That is the question I am hearing from multiple people. My provisional answer is that in my opinion there is a strong argument for using it if the property has not been liquidated after the foreclosure auction. There might be a grey area while the property is REO and there might be a grey area where the property has been sold but the issue of a void assignment is raised in an eviction procedure. It will strain the minds of judges even more, but these issues are certain to come up. As things continue to progress Judges will shift from looking askance at borrowers and thinking their defenses are all hairsplitting ways to get out of a debt and get a free house. Upon reflection, over the next couple of years, you will see an increasing number of judges taking the same cynical view and turning it toward the banks and servicers who in most cases function neither as banks or servicers.
The Yvanova court took great pains to say that this was a very narrow ruling. Starting with that one might argue it only applied to that specific case. But they went further than that and we all know it. SO it stands for the proposition that a void assignment can be the basis of a wrongful foreclosure. AND most BANK LAWYERS agree that is a huge problem for them, at least in California but they think it will adopted across the country and I agree with the Bank lawyers on that assessment.
The reason is simple logic. If the foreclosure is wrongful then it seems stupidly simple to say that it was wrong in the first place. If it was “wrong” the questions that emerge in legal scholarship arise from two main paths.
What does “wrong” mean. Or to put it in Yvanova language is wrong the same as void or is it voidable. This would have a huge impact on issues of jurisdiction, res judicata, collateral estoppel etc. Does it mean that it was wrong and you can get damages or does it mean that it was wrong and therefore the homeowner still owns the house. I lean towards the former not by preference but by what I think the court was saying between the lines. The whole point of nonjudicial foreclosure (amongst two other points that are obvious) is to provide stability and confidence in the title system. So if a wrong foreclosure occurs the title would most likely remain in whoever bought it at auction — although the purgatory in which many properties remain (REO) might create a grey area in which there is no prejudice in vacating the sale. Indeed if the party holding the “FINAL” title did so by fraud (using a void assignment) then equity would seem to demand return of title to the homeowner. AND THEN you still have the problem of evictions or writs of possession or whatever they are called in your state. Title is one thing but possession is another. If you raise the void assignment can you defeat possession even if you can’t defeat the title transfer? It would SEEM not but equity would demand that a thief not further the rewards of his ill-gotten gains.
Next path. Procedure, evidence and objections. Going back in time the homeowner might have objected or even alleged things that the Yvanova court now finds to have merit. So a lay person might think that is all they need is to show the void assignment and presto they have title or money or both in their hands. Not so fast. Due process is intended to allow a person to be heard and the justice system is designed and created to FINALIZE disputes, whether the decision is right or wrong. SO questions abound about what happened at the trial court level. But there was a remedy for that. It is called an appeal. And there are choices to even go to Federal Court if the state court is rubber stamping void instruments. But the time for doing that has expired on all but a few cases and the judicial doctrine of finality is the most difficult to overcome. Even a condemned man usually will be put to death even if there is actual evidence of innocence after a period of time has expired and a number of appeals have been exhausted.
SO that is my long winded way of saying I don’t know. If Yvanova opens the door to many new openings of closed cases, it certainly doesn’t say so. But a defense of a current case — even one amended to cite Yvanova, might fare much better.
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: assignment, CALIFORNIA, colalteral estoppel, Eviction, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, fraud, posession, res judicata, securitization, VOID, VOIDABLE, wrongful foreclosure, Yvannova |
@Beryl – point Judge Lohrman to the Kalicki v JP Morgan case in CA. Even though it is unpublished, it points out that both the trial court and appellate court agree JPM committed perjury, forgery, and attempted to perpetrate a fraud upon the court with false documents. Even if they have been in business for decades, they do not get a pass on the statute of frauds with respect to title to real property. Except, of course, in the judicial circus of California, where the best judges money can buy preside.
In my opinion they gave no standing on a void contract unless THEY file within 20 days for a declaratory judgement hearing
But that has never happened to my knowledge because THEY control the narrative, because judge allows it so no kidding its an up hill battle, in the snow, on a bike, with a bent wheel, with no shoes. Im witness to that.
Cal Civ Code 1203 – “Any person interested under an instrument entitled to be proved for record, may institute an action in the superior court against the proper parties to obtain a judgment proving such instrument. (Amended by Stats. 1905, Ch. 445.)”
Nothing limits “interest” in documents regarding title to real property in the statute (“entitled to be proved for record” e.g. statute of frauds). Disregarded by the Cal judiciary and affects Yvanova, Glaski, Saterback. Seems to apply before or after your home is stolen by an imposter “creditor”.
