BRIAN W DAVIES

1 43277 SENTIERO DRIVE

INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92203
2 760-904-4928 T el.
760-673- 7097 Fax
3 Attorney for self

5 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

6 IN AND FOR COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

7 LARSEN JUSTICE CENTER

10 CASE NO INC 090697

BRIAN W DAVIES
Plaintiff
11
V.
12
NDEX WEST LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK
13 NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS DEMAND JURY TRIAL
TRUSTEE OF THE RESIDENTIAL ASSET
14 SECURITIZATION TRUST 2007-A5, _____________________________
MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH
15 CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007 E UNDER THE
POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO
16 DATED 3-1-07, INDYMAC MORTGAGE DEFENDANT’S
SERVICES, A DIVISION OF ONEWEST BANK
17 FSB, UNIVERSAL AMERICAN MORTGAGE OBJECTION TO
COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, MORTGAGE
18 ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
INC., UAMC LLC, DOES 1-20 AN EVIDENTIARY
19
HEARING

20

21 Defendants,
22

23
HONORABLE
24 JUDGE RANDALL WHITE
25 DEPT 2H APRIL 26, 2010 8:30AM

26

27
 TO THE COURT AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:
1
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT PLAINTIFF BRIAN W. DAVIES hereby submits his
2
reply to the oppositions of Plaintiff’s Motion for the Evidentiary Hearing.
3
INTRODUCTION
4
Plaintiff argues and further presents that NDEX WEST LLC, “NDEX” violated
5
Section § 2923.5 of the California Code and in doing so violated the Strict Statutory
6 requirements outlined in Section § 2924 of the California Code. This is a serious
7 violation, these details are outlined in the Second Amended Complaint.
8 Plaintiff has been in contact with Attorney Patel and it is clear no more requested
9 information will be supplied. Full discovery has been discussed on the phone and in

10 writing. In a letter dated February 17, 2010 it was clear that NDEX is not in possession
of the promissary note. (Ex #1) This is opposed to publically recorded Notice of Default
11
filed July 14, 2009 whereas NDEX stated:
12
That by reason thereof, the present beneficiary under such deed of trust, has
13
executed and delivered to said agent, a written Declaration of Default and Demand
14
for same, and has deposited with said agent such deed of trust and all documents
15
evidencing obligations secured thereby, and.....the obligations secured thereby.
16 NDEX signed this document and caused it to be published in newspapers and
17 recorded with in Riverside County. Which is true, they have it or not?
18 The California Commercial Code would suggest there be an endorsed note, proper
19 chain of assignments along with an unseparated security interest. Plaintiff has a copy

20 of his promissary note which is endorsed in Blank. These material facts need to be
brought to have a visual inspection of the document.(ex # 3) Plaintiff alleges fraud and
21
violations of California Statutes. Documents are requested for due process.
22
DEFENDANTS ACCOUNTING OF THE FACTS ARE NOT TRUE
23
Plaintiff will counter misleading statements made by the Defendants by using
24
actual supportive documents. Plaintiff’s research has lead to an understanding of the
25
underbelly and true workings of NDEX, a foreclosure mill, which performed 50,000
26 foreclosures last quarter and achieved earnings of over $23 million as reported by parent
27 company Dolan Media. A 1/4 of 1% error is 5,000 homes.

2
 1 Plaintiff will further respond to the opposition with counter arguments and documents.

2 INTRODUCTION (from “Defendants”)

Plaintiff BRIAN DAVIES ("Plaintiff') filed this action on October 23, 2009 to stop the
3
foreclosure sale of real property located at 43277 Sentiero Drive, Indio, California 92203
4 ("Property.") The foreclosure sale is the result of Plaintiffs default on a promissory note
5 held by Deutsche.
Plaintiff Davies: That statement is untrue.
6
The Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America , NACA, stopped the process.
7 This organization is legitimate. NACA provided the audit which violations by Universal
American Mortgage Company LLC. (ex # 3) Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint filed
8
April 9, 2010 outline fully the causes of action.
9 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Trustee, acquired Plaintiff’s loan by
10 substitution on 8-20-09 while this loan was in Default. Deutsche Bank is governed by the
SEC Trust offering documents and NY State Trust Laws. This trust was closed 3-29-07. The
11 8-20-09 assignment of ownership was filed contrary to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
12 that govern such transactions. This prohibited action would create a tax issue to this trust.
The assignment of the Deed of Trust with the promissary note on 8-20-09 from
13
Universal American Mortgage to Deutsche Bank as Trustee via MERS is contrary to
14 facts. Plaintiff has a copy of the Promissary Note which is endorsed in Blank, and a letter
from Universal American Mortgage Company stating they sold the note on 12-21-06. (ex #7)
15
Mers was a nominee for Universal American Mortgage Company on 8-20-09. Their
16 agent nominee status was void from the sale to Opteum Financial 12-21-06, as indicated by
17 the letter from Universal American Mortgage Company of California. (ex # 8)

18
(The “Defendants”) “Plaintiff fails and refuses to pay his recurring monthly installments, real
19 property taxes, and hazard insurance premiums due December 1, 2008. A Notice of Default
was recorded on July 14, 2009. This Court must deny Plaintiffs Motion for the simple fact there
20
is no basis upon which to grant the Motion.”
21 Plaintiff Davies: These statement are not true.
22 Plaintiff has copies of the payments. The last payment was credited on April 13, 2009
as documented by Onewest.(ex #9) The hazard insurance is current and Onewest is the
23
beneficiary. (ex # 10) A payment was returned in which Onewest refused to accept
24 payment.(ex#11) Onewest bought Indymac Federal from the FDIC on 3-16-09, and Plaintiff
was not contacted or given the opportunities for counseling as required by the newly enacted
25
Perata Mortgage Act, Section § 2923.5 of the California Code, a necessary step prior to the
26 unopposable benefits of Section § 2924 of the California Code.
27

