Supplemental Request for Judial Notice #2

8/8/2019 Supplemental Request for Judial Notice #2

1/53


2/53

Request for Judicial Notice Shelley v. Quality Table of Contents

Exhibit # 0-VAC, Recorded August 8, 1985 in Official Records, County of Orange, California -the Memorandum Agreement of Sale between the Department of Veterans Affairs and Richard

Shelley, when and where Richard Shelley acquired title to the certain real property specifically

described therein by a Purchase Land Sales Contract.

Exhibit # 0-VAGD, Recorded March 23, 2005 in Official Records, County of Orange, California

- the Department of Veterans Affairs Grant Deed granting to Richard Shelley and Jerri Lynn

Shelley Husband and Wife, as joint tenants, certain real property situated in the County ofOrange, State of California.

Exhibit # 0-VALG, the Department of Veterans Affairs Loan Guaranty Certificate of Eligibility

issued March 15, 2008 for Richard Shelley.

Exhibit # 1-AR, the Uniform Residential Loan Application for an extension of credit refinancingsigned by Richard Shelley in March of 2005 with an attached declaration.

Exhibit # 1-DT, Recorded March 23, 2005 in Official Records, County of Orange, California

the Deed of Trust between Richard L. Shelley as trustor, Lenders T.D. Service, Inc. as trustee,

and Frank S. Livacich et al. as Beneficiary.

Exhibit # 2-A, the Uniform Residential Loan Application for an extension of credit refinancing

signed by Richard Shelley in May of 2006 after the lenders agent had ran a credit check weeks

before, but at *3 in the liabilities section fraudulently omitted all unpaid accounts that Appellanthad been lead to believe were paid off in full and included an account that never showed up on

Appellants credit history. Copies of these were first received in January of 2009 from Appellee

Litton Loan Servicing LP inRJN # 2-MC, *8-9. SeeId. at *9 under Enclosures.

Exhibit # 2-ABH, Recorded May 30, 2006 in Official Records, County of Orange, California

Declaration of Abandonment of Homestead Declaration and a declaration of Appellant.

Exhibit # 2-AE, the Unexecuted Escrow Instructions mailed sometime after May 17, 2006 to

Richard Shelley by Vera Martin an employee Agent of Fremont Investment & Loan.

Exhibit # 2-DTO (continued), additional pages from the Deed of Trust.

Exhibit # Q-POS, Two Proofs of Service to Appellee Quality Loan Service Corporation, the First

one being of Appellants Opening Brief at *1 of the just previously said exhibit and the Second

one being of Appellants Request for Judicial Notice made to this Court at *2 Id.

/s/Richard Shelley - 9/14/10Appellant: Richard Shelley - Date


3/53

Exhibit # 0-VAC


4/53


5/53


6/53


7/53


8/53


9/53

Exhibit # 0-VAGD


10/53


11/53


12/53


13/53

Exhibit # 0-VALG


14/53


15/53


16/53

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *


17/53

Exhibit # 1-AR


18/53

* * * * REDACTED * * * * * * * * REDACTED * * * *


19/53

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *


20/53


21/53

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *


22/53

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *


23/53

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *


24/53


25/53

Shelley v. Quality Exhibit # 1-AR Page 8

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD SHELLEY,

Plaintiff Appellant,

V.

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.;

LITTON LOAN SERVICING LLP

Defendants Appellees,

and

FREMONT INVESTMENT & LOAN

Defendant.

No. 09-56133

D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00291-CJC-MLG

Central District of California, Santa Ana

DECLARATION OF RICHARD

SHELLEY AS TO EXHIBIT # 1-AR

I Richard Shelley do declare the following. This exhibit is a Uniform Residential Loan

Application with added highlighted markups that I signed as myself, Richard Shelley in March

of 2005 for an extension of credit to pay off all existing debt that I owed at the time see RJN Ex.

