Notice. I think it would
probably help the Court and the people - even more than it would help me.
The first matter is one I suggest and recommend Your Honor should do well
to have the FBI look into, for I believe they will find a lot of Chase Fraud on
the Court, as well as on Citizens. There is an unbelievable number of tricky,
compound deceptions in this Complaint. I am just glad Judge Bagley gave me the
time to uncover to discover so many of them. As a layman, Pro Se, I do not
know much about the rules of Judicial Notice. But I cannot help thinking the
Court would want to take Judicial Notice of the following:

1. Socrates reputedly, very wise - asked questions, and it may help for me to
introduce this subject as question(s). Have you ever given much thought to the
importance of Delivery of a note? On Information and Belief (hereafter,
OIAB), DELIVERY is critical. Why?

# 1.a Lets think of it this way. If someone writes you a check, but never lets you
Page 1 of 20
 Now CASE # 2013 20103 CA 01
Cf. Case # 2009 21868 CA 01
know about it, and/or never gives it to you, then you have no claim on anything in
those numbers because you do not even know about that slip of paper.

# 1.b. The author of that check can tell anybody he or she wrote you a check (and
those who hear that assertion, allegation, or claim made, can believe it) and thus
the author of your name on that check may benefit in public esteem or in Court
be given credit for that check but if whoever put your name on that check
never tells you about it and/or never delivers that check to you - whoever
wrote your name on that check can tear up the check before you get it, and
you will never know your name was on that check. Notes are like that.

# 1.c. By doing that with a note, the one claiming to have endorsement of a note,
but never delivering it, gets credit for it, but the endorsee, unaware of it - the so-
called Plaintiff never sees it. OIAB, banks like JPM Chase do that in Court as
much as they can . . . with Purported Plaintiff names and Purported Plaintiff cases.

# 1.d It should come as a shock to you, Your Honor, but OIAB, I see Chase
doing that very thing - at every chance it gets in the Courts, as we speak. In
other words, Chase - and its cohorts in crime like the invalidly-appointed,
fraudulent sub-servicer SPS (which Chase had to be a servicer to appoint, but
was not) and Chases fraudulent foreclosure mill, Phelan Hallinan, and business-
crime lawyers, McGlinchey Stafford (I would rather they not use my Prosecutor
Grandfather Stafford Caldwells first name as their last) Chase looks at the
Court as somebody to get a check from that Plaintiff can sell this house,
and do whatever they do with the money, check , because Chase - suing in
anothers name, on a note, never delivered is after the money. They do not
file correctly - as Chase, servicer for X bank (that would make it easy to audit) -
they do not file in the proper form stated by the Fairbanks Capital v Nagel
Court; they file as Plaintiff (and they do not tell the Plaintiff), for they intend (and
plan) to keep the money. Debt Collector attorneys and Chase itself are utterly
corrupt. To the Legal / Court system, they are like sludgy-death-slime that

Page 2 of 20
 Now CASE # 2013 20103 CA 01
Cf. Case # 2009 21868 CA 01
grows in a homes plumbing, and it will rot the pipes, if not dealt with in time.

# 1.e. Chase calls it Junk Debt Arbitrage. In 2015, the CFPB commanded
Chase to cancel 528,000 of its abusive attempts to harass and hound citizens
with Junk Debt Collection: i.e., Junk Debt Arbitrage. But if Chase thinks
there is anything it can do without getting caught, Chase does it. As James
Coburn said in Waterhole #3, (You take me as I am?) Thats how I am.
This is one Junk Debt case being used in Chases Ongoing Junk Debt Abuse.

#1.f Chase is one of the best at Arbitrage (and Chase profits most by
manipulation: i.e., dishonest dealing). When Chase tried to take over the LIBOR
Market the London Inter-Bank Overnight Rate, World Interest Rate Markets
through London and Europe, that was Chase Arbitrage. And when Chase tried to
take over the U.S. Midwest Energy markets, that was Chase Arbitrage.

# 1.g. Chase/Phelan Hallinan/SPS/McGlinchey has said (in Admissions,

recently, in my case) that they have an endorsed copy/note in house - but
never delivered it - to the named Plaintiff (not a real Plaintiff, as it says on its
web site). Chase even claimed in a letter to be the Plaintiff (thats the answer
to the riddle Since when is Chase U.S. Bank?). Chase added that it might be
something else: or servicer but they keep that off the cases name, for that
would make it easy to audit. Who, at Court, lets Chase sign as either/or?

# 1.h. Chase claimed to be Plaintiff in the letter naming Phelan Hallinan

attorneys. When such layers claim to have an endorsed note in house but
never deliver it - you need to realize what is going on. They intend to destroy
that worthless alleged endorsement when they get an order to sell the home
(and/to keep the money). Check with many a past Plaintiff, and many will
tell you they never saw that un-delivered paper (note or money): never got it.

