No.

09-56133

United States Court Of Appeals

For The Ninth Circuit

Richard Shelley,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Quality Loan Service Corporation,
Litton Loan Servicing, L.P.,
Fremont Investment & Loan,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appellant’s Request for Judicial Notice

of the Remaining Instruments to the Previous Request Which Was Not Complete

On appeal from Motion To Dismiss in Shelley v. Quality Loan Service Corp., et aI,
Case No. SACV09-291 CJC. Cormac J. Carney, United States District Court Judge.
United State District Court, Central District of California-Southern Division (Santa Ana) Ronald
Regan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 411 West Fourth Street, Room 1053 Santa Ana,
CA 92701

Richard Shelley
Plaintiff-Appellant
Telephone: (714) 901-4136
7051 Natal Dr.,
Westminster, CA 92683
Exhibit # 0-VAC, Recorded August 8, 1985 in Official Records, County of Orange, California -
the Memorandum Agreement of Sale between the Department of Veterans Affairs and Richard
Shelley, when and where Richard Shelley acquired title to the certain real property specifically
described therein by a Purchase Land Sales Contract.
Exhibit # 0-VAGD, Recorded March 23, 2005 in Official Records, County of Orange, California
- the Department of Veterans Affairs Grant Deed granting to Richard Shelley and Jerri Lynn
Shelley Husband and Wife, as joint tenants, certain real property situated in the County of
Orange, State of California.
Exhibit # 0-VALG, the Department of Veterans Affairs Loan Guaranty Certificate of Eligibility
issued March 15, 2008 for Richard Shelley.
Exhibit # 1-AR, the Uniform Residential Loan Application for an extension of credit refinancing
signed by Richard Shelley in March of 2005 with an attached declaration.
Exhibit # 1-DT, Recorded March 23, 2005 in Official Records, County of Orange, California –
the Deed of Trust between Richard L. Shelley as trustor, Lenders T.D. Service, Inc. as trustee,
and Frank S. Livacich et al. as Beneficiary.
Exhibit # 2-A, the Uniform Residential Loan Application for an extension of credit refinancing
signed by Richard Shelley in May of 2006 after the lender’s agent had ran a credit check weeks
before, but at *3 in the liabilities section fraudulently omitted all unpaid accounts that Appellant
had been lead to believe were paid off in full and included an account that never showed up on
Appellant’s credit history. Copies of these were first received in January of 2009 from Appellee
Litton Loan Servicing LP in RJN # 2-MC, *8-9. See Id. at *9 under “Enclosures”.
Exhibit # 2-ABH, Recorded May 30, 2006 in Official Records, County of Orange, California –
Declaration of Abandonment of Homestead Declaration and a declaration of Appellant.
Exhibit # 2-AE, the Unexecuted Escrow Instructions mailed sometime after May 17, 2006 to
Richard Shelley by Vera Martin an employee Agent of Fremont Investment & Loan.
Exhibit # 2-DTO (continued), additional pages from the Deed of Trust.
Exhibit # Q-POS, Two Proofs of Service to Appellee Quality Loan Service Corporation, the First
one being of Appellant’s Opening Brief at *1 of the just previously said exhibit and the Second
one being of Appellant’s Request for Judicial Notice made to this Court at *2 Id.

/s/Richard Shelley - 9/14/10

Appellant: Richard Shelley - Date

Request for Judicial Notice Shelley v. Quality Table of Contents

Exhibit # 0-VAC
Exhibit # 0-VAGD
Exhibit # 0-VALG
 * * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *
Exhibit # 1-AR
* * * * REDACTED * * * * * * * * REDACTED * * * *
* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *
 * * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *
 * * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *
* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *

* * * * REDACTED * * * *
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD SHELLEY, No. 09-56133

D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00291-CJC-MLG
Plaintiff – Appellant, Central District of California, Santa Ana
V.

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.; DECLARATION OF RICHARD

LITTON LOAN SERVICING LLP SHELLEY AS TO EXHIBIT # 1-AR

Defendants – Appellees,
and

FREMONT INVESTMENT & LOAN

Defendant.