IANAL – I am not an attorney, and you would be a damned fool to apply this without advice from a competent attorney.
TILA RESCISSION – If you did not mail your rescission letter inside the 3 years from the loan closing or consummation, it’s going to be a real hard uphill battle …even tougher than those who did mail within the 3 years.
Now regarding the one year right to enforcment … Again, NG posted about the dangers of filing an enforcement action because it is a way for the unfair judge to have his jurisdiction invoked into the case, this he now has the authority to deny your rescission on the merits, deny on the tender, etc. … Many agree that enforcement isn’t worth the dangers.
The game plan is to keep the biased unfair state court judge out of the case …and simply use the Scalia decision stating that the rescission is effective by operation of law …no need to enforce anything …it leaves the foreclosing party without a case if that case is established on the note and mortgage which are both void … Now the judges don’t accept this as is happening right now in my case …they reject Scalia and the Supreme Court ….but the game plan is to appeal to the appellate division in hopes that they will be more inclined to obey Scalia and the unanimous Supreme Court…. You don’t really want these lower courts to be invited in by you …you don’t want them to have jurisdiction.
In our Washington state case, Walla Walla County, Judge Lohrmann made a decision outside law. I am studying how to recuse him and void his 6/24/2014 judgment denying our (plaintiffs) Emergency TRO, with prejudice! I objected to Lohrmann’s testimony from the bench on behalf of JPMorgan Chase, Bank, N.A. that “…Chase holds the Note…”, absent any evidence and no assignment. I stated the same principle echoed in Yvanova, as:
“…and that his [my Son’s, who signed the paper] private personal information i s now, we don’t know where. We don’t know who has it. And if 32 they can’t produce it for that issue as well, if they possess it [the Note], they should have ownership of a transfer, some sort of wire transfer; receipt, cancelled check, or whatever. That’s what we are asking. We want to know that our things are secure, that somebody, not just anybody off the street — right now it appears to us that any Jack off the street can come and say, hey, you owe me money, and that’s not a stable situation.
“THE COURT: All right.
“MS. WRIGHT: Let me see here –He mentioned a couple of other things.
“THE COURT: Well —
“MS. WRIGHT: That gets to the meat of it .
“THE COURT: The meat of it is that Chase is not “any Jack off the street.” [At this point, the transcription is not TRUE to what Judge Lohrmann said. He went on to say: “Chase has billions of dollars and does business all over the world, and has been in business for decades!” and other such accolades. Continue transcript:] Anyone who has read the news in the last decade is very familiar with the fall of Washington Mutual, and its change of ownership, and what has happened in the interim period. What I think Mr. Bocko was saying when he said that he could never satisfy Ms. Wright or Mr. Malveto, is simply that they would never be satisfied with whatever evidence was forthcoming, because they’re looking for something very specific that probably doesn’t exist in the form that they want it to exist. But it doesn’t negate the fact that Chase is the successor in interest and that they’re the beneficiary of the Deed of Trust.
“So here is the other problem:
“MS. WRIGHT: How, how?
“THE COURT: You can sit down. Ma’am. Here is the other problem: This loan went into default by Ms. Wright’s statement in September of 2011.”
[At that time, we did not know the issues as we now know and understand them regarding the absolute falsity of Chase or anyone being a true lender, but had good sense of it. However, I did claim in the complaint that we challenge that lender/beneficiary assertion, and moved for declaratory relief on basis that Chase nor FNMA has proven any vested interest for three years of inquiry and has nothing to lose for which bond could be required. Our Complaint also states that there was not a true default, but that we chose to stop payments because, after three years, neither Chase nor FNMA presented evidence of ownership of the Note or DT in reply to our QWR’s and other TILA, RESPA letters.]
[Discussion between Chase, FNMA attorney and Judge re: writing the TRO dismissal order, etc., which itself is interesting. My son was out of town, so at the last minute we hired for court a local attorney, which cost us several thousand $$$ to educate. His comments are weak and ineffective.]
“MS. WRIGHT: Can I say something, sir?
“THE COURT: Yes. You have a question?