# 1.i. To Chase, a Court Order is like a CHECK. (Chase knows all about
CHECKS. Chase wont give you a dime for a check unless you DELIVER it.)

Page 3 of 20
 Now CASE # 2013 20103 CA 01
Cf. Case # 2009 21868 CA 01
# 1.j Chase thinks of Court Orders like CHECKS. If you give Chase a Court
Order saying it may have a house sold and do what you expect with the money
(i.e., pay the endorsee they alleged) that is far different from what Chase
will do with the money. Chase will have the home sold and keep the money
very far from what you expect them to do.

# 1.k. OIAB, Chase and its cohorts in crime will typically rip up and/or burn an
endorsed note never delivered to the Plaintiff which never saw it - so Chase can
keep the money. Chase splits a grab with the gang helping Chase do the Fraud.

# 1.L. So please I ask you, urgently to please have the cases Chase won
AUDITED to see Who kept What?, and OIAB, you will find out a lot.

# 1.m. Of course, now that I make this public, Chase and its cronies can go to U.S.
Bank, and say: Sorry we left you out, but you can have part of the money if you
help us out with this. Would U.S. Bank do that? It could keep Chases scheme
from being discovered, even if it could not help this case since, for the DCA the
Virtualbank note has to be in the trust at filing which it was not.

# 1.j.n. Consider, too: U.S. Bank might have some trouble pulling that off, because
OIAB, for anything to get into the Series 2007-OA2 trust (it keeps records), it had
to be in it before the Cut-Off Date, Feb. 1, 2007. But at that time (as far as I knew,
then), there was still somebody valid to pay back then, and my note was
supposedly current, as they called it, back then. Chases cabal of cut-throats
were not looking at my Virtualbank note, back then, trying to figure out how to
make it look transferrable to them (fraudulently so) not until late 2008-2009.

# 1.o. Now, in the Complaint Chase claims to be servicer, a non-owner, non-

holder, which cannot endorse (cf. # 23) but Chase claims to endorse (an
allonge). Defendants note to Virtualbank, forged to appear to be a WaMu note,
which Chase, servicer, cannot endorse, was never endorsed and delivered to the
Depositor for the trust; so it is not in the trust. Why does Chase fake that allonge?

Page 4 of 20
 Now CASE # 2013 20103 CA 01
Cf. Case # 2009 21868 CA 01
Just to deceive the Court. Clearly, Chase expects the Court to ask no questions.
Chase expects the Court to realize very little of all this - or nothing at all. Chase
shows nothing but Contempt for this Court, or any Court. Lets see: (1) Chase, as
servicer, a non-owner, non-holder, cannot endorse but purports to endorse. The
Defendants note to Virtualbank, forged to look like a WaMu note - which Chase,
servicer, could not endorse - was never endorsed and delivered to the Depositor for
the trust. So it is not in the trust. (2) Chase claims - in its letter naming attorneys
for this case to be the Plaintiff, though Chase made U.S. Bank Plaintiff in the
caption (so, when did Chase become U.S. Bank?) Oh, and/but Chase also said it
might be something else, too: or servicer. How many people (besides big banks)
get to tell the Court they are either one thing or another? As William Black,
bank regulator, titled a book, The Best Way to Rob a Bank is To Own One.

# l.p. If Chase could endorse (if Chase were owner/holder), Chase would have
filed for itself - in its own name ! So that alleged allonge is only Chase fraud !

# 1.q. If Mary thinks Sally has an action, but thinks Sally wont do anything
about it, Mary cannot start an action as Sally. But since Court-personnel can be
very easily impressed by stuffy bankers, stuffy bankers can often get away with
and in this case they have gotten away with starting a case in a name not their
own, as Plaintiff (but naming a different stuffy bank), nowhere showing the Chase
name. Chase also confused the Court by adding that they might be something else:
or servicer. They dont put that in the name of the case, for it would lend itself to
audit. They will use that when they need to deceive more Court personnel.

