THIS FROM

1OHN STUART IN ARIZONA

PREFATORY STATEMENT
PlaintiII hereby inIorms this Court oI newly discovered material Iacts relevant to this matter.
A. Deceptive Business Act, Invalid Substitution Of Trustee -
A class action lawsuit is being initiated in CaliIornia and possibly Arizona and other states
against Mortgage Electronic Systems Inc.`s ('MERS) unlawIul appointment oI Successor oI
Trustee in violation oI the Deed oI Trust. This violation invalidates any appointment by MERS
and thereIore causes the Ioreclosure process to be VOID, not just voidable, but VOID, ab initio,
iI a Successor Trustee was appointed by MERS, which in this instant case did occur.
DeIendants have no argument against this concept as DeIendants are the ones that wrote the
Deed oI Trust, yet DeIendants deIense is inclusive oI claiming MERS can appoint a Successor
Trustee.
DeIendants claim in this case contradicts DeIendants requirement in the Deed OI Trust,
thereIore DeIendants` claim is now moot.
Since it is a material Iact that the Ioreclosure was initiated by an incorrect party that did not
have the lawIul right to initiate the Ioreclosure, all oI DeIendants claims, statements,
attestations, and the like in this matter are also void ab initio.
See. From forensic examiner Charles J. Horner concerning the Forensic examination
completed on 9/20/10, Deed of Trust. Page 13 paragraph 24:
Deed Of Trust under ~Substitute Trustee, the language clearly states that
the Lender may, for any reason or cause, from time to time, remove Trustee and appoint
a successor Trustee to any Trustee appoint hereunder. The Lender as defined on page
1 of the Deed of Trust is Homecomings Financial Network Incorporated. This paragraph
does not state that successors, assigns, or nominees may appoint a Successor Trustee.
Therefore, The Substitution Of Trustee is invalid as it was executed by an officer
of Recontrust and not the Lender.
B. Defendants are withholding relevant evidence -
DeIendants state in the Deed OI Trust, on page 2 paragraph H:
'a debt evidenced by a note. ThereIore, the 'Note is relevant and material evidence in this
matter. Since DeIendants claim the debt is evidenced by a note, and this Court is not in
possession oI said evidence, this Court may only conclude that the debt does not exist since the
evidence does not exist in this Court.
There is nothing in American jurisprudence that would allow this Court to conclude Iacts not in
evidence are still Iacts and use evidence that does not exist to this Court as evidence in
DeIendants Iavor.
Until such a time as this Court has the evidence that DeIendants claim establishes the debt does
exist, the debt does not exist to this Court.
Absent a debt, the loan does not exist, absent the loan, the Deed OF Trust does not exist, absent
a valid Deed OI Trust; thereIore the Ioreclosure documents are nothing more than prima Iacie
evidence oI DeIendants Ielonious act oI attempting to steal PlaintiII`s real property by Iiling
Ialse and/or Iorged documents into a public oIIice in Arizona; a Ielony under A.R.S. 39-161.