Did the trial and appellate courts err in ruling that the plaintiff(s) can fabricate, forge and steal a mortgage note and deed of trust without evidence of payment or possession of the original documents and still be entitled to foreclose?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Did The Trial And Appellate Courts Err: 1. Fundamentally ruling that Plaintiff(s) can fabricate, forge and for all intents and purposes “steal” a mortgage “Note” and “Deed of Trust” with no evidence of payment or possession of the original mortgage Note and Deed of Trust, and still be entitled to foreclose. 2. Failure and refusal to acknowledge, accept, permit, record and : document testimony and evidence presented by Mary Strong and witnesses for Mary Strong of the cumulative rejection of over $197,000.00 in mortgage payments made by Mary Strong, and that US Bank Trust et al does not possess the original : Note, nor does US Bank Trust, N.A. et al have evidence of any amount paid for the Mortgage Note and Deed of trust or legal standing whatsoever regarding the subject property at 2559 NW Monterey Pines Drive, Bend, Oregon, as required by law. : 8. Failure to recognize, acknowledge, document and record for the record the ongoing illegal chain of fraudulent, “robo-signed” and forged “assignments” of the subject Mortgage Note prior to and including the alleged “assignment” to U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. et al for the property at 2559 NW Monterey Pines Drive, Bend, Oregon and documented by Mary Strong in this matter. 2 4. Failure to recognize and properly rule that Plaintiff and “assignee” US Bank Trust, N.A., et al, their predecessors, “assignors” and related parties are in violation of the Oregon Trust Deed Act which, among other elements, requires demonstration of the possession of the original mortgage note, and demonstration of evidence of payment for that note. ' 5. Failure and refusal of the Deschutes County Circuit Court to accept and admit into evidence the forensic examination and proof that Plaintiffs U.S. Bank Trust et al do not have possession of the original Mortgage Note, with legal (not. fraudulent “robo signed”) allonges demonstrating unbroken and legal chain of title, and documented evidence of payment by U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., et al. for the Mortgage Note and Deed of Trust for the property at 2559 NW Monterey Pines Drive, Bend, Oregon as required by law. 6. Is it lawful for various “servicers” (Nationstar and Caliber Home Loans) to repeatedly reject mortgage payments exceeding $197,377.00 from August 22, 2013 to April 18, 2018? 7. Is it lawful for a mortgage “holder” claiming rights to the mortgage loan to make such claim without holding the original Note? — 8. Is it lawful for a party claiming to be the mortgage “holder” to foreclose on a mortgage without demonstration of clean and . clear chain of title and legal standing regarding the mortgage 3 note? (See ORS 92.465 re Fraud and deceit, and Brandrup v. Recontrust Company Bac Lp 2006 2CB) 9. Is it lawful that Mary Strong was required to pay over $10,000.00 in “costs” and Plaintiff U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A. “attorney fees” in order to redeem her property pursuant to the Sheriffs Sale following the unlawful foreclosure and eviction in this matter? ii