“MS. WRIGHT: Yes. On the amount that Mr. Bocko [Chase, FNMA attorney] said, first of all , we, my son did a[trial] modification, to get us more time, to get more time to, again, we were seeking legal counsel from the time we got the Notice of Default. We could not find local counsel or even anywhere across the State for the issues that we were seeking, and, but my son did get a loan modification. The first payment was made on February 1. The second payment was made timely in March. The third payment was sitting there right ready to go forth the next month. Everything was in order. That second payment did not go through. They didn’t put it through. The money was there. It didn’t go through. We kept checking and found out, you know, called to Chase, why haven’t you processed this payment, because this is a nightmare that’s going around across the country.
“THE COURT: Well, I’m giving you the remedy that’s available to you. [His order was for us to deposit $25,000 with the court clerk, which we did not have, not any way to get it.]
“MS. WRIGHT: But sir , they lied . That, that payment was good.
“THE COURT: That’s for another day. If they lied it’s for another day. We’ll deal with it another day. All right? I’m telling you right now if you want to prevent the sale, what to do about it. And reference the Deed of Trust document, the Notice of Trustee Sale, for the amount that you need to pay into the Registry of the Court, and then you need to continue making these monthly payments, and we’ll get to the bottom of this, if, indeed, that’s what you want to pursue.”
—-
There’s more to this 10/1/2013 transcript quoted in part above, and subsequent ones.
My complaint was not perfect, nor my court arguments, but at least enough, by any reasonable rule of equity and justice, to have TRO granted and declaratory relief without bond, so, as we moved, to be able to present our case and evidence to a trial jury.
For four years prior to filing our case, now 9 years, I studied, and continue to study, documents, law with cases, rules, pray, more than half the time skipping sleep, food, exercise—just to learn to stand against the dragon. We fall in the group defended by DwightNJ in Post 10/19/2016, 10:19 am.
However, I would like to know from you, TheCompanyCreator, if you, or anyone else here or someone here knows about, can help me draft a recusal of Judge Lohrmann, and a Void Judgment action. At the time of grant of Chase’s, FNMA’s, and QLSCW’s (alleged Trustee) MSJ, I had to leave to direct my attention and work to the care of my Mother in Missouri, for which I was denied time extension to reply to MSJ. I did the best I understood of God’s leadings on the subject. But Judge L., it was clear, had “his mind set to do evil”.
My case raises good issues, many mentioned here in comments. I intentionally avoided the complexities of the Trust, REMIC, etc., because I did not then fully understand how that worked. Besides, this DT/Note was not found to be associated with a Trust—discovered after many days of various research and leads from others, including the trusts’ website and gov agency.
I am purposed to NOT let this go to foreclosure, and to make criminal charges once I get a civil ruling in our favor. God Yehovah has stopped the sale on our efforts at least 5 times, even that attempted AFTER rescission.
Now, Chase assumed to transfer to MTGLQ as of 12/23/2015, and appoint new servicer Shellpoint. I know this is a setup for another foreclosure attempt.
We need to know how to write the Enforcement of Rescission. Year ends May 2016. I don’t trust attorneys, though I have found two that might be alright, but they are in Seattle area; we are in southeast Washington.
If anyone has access to a Rescission Enforcement action prepared by an attorney for federal court, especially 9th District, particularly Eastern Washington, I will greatly appreciate getting a copy of it, or several, for comparison as guides to the one I must write.
This is much longer than I wanted it to be. Apologies. I hope for understanding, compassion, and meaningful hands-on camaraderie–which all seem to be outside the attorney mindset, heartset, and professional skewing of their solemn oath.
Beryl
Beryl
The moral of the story hire Pataalo or other expert witness. If you want a chance to win.
DwightNJ here you go
http://consumerfinancialserviceslaw.us/jesinoski-update-tila-rescission-in-a-post-jesinoski-world/
Life isn’t fair
DwightNj
https://www.dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/2015/02/supreme-courts-jesinoski-ruling-provides-clarity__
@ thecompanyofcreators ,
BRAVO! , I’m sure you’ve seen “the untouchables” ,, this is a great followup video to get your blood boiling … https://youtu.be/eHgbRYgpGGs
just a reminder
What is a ‘Credit Default Swap – CDS’
A credit default swap is a particular type of swap designed to transfer the credit exposure of fixed income products between two or more parties. In a credit default swap, the buyer of the swap makes payments to the swap’s seller up until the maturity date of a contract. In return, the seller agrees that, in the event that the debt issuer defaults or experiences another credit event, the seller will pay the buyer the security’s premium as well all interest payments that would have been paid between that time and the security’s maturity date.
