Preview
DOCKET NO: FBT-CV-16-6061112-5
U.S. BANK na, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE
TO BANK OF AMERICE, NA,
SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO LASALLE
BANK NA, ON BEHALF OF THE
REGISTERED HOLDERS OF BEAR
STEARNS ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES
1 LLC, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES,
SERIES 2006-ECI
VS
PAIGE MOORER, TANIA D. A/K/A
PAIGE MOORER ET AL
SUPERIOR COURT
JURISDICTION OF FAIRFIELD
October 15, 2019
AT BRIDGEPORT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Comes now, Tania Paige Moorer, timely, not intended for delay, and will not prejudice the other
party, to move this honorable court pursuant to Practice Book Section 13-9, Practice Book Section 17-
44, 17-46, 17-48 and 17-49 as to subject-matter jurisdiction and liability to Plaintiff and their agents.
Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference is a brief and Memorandum of Law in support of
this Motion to Summary Judgment, with the detailed prayer for specific relief requested.
iNDIIDBNNAD AN AIETE
a: Wy ep ieIntroduction
On or about February 21, 2019, USBNA filed an amended complaint that lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction because they failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has failed to
file authenticated, foundational documentation with proper service entered into the record pursuant to
Practice Book Section 17-25 9b0(1)(A).
Statement of Facts
USBNA claimed to obtain its right to foreclose through the assignment of the mortgage from
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM. The information involved details gross
fraudulent activity that is publicly known that E.LLANCE/NTC and MERS, the nominee for BRAVO
CREDIT CORPORATION, who attempted to assign the mortgage, was using thousands of false
documents and unqualified, untitled and unverifiable agents, such as Shequita A. Knox or Krux
(assignment endorser is not clearly legible) to sign and fake those assignments fraudulently at the same
time-period the so-called “assignment” took place. MERS never owned the note because they cannot
be nominee lender according to the supreme court, Kessler v. Landmark (citation omitted). This means
USBNA never had actual physical possession of the note and cannot assign such note. Also, supported
by Citibank, N.A. v. Herman, 125 A.D.3d 587, 3 N.Y.S.3d 379 (2d Dept.2015). On October 25, 2018,
an attorney for MERS CORP has testified, in his deposition taken in a South Carolina case, that MERS
cannot act for a “non-functional” entity and cannot transfer promissory notes despite claiming to do so
in Assignments of Mortgages. Plaintiff has failed to submit any evidence demonstrating that the note
was physically delivered to MERS prior to the commencement of the action. There is NO evidence
indicating that MERS had possession of note or any right to assign the note. Any attempt by plaintiff to
try entering into the record, any more false or immaterial information will result in Moorer filing
motions for sanctions for opposing counsel for filing frivolous and impertinent documents. This was
upheld in the Supreme Court in US BANK TRUST, NA v. Morales on February 14, 2017. Plaintiffs’
case was dismissed due to lack of foundational evidence that MERS ever had possession of the note
and the assignment did not make reference to the note. MERS did not, in this case, provide proof of
possession and does not even explicitly mention the note in this alleged assignment. Please take judicial
notice that plaintiff can offer no admissible evidence to support is Complaint and therefore cannot
succeed in this action because plaintiff has offered No Qualified Custodian of Records, the documents
offered by plaintiff are Hearsay, Intended for Delay, and Do Not Fall Under a Hearsay Exception and
cannot show an exception. Some of Plaintiff’s affidavits are not sworn and subscribed to as required bythe rules of this court and the most recent affidavit is also hearsay due to the SPS agent not being a
qualified witness to Bravo Credit’s files. They make a statement in that affidavit that the, “information
transmitted by a person with personal knowledge...”. This is false and misleading because Plaintiff
cannot provide a name and title of such alleged person, which is required, for Plaintiff’s examination.
Pursuant to Code of Evidence Section 8-3 (1)(A)(6) the witness must have had personal
knowledge of the event recorded in the memorandum or record. Papas v. Aetna Ins. Co., 111 Conn.