# 1.r. In the Complaint, Chase (a non-owner, non-holder, which cannot endorse)

claims to endorse an allonge (a very fake allonge - with no history of transaction
development), so defective: (a) Chase only purports to endorse that fake allonge
so the Defendants note to Virtualbank, forged to appear to be a WaMu note,
which Chase, servicer, cannot endorse, was never endorsed and delivered to the
Depositor for the trust; and so it is not in the trust. And (b) an allonge is only used
when there is no room on a note for endorsement(s), but there was plenty of room
Page 5 of 20
 Now CASE # 2013 20103 CA 01
Cf. Case # 2009 21868 CA 01
on my Virtualbank note for endorsement(s); and (c) that so-called (but lying)
Allonge was never made a part of the original Virtualbank note (a true allonge is
affixed by gluing or other permanent attachment to make it part of an original
note). So Chases piece of paper - that so-called allonge is a complete fraud,
for all of the above reasons: inter alia, Chase, as servicer, a non-owner, non-holder,
cannot endorse but Chase still purports to endorse (invalidly) - so the
Defendants note to Virtualbank, forged to appear to be a WaMu note, which
Chase, servicer, cannot endorse, was never endorsed and delivered to the Depositor
for the trust; so it is not in the trust. That falsely-named allonge (that, Chase, a
servicer, cannot endorse) was never made part of an Original Note (a true allonge
is). And an allonge is only allowed when no more room is available on an original
note for more endorsements (but there is plenty of room on the Virtualbank note).

# 1.s. In 2015, Chase was commanded by the CFPB to cancel 528,000 junk
debt collection attempts by which Chase was harassing and hounding citizens.
But anything of the kind that Chase thought it could continue doing, without
getting caught, Chase kept doing. This is one such case. Thats how Chase
does business. Chase thinks its fraudster layers can beat the Courts.

2. [Even if we were to assume for the sake of hypothesis that Florida Notes are
negotiable instruments, which Miami Judge Butchko has ruled they are not, . . .] as
far as the Defendant in this case knows, (1) Chase, as servicer, a non-owner, non-
holder, cannot endorse Chase still pretends to endorse that (fake) allonge - so
the Defendants note to Virtualbank, forged to appear to be a WaMu note, which
Chase, servicer, cannot endorse, was never endorsed and delivered to the Depositor
for the trust, so it is not in the trust; and (2) endorsement would not stand up (there
is no transaction history); and Chase got no Washington Mutual notes (cf. # 23);
and (3) absent any transaction history, or any endorsement to the Depositor for the
Trust, the note is not in the trust. So the Depositor could not endorse or deliver the
note to the Trust: with no valid endorsement, and no transaction development
history, and never delivered, the note is not it has never been - in the trust.

Page 6 of 20
 Now CASE # 2013 20103 CA 01
Cf. Case # 2009 21868 CA 01
3. And (2) to judge from the Form 15 at an SEC web page, the so-called
WASHINGTON MUTUAL PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES WMALT
SERIES 2007-0A2 (hereafter WaMu 2007-0A2 trust) was suspended from
operation, and/or told it did not have to report, and/or, as if it had died, and/or
was rendered defunct, as far back as January, 2008; and it has reported, since
2008, N/A Certificate Holders of Interest (suggesting ZERO Certificate Holders of
Interest in that Trust - for U.S. Bank to be Trustee for). Also, the Cut-Off Date -
by which time anything going in had to be in the trust - was Feb. 1, 2007, so:

4. The subject note was never put into any U.S. Bank trust. So did U.S. Bank (1)
honestly Complain about a note not in a trust (?): NO; Did U.S. Bank honestly
complain to foreclose on a Virtualbank note it did not have (?): NO; Did U.S.
Bank honestly complain to foreclose on a note never endorsed to WaMu or to
any trust at U.S. Bank (?): NO; and/or (2) should U.S. Bank knowingly make
any such a Complaint to foreclose on a note not in its trust (?): Absolutely not.

5. Does U.S. Bank legitimately authorize the layers using U.S. Banks name thus to
call U.S. Bank a Plaintiff in such a case (?): NO. I.e., are those layers really
authorized to make such a Complaint to foreclose - in such a farce (?): NO. Are
those deceptive attorneys supposed to use USBs name that way? NO.

6. Or do those sneaky-under-handed layers just abuse and mis-use U.S. Banks name
to make up such a Complaint in U.S. Banks name? YES. (Those layers never
delivered the Virtualbank note to U.S. Bank, as they admitted in their Admissions.)

7. Has any note, originally from Richard Plumer (, II) to Virtualbank, ever got into the
WASHINGTON MUTUAL PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES WMALT
SERIES 2007-0A2 trust (?) (hereafter, the WaMu 2007-0A2 trust) since
Chase, as servicer a non- owner, non-holder cannot endorse it to the Depositor
for the Trust (?): NO. These layers are trying to grab some money from a note
they never delivered.

8. The WASHINGTON MUTUAL PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES WMALT

Page 7 of 20
 Now CASE # 2013 20103 CA 01
Cf. Case # 2009 21868 CA 01
SERIES 2007-0A2 trust had a SEC Form 15 Termination of Registration or
Suspension of Duty to File Reports filed on it circa January 3, 2008 long
before WaMu failed and was taken over by the FDIC. The SEC Form 15
reported N/A: i.e. 0 (Zero) Certificate holders of record on Jan. 3, 2008.