3
 1 LEGAL ARGUMENT (The “Defendants”)
Plaintiff filed the instant unintelligible and inarticulate motion because he believes
2
he is entitled to view the original promissory note, the original declaration signed by Emilee
3
Pearce, the alleged original agency agreement between NDEx and the other defendants; the
4
alleged original indemnity agreements between NDEx and the other defendants, the original
5
Deed of Trust, and the original Assignments of the Deed of Trust.
6 Plaintiff Davies: Attorney Patel assignments are done properly and by legal standards.
7 Plaintiff’s has obtained copy of his note, endorsed in blank, which demonstrates no identified
8 ownership. The Court needs to determine these material issues of fact.(ex # 7)

9 The Deed of Trust appears to have been assigned independent of the note. This
would invalidate the deed of trust as being a security interest of the note. The late
10
defaulted assignment violates the SEC offering documents including the Pooling and Servicing
11
Agreement dated 3-1-07. The underwriters the original offering on 3-29-07 confirmed that the
12
deed of trust and the note is in possession of the custodial documents and is in recordable
13
form.
14
It is imperative to directly look at the documents and assignments. This matter of fact
15 needs Court oversight. Further the Plaintiff received a closing document from Indymac
16 Mortgage Services as part of Qualified Written Request U. S. C. 1602, which indicated that the
17 loan was funded by a Colonial Bank. (ex #11)

18 Further arguments with answers.

“Defendant” Second, Plaintiff does not set forth any legal authority supporting his
19
contention that he is entitled to view the originals of the requested documents.
20
Plaintiff: This would include the statutes of fraud, Uniform Commercial Code, NY
21
Trust Laws, and SEC requirements.
22
“Defendant” Third, Plaintiff does not demonstrate how the originals of the requested
23
documents are related to the scope of admissible evidence.
24
Plaintiff: This was discussed supra.
25
“Defendant” Fourth, Plaintiff does not demonstrate how the originals of the
26
requested documents are related to the issues framed by the pleadings.
27
Plaintiff: Second Amended Complaint filed April 9, 2010 outlines the reasoning.

4
 1 “Defendant” Fifth, it is evident that Plaintiff is on a "fishing expedition."

2
Plaintiff: Not a true statement, it has been a monumental effort and against huge
financial resources.
3
“Defendant” Sixth, copies of the promissory note were produced to Plaintiff on three
4
different occasions by MERS, Deutsch, and OneWest.
5
Plaintiff: A current copy of the note with accurate endorsements of the owner was
6
never produced.(ex #7)
7 “Defendant” Seventh, Plaintiff is in possession of copies of the Declaration signed by
8 Emilee Pearce. The Declaration was attached to each of Defendants' Demurrer and was
9 produced several times in discovery.

10 Plaintiff: The Declaration was not true, and proven by Indymac Mortgage Services
own certified letter from August 19. 2009, nearly six weeks after the alleged Declaration
11
by Emilee Pearce signed on July 9, 2009. Indymac Mortgage Services, a Division of
12
Onewest Bank sent the certified letter which confirmed that the declarations contents were
13
not true and accurate.(ex # 7)
14
“Defendant” Ninth, Plaintiff is in possession of copies of all Assignments. These
15
Assignments were attached to each of Defendants' Demurrer and were produced several
16
times in discovery.
17 Plaintiff: It is not clear what Attorney Patel means. Every time a loan is sold or used
18 as collateral there is an assignment. The note endorsed in blank and the letter from
19 Universal American Mortgage shows at least 3 unrecorded assignments. These hidden
20 documents are requested and not provided. There is material questions as to who actually

21 funded Plaintiff’s loan. No records from MERS were ever sent. This is the profession

22 group that tracks such assignments.

23 “Defendant” Tenth, the issue of indemnity was not raised by Plaintiffs pleadings. This case
24 concerns the foreclosure of Plaintiffs Property, and thus has nothing to do with any alleged
25 indemnity agreements between the Defendants.

26

27

5
 1 Plaintiff: The indemnity issue came forth from the United Trustee Associations comments on

2 Section §2923.5 of the California Code. The emergently passed Perata Mortgage Relief Act.
In this document is was stated that filing any Notice of Default or adding a Declaration, the
3
Trustee must look to Counsel to make sure that they are indemnified for the content of the
4
Declaration. (ex # xx) In summary, Plaintiff respectfully submits that an Evidence Hearing with
5
original documents is necessary, and that Defendants bring the original deed of trust,
6
promissary note with endorsements, and record of all assignments in possession of the
7
custodian of documents.
8

10
Brian W Davie ( Pro Se)_________________________________ April 12, 2010.
11

12
I, Brian W Davies, the Plaintiff in the above entitled action, has read and written this
13
document and found it to be true. Of my knowledge , except of those matters which
14
therein stated upon my information or belief, and as to those matters believe it to be true
15
by the Laws of California and the County of Riverside The exhibits attached are
16
authentic and accurate.
17
.
18
BY BRIAN W DAVIES ______________________
__________________
19
Executed on April 12, 2010 in Indio, California 92203
20
VERIFICATION 446.2015.5 C. C. P.
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

6
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27