415, 420, 150 A. 310 (1930); Jackiewicz v. United Illumination Co., 106 Conn. 302, 209, 138 A. 147
(1927); Neff v. Neff 96 Conn 273, 278, 114 a. 126 (1921). Affiant has no personal knowledge, which is
hearsay. The witness recollection must be sufficient to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately
about the event recorded. State v. Boucino, 199 Conn. 207, 230, 506 A.2d125 (1986). “Insufficient
recollection” may be established by demonstrating that an attempt to refresh the witness’ recollection
pursuant to Section 6-9(a) was unsuccessful. See Katsonas v. W.M. Sutherland Building & Contracting
CO., supra,69. The memorandum or record must have been made or adopted by the witness ‘at or about
the time’ the event was recorded. Gigliotti v. United Illuminating CO., 151 Conn. 114, 124, 193, A.2d
718 (1963); Neff v. Neff, supra, 96 Conn. 278; State v. Day, 12 Conn. App. 129, 134, 529 A. 2d 1333
(1987). And last, the memorandum or record must reflect correctly the witness’ knowledge of the event
as it existed at the time of the memorandum’s or record’s makin or adoption. See State v. Vennard, 159
Conn. 385, 397, 270, A. 2d 837 (1970), cert. Denied, 400 U.S. 1011, 91 S. Ct. 576, 27 L. Ed. 2D 625
(1971); Capone v. Sloan, 149 Conn. 538, 543, 182 A.2d414 (1962); Hawken v. Dailey, 85Conn.
16,19,81A.1053 (1911). A memorandum or record admissible unde the exception may be read into
evidence and received as an exhibit. Katsonas v. W.M. Sutherland Building & Conracting Co. supra,
104 Conn. 69; see Neff v. Neff, supra, 96 Conn. 278-79. Because a memorandum or record introduced
under the exception is being offered to prove its contents, the original must be produced pursuant to
Section 10-1, unless its production is excused. Se Sections 10-3 throgh 10-6; cf. Neff v. Neff, supra
278. Plaintiff has failed to produce specific and /or explicit sources of information, method and time of
preparation to indicate as to its trustworthiness. The declarant failed to present evidence of record-
keeping practices, evidence of the manner in which the note ledger was prepared, and failed to provide
evidence as to the origin of the information it contained. Therefore, the court should exclude the
documents as a matter of law.
USBNA must have an actual injured party present for Moorer to question and cross-examine
their alleged evidence to have her reasonable expectation of due process before being deprived of
property without just compensation or a breach in contract. USBNA’s lawyers cannot be a witness sincethey were not present at the time of the initial transaction and cannot confirm any of the information
provided by USBNA as a qualified witness pursuant to Rule 3.7 and conflicts with “Advocate-Witness
Rule” which means that all docs filed by or spoken by their lawyers in the courtroom on the record on
behalf of their client are hearsay and nullifies all their entered documents and unverified statements in
their entirety.
Plaintiff’s trustee Bank of America, has also paid over six billion dollars in damages to AIG for
fraud after they filed a lawsuit against them for selling unsecuritized loans as outlined in, American
International Group Inc AIG PA v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION LLC NB CWABS LLC
CWALT CWHEQ CWMBS”. USBNA only has presented a copy to Moorer and they must exhibit the
original contract to have a valid claim according to UCC, because any amount of persons can come
back and keep claiming the same debt with a copy, indefinitely. This would undermine the trust and
reliability of the people to conduct fair business practices.
Itis unreasonable that a fictitious or unverifiable “Jessie Jones” “senior shipping analyst” has a
proper title or authority to endorse a negotiable instrument on behalf of Bravo Credit Corporation
(BCC), a financial institution. This is gross negligence and FRAUD. These acts are contrary to the
requirements of Federal Reserve policy and GAAP concerning handling negotiable instruments.
Plaintiff also has provided Moorer a copy of their “Servicing and Pooling Agreement”. In that
insurance agreement there is a clause that states the insured (trustees bank of America) policy would be
paid the full amount of the note if the “loan” defaults more than 90 days, according to USBNA and the
credit bureaus record. That aforementioned default, triggered AIG, or whatever the name of the insurer
of the “loan”, to pay according to Service and Pooling agreement. If they already got paid what are they
claiming? USBNA has no evidence to the contrary that that SEC requirement does not contain such a
clause. Or in the alternative produce such agreement that does not explicitly mention the procedure for
defaulted securities, which it cannot because it is a Security Exchange Commissions requirement.
USBNA did not provide Moorer with a securitization audit of all the financial transactions of
her created account before the alleged loan entered the trust, as she previously requested. USBNA also
did not provide a Bloomberg Financial Report that shows all the financial transactions after the alleged
loan entered the trust which, Moorer is entitled to examine, due to her initializing the creation of the
account USBNA makes claim to. The production of this will indeed provide evidence that kickbacks
and financial gain was made by persons who were not involved in the original creation of said account.
USBNA has not and cannot provide certified accounting sworn to by a CPA, which is required pursuant
to UCC and the Rules of Evidence. The “Transactional Report” provided by Plaintiff’s agent, SelectPortfolio Services, is not admissible as certified accounting and is hearsay. This abrogates Moorer’s
right to due process.
