IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

CASE NO.. 07-104-16 KJC, and Related

INRE: Actions, Jointly Administered

NEW CENTURY TRS HOLDINGS, INC., et aI., CHAPTER 11

a Delaware Corporation,
ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
Debtor. CASE NO.: 09-50244

RELATED CASE:
USDC NDC Case No: C06-06806 SI
LESLIE MARKS,
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
Plaintiff, MAY 10, 2011 ORDER and REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION OF THE 2008
vs. BLANKET ORDER FOR RELIEF FROM
STAY
NEW CENTURY TRS HOLDINGS, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, et al.

Debtors

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

ADVERSARY PLAINTIFF, LESLIE MARKS, in Pro Per, hereby requests this Court

reconsider its May 10, 2011 order denying Stay of Dismissal. The May 20, 2011 Order

appears to be prepared by the Trust, is biased as to favor the Trust and FAILS to address the

issues raised by Marks Evidentiary Brief and FAIR and IMPARTIAL consideration of

EVIDENCE discovered at the February 28, 2011 Evidentiary Hearing (hereinafter

"Evidentiary Hearing). Marks continues to suffer manifest injustice in these matters, and

seeks immediate resolution by this motion.

In In re Stewart, 280 B.R. 268, 287 (Bankr.M.D. Fla. 2001), stated that a motion for

reconsideration should "demonstrate why the court should reexamine its prior decision, and

'set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior

decision." In re Envirocon Int'l Corp., 218 B.R 978, 979 (M.D. Fla. 1998) (citing Cover v.

1
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERA nON OF MAY 20, 2011 ORDER
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 148 F.R.D. 294 (M.D. Fla. 1993».

Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration should be based on one of three grounds:

1) an intervening change in controlling law; 2) the availability of new evidence; or 3) the need

to correct clear and manifest injustice. See, In re Envirocon Int'l Corp., 218 B.R. at 979

(citing Kern-Tulare Water District v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal.

1986». Here Marks seeks to correct CLEAR manifest injustice in these matters.

Extrinsic fraud occurs when a party is deprived of the opportunity to present his claim

or defense to the court; where he was kept ignorant or, other than from his own negligence,
fraudulently prevented from fully participating in the proceeding. (Sporn v. Home Depot USA,
Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1300.) Marks here was not advised of the 2008 blanket

order of relief from stay, prior to the evidentiary hearing OR in 2009 when Marks filed her

adversary complaint. This failure resulted in SEVERAL years of litigating matters that should

have reasonably been resolved in 2007. The Trust FAILED to provide Marks with this
information and as Marks properly alleges, the settlement agreement was based upon
fraudulent statement of the Trust and its Counsel.
Extrinsic mistake involves the excusable neglect of a party. [When this neglect results

in an unjust judgment, without a fair adversary hearing, and the basis for equitable relief is
present, this is extrinsic mistake. (Heyman v. Franchise Mortgage Acceptance Corp. (2003)
107 Cal.App.4th 921, 926.) To set aside a judgment based on extrinsic fraud or extrinsic

mistake, the moving party must satisfy three elements: "First, the defaulted party must
demonstrate that it has a meritorious case. Secondly, the party seeking to set aside the
default must articulate a satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense to the original

action. Lastly, the moving party must demonstrate diligence in seeking to set aside the

default once it had been discovered." (Stiles v. Wallis (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1143, 1147-
1148. Marks does so here and continues to suffer manifest injustice in these proceedings.
This motion is based on evidence already submitted for review, evidence discovery at
the Evidentiary Hearing and requests clarification of this of items in this Court's 2008 Blanket

2
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAY 20, 2011 ORDER
Order for relief from Stay. Specifically, because failure to reconsider this matter will result in

manifest injustice to Marks.