And further, US Bank says in https://www.usbank.com/pdf/community/Role-of-

Trustee-Sept2013.pdf that U.S. Bank as Trustee . . .

holds an interest in the mortgage loans for the benefit of investors; and

maintains investors/securities holders records; but

does not initiate, nor has any discretion or authority in the foreclosure process;

. . . has no authority to manage or otherwise take action on the loans . . .;

and further, U.S. Bank says on its website, in

https://www.usbank.com/pdf/community/Role-of-Trustee-Sept2013.pdf
that OIAB, used to say no employee or agent or attorney of U.S. Bank is
authorized by it to sign foreclosure-related documents for U.S. Bank . . . , but
now says Trustees on MBS transactions . . . are not involved in the
foreclosure process, and The trustee has no authority to manage or
otherwise take action on the loans . . . ; and still says U.S. Bank . . . does not
initiate, nor has any discretion or authority in the foreclosure process; . . .

given all that where U.S. Bank as Trustee says on its web page, for all to see, that
it does not initiate, nor has any discretion or authority in the foreclosure process;

that U.S. Bank as Trustee . . . has no authority to manage or otherwise take action
on the loans . . .; and

Trustees on MBS transactions . . . are not involved in the foreclosure

process;

Page 8 of 20
 Now CASE # 2013 20103 CA 01
Cf. Case # 2009 21868 CA 01
then, how can U.S. Bank as Trustee be Plaintiff in this case when the most
U.S. Bank might be able to be said to be would be a pseudo-plaintiff (falsely-
named by Chase and/or its cohorts in crime running this fraud) ?

9. Since for this trust there were, as of the Form 15 date N/A (apparently 0, i.e.,
ZERO) certificate holders of record (the investors), did that trust allegedly
trusteed by US Bank ever hold anything for any certificate holders of record (for
any investors) in that trust? If so, when did U.S. Bank let that number drop to N/A,
i.e., to ZERO? Ben-Ezra & Katz never expected anyone to find out all this !

10. If U.S. Bank ever did hold anything for any presently unknown certificate holders
of record (the investors) in that trust if any certificate holders of record ever did
exist then in spite of the fact that the instant, subject note never got into that
named trust, were any (other) certificate holders of record ever paid off for any
bad notes in the trust (?); or what had happened to them, by the time the trust was
closed per Form 15 (given, on the last report we have of Form 15, there were N/A:
i.e., 0 ZERO certificate holders of record in that alleged, seemingly dead, trust)
? And absent transaction records, was the subject note actually endorsed and
delivered to WaMu or U.S. Bank? NO. Since Chase, as servicer, could not
endorse it or deliver it to the trust - Chase, as servicer, a non-owner, non-holder,
cannot endorse, but pretends to endorse with that fraudulent allonge) - that is not
in the trust. The Defendants note to Virtualbank, forged to look like a WaMu note,
which Chase, as servicer (even in the past), could not endorse, was never endorsed
and delivered to the Depositor for the trust, so it is not in the trust. It was not
admitted into the trust. (Please note: the Mortgage Loan Schedule is
deliberately left out of the PSA so you do not see the note is not in the trust.)

Again, how can U.S. Bank as Trustee be a Plaintiff in this case when it is subject to
all those limits, namely:

that U.S. Bank as Trustee Does not initiate, nor has any discretion or authority in
the foreclosure process;

Page 9 of 20
 Now CASE # 2013 20103 CA 01
Cf. Case # 2009 21868 CA 01
that U.S. Bank as Trustee . . . has no authority to manage or otherwise take
action on the loans . . . (?); and

Trustees on MBS transactions . . . are not involved in the foreclosure

process. (p. 8)

11. It seems an impossible lie for any attorney to claim being authorized by any Power
of Attorney, Limited or otherwise, (1) to call US Bank or the caption-named trust a
holder of the Virtualbank note when it was never endorsed and delivered to
the Depositor for the trust at U.S. Bank; so it was never in the Trust [the
Virtualbank note], which Chase, servicer, cannot endorse (but Chases foreclosure
mill, Ben-Ezra & Katz, did copy-forge it to make the Virtualbank look as if it was
endorsed to WaMu) and still, Chase, a servicer, non-owner, non-holder - could
not endorse it for Chase got no WaMu notes, as shown in # 23 - so that note
was not endorsed and delivered to the Depositor for the trust but Chase still
falsely-purports to endorse that allonge so fraudulent which could not be
endorsed and delivered to the Depositor for the Trust, or to the Trust, itself, so the
note could not be admitted to the trust); so (2) how can anyone be told by U.S.
Bank as Trustee to foreclose a Virtualbank note for a Trust when that note has
never been delivered to, or in the trust? And U.S. Bank as Trustee says it
only:

holds an interest in the mortgage loans for the benefit of investors; and

maintains investors/securities holders records; and that U.S. Bank as Trustee; and

does not initiate, nor has any discretion or authority in the foreclosure process;