No UCC-1 was filed with Secretary of the State of Connecticut in Moorer’s name. There is no
valid civil claim to Moorer’s property by Plaintiff on State’s records for services rendered. USBNA has
rendered no services to Moorer
USBNA attempts to try and take property thru a civil process, that is not allowed in the U.S.
Constitution and the Connecticut State Constitution. Moorer will also file injunctive relief complaint to
cause collateral estoppel for on-going damage to her. Moorer and her reasonable expectation of rights
to not have her property taken without her committing a crime or having a trial with jury and to cross-
examine the witness and call witnesses of her own. Moorer is not aware of any process that can
abrogate her reasonable expectation of her inalienable rights protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Article First, Declaration of Rights, Section 8
of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, The Constitution State. To have her property taken that
she is lawfully entitled to by actual possession for over two decades without due process or just
compensation would indeed be criminal.
Conclusion
MERS never had possession of her actual note, and did not mention the note in the mortgage
assignment and USBNA has no evidence to the contrary. Without being holder in due course on a
bonafide instrument, USBNA’s note is a void. This would leave usbna without standing even if the note
was valid, and should be closed with extreme prejudice, as a matter of law. Usbna must release deed
and title to Moorer at once. MERS is strictly electronic documents. The supreme court Carpenter v.
Longan :: 83 U.S. 271 (1872) has ruled that the mortgage and the note must not be separated and must
remain together or they both become void because one secures the other. Again, the supreme court
determined [oklahoma case cited] that MERS is not a lender and cannot hold security instruments
lawfully. This proves once again that the note was separated from the mortgage because MERS could
not legally have possession of a negotiable instrument due to them not being a financial institution and
not having possession of the actual mortgage because they strictly deal with electronic copies of the
original. Jessie Jones who endorsed the note for the bank, has no record of ever working for BRAVO
CREDIT CORPORATION who’s official title was, “Sr. Shipping Analyst”. See EXHIBIT supplied by
the plaintiff.Since this is not a criminal case and they have no contract with Moorer, directly or otherwise
this case must remain closed. Moorer should be awarded her deed in-hand and damages to her for the
mental anguish [dr. records for proof w/ friends affidavits], torment, monetary damage [payments taken
by theft and not returned, removal of solar panels, refusal for weatherization, increasing electric and
heating costs drastically] and harrassment caused by USBNAs’ agents and lawyers for over six years
All affidavits submitted by USBNA don’t contain all necessary requirements to be entered into the
record according to Rules of evidence of this Court. They should be be stricken according to Section
10-39 for lacking foundation and merit. Anything USBNA submits is undoubtedly intended for delay of
justice and any lawyer who attempts to enter such unsubstantiated documents they knew or should have
known to be false or fraudulent should be sanctioned for their intentional deceit upon this court.
Moorer will file motions for sanctions and criminal charges against each and every firm that tries to
enter impertinent scandalous and defaming dispositive motions to fraud this honorable court. Moorer’s
transaction was bifurcated which again voids the contract due to the chain of title being broken
repeatedly. This is the second time in a row Moorer has gotten her case dismissed. How many times
must she defend herself against a grossly negligent bank with no standing, for a void mortgage
{according to the supreme court] that was and is satisfied according to their own investigations as well
as her own? In conclusion, Moorer should be awarded her due compensation as a Maxim and Matter of
Law. They are not holder in due course pursuant to commercial law[UCC-3], the instrument is void.
USBNA knew or should have known, that the mortgage was not secured by the note, therefore
transferable, if MERS never had actual possession of the note, that they could not legally convey,
transfer or sell the note.
It is unreasonable, that a well established financial institution, its agents, representatives, and
counsel would not have known that a demand for payment without proof of security interest, when they
had prior knowledge that the claim was moot, and not release the property and title deed to Moorer,
with all her payments and her remaining escrow to her immediately, and continuing to damage her and
attempt to separate her from her properties, would be gross fraud.
USBNA knew or should have known that slander of Moorer’s public reputation, mental
anguish, emotional distress causing loss of employment, for the harassment, time not able to pursue her
goals and interests, leaving Moorer without adequate insulation to storm the long winter, to fend for
herself [multiple denials of weatherization], and pay high utilities [greatly lowering utility costs if there
was no removal of solar panels and electricity from solar, eliminating light bill] each caused, and would
cause Moorer damage(s).Plaintiffs documents and affidavits should be stricken from the record in part or in its entirety
for full knowledge of entering irrelevant, unverified and impertinent material to this matter with intent
to delay justice of this Court. This only leaves Moorer’s rebuttal or preponderance of evidence to the
contrary, on this honorable Courts’ record. Moorer has gotten this claim dismissed twice already. This
case should be dismissed with prejudice as a matter of law.