THE MAY 20,2011 ORDER FAILS TO ADDRESS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

1. THE TRO REQUEST WAS DEEMED MOOT AND NOT CONSIDERED AT THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Even though Marks serviced all parties, including the California parties regarding the

fraudulent foreclosure sale, this Court failed to protect Marks and her family from further

litigation in the form of a Temporary Restraining Order, as to the Home 123 Mortgage to

which this Court has sole jurisdiction. As a result, Marks had to commence with

ADDITIONAL litigation in California with parties who purchased her property with a

"handwritten" receipt; references a loan to which Marks has NO obligation; references a loan

which is NOT related to Marks' Deed of Trust; references a loan to which Marks has NO

obligation; based upon fraudulent assignments and substitution of trustee among many bold

and glaring defects. Additionally, purchasing a property which was heavily in litigation,

Eikenberry's clients should simply received a refund from whomever they purchased the

property from. Eikenberry's clients did not do that because NO MONIES WERE

EXCHANGED for Marks property, as is clearly evidenced by the 'handwritten receipt". So

Mr. Eikenberry and his clients embarked on a robust quest to STEAL Marks by continued

abuse of the judicial system, and fraud upon the court. Attorney Eikenberry LOST his motion

for summary judgement against Marks. A jury did NOT award Eikenberry's clients Marks'

home, yet Marks REMAINS in litigation for 6 (SIX) years now. The TRO was NOT discussed

at all at the evidentiary hearing, as the Court's failure to protect Marks caused her to suffer

and continue to suffer manifest injustice defending her home against parties who CLEARLY

have no standing to seek recovery from her. Since Marks requested TRO was NOT timely

GRANTED, it was off the table by the time of the Evidentiary Hearing.

3
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAY 20, 20]] ORDER
 2. MARKS CLAIMS WERE MISREPRESENTED AND NOT ADJUDICATED IN THE
MAY 10,2011 ORDER

Marks represented to the Court at the Evidentiary Hearing, which the Trust now refers

to as a "trial" (no trial was conducted in this matter) that the Trust, specifically Attorney

Indelicato, stated as a provision of the Settlement Agreement that he would provide evidence

for Marks to pursue the other banks. Attorney Indelicato stated that the Trust could not quiet

title and had no power to do so. Marks request and received the Sworn Statement of Alan

Jacobs as part of that Settlement, stating that Marks mortgage was "satisfied" and that the

Trust had no interest in Marks loan and that Marks had NO OBLIGATION TO THE TRUST.

Marks further represented evidence that the Trust did NOT correctly report the status on her

credit report and BREACHED the Settlement Agreement by failing to 1. Deem the 2006

mortgage as "SATISFIED" or "PAID IN FULL"; and 2. The Trust FAILED to provide Marks

with her original mortgage stamped "PAID IN FULL" and issuing a new Note naming the new

beneficiary.

In cross-examination at the Evidentiary Hearing, Attorney Indelicato testified under

oath that the Trust HAD NO EVIDENCE of transfer and that Marks should "take the WORD

of an officer of the Court" that the transfer was in fact done. Marks, to date, cannot find case

law, state law, federal law that supports that the WORD of an officer of the Court is sufficient

to verify, validate, effect of substantiate a lawful transfer of real estate mortgages. Marks

continues to suffer manifest injustice as this issue was not addressed by the court.

Furthermore, the Trustee, Alan Jacobs, stated under oath that Marks mortgage was

NOT one of the four mortgages that he administered and had no knowledge of the

administering of Marks mortgage, yet Trustee Jacobs prepared and signed a sworn

statement of the progression of Marks loans. As such, Marks continues to suffer Manifest

Injustice as the Trustee's sworn statement cannot be accurate to the extent it fails to provide

evidence of the transfer from Home 123 to ANY entity.

As such, it can only be deemed that Marks 2006 note was NOT transferred to any

entity. It can only be determined that Marks 2006 Note was "satisfied" in 2007 and FAILING

4
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAY 20, 2011 ORDER
to show evidence of transfer, this is CLEAR evidence that Marks could NOT have been in

default in 2010 on a Note Satisfied in 2007.

As the Trust through its Counsel Indelicato and its Trustee claims to have NO

INTEREST in Marks note, this Court has jurisdiction and the power to quiet title - without

prejudicing the Trust in any way. The party to whom the Note has been transferred, should

then pursue Marks in the appropriate venue. Marks continues to suffer manifest injustice in

these matters.

