1 Cynthia L.

Brown
P.O. Box 4806
2 Orange, CA 92863
(714) 618-2034
3

4 Defendant, In Pro Per

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE

10
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, ) Case No. 30-2016-00861086-CL-UD-CJC
11
FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE BANK OF ) Hon. Judge, Timothy A. Stafford
)
12 NEW YORK AS SUCCESSOR IN )
INTEREST TO JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, )
13 NA AS TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED ) DEFENDANT CYNTHIA L. BROWNS
ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTIMENTS II ) ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER,
14
INC., BEAR STEARNS ALT-A TRUST 2006- )) WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
15 2, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH )
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-2, )
16 )
Plaintiff, )
17 )
vs. )
18 )
)
19 CYNTHIA L. BROWN, and Does 1 through 5, )
inclusive, )
20 ) Complaint Filed: June 30, 2016
)
21 Defendants.

22 ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER

23 Defendant, CYNTHIA L. BROWN, (hereinafter referred to as Defendant or BROWN) answers

24 to THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE BANK OF NEW
YORK AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA AS TRUSTEE FOR
25
STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTIMENTS II INC., BEAR STEARNS ALT-A TRUST
26
2006-2, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-2,
27
(Plaintiff or BSALT-A 2006-2) complaint as follows:
28
1. Defendant generally denies each statement of the complaint.

- 1 -
ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER
 1 2. Plaintiffs position as an [a]lleged lender, pretender lender or holder in due course or successor in
2 interest is false, fraudulent and cannot self assign Assignment Deed of Trust deficit a financial

3 obligation to lawfully seize defendants property legally. In addition, a missing declaration does not
affirmatively show that Plaintiffs can competently testify the Trust/Bank is the beneficiary under the
4
2005 deed of trust or how they acquired the property.
5
3. The Plaintiffs complaint fails to state a claim, for which relief can be granted. The foreclosing
6
attorney is not a witness with personal knowledge as to facts, thus did not meet the burden of
7
proof as to validity of an affirmative defense. Finally, Plaintiff and the Court must be reminded that
8 Cal. Civ. Code 2924 is not triggered until compliance with the power of sale provisions mandated by
9 the Deed of Trust has been met. Strangers to the transaction and controlling loan documents cannot
10 record spurious documents against the property in the county recorder's office and then oppressively

11 declare that they have complied with Cal. Civ. Code 2924, therefore the foreclosure is invalid.
4. Plaintiffs complaint fails to meet standards of duly perfected title requirements pursuant to
12
Cal. Civ. Code 2924, 2924 (h), 2924 (c), 2925 and 2953. Emphasis added; See, Bus.
13
Oversight Desist and Refrain Order, Registry of Action, Request to Take Judicial Notice,
14
Exhibit No. 1, tab 1. Furthermore, other Imperfections discovered within Plaintiffs Trustees
15
Deed Upon Sale is objected to, for nothing more than hear say. Herrrea et al., Plaintiffs
16 and Appellants, v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al., Defendants and
17 Respondents. No. C065630.
18 5. Plaintiffs contend a purchase at auction on November 02, 2016 without a certificate of
19 purchase; TDUS is recorded in Official records on 01/05/16, 48 days after [a]lleged

20
foreclosure sale. TDUS is void and does not meet statutory compliance because 1) must be
recorded within 15 days pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code 2924(h) (c); 2) by requirement statutes
21
states, on or before the 15th day; herein Plaintiffs Exhibit A in complaint is a prima facie
22
issue, the TDUS should have been filed on or before November 17, 2016, not January 05,
23
2016. Plaintiffs did not meet statutory requirements; therefore the TDUS is void, not
24
voidable.
25
6. Plaintiffs have not met required validation of debt, pursuant to Cal Civ. Code 1788.50 and
26
1788.52 and 1788.18 currently in default. Plaintiffs rely on summary proceedings (limited
27
jurisdiction) to grant special privileges on presumptive standing, and subject matter jurisdictional
28

- 2 -
ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER
 1 issues without having proven verification or validation of a debt due or injuries incurred by
2 defendants wrong doing.

3
7. The Plaintiffs complaint fails to state claimants true name (s) and identity of record, pursuant to
4
Civil Code 367 real party of interest. Furthermore, complaint fails to state a corporate trust that is
5 registered, in compliance with Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) or named within a
6 enforceable contract (i.e. Deed of Trust or Assignments Deed of Trust) that is not void or
7 suspended. A copy of the Deed of Trust is absent from record, showing a financial obligation of

8 debt due. Plaintiffs knew or should have known they were suspended in 2007 by SEC.