Prayer
Moorer prays for immediate release and physical delivery of her title and deed to her property.
Immediate return of her note [that is still money in circulation without her compensation for profits
made from said note] and all payments made to USBNA since 2006, the time they claimed gaining
control of mortgage and note.
All negative remarks of USBNA removed on all credit bureaus and reported as “paid on time”
and “paid in full”.[or pay for the damages of slander, theft, violation of state law [state constitution,
state statutes] as well as federal [constitution]. USBNA, and their servicing company Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc. (SPS) are debt collectors and must now pay for all damages suffered by Moorer, caused
by their unlawful acts.
Damages for pain and suffering, ridicule, slander of her public reputation, mental anguish,
emotional distress causing loss of employment, for the harassment, time lost to pursue her goals and
interests, leaving Moorer without adequate insulation to storm the long winter, to fend for herself
[multiple denials of weatherization].
Compensatory damages for costs of this action, including all fees of this court, cost of litigation
and/or counsel assistance, cost of time for preparation (per hour) and execution of all documents, cost
for loss of wages due to loss of employment [denial of credit increase and grants or loan for
business(es), cost of insulating, heating and cooling home (solar, weatherization denials)], and pay high
utilities [greatly lowering utility costs if there was no removal of solar panels and electricity from solar,
eliminating light bill] each caused Moorer damage(s).
And any other relief the court deems proper.Plaintiffs documents and affidavits should be stricken from the record in part or in its entirety
for full knowledge of entering irrelevant, unverified and impertinent material to this matter with intent
to delay justice of this Court. This only leaves Moorer’s rebuttal or preponderance of evidence to the
contrary, on this honorable Courts’ record. Moorer has gotten this claim dismissed twice already. This
case should be dismissed with prejudice as a matter of law.
Prayer
Moorer prays for immediate release and physical delivery of her title and deed to her property.
Immediate retum of her note [that is still money in circulation without her compensation for profits
made from said note] and all payments made to USBNA since 2006, the time they claimed gaining
control of mortgage and note.
All negative remarks of USBNA removed on all credit bureaus and reported as “paid on time”
and “paid in full”.[or pay for the damages of slander, theft, violation of state law [state constitution,
state statutes] as well as federal [constitution]. USBNA, and their servicing company Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc. (SPS) are debt collectors and must now pay for all damages suffered by Moorer, caused
by their unlawful acts.
Damages for pain and suffering, ridicule, slander of her public reputation, mental anguish,
emotional distress causing loss of employment, for the harassment, time lost to pursue her goals and
interests, leaving Moorer without adequate insulation to storm the long winter, to fend for herself
[multiple denials of weatherization].
Compensatory damages for costs of this action, including all fees of this court, cost of litigation
and/or counsel assistance, cost of time for preparation (per hour) and execution of all documents, cost
for loss of wages due to loss of employment [denial of credit increase and grants or loan for
business(es), cost of insulating, heating and cooling home (solar, weatherization denials)], and pay high
utilities [greatly lowering utility costs if there was no removal of solar panels and electricity from solar,
eliminating light bill] each caused Moorer damage(s).
And any other relief the court deems proper.
sania aig MoorerAFFIDAVIT Of TANIA PAIGE MOORER
STATE OF CONNECTICUT } cya ey fd
}ss
COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD }
Comes now, Tania Paige Moorer, sui juris, and after first being duly sworn
according to law, and being duly affirmed according to the Great Creator’s laws with
God as her witness (Titus 1:2) states that she is your affiant, that as your affiant she has
first-hand knowledge of the facts herein and believes these facts to be true to the best of
her belief and knowledge:
1. As of present, USBNA, has not filed a UCC-1 in regard to Moorer’s
property with the Secretary of State of Connecticut.
2. Secretary of the State has no record of a claim against Moorer.
3. Moorer has suffered mental anguish, distress, financial loss, loss of time to
pursue her endeavors.
4. Moorer’s foreclosure case has been dismissed twice already.
5. USBNA continues to harass Moorer and put her under duress without
consent.
Further Affiant Sayeth Not.
LF!
ran SZCtoorer
Before me S¢ep Bie Ger’, a Notary Public State of Connecticut, personally
appeared Tania Paige Moorer who has sworn to and subscribed in my presence, the
foregoing document, on this __th day of October in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand
Nineteen.