A credit default swap is the most common form of credit derivative and may involve municipal bonds, emerging market bonds, mortgage-backed securities or corporate bonds.
Read more: Credit Default Swap (CDS) Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/creditdefaultswap.asp#ixzz43TRnm1mv
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
Something positive
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2016/03/20/jpmorgan-chase-bank-national-association-v-benner-new-ica-decision-in-hawaii-will-cancel-every-ongoing-nonjudicial-sale-in-this-state-and-if-applied-retroactively-every-nonjudicial-foreclosure/
Too be to fail is code for corruption
Which means Obama and the establishment of both parties are fill in the blank
NEVER AGAIN
domainscience, the SATERBAK vs. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. case was brought before the foreclosure sale, unlike the Yvanova case which was after the foreclosure and sale were complete.
If you bring your case to get your home back AFTER foreclosure sale, Yvanova stands.
From the Saterbak case: “However, Yvanova’s ruling is expressly limited to the post – foreclosure context. (d. at pp. 934-935 (“narrow question “under review was whether a borrower seeking remedies for wrongful foreclosure has standing, not whether a borrower could preempt a nonjudicial foreclosure)].) Because Saterbak brings a preforeclosure suit challenging Defendants ability to foreclose, Yvanova does not alter her standing obligations”
(Before foreclosure sale “standing obligations”)
It makes no sense that the wrong entity can foreclose without having to prove its standing to foreclose, yet the same entity can be forced to undo the foreclosure and pay treble damages AFTER it proceeds with its phony documents if a homeowner uses basically the same argument and facts he/she was barred from using BEFORE the foreclosure.
Someone who is not the trustee because they were appointed by someone who does not own the loan, should not be able to proceed with a foreclosure in the first place. We hope the reasoning that the Supreme Court used in determining that a void assignment would fail to transfer the right to appoint a trustee to proceed with a foreclosure sale, causing a wrongful foreclosure, will be allowed use preemptively, to protect home owners from wrongful foreclosure in the first place.
The CA Homeowner’s Bill of Rights is supposed to protect homeowners from fraudulent documents being used as the basis for foreclosure. It would be nice to see that actually happening. It looks like business as usual except for a few successful cases against foreclosing entities for dual tracking and foreclosure sale while a loan mod was being being processed.
A homeowner should be able to stop anyone they have good reason to believe is not the correct foreclosing party, using fraudulent and VOID instruments from taking their home BEFORE it happens.
The CA non-judicial foreclosure process FOSTERS and ENABLES the anyone who records fraudulent and void documents into the county records to foreclose on a purely procedural basis, with the blessings of the courts—until AFTER the foreclosure sale.
It is crazy that one must wait until after foreclosure sale to raise the same issues forbidden before the sale.
domainscience, on March 18, 2016 at 7:13 pm said:
Well, Yvanova is all but shot down according to this published ruling:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D066636A.PDF
Read it and though it is very disappointing and clearly the court has reinterpreted the case which clearly said it was “void” as a result of the trustees of the REMIC doing an act not authorized and it clearly stated that she had a right to inquire as to the alleged assignments.. it is clear that the party did not plead the case properly to “box in the judges” but instead relied upon the good will of the judges and the Yvanova case. this ultimately is a good example of how being lazy will not only cost you but EVERYONE ELSE THAT WANTS TO DO IT!! because now the court has yet another case which has made a determination ..and in an appeals court too.. to rely upon to screw people.. thanks for nothing.. ass holes!
The court did make one correct assertion that the case was about an after the fact improper foreclosure… but whoever takes up the rod the next time needs to study this case as to how the courts believe they can deny due process by saying that it was never intended to
“However, California courts do not
allow such preemptive suits because they “would result in the impermissible interjection of the courts into a no judicial scheme enacted by the California Legislature.” ..
So, if your going to do a “preemptive suit” then you need to attack the constitutionality of the “no judicial scheme enacted by the California Legislature” the key term here is “scheme” to deny the people or there “person of the equal protections of the law.”
and to frame it not as a preemptive against fraudclosure but in voiding the instrument which has only your signature on and thus no one else has any say so over it and the heart of the matter that you the granter did not authorize such use of it and that you have a right to know that every payment that is made or may be made by you or any other on your behalf, insurance payments, government bailouts, or other programs which cause the payments concerning the alleged debt goes directly to the balance of that account and the fact that there is a “servicer of an account” gives you the right to know all there is about the account and any and all payments are in fact going to the party “entitled to payments under the Note” and that the alleged party “took the Note by transfer” as required of the Note. The right to enforce the obligation of the instruments to the letter or else breach it.
