First Page Ex Party

1
2
3
Danny ray
1026 west Eldorado sty.
West Covina, ca 91790
(323) 377-4451
la90068@sbcglobal.net
4
5
6
7
8
Superior court for the state of California
Los Angeles county central district
10
11
12
13
14
15
case no. bc488014
Plm lender services, inc.,

plaintiff,
vs.
Danny ray,
notice of motion and motion to

Vacate default judgment order, release and
order of surplus funds awarded to defendant;
supporting declaration of Danny ray,
memorandum of points and authorities in
support thereof.
Defendant.
16
17
date:
time:
location: 111 north hill street
los Angeles, ca 90012
dept:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Please take notice, that on _____________, 2016 at _______ am/pm, or as soon thereafter as this
matter may be heard in department
of the above-entitled court, defendant, Danny
1
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT ORDER
Ray, requests that the court vacates the default judgment order and release for an order of surplus
funds awarded to defendant, pursuant to court's own motion thereto.

Furthermore, this motion is made under section 473d of California code of civil
3
4
procedure.
5
6
7
8
This motion to vacate the default judgment order and release of surplus funds to defendant,
will be based upon all papers attached hereto, all pleadings in this matter, any other documentary
evidence submitted before the court and upon such further documentary or oral evidence as may be
presented at said hearing on said motion.
9
10
11
Dated: ____________, 2016
respectfully submitted,
12
13
14
______________________________________
15
Danny ray, defendant in pro per.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
Declaration of Defendant Danny Ray

I, Danny Ray, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws in the State of California, I am a
party named in this action and I have personal knowledge of the facts stated below, they are true
as to the facts stated on information and belief, I believe them to be true. If called upon to
testify, I could and would competently testify thereto signed on the 14 of September 2016 in
7
8
County of Los Angeles California by
Danny Ray
9
10
Continued Declaration Defendant Ray
11
Background Real Estate Fraud by fraudulent transfer of title deed.
12
I Danny Ray am a named defendant in this case and informing the court that I was the owner
13
who occupied the subject property at 2700 Cahuenga blvd unit 4001 Hollywood hills California
14
90068. I purchased my home in May 2000, June of 2003 I obtained a mortgage
15
16
17
18
19
Ex- A-06/20/2003 Downey savings and loan note deed f trust $140,000.
Ex B- July 1, 2003 Fannie Mae purchased loan did not record defendant rays loan locked in
investment pool that closed July 1, 2003
Ex -C deck 2012 corporate assignment of deed of trust is fraudulent void
20
21
22
23
Ex D April 2011 assignment of deed of trust is fraudulent void.

Defendant ray was targeted for deed fraud when defendant mortgage lender Downey savings and
loan doubled dipped split defendants loan and deed of trust to collect more interest sold note and
24
deed of trust to Fannie Mae and had central mortgage loan servicing service loan
25
Ex e-new servicer central mortgage loan servicing

3
1
2
3
Defendant Rays declaration continued

Ex f-defendant rays original lender Downey savings & loan was listed as a failed bank in 2008
by FDIC in 2008
Ex g- Fannie Mae was taken over by the us federal government for various frauds.
defendant ray like many other homeowners with equity and deeds recorded listed failed banks as
beneficiary were targets of deed fraud by industry professionals who worked with Robo signers
to fraudulently transfer properties to themselves and fabricate fake foreclosures as central
mortgage loan servicing and Plm lender services did see ex h
9
10
11
Ex h attorneys for cmc claim they can transfer property to themselves and used cases courts
ruled in favor of to support case against defendant ray
Ex I Feb. 2016 California Supreme Court rules against same cases cmc Plm lender servicer Inc
12
13
14
15
were using as their defense. Against defendant ray case.

Ex j- Court must ascertain whether 2924 was complied with and if title was duly perfected the
court did not .because title was not duly perfected.
16
Attorneys for plaintiffs filed case bc488014 with unclean hands conspired with other officers of
17
the court and brought fraud upon the court in virtually each court proceeding unscrupulous
18
actions include fabricating a foreclosure knowingly and willingly giving false information and
19
signing it to be true in affidavits signed and declaration signed under penalty of perjury under the
20
laws of the state of California. Substantial direct documentary evidence from court case file BC
21
488014 available only after court case closed because not filed accordingly to applicable laws
22
23
and not served to defendant ray defendant rays first and second attorneys. The following Exhibits
support for the court allegations proposed orders should be granted.
24
25
4
1
2
3
4
5
plaintiffs attorneys Joann m Wendell, by plaintiffs asking the court to be accountable and
correct for the prior mistakes defendant rays home of 12 years was targeted for deed fraud
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
I offer this declaration pursuant to California code civil procedure sections 2009 and
2015.5, rules 1225 of the California rules of court, and pursuant to reifler v. superior court (1974)
39 cal.app.3d, 479.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
Exhibits upon request
Ex a Downey deed of trust used to foreclose was paid in full
Ex b Fannie Mae purchased deed in ex a
Ex c corporate assign end deed of trust is fraudulent
Ex d corporate assignment deed of trust is fraudulent
Ex 1 request for court copy 500 pages during case
Ex 2 request for court copies 1000 pages after case closed
Ex 3 did not serve complaint to defendant rays attorney tweed
Ex 4 did not serve rays attorney Saffari
10
Ex 5 did not meet and confer was not served yet 3 statement case
11
managements signed by attorneys who were paid
12
Ex 6 fraud emails
13
Ex 7 fraud proof of services
14
.ex 8 proposed orders not served
15
Ex 9 stipulations not served
16
Ex 10 Feb. 4, 2013 default entered same day by clerk not served.
17
Ex 11 fraud in complaint not pursuant to
18
Ex 12 not filed under 2924
19
Ex 13 not duly perfected
20
Ex 14 Tictor title report
21
22
23
24
25
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On or about July 17, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an unlimited civil case complaint under ccp
386b, and stating under penalty of perjury, claiming it was not from a foreclosure
proceeding. plaintiffs fabricated 10 claimants, and submitted 8 false claims to the
court. Attached and labeled as exhibit a is a true and correct copy.
1.
Plaintiffs alleged there was a trustee