W{3 of (£oKl otary Republic
My Commission Expires:
(seal)
SAID ESSABBANI
Notary Public
Connecticut
My Commission Expires Nov 30, 2021CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of the above was mailed or electronically delivered on October 15, 2019 to all
counsel mentioned below:
MCCALLA RAYMER LEIBERT PIERCE LLC (101589
50 Weston Street
Hartford, CT 06120
ADAM MICHAEL SWANSON (429503)
One Canterbury Green
201 Broad Street
Stamford CT 06901
SEIGER GFELLER LAURIE LLP (429772)
977 Farmington Ave
Suite 200
id Moorér
West Hartford, CT 06107 AWD
Tonid\ ¢
Preview
DOCKET NO: FBT-CV-16-6061112-5 U.S. BANK na, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO BANK OF AMERICE, NA, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO LASALLE BANK NA, ON BEHALF OF THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF BEAR STEARNS ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES 1 LLC, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-ECI VS PAIGE MOORER, TANIA D. A/K/A PAIGE MOORER ET AL SUPERIOR COURT JURISDICTION OF FAIRFIELD October 15, 2019 AT BRIDGEPORT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Comes now, Tania Paige Moorer, timely, not intended for delay, and will not prejudice the other party, to move this honorable court pursuant to Practice Book Section 13-9, Practice Book Section 17- 44, 17-46, 17-48 and 17-49 as to subject-matter jurisdiction and liability to Plaintiff and their agents. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference is a brief and Memorandum of Law in support of this Motion to Summary Judgment, with the detailed prayer for specific relief requested. iNDIIDBNNAD AN AIETE a: Wy ep ieIntroduction On or about February 21, 2019, USBNA filed an amended complaint that lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because they failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has failed to file authenticated, foundational documentation with proper service entered into the record pursuant to Practice Book Section 17-25 9b0(1)(A). Statement of Facts USBNA claimed to obtain its right to foreclose through the assignment of the mortgage from MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM. The information involved details gross fraudulent activity that is publicly known that E.LLANCE/NTC and MERS, the nominee for BRAVO CREDIT CORPORATION, who attempted to assign the mortgage, was using thousands of false documents and unqualified, untitled and unverifiable agents, such as Shequita A. Knox or Krux (assignment endorser is not clearly legible) to sign and fake those assignments fraudulently at the same time-period the so-called “assignment” took place. MERS never owned the note because they cannot be nominee lender according to the supreme court, Kessler v. Landmark (citation omitted). This means USBNA never had actual physical possession of the note and cannot assign such note. Also, supported by Citibank, N.A. v. Herman, 125 A.D.3d 587, 3 N.Y.S.3d 379 (2d Dept.2015). On October 25, 2018, an attorney for MERS CORP has testified, in his deposition taken in a South Carolina case, that MERS cannot act for a “non-functional” entity and cannot transfer promissory notes despite claiming to do so in Assignments of Mortgages. Plaintiff has failed to submit any evidence demonstrating that the note was physically delivered to MERS prior to the commencement of the action. There is NO evidence indicating that MERS had possession of note or any right to assign the note. Any attempt by plaintiff to try entering into the record, any more false or immaterial information will result in Moorer filing motions for sanctions for opposing counsel for filing frivolous and impertinent documents. This was upheld in the Supreme Court in US BANK TRUST, NA v. Morales on February 14, 2017. Plaintiffs’ case was dismissed due to lack of foundational evidence that MERS ever had possession of the note and the assignment did not make reference to the note. MERS did not, in this case, provide proof of possession and does not even explicitly mention the note in this alleged assignment. Please take judicial notice that plaintiff can offer no admissible evidence to support is Complaint and therefore cannot succeed in this action because plaintiff has offered No Qualified Custodian of Records, the documents offered by plaintiff are Hearsay, Intended for Delay, and Do Not Fall Under a Hearsay Exception and cannot show an exception. Some of Plaintiff’s affidavits are not sworn and subscribed to as required bythe rules of this court and the most recent affidavit is also hearsay due to the SPS agent not being a qualified witness to Bravo Credit’s files. They make a statement in that affidavit that the, “information transmitted by a person with personal knowledge...”