That the DOT is corrupted by the unauthorized use of it by making use of the RES expressly for “security” is being used now as “underlying asset” for an investment scheme.
That the payments by the investors who do not loan money is payment in full of any alleged debt in exchange for the use of the RES as an underlying asset (not to be touched asset) and to return the Note marked “Paid” as required.
That one has the right to know who is entitled to payments and to insure that your payments are in fact going to the proper party, which is why it must be “taken by transfer” subject to the provisions thereunder and allegedly creates a new contract with the new “Note Holder”.
Further this court has again misstated a complete lie… “However, “[b]ecause a promissory note is a negotiable instrument, a borrower must anticipate it can and might be transferred to another creditor”
This is NOT a “promissory Note” it never calls itself one! It consistently refers to itself as a “Note” as does the DOT.. “the debt evidenced by the Note” it does not say “promissory note” and it is NOT a “negotiable instrument as defined in UCC 3 “an unconditional promise to pay” See below where I go into it.
And first and foremost as Neil has stated in the last post..
DO NOT ADMIT TO ANYTHING
not a loan
not late
not delinquent
not in default
etc.
Here is seems yet again that the court states facts not evidenced but failed to be denied thus admitted to… dumb ass!!!
Although Neil how come when they fail to deny the court just ignores it and even when we get it on the record that they have admitted it by failing to respond against an averment or negative averment.. the court just shrugs its shoulders and “too bad so sad your a sheeple and we are here to sheeer you, now stop squirming.”?
So what if one turns it around and agrees that the court has determined on several occasions that we are not “parties to the transaction” thus we can not be a party to their contract which means it no longer is our contract but their contract and we agree so why are they bothering us? Surely they must first sue the seller of the instrument to which they had a “transaction” between themselves exclusive of us and the next transaction and so forth all the way back to the original transaction between you and the alleged Lender.
Guess what, that is how it is supposed to work. They can not have it both ways. Either we are being held liable to the receiving party or we are not. if we are then we have a right to challenge there standing and interest in the instruments and the alleged debt which they “PAID” for and a full accounting thereof.. kinda like a “title search” hello.. after all the property has to have clear title why not the Note and the DOT??
So if we are not party to the transaction then it is between them exclusively and they must first sue the one for selling a “non performing” instrument.
BTW, what part of “Without Recourse” does the buyer not understand? Once that is on there the DOT is no longer needed and the buyer has no recourse because they bought it as is.
If the payment “Obligation” was assigned from one person to another person then the assignee is only assigning their right to an obligation but if that obligation is not fulfilled than the assignee has to go back to the assignor for remedy because it did not “work as professed” see lemon laws.. remember they are the ones that turned this into a commodity to be sold. They are not selling an obligation but a “thing” that will perform. When the thing does not perform one takes it back to the seller and the seller may take it back to the manufacturer for compensation, repairs or trade. But in that process if the manufacturer discovers that the buyer has not paid for the “thing” that does not work then the account is clear and in fact the manufacturer can sue for reliance damages and for use of the thing while it worked. (all payments and other benefits profits, tax write offs etc received as a result…
WE are the manufacturer of these things and in order to hold us liable they must show that we were paid for the thing in the first place .. and show that there was an injury or a loss as a result. and that the thing did not perform as advertised or prescribed within, and it has performed as evidenced that it was deposited and used as a credit instrument. The payments are based upon an alleged Debt.. How can one have a “debt” in a “debt” fiat currency system? it is always going to be credit. thus once again there is no “debt evidenced by the Note to secure, and the DOT is dissolved and the Note must be returned marked …you guessed it “Paid”.
Thus the alleged assignment is merely evidence of the unlawful sale of counterfeit instruments. Because an instrument that is discharged can not be used for value again. Further in order to be liable one certainly has the right to enquire as to what actual paper was transferred to them … a copy perhaps? More evidence that they bought counterfeit paper and knew it and are now trying to collect on it?
After all “Bearer paper” must be beard!!! They must first bear the paper in any event and show that they are entitled to payments under the original Note… oops can’t can they…
So the Court has evidenced its collusion in the violations of all sorts of laws including counterfeiting, uttering and passing 20 years each, depravation of rights, and on and on and on 18 USC 241, 242, 471 through 474 to name a few…conversion.. 18 USC 4… and on and on..
