IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN

AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC, CASE NO. 09-86033 CA22

HEARING REQUESTED

Plaintiff,

vs.

YESENIA POUPORINA, et al.

Defendant(s)

_______________________________ /

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND TO DISMISS THIS FORECLOUSRE

WITH PREJUDICE RELEASE OF LIEN AND SANCTION THE PLAINTIFF

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).

AS TO DAVID J. STERN AND THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID J. STERN, PA’S

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FORECLOSRE WITH

PREJUDICE FOR FRAUD ON THE COURT AND THE COURT’S REQUEST FOR AN

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1. On or about November 30, 2009, Plaintiff through the Offices of David J. Stern filed a

complaint in bad faith and committed fraud upon the court.

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

THEODORE SHULTZ match THEODORE “THEO” SHULTZ, a well known robo-

signer in his capacity as “Vice President” has created thousands of fraudulent documents for the

following companies:

A. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC.,

B. Aurora Loan Servicing,

C. Household Bank,

D. Decision One Mortgage Company,

E. Nations Home Funding,

F. First National Bank of Arizona,

 G. Pinnacle Financial,

H. First Magnus Financial

I. Lehman Brothers

J. First Magnus:

K. American Home Mortgage

L. Home Comings Financial

M. First Magnus Financial (chapter 11 2007)

N. Shelter Mortgage Company, LLC

O. Lehman Brothers Bank FSB

P. Columbia National, INC

Q. CTX Mortgage Company LLC

R. Aegis Wholesale Corporation

S. Home Loan Center, INC

T. Green Point

U. New York Mortgage Company

V. First National Bank of Arizona

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.

Obviously these fraudulent assignments:

A. Represent fraud upon the court.

B. Represent a failure to record documents in country records.

C. Fails to establish the true and real ownership.

D. Represents a fraudulent conveyance.

E. Is a fraudulent and false document.

F. Constitutes Mail Fraud.

G. Constitutes a Violation of 15 USC 1692(e) using a false document to enforce

a debt.

H. Is a forgery.

I. Is fraud on the public record.

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.

559.72 the defendant makes claims to the maximum statutory damages of

$500,000.

M. Guilty of F.S. 817.545 Mortgage Fraud by filing a document in a county

involved in the mortgage lending business, a felony of the third degree.

N. When the lending proceeds exceed $100,000, as is the case here, the Plaintiff

commits a felony of the second degree.

O. Committed Forgery and Counterfeiting as per F.S. 831.01.

P. Uttered a forged instrument in violation of F.S. 831.02.

Q. Intended to pass as true the signature of an officer of a corporation violation

of F.S.831.06.

R. Made fraudulent statements in court in violation of F.S.817.155.

 S. Made a false report by an officer in violation of 817.16.

T. The Plaintiff claims control and custody of documents that were never in

their control and custody.

U. They never had control of the document.

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

hand. There can be no standing when there is fraud.

THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT IS THAT THE PLAINTIFF

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 ….

THIS COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO

VOID THE MORTGAGE

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.

559.72(9) Fla. Stat. (2009)

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

continuation of foreclosure proceedings amounted to conduct "the natural consequence of which

was to harass, oppress, or abuse"). This court has subject matter jurisdiction to void the mortgage

and refuse the Plaintiff to avoid the collection of the claim.

 THE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PRODUCE MR THEODORE SHULTZ TO

REBUT THE DEFENDANT’S PROOF OF FRAUD

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

(Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

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

themselves about the facts of their clients’ cases…”).

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

this market, unless the entire transaction was a sham.

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:

Tew Cardenas LLP, (Hand delivered)

1441 Brickell Avenue, 15th Floor,
Miami, Florida 33131

Law offices of David J. Stern

900 South Pine Island Road, Suite 400
Plantation, Florida 33324

Aurora Loan Services LLC

2617 College Park Drive
Scott bluff, Nebraska 69361

By: __________________________
YESENIA POUPORINA
1221 OBISIPO AVENUE
CORAL GABLES, FL 33134