. . . has no authority to manage or otherwise take action on the loans . . . (?);

and

Trustees on MBS transactions . . . are not involved in the foreclosure

process; (p. 8)

Page 10 of 20
 Now CASE # 2013 20103 CA 01
Cf. Case # 2009 21868 CA 01
Where does the law say attorneys are entitled to act so maliciously? Are such
layers not the worst (?) nothing but unjust robbers who should be severely
sanctioned by the Court?

Note: The Defendant sees no authority for such rotten, robber-baron layers to
claim US Bank as Trustee was ever holder of that note and that note was
never made any part of the Trust so they are not entitled to claim that, at all.

12. What documentation is there to prove that U.S. Bank even has any knowledge of,
or actual involvement in this case? What U.S. Bank says, on its web site, is . . .
U.S. Bank as Trustee:

does not initiate, nor has any discretion or authority in the foreclosure
process;

. . . has no authority to manage or otherwise take action on the loans . . .

(?);

Trustees on MBS transactions . . . are not involved in the foreclosure

process; (p. 8) . . .

. . . but a bank might not mind if Chase wants to give it money (for evil-doing).

13. When was Nationstar Mortgage, LLC made Servicer of that Trust for U.S. Bank
(which the subject note is not even in)? What prior servicer did Nationstar
replace? (Chase) When? (On 7/31/13?) And when did Chase - no longer servicer
since 7/31/13, and thus unable to appoint any sub-servicer - when did Chase
nevertheless pretend to appoint SPS sub-servicer ? (Wasnt it on 8/5/13 a week
or so after Chase lost being servicer? (so it could not appoint a sub-servicer).

14. Are those layers so uninformed about how notes are introduced into trusts and/or
such liars and/or do they have such Contempt of Court as think the Court is so
uninformed about how notes are securitized and introduced into trusts so that

Page 11 of 20
 Now CASE # 2013 20103 CA 01
Cf. Case # 2009 21868 CA 01
such layers assume a Judge can be misled to believe all it takes to put a note into a
trust is for such layers to claim to endorse it with a scribble to the name of a bank
they pretend to favor although they never even deliver the note? The lawyers
keeping the note are thus able to keep (or destroy) the note and keep the
money (they are able to destroy that scribble of a name of a bank on a note, so
it disappears, like the copy). Chase, a servicer, a non-owner, non-holder, cannot
endorse it only purports to endorse a mis-named allonge - so the Defendants
note to Virtualbank, forged to appear to be a WaMu note - which Chase, servicer,
cannot endorse (Chase got no WaMu notes, as shown in # 23) was never
endorsed and delivered to the Depositor for the trust, so it is not in the trust. Where
do those Chase/SPS layers get off trying to mislead the Court so egregiously, in
their crass, lawless effort to steal a house? Their mind-boggling arrogance and
aplomb is astounding! Such layers are thieves to be sanctioned!

15. Do those layers not realize that - in the fundamentals of securitization - for any
note to be transferred into a trust:

(a) it must be endorsed and delivered by the Originator to the Sponsor; then
endorsed and delivered by the Sponsor to the Depositor; then endorsed and
delivered by the Depositor to the next in line (?); that

(b) verifiable true sales and transfers must each be properly executed (?); that

(c) a note need be qualified for admission to a trust (?); and that

(d) invalid transfer is not acceptable? Such layers should be jailed as un-
abashed thieves!

16. Do those layers not realize that, for the purpose of placing a note into a trust, it is
not enough to have someone completely un-qualified endorse it but not even
deliver it - to a bank they (completely unqualified) want to favor (?) (It appears

Page 12 of 20
 Now CASE # 2013 20103 CA 01
Cf. Case # 2009 21868 CA 01
those attorneys are being paid a big incentive to devise a way for a Devious Client
Bank to mis-use an un-delivered note, to steal a false judgment.) That is
thievery!

17. Do they not know or care - that a note must be endorsed and delivered by
someone qualified and then be re-endorsed and re-delivered by someone else
qualified, as a part of making true sales for the establishment of bankruptcy
remoteness (?); and that there is even more to qualification? Do they not know
[that] it t has to be done before the Cut-Off Date (the Cut-Off date for that Trust
was Feb 1, 2007 and it was not done)! For acceptance of a note, it all needed to
be done before the Cut-Off Date (Feb. 1, 2007) not to mention the Closing date.