Hope this jogs some to new action and properly done to force the courts not rely on their integrity, honor or justice!!!!!!!!!!! “Ass Hole” is defined as one who has been screwed so many times they do not know how bad things are and are still way too naïve and a bit lazy or not fully knowledgeable in the arena of your sheeple.
Check with your council re motion for reinstatement???
Well I have been resisting making a response for some time now because you have been putting out a lot of good stuff, useful and pretty much on point. I still have a long lengthy thing form a few weeks ago I have not reviewed and sent, but this I can not let go by.
you say ” Not so fast. Due process is intended to allow a person to be heard and the justice system is designed and created to FINALIZE disputes, whether the decision is right or wrong.”
First and foremost… THE PEOPLE ARE NOT BEING HEARD!!!!
THE LAW AS IT IS WRITTEN IS NOT BEING ENFORCED EQUALLY!!
“THAT TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS
GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED”
What is so obvious is the term “VOID”. if it is void then anything derived from it is also VOID. Just as a void order is without force or effect (see case law) and can be ignored.. should be ignored it is after all UNLAWFUL without law!
2nd There is no statute of limitations on an ongoing act. In each case the people are being deprived of their property their enjoyment of that property, clear title to that property and the theft of their property. (remember that the Note and the Deed of Trust is their property as well. There is only one signature thus it is theirs. 2.The DOT clearly requires the Note to be returned once the alleged debt has been satisfied. a) if there was a real loan and a real debt (which is an impossibility in this fiat money system where the people are the creditors and every debt of the people is an obligation of the United States, and only if it was a private lender that actually pulled funds out of his pocket and did not cash the Note nor use the DOT as an “underlying asset”) and at some point either by “waver of Deficiency” or where the house sale was sufficient, the Note must be returned “marked “paid””. Not some copy of a copy of a copy and lets be frank here, every fricken copy that has been made from it especially those copies used to defraud investors, courts, you and the like and especially the ones that are full size not 2/3rd or smaller or 1 and 1/2 the size and bigger as required by law.. each one is a counterfeit whether used of not!
So the fact that the Original and all copies have not been returned marked “paid” on it is an ongoing breach as well!
The problem with the concept of “Not so fast. Due process is intended to allow a person to be heard and the justice system is designed and created to FINALIZE disputes, whether the decision is right or wrong.” is that only an attorney can think this way, because attorneys only deal with “persons” personas, masks, actors, perpetrators and not “people” who have “persons” Vth amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects..” Clearly establishing that “People” have “persons” they are not persons. And legal land has so corrupted the principles of justice and the “intent” for which the people created Government in the first place. “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted..” and “… organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect (cause it to happen, make it so, bring it about) their Safety and Happiness.”
I do not know anyone who has had the fraud of the agents of the state, officers of the court (which we have the right to reasonably rely upon the integrity thereof as a matter of right) contrived to take their homes away from them by contrivance of legal bullshit and ass covering with sophisticated legal ease process and procedures horse shit clearly designed to confuse and obfuscate the average man so that he is ripe for the deceit, feels safe or happy.!!!
One more time.. That which is VOID is VOID and that which is VOID cannot support anything that rests upon it. Just as a house can not stand if the foundation is void. Neither can any assignment, trustees deed or any other subsequent deed be anything but VOID ab initio as a result. Even the auctioneer takes lots of time telling the bidders that there is no warrantee expressed or implied. The DOT requires the trustees deed to stipulate “no warrantee expressed or implied” so there is no claim which can ever be “ratified” substantiated or validated that is not with the full consent and quit claim deed from the only true grantor!! That is what title search is all about.. buyer be ware is the law of the land not the other way around. If it were not so then we do not own property in our own right “allodium” in nature and are subject to the State.. back to the King again. That “Form of Government” is abolished, “…any thing in this Constitution or law of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
So the decision no matter how “narrow” it may be is not really a “decision” at all. It is merely the court finally distributing the law as it is .. that which is void is … wait for it… geee golly wizzzz Batman… VOID.
Now let me ask a simple question.. what is void ab initio + void + void + void + void + determined by a court to be void + documents created upon void = ??? anyone??? hmm does the term “VOID” come to mind?