. This is false and misleading because Plaintiff cannot provide a name and title of such alleged person, which is required, for Plaintiff’s examination. Pursuant to Code of Evidence Section 8-3 (1)(A)(6) the witness must have had personal knowledge of the event recorded in the memorandum or record. Papas v. Aetna Ins. Co., 111 Conn. 415, 420, 150 A. 310 (1930); Jackiewicz v. United Illumination Co., 106 Conn. 302, 209, 138 A. 147 (1927); Neff v. Neff 96 Conn 273, 278, 114 a. 126 (1921). Affiant has no personal knowledge, which is hearsay. The witness recollection must be sufficient to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately about the event recorded. State v. Boucino, 199 Conn. 207, 230, 506 A.2d125 (1986). “Insufficient recollection” may be established by demonstrating that an attempt to refresh the witness’ recollection pursuant to Section 6-9(a) was unsuccessful. See Katsonas v. W.M. Sutherland Building & Contracting CO., supra,69. The memorandum or record must have been made or adopted by the witness ‘at or about the time’ the event was recorded. Gigliotti v. United Illuminating CO., 151 Conn. 114, 124, 193, A.2d 718 (1963); Neff v. Neff, supra, 96 Conn. 278; State v. Day, 12 Conn. App. 129, 134, 529 A. 2d 1333 (1987). And last, the memorandum or record must reflect correctly the witness’ knowledge of the event as it existed at the time of the memorandum’s or record’s makin or adoption. See State v. Vennard, 159 Conn. 385, 397, 270, A. 2d 837 (1970), cert. Denied, 400 U.S. 1011, 91 S. Ct. 576, 27 L. Ed. 2D 625 (1971); Capone v. Sloan, 149 Conn. 538, 543, 182 A.2d414 (1962); Hawken v. Dailey, 85Conn. 16,19,81A.1053 (1911). A memorandum or record admissible unde the exception may be read into evidence and received as an exhibit. Katsonas v. W.M. Sutherland Building & Conracting Co. supra, 104 Conn. 69; see Neff v. Neff, supra, 96 Conn. 278-79. Because a memorandum or record introduced under the exception is being offered to prove its contents, the original must be produced pursuant to Section 10-1, unless its production is excused. Se Sections 10-3 throgh 10-6; cf. Neff v. Neff, supra 278. Plaintiff has failed to produce specific and /or explicit sources of information, method and time of preparation to indicate as to its trustworthiness. The declarant failed to present evidence of record- keeping practices, evidence of the manner in which the note ledger was prepared, and failed to provide evidence as to the origin of the information it contained. Therefore, the court should exclude the documents as a matter of law. USBNA must have an actual injured party present for Moorer to question and cross-examine their alleged evidence to have her reasonable expectation of due process before being deprived of property without just compensation or a breach in contract. USBNA’s lawyers cannot be a witness sincethey were not present at the time of the initial transaction and cannot confirm any of the information provided by USBNA as a qualified witness pursuant to Rule 3.7 and conflicts with “Advocate-Witness Rule” which means that all docs filed by or spoken by their lawyers in the courtroom on the record on behalf of their client are hearsay and nullifies all their entered documents and unverified statements in their entirety. Plaintiff’s trustee Bank of America, has also paid over six billion dollars in damages to AIG for fraud after they filed a lawsuit against them for selling unsecuritized loans as outlined in, American International Group Inc AIG PA v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION LLC NB CWABS LLC CWALT CWHEQ CWMBS”. USBNA only has presented a copy to Moorer and they must exhibit the original contract to have a valid claim according to UCC, because any amount of persons can come back and keep claiming the same debt with a copy, indefinitely. This would undermine the trust and reliability of the people to conduct fair business practices. Itis unreasonable that a fictitious or unverifiable “Jessie Jones” “senior shipping analyst” has a proper title or authority to endorse a negotiable instrument on behalf of Bravo Credit Corporation (BCC), a financial institution. This is gross negligence and FRAUD. These acts are contrary to the requirements of Federal Reserve policy and GAAP concerning handling negotiable instruments. Plaintiff also has provided Moorer a copy of their “Servicing and Pooling Agreement”. In that insurance agreement there is a clause that states the insured (trustees bank of America) policy would be paid the full amount of the note if the “loan” defaults more than 90 days, according to USBNA and the credit bureaus record. That aforementioned default, triggered AIG, or whatever the name of the insurer of the “loan”, to pay according to Service and Pooling agreement. If they already got paid what are they claiming? USBNA has no evidence to the contrary that that SEC requirement does not contain such a clause. Or in the alternative produce such agreement that does not explicitly mention the procedure for defaulted securities, which it cannot because it is a Security Exchange Commissions requirement. USBNA did not provide Moorer with a securitization audit of all the financial transactions of her created account before the alleged loan entered the trust, as she previously requested. USBNA also did not provide a Bloomberg Financial Report that shows all the financial transactions after the alleged loan entered the trust which, Moorer is entitled to examine, due to her initializing the creation of the account USBNA makes claim to. The production of this will indeed provide evidence that kickbacks and financial gain was made by persons who were not involved in the original creation of said account. USBNA has not and cannot provide certified accounting sworn to by a CPA, which is required pursuant to UCC and the Rules of Evidence. The “Transactional Report” provided by Plaintiff’s agent, SelectPortfolio Services, is not admissible as certified accounting and is hearsay. This abrogates Moorer’s right to due process. No UCC-1 was filed with Secretary of the State of Connecticut in Moorer’s name. There is no valid civil claim to Moorer’s property by Plaintiff on State’s records for services rendered. USBNA has rendered no services to Moorer USBNA attempts to try and take property thru a civil process, that is not allowed in the U.S. Constitution and the Connecticut State Constitution. Moorer will also