33 sale, which in fact never occurred and stated
that an auction took place on February 16, 2012.
2.
On December 14, 2012, will reveal in the court reporters transcripts, showing fraud
caused by plaintiffs had injuries to defendant.
3.
I want to address to the court, why assignment of deed is void, prior to plaintiffs
filing case bc488014, plaintiffs knowingly committed securities and exchange
5
6
7
8
Fraud, deed, recorded fraud, violated bankruptcy chapter 13 violations, theft by
conversion when plaintiffs assigned deed to themselves.
10
11
6.
the ex-1-assignment of deed of trust was illegal because, a bankrupt company, Downey
12
13
14
15
16
savings and loan could not of transferred the deed of trust because the trust had closed to new
loans 8 years before the transfer was executed; and because Downey savings and loan had
failed four years earlier, therefore the assignment document was false and foreclosure void.
Notice of attorney fraud upon the court in withholding
17
18
7.
19
6- complaint with application to deposit $68,270,00, ex 7,8,9, three case management statements,
20
ex10 order to show cause hearing, ex 11- notice of initial status conference hearing, ex 12,
21
request for entry of default, ex 13, ex-14 request for judgment , ex-15,16,17, three stipulations to
22
23
the ex 2 court summons, ex 3 civil case cover sheet, ex-civil case addendum, ex
allocation of surplus funds, ex 18,19,20, three orders for surplus funds and final judgments.
Unconscionable schemes to deceive and make misrepresenting through the court system; next
24
Three pages of court copies request which show entire file during case had up to 502 pages, after
25
34
case closed case more than doubled to 1013 pages.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the
10
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this _________day of July, 2016, at Los Angeles,
11
California.
12
_____________________________
13
Danny ray/declaring
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
Memorandum of points and authorities
2
3
4
I.
Relief from void judgment or order
The court may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void
judgment or order (code civ. proc. 473(d)).
A judgment may be void if the issuing court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
8
9
10
action, and personal jurisdiction over the defendant, if the judgment or order granted
Relief that the court had no power to grant, or if the judgment was procured by a fraud on
The court. If the court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter but acts in
11
12
13
14
excess of its jurisdiction, its judgment is voidable, not void. The difference is that in
order to set aside a voidable judgment, a party must act before it becomes final.
Thereafter, the judgment may be entitled to res judicator effect. lee v. an supra at 565566
15
where terminating sanction imposed without proper notice, resulting judgment was
16
voidable, not void, and could not be set aside under ccp 473(d) after it became final.
17
18
19
20
Ii.
Inherent power to set aside judgment void on its face
a court has inherent power, independent of statute, to set aside a judgment or order that is
21
void on its face (people v. greene (1887) 74 cal. 400, 405406, 16 p. 197; hendrix v.
22
hendrix (1955) 130 cal. app. 2d 379, 383, 279 p.2d 58).
23
24
25
Iii.
36
Settingasidethedefaultundercal.codeofciv.proc473(d)
1
2
Cal.codeofciv.proc.473(d)providesthatthecourt...may,onmotionofeither
Party,afternoticetotheotherparty,setasideanyvoidjudgmentororder.(473,subd.
(d).)
Furthermore,ajudgmentvoidonitsfacemaybesetasideonmotionwithoutanytime
limitation. (Plazahollisterltd.partnershipv.countyofSanBenito,(1999)72
7
8
9
cal.app.4th1,19[84cal.rptr.2d715].)Itmaybesetasideonmotionoftheaggrieved
Partyundersection473orindependentofthatsection.(MechanicsbankofRichmondv.
10
Thole,(1971)20cal.app.3d884,886[98cal.rptr.82].)Ajudgmentororderissaidto
11
bevoidonitsfacewhentheinvalidityisapparentuponaninspectionofthejudgment
12
roll.(Dillv.berquistconstructionco.,(1994)24cal.app.4th1426,1441[29cal.rptr.2d
13
746];Manson,iver&Yorkv.black,176cal.app.4th36,43(cal.app.5thdist.2009).
14
15
16
17
IV.
Defendanthasmeritsduetoplaintiffsassignmentisvoiduponsellingthedeed
18
19
inglaski,supra,218cal.app.4th1079,10941095,thecourtheldaborrowermaybasea
20
wrongfulforeclosureclaimonallegationsthattheforeclosingpartyactedwithout
21
authoritybecausetheassignmentbywhichitpurportedlybecamebeneficiaryunderthe
22
23
24
25
Deedoftrustwasnotmerelyvoidablebutvoid.Beforediscussingglaskisholdingsand
rationale,wereviewthedistinctionbetweenvoidandvoidabletransactions.
37
1
2
Avoidcontractiswithoutlegaleffect.(rest.2dcontracts.section7,com.a.)Itbindsno
oneandisamerenullity.(Littlev.cfsservicecorp.(1987)188cal.app.3d1354,1362.)
Suchacontracthasnoexistencewhatever.Ithasnolegalentityforanypurposeand
neitheractionnorinactionofapartytoitcanvalidateit(Colbyv.titleins.andtrust
6
7
co.(1911)160cal.632644.)aswesaidofafraudulentrealpropertytransferinfirstnat.
bankofl.a.v.maxwell(1899)123cal.360,371,avoidthingisasnothing.
8
9
V.
10
Conclusion
11
12
13
14
15
I can prove and to support the allegations made by me that i have substantial, clear and
evidentiary material of facts to prove perpetrated fraud upon this court.
I seek relief from this court to vacate the judgment order due to plaintiffs fraudulent conduct and
malicious and intentional actions caused to defendant.
16
17
18
Dated: __________
_________________________________
Danny ray, defendant in pro per.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Danny ray
1026 west Eldorado st.
West Covina, ca 91790
(323) 377-4451
38
la90068@sbcglobal.net
2
3
4
5
6
Superior court for the state of California
Los Angeles county central district
8
9
10
11
12
13
case no. bc488014
Plm lender services, inc.,