The Note was void, because it was gotten under obfuscations, deceits, misrepresentations, fraud in the inception and failure to fulfill the conditions precedent (“In return for a Loan I have received..”) namely a “Loan” to “return” which was “received” prior to, as in past tense, to the signing of and delivery of the Note. The DOT or Mortgage was VOID because there is no “debt evidenced by the Note” to secure, so it never had a mission to fulfil and thus is dead ab initio. Not to mention that there appears to be no actual contract or knowledge of the trustee named so the trust is lacking an actual trustee to establish it in law.
The Note is Void again when it is taken and deposited into an account as credit to the bank, then electronically wired to the treasury via the Fed and clearing house and discharged, credit granted to the bank to distribute funds and discharge its obligation (see double entry book keeping) in accordance with the makers (you) authorization. And again the DOT mission is no longer needed and dissolves and the Note is supposed to be returned marked “paid”.
The electronic copy of an alleged Note is Void when it is allegedly assigned into a trust REMIC when the trust is closed and the Trustee is not authorized to accept it by any other than the “Donner” or “Depositor” in some trusts and before it is closed.
The DOT/mortgage is void when it is allegedly assigned to another trust REMIC. One can not “assign” a trust nor can one put a trust into another trust. Once can put the RES into a new trust only after the RES has been taken out of the original trust and that trust is dissolved if that RES was the only RES in that trust or and only if the Trust has a provision for the trustee to do so.. which no DOT has that provision. and of course the alleged “Debt” is no longer evidenced by the Note once it goes into the REMIC and used as an asset, so the DOT is dissolved for lack of purpose for which it was created “to secure the debt evidenced by the Note”
The Note is Void yet again any and every time it is “assigned” and not “transferred” as required by the Note itself. “The Lender or anyone who takes this Note by transfer and is entitled to payments under the Note, shall be called the “Note Holder”. Again “that which is not expressly included is expressly excluded” and when there is a provision for one thing everything else is excluded. Thus the alleged Note itself states that it shall be by “transfer” and must be taken “who takes this note by transfer”.
Again the DOT/Mortgage is Void because the note is not “Transferred” nor is it ‘taken’ nor is there anyone taking the note by transfer “and entitled to payments under the Note” to be called the “Note Holder”. thus there is no “evidence” of a “debt” for the DOT/Mortgage to “secure”. And remember that the DOT was converted into an “asset” by the REMIC so how now cow can it be converted back into a security?? to a debt that does not exist?
The DOT is Void again (and without the DOT there can not be a foreclosure) when there is an alleged “substitution of trustee”.
There is no provision for a “substitute trustee”! There is only a provision for a “successor trustee” and only after the original trustee has been removed and a new contract established with the “successor trustee” who shall take on the obligations and responsibilities as prescribed by the DOT.. not what some bull shit attorney and judge “think” they can impose!.. which Voids the Note and DOT yet again.
The Note is void yet again when it is “left blank” (when something sais “pay to the order of_________ ” and it is left blank it is void for lack of transfer. It does not magically convert into a “negotiable instrument” (an unconditional promise to pay) when it clearly is a “conditional instrument”) just as no bank can or will cash any money order, check or bank instrument with the line left blank!!!!!! And as this case as you stated The borrower does not owe the world a debt but a specific person or entity and that specific entity or person must be identified clearly! So too the Note as stated above states, “entitled to payments under the Note”. A clear restriction among many others if you would only read the damn thing.. as it is the Law!! and it is binding upon all parties, all courts, judges, pretender judges, counties, states, United States, countries, corporations, entities, churches, and all Kings.. see (Dartmouth College 1819)
The Note and DOT are Void when they are copied and those copies are used as originals or sufficient to be evidence of the originals. Wrong! Only the original will do! Try using a copy of a $50 federal reserve note and see what it gets you!!! So if a Bank can’t cash a copy, you can’t cash or exchange for value a copy then how the phuck can a court accept a copy in place of the original??
If you bring a painting, a diamond or other jewel, an artifact, a coin, a stamp, anything worth even $10,000.00 for exchange and it will be checked double checked and authenticated several times over. So how much more does anything allegedly worth 2,3,4,5,6,7 hundred thousand dollars not be authenticated???
And when the funds from the sale is given to the third party interloper, carpet bagger attorney firm not representing anyone but themselves as thieves and con men, does the court then require the exchange of the Original??? No! That is like buying a $350,000.00 boat based upon a picture of it and then after paying it you go down to the dock to find nothing there…. WTFF??
Now one last thing on this rant of facts, common sense and indignation of the outlandish in your face corruption of these courts, officers of the courts (the banks generally have nothing to do with it) Who is the ultimate Beneficiary of the Trust? ? ? YOU are dumb ass. And yes you can be the Grantor and the Beneficiary of a trust!
