Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HEARING REQUESTED
Plaintiff,
vs.
Defendant(s)
_______________________________ /
COMES NOW, Defendant YESENIA POUPORINA, pro se, requests Plaintiff AURORA
LOAN SERVICES LLC, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) to produce the following documents and other
tangible things at the office of the undersigned within the time frame prescribed by said rules. The
Plaintiff has filed false documents, failed to state a claim upon relief can be granted and the Plaintiff
attorney has agreed to the fact that they have come to this court with unclean hands. There being
no contest that the assignment is fraudulent, that the attorney and the Plaintiff have to come to the
court with unclean hands, the Defendant moves the court to dismiss this case with prejudice, release
any mortgages and encumbrances against the subject property, issue a judgment against the Plaintiff
for treble damages for punitive damages, mental anguish, fraudulent conveyance, forgery, mail fraud,
fraud upon the court, mortgage fraud, (etc etc etc etc).
PREJUDICE FOR FRAUD ON THE COURT AND THE COURT’S REQUEST FOR AN
1. On or about November 30, 2009, Plaintiff through the Offices of David J. Stern filed a
2. That the complaint included a copy of the indorsed note and made reference to the
unrecorded assignment is not at issue here. Soon after becoming a client of The Offices of
David J. Stern and standing became an issue, the Plaintiff filed a fraudulent assignment of
mortgage. There is no contest that the assignment is in fact a fraud since no one person can
work for those number of banks/ lenders at any one time and the signatures of
signer in his capacity as “Vice President” has created thousands of fraudulent documents for the
following companies:
C. Household Bank,
I. Lehman Brothers
J. First Magnus:
T. Green Point
W. ASG
These sensitive documents are part of homes being sold today in many counties in Florida.
These documents represent legal impossibilities since working for so many banks would
constitute a banking conflict of interest. These actions by robo-signors are obvious, blatant and
malicious acts, rarely discovered and usually successful, at deceiving the courts and defendants
that the Plaintiffs in these illegal actions have standing. This cannot be tolerated in courts.
a debt.
H. Is a forgery.
J. Is Mortgage Fraud.
K. Is not a valid assignment and therefore does not give standing to Plaintiffs.
L. Threatening to collect a debt when they had no legal right to under F.S.
$500,000.
N. When the lending proceeds exceed $100,000, as is the case here, the Plaintiff
of F.S.831.06.
T. The Plaintiff claims control and custody of documents that were never in
These issues are uncontested. The Plaintiff received notice from the defendant of these facts
and failed to rebut. Threatening to collect a debt when they had no legal right to under F.S. 559.72
the defendant makes claims to the maximum statutory damages of $500,000. These are the issues at
FALSIFIED “STANDING”
The separation of the note and mortgage is a nullity. The Plaintiff falsified a document in order to
make a complaint in this court. The Plaintiff never had standing and since the note secures the
mortgage then you can have no mortgage without the note. Whether the owner of the note is
entitled to the security is not so much an issue as the fact that a Plaintiff stating a claim in court to
enforce a claim that is not properly recorded should not seek remedy for an unenforceable
“unsecured” loan. There are protocols involved in recording a mortgage and Billions of dollars are
spent to adhere to those protocols. The Plaintiff has filed documents with the Court in complete
disregard of the truth. The Court is authorized and entitled to sanction the Plaintiff’s misconduct.
As summarized by the Fifth District in Robinson v. Weiland, 988 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).
An unrecorded or improperly recorded instrument referred to in an instrument recorded in the
chain of title will ordinarily constitute a cloud upon the title.
SO THIS SLANDER OF TITLE ….
The Florida Consumer Practices Act (FCCPA, F.S. 559.552) provides protection for
consumers in foreclosure. The FCCPA prohibits the Plaintiff from collecting the underlying
consumer mortgage debt involved in this action by asserting its right to foreclose when the Plaintiff
knows that such right does not exist because the Plaintiff did not comply with the applicable federal
default servicing obligations and guidelines prior to filing this foreclosure action. “In collecting
consumer debts, no person shall … claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person
asserts the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right does not exist.
The FCCPA applies to anyone attempting to collect a consumer debt unlawfully and F.S.
559.72 "includes all allegedly unlawful attempts at collection consumer claims." Seaton Jackson v.
Wells Fargo Homemortgage, Inc., 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 188 (Fla. 6th Circuit 2004) citing Williams
v. Streeps Music Co., Inc., 333 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) See also, Hart v. GMAC Mortgage
Corporation, 246 B.R. 709 (D. Mass. 2000)(Debtor stated a cause of action under the FDCPA where
was to harass, oppress, or abuse"). This court has subject matter jurisdiction to void the mortgage
The Plaintiff was served over 30 days. The motion was very clear in regards to the subject matter. If
the Plaintiff wanted to rebut the contention that the assignment was a fraud, they were within their
right to do so. The Defendant has established beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no albeit legal
way that Theodore Shultz has become “Vice President” of over three banks simultaneously in
violation of Baking laws. If there is any reasonable argument other than fraud that Theodore
“Theo” Shultz signs one document as assistant, as per the exhibit attached to Defendant’s Motion
To Dismiss With Prejudice, I am sure that the court would entertain the argument.
Where a party perpetrates a fraud on the court which permeates the entire proceedings,
dismissal of the entire case is proper. Desimone v. Old Dominion Ins. Co., 740 So.2d 1233, 1234
The Court is also empowered to sanction counsel for its role in the litigation misconduct. The Court
is entitled to expect Plaintiff counsel’s compliance with Section 57.105 Florida Statutes which
prohibits parties and their attorneys from presenting claims that are not supported by the material
facts. The Court may also expect counsel’s compliance with Rule 2.515(a) of the Rules of Judicial
Administration, which provides that “[t]he signature of an attorney shall constitute a certificate by
the attorney that the attorney has read the pleading or other paper [and] that to the best of the
attorney’s knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it…” Id. Additionally,
the Court may expect that officers of the court comport themselves with the Rules Regulating the
Florida Bar which prohibit a lawyer from asserting an issue without a factual basis. Rule 4-3.1
Meritorious Claims and Contentions. (Comment: “What is required of lawyers…is that they inform
as “Vice President” for Mortgage Electronic Registration Services (MERS), as nominee for
GMMLLC, on September 25, 2009, assigned the DOT to ALS. But since GMMLLC,
presumably no longer held title to the debt instrument and thereby had no rights under the
DOT, the assignment seemingly was executed for the express purpose of misleading the Court.
Mr. Shultz, incidentally, also happened to be a full time employee of ALS and as such, he was
representing both sides of the transaction, with the inherent conflicts of interest. Significantly,
one must ask why ALS would have wanted to buy a non performing loan from GMMLLC, in
The Plaintiff should be prohibited from introducing into evidence the alleged Promissory
Note that we move to strike to have it stricken as evidence since it does not prove that the Plaintiff
may foreclosure. The Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed with prejudice, based on the Plaintiff
mode of operation of filing insufficient complaints upon the court. Decision regarding standing
would be based on the fact the note being used is not from the Plaintiff and there is no assignment
of mortgage attached. The Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________
Yesenia Pouporina
1221 Obispo Avenue
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by
U.S. Mail or hand delivered this ________ day of March, 2011, to:
By: __________________________
YESENIA POUPORINA
1221 OBISIPO AVENUE
CORAL GABLES, FL 33134