file injunctive relief complaint to cause collateral estoppel for on-going damage to her. Moorer and her reasonable expectation of rights to not have her property taken without her committing a crime or having a trial with jury and to cross- examine the witness and call witnesses of her own. Moorer is not aware of any process that can abrogate her reasonable expectation of her inalienable rights protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Article First, Declaration of Rights, Section 8 of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, The Constitution State. To have her property taken that she is lawfully entitled to by actual possession for over two decades without due process or just compensation would indeed be criminal. Conclusion MERS never had possession of her actual note, and did not mention the note in the mortgage assignment and USBNA has no evidence to the contrary. Without being holder in due course on a bonafide instrument, USBNA’s note is a void. This would leave usbna without standing even if the note was valid, and should be closed with extreme prejudice, as a matter of law. Usbna must release deed and title to Moorer at once. MERS is strictly electronic documents. The supreme court Carpenter v. Longan :: 83 U.S. 271 (1872) has ruled that the mortgage and the note must not be separated and must remain together or they both become void because one secures the other. Again, the supreme court determined [oklahoma case cited] that MERS is not a lender and cannot hold security instruments lawfully. This proves once again that the note was separated from the mortgage because MERS could not legally have possession of a negotiable instrument due to them not being a financial institution and not having possession of the actual mortgage because they strictly deal with electronic copies of the original. Jessie Jones who endorsed the note for the bank, has no record of ever working for BRAVO CREDIT CORPORATION who’s official title was, “Sr. Shipping Analyst”. See EXHIBIT supplied by the plaintiff.Since this is not a criminal case and they have no contract with Moorer, directly or otherwise this case must remain closed. Moorer should be awarded her deed in-hand and damages to her for the mental anguish [dr. records for proof w/ friends affidavits], torment, monetary damage [payments taken by theft and not returned, removal of solar panels, refusal for weatherization, increasing electric and heating costs drastically] and harrassment caused by USBNAs’ agents and lawyers for over six years All affidavits submitted by USBNA don’t contain all necessary requirements to be entered into the record according to Rules of evidence of this Court. They should be be stricken according to Section 10-39 for lacking foundation and merit. Anything USBNA submits is undoubtedly intended for delay of justice and any lawyer who attempts to enter such unsubstantiated documents they knew or should have known to be false or fraudulent should be sanctioned for their intentional deceit upon this court. Moorer will file motions for sanctions and criminal charges against each and every firm that tries to enter impertinent scandalous and defaming dispositive motions to fraud this honorable court. Moorer’s transaction was bifurcated which again voids the contract due to the chain of title being broken repeatedly. This is the second time in a row Moorer has gotten her case dismissed. How many times must she defend herself against a grossly negligent bank with no standing, for a void mortgage {according to the supreme court] that was and is satisfied according to their own investigations as well as her own? In conclusion, Moorer should be awarded her due compensation as a Maxim and Matter of Law. They are not holder in due course pursuant to commercial law[UCC-3], the instrument is void. USBNA knew or should have known, that the mortgage was not secured by the note, therefore transferable, if MERS never had actual possession of the note, that they could not legally convey, transfer or sell the note. It is unreasonable, that a well established financial institution, its agents, representatives, and counsel would not have known that a demand for payment without proof of security interest, when they had prior knowledge that the claim was moot, and not release the property and title deed to Moorer, with all her payments and her remaining escrow to her immediately, and continuing to damage her and attempt to separate her from her properties, would be gross fraud. USBNA knew or should have known that slander of Moorer’s public reputation, mental anguish, emotional distress causing loss of employment, for the harassment, time not able to pursue her goals and interests, leaving Moorer without adequate insulation to storm the long winter, to fend for herself [multiple denials of weatherization], and pay high utilities [greatly lowering utility costs if there was no removal of solar panels and electricity from solar, eliminating light bill] each caused, and would cause Moorer damage(s).Plaintiffs documents and affidavits should be stricken from the record in part or in its entirety for full knowledge of entering irrelevant, unverified and impertinent material to this matter with intent to delay justice of this Court. This only leaves Moorer’s rebuttal or preponderance of evidence to the contrary, on this honorable Courts’ record. Moorer has gotten this claim dismissed twice already. This case should be dismissed with prejudice as a matter of law. Prayer Moorer prays for immediate release and physical delivery of her title and deed to her property. Immediate return of her note [that is still money in circulation without her compensation for profits made from said note] and all payments made to USBNA since 2006, the time they claimed gaining control of mortgage and note. All negative remarks of USBNA removed on all credit bureaus and reported as “paid on time” and “paid in full”.