You created the trust to use the property you already are “lawfully seized of” (see your DOT and if you were not lawfully seized of it then how the hell did you put it into the DOT??) so that you could acquire something and use it as a guarantee to acquire that thing (Loan). Once the alleged Loan was paid of by whatever means or rather according to the DOT when the “debt evidenced by the Note” is satisfied, then the property is re-conveyed out of the trust to….. YOU without any access to it by any trustee to sell upon certain fulfillment of requirements found in the DOT!! Remember the property never left your control. You only granted specific control in accordance with your wishes to a trustee to act on your behalf udder certain circumstances!
So you as ultimate beneficiary most definitely have the right to know who, what, where and when your property (Note and DOT) is at all times and who may or may not have any interest in either one!!
Thus it never was your INTENT to divest yourself of your property!!! And anyone who acts in contravention of your will and desire breaches the fundamental law of contract which .. wait for it … VOIDS the instruments.
Oh and did I mention that there is no provision for any trustee, successor or otherwise the do, participate or have anything to do with a foreclosure? If anything the trustee should be doing all it can to test try and prohibit anyone from fraudclosing on the property under any slight or tiny thing not in complete compliance with the DOT and its INTENT.
So again the audacity of any entity to presume that it can ruin peoples lives and even put a man to death because somehow “the justice system is designed and created to FINALIZE disputes, whether the decision is right or wrong.” is absolute bull shit. The whole purpose behind the Justice system is just that to be Just and fair and reasonable and all that is to fulfil its fundamental purpose “to secure these Rights”. If and when the alleged Judicial system is “wrong” then it is “Liable” and must be held accountable like any other entity granted existence! It is not .,.. NOT superior to the people that created it and it as an entity of the State entity of the people is subject to the people and subject to the laws that govern it. It is regulated and bound by the laws of the state as well as the United States of America and their constitutions and Statutes and Codes… it must be sued and held liable for any “wrong” it may do, no matter the time spans! A wrong is a continuation of an injury until it is settled to the satisfaction of all, thus there is no statute of limitations and nothing is “final” until it is agreed to and all parties and people are satisfied.
When it comes to “persons” or things then that may be true because “things” do not have feelings, emotions, and can only be “damaged” but not “injured”. People are hurt, harmed, injured, trespassed upon and the emotional devastation is never ending until that man or woman chooses to say they are justly compensated to make the pain go away. You damage a car, it get fixed or you get a new one no big deal, but to be humiliated, have your stuff thrown out of your house, to be swindled by fabricated documents, to find no justice in the justice system, to have judges clearly biased and against you when you have a right to rely upon their integrity to protect your “life and property” (Hale v Henkel), to loose years and years of your life to study and discover all the crimes that are going on and you are helpless t do anything about it.. well people have committed suicide as a result for crying out loud… these are injuries, pain and suffering, depravation of fundamental rights and on and on and one can not easily recover nor be told that it is just “too bad so sad” we were wrong and wrong and wrong but you must continue to suffer because we think that “finality” is more important????
As “in living color character said “I don’t think so, Homie don’t play dat!!”
I Concur and that is final… fire these imposters in robes and charge them with the crimes against humanity that they have perpetrated for so long no less than Saddam Husain, let them hang and let justice reign!
Article III section 1 “The Judges both of the Supreme and inferior courts shall hold their office during good behavior.” This is less than good behavior thus they do not hold their office and thus they are imposters, embezzling the office and guilty of sedition and possibly treason and a multitude of crimes not enough space to list. These are the Facts and every fraudclosure is prima facia evidence of it.. except perhaps Judge Schack and a few others who at least try… but still do not have the full picture and should. There was no “Loan” “received” to “return” end of story. All the rest is convoluted compilation of fabrications, deceptions, misrepresentations, counterfeiting, uttering and passing, fraud, SEC fraud, tax fraud, crimes upon crimes upon crimes and every fricken order of foreclosure is “VOID”. And the injuries are ongoing… no statute of limitations for ongoing offenses!!
Well, Yvanova is all but shot down according to this published ruling:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D066636A.PDF
Trump v. Goldman Saks
Stolen property returns to the person it was stolen from
The Judges need to be tried like the Nuremberg trials
especially Judges who have financial interests with the bank
You don’t marry the man who raped you and got you pregnant
NEVER AGAIN