Did The Trial And Appellate Courts Err:

1. Fundamentally ruling that Plaintiffs) 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 .

3. 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.

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 bv 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
note? (See ORS 92.465re 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.
"

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?