[or pay for the damages of slander, theft, violation of state law [state constitution, state statutes] as well as federal [constitution]. USBNA, and their servicing company Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS) are debt collectors and must now pay for all damages suffered by Moorer, caused by their unlawful acts. Damages for pain and suffering, ridicule, slander of her public reputation, mental anguish, emotional distress causing loss of employment, for the harassment, time lost to pursue her goals and interests, leaving Moorer without adequate insulation to storm the long winter, to fend for herself [multiple denials of weatherization]. Compensatory damages for costs of this action, including all fees of this court, cost of litigation and/or counsel assistance, cost of time for preparation (per hour) and execution of all documents, cost for loss of wages due to loss of employment [denial of credit increase and grants or loan for business(es), cost of insulating, heating and cooling home (solar, weatherization denials)], and pay high utilities [greatly lowering utility costs if there was no removal of solar panels and electricity from solar, eliminating light bill] each caused Moorer damage(s). And any other relief the court deems proper.Plaintiffs documents and affidavits should be stricken from the record in part or in its entirety for full knowledge of entering irrelevant, unverified and impertinent material to this matter with intent to delay justice of this Court. This only leaves Moorer’s rebuttal or preponderance of evidence to the contrary, on this honorable Courts’ record. Moorer has gotten this claim dismissed twice already. This case should be dismissed with prejudice as a matter of law. Prayer Moorer prays for immediate release and physical delivery of her title and deed to her property. Immediate retum of her note [that is still money in circulation without her compensation for profits made from said note] and all payments made to USBNA since 2006, the time they claimed gaining control of mortgage and note. All negative remarks of USBNA removed on all credit bureaus and reported as “paid on time” and “paid in full”.[or pay for the damages of slander, theft, violation of state law [state constitution, state statutes] as well as federal [constitution]. USBNA, and their servicing company Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS) are debt collectors and must now pay for all damages suffered by Moorer, caused by their unlawful acts. Damages for pain and suffering, ridicule, slander of her public reputation, mental anguish, emotional distress causing loss of employment, for the harassment, time lost to pursue her goals and interests, leaving Moorer without adequate insulation to storm the long winter, to fend for herself [multiple denials of weatherization]. Compensatory damages for costs of this action, including all fees of this court, cost of litigation and/or counsel assistance, cost of time for preparation (per hour) and execution of all documents, cost for loss of wages due to loss of employment [denial of credit increase and grants or loan for business(es), cost of insulating, heating and cooling home (solar, weatherization denials)], and pay high utilities [greatly lowering utility costs if there was no removal of solar panels and electricity from solar, eliminating light bill] each caused Moorer damage(s). And any other relief the court deems proper. sania aig MoorerAFFIDAVIT Of TANIA PAIGE MOORER STATE OF CONNECTICUT } cya ey fd }ss COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD } Comes now, Tania Paige Moorer, sui juris, and after first being duly sworn according to law, and being duly affirmed according to the Great Creator’s laws with God as her witness (Titus 1:2) states that she is your affiant, that as your affiant she has first-hand knowledge of the facts herein and believes these facts to be true to the best of her belief and knowledge: 1. As of present, USBNA, has not filed a UCC-1 in regard to Moorer’s property with the Secretary of State of Connecticut. 2. Secretary of the State has no record of a claim against Moorer. 3. Moorer has suffered mental anguish, distress, financial loss, loss of time to pursue her endeavors. 4. Moorer’s foreclosure case has been dismissed twice already. 5. USBNA continues to harass Moorer and put her under duress without consent. Further Affiant Sayeth Not. LF! ran SZCtoorer Before me S¢ep Bie Ger’, a Notary Public State of Connecticut, personally appeared Tania Paige Moorer who has sworn to and subscribed in my presence, the foregoing document, on this __th day of October in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nineteen. W{3 of (£oKl otary Republic My Commission Expires: (seal) SAID ESSABBANI Notary Public Connecticut My Commission Expires Nov 30, 2021CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the above was mailed or electronically delivered on October 15, 2019 to all counsel mentioned below: MCCALLA RAYMER LEIBERT PIERCE LLC (101589 50 Weston Street Hartford, CT 06120 ADAM MICHAEL SWANSON (429503) One Canterbury Green 201 Broad Street Stamford CT 06901 SEIGER GFELLER LAURIE LLP (429772) 977 Farmington Ave Suite 200 id Moorér West Hartford, CT 06107 AWD Tonid\ ¢