18. As far as U.S. Bank as Trustee knows, did the Originator (Virtualbank) or anyone
else - ever endorse and deliver the subject note to the Depositor (WMAAC) of
the alleged trust (?) the Washington Mutual Pass-Through Certificates WMALT
Series 2007-OA2 or did the Depositor (WMAAC) ever endorse and deliver
that subject note to the trust itself, for approval (?)/ Our Discovery says NO.

19. And there was no notice of acceleration ever issued and that is a condition
precedent to foreclosure (it is required: as a condition precedent to foreclosure).

20. We have still not had a re-hearing on my motion re the Supreme Court requirement
since 2010 or 2011 that a Complaint (document) filed must include
verification: that as the Supreme Court later made even clearer, the complaint must
contain the verification: i.e., verification must be inside (within) the Complaint.
So we have a failure to verify, (another required condition-precedent).

21. So not only did the layers (or, more specifically, the lender) fail to send the
required notice of acceleration. And not only did the layers fail to verify the
complaint as required by the Supreme Court. But also . . .

22. The layers never make reference to what the Defendant has oft-cited
http://www.secinfo.com/d16VAy.t13.htm#1stPage , namely SEC Form 15 filed
Page 13 of 20
 Now CASE # 2013 20103 CA 01
Cf. Case # 2009 21868 CA 01
circa January 1-5, 2008 (various dates in those records) for the Washington
Mutual Pass Through Certificates WMALT Series 2007-OA2, showing its
Termination of Registration or Suspension of Duty to Report as of that
January 3, 2008 reporting N/A, or 0 (ZERO) Certificate Holders of Record at
the time. So that trust - the Washington Mutual Pass-Through Certificates
WMALT Series 2007-OA2 appears from the 2008 filing of Form 15 to have
gone defunct, and to be dead, and empty from about January 1, 2008. Nor
was my note in it by the Cut-Off Date Feb 1, 2007. That is important to the SEC.

23. Since Chase never acquired any notes from Washington Mutual (as ruled at least 3
times by the 4th DCA, in Segall v Wachovia Bank, NA, Fiorito v JP Morgan
Chase, National Association, and Robert T. Frost v Christiana Trust -
ruling that Chase did not acquire the notes of Washington Mutual), it is, in a
way, irrelevant to talk about WaMu (since Chase could not endorse that, anyway);
but we have not even talked yet about the forged appearance of an endorsement-
strip (discernable by its shadow lines), being cut out of an external document to
be copy-super-imposed on a COPY of my note by Chases fraudulent foreclosure
mill when my un-endorsed Virtualbank note was found at WaMu there only to be
considered for transfer of servicing where it was forged by Ben-Ezra & Katz,
who dismissed the prior case in 2011 with the other Ben-Ezra & Katzs cases for
the abundant fraud in their cases rebuked by Miami Judge Maxine Cohen-
Lando - one of the last things she did so well in her life.

24. Since Chase acquired no notes from WaMu, why even talk about a forged
appearance of endorsement to WaMu? Because I found that strong-copy version of
a copy of note in the Complaint showing an appearance of shadow lines
indicative of copy-forging - an externally-cut-out endorsement strip from
another document copied onto a copy of my un-endorsed note to super-impose that
strip thereon - apparently by Chases prior fraudulent foreclosure mill, Ben-Ezra &
Katz but they dismissed all those Chase-fraud-cases in July 2011 on rebuke by
Miami Judge Maxine Cohen-Lando - for egregious Fraud in those cases the prior

Page 14 of 20
 Now CASE # 2013 20103 CA 01
Cf. Case # 2009 21868 CA 01
case # 2009-21868, dismissed 2011, was one the prior case to this (Chases 2 nd try).

25. Back then, Chase might have been servicer. Since then, even that was cancelled.
Chase, as servicer, a non-owner, non-holder, cannot endorse yet it purports to
endorse that mis-named allonge - so the Defendants note to Virtualbank, forged
to appear to be a WaMu note, which Chase, servicer, could not endorse, having got
no WaMu notes (as shown in # 23); [so] the note was never endorsed and delivered
to the Depositor for the trust, so it is not in the trust). Servicers cannot endorse.
Even in 2013, when - and if - Chase was a (possibly illegitimate) servicer, Chase
could not endorse. Chase only fraudulently pretends to endorse a mis-named
allonge from WaMu to U.S. Bank (servicers cannot endorse) for that requires
an owner/holder - but Chase got no WaMu notes (cf. # 22) - even as negotiable
instruments. But if Judge Butchko is right, under Florida Law, such notes are not
even negotiable instruments, and transfer might require a special contract.