I Richard Shelley do declare the following. This exhibit is a Uniform Residential Loan
Application with added highlighted markups that I signed as myself, Richard Shelley in March
of 2005 for an extension of credit to pay off all existing debt that I owed at the time see RJN Ex.
# 1-AR, at *2 highlighted in green. That did result in a Deed of Trust being recorded in favor of
Frank S. Livacich see RJN Ex. # 1-DT. However among all the accounts that were supposed to
be paid off in RJN Ex. # 1-AR *2-6 (marked with asterisks) the only ones that were actually paid
off were the ones that have the asterisks highlighted in blue, all the ones with asterisks
highlighted in purple were supposed to be paid but were not. Not in this transaction nor the one
with Fremont Investment & Loan (hereinafter “Fremont”) which was not discovered until after
entering into the transaction with Fremont when I had ran my own credit report. Fremont also
contributed to the prevention of my discovering these facts with its insufficient and misleading
credit report disclosure see RJN Ex. # 2-ACRD and the Uniform Residential Loan Application
that Fremont’s agent had me sign that made it look as if all those accounts had been paid off
when in fact they had not see RJN Ex. # 2-A. After learning of these omissions I promptly gave
notice of rescission to Frank S. Livacich and then Fremont in March of 2008 see RJN Ex. # 1-
RN. Frank S. Livacich notified an undisclosed third-party broker Emerald Financial that was

Shelley v. Quality – Exhibit # 1-AR Page 8

apparently involved with the transaction who’s representative Dai Phung said he had the copies
that he would email to me of the instruments that he said had been disclosed properly and that
they were signed by me acknowledging receipt of them before the closing of the transaction, this
information was false it was specifically asked of him if the copies he was emailing me bore my
signatures on them and he said they did. The copies of the instruments emailed to me did not
bear my signature and reflected very different terms than what actually had been disclosed to me
before closing see RJN Ex. # 1-UTO for the instruments emailed to me. They not only increased
the loan amount without my consent, they changed the length of the terms from thirty to five
without even disclosing it, and undisclosed 7% loan origination fee, a maximum interest rate of
42%, kept all the money that was supposed to be used to pay off all my other debts and
continued to conceal this fact with the help and aid of Fremont and its agents. I Richard Shelley
do declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

/s/Richard Shelley - 7/29/10

Richard Shelley - Date Executed

Shelley v. Quality – Exhibit # 1-AR Page 9

Exhibit # 1-DT
Exhibit # 2-ABH
 United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit

Richard Shelley,

Plaintiff – Appellant, No. 09-56133

v. D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00291-CJC-MLG
Central District of California,
Quality Loan Service Corporation, Santa Ana
Litton Loan Servicing, L.P.,
Declaration of Richard Shelley as to
Defendants – Appellees, Exhibit # 2-ABH
and

Fremont Investment & Loan

Defendant.

I Richard Shelley do declare the following. Sometime during the duration between the
15th and 17th of May 2006 when I had met with the lenders agent Vera I. Martin (Ms. Martin)
during the same instance at the same place of business previously described in RJN D-CT, one of
the instruments Ms. Martin needing my signature as I remember her saying was a requirement
was one regarding a homestead declaration. At the time I wasn’t really given the opportunity to
review the details of the instrument or ask questions regarding why it was required or if there
was other options as Ms. Martin had rushed through the whole process, not given me a copy for
me to keep and review so the contents of the instrument at the time it was signed and if there
were any changes made to it afterwards or not I cannot say for certain and I don’t recall any
other pages attached to it, but I can say that the impression that I got from Ms. Martin was that it
was a nonnegotiable condition in order to begin the process of the credit transaction. Whether the
condition was required by law or otherwise she did not say, but the way she made it seem was as
if I had no other options or choices in deciding otherwise. So when I received the instrument
contained within this exhibit after having been recorded I presumed it was likely the same
instrument previously mentioned and that based on the representations of Ms. Martin must have
been a legally required step as part of the process for transitioning between creditors or