# 1-AR, at *2 highlighted in green. That did result in a Deed of Trust being recorded in favor of

Frank S. Livacich see RJN Ex. # 1-DT. However among all the accounts that were supposed to

be paid off in RJN Ex. # 1-AR *2-6 (marked with asterisks) the only ones that were actually paid

off were the ones that have the asterisks highlighted in blue, all the ones with asterisks

highlighted in purple were supposed to be paid but were not. Not in this transaction nor the one

with Fremont Investment & Loan (hereinafter Fremont) which was not discovered until after

entering into the transaction with Fremont when I had ran my own credit report. Fremont also

contributed to the prevention of my discovering these facts with its insufficient and misleadingcredit report disclosure see RJN Ex. # 2-ACRD and the Uniform Residential Loan Application

that Fremonts agent had me sign that made it look as if all those accounts had been paid off

when in fact they had not see RJN Ex. # 2-A. After learning of these omissions I promptly gave

notice of rescission to Frank S. Livacich and then Fremont in March of 2008 see RJN Ex. # 1-

RN. Frank S. Livacich notified an undisclosed third-party broker Emerald Financial that was


26/53

Shelley v. Quality Exhibit # 1-AR Page 9

apparently involved with the transaction whos representative Dai Phung said he had the copies

that he would email to me of the instruments that he said had been disclosed properly and that

they were signed by me acknowledging receipt of them before the closing of the transaction, this

information was false it was specifically asked of him if the copies he was emailing me bore my

signatures on them and he said they did. The copies of the instruments emailed to me did not

bear my signature and reflected very different terms than what actually had been disclosed to me

before closing see RJN Ex. # 1-UTO for the instruments emailed to me. They not only increased

the loan amount without my consent, they changed the length of the terms from thirty to five

without even disclosing it, and undisclosed 7% loan origination fee, a maximum interest rate of

42%, kept all the money that was supposed to be used to pay off all my other debts and

continued to conceal this fact with the help and aid of Fremont and its agents. I Richard Shelley

do declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

/s/Richard Shelley - 7/29/10

Richard Shelley - Date Executed


27/53

Exhibit # 1-DT


28/53


29/53


30/53


31/53


32/53


33/53

Exhibit # 2-ABH


34/53


35/53

Shelley v. Quality Exhibit # 2-ABH Page 2

United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit

Richard Shelley,

Plaintiff Appellant,

v.

Quality Loan Service Corporation,

Litton Loan Servicing, L.P.,

Defendants Appellees,

and

Fremont Investment & Loan

Defendant.

No. 09-56133

D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00291-CJC-MLG

Central District of California,

Santa Ana

Declaration of Richard Shelley as to

Exhibit # 2-ABH

I Richard Shelley do declare the following. Sometime during the duration between the

15th and 17th of May 2006 when I had met with the lenders agent Vera I. Martin (Ms. Martin)

during the same instance at the same place of business previously described in RJN D-CT, one of

the instruments Ms. Martin needing my signature as I remember her saying was a requirement

was one regarding a homestead declaration. At the time I wasnt really given the opportunity to

review the details of the instrument or ask questions regarding why it was required or if there

was other options as Ms. Martin had rushed through the whole process, not given me a copy for

me to keep and review so the contents of the instrument at the time it was signed and if there

were any changes made to it afterwards or not I cannot say for certain and I dont recall any

other pages attached to it, but I can say that the impression that I got from Ms. Martin was that it

was a nonnegotiable condition in order to begin the process of the credit transaction. Whether thecondition was required by law or otherwise she did not say, but the way she made it seem was as

if I had no other options or choices in deciding otherwise. So when I received the instrument

contained within this exhibit after having been recorded I presumed it was likely the same

instrument previously mentioned and that based on the representations of Ms. Martin must have

been a legally required step as part of the process for transitioning between creditors or


36/53


something to that effect. Come to find out it wasnt a legally required part of the process, I didnt

have to sign it, the transition between creditors was irrelevant and I shouldnt have been forced

to sign it as it would only result in the loss of beneficial protection and legal rights that I was

entitled to keep. The beneficial result for the creditor or any creditor for that matter is one less

obstacle in the way of seizing and depriving me of my property which was always the only

desired result ever intended by the Defendants that one can logically conclude when calculating

in all the different material factors such as including but not limited to the one described here in

this declaration, information concerning the appraised value of the property was withheld

concealing the fact that the transaction was not computed on the full value the property, the

creditor had knowledge that its agent intentionally inflated the amount of my income (despite

being provided with proof showing the true amount of my income) and omitted from the uniform

residential loan application all the accounts left outstanding that were supposed to have been paid

off which would have showed up when they ran a check of my credit report history but inserted

information of an account that was never reported to any of the credit reporting the agencies,

kept the actual uniform residential loan application or a copy thereof withheld from me until a

copy was eventually provided by Appellee Litton Loan Servicing L.P. which is evidence

indicating that Litton might have actually been involved in the originating process of the credit

transaction when considering that the application was never provided by Fremont Investment &