26. If Chase could have endorsed, it would have filed in its own name!

27. And where is there any documentation of a history of the development of any
transaction for any of those alleged resultant actually fraudulent and/or non-
existent - endorsement(s). Any history of transaction development is missing: for
there was no history of transaction development.

28. Judge Butchko ruled in HSBC v Buset that under Florida Law, such notes are not
negotiable instruments, and a Virtualbank note never appropriately transferred
could not be admitted into a trust. More trouble for these layers!

29. Since there are none of the appropriate endorsements (as served in the Summons
and Complaint served Oct 16 and 22 of 2014); and the alleged trust seems per the
SEC Form 15 to have been closed circa January 1-5, 2008; and the Cut-Off Date
was Feb. 1, 2007, [so] the note is not in a trust. How can these deceptive layers
hope to deceive this Court to foreclose (in a violation of the UCC requirement
that payment on a note should go only to the true owner and holder of the note)?

Page 15 of 20
 Now CASE # 2013 20103 CA 01
Cf. Case # 2009 21868 CA 01
30. Did anyone ask the trusts Document Custodian for a copy of the alleged up-to-date
original note? The answer is no, because the attorneys admitted in their
Admissions they did not deliver it to any other custodian but themselves. They
want to grab and keep any money they might be able to mislead a Judge to grant
(such lawless attorneys doing Wrongful Foreclosure should suffer stiff sanctions).

31. Another premise: Insurance payouts are important to calculation of a defensive

recoupment (as offsets to any remaining obligation) after insurance were paid to
investors for any loss if a note was ever in the named trust but what note has
been? It may seem absurd to ask, knowing the subject note was never in the
Trust; but were any insurance payouts (swap, CDO, etc.) ever made on account of
the subject note - if anyone wrongly assumed it was in the trust? (Any mistake like
that would be theirs, not ours. They would be owed nothing for such a mistake.)

32. Or was it always known that the subject note was never in the named trust,
and therefore no such payments were ever made? But then why are the layers
(i.e., for the pseudo-plaintiff) attempting this Wrongful Foreclosure of a note never
a part of the named trust, in the first place? Such Wrongful Foreclosure is a Tort,
punishable; and the same goes for trying to collect an amount not owed. (FCCPA)

33. Why did they purport a document saying WaMu might send a notice of
acceleration and/but thereafter claim there was a Notice of Acceleration - despite
the fact that WaMu never sent a Notice of Acceleration?

34. Since Judge Butchko has ruled Florida notes are not even negotiable, of what good
would it be to the plaintiff-side layers even if they had any endorsement and
delivery to the Depositor for the named trust, or endorsement and delivery from
the Depositor for the named trust to the named trust - How could the named
Trust ever accept such a note, if by Florida Law such a note is not a negotiable
instrument is not negotiable by endorsement and delivery? In any case, the
Plaintiff never had it: never got endorsement and delivery of it.

35. Given that with the 1980s law known as FIRREA, Congress gave the FDIC 6
Page 16 of 20
 Now CASE # 2013 20103 CA 01
Cf. Case # 2009 21868 CA 01
years from any bank failure to claim on contract matter assets (notes) of failed
banks, the FDIC has 6 years to claim on Virtualbank note assets (until 2017, seeing
that Virtualbank failed in 2011). So the layers for the plaintiff are not only trying
to steal from the Defendant: they are also trying to steal from the FDIC. How
do the layers for the pseudo-plaintiff, with no endorsement or delivery to any
Depositor of any Defendants note, expect to get away with stealing from the
FDIC, which has its right to claim on the notes of Virtualbank until 2017 ?

36. Let it not be forgotten that the Defendant has never borrowed anything from
the Plaintiff, or owed anything to the Plaintiff, and has never been late with
any payment due the Plaintiff from the Defendant (for the Defendant has
never owed any debt to the Plaintiff). So this foreclosure attempt [allegedly in
the name of U.S. Bank as Trustee] is entirely Bogus and Wrongful (a Tort).
And the same goes for trying to collect on a debt not owed is a violation of the
Florida Consumer Collections Practices Act (FCCPA), sections 559.72 and
559.77, Florida Statutes (2015).

37. If the subject note was never in the named trust, then even if the plaintiff itself
was as named, rather than a pseudo-plaintiff [which is all U.S. Bank really is,
since it has declared itself, on the web, not to do what a Plaintiff must do]; then
given that there is no record of proper transfer of the subject note into the alleged
trust (no endorsement or delivery from Originator to Sponsor; no endorsement or
delivery from Sponsor to Depositor, no endorsement or delivery from Depositor to
the next in line, required for admission into a trust) and given that the trust seems
to have been dissolved or wrapped up or discontinued almost as soon as the PSA
was filed and the Cut-Off Date was Jan. 1, 2007 - and given that the Form 15
filed January 1-5, 2008 showed 0 (ZERO) Certificate Holders of Record from
January 1-5, 2008; how can they claim the note was in the trust? No chance.