plaintiff,
vs.
Danny ray,
proposed order
Defendant.
14
15
16
17
18
19
For good cause appearing;

It is hereby ordered that defendants motion to vacate judgment order is granted.
20
21
22
23
24
25
It is further ordered that; defendant is awarded surplus fees in the amount of

$__________________________.
39
1
2
It is ordered, that plaintiff is ordered to pay any and all expenses incurred by defendant to
Litigate this suit.
3
4
It is ordered, for any other relief sought that the court deem proper.
5
6
7
Dated: ___________________
_________________________________
Judge of superior court
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
///
23
24
25
40

First Page Ex Party

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

First Page Ex Party

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Superior court for the state of California

Los Angeles county central district

case no. bc488014

Plm lender services, inc.,

notice of motion and motion to

of the above-entitled court, defendant, Danny

funds awarded to defendant, pursuant to court's own motion thereto.

Dated: ____________, 2016

Danny ray, defendant in pro per.

Declaration of Defendant Danny Ray

County of Los Angeles California by

Continued Declaration Defendant Ray

Background Real Estate Fraud by fraudulent transfer of title deed.

90068. I purchased my home in May 2000, June of 2003 I obtained a mortgage

Ex D April 2011 assignment of deed of trust is fraudulent void.

Ex e-new servicer central mortgage loan servicing

Defendant Rays declaration continued

to fraudulently transfer properties to themselves and fabricate fake foreclosures as central

mortgage loan servicing and Plm lender services did see ex h

were using as their defense. Against defendant ray case.

Exhibits upon request

Ex a Downey deed of trust used to foreclose was paid in full

Ex b Fannie Mae purchased deed in ex a

Ex c corporate assign end deed of trust is fraudulent

Ex d corporate assignment deed of trust is fraudulent

Ex 1 request for court copy 500 pages during case

Ex 2 request for court copies 1000 pages after case closed

Ex 3 did not serve complaint to defendant rays attorney tweed

Ex 4 did not serve rays attorney Saffari

managements signed by attorneys who were paid

Ex 7 fraud proof of services

.ex 8 proposed orders not served

Ex 9 stipulations not served

Ex 10 Feb. 4, 2013 default entered same day by clerk not served.

Ex 11 fraud in complaint not pursuant to

Ex 12 not filed under 2924

Ex 13 not duly perfected

Ex 14 Tictor title report

Plaintiffs alleged there was a trustee

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT ORDER

that an auction took place on February 16, 2012.

Fraud, deed, recorded fraud, violated bankruptcy chapter 13 violations, theft by

conversion when plaintiffs assigned deed to themselves.

case closed case more than doubled to 1013 pages.

Memorandum of points and authorities

judgment or order (code civ. proc. 473(d)).

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT ORDER

Superior court for the state of California

Los Angeles county central district

case no. bc488014

Plm lender services, inc.,

For good cause appearing;

It is further ordered that; defendant is awarded surplus fees in the amount of

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT ORDER

You might also like