Loan, account transaction history provided by the Defendants shows that a principal payment in

the full amount of the outstanding balance was applied to the account secured but the Defendants

nonetheless caused false information regarding the purported indebtedness to be recorded in the

county where I reside despite the debt having been disputed and the Defendants not being up to

verify the validity of the debt and then having Appellee Quality Loan Service Corp., whom was

never the trustee or ever duly appointed as such cause a purported trustees deed upon sale to be

recorded showing that there was no outstanding balance owing on the true account but recorded

under a name that is other than my own in an apparent attempt to prevent me from obtaining a

copy of the recorded instrument evidencing these facts, and the Defendants constant refusal to

comply with rescission and/or state any demand or counterclaim for any future tender owed or

possibly due as a result of the post-rescission restitution procedures following the Defendants

fulfilling their prerequisite obligations of tendering all the property, benefits and profits deriving

from the credit transaction at issue and taking the necessary steps to properly reflect that the


37/53


transaction and resulting security interest in the real property is voidand was made void when

the right to rescind was exercised which leaves the impression that the Defendants wouldve

continued to attempt to unlawfully exercise nonexistent extrajudicial foreclosure powers

regardless of how much money they had, wouldve and/or couldve received because leaving the

question of whether any present or future obligation is owed and if so, what the total limit of any

amount potentially due, only prevents the showing and proving the ability to meet any possible,

pending or future potential obligations during the course of post-rescission procedures with a

degree of certainty so as to remove any potential doubt if any existed. And its amazing that

officers of the judicial branch assist in the deception and allow the continuation of individual

rights to be trampled on all for the benefit and fueled by the incentive of financial gain through

investing their pension/retirement funds in real estate trusts which profits every time property is

sold (whether lawfully or not) by the trusts via the public-private partnerships created and hired

specifically for the purpose of achieving these goals by any means necessary no matter the

damage done, people harmed or the crimes committed just as long as the pension funds keep

increasing in value and dont stop increasing. I Richard Shelley do declare under penalty of

perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

/s/ Richard Shelley - 9/13/10Richard Shelley - Date Executed


38/53

Exhibit # 2-AE


39/53


40/53


41/53


42/53


43/53


44/53


45/53


46/53


47/53

(continued) Exhibit # 2-DTO


48/53


49/53


50/53


51/53


52/53

No. 09-56133

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD SHELLEY, Pro Se

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Request for Judicial Notice

Of Plaintiff-Appellant Richard Shelley In Opposition To Appellee Litton Loan Servicing

LLPs Request For Judicial Notice.

& Motion For Other Relief

Of Plaintiff-Appellant Richard Shelley.

On appeal from Motion To Dismiss in Shelley v. Quality Loan Service Corp., et aI.,

Case No. SACV09-291 CJC. Cormac J. Carney, United States District Court Judge.

United State District Court, Central District of California-Southern Division (Santa Ana) Ronald

Regan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 411 West Fourth Street, Room 1053 Santa Ana,


53/53

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system

on (date) .

I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be

accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEWhen All Case Participants are Registered for the Appellate CM/ECF System

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system

on (date) .

Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the appellate

CM/ECF system.

I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not registered CM/ECF users. I

have mailed the foregoing document by First-Class Mail, postage prepaid, or have dispatched it

to a third party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days to the following

non-CM/ECF participants:

Signature (use "s/" format)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

When Not All Case Participants are Registered for the Appellate CM/ECF System

9th Circuit Case Number(s)

*******************************************************************************

NOTE: To secure your input, you should print the filled-in form to PDF (File > Print >PDF Printer/Creator).

*******************************************************************************

David C. Scott, Esq

MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS, LLP

1770 Fourth Avenue

S Di CA 92101

09-56133

Oct 3, 2010

Supplemental Request for Judial Notice #2

Documents

Transcript of Supplemental Request for Judial Notice #2