Marks further provided evidence that New Century and Home 123 have ACTIVE

websites and ARE in fact conducting business in California in violation of the Department of

Corporations order that New Century and Home 123 can no longer do Mortgage Business in
the State of California. Marks presented evidence of same to this court. Marks continues to
suffer Manifest Injustice in these matters.

A short time AFTER the evidentiary hearing, Marks discovered the 2008 Blanket
Order granting Relief from Stay to any party with mortgages bearing the name of the debtors

or any of its subsidiaries. Marks subsequently provided these documents to the Court as
evidence. Failure to make determinations on the SPECIFIC issues raised by Marks at the

Evidentiary Hearing and immediately subsequent to the Evidentiary Hearing is clear evidence
that Marks continues to suffer manifest injustice in these matters.

The promissory note and the Deed of Trust are inseparable. "The note and the
mortgage are inseparable, the former is essential, the later as an incident. An
assignment of the note carries the mortgage (deed of trust) with it, while an
assignment of the latter alone is a nullity." Carpenter v. Longan, 83 u.S. 271,274
(1872); accord Henley v. Hotaling, 41 Cal 22, 28 (1871); Seidell v. Tuxedo Land
Co., 216 Cal. 165, 170 (1932); Cal. Civ. Code §2936.
This is nothing more than a fraudulent conveyance, and this court failed to address this

pertinent issue, resulting in Marks suffering manifest injustice. These facts, properly brought
to bar, were not addressed. Marks continues to suffer manifest injustice should these matters

not be fairly and impartially addressed and adjudicated.

5
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERA nON OF MAY 20, 2011 ORDER
 The Trustee represented to the Court that it did not have to power to clear, satisfy or

avoid the 2006 mortgage which Marks challenges. See 11 U.S.C. § 547(b)(4) (providing that

a trustee may avoid any transfer made by a debtor on or within 90 days before the date of

filing (or up to one year before filing if made to an insider) if the transfer was a preference);

11 U.S.C. § 548 (providing that a trustee may avoid any transfer made or obligation incurred

by a debtor upon or within two years before filing in the case of a fraudulent transfer); 11

U.S.C. § 544 (permitting a trustee to enforce avoidance rights under state law); see also 5

Collier on Bankruptcy, PP 547.03[6], 548.03; Section 6 infra. Carr continues to suffer

manifest injustice in these matters. Even the California courts will not have the power to

avoid athe lien which is in the control of the Delaware Bankruptcy Trustee. Furthermore, the
Trust confirmed that it did in fact, transfer Marks mortgage within 90 days of filing for

protection of the automatic stay, which Marks properly alleged, in violation of Bankruptcy law.
This manifest injustice will cause Marks to lose her home based upon abuse of the judicial
process and fraud upon the Court perpetrated by the Trust.

At the May 10, 2011 Omnibus Hearing, the Court advised that any party seeking
clarification of the 2008 Blanket Relief from Stay order, it make a motion to the Court. Marks
does so here. As is clear, a Hawaii District Court Judge made the same determination that
Marks did in the interpretation of the 2008 Order. The May 10, 2011 Order of this Court does

not offer explanation or consideration of the merits of Mark's claims in this regard. Marks
continues to suffer manifest injustice in these matters.

NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL (TRS HOLDINGS) IS USING THE BANKRUPTCY AS A

VEHICLE FOR CONCEALMENT OF ASSETS (THE LOANS NEVER LEFT NEW
CENTURY MORTGAGE, NEW CENTURY CAPITAL CORP, HOME123 CORP.) THE
TRUST FAILS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF SUCH LAWFUL TRANSFER.
The issues properly brought at the Evidentiary Hearing must be addressed and a final

determination must be rendered by this Honorable Court. Specifically, Marks properly

brought to bar the above issues and requested the Court take judicial notice of same:
There is no valid explanation of why Home123 Corporation is executing and recording
an assignment four (4) years AFTER Marks note was "satisfied" and in clear violation of the
6
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAY 20, 2011 ORDER
Cease and Desist Order of the California Department of Corporations. 195FTC v. USA

Bevs., Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39075 at *24-25 (S.D.Fla. 2005) (U.S.M.J report adopted

by U.S.D.J. at 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39026) ("The scope of the monetary liability for

Defendants' unlawful conduct is enormous and provides considerable motivation for

defendants to place their assets beyond the Court's reach"). Furthermore, the two month

DELAY in issuing an order that FAILS to ACCURATELY address the matters brought and

evidence discovered at the Evidentiary Hearing further prejudices Marks. These delays were

an attempt to allow time for a WRONGFUL foreclosure to take place. Marks continues to

suffer manifest injustice in these matters.