Shelley v. Quality – Exhibit # 2-ABH Page 2

something to that effect. Come to find out it wasn’t a legally required part of the process, I didn’t
have to sign it, the transition between creditors was irrelevant and I shouldn’t have been forced
to sign it as it would only result in the loss of beneficial protection and legal rights that I was
entitled to keep. The beneficial result for the creditor or any creditor for that matter is one less
obstacle in the way of seizing and depriving me of my property which was always the only
desired result ever intended by the Defendants that one can logically conclude when calculating
in all the different material factors such as including but not limited to the one described here in
this declaration, information concerning the appraised value of the property was withheld
concealing the fact that the transaction was not computed on the full value the property, the
creditor had knowledge that its agent intentionally inflated the amount of my income (despite
being provided with proof showing the true amount of my income) and omitted from the uniform
residential loan application all the accounts left outstanding that were supposed to have been paid
off which would have showed up when they ran a check of my credit report history but inserted
information of an account that was never reported to any of the credit reporting the agencies,
kept the actual uniform residential loan application or a copy thereof withheld from me until a
copy was eventually provided by Appellee Litton Loan Servicing L.P. which is evidence
indicating that Litton might have actually been involved in the originating process of the credit
transaction when considering that the application was never provided by Fremont Investment &
Loan, account transaction history provided by the Defendants shows that a principal payment in
the full amount of the outstanding balance was applied to the account secured but the Defendants
nonetheless caused false information regarding the purported indebtedness to be recorded in the
county where I reside despite the debt having been disputed and the Defendants not being up to
verify the validity of the debt and then having Appellee Quality Loan Service Corp., whom was
never the trustee or ever duly appointed as such cause a purported trustee’s deed upon sale to be
recorded showing that there was no outstanding balance owing on the true account but recorded
under a name that is other than my own in an apparent attempt to prevent me from obtaining a
copy of the recorded instrument evidencing these facts, and the Defendants’ constant refusal to
comply with rescission and/or state any demand or counterclaim for any future tender owed or
possibly due as a result of the post-rescission restitution procedures following the Defendants
fulfilling their prerequisite obligations of tendering all the property, benefits and profits deriving
from the credit transaction at issue and taking the necessary steps to properly reflect that the

Shelley v. Quality – Exhibit # 2-ABH Page 3

transaction and resulting security interest in the real property is void and was made void when
the right to rescind was exercised which leaves the impression that the Defendants would’ve
continued to attempt to unlawfully exercise nonexistent extrajudicial foreclosure powers
regardless of how much money they had, would’ve and/or could’ve received because leaving the
question of whether any present or future obligation is owed and if so, what the total limit of any
amount potentially due, only prevents the showing and proving the ability to meet any possible,
pending or future potential obligations during the course of post-rescission procedures with a
degree of certainty so as to remove any potential doubt if any existed. And it’s amazing that
officers of the judicial branch assist in the deception and allow the continuation of individual
rights to be trampled on all for the benefit and fueled by the incentive of financial gain through
investing their pension/retirement funds in real estate trusts which profits every time property is
sold (whether lawfully or not) by the trusts via the public-private partnerships created and hired
specifically for the purpose of achieving these goals by any means necessary no matter the
damage done, people harmed or the crimes committed just as long as the pension funds keep
increasing in value and don’t stop increasing. I Richard Shelley do declare under penalty of
perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

/s/ Richard Shelley - 9/13/10

Richard Shelley - Date Executed

Shelley v. Quality – Exhibit # 2-ABH Page 4

Exhibit # 2-AE
(continued) Exhibit # 2-DTO
 No. 09-56133

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD SHELLEY, Pro Se

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.

Request for Judicial Notice

Of Plaintiff-Appellant Richard Shelley In Opposition To Appellee Litton Loan Servicing
LLP’s Request For Judicial Notice.
& Motion For Other Relief
Of Plaintiff-Appellant Richard Shelley.
On appeal from Motion To Dismiss in Shelley v. Quality Loan Service Corp., et aI.,
Case No. SACV09-291 CJC. Cormac J. Carney, United States District Court Judge.
United State District Court, Central District of California-Southern Division (Santa Ana) Ronald
Regan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 411 West Fourth Street, Room 1053 Santa Ana,
 9th Circuit Case Number(s) 09-56133

NOTE: To secure your input, you should print the filled-in form to PDF (File > Print > PDF Printer/Creator).

*********************************************************************************
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
When All Case Participants are Registered for the Appellate CM/ECF System
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system
on (date) .

I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be
accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system.

Signature (use "s/" format)

*********************************************************************************
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
When Not All Case Participants are Registered for the Appellate CM/ECF System
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system
on (date) .
Oct 3, 2010
Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the appellate
CM/ECF system.

I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not registered CM/ECF users. I
have mailed the foregoing document by First-Class Mail, postage prepaid, or have dispatched it
to a third party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days to the following
non-CM/ECF participants:

David C. Scott, Esq

MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS, LLP
1770 Fourth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.

Signature (use "s/" format) /s/Richard Shelley