38. The subject note is not in the named trust, the Plaintiff is not a real Plaintiff,
SPS was invalidly-appointed sub-servicer (for Chase was not a servicer
which Chase would have had to be, to validly appoint a sub-servicer), but
Page 17 of 20
 Now CASE # 2013 20103 CA 01
Cf. Case # 2009 21868 CA 01
Chase was not a servicer since 7/31/13 with the appointment of Nationstar as U.S.
Banks servicer, and Chase did not even begin to try to appoint SPS until a week
later, on 8/5/13, after Chase was not servicer. So there are no valid parties on the
so-called Plaintiffs side, and without 2 valid (contending) parties, there is no
legitimate controversy, which this Court requires for Subject Matter Jurisdiction, so
this case could be dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction at any time,
for, by the Rules of Court, that is appropriate for the Court to do, at any time.

39. Can U.S. Bank as Trustee prove that either (1) U.S. Bank as Trustee, or (2) the
named Trust, ever got negotiation (endorsement and delivery) of the subject note?
(The answer will be No.) Can it prove any other form of transfer of it? Again, no.

40. Again, how much was paid out on Swaps, CDOs, and/or other credit-enhancement
insurance on account of the instant note, for the named trust (though it was
never in the named trust, and was never declared in default by any valid
holder)? How much was paid out? ZERO. Was the instant note ever endorsed
into that trust? No. (That would be important - for calculation of defensive
recoupment - if the note was ever in that trust. But, of course, the note was not).

41. So what excuse can the layers possibly have for trying to steal this citizens home
by such a Wrongful Foreclosure and/or for trying to collect on a debt not owed?

42. And how much should the layers owe in SANCTIONS? Tens of millions? More?
Chase has had to pay the Federal Government $12 Billion or more, twice, and
more Billions, besides, but Chase has not learned a thing, yet not a single idea,
not a single lesson that Chase is not allowed to go around stealing peoples
homes. The Courts have not yet found a sanction a penalty high enough to
motivate Chase to do right! In my view, Chase would not even begin to think
of giving up trying to steal peoples homes with Chases fraudulent lies and false
documentation unless some Court offers some leadership to other Courts
remembering that Chase has learned nothing from being sanctioned $12 Billion or
more, TWICE, by the Federal Government - by sanctioning Chase and its entire

Page 18 of 20
 Now CASE # 2013 20103 CA 01
Cf. Case # 2009 21868 CA 01
bankster gang something that might be significant for Chase. It is up to the
Court, but to affect Chases behavior might require sanctions of $20 Billion.

43. If U.S. Bank as Trustee is not involved in the foreclosure process (as U.S.
Bank says on its Web Page, quoted above), should U.S. Bank as Trustee be named
Plaintiff at all? Or should the case be filed another way? Should cases be filed
by the servicer, i.e., as servicer for (X bank as trustee)? Then, at least, where the
money goes could be more easily audited.

44. Is there a current servicer for the named U.S. Bank trust? Per my documentation,
that would be Nationstar. But on any observation, the subject note was never put
into that trust. (A servicer cannot endorse.)

45. If Chase could endorse, it would have filed in its own name!

= = = = = = =

Notice of Defendants Reliance on Principles of Haines v Kerner 404

U.S. 519 (1972)

Defendant is pro se, without legal education, a complete neophyte to legal matters,
processes, and procedures, is not expected to know legal procedures, and,
according to a friend who has long followed legal developments, is granted latitude
by the Court in the interest of Justice, as affirmed in Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519
(1972). If the Undersigned Defendant at any point has not used the correct
terminology, or asked for the correct thing, Defendant hereby requests that the
Court would construe the wording as if the Defendant had used the correct
terminology, and/or asked for the correct thing, in order to do substantive justice.

So the Defendant hopes that his not being an attorney and his lack of knowledge of
the perfect form in which to put things - his lack of knowledge of legalese - will
not stand in the way of Your Honors best efforts in the interest of Justice.

= = =

Thank you for the Courts sober and thoughtful consideration of this matter.
Page 19 of 20
 Now CASE # 2013 20103 CA 01
Cf. Case # 2009 21868 CA 01
Respectfully submitted, e-Filing Ref #:

/s/ Richard Plumer

Richard Plumer 10450 SW 84 Ave Miami, FL 33156 H: 786-462-2213 C: 305-896-9423

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof will ASAP be sent to all those on the Service List.

Page 20 of 20