Finally, Marks believes that even if the wrongful foreclosure takes place, when New

Century and Home 123 complete their bankruptcy, as they are ACTIVELY continuing to do
business they will bring the SAME allegations Marks brings regarding fraudulent

convenyances and some 6 (six) years later claim Marks then OWES money on the 2006
Note. That note has not been resolved and the TRUST remains the beneficiary. These
matters clearly result and show that Marks continues to suffer manifest injustice in these

matters.
CONCLUSION

Marks continues to suffer manifest injustice in these matters. Attorney Indelicato

appeared angry at the May Omnibus Hearing and stated he takes the allegations of fraud

very seriously. It was also stated that Marks "better get an attorney". Marks takes the
THEFT of her home very seriously as well. Marks takes the misrepresentations of the Trust

and the DELAY in these proceedings very seriously.

Marks does NOT need an attorney to review documents in the Alameda County

Recorder's office that CLEARLY reflect NO transfer from Home 123 to ANY entity prior to

2007, as evidenced by the SWORN statement of ALAN JACOBS.

Marks does NOT need an member of the BAR to address the CLEAR issues of
FRAUD as properly alleged by Marks in the Evidentiary Hearing and by the pleadings on the

7
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAY 20, 2011 ORDER
docket which she properly brought to bar.

Marks does NOT need an attorney to interpret documents that are CLEARLY

fraudulent on their face and in CLEAR violation of LAW.

Marks does NOT need an attorney to question why she is still litigating these matters
after what is now 6 (SIX) years without reasonable, fair or just resolution.

Marks does NOT need an attorney to explain that she did NOT buy a home she could

not afford. Marks did NOT take out a second and third mortgages. Marks FOLLOWED the
advice of representatives of New Century giving her BAD advice to satisfy their own greed,

inflate her home value for their OWN monetary benefit and now, leave Marks and her
disabled son HOMELESS. Manifest injustice is CLEAR and irrefutable in these matters.
Marks does NOT need an attorney to argue that New Century set out to DEFRAUD a
certain group of people including minorities, the handicapped and the elderly with it mortgage

products that were CREATED with the intention to cause the borrower to FAIL and result in

unlawful and wrongful foreclosure.

Marks does NOT need an attorney to argue why a HANDWRITTEN receipt that does
not reflect Marks primary residence is NOT evidence of purchase for value.

Marks does NOT need an attorney to argue that ABSENT timely recorded documents
in the recorder's office - there is NO evidence of lawful transfer.

Marks does NOT need an attorney to argue why she continues to suffer manifest
injustice at the hands of the Trust and their Counsel based upon the evidence provided,
sworn testimony and documents clearly fraudulent on their face.

Marks does NOT need an attorney to argue that these acts have GREATLY
contributed to the worldwide economic collapse, as she properly argued at bar since 2006.

Marks DOES need the issues brought to bar fairly and impartially adjudicated
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Marks. Marks DOES need a judge to be FAIR AND IMPARTIAL

as the oath of office taken suggests that matters properly brought to bar should be treated
fairly and impartially. None of the issues brought to bar at the evidentiary hearing have been

8
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAY 20, 2011 ORDER
addressed and fairly and impartially adjudicated in this matter as Marks properly alleges.

When a party brings a matter to bar, at the VERY LEAST, fair and impartial

adjudication of the issues before the Court should be heard. Marks has not been deemed

vextatious. Marks claims have NOT been deemed in valid. Marks evidence is CLEAR on its

face. Six years of Marks life have been STOLEN without relief, and Marks CONTINUES to

suffer manifest injustice in these matters.

That said, Marks respectfully requests this Court reconsider its May 10, 2011 order

and render a ruling that addresses the issues brought to bar fairly, justly and impartially.

DATED: May 16, 2010 Respectfully Submitted,

9
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAY 20, 2011 ORDER