9
8. Plaintiffs complaint fails to state claimants registration with FinCEN, a requirement pursuant to
10
the Bank Secrecy Act, (Dept. of the Financial Crimes Division.)
11
9. The Defendant asserts defense in objection to collateral estoppel, deficient consideration paid,
12
deficient filing of IRS Form 8594 (Asset Purchase Statement). Plaintiff is not a lessor nor the
13
successor in interest, having no rights at auction or sale. Plaintiffs action is barred, deficient a
14
landlord/tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant [31.12]. (see CCP 1161(1)).
15

16 10. Defendant asserts affirmative defense that Corporations may not appear in court. See:

17 Corporations Code 2203. MERS is cancelled by the California Secretary of State from 2004-
2010, making the Deed of Trust, false, fraudulent, forge and void (ab initio). See: Penal Code 470,
18
535 and Desist and Refrain Order, issued by; State of California, Business, Consumer Services
19
and Housing Agency; Department of Business Oversight, Registry of Action (ROA) No. 22,
20
Exhibit 1, tab 1; Order for violation of CC 25401.
21

22 11. Defendant asserts the affirmative defense that the Plaintiffs action is barred by the applicable

23
Statute of Limitations.

24
12. Defendant asserts affirmative defenses that unlawful detainer action is not a suitable vehicle for
25 trying complicated ownership Mehr v Superior Court (1983) 139 CA3d 1044, 1049, 189 CR 138.
26 See Berry v Society of Saint Pius X (1999) 69 CA4th 354, 363, 81 CR2d 574 (title cannot generally
27 be tried in unlawful detainer action); Asuncion v Superior Court (1980) 108 CA3d 141, 145146,

28 166 CR 306.

- 3 -
ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER
 1
13. Defendant asserts right of defense having legal ownership of subject property. Defendant may file
2
a motion for reclassification of the case, as defendant claims complaint misstates the jurisdictional
3
classification. See CCP 403.040(a) (b); Stern v Superior Court (2003) 105 CA4th 223, 227, 230
4
231, 129 CR2d 275 (considerations in determining reclassification is warranted); 31.4. That
5 collateral estoppel involves conclusive evidence of a fact in issue." (Solari v. Atlas-Universal
6 Service, Inc. (1963) 215 Cal. App. 2d 587, 592-593 [30 Cal. Rptr. 407].)
7
Defendant Asserts Affirmative Defenses:
8
(1) The complaint and each of its causes of action fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause or
9
causes of action because Plaintiff and their agents failed to comply with and misrepresented
10
their compliance with requirements under Civil Code 2924, 2924 (h) (c), 2925 and 2953.
11
(2) The capacity of a real party in interest to sue or be sued, legal existence of a real party in interest,
12 including a partnership or a corporation.
13 (3) The summary proceeding court is an unsuitable forum to try complicated ownership and
14 jurisdictional classification misstated. (Emphasis added)

15 (4) Lack of Standing / real parties in interest, the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a
representative capacity. A supporting declaration must be made on personal knowledge and "show
16
affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated." (Code Civ. Proc., 437c,
17
subd. (d).) Not an Affidavit of military status as seen in, Plaintiffs Exhibit C.
18
(5) Willful Misconduct, averment of the execution of a written instrument (Emphasis added)
19
(5) Unclean Hands, averment of the ownership of a subject property
20 (6) Fraud (Emphasis added)
21 (7) Unconscionability
22 (8) Unjust Enrichment (Emphasis added)

23 (9) Contract Void as Against Public Policy (Emphasis added) OC Interior Services, LLC as

24
Trustee, etc., v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC et al., Super. Ct. No. 30-2009-00126341, Certified for
Publication 1/31/2017, Forth Appellate Dist., Div.1, State of California, Court of Appeals, Case No.
25
D070680.
26
(10) Failure of Consideration (Emphasis added)
27
(11) Lack of Consideration (Emphasis added)
28

- 4 -
ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER
 1 (12) The complaint and each of its causes of action are barred by the failure of Plaintiff to comply
2 with all conditions precedent.

3 (13) The party is barred by the statute of limitations. (Emphasis added)

4
CONCLUSION
5
Defendant prays the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs action due to lack of standing, as this case
6 is based on Identity Theft of a property by Data Breach of Information, deficient a contract, loan was
paid in full, Plaintiff lacks Certificate of Deposit.
7

8 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

9 Plaintiffs take nothing requested in Complaint and Defendant to recover all expenses for
10 litigation, wrongful foreclosure and whatever the Court deems appropriate.

11 I declare under Penalty of Perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
and correct.
12

13

14 Date February 06, 2017 _____________________________

15
Cynthia L. Brown

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 VERIFICATION

- 5 -
ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER
 1 I am the defendant in this proceeding and have read this answer. I declare under penalty of perjury
2 under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

4
Date: February 06, 2017 _________________________________________
5 CYNTHIA L. BROWN
6

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 PROOF OF SERVICE

- 6 -
ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER
 1
I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action.
2

3 I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing occurred; my

business/residence address is:
4 ______________________________________________________________________________
5

6
On February 06, 2017 I served the foregoing document(s) described as:

7
ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
8

9
to the following parties:
10
Plaintiffs and their Attorneys;
11
The Bank of New York Mellon, BSALT-A 2006-2.
12 Leslie M. Klott and Dennis M. OConnell
30 Corporate Park
13 Irvine, CA 92606
14

15 By U.S. Mail I deposited such envelope in the mail at ______________________ , California

with postage thereon fully prepaid.
16

17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
18 is true and correct.

19
DATED: ______________ _________________________________________
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -
ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER